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

The Armchair GM Thread - Part XXX - Naughty Edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-08-2012, 02:00 AM
  #251
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Drury wasn't really a better skater, hence where part of the comparisons come from. Drury may also have been a better defensive player but he was also a 12 year NHL vet, he didn't start out as a polished defensive player. Hodgson, like Drury will get better the more he works at it, and there has been no sign he's unwilling to work on becoming a better player in his own end.


I believe Drury was the better skater. He had better acceleration. Hodgson's top speed is right in line with Drury's though.



Hodgson has a ways to go to become Drury, but he does have the offense right now. Plus, he'll get ample opportunity in BUF's top6. So nowhere to go but up. This will be a running comparison for quite some time...

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 03:12 AM
  #252
ahmon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Lolno. In terms of value right now, Hodgson >> Kassian. That may change in time, but at face value we should have asked for more.(Imagine having asked for a 1st...Grigorenko on the Canucks.)
Agreed, Coho worthed more than Kassian, and still worths more.

At this point though, both are still so young that its hard to say who will turn out better.

Cody is probably more safe to reach his ceiling, and has proven more, but Kassian offers an upside that includes a power element/physical presence.



With that said, what I don't like is how people trash cody (like some of these comments, just in this thread):


I thought Hodgson was terrible in his own end and didn't improve over all the years he was here.


How did he not improve? He took the massive jump from the ahl to the nhl, and produce 40 pts.

over all the years he been here, and yet hes only 22 (1 year older than kassian)


And somehow hes the worst defensive player in the history of the nhl, when he was rookie that was a + player for us.

If hodgson was sheltered, what does that makes the sedins?

ahmon is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 02:05 PM
  #253
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 21,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmon View Post
If hodgson was sheltered, what does that makes the sedins?
Difference is, instead of putting up 40 points, the Sedins are a PPG+ players against the other teams top defensive units (forward & defense).

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 02:12 PM
  #254
Henrik To Daniel
Registered User
 
Henrik To Daniel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 1,943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Difference is, instead of putting up 40 points, the Sedins are a PPG+ players against the other teams top defensive units (forward & defense).
the sedins have also played in the NHL for a decade

Henrik To Daniel is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 02:25 PM
  #255
Vankiller Whale
Spread the love
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,677
vCash: 1212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Difference is, instead of putting up 40 points, the Sedins are a PPG+ players against the other teams top defensive units (forward & defense).
Not in their rookie seasons they weren't

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 02:35 PM
  #256
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,274
vCash: 500
Do you remember how many people wanted to trade the Sedins for a bag of pucks their first 2 or 3 years. It wasn't until Carter was on their line that people really started liking them. That was 2005, after the lockout in 04.

For the most part Swedes and dmen really take some time to develop.

billvanseattle is online now  
Old
10-08-2012, 02:46 PM
  #257
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,905
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by billvanseattle View Post
Do you remember how many people wanted to trade the Sedins for a bag of pucks their first 2 or 3 years. It wasn't until Carter was on their line that people really started liking them. That was 2005, after the lockout in 04.

For the most part Swedes and dmen really take some time to develop.
Makes you think that acquiring Paajarvi from Edmonton could be a wise move if possible.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 02:55 PM
  #258
ThereGoesVirtanen
#53...the future
 
ThereGoesVirtanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,195
vCash: 500
That would be a good trade.

ThereGoesVirtanen is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 04:22 PM
  #259
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 21,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Not in their rookie seasons they weren't
We neither had a Selke winner & Art Ross winner in front of Hank either at the time.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 04:27 PM
  #260
AndyPipkin
PSN: Lord_Of_War
 
AndyPipkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,795
vCash: 500
Hodgsons and the Sedin's production is similar at the same age, but you gotta figure the Sedin's had a hell of a lot more to go through then Coho in game.

AndyPipkin is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 03:11 PM
  #261
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Lolno. In terms of value right now, Hodgson >> Kassian. That may change in time, but at face value we should have asked for more.(Imagine having asked for a 1st...Grigorenko on the Canucks.)
Go count how many 6' < offensive centre's there are in the league and then count how many > 6'2" wingers there are playing in the top 6. The list of guys in the league that can score 20 goals and fight heavy weights is about 5 players long, that represents significantly more value than a smallish, slowish offensive centre. And I like Hodgson.

The Sedins and Hodgson are not close to the same players. Big and slow is a lot better than small and slow.

Scurr is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 03:27 PM
  #262
Vankiller Whale
Spread the love
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,677
vCash: 1212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Go count how many 6' < offensive centre's there are in the league and then count how many > 6'2" wingers there are playing in the top 6. The list of guys in the league that can score 20 goals and fight heavy weights is about 5 players long, that represents significantly more value than a smallish, slowish offensive centre. And I like Hodgson.

