Jeff Skinner - The Poll

[Thorner]

Re, KO: And it's non negligible. It's significant. And that's significant even in a *worst-case-scenario* as far as Skinner production is concerned. 

He's also significantly better than Thompson. 

Why wouldn't him being scratched for these players matter? Why wouldn't even an extra singular win, an extra 2 points, be massive when we want to fight for the playoffs?  

Edited February 26, 2021 by Thorny

[Thorner]

9 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I wouldn't argue if Okposo was sat.

I would argue that Ralph is giving him the benefit of the doubt because he played well last year and he is coming back from an injury.

Just like he gave Jeff the benefit of the doubt and continued to play him a lot throughout the first two months of his enormous slump last year, and kept him in the lineup even after it continued. I mean, my god, 0/3/3/-17 in 22 games? Who does that and doesn't get benched?

Someone who plays for a team that doesn't rely on plus minus as a defining stat? A team that supposedly looks at analytics and how dominant Skinner's were? A team that values how important drawing penalties is? A team that recognizes Skinner only needs to be good relative to the 12th man to play?

Jack's numbers this year are as bad relatively. A bunch of secondary PP assists doesn't change that. 

You continually say it's longer than a slump but a big portion of the time frame that makes that so was hampered by non-offensive zone usage relative to what he normally gets. 

It's nuanced. It could easily be a slump extended beyond what it needed to be. I'm willing to spend more time figuring it out when in the meantime he makes our team better than the guy he'd take out. 

Why not. I earnestly struggle with the idea that someone could not care about the difference between Skinner and KO, or judge it to be negligible. It's a grand canyon. 

Edited February 26, 2021 by Thorny

[Weave]

Thorny, you are completely discounting the idea that there is some sort of off ice motivation for the benching, and I think that is the most likely reason for it.

[Thorner]

8 minutes ago, Weave said:

Thorny, you are completely discounting the idea that there is some sort of off ice motivation for the benching, and I think that is the most likely reason for it.

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

Attitude would actually somehow be a more palatable standing, even if I wholly disagreed with it being a determining factor in this case. 

There isn't a reasonable statistical argument that there are 12 F better suited to dressing than Skinner. There are forwards actively contributing negatively - Skinner was not that. 

If Krueger has assessed Skinner's attitude to be so poor that it's infiltrating team performance like a noxious gas, and he's somehow convinced himself this was quantifiable to the point of thinking we'd be more likely to win without him, there's an inherent INTERNAL logic to it, even if I still completely disagree with the strategy. 

You literally quoted this earlier haha

Edited February 26, 2021 by Thorny

[Weave]

16 minutes ago, Thorny said:

You literally quoted this earlier haha

But your responses regarding his place in or out of the lineup never mention it.  You mention it in passing and never again use it in any of the logic you present when stating your case.

[Thorner]

8 minutes ago, Weave said:

But your responses regarding his place in or out of the lineup never mention it.  You mention it in passing and never again use it in any of the logic you present when stating your case.

And neither is dudacek. He is choosing to present his argument, and engage, on a statistical basis, so that is the plane on which I am reciprocating the engagement. I have a strong opinion on the statistical aspects of what is going on, and feel comfortable defending my position on that front, since the opportunity has presented itself considering it serves as a counter argument to the avenue dudacek is taking. 

I've acknowledged the avenue you've mentioned, stipulating my stance on it for anyone who cares to read it - apologies if I didn't make it clear. 

The idea that Skinner may have an off-ice problem we are not privy to is mere speculation - how can it be argued? I can't formulate an argument against an unknowable position. I can't prove a negative - I can't prove that Skinner *doesn't* have off ice issues. Fruitless avenue for me to pursue - IMO - YMMV. 

Edited February 26, 2021 by Thorny

[Weave]

If the logic behind Skinners benching can’t be obviously explained and fully accounted for with on ice performance, off ice issues have to be the next logical deduction.  Or at least a significant contributor.

[dudacek]

And I think it's obvious there is power struggle going on between Ralph and Jeff.

