So.. Edmonton has to be the favorites coming out of the west, right?

[CaptBrannigan]

I don’t think Edmonton is the team I would pick to win 4/7 three times in a row. Especially in postseason hockey against postseason teams.

 

[SecretOilersFan]

Cups follow greatness. McDavid and Drai=greatness. Oilers fans should stay humble but hopeful.

I would argue we are. If anything we are incredibly pessimistic granted that is kinda understandable. I am just happy to get back into the playoffs honestly. That's all I personally want obviously the team should be aiming higher. Guy who started this dumb main board thread isn't an Oiler fan.

 

[Anomie2029]

I like what the Oilers did at the deadline, and generally how they have played this season.

But no way would I consider them favourites to come out of the west. I wouldn't even call them favourites in the Pacific.

 

[Mr Positive]

the true contenders usually 'overstock' at the deadline. It's more about luxury than need.

The Oilers used the deadline to fill big holes in the lineup. It's different. Maybe the Oilers are a contender now, but we don't know yet.

 

[Trinstin]

Im too lazy to read every page. Is this guy really arguing that Stone is a better player than McDavid?

Imagine if McDavid focused on his defense instead.. People can argue which player has a bigger impact (an all out offenseive or a offensive/defensive player who puts up maybe 80% of the points). That's fine and all but offense is just valued much higher and those extra 20% of points massively outdo that extra defense at least imo.

 

[OiledGun]

Imagine if McDavid focused on his defense instead.. People can argue which player has a bigger impact (an all out offenseive or a offensive/defensive player who puts up maybe 80% of the points). That's fine and all but offense is just valued much higher and those extra 20% of points massively outdo that extra defense at least imo.

Are we talking about McDavid vs. Stone here? That would be an extra 50% of Stone’s points. Not 20%

 

[thadd]

If we can stop getting injured I figure we've got just as good of chance as any other chance in the west.

 

[IceNeophyte]

The Best in the West just lost to Sonny Milano.

 

[North Cole]

Carlson is benefitting from fairly strong on-ice goaltending this season and his goal-based impacts still don’t stack up to other top defensemen. His defensive inferiority to guys like Pietrangelo absolutely does erase the gap in their raw points and then some. Now, back on-topic...

Forwards are not just “there to score points”. Hockey is an extremely dynamic game, and forwards and defensemen all play as a unit of 5. Every player on the ice at all times is there to help their team out-score the opposition.

Over the past couple of seasons, these players aren’t reasonably near each other in their impact on scoring differentials when you adjust for their context.

Have you ever considered that it’s not the stats community who has overblown the importance of defensive play for forwards, but rather the “raw bointz and eye test!” community that has understated the importance of defensive play for forwards, given that points don’t account for defense, and that people’s eye tests generally let them see whatever they want to?

The differentials at all strengths are utterly meaningless because the TOI distribution between these players in terms of PP, PK, and EV are not remotely even. You could literally put me out there exclusively for 5-on-3 and I’d have better all situations differentials than any of them...that’s why you compare apples to apples.

And McDavid wasn't being held back by fairly weak on-ice goaltending when Talbot was letting in stinkers on the first two shots of the game? Seems a bit one-sided to bring that up now. It really doesn't make up for it and then some. Chayka runs a hockey team the same way - Analytics or bust.

Hockey is an extremely dynamic game and everyone plays as a unit - but you constantly post charts that parade the idea of stats that are adjusted for individual impact only. Which is what you used to dump on AA when you claimed that twitter experts model was flawed. So is hockey dynamic and we should take the context of on-ice goal tending and team structure/defense into account, or should we just adjust stats for individual impacts? Or should we just fly by the seat of our pants and do one sometimes and one the other? You can't say McDavid plays with Draisaitl, because you're on record saying he isn't elite. Karlsson is elite, and Stone played a lot of minutes with him. Stone also had some decent on-ice goaltending before Anderson fell off his rocker. Or was Anderson over his head, and it was the trap instilled by Coach Scarface which boosted Stone's defensive metrics?

What context are you adjusting for with stats beside flip flopping from individual metrics to team-based metrics on a whim? How does pulling one scoring environment (5-on-5) equate to less bias when "adjusting" for context (whatever this means), versus all-scoring environments? You may have more noise in all-scoring environments, but it should best account for context, since it takes into account all states of play and the full dynamic of the game. This is where the stats community loses me, because you guys induce bias into your own systems. The stats themselves are not biased, but moving fluidly from one stat to another, one state of play to another, "adjusting for context", creates bias because you determine what you "think" is important at the time. That's not controlled testing, you have manipulated the dataset by "choosing" (bias of view) what to look at, and then fall back on the guise that stats themselves are not biased. Fairly weak deflection that people don't call the stats community out on, enough.

