The Lock Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 11 hours ago, BPA said: No harm in looking at potential top 4D next UFA season. If one of the D rookies can blow our socks off like EP and Huggy, then we are laughing all the way to the bank. There's no harm in looking sure, so long as it's not to assume we don't have anyone by that point to fill that spot in (thus, not giving our prospects a chance). It's one of those things where we just don't know if we'll even need that as a possibility next year. Obviously, Edler's shoes will take a bit to fill (or he might even resign, that's another possibility), but why assume at this point I guess is what I'm asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 (edited) On 10/18/2020 at 9:33 AM, Robert Long said: interesting article here comparing us to Dallas now on the aspect of d men that can transition the puck. Watching how Heiskanen and Klingberg worked together made me think Jim was going to go after Barrie, but thankfully Nate fell to us instead. For me the right comp for Hughes and Schmidt is Heiskanen and Klingberg, not Theodore and Pietrangelo. What could be really exciting for us is if Juolevi also turns out to be good at taking the puck out of our zone too. -- Fortunately, circumstances gave the Canucks the opportunity to trade for Nate Schmidt, who is a high-end puck-moving defenceman. Schmidt changes the dynamic significantly for the Canucks, particularly if we compare the Canucks’ defencemen for next season to the other team that made the Stanley Cup Finals: the Dallas Stars. Canucks vs Stars: Defence zone exits and entries. While the Stars didn’t have the depth of puck-moving defencemen of the Lightning last season, they made up for it with two high-end puck-movers: John Klingberg and Miro Heiskanen. The two are adept at moving the puck out of the defensive zone with both their feet and passing and they’re both even better — among the NHL’s elite — at transitioning the puck all the way into the offensive zone with possession. Klingberg is absolutely ridiculous. Witness this zone exit against two of the best forecheckers on the St. Louis Blues, Ryan O'Reilly and Jaden Schwartz. https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/canucks-hockey/how-nate-schmidt-narrows-the-gap-between-the-canucks-and-the-nhls-cup-contenders-2799839 Interesting - that if you remove Schmidt from that and reinsert Tanev.... And you calculate the entire blueline's controlled zone exit % (combined divided by 6...) Canucks 49.33% average Dallas 39.0% Canucks were 10.3% more efficient in generating controlled zone exits. These are averaged numbers - in other words they don't account for relative volumes of attempted zone exits - so, if Hughes for example attempts 3x the number of exits that the other D do - then the real numbers would increase - and the same applies to Dallas, so these relative differences likely average out to some extent, making these numbers somewhat reliable within a reasonable margin of variation. Controlled entries: Canucks 43.8% Dallas 55.3% Dallas was 11.5% more efficient generating controlled entries. Combined... Canucks 46.6% Dallas 47.15% My guess would be that a whole lot of people around here would be quite surprised by those zone exit numbers, relative to Dallas. I've already shown that Dallas' blueline was not in fact "bigger" - that's a myth Friedman stated in his claim that this team would be embarking on a goalpost chasing venture this offseason. It also lends credence to Bieksa's point - that he illustrated quite well imo - that the team was not in fact struggling to defend (vs Vegas), nor struggling to generate zone exits - the problem was what they were doing with the puck once they gained those exits (ie turning it over in the neutral zone, dump and changing, etc - effectively just resetting and enabling Vegas to attack again... Of course - it's not only defensemen that impact zone entries and exits - forwards also play a critical role. So - given the 'underlying' reality that appears to have been evidenced there - in a much larger sample than the impressions of a few armchairs (which is what Friedman is) in watching a very different Canucks' team in the latter stages of the playoffs....the forward effect should not/cannot remain a blindspot in any 'analysis'. To repeat: 1) MIller was injured and playing wing - and Boeser has also evidently been struggling with repeated injuries = a top line without Miller's high end faceoff ability...and with limited ability to maintain possession, as well as two forwards that could not shoot the puck as they typically can when healthy. 2) Toffoli so badly limping that he was not productive - and arguably a liability. Pearson's production disappeared....Horvat not the player he was vs St Louis...an ineffective 2nd line that wasn't effectively 'matching up' nor was it producing.... 