Runaway Train

Lowetide
October 23 2011 09:35AM

I'm worried about you, I'm worried about me

The curves around midnight aren't easy to see

To try and get off now is about as insane

As those who wave lanterns at runaway trains

-Rodney Crowell

I wonder if these kids who go high in the draft have any idea about the kind of impact they have on their bosses. Should RNH and Taylor Hall become impact players and bring glory to the Oilers, GM Steve Tambellini and coach Tom Renney (plus others) will see their stock rise in the NHL men's club and possibly have a long run of success in Edmonton.

I think this week got away from Tom Renney a little, and I'm not at all certain it was his fault. Although we speculate on what he meant, let's review his words.

  • Renney: “It’s important to know that we’re coaching to win, too. As much as those three kids with Ryan can help generate offence, it’s also a case of what you take, but what you leave."
  • Renney: “We have to work that angle, as well, and make sure that he continues to make a solid contribution to our team, so at the end of the day when you look at his situation specifically, we look at the body of work here and determine whether he’s going to stay here or we have to send him back. I want to make sure that we’re able to go after our games as well at that same time not having given the kid the short-end of the stick in terms of his evaluation to be here.”

Source is here. All of these Renney quotes are reflected in Robin Brownlee's recent item here at ON--the head coach is asking them to do their homework, eat their veggies, do the due diligence.

I think Renney's tactics were also a little about getting the kids to re-focus in the offensive end. There was a "too cute" look to their performances lately, trying to make a quick move in tight to get a better chance. The problem is that NHL defensemen will shut that down tighter than a drum in a heartbeat, so boring things like getting it deep or shooting it instead of stickhandling are the better percentage play.

Last night's RNH goal is an example of what the kid can do--it was a quick release made at a point in the sortie when a pass was still an option and the play was still developing--and probably brought a smile from the coach.

I talked to Jason Gregor on Nation Radio yesterday and he had a great explanation for all the fuss surrounding coach Renney's words about RNH. Gregor was at the media scrum (it was about 5 reporters) and explained it this way:

  • Gregor: "He (Renney) was throwing out a few ideas and I think a few guys jumped the gun on it. He said it was an option (HS) he might look at, but you're not going to sit down a guy who has 40% of your goals."
  • Gregor: "He told all three kids that 'you guys are in great position with the puck, you have to shoot the puck.'"

I think Jason nailed it. This isn't much ado about nothing, but it's also not the story it turned into after the fact. Tom Renney's job is to win hockey games and not screw up RNH's development. If the kid isn't performing at a level that suggests he can contribute this season they should send him away. And the decision about whether or not to send him back is close, so it is understandable that the coach is considering options like a healthy scratch.

WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?

We've talked at length about the value of elevating kids during their entry level contract. Some feel RNH should go back to junior no matter what, others feel he needs to prove that he can contribute at least offensively.

Here's a bulletin: this kid can do things in all three zones. He is a brilliant turnover machine, going stealth at times or simply picking a pocket at other times. He's made more Doug Weight saucer brilliant passes in 7 games than I've seen since the actual Doug Weight, and last night he murdered New York City with a splendid release that Joe Sakic would have been proud to own.

Tom Renney, being of sound mind, will keep Nugent-Hopkins this season and play the living daylights out of him. However, he should also have the freedom to HS RNH or any player if he feels that's an option that will help his player and team win hockey games.

Should the Oilers send RNH back to junior, then I believe we can openly question their stated mission: that winning is what this season is all about and all things will be about winning hockey games (over development). NOTHING Tom Renney has said this fall suggests that is a possibility. Look, the kid has not only passed he's getting straight A's. What can we complain about? A few faceoffs? An unusual haircut? An overbite? 

Really, I've got nothing. He's already doing things some of the older kids haven't figured out and he's doing them in defensive and offensive zones. He can't fight and he can't play goal. After that, we're just going to have to watch him.

In Edmonton.

C2a6955161684b5e3189319acfa5ebe4
Lowetide has been one of the Oilogosphere's shining lights for over a century. You can check him out here at OilersNation and at lowetide.ca. He is also the host of Lowdown with Lowetide weekday mornings 10-noon on Team 1260.
Avatar
#51 cableguy - 2nd Tier Fan
October 23 2011, 04:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
melancholyculkin wrote:

Well I probably read that article, thought it was a decent argument and so it stuck. Not quite sure what your point is here.

usually one gives credit to where they found said info, rather than passing it off as their own...

edit: i should state, im not trying to suggest that was your intention. i have no clue what your intention was. it honestly could have been pure co-incidence. my original post was meant more as a observation, not meant to directly call anyone out for anything. I could have worded the post better, that was my bad.

