Rumor: Rumors & Proposals Thread | With Klingberg in the Mix Who Are Our 7D After the Deadline?

[alphahelix]

Talbot was damn close to being a Vezina finalist that year. He should of been the guy they kept, not Koskinen. He also seems like he would of been a decent mentor for whoever was our young back up. He struggled the season after having twins, who wouldn't of? He's definitely one who got away. Even now, he's still pretty damn good numbers.

HfOil would have burned down the oilers office and murdered them all in the street if we had the audacity to keep Talbot or Dubnyk or any of the good goalies we've ever had in the HF era.

 

[K1984]

There was also a time where Talbot let in the first shot of the game.... all the time.

The revisionism around Talbot here drives me crazy. After year 2 here he was not good, and not good for a long period of time before we dumped him. Also not a coincidence that he has a new team every year.

He's among the better of the league's mediocre mercenary goalies that bounce around every year because you can more or less bank on getting dead middle of the road performances out of him most of the time. He's no more than that.

 

[guymez]

You're saying the Oilers miss Vinny

It's a fair point and something they have to clean up.

LOL...well I am not really a Vinny fan BUT at least he made opposing players pay the price in front of his own net.

Its frustrating as hell to watch and my buddy and I comment (everytime we see an opposing player take up territory in front of Skinner) on how passive the Oiler dmen (out side of maybe Ekholm and Nurse occasionally) are.
We know that player isnt going to pay any price at all because on this team the area in front of Skinner is a rent free zone.
Of course analytics cant account for that at all but just watch for yourself. It happens almost every single game and it absolutely impacts the game.

 

[McDoused]

How did I do?

If Kane is back he takes that top 6 spot, otherwise see if Kuzmenko works in his spot.

 

[Fourier]

To be fair, a lot of people on HFBoards crow about shots and “high danger chances”, but our defence has guys like Stecher, Klingberg, Bouchard, even Josh Brown and Ty Emberson are not great netfront defenders. The difference between a “HDSC” shooting from the hash marks into traffic at a set goalie, or a HDSC tapping a puck into an empty net is not recorded.

A five-alarm fire where Defencemen are either not in their position at all, or are doing something completely unexpected/ineffective, is actually much worse than a breakaway against. If the goalie is expecting that a certain offensive player is covered or mitigated, or that a part of the ice is safe… they are going to cheat to other areas (pass/shot/whatever as the circumstance may dictate). A solid NHL team should be able to limit these types of chances to 1 or 2 a game, maybe less. It’s not impossible. Defenders like Ekholm are capable of allowing 0 chances of this type per game.

The other Oilers defenders are massive perpetrators of five-alarm fire/abdication of duty… when things go bad, they go very bad. Shooters who are completely unmolested in a busy zone full of players, etc … Pointing out Stecher at the netfront is something abundantly obvious to anyone with hockey knowledge. He can’t do the job. You can blame coaching a bit for allowing these situations to occur, but mostly it’s a lack of competent personnel. Overall the coaching has done yeomans work to limiting these horrible miscues of which the Oilers were massively guilty for the past decade, but the personnel has not improved in this area of the game. The coaching may be as good as it’s been in the McDavid era, but the right side is as bad as it’s been in the McDavid era from a defensive perspective. A player like Bouchard is always going to have turnovers, sometimes in the defensive zone, and everyone else has to be ready to accommodate. But if you’re forced to use him on the PK and in defensive zone faceoffs, you’re not in an ideal situation.

So lets see how the Oilers are doing with respect to the net front:

Note the deep blue. How about the pk?

And where are the goals coming from:

This is why I have concern about the eye test.

 

[guymez]

So lets see how the Oilers are doing with respect to the net front:

View attachment 972390

Note the deep blue. How about the pk?

View attachment 972392


And where are the goals coming from:

View attachment 972391

This is why I have concern about the eye test.

So where does this account for contested and uncontested shots?

 

[Fourier]

So where does this account for contested and uncontested shots?

It doesn't explicitly differentiate between the two but it does implicitly. It would seem hard to imagine that a team unable to clear the crease has far fewer shots from near the net than the league average yet at the same time gives up far more than their share of completely uncontested shots. If that happened the region around the net would be bright red. It's not.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

How did I do?

View attachment 972385

View attachment 972384

If Kane is back he takes that top 6 spot, otherwise see if Kuzmenko works in his spot.

Interesting, Arvidsson for Kuzemenko doesn't seem like step forward though.

 

[Soundwave]

Talbot was damn close to being a Vezina finalist that year. He should of been the guy they kept, not Koskinen. He also seems like he would of been a decent mentor for whoever was our young back up. He struggled the season after having twins, who wouldn't of? He's definitely one who got away. Even now, he's still pretty damn good numbers.

Talbot should have been a Vezina nominee that year, we won so many tight games because of him and he played a ton of games, in the playoffs he was our best player.

