Player Discussion: Winnipeg Jets Defense

[DRW204]

was wondering last night how morrissey-beau compared against trouba-beau when they were the top pairings

at 5v5

	mins	GF/60	GA/60	xGF%	CF%
Trouba-Beaulieu	272	3.08	2.42	48.64%	48.35%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

	mins	GF/60	GA/60	xGF	CF
Morrissey-Bealie	131 mins (across '19-'21)	0.91	2.73	34.61%	37.92%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

have to consider, different roster mixes, seasons, opponents (since JoMo-beau is against solely Canadian teams) etc

i really miss having morissey-trouba as the top pair. trouba def hasn't played upto his 8M in NYR, but man, these 2 miss each other too probably lol and they were great to watch as Jets especially in 17-18

 

[thrashtoast]

Things last night seemed much cleaner with Morrissey on his primary side and Niku out. Tucker played well I think; seemed really quick.

 

[DRW204]

Things last night seemed much cleaner with Morrissey on his primary side and Niku out. Tucker played well I think; seemed really quick.

agreed. also didn't think beaulieu was terribad, he actually set-up a nice play to KC in the Ozone, rang it off the post though. then an absolute fluke of an "assist" (he wasn't credited but got the puck to him) to perreault when he fanned on the pass. maurice did the guy no-favors placing him on the top-pair where he's clearly overmatched

 

[garret9]

I don't know how much stock I would put into Xgoals either. When you get outshot by a more than 2:1 margin, your CF% goes right in the crapper, and so to your Xgoals. apparently.

I'd like to see some real stats though. Like those kill plays that Maurice talked about. Passing efficiency. One on one battles. Then you'd have a real picture. When we had Buff, we could make any d-man who played beside him look good, because he was that dominant. Now it's harder to measure the output, and one thing that never gets mentioned is the relation between centres and d-men. When we played Morrissey with Lowry, not surprisingly he had more shots, because his line moved the possession arrow. And Trouba was somewhat notorious for shooting, even if they were not quality shots. Morrissey is usually out with Scheifele now, last year too, and those numbers have dropped. Upon further analysis...

Why do you want to kill plays? Why do you want to win one on one battles?

To make more chances (Corsi) and make those chances the best chances you can (xGoals).
To give your opponent fewer chances (Corsi) and to make those chances the worst chances possible (xGoals).

They are real stats. They are why you want to win FOs. They are why a crappy defender looks good with Byfuglien.

Don't lose the forest for the trees. It's like how EDM was big on Russel because a stats company told him he had high number of zone exits. Well ya, that's because his zone exits were the type causing the puck to just end back in the defensive zone 5 seconds later and he was constantly being pinned in his own zone.

Microstats, as we call them, are good for telling WHY someone is good or bad and HOW to coach/develop/deploy someone to make them better. They do not tell you if the player is good or bad.

That's xGoals, Corsi, and such.

 

[garret9]

Interesting table. Can someone give me layperson definitions for the headings of the three columns on the right?
Asking for a friend.
Thanks in advance.

In hockey the end objective is to outscore your opponents... you do that by 3 manners:

1) Make more chances than your opponents (shot volume, aka Corsi)

2) Make those chances better than your opponents (shot quality, aka xGoals)

3) Capitalize on those chances more often (finishing/goaltending, aka sh%/sv%)
Note: while there is skill in a player being able to impact sh%, there appears to be no repeatability in sv% so generally we do not look at goals against for a player as it acts as if random.

The above stats were adjusted for deployment (ie: it takes into account who you play with, play against, and similar stuff).

 

[Whileee]

In hockey the end objective is to outscore your opponents... you do that by 3 manners:

1) Make more chances than your opponents (shot volume, aka Corsi)

2) Make those chances better than your opponents (shot quality, aka xGoals)

3) Capitalize on those chances more often (finishing/goaltending, aka sh%/sv%)
Note: while there is skill in a player being able to impact sh%, there appears to be no repeatability in sv% so generally we do not look at goals against for a player as it acts as if random.

The above stats were adjusted for deployment (ie: it takes into account who you play with, play against, and similar stuff).

