Rumor: Rumors & Proposals Thread | Lavoie Vs. Pederson Vs. Sutter Vs. Gagner Vs. Caggiula

[ZJuice]

He did do this as a Mike Commodore tribute thing, don't recall which game tho

Thank you. I'm not crazy then.. I think it was during the Sabres/Canes but I remember being livid about it lol

 

[Anarchism]

Interesting choice because there's a lot of competition for bottom-6 spots on the Leafs.

Will Roni make camp?

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

Nice sight to see. Think that's Ekholm Broberg pairing in white. Staple the kid to Ekholm for the Captain's skate to absorb anything and everything from the big veteran brain.

That's great, I thought the pace was decent too for very early September

 

[Fourier]

That’s good to know.

So what is the conclusion, that 5v5 regular season GF% isn’t important? That GF% is not an accurate way to gauge 5v5 success, that regular season statistics are not necessarily worth lending credence to as the game changes substantially into the playoffs? As in certain play style lend themselves much better to softer checking regular season games etc.

I would like to find something that all cup winners and dominant playoff teams have in common. As Fourier mentioned it’s xGF%.

A large study on finding commonality among cup winners or at least high level playoff performing teams would be interesting and comparing them to regular season play as well.

It has to be more than luck and staving off injuries. The game is notably different between the two modes.


The fact that our teams GF% improved without McDavid or draisaitl playing should tell you the stat itself is bunk.

The reason you look at regular season numbers is because the larger sample size is probably a better refection of the actual nature of the team than what you get in the playoffs. Most cup winners will have good 5 vs 5 numbers just because they pretty much had to have won a fair bit more than they lost to be at a level to have a chance to win.

If you look at what happens in any particular playoff year you will see patterns that are probably biased by small sample size or by other confounding factors. For example, it is not at all surprising that winning teams would have very good 5 vs 5 numbers in the playoffs. It is hard to win if you consistently lose the 5 vs 5 scoring war. So pretty much all cup winners will have very good GF% almost by definition. But that does not mean that they would always be the best 5 vs 5 team over a larger sample size even if the games were played at playoff intensity. In small numbers of games many stats can be skewed by streaks both positive and negative.

 

[BarDownBobo]

The opinion that Kostin would have been more valuable to retain than McLeod is completely baffling to me.

I get the sense it's another "Yakupov/Puljujarvi/Bear Effect" where the fact that the player is a fan favorite clouds people's ability to judge their actual ability. The worst is when these folks have to resort to slagging the more valuable player (McLeod) as a means to justify their fandom for the guy they like.

Kostin fits into that old adage “you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” If he were still around this year on his current contract I’m certain he’d lose a lot of his shine just like Yamamoto, Puljujarvi, Eberle, Gagner, Horcoff and a long list of others before him did.

 

[duul]

The reason you look at regular season numbers is because the larger sample size is probably a better refection of the actual nature of the team than what you get in the playoffs. Most cup winners will have good 5 vs 5 numbers just because they pretty much had to have won a fair bot more than they lost to be at a level to have a chance to win.

If you look at what happens in any particular playoff year you will see patterns that are probably biased by small sample size or by other confounding factors. For example, it is not at all surprising that winning teams would have very good 5 vs 5 numbers in the playoffs. It is hard to win if you consistently lose the 5 vs 5 scoring war. So pretty much all cup winners will have very good GF% almost by definition. But that does not mean that they would always be the best 5 vs 5 team over a larger sample size even if the games were played at playoff intensity. In small numbers of games many stats can be skewed by streaks both positive and negative.

Definitely.

What I'm trying to ask is, how reliable are 5 on 5 stats during the regular season compared to playoffs? I know it's a lot to ask, but you're good at collecting this data. Would you be able to compare 5 on 5 stats from the teams that made the playoffs and see how who went up or down from the regular season? In a way that might be a way to figure out which rosters are built for the playoffs. It is a common trope of the playoff, physical type team not usually being the top team in the league, perhaps this is due to the 1/16 nature, but we do look at teams that come alive in the playoffs when games are on the line and their inherent physical nature in the lineup structure plays an advantage, or intensity in their group ramps up collectively to a level than other teams can raise their game to.

Again, I know it's a lot to ask, but would you be able to do this for the last few years? That way we can compare specific teams and see if they've also improved multiple years in a row going from the regular season to playoffs for example. Or direct me to the appropriate resource so I can collect the data myself.

