Edmonton Oilers' First Half Scoring Chances
Possession is everything, or so says Mike Babcock. Vic Ferrari demonstrated how scoring chances and puck possession come together over time:
The idea is that the more games you're looking at, the more luck washes out. And you can see that over a small batch of games the player's scoring chance rates mesh reasonably well with results
For some background on scoring chances, check here. For last year's totals, check here.
The Oilers hit the half-way point fighting Columbus for the title of the worst in the NHL. Time and additional games have flushed luck and the true talent level of the team drives the numbers. That's not necessarily a good thing for the Oilers this season.
The raw even strength scoring chance numbers are after the jump. All data compiled and published by Dennis King and mc79hockey.com.
| Player | TSC | TSCA | CH% | CF/15 | CA/15 | DIFF/15 |
| Taylor Hall | 137 | 123 | 0.527 | 4.545 | 4.081 | 0.464 |
| Ryan Nugent-Hopkins | 147 | 141 | 0.510 | 4.366 | 4.188 | 0.178 |
| Magnus Paajarvi | 50 | 52 | 0.490 | 2.796 | 2.908 | -0.112 |
| Jordan Eberle | 146 | 157 | 0.482 | 4.213 | 4.530 | -0.317 |
| Ales Hemsky | 108 | 117 | 0.480 | 4.095 | 4.436 | -0.341 |
| Ryan Smyth | 155 | 174 | 0.471 | 3.979 | 4.467 | -0.488 |
| Shawn Horcoff | 147 | 170 | 0.464 | 3.911 | 4.523 | -0.612 |
| Ben Eager | 46 | 55 | 0.455 | 2.922 | 3.494 | -0.572 |
| Ryan Jones | 108 | 132 | 0.450 | 3.389 | 4.142 | -0.753 |
| Sam Gagner | 91 | 115 | 0.442 | 3.124 | 3.948 | -0.824 |
| Anton Lander | 49 | 65 | 0.430 | 2.323 | 3.082 | -0.759 |
| Eric Belanger | 84 | 119 | 0.414 | 2.896 | 4.103 | -1.207 |
| Lennart Petrell | 28 | 46 | 0.378 | 1.811 | 2.975 | -1.164 |
It's disconcerting to see just two forwards with a positive chance differential. Even the really terrible Oilers from the past two seasons have had more than that. Hall, Hopkins and Eberle have obviously benefited from the zonestart and qualcomp protection, but I'm beginning to think they aren't doing nearly enough with those butter soft minutes.
- Taylor Hall is the engine that drives this bus, at least at the forward position. I'll have more on this soon when I discuss adjusted scoring chances. His .527 follows his .521 from last season and he's knocked almost a full chance against per 15 off of his totals. Somewhat concerning is that he's also down about 3/4 of a chance for per 15, but it's only half of a season's worth of data.
- Jordan Eberle's chances against are also a concern. His numbers haven't improved at all over last year's numbers and he's the worst on the team by this metric, and given the protection he's received, it's worth discussion.
- Lennart Petrell is probably not NHL material at this point. His .378 is the stuff of an AHL regular. For reference, that's six percentage points lower than Zack Stortini and J.F. Jacques in 2010-11.
- Eric Belanger's numbers should also concern the Oilers. He was a good signing, a much-needed signing, but his game seems to be in the gutter. Of particular note are the WOWY numbers I'll get into this week - he's had a major impact on Sam Gagner, Magnus Paajarvi and Ryan Jones.
| Player | TSC | TSCA | CH% | CF/15 | CA/15 | DIFF/15 |
| Tom Gilbert | 156 | 152 | 0.506 | 3.661 | 3.567 | 0.094 |
| Ladislav Smid | 155 | 171 | 0.475 | 3.477 | 3.836 | -0.359 |
| Corey Potter | 100 | 112 | 0.472 | 3.539 | 3.963 | -0.425 |
| Andy Sutton | 67 | 76 | 0.469 | 3.312 | 3.757 | -0.445 |
| Colten Teubert | 48 | 58 | 0.453 | 4.141 | 5.003 | -0.863 |
| Jeff Petry | 124 | 153 | 0.448 | 3.511 | 4.332 | -0.821 |
| Ryan Whitney | 56 | 74 | 0.431 | 3.303 | 4.365 | -1.062 |
| Theo Peckham | 111 | 153 | 0.420 | 3.422 | 4.717 | -1.295 |
| Cam Barker | 33 | 48 | 0.407 | 2.644 | 3.846 | -1.202 |
If two forwards in the black seemed disappointing, how does one defenseman in the black strike you?