Agree. One additional point I would add is that you can perhaps influence the confluence of chances and scoring talent in how you deploy players, and perhaps their style of play. For example, a team might be more inclined to take a few risks to get players like Connor and Scheifele into scoring situations (e.g. 2-on-1, seam passes), while giving up a bit more in terms of overall shot pressure for/against. Conversely, players like Copp and Lowry will probably have better success at driving positive goal differentials if they are able to tilt the overall shot volume, and rely less on shooting talent and a bit more on probabilities. Maurice alluded obliquely to something along these lines when he said that shot quality / scoring chances aren't just based on shot location, but also who is in a position to take those shots. So, I could see an emphasis on lower risk plays and trying to generate shot volume for players like Lowry and Copp, but perhaps higher risk stances by players like Connor and Scheifele, limiting lower risk shot attempts and perhaps cheating a bit for offense in their own zone.

Again, that is purely speculative in terms of intentionality, but considering your 3 points above it would make some sense to have a system that differentiated how shots are generated / prevented depending on the players on the ice.

 

[garret9]

Agree. One additional point I would add is that you can perhaps influence the confluence of chances and scoring talent in how you deploy players, and perhaps their style of play. For example, a team might be more inclined to take a few risks to get players like Connor and Scheifele into scoring situations (e.g. 2-on-1, seam passes), while giving up a bit more in terms of overall shot pressure for/against. Conversely, players like Copp and Lowry will probably have better success at driving positive goal differentials if they are able to tilt the overall shot volume, and rely less on shooting talent and a bit more on probabilities. Maurice alluded obliquely to something along these lines when he said that shot quality / scoring chances aren't just based on shot location, but also who is in a position to take those shots. So, I could see an emphasis on lower risk plays and trying to generate shot volume for players like Lowry and Copp, but perhaps higher risk stances by players like Connor and Scheifele, limiting lower risk shot attempts and perhaps cheating a bit for offense in their own zone.

Again, that is purely speculative in terms of intentionality, but considering your 3 points above it would make some sense to have a system that differentiated how shots are generated / prevented depending on the players on the ice.

Generally speaking most "positive" traits correlate because more skilled generally means more skilled overall.

oiSh%, oiCF, oixGF, and P/60 tend to correlate for forwards for example.

 

[Whileee]

Generally speaking most "positive" traits correlate because more skilled generally means more skilled overall.

oiSh%, oiCF, oixGF, and P/60 tend to correlate for forwards for example.

Yes, certainly. I guess my point was that I wonder if teams / coaches have any intentionality in terms of the style / system of play based on scoring talent. It would make sense to do that, to some extent. Obviously, you want to have top players beating their match-ups in both shot metrics and shooting percentages, but I sometimes wonder if the Jets have gotten to a tendency of sacrificing in the shot attempts (for and against) in favour of generating scoring opportunities for their most skilled scorers. A simplistic example might be Maurice indicating that he isn't going to try to coach his skilled players into avoiding passes on a 2-on-1, but he is more inclined to want his less skilled forwards to take the shot. So, when Wheeler misses Scheifele with a pass on a 2-on-1, it results in no shot (and no expected goals), but it's worth the trade-off. But he might be less happy if Lewis and Thompson try a high-skill pass in the same circumstance.

Still, Maurice has also alluded to concerns with the Jets' style of offense, which he wanted to change this season. It gives the impression that he wants less offense trying to look for seam passes and more direct play. It does seem that in the past few seasons they have gone away from a high shot pressure team to more of a "wait for a great chance" team. Also, their D has sucked since Buff was injured midway through 2018/19.

 

[voyageur]

Why do you want to kill plays? Why do you want to win one on one battles?

To make more chances (Corsi) and make those chances the best chances you can (xGoals).
To give your opponent fewer chances (Corsi) and to make those chances the worst chances possible (xGoals).

They are real stats. They are why you want to win FOs. They are why a crappy defender looks good with Byfuglien.

Don't lose the forest for the trees. It's like how EDM was big on Russel because a stats company told him he had high number of zone exits. Well ya, that's because his zone exits were the type causing the puck to just end back in the defensive zone 5 seconds later and he was constantly being pinned in his own zone.

