Linus Omark, Shooting Percentage and The Illusion Of Validity
by melancholyculkin on Nov 2, 2011 6:40 AM MDT
Email
Print
Photo Courtesy Candace Riley, A New Ice Age, All Rights Reserved.
I recently got into it a bit with a couple of commenters over at OilersNation about the issue of Linus Omark.
As luck would have it, this particular discussion coincided with a discussion I recently had in my Psychology class about a certain cognitive fallacy that is very prevalent in hockey analysis circles.
With Linus Omark being demoted to OKC, I figured now would be a good time to contribute my first FanPost to the Copper & Blue.
After the jump, I'll explain what the illusion of validity is, and make the case that Tom Renney's decision to make Linus Omark the 13th forward makes absolutely no sense.
Confidence is generally a good thing. In my experience, I perform better on exams when I am confident in my intelligence. Confidence is also a good thing for hockey players to have. There is no way Jordan Eberle scores the goal of the year last season unless he is confident that he can pull off the deke.
But confidence is only useful when it is warranted. I am confident when I walk into an exam because I know that I went to my lectures, took notes and studied. Jordan Eberle is confident in his stick handling prowess because he spends hours upon hours practicing it.
Problems arise when confidence becomes arrogance, and arrogance is most likely to be seen in someone who considers himself an expert.
The illusion of validity is a cognitive fallacy characterized by supreme confidence in one's own predictions even when those predictions turn out to be no better than random guesses. The striking evidence of it's effect on investors is detailed in this NYT piece that Arctic Ice Hockey linked to last week.
What does all of this have to do with Linus Omark? Well, when it comes to hockey everyone is an expert, and so everyone -- coaches, GMs, pundits, fans -- believes that they are right no matter how much evidence there might be to the contrary.
In the case of Linus Omark there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
The "anti-Omarks" (as I'm going to call them) have three arguments: A) Omark is not good offensively, B) Omark is not good defensively and C) Omark does not fit on the Oilers current roster. Essentially, Omark is one damn terrible hockey player. He's the product of some mad experiment that combined the DNA of Robert Nilsson and Rob Schremp.
We can dispatch with the argument that Omark can't score pretty easily. Here are the even strength points-per-60 minutes of three Oiler forwards who played at least 40 games last year:
I don't see how you can make the case that Omark is ineffective offensively without also arguing that Taylor Hall and Jordan Eberle can't score, but that's why Psychology is a profession I suppose.
Anyways, here's those three players again with their PDO numbers included:
Would you look at that. All three guys were fighting the percentages to a certain extent, but none as much as Omark. Curious.
When the anti-Omarks said that he couldn't score, they actually meant that he couldn't score goals, but take a look at that shooting percentage column. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on hockey statistics, but there is a ton of analysis out there that shows how much shooting percentage, and therefore goal scoring, is driven by luck and randomness.
Linus Omark has played a grand total of 56 games in the NHL. Before coming over to North America, Omark had two seasons where he shot over 18 percent in the SEL and KHL. After being sent down to OKC last year, he proceeded to shoot 19 percent through 28 games in the AHL. Then he came to the NHL and shot 6.5 percent.
There are two possibilities to explain this phenomenom. Either Omark is talented enough to feast on the lesser competition in the minors and Europe but not talented enough to score goals in the NHL, or his success in Europe and the minors was all a mirage and the 6.5 percent is his true talent. Based on all that we know about shooting percentage, I would bet that the truth is somewhere in the middle, but judging a player's shooting ability based on a 56-game sample is beyond absurd.
So that means that Omark was capable of scoring at the same pace as Taylor Hall and Jordan Eberle while battling a run of bad bounces. It would stand to reason that when his percentages normalize his offense should increase.
See where I'm going with this?
Shooting ability might be a transient skill, but the ability to generate shots and outshoot your opponents is not. Here are the top 5 Oilers forwards who played at least 40 games last season ranked by 5v5 Rel Corsi:
Would you look at that!
Shot totals bring me to the next subject: defense.
Defense is tougher to measure, but not necessarily impossible. Tyler Dellow took a look at some instances where Omark lost his man against Pittsburgh a couple weeks ago and came to the conclusion that it was a bit of an issue.
At the same time, that is only a single game. What can the data from last season tell us about Omark's defense? Here are the two worst and two best Oiler forwards who played at least 40 games last year in terms of 5v5 shot differential-per-60 minutes of icetime:
That's interesting. So Omark was essentially breaking even in terms of shot differential. Shot differential might not be the best way to measure defensive ability, but even accounting for zone start Omark's numbers don't exactly scream defensive liability.
What about his scoring chances? Derek broke Omark down by season segment and also by WOWY in April, and again there is nothing in the data that yells "I should be in the AHL." At the very least it appears that Omark is going to create as much as he gives up. Unlike certain players.
As for there being no spot for Omark, that doesn't make any sense. The Oilers currently rank 25th in the league in goals scored. Rarely will a team make the playoffs with the 5th worst offense. You know who helps create offense? Linus Omark.
There are a myriad of ways to fit Omark into the lineup. Reunite him with Magnus Paajarvi and have either Sam Gagner or Eric Belanger in the middle. Play him with Gagner and Ales Hemsky when he returns. Unite the three Swedes and let them run amok in the offensive zone while Horcoff and Belanger take care of the defense. Play him with Smyth and Horcoff and drop Ryan Jones down. If Jones can ride the coattails of the Oilers two best forwards, I don't see why Omark can't.
It is isn't hard to fit Linus Omark onto the roster.
