Scoring chances for/against: Nov 2nd: Edm vs Phil
by Dennis • November 4, 2008 • Uncategorized • 13 Comments
1st period:
19:20 Edm 34-18-26-44-1
16:40 Edm 12-13=89-24-77
:39 ” ” ”
15:40 Edm PP 10-83-26-44-71
15:03 Phil SH ” ”
11:13 Phil 34-26-18-43-71
:11 ” ” ”
:02 ” ” ”
10:50 Edm GOAL ” 24-43
9:08 Phil PP GOAL 10-51-24-44
8:41 Edm 12-13-89-24-43
7:33 Edm GOAL 10-27-83-5-77
6:04 Edm : -24-43
3:48 Edm 43-18-26-71-44
Summary: 8-6 Edm; 6-4 Edm EV; 2-2 ST
2nd period:
16:44 Phil 12-13-89-24-44
15:55 Edm GOAL 12-51-83-5-77
14:58 Phil 18-26-34-5-77
12:28 Phil PP 10-27-24-43
11:50 Phil PP GOAL 51-18-5-77
11:11 Edm 10-27-83-44-71
9:39 Edm PP GOAL 12-13-89-44-74
8:08 Edm GOAL 10-27-83-44-71
4:32 Edm 26-18-34-43-77
3:30 Edm 5-77-10-27-83
3:05 Edm 10-89-27-44-77
2:59 Edm ” ”
1:17 Phil PP GOAL 89-18-71-77
Summary: 8-5 Edm; 7-2 EV; 3-1 Phil ST
3rd period:
19:35 Phil GOAL 34-18-26-44-71
18:15 Phil 12-13-89-5-77
15:36 Edm 34-18-83-44-71
15:19 Phil ” ”
13:44 Edm PP 10-83-26-44-71
9:09 Phil 10-27-83-5-77
3:43 Edm 12-13-89-24-43
3:22 Phi ” : 5-24
Summary: 5-3 Phil; 5-2 EV; 1-0 Edm ST
Overall: 18-16 Edm; 15-11 EV; 5-3 Phil ST
Individual: EV, PP and SH
10 – 6/2; 2/1;-2
27 – 6/2; ;-1
83 – 6/2; 2/1;
12 – 5/3;+1
13 – 4/3;+1
89 – 5/3;+1;-1
18 – 5/6: :-2
26 – 5/4;2/1
34 – 5/6
51 – +1; ; -2
78 -
33 -
5 – 3/4; ; -1
77 – 7/3; +1; -2
44 – 6/3; +3/-1; -1
71 – 6/5: +2/1; -1
24 – 3/3: : -2
43 – 4/4; : -1
Conclusion: We could be getting an early look at a great team at evens.
Yeah, I think so too, Dennis. Injuries happen, and kids falter, but reading jonathon’s post today … there are more bits of information that indicate that Gagner and Penner are made from the same stuff as Moreau. I don’t think we’ll see those guys having bouts of self doubt any time soon.
And even though there were a lot of penalties in that game, that’s as dominant as I’ve seen the Oilers at 5v5 since Nov./Dec. 05 (before Pisani came off the rails and the RPM line sputtered).
We all know that it’s a tough division in a tough conference, and MacTavish’s PP is a wildcard, and the PK hasn’t looked any hell. Still, I have a hard time worrying about this team.
And if they make the playoffs, well right now Horcoff and Hemsky are looking like they could play against anybody and do well. By the end of the year the Oilers just might be able to play close to evens with the big guys (DET, S.J and ANA)
Great stuff Dennis and the best thing about this pattern at EV is that it is coming on the road, with Pisani at C and with a few guys still to get better I think – Gilbert has more in him I believe.
What do you think of MacT and Moreau’s contention that the PK is getting hammered by bad luck more then anything? MacT admitted poor coverage early on but feels that lately its been more of a case of bad bounces and seeing eye shots hitting mesh then anything. I haven’t seen a game in the past week so haven’t seen it with these eyes.
The PK sure looked bad in Philly, but there weren’t many actual chances against, by the look of things. I should point out, though, that the first Philly goal was PP, not EV, so it becomes 15-10 EDM at EV and 6-3 PHI at ST, but four chances and three goals. I can’t imagine that’ll happen every day. (I’d have to go back and look, but I’m pretty sure a couple of those were self-screenings by Oilers D.)
Vic: Ana yes but Det and SJ not so much. While I have noticed that the Wings have been remarkably high event early on, I’ll expect that to correct itself unless age is finally getting to Lidstrom and/or Draper and they’re afraid to staple Draper to the bench. Then again I haven’t really taken a hard look at their numbers so maybe there are some early warning signs of them falling off the hill. But I have watched some early Sharks action and they look loaded for bear and are more proactive than they were under Wilson.
But, in terms of everyone else, yes, the Oilers should be able to do more than just hang around as long as they stay relatively healthy and the kids keep developing.
Pat: the first easy answer is that Garon’s PK PCT was as rare and unrepeatable as Ty predicted and that accounts for a big drop. The other explanation is that 16-19 out and 27-89 in isn’t a good trade-off and if you put both together I think we’ll have the awnser. I’ve been keeping close eyes on 27 and I find he’s oft out of position and that’s a big problem. Plus, we’re breaking in 51 as well so it’s really too many holes to plug.
I don’t really expect the PK to come around until and/or if these kids grow up fast OR MacT puts 13 in for a go or gives 26 or 78 a chance.
D2K: Thanks for that reminder. I went and changed it above but oddly enough I’d listed Phil as having two ST chances in that first period so even though I forgot to make the PP notation beside their goal, it was included in the overall tally right off the bat.
