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

All Sedin Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-26-2013, 02:42 PM
  #851
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by live playoff hockey View Post
Seguin isn't a third liner, he was Boston's leading scorer in 2011/2012, and was third in scoring on Boston this year. The majority of the time he was playing with Bergeron and Marchand.

The fact is that Toews just hasn't been a productive player in the playoffs recently. Getting lots of shots is really nice, but not if you aren't actually scoring.
Seguin is actually playing on the 3rd line in these playoffs, the comp between him and Kreji was ridiculous given the Henrik and Toews comp.

Toews actually provides physical play even if he isn't scoring and plays SH, something hank doesn't do, with Hank it's production and that's about it.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
05-26-2013, 02:51 PM
  #852
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
You're conflating factors that aren't even the slightest bit related to each other (zone starts and PP production). Here is their ES points per game since they became 1st line players:


H. Sedin:

06-07: 0.56
07-08: 0.56
08-09: 0.68
09-10: 1.01
10-11: 0.72
11-12: 0.66
12-13: 0.65



D. Sedin:

06-07: 0.62
07-08: 0.51
08-09: 0.68
09-10: 1.02
10-11: 0.76
11-12: 0.58
12-13: 0.60



09-10 was a clear outlier. The Sedins' ES production that year was the best the league had seen in 15-20 years (I believe Jagr in the '90s was the last player to have point per game ES numbers). Crosby's past couple of years have been similar, but the sample sizes have been too small to really compare. So given that, any player (and I mean ANY) is going to "decline" from that level. It's just not a realistic benchmark.

Outside of that year their ES production over the last 7 years has been relatively static. Once you factor in varying on ice shooting % and just how few goals they're allowed against, their ES performance is as good as it has ever been outside of 09-10 (or does that argument only work for Toews?).

So that throws your entire zone start argument out the window since they have zero impact on declining PP production, which is the real culprit over the last couple of years. So if you're using the last couple of years to suggest an inexorable decline in the Sedins' effectiveness, your argument is predicated on the idea that they can no longer be effective PP players. I for one don't buy that for a moment.
Hello look at the bold 3 years of declining production, in 13 it's a wash and the decline was on the PP, what part of their decline over the past 3 years are you missing?

Why is AV putting them out on the ice, substantially more, for offensive zone starts than any other 1st line in the league over those 3 years?

Watch the new coach put them out the usual, for a 1st line, 55ish% of the time and see even more decline but then it will be something else right?

They quite simply aren't elite top line players any more, more like bottom 1/3rd of top line guys, stop pretending and maybe the Canucks really evaluate what they have, instead of what some want them to have.

They don't have the intangibles of a Toews, Dats, Zetts or Bergeron when their production fails (or declines) either.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
05-26-2013, 03:05 PM
  #853
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Canuck View Post
I'm so sorry I have faith in the team with the most points in the last 3 years, I'm so sorry I have faith in Back To Back Art Ross winners. I'm so sorry I have faith in a GM who's taken us from 10 th last in the league to game 7 of the finals.
Sorry but what have you done for me lately?

The above is the Detroit Brian pretty much argument.... which means nothing pretty much going forward.

The Sedins are two full seasons removed from their Art Ross trophies.

The 6 game (two against Black Hawks and 4 in the finals) complete team meltdown were the Canucks simply didn't show up as a team was the SC failure.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
05-26-2013, 03:14 PM
  #854
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
...
Thomas was great and the Canucks as a team sucked in their 4 losses, there simply was no push back to the Bruins in those 4 games by the Sedins or anyone, much like the two blow out losses in the first round against the Black Hawks.

SC winners don't have 6 games (total collapses) like that in any playoff season period.

Blaming the refs is a losers game and is getting tired here in Vancouver, burrows should ahve been suspended after game 1, and was the player of the game in game 2. Great teams, like the Bruins, find a way to win. Too often, 4 games exactly, the Canucks had no push back and folded their tents as a team and that's why they lost the SC that year.
You ignored reasons 2 and 3. The team was banged up, Henrik Sedin included. In 3 of the 4 Finals losses the goaltending collapsed before the team did.

