Thanks for the reply.
I think all of HFJets is pretty much in agreement that Chevy needs to improve the bottom six depth and talent. And there is no magic silver bullet to fix it, and nobody has indicated that moving Buff there all of a sudden "fixes" it.
That being said, I appreciate the numbers you've provided, but they aren't indicative of the recent play of the third line as they don't really show how Olli and Seto produced on the third line with and without Buff, because as you indicate, a good portion of Olli's production came while playing on the 2nd line with Kane before Scheifele took that spot. Olli had 23 of his 32 points before Christmas. (I don't remember exactly when Scheifele and Olli switched, I just used that date)
The numbers that would matter more to me would be to see Olli and Seto's numbers playing purely on the 3rd line with combos of Thorburn, O'Dell, and Tangradi. I.E. All time played with better players like Kane removed. If someone could come up with those it would be great, I don't really have the time or energy for that right now. I think there is some website that tracks line combos and whatnot.
Other than that, the numbers that matter more to me than Olli's and Seto's numbers from the entire season while playing with different linemates, is how Buff's numbers since moving up to forward compare to the guys he replaced.
Since Buff has been moved to forward, he has 9 points. (Starting in the CBJ to keep it aligned with your info as well). 4 of those points are PP points, so I'll remove them and consider it 5 points in 14 games as 5 on 5. That's .357 ppg.
In the time of the season where Buff was on D, and they were either on the 3rd or 4th (sometimes 2nd) lines, Thorburn, Tangradi, and O'Dell went:
Thorb: 5/36 = .139
Tang: 4/35 = .114
O'Dell: 0/6 = 0
Without seeing the exact numbers that Olli and Seto were putting up as strictly 3rd liners, there IS evidence IMO, that can lead to a conclusion that having Buff on the 3rd line has improved the line. Buff's numbers as a forward are vastly superior to what every other forward that has been used there has been able to produce. And that's what matters to me.
Olli's early season success on the 2nd line isn't really important to the comparison, and is interfering with the results.
IMO, Olli's and Seto's numbers over the long haul would not fluctuate as badly as your numbers are trying to portray. Seto's are likely just a result of the sample size and a possible cold streak compared to his norm, and Olli's are likely a result of being on the 2nd line and getting more of his points while playing with better players.
So you take Olli and Seto who I believe would be close to a constant, and the only variable you change is going from a forward that is putting up around 1.39 ppg at BEST (Thorb, Tang, etc (and even that is inflated because he played some on the 2nd line)), and replace him with a guy who is putting up .357 ppg.
Another angle to consider and possible number crunch if possible, is what is the impact to other defenses and defensive gameplans when the Jets ice a lineup that has Buff on forward? It would have been more profound I think if Kane was also in the lineup, but were other teams able to key only on Ladd's line? Or just on Scheifele's? Any possible impacts on Buff getting in on the forecheck and what that does to a defensive gameplan? It's a small sample size, but I would be curious to see what the overall affect to the other Jets lines have been since Buff was moved to forward. It's looked pretty positive to me in the results department, and that's without one of our best weapons in Kane. (Although we all know SV% has had a huge factor in that.)
I do agree with your point about an opportunity cost by not having Buff on D putting up points from he defense at an elite level. There is no denying that, but on the flipside, there is an opportunity cost by having Buff on D and taking some ice time from two guys that can handle it (Bogo and Trouba), and as a result having a forward on the top 6/9 that puts up less points per game than Buff does.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying Buff is a better forward than a defenseman. All I am saying is that my position is that there is a very unique set of circumstances that have combined that taken all together have convinced two NHL coaches to move Buff to forward,
for the moment. I agree that Buff is more of an "elite" player when used on the point, and his highest value is likely derived from that position. But I also personally have no issue with the way he is being used right now given our roster makeup. IMO he's vastly improved the 3rd line (which may even improve more once Kane gets back and teams have to key more on lines 1 and 2), and he is a great weapon to use on the point on the PP and on 4 on 4.
At the end of the day, I don't think this discussion is going to matter, as I don't believe this "condition" is going to persist over the long haul. Either Chevy is going to be able to acquire some real bottom 6 talent somehow (trade, ufa), which could allow Buff to go back to D without a drop-off up front, or one of our RHD (most likely Buff) gets moved IMO.
There is no evidence to suggest that the 3rd line is playing any better since Buff moving to RW. Here are Jokinen/Seto's number pre-Columbus game compared against the post Columbus games (Columbus game was when Buff was switched to RW)
Olli Jokinen's numbers
Buff position
|
GP
|
Points
|
PPG
With Buff on D | 46| 28| 0.609
With Buff on RW | 14| 4| 0.286
And Devin Setogucci's
Buff position
|
GP
|
Points
|
PPG
With Buff on D | 45| 20| 0.444
With Buff on RW | 14| 5| 0.357
I don't see how our bottom 6 is better based on the numbers above. Granted some of the Buff on D games have Jokinen/Seto playing with Kane but even just looking at their performance with Buff on RW it's nothing great. If you take out the couple of PP points they have where Buff plays D it'll look even worse. Even if you have Chris Thorburn playing on that line those guys will still be able to put up similar or atleast .250 PPG which is not much worse than what they are putting up with Buff right now.
I agree bottom-6 depth is a problem but there is no magic-silver-bullet solution for it. Chevy needs to address that problem through a combination of trade, free agency and draft, not by putting one of your most valuable player in a position where he's not contributing much and is likely unhappy. Buff on RW has been sold as the magic-bullet solution when numbers and anecdotal evidence watching the games suggest that is far from reality. And we are not even taking into account the oppertunity cost of not playing Buff on D where he has put up elite numbers
