OILERS RECALL LANDER

In what should be considered both an overdue and justified move, the Edmonton Oilers recalled Anton Lander to the NHL today. As we discussed last night, the elevation of Boyd Gordon to the 2line was a tell from new coach Todd Nelson and Lander’s job may well be that tough minutes/zone start job Gordon has been doing for a year and a half.

This blog has written at length since 2009 about Lander and I think we have him surrounded as a player. Despite not being an offensive player of note, he can make a difference defensively and on the penalty kill. This should be considered a positive move. Edmonton sent down Brandon Davidson to make room for Lander.

written by

The author didn‘t add any Information to his profile yet.
Related Posts

64 Responses to "OILERS RECALL LANDER"

  1. RicaGreaser says:

    Halle-frickin’-luyah!

    Teach him up well Boyd.

  2. Dahoosman says:

    Now it’s time for Marincin. Nelson thought he was an NHL player and even said so when he was first sent down. Those sideburns must be shaved by now, right?

  3. dawgtoy says:

    He’s done all that can be asked of him in the “A”, I’m hoping he’s ready to make the required leap to the NHL.

  4. Woodguy says:

    Well knock me over with a feather.

  5. leadfarmer says:

    This is not a positive move. 3 weeks ago this would have been a positive move. Same thing with the goalies. MacDithers dithers almost as badly as Mr. Dithers. Now get a center with NHL experience. Send Draisatl to world juniors and then the junior leagues. And go out there and find a goalie.

  6. admiralmark says:

    So the GM once again makes a move that 90% of the Blogs have been promoting for weeks. Nothing has happened to change the fact this GM doesnt see whats right in front of him.

  7. leadfarmer says:

    He’s waiver eligible, and we all know how much this team is scared to lose a player on waivers. Three headed goalie monster as an example.

  8. dawgtoy says:

    This move likely has everything to do with Nelson. He likes/trusts Lander, and it’s quite easy to assume that Eakins did not. Lander has done everything that’s been asked of him in OKC, he’s overdue for a call-up. I wish him well, we need him.

  9. Snowman says:

    What are the chances this means the young German will be sent down in a few games? Surely that’s what it means right? Right?

  10. dawgtoy says:

    leadfarmer,

    Very good point.

  11. Numenius says:

    Good for Lander and good for the Oilers.

    I remain convinced that Eakins was the main problem and that players like Lander who didn’t produce under Eakins (but should have) will do much better under Nelson.

  12. p3rsonman says:

    Could this signal the return of Dr. Drai to juniors if Lander shows well? Or at least to the wing? He’s getting nowhere at C right now. Not his fault either.

    If they slap Lander on the 4th line wing beside Gordon I will lose whats left of my mind.

  13. godot10 says:

    The thing about Lander is that he can play 4th line centre, PK, and not hurt you. That is the worst case scenario. And that is all they need him to do now to help the team.

    A coach who knows the player well will help, since the coach won’t freak out about the lack of boxcars initially, because the coach went through the progression from no boxcars to boxcars with the player in OKC.

    I think we may see Draisaitl some on wing.

    Lander should free up Nugent-Hopkins to play more offense. More o-zone starts for the Nuge and less PK.

    OKC plays Saturday and Sunday. Davidson was not likely to play Sunday for the OIlers, so sending him down to play on the weekend makes sense.

  14. godot10 says:

    Marincin will have to wait for a few more games until MacT realizes that Hunt is just not a good enough defender, and they need a capable defender more than they need Hunt’s shot on the PP.

  15. season not played says:

    Seeing as how the season is lost, why not give Lander second line minutes, play him with top six wingers, give him pp time and find out if be can play once and for all.

  16. Lowetide says:

    season not played:
    Seeing as how the season is lost, why not give Lander second line minutes, play him with top six wingers, give him pp time and find out if be can play once and for all.

    I don’t think you’d ever use him that was as a contender, so why do it as a loser?

  17. ohhell says:

    Sending Drai back to junior now, while not letting him attend the WJ tournament, would be yet another epic fail. Once again, this organization has painted themselves into a corner.

  18. Jon K says:

    I really and truly hope that this move is a precursor to the Oilers doing an about-face on Draisaitl. It’s not too late. Drai has only played 33 games. That means he can be sent down to junior still and this season will not count as an “accrued season” under the CBA counting toward his UFA eligibility.

    As soon as he hits the 40 game mark however, this season counts and he will be a Sam Gagner UFA in his 25-26 year old season. Joy.

  19. "Frank The Dog" says:

    Calling up Lander is a big slice of common sense. Lander had brain freeze under Eakins, but he clearly has a good working relationship with Nelson. Good move.

  20. rich says:

    leadfarmer:
    He’s waiver eligible, and we all know how much this team is scared to lose a player on waivers.Three headed goalie monster as an example.

    IIRC – he had to clear on the way down (which he did) and does not have to clear on the way back up.

    At the very least, this gives them options – particularly now related to Draisaitl. Gordon looked solid last night on the 2nd line and if you run Arcobello and Lander as the 3 and 4C’s, I’d think that would help the end result. You can now move Draisaitl to wing where it’s easier to learn at the NHL level, or send him back to junior to build his confidence.

    A bit of sanity peeking thru the fog today.

  21. "Frank The Dog" says:

    rich: IIRC – he had to clear on the way down (which he did) and does not have to clear on the way back up.

