[PGT] Vancouver Canucks at Chicago Blackhawks | Oct. 21, 2021

[vancan2233]

36 minutes ago, Canuck Luck said:

The only ones making this some kind of pissing contest is you and one other poster.

 

Someone was bringing up stats about an NHL young d man named Quin Hughes. When one does that, one naturally uses attributes specific to that d man they are referring to.

 

In this case, Quin Hughes, the young d man, got his 100th point in his 133rd game while being 23 or under. It is specific to Hughes and how well Hughes has played in his short NHL career. No need to complain about "cherry picked" stats or make up some kind of weird argument that it isn't fair. It is specific to Hughes.

 

Lol how hard is it for them to comprehend that 100 points is the comparison and it was achieved in 133 games at age 23, which is in rare company.  

[khay]

2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

It’s a good place to end the conversation because you very clearly have zero understanding of how Makar actually impacts his team. You are simply making up a narrative to attempt to build Hughes up, not truly and fairly compare them.

 

No GM in the NHL would trade Makar straight up for Hughes. There are reasons for that you clearly ignore.

 

The main difference to this point between Makar and Hughes has been that Makar can generate elite level offensive production WITHOUT it negatively impacting his defensive game. Hughes has generated his offense by completely ignoring a commitment to defense and being terrible defensively to this point.

 

That’s why Makar is the better player.

 

Sure it's a good place to stop.

 

When all you can say is hypothesize that everyone will prefer Makar and hence Makar is a better player when you clearly haven't asked everyone. It's just all in your head bro.

 

If you are critiquing Hughes for his defensive play, then you have no idea how Hughes plays. The conversation isn't going anywhere.

 

You are just making up narrative to praise up Makar.

 

It's probably going to fall on a deaf ear (apologies if you are really deaf, don't mean any disrespect), but I'll spell it out one more time.

 

If you have a dynamic forward like MacKinnon stirring the opposition defence, breaking their formations everytime he has the puck, Makar almost never have to get out of position to create offence and hence, his defensive numbers look amazing. When you are always in position, you are more likely than not to successfully fend off attacks. Because if Mac turns it over, it's just a forward up there that's turned it over. And it helps that when Makar is on the ice with Mac, the puck is almost always in the offensive zone. I have pointed out the CF% and xGF% numbers in my response to @mllabove.

 

Now, unfortunately we don't have Mac. Hughes is the most dynamic skater on this team and he's got a good pass and decent hands. Obviously he's no Mac but he does what Mac does for us. Now, as a defenceman, that means he will be out of position almost always and someone has to cover for him.

 

The player that covers for him will be his RD partner and a forward.

 

So, if Hughes turns it over because of the wretched system that every other team could read (talking about last season). The opposition is facing a forward and an RD partner of Hughes. 

 

Who do they attack? Forward 100 out of 100 times. And the result? Forward gets beat and 2-on-1 chance ensues. Well, at least that was the pattern last season.

 

This season has been better. I don't like Green much so far, the high danger chances have been reduced when Hughes roams.

 

Because Green has two choices. Don't let Hughes play the way that he does now but to sit back. Canucks would generate very little offence. Or develop a system that can help limit the high danger chances when Hughes roams. Obviously, he chose to develop a better system where forwards support the puck better and Hughes turns it over less. And getting him an RD partner that can cover for him goes a long way, like Tanev used to and Poolman is doing a decent job thus far.

 

Btw, how's Makar's numbers this season without Mac?

 

Anyways, I'm tried of your argument that everyone prefers X because blah. That's just too childish for me. Please present numbers and facts and better explanation than that in your next response or I probably won't respond. After all, it's a new day and there are new things to talk about on CDC than the boring old Makar vs Hughes comparison.

 

[RU SERIOUS]

1 hour ago, CanucksJay said:

Miller looked pretty good last night I thought. He gave his all at both ends of the rink and played the body hard. 

 

With all due respect - I though it was NOT one of his better games.   Go back and look at the game again and count how many bad  and missed passes he made and the attrocious effort in our zone trying to escape.    It was a sad sight!