Would GF% be ideal here to determine how 'dominant' a team is at 5 on 5? Corsi? xGF%? What do you think? I'd like to see which playoff calibre teams are really upping their game from reg season to playoffs and try to figure out if, and why, some teams are better at it than others besides chalking it up to puck luck.

 

[Broberg Speed]

 

[stewy04]

Fourier already went in depth on it, in this thread.

“
I am not sure what your definition of horrific is. The Oilers last year were 5th in 5 vs 5 GF and 10th in GF% which while not great on the GF% front is certainly not horrific. And this is not just about McDavid and Draisaitl. When those two were not on the ice the team scored 74 goals and had 60 goals against for a GF% of 55.22%. When none of McDavid, Draisaitl, Nuge or Hyman were on the ice they scored 45 goals and gave up 35 last year.

The trend of better 5 vs 5 results has been ongoing for a couple of years. Moreover, the results after the addition of Ekholm were even more pronounced though the sample size is of course smaller. After that trade the Oilers had the 4th highest 5 vs 5 GF% behind only Boston, LA and Florida.”

I’m sure you’ll turn back into Stevie wonder when you see this, while still calling other posters disingenuous.

Why don't we just ignore him? I try to skip his negative flame loving giant paragraphs!

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Kostin fits into that old adage “you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” If he were still around this year on his current contract I’m certain he’d lose a lot of his shine just like Yamamoto, Puljujarvi, Eberle, Gagner, Horcoff and a long list of others before him did.

You really should've mentioned Kassian because that was exactly the potential he had.

 

[stewy04]

Why don't we just ignore him? I try to skip his negative flame loving giant paragraphs!

Not Tobias

 

[Tobias Kahun]

Not Tobias

Did you just reply to yourself?

 

[Fourier]

Definitely.

What I'm trying to ask is, how reliable are 5 on 5 stats during the regular season compared to playoffs? I know it's a lot to ask, but you're good at collecting this data. Would you be able to compare 5 on 5 stats from the teams that made the playoffs and see how who went up or down from the regular season? In a way that might be a way to figure out which rosters are built for the playoffs. It is a common trope of the playoff, physical type team not usually being the top team in the league, perhaps this is due to the 1/16 nature, but we do look at teams that come alive in the playoffs when games are on the line and their inherent physical nature in the lineup structure plays an advantage, or intensity in their group ramps up collectively to a level than other teams can raise their game to.

Again, I know it's a lot to ask, but would you be able to do this for the last few years? That way we can compare specific teams and see if they've also improved multiple years in a row going from the regular season to playoffs for example. Or direct me to the appropriate resource so I can collect the data myself.

Would GF% be ideal here to determine how 'dominant' a team is at 5 on 5? Corsi? xGF%? What do you think? I'd like to see which playoff calibre teams are really upping their game from reg season to playoffs and try to figure out if, and why, some teams are better at it than others besides chalking it up to puck luck.

What you are asking would require a lot of work and some very detailed thought so right now I don't have the time to do it. But there is also a rather big issue with what you are asking. Unless you are looking at individual teams over multiple seasons that stay mostly intact and have enough success in the playoffs to generate a reasonable sample size I doubt you would get a whole lot of valid info form anything outside of a very very in-depth study. I tried to explain why this would be the case in my previous message. The stats you see from the cup champ are always going to be very positive in most categories simply because a team needs to win the vast majority of their games to win the cup. This can happen because the team was clearly the best as I would say was the case with the Avs two years ago or because the team goes on a heater, which may well be the case with Vegas this year. It is impossible to tell based on the small sample size if Vegas' result was because the team "was built for playoff hockey" or if it really was just a very hot run.

I don't really believe that teams are just built for the playoffs in the sense that there is a determinate prototype of what a team that is successful in the playoffs would be. For example, people often feel that big physical teams will be more successful. But in reality I don't see a lot of evidence that this is the case. That does not mean that physical play is not going to help. But rather that many different styles of teams can play physically enough to be effective when needed. Similarly with the good 5 vs 5 teams. You are unlikely to win if your team is bad 5 vs 5 but if you are facing a team like the Oilers with an insanely good pp you might have to be a lot better than good 5 vs 5 to win that series.

Bottom line is there are many ways to win. And it is often the case that luck plays a pretty big role in separating teams at the very top.

 

[ujju2]

Was hoping to see a glimpse of the new goalie masks but I guess they haven't been brought out yet.

