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

Rolling lines = Automatic success?


Mattrek

Recommended Posts

So I went over all of our games played since the start of the season and found out that if we roll all 4 lines we have a far better rate of success in winning games. Now this is probably going to elicit a "duh" from most of you, but it's actually startling how much rolling the forward lines correlates to wins.

Game 1: 9-20 mins of ice time for each forward

Result: Win

Game 2: 9-21 mins of ice time for each forward

Result: Loss

Game 3: 10-21 mins of ice time for each forward

Result: Win

Game 4: 9-21 mins of ice time for each forward

Result: Win

Game 5: 10-21 mins of ice time for each forward

Result: Loss

Game 6: 9-20 mins of ice time for each forward

Result: Loss

Game 7: 7-20 mins of ice time for each forward

Result: Loss

Game 8: 5-21 mins of ice time for each forward

Result: Loss

Game 9: 12-16 mins of ice time for each forward (not counting Prust since he was injured)

Result: Win

Game 10: 9-19 mins of ice time for each forward

Result: Loss

Game 11: 10-16 mins of ice time for each forward

Result: Win

Game 12: 11-16 mins of ice time for each forward

Result: Win

Game 13: 6-20 mins of ice time for each forward

Result: Loss

Game 14: 10-18 mins of ice time for each forward

Result: Loss

Game 15: 8-21 mins of ice time for each forward (not counting Dorsett as he was out for 15 mins on penalties)

Result: Loss

Game 16: 13-17 mins of ice time for each forward

Result: Win

We have won all 4 games we rolled all 4 lines (I count that at about a 6 minute gap between players) in, so that's a 100% win rate when rolling the lines. When we don't roll the lines we have 9 losses and 3 wins for a 25% win rate.

Yes, this isn't the only factor when considering a win as each game has its own variables and maybe this is just a coincidence, but on the other hand to see the difference in wins/losses between rolling the lines and not is pretty shocking.

I think two things to take away from this is that we need to keep the Sedins ice time below 18 minutes. They're still all star players with immense skill, but they are getting older and they seem to get worn out if they play any higher minutes. We need to stop leaning on them and give them an equal 16-17 minutes for them to be the most effective as we saw with Columbus.

The second thing is besides the Sedins all our players seem to lose a step when playing very high or very low minutes. The older veterans can't handle the higher minutes anymore and get sluggish and slow while our younger players don't get enough ice time and so they're afraid to touch the puck and make a play and really can't get into a games rhythm. The veterans also miss the infectious youthful energy that the young guns bring, which makes them play with more speed and more of a spark then they otherwise would have. The veterans get their energy from the youth and the youth learn from the veterans. If they don't get equal ice time the whole team seems to fall apart.

Anyways, what do you guys think? Agree? Disagree? A coincidence or a key to success? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first instinct when I read your thread title was, yes, "duh" - another thread with an armchair telling WD how to coach.  And that this has been done to death on these boards...

However, the fact you tracked ice time and results is interesting - and worthwhile.  It's a single factor that doesn't really look in context at why those particular variations might have occured when they did - ie home/road (last change or not), who the opponent is and matchups, regular rest or back to back, etc - but still interesting despite the limits of what can be concluded, although there seems at least some merit to the point.

I don't buy the idea that the Sedins are tired after 17 minutes or whatever, but that's just opinion.

WD and GMJB are characterized by their desire to roll four lines - so I usually find the instruction pointless tbh - but the fact you tracked the minutes is interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first instinct when I read your thread title was, yes, "duh" - another thread with an armchair telling WD how to coach.  And that this has been done to death on these boards...

However, the fact you tracked ice time and results is interesting - and worthwhile.  It's a single factor that doesn't really look in context at why those particular variations might have occured when they did - ie home/road (last change or not), who the opponent is and matchups, regular rest or back to back, etc - but still interesting despite the limits of what can be concluded, although there seems at least some merit to the point.

I don't buy the idea that the Sedins are tired after 17 minutes or whatever, but that's just opinion.

WD and GMJB are characterized by their desire to roll four lines - so I usually find the instruction pointless tbh - but the fact you tracked the minutes is interesting.

Yeah I don't like retreading old topics, but the correlation between ice time and wins is pretty shocking and thought it would be interesting to discuss as a separate topic.

