Enstrom finding his game!!

[Jets2point0]

That argument existed long before you may or may not have hinted or implied as much (and has been bandied about these parts long before you registered). Garret9 isn't so much speaking against you but against a long standing narrative. You just happen to be the active conversant at the moment.

Yes I’ve realized that - and not my intention but I don’t appreciate condescending jabs re: poor logic when my comment is being distorted based on some historical narrative on these boards.

Anyways, I truly do hope that Enstrom has an excellent playoffs (Garrett - relative to the team and his career average) and feel like he will be an underrated asset down the stretch

 

[Jets2point0]

Got it.

Not blaming you but I remember Enstrom was one of the scapegoats at the time. Not sure he deserved to be singled out since the team lost and he was no worse than the other D men. I remember the Ducks employing a similar tactic against the Hawks and trying to run Keith, Hammer, and the little Hawks out of the series but it ended up the Hawks had Crawford and despite the pounding they took physically they got the goaltending and hung in and won. Ducks were very physical especially early in the series but they couldn’t keep up the pace over seven games.

I’ll agree 100 times over that our goaltending was the biggest issue in that playoff series

 

[DeepFrickinValue]

I said that Enstrom was exploited in the playoffs (its well known that the ducks intentionally dumped into his corner and matched up larger players against him in front of the net)

That got twisted into he was the worst player on the team, he cost us the series, and that we don’t need him this year

So when players skate together in summer do they discuss this sort of stuff?

Anaheim player "yeah, we focused on 39, he was weakest link. This was our strategy....."

Seems players will have most inside knowledge on other teams. It is a long summer And lots of chit chat during summer skates.

 

[10Ducky10]

So when players skate together in summer do they discuss this sort of stuff?

Anaheim player "yeah, we focused on 39, he was weakest link. This was our strategy....."

Seems players will have most inside knowledge on other teams. It is a long summer And lots of chit chat during summer skates.

They probably talk about HF posters...

 

[kittiecarlyle]

Regardless of how other players performed or health, Enstrom was a negative in that series. I think that is his point, which is fair and true.

Sidestepping a bit, Toby had more offense last night than virtually all year

 

[truck]

In fairness though, that 4 game sample size in playoff hockey is the ONLY sample size so realistically theres more reason to doubt his abilities in the playoffs than to think hes going to excel

No. That's not how things work.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that those 4 games hold more predictive value than his 700+ regular season games played.

 

[Jets2point0]

No. That's not how things work.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that those 4 games hold more predictive value than his 700+ regular season games played.

So using that logic, you can also never say that a player regresses.

“Enstroms last 40 games cant be used to look at his next 40, you have to take all 700 into consideration”

If you want predictive stats, you can’t just look at all of his career games played. You would have to refine it to where you maybe have 20-50 relevant games to compare to the team you’re playing in the playoffs and the matchups you expect him to play against. Refine beyond that, especially predictive stats for playoffs, you’re looking at a small sample size. Anything larger than that is lazy and inaccurate.

You can’t weigh all the games the same as you’re suggesting.

Let me put it this way - we want predictive stats to show how Nick Foles is going to play in the playoffs against a primarily nickel defense.

Over his career, he has 80 regular season GP against dime, 15 GP where he came in at halftime, 10 regular season GP against nickel, 2 GP in playoffs against nickel. Any statistician worth his salt isn’t simply going to average all of his snaps and his QBR across those games played, they all clearly have a different weight. Hockey is no exception even though its not a ‘stop and start’ sport.

 

[Ducky10]

So using that logic, you can also never say that a player regresses.

“Enstroms last 40 games cant be used to look at his next 40, you have to take all 700 into consideration”

If you want predictive stats, you can’t just look at all of his career games played. You would have to refine it to where you maybe have 20-50 relevant games to compare to the team you’re playing in the playoffs and the matchups you expect him to play against. Refine beyond that, especially predictive stats for playoffs, you’re looking at a small sample size. Anything larger than that is lazy and inaccurate.

