Confirmed with Link: Logan Stanley 2 years 1.25 million

[Buffdog]

The differences between the pro Stanley guys and the con Stanley guys are pretty slim. You say he is a capable 6-7 guy. I say he is a capable #7. Or I even agree that he is a capable 6-7. So where is the difference? The difference is that you want to keep playing him as a #5 (because that is how he is being played) and I want him in the PB on a contending team.

Next step in the debate is whether or not we have better options. IMO Fleury has been better on the 3rd pair. His numbers may have taken a hit when he was playing 2nd pair. Unfortunately, he is even less physical than Stanley, in spite of having pretty good size.

Then we have Heinola. He was getting better steadily when he was being played, even switching sides fairly well. He doesn't have the size/physicality tool in his box but he does have mobility. Would he be an upgrade on Stan? Maybe. He was progressing in that direction before he was consigned to the PB again.

If neither Fleury nor Heinola can supplant Stanley then, FCS get someone who can! We are only asking for a decent 3rd pair LHD with some physicality and mobility. Just a little less flawed than Stan. People keep saying that those are a dime a dozen in other contexts. Yet we can't have one.

Statistically speaking, Fleury hasn't been better than Stanley, depending on the stats you're looking at

CF% - Fleury 48% Stanley 45%
XGF% - Fleury 44.6% Stanley 48.7%
GF% - Fleury 40.7% Stanley 63.3%

Plus Stanley - Miller has outperformed Fleury - Miller in both xGF% and GF% (but not CF%)

So I guess if you value shot attempts over all else (which the stats guys will here because it proves their position), then yeah Fleury has performed better... but not in any other metric

Edit: but I'm in the same boat as you... Stan is fine as the 3LD for now, but we need an upgrade for the playoffs

Not sure why the anti-Stanley guys can't see that

 

[Gm0ney]

The differences between the pro Stanley guys and the con Stanley guys are pretty slim. You say he is a capable 6-7 guy. I say he is a capable #7. Or I even agree that he is a capable 6-7. So where is the difference? The difference is that you want to keep playing him as a #5 (because that is how he is being played) and I want him in the PB on a contending team.

Next step in the debate is whether or not we have better options. IMO Fleury has been better on the 3rd pair. His numbers may have taken a hit when he was playing 2nd pair. Unfortunately, he is even less physical than Stanley, in spite of having pretty good size.

Then we have Heinola. He was getting better steadily when he was being played, even switching sides fairly well. He doesn't have the size/physicality tool in his box but he does have mobility. Would he be an upgrade on Stan? Maybe. He was progressing in that direction before he was consigned to the PB again.

If neither Fleury nor Heinola can supplant Stanley then, FCS get someone who can! We are only asking for a decent 3rd pair LHD with some physicality and mobility. Just a little less flawed than Stan. People keep saying that those are a dime a dozen in other contexts. Yet we can't have one.

Yes, everyone seems to agree that Stanley is a borderline bottom pairing guy and there's not much of an expectation that he'll ever be more than that.

 

[jokesondee]

Yes, everyone seems to agree that Stanley is a borderline bottom pairing guy and there's not much of an expectation that he'll ever be more than that.

On a shitty team. Jets need to aim higher.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Statistically speaking, Fleury hasn't been better than Stanley, depending on the stats you're looking at

CF% - Fleury 48% Stanley 45%
XGF% - Fleury 44.6% Stanley 48.7%
GF% - Fleury 40.7% Stanley 63.3%

Plus Stanley - Miller has outperformed Fleury - Miller in both xGF% and GF% (but not CF%)

So I guess if you value shot attempts over all else (which the stats guys will here because it proves their position), then yeah Fleury has performed better... but not in any other metric

Edit: but I'm in the same boat as you... Stan is fine as the 3LD for now, but we need an upgrade for the playoffs

Not sure why the anti-Stanley guys can't see that

I think the anti-Stanley guys can. They/we are getting a little testy is all. This has been going on for 8.5 years now. It is getting frustrating. Stanley is never going to be the player they hoped he would be. Move on Chevy!

I'm going by my eye-test. I concede it is not the best, but I think the stats are failing to find the correct picture. Maybe the sample sizes are all too small.

