• Scoring chances for/against: Jan 20th: Colu/Edm

    by  • January 20, 2009 • Uncategorized • 41 Comments

    Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 20689

    Team Period Time Note Oilers Opponent  
    EDM 1 16:50 27 35 37 51 67 71 1 3 17 19 51 61 5v5
    CBJ 1 16:30 10 27 35 37 71 83 1 8 20 22 27 61 5v5
    EDM 1 14:55 PP Goal 10 27 35 44 71 83 1 3 27 51 61 5v4
    CBJ 1 9:12 12 26 35 44 77 89 1 8 20 22 27 61 5v5
    CBJ 1 9:01 10 35 44 51 77 83 1 3 17 19 51 93 5v5
    EDM 1 5:28 12 26 35 44 77 89 1 8 15 18 22 33 5v5
    CBJ 1 3:09 10 26 35 37 51 77 1 8 18 19 51 93 5v5
    CBJ 2 19:08 12 26 35 37 77 89 1 8 20 22 27 61 5v5
    CBJ 2 18:32 Goal 12 26 35 37 77 89 1 3 14 29 40 51 5v5
    EDM 2 14:30 5 10 24 27 35 83 1 8 17 19 22 93 5v5
    CBJ 2 12:33 13 18 35 37 71 78 1 3 14 29 40 51 5v5
    EDM 2 12:02 13 18 35 37 71 78 1 3 14 29 40 51 5v5
    EDM 2 10:38 Goal 10 27 35 44 77 83 1 3 17 18 51 93 5v5
    CBJ 2 9:06 Goal 35 37 51 67 71 83 1 3 20 27 51 61 5v5
    EDM 2 8:51 12 26 35 37 71 89 1 3 14 29 40 51 5v5
    EDM 2 6:29 10 27 35 44 71 78 1 8 19 20 22 61 5v5
    CBJ 2 5:45 13 18 35 37 71 78 1 5 10 29 33 93 5v5
    CBJ 2 5:38 Goal 13 18 35 37 71 78 1 5 10 29 33 93 5v5
    EDM 2 2:10 13 18 35 37 51 71 1 5 10 14 29 40 5v5
    EDM 2 2:08 13 18 35 37 51 71 1 5 10 14 29 40 5v5
    EDM 3 17:15 18 35 37 51 67 71 1 8 19 22 33 93 5v5
    CBJ 3 16:41 PP 10 24 35 44 51 1 10 20 27 29 61 4v5
    CBJ 3 14:31 5 12 35 71 83 89 1 8 10 14 15 19 5v5
    CBJ 3 13:47 13 18 35 44 77 78 1 5 10 27 33 61 5v5
    CBJ 3 12:13 10 27 35 44 77 83 1 8 22 27 33 40 5v5
    EDM 3 4:42 Goal 26 35 37 77 83 89 1 5 8 18 22 27 5v5
    EDM 3 0:35 Goal 10 27 35 37 71 83 1 3 18 19 22 93 5v5
    # Player EV PP SH
    5 L. SMID 15:42 1 1 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
    10 S. HORCOFF 16:16 4 4 2:18 1 0 2:27 0 1
    12 R. NILSSON 16:00 2 4 0:00 0 0 0:03 0 0
    13 A. COGLIANO 15:46 3 4 0:00 0 0 1:26 0 0
    18 E. MOREAU 15:25 4 4 0:00 0 0 0:39 0 0
    24 S. STAIOS 15:39 1 0 0:00 0 0 2:12 0 1
    26 E. COLE 12:36 3 4 0:54 0 0 0:51 0 0
    27 D. PENNER 13:31 5 2 2:18 1 0 0:00 0 0
    33 S. MACINTYRE 4:20 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
    35 D. ROLOSON 52:48 12 13 3:12 1 0 4:00 0 1
    37 D. GREBESHKOV 18:50 8 8 0:54 0 0 2:07 0 0
    44 S. SOURAY 18:16 3 4 2:18 1 0 1:53 0 1
    51 K. BRODZIAK 8:36 4 3 0:00 0 0 2:31 0 1
    67 G. BRULE 8:18 2 1 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
    71 L. VISNOVSKY 19:19 8 6 2:42 1 0 0:00 0 0
    77 T. GILBERT 18:07 3 7 0:30 0 0 1:48 0 0
    78 M. POULIOT 12:47 2 4 0:24 0 0 0:00 0 0
    83 A. HEMSKY 17:09 4 5 2:48 1 0 0:00 0 0
    89 S. GAGNER 15:23 3 4 0:54 0 0 0:03 0 0
    Period Totals EV PP 5v3 PP SH 5v3 SH
    1 3 4 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    2 7 6 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    3 3 4 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
    4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Totals 13 14 12 13 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

    41 Responses to Scoring chances for/against: Jan 20th: Colu/Edm

    1. David Staples
      January 21, 2009 at

      I see Hemsky had four chances for, five against at ES.

