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

3 hours ago, knucklehead91 said:

 

 

Oooookay here we go!

So I'm going to put a bolded # next to each and every point that I am responding to in the quote and below, my responses will be bolded and numbered to match each response.

 

1. You haven't met @wallstreetamigo yet. He does not understand or believe how much COVID hurt us. 

I have never said covid didnt hurt the team. If you have any of my posts where I said soecifically that, I would like to see them.

 

To clarify, what I have said is:

 

1. The team getting ravaged by covid was a direct result of managements decision to allow players to practice while awaiting test results. Breaking protocols in their desperation for practice time was self inflicted. 

 

2. The team was garbage most of the season before covid hit them. Its not like they were playing lights out all year long then covid wrecked their season. It made an already $&!#ty year even $&!#tier.

 

I dont mind being disagreed with. But I do take exception to people lying about what I actually said.

 

 

  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2021 at 9:35 PM, knucklehead91 said:

 

 

Oooookay here we go!

So I'm going to put a bolded # next to each and every point that I am responding to in the quote and below, my responses will be bolded and numbered to match each response.

 

1. You haven't met @wallstreetamigo yet. He does not understand or believe how much COVID hurt us. 

 

2. When I spoke of this season not being a fair season to gauge success or failure, it was meant as in not judging based on standings. There are teams that probably shouldnt have made it in and teams that probably should have. The underlying stats shouldn't necessarily be 'invalidated' because despite the standings, they can tell a different story for next year. Vancouver's underlying stats based on naturalstattrick dont show to be very good, but I firmly believe that this team is much better than what that shows, based on the fact we went through absolute hell this season. Which is frustrating because we can't exactly compare our season or statistics to any team in the league on an even level. Like no one else came close to the crap schedule we went through or being forced back into action relatively soon after 'recovering' from the P1variant. So really, it all may look bad to the eye, but given the things we dealt with, you would have to assume it will improve. The question is, how much? We obviously won't get our answer until the end of next season. But for now I want to stay hopeful and optimistic.

 

I'll do a comparison between Dallas and Nashville a team with hurdles versus a team without the same issues. Dallas had similar hurdles as Vancouver, Dallas was missing Seguin and had a late start to the season and a 9 day pause midway. They did not get hit by COVID like Vancouver, but they were stopped for 9 days and missing a star player. 

Then I will do a comparison of teams that all had a fair season. Calgary vs Winnipeg vs Edmonton. The outcomes and the advanced stats that go against what SHOULD have happened.

 

Before I proceed to show my comparison, I want to say that I am not comparing Vancouver to Dallas, just the hurdles and the end results.

 

 

I am going to use naturalstattrick like you suggested to gather my information and present it. I am a little disappointed in how Hockey-references calculations gave somewhat misleading stats. In terms of where Vancouver appeared to be with some of the advanced stats, I just wish I knew how NST versus HR break their numbers down.

 

 

Team SF SA SF% xGF xGA xGF% SCF SCA SCF% HDCF HDCA HDCF% HDGF HDGA HDGF%
DAL 1355 1161 53.86 99.82 84.85 54.05 1186 994 54.4 478 382 55.58 66 51 56.41
  8th 2nd 5th 11th 3rd 3rd 9th 3rd 4th 7th 3rd 4th 11th 4/5split 6th
  NSH 1346 1400 49.02 96.36 98.12 49.55 1121 1103 50.4 452 441 50.62 57 51 52.78
  10th 25th 15th 21st 13th 13th 17th 13th 15th 14th 13th 13th 20th 4/5split 11th
                               
                               
                               
                               
CGY 1311 1227 51.65 99.5 85.42 53.81 1177 1027 53.4 454 389 53.86 55 59 48.25
  15TH 5TH 10TH 12TH 4TH 6TH 10TH 4TH 8TH 12TH 5TH 7TH 23RD T-12TH 20TH
WPG 1274 1332 48.89 95.16 109.55 46.48 1155 1254 47.95 420 521 44.63 68 59 53.54
  23RD 19TH 16TH 24TH 26TH 23RD 13TH 28TH 21ST 24TH 27TH 28TH 8TH T-12TH 10TH
EDM 1126 1229 48.52 100.5 101.89 49.66 1126 1229 47.81 455 459 49.78 53 59 47.32
  16th 24th 19th 9th 17th 19th 16th 24th 22nd 11th 17th 19th 25th T-12TH 21ST

 

As you can see Dallas was clearly a top team in the league when you break down the advanced stats. But regardless of how good they were in almost every category, a team who was middle of the league secured a playoff spot in the same division and Dallas was booking tee times. 

Yes Dallas had much much more impressive stats than Vancouver when you break it down. However we will not know until next season just how different this team would have been when all 32 teams have the same schedule and rest. In the final 19 games of Vancouver's season, they still played 4-9 more games than any other team. Our schedule and COVID situation really hampered our chances to be strong defensively, but the positive way I looked at it was that despite the scores, despite the standings and all that, Vancouver was pushing for chances FOR. My goal with my original post was to shed some positive light and bring hope to the fans that next season will be a much better season for the Canucks.

 

Now look at Calgary, they were mid to top tier team in a handful of advanced statistics. Calgary, Winnipeg and Edmonton had fairly equal seasons, yet a team who was ranking mid to top tier in advanced statistics AND had a players only meeting early on... Missed the post season and two teams who were towards the bottom in a lot of area's made the post season. 

Winnipeg was near the bottom with Vancouver in a lot of area's and we had a much rougher season..... Somehow they made it in and swept the Coilers.

 

IF We were somehow able to adjust the season for each and every single team in the league and simulate how their season would have went if they lost a star player for over half the season, had the absolute worst scheduling, the most amount of condensed games, least amount of rest and practice and be hit with the COVID variant, how many of those teams would replicate the same season with the same results/advanced statistics. The answer would be none of them would, they would all finish lower and some might miss the playoffs due to it.

 

 

3. It's not that I underestimate the loss of Stamkos and Kucherov and the combined overlap they were out for. We also lost a top player for a substantial amount of time and we managed to do okay up until COVID. DAL and TBL are in the same division that is better defensively, Dallas was also missing Seguin for 53 games and Radulov for 45 games. Radulov and Seguin are not the same level as Kucherov and Stamkos, however they are 2 top players in their lineup.

So before I extract information from NST in theory, a much less potent Dallas Stars, without their 2 stars, should be significantly lower than each team in the tight-knit division.

 

Within the Central division

Team   xGF   SCF   HDCF   SCSH%
CAR 1st 117.09 1st 1262 1st 547 8th 11.64
FLA 2nd 106.13 4th 1166 4th 449 6th 12.05
TBL 4th 98.57 2nd 1195 5th 448 4th 12.77
NSH 5th 96.36 5th 1121 3rd 452 3rd 12.36
DAL 3rd 99.82 3rd 1186 2nd 478 1st 13.34
CHI 7th 91.06 6th 1070 6th 409 2nd 12.95
DET 8th 85.44 8th 969 8th 390 5th 12.15
CBJ 6th 92.23 7th 1022 7th 392 7th 11.85

 

Now lets compare those numbers to the Canadian Division

 

Team   xGF   SCF   HDCF   SCSH%
TOR 1st 113.2 1st 1390 1st 553 6th 13.68
EDM 2nd 100.5 6th 1126 T-3rd 455 2nd 14.85
WPG 7th 95.16 5th 1155 5th 420 1st 15.51
MTL 3rd 100.16 2nd 1290 2nd 468 7th 12.87
CGY 4th 99.5 3rd 1177 3rd 454 5th 13.46
OTT 5th 97.16 4th 1157 T-3rd 455 4th 13.72
VAN 6th 96.61 7th 1083 4th 424 3rd 14.06

 

Now if you average out each divisions xGF SCF HDCF and SCSH% it looks like this

Division xGF SCF HDCF SCSH%
Central 98.3 1123.8 395.6 12.39%
Canadian 100.4 1196.8 461.2 14.02%

 

The Canadian division looks to be like a much more high flying defenceless division when you average out the division numbers. Problem is CBJ, DET and CHI all drastically effect the average of the division. As you can see they have some of the lowest scoring teams and some of the highest scoring teams in the league. 

So the crappy teams inflate the xGF and xGA as you have a feast or famine division. 

The thing about the Canadian division which is unlike any other division is you could arguably swap any team outside the playoffs with almost any team inside the playoffs. They are all very evenly matched, Ottawa became one of the toughest teams to beat down the stretch and they had decently impressive stats. Winnipeg and Edmonton were terrible on the advanced charts, but secured a playoff spot. 

You could not change CBJ, DET or CHI with any of the teams in the playoffs, MAYBE just MAYBE Nashville, but thats because Nashville also should have been golfing and Dallas probably should have been extending their season. 

In the Honda West Division you have LAK, SJS, ARZ, ANA that are all absolutely garbage and it is once again a feast or famine scenario. Top teams eat well, bottom teams starve.

in the MassMutual East Division its NJD, PHI and BUFF that are your catastrophies. However I will argue that PHI (based on advanced stats) are much better than where the finished their season, NFC what happened there.

 

I would say 5/7 Canadian teams could have been in a playoff spot. Vancouver had a very unlucky season, one which we will never repeat again (No mid season plague) Ottawa was not a playoff team, but they certainly improved and became a decent team in the end. 

 

In almost every other division you can look at the teams at the start of the year and say yea, those 4 are the ones going to the playoffs this year BASED on the divisional alignment/ 4 mini seasons.

 

Also when it comes to tighter defensive structures in the Central Division compared to the Canadian division

CANADIAN DIV Shot attempts Blocks Thru% Shots
VAN 2965 805 53.97% 1629
TOR 3124 708 48.10% 1751
EDM 3023 801 53.78% 1674
CGY 3144 677 52.77% 1689
OTT 3036 807 50.41% 1663
MTL 3261 684 50.71% 1746
WPG 2991 767 54.27% 1661
AVG 3039.14 749.9 52% 1687.6
CENTRAL DIV        
TBL 2973 645 56.27% 1692
FLA 3262 617 58.04% 1954
CAR 3316 658 54.00% 1794
NSH 3012 736 56.27% 1679
DAL 3122 721 54.52% 1699
DET 2655 720 57.32% 1528
CBJ 2785 789 58.46% 1625
CHI 2785 776 58.46% 1635
AVG 2988.75 707 56.67% 1700.8

 

I calculated this myself off of hockey-reference by adding the total SaTT from each and every player, each shot from each player and then took every players Thru% and divided it by the number of players on the roster to give the average. 

 

Carolina has 661 more shots than Detroit, the biggest shot spread in the Canadian division is 296. The Central division gets the average of 56.67% of their shots through and teams collectively blocked an average of 707.75 shots. 8 Central teams blocked a total of 413 more shots than 7 Canadian teams. Only the Western Division blocked more shots than our div. So I would have to give the tighter d-zone edge to the Canadian div compared to the Central div. When there are 3 exceptionally bad teams in a division of 4 exceptionally strong teams and one good team all stats are going to be either extremely inflated or deflated due to difference of competition level between the top teams and the bottom teams. 

 

6.  Part of the reason and intent behind my comparison of teams like Edmonton is they have a very questionable future ahead with 25% of the Salary cap being tied up in 2 players for quite a long time. Is their future going to benefit or will it be hindered? They already were one of the lowest SCF generating teams yet had the two best players in the league. Vancouver, is more of a team than a one or two man show. With tired legs, injuries and our conditioning being thrown out of whack mid-season, we still pushed for chances. Which to me despite the outcome of the season, the divisional alignments or not, shows that perhaps our systems are effective. With tired bodies and missing players we generated chances. This year is just a hard one to fully buy into the advanced stats and are moreso to be taken with a grain of salt. Strictly due to the fact one team was seriously effected by an illness. It hard to compare them. Im reading advanced for the Canucks with optimism and hope, because I know they are better than how the season went and they will not go through the same BS scheduling as this year.

 

7. Well if we go off history, we are looking at how many seasons? If its during the Benning tenure, sure it has been low. But to be fair to Benning the first 4 years were failed retool years and the last 3 have been rebuild years. So its not like we had GOOD teams the whole time and have just sucked. We had 4 years of old players in the twilight of their careers. The last 3 has been the aches and pains of a rebuild however our rebuild is on lightyears ahead of where most rebuilds are in the 3rd year. To think last year was our 2nd year of a rebuild and we had a 100.4 PDO which isnt too bad. Considering a contending team like VGK had a 99.0 PDO last season. Then in our 3rd season of the rebuild we have this f***ed up season <_<

 

8. Like I said in my OP if we were to have lost Petey and NOT get COVID, We likely would have had a good chance at playoffs. OR if we HAD Petey and GOT COVID we still probably would have had a good chance at making the playoffs. It's not like TBL are short on talent, they are extremely stacked so they SHOULD be able to overcome an injury to a star player or 2 and should at least win 50-60% of their games over the  Stammer/Kuch injury overlap. Especially when they have games against teams like DET, CHI, CBJ. Those are games they probably should win. Games against the rest of division they still have a decent chance to win. They had star players injured but still had a chance to feast from time to time on the lower seeded teams. For the most part, Vancouver faced rested teams who weren't battling injuries. 

Now where I see Vancouver compared to the league is closer to the middle of the league rather than the bottom. We are a top 6 and top 4 dman away from being a contender. 

