(discussion) With stats/facts to back it up, explain where you think our d group ranks.

[King Loui]

1 minute ago, gurn said:

They literally used him as a forward due to a complete lack of forwards- due to injury and promotions to the bigs.

You see a negative slight on his defense, the team saw a guy willing to play whatever position the coachs ask in order to help his team.

 

This is a positive, indicating a great team mate and coachable player.

The guy is not tracking well, he's a dime a dozen prospect as of right now so to say that Benning drafted "several NHL defenceman" and then using Woo as an example is just stupid.  I'm not crapping on Woo I'm crapping on the comment on here.  

[hammertime]

1 minute ago, gurn said:

They literally used him as a forward due to a complete lack of forwards- due to injury and promotions to the bigs.

You see a negative slight on his defense, the team saw a guy willing to play whatever position the coachs ask in order to help his team.

 

This is a positive, indicating a great team mate and coachable player.

I really want Woo to work out too. Was super high on him in his draft year considered him a 20-25 pick.  

[Gurn]

5 minutes ago, hammertime said:

Mmmm Hmmm. Think he would have been moved to the wing if he was a better option on D than the other guys? 

He is a better skater than the other d men- other than Rathbone.

He was asked to play forward because he was the best option on forward- not because he was the worst D man.

[JM_]

39 minutes ago, mordekai said:

You should find the same rankings with Green as coach vs Boudreau as the coach. My guess is those numbers are even better.

I found some of that here: https://canucksarmy.com/2022/03/12/what-each-canucks-statline-look-played-whole-season-bruce-boudreau/

 

Its mostly offensive focused information, but the change in the d group scoring under Bruce is pretty dramatic.

 

Still looking for defensive metrics. 

[Gurn]

5 minutes ago, King Loui said:

The guy is not tracking well, he's a dime a dozen prospect as of right now so to say that Benning drafted "several NHL defenceman" and then using Woo as an example is just stupid.  I'm not crapping on Woo I'm crapping on the comment on here.  

Everyone gets an opinion-but not their own facts,

How many games does Rathbone have in the NHL and why do you ignore them?

[BlastPast]

10 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

For some “at a glance” ratings on our defencemen, based purely on stats, here are the player cards for Canucks players, from The Athletic:

 

https://theathletic.com/3062792/2022/04/18/nhl-player-cards-vancouver-canucks/

 

It’s probably behind a paywall, so I’ll try to quickly summarize:

 

Quinn Hughes: top pairing D, elite assists and points, value equal to contract 

 

OEL: fringe top pairing/high end middle pairing D, high middle pair stats pretty much across the board, top pair defensive stats, annual value ~$3M less than contract (aka overpaid by $3M/yr)

 

Myers: middle pairing D, middle to bottom pair team effects, higher end bottom pairing production, annual value ~$4M less than contract 

 

Poolman: bottom pairing to fridge middle pairing D, top pairing defensive effects, fringe NHL level to bottom pairing on everything else, annual value ~$1M less than contract

 

Dermott: middle pairing D, elite defensive impact (statistically anyway), high end middle pairing offensive impact, bottom pairing production, annual value ~$1M more than contract 

 

Schenn: high end middle pairing D, top pairing defensive impact, middle pairing effects pretty much everywhere else, annual value ~2.5M more than contract

 

All together, it’s not that bad. Probably puts us somewhere near the middle of the pack, as far as our overall defence (at least statistically). Main issue is being ~$5M overpaid as a group. Some better decisions on player acquisitions and contracts would have allowed us to swap in another top pairing level D, in place of a bottom pairing guy, which would make the overall group far more impressive.

That is if you were to take these valuations as gospel. Gudbranson @ 4.0 x 4; M. Benning @ 1.25 x 4; Shultz @ 3.0 x 2; Manson @ 4.5 x 4, etc.  Does this look like a market where Myers would only get 2.1 on a two-year deal? Different teams with different needs will be willing to pay different amounts for different players. For instance, if a team has no right-shot defensemen they may be willing to pay more for one legitimate NHL quality player of that type than a team that has, say, 2 or more of them. Why? Because they will derive more benefit from that player than the team who has more of that resource already available to them. 

