Post-Game Talk: @boxcar65

[Drivesaitl]

What the stat shows is that if McDavid and Draisaitl regress to 1.0 ppg pace, or even a 1.5 ppg pace, the Oilers are going to start losing their fair share of games. While I would be thrilled if McDavid scored 150 points this season, I think most of us can agree that it is unlikely to happen. What the stats tell us is that the Oilers are getting killed at even strength right now, so when the PP normalizes to a more sustainable percentage, the team may be in trouble. Same goes for both goalies currently stopping pucks at a higher percentage than usual.

HDSC is useful in my opinion because most goals are scored from close to the net. So if you give up a ton of those, then over the course of the season you're probably going to give up more goals. Winning 4-5 games while getting out-chanced significantly means you better fix that aspect of your game up before McDavid and Draisaitl slow down.

That said, if McDavid scores 150+ points, it probably won't matter what the advanced stats say.

This isn't true either because the Oilers aren't going to finish the season with a ten players with zero boxcars. Nuge is also going to score more often than one in 7gp. Scoring can balance out a bit.

Further for McD to exceed 1.5pts/game is certainly plausible. He's in prime of life and is that good a player. A player as normal as Kucherov had 128pts last season. On that basis of comparison I would say a 150pt McDavid season at some point is plausible. People are forgetting the player keeps getting better, has a generational sidekick to play with, and the sky is the limit. McD potential is hard to nail down. now that we have better schemes, transition, and D support the offense is headed up for a reason.

 

[thadd]

Hall-Nuge-Neal

Dare to dream.

Realistically, how much would the cap need to increase?
Are we just gonna accept that we're gonna find bottom six forwards and bottom pairing d-men who specialize at just staggering the opposition and do nothing on the attack so that we can afford this insane top 6?

Seriously... if Hall signed with Edmonton for 9M that would be a considerably discount.
Can you imagine us finding a way to just EAT all that cap space?
Sure, you can convince me that we could find a home for Russell (last year of his contract and more teams on his trade list) but is that REALLY enough to eat 9-11M?

 

[Drivesaitl]

The problem is that for the last few games, the Oilers haven't been close in scoring chances. They need to have the puck more, and the bottom six needs to start producing in order to sustain their early success.

let me be clear in saying the Oilers of course won't sustain the level of success (we're 6-1) but a team with so many gold game breakers are going to come out ahead in a lot of close games because we have those cheat factors other teams don't have. The Oilers are making the playoffs and thats been my read before season started. Holland had a good as can be expected offseson, and Tippett is a real quality coach that gets the most from any lineup.

This team is going to win a lot of games that some might say they shouldn't. It will win a lot of games they should win. They'll lose a fair number as well. But the gamebreakers factor is something that will always elude number crunching.

For instance in prime it doesn't matter how many punches were thrown or who threw them in a Mike Tyson fight. The knockout punches mattered. Its all about who is throwing down. Regardless of how many scoring punches were thrown. Stars lead teams. Your team will go as far as those stars take you. The only question on this lineup is forward depth. Our D is improving immensely.

 

[harpoon]

Of course game stars are picked at 60mins, not 30

Brown’s point, and I think it’s an accurate one, was that the Oilers are trailing 4-2 midway through the second were it not for Koskinen. While I think McDavid completely embarrassing Braun was the actual turning point in the game if I had to pick one, Koskinen held the lead for his team and made that moment possible.

But mostly I just wanted to let Joe and others know what Brown had stated post game and how Stauffer was left gasping for words when Rob had the audacity to disagree with him so blatantly. In fact Brown started off his comments with ‘I dunno who picked the stars tonight but for me Koskinen ...’ It was hilarious cause Rob Brown is one of the very few guys that Stauffer won’t try to bully and talk over. 49 goals and all.

 

[Arpeggio]

This isn't true either because the Oilers aren't going to finish the season with a ten players with zero boxcars. Nuge is also going to score more often than one in 7gp. Scoring can balance out a bit.

Further for McD to exceed 1.5pts/game is certainly plausible. He's in prime of life and is that good a player. A player as normal as Kucherov had 128pts last season. On that basis of comparison I would say a 150pt McDavid season at some point is plausible. People are forgetting the player keeps getting better, has a generational sidekick to play with, and the sky is the limit. McD potential is hard to nail down. now that we have better schemes, transition, and D support the offense is headed up for a reason.

If McDavid scores 150 points it'd be awesome. It would also be unprecedented, so we can't count on him to do that.

You're probably right about the bottom six scoring some goals at some point. But they need to improve on last season's production to get into the playoffs. We saw what a good powerplay and the worst scoring depth in the league got us last year. Can't repeat that and expect things to go differently.

Another big concern right now is the goaltending. Koskinen is unlikely to finish the season with a .920 sv%. Oilers need to tighten up defensively before the goaltending normalizes. Again though, if both goalies do finish with those kins of numbers, I'll take it.

I'm happy with the production from the defence so far, I think that can play a role in offsetting the lack of production from the bottom six.

