OILERS NO. 1 PROSPECT (winter 2015): CONNOR MCDAVID

It was a sunny April afternoon in Northern Alberta, one of those days where going inside and watching television seems contrary to logic and reason. That morning, I wrote the following:

  • Light a candle. Send a message heavenward to the God who’ll listen, find some instant karma and think good thoughts. People will tell you the Edmonton Oilers don’t deserve McDavid, I say diddly squat. Edmonton Oilers fans have earned the right to have two lottery picks and win the day, and perhaps the hockey Gods have been beating fans senseless these years in order for us to earn our reward. Source

As I sat down to watch the draft lottery, I swear to God the idea of winning the thing never crossed my mind. I had written a post in the early morning hours of the day—a mock draft that I quickly and clumsily had to revise later—and had resigned myself to McDavid heading to Buffalo.

dorito

There are no words, rhymes or chimes to truly describe it, beyond the universal line we all share in historic moments: “Where we you?” and that’s about all there is to say about it. I was in my easy chair, stone cold shocked and spilling my wine. I’m still a little that way about it.

oilers lottery

PREVIOUSLY NO. 1 ON THE WINTER LIST

  • December 2005: G Jeff Drouin-Deslauriers
  • December 2006: L Viacheslav Trukhno
  • December 2007: C Sam Gagner
  • December 2008: C Riley Nash
  • December 2009: L Magnus Paajarvi
  • December 2010: L Taylor Hall
  • December 2011: C Ryan Nugent-Hopkins
  • December 2012: R Nail Yakupov
  • December 2013: D Darnell Nurse
  • December 2014: C Leon Draisaitl

McDavid continues a recent run of centers, Edmonton’s depth at the position now is (or will be) the strongest since the Stanley teams. Some day, out in the future, the Oilers could have a top 3C of Connor McDavid, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins and Leon Draisaitl. Two acquired with No. 1 overall selections, the other inside the top five overall—all of this in a five-year period. Now that’s a cluster!

mcdavid capture chels

WHAT THEY SAID ON DRAFT DAY

  • Ranked No. 1 across the board. This is a generational player.
  • Craig Button, TSN: Two words; unprecedented speed. Skating speed, hand quickness and mental processing that he executes simultaneously to threaten defenders and create opportunities. He would be the first pick at every draft since Sidney Crosby in 2005, perhaps even in Crosby’s draft year. Source.
  • Red Line: Dynamic speed and acceleration forces dmen to back off the blue line. Has a top end separation gear that’s a blur.
  • ISS: An intelligent, creative player that can wait for the play to come to him or create something out of nothing. A natural playmaker that is not afraid to go to the middle of the ice to make plays and makes those around him better. Has elite hockey IQ and knows where to be on the ice at all times.
  • McKeens: Explodes up the ice in one stride and can blow by a defender before he even has time to pivot .. incredibly balanced and strong on his skates – tough to knock down despite countless attempts by the opposition.
  • Future Considerations: An offensive threat with tremendous speed, McDavid is lethal in transition and makes opponents step back because of his ability to burn them quickly.
  • Black Book: Connor possesses electrifying speed and acceleration. He gets his feet moving instantaneously and gets everything out of his stride, allowing him to pull away from good skaters quickly. At least once per game you would think he has a turbo button for his skates. His vision is outstanding and he always seems to know who’s around him and what his best option is. He combines these two skills to create plays for his
    linemates.
  • “If there is any player in the NHL that I would like to become, it’s Pavel Datysuk. He has amazing offensive skills but is also someone that the coach can put on in the last 30 seconds in a one goal game because he is also very defensive minded. He is the complete 2-way player”.Connor McDavid, when asked if there was anyone in the NHL he looks at and says ‘that’s the player I’d like to become’? (2012 interview)

oilers mcdavid tsn

  • Connor McDavid about his combine interview with the Oilers: “It was exciting and obviously that’s the kind of team you want to be with if you are drafted No. 1. [Chiarelli] was saying all the right things. He was intense and he’s definitely looking to win. He’s not going to settle for mediocrity. I just want to make an impression with teams I talk to, make sure they understand what kind of guy I am and what I can bring to their team. Other than that I just want to make sure they know I’m doing all the right things, working hard in the gym, and maybe they’ll put together a decent score for me.” Source

mcdavid calgary two

2015-16

Connor McDavid’s rookie season started slowly, but he smashed through by game five; there were two games in his first 13 I’ll remember a long time. The first one came at the Saddledome, where points go to die for the Oilers. The young man seemed quiet early, taking everything in, then proceeded to cut through Flames with ease, scoring two goals and adding an assist. The second game I’ll remember forever, it was against the Habs and McDavid was on another planet in terms of hockey acumen. I’m an emotional person, and hockey is an emotional game when done right. That night against Montreal chills ran down my spine and I could not sit still for love nor money. Whatever powers from the Gods he summoned that night, I thank them kindly and the 18-year old along with it. It was beautiful—0-3 to 4-3 before you could get to the second corner in Cournoyer. Unforgettable. The good kind, the Nat King Cole kind.

  • Corey Pronman: “He will be on the Oilers top 6F right away and there’s a non-zero chance he passes Ryan Nugent-Hopkins on the depth chart by the end of the season. Once he skates in his first NHL game in October he’ll be in the upper echelon of the NHL in terms of his speed and skill. It’s just a matter of his physical game and what he does this summer to get ready for the physical grind and much bigger, stronger players facing him.”
  • Taylor Hall: “He’s got a lot of foot speed. He seems to glide faster than most guys skate in full speed. It’s fun to be out here with him, fun to hang around him and hopefully make him feel more comfortable for what he’s got in store.” Source
  • Todd McLellan: “We all focus on his offense, but he’s responsible [defensively].  I felt good about his penalty-killing. I didn’t know I was going to use him, but as the night went on, we used him and he was good positionally. When you have legs like that, you can recover from errors a lot quicker, and he has the ability to do that. But he’s not flying all over the place in the D zone, he stops, he slows down, he understands he can get back to full speed quickly. He was very responsible defensively tonight. We’ll see where it goes from there.”
  • Jeff Chapman, Copper & Blue: “Connor McDavid, will you marry me?”
  • Alan Hull, Copper & Blue: “McDavid is better than I thought possible.”
  • Benoit Pouliot: “With his speed, with his strength, with his hands, he’s never out of the play. I’m a big fan right now.”
  • McDavid on beating the Habs: “We have been finding ways to lose. To do it the other way around feels pretty special.”
  • Brian King (PDO): “How many times will anyone make Subban look that bad? McDavid has completely taken this game over.”
  • Heather Marginet: “McDavid makes Subban look like a junior dman!”
  • Dave Lumley: “I came, I saw, I believe.”
  • Todd McLellan: “Connor has met our expectations so far. Perhaps one of the things that his impressed me so far is his ability to handle pressure, both at the rink and away from it. He’s a tremendous young man.”
  • Lowetide post-game notes after Detroit game: Connor McDavid has this habit of sussing out the situation before impacting a game. He was effective but not impactful early in the game, and then late in the first period did a blue bayou past a shocked Detroit defender. After that, it was golden, like he’d proven it to himself and he crashed through whatever false ceiling held him back. From that point on, he was breathtaking. The goal was sensational, the backchecking a sublime chaser, and the play where he somehow avoided a check and still kept possession? I’ll call that one impossible.
  • Justin Cuthbert: Dreger said he was told that McDavid’s labrum was fully intact as surgeons repaired a “clean” break of the collarbone, and hypothesized that the best-case scenario for his return is seven-to-eight weeks. Source

  • 5×5 points per 60: 2.94 No. 2 among forwards
  • 5×4 points per 60: 5.05 No. 4 among forwards
  • Qual Comp: No. 3 among C’s
  • Qual Team: No. 2 among C’s
  • Corsi Rel: 12.5 No. 3 among F’s
  • Corsi for % 5×5: 51.6
  • Zone Start: 60.4
  • Shots on goal/percentage: 24/20.8
  • Boxcars: 13GP, 5-7-12 (before injury, on pace for 32-44-76)

MCDAVID WOWY

mcdavid wowy

McDavid is 3.48/60 with Nail Yakupov (and Benoit Pouliot) this season, that’s the kind of chemistry that can make an enormous difference. We’re going to miss him like mad until he returns, but those baker’s dozen games were an absolute treat.

THE FUTURE

Well, it’s going to be awhile, months instead of weeks. We probably should let go of the Calder idea, but to hell with that noise I’ll keep a candle lit and curse the hockey Gods. No matter how long he is out, Connor McDavid is a splendid, incredible talent who does in fact make an enormous difference to the Edmonton Oilers—today. Dave Lumley said it all.

THE 2015 ENTRY DRAFT

  • Connor McDavid No. 1 overall and a generational talent. It’s an amazing time in team history, delayed. No. 1 prospect.
  • Caleb Jones No. 117 overall and a more substantial prospect than we assumed on draft day. Currently 16GP, 4-9-13 in the WHL and a prospect of interest. A candidate for the Winter Top 20.
  • Ethan Bear No. 124 overall and he’s as good as the numbers I was looking at before the draft. Nice two-way ability and he’s 17GP, 4-13-17 in Seattle of the WHL so far this season. Inside the Winter Top 20.
  • John Marino No. 154 overall and a solid combination of speed and skill. At 6.02, 185 he has what scouts call a ‘projectable frame’ and offensively (13GP, 1-9-10) he’s probably in the range or a little shy of Jones and Bear. A candidate for the Winter Top 20.
  • Miroslav Svoboda No. 208 overall and a reasonable bet on draft day. He’s playing in the Czech 2 league and is 8GP, 4.51 .866. A candidate for the Winter Top 20.
  • Ziyat Paigin No. 209 overall and an interesting prospect. He’s 11GP, 0-3-3 (his goal was changed to an assist) and playing more after the trade to Sochi. 6.06, 210, I don’t know if that’s a projectable frame or an actual structure but he’s a player of interest. A candidate for the Winter Top 20.

