Winnipeg Jets going into the 24/25 season

[Mortimer Snerd]

I think he goes as he just doesn't fit really what the org wants stylistically. He also doesn't get it done in the playoffs.

KC since his first time scores at 35/82 game pace in the playoffs. That is right in line with what he does in the regular season. The question is does he give too much back that it negates those goals.

It is true that Ehlers has never managed to get it done in the PO but I think this is being way overstated. His first PO was the only one where the team around him played well. He was the same age then as Perfetti is now. He was not great that year, but he was not bad either picking up 7 assists in 15 games. Every PO since then the team has been bad. He did not have the advantage of playing on the 1st line, like KC did.

This does not suddenly make his mediocre production good. Just looking at a little context. You could argue that if Ehlers had played better, produced more, maybe those PO teams would have been better. But he could have scored a goal in each game this year and the outcome would have been exactly the same as it was.

I think Ehlers has to be the one to go this off-season but not because of poor PO production. I don't think he will extend here and that means he has to go. Jets can't afford to lose valuable assets like Nik for nothing.

 

[Gm0ney]

I'm sure they did, but a semi-generational talent/sometimes best player in the world, a Norris winning/best dman on the planet and a goalie who posted 4 games of save percentages above .919 didn't hurt

Oh, no, wait... must have been the Statsnerds

Their players have talked about it. It's just established fact that analytics plays a big part in successful hockey.

Read it and weep:

Did how the Avs use analytics help the club in its five-game rout of the Jets?​

​

“Yes, absolutely,” Johnson said.​

​

Care to share any examples now that the series is over? ​

​

“No,” Johnson replied with a mischievous grin. “We knew there were certain things that they did well, and there were certain things that they struggled with. And we knew those were the things we were going to focus on and try to exploit.”​

How use of analytics is part of Colorado Avalanche’s secret sauce: “Numbers are unemotional”

For the Avalanche, it’s not just the quality of information from the four-person team on the analytics staff, but how it gets communicated and circulated throughout the organization that help…

www.denverpost.com

 

[Conflicted Habs fan]

I'll start working on that right away. No promises.

Hypothesis. Solving time-travel will help us rebuild an incredible Winnipeg Dynasty.
Methods: Ponder and guess.
Aim 1. To be determined.

Grant budget: $65 CAD

Materials and Supplies: 2 cases of locally brewed IPA.
Assiniboine Park bench (nonspecific locale). Free.
Conveyance to said park (Ageing Jeep Wrangler). Will require a couple of liters of fuel @ $1.45/litre. Straight 6 in line of questionable efficiency.

Give my regards to uncle Rico

 

[BarnabyJones PI]

It seemed like the defensive gameplan changed. The Jets were backing way off trying not to get burned but then that just granted the Avs free access to the zone...where the team apparently decided to collapse more deeply than they traditionally had during the regular season.

Colorado's hard forecheck was causing lots of problems too. Led to lots of failed exits and goals against. Again, the Jets never seemed to figure out a counter.

Also, when things start to go bad, the Jets just seem to completely lose all composure and panic. Like they're so worried about making a mistake they make 10x as many mistakes.

And Hellebuyck was getting a lot of criticism on here during the series, but after he claimed he was playing the best hockey of his career and Mike Kelly put out the screened shot stats, everyone seems to have forgotten how Hellebuyck was one of the most panicked Jets...flopping around like Pavs out there. Probably the worst 5 game stretch of goaltending he's played for the Jets. Every game he let in at least one - and often a couple - where you'd say "he shoulda had that".

The Avs used analytics and smart tactical game planning to dismantle the Jets. Attack weaknesses and play to Colorado's strengths. The Jets coaching staff just kind of threw up their hands and went with their guts.

Hopefully, Hellebuyck's irrational confidence will pay off in the long run.