Regarding the Sedins I believe that they function the best at the middle minutes mark not that they can't function higher. They just can't be at their peak playing capacity past the 17 minute mark of ice time and start to lose a step. That's just my opinion though you're right. I'll be very interested in seeing the ice time after today's game and see if it continues to correlate with the data so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first instinct when I read your thread title was, yes, "duh" - another thread with an armchair telling WD how to coach.  And that this has been done to death on these boards...

However, the fact you tracked ice time and results is interesting - and worthwhile.  It's a single factor that doesn't really look in context at why those particular variations might have occured when they did - ie home/road (last change or not), who the opponent is and matchups, regular rest or back to back, etc - but still interesting despite the limits of what can be concluded, although there seems at least some merit to the point.

I don't buy the idea that the Sedins are tired after 17 minutes or whatever, but that's just opinion.

WD and GMJB are characterized by their desire to roll four lines - so I usually find the instruction pointless tbh - but the fact you tracked the minutes is interesting.

Yeah, but a smaller sample size for the results and the games that weren't quite at the rolling all four lines but still close didn't necessarily result in wins (while others we didn't roll lines as much weren't all losses either). You're point about the context is something the OP should look into as the ice times of all forwards alone doesn't account for a win or a loss.

For instance, why was ice time so disparate in other games? Did we take more penalties and end up on the PK (and thus having to sit players not on special teams)? Did we win any of the games that had more even ice time because by wider margins, or did we perhaps succeed more on the PP? Did injuries factor into any of the more widely varying ice times?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bet would be that you got the correlation dead on, but the causation backwards. When we are up with a comfortable lead, WD is happy to roll them. When we are playing catchup or close in the third, he shortens the line-up.

That said, I'm certainly in favour of rolling them, but I'd take this data with a grain of salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correlation/causation with the 1st goal of the game? Lead after 2?

My bet would be that you got the correlation dead on, but the causation backwards. When we are up with a comfortable lead, WD is happy to roll them. When we are playing catchup or close in the third, he shortens the line-up.

That said, I'm certainly in favour of rolling them, but I'd take this data with a grain of salt.

Perhaps either or all of those as well. Much more to this story than just rolling for lines equalling an automatic win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So many variables as people have alluded to: leads, opposition, back to backs, PP/PK ratios, injuries, individual game performances (if one line sucks, maybe not so much ice time in the third) etc.

The general idea that rolling lines means fresher in the third is still a valid point though and there is no question that the Canucks have had some third period issues. Whether or not they are directly correlated remains to be seen.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So many variables as people have alluded to: leads, opposition, back to backs, PP/PK ratios, injuries, individual game performances (if one line sucks, maybe not so much ice time in the third) etc.

The general idea that rolling lines means fresher in the third is still a valid point though and there is no question that the Canucks have had some third period issues. Whether or not they are directly correlated remains to be seen.

 

I think what happens is there are so many factors that people don't realise when coaching. A lot of it we won't even see as fans. Yet,  people seem to think they're experts on the subject because they see one or two things happening in the lineup or they see something they don't like.

It's like looking at a picture of space and suddenly thinking you're an expert on space.... lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what happens is there are so many factors that people don't realise when coaching. A lot of it we won't even see as fans. Yet,  people seem to think they're experts on the subject because they see one or two things happening in the lineup or they see something they don't like.

It's like looking at a picture of space and suddenly thinking you're an expert on space.... lol

coaches don't win games, players do.  Coaches can lose games, though, which the players should have won.WD has lost a couple for the boys this season, and in last season's playoffs too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

coaches don't win games, players do.  Coaches can lose games, though, which the players should have won.WD has lost a couple for the boys this season, and in last season's playoffs too.  

lol So congratulate the players on winning and go after the coach when losing? Your outlook on things sometimes just baffles me Alf..... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Game 17: 11-18 mins of ice time for each forward

Result: Loss

Game 18: 9-23 mins of ice time for each forward

Result: Loss

Game 19: 7-21 mins of ice time for each forward

Result: Loss

Game 20: 9-19 mins of ice time for each forward

Result: Loss

Game 21: 12-20 mins of ice time for each forward (if not for Henrik it would again be a 6 min gap between each forward)

Result: Win

Now some of you have said that the reason the ice time gap is so great is because we're ahead and are more comfortable rolling the lines with a lead then if we were trying to catch up. I know that in the Montreal game that definitely wasn't the case and in Chicago we were hanging on by the skin of our teeth until late in the third period.

Also the win percentage when not rolling the lines is now an even more abysmal 19%

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...