Avatar
#52 BlacqueJacques
October 23 2011, 07:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

I love how a first overall pick with 7 points in 7 games - including 5 goals - and who has demonstrated amazing stick skills, agility, speed and judgment, is being judged as a "close call" to send back to the minors.

Phbbt. Don't manufacture drama where there is none.

Avatar
#53 Captain Obvious
October 23 2011, 08:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F wrote:

Yup, that's exactly it. Two major issues keeping him from success IMO. I can see what people get excited for, I really can, but its not a game of keep away. When you've got 50 seconds per shift, and on average half or better is spent in the defensive or neutral zone you can't then spend another 10 seconds spinning around/with your back to the net. And then when you do decide to do something with the puck, you do something flashy that excites the fans but leaves your teamate with a low probibility chance.

Like when he takes a puck, dodges a puck and sets up Lander in front of the net all by himself. Or when he creates chances for an entire period and then get benched the next game.

Omark isn't the greatest player in the world. However, the selective memory of fans who are predisposed to dislike him is either amusing or sad.

Omark is the only player who can create chances for other players and still gets labelled selfish. It's one thing not to like a player however when you allow it to colour you perception of reality it becomes a moral failing.

Avatar
#54 Eddie Shore
October 23 2011, 09:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@Captain Obvious

He has 0 pts in 5 games. That is the reality.

Avatar
#55 Eddie Shore
October 23 2011, 10:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@Captain Obvious

You're right, the organization is out to get him. C'mon man.

If he puts some points up he will play. Simple as that.

Avatar
#56 Captain Obvious
October 23 2011, 10:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F wrote:

@ Captain Obvious. You know you are grasping at straws when all you've got left is conspiracy theory.

It isn't a conspiracy. Here are some things that we know are true.

1) We know perceptions are affected by expectations. 2) We know expectations are affected by discourse. 3) We know that people retrospectively redefine narratives based upon outcomes.

The question isn't whether this happens. It is a fact that it does and it doesn't require a conspiracy The only question is whether these very common phenomenon are occurring in this case. I've given some preliminary reasons that it is. I first noticed it happening last season. What I've only recently noticed is that others have independently observed these phenomena in this case.

I know that know one likes to be told that their thoughts are not free but you're thoughts are not free.

Avatar
#57 OldSchool
October 24 2011, 09:03AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
Eddie Shore wrote:

He has 0 pts in 5 games. That is the reality.

He's not the only forward either.

I don't understand why people compare Omark to a point - per - game, first overall pick, who gets top line minutes with the best wingers... And plenty of PP time.

Avatar
#58 melancholyculkin
October 24 2011, 09:14AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
Archaeologuy wrote:

Is it mid-term season in the Sociology department, or is your thinking this convoluted all the time?

He isnt a very good player. He isnt effective offensively and he is a defensive zone nightmare. That's why he was slated to be the extra forward, that's why the coach doesnt trust him, that's why he's finding so much time in the Press Box.

I cant believe that you cant look at his benchings and press box time and link them to his complete and utter lack of ability to grasp the coach's defensive system. He is irresponsible away from the puck. He gives up more than he creates. He was fine when the motto was ELPH, but when wins matter Omark shouldnt be on the ice.

This is exactly what Captian Obvious is getting at. Your conclusions are not supported by the available data and yet you keep stating them as if they are a fact. It's called the illusion of validity.

Over a much larger sample size than 5 games the data says that Omark can score. He scored 27 points in 51 games last year. A pace that when projected out over a full season matches golden boy Jordan Eberle's output. He did this while getting killed by the percentages. 957 PDO.

He scored over a PPG in the Swedish Elite League 3 years ago, and .643 PPG in the KHL two years ago. Then he came over and scored over a PPG in the AHL.

Everywhere that Omark has played he has produced offense. So stating unequivocally that Omark isn't effective offensively is ignoring the evidence.