      Must have had a mediocre night, eh.

    2. coach pb9617
      January 21, 2009 at

      Wow, there’s no way in hell I’d have guess that Moreau and Cogliano were above water last night. They just seemed shitty all night. Oh bias.

    3. January 21, 2009 at

      I am becoming a Hemsky believer again based on the last game.

      (!!)

    4. January 22, 2009 at

      Matt: Nice:)

      Staples: No doubt the Oilers didn’t play well in this game and 83 himself forced a couple of plays at the blueline that went the other way.

      But when he was on, he was ON:)

    5. January 22, 2009 at

      Totals (Player,GP,EV,PP,SH)

      05 – 29 – 088/110 – 001/000 – 003/013
      10 – 42 – 195/169 – 101/009 – 011/097
      12 – 32 – 118/119 – 034/010 – 000/000
      13 – 42 – 148/144 – 044/012 – 002/020
      18 – 41 – 135/193 – 002/000 – 010/074
      21 – 04 – 019/013 – 000/000 – 000/000
      24 – 40 – 123/166 – 002/000 – 008/114
      26 – 42 – 158/156 – 055/009 – 011/025
      27 – 40 – 149/140 – 071/005 – 002/028
      28 – 02 – 002/002 – 000/000 – 000/000
      33 – 14 – 006/010 – 000/000 – 000/000
      34 – 16 – 048/062 – 000/001 – 001/023
      37 – 39 – 205/183 – 039/008 – 007/039
      43 – 33 – 069/092 – 000/000 – 004/037
      44 – 41 – 194/205 – 118/013 – 013/090
      46 – 24 – 030/038 – 000/000 – 000/000
      49 – 01 – 004/000 – 000/000 – 000/001
      51 – 40 – 093/119 – 001/000 – 011/074
      62 – 01 – 001/000 – 000/000 – 000/003
      67 – 11 – 027/035 – 002/001 – 000/000
      71 – 42 – 245/203 – 115/015 – 003/012
      77 – 42 – 200/217 – 052/010 – 009/072
      78 – 39 – 114/110 – 027/001 – 000/003
      83 – 33 – 143/124 – 083/008 – 000/002
      85 – 21 – 042/066 – 000/000 – 000/013
      88 – 04 – 010/015 – 002/002 – 000/000
      89 – 39 – 159/147 – 056/011 – 002/006

    6. January 22, 2009 at

      Thanks, Scott. Dennis, can you confirm the three missing games are these:

      Nov 29 @ STL
      Dec 26 @ VAN
      Jan 5 vs NYI

      ?

    7. January 22, 2009 at

      The first two are correct; the last one was the 4-1 L vs SJ.

    8. January 22, 2009 at

      Cole’s PK numbers are remarkable.

    9. January 22, 2009 at

      I’ve also skipped over the December 17th game against the Dys which didn’t have the individual totals already prepared. I’ll probably unlazify and add it to my spreadsheet soon.

      Also, if anyone would like any splits, let me know and I’ll try to put them up here, so for example home v. road or ten game segments, 27/51 pre and post MacT media storm, etc.

    10. January 22, 2009 at

      Scott: I have a couple of requests if you have the time!:)

      First off, home and road splits would be great because we know how MacT likes to run his bench so then we can gauge the chances by competition or gameplan.

      Also, 10 game samples would be great as well.

    11. January 23, 2009 at

      OK, I’ll subtract out the TOI from those 4 games and post the results.

    12. January 23, 2009 at

      Hey Tyler, in the Dec. 6 San Jose thread where we did our first scoring chance summary, you wrote:

      Great stuff Bruce. I assume that you’re doing this in Excel. If you want a login so that you can just jpeg the graphs and post them to save the hassle of this, let me know and I’ll set you up.

      Am working on the TOI stuff this morning, and yes I am working in Excel. So I would like to take you up on this offer. You have my email.

    13. January 23, 2009 at

      I’m just reviewing my results and I’ve got some bad news for Fernando Pisani. I logged a four in the wrong column, so here are his corrected sums:

      34 – 16 – 044/066 – 001/023

      Poor Fernando.

