Tuesday, March 11, 2008
"We don't see a lot of holes", was it?
This here is the "60-minute" standings for the Western Conference, not including Tuesday night's games. It's what the standings would look like if, a la 1983, the team with more goals after 60 minutes got 2 points, and if neither did, they each got 1.I think what's fascinating here is not that the Oilers are in 14th, but the unbelievable gap between 13th and 14th.
My interest here is not so much to point and laugh about how much the bonus point has helped Edmonton. The rules are what they are, and I don't mind the 3-point games so much when I hear alternative proposals. Garon has obviously been stellar in extra play, and Cogliano has just accomplished something (as a rookie no less), in scoring OT winners in 3 consecutive games, which will likely never again be duplicated.
But... the Oilers need to improve a lot next season to threaten the playoffs (surging indeed!).
If you think that there's something inherent to the Oilers' style that they play more Tied After 60 games than anyone in the conference, or think it plenty possible that Mathieu Garon will go 10-0 in his next ten shootouts as well, then I suppose there's nothing to worry about.
Reality, though, is that next season they'll play fewer OT/SO games, and won't do as well in them. They're going to have to improve on their 60-minute performance quite a bit just to make up for that and remain where they are. If we're talking about getting to the mid-high 90s in points and squeezing into the playoffs... how is this going to happen??? 16-31-22!!!
Maybe getting three-quarters of a season out of Souray, rather than one-quarter, will do the trick. (Maybe Lowe needs to try making another free agent splash, ohpleaseohpleaseohplease.)
# posted by Matt @ 11:10 pm 
Comments:
At least people are still watching Oilers games, which is more than can be said for at least a decade of Flames hockey...
The biggest problem with the 3 point games is that the teams are encouraged to play for a tie in the last 10 minutes of the 3rd period. To simply say that the points would be the same is really naive and ignores the manner in which the NHL has created incentives.
To which the immortal question is: are the Oilers lucky to be doing so well in overtime, or unlucky to be doing so poorly in regulation?
I mean, I think we all know it's the former, but it's not as black-and-white as the standings make things look.
I just discovered something that scares the hell out of me.
The Oilers are 7-3 in their last ten, whereas the ninth and tenth place teams are 4-5-1 and the seventh-place team is 3-5-2.
If all teams in question keep up more-or-less that pace, there's a reasonable chance that the Oilers could squeak into eighth with something like 89 or 90 points and beating Minnesota on wins NO I REFUSE TO THINK ABOUT IT THIS CANNOT HAPPEN DON'T GET YOUR HOPES UP BOB.
how com the Oilers are gonna play less OT/SO games next year? Are you psychic? Seems to me Every year since the shoot-out was part of the game...the Oilers always play a ton of extra time games...
I'm loving the sour grapes from Flames fans: "Well, if the league only awarded points in regulation, the Oilers would be SCREWED!"...well, if the league didn't award loser points, the Flames probably aren't leading the division...or if the league didn't give the division winner an automatic top-3 seed, then the Flames would be the 5th seed and pummeled in the 1st round yet again.
It is was it is. Showing some fancy graph to prove they can't win in regulation doesn't mean they're a horrible team, I think it shows how many games they've been able to compete in thus far...and when you consider this is a re-building year AND about to set a record for man-games lost, I could give a rat ass if they won 40 SO games.
Jordan
Well I guess us Oiler fans should be happy its not 1983 (that doesn't sound right) and games don't end after 60 minutes.
"My interest here is not so much to point and laugh about how much the bonus point has helped Edmonton."
I was under the impression that the bonus point was the point for a OT/SO loss. You know, "Oh we got a point for losing in the SO cause thats not really hockey...."
"If we're talking about getting to the mid-high 90s in points and squeezing into the playoffs... how is this going to happen??? 16-31-23!!!"
Simple. Not all of those 23 games end after 60 minutes. Do the Oilers go 18-5 next year in bonus time? Doubtful, as you said maybe they don't play as many OT/SO games and maybe they don't win as many. But maybe they start to win more in regulation? I mean in 70GP the Oilers do only have 31 losses in regulation.
