Player Discussion Jack Campbell

[Mr Positive]

Brobrovsky is a two time vezina trophy winner with multiple years of elite play.

Jack Campbell is a career backup/AHL tweener who has less than one full season of being a successful starter at the NHL level.

There was still endless talk about buyout options and what trade assets it took. It was also similar to the Campbell situation because both were criticized for making a long term commitment while there was a young goalie with promise ready to step in. And sure Bob had much more proof to back him but he also signed for a lot more term and AAV.

Ultimately even though fans and pundits want the GM to do something, almost all will wait these situations out. The cost of moving on is just too high.

 

[CROTT]

One thing that seams lost in this thread by some is that a forward or defenseman can be streaky and its not a terrible thing. But a goalie having multiple games below a .900 svpct is a terrible thing, not so much for the goalie himself but the team as a whole. Goalies for the most part at the NHL level need a certain level of over all consistency, that level increases even more for starters.

Yes, most reading this will say no $%#&.... But some seams as I said are lost in that over the last two seasons overall Skinner has been the better goalie. Prior to Woodcroft getting fired the Oilers had three games that a goalie had a +.900 svpct, two of those were Skinner. Campbells only +.900 svpct was the blow out against Nashville that was 4-0 after the first. And you don't waive a young goalie that was a rookie of the year finalist the year previous, should they have waived Campbell thats yes is debatable. But playing him at the NHL level at this point is not an option, and at least in the AHL he got some starts.

Yes Campbell played good in relief in the playoffs last year, but he had nothing to loose in those games, much like a bubble player putting up points on a lottery team only to be a ghost when the team turns things around. Campbell cratered under just regular season starts and last year was outside of when he covered for when Skinner was off for the birth of his first child had cherry picked starts against lottery teams. In the last two seasons theres an 11% higher probability of Skinner saving above .900 than Campbell for a team in win now mode thats huge.

 

[Soundwave]

There was still endless talk about buyout options and what trade assets it took. It was also similar to the Campbell situation because both were criticized for making a long term commitment while there was a young goalie with promise ready to step in. And sure Bob had much more proof to back him but he also signed for a lot more term and AAV.

Ultimately even though fans and pundits want the GM to do something, almost all will wait these situations out. The cost of moving on is just too high.

Campbell sucks but he doesn't suck this hard. This is just an overblown situation because of course sending the guy to the AHL was going to depress him and the first 5 games the Oilers played 5 defense in front of him.

He can at least be a 25 game back up but you have to build him back up and give him some freaking run way by playing some defense.

The way the Oilers did it was also kind of a smack in the face, he didn't even get sent down for a game he lost, the other guy loses a game and you get sent down as a way to punish the goaltending I guess? lol. Don't think I've ever seen that before.

 

[Zerotonine]

Dont get me started....
View attachment 769215

Bill ranford is the kings goalie coach , only alumini the oilers won't hire lololol

 

[MoontoScott]

As the GM of the organization you have to be very careful about signing long term contracts and that means you have to gather as much info as possible and act accordingly--especially when you are signing someone you don't know and a player that you don't often see. How many Leaf games did Kenny watch?

One check of the DB statistics tells you that he was never a bonafide proven starter and that should have been a red flag. It might have been incentive to offer a shorter contract. Sure Campbell could have balked but that's a risk you take in the negotiation process. Its Kenny's key weakness, he often tacks on more years to contracts than he really needs to. I like some moves that he has made (Kane, Hyman) but the guy is no poker player. I wouldn't go to a casino with him.

 

[North Cole]

One the Oilers and their fans need to understand dead cap kinda sucks, OK, you want to do anything you can to avoid that, piling on to a giant ass dead cap bill is horrendous management.

Secondly you can't buy him out until next summer, so lets be real then. What the Oilers are going to do (because they are a stupid management team) is run Skinner into the ground if the plan is to not even try to rehabilitate Campbell.

Holland should walk into the office every day and get slapped upside the head for the Campbell contract and he should effectively have no power at this point other than maybe an advisor, having said that, we're handling this Campbell situation awfully.

You don't embarrass and single out a guy who you full well know has mental issues with his game. There's like a 90% chance that blows up in your face, and a 10% chance he takes it the right way, well guess which way that broke for the Oilers.