His EV scoring is my favorite thing about early McDavid, he compares well to some famous rookies over the years in 5×5 points-per-60.

  1. Connor McDavid 2015-16 2.94
  2. Mark Stone 2014-15 2.57
  3. Bobby Ryan 2008-09 2.55
  4. Jeff Skinner 2010-11 2.44
  5. Patrick Kane 2007-08 2.27
  6. Nicklas Backstrom 2007-08 2.25
  7. Filip Forsberg 2014-15 2.23
  8. Max Domi 2015-16 2.18
  9. Nail Yakupov 2012-13 2.14
  10. Ondrej Palat 2013-14 2.13
  11. Logan Couture 2010-11 2.10
  12. Nathan MacKinnon 2013-14 2.07
  13. Ryan Nugent-Hopkins 2011-12 1.95
  14. Johnny Gaudreau 2014-15 1.74
  15. Matt DuChene 2009-10 1.66
  16. Gabriel Laneskog 2011-12 1.63
  17. Taylor Hall 2010-11 1.57
  18. Jonathan Huberdeau 2012-13 1.53
  19. John Tavares 2009-10 1.32

That’s incredible. At 18, he’s firing at about .5 above Patrick Kane, who arrived to a much stronger NHL team. You only get one chance to make a first impression, and McDavid took a month to figure out the best league on the planet. Astonishing. If he hadn’t come along the hockey Gods would have had to invent him.

written by

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

107 Responses to "OILERS NO. 1 PROSPECT (winter 2015): CONNOR MCDAVID"

  1. Lowetide says:

    A busy morning on the Lowdown, beginning at 10, TSN1260. Scheduled to appear:
    • Scott Burnside, ESPN. We’ll talk about the HHOF inductees. Incredible class.
    • Andrew Bucholtz, 55-Yard Line. Ottawa REDBLACKS are the story of the season. We’ll also talk about Saskatchewan and Montreal, big changes this offseason for both franchises.
    • Sunil Agnihotri, Copper & Blue. What does this organization do to goalies? And does Chiarelli make roster changes in the coming weeks?
    • Open Line at 11:25. Your chance to chime in. Hope you call or text!
    10-1260 text, @Lowetide on twitter. Season is NOT over yet!

  2. Sugar Reijo says:

    *sigh*

    This game is killing me.

    Slowly.

    Surely.

  3. Bag of Pucks says:

    “Some day, out in the future, the Oilers could have a top 3C of Connor McDavid, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins and Leon Draisaitl. All acquired with No. 1 overall selections in a five-year period. Now that’s a cluster!”

    Leon acquired with a 1OV pick?

  4. vishcosity says:

    Fun read. Its fun to be a fan of awesome and amazing things that I have no chance to ever do on my own.

    I honestly haven’t watched any of the games since he went down. Other things seem more important now, unlike while he was in the line up. That was when other things didn’t matter as much.

  5. linkfromhyrule says:

    Thanks for the reality check LT. I think people are forgetting a lot of what was discussed at length this summer. We drafted a generational player, not a one-stop shop solution to the problems that have plagued this team for the past decade. We are incredibly lucky to have done that.

    The problems with this team are still real and spectacular. Every night we are icing a D corps with any 4 of 3 rookies, Gryba, and Fayne, and people are wondering why we are finding it difficult to stick around with the good teams? This wasn’t going to be fixed over night.

    The goalies have not been good enough, but the D has matched them stride for stride in awfulness. Losing Jultz hurts, despite what some would like us to believe. Even with Jultz, there has been far too many blown coverages. Fayne was atrocious for 2/3 of the game last night.

    Chia was given a literal Mt. Everest to climb, and right now he has barely made it past Base Camp 2.

  6. doritogrande says:

    Woo, I’m relevant again.

    Much was made of our failures in the non-first-round during the MacGregor era, but holy hell those are two terrible #1 prospects until Gagner comes around.

  7. godot10 says:

    //McDavid is 3.48/60 with Nail Yakupov (and Benoit Pouliot) this season, that’s the kind of chemistry that can make an enormous difference. We’re going to miss him like mad until he returns, but those baker’s dozen games were an absolute treat.//

    It is likely McDavid will be better with Eberle. Pouliot and Yakupov are middling players. Hall with McDavid didn’t work, and probably won’t. Hall needs the puck too much. You have to give McDavid one elite winger, so it probably will be Eberle eventually (or maybe Draisaitl) Plus, Eberle will enable McDavid to play a less risky game, because, unlike Yakupov, Eberle is much more available for passes and for the give-and-go. Yakupov tends to get lost in the supermarket.

    Blair McDonald, Dave Lumley, Rob Brown all did fine playing with generational players, but they ultimately are drags on the generational player. Yakupov is actually a lot like Rob Brown.

  8. godot10 says:

    1) Mark Fayne, 2 more years after this year, $3.7 million per season, #8D on the Edmonton Oilers
    2) Nikita Nikitin, last year on contract, $4.5 million, #11D on the Edmonton Oilers
    3) Andrew Ference, one more year after this year with NMC, $3.25 million, #13D on the Edmonton Oilers.

    Note: Jeff Petry, many more years at $5.5 million per season, #3D on the Montreal Canadiens.

    Thank you, MacT! -).

  9. Ca$h-McMoney! says:

    godot10,

    You can actually thank the analytics community for Mark Fayne, he was the consensus best available pick in that free agency period and that contract was widely celebrated when it was signed.

    I continue to believe he’s better than his numbers show, but I’m also seeing all 4 of the kids better than him right now (and the kids have warts of their own, for sure).

  10. dustrock says:

    Not sure if anyone would ever have time to actually delve into this, but it would be interesting to look at the quarterly records of teams who turnover 1/3 of their roster in one season.

    I would expect, both with rookies and veterans, that you’d usually get 2-3 new people added per year. They’d all have to learn a new system, but it wouldn’t be as immediately obvious because the rest of the roster is established and have chemistry, and can cover to an extent for the weak links in the chain until they’re up to speed.

    Now the Oilers have a team where not only has the entire roster never played for McLellan before (other than Hall and Eberle briefly in the Worlds), but probably about one-third to one-half of the roster is new to the team and so they don’t even have chemistry with each other.

    Now add in injuries to Eberle, Schultz, McDavid and Hendricks.

    Sigh. It’s really hard to find the energy to watch right now. I suppose once winter hits for good, I’ll be housebound more, but right now, I just find I’ve got better things to do than watch another moral victory.

  11. Pouzar says:

    dustrock,

    I’m with you man it’s tough.

    I think Chia makes a trade or two soon for more grit/60.
    Dude’s gotta be just squirming in his seat right now.

  12. PDL says:

    “We probably should let go of the Calder idea, but to hell with that noise I’ll keep a candle lit and curse the hockey Gods.”

    Wish the team would have at least shut down Panarin last night. Is it too much to ask that we have something to cheer for when McDavid gets back?

  13. G Money says:

    dustrock,

    Yep. There’s actually plenty of reasons why the performance of this roster has been so uneven, and you could even make the argument that team is doing just fine given the full context.

    But after so many years of suckage, it feels like just another in a long line of excuses.

  14. frjohnk says:

    Here is one look at what the D is giving up in regards to shots from the low, medium and high danger areas and how our goalies are doing.

    Oilers are giving up/60 min all situations
    14.15 shots from the perimeter
    7.41 shots from the medium danger area
    8.55 shots from the high danger area
    30.12 total shots

    League average
    12.97 shots from the perimeter
    8.24 shots from the medium danger area
    8.23 shots from the high danger area
    29.44 total shots

    So the oilers are giving up 0.68 total shots against more than the league average. But that is weighted higher towards perimeter shots.

    Since we know that League Average Shooting % from these shot locations
    Low D 3.32%
    Med D 8%
    High D 17.4%

    The Oilers expected saves ( using league averages) from those shot locations would be
    Low D 13.70
    Med D 6.83
    High D 7.07
    Total 27.61

    Now if we take actual shots from way above (30.12) and minus expected saves ( 27.61) we end up with 2.51 expected goals against.

    Using shot locations and shooting % averages league wide, oilers are 0.03 off of the pace defensively as 2.48 expected goals against is the league average.

    Just for reference, actual goals against for the Oilers goalies is 3.03.

    Oiler goalies are putting these numbers up

    Oiler save % League average in ()
    Low D…0.971…(0.968)
    Med D 0.863…..(0.921)
    High D 0.811…..(0.827)

    Oiler save % from shots in the low danger area is just a bit better than league average.
    Its taking a shit kicking from shots in the medium danger area.
    And just below league average from shots in the high danger area.

    And if label that down a bit to just the goalies.

    Nilsson is basically giving us league average goaltending.
    His goals saved above league average comes in at +0.143.
    For the acquisition cost and his role ( backup) this is pretty good.

    Talbot is giving us -7.6 goals saved above league average.
    Not good.

    * this does tell us the whole story about defense and goaltending, but does give us a good picture.