    At the very least, this gives them options – particularly now related to Draisaitl.Gordon looked solid last night on the 2nd line and if you run Arcobello and Lander as the 3 and 4C’s, I’d think that would help the end result.You can now move Draisaitl to wing where it’s easier to learn at the NHL level, or send him back to junior to build his confidence.

    A bit of sanity peeking thru the fog today.

    PA is apparently not a very well coached team. Under present circumstances he would probably be best of getting NHL experience in the wing. Anyway MacT loves wings who can play C.

  22. haters says:

    Yay. Lander. 20 odd games late. But yay …

    Another thing. Oiler fans stop trading Hall or bemoaning the fact we didn’t take Seguin…
    He isn’t a good Center at all
    His point production was well below Hall in the first 3 years.

    Why are fans so quick to judge and run of fine talents like Hall Ebs Nuge and Yak ?
    These men are not the problem, the problem lies with the inept management that hasn’t recognized that since the early 90’s you don’t win squat without a Defence first mentality. Solid Defence and steady Goaltending.

    So stop. I love those kids and it tears me up that we can’t have nice things.

  23. AZOIL says:

    Question for Woodguy, LT or any of you other stats guys below?

    in this article http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-teams-take-different-paths-to-strong-possession-1.162884 in the second paragraph it compares LA to SJS and how LA is more of a cycle team dump etc and SJS is more of a enter the zone with speed carrying the puck.

    Did we used to play more of a SJS style and then Eakins wanted to turn us into LA style?

    Any thoughts for those that know? The article goes on to correlate multiple shot attempts as well etc.

    Is this why LA struggles with offence, or did last year but they have a good D core and goalie to keep them in most games and we have neither a D or a good goalie?

  24. Lowetide says:

    AZOIL:
    Question for Woodguy, LT or any of you other stats guys below?

    in this article http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-teams-take-different-paths-to-strong-possession-1.162884 in the second paragraph it compares LA to SJS and how LA is more of a cycle team dump etc and SJS is more of a enter the zone with speed carrying the puck.

    Did we used to play more of a SJS style and then Eakins wanted to turn us into LA style?

    Any thoughts for those that know? The article goes on to correlate multiple shot attempts as well etc.

    Is this why LA struggles with offence, or did last year but they have a good D core and goalie to keep them in most games and we have neither a D or a good goalie?

    Eric Tulsky has done amazing work on this, and found out that carrying the puck in generates more than twice as much offense. I’m not certain we can make sweeping statements in regard to LAK, but that is my belief yes.

    http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/7/11/more-on-the-advantages-of-puck-possession-over-dump-and-chase

  25. godot10 says:

    Lowetide: Eric Tulsky has done amazing work on this, and found out that carrying the puck in generates more than twice as much offense. I’m not certain we can make sweeping statements in regard to LAK, but that is my belief yes.

    http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/7/11/more-on-the-advantages-of-puck-possession-over-dump-and-chase

    Except that a 100 mph fastball is useless without a change-up or off-speed pitch to complement it.

    One has to know when to carry it in, and know when to dump it it. If one becomes one-dimensional, it will lose its effectiveness.

    Taylor Hall, when he has his top gear, and can drive D back with his speed, can probably chip and chase or dump less than most players to maintain the effectiveness of carrying it in.

    Also against some D, you want to chip-or-chase or dump, because they are better at denying the zone entry than in successfully recovering the puck.

  26. The Artist formerly known as "NYCOIL" says:

    I hope Anton can run with it this time, but suspect he’ll be saddled with Pinizotto and Gazdic?

    Re: Tyler vs Taylor from the last thread.

    1) Central Scouting had Tyler ranked #1 and Taylor #2
    2) Scouts had Seguin as having the better shot, Hall the better skater
    3) Hall had 2 years of being a junior star while Seguin had a so-so first year before blossoming and teams often like the longer track record.
    4) Some people wondered about Seguin’s demeanor and character (comments about being too quiet etc., circulated) vs. Hall’s which was much more extroverted and deemed a “winner’s” character
    5) People worried about Hall’s playing style and potential for injuries at the NHL level.

    Oilers chose Hall and were happy, but Chiarelli was just as happy to get Seguin as Hall; however, he likely would have picked Hall first if he had the first pick.

    I think the reports from the time of the draft were just about spot on, don’t you?

    No blame whatsoever for the Oilers taking Hall. He was a fine choice. So Seguin may end up being the better player, but Boston isn’t the one to have benefited. Wish the Oilers could have put together a package to beat the Dallas one to pry him from Bruin hands, though. Even if he’s on RW, I just drool at the thought of Hall-RNH-Seguin as a top line (assume Eberle+ would have gone the other way).

  27. The Artist formerly known as "NYCOIL" says:

    godot10: Except that a 100 mph fastball is useless without a change-up or off-speed pitch to complement it.

    One has to know when to carry it in, and know when to dump it it.If one becomes one-dimensional, it will lose its effectiveness.

    Taylor Hall, when he has his top gear, and can drive D back with his speed, can probably chip and chase or dump less than most players to maintain the effectiveness of carrying it in.

    Also against some D, you want to chip-or-chase or dump, because they are better at denying the zone entry than in successfully recovering the puck.

