Rumor: Rumors and Proposals Thread | Friedman: Kahun 1 year $975k

[Cloned]

True, but will he have that much time in the slot ever again?

Probably, because most teams won’t consider him a threat to make those types of deflections.

 

[bucks_oil]

The PDO advanced stat is probably the greatest example of a stat that measures luck. It’s the summation of a team’s shooting percentage and their save percentage.

5v5 we had a .946 PDO.

Chicago had a 1.054.

That’s a difference of over 0.100.

The difference between the bottom and the top of the PDO stat in the regular season was half that.

That’s all that really needs to be said.

Do you actually believe this though? Especially in such a small sample size?

I mean of all the kooky stats, PDO is the kookiest to me. Doesn't it essentially say: 1) all shots are equal, 2) all goalies are equal, 3) all shooters are equal, and therefore 4) in the aggregate the quality of the shot/shooter/goalie/scoring chance should be equal, or does it really say... 5) that it will average out over time if everything else is equal or we aggregate it sufficiently to eliminate individual/team skill.

That 5th point is the critical one... PDO assumes that over time the number should be close to 1 or something else is going on. People assume "something else" must be luck and maybe over a thousand games you can ascribe it that way... but I just don't know how you can watch or play hockey and assume that is the only conclusion when you are talking about a series involving only two teams.

For me, at least in this conversation, is that the "something else" was some combination of:
1) going to the net
2) getting traffic
3) screening goalies
4) getting rebounds
5) not playing the perimeter
6) tying up your opponent's stick vs not doing that
7) boxing out the front of the net vs not doing that
8) making more accurate shots
9) making more great saves

Each of which could legitimately lead to an imbalance in PDO.... you know... because you were the better team.

Or you know... luck.

 

[ConnorMcNugesaitl]

Chicago was clearly the better team in the play in round.

Why does it seem like this thread is pretending there's a debate about that?

 

[Oilhawks]

Boooring. Hawks suck. Move on

 

[TopShelfGloveSide]

Chicago was clearly the better team in the play in round.

Why does it seem like this thread is pretending there's a debate about that?

Chicago was not clearly the better team... but yah don’t want to open that can again so.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

Do you actually believe this though? Especially in such a small sample size?

I mean of all the kooky stats, PDO is the kookiest to me. Doesn't it essentially say: 1) all shots are equal, 2) all goalies are equal, 3) all shooters are equal, and therefore 4) in the aggregate the quality of the shot/shooter/goalie/scoring chance should be equal, or does it really say... 5) that it will average out over time if everything else is equal or we aggregate it sufficiently to eliminate individual/team skill.

That 5th point is the critical one... PDO assumes that over time the number should be close to 1 or something else is going on. People assume "something else" must be luck and maybe over a thousand games you can ascribe it that way... but I just don't know how you can watch or play hockey and assume that is the only conclusion when you are talking about a series involving only two teams.

For me, at least in this conversation, is that the "something else" was some combination of:
1) going to the net
2) getting traffic
3) screening goalies
4) getting rebounds
5) not playing the perimeter
6) tying up your opponent's stick vs not doing that
7) boxing out the front of the net vs not doing that
8) making more accurate shots
9) making more great saves

Each of which could legitimately lead to an imbalance in PDO.... you know... because you were the better team.

Or you know... luck.

Okay, if you want to go by advanced stats that take into account shot location and stuff.

oilers dominated the hawks.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

Chicago was clearly the better team in the play in round.

Why does it seem like this thread is pretending there's a debate about that?

I don’t think you know what clearly means or have a clue as to what you’re talking about.

 

[Oilers in NS]

Unless you are doctor Frankenstein and you install the Abby Normal brain




keep in mind Igor is one of the smartest Leafs fan

It’s pretty bad when generations of families will not even see a cup final. We have had bad days in Edmonton but we have won cups in my time and been to the finals in the new millennium

 

[McShogun99]

Chicago was clearly the better team in the play in round.

Why does it seem like this thread is pretending there's a debate about that?

I've posted it on here before but after the 1st period of game 1 we were the better team. We outscored them from that point on in the series but the 4 own goals and losing Larsson really hurt us. We also dominated them in game 4 but Crawford stole that game for the Hawks.

 

[Oilhawks]

I've posted it on here before but after the 1st period of game 1 we were the better team. We outscored them from that point on in the series but the 4 own goals and losing Larsson really hurt us. We also dominated them in game 4 but Crawford stole that game for the Hawks.

Hawks also had the Oilers' number (particularly Crawford) all season as well. Doesn't make them the better team. I think we all remember the Gagner night when Hawks were in the midst of a dynasty.

 

[GretzkytoKurri9917]

Boooring. Hawks suck. Move on

 

[Soundwave]

Hawks kicked the Oilers butt in game 1, Oilers kicked the Hawks butt in game 2, game 3/4 were coin flips, I think that very easily could've been Oilers 3-1 in that series. Chicago got some fortunate bounces on late game goals.

