Why Vegas won

[Positive]

With average goaltending in the Jets net, we win this in 6. With average goaltending on both teams, 4 or 5.

 

[thegr8one66]

1. Outcoached. 2-3 games slow on line-up changes. Couldn't change our strategy (PK or PP). Vegas figured us out after Game 1 and I knew we were done in 5.
2. Fleury was ok (not "God mode", lol). He's the type of goalie to make saves look harder than they really are. Vegas played a perfect team game and gave us low quality scoring chances.
3. We all of a sudden in this series seemed to play conservative and sat back (instead of the aggerssive style that made us successful all season).
4. Coach couldn't get the team fired up for each game and had no response once we were down a goal in game 2-5.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

Lol, "screw the stats, I'm right"!

LOL, 'screw the actual hockey game, a few stats say everything about everything that ever happened on the ice, I'm right"!

 

[Ducky10]

LOL, 'screw the actual hockey game, a few stats say everything about everything that ever happened on the ice, I'm right"!

Hardly, the eye test showed considerable advantages for the Jets as well. They weren't outplayed by whatever measure you want to use. Vegas worked hard, cashed in at opportune times, with more than a few breaks mixed in and rode a hot goalie.

Not brain surgery, it was pretty obvious. Far more obvious than coaching, that's for sure.

 

[Maukkis]

Data from all situations.

WPG: xGF 56.12, xGA 45.81. Differential of +10.31
VGK: xGF 46.78, xGA 45.97. Differential of +0.81

WPG: GF 53, GA 42. Differential of +11
VGK: GF 43, GA 27. Differential of +16

Because of a voodoo practitioner from Quebec, Vegas has overperformed their expected result by fifteen f***ing goals. That's a one-goal head start they have had in each of their games, if you like to put it that way.

Not the whole story by any stretch of imagination, but come on. Fleury is doing something spectacular, and the Jets were one of his victims.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

Hardly, the eye test showed considerable advantages for the Jets as well. They weren't outplayed by whatever measure you want to use. Vegas worked hard, cashed in at opportune times, with more than a few breaks mixed in and rode a hot goalie.

Not brain surgery, it was pretty obvious. Far more obvious than coaching, that's for sure.

How about using the score as the measure - you know, the way professional sports works. They won, we lost. By definition of winning and losing we were outplayed.

My belief is that we were outplayed because our coaching didn't maximize the playing capabilities of our players, while their coaching did. Coaching includes system and player utilization among other things.

I suggest we just agree to disagree and move on. I like you and am looking forward to next year - even with our mediocre but with lots of experience coach.

 

[civic204]

Could the Jets have played a more physical game? We played like a bunch of nice, hardworking guys.

How about a huge hit on Marchessault or Karlsson?

I'm not suggesting we go out and hurt a guy, but something could have been done to slow those guys down, or at least get into their heads.

 

[Kaako Kappo]

Yeah. Rigged for sure. How else could the Jets lose a playoff series?

Maurice didn't react fast enough, Fleury is great and the rest of the Knights are also playing some great hockey with insane momentum. Second line's inexperience started to show. Little line useless.

 

[Maukkis]

How about using the score as the measure - you know, the way professional sports works. They won, we lost. By definition of winning and losing we were outplayed.

My belief is that we were outplayed because our coaching didn't maximize the playing capabilities of our players, while their coaching did. Coaching includes system and player utilization among other things.

I suggest we just agree to disagree and move on. I like you and am looking forward to next year - even with our mediocre but with lots of experience coach.

Flip a coin five times. After landing on tails four times out of five, do you then go out and say how tails is by far the more common outcome?

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

There is no correlation between flipping a coin, and the score in a hockey game.

 

[raideralex99]

Could the Jets have played a more physical game? We played like a bunch of nice, hardworking guys.

How about a huge hit on Marchessault or Karlsson?

I'm not suggesting we go out and hurt a guy, but something could have been done to slow those guys down, or at least get into their heads.

See this is one fault Maurice has. I heard him say over and over we play out style that's who we are. Guess what ... sometimes when your style is not working you try a different one even if its just for one period. Maybe playing a physical game may have not worked on Vegas but at least you tried something different.

 

[Maukkis]

There is no correlation between flipping a coin, and the score in a hockey game.

You missed the point big time.

If you repeated the series enough times, the Jets would win more often than the Knights. We just got to see the unlikelier outcome take place in real life, as we don't have the option of playing enough games to get justice. That's hardly a reason for overreaction.

 

[Gabe Kupari]

With average goaltending in the Jets net, we win this in 6. With average goaltending on both teams, 4 or 5.

You are kidding yourself here... We scored 9 friggin goals in 5 games.. 4 in game 1.. 5 in the 4 other games.. For us to win.. Helle had to shut out Vegas. We couldn't score. That's why we lost.

 

[Tommigun]

See this is one fault Maurice has. I heard him say over and over we play out style that's who we are. Guess what ... sometimes when your style is not working you try a different one even if its just for one period. Maybe playing a physical game may have not worked on Vegas but at least you tried something different.

I disagree. All of the games were winnable by playing our style.

