Rumor: All Purpose Trade Proposals, Speculation and Rumours - 2023/24

[CrosbyStaalsAndNash]

People are not going to like it but I bet its Risto. PHI possibly scouting Chib? He played with Michkov for one year in St Petersburg.

Its long been rumored Chevy has been after him and we have seen Chevy circle back to his guys time and time again. I can see Chevy being very open to a deal built around Risto for Chib. Not so sure I like it but I can see it happening.

Could be him, but I just saw he was added to the IR today as "week-to-week", which wouldn't be of much use to the Jets at this time!


Could even be a package of Risto/Walker + Frost that Chevy is looking at. Adds Centre depth and RD depth in a single move.

 

[Buffdog]

This is a hallmark of critics who don't know what they're talking about. "I have this one example of analytics not perfectly lining up and that means all analytics are wrong". That's not what analytics purports to do, at all, and if that's how you perceive them you're wildly off base and have no clue what you're talking about. You've chosen a conclusion and have decided to work towards it rather than taking information and working towards a conclusion.

Your single example doesn't override empirical evidence. The fact that you think it does shows that you're trying to talk about something that you're not educated in at all.

Using an alexample to point out a weakness of a stat or model doest mean that someone doesn't know what they're talking about.

Instead of being a dick about this, why not take his point of criticism and defend your model. Explain why his point isn't legitimate

Why do models involving on-ice scoring chances penalize two people equally where one might have been directly responsible for the scoring chance and the other person was in no position where.they could have possibly prevented it?

 

[Whileee]

The bolded is the key, IMO. There are plenty of points where the analytics and eye-test converge for me, and support an argument for doing what we’re doing, or changing things up.

During that long terrific stretch of team-deep defensive play prIor to the break the eyetest and numbers were absolutely in sync. And many here have watched the recent patch of games and wondered what was going on as we failed to convert at 5v5 and spent shifts hemmed into our zone. Again, numbers and eyetest agree.

We hear 100x each team talking points about details, playing the right way and so on. Unsurprising that stats and eyetest alike are able to capture the sum of those details and make a case for being concerned or just being happy to win in the dog days of Feb or some combination of those.

Of course the value of analytics trawling without watching the games is suspect. But how many fans do that? And as @garret9 has often noted, good analytics involves watching the games, minutely, and I find that my watching is made richer by knowing a bit more about what’s happening offscreen, as it were, especially since I’m a ocean and several provinces away from being able to see them live.

I would also emphasize that I don't find much added value in metrics for games that I have watched closely. I find that there is too much measurement error in expected goal estimates and the sample sizes are too small to add much beyond a careful viewing of the game. But when looking at overall performance and trends over time, I find some of the analytical summaries can be helpful at the player and team level, because they summarize a more comprehensive sample of play and performance, and the measurement and random errors become less "noisy".

 

[Whileee]

Using an alexample to point out a weakness of a stat or model doest mean that someone doesn't know what they're talking about.

Instead of being a dick about this, why not take his point of criticism and defend your model. Explain why his point isn't legitimate

Why do models involving on-ice scoring chances penalize two people equally where one might have been directly responsible for the scoring chance and the other person was in no position where.they could have possibly prevented it?

I'll just address the methodological issue here... You are right that attribution to all players on ice when one player blunders can skew on-ice metrics in small sample sizes. But if you expand that to include hundreds of on-ice events and you find that one player is much more likely to be on the ice when something bad happens, or much less likely to be on the ice when something good happens, then the pattern starts to have more reliability. If you further adjust the analyses to account for the situation (e.g. score) and who else is on the ice (for and against) and you still find that a player is on the ice much more often for bad events than good, then the pattern becomes more valid and reliable. That is the essence of these analyses; not that they describe any particular event adequately, but that when you summarize those events over large enough numbers they start to distinguish effective players from ineffective players. Generally, it's fairly robust, though I think there are macro-level problems (i.e. players getting downgraded on very bad teams) that you can't adjust out of the models as easily.

 

[Buffdog]

I'll just address the methodological issue here... You are right that attribution to all players on ice when one player blunders can skew on-ice metrics in small sample sizes. But if you expand that to include hundreds of on-ice events and you find that one player is much more likely to be on the ice when something bad happens, or much less likely to be on the ice when something good happens, then the pattern starts to have more reliability. If you further adjust the analyses to account for the situation (e.g. score) and who else is on the ice (for and against) and you still find that a player is on the ice much more often for bad events than good, then the pattern becomes more valid and reliable. That is the essence of these analyses; not that they describe any particular event adequately, but that when you summarize those events over large enough numbers they start to distinguish effective players from ineffective players. Generally, it's fairly robust, though I think there are macro-level problems (i.e. players getting downgraded on very bad teams) that you can't adjust out of the models as easily.

