G9 2015-16: KINGS AT OILERS

The Edmonton Oilers are 3-5-0 to start the 2015-16 season, compared to 3-4-1 in 2014-15. Dallas Eakins’ Oilers would end October 4-5-1 before losing their way in November (2-9-3) and December (2-8-4) and effectively ending the MacT—Eakins era in one giant thud.

  • Todd McLellan: “There’s a big debate about why Leon isn’t up with us. When he’s one of the better players down there, trust me, he’ll be here.” Source

The Oilers are averaging 2.38 goals per game and that’s good for No. 18 overall this season. The GA is 3.00, No. 24 overall and obviously skewed by a couple early games including the Washington effort. A year ago, Edmonton’s offense was No. 26 overall (2.35 goals per game) and the GA was No. 30 overall (3.37) and of course we know the impact of the goaling in 2014-15. They were going in from the first Anik satellite. The Oilers don’t have much offensively going on beyond the top two lines, I think we’ll see Leon Draisaitl in the NHL this year. In the RE series, I predicted 41 games and that still seems about right.

pakarinen condorsIiro Pakarinen will probably make his season debut for the Oilers tonight, Todd McLellan mentioned his ‘hard, heavier game’ after practice yesterday. I had Pakarinen playing 20 games this season but that included a solid TC and impressing the coach off the top. We’ll see how he goes, 20 games might be high.

mcdavid goal det

MCDAVID RE

The one RE I get the most questions about? Connor McDavid. The question came up again this weekend on SSE (would you alter your number) and it gives me a chance to re-establish what I try to do with reasonable expectations. Most projections we see are for fantasy hockey (Scott Cullen rocks that area) but the purpose of the RE is to find a ‘reasonable line in the sand’ for a given player. It’s based on projected playing time, role, and (if possible) the last three seasons of production. Age has something to do with it and of course power-play time is a big part of it.

What I’m looking for is NOT to be right, but rather to gauge a player’s actual performance against what a reasonable person (looked for one, couldn’t find, so I did it) would estimate when the only hockey sticks being used are on driveways and roads.

  • Connor McDavid RE 15-16: 70GP, 23-39-62 .886
  • Connor McDavid Actual: 8GP, 5-3-8 1.000
  • Connor McDavid Projection: 82GP, 51-31-82 1.000

In the RE article I explain my reasoning behind the original (July) projection and one of the major factors is quality of linemates. We’ve seen that so far this season, with Eric Gryba (40 minutes) being an example of a player who is on the ice with McDavid, not really helping offensively. The thing I didn’t factor in? Doesn’t appear to matter. McDavid has two points (3.00 5×5/60) with Gryba along for the ride. The RE didn’t predict that, because its author hasn’t seen it during the time he’s been projecting.

The thrust of the RE projections is to give full value to the player for exceeding projections. McDavid was always going to be a difficult one, at this point the young man looks like he’s going to blow it out of the water. You may feel that RE missed, but the RE would argue Connor McDavid is doing the unusual and should be credited for it.

Lotta Boston Bruins style players in this video, the Condors had an old fashioned brouhaha with the San Diego Gulls last evening. Mark my words, some of the men involved in that fight (Kessy, Moroz, Musil) will play for Peter Chiarelli’s Oilers someday. Kessy specifically looked like he was in an outtake from Slap Shot.

WAR-ON-ICE SLEDGEHAMMER, FORWARDS

forwards war on ice sledge

This looks right, we have Hall—Nuge taking on the toughs and McDavid’s group in a nice little area there, where they can (and are) impacting the game. McLellan badly needs a third line of some sort, suspect that’s going to be the next step. Is Leon part of it? I don’t think so, not yet anyway. Pakarinen? Very possible, probably not tonight.

WAR-ON-ICE SLEDGEHAMMER, DEFENSE

defense woi sledge

As we see it, the top two pairings getting all kinds of difficult moments (and wildly different results, the Sekera-Fayne pairing looks good), but the reason I used this graph is Gryba. He’s playing BIG minutes at evens now, sheltered, and getting killed. And I think the coach is starting to trust him! We’ll see how he shines. I remain convinced that Klefbom needs a new partner and light candles daily for a Klef—Sekera top pairing.

  • Klefbom with Schultz 48.6 5×5 Corsi for %
  • Klefbom away from Schultz: 46.7 5×5 Corsi for %
  • Schultz away from Klefbom 31.0 5×5 Corsi for %

Recommended reading: Woodguy’s take on the blue. Mark Fayne is looking pretty good btw. Early days.

written by

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

566 Responses to "G9 2015-16: KINGS AT OILERS"

« Older Comments
  1. Puckberger says:

    I would like to a see a movement to get Remenda off the Oilers Broadcasts, he sounds to me alot like a little leauge hockey coach , beyond annoying , I know I am not alone in this line of thinking…………

  2. dustrock says:

    Oh look no obvious boarding call.

  3. dustrock says:

    Gryba and Klinkhammer on the ice in empty net crunch time.

  4. spoiler says:

    Unbelievable no call.

  5. G Money says:

    The Kings broadcast if they do such a thing should make sure to give the refs one of the stars

  6. Centre of attention says:

    Ref’s make me want to puke.

  7. square_wheels says:

    How is Gryba and Klink on he ice now ??

  8. Lucinius says:

    dustrock:
    Oh look no obvious boarding call.

    To be fair.. Hall got away with one that was worse earlier in the game.

  9. fuzzy muppet says:

    With any luck Schultz is out for a while

  10. G Money says:

    spoiler,

    It’s par for the course against the Kings . They are one of Bettman’s favored southern US large market lousy market teams

  11. dustrock says:

    I ain’t even mad at this point.

  12. thepeetso says:

    The referees have been atrocious.

  13. hunter1909 says:

    They could replace the entire fucking defence with Bakersfield, and no one would notice anything.