    14. January 23, 2009 at

      Thanks Scott, fixed in my spread sheet. Poor Fernando indeed, he’s even +0/-1 when on the powerplay, for pete’s sake. Overall (for what that’s worth) he’s +45/-90.

    15. January 23, 2009 at

      Two more slight corrections (both logging errors) for Staios and Hemsky’s totals:

      24 – 40 – 123/166 – 002/000 – 008/113
      83 – 33 – 143/124 – 084/009 – 000/002

    16. January 23, 2009 at

      First Ten Games, October 12 to November 1
      (Player,GP,EV,PP,SH)

      05 – 06 – 19/20 – 00/00 – 00/01
      10 – 10 – 44/33 – 21/04 – 00/17
      12 – 10 – 43/31 – 08/03 – 00/00
      13 – 10 – 33/25 – 09/03 – 00/02
      18 – 10 – 29/46 – 00/00 – 02/18
      24 – 08 – 29/28 – 00/00 – 01/29
      26 – 10 – 28/39 – 17/04 – 00/00
      27 – 10 – 29/28 – 05/02 – 01/19
      33 – 07 – 04/05 – 00/00 – 00/00
      34 – 08 – 20/33 – 00/01 – 00/12
      37 – 10 – 41/44 – 09/03 – 00/13
      43 – 07 – 22/20 – 00/00 – 02/06
      44 – 09 – 41/32 – 19/04 – 03/18
      46 – 06 – 03/08 – 00/00 – 00/00
      51 – 10 – 22/24 – 00/00 – 03/14
      71 – 10 – 55/34 – 23/04 – 02/06
      77 – 10 – 42/47 – 09/03 – 00/21
      78 – 10 – 28/22 – 00/00 – 00/01
      83 – 10 – 40/33 – 21/04 – 00/01
      89 – 09 – 42/23 – 08/02 – 02/04

    17. January 23, 2009 at

      Sorry for being such a lamer but here are a couple more small corrections for Staios (Staios was right originally) and Visnovsky:

      24 – 40 – 123/166 – 002/000 – 008/114
      71 – 42 – 244/203 – 115/015 – 003/012

    18. January 23, 2009 at

      Two more quick changes, although apparently I should really be making sure of these before I post them because one is to undo the 71 change from the last modification. Anyway, there’s also a new game that was missed for Pouliot, but I don’t have the totals. It’s from the Pittsburgh game, which looks like it might have some other problems (Peckham’s line, for example, looks wacky). Do you still have this game logged somewhere Dennis?

      71 – 42 – 245/203 – 115/015 – 003/012
      78 – 40 – 114/110 – 027/001 – 000/003

    19. Unleaded
      January 23, 2009 at

      What do the team numbers look like after the forty some games we’ve seen them play? Are we at the point where our good games are creating enough additional scoring chances so even out the games when we give up more chances, or are is this team just a group that manages to capitalize on more of their chances than other teams do?

      If you guys have A LOT of extra time, looking at the goals for per scoring chance and goals against per scoring chance against would be very interesting… especially on an individual basis!

      Cheers, and thanks for all the hard work!

    20. January 23, 2009 at

      Scott: I did log the Pit game and it should here somewhere.

      BTW, thanks for all the hard work bud!

    21. January 23, 2009 at

      Dennis/Scott: Working on it. Should have something up on defencemen soon.

      Unleaded: Good idea to cross-reference to goals scored.

      Scott: I’ll say there’s something wonky about Peckham. According to the sums he’s +4/-0 on SC and yet he posted a -2 on the night. Were both of them non-chances? Also, his Corsi was -11 that night. (Sorry Dennis, not meant to be critical but we got to keep an eye open for bugs.)

    22. January 23, 2009 at

      Bruce: No sweat, bud. It was hard keeping things straight before Vic sweetened the process:)

      I must have mistaken Peckham for someone else because I remember he was getting killed and he was out there against Crosby or Malkin.

