Post-Game Talk: OT Heartbreaker

[bone]

Thanks I'll watch the Ceci OT goal against again... my "where was he" was in part an honest question. I haven't rewatched the highlights. I do also remember cursing the forwards for a lack of awareness in the neutral zone... it was 1AM here.

The forwards were in a decent spot to react to F3 (who was Kempe) which only further supported the tactic by Ceci standing up Byfield at centre ice. Had that play been anything different than a literally perfect tip there was no real danger. If that same play occurred 100 times I suspect only once ends up landing in that same perfect spot for Kopitar to pick it up with speed and a clear lane.

Nurse could have cheated a little further over, but without that tip it's likely going deep and around the boards where cheating reduces his chance at winning the race for the icing should it go around the net. There were a several small mistakes on there, but I don't actually think anyone was really drastically out of position for what would happen on a similar play 99% of the time, unfortunately it was that 1% occurrence which is where you need your goalie to be that last line of defense ensuring there aren't a lot of holes through him to the net. He got caught assuming the same as the rest of the players that it would be icing and was flat footed on his goal line and didn't have time to cut down Kopitar's angles.

In many ways it truly was a lucky goal, and I'm likely unfairly putting too much of it on Skinner mostly because he didn't make any major save at any point last night, but that was a moment where a more alert reaction maybe gets him that one big save the team needed to buys one more shift of McDavid that could have flipped the result.

 

[onetweasy]

Why are you excluding the 3 OT losses to LA Skinner has delivered on only 9 shots against. At least in the ones Smith or Talbot were in net, the team had time to score and just didn't so it's reasonable to put it entirely on the team.

With Skinner, it's one chance against, and your done in OT. Surprisingly the only OT game he didn't play in the last 22 months Edmonton won because they weren't digging the puck out of their net on the first scoring chance against.

I knew it was bad......but this has rattled me.

 

[bone]

Campbell also looked shaky. Just had the fortune of a few that he didn't see whatsoever happen to hit him. Regardless of whether you think so.



He filled space in the crease while the Oilers pushed back hard the other way. He is not the reason they won that game.

No, he wasn't the reason they won as he didn't score the goals. But he was certainly a big reason why they didn't lose. If he lets in 2 goals, they lose and there is no overtime.

 

[bucks_oil]

I am not trying to understate how difficult that is but knowing that shot is a virtual certainty really helps.

I think my point is that it's not a virtual certainty that the pass will happen until McD's brain calculates that it's the best option. And that doesn't happen until Talbot stands strong, cuts down the angle and commits to staring down last year's Rocket Richard winner 1v1 without cheating pass in any way - otherwise McD would just shoot.

So the sequence is 1) anticipate it, 2) not cheat, 3) stay balanced and only then can he 4) make that push. Your IF incorporates 1, 2, and 3, which is, in my opinion the entire play.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Why are you excluding the 3 OT losses to LA Skinner has delivered on only 9 shots against. At least in the ones Smith or Talbot were in net, the team had time to score and just didn't so it's reasonable to put it entirely on the team.

With Skinner, it's one chance against, and your done in OT. Surprisingly the only OT game he didn't play in the last 22 months Edmonton won because they weren't digging the puck out of their net on the first scoring chance against.

Another good post. Its a matter of whether one can even discern attribution. Keith puts that at the hands of the Oilers. Yet the McDrai Oilers have never had the kind of goaltending that you would want to be in OT with, or even comfortable going into OT with. With Skinner, in OT the team essentially has the task of trying to allow no scoring chances against and to try to get the goal quick and fast. These are untenable objectives. You can't just shoot for a conservative long Ot with Skinner in net and play conservative either. Because Skinner can let in an easy goal and does.

 

[onetweasy]

Skinner didnt force them to play the way they did. They started giving up chances right from the begining of the game.

The illusion that we were terrible in Game 2 is squarely because Skinner didn't make a single save.

High Danger Chances Against:
Game 1: 14
Game 2: 8

Skinner's play greatly impacts how the team plays. Goalies give teams confidence - see Boston.

 

[guymez]

I think my point is that it's not a virtual certainty that the pass will happen until McD's brain calculates that it's the best option. And that doesn't happen until Talbot stands strong, cuts down the angle and commits to staring down last year's Rocket Richard winner 1v1 without cheating pass in any way - otherwise McD would just shoot.

