Doesn't help the case for sticking with Scrivens.
Don't think the graphic makes a case either way.
Scrivens has played well, if only a little shaky, in his two games. He hasn't stole a game for us but hasn't cost us one either. I'd give him the start in Pittsburgh, let Reimer start against the Islanders.
Nobody said the Sabres weren't also kept to the outside. They scored on their one great scoring opportunity, and the other wasnt even a shot on goal until it bounced off someone.
But looking at that graphic is only useful if you also watched the game and remember what each of those dots represents. You might otherwise be tempted to think that the Leafs were all over Miller. What it's actually showing us is a grand total of 3 shots from the slot (none of which I recall being totally open and uncontested like Pominville's goal was), a lot of point shots that he saw all the way, and a lot of attempted stuff-ins where all Miller had to do was keep his pads on the ice.
It answers to the argument that we were kept to the perimeter and that is all I was trying to demonstrate.
To draw any further conclusions, as you noted, one would have to remember what each dot represented. My opinion on the topic is that Miller did play very well last night, even "stole" the game, and was certainly the difference between the Sabres winning and losing. Sabres players even made comments to that effect in their post-game interviews.
I don't think your necessarily incorrect in saying that didn't have many great scoring chances and many of our shots didn't have the best odds of going in, however I think you are overstating things. We out chanced the Sabres by quite a bit and we did have several opportunities where Miller came up big or the shot was fired wide or rang off the post.
For all the criticism many on this board have thrown towards the team in last night's GDT and in this PGT, we really didn't play that bad and probably deserved the win.