Player Discussion: Winnipeg Jets Defense

[RustyCat]

So what happens when Fleury returns? Does he take Stanley’s spot?

Yeah makes you wonder as Fleury played pretty well. I wouldnt be surprised to see Chevy move Stanley to VAN for a guy like Deharnais. Play him on the right side and invest in Heinola on the left side, make Fleury the 7D

 

[Buffdog]

So what happens when Fleury returns? Does he take Stanley’s spot?

That's what we're all hoping for. Ultimately think Chevy upgrades that sopt (3LD) at some point

 

[10Ducky10]

I thought Fleury was healthy already?

 

[Whileee]

This post is a good example of why hes not here... the guy clearly explains his models and others and goes in depth as to what the potential flaws or biases are... and then guys who clearly dont read that content make posts about how garrett thinks hes the be all end all.

Also i can tell you if you think peer review is unbiased you are mistaken... as a polar bear guide ive seen various agendas override science in that world.

Nothing is perfect but the guys making these models for hockey do not have a specific agenda except trying to make their models work.... they dont hate stan or pionk or scheif etc...

I like statistical approaches to hockey analysis but I can say unequivocally that the level of "peer review" and expert discourse about hockey-related models doesn't come close to most scientific fields. There isn't nearly as much transparent scrutiny of data quality and methods as you would see in most research fields. Moreover, many of the hockey stats folks make a living from their own proprietary models. I don't object to that at all, but it does tend to create a level of defensiveness and brittleness that can stifle healthy discourse. Add in that some rely on revenue from the sports gambling enterprise, and things get even murkier.

That said, I find most of the public modelers and data scientists in hockey to be very sharp and engaging. They can be overly dismissive, but that's a feature of social media, generally. I would note that there is also a large contingent of hard core "anti-stats" folks that add to the rancour by dismissing useful statistical insights out of hand.

Balance is hard to find, but overall I think that the introduction of statistical insights has been a great addition for the engaged fan.

 

[Jet]

I like statistical approaches to hockey analysis but I can say unequivocally that the level of "peer review" and expert discourse about hockey-related models doesn't come close to most scientific fields. There isn't nearly as much transparent scrutiny of data quality and methods as you would see in most research fields. Moreover, many of the hockey stats folks make a living from their own proprietary models. I don't object to that at all, but it does tend to create a level of defensiveness and brittleness that can stifle healthy discourse. Add in that some rely on revenue from the sports gambling enterprise, and things get even murkier.

That said, I find most of the public modelers and data scientists in hockey to be very sharp and engaging. They can be overly dismissive, but that's a feature of social media, generally. I would note that there is also a large contingent of hard core "anti-stats" folks that add to the rancour by dismissing useful statistical insights out of hand.

Balance is hard to find, but overall I think that the introduction of statistical insights has been a great addition for the engaged fan.

This right here.

 

[TS Quint]

I like statistical approaches to hockey analysis but I can say unequivocally that the level of "peer review" and expert discourse about hockey-related models doesn't come close to most scientific fields. There isn't nearly as much transparent scrutiny of data quality and methods as you would see in most research fields. Moreover, many of the hockey stats folks make a living from their own proprietary models. I don't object to that at all, but it does tend to create a level of defensiveness and brittleness that can stifle healthy discourse. Add in that some rely on revenue from the sports gambling enterprise, and things get even murkier.

That said, I find most of the public modelers and data scientists in hockey to be very sharp and engaging. They can be overly dismissive, but that's a feature of social media, generally. I would note that there is also a large contingent of hard core "anti-stats" folks that add to the rancour by dismissing useful statistical insights out of hand.

Balance is hard to find, but overall I think that the introduction of statistical insights has been a great addition for the engaged fan.

I think that the advanced stats are good….but just a little too broad to discuss in specific cases to be entirely accurate. A lot of time they don’t are into account specific circumstances and focus on average. I don’t believe in averages when you are talking about specific players especially exceptional players to begin with. Exceptional players can be found at either end of the spectrum and of course those are the most talked about topics. Also many of these stats are looked at like each player has the same amount of responsibility on the ice. Never mind the fact you have one constant and 11 variables on the ice. I think it’s obvious to most people that Centres have more potential for impact on the ice than wingers but in many cases people put every player as equals.

Kyle Connor is a great example of this. Every year people who claim to be stats people change their mind. Oh he’s terrible defensively with Scheifele, oh he learned how to play defense with Dubois, oh he’s terrible with Vilardi and Schiefele, oh now he learned how to defend again. Absolutely none of these opinions have anything to do with what he is doing on the ice.

 

[Gm0ney]

I think that the advanced stats are good….but just a little too broad to discuss in specific cases to be entirely accurate. A lot of time they don’t are into account specific circumstances and focus on average. I don’t believe in averages when you are talking about specific players especially exceptional players to begin with. Exceptional players can be found at either end of the spectrum and of course those are the most talked about topics. Also many of these stats are looked at like each player has the same amount of responsibility on the ice. Never mind the fact you have one constant and 11 variables on the ice. I think it’s obvious to most people that Centres have more potential for impact on the ice than wingers but in many cases people put every player as equals.

Kyle Connor is a great example of this. Every year people who claim to be stats people change their mind. Oh he’s terrible defensively with Scheifele, oh he learned how to play defense with Dubois, oh he’s terrible with Vilardi and Schiefele, oh now he learned how to defend again. Absolutely none of these opinions have anything to do with what he is doing on the ice.

You're saying that the general opinion of "stats people" has vacillated on Connor's defense over the years? That's not how I remember it. But human memory is notoriously fallible. That's one of the reasons why stats come in handy.

I think the general stats people consensus was that the combo of Connor + Scheifele was poor defensively - and that's pretty much been the case in every season since 2017-18, until this year.

Pointing out that the on-ice results were that the Jets gave up fewer chances and significantly outscored their opponents when he was with Dubois isn't flip flopping.

Also, I think Connor's blame for defensive ineptitude is based a lot on the eye test. He was often controller-disconnected in the D-zone in previous years, but he's way more engaged and looks like he's trying this year.