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

Canucks vs the League. Where do we fit?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Honest question: are these numbers correct?  (Edit: not trying to call out the OP - I mean more like... how would less positive people be interpreting those numbers?)
 

Why are all the usual stats-suspects so down on the team right now?  
 

I really haven’t been poking around on the stats much this year... but I agree it’s largely a write-off between the beginning and end schedules, losing some key vets with no training camp (and early injury to Hamonic) plus obviously the worst Covid outbreak in the league. 
 

It would be nice to see that there were a lot of chances that we just weren’t converting on... (Petey hit a ton of iron to start the year.)  

 

In any case I don’t see us losing any key pieces and looks like we should be able to add Podkolzin and maybe a complementary piece or two.. combined with some familiarity and a proper camp I’m optimistic we should be back in the playoff hunt at the bare minimum next year. 

Edited by ilduce39
  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, knucklehead91 said:

I'm fed up with the lack of support for this team and what they went through this season and how fingers are being pointed in each and every direction as to why this team was well out of playoff contention. 

 

Great analysis and I just wanted to quote you on this sentiment.  We're seeing now how fickle fans and media in this market can be.  You have a segment of our "fans" that were cheering against the Canucks throughout the season just so that their hatred of our GM and coach feels validated.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Vintage 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop making sense.  Cuz it's clearly JB and Green's fault.  Also some of the assistant coaches.   Fire them all ... except Ian Clark.

 

Lol.

:P

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

logicbets.com has the nucks ranked

 

30th for xGF

24th for slot shots for

31st for xGA

30th for slot shots against

 

27th for penalties taken

22 for penalties drawn

 

and they pretty much ranked demko at 2nd best goalie in the league

  • Upvote 2
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Those numbers look to be quite low.  Expected goals for of only 66.5 in 56 games or is it over a smaller sample size.  Pittsburgh with only 46.  Could you explain the format and source.

 

Sportlogiq's tracking technology shows very different numbers and leads to opposite conclusions.  They were near bottom of the league in expected goals for (and against) before their Covid-outbreak but were actually top-5 in finishing skills with one of the best differential between actual and expected.  They probably dropped after that but to that point finishing was not the issue it was generation (and prevention).

 

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Where did you source your stats? 

lol.   That's the best you can do?   Weak game today.    Obviously this fan spent a lot of time researching this and made some very strong points as to why some fans keep bringing up both Covid and the schedule as part of the reason the season went the way it did.   Seen a few even just call it a mulligan, which as an occasional golfer i'd have to agree.   Several actually (mullies).    Like taking your practice swing and knocking the ball off the tee (no practice),  second stroke right in the pond (start of season), third stroke decent right back onto the fairway (past game 15), fourth stroke catching up to your foursome with an awesome fairway hit close to the green (easy chip and put in from there) - best hit of the hole so far (catching up to MTL and CAL before Covid).   

 

Then disaster.   Chip it into the sand bunker, goes off the tip of your club sideways lol (Covid).   Make an excellent recovery shot out of the sand onto the green ten feet from the pin (Holtby/TO)...then three putt (rest of the season!).    For sure a couple mulligans at least. 

 

Believe the point the OP is trying to make, and spent a significant amount of time doing so, is this seasons adversity was simply too much for them.   Interestingly enough, we did claw our way back, and our winning percentage against these teams actually went up compared to last season as well.    Coaching wasn't the issue.   Roster was to a degree but we aren't that bad either. 

 

Glad that at least the ownership and management kept and even keel.   Team deserves another shot before any drastic measures are made.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
  • RoughGame 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ilduce39 said:

Honest question: are these numbers correct?  (Edit: not trying to call out the OP - I mean more like... how would less positive people be interpreting those numbers?)
 

Why are all the usual stats-suspects so down on the team right now?  
 

I really haven’t been poking around on the stats much this year... but I agree it’s largely a write-off between the beginning and end schedules, losing some key vets with no training camp (and early injury to Hamonic) plus obviously the worst Covid outbreak in the league. 
 

It would be nice to see that there were a lot of chances that we just weren’t converting on... (Petey hit a ton of iron to start the year.)  

 

In any case I don’t see us losing any key pieces and looks like we should be able to add Podkolzin and maybe a complementary piece or two.. combined with some familiarity and a proper camp I’m optimistic we should be back in the playoff hunt at the bare minimum next year. 

