Winnipeg Jets going into the 24/25 season

[CorgisPer60]

Ok i'm not against analytics, they obviously help a little but they haven't been used since hockey began, maybe started in the last 20 years or so , how did teams ever win without using them ? How did some teams become dynasties without using them ? They have their use that's for sure but i want my coach to watch the play on the ice more than a ipad .

Advanced stats are merely an output that humans create based on variables. The variables still exist regardless of whether we document them or not. Bobby Orr was still a dominant specimen. The Earth revolved around the sun long before Galileo discovered it. The eye test should correlate with what the advanced stats are telling you. You shouldn't use one over the other. Jared Bednar and his team invest heavily in them. They also use tape and good old-fashioned coaching to attack teams based on their perceived weaknesses. Play to your strengths and attack their weaknesses.

 

[scelaton]

Ok i'm not against analytics, they obviously help a little but they haven't been used since hockey began, maybe started in the last 20 years or so , how did teams ever win without using them ? How did some teams become dynasties without using them ? They have their use that's for sure but i want my coach to watch the play on the ice more than a ipad .

You seem open to other perspectives, so I will take a shot at answering your question. Teams won without analytics by having great players and great coaching. That hasn't changed, but the playing field has changed in other ways. Equipment is better, training regimens improve conditioning and now analytics have entered the game. All three of those are products of applied science, but analytics, unlike, say, equipment, are less intuitive and visible to many people. To other people, those with mathematical minds, they tell a story that is as clear and compelling as your favourite film.
In any case, all have advanced the game, so that most people acknowledge that a SC team of the 2020s would likely beat a SC team of 1970s. Statistically speaking, that is...

More generally, applied science is always a work in progress and scientists have not had it easy historically, because they tend to challenge the status quo. Many have been ridiculed over the centuries, some have even been killed, because people react very badly when (they feel) their core beliefs are disrespected. It's unfortunate, but predictable, almost like Pionk's playoff performance.

 

[surixon]

Advanced stats are merely an output that humans create based on variables. The variables still exist regardless of whether we document them or not. Bobby Orr was still a dominant specimen. The Earth revolved around the sun long before Galileo discovered it. The eye test should correlate with what the advanced stats are telling you. You shouldn't use one over the other. Jared Bednar and his team invest heavily in them. They also use tape and good old-fashioned coaching to attack teams based on their perceived weaknesses. Play to your strengths and attack their weaknesses.

Agreed. This is the thing that has annoyed me about this team over the past number of years. We spend so much effort on our weaknesses but very little attention on optimizing our strengths.

We need to get the most out of our core if we are going to win. Look at any team still in and their game plans are derived around their star players attributes. Our game plan is designed to optimize the Lowry line.

 

[Jets 31]

Advanced stats are merely an output that humans create based on variables. The variables still exist regardless of whether we document them or not. Bobby Orr was still a dominant specimen. The Earth revolved around the sun long before Galileo discovered it. The eye test should correlate with what the advanced stats are telling you. You shouldn't use one over the other. Jared Bednar and his team invest heavily in them. They also use tape and good old-fashioned coaching to attack teams based on their perceived weaknesses. Play to your strengths and attack their weaknesses.

You seem open to other perspectives, so I will take a shot at answering your question. Teams won without analytics by having great players and great coaching. That hasn't changed, but the playing field has changed in other ways. Equipment is better, training regimens improve conditioning and now analytics have entered the game. All three of those are products of applied science, but analytics, unlike, say, equipment, are less intuitive and visible to many people. To other people, those with mathematical minds, they tell a story that is as clear and compelling as your favourite film.
In any case, all have advanced the game, so that most people acknowledge that a SC team of the 2020s would likely beat a SC team of 1970s. Statistically speaking, that is...

More generally, applied science is always a work in progress and scientists have not had it easy historically, because they tend to challenge the status quo. Many have been ridiculed over the centuries, some have even been killed, because people react very badly when (they feel) their core beliefs are disrespected. It's unfortunate, but predictable, almost like Pionk's playoff performance.

Ok great replies, i get what you are saying.....

 

[Jets 31]

Agreed. This is the thing that has annoyed me about this team over the past number of years. We spend so much effort on our weaknesses but very little attention on optimizing our strengths.

We need to get the most out of our core if we are going to win. Look at any team still in and their game plans are derived around their star players attributes. Our game plan is designed to optimize the Lowry line.

