Bo Horvat | #53 | C

[Baggins]

On 4/1/2022 at 8:18 PM, -AJ- said:

Might be a nice idea, but if Garland is a 1RW, we have serious problems with our first line unless he improves. As it currently stands, he's about a 50-point guy and we should hope for more for a 1st line guy, especially if we want to be a playoff team. That said, if we're sort of mixing and matching our top guys, it might still make sense to have Garland with Petey and Miller with Boeser or something like that to sort of make two decent top six lines.

Currently Garland is 5th in points among forwards and 6th in ice time. He is one point behind Boeser despite little to no PP1 time. He's second among the forwards in ES points per 60 minutes (Boeser is 12th, Horvat is 5th) and first among forwards for penalties drawn (3 ahead of Petey). He also has the best +/- among the forwards (Boeser is tied for worst with Hogs). He does more with less ice time than Boeser does. What could he do with top line minutes and PP1 time? I was rather disappointed that Bouda put Chiasson on PP1 rather than Garland. Chiasson has averaged more PP time per game than Garland has this season.

 

If Garland was given a 1st line spot and PP1 time I'd say it's about time he got the opportunity.

[-AJ-]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

Currently Garland is 5th in points among forwards and 6th in ice time. He is one point behind Boeser despite little to no PP1 time. He's second among the forwards in ES points per 60 minutes (Boeser is 12th, Horvat is 5th) and first among forwards for penalties drawn (3 ahead of Petey). He also has the best +/- among the forwards (Boeser is tied for worst with Hogs). He does more with less ice time than Boeser does. What could he do with top line minutes and PP1 time? I was rather disappointed that Bouda put Chiasson on PP1 rather than Garland. Chiasson has averaged more PP time per game than Garland has this season.

 

If Garland was given a 1st line spot and PP1 time I'd say it's about time he got the opportunity.

I do think there's a case for Garland to perform with the opportunity, but on the PP particularly, he's really struggled this year. He's dead last of any of the PP regulars this year, and that includes guys playing on the PP just as much as him, Chiasson (37.2%) and Pearson (32.7%). For whatever reason, when Garland's on the ice on the PP, we don't really score:

 

 

Garland seems to really struggle on the PP, but to your point, is really strong in 5v5 play, by the same metric. I'm not sure what it is, but on the PP, he's beaten out by everyone and in 5v5, he's one of the team's best.

 

 

That said, its obvious based on this list that per 60 metrics can be misleading and often overstate the value of less-used players, as it doesn't factor in their quality of competition. This is evidence when guys like Lammikko, Highmore, and Hoglander have a higher scoring per 60 than a guy like Boeser. Boeser has obviously struggled this year, but I don't think that any of those three above guys outperform him if they have to play against the competition he does.

 

[Vinny in Vancouver]

6 hours ago, Locke Lamora said:

Lol, Bo must have kicked Vinny’s dog.

Lol And what did Bo do to Boudreau then?

[Locke Lamora]

@Vinny in Vancouver, you watchin’ the game? Another ho-hum Horvat effort, eh? 

[Vinny in Vancouver]

1 minute ago, Locke Lamora said:

@Vinny in Vancouver, you watchin’ the game? Another ho-hum Horvat effort, eh? 

I think you need to read my posts again. Didn't I tell you to compare his great performance now with then? Didn't I tell you that I liked Bo? All I was saying was that when Boudreau called him out during that time, it was justified. As I said, I believe I think of Bo more highly than you do. My standards for him are high.

[Locke Lamora]

3 minutes ago, Vinny in Vancouver said:

I think you need to read my posts again. Didn't I tell you to compare his great performance now with then? Didn't I tell you that I liked Bo? All I was saying was that when Boudreau called him out during that time, it was justified. As I said, I believe I think of Bo more highly than you do. My standards for him are high.

