See below - now updated with stats for each player with and without the Fatal Five.
Per Tychkowski:
PLAY THE KIDS
It’s time to end the love affair with reliable defensive players. They’re a dime a dozen and judging by the 14th-place Edmonton’s 129 goals against, second most in the conference, they’re not all that reliable anyway.
The players who should be getting the ice time are the dynamic young kids who are going to be leading this team in the very near future. Sam Gagner, Robert Nilsson and Andrew Cogliano.
What’s the concern? That they’ll make some mistakes and the team might wind up in 14th, with the second most goals against in the conference?
This is a variant on a theme that’s been popping up on some of the message boards lately: the mob wants MacT’s head for how bad this team has been. Torres and Stoll have been sliced and diced. The thing of it is, I think that Tychkowski has it wrong when he takes jabs at the “reliable defensive players” - I think that they’ve been pretty reliable. I think that the baying hounds calling for MacT’s head are even more wrong - I don’t think that it’s coaching that’s sinking the Oilers, I think that it’s players who aren’t good enough. There are five guys in particular who I’ve got my eye on: Sam Gagner, Andrew Cogliano, Ladislav Smid, Denis Grebeskhov and Zach Stortini. The numbers, I think, back me up. I’m going to refer to them as the kids throughout this piece; Robert Nilsson avoids that designation because he’s got his head above water.
It’s no surprise to anyone that the Oilers stink at ES. Through the Nashville game, they’ve been outshot 985-830 and outscored 94-71. If none of the kids are on the ice though, there’s a startling reversal in fortune - they’ve outshot the opposition 278-258, scoring and allowing 26 goals. When two or more of the kids are on the ice, the Oilers are absolutely putrid at ES: 552 shots for and 727 against. They’ve been outscored 35-16.
I’ve put all of this in a chart and pro-rated it to 82 games. Essentially, I’m trying to imagine four different Oilers teams here, based on their results to date. One of those teams uses the players in the same way that they’ve used them so far, the second is based only on the results when the kids aren’t on the ice, the third is based only on the results when at least one kid is on the ice and the third is based on the results when 2 or more kids are on the ice.
The thing that puzzles me, if the coach is so bad, is why the team that doesn’t play the kids looks like a pretty good hockey team, at least at ES. It has an impressive outshooting edge. We know that MacT doesn’t, intentionally at least, run his kids against the other team’s best, so its not like those numbers were built against the other team’s weaker players. We know that the non-kids team has also had some terrible injury problems - Hemsky, Pisani, Souray, Torres…all have missed games. If MacT was a bad coach why does the non-kid group look awfully reminiscent of the group that went to the Stanley Cup finals in terms of their ability to outshoot at ES, even with Pronger coming no closer to a spot on the team than a glowing feature on Sportsnet? I don’t think that MacT is without flaws - the PP is inexplicable - but I also don’t think that you can make a real argument that he’s the reason that the Oilers stink.
To me, this suggests that the problem here is that there are five kids in the lineup almost every night, getting minutes in roles that are beyond them. I pointed out earlier this year how Gagner was sinking Horcoff. I don’t know to what extent MacT picked the roster but
roster construction seems like the real problem to me. I can find $9.25MM that’s not generating much return pretty easily in Sheldon Souray and Dwayne Roloson. That those contracts were questionable was obvious on the day that they signed them. If you ditched those two to free up that money, could the holes on this team have been patched in such a way that playoff contention would be a given, even with MacT at the helm? I’d think that it could have been done quite easily.
Update: I’ve added a chart that breaks it out by performance in total, performance when one or more of the group who I’m now referring to as the fatal five is on the ice and performance when they’re not on the ice. It looks pretty stark to me. Sanderson, Stoll, Staios and Torres, four guys who I’ve seen mentioned as being underachievers, all have SF/SA ratios of worse than 0.75 when at least one of the Fatal Five is on the ice; all have SF/SA ratios of 1.08 or better when none of them are. The only guys with numbers that aren’t helped by removing the Fatal Five are Moreau and Pisani; given that they’re both off of fairly significant injuries and that the samples are tiny, I wouldn’t read too much into this.
I’m probably going to play around with this some more - I want to see if it’s one or two players driving it. I don’t think that it is but I’d like to check it out some more. In any event, this is interesting stuff.
Nice read. I think this works as a critique of the Sun piece, and the bulk of the message board arguments, but I think you need to be more clear on the theoretical justification for the Bad Young Five as a variable. It might be better just to call them the Bad Five.
