Post-Game Talk: Legs Wide Open on the Coaching Couch

[McTonyBrar]

Would just like to point out that last year, after the first 3 games, we were 1-2-0 weren't we? If we win tomorrow, it's the same thing

 

[3IR]

Think I’ve seen a few articles saying about $4MM cap increase for next year… but yeah, it’s disheartening to know we’ve already spent it.

I like Connor Brown, but I’m not thinking he’s the next 75 point Zach Hyman. Our team needs a defenseman. The Ekholm add made a huge difference last year and I think we really need a similar type of defenseman. Maybe not the same caliber, but someone very steady defensively and can at times contribute on offense.

100% agree. We could have gone into the season with the forwards we have minus brown and I would have been okay with it as long as we brought in a top 4 dman with that money instead, even if it didn’t happen until the deadline.

I have much more faith in Drai Mcdavid Nuge Hyman and Kane to elevate a current roster player to be able to fill a top 6 role than I do in Nurse to elevate anyone.

 

[WaitingForUser]

100% agree. We could have gone into the season with the forwards we have minus brown and I would have been okay with it as long as we brought in a top 4 dman with that money instead, even if it didn’t happen until the deadline.

I have much more faith in Drai Mcdavid Nuge Hyman and Kane to elevate a current roster player to be able to fill a top 6 role than I do in Nurse to elevate anyone.

The problem is we didn’t have room for a top 4 Dman. We were able to sign Brown by sliding most of the cap to next year we could not have done that with a top 4 d man.

 

[mkatcherin00]

Would just like to point out that last year, after the first 3 games, we were 1-2-0 weren't we? If we win tomorrow, it's the same thing

That's a good point, but teams are not all equal.. They are in a quick funk and the coach is panicking like me lol

 

[bucks_oil]

Here is the situation for goal three: View attachment 753528

This 2-0 was probably Foegele's fault more than Nurse for example since Nurse was actually in an excellent position to get a pass when Foegele inexplicitly decided to take a very low percentage and very dangerous shot. Nurse actually did a decent job of trying to get back into the play. But it was not a 2-0 like Gretzky/Kurri or even McDavid/Draisaitl. Petterson moved the puck early and was not going to get it back. Skinner was pretty much set and got beat through the legs. Was it a tough save? Sure. But was it unstoppable? I am not so sure you can say that. Throw in goal #4 and there are at least two goals that he could have made a difference on even if you concede the two tips.

For the record, I think Skinner is a solid goalie given his level of experience and I am not of the opinion he should be dumped. But in the end NHL goalies stop such "unstopable shots" all the time. DeSmith did so several times in the very same game. So far this year the Oiler's goalies are not doing that at all. Instead the defense gets painted as a tire fire. This is often deserved but I am not so sure it was this game.

I'll agree the 2-0 breakaway was a stoppable shot (I must have scrubbed the entire sequence from my cursing mind). Stoppable 69% of the time according to Clear Sight data.

But now that I've admitted that... you will have to concede that a 2-0 breakaway is the VERY DEFINITION of TIRE FIRE DEFENDING. (note I am not saying defense... I'm saying defending)

I know you are a math guy... so you know that even if those two instances were the ONLY TWO high danger chances all game (I find that hard to believe, but...) then the odds of Skinner coming away empty handed on both is 0.31 x 0.25 = 8%. That's not zero. It's gonna happen.

And that feels about right to me... we play that game ten more times and Skinner would make at least one of those saves... and DeSmith makes one fewer and walk away with two points 9 times out of ten.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Would just like to point out that last year, after the first 3 games, we were 1-2-0 weren't we? If we win tomorrow, it's the same thing

Its not. One of the most striking things in offseason is how theres not the same amount of weak opponents. Most of the teams now are at least viable as opponents. Less free bingo spots on the calendar. NHL harder in general this season. This occurs through teams icing more competitive lineups. Vancouver is illustration of that.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Its good to see when others are seeing the same thing. But its troubling how often this org finds ways to fail. You say throw in the towel, thats interesting, but its the stubborness to make adjustments, changes, that was the real thing. I keyed Skinner carefully in game 1 of Vegas series. The game Drai scored 4 goals in and we still lost. I would have changed goalies at that point. We'd already seen enough runway with Skinner in playoffs. But the uncanny thing is how little line matching or adjstments or changes occurred. We allowed one Vegas line to just hit it out of the ballpark game after game. We hardly adjusted to it with personnel we had.

