Post-Game Talk: JETS Win Party Jets Fans [Mod: Jets 5-4 in SO over Preds]

[John Agar]

He ran out of gas last year. Maurice is keeping him fresh for the playoffs this year. Also, Laine had already taken an elbow to the head and gotten stitches from a high stick, so no point in bruising him further in such a heated game (where the result ultimately doesn’t matter much). Maurice is a really smart man and I’m very thankful he’s making sure to keep Laine fresh for the coming grind.

Some good points I hadn't thought of...

Also add all those penalties to the Jets that kept Laine off of the ice in the first...

 

[ps241]

By the way we complain about this all the time so when it is better I feel I should weigh in. I thought the broadcast team did a really solid job on Sportsnet last night.

 

[Royale With Cheese]

Did you see the post game interview with Maurice ? Could he have a better reaction to the question about Myers grabbing the gutless wonder Subban ? He loved it without saying he did , just brilliant stuff .

What did he say?

 

[AlphaLackey]

Also proves that the idea that you just throw three bodies out in OT and say have a good time and you will win 50% of the games is total BS.

Thank God no one said that.

It is not a coin toss.

You can keep deleting the word "virtually" from my claim, I'll keep putting it back in. We can do this until my dying day.

Strategy and player utilization are key to winning or losing in OT.

Categorically and empirically false. Strategy and player utilization increase your expected chance of winning in OT by a few percent.

The Jets have made changes. They have increased their winning chances in OT a few percent. The vast majority of the turnaround is due to luck. See which, how outside the last three OT games, the Jets were 3-3 in extra time games where they were, by your own account, still making all those bad mistakes.

YES you can tilt the odds in your favor with smart decisions. Just like you can in blackjack. And in blackjack, people make a lot of mistakes whose impact is measurable in a few percent of a unit. And just like this place, people obsess about short term variance, and ascribe the impact of a whole round (or round*S*) to one "mistake" where in fact the ACTUAL cost of the mistake was in a few percent of a unit.

The best 3v3 OT team will get LESS THAN ONE POINT PER SEASON on average more than an average 3v3 team. One point, TOPS. Big f***ing whoop.

 

[kittiecarlyle]

What did he say?

He was asked his thoughts or how he felt about it , paused and said "It was big". Thinking Myers size was subtly was alluded to.

 

[AlphaLackey]

Sure like Maurice's answer regarding overtime strategy in the last three OT games. There is the coaching/strategy adjustment that many have been looking for.

Also proves that the idea that you just throw three bodies out in OT and say have a good time and you will win 50% of the games is total BS. It is not a coin toss. Strategy and player utilization are key to winning or losing in OT.

Need I remind you that for two games in a row, the other team hit the post just before we scored?

Need I remind you that in this last game as well, the "young player representing the better personnel decision making" coughed up the mother of all turnovers trying to win the game with 8 seconds left and gave up a clear cut breakaway to Kyle Turris?

Did anyone see the Edmonton=Anaheim OT last night? Anaheim won the opening faceoff and held back in their own zone waiting for McDavid and Draisaitl to change or tire out. About 1 minutes into the OT, they changed their forwards, skate it up and score.

The OT is more random than playing a full game, but it's not like there aren't things you can do to tilt the odds in your favour.

Of course. Just like in blackjack or video poker.

And just like in those games, the vast majority of utterly non obvious decisions will have impacts measured in small fractions of a percent on average.

And just like in those games, people will vastly underestimate the role luck played, pinning 100% of a win on a "good decision" and 100% of a loss on a "bad decision".

alphalackey statsprofessor

 

[SM17]

By the way we complain about this all the time so when it is better I feel I should weigh in. I thought the broadcast team did a really solid job on Sportsnet last night.

I have always liked DeBrusk and Randorf has started to grow on me. Wouldn't mind that duo in the playoffs.

 

[PhilJets]

He ran out of gas last year. Maurice is keeping him fresh for the playoffs this year. Also, Laine had already taken an elbow to the head and gotten stitches from a high stick, so no point in bruising him further in such a heated game (where the result ultimately doesn’t matter much). Maurice is a really smart man and I’m very thankful he’s making sure to keep Laine fresh for the coming grind.

