Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Grape

Members
  • Posts

    3,233
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Ann Arbor
  • Interests
    Vancouver Canucks

Recent Profile Visitors

18,856 profile views

Grape's Achievements

Canucks Third-Line

Canucks Third-Line (8/14)

1.6k

Reputation

  1. Lol this is not why people “hate us as a fan base.” They used to “hate us” because we were a rabid fanbase with an elite team filled with pests like Burrows, Kesler. People pity us now. No rival fan looks at a Canucks fan reacting poorly to one of the many ill-advised moves management has made, and says “ugh why are the so negative?” In fact, our lack for rivals nowadays speaks to how no one really cares about us. People have responsed to you already, but if you’re laughing your ass off at people making rational arguments on why they don’t like the trade, you’re probably a homer. You’re allowed to like the trade and there are arguments that you make that are fair, but failing to see why we’re worried as if it’s completely outrageous means you’re either a homer or can’t really understand the idea of value/opportunity cost - a trade is much more complicated than just “how good is the player you’re getting.”
  2. So since Kravtsov was a top-10 pick, we essentially traded a 3rd and a 7th for a lottery pick? Yeah, logic is difficult.
  3. Demko has been the worst goalie in the league per the fancystats such as GSAA.
  4. Analytics doesn't ignore defense whatsover. In fact, defense is paramount to solid analytics for most models, especially in a sport where perfect defense beats perfect offense. Blaming their lack of defense on analytics is a pretty good indicator that you're just looking for reasons to attribute blame towards analytics. Dubas may not be a good GM, but what does any of what you said have to do with analytics? I can tell you definitively that analytics doesn't support optional defense or cap mismanagement lol
  5. I think the main misunderstanding about analytics is that it is a predictive tool more than anything. People scoff when they're told "yes, you won the game, but analytics say that you were expected to lose," and then deem that analytics are completely worthless since it's more important to win the actual game. Of course, what matters in the moment is getting a W, but what matters for future assessment is deeming what is conducive to sustaining W's, which is why analytics is used. Example: if in game 1, team A beats team B, but the high-danger-scoring-chances were 15-1 for team B, who would you bet wins game 2? Without more information, I think all of us would guess team B. Now, of course, this is such an exaggerated example of one team getting absolutely dominated that the same can be deduced without analytics, and just through the eye-test. But in real-life cases, the eye-tests can fail because of a variety of reasons (emotional bias, misplaced value, memory, and most importantly the impossibility of watching every moment of every game etc...), which opens up the value of analytics - it can help assess the future of a team or player much more efficiently than simple and raw stats such as W's and L's or G's and A's. Of course, as has been said in this thread, analytics should be used as a supporting tool because we haven't reached a point in time where analytics are even close to perfect. But it is something that NEEDS to be used for player and team evaluation in order for modern teams to sustain winning hockey. Teams wouldn't be heavily investing in it if it weren't.
  6. I mean, analytics play a part in why the quality of hockey is much higher than what it was back in the 80's and 90's. Teams didn't suffer from the lack of analytics back then because no one used analytics. That logic is like someone asking: "how did goalies make saves back in the 80's without these new school techniques?" in order to prove that old school techniques are better. Well, they worked back then because new goalie techniques hadn't been discovered. The issues with valuing "the character of a hockey player and his desire to win a Stanley Cup" as a main measure of scouting is that, 1. it is totally subjective and difficult to gauge, and 2. they clearly aren't things that matter as much as product on ice. Analytical measures that drive success are obviously much more present in consistently winning teams than "amount of character per team," however you measure that. I hope you don't actually think that talking to a player's mom is a better way to scout than looking at objective data that drive success (WAR is generally not a stat that works in hockey so I don't think people use it much anyway). I mean, even if you're serious, Analytics also don't prevent things like "talking to the player's parents" as you put it. Discovering who these players are as people still matter of course, and teams still go about doing so - I doubt there is a correlation between "amount of analytics used" versus "amount of parents talked to" in this league.
  7. Toronto is such a horrendous example to use if you're against analytics. I think it shows a lack of understanding of the variability and randomness of hockey if you're using them as an example. Toronto just happens to have hilariously come out as disadvantaged from such an aspect of this sport. Also, just because a team isn't built by analytics does not mean that analytical tools will think they are worse. And just because a team is built through analytics does not mean analytics will love them. There are tons of variables in determining the competency of a GM/coach other than: do they use analytics? For example, predictive analytics never saw Arizona as a good team. Predictive analytics did however, see that the cup-winning STL team, despite being dead last in January of that year, was much better than their record indicated.
  8. Belgium and Croatia were semi-finalists in the last World Cup (with Croatia making it to the final). They are powerhouses with world class players at every position (especially Belgium), while we truly only have one on the team. Soccer is a really random sport so it won't take a miracle to beat either, but we are nowhere close in quality. It would be like Russia vs Austria in hockey or something, but with more variability since again, soccer is really random (even more so than hockey).
  9. Season over for Truscott and Michigan. Truscott and Hughes both had chances to put Michigan into the Championship game and blew it. Worst officiating I have ever seen in a long time. three blatant missed calls in overtime: a slash causing injury, a slewfoot, and an offiside leading to the winning goal. Zero penalties called in 80 minutes of hockey against Denver and 3 on Michigan (2 of them very questionable). Probably not the right forum to say all of this but just have to vent my frustration. Single-elimination hockey is so stupid.
  10. How is Dallas pretty far ahead? We are tied in points and 3 games ahead. If they continue at their pace, they should be about 3 points ahead with the same amount of games. They are just as "ahead" as Edmonton is.
  11. Take away any backup goalie's best 2 or 3 games and their stats are going to be crap. I would rather have Martin at this point, but it's objective that Halak was solid prior to his recent collapse. You can't just remove numbers for the sake of your argument.
  12. Which games? Halak was horrible in these past 2 starts but we weren't winning these games either way with those defensive performances. The other games he was a very good backup and we couldn't score. I don't trust Halak but the only constant is our poor play in front of our goalies. Halak hasn't been bad all season long.
  13. Aside from $&!# sh**** performance the past few games, he's been bombarded with shots.
  14. Would've been awesome if both Myers and his brother played on the same day in the same arena. Unfortunately Grimes got hurt a few days ago so he dress for the Knicks today. Still cool though!
  15. I don't think being unselfish is the reasoning. We don't move the puck quick enough or decisively enough and we're not fast enough to skate ourselves out of trouble/into opportunities, that's why our shots are so low. Guys aren't creating the opportunities to shoot that an elite powerplay would create. As it stands now, I doubt shooting more will do much. Yeah I think we'd be slightly better off shooting more, but it won't make us anywhere close to elite. A lot of these hypothetical shots we're not taking would just go into the defenders shins and result in easy clears. It would be a much bigger issue if we were generating looks and not shooting, but we're not even generating looks. It's way more than just a mentality thing of just shooting more.
×
×
  • Create New...