By KEVIN OKLOBZIJA
Matthew Savoie’s final shift on home ice with the Rochester Americans until at least next spring didn’t end so well.
Utica forward Xavier Parent was able to power past the rookie forward deep in the Amerks zone and score the winning goal just 45 seconds into overtime to give the Comets a 4-3 victory on Friday night.
The goal wasn’t necessarily Savoie’s fault. As Amerks coach Seth Appert said, it was more the byproduct of the three-on-three overtime format. A chance at one end, a better chance at the other, and a forward as the last line of defense.
But like so many other moments during Savoie’s 14-day conditioning assignment with the Amerks, it was a chance to grow, a chance to learn how to better use his body to perhaps derail the attack of a stronger opponent.
Because that, after all, is what development is about, Appert said. You compete in difficult situations, you sometimes fail, and then you figure out how to get better.
“I think Matthew Savoie has shown – what he was starting to show in rookie camp before he got hurt – why we drafted him ninth overall (in 2022), how good of a summer he had, how much different he looks from the playoffs last year.
“And good on him. He attacked his summer, he made himself a better player, he’s performed really well here.”
In five games, he has produced 2 goals and 3 assists, and was an integral part in a dynamic line with second-year forwards Jiri Kulich and Isak Rosen. He scored the Amerks first goal on Friday.
But just like that, that career progress, that development growth, is about to end. Savoie’s conditioning time with the Amerks expires following Saturday’s road game in Syracuse.
Rules limit him to a maximum stay of two weeks, so he’ll rejoin the Sabres, who then must decide if he stays and plays up to nine NHL games before he returns to his Western Hockey League junior team in Wenatchee, Wash.
The majority of players at 18 and 19 do very well in continuing their development in junior hockey. It has been the NHL’s best proving ground for decades.
But some players are too good for junior hockey, and Appert says Savoie is one of them, that returning to the WHL and piling up two points a game won’t make him a better player.
A year ago, he scored 38-57-95 in 62 games, and then was a point-a-game performer in the WHL playoffs (11-18-19 in 19 games).
“It’s an unfortunate rule that he can’t stay; I don’t think it’s good for players, especially high-end players,” Appert said. “There’s a lot of guys that aren’t ready for the American Hockey League at 18, 19, 20 years old, but for guys that are picked as high as he is, it’s a detriment (to return to junior hockey).”
The Sabres would like to be able to send Savoie to the Amerks, if they decide he’s not ready for the NHL now. But they can’t.
“People think getting a bunch of points is development – it’s not,” Appert said. “Scoring 120, 130 points is not what development is about.
“Development is about playing at a high level, facing adversity, failing, and growing your game through that failure to meet the challenge that league, your opponents and your teammates and practice are facing you with.”
Since Savoie has no control over where he plays, he’s just working to better himself, regardless of the uniform.
“That’s something I talked about with Kevyn (Adams, the Sabres general manager); focus on the process, focus on getting healthy, wherever you are. It’s definitely a learning process.”
A solid effort but no ‘W’
The Amerks twice erased one-goal deficits and even led 3-2 late in the third period before Utica forced overtime and then won it in the first minute of the extra period.
Savoie, Mason Jobst and Kulich scored for the Amerks, who fell to 5-2-2-0.
But when compared to Wednesday’s 7-2 loss to Syracuse, it was night and day.
“We were excellent tonight,” Appert said. “I would have preferred two points, we probably deserved two points.”
Tokarski makes season debut
Veteran goalie Dustin Tokarski played his first game of the season – and 400th AHL game of his career. He stopped 16 of 20 shots.
He was hurt in training camp. His only game action came on Sept. 24 when he played the third period of Buffalo’s preseason game against the Washington Capitals.
“At the end of the night his stats won’t look good but I loved him,” Appert said. “He played the puck well and he’s a calming presence for a young team.”
Injury update
Forward Tyson Kozak returned after missing three games due to injury.
Five other forwards are still out, however. Captain Michael Mersch is out probably long-term with an upper body injury suffered on Wednesday, Brendan Warren is out into December with a broken jaw, Linus Weissbach may be ready sometime this month, and Aleksandr Kisakov and Brett Murray are considered shorter-term injuries.