 

9. I understand and agree our bottom 6 doesn't provide much threat to opponents. However is it really fair to compare TBLs 3rd and 4th lines to ours? or our 3/4 lines to most teams in the league? We have had a revolving door of players in the bottom 6. The bottom 6 has been unstable largely due to injuries.

The 6 players you picked for Vancouver combined for 199/336 GP compared to TBLs bottom 6 who played 310/336GP 92% of the season. With their injuries to Stamkos and Kucherov, the 3rd line will see more opportunities in the game that they likely wouldnt see if TBL was healthy in the top 6. But that is not to discredit how good their bottom 6 actually is. We definitely do need a little more help in the bottom 6 for sure, but we also just need to stay healthy for the love of god. 

 

Man games lost this season broken down for each team fwd/d/g and total.

TEAM MGL-F MGL-D MGL-G MGL TEAM MGL-F MGL-D MGL-G MGL
CAR 110 13 37 160 WSH 47 75 9 131
FLA 66 80 6 152 PIT 151 85 9 245
TBL 119 39 3 161 NYI 68 7 1 76
NSH 150 143 8 301 BOS 103 130 28 261
DAL 160 82 58 300 NYR 61 49 10 120
CHI 291 44 8 343 PHI 102 30 14 146
CBJ 120 23 5 148 NJD 84 43 14 141
DET 162 21 18 201 BUF 159 90 61 310
                   
COL 105 141 67 313 TOR 101 19 49 169
VGK 87 41 16 144 WPG 107 50 1 158
MIN 140 33 26 199 EDM 99 126 33 258
STL 176 99 0 275 MTL 62 32 19 113
ARZ 53 37 51 141 CGY 42 9 5 56
SJS 67 25 2 94 OTT 94 29 60 183
LAK 93 45 12 150 VAN 248 28 2 278
ANA 140 109 10 259          

 

I kept the divisions intact to show how each teams health was compared to the rest of their division. Vancouver struggled immensely to stay healthy upfront. It was a very tough season on us as well as other teams. Some teams were pretty banged up and made it into the playoffs, but they also have the luxury of having bottom feeding teams to help mitigate the loss of players. Could you imagine how bad our season could have been if our D was banged up?? God that is a terrible to think of just how much worse it could have gone.

 

10. I think we all have to agree that at the time of the 30g Eriksson signing, we all were excited at the potential of Eriksson and the Sedins re-uniting that international chemistry. In Eriksson's first 2 seasons he sustained 2 injuries and missed 17 games in his first season and 32 games the following season. Playing 70% of the total GP in his first 2 seasons. At the end of the 2017-18, 2/3 of Erikssons line retired and the rebuild began. Is it fair to hate on a guy who was injured a few times and a couple more ticks on father times clock went by and the top line is gone. I don't think management saw the Sedins retiring at the age of 37, I believe they were expecting 2-3 more years out of them. I wouldn't call it a 'bad' signing, it was more of a very unlucky signing. Eriksson DID just put up 30g, its not like he signed a player who was trending downward. He signed a player who was trending upward AND there was chemistry between LE and the Sedins. So mathematically it was a sensible signing that just soured unfortunately. It wasn't a case of JB going out and throwing money at anyone in particular, there was deep thought into it and I believe there may have even been conversations with the Sedins about their thoughts on bringing LE in.

Gudbranson was also at the time a very good targeted acquisition, I broke this down awhile back and defended the reason why he was signed and how the $ was fairly justifiable. Guddy had a good regular season with FLA and in the playoffs he became THEE guy in the playoffs for FLA. He was an absolute MONSTER for them in their playoff series. PLUS Gudbranson was still young. We needed to get young and have a dman that could grow with the organization.

The Sutter signing was also a well targeted signing at the time. Fresh off a 21g campaign, 26years of age and a strong C. We needed to get deeper down the middle.  The market is what sets the value, not the GM. Sutter has played 275/453 games for Vancouver since the day he signed. There was no prior injury history for Sutter and in his first season he suffered a major injury and played 20/82games. The following season he played 81 games put up 17g and 17a which was great to see that from your 2nd and 3rd line, sorta like how Gourde has put up those numbers on the 3rd line for TBL..... If only we had 2 legit top lines...

As for the Beagle, Roussel signings..... We signed these guys during a rebuild and, how else do you entice a player to come and waste a few years of their career at trying to win a cup. Fortunately Beagle had already won a cup, but for Roussel he's still chasing the dream. They were both very effective 4th liners in the league for quite some time. Neither have been able to stay healthy since they arrived. Roussel pleasantly surprised us in his first year with 9g 22a 31pts in 65 gp..... However he was injured like usual Canuck UFA signings in their debut year. He hasn't been able to stay healthy since he signed. However he has a .34ppg. Not bad on your 4th line. He was producing .42ppg in the first 2 seasons. 44pts in 106 games. 

 

We needed to sign vets to help stabilize foundational structure (Horvat, Boeser, Hughes, EP)

Benning has unfortunately been very unlucky with the health of his UFA signings... There is something in the water in Vancouver.

 

Fans are so used to Benning throwing contracts at vet after vet after vet and locking them up for 3-5 years in the past and how it hasn't ever made us a winner. However the leopard has changed his spots, if Benning continued his trend in past years, we would have signed 1 or 2 of Toffoli, Tanev and Markstrom, which would have helped make us better losers.... Instead of making us winners. Letting them walk is a sign of change in direction for this franchise, we are no longer looking for place holders or 30 year old vets on the inevitable downward swing. We are reserving our budget for the future. Bennings tendencies are not the same as they have been in the past. In our playoff run, we EARNED a playoff spot by winning the play-in round and then we beat the defending champs in 6 games where we met VGK who handled us like it was childsplay. If we were to resign Toffoli, we still have the same top 6 that was rather ineffective in that series. He cut his losses and moved on. It's time for us a fanbase to recognize there are signs of change in managements previous habits and that this team is heading in a better direction, most rebuilds take 5-7 years to compete. Ours was competing in 2 seasons, this season is a one-off. Deadmonton had been getting nowhere for the last 10 years, TBL took 11 years to win a cup since they drafted Stamkos, WSH took 12 years since Ovi... It's a long road, but we have pieces in place, we just need some more NHL experience for this roster and a couple key pieces at the right time. 

 

I hope that I am understanding these advanced statistics correctly and that the numbers I'm taking from the sites make sense. I primarily used NST. But some of the numbers between NST, HR and Moneypuck all seem to have different calculations and different numbers for stats. So I am a little unsure of which to trust. Anyways, I really appreciated your response and I hope that perhaps my perspective on things may help influence a positive sense of an improved year next year in all area's. I strongly believe this team is going to be out to prove everyone wrong next season. All we need is a bit of puck luck and a healthy top 6. I had a lot of fun reading your post and taking the information you supplied and checking out some of the other advanced statistics sites out there. 

Well responded @knucklehead91I will get back to you on this later in the week! 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2021 at 9:28 PM, knucklehead91 said:

I want to start off by saying that I have done a bunch of research on all teams in the league and want to talk about Canucks and COVID, how hard it hit us and where we sit as a threat in the league.

Was this season a result of where the Canucks actually are as a team, or was our poor record attributed to COVID? And just how hard did COVID hit the Canucks organization?

We have the fans who believe the Canucks have met reality this season and there are no excuses or reasons as to why this team underachieved and we have the other fans who believe in this team and believe we are better than what the standings showed at the end of the year. This is to the fans who believe the Canucks are what they are and don't believe that COVID or the scheduling was a valid reason as to why we fell so far from grace after an inspiring playoff run and are too blind or ignorant to see what is to come next season.

 

Yes all 31 teams started the season off without a proper training camp, limited practice time, no pre-season games to get teams up to speed and every team endured their fair share of back to back games and condensed scheduling, but every team also had a lighter portion in their schedule in the season, be it in the first half or the last half of the season where teams would finally get some r&r. There were a few teams that did endure some extended time off due to COVID protocol or a few players being affected by the virus and games were cancelled and moved to a later date. Dallas and a lot of the Sunshine state teams like Florida and Tampa stared their seasons late. Vancouver was one of the first teams to kick the season off and they were ultimately the last team along with Calgary to end the season. 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. 

Our schedule was loaded up heavily at the start and was supposed to get much lighter the later the season went. Prior to COVID shutting the Canucks down, we had played 37 games in 70 days. The original scheduling after March 24th had Vancouver finishing off the last 19 games in 45 days. This is where we were supposed to catch our breath, get more practice time and just recover from the gruelling start to the season. Unfortunately for Vancouver, we made it through the hardest part of our season, only to get decimated by COVID and then finish the season with 19 games in 30 days instead of 19 games in 45 days. With COVID players were sick, unable to practice and stay in game shape. We were put on ice for nearly a month.  This was not a break the team wanted or needed, this was the worst thing that happened all season outside of missing Pettersson. JT Miller made it very clear to the league that the team was not at all ready to return to action, they gave them a measly couple days extra to get back into midseason form. Roussel also voiced his opinion during the season when it came to the scheduling and how Montreal had 3 breaks that were 4+ days each along with Toronto who had a 5 day break and were rested and ready for us the first time around.

 

I have done some serious digging and comparing around the entire league for each and every single team and this is ultimately gives me the assurance that this team is better than where they finished and are going to be a much better team next season, even if there are no roster changes. I believe in this group and I can say with confidence that this season is not a season to judge success or failure. This was not a fair season, every team gets hit with injuries which is an obstacle that you expect each season. But to have injuries, COVID AND brutal scheduling DUE TO COVID, its not a great eye test.

 

Below is going to be each and every single teams schedule broken down up to the day the Canucks were shut down.

Use this legend to understand what  the headings at the top mean

GPF15 = Games played in the first 15 days of the season opener

GPF30 = Games played in the first 30 days of the season opener

D70GP = Day 70 games played when Canucks played their last game prior to shut down

B2B15 = Back to back games played in the first 15 days of the season opener

B2B30 = Back to back games played in the first 30 days of the season opener

B2B70 = Back to back games played 70 days into the season when the Canucks were shut down

R70(2-3) = 2-3 days of scheduled rest in the first 70 days When Canucks were shut down

R70(4+) = 4+ days of scheduled rest or short term COVID lock down up to the 70 day mark where the Canucks were shut down

B2B = Season total back to back games

PP = self explanatory

PK = self explanatory

Teams will be kept in their divisions to keep the scheduling comparisons fair and accurate to the teams they are lumped with. 

 

 

TEAM GPF15 B2B15 GPF30 B2B30 D70GP B2B70 R70(2-3) R70(4+) B2B PP PK
COL 8 1 11 2 33 5 0 3 10 207 177
VGK 7 0 12 0 30 4 1 3 9 174 144
MIN 8 0 11 1 31 4 0 1 11 165 161
STL 7 1 15 2 35 6 5 4 11 155 171
ARZ 8 1 14 2 33 5 2 2 9 178 167
LAK 8 1 13 1 32 4 3 3 9 169 159
SJS 8 0 13 1 31 4 1 3 10 156 184
ANA 8 0 15 2 34 4 5 1 9 149 155
                       
CAR 4 0 12 2 31 5 4 1 9 164 176
FLA 4 0 12 2 32 6 2 2 6 190 168
TBL 5 0 13 1 32 5 2 3 9 179 183
NSH 7 1 15 3 33 6 5 2 9 159 171
DAL 4 0 12 0 29 4 2 2 10 157 153
CHI 8 1 16 1 33 3 4 2 6 175 151
DET 8 1 16 2 33 4 5 1 9 149 155
CBJ 8 1 16 3 33 5 7 1 9 117 133
                       
PIT 8 0 12 0 33 4 4 2 9 152 155
WSH 8 1 12 1 31 5 4 2 10 153 162
BOS 7 0 14 1 28 3 4 4 8 160 178
NYI 7 0 13 1 35 5 4 1 8 144 135
NYR 7 0 13 0 34 2 4 3 7 179 169
PHI 8 1 13 2 31 6 6 1 12 167 167
NJD 7 0 9 1 30 5 2 1 10 155 148
BUF 8 2 10 3 31 8 2 2 13 143 139
                       
TOR 10 1 15 1 32 5 6 3 8 155 144
EDM 9 1 16 3 34 6 2 3 10 174 154
WPG 7 2 14 3 33 5 1 4 8 161 149
MTL 7 1 15 3 31 6 2 3 9 151 172
CGY 6 0 14 2 34 4 2 2 7 173 167
OTT 8 2 16 3 35 6 4 1 9 174 171
VAN 10 3 18 4 37 6 3 0 11 150 181

 

Vancouver was tied with Toronto with most games played in 15 days (10), which is a pretty heavy workload. 

We started our season, just as hard as we ended it, with a league leading 18 games in 30 days. (19games in our final 30 days)

The most back to back games in the first 15 days

The most back to back games in the first 30 days

Vancouver had the most games played by day 70 of the season, by anywhere from 2-9 games more than any other NHL team

Despite Minnesota having less 2+ day off breaks, Minnesota had less back to backs and far less games played by the time the Canucks were shut down. They had a much lighter schedule, which intensified later in the season. Unfortunately for Vancouver, it was extremely intense to start the season and then teetered off a tiny bit. Then COVID put is back at the bottom of the hill. Where we finished the season with a 19 games in 30 days.