[wallstreetamigo]

21 minutes ago, khay said:

Thanks for pointing out the tool. This helps.

 

So I looked at Makar's teammate stats with MacKinnon.

 

https://www.naturalstattrick.com/playerreport.php?fromseason=20182019&thruseason=20202021&stype=2&sit=all&stdoi=oi&rate=n&v=t&playerid=8480069

 

First thing that stands out to me is Makar's CF% with and without MacKinnon.

 

Makar without Mac has 50.71% CF%. 

With Mac is 68.22 CF%

 

Safe to say that Makar benefits so much from playing with MacKinnon to see an increase of (68.22 - 50.71)/50.71 = 34.5 compared to his baseline CF% (without MacKinnon).

 

When someone that you play with is attracting so much attention from the opponents, it is obviously going to open up a lot of ice for you. Even if they don't end up on the stat sheet together, one cannot overlook the fact that presence of MacKinnon makes it easier for Makar to get points. 

 

Again, let's not get caught up on the literal meaning of "shoveling" the puck to Nate. No one shovels the puck in the NHL -- the very reason why Makar gets to play with MacKinnon is because Makar is a great player.

 

It's similar story with xGF%. 

 

Makar's xGF% with Mac is 69.96. Coincidentally (not really), Makar's xGF% with Raantannen is even higher at 71.20%. It's not really a coincidence, the high xGF% between Makar and Raantanen have a latent factor: playing with Mac. 

Makar's xGF% without Mac? 50.18%.

 

That's drop of 20%.

 

I'm no statistician (or am I?), but I'd say that's significant. Wouldn't you?

 

Now, what about Mac's CF% and xGF% without Makar? 56.18% and 63.86% respectively.

 

So it's safe to say, Mac is still amazing with or without Makar but when he does play with Makar, he's even better.

 

I'd say Makar makes Mac even better too but not as much as Mac makes Makar better.

 

Now, my knowledge of the advanced stats is rather limited so I may have misinterpreted some of these numbers. With all due respect, please enlighten me on where I am wrong (in fact, I have found your posts to be quite enlightening in the past so I'm looking forward to learning).

 

My point stands. Makar gets points easier thanks to Mac.

 

It's as obvious as everyone on Edmonton gets points easier thanks to McDavid. Or Burrows scored 30 goals and Granlund scored 20 goals because of playing with the Sedins.

 

 

 

Did you look up Hughes comparable stats? Pretty sure he gets more of his points with the best players too.

 

a 50% Corsi for without the best players on your team out there is still pretty good and indicative that you are a strong positive influence.

Edited October 22, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[RakuRaku]

3 hours ago, yes we can nucks said:

Hey, just quoting my favourite episode of Seinfeld. You're obviously not a fan. And CDC often veers off on non Canucks content... about favourite foods, drinks, tv shows, songs...whatever. We don't have to be serious all of the time.

Of coz we don't have to be so serious!!! I totally agree.... life is short!

[iinatcc]

So I finally saw the highlights of the game and is it just me (or the highlights presented) but the atmosphere of the United Center was pretty depressing. It's been awhile since I've seen a game take place there on TV (or streaming) but I recall even if the Hawks were down the crowd was still pretty energetic and loud.

 

This was just sad and it's not like everyone from the team's dynasty years are gone Kane and Toews are still in the roster.

[wallstreetamigo]

11 minutes ago, khay said:

Sure it's a good place to stop.

 

When all you can say is hypothesize that everyone will prefer Makar and hence Makar is a better player when you clearly haven't asked everyone. It's just all in your head bro.

 

If you are critiquing Hughes for his defensive play, then you have no idea how Hughes plays. The conversation isn't going anywhere.

 

You are just making up narrative to praise up Makar.

 

It's probably going to fall on a deaf ear (apologies if you are really deaf, don't mean any disrespect), but I'll spell it out one more time.