So the sequence is 1) anticipate it, 2) not cheat, 3) stay balanced and only then can he 4) make that push. Your IF incorporates 1, 2, and 3, which is, in my opinion the entire play.

Talbot obviously knows where Drai is.
Once Talbot sees the puck going to to Drai then there is a strong likelihood that shot is coming.
Its not a foregone conclusion but the likelihood is very high.
Still a good save though.

The illusion that we were terrible in Game 2 is squarely because Skinner didn't make a single save.

High Danger Chances Against:
Game 1: 14
Game 2: 8

Skinner's play greatly impacts how the team plays. Goalies give teams confidence - see Boston

This loss invloves a lot more than the oversimplification you are suggesting here.
Case in point Bouchards soft play causing the first goal has nothing at all to do with Skinner.
Skinner obviously played a role in this loss but there was a lot that went into this loss that didnt involve Skinner.

 

[bone]

The illusion that we were terrible in Game 2 is squarely because Skinner didn't make a single save.

High Danger Chances Against:
Game 1: 14
Game 2: 8

Skinner's play greatly impacts how the team plays. Goalies give teams confidence - see Boston.

Though Cult of Hockey is often a bad word around here, they had the 5 alarm scoring chances for LA at 3 and all three were goals against. Plus two more regular high danger. Their numbers suggested about a 2.5 goals against.

Natural stat trick suggests 2.26 goals against and Moneypuck suggests 2.34 goals against.

So three different sources that use analytics suggest that should have been a 2 or 3 goal against game much like many of us are suggesting by eye test. This suggests to me very clearly that this game is solely on Skinner because the team scored 4 goals.

Further to what you point out, there was not one single defensive metric in Game 2 where Edmonton allowed more against than they did in Game 1 except goals. So if your team allows less chances against, less high quality chances against, less actual shots against etc, but allows more goals I fail to comprehend why the team would ever be considered more responsible than the goalie.

 

[McAsuno]

Kane hit on Doughty sparked the Oilers I agree Holloway deserves more ice time but to single out Kane is unjustified

Not single outing Kane. I love the guy. But he’s been playing with an injury, and it’s clearly affecting him still. He had nice hits here and there, but Kane is best when he not only hits, but annoys the f*** out of the other team. I just think Holloway deserves more minutes. Him playing under 10 mins TOI is not justified f especially after potting 2 goals.

 

[bucks_oil]

The forwards were in a decent spot to react to F3 (who was Kempe) which only further supported the tactic by Ceci standing up Byfield at centre ice. Had that play been anything different than a literally perfect tip there was no real danger. If that same play occurred 100 times I suspect only once ends up landing in that same perfect spot for Kopitar to pick it up with speed and a clear lane.

Nurse could have cheated a little further over, but without that tip it's likely going deep and around the boards where cheating reduces his chance at winning the race for the icing should it go around the net. There were a several small mistakes on there, but I don't actually think anyone was really drastically out of position for what would happen on a similar play 99% of the time, unfortunately it was that 1% occurrence which is where you need your goalie to be that last line of defense ensuring there aren't a lot of holes through him to the net. He got caught assuming the same as the rest of the players that it would be icing and was flat footed on his goal line and didn't have time to cut down Kopitar's angles.

In many ways it truly was a lucky goal, and I'm likely unfairly putting too much of it on Skinner mostly because he didn't make any major save at any point last night, but that was a moment where a more alert reaction maybe gets him that one big save the team needed to buys one more shift of McDavid that could have flipped the result.

I finally got a chance to look at it again, you are right it was a bang bang, perfectly executed play by LA...

But since we are splitting hairs (and I argue that's DEFINITELY what we are doing).

The moment that Ceci is striding forward to step up on F1... and maybe that was the error,... one could argue it would have been better for McLeod (our F1) to be skating over to make that pin... but decisions get made... Ceci steps up agressively, at that moment isn't McLeod expected to be coasting striding toward our goal to fill in for Ceci? Rather than coasting still toward their F1? ie... in no mans land. Had he been two strides toward our goal, the puck probably hits him in the back or he has a chance to get a stick on it to deflect it before it makes it to Kopitar.