    23. January 23, 2009 at

      I just checked it and it was a slip from me. Whereas I had a – to separate the number from the ranking, it was listed as:

      49 – 4

      It should’ve been

      49 – -4

    24. January 24, 2009 at

      I went practically cross-eyed calculating TOI for all players in all situations by subtracting out their ice time for the missed games. When done I did an independent reconciliation of total TOI which outed a couple of small mistakes. When I got each player to EV TOI + PP TOI + SH TOI = Total TOI

      Let’s start by looking at EV results for defencemen. This is what we had last time, thru games of Dec 3 (minus Nov 29), in order of TOI:

      Even Strength
      # * EV TOI * SCF * SCA * F/60 * A/60 * +-/60
      ——————————————–
      71 * 465.4 * 130 * 110 * 16.8 * 14.2 * +2.6
      77 * 405.4 * 109 * 120 * 16.1 * 17.8 * -1.6
      44 * 390.2 * 105 * 104 * 16.1 * 16.0 * +0.1
      37 * 352.7 ** 96 ** 92 * 16.3 * 15.7 * +0.7
      24 * 325.9 ** 64 ** 87 * 11.8 * 16.0 * -4.2
      43 * 259.0 ** 49 ** 77 * 11.4 * 17.8 * -6.5
      5 ** 141.0 ** 28 ** 34 * 11.9 * 14.5 * -2.6
      49 ** 10.1 *** 4 *** 0 * 23.8 ** 0.0 * +23.8
      # * EV TOI * SCF * SCA * F/60 * A/60 * +-/60
      # * EV TOI * SCF * SCA * F/60 * A/60 * +-/60
      ——————————————–
      Tot.2349.7 * 585 * 624 * 14.9 * 15.9 * -1.0

      This is what we have through the All-Star break (minus Nov 29, Dec 17, Dec 26, Jan 9):

      # * EV TOI * SCF * SCA * F/60 * A/60 * +-/60
      ——————————————–
      71 * 754.8 * 245 * 203 * 19.5 * 16.1 * +3.3
      77 * 671.9 * 200 * 217 * 17.9 * 19.4 * -1.5
      44 * 656.6 * 194 * 205 * 17.7 * 18.7 * -1.0
      37 * 627.9 * 205 * 183 * 19.6 * 17.5 * +2.1
      24 * 578.8 * 123 * 166 * 12.8 * 17.2 * -4.5
      5 ** 388.3 ** 88 * 110 * 13.6 * 17.0 * -3.4
      43 * 259.0 ** 49 ** 77 * 11.4 * 17.8 * -6.5
      49 ** 10.1 *** 4 *** 0 * 23.8 ** 0.0 * +23.8
      Tot.3947.4 *1108 *1161 * 16.8 * 17.6 * -0.8

      Top 5 are in the same order, but Smid has leapfrogged past Strudwick in EV TOI. As good luck has it, Struds moved up to forward (or all the way “up” to the pressbox) right after our last accounting, so I am counting his performance since then all at forward.

      Looking at that last column, 71 and 37 have been driving the bus for creating scoring opps 5v5, with 37 gaining some clearance on 44 and 77 since last time, which figures since he’s been playing with 71 throughout the whole second period, in the pairings that were established @CBJ on Nov 18.

      Let’s break out the performance of the group just during the “new” period between Dec 3 and now:

      # * EV TOI * SCF * SCA * F/60 * A/60 * +-/60
      ——————————————–
      71 * 289.4 * 115 ** 93 * 23.8 * 19.3 * +4.6
      77 * 266.5 ** 91 ** 97 * 20.5 * 21.8 * -1.4
      44 * 266.4 ** 89 * 101 * 20.0 * 22.7 * -2.7
      37 * 275.2 * 109 ** 91 * 23.8 * 19.8 * +3.9
      24 * 252.9 ** 59 ** 79 * 14.0 * 18.7 * -4.7
      5 ** 247.3 ** 60 ** 76 * 14.6 * 18.4 * -3.9
      43 *** 0.0 *** 0 *** 0
      49 *** 0.0 *** 0 *** 0
      Tot.1597.7 * 523 * 537 * 19.6 * 20.2 * -0.5

      Two things that jump off the page is that the same 6 guys played every game during this time, and that all played a very similar amount of ice time at evens. The big minute guys put up their time on special teams.

      There’s a clear stratification among pairs in terms of scoring opps +/-, with 71/37 both nicely in the plus, 44/77 (who face the toughest comp) in the low minus, and 5/24 a little deeper in the shit. Note that the latter pair actually allows the fewest chances by a small margin, but creates the fewest by a much larger margin.

