Interesting Info: Part XX (Jackets-related "tidbits" here)

[major major]

There's a big divergence within the team that can't be explained by usage. The Foligno-Jenner-Anderson combo are around 2 GA/60 (largely driven by Big Josh Anderson's 1.26 GA/60), and the 4th line is also just above 2 GA/60. If the whole team was like that, then with close to average PK we'd have a GAA even lower than last year's GAA.

The issue is that the top line is over 3 GA/60 at 5v5, and the Wennberg/Dubinsky/kid who doesn't check line is closer to 4 GA/60, with results much worse with Duclair than with Bjorkstrand. In recent years Dubinsky has had very high GA numbers, partly driven by usage. But Wennberg, Dubois, and Panarin have all gone from the good end of the pool to the bad end. And that doesn't surprise me seeing the number of mistakes they've been making, particularly Dubois.

 

[major major]

Perhaps it would not surprise anyone that among the D, the goals against spike is almost entirely an issue when Werenski is on the ice. When he's off the ice we're close to last year's numbers.

 

[major major]

I ran a combination with Dubois, Panarin, and Werenski, and the GA problem is Dubois himself, Werenski with Dubois, and Werenski with Panarin.

Oddly enough, Panarin-Dubois have been fine without Werenski and Werenski has been fine without them.

So a simple rule can be proffered: don't put more than one 21 and under player out there at a time.

 

[EspenK]

https://thehockeywriters.com/columbus-blue-jackets-contender-pretender/

One guy's take on whether the Jackets should be buyers or sellers as the deadline approaches (albeit still a ways away).

Put me in the sell category unless Bread signs an extension prior to the deadline.

 

[JohnnyJacket13]

Thank god

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Well, if the defense gets better and the forwards get worse, we know Larsen is to blame. Because goal scoring hasn't been the issue.

 

[major major]

https://thehockeywriters.com/columbus-blue-jackets-contender-pretender/

One guy's take on whether the Jackets should be buyers or sellers as the deadline approaches (albeit still a ways away).

Put me in the sell category unless Bread signs an extension prior to the deadline.

I try not to overlearn from a few games, and this decision doesn't need to be made now anyways. Teams have ups and downs throughout the year, especially young teams. Certainly they'll have to do better against top clubs in coming months to convince me they are serious contenders.

I'd also add that deciding to buy or sell should be based not just on the current play of the team, but the price. Even if I'm not convinced by the team, I think it's moronic to sell Panarin for a late 1st and a couple B prospects. You have a better chance of getting a deep playoff run with a middling team than of getting a star player out of that trade.

At some point this team needs to take it's chances. This isn't basketball, you have to play the games to find out who wins. Unless of course you give up without trying.

 

[major major]

Well, if the defense gets better and the forwards get worse, we know Larsen is to blame. Because goal scoring hasn't been the issue.

By simple regression goals should come down at both ends. We would still not know jack shit about the coaches.

 

[jaxfan45385]

By simple regression goals should come down at both ends. We would still not know jack **** about the coaches.

Sure we do. Torts style does not work in today's NHL. He should have been gone yesterday. Sad thing is we are on the hook for 2 more years....

 

[CBJWerenski8]

By simple regression goals should come down at both ends. We would still not know jack **** about the coaches.

Sure we do: and yes regression is bound to happen at both ends. However, if we drop substantially in goals for, it’s not a coincidence.

 

[thebus88]

Some of you would only consider it "acceptable" if the team was top-5 in every statistical category, as if that is realistic.

Some of you think the team plays too defensive (or more accurately not offensive enough) when the team plays a more conservative and/or structured game. Some of you think the team plays too offensive when they play an overly aggressive/attacking style. And for most of these people, what they DONT want the team to play like, all depends on how the team is CURRENTLY playing, and if they are losing or not.

I mean don't get me wrong, when the team wins, you guys are still bitchin, but when they lose you guys act like you know exactly why, as if they aren't/haven't been winning the majority of the games doing the same stuff they have been....

3 years in a row. Same shit.

The 1 thing that isn't unsustainable is all the chicken-little-naysaying-bs around here.

 

[major major]

Sure we do: and yes regression is bound to happen at both ends. However, if we drop substantially in goals for, it’s not a coincidence.

I think you might be underestimating the amount of sheer randomness in this sport. I am studying econometrics right now and it's constantly baffling how pervasive randomness is. To say anything with 95% confidence takes some work. Then in hockey it's ramped up to absurd degrees. I don't mind speculating, it's what I do too, but the phrase "we know for sure" reflects a level of certainty that we aren't going to have.

And even that much is based on the unwise assumption that goals against is attributable purely to the D core and the goals for is purely the Forwards. Perhaps goals against will go down and it's because Larsen gets the forwards to play better defence, and whatever happens with goals for is random regression, Larsen, or Shawsy, or Torts, or who knows what else.

 

[thebus88]

I think you might be underestimating the amount of sheer randomness in this sport. I am studying econometrics right now and it's constantly baffling how pervasive randomness is.

My per/60 numbers are off the charts after reading that 1.....

