G60 2016-17: OILERS AT LIGHTNING

The Edmonton Oilers are rolling through February, but there are some real challenges and we could see a breakdown dead ahead. Tonight, and tomorrow, this upstart Oilers group are going to get challenged in a real way. Take it to the limit, one more time.

GOING TO TAMPA, YEAR OVER YEAR

  • Oilers in October 2015: 4-8-0, goal differential -7
  • Oilers in October 2016: 7-2-0, goal differential +10
  • Oilers in November 2015: 4-7-2, goal differential -6
  • Oilers in November 2016: 5-8-2 goal differential -3
  • Oilers in December 2015: 7-6-1, goal differential -9
  • Oilers in December 2016: 7-2-5, goal differential +3
  • Oilers in January 2016: 4-5-2, goal differential -5
  • Oilers in January 2017: 9-4-1, goal differential +8
  • Oilers in February 2016: 3-8-2, goal differential -18
  • Oilers in February 2017: 4-3-0, goal differential +1
  • Oilers after 59, 2015-16: 22-31-6, goal differential -35
  • Oilers after 59, 2016-17: 32-19-8, goal differential +19

The Oilers lost G60 3-2 to the Colorado Avalanche at Rexall. At this point the Oilers were all lost in the supermarket and times were tough. This year the club (imo) has been a little lucky at times, including the first game of this road trip. We have seen good defending, and some fine goaltending, but Edmonton will need to play more complete games in Florida in order to grab points.

WHAT TO EXPECT FROM FEBRUARY

  • On the road to: Nashville, Carolina, Montreal (Expected: 1-1-1) (Actual 1-2-0)
  • At home to: Chicago, Arizona, Philadelphia (Expected: 1-1-1) (Actual 2-1-0)
  • On the road to: Chicago, Tampa Bay, Florida, Washington, Nashville, St. Louis (Expected: 2-3-1) (Actual: 1-0-0)
  • Overall expected result: 4-5-3, 11 points in 12 games
  • Overall current results: 4-3-0, 8 points in 7 games

This is close to fantasy, based on harshness of schedule, and a win in the next two games should be considered a good result. I think tonight is the better chance for Edmonton, but we will see who starts in goal and the rumored Russell—Gryba pairing offers its own challenges.

DEFENSE, 2016-17

  • This is WoodMoney along with 5×5/60 from Stats.HockeyAnalysis.com.
  • I see this as four men (Larsson, Sekera, Russell, Klefbom) carrying the heavy load, and those four gents are close in DFF Rel—all ranking from -0.4 through -1.1 so far this year.
  • It is also fair to be impressed with Matt Benning, who is now at 34 percent—equal to Klefbom—and is ripping up the Corsi Rel. If he posts 10 seasons like this one, we will be talking about Benning as one of the best defenders in Oilers team history. Haha. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Benning, who is No. 5, is really more like No. 4A based on the Woodmoney usage.
  • Larsson is a workhorse. Valuable thing.
  • I think the numbers suggest Edmonton has two (about) equal pairings: Klefbom—Larsson and Sekera—Benning. Does Todd McLellan agree? We will get his answer tonight, when Russell—Gryba play as the other pairing. What pairing do you think will end up playing the fewest 5×5 minutes?

FORWARDS, 2016-17

  • Connor McDavid soars with eagles. He goes ultimate McDavid in the wink of an eye and has to be the scariest thing in Defenseman World at this point in time.
  • Ryan Nugent-Hopkins is playing punishing minutes, 42 percent of his 5×5 time is against elites. This is Horcoff territory, or at least that is what my memory is saying.
  • Patrick Maroon and Leon Draisaitl have a good to great story to tell, with the zooming caveat about McDavid.
  • Jordan Eberle, again getting some help from 97, seems to be recovering his season in this rather late hour.
  • Matt Hendricks and Zack Kassian are in good spots based on where they bat in the lineup and the types of forwards who are their linemates. Kassian especially impresses considering the number of minutes against elites.
  • Milan Lucic and Benoit Pouliot have had similar 5×5 seasons. Interesting to see how fans feel about each player.
  • Jesse Puljujarvi, Drake Cagguila and Anton Slepyshev are exactly where rookies belong.

CURRENT STANDINGS

The Oilers keep getting good news on the out of town scoreboard. It’s like the hockey Gods spent a decade gumming up the works, and one day they all got bored with being dirt mean about the Oilers. Ara-freaking-zona knocked off the Ducks, with a goalie who had to come in from Upper Snowflake, Alaska to stop them Anaheim hooligans. Hope you slept well, Mr. Getzlaf, Mr. Perry and Mr. Kesler. Music!

