[Game Takes] Oilers 1 Flames 0

[Bingo]

Oilers 1 Flames 0

[Toonage]

You mentioned Kassian being quiet and that reminded me of the clip they ran from the warm ups. Peluso & Kassian start chatting together at centre ice, then as Peluso keep talking (and not moving) Kassian gets further and further away while chirping. Nothing says tough guy more than backing away from a guy while still trying to yell at him.

[edslunch]

Give the Oilers credit, they didn’t give the Flames a lot of room. Typical Hitchcock ugly hockey. He very effective getting mediocre teams to play better, until he wears out his welcome.

[GirlySports]

It's amazing how Hitchcock can get a system to work for an offensive-minded Oilers team in a hurry. Whats the secret, why can't other coaches do this?

[jaikorven]

The lack of jump is frustrating, yet somewhat expected. Next game!

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

It's amazing how Hitchcock can get a system to work for an offensive-minded Oilers team in a hurry. Whats the secret, why can't other coaches do this?

Getting results fast isn't that big a deal. It's making it last that's the trick.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

It's amazing how Hitchcock can get a system to work for an offensive-minded Oilers team in a hurry. Whats the secret, why can't other coaches do this?

Are they an offensive minded team? Scores suggest otherwise. Yes there is the 7-2 game vs Minnesota but that’s pretty much it since Hitch took over.

Trap and hope McDavid scores is like the Wild with Lemaire and Gaborik. Some of the last tickets to go in the STH draft for years.

[Split98]

I thought Andersson looked great out there again all things considered. That tape-to-tape pass from blue line to blue line was a thing of cross-rink beauty.

Rittich looked great. Disappointing the Flames couldn't score and reward another solid outing of his.

Johnny was trying everything, but everyone was a step behind where they needed to be.


They didn't do much to tilt the rink in their favour, but the officiating was atrocious.

I still don't get the Unsportsmanlike Peluso got, and even less so after Nurse ran his mouth about a penalty not long after. Was it the fight itself? That was instigating, and as you pointed out Bingo, was a direct response to a questionably late hit

I didn't know we called hits to the head a penalty as well. It was definitely a penalty as that could have been ugly... but it's pretty tough to swallow when we're out Backlund and there was absolutely no call. I like the call, but I don't like how little we've seen it called.

We also have Lomberg RN out for a much more docile response than Kassian on Tkachuk last game that was 100% fine.

The no-goal was garbage. I agree that the goalie was interfered with, but it didn't happen without defensive influence. You can't allow players to push the offense into the goalie and then call the goal back. You also better be damn consistent (spoiler: they aren't) and call every contact between the player and goalie if you're going to call it.


This league's officiating is a mess, and this isn't hard. Fix officiating and make the game fun to watch again. Last night was a great example IMO, but I'm looking at the season as a whole and it's pretty brutal.

I just don't get how the NHL is ok with how inconsistent the plays are, how many head injuries keep popping up and how no-one knows what is a suspension, and what is a 'clean hit'. We can all see it, every fan is shouting the obvious answers... but does the NHL think they're doing this right?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Are they an offensive minded team? Scores suggest otherwise. Yes there is the 7-2 game vs Minnesota but that’s pretty much it since Hitch took over.

Trap and hope McDavid scores is like the Wild with Lemaire and Gaborik. Some of the last tickets to go in the STH draft for years.

Some comparables ...

Shot attempts
MacLellan 50.2%
Hitch 52%

Shots
MacLellan 51%
Hitch 52.8%

Scoring Chances
MacLellan 50.2%
Hitch 47.4%

High Danger Chances
MacLellan 51.2%
Hitch 44.2%

Really it's goaltending. They had a .919 five on five save percentage under McLellan and it's been .941 with Hitchcock

Bubble will burst.

[Strange Brew]

Interesting that the Oilers goal did not count as a high danger scoring chance. Is that correct?