When used in the context you're describing, stats are a useful tool

Both objective (stats) and subjective (eye test) evaluations should be used to draw conclusions about a play, player, system, etc. Ideally they match up and support each other, but when they don't, it's a great opportunity for further evaluation

The issue that I have with some people and their stats is that they use them as a conclusion unto themselves, without giving further context. For example, people have been shitting on Connor for his defense because there's a number that they saw, or worse yet concluded in advance he was bad defensively and then sought out a stat that would back them up. Then, when given diffeflrent context, will saw "well, yeah BUT"... the cognitive dissonance/confirmation bias kicks in

 

[Whileee]

When used in the context you're describing, stats are a useful tool

Both objective (stats) and subjective (eye test) evaluations should be used to draw conclusions about a play, player, system, etc. Ideally they match up and support each other, but when they don't, it's a great opportunity for further evaluation

The issue that I have with some people and their stats is that they use them as a conclusion unto themselves, without giving further context. For example, people have been shitting on Connor for his defense because there's a number that they saw, or worse yet concluded in advance he was bad defensively and then sought out a stat that would back them up. Then, when given diffeflrent context, will saw "well, yeah BUT"... the cognitive dissonance/confirmation bias kicks in

I don't have any problem aligning my "eye test" with statistical summaries of Connor's performance. I find him incredibly frustrating to watch, especially anywhere other than below the tops of face-off circles in the offensive zone. He is supremely talented deep in the offensive zone, with great hands and finishing ability. He's also a very hard worker, and skates hard on the back-check.

However, in his own zone he is very tentative and uninvolved without the puck. He plays away from the boards, and seldom sacrifices physically to make a play. He never "pins" his man to stop an opponent's cycle. When he does get the puck in his zone, he too often makes a soft play, especially under pressure (to avoid getting hit). He also has a tendency to try to make finesse plays in his zone or at the blue line, leading to turnovers and very dangerous counter-attacks. I saw some microstats from Garret Hohl that showed that Ehlers has a huge edge on Connor in terms of zone exit attempts (and a better success rate). This illustrates how uninvolved Connor is in his own zone. He basically lets the other players do the work, leaving the Jets essentially short-handed when it comes to stopping cycles and getting the puck out of the D zone.

In transition, Connor actually has a tendency to slow down and circle back, which allows defense to set up. Within the offensive zone, he does a lot of circles and cut-backs, which only work to beat his opponent occasionally, and otherwise tends to allow the defense to get set, while Connor's linemates wait for Connor to move the puck. As a result, any turnover by Connor in the offensive zone tends to result in better transition offense for opponents. They are usually able to be well-organized versus Connor, compared to Ehlers who disrupts the defensive structure with his in-zone movement and the chaos he creates. I guess I'd say that Connor is much more predictable.

All of these traits (observed via "eye test") contribute to Connor having poor defensive metrics. His in-zone defense leads to lots of long shifts pinned in their zone, his penchant for finesse plays at the blue line leads to dangerous counterattacks, and his offensive style allows good teams to get set, get stops, and then counterattack. The end result is that opponents end up with more scoring chances against the Jets when Connor is on the ice. That shows up in the shot metrics consistently, every season.

 

[WolfHouse]

I don't have any problem aligning my "eye test" with statistical summaries of Connor's performance. I find him incredibly frustrating to watch, especially anywhere other than below the tops of face-off circles in the offensive zone. He is supremely talented deep in the offensive zone, with great hands and finishing ability. He's also a very hard worker, and skates hard on the back-check.

However, in his own zone he is very tentative and uninvolved without the puck. He plays away from the boards, and seldom sacrifices physically to make a play. He never "pins" his man to stop an opponent's cycle. When he does get the puck in his zone, he too often makes a soft play, especially under pressure (to avoid getting hit). He also has a tendency to try to make finesse plays in his zone or at the blue line, leading to turnovers and very dangerous counter-attacks. I saw some microstats from Garret Hohl that showed that Ehlers has a huge edge on Connor in terms of zone exit attempts (and a better success rate). This illustrates how uninvolved Connor is in his own zone. He basically lets the other players do the work, leaving the Jets essentially short-handed when it comes to stopping cycles and getting the puck out of the D zone.