We were originally scheduled to have 7 total back to back games. We ended up with 11 back to back games. 6 prior to COVID and then 5 more in the rapid end to the season.

A team without much practice time to gel, work on special teams and is playing almost every single night, is going to struggle.

We were the 3rd most penalized team, likely due to the exhaustion. Unable to keep up with the play and taking penalties because of it

We were 28th in PP opportunities with 150. Hard to draw a penalty if other teams are rested and skating laps around you.

There was no real rest for the Canucks and after a 100m sprint start, its easy to fall behind quick without proper preparation

We began to click and get on a roll a few weeks prior to COVID running rampant through the dressing room. We went 8-4-1 over a 13 game stretch leading up to the COVID outbreak. Had this not happened and with what was going to be a lighter schedule for the remainder of the season, I firmly believe this team would have been in the playoff picture.

 

Vancouver also started the season with 13 games in 21 days, in which we didnt have a practice. Thats nearly 25% of the season where the team has new faces that haven't had time to get used to the system or their partners/line mates. 

 

There are many positives to take from this season aside from another high first round pick and there are many good signs of things to come. This is the next section where I would like to give credit to the coaching staff and the team for what they had to go through this season and how games were much closer than you would think. 

Despite Vancouver sporting a 23-29-4 record and finishing in the bottom of the league, you'll be surprised to see how Vancouver compares to some of the other teams around the league...Tampa Bay might be very shocking.......

 I've gone and looked at Advanced statistics for each and every team just to see how "out of place" we are. I'm going to throw a couple very shocking stats at the very end that might make you say "Woah, Tampa and Edmonton were near the bottom of the league for high danger chances!?"

 

 

 

Legend for table below

xGF = 'Expected Goals For' given where shots came from, for and against, while this player was on the ice at even strength. It is based on where the shots are coming from, compared to the league-wide shooting percentage for that shot location.

xGA = 'Expected Goals Against' given where shots came from, for and against, while this player was on the ice at even strength. It is based on where the shots are coming from, compared to the league-wide shooting percentage for that shot location.

axDiff = Actual goal differential minus expected goal differential. A positive differential would indicate a team is converting or stopping an inordinate amount of good chances compared to league average. A negative differential would indicate a team is getting more good chances, but not converting or is allowing more than league norms. 

SCF = Scoring chances for. Scoring chances are all shot attempts from within a certain range from the net.

SCA = Scoring chances against.

HDF = High-danger scoring chances for. High-danger chances include shot attempts from the 'slot' area and rebounds, approx.

HDA = High-danger scoring chances against.

 

TEAM xGF xGA axDiff SCF SCA HDF HDA
CAR 66.8 50.9 6 705 493 204 137
FLA 77.4 46.5 -12 709 444 204 140
TBL 48 65.6 35 432 654 136 177
NSH 42.2 71.2 43 420 653 97 169
DAL 59.7 44.2 -8 640 442 182 115
CHI 66.3 58.2 -33 612 556 167 160
CBJ 40.8 75.1 0 393 716 106 214
DET 56.9 48.6 -31 526 479 144 128
WSH 65.4 40.2 -1 669 407 189 111
PIT 46 66.3 45 440 604 122 194
BOS 53.8 51.3 13 505 556 140 163
NYI 52.3 59.8 30 477 624 138 157
NYR 62 44.6 -7 633 446 187 133
PHI 63.3 43.7 -45 635 411 193 121
NJD 49 66.2 -4 490 631 146 180
BUF 49.9 69.7 -30 464 634 149 205
TOR 81.4 49.2 4 774 499 206 129
EDM 49.4 74.8 22 399 766 121 223
WPG 60.6 58.5 7 647 543 172 171
MTL 65.2 52.2 -11 700 493 215 146
CGY 61.8 48.9 -5 594 482 176 136
OTT 40.9 77.8 13 444 749 127 212
COL 77.7 34.7 0 791 358 235 102
VGK 82.3 49.5 5 826 464 266 150
MIN 65.6 45.7 -1 610 447 188 127
STL 40.4 64.4 16 406 669 119 193
ARZ 44.3 74.4 13 453 734 139 210
SJS 52.1 68.4 -15 510 719 166 233
LAK 59 57.7 -23 619 560 176 188
ANA 47.6 74.4 5 480 744 145 231
VAN 66.5 64.4 -30 602 628 177 177

 

In this unusual and incredibly tough season for Vancouver they ranked 6th in xGF. Which is quite impressive considering we were without Pettersson for 30 games and much higher than teams like TBL, PIT, NYI, BOS, EDM and we played 1/3 of our Season in back to backs and pretty much the whole season without rest and practice time. We were getting lots of chances, next season we will be burying our opportunities.  Sure Kucherov was missing for Tampa, but we didn't let the absence of Pettersson get in the way of us generating chances and getting into scoring positions. We just needed better execution, which will come.

 

We finished 20th in xGA which at first glance doesnt look great, but given this teams hurdles and intense workload this season, I don't see this trend continuing next season. I believe with a fair season for all teams and just the usual injury obstacles being the only thing to affect a season, I can see this team overcoming injury adversity. We showed we can win games and hang in there without Pettersson for 30 games as well as other injuries up and down the lineup that left holes in key roles such as PK and dZone duties. We were managing okay through the first 37 games with the tough scheduling and missing Pettersson and the other injuries, but COVID and the logjam of games to end the season was too much for us to overcome. I truly believe the overwhelming fatigue is what led to teams getting the amount of opportunities they did.

 

Vancouver tied for 4th xDiff. Vancouver as much as they gave up opportunities, they had equal opportunities, we just could not convert our chances. Pettersson was leading the league in the first 10 games with 5+ posts and several broken sticks on the one-timer. This is an area that can be improved in both ways, which bodes well for the Canucks next season. With Pettersson and Podkolzin potentially in the line up next season, our offensive prowess should see an increase. Being more rested throughout the season alone, should help with our dzone. Add some practice time and getting the new faces familiarized with Baumer's systems should see Demko and Holtby's job getting easier. 

This IS the same coaching staff and systems that beat out Minnesota to EARN a playoff spot and then spanked St. Louis to then take Vegas to a game 7.

 

Vancouver ranked 15th in SCF we had 203 MORE SCF THAN EDMONTON, 170 more than Tampa and 162 more than Pittsburgh.

Vancouver is not too far off the top teams in the league for generating chances. 

 

Vancouver ranked 20th in SCA once again, I dont think this was a result of systems or personnel. I feel strongly that teams gained opportunities due to the fatigue throughout the Canucks roster. Injuries obviously had a hand in this as well, as it does with every team. But no other team had a schedule like ours, that is where I see that this team is better than what the standings showed. Next year WILL be a different story and a much better one.

 

Vancouver ranked 12th in HDF This is a trend that WILL continue next season and WILL get better as well. We had 41 more HDF than Tampa F***ing BAY, 55 more than Pittsburgh,  51 more than Edmonton, 32 more than Boston... 

IF we could trade either Pettersson being injured for no COVID, or Pettersson in the lineup for COVID, This team would be a playoff team no questions asked. But both No Pettersson AND covid... is too much to a team.

Dallas is one team that had fairly similar adversity, they were missing Seguin for 53 games and their season started late and had a 9 day break part way into the season. They went from Stanley cup finals last season, to early tee times this season. They had strong xGF, xGA, SCF, SCA, HDF, HDA and missed the playoffs. 

 

Vancouver tied for 19th in HDA with Tampa Bay. We gave up plenty of chances and hung our goalies out to dry at times, this trend will not continue next season 

 

There is no argument for Tampa who had significantly less high danger chances, expected goals for, scoring chances to be down near the bottom of the league in a lot of the offensive categories. People can say "oh well they were missing Kucherov", ya??? well we were missing Pettersson, so what??? We still provided far more chances without our star player. Same with Edmonton, they have the two top scoring players in the league and the best player on the planet, why did they have such few chances as well??? Edmonton doesnt have a team to support McDavid and Draisaitl, outside of those  2 players no one else is helping create offence. We ARE getting contributions from all four lines. We have A TEAM going into next year. 

 

Right now Tampa Bay is being held together by unreal goaltending and their ability to convert on their chances, which appears to be not many. They leave their goalie out to dry on a nightly basis. They are lucky to have incredible goaltending, just as we are lucky to have Demko to hold down the fort, especially when we are ready to truly compete and contend. It took Tampa a loooong time to win a cup since they drafted Stamkos in 2008, Hedman in 2009, Kucherov in 2011 and Vasilevskiy in 2012

 

Please Canucks fans, ignore the standings this season and look deeper at what we have going on. I understand the frustration of losing and how people feel like they need to blame someone, be it the coaches or management, but it has only been 3 years since the actual rebuild began. I understand why people feel the need for change, but through the first 2 years of the rebuild we made the playoffs with the management team that assembled that roster, drafted those key players and it was the coaching staff that got the most out of them and helped take us to a game 7 with Vegas.  This season should have an asterisk next to it for everyone's resume. Next season is fair to start calling for heads and by the end of Green's 2 year extension, if we have not found success heads shall fall. This team is going to compete next year and in the coming years we shall go from competitive to contenders. 

 

Sorry for the exceptionally long post, but I couldnt help the belief I have in this team from preventing me from shedding the positive light on the situation that was this season. Stay strong Canuck fans. 
 

edit: these stats are from hockey-reference.com for those who are interested and they are 5v5 stats 

This is one of the best in depth analysis’ that I’ve ever seen.  Fantastic job.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, knucklehead91 said:

Haha thanks man, I just hope the data Im pulling from each site is correct

Great post. I really enjoyed scrolling through all of this as well as the additional information posted by you and DSVII, thank you both for sharing all of this. I definitely agree that the team was not as bad as the end of season results showed. In my opinion we were held back by a multitude of reasons like injuries to key players, a mostly ineffective bottom of the lineup and a few key players under performing.

 

But it's too bad that some people like WSA still can't admit the major effect of playing 56 games in 100 days had on our overall results. It isn't the only factor but it is definitely, by far, the biggest factor for our regression this year. I fully expect that next season with a (hopefully) healthy lineup, some extra depth by adding Podkolzin in to (most likely) our top 6 or top 9 at least, a couple of cheap and speedy UFA depth options and a much more normal schedule we will continue the upward progress of two seasons ago.

 

Besides adding a couple more pieces with our top draft picks this year will only help improve our depth for the future, our picks are most likely going to turn out in almost identical spots as the 2019 draft and look how well those 1st and 2nd round picks worked out for us. I'm hoping this season will work out for us much like the 2016-17 season did for Colorado. That season they finished with a league worst 48 points in 82 games, they already had almost all of their core players on the roster and ended up far worse than they should of. They then used that high pick in the following draft to get a young man by the name of Cale Makar in the 1st round and Conor Timmins in the 2nd. The next season, before those 2017 picks came to the roster and with much of the previous seasons roster still intact, they nearly doubled their points total from the previous season to 95 points and have never looked back.

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
  • Sedinery 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/30/2021 at 9:35 PM, knucklehead91 said:

 

 

Oooookay here we go!

So I'm going to put a bolded # next to each and every point that I am responding to in the quote and below, my responses will be bolded and numbered to match each response.

 

1. You haven't met @wallstreetamigo yet. He does not understand or believe how much COVID hurt us. 

I've read a lot of @wallstreetamigo takes and that wasn't the impression I got from him, that Covid didn't affect them. 

 

As he said later, he's suggesting the organization could have avoided the covid situation had they cancelled the practice the day Gaudette was positive/unconfirmed. This was a situation no one had ever dealt with and maybe the team broke protocol, but we still don't know if that practice was ground zero either so I give the org some leeway there. He does have a point about our performance pre-covid. Our abysmal February was not due to covid, but the schedule, we got dinged twice this season. Again going back to our first point, this year was just an absolute slag against the team. I don't blame the org for the outbreak as much, and even if the org was at fault somewhere I simply don't have all the information. 

 

I think it is unfair to characterize @wallstreetamigo as not being a fan as some posters do. Maybe the forum takes issue with the way he's presenting his takes, but he cares about this team as much as anyone here and wants to see a cup raised here.

 

To use a real world analogy here. You can show support for the troops, and it doesn't make you any less patriotic to criticize how the government deploys them. In this case, we just have a disagreement on whether the troops are being set up in an environment to succeed. 

 

Quote

2. When I spoke of this season not being a fair season to gauge success or failure, it was meant as in not judging based on standings. There are teams that probably shouldnt have made it in and teams that probably should have. The underlying stats shouldn't necessarily be 'invalidated' because despite the standings, they can tell a different story for next year. Vancouver's underlying stats based on naturalstattrick dont show to be very good, but I firmly believe that this team is much better than what that shows, based on the fact we went through absolute hell this season. Which is frustrating because we can't exactly compare our season or statistics to any team in the league on an even level. Like no one else came close to the crap schedule we went through or being forced back into action relatively soon after 'recovering' from the P1variant. So really, it all may look bad to the eye, but given the things we dealt with, you would have to assume it will improve. The question is, how much? We obviously won't get our answer until the end of next season. But for now I want to stay hopeful and optimistic.

 

I'll do a comparison between Dallas and Nashville a team with hurdles versus a team without the same issues. Dallas had similar hurdles as Vancouver, Dallas was missing Seguin and had a late start to the season and a 9 day pause midway. They did not get hit by COVID like Vancouver, but they were stopped for 9 days and missing a star player. 

