The Edmonton Oilers have tipped their hand in regard to Linus Omark.Last night, with Sam Gagner's return to the lineup, coach Renney had several roster options but chose to sit the skilled Swede. Again. What does that tell us?
Scoring goals and directly contributing to goals scored has high value; the highest paid names in the game are the elite offensive men. Linus Omark has a nice range of skills and is a hard worker, but coach Renney has passed him over routinely in roster decisions. Last fall, Omark was sent to OKC when it was quite clear he was among the 12 best forwards available.
This season, after two healthy scratches in the first 7 games, the die is cast for Linus Omark. If he can't make the lineup with Ales Hemsky injured then it doesn't look good for him unless more injuries pile up.
Sam Gagner's return meant the coach had a few options in terms of who to scratch. I suggest these were the most likely scenarios:
- HS Anton Lander, move Belanger down to the 4line and put Gagner between Omark/Paajarvi.
- HS Lennart Petrell, moving Belanger down to the 4line and Lander to LW on the 4line.
- HS Magnus Paajarvi, putting Belanger between Omark and Gagner on the 3rd line.
Notice I didn't mention an RNH scratch, doubt that was an option (Nugent-Hopkins is going to have to stop scoring goals before getting a HS). The obvious choice would be Lander, but that kid keeps showing up in the right places and is a constant source of consternation for the opponent.
So, how did coach Renney divide the minutes among wingers last night. Here is the EV evidence, with
Dennis King EV scoring chances:
- Ryan Smyth 14:58 (7-3)
- Jordan Eberle 14:27 (3-3)
- Taylor Hall 13:01 (2-3)
- Ryan Jones 12:32 (5-4)
- Sam Gagner 10:09 (2-0)
- Magnus Paajarvi 9:44 (2-0)
- Ben Eager 7:56 (3-0)
- Lennart Petrell 7:50 (3-0)
Oilers outshot NYR 22-14 at evens and won the game, so it isn't hard to imagine the same group lining up for the game on Tuesday. Even if they'd lost, who are you going to move out? Jones has settled in well on the Horcoff-Smyth line and as long as the results are there coach Renney isn't going to mess with success.
I think the Oilers will trade Linus Omark (and it could be soon, but at this point this blog suggesting an October trade is kind of like greeting the morning sun: we do it every day) and also believe he'll have a solid, possibly spectacular NHL career. This is a dangerous time for the Oilers and their management and fanbase. If they deal Omark because there's no room--without waiting for a legit and satisfactory return, they run the risk of becoming the modern Houston Astros (who took the talent out with the trash routinely back in the day).
As an aside, I know that sometimes my references are obscure and when rambling on about John Mayberry, Bob Watson, Cliff Johnson and other Astros prospects it may be confusing. I've never met Steve Treder, but he writes wonderfully about those names and the bizarre era where talent was garbage in Houston.
Part 1 and
Part 2 of his look at that era are worth the read.
I'm not suggesting ST is going to be the modern Spec Richardson (although it is possible), but watching how they part with Omark and the return they get for him will be a tell. Offloading well paid veterans for prospects is one thing, but how do you put a value on Omark? And if the value isn't there, does the GM have the courage to hold on to the asset until the opportunity is right?
I'd go with:
ReplyDeleteMPS-Belanger-Omark
Smyth-Horcoff-Gagner
Eager-Lander-Jones
OR
Gagner-Belanger-Omark
Smyth-Horcoff-MPS
Eager-Lander-Jones
..if we're keeping the Hallsy-line intact.
Does Omark have to clear waivers to go down to OK City?
ReplyDeleteLt: We must be thinking alike. I woke up this morning wondering what they are going to do with Omark. There is a player there, just what do you do with him.
ReplyDeleteThey say actions speak louder than words so I get the idea that Renney is not a big fan, so what do they do with him?
IMO this is not Shremp part two, there is effort with Omark. Also wonder about the relationship with the other two swedes.
Nice luxury to have, extra forwards who can actually play.
I think the closest parallel to the Oilers trading away Omark despite what he's shown this year with limited ice time would be Miro Satan to Buffalo.
ReplyDeleteI hope they don't make that mistake twice. Omark will be a 30+ goal scorer, maybe not this year, but soon.
I don't understand why a so-called rebuilding organization to be so short-sighted and trade low on an obvious talent.
Funny, Paajarvi and Eberle are both having a similar slow starts (with more ice time) but nobody's wanting to deal them away.
unca: Great minds think alike. :-) I completely agree about Omark>Schremp, it's a massive difference. Huge.
ReplyDeleteRick: To be clear, I don't want to deal Omark away. If I ran the team, Jones would be dealt. But he's not going anywhere.
ReplyDeleteLOL. how many times can I ask what do they do with him. Still a bit of a smurf though too.
ReplyDeleteI think that is why Jones is in the lineup, a bit more size.
backsp..backspin???
LT - understandable.
ReplyDeleteBut since our top six forwards aren't scoring with any regularity (except for Nuge) it seems that Renney has been preferring a Nashville/Minnesota style game plan to have a shot at winning games.
Also, maybe the sophomore jinx is rearing it's ugly head on last year's rookies. We'll have to see how things shake out.
Regarding Eberle and sophomore jinx, he has 5 points in 7 games. Not bad. I agree he is snakebitten with goals, but he is getting chances and getting points.
ReplyDeleteThe story of kids not acquired by the management group in place.
ReplyDeleteand Hall has 6 points in 6 games. It will all come togther.
ReplyDelete5 in 6
ReplyDeleteEberle doesn't quite seem to have the hands that he had last season. He's caught something from Horcoff that's affecting his timing. :P Meh, I'm kidding and not worried, lol.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Horcoff... Is it Smitty or the kids who've breathed new life into him? I've previously thought Horcoff was long finished, but he's been top-notch for his role.
I'm quite surprised with the Oilers style of play this year. It looks like a much more mature game than I'd expect to see.
Jeebus, the Oilers are among the league leaders is SA/G, PK, GA...even considering sample size, it's still mind-boggling.
No, it's not exciting fire-wagon hockey, but what's exciting about losing either.
As for Omark, the Oilers are in a bit of a tough spot thanks to RNH.
If you keep the kids together, Hemsky and Gagner are healthy, then where the heck does he play?