  15. Factotum says:

    godot10,

    Re MacT and Petry: I don’t think I’ll ever be able to let it go.

  16. VOR says:

    I think McDavid is a wonderful player. I think he is generational in that he will probably be the best center of his generation, say 8 years back and eight years ahead, say players who started their careers between 2007 and 2023. The Oilers are unbelievably lucky to have him.

    That said, I want you to try a little experiment, make a list of the top ten centers of all time. No active players, because while Crosby and others may someday be on the list none of them is close to the stats or accomplishments of Ron Francis or Peter Forsberg never mind Gretzky or Lemieux or Messier or Yzerman or Sakic or…Now tell me which player(s) you think Connor McDavid could displace? My number ten for example is Mike Modano, a player I think we all understand is very comparable to McDavid. Will Connor McDavid one day be on that list of top ten centers? Yes or no?

    I am not trolling. I really want to know how great you all think Connor McDavid will be. I’d also be curious to hear your list of the ten greatest centers of all time.

  17. LMHF#1 says:

    Gmoney – my comment has disappeared into the ether before I got to see whether you responded to it: That shooting opportunity Panarin had on his second goal – how is that not a high danger shot? Any NHL-calibre sniper should have a great chance at scoring from there.

    The Oilers current issue in the offensive zone is too much shooting from the outside and not enough breaking into the slot with opportunity. This is a lingering problem and I almost wonder if the players who have been here for some time now have simply gotten into the habit of hanging out wide.

  18. rickithebear says:

    Last Night: standard situation – LG/LS – MG/MS – HG/HS

    Edm faced
    60 Corsi
    blocked 25
    7 misses resulting in
    28 shots faced. 28/60 .467 ratio
    Scoring chances listed as 16
    Talbot
    Even – 1/16 – 1/6 – 1/2
    PK – 0/2 – 0/0 – 1/2
    All – 1/18 – 1/6 – 2/4
    Talbot faced 10 Shots from the slot and Box area. 10/28 .357 ratio
    .500 on HCS 2/4 league avg .833
    .833 on MCS 5/6 league avg is .922

    Chicago Faced
    56 corsi
    11 blocked
    9 missed resulting in
    36 shot Faced 36/56 .643 Ratio
    Scoring chances listed as 27
    Crawford
    Even – 0/14 – 0/7 – 0/11
    PK – 0/0 – 0/1 – 1/1
    PP – 0/0 – 0/1 – 0/0
    All – 0/14 – 0/9 – 1/13
    Crawford faced 22 shots from danger areas 22/36 .611 ratio
    .923 on HCS
    1.000 on MCS

    Pretty obvious!

    FrojohnK: keep it coming.

    Now break down the rod hockey shots and open hole shots to get the true story!

  19. russ99 says:

    The other bright spot this season has given us is the emergence of Nurse.

    He’s my new must watch player with McDavid out.

    Watching last night’s game from pretty high up in the United Center showed me the systems are being bought into and are working, and individual breakdowns are the problem.

    A little more patience and the right additions on the bottom six and on D and we could have something here by the time McDavid gets back.

  20. Water Fire says:

    godot10:
    1) Mark Fayne, 2 more years after this year, $3.7 million per season, #8D on the Edmonton Oilers
    2) Nikita Nikitin, last year on contract, $4.5 million, #11D on the Edmonton Oilers
    3) Andrew Ference,one more year after this year with NMC, $3.25 million, #13D on the Edmonton Oilers.

    Note: Jeff Petry, many more years at $5.5 million per season, #3D on the Montreal Canadiens.

    Thank you, MacT! -).

    It’s worse than that. According to WOI Petry has these TOI rankings
    5v5 2nd
    PP 3rd
    SH 2nd

    Petry is relied upon highly in all disciplines, more than Subban, no one else is. To me that makes him their top defenseman overall, in the way that Toews is a better player than Kane. If Jeff got decent points he’d elevate himself into another echelon.

  21. dustrock says:

    G Money: dustrock, Yep. There’s actually plenty of reasons why the performance of this roster has been so uneven, and you could even make the argument that team is doing just fine given the full context.But after so many years of suckage, it feels like just another in a long line of excuses.

    It really does. Trying hard here to be optimistic and take the long view, just seems like we’re destined to be the Oakland Raiders of the NHL. Or something.

  22. vishcosity says:

    Again, I love watching people do things that I cannot do. The Olympics grabbed me for this reason. High jump, hurdles, to me, human excellence is the root of my sports fandom. I do love watching Hall, Nuge, Ebs and Yak, as I loved hockey before wayner. Gretz brought it to another level, and McD is doing the same.

    This, however, is almost too much to watch. I was literally squirming in my seat:

    https://youtu.be/gLDYtH1RH-U

    I have never done anything like that, and most certainly never will. The space needle is madness enough.

  23. frjohnk says:

    Goalies are voodoo.

    Here are the goalies who have allowed the most goals saved above average.

    Bobrovsky…..-11.5
    Varlamov…….-8.4
    Hiller………….-8.0
    Talbot………..-7.6
    Rask………….-6.3

    In the last couple of years, all of those goalies have had significant plus numbers.

  24. Lowetide says:

    VerDad: we can do this all year.You absolutely don’t need to write the same post every day. We know how you feel.

  25. PhrankLee says:

    Factotum: Re MacT and Petry: I don’t think I’ll ever be able to let it go.

    I admit that the more I think about it the more it chafes me.

  26. PhrankLee says:

    frjohnk,

    Thanks for this, Padre. Cool work.

    Scrivens had his head caved in by high danger shots last year and Fasth cratered on the medium danger ones. iirc.

  27. Water Fire says:

    frjohnk:
    Here is one look at what the D is giving up in regards to shots from the low, medium and high danger areas and how our goalies are doing.

    Oilers are giving up/60 min all situations
    14.15 shots from the perimeter
    7.41 shots from the medium danger area
    8.55 shots from the high danger area
    30.12total shots

    League average
    12.97 shots from the perimeter
    8.24 shots from the medium danger area
    8.23 shots from the high danger area
    29.44 total shots

    So the oilers are giving up 0.68 total shots against more than the league average.But that is weighted higher towards perimeter shots.

    Since we know that League Average Shooting % from these shot locations
    Low D 3.32%
    Med D 8%
    High D 17.4%

    The Oilers expected saves ( using league averages) from those shot locations would be
    Low D 13.70
    Med D 6.83
    High D 7.07
    Total 27.61

    Now if we take actual shots from way above (30.12) and minus expected saves ( 27.61) we end up with 2.51 expected goals against.

    Using shot locations and shooting % averages league wide, oilers are 0.03 off of the pace defensively as 2.48 expected goals against is the league average.

    Just for reference, actual goals against for the Oilers goalies is 3.03.

    Oiler goalies are putting these numbers up

    Oiler save % League average in ()
    Low D…0.971…(0.968)
    Med D 0.863…..(0.921)
    High D 0.811…..(0.827)

    Oiler save % from shots in the low danger area is just a bit better than league average.
    Its taking a shit kicking from shots in the medium danger area.
    And just below league average from shots in the high danger area.

    And if label that down a bit to just the goalies.

    Nilsson is basically giving us league average goaltending.
    His goals saved above league average comes in at +0.143.
    For the acquisition cost and his role ( backup) this is pretty good.

    Talbot is giving us -7.6 goals saved above league average.
    Not good.

    * this does tell us the whole story about defense and goaltending, but does give us a good picture.

    Thanks for that.

    Is it poor goaltending or the couple of total breakdowns and prime chances per game? Hard to tell at this point.

  28. dustrock says:

    Is there a stat to track how many goals have been let in after stick/skate deflections from our d-men? Cause man that seems to happen a lot.

  29. PhrankLee says:

    I always bear in mind that for a team to take a high danger shot..the puck and shooter have to work their way to that high danger area..

    I hang high danger shots on the 5 guys in front of the G.

  30. Bos8 says:

    I keep swinging back and forth on these numbers/%’s. There’e the PP goal, Eberle thinking along with Nuge and the Letestu whiff, a two on zero.

  31. kinger_OIL says:

    Water Fire,

    Yes exactly Tire Fire – For instance the last goal: open net, 0 chance for Talbot, noy sure how many those are given up, need a NCBDPBWO/60: No chance, bad D, point blank, wide open/60

  32. G Money says:

    LMHF#1: Gmoney – my comment has disappeared into the ether before I got to see whether you responded to it: That shooting opportunity Panarin had on his second goal – how is that not a high danger shot? Any NHL-calibre sniper should have a great chance at scoring from there.

    Bear in mind that the ‘danger’ rating isn’t a subjective rating. It’s basically assessing the shooting percentage for that type of shot (wrist) and from that distance (27 ft) over the last five years. By that measure, NHL goalies stop that shot right in line with their overall average, which is why it gets a mediocre danger rating (10% harder than average).

    Because we’ve had such shitty goaltending for a few years, I think we tend to forget how good NHL goalies are supposed to be. I would argue that Crawford’s performance last night is actually closer to the average NHL goalie than Talbot’s was.

    That’s the reality. NHL goalies stop wrist shots from that distance 92% or so of the time.

    Hell, they stop 10 foot wristers 80%+ of the time. That’s what NHL goalies are supposed to do. We’re suffering because our goalies are stopping shots at an 88% rate that they *should* be stopping at a 91% rate.

    That said, there’s three weaknesses in the calculation of the danger rating.