- Gilbert's performance this year has been remarkable. He's been outstanding over the last four years, but hasn't had a good partner to take the toughs since Sheldon Souray. Smid, who still has his warts, is at least a stable partner with some idea in the defensive zone.
- No forward fell off more than Ryan Jones, no defenseman has fallen farther than Corey Potter. If he stays on the top pair expect that to continue.
- Jeff Petry looks terrible here, but the WOWY data explains nearly everything.
- Cam Barker, he of the third-pairing minutes and competition has red all over his numbers. But remember, according to the Edmonton media, he's the 3rd-best defenseman on Edmonton's roster.
And the irregulars.
| Player | TSC | TSCA | CH% | CF/15 | CA/15 | DIFF/15 |
| Plante | 12 | 6 | 0.667 | 5.725 | 2.863 | 2.863 |
| O'Marra | 2 | 2 | 0.500 | 1.789 | 1.789 | 0.000 |
| Omark | 10 | 14 | 0.417 | 2.549 | 3.568 | -1.020 |
| Hartikainen | 5 | 8 | 0.385 | 2.787 | 4.459 | -1.672 |
| Green | 5 | 11 | 0.313 | 2.634 | 5.796 | -3.161 |
| Chorney | 5 | 13 | 0.278 | 1.541 | 4.006 | -2.465 |
| Hordichuk | 4 | 17 | 0.190 | 0.983 | 4.178 | -3.195 |
26 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I’m ready to see Hall go PVP through the rest of the year. Play him with 10 and 83 or 89 and let’s see what we really have here. I think he’ll get the puck going the right way.
by RiversQ on Jan 15, 2012 11:45 AM MST via iPhone app reply actions
I’m ready to see Hall go PVP through the rest of the year. Play him with 10 and 83 or 89 and let’s see what we really have here. I think he’ll get the puck going the right way
They have been and the results have been encouraging. If they had 77 behind them, I’d excpect 4 and 83 to be able to outchance a lot of lines.
Thanks for the complete info Derek.
Depressing as hell in spots.
Posting the WOWY’s soon??
The ZS numbers will be up tomorrow and the WOWYs will be up in chunks late morning throughout the week.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
I have no doubt that he will and the ZS adjusted numbers (up tomorrow) lend even more evidence to that.
I think 4-89-83 would at the very least hit 50% against toughs and that should give Renney an opportunity to give Paajarvi some help with 94 or 10.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
clarification
Are these numbers all from ES situations, or do they include PP/SH?
1. MPS is a pleasant surprise.
2. Gagner’s and Belanger’s numbers are seriously disconcerting.
3. Ryan Jones is who we thought he was.
by sarcasticidealist on Jan 15, 2012 1:48 PM MST reply actions
Points 2 and 3 are seriously interrelated.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
I’ll have to take your word for it until I see the WOWY.
by sarcasticidealist on Jan 15, 2012 10:55 PM MST up reply actions
Question
Setting aside Quality of Competition for a moment, are we to take from this data that Magnus Paajarvi is outperforming Jordan Eberle at even strength so far this year, that Hemsky is outperforming Ryan Smyth and Ryan Jones?
by David Staples @ The Cult of Hockey on Jan 15, 2012 2:31 PM MST reply actions
I have no idea how you can set aside QoC, QoT and ZS.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Additionally, Eberle is substantially outperforming offensively – he’s just giving up a lot in return. I’d be that it’s much more common for a player’s defense to improve substantially once they’re in the NHL than it is for their offence to do so.
by sarcasticidealist on Jan 15, 2012 10:56 PM MST up reply actions
Of course, QualCom is crucial and impacts all stats equally.
This stat measures the performance of five players on the ice, whether or not they create scoring chances.
As such, it’s not a bad measure of QualTeam, but I question whether a statement like “Eberle’s chances are a concern,” flows from these numbers.
The correct statement might be, “The team is getting outchanced when Eberle is one of five players on the ice, and that is a concern.”
How much Eberle himself is to blame for that outchancing is another issue. This stat provides some circumstantial evidence, but it’s hardly damning of Eberle.