I liked the looks of the lines last night. When Hemsky returns, slot him onto Jones' spot and things look even better.
As for Omark again... if he's dealt, the Oiligosphere will by crying when there's another injury to our top nine.
ReplyDeleteWith an anticipated return of Hemsky though, he's not going to beat out Hall, Smyth, Eberle, Hemsky, or Gagner for spot on the wing.
That leaves him competing with PRV who's also off to a mediocre start, but arguably has more pedigree, speed, and a wider range of skills.
So what do you do?
Speaking of Horcoff... Is it Smitty or the kids who've breathed new life into him? I've previously thought Horcoff was long finished, but he's been top-notch for his role.
ReplyDeleteThe scales have just fallen from your eyes. Were you on a trip to Damascus recently?
Having a winger like Smyth who plays a very complete game instead of guys like JFJ and POS sure helps. Horcoff was very good between 14 and 4 last year too.
Whatever they decide to do with 23, I hope they figure out 83 first.
I take a bit of a different look at this.
Renney has said in his press avails that they were working on breakdowns "when 5 guys aren't in the frame"
Breaking down the game film and there are only 4 Oilers on the screen in position instead of 5.
By my eye 23 has been the worst offender. 28 isn't too far behind.
That's the difference with the kids who "have had slow starts", especially 91. He's where his coach wants him to be without the puck, and that is what is going to dictate ice time on this team.
That's also the reason that Renney sat 4-93-14 against MIN, they were not where they were supposed to be on a few shifts in a row.
I like that Renney does that even to Golden Big Big Future Star Line. Play the system or you don't play.
They are playing a system where turn overs come from good break outs and turn overs, so playing correctly without the puck is paramount.
If 89 is going to be a RW long term (a good idea for the team and his career I think), when healthy you have 83,89,14,23,28,37.
Boy they have a lot of right wingers.
ReplyDeleteThey are playing a system where turn overs come from good break outs and turn overs, so playing correctly without the puck is paramount.
Should read:
They are playing a system where offense comes from good break outs and turn overs, so playing correctly without the puck is paramount.
While I understand the Oilers flashy style of the 80's is never coming back, I'm not a fan of the dump/chase, clutch/grab style Renney is often using this year.
ReplyDeleteBut I've watched bunch of hockey this week (Apple TV) and it seems most everyone else is too. Maybe it's due to it still being early and teams not knowing what they have yet.
Hopefully it will open up more when Hemsky gets back, I think he's allergic to a dump-in.
Lander’s sound, gritty, NHL caliber play has been as much as a revelation as RNH’s. It certainly has had an unexpected ripple effect through the line up. Even Pettrell has had an impact on a team where players in previous years have not embraced both physical play and defensive responsibilities. Gagner is now pushed to the wing as Omark sits.
ReplyDeleteWhen Hemsky returns as a legitimate second line offensive threat to a team transforming itself into men playing men compared to the boys vs men we have been the last few years, the aforementioned players will find themselves strangers in a strange land.
Sooner, rather than later we may see these combinations.
RNH-Hall-Eberle
Horcoff-Smyth-Jones
Lander-MPS-Hemsky
Belanger-Eager - Pettrell
It would be foolish to move omark until the Hemsky situation resolves itself unless the plan is Gagner on the wing fulltime.
ReplyDeleteMove linus, Hemsky and Smyth move on and suddenly a nice corps of wingers is mighty thin again
Gagne unfortunately maybe expensive to sign. But If we can keep him at a reasonable cost. I would rather keep him over Omark. Having a player that knows how to play the center postion or the starboard side give us more flexability. Omark is good but we can't keep to many smallish players with Pitlick and Hamilton knocking at hte door. Pitlick will be like Gagne cen/rw experience
ReplyDeleteI feel we have invested a fair amount into Gagne. If we are able to sign him inexpensively I would rather keep him over Omark. It is important to have players with skills at two positions for flexibility. If we are to plan ahead into long runs into the playoff the more players we have that can play multiple positions this will help. I am high on Pitlick because of this.
ReplyDeleteGagne? Good lord. I don't know that LA would move him, and the Oilers have enough skilled forwards.
ReplyDeleteBut I like him as a player, that's for sure.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLT would like your perspective on how some of the best organizations how handled a similar situation in the past.
ReplyDeleteAs you say it is clear that the coach does not believe that Omark is going to be a long term contributor to a winning team.
Couple of errors in the original post....
ReplyDelete1. While Omark might have been one of the 12 most talented options after 2010 TC, he wasn't one of the 12 best options for game time in the NHL.
He was criticized for cherry picking, for lack of effort in his own zone, for taking too long of shifts and for not listening to his coaches.
These are not issues you work on with game time in the NHL. Even Omark has admitted himself that he needed to go down and the time there improved his game.
So LT... Can we finally put to bed this meme you keep repeating that he should not have been sent down last year? I don't get why you keep doing it despite all the evidence to the contrary.
2. Renney stated yesterday that the choice came down to Petrell and Omark and he decided on Petrell out of not wanting to give up a PKer.
Paajarvi isn't really in the equation, unless you believe Omark is better served with the playing time.
Dennis has this right, unless Omark can find some way to contribute to the special teams he is the weakest link. At his age we are pretty much seeing what we get... Maybe not numbers wise, but certainly talent wise. I don't think anyone should be traded in a hurry, that's just obvious, but there is maybe a 1 or 2 % chance he's going to be spectacular, so I'm not worried.
And since trade talks are always ongoing between GMs, even if Omark was traded today, it is unlikely that it was done "in a hurry". It takes time to get deals done.
The "tell" to me last night was Gagner playing wing. In other words he couldn't take the C position away from the tokp 3 Cs that we have. And I agree whole-heartedly with that evaluation.
I'm not a fan of the dump/chase, clutch/grab style Renney is often using this year.
ReplyDeleteBy my eye they are carrying the puck into the Ozone when possible and only dumping when its the best option.
Haven't seen too much clutch and grab either, just trapping the neutral zone.
spOILer: I can't put it to bed because I don't agree. It would be insincere.
ReplyDeleteLT it is clear you disagree with Coach Renney's decision on Omark (not being a positive contributor to a winning team). Your player evaluations almost always amaze me with how accurate they are, most recently the free agent signing this year.