    First, this is purely distance based, so the sv% used to assess the danger includes all shots in an arc around the goalie from that distance. Safe to say that shots from an extreme angle get stopped more often, so the overall danger rating for this shot is going to be too high when looking at extreme angles, and too low when dead centre. So the danger rating underserves that shot from the middle, no matter who is shooting.

    The second is that, the shots the goalies *don’t* stop probably look an awful lot like Panarin’s shot – quick top shelf. If it was lower than that, and I suspect a lot of the time it would be, it’s going to be stopped. So it was a particularly deadly shot – which has as much or more to do with that specific shot than it does the location of origin of the shot.

    The danger rating gives no allowance for the shooter or the specific shot – the danger rating relates only to the location and type.

    The third weakness is in the data itself. It is classified as a 27 ft shot, but shot locations are often inaccurate. How far away was it? If that was actually a 20 ft shot, which it may have been, then the danger rating is underserved just by distance function.

    As I noted in my rant yesterday, we ascribe an assumption of accuracy to the shot and shot location data that simply doesn’t exist. Sample size is the only way out of that, and when looking at an individual shot, that sample size of one is often going to be … problematic.

  33. PhrankLee says:

    G Money: …no matter who is shooting.

    Shooter rankings might factor in someway. There’s sometimes a big difference between players taking these shots.

  34. LMHF#1 says:

    G Money: Bear in mind that the ‘danger’ rating isn’t a subjective rating.It’s basically assessing the shooting percentage for that type of shot (wrist) and from that distance (27 ft) over the last five years.By that measure, NHL goalies stop that shot right in line with their overall average, which is why it gets a mediocre danger rating (10% harder than average).

    As I noted in my rant yesterday, we ascribe an assumption of accuracy to the shot and shot location data that simply doesn’t exist.Sample size is the only way out of that, and when looking at an individual shot, that sample size of one is often going to be … problematic.

    Understood.

    Sensors. I want sensors.

    Here’s betting trajectory, speed (both of player and of shot), release time, etc have a big impact on whether the red light goes on.

  35. CrazyCoach says:

    vishcosity: This, however, is almost too much to watch. I was literally squirming in my seat:
    https://youtu.be/gLDYtH1RH-U
    I have never done anything like that, and most certainly never will. The space needle is madness enough.

    That was pretty insane.

    I’m with when I see world class athletes perform. The things they do are just beyond comprehension.

  36. PhrankLee says:

    LMHF#1: Here’s betting trajectory, speed (both of player and of shot), release time, etc have a big impact on whether the red light goes on.

    I agree with that.

    In the not so distant future is it not possible to have data for all puck movement so passing can be observed as well?

    I would be curious as to how many of Schultz’s outlet passes are 4 inches off the ice, for example.

  37. Woodguy says:

    G Money: Bear in mind that the ‘danger’ rating isn’t a subjective rating.It’s basically assessing the shooting percentage for that type of shot (wrist) and from that distance (27 ft) over the last five years.By that measure, NHL goalies stop that shot right in line with their overall average, which is why it gets a mediocre danger rating (10% harder than average).

    Because we’ve had such shitty goaltending for a few years, I think we tend to forget how good NHL goalies are supposed to be.I would argue that Crawford’s performance last night is actually closer to the average NHL goalie than Talbot’s was.

    That’s the reality.NHL goalies stop wrist shots from that distance 92% or so of the time.

    Hell, they stop 10 foot wristers 80%+ of the time.That’s what NHL goalies are supposed to do.We’re suffering because our goalies are stopping shots at an 88% rate that they *should* be stopping at a 91% rate.

    That said, there’s three weaknesses in the calculation of the danger rating.

    First, this is purely distance based, so the sv% used to assess the danger includes all shots in an arc around the goalie from that distance.Safe to say that shots from an extreme angle get stopped more often, so the overall danger rating for this shot is going to be too high when looking at extreme angles, and too low when dead centre.So the danger rating underserves that shot from the middle, no matter who is shooting.

    The second is that, the shots the goalies *don’t* stop probably look an awful lot like Panarin’s shot – quick top shelf.If it was lower than that, and I suspect a lot of the time it would be, it’s going to be stopped.So it was a particularly deadly shot – which has as much or more to do with that specific shot than it does the location of origin of the shot.

    The danger rating gives no allowance for the shooter or the specific shot – the danger rating relates only to the location and type.

    The third weakness is in the data itself.It is classified as a 27 ft shot, but shot locations are often inaccurate.How far away was it?If that was actually a 20 ft shot, which it may have been, then the danger rating is underserved just by distance function.

    As I noted in my rant yesterday, we ascribe an assumption of accuracy to the shot and shot location data that simply doesn’t exist.Sample size is the only way out of that, and when looking at an individual shot, that sample size of one is often going to be … problematic.

    Thanks for the explanation G.

    Another case of NHL data.

    He released the shot almost parallel to the dot, which is 20ft.

    He started coasting at about 27ft.

    Klef stopped light a deer in the headlights as Fayne took Panarin and then released him and no one did anything to stop him getting to the slot.

    Man.

  38. McSorley33 says:

    Took a long time for Greg Millen to figure out Mark Fayne’s game…..Fayne nearly backed up into Talbot’s crease.

    11 – mostly painful -minutes of icetime for Mark.

  39. Ice Sage says:

    Thank you Lowetide, for reminding us that we’ve had some nice things.

  40. McSorley33 says:

    russ99,

    Watching last night’s game from pretty high up in the United Center showed me the systems are being bought into and are working, and individual breakdowns are the problem.
    *********************************************************************************
    From last night, what is your assessment of Mark Fayne and Eric Gryba ?

  41. SayItAin'tSo, Gretz, SayItAint'sSo! says:

    What worries me about our goaltending is how “small” Talbot has looked in his last few starts. Take a look at the first three gaols last night (the 4th was for all intents and purposes an “empty netter”) and just look at how deep Talbot is in his crease. Or more appropriately look at how slowly he moves out to challenge the shot on all three plays. Someone else also mentioned (maybe last thread) how quickly he’s been going down as well and by eye and by stat I’m willing to bet this is true.

    In my opinion errors of these sort are symptoms of a much more dangerous problem and thats a loss in confidence. A goalie who is making bad reads or coughing up rebounds that lead to goals is one thing. A goalie who is tentative and scared to make a mistake is a terrible problem to have. Start Nilsson next game and let us collectively light a candle for Talbot’s next start against the desert dogs.

  42. blainer says:

    Thanks for the optimistic post in such dark times. The hockey Gods blessed us with Mcdavid. We should end up with a unicorn line when he returns. The upside to CMD’s injury was the opportunity for Drai..

    It will be real interesting to see what happens if this team ever gets healthy.. No way they’re sending Drai and Nurse back down..

    They are both gaining sooo much experience..

    Oh and I have to say I am not missing the Jultzing..

  43. Johnny Larue says:

    I am in Southern California on a sports trip Chargers game tonight Ducks Wednesday and kings Friday . To me the team seems snake bit the last 2 games they played well I
    Enough to win. Last night our goaltending cost us once again . That said you can still see progress being made they are in every game the games are entertaining we just need something to get us over the hump. I will give you my views of the game live from Anihiem and LA hopefully we will get the breaks going our way for once.

  44. rickithebear says:

    Factotum:
    godot10,

    ReMacT and Petry: I don’t think I’ll ever be able to let it go.

    Petry
    15-16 2nd comp 9.20 HDC60 #58/203
    14-15 2nd comp 11.74 #159/201
    13-14 1st comp 12.33 #163/201
    12-13 1st comp 14.70 #200/204
    11-12 1st comp 12.66 #182/202
    10-11 3rd comp 10.26 #52/203

    Fayne
    15-16 1st comp 9.18 #55/203
    14-15 1st comp 11.57 #151/201
    13-14 1st comp 6.51 #1/201
    12-13 1st comp 6.61 #5/204
    11-12 1st comp 8.60 #12/202
    10-11 2nd comp 7.80 #2/203

    Nikitin
    15-16 ????????
    14-15 1st comp 11.55 #149/201
    13-14 3rd comp 10.77 #110/201
    12-13 2nd comp 9.08 #38/204
    11-12 1st comp 8.05 #9/202

    fayne is benched generating better defensive numbers than petry.
    We know petry cannot handle 1st comp in the west!

    Oilers D 15-16
    Fayne 3.625M
    #55 9.18 HSC60
    #22 comp (1st)

    Rheinhart 3.213M
    #66 9.37 HSC60
    #60 Comp (Low 1st)

    Klefbom 1.244M 4.167@7 years
    #79 9.93 HSC60
    #10 Comp (1st)

    Davidson .585M
    #107 10.76 HDSC60
    #104 comp (2nd)

    Sekera 5.5M @ 6yr
    #113 10.84
    #142 comp (3rd)

    Nurse 1.713M @ 3yr
    #116 10.89
    #171 comp (low 3rd)

    Me neither!
    His Block; PK; Hit numbers matched his visually apealing play.
    But just could not prevent the drive to the net.
    Major level of suck from Petry for Us!
    #182; #200; #163; #159 all 6-7 D results.

  45. rickithebear says:

    G Money: The second is that, the shots the goalies *don’t* stop probably look an awful lot like Panarin’s shot – quick top shelf. If it was lower than that, and I suspect a lot of the time it would be, it’s going to be stopped. So it was a particularly deadly shot – which has as much or more to do with that specific shot than it does the location of origin of the shot.