Microstats, as we call them, are good for telling WHY someone is good or bad and HOW to coach/develop/deploy someone to make them better. They do not tell you if the player is good or bad.

That's xGoals, Corsi, and such.

I don't buy what you are selling sorry. It has value, but there is more to hockey than shots. Like how you prevent shots, how you create shots. It's such an incomplete picture that has become a mantra, but we went through 2 games in the past 3 where shots advantage were not the factor in the outcome. And that is quite often the case. You have no measure for passing off a scoring chance. No measure for missing one. No measure for turnovers, no measure for puck battles, which can create or negate shots. There's things that happen in real time that cumulative stats can not indicate. So I would argue we need a more complete picture of what is happening on the ice, and the science is still very much unproven.

 

[LowLefty]

Yes, certainly. I guess my point was that I wonder if teams / coaches have any intentionality in terms of the style / system of play based on scoring talent. It would make sense to do that, to some extent. Obviously, you want to have top players beating their match-ups in both shot metrics and shooting percentages, but I sometimes wonder if the Jets have gotten to a tendency of sacrificing in the shot attempts (for and against) in favour of generating scoring opportunities for their most skilled scorers. A simplistic example might be Maurice indicating that he isn't going to try to coach his skilled players into avoiding passes on a 2-on-1, but he is more inclined to want his less skilled forwards to take the shot. So, when Wheeler misses Scheifele with a pass on a 2-on-1, it results in no shot (and no expected goals), but it's worth the trade-off. But he might be less happy if Lewis and Thompson try a high-skill pass in the same circumstance.

Still, Maurice has also alluded to concerns with the Jets' style of offense, which he wanted to change this season. It gives the impression that he wants less offense trying to look for seam passes and more direct play. It does seem that in the past few seasons they have gone away from a high shot pressure team to more of a "wait for a great chance" team. Also, their D has sucked since Buff was injured midway through 2018/19.

Highly skilled players will do this naturally.
They will look for better opportunity because they have the ability to do that.
There are more players out there that shoot from everywhere, every chance they get, possibly because they can't get to the better areas or don't have the line mates that can execute skill plays.
What we are missing, and it likely has an impact on shots, is net front opportunities where we are not going to the net nearly enough. Rebounds and scrambles in front also create lots of shots.

I will admit that we have a couple of guys that are over passing (Scheif / Wheels) but we also have a few that let it rip when the get a chance (Ehlers / KC).
The top line needs to dumb it down a bit and start getting shots and traffic to the net.

 

[garret9]

I don't buy what you are selling sorry. It has value, but there is more to hockey than shots. Like how you prevent shots, how you create shots. It's such an incomplete picture that has become a mantra, but we went through 2 games in the past 3 where shots advantage were not the factor in the outcome. And that is quite often the case. You have no measure for passing off a scoring chance. No measure for missing one. No measure for turnovers, no measure for puck battles, which can create or negate shots. There's things that happen in real time that cumulative stats can not indicate. So I would argue we need a more complete picture of what is happening on the ice, and the science is still very much unproven.

First bit:

You don't buy what I'm selling...
You don't think getting more chances is good?
You don't think having those chances be the best chances is good?
You don't think capitalizing those chances is good?

If you're going to try and make those arguments there isn't many people that will take you seriously...

Second bit:

Have you forgotten about score effects? Teams change their decision making and systems when trailing vs leading, and that gets more extreme as you approach the end of a period. This is why we score adjust data.
Also, definitely wrong that they weren't a factor. Anyone watching those games knew that the game was tilted in a singular direction during those bluries of shots. That is a factor. Again, you won't find a coach or GM or player that says getting out shot is a good thing. Pionk even pointed out that it's not a sustainable way of winning.
You can argue it's not the ONLY factor, but then you are arguing against the sky since no one is making that argument.

Third bit:

How often is that the case? Did you know the Jets 2.0 win% is higher in games they won the shot battle than games they lost the shot battle?

Also this is a huge misunderstanding of hockey analytics and how they are used. Out shooting isn't what wins you games; it's outscoring. However, we know that out shooting is a byproduct of doing things the correct way over the long run.

