Confirmed with Link: Jenner signs 2 year extension

[Tulipunaruusu*]

Personally I am in the camp where cap hits have very little hit attached onto them, especially in case of young players. The one thing you should worry about is retaining your gems (as well as your gums) time-wise.

The NHL has absurdly restrictive contract window for younger players which any team can use to their benefit. Despite this Tampa Bay is making their captain Steven Stamkos UFA at the age of 26. Great savings I guess.

"Goddamn, don't say that you let him leave for free?

...no, we paid."

 

[KJ Dangler]

It's not about who they "feel" is in shape. We have conditioning tests for this, and they show no problem.

Mental shape is another story. For all we know that could have been an issue. But we don't know. (Cue page after page of fans asserting things they don't know).

I understand what your saying , however what Torts deems in shape is a different standard then most coaches, and it plays into the mental state you are mentioning . That is why he has already said this camp will be absolutely brutal on the players .

The level he gets his teams to, it’s a level unlike anything I’ve see in the NHL,†Dubinsky said. “I don’t mean that as a knock on any of the other coaches I’ve had, it’s just the truth.
“He wants his team to be in the best shape of any team in the NHL. From my experience with him in New York, we felt invincible. Our starts (to the season) were always strong, and I think it had a lot to do with us being in better shape than anybody else.â€
Tortorella often talks about wanting his teams to play with swagger. But that’s hard to do if you’re gasping for air after long shifts.
“(Conditioning) is a huge part of it,†he said. “I’m not going to say we’re there. This team is not there.

I don’t want to be negative about it, but I want to be honest with you. I’m looking short term here, but I also look long term at what I think are some of the improvements we need to make.â€

http://bluejacketsxtra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2016/01/01/0101-jackets-conditioning.html

 

[major major]

At least Jenner provides value for his contract. He's got a good nose for the net and is willing to the pay the price to score dirty goals. He's actually a skilled scorer, though he doesn't appear to have much shooting range.

He, Atkinson and Hartnell are the only forwards earning their keep in this mostly overpaid collection of mediocre forwards.

I'd say Dubi is good value, better than Hartnell. He was at a first line scoring pace when he was first line C between Cam and Jenner.

And of course the plentiful RFA age players are almost always good deals. But that's how this works: you save money on RFA's so you can overpay to get UFAs. Most clubs look at their UFAs as bad value and RFAs as good value.

Lowest leading scorers by team in NHL:

27) Columbus...Atkinson 47 points
28) Detroit....Zetterberg 45 points
29) Carolina.....Skinner 44 points
30) Toronto...PA Parenteau 37 points.

None of these are playoff teams right now, though Detroit might sneak in.

Successful NHL teams have high end scoring, or at least a goodly number of #40-60 ranked scorers. The Jackets have none of these, nor any realistic prospect of having them. $42 million is already allocated toward next season in forward contracts. What you see is what you get for next season. And the season after that. And the season after that.

Just a terribly constructed hockey team offensively.

There's something weird about using top scorer's scoring as a proxy for team scoring, almost like it's not a good proxy (sarcasm). And I highly, highly doubt that #1 scorer productivity is more predictive of club success than total scoring line productivity.

Considering that that the top six forwards have produced an above average number of goals, and considering that they're younger than average, being stuck with this group for the coming years is a good thing.

You do know that the Jackets were the first club with 4 20 goal scorers, right? Does this information just mean nothing to you if it doesn't support your agenda? Is it just some weird anomaly?

 

[Cyclones Rock]

I'd say Dubi is good value, better than Hartnell. He was at a first line scoring pace when he was first line C between Cam and Jenner.

And of course the plentiful RFA age players are almost always good deals. But that's how this works: you save money on RFA's so you can overpay to get UFAs. Most clubs look at their UFAs as bad value and RFAs as good value.



There's something weird about using top scorer's scoring as a proxy for team scoring, almost like it's not a good proxy (sarcasm). And I highly, highly doubt that #1 scorer productivity is more predictive of club success than total scoring line productivity.