Now this is a worse consideration. That Woody's favorites trumped what was best for the team. It’s unpleasant to think this but how could one not? How could you trust a supervisor after he gave the big project to a subordinate who was obviously f***ing up, but he's tight with the guy. The whole office or shop see's something like that and they know. These are not dumb players in leadership, they know. A guy like Nuge could make a far better coach than Woody. A guy like Nuge knows the shortcomings of the coaching here and he's had a constant diet of it. As a manager it’s critical to get out of your own head and bias and make the right call. Make the right decisions. It can't just be "your guy".

The decision to go back to Skinner in game 6 was meaningless. When they lost game 5 the series was over.

 

[McTonyBrar]

That's a good point, but teams are not all equal.. They are in a quick funk and the coach is panicking like me lol

Putting Leon and McDavid together for a practice is not the coach panicking lol. He did this so much last season as well and the lines ended up being the same as before where Leon was on his own line and McDavid was on his own line

 

[rboomercat90]

Its good to see when others are seeing the same thing. But its troubling how often this org finds ways to fail. You say throw in the towel, thats interesting, but its the stubborness to make adjustments, changes, that was the real thing. I keyed Skinner carefully in game 1 of Vegas series. The game Drai scored 4 goals in and we still lost. I would have changed goalies at that point. We'd already seen enough runway with Skinner in playoffs. But the uncanny thing is how little line matching or adjstments or changes occurred. We allowed one Vegas line to just hit it out of the ballpark game after game. We hardly adjusted to it with personnel we had.

Now this is a worse consideration. That Woody's favorites trumped what was best for the team. Its unpleasant to think this but how could one not? How could you trust a supervisor after he gave the big project to a subordinate who was obviously f***ing up, but he's tight with the guy. The whole office or shop see's something like that and they know. These are not dumb players in leadership, they know. A guy like Nuge could make a far better coach than Woody. A guy like Nuge knows the shortcomings of the coaching here and he's had a constant diet of it. As a manager its critical to get out of your own head and bias and make the right call. Make the right decisions. It can't just be "your guy".

Why should we be surprised that Woodcroft can’t /won’t make changes in a playoff series? He’s a disciple of Todd Mclellan who has been losing playoff series with superior teams for close to 20 years because he can’t/won’t make changes when his game plan isn’t working.

The decision to go back to Skinner in game 6 was meaningless. When they lost game 5 the series was over.

It was over after game 5 only because the coaching staff refused to make changes and adjustments.

 

[Fourier]

I'll agree the 2-0 breakaway was a stoppable shot (I must have scrubbed the entire sequence from my cursing mind). Stoppable 69% of the time according to Clear Sight data.

But now that I've admitted that... you will have to concede that a 2-0 breakaway is the VERY DEFINITION of TIRE FIRE DEFENDING. (note I am not saying defense... I'm saying defending)

I know you are a math guy... so you know that even if those two instances were the ONLY TWO high danger chances all game (I find that hard to believe, but...) then the odds of Skinner coming away empty handed on both is 0.31 x 0.25 = 8%. That's not zero. It's gonna happen.

And that feels about right to me... we play that game ten more times and Skinner would make at least one of those saves... and DeSmith makes one fewer and walk away with two points 9 times out of ten.

We all know the Oilers are capable of tire fire defending. But in fact, I don't think this one is the prototype example of a tire fire defending induced 2-0. More fluke than strictly bad defending. It started out with a weak turnover by the Canucks that saw two of their forwards caught deep in the Oilers zone and end up on a 5 on 3. Ceci probably should have held up but unless Foegele inexplicably does exactly what he did there was no real danger there and there was a far better chance of the Oilers getting a dangerous chance than what we saw. Had the Oilers scored instead the narrative would have been about the weak turnover and the fact that Pettersson and Studnicka seemed to be dogging it in getting back.

Now I am happy to admit that things like this can happen even just by bad luck. Hockey is not the easiest game to model because there are so many moving parts so numbers almost never tell the whole story. On its own these 4 goals in isolation could be perhaps even be dismissed. But over two games Skinner did not stop any of the high danger shots on net and only stopped 2/3 of the medium danger shots while giving up 8 goals on only 32 shots. The team has given up 12 goals while only giving up relatively few really dangerous shots relative to other teams. At some point it stops being bad luck and becomes an issue with the goalies performance.

