Use this information as you will.
For me, it’s useful because I am Christof — that’s a The Truman Show reference for the younger people – and I obviously have faith in my own findings so as the games and months go past, I’ll base my opinion on players performances in accordance to how they fair in this little experiment.
I’ve also enlisted the help of the sphere’s rising star, Jonathan Willis, to check my times and notations against the shift charts and then we’ll see just who was the ice for and against for the chances created/allowed in question.
As the season goes by, this information will obviously becomes more valuable. Once you get a 10 game segment sample on BTN regarding who the toughest comp is in the league, then you can go back and look and see how the Oilers guys did — at least scoring chance-wise — against all the heavies. And we can also look at how MacT runs his bench and we’ll know who’s getting the soft and hard time and by looking at scoring chances, we’ll see if his gameplan’s justified.
So, over at ON, JW used Vic’s HTH site to see which lines matched up against which lines and I’ll copy-and-paste that here just for a reference point. The thing that’s missing from this first kick-at-the-cat is that I don’t have the information of who was on the other side of the event but I’m sure we’ll get the bugs out as the season goes.
One last note: this is admittedly sloppy - the notations I mean - and I’ll try to be better next time. I’ll work out a consistent format as time goes by. Right now I’ll go with a deal where I won’t make a hard break until the scoring chancing team changes.
So, first, as a refresher, here’s JW’s look at who played against who using Vic’s HTH site:
Nilsson – Cogliano - Gagner
Stastny Line: 17.8%
Sakic Line: 20.7%
Arnason Line: 41.4%
Guite Line: 20%
Liles – Hannan: 55%
Foote – Clark: 18.1%
Salei – Leopold: 26.8%
Cole – Horcoff – Hemsky
Stastny Line: 41.4%
Sakic Line: 40.1%
Arnason Line: 7.2%
Guite Line: 11.1%
Liles – Hannan: 19.5%
Foote – Clark: 68.8%
Salei – Leopold: 11.6%
Moreau – Pisani – Penner
Stastny Line: 23.1%
Sakic Line: 27.2%
Arnason Line: 33.3%
Guite Line: 16.3%
Liles – Hannan: 23.7%
Foote – Clark: 15.1%
Salei – Leopold: 61.2%
Pouliot – Brodziak – Stortini
Stastny Line: 44.7%
Sakic Line: 31.7%
Arnason Line: 17.6%
Guite Line: 5.9%
Liles – Hannan: 41.9%
Foote – Clark: 20.3%
Salei – Leopold: 37.8%
Ok, now we’ll move on to my notes from that game, scoring chance-by-scoring-chance.
1st period: Col : 16:30; unchecked wraparound by Smyth
10-83-26-37-77
15:30: Sakic from slot
10-83-26-37-77
Edm: GOAL: 13:01 ; Horcoff
10-83-26-37-71
Col: 9:51: Guite from slot
10-83-26-24-43
9:16 : Sakic off a two-on-one
10-83-26-44-71
; PP ; Stastny from left of Garon; Smyth screen
27-34-37-77 Likely? Time not noted
Edm: PP : 3:57 : Cogs to Budaj’s left
12-89-13-71-77
Col: 3:26 - Laperriere to Garon’s right
18-34-27-37-77
2:46 - Hejduk from slot
78-51-46-24-43
Edm: 2:09: Staios
12-89-13-24-43
1st period summary: Overall: Col 7 Edm 3, EV 6-1 Col, ST Edm 2-1
Second period: Edm : 18:42 - Cogs off RW
12-89-13-37-77
Col : PP : Hejduk 16:12: left of Garon
10-18-44-24
: Smyth 15:49: shovel to left of Garon
27-34-44-24
: Liles 14:16: point shot and screen from Smyth
10-89-24-44
EV: Svatos 12:49: shovel in close
18-34-78-37-77
Edm: 10:24: Cogs in crease area
12-89-13-37-77
Col: 10:20 : Guite on SH breakaway; hits post
10-83-26-44-71
Col: 8:49 – Stastny
78-51-46-44-71
8:48 – Hannan
78-51-46-44-71
GOAL - Sakic : 8:46
78-51-46-44-71
Col: 7:42 - Tucker – pipe
12-89-13-37-77
Edm: 3:20 - Gilbert from crease
10-83-26-37-77
Col: 2:40 - Jones from slot
27-34-26-37-77
Col: 2:30 - Sakic; not sure which Av it was but it was a chance
10-18-34-71-44
Col: 2:18 – Hejduk
10-18-34-71-44
