Post-Game Talk: Oilers Saving Time

[mcdingdong]

Sure they weaponized cap space but the teams had ample numbers in who they could protect. Multiple teams erred in their own lists, left players out that were actually more valuable, and Vegas fairly astutely detected the better players left off lists, which in many cases should not have been left on the table.

My take is that if every club had actually protected their better players then Vegas wouldn't have been able to build the core they did. From the outset.

But I see your point too and to wit the Oilers weaponized in the same way acquiring the 2005 team.

Most teams (and rightly so) protected in the 7 fwd 3 d config. Meaning Vegas was able to amass a significant number of top 4 dmen for free. The expansion rules were pretty soft relative to any other expansion in NHL history. This coupled with the cap limitations made for a target rich environment, imo. Even after teams learned their lessons post Vegas expansion, Seattle still constructed a competitive team for example.

 

[GOilers88]

If the NHL was a competently run league I would agree with you. But following this league for near 60yrs gives other impressions. Found gold is all over the place.

Worse the NHL is often like a hive mind. One team decisions on a player and then the word gets around and the take on the player becomes accepted dogma instead of individual and better analysis taking place.

Third, the goalie file particularly is haphazard in that only 2 goalies for any org are in the lineup. So that its a given in that one spot that if teams have depth at the spot that one or more goalies can be left out in the cold. If I'm an NHL team I'm specifically looking for goalies that fell off the cart of premium goalie loaded clubs.

Lastly a strong NHL dynamic exists where the probability of a player not landing anywhere, or having dificulty landing is if the drafting club moves on from the player. Its common enough the death of opportunity. Which is unfortunate as several member teams in NHL have poor evaluation of their own players. NHL far from perfect. Bias exist, preferences exist etc.

Fair points.

I'm not against letting Pickard get more action. They should be testing him and resting Skinner more. I just think some people really want to, or have convinced themselves that Skinner just doesn't, and never will have it, to the point where fringe goalies are being looked upon as something more than they are because recently Adin Hill made a name for himself.

Pickard has been great in his role though, and has done everything they could have asked for up to this point. So I agree, keep letting him loose.

 

[Broberg Speed]

Good lord I cannot wait for Campbell to be bought out this summer so that this board can stop talking about him.

What the hell is this thread?

That's a fine attitude. What if I told you the only way the Edmonton Oilers win the Stanley Cup this year is if Jack Campbell finally gets his shot against the Vegas Golden Knights and he steals a round for us?

 

[Drivesaitl]

Fair points.

I'm not against letting Pickard get more action. They should be testing him and resting Skinner more. I just think some people really want to, or have convinced themselves that Skinner just doesn't, and never will have it, to the point where fringe goalies are being looked upon as something more than they are because recently Adin Hill made a name for himself.

Pickard has been great in his role though, and has done everything they could have asked for up to this point. So I agree, keep letting him loose.

If I was into it enough I would provide a list of goales that were just found laying around, that were infinitely available, and that teams just scooped them up and used them in the playoffs. In Pacific division alone that was Korpisalo and Adin Hill. I believe in the bullet approach with goalies. Have as many in your org as possible. Vegas had the right approach there.

For the Oilers I'd be looking closely at the situation in Jersey. They have some good goalies who they suddenly think are bad. Some other club is going to benefit picking up their discards. Just a year ago it was considered that NJ had strong goaltending. Just a year later its viewed as somehow weak. Thats just an example of what poor analysis goes on just on the goalie file. Sure goalies can be hard to decipher, but the goalie assessment in the league seems underwhelming.

 

[GOilers88]

If I was into it enough I would provide a list of goales that were just found laying around, that were infinitely available, and that teams just scooped them up and used them in the playoffs. In Pacific division alone that was Korpisalo and Adin Hill. I believe in the bullet approach with goalies. Have as many in your org as possible. Vegas had the right approach there.

For the Oilers I'd be looking closely at the situation in Jersey. They have some good goalies who they suddenly think are bad. Some other club is going to benefit picking up their discards. Just a year ago it was considered that NJ had strong goaltending. Just a year later its viewed as somehow weak. Thats just an example of what poor analysis goes on just on the goalie file. Sure goalies can be hard to decipher, but the goalie assessment in the league seems underwhelming.

