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

Starting from the net going forward - looks promising!


BlackRedYellow

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

Look I don't understand analytics, but from what I have looked at we look like an above average team this year.  From the eye test I would also agree with that.  We just can't score that's part bad luck and we do need one more player who can shoot.  I would love it if someone could give a more comprehensive look at our analytics.

'Analytics' are only as good as the analyst (a point that bears repeating) and a fair measure of those purporting to be hockey 'analysts' couldn't pass a Statistics 100 course.

 

'Advanced stats' in hockey aren't much more sophistocated than +/-.

It's the +/- of shot attempt differential - and most 'analysts' don't have the sense to factor in zone starts, quality of competition - let alone the unkept indicators, like the quality of a player's linemates.  Corsi/fenwick in isolation is relatively useless.  The further/closer you get to integrating all the available data, the closer you are to something useful, and at the same time, the better you understand the serious limitations of 'analytics' - and the negative value of reductive and oversimplified claims masquerading as 'analyticz.'

The 'science' has yet to reach puberty, and is inexact enough that it names misnames shot differentials "puck possession".  Actual puck possession - is not actually quantified - nor are things like pass attempts, pass completions, etc.   The attempt to distill it all into a reducible 'delta' corsi lol is about as pretentious as it gets.

The standard 'hero' chart is so flawed and reductive that depending on this stuff to evaluate a player is to rely on a serious lack of critical thinking.

'Analytics' can be useful - within their limits, if they are recognized - but unfortunately you get the uber-arrogant and pretentious types that think they represent a 'delta' science lol.

Analytics can be particularly useful for telling you about other teams and their players' deployment/usage - that you otherwise would never see enough of to really get an accurate take on.

But they're representative of a context - in the past - that won't necessarily provide you of a hard and fast indicator of how a player will perform in the future - particularly if they change teams in the process.  Do analytics factor in travel, schedules, injuries, etc - of course not. 

You'll even find some people engaging in the ultimate fool's game of attempting to sell an 'analytics' of luck.

 

The Canucks 'analytics' through 9 games would boil principally down to shot attempts for and against.  

 

Right now there are five teams that are giving up fewer shot per game than the Canucks.

LA

San Jose

St Louis

New York Rangers

and the Washington Capitals.

 

On the other hand, the Canucks are right at the bottom of the league in shots for,

with the Minnesota Wild

and Chicago Blackhawks.

 

 

You can delve into all kinds of aspects of the game - from faceoff percentages to zone entries, turnover differentials, "MSS" lol - or whatever you want - but what you're seeing - if you're interested in reality as opposed to having a stake in representing objective outcomes - is not all that far off of your impression.

The team has been very closely matched with their opponents (a -0.6 shots per game differential) and in the end, the game isn't as reducible to 'advanced stats' as some 'analyticz' salespeople would like to suggest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LaBamba said:

 

They didn't suck at all but when I look back at it I remember the intense disappointment. I'd trade that disappointment for Connor McDavid any day of the week. 

 

When you look back at 94/11 are you like. "Man that was sooo awesome". Cause "I'm like F$&@" I still haven't been able to even watch highlights of those series. What are you some kinda sadist? 

 

If you think about it, losing the 2011 final basically destroyed that core. They should take all the banners from that season and burn them. 

Those teams still rocked, and it's really strange that you haven't enjoyed the contending seasons the many many years before 2011.

 

But hey, you're fully entitled to your opinion. For me it's only been the last three seasons that has been hard to watch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BlackRedYellow said:

Those teams still rocked, and it's really strange that you haven't enjoyed the contending seasons the many many years before 2011.

 

But hey, you're fully entitled to your opinion. For me it's only been the last three seasons that has been hard to watch. 

Ummm...would you care to elaborate on that because missing the playoffs in 2006 and 2008 and losing out in the first or 2nd round every other year is nowhere near contending..be honest...did you even watch hockey before 2011..?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, theilluminati said:

Ummm...would you care to elaborate on that because missing the playoffs in 2006 and 2008 and losing out in the first or 2nd round every other year is nowhere near contending..be honest...did you even watch hockey before 2011..?

 

Are you for real? A contending team is a team which wins it's division, plays good hockey and aspire to win the cup. Dropping out in the second round does not make the team a non contender that year. That means that was the end result.

 

And the "even watch hockey before 2011" quote is such a douchebag comment. I started following this team back in the eighties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BlackRedYellow said:

Are you for real? A contending team is a team which wins it's division, plays good hockey and aspire to win the cup. Dropping out in the second round does not make the team a non contender that year. That means that was the end result.

 

And the "even watch hockey before 2011" quote is such a douchebag comment. I started following this team back in the eighties. 

 

Only in Vancouver....

 

Division champions!!!

 

2nd round exit!!!

 

mission accomplished. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LaBamba said:

 

Only in Vancouver....

 

Division champions!!!

 

2nd round exit!!!

 

mission accomplished. 

Did I say mission accomplished?

 

For what reason are you the only one allowed being disappointed of not winning the cup!?

 

There's a huge difference in enjoying a good team play trying to win the cup and not being disappointed not winning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016-11-03 at 11:41 PM, Warhippy said:

From the net out looks better after we draft Timothy Liljegren in June

Obviously I'm not complaining if we land a star like that :rolleyes:, but the glaring needs of this team are forwards- we need to pay attention to that next draft. I wouldn't mind if we took forwards with nearly every pick we have in 2017.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BlackRedYellow said:

Did I say mission accomplished?

 

For what reason are you the only one allowed being disappointed of not winning the cup!?

 

There's a huge difference in enjoying a good team play trying to win the cup and not being disappointed not winning. 

