HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Scoring Chance Data through November 30

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-02-2011, 06:19 PM
  #26
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eklunds source View Post
No, it really wasn't.

Tim Thomas had a 0.969 save percentage at even strength. Had he recorded the same save percentage as his record breaking regular season (and I'm talking even strength only), te Canucks would have had 15 goals.

Clearly a 0.969 at evens isn't sustainable. The amount of point blank goals TT stopped was unreal and if you replay that series 100 times, I bet the Canucks win more than they don't..
Part of that is the shooters' abilities to finish though as well as the quality of their chances. Look at the Nashville series. Luongo had an ES sv% in the .940s and he didn't even play all that well. Take away a couple of the fluke goals and he's right up there with Thomas' % vs. the Canucks. But I think that's more an indictment of Nashville's ability to score than it is about Luongo's play.

Or the San Jose series where he had an ES sv% of .958. Again Luongo played great just as Thomas did vs. the Canucks, but I don't think I'd argue that San Jose deserved a better fate even though they would've had another goal per game in that series if Luongo's ES sv% was in line with his regular season one. The Canucks' team defense kept a lot of their chances to the outside and San Jose was largely too injured to fight their way to the scoring areas and that's what happened with the Canucks in the SCF.

opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2011, 06:40 PM
  #27
flack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Part of that is the shooters' abilities to finish though as well as the quality of their chances. Look at the Nashville series. Luongo had an ES sv% in the .940s and he didn't even play all that well. Take away a couple of the fluke goals and he's right up there with Thomas' % vs. the Canucks. But I think that's more an indictment of Nashville's ability to score than it is about Luongo's play.

Or the San Jose series where he had an ES sv% of .958. Again Luongo played great just as Thomas did vs. the Canucks, but I don't think I'd argue that San Jose deserved a better fate even though they would've had another goal per game in that series if Luongo's ES sv% was in line with his regular season one. The Canucks' team defense kept a lot of their chances to the outside and San Jose was largely too injured to fight their way to the scoring areas and that's what happened with the Canucks in the SCF.
where did you find those numbers?

flack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2011, 06:45 PM
  #28
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flack View Post
where did you find those numbers?
I calculated them myself from the game sheets.

opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2011, 07:14 PM
  #29
Momesso
Registered User
 
Momesso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,632
vCash: 500
This is good stuff. I'm not surprised at all by the Sedins stats.

I'm not sure exactly when this happened, but they've gone from being excellent ES players to pretty average and even downright bad when matched up against opposing top-tier talent.

They were terrible ES in the playoffs and IMO it's largely been dissappointing this year.

I wonder if they just get a free pass from AV just because they're the stars. And they take a lot of lazy penalties. IMO this needs to change big-time if we're going to have playoff success.

==========

Also nice to see that the Bieksa-Hamhuis pairing continuing to be strong.

Ballard has been unfortunate with his pairings but he's clearly #5. I'd really like to see Tanev back with him later in the season.

Alberts sucks and should be traded. His physicality doesn't justify his lack of general awareness. He makes Shane O'Brien look like Willie Mitchell.

Momesso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2011, 08:10 PM
  #30
Jay Cee
P4G
 
Jay Cee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,839
vCash: 500
Nice to see Kesler at the top of the metric despite anecdotal evidence provided so often to the contrary.

Jay Cee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2011, 08:13 PM
  #31
Potatoe1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 764
vCash: 500
I was a bit surprised by some of these numbers TBH.

1. Ryan Kesler and the second line look incredible based on these metrics. Kesler missed the first 6 games then came in slow, but he is still generated a ton and given up very little. Most fans just ripped him up until about 7 games ago but apparently the main issue was he just wasn't finishing. David Booth also looks better then expected.

2. Despite their terrible +/-, Ballard and Bieksa look quite good based on this metric. Ballard has been a saw off despite playing with our worst players. Bieksa has been on for a lot more chances for then against despite playing some of the toughest minutes on the team.

3. I cant believe how consistent these numbers are with the decisions made by the coaching staff. If you look at the current ice time distribution and team roles, they almost exactly match the distribution we see. People can rip AV all they want but this is an independent source that basically explains every debated coaching decision.


Last edited by mrmyheadhurts: 12-03-2011 at 03:15 AM. Reason: clearing flaming
Potatoe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2011, 10:26 PM
  #32
Outside99*
Sedins off Kas
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 500
5 on 5 scoring drop esp. Sedins can be explained by one name: Ehrhoff.

