Minnesota Wild vs Edmonton Oilers: Game Recap
by BReynolds on Nov 25, 2011 5:55 PM CST
in Events
Email
Print
Minnesota Wild 2 - 5 Edmonton Oilers
For Edmonton perspective, please visit Lowe Tide
Don't let the score fool you. This is one of those games where the better team made the other look silly on the score board, but not so much on the ice. The Oilers did out play the Wild, of that you can be sure. However, the Wild had some spectacular chances, and just couldn't capitalize. Nikolai Khabibulin made some huge saves, and the Wild found themsleves in a hole they simply could not dig out of.
The first period belonged to the Oilers as they toyed with a sluggish Wild team. Brad Staubitz took two double minors trying to get Darcy Hordichuk to fight. In both instances, Staubitz made himself look really stupid as he dove onto Hordichuk laying on the ice. Say what you will about Hordichuk, but these were some seriously bad penalties for Staubitz to take.
The Oilers scored twice in the opening frame on goals from Ryan Smyth (which should have not been a goal due to Smyth being in the crease and on top of Harding when he scored) and Ryan Nugent-Hopkins. The Wild answered with a late goal from Devin Setoguchi, and the second period looked to be rather entertaining.
The Wild's most passive player, Pierre-Marc Bouchard stole the puck from the Holy Savior and triggered Khabibulin's recurring nightmares as Bouchard skated in all alone and tied the game. Hopefully they include that goal in "The Nuge's" Caqlder Trophy highlight reel. By the way... worst nick name in hockey. Terrible.
However, the Oilers would have none of the Wild leading, and Taylor Hall put in a Tom Gilbert shot that got away from Josh Harding as Shawn Horcoff created more trouble for the Wild. All night, Horcoff was given too much space to work, as though the Wild were afraid to hit him or even force him to make a play.
In the third, everyone in the building expected another comeback win, but it was not to be. Despite some solid chances for the Wild, as the period wound down, it was clear the Wild were tired, and the Oilers just had too much. When Horcoff scored the fourth goal as Justin Falk did his best Martin Skoula impression, it was fairly evident there would be no come back. The Holy Savior put in the empty netter and the Oilers capped off the 5-2 win.
Again, the Wild were not outplayed to the point the scoreboard showed. They played well, played the system, and they lost. That's going to happen. The Oilers brought a strong, fast, physical game, and they beat the Wild. No one wins them all.
A warning - be ready for talk of "regression" and how "unsustainable" the Wild's winning was. They lost, so that will only fuel the fire.
The Bennett's Chop & Railhouse Stars of the Game:
- Nikolai Khabibulin (30 saves)
- Shawn Horcoff (1G, 2A)
- Ryan Smyth (1G, 2A)
Remember, when you begin and end your night at Bennett's, you're the star! Easy parking, drink and food specials and a free shuttle to and from the Xcel Energy Center. Check them out at http://bennettschopandrailhouse.com/.
Five Questions:
- Young offense, or young defense. Which one comes out on top today? This round goes to the young offense.
- The top line has seen some superb chances, can they capitalize? One goal, yes. They were good tonight, but just not good enough.
- Backstrom owns a controlling interest in the Oilers (not really), does Harding continue the pattern? Nope.
- That passive 1-4 forecheck... will anyone be awake? Still not sure where the 1-4 comes from, but hey, whatever.
- The Wild continue to fly below the radar. Any 51-year olds signed to bring some publicity? Not tonight. Though, knowing NHL.com, they will likely report that the Wild lost.
84 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Clearly the Wild will regress
and start sucking just like after the LA/SJ losses
http://twitter.com/knowsknothing
Trade Staubitz for Hordichuk, and then release Hordichuk.
That’ll stick it to both of them for their performance tonight.
Love the Copper and Blue's recap...
Opening sentence… "The silliness of any “curse” aside, the Minnesota Wild aren’t a good hockey team."
Well alright then douchebags, I must’ve missed the memo, when did Edmonton fans earn the right to start calling OTHER teams bad? Sorry kids, you still have a ways to go before anyone respects you again.
He never said that our team is good, it’s not. He just mentioned that Minny is also not very good.
The Edmonton Oilers - All we do is win!!
The problem is, the “silliness” of the stats aside, the Wild are a good hockey team, and have proven it by beating very good teams and rising to the top of the league standings. To continually pound your chest and say “look at the stats, they’re terrible” is ridiculous. They are good, it just sucks for people to admit it, because their fancy numbers don’t fit what is happening.
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Editor:In Lax We Trust Now with more Twitterness: ReynoldsSBN
Please consider donating to my Movember campaign. Together, we can change the face of men's health.