 

[Fourier]

Interesting, Arvidsson for Kuzemenko doesn't seem like step forward though.

The knock on Kuzemenko is that he does not give a consistent effort. That is hardly true of Arvidsson.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

The knock on Kuzemenko is that he does not give a consistent effort. That is hardly true of Arvidsson.

I get people are down on Arvidsson, but why add extra cap for a dramatically lesser player.

 

[guymez]

It doesn't explicitly differentiate between the two but it does implicitly. But it would seem hard to imagine that a team unable to clear the crease has far fewer shots from near the net than the league average yet at the same time gives up far more than their share of completely uncontested shots. If that happened the region around the would be bright red. It's not.

Serious question...how does it implicitly imply contested or uncontested shots?
That appears to be an imaginary inference.

Also...not being able to clear the net front doesnt at all imply that there would be more shots from in front of the net.
Setting up an uncontested screen (which also invites an opportunity to tip a shot) invites shots from anywhere...especially long distance.

 

[Canovin]

Arvidsson for Lawson Crouse.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

Arvidsson for Lawson Crouse.

That is legit interesting.

Also this is out there



He's a big, physical body who can skate reasonably well.

 

[guymez]

I get people are down on Arvidsson, but why add extra cap for a dramatically lesser player.

Arvidsson has been disappointing for sure but I am really curious to see if his style of play is better suited to playoff games.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

There was also a time where Talbot let in the first shot of the game.... all the time.

Same with Koskinen. What's the connection I wonder...

 

[Ritchie Valens]

We have become a goalie graveyard

To an extent. None of the goalie draft picks have really panned out thus far. Konovalov probably seen the push Skinner was getting in the AHL and went back to Russia. Talbot had 2 good seasons and fell off a cliff, Smith was on the wrong side of 35 and Holland re-signed him two days before free agency when there was a decent crop of UFA goalies, Koskinen’s deal was a double-bird flip off as Chiarelli was being escorted out (no one was trading for that). Skinner is a borderline 1B, more of a backup.

Calgary swooping in and stealing Markstrom sucked. He gets a bad rap around here but he probably would have been the best goalie the Oilers had since Roloson.

 

[McDoused]

So lets see how the Oilers are doing with respect to the net front:

View attachment 972390

Note the deep blue. How about the pk?

View attachment 972392


And where are the goals coming from:

View attachment 972391

This is why I have concern about the eye test.

This is fantastic.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

Arvidsson has been disappointing for sure but I am really curious to see if his style of play is better suited to playoff games.

It felt like he never got momentum, part of that his is continued history of injuries, but his motor and skill should still be given a shot. The Oilers aren't hurt by a guy who lays it out as much as he does.

I think in the playoffs, he'll wear opponents out.

Same with Koskinen. What's the connection I wonder...

Hey I'll beat that drum with you.

 

[K1984]

Talbot should have been a Vezina nominee that year, we won so many tight games because of him and he played a ton of games, in the playoffs he was our best player.

He's among one of the bigger reasons we lost the Duck series. The throwing away of Game 3 especially.

 

[alphahelix]

So lets see how the Oilers are doing with respect to the net front:

View attachment 972390

Note the deep blue. How about the pk?

View attachment 972392


And where are the goals coming from:

View attachment 972391

This is why I have concern about the eye test.

This is Vs. both goalies, not one or the other.

The location of the shot says very little about the quality of the shot-- a guy standing in the crease banging 3 consecutive rebounds directly into a goalies pad appears nore significant than a guy skating the puck into the empty net. Troy Stecher rarely ever plays netfront or PK because he does worse there than Ekholm and several others. The coaches already know this, so his TOI there is low and does not show up on a generic all situations chart.

P.S. You think the goal locations are different from the rest of the league? Check out the heat map for a legitimate comparison instead of empty data.

All of this is subjectively creating meaning that isnt there. You may or may not want to add armor to the plane in places it is not needed, based on these specific datasets orphaned from their real world context.

You could easily wind up just making the plane heavier and more likely to be shot down (increasing % of cap on G to net no better results while leaving a D prone to cataclysmic breakdowns).

 

[Fourier]

Serious question...how does it implicitly imply contested and uncontested shots?
That appears to be a imaginary inference.

Also...not being able to clear the net front doesnt at all imply that there would be more shots from in front of the net. Setting up a screen invites shots from anywhere especially long distance.

The first two diagrams tell you that the Oilers give up far fewer than normal shots from the most dangerous areas of the ice. In particular since this was about clearing the crease, something that is particularly relevant on the pk we are focusing on the areas around the crease. The last diagram tells you the rate at which shots from various regions result in goals relative to what one would expect given the chances faced.

If the number of uncontested shots was as high as some suggest while the cumulative total number of HD shots is so much lower than expected the number of goals scored in tight would either have to be much greater than expected relative to the number of chances or the Oiler goalies would have to be stopping those chances at a much higher than normal rate. If you don't think the Oiler goalies are actually robbing guys at a higher rate than normal, the conclusion has to be that the number of truly high danger shots they give up is also proportionally less than average.

