Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Reunite Ham and Juice thread.


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
36 replies to this topic

#31 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,238 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 16 April 2013 - 08:11 AM

Posted Image

+

Posted Image



Anyone miss this D pairing?

The time is now to reunite them, Garrisons been a beast defensively lately just check his +/-
He could cover Edler's mistake and hes used to playing on the right side now...

Soo I think the best shutdown line from 10/11 should reunite, especially come playoff time.

question, why did you use orange juice? his nicname comes from his love of pineapple juice:
Posted Image

#32 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,904 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 16 April 2013 - 08:48 AM

Posted Image

suffer.gif


#33 Ohnoeszz

Ohnoeszz

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 10

Posted 16 April 2013 - 09:11 AM

What is the sample size for Edler/Tanev together? I can't recall them being together for any meaningful amount of time that would make their stats together relevant... could be wrong though....

#34 Gustavo Fring

Gustavo Fring

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 11

Posted 16 April 2013 - 10:11 AM

question, why did you use orange juice? his nicname comes from his love of pineapple juice:
Posted Image


Because I love orange juice? It gives me that tingling sensation every morning. Geez it can't be about bieksa all the time gawwd (napolean dynamite voice)
Posted Image

#35 higgyfan

higgyfan

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,778 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 12

Posted 16 April 2013 - 11:22 AM

Reunite Ham-Juice for the playoffs? It's an interesting idea and there's certainly some good history there. Recently, I wrote a stats-heavy post discussing the D pairings, most notably the reasons why Edler-Bieksa and Hamhuis-Garrison made sense (and why Hamhuis-Bieksa didn't make sense).

In that case, I mostly considered GF%. GF% is the percentage of total 5v5 goals scored during while a player/pairing/line/team is on the ice that are goals-for (ie: player X is on the ice for 6 goals-for and 4 goals-against, therefore player X has a GF% of 6/(6+4) = 6/10 = 60%).

GF% is great for the regular season because it basically tells you what combinations and pairings put a team in the best position to win games. It's an excellent stat for choosing lineups.

However, we've all seen how the game changes once the playoffs roll around. Great regular season stats don't necessarily translate into great playoff performances. The funny thing is, there actually is a set of regular season stats that translate well as predictors of a team's overall playoff performance. Generally speaking, these are advanced stats differentials that are calculated from a team's numbers at 5v5 in "CLOSE" situations.

What is 5v5 CLOSE? Basically, these are the even strength minutes of games where the score is close. More specifically, the EV (5v5) minutes during the first and second periods when the score is either tied or within one goal and the third period minutes where the score is tied (this is the formula the stats geeks have chosen).

Recently, there have been a few articles that have looked at team 5v5 CLOSE stats and determined that the teams with the best GF% CLOSE and FF% (Fenwick-for percentage) CLOSE are the teams that tend to generally perform better in the playoffs and are almost always the teams that end up winning the Stanley Cup. Here's a very good article (the best one of the recent bunch) on this phenomenon:

http://hockeyanalysi...layoff-success/

Over the past 5 seasons, the teams that have put-up GF% (Close) over 55 and FF% (Close) over 53, during the regular season, have gone on to the greatest success in the playoffs. All five Cup-winners had GF% over 55 during the regular season. 3 of 5 had FF% over 53 (and the other two had FF% between 50 and 53). Only one team with a GF% over 55 (and zero teams with FF% over 53) has missed the playoffs during this period.

These numbers don't lie. If a team puts up excellent GF% and FF% during 5v5 CLOSE in the regular season, that team has a vastly superior chance of doing well in the playoffs (compared to the teams that don't put-up the numbers). Here's some good news: the Canucks are one of the few NHL teams that has excellent GF% and FF% during 5v5 CLOSE (Vancouver is currently #3 overall in GF% at 59.6 and #7 overall in FF% 53.2: http://stats.hockeya...CT&sortdir=DESC).

Given that the standard for team stats is >55 GF% (Close) and >53 FF% (Close), I figured that this would also be a good way to determine the best defensive pairings for the playoffs. Basically, I'm theorizing that the Canucks should choose a defensive lineup that pairs defensemen who put-up the best GF% and FF% when they play together.

