Edmonton is No Good Episode 4: New Rink, Same Stink

[Bingo]

To answer his question though ...

I do think the Blues, Sens and Oilers were the most fortunate teams of the first round, Sens carried that even further. Stats support it.

Flames lose on goaltending, and as some have said goalies are part of a team so team deserved to lose.

Unluckiest team by a fair margin was the Wild, that series was bizarre.

So I'm pretty content with those lists to be honest.

[AlbertaOiler72]

Originally Posted by Bingo

As I said you were cool with quoting lead stats from 7 games, so sample size didn't bother you in the least.

you don't need a "sample size" to say they lead in 6 of the 7 games...cause you can't skew those facts

Originally Posted by Bingo

I get it though, they don't fit your narrative.

Cool with me though, walk down Spector lane with the Oilers will be measured by a conference final birth or the season is a failure. The best of the unwashed will incorporate some of this stuff though, as it's a pretty good barometer to actually what went down in the playoffs. Sample size is two playoff rounds, and if you're routinely getting out shot, out chanced and hemmed in playoff game after playoff game then what you really have is a hot goaltender and not "the run" as it's been coined in Edmonton.

Your call though.

no its not....Minny, despite having the best "fancy" stats according to your post, got bounced in 5 games in the first round

the Pens and Sens has some of the worst "fancy stats" in the playoffs yet were Conference Finalists

heck, even the Preds and Ducks only show up in the top 5 3times total yet they met in the Conference Finals

again, the only thing these stats show is how wildly unpredictable the playoffs can be

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72

you don't need a "sample size" to say they lead in 6 of the 7 games...cause you can't skew those facts

Can't skew shot differentials either. They are recorded much the same way a goal is. Get one, they write it down. No difference at all.

Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72

no its not....Minny, despite having the best "fancy" stats according to your post, got bounced in 5 games in the first round

the Pens and Sens has some of the worst "fancy stats" in the playoffs yet were Conference Finalists

heck, even the Preds and Ducks only show up in the top 5 3times total yet they met in the Conference Finals

again, the only thing these stats show is how wildly unpredictable the playoffs can be

As I said in the other post ... Blues, Sens and Oilers were the least deserving teams to the eye test.

Wild got ripped off by almost any measure imaginable.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72

again, the only thing these stats show is Edmonton had a hot goalie for a little while

FYP

Seriously - your bar is "winning a round"? Everyone knows a lesser team can win a round. Hot goalie, luck luck, injuries, etc.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72

you don't need a "sample size" to say they lead in 6 of the 7 games...cause you can't skew those facts


no its not....Minny, despite having the best "fancy" stats according to your post, got bounced in 5 games in the first round

the Pens and Sens has some of the worst "fancy stats" in the playoffs yet were Conference Finalists

heck, even the Preds and Ducks only show up in the top 5 3times total yet they met in the Conference Finals

again, the only thing these stats show is how wildly unpredictable the playoffs can be

Disputes stats by saying stats aren't reliable....you can tell because of this stat.

Declares Oilers great based on 1 playoff round win where a goalie and 1 player got super hot.....points out that playoffs are unpredictable.

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72

Travis Hamonic? I like him for his character and toughness but not much of a puck mover...and was a -21 last year on a decent Isles team

Lol. You've got to be kidding. Harmonic was aggressively pursued by Charelli but now that he's a Flame he's not that good. Sure bud. Also obviously your talking out your ass because his skating and puck movement are some of his strengths. Sounds like you're jealous that the one you had a crush on just spurned you for your rival.

Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72

Smith has had very mediocre stats, is old and a hot-head...can't wait to see him lose his mind the second a defender makes a mistake

A goalie who has a lot of pride, what a terrible thing to have. Not to mention his stick handling will be like a 3rd defenseman back there, keeping the D from getting hit a lot. All we need from Smith is average goaltending, anything above that will be gravy.

Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72

Sekera? sure...he'll be missed, but for how long? no one knows

Most estimates have him not back until after Christmas. I don't think there's a worse #3 defenseman than Benning/Russell/Nurse.

Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72

you're only adding Hamonic to a team that got swept in the playoffs and finished the year 5-7 after the 10-game win streak

time will tell if that's enough to put the Flames ahead

Only adding a good top 4 guy to a team that already has one of the best top 3 in the league. Who did the Oilers go out and get that improved their defense? You can attribute the late season drop off to the abysmal goaltending.

Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72

remember when Joel Quennville had the "choke" label with his time in St. Louis and Colorado?

now he's considered one of the best coaches in the NHL

Keith, Seabrook, Campbell, Hjalmarrson, Byfuglien >>>>> Klefbom, Larsson, Russell, Nurse, Benning.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Naming leads in games? How 1987 of you!