And if it’s suggesting Paajarvi is outperforming Eberle in regards to two-way play, I just don’t see it or believe it.
by David Staples @ The Cult of Hockey on Jan 16, 2012 11:17 AM MST up reply actions
This discussion comes down to a pretty fundamental difference in philosophy. You call yourself a “hockey expert” and so figure that you can correctly judge which players are (most) at fault or deserve (the most) credit correctly in almost every case. I’m not convinced that this is true, at least in part because of our personal biases, and in part because we don’t have an intimate knowledge of the responsibilities of the players in the Oilers’ system. Things like Corsi and Fenwick and Scoring Chances deal with that concern well because they remove one subjective judgment from the equation. That said, I do think that you (and others) can assign credit or blame quite well a lot of the time. As such, it seems to me that your individual scoring chances provide helpful balance. When the measures agree, that’s powerful confirmation. When they disagree, I think it makes sense to hold conclusions more loosely. But I don’t think it makes sense to assume that the problem must be on the side of Corsi, Fenwick and scoring chances. It could easily be that you (or one of your graders) have a systematic bias against (for example) Andy Sutton, or that you don’t fully understand (for example) the responsibilities of the left winger in the defensive zone when the centerman is late getting back.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Jan 16, 2012 1:10 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
As such, it seems to me that your individual scoring chances provide helpful balance. When the measures agree, that’s powerful confirmation. When they disagree, I think it makes sense to hold conclusions more loosely.
I’m largely in agreement with this, in fact David and I have had this conversation more than once. I find value in both methods, both have strength and weaknesses but contain useful info. It’s like looking at the same scene from two different angles, to provide depth and dimension. When both support each other (which they do more often than not) the case is made stronger, when there is any serious discord the situation generally needs a deeper look.
That said, determination of scoring chances does require subjective judgement at a fundamental level – more so than shots, Fenwick or Corsi which are more straightforward – but as you say, Scott, assigning individual responsibility for them contains one more level of judgement. It’s still scored in 1s and 0s even as it’s not always black and white to say the least, lots of 50/50 or 60/40 calls which “should” balance out in larger sample sizes. Nonetheless I’m confident an experienced observer will get many more right than wrong.
Oilers fan through thick, thin and anorexic. Writer for The Cult of Hockey.
by Bruce McCurdy on Jan 16, 2012 6:49 PM MST up reply actions
Nonetheless I’m confident an experienced observer will get many more right than wrong.
As soon as we’ve got some level of proof of that, I’ll agree.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
I think that there are many instances where there’s more than one answer that could be reasonably justified, even just at the “it is or it isn’t a chance” level. If you count all of those answers as “right”, I agree with Bruce that experienced observers should do quite well at individual scoring chances since “plausible” isn’t a particularly high standard. If you think that there’s one right way to score each play, I agree with Derek that it’ll be difficult to get more right than wrong doing the individual scoring chance thing just because you have that extra level where a mistake is possible (the 1 or 0 scoring system is both blessing and curse here).
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Jan 16, 2012 9:23 PM MST up reply actions
Of course there is a ton of grey area. As you say it’s the same just on step 1, is it a chance or not? There are 50/50 type calls, and also plays where the scorer quite simply gets it wrong.
At the individual level, I’m not saying there will be across-the-board agreement on every player on the ice on this play or that, but that the “yes or no” judgement call on each individual on each scoring chance would see a broad level of agreement. Lots of those calls are quite easy actually, the ones that are pretty close to being 1’s or 0’s. It’s the .6’s and the .4’s that cause headaches.
I do think applying human intelligence and interpretation in a formal manner does shed some light on the matter, though. My own preference is to consider both types of data gathering.
Oilers fan through thick, thin and anorexic. Writer for The Cult of Hockey.
by Bruce McCurdy on Jan 22, 2012 1:13 AM MST up reply actions
Given you correctly predicted that the young ‘uns would be in tough against difficult match-ups on the road, I’m a little surprised to see you now refer to their assignment as “butter soft”.
Oilers fan through thick, thin and anorexic. Writer for The Cult of Hockey.
If you took a bite of an apple and that small bite was rotten, would you eat the rest, or throw it away?
You’re suggesting that we eat Cam Barker to get rid of him?
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
by Derek Zona on Jan 16, 2012 3:05 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs

by 

