      Unfortunately I see one problem which must be addressed, which is a large rise in scoring opp rates for and against, right across the whole team. Here are gross scoring opps per 60 (both ways) for the first group of games vs. the second:

      71: 31.0 / 43.1
      77: 33.9 / 42.3
      44: 32.1 / 42.7
      37: 37.1 / 43.6
      24: 30.0 / 32.7
      5*: 30.6 / 33.0
      Team: 34.4 / 39.8

      Not sure if I’m doing something wrong, or if maybe I deducted too many games from the above. Alternately, I wonder if the standards of what is and isn’t a scoring opp have gradually liberalized over the course of the year. Is there an easy way to look at team scoring opps for and against on a game by game basis to confirm such a trend? I don’t think the team is playing that much more of a wide-open game than they were.

      I’ll look at some other aspects by separate post, just thought I would throw this out there now for you fellows to consider.

    25. January 24, 2009 at

      Let’s try that beginning part again. Used one of the magic characters and the damn coding ate the whole last section of the opening paragraph.

      “When I got each player to EV TOI + PP TOI + SH TOI = Total TOI within 1 minute either way (almost all of them within 0.1 minute), I figured that was close enough. Subtraction by eye when the numbers before the colon are base 10 and those after are base 60 is a real test of concentration!”

    26. January 24, 2009 at

      Just for fun, comparing EV SC season to date with EV shots, Fenwick and Corsi data, as well as actual GF/GA ON. In each case, expressed as for, against, net, and a ratio. Of course the scoring chances will be low because of the missed games, but the relative numbers for and against should be instructive. For more fun, I have added the PDO # for each player.

      Visnovsky
      ———
      EV SC: 245 / 203 = +42 : 1.21
      Shots: 390 / 378 = +12 : 1.03
      Fenwk: 565 / 534 = +31 : 1.05
      Corsi: 776 / 711 = +65 : 1.09
      Goals: +35 / -25 = +10 : 1.40
      PDO #: 1.024

      Grebeshkov
      ———-
      EV SC: 205 / 183 = +22 : 1.12
      Shots: 327 / 325 = +02 : 1.01
      Fenwk: 463 / 450 = +13 : 1.03
      Corsi: 658 / 598 = +60 : 1.10
      Goals: +35 / -30 = +05 : 1.17
      PDO #: 1.015

      Gilbert
      ——-
      EV SC: 200 / 217 = -17 : 0.92
      Shots: 355 / 378 = -23 : 0.94
      Fenwk: 498 / 537 = -39 : 0.93
      Corsi: 654 / 691 = -37 : 0.95
      Goals: +35 / -30 = +05 : 1.17
      PDO #: 1.020

      Souray
      ——
      EV SC: 194 / 205 = -11 : 0.95
      Shots: 341 / 355 = -14 : 0.96
      Fenwk: 491 / 509 = -18 : 0.96
      Corsi: 629 / 651 = -22 : 0.97
      Goals: +29 / -25 = +04 : 1.16
      PDO #: 1.015

      Staios
      ——
      EV SC: 123 / 166 = -43 : 0.74
      Shots: 242 / 322 = -80 : 0.75
      Fenwk: 344 / 444 = -100: 0.77
      Corsi: 462 / 606 = -144: 0.76
      Goals: +22 / -24 = -02 : 0.92
      PDO #: 1.016

      Smid
      —-
      EV SC: 088 / 110 = -22 : 0.80
      Shots: 181 / 201 = -20 : 0.90
      Fenwk: 237 / 289 = -52 : 0.82
      Corsi: 307 / 385 = -78 : 0.80
      Goals: +13 / -10 = +03 : 1.30
      PDO #: 1.022

      The ratio of scoring opps is fairly close to the ratio of all three shots metrics. In the case of 37/71 they generate a few more scoring chances than might be expected from shots data; the rest pretty much are on par.

      The big surprise is that six out of six guys have a better to much better ratio of goals for to against, than any of the other four categories. This is reflected in the excellent PDO numbers, from 1.015 – 1.024 across the board.

      Are they all lucky? Is the whole team lucky? Here are the numbers for the Oilers as a team (I haven’t tabulated scoring opps for the team, am not sure I can):

      Shots: 0959 / 1055 = -96 : 0.91
      Fenwk: 1361 / 1479 = -118: 0.92
      Corsi: 1832 / 1951 = -119: 0.94
      Goals: + 87 / – 78 = +9 : 1.12
      PDO #: 1.017

      Not ready to draw too many conclusions from this yet, other than on the surface this all appears to support the notion that MacT’s teams outperform their shots data, and apparently scoring chance data as well. Is it due to a focus on quality over quantity?