Big crowd
The Amerks drew 6,693, with the Word of Life faith-based group accounting for 1,960 tickets.
I told my season tix friends at the game that the coach would probably see this game totally differently than we the fans did. True enough and not surprising.
We the fans didn’t think the game was excellent. (spoiler alert–its never excellent in the fans view when you lose game after game at home, no matter what the reason) They managed to capture the lead and only needed 3 1/2 minutes to hang on, and like opening night, they failed. And like opening night the OT was dreadful.
Complain all you want about 3 on 3. Both teams have equal chances. Twice on the road Amerks prevailed. Twice now at home they were awful.
With around 6 minutes to play Amerks had a power play and a 3-2 lead which could have iced the game. Instead all Amerks did was skate around doing absolutely nothing with nary one sniff at the goal. Utica scored shortly thereafter to tie the game. Our guys didn’t do a thing on any of their power plays and even gave up another shortie. Maybe too many new players and unfamiliar combinations contributed.
Tokarski was not really tested at all. Still gave up 4 and didn;t have to make any real tough saves. Rusty? Maybe. But yet again Amerks allow 4 goals. That really has to stop. After Savoie was undressed on the OT winner, Tokarski didn’t look too sharp either. But I’m not a goalie, just a fan. A fan like so many others who left the BCA quiet and dejected, NOT saying the Amerks were excellent tonite. They blew another late lead, played poorly in OT and lost a game they should have won.
Utica is not Hershey. They were presented with a gift and they unwrapped it and enjoyed it.
Coach gets to say what he says. The fans have that same opportunity.
We hate losing. Especially like that. More annoying than Wednesday when we probably didn’t even deserve to be on the ice.
I think Amerks need a long road trip. They have been pretty bad at home. Again.
I wonder if this will ever change. Back in the 60’s I recall that for awhile their was no OT. Then they had a 10 minute sudden death OT and if no goals were scored it was a tie. Loser in OT got nothing. During those years you can check the standings…Amerks I believe only had 2 and 3 ties all season. The 10 minute OT usually decided the game. 5 on 5. Fans were happy. They never expected any reward for a loss.
Then for some reason the powers that be figured that by not awarding the OT loser anything, teams would start to play for ties in the final minutes of OT to make sure they at least got a point. No incentive to win they reasoned.
Enter the ‘loser point’. And a shorter OT. And the shootout. EVeryone gets a point and the winner picks up the extra. The ‘era of the 3 point game’ began.
Being an old timer…at first I hated ties. I wanted the game to have a winner and loser, so the shootout appealed to me. And it was kind of exciting. AHL had 5 shooters making it pretty realistic. NHL said nope. You’re having 3 just like us.
So after 65 hard fought minutes the winner is decided by the ‘skills competition’ of just 3, sometimes 2 shooters. And that ‘win’ counts as much as the regulation win or OT win. (that has since been modified for end of season tie-breakers)
I fell out of love with the shootout. I’ve never been in love with ‘loser points’. Walking out of the BCA twice already this season having been embarrassed in OT (yes, embarrassed) it was a loss. It felt like a loss. A loser point didn’t change that. You lost the game. If it were the playoffs, you REALLY lost the game.
I hate rewarding losing, at any level in pro sports. Losing a game should never (in most cases) make you feel good. I know the ship has sailed, but I wish:
1) they scrap the shootout. 2) they extend the OT to 7 or even back to 10 minutes.
If 10 minutes, start 4 on 4. After 5 minutes make it 3on3.
3) If the game hasn’t been decided after 10 minutes, declare a tie and award 1 point for each team again. 4) Scrap the loser point.
I know there has been proposals to give the winner in regulation 3 points; 2 points for OT wins and 1 point for a shootout, with 1 point awarded for OT loss and no points for a shootout loss. I think thats clumsy. I like my idea best (well of course I do!!) Every game is worth 2 points…period.
