Post-Game Talk: Jets lose to the Hawks 4-1.

[Grind]

We have... with a ~30 something win percentage on teams with <50% shot metrics.

Plus we're coming to the point where shot metrics become very, very predictive:

This stat above has started getting used in 2007.
Since then it has predicted team's future win% better than teams goal differentials or win% at the time.

Jets right now are at 23rd in the NHL. Now remember this shows the most likely outcome, but
1) most likely outcomes doesn't mean only outcomes
and
2) teams / personnel / strategy changes can change most likely future outcomes

is the general upward trend somethign to be postitive about? Or even if were trending up when we hit that magic number is it likely to plateau?

 

[Guerzy]

I'm saying essentially that Buff is also involved in a good portion of this team's offense, that if you trade him there is also a cost, and that it is easier to effect change when you've depth to rely upon versus when you do not. Making trades for the sake of trades, right now, simply shuffles the same deck, but really doesn't change it all that much.

I'm also saying that the comparison to St. Louis is not at all analogous, despite an attempt to state it is. They had depth, the Jets do not.

This is a comparison of our organization today and St. Louis' back in 2010-2011 when they began altering the state of their team.

Scheifele, Trouba, Morrissey, Lowry, Petan, Lodge, Kosmachuk, O'Dell, Redmond, etc. with Scheifele and Trouba just making way as we speak.

Some may make it, others may not, we will one day find out. However, with that being said, St. Louis hasn't even had THAT much help from their system the last few years, and their system wasn't even THAT good at that point in time. In comparison of their system then and ours now, I don't see a big difference, to be honest.

Our depth is just fine as far as prospects and very young players go, in my opinion.

With that being said, I still fail to see how our system prevents us from firing Noel or trading Byfuglien, which you were making a point of earlier here. I see these moves as a stepping stone to hopefully better days in the future, both short-term and long-term.

 

[surixon]

I'm saying essentially that Buff is also involved in a good portion of this team's offense, that if you trade him there is also a cost, and that it is easier to effect change when you've depth to rely upon versus when you do not. Making trades for the sake of trades, right now, simply shuffles the same deck, but really doesn't change it all that much.

I'm also saying that the comparison to St. Louis is not at all analogous, despite an attempt to state it is. They had depth, the Jets do not.

I agree with your premise that you ideally shouldn't be trading core pieces unless you have a player waiting in wings to replace them.

My issue with Buff is that despite his talent I see him as part of the problem here. He doesn't seem all that committed to his craft and tends to play how he wants on the ice. I feel that we run the risk of holding onto him for too long while we wait for Trouba to develop which will limit his return. He really is the one core piece that I'm willing to take the short term hit on if Chevy can find a good deal.

 

[Gump Hasek]

This is a comparison of our organization today and St. Louis' back in 2010-2011 when they began altering the state of their team.

Scheifele, Trouba, Morrissey, Lowry, Petan, Lodge, Kosmachuk, O'Dell, Redmond, etc. with Scheifele and Trouba just making way as we speak.

Some may make it, others may not, we will one day find out. However, with that being said, St. Louis hasn't even had THAT much help from their system the last few years, and their system wasn't even THAT good at that point in time. In comparison of their system then and ours now, I don't see a big difference, to be honest.

Our depth is just fine as far as prospects and very young players go, in my opinion.

With that being said, I still fail to see how our system prevents us from firing Noel or trading Byfuglien, which you were making a point of earlier here. I see these moves as a stepping stone to hopefully better days in the future, both short-term and long-term.

The glaring difference being that St. Louis had capable replacements playing in the AHL to support team organizational depth, where the Jets conversely have near none. The players you cited are near all essentially junior prospects; they don't count to organizational depth until they are actually employed by the organization, at least in this case.

You are basically arguing for change for the sake of change but nothing that addresses the material issue - their lack of depth at current across the board. Make your changes and you are still left with zero in reserve.

Nothing prevents them from making the changes you suggest; what I am saying is those changes aren't near enough and would additionally be poorly timed. Hope that helps.