Edit: and after their incredible 2009-10 season 5 on 5, by teams taking countermeasures to prevent them from scoring so much 5 on 5.

Outside99* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 02:32 AM
  #33
Win One Before I Die
Registered User
 
Win One Before I Die's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,716
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Win One Before I Die
all stats aside, if the canucks cant score 5on5 we will lose to the Bruins again in the finals. yes i am placing money on bruins to come out of the east again. Unless Crosby turns on beast mode (looks like he might) the east is Bostons gem.

Anyone think it could be a rematch?

Win One Before I Die is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 04:16 AM
  #34
wahoyaho
Registered User
 
wahoyaho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,388
vCash: 500
nope, boston will be out by the second round

wahoyaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 04:47 AM
  #35
LiquidSnake
Agent of Chaos...
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wahoyaho View Post
nope, boston will be out by the second round
as will the Canucks. Maybe sooner.

LiquidSnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 04:49 AM
  #36
Kagee*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post
as will the Canucks. Maybe sooner.
Unless the 2nd, 3rd and 4th line comes alive, additionally Ballard gets traded for a proper right side RS dman and another big burly tough scoring forward comes back for him.

Kagee* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 05:54 AM
  #37
whuttheeperson
Registered User
 
whuttheeperson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 156
vCash: 500
I cant believe most of you are taking these statistics to be more meaningful then actually watching the game, dont be so easily persuaded

while these statistics could very well be accurate, your completely missing the fact that many of the sedins goals are tap-ins. This means that the sedins could generate relatively little 'chances' yet they could score a lot of goals. Personally I would rather watch the sedins and burrows scoring on every 2 chances over David Booth who throws shots on the net from everywhere that usually lead to nothing. Whos more valuable?

Show me 'time on attack' vs time defending' to get a more accurate read as to a players offensive and defensive value. Or watch the games...

whuttheeperson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 11:05 AM
  #38
Potatoe1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by whuttheeperson View Post
I cant believe most of you are taking these statistics to be more meaningful then actually watching the game, dont be so easily persuaded
The problem with "just watching the games" is that most people are very biased. We make up our mind about players a just look for evidence that re-enforces those beliefs.

Further to that we place far more emphasis on plays that lead to goals and not enough on plays that "almost" lead to goals.

For example we are a lot harsher on a defenseman who makes an error that leads to a goal then we are on a defenseman who makes several errors leading to quality chances that are not converted.

That is not to say watching the games isn't important (it is), but looking at statistics like these can often give a different (and perhaps more accurate) perspective.

Potatoe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 12:04 PM
  #39
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatoe1 View Post
The problem with "just watching the games" is that most people are very biased. We make up our mind about players a just look for evidence that re-enforces those beliefs.

Further to that we place far more emphasis on plays that lead to goals and not enough on plays that "almost" lead to goals.

For example we are a lot harsher on a defenseman who makes an error that leads to a goal then we are on a defenseman who makes several errors leading to quality chances that are not converted.

That is not to say watching the games isn't important (it is), but looking at statistics like these can often give a different (and perhaps more accurate) perspective.
Further, if "just watching the games" was all that was needed, teams wouldn't be spending time and money tracking these kinds of stats for their own use. They're not the be all end all, but they they provide another source of relevant information regarding players' performance. The fact that teams find them useful should be reason enough for others to at least consider their value.

opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 04:35 PM
  #40
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,785
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by whuttheeperson View Post
I cant believe most of you are taking these statistics to be more meaningful then actually watching the game, dont be so easily persuaded

while these statistics could very well be accurate, your completely missing the fact that many of the sedins goals are tap-ins. This means that the sedins could generate relatively little 'chances' yet they could score a lot of goals. Personally I would rather watch the sedins and burrows scoring on every 2 chances over David Booth who throws shots on the net from everywhere that usually lead to nothing. Whos more valuable?

Show me 'time on attack' vs time defending' to get a more accurate read as to a players offensive and defensive value. Or watch the games...
Isn't that what the Oakland Athletics scounts said to Billy Beane?

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 06:54 PM
  #41
Zarpan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,430
vCash: 500
I think the scoring chance data would become more useful if there we had past seasons to compare it to. While it is an improvement over Corsi / Fenwick, there is still a wide variability of the quality of chances within the scoring chance zone. It would also be interesting to see what each player's shooting percentage is based on goals divided by scoring chance. I'd wager that Burrows's percentage over the last few seasons would be significantly higher than Booth's, making one of his scoring chances more valuable.

