Post-Game Talk: Well poop: Sabres win 2-1

[bobermay]

It does if you actually watched the game.

You insulted by the comment or something?

 

[bunjay]

You insulted by the comment or something?

No, and I don't see why you'd think I was.


1 goal on a shot going wide that bounced in off a player. 1 goal that even the best goalies let in as often as not. The graphic doesnt provide that information, watching the game does. Am I wrong?

 

[htpwn]

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.

 

[bunjay]

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.

I feel differently. Obviously Miller was 'the difference' because one more goal against (which could happen to any goalie on that many shots regardless of quality) meant overtime. But the Leafs didn't 'deserve' the win. For the facepalminess of the 3 overlapping powerplays alone they deserved the result they got.

 

[Leafsman]

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.

You can't contest the graphic!?!? It plainly shows that your statement about only having perimeter shots was wrong. There were perimeter shots from the D but there were just as many shots in close too! Kessel was firing some shots from in close. Miller was on fire and was a huuuuge part of that win!! Also the Leafs hit a few posts which is unfortunate but 10 games from now those shots will be goals! Posts are not uncommon so early in the season.

 

[bunjay]

You can't contest the graphic!?!? It plainly shows that your statement about only having perimeter shots was wrong. There were perimeter shots from the D but there were just as many shots in close too! Kessel was firing some shots from in close. Miller was on fire and was a huuuuge part of that win!! Also the Leafs hit a few posts which is unfortunate but 10 games from now those shots will be goals! Posts are not uncommon so early in the season.

Kessel had what, 7 shots on goal? Which is impressive and everything, but his best actual scoring chance missed the net. And his second best scoring chance was the solid minute and a half he played 5-on-3 during which he took those ill-advised shots you're talking about while failing to make any good plays.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

Yup, traffic is a must. It seemed to me that those giant defenders of theirs were constantly hacking and slashing in front of their net to clear the traffic out, and for the most part, they've succeeded. The refs have called their status quo of penalties on them, and let most of that stuff go. Maybe our defense needs to be a bit more assertive in front of our net, if we cross-checked Hodgson away from in front of the net, it could have been a different game.

Quota?

Refs have the tendency to try to keep the number of penalties for both teams in the same ballpark. After the Sabres got 4 legit penalties called on them, the refs let them get away with running Scrivens over at the end of the 1st (which was a lot more blatant than Kessel's "incidental contact" with Miller outside his paint), and an interference call on Gunnar that led to the 2nd goal. Not long after, Gunnar gets nailed on an extremely soft interference call. Talk about irony.

I'm not blaming the loss on the refs or anything, we had our chances to win the game, I just wish they call stuff both ways, regardless of how many penalties the team has taken prior to the call.

You probably missed the point.

"Status quo" isn't the same as "quota", the word you were looking for.

And I must have missed the part where PP were 7 to 3.

 

[pucky]

I like games v.s. the Sabres. Buffalo looks like they have a good team and are a good test?

 

[4evaBlue]

You probably missed the point.

"Status quo" isn't the same as "quota", the word you were looking for.

And I must have missed the part where PP were 7 to 3.

You can't have a quota before the game ends, but you can maintain the ratio of the penalties, and prevent a very lopsided man advantage situation.

Had crap actually been called (slashes in front of the net, interferences, etc), the PPs could have easily been 15-4, or if the refs put the whistle aside a bit, it would have looked more like 6-1. I don't care either way, just call it consistently. If you're going to call bumping the goalie, then call it both ways.

 

[Warden of the North]

Closed.