• Scoring chances for/against: Jan 30th: Min at Edm

    by Dennis • January 30, 2009 • Uncategorized • 11 Comments

    Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 20729

    Team Period Time Note Oilers Opponent  
    EDM 1 17:05 27 10 27 35 44 77 83 8 9 11 20 32 55 5v5
    EDM 1 15:55 85 26 35 37 51 71 85 3 24 25 32 47 96 5v5
    EDM 1 14:09 Goal 83 10 27 35 37 71 83 8 9 11 20 32 55 5v5
    MIN 1 13:27 PP 10 35 44 51 77 3 9 11 15 32 96 4v5
    EDM 1 12:36 PK 26 10 26 35 37 43 3 9 20 32 51 96 4v5
    MIN 1 10:21 13 18 24 35 43 78 8 9 11 20 32 47 5v5
    EDM 1 8:20 PP 27 10 27 35 44 71 83 3 25 32 41 51 5v4
    EDM 1 7:09 13 13 18 24 35 43 78 5 15 28 32 47 96 5v5
    MIN 1 6:32 12 21 24 35 43 78 3 9 11 20 32 41 5v5
    MIN 1 4:00 10 24 27 35 43 83 5 9 11 20 32 55 5v5
    EDM 1 3:06 Goal 18 13 18 24 35 43 78 3 15 25 32 41 96 5v5
    MIN 1 0:39 13 18 24 35 43 78 8 9 11 20 32 55 5v5
    MIN 1 0:32 13 18 35 37 51 71 8 9 11 20 32 47 5v5
    EDM 2 17:01 PP 71 12 13 26 35 44 71 5 8 19 25 32 5v4
    EDM 2 17:00 PP Goal 71 12 13 26 35 44 71 5 8 19 25 32 5v4
    EDM 2 16:38 78 13 18 24 43 78 83 3 19 22 29 41 51 5v5
    EDM 2 14:17 PP 83 10 35 44 71 77 83 8 9 20 29 41 5v4
    EDM 2 14:14 PP 71 10 35 44 71 77 83 8 9 20 29 41 5v4
    EDM 2 12:41 PP 12 12 13 24 26 35 37 8 19 22 29 41 5v4
    EDM 2 12:09 26 12 26 35 37 51 77 3 24 28 29 34 47 5v5
    EDM 2 10:36 10 10 27 35 37 71 83 5 9 11 20 29 55 5v5
    EDM 2 3:06 PP 26 12 13 26 35 37 77 8 22 29 41 51 5v4
    MIN 2 2:35 12 13 18 35 37 77 3 8 22 29 41 51 5v5
    MIN 3 19:22 Goal 10 18 35 44 77 78 5 15 29 41 51 96 5v5
    EDM 3 15:20 78 10 18 35 37 71 78 3 15 22 29 41 51 5v5
    EDM 3 8:24 10 10 24 35 43 83 85 3 22 29 47 51 96 5v5
    MIN 3 8:10 13 18 24 35 43 78 5 15 29 51 55 96 5v5
    MIN 3 7:35 10 35 44 77 83 85 8 9 11 15 29 47 5v5
    MIN 3 6:11 PP 18 24 35 44 51 8 11 15 29 47 51 4v5
    MIN 3 2:25 12 21 26 35 44 77 8 9 11 20 29 47 5v5
    MIN 3 0:31 13 18 35 44 77 78 8 9 11 15 47 51 5v5
    # Player EV PP SH
    10 S. HORCOFF 14:11 5 3 4:22 3 0 3:11 1 1
    12 R. NILSSON 11:48 1 3 4:11 4 0 0:00 0 0
    13 A. COGLIANO 14:38 3 6 4:00 4 0 0:07 0 0
    18 E. MOREAU 16:33 4 7 0:00 0 0 1:38 0 1
    21 R. POTULNY 11:02 0 2 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
    24 S. STAIOS 13:05 4 5 0:22 1 0 2:51 0 1
    26 E. COLE 13:08 2 1 4:33 4 0 2:29 1 0
    27 D. PENNER 6:56 3 1 2:42 1 0 0:47 0 0
    33 S. MACINTYRE 2:13 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
    35 D. ROLOSON 45:30 9 11 8:22 7 0 6:00 1 2
    37 D. GREBESHKOV 14:51 5 2 1:36 2 0 1:27 1 0
    43 J. STRUDWICK 14:13 4 5 0:00 0 0 1:36 1 0
    44 S. SOURAY 16:30 1 4 6:07 5 0 3:55 0 2
    51 K. BRODZIAK 7:59 2 1 0:00 0 0 2:48 0 2
    71 L. VISNOVSKY 16:35 4 1 6:59 5 0 0:00 0 0
    77 T. GILBERT 15:54 2 5 2:47 3 0 2:11 0 1
    78 M. POULIOT 13:42 4 6 0:00 0 0 0:07 0 0
    83 A. HEMSKY 13:01 5 2 4:11 3 0 0:00 0 0
    85 L. REDDOX 11:35 2 1 0:00 0 0 0:53 0 0
    Period Totals EV PP 5v3 PP SH 5v3 SH
    1 7 6 5 5 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
    2 9 1 3 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    3 2 6 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
    4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Totals 18 13 10 11 7 0 0 0 1 2 0 0

