Edmonton Oilers
3-0-1
All Oilers playersResults and schedule
Recent results
Coming up
Style fingerprint
How Edmonton plays, trait by trait, against the rest of the league.
Real numbers through Oct 10: 4 games this season, blended with last season. Traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.
Real numbers through Oct 10, from this season’s 4 games only. Expect these to swing a lot this early, which is why the likely ranges are so wide.
Offense
- Shot volumeSelectiveRelentless
56.5 shot attempts per 6016th of 32
56.7 shot attempts per 6015th of 32
- Shot qualityHopefulDangerous
a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot10th of 32
a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot17th of 32
- Second chancesOne-and-doneCrashers
9.8% of chances come from rebounds31st of 32
5.5% of chances come from rebounds28th of 32
- Off-turnover offensePatientOpportunist
6.8% of chances come right after a turnover28th of 32
7.1% of chances come right after a turnover19th of 32
- Shots from defensemenForward-ledActive D
35.9% of shot attempts come from defensemen9th of 32
33.3% of shot attempts come from defensemen19th of 32
- Shots from in closeFrom distanceIn close
30.5% of shots come from within 20 feet18th of 32
26.4% of shots come from within 20 feet26th of 32
Defense
- Shot suppressionPorousStingy
53.8 shot attempts allowed per 6010th of 32
49.9 shot attempts allowed per 607th of 32
- Quality allowedExposedSheltered
a 6.5% chance of scoring on the average shot against25th of 32
a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot against16th of 32
- Breakdowns avoidedFire drillComposed
0.45 defensive breakdowns per 6029th of 32
0.33 defensive breakdowns per 6014th of 32
- GoaltendingSieveWall
+0.04 goals saved above expected per 6027th of 32
−1.47 goals saved above expected per 6030th of 32
Tempo and edge
- PaceSlogTrack meet
80.1 shots per 60, both teams combined24th of 32
74.8 shots per 60, both teams combined24th of 32
- Forecheck pressurePassiveHounding
forecheck score 109 (100 is league average)7th of 3226.0 forecheck plays recorded per 607th of 32
forecheck score 125 (100 is league average)6th of 3232.5 forecheck plays recorded per 602nd of 32
- PhysicalityFinesseBruising
hit score 110 (100 is league average)8th of 3230.6 hits recorded per 604th of 32
hit score 132 (100 is league average)2nd of 3241.0 hits recorded per 602nd of 32
- DepthTop-heavyDeep
40.3% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six29th of 32
40.8% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six24th of 32
Special teams
- Power playHarmlessLethal
9.5 expected goals per 60 on the power play1st of 32
8.3 expected goals per 60 on the power play8th of 32
- Penalty killLeakyAirtight
8.1 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded25th of 32
6.2 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded11th of 32
- Power killBunkeredPredatory
1.1 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded5th of 32
1.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded13th of 32
- DisciplineRecklessClean
0.04 more penalties drawn than taken per 6013th of 32
0.99 more penalties drawn than taken per 604th of 32
Forecheck pressure and physicality are shown as arena-adjusted scores; switch “Hits and takeaways” to Raw in the settings to see the numbers as recorded. How the arena adjustment works.
Key players
Who Edmonton leans on, and what they do best.
23:56 a game
#97 · Center · 12 P in 4 GP (3 G, 9 A)
- Most ice time
- L1 · Draisaitl, Podkolzin
- PP1
- Kills penalties
- Tough minutes
- Creating chances3rd
- Setting up goalsTop 10
- Top speed3rd
- Shot blockingbottom 6%
- Top speed1st
- Fast bursts2nd
- Distance skatedTop 10
21:15 a game
#29 · Center · 9 P in 4 GP (3 G, 6 A)
- 2nd in ice time
- L1 · McDavid, Podkolzin
- PP1
- Setting up goalsTop 10
- Finishingtop 4%
- Power-play chancesTop 10
- Shot blockingbottom 1%
- Shooting volumeTop 10
- Preventing chancestop 19%
- Creating his own chancestop 20%
20:33 a game
#18 · Left wing · 0 P in 1 GP (0 G, 0 A)
- Creating his own chancesTop 5
- Power-play chancesTop 10
- Creating chancestop 8%
- Takeawaysbottom 2%
No clear strengths or weak spots yet.