To expect him to be “Bubble Bo” during the majority of the regular season is beyond unrealistic. Bo has shown that he’s a guy who is built for playoffs and can raise his level, like he did in the bubble. Which is a shame that he won’t get a chance to show it again this year. But Bo himself is NOT to blame whatsoever for us not getting us to the playoffs this year. He’s had a GREAT season overall, even though as with every player on the team not named JT Miller, there are always ebbs and flows. And do some more research on his COVID bout….it was hinted HEAVILY he struggled for a couple of weeks after he returned from it. And yeah, those were the weeks in which people wanted him stripped of the C and traded in the offseason. I’ve been defending Bo all over this forum for many many weeks now, so I highly doubt you think higher of him than me. I want him to end his career as Captain of the Canucks….as did the mentor for his captaincy, Hank Sedin. If I’ve been a bit strong here and mischaracterized your arguments somewhat, my bad.  Its just that I’ve been rather disgusted at the way he’s been disparaged at times this season. Bo is a rock and a foundational piece of this team.

 

But I think from now on I’ll just let his play be his greatest advocate. The way he’s going he’s got a shot for 35+ goals. Getting a hatty tonight would help the cause. 

[Vinny in Vancouver]

Peace, @Locke Lamora. If every Canuck maximized their talent like Bo has, the Canucks would have won the Stanley Cup by now. This was a guy who many so-called draft experts said was never going to amount to more than just being a third line center, can't skate, has no offense, etc. When we traded an All-Star, young goaltender in Schneider for him, that was roundly balleyhooed as a terrible trade by many hockey experts and even guys in this forum. I believe he took all of those criticisms to heart and just decided to show all of those critics how wrong they are about him. That's the Bo I know and love. What I saw in the bubble was a Bo who could carry the team on his shoulders. Now it may be he was really sick during that time when he wasn't doing well (and I haven't heard him say that so my bad), but unfortunately, he's the Team Captain, and if that's how the Coach wants to light a fire in him, then that's part of the job description. And as you pointed out, look at how he has turned it around! What would be even more legendary than the Bubble performance is if this team somehow managed to make the playoffs after that horrendous start (where Bo was one of the few forwards who managed to be productive). But as much as JT has been the main producer, I'm old school and think that it always starts with the Captain.

[Vinny in Vancouver]

[Tiger-Hearted]

Here's a wonderful stat:

Since March 9, BoHo has as many goals(13) as Austin Matthews and Connor McDavid.

 

Impressive, eh? 

[Baggins]

1 hour ago, -AJ- said:

I do think there's a case for Garland to perform with the opportunity, but on the PP particularly, he's really struggled this year. He's dead last of any of the PP regulars this year, and that includes guys playing on the PP just as much as him, Chiasson (37.2%) and Pearson (32.7%). For whatever reason, when Garland's on the ice on the PP, we don't really score:

 

 

Garland seems to really struggle on the PP, but to your point, is really strong in 5v5 play, by the same metric. I'm not sure what it is, but on the PP, he's beaten out by everyone and in 5v5, he's one of the team's best.

 

 

That said, its obvious based on this list that per 60 metrics can be misleading and often overstate the value of less-used players, as it doesn't factor in their quality of competition. This is evidence when guys like Lammikko, Highmore, and Hoglander have a higher scoring per 60 than a guy like Boeser. Boeser has obviously struggled this year, but I don't think that any of those three above guys outperform him if they have to play against the competition he does.

 

Obviously games played will come into it. But if the quantity is there and a similar number of games it not deceiving at all. Richardsons number could be called deceiving as you're comparing 6 games played to 60 games. The more games played the clearer the picture with a stat like this. But our wingers have played with all three centers. Bouda really likes mixing them up. I'd wager the C Garland has played the least with is Petey.

 

As to the PP, Garland has spent virtually no time on our 1st unit with the most talented guys. A distinct advantage Boeser has enjoyed. Also the PP stat you highlighted is goals scored while the player was on the PP not goals or pts per 60 by the individual players. Does it not make sense the four forwards on the 1st unit the most often would have the highest number of goals scored per 60 as a grioup? They do get a much better opportunity with 60-75% of the ice time on every penalty and once in a blue moon the entire PP. Not to mention being among the teams best players. Here's the individual points per 60 on the PP.