Dead cap more than kind of sucks. That doesn't mean you need to fall for the sunk cost fallacy. 8m of dead cap over 6 years is better than 15m of dead-active cap over 3 years.

What are you talking about? Who cares if he takes it the right way, he's done. He wasn't able to make enough saves. If he goes to the minors and implodes further it has zero effect on the Oilers because hes not on the team. It's been more than a full year, that you believe he can be rehabilitated seems to be issue.

I don't see a world where paying a 5M cap hit and having the goalie on the ice actively losing us games is worse than a 4M cap hit where he's on some other teams ice losing them games.

 

[Soundwave]

Dead cap more than kind of sucks. That doesn't mean you need to fall for the sunk cost fallacy. 8m of dead cap over 6 years is better than 15m of dead-active cap over 3 years.

What are you talking about? Who cares if he takes it the right way, he's done. He wasn't able to make enough saves. If he goes to the minors and implodes further it has zero effect on the Oilers because hes not on the team. It's been more than a full year, that you believe he can be rehabilitated seems to be issue.

I don't see a world where paying a 5M cap hit and having the goalie on the ice actively losing us games is worse than a 4M cap hit where he's on some other teams ice losing them games.

The point was to boost his value to a respectable level where we could move him a trade for like a Gibson or Merzlinkins or Markstrom if we added a 1st or prospect like Broberg.

I don’t care about keeping either of our goalies to be frank. But I don’t want like 7 million in total dead cap left by Holland either. Jackson can’t let that happen.

 

[guymez]

At what point does the team just cut bait on this player?
Is he now the starting goalie in Bakersfield? By taking the bulk of the starts is there a concern about him negatively impacting Rodrigues development?

If there isnt then perhaps there should be.

 

[Yuke]

The point was to boost his value to a respectable level where we could move him a trade for like a Gibson or Merzlinkins or Markstrom if we added a 1st or prospect like Broberg.

I don’t care about keeping either of our goalies to be frank. But I don’t want like 7 million in total dead cap left by Holland either. Jackson can’t let that happen.

The minors is where players go to work on their game, not the NHL.
Sink or swim, that is sadly up to JC.

 

[bucks_oil]

If you are only looking at HDSC what you are saying is certainly valid over small sample sizes. But over large sample sizes it becomes less the case. However, the algorithms for expected goals are much more sophisticated and they use a lot of data about each shot.

Campbell played his last year in TO like two different players. As a Leaf Campbell had a solid start, went supernova for the first half of his second year, then played pretty much like he is now for most of the remainder of his tenure. Up to Dec 15 2021 he had a 5 vs 5 sv% of .936 in 45 games as a Leaf with a HDsv% of .839. From that point on his 5 vs 5 sv% dropped to .895 and his HDsv% dropped to .730 over 26 games. Over the first period TO's xGA/60 was 2.21. Over the latter period it was 2.26. This suggests that the drop in numbers was due to Campbell and not the quality of shots he was facing. Campbell in the AHL is also significantly underperforming both Pickard and Rodrigue.

We have had this discussion before and on individual goals you have made very good points as to why the goalie could be excused. But as sample size increases it becomes a simple matter of not stopping shots that other goalies are. I think we can all agree that the Oilers have big time break downs. But are they really alone in this regard? Vancouver for example can be a disaster defensively and yet Demko has allowed 4 HDGA on on 71 HDSA. This cannot simply be a matter that the stats are not picking up differences in shot quality. His xGA is just under 24. His actual goals against is 14 (5 vs 5). For Campbell it is 15 GA vs 11xGA.

Well first of all... I'm not trying to defend Campbell, or Skinner for that matter, I've lost confidence in both... but that has everything to do with the fundamentals of how they play the game, and nearly zero to do with their HDsv%.

Over the long haul / large n-size, I might be inclined to agree with you, that HDsv% could distinguish between one goalie and another... but we're talking about 5 games for Campbell and 6 games for Skinner where they were BOTH on the same team and BOTH near the bottom of the league in HDsv%.