I'm just responding to the idea the consensus around here that Ralph caused the power struggle by jerking Jeff around for no reason by providing evidence that the reason (terrible production) predated the jerking.

I'm fully on board with the idea the Krueger could have and should have handled the situation better.

But I am frankly shocked that I seem to be one of the few upset with Jeff's play, which has been bad for a year now.

Edited February 26, 2021 by dudacek

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, Weave said:

If the logic behind Skinners benching can’t be obviously explained and fully accounted for with on ice performance, off ice issues have to be the next logical deduction.  Or at least a significant contributor.

Perhaps. But there's someone making the argument that it's entirely explainable by on ice performance, and I am engaging in that discussion. The argument I am making is that it cannot be explained solely by on-ice performance. The entire basis of my argument is that there *is* something less easily defined going on. 

Why is it not ok that I want to take a stance that it cannot be justified through statistics alone? Do I have to argue a grander point?

Edited February 26, 2021 by Thorny

[bob_sauve28]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

We got ride of ROR for almost nothing. That in and of itself doesn't mean much. 

There are two issues with Skinner that keep being conflated into 1 - That he's not playing as well as he did in Carolina and early-Buffalo right now, and that he's playing QUITE as bad as he is. The former is on him, he's definitely slumping/underperforming and it's been that way for a little while. 

But it's like because Skinner isn't, in 4th line, defensive zone-start heavy usage performing at the production levels we've previous seen, he deserves to be benched. 

There's a happy medium. That they can't strike a balance is ridiculous. 

No, we thought we were getting something, Carolina just got garbage back, for the most part. 

 I think it's pretty simple. He got paid and lost the incentive to be a super star. 

 

[bob_sauve28]

9 minutes ago, Weave said:

If the logic behind Skinners benching can’t be obviously explained and fully accounted for with on ice performance, off ice issues have to be the next logical deduction.  Or at least a significant contributor.

His on ice performance explains it pretty clearly, doesn't it? 

Remember when he was scoring, he would pick arguments to get into with other players and then go out on the ice like he had a chip on his shoulder to prove something and go wild. Never seen anything like that now. The guy just isn't motivated to get to that crazy level of adrinaline (spelling?) 

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

Me pointing out Skinner *could* produce more is merely a sidebar. He *is* better than KO, right now. 

I honestly think this is such a small difference between them it hardly matters. I'm not going to defend Kyle too much but since they consider him a veteran leader I would suggest he's a better team mate and his locker room presence is better and I would suspect they consider him a better influence on our kids. Kyle is clearly a slow burned out player, but maybe he does bring some leadership. 

The thing about Skinner not addressed much is why didn't he dominate on the 4th line? We match strength against strength a lot so on the 4th line when he went up against 4th lines you'd have to think if he was any good he'd put up some numbers, but he didn't. I know a lot of people here don't value +/- any more but it is worth mentioning that he is a career minus player. A lot of his stats are not that good and he does not back check, he plays undisciplined and he is a defensive liability. Skinner is a sniper, nothing more, and if a sniper doesn't score goals he is useless.

Maybe it's a coincidence because of Jack's injury, but I don't like the idea that he's back after the agent supposedly meets with the GM. IF the GM has no spine and the agent gets what he wants the team is doomed. 

[Kruppstahl]

40 minutes ago, Weave said:

If the logic behind Skinners benching can’t be obviously explained and fully accounted for with on ice performance, off ice issues have to be the next logical deduction.  Or at least a significant contributor.

I think it has to be the only contributor at this point! 

I do think that Ralph thinks Skinner is not a Top 6 forward on this team.

I totally disagree with that.

 

 

[darksabre]

59 minutes ago, dudacek said:

And I think it's obvious there is power struggle going on between Ralph and Jeff.

I'm just responding to the idea the consensus around here that Ralph caused the power struggle by jerking Jeff around for no reason by providing evidence that the reason (terrible production) predated the jerking.

I'm fully on board with the idea the Krueger could have and should have handled the situation better.

But I am frankly shocked that I seem to be one of the few upset with Jeff's play, which has been bad for a year now.

