What's the chances Ehlers re-signs in Winnipeg?

[flyingkiwi]

Wanted to reply but all of the good jokes were taken.

OP pulled the same move as my sister, walks into a room, farts, walks out and leaves the rest of us to argue who did it.

 

[hn777]

and pray that you stay healthy.

Also that

 

[flyingkiwi]

Wanted to reply but all of the good jokes were taken.

OP pulled the same move as my sister, walks into a room, farts, walks out and leaves the rest of us to argue who did it.

You know what OP, I take that back. Great reverse jinx thread.

 

[Jet]

Ehlers scares the shit out of NHL coaches. They're conservative and risk-averse. Ehlers appears risky to them (even though he's statistically way less of a risk to get scored on than Connor).

It's a bias - it's the way in which they're risky. The perceived risk.

Ehlers skates in circles and makes visually evident high-risk, high-reward plays. Like if he's circling the offensive zone and someone gets a stick on the puck at the blue line, they're gone and we're f***ed. If Kyle Connor stands around his zone like his controller is disconnected, well, there are 4 other skaters in the area he can share the blame with. Of course Connor scores more goals than Ehlers (mainly due to ice time) and gets 100% of the credit for those.

Meanwhile, let's say Ehlers' risky maneuvers end up in goals-for at twice the rate they end up in goals-against...2:1. But if Ehlers himself doesn't score - he just disorganizes the defense and allows his linemates more room to score - well then he doesn't get 100% credit for the goal. But if the goal against is because he was doing something risky, well that's 100% on him - even if he's getting a 2:1 return on that risk, he gets all the blame.

You see the bias in some comments here. People think Connor's value is entirely in his goalscoring and they ignore all the goals that go against the Jets when he's out there. Ehlers, meanwhile, is "only" a 50 point guy. Even saying: "The Jets are +71 in goals when Ehlers is on the ice and -3 when Connor's out there!" and it falls on deaf ears and blind eyes...

How about game winning goals? Connor has 48, or about 1 every 9 games.

 

[JetsUK]

Not sure if Ehlers stays or goes. Both paths have their risks. If he stays he's having to compete against younger prospects who will be given every chance to succeed and have to fight for his icetime even as he's slowing down a bit, potentially.

If he goes, he's spent most if not all of his prime here and will have to start all over again with his new team, establishing himself in a new hierarchy and having to win over a new coach and management team, fanbase, etc.

He's a unique player, and like other outliers we've seen with the Jets, tends to produce some polarizing responses. Easy to remember the force of nature and superb overall defender Buff was, but the hate he got from some of those in our seating group when I had a mini-STH package was pretty consistent. Riverboat gambler, can't play D, blah blah blah. He got his due eventually but there were plenty who didn't get his game, which is fine, that's fandom.

KFC is an easy player to understand, and like. Excellent possession player who is brilliant on the cycle, a remarkably consistent scorer who can be absolutely ruthless over stretches, and a terrific passer also with great vision and patience. Agree with @Gm0ney that Ehlers can look like he's playing a riskier game even when he's driving play and helping to win matchups.

But the Jets are better with him than without. He's a gamebreaker who can create space and chances for his linemates and he plays with passion and rarely lets up. He can be expensive in he can lose the thread of a game such that his timing is off and he's making passes and plays that work for him and no one else. But he can also take over a game and win it pretty much by himself and such players are rare -- we've seen JMo do it, and Scheifele too, but you don't let such players go easily, especially when they're productive 5v5 players who can also gain zones and open up lanes so reliably. And he has an absolute blinder of a shot.

And finally, and maybe importantly given the recent Bettman trip, he's a player who can lift a crowd and electrify a building when he winds it up or drives a puck and that is worth something for a team that is finding it harder to fill the building even as a top team in the league.

If I were Ehlers I'd look at my options carefully. And if I were the Jets I'd take the time to think about what I might lose, and how hard it would be to replace.

I'd miss him.

 

[Gm0ney]

How about game winning goals? Connor has 48, or about 1 every 9 games.

So you think Connor controls the timing of his goals? Or is it just that he gets put out there more often in certain situations? I mean, he gets more TOI in general, but over the past 3 seasons he's had 1500 minutes at all strengths when the Jets are tied (top forward). Ehlers has 995 minutes (5th forward).

Connor's on-ice GF is an impressive 3.92/60. His GA/60 is 2.79. So +1.13 per 60. This includes 3v3, powerplays, pk and even strength.

Ehlers' on ice GF is 3.86/60. GA/60 is 1.93. Thats +1.93/60.