We desperately need at least 3 good new defenseman on this team, at least one that can clear guys out from in front of our net and 2 that can move the puck out of our zone.

 

[Buffdog]

Hang on now...this all started because you took some kind of personal offense to me saying that: "The Avs used analytics and smart tactical game planning to dismantle the Jets. Attack weaknesses and play to Colorado's strengths. The Jets coaching staff just kind of threw up their hands and went with their guts."

Then I brought receipts: Jack Johnson literally crediting analytics with helping the Avs dissect the Jets.

Then you start, I dunno, running everything up the flagpole and seeing who salutes?


What are you talking about? I said the Avs used analytics to dismantle the Jets. Jack Johnson said the Avs used analytics to dismantle the Jets. The Avs dismantled the Jets. There's a whole article about how important analytics is to the Avs. Or was it actually the Avs watching Pionk's Funniest Home Videos and they're just saying it was analytics to throw us off the scent? I guess we'll never know...


Ooh...alternate theories. Yes, the real killer is out there, OJ! Do you have some articles to show me? Some player quotes that credits traditional scouting with their series domination? No? Okay then.


A classic strawman argument. No one has ever argued that the more people a team has working in analytics, the better they will fare. Do YOU understand that correlation =/= causation? I guess if you've got nothing to refute the article you might as well drag me into arguing about this bullshit.

And as JetsFan815 pointed out, it doesn't even matter how many analysts you have if your team's coaching staff is averse to *useful information*.


Listen, if you don't define important terms until your 4th post on the topic, you can't really accuse me of cherry picking. How was I supposed to know your narrow definition of a "highly unsuccessful" team was limited specifically to playoff series wins in April and May of 2024?


The analytics was saying it a lot longer than that. It's been saying that for years.

Perhaps if you didn't react to the notion that analytics might be useful like you're gazing on the Ark of the Covenant we could avoid a lot of these misunderstandings...

Forst of all, I never said thay analytics aren't important. They just aren't the only thing

The point I made (it's always crazy how you never address's THE point) is that the Avs beat the Jets because they're a better team and we played like ass. Did analytics help them? Maybe. But they also have the 2nd best forward in the world, the best d man in the world and a goalie who all of a sudden looked like an all star again. Are you saying that all that didn't matter, and it was all analytics? Because to me, that's what you're implying

I'm not sure what the point of using analytics is at all if you're just gonna look at data points ypu like and explain them away with "well, yeah BUT...". That's not how data driven fields work

Try a simple exercise. Plot the number of people in each teams analytics department on one axis, and their "success" on the other, however you want to define it. If you were being thorough, you'd do a couple of different metrics. You could do regular season points, playoff wins, etc and make separate graphs

Then you'd draw a best fit line. If more analytics = more success, you'd see that. But you won't. You'll see a cluster with a bunch of noise, and no real correlation - never mind causation

Then you'd look at your results and you would interpret them - not in such a way that you explain away the data point that don't fit your hypothesis - that's not science.

I'd imagine an intellectually honest person who thinks that hockey analytics are extremely important would look at the results and say "that's interesting, the results aren't what I thought they'd be. I wonder why, and I maybe I was wrong"

But as I said, you're more interested in not being wrong. I get it. People hate admiting that they're wrong to me because I can be smug and condescending. It doesn't usually start out that way though. It starts with me hearing something like "the avs beat the Jets because of analytics", and me bringing up alternate reasons- like they have a better team and we played like dogshit. All it would have take is for you to say "yeah, those were definitely factors too" (which they were), but you refuse to. So here we are

 

[Buffdog]

More generally, applied science is always a work in progress and scientists have not had it easy historically, because they tend to challenge the status quo. Many have been ridiculed over the centuries, some have even been killed, because people react very badly when (they feel) their core beliefs are disrespected. It's unfortunate, but predictable, almost like Pionk's playoff performance.

Another great post. I'd like to point out this part though... great scientists (past and present) are concerned about discovering the truth, not being right. That seems to have changed in thr past 30 years. There's all kinds of documentation relating to this if you look. People posit that it's because of how research grants are applied for and awarded

The smartest people in the room are usually the ones who say "I don't know", "I don't have enough information on that to have an opinion", and "I was wrong about that" the most.