The differentials at 5-on-5 only, are utterly meaningless because of the TOI distribution between these players in terms of linemates, team, and usage - basically just regurgitated back your sentence with some other generalities which you can't corroborate and therefore, cannot question. Seems like a fairly easy way out of an argument without actually saying anything of substance.

I compared apples to apples - all strengths to all strengths and I used rates, which specifically doesn't care about aggregate TOI, because they are stats/60. The stats are there, I didn't create or manipulate them. Sounds like what your saying is that using one singular measure of play - 5-on-5 - is better because it has less data and therefore less actual context. Which translates to - it tells me what I need it to tell me while still obviously having a bunch of white noise, since their 5-0n-5 deployment is not remotely similar, along with their TOI. Based on this new stipulation you have added, you can only compare players which play exclusively on the same line and with no other lines - since then they have the same TOI and distribution of deployment, which is less useful because it means we can no longer compare players which play on different teams.

So I guess we are at an impasse and there is no way to definitively prove that Stone is better or worse than McDavid, since we cannot compare them in any state of play, since they don't meet the bolded requirements for controlled statistical testing. Unless of course you give us your secret methodology for "adjusting the stats for context" - is this proprietary?

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

And McDavid wasn't being held back by fairly weak on-ice goaltending when Talbot was letting in stinkers on the first two shots of the game? Seems a bit one-sided to bring that up now. It really doesn't make up for it and then some. Chayka runs a hockey team the same way - Analytics or bust.

Hockey is an extremely dynamic game and everyone plays as a unit - but you constantly post charts that parade the idea of stats that are adjusted for individual impact only. Which is what you used to dump on AA when you claimed that twitter experts model was flawed. So is hockey dynamic and we should take the context of on-ice goal tending and team structure/defense into account, or should we just adjust stats for individual impacts? Or should we just fly by the seat of our pants and do one sometimes and one the other? You can't say McDavid plays with Draisaitl, because you're on record saying he isn't elite. Karlsson is elite, and Stone played a lot of minutes with him. Stone also had some decent on-ice goaltending before Anderson fell off his rocker. Or was Anderson over his head, and it was the trap instilled by Coach Scarface which boosted Stone's defensive metrics?

What context are you adjusting for with stats beside flip flopping from individual metrics to team-based metrics on a whim? How does pulling one scoring environment (5-on-5) equate to less bias when "adjusting" for context (whatever this means), versus all-scoring environments? You may have more noise in all-scoring environments, but it should best account for context, since it takes into account all states of play and the full dynamic of the game. This is where the stats community loses me, because you guys induce bias into your own systems. The stats themselves are not biased, but moving fluidly from one stat to another, one state of play to another, "adjusting for context", creates bias because you determine what you "think" is important at the time. That's not controlled testing, you have manipulated the dataset by "Choosing" what to look at, and then fall back on the guise that stats themselves are not biased. Fairly weak deflection that people don't call the stats community out on enough.

The differentials at 5-on-5 only, are utterly meaningless because of the TOI distribution between these players in terms of linemates, team, and usage - basically just regurgitated back your sentence with some other generalities which you can't corroborate and therefore, cannot question. Seems like a fairly easy way out of an argument without actually saying anything of substance.

I compared apples to apples - all strengths to all strengths and I used rates, which specifically doesn't care about aggregate TOI, because they are stats/60. The stats are there, I didn't create or manipulate them. Sounds like what your saying is that using one singular measure of play - 5-on-5 - is better because it has less data and therefore less actual context. Which translates to - it tells me what I need it to tell me while still obviously having a bunch of white noise, since their 5-0n-5 deployment is not remotely similar, along with their TOI. Based on this new stipulation you have added, you can only compare players which play exclusively on the same line and with no other lines - since then they have the same TOI and distribution of deployment, which is less useful because it means we can no longer compare players which play on different teams.

So I guess we are at an impasse and there is no way to definitively prove that Stone is better or worse than McDavid, since we cannot compare them in any state of play, since they don't meet the bolded requirements for controlled statistical testing. Unless of course you give us your secret methodology for "adjusting the stats for context" - is this proprietary?

I'm sorry but if you honestly can't see the difference between comparing on-ice differentials at 5-on-5, and at all situations for players whose minutes are significantly different in terms of what percentage of ice time they play on special teams, I don't know what to tell you. If you separate PP differentials, EV differentials, and SH differentials, I'm pretty sure Stone comes well ahead. What you are literally showing here is that McDavid/Drai play a larger percentage of their time on the PP and a smaller percentage of their time on the PK. Again, if you honestly can't understand that concept, you are just not worth responding to.