  14. G Money says:

    Lucinius,

    He got away with one . It numbers in the dozens for the Kings, including a dangerous elbow to the head

  15. BAUCE says:

    thepeetso,

    Worst reffing in any professional sport no contest.

  16. square_wheels says:

    We could be 3-8 by the weekend if this doesn’t count.

    McDavid is a witch

  17. spoiler says:

    OMYFUCKINGGOD!?

  18. fuzzy muppet says:

    And that won’t count because Oilers

  19. jp says:

    McDavid looks sure he scored. I believe him!! Hope the replay gives a clear view.

    Looks tough to be certain….

  20. Centre of attention says:

    DID HE DO IT>?!

  21. spoiler says:

    The refs could make up for a lot with the right call here.

  22. Lucinius says:

    Goal won’t count, understandably so — but I think that’s in. But, you can’t see it and call on the ice is no goal.

  23. G Money says:

    That sure looked in but dollars to donuts the command center won’t overturn it

  24. hunter1909 says:

    The good news is I’m leaving tomorrow for a week long vacation.

  25. Centre of attention says:

    THAT IS IN!!!!

  26. fuzzy muppet says:

    spoiler,

    can’t see the puck, it won’t count

  27. G Money says:

    BAUCE,

    I don’t know, the WWE might have something to say about that

  28. Centre of attention says:

    So in its not funny

  29. ASkoreyko says:

    The very first shot SN showed you can see the puck under the glove. I don’t know why they won’t show it.

  30. striatic says:

    god damn Schrödinger’s Puck

  31. jp says:

    His whole damn glove was in the net.

    Please Please!!!

    Edit: FUCK!!!

  32. square_wheels says:

    That’s in, holy fuck it clear from behind McDavid

  33. G Money says:

    As if Martell would’ve called anything else !

  34. Lucinius says:

    Don’t like the call. Understand it, however.

  35. Centre of attention says:

    The puck is across the line. They should get a freaking point bettman.

  36. spoiler says:

    G Money:
    BAUCE,

    I don’t know, the WWE might have something to say about that

    Washington Generals?

  37. Oil2Oilers says:

    The view from behind McDavid showed the puck crossing the line.

  38. G Money says:

    Hey it’s hard to win a game when you’re playing five against seven the whole night.

  39. SK Oiler Fan says:

    Worst camera angles ever on that one. What do you know a scramble to end it. Ugly Sutter hockey

  40. thepeetso says:

    Quit showing the overhead view and show the other angle.

  41. PokeCheck says:

    We can photograph the faint atmosphere of Pluto, but capturing a puck crossing a line… an impenetrable eternal mystery.

  42. BAUCE says:

    Oil2Oilers:
    The view from behind McDavid showed the puck crossing the line.

    Yes it did but apparently it doesn’t matter. Fuck the NHL

  43. ASkoreyko says:

    Oil2Oilers:
    The view from behind McDavid showed the puck crossing the line.

    Seriously, why didn’t they show that angle again? I can’t beleive it.

  44. striatic says:

    So frustrating. Kings get all the breaks. It’s just not fair.

  45. hunter1909 says:

    To be fair, you don’t beat the LAK with a defence that has 3 players passing the puck around on a string behind it’s own goal.

  46. Centre of attention says:

    Quick gets first star for stealing the game.

    Disgusted.

  47. böök¡je says:

    The only reason that goal didn’t count is because all of you bastards bitched about the foxtrack puck!

    #bringbackfoxtrack

  48. square_wheels says:

    You could see it before his glove went down on it, Chia needs to be calling the league over that call.

    Horrible

  49. dustrock says:

    Oil2Oilers:
    The view from behind McDavid showed the puck crossing the line.

    Yeah then we just get the same shitty shot time after time.

    What a rule – his entire glove is behind the line but inconclusive because we don’t see the puck.

    This is as bad as the tuck rule in the NFL.

  50. square_wheels says:

    böök¡je,

    Fuck off Bookije

    Sorrynotsorry

  51. Centre of attention says:

    The Oilers will beat the piss out of the wild.

    Just wait and see.

    McDavid was red in the face mad when the ref waved it off, he saw it was in. Nuge came over and calmed him down.

    McDavid looked like he wanted to throttle the ref. Talk about competitive. Love it.

  52. dustrock says:

    G Money:
    Hey it’s hard to win a game when you’re playing five against seven the whole night.

    As if Martel wasn’t going to wave off anything he possibly could. I don’t mind losing to the Kings but the Oilers outplayed them in the third and they were jobbed again.

  53. Seismic Source says:

    I usually dont blame refs…but there was a bunch of non calls in the Kings favor tonight. The McDavid crosscheck in front of the net…the Lander boarding/check from behind. Just an absolute terrible game by them.

  54. Lowetide says:

    Looked in to me. I also think the penalty call against EDM was bullshit, but those calls haven’t gone the Oilers way for years. Frustrating night of hockey. Hope Schultz is okay.

  55. Centre of attention says:

    Lowetide,

    What about that blatant crosscheck into the boards on Pouliot with 3 minutes left?

    Ref watched it happen literally within arms reach, no call.

    Benoit went in to the boards head first, none the less…

  56. RMGS says:

    Oil2Oilers:
    The view from behind McDavid showed the puck crossing the line.

    Does the league not look at all angles? Böökjie is a fucking joke!

  57. Kmart99 says:

    The ICE LEVEL CAMERA!! WTF!!!

  58. Ryan says:

    dustrock: As if Martel wasn’t going to wave off anything he possibly could. I don’t mind losing to the Kings but the Oilers outplayed them in the third and they were jobbed again.

    Is there a replay anywhere?

  59. hunter1909 says:

    Lowetide: but those calls haven’t gone the Oilers way for years.

    In my experience as a fan, the good teams get the breaks.

  60. Lackadaisical says:

    https://twitter.com/PeteBlackburn/status/658496146692820993

    That was a goal, and they showed that angle early.