    27. January 24, 2009 at

      Probably needless to say, but I will anyway cuz I like to acknowledge my sources, that all of the above except scoring chances was accessed from Vic Ferrari’s Timeonice.com .

      Fascinating stuff.

    28. January 24, 2009 at

      … or is Roli just that good?? That would explain across the board 1.+++ PDO numbers as neatly as anything. But I have trouble seeing our netminding being much above average, frankly.

      I’ll try to do a little more tomorrow: still got blueliner special teams to review, and forwards to do from the beginning. I have done a lot of the background stuff already. Tyler’s just given me a password so maybe I’ll try to import something a little more legible.

    29. January 24, 2009 at

      Dennis: First and foremost, thanks for all your work in doing this. It really does give us all something new to chew on, and that’s truly fantastic. Regarding the Pittsburgh game, I know that it’s there, but it seems like there may have been a couple of problems there. The first was Peckham, but then Pouliot played that game but wasn’t listed in the totals and when I went back to count the chances it didn’t seem like the numbers lined up quite right. Anyway, if you have it logged somewhere other than here, that might be one worth taking a second look at if you happen across the time. If not, it’s really not a big deal since it’s just one game and it seems mostly right regardless.

      Bruce: Thanks for your work here too. The question regarding the liberalizing of standards is probably worthwhile to look into. It may also reflect a higher number of total chances when the Oilers are at home, since they’ve had a much higher ratio of home games in the second segment as compared to the first.

      I think that the PDO numbers probably do imply that the Oilers, as a team, have probably been quite lucky, at least at EV. It probably balances out with the below average PK save percentage (or at least it was for quite some time).

      Also, 5 and 24 keep right on looking bad when more information becomes available. Smid is easier to watch, but he still hasn’t figured out how to get the puck moving in the right direction.

      Vic: I would be foolish not to thank you for helping Dennis with the logging. Thanks very much and I look forward to hearing you chime in.

    30. Julian
      January 24, 2009 at

      For any future missed games, they can be downloaded on a torrent… there are a couple of sites out there, http://www.nhltorrents.co.uk is a good one, games are usually up for download about 12 hours after they end, sometimes much faster. There’s another one called Centre Ice Forums, but it requires an invite and they’re kinda bitchy about requirements.

      If you wanna get in on that Dennis, so you can feel more comfortable if you miss a game or something, let me know.

    31. January 24, 2009 at

      Games Eleven Through Twenty, November 2 to November 20
      (Player,GP,EV,PP,SH)

      05 – 03 – 04/09 – 00/00 – 00/01
      10 – 10 – 38/31 – 26/02 – 02/36
      12 – 10 – 21/38 – 12/02 – 00/00
      13 – 10 – 39/31 – 08/02 – 00/08
      18 – 10 – 36/48 – 00/00 – 02/17
      24 – 10 – 25/44 – 00/00 – 01/38
      26 – 10 – 28/28 – 08/01 – 00/01
      27 – 08 – 27/26 – 16/01 – 00/06
      28 – 02 – 02/02 – 00/00 – 00/00
      33 – 03 – 01/01 – 00/00 – 00/00
      34 – 08 – 24/33 – 00/00 – 01/11
      37 – 07 – 38/27 – 07/00 – 00/04
      43 – 10 – 21/47 – 00/00 – 02/24
      44 – 10 – 44/45 – 32/02 – 02/27
      46 – 05 – 06/11 – 00/00 – 00/00
      49 – 01 – 00/04 – 00/00 – 00/01
      51 – 09 – 10/19 – 00/00 – 01/21
      71 – 10 – 56/49 – 27/04 – 00/05
      77 – 10 – 49/51 – 14/02 – 02/21
      78 – 10 – 28/22 – 06/00 – 00/02
      83 – 10 – 39/41 – 27/03 – 00/01
      85 – 04 – 08/08 – 00/00 – 00/07
      89 – 10 – 35/48 – 10/02 – 00/01

      This ten game segment includes the experimental 18-89-83 line. That did not work out well for any of them as far as scoring chances are concerned. It may also reflect Horcoff’s importance to Hemsky in his role as an outscorer.

      27 was benched for games 17 and 18. His EV scoring chances in the two games following were 03/09 which means in the six games prior to his benching he was 24/17. He may have looked lazy on a few plays, but that’s a pretty good six game stretch to be punished for, and while conventional wisdom says that he responded to MacT’s tongue-lashing, it looks like that had a lot more to do with an immediate increase in time on the PP than an immediate increase in his ability to outchance the opposition. His PP stats inflate from 06/00 in the six games before benching to 10/01 in the two games after which is entirely a function of TOI.