 

 

Boeser is the least production of the primary 1st unit players. Now over the previous two seasons in Arizona Garland was at 4.25 pts per 60 over 117 games with an average PP ice time per game of 2:25. Almost a minute less per game than what our top unit forwards are currently getting per game. Given the other four typically on our 1st unit I'd wager Garland would be at least as productive as Boeser. But there's also an argument Chiasson would be the better player to slot in as the fourth forward. He does do a better job in front of the net than Boeser. I'd wager the vast majority of Chiasson's PP pts have come while on the top unit.

[Baggins]

33 minutes ago, Tiger-Hearted said:

Here's a wonderful stat:

Since March 9, BoHo has as many goals(13) as Austin Matthews and Connor McDavid.

 

Impressive, eh? 

Miller has the same number of pts as Matthews and Driasiatl (22) since then as well.

 

[-AJ-]

2 hours ago, Baggins said:

As to the PP, Garland has spent virtually no time on our 1st unit with the most talented guys. A distinct advantage Boeser has enjoyed. Also the PP stat you highlighted is goals scored while the player was on the PP not goals or pts per 60 by the individual players. Does it not make sense the four forwards on the 1st unit the most often would have the highest number of goals scored per 60 as a grioup? They do get a much better opportunity with 60-75% of the ice time on every penalty and once in a blue moon the entire PP. Not to mention being among the teams best players. Here's the individual points per 60 on the PP.

 

 

I think to me, the most damning thing for Garland was not how he compared to the 1st unit, as that's not a fair comparison. As you rightly pointed out, they are of course going to out-produce him, but it's odd that guys like Chiasson, Hoglander, and Pearson are also out-performing Garland.

 

That said, if our discussion is strictly Boeser vs Garland on the PP, then we can see that Boeser's numbers, while not abhorrently low, are the lowest of the 1PP guys, so he is probably the guy you take off if we trade anyone out.

 

Quite honestly, when it comes down to it, I have a tough time honestly believing that Garland is a worse PP guy than Hoglander and Pearson and suspect that it's just a statistical anomaly more than anything else. I would be curious to see if he could perform with a big improvement on the 1st PP. Obviously he would improve, as anyone would with a promotion, but if he saw a huge jump, then that's where it would get interesting.

 

If we expand to conversation to a wider context, including even strength, it really gets odd, as I mentioned earlier, which makes me suspect even more than his low PP numbers are an anomaly.

[-AJ-]

To bring this thread back to Bo Horvat, he is now firmly up to his regular season average points-per-game and has scored his 30th goal in last night's game, beating Miller to the milestone.

 

Bo Horvat is the first Canuck to score 30+ goals since Radim Vrbata in 2014-15. 

 

That stat is slightly disingenuous as we've had many players on pace to do so on the years since (Pettersson as a rookie and sophomore, three Boeser seasons, Miller's first year here), but they've all been shortened by injury or COVID.

[D-Money]

I think a lot of Bo's success recently can be at least partly credited to Boudreau. More than any other player IMO, Bruce has been making comments about Horvat to the media regarding him and his leadership style. Even comments about Miller's leadership (like being the engine driving the team) sometimes seem like comparisons. Sometimes the response by some fans makes the reaction a bit overblown, but that doesn't mean that the response wasn't intentional.

 

It is probably the first time Horvat has been challenged to take his game to a new level, and he seems to be responding very well to it. Through all of the team's struggles over the years, he's always been a bright spot for the team, and yet we've kind of always thought of him as a solid 2nd line guy on a good team. But what if he's better than we thought?

 

Edited April 8, 2022 by D-Money

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

 

Can we afford Miller, Petey and Bo?  Which is the odd man out?  

[JM_]

20 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Can we afford Miller, Petey and Bo?  Which is the odd man out?  

Garland and Boeser. 

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, JM_ said:

Garland and Boeser. 

With our owner involved i don’t see anyone traded, except for a younger guy, picks, and prospects for help now.  

[JM_]

Just now, Alflives said:

With our owner involved i don’t see anyone traded, except for a younger guy, picks, and prospects for help now.  

I can see Garland and/or Brock moved to Philly, they really need scoring. 

[Alflives]

13 minutes ago, JM_ said:

I can see Garland and/or Brock moved to Philly, they really need scoring. 

Garland yes, but I’m thinking our owner wants Brock re-signed.