But the reality is nobody knows whats going to happen. But I do know that the Oilers are the 2nd youngest team in the league and that the Flames are the 5th oldest. And I also know that the Flames have around a 45M cap hit for 14 players going into next season. And the Oilers have around 37M cap hit for 16 players. Just sayin'.
Oh, it's crap like this that makes me want Calgary to shit the bed over and over again, until they're inevitably moved to some southern United States market that just can't give a shit about the game -- just so I can point and laugh at all three Flames fans who actually gave a shit.
Seriously though, that was a brutal post. They've lost 300 fucking man-games. They're playing 7 rookies. The management is garbage and the league is tighter and more even-matched then it's been in fucking forever. Does it really matter how they get their wins?
If you think that there's something inherent to the Oilers' style that they play more Tied After 60 games than anyone in the conference, or think it plenty possible that Mathieu Garon will go 10-0 in his next ten shootouts as well, then I suppose there's nothing to worry about.
10-0? Probably not. But why not 8-2? I think there's a point at which you have to stop saying that the Oilers have been freakishly lucky in shootouts, and start acknowledging that at least part of the reason their shootout record is so out of sync with their actual record is that Garon's really freakin' good at the skills competition.
Oh, it's crap like this that makes me want Calgary to shit the bed over and over again, until they're inevitably moved to some southern United States market that just can't give a shit about the game -- just so I can point and laugh at all three Flames fans who actually gave a shit.
It bears pointing out that the Flames already went through that phase.
I look forward to reading the research from all of your detractors here that shows that playing a ton of OT games (and particularly shootouts) is a repeatable skill.
Can you people please hurry the fuck up with that and forward it to me as soon as it's done? I'm fucking drowning here.
Glad Peter (Comment 3) brought up the issue of incentives. No question: when you change the points structure, it changes how things end up happening. That's the big reason I much prefer to lump in 4v4 OT with the Shootout, rather than with the first 60 mins.
Anyway, I wasn't really trying to say the points would be the same. They might be really close, maybe only kinda close, maybe the change would benefit the Oilers, maybe not.
Honestly, no, the Oilers likely won't replicate this steak of OT winning. It has been pretty remarkable. But, eventually, maybe they'll stop shitting the bed with a third period lead. I can definitely count the number of third period miracle comebacks to go to OT on one hand. I need a couple of call girls to have the hands to count the times we've gone in to the third with a lead and a feeling of absolute dread, as the team tries to play defense to protect the lead.
It goes both ways: maybe next year we go 0-15 in OT and we get Tavares. Or, maybe next year we start holding some leads in the third and pick up 'respectable' points.
Showing some fancy graph to prove they can't win in regulation doesn't mean they're a horrible team
So there, Matt... or should I call you Professor Fancy Graphs?
In about 2 years of reading BoA nearly every day, this is the first time I remember Matt posting an 'Oilers Suck' post. And this isn't even that, it's more 'Oilers are Kinda Maybe Not Good'. And hoo-boy, look at the reaction!
Nathan: Making Matt feel good about his team.
Problem is if you put more emphasis on regular time wins, the last period will change. There will be a desire to pressure a team more in the third.
Under that system a team with defenceman whom use the boards to get the puck out of there zone will be the teams that have a dramatic decline in wins and ties.
As an oiler fan I witnessed this kind of defence last year. I also see a team that would take a large hit under that system "Matt"
One thing we have seen from the Oilers the last three seasons is that they are a good OT/SO team. Some teams are, and I bet the Oilers have been among the best for three years. It is a repeatable skill, to some degree. While I doubt they can achieve the same level of success next year, I expect they will continue to be one of the better teams at it (unlike the Flames, who have sucked in extra time for three years running).
You are right that the Oilers need to get better in regulation though -- every one of those 'bonus' wins gives the other team a point, and this year almost all of those points went to other Western Conference teams ahead of them in the standings.
