The Canucks lack of possession numbers and bleeding high danger chances

[Angry Goose]

15 minutes ago, stawns said:

That's the collapse element added to the box plus one system they play.......wingers play down pretty low and, I agree, it makes it tough to get pucks out.  If they're intent on that system, I think they should be icing the puck more when they're in trouble.  They've got three of the best faceoff guys in the league......ice the puck and reset.

The strong side winger still has to play up on their D coverage though- usually around the top of the faceoff circle.

 

Really wish I had the ability to record games and make gifs, as i tend to notice the missed short passes short passes or key turnovers in their zone.  Breaking down the game this way can sometimes illustrate how the overall game is going. 

 

If you're watching the game tomorrow maybe we can both keep a Keen eye on how things are going in the d zone.  Sometimes it just comes down to winning more battles/executing well.

[on the cycle]

On 2/13/2020 at 11:07 AM, oldnews said:

Young guys tend to flag at this time of year.

 

Not 'blaming' youth - but realistically, guys like Gaudette, EP, Boeser (and replacement rookies - are not yet great possession players - and are relative liabilities inside their own blueline).

Add to that - the repeated losses of key bottom six guys - the hard to play against and shutdown guys - not only effects who is in the lineup, but also effects those still in the lineup - their workload gets heavier, and those guys still standing get exhausted.  Part of the reason I don't expect Horvat to carry the wood down the stretch - he's got to be tired at this stage...

Sutter, Beagle, Motte, Roussel, Ferland, Leivo - these guys have all missed 20+ games or more....that's a heavy toll overlapping in one area of the lineup.

 

On the other hand, I'm not terribly concerned with corsi samples, for a number of reasons.

One of those is how dangerous this team is when it generates it's chances - it is capable of finishing - and that is huge.  It's also capable of bending, and we've all seen how Markstrom responds when he's called upon.

The other positives - the relative health of their blueline this year.

And the transition game they are capable of - particularly with  that Hughes Tanev pairing.  They can flat out drive something at any time - as long as they have Hughes skating and moving the puck as he's capable, they are going to cause fits - and they can counterpunch against momentum - something you see in most if not all of the great teams (some of whom are noted counterpunching teams).

 

If those factors, particularly the depleted veteran forward group, were not present, I'd be more concerned, but that, along with the resiliency (unheard of in these parts) of the blueline - and their two goaltenders = not that concerned, particularly over the longer run (when they ought to be both healthier in their bottom six, and increasingly developed in their core).

What? EP and Brock are two of the best possession players on the team. EP is also pretty great defensively. The defensive system we have is not great,

 

I'm all for up tempo hockey but not if you're going to hemorrhage tons of shots and high danger scoring chances.

 

The young guys are driving the boat, some of the veterans are anchors. One of the best possession guys on the team was Leivo and we should keep him next year.

 

Advanced analytics should be an important tool for this team, I don't see us having much playoff success if our possession numbers don't get drastically better.

[wai_lai416]

3 hours ago, Phat Fingers said:

6 for 4-6 years isn't an anchor.  Look at the insanely long list of goalies playing well into their late 30's.  I can go through the list but it's long and has alot of HOFers on it.  

 

Let's just throw out the 10m for Price.  That is 40% higher than anything we are talking about.  

 

The alternative path is to trust the future of the franchise to a yet to be proven, concussion prone netminder.  Demko is a good goalie, but in all the talk about a goalie of the future, we have 2, one in Utica.  

 

Signing Marky would make Demko expendable, that is the only downside.  

 

Paying 6m for a guy that is just now hitting his prime is fine by me.  The Vezina talk is valid.  Let's say he slows down in 4 years as Mikey (hopefully) is taking a larger, yet affordable, chunk of the net time. 

 

It isn't that 6m is too much to pay a goalie, it is how much does a good tandem cost? 

 

This year the nucks got a bargain.  This year it's 4.75, not even market rate for a quality starter. 

 

If Marky stays at 6m, then that will become 7.05 next year, still decent for the tandem of the quality we have.  

 

That number could well remain static if Demko is moved and Mikey can continue to grow in our system.  

 

7.05 for the next 3 years is 8.3% of the current cap spent on goalie.  If we can't afford that, then we have way, way bigger problems than goalies.  

 

We won't get better goaltending for less money than we are currently playing and even at 7.05m I doubt we get better quality starts for the cost.  