 

[Gabe Kupari]

We scored 9 goals in 5 games. And people are pointing fingers at Helle and Maurice? 9 friggin goals in 5 games.. 4 in game 1.. 5 in the next 4 combined.

Can talk about Fancy Stats or Maurice or Helle but... The fact is... 9 goals in 5 games won't get it done.

So much over analyzing in here... 9 goals in 5 games. We couldn't score.. Helle was bad? Huh... Why cuz he let in 1 maybe 2 bad goals? Ok... Sure.. But doesnt Change the fact that we scored less than 2 goals a game on average.

 

[cbcwpg]

If your only chance of winning a series is to have your goalie get 4 shutouts, then you are not going to win. That is an unreasonable expectation of any goalie.

Regular season the Jets averaged 3.33 goals scored per game.
Going into the Vegas series the Jets averaged 3.58 goals scored per game.
Against Vegas the Jets averaged 2.00 goals scored per game ( take out game 1 and it is 1.50 )

Regular season the Jets averaged 2.63 goals against per game.
During the playoffs the Jets averaged 2.47 goals against per game.

So we had better goaltending and defense in the playoffs.

We lost because our scoring dried up.
For us to win Helly was going to have to start scoring.

 

[Ducky10]

You are kidding yourself here... We scored 9 friggin goals in 5 games.. 4 in game 1.. 5 in the 4 other games.. For us to win.. Helle had to shut out Vegas. We couldn't score. That's why we lost.

I think you missed his point there, if both goalies play just average, it ends up being a much different series. A big reason we couldn't score was the +.950 guy in their net.

 

[Daximus]

We lost because Fleury is playing some of the best hockey of his career. We ran the show for a lot of those games but our mistakes cost us and theirs didn't.

 

[Jake Barnes]

You are kidding yourself here... We scored 9 friggin goals in 5 games.. 4 in game 1.. 5 in the 4 other games.. For us to win.. Helle had to shut out Vegas. We couldn't score. That's why we lost.

Right, but over larger samples things regress to the mean. If Fleury plays at his career average we score 5 extra goals this series. Of course, maybe all those goals come in Game 1 and the outcome is the same. Or, maybe we're up 3-2 or we win the series 4-1 because of it. It's a lot of "what if", but statistically we probably win this series if things are around average for both teams. Unfortunately we ran into a goalie rocking a save percentage 30 points above his career average and a team that was getting all the bounces.

 

[Gabe Kupari]

I think you missed his point there, if both goalies play just average, it ends up being a much different series. A big reason we couldn't score was the +.950 guy in their net.

Oh ok. Thats the point. Ok well that changes everything. Its just some what if fantasy talk.. Or maybe it changes nothing and Its just Vegas turn to win.

 

[ERYX]

Hellebuyck didn't need to get shutouts in every game for us to win. He did however need to (a) not let a goal in on the first shot or two of the game and/or (b) not let in deflating goals immediately after Vegas goals.

I don't pin game #2 on Hellebuyck. However game #3 which was a 4-2 loss did not require a shutout. Could have easily been 2-1 Jets win. I forget the details of all the goals that game but Hellebuyck was not strong that game. He didn't need to post a Fleury-esque .943 that game for us to take it.

Game 4 was a 3-2 loss. Even with Fleury stoning our guys repeatedly, Hellebuyck's two goals after the first (both times shortly after we tied it up) were back breakers and were soft goals. That game should have been a 2-1 win.

 

[Maukkis]

Oh ok. Thats the point. Ok well that changes everything. Its just some what if fantasy talk.. Or maybe it changes nothing and Its just Vegas turn to win.

The thing is, luck and bounces mask an awful lot of mistakes. If we play that series a large number of times, chances are that Fleury does not play beyond Vezina level every time, and thus some of our shortcomings in goalscoring disappear.

This was just one outcome, which was a slightly unfair one statistically. While this one did not lead to a win, most of the remaining ones likely would have.

A really short version: a good PDO compensates for a lot, whereas a bad one makes winning near impossible.

 

[thegr8one66]

How about using the score as the measure - you know, the way professional sports works. They won, we lost. By definition of winning and losing we were outplayed.

My belief is that we were outplayed because our coaching didn't maximize the playing capabilities of our players, while their coaching did. Coaching includes system and player utilization among other things.

I suggest we just agree to disagree and move on. I like you and am looking forward to next year - even with our mediocre but with lots of experience coach.

This is exactly correct! We didn't lose because of bad bounces and bad luck.

 

[thegr8one66]

You missed the point big time.

If you repeated the series enough times, the Jets would win more often than the Knights. We just got to see the unlikelier outcome take place in real life, as we don't have the option of playing enough games to get justice. That's hardly a reason for overreaction.

Lol. I think you don't get the point. We still wouldn't win regardless of how many series we played against them. They have the better coach and play a better team game/system than we do. We don' make adjustments. They do. They win. Not the popular opinion I realize. but just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

[Flair Hay]

1 system play

2 Fleury

3 jets shooting themselves in the foot too much due to 1

If I was Maurice I'd be looking at implementing some elements of what Vegas does to our game next fall. If you can't beat em join em