BUT - if the Oilers are serious about making the playoffs, they really need to sit Horcoff for the rest of the season/his career. He must have the highest Neifi Index
in NHL history.
Lets pose this question
What if the Falmes were to lose the Equivalent of the following?
Souray , Horcoff, Torres , Moreau, and Hemsky playing with a bum wrist, how ever many Pitkanen has missed.
I think we all know where the falmes would be with there "young guns" leading the way. I'm sure Moss would be scoring tons of timely goals in pressure OT situations.
pffft - given that Torres and Moreau would be on the lames fourth line (or pressbox) we wouldn't miss 'em. And the loss of Horcoff has only resulted in the Oilers best run of the year. You should resign him and then break both his legs.
pffft - given that Torres and Moreau would be on the lames fourth line (or pressbox) we wouldn't miss 'em.
I hope this is a Joke?
The 'lames' part was a Freudian slip - so joke's on me I guess.
I can't imagine that any man games lost re Raffi Torres is hurting the Oilers particularly. I'd say it's probably helping them, because Raffi is useless. It's not helping them as much as the man games lost by Horcoff is apparently helping them, but who can say.
ps if this was 1983 we would be looking forward to our first of five stanley cups. the flames would be looking forward to relying on an edmonton oiler to score the most important goal in their history.
I was under the impression that the bonus point was the point for a OT/SO loss. You know, "Oh we got a point for losing in the SO cause thats not really hockey...."
It's a way more common misconception than I would have expected.
It's like people suddenly can't remember how points got awarded pre-lockout for some reason.
Doesn't Cogliano need a nickname that reflects this astonishing accomplishment? Like "Cash Money" Cogliano or "Crunch Time" Cogliano?
Or how about just "The Decider"?
Good stuff Matt.
It's unreasonable to expect that the Oilers can continue to be this good in OT or get there so often next year. As much as they've had horrible luck with injuries this year, they've received points in bunches from the NHL's stupid setup in a very fortunate manner.
As for those who don't believe the Oilers have been fortunate to get to OT so often, just check out the shot differential (better yet, look at the Corsi number diff).
Right now the shot diff is at -384 and counting.
Shots aren't a perfect measure but they mirror how much time I've witnessed the Oilers pinned in their own end.
It's a major reach to assume that kind of deficit can reproducibly get you to OT at a 22 games in 70 games rate.
Also, I can believe this is a good SO team, but they aren't this good.
Doesn't Cogliano need a nickname that reflects this astonishing accomplishment? Like "Cash Money" Cogliano or "Crunch Time" Cogliano?
I'm a big fan of the name littefury came up with: "Vice-Pisani."
Oh yeah, that's way more intimidating than "The Decider."
The Decider? Ooh, he makes decisions. I'm shaking in my boots.
I much prefer to lump in 4v4 OT with the Shootout, rather than with the first 60 mins.
Right you are, Matt. It is the score of the game at the 60-minute mark that determines whether it's a 2-point or a 3-point game. How the game is "decided" after that point is of secondary importance to the fact that it got to that point. (That's "point" as in Bettman Point.) It doesn't matter if Garon wins ten straight shootouts or Cogliano scores three straight OT goals, fact is the Oilers have allowed the "loser" a point in 18 of their 34 wins.
The system is completely fucking insane. As I ranted on MC79's site yesterday, it fundamentally violates Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. When it's in the interests of both teams to keep a tie score tied, the very competitive integrity of the sport is compromised.
In OT the old saying "We're with you, win or tie" is literally true for fans of both teams. It's debatable whether the extra-time success is a repeatable skill, but making it to overtime certainly seems to be. Oilers currently co-lead the league with 23 regulation ties, and in 2005-06 they led the league outright with 26. Why not, when a win is rewarded exactly the same but a loss hurts only half as much? In fact it was all those bonus points that allowed the Oil to scrape into the playoffs that year, a season in which they ultimately came within a game of the Stanley Cup.
Was it not you Bruce who forwarded the theory a while ago that MacT is taking maximum advantage of the new rules while most other teams seem to take OT and the SO as somewhat of a random occurance?