 

We have Demko and Mikey as cost effective backups for the next 3 years.  By then one of the 2 will be ready to take over more and more games.  My money is on Mikey, as he has shown better numbers in the AHL at a younger age.  

 

Miller was 6x3 as a 35 plus  y/o fading goalie, Marky's deal would be expiring at the same age we signed Miller.  

 

I also want to point out, JB can also still draft new goalies into the system.  If we lose Demko or expect too, I would expect him to continue to stock the goalie pipeline.  

 

 

What's the insanely long list of goalies you are referring to? Dont compare him to like star goalies that's played well majority of their career from mid 20s to mid 30s. Also 6mil for 4-6 is not an anchor? So what if in a couple of years even the 4th-6th year he became the backup? 6mil backup goalie? And really how often do u see a goalie win a cup past 30 recently? In the last decade fleury and Thomas? Or did fleury even play in the finals 

[Phat Fingers]

12 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:

What's the insanely long list of goalies you are referring to? Dont compare him to like star goalies that's played well majority of their career from mid 20s to mid 30s. Also 6mil for 4-6 is not an anchor? So what if in a couple of years even the 4th-6th year he became the backup? 6mil backup goalie? And really how often do u see a goalie win a cup past 30 recently? In the last decade fleury and Thomas? Or did fleury even play in the finals 

Wai-Lai, so the list of goalies can't include players who played the majority of their careers between their mid 20's to their mid 30's?   

 

Well that's pretty much every player in the NHL, so weird.  

 

So Marky is right smack in the middle of your banned list.  He is 30.  So with your criteria I can't even use Marky to compare to Marky.... see the problem.  

 

So a few guys that late bloomed..... just a guy who beat us in the SCF... Tim Thomas, a HOFer and all world goalie in Hasek, Rolly the Goalie, Vanbiesruck (sp?), Essensa, Richter was north of 30 when he became dominant, The King of NY Lundquist.  Fuhr, Joseph, Kippersof didn't start hitting his peak until 27-28 and had 6 years of solid tending.  

 

For the most part goalies don't truly hit their stride until their late twenties.  Yet there is a laundry list of flash in the pan young goalies that hit a wall early and fade into history.  Ranford and The Net Detective, Jim Carrey come to mind.  

 

With current 30 y/o  plus goalies playing in the NHL include Miller,  Smith, Quick, Renne, Dubnyck (He had a similar development path.  The problems in Minny aren't on Dubnyck.)

 

Marky is 30, not 35.  We have 2 good young goalies in the system and expansion coming.  We can afford to loose one and rely on Marky for the next 3-4 years to be our starter.  

 

Either Demko or Diepetro currently will be backups.  Jb and Brackett can still draft goalies too.  

 

This team is at a crucial stage and losing Marky could set the franchise back a number of years if our yet to proven goalies falter.  

 

We currently have 4.75m invested in our tandem.  That cannot last.  Having a cost controlled 7.05 for next season is fair value for a average tandem.  We have an excellent tandem and Demko is likely the odd man out next year.  Great, cause we have Dipietro.  

 

6m for a top 10 starting goalie is not an anchor.  Remember Miller, he was 6m.  

 

One thing.  Respond to my points, or don't bother to respond.  Most of my points including cost of a tandem with Marky's raise factored in and you ignore it. 

 

Ignoring valid counterpoints and then setting unrealistic parameters of debate to maintain your narrative is not needed if your arguement is sound.  

 

 

Every time I engage you, I just get a wall of text back.  I separate my points to make it possible for you to read it easily.  Try it.  

 

One big thing.  Since your are against signing Marky to any term, which he will get, here or elsewhere. 

 

 

What's your plan then?  Who starts here next season.  For what salary?  Do you plan on trading Marky or letting him walk?  Are you looking to add a vet goalie on the FA market, for how much?  Who?  

 

If the plan is turn Demko into a starter, so at least 2 years with 4m vet fill in will easily past 7.05m with Demko's next salary after next season. 

 

So Marky and Demko next year, Marky and Mikey for the following few years... or Demko and a journeyman vet at 4m for the next few years... 

 

Alot of questions.... and instability in goal is more likely with one course than the other... 

 

A big risk to save 2% of the cap or less for one year.  

 

If you are a huge Demko fan and believe he is ready to do what Marky is doing, then I can respect that.  I just don't agree.  

