|
 |
 Kr55
Messages: 11493
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
|
|
| tardigrade81 wrote on Mon, 28 April 2025 09:23 |
| oilfan94 wrote on Mon, 28 April 2025 16:14 |
It's nice to see that Kings fans are as quick to say the sky is falling as much as Oilers fans are. From the way they are talking it's like they already lost the series. In reality I would still give them the edge because they have the home ice advantage. I am glad the Oilers have battled back and of course they could absolutely win the series, but at this point it is far from a sure thing for either team.
|
If I was a Kings fan I would be nervous. This is the best team they have iced in the four years we have played them, and arguably this is worse than last year for us you could argue, and yet the series is tied.
I will say I was right in saying we should start pickard. We all said that. And it's paying off big time. He was just unbelievable last night. Even after he gives up a bad goal, it never rattles him. He might be a backup, but he is a fantastic backup. Really glad we got him
|
Kings will probably be jacked up on some expired Sudafed they found in an old box from the Sutter days in game 5. Will be interesting to see how we come out after 2 games of crazy emotional swings.
Simple math for the Oilers against the kings. Honest effort anywhere close to what the Kings put in = very high chance of winning. Thinking we can get away with an average effort and just try to win it late = medium/low chance of winning.
[Updated on: Mon, 28 April 2025 09:49]
"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013
"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015
5 x $5,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
benv
Messages: 628
Registered: May 2006
Location: Edmonton
No Cups
|
|
Random thought I had during last night's game.
During the second intermission one of the panel talking heads (when talking about whether the Oilers should have challenged the Foegele goal) said that he thinks you should only challenge if you are 100% sure of the outcome--he had said the same thing the previous night regarding the Kings' failed challenge.
I have to say as a statistician that I vehemently disagree, since you can actually quite easily do some algebra to figure when you should challenge.
Warning: math nerd stuff below:
Let w be the probability that you will win a challenge.
Let p be the probability that the other team will score on a power play.
So if you don't challenge, the other team gets a goal (but no powerplay) so the net result is -1 for your team.
If you do challenge, then there is a chance of w that the goal will be wiped and no power play for the other team--net result 0. There is a (1-w) chance that the goal will count and the other team will get a power play with a probability of p of scoring on it. So the expected result of challenging the goal is:
w*0 + (1-w)*[(-1) + p*(-1)]
So a challenge will be a zero-sum result when
-1 = (1-w)*(-1-p)
Solving this for w gives w=p/(1+p).
So challenging has a positive expected value as long as the probability of success is greater than p/(1+p). So for different power play successes this works out to:
p=10%: w=9%
p=20%: w=16.7%
p=30%: w=23.1%
p=40%: w=28.6%
p=50%: w=33.3%
p=100%: w=50%
In other words even if the other team was guaranteed to score on their power play, you should still challenge if you think there's a greater than 50% chance of success. Even with a dominant power play of 40%, you only need a 29% chance of being right to make it worthwhile to challenge. During last years playoffs when the Oilers were so dominant on the PK they should probably have been challenging when they felt there was only a 10% chance of success.
Obviously the big variable in all this is that while "p" can be estimated fairly accurately, the value of "w" is highly subjective and a team would only have 30 seconds to a minute to estimate a value for it.
Anyway, you certainly don't need anywhere close to 100% certainty to make challenging worthwhile. 25% certainty is enough for most situations I would think.
[Updated on: Mon, 28 April 2025 11:30]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kr55
Messages: 11493
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
|
|
| benv wrote on Mon, 28 April 2025 10:48 |
Random thought I had during last night's game.
During the second intermission one of the panel talking heads (when talking about whether the Oilers should have challenged the Foegele goal) said that he thinks you should only challenge if you are 100% sure of the outcome--he had said the same thing the previous night regarding the Kings' failed challenge.
I have to say as a statistician that I vehemently disagree, since you can actually quite easily do some algebra to figure when you should challenge.
Warning: math nerd stuff below:
Let w be the probability that you will win a challenge.
Let p be the probability that the other team will score on a power play.
So if you don't challenge, the other team gets a goal (but no powerplay) so the net result is -1 for your team.
If you do challenge, then there is a chance of w that the goal will be wiped and no power play for the other team--net result 0. There is a (1-w) chance that the goal will count and the other team will get a power play with a probability of p of scoring on it. So the expected result of challenging the goal is:
w*0 + (1-w)*[(-1) + p*(-1)]
So a challenge will be a zero-sum result when
-1 = (1-w)*(-1-p)
Solving this for w gives w=p/(1+p).
So challenging has a positive expected value as long as the probability of success is greater than p/(1+p). So for different power play successes this works out to:
p=10%: w=9%
p=20%: w=16.7%
p=30%: w=23.1%
p=40%: w=28.6%
p=50%: w=33.3%
p=100%: w=50%
In other words even if the other team was guaranteed to score on their power play, you should still challenge if you think there's a greater than 50% chance of success. Even with a dominant power play of 50%, you only need a 29% chance of being right to make it worthwhile to challenge. During last years playoffs when the Oilers were so dominant in the playoffs they should probably have been challenging when they felt there was only a 10% chance of success.
Obviously the big variable in all this is that while "p" can be estimated fairly accurately, the value of "w" is highly subjective and a team would only have 30 seconds to a minute to estimate a value for it.
Anyway, you certainly don't need anywhere close to 100% certainty to make challenging worthwhile. 25% certainty is enough for most situations I would think.
|
Makes sense. Now hard part would be how to calculate the odds of success.
Had disagreement in last post game on the % of success for Hiller's challenge. I honestly thought it was pretty close to 0%. Now matter how much we might think the league would want to overturn our goal, I didn't see anything for them to grab onto to explain why they would have done it. There was nothing holding up Kuemper and he made the decision to sell out jumping to the other post and just laying there praying the play would die and his body laying flat was enough.
On the one last night, for me it's close to 0% too. Especially if you also go in with a belief things will tilt LA's way. The puck was right there where Foegele's stick was. Could easily argue the push on the pad was just an attempt to jam the flopping puck into the net. I'd probably give that one a 10% chance.
"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013
"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015
5 x $5,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like the analysis, but also think there's room to take it further. Timing and score are factors - even if the power play is ineffective after a lost challenge, that means 2min of the remaining game time will be spent short-handed. Obviously expected goals for would be much higher 5v5 than being a man down.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
NZ Oiler Fan
Messages: 1315
Registered: October 2006
Location: Kensington, PEI
1 Cup
|
|
It was close to 3am here by the time I got to bed. Was too hyped to go to bed right away.
Today has been a rough one with having to be up at 6 for work.
Bouchard giveth and Bouchard taketh!
|
|
|
|