I refuse to believe that the riduculous SO record the Oilers have can be ascribed purely to luck. In fact, I've heard that the Oil practice the SO and 4 X 4 ALOT. I'd really like to hear more about that from you if this is the case.
The system is completely fucking insane. As I ranted on MC79's site yesterday, it fundamentally violates Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. When it's in the interests of both teams to keep a tie score tied, the very competitive integrity of the sport is compromised.
huh? i think game theory is probably more applicable. i'm a chartered accountant and if there's one thing i know about accoutants is that they love no risk situations.
Bruce said, "it fundamentally violates Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. When it's in the interests of both teams to keep a tie score tied, the very competitive integrity of the sport is compromised."
So maybe they need to make a general journal entry? Which accounts would they use? I'm a little confused as to how GAAP applies to hockey. Guess I learn more about the game everyday.
That would be the general journal entry where there's a credit with no debit, Mackb. Start doing that and the whole ledger makes no goddam sense. (See: NHL standings, where the teams are collectively 233 games over .500. See: NHL stats page where some games have game winning goalies but no game winning goal scorers. See: NHL record book, where Anaheim broke Edmonton's record for longest undefeated streak at the start of the season by losing 4 of their first 16 games.)
As for MacT and game strategy, David S., there are two parts to the it, simply put "first point" and "second point" strategies. The first is to get to OT in the first place, (by and large) the more the better, which the Oilers have done a league-leading (tied with Atlanta of all teams) 23 times this season. They also led the league with 26 overtime games in 2005-06, and despite merely splitting those games 13-13, used the extra Bettman Points to qualify for the playoffs.
The second thing is what you do when you get there. With a point in the bank, now you can go for the second without risk, as Heed points out. I'm not sure exactly how much more they practice it than other teams, but Garon has been ridiculously good (.938 Sv%), and lately Cogliano has been unconscious, so sure, Oilers have had a lot of good things happen to them this year.
OT is certainly not a random occurrence, as I pointed out on MC's site the incidence of three-point games has incrementally risen throughout the current season:. Dividing the season into segments of 246 games (20% of the schedule):
First segment: 39 ties, 15.9%
Second segment: 49 ties, 19.9%
Third segment: 59 ties, 24.0%
Fourth segment: 65 ties, 26.4%
Fifth segment [78 GP]: 21 ties, 26.9%
The Oilers got the jump by playing something like 12 Bettman Point games in their first 35, and of course by taking the lion's share of those bonus points. Today their 18-5 mini-game record is amazing, but to see it in its true light, that record is actually 18-0-5. Lots o' credits, no debits. Call it the NHL's credibility GAAP.
"They also led the league with 26 overtime games in 2005-06, and despite merely splitting those games 13-13, used the extra Bettman Points to qualify for the playoffs."
Thanks for this Bruce! So if I read this right, if you work on the OT/SO part of your game to boost your chances of a win to half those games, you improve your effective point accumulation to 75% of all possible points (in this case, 26 (w) + 13 (L)/52 (T))? Or put another way, on average each OT game achieved in 05/06 was worth 1.5 points for the Oil (39/26).
That might be simplistic (duh!), but it does hint at a strategic opportunity using OT/SO as a key part of your overall game since most others don't seem to do this for the time being.
Or put another way, on average each OT game achieved in 05/06 was worth 1.5 points for the Oil (39/26).
Yeah, David S., on average every overtime game is worth 1.5 points to each team. The combined winning percentage -- actually "points percentage" -- of the two teams is .750.
The 2005-06 Oilers are a particularly instructive example because they were a truly .500 team; 28-28 in regulation time decisions, and 13-0-13 in overtime (looks like .500 but it's really .750). End result, they finished "13 games over .500" with 95 points. Meanwhile Vancouver went 34-32 in regulation (.515) and 8-0-8 in extra time (also .500 = .750, but in fewer such games), and wound up the season with 42 wins to Edmonton's 41. But the Oil made the playoffs on the strength of playing a bunch of additional OT games; they weren't any more successful in them, they just had more of them, more bonus points, so they slipped by Vancouver 95 points to 92. MacT very definitely beat the system that year.