So, when tied with Ehlers on the ice, the Jets have more often won that transaction than with Connor on the ice.

 

[Jet]

So you think Connor controls the timing of his goals? Or is it just that he gets put out there more often in certain situations? I mean, he gets more TOI in general, but over the past 3 seasons he's had 1500 minutes at all strengths when the Jets are tied (top forward). Ehlers has 995 minutes (5th forward).

Connor's on-ice GF is an impressive 3.92/60. His GA/60 is 2.79. So +1.13 per 60. This includes 3v3, powerplays, pk and even strength.

Ehlers' on ice GF is 3.86/60. GA/60 is 1.93. Thats +1.93/60.

So, when tied with Ehlers on the ice, the Jets have more often won that transaction than with Connor on the ice.

That's all well and good - I'm not trying to discount Ehlers.

I wish they tracked game losing goals and who was primarily responsible for them - that would be an interesting comparison with gwg.

I think situational scoring should be weighted, some guys just do better with the game on their stick.

 

[Gm0ney]

That's all well and good - I'm not trying to discount Ehlers.

I wish they tracked game losing goals and who was primarily responsible for them - that would be an interesting comparison with gwg.

I think situational scoring should be weighted, some guys just do better with the game on their stick.

Statistically, some of those goals for and against when tied will be game winners and losers, but as far as I know, there's no tracking for being on the ice for game losing goals specifically. And I think it's because it's not really relevant. It's mostly bias...narratives we tell ourselves that Player X is clutch.

I mean there's some psychology involved I guess - guys who perform well or poorly under pressure...but it's pretty tough to separate that from the background noise. Our brains are eager to make those clutch/choker connections where there may not actually be any though.

 

[Jet]

From my experience, totally anecdotal of course, I know how I feel playing pick up vs. A league game vs. A playoff game and when games are close or tied.

Pro hockey players should be better equipped to handle that stress by sheer repetition but as we are well aware, sports psychology is a tricky bugger.

I don't think it's beyond the pale to expect some players to handle that pressure better than others. Thus you have highly skilled guys who never make the nhl, and guys who seem to perform better than others in high stakes situations. Hell, some guys like moments like that.

Connor has always struck me as a bit of a robot. He generally plays the same way every shift and doesn't really seem to get too emotional. That to me would suggest he'd be better equipped to perform wth the chips are down.

Edit: meant to respond to @Gm0ney

 

[Nickel eye Heel hers]

I wouldn't be shocked if he doesn't re-sign.

 

[10Ducky10]

I'll be interested to see how Ehlers does in the playoffs this year.

 

[Jet]

I wouldn't be shocked if he doesn't re-sign.

Yeah I think he's pretty happy in Winnipeg. I'm happy to get to watch him.

 

[bumblebeeman]

He seems like he likes it here, plus with his injury history getting that guaranteed ~ 60 million dollar contract signed ASAP might seem like a wise decision.

 

[MardyBum]

He seems like he likes it here, but we'll see. Hopefully he does.

 

[JetsUK]

He seems like he likes it here, but we'll see. Hopefully he does.

Thanks for posting. Good to see Nik playing consistently well after a difficult start to the season.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

Resign, like quit? The only professional quitter - voluntarily leave a job in the middle of a contract and playing season - that I can recall in Winnipeg Jets history is Paul Maurice.

Someone might want to make an argument about Byfuglien, but he had a serious foot injury so frankly it doesn't apply.

 

[Jimmy Hoots]

I wrote this post two weeks ago.

I was met with all manner of coping mechanism, from denial to downplay to deflection.

But my words were prescient and true.

Now everyone is mouthing hollowly the questions I first asked.

Thus, I am an oracle.

Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair.

But I am not bitter, no.

Indeed, when you're on the cutting edge, sometimes you're going to bleed.

 

[kylbaz]

He'll go to a team that will play him on the first line and pay him accordingly.

 

[pegcity]

They can afford him.

I think he stays.

 

[CaptainUgly]

Nah, 12 points in 32 playoff games ain't gonna cut it. If he walks, the Jets will be just fine.

 

[AlphaLackey]

That's all well and good - I'm not trying to discount Ehlers.

I wish they tracked game losing goals and who was primarily responsible for them - that would be an interesting comparison with gwg.

I think situational scoring should be weighted, some guys just do better with the game on their stick.