Also... Skinner was in the white paint, he did react and try to cut the angle. It wasn't a tactical error, he's just got a slow glove hand.

I mean this is essentially the same play (different part of the ice) as the Doughty goal. In that case when Kulak steps up, Nuge, Drai and Foegele were super deep in the O-zone, but Nuge at least busts his ass to get back to Doughty, getting a stick on him (ironically contributing to the goal, but alas).

IMO that's the difference between a Nuge and McLeod. One guy aware of his changing responsibility based on decisions of his teammates... the other guy passively observing, but not computing.

 

[bone]

Also fun on MoneyPuck, their analytics on the 5th goal suggest it had a 7.7% chance of scoring based on the location on the ice and angle of shot. Now I'm not a huge fan of their analytics, but that's quite a bit lower than the 100% some want to suggest.

 

[oXo Cube]

Though Cult of Hockey is often a bad word around here, they had the 5 alarm scoring chances for LA at 3 and all three were goals against. Plus two more regular high danger. Their numbers suggested about a 2.5 goals against.

Natural stat trick suggests 2.26 goals against and Moneypuck suggests 2.34 goals against.

So three different sources that use analytics suggest that should have been a 2 or 3 goal against game much like many of us are suggesting by eye test. This suggests to me very clearly that this game is solely on Skinner because the team scored 4 goals.

Further to what you point out, there was not one single defensive metric in Game 2 where Edmonton allowed more against than they did in Game 1 except goals. So if your team allows less chances against, less high quality chances against, less actual shots against etc, but allows more goals I fail to comprehend why the team would ever be considered more responsible than the goalie.

While I agree generally with your take, it's fair to note some score effects are at work here. Teams that are winning tend to generate less and surrender more from a statistical perspective. This is especially true for the Kings who flat out don't even attempt to attack when they are ahead.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

Not single outing Kane. I love the guy. But he’s been playing with an injury, and it’s clearly affecting him still. He had nice hits here and there, but Kane is best when he not only hits, but annoys the f*** out of the other team. I just think Holloway deserves more minutes. Him playing under 10 mins TOI is not justified f especially after potting 2 goals.

Drop foegeles minutes then

 

[WaitingForUser]

Also fun on MoneyPuck, their analytics on the 5th goal suggest it had a 7.7% chance of scoring based on the location on the ice and angle of shot. Now I'm not a huge fan of their analytics, but that's quite a bit lower than the 100% some want to suggest.

7.7% on a goal when the guy is on a clear cut breakaway? Where are they getting this number from? Breakaways are almost always 50/50 especially when the guy on the break away is a seasoned cup winner and future HOFer.

 

[Broberg Speed]

Defense and momentum is a huge problem for the Edmonton Oilers.

It has to be taken into account that hockey is a game of momentum. A defenseman... any player might not even be on the ice for a goal against but a shift or two previous to that goal, the individual player, the pairing or line that was taking a shift is a big reason why the momentum was turned over to the other club that led to the goal against.

When watching a goal or a goal against you always need to take into account the last shift or even the last several previous shifts before that goal was scored. Good chance it was built up to, one way or the other.

Usually when you turn over the momentum in a playoff game you get scored against. If you don't have constant defensive strength in the playoffs you won't win in the long run.

 

[bone]

I finally got a chance to look at it again, you are right it was a bang bang, perfectly executed play by LA...

But since we are splitting hairs (and I argue that's DEFINITELY what we are doing).

The moment that Ceci is striding forward to step up on F1... and maybe that was the error,... one could argue it would have been better for McLeod (our F1) to be skating over to make that pin... but decisions get made... Ceci steps up agressively, at that moment isn't McLeod expected to be coasting striding toward our goal to fill in for Ceci? Rather than coasting still toward their F1? ie... in no mans land. Had he been two strides toward our goal, the puck probably hits him in the back or he has a chance to get a stick on it to deflect it before it makes it to Kopitar.

Also... Skinner was in the white paint, he did react and try to cut the angle. It wasn't a tactical error, he's just got a slow glove hand.