I'm an Oiler fan, but the system stinks.
Post a Comment
<< Home
At least people are still watching Oilers games, which is more than can be said for at least a decade of Flames hockey...
# posted by 
: March 11, 2008 11:13 pm
: March 11, 2008 11:13 pm 
The biggest problem with the 3 point games is that the teams are encouraged to play for a tie in the last 10 minutes of the 3rd period. To simply say that the points would be the same is really naive and ignores the manner in which the NHL has created incentives.
To which the immortal question is: are the Oilers lucky to be doing so well in overtime, or unlucky to be doing so poorly in regulation?
I mean, I think we all know it's the former, but it's not as black-and-white as the standings make things look.
I just discovered something that scares the hell out of me.
The Oilers are 7-3 in their last ten, whereas the ninth and tenth place teams are 4-5-1 and the seventh-place team is 3-5-2.
If all teams in question keep up more-or-less that pace, there's a reasonable chance that the Oilers could squeak into eighth with something like 89 or 90 points and beating Minnesota on wins NO I REFUSE TO THINK ABOUT IT THIS CANNOT HAPPEN DON'T GET YOUR HOPES UP BOB.
how com the Oilers are gonna play less OT/SO games next year? Are you psychic? Seems to me Every year since the shoot-out was part of the game...the Oilers always play a ton of extra time games...
I'm loving the sour grapes from Flames fans: "Well, if the league only awarded points in regulation, the Oilers would be SCREWED!"...well, if the league didn't award loser points, the Flames probably aren't leading the division...or if the league didn't give the division winner an automatic top-3 seed, then the Flames would be the 5th seed and pummeled in the 1st round yet again.
It is was it is. Showing some fancy graph to prove they can't win in regulation doesn't mean they're a horrible team, I think it shows how many games they've been able to compete in thus far...and when you consider this is a re-building year AND about to set a record for man-games lost, I could give a rat ass if they won 40 SO games.
Jordan
# posted by : March 12, 2008 12:32 am
: March 12, 2008 12:32 am Well I guess us Oiler fans should be happy its not 1983 (that doesn't sound right) and games don't end after 60 minutes.
"My interest here is not so much to point and laugh about how much the bonus point has helped Edmonton."
I was under the impression that the bonus point was the point for a OT/SO loss. You know, "Oh we got a point for losing in the SO cause thats not really hockey...."
"If we're talking about getting to the mid-high 90s in points and squeezing into the playoffs... how is this going to happen??? 16-31-23!!!"
Simple. Not all of those 23 games end after 60 minutes. Do the Oilers go 18-5 next year in bonus time? Doubtful, as you said maybe they don't play as many OT/SO games and maybe they don't win as many. But maybe they start to win more in regulation? I mean in 70GP the Oilers do only have 31 losses in regulation.
But the reality is nobody knows whats going to happen. But I do know that the Oilers are the 2nd youngest team in the league and that the Flames are the 5th oldest. And I also know that the Flames have around a 45M cap hit for 14 players going into next season. And the Oilers have around 37M cap hit for 16 players. Just sayin'.
# posted by : March 12, 2008 12:43 am
: March 12, 2008 12:43 am Oh, it's crap like this that makes me want Calgary to shit the bed over and over again, until they're inevitably moved to some southern United States market that just can't give a shit about the game -- just so I can point and laugh at all three Flames fans who actually gave a shit.
Seriously though, that was a brutal post. They've lost 300 fucking man-games. They're playing 7 rookies. The management is garbage and the league is tighter and more even-matched then it's been in fucking forever. Does it really matter how they get their wins?
If you think that there's something inherent to the Oilers' style that they play more Tied After 60 games than anyone in the conference, or think it plenty possible that Mathieu Garon will go 10-0 in his next ten shootouts as well, then I suppose there's nothing to worry about.
