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

[Jetfaninflorida]

My view on this. Screw the Corsi, win the Scorsi!

 

[SensibleGuy]

Profundity, thy name is Jetfaninflorida!

 

[garret9]

My view on this. Screw the Corsi, win the Scorsi!

As a fan, it’s not surprising that some don’t care about how you win...

But it’s different when you’re actually making decisions...

Winning (results) and underlying performance both matters. It’s not just a stats thing. You’ll see coaches chew out their team if they play like shit but are still winning.

 

[Whileee]

As a fan, it’s not surprising that some don’t care about how you win...

But it’s different when you’re actually making decisions...

Winning (results) and underlying performance both matters. It’s not just a stats thing. You’ll see coaches chew out their team if they play like **** but are still winning.

Quick question... Any theories as to why Scheifele and Wheeler are getting buried in shot metrics? I doubt they've regressed and yet they are performing well below a number of other Jets' forwards. Some of it must be usage, but is usage so much different from previous seasons?

 

[Jimby]

Maybe it has to do with their linemates? Just a quick search of the forwards who have 35 shots on net 5 on 5. There are a handful of them including Liane and Wheeler. When you compare their iCF with their CF% Jamie Benn has an iCF of 51 and a CF% of 53.10 while Wheeler has an iCF of 54 but his CF% is only 42.40.

Quick question... Any theories as to why Scheifele and Wheeler are getting buried in shot metrics? I doubt they've regressed and yet they are performing well below a number of other Jets' forwards. Some of it must be usage, but is usage so much different from previous seasons?

 

[Hunter368]

I can't get into the article, but from what I've read here (thanks to those who can get in & explaining it) this is my major concern about the team. While winning is great of course, winning in a way that can't be sustained long term is very bad. PMO needs to fix this ASAP or winning won't last for long. Our problems are fixable if you have faith in PMO, but the longer this goes on without PMO fixing it the less faith I have in him being able to fix it. Major concern for me.

Thanks AC for posting it

 

[Jimby]

In interviews after most games "the players did a good job eliminating rush chances" is often heard in player interviews. Giving up rush chances and goals off the rush had been the bane of our existence in the past. Reducing those chances and playing better defensively was a goal right from the beginning of the season.

Like playing pool, it's not what you make but what you leave. Winning or losing depends on what you leave for the other guy. While some lament over CF% I take some comfort in looking at the stat for High Danger Corsi Against where the Jets are 5th best in the league. If you check, we are in some pretty good company there. I would add xGA which Maurice referenced recently to the stats that indicate the Jets are accomplishing their goal of winning games by being better defensively.

To me, the Jets not having great CF% is a product of them concentrating on HDCA and xGA while being patient and waiting for their chances. Being good in HDCA and xGA means the opponents have a poorer shooting percentage while our goalies have better save percentages. Being patient and waiting for opportunities means our CF% may be low and our shooting percentage is high.

Our high shooting percentage and good save percentage does not necessarily have to regress if they are a product of limiting high danger shots and being patient.

 

[Aavco Cup]

Our high shooting percentage and good save percentage does not necessarily have to regress if they are a product of limiting high danger shots and being patient.

While this is not necessarily untrue, history would suggest regression is by far the most likely outcome. It happens over and over and over again. It will continue to happen in the future. Even outliers who last seem to regress the next season

 

[GNP]

This is a fooling yourself situation !!! There is no way getting outshot now in "multiple games" --like 30-23 , that we will keep on winning-"no way" We are relying right now, on our first line "only" and hot goaltending -"really hot." Soon this "lucky streak will come to an end. Many games we're getting like 23-25 shots on goal, and that's not going to cut the mustard here.

The problem, first and foremost is the "second line" as we're getting next to zero points being produced from it. One of the reasons is that Laine cannot keep up with Ehler's speed and is far back in the play, and Ehlers has a hard time finding him, and that goes for Little as well.

I'd like to see Laine moved up to the 1st line, and match up the speedy Connor with Ehlers and Little and see how that works.

OR

When Perrault comes back, put him on the 2nd line and move Laine somewhere ?

OR
Put Perrault on the 3rd line with Copp and Armia, and then we'd have a nice 3rd line that will produce points--all these guys can score.

Bottom Line--eventually if we don't start getting our shot count up to 30 -34 shots per game, we will start losing. We have the talent and depth, and Maurice has to piece this together to get the maximum production from this club. If this problem is ignored, we will start losing. C'mon Maurice these threads are demanding some changes be made, or our great position in the standings will change.

 

[Jimby]

Is our shooting percentage even really high?