I mean this is essentially the same play (different part of the ice) as the Doughty goal. In that case when Kulak steps up, Nuge, Drai and Foegele were super deep in the O-zone, but Nuge at least busts his ass to get back to Doughty, getting a stick on him (ironically contributing to the goal, but alas).

IMO that's the difference between a Nuge and McLeod. One guy aware of his changing responsibility based on decisions of his teammates... the other guy passively observing, but not computing.

Don't mind this interpretation. It's tough to know for sure what they are coached to do, so perhaps there is an error McLeod by not reading that Ceci is stepping up on Byfield and his job may be to get back to potentially chase down an icing if it doesn't go around the net.

Watching how Edmonton plays, I'm pretty sure Ceci is coached to do what he did, but I'm a little less certain what they'd specifically want McLeod to do there, but I'd also be pretty sure they didn't want him to do what he did.

 

[Puljulainen]

McDavid: Cup or bust.
Skinner: Hold my beer.

 

[bone]

While I agree generally with your take, it's fair to note some score effects are at work here. Teams that are winning tend to generate less and surrender more from a statistical perspective. This is especially true for the Kings who flat out don't even attempt to attack when they are ahead.

Perfectly fair comment. My biggest counter to that though is that LA expected goal rate is pretty much the same for each period last night and technically went up a little in the third, so I don't think they sat back as much as they usually do (or rather they were sitting back as much at the start of the game as they were later in the game).

Though it is likely a good argument as to why they created more opportunities Monday than they did Wednesday, since they were down at least 2 almost all night after generating literally nothing in the first period.

 

[TheNumber4]

The Kings are absolute shit on the PP so there is no reason not to take things at hand. The Oilers are getting the better scoring chances on the Kings PP. The Kings have zero PP goals. The Kings did not even muster one HDSC on their PP's last night. Not one. This being one feature as well of how good the Oilers are playing. Skinner wasn't forced to make one difficult short handed save and yet let in 5 EV goals in a game. That ain't great.

Now contrast the amount of times Talbot is being forced to make 5 bell saves on the PK. On one PP the Oilers had two dangerous scoring chances within 12 secs of it starting. That has to be overwhelming and yet Talbot didn't fold.

Sure the Kings PP sucks. But the Oilers aren’t going into any series thinking they can take undisciplined penalties cause their PP sucks, nor should they. I don’t expect Nuge to be a brawler, just cause he kicked Monahans ass that one time doesn’t mean that should be expected of his game.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

The forwards were in a decent spot to react to F3 (who was Kempe) which only further supported the tactic by Ceci standing up Byfield at centre ice. Had that play been anything different than a literally perfect tip there was no real danger. If that same play occurred 100 times I suspect only once ends up landing in that same perfect spot for Kopitar to pick it up with speed and a clear lane.

Nurse could have cheated a little further over, but without that tip it's likely going deep and around the boards where cheating reduces his chance at winning the race for the icing should it go around the net. There were a several small mistakes on there, but I don't actually think anyone was really drastically out of position for what would happen on a similar play 99% of the time, unfortunately it was that 1% occurrence which is where you need your goalie to be that last line of defense ensuring there aren't a lot of holes through him to the net. He got caught assuming the same as the rest of the players that it would be icing and was flat footed on his goal line and didn't have time to cut down Kopitar's angles.

In many ways it truly was a lucky goal, and I'm likely unfairly putting too much of it on Skinner mostly because he didn't make any major save at any point last night, but that was a moment where a more alert reaction maybe gets him that one big save the team needed to buys one more shift of McDavid that could have flipped the result.

I agree with your post. Coverage was fine on the play. But will say that Kopitar's shot was elite and perfect, he's built a career of big moments and delivered there again. Fortunate bounce to give him a clear break to score.

The game was likely decided by the end of second period power play. The Talbot save off Draisaitl saved the Kings getting out of a period where they were dominated. Weathered the storm to hang around in the third. The Talbot save was solid but wasn't really extraordinary as it came from a slightly awkward soft feed from McDavid with Draisaitl far closer to the net than his normal office with significantly less room to shoot at. Talbot read really the only play and got over to make a good save.

Talbot made more saves tonight but was still a vulnerable goaltender. Problem was that Skinner didn't really make any big stops with two questionable goals against and a looser team defense in front of him.