By giving up on Omark, Renney and the Oilers are prediciting that he is not and will not be a good hockey player. I'm sure Tom Renney believes he's making the correct decision. I'm sure he has confidence in his decision. After all, he's an expert.
Here's the thing: being an expert doesn't mean that you are infallible. Many times, so-called "expert predictions" turn out to be no better than random guesses.
We can and should question this organization's decision-making, especially when there is plenty of evidence that the one they just made is dead wrong.
*This FanPost does not necessarily represent the views of the writers or staff or The Copper & Blue.
101 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great article!
Unfortunately, the only way to prove whether it is the correct decision is to wait and see the results.
I agree that he should have been kept on the roster and given more playing time. There are guys who we can afford to have in the press box (Eager) and guys who would benefit from time in the AHL (Lander, Petrell) that I would rather see before this. Ah well. Wait and see.
Insert Witty Comment Here
Unfortunately without Eager (or worse yet Hordichuk) in the line up, the opposition would be taking runs all night at all the kids (including Omark).
I am just going to assume you aren't trolling here
Can you prove this? Other than “just watching the game”.
At the very least, can you explain the concept. A professional hockey player is going to be afraid to hit Omark if Darcy Hordichuk plays 1:30 a night? I don’t understand.
I’m assuming irony until I have more information.
by TigerUnderGlass on Nov 2, 2011 11:29 AM MDT up reply actions
I can understand that you want to make an argument about Linus remaining in the lineup, but I’m not sure where you are going with the psychology stuff. Gee, is it possible that two experts in the same field disagree around fundamental issues? Thank goodness we have your expertise to tell us this!
Many times, so-called “expert predictions” turn out to be no better than random guesses.
Well, fuck expertise then. It’s just arrogance masquerading as knowledge and ultimately works out the same as random guesses. This is good news for my deep desire to become a nuclear physicist next week.
The fact is that you don’t know that Renney has ‘given up’ on Linus. The Oil have won five straight and no coach is going to make unforced changes to that lineup. Linus needs playing time, so send him down to OC. If Linus thought that Renney had ‘given up’ on him no doubt he would be using that opt-out clause. But he isn’t.
I agree. With all the depth we have at forward this year, you either bring it right off the bat or you get sent down. IMO he’s had more than enough time to prove himself, sorry.
by marcopolo1971 on Nov 2, 2011 9:44 AM MDT up reply actions
We’re talking about a team that was 28th in scoring last year and is 26th this year, right?
I understand optimism about the talent, but I don’t understand saying the team is so talented that if you don’t bring it right off the bat then you get sent down — or if you do think that way, then it would seem like a lot of people need to get sent down.
As for “more than enough time to prove himself”, well, the article gave you five links about how random shooting percentage is over a sample size like this. The whole point is that this isn’t enough time to prove himself.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
.
Shooting locations are a lot less variable than shooting percentages, and tend to predict shooting percentages in the long run.
With that said, I give you shot location maps for Omark, Eberle, and Hall.
Omark:
Eberle:
Hall:
I think a fair case can be made that Omark isn’t showing as much talent for getting his shots from dangerous locations as the other two. Which is not to say I disagree with what you’ve written, mind you — he’s almost certainly not a 6.5% shooter, but those shot maps don’t suggest high-teens, either.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
In response to the shot chart the counter argument would be quality of competition and teammates. I don’t have numbers to back it up but itsbeen widely discussed that Hall Eb RNH have been given easy starts against middling competition, and I think you could safely say quality of teammates is high. Omark most likely has similar competition but lesser teammates so not as much help creating chances
Insert Witty Comment Here
by VanillaAcid on Nov 2, 2011 10:45 AM MDT via mobile up reply actions
I agree with some of the article but feel you don’t know the difference between shots on goal and scoring chance. Omark does most of his shooting from the perimeter with about as much force as my 11 year old. Up until this year all oiler forwards did the exact thing. Magnus seems to have the same problem,seeing how many points he has as well. I’ll agree he’s gritty and we need that, but he needs to change the cocky attitude and maybe he can score some goals.
What about his scoring chances? Derek broke Omark down by season segment and also by WOWY in April, and again there is nothing in the data that yells “I should be in the AHL.” At the very least it appears that Omark is going to create as much as he gives up. Unlike certain players.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Riding the pine for 3-4 games in a row proves the coach feels he’s creating nothing or that he’s a detriment to the team when he’s on the ice. how many points does he have through 10 games?
by marcopolo1971 on Nov 2, 2011 9:51 AM MDT up reply actions
I’m not following the logic here.
Are you arguing that his being on the bench proves that he wasn’t generating scoring chances in response to an article that references detailed looks at his scoring chance count?
Are you arguing that having no points in five games proves that he wasn’t generating scoring chances in response to an article that references detailed looks at his scoring chance count?
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
We’ll find out once he’s played ten games.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Nov 2, 2011 10:24 AM MDT up reply actions
Omark does most of his shooting from the perimeter
The comment directly above yours is a shot chart with directly contradicts this statement.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Maybe your definition of the perimeter is different than mine, but the shot chart looks pretty damning to me. Maybe it’s not “most” from the “perimeter”, but it seems clear to me that his percentage of shots from the kill zone is miles and miles away from what Eberle and Hall are doing. And I think that’s what our eyes tell us when we watch the game that CorsiRel and other such metrics cannot. 20 of Omark’s shots are not even close to as effective as 20 of Eberle’s.
38 shots come from below the circles, 20 from above.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
And yet Eberle only has ~15 from above the circle, with ~10 of those being shots from his spot on the point on the PP. I didn’t count all of his shots below the circle, but at just the one end I counted about 40.
