conundrumed Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 The Oilers hot start last year was Khabibulin's...how quickly we forget. Dubnyk seems to have that big goalie gene of cheating on the pass to kill their best asset, their size. Stay in net and stay true to playing the angle, you aren't Kiprusoff (smaller faster). I find Luongo does this too. He's at his worst scrambling and moving sided to side. He loses his angles, suddenly it's in the far side and you're asking, "why are you way over their?". It's what separates a big goalie like Rinne. He's very sound on angles and doesn't give you much to shoot at, just know where you are within your crease and you never have to worry about where the net is. Nashville will be a heavy underdog yet again, sound the 4th anniversary of the beginning of watching Rinne's GAA and SV% and where the Preds are in the standings. What I'll be watching is Dubnyk's recovery time, because he shouldn't be needing it often. 2nd rebound? No reason you shouldn't be holding the fort, you're big. We'll see. Having said that, I have a very long memory and know what Khabi is capable of when he's interested. I don't care age, race or creed. He can be a difference maker in a short season should Dubnyk be erratic. But 3rd, even right now? hahaha, that's some funny. This is the NHL, not the AHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 I think that Dubnyk has shown a lot of improvement, and if he continues to learn to take advantage of his size, he could very well turn out to be a solid goaltender... I will also say that I believe he is ahead of Karlsson in that regard... I also agree that Conundrumed is correct when he says that Khabibulin is capable of turning it around if he is motivated, and by all rights the reasons for finding that desire again should be readily apparent for him... Time will tell, but if one or both of these goaltenders can step up, it would go a long way towards rectifying one of the Oilers biggest deficiencies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_worthy Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 Hockey predictions and bikinis is their specialties. And English is yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 I think that Dubnyk has shown a lot of improvement, and if he continues to learn to take advantage of his size, he could very well turn out to be a solid goaltender... I will also say that I believe he is ahead of Karlsson in that regard... I also agree that Conundrumed is correct when he says that Khabibulin is capable of turning it around if he is motivated, and by all rights the reasons for finding that desire again should be readily apparent for him... Time will tell, but if one or both of these goaltenders can step up, it would go a long way towards rectifying one of the Oilers biggest deficiencies... It can also be argued that Niemi stole Khabibulin's cup with Chicago..the yr the hawks tried to release him in favour of who, again? He did a lot more to advance a young team to the playoffs than Niemi, playing the tough games, while Niemi lapped up the gravy games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 Oilers need on average a .916 save % from both goalie to make the playoffs. They get that they should be in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ifiwaschucknorris Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 Oilers need on average a .916 save % from both goalie to make the playoffs. They get that they should be in. I'm curious as to how you come by that number? Also Dubnyk and Khabi last year were a combined .912 and they finished last. Would the extra .004 really make that much difference? http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.htm?fetchKey=20122ALLGAGALL&viewName=summary&sort=savePercentage&pg=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokernHockey Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 Edit: Can't delete the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodendoug Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 Eberle figures the Oilers have a shot at the playoffs edit: sorry cannot get the link to work Ok this one works Eberle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 I'm curious as to how you come by that number? Also Dubnyk and Khabi last year were a combined .912 and they finished last. Would the extra .004 really make that much difference? http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.htm?fetchKey=20122ALLGAGALL&viewName=summary&sort=savePercentage&pg=2 Western Conference 8th place team last year had a plus 10 goal differential. If Oiler goalies averaged .916 last year they would have had been scored on 33 less times with a +6 goal differential. If 5 goals is what it would be in a 48 game schedule, the Oilers need a .916 save % to let in 121 goals with an average of 30 shots against a night. The Oilers would have to score 126 which would be 2.625 goals a game. It's clear the Oilers are going to score, they just need to keep the puck out. That means goalies will have to be consistent and defensive breakdowns will have to be minimized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bronco73 Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 It's clear the Oilers are going to score, they just need to keep the puck out. That means goalies will have to be consistent and defensive breakdowns will have to be minimized. You are absolutely right. For the foreseeable future, the KEY to the Oilers success or failure is their back end and goaltending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Western Conference 8th place team