This is why if you rank teams by Corsi, W/L, and goal differential at the 20ish game mark, the Corsi ranking of games 1-20 is the closest to the game 21-82 ranking of W/L or goal differential.

Fourth bit:

No measure for not taking a scoring chance? Not publically but privately.
That would essentially be the same as shots per possession. Which is intriguing in a disecting the game and coaching manner but not huge for overall evaluation of who is good vs bad. More for how someone *could* get better or worse.
Aside: Fun fact that possession is inferior to Corsi in that W/L or goal differential experiment I just mentioned (we've tested this at 3 different levels of hockey).

No measure for missing shots? Corsi is blocked shots, misssed shots, on net shots, and goals. Fenwick is same but removes blocked shots. Shots on net removes misses. You can see that missed shots are indeed tracked, even publically.

No measure for turnovers? Uh... I mean NHL.com turnover tracking is pretty weak but turnovers itself is weak and subjective. Those turnovers mostly just tell you who had the puck more to start with in the first place.
Possession changes are much more useful stat anyways. Not available publically and doesn't really help a lot in modeling how good/bad a player or team is but is helpful in finding *why* they are and coach them to improve.

But let's think about what you said critically:

No measure for turnovers, no measure for puck battles, which can create or negate shots.

You just almost had it there.

Turnovers. Puck battles. Face offs. Hits. Blah blah blah... all can help create or negate shots. That's exactly it.

The one and only reason those things matter is because they impact how often a team makes chances (Corsi), how good those chances are (xGoals), and somewhat impact finishing (Sh%/xSh%).

Those stats still tell you how good a player is. You lack the nuance from those things you mentioned on why they are as good or bad as they are, but you are not missing how good they are. Beaulieu doing the things he does, and making the decision he makes, the battles he wins and loses, etc. etc. is why his Corsi (and other stats) is what it is.

How good a player is exists solely in improving shot quantity, shot quality, and finishing/goaltending. That's it. That's all there is to the game.

Now, you *can* point out that public data is imperfect measure of shot quantity and quality. You can point out that public models is imperfect in isolating a player impact from enviroment. Those things are true (and some of the things you mentioned can improve that data or inference of said data). Those are things you can critique a model for but it's not going to flip the world upside down, just make different degrees of marginal improvements.

 

[Whileee]

Highly skilled players will do this naturally.
They will look for better opportunity because they have the ability to do that.
There are more players out there that shoot from everywhere, every chance they get, possibly because they can't get to the better areas or don't have the line mates that can execute skill plays.
What we are missing, and it likely has an impact on shots, is net front opportunities where we are not going to the net nearly enough. Rebounds and scrambles in front also create lots of shots.

I will admit that we have a couple of guys that are over passing (Scheif / Wheels) but we also have a few that let it rip when the get a chance (Ehlers / KC).
The top line needs to dumb it down a bit and start getting shots and traffic to the net.

I don't disagree, though Maurice has been fairly explicit that he doesn't like his team to take a lot of low percentage shots, equating many of them basically as turnovers, while some teams make it a strategy of taking shots. So it's a bit of a strategy with the Jets, but perhaps differentiated somewhat. Maurice probably wants his less skilled lines (like Lowry's line) to cycle more, and to still take higher percentage shots, but without the same level of risk in how they generate the offense. The more skilled lines also are likely encouraged not to take low percentage shots, but they are given more latitude in terms of making more high risk seam plays. In the defensive zone, I also think that the Jets have some players that tend to cheat more for transition, particularly Scheifele and Connor. That might be more permitted for them than it would be for lesser lines.

Of course, this is all speculation, but I think Maurice has made it fairly clear that he is aware that different teams have different strategies in terms of shot selection, with the Jets tending more towards lower shot volume. The problem is that the Jets aren't getting enough high danger shots, while giving up too many. That's why we've heard Maurice allude to trying to change the way the Jets are generating offense.

 

[voyageur]

First bit:

You don't buy what I'm selling...
You don't think getting more chances is good?
You don't think having those chances be the best chances is good?
You don't think capitalizing those chances is good?

If you're going to try and make those arguments there isn't many people that will take you seriously...