ReplyDeleteWhen you evaluate Omark and deem him worthy to the team are you looking at his offensive ability and tenacity on the puck only? As WG mentioned it is possible that Omark is to selfish of a player to buy into a team system? That appears to be Renney's observation.
I guess the question is based on his play away from the puck is Omark and selfish player who won't help a team win (especially in the playoff's) or does Omark get that selfish rap because of his Moxie and self confidence?
Dan (Have I ever been wrong?) Tencer said last night on the post game that Omark's body language in the morning skate yesterday was "beyond bad" knowing he wasn't dressing. Although it's too early to trade anybody given this teams injury history I would hope a veteran or two would hang him up on the coat hook and have a talk with him. We know that with Omark it's all about him which is okay if you're scoring 50 a year like some dick named Heatley but he's been mosty invisible on this year's team with more talent. Nobody is going to give you anything more than a 3rd or 4th round pick for him anyway. I still think he should have started the year in OKC instead of Hartikainen.
ReplyDeletejom bones: In Dan Cleary's first season with the Red Wings he scored 3 goals in 77 games. He got 7 minutes a night at evens and 3 minutes a night on the PK.
ReplyDeleteOmark can't pk and the 4line is going well right now, but I think the Oilers would be better served by using Omark sparingly until injuries hit or Hemsky is dealt.
Short term it isn't good, but he's not 20 either.
Spoiler: Giroux, Fraser, Stortini? C'mon. Get outta here.
ReplyDeleteFans over rate a player who looks pretty. What Linus Omark doesn't do enough is accomplish a play from beginning to end.
ReplyDeleteSpinning around playing keep away in the corners isn't resulting in much. The guy needs better hockey sense and he needs to be more decisive. Use those skills to make your move, attract a defender and than shed the defender by moving the puck...than get open for a shooting lane.
This he does not do and this is why he is sitting and this is why he won't be an Oiler for much longer.
jim bones: I'm not saying Renney needs t change the lineup, they're winning.
ReplyDeleteI am saying that posting offense is a difficult thing to do and Omark can do that. PLUS he has a nice range of skills and the things that are hangups (cheating for offense) are things the coach can address by coaching or supplying complementary linemates.
I want Omark over Jones because he's a better hockey player.
I also should mention that Omark doesn't compliment what Renney is trying to do thus far. The Oilers are playing a more mature game, less mistakes. I've said it before with much back lash, but cutesy hockey is out for this team.
ReplyDeleteThe Oilers have scored 12 goals in 7 games. They need offense, and Omark can help in this area.
ReplyDeleteI watch and follow hockey rather closley so i would love to know where this, IMO BS, stuff about not caring/listining/trying is coming from. Omark plays hard, and does try to get back on the puck by my eye. I'm not going to argue it's a strength but i really do think the effort is there. For a player not listining to the coach he sure seems to be making an effort to use the dump in more. For a player so unhumble his comments about the AHL being good for him sure seem humble. I think people see a player so talented and assume there must be a problem in that regard if he isn't at his best(i.e. the Schremp factor). Although he is an older player this is a guy who is just in his 2nd season in NA. This is a guy who can create offense on his own and be a strong cycler, he's a possesion player and to me seems to spend more time in the other teams zone than his own on most nights. I think the defensive responsibilities of the most offensive winger on a line are being greatly exaggerated. Unless he is the high man all he has to do is get back and cover his point. He does this IMO. I honestly don't think he would look bad on the Horcoff line with Jones moving down to the 4th. Players who can take over shfts like that are not a dime a dozen and i just don't see how he doesn't have a career. Just my opinion...
ReplyDeleteGood point Eskimo. Too often people rag on a player simply because the coach does. Omark doesn't fit what Renney wants (the sideburn factor) and there's really nothing Linus can do to change that. As an offensive option, he has routinely been saddled with defensive minutes and then ragged on for his lack of production. He is not long for this organisation, that much has been telegraphed, but that is not his fault. I hope his next coach (calling Mike Babcock) recognises the value he brings to play.
ReplyDeleteAnd this not coming back thing is a weird idea, almost weirder than the one that says Jones is a useful 4th liner.
Spinning around playing keep away in the corners isn't resulting in much.
ReplyDeleteI would say that his to go into traffic, down low, tough areas and come out with the puck and make sublime passes is why he has a NHL contract.
Like LT says, he's not playing without the puck like Renney wants him too.
Not sure I'd attribute that to being obstinate, or attitude as I don't know him, but given his age a good part of it could be habit.
Sitting a player like that out is probably the best way to get his attention.
The one hammer a coach has is playing time.
This is an interesting story going forward as the options of how to arrange the lines are numerous.
Geez...no point in trying to run Omark out of town, particularly 7 games into an 82 game season that no one other than myself thought has any hope of the team even making the playoffs.
ReplyDeleteEberle hasn't got a goal either, or MPS for that matter. Why not run them out of town too, lol.
The fact is, so far this season Oilers are playing a pretty decent brand of hockey. Omark can and will contribute in time.
For the Barker haters: I think he's doing alright. Sure he's lacking confidence, but he hasn't stunk out the joint like some of the clowns we've seen over the past decade.
Best comedy last night: Fonz's presser.
Scheifele returned to junior. Good move by the Jets.
ReplyDeleteI honestly don't think he would look bad on the Horcoff line with Jones moving down to the 4th. Players who can take over shfts like that are not a dime a dozen and i just don't see how he doesn't have a career.
ReplyDeleteI think that Gagner, Omark and Hartikainen are all superior options to Jones on Horcoff's line. His one attribute is a good forcheck, but once the puck gets in the Dzone he runs around and is rarely in position.
No question that Omark has a career in the NHL.
@Bar Qu
ReplyDeleteLove the simpsons refrence.lol
I don't know if Renney has anything against him. It's only 7 games in, i don't think it's terrible that he's sitting but i'm with LT in that i wouldn't be in a rush to flush this player.
For the Barker haters: I think he's doing alright. Sure he's lacking confidence, but he hasn't stunk out the joint like some of the clowns we've seen over the past decade.
ReplyDeleteBeing kicked in the head with a cowboy boot is not as bad as being hit in the head with a chunk of rebar.
That does not make getting kicked in the head with a boot "good".
Woodguy: Classic.
