Player Discussion: Winnipeg Jets Defense

[cbcwpg]

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.

The team that won the Stanley Cup last season, the Tampa Bay Lightning, their GM Julien BriseBois... has never played competitive hockey at any level. Times are changing. Not everyone in the game has to grow up playing the game.

 

[Atoyot]

The team that won the Stanley Cup last season, the Tampa Bay Lightning, their GM Julien BriseBois... has never played competitive hockey at any level. Times are changing. Not everyone in the game has to grow up playing the game.

Was not aware, that's interesting. It's an anomaly though and still does nothing for the people who insist that anyone who uses analytics has never played the game.

 

[Gm0ney]

What about last year? Or the year before?

I guess those years weren't bad enough to make the bottom 21 of the last 10 seasons. I wouldn't expect those years to be in the top 21, though...or even the top half. Beaulieu's maybe passable as a 3rd pair defenseman in a sheltered role if you have no other options, but rolling him out on the top pair is probably not a great idea.

 

[Jet]

I guess those years weren't bad enough to make the bottom 21 of the last 10 seasons. I wouldn't expect those years to be in the top 21, though...or even the top half. Beaulieu's maybe passable as a 3rd pair defenseman in a sheltered role if you have no other options, but rolling him out on the top pair is probably not a great idea.

Gotcha! Sorry, wasn't supposed to be an inquisition - more just an illustration for the group that even though Beaulieu has plenty of warts (and should never be playing on the top pair), he's actually quite useful in a 6-7 pk type role.

 

[voyageur]

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.

I liked PLD's response to analytics. It more or less summarizes my view. The game happens too fast to be broken down correctly in analytics.

I just remember how many posters here thought they had a read on Neal Pionk, because of analytics. And how guys here had Jacob Trouba as the best defensemen in Winnipeg Jets 2.0 history, because his Corsi was high. How many wanted to break the bank for him? Because he shot a lot? Were they quality shots, or quantity shots? And did he make key mistakes during games, that negated his high shot volume? He sure as hell did, which is something that matter. Because you can make a difference in shot quantity, but you only have to make one defensive mistake, and the puck is in your net.

Turns out all those things, like kill plays, like passing efficiency, are important too.

I know there is a loyal following to what Garret posts, and I respect that. I'm not buying it though. Not fully. And I get quite irritated when people think they are smarter because they have mathematized the game into a science, without having a good read for what is going on on the ice. You certainly can't explain chemistry in numbers. That would be positioning, which isn't quantifiable data. If you play hockey you know the game is ebb and flow. The difference between one side and the other is marginal, most of the time, and the end results are one part talent, one part mistakes, one part execution, and one part luck. Certainly no one can predict how a goalie is going to determine the outcome. So while many stats are informative they are less than predictive.

 

[Duke749]

I liked PLD's response to analytics. It more or less summarizes my view. The game happens too fast to be broken down correctly in analytics.

I just remember how many posters here thought they had a read on Neal Pionk, because of analytics. And how guys here had Jacob Trouba as the best defensemen in Winnipeg Jets 2.0 history, because his Corsi was high. How many wanted to break the bank for him? Because he shot a lot? Were they quality shots, or quantity shots? And did he make key mistakes during games, that negated his high shot volume? He sure as hell did, which is something that matter. Because you can make a difference in shot quantity, but you only have to make one defensive mistake, and the puck is in your net.

Turns out all those things, like kill plays, like passing efficiency, are important too.

I know there is a loyal following to what Garret posts, and I respect that. I'm not buying it though. Not fully. And I get quite irritated when people think they are smarter because they have mathematized the game into a science, without having a good read for what is going on on the ice. You certainly can't explain chemistry in numbers. That would be positioning, which isn't quantifiable data. If you play hockey you know the game is ebb and flow. The difference between one side and the other is marginal, most of the time, and the end results are one part talent, one part mistakes, one part execution, and one part luck. Certainly no one can predict how a goalie is going to determine the outcome. So while many stats are informative they are less than predictive.

The lengths you go to be so dismissive of something you refuse to even try to understand is astonishing.

 

[rubikscube]

I liked PLD's response to analytics. It more or less summarizes my view. The game happens too fast to be broken down correctly in analytics.

