Grape
-
Posts
3,233 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Grape
-
-
21 hours ago, N7Nucks said:
I know math is difficult. We drafted him with an early 3rd rounder. Is the point.
So since Kravtsov was a top-10 pick, we essentially traded a 3rd and a 7th for a lottery pick?
Yeah, logic is difficult.
-
17 minutes ago, rekker said:
These losses are by no means all on Demko. But I agree. Demko has been barely average and should not escape criticism. He, like several others, need to find their game.
Demko has been the worst goalie in the league per the fancystats such as GSAA.
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, King Heffy said:
Toronto's defence is absolutely atrocious and their top forwards refuse to put in an acceptable effort. They're a great example of what happens when you put together a team without understanding the sport at all. They got rid of all the competent hockey people and promoted an unqualified moron who has no business working in any hockey related job. Dubas has done a great job of handicapping the Laffs for years with his contracts to their floaters and promoting a defence-optional culture.
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
-
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.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:
How did teams draft and develop talent in the 80's and 90's without analytics? Did they actually go to the games and scout them using the eye test?
Would analytics allow you to figure out the character of a hockey player and his desire to win a Stanley Cup at all costs?
Not sure how you can use computers and charts to figure out if someone is going to be a great NHL player. It's alot easier just to visit and talk to their moms, that will open up alot more information about the player than a WAR chart...
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, King Heffy said:
As someone who personally agrees with Walker on this, I'm not pleased to seeing this at all. We've seen what happened in Toronto and Arizona when the qualified hockey people were driven out by the analytics dweebs.
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.
-
On 4/2/2022 at 11:46 PM, Alflives said:
Belgium is ranked 2nd! That tells us right there these pot rankings are soccer stupid. We should get at least second in this pot or it’s a fail.
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).
-
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.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, Provost said:
Big night.
I think we can realistically remove the Predators and Blues as important games at this point though, catching them would require them to go on extended losing streaks for the rest of the season. Kings are probably out of reach as well, and San Jose is too far back. I am really only looking at Edmonton and Vegas, to a much lesser extend Dallas as their games in hand are important and even with their injuries they are pretty far ahead.
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.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, HKSR said:
That's an inflated sv% based on 2 or 3 games where he had a lot of shots and did well. He's crapped the bed more often than not this season.
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.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, DeNiro said:
Except we could win with Martin in net.
Saying we can only win with Demko in net because we’ve got a backup that has a SV% less than .900 isn’t fair.
If we had even and average backup we probably have at least two more wins on the season.
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.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, bertuzzi44fan said:
Wonder how many shots he faced,should have won 2 of those.
Aside from $&!# sh**** performance the past few games, he's been bombarded with shots.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
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!
-
6
-
5 minutes ago, Canuckfanforlife82 said:
It’s weird it seems we have too many unselfish players on the ice all at once.They just love to pass.
3 minutes ago, N4ZZY said:We need to trade for more selfish players then. Sounds odd to say.
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.
-
21 hours ago, Shirotashi said:
Enlighten me as to how you replace Millers qualities? Hes the second coming of Yzerman
and OF COURSE people want to see him traded. If we had Nathan Mackinnon himself
there would be fans that would want him traded.
THERES CERTIAN PLAYERS YOU NEVER EVER TRADE PEOPLE!!
Them requesting a trade notwithstanding, you dont build a f ycking hockey team and
trade players like f ycking Miller. Would you trade Crosby? Or Stamkos in his prime?
Yes you COULD but those teams that kept those players WON A CUP IMAGINE THAT!!!
And yes Miller IS in the same league as those guys with all he brings to a team he IS in
the same calibre as those guys. IF we can make an argument that Pettersson is in the same
caliber as Connor David and Matthews then we DEFINATELTY can make the case that
Miller is that elite as well.
Do you know what good teams do with elite players? They sign them not trade them away
for 2-3 lesser players.
Miller is not in the same category as McKinnon, Crosby, and prime Stamkos at all. Pettersson isn't close to the same league as McDavid and Matthews. What kind of homer glasses are you wearing? I mean I thought at first you were just arguing that these were similar situations but to actually confidently say that those players are in the same category? Really? No one can successfully make that argument right now.
We all know how good Miller is and how important he is to the team, and no one wants to face the potential of losing Miller for nothing especially since we aren't real contenders currently. That's why there has been discussion of trading him; it's as obvious of a potential trade scenario as there can be in the NHL. If you can't see that that's a "you" problem and not a "the fanbase is crazy" problem.
No one is advocating for trading him for bits and pieces. We would need significant assets that could set us up well for our window of opportunity in the future.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Warhawk said:
Hughes go down on your stomach bro, you were useless there.
Going down on your stomach on a 3-on-1 ESPECIALLY in OT, is not advisable at all lol
-
1
-
-
Boeser needed to pass that ugh
-
17 hours ago, wildcam said:
Interesting, I sure hope so... I think he could break record for Vancouver D man soon 63 points??
I say Hughes between 55 - 65 points ,6th in scoring with Vancouver..
1. Petey -- 75-80 PTS - G 28
2. Garland -- 67 PTS. - G 30
3. Boeser -- 64 PTS - G 27
4. Miller -- 63 PTS - G 24
5. Horvat 63 PTS - G 25
6. Hughes 56 PTS - G 8
Hoglander 20 G -- 45 points
OEL 9 G -- 39 points
Pearson 18 G - 37 Points
I think you are severely underrating JT. I don't think any forward on our team has the puck more than he does. That pretty easily leads to him being a point machine.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:
I have a good feeling Conor Garland is going to have a great season for us and will lead the team in points.
Hard to lead the team in points when you're not on PP1
-
8 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:
Myers has a hard, inaccurate shot.
Hughes has an average, inaccurate shot.
OEL has a hard, accurate shot.
For the D shot to be an option, they have to fear it enough to spread the PKers out to guard against it. That one adjustment alone might be enough room for EP to uncork a one timer.
Hughes' shot is inaccurate? Not disagreeing, it's just that I've always perceived him to have an accurate shot. There's no way he has that many goals with such an average velocity without the accuracy, right? The one thing I wish he did more was keep the puck closer to the ice, as it seems like he likes to elevate his shot, which makes rebounds harder to get to.
-
1 minute ago, Trebreh said:
exactly! he played like $&!# all throughout the game even late in OT but somehow he deserves to shoot instead of the hardworking guys like Hog and Pod. I don't understand this coach.
It's not that complicated. Miller played poorly but is elite at the shootout, so he shot.
As soon as I saw Pearson step onto the ice I had a good feeling it was over though.
-
1 minute ago, kilgore said:
Why Miller in the shoot out, who didn't have a great game,
And not Hoagy, who did?
Because Miller shoots close to 50% in shootouts? You don't just sub one of your best shooters out because he had a bad game.
Would've liked to have seen Hoglander over Pearson though.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Trebreh said:
what did Miller do to deserve a spot on the shootout? No Hoglander or Podkolzin? OEL? &^@#ing Green.
1 minute ago, XxS3E3DI2N2SxX said:fcking joke Miller even got a shot , so much young talent to chose from
Um isn't he like 40% in his career and at least 50% as a Canuck? Not sure why this is a complaint.
-
53 minutes ago, SergioMomesso said:
Gadjovich Gaudette and Lind would get eaten alive by 30 of 32 teams third lines in the league.
That might be the slowest line in the league
-
1
-
Who here is actually happy with the Hronek trade?
in Canucks Talk
Posted
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.”