Jump to content


Photo

2017-18 lineup prediction


  • Please log in to reply
243 replies to this topic

#81 nfreeman

nfreeman

    All I want is everything you got.

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,893 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn

Posted 26 April 2017 - 03:17 PM

Antipin has to know that nothing is guaranteed.  I expect they promised his agent that he'd start the year in the NHL, and he'll probably get a one-way contract (ie same salary whether it's NHL or AHL), but I doubt they promised, or he expects, guaranteed NHL ice time.

 

He and his agent probably looked at the Sabres, saw plenty of available ice time on D, good facilities, a free-spending owner, a good goalie and good forwards and figured it was a promising situation for him.



#82 mjd1001

mjd1001

    Top Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 355 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 03:32 PM

Larsson was at 49% and won 223 and lost 233 draws. Not like he is terrible or something and not a good reason to go get Jay Beagle. 

I like Larsson....49% is at the point where with a little work, he can get over 50% and take some wear-and-tear off of ORielly.  Faceoffs are something you can work on to get better I'm pretty sure.

 

I also know a lot of people go back and forth on Baptiste and how good he is now or can be.  I am on that thinks of all of the guy who played in Rochester last year, he is the one most likely to score at the NHL level consistently next year and beyond.  Is he a better overall player than Bailey? Maybe not....but I think he would probably score more goal than Bailey next year on a top line (if it comes to that.)  I also think that because Bailey is more versatile, Baily would fit better on a 3rd or 4th line than Baptiste would.



#83 Sakman

Sakman

    Top Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 374 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Corning, NY

Posted 26 April 2017 - 05:02 PM

I like Larsson....49% is at the point where with a little work, he can get over 50% and take some wear-and-tear off of ORielly.  Faceoffs are something you can work on to get better I'm pretty sure.

 

Is the face-off thing such a big deal? ROR was at 58% and Larsson at 49%. Assuming 1000 faceoffs (which would easily be #2 on the Sabres this past year in terms of # of FO's) that's a difference of a little over one face-off win per game. If Larsson could improve enough to split the difference we are talking one more face-off win every other game. Don't get me wrong, that would be nice but it pales in comparison to other things like shooting, passing, defense...

Am I missing something here?



#84 GASabresFan

GASabresFan

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 636 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 05:32 PM

ROR took 1791 faceoffs last year and won 1039. Of those were 294 were on the pk.

Larsson took 533 last year of which 23 were on the pk. He won 261.

That's 10 more faceoff wins per game won by ROR. We need someone better then Larsson.

#85 Sakman

Sakman

    Top Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 374 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Corning, NY

Posted 26 April 2017 - 08:24 PM

ROR took 1791 faceoffs last year and won 1039. Of those were 294 were on the pk.

Larsson took 533 last year of which 23 were on the pk. He won 261.

That's 10 more faceoff wins per game won by ROR. We need someone better then Larsson.

Is this Paul Hamilton math?



#86 DarthEbriate

DarthEbriate

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 846 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 08:26 PM

ROR took 1791 faceoffs last year and won 1039. Of those were 294 were on the pk.

Larsson took 533 last year of which 23 were on the pk. He won 261.

That's 10 more faceoff wins per game won by ROR. We need someone better then Larsson.

Well....  That's not 10 more faceoff wins/game in the same amount of games or attempts.

 

Larsson missed half the season. Plus, 10 more wins per game, but how many more attempts per game?


Is this Paul Hamilton math?

:beer:

And no, that beer isn't a dig on Sakman. That's just funny.


Edited by DarthEbriate, 26 April 2017 - 08:26 PM.


#87 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,785 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 April 2017 - 08:28 PM

Is this Paul Hamilton math?

 

Yes, yes it is.



#88 GASabresFan

GASabresFan

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 636 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 09:16 PM

Equating a 49% FO guy vs a 58% FO guy and calling it only 1 FO a game isn't being realisitic about how players are used. No coach is giving important faceoffs to the 49% guy. For example Larsson took 23 PK faceoffs in his 36 games (or about .67 per game) ROR took 294 in his 72 games. That's over 4 per game. These guys aren't comparable and the new coach won't limit's ROR playing time if Larsson is his alternative.

However if you get a guy like Beagle, a 56% FO winner, and excellent Pker, you get to limit ROR's pt and keep him effective,

Edited by GASabresFan, 26 April 2017 - 09:23 PM.