If one excludes Nilsson and Gilbert before the fact because we know they are doing well, what are we really measuring? The expense of developing players who can’t play yet/not having enough NHL players, not the expense of playing kids; you kind of state this, but it gets a little lost in the analysis.
I’m being difficult, because if the issue here is really youth, and I was a prosperast/prospophile, I could counter that a veteran laden team would not have uncovered the good young players (nor developed the bad ones like Gagner, but that is a seperate argument), and so it is better to take the lumps with the good, then to not try at all. This is probably most convincing in the case of Row-Bear, who looks like he might develop into a useful NHL player, but who has obvious warts that might have kept him off a team with enough vets. Again, I acknowledge that you are responding to the Sun piece, and so your variable is defensible on that ground, but the other route (Variable of all the kids, etc.) might be more interesting; the confusion comes from calling the bad five “The Kids” I think. But since I am not willing to run the numbers myself, I’m not suggesting you do so either
If one excludes Nilsson and Gilbert before the fact because we know they are doing well, what are we really measuring? The expense of developing players who can’t play yet/not having enough NHL players, not the expense of playing kids; you kind of state this, but it gets a little lost in the analysis.
I think it bears mention that Nilsson and Gilbert are older than three of the guys I’m picking on and they both have track records in the AHL that exceed everything done by the guys who I’m targeting.
Oh and out of curiosity…Tychkowski mentioned that “a few years back”, the Oilers were 12 points out in January and made the playoffs. Anyone have any idea what he’s talking about? My guess was the first Gretzky team but I’m really not sure. I don’t remember anything like that lately.
Isn’t Tychkowski talking more about the oilogosphere’s collective love for players like MIke Johnson or Dvorak?
a couple of things: It’d be interesting to see how the bad 5 have done over time; are they getting better or worse/60ES? I’d love to see two more stat teams: with Stortini, without Stortini. Also reminded of Bill Parcell’s quote which I can paraphrase as in response to some reporters question about ‘Whats to lose about playing player x, now that the playoffs are unlikely’ and parcell says, “The player, thats what might be lost” Which I think doesn’t exactly correspond with the Oilers situation but probably is good to remember anyway. There is such a thing as too much too fast and even if the team is flailing the kids need to be injected into the lineup in a measured way.
I’m curious if there is a home and away difference in those numbers. I.e. how McT runs the players when he has the last line change. I would assume that away, when the opposing team has the last change you are going to see more issues in this respect.
Oh and out of curiosity…Tychkowski mentioned that “a few years back”, the Oilers were 12 points out in January and made the playoffs. Anyone have any idea what he’s talking about? My guess was the first Gretzky team but I’m really not sure. I don’t remember anything like that lately.
I’m guessing he’s referring to the 1997-98 season, where the Oilers were one big pile o’ suck in the first half, but as soon as they made the Guerin and Hamrlik deals, they started to heat up bigtime. I think they were actually the best team in the league post All-Star Game that season.
As for the original posts, if the Oilers were in a position to have one of Cogliano/Gagner in the lineup on any give night, plus one of Smid/Grebeshkov, they’d obviously be in a lot better shape. Some cheap vets like Vasicek, M. Johnson, Gelinas or Hejda (purchased with the Souray money, which, even though I haven’t minded his play this year, I would still not have spent, based on this team’s position in the “cycle”, as Lowetide would say) would have helped matters. But for some reason, Lowe wanted to go with the sexy signing over the smart signings. Or maybe it wasn’t Lowe calling the shots on that particular move…..
The thing that irks me is that they have Tarnstrom sitting in the press box last night and, not only does that mean Smid/Grebeshkov are BOTH in the lineup, they’re playing together. Honestly….why, why, why?
As for veterans underperforming, I see two that stick out: Staios and Stoll. One hasn’t got back what he had prior to his concussion last year, and the other just looks to have lost a step. People seem to like to target Torres, but I honestly didn’t think he was that bad prior to his injury. Good performance at his own end of the rink, but an ugly drop in shooting percentage from previous years. He’s not a guy I’d give up on at this point, that’s for sure.
you wouldnt give up on torres? Geez how long do you give a player.
Well, with Torres, I wanted to give him this full season at least.
Now that he’s injured, I think he should get next season.
I’m more worried about dealing him and having it come back to bite us than if we dealt Stoll.
Ty, did you get a chance to run those Staios numbers for me, ie with and without Smid?
Denis
Is this what you’re looking for?