But like I said before, if Fleury is not an upgrade, then get someone else who is. It is way past due.

 

[Buffdog]

I think the anti-Stanley guys can. They/we are getting a little testy is all. This has been going on for 8.5 years now. It is getting frustrating. Stanley is never going to be the player they hoped he would be. Move on Chevy!

I'm going by my eye-test. I concede it is not the best, but I think the stats are failing to find the correct picture. Maybe the sample sizes are all too small.

But like I said before, if Fleury is not an upgrade, then get someone else who is. It is way past due.

I also agree that Fleury looks better than Stan via the eye test. He has lots of tools, including a great stride. Stans the opposite... even the things he does well, he looks like a big goof while he's doing them lol

As for stats "failing to find the correct picture"... that's the issue I'm having with the stats guys. You can't just form an opinion then ignore the data. In science, the opinion is formed FROM the data... doing it the other way around isn't science, and anyone who embraces analytics and stats in hockey needs to know and follow that

 

[Jet]

Do you mean "Logang"? It's a good nickname - not offensive or derogatory or anything. If you're on board with the Stanley Project, you should embrace it!

I wouldn't say I'm 'on board' with the Stanley project. I just happen to believe he's not as bad as you're saying.

Once there were three boats
Two were lost
Ahoy, Good Ship Stanley!



Dime-a-dozen --
Where are they?
When the Jets come bearing dimes

I'd be willing to bet is the Jets picked someone up, he would quickly become the guy that everybody shits on.

I think the core issue is people expect too much from bottom pair/pb tweeners. It's been that way forever on this forum.

 

[Gm0ney]

I think the anti-Stanley guys can. They/we are getting a little testy is all. This has been going on for 8.5 years now. It is getting frustrating. Stanley is never going to be the player they hoped he would be. Move on Chevy!

I'm going by my eye-test. I concede it is not the best, but I think the stats are failing to find the correct picture. Maybe the sample sizes are all too small.

But like I said before, if Fleury is not an upgrade, then get someone else who is. It is way past due.

The Stanley Project as a whole is the problem. Why expend all this time and effort when they picked up a better 3rd pairing defenseman in Colin Miller at the deadline for a 4th last year? Taking a flyer on Fleury cost nothing. Same with Coghlan. Dime a dozen indeed.

Trading up for a higher 1st round pick, 8 years of development, 180 mostly unearned NHL games, blocking other (possibly better) prospects...it's mindboggling.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I also agree that Fleury looks better than Stan via the eye test. He has lots of tools, including a great stride. Stans the opposite... even the things he does well, he looks like a big goof while he's doing them lol

As for stats "failing to find the correct picture"... that's the issue I'm having with the stats guys. You can't just form an opinion then ignore the data. In science, the opinion is formed FROM the data... doing it the other way around isn't science, and anyone who embraces analytics and stats in hockey needs to know and follow that

We have several stats available that ALL require large data sets for them to be truly useful. For example, people keep looking at goalie sv% game by game. It takes about 3k shots for sv% to become valid. That is 2 seasons worth for a starter. Yet people who are quite aware of that still look at it game by game. Any stat based on shot attempts, or Corsi has a similar requirement. I don't know how much data is required for GF% to become a useful predictor. And I am skeptical of any of the stats with an X in the name. They are all derived stats using models that all have differing strengths and weaknesses. Anecdotally, it seems to me that people are always trying to explain why they didn't quite work. I like the idea, but I think they are not yet ready for prime time.

Then there is the quality of the analysis. We have some posters here who I think are quite good at the analysis and some others who are less good at it. A lot of it flies over my head and I am just not prepared to put in the effort to learn to understand the subject better.

If I can understand a persons explanation I tend to think he must be a pretty smart guy and I accept his opinion. If I can't understand him, he is clearly not as smart as he thinks he is.

If the stats contradict my eye-test I want to know why. I am quite prepared to surrender to a good argument. I don't know hockey as well as some here and I'm not the best observer either. I don't change my opinion just because someone throws a bunch of numbers at me. Back up the numbers with good analysis.

