I think it's agreed upon that drawing conclusions from plus minus alone isn't a good idea but it can be used in context with other measures as a data point
I think at this point it boils down to 2 things;
I thought Samberg was great last year and was probably the Jets' best defenseman defensively when he was in the lineup. I wasn't disappointed in his showing at all. He'll never be a point producer but he's a demon in front of Helle and has a solid defensive stick and gaps.
It's no different than any measurement that uses shots as the premise, when your coach is playing prevent, with no attempts to even shoot on the opposing net, just clear the blue line, and hopefully change. Those skew any statistical analysis. And a guy like Dillon got put in a lot of defensive situations during the year, with a line that didn't take a lot of shots either. To finish +16 he was obviously a positive 5 on 5 player in terms of net production, whether it be from a high shooting% of his teammates or whatever the case. Analytical people were all over Dillon before his trade here. So makes you wonder.
I agree with this. It’s going to take at least one, probably two young players taking a big step for the Jets to have any chance of making noise this season. Something like Heinola or Samberg playing at a top pair level, Perfetti putting up 70+ points or someone like a Barron or Gus putting up 40-50 points. I don’t find any of those scenarios to be very likely but it’s not impossible.
You're giving hypothetical situations but how many of those actually played out during the season? In Dillon's case was he on the ice for a line change that ended up a goal, how many times? How many goals was he on for a 5-6 empty net goal? To measure Dillon's performance by shot metrics, who played alot behind Lowry, who isn't necessarily a shooter but a grinder, and a guy like Dillon who played in significant defensive minutes, doesn't always add up. Dillon was definitely a positive player 5 on 5 (2.9 GF vs 2.4 GA), as was Pionk, but they get ripped on here for shot metrics, being the primary defensive pairing. I'd ask someone to properly justify the anomaly between xG and +/-. And as a coach which one are you satisfied with. You know that anyone who plays more defensive zone than offensive zone is going to give up more shots, unless they are truly elite defensively, and still with the passiveness the Jets played with a lead, that's a challenge. Conversely you start in the O zone you get more shots. That's the nature of fundamental mathematics.
We are being too hard on our D... all of them had positive qualities but we just didn't have a cohesive system and our back check kind of went AWOL. Add the fact that Helle was just very good and not god like...
Right now it's hard to guess how a more mentally focused and likely less fatigued Hellebuyck will impact the team. And how the coaching change will affect systematic defects, and player lethargy.
Its very strange how Heinola seems to be the forgotten man now... he probably has the best gap control and potential for offence of any prospect - Stanley seems to be regressing to a 7/8th D at best
I like that kind of lineup. Forces the coach to be in the game, instead of rolling lines, you give extra shifts to your stars on the 4th line, there's some offense and momentum to be had. I think that's the best way to get Heinola into the lineup, and with some departures from last year's PP, a possibility is running 2 d on both PPs.
love how were just so overly dismissive of the other central teams. imo this is what lead to some overzealous expecations last year, especially since - and im assuming here so forgive me if im wrong - we probably didn't watch many of those teams the year prior (since the Jets never played em). other than CHI we were behind these teams b/w 9-24 pts. We lost two middle-6 pieces in Stastny and Copp with 0 replacements (so far). Perhaps Bowness has this as a 100+ pt team not sure. but personnel wise we haven't done anything to be ahead of some of those teams imo.
I'm wondering what ceiling people expect from Perfetti this year. Obviously more than 7 points. If he gets up to 50 points he's surpassed Stastny's output. 40? Copp is trickier. I think Barron is capable of replacing a lot of Copper's ES points, maybe not all, but an increase in production from Appleton (who is technically the replacement for Vesalainen's 3 points), and Lowry might even things out.
0.5 ppg+ should be the minimum. he'll likely be a top-6 fwd & playing alongside great linemates so he'll have to capitalize on this opportunity. Stasny also rates out quite well defensively and gave us versatility as a v good C as well, so not just look at overall points. if barron is with Lowry i am doubtful he reaches Copp's production, and have 0 clue about Barron's PK abilities as Copp usually rated quite well on there.
Saying the Jets will be fighting for a wild card spot is 'overly dismissive' of the other Central teams hahah.... alrighty then.
saying basically all those teams look worse or are question marks is pretty dismissive when the Jets have notable question marks of their own, & look worse compared to this point last year. just vehemently ignore the subtractions to our roster from last season, a new coach that no one wanted, if scheifele will ever show semblance of 2016-2018 play etc.
I don't think we're better *on paper*, but last year we performed so much worse than we should have *on paper* that it wouldn't surprise me at all if we made the playoffs. New coach (who I honestly don't like as a hire) should help alot. More than anything I felt the Jets became complacent and too comfortable and having new directives to focus on should sharpen them up all around. That's my optimistic spin anyways.
So you basically just said St Louis and Dallas look worse than last year... if we are in the mix with them.
Ahh I see now - I am saying Wild, Chi, Nash look worse than they did last year...
How about Re read the post I'm responding to on your first quote. It has to do with their defenses not overall teams.
