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 |
I see Hemsky had four chances for, five against at ES.
Must have had a mediocre night, eh.
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.
I am becoming a Hemsky believer again based on the last game.
(!!)
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:)
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
Thanks, Scott. Dennis, can you confirm the three missing games are these:
Nov 29 @ STL
Dec 26 @ VAN
Jan 5 vs NYI
?
The first two are correct; the last one was the 4-1 L vs SJ.
Cole’s PK numbers are remarkable.
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.
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.
OK, I’ll subtract out the TOI from those 4 games and post the results.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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!
Scott: I did log the Pit game and it should here somewhere.
BTW, thanks for all the hard work bud!
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.)
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.
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
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.
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!”
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?
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.
… 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Pingback: HEMSKY'S PERFECT GAME | Edmonton Journal