#89 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,785 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 April 2017 - 09:33 PM

Equating a 49% FO guy vs a 58% FO guy and calling it only 1 FO a game isn't being realisitic about how players are used. No coach is giving important faceoffs to the 49% guy. For example Larsson took 23 PK faceoffs in his 36 games (or about .67 per game) ROR took 294 in his 72 games. That's over 4 per game. These guys aren't comparable and the new coach won't limit's ROR playing time if Larsson is his alternative.

However if you get a guy like Beagle, a 56% FO winner, and excellent Pker, you get to limit ROR's pt and keep him effective,

 

You're doing this wrong--if you want to know how much ROR's faceoff prowess is worth over Larsson's, you have to hold all else equal...and yes, that includes the number of faceoffs taken. ROR was worth about 2 faceoff wins per game over Larsson if we directly substitute Larsson for O'Reilly.  Using O'Reilly's faceoff attempts, Beagle would be worth about 1.5 faceoff wins per game over Larsson with the same usage as O'Reilly got. So really less than that, because no 3rd/4th line center is going to get that many draws per game. Even if you double Larsson's draws taken, and replace him with Beagle, you're talking ~.91 faceoff wins per game improvement.

 

How much is that .91 wins per game worth to you? Because let's be real, in any kind of a critical situation, O'Reilly's gonna be taking them anyway.



#90 GASabresFan

GASabresFan

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 636 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 09:58 PM

You're doing this wrong--if you want to know how much ROR's faceoff prowess is worth over Larsson's, you have to hold all else equal...and yes, that includes the number of faceoffs taken. ROR was worth about 2 faceoff wins per game over Larsson if we directly substitute Larsson for O'Reilly.  Using O'Reilly's faceoff attempts, Beagle would be worth about 1.5 faceoff wins per game over Larsson with the same usage as O'Reilly got. So really less than that, because no 3rd/4th line center is going to get that many draws per game. Even if you double Larsson's draws taken, and replace him with Beagle, you're talking ~.91 faceoff wins per game improvement.
 
How much is that .91 wins per game worth to you? Because let's be real, in any kind of a critical situation, O'Reilly's gonna be taking them anyway.


Your missing the point. The coach is much more likely to trust Beagle to take the critical faceoff. His numbers on the pk are a actually better then ROR's. The goal here is to move some PT off of ROR to someone we can trust. Beagle, who also put up 30 pts last year, is that guy. So what is that worth to me; to keep ROR fresh and healthy? $2 mill.

#91 ShadowLiger

ShadowLiger

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,539 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:02 PM

Larsson is underrated. He was good for us last year.


Your missing the point. The coach is much more likely to trust Beagle to take the critical faceoff. His numbers on the pk are a actually better then ROR's. The goal here is to move some PT off of ROR to someone we can trust. Beagle, who also put up 30 pts last year, is that guy. So what is that worth to me; to keep ROR fresh and healthy? $2 mill.

And that was playing 81 games, something he hasn't matched in his career, and putting up career points (30 is 10 more points than his next closest season). I don't believe on a less talented Sabres team he is capable of that. So no, I would rather keep Larsson and pay him. 



#92 GASabresFan

GASabresFan

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 636 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:10 PM

Larsson is underrated. He was good for us last year.


And that was playing 81 games, something he hasn't matched in his career, and putting up career points (30 is 10 more points than his next closest season). I don't believe on a less talented Sabres team he is capable of that. So no, I would rather keep Larsson and pay him. 

Then you are going to over work ROR again and his production and play will deteriorate over the season as it did this year.   



#93 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,785 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:11 PM

Your missing the point. The coach is much more likely to trust Beagle to take the critical faceoff. His numbers on the pk are a actually better then ROR's. The goal here is to move some PT off of ROR to someone we can trust. Beagle, who also put up 30 pts last year, is that guy. So what is that worth to me; to keep ROR fresh and healthy? $2 mill.

 

No, you don't get to move the goalposts. You were bastardizing a basic comparison to try to say anyone else will win a bazillion more faceoffs than Larsson. Now you're trying to say that Beagle's PK FO% was better than O'Reilly's, as if that's a function of some trait or skill, as opposed to random variance of a near-coin flip event over a cut-down sample. 

 

As for the points, Beagle's career average is .24 points per game. Larsson's is .27. You really think ~1 faceoff win per game is worth $2 million?

 

And for the record, any reasonable coach is going to ease O'Reilly's minutes, whether his faceoff replacement is 56% or 49%. 


