Line Combos: Roster Discussions

[Dayofthedogs]

Only real production matters in the end. These kind of graphs mean absolutely nothing compared to that. I dont care for you explaining it how it’s the best way to see how good each player really is, as that is complete bonus and mumbojumbo. There are so much differences in shooting quality and all other kind of variables that the hockey scientists dont even have a clue of how to measure them.

So the only thing that matters in the end is which players and which lines score the goals and if their team wins with their scoring. Everything else is meaningless, until they change the rules to that, that the team with the best advanced stats wins the game.

No. You're Wrong.

Real production is the combination of many other factors. goals are rare and therefore hard to predict. Therefore the best way to evaluate a player is looking much deeper than goals, assists and points.

It's plainly foolish to believe as you do.

 

[Dayofthedogs]

Only real production matters in the end. These kind of graphs mean absolutely nothing compared to that. I dont care for you explaining it how it’s the best way to see how good each player really is, as that is complete bogus and mumbojumbo. There are so much differences in shooting quality and all other kind of variables that the hockey scientists dont even have a clue of how to measure them.

So the only thing that matters in the end is which players and which lines score the goals and if their team wins with their scoring. Everything else is meaningless, until they change the rules to that, that the team with the best advanced stats wins the game.

And Copp’s and Little’s production is only then comparable when they have both played half of the season with Laine and Ehlers with similar amount of minutes and power play time.

It's also obvious you have no idea what these stats mean or what measurements go into them.

you should do some research before you dismiss things that dont tell you what you want to hear...

 

[Ippenator]

No. You're Wrong.

Real production is the combination of many other factors. goals are rare and therefore hard to predict. Therefore the best way to evaluate a player is looking much deeper than goals, assists and points.

It's plainly foolish to believe as you do.

Sorry, but you are completely wrong. So funny how you just can’t get a grip of it. Hockey scientists...

 

[Dayofthedogs]

Sorry, but you are completely wrong. So funny how you just can’t get a grip of it. Hockey scientists...

yes...... and all that proof to show how wrong i am where exactly?

I'm going to be blunt. Your refusal to even learn about the stats and metrics that i've presented makes having any kind of discussion with you worthless.

 

[Ippenator]

It's also obvious you have no idea what these stats mean or what measurements go into them.

you should do some research before you dismiss things that dont tell you what you want to hear...

I have read quite a lot of articles explaining this stuff. And I do understand very well what the points are. But I just disagree, and that’s it. These models use false and inadequate information too much. And anyway people should not even try to predict things too much. The forecasting things are in general just mumbojumbo. The same goes with weather forecasts. Way too often inaccurate or even completely wrong. The same goes with every scientific predictions or estimations. They are way too inaccurate, or completely false. People are that inadequate, that it’s funny to even think that any of us, even the best scientists, can really get a grip of any deeper levels in the universe. The people’s need to forecast and predict things goes exactly there. And there people fail miserably.

 

[Ippenator]

yes...... and all that proof to show how wrong i am where exactly?

I'm going to be blunt. Your refusal to even learn about the stats and metrics that i've presented makes having any kind of discussion with you worthless.

I’m first of all a goalscoring fan, and offensive hockey fan. Because of that I love very offensively talented players a lot. And that is of course why I love Laine so much as a player. But Laine is not at all the reason why I despise this advanced stats emphasized thinking. The reason is simply that goals are the only important thing in hockey, they are the reason why hockey is played, and I don’t like at all how some people desperately want to take the focus away from the absolutely and unquestionably most important thing in hockey.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

Does this mean we call Comrie up again?

 

[YWGinYYZ]

Does this mean we call Comrie up again?

Pretty much, unless they can find a goalie languishing on some other team.

 

[kelsier]

I'd like to see what happened if they used Morrisey in the 1st powerplay unit. Buff, while he has a hard shot, it isn't accurate and he doesn't seem capable of throwing fast passes to Laine. He rarely is able to even find him. There is that very short moment when you can connect to Laine before they close in but it's never used. In the Capitals game Ovy had tons of space and time to just wait for the pass (maybe the Jets played more passive PK'ing) and they easily moved the puck between the blue line. I truly wouldn't mind seeing someone like Morrisey there just to see if there's any positive variation compared to Buff who just makes the easy tap in to Wheelers 90% of the time.

What's happening with Stastny by the way? Hope he's good to go to next game or is there any news?

 

[Blue Shakehead]

Ehlers-Scheifele-Laine
Connor-Wheeler-Little
Perreault-Statsny-Roslovic
Copp-Lowry-Armia

Morrissey-Trouba
Enstrom-Buff
Kulikov-Myers
Poolman

Hellebuyck
Hutchinson

 

[Beavski24]

Ehlers-Scheifele-Laine
Connor-Wheeler-Little
Perreault-Statsny-Roslovic
Copp-Lowry-Armia

Morrissey-Trouba
Enstrom-Buff
Kulikov-Myers
Poolman

Hellebuyck
Hutchinson

Why would you ever break up stats laine ehlers

 

[Blue Shakehead]

Why would you ever break up stats laine ehlers

I don't really want to. And I'd be fine with Ehlers-Stastny-Laine - sink or swim the rest of the year.

