.649

[wai_lai416]

2 hours ago, UnkNuk said:

But it's not a matter of what anyone thinks about last year's team.  The results speak for themselves.  And the results were that the core of this team had a points percentage of .649.  So it seems to me we do have the players.  That is what I find so perplexing.

 

I agree that Demko hasn't played as well this year, so far, as in last year's run.

The result was we played a lot of non playoff teams. Our record vs the playoff bound teams is around .500 and closer to .800 against the bottom feeders 

[MeanSeanBean]

2 hours ago, DanielCloutier said:

I think the criticism of last year's defense is overblown too. We were middle of the pack in terms of goals against. People will say a lot of that has to do with Demko, but your goalie is part of your defense and he's still here too. It doesnt matter how you prevent goals against, just matters that you prevent goals against.

We were pretty lucky in terms of injuries last year. No extended periods without Hughes, OEL, or Myers. Myers was injured and now Hughes is. Dermott worked well for us last year and he hasn't player yet. Poolman looked like he might actually be a solution on our right side but he hasn't been able to stay healthy. And our depth is being eaten into even further with Stillman out.

 

It definitely wouldn't be as bad if we had one more top 4, though, I wont argue that.

Overblown? Our defense was masked by stellar goaltending. It does matter how you prevent goals because if your starter isn't playing lights out, you don't win. We also had to play Demko into the ground to attempt at holding together even a slight chance at the playoffs. That ended in Demko being overplayed and ending the season poorly and then injured. If we did make the playoffs, it would have been a first round knock out because or goalie was hurt.

 

Hughes did get hurt last year, and OEL was able to step up and play well. Infact, we didn't miss a step last year when Hughes was hurt. This year, OEL has not looked good, at all. Dermott is a bottom pairing D, every chance he had at top 4 minutes previously did not end well for him. Poolman didn't play a part in last year's run, since he was injured through the majority. He should have never been concidered a solution because management knew all summer there was a chance he may still be having migraine issues. They didn't squire enough depth, which lead to us having to overpay for a bottom pair D within the first couple weeks of the season.

 

This D core is not even near close enough. It lacks a top 4D, depth, and enough defensive stability. It's poorly constructed, and to top it off is at the top of the cost in the NHL. 

 

Edited October 26, 2022 by Shayster007

[UnkNuk]

1 hour ago, wai_lai416 said:

The result was we played a lot of non playoff teams. Our record vs the playoff bound teams is around .500 and closer to .800 against the bottom feeders 

But wouldn't that be true of most playof teams?   They'd play each other fairly equally and feed off the bottom feeders?

[UnkNuk]

Okay, so we've got 4 points from eight games.

 

Assuming a team will need about 94 points to get into the playoffs, the Canucks have to get 90 points from the remaining 74 games.  That is, they will have to have a point percentage of .608 for the rest of the season.

 

Given that they have demonstrated that they can play at a .649 clip for an extended period of time, this should be no problem.

 

Honestly, what was everyone so worried about?

[DownUndaCanuck]

I think we can play .600 hockey if we're all healthy. Problem is, with the hole we're in now, to make the average playoff point mark I think we need to play at around 0.65 hockey the rest of the way. That and our 2nd best player in Hughes is injured for a while, Boeser is out long-term, we have an AHL defence and Demko has shown no signs of his former self (which is my biggest concern). Unless by some miracle this win turns them around I don't see us playing at >0.600 hockey.

[UnkNuk]

47 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

I think we can play .600 hockey if we're all healthy. Problem is, with the hole we're in now, to make the average playoff point mark I think we need to play at around 0.65 hockey the rest of the way. That and our 2nd best player in Hughes is injured for a while, Boeser is out long-term, we have an AHL defence and Demko has shown no signs of his former self (which is my biggest concern). Unless by some miracle this win turns them around I don't see us playing at >0.600 hockey.

The average minimum playoff point mark over the last ten 82 game seasons in the Western Conference is 94 points.  To reach that mark the Canucks would have to play .608 hockey.  I think that's doable given that the Canucks played .649 hockey over 57 games last season.  The talent is there. 

 

The highest minimum number of points needed to get into the Western Conference playoffs over the last ten 82 game seasons was 97 points.  If that is what it takes to get into the playoffs this year then the Canucks would have to play .655 hockey.  That would be more problemmatical but not yet out of the question.

 

Now excuse me, I have to go and clean my rose-coloured glasses before tonight's game.