Refereeing was pretty far down my list, so it's hard to say I'm blaming it all on the refs. However, it has to be included as a factor. Rome receiving the harshest suspension ever in a Stanley Cup finals, the Bruins consistently getting the first 3-5 man advantages when the game is still undecided, and egregious non calls against the Boston in tight games are all examples of how absolutely one-sided the refereeing was. That series is a symbol of the NHL abandoning the new standard of officiating that was supposed to elevate skill over all else. It was an embarrassment to the league.

Chubros is offline  
Old
05-26-2013, 04:09 PM
  #855
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
You ignored reasons 2 and 3. The team was banged up, Henrik Sedin included. In 3 of the 4 Finals losses the goaltending collapsed before the team did.

Refereeing was pretty far down my list, so it's hard to say I'm blaming it all on the refs. However, it has to be included as a factor. Rome receiving the harshest suspenhttp://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=66626717sion ever in a Stanley Cup finals, the Bruins consistently getting the first 3-5 man advantages when the game is still undecided, and egregious non calls against the Boston in tight games are all examples of how absolutely one-sided the refereeing was. That series is a symbol of the NHL abandoning the new standard of officiating that was supposed to elevate skill over all else. It was an embarrassment to the league.
MMM Horton, after the hit, and Savard both didn't play for the bruins either, injuries are part of the game and the Canucks are their own worst enemy with penalties. The Hamuis injury probably hurt the Canucks the most but the team was pretty healthy this year and last year in their 1st round exits.

Playing the injury card is pretty much the Detroit Brian we won the SC...pretty much card

Either way here are the Sedin's line for that series.

Hank 7-1-0-1 minus 7 (minus 4 in game 7 on home ice)

Daniel 7-1-3-4 minus 5 (minus 4 in game 7 on home ice)

If you really think the Sedins are still elite 2 way players here is an article you will like from a stathead. (I like to look at as much information as possible when making my player evaluations)

http://canucks.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=667209

My "eyetest" says that the stats don't really connect with what we saw overall from the Sedins in the regular season, lots of shots from the outside, not great scoring chances ect...

for example Vancouver lost on home ice to Detroit 5-2 on HNIC, the game where Dats was godly every time he was out on the ice and Hank and Daniel were both plus 2 that night.

Burrows scored that goal 6 seconds into the game and then another to make it 5-2 at 17:22 in the 3rd period. Other than the 2 goals the Sedin line was largely absent that night and not very noticeable so stats by themselves don't mean very much.

Of course for any real meaning one would have to compare the Sedin stats with other top line players to get more of a context.

Let's see next season if the assertion that the Sedins are truly elite 2 way players actually stacks up to reality, call me skeptical.


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 05-26-2013 at 04:19 PM.
Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
05-26-2013, 04:24 PM
  #856
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,280
vCash: 500
You're trying to selectively pull out the bad and ignore the good, effectively dodging what is the crux of the matter.

Do you think that Vancouver would have advanced as far as they did in 2011 without the Sedins, or will you admit that they were a large part of the team's success in the playoffs?


Last edited by PG Canuck: 05-27-2013 at 09:17 PM. Reason: Borderline comment removed
Chubros is offline  
Old
05-26-2013, 05:23 PM
  #857
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
You're trying to selectively pull out the bad and ignore the good, effectively dodging what is the crux of the matter.

Do you think that Vancouver would have advanced as far as they did in 2011 without the Sedins, or will you admit that they were a large part of the team's success in the playoffs?
Skip the Alberta crap Vancouver born and bred and I don't care where posters come from as Vancouver is a city of immigrants as my parents were.

The Sedins had exactly 1 great series in the 11 SC drive and neither Sedin was a very strong consideration for the CS going into the Bruins series. In fact most would ahve been surprised if the CS hadn't gone to either of the two goalies no matter who won that series.

So here we have the Sedins line for the 11 SC run.

