Confirmed with Link: WPG acquiring Nino Niederreiter from NASH for a 24 2nd

[macmaroon]

Checks to see what thread this is...

Sees that it is the El Nino thread...

Checks again to make sure...

Okay then...

 

[Stumbledore]

I watch the games, too. My response was different than yours. Other than a very bad and stagnant power play (which I think might have lagged without Lauer behind the bench), I didn't think the Jets' play and process changed very much. Their goalies sprung a leak and their scorers went very cold. So they were playing behind a lot more than before, and that is frustrating to watch, leading to identifying all of the ways that they could be better.

But I think the data reflected what I observed watching the games. Poor finishing (lots of posts / missed nets / hot goalies against), and too many weak goals let in by our goalies to have the team playing from behind.

I would also note that every public data analytical system found the same thing: the Jets were generating more expected goals and giving up fewer in the second half, and the Jets were actually the top team in the Central for the final stretch (see below).

I think big mistakes can be made in assessing a team if the process and underlying play is not understood. In the conflagration of "disgust" and recriminations at the end of the Jets' season (with many fingers being pointed), I think many media and fans have overreacted. I hope the Jets' management and coaches study things objectively.

View attachment 712539

Snake oil with pretty pictures is still just snake oil.

 

[Whileee]

Snake oil with pretty pictures is still just snake oil.

Is the issue that you don't think the data are accurate, or that you don't think those data are relevant for assessing performance, or you don't understand the data?

If you are only focused on wins and losses, the Jets had a better regular season record than Florida, so...

 

[surixon]

Your conclusion may be correct, but I take issue with the notion that Perfetti offset much of anything, given he was injured on February 19. If we count the "second half" as post all-star break, Perfetti played a whopping 4 games including the one he was injured in (New Jersey).

Fair point. I included him because he played 15 second half games which is still > 25% of the games played in that period so the numbers hold some value. I used the halfway mark as the cutoff.

But we added a player at the deadline in Nino who covered off Cole's metrics. So I think the overall point still holds. Our top 6 got to the slot more often. They just didn't do a very good job converting.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

The issue is this isn't supported by anything but fans eye tests. The data shows that the much maligned lazy top 6 actually did a better job getting to the tough areas infornt of the net the back half of the year.

Here are there individual high danger chances generation per 60. First half then second half

Scheifele 3.25 4.68
Wheeler 4.36 2.96
Conner 5.33 4.12
Perfetti 3.16 3.91
Dubois 4.45 6.52
Total 20.55 22.19

So as a collective they generated roughly 1.75 more high danger chances for 60 then they did the first half. Sure Wheeler and Conner saw individual dips but that was more then made up for in increases by Scheifele, Perfetti and Dubois.

I honestly think many on here look for things more when the team is loosing and ignore the same things when teams are winning.

The stats say that the PP went dead cold. I think that was the single largest factor. PK held up. PP did not. ST were the difference in the 1st half. They were roughly breaking even at even strength and winning the ST battles.

I don't believe in HDSC. Sorry, it just doesn't get the job done yet. Too location driven without other factors. It might at least speak to players' willingness to go to the difficult places, but that's about it.

I'm sure there is something to the psychology of fans watching and what they perceive under different circumstances. I've increasingly been finding them unwatchable recently. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I think that is a very bad sign. I recognize a pattern of play that is going to lead to a loss quite early in a game. Bad turnovers, bad passes, weak backcheck, failure to gain possession in the NZ.

 

[surixon]

The stats say that the PP went dead cold. I think that was the single largest factor. PK held up. PP did not. ST were the difference in the 1st half. They were roughly breaking even at even strength and winning the ST battles.

I don't believe in HDSC. Sorry, it just doesn't get the job done yet. Too location driven without other factors. It might at least speak to players' willingness to go to the difficult places, but that's about it.

I'm sure there is something to the psychology of fans watching and what they perceive under different circumstances. I've increasingly been finding them unwatchable recently. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I think that is a very bad sign. I recognize a pattern of play that is going to lead to a loss quite early in a game. Bad turnovers, bad passes, weak backcheck, failure to gain possession in the NZ.

I was speaking only about a willingness to get to the front of the net. HDCF does a solid job of capturing where a player shoots from. Clearly there are far more variables that lead to quality of a scoring chance. Movement before shot being the biggest one that these models don't capture. It was more to capture that the shooting data doesn't support the notion that we turned into a team that lobbed a lot of perimeter shots.