Beyond that, I think something that seriously needs to be considered when talking about Omark’s sh% returning to the expected value relating to shot location. There are 9 shots from the neutral zone, and I count another 7 from spots that you’re not going to score from unless you’ve got a shot like Sheldon Souray. That’s 16 out 58 shots that, in my opinion, are never going to go in for Linus Omark. I wonder what Omark’s sh% would be if we get rid of these shots that are muddying the waters. I don’t buy the argument that every player takes those shots and still shoots ~12% since we can see here Hall and Eberle haven’t taken any. Maybe they’re the exceptions and not Omark, but just from watching games I tend to believe Omark is the exception.
28% of his shots really aren’t shots. They’re those plays where he dumps it in on net to retrieve the puck. While I actually love the play, and it’s worked out for him a few times (including his first NHL goal), I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect him to score on the same percentage of his shots as other players when such a large portion of his shots are never going in.
I don’t buy the argument that every player takes those shots and still shoots ~12%
You’re definitely correct about this. Some players have a clear talent for getting off more dangerous shots than others, and have a higher career shooting percentage as a result.
Looking at the Omark map, I think it points to him being a lower percentage shooter than Hall or Eberle in the long run, but still nowhere near 6.5%. That shooting percentage is somewhere near what Tom Gilbert does for example, and his shooting locations are much less dangerous than Omark’s.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Oh I absolutely agree that 6.5% is unsustainable on the low end. It may come across that I hate Omark from my arguments here, but I actually quite like the player. I just don’t entirely believe some of the excuses made for his lack of production, and it especially bothers me that people complain about him being benched during a time when the team is having huge success without him.
As for the demotion, I’m sure Renney told him that the team is doing great now, so they’re gonna send him down to get himself prepared for when we start struggling and need a spark. A spark that Omark can certainly be capable of providing at times. Not to mention going to the AHL should help him build confidence that can’t be that high after a bunch of big fat zeros on the stat line to start the year for him.
And yet Eberle only has ~15 from above the circle, with ~10 of those being shots from his spot on the point on the PP. I didn’t count all of his shots below the circle, but at just the one end I counted about 40.
How does that support “Omark does most of his shooting from the perimeter”? I would define “most” as at least 51% and I would define perimeter as not the scoring area.
The shot chart shows the exact opposite. Maybe he isn’t attacking the net like Eberle and Hall, but he also doesn’t have the zonestarts they do. They start in the scoring area.
We could calculate Omark’s expected shooting percentage based on his shot chart, but I’m going to bet it’s above 6.5%
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Omark also likes to put the puck on net for his linemates to fish for rebounds. I’ve noticed 5 or 6 times this year (pre-season included) where he has a linemate driving to the net and he puts a shot on net that really has no chance to go in, but will create a rebound.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
This is exactly what I mean. He gets credited for shots on plays where the puck is just not going in the net. It doesn’t make it a bad play, quite the contrary, I think it’s a fantastic play. It just means that his shot totals are “inflated” if you will.
There’s also the icetime issue. You are going to get more shots playing 14 ES + 4 PP minutes than you will playing 10 & 2.
Shot rates are a better indicator.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
It supports the fact that it is unreasonable to expect Omark to have a shooting percentage in the same range as other players who take more dangerous shots.
As for the zonestarts, I’m not sure how that would affect where he takes his shots from. It obviously gives them a chance to shoot more, but I don’t think it would have much bearing at all on where they shoot from.
I never said I think Omark is going to be a career 6.5% shooter. I just don’t believe he’s going to end up as a league average or better shooter.
I don’t think anyone expects Omark to be an 18%, 30 goal sniper.
Last year Omark had 76 shots in 51GP. 1.49 shots per game, or 122 over a full 82 game schedule. Let’s assume his true shooting talent in the NHL is 9%. A 9% shooter could be expected to score ~11 goals on 122 shots. 0.134 GPG.
Last year Omark scored 0.431 APG. 35 assists over 82 games. 11 goals + 35 assists= 46 points. This places Omark just outside the top 30 for scoring among LW. A couple bounces here and there and he scored 48 points, which would be top 30.
I don’t see how you can’t fit a guy who could realistically be a top 30 winger into your lineup.
by melancholyculkin on Nov 2, 2011 8:16 PM MDT up reply actions
A couple bounces here and there? Come on, that’s a weak argument. Besides, you can’t extrapolate his games played and stats to 82 games without also doing the same for other players who also played less than 82 games.
You can’t fit him because Hall, Eberle, Smyth and Gagner are all better/more reliable scoring options. Paajarvi can be argued to be in that group, but regardless, he fits into the group of better two-way/PK wingers with Smyth, Jones and Petrell. Hate on Jones all you want, but that line has been spectacular playing against opposition top lines and allowing the kids to run amok with easy zonestarts against weak competition (he’s also producing points at a reasonable rate). Eager brings a physical side to the game, and I know physicality is often not counted for anything here, so you can take it or leave it there. I could see advantages to dressing Omark over Eager in certain games and vice-versa.
A couple bounces here and there? Come on, that’s a weak argument.
How about an ENG here, an ENG assist there? That’s not weak, that’s how hockey is. Game of inches and whatnot. Did a guy really play differently if in one year he goes 82 GP, 25-25-50, and the next year 82 GP, 26-26-52? No.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Nov 2, 2011 10:06 PM MDT up reply actions
I’m well aware, but the argument goes both ways. You can’t just choose to skew it the way that supports your argument. Why are you not saying "a couple bad bounces and he only scores on a 44 point pace? That’s all I’m getting at. Let’s look at the evidence of what is actually here, not what could happen under slightly different circumstances.