If thats the logic

Then he should do that for Schiefele and Wheeler also

 

[Tommigun]

If thats the logic

Then he should do that for Schiefele and Wheeler also

It’s a bit different. Laine was visibly exhausted at the end of the campaign last year, while Wheeler is a vet and Scheifele is pretty experienced at this point as well.

Laine at 19 with limited ice time looks really good at the end of the regular season this year, but not so much last year. If Maurice had played Laine close to 20 minutes per game he’d look like he did late in the season last year.

 

[Tommigun]

Thank God no one said that.



You can keep deleting the word "virtually" from my claim, I'll keep putting it back in. We can do this until my dying day.



Categorically and empirically false. Strategy and player utilization increase your expected chance of winning in OT by a few percent.

The Jets have made changes. They have increased their winning chances in OT a few percent. The vast majority of the turnaround is due to luck. See which, how outside the last three OT games, the Jets were 3-3 in extra time games where they were, by your own account, still making all those bad mistakes.

YES you can tilt the odds in your favor with smart decisions. Just like you can in blackjack. And in blackjack, people make a lot of mistakes whose impact is measurable in a few percent of a unit. And just like this place, people obsess about short term variance, and ascribe the impact of a whole round (or round*S*) to one "mistake" where in fact the ACTUAL cost of the mistake was in a few percent of a unit.

The best 3v3 OT team will get LESS THAN ONE POINT PER SEASON on average more than an average 3v3 team. One point, TOPS. Big ****ing whoop.

A look at the best and worst 3-on-3 overtime teams | The Hockey News

You can become good at it. The top teams seem to be good year in year out, while the worse teams not so much. That article is from last season. Nashville is near (at?) the top for OT losses this season again, while LA has iirc done really good again. There is trend to discern there. If player utilization didn’t really matter then the players don’t matter either, and that I just can’t believe. Yes the parity is high but so is the space on 3 vs 3, and teams seem to have pretty consistent records season after season.

Also, one of our main complaints was having a gassed Wheeler and Scheifele our there. When they are gassed you are essentially out of two players on the back check and it’s a surefire way to lose a game. At that time it’s essentially 1 vs 3. How could that NOT affect things?

 

[Jets 31]

He was asked his thoughts or how he felt about it , paused and said "It was big". Thinking Myers size was subtly was alluded to.

You forgot to add how big Maurice's smile was when he said it , he looked like a kid smiling when they open a great Xmas gift .

 

[PhilJets]

It’s a bit different. Laine was visibly exhausted at the end of the campaign last year, while Wheeler is a vet and Scheifele is pretty experienced at this point as well.

Laine at 19 with limited ice time looks really good at the end of the regular season this year, but not so much last year. If Maurice had played Laine close to 20 minutes per game he’d look like he did late in the season last year.

Schiefele had a lot of injuries and Wheeler was visibly exhausted in so many games also.
We could say that because of this exhausion that Jets record in 3on3 o.t. is not as good, but thats another topic ( thats partly coach/partly over extending shifts).

For Laine it could be he was really tired or it could be the after effect of the open ice hit or it could be his mismatch with a certain center.

If there is one Jets player who deserves a breather its the captain, not because of negative concern but because he carried the team so far this year.

 

[10Ducky10]

If thats the logic

Then he should do that for Schiefele and Wheeler also

Why in the world would you give Scheif time off???...I am okay with him playing 20 minutes a game to be honest.

 

[PhilJets]

Why in the world would you give Scheif time off???...I am okay with him playing 20 minutes a game to be honest.

I was quoting another post base on reasons.

Im ok with him not getting time off.
Just shave of few minutes.
To give other lines opportunities to be on situations that theyve never been before.


Only reason to give him off if he is still not 100% ok.

 

[AlphaLackey]

A look at the best and worst 3-on-3 overtime teams | The Hockey News

You can become good at it.

We definitely agree here.

The top teams seem to be good year in year out, while the worse teams not so much. That article is from last season. Nashville is near (at?) the top for OT losses this season again, while LA has iirc done really good again.

Here, we disagree.