However, Ehlers-Scheifele-Laine were the best line in the NHL last year for the 10 or so days they were together and when they didn't score in the first period of a back-to-back vs Colorado they were split up permanently - which has been approximately 130 games or so.

I'd like to see if maybe Paul Maurice's instincts about that particular line combo might be wrong (just kidding - his instincts almost always are. Remember 30G scorer Connor to the AHL and a 3rd line of Tanev-Lowry-Matthias?)

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

The most obvious thing to come out of Wheeler playing centre, was that he's not a centre.

I don't mind him at home, when Mau can get him cupcake matchups. But he was nothing but a disaster on the road.

 

[Daximus]

Yeah you don't break up the Stats line. You keep them together because having Scheif on the top line with Wheeler gives you better depth. Stacking 1 line doesn't make us as deep. Mo has made some great decisions with the roster this year.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

Yeah you don't break up the Stats line. You keep them together because having Scheif on the top line with Wheeler gives you better depth. Stacking 1 line doesn't make us as deep. Mo has made some great decisions with the roster this year.

Is this a serious post? 40+ games of Ehlers-Little-Laine - 3 shooters, zero forecheckers - on pace for 16 even strength points each that were only broken up because Scheifele got injured?

 

[Daximus]

Is this a serious post? 40+ games of Ehlers-Little-Laine - 3 shooters, zero forecheckers - on pace for 16 even strength points each that were only broken up because Scheifele got injured?

All the other lines did great during that time. We won a lot of games and that is all that matters. It comes down to this as a coach. If you have 3 lines that are playing great hockey and 1 that isn't you don't break up the other 3 to accommodate the players on the 1 line that isn't working. That is the difference between a coach who wants to win and a fan who wants to see his favorite player put up points.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

All the other lines did great during that time. We won a lot of games and that is all that matters. It comes down to this as a coach. If you have 3 lines that are playing great hockey and 1 that isn't you don't break up the other 3 to accommodate the players on the 1 line that isn't working. That is the difference between a coach who wants to win and a fan who wants to see his favorite player put up points.

You are associating causality between Maurice's preferred 5v5 line combos and winning. We were 13-6-1 after our first 20 games because of Connor Hellebuyck.

You also don't seem to recognize that when he has to change those line combos because of injury - we keep winning or we win more than we did before. Not a lot of critical thinking going on here. As for the bolded, you're totally right. I don't care if the team wins at all, I just want Laine to score 60 goals. Very insightful analysis.

 

[Ippenator]

All the other lines did great during that time. We won a lot of games and that is all that matters. It comes down to this as a coach. If you have 3 lines that are playing great hockey and 1 that isn't you don't break up the other 3 to accommodate the players on the 1 line that isn't working. That is the difference between a coach who wants to win and a fan who wants to see his favorite player put up points.

I would still say that winning a lot of games at that point happened mostly because of the 1st line playing pretty good offence and pretty bad defence, but Helle was saving their ass most of the nights then. Other lines were producing occasionally only through Perreault. Honestly not at all a convincing way to have the lines.

Thank God Helle has been as good as he has been this season, and also the defence was at that point of the season also relatively healthy. But I don’t give too much praise for Maurice for that time really. Sure for doing some good work with matchups at home, but in general his line deployment has been pretty much idiotic. Keeping ELL together for 40 games with disgusting results while playing constantly Scheifele and Wheeler together even though they don’t combine together to a defensively balanced enough line, and anyway they both as line drivers could benefit the team much more playing in separate lines.

And I do very much believe that a coach with a real good eye for making lines on the basis of player’s strengths and weaknesses would have made the Jets win even clearly more games than they have won this season. Maurice has not been a disaster, but he is far from a great coach still, in my opinion.

 

[Daximus]

You are associating causality between Maurice's preferred 5v5 line combos and winning. We were 13-6-1 after our first 20 games because of Connor Hellebuyck.

You also don't seem to recognize that when he has to change those line combos because of injury - we keep winning or we win more than we did before. Not a lot of critical thinking going on here. As for the bolded, you're totally right. I don't care if the team wins at all, I just want Laine to score 60 goals. Very insightful analysis.

That is still a winning record. Our team limited chances against Helle during that stretch because they were playing great. It wasn't all Helle and it's extremely disrespectful to the rest of the players to say it was. You can moan and groan about Maurice all that you want, and obviously you will because you always do. But we are where we are because of his decisions and our players play it's that simple. They have all delivered this year.

 

[Daximus]

I would still say that winning a lot of games at that point happened mostly because of the 1st line playing pretty good offence and pretty bad defence, but Helle was saving their ass most of the nights then. Other lines were producing occasionally only through Perreault. Honestly not at all a convincing way to have the lines.