3) Like the top line - Sutter to the wing - Gaudette getting exposed....not just faceoff percentages taking hits, but the entire effectiveness of the top 9 forwards - from starting without possession (less faceoff wins) to inability to sustain offensive pressure, forecheck, etc.... The Beagle/Motte line was unreal - did their job - but could only 'harm reduce' to a realistic extent. This is why, imo, the team altered their approach - their gameplan - to avoid trading higher danger chances, in favour of locking down the hard areas, preventing second scoring chances....and protecting their rookie goaltender...less goalpost chasing than altering a gameplan to the realities they were dealing with. If they were such a 'poor' defensive group - they never would have managed to knock off the defending Stanley Cup Champions. These statistics you raise, imo only add food for thought to the 'alternative' explanations - in no way do they really evidence a bigger, stronger, better blueline of Dallas that the Canucks' need to emulate. Where there is/was room for improvement - beyond a healthy, more experienced forward group - is in the controlled entries. Hughes and Myers - actually very good (Myers on the limp in the playoffs as well - but in spite of that, again, they knocked off St Louis)... The difficulties vs Vegas imo translate more as their inability to sustain pressure, offensive 'possession' - which included the impact of defensemen, but again, like when referring to 'defense', offense includes blueliners as 'defense' includes forwards (and zone entries tend to be as more more prevalently attempted by forwards, with the exception of pmds).... Schmidt will probably improve those entries (add 4-6% to the exits and entries averaging results above - although those numbers come from Schmidt in Vegas so they can't simply be transferred, it's a mere hypothetical assuming his numbers remain consistent with those - and they could increase their gap in terms of controlled exits and close the gap in terms of entries...) Bottom line though - while it does show a gap in the ability to gain the blueline, it also shows a gap in favour of this team in exits...so I'm not sure there is as much 'explanatory' evidence there as people might have assumed in the absence of these numbers. Edited October 19, 2020 by oldnews 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 3 minutes ago, oldnews said: Interesting - that if you remove Schmidt from that and reinsert Tanev.... And you calculate the entire blueline's controlled zone exit % (combined divided by 6...) Canucks 49.33% average Dallas 39.0% Canucks were 10.3% more efficient in generating controlled zone exits. These are averaged numbers - in other words they don't account for relative volumes of attempted zone exits - so, if Hughes for example attempts 3x the number of exits that the other D do - then the real numbers would increase - and the same applies to Dallas, so these relative differences likely average out to some extent, making these numbers somewhat reliable within a reasonable margin of variation. Controlled entries: Canucks 43.8% Dallas 55.3% Dallas was 11.5% more efficient generating controlled entries. Combined... Canucks 46.6% Dallas 47.15% My guess would be that a whole lot of people around here would be quite surprised by those zone exit numbers, relative to Dallas. I've already shown that Dallas' blueline was not in fact "bigger" - that's a myth Friedman stated in his claim that this team would be embarking on a goalpost chasing venture this offseason. It also lends credence to Bieksa's point - that he illustrated quite well imo - that the team was not in fact struggling to defend, nor struggling to generate zone exits - the problem was what they were doing with the puck once they gained those exits (ie turning it over in the neutral zone, dump and changing, etc - effectively just resetting and enabling Vegas to attack again... Of course - it's not only defensemen that impact zone entries and exits - forwards also play a critical role. So - given the 'underlying' reality that appears to have been evidenced there (in a much larger sample than the impressions of a few armchairs (which is what Friedman is) in watching a very different Canucks' team in the latter stages of the playoffs. To repeat: 1) MIller was injured and playing wing - and Boeser has also evidently been struggling with repeated injuries = a top line without Miller's high end faceoff ability...and with limited ability to maintain possession, as well as two forwards that could not shoot the puck as they typically can when healthy. 2) Toffoli so badly limping that he was not productive - and arguably a liability. Pearson's production disappeared....Horvat not the player he was vs St Louis...an ineffective 2nd line that wasn't effectively 'matching up' nor was it producing.... 3) Like the top line - Sutter to the wing - Gaudette getting exposed....not just faceoff percentages taking hits, but the entire effectiveness of the top 9 forwards - from starting without possession (less faceoff wins) to inability to sustain offensive pressure, forecheck, etc.... The Beagle/Motte line was unreal - did their job - but could only 'harm reduce' to a realistic extent. This is why, imo, the team altered their approach - their gameplan - to avoid trading higher danger chances, in favour of locking down the hard areas, preventing second scoring chances....and protecting their rookie goaltender...less goalpost chasing than altering a gameplan to the realities they were dealing with. If they were such a 'poor' defensive group - they never would have managed to knock off the defending Stanley Cup Champions. These statistics you raise, imo only add food for thought to the 'alternative' explanations - in no way do they really evidence a bigger, stronger, better blueline of Dallas that the Canucks' need to emulate. Where there is/was room for improvement - beyond a healthy, more experienced forward group - is in the controlled entries. Hughes