 

[Anarchism]

What you are asking would require a lot of work and some very detailed thought so right now I don't have the time to do it. But there is also a rather big issue with what you are asking. Unless you are looking at individual teams over multiple seasons that stay mostly intact and have enough success in the playoffs to generate a reasonable sample size I doubt you would get a whole lot of valid info form anything outside of a very very in-depth study. I tried to explain why this would be the case in my previous message. The stats you see from the cup champ are always going to be very positive in most categories simply because a team needs to win the vast majority of their games to win the cup. This can happen because the team was clearly the best as I would say was the case with the Avs two years ago or because the team goes on a heater, which may well be the case with Vegas this year. It is impossible to tell based on the small sample size if Vegas' result was because the team "was built for playoff hockey" or if it really was just a very hot run.

I don't really believe that teams are just built for the playoffs in the sense that there is a determinate prototype of what a team that is successful in the playoffs would be. For example, people often feel that big physical teams will be more successful. But in reality I don't see a lot of evidence that this is the case. That does not mean that physical play is not going to help. But rather that many different styles of teams can play physically enough to be effective when needed. Similarly with the good 5 vs 5 teams. You are unlikely to win if your team is bad 5 vs 5 but if you are facing a team like the Oilers with an insanely good pp you might have to be a lot better than good 5 vs 5 to win that series.

Bottom line is there are many ways to win. And it is often the case that luck plays a pretty big role in separating teams at the very top.

There is more than one way to skin a cat, or a moose or a wolverine or a dog.
But i guess there might be some things common to every job.
For example ....either you have very strong D in one way or the other or you have exceptional goaltending or maybe you have both.
There are other things like this of course.

 

[duul]

What you are asking would require a lot of work and some very detailed thought so right now I don't have the time to do it. But there is also a rather big issue with what you are asking. Unless you are looking at individual teams over multiple seasons that stay mostly intact and have enough success in the playoffs to generate a reasonable sample size I doubt you would get a whole lot of valid info form anything outside of a very very in-depth study. I tried to explain why this would be the case in my previous message. The stats you see from the cup champ are always going to be very positive in most categories simply because a team needs to win the vast majority of their games to win the cup. This can happen because the team was clearly the best as I would say was the case with the Avs two years ago or because the team goes on a heater, which may well be the case with Vegas this year. It is impossible to tell based on the small sample size if Vegas' result was because the team "was built for playoff hockey" or if it really was just a very hot run.

I don't really believe that teams are just built for the playoffs in the sense that there is a determinate prototype of what a team that is successful in the playoffs would be. For example, people often feel that big physical teams will be more successful. But in reality I don't see a lot of evidence that this is the case. That does not mean that physical play is not going to help. But rather that many different styles of teams can play physically enough to be effective when needed. Similarly with the good 5 vs 5 teams. You are unlikely to win if your team is bad 5 vs 5 but if you are facing a team like the Oilers with an insanely good pp you might have to be a lot better than good 5 vs 5 to win that series.

Bottom line is there are many ways to win. And it is often the case that luck plays a pretty big role in separating teams at the very top.

I am asking how I could view the data for a certain statistic team-wise between regular season and playoffs. See who improved, see which teams struggled and who improved come playoff time, to try and figure out why. Is CF% something worse gauging these teams off of? I feel like it isn't because of how flawed corsi is. For example in the charts we went over, Vegas was never shooting pucks from the perimeter. In fact the entire perimeter of the offensive zone was heavily blued out for them, meaning they are never gaining corsi +'s by shooting pucks from these zero-chance areas, whereas in Edmonton the left wall of the offensive zone was lit up like a Christmas tree in red, meaning we are gaining way more corsi+'s from an area that is never going to lead to a real opportunity.

The fact is Vegas won the entire conference with a bad corsi relative to their finishing position. I would assume it's because they are efficient with the puck, and are regarded as the powerhouse braintrust of the league, identifying talent and seemingly doing everything right in developing a championship roster.

Looking into where their shots are being generated from, from the Cup champs would have significant value one would imagine. Rather, where they are NOT taking shots from.

Why does Vegas take way less shots from the half walls and outer edges of the rink than other teams? Why did they win the conference? Why did they win the Cup despite having a poor corsi? Could it be because their coaching staff has implemented a strategy that opts not to waste opportunities with the puck in preference to losing a corsi+ opportunity trying to take it closer to the net? That's my thinking on it.

Maybe I will try and take a look at Colorado, Tampa, St. Louis, the other past champs in their winning year and see what I can find. Thanks.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

This is a delight, seriously turn up the volume to hear it. They are really excited to be back, you can see it

 

[duul]

I will post the Cup winning shot location charts, although it doesn't seem like they have playoff versions.