Will the NHL (or AHL) ever scrap the loser point? There’s a better chance of Bobby Orr coming back to play on his busted knees. But I do think they have tinkered with this enough now. There is no consolation prize in Baseball, basketball or football when you lose in OT or extra innings. Pros are conditioned to know its win or go home. So no excuses from coaches who can then say since ‘we got a point’ it was OK.
Go back to 3 columns…win loss tie. And heavens no points percentage PLEASE…never again in hockey. NO teams not playing the same number of games in the AHL….what a totally moronic thing that was. (feel free to justify, make excuses for and say it was the ONLY way to get the west coast teams on board.) Tell me how long a rogue league would have lasted. How many of them ever do, for long. People know I always referred to that west division as ‘the west coast practice squads’…and I prayed not one of those teams would ever win the Cup.
OK Kevin. Some feedback on this please. You have covered the sport for years and you must have an opinion. If you disagree with me thats totally fine. Its a discussion we can no longer have unless its brought up here,
Thanks
Hi, Ted,
My thoughts: OT will never be extended, not in the NHL or AHL. Just as the NFL reduced OT from 15 minutes to 10 to save on wear and tear, hockey doesn’t want regular-season games extended. I’m OK with that and I understand why.
Back-to-back 10-minute OT games on Friday and Saturday followed by a Sunday afternoon game isn’t worth it in December or February, especially the way injuries and callups can impact a league where weekend dates are golden.
I’m also fine with just five minutes of three-on-three. While coaches have found a way to tame the chaos (more puck control, more looping back, more controlled 3-man rushes), it still produces excitement. Just one mistake leads to a scoring chance at one end, and, if the save is made, probably a better chance at the other end.
As for the shootout, its time has come and gone in terms of “excitement.” I’m totally bored, so the fewer shooters, the better. The NHL didn’t randomly decide to use just three shooters, however. They crunched the numbers (long before analytics became a thing in hockey) and found there was virtually no difference in the outcome with five shooters than what would have happened if the shootout ended after three rounds. For that I thank them. Why prolong the monotony?
I’m an outlier on one thought, however: A shootout win should be worth a half-point in the standings. I’m against those pushing for a 3-2-1 points system. I believe that would skew the standings from a tradition/history standpoint. But I also don’t believe a mini-skills competition should be worth a full point, so only award a half-point.
As for “loser” points, I think they’re fine, largely because 3-on-3 OT is designed to create a winner (so getting nothing would be very unfair) and there’s no way a shootout win should be as valuable as a real win.
Thanks for your thoughts Kevin. Much appreciated! My questions for you then would be:
if you award 1/2 point for a shootout win, what do you give the loser in that case?
I agree, I hate the 3-2-1 suggestions. A shootout win definitely should not be the same as an OT or regulation win, but how does that square with the loser point? (which is why I don’t like it)
One obvious solution is to scrap the shootout and just call it a tie if it isn’t decided in OT. I wonder how many fans still like the shootout?
Do you think the game is harder to play today, than it used to be? There were a lot more 3 in 3’s back in the 60’s and the 10 minute OT didn’t seem to be any more of a burden and of course you didn’t see an inordinate number of those Fri-Sat back to back OT’s. Also they played Sunday evenings back then and well into the 70’s and 80’s.OTOH, the 10 minute OT’s did not last for many seasons before the protocol was changed, so there’s that.
I like the 3 on 3 in OT. It really adds strategy and excitement. (funny that Coach ‘blamed’ the 3 on 3 for the last Amerk loss, rather than implicate his young player for being undressed on the winning goal) Don’t these guys practice 3 on 3’s?
I agree the NHL will probably never increase OT and they won’t dump the loser point. For me, that sends the message that winning isn’t king and that playing hard and losing is still worth something in the standings. Fine, except no other sport feels that way. Also seems that they will never go back to ties..so the shootout stays. For me, if you have to have it, I liked seeing 5 shooters. But I’d be happier if they scrapped it.
Interesting discussion .
Sometime I’d like your feelings on why Amerks don’t win as much at home anymore. (is that a total game shift in recent years in NHL and AHL?)
And, why so many long term injuries in the organization ?
Thanks Kevin!