I think Jersey suffers from the same fate as Edmonton in a way. Good team relying on unproven goaltending. Having lots of bullets is a good strategy, I agree. But I think you also need at least one guy who has a track record of some sustained success at the NHL level.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Most teams (and rightly so) protected in the 7 fwd 3 d config. Meaning Vegas was able to amass a significant number of top 4 dmen for free. The expansion rules were pretty soft relative to any other expansion in NHL history. This coupled with the cap limitations made for a target rich environment, imo. Even after teams learned their lessons post Vegas expansion, Seattle still constructed a competitive team for example.

Can't remember all the details but there were teams that protected the wrong 7 forwards. I think in a couple instances among the protected players were complete busts that were later traded for peanuts or waived.

I agree that the expansion rules were softer. The Oilers sure got the hard love entry in 79 with their protection list of two forwards and a goalie and we even lost Gustaffson who was on our protection list on a ruling that caps had drafted him..

Anyway this is moving away from the original points. Thanks for the exchange and being open to reading.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

That's a fine attitude. What if I told you the only way the Edmonton Oilers win the Stanley Cup this year is if Jack Campbell finally gets his shot against the Vegas Golden Knights and he steals a round for us?

What if I told you that Skinner pitched 16 straight shutouts in the playoffs because it seems just as likely.

 

[bucks_oil]

Thanks. Always interesting to get your feedback on the goalie file. I wasn't sure you would agree with my take on the Campbell circumstance. It is unfortunate and I don't see a lot of precedent for treating an established vet goalie in this manner. Campbell to this point has been essentially banished to the AHL, and I understand the cap implications. Unlike you I would be surprised if the club does bring him back at all.
I'll go step further, in that I was also stating that the 4 starts were by no means reasonable time frame for evaluating Campbell acuity or readiness. It almost seems like it was already decided. That the Oilers would go a different way. Campbell in no way got a legitimate shot here this season.

Agree of course that Campbell not having had the benefit of the new coaching here means that we do not know how well he could perform given our present and improved defensive play and structure.

As to the fundamentals, learning the game, the right way to play etc its sad that on the broadcasts no present day Howie Meeker really exists. I find todays break down of plays not always helpful, and not always very involved. Good coaches or analysts help people see plays that ought to have occurred vs did occur.

He actually got 5 games, but that's beside the point, which I agree.

I believe the Oil brass was planning on giving Campbell a legit shot (especially given his play preseason), but fate dealt a bum-hand. If it was already decided than they should have bought him out last summer. So I take them at face value on this.

Having said that, the curious part was demoting him 5 days before replacing the coach. Obviously the coach replacement was already decided at that point. Why not keep Campbell up a few more games with the new head coach before making the call? That was an odd one for me. Given how close in performance our two goalies were, your choices were: i) pull the coaching lever, ii) pull the goalie lever, or iii) make a trade (likely on D).

Why do number (ii) when you'd already decided it was a coaching issue?

Also re: cap... can someone correct my earlier math? How much does it actually cost us to pull up Campbell per day. I'd said it was $5,000,000 / 168 active days of the season, but that might be incorrect. I believe we were only allowed to bury $1.125M of Campbell's salary, the remaining $3.875M is still on our books, so doesn't it only cost us $1.125/168 extra to pull him back up?

If so, as we approach the end of the season, I'd be inclined to run three goalies on the roster and give Skinner a real rest leading into the playoffs. Let Campbell and Pickard duel it out for the backup spot (unlike what we did with Markennan/Conklin... we shoulda made that call).

 

[Broberg Speed]

Can't remember all the details but there were teams that protected the wrong 7 forwards. I think in a couple instances among the protected players were complete busts that were later traded for peanuts or waived.

I agree that the expansion rules were softer. The Oilers sure got the hard love entry in 79 with their protection list of two forwards and a goalie and we even lost Gustaffson who was on our protection list on a ruling that caps had drafted him..

Anyway this is moving away from the original points. Thanks for the exchange and being open to reading.

Vegas got Shea Theodore for "expansion draft considerations". Vegas traded a 4th round pick for Reilly Smith.

Everything surrounding the Vegas expansion draft, the Golden Knights subsequent acquisition of players and successive salary cap manipulations stinks to high heaven.

What if I told you that Skinner pitched 16 straight shutouts in the playoffs because it seems just as likely.