ReplyDelete@Woodguy
ReplyDeleteKeep Hartikainen in the AHL, it's still going to do him good. I'd have Lander playing there too. I really don't believe at this point in time he is superior to Omark. I agree with Gagner being a better option there but he can play center and has some flexability in that regard.
My lines are
Hall-Hopkins-Eberle
Smyth-Horcoff-Omark
Paajarvi-Gagner-Hemsky
Petrell-Belanger-Jones
While Hemsky is out i move Jones to the 3rd and Eager to the 4th. I just would like to see what Omark can do with a couple vets for a stretch of time. Not that we should be changing the lineup at this point in time...
Eskimo, I can't take credit for that reference. It gets used often by LT, WG, BD, etc - I just get behind what works.
ReplyDeleteWith the number of trades that are occurring right now (another one announced today between MTL and PHX) so I wonder if the market isn't open to young Linus moving on. I hate it, I don't want it, but it is going to happen.
@LT The Oilers have scored 12 goals in 7 games. They need offense, and Omark can help in this area.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet he's done so amazingly little of it this year. He's a fun player to watch sometimes, but I don't understand why quite a few people think there's so much more left to see from Omark. It seems like so much wishful thinking.
A team with depth will sit players that could play. I used to look forward to the day when they'd have to make any kind of hard decisions with personnel. With decisions at F (Omark), D (Petry), and G (Dubnyk), it looks like that time has arrived and, dammit, now that the day is here I'm going to fn enjoy it.
Guys like Jones, Eager, and Petrell are player types the coach wants on the team. I don't know why they can't just decide who the best 12 forwards are and play them, but this is the way it is to satisfy a template. LT you harp on this all the time, and stated the issue early when you put Renney in a box when he was hired. So are you really asking why Jones over Omark? Isn't it really Gagner over Omark? Given Omark's blistering point production rate its hard to know why this isn't a good choice by Renney.
oilswell: I'm fine with Omark sitting, the team is winning now. what I don't believe they should do is deal him for the exact reason you're stating.
ReplyDeleteIt's good to have depth, and Omark can come in when Hemsky gets hurt or Gagner struggles, etc. Omark can supply offense and that means he'll get a chance sooner or later.
I do agree that Omark on the Smyth-Horc line is unlikely, but could see Gagner or Petrell there. So in that way Jones and Omark are connected.
If Taylor Fedun was healthy, I wouldn't mind throwing Barker on waivers.
ReplyDeleteHe's been that bad.
Sutton has also been pretty terrible, but that third period he played against the Rangers won me back.
Barker is the reason Petry is in OKC.
ReplyDeleteChrissakes people, Barker is +1 and Sutton is -1 for a net of 0. It's only 7 games but over the past 2 years I would take that all day long for the 5-6 pairing. As well, the team is #2 in the league in GAA with a myopic number!!! They signed Barker as a FA "project" and they're sure as hell not going to give up on him after 7 games. So let's chill on the D. However, if you want to get after something get after the 30th place team in scoring. There are some forwards out there doing nothing offensively... nada... nil!! Not even getting chances. 1 or 2 goals game after game starts to become a concern even if it is only 7 games.
ReplyDeleteEsk,
ReplyDeleteWhile different than my optimal lines, I like your thoughts and think those would work good too.
LT, I get that you are enamored with skill and players who can bring the pretty (Hemsky, Omark, Gilbert, Petry, etc.). It's what makes this game transcendent. And I also get that advanced stats love and support these kinds of players.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it must be acknowledged that hockey is also a physical game and that there IS value provided by the player type that is consistently derided in the oilogosphere (Jones, Eager, Sutton, Barker). These players hit, they block shots, they go to the hard areas of the ice, and quite often, players who don't have the 'broad range of skills' are often eminently coachable and more amenable to playing a role that fits within the context of a team system.
As they exist now, advanced stats can never properly quantify all of the dirty work a hockey player can do to help his team win games. Plays such as finishing your check, taking a hit to make a play, conscientiously marking your man on the backcheck, a D man working over a defender in the slot or simply finding an open lane to dump the puck and relieve pressure when the team is scrambling in the D zone.
Omark is an undeniably pretty player. I think the jury is still very much out on how productive offensively he'll be in this league and how much he actually contributes to the team winning hockey games on a nightly basis. Yes, Ryan Jones falls down more and is not a 'pretty' player to watch. He's also a guy that will unselfishly pass the puck on an open net opp, risk taking a punch in the face to defend a teammate, or happily accept whatever amount of icetime Renney will give him. Who would you rather have in your foxhole?
At the end of the day, there is only 1 stat that really matters - wins. Last night the team won without Linus Omark in the lineup. Works for me.
Lee: Omark wins battles. I know it's easy to think of him as Schremp, but he's opposite Schremp in many ways.
ReplyDeleteOmark is a good player, an NHL player, but there are probably just not enough spots on the roster for him on the Oilers long term.
ReplyDeleteLife is about making choices.
The Oilers are likely to choose RNH, Eberle, and Gagner over Omark.
The Oilers would probably like to choose Hemsky over Omark.
The Oilers are likely to choose Hartikainen (and Pitlick) over Omark and Jones longer term.
And as 4th line options, the Oilers are likely to choose Petrell and Eager over Omark.
There is just no roster spot where Omark is projecting to be the top option.
It is probably better for Omark, the person, to be eventually be moved to a team where he would be the top option for a roster spot.
@ Bar Qu
ReplyDeleteOh i know about it's common usage here, but you get full marks for the perfect usage ;)
@ Woodguy
I wouldn't call those my optimal lines either, i just think it would be nice from a player evaluation standpoint to see what Omark can do with veterans. I think these are lines that would still work in terms of team success.
@ Clakstein
I didn't see the game last night but by my eye i think Barker has been good enough. This is a player who i think the payoff is expected to happen midway through the season as he regains his confidence. I'm not saying he is good, but i don't think he has been nearly as awful as we were lead to believe he would be. Most NHL teams have a guy on the backend at least as poor. At this point i don't resign him, but i haven't been completley dismayed either. Sutton can be very useful in a defined role (PK, defensive zonestarts), and he makes nice little veteran moves to buy time. I think he manages to protect his lack of speed somewhat well but is prone to the odd terrible pass to no one. He's idealy a 7th guy but i've been happy enough with him so far.
Are Barker and Sutton great - no. But they have been better than expected so far. Sutton is definitely a serviceable NHL defensemen.