TRADE OPTIONS

Which would you choose? If I thought the Oilers could get him signed and included under the cap, my vote would go to Tyler Johnson. In many ways, he is a perfect fit—RHC, good on the dot, can help on the power play. Johnson is not a volume shooter, but is an efficient one. Any of these men would be a solid pickup, Hanzal has to have impressed the Oilers in games they have seen him in.

OILERS STATS (ALL SITUATIONS)

This Year (Last Year)

  • Goals For Per 60: 2.77 (2.40)
  • Goals Against Per 60: 2.47 (2.92)
  • Goals For Percentage: 52.9 (45.1)
  • Shots For Per 60: 30.6 (28.7)
  • Shots Against Per 60: 29.3 (30.7)
  • Shots For Percentage: 51.0 (48.3)
  • Fenwick For Percentage: 51.1 (48.0)
  • Corsi For Percentage: 50.7 (48.5)
  • Shooting Percentage: 9.05 (8.35)
  • Save Percentage: 91.59 (90.50)
  • PDO: 100.6 (98.8)

Impressive year over year improvement across the board. Edmonton’s goal differential year over year has improved by 54 goals, a monumental improvement. We spend a lot of time identifying the third best Oiler (behind McDavid and Talbot), but for me one of the reasons we see this kind of spike is better depth across the board, balance at almost every position. If you ask yourself the following question about each man, how many yes votes do you get?

  • Can the Edmonton Oilers win the Stanley Cup with this player in his current position?

The answer for McDavid (No. 1 C) and Talbot (No. 1 G) is surely yes, but how many others can we give the check mark to? Surely we can agree the number is higher than one year ago.

THE OILERS IN THE 2017 DRAFT

  • First Round: No. 24 overall
  • Third Round: No. 82 overall (FROM ST. LOUIS—this is payment for Nail Yakupov)
  • Third Round: No. 86 overall
  • Fourth Round: No. 117 overall
  • Fifth Round: No. 129 overall (FROM Vancouver—this is payment for Phil Larsen)
  • Fifth Round: No. 148 overall
  • Sixth Round: No. 179 overall
  • Seventh Round: No. 210 overall

The more I dig down on this draft, the more I think Edmonton grabs a player like Kole Lind in the first round. Although he is not a big winger, Lind offers an impressive offensive arsenal and is a perfect fit for the current cluster. Another item I am looking at is players who fell through last year’s draft and are eligible again this year. An example: Tyler Steenbergen, who I ranked No. 62 for the 2016 draft. I talk to a WHL scout every once in a blue moon, and he told me Steenbergen actually stepped forward last season, and this year is more a matter of being in a more prominent spot in the lineup. Among his positives are a quick release and an ability to impact the flow of play consistently. I think the Oilers might be in a position to add someone like Steenbergen at this year’s draft.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, RYAN SMYTH!

Happy birthday to a heart and soul player who could still probably win a corner battle and get the puck to a good place for the Oilers. Turns 41 today, if the organization decides to honor a former player before each playoff game (Bruins do this, effectively), I think Smyth would be a fine place to start. His tears and departure signaled the decade of darkness, only fitting to bring him back on the first home playoff game at Rogers. I think that would be a fine idea.

 

 

written by

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

487 Responses to "G60 2016-17: OILERS AT LIGHTNING"

« Older Comments
  1. NYCOIL "Gentleman Backpacker" says:

    Pouzar:
    My Gord Laine.

    Yup. doubly good he is doing this in Toronto to the Leafs. Holy fuck is he good.

  2. Pouzar says:

    NYCOIL “Gentleman Backpacker”: they had the injury bug. Stamkos, Drouin, Bishop, triplets injured at various times this year. On paper when healthy they are still a good team. They were just starting to get hot lately when the Oilers came to town.

    They’ll win the lottery, draft my boy Nolan Patrick and dominate the East. It’s their formula.

  3. hunter1909 says:

    digger50: I look forward to Nurse / Gryba back together on third pairing.

    Nurse is terrifying.

    Darnell “The Destroyer” Nurse is scary. A punch from him hurts far more than ordinary punches. His punches seek and destroy.

  4. Centre of attention says:

    treevojo,

    NYCOIL “Gentleman Backpacker”,

    Agree the Oilers are still in this game for now it seems.