You can’t weigh all the games the same as you’re suggesting

I don't think that's what he's saying, he's saying there is no reason to believe those 4 games were more likely to show how well Enstrom may play going forward than the previous 700 would be. So in essence those 4 games pretty much defined who Enstrom was going to be in the future?

It's also completely pointless to compare how a player plays against certain teams in order to matchup, way too much changes in order for it to be accurate. They played the Ducks in the playoffs 3 years ago, why would it be the same if it happened this season?

 

[Jets2point0]

I don't think that's what he's saying, he's saying there is no reason to believe those 4 games were more likely to show how well Enstrom may play going forward than the previous 700 would be. So in essence those 4 games pretty much defined who Enstrom was going to be in the future?

It's also completely pointless to compare how a player plays against certain teams in order to matchup, way too much changes in order for it to be accurate. They played the Ducks in the playoffs 3 years ago, why would it be the same if it happened this season?

My point is that you can’t use 700 games worth of data to predict how he will perform in the playoffs.

And from your standpoint, you can’t just use 4 games that I suggested earlier - it will fall somewhere in the middle

I also don’t think its completely pointless to have situational stats - that’s the direction advanced stats are going in all sports, hockey is just exceptionally difficult

Out of pure curiosity and not to open any kind of existing debate, but do we know what Enstroms corsi and fenwick were in the playoffs compared to his 700+ career average?

 

[Gm0ney]

My point is that you can’t use 700 games worth of data to predict how he will perform in the playoffs.

And from your standpoint, you can’t just use 4 games that I suggested earlier - it will fall somewhere in the middle

I also don’t think its completely pointless to have situational stats - that’s the direction advanced stats are going in all sports, hockey is just exceptionally difficult

Out of pure curiosity and not to open any kind of existing debate, but do we know what Enstroms corsi and fenwick were in the playoffs compared to his 700+ career average?

Small sample size is the problem here. Anyone can have 4 bad games (especially considering Enstrom was injured at the time) - it's not enough to base anything on.

Here's his career and playoff 5v5 unadjusted CF%:

His career average is 49.61 - but you can see he played on a couple of atrocious Thrashers teams early in his career that drags that down. 2009-present it's 51.04%.

 

[Jets2point0]

Small sample size is the problem here. Anyone can have 4 bad games (especially considering Enstrom was injured at the time) - it's not enough to base anything on.

Here's his career and playoff 5v5 unadjusted CF%:
View attachment 99767

His career average is 49.61 - but you can see he played on a couple of atrocious Thrashers teams early in his career that drags that down. 2009-present it's 51.04%.

Thank you!

So is it fair to say, based on this, that Enstrom had a bad playoffs?

Garret was quick to point out that he wasnt bad because there were worse players than Enstrom, but I feel like a better definition would be comparing to your own career averages

 

[Gm0ney]

Thank you!

So is it fair to say, based on this, that Enstrom had a bad playoffs?

Garret was quick to point out that he wasnt bad because there were worse players than Enstrom, but I feel like a better definition would be comparing to your own career averages

I think Garret was saying that the Jets sucked as a whole for those four games, and Enstrom actually sucked less relative to his teammates.

Here's a comparison of Jets defenders' Regular Season CF% and Playoff CF% for 2014-15:

Player	CF%	PO CF%	Change
Adam Pardy	51.38	51.72	0.34
Tyler Myers	49.43	49.26	-0.17
Toby Enstrom	51.09	47.76	-3.33
Dustin Byfuglien	52.68	47.9	-4.78
Mark Stuart	52.58	42.62	-9.96
Jacob Trouba	54.69	44.7	-9.99
Ben Chiarot	53.27	41.3	-11.97

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Somehow Adam Pardy produced slightly better results and every other Jet performed worse. I don't know if Maurice tried to change things up for the playoffs or the Jets just ran wild on him, but the team did not play the same game that got them to the playoffs vs. the Ducks. They were banged up, and the Ducks played well, but the Jets were a different team too.