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Phat Fingers

[Alflives]

7 minutes ago, Phat Fingers said:

Wai-Lai, so the list of goalies can't include players who played the majority of their careers between their mid 20's to their mid 30's?   

 

Well that's pretty much every player in the NHL, so weird.  

 

So Marky is right smack in the middle of your banned list.  He is 30.  So with your criteria I can't even use Marky to compare to Marky.... see the problem.  

 

So a few guys that late bloomed..... just a guy who beat us in the SCF... Tim Thomas, a HOFer and all world goalie in Hasek, Rolly the Goalie, Vanbiesruck (sp?), Essensa, Richter was north of 30 when he became dominant, The King of NY Lundquist.  Fuhr, Joseph, Kippersof didn't start hitting his peak until 27-28 and had 6 years of solid tending.  

 

For the most part goalies don't truly hit their stride until their late twenties.  Yet there is a laundry list of flash in the pan young goalies that hit a wall early and fade into history.  Ranford and The Net Detective, Jim Carrey come to mind.  

 

With current 30 y/o  plus goalies playing in the NHL include Miller,  Smith, Quick, Renne, Dubnyck (He had a similar development path.  The problems in Minny aren't on Dubnyck.)

 

Marky is 30, not 35.  We have 2 good young goalies in the system and expansion coming.  We can afford to loose one and rely on Marky for the next 3-4 years to be our starter.  

 

Either Demko or Diepetro currently will be backups.  Jb and Brackett can still draft goalies too.  

 

This team is at a crucial stage and losing Marky could set the franchise back a number of years if our yet to proven goalies falter.  

 

We currently have 4.75m invested in our tandem.  That cannot last.  Having a cost controlled 7.05 for next season is fair value for a average tandem.  We have an excellent tandem and Demko is likely the odd man out next year.  Great, cause we have Dipietro.  

 

6m for a top 10 starting goalie is not an anchor.  Remember Miller, he was 6m.  

 

One thing.  Respond to my points, or don't bother to respond.  Most of my points including cost of a tandem with Marky's raise factored in and you ignore it. 

 

Ignoring valid counterpoints and then setting unrealistic parameters of debate to maintain your narrative is not needed if your arguement is sound.  

 

 

Every time I engage you, I just get a wall of text back.  I separate my points to make it possible for you to read it easily.  Try it.  

 

 

 

It seems that JB’s previously signed bad contracts are going to cause us to have to make some very tough choices on who (from a group of guys that are really helping us win now) can stay.  Marky is on that list, and has to IMO stay.  I see us trading Demko at the 2020 draft and signings no a mature backup for a couple years at a million per year.  That will give DiPietro time to mature.  

[Phat Fingers]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

It seems that JB’s previously signed bad contracts are going to cause us to have to make some very tough choices on who (from a group of guys that are really helping us win now) can stay.  Marky is on that list, and has to IMO stay.  I see us trading Demko at the 2020 draft and signings no a mature backup for a couple years at a million per year.  That will give DiPietro time to mature.  

JB seems to have a plan.  Rumour has it that Loui may hang up the skates after the season.  He has most of his money of July 1st.  We aren't going to be a heavy player in FA this season, so that space, if he does retire, would be a boon.  

 

We have a number of players that can be moved in their final years that can free up space.  

 

It is the season after that matters most.  Huge deals to be hammered out.  

 

Beagle, Rousell, Sutter... what's that 10m.  They can all be dealt or walk after next year.  Edler is up next offseason... 6m.  Benn, 2m.  Youth on the farm ready to take spots and a few ELC's to play with like Madden, Podz, Hogs etc...  

 

Ferland may not comeback, so more capspace there.  

 

If Eriksson does hang up the skates (please, even though he is a good player at 2m to 3m) then we are laughing.  

 

2.25m more per year for Marky is not going to break any bank, anytime soon. 

[stawns]

3 hours ago, Phat Fingers said:

JB seems to have a plan.  Rumour has it that Loui may hang up the skates after the season.  He has most of his money of July 1st.  We aren't going to be a heavy player in FA this season, so that space, if he does retire, would be a boon.  

 

We have a number of players that can be moved in their final years that can free up space.  

 

It is the season after that matters most.  Huge deals to be hammered out.  

 

Beagle, Rousell, Sutter... what's that 10m.  They can all be dealt or walk after next year.  Edler is up next offseason... 6m.  Benn, 2m.  Youth on the farm ready to take spots and a few ELC's to play with like Madden, Podz, Hogs etc...  