I just remember how many posters here thought they had a read on Neal Pionk, because of analytics. And how guys here had Jacob Trouba as the best defensemen in Winnipeg Jets 2.0 history, because his Corsi was high. How many wanted to break the bank for him? Because he shot a lot? Were they quality shots, or quantity shots? And did he make key mistakes during games, that negated his high shot volume? He sure as hell did, which is something that matter. Because you can make a difference in shot quantity, but you only have to make one defensive mistake, and the puck is in your net.

Turns out all those things, like kill plays, like passing efficiency, are important too.

I know there is a loyal following to what Garret posts, and I respect that. I'm not buying it though. Not fully. And I get quite irritated when people think they are smarter because they have mathematized the game into a science, without having a good read for what is going on on the ice. You certainly can't explain chemistry in numbers. That would be positioning, which isn't quantifiable data. If you play hockey you know the game is ebb and flow. The difference between one side and the other is marginal, most of the time, and the end results are one part talent, one part mistakes, one part execution, and one part luck. Certainly no one can predict how a goalie is going to determine the outcome. So while many stats are informative they are less than predictive.

I agree 100%, personally I'm a fan of advanced stats, but I understand why other people aren't. Simply for me, the more information the better. That's all.

But PLD did a good job explaining why they really can be bologna sometimes.
"How do you quantify whether the decision you made to shoot or not was based on his stick being on his left side vs his right?". That was a very good answer, imo.

 

[Duke749]

I agree 100%, personally I'm a fan of advanced stats, but I understand why other people aren't. Simply for me, the more information the better. That's all.

But PLD did a good job explaining why they really can be bologna sometimes.
"How do you quantify whether the decision you made to shoot or not was based on his stick being on his left side vs his right?". That was a very good answer, imo.

That is a very specific answer too. Something like that may not be directly shown in numbers but over time the results will show either a positive or negative impact. You do what he says enough times in a positive manner then it will eventually show up. It’s the “why” that may or may not take a more detailed view.

EDIT: What i mean to say is the numbers show a positive or negative effect but don’t always show the context to get there. That’s why when you see the numbers, going back to watch how they got there can be important.

 

[garret9]

That is a very specific answer too. Something like that may not be directly shown in numbers but over time the results will show either a positive or negative impact. You do what he says enough times in a positive manner then it will eventually show up. It’s the “why” that may or may not take a more detailed view.

EDIT: What i mean to say is the numbers show a positive or negative effect but don’t always show the context to get there. That’s why when you see the numbers, going back to watch how they got there can be important.

^ Ding ding ding

People think that lacking context makes the numbers less important or capable in telling impact.

No. It just means it just means you have to dive deeper to get that context, through microstats, coaching, and video.

The overall impact in the game though is pretty simple and is simply their overall impact to the game. Does the team do better or worse with you on the ice in the things that we know either is byproduct and/or leads to wins.

 

[AlaskaJet]

I liked PLD's response to analytics. It more or less summarizes my view. The game happens too fast to be broken down correctly in analytics.

I just remember how many posters here thought they had a read on Neal Pionk, because of analytics. And how guys here had Jacob Trouba as the best defensemen in Winnipeg Jets 2.0 history, because his Corsi was high. How many wanted to break the bank for him? Because he shot a lot? Were they quality shots, or quantity shots? And did he make key mistakes during games, that negated his high shot volume? He sure as hell did, which is something that matter. Because you can make a difference in shot quantity, but you only have to make one defensive mistake, and the puck is in your net.

Turns out all those things, like kill plays, like passing efficiency, are important too.

I know there is a loyal following to what Garret posts, and I respect that. I'm not buying it though. Not fully. And I get quite irritated when people think they are smarter because they have mathematized the game into a science, without having a good read for what is going on on the ice. You certainly can't explain chemistry in numbers. That would be positioning, which isn't quantifiable data. If you play hockey you know the game is ebb and flow. The difference between one side and the other is marginal, most of the time, and the end results are one part talent, one part mistakes, one part execution, and one part luck. Certainly no one can predict how a goalie is going to determine the outcome. So while many stats are informative they are less than predictive.

I used statistics to publish research once..They are great for explaining what happened, but when observers agree on the “Eye” test, it can weigh heavily for predictive value..
And how can you quantify the emotional coefficient of an individual or team..that’s not even considered in the equation..Hockey is so much more fun because of all the intangible variables..