Edit: Added Myers. Missed him in the first table.

 

[Jets2point0]

I think Garret was saying that the Jets sucked as a whole for those four games, and Enstrom actually sucked less relative to his teammates.

Here's a comparison of Jets defenders' Regular Season CF% and Playoff CF% for 2014-15:

Player	CF%	PO CF%	Change
Adam Pardy	51.38	51.72	0.34
Tyler Myers	49.43	49.26	-0.17
Toby Enstrom	51.09	47.76	-3.33
Dustin Byfuglien	52.68	47.9	-4.78
Mark Stuart	52.58	42.62	-9.96
Jacob Trouba	54.69	44.7	-9.99
Ben Chiarot	53.27	41.3	-11.97

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Somehow Adam Pardy produced slightly better results and every other Jet performed worse. I don't know if Maurice tried to change things up for the playoffs or the Jets just ran wild on him, but the team did not play the same game that got them to the playoffs vs. the Ducks. They were banged up, and the Ducks played well, but the Jets were a different team too.

Edit: Added Myers. Missed him in the first table.

This is a circular discussion if I’ve ever seen one

 

[garret9]

My point is that you can’t use 700 games worth of data to predict how he will perform in the playoffs.

And from your standpoint, you can’t just use 4 games that I suggested earlier - it will fall somewhere in the middle

I also don’t think its completely pointless to have situational stats - that’s the direction advanced stats are going in all sports, hockey is just exceptionally difficult

Out of pure curiosity and not to open any kind of existing debate, but do we know what Enstroms corsi and fenwick were in the playoffs compared to his 700+ career average?

Ya you can. There's been good research all over that the body of work outweighs small playoff samples.

2014-15 rel Corsi -1.5, rank 4/11
2014-15 PO rel Corsi +1.8, rank 3/7

 

[garret9]

Thank you!

So is it fair to say, based on this, that Enstrom had a bad playoffs?

Garret was quick to point out that he wasnt bad because there were worse players than Enstrom, but I feel like a better definition would be comparing to your own career averages

Citation needed.

 

[Jets2point0]

Ya you can. There's been good research all over that the body of work outweighs small playoff samples.

2014-15 rel Corsi -1.5, rank 4/11
2014-15 PO rel Corsi +1.8, rank 3/7

Thats not 700 games, arent you just using one season?

And are you saying (yes or no) that we should use every single career GP of data to predict how Enstrom will perform in the playoffs this year, vs data from this year, or last two years?

 

[Jets2point0]

Citation needed.

Okay, page 16 & 17

 

[garret9]

Okay, page 16 & 17

Citation fails.

 

[Jets2point0]

Citation fails.

Okay, explains why I’m getting private messages of people agreeing with me here but to just give up

 

[garret9]

Thats not 700 games, arent you just using one season?

And are you saying (yes or no) that we should use every single career GP of data to predict how Enstrom will perform in the playoffs this year, vs data from this year, or last two years?

Career would be better than random selection of 4 games.
Best would be to use weighted history.

If you want this year though, percentile performance:
Corsi% 67th
rel Corsi% 78th
xGoals For% 89th
rel xGoals For% 92nd

 

[Jets2point0]

Career would be better than random selection of 4 games.
Best would be to use weighted history.

If you want this year though, percentile performance:
Corsi% 67th
rel Corsi% 78th
xGoals For% 89th
rel xGoals For% 92nd

If you read a few posts back, I said sample size should fall somewhere in the middle of 4 PO GP and 700+ career GP.

In your opinion, yes or no, did Enstrom have a bad playoffs?

 

[garret9]

Okay, explains why I’m getting private messages of people agreeing with me here but to just give up

People can say anything... doesn't make it true...
People are in the thread pointing out to you what I've been saying and how these two statements are not the same:

Enstrom was not bad != Enstrom was not uniquely bad to be a point of contention or focus.