I think Stan is better than he used to be but I still think he is below replacement level. Despite those numbers that seem to say otherwise. By themselves, they don't convince me. The sample sizes are small enough that random variation in Helle's sv% behind him can possibly account for them. Someone posted just a while ago that Helle is saving .985 behind him. Is that because Stan does a good job in front of Helle? Not impossible, but I can't see that. I think it is more likely just that Stan has been lucky, like he was against Carolina on Tues in front of Comrie. Not saying he had a bad game there BTW. It was one giveaway. Other than that play I thought he had a decent game.

 

[DRW204]

The Stanley Project as a whole is the problem. Why expend all this time and effort when they picked up a better 3rd pairing defenseman in Colin Miller at the deadline for a 4th last year? Taking a flyer on Fleury cost nothing. Same with Coghlan. Dime a dozen indeed.

Trading up for a higher 1st round pick, 8 years of development, 180 mostly unearned NHL games, blocking other (possibly better) prospects...it's mindboggling.

The true mental gymnastics should be done on how Stanley avoids being scratched after brutal showings meanwhile heinola after arguably his best best stretch is sequestered to the PB. And I'm not really even high on Heinola.

 

[Buffdog]

We have several stats available that ALL require large data sets for them to be truly useful. For example, people keep looking at goalie sv% game by game. It takes about 3k shots for sv% to become valid. That is 2 seasons worth for a starter. Yet people who are quite aware of that still look at it game by game. Any stat based on shot attempts, or Corsi has a similar requirement. I don't know how much data is required for GF% to become a useful predictor. And I am skeptical of any of the stats with an X in the name. They are all derived stats using models that all have differing strengths and weaknesses. Anecdotally, it seems to me that people are always trying to explain why they didn't quite work. I like the idea, but I think they are not yet ready for prime time.

Then there is the quality of the analysis. We have some posters here who I think are quite good at the analysis and some others who are less good at it. A lot of it flies over my head and I am just not prepared to put in the effort to learn to understand the subject better.

If I can understand a persons explanation I tend to think he must be a pretty smart guy and I accept his opinion. If I can't understand him, he is clearly not as smart as he thinks he is.

If the stats contradict my eye-test I want to know why. I am quite prepared to surrender to a good argument. I don't know hockey as well as some here and I'm not the best observer either. I don't change my opinion just because someone throws a bunch of numbers at me. Back up the numbers with good analysis.

I think Stan is better than he used to be but I still think he is below replacement level. Despite those numbers that seem to say otherwise. By themselves, they don't convince me. The sample sizes are small enough that random variation in Helle's sv% behind him can possibly account for them. Someone posted just a while ago that Helle is saving .985 behind him. Is that because Stan does a good job in front of Helle? Not impossible, but I can't see that. I think it is more likely just that Stan has been lucky, like he was against Carolina on Tues in front of Comrie. Not saying he had a bad game there BTW. It was one giveaway. Other than that play I thought he had a decent game.

Please define "lucky"... I'll admit that it really bothers me when someone in an intelligent conversation falls back on that to support their position. After all, you were the person a while ago that told me that "everything shows up in the stats" (or something along those lines)... but with Stanley, it doesn't?

As for sample size, Stan's 500+ minutes of icetime this season is MUCH larger than (for example) ESV's run last season that the same stats people used as proof that that line should play ahead of CSV (that's not a strawman - it's pointing out an inconsistancy). What IS an adequate sample size to draw conclusions from? Because it seems to me that "small sample size" is just another way of someone dismissing a stat that doesn't back up their narrative

In terms of Helle's save percentage behind Stanley... Given that only a tiny fraction of the shot attempts with him on the ice (the best percentage on the team) are high danger, I don't think it's "luck"... unless you want it to be, I suppose

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

The Stanley Project as a whole is the problem. Why expend all this time and effort when they picked up a better 3rd pairing defenseman in Colin Miller at the deadline for a 4th last year? Taking a flyer on Fleury cost nothing. Same with Coghlan. Dime a dozen indeed.

Trading up for a higher 1st round pick, 8 years of development, 180 mostly unearned NHL games, blocking other (possibly better) prospects...it's mindboggling.

Exactly my point.
It is not that Stanley is so very much worse than a typical #6 on a contending team. It is that he is clearly at least a little worse and we should be able to do better with very little effort. Seeing this drag on and on is frustrating. The frustration leads to expending way too much cyber effort complaining about it.