18:45 a game
#92 · Right wing · 6 P in 4 GP (4 G, 2 A)
- L1 · Draisaitl, McDavid
- PP1
- Hittingtop 12%
- Shot blockingtop 14%
- Distance skatedtop 12%
- Drawing penaltiesbottom 22%
- Creating his own chancestop 10%
- Hittingtop 13%
- Shooting volumetop 16%
25:03 a game
#2 · Defenseman · 11 P in 4 GP (6 G, 5 A)
- Most ice time
- P2 · Ekholm
- PP1
- Kills penalties
- Shooting volume3rd
- Creating his own chances2nd
- Finishing1st
- Shot blockingbottom 3%
- FinishingTop 5
- Shooting volumetop 5%
- Creating his own chancestop 16%
22:57 a game
#6 · Defenseman · 3 P in 4 GP (1 G, 2 A)
- 2nd in ice time
- P1 · Murphy
- PP2
- Kills penalties
- Staying out of the boxTop 10
- Setting up goalstop 6%
- Creating chancestop 15%
- Shot blockingbottom 6%
- Shot blockingbottom 16%
The 4 forwards and 2 defensemen with the most ice time a game (at least half the games played). Tags show how each is used; rows show his clearest strengths, and a weak spot in grey, as a percentile against his position. Point at anything for details. All Oilers players.
Lines
Who plays together at 5-on-5, and how each group is doing.
Lines and pairs are numbered by 5-on-5 ice time together over the team’s last 10 games (4 so far this season), with each older game counting half as much as the one after it, so the latest combinations come first. With so few games, each group’s results are pulled toward the average for its line number.
Worth knowing
- M. Savoie has not played this season. L. Draisaitl is in his usual spot beside C. McDavid and V. Podkolzin. That line is getting 12:18 a game at 5-on-5, up from 9:11 with Savoie.
- K. Kapanen has started playing on the power play: on the ice for 56% of the team’s power-play time in 4 games, up from 6% last season.
- L112:18 a gamein 3 of last 4
L. DraisaitlC. McDavidV. Podkolzin
- Creates
- 3.54
- Allows
- 1.96
- Share
- 64.4%
- Off. zone draws
- 61%
- L29:09 a gamein 3 of last 4
M. JosephA. FormentonO. Michaels
- Creates
- 2.71
- Allows
- 2.30
- Share
- 54.2%
- Off. zone draws
- 18%
- L38:02 a gamein 2 of last 4
- Creates
- 2.30
- Allows
- 2.61
- Share
- 46.8%
- Off. zone draws
- 56%
- L45:19 a gamein 2 of last 4
T. FredericI. HowardJ. Samanski
- Creates
- 2.56
- Allows
- 2.60
- Share
- 49.7%
- Off. zone draws
- 71%
- P112:40 a gamein 3 of last 4
- Creates
- 2.63
- Allows
- 2.25
- Share
- 53.9%
- Off. zone draws
- 27%
- P211:56 a game
- Creates
- 2.88
- Allows
- 2.12
- Share
- 57.6%
- Off. zone draws
- 47%
- P37:59 a gamein 2 of last 4
- Creates
- 2.65
- Allows
- 2.87
- Share
- 48.0%
- Off. zone draws
- 90%
Last game
At Anaheim Ducks, these groups were different from the usual
- L3: M. Jones · I. Howard · J. Samanski (5:31)
- L4: J. Dickinson · K. Kapanen · T. Frederic (5:27)
Who plays against whom
Which opposing lines each Edmonton group has actually been out against at 5-on-5.
Standing out in all games
- Kapanen, Jones, Dach (L3) have spent 53% of their time against opponents’ second lines. With no line matching it would be about 32%.
- Draisaitl, McDavid, Podkolzin (L1) have spent 52% of their time against opponents’ first lines. With no line matching it would be about 40%.
- Ekholm, Bouchard (P2) have spent 35% of their time against opponents’ third lines. With no line matching it would be about 24%.
