CanadianRugby Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 20 hours ago, Honky Cat said: It would be a different story if the Sedins and Eriksson were 'carrying' the team,but they're not....Its now the younger players on the ascendant that are throwing a wrench into team tank,and there's more on the way..........That 1st overall has been spoken for weeks ago by the inept Av's and Coyotes. Yeah that's what I was saying. There'll be no tanking in Vancouver, that door was sealed shut the day Miller & Vrbata were signed and we started trading picks away. Benning & Linden said they'll put together a team that can compete for the playoffs and they've done that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 Not sure if anyone saw this "gem" of an article on Sportsnet today: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks-exceeding-expectations/ How are the Vancouver Canucks exceeding expectations? Spoiler The Vancouver Canucks were a near-consensus pick for one of the worst teams in the league coming into the 2016-17 season and while they haven’t performed at lottery team levels, their 47.52 per cent score-and-venue-adjusted Corsi ranks seventh-last in the league, and their 47.53 per cent even strength goals for percentage ranks 12th-last. Considering the expectations for the team, even after adding Loui Eriksson in the summer, that’s actually not too bad. Topping off the surprising first 47 games for Vancouver is the fact they’re just one point out of a wild card spot. It’s likely that the Los Angeles Kings will pass them with the games they have in hand, but even still, this is fairly unexpected for the Canucks. They’ve been buoyed of late by stellar play from Ryan Miller, who has the second-highest even strength save percentage in the NHL among starting goaltenders since December 1 with a .945 rate, but overall it’s tough to figure out how the Canucks have the 18th most points in the NHL so far. It becomes even more difficult to understand when you look at special teams, where the Canucks are 28th on the power play and 22nd on the penalty kill. Miller has been solid overall this season with a .919 save percentage, but is that enough to drag a team that’s performing like a bottom-seven squad up to the edge of playoff contention? Let’s dig a little deeper to see if there’s anything to this team. Maybe they’re abnormally successful in certain areas of the game. In a lot of ways, the Canucks are extremely average, such as in the percentage of their shot attempts that are scoring chances and how often they get shot attempts on net. But they’re below average in pass success rates, the worst team at controlled entries, and boast a higher than average turnover rate. The only area I could find where the Canucks are more successful than other teams is the success rate of their dump-out attempts: which just means how often an attempted dump out clears the defensive zone. It’s possible this could contribute to some level of success for the Canucks since it would relieve pressure in high-stakes situations, but it certainly isn’t the defining characteristic of a good, or even average, team. Sometimes there simply isn’t a solid statistical measure of performance to explain results that are better than expected, and that’s because it has more to do with variance in small sample sizes. With one of the NHL’s worst goal differentials, it is unlikely but certainly not impossible for the Canucks to have a points percentage above 50 per cent. What has made them successful, on a relative scale anyway, has been the distribution of their goal scoring and goal allowing. The games they’ve won have been tight, the games they’ve lost less so. Does this mean they’re a better team than their statistics show? Probably not, though it might be indicative that despite all signs pointing to the Canucks’ need to accept a rebuild, they’re not playing like they want to. Unfortunately for the future of the Canucks and their fans, finishing just outside the playoffs is probably the worst situation for them. Their younger players such as Bo Horvat and Troy Stetcher don’t get playoff experience and their draft picks in June aren’t as valuable. This is one of those situations where a bad second half might be a good thing. This has seriously got to be analytics at it's worst. I clicked the headline thinking it was going to be a feel good story about some of the Canuck up and comers starting to find their way. Instead, it's "we analyzed all these stats that show the Canucks should suck so we're absolutely befuddled because they don't". Hey, here's an idea, instead of being confused, perhaps (just perhaps) it's not the Canucks that totally suck but it's your choice of stats. The article did get one stat right though. The worse the Canucks are in the second half, the better their lottery odds are /end rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 37 minutes ago, Wilbur said: Not sure if anyone saw this "gem" of an article on Sportsnet today: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks-exceeding-expectations/ How are the Vancouver Canucks