Omark was a positive Corsi player last year. Even adjusting for zone start he's break even. So I'm not quite sure where the idea that he's giving it all back is coming from. It's also not in his scoring chance numbers:

http://www.coppernblue.com/2011/4/30/2144221/linus-omark-scoring-chances-2010-2011

Middle of the pack. Other than a couple bad games to start this year, where is the evidence that Omark is a defensive liability? There isn't any that I can find.

Oiler fans don't like Omark because he doesn't have long hair or give cliche-filled interviews.

Avatar
#59 Archaeologuy
October 24 2011, 09:48AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@melancholyculkin

Cant find the evidence? Watch the game. Note how his man on the point is unchecked and remains that way.

Corsi? You're coming at me with Corsi?

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/Staples+Corsi+numbers+really+that+effective+rating+players/5522724/story.html

Watch the game*. He is a low percentage player who doesnt play well in his own zone. Dont agree? Take it up with the NHL coach who seems to agree more with me than with you.

You know who else did good in other leagues? JF Jacques, Fabian Brunnstrom, and a littany of others who found out that what they did in inferior leagues doesnt work in the NHL.

*Keep in mind that if you watch the game there's a good chance that you WONT see Omark play because he isnt very good and will be in the press box, as per the Coach's decision.

Avatar
#60 Archaeologuy
October 24 2011, 10:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@Captain Obvious

I was calling for the coach to bench him before he ever did.

Can I use evidence like, he missed his assignment against Bouwmeester vs Calgary, or his horrendous +/-, or the fact that his defensive disabilities have been noticed since training camp 1 year ago?

Can I use his terrible shooting % as proof that he makes low % plays, or do I just have to suffice with his Goal totals?

What I'm asking is, what else would you like to overlook in order to try and disqualify the right answer?

Avatar
#61 Archaeologuy
October 24 2011, 11:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@Captain Obvious

And who should come out if he goes back in? He isnt good enough to crack the roster when it's softened by injury. What is going to happen when the Oilers get their best RW back in Hemsky?

Omark isnt good enough to play on this team. There really isnt any other conclusion that can be reached.

Avatar
#62 Archaeologuy
October 24 2011, 01:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@TigerUnderGlass

I dont want to dismiss his previous work entirely, but at the same time it doesnt count for a whole lot either. The only thing that matters to me is what he does for the Oilers.

Avatar
#63 Archaeologuy
October 24 2011, 01:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@melancholyculkin

Ok. So his performance in the NHL cant be judged unless it's judged favourably? Is that what I'm getting from you? Data is inconclusive unless it suggests he's middle of the pack?

Sample size is too small unless it tells us Omark is just fine? Shooting percentage, goals, plus/minus, or the coach's decisions have 0 weight on the analysis of Linus Q. Omark? Good luck with that evaluation carrying any weight. It's a nice excercise though, evaluating a player's effectiveness without ever using his performance on the ice as a determining factor in your judgement.

Do you want to know why Eager and Jones are playing and Omark isnt? They are successful in the roles the coaching staff have given them and Omark is not. That is it. Pretty simple.

Avatar
#64 TigerUnderGlass
October 24 2011, 04:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
Archaeologuy wrote:

He averaged more PP time per game than Smyth has. He's been put in a position to succeed at a specific role. He just hasnt so far.

Omark is the kind of player that Detroit keeps their distance from because he's apparently difficult to coach and coasts in his own zone.

You mean the same Smyth that plays on the same PP unit as Omark and also has no PP points? Weird. Same unit as MPS, who coincidentally also has no PP points. Must all be Omarks fault I guess right?

Are you basing your entire evaluation of his PP contribution on a 14 minute stretch in which NONE of his linemates scored either?

What about last year when Gagner led Oiler forwards in PP minutes with about 200 minutes and had 9 points while Omark had 8 points in 134 minutes? Omark scored at close to the rate of Hall and Eberle, but now after a 14 minutes stretch he can't contribute?

Can I accurately describe your opinion here as being 2nd unit PP minutes is all an offensive player needs to say he had a great opportunity to put up offense, no matter how he is used at evens?

Avatar
#65 melancholyculkin
October 24 2011, 09:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F wrote:

I don't think anyone thinks he CANT score... ie he's incapable of scoring... we think he's incapable of scoring at a rate needed to justify his ice time.

And no that isn't based off 0 goals in 5 games, it's based off 5 goals in 56 games.

