How many points will the 2019-20 CBJ have?

[Cyclones Rock]

Pretty straight forward poll except for one choice. Choice #3 should be taken to mean close to making the playoffs but just missing since estimating how many points will be required to make the playoffs is beyond my pay grade.

I opted for 80-87. The loss of Panarin will have severe ramifications on the offense and Elvis/Korpi will probably prove to be a very inferior Bob substitute.

Click to read more...

 

[EspenK]

I went with 3. I guess 88 points but I can't see 93. Changing to option 2. I
think the loss of B&B is worth 10 points. Goalies still a big question mark.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

80/87 and I’d bet heavy on it

 

[DarkandStormy]

I'm in the "need to see it to believe it" camp. In theory, at least *one* of the goalies should be NHL average, but we don't yet know. I'm not sure if the forward lines will be able to generate offense like the last three seasons. Will Wennberg be more than a wet noodle in a middle 6 role? Will Dubinsky/Nash not be a black hole of offense?

I'm somewhere around 32-40-10 which is 74 points. Maybe that's lowballing, but again, it's not out of the realm of possibilities that the goaltending is bottom 5 in the league.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

I'm in the "need to see it to believe it" camp. In theory, at least *one* of the goalies should be NHL average, but we don't yet know. I'm not sure if the forward lines will be able to generate offense like the last three seasons. Will Wennberg be more than a wet noodle in a middle 6 role? Will Dubinsky/Nash not be a black hole of offense?

I'm somewhere around 32-40-10 which is 74 points. Maybe that's lowballing, but again, it's not out of the realm of possibilities that the goaltending is bottom 5 in the league.

If the goaltending does tank, then I think that your estimate isn't unreasonable. I'm hoping that Elvis lives up to his press clippings. I have very little faith that Korpisalo is the answer.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

If the goaltending does tank, then I think that your estimate isn't unreasonable. I'm hoping that Elvis lives up to his press clippings. I have very little faith that Korpisalo is the answer.

Unless the question is "Who will be the Blue Jackets' backup goalie for the third straight season?" amirite!???!

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Unless the question is "Who will be the Blue Jackets' backup goalie for the third straight season?" amirite!???!

No, you are not.

To the back of the line with ya.

 

[majormajor]

I voted option 4, but I'm not endorsing any guess about whether they make the playoffs. I'll say 96 points, which might just be the playoff bar. There are about 10 teams in the East that should be expected to hit that level or higher.

I expect about 250 goals for, and after our discussion a few weeks back it seems that even the pessimists still come up with something close to that when they add up the players. I'm going to plug in another assumption, that our shots against goes up by almost 100 shots to 2500, reflecting worse possession play in Panarin's absence. That leaves save percentage as the final variable:

Save Percentage	Goals Against	Goal Differential	Points Projection
0.92	200	50	107
0.915	212.5	37.5	103
0.91	225	25	99
0.905	237.5	12.5	95
0.9	250	0	91
0.895	262.5	-12.5	87
0.89	275	-25	83

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I'm going to say .906, still below league average goaltending, but enough to keep us in reach of the playoffs. With league average goaltending, which we didn't even have last year, I'd expect 100 points from this roster.

I'd like those expecting very low point totals to explain their assumptions.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

I voted option 4, but I'm not endorsing any guess about whether they make the playoffs. I'll say 96 points, which might just be the playoff bar. There are about 10 teams in the East that should be expected to hit that level or higher.

I expect about 250 goals for, and after our discussion a few weeks back it seems that even the pessimists still come up with something close to that when they add up the players. I'm going to plug in another assumption, that our shots against goes up by almost 100 shots to 2500, reflecting worse possession play in Panarin's absence. That leaves save percentage as the final variable:

Save Percentage	Goals Against	Goal Differential	Points Projection
0.92	200	50	107
0.915	212.5	37.5	103
0.91	225	25	99
0.905	237.5	12.5	95
0.9	250	0	91
0.895	262.5	-12.5	87
0.89	275	-25	83

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I'm going to say .906, still below league average goaltending, but enough to keep us in reach of the playoffs. With league average goaltending, which we didn't even have last year, I'd expect 100 points from this roster.

I'd like those expecting very low point totals to explain their assumptions.

Maybe you'd like to explain an assumption which gives a .900 save percentage a zero goals differential.