When the league figured out that Jim Carey's weakness was stopping pucks shot around his shoulders, he went from being one of the top goalies, to out of the league by the time he was 24. Removing that one Jenga piece was enough to make everything else topple over.

Hellybuyck gave up at least two goals to Nichushkin who was driving right side - not being screened - scoring over his right shoulder with ease. Hopefully that doesn't mess him up long term, because from what I understand, that's not something a goalie fixes.

 

[Buffdog]

Their players have talked about it. It's just established fact that analytics plays a big part in successful hockey.

Read it and weep:

Did how the Avs use analytics help the club in its five-game rout of the Jets?​

​

“Yes, absolutely,” Johnson said.​

​

Care to share any examples now that the series is over? ​

​

“No,” Johnson replied with a mischievous grin. “We knew there were certain things that they did well, and there were certain things that they struggled with. And we knew those were the things we were going to focus on and try to exploit.”​

How use of analytics is part of Colorado Avalanche’s secret sauce: “Numbers are unemotional”

For the Avalanche, it’s not just the quality of information from the four-person team on the analytics staff, but how it gets communicated and circulated throughout the organization that help…

www.denverpost.com

Do you understand that correlation =/= causation?

They could have beaten un any way they wanted to with the way the Jets played. You can come up with gameplans based on the eye test too, you know.

I guess the more people a team has working in their analytics department, they better they fare

Oh wait.... what do the top 6 teams have in common right now?

It's interesting that the top 8 teams employ as many people in their analytics departments as the rest of the league combined, yet don't fare any better (and the argument could be made that they're worse)

Also interesting to note that the Rangers (7-0 these playoffs) employ the same number as the Jets

I'm curious to hear your excuses for this

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

It's to bad we couldn't find another top 6 C that can play over Scheif. Still hoping one of Perfetti/Lambert becomes that and we can move Scheif down to 2C. Connor on the top line with a younger fresher center and big body that can muck it up in the corners and play some defence would be nice.

I think Chibrikov can possibly fill in on the wing next year if Ehlers is gone. I don't expect him to replace Ehlers entirely yet but I think he has some potential.

I doubt either Cole or Lambert can displace Scheifele. They are our hopes for 2C. If either of them is our regular 1C we are a lottery team.

We will be very hard pressed to replace Ehlers. We can fill a top 6 winger spot but that is not the same thing.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Very frustrating that we kicked Colorado all 3 regular season games and could only win one game in the playoffs. Our defense definitely needs a upgrade, at least 2 new defenseman next year but i don't care what Helly said at seasons end interviews, that is probably the Vezina winning goalie and to me he has to play better than he did. At the very least win one game by him stealing it.

I don't think any goalie in history steals a game if he can't see the puck. Maybe Hasek. He was so quick he could compensate.

 

[Jets 31]

I don't think any goalie in history steals a game if he can't see the puck. Maybe Hasek. He was so quick he could compensate.

Oh don't get me wrong we played like shit defensively and i'm not blaming it on Helly. I just think that the best goalie in the NHL should be able to steal at least one game. If we don't score 7 goals in game 1 we would have lost 4 straight.

 

[Gm0ney]

Do you understand that correlation =/= causation?

They could have beaten un any way they wanted to with the way the Jets played. You can come up with gameplans based on the eye test too, you know.

I guess the more people a team has working in their analytics department, they better they fare

Oh wait.... what do the top 6 teams have in common right now?

View attachment 868415

It's interesting that the top 8 teams employ as many people in their analytics departments as the rest of the league combined, yet don't fare any better (and the argument could be made that they're worse)

Also interesting to note that the Rangers (7-0 these playoffs) employ the same number as the Jets

I'm curious to hear your excuses for this

I dunno...8 out of the ten 100-point teams this season had 4+ analytics staff. Nearly 70% of playoff teams had 4 or more analytics staff.

