News Article: Dellow: Jets' record is great but long-term success requires better shot generation

[Ducky10]

He's pointing out what a lot of us have been saying for much of this year, his video adds some good visual context (wish I had time to do that). Like he mentions, you can choose video that pretty much illustrates any position but there is a theme to what is happening in the ones he uses. In the defensive and the neutral zone the spacing of the wingers is terrible and there is very little support from behind the play from our centres. The breakout and transition attack are both predicated on the wingers getting up the ice and getting the puck in behind the D. When they accomplish this, they are still losing possession too often and not being able to generate any shots. When they don't accomplish this, it's mainly because the spacing is so poor, the opposition is able to close down the play early and isolate our forward. It happens in almost every NZ video he uses. This also has a big negative when the D changes and the puck gets turned over at the opposition blue line, instead of getting deep.

Having said all that, there have been games where the Jets have been much better at this and the last Dallas game was one of them. They attacked much more from behind in support of the puck and got through the lanes with tighter spacing. They also defended more tightly against Dallas and when they were able to turn the puck over in the neutral zone, they were able to attack better in transition, without getting isolated. I get the impression Maurice wants them to play more this way but at the same time they don't seem to stick to it on a consistent basis. That stretch pass tip in thing has to go, it's useless unless the Jets are changing and even then in largely sucks.

 

[SensibleGuy]

I really don't understand the perspective some here have. What is so wrong with looking at some analytics and suggesting maybe there's elements of the Jet's game that need work? Are we just supposed to sit back and look at the W/L record with a satisfied smirk on our faces and say "yup, we good now. Nothing to worry about."

 

[Gm0ney]

Just because our shooting percentage seems high doesn't mean that it is unsustainable. Looking at the Jets shooting percentage in relation to the rest of the league puts us in 7th spot (5 on 5 adjusted). It is not like we are an outlier. Last year from February 1 to the end of the season we were third best in the league which indicates perhaps our shooting percentage is not something new and temporary.

I think the Jets are definitely an above-average SH% team. But a 5v5 SH% of 9.8, even for a good shooting team, is tough to maintain over the course of a full season. Only Washington and Tampa have finished an 82 game season at 9.8% or above since 2009 (Caps in 2009-10 and Tampa in 2012-13). So Dellow's point is that it's not a great bet to expect 9.8% the rest of the way - not that it's impossible...stranger things have happened.

 

[Duke749]

I think what this article is trying to show is WHY our corsi numbers are bad and that fixing some of these things will lead to better possession numbers.

I don’t see it as a doom and gloom type piece but something to watch for if we can’t fix it.

Idk what the average shooting% is but someone has to be near the top. We might be a team that can do that. Don’t want to say for certain though.

Bad changes on D would certainly help explain our rough 2nds. Don’t know if I’ve ever felt comfortable with our lines changes in the 2nd period(coaching issue IMO).

@Ducky10 I don’t like that tip in either. And I really hate that Laine’s go to “zone exit” is to turn and flip the puck up in the air out of the zone giving up easy possession. We give up possession so easily way too much if you go off the eye test.

 

[garret9]

PDO and regression to the mean.

 

[Ducky10]

I really don't understand the perspective some here have. What is so wrong with looking at some analytics and suggesting maybe there's elements of the Jet's game that need work? Are we just supposed to sit back and look at the W/L record with a satisfied smirk on our faces and say "yup, we good now. Nothing to worry about."

 

[surixon]

I don't think it is misleading.
9.8% 5 on 5 sh% is not likely to be sustained. The team #'s will need to look different for the success to carry forward. I don't think we can "Avalanche" the league for an entire season

Why do you think our shooting percentage is likely not sustainable? We are 4th in 5 on 5 shooting percentage. In a group of about 8 teams with a greater than 9.5 shooting percentage. It' not like we don't have some of the best shooters and offensive talent in the game.

 

[garret9]

Jets leading by one: 38% Corsi (28th), 136 mins
Jets tied: 50% (17th), 221 mins
Jets down by one: 45% (30th), 36 mins

Jets leading: 41% (24th), 310 mins
Jets trailing: 48% (31st), 103 mins

 

[Guffman]

Don’t unskilled teams just try to throw pucks to the net hoping for some greasy goals?

A slick team like the Jets are more able to set up better scoring chances with less shots.

Perhaps the paywall article has more depth. What was quoted in the OP was pretty lame.