First round against Chicago

Hank 7-0-5-5 minus 4
Daniel 7-5-2-7 minus 2

Given the game by game breakdown sure the Canucks could easily have won that round with the average top line center and LW from the 16 playoff teams yes. In fact they almost lost to the Sedin's and Canuck meltdown after Bolland came back in game 4

Second round against Nashville

Hank 6-1-3-4- minus 4
Daniel 6-1-2-3 minus 6

Certainly below average in this series, Kesler took them through to round 3

Third round against San Jose

Hank 5-1-11-12 plus 4
Daniel 5-2-4-6 plus 4

Like I said before 18 points from 2 guys in 5 games is impressive but San jose was banged up and wasn't going to put up much of a battle to any team in that round IMO.

Game 1 Hank, Neimi, Bieksa
Game 2 Bieksa, Higgins, Hank
Game 3 Thorton, Marleau, Murray
Game 4 Hank, Salo, Daniel
Game 5 Lou, Bieska, Thorton

So yes Hank was a very important part of that series win, as was Bieska, Daniel less so.

I ahve already gone over the final series against Boston, so being great in 1 series and less than average, by quite a bit, for the other 3 series is pretty telling don't you think?


Last edited by PG Canuck: 05-27-2013 at 09:17 PM. Reason: Borderline comment removed from quote
Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
05-26-2013, 05:58 PM
  #858
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,494
vCash: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Hello look at the bold 3 years of declining production, in 13 it's a wash and the decline was on the PP, what part of their decline over the past 3 years are you missing?
There is no decline. There was just a spike in one season when they had a one-in-a-generation season at even strength. That's not a decline. Look at the following:

6
6
6
6
9
7
5
6

In those numbers, do you see evidence of a "decline"? The question is rhetorical, because the answer is "no". That's similar to the Sedins ES distribution. You're seeing something that isn't there because you want to fit your narrative.

Quote:
Why is AV putting them out on the ice, substantially more, for offensive zone starts than any other 1st line in the league over those 3 years?
Are you being willfully obtuse here? Read some of the responses to you. There is no "substantially more" zone starts. It's in the neighbourhood of a couple of faceoffs a game at this point. How much of a difference in production do you think you'd see if a player gets an extra 120 faceoffs in the offensive zone? Maybe 2 points? 4?

Even four seasons ago when they were getting an even greater percentage of zone starts, I think it probably only got them maybe 8-10 ES points apiece over the course of a season.

Quote:
Watch the new coach put them out the usual, for a 1st line, 55ish% of the time and see even more decline but then it will be something else right?
Even though the difference overall is slight, why would Gillis hire a coach with backwards thinking? Why would he not want to use his best offensive players in more offensive roles? The difference won't be extraordinary, but it certainly makes the most sense. Still, if they dropped their zone starts to 55%, you'd see a pretty marginal increase at ES that could be made up five times over if the Sedins return to their typical PP form.

Quote:
They quite simply aren't elite top line players any more, more like bottom 1/3rd of top line guys, stop pretending and maybe the Canucks really evaluate what they have, instead of what some want them to have.
So your contention is that they're not even Top 60 forwards in the NHL in terms of ES production? Interesting. Henrik did lead the Western Conference in points way back in 2012...

Quote:
They don't have the intangibles of a Toews, Dats, Zetts or Bergeron when their production fails (or declines) either.
Intangibles!


Last edited by Proto: 05-26-2013 at 06:05 PM.
Proto is offline  
Old
05-26-2013, 06:04 PM
  #859
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,494
vCash: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I ahve already gone over the final series against Boston, so being great in 1 series and less than average, by quite a bit, for the other 3 series is pretty telling don't you think?
No. It's just a bunch of very small sample sizes that you're stamping a narrative on to. You could do this with any player on any team. It's meaningless. You're poring over data trying to find things to fit your beliefs, rather than just looking at the data to see what it shows you.