My points have been only two thus far:
1) Any 4 game samples isn't very meaningful for any context other than descriptive sense
2) That 4 game sample doesn't indicate anything in particular to Enstrom even if we were to believe 4 games is meaningful

If you have anything to counter those points, feel free.

EDIT: Grammar of not equating negative in statements

 

[Jets2point0]

People can say anything... doesn't make it true...
People are in the thread pointing out to you what I've been saying and how these two statements are not the same:

Enstrom was not bad != Enstrom was not uniquely bad to be a point of contention or focus.

My points have been only two thus far:
1) Any 4 game samples isn't very meaningful for any context other than descriptive sense
2) That 4 game sample doesn't indicate anything in particular to Enstrom even if we were to believe 4 games is meaningful

If you have anything to counter those points, feel free.

EDIT: Grammar of not equating negative in statements

I never mentioned Enstrom as being uniquely bad. We had several bad players in that playoff series and you continue to be unable to admit that Enstrom was one of them, even though a poster just provided stats that his corsi that series was below his career average, which should appease your sample size argument. The topic was already on Enstrom, I didn’t single him out.

Given that, why can’t you admit Enstrom had a bad playoffs when he performed well below his career averages?

 

[Gm0ney]

I never mentioned Enstrom as being uniquely bad. We had several bad players in that playoff series and you continue to be unable to admit that Enstrom was one of them, even though a poster just provided stats that his corsi that series was below his career average, which should appease your sample size argument. The topic was already on Enstrom, I didn’t single him out.

Given that, why can’t you admit Enstrom had a bad playoffs when he performed well below his career averages?

You started by arguing that 4 games was a sufficient sample to predict Enstrom's future playoff performances. A few posters informed you that not only was this absolute nonsense, Enstrom was injured, so that further invalidates the sample.

Then you claimed that Enstrom was so injured he shouldn't even have been playing - implying there were better options. But Garret came along and pointed out that Enstrom was better than 4 of the 7 Jets defensemen who played in those 4 games.

So finally you moved the goalposts to "Enstrom didn't play well in the playoffs". Finally! A defensible position! And you're clinging to it like that's all you've been saying this whole time. And pretending that people are saying he was good. Jim Toth, is that you!??

 

[Jets2point0]

You started by arguing that 4 games was a sufficient sample to predict Enstrom's future playoff performances. A few posters informed you that not only was this absolute nonsense, Enstrom was injured, so that further invalidates the sample.

Then you claimed that Enstrom was so injured he shouldn't even have been playing - implying there were better options. But Garret came along and pointed out that Enstrom was better than 4 of the 7 Jets defensemen who played in those 4 games.

So finally you moved the goalposts to "Enstrom didn't play well in the playoffs". Finally! A defensible position! And you're clinging to it like that's all you've been saying this whole time. And pretending that people are saying he was good. Jim Toth, is that you!??

Yes - you’re correct that I did start off by saying that. I’ve agreed that the sample size needs to be larger.

You’re incorrect that I said he was so injured he shouldn’t have been playing. Another poster said that his arm injury was so serious that it had a significant impact on his performance, to which I said if that was the case then maybe he shouldn’t have been playing (which was agreed with if you read the posts).

My point which I’ve reiterated OVER and OVER is that Enstrom had an objectively bad playoff series by his own standards.

This was then contorted into me saying that Ensrom was the worse player on the team (hance Garretts stats), he cost us the series and that we shouldn’t play him these playoffs. I never said any of these and I’m actually a fan on Enstrom’s. Other posters later explained that Garret was reacting to a longstanding incorrect narrative here that Enstrom was singled out for the series loss, and is apparently a trigger for some on here.

Still, everyone simply refuses to answer my yes or no question of “did enstrom have a bad playoff series”

And don’t tell me that I moved the goalposts when thats exactly what happened to me, so much so that other posters have DM’d me that they agree but to just lets it go because some people on here always find an angle to disagree.

Did Enstrom have a bad playoff series?