 

[buggs]

Just because our shooting percentage seems high doesn't mean that it is unsustainable. Looking at the Jets shooting percentage in relation to the rest of the league puts us in 7th spot (5 on 5 adjusted). It is not like we are an outlier. Last year from February 1 to the end of the season we were third best in the league which indicates perhaps our shooting percentage is not something new and temporary.

Even factoring in last season that's a remarkably small sample size. Leafs of a few season ago and Flames a year or two ago had unsustainable numbers like we do. Yes it happens, but on a league wide basis it averages out over time. It happened to the Leafs and Flames, in time it will happen to us, it will just take time.

It's an interesting analysis. Nice to put numbers to how horrid that PK looks. I expect the shot quality isn't even in that the intent of the Jets PK is to have "low event" chances from the outside that make up the bulk of the numbers. Right now the goaltending is very solid and the PK is able to clear the net, but if they revert back to something like the first two games that strategy will look foolish very quickly. And even if our goaltending stays solid, it will likely revert back to around or just over league average which would mean we're due for some higher scoring games against that will be no fun.

 

[garret9]

Why do you think our shooting percentage is likely not sustainable? We are 4th in 5 on 5 shooting percentage. In a group of about 8 teams with a greater than 9.5 shooting percentage. It' not like we don't have some of the best shooters and offensive talent in the game.

2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 (N=121 teams):

2018 Jets are trending with the 3rd highest overall sh%, with the two ahead (2018TBL, 2018TOR) both being all from this season.
2018 Jets are second in dFSh% (difference between actual Fen sh% and expected Fen sh%) with the only above being from this season (2018TBL).

2018 Jets are trending with the 4th highest 5v5 sh%, with the ones ahead (2018TOR, 2018TBL, 2018NJD) being all from this season.
2018 Jets are 6th in 5v5 dFSh% (difference between actual Fen sh% and expected Fen sh%) with the only ones above being from this season (2018TBL, 2018FLA, 2018WSH, 2018TOR, 2018OTT).

Issue with ranking is we *expect* teams to be significantly over and underperforming at this point in the season. Smaller the sample size, the greater the distribution will likely be.

We could expect Jets to be the best finishers, but not to finish at this rate. There's a difference.

 

[Jimby]

Interesting that the Jets Shooting Percentage drops to 15th once they are leading.

 

[CorgisPer60]

Jets leading by one: 38% Corsi (28th), 136 mins
Jets tied: 50% (17th), 221 mins
Jets down by one: 45% (30th), 36 mins

Jets leading: 41% (24th), 310 mins
Jets trailing: 48% (31st), 103 mins

I'm going to assume that these are 5v5 numbers. These are pretty telling in their data spread. They tell you that the Jets are being outpossessed at nearly every opportunity, but because they've rarely lost the lead or the tie, that sample size is _very_ small. The 'tied' one is at least relatively league average. So, when they're leading, they possess the puck less, and when they're trailing, they still possess the puck less, but not nearly as bad. With the horses this team has, this leads me to believe this is systemic more than personnel.

 

[Guffman]

I really don't understand the perspective some here have. What is so wrong with looking at some analytics and suggesting maybe there's elements of the Jet's game that need work? Are we just supposed to sit back and look at the W/L record with a satisfied smirk on our faces and say "yup, we good now. Nothing to worry about."

What do fans for a team with a poor W/L record but great metrics do? Have a satisfied smirk knowing that they are on the verge of a win explosion?

 

[garret9]

Don’t unskilled teams just try to throw pucks to the net hoping for some greasy goals?

A slick team like the Jets are more able to set up better scoring chances with less shots.

Perhaps the paywall article has more depth. What was quoted in the OP was pretty lame.

Try and get are two different things.

In the larger sample, there is a correlation with those with fewer shots are the weaker finishers.

I once had a hockey ops person tell me:
"I think the ones that try to pad their Corsi are the players with the worst Corsi" hahaha

What do fans for a team with a poor W/L record but great metrics do? Have a satisfied smirk knowing that they are on the verge of a win explosion?

What does a coach do when their team plays like garbage but wins the game? Do they just smirk and be satisfied knowing they won?

 

[Aavco Cup]

Why do you think our shooting percentage is likely not sustainable? We are 4th in 5 on 5 shooting percentage. In a group of about 8 teams with a greater than 9.5 shooting percentage. It' not like we don't have some of the best shooters and offensive talent in the game.

9.5% is consider exceptional. Most of those teams are not likely to sustain it. Even Dellow suggests we will be above average somewhere around 8% not 10ish

Scheifele himself is over 30% BTW

 

[Gm0ney]

Even factoring in last season that's a remarkably small sample size. Leafs of a few season ago and Flames a year or two ago had unsustainable numbers like we do. Yes it happens, but on a league wide basis it averages out over time. It happened to the Leafs and Flames, in time it will happen to us, it will just take time.

