Assuming a Lu for futures trade goes down eventually. What do fans envision could happen afterwards?
If MG had to make a push for a top6 RW, who is a likely target, and what is likely to be offered? First trade chip that comes to mind is Raymond.
I actually think ANA would make a good trading partner here. They have Palmieri trying to break in on the right side, and they also have Smith Pelly there. Maybe something could be worked out there? Wheeler in WPG also makes sense as he is a RFA at the end of the year...
Assuming a Lu for futures trade goes down eventually. What do fans envision could happen afterwards?
If MG had to make a push for a top6 RW, who is a likely target, and what is likely to be offered? First trade chip that comes to mind is Raymond.
I actually think ANA would make a good trading partner here. They have Palmieri trying to break in on the right side, and they also have Smith Pelly there. Maybe something could be worked out there? Wheeler in WPG also makes sense as he is a RFA at the end of the year...
I don't think teams like Anaheim are as eager to trade their stars for players like Raymond as some of our fans who are eager to just give Luongo away.
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
There are several possible factors that could have led to them being so dominant that year. Perhaps luck played a part in it, but it seems that they also scored off the rush a lot more than they do now - which made them much more effective and that much more dangerous - but it's hard to do so when you're already in the attacking zone to begin with.
And it's not just about points too. They've been taken off the PK, and now they're being absolved of most of their responsibilities at 5-on-5. I've said this before but I believe they've regressed defensively, which does not bode well for us if they're being shut down in a playoff series.
I agree with this completely. Haven't seen any stats that track points generated off the rush, although it would be relatively easy from watching the games.
I don't think teams like Anaheim are as eager to trade their stars for players like Raymond as some of our fans who are eager to just give Luongo away.
I don't think any fan is "eager to just give Luongo away" but they understand that with Luongo's contract that we aren't going to be getting full value or the superstars (Kane, Hossa ..etc) you keep on suggesting we should hold out for.
Here the part where you suggest we keep him &/or trade Schneider instead.... and round & round we go!
I don't think teams like Anaheim are as eager to trade their stars for players like Raymond as some of our fans who are eager to just give Luongo away.
Are those players you suggested acquiring? I read your post as implying Anaheim might want to give us someone like Perry so they can give more ice time to those players.
I also don't see them giving up their youth for what we would be trading.
Although in my eyes it sorta does pass the eyeball test. If Daniel Sedin is receiving double the amount of o-zone starts than Hansen but isnt greatly outproducing him offensively with it, then either one of three things are true:
1) Daniel isn't as good offensively as Hansen.
2) O-zone starts don't have much effect on player stats.
3) We are experiencing diminishing returns by starting Daniel in the o-zone an extreme amount of times, and the return on those additional o-zone starts isn't as high as the first 50-55%.
You have a ton of confounding factors. Stats analysis isn't as easy as drawing a straight line from one point to another.
Where are you getting your goals scored while on ice stat from? I don't know how exactly you calculated your result since I don't have that data, but I bet with the same formula you'll find that Malhotra and Lapierre become offensive studs as well.
Quote:
I can't imagine how sophisticated a statistical measurement would have to be to allow you to predict how a player would perform in a completely different role..
This. Especially when trying to base the measure on zone starts, a tactic which is only being used heavily by the Canucks and only in the last few years=not nearly enough statistical data to draw from.
All that said, I am not convinced that the high amount of offensive zone starts have really been helpful for the Sedins as players. I'd be interested in seeing what happens if zone starts balanced out more.
Where are you getting your goals scored while on ice stat from? I don't know how exactly you calculated your result since I don't have that data, but I bet with the same formula you'll find that Malhotra and Lapierre become offensive studs as well.
Corsi would lead us to believe Manny Malhotra is a more effective offensive player than Daniel and Henrik Sedin.
These stats are extremely raw and shouldn't be taken at face value.
You have a ton of confounding factors. Stats analysis isn't as easy as drawing a straight line from one point to another.
Where are you getting your goals scored while on ice stat from? I don't know how exactly you calculated your result since I don't have that data, but I bet with the same formula you'll find that Malhotra and Lapierre become offensive studs as well.
This. Especially when trying to base the measure on zone starts, a tactic which is only being used heavily by the Canucks and only in the last few years=not nearly enough statistical data to draw from.
All that said, I am not convinced that the high amount of offensive zone starts have really been helpful for the Sedins as players. I'd be interested in seeing what happens if zone starts balanced out more.
I took their goals while on ice from behind the net +/- figures.
You're right that it is overly simplistic. I'm hoping perhaps other stats buffs may be interested in collaborating to come up with an actual formula that we can use?
You are also correct about Malhotra and Lapierre. Running the numbers they do become offensive studs. Based on their extremely low offensive zone starts, their offensive production appears to be quite good. But as mentioned there are other factors such as QualCOMP that do need to be incorporated. Perhaps a better idea would be analyzing how many goals and primary assists they generate? Just brainstorming here...
But as mentioned there are other factors such as QualCOMP that do need to be incorporated.
Isn't Qualcomp based on +/- and nothing less? If so, that's an awful way to distinguish that number. They should base Qualcomp off player salaries - probably get a much better indicator of player strength...
Head to head matchups are going to play a much bigger role in production than zone starts or the trivial qualcomp stat. You're just not going to come up with numbers that mean much of anything from crunching this data...
Isn't Qualcomp based on +/- and nothing less? If so, that's an awful way to distinguish that number. They should base Qualcomp off player salaries - probably get a much better indicator of player strength...
Head to head matchups are going to play a much bigger role in production than zone starts or the trivial qualcomp stat. You're just not going to come up with numbers that mean much of anything from crunching this data...
Good thing Redden isn't in the NHL anymore then...