    Not entirely accurate, Godot. Mariano Rivera thrived on one pitch, a not even fast, low 90s cut fastball. So it is possible to be master of one thing and be successful in some sports. Hockey? Dunno. Maybe you’re right. Brett Hull to me, though, he could do one thing and one thing only at an elite level and that was find an empty spot and shoot. I’d say he was successful. He wasn’t big, didn’t really hit, couldn’t skate fast.

  28. vinotintazo says:

    For all of you that want lander here, remember what he did @ training camp to win the job? well I do. Nothing.

    I still hope he somehow succeeds here.

  29. Lowetide says:

    vinotintazo:
    For all of you that want lander here, remember what he did @ training camp to win the job? well I do. Nothing.

    I still hope he somehow succeeds here.

    MUCH different situation. Lander is in the Gordon role now which was not available in September.

  30. godot10 says:

    The Artist formerly known as “NYCOIL”: Not entirely accurate, Godot. Mariano Rivera thrived on one pitch, a not even fast, low 90s cut fastball. So it is possible to be master of one thing and be successful in some sports. Hockey? Dunno. Maybe you’re right. Brett Hull to me, though, he could do one thing and one thing only at an elite level and that was find an empty spot and shoot. I’d say he was successful. He wasn’t big, didn’t really hit, couldn’t skate fast.

    That is why he was a one-inning relief pitcher. He only had to face an individual batter once. To get through a lineup more than once, you need at least two exceptional pitches, or three good pitches, as a general rule.

  31. godot10 says:

    vinotintazo:
    For all of you that want lander here, remember what he did @ training camp to win the job? well I do. Nothing.

    I still hope he somehow succeeds here.

    Two and a half seasons of ppg performance in all roles, EV, PP, and PK in the AHL means a hell of a lot more than screwy poorly run training camps where the coach…a horrible coach… advantages his favourites.

  32. Lowetide says:

    godot10: Two and a half seasons of ppg performance in all roles, EV, PP, and PK in the AHL means a hell of a lot more than screwy poorly run training camps where the coach…a horrible coach… advantages his favourites.

    I know you need to write something anti-Eakins every 10 minutes but it’s important to keep things in context for those with another view.

    When Lander applied for the job this fall, it was ‘extra forward’ and MacT had signed him to a one-way deal in anticipation of his winning it. He did not. That is a fact.

    NOW the new coach (Todd Nelson) has chosen Boyd Gordon as his No. 2 center. That means more of an offensive role. LANDER will play those 4line minutes and that’s a better fit.

    Craig MacTavish is slowly adjusting his stubborn views on Arco and Leon.

  33. The Artist formerly known as "NYCOIL" says:

    godot10: That is why he was a one-inning relief pitcher.He only had to face an individual batter once.To get through a lineup more than once, you need at least two exceptional pitches, or three good pitches, as a general rule.

    But EVERYONE knew what was coming. There was no secret to it. At all. Cutter. Cutter. Cutter. He was almost unhittable even though everyone knew what was coming and there were no other pitches. So, I stand by my argument.

  34. Pouzar says:

    1. Lander has been a PPG for the last 80 games in the AHL. Wasn’t that what we wanted him to do (i.e. Improve his offense).

    2. His most common linemates with the big club? Lennart Petrell and Ben f^ckin Eager.

    He will be just fine up here.

  35. The Artist formerly known as "NYCOIL" says:

    Lowetide,

    Lander flat out lost his job in camp with a horrible showing. He fell from your “certain Oilers” list all the way down. I was worried about him. On the flip side though, this is partly why we wound up with Leon in the NHL when he should have been sent down. Because he “earned” his spot in camp. Well, he maybe earned a 9 game look-see but we were saying even then he should go down. He earned his spot because Lander lost it and Arco was handed a spot as well.

    There should have been a better plan in case Lander failed. That did not happen. Here we are 30 games in now so Lander, I really hope he can bring it this time around so that they send Leon back at the 39 game mark, but it doesn’t sound like it’s going to happen.

  36. The Artist formerly known as "NYCOIL" says:

    Pouzar:
    1. Lander has been a PPG for the last 80 games in the AHL. Wasn’t that what we wanted him to do (i.e. Improve his offense).

    2. His most common linemates with the big club? Lennart Petrell and Ben f^ckin Eager.

    He will be just fine up here.

    Not if his line mates are Steve Pinizzotto and Luke f>ckin Gazdic.

  37. Pouzar says:

    The Artist formerly known as “NYCOIL”: Not if his line mates are Steve Pinizzotto and Luke f>ckin Gazdic.

    This is true. But I have more faith in Nelson than that.

  38. PREDICKTER says:

    Eakins was and is a horrible coach. Is that how you do it?

  39. PhrankLee says:

    Can we get a new goalie before Sunday? Can we work a deal that solidifies the C depth issue?

    I’d submit that if trades are hard to consummate in today’s NHL, the guy responsible for the trading should be spending time in the trade cave.

    Not behind the bench.

    As much as he is desperately trying to claw accountability out of this exercise he is defeating his own function now. Too much face may have already been lost.

  40. And your name is? says:

    On the previous thread, I sat down to make a comment about Bruce’s recent piece on Ray Ferraro, then I just couldn’t help myself. Because detox.