I expect things to turn around but this is frustrating, especially after the Vegas series where the goaltending difference did seem to be a major factor.

By the way do you have alink to the Clear Sight numbers. I would be quite interested.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

We all know the Oilers are capable of tire fire defending. But in fact, I don't think this one is the prototype example of a tire fire defending induced 2-0. More fluke than strictly bad defending. It started out with a weak turnover by the Canucks that saw two of their forwards caught deep in the Oilers zone and end up on a 5 on 3. Ceci probably should have held up but unless Foegele inexplicably does exactly what he did there was no real danger there and there was a far better chance of the Oilers getting a dangerous chance than what we saw. Had the Oilers scored instead the narrative would have been about the weak turnover and the fact that Pettersson and Studnicka seemed to be dogging it in getting back.

Now I am happy to admit that things like this can happen even just by bad luck. Hockey is not the easiest game to model because there are so many moving parts so numbers almost never tell the whole story. On its own these 4 goals in isolation could be perhaps even be dismissed. But over two games Skinner did not stop any of the high danger shots on net and only stopped 2/3 of the medium danger shots while giving up 8 goals on only 32 shots. The team has given up 12 goals while only giving up relatively few really dangerous shots relative to other teams. At some point it stops being bad luck and becomes an issue with the goalies performance.

I expect things to turn around but this is frustrating, especially after the Vegas series where the goaltending difference did seem to be a major factor.

By the way do you have alink to the Clear Sight numbers. I would be quite interested.

The biggest question mark there was what was Ceci doing, its not like he was an option to give the puck to as he was holding hands with the Oilers forward.

 

[Lay Z Boy GM]

Man it’s something else to watch another team not get lit up and embarrassed. What team you ask? The Hawks. They’ve got more wins than us so far and seem to be in every game with a chance to win..

We honestly could have used a “plug” like Perry. He really is the perfect vet in many ways to mentor a younger star. He’s scored 50, he’s won Cups, he’s seen and done it all.

Hah Hawks leading the Leafs now.. they’re catching teams by surprise so far, love to see it

 

[Duke74]

Man it’s something else to watch another team not get lit up and embarrassed. What team you ask? The Hawks. They’ve got more wins than us so far and seem to be in every game with a chance to win..

We honestly could have used a “plug” like Perry. He really is the perfect vet in many ways to mentor a younger star. He’s scored 50, he’s won Cups, he’s seen and done it all.

Hah Hawks leading the Leafs now.. they’re catching teams by surprise so far, love to see it

A guy like Corey Perry is perfect for the playoffs even at his age.

 

[Lay Z Boy GM]

The biggest question mark there was what was Ceci doing, its not like he was an option to give the puck to as he was holding hands with the Oilers forward.

He does that constantly.. like I’ve keyed in on him a fair amount in the past year and he often floats practically to the goal line for no damn reason. It’s not like he’s scoring goals, idk why he keeps doing it, other teams could target him way more often than they do.

To make it worse Nurse does the same thing and neither seems that aware of what the other is doing. Unless they’re specifically being coached to do this they’re both a couple of dimwits.

A guy like Corey Perry is perfect for the playoffs even at his age.

Still getting goals right in the crease, not as many as he used to but he has a nose for the net. His anticipation is impressive too.

 

[GMofOilers]

Man it’s something else to watch another team not get lit up and embarrassed. What team you ask? The Hawks. They’ve got more wins than us so far and seem to be in every game with a chance to win..

We honestly could have used a “plug” like Perry. He really is the perfect vet in many ways to mentor a younger star. He’s scored 50, he’s won Cups, he’s seen and done it all.

Hah Hawks leading the Leafs now.. they’re catching teams by surprise so far, love to see it

If Skinner was in net it would be 3-1 leafs

 

[T-Funk]

Would just like to point out that last year, after the first 3 games, we were 1-2-0 weren't we? If we win tomorrow, it's the same thing

Also last year, we got spanked in the second round. No more moral victories. Our guys should actually DO what they say they're gonna do at the beginning of every season and play like the team they should be, so we aren't playing the 1-2-0 is an OK start game. You can lose games, but don't keep going out there getting outworked, refusing to play defense after all these years, slowly changing, avoiding hits, passing it into the net, relying on the telegraphed Draisaitl pp goal. Also to be fair, management owes these guys a new effing goalie coach and a new defensive coach. If Woody has a problem with that, then he's not very good at his job.
Its time for someone to get out the giant dangerous billboards again to embarrass some change out of them.