Now all of a sudden, something changed, and Skinner's HDsv% is spiking through the roof over the last three games. Did he improve? Should we trust him as a starter now?

And when goalies switch from one team to the other and their SPCT spikes? Or tanks?

Or how goalies tend to have better save percentages when they have 50 shots against vs 25?

All of my personal experience says otherwise, so I’m a skeptic. There is just so much that these stats don't/can't capture. How often have you seen a goal go in and it takes the play by play guys three replays to determine that the puck was tipped? Do you think the goalie didn't know that already at full speed? Of course he did, so did the shooter and so did the guy who's stick or skate or sock it brushed... everyone else? Random chance whether they saw it or not... hopefully they were busy tying up their man

Does defining "HD" take into account whether there's a guy camped out at the side of my crease? And whether or not a trustworthy defender was there to tie up his stick? I can see that out of the corner of my eye... and that's going to be the difference between me being able to push to the top of my crease and have a chance to cut the angle on the shooter... and whether it brushes off my shoulder over the glass for a stoppage (since I'm way to slow to stop it otherwise) or whether it sails freely into the top corner because I had to stay back and respect the pass.

This is where numbers meet science, where trends meet regression analysis and I just don't believe the capture resolution is meaningful enough yet. We aren't talking about a pitcher and a batter... there are way to many uncontrolled variables and we aren't measuring them yet.

 

[leopoldbstotch]

Bill ranford is the kings goalie coach , only alumini the oilers won't hire lololol

How can they hire him if he’s working for a different organization? Unless I’m missing something?

 

[CROTT]

How can they hire him if he’s working for a different organization? Unless I’m missing something?

He's started and has held that position since 2006 (No one give Schwartz any ideas..), easy to do when he had Quick for most of those years. Thats not to say he didnt do anything, just the talent is there vs the long list of goalies the Oilers had during that stretch.

 

[TheNumber4]

Loading…

x.com

Kings send both a Goalie Scout and a good Goalie Coach to scout a potential goalie. That’s how it’s done Holland.

 

[Fourier]

Well first of all... I'm not trying to defend Campbell, or Skinner for that matter, I've lost confidence in both... but that has everything to do with the fundamentals of how they play the game, and nearly zero to do with their HDsv%.

Over the long haul / large n-size, I might be inclined to agree with you, that HDsv% could distinguish between one goalie and another... but we're talking about 5 games for Campbell and 6 games for Skinner where they were BOTH on the same team and BOTH near the bottom of the league in HDsv%.

Now all of a sudden, something changed, and Skinner's HDsv% is spiking through the roof over the last three games. Did he improve? Should we trust him as a starter now?

And when goalies switch from one team to the other and their SPCT spikes? Or tanks?

Or how goalies tend to have better save percentages when they have 50 shots against vs 25?

All of my personal experience says otherwise, so I’m a skeptic. There is just so much that these stats don't/can't capture. How often have you seen a goal go in and it takes the play by play guys three replays to determine that the puck was tipped? Do you think the goalie didn't know that already at full speed? Of course he did, so did the shooter and so did the guy who's stick or skate or sock it brushed... everyone else? Random chance whether they saw it or not... hopefully they were busy tying up their man

Does defining "HD" take into account whether there's a guy camped out at the side of my crease? And whether or not a trustworthy defender was there to tie up his stick? I can see that out of the corner of my eye... and that's going to be the difference between me being able to push to the top of my crease and have a chance to cut the angle on the shooter... and whether it brushes off my shoulder over the glass for a stoppage (since I'm way to slow to stop it otherwise) or whether it sails freely into the top corner because I had to stay back and respect the pass.

This is where numbers meet science, where trends meet regression analysis and I just don't believe the capture resolution is meaningful enough yet. We aren't talking about a pitcher and a batter... there are way to many uncontrolled variables and we aren't measuring them yet.

You won't get an argument form me that sample size is not important despite my previous posts earlier in the season that may have suggested otherwise.