 

[Guerzy]

The glaring difference being that St. Louis had capable replacements playing in the AHL to support team organizational depth, where the Jets conversely have near none. The players you cited are all essentially junior prospects; they don't count to organizational depth until they are employed by the organization in this case.

You are basically arguing for change for the sake of change but nothing that addresses the material issue - their lack of depth at current across the board. Make your changes and you are still left with zero in reserve.

Nothing prevents them from making the changes you suggest; what I am saying is those changes aren't near enough and would additionally be poorly timed. Hope that helps.

Incorrect.

Back in 2010-2011 when St. Louis began altering things, the majority of their prospects were not ready (Scwartz, Tarasenko, Cole, etc); just as ours aren't today.

 

[Gump Hasek]

Right, Gump, but back in 2010-2011 when St. Louis began altering things, all of their prospects were not ready (Scwartz, Tarasenko, Cole, etc); just as ours aren't today.

If you are either unable or unwilling to note the differences between the depth of the two organizations (St. Louis then versus Winnipeg now) then I'm afraid I can't help you.

 

[garret9]

is the general upward trend somethign to be postitive about? Or even if were trending up when we hit that magic number is it likely to plateau?

Trend is normal for everyone in the extremes. As the season goes, both extrema will move towards 50% with vast majority of teams being between 52 and 48.

IE: Jets % can trend up slightly without changing positions.

 

[Huffer]

Jebus, I don't know what's worse, the Jets play last night, or some of the posts in our GDT.

I don't know what's with the Jets ability to throw up a stinker when they play on national TV, but they sure do seem to have it down pat.

We definitely got a full dose of Bad Buff last night. That was painful. Some people obviously don't like Buff, but I think he's been pretty good for us overall, and had a good start to this season. It does seem like he's been reverting more and more to his old habits in the last few games, and last night's was a full reverse to Buff in the 1st season.

Not a lot of bright spots in the game. The HSL line was ok (even), and Toby and Bogo were ok. Other than that, the Jets were outmatched and outworked.

 

[surixon]

If you are either unable or unwilling to. Youote the differences between the depth of the two organizations (St. Louis then versus Winnipeg now) then I'm afraid I can't help you.

I think you're overestimating their depth at the time if the trade. Your argument is based around the premise that we don't have anyone ready to replace Buff so trading him would be foolish at this point.

I give you the St. Louis defense at the time of the trade:

Barrett Jackmam
Carlo Ciacovo
Eric Brewer
Roman Polak
Alex Pieterangelo*
Ian Cole*
Nikita Nikitin*
Eric Johnson-
Kevin Shattenkirk*+


* rookie
- traded away
+ added in trade.

Can you honestly tell me that St. Louis had a great dcore then. They pretty much put all of their faith in a number of rookie defenseman to contribute. I fail to see how we would be in a worse position to absorb the loss of Buff than St
Louis was at the time they made their move.

 

[Guerzy]

I think you're overestimating their depth at the time if the trade. Your argument is based around the premise that we don't have anyone ready to replace Buff so trading him would be foolish at this point.

I give you the St. Louis defense at the time of the trade:

Carlo Ciacovo
Eric Brewer
Roman Polak
Alex Pieterangelo*
Ian Cole*
Nikita Nikitin*
Eric Johnson-
Kevin Shattenkirk*+


* rookie
- traded away
+ added in trade.

Can you honestly tell me that St. Louis had a great dcore then. They pretty much put all of their faith in a number of rookie defenseman to contribute. I fail to see how we would be in a worse position to absorb the loss of Buff than St
Louis was at the time they made their move.

Bingo, again.

 

[Gump Hasek]

I think you're overestimating their depth at the time if the trade. Your argument is based around the premise that we don't have anyone ready to replace Buff so trading him would be foolish at this point.

I give you the St. Louis defense at the time of the trade:

Carlo Ciacovo
Eric Brewer
Roman Polak
Alex Pieterangelo*
Ian Cole*
Nikita Nikitin*
Eric Johnson-
Kevin Shattenkirk*+


* rookie
- traded away
+ added in trade.