      Nilsson looks to have been the real goat in this stretch, but his benching doesn’t come until later.

      Game 20 is Smid’s first as a forward. The numbers here make it jawdropping that MacT didn’t change the 43 and 24 pairing as soon as Smid was avaliable, especially given his performance in the earlier part of the schedule. But we all already knew about that one :)

    32. January 24, 2009 at

      Games Twenty-One Through Thirty, November 26 to December 17

      Missing Game 22 at St.Louis

      (Player,GP,EV,PP,SH)

      05 – 07 – 26/18 – 00/00 – 00/01
      10 – 09 – 47/39 – 26/00 – 02/16
      12 – 05 – 18/14 – 05/02 – 00/00
      13 – 09 – 24/27 – 07/04 – 01/05
      18 – 09 – 21/32 – 01/00 – 03/10
      24 – 09 – 32/31 – 01/00 – 02/13
      26 – 09 – 26/33 – 02/00 – 02/06
      27 – 09 – 47/35 – 23/00 – 01/02
      37 – 09 – 37/36 – 07/02 – 02/06
      43 – 07 – 08/12 – 00/00 – 00/07
      44 – 09 – 37/47 – 24/02 – 02/16
      46 – 06 – 07/06 – 00/00 – 00/00
      51 – 08 – 19/26 – 01/00 – 02/11
      62 – 01 – 01/00 – 00/00 – 00/03
      67 – 02 – 03/03 – 00/00 – 00/00
      71 – 09 – 42/41 – 16/02 – 01/00
      77 – 09 – 33/40 – 16/02 – 01/16
      78 – 09 – 16/21 – 00/01 – 00/00
      83 – 09 – 43/33 – 26/00 – 00/00
      85 – 08 – 11/10 – 02/00 – 01/05
      88 – 04 – 10/15 – 02/02 – 00/00
      89 – 06 – 15/14 – 05/03 – 00/01

      Nilsson and Gagner miss a few games here due to injury and both have their scoring chance numbers bounces back from the rough stretch in the previous ten games.

      Staios and Smid provide a good third pairing once MacT finally gets away from the 24-43 combination. 24 also has a very nice bounceback – along with the team as a whole – on the PK.

      Schremp’s numbers get killed by his 0/5 against the Sharks. Reddox continues to do well. At this stage he’s breaking even after twelve games and has established a small track record of success.

      Both on the PP and at EV the 27-10-83 line does very well. Given the results it’s hard to figure why MacT ever takes 27 off the first PP unit. I’d guess that the only reason is to motivate his effort level, because it sure isn’t a problem with the results when he’s on there.

    33. January 24, 2009 at

      Also, 5 and 24 keep right on looking bad when more information becomes available. Smid is easier to watch, but he still hasn’t figured out how to get the puck moving in the right direction.

      Surely QualTeam rears its ugly head here. Smid has played far more with Steve Staios than any other defenceman, and more with Ethan Moreau than any other forward. According to hockeyanalysis.com Smid has played twice as much with Moreau (126 minutes) as Ales Hemsky (63); three times as much with Staios (314 minutes) as with the big four combined (109). In fact he’s had more time with 6 other forwards than any of Horpensky, and more with Strudwick than any of the big four.

    34. January 24, 2009 at

      I don’t know how much you can really factor in the quality of teammates to explain his poor play. Strudwick’s QT is even worse and there’s not much debate that he was struggling. Plus Smid is playing the lowest level of competition among Oiler D, so while he’s not getting much help, he’s mostly playing against dregs.

      The ten game segments have also showed me that poor play has really come in fits and starts for all three of the bottom d-men. 24 and 43 were good in the first segment and terrible in the second. 5 and 24 are showing a similar pattern.

    35. January 24, 2009 at

      I don’t know how much you can really factor in the quality of teammates to explain his poor play.

      Hey, hold the phone. Poor play? +13/-10. 1.40 GA/60, third best in the entire NHL for D-men with 20+ GP of 10:00+ ES TOI. Staios, Strudwick and Smid all have the exact same QualComp (-0.04), but Smid is +3 while the other two are -3 according to BtN. Supporting this observation is the fact his shots and scoring chance data are the best of the three.

