Seven games into the Kris Knoblauch tenure, the results have been mixed. Although Knoblauch’s current record of 4–3–0 is better than Jay Woodcroft’s 3–9–1 start, the team has been streaky under Knoblauch’s tenure. It has felt like two steps forward and one step back, with highs including an 8–2 shellacking of the Anaheim Ducks and a 5–0 shutout of the Washington Capital but lows of bad losses of 6–3 and 6–4 in very winnable games against Carolina and Tampa Bay.
Changes made by Knoblauch
Knoblauch has instituted several changes compared to the previous regime. Referencing my colleague Ray Boulette’s recent article, Knoblauch has created a 2-1-2 defensive zone system, or a box and one as it is more commonly referred to. This provides a more aggressive forecheck to have the turnover occur in the offensive zone rather than in neutral or defensive areas. Woodcroft employed a 1-1-3 style system, which clogged up the neutral zone entrance for opposing forwards but required Edmonton to defensively recover the puck on dump-ins, a troublesome task when Oiler players tend to be more offensively minded rather than defensively engaged.
Additionally, rather than cheating for offence, Knoblauch’s new breakout system implements a forward lower down in the defensive zone for a simple outlet pass. This provides an option for Edmonton’s defenceman to make the simple, easy play to get the puck out of the zone rather than rely on the long stretch pass commonly seen under the Woodcroft era.
Analytical review at 5v5
| CF | CA | C% | GF | GA | G% | XGF | XGA | XG% | HDCF | HDCA | HD% | |
| Jay Woodcroft | 677 | 492 | 56% | 22 | 31 | 42% | 33.9 | 24.7 | 58% | 153 | 94 | 62% |
| Avg per Game | 52.1 | 37.8 | 1.69 | 2.38 | 2.60 | 1.90 | 11.8 | 7.2 | ||||
| Kris Knoblauch | 334 | 304 | 52% | 16 | 15 | 52% | 16.5 | 14.4 | 53% | 67 | 66 | 50% |
| Avg per Game | 41.8 | 38 | 2.00 | 1.88 | 2.07 | 1.80 | 8.4 | 8.3 |
Overall, when reviewing the underlying metrics, the results are positive for Knoblauch’s seven-game tenure. First off, team play as a whole has resulted in an improved overall win percentage. Under Woodcroft, the team performed at a 0.269 win percentage, whereas Edmonton’s win percentage is marginally higher at 0.571 under Knoblauch.
Although a smaller sample size, Knoblauch’s overall team even-strength play has not been as strong as Woodcroft’s. In terms of puck possession (C%), although Knoblauch’s system positively impacts the team, at 2% above statistical indifference, Woodcroft’s system enabled Edmonton to retain greater puck control, 6% above the same benchmark, allowing for greater chance creation.
On a per-game basis, Edmonton created 52 chances per night, ten more than Knoblauch, while maintaining roughly equal opportunities against. But this could be impacted by the Oilers always playing from behind under Woodcroft, whereas, under Knoblauch, they have generally started better, scoring first at a greater rate.
High-danger chance opportunity is another area Woodcroft both had better offence generation and suppressed at greater rates compared to Knoblauch. Under Woodcroft, Edmonton controlled 62% (HDC%) of the high-danger opportunities, recording 4.5 more opportunities per night from high-danger areas than opposing teams.
Knoblauch’s system has not been as opportunistic for Edmonton high danger chance creation or suppression, with Edmonton recording 3.5 fewer chances from the front on the net on a nightly basis while allowing an additional high-danger chance per night. The Oilers under Knoblauch is statistically indifferent regarding chance generation and suppression, with the opposition now able to keep pace with Edmonton.
Another area the Oilers were superior in under Woodcroft compared to Knoblauch is shot quality, a factor impacted by the high danger chance statistic. Conventionally, the XGF statistic is determined by the probability of a puck finding the back of the net, a factor enhanced when the shot originates from the slot rather than from the blue line. Under Woodcroft, the Oilers generated an additional 0.5 expected goal per night, while Knoblauch’s system is marginally better at shot suppression.
Knoblauch’s coaching style has allowed for better production results compared to Woodcroft. Under the new system, the Oilers showcases almost identical results between expected and actual goals. A net positive difference, Knoblauch has benefited from a positive regression to Edmonton’s shooting percentage and simpler breakouts, translating to cleaner zone exits, leading to less scrambled play within the defensive zone, helping produce better defensive play.
Woodcroft, who had a very low PDO hampered beginning, was an analytical darling but did not produce the on-ice results to maintain his job during a tough start to the season. His defensive zone structure led to more scrambled instances due to stretch passes being knocked down, leading to odd-man rushes off transition, with the puck generally finding the back of the net at a reasonably high rate.
Where will this lead the team?
Regardless of the coach, Edmonton’s underlying metrics have showcased the team’s ability to control puck possession and shot quality control. However, the difference lies within both production and high danger chances. Under Woodcroft, the Oilers created high-danger chances at a greater rate per game average. But Edmonton has had better production results under Knoblauch, where at even strength, Edmonton is outscoring the opposition, but Edmonton held a -9 goal differential under Woodcroft.
Overall, the underlying metrics support that Edmonton held a problematic start to the season but is poised to go on a run if the team’s chemistry and momentum continue to roll following the Sunday night win. It will be interesting as the sample size grows during Knoblauch’s tenure, who Jeff Jackson has picked as his guy, will continue to start to equal Woodcroft’s qualitative statistics or whether his system will continue to reduce the offensive generation but increase the team’s defensive suppression as a unit but still maintain a net positive balance.
References
One Comment