In a few seasons, when our defense is even better (!) and Granlund is skating circles around everyone else, the pundits will look back on this year as the turnaround – too bad they’re completely blind to it while it’s happening.
But that’s OK. Let Crosby, RNH and the media do their thing – we’ll do ours. Hopefully without the services of Brad Staubitz.
Regression will be a bitch for both the Oilers and the Wild, 20 games does not a season make. The Oilers have beaten a good teams as well, but upon closer analysis, perhaps they shouldn’t have won some of those games.
Are the Oilers top 6 forwards going to keep shooting at 20% all season? No they are not. Will Wild goaltenders post crazy sv% all year? No they will not. What will the explanation be when percentages even out? A good team suddenly gone bad, or will it be the true level of their ability?
The Edmonton Oilers - All we do is win!!
Defense is easier to sustain than offense though
JS, Champion of the first ever Hockey Wilderness Playoff Bracket Challenge! WHOOOOOOOO!
Author, watchdog, enforcer and french-canadian connection for Hockey Wilderness.
twitter: BubbleWild48
Even if the defense is easier to sustain, the goaltending will see a correction. Is Josh Harding a .941(can’t recall if that was sv% going in) goaltender? Or is he the .857 goaltender that we saw tonight. The real answer is somewhere in between.
The Edmonton Oilers - All we do is win!!
Considering he had one .857 out of all his starts
I’d say he’s more of a .905-.915 goalie. The goaltending correction will be small, because the team is built for low-quality scoring chances against. The thing is, they had an off night tonight, and that will happen. It’s their 2nd off night of the season.
I don’t get why all of a sudden, the Wild lose their 3rd game in the last 13 and it’s the fucking end of everything good they’ve done. They’ll bounce back from that one loss.
JS, Champion of the first ever Hockey Wilderness Playoff Bracket Challenge! WHOOOOOOOO!
Author, watchdog, enforcer and french-canadian connection for Hockey Wilderness.
twitter: BubbleWild48
Backs and Harding have played on top of their heads a few games but they’ve also been helped out quite a bit by “the worst defense in the league.” Facing a lot of shots isn’t always the end of the world when your team is forcing the opposition to take their shots from no-mans land.
by ijustcopiedyou on Nov 25, 2011 8:08 PM CST up reply actions
20 games does not a season make, but of the teams within the playoff race on December 1, 75% or so make it. So, in a way, yes 20 games a season does make. At least it gives you a true predictor.
Will Harding be a .941 sv% goalie? I don’t know. Do you? I don’t have a crystal ball. Will the top 6 for the Oilers keep shooting at 20%? They have thus far, so what changes that stops them from doing so?
Here is where you lose me with all of the regression BS. You have, right in front of you, the numbers. But then you say that they can’t true, and draw conclusions that you have zero ground to make. Sure, the law of large numbers says things will even out. But when? Why? By how much? How do you know something else won’t compensate if they do?
Too many questions with the numbers people throw around. Stats will say anything you want them to (as I have said a million times, as will any statistician).
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Editor:In Lax We Trust Now with more Twitterness: ReynoldsSBN
Please consider donating to my Movember campaign. Together, we can change the face of men's health.
Not entirely fair
“They have thus far, so what changes that will stop them from doing so?” is I suppose a fair argument, but I don’t think its a very useful one. You can’t say anything will change for certain, but you can make a pretty safe prediction based on all of the evidence of the past. A goalie who posts a shutout in his first game won’t maintain a 1.000 save % for the whole season, but nothing obvious needs to change for him to give up a goal. And yes, the current numbers are in front of everyone, but so are the numbers from all of NHL history, and that does give one ground to draw conclusions.
That said, I don’t believe that the Wild goalies will regress as heavily as most people seem to think given that many of the shots they face are low quality because of the defense. I also think that if you’re going to talk about regressing to the mean for the goalies, you can’t ignore that the top line will likely regress to the mean in a positive direction in scoring, as will the injuries. All in all, I think they’re likely to more or less balance out and leave the Wild near the top of the standings, barring something unexpected.
by Xenai on Nov 25, 2011 9:06 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
"They have thus far, so what changes that will stop them from doing so?" is I suppose a fair argument, but I don’t think its a very useful one.
It’s as useful as telling me that because the 1987 Boston Bruins (or any other team) couldn’t maintain their stats, that the 2011-12 Wild can’t. Things change, I admit that. I am not about to say that the Wild will be the best team in the league. However, to continue to trot out stats that mean nothing and are more boring than an accountant cutting grass to tell me the Wild are the worst team in the league… well that just smacks of bitterness, ignorance, and stubbornness.