[RogersTowell]

On 10/25/2022 at 1:13 PM, Shayster007 said:

This team was flawed last season but hit fire. Last year wasn't the norm, it was adrenaline and luck. This is the results of a mismanage team over the past near decade. Our culture is rotten to the core. 

 

Welcome to present day Canucks.

You don't run on adrenaline and luck for 60 games.

[MeanSeanBean]

31 minutes ago, RogersTowell said:

You don't run on adrenaline and luck for 60 games.

Disagree. I think it's more likely a team puts up that winning record off luck and adrenaline then with a bottom 5 D in the league.

[UnkNuk]

On 10/29/2022 at 9:10 AM, Shayster007 said:

Disagree. I think it's more likely a team puts up that winning record off luck and adrenaline then with a bottom 5 D in the league.

But was their defense all that bad last season?

 

In terms of total goals against, the Canucks were tied for the third best record in the Western Conference.

 

[MeanSeanBean]

1 hour ago, UnkNuk said:

But was their defense all that bad last season?

 

In terms of total goals against, the Canucks were tied for the third best record in the Western Conference.

 

Was their defense bad, yes. No worse then this season. Did they play above the sum of their parts. Yes. Overall they had good stats, mostly propped up by lights out goaltending by Demko.

 

I really don't know what to tell you. If you look at this defense and think, "hey yeah, this is pretty good. I could see this D core winning a cup". That's great, good for you, you're entitled to your opinion. But quite frankly I, and the overwhelming majority of people who cover hockey professional, think that's a ridiculous opinion. This D core is bottom 10 in the league easily, and I have all the time in the world to listen to arguments about it being closer to bottom 5.

[UnkNuk]

17 hours ago, Shayster007 said:

Was their defense bad, yes. No worse then this season. Did they play above the sum of their parts. Yes. Overall they had good stats, mostly propped up by lights out goaltending by Demko.

 

I really don't know what to tell you. If you look at this defense and think, "hey yeah, this is pretty good. I could see this D core winning a cup". That's great, good for you, you're entitled to your opinion. But quite frankly I, and the overwhelming majority of people who cover hockey professional, think that's a ridiculous opinion. This D core is bottom 10 in the league easily, and I have all the time in the world to listen to arguments about it being closer to bottom 5.

A conclusion based on what?

 

You agree the defense had good stats.   Granted, you try to explain those stats away by giving all the credit to Demko.  Just as you explain away their .649 winning percentage under BB last season by giving credit to Demko.  Yes, Demko played well last season.  But there comes a time, I think, when you have to extend that credit to the rest of the team including the defense.

 

Is it possible that "The Canucks have a bad defense" is just one of those ideas that has crept into the Blogosphere and is simply being repeated by people without anything to back it up?

 

Could this D core win a Cup?  I have no idea.  But I think there's enough talent on this team to get into the playoffs.  Which is a good start.

[MeanSeanBean]

1 hour ago, UnkNuk said:

A conclusion based on what?

 

You agree the defense had good stats.   Granted, you try to explain those stats away by giving all the credit to Demko.  Just as you explain away their .649 winning percentage under BB last season by giving credit to Demko.  Yes, Demko played well last season.  But there comes a time, I think, when you have to extend that credit to the rest of the team including the defense.

 

Is it possible that "The Canucks have a bad defense" is just one of those ideas that has crept into the Blogosphere and is simply being repeated by people without anything to back it up?

 

Could this D core win a Cup?  I have no idea.  But I think there's enough talent on this team to get into the playoffs.  Which is a good start.

Canucks had the highest on ice save percentage 5on5 in the NHL during their streak while Demko himself was 2nd in the league in saves above average 5on5. They paired this with being one of the teams with the the most high danger chances against. These numbers are from the time Bruce took over to the end of the season. I don't need to try to credit that success on Demko, the stats and numbers do that for me.

 

You say no one's backing up the defense being bad. Where the heck do you get that notion from? The advanced stats directly back up what I'm saying.

 

The terrible defense was covered up by Demko last year. The base statistics,  advanced stats and eye test all tell us that. What argument have you made exactly that disputes all this so far?

Edited November 1, 2022 by Shayster007

[RogersTowell]

1 hour ago, Shayster007 said:

Canucks had the highest on save percentage 5on5 in the NHL paired with being one of the teams with the the most high danger chances against, when they went on their run last year. I don't need to try to credit that success on Demko, the stats and numbers do that for me.

 

You say no one's backing up the defense being bad. Where the heck do you get that notion from? The advanced stats directly back up what I'm saying.