I used hockey-reference.com. If they are incorrect can someone show me how they are incorrect?

perhaps their calculators are based on all shots versus homeplate shots, shots blocked or missed versus shots on goal?

We did hit a lot of posts this year, Petey in particular.

 

I have no clue if hockey-reference is actually inaccurate or if its a different formula they use to get their stats. 
Can anyone provide proof or an article or something that confirms hockey-reference is wrong? Like how does anyone know their calculator is accurate?

 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, mll said:

Those numbers look to be quite low.  Expected goals for of only 66.5 in 56 games or is it over a smaller sample size.  Pittsburgh with only 46.  Could you explain the format and source.

 

Sportlogiq's tracking technology shows very different numbers and leads to opposite conclusions.  They were near bottom of the league in expected goals for (and against) before their Covid-outbreak but were actually top-5 in finishing skills with one of the best differential between actual and expected.  They probably dropped after that but to that point finishing was not the issue it was generation (and prevention).

 

Hockey-reference.com

 

I explained the calculator from hockey-ref. Which perhaps their calculations are generated off all shots taken (missed or blocked included) 

versus another sites calculator that may only calculate based on shots on goal, home plate shots etc. or vice versa

 

Edited by knucklehead91
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IBatch said:

lol.   That's the best you can do?   Weak game today.    Obviously this fan spent a lot of time researching this and made some very strong points as to why some fans keep bringing up both Covid and the schedule as part of the reason the season went the way it did.   Seen a few even just call it a mulligan, which as an occasional golfer i'd have to agree.   Several actually (mullies).    Like taking your practice swing and knocking the ball off the tee (no practice),  second stroke right in the pond (start of season), third stroke decent right back onto the fairway (past game 15), fourth stroke catching up to your foursome with an awesome fairway hit close to the green (easy chip and put in from there) - best hit of the hole so far (catching up to MTL and CAL before Covid).   

 

Then disaster.   Chip it into the sand bunker, goes off the tip of your club sideways lol (Covid).   Make an excellent recovery shot out of the sand onto the green ten feet from the pin (Holtby/TO)...then three putt (rest of the season!).    For sure a couple mulligans at least. 

 

Believe the point the OP is trying to make, and spent a significant amount of time doing so, is this seasons adversity was simply too much for them.   Interestingly enough, we did claw our way back, and our winning percentage against these teams actually went up compared to last season as well.    Coaching wasn't the issue.   Roster was to a degree but we aren't that bad either. 

 

Glad that at least the ownership and management kept and even keel.   Team deserves another shot before any drastic measures are made.  

That is exactly what im getting at. Thank you for helping clarify that for everyone. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Uh, the schedule and boxscores?  They're not hard to find if you take the time to look rather than just get caught up in "this team sucks".

 

I, too, was looking at this earlier and it's glaring if you really take the time to break it down on a team by team basis.  

 

The OP's done a great job of laying it out for you....it's up to you challenge it by digging for stuff yourself rather than having him/her provide even more detail.  Read it and if there's something that looks off, prove it?

 

After a post that's likely taken hours to put together, a 2 second challenge that basically asks for more isn't really cutting it.  Put more effort in if it's not believable to you and dig for opposing information.

 

 

I was simply curious where the stats came from so I could go look at them since i view this forum on my phone and his formatting is all messed up and unreadable on my phone.

 

But sure, jump on me when I did not make any statement at all about the team sucking or any of the other nonsense you wrote.

 

Honestly, people need to calm the &^@# down.

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IBatch said:

lol.   That's the best you can do?   Weak game today.    Obviously this fan spent a lot of time researching this and made some very strong points as to why some fans keep bringing up both Covid and the schedule as part of the reason the season went the way it did.   Seen a few even just call it a mulligan, which as an occasional golfer i'd have to agree.   Several actually (mullies).    Like taking your practice swing and knocking the ball off the tee (no practice),  second stroke right in the pond (start of season), third stroke decent right back onto the fairway (past game 15), fourth stroke catching up to your foursome with an awesome fairway hit close to the green (easy chip and put in from there) - best hit of the hole so far (catching up to MTL and CAL before Covid).   

 

Then disaster.   Chip it into the sand bunker, goes off the tip of your club sideways lol (Covid).   Make an excellent recovery shot out of the sand onto the green ten feet from the pin (Holtby/TO)...then three putt (rest of the season!).    For sure a couple mulligans at least. 