The 7 game Oiler Duck series featured ...

a) Oilers at 43.9% CF%
b) Simple shots for they averaged only 41% through the 7 games
c) 44.6% in scoring chances through the 7 games
d) 45.8% in high danger scoring chances through the 7 games

Those are simple to look up.

The only game in 7 where the Oilers were the more dangerous and effective team was game 3 where you'd have to look at score adjusted since they lost 6-3

Same metrics for the Flames in their 4 game sweep?

a) 51.2% corsi for, with only one game under 50
b) 52.6% of shots for
c) 53.6% of scoring chances for
d) 52.2% of high danger scoring chances for

This isn't hard stuff to look up, I'm not ignoring metrics that don't fit my view. Talbot good. Elliott bad. End of story.

Flames were -14 in shot attempts when the games were tied. And -10 when the score was close. +16 when behind. +7 when leading.

Oilers were -20 when tied. Actually better than the Flames.

-34 when score close, just slightly behind the Flames.

+26 when playing from behind. The biggest difference was their -70 when playing with the lead. I thought they tried to sit on leads too much, and it definitely cost them in the Ducks series. That might just be me projecting my emotions onto the results though. In reality, they had the lead more often than not, so it makes sense that they would be well negative in this column.

So when you look at how great the corsi was for the Flames in their 4 games a lot of that may be because they were always losing.

12 out of the 16 teams in the playoffs had positive shot differentials when behind.

During the regular season 27 teams had positive shot differentials while losing.

We just may be looking at score effects when we are looking for a silver lining in the first round for the Flames.

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Flames were -14 in shot attempts when the games were tied. And -10 when the score was close. +16 when behind. +7 when leading.



Oilers were -20 when tied. Actually better than the Flames.



-34 when score close, just slightly behind the Flames. +26 when playing from behind. The biggest difference was their -70 when playing with the lead. I thought they tried to sit on leads too much, and it definitely cost them in the Ducks series.



So when you look at how great the corsi was for the Flames in their 4 games a lot of that may be because they were always losing.



12 out of the 16 teams in the playoffs had positive shot differentials when behind.



During the regular season 27 teams had positive shot differentials while losing.



We just may be looking at score effects when we are looking for a silver lining in the first round for the Flames.

How about that the Oilers were roundly outhit and outshot by Anaheim in their series? The Flames outshot and we're almost even in hits in their matchup. What does that tell you?

Gibson/Bernier >> Elliott/Johnson (mostly Elliott).

Talbot > Gibson (valiant effort by Talbot but Anaheim had much better D and better secondary scoring).

If Calgary had Talbot level goaltending for their series, they easily take it.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I am not that energetic, but I am willing to project from the FACT that an overwhelming majority of NHL goalies undergo time management to limit them to around 65 regular season games to argue that I am likely correct.

You have yet to explain why it is that so many NHL teams in the past decade have seen fit to set these sorts of limits on their starting goalies. If playing 70 games in a season is no problem for a NHL goalie, then why does it not occur more frequently?

To put this another way: between 1995–2006 there were 36 individual campaigns in which goalies played at least 70 games. That is a 3.6 per year average. Since then there have been 31, for an average of 2.82. But in the past five full seasons there have been only seven, with three of those occurring together in 2011–12. Like it or not, there is an irrefutable trend towards fewer games for starting goalies. Do you honestly believe that this is just a random occurrence? I am betting that NHL coaches and managers are convinced that a goalie's workload is a matter of critical importance.

I think it has more to do with back to backs and 3 in 4 nights than total number of games.

Teams average around 15 back to backs per season, and stats clearly show that a goaltenders stats sag in the second game of a back to back.

I'm not sure if this is team related or not. The stats never seem to go deep enough for my wants.

I would imagine that coaches are into this though and aren't starting goalies in back to back games anymore which limits a starting goalie to around 65 games.

So I'd say it's more a worry about condensed schedules than it would be about total games.

I wish reporters would ask questions like this instead of the standard stock questions they repeat over and over.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

So when you look at how great the corsi was for the Flames in their 4 games a lot of that may be because they were always losing.

12 out of the 16 teams in the playoffs had positive shot differentials when behind.

During the regular season 27 teams had positive shot differentials while losing.

We just may be looking at score effects when we are looking for a silver lining in the first round for the Flames.

I'm honestly not saying a whole lot about the Flames in any of this. They lost.

Don't see the Oilers as a "run" though, when their playoffs had them out played often.

As Calgary fans we went a season being told it wasn't sustainable based on similar metrics. If media talks about Edmonton being great in the playoffs when data suggests they're were not it's an issue.

Oilers games ...

not a good sign to have W's below the line

[AlbertaOiler72]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

A goalie who has a lot of pride, what a terrible thing to have. Not to mention his stick handling will be like a 3rd defenseman back there, keeping the D from getting hit a lot. All we need from Smith is average goaltending, anything above that will be gravy.

didn't you say the same things about Elliott and his .930 save % last year?