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Some of you...

Some of you think .... Some of you think .... And for most of these people...

...when the team wins, you guys are still *****in, but when they lose you guys act like....

Quote posts that actually provide evidence that there are people posting these things. Refute those points specifically. Engage in an ongoing dialogue with posters that reply during which you show why they're wrong.

 

[thebus88]

Quote posts that actually provide evidence that there are people posting these things. Refute those points specifically. Engage in an ongoing dialogue with posters that reply during which you show why they're wrong.

How many people do you want me to quote? How many will be considered too many?

The point is that this is the best team the CBJ have ever had, including the past 2 years They are 2nd in the division while playing nowhere near their potential for more than 50% of the year. Every loss over 2 goals or a 2 game losing streak and the sky is falling. Same as the last 2 years. Its crazy to me that people cant just ENJOY this team after the organization having ACTUAL issues and the team being ACTUALLY bad, for so long.

There ARE people who are saying that the team/coaches need to change things up. The issue with me is that SOME of the people want 1 thing while the others want the complete "opposite". The 2 things they have in common is that they aren't happy about the team, and that they would only be "happy" (aka couldn't bitch) if the team was top 5-10-whatever in every category, or when they are "winning games".

If the team wins games 5-4, they "aren't playing good enough D" or "Korpisalo sucks". If they win games 2-1, they are playing "boring" hockey that is holding the offense (Milano) back and Torts is forcing them to play a "system" that has been "passed by" by the new NHL.
​

Or maybe its just all in my head. ​

 

[Monk]

How many people do you want me to quote? How many will be considered too many?

The point is that this is the best team the CBJ have ever had, including the past 2 years They are 2nd in the division while playing nowhere near their potential for more than 50% of the year. Every loss over 2 goals or a 2 game losing streak and the sky is falling. Same as the last 2 years. Its crazy to me that people cant just ENJOY this team after the organization having ACTUAL issues and the team being ACTUALLY bad, for so long.

There ARE people who are saying that the team/coaches need to change things up. The issue with me is that SOME of the people want 1 thing while the others want the complete "opposite". The 2 things they have in common is that they aren't happy about the team, and that they would only be "happy" (aka couldn't *****) if the team was top 5-10-whatever in every category, or when they are "winning games".

If the team wins games 5-4, they "aren't playing good enough D" or "Korpisalo sucks". If they win games 2-1, they are playing "boring" hockey that is holding the offense (Milano) back and Torts is forcing them to play a "system" that has been "passed by" by the new NHL.

Or maybe its just all in my head. ​

No no, you're totally right. It happens and it's annoying. But it's not nearly as many people as you seem to think it is, and to DSL's point, you rarely ever actually address those individuals directly.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

How many people do you want me to quote? How many will be considered too many?​

No amount is too many.

I had a longer reply typed up but this is sufficient.

 

[thebus88]

No no, you're totally right. It happens and it's annoying. But it's not nearly as many people as you seem to think it is, and to DSL's point, you rarely ever actually address those individuals directly.

Well it sure seems like its a lot of people. I don't see very much praise for really ANYTHING CBJ on here.

I don't think me being any more direct on here is "healthy" for anybody or anything, especially my HFB account.

Do I really have to "quote" every single person that is related to what my post is about? Does this rule only apply to me?

 

[Viqsi]

Well it sure seems like its a lot of people. I don't see very much praise for really ANYTHING CBJ on here.

I don't think me being any more direct on here is "healthy" for anybody or anything, especially my HFB account.

Do I really have to "quote" every single person that is related to what my post is about? Does this rule only apply to me?

Some people just come here to complain. Either about the team, or about the fans of that team.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Do I really have to "quote" every single person that is related to what my post is about?

Depends on what your post "is about." If it's about furthering dialogue and discussion on what is most of our favorite NHL team, then it wouldn't hurt. If your post is just about ranting and raving and hot takes, then I guess not.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Well it sure seems like its a lot of people. I don't see very much praise for really ANYTHING CBJ on here.

I don't think me being any more direct on here is "healthy" for anybody or anything, especially my HFB account.

Do I really have to "quote" every single person that is related to what my post is about? Does this rule only apply to me?

You're not wrong. However, when praise DOES come for the CBJ (IE when we are winning) who is the one that pops in and immediately turns the discussion negatively? Whether its goaltending (after a win), coaching (again after a win), or the ever famous pitting player against player thing (for the third time after a win) , It appears to be you.

Could the board be a little more positive, in general, on the team? Sure. But you're no different. The day you give an actual compliment to Bobrovsky, Wennberg, and Werenski in the same game is the day I will believe in hockey gods.

 

[thebus88]

You're not wrong. However, when praise DOES come for the CBJ (IE when we are winning) who is the one that pops in and immediately turns the discussion negatively? Whether its goaltending (after a win), coaching (again after a win), or the ever famous pitting player against player thing (for the third time after a win) , It appears to be you.

Could the board be a little more positive, in general, on the team? Sure. But you're no different. The day you give an actual compliment to Bobrovsky, Wennberg, and Werenski in the same game is the day I will believe in hockey gods.