WOWYs ("with or without you"--stats for when players play together and apart) from Stats.HockeyAnalysis.com track the GF% numbers for all NHL players but don't tract FF% (WOWY) for individual players. However, they do track CF% (Corsi-for percentage), which should be very close to FF% (please note: Corsi=shots+missed shots+blocked shots; Fenwick=shots+missed shots). With that all said, here's what would seem to be the best choices for defensive pairings, based on statistical evidence from the 2013 regular season (all stats from 5v5 Close situations):

Edler-Garrison (62.5 GF%, 55.2 CF%)
Hamhuis-Tanev (100 GF%, 53.3 CF%)
Alberts-Bieksa (66.7 GF%, 54.0 CF%)

The above players all provide stats (when paired together) that are better than the Cup-winning benchmarks of 55 GF% and 53 CF% (substituted for FF%). Here are the stats for some other possibilities (including some of the "popular" options):

Edler-Bieksa (100 GF%, 53.3 CF%)
Hamhuis-Garrison (50.0 GF%, 55.3 CF%)
Ballard-Tanev (50.0 GF%, 53.8 CF%)

Hamhuis-Bieksa (60.0 GF%, 49.6 CF%)
Edler-Tanev (25.0 GF%, 59.6 CF%)
Ballard-Garrison (33.3 GF%, 64.0 CF%)

A few things worth noting:

The Canucks' current top-four (Edler-Bieksa and Hamhuis-Garrison), while putting up the best 5v5 stats in all situations (total EV TOI), doesn't put-up the best stats during close situations. Edler-Bieksa, to the surprise of many, put-up excellent numbers across the board and in all situations but that pairing forces Garrison into a suboptimal role with Hamhuis, Alberts, or Ballard (in terms of 5v5 Close and its predictive value for playoff performance). That's why Edler-Garrison, for the playoffs, becomes preferable over Edler-Bieksa.

Hamhuis-Garrison has been very strong through the regular season, putting up good overall numbers in all situations but, in terms of 5v5 Close and playoff performance prediction, we see that Hamhuis can get a significant boost from playing alongside Tanev instead of Garrison.

The thread itself was about the Hamhuis-Bieksa (Ham-Juice) pairing and, while that pairing does put-up good GF% (60.0), their CF% (49.6) isn't all that impressive. Better off, again likely to the surprise of many, to pair Alberts-Bieksa (66.7 GF%, 54.0 CF%).

I've ranted significantly in the past about Edler-Tanev as a pairing. They're just terrible together. Their overall stats together are horrendous and there are probably no two other players on the Canucks (who have played significant minutes together) who have a worse effect on each other's performance. GF% tells the story clearest with the pairing putting up a miserable 25.0 (in 5v5 close situtations). Play them away from each other (ie: paired with anyone else) and Edler's GF% (Close) jumps to 60.9 and Tanev's to 64.3. Their CF% (Corsi) might create something of a distraction, in that a 59.6 CF% is quite high. However, this becomes far less significant when you consider that both Edler and Tanev put-up overall CF% numbers (ie: their average with all partners) that are in the mid-to-high 50's. From what we've seen over the 116:30 (and 75:20 in close situations) that these two have played together this season, Edler-Tanev probably shouldn't play alongside each other again until next season's training camp (and maybe not even then) and they certainly shouldn't be considered as a pairing for this postseason.

And finally, a pairing that I've wanted to see tried together during the regular season is Ballard-Bieksa (they have a 100 GF% in their 2013 EV TOI). However, their CF% (Close) is only 40.0 and they have only played a TOI (together) of 14:33 (of 5v5 Close). Alberts and Bieksa have played more than twice the TOI together this season and have excellent stats for both GF% and CF%. Even though I'd like to see KB4-KB3, I have to pick AA-Juice for the final playoff pairing.

For those interested, here are links to the 2013 WOWY stats (GF%, CF%, and much more) for each of the top seven Canucks' defensemen (for 5v5 CLOSE situations & with zone starts adjusted):

Edler: http://stats.hockeya...13&sit=5v5close
Bieksa: http://stats.hockeya...13&sit=5v5close
Hamhuis: http://stats.hockeya...13&sit=5v5close
Garrison: http://stats.hockeya...13&sit=5v5close
Ballard: http://stats.hockeya...13&sit=5v5close
Tanev: http://stats.hockeya...13&sit=5v5close
Alberts: http://stats.hockeya...13&sit=5v5close

For an extra bonus, here are the GF% and CF% stats (from 5v5 close situations) for each of the top seven defensemen, compared for whether they're playing in front of Cory Schneider or Roberto Luongo. I wanted to check this myself, just out of curiosity, so I figured I'd share. I'll put the results in a spoiler, as this post is already quite lengthy:

Spoiler


Awesome information. Thanks so much for putting it all together in a well written package. Sounds quite positive for the Nucks going into the playoffs. Look forward to see what AV and the D coaches do with the pairings.