  61. Ryan says:

    dustrock:
    You want proof War Room?

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSNyv6YWIAAhfXN.png:large

    Brutal. Just brutal.

  62. hunter1909 says:

    dustrock:
    You want proof War Room?

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSNyv6YWIAAhfXN.png:large

    That’s in!!

  63. Kmart99 says:

    Countless picks, crosschecks, interference, and trips that the kings got away with.

    Then when the game is on the line, the dumbasses in Toronto forget to check other angles. What about the obvious ice level camera that shows white between the puck and the line?!?!?

    *controller flies across the room*

  64. spoiler says:

    I might have to plug in a game platform and shoot some shit. Why do no games feature zombie refs? Game creators, please fix this.

  65. hunter1909 says:

    Hoping to leave you all with a positive vibe:

    I just played the NHL 2016 draft lottery simulator and Oilers get 3rd place.

  66. BAUCE says:

    Lackadaisical:
    https://twitter.com/PeteBlackburn/status/658496146692820993

    That was a goal, and they showed that angle early.

    Yes and then they never showed it again.

  67. BeerMe says:

    dustrock:
    You want proof War Room?

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSNyv6YWIAAhfXN.png:large

    FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

  68. Hockeyman 99 says:

    It was in! You can see it on the first replay! F’n NHL!

  69. Kmart99 says:

    My goodness. * picks up controller* *smashes it against the wall* again

  70. striatic says:

    How does the NHL not see that replay? How is that even possible?

  71. Lackadaisical says:

    BAUCE: Yes and then they never showed it again.

    Right? What’s that all about. It’s one of the few logical angles to get a solid peek there, so how is it missed?

    I’m grabbing a whiskey and going to bed.

  72. square_wheels says:

    Ryan,

    What recourse does a team have when the shooters angle clearly shows the puck in, fuck Sportsnet showed it and then wouldn’t shut up about the top down angle showing only Quicks glove.

    Fucking insanity, Chia should be flying to Toronto and start punching fools.

    Horrible.

  73. LostBoy says:

    The only thing they could possibly be saying about this is that the puck is elevated in the oblique view where it looks obviously across. Since it’s not on the ice, seeing clearance between it and the goal line is not definitive. The puck is a few inches off the ice and one or two inches (probably) over the line. I don’t understand why SN didn’t show this view more than once, but that has to be why Toronto didn’t overrule.

    Like, it was obviously in, but the puck wasn’t on the ice.

  74. delooper says:

    Shades of Gretzky’s amazing ability to get the puck in the net in the last five seconds in any game that mattered.

  75. Sugar Reijo says:

    I’ve never understood how when the entire glove is over the line it’s no goal. It’s just so completely asinine.

    Refs were horrible tonight.

  76. Kmart99 says:

    LostBoy,

    What side are you on? Get on board with ripping the nhl.

  77. striatic says:

    One of those games where the officiating is just demonstrably terrible.

    Hopefully the Oilers take this for the farce it was and go into the next game with a massive chip on their shoulder.

  78. Johnny skid says:

    hunter1909:
    To be fair, you don’t beat the LAK with a defence that has 3 players passing the puck around on a string behind it’s own goal.

    that is to funny! this team is getting better but there is still work to do. we finally have a quality management team so there is hope.

  79. khildahl says:

    Just leaving the game. The only angle they showed at Rexall was the top-down one, probably to prevent a riot. Even that showed Quick’s glove across the line. Absolute McGeough-level horseshit.

    Beyond that, the ref had no business waving it off from his angle behind the net.

  80. striatic says:

    LostBoy: The only thing they could possibly be saying about this is that the puck is elevated in the oblique view where it looks obviously across.

    But there’s no proof the puck is elevated and the puck clears the line *handily*.

  81. MrEd says:

    LostBoy,

    Bang on.

  82. BAUCE says:

    striatic:
    How does the NHL not see that replay? How is that even possible?

    Its not so the only other possibility is… Well, you know what I’m saying.

  83. Centre of attention says:

    Twitter is entertaining. Kings fans like “I love hockey”

  84. Sugar Reijo says:

    khildahl:
    Absolute McGeough-level horseshit.

    Why do I have every sense Mick’s somewhere giggling his ass off…

  85. Henry says:

    hunter1909: In my experience as a fan, the good teams get the breaks.

    This phenomenon has been serving Detroit for 25 years and Montreal (at home) for 50.

  86. Oilanderp says:

    We’re getting closer.

  87. Yak Efron says:

    (puts on Horatio Caine sunglasses)

    “The only thing that matters – is the evidence.”

  88. striatic says:

    LostBoy: Like, it was obviously in, but the puck wasn’t on the ice.

    In a slow motion playback of the replay from that angle you can see three frames where the puck appears to first cross the line, hit Quick’s glove, lay flat on the ice, and then get covered by the glove behind the line.

    If league policy is to never use that sort of angle for any reason, fine, but watching the replay in slow motion the puck is definitely on the ice behind the line when Quick smothers it.

  89. Kmart99 says:

    Felt like the Kings had endless rope with the interference, tripping, crosschecking, and slashing all night. But I never expected them to be allowed to pull the puck out of their net and have it not count as a goal.

    Oilers were in this game and they deserved to win. Pure robbery. Soooooo frustrating.

    I hope they play the next 73 games like gangbusters.

  90. spoiler says:

    “What’s wrong with Schultz?” –Reporter

    “We’re still trying to figure that out” –TMac

  91. LostBoy says:

    striatic: But there’s no proof the puck is elevated and the puck clears the line *handily*.

    I don’t much feel like arguing about it, but every angle I’m looking at shows the puck in the air from the moment it leaves McDavid’s stick. There’s a slow motion overhead view of the shot here:

    http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?catid=35&id=856895&lang=en

    In any case, in order to overrule the call it’s not a matter of there being proof the puck is elevated, but rather proof that it wasn’t.