    Letting in another goal would kill them though.

    Brossoit has looked alright under pressure and without much help.

  5. Yeti says:

    treevojo:
    I’m not asking if they would take back the trade.

    I’m asking if given the choice today with the teams current records would either of them make that trade today?

    Oh. To me that doesn’t make as much sense as a hypothetical question. Clearly Chiarelli wouldn’t do that now if the Oilers were winning with this kind of record; and the Devils would jump on it. But there’s a lot of assumptions about those records if the teams had not made the trade in the summer.

  6. hunter1909 says:

    I hate this.

  7. --hudson-- says:

    Heck of a shot there

  8. Ice Sage says:

    Centre of attention:
    treevojo,

    NYCOIL “Gentleman Backpacker”,

    Agree the Oilers are still in this game for now it seems.

    Letting in another goal would kill them though.

    Brossoit has looked alright under pressure and without much help.

    Prophetic!
    I’ll get the rest of the game via push

  9. npanciroli says:

    Ugh.

  10. stevezie says:

    treevojo: Knowing what Chiarelli knows now 3/4 into this season do you think he would trade back Larsson for Hall today?

    Do you think Shero would trade Hall back for Larsson today?

    I don’t think either GM on does anything. I would, for reasons WG outlined yesterday.

  11. stevezie says:

    Fuck kucherov is good. If Tampa can go on a run i still think they could LA Kings this season

  12. npanciroli says:

    Yay.

  13. Lowetide says:

    Oscar scored.

  14. --hudson-- says:

    Beauty shift by Drai and 97

  15. Centre of attention says:

    Klefbom is fantastic.

    That 3rd goal against was a killer like I said though. It would be tied right now, how nice would that be?

  16. treevojo says:

    NYCOIL “Gentleman Backpacker”,

    Nope.

    They made the trade.

    Things have gone how they have gone.

    But they are given the option to make the trade back today.

    Hall for the oilers playoff push

    Larsson for whatever it is the devils are doing.

  17. npanciroli says:

    Hate this rule it’s so NHL.

  18. Dicky94 says:

    Offside.

  19. Centre of attention says:

    Oilers got away with an offside with hendricks goal in a game previously.

    This one is coming back.

    too bad really.

  20. npanciroli says:

    Offside imo

  21. stevezie says:

    This rule is maybe the most anti-fan thing in the NHL today

  22. npanciroli says:

    Who needs more scoring?

  23. Dicky94 says:

    Oil will still win this game.

  24. Professor Q says:

    You’ve got to be joking.

  25. NYCOIL "Gentleman Backpacker" says:

    treevojo:
    NYCOIL “Gentleman Backpacker”,

    Nope.

    They made the trade.

    Things have gone how they have gone.

    But they are given the option to make the trade back today.

    Hall for the oilers playoff push

    Larsson for whatever it is the devils are doing.

    So essentially reversing the trade today. As I said, neither team does it. Why would they?

  26. Acumen says:

    Is there one fan of NHL hockey that likes the offside review?

  27. Ryan says:

    How is that not an obstruction call for the dman holding Lucic?

  28. russ99 says:

    Acumen:
    Is there one fan of NHL hockey that likes the offside review?

    This is the textbook reason why it should be scrapped. How much time passed after the entry? Wasn’t that the third or fourth shot of rhe zone possession? How did the offsides affect the goal in any way?

  29. npanciroli says:

    TB gets their sticks on everything.

  30. kgo says:

    I’m done with Nuge….Trade him for 80 cents on the Dollar

  31. SayItAin'tSo, Gretz, SayItAin'tSo! says:

    russ99,

    If they whistled it down as an offside the Oilers wouldn’t have gained the zone and thus wouldn’t have scored the goal.

  32. npanciroli says:

    kgo,

    He really doesn’t contribute anything.

  33. JDï™ says:

    Acumen:
    Is there one fan of NHL hockey that likes the offside review?

    I’m guessing the small-bladdered fans like it.

  34. russ99 says:

    Back to continuing with our same offensive system, despite the opposition playing in a way that renders it inneffective.

  35. square_wheels says:

    What happened to Larsson ?

  36. Dino says:

    Larsson injured. Great.

  37. square_wheels says:

    kutcherov, jeebus

  38. Oil2Oilers says:

    I have seen Klefbom dreamy tonight

  39. russ99 says:

    How many shots do we have by our forwards this period, 1?