    11 Responses to Scoring chances for/against: Jan 30th: Min at Edm

    1. January 31, 2009 at

      I added a new wrinkle tonight just to see how it would work. In the note section – where I usually post whether the chance was a goal and make a special notation if it’s a ST chance – I decided to list the number of the guy who was the guy who primarily created the chance: be it from the shot or if say a guy set a really good screen.

      So, tonight the Oilers had 10 chances at EV and it came out like this in terms of players creating:

      10 and 78 had two chances apiece with 13-18-26-27-83-85 chiming in with singles.

      On ST, 71 had three chances with 12-26-27-83 chipping in with singles. And yet another PK chance for 26.

      As for the game, really not a whole lot to worry about outside of the last seven minutes of the first period. 83 got a nice break on the first goal and then Backstrom lost his place on 18′s goal. So, right off the bat the Oilers get some luck and then a bad goal for to boot.

      The Oilers pretty much ran the table in the second period and were playing pretty much a perfect period up until Zdlickly hit the crossbar after he came out of the penalty box.

      In terms of Smid out and Strudwick in, the 24-43 pair was just a little less stinky than the 5-24 pair. You’d have to imagine that the fact that the Oilers aren’t willing to let 5 play through his mistakes in his third season when the alternative is 43 means he’s in trouble in the organization. The Oilers have invested a lot of games played in him and they’ve spent a lot of money in their top three D – and with 37 getting more expensive and league-visible the problem’s about to become even bigger – so it would be nice to have a cheap and tough option if the kid would take a pay cut. Still, this can’t be a good sign for him.

      10/83 finished at a collective 10/5 and 37/71 finished a collective 9/3. 78 went 4/6 but still created two chances so luck’s on his side as well; that or 18 drags everyone down;)

      And, clearly, me and MacT don’t see eye-to-eye on 27′s worth.

      What does everyone else think?

    2. January 31, 2009 at

      Interesting Corsi numbers from tonight’s game. Pouliot was tops on the team at +5, while at the other end of the scale — surprise, surprise — were Staios and Strudwick at -10. Between them they blocked 5 shots which takes them halfway off the hook IMO but they were still by far the worst on the club. The sometimes line of 18-13-78 posted interesting numbers: Pouliot +5, Cogliano +3, Moreau -6. Don’t know how Ethan does it.

      I really like the addition in the comments of who was the primary player in the SC. Enough in some cases to help me remember the play.

      I think Penner got dinged in the second. Played one shift early in the third, then watched the rest from the bench.

    3. January 31, 2009 at

      Bruce: I think I’ll add this wrinkle for the rest of the season and we’ll still have a 30-sum game sample to suss out those numbers.