Anyhow I found the team very watchable when they were winning between game 15 and 50. Clearly frustration sets I when they lose and I think that clouds my views.

Anyhow we are in agreement that the pp was the single biggest issue.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Fair point. I included him because he played 15 second half games which is still > 25% of the games played in that period so the numbers hold some value. I used the halfway mark as the cutoff.

But we added a player at the deadline in Nino who covered off Cole's metrics. So I think the overall point still holds. Our top 6 got to the slot more often. They just didn't do a very good job converting.

OK, so why?

A bad luck streak of not converting well might be 4-5 games. What accounts for half a season?

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Some nice discussion here.

I, for one, am disappointed we didn’t get to see the team with all their forwards healthy. This looks like a pretty formidable top 9 to be honest.

Connor-PLD-Nino
Perfetti-Scheif-Ehlers
Names-Lowry-Wheeler

Injuries make the depth look worse. Perfetti played exactly 10:18 combined all year with Nino or Ehlers.

True - but injuries are so much a part of the game that most teams can make the same point.

 

[surixon]

OK, so why?

A bad luck streak of not converting well might be 4-5 games. What accounts for half a season?

I mean why not ask the Panthers that same question, they had the same issue this year just they had their cold spell the first half of the year. They also barely snuck in as a result. Now on there way to a cup final because they are riding the other extreme of the finishing and goaltending wave.

To be honest this team was likely due a lengthy cold spell based on having a number of years where we finished well above what we generated and Helle standing on his head getting us into a couple of postseasons. Things often even out over the long run.

 

[Stumbledore]

Is the issue that you don't think the data are accurate, or that you don't think those data are relevant for assessing performance, or you don't understand the data?

If you are only focused on wins and losses, the Jets had a better regular season record than Florida, so...

The issue is that I'm a grumpy old man who thinks that "advanced" statistics are largely a crock.

I successfully practiced law for some 40 years so I could probably understand the data, but I'm too cranky to bother. In vino veritas.

 

[LowLefty]

Yet somehow they slacked their way to much better underlying metrics the back half then they did the first half. Doesn't seem to compute imo.

The team has league average finish the back half and no one is talking about work ethic imo.

So you think the work ethic was OK? Team played well, fought hard and were just unlucky?

I find it incredible that while those games were played, this board was in an uproar - yourself included - but now it is all just bad luck,

And since we're making assumptions - I'd also think that if we had worked hard (like the first half) no one would be talking about production / results.

Bones must have been off his rocker when calling these guys out - why didn't he just look at the underlying metrics?

 

[gojetsgo]

So you think the work ethic was OK? Team played well, fought hard and were just unlucky?

I find it incredible that while those games were played, this board was in an uproar - yourself included - but now it is all just bad luck,

And since we're making assumptions - I'd also think that if we had worked hard (like the first half) no one would be talking about production / results.

Bones must have been off his rocker when calling these guys out - why didn't he just look at the underlying metrics?

actually that is not true, there were a bunch of games where we played well and couldn't score but would end up giving up a goal on the first chance of the game, most people were ok with how we were playing despite not getting the results it wasn't until we would have a no show type game where peoples minds changed over how the previous losses went

 

[macmaroon]

The issue is that I'm a grumpy old man who thinks that "advanced" statistics are largely a crock.

I successfully practiced law for some 40 years so I could probably understand the data, but I'm too cranky to bother. In vino veritas.

For a minute there, I thought someone was talking about El Nino. Damn dyslexia...

 

[Whileee]

The issue is that I'm a grumpy old man who thinks that "advanced" statistics are largely a crock.

I successfully practiced law for some 40 years so I could probably understand the data, but I'm too cranky to bother. In vino veritas.

I use advanced analytics in my professional role, and have learned the value of data over anecdote to get good results. I realize that hockey has a lot of unmeasurable success factors and much of the "advanced" statistics are overblown, and hockey also has a lot of random luck. I'm wary of management and coaches that aren't able to understand underlying performance from the often-random results.

 

[LowLefty]

actually that is not true, there were a bunch of games where we played well and couldn't score but would end up giving up a goal on the first chance of the game, most people were ok with how we were playing despite not getting the results it wasn't until we would have a no show type game where peoples minds changed over how the previous losses went

I don't think so - I suppose we could drag up all those old GDT's
There were a few in there where we were decent but most lead us to be the worst performing team since Feb (something like that).
As for MOST being OK with how we were playing, I'm not sure a pole would support that claim.