Goalies are tough to assess statistically for reasons you point out. Moreover the difference between an AHL level goalie and an all star in the NHL is based on the outcome of 3 shots in 100. And if you broke down those 3 extra goals you may well be able to dismiss 2 of them as not his fault.
The problem I have is that the type of mistakes that people point out when goals are scored are made by every team. Perhaps not to the exact same degree but it seems that whenever a goal against is analyzed it seems that most often it turns out that there are multiple errors that lead to the goal. This should not surprise anyone. What is also true is that more times than not a sequence of very similar errors will not result in a goal. Why not?? Fluke?? Or does the goalie have a big impact on this. Can one guy's better positioning, anticipation, almost immeasurably better sight and/or reaction time change the outcome? And yes it is absolutely true that a stat like HDSA won't capture the nuance of an individual goal nor will the more refined xGA. But I know you realize that like all stats its important to recognize their purpose.

Shot characteristics resulting in goals has been thoroughly studied over many years. I am typically fairly skeptical of many of the manufactured stats but having read some of the papers on these ones I think there is solid science behind a good bit of it. In particular, because of the extremely large number of events that this includes there is in my opinion a lot of validity in asserting that these stats can provide meaningful insight into what is happening on the ice. You yourself have pointed out many of the random things that can impact a goal.

Defense is of course a challenge to measure in hockey. While far from perfect one can at least claim reasonable evidence in support of a statement that a team that a team that minimizes HDSA and more importantly xGA is helping their case defensively. In the former case, you are minimizing shots from areas with the highest chance of resulting in goals. For xGA this is refined even further by taking into consideration multiple shot characteristics beyond distance an location. On an individual basis things like HDSV% and xGA vs GA don't tell you a perfect tale of how a goalie is playing when patterns emerge they do provide evidence that over the course of time can be quite compelling.

 

[Aerchon]

You won't get an argument form me that sample size is not important despite my previous posts earlier in the season that may have suggested otherwise.

Goalies are tough to assess statistically for reasons you point out. Moreover the difference between an AHL level goalie and an all star in the NHL is based on the outcome of 3 shots in 100. And if you broke down those 3 extra goals you may well be able to dismiss 2 of them as not his fault.
The problem I have is that the type of mistakes that people point out when goals are scored are made by every team. Perhaps not to the exact same degree but it seems that whenever a goal against is analyzed it seems that most often it turns out that there are multiple errors that lead to the goal. This should not surprise anyone. What is also true is that more times than not a sequence of very similar errors will not result in a goal. Why not?? Fluke?? Or does the goalie have a big impact on this. Can one guy's better positioning, anticipation, almost immeasurably better sight and/or reaction time change the outcome? And yes it is absolutely true that a stat like HDSA won't capture the nuance of an individual goal nor will the more refined xGA. But I know you realize that like all stats its important to recognize their purpose.

Shot characteristics resulting in goals has been thoroughly studied over many years. I am typically fairly skeptical of many of the manufactured stats but having read some of the papers on these ones I think there is solid science behind a good bit of it. In particular, because of the extremely large number of events that this includes there is in my opinion a lot of validity in asserting that these stats can provide meaningful insight into what is happening on the ice. You yourself have pointed out many of the random things that can impact a goal.

Defense is of course a challenge to measure in hockey. While far from perfect one can at least claim reasonable evidence in support of a statement that a team that a team that minimizes HDSA and more importantly xGA is helping their case defensively. In the former case, you are minimizing shots from areas with the highest chance of resulting in goals. For xGA this is refined even further by taking into consideration multiple shot characteristics beyond distance an location. On an individual basis things like HDSV% and xGA vs GA don't tell you a perfect tale of how a goalie is playing when patterns emerge they do provide evidence that over the course of time can be quite compelling.

The Oilers are not just bad defensively they are omfg bad. This requires no stats just a half decent eye test and perspective.

You don't see responsible teams have their best players cheat in the defensive zone as bad as McDavid does. He will be on the opposite side of the ice he should be wheeling around like he is gearing up for a zone entry on a power play.

You won't see a teams "best" defenseman abandon pressuring or controlling gap to start playing goalie regularly.

You won't see the "criminal" negligence to push for offense that the Oilers do regularly. Nor how the team will just become lost in their own zone.

Bad pinches lost coverage... etc... all done at a rate and to an extreme you just don't see in most other NHL teams.