Then I will do a comparison of teams that all had a fair season. Calgary vs Winnipeg vs Edmonton. The outcomes and the advanced stats that go against what SHOULD have happened.

 

Before I proceed to show my comparison, I want to say that I am not comparing Vancouver to Dallas, just the hurdles and the end results.

 

 

I am going to use naturalstattrick like you suggested to gather my information and present it. I am a little disappointed in how Hockey-references calculations gave somewhat misleading stats. In terms of where Vancouver appeared to be with some of the advanced stats, I just wish I knew how NST versus HR break their numbers down.

 

 

Team SF SA SF% xGF xGA xGF% SCF SCA SCF% HDCF HDCA HDCF% HDGF HDGA HDGF%
DAL 1355 1161 53.86 99.82 84.85 54.05 1186 994 54.4 478 382 55.58 66 51 56.41
  8th 2nd 5th 11th 3rd 3rd 9th 3rd 4th 7th 3rd 4th 11th 4/5split 6th
  NSH 1346 1400 49.02 96.36 98.12 49.55 1121 1103 50.4 452 441 50.62 57 51 52.78
  10th 25th 15th 21st 13th 13th 17th 13th 15th 14th 13th 13th 20th 4/5split 11th
                               
                               
                               
                               
CGY 1311 1227 51.65 99.5 85.42 53.81 1177 1027 53.4 454 389 53.86 55 59 48.25
  15TH 5TH 10TH 12TH 4TH 6TH 10TH 4TH 8TH 12TH 5TH 7TH 23RD T-12TH 20TH
WPG 1274 1332 48.89 95.16 109.55 46.48 1155 1254 47.95 420 521 44.63 68 59 53.54
  23RD 19TH 16TH 24TH 26TH 23RD 13TH 28TH 21ST 24TH 27TH 28TH 8TH T-12TH 10TH
EDM 1126 1229 48.52 100.5 101.89 49.66 1126 1229 47.81 455 459 49.78 53 59 47.32
  16th 24th 19th 9th 17th 19th 16th 24th 22nd 11th 17th 19th 25th T-12TH 21ST

 

As you can see Dallas was clearly a top team in the league when you break down the advanced stats. But regardless of how good they were in almost every category, a team who was middle of the league secured a playoff spot in the same division and Dallas was booking tee times. 

Yes Dallas had much much more impressive stats than Vancouver when you break it down. However we will not know until next season just how different this team would have been when all 32 teams have the same schedule and rest. In the final 19 games of Vancouver's season, they still played 4-9 more games than any other team. Our schedule and COVID situation really hampered our chances to be strong defensively, but the positive way I looked at it was that despite the scores, despite the standings and all that, Vancouver was pushing for chances FOR. My goal with my original post was to shed some positive light and bring hope to the fans that next season will be a much better season for the Canucks.

 

Now look at Calgary, they were mid to top tier team in a handful of advanced statistics. Calgary, Winnipeg and Edmonton had fairly equal seasons, yet a team who was ranking mid to top tier in advanced statistics AND had a players only meeting early on... Missed the post season and two teams who were towards the bottom in a lot of area's made the post season. 

Winnipeg was near the bottom with Vancouver in a lot of area's and we had a much rougher season..... Somehow they made it in and swept the Coilers.

 

IF We were somehow able to adjust the season for each and every single team in the league and simulate how their season would have went if they lost a star player for over half the season, had the absolute worst scheduling, the most amount of condensed games, least amount of rest and practice and be hit with the COVID variant, how many of those teams would replicate the same season with the same results/advanced statistics. The answer would be none of them would, they would all finish lower and some might miss the playoffs due to it.

Fair point and well argued, I just think that the underlying metrics are not immune to being warped by this season as the standings were.

 

I can confidently say that if we carry our xGF rates over to next season we should see a better result, but I can't confidently say that next year's performance in a regular schedule/season won't just default back to our historical xGF rates the past four years prior to covid with the same coaching staff (which was bottom 10). I think a bigger variable is how we reform our roster this offseason, especially on defense.  

 

I know you were trying to be positive, which is fine! Again, the reason why I pulled up the historical data in my first post is because going by the history of this team coached by Green and the players remaining relatively the same throughout, we haven't seen any indication that the improvement will be that much better to be among the best in the league. Maybe I'd feel more optimistic had we retained at least one more key piece from our 2019-20 team, which was a step above the other teams in the years prior. 

 

Dallas vs Vancouver - the one hurdle I would say Dallas has over us is that they played two more rounds of playoff hockey and more injuries than us with a shorter offseason. As you said.

 

Again, I appreciate the effort and the analysis. As you said,  this will be something interesting to compare the results for at the end of the next season. 

 

Quote

 

3. It's not that I underestimate the loss of Stamkos and Kucherov and the combined overlap they were out for. We also lost a top player for a substantial amount of time and we managed to do okay up until COVID. DAL and TBL are in the same division that is better defensively, Dallas was also missing Seguin for 53 games and Radulov for 45 games. Radulov and Seguin are not the same level as Kucherov and Stamkos, however they are 2 top players in their lineup.

So before I extract information from NST in theory, a much less potent Dallas Stars, without their 2 stars, should be significantly lower than each team in the tight-knit division.

 

Within the Central division

Team   xGF   SCF   HDCF   SCSH%
CAR 1st 117.09 1st 1262 1st 547 8th 11.64
FLA 2nd 106.13 4th 1166 4th 449 6th 12.05
TBL 4th 98.57 2nd 1195 5th 448 4th 12.77
NSH 5th 96.36 5th 1121 3rd 452 3rd 12.36
DAL 3rd 99.82 3rd 1186 2nd 478 1st 13.34
CHI 7th 91.06 6th 1070 6th 409 2nd 12.95
DET 8th 85.44 8th 969 8th 390 5th 12.15
CBJ 6th 92.23 7th 1022 7th 392 7th 11.85

 

Now lets compare those numbers to the Canadian Division

 

Team   xGF   SCF   HDCF   SCSH%
TOR 1st 113.2 1st 1390 1st 553 6th 13.68
EDM 2nd 100.5 6th 1126 T-3rd 455 2nd 14.85
WPG 7th 95.16 5th 1155 5th 420 1st 15.51
MTL 3rd 100.16 2nd 1290 2nd 468 7th 12.87
CGY 4th 99.5 3rd 1177 3rd 454 5th 13.46
OTT 5th 97.16 4th 1157 T-3rd 455 4th 13.72
VAN 6th 96.61 7th 1083 4th 424 3rd 14.06

 

Now if you average out each divisions xGF SCF HDCF and SCSH% it looks like this

Division xGF SCF HDCF SCSH%
Central 98.3 1123.8 395.6 12.39%
Canadian 100.4 1196.8 461.2 14.02%

 

The Canadian division looks to be like a much more high flying defenceless division when you average out the division numbers. Problem is CBJ, DET and CHI all drastically effect the average of the division. As you can see they have some of the lowest scoring teams and some of the highest scoring teams in the league. 

So the crappy teams inflate the xGF and xGA as you have a feast or famine division. 

The thing about the Canadian division which is unlike any other division is you could arguably swap any team outside the playoffs with almost any team inside the playoffs. They are all very evenly matched, Ottawa became one of the toughest teams to beat down the stretch and they had decently impressive stats. Winnipeg and Edmonton were terrible on the advanced charts, but secured a playoff spot. 

You could not change CBJ, DET or CHI with any of the teams in the playoffs, MAYBE just MAYBE Nashville, but thats because Nashville also should have been golfing and Dallas probably should have been extending their season. 

In the Honda West Division you have LAK, SJS, ARZ, ANA that are all absolutely garbage and it is once again a feast or famine scenario. Top teams eat well, bottom teams starve.

in the MassMutual East Division its NJD, PHI and BUFF that are your catastrophies. However I will argue that PHI (based on advanced stats) are much better than where the finished their season, NFC what happened there.

 

I would say 5/7 Canadian teams could have been in a playoff spot. Vancouver had a very unlucky season, one which we will never repeat again (No mid season plague) Ottawa was not a playoff team, but they certainly improved and became a decent team in the end. 

 

In almost every other division you can look at the teams at the start of the year and say yea, those 4 are the ones going to the playoffs this year BASED on the divisional alignment/ 4 mini seasons.

 

Carolina has 661 more shots than Detroit, the biggest shot spread in the Canadian division is 296. The Central division gets the average of 56.67% of their shots through and teams collectively blocked an average of 707.75 shots. 8 Central teams blocked a total of 413 more shots than 7 Canadian teams. Only the Western Division blocked more shots than our div. So I would have to give the tighter d-zone edge to the Canadian div compared to the Central div. When there are 3 exceptionally bad teams in a division of 4 exceptionally strong teams and one good team all stats are going to be either extremely inflated or deflated due to difference of competition level between the top teams and the bottom teams. 

Very valid points, and again, this is where the statistical analysis gets a bit murky, especially since the central has one extra team over the North. I'll see what the numbers say when it comes to the 'feast vs famine' theory. (A very interesting thought exercise!) Keep in mind that as we do this thought exercise I don't expect this season to reflect on what a future season would look like. I also believe the addition of the extra team in the central muddles things up.

 

I took a data dump of all the games in the Central and North Divisions this year, and did a comparison to see how many of the total goals scored/Corsi/HDGF/SCF/SF were earned against the weakest opponents in the division. If the North was less skewed than the Central, I would expect to see a closer parity in the results.

 

So this first table, if you were a generic Central/Northern Division team, these were the guys you earned the most expected goals/goals on. Basically the top ranked teams in this were the ones most expected for you to scored on/feast upon. I think you can make the case the North had more parity, but again, the spread wasn't too far off from all the teams outside of the last team. Surprise though, Dallas was the team in the central that conceded the least amount of expected goals for in the div!

 

 

image.png.00e431de8208f75cbb7ea4eeb775cb30.png

 

 

When we rank this table by actual goals. Actual results

 

image.png.974c1e85a917fcc4ff7e72cd16c3c714.png

 

So yes in theory, when going by expected production, you can say we expected more parity in the North Division vs the Central, but the reality of the situation was both divisions had their own feast and famine situations going here. (with a 30+ pt spread from top and bottom two teams). Although Ottawa was playing tough competitive hockey near the end of the season, it didn't put them out of the feast category of bottom teams.

 

Quote

Also when it comes to tighter defensive structures in the Central Division compared to the Canadian division

CANADIAN DIV Shot attempts Blocks Thru% Shots
VAN 2965 805 53.97% 1629
TOR 3124 708 48.10% 1751
EDM 3023 801 53.78% 1674
CGY 3144 677 52.77% 1689
OTT 3036 807 50.41% 1663
MTL 3261 684 50.71% 1746
WPG 2991 767 54.27% 1661
AVG 3039.14 749.9 52% 1687.6
CENTRAL DIV        
TBL 2973 645 56.27% 1692
FLA 3262 617 58.04% 1954
CAR 3316 658 54.00% 1794
NSH 3012 736 56.27% 1679
DAL 3122 721 54.52% 1699
DET 2655 720 57.32% 1528
CBJ 2785 789 58.46% 1625
CHI 2785 776 58.46% 1635
AVG 2988.75 707 56.67% 1700.8

 

I calculated this myself off of hockey-reference by adding the total SaTT from each and every player, each shot from each player and then took every players Thru% and divided it by the number of players on the roster to give the average. Carolina has 661 more shots than Detroit, the biggest shot spread in the Canadian division is 296. The Central division gets the average of 56.67% of their shots through and teams collectively blocked an average of 707.75 shots. 8 Central teams blocked a total of 413 more shots than 7 Canadian teams. Only the Western Division blocked more shots than our div. So I would have to give the tighter d-zone edge to the Canadian div compared to the Central div. When there are 3 exceptionally bad teams in a division of 4 exceptionally strong teams and one good team all stats are going to be either extremely inflated or deflated due to difference of competition level between the top teams and the bottom teams. 

This is just me, but I interpret tighter defenses as maintaining better possession and limiting scoring chances against. A higher number of shot blocks indicates that your team is not possessing the puck as often as the other team. So I would not necessarily interpret having more blocks in our division to our defenses are playing a tighter game than the central. 

 

Like you said, the West Div has LAK, SJS, ARZ, ANA which are garbage teams. They have more blocks than us. Possible correlation?

 

Metrics I put more weight on if you asked me for judging defense from what we see

 

xGA

HDGA

HDCA

 

These are quality chances given up. The sheer number of shots don’t matter if they come from outside the high danger areas. (out of curiosity, for the blocks, would we be able to differentiate between blocks done on HDCA vs LDCA?) And if we say that blocks only happen in the high danger zone chances (aside from blocks on the point which) is that really a tighter defense?

 

A stat that I hope becomes more available in the future (I have no clue how to get these stats)

 

Blocked/Broken up Passes  – Can show how good a defense is at disrupting play and preventing those shots in the first place.

 

Break-up percentage -- when the opponents tried to carry the puck in against this player, how often did he break the play up (turnover, offsides, etc)?

 

Carry percentage against -- when this player guarded the puckhandler, how often did the opponents successfully carry the puck in (as opposed to dumping the puck in or having the play broken up completely)?