exceeding expectations? This has seriously got to be analytics at it's worst. I clicked the headline thinking it was going to be a feel good story about some of the Canuck up and comers starting to find their way. Instead, it's "we analyzed all these stats that show the Canucks should suck so we're absolutely befuddled because they don't". Hey, here's an idea, instead of being confused, perhaps (just perhaps) it's not the Canucks that totally suck but it's your choice of stats. The article did get one stat right though. The worse the Canucks are in the second half, the better their lottery odds are /end rant Yeah, nothing about how they've been forced to ice the youngest d-corps in the league, with two rookies and a sophomore playing in the top-6. Nothing about losing their top veteran pairing and now second, nor losing one of their best all-purpose forwards, nor how the coaching has them playing with a high battle level to compete in every game. No, just looking at the raw numbers and wondering, "How is this possible? The numbers can't be wrong!" Like the Canucks Army crowd, there's a simple answer for this shared bewilderment: start watching the games and not the stats sheets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Wilbur said: Not sure if anyone saw this "gem" of an article on Sportsnet today: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks-exceeding-expectations/ How are the Vancouver Canucks exceeding expectations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HorvatToBaertschi Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 I dont get why People get so mad about having à team that wants to win, and is breeding a winning atmosphere in thé dressing room for our young guns, just because we will likely not pick top 5. Oh no the sky is falling!!!! Bo - 9th Demko - 2nd rounder Boeser - 23rd Baertschi - 13th (if I remember correctly) Kesler - 26th Burrows - undrafted Tryamkin - 3rd round Hutton - 5th round Stecher - collège UFA You dont need to lose every season to rebuild your team. Look at the détroit model. Minnesota was never that bad, nor was NYR or MTL. I am happy with How we are pushing for thé playoffs. That expérience for thé players like Bo, Baertschi, granlund hutton gudbranson tryamkin stecher etc.... is absolutely price less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 Once the NHL expanded and it became harder to make the playoffs, us fans would do anything for the Canucks to make the playoffs, even if it meant bowing out in the first round. I still remember how excited I was when we made the playoffs in 2001 on the last game of the season. We got swept in the first round by the Avs but man that playoff action was against the Avs was real exciting. It left all of us wanting more. I mean, the fact that we got to watch hockey for few more games past the 82 games mark felt so great back then. With all the recent success, some fans are taking the playoffs to mean nothing. Their attitude is like "if it's not the cup contending team, I don't give a $hit". If we somehow grab a wildcard spot this season, sure we probably won't pass the first round as we will most likely face either SJ/Ana or Chi/Min. But I'm sure it's going to be fun and exciting. With Horvat and Baer being more mature, it will be different from the Calgary series. The young players will be taking on more important roles this time whereas it was all Sedins and vets in 2014-15. I think making the playoffs this season is a signal that we are going to be beginning a new era led by our young players and that our young players are better than some on here give credit for. Note that the Sedins aren't good enough to carry this team to the playoffs by themselves as they used to. So, if we make the playoffs this season, it's going to be thanks in large part to (somewhat) unexpected progresses made by the young players and they will be taking on important roles this time in the playoffs, which will leave us wanting more for next season just like we did in 2001 even if we lose in the first round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 4 hours ago, Wilbur said: Not sure if anyone saw this "gem" of an article on Sportsnet today: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks-exceeding-expectations/ How are the Vancouver Canucks exceeding expectations? Hide contents The Vancouver Canucks were a near-consensus pick for one of the worst teams in the league coming into the 2016-17 season and while they haven’t performed at lottery team levels, their 47.52 per cent score-and-venue-adjusted Corsi ranks seventh-last in the league, and their 47.53 per cent even strength goals for percentage ranks 12th-last. Considering the expectations for the team, even after adding Loui Eriksson in the summer, that’s actually not too bad. Topping off the surprising first 47 games for Vancouver is the fact they’re just one point out of a wild card spot. It’s likely that the Los Angeles Kings will pass them with the games they have in hand, but even still, this is fairly unexpected for the Canucks. They’ve been buoyed of late by stellar play