 

[Mr Positive]

Imo the Hawks as the "bad" team, had a scouting advantage, which is huge when we all this time to scout and research teams between the season and playoffs. There's more to plan for when you are up against a good team, because our focus was likely to tighten up what was already working. So, the Hawks could focus on our PP and our main weapons, because we weren't going to switch that up.

Meanwhile, the Hawks were likely going to switch up their offense, and were in a state of chaos that season. Lots of time to look in the mirror. Our team did a good job on focussing on their main weapons such as Kane, Toews, Saad and Debrinkat. But the difference for Chicago were other guys like Kubalik and Dach, who we seemed powerless against too often. Meanwhile, our goalies were also likely scouted really effectively, while Crawford was just a yo-yo all season

I like that explanation because it wasn't just us. Montreal's win was a bigger upset. I'd even say Toronto losing was like that since Columbus' returning players made them an unknown entity.

It's also a factor that would quickly diminish as the next team could learn that lower team's new tricks.

 

[OfCorsiDid]

Do you actually believe this though? Especially in such a small sample size?

I mean of all the kooky stats, PDO is the kookiest to me. Doesn't it essentially say: 1) all shots are equal, 2) all goalies are equal, 3) all shooters are equal, and therefore 4) in the aggregate the quality of the shot/shooter/goalie/scoring chance should be equal, or does it really say... 5) that it will average out over time if everything else is equal or we aggregate it sufficiently to eliminate individual/team skill.

That 5th point is the critical one... PDO assumes that over time the number should be close to 1 or something else is going on. People assume "something else" must be luck and maybe over a thousand games you can ascribe it that way... but I just don't know how you can watch or play hockey and assume that is the only conclusion when you are talking about a series involving only two teams.

For me, at least in this conversation, is that the "something else" was some combination of:
1) going to the net
2) getting traffic
3) screening goalies
4) getting rebounds
5) not playing the perimeter
6) tying up your opponent's stick vs not doing that
7) boxing out the front of the net vs not doing that
8) making more accurate shots
9) making more great saves

Each of which could legitimately lead to an imbalance in PDO.... you know... because you were the better team.

Or you know... luck.

I don’t disagree, but that’s precisely why it’s a measurement of luck. It’s treating all things equal. It’s the statistical equivalent of rolling a 20-sided die.

I mean if you want what you’re looking for, then yes PDO is not a perfect stat.

If I was to quantify what your looking for in those categories you stated above, statwise it would be the following:
1) HDCF
2) HDCF + PDO
3) No stat
4) HDCF + xGF
5) HDCF + FF% + CF%
6) xGA + HDCA
7) HDCA
8) SH% + xGF
9) SV% + HDCA

The thing is about advanced stats is that the whole is greater than the sum of their parts. By looking at multiple stats and comparing them to an opposing team you’ll get a better idea of what exactly occurred.

And unfortunately for you, it supports my narrative much more than yours.

 

[OfCorsiDid]

Chicago was clearly the better team in the play in round.

Why does it seem like this thread is pretending there's a debate about that?

 

[FanOfSadTeam]

Read Calgary puckwits for a laugh. Apparently, everyone and everything on the Oilers will regress because...uh.. "unsustainable". Very logical group over there. No bias or bitterness at all in their analysis.

They seem too dumb to realize that, if these players signed with the Flames, they'd be jerking them off to no end. Just like they've done with Lucic, who they endlessly ridiculed only to now say "he has many dimensions and just needed to be used right" oh where was that take before. Abject morons.

 

[McShogun99]

Read Calgary puckwits for a laugh. Apparently, everyone and everything on the Oilers will regress because...uh.. "unsustainable". Very logical group over their. No bias or bitterness at all in their analysis.

They seem too dumb to realize that, if these players signed with the Flames, they'd be jerking them off to no end. Just like they've done with Lucic, who they endlessly ridiculed only to now say "he has many dimensions and just needed to be used right" oh where was that take before. Abject morons.

I think our PP and PK will drop a few percentage points but out 5x5 will be much better. We’ll have a full year of the DRY line plus some excellent upgrades this off season. We’ll also have everyone at 100% minus Klefbom and fully rested.

 

[FanOfSadTeam]

I think our PP and PK will drop a few percentage points but out 5x5 will be much better. We’ll have a full year of the DRY line plus some excellent upgrades this off season. We’ll also have everyone at 100% minus Klefbom and fully rested.

I just don't see our PP changing much with the players we have out there. We might not reach the same level, but I still think it'll be a top 5 PP.

PK might regress with Sheahan gone but I honestly think a guy like Pulju could do a fine job filling in.

But the stupidity from Flames fans is not that we'll regress, it's that we'll regress while also not improving in any other area, even after all the undeniable upgrades we have made. Like you said, our 5v5 will most likely improve as will our production from the bottom 6. That's honestly the biggest concern I had with this team. Defense can be managed with systems but not having our non-star players contribute has been an unaddressed problem until now.

 

[CookiesAndMilk]

Yep,that's my brother's nick name at work. He is a plant manager and he is a chubby aboriginal who looks Hawaiian. Lol

Great nick name!