Then you are going to over work ROR again and his production and play will deteriorate over the season as it did this year.   

 

No, you're not. If my coach doesn't understand that cutting ROR's ice time by a minute+ per game is worth more than losing a faceoff per game, I don't want that person as my coach.



#94 GASabresFan

GASabresFan

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 636 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:17 PM

No, you don't get to move the goalposts. You were bastardizing a basic comparison to try to say anyone else will win a bazillion more faceoffs than Larsson. Now you're trying to say that Beagle's PK FO% was better than O'Reilly's, as if that's a function of some trait or skill, as opposed to random variance of a near-coin flip event over a cut-down sample. 

 

As for the points, Beagle's career average is .24 points per game. Larsson's is .27. You really think ~1 faceoff win per game is worth $2 million?

 

And for the record, any reasonable coach is going to ease O'Reilly's minutes, whether his faceoff replacement is 56% or 49%. 


 

No, you're not. If my coach doesn't understand that cutting ROR's ice time by a minute+ per game is worth more than losing a faceoff per game, I don't want that person as my coach.

Coaches will do anything to win games, because their jobs depend on it.  If it means overworking ROR because he doesn't have another option he will.  Winning, FOs ,especially in the playoffs, is critical to puck possession and playing winning hockey.  It's one of the reason the intelligent managers in TOR went and acquired Boyle at the trade deadline.  

 

The Sabres last year, despite ROR, finished under 50%.  


Edited by GASabresFan, 26 April 2017 - 10:19 PM.


#95 WildCard

WildCard

    Gunner's Mate First Class: Philip A$$hole

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,368 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lost in a Supermarket

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:19 PM

Bylsma had other options, he's just an idiot

#96 ShadowLiger

ShadowLiger

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,539 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:20 PM

No, you don't get to move the goalposts. You were bastardizing a basic comparison to try to say anyone else will win a bazillion more faceoffs than Larsson. Now you're trying to say that Beagle's PK FO% was better than O'Reilly's, as if that's a function of some trait or skill, as opposed to random variance of a near-coin flip event over a cut-down sample. 

 

As for the points, Beagle's career average is .24 points per game. Larsson's is .27. You really think ~1 faceoff win per game is worth $2 million?

 

And for the record, any reasonable coach is going to ease O'Reilly's minutes, whether his faceoff replacement is 56% or 49%. 


 

No, you're not. If my coach doesn't understand that cutting ROR's ice time by a minute+ per game is worth more than losing a faceoff per game, I don't want that person as my coach.

exactly.

 

Coaches will do anything to win games, because their jobs depend on it.  If it means overworking ROR because he doesn't have another option he will.  Winning, FO's ,especially in the playoffs is critical.  It's one of the reason the intelligent managers in TOR went and acquired Boyle at the trade deadline.  

Didn't you just say overworking ROR would result in decrease production from him and therefore to extrapolate your argument, we would lose more? The intelleigent managers in Toronto aren't in the playoffs anymore, so good for them for acquiring a faceoff specialist. I'm not paying a guy to take faceoffs. I am def not paying a 31 year old guy. Johan Larsson... will be fine. 



#97 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,785 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:24 PM

Coaches will do anything to win games, because their jobs depend on it.  If it means overworking ROR because he doesn't have another option he will.  Winning, FOs ,especially in the playoffs, is critical to puck possession and playing winning hockey.  It's one of the reason the intelligent managers in TOR went and acquired Boyle at the trade deadline.  

 

The Sabres last year, despite ROR, finished under 50%.  

 

1) A fresher ROR for 20 minutes with 1.5 extra minutes of a subpar replacement is a better option than a worn-down ROR for 21.5 minutes simply to avoid playing the subpar option. A coach who sees otherwise is what I would refer to as a bad coach.

 

2) There is no meaningful statistical correlation between faceoffs and possession.



#98 WildCard

WildCard

    Gunner's Mate First Class: Philip A$$hole

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,368 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lost in a Supermarket

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:24 PM

Feel like there have been a lot of studies on how faceoffs mean nothing anyways

#99 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,785 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:26 PM

Feel like there have been a lot of studies on how faceoffs mean nothing anyways

 

Close enough to nothing that it's not worth anywhere near all the fuss over them. You'd like to win more than you lose, and you'd rather win a particular draw than lose it....but man, the way they get talked about, you'd swear they were goals or something.