2nd period summary: Overall 12-3 Col; EV 9-3 Col; ST 4-0 Col
3rd Period: Col: 19:40 : Hejduk in tight
12-89-13-37-77
Edm: GOAL: 14:04 – Penner
18-27-34-37-77
Col: 10:04 – Hejduk
26-10-18-24-43
Col: 10:03 – Smyth
26-10-18-24-43
Col: GOAL - PS
Edm: Unsure of time but Gagner hit the post from the right wing
12-89-13-37-77 (for all but a few seconds in that timeframe (10 minutes left until end of game, Gagner played with this combination of five)
Edm: GOAL - 19:54 - Penner
18-34-27-44-71
3rd period summary: Chances tied at 3-3 apiece; all at EV
Overall: 22-9 Col; 18-7 Col EV; 4-2 Col ST
Finally, here’s Jon’s tallying:
Totals: (EV+/-, PP +/-, SH +/-)
10 – Horcoff: +1/-8, +1/-1, -2
26 – Cole: +1/-7, +1/-1
83 – Hemsky: +1/-4, +1/-1
12 – Nilsson: +4/-2, +1, SH
13 – Cogliano: +4/-2, +1, SH
89 – Gagner: +4/-2, +1, -1
18 – Moreau: +2/-6, PP,-1
34 – Pisani: +2/-4, -1, -1
27 – Penner: +2/-2, -1, -1
78 – Pouliot: -5, PP, SH
51 – Brodziak: -4, PP, SH
46 – Stortini: -4, PP, SH
24 – Staios: +1/-4, PP, -3
43 – Strudwick: +1/-4, PP, SH
37 – Grebeshkov: +5/-6, +1, -1
77 – Gilbert: +5/-6, +1, -1
44 – Souray: +1/-6, +1/-1, -3
71 – Visnovski: +1/-6, +2/-1, SH
Maybe it’s just me, but I really don’t think that a post or crossbar should be a scoring chance by default. The goalie is there to defend the net, not the iron. Someone hitting the post on an empty net isn’t unlucky, just like a goalie isn’t lucky for the puck hitting the net. The shooter messed up. (Unless it deflected off of the goalie, and then hit the post, but even then we’re talking about the goalie not so much making a mistake, as leaving himself the smallest possible margin for error.)
Basically, “It almost went in!” is exactly the same as “It almost missed the net entirely!”
(Sorry about the double-post)
The scoring chance thing though, it’s about the players on the ice getting something created against them. In fairness, if a guy whiffs on an empty net, maybe that should count as a scoring chance against or something - Stefan a few years back comes to mind. I don’t see what happens after the chance as being particularly relevant.
I agree. I’m just saying that hitting the post is not necessarily a scoring chance. Sure, a lot of the time it is, but not always. Sometimes the post is all of the net there is to shoot at.
Right, but that’s credit to the goalie, generally, not to the team, at least it is in terms of how I think about the game. Reasonable people can disagree, I suppose.
Actually, come to think of it, where are the lines being drawn here? I haven’t read the premises, so I might be arguing against a strawman.
Sorry for (another) double-post, but after I’d posted the last one, this came to me: how often does a player have some of the net to shoot at, but misses? Likely, it’d happen fairly often. So if hitting the post, regardless of whether or not the post is all that’s available to the player, is a scoring chance, how is a shot on goal not a scoring chance?
I think the Stefan example should be a scoring chance, but if missing the net when you *should* hit it, and hitting a post are scoring chances, what shot isn’t a scoring chance?
(I swear, I’m not trolling. I just realized that when talking about scoring chances, we rarely explain what we mean by that. If a scoring chance is just the opportunity to score, what criteria are we basing that on?)
I guess it’s hard for me to explain how I grade scoring chances but if you look at the chart that shows where all the shots come from, then you can get an idea.
basically, a scoring chance is pretty objective…like an error or something;o)
kidding - but I’m pretty sure if you took the 5 main Oilogosphere bloggers and let them count chances you’d get 6 different results (because I’m pretty sure Vic is schizo….ba dump ching)
OM: I don’t think you would.