In transition, Connor actually has a tendency to slow down and circle back, which allows defense to set up. Within the offensive zone, he does a lot of circles and cut-backs, which only work to beat his opponent occasionally, and otherwise tends to allow the defense to get set, while Connor's linemates wait for Connor to move the puck. As a result, any turnover by Connor in the offensive zone tends to result in better transition offense for opponents. They are usually able to be well-organized versus Connor, compared to Ehlers who disrupts the defensive structure with his in-zone movement and the chaos he creates. I guess I'd say that Connor is much more predictable.

All of these traits (observed via "eye test") contribute to Connor having poor defensive metrics. His in-zone defense leads to lots of long shifts pinned in their zone, his penchant for finesse plays at the blue line leads to dangerous counterattacks, and his offensive style allows good teams to get set, get stops, and then counterattack. The end result is that opponents end up with more scoring chances against the Jets when Connor is on the ice. That shows up in the shot metrics consistently, every season.

Very nice analysis... I would add that we crucified Laine for playing almost exactly this way. There's scorers on every team who play 'soft' in their own end - but if they don't they're not read for the breakout if/when the bounces comes our way.

Both were trigger men who live off one-timers... it is what it is. Basically if Scheif and Vilardi are also not playing Bones system, then there's a massive ripple effects through the lineup. If they are, we score more than the opponents score thanks to Connor's accuracy;

 

[Buffdog]

I don't have any problem aligning my "eye test" with statistical summaries of Connor's performance. I find him incredibly frustrating to watch, especially anywhere other than below the tops of face-off circles in the offensive zone. He is supremely talented deep in the offensive zone, with great hands and finishing ability. He's also a very hard worker, and skates hard on the back-check.

However, in his own zone he is very tentative and uninvolved without the puck. He plays away from the boards, and seldom sacrifices physically to make a play. He never "pins" his man to stop an opponent's cycle. When he does get the puck in his zone, he too often makes a soft play, especially under pressure (to avoid getting hit). He also has a tendency to try to make finesse plays in his zone or at the blue line, leading to turnovers and very dangerous counter-attacks. I saw some microstats from Garret Hohl that showed that Ehlers has a huge edge on Connor in terms of zone exit attempts (and a better success rate). This illustrates how uninvolved Connor is in his own zone. He basically lets the other players do the work, leaving the Jets essentially short-handed when it comes to stopping cycles and getting the puck out of the D zone.

In transition, Connor actually has a tendency to slow down and circle back, which allows defense to set up. Within the offensive zone, he does a lot of circles and cut-backs, which only work to beat his opponent occasionally, and otherwise tends to allow the defense to get set, while Connor's linemates wait for Connor to move the puck. As a result, any turnover by Connor in the offensive zone tends to result in better transition offense for opponents. They are usually able to be well-organized versus Connor, compared to Ehlers who disrupts the defensive structure with his in-zone movement and the chaos he creates. I guess I'd say that Connor is much more predictable.

All of these traits (observed via "eye test") contribute to Connor having poor defensive metrics. His in-zone defense leads to lots of long shifts pinned in their zone, his penchant for finesse plays at the blue line leads to dangerous counterattacks, and his offensive style allows good teams to get set, get stops, and then counterattack. The end result is that opponents end up with more scoring chances against the Jets when Connor is on the ice. That shows up in the shot metrics consistently, every season.

Your eye test matches mine with Connor, but I describe him as "soft one dimensional winger who struggles in his own end" lol

 

[Jet]

I know it's Hella unlikely but I'm wanting Patty Kane more and more

 

[Gm0ney]

I know it's Hella unlikely but I'm wanting Patty Kane more and more

He's got a full NTC I think...doesn't seem like the waive-for-Winnipeg type.

 

[WolfHouse]

I know it's Hella unlikely but I'm wanting Patty Kane more and more

Detroit is in the playoffs. Its more than unlikely.

 

[TheJadePipe]

Could be him, but I just saw he was added to the IR today as "week-to-week", which wouldn't be of much use to the Jets at this time!


Could even be a package of Risto/Walker + Frost that Chevy is looking at. Adds Centre depth and RD depth in a single move.

I would love Frost in a package deal with a RD

 

[Jet]

He's got a full NTC I think...doesn't seem like the waive-for-Winnipeg type.

Hence Hella unlikely.

 

[DRW204]

He's got a full NTC I think...doesn't seem like the waive-for-Winnipeg type.

