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

Some interesting numbers underlying this Canucks/Sharks series...


oldnews

Recommended Posts

Some predictable stuff on this page...

"The Canucks were outplayed!"

"Uh, the numbers actually don't support that..."

"Numbers, shmumbers. I watched the games!"

"Uh, so did I. I saw things differently than you. What I saw supports what the numbers say..."

"Well obviously, you know nothing about hockey. My expert opinion and keen powers of observation, trump any analysis that is supported by mere statistics! Stats are only relevant when they support my argument! Otherwise, they're overrated and pale in comparison to my opinion!"

"The Canucks are garbage and need to fire the coach and replace him with someone who'll put Keith Ballard on the first PP unit! Then the Cup is ours!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony in those comments as I see it is that two of the Canucks most consistent players missed open nets - otherwise you're looking at a 2-2 series.

Which just goes to show hairline differences that your silly generalizations don't realize.

I realize it may be difficult to look at a particular part of the game - the 5 on 5 part - when you are so eager to reduce a series to something as simple and intangible as claims that the Canucks lack heart.

The Sharks scored 7 powerplay goals - aside from that, were you really so impressed with their performance?

Your story of quality chances is blurred by the impression you received, apparently unable to distinguish, from all the 5on4 situations that obviously factored so strongly into your impression.

Despite the parade to the penalty box which in all your objectivity you manage to dismiss as an irrelevant factor - I see why you are so resistant to relative objectivity - it still took two empty net misses and two last minute gift wrapped powerplay goals to shift the series from 2-2 to a sweep.

The funny thing is that corsi reflects more accurately than opinion what actually transpired.

The best numbers on the Canucks - the fourth line. Their limited minutes, to the blind eye, indicated that.

Who struggled the most? Higgins, Bieksa, Roy, Edler...Would that be an inaccurate "assumption" too?

Why did Higgins struggle? That we don't know, but a simplistic explanation that he lacks "heart" sure as hell would not suffice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Corsi only reflects one aspect of a game, not every aspect that makes a difference in that game. People who want to separate 5 on 5 play and suggest that it proves the Canucks were great are missing one important point:

The game is not played only 5 on 5 and the Canucks PK was terrible all series long. The Canuck did not play with any urgency at all until it was too late whether it was 5 on 5 , on the PP, or on the PK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What-ifs can be found at both ends of the spectrum, so saying the series should be 2-2 is a pretty useless exercise. You are also putting too much emphasis on the penalty differential if you ask me.

I am sorry to tell you but Bieksa cross checked the Shark to get the penalty. Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it should not have been called when it was based on the score or the series situation is irrelevant. It was a penalty and it got called that time. The ensuing PK could not kill it off and so the game got tied. The Canucks had real trouble containing the Sharks when they were cycling the puck. That led to some of the obstruction/cross checking type penalties.

Daniel's hit was not a penalty in my mind at all. That was a bogus call. But again, the rules and the way the NHL has called those kind of hits as penalties - even though they are using very flawed logic themselves - still puts that kind of hit in a grey enough area to see that the officials COULD call it a penalty. And again, the team needs to kill it off and didn't.

This ridiculous argument that the Canucks were the superior team who only lost because of factors outside their own control is just another way of shielding yourself from the painful reality that this team is not really that good or that deep and that they get outworked and outcoached in the playoffs. All this whining about the Canucks not deserving the penalties they got or that the Sharks dove too much is ridiculous. No one seemed to think it was wrong when guys like Kesler, Burrows, etc. were diving to get the Canucks PP's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Corsi only reflects one aspect of a game, not every aspect that makes a difference in that game. People who want to separate 5 on 5 play and suggest that it proves the Canucks were great are missing one important point:

The game is not played only 5 on 5 and the Canucks PK was terrible all series long. The Canuck did not play with any urgency at all until it was too late whether it was 5 on 5 , on the PP, or on the PK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You honestly feel that the Canucks outplayed the Sharks? In what ways if you don't mind me asking? As I said, Corsi examines a very specific result based on a very specific set of assumptions. So you guys are saying that Corsi now reflects EVERY aspect of a game in terms of who outplayed who?

There are just as many statistics available to support that the Sharks were the better team. How about coring chances 5 on 5? Or even something as simple as the fact that they won 4 games and the Canucks won none? Such is the nature of any statistics unfortunately. Whatever argument you are trying to make in something with as many variables as a team sport can always be supported with specific stats.

I'm not sure what a guy who did not play has to do with the discussion but seriously, you chasing me around trying to bring Ballard into every conversation is getting a little bit stalker-ish now. Given the way Bieksa did his best to cost us this series almost single handedly with his big mouth, his stupid penalties, and his terrible defensive play, I would think you would want to be off defending him somewhere. Honestly, I would have taken Ballard over Bieksa in this series any day with the way Bieksa played. See how it is to bring up a player into a conversation that did not include him at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why so defensive there Wally?

The problem with the Canucks as you see it is most certainly gone. The new coach, whoever he is, will most certainly see things your way (how could he not, when the problems are so obvious to anyone with eyes) and the team will magically be "motivated" for every game, Ballard will get top four ice time like he deserves and the Canucks will be dominant once again.

This should be time for optimism, rather than bringing arguments to the conversation that have nothing to do with my previous post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am actually a believer in using stats to support arguments. But I also believe that you have to actually watch the games rather than rely on them as your main source of who is the better team on the ice. There are way too many variables involved to make such a linear argument as you are making. CORSI methodology is not fullproof nor is it the end all and be all of statistical analysis for hockey. It comes down to how much you believe that methodology accurately represents something as dynamic as team and individual effectiveness in a hockey game. I am not one who thinks it is an overly accurate reflection of much to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canucks took a lot of really stupid undisciplined penalties to be honest. So many people want to suggest they were just jobbed by the refs but really look at the majority of the calls against them. They were penalties in the letter of the law and so they were called.

Whether or not they were called the other way and whether or not they were consistently applied are both totally different matters. At the end of the day if you don't want a stupid penalty called, don't commit the infraction that is within the rules to be called.

The Canucks were repeatedly hemmed in their own zone by the Sharks which in general (no matter who the team is) seems to lead to an automatic penalty if they can't get the puck out. I know I have always found this to be an extremely flawed way to judge things but it has been pretty consistently applied that way over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that not every conversation you and I have on here needs to devolve into Ballard vs Bieksa. You always bring it into any conversation we have though even when it clearly has nothing to do with any of my points in this thread. It gets tiring to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I get tired of you throwing things out there like "Do you really think that the Canucks were the better team?" when I had made no such claim.

My position is that we'll never know, since powerplay opportunities tend to tilt momentum in favor of the team that receives the bul of them, whether they score on those opportunities or not.

I also believe that the corsi numbers indicate that the Canucks compete level 5 on 5 was much better than you seem to think and that your constant harping about how the Canucks weren't trying, weren't properly motivated and lacked heart is utter garbage. You have nothing to support your opinion other than well, your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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