Comparing Jets first 18 games this and last year

[scelaton]

Why are you so concerned about people eating crow and being less critical? We're all on the Jets bandwagon for life, but that doesn't mean we can't ***** about the ride...

It's genetic. We are all hard-wired to be optimists or pessimists, across a wide spectrum. Optimists tend to expect a positive outcome and give people the benefit of the doubt. Pessimists tend to be more skeptical and analytical, and can't understand why the cheerful optimists are blithely oblivious to the sorry state of the world, the Jets, life, etc. Skeptics make great scientists, but can be extremely annoying to optimistic hockey fans.

At work, I cannot tolerate blamers, finger pointers, bus thrower underers. You accomplish absolutely nothing with people of this mindset...

Its those that obsessively wait for us to experience some hard times so they can make silly statements as though they are absolute proclamations based off of a slew of games that didn't go our way....

But hey, if 7 games is all you need to determine that everything this organization has done up to this point is a massive failure, enjoy.

There is a world of difference between insightful skeptics like Gm0ney and the blamers you refer to, who repeat their negative mantra ad nauseum.
Without skeptics, there would be nothing to debate on this board. Without the trollers, there would be no one to ignore...

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

There is a world of difference between insightful skeptics like Gm0ney and the blamers you refer to, who repeat their negative mantra ad nauseum.
Without skeptics, there would be nothing to debate on this board. Without the trollers, there would be no one to ignore...

Thought I clarified that in the post above? Said I understood what a sports forum is about, and the the team is not above criticism, as well as there being plenty of posters on this forum that apply their criticism constructively, and in a sensible manner.

I do have a problem with overreacting. I do believe allot of that goes on here, its tolerable but I dislike it.

Being a tad older, remembering the Jets of old, it was a painful several seasons before that team became successful. As a fan back then, you patiently watched the draft and develop plan, because that was pretty much the only plan that worked back then.

But when it came to fruition, as a fan, it was the ultimate in satisfaction. Standing behind a slow process, and watch it develop into a winning program, minus the stupid Oilers that dumped all over it.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

You are far from the worst, your not even remotely in that range.

Not in the range of the worst - hey, I'll take that as a full on complement!

You have made my day.

 

[Gm0ney]

Thought I clarified that in the post above? Said I understood what a sports forum is about, and the the team is not above criticism, as well as there being plenty of posters on this forum that apply their criticism constructively, and in a sensible manner.

I do have a problem with overreacting. I do believe allot of that goes on here, its tolerable but I dislike it.

Being a tad older, remembering the Jets of old, it was a painful several seasons before that team became successful. As a fan back then, you patiently watched the draft and develop plan, because that was pretty much the only plan that worked back then.

But when it came to fruition, as a fan, it was the ultimate in satisfaction. Standing behind a slow process, and watch it develop into a winning program, minus the stupid Oilers that dumped all over it.

Yeah, I saw my first NHL Jets game in 1980 when Pittsburgh came to town on a Sunday afternoon and beat us 6-3. Markus Mattsson was in goal and Pierre Hamel was the backup - he was actually reading the newspaper on the bench.

One thing GMs did a lot more of back then was make trades. Unrestricted free agency wasn't really an option, so the only way to acquire players was by drafting or trading. GMs would make shakeup trades all the time at the drop of a hat.

I am confused about when this Jets 1.0 plan came to fruition? Are you talking about the Avco Cup? That WHA Jets team isn't exactly "draft & develop". More like "poach NHLers and sign unknown Europeans". If you mean the NHL era Jets 1.0 - well they had some good teams, but only won, what, two playoff series in 16 seasons? I'm not going to be super thrilled if Chevy's plan turns out like that...

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

Yeah, I saw my first NHL Jets game in 1980 when Pittsburgh came to town on a Sunday afternoon and beat us 6-3. Markus Mattsson was in goal and Pierre Hamel was the backup - he was actually reading the newspaper on the bench.

One thing GMs did a lot more of back then was make trades. Unrestricted free agency wasn't really an option, so the only way to acquire players was by drafting or trading. GMs would make shakeup trades all the time at the drop of a hat.