    It is like the area they are shooting too is OPEN SPACE!

    Closer!

  46. godot10 says:

    Talbot plays deep in the crease, like Lundqvist. He isn’t doing anything different than he was doing for the Rangers stylistically.

    Deep in the crease ISN’T a bug. With Talbot, it is a feature. So can we stop complaining about it.

    It is strange to see the complaints go from Scrivens over-committing (which he was after the shell shock took root) to Talbot allegedly under-committing, which is mostly just a product of his style of goaltending.

    In pre-season, people were praising his “calmness” and lack of “hyperactivity”. Now they are criticizing it.

  47. frjohnk says:

    SayItAin’tSo, Gretz, SayItAint’sSo!:
    What worries me about our goaltending is how “small” Talbot has looked in his last few starts. Take a look at the first three gaols last night (the 4th was for all intents and purposes an “empty netter”) and just look at how deep Talbot is in his crease. Or more appropriately look at how slowly he moves out to challenge the shot on all three plays. Someone else also mentioned (maybe last thread) how quickly he’s been going down as well and by eye and by stat I’m willing to bet this is true.

    In my opinion errors of these sort are symptoms of a much more dangerous problem and thats a loss in confidence. A goalie who is making bad reads or coughing up rebounds that lead to goals is one thing. A goalie who is tentative and scared to make a mistake is a terrible problem to have. Start Nilsson next game and let us collectively light a candle for Talbot’s next start against the desert dogs.

    I mentioned it last thread. He stays very deep in his net ( he was called NetCam, from the morning show)
    and goes down into the butterfly, sometimes too early. Leaving the top of the net open.

    I’m not so sure he has changed his game, its probably more that teams getting a better look at one of the ways on how to beat Talbot. And that’s to shoot high.

    I’m confident he will adjust.

  48. vinotintazo says:

    Missed the first, saw most of the second, rather play some MGS than watch a team down 2-0 already. 🙁

  49. frjohnk says:

    Offense from the defense ( points)

    MTL 40
    DAL 39
    BOS 32
    COL 31
    NSH 31
    STL 30
    L.A 29
    WSH29
    VAN 28
    MIN 27
    NYR 26
    T.B 26
    CHI 25
    ARI 24
    NYI 24
    TOR 24
    CBJ 23
    OTT 23
    CGY 22
    EDM22
    S.J 22
    CAR 21
    DET 21
    WPG21
    FLA 19
    PIT 19
    BUF 18
    N.J 17
    ANA 16
    PHI 16

  50. godot10 says:

    The “danger” in GMoney’s dangerous Fenwick is an aggregated stat.

    The “danger” in any particular shot is 1) infinite or 2) zero from any particular shot location. So “danger”, as GMoney defines it, is a result of averaging a bunch of infinities and a bunch of zeros to get a finite number. [Well, actually averaging discrete values of 1 and 0’s for any distance from the net and type of shot, and rescaling the probability of a goal to a different danger scale] .

    Over the season, Talbot would get lots of shots from that location and the danger would converge to the danger GMoney calculated from his 5-year average. But for any single shot, the danger is infinite or zero.

    A single shot is saved, or it isn’t.

  51. blainer says:

    rickithebear: Petry
    15-16 2nd comp 9.20 HDC60 #58/203
    14-15 2nd comp 11.74 #159/201
    13-14 1st comp 12.33 #163/201
    12-13 1st comp 14.70 #200/204
    11-12 1st comp 12.66 #182/202
    10-11 3rd comp 10.26 #52/203

    Fayne
    15-16 1st comp 9.18 #55/203
    14-15 1st comp 11.57 #151/201
    13-14 1st comp 6.51 #1/201
    12-13 1st comp 6.61 #5/204
    11-12 1st comp 8.60 #12/202
    10-11 2nd comp 7.80 #2/203

    Nikitin
    15-16 ????????
    14-15 1st comp 11.55 #149/201
    13-14 3rd comp 10.77 #110/201
    12-13 2nd comp 9.08 #38/204
    11-12 1st comp 8.05 #9/202

    fayne is benched generating better defensive numbers than petry.
    We know petry cannot handle 1st comp in the west!

    Oilers D 15-16
    Fayne 3.625M
    #55 9.18 HSC60
    #22 comp (1st)

    Rheinhart3.213M
    #66 9.37HSC60
    #60 Comp (Low 1st)

    Klefbom 1.244M 4.167@7 years
    #79 9.93 HSC60#10 Comp (1st)

    Davidson.585M
    #107 10.76 HDSC60#104 comp (2nd)

    Sekera5.5M @ 6yr
    #113 10.84
    #142 comp (3rd)

    Nurse1.713M @ 3yr
    #116 10.89#171 comp (low 3rd)

    Me neither!
    His Block; PK; Hit numbers matched his visually apealing play.
    But just could not prevent the drive to the net.
    Major level of suck from Petry for Us!
    #182; #200; #163; #159 all 6-7 D results.

    It just seems that the west is soo much harder on D. Hamilton is not looking good last I looked either. I like Fayne and really think he should be playing over Gryba.

    Would Petry be batting as high in the lineup playing in the west? Well on the oilers he would I guess.I always look at players differently playing in the the east.

  52. rickithebear says:

    rickithebear: FrojohnK: keep it coming.
    Now break down the rod hockey shots and open hole shots to get the true story!

    rickithebear(Quote) (Reply)

    I ment to say “shots to add to the story!”

    “true” is terse

  53. godot10 says:

    blainer: I I like Fayne and really think he should be playing over Gryba.

    Sekera has played worse with Fayne. Klefbom has had his worst games with Fayne. Reinhart’s worst game was the one he was paired with Fayne in pre-season.

    Gryba is competent in a #6D role with a #6D salary. He brings physicality. He can break the cycle. He can kill penalties.

    I have a hard time figuring out what Fayne is actually good at.

  54. frjohnk says:

    rickithebear: I ment to say “shots to add to the story!”

    “true” is terse

    Id have to look at every game to do that.

    I have a full time job, a part time business I run from May to October that some weeks is full time.

    Oh yeah, and 4 wonderful kids.

    I don’t have the time or the data for that.

  55. vishcosity says:

    PhrankLee: I agree with that.

    In the not so distant future is it not possible to have data for all puck movement so passing can be observed as well?

    I would be curious as to how many of Schultz’s outlet passes are 4 inches off the ice, for example.

    Third dimension with chips will take a while, mind. the z axis will be a much later development.

    Chips will initially provide two main elements for analysis: puck and players. To figure out a completed pass will need puck trajectory and player changes in trajectory, just to figure out if a pass was completed or bounced off a skate.

    I’m excited for the rate of change for a goalie’s position as that is where will be the actual shot quality grail. If a goalie will wear a handful of sensors, we will see the rate of change of the size of ricki’s 7 hole and be able to connect that to puck velocity.

    Thus we would then be able to measure Yak’s ability to see the actual opening, measure how fast he needs to shoot the puck before it closes, and see if he recognizes the impossible and then measure how often he chooses to pass instead.

    Come on bettman. This computer is ready to do much more than process photos. How has this not been out for ten years? A beer at northlands already costs more than a dozen RFID chips.

  56. rickithebear says:

    blainer: It just seems that the west is soo much harder on D. Hamilton is not looking good last I looked either. I like Fayne and really think he should be playing over Gryba.

    Would Petry be batting as high in the lineup playing in the west? Well on the oilers he would I guess.I always look at players differently from the east.

    Petry in Tmac’s system does not Beat out
    Klefbom who faces 1st comp
    I look at Sekera and Petry as a 2nd comp EV Defence; pK defence; Ev production wash!
    With Sekera having shown Elite 2nd comp Numbers under Ruff (9.01) and Sutter (8.01)

  57. commonfan14 says:

    Does anyone know if any media members asked McLellan why he put Talbot back in the net after the penalty at the end of the game?

    It essentially conceded the game for no reason. If they lose the faceoff in their own zone with that little time left, the net being empty makes no difference. The game would be over regardless.

    If he was still trying to win, the net would have stayed empty. It was the only chance.

  58. rickithebear says:

    frjohnk: Id have to look atevery game to do that.

    I have a full time job, a part time business I run from May to October that some weeks is full time.

    Oh yeah, and 4 wonderful kids.

    I don’t have the time or the data for that.

    Remeber when we discussed this 2-3 years ago.

    Hinted that a site like PFF was needed.

    Then WOI came along with its list of Email adresses of people doing this work for the teams.

    They should break it down into open and closed when they do the work.

    I have understood the volume for years.

    Was teasing!

  59. frjohnk says:

    rickithebear: Remeber when we discussed this 2-3 years ago.

    Hinted that a site like PFF was needed.

    Then WOI came along with its list of Email adresses of people doing this work for the teams.

    They should break it down into open and closed when they do the work.

    I have understood the volume for years.

    Was teasing!

    all good bud

  60. rickithebear says:

    There wasa marked change in War on ice’s numbers.
    which suggests a major change in shot definition by x,y.

    Do we know the change?

  61. Ca$h-McMoney! says:

    We’re at an interesting point here for Fayne.

    There are folks out there who don’t think he’s very good.

    There are folks out there who want management to go out and spend money to bring in a number 1 Dmen.

    There are, presumably, a number of people that subscribe to both camps. That’s fine, no judgement on this end.

    For those people:

    Every effort this team has made to acquire Dmen via free agency has failed miserably.

    Fayne
    Ference
    Nikitin
    Schultz (arguably)

    Gryba and Sekera I’m leaving off this list due to sample size, but the start hasn’t been promissing.

