Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

Higgins/Tanev Injured

canuckbeliever

By canuckbeliever
in Canucks Talk

Recommended Posts

Ohnoeszz Junior Prospect

Ohnoeszz

Posted
Posted

WHY, WHY, WHY indeed?

If you look at the Canucks' WOWYs (from Stats.HockeyAnalysis.com), especially in terms of 5v5 GF% and 5v5 Close GF% (and secondarily with 5v5/5v5Close FF% and CF%), the Edler-Bieksa pairing actually makes a lot of sense, and the other two top pairings also make sense (albeit at least partially due to a bit of a "domino effect").

Bieksa (who is a 52.5 GF% for the season) has only put-up good numbers playing with either Garrison (70.0 GF%--wow!!! Too bad we can't play Garry as a LD) or Edler (55.6 GF%) and, since they need Garrison to play RD, it leaves Edler (although, interestingly, Bieksa has put-up astonishingly good goals for/against numbers with Ballard this season, just in a very small sample--more on that later in this post). Bieksa has struggled with Hamhuis this season ( 46.2 GF%) and he's been terrible with Alberts (33.3 GF% and giving up nearly two goals-against for every 20 minutes 5v5TOI).

Edler (currently straddled at 50.0 GF% for the season), has only played well with Bieksa (55.6 GF%) and Garrison (58.3 GF%) and, while the Edler-Garrison pairing has proven quite successful, it forces Bieksa to partner with one of the LDs that he's struggled alongside this season (either Hamhuis or Alberts, since AV would never consider Ballard-Bieksa). The particulars of who plays well with whom, and who doesn't (plus AV's feelings about a certain KB4), pretty much determine that the Canucks will use Edler-Bieksa.

And, just to make it clear to any who might suggest it, Edler-Tanev is NOT an option. Those two have been horrible together, putting up a disgusting 28.6 GF%. Basically, you put Tanev with Edler and Tanev gives up twice as many goals-against (compared to his overall numbers for the season) and Edler's goals-for go down by more than 60%. They bring out the worst in each other. The 116.30 of 5v5TOI these two have played together is responsible for sewering both of their overall stats. Tanev has been solid overall this year but the Tanev who didn't play with Edler? That kid is amazing (he has a 62.5 GF% when paired with anyone not named Edler). Edler hasn't had his best season but take away his minutes with Tanev and his season doesn't look too shabby anymore (54.1 GF% in minutes without Tanev). Just a terrible experiment putting those two together. Anyway, end of my little outburst... :P

Garrison (a 62.0 GF% for the season--he's been great this year--best D overall on the team) has played well with Edler (see above), Bieksa (see above), and Hamhuis (60.9 GF%) and he's been just abysmal with Tanev (0.0 GF%), Ballard (33.3 GF%), and Alberts (0.0 GF%), albeit in small samples for each of these--might do better over larger samples, especially given how good Garrison has been playing. So, once you have Edler-Bieksa set, you also have Hamhuis-Garrison set.

All that's left is who plays with Tanev (who is an overall 54.8 GF% for the season) and thankfully, young Christopher plays very well with Alberts (57.1 GF%) and has been about average (50.0 GF% this season) with Ballard (although those two have a good past history). Interestingly (and this gets into my later part of the post), Tanev has put-up superb numbers with Hamhuis (not the biggest sample but not entirely insignificant either). But, given that the top-four (Edler-Bieksa and Hamhuis-Garrison) is pretty much locked up, due to the factors indicated by the WOWYs (who plays well together and who doesn't), you get either Alberts-Tanev or Ballard-Tanev as the 5/6 pairing.

"Any variation you like better?" Well, thank you for asking... ;)

While the pairings listed above (at least with the top-six Ds, as Barker-Alberts have proved horrible in their very limited time together) make a lot of sense, given the numbers, and especially given what AV seems comfortable with, from a purely statistical standpoint, in terms of the Canucks' WOWYs, these would be the "ideal" pairings for the D:

Edler-Garrison (58.3 GF%, 1.325 GF20, 0.947 GA20)

Hamhuis-Tanev (100 GF%, 1.099 GF20, 0.000 GA20)

Ballard-Bieksa (100 GF%, 1.742 GF20, 0.000 GA20)

In terms of GF%, anything about 55 is considered quite good and above 60 is excellent. And no, the bottom two pairings are not typos, both have 100 GF%, meaning that neither has surrendered a goal against during 5v5 play. While they are, admittedly, small samples (Hamhuis-Tanev have only had 54:36 of 5v5 TOI this season and Ballard-Bieksa have only had 22:58), the fact that both of these pairings have produced offense without surrendoring a single goal against makes them worth trying for a few more games (at least so we can see what the numbers look like in larger samples).