    Don’t get me wrong, that puck was over the line. I’m just saying that has to be the war room logic.

    [Edit – just saw your followup post. I haven’t seen a frame definitively showing the puck lying flat with space between it and the goal line. But like, if so, fine (though a screen grab would be nice). I’m just saying that has to be the reason Toronto didn’t overrule.]

  92. BeerMe says:

    vine.co/v/eYaHt7LvF9O

  93. dustrock says:

    Ref originally signals goal then stops his point. Lol because Oilers

  94. MrEd says:

    “I think the refs got it right obviously”.- McDavid.

    Holy.

  95. G Money says:

    I have been roundly mocked for claiming there seems to be something fishy going on with the reffing, and has been for years, given EVERY LAK (and a handful of other select teams) game ALWAYS seems to have suspect reffing. I mean, I expect *bad* reffing every game, but usually the terrible calls even up, over time if not within the game.

    But they almost *never* seem to even up against the Kings (until and unless the game is out of reach) … I assume I have lots of people jumping on the old tinfoil hat “Bettman Conspiracy” bandwagon after this game!

    I noticed this when I watched the Kings against the Oilers, and later against the Avs in Denver (I used to work for a Denver based company so saw a number of games at the Pepsi Center). The reffing was *markedly* different. Even almost. It was almost bizarre it was so different.

    So I tracked a bunch of games, Oiler and non-Oiler for a few weeks, and saw what I think was a pattern – certain US teams vs certain Cdn teams. (I’ve been asked for that data, but I wrote it on paper … I didn’t start watching games with a laptop in hand until I started posting on LT’s regularly, LOL. But you guys by now should know that one thing I definitely do is collect data). I mean hey, I’m biased for the Oilers, but I’m never going to call reffing biased in favour of the Phlegms or the Nucks. But there it was.

    Anyway, I make those claims only half jokingly. The evidence from watching just a few weeks worth of games isn’t truly strong and could even be imaginary (stare at numbers long enough and you’ll eventually see a pattern) … but on the other hand, I’ve NEVER been given a reason to doubt the theory either.

  96. hunter1909 says:

    Let me tell you how bad this is:

    I’ve got ice in my drink.

  97. dustrock says:

    http://i.imgur.com/osXFBf0.gif

    Here’s the explanation, although this isn’t exactly what happened.

    NHL won’t use diagonal angle.

  98. thepeetso says:

    LostBoy: I don’t much feel like arguing about it, but every angle I’m looking at shows the puck in the air from the moment it leaves McDavid’s stick.There’s a slow motion overhead view of the shot here:

    http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?catid=35&id=856895&lang=en

    In any case, in order to overrule the call it’s not a matter of there being proof thepuck is elevated, but rather proof that it wasn’t.

    Don’t get me wrong, that puck was over the line.I’m just saying that has to be the war room logic.

    Explain this:
    http://striatic.net/misc/signaled%20in.png

    Signaled in. Then a change of heart, but why?

  99. spoiler says:

    hunter1909:
    Hoping to leave you all with a positive vibe:

    I just played the NHL 2016 draft lottery simulator and Oilers get 3rd place.

    Shut the fuck up, böök¡je, and pass the damn whiskey.

  100. LostBoy says:

    thepeetso: Explain this:
    http://striatic.net/misc/signaled%20in.png

    Signaled in.Then a change of heart, but why?

    How the fuck should I know?

  101. striatic says:

    LostBoy: I don’t much feel like arguing about it, but every angle I’m looking at shows the puck in the air from the moment it leaves McDavid’s stick.

    Oh, it elevates, but look at the vine video:

    http://vine.co/v/eYaHt7LvF9O

    Puck elevates, hits Quick’s glove, *hits the ice behind the line* and then Quick smothers it.

    So if the NHL has some policy of never ever under any circumstances using that angle to determine goal, ok that’s stupid but strict, but there is video of the puck on the ice behind the line.

  102. dustrock says:

    G Money,

    Oh longtime NBA fans have known for decades that the Lakers get all the calls.

  103. Zelepukin says:

    spoiler:
    “What’s wrong with Schultz?” –Reporter

    “We’re still trying to figure that out”–TMac

    What did happen?

    Hopefully this segways into Nurse coming up, eating his lunch and never looking back.

  104. Lowetide says:

    G Money:
    I have been roundly mocked for claiming there seems to be something fishy going on with the reffing, and has been for years, given EVERY LAK (and a handful of other select teams) game ALWAYS seems to have suspect reffing.I mean, I expect *bad* reffing every game, but usually the terrible calls even up, over time if not within the game.

    But they almost *never* seem to even up against the Kings (until and unless the game is out of reach) … I assume I have lots of people jumping on the old tinfoil hat “Bettman Conspiracy” bandwagon after this game!

    I noticed this when I watched the Kings against the Oilers, and later against the Avs in Denver (I used to work fora Denver based company so saw a number of games at the Pepsi Center).The reffing was *markedly* different.Even almost.It was almost bizarre it was so different.

    So I tracked a bunch of games, Oiler and non-Oiler for a few weeks, and saw what I think was a pattern – certain US teams vs certain Cdn teams.(I’ve been asked for that data, but I wrote it on paper … I didn’t start watching games with a laptop in hand until I started posting on LT’s regularly, LOL.But you guys by now should know that one thing I definitely do is collect data).I mean hey, I’m biased for the Oilers, but I’m never going to call reffing biased in favour of the Phlegms or the Nucks.But there it was.

    Anyway, I make those claims only half jokingly.The evidence from watching just a few weeks worth of games isn’t truly strong and could even be imaginary (stare at numbers long enough and you’ll eventually see a pattern) … but on the other hand, I’ve NEVER been given a reason to doubt the theory either.

    It’s ALWAYS been this way. Habs in the 1970s are the ultimate example. If you watched two years worth of games in 1970-74 you’d swear the refs were wearing Habs jerseys. Seriously.