last year had a plus 10 goal differential. If Oiler goalies averaged .916 last year they would have had been scored on 33 less times with a +6 goal differential. If 5 goals is what it would be in a 48 game schedule, the Oilers need a .916 save % to let in 121 goals with an average of 30 shots against a night. The Oilers would have to score 126 which would be 2.625 goals a game. It's clear the Oilers are going to score, they just need to keep the puck out. That means goalies will have to be consistent and defensive breakdowns will have to be minimized. To start with LA(8th in the west) had a +15 goal dif last season, not +10. Chicago made 6th place with a +10 Dif not LA. Chicago however scored 36 more goals than your team did while allowing almost the same. I am not sure what to say about your fine example of someone taking a basic gauge/stat(Shot Dif) and morphing its purpose to suit a projection. You can't take last seasons 8th place team(not your team) and their goal diff and work your goals /goals against for your team this year. You can compare your teams last couple of years and their goal diff for your team and see you made huge improvement(from -76 to -27) and still stayed at the bottom of the league. That is where the guage comes in. Your team still needs to find roughly 52 goals or defend by 52 goals against or any combination of those two.(note that is a 82 game figure) I want some of those hospital grade drugs you are on....... Those who use goal dif for playoffs use the general +20 to make the playoffs. It can vary team to team and can vary year to year. It seems to me there are always a few higher and a few lower exceptions to that figure every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_worthy Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Western Conference 8th place team last year had a plus 10 goal differential. If Oiler goalies averaged .916 last year they would have had been scored on 33 less times with a +6 goal differential. If 5 goals is what it would be in a 48 game schedule, the Oilers need a .916 save % to let in 121 goals with an average of 30 shots against a night. The Oilers would have to score 126 which would be 2.625 goals a game. It's clear the Oilers are going to score, they just need to keep the puck out. That means goalies will have to be consistent and defensive breakdowns will have to be minimized. EXACTLY what was said last year (they finished 20th) Western Conference 8th place team last year had a plus 10 goal differential. If Oiler goalies averaged .916 last year they would have had been scored on 33 less times with a +6 goal differential. If 5 goals is what it would be in a 48 game schedule, the Oilers need a .916 save % to let in 121 goals with an average of 30 shots against a night. The Oilers would have to score 126 which would be 2.625 goals a game. It's clear the Oilers are going to score, they just need to keep the puck out. That means goalies will have to be consistent and defensive breakdowns will have to be minimized. 1) +10 no guarantee of a playoff spot, 2) (far more importantly) your premise assumes the same number of shots on goal. It might take .912 and it might take .920 Here's what we CAN say though... The Oilers will need better goaltending (significantly better) if they hope to make the playoffs. Will it be better? Probably. Will it improve enough? We'll have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 How's Khabi's surgery recovery coming along? I oft-times have wondered if you guys have a Burkian approach to your goalie. All good and well, until you realize a lot of goalies steal a lot of games, for a lot of teams. Yours? Notsomuch...proofs in the puddin'. Not a lot of history of young goalies on abysmal teams (so says #1 picks) suddenly start shining after 3 years. They tend to come in all shiny and everyone can see it. Dubnyk has never been that guy, a Price, for example...a Miller. No reason to expect that now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 I see the Oilers have a 9 game road trip on their schedule...ouch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeypriest Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 I didn't read through 65 pgs but thought that I'd add a reply to all that have been, once again, drinking the Oilers Kool-Aid (which I would actually like to try someday as I think it must we way more potent than the Saddledom Heroin Beers)... Wasn't the Oiler's farm team really good last year??? maybe I'm wrong (I didn't do any research) Adding the top players from the big club turned a good farm team into a .500 team....Sure makes a guy wonder what they will do for a 29th place team... There is a lot of optimism and hope that adding Yakupov (who was very underwhelming in the Super series and WJHC) and Schultz, both of whom have zero NHL experience, coming from Edmonton...I've been hearing about the bright future of the young Oilers since Cogliano, Gagne, Gilbert, Omark, Paarvi, Nilsson, Stastny, etc were supposed to be "fun to watch"....unfortunately for Oiler fans they were only fun to watch for the fans of the other 29 teams in the league... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ifiwaschucknorris Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Western Conference 8th place team last year had a plus 10 goal differential. If Oiler goalies averaged .916 last year they would have had been scored on 33 less times with a +6 goal differential. If 5 goals is what it would be in a 48 game schedule, the Oilers need a .916 save % to let in 121 goals with an average of 30 shots against a night. The Oilers would have to score 126 which would be 2.625 goals a game. It's clear the Oilers are going to score, they just need to keep the puck out. That means goalies will have to be consistent and defensive breakdowns will have to be minimized. Your math is flawed The Oilers had 2506 shots against last year. Assuming the .004 difference in sv% the number is actually 9.7 goals less over an 82 game season. The Oils would still have a -17 goal differential not +6. To get to the numbers you want the Oilers goalies would have to put up a sv% of .930 to put up the goal differential that you say would have been enough to squeek into the playoffs. Goalis who had a .930 last year Bryan Elliott Cory Schneider Mike Smith Hendricks Lundqvist Teams that had a .930 last year St.Louis Blues So if you buy the argument of goal differential(which I don't) being the most important, you will have to have the best sv% in the league between your goalies just to squeak in. To me the problem is about way more then just save percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodendoug Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 I didn't read through 65 pgs but thought that I'd add a reply to all that have been, once again, drinking the Oilers Kool-Aid (which I would actually like to try someday as I think it must we way more potent than the Saddledom Heroin Beers)... Wasn't the Oiler's farm team really good last year??? maybe I'm wrong (I didn't do any research) Adding the top players from the big club turned a good farm team into a .500 team....Sure makes a guy wonder what they will do for a 29th place team... There is a lot of optimism and hope that adding Yakupov (who was very underwhelming in the Super series and WJHC) and Schultz, both of whom have zero NHL experience, coming from Edmonton...I've been hearing about the bright future of the young Oilers since Cogliano, Gagne, Gilbert, Omark, Paarvi, Nilsson, Stastny, etc were supposed to be "fun to watch"....unfortunately for Oiler fans they were only fun to watch for the fans of the other 29 teams in the league... Just wondering what is your point? Are the Flames going to walk all over the Oilers like they were a sub-par AHL team? Please let me know. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Just wondering what is your point? Are the Flames going to walk all over the Oilers like they were a sub-par AHL team? Please let me know. thanks Can't speak for him, but the very notion is filled with awesomeness! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 To start with LA(8th in the west) had a +15 goal dif last season, not +10. Chicago made 6th place with a +10 Dif not LA. Chicago however scored 36 more goals than your team did while allowing almost the same. I am not sure what to say about your fine example of someone taking a basic gauge/stat(Shot Dif) and morphing its purpose to suit a projection. You can't take last seasons 8th place team(not your team) and their goal diff and work your goals /goals against for your team this year. You can compare your teams last couple of years and their goal diff for your team and see you made huge improvement(from -76 to -27) and still stayed at the bottom of the league. That is where the guage comes in. Your team still needs to find roughly 52 goals or defend by 52 goals against or any combination of those two.(note that is a 82 game figure) I want some of those hospital grade drugs you are on....... Those who use goal dif for playoffs use the general +20 to make the playoffs. It can vary team to team and can vary year to year. It seems to me there are always a few higher and a few lower exceptions to that figure every year. I'm not saying it's a guarantee that Oilers make the playoffs with that goal differential but if they are between +5 and +10 they should be close if not in. This coming season is almost half of a regular season so that +20 would be +12ish. I am saying that if the Oilers have a combined save% of .916 they should make the playoffs. EXACTLY what was said last year (they finished 20th) 1) +10 no guarantee of a playoff spot, 2) (far more importantly) your premise assumes the same number of shots on goal. It might take .912 and it might take .920 Here's what we CAN say though... The Oilers will need better goaltending (significantly better) if they hope to make the playoffs. Will it be better? Probably. Will it improve enough? We'll have to wait and see. I think it is safe to presume that if the Oilers allow more shots then they will get more shots. Krueger is an X's and O's coach as well as a players coach. I don't see the team getting that badly outplayed on a regular basis to allow that many more shots against than for. I am basing my prediction on goaltending. I said if they combine for a .916 save% they should be in. I used goal differential to show that they would be close if they had that last year. I see the Oilers have a 9 game road trip on their schedule...ouch If Oilers are a still .500 team after the road trip for the season thus far at that point, they will be in great shape to make the playoffs with having 14 of their last 22 games of the season being at home. I didn't read through 65 pgs but thought that I'd add a reply to all that have been, once again, drinking the Oilers Kool-Aid (which I would actually like to try someday as I think it must we way more potent than the Saddledom Heroin Beers)... Wasn't the Oiler's farm team really good last year??? maybe I'm wrong (I didn't do any research) Adding the top players from the big club turned a good farm team into a .500 team....Sure makes a guy wonder what they will do for a 29th place