That uncertainty though leaves us with the possibility that he’s a top line LW, right? If nothing else, his scoring rate was borderline 1LW.
Sure, you could skew it the other way, but that’s not the point. The point is that there could be significant area under Omark’s personal scoring distribution and under the 1LW scoring distribution.
I don’t see how you can’t fit a guy who could realistically be a top 30 winger into your lineup.
We’d need to look at standard deviations, but I think this is a perfectly reasonable statement. I imagine uncertainty on points is bigger that +-2.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Nov 3, 2011 11:14 AM MDT up reply actions
It’s all uncertainty and it applies to every player in the league, so it’s completely unreasonable to leave everyone else at what they did, yet bump up Omark.
He’s not bumping up Omark. He’s saying Omark might be better than his numbers—just like any other player might—and that Omark’s numbers last season were pretty good—just like for many other players.
It’s completely unreasonable to just forget about the uncertainty.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Nov 4, 2011 5:54 PM MDT up reply actions
I think you mean how many points does he have through 5 games… Hard to score when you don’t play.
by raretomediumrare on Nov 2, 2011 9:56 AM MDT reply actions
First, I’m not sure how many games would be a ‘valid statistical sample’ then. If Omark only had played twenty games, maybe I’ll grant you that, but 56? That’s more than 2/3 of a season.
I was looking at Point Shares. Omark ranked ninth amongst forwards for OFFENSIVE point shares. Ninth. So, at best, he’s on your third line, but the third line’s usually a checking line, so throw him on the fourth line? When you need role players down there instead?
Then if you add defense into the mix (where Omark is a paltry 0.2), he then ranks 10th in forwards last year. Should he be on the roster? Maybe. But it’s close enough that you’d need to add in other, non-statistical markers, which Renney and the gang obviously have.
Should he be on the roster? Maybe. But it’s close enough that you’d need to add in other, non-statistical markers, which Renney and the gang obviously have.
No. Apparently Renney is blinded by ‘arrogance’ and is therefore unable to process the statistical material from last season in a rational manner. Those statistics show that Omark was keeping up with (but not surpassing) two much younger raw rookies who the coach needs to keep developing for obvious reasons.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m very pragmatic on these things. I like that fact that we have Omark for depth. I would not be unhappy at all if he had been rotated in for a game or two in place of Magnus or even Lander (with Gagner switching back to centre). However, the idea that his being sent to OC is some sort of insult to reason and can only be explained by the arrogance of the coach (who is on a five game winning streak) is frankly bizarre. The imminent (and no doubt temporary) return of Hemsky also makes his demotion understandable for the time being.
by Yeti# on Nov 2, 2011 10:14 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Those statistics show that Omark was keeping up with (but not surpassing) two much younger raw rookies who the coach needs to keep developing for obvious reasons.
The issue isn’t Omark vs Hall and Ebs, it’s Omark vs Jones, Eager and Lander. I can’t see how the decision to play Ben Eager instead of Linus Omark can be viewed as a rational one.
by melancholyculkin on Nov 2, 2011 8:03 PM MDT up reply actions
He had 76 shots on goal last year.
A 12% shooter would go 5/76 or worse about once every ten years.
A 10% shooter would go 5/76 or worse about once every four years.
It’s way too early to say he’s anything close to a 6.5% shooter for his career. People have seasons far from their career average all the time — pick any random veteran forward with at least 5 seasons and you’ll see variations of ~5+ points. So early in a player’s career, you just can’t read too much into shooting percentage; shot volume and location matter more.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
So, at best, he’s on your third line, but the third line’s usually a checking line, so throw him on the fourth line? When you need role players down there instead?
Why can’t a guy like Omark play in the bottom six and then move up when injuries strike? I don’t understand the idea that the bottom six is the place for gritty role players, but skill guys need not apply.
by melancholyculkin on Nov 2, 2011 8:06 PM MDT up reply actions
Because the top six is where skill guys go, and a team needs balance. They need guys to shut down the opposition, play on the PK and wear down the other team. Not to mention offensive players seem to need to play to get a rhythm and succeed. Much like how Kariya and Selanne were so unsuccessful in their time with Colorado when they were stacked.
Hall-Horcoff-Eberle last season had the highest quality of competition on the team. Yeah, you need “checkers,” but if you go PvP in any sense one of your bottom two forward lines is going to be a scoring line.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Nov 2, 2011 10:07 PM MDT up reply actions
I agree, I just view the Horcoff line as a PvP line and the Paajarvi-Belanger-Gagner line as a scoring line.
Then there’s room for another scoring line. You can have skill on the third line. Look at Philly before they traded Carter and Richards, or Washington, or Pittsburgh, or Vancouver.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Nov 3, 2011 11:15 AM MDT up reply actions
As I said, I view that third line as a scoring line… Saying Paajarvi, Belanger and Gagner don’t have skill is pretty unfair to them I’d say.
Because the top six is where skill guys go, and a team needs balance. They need guys to shut down the opposition, play on the PK and wear down the other team.
So you acknowledge skill on the third line…where is the issue, again? The low minutes fourth?
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Nov 4, 2011 5:55 PM MDT up reply actions
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. You said “you can have skill on the third line”, and I acknowledged that there IS skill on the third line. As for the fourth, yes, it’s a low minutes line, it has two excellent PKers on it that I would not take out for Omark, and Eager brings a physical presence and works well playing a simple game with other simple players. And I believe that’s important, as well as the fact that skill players never seem to be able to succeed with low minutes.
