Prospect Info: Jets Prospects

[Gil Fisher]

How did Lowry score before nhl?

Scored 40 I think.

Off the top of my head, Lowry is a better goal scorer and face puncher. JJ may be a better playmaker. But those are pretty casual second hand observations.

 

[Whileee]

Julien has elevated from his draft position, but he needs to develop substantially to get to a strong NHL prospect. In particular, he really needs to ramp up his pace and how quickly he processes the game. But he has a lot going for him.

 

[DeepFrickinValue]

Nearly doubled to 88 pts in 72 games from 45 in 66 between years 2 and 4 as a Bronco (only played 36 games in Y3). So .68 to 1.2, nice progression.

IIRC he was around a .5 PPG player for the Ice Caps in his sophomore season, with some physical play and a good all-round game.

Lowry had Mono or some in his draft year?

 

[BoneDocUK]

Lowry had Mono or some in his draft year?

You're likely right -- I can't recall but he only played around 1/2 the season of his 3rd year in the W.

30-odd games IIRC, and was on pace to hit a solid PPG that year also.

 

[bustamente]

Another assist for Julien tonight on the Knights first goal

 

[trebendan]

The Hockey News draft preview listed Heinola as a “not so shrewd” draft pick. I think he’ll prove them wrong. Stanley was also listed in that category, which I agree with.

 

[ffh]

The Hockey News draft preview listed Heinola as a “not so shrewd” draft pick. I think he’ll prove them wrong. Stanley was also listed in that category, which I agree with.

Except for the fact Stanley is in the nhl and heinola has yet to break in.

 

[Buffdog]

Except for the fact Stanley is in the nhl and heinola has yet to break in.

And Stanley's advanced stats have been better than Heinola's at virtually every point in their careers.

I've been told that we can assign value to players based how they "tilt the ice" as told by xG%, except I'm sure there's a "well, yeah BUT" excuse incoming for Ville's poor performance

Stanley:

Ville:

 

[Adam da bomb]

And Stanley's advanced stats have been better than Heinola's at virtually every point in their careers.

I've been told that we can assign value to players based how they "tilt the ice" as told by xG%, except I'm sure there's a "well, yeah BUT" excuse incoming for Ville's poor performance

Stanley:
View attachment 877196

Ville:
View attachment 877197

Shh heinola has to be the next coming as we need a new great player.

 

[Buffdog]

Shh heinola has to be the next coming as we need a new great player.

Hey.. he may be, and I hope he is

But he still needs to show it

It's just frustrating that the same guys who shit on the org for not playing him and for playing Stanley have access to those very same "advanced stats"... and they're the ones they use to tell us that Ehlers is our best player

 

[Adam da bomb]

Hey.. he may be, and I hope he is

But he still needs to show it

It's just frustrating that the same guys who shit on the org for not playing him and for playing Stanley have access to those very same "advanced stats"... and they're the ones they use to tell us that Ehlers is our best player

I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as we need a miracle to get past first round.

 

[MardyBum]

London won again, no points for JJ but he took 24! Faceoffs for the Knights, double the next closest teammate.

They go 3-0 in the RR.

 

[Gil Fisher]

lol at using advanced stats on Heinola's small collection of 1 to 3 game cameos.

 

[Buffdog]

lol at using advanced stats on Heinola's small collection of 1 to 3 game cameos.

And THERE is the inevitable "well, yeah BUT"

Didn't see that coming at all lol

If his xG% was 65% in those 1 to 3 game cameos, you're absolutely gonna be using that to show that he should get more games

 

[Gm0ney]

And Stanley's advanced stats have been better than Heinola's at virtually every point in their careers.

I've been told that we can assign value to players based how they "tilt the ice" as told by xG%, except I'm sure there's a "well, yeah BUT" excuse incoming for Ville's poor performance

Stanley:
View attachment 877196

Ville:
View attachment 877197

I'm not sure who's xG% numbers you've got for Stanley there, but they're not Stanley's. His first season with the Jets was 2020-21 and his 5v5 xGF has never cracked 50%.

Also, it seems a little unfair to draw any conclusions from Heinola's Xg stats when he's only played in 35 games spread over 4 seasons...mostly with Pionk.

 

[Buffdog]

I'm not sure who's xG% numbers you've got for Stanley there, but they're not Stanley's. His first season with the Jets was 2020-21 and his 5v5 xGF has never cracked 50%.

Also, it seems a little unfair to draw any conclusions from Heinola's Xg stats when he's only played in 35 games spread over 4 seasons...mostly with Pionk.

Weird, I thought I got his. Maybe I need to spend more time on naturalstattrick

Anyway, his are still comparable to Ville's through their first ~35 games

 

[Gil Fisher]

pathetic

 

[Gm0ney]

Weird, I thought I got his. Maybe I need to spend more time on naturalstattrick

Anyway, his are still comparable to Ville's through their first ~35 games

View attachment 877447

There are still high hopes for Ville...and lower expectations for Stan.

