- Dec 29, 2016
- 7,886
- 14,442
Thanks King -
Yes, I would hope at $6M is he not a liability -
Player Discussion: Winnipeg Jets Defense
- Thread starter voyageur
- Start date
Yes, I would hope at $6M is he not a liability -
The Jets were doing better with him when Samberg was his partner. Since Samberg's injury, Pionk's play has suffered greatly.
Last season the Jets did far better with Pionk off the ice. Same thing in 2022-23.
You say he measures out well so far this season no matter what advanced stat you look at? Among the 7 Jets defensemen who've played 200 minutes this season, he's either 5th, 6th or 7th in terms of giving up shot attempts, expected goals against, scoring chances against, HD scoring chances against and actual goals against at 5v5.
Last year, same thing. Year before that, same thing. Year before THAT, same thing.
You have to go back to the shortened Canada Division 2020-21 season before you can find Pionk outside of the basement of Jets defensemen. He played 83% of his 5v5 minutes with Forbert that year.
Board Bard
Dane-O-Mite
- Jun 7, 2014
- 7,949
- 5,241
The team isn't in development mode right now but they insist on developing Stanley after already doing so for years and years. So they're in selective development mode. Too bad they selected poorly.
MardyBum
Registered User
"Yeah he's been very good look at the dmans GF/60(?)"
Edit: Can sprinkle in the roadtrip excuse but it's every year with this "top 4 dman" not being a top 4 dman and needing his partner to carry the luggage.
So your argument is we should judge players on the smallest sample size possible as it suites are our argument?
MardyBum
Registered User
Would you like to judge him on the large sample size?
Thought the whole narrative was he was "back" this year?
voyageur
Hockey fanatic
- Jul 10, 2011
- 10,796
- 10,468
Buddy we have a defenseman that is top 10 in the league in scoring and he's got a positive goal differential. He's not being caved out there if you have 2 eyes and half a brain. But these xG arguments...You guys solved the matrix. Smarter than Arniel. Good job. You guys are just shit disturbers spreading shit on this forum.
The same ASSES that kept whining about Connor being worse than Ehlers and there we have it, the 2nd best scoring trio in the NHL.
Buffdog
Registered User
- Feb 13, 2019
- 8,700
- 21,294
Hockey is unique because a player's performance can depend largely on who he's out there with
Pionk is the type of player that needs someone to help elevate him. Does that make him "bad"? I'd argue that a player that CAN'T be elevated by anyone is the true "bad" player
The beauty of team sports is that players have teammates, and sometimes certain players compliment other players well
Pionk's been bleeding chances for years but 15 good games this season and he's all fixed I guess.
The 2nd best scoring trio in the NHL because they have the most minutes together. CSV is #1 in TOI and #22 in Goals-For/60. And 10th worst in Goals-Against/60. Out of 33 forward lines that have 150+ minutes together this year, they're 25th in goal differential...but I guess goals against don't count in your ASSESsment...
I don't think Pionk is bad. I imagine even most of his biggest critics feel this way. I'm sure there are exceptions.
I do think the Jets see him as this proven #3D and he struggles because he is not that. This year he has been outscorong his limitations on D. It's just been years since that was the case.
You are right, some guys drive the play and some guys mesh well with that type.
I think in a 3rd pair role Pionk is a great asset. Pionk has just traditionally been more of a $3M value dman making $6M and is always one of our weaker defensive dmen. I'm sure his results would improve some if he was in a role he can excel in.
If counting stats is a measurement for him he has been amazing this year. If we are projecting likelihood in his role to being successful in the post-season? Those reservations are still there.
I imagine everyone thinks Arniel has done a great job overall this year. That doesn't mean he isn't making some choices that, if we stick with them, could come back to haunt us big time when the second season starts.Pionk's been bleeding chances for years but 15 good games this season and he's all fixed I guess.
The 2nd best scoring trio in the NHL because they have the most minutes together. CSV is #1 in TOI and #22 in Goals-For/60. And 10th worst in Goals-Against/60. Out of 33 forward lines that have 150+ minutes together this year, they're 25th in goal differential...but I guess goals against don't count in your ASSESsment...
The Stanley experiment being front and center.
Last edited:
Crocket
Registered User
- Jul 14, 2013
- 1,241
- 749
If Samberg was in the lineup we probably suffer the same collapse, and the numbers would be the same. Pionk and Samberg were good early on, and Pionk was outperforming offensively early, but they started to come back to earth before the injury.
Not saying Samberg wasn't good, but a couple games where you saw Samberg and Pionk get outscored badly, in no way were they perfect.