 

You lost me. I didn't even know people like you existed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think our D group will be awesome in a couple years after Olli and Tram have a season or two in the NHL plus Stetcher so to me we needs a  1C and couple scoring wingers which we could pick up UFA's a 1C is more needed then more D Boeser will help but the C is something we need as the twins are lets face it 2nd liners

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Our saviours!!!  Oh wait we've been shut out in 4 of 5 games.  :rolleyes:

Who said saviors? We're rebuilding. Rebuilding teams tend to struggle. 

 

They're solid pieces to help support the 'saviors' we'll be drafting and developing over the next several years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Who said saviors? We're rebuilding. Rebuilding teams tend to struggle. 

 

They're solid pieces to help support the 'saviors' we'll be drafting and developing over the next several years. 

Funny, at the start of the year we were not rebuilding but "going for it".  But now that the Canucks suck again, they're rebuilding?  I didn't think trading your draft picks away and signing expensive old free agents was part of rebuilding.  Those guys were brought in to have a playoff team, at the cost of any rebuild. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Funny, at the start of the year we were not rebuilding but "going for it".  But now that the Canucks suck again, they're rebuilding?  I didn't think trading your draft picks away and signing expensive old free agents was part of rebuilding.  Those guys were brought in to have a playoff team, at the cost of any rebuild. 

We've never not been rebuilding. Management has been using the same line for two years. Focusing on the future (rebuilding) while trying to maintain a competitive team. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, J.R. said:

We've never not been rebuilding. Management has been using the same line for two years. Focusing on the future (rebuilding) while trying to maintain a competitive team. 

 

Not everyone understands that... That you can do/try to do both.

 

As I wrote in the topic, there has been different grades on their objectives. The objective to try to stay competitive has been failing, but the rebuilding/transitioning has actually been pretty good :-) As you say, give it a couple of more years to strengthen the offence and get rid of some last veterans, and this team will look way better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

Shinkaruk

McCann

2nd

2nd

2nd

2nd

3rd

3rd

4th

5th

5th

Draft picks & prospects traded by Benning. 

And who were they traded for that aren't young players who can be a part of this team beyond the bridge? Gudbranson? He's a 24 year old defenceman, he'll be a big part of this team in 5 years. Baertschi? Same thing but as a forward. Granlund? No issues there. Sutter? I'm happy with that. Etc., etc., etc..

 

Are you saying that just because we aren't better in the standings that those players aren't good and shouldn't be a part of the future? Are any of the draft picks he's gotten back in trades not applicable? Are what he's done with the remaining draft picks not worth mentioning?

 

Sure, we've had some young players who could have been a part of the future but haven't turned out (e.g. Vey) but then that's happened with players we've used draft picks on as well. They can't all be winners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -SN- locked and unlocked this topic
46 minutes ago, BlackRedYellow said:

Not everyone understands that... That you can do/try to do both.

 

As I wrote in the topic, there has been different grades on their objectives. The objective to try to stay competitive has been failing, but the rebuilding/transitioning has actually been pretty good :-) As you say, give it a couple of more years to strengthen the offence and get rid of some last veterans, and this team will look way better.

 

That and frankly they aren't really 'failing' that badly either. We've been in nearly every game and for the most part have played hard, fast and tough hockey. A couple guys get off the schneid and start producing and some of those tight losses turn in to tight wins and OTL's.

 

And if they don't, tankers get the losses and high picks they wanted anyway. All while our kids are learning to play and train hard from vets as opposed the near decade long, entitled, 1 dimensional floater style that EDM had to excise from their club like the cancer it is.

 

All of this will pay off in a few years. Patience.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CanadianRugby said:

Funny, at the start of the year we were not rebuilding but "going for it".  But now that the Canucks suck again, they're rebuilding?  I didn't think trading your draft picks away and signing expensive old free agents was part of rebuilding.  Those guys were brought in to have a playoff team, at the cost of any rebuild. 

It was actually never an either/or.  Virtually everyone knows this - some people (with tank blinders) can't understand it.

Yes, it confuses the simple minds in Toronto - doesn't fit a binary logic.   To them you're either tanking or 'going for it'.

Most people are aware that there isn't simply one approach to rebuilding.  Not every team tears it down to an AHL roster and conducts a yard sale pimping every asset they can for whatever late pick they can muster.

 

Tankdown/teardown

Rebuild

Retool

 

Lot's of examples of all approaches - failed and successful.

For most people the different approaches aren't all that difficult to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, J.R. said:

We've never not been rebuilding. Management has been using the same line for two years. Focusing on the future (rebuilding) while trying to maintain a competitive team. 

 

 

Hahaha that's what every team does you Noob. Is every team rebuilding? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J.R. said:

 

That and frankly they aren't really 'failing' that badly either. We've been in nearly every game and for the most part have played hard, fast and tough hockey. A couple guys get off the schneid and start producing and some of those tight losses turn in to tight wins and OTL's.

 

And if they don't, tankers get the losses and high picks they wanted anyway. All while our kids are learning to play and train hard from vets as opposed the near decade long, entitled, 1 dimensional floater style that EDM had to excise from their club like the cancer it is.

 

All of this will pay off in a few years. Patience.  

Exactly. The finish hasn't been there but the chances have. Some of that may be the quality of the finishers, but a lot of it is puck luck as well.

 

I'd be happy with a season where we're in every game but despite creating chances lose a little more than we win. I'd have been happier if we'd taken that approach during the MacKinnon/Ekblad/McDavid draft years (and before the lottery rules changed) but good enough.

 

It might be exciting to have a horse race/6-5 game every night, but you want to balance out good offence with strong defence so you can be winning 3-1 and 4-2. The bounces will come, and hopefully we manage some top end talent to help finish those chances we're getting even now.

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...