 

[bucks_oil]

We all know the Oilers are capable of tire fire defending. But in fact, I don't think this one is the prototype example of a tire fire defending induced 2-0. More fluke than strictly bad defending. It started out with a weak turnover by the Canucks that saw two of their forwards caught deep in the Oilers zone and end up on a 5 on 3. Ceci probably should have held up but unless Foegele inexplicably does exactly what he did there was no real danger there and there was a far better chance of the Oilers getting a dangerous chance than what we saw. Had the Oilers scored instead the narrative would have been about the weak turnover and the fact that Pettersson and Studnicka seemed to be dogging it in getting back.

Now I am happy to admit that things like this can happen even just by bad luck. Hockey is not the easiest game to model because there are so many moving parts so numbers almost never tell the whole story. On its own these 4 goals in isolation could be perhaps even be dismissed. But over two games Skinner did not stop any of the high danger shots on net and only stopped 2/3 of the medium danger shots while giving up 8 goals on only 32 shots. The team has given up 12 goals while only giving up relatively few really dangerous shots relative to other teams. At some point it stops being bad luck and becomes an issue with the goalies performance.

I expect things to turn around but this is frustrating, especially after the Vegas series where the goaltending difference did seem to be a major factor.

By the way do you have alink to the Clear Sight numbers. I would be quite interested.

Regarding Clear Sight... I picked up the numbers as referenced in an Athletic article. Here is the website, but the numbers are behind a paywall. NHL Rankings | United States | Clear Sight Analytics

As for that tire fire of a goal, this is where I'm coming from:
1) As you say, hockey as a game has elements of luck, but any coach I've ever heard/had will tell you that you make your own luck by making wise decisions with high probabilities of a positive outcome and low probabilities of a negative outcome.
2) No one decision is ever an automatic goal for... or at least rarely... most often it takes at least a couple of mistakes to end up in the back of the net. Sometimes one of those mistakes are the goalie, often times the goalie masks those mistakes. So I guess they don't count?
3) Goalies are NOT faster than the puck. Most high quality shots from high danger chances that hit their spot go in the back of the net. There was an article about it a few years ago... I'll try to dig it up. But consider... You and I had slightly different stats here, but somewhere between 65% and 75% of HD shots are saved. Tell me... how much of the net does a goalie in proper position take up? Exactly!
4) So to understand the act of stopping a quality shot from a HD position you need to understand that MOST of those saves require zero movement. And I would guess (no stats on this yet unfortunately) that 95+% of those saves required very little movement... goalie picked up the puck and his reflexes allowed him to move toward the puck... if he was close enough to begin with, he saves it, if he isn't... he doesn't. Those windmill glove saves? The puck is in the glove in the first 10% of that movement, the rest is momentum (for modest guys like me, or those who want to make it look easy) and flourish (for guys that like to rub it in)
5) So if you aren't fast enough to catch up to a puck what makes a good goalie then? Perfection, perfection in the craft and the mental game. Being in that position in the first place first and foremost. Proper body/arm position. Angles, angles and more angles. Balancing of risk/reward (ie coming way out to cut angles when you trust your D to stop the pass vs staying deep when you don't... and making that bet RIGHT most of the time based on... EVERYTHING... who's the defender, who's the shooter, etc)
6) So you can see it is a mental game... requiring risk/reward on every decision and dealing with the consequences.