 

If you have a dynamic forward like MacKinnon stirring the opposition defence, breaking their formations everytime he has the puck, Makar almost never have to get out of position to create offence and hence, his defensive numbers look amazing. When you are always in position, you are more likely than not to successfully fend off attacks. Because if Mac turns it over, it's just a forward up there that's turned it over. And it helps that when Makar is on the ice with Mac, the puck is almost always in the offensive zone. I have pointed out the CF% and xGF% numbers in my response to @mllabove.

 

Now, unfortunately we don't have Mac. Hughes is the most dynamic skater on this team and he's got a good pass and decent hands. Obviously he's no Mac but he does what Mac does for us. Now, as a defenceman, that means he will be out of position almost always and someone has to cover for him.

 

The player that covers for him will be his RD partner and a forward.

 

So, if Hughes turns it over because of the wretched system that every other team could read (talking about last season). The opposition is facing a forward and an RD partner of Hughes. 

 

Who do they attack? Forward 100 out of 100 times. And the result? Forward gets beat and 2-on-1 chance ensues. Well, at least that was the pattern last season.

 

This season has been better. I don't like Green much so far, the high danger chances have been reduced when Hughes roams.

 

Because Green has two choices. Don't let Hughes play the way that he does now but to sit back. Canucks would generate very little offence. Or develop a system that can help limit the high danger chances when Hughes roams. Obviously, he chose to develop a better system where forwards support the puck better and Hughes turns it over less. And getting him an RD partner that can cover for him goes a long way, like Tanev used to and Poolman is doing a decent job thus far.

 

Btw, how's Makar's numbers this season without Mac?

 

Anyways, I'm tried of your argument that everyone prefers X because blah. That's just too childish for me. Please present numbers and facts and better explanation than that in your next response or I probably won't respond. After all, it's a new day and there are new things to talk about on CDC than the boring old Makar vs Hughes comparison.

 

If you want facts presented in response, start with facts yourself. You clearly have either never watched Makar play or are purposely trying to make him sound like a passenger to pump up Hughes. 
 

Pretty sure Hughes has some dynamic forwards to work with too. 

Edited October 22, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[CanucksJay]

12 minutes ago, RU SERIOUS said:

With all due respect - I though it was NOT one of his better games.   Go back and look at the game again and count how many bad  and missed passes he made and the attrocious effort in our zone trying to escape.    It was a sad sight!

Yep I do remember the blind passes to the point that split the D etc. 

 

I'm strictly speaking of effort level. 

 

The passes etc will come with timing and familiarizing with his line mates and D pairings. 

[kloubek]

1 hour ago, HomeBrew said:

There are plenty of examples of high end dmen continuing to play well through this era of their career.

This is true. And given that he's such a smooth skater, he may be one of them.

 

I'm not saying we WILL regret the trade in the future. I'm just saying it's too early to say definitively it was an amazing trade.

[kloubek]

1 hour ago, Jayinblack said:

Isn't that like saying that once a player has reached his prime he's automatically on the wrong side of it ?

 

 

Well yes, I suppose. Though the statement would be a pretty weak one to make, as "prime" isn't defined as clearly as a number. In order to make it defined, you'd have to provide evidence he was, in fact, out of his prime. And if so, then I guess you could use the phrase, though then you're more likely to say he is "Past his prime".

 

English is a fickle language.

[Elias Pettersson]

55 minutes ago, vancan2233 said:

100 points is the milestone used and he did it at age 23 in 133 games. The comparison is 100 points. 133 games is not the cut off 100 points is. 

No, 133 games is the cutoff because Bobby Orr had almost 400 points by age 23. He didn’t get his first 100 points within his first 133 games as he started playing at age 18. That is why Orr is not on the list. 

Edited October 22, 2021 by Elias Pettersson

[Alflives]

17 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

If you want facts presented in response, start with facts yourself. You clearly have either never watched Makar play or are purposely trying to make him sound like a passenger to pump up Hughes. 
 

Pretty sure Hughes has some dynamic forwards to work with too. 

It's a Canuck's fan board.  It's okay to hate the other teams and their players.  Hughes plays a different game than Makar.  It's a better game too, because it's more about passing the puck and controlling the play than racing around like Makar does.  It's a game Makar can't play.  He doesn't think the game well enough to play that way.  