The stats show something will happen given it happens 1000 times. They aren’t happening 1000 times. They are happening once. The US shouldn’t have beaten the Russians in 1980, either, but they did. As Herb Brooks himself said, 99 times out of a hundred, maybe the Russians win, but that day, they didn’t.
The stats can tell you what might happen, not what will happen. That, and that alone is what drives me bonkers about the use of these stats. The people who use them think they are so perfect, they cannot admit that sometimes, things happen outside what the average over the last 100 years says should happen.
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Editor:In Lax We Trust Now with more Twitterness: ReynoldsSBN
Please consider donating to my Movember campaign. Together, we can change the face of men's health.
As someone who is on both sides of the war (I think the numbers mean a lot, but I think the eye test is a must have as well), I will say I agree with this completely:
The stats can tell you what might happen, not what will happen.
But what I think sometimes gets lost here is the ‘might’ part, and that goes for both sides. A lot of what I’m reading from the Wild perspective is “we’re a good team because we lead the standings, screw the stats.” I think that’s just as ‘bonkers’ as saying “they’re a bad team because they trail the possession stats, screw the standings.”
The Wild obviously have played and won games to date. I couldn’t tell you anything about them beyond that, I haven’t seen a minute of your games. What I see is what looks to be a situation very similar to the Rangers. Outstanding goaltending to date, enough offense to get by, and awful possession numbers, vis a vis Corsi. We’re getting some of the same arguments at BSB about the results thus far. “They know how to win.” “They’re hard to play against.” “SHOT QUALITY!”
Except those arguments are masking an underlying problem, which even our coaching staff has begun to address with the media. The puck possession is for bleep, the defenseman are struggling to move the puck, etc…all things that the metrics I see shunned here will and do show (not to mention the eye test shows it if you see past the scoreboard)
Now again, I don’t watch Wild games, and only really pop up here now and again, so I have no idea what the eye test says in your case. But the stats say there are red flags. Bad ones, that if not addressed, are going to potentially see the Wild team tumble down the standings. Not definitely, but potentially. And that potential is greater than you hope it would be.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 25, 2011 10:23 PM CST up reply actions
We're not saying they're good because they're high up in the standings
But rather they’re high up in the standings because they’re good. Or at least playing good. I don’t believe they’ll stay that high up, but I also see no reason they don’t make the playoffs if they stick to what they’ve been doing.
I know the goalies won’t keep playing 0.940, but as long as they keep up the hard work, they’ll stay close.
People just don’t understand that and they dismiss the Wild entirely because they’re the ‘’boring, ol’ Wild’’
JS, Champion of the first ever Hockey Wilderness Playoff Bracket Challenge! WHOOOOOOOO!
Author, watchdog, enforcer and french-canadian connection for Hockey Wilderness.
twitter: BubbleWild48
About the red flags
We know full well about them, but we also know they’re learning a new system with a rookie coach. Lots of time to fix what’s broke, as long as what’s working keep working, which I believe it will because a strong, defensive team system is easier to sustain than a high-scoring system. Ask the playoff version of the Capitals.
JS, Champion of the first ever Hockey Wilderness Playoff Bracket Challenge! WHOOOOOOOO!
Author, watchdog, enforcer and french-canadian connection for Hockey Wilderness.
twitter: BubbleWild48
Same difference. You’re correlating your place in the standings with the quality of the team. Over 20 games, that’s not really that reliable. That said, yes, you can certainly make the playoffs. Build up enough equity early, and even dropping back to earlier levels is enough to push you through.
As for the system, the ‘advanced’ counting stats seem to say nothing has really changed other than your goaltending is scorching hot. So while things are changing, so far they’ve stayed the same.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 25, 2011 11:37 PM CST up reply actions
Which is fine and dandy, but things are definitely not the same. Not even close.
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Editor:In Lax We Trust Now with more Twitterness: ReynoldsSBN
Master of unsustainable regression.
I’ll rephrase. The underlying counting stats are the same. The way they’re achieving them is obviously different, based on comments.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 25, 2011 11:47 PM CST up reply actions
While your “advanced stats” may show TRENDS, they don’t show RESULTS. There is the big difference. Yes, the Wild give up more shots than their opponents, and yes, opposing teams generally out-possess the Wild, but the success isn’t measured in “advanced stats”. It is measured in wins and losses, and right now, no other team in the Western Conference can boast that their results are better.
If stats dictated the game, then the New York Giants would never have beat the New England Patriots, the Yankees would go undefeated every year, and Vancouver would have rolled every single team last year. Stats ONLY show trends.