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Most estimates have him not back until after Christmas. I don't think there's a worse #3 defenseman than Benning/Russell/Nurse.

yeah, you have no idea at all, and we won't know until training camp

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Only adding a good top 4 guy to a team that already has one of the best top 3 in the league. Who did the Oilers go out and get that improved their defense? You can attribute the late season drop off to the abysmal goaltending.

they're counting on continued growth of Larsson, Klefbom, Benning and Nurse

and again, until the Flames actually prove they're a top 3 defense, they are paper tigers..need to actually finish above the Oilers in GA

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Keith, Seabrook, Campbell, Hjalmarrson, Byfuglien >>>>> Klefbom, Larsson, Russell, Nurse, Benning.

no mention of the Oilers forwards and goaltending?

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

How about that the Oilers were roundly outhit and outshot by Anaheim in their series? The Flames outshot and we're almost even in hits in their matchup. What does that tell you?

Flames were also out shot when the score was tied or close.

What does that tell you?

[dino7c]

Who cares about last season...its over and both teams weren't good enough

I think the Flames have improved more than the Oilers but we will see on the ice

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72

and again, until the Flames actually prove they're a top 3 defense, they are paper tigers..need to actually finish above the Oilers in GA

GA is a pretty weak way to measure a defense core though, guessing you know that.

If you have a 30th ranked save percentage no defense core can bail that out. Similarly a Jennings trophy for Carey Price doesn't suggest the Habs in any one season had the best blueline.

[Red Slinger]

nm

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm honestly not saying a whole lot about the Flames in any of this. They lost.

Don't see the Oilers as a "run" though, when their playoffs had them out played often.

As Calgary fans we went a season being told it wasn't sustainable based on similar metrics. If media talks about Edmonton being great in the playoffs when data suggests they're were not it's an issue.

Oilers games ...

not a good sign to have W's below the line

That's fair.

I think the Oilers didn't deserve to get by the Ducks last season, and that was the end result.

I don't think any team with one playoff appearance should be banking on going deep in the playoffs. I'll take any success they get this year.

[Kovaz]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Flames were also out shot when the score was tied or close.

What does that tell you?

Fortunately, we have score-adjusted stats that can take into account score effects. Score-adjusted, the Flames were at 50.72% of shots attempts. While they were out-shot when the score was tied, they controlled over 55% of shot attempts while trailing (score effects predict 52% for the team trailing). Average it out, and you get a team that, on average, outshot the Ducks over the course of the series.

Corsi close (within 1 goal) has less predictive power than raw Corsi (unadjusted), which has less predictive power than score-adjusted Corsi.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

That's fair.

I think the Oilers didn't deserve to get by the Ducks last season, and that was the end result.

I don't think any team with one playoff appearance should be banking on going deep in the playoffs. I'll take any success they get this year.

very level headed view, appreciated

Flames could have Smith go in the tank and have the season go up in smoke, or he could find it.

I think the key is to hammer down as many of the "ifs" as you can, Calgary has done some of that.

Time will tell.

[---Hatrick---]

[QUOTE=AlbertaOiler72;6358526]didn't you say the same things about Elliott and his .930 save % last year?



And Elliot certainly didn't give us average goaltending when it mattered most. He was abysmal to start the year and again in the playoffs. He deserves some credit for helping the Flames get hot when they did. Elliot was playing average to above average when the Flames got hot mid season. Flames were one of the top teams in the league during that stretch. So what does that tell you?
If Elliot had given them at least average goaltending in the playoffs, I certainly don't think they would have been swept. He fell apart in the playoffs and was like a leaky faucet. Not putting all the blame on him, but it's pretty tough to win a series with the goaltending he gave the Flames

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72

didn't you say the same things about Elliott and his .930 save % last year?

And did he give us average, consistent goaltending? No, he was bad-great-abysmal.

Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72

yeah, you have no idea at all, and we won't know until training camp

That's why they're called estimates. But most pundits, including on the Oilers think it won't be until December.

Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72

they're counting on continued growth of Larsson, Klefbom, Benning and Nurse

So then Calgary should be even better than last year. Adding Hamonic to the growth of Hamilton, Brodie, Stone and Kulak.

Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72

and again, until the Flames actually prove they're a top 3 defense, they are paper tigers..need to actually finish above the Oilers in GA

Do you really need to be reminded every time that the GA was 90% Talbot>>Elliott.

Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72

no mention of the Oilers forwards and goaltending?

Yeah, I didn't mention them because I felt it was a wash. Oilers had little bit better goaltending and the Hawks little bit better forwards. But the D isn't even remotely comparable.

Hawks F > Oilers F
Oilers G > Hawks G
Hawks D >>> Oilers D