One overlooked aspect of this is his waiver status. Based on capgeek.com, it appears he will have to go through waivers if he plays 70 games, so if he may only play 14 more NHL games before the Oilers can no longer safely send him down. I would guess that this factored in to their cautiousness about playing him unless they were sure he should play on the big team for good.
We must also consider that maybe people in the Oilers Organization see him as “trouble” with his less-than-stellar attitude. He seems to do a lot of whining & moaning to the press when he wasn’t playing, wasn’t playing well or the team kept losing.
Although I agree when he said in last year’s training camp that the roster was predetermined beforehand, that sort of thing cannot be spoken in front of the media. Personally, I believe the Organization hasn’t forgotten his comment. I mean, here he is in his 1st NHL camp & he’s already slagging the team’s choices. I don’t feel he’s a team player.
I believe he’s a gifted & supremely skilled player, but like sooo many before him with similar skills, it looks like playing in the NHL isn’t of any great importance to him. I feel he thinks he can float around and play a European game in the NHL…and I’ve yet to really see that work in the North American game for any real length of time.
Great article though, man. Without it, I never would have known his stats were that strong. Too bad we didn’t have a veteran Swede on the team to mentor him, to guide him. He has incredible hands, yet I’m still searching for his heart.
Where do people keep getting this idea that he has a bad attitude? I keep looking for proof, but I see none. You don’t think he’s a team player because he was disappointed at not making the team his first camp?
I feel he thinks he can float around and play a European game in the NHL
Pure, unbridled ignorance.
by TigerUnderGlass on Nov 2, 2011 11:27 AM MDT up reply actions
Omark is caught in a numbers game. Petrell and Lander turned out to be beasts. And Eberle, Hemsky, and Gagner are better players.
One can want to trade Omark and still think he is a good player.
Where do you get the idea that Lander is a beast? There is a proposition that isn’t supported by evidence.
The argument that there is no role for Omark is absurd on its face because it presupposes the existence of predetermined roles in the first place. However, when you are on the ice there is no such thing as third line player. If the Oilers wanted to play Omark it would be very easy. The reason they aren’t playing him has nothing to do with roles and everything to do with whether they think he is good. SInce he isn’t playing the only conclusion is that they don’t think he is good. SInce this, ipso facto, is not the case, this is strong evidence that the coaching staff doesn’t know what they are doing.
For instance if the Oilers thought Omark was good they could create a role for him easily. Simply demoted Lander to the AHL, play Gagner at center and move Belanger to the fourth line. This would not only create a place for Omark but it would also increase the options for the coaching staff which is the whole point of pre-determined roles in the first place. The fourth line would now become a true checking line while the Gagner—Omark line would be another scoring line. Now Renney would have even more options. There is no rule that says the “fourth” line has to play the fourth most minutes. Protecting a lead, send out Belanger and Petrell all day long. Fall behind, put Gagner and Omark out there.
The problem here is the very idea of fixed roles limits options. The sooner we get rid of the very idea of a “top six” or “bottom six” player the better. Put the best 12 guys on the bench and then let the coach mix and match as the situation requires. The only justification for sending Omark down is that Omark is in fact the 13th best hockey forward on the team. There is no way this is the case. Since Renney is not stupid this means that either there is something personal going on, or more likely, he is imposing a misguided notion of roles upon his rational decision making process thereby undermining his capacity to make good decisions.
by Captain Obvious II on Nov 2, 2011 1:01 PM MDT up reply actions 2 recs
Omark certainly is not the 13th most talented forward we have, however it’s extremely arguable that he’s the 13th best hockey player on the team. If skill was all there was (and by skill I mean things like puck handling, skating, passing, shooting. Puck skills if you will) Gretzky wouldn’t have been as dominant as he was. There’s more to playing hockey and being able to hold on to the puck for a long time. That’s an important skill, no doubt. But there’s more. Omark is more “skilled” than Petrell, but if you swap them in the lineup then you’re limiting your options because Petrell has been an excellent defensive player and PKer.
Renney IS maximizing his options by keeping Omark out. You can’t have 12 offensive forwards playing every night. It sounds cool in theory, but you won’t win hockey games. Renney has Hall, RNH, Ebele, Smyth, Gagner, Paajarvi and Horcoff as guys that he can put out there when he wants a goal. You can argue Paajarvi doesn’t deserve that notion based on his lack of production this year, which I agree with. Except Omark has 0 production as well so if you think Paajarvi doesn’t deserve a shot based on that then neither does Omark.
The only player I see a legitimate argument for taking out in place of Omark is Eager. But fact of the matter is that coaches like to have guys that will go out there and hit and increase the energy level on the ice. You can balk at it all you want, but hockey players aren’t robots, they’re people. When you play hockey and you watch another line go out and grind it out real hard on a shift it makes you want to go out there and work harder too, So does watching a player go out there and dominate the way Omark can, don’t get me wrong. But there are more guys with Omark’s type of skillset than there are with Eager’s. Only Jones and Petrell really go out there and bang bodies. RNH, Hall, Eberle, Gagner, Paajarvi, even Smyth and Belanger (and Horcoff sometimes) are capable of getting it done with skill.
