Popular Post JamesB Posted May 20, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted May 20, 2022 (edited) In another thread @higgyfan posted some interesting data about 5-on-5 production. Here is the data. @higgyfan wrote the following: If they sign Brock to $6.5mx3 and he has another year like last season, he will be very difficult to trade (and not worth that much). Brock has become a power play specialist, while Garland has the best 5 on 5 record on the team. He is also a terrific play maker, which there are too few on the Canucks. https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/analytics-garland-canucks-5-on-5-production#:~:text= Garland is the Canucks best forward at,Chiasson (0.75) 14 Jason Dickinson (0.55) More Judging by points per 60 minutes at 5-on-5, the Canucks really only have two first-line forwards on the team — Garland and Miller. First-line rate 1. Conor Garland (2.34) 2. JT Miller (2.12) Second-line rate 3. Tanner Pearson (1.79) Third-line rate 4. Bo Horvat (1.46) 5. Vasily Podkozlin (1.37) 6. Tyler Motte (1.36) 7. Juho Lammikko (1.35) 8. Matthew Highmore (1.29) 9. Elias Pettersson (1.21) 10. Nils Hoglander (1.2) Fourth-line rate 11. Brock Boeser (1.0) 12. Justin Dowling (0.94) 13. Alex Chiasson (0.75) 14. Jason Dickinson (0.55) Here are my comments: Yes, there was a lot of talk all season and how good Garland's 5-on-5 numbers were and how bad Boeser's were. However, it is important to remember the role of luck in goal scoring. Sometimes you run into a hot goalie and sometimes you run into a goalie who lets in some soft goals. And sample size is an issue, even for a full season. For those reasons a lot of people, including me, prefer to look at on-ice expected goals per 60 minutes as a measure of offence. These numbers look a lot closer to the "conventional wisdom", although there are still a few surprises. Here are the numbers for all forwards who played at least 150 minutes. And I am using all even strength situations, not just 5-on-5. The data is from Natural Stat Trick First Line Level: Pearson 3.18 Miller 3.06 Pettersson 3.03 Second Line Level Garland 2.9 Boeser 2.88 Horvat 2.82 Hoglander 2.77 Third Line Level Dickinson 2.41 Podkolzin 2.4 Fourth Line Level Chiasson 2.25 Petan 2.24 Motte 2.21 Highmore 2.09 Lammikko 2.01 Not even legitimate 4th line level: Dowling 1.55 There are some interesting implications. of these numbers. 1. Boeser was better than the scoring numbers suggest. The same is even more true of Dickinson (who has taken a lot of criticism). Due to regression to the mean we would expect both those guys to have "bounce back" seasons next year. If you were a GM trying to pick up players cheaply you would look for guys like Boeser and Dickinson. Also, Dickinson is good defensively and, next year, he could be the solid 3rd line center people were hoping he would be this year [or, maybe not -- see further discussion in later posts]. 2. Also, expect a big year from Petey next year. He was very good in the 2nd half this year and, if anything, regression to the mean suggests that he will be even better next year. 3. Pearson is surprisingly good. 4. There was a lot of positive buzz about Lammikko this year, as he was a pleasant surprise. However, overall, his offensive numbers are not very good. Of course, he was there for defence more than for offense and I have no problem with Lammikko and HIghmore as 2/3 of a cheap, fast, 4th line. Add in a cheap physical "sandpaper" guy on that line and it would be quite valuable relative to cap hit. . 5. Hoglander makes a lot happen offensively, But he does need to tighten up his defence. He plays with a bit an edge and has decent speed and we might expect a decent season from him next year as well. Podkolzin is better defensively and has a strong all-around game and a great work ethic. Expect him to be a solid top-6 forward next year. 6. In terms of age and cap issues I still think Miller is the likeliest forward to be traded, especially if the Canucks could get a high quality RD and good center prospect in return. It might not be the best time to trade Boeser or try to unload Dickinson. And I certainly wouldn't trade Garland. 7. I also expect Myers to be traded. He would have some value in the trade market and, in my view, is not a great fit for the Canucks as I think he is not a good partner for either Hughes or OEL. It would not be crazy to try to sign Stecher as a cheap RHD. And Rathbone could help the D as a third pairing guy would can move the puck and improve the number of clean exits. But the Canucks still need a legitimate top pairing RHD. I don't think Myers is that guy. Edited May 20, 2022 by JamesB 2 13 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.