I also think it's worth noting that whatever this "thing" is between Krueger and Skinner, Krueger is very clearly willing to lose his job over it. Coaches don't just bench players like Skinner for multiple games, while their team is losing, if they're worried about job security.

So either Krueger has KA's approval for this stuff, or Krueger is very confident that he's doing the right thing, job security be damned.

[Thorner]

14 minutes ago, darksabre said:

I also think it's worth noting that whatever this "thing" is between Krueger and Skinner, Krueger is very clearly willing to lose his job over it. Coaches don't just bench players like Skinner for multiple games, while their team is losing, if they're worried about job security.

So either Krueger has KA's approval for this stuff, or Krueger is very confident that he's doing the right thing, job security be damned.

I'm not convinced he needs KA's approval. 

[darksabre]

10 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I'm not convinced he needs KA's approval. 

Maybe not. But the point remains that Krueger either doesn't think his job is at risk, or he doesn't care. 

[dudacek]

8 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I'm not convinced he needs KA's approval. 

 

26 minutes ago, darksabre said:

I also think it's worth noting that whatever this "thing" is between Krueger and Skinner, Krueger is very clearly willing to lose his job over it. Coaches don't just bench players like Skinner for multiple games, while their team is losing, if they're worried about job security.

So either Krueger has KA's approval for this stuff, or Krueger is very confident that he's doing the right thing, job security be damned.

These are both spot on, IMO. Don't underestimate Krueger's clout with ownership.

Also, Kevyn Adams has no allegiance to Skinner.

[jsb]

1. I don't like HCRK, I think he's the worst situational game coach in the game right now
2. Jeff Skinner has had issues with his coaches since his Carolina days, nothing really new here
3. Has anyone really missed or noticed Skinner was missing the past 3 games?? I think no. Guys who people wanted in Rochester have performed better than he has. 
4. As for Okposo, I don't necessarily disagree that he's been better but he does play the right side as opposed to the left side where there are options besides Skinner. As for the PK it is much better with Eakins, Rieder, Sheehan and Lazar than it ever was with Larsson on it, so please stop with that one. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

Skinner needs to score.  KA and RK also desperately need to get Skinner scoring.  This team is the bottom of the league in 5 on 5 scoring and Eichel is now out.  If this team continues to fail 5 on 5 RK's job will be on the line whether TP likes him or not. Furthermore, if the player and management want a change, both are going to have to work together to raise his trade value.  

With Mitts, this is the first opportunity Skinner will have to actually play with a center this season that can actually create offense and pass the puck, besides 31 minutes of time with Jack.  

[jsb]

7 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

With Mitts, this is the first opportunity Skinner will have to actually play with a center this season that can actually create offense and pass the puck, besides 31 minutes of time with Jack.  

And that probably blows up when Jack comes back which is hopefully sooner than later and Lazar goes back to 4C

Side note, I don't listen or watch much Buffalo sports guys but is Brian Koziol the biggest dumb@ss in the market and I realize PHam is not the most popular guy in here??

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

But I am frankly shocked that I seem to be one of the few upset with Jeff's play, which has been bad for a year now.

Because it hasn't been bad. The only that's been bad is his goal scoring. Every single other underlying stat is the same.

Basically I find your argument surface level bad. It ignores his usage and deployment. 

15 minutes ago, jsb said:

1. I don't like HCRK, I think he's the worst situational game coach in the game right now
2. Jeff Skinner has had issues with his coaches since his Carolina days, nothing really new here
3. Has anyone really missed or noticed Skinner was missing the past 3 games?? I think no. Guys who people wanted in Rochester have performed better than he has. 
4. As for Okposo, I don't necessarily disagree that he's been better but he does play the right side as opposed to the left side where there are options besides Skinner. As for the PK it is much better with Eakins, Rieder, Sheehan and Lazar than it ever was with Larsson on it, so please stop with that one. 

I've noticed. Especially when tage flubbed a goal by being stupid. 

[jsb]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Because it hasn't been bad. The only that's been bad is his goal scoring. Every single other underlying stat is the same.

Basically I find your argument surface level bad. It ignores his usage and deployment. 