You know you're a Wild fan if Spam Whoopie Gerald-buns comes up in conversation
by JDesthubert on Nov 26, 2011 12:12 AM CST up reply actions
no other team in the Western Conference can boast that their results are better.
San Jose can. Higher points percentage and better goal differential.
Results are fantastic. The results say they outperformed their ‘advanced stats’ (which in this case is a count of shots for minus shots against, not exactly nuclear fission). The stats they that is not a TREND (dunno why we’re shouting words) that should be counted on to continue.
Shot metrics have a better correlation with future winning percentage than current winning percentage does. Not perfect, not even extremely reliable (it accounts for about 45%), but better than previous RESULTS.
Recapping: the shot RESULTS TREND better than the winning percentage RESULTS TREND.
If stats dictated the game, then the New York Giants would never have beat the New England Patriots, the Yankees would go undefeated every year, and Vancouver would have rolled every single team last year. Stats ONLY show trends.
Sigh. Stats don’t dictate games. That’s a bizarro argument that I don’t think I’ve seen anyone make. There’s so much luck in a one game sample, there isn’t a person on the planet who would tell you that. Sports bettors that run a gazillion numbers gun for 54-58%.
Stats explain past performances, and give insight into likely future performances. Whether you choose to use them is your prerogative.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 26, 2011 12:30 AM CST up reply actions
Stats explain past performances, and give insight into likely future performances
Sounds like they show trends to me, and apparently to you too, despite the fact that you may not feel that way.
You know you're a Wild fan if Spam Whoopie Gerald-buns comes up in conversation
by JDesthubert on Nov 26, 2011 12:39 AM CST up reply actions
I worded it different. Trends = insight into likely future performances.
So yes, I feel that way. I feel trends are important to look at.
To make a poker analogy: Stats say shoving 7-2 offsuit UTG into a 9 handed table is a losing play. The results might be good the first time, or even the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th times you do it, but continuing to do it will leave you broke faster than you can blink.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 26, 2011 12:46 AM CST up reply actions
And any stock market analyst worth a lick would tell you that trends are all well and good, until something upsets the trend.
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Editor:In Lax We Trust Now with more Twitterness: ReynoldsSBN
Master of unsustainable regression.
Here’s the problem though. When you talk to stat people, it takes them three hours to admit that stats don’t dictate games. When they do, then it takes another three hours to get them to admit that sometimes, stats don’t even predict properly.
Here’s the bottom line. The people who trumpet stats do a piss poor job of selling them to the people who could use them. By simply repeating themselves over and over, and acting like arrogant pricks, they prove nothing, and convince no one.
Then you take those stats and call a team “worst in the league” while they sit atop the league? It’s ridiculous and does nothing but make them look like arrogant assholes. Is it not possible to just be right? Do they have to then rub it in the faces of fans who just want to watch the damn game?
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Editor:In Lax We Trust Now with more Twitterness: ReynoldsSBN
Master of unsustainable regression.
by BReynolds on Nov 26, 2011 12:55 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I’m not sure why anyone has to be convinced of anything. The research is all publicly available. I’ll tell you right now that some of it just isn’t very convincing, or runs counter to my hockey experience, however you want to phrase it.
Some of it is quite valuable though, and no offense intended to you Brian, but some of your arguments that just dismiss the whole exercise as ‘accountants" aren’t doing much more for the conversation than the arrogant stathead opinion.
That’s what it really should be. An open conversation. I’m just one person, but that’s what I try to get out of it. I’ll bounce around SBN if the conversation is interesting, as it has been tonight.
To often though, fandom and rivalries and other shit often takes over above everything else, and it’s not helping anyone.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 26, 2011 1:07 AM CST up reply actions
Well, the accountants line was aimed at specific people, not at the conversation. I have had several very good, very driven conversations with people from Arctic Ice Hockey and Cam over at Nucks Misconduct, as well as Kent Wilson and Temo Seppa at Puck Prospectus.
The difference is, some people can make the case, others cannot and simply resort to the garbage Derek and his crew pulled last night. When that is the people trying to make the case to non-stat people, you’ll lose people every time.
And people do need to be convinced. Otherwise, you have all of this information and the only thing it is good for is to gloat about how you knew it would happen. That provides no value.
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Editor:In Lax We Trust Now with more Twitterness: ReynoldsSBN
Master of unsustainable regression.
And I’m not really upset at you or necessarily shouting. I’m just tired of “fans” coming out, trotting out their “advanced stats”, and then only coming out with “the Wild suck” when their team loses. It seems that fans can’t respect their opposition anymore. Like today, I believe the Oilers did deserve this win. They worked hard, capitalized on their chances, and got the breaks because of those facts. Khabibulin played well again against the Wild, and there wasn’t a comeback today.