  40. Acumen says:

    This road trip is a no good very bad god awful time to lose Larsson for even one period. Don’t care about the game any more, all my hockey related concern is focused on him.

  41. Acumen says:

    russ99,

    Are shots redacted if they occur after a successfully challenged off side? If so, maybe zero?

  42. SayItAin'tSo, Gretz, SayItAin'tSo! says:

    russ99,

    No this is just the Oilers sucking overall tonight. I’ve seen Klefbom decent/good. After that I’ve got nobody

  43. NYCOIL "Gentleman Backpacker" says:

    Man, is #6 in blue good. Was always a fan. Advocated strongly for signing him. I know Dellow did, too. He is terrific. Right side with Stralman, Petry would have been pretty damn good. Oh well. I keep telling myself no McDavid if that happens when I lament what might have been.

  44. Southern Oil says:

    Just tuning in now – what happened with Larsson? Any early thoughts on status from others or does no one know?

  45. Centre of attention says:

    John ShannonVerified account‏@JSportsnet 1m1 minute ago
    More
    Adam Larsson. Just 2 shifts in 3rd period for Oilers.
    :46 and :10.
    Not on bench.

  46. Soup Fascist says:

    Seems like more hooks and holds on 97 tonight. Some pretty subtle, some less so.

    While Brossoit hasn’t been terrible he hasn’t made any big saves. Hopefully this will make Chia find an NHL backup, just in case.

    Pretty underwhelming game by the Oilers tonight.

  47. Yeti says:

    Dino:
    Larsson injured. Great.

    Quick – trade him back for Hall!

  48. Dicky94 says:

    Too much time on the beach today.

  49. russ99 says:

    We’ve had way too many periods where we don’t show up of late.

    Hope Larsson is OK.

  50. Dicky94 says:

    We need a centre who can win a face off more than a backup goalie.

  51. SayItAin'tSo, Gretz, SayItAin'tSo! says:

    Well that was a dogs breakfast of a game.

    Luckily they won’t be too tired after this one.

    Really hoping Larsson was precaution

    Ice is apparently an issue league wide this year

    http://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/18734062/nhl-nhlpa-working-improving-ice-condition-issues

  52. NYCOIL "Gentleman Backpacker" says:

    Yeah, that was one to forget. Quickly. Need some points tomorrow.

  53. JDï™ says:

    NYCOIL “Gentleman Backpacker”:
    Yeah, that was one to forget. Quickly. Need some points tomorrow.

    Which could have easily been said after the Shitcago game.

    At least they won’t have any time to accumulate rust between Florida games. Funny how an Oilers team is prone to rust.

  54. treevojo says:

    JDï™,

    Gene’s job is not safe.

  55. NYCOIL "Gentleman Backpacker" says:

    Damn, Flames almost blew it. 🙁

  56. Professor Q says:

    treevojo:
    JDï™,

    Gene’s job is not safe.

    Are you suggesting the Oilers dip into the Gene pool for new hires?

  57. hunter1909 says:

    You cannot win them all. On to Miami.

  58. Gerta Rauss says:

    Just caught up on the PVR

    I thought K-Bomb had a good game and LB looked fine

    An early goal in each period set the tone for the whole game

    On to Sunrise

  59. flyfish1168 says:

    Did anyone see how Larsson got hurt?

  60. Gerta Rauss says:

    NYCOIL “Gentleman Backpacker”: Did I mistake your “bigger boat comment” to imply that there were too many passengers in the first, then? Cause that doesn’t jive with “are trying hard.” I am confused. Fill me in

    I’ve been following Hunter since the blogspot days- there are subtle nuances to his speech patterns and thought processes

    Here, let me translate for you:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT9BeGNnCqw

  61. --hudson-- says:

    Craig Button shared his list of top 50 prospects outside the NHL.
    http://www.tsn.ca/talent/who-are-the-best-players-not-skating-in-the-nhl-1.677389

    Jesse is #6 as the Oilers only top 50 prospect.

    Teams with 4 prospects in top 50: Minnesota, Ottawa, and Vancouver
    Teams with 3: Arizona, Columbus, Philly, Winnipeg

    It’s a pretty good list, his 2016 version greatly helped my fantasy team.
    http://www.tsn.ca/tsn-hockey-s-top-50-nhl-affiliated-prospects-1.436669

  62. NYCOIL "Gentleman Backpacker" says:

    Gerta Rauss: I’ve been following Hunter since the blogspot days- there are nuances to his speech patterns and thought processes

    Here, let me translate for you:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT9BeGNnCqw

    Yeah, I overthought it. Should have thought less, as he pointed out.