Can you honestly tell me that St. Louis had a great dcore then. They pretty much put all of their faith in a number of rookie defenseman to contribute. I fail to see how we would be in a worse position to absorb the loss of Buff than St
Louis was at the time they made their move.

I wasn't arguing D depth but rather team/organizational depth though; your reply is a bit of a non sequitur. It is easier to effect change when you've something in reserve to fall back on; Winnipeg has little to nothing.

Speaking of D depth though, that is probably one of their greatest organizational weaknesses right now. That they are filling injury holes with waiver & FA pickups (Pardy, Ellerby) speaks directly to that lack of organizational depth.

 

[Positive]

I agree with the risk reward aspect due to our d injuries but at the same time there is a risk to holding onto him if he continues to play as he did last night. There are also market considerations to factor in, let's say we have a desperate Philly team that is ready to overpay, do you take the deal or do you wait and hope the deal is still there when Trouba looks ready. No real easy answer to that!

If anyone ever has the opportunity in their line of work or through personal schooling, to take the Kepner-Tregoe courses on Problem Analysis, Decision Making and Risk Management, I really recommend them. Some great stuff in there that can be applied in everyday life, and not just business. You adopt a methodical approach, something like this:

State and specify the problem
Identifying possible causes
Evaluate possible causes
Confirm true cause(s) (Buff?)
Evaluating Alternatives
Assess Risks
Make Decision

I bold the 'Assess Risks' step. Here's where you try to identify adverse consequences...say, of moving Buff. What could go wrong, short-term or long-term? What are the disadvantages of moving Buff? What are the implications, and where might our information be invalid?

It would be interesting to run through KT exercises on facets of this team.

 

[Guerzy]

If anyone ever has the opportunity in their line of work or through personal schooling, to take the Kepner-Tregoe courses on Problem Analysis, Decision Making and Risk Management, I really recommend them. Some great stuff in there that can be applied in everyday life, and not just business. You adopt a methodical approach, something like this:

State and specify the problem
Identifying possible causes
Evaluate possible causes
Confirm true cause(s) (Buff?)
Evaluating Alternatives
Assess Risks
Make Decision

I bold the 'Assess Risks' step. Here's where you try to identify adverse consequences...say, of moving Buff. What could go wrong, short-term or long-term? What are the disadvantages of moving Buff? What are the implications, and where might our information be invalid?

It would be interesting to run through KT exercises on facets of this team.

Now I ask myself all of the same questions in regards to keeping Byfuglien (and Noel).

At this point, I don't see that going anywhere good, either.

 

[Duke749]

A major problem with this team is the fact that, despite our size, we are so easy to play against. I mean our, arguably, hardest player to play against is our shortest player.

 

[DarthMonty]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not panicking. I do, however, enjoy discussing the game, the team and the organization.

We all have opinions and I enjoy reading them all. Some I absorb into my own opinion and some I don't.

Agreed! This has been one of the best PGT's I've ever read through.

I appreciate all the back & forth, as most of it is being supported with facts, logic and cool graphs. There are some very articulate HFmembers, and several have made appearances in this thread. Not a lot of agreement, which is why it's so fun to read, but sure is a lot of passion and good debates going on.

Thanks, guys!

 

[Grind]

Agreed! This has been one of the best PGT's I've ever read through.

I appreciate all the back & forth, as most of it is being supported with facts, logic and cool graphs. There are some very articulate HFmembers, and several have made appearances in this thread. Not a lot of agreement, which is why it's so fun to read, but sure is a lot of passion and good debates going on.

Thanks, guys!

agreed, it sbeen a while since i've gotten this little work done in a day!

 

[Positive]

Now I ask myself all of the same questions in regards to keeping Byfuglien (and Noel).

At this point, I don't see that going anywhere good, either.

The exercises are best done in a group. Not to say you are necessarily wrong, but you can get vastly different answers from one individual to the next. Actually you can get vastly different answers between different groups as well.