You know you're a Wild fan if Spam Whoopie Gerald-buns comes up in conversation
Fans used to respect their opposition?
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 26, 2011 1:15 AM CST up reply actions
We do. Or, at least, most of us do. We poke fun at many of our opponents, but when their team loses, we don’t mock them and call them the worst team in the league.
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Editor:In Lax We Trust Now with more Twitterness: ReynoldsSBN
Master of unsustainable regression.
What peeves me a little bit
The people see our goalies’ stats as them being scorching hot when it is in fact the new system that makes everyone contribute into helping the goalies. In the Richards’ system, he wanted an up-tempo style of play with a roster that clearly wasn’t built for it, and the goalies were often left out to dry. Now, with Yeo’s system, there’s furious forecheck, mixed with an actual committment to strong defensive zone play.
It’s not so much that the Wild’s goaltender have been hot, I mean, yeah they have, but they’re getting the help they didn’t get in the past two years.
JS, Champion of the first ever Hockey Wilderness Playoff Bracket Challenge! WHOOOOOOOO!
Author, watchdog, enforcer and french-canadian connection for Hockey Wilderness.
twitter: BubbleWild48
.953 at ES over 14 games goes beyond any system. That’s scorching hot goaltending. I’m not sure Thomas even got that hot last year. That’s Halak running over the Pens/Caps hot.
The shot quality thing will be easy enough to grab. There’s enough people tracking scoring chances in the western conference this year that it should be fairly easy to see if the defense is actually limiting chances, by keeping shots to the outside and away from the home plate area, or whether it’s just Backstrom standing on his head.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 25, 2011 11:54 PM CST up reply actions
Backstrom has some crazy good performances, for sure
But, he also hasn’t had to stand on his head as often as last year.
JS, Champion of the first ever Hockey Wilderness Playoff Bracket Challenge! WHOOOOOOOO!
Author, watchdog, enforcer and french-canadian connection for Hockey Wilderness.
twitter: BubbleWild48
Fine.
I will concede that the goaltending is ridiculously good, and is bound to regress. I actually do believe that, it’s a small sample size.
But what’s to say that the lack of offensive production, and lack of shots, isn’t also a small sample size?
"You don't understand anything, man. Leave your STUPID comments in your POCKET!"
by Georgie Fruit on Nov 26, 2011 12:06 AM CST up reply actions
The team even strength shooting percentage is currently 8.1%, right around typical post-lockout league average, and right in the middle of where the Wild typically are (7.9 to 8.4 over the last 4 seasons). The Wild are also always at the bottom of the league in shots for at even strength. I understand new coach, new system, etc…but the offense doesn’t look like it’s underperforming, thus there’s nothing to suggest needing a bigger sample.
Obviously, you can make the argument otherwise because of sample size, there’s nothing to stop you from doing that.
I should mention again here, the Rangers have it worse than the Wild, trust me. They’re shooting the lights out (10.5% at ES), getting ‘only Backstrom/Harding is better’ goaltending, and their shot metrics are god awful (at least you guys seem to kick into gear when trailing, we can’t even do that). I’m telling the fans at BSB the same things you guys are hearing. Something has to change or bleep will go bad in a hurry.
I’m not saying it can’t change, just that it has to.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 26, 2011 12:16 AM CST up reply actions
No need for ''bleeps'' here ;)
I’m not saying it can’t change, just that it has to.
Exactly, but most people dismiss the Wild completely and say that they won’t get better at possession, shooting, etc. It’s maddening, because they’re just as likely to improve than they are to not improve, but for some reason, advanced stats magically say they’ll suck.
It’s like Zona saying the Wild suck at even strength, but he refuses to acknowledge that the Wild are 5th in the NHL in GF/GA ratio on even-strength. As a matter of fact, I don’t remember the Wild ever being this good in even-strength, even though they get outshot. Heck, the Wild are actually better when they get outshot, if you can believe it. Last season, the Wild were 3-7-3 in games in which they outshot their opponents and 36-28-5 in games in which they were outshot.
All I’m saying, is that there are things that just can’t be explained by stats. You have to watch the games.
JS, Champion of the first ever Hockey Wilderness Playoff Bracket Challenge! WHOOOOOOOO!
Author, watchdog, enforcer and french-canadian connection for Hockey Wilderness.
twitter: BubbleWild48
No need for ’’bleeps’’ here ;)
Eh, rather avoid having comments deleted, especially when I’m long winded. Good to know though.
Heck, the Wild are actually better when they get outshot, if you can believe it.
