Confirmed with Link: Anthony "Punch yo' Face" Peluso signed 2-year extension (675k AAV)

[garret9]

I thought the Yost one and one other said the winning team was ever so slightly more likely to give up the next goal. That could be a mistake on my part though.

It ended up 51% for losing team of fight and 49% for winning.

The joke was that we took that slight edge as if it didn't really mean coin flip, satirizing some other individuals.

 

[veganhunter]

It ended up 51% for losing team of fight and 49% for winning.

The joke was that we took that slight edge as if it didn't really mean coin flip, satirizing some other individuals.

Ah I didn't realize the percentages were that close. Note to self: read entire study instead of second hand summary.

 

[scelaton]

I never claimed my hockey playing years equalled NHL experience or directed related to it. I stated in my experience fighting had no positive affect. I never compared it to NHL. Read again. If your making that link that's on you, not me.

Then why would you have stated the bolded below? Otherwise, it would be irrelevant to the discussion.

Shocking .....and yet some still believe it's 1980 and they make a difference. Some need to realize it's 2015.....

I played all forms of hockey (organized, casual, rec, etc into my early 20's) as one of the smaller to average sized skilled guys speaking they made zero difference on my teams and they typically just made it easier to score goals 5vs5 or PP. Common sense just isn't so common.

I believe in facts, studies and science......that trumps all....including hockey "professionals".

There is a big, big difference between science, fact and what is posted here. There are many here, including myself, who have a background in science and they would tell you that stats are often helpful in the search for hockey "facts", but not anywhere conclusive in this area. Absence of proof does not constitute proof of the countervailing view.

......but where did I compare Peluso signing to Loch Ness? I inferred that some people's claims of fighting having some big affect on the game is like believing in a mythical creature.....Zero proof that either exists.

You just answered your own question

I am not trying to give you a hard time. Just don't expect to be critical of the decisions of others without having your own logic questioned.

 

[Hunter368]

Then why would you have stated the bolded below? Otherwise, it would be irrelevant to the discussion.


There is a big, big difference between science, fact and what is posted here. There are many here, including myself, who have a background in science and they would tell you that stats are often helpful in the search for hockey "facts", but not anywhere conclusive in this area. Absence of proof does not constitute proof of the countervailing view.


You just answered your own question

I am not trying to give you a hard time. Just don't expect to be critical of the decisions of others without having your own logic questioned.

All I did was expressed my own opinion and experiences playing hockey over 12 years.

Maybe you misunderstand my comments about facts, studies, Sciences etc. I certainly wasn't referring to my comments or experiences. I was referring to the studies done that me, Vegan and Garret were talking about earlier in thread. If people don't want to believe them, that's cool. No one says we have to all think the same way.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Cheers!

 

[Gm0ney]

What I'm saying is rather than throwing away $675k on a player that will only hurt us or at best do nothing.....sooner have seen that money added to Frolik offer to keep him. Then we can play a younger player with some upside in that vacant spot.

But again.....dont really care about 675k, but it's summer so nothing else to chat about.

Once something interesting happens it will be Peluso who? Lol

Don't really care either way....just nothing else to post about.

The Jets only have, what, 7 or 8 forwards signed? That $675k would be spent on another 13th forward if not Peluso...it wouldn't be available to add to a Frolik deal, because you'd still have to fill that roster slot. A Petan or Copp or Kosmachuk will cost more than $675k and you don't want those guys sitting in the press box or only getting 5 minutes of ice on the 4th line anyway.

I guess you could argue the Jets could've spent that money on a better 13th forward, but I think they stuck with Peluso because a) PoMo likes him, b) he's a very good fighter, and c) a bit of loyalty. And how much better a 13th F are you going to get for that price?

 

[Hunter368]

The Jets only have, what, 7 or 8 forwards signed? That $675k would be spent on another 13th forward if not Peluso...it wouldn't be available to add to a Frolik deal, because you'd still have to fill that roster slot. A Petan or Copp or Kosmachuk will cost more than $675k and you don't want those guys sitting in the press box or only getting 5 minutes of ice on the 4th line anyway.

I guess you could argue the Jets could've spent that money on a better 13th forward, but I think they stuck with Peluso because a) PoMo likes him, b) he's a very good fighter, and c) a bit of loyalty. And how much better a 13th F are you going to get for that price?

Fair comments and I don't disagree. I would sooner of seen it spent on someone with a bit more talent for hockey.....but I understand your point/logic.

I just hope our 4thline is much better than last year where we were one of the worse.