Considering that that the top six forwards have produced an above average number of goals, and considering that they're younger than average, being stuck with this group for the coming years is a good thing.

You do know that the Jackets were the first club with 4 20 goal scorers, right? Does this information just mean nothing to you if it doesn't support your agenda? Is it just some weird anomaly?

Point 1: Go back and see where teams with its top scoring forward in the 27th position or lower have ended up in the standings. It's a good proxy. Teams which go places in the playoffs almost always have a top scoring forward. There are exceptions. But none with a #27 ranking forward. If you can find a SC champ with one that low, I would be shocked.

Point 2: Atkinson and Jenner are tied for 26th in goals scored in the NHL. Saad tied for 37th. Hartell tied for 54th. No one is even close to the top. It's an esoteric stat. It means nothing.

 

[major major]

Point 1: Go back and see where teams with its top scoring forward in the 27th position or lower have ended up in the standings. It's a good proxy. Teams which go places in the playoffs almost always have a top scoring forward. There are exceptions. But none with a #27 ranking forward. If you can find a SC champ with one that low, I would be shocked.

Not that I wouldn't love a top flight player on this club, but are you really saying top scorer is a better proxy than total scoring from the top six? Do you really want to commit to that?

Point 2: Atkinson and Jenner are tied for 26th in goals scored in the NHL. Saad tied for 37th. Hartell tied for 54th. No one is even close to the top. It's an esoteric stat. It means nothing.

Its pretty meaningful when it adds up to more goals.

I'll make this a simple question: would you rather have the top scorer, or the top combined pair of scorers, or the top combined trio, or the top combined set of 4 scorers? What about the best combined goals from the 23 man roster?

 

[KlichkoBro*]

Point 1: Go back and see where teams with its top scoring forward in the 27th position or lower have ended up in the standings. It's a good proxy. Teams which go places in the playoffs almost always have a top scoring forward. There are exceptions. But none with a #27 ranking forward. If you can find a SC champ with one that low, I would be shocked.

Actually that's easy. 2010-11 Bruins. Their top scorers Lucic and Krejci had 62 points each. Don't get too shocked: they were tied for 40th place in the NHL scoring that year.
Last year Chicago's leading scorer Toews was tied for 23rd in the league with 66 points (that's mostly because Kane missed a lot of games to injuries). And the Jackets had 2 top-15 scorers that year IIRC.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Actually that's easy. 2010-11 Bruins. Their top scorers Lucic and Krejci had 62 points each. Don't get too shocked: they were tied for 40th place in the NHL scoring that year.
Last year Chicago's leading scorer Toews was tied for 23rd in the league with 66 points (that's mostly because Kane missed a lot of games to injuries). And the Jackets had 2 top-15 scorers that year IIRC.

They were tied for 18th in terms of their rank of team leading scorers that year.

Kane was tied for 4th in points per game last season.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Not that I wouldn't love a top flight player on this club, but are you really saying top scorer is a better proxy than total scoring from the top six? Do you really want to commit to that?



Its pretty meaningful when it adds up to more goals.

I'll make this a simple question: would you rather have the top scorer, or the top combined pair of scorers, or the top combined trio, or the top combined set of 4 scorers? What about the best combined goals from the 23 man roster?

At the end of the day, total team scoring is what matters. Trying to make a case that a line up is sufficient based on a few players scoring isn't a worthwhile exercise.

For giggles, I looked up SC winners for the past 10 years based on Goals For and Goals Differential. Here's what I got:

15 CHI....16/4
14 LA...25/7
13 CHI... 2/1
12 LA....29/11
11 BOS....8/2
10 CHI...3/2
09 PIT....4/9
08 DET....3/1
07 ANA...6/6
06 CAR...3/6

Average Goals For Rank 9.9
Average Goals Diff Rank 4.9

Without LA

Average Goals For Rank 5.6
Average Goals Diff Rank 3.8

Conclusion: Stanley Cup winners score lots of goals and have outstanding goal differentials. Trying to justify poor aggregate scoring by cherry picking a contrived stat doesn't really prove anything.