ReplyDeleteI am not decided either way about Omark. He has the talent, but I don't know if he'll ever make that a consistent 50 point a year thing. I have a suspicion he is lacking a bit for top end speed and it's hurting him. Perhaps like Eberle he can grow his game past it.
I know if I was in his position I would be doing everything possible to nail down a spot. At the end of the day, fringe over aged rookies (and nearly every other player) have to appease their masters whether they like it or not. We'll see how smart he is and how good he is at "team".
I posted something similar to this two or three days ago and my idea is i don;t see where 23 fits in.
ReplyDeleteif you agree that he isn't gonna see top two line rw time - and I believe we can - then where does he fit. the PP looks like it's gonna be OK without him and he's not gonna kill penalties so where does he play.
what we're missing is if 89 or 83 are dealt for a d and of course that opens things up. but as it is right now with 5 settling in and 77 making only one bad mistake a game and 44 looking like an absolute find, there isn't an urgency to pick up another d. in fact that guy might be 58 when he comes back from okc.
not everyone is gonna be cliff johnson and with 89 getting a look on the wing and young 57-83 showing so much promise down the middle that gums the winger works that much more. plus, 56 is bubbling under down in okc and there's no way he's still there past the 20 game point if he's averaging close to a ppg. also, pitlick;s drawing a lot of praise early.
so im ok with dealing him and i predict that if he does break out somewhere else it's on a team that will give him the world both overall TOI wise and on the PP. and that's not something the Oilers can afford to do right now or really need to do for that matter.
Dennis:I see him as being a nice option if the team decides to move Hemsky along. If Hemsky leaves, both EV and PP time should be available.
ReplyDeleteAt the very least, I wouldn't trade him until something very nice was offered. There's no reason to flush him.
Omark wins battles. I know it's easy to think of him as Schremp, but he's opposite Schremp in many ways.
ReplyDeleteNot disputing that, but daresay there's a sizeable gab btw 'he's not Scremp' and 'he a better hockey player than Jones' He's definitely a more 'skilled' hockey player than Jones. Unfortunately skill does not always translate into something of import. Witness for the defence: Jason Bonsignore. In terms of what Omark contributes towards the team winning, Renney is of the opinion that Jones is the better option.
What's also interesting is the considerable gap btw how the Oilogosphere typically values Jones (4th line or HS) vs. how Renney sees him. Given Horc's line is getting the tough minutes, an argument could be made that Jones is playing on the team's top line or at the very least the 1B line.
The only possible explanation I can arrive at here is that professional hockey coaches don't manage their squads as if they are fantasy teams. They actually consider things like game plans and the players that best fit those game plans. Either that or Renney is just way too fixated on the 18 goals Jones scored last year vs the 5 that Omark did. How can he possibly be overlooking REL CORSI in his lineup decisions? It's 2011 for crying out loud!
Don't know if it was visible on TV last night, but the Oilers got hosed on that Rangers 5-on-3. They didn't start the penalty clock on either penalty when the puck dropped, for what felt like ten or twelve seconds.
ReplyDeleteAt the stoppage the refs were talking to the timekeeper, and they actually ADDED an extra second to each penalty.
Lee: Do you really think Ryan Jones is driving the bus on the Horcoff-Smyth line? If Smyth had been on Jones line all last season (with Horcoff) RJ's numbers would look much better.
ReplyDeleteI'm fine with Jones where he is, and am not suggesting that the Oilers put Omark in the slot instead of Jones.
I'm saying that there's no need to flush Omark for less than 100 cents on the dollar if that's what ends up being the situation.
And I'm also saying we're just a few games into the season, and there's a lot of congratulating going on around the blogosphere for a team with 12 goals in 7 games.
Omark can help do the toughest thing in hockey: score goals.
NBC got the rugby world cup final?
ReplyDeleteIs there a TV out now that lets you taser shitbag commentators? I guess not. Oake's plugs would be glowing red.
LT, the bigger point I'm trying to make here is twofold.
ReplyDelete1) The Oilogosphere demonstrates an inherent bias towards skill players over the lunchpail guys. I'm suggesting a winning team needs both, and we need to better consider the unquantifiable contributions as well rather than continually banging the gavel to elevate the skill players at the expense of the lunchpail crew. The Oil have shown us in the past what happens when you have all skill and no grit and the results are decidedly underwhelming.
2) I am thankful to you and the others in the Oilogosphere who've opened up my eyes to advanced stats and how they can be applied to better illuminate the understanding of individual player and overall team performance. It's given me a greater appreciation for the game as a whole. That said, it often seems as if conclusions being reached are on the basis of quantitative analysis alone with not nearly enough consideration paid to qualitative analysis.
To your question specifically, no, I'm certainly not of the belief that Jones is driving the bus. But he IS an effective player because he is willing to pay a physical price to make a play. Omark does win battles but he's also defensively sporadic and does not spend time of any significance in the slot where the greatest % of goals are actually scored. Yes, he can 'help' score goals, but so does Jones as much as the Oilogosphere want to overlook that fact. Bottom line: garbage goals can be every bit as effective as fancy dangles even if they lack the 'pretty' factor.
is there any reason why anyone should or would offer 100 cents on the dollar for him. what would that be. a second rounder from a good team or third from a bad, say late 50s and early 60s.
ReplyDeleteif 83 comes back then you could keep 23 around along with 37 as the extra forwards and get rid of 16 and i would be fine with that; but he would have to be as well.
The Oilogosphere demonstrates an inherent bias towards skill players over the lunchpail guys.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why guys like Shawn Horcoff and Fernando Pisani are so roundly despised around here. The Oilogosphere demonstrates a bias (not an inherent one) towards players who help win hockey games. The reason that advanced stats don't capture the dirty work done by guys like Ben Eager is that there's no evidence that said work does much of anything to help win hockey games.
Dennis: Which is why you don't trade him now. There's not a market. But we do know someone will get injured and that Omark can do some things.
ReplyDeleteLee: We're never going to agree on Jones. I'm ripping around the internet today and seeing some amazing things being said about Jones.
I can't see it. I mean, he does have 2 goals but doesn't anyone remember how they were scored?
Linus Omark could have scored both AND done a twirl.