 

Ferland may not comeback, so more capspace there.  

 

If Eriksson does hang up the skates (please, even though he is a good player at 2m to 3m) then we are laughing.  

 

2.25m more per year for Marky is not going to break any bank, anytime soon. 

Source?  

[Phat Fingers]

24 minutes ago, stawns said:

Source?  

I have read it on here... I don't have sources.   

 

It is speculated based in JB's confidence regarding his future cap space.  Eriksson is due for his last bonus july 1st.  I think I just puked in my mouth.... bonus for what???

 

 

Anyways, I don't think the dollar amount is the sticking point for marky and the club, term and Ntc's etc....  

 

 

Still I suspect Eriksson might not want to be the fall guy for losing Marky or any of the kids.  

 

 

 

 

[stawns]

23 minutes ago, Phat Fingers said:

I have read it on here... I don't have sources.   

 

It is speculated based in JB's confidence regarding his future cap space.  Eriksson is due for his last bonus july 1st.  I think I just puked in my mouth.... bonus for what???

 

 

Anyways, I don't think the dollar amount is the sticking point for marky and the club, term and Ntc's etc....  

 

 

Still I suspect Eriksson might not want to be the fall guy for losing Marky or any of the kids.  

 

 

 

 

JB & Co don't seem too worried about the cap situation, and I think they've more than earned the trust of those of us who follow the team.  LE is 34, so he's getting to the ballpark of retirement, but I doubt he retires this summer.

[stawns]

16 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:

What's the insanely long list of goalies you are referring to? Dont compare him to like star goalies that's played well majority of their career from mid 20s to mid 30s. Also 6mil for 4-6 is not an anchor? So what if in a couple of years even the 4th-6th year he became the backup? 6mil backup goalie? And really how often do u see a goalie win a cup past 30 recently? In the last decade fleury and Thomas? Or did fleury even play in the finals 

I'd bet my bottom dollar marky has at least 4-5 years of elite level play ahead of him, and those will be years they need an elite level goalie.

[stawns]

17 hours ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

The strong side winger still has to play up on their D coverage though- usually around the top of the faceoff circle.

 

Really wish I had the ability to record games and make gifs, as i tend to notice the missed short passes short passes or key turnovers in their zone.  Breaking down the game this way can sometimes illustrate how the overall game is going. 

 

If you're watching the game tomorrow maybe we can both keep a Keen eye on how things are going in the d zone.  Sometimes it just comes down to winning more battles/executing well.

to me, the most turnovers come from players trying to "flip" the puck to get out of trouble, while avoiding an icing.  It's a terrible, low percentage play that gets them into far more trouble than it saves them.  Ice the damn puck and reset when you get into trouble.......fall back on your elite faceoff guys.

 

 

[Patel Bure]

More balanced lines = anecdote?

 

I don’t have the stats and the analytics in front of me, but perhaps it’s a case of our bottom 6 being too weak?    What if that was addressed by the following:

 

Pearson-Horvat-Eriksson (Simmonds)
Roussel-Pettersson-Boeser

Miller-Gaudette-Virtanen

Motte-Beagle-Sutter

 

[Phat Fingers]

1 hour ago, stawns said:

I'd bet my bottom dollar marky has at least 4-5 years of elite level play ahead of him, and those will be years they need an elite level goalie.

Agreed.  

 

Keep the MVP!

 

Even a 6 year deal is doable, but a 5 year deal should be equal for both sides.  I don't worry about an NTC full for 4 years.  Limited to 15 teams beyond that.  Protect him from expansion. 

 

Take away the guy keeping us in every game from this team and we lose 10 pts in the standings easily.  

 

 

 

 

[Angry Goose]

1 hour ago, stawns said:

to me, the most turnovers come from players trying to "flip" the puck to get out of trouble, while avoiding an icing.  It's a terrible, low percentage play that gets them into far more trouble than it saves them.  Ice the damn puck and reset when you get into trouble.......fall back on your elite faceoff guys.

 

 

Yeah.  I'll notice these little short passes-that if received cleanly they're out of the zone.  Sometimes in the neutral zone too and like u say, they have to turn right back around.   

[stawns]

6 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

Yeah.  I'll notice these little short passes-that if received cleanly they're out of the zone.  Sometimes in the neutral zone too and like u say, they have to turn right back around.   