It's an interesting analysis. Nice to put numbers to how horrid that PK looks. I expect the shot quality isn't even in that the intent of the Jets PK is to have "low event" chances from the outside that make up the bulk of the numbers. Right now the goaltending is very solid and the PK is able to clear the net, but if they revert back to something like the first two games that strategy will look foolish very quickly. And even if our goaltending stays solid, it will likely revert back to around or just over league average which would mean we're due for some higher scoring games against that will be no fun.

The article is only talking about 5v5. But I mentioned in the Stats thread the other day that the Jets' PK xGA/60 is the worst in the league by a longshot. So it doesn't appear to be limiting quality.

 

[Ducky10]

Don’t unskilled teams just try to throw pucks to the net hoping for some greasy goals?

A slick team like the Jets are more able to set up better scoring chances with less shots.

Perhaps the paywall article has more depth. What was quoted in the OP was pretty lame.

None of the videos used in the article illustrate this, nor does the eye test when watching the Jets. The suggestion isn't to just throw everything and anything at the net. It illustrates the areas the Jets need to improve in order to maintain possession and create scoring opportunities.

They are still giving away the puck unnecessarily in certain areas which is limiting their shot creation.

How do you dump on an article you haven't even read?

 

[Guffman]

If our goaltending falls off, perhaps the Jets play a different style to compensate that results in lesser shot attempts. If our shooting percent drops off, perhaps we have to muck around for greasy goals and just shoot more. Maybe that improves those precious corsi metrics.

As it stands right now, the Jets are playing a winning formula of hockey even if you find some underlying metrics offensive.

I’d rather the Jets play a style that utilizes its strengths than playing a style that improves these so-called predictive statistics that may not play into the team’s strengths.

 

[CorgisPer60]

None of the videos used in the article illustrate this, nor does the eye test when watching the Jets. The suggestion isn't to just throw everything and anything at the net. It illustrates the areas the Jets need to improve in order to maintain possession and create scoring opportunities.

They are still giving away the puck unnecessarily in certain areas which is limiting their shot creation.

How do you dump on an article you haven't even read?

My eye test is telling me that the Jets are playing mostly defensively-enabled hockey, while waiting on and capitalizing on mistakes generated by the other team. They're trying to play behind the puck almost exclusively. It's leading to the lopsided possession numbers we're seeing.

 

[Guffman]

None of the videos used in the article illustrate this, nor does the eye test when watching the Jets. The suggestion isn't to just throw everything and anything at the net. It illustrates the areas the Jets need to improve in order to maintain possession and create scoring opportunities.

They are still giving away the puck unnecessarily in certain areas which is limiting their shot creation.

How do you dump on an article you haven't even read?

I dumped on the snippets of the article posted. You can’t expect people to dig into an article behind a paywall.

 

[Duke749]

Don’t unskilled teams just try to throw pucks to the net hoping for some greasy goals?

A slick team like the Jets are more able to set up better scoring chances with less shots.

Perhaps the paywall article has more depth. What was quoted in the OP was pretty lame.

Yeh, there wasn’t much quality in this post either.

 

[Aavco Cup]

Don’t unskilled teams just try to throw pucks to the net hoping for some greasy goals?

A slick team like the Jets are more able to set up better scoring chances with less shots.

Perhaps the paywall article has more depth. What was quoted in the OP was pretty lame.

What was quoted was the opening paragraph plus a couple of the graphs (there are many more) The meat is inside the article

 

[Guffman]

Yeh, there wasn’t much quality in this post either.

The rest of my post was behind a paywall.

Don’t just critique my publicly available comments.

 

[Gm0ney]

If our goaltending falls off, perhaps the Jets play a different style to compensate that results in lesser shot attempts. If our shooting percent drops off, perhaps we have to muck around for greasy goals and just shoot more. Maybe that improves those precious corsi metrics.

As it stands right now, the Jets are playing a winning formula of hockey even if you find some underlying metrics offensive.

I’d rather the Jets play a style that utilizes its strengths than playing a style that improves these so-called predictive statistics that may not play into the team’s strengths.

What do you think the Jets strengths are? Low event, defense-first, flip/chip and chase? I look at the roster and think they're being miscast. Maurice is trying to hammer a bunch of square pegs into round holes. It's like he wants 4 Lowry lines...