NHL.com - Stats

The 45th out of 54 ranked goalie who played 25 or more games last season had a save percentage that poor. Doesn't lend itself to a zero goals differential. Probably equates to a goals differential of -30 or worse.

http://www.espn.com/nhl/statistics/team/_/stat/scoring/sort/teamSavePct/year/2019/seasontype
/2

 

[majormajor]

Maybe you'd like to explain an assumption which gives a .900 save percentage a zero goals differential.

NHL.com - Stats

The 45th out of 54 ranked goalie who played 25 or more games last season had a save percentage that poor. Doesn't lend itself to a zero goals differential. Probably equates to a goals differential of -30 or worse.

http://www.espn.com/nhl/statistics/team/_/stat/scoring/sort/teamSavePct/year/2019/seasontype
/2

My assumptions are in the text. 2500 shots against (about 100 more than last season), with a .900 sv% equals 250 goals against. I projected 250 goals for, which you found reasonable the other week. So combining those projections puts us about even in goal differential.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

My assumptions are in the text. 2500 shots against (about 100 more than last season), with a .900 sv% equals 250 goals against. I projected 250 goals for, which you found reasonable the other week. So combining those projections puts us about even in goal differential.

It just doesn't seem to match with the reality of the standings so something is wrong with one side of your projections I'd think. Maybe the underlying assumption of CBJ shooting percentage is too high. Other than San Jose, no one with a .900 save percentage was zero goals differential and the CBJ aren't going to be some dominant puck possession team this coming year I wouldn't think.

The 250 goals range isn't an unreasonable assumption, but it could be lower.

Once again, I don't see how the CBJ at a .900 save percentage are a zero goals differential team.

 

[majormajor]

It just doesn't seem to match with the reality of the standings so something is wrong with one side of your projections I'd think. Maybe the underlying assumption of CBJ shooting percentage is too high. Other than San Jose, no one with a .900 save percentage was zero goals differential and the CBJ aren't going to be some dominant puck possession team this coming year I wouldn't think.

The 250 goals range isn't an unreasonable assumption, but it could be lower.

Once again, I don't see how the CBJ at a .900 save percentage are a zero goals differential team.

The spreadsheet is just straight math (I did it in excel) with two assumptions - goals for and shots against. If you think the goals for is not unreasonable then you must be objecting to the shots against. Personally I think the shots against rising to 2500 is pessimistic enough.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

The spreadsheet is just straight math (I did it in excel) with two assumptions - goals for and shots against. If you think the goals for is not unreasonable then you must be objecting to the shots against. Personally I think the shots against rising to 2500 is pessimistic enough.

What shooting percentage do you assume (if any) for the CBJ. I don't think that it's reasonable to assume a shooting percentage any higher (lower) than the opposition Shooting%.

I don't see this team having a standout shooting percentage nor do I see them generating more shots than the average NHL team this year.

Once again, I look at the .900 save percentage teams and I don't see zero goals differential or better with the exception of SJ.

 

[JohnnyJacket13]

My guess is between 94-97 points, and that's assuming slightly above average goaltending. Worst case scenario imo is 85-89, and best case is >100.

 

[CoachWithNoTeam]

I guess I’m surprised that I’m the only one to take the over so far.

 

[majormajor]

I guess I’m surprised that I’m the only one to take the over so far.

I could see it if the goalies are above average, I just don't have that much faith in them.

If we had signed Lehner, who has a career .918 sv%, then a 103 pt season would seem reasonable to me.

 

[MoeBartoli]

There's probably plenty of reasons to argue the Jackets will hit the links early this year, but I'll go the Scotty Bowman route saying "Stats are for losers" and go with my gut. Keep that Playoff Engine Going!

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

No, you are not.

To the back of the line with ya.

Kor-pi-sa-lo

clap clap clap-clap-clap

 

[JacketsDavid]

88-93. Maybe an average offense at best (again you take away a guy like Panarin it's going to hurt).
Real questionable goaltending.

Bottom line is Washington and Pittsburgh are likely still better than us. Carolina is bringing most of their team back and I would expect them to be better than us. Rest of the guys behind us improved to some degree and we're sitting around, trying to maintain the one stat the front office is really committed to "Being the youngest team in the league".

Not a terrible team, will be competitive but I just don't see us being better than last season when we only got the 8th seed and many teams behind us improved.

