Post-Game Talk: Jets 4 - Habs 1

[John Agar]

How do you think we should judge the players? Maybe we can start there and build a bit of a consensus here

HFJets.... Consensus... ?

Is that like everyone coming together like Gremlins... ?

 

[Jet]

You aar alwise makking DAMM fun off Laine when he is clarly superb athlet.
If you ware Suomi I wod push your shipping kart right ot av Helsinki.
Aavgaard and prfesorship about hockey is clarly above your pagrad.

Nothing about farting backstage?

Stanley was bad last night - I really thought he was starting to get it but some of the plays he made were just atrocious. He needs to sit for a bit me thinks.

Kyle Connor is a lovely hockey player.

I loved how Schiefele scored to shut those idiots up. I was really hoping he was going to beat the shit out of Evans on his home ice - that would have been amazing.

That Barron hit was hilarious. I don't even think he hit Dach that hard, is he filled with helium?

 

[Buffdog]

I get that.

Sometimes it is a bit onerous to have to put together half an hours worth of compiled stats instead of the highlights when making a point. But if people are leaving out stuff that doesn't suit the argument that is different.

Curious how you would start though when it comes to the stats

Personally, I start with the eye test. Certain things are easy to pick up on TV, like basic skills. Skating ability, passes, etc. But I find that watching live is better for things like positioning and reads since you can see the totality of the ice, and all the other players

The next part is what I'm trying to establish, and I'm assuming that there won't be a consensus (which is fine, people will value different measures). Personally, I think that GF% is the most important because ultimately that's how games are measured and it's a hard, objective endpoint.

People will disagree, but at the end of the day it's ok to win and get outshot and outchanced. There's the argument of whether it's sustainable to win that way, which is valid. But I can tell you that NHL coaches probably value individual games like this:

1. Win and outshoot/outchance opponent
2. Win and get outshot/outchanced
3. Lose and outshoot/outchance opponent
4. Lost and get outshot/outchanced

It's unrealistic to expect every game to fall into category 1, but I think that the guys who value Corsi/xGF% don't see it that way. They seem (to me) to think that it's ok to expect a team to go out and dominate every game, and they'll find reasons to be upset if a game falls into any category 2-4

But ultimately, I think that if we are going to use ANY stats to evaluate a player, we should agree in advance what the cutoffs are for "good" and "bad". If a guy has 47 xGF% but that's the best on his team, is that bad? If a guy has a 53 xGF% on his team but it's the worst, is that good? What if a guy's team gets outshot while on the ice but his team also outscores the opponent when he's out there? Good or bad?

 

[Inflict]

Is there any video of this hit?

Only video I could find is this:

 

[bustamente]

Dach was cleared for take off

 

[Buffdog]

Only video I could find is this:

I initially thought he got "turnbuckled" but it looks like he missed it by a little bit

 

[Jet]

Only video I could find is this:

I still do not understand the physics of what happened on this hit.

 

[kanadalainen]

 

[Jets 31]

Nothing about farting backstage?

Stanley was bad last night - I really thought he was starting to get it but some of the plays he made were just atrocious. He needs to sit for a bit me thinks.

Kyle Connor is a lovely hockey player.

I loved how Schiefele scored to shut those idiots up. I was really hoping he was going to beat the shit out of Evans on his home ice - that would have been amazing.

That Barron hit was hilarious. I don't even think he hit Dach that hard, is he filled with helium?

Filled with helium.....

 

[bustamente]

 

[jokesondee]

Helly must’ve packed his Laine strength Pepto Bismol. Jets woke up in the 2nd and had their way with the Habs. Lovely night.

Who was the punk ass Habs fan saying their forwards are better?

But they are! Fancy stats say so!

 

[bustamente]

Looks like Laine has become a pp specialist, no pp's for the Habs last night Laine was nowhere to to seen.

 

[jokesondee]

I’m not sure what angle I like best…

This…

View attachment 968813


Or this…


View attachment 968816


But probably this…


View attachment 968819

Last one for me.