The Sedins and Hodgson are not close to the same players. Big and slow is a lot better than small and slow.
Except Kassian isn't playing in the top-6 or scoring 20 goals. Yet.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 03:44 PM
  #263
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,905
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
So I am doing some analysis on production relative to zone starts. Looking at the stats it doesn't appear that the Sedins have been all that efficient. Granted, I don't think my model is 100% accurate as its missing a big component (adding a qual comp metric). But in doing some analysis, a player like Jannik Hansen has been on the ice for 46 goals for per 82 games while receiving 40% o-zone starts, while Daniel Sedin was on the ice for 59 goals for while receiving double Hansen's o-zone starts.

To me that suggests Hansen is a more efficient offensive player. Now, factoring in Daniel having 42 GA/82 games versus Hansen's 34, that suggests that overall Hansen has been more efficient.

All these numbers are 5 on 5 by the way.

When I scale back the o-zone starts to 50%, I get 37 goals (on ice) for Daniel, and 57 for Hansen. While Daniel would be on the ice for 103 goals against, and only 29 for Hansen.

Again, this isn't discounting the stats for QualCOMP which I'm sure would change the numbers a bit, but I don't think the end result will be all that different. This plays into my theory of diminishing returns by starting the Sedins in the o-zone so often while not giving much opportunity to secondary scorers.

Thoughts?

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 03:47 PM
  #264
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Except Kassian isn't playing in the top-6 or scoring 20 goals. Yet.
When you're trading 20 year olds, your trading potential. IMO, Kassian offers greater potential, because of the scarcity of that kind of power forward. Who "won" the trade is anyone's guess but your assessment that we should have got more for Hodgson is off imo because of what Kassian's potential means to this team.

Scurr is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 03:55 PM
  #265
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Thoughts?
How would Hansen do offensively against the other teams best 5 defensive players?

The zone start strategy isn't all about starting the Sedin's in the offensive zone, it's also about starting the other teams best defensive pair in the defensive zone. That has meant offensive defensemen like Weber, Suter, Keith and Seabrook getting less opportunities offensively.

Also, if you want to see how the twins would do with a 50/50 split you don't have to go back far. They were productive players long before the zone start strategy took effect.

Hansen is great in his role, just like Kes is great in his role. If you take the twins out of the lineup and move those guys up, they're a lot less effective. The twins are the most important players on this team, your failure to recognize that is astounding.

Scurr is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 03:59 PM
  #266
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 11,179
vCash: 500
An interesting question... but wasn't their zone start percentage something like 54% in 2009-10? What happened there? Was it just purely "luck", even when they dominated the NHL in ES pts/game?

vanuck is online now  
Old
10-09-2012, 04:00 PM
  #267
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 21,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Kassian's potential means to this team.
nah, this team doesn't need physical wingers with size & enough talent to potentially be a 2nd liner+ (that aren't 4th liner knuckledraggers who'd be lucky to see more than 10 minutes of icetime).

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 04:01 PM
  #268
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,905
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
How would Hansen do offensively against the other teams best 5 defensive players?

The zone start strategy isn't all about starting the Sedin's in the offensive zone, it's also about starting the other teams best defensive pair in the defensive zone. That has meant offensive defensemen like Weber, Suter, Keith and Seabrook getting less opportunities offensively.

Also, if you want to see how the twins would do with a 50/50 split you don't have to go back far. They were productive players long before the zone start strategy took effect.

Hansen is great in his role, just like Kes is great in his role. If you take the twins out of the lineup and move those guys up, they're a lot less effective. The twins are the most important players on this team, your failure to recognize that is astounding.
I agree that the offensive numbers need to be multiplied by a factor measuring the quality of defense each player is facing, and the defensive numbers need to be multiplied by a factor measuring the quality of offensive players they are playing. Is anyone aware of where this sort of data exists? Or how we could go about building that?

Looking how a player performed 3/4 years ago doesn't necessarily indicate where they are at now.

Sure there are players who look good in their roles now, but could they be better? Kesler was great in his role as a 3rd line center, as was Burrows on the 3rd line. Then they got an opportunity to be bumped up and they produced even better. Could Hansen be even better if he were given a chance?

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 04:04 PM
  #269
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 21,204
vCash: 500
Our bottem six is already kind of meh to medicore. I don't think moving one of our more/most effective player there up higher is just going to maybe fix one hole by - for sure - creating another hole elsewhere is the right move to make.


Last edited by Barney Gumble: 10-09-2012 at 04:13 PM.
Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 04:06 PM
  #270
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,905
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
An interesting question... but wasn't their zone start percentage something like 54% in 2009-10? What happened there? Was it just purely "luck", even when they dominated the NHL in ES pts/game?
I believe it was closer to 60%. I haven't done any analysis on that season but it would be interesting. It could have been that they were that good, and have regressed? Perhaps an off year?