Thank God Helle has been as good as he has been this season, and also the defence was at that point of the season also relatively healthy. But I don’t give too much praise for Maurice for that time really. Sure for doing some good work with matchups at home, but in general his line deployment has been pretty much idiotic. And I do very much believe that a coach with a real good eye for making lines on the basis of player’s strengths and weaknesses would have made the Jets win even clearly more games than they have won this season. Maurice has not been a disaster, but he is far from a great coach still, in my opinion.

It's still disingenuous to say it's all Helle when our team was one of the best at limiting high danger chances. As opposed to a team like the Leafs who give up a tonne of HDC and Anderson still has great stats.

Babcock, Quenville, Cooper, Sutter. They all deploy the same tactics. I think people have this romanticized version of what a great coach is on other teams because those coaches have been fortunate enough to coach some great teams but in all reality most of them are pretty much the same. Fans on other boards complain about the same shit their coaches do that people here do. Obviously there are some really really bad coaches but most of them are pretty even and deploy the same kinds of tactics.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

That is still a winning record. Our team limited chances against Helle during that stretch because they were playing great. It wasn't all Helle and it's extremely disrespectful to the rest of the players to say it was. You can moan and groan about Maurice all that you want, and obviously you will because you always do. But we are where we are because of his decisions and our players play it's that simple. They have all delivered this year.

Wanting to test out Ehlers-Scheifele-Laine for a game or 2 before playoffs is moaning and groaning now? If you care at all about advanced stats, the Jets were absolute trash through the first 20 games and then went through the single biggest improvement of any team since 2004 - more than double the rate of improvement that the Pens did after hiring Sullivan.

So, no - its not extremely disrespectful to the players who will never read this forum to say that Connor Hellebuyck was the reason that the team was 13-6-1 after the first 20. I will stop moaning and groaning if you start thinking past "wins=good, losses=bad".

 

[Ippenator]

It's still disingenuous to say it's all Helle when our team was one of the best at limiting high danger chances. As opposed to a team like the Leafs who give up a tonne of HDC and Anderson still has great stats.

Babcock, Quenville, Cooper, Sutter. They all deploy the same tactics. I think people have this romanticized version of what a great coach is on other teams because those coaches have been fortunate enough to coach some great teams but in all reality most of them are pretty much the same. Fans on other boards complain about the same **** their coaches do that people here do. Obviously there are some really really bad coaches but most of them are pretty even and deploy the same kinds of tactics.

Other lines were good at keeping high danger chances low for the opponents, but the first line was not as good in that exactly, and they were exactly way too often bailed out simply because of Helle. Otherwise I agree with the other lines being quite sound defensively, but unfortunately pretty bad offensively. But sure on the other hand the first line was scoring pretty well. But as a line it was not very balanced. And Scheifele and Wheeler in different lines would really benefit the team a lot better in my opinion.

 

[Daximus]

Wanting to test out Ehlers-Scheifele-Laine for a game or 2 before playoffs is moaning and groaning now? If you care at all about advanced stats, the Jets were absolute trash through the first 20 games and then went through the single biggest improvement of any team since 2004 - more than double the rate of improvement that the Pens did after hiring Sullivan.

So, no - its not extremely disrespectful to the players who will never read this forum to say that Connor Hellebuyck was the reason that the team was 13-6-1 after the first 20. I will stop moaning and groaning if you start thinking past "wins=good, losses=bad".

That's all it comes down to for me. Wins=good, Losses=bad. At the end of the day that should be all that matters. The Stats line is playing great I see no need to overload 1 line when we can spread the talent out, makes us a matchup nightmare. With all our firepower on 1 line other teams just match their shutdown line to them and we don't have much else to work with.

 

[DashingDane]

Wanting to test out Ehlers-Scheifele-Laine for a game or 2 before playoffs is moaning and groaning now? If you care at all about advanced stats, the Jets were absolute trash through the first 20 games and then went through the single biggest improvement of any team since 2004 - more than double the rate of improvement that the Pens did after hiring Sullivan.

So, no - its not extremely disrespectful to the players who will never read this forum to say that Connor Hellebuyck was the reason that the team was 13-6-1 after the first 20. I will stop moaning and groaning if you start thinking past "wins=good, losses=bad".

I think people are forgetting how poor they were defensively... They created a lot of the rush but wren't good at possession and bled quality chances. Now I wouldn't be against trying them out since Laine and Ehlers defensive play has gotten better but lets not pretend they were gods gift to hockey...

 

[Daximus]

Other lines were good at keeping high danger chances low for he opponents, but he first line was not as good in thst exactly, and they were exactly way too often nailed out simply because of Helle. Otherwise I agree with the other lines being quite sound defensively. But sure on the other hand the first line was scoring pretty well. But as a line it was not very balanced. And Scheifele and Wheeler in different lines would really benefit the team a lot better in my opinion.

It's more about spreading out the threats. Makes matching up to us on the road much harder.