Which is where sh% comes in. Again the argument is circular. Omark's shooting percentage is low because he can't score, and he can't score because his shooting percentage is low. Do you see the fallacy?

Omark has a history of high shooting percentages. We know that randomness and luck have a huge influence on shooting percentage. Last season Omark had an onsh% of 6.85. We know that onsh% regresses strongly towards 8.5%. So with time, the Omark should stop getting killed by the percentages and the puck will go in more often for him.

His underlying numbers were strong last year, so the only problem was his low sh%. There are two explanations for this. Omark has "no finish" and his success in Europe and the AHL is all a mirage, or he was unlucky. The former is possible, but seeing how he has a history of high sh% and we know that shooting percentage is highly influenced by luck and randomness and evens out over time, I'll go with where the data is leading me and bet on the latter.

Fun fact: Omark scored 1.78 P/60 at 5v5 last season. A rate identical to Taylor Hall and Jordan Eberle.

Avatar
#66 melancholyculkin
October 23 2011, 11:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Hopkins now has a sh% of 29.4%. If ever something was unsustainable that's it.

Omark on the other hand has both a Sh% of 0% and an onsh% of 0%. Speaking of unsustainable.

I can't wait until the Oilers deal Omark for a 4th round pick, his percentages regress to the mean and he starts scoring at the same time that Hopkins' percentages regress to the mean and he stops scoring.

That'll be fun.

Avatar
#67 gcw_rocks
October 23 2011, 01:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I think you have it right. I would be targeting Johansen out of columbus. If it cost Hemsky and Omark, so be it. RNH and Johansen has your wst and end line centre position settled for the next 10 years.

Avatar
#68 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
October 23 2011, 01:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
melancholyculkin wrote:

Way off base here my friend. 56 games is way, way, way too small a sample size to draw any conclusions about sh%.

Not to mention Omark's got a body of work in Europe and the AHL that suggests he's better than a 6.5% shooter.

My post was somewhat tongue in cheak.

That said, I don't think we can pull out the "reversion to the mean" argument when we don't even know what the players mean is yet (too small of a sample like you said). How can we assume Omark has a better then 6.5% NHL mean to revert back to when he's never hit it?

I wouldn't put too much stock in Omarks AHL/Europe resume, he's a Jason Krog. Puts up good to great numbers against inferior players, but can't translate that success against the best of the best.

Avatar
#69 Quicksilver ballet
October 23 2011, 02:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Please send Hopkins back. One more lotto pick could make a world of difference on this club.

We can't have this kid showing up all our veterans like this. We're towing a fine line here with Hopkins. What's next, trade Gagner,trade Hemsky for more kids like these?

Avatar
#70 cableguy - 2nd Tier Fan
October 23 2011, 02:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
melancholyculkin wrote:

Way off base here my friend. 56 games is way, way, way too small a sample size to draw any conclusions about sh%.

Not to mention Omark's got a body of work in Europe and the AHL that suggests he's better than a 6.5% shooter.

kind of scary you almost word for word ripped that from an article off coppernblue from earlier this summer

Avatar
#71 melancholyculkin
October 23 2011, 04:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F wrote:

My post was somewhat tongue in cheak.

That said, I don't think we can pull out the "reversion to the mean" argument when we don't even know what the players mean is yet (too small of a sample like you said). How can we assume Omark has a better then 6.5% NHL mean to revert back to when he's never hit it?

I wouldn't put too much stock in Omarks AHL/Europe resume, he's a Jason Krog. Puts up good to great numbers against inferior players, but can't translate that success against the best of the best.

We shouldn't just discount the data we have available though. People responded to the sh% argument against Jones by pointing out that he has a history of high percentages in college.

I don't know if anyone's ever done a study about how sh% translates from Europe and the minors to the NHL, but that would be mighty intersting and useful. If I can finish this paper I'm supposed to be working on sometime in the next 5 hours I'll roll around in some numbers tonight and see what I can come up with.

Avatar
#72 melancholyculkin
October 23 2011, 04:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
cableguy - 2nd Tier Fan wrote:

kind of scary you almost word for word ripped that from an article off coppernblue from earlier this summer

Well I probably read that article, thought it was a decent argument and so it stuck. Not quite sure what your point is here.

Avatar
#73 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
October 23 2011, 04:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
melancholyculkin wrote:

We shouldn't just discount the data we have available though. People responded to the sh% argument against Jones by pointing out that he has a history of high percentages in college.