The reason that advanced stats don't capture the dirty work done by guys like Ben Eager is that there's no evidence that said work does much of anything to help win hockey games.
ReplyDeleteNo quantitative analysis. There is a plethora of qualitative analysis to support this.
This is not confined to hockey btw. The average fan tends to follow the puck or ball. Hence QBs or fancy stickhandlers tend to get a lot of the attention. Much like a gritty checker or stay-at-home d-man, no one really appreciates an effective nose guard or fullback and the contribution they make towards executing game plans and winning games.
The exception of course is the actual professional coaches and players that do this for a living. They realize the value of self sacrifice, team work and attitude and what these immeasurable intangibles contribute towards winning championships.
You may have noticed that it's not always the most skilled/talented team that wins the Stanley Cup. Perhaps you'd care to explain that and how that jibes with your belief that building a winning hockey team can be purely reduced to statistical evaluation?
There is a plethora of qualitative analysis to support this.
ReplyDeleteGames are decided on a quantitative basis (i.e. quantity of goals). If a given trait cannot be quantified (by being linked to the scoring or prevention of goals), then it is necessarily irrelevant to winning hockey games.
Now, not everything that could be quantified has been quantified. But the solution is to try to quantify more things, not to chalk things up to "intangibles".
You may have noticed that it's not always the most skilled/talented team that wins the Stanley Cup. Perhaps you'd care to explain that and how that jibes with your belief that building a winning hockey team can be purely reduced to statistical evaluation?
First, this business of statistics only considering "skill" is your own invention. Statistics factor in all sorts of "lunchpail" stuff (blocked shots, for example). What they tend not to factor in are Thunderous Body Checks, because there's little or no evidence that those have much effect on hockey games.
Second, people who believe in statistics also tend to believe in something called "variance". People who believe in intangibles tend to ask things like "How come the most skilled team doesn't win the Stanley Cup every year?"
To put it more succintly, math was telling Chiarelli at the start of last season to trade Tim Thomas and roll with Tuukka Rask. Fortunately, because it is one of the most compelling aspects of professional sports, the human spirit often triumphs over cold calculation.
ReplyDeleteFrom the same team, Brad Marchand is another perfect example. Math was not predicting this player to be one of the dominant players in the postseason. And yet, improbable as it seemed, it occurred.
Once and a while, someone like a Tyler Dellow will use stats for predictive reasons (i.e. Khabibulin is overvalued and this is a bad signing). THAT is impressive particularly when the prediction proves well founded. Unfortunately, 95% of the analysis being thrown out is hindsight analysis used to justify a position or perspective. That seems decidely less impressive and useful IMHO.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe reason that advanced stats don't capture the dirty work done by guys like Ben Eager is that there's no evidence that said work does much of anything to help win hockey games.
ReplyDeleteThis is what's known as qualitative evidence of bias btw. The evidence could very well exist. The reality is you don't have a viable model to gather the data and/or your inherent bias precludes your interest in subjecting the hypothesis to appropriate analysis.
Quantitative data has also shown that the odds were prohibitively against life ever evolving on Earth. Sometimes the numbers fall short.
ReplyDeleteThey do?
Did you read that webpage before you linked to it Schitzo?
ReplyDeleteAs many observers have pointed out, the Drake equation is a very simple model that does not include potentially relevant parameters.
I would hope the contributors to the site would be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that there are numerous instances when the same data set can arrive at two diametrically opposed conclusions based on the model chosen. The creation of life on earth is certainly one of these scenarios.
Games are decided on a quantitative basis (i.e. quantity of goals). If a given trait cannot be quantified (by being linked to the scoring or prevention of goals), then it is necessarily irrelevant to winning hockey games.
ReplyDeleteQuantitative data has also shown that the odds were prohibitively against life ever evolving on Earth. Sometimes the numbers fall short.
The issue here isn't that the contributions of someone like Eager are irrelevant. It's that your current data models cannot possibly address all of the quantifiable factors that determine a positive outcome in a fluid decision sport like hockey.
I've amended the original post because you've conceded the data isn't comprehensive at this time in your post above.
Eager's contributions are relevant, can be measured and are often negative. The blogosphere can't punish the Oilers for having an enforcer.
ReplyDeleteThe Oilers have to do it themselves.
Lee I don't think your comment about the lack of love for the "lunchpail" type players throughout the Oilosphere is really accurate.
ReplyDeleteShawn Horcoff is probably the best example. LT and various other parties have spent more type advocating on his behalf than some of the defense bar do for career criminals.
Jason Smith, Fernando Pisani, Steve Staois and Radek Dvorak were all favourite sons of the Oilosphere at one point. Staois and Pisani became less effective due to age and injury but in and around the 2005-2006 season they were embraced.
So strictly speaking I do feel your comments regarding bias are somewhat inaccurate.
There is always the group of commenters who come our way from HFers who insist that if defensemen aren't throwing bone jarring hits, and forwards aren't scoring 35 goals they are useless and we should play _______ our promising prospect. Variously advocates for Rob Shremp Hockey and the pugilism of Theo Peckham. They also rail about how Tom Gilbert is what's wrong with this team. Generally speaking its like Don Cherry's fetish for toughness and pugilism merges with Pierre McGuire's slightly creepy boosterism for 18 year olds.
Now its not that these people don't appreciate lunch pail players. Its just that they want their roleplayers to be knuckle chucking, glass shattering neaderthals as opposed to effective fore/back checkers who can make a pass. They just don't know better and I like to think these blogs if they stick around long enough do alot to promote a more educated and complete view of the game.
LT, my two points were 1) qualitative analysis is not receiving appropriate weight in the conclusions being reached & 2) there is inherent bias against players of a particular type on the Oilogosphere.
ReplyDeleteSteve Smith's reply indicates his belief that 1) anything other than quantitative is irrelevant and 2) there's no evidence to support the hypothesis that the 'dirty work' I described earlier contributes to winning hockey games. He also concedes existing data isn't sufficient to quantify all contributions at this time.
IMHO, his concession on the data availability makes his conclusion on the 2nd point questionable. In regards to the irrelevance of qualitative data, I find this particularly comedic given that qualitative analysis has been widely embraced in the field of statistical analysis as an essential compliment to quantitative analysis particularly in behavioral studies which is obviously relevant to the discussion at hand.
