Post-Game Talk: Unbeatable....on the road

[LowLefty]

I think what it seems you are overstating is the direct effect that had on the game. The tone of your posts, intended or not, seems to be that the Jets were dominated and lucky to have won. That's not the game I saw, I thought they handled the game well and the Preds were lucky not to have been down more, especially with the Laine breakaway and the Scheifele chance from the left slot area. Honestly, Nashville didn't do much that impressed me, I thought they were a bit of a mess.

Not saying that at all - simply pointing out that we spend a lot of time in our end and it makes me nervous -
This is not the only game that we've struggled in our own end - and to be honest, it's expected with the D core we have in play at this time.


I'm all for the Jets winning these tight games - my post history will support the fact that I don't dwell on the negative. We are getting a lot done as a team in spite of the issues I'm calling out and that has to do with hard work, execution and coaching - and I've pointing that out in this thread.

Maybe "run over" is too harsh a term - it wasn't meant to imply the team was outplayed all night. Probably more frustration than anything - I'm not used to watching our Jets get pushed around - pisses me off.

You also responded to another post of mine with a similar view and I understand your point.
I'll concede - Maybe a bit harsh and I can see how it might come across

 

[Gil Fisher]

That Scheifele miss was not top of circles...it was about 10 feet from Sauros, who was top of crease. I know as sample size increases, these problems should reduce, but someone needs to be auditing the data.

 

[10Ducky10]

Sbisa's too slow for the NHL. Kulikov...my goodness, I don't know what he's doing out there...

But Pionk has been exceeding expectations. Morrissey seems to be regaining his form. Poolman seems to be figuring it out...although prone to some bad play when he's pressured.

I agree with most of this.
Pionk and Morrissey are bona fide NHL 1st or 2nd pairing D men.

Poolman has not played that well but has been better the last 10 days or so...not sure if that is due to his partner or not but if I'm honest, he has been a disappointment so far this season.

Kuli is playing like a 3rd pairing D man.
Boolow would be an adquate 4th or 5th LHD. I honestly don't see what people see in him.

Niku should be playing with the Jets.
Next year without Buff...
JMo, Heinola, Samberg, Pionk, Niku, another D via trade or UFA signing, and Poolman.

 

[Tommigun]

Another great game by Helly, but also a lot of good defensive sticks.

Sucks? They let in one goal last night.

 

[Tommigun]

Sucks? They let in one goal last night.

Boy did I misread that. Sorry

 

[Guffman]

Against Nashville:

High danger chances for: 2
High danger chances against: 6

Season

High danger chances for: 134
High danger chances against: 205

They are ranked 31st in the league with HDCF% 39.53

It’s almost as if this “advanced stat” isn’t translating very well to game results. Huh.

 

[Guffman]

The stat is by no means perfect... It's about shot location, is it a rebound etc.

Jets had 2 high danger chances, 11 medium danger for a total of 13 scoring chances.

If Lowry takes a shot from a “high danger location”, let’s just say that it’s not really a high danger of it being a goal.

If Laine takes a shot from a “high danger location”, it’s an extremely likely it ends up as a goal.

I think people get lost within these statistics.

 

[Guffman]

But.. stats!!

I raised this question in a stats thread as well. A shot isn't simply dangerous from where is taken. Velocity, accuracy, release, change of angle, point of release, previous events just before the shot all have massive impact.

And, of course, WHO ACTUALLY TAKES THE SHOT!

It’s an absolutely ridiculous stat if you ignore that factor. And even if you did, it doesn’t factor how well the player is playing. Laine on a hot streak versus a cold streak is a HUGE difference. Where the puck actually gets shot relative to where the goalie is (i.e., was it actually a good, hard to save shot) is the most telling thing.

This stat is just pure laziness, much like most “half-arsed” advanced stats.

 

[Duke749]

It’s almost as if this “advanced stat” isn’t translating very well to game results. Huh.

Or perhaps goaltending trumps all. Just a thought.

 

[Jet]

Or perhaps goaltending trumps all. Just a thought.

Then why do we bother with them at all

 

[jepjepjoo]

It’s almost as if this “advanced stat” isn’t translating very well to game results. Huh.

Or perhaps goaltending trumps all. Just a thought.

Looking at the last 3 seasons combined (5v5 only)

Teams with over 50%HDCF 16

14 teams had positive goal differential
2 teams had negative goal differential
9 teams had higher than 0.600 win%

Teams with under 50%HDCF 15

4 teams had positive goal differential
11 teams had negative goal differential
1 team had higher than 0.600 win%

 

[Howard Chuck]

I'm kind of sick of fancy stats. I'v raised this again and again. no-one has ever really answered it with anything beyond "It's the best info we have....which makes me wonder why so many people put soooooo much emphasis on stats.(I also heard a TED talk where a statistician said that basically anyone who isn't a PHD statistician is probably misinterpreting any star they cite and even the PHDs get it wrong a lot). I think stats are worthwhile in baseball . Each pitch is a single event. The game is static until that 1 single event. Hockey is dynamic. Constant change is the norm, all kinds of variables that are impossible to track, then there's plain old lucky bounces ...it's impossible. I heard a guy who was working n a new type of goalie stat about two years ago....the way he put it was that after watching every single game in the NHL that season and analyzing every single goal and shot was that every metric we have been using is basically useless.(I've tried to find the interview but I can never seem to find it.) he said that most goals aren't actually scored by what they typically described as "dangerous" pucks hit a skate gouge and shift path or a guy who isn't even looking backs his ass into a puck....there's just so many ways the puck can go in the net.

anyhow I thought the jets played OK and yes Helle kept them in it when they weren't playing well.