      And, yes, Ethan Moreau is having an absolute season for the ages. If this is a hungover Saturday in 1997 and I’m opening The Evening Telegram – a local reference for an old ex-pat;) – I’d see 18′s counting stats and I’d feel good about them. But I watch all the games and I see all the dumb penalties and I count the scoring chances and, I dunno, there’s horseshoes and THEN there’s Moreau’s ’09 season thus far.

      BTW, I watched the MacT presser and the bad deal about that is you can’t hear the reporters questions. So, someone asked him about someone’s playing time and I thought macT was talking about 27 when he said he just didn’t have it today and Sunday would be another day. it would make sense because there wasn’t another high profile player they could be talking about.

      I must admit I spent a little bit of tonight thinking about Guerin on LW with 10-83 and then putting 27 with 89-26 on the second line. 27-89 had a little something going last year and maybe we could get a good cycle going with 27-26 on opposite wings.

      Then again, teams overpay large at deadline time so Guerin could be worth a lot. Could we spin 12 for Guerin plus a pick, I wonder?

    4. January 31, 2009 at

      What does Guerin have left on his contract? Is he UFA after this year?

      If he has a year left then I consider it, a little.

      He’s a logical replacement for Cole if he walks, imo.

      But moving Rowbert for twenty games of Guerin is an iffy move, a Leafs move, if I may.

      As for the game, I thought Pouliot really had a nice game and the fact that he was on at the end of the game speaks volumes of how MacT feels about him. A lot of cyberink has been spilled about how there is a disconnect there but I think the proof is in his time on the ice.

    5. January 31, 2009 at

      Thanks for all your work again Dennis. I watched this one, but when I missed the Buffalo game, these numbers helped to set everything at ease, especiallly seeing Roloson bounce back well tonight. Of course, the poor guy ended up with a Staples on the only goal, so his one-goal game gives him a -1 over yonder.

      I’m not sure why MacT saw Penner bad this game but he definitely did. Listened to the same scrum as you Dennis, and I agree that MacT was talking about Penner. Two shifts near the start of the third and then pine. Hopefully Sunday comes and he’s back in his spot because Reddox should not be the mid term fix there. He also mentioned that Smid has been playing well and took him out to get a veteran presence. So at least he’s pumping the kid up a bit in the media. But yeah, still not trusting him for third pair work in his third year is pretty damning.

      As far as Guerin, the guy is UFA after this season and while Guerin+pick in exchange for Nilsson seems reasonable, we’re talking about the Islanders here, so (1) they probably don’t want Nilsson back and (2) they probably aren’t intersted in giving up any picks. Plus like the Black Dog says, Nilsson should only be going for a longer term fix, a guy signed up for next season at least and hopefully even one more after that.

    6. Matt N
      January 31, 2009 at

      As for the game, I thought Pouliot really had a nice game and the fact that he was on at the end of the game speaks volumes of how MacT feels about him. A lot of cyberink has been spilled about how there is a disconnect there but I think the proof is in his time on the ice.

      “I don’t like Pouliot at centre. Faceoffs are an issue, the added positional responsibility can be an issue. (Potulny) is an average skater, but he’s got good hands and a real head for the game, from what I’ve seen.”
      – Craig MacTavish

      Strange how the coach gives 78 a shot in the media and then uses him more than Potulny.

    7. January 31, 2009 at

      Matt: I dare say macT was just throwing it out there via the press that he doesn’t have a centre besides 10 who he’ll trust with tough min.

      Scott and Pat: Ideally, you move 12 for a dman with a year or two left on his contract at an affordable rate; then you move Staios as well and you go like this:

      27-10-83
      13-89-26
      18-78-34
      ? -51-46

      Maybe that last spot is for Brule, I dunno.

      Or, you could go with a 34-89-26 second line and let them take on the secondary tough min while 18-13-78 gets the soft min and we keep 18 out of harm’s way.

      I guess it all depends where the Oilers think they are. They’ve got three years left on 83 at a bargain so the timeline’s fine in that regard. So maybe you make my suggested moves and gamble that’s good enough to win a playoff round and then you go from there.