Teams with 3 or fewer analytics staff: more than half missed the playoffs - and the objectively terrible Washington Capitals were one of those that made it. One of the others that made the playoffs is the Canucks who would neither confirm nor deny how many people they had in data-related roles. And I find it a little odd that Vegas has 1 employee in the field and it's the "Director of Hockey Analytics" - what's this one guy directing? Their Director of Scouting has like 25 staff. Maybe they farm out all the math?

Anyway, seems like it's important. NHL teams are employing 145 people in data-related roles according to your graphic...so someone thinks they're useful.

 

[Buffdog]

I dunno...8 out of the ten 100-point teams this season had 4+ analytics staff. Nearly 70% of playoff teams had 4 or more analytics staff.

Teams with 3 or fewer analytics staff: more than half missed the playoffs - and the objectively terrible Washington Capitals were one of those that made it. One of the others that made the playoffs is the Canucks who would neither confirm nor deny how many people they had in data-related roles. And I find it a little odd that Vegas has 1 employee in the field and it's the "Director of Hockey Analytics" - what's this one guy directing? Their Director of Scouting has like 25 staff. Maybe they farm out all the math?

Anyway, seems like it's important. NHL teams are employing 145 people in data-related roles according to your graphic...so someone thinks they're useful.

This is a classic post. Mention that the bottom teams have less staff, but ignore the fact that the teams with the most staff are highly unsuccessful

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I point out confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance in the community. It's almost like "being right" is more important to you than being honest

Maybe there's a sweet spot where too few staff don't provide enough data and too many staff means that teams are TOO reliant on analytics and miss other things that are important too

 

[raideralex99]

This is a classic post. Mention that the bottom teams have less staff, but ignore the fact that the teams with the most staff are highly unsuccessful

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I point out confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance in the community. It's almost like "being right" is more important to you than being honest

Maybe there's a sweet spot where too few staff don't provide enough data and too many staff means that teams are TOO reliant on analytics and miss other things that are important too

It seems like the only guys pushing for the analytics are the guy who want a job in it.
Do analytics tell us who is going to win or how to win the game?
When analytics can predict who will win the games then I might take them seriously.
Your chart above proves it ... analytics mean nothing. The last place teams has 7 specialist doing the analytics while the SC champs only have one lol
I put more trust in a scouting report than analytics.

 

[Duke749]

Do you understand that correlation =/= causation?

They could have beaten un any way they wanted to with the way the Jets played. You can come up with gameplans based on the eye test too, you know.

I guess the more people a team has working in their analytics department, they better they fare

Oh wait.... what do the top 6 teams have in common right now?

View attachment 868415

It's interesting that the top 8 teams employ as many people in their analytics departments as the rest of the league combined, yet don't fare any better (and the argument could be made that they're worse)

Also interesting to note that the Rangers (7-0 these playoffs) employ the same number as the Jets

I'm curious to hear your excuses for this

“Data-related roles” can be pretty vague to be honest. All things equal there’s not much correlation. But teams like Chicago could employ as many people as they want but they’d still be awful, whereas teams like the Rangers or Avs it wouldn’t really make a difference as they’re gonna be very good regardless.

 

[Buffdog]

“Data-related roles” can be pretty vague to be honest. All things equal there’s not much correlation. But teams like Chicago could employ as many people as they want but they’d still be awful, whereas teams like the Rangers or Avs it wouldn’t really make a difference as they’re gonna be very good regardless.

Which was my original point

We got beaten by a better team because they have better players and we played like dogshit

 

[Gm0ney]

This is a classic post. Mention that the bottom teams have less staff, but ignore the fact that the teams with the most staff are highly unsuccessful

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I point out confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance in the community. It's almost like "being right" is more important to you than being honest

Maybe there's a sweet spot where too few staff don't provide enough data and too many staff means that teams are TOO reliant on analytics and miss other things that are important too

The only team with a high number of data-related staff that you could call "wildly unsuccessful" is the Chicago Blackhawks - and I'd guess that those data folks are probably doing something other than using the power of analytics to help the team win now. We will maybe see the fruits of their current labour in a season or two when the Hawks roll over the Jets like the Avs just did.