What I've done so far definitely has a lot of limitations. To determine if 09-10 was luck, or if they have regressed would require some trend analysis. Maybe last season was bad luck? Ill need to spend more time, but would love it if I could perfect the equation with proper QualCOMP analysis included.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 05:02 PM
  #271
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
So I am doing some analysis on production relative to zone starts. Looking at the stats it doesn't appear that the Sedins have been all that efficient. Granted, I don't think my model is 100% accurate as its missing a big component (adding a qual comp metric). But in doing some analysis, a player like Jannik Hansen has been on the ice for 46 goals for per 82 games while receiving 40% o-zone starts, while Daniel Sedin was on the ice for 59 goals for while receiving double Hansen's o-zone starts.

To me that suggests Hansen is a more efficient offensive player. Now, factoring in Daniel having 42 GA/82 games versus Hansen's 34, that suggests that overall Hansen has been more efficient.

All these numbers are 5 on 5 by the way.

When I scale back the o-zone starts to 50%, I get 37 goals (on ice) for Daniel, and 57 for Hansen. While Daniel would be on the ice for 103 goals against, and only 29 for Hansen.

Again, this isn't discounting the stats for QualCOMP which I'm sure would change the numbers a bit, but I don't think the end result will be all that different. This plays into my theory of diminishing returns by starting the Sedins in the o-zone so often while not giving much opportunity to secondary scorers.

Thoughts?
I think it looks a lot like you're starting from a conclusion (the Sedins don't deserve their offensive starts) and working your way back towards a metric that helps you justify that.

I think that if you devise a measurement in which Jannik Hansen is a 50% more effective offensive player than Daniel Sedin, it should be a pretty good indicator that you're doing it wrong.

I also think you've tried this exact same argument before.

dave babych returns is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 05:08 PM
  #272
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,905
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
I think it looks a lot like you're starting from a conclusion (the Sedins don't deserve their offensive starts) and working your way back towards a metric that helps you justify that.

I think that if you devise a measurement in which Jannik Hansen is a 50% more effective offensive player than Daniel Sedin, it should be a pretty good indicator that you're doing it wrong.

I also think you've tried this exact same argument before.
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%.

EDIT: and if there are great flaws in my analysis I would definitely be interested in knowing them. I would rather alter the analysis and actually get it right, than to simply prove my preconceived feelings of certain players. So far this is what I have, but that's not to say its perfect.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 05:45 PM
  #273
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Although in my eyes it sorta does pass the eyeball test.
Of course it does.

Quote:
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%.

EDIT: and if there are great flaws in my analysis I would definitely be interested in knowing them. I would rather alter the analysis and actually get it right, than to simply prove my preconceived feelings of certain players. So far this is what I have, but that's not to say its perfect.
It could mean any number of other things as well, but basically what it probably means is that you can't make a direct comparison between the percentage of offensive zone starts a player gets and their resulting output.

I'm not a statistician so I can't tell you how to make your metric work but I can tell you that it isn't working now.

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..

dave babych returns is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 06:14 PM
  #274
Lundface
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,730
vCash: 500
I love Hansen and feel he could be an okay 2nd line option if given the chance, but to suggest he is more effective than either Sedin offensively is lunacy.

These numbers and analysis of this kind are needed for people who don't truly understand the game. Curious whats the highest level you have ever played the sport?

Have you even been on a team where you're counted on to score goals? Have you ever been relied on to stop them in crucial times? If you've done either you know exactly what you're up against. Hansen is a fantastic defensive player, and is a hound on the puck. He also just so happens to be a very good player on the rush.

By playing him in the offensive zone against the other teams best checkers MAY lead to more points but guess what you've just done? Limited his chances to work off the rush. The other team isn't going to send Ehrhoff out against him to try to score points, its now a Mitchell type player. Who will play a more risky offensive game?

For the record I would scale the Sedins o-zone numbers back as well but for different reasons. They have proven they can produce without such numbers and perhaps it may squeeze extra offence out of the rest of the lineup. But more importantly it gets them away from the checking line players. They may have to be up against the same pairs, but there is a huge difference starting at the other end.

If starting against a defensive group in their own end, they are set. Its in a small piece of ice, with very little room to operate. They practice these situations ALL the time. I'd rather see the Sedins start in their own end more because it will break up this monotony.

Lundface is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 07:28 PM
  #275
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 11,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I believe it was closer to 60%. I haven't done any analysis on that season but it would be interesting. It could have been that they were that good, and have regressed? Perhaps an off year?

What I've done so far definitely has a lot of limitations. To determine if 09-10 was luck, or if they have regressed would require some trend analysis. Maybe last season was bad luck? Ill need to spend more time, but would love it if I could perfect the equation with proper QualCOMP analysis included.
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.

vanuck is online now  
Closed Thread

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 07:58 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.