Second bit:

Have you forgotten about score effects? Teams change their decision making and systems when trailing vs leading, and that gets more extreme as you approach the end of a period. This is why we score adjust data.
Also, definitely wrong that they weren't a factor. Anyone watching those games knew that the game was tilted in a singular direction during those bluries of shots. That is a factor. Again, you won't find a coach or GM or player that says getting out shot is a good thing. Pionk even pointed out that it's not a sustainable way of winning.
You can argue it's not the ONLY factor, but then you are arguing against the sky since no one is making that argument.

Third bit:

How often is that the case? Did you know the Jets 2.0 win% is higher in games they won the shot battle than games they lost the shot battle?

Also this is a huge misunderstanding of hockey analytics and how they are used. Out shooting isn't what wins you games; it's outscoring. However, we know that out shooting is a byproduct of doing things the correct way over the long run.

This is why if you rank teams by Corsi, W/L, and goal differential at the 20ish game mark, the Corsi ranking of games 1-20 is the closest to the game 21-82 ranking of W/L or goal differential.

Fourth bit:

No measure for not taking a scoring chance? Not publically but privately.
That would essentially be the same as shots per possession. Which is intriguing in a disecting the game and coaching manner but not huge for overall evaluation of who is good vs bad. More for how someone *could* get better or worse.
Aside: Fun fact that possession is inferior to Corsi in that W/L or goal differential experiment I just mentioned (we've tested this at 3 different levels of hockey).

No measure for missing shots? Corsi is blocked shots, misssed shots, on net shots, and goals. Fenwick is same but removes blocked shots. Shots on net removes misses. You can see that missed shots are indeed tracked, even publically.

No measure for turnovers? Uh... I mean NHL.com turnover tracking is pretty weak but turnovers itself is weak and subjective. Those turnovers mostly just tell you who had the puck more to start with in the first place.
Possession changes are much more useful stat anyways. Not available publically and doesn't really help a lot in modeling how good/bad a player or team is but is helpful in finding *why* they are and coach them to improve.

But let's think about what you said critically:


You just almost had it there.

Turnovers. Puck battles. Face offs. Hits. Blah blah blah... all can help create or negate shots. That's exactly it.

The one and only reason those things matter is because they impact how often a team makes chances (Corsi), how good those chances are (xGoals), and somewhat impact finishing (Sh%/xSh%).

Those stats still tell you how good a player is. You lack the nuance from those things you mentioned on why they are as good or bad as they are, but you are not missing how good they are. Beaulieu doing the things he does, and making the decision he makes, the battles he wins and loses, etc. etc. is why his Corsi (and other stats) is what it is.

How good a player is exists solely in improving shot quantity, shot quality, and finishing/goaltending. That's it. That's all there is to the game.

Now, you *can* point out that public data is imperfect measure of shot quantity and quality. You can point out that public models is imperfect in isolating a player impact from enviroment. Those things are true (and some of the things you mentioned can improve that data or inference of said data). Those are things you can critique a model for but it's not going to flip the world upside down, just make different degrees of marginal improvements.

With all due respect sir, your job is statistics, your income is statistics. So I wouldn't expect you to argue for anything less than the statistics you are presenting. If I was selling you a vehicle, I would make sure to accentuate all the positives of the vehicle, not its potential defects. That's what sales are based on. Repeated sales come from reputation. Or publicity.

You are not fully analyzing the game just statistics you feel are relevant. Yes shots are important, you can have a good shift without impacting the shot quantity or quality at all. You would know that playing hockey. Say you block a shot, say you break up an odd man rush. Say you win a one on one battle and the puck possession, which is no slouch of a stat, goes to the other end of the ice. The ultimate deciding factors is goals, and how goals are generated. Shots are only one aspect, and they certainly can't predict goaltending. Like I said all the things I mentioned are a factor, and real time analysis is relevant, probably just as relevant as the point you are making. That's why your data gets sold, but old school coaches like Maurice and Trotz still make a living.

 

[Jetsetter]

Team approach and making the most of what you got.