As for other teams that have a lot of analytics staff:

The Leafs haven't missed the playoffs in years. They just lost a coinflip series to the Bruins.

The Pens are a bubble team trying to extend the Crosby/Malkin/Letang era by any means neccessary. I wouldn't categorize them as "wildly unsuccessful" yet. Just desperate for any possible edge.

The Devils have a solid lineup and were undone by bottom 3 goaltending this year. Last year they finished 3rd overall and won in the first round.

The Isles: Okay, finally a franchise that's been arguably unsuccessful for quite a while. But they've made the playoffs for the last two seasons so...I mean that's TNSE's definition of success, right?

Seattle in their 3rd season. Not sure if they're wildly unsuccessful yet but they put up 100 points last year and beat the Avs in the playoffs...so probably not.

Canes? This is a really good team. 111 points. 3rd overall. Won in the first round. But last year they had...113 points, made the ECF? Okay but the year before that they had 116 points and only won one round. But the year before that they were 3rd in the league and won a round. Huh...should I keep going? Let me know when I get to the highly unsuccessful part that obviously inversely correlates with their high analytics staff numbers.

Oilers - ah, now here's a highly unsuccessful team...except they've finished 2nd in their division for 5 straight seasons and have been to the WCF and won two more series in the first round during that span. So maybe not.

That's everyone with 6 or more analytics staff. At the 5 staff level we have 3 of the last 4 Cup winners, plus the Bruins, Kings and...oh, the San Jose Sharks. Is that who you meant by "wildly unsuccessful"? I stand corrected!

 

[Buffdog]

The only team with a high number of data-related staff that you could call "wildly unsuccessful" is the Chicago Blackhawks - and I'd guess that those data folks are probably doing something other than using the power of analytics to help the team win now. We will maybe see the fruits of their current labour in a season or two when the Hawks roll over the Jets like the Avs just did.

As for other teams that have a lot of analytics staff:

The Leafs haven't missed the playoffs in years. They just lost a coinflip series to the Bruins.

The Pens are a bubble team trying to extend the Crosby/Malkin/Letang era by any means neccessary. I wouldn't categorize them as "wildly unsuccessful" yet. Just desperate for any possible edge.

The Devils have a solid lineup and were undone by bottom 3 goaltending this year. Last year they finished 3rd overall and won in the first round.

The Isles: Okay, finally a franchise that's been arguably unsuccessful for quite a while. But they've made the playoffs for the last two seasons so...I mean that's TNSE's definition of success, right?

Seattle in their 3rd season. Not sure if they're wildly unsuccessful yet but they put up 100 points last year and beat the Avs in the playoffs...so probably not.

Canes? This is a really good team. 111 points. 3rd overall. Won in the first round. But last year they had...113 points, made the ECF? Okay but the year before that they had 116 points and only won one round. But the year before that they were 3rd in the league and won a round. Huh...should I keep going? Let me know when I get to the highly unsuccessful part that obviously inversely correlates with their high analytics staff numbers.

Oilers - ah, now here's a highly unsuccessful team...except they've finished 2nd in their division for 5 straight seasons and have been to the WCF and won two more series in the first round during that span. So maybe not.

That's everyone with 6 or more analytics staff. At the 5 staff level we have 3 of the last 4 Cup winners, plus the Bruins, Kings and...oh, the San Jose Sharks. Is that who you meant by "wildly unsuccessful"? I stand corrected!

None of the top 6 are playing right now

One in the top 8

Remember when we had a poll about whether or not a 1st round exit would mean a failed season? How did you vote?

Another bout of cognitive dissonance. On one hand, only playoff success is important. Until it isn't, because it doesn't suit your narrative. Then it's all about regular season. If you're gonna use regular season success as a meteic, then I guess "The Rick Bownes the Stubborn Dinosaur Coaching Method" works too, since we finished fourth. Which is it?