The point is. That's really misleading data. The Jets weren't going 81-1-0 even with Samberg
Crocket
Registered User
- Jul 14, 2013
- 1,241
- 749
This chart reflects the team. Doesn't really say much about Samberg or Pionk, unless the team data was markedly different.
voyageur
Hockey fanatic
- Jul 10, 2011
- 10,796
- 10,468
Is it a positive goal differential???Pionk's been bleeding chances for years but 15 good games this season and he's all fixed I guess.
The 2nd best scoring trio in the NHL because they have the most minutes together. CSV is #1 in TOI and #22 in Goals-For/60. And 10th worst in Goals-Against/60. Out of 33 forward lines that have 150+ minutes together this year, they're 25th in goal differential...but I guess goals against don't count in your ASSESsment...
Is Pionk producing a positive goal differential???
You guys come on here after the team goes through a rough stretch, you were so quiet before, and now it starts again especially after a game in which the Jets were outshot almost 2 to 1 and were at 4 shots halfway through a game. And you try to prove someone is ass. What was Heinola's xG against Vegas?
You have no context to the stats you post, zone times, situations, etc. Forward groups. Failed zone clears and by who. You just post xG which Arniel used as a reference exactly 0 times this year, so it's obviously not a stat he's using.
Only thing I can say is that Pionk has become a lot less aggressive offensively since Samberg went down. And that is probably to limit rush chances. I mean like every other single player on the team he has breakdowns and I am sure the xG for the whole team in this rough stretch isn't great.
I just can't take you guys seriously because I don't think you are watching the games, just looking for a player you like less than your favourite player to attack.
And it was the same in the offseason with you. So I don't expect to be any different.
I don't think it's fair to say he posts stats with no context when you are yourself using stats like top 10 D in scoring
When you start to put together goal %, xG%, shot differential, high danger %UT with different partners, that's how you start to put together a pretty accurate picture. Especially when you have last year with a close to identical roster and role to draw on.
I used to be guilty of this myself so I feel like a hypocrite. But I feel now like when someone starts saying someone else isn't watching the games, they haven't played hockey, etc... that's the first sign the argument isn't holding up and frustration comes out.
I really like the coaching perspective you have when evaluating guys, and the importance of their roles. Clearly defined roles are a huge part of positive morale for any team- not just hockey. To me, who cares if Arniel isn't using the Twitter stats? We are talking about our own evaluations, not just deferring to the coach.
Does playing Samberg on his off side to make room for Stanley over Miller or Schmidt in the playoffs make sense to you? That is a coaching decision. Was it just automatically right because they have more information than we do? Or are they just making bad decisions sometimes. Or not evaluating certain players correctly? I know what I think...
All the stuff like zone starts, forward groups etc can help add context. But do you know, or are you just guessing these would make Pionk look better?
I know neither of us is changing the other's mind. But pretty sure we all watch the games and want the team to win.
voyageur
Hockey fanatic
- Jul 10, 2011
- 10,796
- 10,468
You just have to look at what the poster I replied to posted in the Pionk thread in the offseason to know what he thinks. He literally said he wasn't an NHL player. Based on xG when he and Dillon were a positive goal differential during the season and the only pairing that wasn't a minus in the first 3 games of the playoffs.
Not a peep about the xG between him and Samberg. Which I don't care about really but it proves a pre existing bias. Which we all have..
But looking at the timing of this crusade. Jets are in a mediocre stretch getting outshot a lot. Still winning enough to be considered contenders.
I see a much less aggressive Jets team making up for some personnel losses and not moving the puck as well against tougher teams than they had success on early in the year. Do you see Pionk breaking down consistently? How many zone clears that transition zone change is he responsible for?
As for the change last year I wasn't on these boards but I was watching Schmidt really struggle and nearly cost the Jets games near the end. So I didn't mind the change. It didn't work but Schmidt was brutal in the playoffs. Only he didn't have a game 5 like Pionk so that's what people remembered.
Miller had a good game, he's a limited defenseman but he can have a positive impact.
You are a good mediator Flair, I'll give you that. Keep a level head.
I can't engage too much in this debate, have to expend energy in more positive ways.
I'm sure there will be more added to this discussion.
WolfHouse
Registered User
- Oct 4, 2020
- 11,018
- 17,229
I find it utterly charming that you use essentially the same 'logic' to defend Pionk's recent bad play that you used to write of Kovacevic - ie Kovacevic never wowed and it was up to him to break into the league while Pionk is a good player provided we find the right guy to make him good - something along those lines haha
The fallacy in your argument is that you don't account for how good a player like Samberg could be without Pionk... Theres a real case to say that Samberg has actually carried every pairing he's had almost since day one - are we sure that Miller wouldn't be headed for a big contract if he played second pairing with Samberg?