Now based on that, my three conclusions for you to consider:
1) You never judge a goalie on a puck that passes unless you can actually identify a mistake. Being physically slower than a puck is not a fault. Being physically faster than the next guy is rare and I would argue NOT what differentiates one guy from the next.
2) You hold all players goalies and otherwise to the same standard of risk/reward perfection. On that 2-0 goal Ceci and Nurse were clueless, both going in deep, lusting for offense... you just NEVER can do that. Foegele took a low percentage shot... with 5 guys charging the net, that was actually the worst choice even if you were ONLY thinking about offense. Hit the damn net. Play for a rebound. As a goalie, I'd be shitting bricks if he hit the net, and laughing my ass off if he missed.... I'd probably lobby the scorekeeper for an assist.
3) You know I'm a scientist... you know I like data. I like data, not datapoints. Reread 5 and 6 again and tell me how many datapoints you'd need to draw a conclusion about the quality of play of the goalie. Think on it again once you consider what one or two goals in either direction can skew the data. I think you'll realize that "on average he shoulda stopped at least one" is a pretty poor argument... especially when we can, instead, look at the goals and look for mistakes. If there were any, they were very, very, very minor. On the 2-0, Skinner pushed properly and got across, the puck went under him before his pad was down... he mighta been a bit off balance, maybe, maybe there is a minor mistake there. On the Lafferty goal Skinner was way out of his net. He simply got beat physically by a puck that's faster than human reflexes.

PS... Campbell playing great tonight so far... Scorpion! I better build creativity and never-give-up into my model

 

[Fourier]

Regarding Clear Sight... I picked up the numbers as referenced in an Athletic article. Here is the website, but the numbers are behind a paywall. NHL Rankings | United States | Clear Sight Analytics

As for that tire fire of a goal, this is where I'm coming from:
1) As you say, hockey as a game has elements of luck, but any coach I've ever heard/had will tell you that you make your own luck by making wise decisions with high probabilities of a positive outcome and low probabilities of a negative outcome.
2) No one decision is ever an automatic goal for... or at least rarely... most often it takes at least a couple of mistakes to end up in the back of the net. Sometimes one of those mistakes are the goalie, often times the goalie masks those mistakes. So I guess they don't count?
3) Goalies are NOT faster than the puck. Most high quality shots from high danger chances that hit their spot go in the back of the net. There was an article about it a few years ago... I'll try to dig it up. But consider... You and I had slightly different stats here, but somewhere between 65% and 75% of HD shots are saved. Tell me... how much of the net does a goalie in proper position take up? Exactly!
4) So to understand the act of stopping a quality shot from a HD position you need to understand that MOST of those saves require zero movement. And I would guess (no stats on this yet unfortunately) that 95+% of those saves required very little movement... goalie picked up the puck and his reflexes allowed him to move toward the puck... if he was close enough to begin with, he saves it, if he isn't... he doesn't. Those windmill glove saves? The puck is in the glove in the first 10% of that movement, the rest is momentum (for modest guys like me, or those who want to make it look easy) and flourish (for guys that like to rub it in)
5) So if you aren't fast enough to catch up to a puck what makes a good goalie then? Perfection, perfection in the craft and the mental game. Being in that position in the first place first and foremost. Proper body/arm position. Angles, angles and more angles. Balancing of risk/reward (ie coming way out to cut angles when you trust your D to stop the pass vs staying deep when you don't... and making that bet RIGHT most of the time based on... EVERYTHING... who's the defender, who's the shooter, etc)
6) So you can see it is a mental game... requiring risk/reward on every decision and dealing with the consequences.

Now based on that, my three conclusions for you to consider:
1) You never judge a goalie on a puck that passes unless you can actually identify a mistake. Being physically slower than a puck is not a fault. Being physically faster than the next guy is rare and I would argue NOT what differentiates one guy from the next.
2) You hold all players goalies and otherwise to the same standard of risk/reward perfection. On that 2-0 goal Ceci and Nurse were clueless, both going in deep, lusting for offense... you just NEVER can do that. Foegele took a low percentage shot... with 5 guys charging the net, that was actually the worst choice even if you were ONLY thinking about offense. Hit the damn net. Play for a rebound. As a goalie, I'd be shitting bricks if he hit the net, and laughing my ass off if he missed.... I'd probably lobby the scorekeeper for an assist.
3) You know I'm a scientist... you know I like data. I like data, not datapoints. Reread 5 and 6 again and tell me how many datapoints you'd need to draw a conclusion about the quality of play of the goalie. Think on it again once you consider what one or two goals in either direction can skew the data. I think you'll realize that "on average he shoulda stopped at least one" is a pretty poor argument... especially when we can, instead, look at the goals and look for mistakes. If there were any, they were very, very, very minor. On the 2-0, Skinner pushed properly and got across, the puck went under him before his pad was down... he mighta been a bit off balance, maybe, maybe there is a minor mistake there. On the Lafferty goal Skinner was way out of his net. He simply got beat physically by a puck that's faster than human reflexes.