The fact that you laugh at the coaching staff for believing in their opinions while never once doubting your own is pretty hypocritical, don’t you think? And as for not making good decisions, what is that based off of, exactly? I guess we would have won the last 5 if Omark was playing. Oh wait…
Next time why don’t you respond to what I say. I proposed a specific scenario that would improve both the quality of players and the flexibility of the roster and yet you didn’t respond to that scenario. I wonder why?
by Captain Obvious II on Nov 2, 2011 1:32 PM MDT up reply actions
Okay, my scenario is demote Omark because he’s the worst offensive player on the roster that brings nothing else to his game. Our PK has been excellent, and Lander is a big part of that, why would you demote him? If you’re talking for developmental reasons, fine, that’s fair. But if you care about winning hockey games (presumably the job of the head coach) then keep him up, because he’s getting it done. Omark is an offensive player only, and he was unable to generate goals. Sure, if you give him 50 games the percentages are bound to turn around. But Renney has to decide who makes his team win the very next game. Taking out Lander for Omark removes a player from a tree of players that we’re short-ish on to replace him with a player from a tree of players that we’re plentiful of.
Where do you get the idea that Lander is a beast? There is a proposition that isn’t supported by evidence.
Indeed. He’s being buried at evens. While that may or may not be linemate related, he’s not yet demonstrated the ability to drive play on his own, as a beast would.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Or you stop wasting a lineup spot for Eager to play 5 minutes per game.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
Omark would look pretty good on a 3rd with Pitlick and Hamilton down the road I think, or the like. He’d be a good offensive boost with the bigger players and work PP 2 if needed. At some point he will likely be able to PK as well because he does pivot and turn well.
For two similar players I see Omark’s more aggresive style as having more upside than Gagner’s, but Sam does play C as well. Waiting to see what ST is going to do is making me tense.
Omark isn’t that good! Good article but it is also important to note that even Gagner is 2 years younger then Omark. The Oilers are winning without Omark, Petrell and Lander fill roles and contribute to the PK, Omark does not. Omark does do alot of things and is great down low but the puck also dies on his stick sometimes because he does not do the simple play.
How can you take Jones off that 2nd line? Say what you want about him and put advanced stats out there for him but the fact is that line looks good and is producing.
Omark isn’t a point per game player and never will be, I am an Omark fan but an Oilers fan more and Omark doesn’t fit with this team now or down the road.
I don’t think scoring chances are “advanced” at all. They’re just like shots or goals, but better (not counting long floating wristers that everyone seems to cite for every “soft” player they dislike, and not counting fluky goals, either). If nothing else, Omark and Paajarvi look like they can break even together, 50%. That’s average by definition. Throw in some more experience and growth and a better center and maybe you see that at 52%. Suddenly you’re looking like a good second line or checking line.
Hockey is all about getting more goals than your opponent. How to get more chances to score than your opponent is what coaches spend months and months planning. You can plan a bit more, or just put Omark out there, because he helps you get more chances to score than the other team.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Nov 2, 2011 4:03 PM MDT up reply actions
Debatable, I like Omark don’t get me wrong and he has skill but for the Oilers he just doesn’t fit right now and possibly not in the future, personally I would rather see Harski in the lineup at RW over Omark, but in my opinion Omark doesn’t make the Oilers a tougher team to play against and isn’t lighting the lamp so what is he and where does he fit?
I know he doesn’t get the time or zone starts of Eberle Hall but would you rather have Omark playing with RNH and Hall?
The Oilers are in a good situation finally where they need to make decisions on skill guys, I am not complaining.
Omark doesn’t make the Oilers a tougher team to play against
http://www.coppernblue.com/2011/9/22/2421386/oilers-harder-to-play-against-eager-hordichuk
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
It’s about the notion of being “tougher to play against”.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
I’m aware, but no one said anything about being tougher to play against in the way that Derek’s article implies doesn’t apply (ie beating the other team up). He could very well have meant that Omark doesn’t make the team harder to play against in the way that Derek describes Belanger as making us harder to play against.
You did. Your whole statement implies Omark is not Eager or Hordichuk.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Not once did I mention Hordichuk, and I’ve said many times I understand the argument of replacing Eager with Omark. Personally, I feel that physical play is important and that without Eager the only guys up front that punish opposing defenders are Jones and Petrell. Omark’s skill (offense) is duplicated by more players, and they do it better than him. I think it’s a valid argument to replace Eager with Omark, however, when Hemsky is healthy it only pushes Omark further down.
Please stop trying to obfuscate what you meant.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
No I don’t mean tougher to play against in that sense, sorry for the confusion and I am not even talking about replacing him with a grinder or enforcer. I am just saying he isn’t a guy that teams fear (In my opinion) he is not a guy that teams make notes about to watch or change how they play against him, he has good skill but he doesn’t make the Oilers a better team then they are at the moment and I don’t think he even makes them better this year but that is just my opnion.
Would you rather Hartikainen playing 3 line RW or Omark? And even without Hartikainen who would you take out to put Omark in once Hemsky is back?
Let’s be honest, you teams aren’t taking notes or changing game plans based on 3rd/4th liners.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
by dawgbone98 on Nov 3, 2011 10:03 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly so Omark isn’t a factor. I am not saying they would take notes on Hartikainen, but I bet teams (This is just a guess) make a mental note when Paajarvi is out there because of his speed defenders need to be aware and a coach will notice when Belanger hops over the boards because he needs to send out a FO guy to stand a chance in the circle, and you could even argue a team or players will be aware Eager is on the ice because they don’t want their head taken off.
but in my opinion Omark doesn’t make the Oilers a tougher team to play against and isn’t lighting the lamp so what is he and where does he fit?
He helps others score.
where they need to make decisions on skill guys,
Why? Why does a decision need to be made now? Keep them all up.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Nov 2, 2011 10:09 PM MDT up reply actions
When has he helped other score this year? Yes I know its a small sample size and I am not trying to be a jerk but I just don’t know where he fits. I like him but where does he fit?