    ———

    Bruce managed to completely clear up the mystery of Captain Nemo’s bean patch. I was commenting on the nature of my ants—how they make hay while you’re sleeping—and how this process does sometimes blend with the surreality of dream world. I lightly implied this chain of thought with my departure into phantasmagoric imagery, which I humorously attributed to my cocoa-puffs, though my drug really has very little to do with this. That was contained in a post the other day which might have been vaporised by Lowetide’s Star Wars defense shield. I’m quite okay with that, so long as my ants don’t find out. Pity, though, if my satellite dipped into the atmosphere and had to be taken out, as I thought my mock apology to Maxwell House about the “recalcitrant turpentine” was pretty funny. I actually asked my lemon tree “if the chemistry joke obvious, here?” and she said “oh yes, we used to use calcium citrate as a sink cleaner in one of my biology labs”. Turns out it’s not a terribly common cleaner. It’s mainly used as an alternative calcium supplement for people with acid problems, and sometimes as a chelating agent.

    In that post I talked about 0/1 step filters. It was mainly a post about the larval stage of prejudice. We all have those neural circuits, and most of us manage to get off the train before any major harm occurs, but unfortunately some of us fall asleep on the train and proceed to final station. Actually, it wasn’t even about prejudice at all—which is why I hoped that Lowetide wouldn’t shoot it down—it was really about the metaphorical soil nutrients that stimulate rapid larval growth.

    As Orwell posted on the Totalitarian church door (using an especially powerful fridge magnet), cliche and prejudice are joined at the hip. I guess I was trying to illustrate how cliche itself also functions as a 0/1 step function, by making that tiny change to Jack and his beanstalk. With Nemo planting those same seeds on the bottom of the ocean floor, even the robust male sexuality of the giant stem becomes—to my mind—surprisingly androgynous.

    Here comes the rain again
    Falling on my head like a memory
    Falling on my head like a new emotion
    I want to walk in the open wind
    I want to talk like lovers do
    I want to dive into your ocean
    Is it raining with you

    So either the ocean symbolizes feminine sexuality, or there’s a hint of 20,000 leagues (111,120 km) of copulatory embrace (Verne’s powers of hyperbole were especially potent) in those ocean-floor bean stalks.

    To my mind, that little phrase triggers an automatic story: What the hell did Nemo trade with Jack in exchange for that small handful of magic beans?

    The Nautilus is described by Verne as “a masterpiece containing masterpieces.”

    Much of the ship is decorated to standards of luxury that are unequalled in a seagoing vessel of the time. These include a library with boxed collections of valuable oceanic specimens that are unknown to science at the time, expensive paintings, and several collections of jewels. The Nautilus also features a lavish dining room and even an organ that Captain Nemo uses to entertain himself in the evening. By comparison, Nemo’s personal quarters are very sparsely furnished, but do feature duplicates of the bridge instruments, so that the captain can keep track of the vessel without being present on the bridge.

    Nemo is no shifty horse trader. He’s a class act. Rest assured Jack got full value for his wares, though it’s highly doubtful he realizes this right away. Almost certainly Jack got belted by his mother when he returned home with nothing but Nemo’s exotic trinket. Perhaps when the magnitude of the exchange finally dawns on the Beanfarm family, Jack’s mother finally comes clean about her long history of ball-breaking tyranny. And perhaps Jack even finds it in his heart to forgive her a tiny bit.

    I can just imagine the conversation now.

    “Young man, my instruments inform me that you are hold in your clenched fist a small something that I covet highly. I’m prepared to reward you generously in exchange for those seeds.”

    “Really? You play in a band? I just love the banjo!”

    “As it happens I do play an instrument. Come with me young man, and I will show you something you’re not even prepared to not understand.”

    Jack receives this an an either/or. Clearly, he’s drawn a short straw on either the preparation or the understanding, he’s not sure which. He figures he’ll just have to wing it until it all becomes more clear, like any other day in Jack’s short and claustrophobic life life so far.

    “You’re not, perchance, claustrophobic, are you?” asks Captain Nemo generously, sensing the look on Jack’s face.

    Oh dear, he’s onto me already, thinks Jack. But any day off the farm is a good day, so what the heck. “That passed through our village last summer. I haven’t coughed out of doors for six whole months now.”

    This was not precisely what Nemo most wished to hear. Half a day swabbing a submarine is hard work! And in the organ room! Nemo could hard bear to think about it. Ciboire, these damn beans had better sprout! Well, let’s get on with this before my ice breach freezes over.

    “Chilly for late September, wouldn’t you say?”

    “Hey, you’re not from around here, are you? Ah, hell, I’m not even wearing my heavy shirt yet. Around these parts, we usually wait for wash day for the changing of the shirts.”

    “Wash day? Sounds like a quaint custom. Does it happen often?”

    “Every year, if we time the final freeze right.”

    “Don’t you mean the spring melt?”

    “Pshaw, who’s going to waste soap on washing once you can head out doors?” Jack is beginning to think this Nemo character is a real hay seed.

    Nemo registers Jack’s expression momentarily. Hmm. The majority of my treasures will be lost on this one. Think, Nemo, think.

    ———

    Back to Bruce’s Ferraro piece. For my money, there’s no need for Bruce to take a second seat beside Ray Ferraro. I understand better now why Ferraro is taken seriously. I don’t think Staples’ recent Ferraro excerpts did Ferraro full justice. With only that to go on, this had been perplexing me a bit.