Of course I can, it’s a common phenomenon. It’s called score effects. When you’re winning, you tend to allow more shots late as you concentrate less on production. Before you ask, those banging on you for shot totals are looking at score tied data, thus eliminating said effects.
No one’s saying don’t watch the games. As I said somewhere, I’m a big believer that you need both if you want the whole picture. The human eye and brain has just as much, if not more, bias than stats do. We see and remember what we want to.
As for the GF/GA ratio, again. Goaltending, goaltend’ing, goaltending. When you’re getting .953 play at even strength, you’re going to be high on that list.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 26, 2011 12:35 AM CST up reply actions
Only spam and threats gets deleted.
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Editor:In Lax We Trust Now with more Twitterness: ReynoldsSBN
Master of unsustainable regression.
So I shouldn’t say “believe in the stats or else I’ll sell you 300 pairs of sneakers for $199.”
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 26, 2011 1:07 AM CST up reply actions
Ha ha. Exactly.
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Editor:In Lax We Trust Now with more Twitterness: ReynoldsSBN
Master of unsustainable regression.
Hmmm...
I’ll still reserve judgement to see if the shots the Wild takes goes up due to increased familiarity with the system. Is there any study that shows the rate of improvement that teams with new coaches typically take? How about about when these improvements (if any) would typically happen over the course of the season?
"You don't understand anything, man. Leave your STUPID comments in your POCKET!"
by Georgie Fruit on Nov 26, 2011 12:31 AM CST up reply actions
Coaches can have an effect
Look at Hitchcock with St-Louis, granted it was a very quick turnaround. To be fair, Yeo is still learning the ropes too, he’s the youngest NHL coach right now.
He also talk about the 30 game threshold for the implementation of his system. He said in 30 games, the guys should be comfortable with the system and the results would start to show.
1st place after 21 games is very good.
I'm that ''ignorant dumbass'' who writes with the ''whiny idiot homer'' over at Hockey Wilderness.
Twitter: BubbleWild48
Look at Hitchcock with St-Louis, granted it was a very quick turnaround.
Not for nothing, but the stats guys were banging that drum before it happened. Those same arguments that say MIN, NYR have gotten lucky were saying STL was getting unlucky. He might’ve had a small impact, but their percentages were due for a jump, whether or not they switched coaches.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 26, 2011 12:38 AM CST up reply actions
Well, maybe Hitchcock wasn't the best example
Small sample size. I’d go with Jacques Lemaire in NJ. Coach MacLean was horrible if we take into account what most Devils fans thought of him. Lemaire righted ship and everyone played much better.
I'm that ''ignorant dumbass'' who writes with the ''whiny idiot homer'' over at Hockey Wilderness.
Twitter: BubbleWild48
Yeah, the Devils turn around was predictable too. They went 1-6 under LeMaire before the percentages finally turned.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 26, 2011 12:51 AM CST up reply actions
Predictable, maybe
Ask any Devils fans watching the games and they’ll tell you they don’t think they’d have turned around under MacLean’s watch.
The slow start under Lemaire is likely due to the dramatic change of regime. The Blues have a good record under Hitchcock because they weren’t even that bad to begin with.
I'm that ''ignorant dumbass'' who writes with the ''whiny idiot homer'' over at Hockey Wilderness.
Twitter: BubbleWild48
Oh I know, I read the stuff on ILWT about the MacLean adventure. Obviously no one predicted they’d go on the run they did, but it was pretty obvious that coach or no coach, the Devils were never as bad as their record.
Somewhere in an alternate universe I’d have liked to see what would’ve happened had MacLean stayed.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 26, 2011 1:11 AM CST up reply actions
That would certainly be interesting
We mustn’t forget that they were also dealing with an unreal amount of injury issues. I know good teams fight through injuries, but that was just ridiculous.
I'm that ''ignorant dumbass'' who writes with the ''whiny idiot homer'' over at Hockey Wilderness.
Twitter: BubbleWild48
I don’t know if there is or isn’t a study on that, but I’m sure it’s something that could be run by the guys who actually keep the databases on that kind of stuff.
I’ve seen studies on the impact of switching teams (for individuals), and such, I’m sure coaching changes would be easy enough for them to do.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 26, 2011 12:37 AM CST up reply actions
Here.
Here is a perfect example. The Wild’s puck possession doesn’t suck. They don’t ever shoot the damn puck is the problem. If you had puck possession stats that actually showed how long they possessed the puck, you would see it. I don’t get how a SOG or any stat that is realted to shooting the puck proves possession. It proves they had the puck, not that they possess it.
That, and really that alone, is the problem the Wild face. They simply don’t shoot. They pass and pass and pass. I don’t see any stats that show that.