My problem with the error is that it only punishes guys who make mistakes that lead to goals.
Chances for/against will be to illustrate the guys who are out there for All opps where the likelihood of scoring is increased.
Good work, Dennis (and now your long slog begins, as you must replicate this work 81 times
and hope that TSN doesn’t frak you again by failing to show the first minutes of the game, so we can all see the Montreal (who cares) Canadiens).
You’ll get those who question the subjective nature of identifying “scoring chances,” and there will be some disagreement, I’m sure, but not so much as to invalidate your work.
I mean, most hockey stats have some problem or another with them, some margin of error, and this effort will too.
But we all know a scoring chance when we see one.
Hell, just listen to the crowd noise. Every time it goes up past 90 db, that’s a scoring chance for the home team. And every time there’s a collective gasp, that’s a chance for the bad guys.
As for Jonathan’s work, that’s extremely useful info as well. I hope he keeps doing it, too.
dennis, i don’t know. There was a point in the Anaheim game last night where Marchant took the puck out from behind the net and if he any kind of goalscorers mentality he scores on the wraparound because he had Garon looking the wrong way - but he came out looking pass and nothing came of it. To me, that was a supreme scoring chance - everyone on the Oilers was out of position, including the goaltender, but I don’t know if everyone else watching would consider that a scoring chance….there is some viewer bias there.
oilman - should test the theory and pick a game and see how you match up; it would be interesting to see
I think we did this exercise last year or the year before. Maybe at IOF. There was some discrepancy, minor iirc, but I could be wrong.
Problem is what is defined as a scoring chance. Horcoff getting that neat little pass from Hemsky late in the third last night where Hiller made the save? I would call that a scoring chance. If he hit the post its still a scoring chance. If the Dman deflects it or blocks it I think it still is.
I’d be up for it - have to pick a game where my wife’s at work and late enough that the kid is in bed so that I can actually pay attention in greater than 30 second spans - but it might be fun.
Funny you mention that play Pat - I was going to use that one as an example too….that looked like a 10 bell save but Hiller embellished by windmilling the glove and it was from a good distance out with no screen - pretty easy save - so was it a scoring chance or a shot on goal?
…and in the game that dennis counted, and this will seem stupid but, if Penners defection hits Budaj or misses the net on the 3rd goal or Budaj doesn’t lift his pad on the 2nd, are either of those considered scoring chances? I know both resulted in goals but if they hadn’t, would they have been counted as scoring chances? They were weak.
Here’s why I’m not so worried about the “subjective” nature of Dennis assigning scoring chances: Dennis stat may be a bit flawed, but so are most hockey stats, and I don’t think his stat will be any more flawed than most.
Let’s say that 1/5th of the time Dennis gets it wrong, and assigns a scoring chance that most of us wouldn’t think is a scoring chance.
So that’s a 20 per cent margin of error, in theory.
Is that so horrible? Let me put it this way … We all know that very often a guy screens the goalie, and this play is an absolute key to the goal being scored, but the guy does not get an assist.
So far this year I’ve counted three occasions where this has happened. In the first game, Pisani and Cole made screens that were crucial, but didn’t get assists. And last game, on the first goal, if Horcoff isn’t such a pest in front of the net, there is no goal.
So that is three real assists to the goal being scored that were not counted as official Assists.
Gagner also made a great play earlier in the sequence of Souray’s goal, but because he was the fourth last person to touch the puck after Cogliano, Nilsson and Souray, he didn’t get an assist, though his play was crucial, the play that started it all.
So far this year, 11 official assists have been awarded, but I’d argue that if you’re looking at plays that were crucial to the goal going in, four more assists should have been awarded.
That’s a 36 per cent margin of error (and we didn’t even look at the issue of someone making a nondescript pass but still being awarded an assist just because that’s how assists are awarded, mechanically).
My point is: Few people complain too much about how inaccurate the assist stat is. Instead, people talk endlessly about assists per game, points per 60 minutes, and use these stats in their arguments as way to rate players.
Now I don’t have a real problem with that (though I do think it would be a good idea to subjectively track unofficial assists).
Likewise, I do not have a problem with what Dennis is trying to do here.
Yes, there is subjectivity in how he will assign scoring chances.