 

[boydkc]

Where's Beaulieu?

Beaulieu will never have great stats. Maurice likes him because he plays balls out every shift of every game he plays.

 

[jokesondee]

Way too many 5, 6, 7 type d-men and guys that should be top 4 are playing like 5, 6, 7 type d-men. Pionk and Forbort are essentially our top D pair. Scary.

 

[jokesondee]

Beaulieu will never have great stats. Maurice likes him because he plays balls out every shift of every game he plays.

If thats the truth then they must have been dragging last night. With his expansion draft eligibility complete, there are ZERO excuses for having this guy in the lineup barring injury anymore. Last nights game should be the final straw. He is a dumpster fire. You couldnt possibly get worse play out of Stanley, Niku, Heinola, or Samberg. You have nothing to lose by atleast trying one of those guys at this point.

 

[BigZ65]

I would like to see Hellebucyk stay in his crease for a half dozen games and see the effect on our GA.

I swear we give up a goal every other game that can be attributed to him making a poor decision playing the puck or attempting to,

 

[Atoyot]

I would like to see Hellebucyk stay in his crease for a half dozen games and see the effect on our GA.

I swear we give up a goal every other game that can be attributed to him making a poor decision playing the puck or attempting to,

I don't think that would make the difference you're thinking it will. For one, even though he is clearly bad at playing the puck it doesn't actually result in a goal against very often. Yesterday's wasn't on him, that's just a very bad bounce, but even if it was it's still a rare event that it actually ends up in our net. For two the alternative is that the puck swings around and ends up on the winger's stick that is chasing the dump and then they have clean possession. He's bad at playing the puck, but I think it benefits the team more for him to disrupt the play then it would for him to just let them have it.

 

[bumblebeeman]

Does anyone else find it frustrating that Jets clearly need help on D, and now there are articles about trading for one. But they have 2 prospects that project to that role, 1 of them as done well in the top 4 in the before, and neither are been given a chance. I think either of them could make the team better, I'd like to see them at least get a chance

 

[Teemusalami204]

I would like to see Hellebucyk stay in his crease for a half dozen games and see the effect on our GA.

I swear we give up a goal every other game that can be attributed to him making a poor decision playing the puck or attempting to,

Not just this year. Almost every time he has left the net in his career it’s been a misplay. It’s really really concerning and the fact he keeps playing the puck so much is insane

 

[Jet]

If thats the truth then they must have been dragging last night. With his expansion draft eligibility complete, there are ZERO excuses for having this guy in the lineup barring injury anymore. Last nights game should be the final straw. He is a dumpster fire. You couldnt possibly get worse play out of Stanley, Niku, Heinola, or Samberg. You have nothing to lose by atleast trying one of those guys at this point.

I think you have a significant amount to 'lose' by playing Samberg and Heinola. Teams that rush developing players to fill big club needs fail.

However, playing Stanley, and to a lesser extent Niku should definitely be the play for the team right now. However, it doesn't really address this teams actual need, which is at least one top pair defenseman. How do we get that?

 

[Jet]

Does anyone else find it frustrating that Jets clearly need help on D, and now there are articles about trading for one. But they have 2 prospects that project to that role, 1 of them as done well in the top 4 in the before, and neither are been given a chance. I think either of them could make the team better, I'd like to see them at least get a chance

This is illogical and unrealistic. We are midway through a shortened season and we are going to place the expectations on a rookie (one with ZERO NHL experience) to play top pair minutes against McDavid, Matthews, Tkachuk, Draisatl, and on and on.

This is a recipe for disaster, not only for the player in the short term, but going forward. As much as we want help now, and we see the potential of these guys, developing them properly is more important to the Winnipeg Jets of the next 10 years, than it is to play a gamble. Besides, if they did come in and play, they'd be playing a lower role and where do you think our glut of 5,6,7 guys will be? Yup, in the top 4 where they already are.

 

[Whileee]

Does anyone else find it frustrating that Jets clearly need help on D, and now there are articles about trading for one. But they have 2 prospects that project to that role, 1 of them as done well in the top 4 in the before, and neither are been given a chance. I think either of them could make the team better, I'd like to see them at least get a chance

Drives me crazy that the Jets struggle along with Beaulieu, Poolman and Forbort playing above their capabilities, with two terrific young D playing very well in the AHL.