Oilers showed a lot of resiliency in this game coming back throughout. Would have been an amazing win had they found that winning goal. Instead the story shifts to their defensive lapses and goaltending that didn't really help the team's grit and grind to stay in that game.

 

[bucks_oil]

Talbot obviously knows where Drai is.
Once Talbot sees the puck going to to Drai then there is a strong likelihood that shot is coming.
Its not a forefone conclusion but the likelihood is very high.
Still a good save though.

You totally aren't getting me. Of course Talbot knows Drai is there. But that doesn't mean he can cheat pass. He has to play McD straight up. Cut down the angle, be edging from his left to his right, and THEN still have enough balance and juice to load that edge and make the push.

The other two (far more likely) outcomes on that play were: 1) he cheats pass and McD punishes him by shooting, or 2) he plays McD straight up, but blows his edge on the push.

It's not "if he makes the push, he makes the save", it's "holy hell, how did he make that push".

 

[oXo Cube]

Perfectly fair comment. My biggest counter to that though is that LA expected goal rate is pretty much the same for each period last night and technically went up a little in the third, so I don't think they sat back as much as they usually do (or rather they were sitting back as much at the start of the game as they were later in the game).

Though it is likely a good argument as to why they created more opportunities Monday than they did Wednesday, since they were down at least 2 almost all night after generating literally nothing in the first period.

It actually looks the opposite when you dig a little deeper. Per Naturalstattrick in the 23:50 of 5v5 time in last nights game Edmonton was trailing, they had an xGF% of 60.16. In the 26:43 the game was tied they had an xGF% of 31.54. Satistically pretty soundly outplayed and this matches at least my eye test where I thought LA carried most of the play in the third period.

But people will jump on this to say 'see the Oilers were bad defensively!!1' when what actually happened was the opposite. When LA played with pace instead of just sitting in the trap We couldn't get anything going offensively.

 

[bone]

7.7% on a goal when the guy is on a clear cut breakaway? Where are they getting this number from? Breakaways are almost always 50/50 especially when the guy on the break away is a seasoned cup winner and future HOFer.

Its because of where he shot from on the ice. For example, Drew's was 29.5% because he was deeper on net. Kopitar likely took the lower percentage shot because he saw holes in Skinner and took it right away knowing he had the skill to hit those holes, which puts it back on Skinner.

That said, I'd agree the overall play was a much higher percentage because it was a breakaway, but it was nowhere near 100% like some want to make it. I'm pretty sure Money Puck only simplifies it down to shot location, angle and shot type.

 

[Drivesaitl]

7.7% on a goal when the guy is on a clear cut breakaway? Where are they getting this number from? Breakaways are almost always 50/50 especially when the guy on the break away is a seasoned cup winner and future HOFer.

It wasn't quite a clear cut breakaway. Nurse had enough contain and has enough foot speed that it wasn't going to be a home free breakaway. It was a partially contained break that made Kopitar take the shot and perhaps faster than he'd want too but which probably helped as Skinner had less time to react.

that said I don't buy the 7.7% but I'm biased. My feel watching that play and the puck landing on Kopitars stick there was that it was very dangerous with Skinner in net, in OT. As @bones earlier posts point out Skinner makes very few stops in OT, I don't know that he has a HDSC save in OT in playoffs.

This one was trouble as soon as Kopitar got the puck on his stick. That Byfield not only did this but its what he was attempting is great on him. I've seen Byfield do this before.

 

[guymez]

You totally aren't getting me. Of course Talbot knows Drai is there. But that doesn't mean he can cheat pass. He has to play McD straight up. Cut down the angle, be edging from his left to his right, and THEN still have enough balance and juice to load that edge and make the push.

The other two (far more likely) outcomes on that play were: 1) he cheats pass and McD punishes him by shooting, or 2) he plays McD straight up, but blows his edge on the push.

It's not "if he makes the push, he makes the save", it's "holy hell, how did he make that push".

I hear you. Talbot has to play McDavid stright up although he also knows that Connor has a propensity to pass this season. He is in pass first mode and thats evident in point totals this year.
These players are scouted and their tendencies matter. Same with PP's.
Knowing that there is a strong likelihood for a certain outcome helps a goalie.
Thats all I am saying here.