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/200708players/player0392.php
HBomb: I think it’s pretty safe to say at this point that what you see is what you get with Torres. A smaller guy who hits like a truck three games in ten, shoots like Jari Kurri two game in ten, and the other 5-8 games doesn’t do much of anything outside his own zone. He’s not likely to suddenly turn into the second coming of Gary Roberts or even Ken Linesman.
The question is, do you want that guy in the lineup? The answer right now is, hells yeah - he’s been to the Stanley Cup finals, that’s more than you can say about half the remaining roster.
Oh and out of curiosity…Tychkowski mentioned that “a few years back”, the Oilers were 12 points out in January and made the playoffs. Anyone have any idea what he’s talking about? My guess was the first Gretzky team but I’m really not sure. I don’t remember anything like that lately.
I’m guessing he’s referring to the 1997-98 season, where the Oilers were one big pile o’ suck in the first half, but as soon as they made the Guerin and Hamrlik deals, they started to heat up bigtime. I think they were actually the best team in the league post All-Star Game that season.
Jan 5, 1998 The Oilers were 5 points out of a playoff spot. That is the furthest that they have been out of a playoff spot in January in the past 10 years and still made the playoffs, that I could find. I have no idea what he is referring to with “12 points out”.
Reporters in Edmonton just make shit up — no news there.
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/200708players/player0392.php
Ok, am I reading that right? If so it’s damning for old Stevie. Ladislav cuts his GA/20 in HALF when he’s not with Staios. Someone tell me I got it wrong because that makes it appear that whoever Staios is paired with he is worse than his partner. Taking into account difficulty of minutes could factor in with Smid, but with Pitkanen… I dunno.
Ok, am I reading that right? If so it’s damning for old Stevie. Ladislav cuts his GA/20 in HALF when he’s not with Staios. Someone tell me I got it wrong because that makes it appear that whoever Staios is paired with he is worse than his partner. Taking into account difficulty of minutes could factor in with Smid, but with Pitkanen… I dunno.
I think the level of competition is the difference with Smid, he doesn’t look any smarter on the ice without Staois, he’s just not playing guys who can make him pay as frequently. Pitkanen has likely played tougher minutes without Staios, so that’s a bit damning. On the plus side, it looks like Souray and Staois together have been pretty good defensively. If they can keep that up we actually have two defensive pairings that aren’t terrifying (in a bad way).
“Ok, am I reading that right? If so it’s damning for old Stevie.”
Ol’ Stevie is -10 with Smid, -2 without.
Staios plays the same minutes with or without Smid,
I’d think Smid plays easier without Staios.
With Staois
Smid is -10, w/o -1
Pitaken -3, w/o +6
two are better without
Souray is +3 with, w/o -6
Tarnstrom is -2, w/o -4
Grebeshkov -1, w/o -3
Three are better with Staios.
Mr. Debakey- the rates show that both Tarnstrom and Grebeshkov have lower GA/20 rates when not playing with Staios as well. So only Souray is better with, in fact.
dubya - and we could have an OK third pairing as well if Tarnstrom plays ahead of 5 or 37. I’d say the AHL was the place for Smid for a full year, perhaps. Now… what to do with Matt Greene when he’s healthy? What to do with Roy? Are 2, 5, 37, and Roy all roughly equivalent in terms of defensive ability? Hmm…
You are correct
I think its fair to say that at times this year “Steady” Steve hasn’t been.
He seems to be trending upwards though.
It’s worth noting that based on MC’s data above Staios has had a brutal ES SV% behind him this year. Not sure how much he has affected that, but it’s something. It seems that Smid, Grebs, and Steve have lousy SV% at ES — maybe they are the cause? Gilbert and Pitkanen lead the way here. Is it possible that Gilbert has been getting the more saves than his fair share? Lots going on out there, hard to make definitive statements.
and we could have an OK third pairing as well if Tarnstrom plays ahead of 5 or 37. I’d say the AHL was the place for Smid for a full year, perhaps. Now… what to do with Matt Greene when he’s healthy? What to do with Roy? Are 2, 5, 37, and Roy all roughly equivalent in terms of defensive ability?
Yeah, I’d do 23 and 37 for the time being, send Smid down and call up Roy or Rourke if necessary. When Greene gets back you replace 37 (or 23 if Grebeshkov suddenly quits being such a spaz)
Oddly enough, albeit for a short segment sample, the 24/44 pairing works. This is purely anecdotal and is hard to quality with stats but I find that 24 just loses his mind when paired with 5. He’s all over the bloody place wondering what 5’s gonna do and in the process it just doesn’t work.