That would be your right on an open hockey message board, I am led to believe.

I don't see your statement breaking any of the forum protocols nor would I cry about it.

 

[Stoneman89]

Some folks keep saying "play Pickard more." Not sure why it needs to be said, because it's going to happen regardless. The rest of the schedule is just too compacted for him not to get in a lot more games.

 

[Drivesaitl]

He actually got 5 games, but that's beside the point, which I agree.

I believe the Oil brass was planning on giving Campbell a legit shot (especially given his play preseason), but fate dealt a bum-hand. If it was already decided than they should have bought him out last summer. So I take them at face value on this.

Having said that, the curious part was demoting him 5 days before replacing the coach. Obviously the coach replacement was already decided at that point. Why not keep Campbell up a few more games with the new head coach before making the call? That was an odd one for me. Given how close in performance our two goalies were, your choices were: i) pull the coaching lever, ii) pull the goalie lever, or iii) make a trade (likely on D).

Why do number (ii) when you'd already decided it was a coaching issue?

Also re: cap... can someone correct my earlier math? How much does it actually cost us to pull up Campbell per day. I'd said it was $5,000,000 / 168 active days of the season, but that might be incorrect. I believe we were only allowed to bury $1.125M of Campbell's salary, the remaining $3.875M is still on our books, so doesn't it only cost us $1.125/168 extra to pull him back up?

If so, as we approach the end of the season, I'd be inclined to run three goalies on the roster and give Skinner a real rest leading into the playoffs. Let Campbell and Pickard duel it out for the backup spot (unlike what we did with Markennan/Conklin... we shoulda made that call).

This is precisely what I was questioning at the time and I knew the coaching fire was probable despite the team denying it. Looked to be headed down that road. Made little sense to exit Campbell prior to the new coaching staff landing. The org even said that Erne and Campbell represented bullets to wakeup the club. They took the fall, as stated.

The only response I can give that might mirror the clubs thought process is that they had denial on the coaching fire all the way to it becoming a necessity. It got to the point where they just had to do it. Many more losses and worry that the critical season was buried.

What came out later about Mansons wife is tragic, but he should have been kindly relieved of duties or given time off long before the fire. I can't imagine how an org thought somebody that had just seen his wife die could be up to the task. Pro sports coaching too hard and involved to be dealing with that grief. I hope he's doing OK. At the very least though Manson should have been sidelined, given time to recover. Club could have given him a paid year and just have somebody else (Coffey) step in to settle D.

 

[Fourier]

Yeah...

To your second paragraph.

First point: "not to me or any other goalie, and perhaps a few coaches, GMs, ex defensemen etc". Some people are just better equipped to understand those nuances (and the razor thin margin between savable or not) since they played the position or played/interacted close enough to the defensive side of the game, for long enough, to learn the difference. Many goalies will be quite transparent with their teammates about the how and why a puck went in the net or didn't. If you ever got a paddle tap in the backside, you know.

Second point: trying to talk your language. Given all of the multi-variant analysis that goes into "savable or not", then it stands to reason that, yes, as X reaches a large sample size there will be a visible AND VALID difference between those goalies. My point has always been that with smaller sample sizes then a regression analysis must be performed to be sure. Most obvious variable of course being different teams and different team defense - which to my earlier point, can't easily be measured by HDSC in its current form.

Even though it may seem otherwise, and even though I am guilty of using these within small samples out of frustration, I agree than in small sample sizes HDSV% lacks considerable nuance. In fact, I am happy to admit that HDSV% lacks nuance in general, though like many stats it can still provide useful information. xGA is better in many ways even for smaller sample sizes of say 10 games or so. As I have stated previously, xGA models are based on many factors that with growing sample size can be quite comprehensive. But you are right that they can't tell you definitively whose fault a goal was or even if there really was fault to be had.

In case you are interested, here is an article that looks at the impact of the quality of defense on goalie metrics.

How Much Does Defense Affect Goaltending in the NHL?

By: Albert Carreno

www.bruinsportsanalytics.com

The article shows that there is no definitive way to quantify this.

Here is an early paper that illustrates the origins of how to quantify shot quality.

http://hockeyanalytics.com/Research_files/SQ-RS0910-Krzywicki.pdf

I noted that in this model shots after a giveaway are given more prominence. This is an example of something that is not captured in HDSV%.