and Myers - actually very good (Myers on the limp in the playoffs as well - but in spite of that, again, they knocked off St Louis)... Schmidt will improve those entries (add 4-6% to the exits and entries averaging results above - although those numbers come from Schmidt in Vegas so they can't simply be transferred, it's a mere hypothetical assuming his numbers remain consistent with those - and they could increase their gap in terms of controlled exits and close the gap in terms of entries...) Bottom line though - while it does show a gap in the ability to gain the blueline, it also shows a gap in favour of this team in exits...so I'm not sure there is as much 'explanatory' evidence there as people might have assumed in the absence of these numbers. I think tho given the entry skill is based on his mobility I do think its reasonable to expect something similar here. What I liked about this article is it used relatively non-fancy stats to show how we're in the ballpark as a team like Dallas on exits/entries now in terms of d capability. We don't have to use a corsi regression map to understand what Nate brings. Thats pretty exciting to me. Dallas is also the right team if we're searching for comparisons imo, vs. stretching to view Hughes-Schmidt as Theodore-Pietrangelo. Its easy to take these stats and articles too far for sure, but its hard not to see that we should have better entries in particular. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKNuck96 Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, oldnews said: Interesting - that if you remove Schmidt from that and reinsert Tanev.... And you calculate the entire blueline's controlled zone exit % (combined divided by 6...) Canucks 49.33% average Dallas 39.0% Canucks were 10.3% more efficient in generating controlled zone exits. These are averaged numbers - in other words they don't account for relative volumes of attempted zone exits - so, if Hughes for example attempts 3x the number of exits that the other D do - then the real numbers would increase - and the same applies to Dallas, so these relative differences likely average out to some extent, making these numbers somewhat reliable within a reasonable margin of variation. Controlled entries: Canucks 43.8% Dallas 55.3% Dallas was 11.5% more efficient generating controlled entries. Combined... Canucks 46.6% Dallas 47.15% My guess would be that a whole lot of people around here would be quite surprised by those zone exit numbers, relative to Dallas. I've already shown that Dallas' blueline was not in fact "bigger" - that's a myth Friedman stated in his claim that this team would be embarking on a goalpost chasing venture this offseason. It also lends credence to Bieksa's point - that he illustrated quite well imo - that the team was not in fact struggling to defend (vs Vegas), nor struggling to generate zone exits - the problem was what they were doing with the puck once they gained those exits (ie turning it over in the neutral zone, dump and changing, etc - effectively just resetting and enabling Vegas to attack again... Of course - it's not only defensemen that impact zone entries and exits - forwards also play a critical role. So - given the 'underlying' reality that appears to have been evidenced there - in a much larger sample than the impressions of a few armchairs (which is what Friedman is) in watching a very different Canucks' team in the latter stages of the playoffs....the forward effect should not/cannot remain a blindspot in any 'analysis'. To repeat: 1) MIller was injured and playing wing - and Boeser has also evidently been struggling with repeated injuries = a top line without Miller's high end faceoff ability...and with limited ability to maintain possession, as well as two forwards that could not shoot the puck as they typically can when healthy. 2) Toffoli so badly limping that he was not productive - and arguably a liability. Pearson's production disappeared....Horvat not the player he was vs St Louis...an ineffective 2nd line that wasn't effectively 'matching up' nor was it producing.... 3) Like the top line - Sutter to the wing - Gaudette getting exposed....not just faceoff percentages taking hits, but the entire effectiveness of the top 9 forwards - from starting without possession (less faceoff wins) to inability to sustain offensive pressure, forecheck, etc.... The Beagle/Motte line was unreal - did their job - but could only 'harm reduce' to a realistic extent. This is why, imo, the team altered their approach - their gameplan - to avoid trading higher danger chances, in favour of locking down the hard areas, preventing second scoring chances....and protecting their rookie goaltender...less goalpost chasing than altering a gameplan to the realities they were dealing with. If they were such a 'poor' defensive group - they never would have managed to knock off the defending Stanley Cup Champions. These statistics you raise, imo only add food for thought to the 'alternative' explanations - in no way do they really evidence a bigger, stronger, better blueline of Dallas that the Canucks' need to emulate. Where there is/was room for improvement - beyond a healthy, more experienced forward group - is in the controlled entries. Hughes and Myers - actually very good (Myers on the limp in the playoffs as well - but in spite of that, again, they knocked off St Louis)... Schmidt will improve those entries (add 4-6% to the exits and entries