10-0? Probably not. But why not 8-2? I think there's a point at which you have to stop saying that the Oilers have been freakishly lucky in shootouts, and start acknowledging that at least part of the reason their shootout record is so out of sync with their actual record is that Garon's really freakin' good at the skills competition.
Oh, it's crap like this that makes me want Calgary to shit the bed over and over again, until they're inevitably moved to some southern United States market that just can't give a shit about the game -- just so I can point and laugh at all three Flames fans who actually gave a shit.
It bears pointing out that the Flames already went through that phase.
I look forward to reading the research from all of your detractors here that shows that playing a ton of OT games (and particularly shootouts) is a repeatable skill.
Can you people please hurry the fuck up with that and forward it to me as soon as it's done? I'm fucking drowning here.
# posted by : March 12, 2008 6:03 am
: March 12, 2008 6:03 am Glad Peter (Comment 3) brought up the issue of incentives. No question: when you change the points structure, it changes how things end up happening. That's the big reason I much prefer to lump in 4v4 OT with the Shootout, rather than with the first 60 mins.
Anyway, I wasn't really trying to say the points would be the same. They might be really close, maybe only kinda close, maybe the change would benefit the Oilers, maybe not.
Honestly, no, the Oilers likely won't replicate this steak of OT winning. It has been pretty remarkable. But, eventually, maybe they'll stop shitting the bed with a third period lead. I can definitely count the number of third period miracle comebacks to go to OT on one hand. I need a couple of call girls to have the hands to count the times we've gone in to the third with a lead and a feeling of absolute dread, as the team tries to play defense to protect the lead.
It goes both ways: maybe next year we go 0-15 in OT and we get Tavares. Or, maybe next year we start holding some leads in the third and pick up 'respectable' points.
Showing some fancy graph to prove they can't win in regulation doesn't mean they're a horrible team
So there, Matt... or should I call you Professor Fancy Graphs?
In about 2 years of reading BoA nearly every day, this is the first time I remember Matt posting an 'Oilers Suck' post. And this isn't even that, it's more 'Oilers are Kinda Maybe Not Good'. And hoo-boy, look at the reaction!
# posted by : March 12, 2008 8:55 am
: March 12, 2008 8:55 am Nathan: Making Matt feel good about his team.
Problem is if you put more emphasis on regular time wins, the last period will change. There will be a desire to pressure a team more in the third.
Under that system a team with defenceman whom use the boards to get the puck out of there zone will be the teams that have a dramatic decline in wins and ties.
As an oiler fan I witnessed this kind of defence last year. I also see a team that would take a large hit under that system "Matt"
One thing we have seen from the Oilers the last three seasons is that they are a good OT/SO team. Some teams are, and I bet the Oilers have been among the best for three years. It is a repeatable skill, to some degree. While I doubt they can achieve the same level of success next year, I expect they will continue to be one of the better teams at it (unlike the Flames, who have sucked in extra time for three years running).
You are right that the Oilers need to get better in regulation though -- every one of those 'bonus' wins gives the other team a point, and this year almost all of those points went to other Western Conference teams ahead of them in the standings.
BUT - if the Oilers are serious about making the playoffs, they really need to sit Horcoff for the rest of the season/his career. He must have the highest Neifi Index
in NHL history.
# posted by : March 12, 2008 10:50 am
: March 12, 2008 10:50 am Lets pose this question
What if the Falmes were to lose the Equivalent of the following?
Souray , Horcoff, Torres , Moreau, and Hemsky playing with a bum wrist, how ever many Pitkanen has missed.
I think we all know where the falmes would be with there "young guns" leading the way. I'm sure Moss would be scoring tons of timely goals in pressure OT situations.
# posted by : March 12, 2008 10:50 am
: March 12, 2008 10:50 am pffft - given that Torres and Moreau would be on the lames fourth line (or pressbox) we wouldn't miss 'em. And the loss of Horcoff has only resulted in the Oilers best run of the year. You should resign him and then break both his legs.