A guareentee that someone isn't knowledgeable in their field is if they always act like they're right and cherry pick data to prop up their conclusions

 

[bumblebeeman]

Forst of all, I never said thay analytics aren't important. They just aren't the only thing

The point I made (it's always crazy how you never address's THE point) is that the Avs beat the Jets because they're a better team and we played like ass. Did analytics help them? Maybe. But they also have the 2nd best forward in the world, the best d man in the world and a goalie who all of a sudden looked like an all star again. Are you saying that all that didn't matter, and it was all analytics? Because to me, that's what you're implying

I'm not sure what the point of using analytics is at all if you're just gonna look at data points ypu like and explain them away with "well, yeah BUT...". That's not how data driven fields work

Try a simple exercise. Plot the number of people in each teams analytics department on one axis, and their "success" on the other, however you want to define it. If you were being thorough, you'd do a couple of different metrics. You could do regular season points, playoff wins, etc and make separate graphs

Then you'd draw a best fit line. If more analytics = more success, you'd see that. But you won't. You'll see a cluster with a bunch of noise, and no real correlation - never mind causation

Then you'd look at your results and you would interpret them - not in such a way that you explain away the data point that don't fit your hypothesis - that's not science.

I'd imagine an intellectually honest person who thinks that hockey analytics are extremely important would look at the results and say "that's interesting, the results aren't what I thought they'd be. I wonder why, and I maybe I was wrong"

But as I said, you're more interested in not being wrong. I get it. People hate admiting that they're wrong to me because I can be smug and condescending. It doesn't usually start out that way though. It starts with me hearing something like "the avs beat the Jets because of analytics", and me bringing up alternate reasons- like they have a better team and we played like dogshit. All it would have take is for you to say "yeah, those were definitely factors too" (which they were), but you refuse to. So here we are

Can you share these number of analytics by team success graphs?

 

[Royale With Cheese]

Oh don't get me wrong we played like shit defensively and i'm not blaming it on Helly. I just think that the best goalie in the NHL should be able to steal at least one game. If we don't score 7 goals in game 1 we would have lost 4 straight.

Helle warrants criticism, no doubt. He gets a free pass from many on this board, but our regular season best player did nothing to actually help us this playoffs. Imagine if McDavid did this.

We don’t need Helle to steal a game in January against Ottawa , but April against Colorado would have been timely.

 

[Heldig]

Hang on now...this all started because you took some kind of personal offense to me saying that: "The Avs used analytics and smart tactical game planning to dismantle the Jets. Attack weaknesses and play to Colorado's strengths. The Jets coaching staff just kind of threw up their hands and went with their guts."

Then I brought receipts: Jack Johnson literally crediting analytics with helping the Avs dissect the Jets.

Then you start, I dunno, running everything up the flagpole and seeing who salutes?


What are you talking about? I said the Avs used analytics to dismantle the Jets. Jack Johnson said the Avs used analytics to dismantle the Jets. The Avs dismantled the Jets. There's a whole article about how important analytics is to the Avs. Or was it actually the Avs watching Pionk's Funniest Home Videos and they're just saying it was analytics to throw us off the scent? I guess we'll never know...


Ooh...alternate theories. Yes, the real killer is out there, OJ! Do you have some articles to show me? Some player quotes that credits traditional scouting with their series domination? No? Okay then.


A classic strawman argument. No one has ever argued that the more people a team has working in analytics, the better they will fare. Do YOU understand that correlation =/= causation? I guess if you've got nothing to refute the article you might as well drag me into arguing about this bullshit.

And as JetsFan815 pointed out, it doesn't even matter how many analysts you have if your team's coaching staff is averse to *useful information*.


Listen, if you don't define important terms until your 4th post on the topic, you can't really accuse me of cherry picking. How was I supposed to know your narrow definition of a "highly unsuccessful" team was limited specifically to playoff series wins in April and May of 2024?


The analytics was saying it a lot longer than that. It's been saying that for years.

Perhaps if you didn't react to the notion that analytics might be useful like you're gazing on the Ark of the Covenant we could avoid a lot of these misunderstandings...

Not being an analytics guy, can you give any insight into WHAT analytics would enable the Avs to dissect the Jets system so fully?

 

[WolfHouse]

Ok i'm not against analytics, they obviously help a little but they haven't been used since hockey began, maybe started in the last 20 years or so , how did teams ever win without using them ? How did some teams become dynasties without using them ? They have their use that's for sure but i want my coach to watch the play on the ice more than a ipad .