I don't know if anyone's ever done a study about how sh% translates from Europe and the minors to the NHL, but that would be mighty intersting and useful. If I can finish this paper I'm supposed to be working on sometime in the next 5 hours I'll roll around in some numbers tonight and see what I can come up with.

Ya that would be really interesting to see.

That said though, just like any similar stat it isn't "one size fits all".

From what I've seen, I still think the increas in quality of competition for him in the NHL will gobble up any impressive numbers in other leagues.

Avatar
#74 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
October 23 2011, 05:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Archaeologuy wrote:

He just makes too many low percentage plays against NHL defenders. You can only hold onto the puck for so long, especially if you arent at full speed.

Yup, that's exactly it. Two major issues keeping him from success IMO. I can see what people get excited for, I really can, but its not a game of keep away. When you've got 50 seconds per shift, and on average half or better is spent in the defensive or neutral zone you can't then spend another 10 seconds spinning around/with your back to the net. And then when you do decide to do something with the puck, you do something flashy that excites the fans but leaves your teamate with a low probibility chance.

Avatar
#75 Walter Sobchak
October 23 2011, 05:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I’ve been to 3 games so far and I can say this about Omark, the play dies on his stick almost every time he has the puck, whether he gets pushed off the puck, makes a bad pass or just dumps the puck in, he makes very low percentage plays and away from the puck he seems out of position. I wouldn’t complain about Omark if he made better plays with the puck then he has, if his scoring chance’s were more then his give away’s. I do like his effort in the offensive zone but away from the puck he definitely doesn’t try as hard and that drives me nut’s. To bad because I thought he might have a break out year.

At the games this year that I’ve been to, I like to watch Potter play, and while Potter has been an early surprise so far, I cant help but admire Smid! To me he’s been one of the best Oilers this year! I also cant help but cringe every time Whitney’s on the ice, he has been caught out of position at least 5 times, has had the most glaring give aways. Gave up the most odd man rush’s, He has to get better soon.

Avatar
#76 Wanyes bastard child
October 23 2011, 08:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I think the biggest question has to be why that lady is playing "got your nose" with our first overall pick???

Avatar
#77 Jason Gregor
October 23 2011, 08:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
John Chambers wrote:

Fun Fact: Khabibulin leads the league in GAA and SV%.

*from the fine internet visionary who selected the Vodka Prince as his star

He is actually 2nd in SV%...Jonathon Quick is first after three straight shutouts...

Avatar
#78 Forrestt
October 23 2011, 09:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I was thinking about Barker from last night some more and some comments made this morning from Lowetide and friends earlier in this article. From my previous experience I would almost think Barker was on anti-depresant meds... seriously... a lack of emotion, lack of drive, just kinda Being there but not being in the game. For anybody who's ever been on them and tried to play hockey it's tough... I have been there. Heck that season guys could even give me a good whack and I would be like... oh well... any other season there would have been a hack back. Charting Barkers career from high first round draft pick, winning the Stanley Cup, getting a HUGE contract, and then ultimately getting traded and waved would depress me too. Just my 2 cents.

Avatar
#79 Captain Obvious
October 23 2011, 10:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Eddie Shore wrote:

He has 0 pts in 5 games. That is the reality.

Five whole games. Wow.

He was benched a period and a half into the season. That is pretty good evidence that his treatment doesn't have anything to do with production since nothing had happened yet.

On Oil Change they showed their board prior to making the final cuts and Omark was on it as the 13/14th forward this despite the fact that he did put up points in the preseason.

That's the thing with a prejudgment it is just sitting there waiting to be confirmed. Now, I think Renney is a pretty fair minded person. The problem is the misguided idea that a team can have too many offensive minded players. That's ridiculous and it is going to cost the Oilers here.

Avatar
#80 Wanyes bastard child
October 23 2011, 11:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Archaeologuy wrote:

Is it mid-term season in the Sociology department, or is your thinking this convoluted all the time?

He isnt a very good player. He isnt effective offensively and he is a defensive zone nightmare. That's why he was slated to be the extra forward, that's why the coach doesnt trust him, that's why he's finding so much time in the Press Box.