Certainly, SS does not speak for everyone. But from what I've seen, there are certainly a large contingent of posters who would be inclined to agree with his two conclusions. If not, I gladly retract the inference of inherent bias.
As an aside, an interesting topic has occurred to me on the basis of this exchange. Given the importance of sample sizes, an argument can be made that advanced stats can be absolutely effective in the acquisition of undervalued players (ala Moneyball). However, the value of the numbers may be more negligible when applied to in season or in game roster moves when the sample sizes are naturally smaller and the decisions more immediate and evolving. With comprehensive data available, Renney could consider a season sim comparing Jones v Omark in different situations. However, I can't foresee a scenario whereby a head coach would ever embrace that approach 100% however as it would potentially eliminate the 'saw him good' qualitative evidence that many coaches consider so vital to their inherent skillset.
Much like Billy Beane, the numbers guys will be naturally frustrated as their numbers can put the best theoretical team on the field/ice, but this quantitative approach will be then be trumped by a coach favoring a qualitative approach to in game and in season decisions.
Would be interesting if you could divide the league into 3 equal segments (quantitative only, qualitative only, and both) and see which approach generates the best winning results over time. Which approach would you favour?
Lee: Are you Don Zimmer?
ReplyDeleteChris, lunchpail may have been the wrong choice of words to categorize the bias. The common denominator seems to be that the Oilogosphere is biased against slow skaters. Those players seem to draw the greatest ire ond ongoing criticism. As LT's post today indicates, Barker's numbers aren't too far out of whack with REs, but you wouldn't know it from the amount of venom thrown this player's way thus far.
ReplyDeleteLee: Are you Don Zimmer?
ReplyDeleteAfraid not LT, I liked the Spaceman. Care to elaborate on how that comparison is pertinent to the discussion at hand.
Chris, it would also appear that 'enforcers' (whatever that means) are generally frowned upon as well.
ReplyDeleteSome players fight. Whether they do or not seems fairly irrelevant to me in determining whether they bring other meaningful contributions towards winning. Yes, Ben Eager fights. So does Jarome Iginla.
Lee: I have a buddy who argues that Don Zimmer was the ultimate in game manager because he made so many completely crazy decisions.
ReplyDeleteIt was an impossible argument to win. Anyone who has followed Zimmer's career knows he's all about the things that have been proven to cost runs and wins, but Zim just kept on doing them.
For Zimmer, a platoon was a wild idea. He'd suicide squeeze at any time, he'd sac more than any manager since the big war.
And to my buddy, that meant he was brilliant. I could never win the argument because there was never any common ground.
I'd say "he lets his guy swing away 3-0 even if it's the 8th place hitter!" and my friend would say "I know, he's brilliant!"
I mean, we have to agree on the value of things. Otherwise we're going to end up discussing Don Zimmer as the greatest manager ever.
And I'm too damn old to do that again. Seriously.
btw, that argument is from 1988 and we're still friends. :-)
ReplyDelete@ Woodguy
ReplyDelete[i] By my eye they are carrying the puck into the Ozone when possible and only dumping when its the best option.
Haven't seen too much clutch and grab either, just trapping the neutral zone. [/i]
The only line carrying the puck in with any regularity is the kid line, with the lines centered by Horcoff and Belanger dumping often.
Also, I saw numerous times the last few games that the Oilers played a forward back in the neutral zone.
With that kind of play it's difficult to get sustained offensive pressure (though they did so at times last night) and way too often on the dump they get one scoring chance per offensive zone.
If they players buy into the system, and can turn their offensive zone play into more goals, fine. But it seems to me that the system is given supreme importance, even over individual player skill.
Are we trading a few wins now for the offensive development of our young players?
We have to agree on the value of things...
ReplyDeleteAnd we don't? I know you categorize yourself as a math guy LT, but I've seen you factor qualitative 'saw him good' analysis into your assessments on an almost daily basis. I believe that's the correct and balanced approach.
Because you lean to the quantitative side however, I think this creates an inherent bias that prejudices your qualitative analysis of certain players who don't grade out favourably on the numbers side to start. It's also why you rush to defend players that you see grading favorably on the quantitative side (e.g. Gilbert, Hemsky) when others see them as less than stellar from a qualitative perspective. This is completely natural. No one is free of bias. It's part of being human.
Further, being the analytical type, it seems strange to you when the random chaos of the universe rears up in the form of a Don Zimmer, John Druce or Chris Kontos. I totally get that. It mystifies the hell out of me as well.
If I'm making any one point here, it's that there is value in admitting our limitations or the limitations of the data or facts that we have available to us. Much like Einstein was revered for admitting his limitations, I think it's a sign of true intelligence when people admits that there's much more we don't know than we do. Hence, why I feel compelled to challenge folks on unequivocal statements like 'Omark is a better hockey player than Jones' or 'if a given trait cannot be quantified (by being linked to the scoring or prevention of goals), then it is necessarily irrelevant to winning hockey games.'
IMO The reality of our existence is that absolute truths are far rarer than we appreciate.
You're right, we can probably never fully convince the other - which is absolutely as it should be - and it's entirely conceivable that both our perspectives are valid. My opinion may diverge from yours but I fully respect yours all the same.
Lee: Actually, I'm not one of those who discovers the math, I just adopt what I like. :-) Honestly, I think the math guys would like to hobble me.
ReplyDeleteWell maybe we don't disagree as much as I thought. Let's take Ben Eager. I'm not foolish enough to think he's this generation's John Ferguson (an enforcer who played alongside Beliveau and others as a skilled policeman) but that he might find a role where he could pop 15 goals a year playing a role similar to Jones.
Fair?
Now, I also know that he takes some of the dumbest penalties this side of the Pecos, so that's a down arrow.
Plus, although he can take and make a pass (I put high value on that), he can also miss point blank chances because he has hands of stone.
So I don't want him as a regular with Hall and RNH or anything.
But I do think he could score enough to play a line up sometimes.
Would you agree with that?
This is not confined to hockey btw. The average fan tends to follow the puck or ball. Hence QBs or fancy stickhandlers tend to get a lot of the attention...no one really appreciates an effective nose guard or fullback and the contribution they make towards executing game plans and winning games.
ReplyDeleteYet their contributions are quantifiable. Name a position in Football and there are a litany of statistics to quantify their contributions towards winning games.