Never change, @Gm0ney

Your replies are always filled with exactly I accuse you of doing. Cherry picking to suit your views

 

[Orrrules]

AI makes more staff redundant.

 

[Daximus]

I doubt either Cole or Lambert can displace Scheifele. They are our hopes for 2C. If either of them is our regular 1C we are a lottery team.

We will be very hard pressed to replace Ehlers. We can fill a top 6 winger spot but that is not the same thing.

Yeah probably should have clarified that as a long term hope. We need on of them to supplant Scheif in the coming years. Pretty much our only hope currently.

It's going to be very hard to replace Ehlers in the regular season. Very replaceable in the playoffs though.

 

[WolfHouse]

Their players have talked about it. It's just established fact that analytics plays a big part in successful hockey.

Read it and weep:

Did how the Avs use analytics help the club in its five-game rout of the Jets?​

​

“Yes, absolutely,” Johnson said.​

​

Care to share any examples now that the series is over? ​

​

“No,” Johnson replied with a mischievous grin. “We knew there were certain things that they did well, and there were certain things that they struggled with. And we knew those were the things we were going to focus on and try to exploit.”​

How use of analytics is part of Colorado Avalanche’s secret sauce: “Numbers are unemotional”

For the Avalanche, it’s not just the quality of information from the four-person team on the analytics staff, but how it gets communicated and circulated throughout the organization that help…

www.denverpost.com

Let's see everyone else is blue and this guy has a big red bar going the other way... someone get me some video of this pionk fellow

 

[Buffdog]

Let's see everyone else is blue and this guy has a big red bar going the other way... someone get me some video of this pionk fellow

Exactly. Avs coaching staff watch a half a period of tape and say "dump it in Pionk's corner and Stanley's corner and get on them fast. They'll turn it over"

But it was the analytics that won it for them somehow

 

[WolfHouse]

Exactly. Avs coaching staff watch a half a period of tape and say "dump it in Pionk's corner and Stanley's corner and get on them fast. They'll turn it over"

But it was the analytics that won it for them somehow

TWa% train wrecks above expected

 

[JetsFan815]

I dunno...8 out of the ten 100-point teams this season had 4+ analytics staff. Nearly 70% of playoff teams had 4 or more analytics staff.

Teams with 3 or fewer analytics staff: more than half missed the playoffs - and the objectively terrible Washington Capitals were one of those that made it. One of the others that made the playoffs is the Canucks who would neither confirm nor deny how many people they had in data-related roles. And I find it a little odd that Vegas has 1 employee in the field and it's the "Director of Hockey Analytics" - what's this one guy directing? Their Director of Scouting has like 25 staff. Maybe they farm out all the math?

Anyway, seems like it's important. NHL teams are employing 145 people in data-related roles according to your graphic...so someone thinks they're useful.

Not to mention at the end of the day it doesn't matter if you have 1 analytic staff or a 100 if the person in charge of the final decisions is not that interested in analytics and prefers to coach and make decisions based on "gut". Clearly someone in the Jets org was pointing out analytics to Bones as he made vague references to them one time in Feb talking about the numbers of 27-55-13 line and that great quote about "can't hide behind analytics" but it is also clear based on his usage Bones wasn't putting a lot of value or faith in what he was being told.

Avs employ @DTMAboutHeart and most likely have more buy-in across the organization when it comes to using stats than many other teams.

I would rather a team employ just 1 good person in their analytic staff while having buy in across the organization rather than have a large staff of 20 where the people making final decisions are giving you little buy in.

I know someone who knows someone who was pretty much the lead analytics person in a franchise in a non-hockey sport overseas and they said that what this person was telling the coach was not only falling on deaf years but also that the coach was giving them "get me data about this" type tasks focusing on things that were known to be useless in the sport but which the coach believed in.