 

[McXLNC97]

Realistically, how much would the cap need to increase?
Are we just gonna accept that we're gonna find bottom six forwards and bottom pairing d-men who specialize at just staggering the opposition and do nothing on the attack so that we can afford this insane top 6?

Seriously... if Hall signed with Edmonton for 9M that would be a considerably discount.
Can you imagine us finding a way to just EAT all that cap space?
Sure, you can convince me that we could find a home for Russell (last year of his contract and more teams on his trade list) but is that REALLY enough to eat 9-11M?

Lots of money coming off the books in the summer. Also, you work in cheap ELC's like Benson, Marody, Bouchard, Yamamoto, etc into the mix. The cap will rise quite a bit in the next few years with Seattle coming in as well as new US tv deal. I'm all for gettin Hall back. That would be a stacked top 6.

 

[oXo Cube]

Man, that's silly.

Why have a stat that's pointless unless you add HDGF/HDGA to it?

The stat isn't pointless.

A shot attempt that gets recorded as a "HDSC" was somewhere in the range of 5 times more likely to be a goal using the definition on naturalstattrick.

What gets people confused is that you still score sometimes when you shoot from further out than that which records a goal but not a "HDSC."

 

[Drivesaitl]

If McDavid scores 150 points it'd be awesome. It would also be unprecedented, so we can't count on him to do that.

You're probably right about the bottom six scoring some goals at some point. But they need to improve on last season's production to get into the playoffs. We saw what a good powerplay and the worst scoring depth in the league got us last year. Can't repeat that and expect things to go differently.

Another big concern right now is the goaltending. Koskinen is unlikely to finish the season with a .920 sv%. Oilers need to tighten up defensively before the goaltending normalizes. Again though, if both goalies do finish with those kins of numbers, I'll take it.

I'm happy with the production from the defence so far, I think that can play a role in offsetting the lack of production from the bottom six.

By my count we've had 5 solid games and 2 not so good outings. But oddly the Hawks game was one of our decent games despite the scoreline.

But other than a couple games we've had decent commitment to allzone play, and while giving up the shots is alarming I have faith in Tippett to steer the boat and they need some more practice. Early learned systems break down. Team needs reminders. What I like about Tippett is he'll really confront players and make them self evaluate whether they are being part of team. Clearly giving up 50 shots the Oilers weren't playing the scheme that got them here. But they will get back to it. Theres been other games where we held opponents to low shot totals through most of the games.

One thing that should improve is puck retention. We'll get better at that again. Team is looking a bit tired.

 

[KlefDown]

G

 

[thadd]

Lots of money coming off the books in the summer. Also, you work in cheap ELC's like Benson, Marody, Bouchard, Yamamoto, etc into the mix. The cap will rise quite a bit in the next few years with Seattle coming in as well as new US tv deal. I'm all for gettin Hall back. That would be a stacked top 6.

That Seattle money don't count for jack until the season after they've come into the league, though.

 

[Mr Tadakichi]

G

G

 

[Drivesaitl]

The stat isn't pointless.

A shot attempt that gets recorded as a "HDSC" was somewhere in the range of 5 times more likely to be a goal using the definition on naturalstattrick.

What gets people confused is that you still score sometimes when you shoot from further out than that which records a goal but not a "HDSC."

5 times more likely than what? An average shot or a worst possible shot?

Without quantification, and clear quantification its just noise. By excluding goals it guarantees that the metric is noise as its the most salient data in the sample.

But without each shooter coefficient probabilities its fairly meaningless anyway.

Interesting maybe. I wouldn't take a lot from it.

 

[oXo Cube]

5 times more likely than what? An average shot or a worst possible shot?

Without quantification, and clear quantification its just noise. By excluding goals it guarantees that the metric is noise as its the most salient data in the sample.

But without each shooter coefficient probabilities its fairly meaningless anyway.

Interesting maybe. I wouldn't take a lot from it.

It considers distance from the net only. That's how it stays objective.

Whether you see value in it or not is up to you I don't really care to argue that point.

 

[McDNicks17]

The stat isn't pointless.

A shot attempt that gets recorded as a "HDSC" was somewhere in the range of 5 times more likely to be a goal using the definition on naturalstattrick.

What gets people confused is that you still score sometimes when you shoot from further out than that which records a goal but not a "HDSC."

But if a high danger goal doesn't count as a HDSC, a team could lose 10-0 on ten HDSCs, but the stat line would read 0 HDCA.

What kind of insight can you draw from HDCA in that case? You have to add HDGA to it yourself for it to make sense, so why not just include goals against like every other shot metric?

 

[Arpeggio]

But if a goal doesn't count as a HDSC, a team could lose 10-0 on ten HDSCs, but the stat line would read 0 HDCA.

What kind of insight can you draw from HDCA in that case? You have to add HDGA to it yourself for it to make sense, so why not just include goals against like every other shot metric?

The insight you gain is that if the team continues to lose 10-0 on HDSCs all year, they're more likely to finish last in the league than make the playoffs. The majority of good teams do well in HDCA.

Every year there are aberrations, like Colorado a few years back. And I would take that kind of season from this Oilers team, as I really didn't think playoffs was in the cards this year.