The defensemen are moving the puck. Not well, not excellent, but they are. A hell of a lot better than last year, yet the stats don’t show that.
I understand red flags, but unless the people throwing the stats together have the context of them, they are meaningless. NHL teams use advanced stats, but they have the context to go with them. The numbers are useless without the context. It’s like someone getting offended at the word bitch without knowing someone was, in fact, referring to a female dog.
I get what you are saying, I really do, but you also prove the point. No one claiming the Wild are “the worst team in the NHL” has watched any of the games. They don’t have a clue how this team plays or what the system is. They simply look at the numbers and say everything is terrible.
Like an accountant, sitting in an office with no understanding of how the business works.
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Editor:In Lax We Trust Now with more Twitterness: ReynoldsSBN
Please consider donating to my Movember campaign. Together, we can change the face of men's health.
I don’t get how a SOG or any stat that is realted to shooting the puck proves possession.
The NHL used to track zone time. It was then correlated to zone time using a season’s worth of data here: http://vhockey.blogspot.com/2008/08/zone-time.html. It showed that 90% of zone time was accounted for by just looking at total shots.
Someone at PPP is testing it for themselves. So far, while that specific link does not, he’s finding that the correlation between Corsi and Time on Attack over a >1 game sample is strong.
I did it for a period because I had the same gut feeling (the Rangers spend lots of time cycling and no time shooting) and saw that it was pretty darn close (which doesn’t mean much with a 20 minute sample, but still). If I had more time (I have 3 month old twins that have ended free time for me), I’d probably take it on further. To that end, while somewhat labor intensive, if one of your readers wanted to take on the project, it’d be simple enough to show that you actually have more possession than the stats show.
No one claiming the Wild are "the worst team in the NHL" has watched any of the games
I doubt very much that is true. They almost certainly have not watched all, but I’d guarantee they’ve seen some, if for no other reason than their own teams play them.
You’ll note I haven’t said anything about where you stand. Yes, if I were to make an estimation of your team’s future right now, I’d argue that the goaltending is unsustainably hot, and that absent other improvements you’re going to fall back. As you said, maybe you’re the team that bucks the odds. Congrats if you are, but I’m not putting any money on it.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 25, 2011 11:32 PM CST up reply actions
The games they watch to claim they're the ''worst''
Is very likely much too small to make any sense. The majority of NHL fans still think the Wild play the trap, for Pete’s sake.
JS, Champion of the first ever Hockey Wilderness Playoff Bracket Challenge! WHOOOOOOOO!
Author, watchdog, enforcer and french-canadian connection for Hockey Wilderness.
twitter: BubbleWild48
*Majority of fans AND rival sportswriters.
JS, Champion of the first ever Hockey Wilderness Playoff Bracket Challenge! WHOOOOOOOO!
Author, watchdog, enforcer and french-canadian connection for Hockey Wilderness.
twitter: BubbleWild48
MSM sportswriters and false narratives are like peanut butter and jelly.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 25, 2011 11:38 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
This, this so very much
NHL.com had about 3-4 facts about the Wild absolutely wrong when they wrote about them last week, for the first time since the friggin’ Nixon administration.
JS, Champion of the first ever Hockey Wilderness Playoff Bracket Challenge! WHOOOOOOOO!
Author, watchdog, enforcer and french-canadian connection for Hockey Wilderness.
twitter: BubbleWild48
So basically...
We had a stat that worked, and was straight forward. Then, we took it and turned it into some convoluted math formula? That seems really dumb. Just because shots are correlated to zone time does not mean that zone time isn’t correlated to anything else. Abandoning a simple stat for a complicated one is simply… ridiculous.
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Editor:In Lax We Trust Now with more Twitterness: ReynoldsSBN
Master of unsustainable regression.
Blame the NHL. No one knows why they stopped publishing their zone time data.
I’m certain there are other things that zone time is correlated with. They probably involved a lot more math than the ‘convoluted’ Shots For – Shots Against formula though.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Nov 26, 2011 12:06 AM CST up reply actions
Opening a review with that is more than just a “mention.” If that were the case I would’ve just disagreed and kept it to myself. Opening a review that way is just a douche move. One by a fan of arguably the worst team in the league. Talk about calling the kettle black.
by ijustcopiedyou on Nov 25, 2011 7:35 PM CST up reply actions
By the way
Thanks for being civil over here, and then joining the mob and getting lippy in comfortable territory. Very classy.
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Editor:In Lax We Trust Now with more Twitterness: ReynoldsSBN
Please consider donating to my Movember campaign. Together, we can change the face of men's health.
Oh, wow.
I didn’t even realize we stopped linking to the Copper and Blue.