Look, the Canucks would be smart to have contingency plans in place (ie: depth at forward) for the Sedins inevitable exit from the "premiere offensive player" stage. That's true of every team everywhere at every time in hockey history. But I don't see any meaningful data to suggest they're done now, or that they're not absurdly good value at 6 million a season. I just don't get the panic a lot of fans seem to be having. They don't strike me as guys that will decline suddenly, or all that badly. They're in great shape, work hard, don't depend overly on speed and power, are crafty/smart players, and don't have relatively high salaries (or long terms). What's the problem here?

Proto is offline  
Old
05-26-2013, 07:10 PM
  #860
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Hello look at the bold 3 years of declining production, in 13 it's a wash and the decline was on the PP, what part of their decline over the past 3 years are you missing?

Why is AV putting them out on the ice, substantially more, for offensive zone starts than any other 1st line in the league over those 3 years?

Watch the new coach put them out the usual, for a 1st line, 55ish% of the time and see even more decline but then it will be something else right?

They quite simply aren't elite top line players any more, more like bottom 1/3rd of top line guys, stop pretending and maybe the Canucks really evaluate what they have, instead of what some want them to have.

They don't have the intangibles of a Toews, Dats, Zetts or Bergeron when their production fails (or declines) either.
I think you said it best:

Quote:
I'm actually not a huge stat guy
You're demonstrating an inability to place the Sedins' numbers in context and understand the actual implications of them. You've got a narrative you want push and you're shoehorning evidence to fit that even when it suggests the opposite.

With Captain Intangibles it's shots and defensive play that matters, not necessarily production. But when it comes to the Sedins you eschew their dominant possession numbers and ability to outscore their opponents by a 2.5:1 margin while 5-on-5 in order to stick with a ham-fisted attempt to demonstrate their decline through overall points per game and zone starts.

And even taking your zone start argument at face value, I'd argue it actually suggests the opposite of what you're saying. In 12-13 the Sedins' offensive zone starts dropped precipitously from 11-12 (78.6% to 63.7% for Henrik), yet their ES production held steady. If zone starts have as dramatic an impact as you seem to be suggesting, doesn't this season mark a massive leap forward in their 5-on-5 play from last season? The same production as last season where they had 25% more offensive zone starts. Not much of a decline if you ask me.

If you really are interested in their zone starts' effect on their play, I'd recommend checking out their zone start adjusted numbers. It's been demonstrated in the past that after about 10 seconds from a faceoff that the effect off the location of a zone start has little to no effect on the players' numbers in the aggregate. So these numbers are produced by removing that 10 second period from the data in order to largely eliminate the effect of the location of the faceoff. Here's H. Sedin's zone start adjusted numbers which are still phenomenal and virtually unchanged relative to his non adjusted numbers:

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/show...012-13&sit=f10

opendoor is offline  
Old
05-27-2013, 01:11 AM
  #861
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
There is no decline. There was just a spike in one season when they had a one-in-a-generation season at even strength. That's not a decline. Look at the following:

6
6
6
6
9
7
5
6

In those numbers, do you see evidence of a "decline"? The question is rhetorical, because the answer is "no". That's similar to the Sedins ES distribution. You're seeing something that isn't there because you want to fit your narrative.
Exactly what kind of hocus pocus is this? There is no decline if we don't look at the peak? In this theory they never won Art Ross trophies then either right?... pretty much.



Quote:
Are you being willfully obtuse here? Read some of the responses to you. There is no "substantially more" zone starts. It's in the neighbourhood of a couple of faceoffs a game at this point. How much of a difference in production do you think you'd see if a player gets an extra 120 faceoffs in the offensive zone? Maybe 2 points? 4?

Even four seasons ago when they were getting an even greater percentage of zone starts, I think it probably only got them maybe 8-10 ES points apiece over the course of a season.
Well 1st of all the increase in offensive zone start started in 11 after their absolute peaks, which apparently don't exist in your world as per above.

So you say on one hand that it's only 2-4 points but in 10 it's maybe 8-10? it's not even the actial production on each and every shift its the ease of the burden of starting out in your own zone playing defensive minutes, ie chasing the puck, which is alot easier if you lose the face off 180 feet away from your goalie.