2015-16 Columbus Blue Jackets

Goals For....20
Goals Diff....27
Goals Against...28

The Jackets don't score enough as a team and the overall play of a few forwards who score 20 goals doesn't even come close to making this team competitive.

Like I said, the CBJ are terribly constructed offensively. They're a cap team with a ton of money committed to forwards who don't come close to scoring enough as an entire group. They have given up the 3rd most goals in the league-so the defensive end ain't exactly constructed soundly either.

 

[grindline]

At the end of the day, total team scoring is what matters. Trying to make a case that a line up is sufficient based on a few players scoring isn't a worthwhile exercise.

For giggles, I looked up SC winners for the past 10 years based on Goals For and Goals Differential. Here's what I got:

15 CHI....16/4
14 LA...25/7
13 CHI... 2/1
12 LA....29/11
11 BOS....8/2
10 CHI...3/2
09 PIT....4/9
08 DET....3/1
07 ANA...6/6
06 CAR...3/6

Average Goals For Rank 9.9
Average Goals Diff Rank 4.9

Without LA

Average Goals For Rank 5.6
Average Goals Diff Rank 3.8

Conclusion: Stanley Cup winners score lots of goals and have outstanding goal differentials. Trying to justify poor aggregate scoring by cherry picking a contrived stat doesn't really prove anything.

2015-16 Columbus Blue Jackets

Goals For....20
Goals Diff....27
Goals Against...28

The Jackets don't score enough as a team and the overall play of a few forwards who score 20 goals doesn't even come close to making this team competitive.

Like I said, the CBJ are terribly constructed offensively. They're a cap team with a ton of money committed to forwards who don't come close to scoring enough as an entire group. They have given up the 3rd most goals in the league-so the defensive end ain't exactly constructed soundly either.

So what you appear to be saying is that currently every other year the cup winners are worse at scoring goals than the current Jackets forwards? Surely the goal differential always being worse than the cup winners suggests that "defense wins championships" and that it is the d and not the scoring forwards that is in need of improvement? After all two bolded teams scored less but conceded far less.

 

[grindline]

In addition to my previous post pointing out that I don't have an issue with the overall scoring per se, just the overall differential I also want to point out that I don't see the merit in having an elite goal scorer if teh forwards collectively do well enough, which I maintain they do based on the LA statistics.

I have just done a little research (admittedly a small sample size) from the last two full seasons and found an interesting thing which confirms what I had always suspected.

The anecdotal evidence: elite goal scorers don't score many play-off goals and don't win cups often (aka 'How many cups has Ovi won?')

So I looked at the top goal scorers over the last two seasons (one of which is when the LA Kings spoiled Cyclones Rock's data). I compared the percentage of their teams goals scored in the regular season versus the percentage of the goals they scored in the play-offs.

2014-15: regular% po%
Ovechkin 21.9 17.8
Stamkos 16.4 10.8
Nash 16.7 11.1
Tavares 15.1 13.3

2013-14: regular% po%
Ovechkin missed play-offs
Perry 16.2 11.4
Pavelski 16.5 9.1
Pacioretty 18.1 9.8

So if all of the elite goal scorers see a big drop off in the relative amount of goals scored (presumably because of the tighter, more pressure oriented nature of play-off hockey) than successful teams need much more secondary scoring to compensate.

Therefore, my theory is that to be successful in play-off hockey having 4x 20 goal scorers is better than having a 40/50 goal scorer...something which is supported by the fact that none of the guys on this list won a ring during these seasons.

I'll make this a simple question: would you rather have the top scorer, or the top combined pair of scorers, or the top combined trio, or the top combined set of 4 scorers? What about the best combined goals from the 23 man roster?

So combined scoring all the way for me on this subject.

 

[We Want Ten]

This whole recent topic is just a thinly veiled argument of why the team was better with Joey than without but since you can't use a real metric like wins or losses, its moved to top flight scoring.

For the record, I am in the scoring by committee vs. one guy being in the top 20,

 

[JacketsDavid]

Bottom line is this:
We are now a defense first team.