averaging results above - although those numbers come from Schmidt in Vegas so they can't simply be transferred, it's a mere hypothetical assuming his numbers remain consistent with those - and they could increase their gap in terms of controlled exits and close the gap in terms of entries...) Bottom line though - while it does show a gap in the ability to gain the blueline, it also shows a gap in favour of this team in exits...so I'm not sure there is as much 'explanatory' evidence there as people might have assumed in the absence of these numbers. Not to knock the assessment (As I pretty much agree with a lot of your points) but that is an exceptionally crude way of doing it, you cannot just take a percentage and then divide that by 6 to make that figure. you need to calculate the number by player and weight it properly, Dalas used their top 4 heavily and hardly used the 3rd pairing. Not only that but when you start looking at team level you need to factor in state of play like Pk etc Edited October 19, 2020 by UKNuck96 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 Just now, Robert Long said: I think tho given the entry skill is based on his mobility I do think its reasonable to expect something similar here. What I liked about this article is it used relatively non-fancy stats to show how we're in the ballpark as a team like Dallas on exits/entries now in terms of d capability. We don't have to use a corsi regression map to understand what Nate brings. Thats pretty exciting to me. Dallas is also the right team if we're searching for comparisons imo, vs. stretching to view Hughes-Schmidt as Theodore-Pietrangelo. Its easy to take these stats and articles too far for sure, but its hard not to see that we should have better entries in particular. That may be - it can reasonably be 'expected' - but as I've pointed out in the edit above - my guess would be that zone entries in general are typically attempted with more frequency - by forwards....with the exception of puck movers.....Schmidt may give them another option beyond Hughes and Myers - of D puck carriers/movers that can enhance the ability to gain entries (add another important element to the attack) - however, if I were guessing, I'm not sure there would be as much volume of attempts as there are with zone exits...(where the team already enjoyed a gap). My point above is not a suggestion on any level that there was no room for improvement - it's more a point about the relative strengths and weaknesses of those two bluelines this past season - and I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people here would have assumed that Dallas' blueline was far more capable of generating controlled exits - which is not what that evidence shows. I also did not 'expect' the unexpected - ie neither Ekman-larsson, nor Schmidt would have been on anyone's 'radar'.....both of those circumstances involved the player or team soliciting the Canucks as a result of unforseen circumstances...otherwise, the 'option's in free agency....would they have necessarily improved the team on both those fronts - while also representing two way defensemen that don't give their upside back when not in possession? These kinds of acquisitions aren't easy to make - and they pretty much emerged out of Covid on the on hand (Arizona), and a team with two puck movers (already a 'model') chasing the biggest fish in free agency.....if AP signs virtually anywhere else, does a player like Schmidt enter the market? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 10 minutes ago, UKNuck96 said: Not to knock the assessment (As I pretty much agree with a lot of your points) but that is an exceptionally crude way of doing it, you cannot just take a percentage and then divide that by 6 to make that figure. did you read the post - which actually addresses that point/limit? the same variation can be 'expected' on both sides - where the volumes of attempted exits and entries increases with the players more successful in generating them...in other words, while there is/would be variation, it can't be 'expected' to fundamentally alter those results. And as 'averages' they do indicate the general ability of each of those defensemen - and a general reality as a group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, oldnews said: That may be - it can reasonably be 'expected' - but as I've pointed out in the edit above - my guess would be that zone entries in general are typically attempted with more frequency - by forwards....with the exception of puck movers.....Schmidt may give them another option beyond Hughes and Myers - of D puck carriers/movers that can enhance the ability to gain entries (add another important element to the attack) - however, if I were guessing, I'm not sure there would be as much volume of attempts as there are with zone exits...