And THERE is the inevitable "well, yeah BUT"

Didn't see that coming at all lol

If his xG% was 65% in those 1 to 3 game cameos, you're absolutely gonna be using that to show that he should get more games

Sample sizes do actually matter, though. It's not a "well yeah but...", it's fundamental to statistical analysis. Larger samples are more reliable. Heinola's sample is too small to draw conclusions from. Stanley's is big enough.

The argument that Heinola should get more games doesn't change no matter what his small sample xGF% is. He needs to play more so we can figure out what he is.

 

[Buffdog]

There are still high hopes for Ville...and lower expectations for Stan.


Sample sizes do actually matter, though. It's not a "well yeah but...", it's fundamental to statistical analysis. Larger samples are more reliable. Heinola's sample is too small to draw conclusions from. Stanley's is big enough.

The argument that Heinola should get more games doesn't change no matter what his small sample xGF% is. He needs to play more so we can figure out what he is.

I'm not disagreeing with sample size, but that sure wasn't being tossed around after Stanley's early struggles like it is with Ville - which is my point

The reality is that people have their biases towards and against players for whatever reason. I'll never get tired of pointing them out, nor will I tire of the inevitable mental gymnastics that go along with maintaining those biases (instead of just identifying them and admitting to having them)

This board is very "anti-Stanley" (and has been since even before the pick) and very "pro-Heinola"

Like I mentionned earlier, if the numbers were reversed and Heinola had amazing results in the same small sample size, do you honestly think that his supporters wouldn't be using that as proof that he hasn't gotten a big enough chance?

 

[Weezeric]

There are still high hopes for Ville...and lower expectations for Stan.


Sample sizes do actually matter, though. It's not a "well yeah but...", it's fundamental to statistical analysis. Larger samples are more reliable. Heinola's sample is too small to draw conclusions from. Stanley's is big enough.

The argument that Heinola should get more games doesn't change no matter what his small sample xGF% is. He needs to play more so we can figure out what he is.

Connor-Scheifele-Vilardi have played 179 minutes together at 5v5. Would you agree that it is too small a sample to learn anything from and would fully support that being the first line to start next year?

 

[Buffdog]

Connor-Scheifele-Vilardi have played 179 minutes together at 5v5. Would you agree that it is too small a sample to learn anything from and would fully support that being the first line to start next year?

Man, that's a good question. Heinola's carreer 5v5 icetime is around 480 minutes and that sample size is too small to draw conclusions from yet ESV has only played 206 minutes together and there were a bunch of analytics posters saying that Bones is an idiot for not playing them together (with no mention of sample size)

 

[Gm0ney]

I'm not disagreeing with sample size, but that sure wasn't being tossed around after Stanley's early struggles like it is with Ville - which is my point

The reality is that people have their biases towards and against players for whatever reason. I'll never get tired of pointing them out, nor will I tire of the inevitable mental gymnastics that go along with maintaining those biases (instead of just identifying them and admitting to having them)

This board is very "anti-Stanley" (and has been since even before the pick) and very "pro-Heinola"

Like I mentionned earlier, if the numbers were reversed and Heinola had amazing results in the same small sample size, do you honestly think that his supporters wouldn't be using that as proof that he hasn't gotten a big enough chance?

I think a lot of people around here feel that Heinola didn't get the same fair shake as Stanley. Some of it was just bad injury luck for Heinola, but Stanley got a much easier path to the NHL.

And yeah people were mad right off the hop about Stanley because it looked like a dumb bet. People just got madder as the Jets doubled and tripled down on that bet, throwing good money after bad...and now at the end of the day, 8 years after his draft, we've apparently got ourselves a borderline 3rd pairing defenseman! What the f*** are the Jets even doing here? I think that's the anti-Stanley lobby's issue in a nutshell...more of an anti-bad-decisions position really.

Anyway, Heinola at least still has the potential to be something good. If he'd put up amazing results in his 35 games over the last 5 years it would just raise even more questions about the Jets' decision making.

 

[Gm0ney]

Connor-Scheifele-Vilardi have played 179 minutes together at 5v5. Would you agree that it is too small a sample to learn anything from and would fully support that being the first line to start next year?

I think the problem is Connor + Scheifele at 5v5, and we have a large sample of them not being great together.

 

[DeepFrickinValue]

I think a lot of people around here feel that Heinola didn't get the same fair shake as Stanley. Some of it was just bad injury luck for Heinola, but Stanley got a much easier path to the NHL.

And yeah people were mad right off the hop about Stanley because it looked like a dumb bet. People just got madder as the Jets doubled and tripled down on that bet, throwing good money after bad...and now at the end of the day, 8 years after his draft, we've apparently got ourselves a borderline 3rd pairing defenseman! What the f*** are the Jets even doing here? I think that's the anti-Stanley lobby's issue in a nutshell...more of an anti-bad-decisions position really.

Anyway, Heinola at least still has the potential to be something good. If he'd put up amazing results in his 35 games over the last 5 years it would just raise even more questions about the Jets' decision making.

Wasn’t Heinola dope during preseason and then the most untimely injury? He was the bright spot prior to opening night.

 

[Whileee]

The dream now is that Heinola develops into at least a lesser version of Forsling. He has the smarts and offensive instincts, but lacks Forsling's skating. If he improves his skating and strength, though...