PS... Campbell playing great tonight so far... Scorpion! I better build creativity and never-give-up into my model

Thanks for this post. I enjoyed it a lot. And I do know that you are a data driven person.

For me 5) and 6) have always been what goalies are all about. It's a little like hitting in baseball. Proper mechanics are necessary but you also have to believe you can hit that thing. If you don't there is just that slight hesitation and its by you.

I fully agree that on each of the goals there is ample justification for why they went in. My point, which I confess was primarily driven by frustration, is that too many times it is our guy falling victim to the whims of 5) and 6) while the other guy somehow manages not to. Is this a Schwartz issue? It very well could be as he seems to be a constant in this happening to so many guys. But I simply don't understand the position well enough to really say for sure.

In my own inarticulate way 6) is also why I would defend Nurse on this play. I realize that drifting in too deep when you are effectively the last man back is a risk. But in that situation in my opinion the risk is justified. It's damn hard to score 5 vs 5 in today's NHL. Nurse's game is based on his athleticism. To succeed I think he needs to take risks. If Foegele gets him the puck that was a very dangerous chance for and then all of your points above come into play for us rather than against. In 99/100 other scenarios there is no harm in what Nurse did since he certainly was not going hard enough that he could not get back had Foegele done anything but what he did. That play end up in the 1/100 chance that something bad could happen. And frankly, given how it played out even if Nurse had stopped at the blueline I don't think it would have made a lick of difference. That puck was coming out to Pettersson regardless and Nurse would have been flat footed rather than in motion.

For me Ceci's actions were higher risk with little reward. Now it is very reasonable to argue that once Ceci committed Nurse should have backed off. I get that. This is partly why I think that pair gets into so much trouble together. The wrong guy is taking the risk at the wrong time. Nurse needs to find his Charlie Huddy.

In the end though I fully appreciate your position and your rationale behind it.

 

[bobbythebrain]

Thanks for this post. I enjoyed it a lot. And I do know that you are a data driven person.

For me 5) and 6) have always been what goalies are all about. It's a little like hitting in baseball. Proper mechanics are necessary but you also have to believe you can hit that thing. If you don't there is just that slight hesitation and its by you.

I fully agree that on each of the goals there is ample justification for why they went in. My point, which I confess was primarily driven by frustration, is that too many times it is our guy falling victim to the whims of 5) and 6) while the other guy somehow manages not to. Is this a Schwartz issue? It very well could be as he seems to be a constant in this happening to so many guys. But I simply don't understand the position well enough to really say for sure.

In my own inarticulate way 6) is also why I would defend Nurse on this play. I realize that drifting in too deep when you are effectively the last man back is a risk. But in that situation in my opinion the risk is justified. It's damn hard to score 5 vs 5 in today's NHL. Nurse's game is based on his athleticism. To succeed I think he needs to take risks. If Foegele gets him the puck that was a very dangerous chance for and then all of you points above come into play. In 99/100 other scenarios there is no harm in what Nurse did since he certainly was not going hard enough that he could not get back had Foegele done anything but what he did. That play end up in the 1/100 chance that something bad could happen. And frankly, given how it played out even if Nurse had stopped at the blueline I don't think it would have made a lick of difference. That puck was coming out to Pettersson regardless and Nurse would have been flat footed rather than in motion.

For me Ceci's actions were higher risk with little reward. Now it is very reasonable to argue that once Ceci committed Nurse should have backed off. I get that. This is partly why I think that pair gets into so much trouble together. The wrong guy is taking the risk at the wrong time. Nurse needs to find his Charlie Huddy.

In the end though I fully appreciate your position and your rationale behind it.

You do realize for McLovin to get him the puck he had to go over Janmarks(maybe), but definitely Ceci's stick?

Not sure why you are dying on this hill? Like been stated, SEVERAL posters already blasted Nurse for the play, all day infact, and funny enough, after all this banter during the day, Gregor and Brown just happened to touch on it and also blamed Nurse hours later

Concede the loss

 

[Fourier]

You do realize for McLovin to get him the puck he had to go over Janmarks(maybe), but definitely Ceci's stick?