Yes, others might do it a bit different.
But I suspect that Dennis will bust his butt to be consistent in what he considers to be a scoring chance. In his head, and maybe on paper, he will come up for some consistent criteria for what a scoring chance is and what it isn’t
Then he’ll stick to that criteria. If others were follow the same criteria they would generally come up with the same scoring chances, within an acceptable margin of error, certainly one that is no worse than what we already accept with the “assist.”
There is no perfect hockey stat. But what Dennis is doing here will increase our knowledge in a significant way, I believe especially in combination with information on quality of competition.
P.S. Of course, my argument is self-interested, as I also work on a “subjective” stat, the error.
And Dennis, I know that’s your problem with the error, that it only punishes guys who make mistakes that lead up to goals. But it punishes ALL those guys.
As I often say, it’s a simple counting stat, a building block stat. In that way, it’s like the goal and the assist (and I bet the margin of error for Error stat is somewhat less than the margin of error for the Assist stat. I bet if you were to try to figure out who really caused goals to be scored, that a significant portion of the time you would assign points to different players than the ones who now get awarded official Points. With the Error, because it is subjective, and because I’m no longer limiting the number of Errors assigned in the scoring sequence, that is not as big an issue).
OM: I can see what you’re saying about weak goals. I guess that goals have to be considered scoring chances almost by default.
Really no way around that one.
As for the Marchant thing, I’ll only assign scoring chances if a guy directs the puck towards the net.
For instance, I’m still waiting for the last works from JW on his contribution but there was a play in the first period last night where 37 took a great feed and came in from the left point and missed the net. But to me that’s still a scoring chance because the Ducks allowed him to get there, he managed to get there and then someone found him and gave him a chance to score.
I guess I’ll eventually have to get it on paper but right now here are some of the things that to me look like scoring chances:
- hard and or/close shots when a goalie’s being screened; I called this the other night when Stastny got a SOG with 94 being right in Garon’s sight.
- shots from the slot on down and especially ones in the middle. I remember Vic doing a survey where he found that shots from the middle were super effective and I’ve taken that to heart.
I think that’s probably two of the most subjective calls because a lot of what I’ll call chances are the same things most guys would consider chances: odd-man rushes where the puck is at least directed towards the goal and is done so without harassment from the defenders and of course shots from the slot and in tight or shots where you aren’t being hindered by the opposition; exluding super bad-angle shots of course.
I think that the charting of SC’s along with TOI and Qualcomp will eventually get us to the point where with the help of a bigger segment sample you can get into Scoring Chances On per 60 — SCONF/60 and it’s reverse SCONA/60 — and then put it in a much broader context.
Not sure if this will be reflected in the chances arena or not but Grebeshkov played a whale of a game in Ana last night. So many little plays that even I didn’t really pick up on until I did the second viewing in order to count the chances.
dennis - look at the ESPN shot charts. The Oilers looked to be getting shots from better locations (middle, below hash marks) even though they were being pretty badly outshot (in Anaheim)….it’s pretty interesting.
And I think that only including shots directed toward the net will negate some scoring opportunities….like fanning on one timers or open nets. You should come up with a set of guidelines. seriously.
Totals (Player, GP, EV, PP, SH):
10 - 1 - 1/8 - 1/1 - 0/2
12 - 1 - 4/2 - 1/0 - 0/0
13 - 1 - 4/2 - 1/0 - 0/0
18 - 1 - 2/6 - 0/0 - 0/1
24 - 1 - 1/4 - 0/0 - 0/3
26 - 1 - 1/7 - 1/1 - 0/0
27 - 1 - 2/2 - 0/1 - 0/1
34 - 1 - 2/4 - 0/1 - 0/1
37 - 1 - 5/6 - 1/0 - 0/1
43 - 1 - 1/4 - 0/0 - 0/0
44 - 1 - 1/6 - 1/1 - 0/3
46 - 1 - 0/4 - 0/0 - 0/0
51 - 1 - 0/4 - 0/0 - 0/0
71 - 1 - 1/6 - 2/1 - 0/0
77 - 1 - 5/6 - 1/0 - 0/1
78 - 1 - 0/5 - 0/0 - 0/0
83 - 1 - 1/4 - 1/1 - 0/0
89 - 1 - 4/2 - 1/0 - 0/1