  105. thepeetso says:

    LostBoy: How the fuck should I know?

    The whole thing was rhetorical, but this I’m sure you know.

  106. spoiler says:

    Zelepukin: Hopefully this segways into Nurse coming up, eating his lunch and never looking back.

    They don’t play the same position. Unless Fleming has been playing Nurse on the right side, but I haven’t heard that.

  107. LostBoy says:

    striatic: Oh, it elevates, but look at the vine video:

    http://vine.co/v/eYaHt7LvF9O

    Puck elevates, hits Quick’s glove, *hits the ice behind the line* and then Quick smothers it.

    So if the NHL has some policy of never ever under any circumstances using that angle to determine goal, ok that’s stupid but strict, but there is video of the puck on the ice behind the line.

    You’re right, that’s definitive (the vine thing didn’t play on my ancient Safari browser but I watched it on Chrome). The puck did drop and bounce on the ice. Good goal, should have been overturned.

  108. G Money says:

    Head to head, Sekera-Fayne were 50% or better against every King they faced.

  109. G Money says:

    Lowetide,

    It’s pathetic, but I guess where there’s big money at stake, there’s corruption.

    At least the NHL isn’t FIFA!

  110. hunter1909 says:

    I cannot believe how angry i am over this.

    If I wasn’t going away tomorrow to somewhere far far away from hockey, I’d be even more angry.

  111. khildahl says:

    spoiler: They don’t play the same position. Unless Fleming has been playing Nurse on the right side, but I haven’t heard that.

    You’re right. Nurse plays defence.

  112. Numenius says:

    thepeetso: Explain this:
    http://striatic.net/misc/signaled%20in.png

    Signaled in.Then a change of heart, but why?

    Based on the video, I don’t think he meant to signal a “goal” by doing that.

    The other angle makes it clear the puck was in though.

    Fuck Böök¡je.

  113. spoiler says:

    hunter1909,

    This sucks but it is still better than weeding the flower garden on the ledge.

  114. hunter1909 says:

    Lowetide: If you watched two years worth of games in 1970-74 you’d swear the refs were wearing Habs jerseys.

    Are you serious? Habs only won 2 cups in that timespan.

  115. Woodguy says:

    I’ll just leave this here……

    Klefbom w/ Jultz 8:38 0-9 0%CF
    Klefbom w/ Gryba 4:40 2-3 40%CF
    Klefbom w/ Fayne 3:25 5-6 45%CF
    Klefbom w/ Davidson 2:18 3-0 100%CF

  116. khildahl says:

    These are the days I miss MacTavish’s post-game commentary as coach.

    Say what you will about him recently, but he would have something to say about this call, and he would say it, fine-be-damned.

  117. hunter1909 says:

    spoiler:
    hunter1909,

    This sucks but it is still better than weeding the flower garden on the ledge.

    The Ledge. We’ll always have the Ledge.

  118. hunter1909 says:

    khildahl: These are the days I miss MacTavish’s post-game commentary as coach.
    Say what you will about him recently, but he would have something to say about this call, and he would say it, fine-be-damned.

    Oh sure. Oilers would suck, as in forever and ever, and in the Post game presser MacT would toss out his half baked analysis based on fuck all else but the fact he wears glasses, and has curly wurly hair.

    PS: Exactly who do YOU blame for the tire fire/shitstorm defence that’s been screwing up another season?

  119. Kmart99 says:

    Rules must state that the War Room is prohibited from using camera angles that are at an angle.

    Although that is also a slippery slope, because the overhead cam is at a slight angle as well to prevent the crossbar from covering the line.

    Ultimately this is something that needs to get fixed. Man that was frustrating.

  120. BAUCE says:

    Kmart99,

    It may just get addressed because mcjesus was involved. If it was any mere mortal it would not.

  121. hunter1909 says:

    Kmart99: Rules must state that the War Room is prohibited from using camera angles that are at an angle.

    Surely you jest.

    In other words, don’t bother the NHL with facts, because they “know” what they’re doing.

  122. Woodguy says:

    Oiler’s D CF%

    Sekera 59%
    Fayne 58%
    Davidson 48%
    Gryba 46%
    Klefbom 32%
    Schultz 9%

    Klefbom without Schultz 46%

  123. Kmart99 says:

    It’s funny when the guy comes back from the headset and says “The call on the ice stands….” The call was GOAL. so where’s the confusion?

  124. RMGS says:

    Woodguy:
    Oiler’s D CF%

    Sekera 59%
    Fayne 58%
    Davidson 48%
    Gryba 46%
    Klefbom 32%
    Schultz 9%

    Klefbom without Schultz 46%

    So, I’m not the only one hoping Schultz goes on the IR?

  125. striatic says:

    Kmart99: Rules must state that the War Room is prohibited from using camera angles that are at an angle.

    If the puck isn’t clearly on the ice from that angle i would agree with not using it, but the puck is clearly on the ice. The NHL had the video and seemingly didn’t even look at it.

    I don’t like how the 630 ched post game guy is going on about how from the broadcast angle you can’t tell if it is on the Ice so it isn’t conclusive. In the replay it is deflected down by the glove and then stops moving down because it has nowhere else to go because it *hits the ice* behind the line. The only way that isn’t ruled in by the league is if they don’t even look at the angle at all in slow motion.

    So presumably they aren’t even bothering to check other angles.

  126. Yak Efron says:

    “The Hawk-Eye system was first developed in 1999. Hawk-Eye is an existing technology currently used in cricket, tennis and snooker. It is based on the principle of triangulation using the visual images and timing data provided by high-speed video cameras at different locations around the area of play. The system uses high frame rate cameras to triangulate and track the ball in flight. The software calculates the ball’s location in each frame by identifying the pixels that correspond to the ball. The software can track the ball and predict the flight path, even if several cameras are being blocked.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal-line_technology

  127. Kmart99 says:

    Step 1: Score a goal https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSNyv6YWIAAhfXN.png:large

    Step 2: Ref calls it a goal http://striatic.net/misc/signaled%20in.png

    Step 3: Review the play and confirm the call on the ice stands

    Step 4: Then say no goal?