Jack Campbell sucks. Looks slow of thought and movement to my eye. But to start the year he had some games, Skinner too, where no goalie could be expected to save most those. Their gaa and save percentage not even remotely indicative of their play and almost completely on the Oilers lack of defense.

Unpressured 2 on 1's will almost always end up in the back of the net at the NHL level. Ditto any nhl shooter in prime scoring areas. If the Oilers give up 10 all world omfg scoring chances expect half those to go in at least. Even if it is only on 15 shoots total. There is a difference between all world omfg scoring chances and high danger scoring chances that are not caught in any stat I am aware of. You just dont expect nhl teams to leak these kind of chances, he'll most junior teams don't.

 

[Fourier]

The Oilers are not just bad defensively they are omfg bad. This requires no stats just a half decent eye test and perspective.

You don't see responsible teams have their best players cheat in the defensive zone as bad as McDavid does. He will be on the opposite side of the ice he should be wheeling around like he is gearing up for a zone entry on a power play.

You won't see a teams "best" defenseman abandon pressuring or controlling gap to start playing goalie regularly.

You won't see the "criminal" negligence to push for offense that the Oilers do regularly. Nor how the team will just become lost in their own zone.

Bad pinches lost coverage... etc... all done at a rate and to an extreme you just don't see in most other NHL teams.

Jack Campbell sucks. Looks slow of thought and movement to my eye. But to start the year he had some games, Skinner too, where no goalie could be expected to save most those. Their gaa and save percentage not even remotely indicative of their play and almost completely on the Oilers lack of defense.

Unpressured 2 on 1's will almost always end up in the back of the net at the NHL level. Ditto any nhl shooter in prime scoring areas. If the Oilers give up 10 all world omfg scoring chances expect half those to go in at least. Even if it is only on 15 shoots total. There is a difference between all world omfg scoring chances and high danger scoring chances that are not caught in any stat I am aware of. You just dont expect nhl teams to leak these kind of chances, he'll most junior teams don't.

I am fully aware that the Oilers make big mistakes. In fact, you do actually see a lot of what you describe from other teams.

I'll give you an example of this is action. I have seen many times that a big difference between Vegas and the Oiler in the last year's playoffs was that the Oilers lacked elite defensemen like AP specifically. But he was basically destroyed in the playoffs by the Oilers forwards often to be completely bailed out by Adin Hill doing his best to look like a Vezina caliber goalie. If the puck does not end up in the net and his team wins such things go by the wayside for most observers.

Nurse is a great example of a defenseman whose mistakes are so visible and so egregious that it is easy to brand him as being a big liability. Especially when these mistakes are repeated over and over again in highlights. Yet year in and year out over the course of full seasons he comes out well ahead in most aspects of the game that can be measured and that matter. That's where the eye test breaks down. It places way to much weight on a few plays that stand out over what is generally much more noise. But over time that noise matters. Now is this to say that Nurse's errors don't matter. Absolutely not. If he did not have this flaw in his game he is probably an elite defenseman in this league.

If you want to measure a team's defense the most obvious way to do so is to look at how many goals they give up over several years. All the things you say have been said about this team for years. Yet over the last two years they are basically right in the middle in terms of goals against. If their team defense was as bad as you say the only way that this would be true would be if their goalies were standing on their heads. Can you make a convincing case that that has happened.

 

[McFlash97]

The fact that people are talking about just being .900 for Campbell as a good thing for his career is such a sad and low bar to meet.

.900 is also a below average SVP

 

[bucks_oil]

You won't get an argument form me that sample size is not important despite my previous posts earlier in the season that may have suggested otherwise.

Goalies are tough to assess statistically for reasons you point out. Moreover the difference between an AHL level goalie and an all star in the NHL is based on the outcome of 3 shots in 100. And if you broke down those 3 extra goals you may well be able to dismiss 2 of them as not his fault.
The problem I have is that the type of mistakes that people point out when goals are scored are made by every team. Perhaps not to the exact same degree but it seems that whenever a goal against is analyzed it seems that most often it turns out that there are multiple errors that lead to the goal. This should not surprise anyone. What is also true is that more times than not a sequence of very similar errors will not result in a goal. Why not?? Fluke?? Or does the goalie have a big impact on this. Can one guy's better positioning, anticipation, almost immeasurably better sight and/or reaction time change the outcome? And yes it is absolutely true that a stat like HDSA won't capture the nuance of an individual goal nor will the more refined xGA. But I know you realize that like all stats its important to recognize their purpose.