from Ryan Miller, who has the second-highest even strength save percentage in the NHL among starting goaltenders since December 1 with a .945 rate, but overall it’s tough to figure out how the Canucks have the 18th most points in the NHL so far. It becomes even more difficult to understand when you look at special teams, where the Canucks are 28th on the power play and 22nd on the penalty kill. Miller has been solid overall this season with a .919 save percentage, but is that enough to drag a team that’s performing like a bottom-seven squad up to the edge of playoff contention? Let’s dig a little deeper to see if there’s anything to this team. Maybe they’re abnormally successful in certain areas of the game. In a lot of ways, the Canucks are extremely average, such as in the percentage of their shot attempts that are scoring chances and how often they get shot attempts on net. But they’re below average in pass success rates, the worst team at controlled entries, and boast a higher than average turnover rate. The only area I could find where the Canucks are more successful than other teams is the success rate of their dump-out attempts: which just means how often an attempted dump out clears the defensive zone. It’s possible this could contribute to some level of success for the Canucks since it would relieve pressure in high-stakes situations, but it certainly isn’t the defining characteristic of a good, or even average, team. Sometimes there simply isn’t a solid statistical measure of performance to explain results that are better than expected, and that’s because it has more to do with variance in small sample sizes. With one of the NHL’s worst goal differentials, it is unlikely but certainly not impossible for the Canucks to have a points percentage above 50 per cent. What has made them successful, on a relative scale anyway, has been the distribution of their goal scoring and goal allowing. The games they’ve won have been tight, the games they’ve lost less so. Does this mean they’re a better team than their statistics show? Probably not, though it might be indicative that despite all signs pointing to the Canucks’ need to accept a rebuild, they’re not playing like they want to. Unfortunately for the future of the Canucks and their fans, finishing just outside the playoffs is probably the worst situation for them. Their younger players such as Bo Horvat and Troy Stetcher don’t get playoff experience and their draft picks in June aren’t as valuable. This is one of those situations where a bad second half might be a good thing. This has seriously got to be analytics at it's worst. I clicked the headline thinking it was going to be a feel good story about some of the Canuck up and comers starting to find their way. Instead, it's "we analyzed all these stats that show the Canucks should suck so we're absolutely befuddled because they don't". Hey, here's an idea, instead of being confused, perhaps (just perhaps) it's not the Canucks that totally suck but it's your choice of stats. The article did get one stat right though. The worse the Canucks are in the second half, the better their lottery odds are /end rant Yeah, this article is basically the analytics people shooting themselves in the foot because they are basically admitting that they cannot explain why we are average when we should suck... and then I noticed this article saying something like this: their 47.53 per cent even strength goals for percentage ranks 12th-last. like 12th-last as in the 18th place team? Uhhh that sounds very much like an average team... these sportsnet morons are doing their best to make it sound like the Canucks are $hit because why wouldn't they just say that we are 18th ranked rather than 12th last? What's the motivation behind doing this? The thing that catches my attention is that all the numbers they list show that we are about an average team. So basically, they just proved that we are average... which proves that basically their expectation of our team, that we should be the worst team in the NHL was dead wrong. That's all that it proves although they don't seem to be realizing what they are saying. We are not playing better than expectation, it's just that the expectation was wrong to begin with. Or this article is the coming out article from sportsnet saying that they were dead wrong but in a convoluted manner. If so, good on you sportsnet. Good on you but we knew you were wrong since October. P.S. I didn't capitalize s in sportsnet on purpose, they don't deserve the status of a proper noun because they don't practice proper journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey101 class Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 Tanking 's for losers. There's no athlete in the world that goes to play to lose. If any athlete thought anyone in management was coaching or moving players in an attempt to lose we'd ruin our reputation as organization andd those responsible would never work in NHL again. Nobody likes a loser and anyone choosing to tank is a LOSER not even arguable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.