Embrace the hate 

[JM_]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

It's a Canuck's fan board.  It's okay to hate the other teams and their players.  Hughes plays a different game than Makar.  It's a better game too, because it's more about passing the puck and controlling the play than racing around like Makar does.  It's a game Makar can't play.  He doesn't think the game well enough to play that way.  

Embrace the hate 

not only is it OK, its encouraged. 

 

Wall St. is stuck in a hate Benning narrative, its like fly paper. 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Yes 133 games is the cutoff because Bobby Orr had almost 400 points by age 23. He didn’t get his first 100 points within his first 133 games as he started playing at age 18. That is why Orr is not on the list. 

Orr was a true great phenom.  He was like a combination of Hughes, Makar, Heiskanen, and more. He was smart and could pass like Hughes.  He was a dynamic skater and puck carrier like Makar.  He was a smooth skater like Heiskanen.  Orr was also a lot tougher than any of these three.  He could play a heavy and mean game if needed too.  When we see a D man be a plus 120 or higher in a season, while putting up over 100 points then we can say there's a guy like Bobby Orr.  Until then, these other guys are good, but they ain't number 4.  

[Elias Pettersson]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Orr was a true great phenom.  He was like a combination of Hughes, Makar, Heiskanen, and more. He was smart and could pass like Hughes.  He was a dynamic skater and puck carrier like Makar.  He was a smooth skater like Heiskanen.  Orr was also a lot tougher than any of these three.  He could play a heavy and mean game if needed too.  When we see a D man be a plus 120 or higher in a season, while putting up over 100 points then we can say there's a guy like Bobby Orr.  Until then, these other guys are good, but they ain't number 4.  

There will never be another Bobby Orr. He was a complete defenceman. Without those knee injuries I think he hits 2000 points and 13 Norris Trophies. And pushes himself to the top of the list as the greatest hockey player ever without any questions. 

[CanucksJay]

3 minutes ago, kloubek said:

This is true. And given that he's such a smooth skater, he may be one of them.

 

I'm not saying we WILL regret the trade in the future. I'm just saying it's too early to say definitively it was an amazing trade.

I do get the reservations. I compared him to one of our own who aged from a drafted young talent to signing this season on a different team as a 35 year old vet. 

He and Edler are 5 years apart in age. 

Edler started regressing about 3 years ago so basically when he was 32

 

OEL is currently 30. Will he start regressing in 2 years?

 

One thing OEL has going for him is that he is an effortless skater. A better comparison would be someone like Duncan Keith. The guy is 38 and still in the league. 

 

I think if OEL can play top pairing for 4 seasons and then move down to 2nd pairing for years 5 and 6, that's a win and definitely within possibility . 

That's the expectation with long term contracts. We get value earlier on and lose value as he gets older. 

I think in the next 3-4 years, he will out earn his 7.26

 

[Gurn]

Ok fine, 100 points in 133 games before age 23, all well and good.

However, what is his total points scored between 7  and 7:15 pm,  prior to his 23 birthday, in what ever time zone he played in?

 

[CanucksJay]

11 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

No, 133 games is the cutoff because Bobby Orr had almost 400 points by age 23. He didn’t get his first 100 points within his first 133 games as he started playing at age 18. That is why Orr is not on the list. 

Orr will be on the next list when they do youngest players to 200 pts and 300 pts and so forth. He will continually be on the list in future comparisons. 

 

Marathon not a sprint... 

Still doesn't give a reason to undermine what Hughes has done at this point of his young career. 

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, Canuck Luck said:

lol 133 games was not cherry picked.

 

As EmilyM stated just below your post, 133 games was picked because we are talking about Hughes and Hughes got his 100th point in his 133rd game.

 

People really need better comprehension skills lol.

They picked 133 games AND age 23 as cutoffs because those are both where Hughes is right now. I’m sure there are defencemen that have reached 100 points in their first 133 games that were over the age of 23. 

[DeNiro]

Anyone have some fancy stats on Lammikko?

 

I feel like he’s doing the right things defensively since you don’t notice him much. Would be nice to see if the stats back that up though.