    If we had made 0 effort to solve our D problem via free agency over the past several years, our lineup would be:

    Klefbom/Petry
    Davidson/Nurse
    Marincin/Reinhart

    Musil
    Oesterle

    This is a weak lineup, for sure, super young, but it also free’s up a metric ton of cap space and allows us to keep our golden child.

    Granted we’ve got new management in place, but what makes you think that signing a UFA (Franson, for example) is going to work out for us?

  62. PhrankLee says:

    commonfan14: Does anyone know if any media members asked McLellan why he put Talbot back in the net after the penalty at the end of the game?

    I personally wondered against putting Talbot in for that game at all with Anders playing solid the game prior to that. If not solid at least he was a “non-negative factor”… visually better, if you will.

  63. PDL says:

    I’m going to put my vote down as mostly not the goaltender’s fault. It was mentioned at the end of the last thread (by Stush18, I think) that we’ve run through a few goalies in the last few years. It looks like our coaching carousel back there, only these goalies have a little more track at the NHL level than some of our coaches.

    I really enjoy the work done by Woodguy and GMoney on tracking/identifying goalies and some of the goals against have been awful but it can’t just be a coincidence that perfectly average goalies come here to shit the bed.

    So yeah, put in Nilsson until he inevitably lets in a few stinkers (I believe he already has). I’m just going off memory here but I think it was the Dallas game where he let in a wrap around goal and it was just disappointing but how much of that was on the D who should have at least slowed down the damn skater?

    Then we call up LB. How long until he breaks standing behind our chaos D and starts to have a sphincter-tightening/60 that’s off the charts? And then we can rant about what a bad trade that was by LT.

  64. rickithebear says:

    The one thing I took from fridays live watching was:
    Draisatl’s is faster;
    Physically dominate;
    Starting to show an ability to find open shooting space
    Allways working to get closer to the net
    Surprises teamates with passes that you would nor expect to get through.

    I smilled at leat 6 times from sick plays from this young man.

  65. PhrankLee says:

    Ca$h-McMoney!: Granted we’ve got new management in place, but what makes you think that signing a UFA (Franson, for example) is going to work out for us?

    For me you are preaching to the choir on this one. Henderson writes a good article on this subject today in ON.

    From the proper perspective I think we dodged bullets not signing Franson. I’ve watched him play a lot and he really is not very good in the NHL. Even though everything, including his age, looks like gold personified on paper.

  66. SayItAin'tSo, Gretz, SayItAint'sSo! says:

    vinotintazo,

    Wasn’t aware that it was his style to stay that deep. If it is that’s fair and hopefully he adjusts

  67. TheGreatMcMutato says:

    woot…

  68. G Money says:

    godot10,

    I like the statistical cut of your jib, Mister! Very Poisson!

  69. Bulging Twine says:

    Devan Dubnyk has fallen off his amazing form from last season.

    Freddy Chabot was hired by the Minnesota Wild in September.

    hmmmm

  70. vinotintazo says:

    Bulging Twine: Freddy Chabot was hired by the Minnesota Wild in Septembe

    this is a joke right?

    Edit: just googled it, hes the development Goalie coach.

  71. G Money says:

    Woodguy: Thanks for the explanation G.
    Another case of NHL data.
    He released the shot almost parallel to the dot, which is 20ft.
    He started coasting at about 27ft.

    No prob.

    That distance makes sense. By eye that’s what it looked like at the time. Closer than the officially marked 27ft anyway.

    Danger drops logarithmically with distance … or to put it another way, danger increases exponentially as you get closer.

    A 20 ft wrister is 70% more dangerous than average. Jump that up a bit for the fact that it was from the middle rather than from an angle and you’re probably looking at 80%.

  72. G Money says:

    rickithebear:
    There wasa marked change in War on ice’s numbers.
    which suggests a major change in shot definition by x,y.

    Do we know the change?

    What have you noticed?

    Bear in mind that only shot data has actual x,y’s from the NHL, the rest (blocks, misses) are imputed. All that data is also rink bias adjusted, and as I ranted a bit yesterday, I’m not sure I’m on board with their location adjustment methodology.

    It does mean that a small change in their imputation or rink adjustment calculation could change the data noticeably. Or maybe they have added another source, like ESPN or maybe Sportlogic has it.

    I used war-on-ice data over the summer, but now use NHL data only, so I don’t have any basis for comparison. (they don’t make their data available in a Python friendly format in-season, so I had to re-re-write my scrapers to use pure NHL data. And now that I’ve got it, I might as well use it)

  73. blainer says:

    godot10: Sekera has played worse with Fayne.Klefbom has had his worst games with Fayne.Reinhart’s worst game was the one he was paired with Fayne in pre-season.

    Gryba is competent in a #6D role with a #6D salary.He brings physicality.He can break the cycle.He can kill penalties.

    I have a hard time figuring out what Fayne is actually good at.

    Ya I get ya.. but to my eye I do like the physical play of Gryba but Jeebus he passes the puck to the wrong team too much..

    Sekera and Gryba.. other examples of D moving from East to west and in over their heads so far.. Holding out hope for both though.. Gryba should be ok as a sixth D.

    As for Fayne.. Whatever confidence he had is out the window now after being sat for the three games.. I bet he is playing very nervous right now..

    Very very happy with the play of Nurse.

    If we are trading for a D I hope it is from the west.. Nashville maybe..

  74. Jacobo Maremoto says:

    No mention of last night? With the narrow focus on McDavid, as exemplified by today’s post, are we supposed to just sit back and let management off the hook for some of its questionable decisions (failure to address the defense, etc.) while the kid is out?

  75. blainer says:

    rickithebear: Petry in Tmac’s system does not Beat out
    Klefbom who faces 1st comp
    I look at Sekera and Petry as a 2nd compEV Defence; pK defence; Ev productionwash!
    With Sekera having shown Elite 2nd comp Numbers under Ruff (9.01) and Sutter (8.01)

    Ya I am hoping its just a bit of adjusting with Sekera or maybe some lingering injury.

  76. blainer says:

    rickithebear:
    The one thing I took from fridays live watching was:
    Draisatl’s is faster;
    Physically dominate;
    Starting to show an ability to find open shooting space
    Allways working to get closer to the net
    Surprises teamates with passes that you would nor expect to get through.

    I smilled at leat 6 times from sick plays from this young man.

    This. I was completely caught off guard with his improvement. I believe he thinks the game too fast for the minors.

  77. Lowetide says:

    Jacobo Maremoto:
    No mention of last night? With the narrow focus on McDavid, as exemplified by today’s post, are we supposed to just sit back and let management off the hook for some of its questionable decisions (failure to address the defense, etc.) while the kid is out?

    The blog isn’t set up to respond with a morning after post, there are times in the year when other things take precedent. As an example, last year, same day (pretty much) I began the top 20 prospects

    https://lowetide.ca/2014/11/08/no-1-prospect-winter-2014-leon-draisaitl/

    You’ll see them throughout November and well into December. Once the top 20 are concluded I do a 21-30 and 31-40 as well.

  78. Jacobo Maremoto says:

    Lowetide,

    Apologies!

  79. Bruce McCurdy says:

    godot10:
    The “danger” in GMoney’s dangerous Fenwick is an aggregated stat.

    The “danger” in any particular shot is 1) infinite or 2) zero from any particular shot location.So “danger”, as GMoney defines it, is a result of averaging a bunch of infinities and a bunch of zeros to get a finite number.[Well, actually averaging discrete values of 1 and 0’s for any distance from the net and type of shot, and rescaling the probability of a goal to a different danger scale] .

    Over the season, Talbot would get lots of shots from that location and the danger would converge to the danger GMoney calculated from his 5-year average.But for any single shot, the danger is infinite or zero.

    A single shot is saved, or it isn’t.

    I see your point which is a good one, but question your use of “infinite”. An individual shot has either a 0% (0/1) chance or a 100% (1/1) chance of going in.

    “Infinite” implies, mathematically, 1/0, or 1 goal on 0 shots. This is never the case unless you are the Nuge in St. Louis on opening night. There was the very rare, & short-lived, case of a guy with a shooting percentage of ∞.

  80. Bulging Twine says:

    Interesting to probably no one other than me;

    Twins Kellen and Connor Jones are in the Islanders organization this year but one is in the AHL and one is in the ECHL.

    yup – true

  81. godot10 says:

    Bruce McCurdy: I see your point which is a good one, but question your use of “infinite”. An individual shot has either a 0% (0/1) chance or a 100% (1/1) chance of going in.

    “Infinite” implies, mathematically, 1/0, or 1 goal on 0 shots. This is not the case unless you are the Nuge in St. Louis on opening night. There was the very rare, & short-lived, case of a guy with a shooting percentage of ∞.

    I said GMoney’s danger scale was on a 0 to infinite scale, but the calculation was done on goal binary goal probabilities of 0 and 1, rescaled to the danger scale of 0 to infinite.

    For a single shot….
    The danger is 0 or infinite.
    The probability of a goal is 0 or 1.

    And I made that clear in my previous post.

  82. commonfan14 says:

    Lowetide: The blog isn’t set up to respond with a morning after post, there are times in the year when other things take precedent.

    Makes total sense and I know I personally wasn’t thinking anything nefarious was afoot.

    If you’re at all interested, though, I’ll just throw out there that your morning after thoughts on games when they do happen are pretty much my favourite thing to read about the team anywhere on the web during the season.