Dude, really? You are literally trying too hard.

"Negatively"?..... "Famous pitting player against player"? Its essentially only you who continues to attempt to push this. I like Ryan Murray better and like what he brings to the ice more than Werenski, especially paired with Jones on the top pair. And I don't think people should be talking about giving him 6-7 million dollars a year, yet. You can turn that into whatever you want, but I have no issue with Werenski on this team and being properly used and focusing more on defense. He is not looked at the same to me, as Bob and Wennberg. The sooner they are gone, the better, imo. The 'cap space' could be used to make the team better than it is now, and/or simply having their spots/roles filled by somebody else. Not to mention what you could get in a trade.

Now, going back to these quotes that supposedly "turns discussion negatively"...

1) Is literally a "sarcastic" question asking what would be said if Korpisalo was in net. It was a 7-5 win where Bob gave up 5 goals after the CBJ went up 3-0 in the 1st. What is said in most of the threads this year after Korpisalo has won? What would have been said if Korpisalo played in that game and won 7-5?

2) Is a sarcastic comment attacking the contradicting opinions that major (and others) had made on Tort's coaching decisions on playing, or not playing, the "young guns". I love Torts. Some of his decisions, like playing Wennberg or Bob as much as he has, and not playing Murray with Jones "regularly" until this year, I don't agree with. But, I also see the big picture of where the team HAS BEEN the last few years, and understand that these "small" roster management decisions I don't agree with are not a reason to fire him or even complain about the coaching.

3) Is ironic for a couple reasons. It completely goes against what you are saying and trying to say I am saying, and is strongly "related" to #1 above, and even here at #3. I was literally sticking up for Korpisalo because people were downplaying his play in the game. It all started when I acknowledged the sequence of good saves by Korpisalo, which is a clear no-no, and was subsequently entered into a talk about "luck". Just before that post of mine you quoted (along with another person "asking" something about what I thought in regards to both goalies), you yourself posted 3 clips of Bobrovsky saves to show that people clap after Bob makes saves also. Seems my famous "pitting player against player" is rubbing off on others, eh?

The idea that having an HONEST conversation about the organizations "transition period" and/or current and future goalie situation, is considered "pitting player against player", is dumb.

In Korp and Murray I trust. Wenny and Bobby are going the way of the Jojo.​

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Dude, really? You are literally trying too hard.

"Negatively"?..... "Famous pitting player against player"? Its essentially only you who continues to attempt to push this. I like Ryan Murray better and like what he brings to the ice more than Werenski, especially paired with Jones on the top pair. And I don't think people should be talking about giving him 6-7 million dollars a year, yet. You can turn that into whatever you want, but I have no issue with Werenski on this team and being properly used and focusing more on defense. He is not looked at the same to me, as Bob and Wennberg. The sooner they are gone, the better, imo. The 'cap space' could be used to make the team better than it is now, and/or simply having their spots/roles filled by somebody else. Not to mention what you could get in a trade.

Now, going back to these quotes that supposedly "turns discussion negatively"...

1) Is literally a "sarcastic" question asking what would be said if Korpisalo was in net. It was a 7-5 win where Bob gave up 5 goals after the CBJ went up 3-0 in the 1st. What is said in most of the threads this year after Korpisalo has won? What would have been said if Korpisalo played in that game and won 7-5?

2) Is a sarcastic comment attacking the contradicting opinions that major (and others) had made on Tort's coaching decisions on playing, or not playing, the "young guns". I love Torts. Some of his decisions, like playing Wennberg or Bob as much as he has, and not playing Murray with Jones "regularly" until this year, I don't agree with. But, I also see the big picture of where the team HAS BEEN the last few years, and understand that these "small" roster management decisions I don't agree with are not a reason to fire him or even complain about the coaching.

3) Is ironic for a couple reasons. It completely goes against what you are saying and trying to say I am saying, and is strongly "related" to #1 above, and even here at #3. I was literally sticking up for Korpisalo because people were downplaying his play in the game. It all started when I acknowledged the sequence of good saves by Korpisalo, which is a clear no-no, and was subsequently entered into a talk about "luck". Just before that post of mine you quoted (along with another person "asking" something about what I thought in regards to both goalies), you yourself posted 3 clips of Bobrovsky saves to show that people clap after Bob makes saves also. Seems my famous "pitting player against player" is rubbing off on others, eh?

The idea that having an HONEST conversation about the organizations "transition period" and/or current and future goalie situation, is considered "pitting player against player", is dumb.

In Korp and Murray I trust. Wenny and Bobby are going the way of the Jojo.​

Quoting a poster and providing evidence of a contrary opinion makes continued dialogue and, when necessary, rebuttal, nice and easy, see? Maybe too easy...?

 

[thebus88]

Maybe too easy...?

I wont pile on, but yes, much easier than 26 pages of the Torts thread, that's for sure.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I wont pile on, but yes, much easier than 26 pages of the Torts thread, that's for sure.

So easy that someone who didn't want their post rebutted might opt not to be so thorough?