Forward lines against opposing forward lines
- L1Draisaitl · McDavid · PodkolzinOpp. L152%Opp. L216%Opp. L322%Opp. L49%
- L2Joseph · Formenton · MichaelsOpp. L139%Opp. L237%Opp. L318%Opp. L46%
- L3Kapanen · Jones · DachOpp. L124%Opp. L253%Opp. L315%Opp. L48%
- L4Frederic · Howard · SamanskiOpp. L135%Opp. L231%Opp. L317%Opp. L416%
Defense pairs against opposing forward lines
- P1Murphy · SheaOpp. L143%Opp. L232%Opp. L318%Opp. L47%
- P2Ekholm · BouchardOpp. L130%Opp. L226%Opp. L335%Opp. L49%
- P3Walman · EmbersonOpp. L129%Opp. L235%Opp. L322%Opp. L414%
Standing out at home
- Draisaitl, McDavid, Podkolzin (L1) have spent 61% of their time against opponents’ first lines. With no line matching it would be about 40%.
- Kapanen, Jones, Dach (L3) have spent 50% of their time against opponents’ second lines. With no line matching it would be about 31%.
Forward lines against opposing forward lines
- L1Draisaitl · McDavid · PodkolzinOpp. L161%Opp. L217%Opp. L312%Opp. L410%
- L2Joseph · Formenton · MichaelsOpp. L138%Opp. L234%Opp. L325%Opp. L43%
- L3Kapanen · Jones · DachOpp. L120%Opp. L250%Opp. L320%Opp. L411%
- L4Frederic · Howard · SamanskiOpp. L122%Opp. L227%Opp. L322%Opp. L428%
Defense pairs against opposing forward lines
- P1Murphy · SheaOpp. L141%Opp. L233%Opp. L319%Opp. L47%
- P2Ekholm · BouchardOpp. L134%Opp. L224%Opp. L334%Opp. L49%
- P3Walman · EmbersonOpp. L111%Opp. L217%Opp. L345%Opp. L428%
Standing out on the road
- Draisaitl, McDavid, Podkolzin (L1) have spent 40% of their time against opponents’ third lines. With no line matching it would be about 20%.
- Ekholm, Bouchard (P2) have spent 36% of their time against opponents’ third lines. With no line matching it would be about 19%.
Forward lines against opposing forward lines
- L1Draisaitl · McDavid · PodkolzinOpp. L136%Opp. L215%Opp. L340%Opp. L49%
- L2Joseph · Formenton · MichaelsOpp. L141%Opp. L240%Opp. L312%Opp. L47%
- L3Kapanen · Jones · DachOpp. L136%Opp. L262%Opp. L32%Opp. L40%
- L4Frederic · Howard · SamanskiOpp. L151%Opp. L236%Opp. L311%Opp. L42%
Defense pairs against opposing forward lines
- P1Murphy · SheaOpp. L147%Opp. L230%Opp. L316%Opp. L47%
- P2Ekholm · BouchardOpp. L124%Opp. L230%Opp. L336%Opp. L49%
- P3Walman · EmbersonOpp. L146%Opp. L252%Opp. L31%Opp. L41%
Each strip adds to 100%: it shows how one Edmonton group’s 5-on-5 time is split across the opponent’s four forward lines, numbered the same way as above. Sized by ice time, a wider box means more time against that line; even columns line the boxes up so you can compare groups straight down. At home the coach changes last and picks these matchups; on the road the other coach does. Faded rows have under ten minutes.
What “with no line matching” means: if a coach just rolled his lines and took whoever was out there, each of his groups would face the opponent’s first line about as often as that line is on the ice. If opposing first lines play a third of the time against Edmonton, every Edmonton group would see them for about a third of its shifts. A number well above that means the coach is sending that group out against them on purpose; well below means he is keeping it away.
Special teams
Who Edmonton sends out with a man up and a man down.
Each power-play unit is built around its quarterback, the defenseman running it, plus the four players most often out with him over the last 10 games (4 so far). Power-play units’ expected goals per 60 are pulled toward league average while samples are small. Penalty kills are too loose for fixed units (the most common foursome covers only about a tenth of a typical team’s shorthanded time), so penalty killers are grouped by when they go on: the ones who start kills, the second wave who come on after the first change, and spot duty. Point at a power-play name to see his shots on the map.
Power play
PP168% of the time
Creates 8.4 expected goals per 60
- E. BouchardQuarterback
- L. DraisaitlDistributor
- C. McDavidTrigger
- V. PodkolzinNet-front
- K. Kapanen
PP232% of the time
Creates 6.5 expected goals per 60
- J. WalmanQuarterback
- I. Howard
- T. Frederic
- R. Shea
- C. Dach
Penalty kill
Kills allow 8.1 expected goals per 60, 25th of 32 (this season and last).