    It became extremely evident to me listening to the source Ferraro clip how the constriction of clarity functions. Ferraro is treating our long saga of despair as all of a piece. I think it was Jason Gregor doing the interview, and it was pretty soft ball. Changes have been made to the scouting department, and more importantly, to the entire procurement pipeline, including the structure and competence of our feeder teams. That all started back in the Tambi era, and is perhaps just now beginning to bear fruit.

    I was thinking this morning that a good “four asset return” back in 2007 would have been the present day equivalent of Nurse, Klefbom, Marincin, and Perron. But the EIG wouldn’t have gone for that in the run up to the big flip, and given the state of affairs, it would have thrown too many magic beans into a development system with too few Nemo-grade resources at the helm.

    Unfortunately, now that I’m finally fully on topic, I have to dash out.

  41. PREDICKTER says:

    With the juniors starting the tournament right away, a couple of scenarios:
    a) Nurse is dominant
    b) Nurse is terrible
    What conclusions does everybody come to?
    We drafted another dud or he just needs time to mature?
    edit: if he’s dominant we’re all happy and win many cups

  42. Pouzar says:

    PREDICKTER:
    With the juniors starting the tournament right away, a couple of scenarios:
    a) Nurse is dominant
    b) Nurse is terrible
    What conclusions does everybody come to?
    We drafted another dud or he just needs time to mature?
    edit: if he’s dominant we’re all happy and win many cups

    Nurse will dominate the world. End of.

  43. Derek says:

    PREDICKTER:
    With the juniors starting the tournament right away, a couple of scenarios:
    a) Nurse is dominant
    b) Nurse is terrible
    What conclusions does everybody come to?
    We drafted another dud or he just needs time to mature?

    My conclusion would be its an extremely popular tournament and an extremely small sample size consisting of a bunch of young players playing together for the first time. Therefore there is very little to take from the World Jrs but the entertainment it provides during the holiday season.

    Unfortunately, this is a chance for all the armchair scouts and gms at home to see prospects 4 or 5 times in high pressure situations and from that point feel comfortable labeling them future busts, or future greats.

  44. regwald says:

    Lowetide: Lowetide

    Not an Eakins fan, but really I think what we are talking about is this is Nelson sticking to his convictions because he knows the player and is familiar with him due to all the AHL time.

    Eakins view of Lander is a struggling forward OKC vs Marlies and two training camps where he was unable to win a job.

    MacT has a view of Lander based on similar experience. Nothing in the past 20 months changed his view of Lander. He may have seen the positive, glowing reviews from OKC, but every time he’s with the big boys in the NHL, he just can’t get it done.

    Now Nelson has a different view and has seen the progress and is willing to put him in the role to succeed.

    I see the issue more that MacT was not convinced on the player and Eakins (rightfully so based on viewings to date), had no reason to influence and push for Lander.

  45. Woodguy says:

    AZOIL:
    Question for Woodguy, LT or any of you other stats guys below?

    in this article http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-teams-take-different-paths-to-strong-possession-1.162884 in the second paragraph it compares LA to SJS and how LA is more of a cycle team dump etc and SJS is more of a enter the zone with speed carrying the puck.

    Did we used to play more of a SJS style and then Eakins wanted to turn us into LA style?

    Any thoughts for those that know? The article goes on to correlate multiple shot attempts as well etc.

    Is this why LA struggles with offence, or did last year but they have a good D core and goalie to keep them in most games and we have neither a D or a good goalie?

    This is something I’ve been banging on lately.

    MacT has them dumping and chasing because “that’s the way hockey is played” in his mind.

    Its not coaching to the players, but foisting a system on players regardless of whether they are suited for it or not.

    Now, if the D aren’t giving you the line then chip and chase is fine, but I’ve seen the Oilers hammer the puck in and chase when the line was there to be had.

    That being said, they aren’t dumping often in obvious carry situations.

    I think the key is to coach to the strengths of your team.

    Its a hybrid really.

    If the zone can be gained, then gain it.

    If the D are closing the gap at the blue then chip and chase.

  46. unca miltie says:

    I don’t post often but read daily,. Had to mention a couple things I heard on the radio on my drive home. Gregor had Lacrosse on and while it may well be a fine game, I am not a fan. Tuned into Rob Kerr talking with Eric Francis. Said a couple of interesting things.
    1) Edmonton has the best fans in the NHL>. Based upon the performance of the last few years, the building should be half full.
    2) Agrees with many of you that Lowe3 must go, Mentioned the unfortunate 6 rings comments.

    On another note, I am quite happy to see Lander and Nelson with the big club. I hope they both do well. I do sometimes think that it would be nice to get McDavid, but right now, I would rather the team put something together and push up to 25th or so.

    I have a thought about coaching/management as well. I have been a coach/manager in the retail world for longer than many of the writers have been alive. IMO part of the issue with the team has been the attempts to stick too tightly to a system and not enough emotion. The players seemed to be too afraid to make a mistake and so would not attempt things that would allow their natural talents could shine through. Prime example would be Justin Schultz. What a couple of great plays he has made in the last couple games.

    Thanks again, LT for providing this space

  47. cc says:

    haters,

    Seguin, not a good centre!

    Bhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

  48. haters says:

    cc,

    Been on the wing most of the year. Anything intelligent to add ?