 

[buggs]

For a minute there, I thought someone was talking about El Nino. Damn dyslexia...

Who is this nino you keep harping on about and what relevance is it to this thread?

 

[DRW204]

OK, so why?

A bad luck streak of not converting well might be 4-5 games. What accounts for half a season?

agreed. and what are the parameters.

were the Jets just super lucky in the first half where they were one of the top finishing teams? maybe it's the glass-half-full of fanbases b/c i find the explanation/rationale is more often than not "oh jets are not good - bad luck," or "oh the other goalie was good - bad luck" instead of it going both ways w/ similar rationale when they seemingly over-perform .

21-22 with a bit better lineup they were 18th in SH%/29th in xGF vs GF. this year they were 19th/25th. our 2nd half of the year in terms of finishing was closer to the 21-22 season than the first half (makes sense given scheifele, PLD, lowry were off to torrid paces to start the year).

 

[surixon]

So you think the work ethic was OK? Team played well, fought hard and were just unlucky?

I find it incredible that while those games were played, this board was in an uproar - yourself included - but now it is all just bad luck,

And since we're making assumptions - I'd also think that if we had worked hard (like the first half) no one would be talking about production / results.

Bones must have been off his rocker when calling these guys out - why didn't he just look at the underlying metrics?

I believe I said it in another post. When the team loses frustration sets in and patience for things like processes wanes. I'm a fan and am emotionally invested so yeah I get pissed off when the team losses especially if they lose a lot like they did. When things aren't going well its easy to focus on the negatives.

No it wasn't all just luck but if you don't think having the third worst shooting percentage in the league the back half of the season despite shooting from roughly the same spots as the first half of the year when we had a top 10 shooting percentage didn't contribute I don't know what to say.

They were ansolute ass on the pp and got back to being static and passive, that was a major contributor and is captured by the stats. They went from 11th in xGF/60 to 23rd the second half.

A frustrated emotional coach venting at the team losing. Nothing much to say other then he's trying to spark the team anyway he can. Also he only vented after some truly awful performances. No one is saying the team didn't lay some absolute duds the second half of the year. They also laid plenty the first half but Helle stood on his head sp we were able to get some results in those games and that impacted the mood here.

 

[surixon]

agreed. and what are the parameters.

were the Jets just super lucky in the first half where they were one of the top finishing teams? maybe it's the glass-half-full of fanbases. b/c i find it's more often than not "oh jets are not good - bad luck," or "oh the other goalie was good - bad luck" instead of it going both ways w/ similar rationale when they seemingly over-perform .

21-22 with a bit better lineup they were 18th in SH%/29th in xGF vs GF. this year they were 19th/25th. our 2nd half of the year in terms of finishing was closer to the 21-22 season than the first half (makes sense given scheifele, PLD, lowry were off too torrid paces to start the year).

I think the team just played on the extremes this year. They outscored their play to start the year, then scored to match their play during the middle and scored beneath their play to end the year. They likely finished in the standings close to the teams overall talent level. They just did it in the most extreme way possible that it pissed a lot of people off.

 

[DRW204]

I think the team just played on the extremes this year. They outscored their play to start the year, then scored to match their play during the middle and scored beneath their play to end the year. They likely finished in the standings close to the teams overall talent level. They just did it in the most extreme way possible that it pissed a lot of people off.

like i said,
the explanation or rationale for their 2nd half finishing seems be just chalked up to luck when their league ranking in finishing stats (sh%, GF vs xGF) is closer to their full-year rankings to the previous season. unless you think this team with essentially the same key personnel all of a sudden is a top-finishing team under bowness (which in his recently coached seasons has never been the case).

so why aren't you or others similarly attributing the first half finishing to luck when that seems to be the outlier when comparing the 21-22 season, and this year split into two?

(using dec 31st/22 as the demarcation point for halves)

 

[surixon]

like i said,
the explanation or rationale for their 2nd half finishing seems be just chalked up to luck when their league ranking in finishing stats (sh%, GF vs xGF) is closer to their full-year rankings to the previous season. unless you think this team with essentially the same key personnel all of a sudden is a top-finishing team under bowness (which in his recently coached seasons has never been the case).

so why aren't you or others similarly attributing the first half finishing to luck when that seems to be the outlier when comparing the 21-22 season, and this year split into two?