When I checked before yesterdays game we had one outlier game with a shooting percentage over 30% and if you removed that game from the calculations our shooting percentage dropped to 8.55% which is below our average of the last 3 years. How about our save percentage? Is it abnormally high or was it low in seasons past? Do you expect or save percentage to regress to our historical numbers? I don't.

While this is not necessarily untrue, history would suggest regression is by far the most likely outcome. It happens over and over and over again. It will continue to happen in the future. Even outliers who last seem to regress the next season

 

[Aavco Cup]

Is our shooting percentage even really high?

When I checked before yesterdays game we had one outlier game with a shooting percentage over 30% and if you removed that game from the calculations our shooting percentage dropped to 8.55% which is below our average of the last 3 years. How about our save percentage? Is it abnormally high or was it low in seasons past? Do you expect or save percentage to regress to our historical numbers? I don't.

In the Dellow article he used 5 on 5 sh% and we were at 9.8% average is around 7.5% If we maintain 9.8% the Jets would finish with one of the best 5 on 5 sh% in recent history.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

This is a fooling yourself situation !!! There is no way getting outshot now in "multiple games" --like 30-23 , that we will keep on winning-"no way" We are relying right now, on our first line "only" and hot goaltending -"really hot." Soon this "lucky streak will come to an end. Many games we're getting like 23-25 shots on goal, and that's not going to cut the mustard here.

The problem, first and foremost is the "second line" as we're getting next to zero points being produced from it. One of the reasons is that Laine cannot keep up with Ehler's speed and is far back in the play, and Ehlers has a hard time finding him, and that goes for Little as well.

I'd like to see Laine moved up to the 1st line, and match up the speedy Connor with Ehlers and Little and see how that works.

OR

When Perrault comes back, put him on the 2nd line and move Laine somewhere ?

OR
Put Perrault on the 3rd line with Copp and Armia, and then we'd have a nice 3rd line that will produce points--all these guys can score.

Bottom Line--eventually if we don't start getting our shot count up to 30 -34 shots per game, we will start losing. We have the talent and depth, and Maurice has to piece this together to get the maximum production from this club. If this problem is ignored, we will start losing. C'mon Maurice these threads are demanding some changes be made, or our great position in the standings will change.

I dont know. Maybe. But I got tired of all the previous years where we would out Corsi and out shoot openents and lose so many games. Last year we couldn't even get games to overtime for a few more loser points. Then we would talk about our awesome 5v5 Corsi and how great of a team we are. But then we'd finish typically bottom 5ish in the league. News flash - if you finish that low you suck. I always said that the success of a team is measured in the standings. You are as good as your record. I can tell that we are a better team this year. Want to know how I know? It has nothing to do with Corsi and a lot to do with our points in the standings.

 

[garret9]

Quick question... Any theories as to why Scheifele and Wheeler are getting buried in shot metrics? I doubt they've regressed and yet they are performing well below a number of other Jets' forwards. Some of it must be usage, but is usage so much different from previous seasons?

Some usage.
Some ups and downs of life.
Some systems.

 

[Jimby]

At 5 on 5 if we remove that one high outlier game - 35.29% - our shooting percentage is 8.68 (last year our 5 on 5 was 8.46) which is in the top half of the league but is it worth the premise of the article?

In the Dellow article he used 5 on 5 sh% and we were at 9.8% average is around 7.5% If we maintain 9.8% the Jets would finish with one of the best 5 on 5 sh% in recent history.

 

[garret9]

In interviews after most games "the players did a good job eliminating rush chances" is often heard in player interviews. Giving up rush chances and goals off the rush had been the bane of our existence in the past. Reducing those chances and playing better defensively was a goal right from the beginning of the season.

Like playing pool, it's not what you make but what you leave. Winning or losing depends on what you leave for the other guy. While some lament over CF% I take some comfort in looking at the stat for High Danger Corsi Against where the Jets are 5th best in the league. If you check, we are in some pretty good company there. I would add xGA which Maurice referenced recently to the stats that indicate the Jets are accomplishing their goal of winning games by being better defensively.

To me, the Jets not having great CF% is a product of them concentrating on HDCA and xGA while being patient and waiting for their chances. Being good in HDCA and xGA means the opponents have a poorer shooting percentage while our goalies have better save percentages. Being patient and waiting for opportunities means our CF% may be low and our shooting percentage is high.

Our high shooting percentage and good save percentage does not necessarily have to regress if they are a product of limiting high danger shots and being patient.

Unsustainable performance doesn’t have to mean “lucky bounces.”

This is where descriptive vs predictive comes in hand.

The high danger chances tell you in part why the Jets shot quality has allowed them to out performed their shot quantity (although I’ve shown using xGoals that the Jets have our performed what you expect when you combine shot quantity and shot quality). These stats correlate with wins in the same sample of games than Corsi does.