 

A $100 bill will mean more to a person with no money compared to someone who has lots of money. The value of the bill doesn't change, but it makes a more significant financial upgrade to the less wealthy person if they receive it. This idea that a player is worth a static amount -- as if he has an MSRP and a barcode stamped on him -- is stupid. Also, I think there are times when it may be preferable to pay what could be considered "mini bar prices" to avoid the worst scenario --- not having players. Frankly, if I was dying of thirst, I would prefer to pay a premium for water than to die of dehydration. And you cannot always assume that a better deal is around the corner.

[Alflives]

11 minutes ago, gurn said:

He is a better skater than the other d men- other than Rathbone.

He was asked to play forward because he was the best option on forward- not because he was the worst D man.

The coach, when quoted, said Woo was moved to wing “to give him some more [ice time], and [to get him] involved.”

So if Woo was a better defenseman he wouldn’t need to get ice time playing wing.  He would get lots playing on D.  So it’s quite clear Woo just isn’t there yet as a D man.  Fourth line grinder might be where the Canucks think Woo has the best chance to contribute in the NHL.  

Edited July 17, 2022 by Alflives

[Viper007]

14 minutes ago, Baggins said:

+/- like any stat, isn't a be all, end all. But it does tell you something. For example Boeser was -5 last year yet everybody else consistently in top 9 was a plus except Hoglander (-6).  That has to tell you something. Lammiko was -6 and Dickinson -1. Only 4 forwards with 30+ games ended a minus player. They were 9th and 10th in ES points per 60 minutes among forwards with 30+ games. There was a lot of line juggling throughout the season. So I'd say it's an indicator those two were the weakest links on their lines at even strength among the top 9.

How many EN goals was Boeser on the ice for.  I'm sure he would be a + player if they don't count EN goals as a -.

[Gurn]

4 minutes ago, Alflives said:

The coach, when quoted, said Woo was moved to wing “to give him some more [ice time], and [to get him] involved.”

So if Woo was a better defenseman he wouldn’t need to get ice time playing wing.  He would get lots playing on D.  So it’s quite clear Woo just isn’t there yet as a D man.  That might be where the Canucks think Woo has the best chance to contribute in the NHL.  

He was moved temporarily because they needed a forward.

Getting more ice time, does not indicate he was getting less, due to being deficient on D.

[Viper007]

48 minutes ago, hammertime said:

When you're a defenseman rocking a 60.3% ozone start % and you're -5 in 9 games with an expected goals against 50% higher than expected goals for while youre on the ice and a corsi of -10.1 you're bleeding scoring chances against at an alarming rate.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/r/rathbja01.html

These stats are defensive metrics that can be used.  +/- Is not still.  You shoulda posted these stats instead of the +/-.

[Baggins]

Just now, Viper007 said:

How many EN goals was Boeser on the ice for.  I'm sure he would be a + player if they don't count EN goals as a -.

Strawman. Others would still be on the ice with him. Why are they plus palyers and he's not? 

[Viper007]

Just now, Baggins said:

Strawman. Others would still be on the ice with him. Why are they plus palyers and he's not? 

We can all agree that Boeser didn't have the greatest season last year.  But using +/- as a defensive metric is not good.  Especially for a forward.  Defenseman it's a bit more of an indicator, but still a flawed stat.  It would be better to show all the PP goals that was scored too while he was on the ice to make this stat better.  From what I see, Boeser was on the ice for more goals for total than against.

[King Loui]

16 minutes ago, gurn said:

Everyone gets an opinion-but not their own facts,

How many games does Rathbone have in the NHL and why do you ignore them?

So Woo is likely to be an NHL defenceman? Because that's the argument at hand here

[Viper007]

Just now, King Loui said:

So Woo is likely to be an NHL defenceman? Because that's the argument at hand here

I don't think he will, he's not trending towards being one.  He didn't even play defense during the playoff games.