With Vegas you see chaos. Pucks to the centre of the ice, with a pretty obvious decision to never shoot from anywhere on the perimeter of the rink. Points shots + slot shots exclusively. They're crashing the net or creating chaos somewhere in the centre of the ice. It's no surprise a team like this wins the cup.

Colorado wins the Cup with the best defensive group the league has had in a long time. Toews, Makar, Byram, Girard, etc. The plan of attacking being to fire shots from the points. and high slot. Guys like MacKinnon, after looking at his charts, seems to take most of his shots from the high slot.

Tampa Bay looking eerily similar to Colorado and Vegas. All three teams thus far with heavy wide point and high slot shooting. Mass shooting from the points and high slot, with Vegas bringing more net front goal scoring, assuming from tips or something. Mark Stone perhaps? If he was even playing. Once again we see a ton of blue on the perimeters of the rink. They never waste puck possession.

Tampa Bay again, the year prior. That looks like the 'perfect' shooting location chart doesn't it? Nothing needs to be said here.

St. Louis. Again, entirely avoiding the perimeters of the rink like every other Cup winner, with emphasis on shots from the point and high slot.

I'll finish off by posting the Oilers last two or three years and we can see if it looks any different. Unfortunately this doesn't have playoff modes, but curious nonetheless.

Why the f*** are we the only team that is heavily blue in the slot/high slot of any of these? Why are we the only team with tons of red along the perimeters of the left side of the rink?

Our charts looks drastically different from the teams that are winning Cups. Why is that? Why are we avoiding the slot like the plague? There is no reason why we should be in the red all along the boards. Has to be a coaching decision.

 

[TB12]

I thought he was mostly solid making obvious calls but he made some blunders as well that got swept under the rug and never talked about. Or excused away at the moment. He had a reputation as a really good video coach, but I never bought the hype.

It’s interesting though, why did the Oilers part ways with Coupal if he was so good? And it’s not like Coupal was lining up to go somewhere else, he’s still unhired.

Wanted a much bigger role/more pay. Holland didn't like his demands.

(one of the scouts I know told me this)

 

[5 14 6 1]

This is a delight, seriously turn up the volume to hear it. They are really excited to be back, you can see it

Damn its good to be back men

 

[Fourier]

I am asking how I could view the data for a certain statistic team-wise between regular season and playoffs. See who improved, see which teams struggled and who improved come playoff time, to try and figure out why. Is CF% something worse gauging these teams off of? I feel like it isn't because of how flawed corsi is. For example in the charts we went over, Vegas was never shooting pucks from the perimeter. In fact the entire perimeter of the offensive zone was heavily blued out for them, meaning they are never gaining corsi +'s by shooting pucks from these zero-chance areas, whereas in Edmonton the left wall of the offensive zone was lit up like a Christmas tree in red, meaning we are gaining way more corsi+'s from an area that is never going to lead to a real opportunity.

The fact is Vegas won the entire conference with a bad corsi relative to their finishing position. I would assume it's because they are efficient with the puck, and are regarded as the powerhouse braintrust of the league, identifying talent and seemingly doing everything right in developing a championship roster.

Looking into where their shots are being generated from, from the Cup champs would have significant value one would imagine. Rather, where they are NOT taking shots from.

Why does Vegas take way less shots from the half walls and outer edges of the rink than other teams? Why did they win the conference? Why did they win the Cup despite having a poor corsi? Could it be because their coaching staff has implemented a strategy that opts not to waste opportunities with the puck in preference to losing a corsi+ opportunity trying to take it closer to the net? That's my thinking on it.

Maybe I will try and take a look at Colorado, Tampa, St. Louis, the other past champs in their winning year and see what I can find. Thanks.

One of the best predictors of success is goal differential. Vegas won the conference by 2 points and all of 3 over the 2nd to 4th team. Yet their goal differential was significantly worse than all three of those teams. And a very similar roster actually missed the playoffs last year. To me that is more evidence that their success in the playoffs may well be more of a one time event than a sign of an elite playoff team. They certainly had a good game plan but they also had a lot of very unusual success.

I don't think the "they only take good shot theories is true. First off while they don't take a lot of shots from the half wall they do still take a lot of shots from far out. Their average shooting distance is certainly further out than the Oilers for example. Moreover, their 5 vs 5 regular season SH% was 8.07% which was in the bottom half of the league. If they were just more efficient that would not be the situation. The playoff SH% was 12.52% which is 4.45% higher than their regular season SH% despite playing only playoff quality teams. That is an insanely high number. Did they all of a sudden find a shooting touch that they never had or is this again another example of going on a heater over a short period of time? Occam's razor would suggest that the latter is more likely. But no study would prove this conclusively.

