Assessing the Canuck D: Some Interesting Numbers

[riffraff]

36 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Why?

 

He's 19, not 24.

Imo if he is not challenging for a spot on our D, there is concern.

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, riffraff said:

Imo if he is not challenging for a spot on our D, there is concern.

I ask again:

 

42 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Why?

I expect he'll look at the very least 'promising' but there's a whole lot of depth presently on that left side that requires waivers and I doubt he's going to look head and shoulders above the majority of them at just barely 20 that would warrant risking them and not at the very least sending him to Utica at least temporarily while the team sorts out trades, injuries etc.

 

Frankly I'd be more surprised to see him on the team than in Utica given those realities. And there's zero wrong with that. Most D don't start pressing for spots until they're 21, 22 etc.

 

He's not going to be kept here as 7th or 8th D as he needs minutes to develop. We also need to try to get minutes to Pouliot/Hutton to see which we're keeping and which we're likely trading (and up their trade value ideally).

 

There's no room at the inn, there's no rush and he only turns 20 this May. Send him to Utica and we can recall him with injuries and after we move MDZ at the TDL and perhaps one of Hutton/Pouliot.

[mll]

17 hours ago, JamesB said:

 

 

Both good points.

 

1. Making a clean first pass to create zone exits with possession is a very important part of the game.

 

2. The biggest problem with the Canuck D this year was a failure to generate offense. Guddy is a classic defensive D. So is Tanev, although his good first pass provides some support to the offence. Stecher and Hutton both seemed to focus on defence this year. Pouliot and MDZ look more offensive but their offense is still not particularly good and they make a lot of defensive mistakes. Edler is the only guy who generated significant offence. And he combined that with the tough job of playing shutdown on a poor team.

 

3. And I love the quote from Babcock. I think it captures a lot about the Canucks's results for the last three years. They have the worst record in the NHL over that period. Why? Not enough talent. It is probably that simple. 

 

Fortunately, there is some impressive talent in the system. Horvat and Boeser are blue chip guys on the team, and Pettersson looks great. Add in Demko, Gaudette, and Dahlen (and this year's first round pick) along with quite a few other guys with a decent chance to be good NHL players, and we can see that the the talent level will obviously rise over the next few years. Let's hope one or more of the D's in the pipeline makes a big jump next season.

 

 

 

Nashville says that they don't want their Ds to simply make a 1st pass.  Too often it's one-and-done and there's simply not enough sustained offensive pressure.  They want their Ds right up in the play and operate as a 5-men unit.  Laviolette was explaining that they are not going to be able to create without the Ds an integral part of the attack because teams are defending at 5.

 

It's actually Phil Housley that was responsible for the Ds.  He explained that they wanted them to join the cycle because it would cause the opposing team to make mistakes when having to constantly adjust their coverage.

 

Already a few years back Poile was saying that the prototypical D is now Ryan Ellis.  He made a pretty simple calculation - "If we’re spending more than 50 percent in their end, we’re going to win most of our games."  By changing strategy not only their goals for went up but their goals against went down too.

 

[Industrious1]

4 hours ago, aGENT said:

I ask again:

 

I expect he'll look at the very least 'promising' but there's a whole lot of depth presently on that left side that requires waivers and I doubt he's going to look head and shoulders above the majority of them at just barely 20 that would warrant risking them and not at the very least sending him to Utica at least temporarily while the team sorts out trades, injuries etc.

 

Frankly I'd be more surprised to see him on the team than in Utica given those realities. And there's zero wrong with that. Most D don't start pressing for spots until they're 21, 22 etc.

 

He's not going to be kept here as 7th or 8th D as he needs minutes to develop. We also need to try to get minutes to Pouliot/Hutton to see which we're keeping and which we're likely trading (and up their trade value ideally).

 

There's no room at the inn, there's no rush and he only turns 20 this May. Send him to Utica and we can recall him with injuries and after we move MDZ at the TDL and perhaps one of Hutton/Pouliot.

The obvious question to ask then should be:  At what age do defenseman chosen in the top 5 usually make the NHL?

 

Any stat gurus want to crunch those numbers?