# posted by : March 12, 2008 11:39 am
: March 12, 2008 11:39 am pffft - given that Torres and Moreau would be on the lames fourth line (or pressbox) we wouldn't miss 'em.
I hope this is a Joke?
# posted by : March 12, 2008 11:43 am
: March 12, 2008 11:43 am The 'lames' part was a Freudian slip - so joke's on me I guess.
I can't imagine that any man games lost re Raffi Torres is hurting the Oilers particularly. I'd say it's probably helping them, because Raffi is useless. It's not helping them as much as the man games lost by Horcoff is apparently helping them, but who can say.
# posted by : March 12, 2008 12:33 pm
: March 12, 2008 12:33 pm ps if this was 1983 we would be looking forward to our first of five stanley cups. the flames would be looking forward to relying on an edmonton oiler to score the most important goal in their history.
I was under the impression that the bonus point was the point for a OT/SO loss. You know, "Oh we got a point for losing in the SO cause thats not really hockey...."
It's a way more common misconception than I would have expected.
It's like people suddenly can't remember how points got awarded pre-lockout for some reason.
Doesn't Cogliano need a nickname that reflects this astonishing accomplishment? Like "Cash Money" Cogliano or "Crunch Time" Cogliano?
Or how about just "The Decider"?
Good stuff Matt.
It's unreasonable to expect that the Oilers can continue to be this good in OT or get there so often next year. As much as they've had horrible luck with injuries this year, they've received points in bunches from the NHL's stupid setup in a very fortunate manner.
As for those who don't believe the Oilers have been fortunate to get to OT so often, just check out the shot differential (better yet, look at the Corsi number diff).
Right now the shot diff is at -384 and counting.
Shots aren't a perfect measure but they mirror how much time I've witnessed the Oilers pinned in their own end.
It's a major reach to assume that kind of deficit can reproducibly get you to OT at a 22 games in 70 games rate.
Also, I can believe this is a good SO team, but they aren't this good.
Doesn't Cogliano need a nickname that reflects this astonishing accomplishment? Like "Cash Money" Cogliano or "Crunch Time" Cogliano?
I'm a big fan of the name littefury came up with: "Vice-Pisani."
Oh yeah, that's way more intimidating than "The Decider."
The Decider? Ooh, he makes decisions. I'm shaking in my boots.
I much prefer to lump in 4v4 OT with the Shootout, rather than with the first 60 mins.
Right you are, Matt. It is the score of the game at the 60-minute mark that determines whether it's a 2-point or a 3-point game. How the game is "decided" after that point is of secondary importance to the fact that it got to that point. (That's "point" as in Bettman Point.) It doesn't matter if Garon wins ten straight shootouts or Cogliano scores three straight OT goals, fact is the Oilers have allowed the "loser" a point in 18 of their 34 wins.
The system is completely fucking insane. As I ranted on MC79's site yesterday, it fundamentally violates Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. When it's in the interests of both teams to keep a tie score tied, the very competitive integrity of the sport is compromised.
In OT the old saying "We're with you, win or tie" is literally true for fans of both teams. It's debatable whether the extra-time success is a repeatable skill, but making it to overtime certainly seems to be. Oilers currently co-lead the league with 23 regulation ties, and in 2005-06 they led the league outright with 26. Why not, when a win is rewarded exactly the same but a loss hurts only half as much? In fact it was all those bonus points that allowed the Oil to scrape into the playoffs that year, a season in which they ultimately came within a game of the Stanley Cup.
Was it not you Bruce who forwarded the theory a while ago that MacT is taking maximum advantage of the new rules while most other teams seem to take OT and the SO as somewhat of a random occurance?
I refuse to believe that the riduculous SO record the Oilers have can be ascribed purely to luck. In fact, I've heard that the Oil practice the SO and 4 X 4 ALOT. I'd really like to hear more about that from you if this is the case.
# posted by : March 13, 2008 9:21 am
: March 13, 2008 9:21 am The system is completely fucking insane. As I ranted on MC79's site yesterday, it fundamentally violates Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. When it's in the interests of both teams to keep a tie score tied, the very competitive integrity of the sport is compromised.
huh? i think game theory is probably more applicable. i'm a chartered accountant and if there's one thing i know about accoutants is that they love no risk situations.