  49. cc says:

    The Artist formerly known as “NYCOIL”:
    I hope Anton can run with it this time, but suspect he’ll be saddled with Pinizotto and Gazdic?

    Re: Tyler vs Taylor from the last thread.

    1) Central Scouting had Tyler ranked #1 and Taylor #2
    2) Scouts had Seguin as having the better shot, Hall the better skater
    3) Hall had 2 years of being a junior star while Seguin had a so-so first year before blossoming and teams often like the longer track record.
    4) Some people wondered about Seguin’s demeanor and character (comments about being too quiet etc., circulated) vs. Hall’s which was much more extroverted and deemed a “winner’s” character
    5) People worried about Hall’s playing style and potential for injuries at the NHL level.

    Oilers chose Hall and were happy, but Chiarelli was just as happy to get Seguin as Hall; however, he likely would have picked Hall first if he had the first pick.

    I think the reports from the time of the draft were just about spot on, don’t you?

    No blame whatsoever for the Oilers taking Hall. He was a fine choice. So Seguin may end up being the better player, but Boston isn’t the one to have benefited. Wish the Oilers could have put together a package to beat the Dallas one to pry him from Bruin hands, though. Even if he’s on RW, I just drool at the thought of Hall-RNH-Seguin as a top line (assume Eberle+ would have gone the other way).

    You make some very good points, and the only addition to them are the that Taylor had a significant surrounding cast on the Spitfires while Tyler had really no one of consequence in his surrounding cast. So when you look at their being tied for points at the end of the season Tyler was more prolific then Taylor.

    Final point: Hall is almost a year older.

  50. dangilitis says:

    So were expecting Gordon to produce offence (which he doesn’t) and then expecting lander to do the heavy lifting (which he is unlikely able to do as well as Gordon), and in doing so, breaking up the most consistent pair the whole season (that’s right, Gordon and Hendricks)?

    Sorry if I’m not overjoyed. For Lander to make it, he will need to play utility like arcobello was supposed to, rather than as a center.

  51. dangilitis says:

    Let be clarify one more thing – lander has earned a look more than arco this year, which is a good thing for him. I just don’t think the way that they are being employed solves problems.

  52. Hammers says:

    Most Important either McT or Nelson recognizes Gordon should be the #2 . I have been saying it for a few weeks his your 2nd best “C” so use him . Logically that means Lander and he should get Hendricks + Pinzotto or Arco for the 4th line role . The next question is will it be Leon or Arco as the #3 “C” .

  53. Kmart99 says:

    Lowetide: Eric Tulsky has done amazing work on this, and found out that carrying the puck in generates more than twice as much offense. I’m not certain we can make sweeping statements in regard to LAK, but that is my belief yes.

    http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/7/11/more-on-the-advantages-of-puck-possession-over-dump-and-chase

    That’s like saying throwing the ball in football generates more offense than running it. It is obvious that entering with possession is best, but if the opposition is stacking the line and giving you the free dump and chase, that is what you should do. Carry it when as much as possible, but use the dump to force them back and give you more opportunity to skate it in. Keep them guessing. In football If you pass the ball every single play, eventually the opposition will just run double coverage on all your recievers until you run it.

  54. Tom Benjamin says:

    Lowetide: Eric Tulsky has done amazing work on this, and found out that carrying the puck in generates more than twice as much offense. I’m not certain we can make sweeping statements in regard to LAK, but that is my belief yes.

    http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/7/11/more-on-the-advantages-of-puck-possession-over-dump-and-chase

    I don’t see this as amazing work. Isn’t this finding data that states the obvious? Does this data surprise people? Of course it is better to carry the puck in and, except on line changes, every player on every team will try to get over the blue line with possession of the puck. Nobody dumps the puck in as the first option. Nobody coaches a team to choose that as the first option.

    When the defenders have the numbers to stand up at the blue line, they force the opponents to dump the puck in. That’s good defense – making the offense choose the inferior way of trying to generate shots. I don’t get why this is a revelation. A player will often say something like “We have to get the puck deep and get in on the forecheck.” but that is always because their opponent isn’t giving them easy entries and they are responding to “What do you have to do to generate offense against these guys?”

    Trying to carry the puck in without numbers risks a turnover that will all but guarantee an easy zone entry with an odd man break for the opponents. It is hard to beat an NHL defender one on one. How many Oilers should even try to gain the blue line if it requires that they somehow finesse the puck past a defender? What kind of success rate is required to make it worth the risk?

  55. Lowetide says:

    Tom Benjamin: I don’t see this as amazing work. Isn’t this finding data that states the obvious? Does this data surprise people? Of course it is better to carry the puck in and, except on line changes, every player on every team will try to get over the blue line with possession of the puck. Nobody dumps the puck in as the first option. Nobody coaches a team to choose that as the first option.

    When the defenders have the numbers to stand up at the blue line, they force the opponents to dump the puck in. That’s good defense – making the offense choose the inferior way of trying to generate shots. I don’t get why this is a revelation. A player will often say something like “We have to get the puck deep and get in on the forecheck.” but that is always because their opponent isn’t giving them easy entries and they are responding to “What do you have to do to generate offense against these guys?”