However, there is a difference between the statistical "ideal" and what actually works best on the ice. The pairings that I quoted at the very top of this post offer probably the 2nd best overall statistical option and they also reflect the coach's preferences and overall confidence in his players. I can't say I hate those pairings, even Edler-Bieksa (WHY, WHY, WHY). In fact, while intellectually, I'd love to see how the statistical "ideals" might play out, over larger samples, if I had to actually coach this team (especially down a stretch run and into the playoffs), I'd probably take the safer bet and go with the same groupings that Vigneault has chosen. After all, these stats ain't bad either:

Hamhuis-Garrison (60.9 GF%, 0.919 GF20, 0.761 GA20)

Edler-Bieksa (55.6 GF%, 0.539 GF20, 0.431 GA20)

Ballard-Tanev (50.0 GF%, 0.463 GF20, 0.463 GA20) or Alberts-Tanev (57.1 GF%, 0.901 GF20, 0.675 GA20)

Could be better offensively (GF20) but none of these pairings hurt the team and the overall numbers are good (above 55 GF%). Pretty safe group, especially considering how poor they could look if put in their less successful combinations.

One final note:

Now that Tanev is hurt, we'll be seeing some combination of Ballard, Alberts, and Barker. Alberts and Ballard aren't bad together (50.0 GF%, 0.648 GF20&GA20) and that would be my first choice. Pretty much statistically meaningless samples for either Ballard or Alberts playing with Barker so it's difficult to make any real projection. If pressed however, it's true that Barker and Ballard put-up better Corsi numbers together than either of them do with Alberts. So, I suppose the second choice would be Ballard and Barker. After all, no one wants to roll with a pairing of Alberts-Barker (right AV?).

Aren't stats fun? :rolleyes:

(Anyone make it through this entire post?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bodee Canucks Third-Line

Bodee

Posted
Posted

I think this could be a blessing because when the playoffs come round we KNOW the Sedins will need protection.

Schroeder has been playing great in Chicago so we reconstruct the Raymond - Schroeder - Hansen line.

At last Kesler gets a centre who will play him in and I see Burrows having as much chemistry with Roy as Higgins did.

The 4th line has physicality.

Sedin Sedin Kassian

Burrows Roy Kesler

Raymond Schroeder Hansen

Sestito Lapierre Weise

Hamhuis Garrison

Bieksa Edler

Ballard Vandermeer (who has also played well in Chicago recently)

"If higgins cant go in playoffs than call in Jensen."

Jensen is murder in Chicago and he was invisible up in Vancouver.......get real!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
timberz21 Canucks Second-Line

timberz21

Posted
Posted

Were fine

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows

Raymond-Kesler-Kassian

Lapierre-Roy-Hansen

Sestito-Ebbet-Pinnizotto

Lapierre can play wing, and actually he can play a similar game like Higgins. He might be a less smart on the ice, but can forecheck, hit, bring speed and be responsible defensively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Canuck Surfer Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Canuck Surfer

Posted
Posted

Buddy, so true.

I would have killed for that line up 3 weeks ago!

Were fine

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows

Raymond-Kesler-Kassian

Lapierre-Roy-Hansen

Sestito-Ebbet-Pinnizotto

Lapierre can play wing, and actually he can play a similar game like Higgins. He might be a less smart on the ice, but can forecheck, hit, bring speed and be responsible defensively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Canuck Surfer Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Canuck Surfer

Posted
Posted

And if we wanted to play to the stereotypes of 2 years ago;

Sedin/Sedin/Burrows

Lapierre/Kesler/Kassian

Raymond/Roy/Hansen

Don't care who plays on the 4th; I wanna see the speed line with Roy in the middle.

More to the point of this post; would anyone wanna play against that 2knd line? :unsure: That's some kinda nasty Lappy's gunna bite cha, Kass is gonna smash ya, Kesler might pose nude wit ur momma, gross to play against kinda line... Then we can send resident choir boy Burrows out on the PP! :towel:

Were fine

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows

Raymond-Kesler-Kassian

Lapierre-Roy-Hansen

Sestito-Ebbet-Pinnizotto

Lapierre can play wing, and actually he can play a similar game like Higgins. He might be a less smart on the ice, but can forecheck, hit, bring speed and be responsible defensively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rypien37 Canucks Rookie

Rypien37

Posted
Posted

Were fine

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows

Raymond-Kesler-Kassian

Lapierre-Roy-Hansen

Sestito-Ebbet-Pinnizotto

Lapierre can play wing, and actually he can play a similar game like Higgins. He might be a less smart on the ice, but can forecheck, hit, bring speed and be responsible defensively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...