Kills allow 6.2 expected goals per 60, 11th of 32 this season.
Starts the kill
- A. Formenton11 of 11 kills · 0:43 a kill
- O. Michaels9 of 11 kills · 0:32 a kill · takes the draw
- M. EkholmD11 of 11 kills · 1:01 a kill
- C. MurphyD8 of 11 kills · 1:00 a kill
Second wave
- M. Joseph10 of 11 kills · 0:43 a kill
- K. Kapanen9 of 11 kills · 0:44 a kill
- C. McDavid11 of 11 kills · 0:32 a kill · takes the draw
- R. SheaD10 of 11 kills · 0:46 a kill
- E. BouchardD8 of 11 kills · 0:39 a kill
- J. WalmanD5 of 11 kills · 0:38 a kill
Spot duty
- C. Dach3 of 11 kills · 0:43 a kill
- J. Dickinson3 of 11 kills · 0:20 a kill
- What the tags mean
- Quarterbackthe defenseman who runs the unit from the blue line.
- Triggerthe unit’s main shooter, with the most dangerous power-play shots on the team over this season and last.
- Distributorthe main passer, with the most first assists on the team’s power-play goals over this season and last.
- Net-frontparks in front of the net. At least 40% of his power-play shots come from within 15 feet.
- Pointa second defenseman on the unit, alongside the quarterback.
Goalies
Is he stopping more than he should, and what is his team asking him to face?
D. Levi3 starts · 73 shots faced, this season and last
−2.2 goals saved above expected too few starts to rate
- Low-danger save %
- .974 38 shots
- Medium-danger save %
- .750 24 shots
- High-danger save %
- .727 11 shots
- Shots faced per 60
- 24.4
- Defensive breakdowns per 60
- 0
- Quality starts
- 67%
Night to night: goals saved above expected in each start
Helping, or hung out to dry?
Show the full picture for D. LeviHide the full picture
- Stopping more than expectedSieveWall
−2.2 goals saved above expected in 3 startstoo few starts to place him
- How busy he isQuietUnder siege
24.4 shots faced per 60too few starts to place him
- How dangerous the shots areShelteredExposed
the average shot he faces has a 6.9% chance of going intoo few starts to place him
- Breakdowns in front of himRareConstant
0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60too few starts to place him
- Waiting between shotsSteady workLong waits
a typical wait of 90 seconds between shots; 26% come after three quiet minutestoo few starts to place him
- Night-to-night steadinessStreakySteady
a quality start 67% of the timetoo few starts to place him
- Really bad starts
- 33%
- Overall save %
- .863
D. Levi3 starts · 73 shots faced, this season
−2.2 goals saved above expected
- Low-danger save %
- .974 38 shots
- Medium-danger save %
- .750 24 shots
- High-danger save %
- .727 11 shots
- Shots faced per 60
- 24.4
- Defensive breakdowns per 60
- 0
- Quality starts
- 67%
Night to night: goals saved above expected in each start
Helping, or hung out to dry?
Show the full picture for D. LeviHide the full picture
- Stopping more than expectedSieveWall
−2.2 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
- How busy he isQuietUnder siege
24.4 shots faced per 60
- How dangerous the shots areShelteredExposed
the average shot he faces has a 6.9% chance of going in
- Breakdowns in front of himRareConstant
0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
- Waiting between shotsSteady workLong waits
a typical wait of 90 seconds between shots; 26% come after three quiet minutes
- Night-to-night steadinessStreakySteady
a quality start 67% of the time
- Really bad starts
- 33%
- Overall save %
- .863
T. Jarry31 starts · 855 shots faced, this season and last
−6.0 goals saved above expected
- Low-danger save %
- .961 408 shots
- Medium-danger save %
- .830 329 shots
- High-danger save %
- .729 118 shots
- Shots faced per 60
- 28
- Defensive breakdowns per 60
- 0.49
- Quality starts
- 45%
Night to night: goals saved above expected in each start
Helping, or hung out to dry?