 

Believe the point the OP is trying to make, and spent a significant amount of time doing so, is this seasons adversity was simply too much for them.   Interestingly enough, we did claw our way back, and our winning percentage against these teams actually went up compared to last season as well.    Coaching wasn't the issue.   Roster was to a degree but we aren't that bad either. 

 

Glad that at least the ownership and management kept and even keel.   Team deserves another shot before any drastic measures are made.  

Read my above post. Again, people need to calm down. Asking someone where they got their stats is not a statement of anything other than i was curious where they came from.

 

Different sites measure some of these convuluted advanced stats differently btw. So understanding the actual methodology of the stats being used is a pretty important consideration.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, knucklehead91 said:

Hockey-reference.com

 

I explained the calculator from hockey-ref. Which perhaps their calculations are generated off all shots taken (missed or blocked included) 

versus another sites calculator that may only calculate based on shots on goal, home plate shots etc. or vice versa

 

 

They show Vancouver with xGF of 66.5 and xGA of 64.4 at 5v5.   They have actual goals for at 100 and actual goals against at 128 which don't quite match the NHLs who have 104 and 131.  Their axDiff is (100-66.5) - (128-64.4) = - 30

 

Natural Stat Trick has 97 as expected goals for and 118 as expected goals against - which is a fair bit closer to actual numbers. 

 

Do you have more detail to their expected goal metric.  They have a league average of 58 when no team scored less than 87 goals at 5v5 this season. Why the significant gap to actual?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Not a fan of stuff like expected goals for and against tbh. Stats like that are just assumption based.

 

Hockey is not a game that lends itself well to everything being explainable by fancy stats. 

 

Advanced stats are very easily cherry pickable and very often not actually realistic based on watching the games. They are also calculated differently with different assumptions by various places that put them out.

 

In terms of scientific value, they are pretty much erratic and always need poper context.

 

I know people need a reason to believe the Canucks dont suck. But this season, like most of the past 7 years, the actual results dont lie.

Edited by wallstreetamigo
  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1
  • Vintage 1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Not a fan of stuff like expected goals for and against tbh. Stats like that are just assumption based.

 

 

I agree about expected goals and stats

Expectations aren't always reality

I bet the Oilers expected to beat the Jets

Most expect the1st o/a draft pick to be the best

Most expected the Canucks to be better than they were

They will be down the road and All cdc  will be united and happy

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Read my above post. Again, people need to calm down. Asking someone where they got their stats is not a statement of anything other than i was curious where they came from.

 

Different sites measure some of these convuluted advanced stats differently btw. So understanding the actual methodology of the stats being used is a pretty important consideration.

You'd get way more slack if you haven't spammed the site the last couple of months with your negative attitude.  You got called out and maybe try owning it instead.   Invalidation is exactly that - people see intent when they see it. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Vintage 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Not a fan of stuff like expected goals for and against tbh. Stats like that are just assumption based.

 

Hockey is not a game that lends itself well to everything being explainable by fancy stats. 

 

Advanced stats are very easily cherry pickable and very often not actually realistic based on watching the games. They are also calculated differently with different assumptions by various places that put them out.

 

In terms of scientific value, they are pretty much erratic and always need poper context.

 

I know people need a reason to believe the Canucks dont suck. But this season, like most of the past 7 years, the actual results dont lie.

And there it is.   Well done.   Again trying to invalidate and justify your position. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, ba;;isticsports said:

I agree about expected goals and stats

Expectations aren't always reality

I bet the Oilers expected to beat the Jets

Most expect the1st o/a draft pick to be the best

Most expected the Canucks to be better than they were

They will be down the road and All cdc  will be united and happy

The way you should look at “expected” stats are that we ARE getting chances. I fully understand expected stats are a shoulda coulda woulda been number. The point of that stat is that it shows the team is in the right positions and getting the right chances. They are either being blocked, tipped away, good goal tending, shot wide or just simply not capitalizing. The point is the opportunities are there, which bode well for the future, we WILL start converting these chances as time goes on. 
 

And when you look at the expected stats of Edmonton versus Winnipeg.... you start to see Winnipeg was actually expected to win. People just looked at McDavid and Draisaitl and expected to win..... because of their individual point production..

Edited by knucklehead91
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...