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, gurn said:

He was moved temporarily because they needed a forward.

Getting more ice time, does not indicate he was getting less, due to being deficient on D.

If Woo was playing defence well then he’d get his minutes in that role.  Clearly the coach wanted Woo to get some minutes, so he moved him up to fourth line grinder.  Clearly Woo isn’t good enough.  He skates well, and is strong, but he might be one of the many guys who just doesn’t process the gam3 fast enough.  

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, King Loui said:

So Woo is likely to be an NHL defenceman? Because that's the argument at hand here

IMHAO our new (and smarter) management see Woo as an NHL fourth line grinder and not as a D.  

[Master Mind]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

This was a major problem before Benning arrived. The previous bozo before Benning couldn't draft a single defenseman or goaltender. Benning, while flawed, had successfully drafted several good picks for defenseman, which includes Hughes and Rathbone, with Woo probably going to make the team at some point. When good players make the team, which we have several of them in the roster, it is a bad observation to say it is a "completely empty" pipeline. Lmfao.

This is simply false. It's also odd how you manage to bring Gillis into this when unwarranted. Our pipeline is very thin, that is a legitimate observation.

 

Teams like Carolina are able to have players make the team, while still maintaining a deep prospect pool. If a contending team can do this, we should be striving to do the same if not better.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

42 minutes ago, hammertime said:

When you're a defenseman rocking a 60.3% ozone start % and you're -5 in 9 games with an expected goals against 50% higher than expected goals for while youre on the ice and a corsi of -10.1 you're bleeding scoring chances against at an alarming rate.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/r/rathbja01.html

All very true, but in Rathbone’s defence (no pun intended), the entire team sucked when he was up, so even as shockingly bad as some of his stats look, he wasn’t close to the worst performing defenceman on the team during that part of the season.

 

I definitely agree that he should have been sent down and that the AHL was the best thing for his development.

 

But I can remember at the time that his stats, compared to the other Ds, weren’t even that bad (relatively speaking).

 

You can tease some of this out by looking at relative rates for last season:

 

http://www.naturalstattrick.com/playerteams.php?fromseason=20212022&thruseason=20212022&stype=2&sit=5v5&score=all&stdoi=oi&rate=r&team=VAN&pos=D&loc=B&toi=0&gpfilt=none&fd=&td=&tgp=410&lines=single&draftteam=ALL

 

You will still see Rathbone on the lower end of many purely defensive metrics, like scoring chances against and expected goals against (relative rates), but he’s not at the bottom, and still ahead of guys like Hamonic and Hunt.

And when you add in his offensive impacts, you suddenly see him vault to the top of the entire D, in metrics like xGF%Rel (2nd on D), SCF%Rel (1st on D), HDCF%Rel (1st on D), etc.

 

The team was a complete ****show while Rathbone was up, and he has the numbers to show for it. But compared to his teammates, and given the overall situation during those dark days, his NHL underlying stats for 2021-22 aren’t really all that concerning to me (and many provide reasons for some optimism).

[hammertime]

16 minutes ago, Viper007 said:

These stats are defensive metrics that can be used.  +/- Is not still.  You shoulda posted these stats instead of the +/-.

I think +/- is a fine basis agreed flawed stat but when you're on the ice for 5 more goals against than goals for in 9 games as a D flawed or not there is cause for concern. Didn't realize I needed to do literally all the leg work for you. Is your search engine broken?

[Viper007]

1 minute ago, hammertime said:

I think +/- is a fine basis agreed flawed stat but when you're on the ice for 5 more goals against than goals for in 9 games as a D flawed or not there is cause for concern. Didn't realize I needed to do literally all the leg work for you. Is your search engine broken?

Nope, not broken, but the thread wanted real stats.  Using a stat that even you agree is flawed should not really be posted.  Especially when the Canucks weren't doing very well at the beginning of the season.  They really didn't provide alot of offense in the beginning of the season so of course the stats would be skewed for Rathbone.  Would have been nice to see some stats under Boudreau to compare, but a new season bring renewed hope.