I agree those passes are problematic, but I've noticed fewer of them lately.

[IBatch]

18 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:

What's the insanely long list of goalies you are referring to? Dont compare him to like star goalies that's played well majority of their career from mid 20s to mid 30s. Also 6mil for 4-6 is not an anchor? So what if in a couple of years even the 4th-6th year he became the backup? 6mil backup goalie? And really how often do u see a goalie win a cup past 30 recently? In the last decade fleury and Thomas? Or did fleury even play in the finals 

It's a mute point.  Without Markstrom the Canucks window isn't opening anytime soon.  Broduer, Beflour, Roy, Hasek, Bower, Sawchuk are the goalies in the HHOF the guy your guys talking about - the past does have enough 30 plus year olds winning cups..Quick wasn't far off either and without him LA wouldn't have made the playoffs either time and definitely no cups.  MAF held the fort - without him maybe one cup for PIT, was better then Murray that year.   

 

There's no reason to think Markstrom won't play at a high level for at least three more years.   Hopefully by then his back-up can take over as needed and lighten the load to keep out window open.    The only other option right now would possibly be Holtby (if he becomes available).  He's more  proven but even older - and won't come cheap.    I was all for Demko earlier this season -  but since he's made me a believer.   Some goalies have their best seasons past 20 - it happens often enough.   Could be worse that's for sure. 

[oldnews]

19 hours ago, on the cycle said:

What? EP and Brock are two of the best possession players on the team.

What?  Not in context, they aren't.  You only arrive at a conclusion like that by corsi-gazing shot differentials out of context.   :ikwise with your simplistic comments about veterans in general - common among people that don't understand the difference in roles - or what their expected shot attempt differentials should be, in context.  EP and Boeser eat the most tilted (in their favour) opportune minutes on the team, and give up territory - and that's still after having added a serious boost in Miller to that line.  Pettersson had over 70% ozone starts last season, and a corsi a hair over 51%.  Looing at this from noob eyes, a person would conclude he's a very good 'possession' player - obviously oversimplified  - this year he's still highest on the team (over 60% ozone starts) and gives up territory, albeit not as much as last season.   I don't think you have a grasp of "advanced analytics' wadr.

[oldnews]

Btw - I'm not sure what the point of a "high danger scoring chance against' discussion is - when no one posts the actual facts / objective outcomes.

 

The Canucks are 15th in the league in high danger scoring chances against.

 

In other words, not as much to see here as people perceive (a bit too much goldfishing on recent, small samples that distort your perceptions).

 

The teams is actually weaker in the category of producing high danger scoring chances for - their 21st in the NHL - but thankfully, they're also more adept than most teams at converting those chances ie. they generate higher danger high danger chances lol.

Edited February 16, 2020 by oldnews

[wai_lai416]

3 hours ago, stawns said:

I'd bet my bottom dollar marky has at least 4-5 years of elite level play ahead of him, and those will be years they need an elite level goalie.

Ya they bet the same with Carey price bobrovsky schneider and all the long term contracts.. theres not enough goalie past 30 continuing to play at an elite level to take a big gamble. Yes it's a gamble if markstrom doesnt play as well as hes been this year then we be in trouble having an overpaid goalie during the core prime years. I'm not against signing him but no thx to anything more than 4 years max. It's like 1 in 10 15 goalies that plays at an elite level past 30. While markstrom have been amazing this year if u watch him play. His stats does not support him as an elite. If u are elite ur sv% should reflect it like Luongo did in his early years even though his gaa is high his sv% is high. Markstrom gaa is high and his sv% is avg at best.

[oldnews]

On ice high danger chances against - Canucks:

 

Myers  184 (also the team's highest on high danger scoring chances for = 186)

Tanev 172

Hughes 167

Horvat 155

Miller 145

Stecher 142

Edler 139  (pretty impressive all things considered / hard minutes)

Pearson 134

Virtanen 127

Benn 119

Boeser 118

Pettersson 109

Beagle 95

Gaudette 92

Leivo 87

Schaller 83

Sutter 72  (team best on-ice sv% of .956)

Fanta 70

Eriksson 68

Roussel 61

Motte 56

 

 

not much that is 'surprising' there considering minutes, role/context, matchups, etc, imo.

Benn pretty high considering... Sutter, Beagle, Eriksson = pretty solid.

 

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by oldnews