 

[BluejacketNut]

80-87. We;re going to be back to dump and chase with Panarin gone and the defense is going to have to stay back to protect our goaltending. Most the division got better this year and we got worse

 

[Finner]

This is very interesting question. Big stars go away is it negative or positive cant see yet. Points can be anything between 60 and 110. Elvis is same level than he was in europe and team welds together like a real team, then it can be monsterious season and points up to 110. Other side of the story is the opposite and we melt like everybody is waiting and we get 60points.

 

[Viqsi]

I voted option 4, but I'm not endorsing any guess about whether they make the playoffs. I'll say 96 points, which might just be the playoff bar. There are about 10 teams in the East that should be expected to hit that level or higher.

I expect about 250 goals for, and after our discussion a few weeks back it seems that even the pessimists still come up with something close to that when they add up the players. I'm going to plug in another assumption, that our shots against goes up by almost 100 shots to 2500, reflecting worse possession play in Panarin's absence. That leaves save percentage as the final variable:

Save Percentage	Goals Against	Goal Differential	Points Projection
0.92	200	50	107
0.915	212.5	37.5	103
0.91	225	25	99
0.905	237.5	12.5	95
0.9	250	0	91
0.895	262.5	-12.5	87
0.89	275	-25	83

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I'm going to say .906, still below league average goaltending, but enough to keep us in reach of the playoffs. With league average goaltending, which we didn't even have last year, I'd expect 100 points from this roster.

I'd like those expecting very low point totals to explain their assumptions.

Nicely done, and I'd kind of been reckoning something like this but I hadn't actually done the math (sue me, I do enough math in my day job ). Where I get doubtful is how well the team might perform in the playoffs. I suspect we're going to have something very much like the last few years - surprise a few people, make it in in the last few games, yet another first round exit.

EDIT: Forgot to note, by the way - Korpisalo's NHL career SV% is .907. That's what I was kind of going by.

 

[NotWendell]

Put me down for 89 points - the worst possible outcome

 

[JacketFanInFL]

Floor is probably 76 points and the ceiling is probably 85 or so. I said under 80 mainly because the rest of the division got better or stayed even while we got a lot worse. We have a lot of 'hopes and dreams' players on this roster and we have seen how that's worked out in the past.

I think there are a lot of people expecting us to do what the Islanders did after losing Tavares. Unfortunately, Barry Trotz isn't walking through that door anytime soon.

 

[Long Live Lyle]

Could be an interesting team. I do think there’s a big range of possibilities. It’s largely the same skaters as the team that got 108 points* in 2016-17. Losses: Saad, Gagner, Hartnell, Karlsson, Johnson, Calvert. Additions: PLD, Nyquist, Bjorkstrand (he only played 26 games that year), Texier, Gavrikov, Kukan, Nash. I think that’s probably more or less even and if anything probably leans toward this current team (unless you count Vegas Karlsson). Guys like Wennberg and Dubi are worse, but others like Anderson and Nuti are better. I think it roughly evens out, and the talent of the skaters are honestly about even.

This team also was high 90s in points the last two years. Panarin is great. He might be the margin between making the playoffs and not, but I do think his value (particularly when adding Nyquist) as far as amount of wins that will be lost is being a little oversold.

The thing that concerns me is in net. And yet, we still had a good season last year despite Bob not having a particularly good regular season and the distractions. I think we’ll make the playoffs again if we can get about league average goaltending. Don’t know if we will get that, though.

I’d still like to make one more move to add a forward by trading a D. If not, though, at least we’re extremely deep there.

Tough to see this team dropping below 80 points after the last three years. We lost two key players, but this isn’t basketball. I don’t think Bob and Panarin combined are worth 20 points. Particularly if you’re counting last season’s Bob. (We were on pace for about 96 points prior to the Duchene trade and he wasn’t particularly great in the regular season anyway.) I think it’d take a perfect storm of negatives (combo of injuries and regressions by numerous players) to fall below 80.

*Obviously, I know about the 16-game winning streak. Two thoughts:

1) It’s weird to hold it against the team, to punish them for doing it. As if just any team could do it and we got lucky it just happened to be us. Pretty sure Ottawa’s not gonna on a 16-game winning streak this year.

2) If that team had gone 12-4 over that stretch, no one would remember it or hold it against them, and they’d still have 100 points.

W W L W W W L W L W W W W L W W L L

(Those last two Ls representing the losses that occurred right after the streak.)