(using dec 31st/22 as the demarcation point for halves)

Well the conversation has centered mostly around the second half and on why that happened. It hasn't really been on the year as a whole so you aren't getting full season analysis.

I'm merely trying to combat the narrative that the team started stinking because they got lazy and stopped working. That is all.

As for the year, thought they'd be a lottery team and that us ultimately what they were. If they run it back and want to be more then that they will need to upgrade the second pairing and bring in a couple more true middle 6.forwards for scoring depth.

 

[LowLefty]

I believe I said it in another post. When the team loses frustration sets in and patience for things like processes wanes. I'm a fan and am emotionally invested so yeah I get pissed off when the team losses especially if they lose a lot like they did. When things aren't going well its easy to focus on the negatives.

No it wasn't all just luck but if you don't think having the third worst shooting percentage in the league the back half of the season despite shooting from roughly the same spots as the first half of the year when we had a top 10 shooting percentage didn't contribute I don't know what to say.

They were ansolute ass on the pp and got back to being static and passive, that was a major contributor and is captured by the stats. They went from 11th in xGF/60 to 23rd the second half.

A frustrated emotional coach venting at the team losing. Nothing much to say other then he's trying to spark the team anyway he can. Also he only vented after some truly awful performances. No one is saying the team didn't lay some absolute duds the second half of the year. They also laid plenty the first half but Helle stood on his head sp we were able to get some results in those games and that impacted the mood here.

II didn't say the shooting percentage didn't contribute -
I tried to keep my comments centered on the fact that their effort dropped off - and it did.

If Bones was frustrated - who wouldn't be after repeating the same message night after night.
He wanted them to simplify because they were not getting much done with the more complex stuff - simple message that even a team under pressure, flustered, or what every, would grasp.

The team didn't pay attention to that simple message - they did it their way.
So yes, that likely frustrated some - rightfully so.

And I get the shooting percentage thing - it was part of it.

 

[roccerfeller]

I believe I said it in another post. When the team loses frustration sets in and patience for things like processes wanes. I'm a fan and am emotionally invested so yeah I get pissed off when the team losses especially if they lose a lot like they did. When things aren't going well its easy to focus on the negatives.

No it wasn't all just luck but if you don't think having the third worst shooting percentage in the league the back half of the season despite shooting from roughly the same spots as the first half of the year when we had a top 10 shooting percentage didn't contribute I don't know what to say.

They were ansolute ass on the pp and got back to being static and passive, that was a major contributor and is captured by the stats. They went from 11th in xGF/60 to 23rd the second half.

A frustrated emotional coach venting at the team losing. Nothing much to say other then he's trying to spark the team anyway he can. Also he only vented after some truly awful performances. No one is saying the team didn't lay some absolute duds the second half of the year. They also laid plenty the first half but Helle stood on his head sp we were able to get some results in those games and that impacted the mood here.

Its crazy to think.

If that one data point remained, how different the year could have been and subsequent narratives

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I mean why not ask the Panthers that same question, they had the same issue this year just they had their cold spell the first half of the year. They also barely snuck in as a result. Now on there way to a cup final because they are riding the other extreme of the finishing and goaltending wave.

To be honest this team was likely due a lengthy cold spell based on having a number of years where we finished well above what we generated and Helle standing on his head getting us into a couple of postseasons. Things often even out over the long run.

Panthers are riding goaltending, goaltending and goaltending. Theirs good, opponents bad.

I don't believe you can so easily dismiss an entire teams finishing ability disappearing for half a season. It s just too improbable. A few games OR a player or 2 maybe.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

agreed. and what are the parameters.

were the Jets just super lucky in the first half where they were one of the top finishing teams? maybe it's the glass-half-full of fanbases b/c i find the explanation/rationale is more often than not "oh jets are not good - bad luck," or "oh the other goalie was good - bad luck" instead of it going both ways w/ similar rationale when they seemingly over-perform .

21-22 with a bit better lineup they were 18th in SH%/29th in xGF vs GF. this year they were 19th/25th. our 2nd half of the year in terms of finishing was closer to the 21-22 season than the first half (makes sense given scheifele, PLD, lowry were off to torrid paces to start the year).

So .... just the law of averages catching up?

Why such long stretches of an entire team being affected in the same way?