    I say “pretty much” only because I don’t think that time you were posting comments 3 hours late while watching on tape delay can be topped.

  83. 719 says:

    frjohnk: Id have to look atevery game to do that.

    I have a full time job, a part time business I run from May to October that some weeks is full time.

    Oh yeah, and 4 wonderful kids.

    I don’t have the time or the data for that.

    You have had sex at least 4 times? Can you please teach me your secrets?

  84. RexLibris says:

    G Money: …logarithmically … exponentially.

    Hey! This is hockey, not scrabble! Take yer book-learning words and get lost!

  85. Bruce McCurdy says:

    commonfan14: If you’re at all interested, though, I’ll just throw out there that your morning after thoughts on games when they do happen are pretty much my favourite thing to read about the team anywhere on the web during the season.

    I agree with this. I always enjoy Lowetide’s morning-after dissections, even and perhaps especially after games I have worked on extensively myself doing player grades. He always has a good take.

  86. RexLibris says:

    Lowetide: The blog isn’t set up to respond with a morning after post

    There have been far, far, far too many “nights before” to handle “mornings after”.

    I can’t imagine trying to do post-mortems on this team.

    FN will do game recaps and, because they are the Flames, as often as not they find something cheerful to write about.

    Can anyone imagine trying to write 45 morning-after articles (rough average of losses in three of the last six seasons)?

  87. Bruce McCurdy says:

    G Money:
    godot10,

    I like the statistical cut of your jib, Mister!Very Poisson!

    godot10: I said GMoney’s danger scale was on a 0 to infinite scale, but the calculation was done on goal binary goal probabilities of 0 and 1, rescaled to the danger scale of 0 to infinite.

    For a single shot….
    The danger is 0 or infinite.
    The probability of a goal is 0 or 1.

    And I made that clear in my previous post.

    GMoney, do you agree with Godot’s take on “infinite”? I parse things a bit differently as noted above, and Godot says I’m wrong. Would appreciate your take, since it’s your own danger scale that is under discussion. I usually operate on a “can not divide by zero / DO not divide by zero” imperative, but I’m just a numbers guy and certainly no Poisson. No Cantor either, for that matter. But I do like to at least grasp first principles, so kindly enlighten me.

  88. Bruce McCurdy says:

    RexLibris: There have been far, far, far too many “nights before” to handle “mornings after”.

    I can’t imagine trying to do post-mortems on this team.

    FN will do game recaps and, because they are the Flames, as often as not they find something cheerful to write about.

    Can anyone imagine trying to write 45 morning-after articles (rough average of losses in three of the last six seasons)?

    Why, yes. Yes I can.

  89. Factotum says:

    rickithebear,

    Would you please share your precise definition of “open hole”? Is it static or dynamic? If it’s static, are you using an imaginary traditional “shooter tutor” with 5 holes? A newer Datsyukian one with 2 holes? Or something else? If it’s dynamic, at what point in the flow of play do the open holes count? At the time the shot is released? At the time the puck arrives at the net? Or something else?

    Let’s say the goaltender is drawn out of position and Ovechkin has a wide open net. If he scores, did he take an “open hole” shot no matter where it hit the net? In other words, does the actual position of the goalie matter?

    Or if the five-hole was open at the time the shot at it was taken, but the goalie closed it before the puck got there, was that an “open hole” shot?

    Or if the upper right corner of the net was covered by the goalie’s body at the time the shot at it was taken, but he went into a butterfly position and opened the corner by the time the puck got there, was that an “open hole” shot?

    In other words, which holes count and when?

    It would help to know what you’re thinking of when you use the term. Thanks.

  90. Factotum says:

    719: You have had sex at least 4 times? Can you please teach me your secrets?

    They might have been quadruplets.

  91. bendelson says:

    Interesting thoughts by Bautista today…

    Highlights include:

    “Let’s call it what it is. Let’s not have these loaded conversations about ‘character’ and the integrity of the game every time certain players show emotion in a big moment. That kind of thinking is not just old school. It’s just ignorant,” Bautista writes.

    He also takes the opportunity to discuss the challenge Dominican players face when playing in the big leagues.

    “The cultural change can be a real shock,” he writes.

    “I cannot tell you how many times I’ve seen incredible players get labelled as lazy or disrespectful based on shallow assumptions like ‘body language.’

    _____

    Thankfully, we don’t see these issues with the NHL media…

  92. G Money says:

    Bruce McCurdy:
    GMoney, do you agree with Godot’s take on “infinite”? I parse things a bit differently as noted above, and Godot says I’m wrong. Would appreciate your take. I usually operate on aimperative, but I’m just a numbers guy and certainly no Poisson. No Cantor either, for that matter. But I do like to at least grasp first principles, so kindly enlighten me.

    Ah, hmmm, we are truly arguing some mathematical arcana now!

    I would say this:

    1 – practically speaking, the post priori probability of a shot being a goal is either zero or one, but we have no way of knowing what it is a priori. This is axiomatic I think, hopefully not something anyone would argue about.

    2 – the modeling behind the danger rating uses the historical probability of a shot of the same type and from the same distance to estimate the a priori probability

    3 – the danger rating itself is calculated as

    probability of 5v5 shot of type x and distance a being a goal / probability of all 5v5 shots from all distances being goals

    4 – in theory, the denominator can be arbitrarily close to zero. So in theory, the danger rating is unbounded, and therefore the range is [0,infinity]

    5 – if we went through a season [or however many seasons are in the study range] with no 5v5 goals scored, the danger rating would be NaN (not a number = 0 divided by 0!)

    6 – in practical terms, the actual upper bound for danger would be achieved if a single 5v5 goal was scored based on exactly one shot for that type and distance, throughout all five seasons of the estimation range. Since in a season typically 60,000 5v5 shots are taken, that single shot from that single distance would have a probability of 100%, while the total shot probability would be 1/300,000. So the practical but incredibly unlikely upper limit for danger would be about 300,000.

    6a – since I take the resulting discrete data and create a smooth curve out of it, it is possible for the mathematically modelled curve to be asymptotically vertical as it approaches 0 distance, another way to approach infinity. In practice, though, distances are recorded in whole numbers > 0, so the asymptotic part of the modelled curve would never be reached.

    7 – I’m not sure what Godot10 means that a single shot has a danger of either zero or infinity. I don’t think that is correct. It implies that the denominator in every case is zero, which is basically never the case.

  93. LMHF#1 says:

    RexLibris: There have been far, far, far too many “nights before” to handle “mornings after”.

    I can’t imagine trying to do post-mortems on this team.

    FN will do game recaps and, because they are the Flames, as often as not they find something cheerful to write about.

    Can anyone imagine trying to write 45 morning-after articles (rough average of losses in three of the last six seasons)?

    Going on about 10 years worth. I guess it’s technically “the late evening after” for me.

    Was a lot more fun in 2006.

    Took a year and a half off the last couple seasons. Trying again this year.

  94. RexLibris says:

    Bruce McCurdy: Why, yes. Yes I can.

    Ha, well, fair point.

    You are a boon to the rest of us, Bruce.

    Godspeed, Oilers, we need respite from this never-ending maelstrom. Odysseus himself was hurled about by cruel Neptune for nearly as long as we fans have suffered at the hands of our beloved team.

  95. godot10 says:

    Bruce McCurdy:
    GMoney, do you agree with Godot’s take on “infinite”? I parse things a bit differently as noted above, and Godot says I’m wrong. Would appreciate your take, since it’s your own danger scale that is under discussion. I usually operate on a “can not divide by zero / DO not divide by zero” imperative, but I’m just a numbers guy and certainly no Poisson. No Cantor either, for that matter. But I do like to at least grasp first principles, so kindly enlighten me.

    Nobody is dividing anything by zero. And you keep on mischaracterizing my use of infinite.

    A single shot is a goal or it isn’t. It is a binary outcome. One sums up a lot of binary outcomes to get a probability.

    In my original post
    “[Well, actually averaging discrete values of 1 and 0’s for any distance from the net and type of shot, and rescaling the probability of a goal to a different danger scale]”

    What is UNCLEAR about that? Nothing is being divided by zero.

  96. Factotum says:

    rickithebear,

    Even if I were to accept that HDC60 is the most important statistic to use to evaluate defensemen, the way you use it – for example, comparing Fayne at New Jersey with Nikitin at Columbus and Petry at Edmonton – is bothering me.

    If one defenseman has a rate of 8.0 and another is at 9.0, it’s going to take at least 3 games for me to be able to see the difference, yes? So the HDSCA isn’t the most common event to hang our hats on.

    You seem to be roughly controlling for the level of competition, but what about other confounding variables, especially comparing across teams and seasons? What is the effect of the defense partner? The team’s coaching / defensive systems / style of play? The defensive strength of the forward group? The division/conference that the team plays in?

    Without controlling for at least some of these other variables, I see a lot of statistical white noise that could easily interfere with the validity and strength of your conclusions, but perhaps you can allay my concerns. If so, I’d be appreciative.

  97. Pajamah says:

    bendelson:
    Interesting thoughts by Bautista today…

    Highlights include:

    “Let’s call it what it is. Let’s not have these loaded conversations about ‘character’ and the integrity of the game every time certain players show emotion in a big moment. That kind of thinking is not just old school. It’s just ignorant,” Bautista writes.

    He also takes the opportunity to discuss the challenge Dominican players face when playing in the big leagues.

    “The cultural change can be a real shock,” he writes.