  63. treevojo says:

    Professor Q,

    I’m sure he could use some help this year.

    It’s been a long time since he needed material to make it to the start of April.

  64. Gerta Rauss says:

    NYCOIL “Gentleman Backpacker”: Yeah, I overthought it. Should have thought less, as he pointed out.

    lol

    there are sage words in his teachings

  65. spoiler says:

    Pouzar:
    Caggs misses the net high. Everybody drink.

    Can I stop drinking now?

    *burps*

  66. JDï™ says:

    treevojo:
    JDï™,

    Gene’s job is not safe.

    I’ll do it for half the hair gel.

  67. JDï™ says:

    spoiler: *burps*

    After the 3rd period buzzer in Sunrise.

  68. spoiler says:

    stevezie: What? I must not be understanding you correctly. Of course trades are lost, and of course it is because one side has either bad information or irrationality. I think the Bruins lost the Thornton trade, for example. Prima facie

    Could you restate that last point about trades not happening if one side is losing?

    Sorry, first life interrupted and now the site just ate an in-depth reply. Short version…

    By what measure are you stating the Thornton trade, at the moment, was a loss?

    You can only say that you wouldn’t have done the trade, in your personal circumstances, with what you knew and with your personal value system.

    That does not make the trade a loss.

    Look at the dying man paying Sharif a 100 smackaroonies for a bottle of water that you buy for retail at $3, that my Mom gets from Costco for $2.47 because she buys them in packs of 400, and that my sister pays $10 for in Resolute Bay… and that is nearly worthless if you try to sell Sherif one.

    Did the dying man lose the transaction because he paid 33 times the retail at an Edmonton Winks?

    Edit:
    Or say 500 times more than what the seller himself would pay for it?

  69. spoiler says:

    Acumen:
    Is there one fan of NHL hockey that likes the offside review?

    The NHL doesn’t like it either and will be changing things this off-season. Changing mid-season would of course be wrong.

  70. spoiler says:

    NYCOIL “Gentleman Backpacker”: I think neither would take back the trade.

    Exactly.

  71. Yeti says:

    flyfish1168:
    Did anyone see how Larsson got hurt?

    Apparently he ruptured his frontal lobe contemplating the deep nuances of whether he should have been traded for Taylor Hall. MacLellan says that, so long as he stays off the blogosphere, he’ll be all healed up in no time.

  72. Yeti says:

    spoiler: Sorry, first life interrupted and now the site just ate an in-depth reply. Short version…

    By what measure are you stating the Thornton trade, at the moment, was a loss?

    You can only say that you wouldn’t have done the trade, in your personal circumstances, with what you knew and with your personal value system.

    That does not make the trade a loss.

    Look at the dying man paying Sharif a 100 smackaroonies for a bottle of water that you buy for retail at $3, that my Mom gets from Costco for $2.47 because she buys them in packs of 400, and that my sister pays $10 for in Resolute Bay… and that is nearly worthless if you try to sell Sherif one.

    Did the dying man lose the transaction because he paid 33 times the retail at an Edmonton Winks?

    Edit:
    Or say 500 times more than what the seller himself would pay for it?

    Whoa. I think someone put vodka in your water bottle. Or perhaps it was in mine 🙂

  73. stevezie says:

    spoiler,

    I’m not sure the water analogy applies, because if you don’t buy the water you also loose all your money. It’s not like The Oilers were about to cease to exist.

    I am calling the Thornton trade a loss the moment is was made because in my opinion, both immediately and forever after Joe Thornton comtribues more to a winning hockey team than the three guys he was traded for.

    This criteria seems pretty universally agreed upon. I’m not clear on yours, but I am going to take a guess:

    Are you saying you can’t call a trade a loss if you got something you need? I heard Lou Lamerello say something like that once. Makes a certain kind of sense, but I feel it has two limitations:
    1) Did you create other needs?
    The Hall trade seems like an obvious example. We once needed a D, now we need secondary scoring. I don’t think it is controversial to either side to say we shuffled needs.
    2) Did you actually meet the needs you thought you did?
    For example, I thought a high 2nd and a 3rd for Brian Elliott was a great deal for the Flames because they got the goalie they needed.
    Except they didn’t. I thought they did, but I was wrong. So while that deal might not have been the obvious loss the minute it was made (like the Thornton deal was), it has certainly become a bad deal.
    3) Did you give away an opportunity worth more than the need you addressed? THe best example of this would probably be the Hull trade. Sure the Flames got a nice second pairing D and a backup goalie, and they won the cup! But good mercy, they traded away Brett Hull for a defensive defenceman and a backup goalie they barely played!