 

 https://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2014/4/9/5592622/nhl-stats-zone-entries-defense

 

Again, not saying you are wrong. You presented your point and backed it up with the numbers. I’m just offering my own interpretations of how a tight defense can be judged analytically. There is a lot of defensive failures the contribute towards a team being forced to block a shot, particularly if the blocks happen on a High danger chance shot against.

 

Quote

6.  Part of the reason and intent behind my comparison of teams like Edmonton is they have a very questionable future ahead with 25% of the Salary cap being tied up in 2 players for quite a long time. Is their future going to benefit or will it be hindered? They already were one of the lowest SCF generating teams yet had the two best players in the league. Vancouver, is more of a team than a one or two man show. With tired legs, injuries and our conditioning being thrown out of whack mid-season, we still pushed for chances. Which to me despite the outcome of the season, the divisional alignments or not, shows that perhaps our systems are effective. With tired bodies and missing players we generated chances. This year is just a hard one to fully buy into the advanced stats and are moreso to be taken with a grain of salt. Strictly due to the fact one team was seriously effected by an illness. It hard to compare them. Im reading advanced for the Canucks with optimism and hope, because I know they are better than how the season went and they will not go through the same BS scheduling as this year.

I think we should see how much Petey and Hughes end up costing us before laughing at others for overpaying their stars haha but I agree. In general teams with a 10+ mil salary have not performed well in the salary cap era come playoffs. 

 

Like you, I don't fully buy into the advanced stats either for 2021, which is why I'm hesitant to say us being a top 10 xGF team this year (stacked div or not) can translate to performance next year. it'll get better, but by how much? We'll see.

 

Quote

7. Well if we go off history, we are looking at how many seasons? If its during the Benning tenure, sure it has been low. But to be fair to Benning the first 4 years were failed retool years and the last 3 have been rebuild years. So its not like we had GOOD teams the whole time and have just sucked. We had 4 years of old players in the twilight of their careers. The last 3 has been the aches and pains of a rebuild however our rebuild is on lightyears ahead of where most rebuilds are in the 3rd year. To think last year was our 2nd year of a rebuild and we had a 100.4 PDO which isnt too bad. Considering a contending team like VGK had a 99.0 PDO last season. Then in our 3rd season of the rebuild we have this f***ed up season <_<

Well I looked at the seasons since 2017, when Green took over. This included years with Petey and Hughes breaking out too. 

 

Depending on the offseason moves then, would you say next year we can start having higher expectations than a bottom 10 finish in those underlying stats? 

 

 

Quote

8. Like I said in my OP if we were to have lost Petey and NOT get COVID, We likely would have had a good chance at playoffs. OR if we HAD Petey and GOT COVID we still probably would have had a good chance at making the playoffs. It's not like TBL are short on talent, they are extremely stacked so they SHOULD be able to overcome an injury to a star player or 2 and should at least win 50-60% of their games over the  Stammer/Kuch injury overlap. Especially when they have games against teams like DET, CHI, CBJ. Those are games they probably should win. Games against the rest of division they still have a decent chance to win. They had star players injured but still had a chance to feast from time to time on the lower seeded teams. For the most part, Vancouver faced rested teams who weren't battling injuries. 

Now where I see Vancouver compared to the league is closer to the middle of the league rather than the bottom. We are a top 6 and top 4 dman away from being a contender. 

I don't deny that we probably had a chance at finishing mid of the div if we kept Petey, however, the point i was getting at is losing Kucherov and Stamkos is not really comparable to us losing just Petey. They do generate more offense. if we had lost Petey and say, Miller. Again, I think the original point was going back to suggest that the Canucks and Bolts had comparable offensive numbers missing the star players. I'm thinking though a fully healthy Tampa improves their performance astronomically compared to a healthy Petey for the Nucks. 

 

Quote

9. I understand and agree our bottom 6 doesn't provide much threat to opponents. However is it really fair to compare TBLs 3rd and 4th lines to ours? or our 3/4 lines to most teams in the league? We have had a revolving door of players in the bottom 6. The bottom 6 has been unstable largely due to injuries.

The 6 players you picked for Vancouver combined for 199/336 GP compared to TBLs bottom 6 who played 310/336GP 92% of the season. With their injuries to Stamkos and Kucherov, the 3rd line will see more opportunities in the game that they likely wouldnt see if TBL was healthy in the top 6. But that is not to discredit how good their bottom 6 actually is. We definitely do need a little more help in the bottom 6 for sure, but we also just need to stay healthy for the love of god. 

 

Man games lost this season broken down for each team fwd/d/g and total.

TEAM MGL-F MGL-D MGL-G MGL TEAM MGL-F MGL-D MGL-G MGL
CAR 110 13 37 160 WSH 47 75 9 131
FLA 66 80 6 152 PIT 151 85 9 245
TBL 119 39 3 161 NYI 68 7 1 76
NSH 150 143 8 301 BOS 103 130 28 261
DAL 160 82 58 300 NYR 61 49 10 120
CHI 291 44 8 343 PHI 102 30 14 146
CBJ 120 23 5 148 NJD 84 43 14 141
DET 162 21 18 201 BUF 159 90 61 310
                   
COL 105 141 67 313 TOR 101 19 49 169
VGK 87 41 16 144 WPG 107 50 1 158
MIN 140 33 26 199 EDM 99 126 33 258
STL 176 99 0 275 MTL 62 32 19 113
ARZ 53 37 51 141 CGY 42 9 5 56
SJS 67 25 2 94 OTT 94 29 60 183
LAK 93 45 12 150 VAN 248 28 2 278
ANA 140 109 10 259          


I kept the divisions intact to show how each teams health was compared to the rest of their division. Vancouver struggled immensely to stay healthy upfront. It was a very tough season on us as well as other teams. Some teams were pretty banged up and made it into the playoffs, but they also have the luxury of having bottom feeding teams to help mitigate the loss of players. Could you imagine how bad our season could have been if our D was banged up?? God that is a terrible to think of just how much worse it could

It was not just a comparison to Tampa, the right side of the graphic had our 3rd line ranked 26th, and 4th line ranked 30th in terms of value. I just pulled Tampa because that just kept popping up as a comparison in our discussion. The 6 players picked were projected by the athletic so may not be truly indicative of the bottom six we ended up using, but yes injuries piled up for us there. 

 

I won't argue with you that Canucks have been historically unlucky with injuries. I really think we made a mistake firing Mike Burnstein and going with Rick Celebrini as our team physiotherapist during the Benning era. While we can't quantify it, Celebrini went on to work with the Golden State Warriors in 2018, who lost Curry and Durant to injury and caused to lose in the 2019 finals. Hopefully we get better.

 

Quote

 


10. I think we all have to agree that at the time of the 30g Eriksson signing, we all were excited at the potential of Eriksson and the Sedins re-uniting that international chemistry. In Eriksson's first 2 seasons he sustained 2 injuries and missed 17 games in his first season and 32 games the following season. Playing 70% of the total GP in his first 2 seasons. At the end of the 2017-18, 2/3 of Erikssons line retired and the rebuild began. Is it fair to hate on a guy who was injured a few times and a couple more ticks on father times clock went by and the top line is gone. I don't think management saw the Sedins retiring at the age of 37, I believe they were expecting 2-3 more years out of them. I wouldn't call it a 'bad' signing, it was more of a very unlucky signing. Eriksson DID just put up 30g, its not like he signed a player who was trending downward. He signed a player who was trending upward AND there was chemistry between LE and the Sedins. So mathematically it was a sensible signing that just soured unfortunately. It wasn't a case of JB going out and throwing money at anyone in particular, there was deep thought into it and I believe there may have even been conversations with the Sedins about their thoughts on bringing LE in.

Yeah it was crazy how it went down. I remember not liking the signing but still believing Loui would provide value for his contract for the first three years before declining. Who knew eh. It was a signing that in theory made sense. Squeeze a few more runs out of the Sedins and have a point producer on hand to mentor the kids. But he just dropped off the face of the earth. 

 

If there was deeper thought into it, I'd have thought Benning would know better on how much playing with Bergeron and Marchand carried his performance in Boston. This was a pro-scouting failure. 

 

I think it's fair to hate the contract, and to really be frustrated by the fact Loui didn't seem to give it his all. He wasn't a leader on or off the ice, and there was the famous 'he could be wearing a suit under his jersey' comment about his work ethic. 

 

Lucic for instance, has a similarly bad contract, but the fanbases of Edm or Cal have no complaints about his work ethic or leadership. 

 

Quote

 

Gudbranson was also at the time a very good targeted acquisition, I broke this down awhile back and defended the reason why he was signed and how the $ was fairly justifiable. Guddy had a good regular season with FLA and in the playoffs he became THEE guy in the playoffs for FLA. He was an absolute MONSTER for them in their playoff series. PLUS Gudbranson was still young. We needed to get young and have a dman that could grow with the organization.

There was a very good article years ago, that showed that Gudbranson was on the brink of beginning his decline based on historical comparisons with physical defensemen who hit a certain threshold in games played and hits, and that Florida (being ran by analytics teams back then) determined it was the best time to sell high on a player like him. I can't find it so I'll link another article with the same concept. 

 

Considering we had Hamhuis willing to sign with us. I can agree to disagree. We were rebuilding back then, we bottomed out. Again, going by the timeline prescribed here, the time we acquired him was the start of the rebuild. That should not have been time to trade away assets.

 

Maybe he was young, but for a physical defenseman, we bought him when he was in his prime where he was approaching the age players of his style start to fall off. So in essence we sold a top prospect and high pick (rumor was we were high on Debrincat) for 1 year of prime physical play from Guds. It really set us back and wasn't worth the risk.

 

This also highlights just how much of an unnecessary risk and bad bet Ferland was, considering his playstyle. 

 

(Gudbranson would classify as medium hits per game 2.42 hits/g and 25yrs old when we acquired him, Ferland 2.52 hits/g and 27 when we signed him)

1

 

3

 

https://hockey-graphs.com/2015/11/25/big-deals-for-big-hitters-how-physical-players-age/ 

 

Quote

The Sutter signing was also a well targeted signing at the time. Fresh off a 21g campaign, 26years of age and a strong C. We needed to get deeper down the middle.  The market is what sets the value, not the GM. Sutter has played 275/453 games for Vancouver since the day he signed. There was no prior injury history for Sutter and in his first season he suffered a major injury and played 20/82games. The following season he played 81 games put up 17g and 17a which was great to see that from your 2nd and 3rd line, sorta like how Gourde has put up those numbers on the 3rd line for TBL..... If only we had 2 legit top lines...

 

I didn't have an issue with Sutter the player, but the price we paid was too much, especially considering Bonino was the only player who could realistically fit under the Pens salary cap after getting Kessel, AND it was public knowledge Sutter couldn't stay in Pittsburgh with the cap situation. 


As for his production, IIRC Willy was playing him with the Sedins as a winger a lot for some reason, getting 1st unit PP time (3rd on the team after the twins). So the first campaign isn't really indicative of his production at centre. Then there's the infamous lack of primary assists he has considering that he is suppose to centre the line. 

 

It was kind of frustrating how Sutter's semi-iron man streak kinda ended the moment he set foot on the ice here.

 

So essentially....Sutter put up third line contender numbers given second line minutes on our team?

 

Quote

As for the Beagle, Roussel signings..... We signed these guys during a rebuild and, how else do you entice a player to come and waste a few years of their career at trying to win a cup. Fortunately Beagle had already won a cup, but for Roussel he's still chasing the dream. They were both very effective 4th liners in the league for quite some time. Neither have been able to stay healthy since they arrived. Roussel pleasantly surprised us in his first year with 9g 22a 31pts in 65 gp..... However he was injured like usual Canuck UFA signings in their debut year. He hasn't been able to stay healthy since he signed. However he has a .34ppg. Not bad on your 4th line. He was producing .42ppg in the first 2 seasons. 44pts in 106 games. 

I think with the emergence of Petey and the core, you'll find no shortage of players that want to come here. At the end of the day, there are only a limited number of spots to play in the best league in the world. You'll have no problem finding people to come here during a rebuild, and yes this includes aged out veterans who could serve as a mentor to the team. 

 

If the nuclear wasteland of Buffalo is capable of bringing in 4th line veterans for sub $1 mil contracts, then i'm sure we can attract a higher quality of player without overpaying them substantially. At the end of the day, it's a buyers market if it comes to filling up the roster.

 

Again, Roussel, it's more his contract, and the bad bet we made signing a grinding type player to a 4 year deal when he turned 29. Just because Roussel justified the deal in years 1 and 2 doesn't make him a good signing when it comes to the timeline of the team (i.e losing Tanev, Stetcher, Toffoli because we made a bad gamble that went against analytic trends for physical players)

 

I'm don't fully bought into that narrative that we'd be icing no players if we didn't overpay UFAs to come. Considering the list of UFAs that have left us that expressed their interest in playing for us but never got an answer back from mgmt (Matthias, Santorelli, Richardson, Hamhuis and more recently, Stetcher, Tanev, Toffoli....)

 

And I also question the quality of the veteran help we bring in if we find ourselves on the market to signing new ones the following years. Again this is pro scouting. 

 

 

Quote

We needed to sign vets to help stabilize foundational structure (Horvat, Boeser, Hughes, EP)

Benning has unfortunately been very unlucky with the health of his UFA signings... There is something in the water in Vancouver.