I cant believe that you cant look at his benchings and press box time and link them to his complete and utter lack of ability to grasp the coach's defensive system. He is irresponsible away from the puck. He gives up more than he creates. He was fine when the motto was ELPH, but when wins matter Omark shouldnt be on the ice.

^^ This!

Avatar
#81 The Beaker
October 23 2011, 11:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F wrote:

@ Captain Obvious. It's not that I don't like Omark, it's that I don't like having players in offensive roles that don't produce.

So he's been playing top 6 minutes? With top 6 linemates?

Avatar
#82 The Beaker
October 23 2011, 11:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Archaeologuy wrote:

Is it mid-term season in the Sociology department, or is your thinking this convoluted all the time?

He isnt a very good player. He isnt effective offensively and he is a defensive zone nightmare. That's why he was slated to be the extra forward, that's why the coach doesnt trust him, that's why he's finding so much time in the Press Box.

I cant believe that you cant look at his benchings and press box time and link them to his complete and utter lack of ability to grasp the coach's defensive system. He is irresponsible away from the puck. He gives up more than he creates. He was fine when the motto was ELPH, but when wins matter Omark shouldnt be on the ice.

Send him back down to Junior! He could use a bit of success down there!

oh.... wait.

Avatar
#83 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
October 24 2011, 08:13AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
The Beaker wrote:

So he's been playing top 6 minutes? With top 6 linemates?

Not sure what that has to do with the orginization being out to get him.

Avatar
#84 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
October 24 2011, 08:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Captain Obvious wrote:

It isn't a conspiracy. Here are some things that we know are true.

1) We know perceptions are affected by expectations. 2) We know expectations are affected by discourse. 3) We know that people retrospectively redefine narratives based upon outcomes.

The question isn't whether this happens. It is a fact that it does and it doesn't require a conspiracy The only question is whether these very common phenomenon are occurring in this case. I've given some preliminary reasons that it is. I first noticed it happening last season. What I've only recently noticed is that others have independently observed these phenomena in this case.

I know that know one likes to be told that their thoughts are not free but you're thoughts are not free.

Weak

Avatar
#85 OldSchool
October 24 2011, 09:03AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Eddie Shore wrote:

He has 0 pts in 5 games. That is the reality.

The mysterious double - post

Avatar
#86 OldSchool
October 24 2011, 09:16AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
melancholyculkin wrote:

This is exactly what Captian Obvious is getting at. Your conclusions are not supported by the available data and yet you keep stating them as if they are a fact. It's called the illusion of validity.

Over a much larger sample size than 5 games the data says that Omark can score. He scored 27 points in 51 games last year. A pace that when projected out over a full season matches golden boy Jordan Eberle's output. He did this while getting killed by the percentages. 957 PDO.

He scored over a PPG in the Swedish Elite League 3 years ago, and .643 PPG in the KHL two years ago. Then he came over and scored over a PPG in the AHL.

Everywhere that Omark has played he has produced offense. So stating unequivocally that Omark isn't effective offensively is ignoring the evidence.

Omark was a positive Corsi player last year. Even adjusting for zone start he's break even. So I'm not quite sure where the idea that he's giving it all back is coming from. It's also not in his scoring chance numbers:

http://www.coppernblue.com/2011/4/30/2144221/linus-omark-scoring-chances-2010-2011

Middle of the pack. Other than a couple bad games to start this year, where is the evidence that Omark is a defensive liability? There isn't any that I can find.

Oiler fans don't like Omark because he doesn't have long hair or give cliche-filled interviews.

^^ Amen.

Avatar
#87 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
October 24 2011, 09:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
melancholyculkin wrote:

This is exactly what Captian Obvious is getting at. Your conclusions are not supported by the available data and yet you keep stating them as if they are a fact. It's called the illusion of validity.

Over a much larger sample size than 5 games the data says that Omark can score. He scored 27 points in 51 games last year. A pace that when projected out over a full season matches golden boy Jordan Eberle's output. He did this while getting killed by the percentages. 957 PDO.

He scored over a PPG in the Swedish Elite League 3 years ago, and .643 PPG in the KHL two years ago. Then he came over and scored over a PPG in the AHL.

Everywhere that Omark has played he has produced offense. So stating unequivocally that Omark isn't effective offensively is ignoring the evidence.

Omark was a positive Corsi player last year. Even adjusting for zone start he's break even. So I'm not quite sure where the idea that he's giving it all back is coming from. It's also not in his scoring chance numbers:

http://www.coppernblue.com/2011/4/30/2144221/linus-omark-scoring-chances-2010-2011

Middle of the pack. Other than a couple bad games to start this year, where is the evidence that Omark is a defensive liability? There isn't any that I can find.

Oiler fans don't like Omark because he doesn't have long hair or give cliche-filled interviews.

And yet up in the pressbox he goes.

Avatar
#88 Captain Obvious
October 24 2011, 10:25AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Archaeologuy, do you know what a tautology is?

Assuming you don't, it means that you can't use the coaches decision as evidence that the coaches decision was correct.

Avatar
#89 Captain Obvious
October 24 2011, 11:08AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

If I remember correctly Bowmeester wasn't Omark's guy. Bowmeester was the fourth man on the rush and Omark was the fifth guy back. If I recall correctly Eberle wiffed on that play.

But none of that is to the point. I don't have a problem with Eberle playing instead of Omark, I have a problem with Ryan Jones playing instead of Omark. Ryan Jones should be battling Ben Eager and Pettrell for playing time (and losing).

If it were me when Hemsky comes back I'd put Lander in the AHL and Belanger with Eager/Jones and Petrell, and Gagner centering Paajarvi and Omark. I'd roll four lines and adjust playing time to game circumstances.

Avatar
#90 Archaeologuy
October 24 2011, 11:21AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Captain Obvious

Problem here is about roles and success. Jones has a role on the PK and on the Horc line, and to a great degree they have been successful. Omark had a roll on the PP and with Paajarvi, and to a large extent has been unsuccessful.

While the Horc-Smyth-Jones combo is successful (and Jones is scoring goals) I dont see him moved to make room for Omark.

Avatar
#91 TigerUnderGlass
October 24 2011, 01:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Fabian Brunnstrom

Brunnstrom is an absurd comparable, he never came within a mile of the success Omark had overseas. He couldn't even make the SEL until he was 22.

You make some good points about Omark, because it's true, so far this season he hasn't has the results.

The problem is he clearly has a track record demonstrating that he should probably be able to score in the NHL. You can't just write that off because it fits your narrative to ignore it.

No, it doesn't guarantee he will score, but dismissing it as irrelevant doesn't help your case. It just makes you seem unwilling to look at all the data.

Why don't you just admit you dislike him and leave it at that?

Avatar
#92 melancholyculkin
October 24 2011, 01:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Archaeologuy

So because Corsi challenges your narrative suddenly it's useless?

If Omark was truly so terrible defensively it would reflected in his shot against numbers and his scoring chance WOWY. It is not.

The argument that Renney is right because Omark sucks, and that Omark sucks because Renney is right is pretty cirular.

I think Renney is a good coach and mostly like the way he's using running the bench this year, but the decision to play guys like Jones and Eager over Omark is baffling and flies in the face of the data.

You can't use Omark's sh% as evidence about low percentage plays because the sample size is too small. Randomness soaks sh% data, so much larger sample size is needed to draw any conlusions.

The larger sample size of Omarks play in Europe and the minors suggests that he is better than a 6.5% shooter.

If Omark only made low percentage plays then it would be reflected in low scoring chance numbers. It is not. Omark was middle of the pack in terms of creating scoring chances last year.

None of your arguments have any data to back them up. They rely solely on your own biased "saw him bad" analysis.

Avatar
#93 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
October 24 2011, 02:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Archaeologuy wrote:

Ok. So his performance in the NHL cant be judged unless it's judged favourably? Is that what I'm getting from you? Data is inconclusive unless it suggests he's middle of the pack?

Sample size is too small unless it tells us Omark is just fine? Shooting percentage, goals, plus/minus, or the coach's decisions have 0 weight on the analysis of Linus Q. Omark? Good luck with that evaluation carrying any weight. It's a nice excercise though, evaluating a player's effectiveness without ever using his performance on the ice as a determining factor in your judgement.

Do you want to know why Eager and Jones are playing and Omark isnt? They are successful in the roles the coaching staff have given them and Omark is not. That is it. Pretty simple.

"Sample size is too small unless it tells us Omark is just fine?"

I was just going to say that, funny how sample size is big enough in some cases but too small in others.

We wont have to worry about it much longer though, wont be long now before Omark is out of the league.