I am confused about when this Jets 1.0 plan came to fruition? Are you talking about the Avco Cup? That WHA Jets team isn't exactly "draft & develop". More like "poach NHLers and sign unknown Europeans". If you mean the NHL era Jets 1.0 - well they had some good teams, but only won, what, two playoff series in 16 seasons? I'm not going to be super thrilled if Chevy's plan turns out like that...

1981 - 1990, mostly solid seasons. We made the playoffs in 8 of the 9 seasons. Went to the Smyth finals 2 times, losing out to the oilers.


The 84/85 season was a good one for us, 6 30 goal scorers, we were stacked, but the Oilers were gods.

 

[garret9]

Of interesting note: last season was our best in 2period ES shot differentials. Jets 1.0 or 2.0.

 

[RandomJetsFan]

no idea if this is the right place for this but who was the guy with the half tank avatar......call me superstitious but could you put it back up

 

[garret9]

A bit related (too lazy to make new thread):

Here is another piece, looking on who is doing well/poorly compared to past with Jets.
http://jetsnation.ca/2015/11/17/winnipeg-jets-under-and-over-performers-in-19-games

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

A bit related (too lazy to make new thread):

Here is another piece, looking on who is doing well/poorly compared to past with Jets.
http://jetsnation.ca/2015/11/17/winnipeg-jets-under-and-over-performers-in-19-games

Well, confirms what I was saying about Burmi for quite some time.

The Lowry thing, well, maybe that isn't all Burmi's fault like I thought.

Got one right, got one wrong. I'm .500. Wish the Jets were.

 

[garret9]

Well, confirms what I was saying about Burmi for quite some time.

The Lowry thing, well, maybe that isn't all Burmi's fault like I thought.

Got one right, got one wrong. I'm .500. Wish the Jets were.

Note, that doesn't show how good/bad they are, but how good/bad they have been compared to how they normally are.

 

[garret9]

Just did a quick and dirty calculation. Looks like 18-game HSCA/CA can't predict future values well. So it looks like it's just a "here's what has gone wrong" metric.

Now get that unsustainbly high value down, PauMau

Fun fact:
Colorado has one of the better HSCA/CA....

 

[Constable]

the way i see it, we started off bad last season; we went mediocre and then turned the heat up

the jets this year started at 11, and have simmered down to a -2.

 

[mcpw]

Fun fact:
Colorado has one of the better HSCA/CA....

That's ok, they're so bad that no cherry-picking is needed

 

[Grind]

....

I don't dispute that. Unfortunately, xG is still a black box for me (I don't think there's public access to a database with all the necessary info you need to calculate xG), so I only have access to what DTMAH posts on Twitter. So as an approximation I'm going by what I think is the most relevant ingredient (correct me if I'm wrong here): Going by WOI stats, we have
Sv%L 0.974
Sv%M 0.925
Sv%H 0.835
(That's on shots, not shot attempts, obviously ) So, highest priority should be to not allow high-danger shots - confirmed by eyetest, keeping shots to the outside is a good thing. Looking at the shot distribution for several goalies, I find that, for a league-average goalie, most goals against come from high-danger shots. Therefore, I believe that the distinction between HSC and non-HSC is the most important ingredient in the xG formula (I know that it still distinguishes between several classes of HSC). In conclusion, looking at HSCF% can tell you whether a team performs better or worse than its CF% indicates - that should be the first step from CF% to xG%, to quantify the effect of HSC. Super-extreme example: If a team has 60CF% and 90% HSCA/CA over a season, you would probably expect that it failed to makebthe playoffs. Predictive value isbhidden in the HSCA autocorrelation which I haven't calculated yet.

I'm playing with HSC, HSC%ofSC, and HSC%ofC(shot attempts) on my own right now.

Where did you find these save % numbers? Also where did you find the deviation of HSC, MSC, and LSC?

On WOI all I can find are HSC, SC, and Shot Attempts


If thsoe SV% numbers are correct, we could use them to create sort of a weighted SC total for teams and see where that gets us (i've already done this, but wanted to get some backup on those sv% numbers)

IE: if the sV% spread is what you say, a LSC is = .86 HSC. We could use that modifier to come up with the totalvalue of approximate HSC (Weighted Scoring Chances) if to account for teams generating lots of muffins from the point but leaving their homeplate wide open.