Quote:
Even though the difference overall is slight, why would Gillis hire a coach with backwards thinking? Why would he not want to use his best offensive players in more offensive roles? The difference won't be extraordinary, but it certainly makes the most sense. Still, if they dropped their zone starts to 55%, you'd see a pretty marginal increase at ES that could be made up five times over if the Sedins return to their typical PP form.
Now you are having it both ways, either offensive zone start really don't count or they do and Viggy is forward thinking, which one is it?



Quote:
So your contention is that they're not even Top 60 forwards in the NHL in terms of ES production? Interesting. Henrik did lead the Western Conference in points way back in 2012...
I'm not just talking about ES production, I'm talking about all production and everything brought to the table, the complete package.

All things being equal, ie using any player in exactly the same type of situations, ie same PP time, equal offensive zone starts, say 50% then no they in the bottom 3rd of top line players in the NHL today for forwards. (We are treating them here as individuals like everyone else, not as pair). Heck even Kesler on their own team is more valuable overall used in the exact same criteria and way as either Sedin would be due to better faceoff abilities, toughness and a 200 foot game.



Quote:
Intangibles!
Ya it's funny how teams with players with those extra intangibles always seem to win that darn SC.


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 05-27-2013 at 01:28 AM.
Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
05-27-2013, 01:17 AM
  #862
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
No. It's just a bunch of very small sample sizes that you're stamping a narrative on to. You could do this with any player on any team. It's meaningless. You're poring over data trying to find things to fit your beliefs, rather than just looking at the data to see what it shows you.

Look, the Canucks would be smart to have contingency plans in place (ie: depth at forward) for the Sedins inevitable exit from the "premiere offensive player" stage. That's true of every team everywhere at every time in hockey history. But I don't see any meaningful data to suggest they're done now, or that they're not absurdly good value at 6 million a season. I just don't get the panic a lot of fans seem to be having. They don't strike me as guys that will decline suddenly, or all that badly. They're in great shape, work hard, don't depend overly on speed and power, are crafty/smart players, and don't have relatively high salaries (or long terms). What's the problem here?
Well do you want to look at the overall sample size of the Sedins production in the playoffs then? Quite simply they haven't excelled in the post season period. For small sample periods they have, like 5 games against San Jose but overall, and the sample is large enough to give us an idea, it's less than elite, even at their peak period.

I never said they were done but rather that they are declining and aren't a SC caliber elite top pairing any longer, not sure if they ever really were either as the evidence indicates they weren't.

The problem here is that too many Canuck fans still think that the sedins are elite and can lead us to a SC when all indications are that it's simply not true.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
05-27-2013, 01:27 AM
  #863
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
I think you said it best:



You're demonstrating an inability to place the Sedins' numbers in context and understand the actual implications of them. You've got a narrative you want push and you're shoehorning evidence to fit that even when it suggests the opposite.

With Captain Intangibles it's shots and defensive play that matters, not necessarily production. But when it comes to the Sedins you eschew their dominant possession numbers and ability to outscore their opponents by a 2.5:1 margin while 5-on-5 in order to stick with a ham-fisted attempt to demonstrate their decline through overall points per game and zone starts.

And even taking your zone start argument at face value, I'd argue it actually suggests the opposite of what you're saying. In 12-13 the Sedins' offensive zone starts dropped precipitously from 11-12 (78.6% to 63.7% for Henrik), yet their ES production held steady. If zone starts have as dramatic an impact as you seem to be suggesting, doesn't this season mark a massive leap forward in their 5-on-5 play from last season? The same production as last season where they had 25% more offensive zone starts. Not much of a decline if you ask me.

If you really are interested in their zone starts' effect on their play, I'd recommend checking out their zone start adjusted numbers. It's been demonstrated in the past that after about 10 seconds from a faceoff that the effect off the location of a zone start has little to no effect on the players' numbers in the aggregate. So these numbers are produced by removing that 10 second period from the data in order to largely eliminate the effect of the location of the faceoff. Here's H. Sedin's zone start adjusted numbers which are still phenomenal and virtually unchanged relative to his non adjusted numbers:

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/show...012-13&sit=f10
Look the 12-13 numbers could be a plateau and what I do know about numbers is that the bigger the sample and longer the trend the more likely it is to be true.