    “I cannot tell you how many times I’ve seen incredible players get labelled as lazy or disrespectful based on shallow assumptions like ‘body language.’

    _____

    Thankfully, we don’t see these issues with the NHL media…

    Apt observation, comrade.

    Those Czechs sure have character issues

    Das vindaniya.

  98. dangilitis says:

    Lowetide: Lol. I still bet on Talbot, but also at some point I think we probably have to say Dubnyk, LaBarbera, Scivens, Fasth, now Talbot and perhaps soon Nilsson…yeah, maybe it isn’t the goalie.

    But how do you marry that with these goalies flubbing saveable goals at key times? Is it the goalie coaching? You can’t pin it all on the D. Yes, Davidson bobbled the puck like a hot grenade, and yes, backhanders are unpredictable, but Talbot was just unprepared at a critical time.

    If Talbot makes the save on Frolik, maybe Calgary doesn’t have as much confidence right now, and maybe the Oilers are 6-9 instead of 5-10. That’s not even asking for league average goaltending with that simple request.

  99. Bruce McCurdy says:

    G Money: Ah, hmmm, we are truly arguing some mathematical arcana now!

    Yes, sorry. Like I said first principles are important, and there is something I’m not grasping here.

    G Money: 4 – in theory, the denominator can be arbitrarily close to zero. So in theory, the danger rating is unbounded, and therefore the range is [0,infinity]

    Ahh, I see. A probability divided by another probability. Not a probability of a given shot (= 1). The latter is my default approach. Thus the result of a given shot is either 0% or 100%, with a probability of a group of shots = [0% <X <100%]. This is the range within which we always work with hockey stats, seems to me, other than rare exceptions like the Curious Case of the Infinite Nuge.

    G Money: 7 – I’m not sure what Godot10 means that a single shot has a danger of either zero or infinity. I don’t think that is correct. It implies that the denominator in every case is zero, which is basically never the case.

    Thank you. It was this point that I was stumbling over. As an astronomer I have no trouble with very large finite numbers, but infinite ones literally change the equation.

  100. Bos8 says:

    Pajamah,

    In Czech it would probably be Sbohem translated “With God”, or “Go with God’s blessing”.

  101. v4ance says:

    http://www.tsn.ca/mondaymustread-flint-players-walk-out-after-coaching-staff-fired-1.390508

    One by one, all 24 players of the OHL’s Flint Firebirds placed their sweaters on the floor in the front office and quit the team on Sunday night, shortly after owner Rolf Nilsen fired team staff.

    According to reports, the coaching staff was fired by team owner Nilsen after he voiced his displeasure over a lack of playing time for his son, defenceman Hakon Nilsen. The coaching staff reportedly did not acquiesce to Nilsen, leading to their dismissal and an incensed dressing room.

    Stephen Whyno ‏@SWhyno 25m25 minutes ago
    Flint Firebirds release statement saying coaches have been reinstated and that team is cooperating with OHL investigation.

    Crazy overly meddlesome owner is basically going to drive his kid out of hockey. All the other players will hate him for his dad’s stupidity.

    Stephen Whyno ‏@SWhyno
    Jim Nill expects NHL’s draft pick compensation for coaches and execs to lapse Jan. 1 after a full year. Policy had unintended consequences.

    Looks like we get our 2nd rounder back for hiring Chiarelli

    Also from the TSN article at the top:

    Minnesota Wild GM Chuck Fletcher had a solid quip on the salary cap last week week: “We’re a steak dinner for six away from the cap, so we’ve got lots of space as long as somebody doesn’t order the baked potato,” Fletcher told the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Fletcher counted 15 teams – or half the league – either operating in the long-term injury (LTIR) exception or within $1 million of the cap. Money is tight.

    The Oilers placed Connor McDavid on the long-term injury list this week to create space. For Edmonton, the tricky maneuvering this fall has been about not exceeding the performance “bonus cushion” of 7.5 per cent. With potential performance bonuses counting in full, every team must stay under $76.755 million ($71.4 plus $5.355 million). For example, McDavid would count against $3,775,000 of that number if he was on the roster. Other players also have high attainable bonuses on top of their rookie salaries: Leon Draisaitl ($2.475 million), Griffin Reinhart ($2.35M), Darnell Nurse ($850,000), Oscar Klefbom ($350,000) and Iiro Pakarinen ($82,500), according to GeneralFanager.com. The Oilers are unique in this isn’t frequently an issue for most cap teams. The bonus cushion could also offer another reason why Draisaitl began the season in the AHL: the Oilers couldn’t afford him on the roster.

    Some wondered whether McDavid’s injury would prevent him from hitting 40 games this season, which would keep him a restricted free agent for one more year. Alas, each game McDavid is on the LTIR still counts as a game “on the roster.” McDavid, 18, is likely to notch 40 games played anyway this season.

    So being on LTIR means Connor will use up his Calder eligiblity on what is really a half season. Tough odds but if anyone can win it in that short a time, it’s McDavid.

    Since so many teams are operating on their extra LTIR bonus cushions, trades will be VERY difficult because the incoming and outgoing cap hits will need to balance for both teams in the transactions.

  102. Lowetide says:

    dangilitis: But how do you marry that with these goalies flubbing saveable goals at key times? Is it the goalie coaching? You can’t pin it all on the D. Yes, Davidson bobbled the puck like a hot grenade, and yes, backhanders are unpredictable, but Talbot was just unprepared at a critical time.

    If Talbot makes the save on Frolik, maybe Calgary doesn’t have as much confidence right now, and maybe the Oilers are 6-9 instead of 5-10. That’s not even asking for league average goaltending with that simple request.

    I don’t think ‘pin it all’ is anyone’s stance. Stuff happens, it just does. Bernie Parent got traded many times, Dom Hasek took forever to be Dom Hasek. Goaltenders are not an easy problem. As for Talbot, extremely small sample size.

  103. &quot;Steve Smith&quot; says:

    There are no words, rhymes or chimes to truly describe it, beyond the universal line we all share in historic moments: “Where we you?”

    I was in Niagara Falls (on the American side) where my partner of more than ten years and I had, two days previous, reached a mutual, amicable, but nevertheless heartrending decision to call it quits.

    And you know what? The weekend averaged out to “not bad”.

  104. meanashell11 says:

    G Money: Ah, hmmm, we are truly arguing some mathematical arcana now!

    I would say this:

    1 – practically speaking, the post priori probability of a shot being a goal is either zero or one, but we have no way of knowing what it is a priori.This is axiomatic I think, hopefully not something anyone would argue about.

    2 – the modeling behind the danger rating uses the historical probability of a shot of the same type and from the same distance to estimate the a priori probability

    3 – the danger rating itself is calculated as

    probability of 5v5 shot of type x and distance a being a goal / probability of all 5v5 shots from all distances being goals

    4 – in theory, the denominator can be arbitrarily close to zero.So in theory, the danger rating is unbounded, and therefore the range is [0,infinity]

    5 – if we went through a season [or however many seasons are in the study range] with no 5v5 goals scored, the danger rating would be NaN (not a number = 0 divided by 0!)

    6 – in practical terms, the actual upper bound for danger would be achieved if a single 5v5 goal was scored based on exactly one shot for that type and distance, throughout all five seasons of the estimation range.Since in a season typically 60,000 5v5 shots are taken, that single shot from that single distance would have a probability of 100%, while the total shot probability would be 1/300,000. So the practical but incredibly unlikely upper limit for danger would be about 300,000.

    6a – since I take the resulting discrete data and create a smooth curve out of it, it is possible for the mathematically modelled curve to be asymptotically vertical as it approaches 0 distance, another way to approach infinity.In practice, though, distances are recorded in whole numbers > 0, so the asymptotic part of the modelled curve would never be reached.

    7 – I’m not sure what Godot10 means that a single shot has a danger of either zero or infinity.I don’t think that is correct.It implies that the denominator in every case is zero, which is basically never the case.

    I do not mean to scare everyone but this type of quant work was exactly what got us into trouble in finance in 2008. I don’t want to go into detail, but my career has been tied very closely to the use of quantitative analysis in finance and it was great….. until it wasn’t. I guess in hockey it’s not really going to blow up the world but I would hate to have it happen twice!

  105. Lowetide says:

    &amp;quot;Steve Smith&amp;quot;:
    There are no words, rhymes or chimes to truly describe it, beyond the universal line we all share in historic moments: “Where we you?”

    I was in Niagara Falls (on the American side) where my partner of more than ten years and I had, two days previous, reached a mutual, amicable, but nevertheless heartrending decision to call it quits.

    And you know what?The weekend averaged out to “not bad”.

    Ouch. Sorry to hear, hope everything works out for the best.

  106. Bruce McCurdy says:

    godot10: Nobody is dividing anything by zero.And you keep on mischaracterizing my use of infinite.

    A single shot is a goal or it isn’t.It is a binary outcome.One sums up a lot of binary outcomes to get a probability.

    In my original post
    “[Well, actually averaging discrete values of 1 and 0’s for any distance from the net and type of shot, and rescaling the probability of a goal to a different danger scale]”

    What is UNCLEAR about that? Nothing is being divided by zero.

    You and I have a different take on the definition of “infinite”. A binary outcome is 1 or 0, not ∞ or 0.

    But I’m going to conclude that what is unclear here is my mind. You obviously have a clear grasp on things and it is me who is failing to understand. Carry on on your higher plane of understanding and I’ll try to struggle along down here.

Leave a Reply

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