#100 nfreeman

nfreeman

    All I want is everything you got.

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,893 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:33 PM

I'm nominating "Paul Hamilton math" for immediate platinum membership in the Sabrespace inside joke lexicon.

#Hammymath

#101 GASabresFan

GASabresFan

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 636 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:35 PM

The articles I have read show that a higher FO% equates to about a 20% increase in Corsi.  Considering we were one of the worst Corsi team and all our centers outside ROR were under 50% (Jack was under 40%).  It does follow that to improve Corsi it is in our interest to improve our FO%.  

 

There will always be other factors that effect the results, but winning FO% is a good place to start.  

 

FYI, a reduction of 2 minutes per game in ROR PT equates to 164 minutes of saved wear and tear or about 8 games of play at 20 minutes per game (or 10% of the season).  



#102 nfreeman

nfreeman

    All I want is everything you got.

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,893 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:41 PM

The articles I have read show that a higher FO% equates to about a 20% increase in Corsi. Considering we were one of the worst Corsi team and all our centers outside ROR were under 50% (Jack was under 40%). It does follow that to improve Corsi it is in our interest to improve our FO%.

There will always be other factors that effect the results, but winning FO% is a good place to start.

FYI, a reduction of 2 minutes per game in ROR PT equates to 164 minutes of saved wear and tear or about 8 games of play at 20 minutes per game (or 10% of the season).


The first sentence of this post cannot possibly be right.

#Hammymath.

Try it! It's easy and fun!

#103 WildCard

WildCard

    Gunner's Mate First Class: Philip A$$hole

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,368 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lost in a Supermarket

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:43 PM

A higher FO% is a rather vague number to pair with about 20% Corsi improvement. 20% Corsi improvement is a massive, massive number

Edited by WildCard, 26 April 2017 - 10:43 PM.


#104 GASabresFan

GASabresFan

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 636 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:45 PM

https://hockey-graph...nning-faceoffs/



#105 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,785 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:51 PM

The articles I have read show that a higher FO% equates to about a 20% increase in Corsi.  Considering we were one of the worst Corsi team and all our centers outside ROR were under 50% (Jack was under 40%).  It does follow that to improve Corsi it is in our interest to improve our FO%.  

 

There will always be other factors that effect the results, but winning FO% is a good place to start.  

 

FYI, a reduction of 2 minutes per game in ROR PT equates to 164 minutes of saved wear and tear or about 8 games of play at 20 minutes per game (or 10% of the season).  

 

What in the world does this even mean? How much higher? I'm assuming this is the article you're referring to.

 

The article says "The R-squared value indicates that a team’s faceoff percentage explains about twenty percent of the team’s Corsi percentage." That is incredibly different from what you posted. Incomprehensibly different.

 

Also, correlation/causation arguments abound with faceoffs, as do a whole host of other contextual factors which may be influencing the basic statistical relationship here. A couple of other views on faceoffs and their overall importance:

http://bluesteam.hoc...t-are-faceoffs/

https://www.si.com/n...nce-nhl-faceoff

 

TLDR: You'd like to win more than you lose, and you'd rather win an important one than lose it...but building roster decisions around draws is lunacy.



#106 GASabresFan

GASabresFan

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 636 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 11:11 PM

Your focused only on the faceoffs, I'm using faceoffs as an entry point to help the PK and save wear and tear on ROR.  

 

We are going to have to pay Larsson about 900K or more.   For about $1 mill more we can get similar production in a 4th line role, a better penalty killer, a better FO guy, a vet who has significant playoff experience and whose presence will help give ROR more rest.  Is that worth it? I think so.  

 

I understand the argument that Larsson can grow into that role.  I think Larry is what he is going to be at this point.



#107 dudacek

dudacek

    ...browsing the internet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,737 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Listening to offers — eyes and ears

Posted 27 April 2017 - 12:14 AM

Adding Jay Beagle or someone like him is not going to mean less ice time for ROR.
Give a shift to Sam, a shift to Larry and a shift to Jack each game and we're fine.

Your basically putting a lot of emphasis on something that is only an issue for the second unit PK faceoffs. Otherwise, why would I choose Jay Beagle to take a crucial face off when I have Ryan O'Reilly? Especially in the O zone?

#108 ubkev

ubkev

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,161 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pennsyltucky via Upstate NY

Posted 27 April 2017 - 04:41 AM

I sure am seeing Tyler Ennis penciled into a whole lot of people's top 6's in this thread. Makes me want to stab myself in both eyes! Christ! Matt Moulson is better. Matt ###### Moulson!