Shot characteristics resulting in goals has been thoroughly studied over many years. I am typically fairly skeptical of many of the manufactured stats but having read some of the papers on these ones I think there is solid science behind a good bit of it. In particular, because of the extremely large number of events that this includes there is in my opinion a lot of validity in asserting that these stats can provide meaningful insight into what is happening on the ice. You yourself have pointed out many of the random things that can impact a goal.

Defense is of course a challenge to measure in hockey. While far from perfect one can at least claim reasonable evidence in support of a statement that a team that a team that minimizes HDSA and more importantly xGA is helping their case defensively. In the former case, you are minimizing shots from areas with the highest chance of resulting in goals. For xGA this is refined even further by taking into consideration multiple shot characteristics beyond distance an location. On an individual basis things like HDSV% and xGA vs GA don't tell you a perfect tale of how a goalie is playing when patterns emerge they do provide evidence that over the course of time can be quite compelling.

Well I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Mistakes lead to goals and mistakes are made by every team. Usually one mistake will not lead to a goal unless it's egregious, but a collection of small mistakes will.

So while I appreciate that HDSV% is trying it's best to find signal in the noise, and trying its best to provide as much statistical context to a highly fluid and sometimes random real life experience on the ice... it might be missing the point entirely.

Rather than focus on the 100 shots over a three game period and using those numbers to assess the 7 vs 10 vs 13 goals given up... or 1000 shots over a 10 game period and then feeling more confident that we can pass judgement because we now know more (?!?) about the 70, 100 or 130 goals given up... because our n-size increased (?!?). The basic premise here is that if we focus on more noise (n-size) signal will eventually wash out of the noise.

Or... Why not focus on the root of the issue. Defending and goaltending is about the same thing: playing within a structure and MINIMIZING ERRORS.

If baseball can count errors on every fielding play... what are there, something like 2-3 x 9 per team per game? Why not assess errors on goals? Every goal is worth 1 (or I prefer 2) errors and you can get assigned 0, -0.5 or -1 for your part in the goal against. And if you make an above the ordinary defensive play... like a massive back check to stop a cross ice tap in to a player that wasn't your man, or a beautiful sliding glove save on that same type of play maybe that's worth a +1 or even a +1.5.

To me that would tell you a lot more. You count fewer, more meaningful events and I am sure there are plenty of former goalies, former defenders/coaches, etc that could reliably be counted on to assess errors from Toronto.

On a given night of Mike Smith goaltending you might see:
-2 for passing the puck directly to the opponent for an open net goal
-1 for having an obvious 5-hole on a jam play, -1 for the defender as well, who was weak in the corner and lost a battle meekly
+1, +1, for two extraordinary saves on 2on1s... saving poor Ekholm from 2 x -0.5 for failing to stop the cross ice pass, and saving Bouchard from 2 x -1 for ill-advised pinches at the opponent's blue line
0 for the snipe from the slot that beat him high... he's fast, but not that fast, and was in position, so no error on that play
-0.5 for the top-of-crease tip on the point shot. Smith was way too deep in his net, if he'd been at the top of the blue paint, that tip goes straight into his crest.

And he'd end up -1.5 on the night. Rightly so.

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

The minors is where players go to work on their game, not the NHL.
Sink or swim, that is sadly up to JC.

I hear JC saves.

 

[klefbombs shoulder]

So assuming that Campbell can't turn it around and continues to be a below average AHL goalie, is there any kind of recourse for the Oilers? Or do we simply have to buy him out?

 

[Aerchon]

I am fully aware that the Oilers make big mistakes. In fact, you do actually see a lot of what you describe from other teams.

I'll give you an example of this is action. I have seen many times that a big difference between Vegas and the Oiler in the last year's playoffs was that the Oilers lacked elite defensemen like AP specifically. But he was basically destroyed in the playoffs by the Oilers forwards often to be completely bailed out by Adin Hill doing his best to look like a Vezina caliber goalie. If the puck does not end up in the net and his team wins such things go by the wayside for most observers.