    My response might be nonsense. My sympathies regarding your lost post (we’ve all been there), but how do you propose we judge a trade?

  74. GMB3 says:

    stevezie:
    spoiler,

    I’m not sure the water analogy applies, because if you don’t buy the water you also loose all your money. It’s not like The Oilers were about to cease to exist.

    I am calling the Thornton trade a loss the moment is was made because in my opinion, both immediately and forever after Joe Thornton comtribues more to a winning hockey team than the three guys he was traded for.

    This criteria seems pretty universally agreed upon. I’m not clear on yours, but I am going to take a guess:

    Are you saying you can’t call a trade a loss if you got something you need? I heard Lou Lamerello say something like that once. Makes a certain kind of sense, but I feel it has two limitations:
    1) Did you create other needs?
    The Hall trade seems like an obvious example. We once needed a D, now we need secondary scoring. I don’t think it is controversial to either side to say we shuffled needs.
    2) Did you actually meet the needs you thought you did?
    For example, I thought a high 2nd and a 3rd for Brian Elliott was a great deal for the Flames because they got the goalie they needed.
    Except they didn’t. I thought they did, but I was wrong. So while that deal might not have been the obvious loss the minute it was made (like the Thornton deal was), it has certainly become a bad deal.
    3) Did you give away an opportunity worth more than the need you addressed? THe best example of this would probably be the Hull trade. Sure the Flames got a nice second pairing D and a backup goalie, and they won the cup! But good mercy, they traded away Brett Hull for a defensive defenceman and a backup goalie they barely played!

    My response might be nonsense. My sympathies regarding your lost post (we’ve all been there), but how do you propose we judge a trade?

    Have you ever considered the chance that you, Bruce Wayne, etc.. overvalue Taylor Hall?

    You said you don’t watch the team anymore because they aren’t exciting to watch anymore? Were they an exciting team to watch when they were battling for last place? Was Taylor Hall gaining the blueline with possession, often losing it shortly after with a poorly attempted dangle or a weak shot from the outside (or just falling down), more exciting than watching Connor McDavid? I don’t understand that line of thought, and would love to learn more about it.

    I’m more pissed we drafted Taylor Hall instead of Tyler Seguin. RHC who was younger, played one less year in the OHL, and scored similarly (and more goals) despite playing on a much worse team (iirc). Chia gets so much undeserved hate on this forum. The guy was brought in to help the team become competitive after lord knows how many rebuilds, and he’s done a good job.

    But burn him at the stake, because Taylor Hall is a biblical figure in these parts.

  75. GMB3 says:

    and I don’t mean to undersell Taylor Halls skill as a player. He is a good hockey player, and his fancy stats may be elite.. but this corner of the internet overvalues him without question.

    Why chose to maintain being a fan after the Doug Weight trade, but jump off the bus after the Hall trade.

  76. Georges says:

    stevezie:
    spoiler,

    but how do you propose we judge a trade?

    Part I

    Well, we have the Oilers with Hall and the Devils with Larsson in 2015-16. The players change teams for 2016-17.

    You said the Thornton trade was an immediate loss because Thornton contributes more to winning (I think that’s what you meant). Winning means goal differential.

    Let’s look at the goal differential for the Oilers in 2015-16 with Hall on and off the ice in all situations and then look at the same numbers for the Devils and Larsson.

    Hall On/Off, GF, GA, +/-

    On, 82, 66, +16
    Off, 117, 176, -59

    Larsson On/Off, GF, GA, +/-

    On, 53, 59, -6
    Off, 129, 143, -14

    When you look at these numbers, it’s not even close. The difference between having Hall on and off the ice for the Oilers in 2015-16 was 75 in goal differential, while the difference that Larsson made for the Devils was a modest 8. Hall contributes way more to winning hockey games than Larsson does. Full stop as the board likes to say.

    Let’s keep going and look at the results for 2016-17 after the players switched teams.