 

[Huffer]

Nice win, especially after a very slow start where the Jets couldn't get out of their own way and the Habs were skating well and putting on the pressure.

 

[Hobble]

I would love to see more of The Red Barron taking down more players with his physicality.

 

[tarozi]

I don't know if it was just me but whenever Perfetti and Hudson went head to head, I really liked how Cole battled and for the most part neutralized him. Huge compete with splashes of elite skill! This version of Cole with some point production is huge for the Jets.

Now for my second take away, I would really like to know what coaches and management see with regard to Stanley. Is he a long term member of this team or just the best option at the moment...

 

[jokesondee]

Is it just me or is Stanley just not very good?

Its not just you.

 

[DRW204]

Jets need an upgrade on the bottom pairing as tiny Heiny, Stan, and Fleury ain’t it, don’t know what Miller did to get in Arneils dog house

i think stanley is one of arniel's 3rd pair d no matter what unfortunately. he hasn't been scratched once this year and he's had several poor games that have probably warranted it.

 

[BobTheSolarsystem]

I get that.

Sometimes it is a bit onerous to have to put together half an hours worth of compiled stats instead of the highlights when making a point. But if people are leaving out stuff that doesn't suit the argument that is different.

Curious how you would start though when it comes to the stats

One thing I've been watching is momentum gain/loss and usage within the game... not sure how or if that is covered in models, etc...

First 12-15 minutes - Arniel was rolling our D, putting Stan/Fleury out there against legit top 6. They got hemmed in A LOT but it also seemed that the next pairing also had to recover from the momentum gain that Montreal was experiencing - 3 mins in 15

Last 5-7 mins of first and all of second period - Stan/Fleury essentially benched and very sheltered mins - Jets regain the momentum - basically they play 3 mins of these 25+

Third period - Arniel starts increasing Stan/Fleury ice time as period progresses and again Montreal gains momentum - but essentially its garbage time - Stan gets an extra min paired with Samberg

Just curious to see their fancy stats this game - given that 2/3 of their ice time was heavily sheltered

Definitely do not want to see this pairing in the playoffs...

 

[DRW204]

One thing I've been watching is momentum gain/loss and usage within the game... not sure how or if that is covered in models, etc...

First 12-15 minutes - Arniel was rolling our D, putting Stan/Fleury out there against legit top 6. They got hemmed in A LOT but it also seemed that the next pairing also had to recover from the momentum gain that Montreal was experiencing - 3 mins in 15

Last 5-7 mins of first and all of second period - Stan/Fleury essentially benched and very sheltered mins - Jets regain the momentum - basically they play 3 mins of these 25+

Third period - Arniel starts increasing Stan/Fleury ice time as period progresses and again Montreal gains momentum - but essentially its garbage time - Stan gets an extra min paired with Samberg

Just curious to see their fancy stats this game - given that 2/3 of their ice time was heavily sheltered

Definitely do not want to see this pairing in the playoffs...

the Jets definitely started slow out the gate. they dominated the 2nd, got a lead, and i think being down in the 3rd had MTL pressing the offense. definitely in the POs against better teams starting slow isn't ideal.

i think stanley has one of the third spots locked down. not scratched once, no pb time regardless of play... i think the other Dman on that pair is not set in stone, but i am leaning toward Stanley is a mainstay.

 

[BoneDocUK]

He kills offensive play momentum and enables other teams to stay in the Jets dzone. He is a complete liability. Sure, I hear he is a likeable dude and I am sure he is, but I dont know how Arneil and Chevy are watching this and somehow think he is helpful. Arneil said that as long as Lowry is out, Stan stays in. This is purely for the physical prescence, but Stan doesnt actually contribute anything meaningful in that area. So he is a Sheriff that is supposed to go out and get his ass kicked if someone takes a run at a teammate? Thats his role? So I agree, it will bite us at a bad time

Gonna go out on a limb and suggest that Barron's hit changed the game in a way that The Sheriff can't quite manage.