    This requires next level incompetence.

  128. delooper says:

    Relax folks. If Klefbom and Schultz are injured the Oilers won’t be winning a game for a long time. So take it easy.

  129. striatic says:

    Kmart99:
    Step 1: Score a goal https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSNyv6YWIAAhfXN.png:large

    Step 2: Ref calls it a goal http://striatic.net/misc/signaled%20in.png

    Step 3: Review the play and confirm the call on the ice stands

    Step 4: Then say no goal?

    Unfortunately there’s step 2.5 which is “after signalling a goal, wave off the goal reversing the first call on the ice”.

  130. Bag of Pucks says:

    GMoney, those in game Corsi charts are awesome.

    Looking at RNH and Hall’s rows, maybe we should nickname them ‘The Big Red Machine?’

    At EV, our alleged #1 line doesn’t piss a drop against the Kings’ best.

    That’s the story of this game, and of the season so far. Against elite opp, they don’t get it done.

    Nuge sucks on the dot but he’s going to win the Selke someday? This is the delusion we live in.

    I guess the excuse du jour is we can’t expect them to score at EV without Ebs. Seriously, when can we expects 1OVs (not on the McDavid line) to be outscorers?

    And why the hell is Letestu not 3C on this club? Does that make sense to anyone?

  131. Kmart99 says:

    striatic: Unfortunately there’s step 2.5 which is “after signalling a goal, wave off the goal reversing the first call on the ice”.

    I ignore that which does not agree with my point.

  132. RMGS says:

    Yak Efron:
    “The Hawk-Eye system was first developed in 1999. Hawk-Eye is an existing technology currently used in cricket, tennis and snooker. It is based on the principle of triangulation using the visual images and timing data provided by high-speed video cameras at different locations around the area of play. The system uses high frame rate cameras to triangulate and track the ball in flight. The software calculates the ball’s location in each frame by identifying the pixels that correspond to the ball. The software can track the ball and predict the flight path, even if several cameras are being blocked.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal-line_technology

    The NHL prides itself in its parochial culture. Where’s the honour or character in this technological innovation?

  133. Younger Oil says:

    This might be dumb to suggest, but couldn’t they put small cameras on the insides of the posts somehow?

    Or better yet, put a f***ing chip inside the puck?

  134. LostBoy says:

    Dustrock already linked to a gif above, but here is the full Sportsnet segment on the “parallax view” and an apparent Flames goal, very similar to tonight:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSG8mzwwOs8

    So I’m going to switch my vote back to I think it was obviously in, but I understand why it wasn’t overturned.

  135. Kmart99 says:

    4-5? nope. 3-4-1? nope. 3-6. Suck it oilers. *cries self to sleep*

  136. G Money says:

    Bag of Pucks,

    Thanks.

    Re: Hall & Nuge, asking them to piss a lot of drops against the best while down their best in-tight scorer might be unfair, no?

    As 2/3rds of a line (Klink tries, but the play dies with him a lot), they still eat the lunches of lesser lines. But I’d say it’s not unreasonable to think that they need to be at full strength to go head to head with a top rank line like Kopitar’s.

    Even at full strength, if all they did was saw-off, that would be a good return against the top line and top pairing of the Kings. On the other hand, they utterly destroyed the Monahan line in Calgary – even without renowned Flame-hurter Eberle – so that says something too.

  137. hunter1909 says:

    We wuz robbed.

  138. Centre of attention says:

    G Money,

    Hall and Nuge are doing alright considering Rob Klinkhammer is there RW.

  139. Centre of attention says:

    I have a feeling Connor is going to torch the wild on Tuesday. He was red in the face mad when that goal was called off.

    The kid is ultra-competitive and he wants vengeance.

  140. MrEd says:

    Kmart99,

    So how do we fix it?

    I’m imagining game pucks with a set ring to their circumference on both sides of some reactive metal to lasers that are set in the posts. Not camera dependent.
    Paint on ice seems old-school.

    *drinks*

  141. striatic says:

    LostBoy: So I’m going to switch my vote back to I think it was obviously in, but I understand why it wasn’t overturned.

    Unlike that situation in the Flames game, you can see the Puck deflect down to the ice behind the line in the replay of McDavid’s goal.

    If the puck didn’t deflect down to the ice, I’d agree, but it did and we can see, in the replay the NHL had access to, the puck definitively on the ice behind the line.

  142. Younger Oil says:

    Here’s using the “parallax view” stuff using actual ice.

    http://globalnews.ca/video/1986743/was-the-goal-in-video-recreates-no-goal/

    It’s a goal.

  143. Kmart99 says:

    Call in favour of Oilers=correct
    Call not im favour of Oilers=Incorrect.

    This is how my mind works. Always has. Always will.

  144. G Money says:

    This is the official line on the NHL recap page:


    McDavid came close to tying the game with 5.2 seconds left, but Quick managed to keep the puck from crossing the goal line with his glove. Video review was inconclusive in determining whether McDavid’s shot completely crossed the line.

    Um, no, it wasn’t inconclusive. It was conclusively a goal. But hey Mr. NHL, I can see how it would be called ‘inconclusive’, given that your own rectum was blocking most of the view.

  145. Woodguy says:

    Bag of Pucks:
    GMoney, those in game Corsi charts are awesome.

    Looking at RNH and Hall’s rows, maybe we should nickname them ‘The Big Red Machine?’

    At EV, our alleged #1 line doesn’t piss a drop against the Kings’ best.

    That’s the story of this game, and of the season so far. Against elite opp, they don’t get it done.

    Nuge sucks on the dot but he’s going to win the Selke someday? This is the delusion we live in.