From season to season there may not be a huge variance in the quality of each player's scoring chances, so we could then do a comparison vs. previous seasons to see if the quality of their play has changed.

I did some rough calculations on the Sedins and it looks like their adjusted (for offensive zone starts) ES Fenwick is about the same to slightly better than last year.
So it may be that they are actually playing similarly well 5 vs. 5 compared to last year (assuming that their ratio of scoring chances to shots is roughly the same). There is a large decrease in adjusted Fenwick vs. 2 years ago though.

Zarpan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 07:26 PM
  #42
whuttheeperson
Registered User
 
whuttheeperson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 156
vCash: 500
To the replies above:

I'm not saying that these statistics are meaningless, I am just surprised people are so quick to write players off given a statistic that doesn't tell the whole story, or even come close.

Would you all not agree that there may be varying degrees in quality of scoring chances? For example, the Sedin's play a very patient game and the majority of their chances are of AAA quality. Whereas Booth, who may shoot a lot within the 'home plate' area, has very little chance of converting most of these plays.

While this is certainly a stat that may be useful to look at, the degree in which people are condemning players or praising others is pretty naive IMO.

whuttheeperson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 07:50 PM
  #43
Jay Cee
P4G
 
Jay Cee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Isn't that what the Oakland Athletics scounts said to Billy Beane?
That's what I was about to say

Jay Cee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2011, 06:05 AM
  #44
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoshouse View Post
This team has historically been a team that has no finish. As we saw last night, the cycle was very effective, however, the finishing wasn't always there.

They've gotten better over the years and it may be with the additions of Booth and Hodgson our finishing will become even more prominent.
This team has historically been a team that has no finish based on the fact they don't score on every good chance. Reality is different but that is rarely valued as highly as the biased perception of fans who only remember the worst.

2011-12 we are 9th atm @ 9.559%. Not horrible considering the bad start. http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_ShotPercentage.php

Granted we were terrible in the playoffs 7.18% but before that

2010-11 we were 2nd best reg season team
shooting percentage Team
10.07 ANAHEIM
9.843 VANCOUVER
9.811 PHILADELPHIA
9.783 DALLAS
9.639 CALGARY
9.536 ST LOUIS
9.534 CHICAGO
9.465 MINNESOTA
9.319 NY ISLANDERS
9.315 DETROIT
9.246 COLORADO
9.245 TAMPA BAY
9.185 CAROLINA
9.130 NY RANGERS
9.108 PHOENIX
9.057 BOSTON
9.027 NASHVILLE
9.027 TORONTO
8.932 BUFFALO
8.854 LOS ANGELES
8.825 PITTSBURGH
8.726 EDMONTON
8.579 SAN JOSE
8.530 WASHINGTON
8.444 ATLANTA
8.366 COLUMBUS
8.201 MONTREAL
8.000 OTTAWA
7.664 FLORIDA
7.272 NEW JERSEY

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2011, 06:25 AM
  #45
Jrtu
Registered User
 
Jrtu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rye&ginger View Post
TL;DR:

AV and his assistant coaches know what is going on. They have the right players in the right situations it seems.

Ballard is playing better than last year, and is safely the 5th d-man at this point.

Sedin line can improve their defensive play.

Hodgson has been the best 'bottom 6' player.
Not trying to stir up a Ballard debate or anything,
but I guess we should be worried that we are paying a 5th d-man 4.2mil/yr...

Jrtu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2011, 10:21 AM
  #46
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by whuttheeperson View Post
Would you all not agree that there may be varying degrees in quality of scoring chances? For example, the Sedin's play a very patient game and the majority of their chances are of AAA quality. Whereas Booth, who may shoot a lot within the 'home plate' area, has very little chance of converting most of these plays.
You don't use this stat or any stat alone. You combine them with other stats. IN your Booth example, when you combine his scoring chance area stats with his typical 7-8% shooting percentage you know he's going to need all those chances to get his 20-25 goals. Whereas a Daniel Sedin has a career shooting percentage of 12% isn't going to need the same number of chances AND/OR the chances he gets are of higher quality.

tantalum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2011, 10:24 AM
  #47
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jrtu View Post
Not trying to stir up a Ballard debate or anything,
but I guess we should be worried that we are paying a 5th d-man 4.2mil/yr...
Not really as that has always been Gillis' plan to have that 5th D-man that can step up in times of (Salo) injury. Not sure that is what he has in Ballard but on the surface of the plan it's what was expected and manageable for the time being. Of course he'd love to have #5 guy making less.

tantalum is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:24 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.