Cocaine

 

[surixon]

I think we as an org are going to have to optimize all aspects of the organization to win. That includes things like analytics, traditional coaching, and sports science.

 

[Channelcat]

Cocaine

Some things never change

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

With recent talk about Ehlers and Pulock, someone on the trade board (not a Jets fan) posted close to the exact idea I was thinking about. I do like Ehlers and would be sad to see him go. But in a situation where there isn't a deal to be made with him, or if there isn't any other way to improve the D, I think it's worth considering.

Ehlers and Pionk for Pulock and Nelson

This would have to assume an extension for Ehlers to make it fair, but I think this is fair, at the very most only require something minor if not.

I would bet that some on the trade board would think the Jets might need to add, but reading the Isles board I think there are quite a few that realize that while Pulock is a RHD, his current contract isn't a "deal" for someone who doesn't produce much offense and isn't great in transition either.

Adding Nelson and Pionk helps both sides as well. For us, if we add Pulock at the expense of Ehlers we're down a top 6 F. And we also have a potential hole at 2C (depending on the new coach's view of trying Perfetti there). If the Jets are able to re-sign Demelo, it's a much better situation to add Demelo as a UFA and then use Pionk to add to the top 6.

For the Islanders most are already interested in swapping Ehlers for Pulock. They're looking for a top 6 winger and Ehlers's speed would be a good fit. What's interesting is that when discussing moving Pulock, they also realize the situation that would arise by moving him. Adding Pionk helps them fill in with Mayfield behind Dobson.

Nelson and Pionk are both upcoming UFA's, and even with our frustration with Pionk their values should not be very far apart.

Seems like a hockey trade that would benefit both teams. The salary impact to both teams is also pretty darn close as well (Jets take on an additional 275K).

I like it but I don't see Pionk being worth anywhere close to Nelson. OTOH, Ehlers is worth more than Pulock, aside from contract status.

All 4 players have trade protection, so waiving would be required, at least coming this way.

Why wouldn't we just pay Dillon 6m a season... see if samberg or heinola can play their off side

I think Pulock is better than Dillon. Agree with that or not, Pulock is a RHD and 4 years younger.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

This a well thought out proposal but Pulock has a Full NTC and Nelson has a 16 team NTC. Not every Manitoba boy wants to come. The evidence would actually suggest most would prefer not to.

There isn't enough evidence to support a conclusion one way or another.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Usage didn't kill us in the PO's - we were outclassed at every level and the only real hope we had in keeping up with the Aves was to play our best dgame - which we didn't.
I'm fine with getting into the weeds with guys like Perfetti and what he might have added if he was playing his absolute best game(s) ever - but it wouldn't have mattered much. So sure, it's fair to ask if they would have mattered - but they wouldn't have enough to turn that series around.

Have to agree strongly. It is the same if Ehlers had played in Connor's spot. The whole thing about Ehlers flopping in the PO is based on a 37 game sample, spread over 6 years, in which he was poorly utilized. But if he had scored 1 goal in each of this years PO games we would still have lost the series in 5 games.

Ehlers did not cost us that series.
Helle did not cost us that series.
Lack of Perfetti did not cost us that series.

It was a team loss, lead by the coach.

 

[Maukkis]

I think we as an org are going to have to optimize all aspects of the organization to win. That includes things like analytics, traditional coaching, and sports science.

And - let's face it - we are f***ing dogshit at optimising anything. I mean, think about how much top 6 level offensive talent have we had over the last couple of years, and yet we haven't been able to consistently roll a top 6 that doesn't get its teeth kicked in? After hundreds of games of chances to observe, we somehow haven't figured out that Connor and Scheifele are a terrible combination at 5v5 - and this is the combination you play and see the most, mind you. If you don't even get that right, how are you going to contend against the teams who optimise and find ways to do it better?

And this isn't just about one or two players, this problem runs deeper than most would like to admit. This org needs to adopt a culture of trying new stuff, and it needs it badly.

 

[CorgisPer60]

Agreed. This is the thing that has annoyed me about this team over the past number of years. We spend so much effort on our weaknesses but very little attention on optimizing our strengths.

We need to get the most out of our core if we are going to win. Look at any team still in and their game plans are derived around their star players attributes. Our game plan is designed to optimize the Lowry line.

Dom from The Athletic published an article that addressed this point, specifically with regards to the Maple Leafs chipping away at their core identity (generating offense) to get a very milquetoast and average team for the playoffs. They played it safe and it cost them dearly.