 

[bucks_oil]

This is precisely what I was questioning at the time and I knew the coaching fire was probable despite the team denying it. Looked to be headed down that road. Made little sense to exit Campbell prior to the new coaching staff landing. The org even said that Erne and Campbell represented bullets to wakeup the club. They took the fall, as stated.

The only response I can give that might mirror the clubs thought process is that they had denial on the coaching fire all the way to it becoming a necessity. It got to the point where they just had to do it. Many more losses and worry that the critical season was buried.

What came out later about Mansons wife is tragic, but he should have been kindly relieved of duties or given time off long before the fire. I can't imagine how an org thought somebody that had just seen his wife die could be up to the task. Pro sports coaching too hard and involved to be dealing with that grief. I hope he's doing OK. At the very least though Manson should have been sidelined, given time to recover. Club could have given him a paid year and just have somebody else (Coffey) step in to settle D.

Ugh that's the first and only I've heard about Manson's wife. I'll have to read up on it. Jeez' though, that's terrible.

As to the timing. Campbell got sent down on the 7th, after our 6-2 loss to Vancouver - in which Campbell didn't even play. I suppose you could be right, they were in denial and didn't decide on the coaching change until after the SJ loss.

Still... it was a bit unreasonable to pin it all on Campbell. That, IMO, was a desperation move... they were scrambling... and one that proved unnecessary since they didn't even bother play Pickard until well after the team had rounded the corner under Knob.

 

[bucks_oil]

In case you are interested, here is an article that looks at the impact of the quality of defense on goalie metrics.

How Much Does Defense Affect Goaltending in the NHL?

By: Albert Carreno

www.bruinsportsanalytics.com

The article shows that there is no definitive way to quantify this.

Thanks for the discussion... to the above, I'm not at all surprised. It's teeny tiny little details that make all the difference and it relates to why xGA still isn't perfect.

Example: whenever I go to a new team, or we bring on a new D, there is always a get-to-know-you phase. But invariably, there is one lesson I nearly always have to teach. And I almost never have to teach it twice because as soon as they hear it, guys get it.

There could be much more going on, but the sake of simplicity, imagine a one-on-one fwd vs D. Smart forwards will always try to use the screen to surprise the goalie. But even if I am "screened" as xGA might capture, there is a difference between "screened with forward having many outs" and "screened where options are taken away".

I used "outs" because it's exactly like poker. At the moment the shot comes my defender will either (A) keep his legs apart and lunge to get a stick on the puck if he can, or (B) close his legs together and do the same thing.

If he does (A) the shooter has at least 6 "outs" from left to right that I need to cover: (i) clean shot to left of left leg, (ii) deflected shot off inside of left leg, (iii) clean shot through D's five hole, (iv) deflected shot off inside of right leg, (v) deflected shot off outside of right leg and (vi) clean shot to right of right leg. All hell can break loose and usually does.

And that's not including stick deflections, it's a lot for a goalie to cover AND it is harder to see around a guy with his hips wide and legs spread, so to get a look at the puck I'm REALLY cheating to look through or around his five-hole.

However, if (B) he puts his legs together at that moment the number of outs drops to, at most, three (i), (v) and (vi). And if he has his legs together and jams his breaks or even coasts toward the shooter, then I can probably completely disregard (i) and square up for the other two since the angle to hit that shot (i) is disappearing.

What do you think that does for my save percentage? And both of these would very likely be characterized as a screened shot from a high danger location. xGA would be no different but you can bet ACTUAL GA would differ significantly.

THIS is why they say goaltending is a mental game. You are trying to calculate those odds in real time on every play.

(And a sidebar here: when (wise) announcers talk about a goalie having an active head or active tracking of the puck, they mean that up until the moment scenario A or B is happening, the goalie is looking on all sides of that hulking defenseman to decide which side has the best odds)

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

What I raised mutliple times before is that applied to analyzing sporting events or data that "trending upwards"" is basically just a presumptive construct. i.e. if we knew what the forward was, if sports was entirely predictable like a steady linear relationship then results would be known beforehand and there would be no suspense and less reason to watch. For instance imagine if sports was so predictable that the Trending forward "dallas stars" (I'm just picking a team out of a hat) were so clearly trending upwards. so clearly that it would be forecast, and accurate, that they would win it all months in advance. Sports isn't like that and few things can be deduced to just "trending upwards" In sports more the thing is that certain events or progress occurs until it doesn't, at which point it hits a wall.