However, because I don't want to be nebulous, I will show you the results of a few models that do adjust for context etc. as I have talked about them without showing them. These are not proprietary but their creators both put their stuff behind a Patreon subscription, which really bothers me, but I digress.

Goals above replacement and expected goals above replacement over the past 3 seasons:

Spoiler

Stone tops both of them over the past 3 seasons in goals above replacement, despite playing far fewer minutes and games than either. In addition, Stone is trending upward in GAR; he's well ahead of both if you exclude the 2017-2018 season, which is the furthest from today. (Stone is ahead in just the 2019-2020 season as well)

In expected goals above replacement, Stone is just behind McDavid in the 3-year sample despite playing far fewer minutes:.

He's also well ahead of McDavid, Draisaitl, and every other player in the league over a 2-year sample:

If you looked at something like the 3-year sample with different weights put on each season, you'd find Stone well ahead.

Here is Evolving Hockey's RAPM:

Spoiler

As you can see here, Stone is not as good at either player as driving goals even at EV, but after adjusting for teammates, ice time, etc., he is much closer than raw points would lead you to believe. On the PP, he's notably behind both players as well. However, the even strength defense is by far the biggest gap here.

And since you asked for it, here's Micah McCurdy's model:

Spoiler

I've gone into detail on my issues with McCurdy's model - namely that the median forward impact is so far above 0% on both sides of the puck, and that players can influence goals for in manners that don't involve individually shooting the puck or influencing shot location. However, here are the results of his model, since you asked:

Yet again, Stone well ahead of both.

So yeah, there you have it. Every "catch-all" metric that we have today, available to the public, has Stone on par with or ahead of McDavid in a 3-year sample, and significantly ahead of McDavid in a 2-year sample or in a 3-year sample if a higher weight is placed on the more recent seasons. These all adjust for context such as teammates, competition, zone/score usage, scheduling, etc. and they all have Stone well ahead.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

They sure looked like perennial Cup champions against the lowly Ducks. Maybe Holland should've tried to upgrade his goaltending. Then again, in Holland's mind, he'd probably think acquiring Jimmy Howard would be a step in that direction.

 

[Mc5RingsAndABeer]

WTF is this thread. I'm an Oiler fan and I'll be happy if we just make the playoffs. You're MASSIVELY overrating the deadline deals Edmonton made. The reason they're considered trade deadline winners is the price they paid, not absolute value.

 

[HockeyWooot]

The west is wide open, so they definitely have a good shot coupled with the McDrai factor.

Playoff hockey is a different beast though, they wouldn’t be my favourite but rather VGK or STL.

 

[Fraser28]

It would be close, but I don't even think they would beat Vancouver in a 7-game series.

 

[McFlash97]

A team with 97 AA and possibly the best 2nd line in hockey can win any series. The real question is how often do the Oilers actually lose in the first round when they get there? ....hardly ever ! They are not exactly the Flames or Nucks in that regard....

 

[nowhereman]

I don't see them getting past St. Louis, Colorado, Vegas or Vancouver. So... no.

 

[calderkids]

Weird you use your reason as defense wins championships and then choose Vancouver, a worse defensive team than Edmonton over them.

A worse defensive team based on stats or results? Nucks score more goals, allow less goals, have a much better goal differential. Advanced stats are used way to much by certain types of fans to a point they trust them more than actual results. The Nucks are and have been dealing with numerous injuries all season yet still have more players with 40 Points and still have a chance to have 6-20 goal scorers possibly 7 if Gaudette gets hot, that's with Ferland only playing 14 games. I will take Marky-Demko over Smith-Kosko and a top 4 of Tanev-Hughes-Edler-Myers over any top 4 of the Oilers.

The fact that in the playoffs special teams become less of a factor and goaltending and depth become paramount, Vegas and Vancouver seem to be in much better positions imo.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Lol favourites!? They’ll be fortunate just to make the playoffs. Below average defence and goaltending, poor secondary scoring. AA, Ennis & Green are depth pieces and don’t move the needle much.

 

[Fivealive5]

This is an Edmonton team that has been absolutely outplayed and out witted out by even the Flames this year. On what planet are they the favourites lmao.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

This thread being an article is an insult to articles.

 

[hockeyguru]

no. not even close. they did win the deadline imo.

 

[Tkachuky]

A team with 97 AA and possibly the best 2nd line in hockey can win any series. The real question is how often do the Oilers actually lose in the first round when they get there? ....hardly ever ! They are not exactly the Flames or Nucks in that regard....

Very good observation. You’re right. The Oilers are very good in the playoffs. Every time they made it they have gone far!