Then this leads back to Stan... how many players has he made worse? The beauty of the game is chemistry and we have now used two prospects on their off-hand side just to accommodate Stan - essentially slowing their development.
Buffdog
Registered User
- Feb 13, 2019
- 8,700
- 21,294
I've never said those things about Kovacevic. My entire position with him was that unfortunaltey, his development timeline didn't align with the team's desire to have an NHL proven back end. When they aquired Schmidt, he only had 75 games of AHL experience and 0 NHL games. Please in the future don't accuse me of saying anything BUT that, because it's all I've ever said from the start of this
The fallacy with YOUR argument is that if Samberg had a partner that made HIM better, then he'd be the weaker link. Every pairing has a stronger player and a weaker player
As for Stan, the only time that him and a partner seemed to have some level of symbiosis was with Schmidt last year, but in a very sheltered role
Was I quiet before? I think I post here rain or shine.
So your problem isn't with stats - it's just that you think I'm using the wrong ones? Like shot metrics are not painting an accurate picture of Pionk and the real answers are in zone time or some proprietary stat that Arniel uses that somehow paints the opposite picture?
Doesn't any of that shot metric stuff interest you at all for it's potential value to shed some light on things? Or is it just that you don't like what it's saying? Or you don't like my conclusions?
I didn't come up the idea that Pionk's a bit of a d-zone disaster from a spreadsheet anyway...I've seen it in real time with my own eyes! He's a pretty visible defenseman out there, for better or worse. The stats just help quantify what's going on and add some context.
When I make arguments for or against players its because I think they're helpful or unhelpful in the context of helping the team. It's nothing personal. Unless we're talking about that fat f*** CFL punter Paul Osbaldiston...then it's personal.
WolfHouse
Registered User
- Oct 4, 2020
- 11,018
- 17,229
We have already debated your Schmidt argument - and I don't feel that Schmidt was the direct cause - lots of teams hide players... and then you just randomly extrapolate that Kovacevic would never have played his off-side if asked, yet everyone else would.
As for being offended by my statement, it like what YESTERDAY that you claimed that I said Kovacevic shoudl be on Team Canada...??? Haha - maybe check your own bullshit meter before commenting.
Like it or not, it is your highly irritating semantics and the arguments they create that are now more this teams good luck charm - sorry Plain Jane... and I pray for all of us
- Dec 29, 2016
- 7,886
- 14,442
We can pick on the Jets D with or without stats - on their best days, when they are getting the most support from the rest of the line, they are OK to good.
IMO, most of it depends on the teams play, how they chip in to defend in the dzone, or how defensive minded they are in the zones outside of the dzone. I don't know if stats consider any of this.
Maybe they do but we choose to break down the issues by player rather than look at plays and how they develop. The end result is a goal or an attempt to score where the issue may have started with a turnover or missed coverage in O/N zones - but the dman is where we converge because we don't pay much attention to the upstream effects that start the fire in the first place. And if we do point out the turnover for example, we don't connect it to the end result. Some on here will connect the dots but in more cases, they are going to attack the player (usually one they don't like) and assign blame.
You're a stats guy so I'll get to my point - do the stats look at upstream impact when the defense breaks down? Do stats connect the dots?
IMO, they don't - but I'm no expert and this could be a dumb question or point to make - so I'd appreciate an opinion from someone who has a better handle on stats than I do.
Buffdog
Registered User
- Feb 13, 2019
- 8,700
- 21,294
I'm sure Kovacevic would have played his offside if asked, but asking him to do so in the NHL with zero experience isn't realisticWe have already debated your Schmidt argument - and I don't feel that Schmidt was the direct cause - lots of teams hide players... and then you just randomly extrapolate that Kovacevic would never have played his off-side if asked, yet everyone else would.
As for being offended by my statement, it like what YESTERDAY that you claimed that I said Kovacevic shoudl be on Team Canada...??? Haha - maybe check your own bullshit meter before commenting.
Like it or not, it is your highly irritating semantics and the arguments they create that are now more this teams good luck charm - sorry Plain Jane... and I pray for all of us
Who said anything about being offended? Did I use that word? If so, can you show me where?
The only reason you find my semantics irritating is because they expose all he flaws in your arguments. That's why you're constantly moving the goalposts and bringing up stuff like that "offended" thing. It's borderline gaslighting