 

The terrible defense was covered up by Demko last year. The base statistics,  advanced stats and eye test all tell us that. What argument have you made exactly that disputes all this so far?

I'm not entirely sure I agree with you but I have to commend you on a very well reasoned position.  It certainly deserves some further pondering.  The only thing I would add that was brought up in the coaching thread is that the systems being run on the team are either not being implemented fully by the players or are faulty to begin with.

[Goal:thecup]

On 10/25/2022 at 3:03 PM, jyu said:

Most playoff teams have one replacement level defenceman in the line up, usually a young player that they are trying to bring along. We have 3 replacement level defenders (Burroughs, Rathbone, Juulsen/Briesbois).

 

Even last year, our defence was Hughes, OEL, Myers, Schenn, Dermott/Hamonic, Burroughs/Hunt. Say what you will about Dermott and Hamonic, they are legit NHL defencemen. So we basically had one replacement level defender in Burroughs/Hunt in the lineup and OEL and Hughes played above expectations masking other problems.

 

The top 4RDs on this team are Schenn and Myers. I think Myers is a #4 at best. Schenn is a #6.

 

 

And?

[UnkNuk]

1 hour ago, Shayster007 said:

Canucks had the highest on ice save percentage 5on5 in the NHL during their streak while Demko himself was 2nd in the league in saves above average 5on5. They paired this with being one of the teams with the the most high danger chances against. These numbers are from the time Bruce took over to the end of the season. I don't need to try to credit that success on Demko, the stats and numbers do that for me.

 

You say no one's backing up the defense being bad. Where the heck do you get that notion from? The advanced stats directly back up what I'm saying.

 

The terrible defense was covered up by Demko last year. The base statistics,  advanced stats and eye test all tell us that. What argument have you made exactly that disputes all this so far?

Interesting.  Where can I find these stats?  Thanks.

 

The basic stat that I used was the one I mentioned:  the number of goals scored against the team last season.  Which was the third best in the Western Conference.  Yes, it's a very basic stat.  But it's one that strikes me as very important in a discussion about team defence.

 

[MeanSeanBean]

25 minutes ago, UnkNuk said:

Interesting.  Where can I find these stats?  Thanks.

 

The basic stat that I used was the one I mentioned:  the number of goals scored against the team last season.  Which was the third best in the Western Conference.  Yes, it's a very basic stat.  But it's one that strikes me as very important in a discussion about team defence.

 

I have (mooch) a subscription of evolves hockey from some guys I know in the industry. I reference them frequently around these parts. The goaltender stats are from clear sight analytics. 

 

The advanced stats of last year's essentially paint a picture of a team that gave up both a high frequency of low percentage shots, but also gave up a far above average amount of high danger scoring opportunities. The save percent above average, shows that Demko was 2nd in the entire NHL at essentially bailing his defense out of those high danger chances.

 

They ranked high in basic stats like GAA, and GSA. But advanced stats indicate that was primarily on the goaltending.

 

That all being said! I think our defense played well last season, all things considered. Talent wise, even last season, they stacked up on the low end of the league, but didn't play that way. I felt they played pretty middle of the pack. Which is why I said I felt they were better then the sum of their parts.

 

I don't rip on the defense because it's fun or because I want them to be bad. I wish desperately that Benning had done anything outside of drafting Hughes to help this D-core long term. I also wish JR and Alvin were able to do anything besides add various depth parts. But the fact of the matter is this is one of the most expensive D-cores in the league, that isn't very good statically, doesn't really have a good mix of players (ie we literally don't have a defensive defensemen on the entire roster) with practically no defensive prospects in the system that look like they stand a good chance of playing NHL minutes.

 

I truely believe defense wins championships, that's why I'm hard on this D at times. Out side of Hughes I don't think any of these players are properly suited on an cup winning core.

Edited November 1, 2022 by Shayster007

[jyu]

3 hours ago, Goal:thecup said:

And?

???

 

We aren't going to win very many games against top half of the league if we ice 3 AHL level defenceman for any prolonged period and if Hughes is out/playing injured.

 

[Goal:thecup]

21 minutes ago, jyu said:

???

 

We aren't going to win very many games against top half of the league if we ice 3 AHL level defenceman for any prolonged period and if Hughes is out/playing injured.

 

I see.  How 'bout that?

[jyu]

47 minutes ago, Goal:thecup said:

I see.  How 'bout that?

Just answering the OP's question.

 

Anything you want to contribute?

[Toyotasfan]

I’m going to guess that after 20 games they are playing.500 hockey.