    36. January 24, 2009 at

      Bruce, I concede that the puck has stayed out of the net when Smid is on the ice. Still, the flow of play is consistently going in he wrong direction. I don’t put a lot of stock in his 1.40 GA/60 given:

      1. His on ice save percentage is higher than one can reasonably expect to continue in the future.

      2. His faceoff numbers are the most difficult for Oiler defenders, but not substantially so. They do not indicate that he’s in a particularly unfavourable situation (shifts begin 119D against 113O) and he’s not doing anything to move the puck in the right direction (shifts end 119D against 107O), and he’s not getting much done when he arrives (1.82 GF/60 and 0.56 pts/60 which is the worst on the team).

      3. Although Staios, Strudwick and Smid all have the same QC (-0.04), that means all three of them are playing against dregs and all three of them are ending up badly outchanced overall. I admit that the Corsi numbers for Smid are slightly better than for the other two, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re still very poor (-11.9). The same thing applies with regard to the scoring chances. The only players he surpasses in this area on the Oilers as far as a net score are 85, 18, 24, 43 and 51. All of these guys have struggled with the exception of 51 who has been given very difficult assignments. Smid, like 24 and 43, is struggling to have territorial success against the easiest opponents on offer. I think it’s fair to characterize that as poor play.

    37. January 24, 2009 at

      all three of them are playing against dregs

      All three of them are playing with and against dregs. Hard to disentangle those two facts.

      Smid’s QualTeam is -0.22. Strudwick’s is slightly worse at -0.27 but his data is corrupted by substantial time at forward where he has exclusively played on the fourth line. Staios is the next lowest full-time D on the club at -0.09.

    38. January 24, 2009 at

      All three of them are playing with and against dregs. Hard to disentangle those two facts.

      I completely agree on this point. The two would seem to cancel each other out. That being the case I would expect that an acceptable (though not great) result would be breaking even. All three of 5, 24 and 43 are having a hard time. I’m not trying to single 5 out as the worst Oiler D, rather, I’m lumping him in with the other two that are struggling and suggesting that the somewhat popular sentiment that 5 has “taken a big step forward this year” (not your words I know, but a sentiment I’ve seen repeated somewhat frequently) is probably going too far. He’s still a poor NHL player and his progress remains slow.

    39. January 25, 2009 at

      I’ve gone over all of the results and added the game on December 17 against Vancouver so that there are now only three games missing. There were a few errors in my counting data that have now been corrected. Here are the final tallies:

      (Player,GP,EV,PP,SH)

      05 – 30 – 093/112 – 001/000 – 003/015
      10 – 43 – 196/180 – 103/010 – 012/104
      12 – 33 – 124/122 – 037/010 – 000/000
      13 – 43 – 154/149 – 047/012 – 003/023
      18 – 43 – 144/198 – 002/000 – 011/075
      21 – 04 – 019/013 – 000/000 – 000/000
      24 – 41 – 131/168 – 002/000 – 009/116
      26 – 43 – 161/160 – 056/009 – 011/027
      27 – 41 – 152/143 – 073/005 – 002/028
      28 – 02 – 002/002 – 000/000 – 000/000
      33 – 14 – 006/010 – 000/000 – 000/000
      34 – 16 – 044/066 – 000/001 – 001/023
      37 – 40 – 210/187 – 041/008 – 008/046
      43 – 34 – 069/093 – 000/000 – 004/037
      44 – 42 – 195/209 – 121/013 – 014/093
      46 – 25 – 030/039 – 000/000 – 000/000
      49 – 01 – 000/004 – 000/000 – 000/001
      51 – 41 – 095/119 – 002/000 – 011/074
      62 – 01 – 001/000 – 000/000 – 000/003
      67 – 11 – 027/035 – 002/001 – 000/000
      71 – 43 – 249/205 – 117/015 – 004/012
      77 – 43 – 202/221 – 053/010 – 009/076
      78 – 41 – 116/113 – 027/002 – 000/003
      83 – 34 – 146/126 – 088/009 – 000/002
      85 – 22 – 047/068 – 002/000 – 001/012
      88 – 04 – 010/015 – 002/002 – 000/000
      89 – 40 – 164/149 – 058/011 – 003/006

    40. January 25, 2009 at

      Hey Scott, thanks. I’m too far gone (working on my third of four posts) working without the Dec. 17 game to add it back in now, but we will have it for next time. As for errors in your counting data, are any of them significant? If it’s just plus or minus one here or there, no worries, but if you found a big problem with a player (a la Peckham) let me know.

    41. Pingback: HEMSKY'S PERFECT GAME | Edmonton Journal

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *