I was definitely one of the criticizers that you talk about in Edmonton’s regard.  To be fair, I think you were pretty dead on with the rest of your predictions, so maybe I am the one wrong with Edmonton.  I also would like to point out before i go on that I am NOT an Edmonton fan.  Quite the opposite, but I try to give teams their due when warranted.

Edmonton was a crap team last year by stats.  It’s right that an abnormal shoot-out winning percentage and a grossly over-the-top shooting percentage at the end of the year pretty much put really good icing over a pile of dog poo of a year.  That said, I believe they also had a lot of bad luck go their way.  Injuries were horrible for them, taking out key players.  Had Garon not stepped up, I think Roloson would not be in Edmonton still as he played abysmal for most of the year.

This year, they did add Cole and Visnovsky.  While alone, this might not make Edmonton make it to the post-season, a healthy Souray, a budding Gilbert and Grebeskov that got lots of ice-time last year to develop quicker.  Add in the same for Gagner, Cogliano, and Nilsson is a HUGE benefit to this team.  Plus their leader Moreau staying healthy and on the ice will help give that team a lot more character that Stortini couldn’t replicate last year.

My only real question, as is everyone’s is in net.  Barring any significant injuries (and what team can we NOT say that for) or on the scale from last year, Edmonton has the depth and players to make it to the top of NW.  Although I think you’ll still disagree with me, but isn’t that the fun of the prediction???

Posted by 41 Long Ones from Edmonton on 10/09/08 at 11:34 AM ET

Predictions are guesses, and you are certainly entitled to yours.  However, I believe that your ideas are flawed.  You say that you believe edmontons team is better this year.....applying that logic would put them in less shootouts(better protection of leads) thereby giving there opponents less single points.  Taking out the shootout to calculate points makes no sense. A win is a win.  It’s akin to taking out Detroits lucky game tying goals to see where they “really” would of finished. 
The oilers won’t be nearly as good as everyone has predicted, but they are certainly better than Colorado and Vancouver.  The Canucks in particular finished very poorly last year and got worse in the off-season.

Posted by ghamplas on 10/09/08 at 11:41 AM ET

While I say Edmonton has improved, I am not saying that they have improved by a huge leap.  I still think they will miss the playoffs.  I still think they won’t be particularly good.

The only clear correlation I can find between appearing in a lot of shootouts and any meaningful statistic is that teams that play low scoring games tend to have a lot of shootouts.  It is easier to be tied when there are only a few goals in a game than when there are a lot (in a statistical model if we flip a coin for each goal heads the home team and tails the road, we are more likely to have a tie for a low number of flips than a high one.  This remains true even if it is a weighted coin to reflect the fact that one team has a better chance to score than the other.).  Low scoring, good defensive teams tend to get into more shootouts.  That isn’t a description of the Oilers.  So that alone would predict less shootouts.

In the games that might have gone to shootout last season, Edmonton will win some and lose some.  Those that they win get them 2 points (which is exactly what they got last year when they won them in shootouts).  Those that they lose will get them zero points and that is two points less than they would have got with a shootout win. 

The power rankings numbers assume that games that go to shootouts are ties.  It doesn’t assume them to be losses.  Merely turning the Oiler shootout wins into ties last season drops them significantly in the standings.  Last year’s record depended on a very good success rate in lots of shootouts.  Without it, the team would have been a clear bottom-feeder.  I think the bottom-feeder better represents reality than the 9th place in the west team.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 10/09/08 at 11:58 AM ET

I agree.

You didn’t even look at their goal differential last year, which was terrible (-16).  Buffalo was +13 and still missed the playoffs.  There’s a ton of room for the Oilers to improve over last year and still come nowhere near the top 8 in the Western Conference.

I think a lot of people underestimate just how bad the Oilers were last season.  Without shootouts and overtime, they were worse than both Columbus and St. Louis.  That should be a somewhat sobering thought.

They’ll be a better team this year (probably much better), and they do have a shot at the 6-8th seed, but it’s not a lock by any means.

Posted by Ryan from Toronto on 10/09/08 at 12:30 PM ET

I also meant to say but forgot, Visnovsky is a much better defenceman than I ever gave him credit for.  If the Oilers do end up making the playoffs, I think it’ll be mostly on his back, not the backs of their young players.

Posted by Ryan from Toronto on 10/09/08 at 12:32 PM ET

I’m from Edmonton, so certainly I may have some bias here.

I think there’s a lot misleading about Edmonton’s shootout record.  But if you want to factor the shootouts into consideration, I think the analysis is owed some deeper consideration.

Edmonton had a lot of shootouts early on.  They were definitely lucky to win as many as they did.

But how did Edmonton get to those shootouts?  Most of the time, it was because the were winning a game, and then choked on a lead in the third period.  Go check.  It’s true. 

Their shootout record IS misleading.  They should have won most of those games outright.  With a little more poise, they would have.

The captain was out with injury.  The #1 defenseman was out with injury.  The #1 center was playing hurt (and later went out with injury).  The best checking winger was out with a medical condition.  The #2 center had yet to rebound from post-concussion syndrome (at least, for the sake of his career and the LA Kings’s investment, let’s hope that’s what it was).  The rest of the team was largely comprised of with young acquisitions playing for a new NHL team for the first time in their career, or wide-eyed rookies who were playing their first NHL games. 

There’s a lot last year that makes it unsurprising that this team couldn’t hold onto a 3rd period lead.  And a lot to suggest that this year, that should be different (although there are now concerns on the dot, so who knows). 

I think it’s probably right to be cautious of the Oilers’ chances (though I think on paper, they’re right up there with most of the other top teams in the league) - not because of the shootout record, but because this is a team that has had difficulty getting over the hump and out of their losing ways the last 15-20 years.

Posted by Jon from Edmonton on 10/09/08 at 01:22 PM ET

The problem with making them just ties, is that you assume they will be ties again this year.  If the team has improved, even marginally, you expect some of these ties to turn into out right wins, and some of the losses to turn into ties.

Not only that, but the Oilers took part in the majority of their shootouts in the first half of the season.  They were a significantly better team in the 2nd half, and their record shows it.

You did partially address it by bringing up their shooting %… but at the same time their opponents sh% was also much higher.  Judging by that, it could be safe to assume that the style of play resulted in both teams getting better scoring chances.

Posted by dawgbone from toronto on 10/09/08 at 01:54 PM ET