 

[CorgisPer60]

I think we as an org are going to have to optimize all aspects of the organization to win. That includes things like analytics, traditional coaching, and sports science.

I, unfortunately, think loyalty is going to get into the way of a lot of this. The Jets need to find a balance of being mercenary like Vegas, but less loyal like they have been. Don't jettison as soon as they become a net drag, but identify players that we can build around and build around them. The Jets have their core, but the only players that they realistically built around are Scheifele, Morrissey, and Hellebuyck. Everybody else is a complimentary top six or bottom six or below replacement player. There's nobody that's realistically a core piece, nor do they have any superstars. There's nobody on the team I would be comfortable with an 8 million AAV (Panarin, Pastrnak, Kaprisov, Fox, Hedman, etc. ).

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

It's not a 5 game stretch, it's 37

If it was one bad playoffs, I'd agree. But 37 games is enough of a sample size to conclude that something is amiss

At this point, if you're not willing to admit that, then maybe just give up making stats-based arguments altogether. You can't do that if you're only gonna cherry puck the ones you like

37 games is still a small sample, especially when it is made up of several smaller samples over 6 years bundled together. There is a lot of context to examine in that small sample. In 5 of those 6 years the whole team played badly. The 6th one was Ehlers' first NHL PO when he was the same age as Perfetti is now.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I was talking about Ehlers.

It's not one series, it's literally every series he's been a part of.




He's basically saying that the 82 house shows are more important than Wrestlemania. Nik Ehlers can mail it in for the Pay Per Views.

Essentially, he's Bruiser Brody looking good, and skipping town when it's his turn to do business.

I truly question one of the analytical guys that so many of these guys subscribe to, and whether or not he's working with Ehlers' agent, putting something together when that next contract comes up.

You do know that wrestling is fake, right?

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I'm not saying that it wouldn't have made a positive difference, but we still wouldn't have beaten the Avs

The only way we win that series is if we play with the same defensive structure that made us successful all season, but with a ramped up intensity level. AND Helle needed to be Helle.

I think that if we played like first half-season Jets, but with PO intensity, Helle would have been lights out. Probably steal at least 1 game.

Speaking of PO intensity, I don't think we really saw that from the Jets. It did not look like the PO hockey I have seen in other matchups.

Not arguing, but I always wonder about who and what might have made enough difference to "turn a series around."

No idea if the series was there for the taking if enough small moves had been made, but let's assume that the Jets aren't hamstringing themselves early in the series by playing one of their best shutdown guys in Samberg on his offside with Stan. Add to that playing Brossoit in game 3 or 4 to spell Helle and hope he then has a bounceback game,

Then the top line optimized, a scoring threat and 2-way responsible player in Perfetti, adapting tactics to deploy a more aggressive PK (we saw this later) look for different exit routes to avoid the Avs pinching and blocking every outlet pass, look to take back the NZ, blah blah blah.

I guess the question for me is less "the Jets need to have a MacKinnon / Makar to win this series" and more "the Jets needed to optimize every single element at their disposal in terms of roster selection, deployment, tactics, etc. in order to maybe win this series, none of which they seemed willing to do.

Weeks on from this one, and I'm still bemused at how strange and passive a series we played. And while the Avs were excellent, their surpassing brilliance doesn't explain the bulk of the Jets' play, IMO.

^this, ^ this, ^ this

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Their players have talked about it. It's just established fact that analytics plays a big part in successful hockey.

Read it and weep:

Did how the Avs use analytics help the club in its five-game rout of the Jets?​

​

“Yes, absolutely,” Johnson said.​

​

Care to share any examples now that the series is over? ​

​

“No,” Johnson replied with a mischievous grin. “We knew there were certain things that they did well, and there were certain things that they struggled with. And we knew those were the things we were going to focus on and try to exploit.”​

How use of analytics is part of Colorado Avalanche’s secret sauce: “Numbers are unemotional”

For the Avalanche, it’s not just the quality of information from the four-person team on the analytics staff, but how it gets communicated and circulated throughout the organization that help…

www.denverpost.com

Bones countered that with his gut.

 

[Dale53130]

You do know that wrestling is fake, right?

Yet, Ehlers disappearing act is real. You're still wanting to put a buck into something that spits out .65 cents.

 

[jiho]

Analytics say ideally a team should have three people working on analytics