Not sure why you are dying on this hill? Like been stated, SEVERAL posters already blasted Nurse for the play, all day infact, and funny enough, after all this banter during the day, Gregor and Brown just happened to touch on it and also blamed Nurse hours later

Concede the loss

Sure. It's not worth any more air time.

 

[bucks_oil]

Nice discussion... l appreciate it as well.

Thanks for this post. I enjoyed it a lot. And I do know that you are a data driven person.

For me 5) and 6) have always been what goalies are all about. It's a little like hitting in baseball. Proper mechanics are necessary but you also have to believe you can hit that thing. If you don't there is just that slight hesitation and its by you.

The slight hesitation thing is real, any goalie will tell you that... it comes down to confidence and state of mind. I want someone to run an analysis on SPCT after a player makes a terrible, repeated mistake that his coach (or goalie) has told him not to do (ie failing to get the puck out with a simple chip off the boards), vs a physical mistake (ie getting beat wide) made by a generally reliable defender. Your goalie can't help it, but that "WTF was he thinking" negativity can be the difference between the puck going in or not.

When you think about that, as a player, I can imagine that being a bit frustrating/unsatisfactory, but it's human nature and the goalie mental game is to scrub it away even before it manifests. For me, it's a sin that is similar to a forward banging their stick and shaking their head when they miss the net before taking hard strides back toward defense. Which, I think we all know, is a pretty common thing for some players to do... and yes, your goalie noticed that too.

You sorta expect it at beer league, but to see that happen at the NHL level... that's what makes me question our culture of defending.

I fully agree that on each of the goals there is ample justification for why they went in. My point, which I confess was primarily driven by frustration, is that too many times it is our guy falling victim to the whims of 5) and 6) while the other guy somehow manages not to. Is this a Schwartz issue? It very well could be as he seems to be a constant in this happening to so many guys. But I simply don't understand the position well enough to really say for sure.

If it were one goalie, or two that fell victim to this phenomenon, you could blame the goalie... but this sentiment has been common on our board for nearly a decade, so either:
1) It's Schwartz... I don't have a plausible explanation for how he significantly influences that mental game in the moment. And when its positioning (like glove positioning... which might actually be a coached thing) you can see it. I didn't really notice that on either of the goals in question
2) It's the team commitment to defending... or
3) It happens to all teams/goalies from game to game.

Look at Saros last night... 0.636. I don't have the stats on high danger save percent last night, but i) it can't have been good ii) with only 4 games played (vs our two before last night), I'll bet it has a HUGE impact on his season stats.

And that's my point... he is, for my money, one of the best goalies in the league. And it should not be surprising that shots that statistically go in 25% of the time, some of those shots will go in 100% of the time... our microscopes just aren't high enough resolution yet.

In my own inarticulate way 6) is also why I would defend Nurse on this play. I realize that drifting in too deep when you are effectively the last man back is a risk. But in that situation in my opinion the risk is justified. It's damn hard to score 5 vs 5 in today's NHL. Nurse's game is based on his athleticism. To succeed I think he needs to take risks. If Foegele gets him the puck that was a very dangerous chance for and then all of your points above come into play for us rather than against. In 99/100 other scenarios there is no harm in what Nurse did since he certainly was not going hard enough that he could not get back had Foegele done anything but what he did. That play end up in the 1/100 chance that something bad could happen. And frankly, given how it played out even if Nurse had stopped at the blueline I don't think it would have made a lick of difference. That puck was coming out to Pettersson regardless and Nurse would have been flat footed rather than in motion.

Here is where I fundamentally disagree. Those D are PARTNERS. That has to mean something. It means they just can't ever make that tactical decision (to both go for goal) and expect it to work out. It was a mental error, which speaks to a lack of awareness, which speaks to a lack of discipline to play within the very basics of a defensive structure.... to wit, I was teaching the same concept to my 8-year old daughter and her D-partner this past weekend.

On top of that Foegele tried to play hero instead of taking the low risk (and STILL high reward) play. Another tactical error, but it least it had a bit of a physical error/limitation to it (which are excusable).

And to blow up in our faces, it didn't even need "a bad bounce", that puck rifling around the boards and giving the opposition a chance happens about 15 times per night. The riccochet off the boards was not exactly "unpredictable". You KNOW that's going to happen if a player misses. How on earth those two can just decide the Oilers are immune to basic physics is beyond me.