Big issue is can our top 3 lines score enough playing that type of hockey, knowing the 4th line will be bad (even with Boll scoring a goal recently).

Can you top 3 lines score 3 times/game to get a W (or at least an OT point) AND how good is Bob going to play.

I have no doubts Torts can get the guys to play good defensive hockey next season (now again how soon does players tire of him after that). But you need 3 goals to get a point or two and we're going to have a bad 4th line who will not contribute offensively most nights. Then how to handle Bob when he's cold (continue to roll him out until he gets hot, sit him and hope he remembers how to play goalie, etc).

 

[EspenK]

Bottom line is this:
We are now a defense first team.

Big issue is can our top 3 lines score enough playing that type of hockey, knowing the 4th line will be bad (even with Boll scoring a goal recently).

Can you top 3 lines score 3 times/game to get a W (or at least an OT point) AND how good is Bob going to play.

I have no doubts Torts can get the guys to play good defensive hockey next season (now again how soon does players tire of him after that). But you need 3 goals to get a point or two and we're going to have a bad 4th line who will not contribute offensively most nights. Then how to handle Bob when he's cold (continue to roll him out until he gets hot, sit him and hope he remembers how to play goalie, etc).

I think I agree with this. His Rangers teams relied on D & Henrik to win games.

To address the major/cyclone debate I will take total goals over one or two top 10 goal scorers. What we sorely have lacked this year is scoring from the D and the 4th line. A better D and some added secondary scoring I think this team will be okay. A SC contender? Not for a few years at least imo, although make the playoffs and anythin can happen.

What I really think we need is a sniper/scorer like MSL and Gaborik were for the Rangers during Torts' tenure. That would obviously add some goals from that player but also open up the ice a bit for the others.

 

[cslebn]

At the end of the day, total team scoring is what matters. Trying to make a case that a line up is sufficient based on a few players scoring isn't a worthwhile exercise.

For giggles, I looked up SC winners for the past 10 years based on Goals For and Goals Differential. Here's what I got:

15 CHI....16/4
14 LA...25/7
13 CHI... 2/1
12 LA....29/11
11 BOS....8/2
10 CHI...3/2
09 PIT....4/9
08 DET....3/1
07 ANA...6/6
06 CAR...3/6

Average Goals For Rank 9.9
Average Goals Diff Rank 4.9

Without LA

Average Goals For Rank 5.6
Average Goals Diff Rank 3.8

Conclusion: Stanley Cup winners score lots of goals and have outstanding goal differentials. Trying to justify poor aggregate scoring by cherry picking a contrived stat doesn't really prove anything.

2015-16 Columbus Blue Jackets

Goals For....20
Goals Diff....27
Goals Against...28

The Jackets don't score enough as a team and the overall play of a few forwards who score 20 goals doesn't even come close to making this team competitive.

Like I said, the CBJ are terribly constructed offensively. They're a cap team with a ton of money committed to forwards who don't come close to scoring enough as an entire group. They have given up the 3rd most goals in the league-so the defensive end ain't exactly constructed soundly either.

I think the bigger take away from your data is the importance of differential (aka defense) and how poorly the jackets do with that. More than needing a top flight scorer we need to fix pucks going in our own net to have a chance.

 

[KlichkoBro*]

They were tied for 18th in terms of their rank of team leading scorers that year.

Kane was tied for 4th in points per game last season.

I guess I didn't understand the criteria right. But my point stands: you're overvaluing individual scoring. Last year the Jackets scored more goals than the Hawks. In 2011-12 LA won the Cap after they were 2nd worst team in goals scored during the regular season.
I don't like this management and some of their moves have damaged franchise future, but you're too dramatic here, the Jackets are in a pretty good shape coming forward. I would have felt much worse if I was NJ or Vancouver fan. Columbus gonna have more representatives on the U-23 North America team than any other franchise and they gonna have improved defense and goaltending next season.

 

[Viqsi]

This whole recent topic is just a thinly veiled argument of why the team was better with Joey than without but since you can't use a real metric like wins or losses, its moved to top flight scoring.