    I guess the excuse du jour is we can’t expect them to score at EV without Ebs. Seriously, when can we expects 1OVs (not on the McDavid line) to be outscorers?

    And why the hell is Letestu not 3C on this club? Does that make sense to anyone?

    Here’s RNH’s corsi vs every King along with his TOI

    They were hard matched against Carter’s line most of their game and owned their soul.

    They had 3 bad shifts against Kopitar for sure, but your post is way off base.

    Milan Lucic 11:51 59%
    Tyler Toffoli 11:51 59%
    Jeff Carter 11:21 53%
    Alec Martinez 8:55 62%
    Jake Muzzin 8:50 59%
    Drew Doughty 8:39 42%
    Brayden McNabb 8:38 46%
    Anze Kopitar 3:52 20%
    Andy Andreoff 3:22 71%
    Jordan Nolan 3:19 63%
    Kyle Clifford 3:06 63%
    Tanner Pearson 3:04 0%
    Dustin Brown 2:53 0%
    Christian Ehrhoff 2:27 100%
    Jamie McBain 2:21 100%
    Trevor Lewis 2:02 100%
    Marian Gaborik 1:44 100%
    Nick Shore 1:20 100%

    He killed everyone except Koptiar’s line, Doughty-McNabb when they were on w/ Kopitar.

    RNH has been getting it done against everyone.

    Don’t lose your shit over 3 bad shifts and create a narrative.

  146. Zelepukin says:

    Centre of attention: The kid is ultra-competitive and he wants vengeance.

    He is probably at home right now with a dozen pucks outside the paint, reaching from behind him and roofing backhands.

  147. Halfwise says:

    A bitter pill, losing to bad reffing and a dubious call. No way the parallax thing applies, because there’s no way the puck could be up in the air after contacting the glove above it.

    And what constitutes a penalty these days, anyway? Is it the same for both teams?

    Jultz has been playing a physical style of game that he has little experience with. Wouldn’t surprise me to hear he has a hyperextended elbow or similar injury from awkward contact. Once it starts the joint is painful and weak, and the injury can get aggravated without much obvious drama. I’ve had one; it made me even worse as a hockey player.Time and therapy galore to heal it.

  148. LostBoy says:

    striatic: Unlike that situation in the Flames game, you can see the Puck deflect down to the ice behind the line in the replay of McDavid’s goal.

    If the puck didn’t deflect down to the ice, I’d agree, but it did and we can see, in the replay the NHL had access to, the puck definitively on the ice behind the line.

    I think the puck was actually on the ice in the Flames situation (and the link provided by Younger Oil shows that based on forensic reconstruction it was quite likely actually in). The problem is that the ice is elevated above the paint. When you view it from a low oblique angle, a puck on the ice in contact with the goal line will appear to be across. Once more, I think the puck was in tonight – if the Flames goal was across, tonight’s puck seems deeper in the net. But I understand why they won’t overrule based on these oblique angles.

  149. Woodguy says:

    Bag of Pucks,

    RNH’s 5v5 TOI CF% w/ the Dmen tonight.

    What do you want to be those shifts vs. Kopitar came with Jultz on the ice?

    Oscar Klefbom 9:05 36%
    Mark Fayne 8:35 60%
    Andrej Sekera 7:47 75%
    Eric Gryba 5:53 78%
    Justin Schultz 4:34 0%
    Brandon Davidson 3:00 50%

    Remember that Klef’s CF% w/o Jultz jumped 14% tonight too…..

  150. Kmart99 says:

    It’s just such bullshit the length of rope the Kings were given tonight. What exactly is a crosscheck? Slash?Interference? These LAK games always put my interpretation of the rules to the test.

  151. LostBoy says:

    Halfwise:
    No way the parallax thing applies, because there’s no way the puck could be up in the air after contacting the glove above it.

    My understanding is the parallax thing applies even if the puck is flush on the ice (this is the Sportsnet example), because the ice surface itself is elevated above the paint.

  152. G Money says:

    Kmart99,

    Easy: to be called on the Kings, blood must be drawn or limbs must be lost. Or it must be so blatant and in so much open ice that not calling it would make the TSN Highlight of the Night.

  153. Stanley 2018 says:

    Maybe the NHL could start using Thermal Imaging to determine. The puck would be warmer than the ice but colder than a Glove, so it may work. Regardless, the Video Review failed tonight, and that is unacceptable in this day and age.

    Oilers played a helluva 3rd period, hope the sting of a robbed point puts a burr in their saddle vs. Minny. We’re going to need an extra gear Tuesday.

    Holy crap do I miss Ebs right now.

  154. flyfish1168 says:

    G Money:
    I have been roundly mocked for claiming there seems to be something fishy going on with the reffing, and has been for years, given EVERY LAK (and a handful of other select teams) game ALWAYS seems to have suspect reffing.I mean, I expect *bad* reffing every game, but usually the terrible calls even up, over time if not within the game.

    But they almost *never* seem to even up against the Kings (until and unless the game is out of reach) … I assume I have lots of people jumping on the old tinfoil hat “Bettman Conspiracy” bandwagon after this game!

    I noticed this when I watched the Kings against the Oilers, and later against the Avs in Denver (I used to work fora Denver based company so saw a number of games at the Pepsi Center).The reffing was *markedly* different.Even almost.It was almost bizarre it was so different.

    So I tracked a bunch of games, Oiler and non-Oiler for a few weeks, and saw what I think was a pattern – certain US teams vs certain Cdn teams.(I’ve been asked for that data, but I wrote it on paper … I didn’t start watching games with a laptop in hand until I started posting on LT’s regularly, LOL.But you guys by now should know that one thing I definitely do is collect data).I mean hey, I’m biased for the Oilers, but I’m never going to call reffing biased in favour of the Phlegms or the Nucks.But there it was.