Nurse is a great example of a defenseman whose mistakes are so visible and so egregious that it is easy to brand him as being a big liability. Especially when these mistakes are repeated over and over again in highlights. Yet year in and year out over the course of full seasons he comes out well ahead in most aspects of the game that can be measured and that matter. That's where the eye test breaks down. It places way to much weight on a few plays that stand out over what is generally much more noise. But over time that noise matters. Now is this to say that Nurse's errors don't matter. Absolutely not. If he did not have this flaw in his game he is probably an elite defenseman in this league.

If you want to measure a team's defense the most obvious way to do so is to look at how many goals they give up over several years. All the things you say have been said about this team for years. Yet over the last two years they are basically right in the middle in terms of goals against. If their team defense was as bad as you say the only way that this would be true would be if their goalies were standing on their heads. Can you make a convincing case that that has happened.

But you prove my point indirectly. If the Oilers are giving up an average amount of goals when it all comes down to it... why is the goalies save percentage and GA so bad in comparison to the rest of the league?

All teams make errors get burned etc... But the Oilers do it next level, at least to start this year and I would say last as well.

 

[ChaoticOrange]

The point was to boost his value to a respectable level where we could move him a trade for like a Gibson or Merzlinkins or Markstrom if we added a 1st or prospect like Broberg.

I don’t care about keeping either of our goalies to be frank. But I don’t want like 7 million in total dead cap left by Holland either. Jackson can’t let that happen.

Other teams aren't as stupid as us. They aren't going to look at a guy that plays every fourth game and manages an .890 and go "yes, you know what, f*** yeah, that's for us, let's pretend like the last 50 games didn't happen and only focus on the last six"

Pickard and Rodrigue both look very good behind Bako's D and Campbell looks like a guy that's never worn goalie pads before. That should tell you a lot.

Campbell is a poison pill, with a NTC besides. Edmonton's only recourse is mental health LTIR - and I have zero faith in any Edmonton manager's ability to convince the league of anything - or roll with a buyout this summer. Not ideal, but that contract sucked the minute Holland rushed to put pen to paper and take off to the cabin for the summer.

 

[Yuke]

Other teams aren't as stupid as us. They aren't going to look at a guy that plays every fourth game and manages an .890 and go "yes, you know what, f*** yeah, that's for us, let's pretend like the last 50 games didn't happen and only focus on the last six"

Pickard and Rodrigue both look very good behind Bako's D and Campbell looks like a guy that's never worn goalie pads before. That should tell you a lot.

Campbell is a poison pill, with a NTC besides. Edmonton's only recourse is mental health LTIR - and I have zero faith in any Edmonton manager's ability to convince the league of anything - or roll with a buyout this summer. Not ideal, but that contract sucked the minute Holland rushed to put pen to paper and take off to the cabin for the summer.

Oiler brass miraculously had Keith, Smith and Turris's contracts disappear. Why can't Campbell's?

 

[Fourier]

Well I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Mistakes lead to goals and mistakes are made by every team. Usually one mistake will not lead to a goal unless it's egregious, but a collection of small mistakes will.

So while I appreciate that HDSV% is trying it's best to find signal in the noise, and trying its best to provide as much statistical context to a highly fluid and sometimes random real life experience on the ice... it might be missing the point entirely.

Rather than focus on the 100 shots over a three game period and using those numbers to assess the 7 vs 10 vs 13 goals given up... or 1000 shots over a 10 game period and then feeling more confident that we can pass judgement because we now know more (?!?) about the 70, 100 or 130 goals given up... because our n-size increased (?!?). The basic premise here is that if we focus on more noise (n-size) signal will eventually wash out of the noise.

Or... Why not focus on the root of the issue. Defending and goaltending is about the same thing: playing within a structure and MINIMIZING ERRORS.

If baseball can count errors on every fielding play... what are there, something like 2-3 x 9 per team per game? Why not assess errors on goals? Every goal is worth 1 (or I prefer 2) errors and you can get assigned 0, -0.5 or -1 for your part in the goal against. And if you make an above the ordinary defensive play... like a massive back check to stop a cross ice tap in to a player that wasn't your man, or a beautiful sliding glove save on that same type of play maybe that's worth a +1 or even a +1.5.