For the record, I am in the scoring by committee vs. one guy being in the top 20,

I wouldn't mind having both, but you can't ignore the blueline.

 

[KlichkoBro*]

Speaking of scoring by committee I would like to see where the Jackets stand in the NHL if you take into account only top-4 scorers of every team.

 

[major major]

My comments bolded:

At the end of the day, total team scoring is what matters. Trying to make a case that a line up is sufficient based on a few players scoring isn't a worthwhile exercise.

Thank you for adopting my view. When I laid out the options as
Would you prefer to have the #1 scorer?
Or the top combined pair of scorers?
...
Or the top combined 4 scorers?
....
Or the top combined 23 man roster scoring?

It should have been clear to you that more is better. 4 is better than 1, 23 better than both. The top combined 4 scorers subsumes the top scorer. Your position, that the top scorer is the best proxy, is the worst on the spectrum.

Now, given that your topic is forwards, we should be looking at their scoring separated from the rest of the roster.


For giggles, I looked up SC winners for the past 10 years based on Goals For and Goals Differential. Here's what I got:

15 CHI....16/4
14 LA...25/7
13 CHI... 2/1
12 LA....29/11
11 BOS....8/2
10 CHI...3/2
09 PIT....4/9
08 DET....3/1
07 ANA...6/6
06 CAR...3/6

Average Goals For Rank 9.9
Average Goals Diff Rank 4.9

Without LA

Average Goals For Rank 5.6
Average Goals Diff Rank 3.8

Conclusion: Stanley Cup winners score lots of goals and have outstanding goal differentials. Trying to justify poor aggregate scoring by cherry picking a contrived stat doesn't really prove anything.

2015-16 Columbus Blue Jackets

Goals For....20
Goals Diff....27
Goals Against...28

I can't believe I'm the one here accused of cherry-picking stats. There is a middle pack of teams with similar goals for numbers, and the Jackets are a part of it. The Jackets currently sit in 20th in GF, only 5 goals away from 16th, the same rank in goals for as the last Stanley Cup winner. If the Jackets D scored an average number of goals we would surpass that, and the Jackets would have more goals for than 3 of the last 4 Stanley Cup winners.

The Jackets don't score enough as a team and the overall play of a few forwards who score 20 goals doesn't even come close to making this team competitive.

Like I said, the CBJ are terribly constructed offensively. They're a cap team with a ton of money committed to forwards who don't come close to scoring enough as an entire group. They have given up the 3rd most goals in the league-so the defensive end ain't exactly constructed soundly either.


The Jackets are a part of the middle pack in goals for. The D scoring and 4th line scoring is well below average, and last time I checked, the scoring lines are above average. You're using the teams goals for numbers to argue that the scoring lines are full of mediocre players, when the numbers don't support your argument.

As far as team construction goes, I don't disagree that the "bang for the buck" isn't good. I'd be curious to see how this looks in isolation from Clarkson. What is the rank of the Jackets forward salary without Clarkson? Jarmo obviously should not be off the hook for that, but in looking at the construction of the forward corps it is clear that Clarkson was not and is not expected to be a part of it.

Finally, I'm amused by this sense of gloom you're putting out there. Given that they're in the middle pack in goals for now, and that Jenner, Wennberg, and Saad are not even in their prime years yet (24+), shouldn't we expect scoring to be a team strength going forward? Or at least a relative strength? Can I at least ask that we stop portraying this as a huge problem?

 

[Cyclones Rock]

So what you appear to be saying is that currently every other year the cup winners are worse at scoring goals than the current Jackets forwards? Surely the goal differential always being worse than the cup winners suggests that "defense wins championships" and that it is the d and not the scoring forwards that is in need of improvement? After all two bolded teams scored less but conceded far less.

No. The rankings are for goals for and goals differential.

The LA Kings were the only ones who ranked lower in scoring goals than the current issue of the CBJ.

What I'm saying is the quickest to 20 goal scorers doesn't mean much apparently.