Show the full picture for T. JarryHide the full picture
- Stopping more than expectedSieveWall
−6.0 goals saved above expected in 31 starts
- How busy he isQuietUnder siege
28 shots faced per 60
- How dangerous the shots areShelteredExposed
the average shot he faces has a 7.3% chance of going in
- Breakdowns in front of himRareConstant
0.49 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
- Waiting between shotsSteady workLong waits
a typical wait of 69 seconds between shots; 21% come after three quiet minutes
- Night-to-night steadinessStreakySteady
a quality start 45% of the time
- Really bad starts
- 35%
- Overall save %
- .878
T. Jarry1 start · 23 shots faced, this season
−3.7 goals saved above expected too few starts to rate
- Low-danger save %
- .917 12 shots
- Medium-danger save %
- .667 6 shots
- High-danger save %
- .400 5 shots
- Shots faced per 60
- 22.4
- Defensive breakdowns per 60
- 0.97
- Quality starts
- 0%
Night to night: goals saved above expected in each start
Helping, or hung out to dry?
Show the full picture for T. JarryHide the full picture
- Stopping more than expectedSieveWall
−3.7 goals saved above expected in 1 starttoo few starts to place him
- How busy he isQuietUnder siege
22.4 shots faced per 60too few starts to place him
- How dangerous the shots areShelteredExposed
the average shot he faces has a 7.7% chance of going intoo few starts to place him
- Breakdowns in front of himRareConstant
0.97 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60too few starts to place him
- Waiting between shotsSteady workLong waits
a typical wait of 114 seconds between shots; 30% come after three quiet minutestoo few starts to place him
- Night-to-night steadinessStreakySteady
a quality start 0% of the timetoo few starts to place him
- Really bad starts
- 100%
- Overall save %
- .739
Expected-goal models can’t see passes before a shot, so a goalie whose team gives up a lot of cross-ice passes will look worse here than he really is. Ratings compare him with goalies who have at least 10 starts over two seasons, or 2 this season.
Where the goals come from
How Edmonton’s goals are scored and allowed, against the league average, and how much of any difference luck alone could explain.
More than luck would explain: more of Edmonton’s goals come from the power play and faceoff wins.
- Everyday even-strength play54%175 of 324
- Power play23.1%75 of 324
- Rebound5.9%19 of 324
- Empty net5.6%18 of 324
- Off a turnover3.4%11 of 324
- Goalie pulled2.5%8 of 324
- Shorthanded2.2%7 of 324
- Off a faceoff win3.4%11 of 324
324 goals this season and last. Each row has its own scale, so a small source is not squeezed against the left edge.
More than luck would explain: more of Edmonton’s goals come from shorthanded play and faceoff wins.
- Everyday even-strength play50%11 of 22
- Power play13.6%3 of 22
- Rebound4.5%1 of 22
- Empty net4.5%1 of 22
- Off a turnover4.5%1 of 22
- Goalie pulled4.5%1 of 22
- Shorthanded9.1%2 of 22
- Off a faceoff win9.1%2 of 22
22 goals this season, too few to say much: most of any gap from the league is luck. Each row has its own scale, so a small source is not squeezed against the left edge.
More than luck would explain: more of the goals Edmonton allows come from rebounds and faceoff wins; fewer from everyday even-strength play and play with the goalie pulled.
- Everyday even-strength play51.1%157 of 307
- Power play20.2%62 of 307
- Rebound12.1%37 of 307
- Empty net4.6%14 of 307
- Off a turnover5.5%17 of 307
- Goalie pulled1%3 of 307
- Shorthanded2.6%8 of 307
- Off a faceoff win2.9%9 of 307
307 goals this season and last. Each row has its own scale, so a small source is not squeezed against the left edge.
Every row of the goals Edmonton allows is within luck’s reach of the league average.
- Everyday even-strength play43.8%7 of 16
- Power play31.2%5 of 16
- Rebound12.5%2 of 16
- Empty net0%0 of 16
- Off a turnover6.2%1 of 16
- Goalie pulled0%0 of 16
- Shorthanded6.2%1 of 16
- Off a faceoff win0%0 of 16
16 goals this season, too few to say much: most of any gap from the league is luck. Each row has its own scale, so a small source is not squeezed against the left edge.
Every goal counts once, in the first of these that applies: empty net, power play, shorthanded, goalie pulled, then rebound, turnover, faceoff win, and everyday play. These mixes are mostly luck: over three seasons, teams’ goals came from much the same places, and most of the differences here didn’t last.