We’ve all heard the well-worn phrase “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and nothing proves it better than this: In October 1999, Melissa Joan Hart appeared on the cover of Maxim magazine. That’s not a typo, folks. Between the September 1999 (Pamela Anderson) and November 1999 (Jennifer Love-Hewitt) covers, faithful Maxim readers received a dose of MJH. It felt like a mistake, and I tried to soldier on, but shortly after surviving the Y2K scare I decided to sever my emotional ties to Maxim magazine.
When it comes to the Edmonton Oilers, improvement is in the eye of the beholder. On paper, the roster looks improved. From a possession standpoint, advanced metrics indicate that the team has improved. Head coach Dallas Eakins insists his hockey team continues to improve. Relying on our own senses, be it the eye test, smell test or taste test, many feel the Oilers are a better team than they were last season. However, the true indicator of improvement—the win-loss record—remains the same. Exactly the same.
Last season, the Oilers finished with a record of 29-44-9, collecting a measly 67 points. After 16 games this season, the Oilers are on pace for a 31-46-5 record, which would give them the exact same measly 67 points. After all the smoke and mirrors, rhetoric and reasoning, that isn’t a single ounce of improvement. The goal totals reflect the same amount of stagnancy. The Oilers are projected to best last season’s goal tally (203) with 205, while giving up one more goal than last year’s 270.
The Oilers are off to a better start than they had last year, as 6-9-1 is better than 4-10-2, but the team might appear to be improved because our memories play funny tricks on us. Edmonton general manager Craig MacTavish called last season a debacle, and overall it was, but when you split it into two unequal halves it doesn’t look that way. The Oilers opened last season with a dreadful 15-32-6 record. After January 25, the team finished up the season with a much-improved record of 14-12-3.
There are several reasons for last season’s improvement. The most obvious is the goaltending upgrade provided by Ben Scrivens, who joined the team on January 15. Other contributing factors include the Olympic break (it’s easy to keep players fresh when they’re not participating) and the simple fact that several teams took their foot off the gas or started their backup goaltender during a date with the lowly Oilers. Can the team put together another plus-.500 30-game stretch this season? They need to.
Unfortunately, the word “process” has made its way through Eakins’ lips and into Edmonton’s collective consciousness. Merriam-Webster defines process as “a series of actions that produce something or that lead to a particular result.” Process is a word coaches use to justify losses, and it can be applied to any situation. For instance, I’ve been in the process of learning Spanish for over 20 years, and I pick up little bits and pieces each time I mistakenly turn to Telemundo, visit Taco Bell, or can’t figure out how to get Spanish subtitles off my television. A process doesn't necessarily indicate progress.
What are the Oilers trying to produce and what is the intended result? We can safely assume that they’re trying to win more games than they lose, make the playoffs, and win the Stanley Cup, although nobody will come right out and identify specifics. The bottom line is simple. Until the modified roster, better possession stats, enhanced goaltending, increased experience, and other factors translate to more than 67 points in a season it’s hard to make an argument that the Oilers have improved.
***
Go ahead and submit your queries for Friday’s Burning Questions. Every topic will be handled, from the latest Oilers loss to an assessment of how Kim Kardashian’s butt mirrors society’s excess. If you have a burning question (or just a mildly irritating question) feel free to either drop an e-mail or hit me up on Twitter. All questions submitted will be answered. Thanks for reading and enjoy the game tonight.
[email protected] 
Edmonton Oilers Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»