A chart for each team's OT win percentage relative to their last year's percentage, data from 2013 to Feb 2 2018:

You'll notice there is essentially zero trend (R-squared = 0.001). Yes, there are some teams that are consistent. But you can see two teams in the bottom right that jumped from the 10-20% range to the 80-90% range, and four that jumped from 65-75% to 10-20%. Most telling, there's just a big cheesy clump right around 50% both ways (going TO 50% and FROM 50%, with a decent spread everywhere).

If player utilization didn’t really matter then the players don’t matter either, and that I just can’t believe.

I think my failing in my prior posts on the subject was not making clear that the decisions DO matter. I didn't emphasize enough the "virtually" in the "virtually a coin toss", and that's my failing and I own it.

The decisions matter. They just don't matter as much as is speculated is all. I guess that's really the only place left we have to debate.

Like at a bare minimum, the best team in the league at home against the worst team, in a full meaningful 60 minute game, is about 70% to win. That's how big the "luck factor" is in a full, meaningful, 60 minute game. So how big a favorite can the best 3v3 team be against the worst 3v3 team in a five minute OT that, if no goal is scored, is decided by a shootout that is almost exactly a coin toss [and this time I mean it]? Based on a very slight (2.3%) correlation between 5v5 game win% and 3v3 game win%, I'm hard pressed to ever see "best versus worst" at more than a 5% spread. 10% if we're being generous, which would still suggest best vs average is only about 5%, or 11-10 favorite.

And while this is speculation on my part, I'd point out that casinos around the world that offer live odds on overtime book it by these percentages, almost to a T, when neither team has a power play going into OT; in that case they invariably take the bets off the board.

NOW, having said all that:

I *definitely* agree with you that the changes in shift length are a good one. We all saw Buff get gassed after 60 seconds and he immediately got off the ice (OT 1:00 to OT 2:00 or so). The personnel changes are overrated I think. The "old, worthless, gassed vets" had glorious chances and in the last two games, the "young guns" both let in glorious chances that hit the post before we went on to win; just imagine if that JoMo flat tire led to a breakaway goal by Turris with 8s left.

Having said THAT, I think the vast majority of "long shifts" in OT I would classify as mistakes -- you gamble that you can get a few more seconds like JoMo gambled he could get one last rush -- and then you get penned in for another 30-45 seconds. The expected value in erring on the side of caution is a positive one.

We're just stuck disagreeing on the magnitude.

But of course, we both agree how wonderful the results have been lately! #GoJetsGo

Plus, in 8 days, this conversation will officially be over until next September

alphalackey statsprofessor

 

[Tommigun]

We definitely agree here.



Here, we disagree.

A chart for each team's OT win percentage relative to their last year's percentage, data from 2013 to Feb 2 2018:

You'll notice there is essentially zero trend (R-squared = 0.001). Yes, there are some teams that are consistent. But you can see two teams in the bottom right that jumped from the 10-20% range to the 80-90% range, and four that jumped from 65-75% to 10-20%. Most telling, there's just a big cheesy clump right around 50% both ways (going TO 50% and FROM 50%, with a decent spread everywhere).



I think my failing in my prior posts on the subject was not making clear that the decisions DO matter. I didn't emphasize enough the "virtually" in the "virtually a coin toss", and that's my failing and I own it.

The decisions matter. They just don't matter as much as is speculated is all. I guess that's really the only place left we have to debate.

Like at a bare minimum, the best team in the league at home against the worst team, in a full meaningful 60 minute game, is about 70% to win. That's how big the "luck factor" is in a full, meaningful, 60 minute game. So how big a favorite can the best 3v3 team be against the worst 3v3 team in a five minute OT that, if no goal is scored, is decided by a shootout that is almost exactly a coin toss [and this time I mean it]? Based on a very slight (2.3%) correlation between 5v5 game win% and 3v3 game win%, I'm hard pressed to ever see "best versus worst" at more than a 5% spread. 10% if we're being generous, which would still suggest best vs average is only about 5%, or 11-10 favorite.

And while this is speculation on my part, I'd point out that casinos around the world that offer live odds on overtime book it by these percentages, almost to a T, when neither team has a power play going into OT; in that case they invariably take the bets off the board.