 

[Buffdog]

Exactly my point.
It is not that Stanley is so very much worse than a typical #6 on a contending team. It is that he is clearly at least a little worse and we should be able to do better with very little effort. Seeing this drag on and on is frustrating. The frustration leads to expending way too much cyber effort complaining about it.

Could be as simple as that he fits in the room

He's also been a good soldier and done everything that the org has asked of him since being drafted. I've heard multiple times about how hard he works off the ice

TNSE is nothing if not loyal. They aren't f*** Vegas... I don't think they'd toss aside a guy like that for a minor upgrade on the ice

OR maybe Chevy lurks here and gets a kick out of reading the constant lamentations of the anti-Stanley crowd lol

 

[Gm0ney]

We have several stats available that ALL require large data sets for them to be truly useful. For example, people keep looking at goalie sv% game by game. It takes about 3k shots for sv% to become valid. That is 2 seasons worth for a starter. Yet people who are quite aware of that still look at it game by game. Any stat based on shot attempts, or Corsi has a similar requirement. I don't know how much data is required for GF% to become a useful predictor. And I am skeptical of any of the stats with an X in the name. They are all derived stats using models that all have differing strengths and weaknesses. Anecdotally, it seems to me that people are always trying to explain why they didn't quite work. I like the idea, but I think they are not yet ready for prime time.

Then there is the quality of the analysis. We have some posters here who I think are quite good at the analysis and some others who are less good at it. A lot of it flies over my head and I am just not prepared to put in the effort to learn to understand the subject better.

If I can understand a persons explanation I tend to think he must be a pretty smart guy and I accept his opinion. If I can't understand him, he is clearly not as smart as he thinks he is.

If the stats contradict my eye-test I want to know why. I am quite prepared to surrender to a good argument. I don't know hockey as well as some here and I'm not the best observer either. I don't change my opinion just because someone throws a bunch of numbers at me. Back up the numbers with good analysis.

I think Stan is better than he used to be but I still think he is below replacement level. Despite those numbers that seem to say otherwise. By themselves, they don't convince me. The sample sizes are small enough that random variation in Helle's sv% behind him can possibly account for them. Someone posted just a while ago that Helle is saving .985 behind him. Is that because Stan does a good job in front of Helle? Not impossible, but I can't see that. I think it is more likely just that Stan has been lucky, like he was against Carolina on Tues in front of Comrie. Not saying he had a bad game there BTW. It was one giveaway. Other than that play I thought he had a decent game.

For individual goalie SV%, 1% or 2% is the difference between average, good and elite (.900, .910, .920), so you need a lot of shot data to be confident to that level of precision.

When people talk about goals being lucky, that's not to say there's no skill involved. There's just so much chaos involved that they're very randomly distributed. People seem to have some trouble digesting this fact, but when looking at goals in small samples, there's so much noise from randomness that there may not be any cause and effect there.

And sample size matters. At 5v5 this season, Stanley's been on the ice for just 30 goals (for and against), but 518 shots and 1126 shot attempts. 30 is a vanishingly tiny sample on which to base any conclusions. There is far less noise from randomness as we grow the sample (and the larger samples say he's not doing well).

He's got the 17th highest PDO in the league at 1.042 (out of 480 players at 5v5), which strongly suggests he's getting lucky.

That PDO is entirely coming from his on-ice SV%. He's 2nd (out of 480) this season with a .9610. In fact, he's got the 2nd highest on-ice SV% out of 2,265 players at 5v5 going back to the empty arena pandemic season in 2020-21. (BTW: #1 is Colin Miller who's currently enjoying a .0004 advantage with a .9614).

Anyway, I'd expect regression. Thanks for attending my TED Talk.

 

[Cnile]

For individual goalie SV%, 1% or 2% is the difference between average, good and elite (.900, .910, .920), so you need a lot of shot data to be confident to that level of precision.

When people talk about goals being lucky, that's not to say there's no skill involved. There's just so much chaos involved that they're very randomly distributed. People seem to have some trouble digesting this fact, but when looking at goals in small samples, there's so much noise from randomness that there may not be any cause and effect there.

And sample size matters. At 5v5 this season, Stanley's been on the ice for just 30 goals (for and against), but 518 shots and 1126 shot attempts. 30 is a vanishingly tiny sample on which to base any conclusions. There is far less noise from randomness as we grow the sample (and the larger samples say he's not doing well).