 

[mcpw]

The Jets only have, what, 7 or 8 forwards signed? That $675k would be spent on another 13th forward if not Peluso...it wouldn't be available to add to a Frolik deal, because you'd still have to fill that roster slot. A Petan or Copp or Kosmachuk will cost more than $675k and you don't want those guys sitting in the press box or only getting 5 minutes of ice on the 4th line anyway.

I guess you could argue the Jets could've spent that money on a better 13th forward, but I think they stuck with Peluso because a) PoMo likes him, b) he's a very good fighter, and c) a bit of loyalty. And how much better a 13th F are you going to get for that price?

I was hoping we already have our 13th forward signed.
Name's Chris Thorburn.

 

[Hunter368]

I was hoping we already have our 13th forward signed.
Name's Chris Thorburn.

Soooo true. Still no one has explained why we need two face punchers.....dispite me asking 5-6 times. Why do we need Thor and Peluso?

If your a person in favor of Peluso signing are you adknowledging the Thor signing was a mistake or are you saying we need two face punchers. Please don't tell us Thor is a skilled hockey player.....hes been a face puncher his entire career.

I'll go along with one face puncher if it makes Paul happy.......but why two? Very redundant.

If Thor is traded now (after Tony's signing) I'll applaud the signing and trade. But I suspect were stuck with both now.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Soooo true. Still no one has explained why we need two face punchers.....dispite me asking 5-6 times. Why do we need Thor and Peluso?

If your a person in favor of Peluso signing are you adknowledging the Thor signing was a mistake or are you saying we need two face punchers. Please don't tell us Thor is a skilled hockey player.....hes been a face puncher his entire career.

I'll go along with one face puncher if it makes Paul happy.......but why two? Very redundant.

If Thor is traded now (after Tony's signing) I'll applaud the signing and trade. But I suspect were stuck with both now.

I thought that had been answered. I think it is quite simple. As far as PMo is concerned Thor is a hockey player who also punches, or at least takes punches. Peluso is a face-puncher who also plays hockey (sort of).

Thor is not on the roster as a face-punching specialist. He is a reliable hockey player whose "simple game" enables him to move up and down the lineup. PMo's opinion.

You may not like it but that is the answer to your question.

 

[Hunter368]

I thought that had been answered. I think it is quite simple. As far as PMo is concerned Thor is a hockey player who also punches, or at least takes punches. Peluso is a face-puncher who also plays hockey (sort of).

Thor is not on the roster as a face-punching specialist. He is a reliable hockey player whose "simple game" enables him to move up and down the lineup. PMo's opinion.

You may not like it but that is the answer to your question.

Let me translat that a bit:

Thor used to be a face puncher but really sucks at it now, now he's a glue guy in the locker room b/c he sucks at face punching. Ugh

Peluso is just a face puncher. Ugh

 

[veganhunter]

I thought that had been answered. I think it is quite simple. As far as PMo is concerned Thor is a hockey player who also punches, or at least takes punches. Peluso is a face-puncher who also plays hockey (sort of).

Thor is not on the roster as a face-punching specialist. He is a reliable hockey player whose "simple game" enables him to move up and down the lineup. PMo's opinion.

You may not like it but that is the answer to your question.

That middle paragraph made me slightly nauseous.

 

[Hunter368]

That middle paragraph made me slightly nauseous.

Agreed

Our bottom 6 has been poor since they Jets got here, our 4th line has been horrible over that time. Yet we keep carrying "character/glue guys" instead of adding talent in those spots.

At some point Chevy needs to take the wheel and tell Paul were adding talent.....not just "glue" guys.

 

[DEANYOUNGBLOOD17]

Peluso is a face puncher and Thir gets his face punched.

Last year I was not happy with Thors contract. I did not like that we gave him a contract/ I was not happy with the term (3 years)/ and I was not happy with $ amount.

I am however pleased with Tony P signing 2 days ago.

 

[veganhunter]

Peluso is a face puncher and Thir gets his face punched.

Last year I was not happy with Thors contract. I did not like that we gave him a contract/ I was not happy with the term (3 years)/ and I was not happy with $ amount.

I am however pleased with Tony P signing 2 days ago.

If it was one or the other, despite my disagreement with the general notion of the enforcer, I wouldn't complain much but...

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

That middle paragraph made me slightly nauseous.

I had to wash my hands after typing it but all appearances say that is PMo's assessment.

