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

Why can't this team score in the playoffs?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-05-2013, 03:23 PM
  #176
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,597
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the ES View Post
Remember how you said that the Islanders and the Leafs are horrible? Leafs earn the split in Boston - fared a little better than the Canucks did there in the SCF - and the Islanders have literally just seconds ago lost G3 against the Pens in OT and on the PK, making it 2 - 1 now for Pittsburgh. How are those results explained? If the Islanders are "just terrible", as you said a couple of days ago, shouldn't Pittsburgh be handling them with ease? Is it "luck"?

For you to simply brush off the intangibles like heart is quite funny. I guess Higgins not scoring in 17 consecutive playoff games, and Raymond not scoring in 16, is just a bout of bad luck, eh?
It doesn't make much sense to base your opinion on the result of one or two games when there is a wealth of data out there to suggest otherwise. And, yes, it is luck. Even the best team's in the league aren't going to win an appreciable majority of their games against inferior (but not awful) opponents. That's what makes sports fun, is it not?

Proto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 03:27 PM
  #177
John Swartzwelder
MOAR TUFFNESS!!!1
 
John Swartzwelder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,383
vCash: 500
3 1st period goals in the last 14 games... LoL

John Swartzwelder is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 03:30 PM
  #178
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,597
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
But shot quality obviously exists. There are certainly problems with quantifying it (arena bias or deciding which and how the recorded parameters should define the quality of the shot), but clearly some shots are more likely to result in goals than others. The shooting percentage for rebounds and breakaways is something around 30% whereas unscreened shots from the point are in the low single digits. Saying that poorer shot quality can't account for a lower shooting percentage, especially over a small sample, is silly IMO. Why wouldn't a team that fires shots from the perimeter have a lower shooting percentage compared to one that can get to the net more easily?

Over a large sample against 29 other opponents I can certainly see how this would even out over time, but in a few playoff series where you play the same team 5-7 times? Some of their struggles are definitely bad luck, but IMO a good portion of it is also a struggle to produce excellent scoring chances and an unfortunate habit of flubbing some of the chances they do produce.

That's not to say that their low shooting percentage has any predictive power or that it's even sustainable, but I'm hesitant to chalk up all of their struggles up simply to luck just because they're generating a decent number of shots.
I don't entirely disagree with you. I'm just saying that nobody has published any quantitative analysis that makes this a really useful approach, except anecdotally. Heck, it's not just bad luck in the sense of bounces: in their past 5 playoff series, the Canucks have played, Rinne, Niemi, Thomas, Quick, and Niemi. In every series but the first one against Niemi, you could argue that each goaltender has been one of the three best players at that position in a given season. That in itself could drive the Canucks shooting percentage down to 6.5-7%.

I think on an intuitive level I agree with you that there is a difference in a playoff series, and my gut tells me that the adaptability of a coach and roster to new tactics to exploit opponent weakness and adapt to an opponent's attempt to do the same might play a larger role in the post-season than in the regular season. Over a season, most teams will see ups and downs, and make tactical adjustments, and one team taking a game or two longer to do so likely won't make statistical difference over 82 games. But over 7 games, it just might. We can't really say.

Still, I thought the Canucks looked very good on Friday, with the exception of their permissive d-zone coverage. They could have easily won that game.


Last edited by Proto: 05-05-2013 at 03:40 PM.
Proto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 03:33 PM
  #179
Fat Tony
Registered User
 
Fat Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Swartzwelder View Post
3 1st period goals in the last 14 games... LoL
How are you going to have spectacular comebacks unless you dog it in the first?

Fat Tony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 03:42 PM
  #180
King of the ES*
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
It doesn't make much sense to base your opinion on the result of one or two games when there is a wealth of data out there to suggest otherwise. And, yes, it is luck. Even the best team's in the league aren't going to win an appreciable majority of their games against inferior (but not awful) opponents. That's what makes sports fun, is it not?
It does if the data is not that useful. Advanced stats folk tend to base every single prediction/insight/thought around the single concept of SOG, which is silly. Intangibles play a massive part in a game's outcome. Hockey is an emotional game that simply can't be explained by a math equation.

King of the ES* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 03:47 PM
  #181
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
But shot quality obviously exists. There are certainly problems with quantifying it (arena bias or deciding which and how the recorded parameters should define the quality of the shot), but clearly some shots are more likely to result in goals than others. The shooting percentage for rebounds and breakaways is something around 30% whereas unscreened shots from the point are in the low single digits. Saying that poorer shot quality can't account for a lower shooting percentage, especially over a small sample, is silly IMO. Why wouldn't a team that fires shots from the perimeter have a lower shooting percentage compared to one that can get to the net more easily?
I think you might have answered your own question. Shots from the scoring triangle to the side of the net tend to end up in the corner, shots from angles tend to end up in front. Of course, you have to be in front of the net and competing for rebounds to take advantage of that 30% shooting on rebounds.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 04:02 PM
  #182
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,597
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I think you might have answered your own question. Shots from the scoring triangle to the side of the net tend to end up in the corner, shots from angles tend to end up in front. Of course, you have to be in front of the net and competing for rebounds to take advantage of that 30% shooting on rebounds.
Yes. Also, when shots are being discussed, it's because there's a correlative relationship, not necessarily a causative one. The idea isn't that if you simply take more shots, you'll score more goals. It's that if your team takes more of the usual shots they take, they'll score more goals. That's an important distinction.

Scoring is still the end goal here. Any player or team that tried to "game" shot totals in that way would probably be out of a job, because his results would be terrible. It's part of why David Booth last less value than his simply possession numbers indicate (it looks like he's a shooting outlier).

Proto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 04:22 PM
  #183
David71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,252
vCash: 500
this team doesnt have alot of shoot first players

David71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 04:33 PM
  #184
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David71 View Post
this team doesnt have alot of shoot first players
Nor do we have a lot of playmakers. This team has to score by attacking with 5 players and getting to the net. We just don't get players or the puck to the net nearly enough.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 04:37 PM
  #185
serge2k
Registered User
 
serge2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Nor do we have a lot of playmakers. This team has to score by attacking with 5 players and getting to the net. We just don't get players or the puck to the net nearly enough.
Yup.

Thornton's goal last game is what they should be going for.

Marleau too actually.

serge2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 09:11 PM
  #186
Hal 9000*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,148
vCash: 500
The Boston series is a prime example of shot quantity over quality. The Canucks took a lot of shots but most came from the side boards or from way out. There was very little 2 on 1's, cross ice passes or crease crashing on Vancouver's part. Basically, Thomas could (and did) stop those all day long.

Hal 9000* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 09:18 PM
  #187
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,265
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal 9000 View Post
The Boston series is a prime example of shot quantity over quality. The Canucks took a lot of shots but most came from the side boards or from way out. There was very little 2 on 1's, cross ice passes or crease crashing on Vancouver's part. Basically, Thomas could (and did) stop those all day long.
That's because our forwards simply aren't that good. We overrate them because they can put up big points against weak non-playoff teams, but we are exposed once we hit the playoffs and play teams that are actually competent defensively.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 10:54 PM
  #188
John Swartzwelder
MOAR TUFFNESS!!!1
 
John Swartzwelder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,383
vCash: 500
6 straight away games without a goal in the 1st period... 67 straight shots without a goal... SAME ********

6 straight home losses wow just wow

John Swartzwelder is online now   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 01:33 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.