 

[duul]

One of the best predictors of success is goal differential. Vegas won the conference by 2 points and all of 3 over the 2nd to 4th team. Yet their goal differential was significantly worse than all three of those teams. And a very similar roster actually missed the playoffs last year. To me that is more evidence that their success in the playoffs may well be more of a one time event than a sign of an elite playoff team. They certainly had a good game plan but they also had a lot of very unusual success.

I don't think the "they only take good shot theories is true. First off while they don't take a lot of shots from the half wall they do still take a lot of shots from far out. Their average shooting distance is certainly further out than the Oilers for example. Moreover, their 5 vs 5 regular season SH% was 8.07% which was in the bottom half of the league. If they were just more efficient that would not be the situation. The playoff SH% was 12.52% which is 4.45% higher than their regular season SH% despite playing only playoff quality teams. That is an insanely high number. Did they all of a sudden find a shooting touch that they never had or is this again another example of going on a heater over a short period of time? Occam's razor would suggest that the latter is more likely. But no study would prove this conclusively.

Going off the charts, by efficiency I meant shot location rather than having McDavid and Draisaitl. By that I meant their D are shooting from the centre of the ice when they do shoot, which would obviously provide a further distance on average than ours which seems to all be around the net. Distance shot from would be a poor indicator of shot lethality vs distance towards centre of the ice. We would have a closer shooting distance than Colorado and Tampa as well quite easily, but this could be partially chalked up to having no faith in our D, or having incapable D, whereas Tampa and Colorado were stacked in such positions. Vegas too.

Doesn't it make you wonder why our shot locations are so 'off' compared to the ones I posted?

As for your question why their SH% rose, it could be a heater. I wish we had access to playoff charts for those. Do you know if they're available anywhere? It may illuminate a change in playstyle we aren't privy to. It doesn't seem uncommon for teams to play differently come playoff time. Would you not agree that it almost seems that a different sport is being played when the season is on the line? Regular season strategies go out the window and are replaced by something else.

edit: as for goal differential being one of the best predictors for success, do you mean regular season goal differential is one of the best indicators for a Cup winning team? I mean maybe? Would need to look into that. From a cursory glance it doesn't seem to correlate any better than any of these other things we're discussing with the Cup winner often being 5th-10th in the league, with a few exceptions like Colorado being third?

 

[Fourier]

Going off the charts, by efficiency I meant shot location rather than having McDavid and Draisaitl. By that I meant their D are shooting from the centre of the ice when they do shoot, which would obviously provide a further distance on average than ours which seems to all be around the net. Distance shot from would be a poor indicator of shot lethality vs distance towards centre of the ice. We would have a closer shooting distance than Colorado and Tampa as well quite easily, but this could be partially chalked up to having no faith in our D, or having incapable D, whereas Tampa and Colorado were stacked in such positions. Vegas too.

Doesn't it make you wonder why our shot locations are so 'off' compared to the ones I posted?

As for your question why their SH% rose, it could be a heater. I wish we had access to playoff charts for those. Do you know if they're available anywhere? It may illuminate a change in playstyle we aren't privy to. It doesn't seem uncommon for teams to play differently come playoff time. Would you not agree that it almost seems that a different sport is being played when the season is on the line? Regular season strategies go out the window and are replaced by something else.

edit: as for goal differential being one of the best predictors for success, do you mean regular season goal differential is one of the best indicators for a Cup winning team? I mean maybe? Would need to look into that. From a cursory glance it doesn't seem to correlate any better than any of these other things we're discussing.

I think that you are putting to much weight on the Oilers taking more shots from the left half wall. The bigger difference between the two teams was the Oilers much larger percentage of shots in tight which is where the chances of scoring are by far the highest. The bottom line is that the Oilers scored more 5 vs 5 goals over the season than Vegas. So there is no obvious way to somehow argue that Vegas was better at 5 vs 5 offense because they don't take shots from the half wall.

I don't think one can really argue that playoff hockey is so different that team would improve their team SH% by over 50%. Especially when you are talking about a team that missed the playoffs the previous year. I can't prove it with 100% certainty of course, but every thing points to a heater. That's not to say that Vegas does not have a good team. But what they did statistically is way out in left field vs any reasonable expectations.