You can’t have a team full of skill guys, I am no GM or NHL coach but its not NHL 12 on the PS3 you can’t have four lines of offensive minded players, Omark doesn’t fit in the top 6, Petrell is playing really strong and Hesmky is coming back so Omark is going o be in the press box.
My questions for you: Who do you keep between Gagner and Omark? What line does Omark go on? Who do you send down? And who comes out of the lineup and into the PB?
When has he helped other score this year? Yes I know its a small sample size
If this is your argument, Hopkins should be benched or sent to Juniors for every road game.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Haha fair argument, from a stats perspective yes and if the Nuge continues to struggle on the road then I would bet Renney mixes up that line with another on the road or the Nuge finds some press box time on the road.
Just answer those questions though? That is what it comes down too, you can say all you want that Omark is good and should be in so if that is the case who do you take out? (With Hemsky in the lineup as well)
Assuming the kids stay together, you could go:
Kids
Omark-Gagner-Hemsky
Smyth-Horc-Paajarvi
Jones-Belanger-Petrell
This way you’ve got your shutdown line, two scoring lines and your PK guys all stay in. Feel free to swap Hemsky and Paajarvi if you wish. Send Lander to OKC where he can play 15-20 minutes a night instead of 6.
If you want to keep Lander in for whatever reason, then move him to wing and have him battle it out with Jones/Eager for that 4W.
I’d love if we could keep this forward group together for awhile, but realistically something’s got to be done about the D. So it’s very likely that one or more forwards will be gone by the deadline.
by melancholyculkin on Nov 3, 2011 5:30 PM MDT up reply actions
Ya and to be honest that is what I wanted the lines to be to start the year, I have always been a fan of Omark but I have realized that sometimes you have to send a guy away, lately I think the Oilers may have over valued guys, well more so us fans have, I remember when I wouldnt have traded Cogs for anything, I think Omark is in the same situation, I see Omark in his prime putting up 50 points max, but still isn’t a guy who I would keep if we can get something valuable back.
Personally I want Hartikainen in the lineup over Omark.
Why not?
Yes you need guys that can play the PK and that, but why can’t you have 4 lines of guys who are skilled players?
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
I’m not saying you can’t but then you need guys who can PK that are your skill guys. So Smyth and Horcoff and Jones and Belanger fit your lineup of skill, but most people think Jones is useless (Are you one of them?) So say you take him out, you have 3 guys who can PK, your PK will not be very good, in my opnion what makes the Oilers PK so good this year (As well as the goaltending) is they are sending 3 pairs out every 30 seconds, they are aggressive and fill lanes and can do that at a high tempo cuz they are off in like 20-30 seconds.
Skill lineup:
Hall-RNH-Eberle
Smyth-Horcoff-Hemsky
Paajarvi-Gagner-Omark
Then who? I guess you would do Jones-Belanger-Petrell
Its not a terrible lineup but then Eager sits and Lander goes down, but personally I think Lander is a more complete player then Omark is, and if you argue Omark needs the opportunity you could make it for Lander only Lander plays PK.
We can take Hemsky out of the lineup until he’s actually ready.
My problem is that the coach can’t trust Eager to play so he keeps him on the bench most of the time. When Omark is in the lineup, he’s taking a regular shift.
It just baffles me how you can take a guy out who you trust to play 10+ minutes per game instead of a guy you only trust for 5 minutes.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
Ok ya fair argument, and who really knows, Omark going down could be just to get him some time to play, he does have the out clause so I am sure if he didn’t hear what he wanted about going down he would be gone. Who knows how Renney thinks, Omark is highly skilled but there are alot of time where he can shoot and doesn’t or tries to go along the boards until the perfect time only to lose the puck or throw it in front when no one is there (It baffles me sometime that no one stand in front of the net when the puck is downlow) but as a coach I am sure it is frustrated to lose the puck when you had control and not even get a scoring chance out of it.
Renney on Omark:
“We need to get him playing,” Renney said of the Swede. “It’s hard when the team is winning and you can’t find an opportunity. That’s completely my choice, and in his best interest, we need to make sure he plays, so that when he does come back to our lineup, he’s actually played some hockey and can step in and help us. The opportunity exists the next time he steps on the ice.”
This point was made over at LT’s. That perhaps it’s just a conditioning stint. I hope that’s the case, but I’m interpreting the signs differently.
The notion that you shouldn’t change a winning lineup makes about as much sense as not stepping on the foul line. It’s just superstition. If Hemsky is ready to go should Renney wait until the team loses a game to put him back in? No, so why should it be different for Omark? He’s 5x the player that Ben Eager or Ryan Jones are. The best player should play, regardless of winning or losing streaks.
The fact that Renney continued to sit Omark while playing Eager speaks volumes.
by melancholyculkin on Nov 2, 2011 7:57 PM MDT up reply actions
How can you say Omark is 5X the player Jones is? Skill wise no doubt but there is more to hockey then skill, Jones is playing very well on the PK and very well with Smyth and Horcoff and he seems like a guy who is an awesome team guy. Yes stats tell a story but there is more to hockey then stats.
Yes Omark has more skill then Eager but Eager plays 5 min a game, do you want Omark to play 5 min a game? The way I see it that 4th line is there because your allowed to have 4 lines, Renney uses the 3 lines for the most part but he can have Lander and Petrell on the 4th who play very important roles right now and PK, and if something needs to be shaken up send the 4th out there with Eager and let them shake it up a bit, just my opinion though.
by Tanman37 on Nov 2, 2011 11:55 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Omark would play more than 5 mins from the 4th line, I imagine.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Nov 3, 2011 11:17 AM MDT up reply actions
But would you want a line of Omark-Lander-Petrell playing over any of the other 3 lines?