He's got the 17th highest PDO in the league at 1.042 (out of 480 players at 5v5), which strongly suggests he's getting lucky.

That PDO is entirely coming from his on-ice SV%. He's 2nd (out of 480) this season with a .9610. In fact, he's got the 2nd highest on-ice SV% out of 2,265 players at 5v5 going back to the empty arena pandemic season in 2020-21. (BTW: #1 is Colin Miller who's currently enjoying a .0004 advantage with a .9614).

Anyway, I'd expect regression. Thanks for attending my TED Talk.

Stanley is a pet project.
He’s not going anywhere.
We can’t complain enough.
Let’s just cheer him on as a member of this team and hope he gets better

 

[ps241]

Stanley is a pet project.
He’s not going anywhere.
We can’t complain enough.
Let’s just cheer him on as a member of this team and hope he gets better

It’s probably the most practical approach. I have never been a Stan guy but I wasn’t a big fan of fans booing him at the game I was at this year. Dude sufferers the slings and arrows for an organizational weakness but that is not on him. He shows up and gives it his all and by all accounts is a good teammate. He makes $1.25 million playing on the bottom pairing sheltered, is that really boo worthy?

Fans paid for the ticket and have the right so to each their own I guess.

 

[Cnile]

It’s probably the most practical approach. I have never been a Stan guy but I wasn’t a big fan of fans booing him at the game I was at this year. Dude sufferers the slings and arrows for an organizational weakness but that is not on him. He shows up and gives it his all and by all accounts is a good teammate. He makes $1.25 million playing on the bottom pairing sheltered, is that really boo worthy?

Fans paid for the ticket and have the right so to each their own I guess.

I’m not a big fan, but the organization sees something and they are going to see it through.
There a lot of behind the scenes stuff we don’t know about.
Big Stan even at a low salary will have made more money than a lot of us in a few years.
If he gets booed he can plug his ears with wads of cash.
( If it wasn’t Stan as the whipping boy, it would be someone else )

 

[Jets 31]

I’m not a big fan, but the organization sees something and they are going to see it through.
There a lot of behind the scenes stuff we don’t know about.
Big Stan even at a low salary will have made more money than a lot of us in a few years.
If he gets booed he can plug his ears with wads of cash.
( If it wasn’t Stan as the whipping boy, it would be someone else )

Honestly we shouldn't have any whipping boys, we are the best team in the entire league. If we were battling for a playoff spot or even worse not going to make the playoffs sure then i would get it. This season has the chance to be the best ever and never to be matched again by another Jets team. Some need to stop bitching and enjoy this incredible ride we are on. Oh and Stanley isn't the best but he tries hard......

 

[ps241]

I’m not a big fan, but the organization sees something and they are going to see it through.
There a lot of behind the scenes stuff we don’t know about.
Big Stan even at a low salary will have made more money than a lot of us in a few years.
If he gets booed he can plug his ears with wads of cash.
( If it wasn’t Stan as the whipping boy, it would be someone else )

I will give Stan credit for one thing. Usually our board here is a bit nutty and members can get cranked up over small shit (to say the least). It’s been my experience that when you go to the Jets games the fans are more normal. Stan is one of the few cross over artists that gets as much hate live from gen pop as he does on HFBoards Crazy lunatic zone. That is hard to pull off on the bottom pair or 4th line.

This one fan behind us was merciless. He had a running commentary going mocking Stanley and fans were kind of laughing along with it.

 

[Xavier Laflamme]

I’m not a big fan, but the organization sees something and they are going to see it through.

Which is very unfortunate, they traded up to get him and we have lost some semi-valuable players to keep him around and probably will lose more before his time is up, I don't agree with the boos towards him though, it's not his fault that management have kept him around or that multiple coaching staff continue to play him.

I just really hope we don't have him on the ice come playoffs, he was brutal last season and will be again if they think about putting him on the ice.

 

[Jet]

I will give Stan credit for one thing. Usually our board here is a bit nutty and members can get cranked up over small shit (to say the least). It’s been my experience that when you go to the Jets games the fans are more normal. Stan is one of the few cross over artists that gets as much hate live from gen pop as he does on HFBoards Crazy lunatic zone. That is hard to pull off on the bottom pair or 4th line.

