With respect to faceoffs you are conflating two different things. Yes losing a faceoff impacts immediate possession but the real issue is does it impact the score. People have done very thorough analysis of the impact of faceoffs by looking at tens of thousands of actual instances. Statistically the loss of a faceoff on the pk will result in an additional goal against about one out of 40 or so times. A generic faceoff it is about one in 75.
Derek Ryan for example took an average of 112 short handed faceoffs over the last three years. If you replaced him with a guy who won 10% fewer draws that would be about 11 more lost faceoffs on the pk or statistically that would cost you on average about one goal every 4 years. What a player is capable of doing after the faceoff turns out to be far more impactful than winning or losing a draw. Despite strong evidence to the contrary people place a much higher importance on FO% than it deserves because the very rare instances when a big goal is scored after a lost draw stick in peoples minds to a far greater degree than the events following a generic draw. And in doing so they ignore the fact that generic faceoff wins are close to random events in terms of the two players involved.
I will also add that further studies on faceoffs have shown that assessing a player's value in term of winning draws is far more complicated than raw FO% can capture. How clean is the win and were the puck is directed have a bigger impact on actual goals than simply wins vs losses. Some players have lower winning percentages but are more adept at how the wins are generated.
As far as softness is concerned you are again conflating two different things. Lack of hits are not a sign of softness. Nor are they an indicator of success. Exactly the opposite in fact. There is a fairly strong negative correlation between hits and winning over many years. In fact as I pointed out the Oilers have a 10-2-1 record vs the top ten teams in terms of hitting this year.
If you look at the Oilers losses over the last three playoffs it would be hard to put any on softness and certainly not on hits. Colorado was not a physical team in terms of hits. They were 27th in hits per game the year they won. Vegas beat the Oilers not because of their 4th liners who were very physical but because of the Marchessault-Eichel line picking apart the Oilers man to man defense and a difference in the net. Vegas' 4th line did play very physically and through a ton of hits but the Oilers actually dominated those guys when they were on the ice.
Florida was by far the most physical of the three teams they lost to. But the series did not turn on that. It came down to one goal and in reality it is easy to see a different outcome if Skinner makes the save and if Bouchard's shot goes in.
As I pointed out, many of the Oilers best players have very low hit totals but they are not at all soft. In fact, I don't see this team as being soft where it counts. They will also add Kane if you want another guy who can punish the opposition. Something that can help to turn a game. But like FO's such instances are far more rare than people's perception makes them out to be. The playoffs are also a very different environment. The intensity of the competition tends to up the physical aspect of the game for many players.
I get the distinct impression that you dont actually read my posts thoroughly enough.
If you did you wouldnt keep hammering away at things I am not saying.
Either that or you just have a tendency to misrepresent.
Regarding faceoffs...my mentioning of faceoffs had to do with your point about how puck retreival along the boards was so important. My point was in terms of puck retrieval winning a faceoff is as much or even more important that winning a board battle simply because it requies much less time and energy to win a faceoff. Take the PP for example...the team is obviously better served by winning a draw and maintaining possession immediately as opposed to losing a draw and then wasting time trying to gain possession of the puck.
Thats what I am saying.
That was my only point and then you spun it off into something else.
You are conflating what I actually said with something you made up.
As for this team being soft...use the word which appeals to you. It doesnt matter because the reailty is (as I have already stated previously) this team can get pushed out of games by heavier teams like Vegas, Florida and LA. I am also refering to this season not last season because the forward depth on this years team is not the same as last years team.
Those are the games which show the biggest hit disparity for this team as well and visually its clear that the team is getting pushed out of the game.
So the heavier teams concern me and this team IMO needs to adjust its roster at or before the TDL. You also seemed to miss the fact that I mentioned Kane as an addition who should help however after missing the better part of a year its not like he is just going to hit the ground running in the playoffs. He may not be the same player for the entirety of this season so if the team is banking on Kane then i see that as a potential problem as well.
So my position is that this team needs some additional functional heaviness in the bottom half of the roster.
You can disagree if you like.,..thats fine. No need to spin this off into a word salad that only partially addresses (if at all) my point.