team... There is a lot of optimism and hope that adding Yakupov (who was very underwhelming in the Super series and WJHC) and Schultz, both of whom have zero NHL experience, coming from Edmonton...I've been hearing about the bright future of the young Oilers since Cogliano, Gagne, Gilbert, Omark, Paarvi, Nilsson, Stastny, etc were supposed to be "fun to watch"....unfortunately for Oiler fans they were only fun to watch for the fans of the other 29 teams in the league... No player on the Flames is worth Yakupov straight up in a trade, same with Schultz. Oilers never had Stastny. Your math is flawed The Oilers had 2506 shots against last year. Assuming the .004 difference in sv% the number is actually 9.7 goals less over an 82 game season. The Oils would still have a -17 goal differential not +6. To get to the numbers you want the Oilers goalies would have to put up a sv% of .930 to put up the goal differential that you say would have been enough to squeek into the playoffs. Goalis who had a .930 last year Bryan Elliott Cory Schneider Mike Smith Hendricks Lundqvist Teams that had a .930 last year St.Louis Blues So if you buy the argument of goal differential(which I don't) being the most important, you will have to have the best sv% in the league between your goalies just to squeak in. To me the problem is about way more then just save percentage. I should have more clearly stated using 30 shots against per game. Save % isn't just on the goaltenders but also the team to limit quality scoring chances against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bronco73 Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 I see the Oilers have a 9 game road trip on their schedule...ouch Did you see this? http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showpost.php?p=57554843&postcount=1 Both teams may have reason to be upset with the schedule, and throw in Winnipeg as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_worthy Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Did you see this? http://hfboards.hock...843&postcount=1 Both teams may have reason to be upset with the schedule, and throw in Winnipeg as well. That is seriously over-stating the impact of one extra game against this team or that team. I would be far more concerned with back to backs, total travel, lengthy road trips etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bronco73 Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 That is seriously over-stating the impact of one extra game against this team or that team. I would be far more concerned with back to backs, total travel, lengthy road trips etc. perhaps, but a middle or lower of the pack team would much rather play a columbus 5 times and the kings 2 than the other way around. Or in Edmontons case, they'd rather play a team that is less physical more often than one that hits for 60 minutes. Perhaps it's less of an issue for Calgary with a more rounded lineup, but for Edmonton it does make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 perhaps, but a middle or lower of the pack team would much rather play a columbus 5 times and the kings 2 than the other way around. Or in Edmontons case, they'd rather play a team that is less physical more often than one that hits for 60 minutes. Perhaps it's less of an issue for Calgary with a more rounded lineup, but for Edmonton it does make a difference. We in Calgary don't wander very often to the mindset of figuring out who we can or can't beat on any given night or overall. The above figuring you refer to is for losing teams because they find it more difficult to win against some teams. Every team has 1 or two teams that seem to have their number. Somewhere else on this board(the sched thread I think) I posted the figures of how we would have placed had we only played western conference teams last year. Surprisingly we did quite well against the west and would have ended up in 8th place. So for us, when we play more western teams, even though your referenced chart shows it being more difficult it does not matter so much as his hypothesis shows. The author of that thread did not take into account how each team plays against each other just formulated his findings based on weighted standings.<insert not very accurate> I'll track down a link to the NHL thread that showed our stats against Western teams and post it here in this thread for you. Edit: Link to article and the projected standings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_worthy Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 perhaps, but a middle or lower of the pack team would much rather play a columbus 5 times and the kings 2 than the other way around. Or in Edmontons case, they'd rather play a team that is less physical more often than one that hits for 60 minutes. Perhaps it's less of an issue for Calgary with a more rounded lineup, but for Edmonton it does make a difference. But it's not 5 and 2. It's 5 or 4 in the division and 3 for everybody else. Big effing deal as far as I am concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bronco73 Posted January 15, 2013 Report Share Posted January 15, 2013 But it's not 5 and 2. It's 5 or 4 in the division and 3 for everybody else. Big effing deal as far as I am concerned. I understand that, it was an exaggeration to illustrate my point, not to be taken literally. You are correct that the advantage gained or lost is very minimal, but there is still an advantage. Understandably for the NHL, making a workable schedule in a regular year is tough, this one could not have been any easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.