 

[lomiller1]

Soooo true. Still no one has explained why we need two face punchers.....dispite me asking 5-6 times. Why do we need Thor and Peluso?

Thorburn doesn’t actually punch many faces, even when he fights...

 

[OttawaSenators11]

Nice to see Peluso sign on for another couple years!

Personally speaking - I can't stand that so many enforcers have been kicked to the side recently!

Long live the GOONS!

 

[KingBogo]

Thorburn doesn’t actually punch many faces, even when he fights...

That is an important point. Thorburn is not what you would call an enforcer as you would Peluso. Thorburn will fight, but so will Stuart...doesn't put them in the heavy weight division with Peluso. Peluso is a fighter that can sort of hold his own on the ice. Just fine for a 13/14 forward at the NHL minimum, especially with the farm team in the same city so a more skilled player is easily called up when needed. Add in a the fact we have a strong waiver exempt prospect pool on the farm...everything is good.

 

[Puckatron 3000]

A bit of devil's advocate here...

I'm in favor of playing Petan over Peluso. Although I'm biased towards Petan. I dig his style of play. It would be a closer call if we were choosing between Peluso and a more traditional 4th line player.

There's a lot of angst around here whenever Maurice puts Peluso in the line-up. Shot metrics would certainly back up that angst.

Still, when debating the trade-off between Peluso and <whatever other 4th line guy>, I feel the conversation has been a little too focused on the value of being simply a deterrent. The typical argument goes, "Peluso/enforcers are not a deterrent to protect players like Ehlers, so they're useless".

Is this true?

What about Peluso's hits and physical play? These won't often lead to scoring or even shots on goal for a lackluster offensive 4th line . So their effect is not going to show up much, if at all, in scoring metrics.

But isn't there some other benefit? Doesn't grinding a team down possibly lead to scoring opportunities later in the game (possibly by some other line)? What about the wear and tear against conference and division rivals throughout the year? Might this not lead to some long term benefits over the course of the season? There's a wide spectrum between fully healthy and IR, and it affects a player's performance on the ice. Might not Peluso push our opposition more towards the weakened end of that spectrum? Maybe this helps us in points towards the playoffs. Maybe this helps us in the post season against teams we've grinded down all year. Maybe this is why we tend to see Peluso in games against western conference teams.

Add to this that if a game gets scrappy, it's more likely Peluso gets in a fight than some other more valuable player. So, less chance of losing an important guy to injury.

And perhaps there's even some (impossible to measure) team morale boost to watching Peluso smash around on the ice and occasionally ragdoll somebody on the other team. Sure, scoring is great for morale too. But when comparing a more skilled player vs. a grinder/enforcer, you gotta consider all factors on each side.

Shot metrics are derived from snapshots of play on the ice - short, discrete events. Maybe playing a guy like Peluso has more of a "long game" aspect to it, something which is not easily measurable with our current approach to fancy stats.

 

[Samcanadian]

I actually liked Peluso's game last night.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

A bit of devil's advocate here...

I'm in favor of playing Petan over Peluso. Although I'm biased towards Petan. I dig his style of play. It would be a closer call if we were choosing between Peluso and a more traditional 4th line player.

There's a lot of angst around here whenever Maurice puts Peluso in the line-up. Shot metrics would certainly back up that angst.

Still, when debating the trade-off between Peluso and <whatever other 4th line guy>, I feel the conversation has been a little too focused on the value of being simply a deterrent. The typical argument goes, "Peluso/enforcers are not a deterrent to protect players like Ehlers, so they're useless".

Is this true?

What about Peluso's hits and physical play? These won't often lead to scoring or even shots on goal for a lackluster offensive 4th line . So their effect is not going to show up much, if at all, in scoring metrics.

But isn't there some other benefit? Doesn't grinding a team down possibly lead to scoring opportunities later in the game (possibly by some other line)? What about the wear and tear against conference and division rivals throughout the year? Might this not lead to some long term benefits over the course of the season? There's a wide spectrum between fully healthy and IR, and it affects a player's performance on the ice. Might not Peluso push our opposition more towards the weakened end of that spectrum? Maybe this helps us in points towards the playoffs. Maybe this helps us in the post season against teams we've grinded down all year. Maybe this is why we tend to see Peluso in games against western conference teams.

Add to this that if a game gets scrappy, it's more likely Peluso gets in a fight than some other more valuable player. So, less chance of losing an important guy to injury.