    Anyway, I make those claims only half jokingly.The evidence from watching just a few weeks worth of games isn’t truly strong and could even be imaginary (stare at numbers long enough and you’ll eventually see a pattern) … but on the other hand, I’ve NEVER been given a reason to doubt the theory either.

    I totally agree some teams and certain players can influence the ref. Nicholas Lidstrom was excellent at that, why stop there the whole dam red wings are.

  155. Kmart99 says:

    G Money:
    Kmart99,

    Easy: to be called on the Kings, blood must be drawn or limbs must be lost.Or it must be so blatant and in so much open ice that not calling it would make the TSN Highlight of the Night.

    That’s how it felt tonight

  156. Kmart99 says:

    Refs play way too large a role in Kings games. Staples posted a beauty meme in his article.

  157. Halfwise says:

    LostBoy: My understanding is the parallax thing applies even if the puck is flush on the ice (this is the Sportsnet example), because the ice surface itself is elevated above the paint.

    You’re right, and the thicker the ice the greater the effect now that I think about it.

  158. SwedishPoster says:

    Kmart99:
    Step 1: Score a goal https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSNyv6YWIAAhfXN.png:large

    Step 2: Ref calls it a goal http://striatic.net/misc/signaled%20in.png

    Step 3: Review the play and confirm the call on the ice stands

    Step 4: Then say no goal?

    This requires next level incompetence.

    This is what I don’t understand. He changes his mind on the ice. Why? The call on the ice would be whichever he ends up making I guess, so by the rules it’s a no goal call being reviewed. I hate that there are no interviews with the refs, I’d love to hear the reasoning.

    If the NHL are serious about video reviews they should either use the hawkeye tech or make the goalie gloves see-through. OR how about using more than just one angle. OR common sense. OR make every call favour the Oilers.

    Ok game, it was obvious the D was more patient and not as aggressive as they were against the Caps. Korpikoskis penalty was a weak call, but still, it was his second offensive zone penalty in the game. Can’t have that.
    I liked Davidsons game, him and Klef seemed comfortable with each other when they were on the ice in the third.

    I hate the Kings btw. Drag of a team, they play their style well and I think Kopitar is an amazing player but man can they play an annoying style of hockey. In italian soccer they call it “furbo” where the basic idea is that it’s a beatuiful thing when you cheat to win as long as you don’t get caught. Furbo as a word has sort of a dual meaning but in soccer it’s about winning at any cost. Anyway, Kings are the furbomasters of the NHL.

  159. v4ance says:

    I worked with the Hawkeye guys in Shanghai. I honesty don’t know how many cameras they used per court but I know that calibration took about 20 hours. Tennis courts are 78 feet by 36 feet whereas hockey rinks are roughly 200 feet by 85 feet.

    Issues with using hawkeye in hockey:

    1)Tennis, cricket and snooker use spherical objects which are easy to model. Pucks are cylinders which can be rectangular or circular based on the viewing angle. Harder to model but not impossible. The increased difficulty would mean that it would take longer for a system to recreate a good simulation.

    In the year before they approved the use of shotspot, the simulations took around 1 minute to process. The officials at that time (2005) didn’t approve the use until the modelling time got under 30 seconds consistently but it was cool being one of the first guys to see it working in the tv trailers onsite.

    2) The larger playing surface of an ice rink means accuracy of the system is much less than tennis or snooker where cameras are so much closer to the points of measurement. You need either more cameras or higher quality cameras to operate in a hockey setting… cost prohibitive.

    In tonight’s game, there needed to be three cameras on the right side of the rink looking directly towards Quick’s glove to triangulate the puck’s position and orientation. Cameras behind the net would have been blocked, cameras on the left side behind Quick would have been blocked and overhead cameras would have been blocked. Just as a preliminary system, you’d be looking at 12 HD cameras per side for each net whereas tennis courts could be covered with about 6 cameras for the entire surface.

    3) Skating causes snow when players stop and start. It is a factor that would decrease the reliability of the measurements.

    4) Hawkeye is still proprietary and very expensive to operate. That’s why it’s only used on the main courts or a select few outer courts, even for the Grand Slams of tennis.

    Honestly, the technology hasn’t quite caught up but t’s very close. If a Hawkeye system came in to the NHL within 3 years, it wouldn’t surprise me. NFL and FIFA haven’t brought it in yet either and they have tons more money than the NHL.

    You notice that MLB has had it for a few years for the “virtual” strike zone but not had a system for homerun calls. That’s because of the size of baseball stadiums and the cost of covering the entire outfield with overlapping camera views is still too expensive for them as well.

  160. Centre of attention says:

    I’m gonna start posting time stamps so the bloggers/commenters here with PVR or Gamecenter can go back and watch plays that we all point out.

    1:22:43 Klefbom just drops lucic to the deck in the corner, nice bit of cross checking action.

    1:26:54 Kopitar is cutting into the slot with a nice move and Klefbom with a great stick knocks the puck off Kopi’s stick into the corner stopping a dangerous situation instantly

    1:27:20 McDavid gets dumped in front of the net clear interference, before that Klefbom won the puck out of the scrum deep in the Oilers zone and sprang the 97 line loose with a nice pass, almost leading to a 97 empty netter.

    Over all I’ve been watching the game, and the Oilers thoroughly spanked the kings in the third. Tanner’s goal was just flukey as all hell.

    Klefbom for sure had a better 3rd period, 3 or 4 solid plays, he was skating better to, won a foot race and got an icing call early in the period that lead to a bunch of much needed offensive zone time for the Oilers.

    Also, in general, Sekera looked really comfy on the powerplay leading up to Halls goal [I know Klef got the Assist but…] I suggest he gets more minutes on the man advantage, perhaps until 19 comes back at least. Even then Sekera looked much more effective at keeping the puck in the o-zone and keeping the play alive then Schultz does at times.

  161. TheGreatMcMutato says:

    I’m still so mad about the game last night. NHL refs have far too much influence on my state of mind.

« Older Comments

Leave a Reply

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