This one fan behind us was merciless. He had a running commentary going mocking Stanley and fans were kind of laughing along with it.

I honestly think that's every fan base for at least one or two of their bottom pair guys.

I was watching a habs game with one of my Montreal fan friends (barf) and he was absolutely going off on Matheson.

I don't think we can name one Jets team where we didn't have at least one d that didn't get dragged mercilessly here.

I mean we've had some stinkers.

How does Stan compare to some of the others?

Stuart
Ran_y Jones
Dahlstrom
Bitteto
Chiarot
Clitsome
Postma
Poolman
Pardy
Postma
Redmond
Ellerby
Strait
Benn
Dahlstrom
Meech

I think I'd take Stan over practically all of those guys.

The problem as I've said before is people just expect too much from bottom pair guys.

 

[WolfgangPuck]

Don’t forget Nathan Beaulieu
Don’t get why Jets keep giving more playing time to these projects.
After 100 NHL games you pretty much know the players ceiling and liabilities.

 

[Cnile]

I will give Stan credit for one thing. Usually our board here is a bit nutty and members can get cranked up over small shit (to say the least). It’s been my experience that when you go to the Jets games the fans are more normal. Stan is one of the few cross over artists that gets as much hate live from gen pop as he does on HFBoards Crazy lunatic zone. That is hard to pull off on the bottom pair or 4th line.

This one fan behind us was merciless. He had a running commentary going mocking Stanley and fans were kind of laughing along with it.

If it isn’t him
Pionk, Apples ….take your pick have all been targets at some points of time.
The Oilers board often targets certain guys and sometimes even McDavid gets it.
Human nature is what it is.

Fans are emotional creatures so are the players.
I admit I was pissed off with Scheifele’s attitude a couple of years back and could have cared less if we kept him.
Obviously Scheifele was not happy with that season and neither were the fans.
One thing Jets HF isn’t is apathetic

 

[MardyBum]

He's deployed like a #5, and has been one of only 5 dmen not healthy scratched this year, even after some absolute stinkers, and even before the "Adam Lowry is injured so we can't take Stanley out of the lineup" excuse that is now the reason media use for why he is teflon.

He's the sole "fringe" guy who's gifted his position regardless of play. Not his fault, solely on Arniel.

Even casual fans can see the two tiers of treatment, hence the boos when he has a colossal f***up.

The team is really good, if this was a fringe playoff team it would probably be worse. Always something to criticize.

I've moved on from him ever coming out of the lineup with this team currently to hoping they get a way better LHD to replace him at the TDL, until they do and then move Stanley to the right to sit Miller, in which case I'll be flipping out again

 

[Whileee]

My issue with Stanley isn't about his use on the 3rd pair during the regular season, especially if part of the reason is to spell off Lowry in the helmet-punching domain. The regular season is a long grind. But I'm much less comfortable If the plan is to prepare Stanley for a top-6 role in the playoffs, where the margin for error is much smaller. Opponents will find ways to exploit weak spots, including a 3rd pair in a playoff series.

We saw it last playoffs, where the Jets' coaches inexplicably broke up a very effective 3rd pair (Samberg-Schmidt) to force Stanley into the lineup (shunting Samberg to his off side without prior preparation). The result was bad, and Stanley was benched after 3 games. Stanley can't be blamed for all that went wrong in the 1st round but it was a very questionable decision that worked out badly. That's why I think the Jets can't afford to plan around Stanley in the 3rd pair. Maybe I'm wrong, but it certainly seems like one of the Jets weakest positions going into the playoffs.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Honestly we shouldn't have any whipping boys, we are the best team in the entire league. If we were battling for a playoff spot or even worse not going to make the playoffs sure then i would get it. This season has the chance to be the best ever and never to be matched again by another Jets team. Some need to stop bitching and enjoy this incredible ride we are on. Oh and Stanley isn't the best but he tries hard......

Can't stop watching that.
She's so pathetic she's beautiful. They haven't even provided sand or foam or anything else to cushion her fall because it is obvious that no one is ever going to land there.
I'm going back there and watch it a few more times. And I have seen it before too.