If Ennis is a Sabre next year, my prediction for his point total is 18.

#109 DarthEbriate

DarthEbriate

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 846 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 04:58 AM

No one seems to be taking into account that players typically improve in faceoff percentage as they get experience. Sure, Larsson may top out at 50%, but average for the entire league is 50% #Hammymath.

Eichel, Reinhart, Larsson -- they'll all improve at faceoffs. Then you'll trust them for the occasional important faceoff.

 

I sure am seeing Tyler Ennis penciled into a whole lot of people's top 6's in this thread. Makes me want to stab myself in both eyes! Christ! Matt Moulson is better. Matt ###### Moulson!

If Ennis is a Sabre next year, my prediction for his point total is 18.

That'd be an improvement from this year.

I don't see him in our top 6 either.

He finally looked decent in the last 10 games of the season... Looks like he had about 15 min/game (I'm not doing the exact math), including PP time. 1 goal, 2 assists in those ten games. That's still not good enough to make it into next season's top 6 (all players being healthy) unless the new GM makes a lot of roster swaps.



#110 Touched by Boyes

Touched by Boyes

    Honorary Canadian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, NY

Posted 27 April 2017 - 08:10 AM

Feel like there have been a lot of studies on how faceoffs mean nothing anyways

they are basically statistically insignificant. The analytics crowd look at them the same way as they look at Wins for a starting pitcher in Baseball. They don't drive win probability enough to be meaningful and are more the product of randomness.


Close enough to nothing that it's not worth anywhere near all the fuss over them. You'd like to win more than you lose, and you'd rather win a particular draw than lose it....but man, the way they get talked about, you'd swear they were goals or something.

Exactly. :thumbsup:



#111 ShadowLiger

ShadowLiger

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,539 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 08:13 AM

The first sentence of this post cannot possibly be right.

#Hammymath.

Try it! It's easy and fun!

Yes, yes yes yes yes. 

giphy.gif



#112 Touched by Boyes

Touched by Boyes

    Honorary Canadian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, NY

Posted 27 April 2017 - 08:17 AM

The articles I have read show that a higher FO% equates to about a 20% increase in Corsi.  Considering we were one of the worst Corsi team and all our centers outside ROR were under 50% (Jack was under 40%).  It does follow that to improve Corsi it is in our interest to improve our FO%.  

 

There will always be other factors that effect the results, but winning FO% is a good place to start.  

 

FYI, a reduction of 2 minutes per game in ROR PT equates to 164 minutes of saved wear and tear or about 8 games of play at 20 minutes per game (or 10% of the season).  

Unfortunately the traditional managers and GM's in the NHL value faceoffs and FO% like you seem to, and as such a guy like Beagle or Dominic Moore get $1MM+ more per year compared to equally skilled players like the Larsson's of the world. My argument is that paying the extra money isn't worth it just for FO% when you are still getting a 20-25pt player.


I sure am seeing Tyler Ennis penciled into a whole lot of people's top 6's in this thread. Makes me want to stab myself in both eyes! Christ! Matt Moulson is better. Matt ###### Moulson!

If Ennis is a Sabre next year, my prediction for his point total is 18.

In my roster i'd much rather roll the dice with Baptiste/Bailey/Carrier types and completely exclude Ennis and Moulson from the roster. Short term pains for long term gains.


Yes, yes yes yes yes. 

giphy.gif

#Swoon  :wub:



#113 ShadowLiger

ShadowLiger

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,539 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 08:18 AM

Unfortunately the traditional managers and GM's in the NHL value faceoffs and FO% like you seem to, and as such a guy like Beagle or Dominic Moore get $1MM+ more per year compared to equally skilled players like the Larsson's of the world. My argument is that paying the extra money isn't worth it just for FO% when you are still getting a 20-25pt player.


In my roster i'd much rather roll the dice with Baptiste/Bailey/Carrier types and completely exclude Ennis and Moulson from the roster. Short term pains for long term gains.


#Swoon  :wub:

 

giphy.gif



#114 GASabresFan

GASabresFan

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 636 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 08:39 AM

Y'all talk about Larsson as he is some 50pt butterfly ready to emerge from his cocoon. He was on pace last season while playing 3rd center to score 25 points. Now if we all get our wish with Sam as the 3rd center, how much is Larsson going to score as the 4th center assuming he can beat out the bigger and fast Girgensons for the job?