    Trying to carry the puck in without numbers risks a turnover that will all but guarantee an easy zone entry with an odd man break for the opponents. It is hard to beat an NHL defender one on one. How many Oilers should even try to gain the blue line if it requires that they somehow finesse the puck past a defender? What kind of success rate is required to make it worth the risk?

    One of the things we all do (I believe) is assume that everyone has a certain level of knowledge—similar to our own—on things. Although you’re right, this should appear obvious to everyone who has examined the game in a certain way, others of us are just catching up. I think it’s fair to assume Tom that many many people reading this blog haven’t examined the game as you have.

    As far as your final paragraph, absolutely. My link to Eric’s work was one thread strong, not the entire story.

  56. russ99 says:

    Entry isn’t the real problem here, so far MacT/Nelon has mixed it up fairly well, although Id like to see more carrying in from the skill lines,

    What’s the problem is what we’re doing after entry on the dump or after the first shot on the carry.

    We’re still putting two or three men behind the goal line, were still ringing the puck around the wall, still taking shots from bad areas, still playing like possession is more important that getting the puck in the net.

    We need to see individual skill with the puck when we have it, not just making the safe play to the next guy to continue the cycle. Again, watch what Kane does in the Hawks system, how his individual play takes or sets up scoring chances rather than perpetrate the cycle. The Hawks skill lines make the safe play to get possesion back after the shot, not in liew of creating offense.

    I dont see any reason that our skill players can’t do that, other than bullheadedness by our former coach that’s likely being continued by the GM and trying to break any individual offensive thought from our players, which IMO stems from a fear of not being caught In an odd man situation going back on D.

    I.e. The “200 foot game” or as I like to call it not being committed to the offensive zone or cheating for defense to mask deficiencies in our roster at defenseman and goalie.

    We have dynamic skilled players on our team that need to score to get their confidence back. Time to use them and stop coaching everyone like they’re all 3rd line pluggers.

  57. frjohnk says:

    cc: You make some very good points, and the only addition to them are the that Taylor had a significant surrounding cast on the Spitfires while Tyler had really no one of consequence in his surrounding cast.So when you look at their being tied for points at the end of the season Tyler was more prolific then Taylor.

    Final point: Hall is almost a year older.

    Hall was born on Nov 14 1991
    Seguin was born on Jan 31 1992
    Only 2.5 months older

  58. till_horcoff_is_coach says:

    Tom Benjamin,

    The important thing is also that this is quantified. Sure it “seems” better, but this measures it so we can state with authority it is better. Not even two years ago there were more than a couple NHL coaches pushing dumpins over carries. As Dellows showed Eakins was also doing a tip for a dump play.

    So with this data we can say dump ins may still have an important purpose but they are clearly inferior, regardless how effective the attacking team is. It also gives us something to point to when a turnover occurs from a carry in attempt. Don’t forget that coaches and fans tend to focus on the major events, so that turnover stands out whereas the dump and chase that didn’t work out fades away. Knowing the quantifiable difference between them gives us a better chance of putting those two events in a better context.

  59. Tom Benjamin says:

    till_horcoff_is_coach:
    Tom Benjamin,
    So with this data we can say dump ins may still have an important purpose but they are clearly inferior, regardless how effective the attacking team is.It also gives us something to point to when a turnover occurs from a carry in attempt. Don’t forget that coaches and fans tend to focus on the major events, so that turnover stands out whereas the dump and chase that didn’t work out fades away. Knowing the quantifiable difference between them gives us a better chance of putting those two events in a better context.

    No NHL coach tells his players to make the wrong play. The right play is to carry the puck over the blue line if it can be done safely. If the player dumps it in when he can carry it in, he’s made a mistake. If the defense stands up, the correct play for most players is to dump it deep. (It isn’t always the right play for, say, Henrik Sedin or Patrick Kane or… but for most players it is.)

    I don’t think you can neatly break this game into components. Everything is connected. Want to get more goals? Get more shots. Want more shots? Get the puck into the offensive end with possession more often. Want more easy zone entries? Get through the neutral zone with speed more often. Need more speed in the neutral zone? Do a better job moving the puck out of your own end. Need better zone exits? Play better defense positionally in your own end. To do that, you make opponents entries tougher. To do that you slow them through the neutral zone. And so on.

    I don’t understand what you mean when you say the dump-in didn’t work out. If the offense recovers the puck they have done as well as if they carried it in. If not, they have turned the puck over in the best possible way. The puck is 200 feet from a goal against and the defense is set up to defend all 200 feet.

  60. Bruce McCurdy says:

    Tom Benjamin: Except that a 100 mph fastball is useless without a change-up or off-speed pitch to complement it.
    One has to know when to carry it in, and know when to dump it it. If one becomes one-dimensional, it will lose its effectiveness.

    Well said, Tom. The analogy I often use is football, running vs. passing. The stats may say that you gain 4 yards per rush attempt & 7 yards per pass attempt, so the logical naïve conclusion is “why not pass on every down?” But if you do, the opposition will respond with different defensive sets & coverage strategies which might make better vs. the pass & much more vulnerable to the run except, so what? if you never run.

    In reality, a successful team nearly always needs some sort of balance between running & passing. It may be that proper quantification of outcomes will allow them to change the mix to a more optimum formula, say 65/35 instead of 50/50, but it won’t be a naïve “this one is always better”.