[aGENT]

27 minutes ago, Industrious1 said:

The obvious question to ask then should be:  At what age do defenseman chosen in the top 5 usually make the NHL?

 

Any stat gurus want to crunch those numbers?

No, that's not actually an obvious question. IMO it's a reductive one and one deigned to aim towards a 'negative' answer.

[Industrious1]

If that is how you'd like to see it that is fine.

 

My main thrust however was to increase the knowledge spectrum regarding this particular subject.

 

Personally I don't care if the answer is positive or negative, I only care about the numbers.

[aGENT]

4 hours ago, Industrious1 said:

If that is how you'd like to see it that is fine.

 

My main thrust however was to increase the knowledge spectrum regarding this particular subject.

 

Personally I don't care if the answer is positive or negative, I only care about the numbers.

Then first, you need to look at D taken 5th overall, not 'top 5'. D taken 1st OA or heck, even top 3 are going to tend to translate sooner.

 

Second, every player develops on their own timeline, not some magic timeline based on their draft order. Juolevi was always advertised as being 2-4 years of development away. 

[Baggins]

13 hours ago, Industrious1 said:

The obvious question to ask then should be:  At what age do defenseman chosen in the top 5 usually make the NHL?

 

Any stat gurus want to crunch those numbers?

When they're ready......

 

[Baggins]

On 4/22/2018 at 8:18 AM, Crabcakes said:

Since many of the players are developing, I wonder if we can see improvements in the stats as the season progressed.  

 

Pouliot did well at the beginning, then poorly, and towards the end was doing good things again.  Does this show in the stats?

 

Gudbranson played better when paired with Edler.  In fact, I thought that Edler upped his physical game when playing with Guddy.  

 

The bottom line, I think that the stats are supporting that Edler and Tanev are the best D on the Canucks and that they are not likely to be traded.  Benning wants a solid pair to support his developing players.  Even split up, they are invaluable.

 

Having said that, we need to see positive development from the younger players

If you split the Canuck season in half:

The first half Pouliot played 38 games had 11 pts and was -11

In the second half he played 32 games had 11 pts and was -9

 

In the final 25 games he played all 25 and had 10 pts and was -7.

[Crabcakes]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

If you split the Canuck season in half:

The first half Pouliot played 38 games had 11 pts and was -11

In the second half he played 32 games had 11 pts and was -9

 

In the final 25 games he played all 25 and had 10 pts and was -7.

So Pouliot actually did improve as the season went on (according to +/-)

[kloubek]

I agree with the conclusions in the first post.  Only thing I would like to point out is how much MDZ hits.  His hitting is far and away the most, save for perhaps Biega who is used in a very limited role.  For a team that is considered soft (at least by the fans), I find MDZ more valuable than most.  

[189lb enforcers?]

6 minutes ago, kloubek said:

I agree with the conclusions in the first post.  Only thing I would like to point out is how much MDZ hits.  His hitting is far and away the most, save for perhaps Biega who is used in a very limited role.  For a team that is considered soft (at least by the fans), I find MDZ more valuable than most.  

A MDZ hit doesn’t make this team any harder to play against.

 

He takes the body fine, but these aren’t Scott Stevens hits, not even a little. I’m not saying I don’t like the guy, but as far as hitters go, I can’t even recall MDZ leveling or hurting somebody in all of those hits.

 

I put value in hits, but only if it’s scaring people who hear ‘footsteps’. 

 

 

[oldnews]

The number of hits is one thing - the effect and effectiveness of hits is another.

A player like Gudbranson - criticized by the OP for his hit numbers - his physicality can in no way be judged on that alone.

There are simply so many elements / factors.

Personally I'd rather take 4 hits from Del Zotto than one from Gudbranson - anyday.

And I'm multiples more likely to let Del Zotto hit me.  For example, if I'm on the boards, cycling, and Del Zotto is approaching, I'm far more likely to hang onto the puck, absorb a hit, and attempt to make a play than I am if Gudbranson is bearing down on me.  Likewise on the rush, in front of the net - all over the ice.

Is a Del Zotto hit as likely to separate me from the puck?  Is a Del Zotto hit as likely to deter me from going to the hard areas?