#36 Gustavo Fring

Gustavo Fring

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 11

Posted 17 April 2013 - 06:50 PM

Reunite Ham-Juice for the playoffs? It's an interesting idea and there's certainly some good history there. Recently, I wrote a stats-heavy post discussing the D pairings, most notably the reasons why Edler-Bieksa and Hamhuis-Garrison made sense (and why Hamhuis-Bieksa didn't make sense).

In that case, I mostly considered GF%. GF% is the percentage of total 5v5 goals scored during while a player/pairing/line/team is on the ice that are goals-for (ie: player X is on the ice for 6 goals-for and 4 goals-against, therefore player X has a GF% of 6/(6+4) = 6/10 = 60%).

GF% is great for the regular season because it basically tells you what combinations and pairings put a team in the best position to win games. It's an excellent stat for choosing lineups.

However, we've all seen how the game changes once the playoffs roll around. Great regular season stats don't necessarily translate into great playoff performances. The funny thing is, there actually is a set of regular season stats that translate well as predictors of a team's overall playoff performance. Generally speaking, these are advanced stats differentials that are calculated from a team's numbers at 5v5 in "CLOSE" situations.

What is 5v5 CLOSE? Basically, these are the even strength minutes of games where the score is close. More specifically, the EV (5v5) minutes during the first and second periods when the score is either tied or within one goal and the third period minutes where the score is tied (this is the formula the stats geeks have chosen).

Recently, there have been a few articles that have looked at team 5v5 CLOSE stats and determined that the teams with the best GF% CLOSE and FF% (Fenwick-for percentage) CLOSE are the teams that tend to generally perform better in the playoffs and are almost always the teams that end up winning the Stanley Cup. Here's a very good article (the best one of the recent bunch) on this phenomenon:

http://hockeyanalysi...layoff-success/

Over the past 5 seasons, the teams that have put-up GF% (Close) over 55 and FF% (Close) over 53, during the regular season, have gone on to the greatest success in the playoffs. All five Cup-winners had GF% over 55 during the regular season. 3 of 5 had FF% over 53 (and the other two had FF% between 50 and 53). Only one team with a GF% over 55 (and zero teams with FF% over 53) has missed the playoffs during this period.

These numbers don't lie. If a team puts up excellent GF% and FF% during 5v5 CLOSE in the regular season, that team has a vastly superior chance of doing well in the playoffs (compared to the teams that don't put-up the numbers). Here's some good news: the Canucks are one of the few NHL teams that has excellent GF% and FF% during 5v5 CLOSE (Vancouver is currently #3 overall in GF% at 59.6 and #7 overall in FF% 53.2: http://stats.hockeya...CT&sortdir=DESC).

Given that the standard for team stats is >55 GF% (Close) and >53 FF% (Close), I figured that this would also be a good way to determine the best defensive pairings for the playoffs. Basically, I'm theorizing that the Canucks should choose a defensive lineup that pairs defensemen who put-up the best GF% and FF% when they play together.

WOWYs ("with or without you"--stats for when players play together and apart) from Stats.HockeyAnalysis.com track the GF% numbers for all NHL players but don't tract FF% (WOWY) for individual players. However, they do track CF% (Corsi-for percentage), which should be very close to FF% (please note: Corsi=shots+missed shots+blocked shots; Fenwick=shots+missed shots). With that all said, here's what would seem to be the best choices for defensive pairings, based on statistical evidence from the 2013 regular season (all stats from 5v5 Close situations):

Edler-Garrison (62.5 GF%, 55.2 CF%)
Hamhuis-Tanev (100 GF%, 53.3 CF%)
Alberts-Bieksa (66.7 GF%, 54.0 CF%)