 

[Guerzy]

The exercises are best done in a group. Not to say you are necessarily wrong, but you can get vastly different answers from one individual to the next. Actually you can get vastly different answers between different groups as well.

Absolutely. It would be interesting, certainly.

 

[wpgsilver]

So pregame thread...

 

[YWGinYYZ]

So pregame thread...

Go for it! Anyone can create 'em.

 

[Jet]

Why is it that all of the sudden making a few adjustments to the team and changing the coaches some how alters the organizations long term plan?

It's not just black and white. It's not either 'stay the course' or 'blow it up'. Firing the coaching staff does not affect the way we are building this organization. If the coaches can't do the things it takes to make this team at least COMPETE every night, they should not be here. If they can't make simple, sensible roster decisions, in game adjustments, and roster management within games, they should not be here. Simple as that. That has nothing to do with developing prospects, building organizational depth or the teams long term, slow and steady build plan.

It is just common sense to have the best coaches and environment for success in Winnipeg. Thats how you build winners at the top level. It does nothing to hurt what you are doing on the development side when it comes to acquiring and building player depth and skill.

Trading a guy like Byfuglien is another thing. He could get us a C that could help us be better NOW and change the dynamic on this team. It won't hurt us in the least when it comes to the long view. By the time this team is competing for a cup, Byfuglien wouldn't have been here anyways.

 

[wpgsilver]

Why is it that all of the sudden making a few adjustments to the team and changing the coaches some how alters the organizations long term plan?

It's not just black and white. It's not either 'stay the course' or 'blow it up'. Firing the coaching staff does not affect the way we are building this organization. If the coaches can't do the things it takes to make this team at least COMPETE every night, they should not be here. If they can't make simple, sensible roster decisions, in game adjustments, and roster management within games, they should not be here. Simple as that. That has nothing to do with developing prospects, building organizational depth or the teams long term, slow and steady build plan.

It is just common sense to have the best coaches and environment for success in Winnipeg. Thats how you build winners at the top level. It does nothing to hurt what you are doing on the development side when it comes to acquiring and building player depth and skill.

Trading a guy like Byfuglien is another thing. He could get us a C that could help us be better NOW and change the dynamic on this team. It won't hurt us in the least when it comes to the long view. By the time this team is competing for a cup, Byfuglien wouldn't have been here anyways.

Once again, I totally agree.

 

[Kinjero]

Awesome conversation fellas. I like the depth of the train of thought. Giving me lots to think about and teaching me friggin gobs.. This place is smart when the sky isn't falling.

 

[DarthMonty]

Why is it that all of the sudden making a few adjustments to the team and changing the coaches some how alters the organizations long term plan?

It's not just black and white. It's not either 'stay the course' or 'blow it up'. Firing the coaching staff does not affect the way we are building this organization. If the coaches can't do the things it takes to make this team at least COMPETE every night, they should not be here. If they can't make simple, sensible roster decisions, in game adjustments, and roster management within games, they should not be here. Simple as that. That has nothing to do with developing prospects, building organizational depth or the teams long term, slow and steady build plan.

It is just common sense to have the best coaches and environment for success in Winnipeg. Thats how you build winners at the top level. It does nothing to hurt what you are doing on the development side when it comes to acquiring and building player depth and skill.

Trading a guy like Byfuglien is another thing. He could get us a C that could help us be better NOW and change the dynamic on this team. It won't hurt us in the least when it comes to the long view. By the time this team is competing for a cup, Byfuglien wouldn't have been here anyways.

I'd agree, as long as trading a keystone player like Buff happens close to the deadline when the Jets can maximize the return.

If the management consensus is the Noel loses his job, well I'm okay with that, but not during the season. Never been a big fan of teams doing that, and more often than not the result is an uptick for a few games, and then usually bigger regression than was happening in the first place. Bylsma in Pittsburgh was an aberration; most of the time it happens the team ends up with a Tim Burke.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

Pre Game thread is now up! Head on over.