Up til 2018, i would have said the water was Rick Celebrini :)

 

Quote

Fans are so used to Benning throwing contracts at vet after vet after vet and locking them up for 3-5 years in the past and how it hasn't ever made us a winner. However the leopard has changed his spots, if Benning continued his trend in past years, we would have signed 1 or 2 of Toffoli, Tanev and Markstrom, which would have helped make us better losers.... Instead of making us winners. Letting them walk is a sign of change in direction for this franchise, we are no longer looking for place holders or 30 year old vets on the inevitable downward swing. We are reserving our budget for the future. Bennings tendencies are not the same as they have been in the past. In our playoff run, we EARNED a playoff spot by winning the play-in round and then we beat the defending champs in 6 games where we met VGK who handled us like it was childsplay. If we were to resign Toffoli, we still have the same top 6 that was rather ineffective in that series. He cut his losses and moved on. It's time for us a fanbase to recognize there are signs of change in managements previous habits and that this team is heading in a better direction, most rebuilds take 5-7 years to compete. Ours was competing in 2 seasons, this season is a one-off. Deadmonton had been getting nowhere for the last 10 years, TBL took 11 years to win a cup since they drafted Stamkos, WSH took 12 years since Ovi... It's a long road, but we have pieces in place, we just need some more NHL experience for this roster and a couple key pieces at the right time. 

That remains to be seen, and I pray you are right! Let's see how Benning fills in the D core and 3C role after extending Petey and Hughes.

 

I don't agree with this take. If given the choice, Benning would have kept these players over any of the current ones on the roster (Roussel, Beagle, Ferland, Loui) he simply couldn't keep it. It is not downplaying their value by saying we had to let them go.

 

I can appreciate the better losers argument. After all, that was why I was against the retool. It capped our ceiling and perhaps doomed us to become the next 2010s era Minnesota Wild. I'm just afraid that from all this talk about 'anything can happen in the playoffs', we are just setting ourselves up to be like that. 

 

TBL and WSH was a lot of trial and error (the Forsberg trade comes into mind) quite frankly, Petey and Hughes are excellent players but I'm not fully convinced they are dominant generational talents like Ovechkin or Stamkos/Kucherov. Rather they are in the tier of say a Matthews/Scheifele. Good enough to be on a winning team, but not dominant enough that you recover quickly after an unforced error that sets the team back.

 

There will need to be some good moves that reflect good managerial acumen for this team to become more than just 'better losers'. We laugh at deadmonton, but a second round exit after almost 6 years of no playoffs is just like you said. better losing. 

 

I pray you are correct!

 

 

Quote

I hope that I am understanding these advanced statistics correctly and that the numbers I'm taking from the sites make sense. I primarily used NST. But some of the numbers between NST, HR and Moneypuck all seem to have different calculations and different numbers for stats. So I am a little unsure of which to trust. Anyways, I really appreciated your response and I hope that perhaps my perspective on things may help influence a positive sense of an improved year next year in all area's. I strongly believe this team is going to be out to prove everyone wrong next season. All we need is a bit of puck luck and a healthy top 6. I had a lot of fun reading your post and taking the information you supplied and checking out some of the other advanced statistics sites out there. 

Likewise! The stats are weird i agree, it really comes down to your preference i suppose. 

 

I appreciate the chat and I admit you have opened a more perspectives for me to consider on how next season will go, as far as stats are concerned. I agree, we aren't as bad as this season suggests and we've been horribly unluckly. Let's just see how it plays out next year and if any of the trends from covid/pre-covid on our underlying numbers continue or even diverge!

 

It's been a fun chat and it's really gotten me back into the numbers game again haha maybe i'll update my old drafting model and come up with a pro-benning (gasp!) post.

 

Anyways, I leave the last word to you @knucklehead91 you have a good weekend!

 

Edited by DSVII
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/28/2021 at 11:55 AM, aGENT said:

Nope. Just the main two things I took issue with. I thought you'd be happy it was only two things :bigblush:

 

Yeah, he was. At best, B+

 

Maybe if that was for a single rental, sure. It was for two guys, one of whom is a guy in his prime, with term. The other, we were fully intending to extend until covid happened (heck, even after if we'd been able to get stars to align).

 

Yeah... No. One, that's not how that works. Two, that '21 points' is not his /82 rate. Don't be that guy.

 

I also think you vastly misunderstand my interpretation of his 'value relative to his contract'. In no way do I think Tyler Myers, or his contract, is 'OMGDDZZZ AMAZING!'

1.) I feel flattered @aGENT that's high praise coming from you! :lol:

 

2.) Not in the way we were projecting him for our organization and our positional needs. A- haha

 

3.) Covid sure, we've been down this road haha agree to disagree.

 

4.) it's why i said 20-25 haha, 25 pts was his 82 rate in 2019-2020 

 

5.) But you think his contract is worth it? think that's the nub of it

Edited by DSVII
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2021 at 4:35 AM, IBatch said:

Last fall, before the start of the season, the Hockey Writers top 100 list had Madden in the 80's, Hogander in the high 20's .... guess we traded the correct player.   More recently (Hogs graduated) the Hockey Writers had Madden at 83.   THN also had Hogs in the late 20's when we traded Madden - and Madden in the mid 50's...so not sure where your getting the idea the Hoglander and Madden were close when we traded them (Hoglander and Madden were anywhere from 25-50 spots apart 2020 final reviews pre-draft from these two sources).   I use THN as my baseline for prospects given it's the aggregate ranking of 10 NHL scouts.   Sure that you could find other sources.   Highest i've seen Madden was in the mid 50's... (best prospects in the world) that would be the highest i ever saw AG as well.   Top 25-30 is a totally different animal, most make it as it usually includes three or more drafts.   After last years draft Hogs was 24-27th that's a blue chipper compared to a miss or a possible bottom sixer the two are not the same prospect wise. 

 

Edit:  Just because Madden was close to Hogs in our pool doesn't mean he's close as a quality player. He does make some top 100 lists.  

 

Also OJ and Woo made the 80's as well before the season started the Hockey Writers.   Woo one spot ahead of OJ lol.   Now Woo isn't on their most recent list and OJ is still there.   Fluid.   At the time of the trade, Madden was and still is considered a top hundred prospect (for now) but a completely different level - more a possible then a likely like Hogs was and obviously actually is.   As an aside Rathbone is 77....still ahead of OJ. 

That's fair @IBatch 

 

With hindsight. I think we should have kept either him or Gaudette. Our Center prospect pool is dependent a lot on who falls to 9 this year. 

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a long standing Canucks fan and I'm getting tired of this treadmill to nowhere.  I want to see a plan.  I have defended Benning in the past many times but I'm tired of his leadership with "the no plan plan" as Ray Ferraro called it about two or three years ago.  I got a chuckle out of that.  However, I like Green as the head coach (for now).

 

Last season, it wasn't so much losing Toffoli that I hated, it was losing assets for nothing (Madden and the 2nd round draft pick) when we didn't have a team that was a Stanley Cup contender.  Even with his injury, I could see that Toffoli was a player (as he's shown throughout his career).  I would have traded Boeser for a top 2 or top 4 D man and kept Toffoli (or trade Virtanen or Sutter).  Why trade Boeser, and I love Boeser, because we need much better D to compete.  You don't get a top player unless you give up a top player.  Why Boeser?  Because he is a one dimensional player (he can't play PK, he's so-so defensively and his skating is not where it needs to be).  Would I be sad to see Boeser go, absolutely.  I would much rather we had traded Virtanen in 2019 or 2020 (for a strong D man) - now he's damaged goods and the return will likely be underwhelming. 

 

I would not trade Hoglander - this guy has speed, puck skills and his shot is improving (lots of up side - plus he is younger than Boeser).  I would also not trade Miller or Pearson - these are the types of players you want to have on your team (as part of your core group).  I know Corey Hirsch isn't a fan of Miller but I still like what this guy brings to the table.  I like Sutter but not at his current contract and he's had too many injuries for a multi-year contract. 

 

The last couple of months, I was very impressed with Myers and Hamonic and what's not to like about Hughes and Rathbone.  Our top 4 D is still not strong enough though - we don't have a Shea Theodore, Cale Makar, Victor Hedman, Shea Weber or Jeff Petry (there's a lot more defenceman I could add to this list).  

 

We lucked through the 2020 playoffs only due to spectacular goaltending and Tanev.  Our bottom six isn't strong or feisty enough (a lack of truculance as Burky would say) and our D is not good enough to take this team deep into the playoffs (2020 was a fluke, a one-off).  

 

I would like to have seen a complete rebuild after the Sedins retired (or maybe before they retired).  I would've liked a letter to the fans re a full rebuild and a cupboard full of assets and picks like the Rangers did.

 

However, I will say that Benning has been much better than Gillis in his drafting.  He's been unlucky too with Eriksson, Ferland and Baertshi.

 

I just hope that Benning, who's in the last two years of his contract, doesn't do something silly this summer - like sign an overpriced UFA, give up the 9th overall pick or trade away other draft picks for a quick bandaid fix.

 

I doubt we make the playoffs next year and I hope we don't give up a lot of assets this summer.  I expect the Kraken to be a better team than the Canucks next year (they will institute the Vegas plan - they won't have superstars but they will be solid).  If the team is managed well, I think the Canucks could be contender in about two or three years - if not, it will be more of the same as the last 7 or 8 years.

 

Hey, I hope I'm wrong about the Canucks but I know I wasn't wrong about this year.  I predicted that we wouldn't make the playoffs and we didn't.  

 

Regardless, I remain a Canucks fan.  Go Canucks!

  • Thanks 1
  • Sedinery 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2021 at 5:35 PM, DSVII said:

I've read a lot of @wallstreetamigo takes and that wasn't the impression I got from him, that Covid didn't affect them. 

 

As he said later, he's suggesting the organization could have avoided the covid situation had they cancelled the practice the day Gaudette was positive/unconfirmed. This was a situation no one had ever dealt with and maybe the team broke protocol, but we still don't know if that practice was ground zero either so I give the org some leeway there. He does have a point about our performance pre-covid. Our abysmal February was not due to covid, but the schedule, we got dinged twice this season. Again going back to our first point, this year was just an absolute slag against the team. I don't blame the org for the outbreak as much, and even if the org was at fault somewhere I simply don't have all the information. 

 

I think it is unfair to characterize @wallstreetamigo as not being a fan as some posters do. Maybe the forum takes issue with the way he's presenting his takes, but he cares about this team as much as anyone here and wants to see a cup raised here.

 

To use a real world analogy here. You can show support for the troops, and it doesn't make you any less patriotic to criticize how the government deploys them. In this case, we just have a disagreement on whether the troops are being set up in an environment to succeed. 

 

Fair point and well argued, I just think that the underlying metrics are not immune to being warped by this season as the standings were.

 

1. I can confidently say that if we carry our xGF rates over to next season we should see a better result, but I can't confidently say that next year's performance in a regular schedule/season won't just default back to our historical xGF rates the past four years prior to covid with the same coaching staff (which was bottom 10). I think a bigger variable is how we reform our roster this offseason, especially on defense.  

 

2. I know you were trying to be positive, which is fine! Again, the reason why I pulled up the historical data in my first post is because going by the history of this team coached by Green and the players remaining relatively the same throughout, we haven't seen any indication that the improvement will be that much better to be among the best in the league. Maybe I'd feel more optimistic had we retained at least one more key piece from our 2019-20 team, which was a step above the other teams in the years prior. 

 

Dallas vs Vancouver - the one hurdle I would say Dallas has over us is that they played two more rounds of playoff hockey and more injuries than us with a shorter offseason. As you said.

 

Again, I appreciate the effort and the analysis. As you said,  this will be something interesting to compare the results for at the end of the next season. 

 

3. Very valid points, and again, this is where the statistical analysis gets a bit murky, especially since the central has one extra team over the North. I'll see what the numbers say when it comes to the 'feast vs famine' theory. (A very interesting thought exercise!) Keep in mind that as we do this thought exercise I don't expect this season to reflect on what a future season would look like. I also believe the addition of the extra team in the central muddles things up.

 

I took a data dump of all the games in the Central and North Divisions this year, and did a comparison to see how many of the total goals scored/Corsi/HDGF/SCF/SF were earned against the weakest opponents in the division. If the North was less skewed than the Central, I would expect to see a closer parity in the results.

 

So this first table, if you were a generic Central/Northern Division team, these were the guys you earned the most expected goals/goals on. Basically the top ranked teams in this were the ones most expected for you to scored on/feast upon. I think you can make the case the North had more parity, but again, the spread wasn't too far off from all the teams outside of the last team. Surprise though, Dallas was the team in the central that conceded the least amount of expected goals for in the div!

 

 

image.png.00e431de8208f75cbb7ea4eeb775cb30.png

 

 

When we rank this table by actual goals. Actual results

 

image.png.974c1e85a917fcc4ff7e72cd16c3c714.png

 

So yes in theory, when going by expected production, you can say we expected more parity in the North Division vs the Central, but the reality of the situation was both divisions had their own feast and famine situations going here. (with a 30+ pt spread from top and bottom two teams). Although Ottawa was playing tough competitive hockey near the end of the season, it didn't put them out of the feast category of bottom teams.