Gudbranson's hit totals may have been adversely effected to some extent by wrist and shoulder injuries - but regardless, to attempt to sum up a physical player's effectiveness with a mere hit total statistic is extremely misleading.

Gudbranson's job is not to chase hits.  It is to hit when the opportunity and need is there - and it should also be needless to say that opponents tend to want to limit those opportunities - for reasons of self-preservation.

[kloubek]

7 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

A MDZ hit doesn’t make this team any harder to play against.

 

He takes the body fine, but these aren’t Scott Stevens hits, not even a little. I’m not saying I don’t like the guy, but as far as hitters go, I can’t even recall MDZ leveling or hurting somebody in all of those hits.

 

I put value in hits, but only if it’s scaring people who hear ‘footsteps’. 

 

 

I know what you are saying, but I disagree overall.  He IS physical and that tires the other team and at least lightly hurts then, and over the course of a game (or better yet, a series) that catches up with a team/player.  I do agree though - he's hardly doling out the bone-crushing hits that would be ideal.  That's what Guddy is for - though he hardly does that enough.  If we could only combine the two....

[oldnews]

On 4/21/2018 at 5:26 PM, JamesB said:

 

3. Hutton had a bad year. Period. Claims that "advanced stats" tell a different story are not right. At least it takes a lot of cherry-picking to make Hutton look good. (He was pretty good on the PK, but that was against 2nd unit PPs was a pretty small sample.)

I'm curious what caused this shift in thinking from December?

 

On 12/10/2017 at 4:21 PM, JamesB said:

 

4. Hutton seems to have made the transition from CDC favourite a couple of years ago to CDC whipping boy. But if Corsi is the bottom line and we adjust for how tough his minutes are, he is easily in the top 3, maybe the top 2 (after Tanev). His scoring (or lack thereof) is a bit disappointing but, overall, I have him clearly in the top 4.

 

 

I'd agree with your revised opinion - but you don't really make it clear why/how you've come to that diametrically opposed conclusion?  Was it Hutton that changed dramatically, or the basis of your analysis?

 

 

[Ronaldoescobar]

If OJ doesn't win the Norris next year... clear bust!

[RWMc1]

Some things these stats don't take into account is the d-man they're paired with and the forwards they have as support. Once our forwards play the system better and the younger d-men get more experience it will alleviate many of the breakdowns which cause negative stats.

 

We've seen D-men, who've been crapped on by fans and media, go on to be successful on other teams. It's a team thing and I see an improvement as the team improves.

[oldnews]

Are there some "interesting" numbers presented? 

Yeah, and there are also some interesting omissions.

 

Is the "assessment" particularly accurate/good?

Not necessarily.

 

Is Edler "far and away the most valuable D"?

Kudos for not under-rating Edler - but a failing grade for seriously undervaluing Tanev.

 

Tanev dominates virtually every metric you can present.

Lowest ozone starts on the team.

Strongest quality of competition.   You have to look at Edler's quality of competition - in the context of the absence of both Tanev and Gudbranson for large stretches of the season.  In a healthy lineup, Tanev is your principal shutdown defenseman - while Edler's role is dual.  Edler had a great season - but his value is overstated by the OP.

 

Tanev's corsi was 47.3% - with 41.7% ozone starts.

Edlers was 46.8% with 46.0% ozone starts.  Edler's numbers here, however, can be considered somewhat misleading as he played more stretches of the season with other significant D missing from the lineup. 

 

Tanev dominated goal metrics.

Tanev's on ice goals for per 60 lead the blueline - at 2.9 per 60.  His on ice goals against was 2.5 - a differential of +.4 per 60.

Edler on the other hand 2.3 g for per 60, 3.0 g against per 60 =  a differential of -.7.

Again, however, these numbers need to be tempered as a result of the fact that Edler remained in the lineup for long stretches without the other hard minutes D - and his numbers take a hit as a result.  Nevertheless - what needs to be realized is Tanev's effectiveness in a healthy Canucks lineup. 

Tanev's impact on offense is seriously under-rated.   He may score what seem line inflated numbers per 60 - but his effectiveness in retrieving pucks, making first passes and generating transitions - the starting points of transition - is under-rated.