    Hall On/Off, GF, GA, +/-

    On, 49, 28, +21
    Off, 87, 142, -55

    Larsson On/Off, GF, GA, +/-

    On, 52, 52, 0
    Off, 116, 100, +16

    Again, not even close. The goal differential for the Devils with Hall on the ice is 76 goals higher than with Hall off the ice. Meanwhile, the Oilers come out 16 goals ahead with Larsson off the ice. They’re a better team without him for goodness sake!

    Clearly, the Devils got the better player, the player who contributes more to winning. The Devils won the trade.

    Part II

    The goals for and against numbers above are for all situations. Hall plays the PP, Larsson plays PK. At 5v5, the difference between the players isn’t that great. In fact, they favor Larsson a little bit, but I’m not going to list those numbers.

    What’s interesting is that while the spread in the goal differential with Larsson on and off the ice for the Devils and the Oilers is relatively modest, the results for Hall are extravagant and nearly identical for the two seasons with two different clubs.

    It used to be that the problem with the Oilers wasn’t Hall, it was the rest of the team. Now it’s the problem with the Devils isn’t Hall, it’s the rest of the team.

    Larsson is an experienced defenseman who is physically and mentally capable of playing lots of 5v5 and 4v5 minutes and holding his own. He eases the pressure on the rest of the lineup and lets other defensemen slip into easier spots where they can be more successful.

    The Devils spent many years building Larsson up to be a “defensive defenseman” who can play tough minutes. Then they traded him for Hall, an elite forward.

    In giving up Larsson, the Devils acquired a better player and hurt the rest of the team. In giving up Hall, the Oilers got back a worse player but helped the rest of the team.

    When you net it out to this point in the season, the Oilers won the trade.

  77. stevezie says:

    GMB3: Have you ever considered the chance that you, Bruce Wayne, etc.. overvalue Taylor Hall?

    You said you don’t watch the team anymore because they aren’t exciting to watch anymore? Were they an exciting team to watch when they were battling for last place? Was Taylor Hall gaining the blueline with possession, often losing it shortly after with a poorly attempted dangle or a weak shot from the outside (or just falling down), more exciting than watching Connor McDavid? I don’t understand that line of thought, and would love to learn more about it.

    I’m more pissed we drafted Taylor Hall instead of Tyler Seguin. RHC who was younger, played one less year in the OHL, and scored similarly (and more goals) despite playing on a much worse team (iirc). Chia gets so much undeserved hate on this forum. The guy was brought in to help the team become competitive after lord knows how many rebuilds, and he’s done a good job.

    But burn him at the stake, because Taylor Hall is a biblical figure in these parts.

    To keep it brief:
    Yes, I suppose we may have, but both my eyes and the counting tell me we have him pretty close to right. I will, however, grant you that he is probably about to start declining. I expect a kessel-like trajectory.

    You know trading Taylor didn’t make way for Connor, right?

    Connor is the most exciting player in the game today and I love watching him. The rest of the team can be a bit plodding at times, but at least half of this is on the NHL, not the team. That said this team is definitely not optimised for excitement.

    I never said I stopped watching them. Watched them tonight.

    I haven’t said one word about Chia on this thread, but since you asked I think Godot’s trademarked #thouroughlymediocre fits. He’s made some great moves, some strange ones, some bad ones. I don’t think it averages out that great, but even if you like him better than me the reason the Oilers are making the playoffs is he walked up on stage without falling and pronounced 97’s name correctly. Talbot helps, and I have given him credit for that all the way.

    I’m at least a little curious why you chose to rant at me based on a post that wasn’t even about the Hall trade. I used it as an example of a certain kind of trade but spoke of it in very neutral terms.

    GMB3:
    and I don’t mean to undersell Taylor Halls skill as a player. He is a good hockey player, and his fancy stats may be elite.. but this corner of the internet overvalues him without question.

    Why chose to maintain being a fan after the Doug Weight trade, but jump off the bus after the Hall trade.

    Good question. I think it’s that some people like this trade. No one was saying Jochen Hect filled a need and we were better off.

    It’s a fun lesson in psychology, actually. How arguing with someone is one of the worst ways to get them to change their position.

    Or possibly people just hate it because it was unforced. We could have been beautiful, and nothing is as haunting as unfulfilled potential.

  78. stevezie says:

    Georges: In giving up Larsson, the Devils acquired a better player and hurt the rest of the team. In giving up Hall, the Oilers got back a worse player but helped the rest of the team

    The effect you’re describing sounds downright magical.