But seriously, if that’s their opening, then fuck them. If the Wild aren’t a good hockey team, then there’s 21-29 shitty ones, too.
"You don't understand anything, man. Leave your STUPID comments in your POCKET!"
by Georgie Fruit on Nov 25, 2011 7:21 PM CST up reply actions
I stopped linking to them because our readers were not treated well there. I don’t send people to places they aren’t welcome.
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Editor:In Lax We Trust Now with more Twitterness: ReynoldsSBN
Please consider donating to my Movember campaign. Together, we can change the face of men's health.
Not to blame Harding for the outcome – but does it mean he will see less ice time going forward?
Also, why did Harding start over Backs today?
Yeo said he was playing well going into today. Which he was.
"You don't understand anything, man. Leave your STUPID comments in your POCKET!"
by Georgie Fruit on Nov 25, 2011 7:23 PM CST up reply actions
Probably has something to do with his "personal issue"
If not I have to seriously question Coach’s call on this one. Backs has pure ownership of the Oil at home, no reason at all not to start him.
by ijustcopiedyou on Nov 25, 2011 7:42 PM CST up reply actions
Looks like I missed the right game
I mean, the Wild had to lose sometime, but it stings that it’s against their closest division rival.
Oh, and the Copper and Blue should learn to not throw stones when living in glass houses. They didn’t finish dead last two years running for nothing.
JS, Champion of the first ever Hockey Wilderness Playoff Bracket Challenge! WHOOOOOOOO!
Author, watchdog, enforcer and french-canadian connection for Hockey Wilderness.
twitter: BubbleWild48
Oh
And did Hordichuk SERIOUSLY say he’s been waiting 10 years to fight Staubitz? Then why the fuck didn’t he? What a douche!
JS, Champion of the first ever Hockey Wilderness Playoff Bracket Challenge! WHOOOOOOOO!
Author, watchdog, enforcer and french-canadian connection for Hockey Wilderness.
twitter: BubbleWild48
yeah if you’ve been waiting to fight a guy that long, why go into the fetal position when you have a chance to fight him?
2010-2011 Minnesota Wild Fantasy League Champion
President/CEO of the Tutu Many Slapshots fantasy hockey club
by Chris Winner on Nov 25, 2011 10:38 PM CST up reply actions
Matt Kassian has been recalled from Houston
I believe this is a response to Staubitz completely losing his cool and taking 8 minutes of penalties.
You know you're a Wild fan if Spam Whoopie Gerald-buns comes up in conversation
He has? I am not seeing that…
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Editor:In Lax We Trust Now with more Twitterness: ReynoldsSBN
Master of unsustainable regression.
Yahoo! had it on their transaction list last night. And I forgot that he was loaned to Rochester, not Houston. My bad on that one.
You know you're a Wild fan if Spam Whoopie Gerald-buns comes up in conversation
by JDesthubert on Nov 26, 2011 12:29 PM CST up reply actions
Here's the link
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/trans;_ylt=AnYUePa5ioprsideRziBvMR7vLYF
You know you're a Wild fan if Spam Whoopie Gerald-buns comes up in conversation
by JDesthubert on Nov 26, 2011 12:30 PM CST up reply actions
I think someone may have misreported. Zack plays for Rochester.
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=106835
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Editor:In Lax We Trust Now with more Twitterness: ReynoldsSBN
Master of unsustainable regression.
That would make a lot of sense. I guess that’s what I get for trusting Yahoo.
You know you're a Wild fan if Spam Whoopie Gerald-buns comes up in conversation
Confirmed through the Wild. Actually not long after you posted this, but I just got home from work. So, it’s Zack, not Matt. Though I would LOVE to see Matt called up.
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Editor:In Lax We Trust Now with more Twitterness: ReynoldsSBN
Master of unsustainable regression.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Hockey Wilderness
Related FanShots on Hockey Wilderness
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Rangers, Devils back at MSG for pivotal Game 5; NHL 13 screenshots (Playoff Puck Previews)
- CBC announces ‘While the Men Watch Hockey Night,’ sets off backlash over sexism
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 Phoenix Coyotes
- Alain Vigneault signs extension with Vancouver Canucks because he’s excellent
- Dubinsky returns for Game 5; No hearing for Brown; Spacek rips Habs (Puck Headlines)
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- St. John's IceCaps optimistic for future despite being knocked out of playoffs
- Jackets sign Dorsett to three-year deal
- Columbus Blue Jackets sign NHL penalty minutes leader Derek Dorsett to a 3-year contract
- Twins Matt, Ryan Rupert are double agitators for Knights at Memorial Cup
- Blue Jackets sign RW Dorsett to 3-year deal