It wasn't "bad puck luck". It was poor odds, begotten by stubborn individuality that is not a part of high-functioning teams.

For me Ceci's actions were higher risk with little reward. Now it is very reasonable to argue that once Ceci committed Nurse should have backed off. I get that. This is partly why I think that pair gets into so much trouble together. The wrong guy is taking the risk at the wrong time. Nurse needs to find his Charlie Huddy.

Yeah, as above... two clear mistakes on the play. One shared by Nurse/Ceci and one from Foegele.

To your point about Ceci and Nurse... well exactly... but then that's on coaching. Where is the F'n role clarity here (to borrow a management term). Doesn't Ceci know that his partner is a wild rover?

Again, thanks for the chat...

 

[Fourier]

Nice discussion... l appreciate it as well.


The slight hesitation thing is real, any goalie will tell you that... it comes down to confidence and state of mind. I want someone to run an analysis on SPCT after a player makes a terrible, repeated mistake that his coach (or goalie) has told him not to do (ie failing to get the puck out with a simple chip off the boards), vs a physical mistake (ie getting beat wide) made by a generally reliable defender. Your goalie can't help it, but that "WTF was he thinking" negativity can be the difference between the puck going in or not.

When you think about that, as a player, I can imagine that being a bit frustrating/unsatisfactory, but it's human nature and the goalie mental game is to scrub it away even before it manifests. For me, it's a sin that is similar to a forward banging their stick and shaking their head when they miss the net before taking hard strides back toward defense. Which, I think we all know, is a pretty common thing for some players to do... and yes, your goalie noticed that too.

You sorta expect it at beer league, but to see that happen at the NHL level... that's what makes me question our culture of defending.



If it were one goalie, or two that fell victim to this phenomenon, you could blame the goalie... but this sentiment has been common on our board for nearly a decade, so either:
1) It's Schwartz... I don't have a plausible explanation for how he significantly influences that mental game in the moment. And when its positioning (like glove positioning... which might actually be a coached thing) you can see it. I didn't really notice that on either of the goals in question
2) It's the team commitment to defending... or
3) It happens to all teams/goalies from game to game.

Look at Saros last night... 0.636. I don't have the stats on high danger save percent last night, but i) it can't have been good ii) with only 4 games played (vs our two before last night), I'll bet it has a HUGE impact on his season stats.

And that's my point... he is, for my money, one of the best goalies in the league. And it should not be surprising that shots that statistically go in 25% of the time, some of those shots will go in 100% of the time... our microscopes just aren't high enough resolution yet.

Here is where I fundamentally disagree. Those D are PARTNERS. That has to mean something. It means they just can't ever make that tactical decision (to both go for goal) and expect it to work out. It was a mental error, which speaks to a lack of awareness, which speaks to a lack of discipline to play within the very basics of a defensive structure.... to wit, I was teaching the same concept to my 8-year old daughter and her D-partner this past weekend.

On top of that Foegele tried to play hero instead of taking the low risk (and STILL high reward) play. Another tactical error, but it least it had a bit of a physical error/limitation to it (which are excusable).

And to blow up in our faces, it didn't even need "a bad bounce", that puck rifling around the boards and giving the opposition a chance.

It wasn't "bad puck luck". It was poor odds, begotten by stubborn individuality that is not a part of high-functioning teams.



Yeah, as above... two clear mistakes on the play. One shared by Nurse/Ceci and one from Foegele.

To your point about Ceci and Nurse... well exactly... but then that's on coaching. Where is the F'n role clarity here (to borrow a management term). Doesn't Ceci know that his partner is a wild rover?

Again, thanks for the chat...

Again, thanks a lot.

 

[bucks_oil]

Again, thanks a lot.

No prob... always fun.

But just to reinforce my broader point, and not for you, since I know you get it...

But just to defend the goalie brotherhood.

Now, after 1.5 games, Campbell went from having a 0.750 SPCT in game 1 (or half game 1) and 60 minutes of hockey later he's got an SPCT of 0.917 on "the season".

Tyranny of small numbers.... you can't just SPCT on a game by game basis. Judging HD SPCT on a 5 or 6 HD shot n-size is even crazier.

Judge mistakes, not SPCT.