So y'all would rather pony up $1 mill for a guy that doesn't win as many draws, doesn't kill penalties overly well and scores at the same level, then a playoff veteran who scores just as well and does everything else better for only $1 more simply because he's younger?

As to the comment that we are all putting Ennis in the top 6, none of us want him there, but realize that if he is healthy (a big if) and isn't lost to expansion, we need to play him somewhere. At his best he is a top 6 forward and at his worst he makes me miss CoHo. The bottom line with Ennis is that if he doesn't showed marked improvement this coming season, he'll be bought out at season's end. The problem with Ennis is that he isn't in any way shape or form a grinder. Playing him in the bottom 6 is just of waste of a roster spot. Guys like Carrier and Foligno are much better for that kind of role. Therefore if we are going to get any production from this big contract player he has to play in the top 6. Admittedly it's a long shot. I fear the concussions have turned him into Tim Connolly Two, which is a sad waste of two very talented players.

#115 WildCard

WildCard

    Gunner's Mate First Class: Philip A$$hole

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,368 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lost in a Supermarket

Posted 27 April 2017 - 08:41 AM

You talk about Beagle like he's Kessler :lol:

 

Best part? Beagle's possession starts are absolute garbage, throughout his career. Good things those faceoffs are really helping him out



#116 ShadowLiger

ShadowLiger

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,539 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 08:42 AM

Y'all talk about Larsson as he is some 50pt butterfly ready to emerge from his cocoon. He was on pace last season while playing 3rd center to score 25 points. Now if we all get our wish with Sam as the 3rd center, how much is Larsson going to score as the 4th center assuming he can beat out the bigger and fast Girgensons for the job?

So y'all would rather pony up $1 mill for a guy that doesn't win as many draws, doesn't kill penalties overly well and scores at the same level, then a playoff veteran who scores just as well and does everything else better for only $1 more simply because he's younger?

As to the comment that we are all putting Ennis in the top 6, none of us want him there, but realize that if he is healthy (a big if) and isn't lost to expansion, we need to play him somewhere. At his best he is a top 6 forward and at his worst he makes me miss CoHo. The bottom line with Ennis is that if he doesn't showed marked improvement this coming season, he'll be bought out at season's end. The problem with Ennis is that he isn't in any way shape or form a grinder. Playing him in the bottom 6 is just of waste of a roster spot. Guys like Carrier and Foligno are much better for that kind of role. Therefore if we are going to get any production from this big contract player he has to play in the top 6. Admittedly it's a long shot. I fear the concussions have turned him into Tim Connolly Two, which is a sad waste of two very talented players.

yes. I am not paying for a guy on the wrong side of thirty so I can win 1 extra draw a game. 


You talk about Beagle like he's Kessler :lol:

 

Best part? Beagle's possession starts are absolute garbage, throughout his career. Good things those faceoffs are really helping him out

Please what are his possession stats compared to Johan?



#117 WildCard

WildCard

    Gunner's Mate First Class: Philip A$$hole

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,368 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lost in a Supermarket

Posted 27 April 2017 - 08:44 AM

yes. I am not paying for a guy on the wrong side of thirty so I can win 1 extra draw a game. 


Please what are his possession stats compared to Johan?

To be fair they're both garbage

 

http://www.hockey-re.../larssjo02.html

http://www.hockey-re.../beaglja01.html

 

That's a 30s research effort though. I'm sure there's a better way to compare them than to just look at their CF%


Edited by WildCard, 27 April 2017 - 08:44 AM.


#118 ShadowLiger

ShadowLiger

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,539 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 08:46 AM

So on a ###### team, Johan Larsson's corsi was 43.3, On WASHINGTON Jay Beagles was 39.4.... yea let me go right out and pony up big money for him and his faceoff percentage. 



#119 WildCard

WildCard

    Gunner's Mate First Class: Philip A$$hole

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,368 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lost in a Supermarket

Posted 27 April 2017 - 08:49 AM

So on a ###### team, Johan Larsson's corsi was 43.3, On WASHINGTON Jay Beagles was 39.4.... yea let me go right out and pony up big money for him and his faceoff percentage. 

Where are you seeing those numbers?



#120 ShadowLiger

ShadowLiger

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,539 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 08:53 AM

Where are you seeing those numbers?

Click on advanced. That is CORSI ALL %