With all the TV time outs and players conditioning you really only need 3 lines, 4 lines is just good for the players union because more players are employed, We have our top 3 and our 4th is speciality guys that only go in when needed (Like on the PK) you could argue that Omark could go on and just go in for PP but I would not.
I don’t think Bruce Boudreau ever wants to not put out Ovechkin-Backstrom-Semin, but he has to, and the better his bottom 9 forwards are, the more TOI he can entrust them with. Same deal here. You see it on every team in the league. Where the fourth line is a couple of goons and someone else, they get minimal TOI (Isles last season). Where you have a good fourth line, they get plenty of TOI.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Nov 4, 2011 5:57 PM MDT up reply actions
How can you say Omark is 5X the player Jones is?
Well there’s the part where he outscored him in 30 less games, the part where his possession metrics are better, his shot differential is better, Jones is a blackhole when it comes to scoring chances but Omark is not…
Eager plays 5 min a game, do you want Omark to play 5 min a game?
If it’s a choice between Eager playing 5 mins and Omark playing 5 mins, then yes I would rather have Omark play those 5 minutes.
by melancholyculkin on Nov 3, 2011 5:38 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Illusion of Validity
Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity.
Einhorn, Hillel J.; Hogarth, Robin M.
Psychological Review, Vol 85(5), Sep 1978, 395-416. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.395
Notes that an accumulating body of research on clinical judgment, decision making, and probability estimation has documented a substantial lack of ability of both experts and nonexperts. However, evidence shows that people have great confidence in their fallible judgment. This article examines how this contradiction can be resolved and, in so doing, discusses the relationship between learning and experience. The basic tasks that are considered involve judgments made for the purpose of choosing between actions. At some later time, outcome feedback is used for evaluating the accuracy of judgment. The manner in which judgments of the contingency between predictions and outcomes are made is discussed and is related to the difficulty people have in searching for disconfirming information to test hypotheses. A model for learning and maintaining confidence in one’s own judgment is developed that includes the effects of experience and both the frequency and importance of positive and negative feedback.
Great article! Well written.
I agree. Omark does not belong in the A.
Since when is being sent to the AHL "giving up on a player
Renney said it best in the last “Oil Change” episode. The AHL is a place to develop, and learn. If they dropped him to waivers or traded him away, that would be giving up on him.
The coach obviously thinks that he has things to work on, and rather than give him limited ice time in the show, send him to OKC where he can continue to learn and also create and keep his confidence in tack (on ice confidence).
Again, to paraphrase Renney, “we have to change the mentality that players sent to the AHL is a bad thing”.
But that aside, he’s a top six offensive forward type player, and the top 6 on the oilers at the moment are getting it done, don’t change something that aint broke.
"Hockey is a thought inside your head saying: Wouldn't it be amazing getting up everyday and playing, doing something that you love to do." SC
by BackhandCrosby&In on Nov 3, 2011 3:12 PM MDT reply actions
So long as guys like Omark are making less than 1/10th the money in the AHL, it’s going to be awfully hard to convince them that going down there is a good thing.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Nov 3, 2011 3:56 PM MDT up reply actions
I'm kinda new to the whole advanced stats movement, but...
Sure Omark had good Rel Corsi and scoring chance numbers last year, but he was pretty low on the team in QualComp wasn’t he? Wouldn’t that mean he was playing against lesser players and therefore wouldn’t be at much risk to giving up shots like say, Horcoff would be, because Horcs would be playing against the opposition’s top lines?
I’m not anti-Omark, I think he’s useful offensively, I just think he’s maybe a little immature and below-average defensively. He’ll get a steady NHL job somewhere eventually……..
Fuck if I know
He was 11/13 forwards in Corsi Rel QoC, 13/13 in straight Qualcomp, but he also wasn’t playing with the best teammates. 13/13 in straight Qualteam, 9/13 in Corsi Rel QT.
That being said, Ryan Jones wasn’t exactly facing the toughs last year either, which just makes his numbers look even worse.
by melancholyculkin on Nov 3, 2011 5:44 PM MDT up reply actions
I’m as pro-stats as most here, but I see the validity of using them. That said, could someone confirm/clarify for me what exactly corsioff is? I’m under the assumption that’s the corsi rate of the team with said player off the ice.
That’s correct, though I should note that it only includes the games that that player has actually played in the “off” portion.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Nov 3, 2011 11:11 PM MDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The Copper & Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Oilers Schedule
Last 5 Games
@
Vancouver
|
Sat 04/07 | L 0 - 3 |
|
Anaheim
|
Thu 04/05 | OT - L 2 - 3 |
|
@
Los Angeles
|
Mon 04/02 | L 0 - 2 |
|
@
Anaheim
|
Sun 04/01 | W 2 - 1 |
|
Los Angeles
|
Fri 03/30 | L 1 - 4 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Dubinsky returns for Game 5; No hearing for Brown; Spacek rips Habs (Puck Headlines)
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: Tyson Nash, Mike Brophy, Dustin Brown’s hit and Devils/Rangers
- In which Dustin Penner, Jeff Carter and Mike Richards edit their NHL narratives
- Puck Daddy Hockey Rumors Live Chat!
- Stanley Cup Playoff overtimes: Historically, when are goals most likely to be scored?