What also needs to be kept in mind in these kinds of offensive/goals for metrics are the players that they are enabling.  The production of players like Boeser, etc cannot be separated from the integrated effect of having effective defensive and transition defensemen on the ice.  Part of Boeser's slowed production down the stretch may have been injury related (wrist) - but it's also effected by absensces of players like Tanev - and vice versa.   Likewise, when Edler is paired with Tanev, their numbers will be very strong - while other D on this team spent long parts of the season stepping up into roles above their calling, often with partners in similar situations.  The entire blueline will have deflated possession numbers - production - as a result.   The same is true of minutes - Edler's were inflated by the absences of other players - as were other defensemen's (MDZ, etc).  In a healthy lineup you don't want Edler playing 24 minutes a night - or Del Zotto 21 - simple as that.  Del Zotto may not have 'looked great' at times - in large part because he was stepping up into minutes that you ideally don't want him playing.  When his numbers take a hit as a result, it helps to keep that in mind.

 

Likewise, an entirely under-played factor was the long term absences of their principal defensive centers - losses of both Sutter and Horvat for stretches seriously compromises the defensive effectiveness of the entire group.  It is an integrated effort that forwards cannot be separated from - and any attempt to 'analyze' the group without realizing the overall health, effectiveness, etc of the forward group is a failing effort - as are attempts to look at 'offensive' effectiveness in a void of which defensemen/pairings tend to play with which forward groups in general - and what the roles are.  In the end there are no fixed "top pairings" there is no #2 RHD, etc - these need to be broken down more situationally.  Ie Gudbranson is the clear "#2 RHD" (behind Tanev) when it comes to defensive minutes - when it comes to offensive situations or powerplay minutes - it is a different story.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[oldnews]

13 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

Some things these stats don't take into account is the d-man they're paired with and the forwards they have as support. Once our forwards play the system better and the younger d-men get more experience it will alleviate many of the breakdowns which cause negative stats.

 

We've seen D-men, who've been crapped on by fans and media, go on to be successful on other teams. It's a team thing and I see an improvement as the team improves.

Yes, exactly.

And not only who they're paired with, and what their situational roles are - but what other D are in the lineup?

If you play half a season without Tanev and Gudbranson, for example....

In addition, 20 games without Horvat and Sutter.  60 games without Dorsett.  30 more without Granlund, 40+ without Gaunce.....so what does it mean to play vast stretches of the season without your shutdown forward unit, or only a fraction of it?

Likewise, offensively, 20 games without Boeser, 20 without Horvat, 30 without Baertschi - there is a large fraction of your entire top line absent.  Is the blueline going to be as productive in any of these circumstances?  No.  So while the blueline clearly needs to drive more offense - at the same time looking at it in a void of context is absolutely 'polntless' lol - and gives a misleading 'doom and gloom' impression that is over-stated in the end.

[JamesB]

3 hours ago, oldnews said:

I'm curious what caused this shift in thinking from December?

 

 

I'd agree with your revised opinion - but you don't really make it clear why/how you've come to that diametrically opposed conclusion?  Was it Hutton that changed dramatically, or the basis of your analysis?

 

 

You are right that my view on Hutton has changed. Part of it is just that he really struggled this year. Part of it was watching his play more critically. And part of it was just looking at a variety of numbers on which he did poorly.

 

However, as @SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME pointed out, his zone exit and entrance stats paint a better picture. I had seen some of that before but not all.

 

One problem I have is that it is hard to aggregate all the different stats.  Each stat is an imperfect or noisy measure of some aspect of performance and, with that much variability in the data, if we look at enough stats we will almost always something where a player looks good and something else where he looks bad. And I remain convinced that properly accounting for quality of opposition is a very big issue that is hard to deal with.

 

Anyway, my bottom line is that my read on Hutton has been trending down. But I am not alone in that assessment. I hope he comes back after the summer ready to make a big step forward.

 

I view Goldy and Hutton in kind of a similar way. They are both fairly happy-go-lucky guys who want to have fun playing the game. Turning the game into a tough grind does not come easily to them, I also think that was a hard transition for Virtanen, but he seems to have turned the corner. Relentless workers like Horvat and Stecher don't have that problem. Their personalities fit more easily with the NHL grind.