Throw physics into the mix as well, and that's how I feel too. A puck landing on it's edge as opposed to flat, a stick not quite at the optimum angle, a player's momentum at a given millisecond in time. There are multitude of variables that affect every play, every shot, every save etc. The human mind can sometimes process these things in the act of performing them, but it's next to impossible to track it otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I get the use of stats in a dynamic game like hockey and actually enjoy some of the discussion, but I think the deeper we dive, the less we actually know. Sometimes the best stat is simply how many goals are scored, who scored them and (at a very high level) how.

I don't think stats will show the very subtle things that trained eyes can process, in my lifetime.

 

[ffh]

Or perhaps goaltending trumps all. Just a thought.

or not. our back up goalie with his .870 save percentage would have us in a playoff spot too if he was the starter.

 

[Duke749]

Then why do we bother with them at all

Because it gives us much needed information to help us better understand what happened without unconscious or conscious human bias.

 

[Gil Fisher]

It’s almost as if this “advanced stat” isn’t translating very well to game results. Huh.

Well they aren't supposed to be analyzed, like sv%, on a game by game basis. When you're looking for a predictable stat, you're looking for one with a lot of data points. That's why they're looking beyond goals to begin with.

 

[Jet]

Because it gives us much needed information to help us better understand what happened without unconscious or conscious human bias.

Yet they use human bias to create them. Got it

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

Looking at the last 3 seasons combined (5v5 only)

Teams with over 50%HDCF 16

14 teams had positive goal differential
2 teams had negative goal differential
9 teams had higher than 0.600 win%

Teams with under 50%HDCF 15

4 teams had positive goal differential
11 teams had negative goal differential
1 team had higher than 0.600 win%

Thank you for posting this. For context, we are currently league worst HDCF% at 39.53%.

 

[JetsWillFly4Ever]

Advanced stats are only bad if you don't understand how to use them. They are not overly predictive in one game sample sizes, but as @jepjepjoo pointed out, over bigger samples they are predictive.

The stats for the Jets match my eye-test. They have largely been outplayed this season but are getting vezina calibre goaltending to mask it.

They are also not the be all end all. You should see the stats, evaluate the film and try to piece together what is happening that is resulting in the stats. Stats are the output of several inputs that you can see on the ice.

 

[Guffman]

Or perhaps goaltending trumps all. Just a thought.

Yes, we should factor goalies as well.

Hey, if Copp and Lowry are barreling down 2 v 1, is this a "high danger" opportunity? Ha ha... nope! If they actually get a shot on goal, I'd be mildly surprised.

A fluid game of hockey has so many minute details that goes into a play/opportunity. To boil it down, like fancy stats tries to, does it a complete disservice.

The counter-argument is "well, if you aggregate the stats over an extended period of time for all teams, and remove individual player skill/goalie skill and tactics, clearly a shot from the point is less effective than a shot from near the crease". Yeah, no kidding but not useful applying it at a team level with different players taking particular shots with different goalie skills in play.

One thing I've asked Garret to do is "ok, you say these stats are predictive - go make a prediction after 20 games played and let's see how well they turn out" and he refuses to do so. If someone else wants to pick up on that challenge, go for it - and let's see how well that turns out for you in the end.

Prove us naysayers wrong and make those predictions.

 

[Duke749]

Yes, we should factor goalies as well.

Hey, if Copp and Lowry are barreling down 2 v 1, is this a "high danger" opportunity? Ha ha... nope! If they actually get a shot on goal, I'd be mildly surprised.

A fluid game of hockey has so many minute details that goes into a play/opportunity. To boil it down, like fancy stats tries to, does it a complete disservice.

The counter-argument is "well, if you aggregate the stats over an extended period of time for all teams, and remove individual player skill/goalie skill and tactics, clearly a shot from the point is less effective than a shot from near the crease". Yeah, no kidding but not useful applying it at a team level with different players taking particular shots with different goalie skills in play.

One thing I've asked Garret to do is "ok, you say these stats are predictive - go make a prediction after 20 games played and let's see how well they turn out" and he refuses to do so. If someone else wants to pick up on that challenge, go for it - and let's see how well that turns out for you in the end.

Prove us naysayers wrong and make those predictions.

You’re completely missing the point of my comment.

 

[Atoyot]

It’s almost as if this “advanced stat” isn’t translating very well to game results. Huh.

You sound like the type of person I'd love to play poker against.