Maybe I'm not explaining this well but I just find the term to be empty and inaccurate applied to pro sports because we don't know the future results to even conclude something is "trending upward" If we could do that we could also buy lottery tickets and make a lot of money.

I certainly get that posters can feel fortunate that Skinner has stepped up. But the other side of that is the hockey world has more than a few retread goalies that can step up to a degree. Just last playoffs Korpisalo, who the Kings basically got easily just stepped up and improved their goaltending. Of course not premium goaltending but a sufficient improvement that was easily had and that settled what had been very questionable Kings goaltending. Pickard is such an example. We got him, lets use him. He hasn't shown kinks yet. Why not experiment. The defacto argument some are making that Pickard ain't much because he's never been a starter is circular reasoning. The paradigm is only that no team gave him that chance. On everything I see the goalie himself is good and has no obvious holes.

I'm still uncomfortable with going status quo in playoffs on the goaltending file and I do not think the org will entertain serious consideration of either Pickard or Campbell starting any playoff games. Seems like they'll run strictly with Skinner once again. (or I'm being negative thinking that) heh

I have some healthy skeptical about advance stats in a high speed collision sport with high degree of random chaos. Goaltending success or failure specifically is highly interdependent on the quality or not of team defending in front of them.

That said, one can measure and assess individual performance year after year. NHL Edge with ‘official’ league data does that and Skinner shows well in his progressive work over his three year progessive NHL sample size. It also presents individual results in percentile basis to other goaltenders across the league. NHL EDGE Puck and Player Tracking Statistics - Goalies

If the Oil stated goal was league average goaltending, Skinner is delivering it, 2.62 GAA, 80 percentile of NHL goaltenders. That’s improved from last season’s 2.75 GAA, 65 percentile. His % of games > .900 is 62.2, 78 percentile among league goaltenders. Last season, Skinner was 58.3, 59 percentile. He's showing continuous improvement within the three years of NHL experience under his belt.

Korpisalo is a great example of the inter-dependence between goaltender and quality of team in front of him. He had a bounce back season in Columbus last season but his numbers became excellent when put behind the Kings team defense and systems play. Unravelled in the playoffs but that speaks to the top of league offence the Oilers deliver. In Pickard's case, he is a solid AHL/NHL tweener who is stable behind an Oilers team defending which stabilized after their disastrous start. It offers hope for a renewed and reset Campbell to possibly slide in as a veteran back-up during the playoffs. Pickard is a stable option but Campbell as #2 has short sample NHL results that can bend to elite levels at times which is beyond Pickard's game. If Skinner craters, it probably means the team defense and disciple have also faltered. The Oilers #2 goalie break in case of emergency I bet would be Campbell. But all likelihood the team would be heading to playoff extinction.

Such is the great unknown this team faces with the reality of its goaltending and need to sustain its high level of team defending and goal suppression when the second season begins and series start to grind away to exploit opponent weaknesses versus one-off regular season encounters.

 

[MessierThanThou]

Campbell has basically caught up to Rodrigue and seems to be on a hot streak right now.

Olivier Rodrigue 27 GP .918

Jack Campbell 27GP .917

 

[Oilers in NS]

Players gotta love playing in Edmonton. That had to feel extra special for Brown to get that ovation. Good for him , he has been working hard. U never know, he might score a few now.
Lines r looking really good now

 

[foshizzle]

N

Hmmm 4 posts I wonder what the theme of each of them is?

No. The reason Skinner gets a lot of heat is because his high danger save % is so low. When he gets that up to even league average, I think a lot of people will lay off of him. The other reason is his expected GA. He is worked his way up from being absolute garbage- but a team in the top 10 should have a goaltender that is there as well

Campbell has basically caught up to Rodrigue and seems to be on a hot streak right now.

Olivier Rodrigue 27 GP .918

Jack Campbell 27GP .917

Thanks to Sylvain Rodrigue. He coached Skinner back from the garbage heap and now has done it with Campbell. He needs to be promoted to the big club this year or another team will grab him for sure