What I'd like to know is how the Sedins' underlying numbers compare across the last 3 seasons. 2009-10 was the last year that their O-zone starts was under 60%. Did bumping that number to 70+ drastically increase their Corsi/Fenwick numbers?
What I'd like to know is how the Sedins' underlying numbers compare across the last 3 seasons. 2009-10 was the last year that their O-zone starts was under 60%. Did bumping that number to 70+ drastically increase their Corsi/Fenwick numbers?
Ill look at doing more analysis today hopefully. Ill even attempt what I was working on to prior seasons to see what comes up.
Sweet jeebus......two Art Ross trophy winners are inferior offensively to a 3rd line winger? Reminds me of the time one certain poster (on *another team board here*) was using Corsi crapola to suggest Horcoff was better than Crosby.
Sweet jeebus......two Art Ross trophy winners are inferior offensively to a 3rd line winger? Reminds me of the time one certain poster (on *another team board here*) was using Corsi crapola to suggest Horcoff was better than Crosby.
Sounds crazy doesn't it?
Last season Daniel averaged 0.98G/60, and 0.75A1/60. Hansen averaged 0.83G/60, and 0.83A1/60. When you consider linemates and Daniel's significant offensive zone starts, who was more efficient?
The significant difference in Daniel's point totals and Hansen's were Daniel's A2's where he averaged 0.52/60 while Hansen averaged a mere 0.30/60. That to me suggests Hansen had inferior linemates, while Daniel's linemates were better at finishing plays.
It sounds crazy, but I think we have a real gem in Jannik Hansen and if given more of an opportunity he could be an elite scorer on our team, based on last years stats.
Last season Daniel averaged 0.98G/60, and 0.75A1/60. Hansen averaged 0.83G/60, and 0.83A1/60. When you consider linemates and Daniel's significant offensive zone starts, who was more efficient?
The significant difference in Daniel's point totals and Hansen's were Daniel's A2's where he averaged 0.52/60 while Hansen averaged a mere 0.30/60. That to me suggests Hansen had inferior linemates, while Daniel's linemates were better at finishing plays.
It sounds crazy, but I think we have a real gem in Jannik Hansen and if given more of an opportunity he could be an elite scorer on our team, based on last years stats.
The problem is that I would bet that your measure indicates that Jannik Hansen was playing with more efficient scorers than Daniel Sedin was, since they had not-abysmal numbers with much fewer offensive zone starts - so by your ludicrous measure Hansen already had better linemates and should have had higher point totals.
Hell the real star here should be Manny Malhotra whose GF/60 was "only" 2/3 what the depth scorers reached despite having at most 1/3 as many offensive zone starts.
By your projections if we built our scoring line around Manny and gave him 5x as many offensive zone starts as he got last year his productivity would be three times as high as any other Canuck!
Last edited by dave babych returns: 10-10-2012 at 12:43 PM.
Could Hansen be even better if he were given a chance?
Is the goal to get Hansen as many points as possible or win as many games as possible? Hansen might score more with more offensive zone opportunities, I don't see how we would be a better team relying on Hansen to score more and the twins to check more.
I don't think the zone start strategy is perfect. It has eroded the Sedins defensive game imo and is a little too easy to line match in the playoffs. I'd make adjustments based on that, not trying to get Hansen scoring more.
The chance I'd like to see Hansen get is to play with Kesler.
You've got a LW (Higgins) playing the right side and a guy who can play either wing (Burrows) on the left.
I'd probably try Higgins/Kesler/Burrows and Booth/Schroeder/Hansen, with the added benefit that you can swap Burrows and Kassian pretty easily.
I thought Higgins played pretty well on the right side with Kesler and Booth.
We haven't exactly solved that second line RW spot, and Y2K is right about Hansen, he deserves a look in an expanded role.
Booth/Hansen doesn't give Schroeder much to work with, both those guys are straight up and down the wing, chip and chase type players. Higgins gives him a little more to work with imo.
I just question how much these extreme offensive zone starts are padding the Sedins stats, and how much the lack of zone starts is holding back the offensive production of other forwards? Is this team built around 60 point forwards (with 55% offensive zone starts) that now become PPG players with 80% o-zone starts?
I thought Higgins played pretty well on the right side with Kesler and Booth.
We haven't exactly solved that second line RW spot, and Y2K is right about Hansen, he deserves a look in an expanded role.
Booth/Hansen doesn't give Schroeder much to work with, both those guys are straight up and down the wing, chip and chase type players. Higgins gives him a little more to work with imo.
Higgins was quite productive too. I'm wondering if something like this would work nicely?
I just question how much these extreme offensive zone starts are padding the Sedins stats, and how much the lack of zone starts is holding back the offensive production of other forwards?
Yeah, like Manny Malhotra. He vastly outperformed Jannik Hansen last year, if he'd had as many offensive zone starts as Jannik he'd have been on for double the offensive production.
Apparently.
Quote:
Is this team built around 60 point forwards (with 55% offensive zone starts) that now become PPG players with 80% o-zone starts?
Of course not because they outperformed that back when those were pretty much their offensive zone start figures for a given season.
All I have to say is that the 'analysis' in this thread is laughable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel
Isn't Qualcomp based on +/- and nothing less? If so, that's an awful way to distinguish that number. They should base Qualcomp off player salaries - probably get a much better indicator of player strength...
Head to head matchups are going to play a much bigger role in production than zone starts or the trivial qualcomp stat. You're just not going to come up with numbers that mean much of anything from crunching this data...
QualComp is based on +/-, Corsi QualComp on Corsi.
The best quality of competition measure is TOI Qualcomp, which measures the average TOI numbers of a player's competition. Good players get more ice time, which means that you're actually sussing out some measure of quality. Here is the Canucks's chart for last season:
The Sedins, by far, played the toughest minutes on the team.