Still playing with it to see if it's predictive in anymatter. It's Very close from a descriptive side to matching Corsi (at least was for last year).

EDIT: i must have missed the post where you found that it wasn't perdictive. Oh well. Still interesting to look at, especially at special teams (we are ****ing awful on the PK)

 

[garret9]

Note that HDSC are not all shot attempts in HD aread.

They also adjust shots based on rebounds and "rush" shots.

 

[mcpw]

Gm0ney, the average sv%s can be calculated from the SALow, GALow etc data for goalies (I just took the data for all 14-15 goalies to calculate it). Note that this is shots, not shot attempts. I also don't think there is a definition for "LSC".

Weighted SCA sounds like reinventing xG, and xG looks to be "more predictive" than Corsi.

I got the idea of looking at HSCA because I wanted to see whether there is a stat which could confirm what my eyetest told me, "despite decent CF% our defense has been bad". I found that there is one, and I also found that it doesn't mean that it will likely stay that way (at least in the description I've chosen).

 

[garret9]

Gm0ney, the average sv%s can be calculated from the SALow, GALow etc data for goalies (I just took the data for all 14-15 goalies to calculate it). Note that this is shots, not shot attempts. I also don't think there is a definition for "LSC".

Weighted SCA sounds like reinventing xG, and xG looks to be "more predictive" than Corsi.

I got the idea of looking at HSCA because I wanted to see whether there is a stat which could confirm what my eyetest told me, "despite decent CF% our defense has been bad". I found that there is one, and I also found that it doesn't mean that it will likely stay that way (at least in the description I've chosen).

Ya..


Also...

SC is in many ways a predecessor to xG, except instead of weighting shots it just excludes some shots. The definition here:
http://blog.war-on-ice.com/new-defining-scoring-chances/

HDSC is exclusion of some SC, being only the SCs in high-danger zone, with including some SCs outside like rebounds in medium-danger zone.

xG is Corsi, with each shot being weighted by:

And also regressed shooting percentage history of the shooter.


I wouldn't be big on weighted SC or HDSC because I don't like excluding data. Weighting is far better than excluding data, usually.

Sometimes (but not always) excluding data is even worse than adjusting data. Which we see with goals/SC/HDSC/etc vs Corsi or score-close vs all-mins or Hockey Analysis' "ZS-Adjusted" (should just be called open-play Corsi) vs actual adjusting for zs.

 

[angrymnky]

1981 - 1990, mostly solid seasons. We made the playoffs in 8 of the 9 seasons. Went to the Smyth finals 2 times, losing out to the oilers.


The 84/85 season was a good one for us, 6 30 goal scorers, we were stacked, but the Oilers were gods.

Agreed. Everyone looks at the terrible playoff record but those were some good seasons in there. And at least we beat Calgary a lot. Even in 89 when they won the cup we totally owned them during the season. Wish we had met them in the playoffs.

 

[Grind]

Ya..


Also...

SC is in many ways a predecessor to xG, except instead of weighting shots it just excludes some shots. The definition here:
http://blog.war-on-ice.com/new-defining-scoring-chances/

HDSC is exclusion of some SC, being only the SCs in high-danger zone, with including some SCs outside like rebounds in medium-danger zone.

xG is Corsi, with each shot being weighted by:

And also regressed shooting percentage history of the shooter.


I wouldn't be big on weighted SC or HDSC because I don't like excluding data. Weighting is far better than excluding data, usually.

Sometimes (but not always) excluding data is even worse than adjusting data. Which we see with goals/SC/HDSC/etc vs Corsi or score-close vs all-mins or Hockey Analysis' "ZS-Adjusted" (should just be called open-play Corsi) vs actual adjusting for zs.

Ok yah.

That's pretty much what i was looking for.

Mostly just playing with data as it was there and because i couldn't find any sort of open/malliable version of xG

seeing the weighting that goes into it is pretty interesting (and helpful!)