The bottom line is that the Sedins overall production has declined for the past 3 years quite steadily, maybe aging has more to do with it than offensive zone starts more likely it's a combination.

Even if the production goes down next eyar with less offesnvie zone starts the other side, your side can point to any number of factors in the fight.

But you know what, at the end of the day it doesn't matter, what does matter is the Sedins actual production and the Canucks success, or rather lack of it when it matters in the playoffs.

Due to the nature of their playing together as a set they are unlikely to be traded.

The Canucks are also unlikely to ahve any success with the Sedins in 14 or going forward due to their lack or system prospect readiness or depth.

so at the end of the day if the Canucks could trade them as a pair at next seasons deadline for a prospect/draft pick like Iggy it will be better in the long run for the Canucks to have a chance of winning a SC.

The Canucks have had 7 years of a Sedin led team to get the job done and their time is simply over.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
05-27-2013, 09:23 AM
  #864
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,494
vCash: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Exactly what kind of hocus pocus is this? There is no decline if we don't look at the peak? In this theory they never won Art Ross trophies then either right?... pretty much.
This response indicates you don't have a rudimentary grasp of statistical analysis. I don't mean that to be insulting, either. I'm certainly no mathlete, and I was where you were at one point, but you really need to do some reading on the stats you're trying to win an argument with. And learn what an "outlier" is. If you can look at that group of numbers I posted and think there's a pattern of decline, then you're not grasping probably the most important part of data sampling. There is no decline in those numbers. There is a spike and then a return to historical average.

Look at it this way. Pretend Vancouver gets 5 feet of rain a year normally. Then one there's 10 feet of rain. Then the subsequent three years there's around 5 feet of rain. Would you be overly concerned about the dramatic downward trend in rainfall?

As for the power play, it's not unheard of for players to to have good or bad years with the man advantage, given the small sample sizes. And beyond that, there has largely been a downward trend in scoring in the Western Conference. Henrik Sedin lead the WC in scoring as late as last season. That hardly seems like a steep decline.

The Sedins had a 2.5 : 1 possession advantage at ES this year. That's elite. They had a bad year on the power play, but I don't see much reason to believe that they would decline on the power play before even strength. I would expect the Sedins to be useful power play forwards even when they become merely 2nd line forwards, which should give them as much as longevity as they want in the league.

Your contention that they are not Top 60 forwards in the NHL is laughable by any metric, even points per game. Even in an off season on the power play, they were 20th and 31st in the NHL in scoring, and 7th and 11th in the western conference.

Proto is offline  
Old
05-27-2013, 02:33 PM
  #865
Lindt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,165
vCash: 500
Wow. This argument is so one-sided it's almost sad.

Sedins are in the bottom 1/3rd of first line forwards...

Lindt is offline  
Old
05-27-2013, 02:45 PM
  #866
thepuckmonster
Global Moderator
Professional Winner.
 
thepuckmonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,678
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindt View Post
Wow. This argument is so one-sided it's almost sad.

Sedins are in the bottom 1/3rd of first line forwards...
In a year when the PP was 2nd-3rd worst in the league.

Henrik is a year removed from being the top scorer in the Western Conference, and the only player to crack PPG in the West. That's with a decent PP yes, but with Kesler playing like **** all year due to injuries. Are we going rag on him and call him a bottom end 2nd liner because he's had a bad season last year as well?

Both twins are 2 years removed from consecutive 100pt campaigns.

I'm going to go with the lockout season being an aberration as opposed to the norm.

thepuckmonster is offline  
Old
05-27-2013, 04:08 PM
  #867
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thepuckmonster View Post
Henrik is a year removed from being the top scorer in the Western Conference, and the only player to crack PPG in the West.
In a year where the top scorer bagged 60 goals and Henrik got 14, that says more about the conference than anything else.