Not saying one exception diminishes an entire set of data but that was a goal into an open net. Definitely high danger in the usual sense.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Interesting that the Oilers goal did not count as a high danger scoring chance. Is that correct?

Not saying one exception diminishes an entire set of data but that was a goal into an open net. Definitely high danger in the usual sense.

High danger is just shot location. Does not reflect actual danger at all.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

High danger is just shot location. Does not reflect actual danger at all.

Exactly ... that's not considered a high danger area in counting stats.

And honestly that wouldn't be a dangerous shot without the broken play that looked to be intercepted by a Bennett backcheck but tipped instead.

[Strange Brew]

I'm not sure how a play develops should reflect whether it's high danger or not.

Just interesting that in this case for example, it will seem like Rittich let in a goal on a low danger chance where in fact the shot went into a wide open goal where he had no chance.

If they end up putting tracking technology into pucks, I wonder if they will be able to calculate the time and space a shooter has in determining danger, vs. simply where they are shooting from.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Exactly ... that's not considered a high danger area in counting stats.

And honestly that wouldn't be a dangerous shot without the broken play that looked to be intercepted by a Bennett backcheck but tipped instead.

15' out with an open side of the net...isn't a high danger area?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by transplant99

15' out with an open side of the net...isn't a high danger area?

The charts don't look at circumstances like whether the net is open or not, only how many shots from that area of the ice go in. Normally goalies are in position to make that save on a fairly routine basis.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I'm not sure how a play develops should reflect whether it's high danger or not.

Just interesting that in this case for example, it will seem like Rittich let in a goal on a low danger chance where in fact the shot went into a wide open goal where he had no chance.

If they end up putting tracking technology into pucks, I wonder if they will be able to calculate the time and space a shooter has in determining danger, vs. simply where they are shooting from.

This will be interesting, and frankly would be in my mind necessary to take analytics to the next level and beyond.

Rather than shot location, you can consider
- time on the shooter’s stick prior to the shot
- puck movement prior to the shot
- goalie position at the time of the shot
- duration of time goalie is set in position prior to the shot
- goalie movement prior to the shot

It would be difficult to track all of this for sure, then to categorize the situations so that they can be input in to a statistically significant model

Now as far as time and space goes, you could introduce another layer that involves positioning of defensive players near the shooter or between shooter and net, and that would get extremely complex

But I agree, the holy grail is to be able to translate all factors that contribute to a goal into measurable items that can be input in to a model so it can be improved

[Kovaz]

Originally Posted by transplant99

15' out with an open side of the net...isn't a high danger area?

That doesn't matter, it's just about the location. High danger is the middle of the ice. If you draw a line from the post to the faceoff dot, anything outside of that line is not a "high-danger" location. It was outside that line by maybe a foot, but it's still not in the "high-danger" area.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Kovaz

That doesn't matter, it's just about the location. High danger is the middle of the ice. If you draw a line from the post to the faceoff dot, anything outside of that line is not a "high-danger" location. It was outside that line by maybe a foot, but it's still not in the "high-danger" area.

The problem is that people see the word danger and naturally think that implies a shot is dangerous.

And we all know that a cross crease tap in is more literally dangerous than a guy banging the puck against a goalie’s pad from 2 inches away.

But counting stats models consider both to be ‘high danger’

That is a fundamental weakness of counting stats and the conclusions people try to draw from them.

[Bingo]

Clearly there will be a next level to these stats, which will be great.

But to date the aim has been to take subjectivity out of it.

Was it in the home plate? Yes ... so add a scoring chance
Was it directed towards the net off a pass or a deflection? ... Yes so add a high danger chance

If tabulators were able to say "yeah not danger enough" and "yes dangerous enough" then you'd have better data in some ways, but questionable data in every way.

[Strange Brew]

They’re calculating launch angle, exit velocity and spin rates in baseball using sensors in the ballparks. Seems only a matter of time before we get something similar in hockey.