 

4. This is just me, but I interpret tighter defenses as maintaining better possession and limiting scoring chances against. A higher number of shot blocks indicates that your team is not possessing the puck as often as the other team. So I would not necessarily interpret having more blocks in our division to our defenses are playing a tighter game than the central. 

 

Like you said, the West Div has LAK, SJS, ARZ, ANA which are garbage teams. They have more blocks than us. Possible correlation?

 

Metrics I put more weight on if you asked me for judging defense from what we see

 

xGA

HDGA

HDCA

 

These are quality chances given up. The sheer number of shots don’t matter if they come from outside the high danger areas. (out of curiosity, for the blocks, would we be able to differentiate between blocks done on HDCA vs LDCA?) And if we say that blocks only happen in the high danger zone chances (aside from blocks on the point which) is that really a tighter defense?

 

A stat that I hope becomes more available in the future (I have no clue how to get these stats)

 

Blocked/Broken up Passes  – Can show how good a defense is at disrupting play and preventing those shots in the first place.

 

Break-up percentage -- when the opponents tried to carry the puck in against this player, how often did he break the play up (turnover, offsides, etc)?

 

Carry percentage against -- when this player guarded the puckhandler, how often did the opponents successfully carry the puck in (as opposed to dumping the puck in or having the play broken up completely)?

 

 https://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2014/4/9/5592622/nhl-stats-zone-entries-defense

 

Again, not saying you are wrong. You presented your point and backed it up with the numbers. I’m just offering my own interpretations of how a tight defense can be judged analytically. There is a lot of defensive failures the contribute towards a team being forced to block a shot, particularly if the blocks happen on a High danger chance shot against.

 

I think we should see how much Petey and Hughes end up costing us before laughing at others for overpaying their stars haha but I agree. In general teams with a 10+ mil salary have not performed well in the salary cap era come playoffs. 

 

Like you, I don't fully buy into the advanced stats either for 2021, which is why I'm hesitant to say us being a top 10 xGF team this year (stacked div or not) can translate to performance next year. it'll get better, but by how much? We'll see.

 

Well I looked at the seasons since 2017, when Green took over. This included years with Petey and Hughes breaking out too. 

 

Depending on the offseason moves then, would you say next year we can start having higher expectations than a bottom 10 finish in those underlying stats? 

 

 

5.I don't deny that we probably had a chance at finishing mid of the div if we kept Petey, however, the point i was getting at is losing Kucherov and Stamkos is not really comparable to us losing just Petey. They do generate more offense. if we had lost Petey and say, Miller. Again, I think the original point was going back to suggest that the Canucks and Bolts had comparable offensive numbers missing the star players. I'm thinking though a fully healthy Tampa improves their performance astronomically compared to a healthy Petey for the Nucks. 

It was not just a comparison to Tampa, the right side of the graphic had our 3rd line ranked 26th, and 4th line ranked 30th in terms of value. I just pulled Tampa because that just kept popping up as a comparison in our discussion. The 6 players picked were projected by the athletic so may not be truly indicative of the bottom six we ended up using, but yes injuries piled up for us there. 

 

I won't argue with you that Canucks have been historically unlucky with injuries. I really think we made a mistake firing Mike Burnstein and going with Rick Celebrini as our team physiotherapist during the Benning era. While we can't quantify it, Celebrini went on to work with the Golden State Warriors in 2018, who lost Curry and Durant to injury and caused to lose in the 2019 finals. Hopefully we get better.

 

Yeah it was crazy how it went down. I remember not liking the signing but still believing Loui would provide value for his contract for the first three years before declining. Who knew eh. It was a signing that in theory made sense. Squeeze a few more runs out of the Sedins and have a point producer on hand to mentor the kids. But he just dropped off the face of the earth. 

 

If there was deeper thought into it, I'd have thought Benning would know better on how much playing with Bergeron and Marchand carried his performance in Boston. This was a pro-scouting failure. 

 

6. I think it's fair to hate the contract, and to really be frustrated by the fact Loui didn't seem to give it his all. He wasn't a leader on or off the ice, and there was the famous 'he could be wearing a suit under his jersey' comment about his work ethic. 

 

Lucic for instance, has a similarly bad contract, but the fanbases of Edm or Cal have no complaints about his work ethic or leadership. 

 

There was a very good article years ago, that showed that Gudbranson was on the brink of beginning his decline based on historical comparisons with physical defensemen who hit a certain threshold in games played and hits, and that Florida (being ran by analytics teams back then) determined it was the best time to sell high on a player like him. I can't find it so I'll link another article with the same concept. 

 

Considering we had Hamhuis willing to sign with us. I can agree to disagree. We were rebuilding back then, we bottomed out. Again, going by the timeline prescribed here, the time we acquired him was the start of the rebuild. That should not have been time to trade away assets.

 

Maybe he was young, but for a physical defenseman, we bought him when he was in his prime where he was approaching the age players of his style start to fall off. So in essence we sold a top prospect and high pick (rumor was we were high on Debrincat) for 1 year of prime physical play from Guds. It really set us back and wasn't worth the risk.

 

This also highlights just how much of an unnecessary risk and bad bet Ferland was, considering his playstyle. 

 

(Gudbranson would classify as medium hits per game 2.42 hits/g and 25yrs old when we acquired him, Ferland 2.52 hits/g and 27 when we signed him)

1

 

3

 

https://hockey-graphs.com/2015/11/25/big-deals-for-big-hitters-how-physical-players-age/ 

 

I didn't have an issue with Sutter the player, but the price we paid was too much, especially considering Bonino was the only player who could realistically fit under the Pens salary cap after getting Kessel, AND it was public knowledge Sutter couldn't stay in Pittsburgh with the cap situation. 


As for his production, IIRC Willy was playing him with the Sedins as a winger a lot for some reason, getting 1st unit PP time (3rd on the team after the twins). So the first campaign isn't really indicative of his production at centre. Then there's the infamous lack of primary assists he has considering that he is suppose to centre the line. 

 

It was kind of frustrating how Sutter's semi-iron man streak kinda ended the moment he set foot on the ice here.

 

So essentially....Sutter put up third line contender numbers given second line minutes on our team?

 

I think with the emergence of Petey and the core, you'll find no shortage of players that want to come here. At the end of the day, there are only a limited number of spots to play in the best league in the world. You'll have no problem finding people to come here during a rebuild, and yes this includes aged out veterans who could serve as a mentor to the team. 

 

If the nuclear wasteland of Buffalo is capable of bringing in 4th line veterans for sub $1 mil contracts, then i'm sure we can attract a higher quality of player without overpaying them substantially. At the end of the day, it's a buyers market if it comes to filling up the roster.

 

7. Again, Roussel, it's more his contract, and the bad bet we made signing a grinding type player to a 4 year deal when he turned 29. Just because Roussel justified the deal in years 1 and 2 doesn't make him a good signing when it comes to the timeline of the team (i.e losing Tanev, Stetcher, Toffoli because we made a bad gamble that went against analytic trends for physical players)

 

8. I'm don't fully bought into that narrative that we'd be icing no players if we didn't overpay UFAs to come. Considering the list of UFAs that have left us that expressed their interest in playing for us but never got an answer back from mgmt (Matthias, Santorelli, Richardson, Hamhuis and more recently, Stetcher, Tanev, Toffoli....)

 

And I also question the quality of the veteran help we bring in if we find ourselves on the market to signing new ones the following years. Again this is pro scouting. 

 

 

Up til 2018, i would have said the water was Rick Celebrini :)

 

That remains to be seen, and I pray you are right! Let's see how Benning fills in the D core and 3C role after extending Petey and Hughes.

 

I don't agree with this take. If given the choice, Benning would have kept these players over any of the current ones on the roster (Roussel, Beagle, Ferland, Loui) he simply couldn't keep it. It is not downplaying their value by saying we had to let them go.

 

I can appreciate the better losers argument. After all, that was why I was against the retool. It capped our ceiling and perhaps doomed us to become the next 2010s era Minnesota Wild. I'm just afraid that from all this talk about 'anything can happen in the playoffs', we are just setting ourselves up to be like that. 

 

TBL and WSH was a lot of trial and error (the Forsberg trade comes into mind) quite frankly, Petey and Hughes are excellent players but I'm not fully convinced they are dominant generational talents like Ovechkin or Stamkos/Kucherov. Rather they are in the tier of say a Matthews/Scheifele. Good enough to be on a winning team, but not dominant enough that you recover quickly after an unforced error that sets the team back.

 

There will need to be some good moves that reflect good managerial acumen for this team to become more than just 'better losers'. We laugh at deadmonton, but a second round exit after almost 6 years of no playoffs is just like you said. better losing. 

 

I pray you are correct!

 

 

Likewise! The stats are weird i agree, it really comes down to your preference i suppose. 

 

9. I appreciate the chat and I admit you have opened a more perspectives for me to consider on how next season will go, as far as stats are concerned. I agree, we aren't as bad as this season suggests and we've been horribly unluckly. Let's just see how it plays out next year and if any of the trends from covid/pre-covid on our underlying numbers continue or even diverge!

 

10. It's been a fun chat and it's really gotten me back into the numbers game again haha maybe i'll update my old drafting model and come up with a pro-benning (gasp!) post.

 

Anyways, I leave the last word to you @knucklehead91 you have a good weekend!

 

Thanks for taking the time to hit me back. I had a great weekend and hope you did as well. I read your reply on Friday and spent some time on Saturday investigating the divisional "feast or famine" that I believe had a huge effect on play off berths. I will get to that point a bit later in a separate post, first I will just reply to the bolded sections.

 

1. To be fair to TG he got his start in the league behind the bench on a rebuilding team. To view his record and failures isn't quite a fair shake of hands, he started coaching a team with an identity crisis, were we a retooling team? were we a competitive team? were we rebuilding? What was going on at that time? 

As my dad used to say when I asked what was for supper. He'd always tell me glit, half glue half sh*t. Thats exactly what this team was made up of when TG and Benning stepped in. Half glue and half sh*t. More sh*t than glue though. 

To put TG under the microscope and examine his record and looking at the L column is a bit shortsighted. TG and his crew managed to coach this team through a decent season last year and the most exciting playoff run since the 2010-11 season. I'd say in year 3 of a rebuild and a very young and inexperienced core, that is pretty damn impressive. I'd say he managed to get the best out of his team last season. This season I personally can't point fingers at any one and say they are the reason we underachieved. It would be too unfair given what the Canucks went through this year. No other team was destroyed by COVID and put on hold like us. 

It would be a different story if TG had a team that was on the other side of the rebuild and failing throughout the season. I'd like to give TG these next 2 years to give him a fair grade on his report card. 

People get too caught up in losing, they lose sight of the positive's. Hoglander emerged as an NHLer, Demko continue'd to build on last seasons post-season run. Boeser was healthy and had a stellar season. Things like that, that help believe in the system and the core of players that are in place and just need a little more seasoning. 

 

2. Now this is what I mean by the leopard is changing his spots. Previous years, prior to the official rebuild. Benning would go out and sign whatever middle aged vets he could to fill in holes on the team and hope to hailmary a cup for the Sedins. Post Sedin retirement, he signed players to just hold down a spot and help us be better losers. No one saw how quickly this team would turn around from the Sedin retirement. It's easy to judge him on contracts handed out when the team was SUPPOSED to be a bottom team, but then surprisingly we pull off last years 36-27-6 record and a fairly good dent in the playoffs. Its easy to make contracts look bad when you start to compete, but you still arent/werent ready to win and were expecting to be going through the growing pains of a rebuild. The fact that we still relied on the Sedins near the end of their careers, there was a sense of very dark times ahead.....Like Buffalol and Deadmonton times ahead.... 2 years later the youth that was selected to be part of the future, made instant impacts. This is why Benning made the tough choice to let those middle aged vets, who have already used up the best mileage, go. Signing Toffoli would be like making those pre-Sedin retirement signings or early rebuild signings all over again. Same recipe, same result. He is no longer committing to the middle age veterans. He is letting them walk, cutting his losses and getting younger. This core, like all cores (PIT, WSH, TBL, COL, CHI, BOS, LAK, STL) need to grow together at a young age. Those teams have stuck with the young core and let some of the middle aged vets go, until it all came together and paid off. 

It's a previous tendency of Benning's to sign middle aged veterans and ride them on the downhill decline. He let them all walk, to avoid getting stuck with aging players. 

 

I've said this in the past, Vancouver just like every other Canadian team is a tough market. Owners want playoff revenue, fans want to see the team win but at some point the team needs to rebuild. Benning has had 2 agenda's to deal with up until the day the Sedins retired. The first on the agenda is to give the owner and the fans what they want most, because no fan or owner wants to see a rebuild. Secondly, he has to try and "rebuild" on the fly, while trying to make the playoffs.  We cant have our cake and eat it too. In Bennings first season with the Canucks, he took us from a bottom 10 in the league to a top 10 in the league over night.