And perhaps there's even some (impossible to measure) team morale boost to watching Peluso smash around on the ice and occasionally ragdoll somebody on the other team. Sure, scoring is great for morale too. But when comparing a more skilled player vs. a grinder/enforcer, you gotta consider all factors on each side.

Shot metrics are derived from snapshots of play on the ice - short, discrete events. Maybe playing a guy like Peluso has more of a "long game" aspect to it, something which is not easily measurable with our current approach to fancy stats.

Yes, that is true.

The rest of your post makes some valid points I think but I doubt there is much benefit to that 'long game' approach.

That said I thought AP played pretty well last night. His hits seemed to be better timed. He was separating Kings from the puck instead of hitting them a half second late. His forecheck created some chances. They managed to spend at least a fair share of their time in the O zone. Petan might have been able to contribute on the PP but special teams were not much of a factor in that game.

If Peluso could play like that more often he could earn a lot more TOI.

 

[Puckatron 3000]

Yes, that is true.

The rest of your post makes some valid points I think but I doubt there is much benefit to that 'long game' approach.

So you don't think hits and physical play (in absence of forechecking and defensive play considerations) have much impact on the outcome of a game or the season?

I'm not sure I'm convinced of that.

That said I thought AP played pretty well last night.

No doubt, the more Peluso plays real hockey, the less of an issue it becomes.

 

[RustyCat]

I like Peluso and I like what he brings to the team and the game. Evidently so does Maurice and Cheveldayoff, so it doesn't really matter what the nay-sayers say.

 

[garret9]

I like Peluso and I like what he brings to the team and the game. Evidently so does Maurice and Cheveldayoff, so it doesn't really matter what the nay-sayers say.

It doesn't matter what anyone says, even if what they say is right.*

 

[garret9]

I've previously discussed this topic in articles before.

This is called "latent variables".

Essentially latent variables are things that impact the results but cannot be measured.

These are your "useful" intangibles:
* Hits and physicality leads to more tentative play or increase in chance of injury on opponents
* Leadership causes cohesiveness in following system
* Character in the room improves morale and effort
* etc.

All those factors should in theory lead to improvements in the measurable: shots and goals and wins.

(I have to say though that I am extremely skeptical on your fight argument, both in injury protect and booster. There is a lot of counter evidence.
Injuries: While not causation, there is a relationship in those that carry fighters tend to have more non-fighters injured and also lose more games.
Morale/Energy boost: Shot and goal rates do not change after a fight more than we expect given that the ones usually fighting are 4th liners with the worst shot rates and the new players are usually rested top line players with high rates.)

I've gone into this pretty deep at both AIH, JN, and HG, so I won't too much. You can search Google for past articles I've written on the subject.

The danger with specific instances like this, is you are taking a player that is both visibly and measurably deficient in events that directly lead to goals and wins because he of areas that could be indirectly beneficial.

The issue with the immeasurable is that you can't measure it.
Is the player actually helping out there?
Does it actually eventually lead into making up for where they hurting?

It seems intuitive that it helps, and if you are to choose those players, fourth line role is the best place. Fourth line players can be sheltered, not just in terms of usage, but also the minutes they see. Fourth line players do not just see minimal minutes, but they tend to play very low leverage minutes as well (large leads or far behind, not last few mins in period or game, special teams, etc.).

So, if positive latent variables were to make up for negative on-ice variables, this would be the place.

However, the issue with this is that just because something seems intuitive, it doesn't necessarily work out in the order of importance that one would assume.

For example, we see this in face offs. Face offs matter, but not nearly to the degree that many would, and used to, think. The second worst team in FOs was the Canucks last year. The very high-end of estimate would be that it cost them 7 goals last season in their differential, maybe 3 points. Even then that can be an over assumption. We look deeper and we see most of the losses came from the Sedin line, who actually out shot and chanced opponents when looking right after a FO. FO is only just a means, the end is puck control to lead into shots and goals.

Many latent variables are a means to an end as well. We know Peluso hurts in shots and goals, even for a fourth line player. We do not know whether his latent variables make up for that. We also don't know about other latent or indirect variables that could be impacting things as well (random ex: Petan taking more time keeping top lines fresh for high leverage mins). It's not like the alternative options, who would be better in the measurable, have no chance at being also better in the latent variables too. There's also possibility of negative latent variables in having players more likely to have shots and goals against, as no one likes losing.

You are trading some known hurt for some unknown help. It can be dangerous. No one really knows if it is right or wrong, but I'm wary.

No matter what, I do not like the fact that the Jets have essentially carried a bottom 5 fourth line in the league for years in the measurable results.