      Personally, I’d like to see us try to win as well as getting rid of some bad contracts. And then you make moves like 12 for a D and getting 24 off the books. I’d also try and offload 18′s pact on someone who’s looking at the ’09 playoff run and nothing else;) but I doubt we could make that happen.

      So, to summarize:

      - move 12 for a D with a year or two left on his pact and he needs to be affordable. We need to find an org with a surplus of D who are desperate for scoring or at least someone who could potentially score. How about the Preds? Then you take that guy and put him with the top 4 plus Smid.

      - move Staios, primarily as a salary dump

      - same goes for moreau

      - bring in Reasoner for a pick or middling prospect.

      27-10-83

      13-89-26

      78-Reasoner-78

      ?-51-46

      44-77

      37-71

      5- New guy

      How does that look?

    8. January 31, 2009 at

      Bruce: I think I’ll add this wrinkle for the rest of the season and we’ll still have a 30-sum game sample to suss out those numbers.

      Sounds good Dennis. Will you always restrict that to a single player? Say Nilsson dangles on the outside and feeds a pass through to Cogliano busting through the bottom of the circles, who’s the guy who creates the chance, the got who got to the goal mouth or the guy who got the puck there? Won’t always be an obvious call I suspect. Or do you only count actual shots on (at) goal as a SC, and not near misses on dangerous plays? If there’s an actual ahooter on the play, I guess he’s the one you pick.

      One thing I want to keep an eye on is comparing your SCs to raw shots and Corsi numbers to see how strong the correlation is. Cumulatively over the 40+ games it seemed to be a not-bad comp although I didn’t really go into detail on it. (Yet) But it will also be interesting to see if the guys bleeding shots in a given game are bleeding dangerous shots.

      Last night for instance, 24/43 were both -10 in Corsi as I mentioned, but just -1 scoring chance, and both were +1 on the scoreboard. Meanwhile 44-77 were about break even on the shot clock and Corsi, but were each -3 on scoring chances and -1 on the night. So for these players in this example, scoring chances seems to be closer to the mark than shots data. Now whether that’s an exception or the rule can only be determined by studying these sorts of things over the long term, but we’re getting to the point where we got enough columns of numbers that we can begin to determine “this one correlates better than that one”. I must say I’m liking the Scoring Chance metric a lot, with the one weakness that they are counted only as 0 or 1. Perhaps the next step is to qualify them as, say, Grade 1, 2, 3, or 4 chances, where the single is a chance that’s worthy of note but not likely to go in and the home run is an open netter. My guess is you identify the guys who give up a lot of 3s and 4s and you’ll find the guys with a low Sv% ON. Anyway just throwing that out there for your consideration now, maybe something to contemplate for next year. Assuming you’re crazy and/or dedicated enough to keep on doing this at all, let alone at an increased complexity level.

    9. January 31, 2009 at

      Bruce: you’ve identified the problem with who gets the credit for the chance. Ultimately, I’m gonna go with the shooter but the caveat is that on screen plays, I’m gonna give the credit to the guy who’ll go and fight and hinder the goalie’s sight. Or maybe on that play I’d give half-chances but then maybe that gets too complex.

      As far as assigning numerical levels of danger to scoring chances, I’ve considered that and I think it’s something I’ll do next year for sure. I think the only thing I’ll make for certain is that a shot directed towards the net means as much as one that actually hits the net. Not sure if everyone will agree with that but I feel that if you’re allowing guys to walk into the slot unhindered, eventually that will hurt you and it should be reflected as a mistake on your behalf.

    10. David Staples
      January 31, 2009 at

      It’s a bit harder to figure out who is the primary guy responsible for each scoring chance against, but not much. I’ve been doing it in recent games that I’ve graded players, and have found it useful.

      If you do that, too, in coming year this statistical package will be pointing at who is driving the bus, not just riding it, on all scoring chances, and that’s useful info for sure.

    11. David Staples
      January 31, 2009 at

      As always, impressive work ethic on this project Dennis. You’re bustin’ your butt like a Stan Weir-type player.

    Leave a Reply

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