 

Think of the Canucks as a lemon, 2009-10 was a freshly squeezed lemon. Each year we squeezed a little less out, by 2013-14 it seemed like there was nothing left we missed the playoffs and finished 25th in the League with 36-35-11 record.... In 2014-15 Benning managed to squeeze out all the juice in one last run for the Sedin's, which was last squeeze. We finsied that year 8th in the league sporting a 48-29-5 record...Kudos to Benning. Now think of the inside of that lemon, that is the core of the team. It's all mashed and used up. We were all out of lemon juice and all out of lemons (almost zero prospects/new age core). Sadly, so long as the Sedin's were playing, Aquallini saw potential playoff revenue, we just had to find a few UFA's to support the Sedin's. When the Sedins retired we went from an Owner run Organization to a GM Run organization. I strongly believe GMJB's hands were tied the first 3-4 years. That is how I have viewed and understood a lot of the signings and acquisitions. Then of course with the Sedin's retiring, we can't just throw our rookies to the wolves and hope they are fine... Look at how that has worked out for Edmonton for years. So we got in bed with some overpaid vets to help stabilize the development of our young players in the NHL, while we continue to draft and rebuild. The instant impact of Petey and Hughes shocked the NHL as to how quickly they were able to help this team start to win. Had we known the impact they would have had so quickly, Im certain Benning wouldn't have signed middle aged vets to play on the 3rd and 4th line.

 

 Keeping any combination of Toffoli, Tanev and Markstrom in the short term would have helped us win more games but be better losers in the end. Letting them go and avoiding the 4-6 year deals that would eventually start to weigh us down when we are ready to compete, was the right move for the future going forward. It's a sign of change in the direction of the rebuild. At least this is how I view it and how I see the changes in managements behaviour from previous years. As much as we want to dig into advanced stats, we are getting deeply concerned over a players/team that is in the midst of a rebuild..... These things should be expected and some of the numbers SHOULD be frightening to look at. Reading into poor statistics on rebuilding teams doesn't give you as good of a perspective of a player as it would if you looked at players on good teams. Good teams with bad stats = bad player. Bad team with bad stats = ?? Is it the player or the team? At least this is how I try to take advanced stats with a grain of salt. Players become a product of their environment, good players on bad teams look decent, decent players on bad teams look bad. It is inversely the same for bad players on good teams, they look decent and decent players look good. This season we can all agree, was a horrible season for the team due to a number of reasons.

 

3. I'm going to break down the 'feast or famine' divisions, but I am going to create a new thread for it because it is going to take up a fair chunk of space... 

 

4. So I don't disagree with your point on how you view defence being tighter around possession, however Defence IS what you do without the puck. Positioning, coverage, active sticks etc. Blocking shots IS limiting scoring chances. Yes I do agree that blocked shots are an indicator that a team possess the puck less and is giving up opportunities. Yes I do also agree that every other division having 1 more team does muddle things up, however when I break down the 'feast or famine' I think you might be shocked and it might reassure you that this team is not nearly as much of a disaster as this season was. TBH the Canadian division was the toughest division due to being short 1 team. It made making playoffs much more difficult for all teams. There was 1 less team to find a way to win against.

 

 

5. I understood you're take on the loss of Stamkos and Kucherov, when you look strictly at how good of a player they are compared to losing say Miller and Pettersson. It's not that Miller and Pettersson being in the lineup gives us a much bigger boost and put up Kuch/Stammer numbers, its the drop off from losing Pettersson and say Miller that has a far greater effect on a team that isn't as deep as TBL. Tampa are a good team without Kucherov and Stammer. They are a very good team with with Stammer, Kucherov makes them a great team. Tampa already has a lot of the pieces in place up front, on the back end and in net. So losing Stamkos and or Kucherov, they take a step back. But that doesn't cripple their chance to win. Losing Petey, it hurts our chances to win heavily. We aren't a very good team, we are middle of the league imho, So losing a top player on a middle team, is a bigger loss in terms of what the teams chances of winning become. Thats what I meant when I spoke of the effect of losing players. Does that sorta make sense? The drop off for our team hurts more in the way that we don't have the secondary or 3rd line scoring the make up for that. ESPECIALLY when we cant seem to stay healthy in the bottom of the line up.

 

6. I'd say that the last year or two Eriksson might have been able to wear his suit under his gear. In the first couple seasons, I'd say he did give it a very honest effort. The results unfortunately weren't there, also he has always come into camp in shape, I wouldn't say he took anything for granted. He also did sustain 2 pretty big injuries in his first 2 seasons.... Damn that tap water.. Contracts at the end of the day are earned, it isn't until after the contract has been signed that we weight the value of it and continue to judge the contract as time goes on. Up until that point the player has earned their keep. We can hate the player and hate the contract all we want, I don't believe any of it was intentional for LE to cash in and try to not get hurt. He did block shots, he did get hurt a couple times and gave it an honest effort. The problem is, we signed him to play with the Sedins. After 2 injury riddled seasons for LE, his linemates retired and we entered a rebuild... He aint able to carry a team or a line..... It's expected that his numbers are going to drop along with everyone else on the team. The Sedins retiring made the LE signing look so much worse, then you add on a rebuild and its a real ugly signing. However that signing hasn't cost us any 'core' players. By the time he is off the books, we'll be thankful that we had 6 mil in the savings account to go and acquire the REAL top 6 guy we need to put us over the top. Either through a TDL acquisition or a UFA signing.Think of LE as a savings account that your parents open up for you as a kid, but you can't touch until you are 18-19. As nice as that money would be nice to have now, it will come in at a much better time in life. Money to put towards your first car =D

 

7. Goes with my point in #2

 

8. I'd argue that it's not that we wouldn't have iced any players if we didn't overpay.... It's a matter of WHO we'd be icing. And not many players want to sign with a club that is at the very beginning stages of a rebuild. That is a loooong haul. Richardson, Hammer, Matthias (soft as butter), Santorelli were all signed pre-rebuild, pre-sedin retirement. The rebuild wasn't until a couple years later after we let them go. It wasn't a matter of those players being available at the start of the rebuild and JB went with another option. And as for recently, Tofu, Marky, Stetch, Leivo and those guys that recently walked... Well I already mentioned how I viewed those choices to not resign them. Leivo also had a bad knee injury and for the most part him and Stetcher were fairly easily replaceable. The timing for a Toffoli or Marky extension is the wrong timing. We need to save those kinda extensions when we are a window to win, not a window to watch teams like TBL, VGK, COL, WSH, PIT, NYI, BOS dominate. It's tough to watch the team lose and struggle, but we need to struggle to figure it out. 

 

9. I hope that my next post on the 'feast or famine' analogy will reinforce your hope and optimism for next season. 

 

10. It has been a lot of fun to get into these stats and what not... albeit VERY time consuming hahaha, but I got nothin better to do while the boys arent playing. 

 

Anyways, thats just my thoughts and how I view things to try and understand what might be going through JB's mind at the time, what the intentions are behind the signings and all that kinda crap. I try to shed a different light on things to maybe bring a different perspective and snap the negativity trend. (not saying you are negative at all, just there happens to be a lot on the forums)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2021 at 4:33 AM, wallstreetamigo said:

I have never said covid didnt hurt the team. If you have any of my posts where I said soecifically that, I would like to see them.

 

To clarify, what I have said is:

 

1. The team getting ravaged by covid was a direct result of managements decision to allow players to practice while awaiting test results. Breaking protocols in their desperation for practice time was self inflicted. 

 

2. The team was garbage most of the season before covid hit them. Its not like they were playing lights out all year long then covid wrecked their season. It made an already $&!#ty year even $&!#tier.

 

I dont mind being disagreed with. But I do take exception to people lying about what I actually said.

 

 

Garbage is for the garbage man.   Personally i get a little offended when that word is used to describe any part of our team with maybe the exception of LE, and even then i don't really like it.   If we had no cap nobody would be complaining about having him on the taxi squad.  It does matter do i do get the angst.   

 

Your getting pushback from how relentless you've been on views about the team and management.    Team actually clawed their way back without EP before Covid hit.   Back into the picture anyways, thanks in part to MTL dreadful mid season game too, and CAL descending as well.    After covid the first two games i read a lot of posts saying if that's all we managed this season, it was a win.    In the end the team just didn't have it in them.   And some of those posters changed their tune which i also get. 

 

Now we get another blue chip pick - or if we trade it, a blue chip player in our cores age range (hopefully).    We are not good enough to compete with any of the teams left and need more soldiers.    There is a reason why the average rebuild now takes as long as they do, and so far IMO, we are outpacing it by one or two years, at worst on par.   If you don't believe that then pay more attention.   And do some research. 

 

What we do need is a trade.  Or two.  Trade our pick for a 22-24 year old blue chip RHD or C that can replace Horvat or Miller eventually.   Rather we just keep the pick but see the logic in that.   OR we trade Miller.     Or Schmidt.   Or two guys for two different guys.   But don't see that happening until this team gets one more rep in our own division though, but JB usually does one unexpected thing so also expecting that too.  

 

The core is fine.   Demko is legit.   EP and QHs are too.  As are BB, Horvat and Miller.   Hogs too.   Next year we will have two rookies vying for calder votes in OJ and Podz.    I don't think it's enough, but it's not garbage.   Stop using that word and i probably will engage in meaningful discussion a lot more, as will others.   

  • Like 2
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IBatch said:

Garbage is for the garbage man.   Personally i get a little offended when that word is used to describe any part of our team with maybe the exception of LE, and even then i don't really like it.   If we had no cap nobody would be complaining about having him on the taxi squad.  It does matter do i do get the angst.   

 

Your getting pushback from how relentless you've been on views about the team and management.    Team actually clawed their way back without EP before Covid hit.   Back into the picture anyways, thanks in part to MTL dreadful mid season game too, and CAL descending as well.    After covid the first two games i read a lot of posts saying if that's all we managed this season, it was a win.    In the end the team just didn't have it in them.   And some of those posters changed their tune which i also get. 

 

Now we get another blue chip pick - or if we trade it, a blue chip player in our cores age range (hopefully).    We are not good enough to compete with any of the teams left and need more soldiers.    There is a reason why the average rebuild now takes as long as they do, and so far IMO, we are outpacing it by one or two years, at worst on par.   If you don't believe that then pay more attention.   And do some research. 

 

What we do need is a trade.  Or two.  Trade our pick for a 22-24 year old blue chip RHD or C that can replace Horvat or Miller eventually.   Rather we just keep the pick but see the logic in that.   OR we trade Miller.     Or Schmidt.   Or two guys for two different guys.   But don't see that happening until this team gets one more rep in our own division though, but JB usually does one unexpected thing so also expecting that too.  

 

The core is fine.   Demko is legit.   EP and QHs are too.  As are BB, Horvat and Miller.   Hogs too.   Next year we will have two rookies vying for calder votes in OJ and Podz.    I don't think it's enough, but it's not garbage.   Stop using that word and i probably will engage in meaningful discussion a lot more, as will others.   

If you watched the team last season, they PLAYED likegarbage the vast majority of the season. 

 

As for the rest of your rant, its based on something I did not actually say. There is adifferencebetweensaying the entire roster is garbage and the teams play on the ice last season was garbage.

 

No one that watched the games would reasonably be able to argue that the team did not play like garbage pretty much the whole season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

If you watched the team last season, they PLAYED likegarbage the vast majority of the season. 

 

As for the rest of your rant, its based on something I did not actually say. There is adifferencebetweensaying the entire roster is garbage and the teams play on the ice last season was garbage.

 

No one that watched the games would reasonably be able to argue that the team did not play like garbage pretty much the whole season.

Man are still flogging that dead horse. please pick another team to rant about. Garbage can be found anywhere apparently.

 

if you watched the team??? of course we watched the team, we are FANS of the team.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

If you watched the team last season, they PLAYED likegarbage the vast majority of the season. 

 

As for the rest of your rant, its based on something I did not actually say. There is adifferencebetweensaying the entire roster is garbage and the teams play on the ice last season was garbage.

 

No one that watched the games would reasonably be able to argue that the team did not play like garbage pretty much the whole season.

the results weren't great but those guys played their asses off most nights, even after covid. Maybe thats why people have their backs up when you use the word "garbage" to describe them. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AbrasiveAjax said:

Man are still flogging that dead horse. please pick another team to rant about. Garbage can be found anywhere apparently.

 

if you watched the team??? of course we watched the team, we are FANS of the team.

 

 

And you dont agree they played like garbage most of the season?

 

You should watch other teams play then to have a basis for comparison. 

 

I am a fan too. I am just one who can admit when the team plays terribly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

If you watched the team last season, they PLAYED likegarbage the vast majority of the season. 

 

As for the rest of your rant, its based on something I did not actually say. There is adifferencebetweensaying the entire roster is garbage and the teams play on the ice last season was garbage.

 

No one that watched the games would reasonably be able to argue that the team did not play like garbage pretty much the whole season.

Those two games out of the Covid outbreak were good.  Our boys dominated the Loser Leafs for two wins. It was only the Loser Leafs though, but still our boys were good in those two.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the results weren't great but those guys played their asses off most nights, even after covid. Maybe thats why people have their backs up when you use the word "garbage" to describe them. 

People can have their backs up all they want. It doesnt change the fact they played like garbage. Their systems and style are boring and ineffective. 

 

If the NHL was an "everyone gets a participation trophy" league, we could point to subjective opinions like "they played their asses off" rather than actual results. 

 

Unfortunately, results actually matter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wallstreetamigo said:

People can have their backs up all they want. It doesnt change the fact they played like garbage. Their systems and style are boring and ineffective. 

 

If the NHL was an "everyone gets a participation trophy" league, we could point to subjective opinions like "they played their asses off" rather than actual results. 

 

Unfortunately, results actually matter. 

meh, you just want to provoke people. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 2
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...