(where the team already enjoyed a gap). My point above is not a suggestion on any level that there was no room for improvement - it's more a point about the relative strengths and weaknesses of those two bluelines this past season - and I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people here would have assumed that Dallas' blueline was far more capable of generating controlled exits - which is not what that evidence shows. I also did not 'expect' the unexpected - ie neither Ekman-larsson, nor Schmidt would have been on anyone's 'radar'.....both of those circumstances involved the player or team soliciting the Canucks as a result of unforseen circumstances...otherwise, the 'option's in free agency....would they have necessarily improved the team on both those fronts - while also representing two way defensemen that don't give their upside back when not in possession? These kinds of acquisitions aren't easy to make - and they pretty much emerged out of Covid on the on hand (Arizona), and a team with two puck movers (already a 'model') chasing the biggest fish in free agency.....if AP signs virtually anywhere else, does a player like Schmidt enter the market? Maybe? But other doors may open. Maybe if Boston lands AP we end up with Carlo. Or if he re-signs with St Loius maybe Jim lands Paryako. It does sound like Jim was one of if not the most active GMs this year so I'd suspect he'd be in on a number of options. You're right though, by the numbers above last years Canucks were overall better at exits than Dallas. Its just Heiskanan and Klingberg are so good its hard to notice anyone else. Edited October 19, 2020 by Robert Long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, Robert Long said: Maybe? But other doors may open. Maybe if Boston lands AP we end up with Carlo. Or if he re-signs with St Loius maybe Jim lands Paryako. It does sound like Jim was one of if not the most active GMs this year so I'd suspect he'd be in on a number of options. You're right though, by the numbers above last years Canucks were overall better at exits than Dallas. Its just Heiskanan and Klingberg are so good its hard to notice anyone else. ? Those are wishfuls - that nevertheless would require that you look at their specific impacts in terms of controlled zone entries and exits.... Boston lost their entire left side - I'm not surprised they weren't in the running for AP - the Bruins best two D - McAvoy and Carlo - are RHD. But to the point - even if Carlo had become available, I doubt, for example, that he would represent a puck mover effect on those entry/exit numbers - that would be weighted significantly towards Krug's role imo...(his most frequent partner). Also - when you look at teams like Tampa (or other 'true' contenders - Boston?) - you can't necessarily expect those numbers to travel with the player into any other context (Tampa's 'bottom 3' D are probably not as much 'drivers' as their numbers would appear.... But - to the idea of the intended 'overhaul' - two way puck movers that can play in any situation (like OEL or Schmidt) - are not generally readily available - I would not have considered any of the UFA class, with perhaps Pietrangelo, for example, as 'comparables'. The team did not necessarily set out imo to add a Pietrangelo this offseason - and what transpired - OEL, Schmidt type opportunities wasn't exactly 'predictable'. And just as relevent - the team was nowhere near as 'bad' as the armchair stories of the need to goalpost chase suspected (and further to the point that an 'overhaul' was not about to begin - their two best entry and exit D - Hughes and Myers - had already been added prior to last season - any further gains in that sense were the continuation of things that had long been in the sights of Benning to improve upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 11 minutes ago, oldnews said: ? Those are wishfuls - that nevertheless would require that you look at their specific impacts in terms of controlled zone entries and exits.... Boston lost their entire left side - I'm not surprised they weren't in the running for AP - the Bruins best two D - McAvoy and Carlo - are RHD. But to the point - even if Carlo had become available, I doubt, for example, that he would represent a puck mover effect on those entry/exit numbers - that would be weighted significantly towards Krug's role imo...(his most frequent partner). Also - when you look at teams like Tampa (or other 'true' contenders - Boston?) - you can't necessarily expect those numbers to travel with the player into any other context (Tampa's 'bottom 3' D are probably not as much 'drivers' as their numbers would appear.... But - to the idea of the intended 'overhaul' - two way puck movers that can play in any situation (like OEL or Schmidt) - are not generally readily available - I would not have considered any of the UFA class, with perhaps Pietrangelo, for example, as 'comparables'. The team did not necessarily set out imo to add a Pietrangelo this offseason - and what transpired - OEL, Schmidt type opportunities wasn't exactly 'predictable'. And just as relevent - the team was nowhere near as 'bad' as the armchair stories of the need to goalpost chase suspected (and further to the point that an 'overhaul' was not about to begin - their two best entry and exit D - Hughes and Myers - had already been added prior to last season - any further gains in that sense were the continuation of things that had long been in the sights of Benning to improve upon. Just saying I'd expect Jim would have capitalized on a number of scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 7 hours ago, Phat Fingers said: Let's see how they and Dallas, Colorado with Makar and Bryon stack up against a potentially declining Pieterangelo and Theodore in his prime. St Louis has Krug and Paryako (sp?) too. Some great d pairings in the west are going to be fun to watch, now that we actually have a seat at the table. Giordano and Tanev Russell and Barrie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now