NOW, having said all that:

I *definitely* agree with you that the changes in shift length are a good one. We all saw Buff get gassed after 60 seconds and he immediately got off the ice (OT 1:00 to OT 2:00 or so). The personnel changes are overrated I think. The "old, worthless, gassed vets" had glorious chances and in the last two games, the "young guns" both let in glorious chances that hit the post before we went on to win; just imagine if that JoMo flat tire led to a breakaway goal by Turris with 8s left.

Having said THAT, I think the vast majority of "long shifts" in OT I would classify as mistakes -- you gamble that you can get a few more seconds like JoMo gambled he could get one last rush -- and then you get penned in for another 30-45 seconds. The expected value in erring on the side of caution is a positive one.

We're just stuck disagreeing on the magnitude.

But of course, we both agree how wonderful the results have been lately! #GoJetsGo

Plus, in 8 days, this conversation will officially be over until next September

alphalackey statsprofessor

Thanks for the in-depth post, very interesting! I tried to Google for graphs such as the one you posted but couldn’t find any. You are right that the luck factor is extreme, how could it not be on 3 vs 3 . Fwiw I found this piece on OT strategy that I found interesting: 3-on-3 OT: The NHL has found the sweet spot — and we’re all better for it
It’s mainly about managing risk and minimizing mistakes.

Yeah soon there will be no more 3 vs 3!! Unless both teams f*** up majorly.

Sir Captain Tommigun

 

[Robinson2187]

_______________________________________________________

I just wonder how tough Myers would be in a fight ??--I'd bet mighty tough ?? Does anybody know ?? --has he had any fights. You'd think with his height, reach, and weight, he'd be a formidable opponent. He doesn't have a "mean nature"-- but if he lost his temper, he might be a little scary to fight.

Sort of reminds me of Larry Robinson with the Montreal Canadians, back in the day. I never saw him fight--til one day. The day was when the Habs were taking on the Broad Street Bullies,(Flyers) who were trying to beat up the talented Habs and intimidate them. A brawl broke out and Robinson grabbed Dave Schultz and absolutely mopped the floor with him. He handled Dave like a rag doll and pounded him good !!!

Yep Larry was a beast. He was also a real nice guy.

 

[AlphaLackey]

Thanks for the in-depth post, very interesting! I tried to Google for graphs such as the one you posted but couldn’t find any. You are right that the luck factor is extreme, how could it not be on 3 vs 3 .

The reason why is because I compiled that graph by hand, based on a comprehensive game breakdown found at:

NHL Stats, History, Scores, & Records | Hockey-Reference.com

Yes, I'm the kind of guy who will assemble hours of spreadsheets to make an argument online. Have I humblebragged yet that I have a chapter in this year's Hockey Abstract by Rob Vollman ("Who is the Best Clutch Shooter?", pp 192-204)? It's what I do.

I included the spreadsheet here if you're curious about past years. I look forward to updating my chart at the end of this year.

Fwiw I found this piece on OT strategy that I found interesting: 3-on-3 OT: The NHL has found the sweet spot — and we’re all better for it
It’s mainly about managing risk and minimizing mistakes.

This absolutely all fits in with the eye-tests and hockey-IQ discussions going on here (to which I DEFINITELY defer to my betters). And it's probably why I measured a correlation between "full game 5v5 win%" and "3v3 OT win%", because we pretty much all know by know that possession drives wins in 5v5 and possession is (visibly) even more so vital in 3v3. The fact that this correlation (2.3%) is about 1/12th of the full game 5v5 year-over-year (21%) given that 5 mins is 1/12th of 60 minutes gives me confidence in where I'm going at.

But yes, when I watch OT, I want the better offensive team (in this case, the Jets) to gamble less. I want us to get our best chances first and I want us to get more of them. I don't want to see us trading breakaways -- we can do that in the f***in' shootout -- I want to see those 90-150 second possession streaks which, of course, are much bigger in a 300 second mini game

 

[AlphaLackey]

Yep Larry was a beast. He was also a real nice guy.

Most "Big Birds" are gentle giants precisely because they know that being a giant carries a different set of rules, doubly so if you want to be a good human being. It doesn't surprise me to hear that the first person to presume upon Robinson's gentle grace was very, very close to the last person to do so.