The above players all provide stats (when paired together) that are better than the Cup-winning benchmarks of 55 GF% and 53 CF% (substituted for FF%). Here are the stats for some other possibilities (including some of the "popular" options):

Edler-Bieksa (100 GF%, 53.3 CF%)
Hamhuis-Garrison (50.0 GF%, 55.3 CF%)
Ballard-Tanev (50.0 GF%, 53.8 CF%)

Hamhuis-Bieksa (60.0 GF%, 49.6 CF%)
Edler-Tanev (25.0 GF%, 59.6 CF%)
Ballard-Garrison (33.3 GF%, 64.0 CF%)

A few things worth noting:

The Canucks' current top-four (Edler-Bieksa and Hamhuis-Garrison), while putting up the best 5v5 stats in all situations (total EV TOI), doesn't put-up the best stats during close situations. Edler-Bieksa, to the surprise of many, put-up excellent numbers across the board and in all situations but that pairing forces Garrison into a suboptimal role with Hamhuis, Alberts, or Ballard (in terms of 5v5 Close and its predictive value for playoff performance). That's why Edler-Garrison, for the playoffs, becomes preferable over Edler-Bieksa.

Hamhuis-Garrison has been very strong through the regular season, putting up good overall numbers in all situations but, in terms of 5v5 Close and playoff performance prediction, we see that Hamhuis can get a significant boost from playing alongside Tanev instead of Garrison.

The thread itself was about the Hamhuis-Bieksa (Ham-Juice) pairing and, while that pairing does put-up good GF% (60.0), their CF% (49.6) isn't all that impressive. Better off, again likely to the surprise of many, to pair Alberts-Bieksa (66.7 GF%, 54.0 CF%).

I've ranted significantly in the past about Edler-Tanev as a pairing. They're just terrible together. Their overall stats together are horrendous and there are probably no two other players on the Canucks (who have played significant minutes together) who have a worse effect on each other's performance. GF% tells the story clearest with the pairing putting up a miserable 25.0 (in 5v5 close situtations). Play them away from each other (ie: paired with anyone else) and Edler's GF% (Close) jumps to 60.9 and Tanev's to 64.3. Their CF% (Corsi) might create something of a distraction, in that a 59.6 CF% is quite high. However, this becomes far less significant when you consider that both Edler and Tanev put-up overall CF% numbers (ie: their average with all partners) that are in the mid-to-high 50's. From what we've seen over the 116:30 (and 75:20 in close situations) that these two have played together this season, Edler-Tanev probably shouldn't play alongside each other again until next season's training camp (and maybe not even then) and they certainly shouldn't be considered as a pairing for this postseason.

And finally, a pairing that I've wanted to see tried together during the regular season is Ballard-Bieksa (they have a 100 GF% in their 2013 EV TOI). However, their CF% (Close) is only 40.0 and they have only played a TOI (together) of 14:33 (of 5v5 Close). Alberts and Bieksa have played more than twice the TOI together this season and have excellent stats for both GF% and CF%. Even though I'd like to see KB4-KB3, I have to pick AA-Juice for the final playoff pairing.

For those interested, here are links to the 2013 WOWY stats (GF%, CF%, and much more) for each of the top seven Canucks' defensemen (for 5v5 CLOSE situations & with zone starts adjusted):

Edler: http://stats.hockeya...13&sit=5v5close
Bieksa: http://stats.hockeya...13&sit=5v5close
Hamhuis: http://stats.hockeya...13&sit=5v5close
Garrison: http://stats.hockeya...13&sit=5v5close
Ballard: http://stats.hockeya...13&sit=5v5close
Tanev: http://stats.hockeya...13&sit=5v5close
Alberts: http://stats.hockeya...13&sit=5v5close

For an extra bonus, here are the GF% and CF% stats (from 5v5 close situations) for each of the top seven defensemen, compared for whether they're playing in front of Cory Schneider or Roberto Luongo. I wanted to check this myself, just out of curiosity, so I figured I'd share. I'll put the results in a spoiler, as this post is already quite lengthy:

Spoiler


Amazing post +1

With Bieksa injured for who knows how long, this reunification will be on hold <_<
Posted Image

#37 Gustavo Fring

Gustavo Fring

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 11

Posted 03 May 2013 - 11:57 PM

Edler needs a new d partner. His name is garrison.
Posted Image




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.