FWIW I once did an analysis on 'clutch scoring' (weighting goals and assists by how valuable to P(Win) that goal was) and found nothing reproducible at all with regards to past 'clutch' predicting future 'clutch'

 

[Jet]

FWIW I once did an analysis on 'clutch scoring' (weighting goals and assists by how valuable to P(Win) that goal was) and found nothing reproducible at all with regards to past 'clutch' predicting future 'clutch'

Sounds like some low sample size magic used to support an argument.

No way you're going to convince me some players don't thrive in pressure situations. Some guys live for it, and some guys get nervous and paralyzed.

As for production based off of that - its hockey. We've all seen players playing really well but being snakebit - playing great but their linemates aren't helping, playing awful but getting lucky. Hockey is too chaotic to expect input to always align with expected output.

That's why small sample sizes mean nothing.

 

[scelaton]

Sounds like some low sample size magic used to support an argument.
No way you're going to convince me some players don't thrive in pressure situations. Some guys live for it, and some guys get nervous and paralyzed.
As for production based off of that - its hockey. We've all seen players playing really well but being snakebit - playing great but their linemates aren't helping, playing awful but getting lucky. Hockey is too chaotic to expect input to always align with expected output.
That's why small sample sizes mean nothing

My right brain wants to believe you, Jet, but...

First bold-I'd venture to guess that your personal experience is pretty limited, statistically speaking, and skewed by memorable events. Fully agree that some stat samples are also too small or contaminated to mean much and should also be dismissed. We need to be very discriminating with both.

Second bold-is very honest, but is a big barrier to learning. "No way you're going to convince me" is all over this board and won't change anytime soon. Almost all people-- not just on this board--are more wedded to stories than facts. People kill for what they believe in, and it's often pretty crazy stuff!

Third bold-Yes, hockey is chaotic, and that is why improbable outputs often happen that are the stuff of legend, but not true. Justin Williams played 20 years in the NHL, was good but not great, with only two regular seasons above 60 points. You've got to be good to be lucky, but you have to be very lucky to win Cups the way he did. Other great players have not been so lucky and it's not because they weren't clutch.

10 best players to never win the Stanley Cup

The Stanley Cup is difficult to win, and the superstars on our list of players who fell short are living proof.Some legends, such as Rod Brind'Amour and Dave Andreychuk, were fortunate enough to capture the Cup in the final years of their careers. For Ray Bourque, the championship-clinching win...

www.thescore.com

 

[Jet]

My right brain wants to believe you, Jet, but...

First bold-I'd venture to guess that your personal experience is a pretty low and skewed (by memorable events) sample size. Fully agree some stat samples are also too small or contaminated to mean much and should be dismissed. We need to be very discriminating with both.

Second bold-is very honest, but is a big barrier to learning. "No way you're going to convince me" is all over this board and won't change anytime soon. Almost all people-- not just on this board--are more wedded to stories than facts. People kill for what they believe in, and it's often pretty crazy stuff!

Third bold-Yes, hockey is chaotic, and that is why crazy outputs often happen that are the stuff of legend, but not true. Justin Williams played 20 years in the NHL, was good but not great, with only two regular seasons above 60 points. You've got to be good to be lucky, but you have to be very lucky to win Cups the way he did. Other great players have not been so lucky and it's not because they weren't clutch.

10 best players to never win the Stanley Cup

The Stanley Cup is difficult to win, and the superstars on our list of players who fell short are living proof.Some legends, such as Rod Brind'Amour and Dave Andreychuk, were fortunate enough to capture the Cup in the final years of their careers. For Ray Bourque, the championship-clinching win...

www.thescore.com

I do like to consider myself very open minded - and I have had my opinion changed many times on these boards by open minded debate. So, when I say you aren't going to convince me, it has to be something that I know in my mind to be true - like water is wet.

As for my personal experience, it's shaped by 40 years of playing hockey, being around the boys, watching hockey, talking to pros both players and coaching/ management.

So, I guess you could say that for a good while everyone including scientists thought the earth was flat and use that in this example, but until someone can prove a globe - I'm going to stick with my experience.

 

[AlphaLackey]

Sounds like some low sample size magic used to support an argument

Analyzed every NHL player in a three year span, over their current and two prior seasons. Past seasons of "clutch" had essentially zero predictive power for future seasons of "clutch". At the end of the day, the only reliable indicator of "how many clutch goals they scored" was "how many goals they scored"

If you want to call that "small sample size magic", that's fine. But I stand by my methodology and my P(Win) curves matched those provided by the best in the business, and it was good enough to get published in print; so if anything, it was used to mildly supported my wallet.