 

[Tommigun]

The reason why is because I compiled that graph by hand, based on a comprehensive game breakdown found at:

NHL Stats, History, Scores, & Records | Hockey-Reference.com

Yes, I'm the kind of guy who will assemble hours of spreadsheets to make an argument online. Have I humblebragged yet that I have a chapter in this year's Hockey Abstract by Rob Vollman ("Who is the Best Clutch Shooter?", pp 192-204)? It's what I do.

I included the spreadsheet here if you're curious about past years. I look forward to updating my chart at the end of this year.



This absolutely all fits in with the eye-tests and hockey-IQ discussions going on here (to which I DEFINITELY defer to my betters). And it's probably why I measured a correlation between "full game 5v5 win%" and "3v3 OT win%", because we pretty much all know by know that possession drives wins in 5v5 and possession is (visibly) even more so vital in 3v3. The fact that this correlation (2.3%) is about 1/12th of the full game 5v5 year-over-year (21%) given that 5 mins is 1/12th of 60 minutes gives me confidence in where I'm going at.

But yes, when I watch OT, I want the better offensive team (in this case, the Jets) to gamble less. I want us to get our best chances first and I want us to get more of them. I don't want to see us trading breakaways -- we can do that in the ****in' shootout -- I want to see those 90-150 second possession streaks which, of course, are much bigger in a 300 second mini game

Wow that’s crazy, thanks for making those graphs. Now I see where you were going with your argument. Congratulations on the chapter as well!

 

[PhilJets]

That Jets Preds gdt went up to 56 pages.

Close to the highesr i remembered which was the selanne night jets and ducks.
We lost 3-2

 

[AlphaLackey]

Wow that’s crazy, thanks for making those graphs. Now I see where you were going with your argument. Congratulations on the chapter as well!

Heh, thanks! I forget sometimes that I'm a percentage nerd in a social group that includes a lot of people that have actually played the game. And while I have made CRYSTAL FARKIN' CLEAR my disdain for Oilers coach Todd McLellan and his anachronistic views on hockey stats, I'm still acutely aware that I don't want to be the anti-pope around these parts.

And that's on me, my inability to articulate what's important first and the banality later.

And at the end of the day, yes, we all see the Jets have gotten out their toolkit and tinkered with the 3v3 mini-game. To everyone's delight, I think.

 

[Tommigun]

Heh, thanks! I forget sometimes that I'm a percentage nerd in a social group that includes a lot of people that have actually played the game. And while I have made CRYSTAL FARKIN' CLEAR my disdain for Oilers coach Todd McLellan and his anachronistic views on hockey stats, I'm still acutely aware that I don't want to be the anti-pope around these parts.

And that's on me, my inability to articulate what's important first and the banality later.

And at the end of the day, yes, we all see the Jets have gotten out their toolkit and tinkered with the 3v3 mini-game. To everyone's delight, I think.

What do you think of just letting games end in a tie? Personally I’m for it as I find it a bit perverted that a tie yields more points than a game ending with a winner (3 vs 2). I just don’t feel that being right, but I also understand that a more casual fan might appreciate the closure an OT + shootout brings.

Oh, and who doesn’t hate McLellan

 

[KingBogo]

I just want to say AlphaLackey and Tommigun that was one of the most interesting discussions I've read around here in awhile. Respectful, curious of each others positions and informative. Thanks guys.

 

[AlphaLackey]

What do you think of just letting games end in a tie?

Bring it back

Personally I’m for it as I find it a bit perverted that a tie yields more points than a game ending with a winner (3 vs 2). I just don’t feel that being right, but I also understand that a more casual fan might appreciate the closure an OT + shootout brings.

The original beef about overtime was that it was "two teams being defensive to a fault, trying to preserve a point [T: 60:00 - 65:00]"

and what is the consequence?

Teams are even MORE defensive about that extra point.

It did nothing about that "defensive phase" save make it longer.

Oh, and who doesn’t hate McLellan

I will never, ever say PMo is the worst coach in the league, as long as that idiotic anachronistic throwback has a job that, frankly, every HFJets poster is more qualified for.

.. including you