 

[Jet]

I don't disagree, though Maurice has been fairly explicit that he doesn't like his team to take a lot of low percentage shots, equating many of them basically as turnovers, while some teams make it a strategy of taking shots. So it's a bit of a strategy with the Jets, but perhaps differentiated somewhat. Maurice probably wants his less skilled lines (like Lowry's line) to cycle more, and to still take higher percentage shots, but without the same level of risk in how they generate the offense. The more skilled lines also are likely encouraged not to take low percentage shots, but they are given more latitude in terms of making more high risk seam plays. In the defensive zone, I also think that the Jets have some players that tend to cheat more for transition, particularly Scheifele and Connor. That might be more permitted for them than it would be for lesser lines.

Of course, this is all speculation, but I think Maurice has made it fairly clear that he is aware that different teams have different strategies in terms of shot selection, with the Jets tending more towards lower shot volume. The problem is that the Jets aren't getting enough high danger shots, while giving up too many. That's why we've heard Maurice allude to trying to change the way the Jets are generating offense.

I'd agree with this. I would like to see the Jets take more 'strategic', low danger shots for a variety of reasons:
It gets the goalie moving and can tire them out
It can lead to fluke goals and tippable instances
It can lead to rebounds
It forces the d to chase the puck

This can pay dividends as a game goes on, and can also tend to spread out the opposition. They can't bank on the Jets looking for a perfect setup so they can play passing lanes more. If the Jets (especially the guys with good shots) can start firing the puck, then the d is less likely to sit back and allow that.

 

[Adam da bomb]

With all due respect sir, your job is statistics, your income is statistics. So I wouldn't expect you to argue for anything less than the statistics you are presenting. If I was selling you a vehicle, I would make sure to accentuate all the positives of the vehicle, not its potential defects. That's what sales are based on. Repeated sales come from reputation. Or publicity.

You are not fully analyzing the game just statistics you feel are relevant. Yes shots are important, you can have a good shift without impacting the shot quantity or quality at all. You would know that playing hockey. Say you block a shot, say you break up an odd man rush. Say you win a one on one battle and the puck possession, which is no slouch of a stat, goes to the other end of the ice. The ultimate deciding factors is goals, and how goals are generated. Shots are only one aspect, and they certainly can't predict goaltending. Like I said all the things I mentioned are a factor, and real time analysis is relevant, probably just as relevant as the point you are making. That's why your data gets sold, but old school coaches like Maurice and Trotz still make a living.

The 1st part isn’t debating anything Garrett said just that he relies on stats for a living.
Also xga records if you prevent goals or shots all done by winning one on one battles and blocking shots.
I agree there is more to coaching than stats. There is motivating players, making lines, strategy a lot goes into coaching Maurice does a great job keeping players egos in check and marching in the same direction. Wish he could do that on his own but seems like he employs vets like Thompson, who had a good game last night, to help.

 

[JetsWillFly4Ever]

With all due respect sir, your job is statistics, your income is statistics. So I wouldn't expect you to argue for anything less than the statistics you are presenting. If I was selling you a vehicle, I would make sure to accentuate all the positives of the vehicle, not its potential defects. That's what sales are based on. Repeated sales come from reputation. Or publicity.

You are not fully analyzing the game just statistics you feel are relevant. Yes shots are important, you can have a good shift without impacting the shot quantity or quality at all. You would know that playing hockey. Say you block a shot, say you break up an odd man rush. Say you win a one on one battle and the puck possession, which is no slouch of a stat, goes to the other end of the ice. The ultimate deciding factors is goals, and how goals are generated. Shots are only one aspect, and they certainly can't predict goaltending. Like I said all the things I mentioned are a factor, and real time analysis is relevant, probably just as relevant as the point you are making. That's why your data gets sold, but old school coaches like Maurice and Trotz still make a living.

Your entire second paragraph is exactly what Garret is saying.

If you win a one on one battle and get puck possession, that is going to show in the fact that there will be less shot attempts against you and more shot attempts for you. If you break up an odd man rush, there is no quality shot attempt against you. Goals are generated by shot attempts and quality. More shot attempts and better shot quality = more goals.

Also the 'you would know that playing hockey' shtick is getting old. Plenty of people who played hockey support and understand analytics.