Exactly. Avs coaching staff watch a half a period of tape and say "dump it in Pionk's corner and Stanley's corner and get on them fast. They'll turn it over"

But it was the analytics that won it for them somehow

Someone who pays attention to analytics could have pointed out to the coaches about how rough Pionk had been and if listened to by the coach could have opened an opportunity at the deadline to either acquire a new dman to replace him or try out someone else in his role instead of promoting him up the lineup when he was clearly drowning in the minutes he already had. Same for Stanley, infact many people had been pointing out how unwise it was to use Pionk/Stanley in those roles as opposed to "no questioning the coach who has coached for 30 years".

Clearly the coach's eyes had a blindspot for Pionk and precisely in situations like these the coach paying attention to the data could have revealed something that he is clearly missing and could have made changes instead of his role being increased and costing us in the playoffs. Analytics isn't just about finding ways to beat other team, it is also not leaving open chinks in your armor for the opposition to exploit.

 

[Buffdog]

Not to mention at the end of the day it doesn't matter if you have 1 analytic staff or a 100 if the person in charge of the final decisions is not that interested in analytics and prefers to coach and make decisions based on "gut". Clearly someone in the Jets org was pointing out analytics to Bones as he made vague references to them one time in Feb talking about the numbers of 27-55-13 line and that great quote about "can't hide behind analytics" but it is also clear based on his usage Bones wasn't putting a lot of value or faith in what he was being told.

Avs employ @DTMAboutHeart and most likely have more buy-in across the organization when it comes to using stats than many other teams.

I would rather a team employ just 1 good person in their analytic staff while having buy in across the organization rather than have a large staff of 20 where the people making final decisions are giving you little buy in.

I know someone who knows someone who was pretty much the lead analytics person in a franchise in a non-hockey sport overseas and they said that what this person was telling the coach was not only falling on deaf years but also that the coach was giving them "get me data about this" type tasks focusing on things that were known to be useless in the sport but which the coach believed in.



Someone who pays attention to analytics could have pointed out to the coaches about how rough Pionk had been and if listened to by the coach could have opened an opportunity at the deadline to either acquire a new dman to replace him or try out someone else in his role instead of promoting him up the lineup when he was clearly drowning in the minutes he already had. Same for Stanley, infact many people had been pointing out how unwise it was to use Pionk/Stanley in those roles as opposed to "no questioning the coach who has coached for 30 years".

Clearly the coach's eyes had a blindspot for Pionk and precisely in situations like these the coach paying attention to the data could have revealed something that he is clearly missing and could have made changes instead of his role being increased and costing us in the playoffs. Analytics isn't just about finding ways to beat other team, it is also not leaving open chinks in your armor for the opposition to exploit.

Good post

But did we honestly need an analytics department to figure out that Pionk was dogshit? The eye test had been saying that for weeks leading up to the playoffs

To me the value of analytics may lie in sussing out less obvious things. You've been vocal in how analytics should play a role in line up decisions, and I agree that that's an example of what I'm talking about (while at the same time acknowledging that other factors will play a role in those decisions also)

 

[WolfHouse]

“Data-related roles” can be pretty vague to be honest. All things equal there’s not much correlation. But teams like Chicago could employ as many people as they want but they’d still be awful, whereas teams like the Rangers or Avs it wouldn’t really make a difference as they’re gonna be very good regardless.

Vegas has one data guy and 10 LTIR lawyers

 

[Gm0ney]

Never change, @Gm0ney

Your replies are always filled with exactly I accuse you of doing. Cherry picking to suit your views

Hang on now...this all started because you took some kind of personal offense to me saying that: "The Avs used analytics and smart tactical game planning to dismantle the Jets. Attack weaknesses and play to Colorado's strengths. The Jets coaching staff just kind of threw up their hands and went with their guts."