Goal differential is an excellent predictor of a teams final position in the standings. A teams final position in the standings is a pretty good predictor of playoff success. It's not absolute (see Boston), but over the course of many years the higher a team finishes in the standings the more likely they are to go deep in the playoffs.

Here are the team point totals since the 2019-2020 season.

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Toronto does seem to be a significant outlier.

 

[duul]

I think that you are putting to much weight on the Oilers taking more shots from the left half wall. The bigger difference between the two teams was the Oilers much larger percentage of shots in tight which is where the chances of scoring are by far the highest. The bottom line is that the Oilers scored more 5 vs 5 goals over the season than Vegas. So there is no obvious way to somehow argue that Vegas was better at 5 vs 5 offense because they don't take shots from the half wall.

I don't think one can really argue that playoff hockey is so different that team would improve their team SH% by over 50%. Especially when you are talking about a team that missed the playoffs the previous year. I can't prove it with 100% certainty of course, but every thing points to a heater. That's not to say that Vegas does not have a good team. But what they did statistically is way out in left field vs any reasonable expectations.

Goal differential is an excellent predictor of a teams final position in the standings. A teams final position in the standings is a pretty good predictor of playoff success. It's not absolute (see Boston), but over the course of many years the higher a team finishes in the standings the more likely they are to go deep in the playoffs.

Goal differential and standings are two very different things though. You've used Vegas as the example yourself. I'll list off the Cup winners and their standing in goal differential from that year.

10th
3rd
7th
2nd
12th
11th
4th
2nd
4th
7th
1st
11th
2nd
2nd
9th

It seems like being anywhere in the top 12 is fine. Not sure how this is the excellent predictor in anything other than winning enough games to make the playoffs.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

I will post the Cup winning shot location charts, although it doesn't seem like they have playoff versions.

View attachment 741356

With Vegas you see chaos. Pucks to the centre of the ice, with a pretty obvious decision to never shoot from anywhere on the perimeter of the rink. Points shots + slot shots exclusively. They're crashing the net or creating chaos somewhere in the centre of the ice. It's no surprise a team like this wins the cup.

View attachment 741357

Colorado wins the Cup with the best defensive group the league has had in a long time. Toews, Makar, Byram, Girard, etc. The plan of attacking being to fire shots from the points. and high slot. Guys like MacKinnon, after looking at his charts, seems to take most of his shots from the high slot.

View attachment 741359

Tampa Bay looking eerily similar to Colorado and Vegas. All three teams thus far with heavy wide point and high slot shooting. Mass shooting from the points and high slot, with Vegas bringing more net front goal scoring, assuming from tips or something. Mark Stone perhaps? If he was even playing. Once again we see a ton of blue on the perimeters of the rink. They never waste puck possession.

View attachment 741360

Tampa Bay again, the year prior. That looks like the 'perfect' shooting location chart doesn't it? Nothing needs to be said here.

View attachment 741364

St. Louis. Again, entirely avoiding the perimeters of the rink like every other Cup winner, with emphasis on shots from the point and high slot.

I'll finish off by posting the Oilers last two or three years and we can see if it looks any different. Unfortunately this doesn't have playoff modes, but curious nonetheless.

View attachment 741367
View attachment 741368

Why the f*** are we the only team that is heavily blue in the slot/high slot of any of these? Why are we the only team with tons of red along the perimeters of the left side of the rink?

Our charts looks drastically different from the teams that are winning Cups. Why is that? Why are we avoiding the slot like the plague? There is no reason why we should be in the red all along the boards. Has to be a coaching decision.

So the team is actually bad and hopeless? Is that the end result of this or they didn't fix the team the correct way you've decided so they're bad and hopeless?

If you think this team is bad and will never be good enough, find one that is.

 

[duul]

So the team is actually bad and hopeless? Is that the end result of this or they didn't fix the team the correct way you've decided so they're bad and hopeless?

If you think this team is bad and will never be good enough, find one that is.

No, my qualm is that their shot locations or, I suppose coaching strategy does not seem to align with what the other Cup winning quality teams are doing to win games. Perhaps a shift in strategy is needed. Now that you mention it, I think I will go take a look at how the team was shooting under some other coaches.

LOL. What the hell happened here? Think that was Mclellan's last season.

Tippett's last full season. A club seemingly doing the opposite of the Cup winners, totally avoiding the high slot. This needs to be evaluated. Why are our players not shooting from the most dangerous area on the ice that all other Cup winners are employing as often as possible?

Do we lack personnel to get to these areas? Are they being told to avoid shooting from them?