Avatar
#94 TigerUnderGlass
October 24 2011, 02:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F wrote:

"Sample size is too small unless it tells us Omark is just fine?"

I was just going to say that, funny how sample size is big enough in some cases but too small in others.

We wont have to worry about it much longer though, wont be long now before Omark is out of the league.

Interesting take. I definitely would put money on Omark having an NHL career.

The idea that a guy with his track record is done without having played a full season yet is absurd.

Omark has played with Belanger and Paajarvi all season. His results are virtually identical to theirs, but he is the problem?

This is exactly the type of player Detroit steals from other teams who didn't understand what they had.

The team doesn't put him in a good position to succeed offensively, and then they are surprised when he doesn't succeed offensively. It's embarrassing.

Avatar
#95 Archaeologuy
October 24 2011, 02:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@TigerUnderGlass

He averaged more PP time per game than Smyth has. He's been put in a position to succeed at a specific role. He just hasnt so far.

Omark is the kind of player that Detroit keeps their distance from because he's apparently difficult to coach and coasts in his own zone.

Avatar
#96 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
October 24 2011, 02:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

Interesting take. I definitely would put money on Omark having an NHL career.

The idea that a guy with his track record is done without having played a full season yet is absurd.

Omark has played with Belanger and Paajarvi all season. His results are virtually identical to theirs, but he is the problem?

This is exactly the type of player Detroit steals from other teams who didn't understand what they had.

The team doesn't put him in a good position to succeed offensively, and then they are surprised when he doesn't succeed offensively. It's embarrassing.

I don't mean soon as in the next 2 weeks, I mean soon as in the next 18 months or so.

I'm sure he'll get a shot somewhere else before packing up and heading home.

Avatar
#97 Smokey
October 24 2011, 03:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I feel sorry for Omark, hes not playing bad at all, and hes obviously not on this organizations radar for the future. The organization needs to either play him or trade him, cause I think its poor asset management to destroy his value if hes eating shrimp cocktail with Teddy Peckman. I hope the organization can trade him to good team, and that he turns into an effective player elsewhere. The overall data on Omark shows he could be an effective second line player capable of putting up 40-50 points per year somewhere, but it doesn`t appear its going to happen here.

The way I see it is that team needs to be working towards having 7-8 core players. You look at Chicago, they have Kane, Toews, Sharp, Hossa, Bolland, Keith, Seabrook, and Crawford. If your looking at the Oilers two years down the road can you honestly say that Omark is in the mix. He`s a complimentary player, not a cornerstone. The cornerstones moving forward are Hall, Eberle, RNH, Hemsky, Whitney (if healthy or still here), probably a probably one of Klefbaum, Marincin, or Gernat, one of Pitlick or Hamilton. The goalie we don`t know if that will be Dubby, Bunz or someone else.

The debate on Omark is how best to handle him from an asset management position. Right now, I don`t believe hes a liability defensively, and if Renney`s sits him in the pressbox then we are not going to see a good return for him. Handled properly he could yield a mid second round draft pick. The way he`s being handled he won`t yield that.

Avatar
#98 Cowbell_Feva
October 24 2011, 03:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Arch-guy, I usually agree with you because you call a spade a spade, and don't read much into bullsh*t statistical reviews-rather you get your take from actually watching the game yourself.

I don't quite agree with you on RNH's speed-or lack thereof- however. I find him to have excellent speed..when he needs it. He seems to already have the defensive zone figured out and many times has stripped players behind the Oilers net and carried the puck out using his speed. Case in point against NYR he literally used great speed to break out of his zone in the 3rd and created a 2 on 1 with Eberle- singlehandedly based on his speed. There was a man that used to wear 66 in Pittsburgh that conserved his energy wisely and used it only when needed.

Now I know he is no Mario, but I'm not sure anyone can knock his speed. Now Andy Sutton maybe..

Avatar
#99 Archaeologuy
October 24 2011, 04:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Cowbell_Feva

Never knocked RNH's speed. Ever.

I think you're looking at a post I made in regard to Omark not carrying the puck with speed.

Avatar
#100 TigerUnderGlass
October 24 2011, 04:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Archaeologuy

Omark is the kind of player that Detroit keeps their distance from because he's apparently difficult to coach and coasts in his own zone.

You mean like Hudler, who has been given chance after chance, or their new prized prospect Tatar?

Comments are closed for this article.