I've noticed. Especially when tage flubbed a goal by being stupid. 

Tage played the right side........... SKINNER PLAYS THE LEFT, you didn't notice that and how many goals has Skinner scored this year??

Edited February 26, 2021 by jsb

[IKnowPhysics]

15 hours ago, dudacek said:

@IKnowPhysics

I don’t expect everyone to read all my rants, especially when they are as unpopular as my opinions on Skinner.

But your stat breakdown fails to properly address Skinner’s first Krueger season by looking at it in linear fashion, the way a new coach would.

• October: Skinner scores 7 goals in 13 games while getting 18 minutes a game
• November: Skinner slumps to 3 goals in 14 games, but Krueger keeps playing him 17 minutes a game 
• December: Skinner’s slump continues. He scores once in 12 games putting him on a two-month streak of 4 goals in 26 games, and 11 in a row without scoring before he gets injured in a Dec. 27 game against Boston. Krueger starts cutting his ice time more as the streak continues and he ends up averaging a shade under 16 minutes - still top six minutes - for the month.
• January: Skinner averages 19 minutes in his two-game return, but is -3 without a point.
• February: Skinner’s goalless streak grows to 22 games where his stat line reaches 0/3/3/-17 before he finally scores. Skinner’s stat line for the month ends up 3/1/4 at a little over 14 minutes a game.
• March: Krueger, perhaps encouraged by a brief spark of recent offence, gives him more ice time - 18 minutes a game over 4 games. Jeff responds by going -5 and pointless.

To me it looks like a textbook case of a player who played himself out of his coach’s good graces and then failed to play his way back in. What am I missing?

https://www.espn.com/nhl/player/gamelog/_/id/5540/year/2020/jeff-skinner

Quality examination of higher fidelity gamelog data.  Certainly worthy of consideration.

 

In my mind, however, it still leaves open the problem of chicken vs egg.  Is Skinner's down production forcing Krueger to demote Skinner's usage and ice time, or is Krueger's demotion of Skinner's ice time and usage forcing Skinner's down production?  Despite not scoring and despite worse linemates and usage, he's still generating high danger chances at an impressive rate, implying Skinner's still a good player.  But if tallying goals is the start-and-end of this discussion, those high danger chance stats don't solve this Robert Stack mystery.

 

Where are Skinner's high danger shots going?

(cue the hot beat)

 

 

[Kruppstahl]

Paul Hamilton was on with Schopp at 3pm today.

He said he believes Skinner when Skinner says he wants to be in Buffalo.

Both agreed it was weird that Ralph says he did not hear about Don Meehan (Skinner's agent) calling to ask about the benching.

Hamilton said Skinner not playing even with Eichel's injury last night functioned as an embarrassment to Skinner.  

Both suggested there must be some insubordination going on behind the scenes whereby Skinner did or said something (or series of things) that Ralph didn't like.

Paul suggested Skinner may be willing to ride along with this now, thinking Ralph's days are numbered any way and soon he'll have a new coach and be in a new situation with all this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kruppstahl]

8 minutes ago, IKnowPhysics said:

Quality examination of higher fidelity gamelog data.  Certainly worthy of consideration.

 

In my mind, however, it still leaves open the problem of chicken vs egg.  Is Skinner's down production forcing Krueger to demote Skinner's usage and ice time, or is Krueger's demotion of Skinner's ice time and usage forcing Skinner's down production?  Despite not scoring and despite worse linemates and usage, he's still generating high danger chances at an impressive rate, implying Skinner's still a good player.  But if tallying goals is the start-and-end of this discussion, those high danger chance stats don't solve this Robert Stack mystery.

 

Where are Skinner's high danger shots going?

(cue the hot beat)

 

 

There is no player in the league this year with Skinner's amount of scoring chances who hasn't scored the way Skinner has.

As of a couple days ago when I looked into this, Skinner had 30 shot attempts from the slot at even strength.  That was the *most* on the team.  It's Top 75 in the league.

He is generating offense and doing what he usually does, even with Ralph's meddling!  

He's scored no goals!  It's weird!