Edit: Misunderstood what you said, my bad.

 

[oXo Cube]

But if a goal doesn't count as a HDSC, a team could lose 10-0 on ten HDSCs, but the stat line would read 0 HDCA.

What kind of insight can you draw from HDCA in that case? You have to add HDGA to it yourself for it to make sense, so why not just include goals against like every other shot metric?

A goal does count as a HDSC as long as the shot attempt was taken in the HDSC zone.

 

[McDNicks17]

A goal does count as a HDSC as long as the shot attempt was taken in the HDSC zone.

Someone earlier in the thread seemed pretty convinced they don't.

Them counting would make much more sense, but I can't find anything that says either way.

 

[joestevens29]

It considers distance from the net only. That's how it stays objective.

Whether you see value in it or not is up to you I don't really care to argue that point.

This stat sounds like garbage.

So I could shoot from 5 feet away at two defenders and it's a HDSC even though it really was stupid play. On the flip side I can take a clean shot from the blueline with no traffic and that's not a HDSC? Even though the team was smart and opened up space for a guy to get off a clean 100mph slap shot.

 

[PinSeeker]

This stat sounds like garbage.

So I could shoot from 5 feet away at two defenders and it's a HDSC even though it really was stupid play. On the flip side I can take a clean shot from the blueline with no traffic and that's not a HDSC? Even though the team was smart and opened up space for a guy to get off a clean 100mph slap shot.

It is a stat like any other - requires a ton of context. But it is at least better than straight up Corsi.

 

[Coffey]

G

G

 

[oXo Cube]

This stat sounds like garbage.

So I could shoot from 5 feet away at two defenders and it's a HDSC even though it really was stupid play. On the flip side I can take a clean shot from the blueline with no traffic and that's not a HDSC? Even though the team was smart and opened up space for a guy to get off a clean 100mph slap shot.

Again, this isn't a problem with the data of the stat, it's a problem with your interpretation of what the stat should be based on what it was named.

And I don't think your contention of the name is without merit.

 

[McXLNC97]

That Seattle money don't count for jack until the season after they've come into the league, though.

That's fine, it will make it easier to squeeze guys in under the cap in subsequent seasons. Our two best players are still signed for another 5&6 seasons after this season. Right now, Manning and Gagner are eating up over 4m in cap space between them and have 1 game played between the two of them. Both will be off the books at seasons end.

 

[McDNicks17]

This stat sounds like garbage.

So I could shoot from 5 feet away at two defenders and it's a HDSC even though it really was stupid play. On the flip side I can take a clean shot from the blueline with no traffic and that's not a HDSC? Even though the team was smart and opened up space for a guy to get off a clean 100mph slap shot.

NatStatTrick uses War-on-ice's definition for scoring chances, so there's a bit more to it than just shot distance.

NEW: Defining Scoring Chances | WAR On Ice: The Blog

Attempts from the yellow areas are assigned a value of 1, attempts from the red areas are assigned a value of 2, and attempts in the green area are assigned a value of 3.

Add 1 to this value if the attempt is considered a rush shot or a rebound. A rebound is any attempt made within 3 seconds of another blocked, missed or saved attempt without a stoppage in play in between.

A rush shot is any attempt within 4 seconds of any event in the neutral or defensive zone without a stoppage in play in between (originally defined by David Johnson on the now-offline Hockey Analysis, and modified to 4 seconds by War-on-Ice).

Decrease this value by 1 if it was a blocked shot.

Any attempt with a score of 2 or higher is considered a scoring chance.

Any attempt with a score of 3 or higher is considered a high danger scoring chance.

 

[oXo Cube]

NatStatTrick uses War-on-ice's definition for scoring chances, so there's a bit more to it than just shot distance.

I actually didn't know they knocked a point off for the shot attempt being blocked.

Makes me like the stat even more, honestly.

 

[Drivesaitl]

A goal does count as a HDSC as long as the shot attempt was taken in the HDSC zone.

There is simply no way that the total is 4 last night, if this is the case, and there seems to be a lot of is or isn't lack of understanding on what is being tabulated.

3 of the Oilers goals came close in, Nuge on a 4th is denied. The Oilers had other chances around the net on the night. A total of 4 is ridiculous. That just isn't correct.

The trouble with stats is people read them and post them not even knowing what they are, what they count, how they are tabulated.

Based on this thread the vast majority don't know, and even those that follow the stat don't know.

What is, exactly, the HDSC? It is of course not demarked on ice . Being that hockey ice doesn't have a demarked "in the paint" drawn on like in basketball the tabulation of HDSC may not even be objective, it could suffer some bias and inaccuracy. Also the act of shooting the puck, combined with motion results in shots that are very hard to decipher exactly where they came from. The speed and motion of hockey shooting makes it a bit difficult to tell. Contrast to basketball where the act of shooting is often a jump shot. From a particular spot. Hockey is not like that. It can't be quantified like that.

For instance in realtime lots of times on the rush it looks like a guy got a shot off from the high circle. But in watching replay the release point often looks closer. I'd bet the HDSC shots are even under counted.