To be fair, I haven't arrived at any final conclusions on Eager as yet because I haven't had nearly as much occasion to watch him. But what I have seen of this player with other teams certainly jibes with your assessment.
ReplyDeleteWhat I would anticipate from Eager is a serviceable energy line player with an edge.
Where these players take on more value is in an extended series when they can be of value in punishing the opposition defence on an aggressive forecheck or dump-in. Teams losing playoff series have provided anecdotal evidence that such players are effective in 'wearing them down' over the duration of a series. It's the kind of thing you wouldn't get from Omark in a million years which sort of reduces his role to Top 6 or bust IMO.
Yet their contributions are quantifiable. Name a position in Football and there are a litany of statistics to quantify their contributions towards winning games.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, the linear nature of football (like baseball) lends itself to more robust and definitive statistical analyses. I would still say these roles go underappreciated by the average fan, pundit, etc.
Tiger, out of curiosity, what metrics would you use to appraise the impact of a nosetackle? Their job by definition is gap control and to occupy blockers (ideally two at least) to free up the players around them to fly to the ball and make tackles. Quite possibly one of the most thankless positions in sport.
ReplyDeleteLain: well as long as 23 isn't poisonous being the 13th and 14th forward then that's fine with me.
ReplyDeleteDennis: Cool. What's up with the Titans?
ReplyDeleteAnd what the hell is this about Farrell going back to Boston? WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON AROUND HERE?
ReplyDeleteI like that Renney does that even to Golden Big Big Future Star Line. Play the system or you don't play.
ReplyDeleteI'm with WG. Renney is using every bow in his quiver to promote systems play before the infirmary awakens for second breakfast. It's a lot easier to deal your talented prospects in among the ravage when there's consistency from one line to another in defensive responsibilities.
I think it's too soon to say we have a scoring problem when we've yet to play a full period behind by a goal whistle to whistle without scoring. There were 12 minutes in the 3rd against the Canucks where scoring a goal was a pressing matter and we didn't get it done. We were trailing Nashville by a goal over mostly the middle frame for about 25 minutes, then our woeful offence uncorked for three.
I don't agree that sitting Omark telegraphs his value to the organization from their side. I'm sure he was told what Renney expects and he's been shown tape of falling short. If he takes this as a snub rather than an achievable directive, there could be disgruntlement and a falling out over time. There's a tendency in strictly run organizations to hang a disgruntled figure from the yard arm from time to time to show they mean business. This has a calming effect on those who capitulate. Ritual sacrifice is sometimes a good investment.
Omark's tight collar can only be more uncomfortable after being pole vaulted by RNH in seven games, and then muscled sideways by guys of more utility on the PK. I do hope he finds his role. When ritual sacrifice consumes touched-by-god, well, it makes for good reading 2500 years later. There's established precedent for thinking this through carefully.
I think Ebs has a tough role on the strawberry line (nick of the day: all three straws stir this drink). The other two guys are both capable of driving the play, and they've likely been told to play on instinct. Ebs with his big brain has likely been told to read the play, fill the gaps, and be ready for anything, so he's playing with wiles rather than instinct. Yeah, I think that costs you a half step on your snag and bag reflex. I suspect Renney would be pretty happy to see Ebs roll his eyes at the stallions before they need a benching. Hollow threat? Don't count on it. He's empowering Ebs to enforce standards when instincts run hot.
Our other goal-drought goat, MPS, is the kind of guy I can envision developing a vibe for when the sweet outlet pass is locked and loaded. He thinks like a defenceman, and good defencemen learn when to jump into the play; as a forward he'll be making his decisions a little closer to his own zone. We haven't seen him do much of that from what I've read: on his side, there hasn't been much call to open the game up, and our quarterback of candy lobs is still finding his stride.
I could be wildly wrong on my reading of MPS since I don't watch a lot of footage. I'm just going on my sense of the kinds of risk profiles you see at the poker table. I don't think he enjoys the nervous decision making of being a step or two over extended. He prefers it when the other guy makes the first mistake. Perhaps he'll take his risks as horse pills when he's confident he can double down. Meanwhile, he'll soon learn some new moves paired with Smitty including one he will have practiced in his brain a thousand times since yesterday evening. Personally, I'm far from concerned.
Omark is not the perfect fit for the roster as presently constituted as we all know. I don't doubt Tambi would trade him for full value IOPI (for the crossword crowd), though it's hard to say what Tambi thinks full value might be. Sitting him mainly suggests they view him as a work in progress.
I don't yet read it as a value statement. I think it's up to Linus where this goes.
As much as the discussion of line combos is entertaining, I think we will see a lot of the blender this year. It won't be as much a response to poor results as it will be due to injury and responding to the opponent and home/away situations.
ReplyDeleteI would not be surprised to see the kids split up on away games to avoid tough minutes.
Having a good stable of extras to throw into the mix depending on the situation is a luxury.
It would be a great improvement to have the team be able to trade from a position of strength for a change. Until the Hemsky contract is resolved, no movement of Gagner or Omark should be contemplated.
At present the team is performing better than expected defensively and the lack of offense has not hurt especially.
I do not miss ELPH
LT: I can tune them out quickly and when they are good I'm fully invested but when they're bad I just move on.
ReplyDeleteSunday's is still about gambling and watching football and also a chance to hang out with a couple of the boys; we don't drink like we used to so this is an excuse for a day to hang out.
This year the Titans season was over the day Kenny Britt went down.
Dennis: Yeah, I guess it passed me by, because I thought once Chris Johnson was signed it would be business as usual.
ReplyDeleteLee:
ReplyDeleteI agree that some folks use stats to support their ideas without proper rigour and then use them as a club to try and beat others into submission. Hockey stats is a baby still and there aren't yet enough agreed upon metrics to even the debate.
And many stats folk don't do that. I would say that qualitatative analysis would also support that if Omark was playing with Smyth and Horcoff he might be doing pretty well, and Jones the reverse. Jones is benefitting from good fortune and likely would be the goat like last year playing on the 4th without two of the league's better vets.
LT:
Agreed that Omark, or anyone else shouldn't get flushed. I truly hope Rentambelowe are on the ball and are ready to deal as things happen (meaning they know who they want to keep). A lot of GM's have little windows of crazy it seems and you have to be ready to go when the silly hat gets taken out of the drawer.