To me that would tell you a lot more. You count fewer, more meaningful events and I am sure there are plenty of former goalies, former defenders/coaches, etc that could reliably be counted on to assess errors from Toronto.

On a given night of Mike Smith goaltending you might see:
-2 for passing the puck directly to the opponent for an open net goal
-1 for having an obvious 5-hole on a jam play, -1 for the defender as well, who was weak in the corner and lost a battle meekly
+1, +1, for two extraordinary saves on 2on1s... saving poor Ekholm from 2 x -0.5 for failing to stop the cross ice pass, and saving Bouchard from 2 x -1 for ill-advised pinches at the opponent's blue line
0 for the snipe from the slot that beat him high... he's fast, but not that fast, and was in position, so no error on that play
-0.5 for the top-of-crease tip on the point shot. Smith was way too deep in his net, if he'd been at the top of the blue paint, that tip goes straight into his crest.

And he'd end up -1.5 on the night. Rightly so.

In fact, I see it as exactly the opposite of what you are asking. It's the noise that matters. Ideally you really need to do is to count the errors on every play and then determine the relative rate of goals, not just on the ones that go in.

Part of the problem I have with what you are saying is that it almost seems to support the premise that every goalie is relatively equal and that the core distinguishing characteristic between saves or no save is simply the nature of the shot. I know you don't really think this but read on the surface this could be taken as an extreme corollary of your approach. Is it really true that very two on one would have the same result regardless of who was in net? Similarly with every shot from the slot. In fact, I see it as exactly the opposite of what you are asking. The noise matters or rather in this case the non-goals which fade from memory much faster than goals and evade perception much more readily. Ideally you really need to do is to count the errors on every play and then determine the relative rate of goals.

Looking at individual plays in isolation how can both be revelatory and also misleading. Baseball is not a perfect analog of hockey for sure but there are some at least plausible parallels here. Two batters could face a guy with a nasty fastball at 98MPH with movement. Both guys could swing and miss and it would be easy to say that this is to be expected. The way you distinguish who is the best hitter is not to look at outcomes after 500 or 1000 or pick your poison number of at bats. In those 500 at bats the pitches the two hitters face may be quite different. But in the end if one guy gets hits 5% more more often it is generally expected that that player is the better hitter unless there is compelling evidence otherwise.

Two goalies could face the same shot or the same 2 on one and the outcome could go either way regardless of who was in net. But if you could repeat the same event hundreds of times one would expect the better goalie to come out ahead. Unfortunately, shots are not repeatable experiments with controlled conditions. So you have to introduce some smoothing. That is what HDSA are, smoothing factors. The algorithms for xG's take this to a much higher level. Again this is far from perfect, but I contend that over a long enough span and even with some context added they can be quite useful.

I'll repeat, this is far from an exact science. Randomness is part of hockey, much more so than in baseball. So it is through many events that one has a chance to filter out the noise. And of course, minimizing errors is absolutely important. But so is reducing the number of attempts that have a historically high probability of resulting in a goal. These two things are not impendent of course.

 

[Fourier]

But you prove my point indirectly. If the Oilers are giving up an average amount of goals when it all comes down to it... why is the goalies save percentage and GA so bad in comparison to the rest of the league?

All teams make errors get burned etc... But the Oilers do it next level, at least to start this year and I would say last as well.

If you follow my full discussion with bucks_oil I can summarize my response to you from before. No one is denying that the Oilers make big errors and that reducing these is absolutely desirable. They may even make more of the most egregious errors than other teams. But this is only one aspect of defense. Statistically overall, the Oilers also limit shots from the areas of the ice with the highest probability more than most teams. This is a positive of their defensive play that negates the impact of their mistakes to a degree but does not go nearly as well noticed.

The point is that despite the Oilers error rate and despite having below average goaltending they are middle of the pack in GA.

By the way, in your previous post you mentioned 2 on 1's almost always ending up in goals in the NHL. Out of curiosity do you have any numbers to clarify what you mean by "almost always"?