 

[bradrich99]

How would McD and Drai fare in a 7 game series where a team like the Blues will send 4 lines at them and pound them into the boards every shift? You know that'll be the game plan. I just don't think they will be able to hold up. Depth goes a long way in the playoffs and I just don't think Oilers have enough.

 

[North Cole]

I'm sorry but if you honestly can't see the difference between comparing on-ice differentials at 5-on-5, and at all situations for players whose minutes are significantly different in terms of what percentage of ice time they play on special teams, I don't know what to tell you. If you separate PP differentials, EV differentials, and SH differentials, I'm pretty sure Stone comes well ahead. What you are literally showing here is that McDavid/Drai play a larger percentage of their time on the PP and a smaller percentage of their time on the PK. Again, if you honestly can't understand that concept, you are just not worth responding to.

However, because I don't want to be nebulous, I will show you the results of a few models that do adjust for context etc. as I have talked about them without showing them. These are not proprietary but their creators both put their stuff behind a Patreon subscription, which really bothers me, but I digress.

Goals above replacement and expected goals above replacement over the past 3 seasons:

Spoiler

View attachment 327243
Stone tops both of them over the past 3 seasons in goals above replacement, despite playing far fewer minutes and games than either. In addition, Stone is trending upward in GAR; he's well ahead of both if you exclude the 2017-2018 season, which is the furthest from today. (Stone is ahead in just the 2019-2020 season as well)

View attachment 327245

In expected goals above replacement, Stone is just behind McDavid in the 3-year sample despite playing far fewer minutes:.

View attachment 327261

He's also well ahead of McDavid, Draisaitl, and every other player in the league over a 2-year sample:

View attachment 327263

If you looked at something like the 3-year sample with different weights put on each season, you'd find Stone well ahead.

Here is Evolving Hockey's RAPM:

Spoiler

View attachment 327253

View attachment 327255

View attachment 327257

As you can see here, Stone is not as good at either player as driving goals even at EV, but after adjusting for teammates, ice time, etc., he is much closer than raw points would lead you to believe. On the PP, he's notably behind both players as well. However, the even strength defense is by far the biggest gap here.

And since you asked for it, here's Micah McCurdy's model:

Spoiler

I've gone into detail on my issues with McCurdy's model - namely that the median forward impact is so far above 0% on both sides of the puck, and that players can influence goals for in manners that don't involve individually shooting the puck or influencing shot location. However, here are the results of his model, since you asked:

Yet again, Stone well ahead of both.

So yeah, there you have it. Every "catch-all" metric that we have today, available to the public, has Stone on par with or ahead of McDavid in a 3-year sample, and significantly ahead of McDavid in a 2-year sample or in a 3-year sample if a higher weight is placed on the more recent seasons. These all adjust for context such as teammates, competition, zone/score usage, scheduling, etc. and they all have Stone well ahead.

According to the three year sample of GAR, Couturier is the best forward in hockey? This is not a red flag for you at any level? More an indictment on using GAR alone, if anything. Strange that you consider it to be way more acceptable to use one "catch-all" statistic, which is inherently muddy, over using 5-8 statistics in a "catch-all" state-of-play.

"I'm sorry but if you honestly can't see the difference between comparing on-ice differentials at 5-on-5, and at all situations for players whose minutes are significantly different in terms of what percentage of ice time they play on special teams"
- Yet here you are under every single chart, talking up Stone because he is close to McDavid with "less" minutes played. So how is that a reasonable comparison, and not total hypocrisy? The functional difference between [35%-PP 65%-EV] and [25%-PP 5%-PK 70%-EV] is negligible compared to the difference between 4800 and 3900 minutes at EV. Explain how one differential is better than the other? I'm talking EV, not just 5-0n-5, which is even more boiled down and I'm sure they are even further apart in TOI.

The models adjust for teammates, but your knock on John Carlson is that he gets strong on-ice goaltending - which is a teammate based statistic...Makes total sense... McDavid has had weaker on-ice goaltending over the last three years. Again - hypocrisy. If you don't understand that - you aren't worth replying to. Another good throw away line, I'll have to remember it.

Lastly, hockey is a dynamic game, playing on the PP is part a large part of it. Contextually speaking, you should want to take the player who is significantly better on the PP and plays a larger portion of PP time then the player who is significantly better at PK and plays more PK - if they are forwards. In general, fowards play much less PK time, even the ones who are great at it. If two players are "even", which you haven't convinced me they are at EV, and one is significantly better at PP and the other at PK, I'm taking the PP player. PK makes up the smallest and most insignificant portion of their total ice-time.

 

[Crabapple]

Very good observation. You’re right. The Oilers are very good in the playoffs. Every time they made it they have gone far!

No one can say we're not efficient lol