Last night, Beaulieu was a catastrophe again. Poolman had a couple of really bad plays that led to the Habs' second goal, opening the flood gates. His stretch passes were awful, leading to unnecessary icings and stopping transition. He'd be okay on a third pair, but not a top pair.

 

[Whileee]

This is illogical and unrealistic. We are midway through a shortened season and we are going to place the expectations on a rookie (one with ZERO NHL experience) to play top pair minutes against McDavid, Matthews, Tkachuk, Draisatl, and on and on.

This is a recipe for disaster, not only for the player in the short term, but going forward. As much as we want help now, and we see the potential of these guys, developing them properly is more important to the Winnipeg Jets of the next 10 years, than it is to play a gamble. Besides, if they did come in and play, they'd be playing a lower role and where do you think our glut of 5,6,7 guys will be? Yup, in the top 4 where they already are.

Instead, we are going to rely on Beaulieu flopping around, making bad reads, not moving the puck well, etc. The Jets don't have a D good enough for a contender. At the very least, it's hard to imagine the young D won't outperform at least Beaulieu, and perhaps Poolman. What's the downside to playing them this year to at least assess them and see if they are answers long term? The Jets literally have nothing to lose in replacing Beaulieu with a young player, and it could be a very valuable decision.

 

[nhlpro]

Beaulieu and Poolman were dreadful last night a couple of pylons would of done a better job. I want Heinola ASAP!

 

[Jet]

Instead, we are going to rely on Beaulieu flopping around, making bad reads, not moving the puck well, etc. The Jets don't have a D good enough for a contender. At the very least, it's hard to imagine the young D won't outperform at least Beaulieu, and perhaps Poolman. What's the downside to playing them this year to at least assess them and see if they are answers long term? The Jets literally have nothing to lose in replacing Beaulieu with a young player, and it could be a very valuable decision.

I think that theres a lot of downside (part of which I've emoted many times with regards to handling prospects correctly, in a way that builds their confidence and doesn't give them too much too soon).
As for the downside for the team this year outside of that, despite our obvious shortcomings in our game, we are still second in the North and within reach of the Maple Leafs with games in hand. This, like last year, is probably one of the Jets best chances to potentially win a cup (yes even with our shortcomings). Experimentation with half a shortened season isn't really logical.
I'm all for inserting Stanley and giving him a real shot as he showed some promise this year and we need to see if he's going to be an everyday NHL player.

 

[Whileee]

I think you have a significant amount to 'lose' by playing Samberg and Heinola. Teams that rush developing players to fill big club needs fail.

However, playing Stanley, and to a lesser extent Niku should definitely be the play for the team right now. However, it doesn't really address this teams actual need, which is at least one top pair defenseman. How do we get that?

I've watched Samberg and Heinola play 10 AHL games. Both of them were top D at Liiga and NCAA levels, and were stand-outs in the WJHC. I would take either of them over Stanley, or Beaulieu. It's not like they would be replacing a plus D. I think Samberg can play against tough matchups already. He's big, mobile, smart, with a very good stick and short passing game. He's basically a more mobile Stanley. Heinola would immediately juice the Jets puck movement and transition, and is at least as good as Niku defensively. He has some risk in his game at the AHL level, but he easily manages big / fast AHL players. He's very mobile and his speed is NHL calibre.

 

[Adam da bomb]

I think that theres a lot of downside (part of which I've emoted many times with regards to handling prospects correctly, in a way that builds their confidence and doesn't give them too much too soon).
As for the downside for the team this year outside of that, despite our obvious shortcomings in our game, we are still second in the North and within reach of the Maple Leafs with games in hand. This, like last year, is probably one of the Jets best chances to potentially win a cup (yes even with our shortcomings). Experimentation with half a shortened season isn't really logical.
I'm all for inserting Stanley and giving him a real shot as he showed some promise this year and we need to see if he's going to be an everyday NHL player.

Yes we are doing well. Beaulieu is 3rd pairing that’s not giving Heinola too much too soon to play him on 3rd pairing in a sheltered role. You still have top 2 pairings to take tougher match ups. That does not hurt our prospects as beaulieu on the ice hurts our prospects.