For one thing, Barron was moving a few ticks above strolling speed.

Fun game after the first. Wondering if the Jets should just concede the first period and start the game at minute 20. Great speed and relentless cycles and their speed and decisiveness between the bluelines when the team is firing is a thing of beauty.

4th line excellence and 1st line brilliance, 2nd line solidity, and Ehlers.

Helle has been a walking masterclass for much of this season. Like one of those Secrets of the Great Goalies, With an Introduction by Howie Meeker vids left lying around the rinks (I fondly imagine) in the early 80s. What a treat.

 

[Joe Hallenback]

Terrible first
Didn't like the 2nd line at all
4th line was great
1st line got going and took over
Fleury/Stan were rough
Helly god

fancy stat line

 

[Skidooboy]

Personally, I start with the eye test. Certain things are easy to pick up on TV, like basic skills. Skating ability, passes, etc. But I find that watching live is better for things like positioning and reads since you can see the totality of the ice, and all the other players

The next part is what I'm trying to establish, and I'm assuming that there won't be a consensus (which is fine, people will value different measures). Personally, I think that GF% is the most important because ultimately that's how games are measured and it's a hard, objective endpoint.

People will disagree, but at the end of the day it's ok to win and get outshot and outchanced. There's the argument of whether it's sustainable to win that way, which is valid. But I can tell you that NHL coaches probably value individual games like this:

1. Win and outshoot/outchance opponent
2. Win and get outshot/outchanced
3. Lose and outshoot/outchance opponent
4. Lost and get outshot/outchanced

It's unrealistic to expect every game to fall into category 1, but I think that the guys who value Corsi/xGF% don't see it that way. They seem (to me) to think that it's ok to expect a team to go out and dominate every game, and they'll find reasons to be upset if a game falls into any category 2-4

But ultimately, I think that if we are going to use ANY stats to evaluate a player, we should agree in advance what the cutoffs are for "good" and "bad". If a guy has 47 xGF% but that's the best on his team, is that bad? If a guy has a 53 xGF% on his team but it's the worst, is that good? What if a guy's team gets outshot while on the ice but his team also outscores the opponent when he's out there? Good or bad?

here's my question....and i'm not necessarily asking you...but maybe you know.

and It's never been answered...
what is the "fitness" of all these stats....

what is the real world error factor on GF%
what is the sig fig value of GF% like is there a real difference between 47 and 53? Is the error bar +/-1 or is the error bar on +/- 15

because if its 1 then yes 47 is bad and 53 is good but if it's 15? then the difference between 47 and 53 is insignificant.. and both players are statistically the same...

 

[BobTheSolarsystem]

the Jets definitely started slow out the gate. they dominated the 2nd, got a lead, and i think being down in the 3rd had MTL pressing the offense. definitely in the POs against better teams starting slow isn't ideal.

i think stanley has one of the third spots locked down. not scratched once, no pb time regardless of play... i think the other Dman on that pair is not set in stone, but i am leaning toward Stanley is a mainstay.

We keep hoping Stan develops in Kovacevic... I legit think the 'intangible' in this equation is that someone in the org wagered their career on the Stan pick and we need him to succeed. The sunk cost fallacy is a very real thing.

I dont like Fleury's game especially paired with Stan... he looks okay for a while and then consistently overcommits to plays. Both players need a D that can cover for their gaffs.

Being pushed off the puck by Gallagher pretty much sums up my view of Stan.

At this point, our 3rd pairing is a downgrade from Beaulieu/Sbisa...

Terrible first
Didn't like the 2nd line at all
4th line was great
1st line got going and took over
Fleury/Stan were rough
Helly god

fancy stat line

View attachment 968997

Really matches the eye test
Names has fallen off quite a bit this year

 

[Joe Hallenback]

Also

All aboard the Gus Bus!