 

[Gm0ney]

Jets 2.0 21 worst performances in expected goals:

If you eliminate the small-sample fringe/fill-in players with < 500 minutes of TOI the list, from worst to less-worse-but-still-not-good is:
1. Poolman
2. Stuart
3. Clitsome
4. Morrow
5. Bitetto
6. Myers
7. Morrissey
8. Stuart
9. Chiarot
10. Chiarot

If you sort by actual G±/60 it's:
1. Stuart (15-16: -0.149)
2. Stuart (11-12: -0.113)
3. Myers (17-18: -0.080)
4. Bitetto (19-20: -0.064)
5. Chiarot (16-17: -0.022)
6. Morrow (18-19: -0.019)
7. Morrissey (19-20: -0.015)
8. Poolman (19-20: -0.012)
9. Chiarot (18-19: +0.032)
10. Clitsome (12-13: +0.214)

I know Stu had Pavelec behind him, but my goodness he was terrible.

 

[Atoyot]

You're entire second paragraph is exactly what Garret is saying.

If you win a one on one battle and get puck possession, that is going to show in the fact that there will be less shot attempts against you and more shot attempts for you. If you break up an odd man rush, there is no quality shot attempt against you. Goals are generated by shot attempts and quality. More shot attempts and better shot quality = more goals.

Also the 'you would know that playing hockey' shtick is getting old. Plenty of people who played hockey support and understand analytics.

Honestly it's one of the most cringe worthy things that are said on these boards. Also, and I might be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure Garret played at a higher level than most here.

Every GM and coach in the league played at a higher level than any of us, every coach and GM uses analytics. Pulling out that card is just outing yourself as not knowing what you're talking about.

 

[Jet]

If you eliminate the small-sample fringe/fill-in players with < 500 minutes of TOI the list, from worst to less-worse-but-still-not-good is:
1. Poolman
2. Stuart
3. Clitsome
4. Morrow
5. Bitetto
6. Myers
7. Morrissey
8. Stuart
9. Chiarot
10. Chiarot

If you sort by actual G±/60 it's:
1. Stuart (15-16: -0.149)
2. Stuart (11-12: -0.113)
3. Myers (17-18: -0.080)
4. Bitetto (19-20: -0.064)
5. Chiarot (16-17: -0.022)
6. Morrow (18-19: -0.019)
7. Morrissey (19-20: -0.015)
8. Poolman (19-20: -0.012)
9. Chiarot (18-19: +0.032)
10. Clitsome (12-13: +0.214)

I know Stu had Pavelec behind him, but my goodness he was terrible.

Where's Beaulieu?

 

[Whileee]

I'd agree with this. I would like to see the Jets take more 'strategic', low danger shots for a variety of reasons:
It gets the goalie moving and can tire them out
It can lead to fluke goals and tippable instances
It can lead to rebounds
It forces the d to chase the puck

This can pay dividends as a game goes on, and can also tend to spread out the opposition. They can't bank on the Jets looking for a perfect setup so they can play passing lanes more. If the Jets (especially the guys with good shots) can start firing the puck, then the d is less likely to sit back and allow that.

Agree. As an example, Ehlers has embraced this approach, and it's helped his line generate more offense.

 

[Gm0ney]

Where's Beaulieu?

Only 302.8 minutes so far this year. He's certainly on track to make my shit list, though!

 

[Jet]

Only 302.8 minutes so far this year. He's certainly on track to make my shit list, though!

What about last year? Or the year before?

 

[Jet]

Honestly it's one of the most cringe worthy things that are said on these boards. Also, and I might be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure Garret played at a higher level than most here.

Every GM and coach in the league played at a higher level than any of us, every coach and GM uses analytics. Pulling out that card is just outing yourself as not knowing what you're talking about.

Yeah but he was a goalie

For real though - having played the game does give you a deeper insight than fans who haven't don't have.

Garret also makes a living off of analytics so, though I trust him as a poster and believe him to be knowledgeable and honest, there is definitely going to be a tiny grain of salt to be taken with his feelings on advanced stats.

 

[Atoyot]

Yeah but he was a goalie

That explains some things. Probably spent a lot of his back up time ticking boxes on a piece of paper