Then I brought receipts: Jack Johnson literally crediting analytics with helping the Avs dissect the Jets.

Then you start, I dunno, running everything up the flagpole and seeing who salutes?

Do you understand that correlation =/= causation?

What are you talking about? I said the Avs used analytics to dismantle the Jets. Jack Johnson said the Avs used analytics to dismantle the Jets. The Avs dismantled the Jets. There's a whole article about how important analytics is to the Avs. Or was it actually the Avs watching Pionk's Funniest Home Videos and they're just saying it was analytics to throw us off the scent? I guess we'll never know...

They could have beaten un any way they wanted to with the way the Jets played. You can come up with gameplans based on the eye test too, you know.

Ooh...alternate theories. Yes, the real killer is out there, OJ! Do you have some articles to show me? Some player quotes that credits traditional scouting with their series domination? No? Okay then.

I guess the more people a team has working in their analytics department, they better they fare

A classic strawman argument. No one has ever argued that the more people a team has working in analytics, the better they will fare. Do YOU understand that correlation =/= causation? I guess if you've got nothing to refute the article you might as well drag me into arguing about this bullshit.

And as JetsFan815 pointed out, it doesn't even matter how many analysts you have if your team's coaching staff is averse to *useful information*.

Your replies are always filled with exactly I accuse you of doing. Cherry picking to suit your views

Listen, if you don't define important terms until your 4th post on the topic, you can't really accuse me of cherry picking. How was I supposed to know your narrow definition of a "highly unsuccessful" team was limited specifically to playoff series wins in April and May of 2024?

But did we honestly need an analytics department to figure out that Pionk was dogshit? The eye test had been saying that for weeks leading up to the playoffs

The analytics was saying it a lot longer than that. It's been saying that for years.

Perhaps if you didn't react to the notion that analytics might be useful like you're gazing on the Ark of the Covenant we could avoid a lot of these misunderstandings...

 

[Jets 31]

Not to mention at the end of the day it doesn't matter if you have 1 analytic staff or a 100 if the person in charge of the final decisions is not that interested in analytics and prefers to coach and make decisions based on "gut". Clearly someone in the Jets org was pointing out analytics to Bones as he made vague references to them one time in Feb talking about the numbers of 27-55-13 line and that great quote about "can't hide behind analytics" but it is also clear based on his usage Bones wasn't putting a lot of value or faith in what he was being told.

Avs employ @DTMAboutHeart and most likely have more buy-in across the organization when it comes to using stats than many other teams.

I would rather a team employ just 1 good person in their analytic staff while having buy in across the organization rather than have a large staff of 20 where the people making final decisions are giving you little buy in.

I know someone who knows someone who was pretty much the lead analytics person in a franchise in a non-hockey sport overseas and they said that what this person was telling the coach was not only falling on deaf years but also that the coach was giving them "get me data about this" type tasks focusing on things that were known to be useless in the sport but which the coach believed in.



Someone who pays attention to analytics could have pointed out to the coaches about how rough Pionk had been and if listened to by the coach could have opened an opportunity at the deadline to either acquire a new dman to replace him or try out someone else in his role instead of promoting him up the lineup when he was clearly drowning in the minutes he already had. Same for Stanley, infact many people had been pointing out how unwise it was to use Pionk/Stanley in those roles as opposed to "no questioning the coach who has coached for 30 years".

Clearly the coach's eyes had a blindspot for Pionk and precisely in situations like these the coach paying attention to the data could have revealed something that he is clearly missing and could have made changes instead of his role being increased and costing us in the playoffs. Analytics isn't just about finding ways to beat other team, it is also not leaving open chinks in your armor for the opposition to exploit.

Ok i'm not against analytics, they obviously help a little but they haven't been used since hockey began, maybe started in the last 20 years or so , how did teams ever win without using them ? How did some teams become dynasties without using them ? They have their use that's for sure but i want my coach to watch the play on the ice more than a ipad .