Bruce said, "it fundamentally violates Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. When it's in the interests of both teams to keep a tie score tied, the very competitive integrity of the sport is compromised."
So maybe they need to make a general journal entry? Which accounts would they use? I'm a little confused as to how GAAP applies to hockey. Guess I learn more about the game everyday.
# posted by : March 13, 2008 9:58 am
: March 13, 2008 9:58 am That would be the general journal entry where there's a credit with no debit, Mackb. Start doing that and the whole ledger makes no goddam sense. (See: NHL standings, where the teams are collectively 233 games over .500. See: NHL stats page where some games have game winning goalies but no game winning goal scorers. See: NHL record book, where Anaheim broke Edmonton's record for longest undefeated streak at the start of the season by losing 4 of their first 16 games.)
As for MacT and game strategy, David S., there are two parts to the it, simply put "first point" and "second point" strategies. The first is to get to OT in the first place, (by and large) the more the better, which the Oilers have done a league-leading (tied with Atlanta of all teams) 23 times this season. They also led the league with 26 overtime games in 2005-06, and despite merely splitting those games 13-13, used the extra Bettman Points to qualify for the playoffs.
The second thing is what you do when you get there. With a point in the bank, now you can go for the second without risk, as Heed points out. I'm not sure exactly how much more they practice it than other teams, but Garon has been ridiculously good (.938 Sv%), and lately Cogliano has been unconscious, so sure, Oilers have had a lot of good things happen to them this year.
OT is certainly not a random occurrence, as I pointed out on MC's site the incidence of three-point games has incrementally risen throughout the current season:. Dividing the season into segments of 246 games (20% of the schedule):
First segment: 39 ties, 15.9%
Second segment: 49 ties, 19.9%
Third segment: 59 ties, 24.0%
Fourth segment: 65 ties, 26.4%
Fifth segment [78 GP]: 21 ties, 26.9%
The Oilers got the jump by playing something like 12 Bettman Point games in their first 35, and of course by taking the lion's share of those bonus points. Today their 18-5 mini-game record is amazing, but to see it in its true light, that record is actually 18-0-5. Lots o' credits, no debits. Call it the NHL's credibility GAAP.
"They also led the league with 26 overtime games in 2005-06, and despite merely splitting those games 13-13, used the extra Bettman Points to qualify for the playoffs."
Thanks for this Bruce! So if I read this right, if you work on the OT/SO part of your game to boost your chances of a win to half those games, you improve your effective point accumulation to 75% of all possible points (in this case, 26 (w) + 13 (L)/52 (T))? Or put another way, on average each OT game achieved in 05/06 was worth 1.5 points for the Oil (39/26).
That might be simplistic (duh!), but it does hint at a strategic opportunity using OT/SO as a key part of your overall game since most others don't seem to do this for the time being.
# posted by : March 13, 2008 7:56 pm
: March 13, 2008 7:56 pm Or put another way, on average each OT game achieved in 05/06 was worth 1.5 points for the Oil (39/26).
Yeah, David S., on average every overtime game is worth 1.5 points to each team. The combined winning percentage -- actually "points percentage" -- of the two teams is .750.
The 2005-06 Oilers are a particularly instructive example because they were a truly .500 team; 28-28 in regulation time decisions, and 13-0-13 in overtime (looks like .500 but it's really .750). End result, they finished "13 games over .500" with 95 points. Meanwhile Vancouver went 34-32 in regulation (.515) and 8-0-8 in extra time (also .500 = .750, but in fewer such games), and wound up the season with 42 wins to Edmonton's 41. But the Oil made the playoffs on the strength of playing a bunch of additional OT games; they weren't any more successful in them, they just had more of them, more bonus points, so they slipped by Vancouver 95 points to 92. MacT very definitely beat the system that year.
I'm an Oiler fan, but the system stinks.
Post a Comment
<< Home