We are the (relatively) low skill conference.

 
Old
05-27-2013, 04:15 PM
  #868
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Pretend Vancouver gets 5 feet of rain a year normally. Then one there's 10 feet of rain. Then the subsequent three years there's around 5 feet of rain. Would you be overly concerned about the dramatic downward trend in rainfall?
If my plans require 10 feet of rain, yes, absolutely I would be (and should be) worried.

The question was asked a year ago - what does this team look like, especially in the playoffs - if the Sedins are never again more than 70-80 point guys? Management hasn't answered that, yet. If anything, they in effect assumed the "10 feet of rain" scenario by trading away the most offensively gifted assets the team had.

Anyway, I trust the fan base is now clear that the Sedins are playing out their contracts as 70-80 point guys. So the team is going nowhere without another legitimate, consistent scoring line.

Hopefully management has clued in, too.

 
Old
05-27-2013, 04:54 PM
  #869
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,131
vCash: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Exactly what kind of hocus pocus is this? There is no decline if we don't look at the peak? In this theory they never won Art Ross trophies then either right?... pretty much.
Either you are willfully obtuse or just being obnoxious at this point. Either way, let us attempt a walkthrough to correlate the stats. Here we see a consistency of six, therefore making that the average expected from the Sedins. Nine is the obvious standout and suggests an anomaly in performance. For all intents and purposes they hit lightning in a bottle, won the lottery, got their ducks in a row, the stars aligned. Whatever fancy anecdote you wish to articulate, what we see is they played above the average; a rarity for the most part.

In conclusion, there is no decline, so much as they played above expectations in a season where near everything went our way until Boston.

Quote:
Well 1st of all the increase in offensive zone start started in 11 after their absolute peaks, which apparently don't exist in your world as per above.

So you say on one hand that it's only 2-4 points but in 10 it's maybe 8-10? it's not even the actial production on each and every shift its the ease of the burden of starting out in your own zone playing defensive minutes, ie chasing the puck, which is alot easier if you lose the face off 180 feet away from your goalie.
And as has been explained to your now to the point of redundancy. Offensive zone starts contribute little and the emphasis you insist on perpetuating is marginal at best. Statistics rebuttal your claims because all that changed from past seasons to now is our powerplay free falling into irrelevancy.

Had we maintained our up tempo system and actually scored on the powerplay, the Sedins numbers would have remained near identical to the seasons before. Perhaps not eclipsing 100 points, but that in and of itself was an unsustainable production.

Quote:
Now you are having it both ways, either offensive zone start really don't count or they do and Viggy is forward thinking, which one is it?
How about they have no relevancy and AV use to be a forward thinker until he clung to a predictable and stagnate system every other team had long adapted to?

Quote:
I'm not just talking about ES production, I'm talking about all production and everything brought to the table, the complete package.
If that is the case, why do you continue to disregard the downward spiral of our powerplay? It has an enormous impact on the productivity of players who, in seasons past, have feasted on its success. And before you attempt to twist this into a fitting narrative for your agenda, take note the Sedins were not properly utilized and the powerplay was a disaster for reasons that do not include them.

Quote:
All things being equal, ie using any player in exactly the same type of situations, ie same PP time, equal offensive zone starts, say 50% then no they in the bottom 3rd of top line players in the NHL today for forwards. (We are treating them here as individuals like everyone else, not as pair). Heck even Kesler on their own team is more valuable overall used in the exact same criteria and way as either Sedin would be due to better faceoff abilities, toughness and a 200 foot game.

Ya it's funny how teams with players with those extra intangibles always seem to win that darn SC.
Only because you are attaching irrelevant hyperbole and hockey cliches like "intangibles" as if they were statistically verifiable and not simple fiction. Toews had an insane 1.3 PPG back in 2010. Three years now and twenty three playoff games later he has mustered twelve points and has been largely invisible throughout that stretch. By your 'evidence' he would be on the decline by virtue he has not maintained a consistent pace since "lightning in a bottle struck."

