Very, Very Early Statistical Analysis of the Canucks

[Rindiculous]

This might be something I do occasionally throughout the year, because I really like stats, and there's a lot of interesting trends you can find with all the interesting analytic data out there.  All this analysis should be taken with a grain of salt because of the small sample size, but even at the beginning of the year you can start to identify trends that may appear throughout the rest of the year.

 

At 5 v 5, we haven't had the best start in expected goals.  It's not terrible, but it's not great at 46.42%, good for 22nd in the league.  That is due mostly to the Edmonton game where we didn't have the best analytics.  We were over 50% in expected goals in both Philly and Detroit.  However, what I find kinda insane is that at even strength rather than 5 v 5, we have a 52.14% expected goals, good for 14th.  That raises our expected goals by almost 6% which means we really tilt the ice at 6 v 5, 5 v 6, or 4 v 4 (note these numbers don't even include 3 v 3 which we have been completely dominant).  Combining 6 v 5 and 5 v 6 where we have a 1.09 expected goals for and a 0.89 expected goals against for a 55% expected goals for which is respectable.  However, this leaves us with an absolutely insane 100% expected goals for at 4 v 4.  We have a 1.08 expected goals for and 0 expected goals against.

 

The opposing team hasn't even had a shot attempt at 4 v 4 against us while we have over a full goal for.  To compare we have 4.64 expected goals at 5 v 5.  In 12 minutes of 4 v 4 we have almost 25% of the expected goal total we have in 138 minutes of 5 v 5.  We have 3 times as much production at 4 v 4 compared to 5 v 5.

 

Our 4 on 4 has literally dragged us from a bottom 10 team stats wise at evens to a top 15 team.  Let's just keep hoping that the refs call the even ups in every scrum, because that is better for us than our power play at the moment lol.  In terms of expected goals for, we are currently operating just slightly below the amount of goals scored on the power play.  We have 2.67 expected goals in 23 minutes of power play time and if we extrapolate that for our 4 v 4 play we would have 2.07 expected goals in that same amount of time.  That is only 0.6 expected goals less at 4 v 4 than 5 v 4, while we don't give up anything at 4 v 4 compared to 0.31 expected goals 5 v 4.  One thing to take away from this is we might very well want to have a second defenseman on the power play.  Many have already commented on here that we should replace Miller with OEL on PP1, have 2 at the point and 3 down lower.  I think the problem right now on the power play might be we have too many cooks in the kitchen and adding a second player at the point may improve our offense and defense on the power play by using a similar system to our 4 v 4 system.

 

Anyway, this is just a very early analysis, but let's hope that the NHL comes out with a radical new rule soon that makes normal play 4 v 4 rather than 5 v 5, because we might win the President's Trophy that way.

 

There are a lot of other interesting stats player specific, but I might delve into those at a later time after a few more games have been played.  I'm hoping to see our overall 5 v 5 stats to get better as the team gel as I expect they should, but we have also been dominating the shot clock which is always a very good thing.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Rindiculous said:

However, this leaves us with an absolutely insane 100% expected goals for at 4 v 4.  We have a 1.08 expected goals for and 0 expected goals against.

 

The opposing team hasn't even had a shot attempt at 4 v 4 against us while we have over a full goal for. 

 

Keep throwing Garland out there at 5 vs 5 until we get the man advantage errr.... offsetting penalties for 4 vs 4. 

[-AJ-]

Seems like the fewer guys we have on the ice, the better we are, so long as it's even.

[lmm]

11 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

Seems like the fewer guys we have on the ice, the better we are, so long as it's even.

makes sense we are small and fast

big ice, more space

[DownUndaCanuck]

I know it has only been 3 games but we're dead last in faceoffs which is quite surprising, our PP has been pretty decent at 25% but our PK has been brutal - we're just about 50% on the PK.

 

I knew this would happen and we'd struggle after losing Edler who's been so underrated on our PK, but we really need some solution there. I think we bring Schenn in for Burroughs who can kill penalties a bit better but it's still not a proper answer. We can't keep letting in goals on the PP or we're finished, and it's a bad stat to go alongside that abysmal faceoff %.

 

I think subjectively we've good 5-on-5 and that's against a good, average and bad team. Plenty to work on though. We've been in all of the games if not the better team at some points.

[hero11]

Quote

Our PK sucked with Edler last year as well.

 

[Playoff Beered]

Not bad considering the full team never played together once during the preseason. I would think they should get better as they build chemistry and learn each others nuances.

[kloubek]

7 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

I know it has only been 3 games but we're dead last in faceoffs which is quite surprising, our PP has been pretty decent at 25% but our PK has been brutal - we're just about 50% on the PK.

 

I knew this would happen and we'd struggle after losing Edler who's been so underrated on our PK, but we really need some solution there. I think we bring Schenn in for Burroughs who can kill penalties a bit better but it's still not a proper answer. We can't keep letting in goals on the PP or we're finished, and it's a bad stat to go alongside that abysmal faceoff %.

 

This is the danger of small sample sizes. I guarantee you that these figures will change - although I suspect the faceoff percentage isn't going to improve dramatically unless Sutter comes back. PK of 50% is indeed brutal, but last year even Dead-last Detroit managed almost 75% so it's clearly a tilted stat so early in the game.

[Rindiculous]

4 hours ago, Playoff Beered said:

Not bad considering the full team never played together once during the preseason. I would think they should get better as they build chemistry and learn each others nuances.

Yah and that is what I blame our poor looking special teams on.  Yes the power play has converted, but I don't think it has looked that good.  Our 5 on 5 is okay because Green kept similar lines and pairings throughout the preseason, however we mashed our special teams units together on night 1 of the regular season, so they will have to do some adjusting for each other, and they will definitely get better when Boeser and Motte get back.

[Bruce Boudreau]

On 10/18/2021 at 11:07 PM, lmm said:

makes sense we are small and fast

big ice, more space

Small but not fast or skilled enough to outskill teams.

 

Ideally they should be more like Vegas. They have a very nice black of  the size and skill combo along with guys who can lay bodychecks and are willing to mix it up like Brayden McNabb.

 

It helps come postseason ime when the hitting and intensity ramps up. With full crowds back you can intimidate with some big hits when your home barn fans get into it.

 

 

[Bruce Boudreau]

Just now, Chip Kelly said:

Small but not fast or skilled enough to outskill teams.

 

Ideally they should be more like Vegas. They have a very nice mix of  the size and skill combo to make it to a Stanley Cup finals along with guys who can lay bodychecks and are willing to mix it up like Brayden McNabb.

 

It helps come postseason time when the hitting and intensity ramps up. With full crowds back you can intimidate with some big hits when your home barn fans get into it when the bigger bodies are throwing their weights around.