And, yes, you make a good point that at one-goal-per-chance it’s likely that it was just bad luck at this point. The thing MacT says about losing games unjustly at the end of a losing streak probably holds here as well.
And just going from memory — which should be pretty good considering I rewatched the game yesterday;) — the Knuble PP happened because the Oilers let them bang around in the crease, Carter’s PP goal Did come off an Oilers own-screen and the last goal was another screen where Smid let a Flyer camp out in front of Roli before Coburn took the shot.
I believe the screener were just about to roast his second marshmallow when the light went off;)
So, yeah, looking at it like that and considering the club did a great job killing penalties in Car then maybe a good streak is afoot; something that would go a little way towards getting us middle of the pack.
But then when I look at the personnel we’re using and I’m not sold. I think it would make more sense to invest is us remaining a power at EV and a 12th overall PP than it would for us to rise anywhere about 15th on the PK.
And I think that’s being a big generous.
Sounds like MacT will finally toss-up the PP d-pairs (maybe EV too?) and run Souray-Gilbert and Greb-Visnovsky. They could also put Gagner on point on PP2 when Greb is not in — that should help improve the static nature of the PP.
Certainly reminds us how very good Stoll and Reasoner were on the PK.
Dennis – while Garon’s PCT may have something to do with it this team has been terrific on the PK in recent memory and through the losses of Pronger, Dvorak, Smyth, Smith et al so I’m thinking it may be the personnel most of all – a little learning on the job
I guess we will see – if things don’t get better then I think MacT will make some changes pretty soon
Draper was underrated not so long ago — in the Flames ’04 run, I thought he and Brad Richards were the best players they faced — but I suspect he’s done now. Z/Datsyuk get the toughest comp, and Draper (/Maltby/whoever) is nevertheless getting smoked pretty regularly, that goes back to last season too, at least.
I suspect Babcock is ruthless enough to adjust, though. Maltby has already been a HS this season. While I don’t expect Draper to get that treatment, I definitely expect his EV icetime to take a dive.
@NFB: Yes, I’m very happy to see things finally getting switched up on the PP. Was MacTavish really the last to figure this out? Didn’t everyone else here pretty much say the day of the trade that this was nuts unless they put each on a different unit? I’d like to think he was just being stubborn, but the evidence of eight seasons seems to be telling us that he’s just not very clever with regards to power plays.
@Dennis: It’s certainly feasible that the kids can grow up fast — Willis pointed to Gagner’s Corsi/60 so far this year and it’s night and day from last year, and he’s finishing almost as many shifts in the good end of the ice as he’s starting there, unlike last year, when he finished 40 more shifts in the D-zone than he started — but I agree that it’s unlikely we’re going to have an upper-echelon PK this year if school’s in. Such is the nature of learning, but I’d already figured this was going to be at least partially a developmental year, going in without a 3C and operating on the assumption that 51 and 78 were going to be auditioning.
Dennis:
I promised this long ago and then forgot.
http://timeonice.com/dennis.php?gn=20150&per=2&mr=14&sr=42
This example for game 20150 (gn=20150) 2nd period with 14:42 remaining.
I checked a few of your ice times with this and got all the same players, So I’ll assume that I haven’t made any mistakes.
It’s probably wise to knock a few seconds off the clock for the scoring chances though, so long as the guys have been on the ice for that long, because the official time and the TV clock aren’t always spot on.
And on the whole player development thing. Yeah, I wasn’t expecting this either. Not that it’s been over the top like last year or anything … still.
I heard MacTavish on the radio before the season started, he was talking about Strudwick in for Smid iirc, and he said that normally in the early part of the year they give young players the opportunity to learn on the job, to be in the lineup more and with bigger roles than they would have otherwise.
Then he said that this year was going to be different. The tough schedule to start the year meant that player development would take a back seat.
That didn’t last long, did it? I wonder if that’s his call or Tambellini’s, though.
Also Dennis, that script for churning out the players on the ice for a given clock time. If you use a spreadsheet (OpenOffice.org has downloadable freeware that is terrific, better than Excel IMO), then you could automate this easily.
You could just list the NHL game number, all the times the scoring chances happened (period in one column, minutes remaining in the next, and seconds remaining in the next) … and yourself or one of us could write a wee macro so that you could just press ctrl+w, or some such, and it would churn out the list and compile the player and team totals for EV, PP and SH.
That would make it easier to keep a running tally of everyone as well.
Totals (Player, GP, EV, PP, SH):
05 – 07 – 22/24 – 00/00 – 00/02
10 – 11 – 50/35 – 23/05 – 00/19
12 – 11 – 48/34 – 09/03 – 00/00
13 – 11 – 37/28 – 10/03 – 00/02
18 – 11 – 34/52 – 00/00 – 02/20
24 – 09 – 32/31 – 00/00 – 01/31
26 – 11 – 33/43 – 19/05 – 00/00
27 – 11 – 35/30 – 05/02 – 01/20
33 – 08 – 04/05 – 00/00 – 00/00
34 – 09 – 29/35 – 00/01 – 00/12
37 – 10 – 41/44 – 09/03 – 00/13
43 – 08 – 26/24 – 00/00 – 02/07
44 – 10 – 47/35 – 22/05 – 03/19
46 – 06 – 03/08 – 00/00 – 00/00
51 – 11 – 23/24 – 00/00 – 03/16
71 – 11 – 61/39 – 25/05 – 02/07
77 – 11 – 49/50 – 10/03 – 00/23
78 – 11 – 28/22 – 00/00 – 00/01
83 – 11 – 46/35 – 22/04 – 00/01
89 – 10 – 47/26 – 09/02 – 02/05