He's closer to extending in Detroit than being moved. Also the woke crowd won't love it.

 

[Gm0ney]

Lowry's line not as effective without Lowry.

 

[CrosbyStaalsAndNash]

I would love Frost in a package deal with a RD

Hell yeah. He'd be an incredible pick up for us and fits our window perfectly.

 

[Gil Fisher]

I don't have any problem aligning my "eye test" with statistical summaries of Connor's performance. I find him incredibly frustrating to watch, especially anywhere other than below the tops of face-off circles in the offensive zone. He is supremely talented deep in the offensive zone, with great hands and finishing ability. He's also a very hard worker, and skates hard on the back-check.

However, in his own zone he is very tentative and uninvolved without the puck. He plays away from the boards, and seldom sacrifices physically to make a play. He never "pins" his man to stop an opponent's cycle. When he does get the puck in his zone, he too often makes a soft play, especially under pressure (to avoid getting hit). He also has a tendency to try to make finesse plays in his zone or at the blue line, leading to turnovers and very dangerous counter-attacks. I saw some microstats from Garret Hohl that showed that Ehlers has a huge edge on Connor in terms of zone exit attempts (and a better success rate). This illustrates how uninvolved Connor is in his own zone. He basically lets the other players do the work, leaving the Jets essentially short-handed when it comes to stopping cycles and getting the puck out of the D zone.

In transition, Connor actually has a tendency to slow down and circle back, which allows defense to set up. Within the offensive zone, he does a lot of circles and cut-backs, which only work to beat his opponent occasionally, and otherwise tends to allow the defense to get set, while Connor's linemates wait for Connor to move the puck. As a result, any turnover by Connor in the offensive zone tends to result in better transition offense for opponents. They are usually able to be well-organized versus Connor, compared to Ehlers who disrupts the defensive structure with his in-zone movement and the chaos he creates. I guess I'd say that Connor is much more predictable.

All of these traits (observed via "eye test") contribute to Connor having poor defensive metrics. His in-zone defense leads to lots of long shifts pinned in their zone, his penchant for finesse plays at the blue line leads to dangerous counterattacks, and his offensive style allows good teams to get set, get stops, and then counterattack. The end result is that opponents end up with more scoring chances against the Jets when Connor is on the ice. That shows up in the shot metrics consistently, every season.

Nail on the head. Exactly what I have seen over the years. Well done.

 

[Jet]

He's closer to extending in Detroit than being moved. Also the woke crowd won't love it.

He can sign with Detroit again next season.

He had a handshake deal to be moved if the wings aren't going to make the playoffs.

Again, I don't think it's at all likely, I was just saying it would be great to have him for a playoff run

 

[Hunter368]

Report out there that Brady T is unhappy with the Sens, damn if he would play for another Canadian team I would offer ALOT for him.

 

[Lockin17]

Would the Jets be interested in Justin Barron ?

If so what would you guys be willing to trade for Barron ?

 

[Heldig]

Would the Jets be interested in Justin Barron ?

If so what would you guys be willing to trade for Barron ?

He has some value as a RHS D but realistically, he lost his spot on one of the worst teams in the league to a guy the Jets waived. If his brother was not on the Jets would the team even be mentioned?

 

[Heldig]

Report out there that Brady T is unhappy with the Sens, damn if he would play for another Canadian team I would offer ALOT for him.

I was very surprised when he signed there, Canadian market and all.

He would be an enormous add to the team but it would cost a lot - and would have to include a higher priced roster player to make the $$$work.

 

[Hunter368]

Would the Jets be interested in Justin Barron ?

If so what would you guys be willing to trade for Barron ?

He's lost value, he can't make the Habs lineup which is bad, he's bad defensively, good offensively. Personally not a lot of interest at this stage, IMO barring the Jets scouts thinking they can fix his defensive problems.

 

[Hunter368]

I was very surprised when he signed there, Canadian market and all.

He would be an enormous add to the team but it would cost a lot - and would have to include a higher priced roster player to make the $$$work.

Agreed, IMO the return would involve one of our top six wingers. Brady style I love, there would be very few untouchables in trading for him from the Jets IMO

 

[Gm0ney]

Report out there that Brady T is unhappy with the Sens, damn if he would play for another Canadian team I would offer ALOT for him.

We'd have to send a pretty significant chunk of salary the other way just to make it work under the cap. Connor or Ehlers, plus prospect(s) and pick(s)?