    “In giving up Hall, the Oilers got back a fine defenceman at a position they were desperate at, the Oilers had/acquired other players who could play Hall’s position. Sure Hall is better than them, but there’s a bigger gap between Larsson and whoever we would have used instead of him so, effectively, through mitigating weak spots and signing a good Hall replacement, the team is stronger even if Hall is better than Larson.”

    That’s makes sense. I think it’s wrong, but I get it.

    I don’t get the idea that Hall can be an excellent player but magically makes infects his team with losing. How do you figure?

    Am I misunderstanding the Part I/II thing you’ve got going?

  79. russ99 says:

    I liked Todd’s comments after the game on the forwards.

    But still, if you set up a cycle system where sending the puck back to the point is safe option 1, you can’t be too mad when the players over-rely on that under pressure.

  80. Yeti says:

    Georges: In giving up Larsson, the Devils acquired a better player and hurt the rest of the team. In giving up Hall, the Oilers got back a worse player but helped the rest of the team.
    When you net it out to this point in the season, the Oilers won the trade.

    Interesting, provocative take.
    I’m not sure that you can quite take the Hall vs Larsson part in pure isolation, however.
    Part of Chia’s reasoning was that Lucic would take up some (not all) of the slack that Hall left. Given historical performance, this was (I believe) a reasonable bet with some risk (and risk that grows exponentially over the length of the contract).
    The relative underperformance of Lucic is a prime reason this trade is debated so fiercely. If he was performing to historical levels, we’d be a little happier. Even contract wise, we could say that Chia gained one value contract (Larsson) and overspent on the Hall replacement.
    The trouble is that Lucic is not bossing it. Far, far from it. Why he is so far below his normal mark is for better minds than me to figure out, but I do believe that is the crux of the issue.

  81. Ryan says:

    I read this thread before I went to sleep last night.

    All night long I kept having recurring dreams where I was crying over spilled milk.

    Any ideas why?

  82. PhrankLee says:

    Well they laid a steamer on the road with that game!

  83. Pescador says:

    Ryan:
    I read this thread before I went to sleep last night.

    All night long I kept having recurring dreams where I was crying over spilled milk.

    Any ideas why?

    Maybe your a pussy
    cat. 😀
    Whereas I cryed myself too sleep.

  84. frjohnk says:

    Ryan:
    I read this thread before I went to sleep last night.

    All night long I kept having recurring dreams where I was crying over spilled milk.

    Any ideas why?

    You miss Lander?

  85. Chachi says:

    stevezie: I don’t get the idea that Hall can be an excellent player but magically makes infects his team with losing. How do you figure?

    I won’t pretend to speak for Georges, but I believe he isn’t saying that at all and I am not sure how you come to that conclusion from what he wrote.

  86. GMB3 says:

    stevezie: To keep it brief:
    Yes, I suppose we may have, but both my eyes and the counting tell me we have him pretty close to right. I will, however, grant you that he is probably about to start declining. I expect a kessel-like trajectory.

    You know trading Taylor didn’t make way for Connor, right?

    Connor is the most exciting player in the game today and I love watching him. The rest of the team can be a bit plodding at times, but at least half of this is on the NHL, not the team. That said this team is definitely not optimised for excitement.

    I never said I stopped watching them. Watched them tonight.

    I haven’t said one word about Chia on this thread, but since you asked I think Godot’s trademarked #thouroughlymediocre fits. He’s made some great moves, some strange ones, some bad ones. I don’t think it averages out that great, but even if you like him better than me the reason the Oilers are making the playoffs is he walked up on stage without falling and pronounced 97’s name correctly. Talbot helps, and I have given him credit for that all the way.

    I’m at least a little curious why you chose to rant at me based on a post that wasn’t even about the Hall trade. I used it as an example of a certain kind of trade but spoke of it in very neutral terms.

    Good question. I think it’s that some people like this trade. No one was saying Jochen Hect filled a need and we were better off.

    It’s a fun lesson in psychology, actually. How arguing with someone is one of the worst ways to get them to change their position.

    Or possibly people just hate it because it was unforced. We could have been beautiful, and nothing is as haunting as unfulfilled potential.

    I never once said trading Taylor made way for Connor. I’m meant that in regards to the team being not exciting to watch anymore. I thought I read earlier in the thread that you quit watching because it wasn’t as exciting after the Hall trade.

    I didn’t mean my rant to be directed entirely at you, or to be negative or attacking.

« Older Comments

Leave a Reply

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