As for what happens when Greene returns, I think you’ll see Tarnstrom waived and the Oilers rotate 2-5-37 through the 5-6 D slots.
That is unless the Oilers change direction and start Trying to win.
his is purely anecdotal and is hard to quality with stats but I find that 24 just loses his mind when paired with 5. He’s all over the bloody place wondering what 5’s gonna do and in the process it just doesn’t work.
I’d agree that Staios tries to overcompensate for Smid, and you know all the back door goals must kill him. That said, he’s been doing some weird stuff on the ice all by himself. I think we probably win in regulation if he stays on Drury back door rather than laying down to block the shot on the near side of the crease. Souray wasn’t blameless as he followed Jagr (?) too high, but I think he would’ve been in good enough position that had Staios stayed on Drury it still would’ve been a low percentage play.
That said, he did block the pass and Drury made a hell of a play blocking the next pass from Jagr and getting it in the net, so whatever.
Slow start from heavy lifting with partners out of their depth, but after a time these veterans use their experience to figure it out until the coach finds a Jan Hejda hanging in the hall closet. Jason Smith had the same (basic) curve last season.
I imagine it’s similar to being thrown in with man eating sharks after being startled from sleep at 3AM: at first it’s really shitty but after awhile you get used to it.
I was wondering about the SV%; in this case, I think there might actually be a reason for a lower number, namely the tendency of Staois/Smid (and Smid is terrible at this) to give up the high percentage back door play at a rate unrivalled in the history of hockey.
It’s worth noting that based on MC’s data above Staios has had a brutal ES SV% behind him this year.
Isn’t that at least to some extent a measure of the quality of scoring opportunity being allowed? It wasn’t even strength, but I think of Drury left open on the far post Saturday while our right defenceman is laying on the ice at the left post. When Drury let that shot go I wasn’t putting great stock in Garon’s save percentage.
It seems that Smid, Grebs, and Steve have lousy SV% at ES — maybe they are the cause?
Give that man a cigar. I would’ve immediately picked 5, 37, and 24 to be the bottom 3 for save percentage, which I would argue is a measure of the defence as well as of the goalie. If you don’t lock the back door, Ladi, I don’t care if the reincarnation of Jacques Plante is between the pipes, some of those passes are going to wind up in the net.
Oops, sorry for redundancy, when I posted my message the screen refreshed with a bunch of new posts which pretty much said the same thing. It doesn’t seem like rocket science, does it? Clearly MacT sees more potential in the young bucks, and Tarnstrom must be wondering why the fuck he ever came back to the Rexall press box.
Id be curious to see that chart with ice time included as I find it hard to judge when players like Gagner and Cogliano some nights are relegated under 10 minutes with the vets getting close to 20 on most nights. Add to that that they dont get as much PP time as our first unit and often we find ourselves with Reasoner, Moreau etc taking PP time here and there.
Jumping up to the NHL from Junior/College/AHL is tough for any kid to make, just for the record I think MacT is playing them the appropriate amount of ES minutes a night, after all they are still learning the pro game..the thing that dogs me is how they arent given a chance in big moment situations (like the final minute of a hockey game) when we are trying to generate some goals.
Tarnstrom must be wondering why the fuck he ever came back to the Rexall press box.
I hear they make really good popcorn.
Apparently Tarnstrom has sciatica, hence the PB duty.
That may be the cause for the latest HS but 23’s been sat out a few times and macT’s been talking more about his poor play than his physical miseries.
Sorry, to be clear I think the sciatica popped up recently. Tarnstrom took the pre-game skate a couple games back and couldn’t go, so if he were healthy I think he would’ve been in the last two.
Before that he was a coaches decision. A senseless decision, but a decision nonetheless.
Two words: Jan Hejda
Two other words: Dick Tarnstrom the last time he was here.
A couple more words: Igor Ulanov back before he sucked.
For a guy who likes solid bottom-six forwards who won’t kill you are and are better than the kid is right now, is it just me or has MacTavish always had a hate on for the equivalent defensemen?
Lord Bob - I can’t prove it, but I get the feeling that there’s where you’d find Lowe’s meddlesome fingers in the pie. I am convinced that Smid and Greene before him were mandates from the GM (”develop these guys, make me look good, etc.”) Most fans think Smid is better than Staios and so forth, so isn’t it working out just right?