However, what history has shown us is that out having good scoring chances / high danger shots differentials with poor shot differentials isn’t sustainable. This is why Corsi correlates with the future better than those stats.

All stats tell you something, but what that something is tends to differ.

Long story short:
Teams that perform well in shot quality but poorly in shot quantity can do well in a set of X games. But, they tend to struggle for the remaining 82-X games.

 

[garret9]

Is our shooting percentage even really high?

When I checked before yesterdays game we had one outlier game with a shooting percentage over 30% and if you removed that game from the calculations our shooting percentage dropped to 8.55% which is below our average of the last 3 years. How about our save percentage? Is it abnormally high or was it low in seasons past? Do you expect or save percentage to regress to our historical numbers? I don't.

Jets currently have a much higher team shooting percentage (at either 5v5 it all mins) and a much higher team sh% relative to expected (at either 5v5 or all mins) than any team has carried over a full season since the last lockout.

The latter is 3 standard deviations above the mean.

Also, removing “outlier games” is not how you do that analysis when someone is performing as an outlier.

 

[Whileee]

Unsustainable performance doesn’t have to mean “lucky bounces.”

This is where descriptive vs predictive comes in hand.

The high danger chances tell you in part why the Jets shot quality has allowed them to out performed their shot quantity (although I’ve shown using xGoals that the Jets have our performed what you expect when you combine shot quantity and shot quality). These stats correlate with wins in the same sample of games than Corsi does.

However, what history has shown us is that out having good scoring chances / high danger shots differentials with poor shot differentials isn’t sustainable. This is why Corsi correlates with the future better than those stats.

All stats tell you something, but what that something is tends to differ.

Long story short:
Teams that perform well in shot quality but poorly in shot quantity can do well in a set of X games. But, they tend to struggle for the remaining 82-X games.

Remembering that the r-squared for Corsi is well below .50... Some of the rest is luck, and the rest is something unmeasured or poorly modeled.

 

[Aavco Cup]

Remembering that the r-squared for Corsi is well below .50... Some of the rest is luck, and the rest is something unmeasured or poorly modeled.

Special teams and goaltending?

 

[Analyst365]

Just like the fans say ... "shoooot"

 

[PhilJets]

I love the winning now.

But the team needs to correct some of this flaws.

Garrett is absolutely correct that teams uses stats and data to make decisions.

 

[Whileee]

Anyone that watched the Yotes game will realize how often the Jets try to make passes or other plays instead of shooting. Scheifele's line does this a lot. They also get pinned in their own zone due to soft D sometimes, so....

 

[Jimby]

Having one game where the 5 on 5 shooting percentage is 35% due to a blowout greatly inflates the shooting percentage for the year early in the season with limited games having been played. The Jets shooting percentage will come down with every game they play from here on in (barring more blowouts). The number will likely regress to their number from last year without their play having to regress is the point I was trying to make.

Jets currently have a much higher team shooting percentage (at either 5v5 it all mins) and a much higher team sh% relative to expected (at either 5v5 or all mins) than any team has carried over a full season since the last lockout.

The latter is 3 standard deviations above the mean.

Also, removing “outlier games” is not how you do that analysis when someone is performing as an outlier.

 

[Whileee]

Jets currently have a much higher team shooting percentage (at either 5v5 it all mins) and a much higher team sh% relative to expected (at either 5v5 or all mins) than any team has carried over a full season since the last lockout.

The latter is 3 standard deviations above the mean.

Also, removing “outlier games” is not how you do that analysis when someone is performing as an outlier.

Ummmm... it's always valuable to examine influential data points, and this can be done with some simple sensitivity analyses. Generally, that's not done enough in most statistical analyses. If it's found that in general the influential data points add to the performance of a model, you keep them. If not, then you think about ways to deal with them.

 

[garret9]

Ummmm... it's always valuable to examine influential data points, and this can be done with some simple sensitivity analyses. Generally, that's not done enough in most statistical analyses. If it's found that in general the influential data points add to the performance of a model, you keep them. If not, then you think about ways to deal with them.

That's not what we're discussing...

When talking about "what they have done" we don't remove parts of "what they have done."

I'm well aware of how to do sensitivity analysis.

 

[garret9]

Remembering that the r-squared for Corsi is well below .50... Some of the rest is luck, and the rest is something unmeasured or poorly modeled.

I'm well aware. That doesn't lessen anything I've said by any degree.
I think "some of the rest is luck" is a bit of an understatement when about half of what's missing is luck.

Corsi kills Sh% though in any split-half reliability (~ 0.1 vs 0.8 r^2) or predictive testing...

Which is kinda the whole point:
Shot volume isn't the only thing that wins you games, but it's what you have the most control over.