Incidentally, Henrik has six points in nine games since 2012, while Toews has eight in sixteen. So, who is declining here?


Last edited by Bourne Endeavor: 05-27-2013 at 05:03 PM.
Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
05-27-2013, 05:18 PM
  #870
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Incidentally, Henrik has six points in nine games since 2012, while Toews has eight in sixteen. So, who is declining here?
8 in 9 for Henrik actually. He's matched Toews production in 56% of the games.

opendoor is offline  
Old
05-27-2013, 05:27 PM
  #871
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,131
vCash: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
8 in 9 for Henrik actually. He's matched Toews production in 56% of the games.
Bah, I knew I counted that wrong. Well, there we go. Funny how we never hear a peep about Toews' quiet playoffs since his cup win. Goes to show how the media near ignores every negative once you have a cup and places undue emphasis them on teams that do not.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
05-27-2013, 05:34 PM
  #872
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,494
vCash: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
If my plans require 10 feet of rain, yes, absolutely I would be (and should be) worried.

The question was asked a year ago - what does this team look like, especially in the playoffs - if the Sedins are never again more than 70-80 point guys? Management hasn't answered that, yet. If anything, they in effect assumed the "10 feet of rain" scenario by trading away the most offensively gifted assets the team had.

Anyway, I trust the fan base is now clear that the Sedins are playing out their contracts as 70-80 point guys. So the team is going nowhere without another legitimate, consistent scoring line.

Hopefully management has clued in, too.
When did I say anything about being worried? I said it's not a downward trend. I think the Sedins are probably 75-90 point players, depending on the season and the power play. At their salaries I wouldn't worry at all, frankly.

More scoring depth would be nice, but more scoring depth is always nice.

Proto is offline  
Old
05-27-2013, 05:45 PM
  #873
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
When did I say anything about being worried?
Who said you were? Not me...

 
Old
05-27-2013, 06:07 PM
  #874
topheavyhookjaw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
If my plans require 10 feet of rain, yes, absolutely I would be (and should be) worried.

The question was asked a year ago - what does this team look like, especially in the playoffs - if the Sedins are never again more than 70-80 point guys? Management hasn't answered that, yet. If anything, they in effect assumed the "10 feet of rain" scenario by trading away the most offensively gifted assets the team had.

Anyway, I trust the fan base is now clear that the Sedins are playing out their contracts as 70-80 point guys. So the team is going nowhere without another legitimate, consistent scoring line.
Hopefully management has clued in, too.
This is true. No team has been consistently successful without at least two consistent scoring lines.

The other outlier in that 10-11 campaign was Kesler's 41 goals. Speaks to how hard it is to win a Cup. That season had this teams best 3 players all having career years.

I think Babcock's point from a while back that sometimes the best team doesn't win, and that luck and other external factors contribute a lot to postseason success is salient here. Canucks need to find another solid line that can be counted on for next 2-3 years if they want to be in the 5-7 teams each year that have a legit shot at winning the cup.

topheavyhookjaw is offline  
Old
05-27-2013, 08:18 PM
  #875
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thepuckmonster View Post
In a year when the PP was 2nd-3rd worst in the league.

Henrik is a year removed from being the top scorer in the Western Conference, and the only player to crack PPG in the West. That's with a decent PP yes, but with Kesler playing like **** all year due to injuries. Are we going rag on him and call him a bottom end 2nd liner because he's had a bad season last year as well?

Both twins are 2 years removed from consecutive 100pt campaigns.

I'm going to go with the lockout season being an aberration as opposed to the norm.
If they were 25 or 26 it would be one thing but everyone here wants to pretend that age doesn't matter.

Almost all players have a natural scoring curve from lower to higher to their peak then a decline, not many have increases in their age 33 seasons.

Guys laughed at me when I said the decline would continue before the season started now it's only the PP declined, so the decline wasn't real?

What will next years excuse be?

Hardyvan123 is offline  
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 12:33 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.