You will notice from the latter diagram that where the Oilers goalies are getting scored on far more than average is in regions above the circle.

Now this could be an issue with screen shots. So that is a valid question that the data in this form does not address. (The original claim was about tap ins. ) That said one needs to be able to explain why a team that seems to be so effective in limiting opportunities would somehow be way below average in giving up a particular type of shot.

This is Vs. both goalies, not one or the other.

The location of the shot says very little about the quality of the shot-- a guy standing in the crease banging 3 consecutive rebounds directly into a goalies pad is the same as a guy skating the puck into the empty net. Troy Stecher rarely ever plays netfront or PK because he does worse there than Ekholm and several others. The coaches already know this, so his TOI there is low and does not show up on a generic all situations chart.

P.S. You think the goal locations are different from the rest of the league? Check out the heat map for a legitimate comparison instead of empty data.

All of this is subjectively creating meaning that isnt there. You may or may not want to add armor to the plane in places it is not needed, based on this specific View attachment 972448data. You could easily wind up just making the plane heavier and more likely to be shot down (increasing % of cap on G to net no better results while leaving a D prone to cataclysmic breakdowns).

The xG models being used are a lot more than shot location. Your plane armor analogy has no application here.

 

[guymez]

The first two diagrams tell you that the Oilers give up far fewer than normal shots from the most dangerous areas of the ice. In particular since this was about clearing the crease, something that is particularly relevant on the pk we are focusing on the areas around the crease. The last diagram tells you the rate at which shots from various regions result in goals relative to what one would expect given the chances faced.

If the number of uncontested shots was as high as some suggest while the cumulative total number of HD shots is so much lower than expected the number of goals scored in tight would either have to be much greater than expected relative to the number of chances or the Oiler goalies would have to be stopping those chances at a much higher than normal rate. If you don't think the Oiler goalies are actually robbing guys at a higher rate than normal, the conclusion has to be that the number of truly high danger shots they give up is also proportionally less than average.

You will notice from the latter diagram that where the Oilers goalies are getting scored on far more than average is in regions above the circle.

I understand exactly what the diagrams show. What you seem to be doing is infering details which have no meaningful correlation to the data.

A example is that there is no possible way to infer contested or unconetsted shots from the above data.
Just like there is no way to infer that a player who sets up shop in front of the goalie means that more shots should come from that area.
Those are essentially imaginary inferences.

 

[alphahelix]

The first two diagrams tell you that the Oilers give up far fewer than normal shots from the most dangerous areas of the ice. In particular since this was about clearing the crease, something that is particularly relevant on the pk we are focusing on the areas around the crease. The last diagram tells you the rate at which shots from various regions result in goals relative to what one would expect given the chances faced.

If the number of uncontested shots was as high as some suggest while the cumulative total number of HD shots is so much lower than expected the number of goals scored in tight would either have to be much greater than expected relative to the number of chances or the Oiler goalies would have to be stopping those chances at a much higher than normal rate. If you don't think the Oiler goalies are actually robbing guys at a higher rate than normal, the conclusion has to be that the number of truly high danger shots they give up is also proportionally less than average.

You will notice from the latter diagram that where the Oilers goalies are getting scored on far more than average is in regions above the circle.


The xG models being used are a lot more than shot location. Your plane armor analogy has no application here.

Even the better xG models are rudimentary and alienate the majority of the real world context for any individual data point. If any of the models accounted in any way for unpredictable behavior, i.e. the nachos on the ice distracting the goalie to allow a floater from the blue line, you would have something more valuable to this discussion.

The entire point has been that regardless of how well things go for this Oilers team full of chaos D-men, they are still prone to the occassional peewee level 5 alarm firedrill.

McDavid can rack up HDSC all night long (and often does) with no goals to show for it. The majority of the HDSC we allow are easily handled by the goaltender. Then we have a handful of chaos plays that are literally worse than a breakaway where guys are behaving in completely unpredictable fashion and allowing attackers carte blanche to do whatever they want.

 

[Mr Positive]

I think the media avoids ripping the goalies because it is perceived as an excuse similar to bad officiating. Just blaming the goalie is seen as "letting everyone else off the hook."

The Skinner hate is way over the top IMO, but there are games where he was demonstrably at fault for the loss, but nobody in the media is willing to just call a spade a spade.

I never look at particular games where he is good or bad too closely. With goalies, quality over time is what is important, and so the season stats are most telling. The bottom line is that a goalie under .915 is a fail considering the quality of our defense and system, and those advanced stats of how he does vs high danger chances isn't good enough.

I'm also very clear that I want us to keep Skinner and bring in a new guy. Any team with under performing goalies should be looking to cycle guys in. Just try.