    There’s also a game state component. A team defending a fourth quarter lead is more likely to run the ball, work the clock & take fewer risks even as it might not have the optimum output in terms of points generated. Same with hockey teams defending leads late — get pucks deep, and “the puck is 200 feet from a goal against and the defense is set up to defend all 200 feet” as you put it in your last (outstanding!) comment. Indeed, I wonder if some of the work by Eric T. et al that find carry-ins more effective than shoot-ins have factored in the game state imperatives that might have caused an incommensurate percentage of those shoot-ins, i.e. a team with a late lead is both a) more likely to shoot the puck in AND b) less likely to engage in an aggressive forecheck.

    It’s well-known that score effects show up in Corsi, so if we’re measuring carry-in vs. shoot-in strategies by Corsi then score effects should be taken into account. Eric T.’s post mentioned that dump-and-change plays weren’t factored in, but what about dump-and-trap? Isn’t that something that is driven by score effects that is a large enough subset of all dump-ins as to suppress overall shot shares? Not saying it would make up the entire difference, but it would surely narrow the apparent gap a little bit.

  61. Kmart99 says:

    Bruce McCurdy: Well said. The analogy I use is football, running vs. passing. The stats may say that you gain 4 yards per rush attempt & 7 yards per pass attempt, so the logical naïve conclusion is “why not pass on every down?” But if you do, the opposition will respond with different defensvie sets & coverage which might make better vs. the pass & much more vulnerable to the run except, so what? if you never run.

    In reality, a successful team nearly always needs some sort of balance between running & passing. It may be that proper quantification of outcomes will allow them to change the mix to a more optimum formula, say 65/35 instead of 50/50, but it won’t be a naïve “this one is always better”.

    There’s also a game state component. A team defending a fourth quarter lead is more likely to run the ball, work the clock & take fewer risks even as it might not have the optimum output in terms of points generated. Same with hockey teams defending leads late — get pucks deep, and “the puck is 200 feet from a goal against and the defense is set up to defend all 200 feet” as you put it in your last (outstanding!) comment. Indeed, I wonder if some of the work by Eric T. et al that find carry-ins more effective than shoot-ins have factored in the game state imperatives that might have caused an incommensurate percentage of those shoot-ins, i.e. a team with a late lead is both a) more likely to shoot the puck in AND b) less likely to engage in an aggressive forecheck. It’s well-known that score effects show up in Corsi, so if we’re m,easuring carry-in vs. shoot-in strategies by Corsi then score effects should be taken into account. Eric T.’s post mentioned that dump-and-change plays weren’t factored in, but what about dump-and-trap? Isn’t that something that is driven by score effects that is a large enough subset of all dump-ins as to suppress overall shot shares?

    Ahhahahhaha, literally just repeated exactly what I said 7 posts earlier. Nice!!

  62. Tom Benjamin says:

    Bruce McCurdy: Well said, Tom. The analogy I often use is football, running vs. passing. The stats may say that you gain 4 yards per rush attempt & 7 yards per pass attempt, so the logical naïve conclusion is “why not pass on every down?” But if you do, the opposition will respond with different defensive sets & coverage strategies which might make better vs. the pass & much more vulnerable to the run except, so what? if you never run.

    The analogy doesn’t quite work for me because hockey is too freelance. There is a right play and a wrong play to make. It is not a strategy choice like run or pass. Trying to beat a player to gain the blue line is the wrong play. Mind you, I often think that the really good players use their skill to break the rules. It is part of what defines them as good. You have to let them do it and accept the cost in turnovers.

    I don’t think the Oilers should be too concerned about Taylor Hall turnovers because he is a guy
    you want breaking the rules because he succeeds often enough to make the turnovers an acceptable cost. The concern right now has to be his skating. It looks to me like his brain is making a choice like “Time to blow around this guy” but the rockets don’t fire. If they can’t fire (injury?) he has to rein himself in until they do fire on demand.

    But most guys? They can’t blow past an NHL defenseman. Their only play to make the safe one. Unless the defense concedes the line to them, they dump.

    My main point is “Zone entries are good, so let’s get more zone entries” is wrong, is backwards. Playing better hockey over 200 feet produces the more zone entries. The answer to improving the Corsi is to play better hockey. On offense that means finding, creating and exploiting open ice. The puck zips down the open ice and zone entries are easy, shots and goals are plentiful. Defense is about denying open ice, clogged passing lanes and turnovers created. The puck struggles to get to centre.

    Play well and the stats take care of themselves.

  63. Bruce McCurdy says:

    Kmart99: Ahhahahhaha, literally just repeated exactly what I said 7 posts earlier.Nice!!

    Ahh yes not sure how I missed that. It is an analogy I’ve made previously on occasion & a good one on both our parts. 🙂

  64. Bruce McCurdy says:

    Tom Benjamin: The analogy doesn’t quite work for me because hockey is too freelance. There is a right play and a wrong play to make. It is not a strategy choice like run or pass. Trying to beat a player to gain the blue line is the wrong play. Mind you, I often think that the really good players use their skill to break the rules. It is part of what defines them as good. You have to let them do it and accept the cost in turnovers.

    Right i meant to address that a little. Perhaps the better analogy is the audible at the line of scrimmage where the QB reacts to the defensive alignment when making his call. Still a pre-call but much closer to the moment of truth.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!
© Copyright - Lowetide.ca