Post-Game Talk: 2/25/17 | Sharks 4 @ Mumps 1

CanaFan

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
19,887
5,849
BC
No offense but I seem to have a better grasp of statistics than you do.

It is not a failure of simple math. It is a failure to recognize that rates in a small sample are not particularly meaningful. You are applying his rate over a tiny 95-minute sample to his 216 minutes of two seasons ago to argue that the difference in rate is significant. Yes, it would be significant if he held that same rate over 216 minutes but that is not likely.

The precipitous drop in his rate is more likely explained by a tiny sample than by an actual drop in his ability. That is the point that you are failing to acknowledge.

Trust me, I know stats just fine. Again there is no need to apply significance to something that has already happened. This is not projecting the future or to a larger population. It is simply explaining the contributions to the decline. Rate is no more "not significant" than minutes in this case. Both are factors, period.

And rate is not necessarily "ability", as I stated waaaay back in my first post ("it's likely that the cause is that the PP just sucks"). But it is a part of the equation.
 

Captain Bowie

Registered User
Jan 18, 2012
27,139
4,414
That doesn't hold. Rate impacts points to exactly the same degree as TOI. I gave a simple and clear example of that above using real
rates and minutes from 2 recent seasons. It's honesty frustrating to have to argue simple math with someone just because they don't want to admit their initial post was incorrect.

You could, ya know, stop.
 

Rotting Corpse*

Registered User
Sep 20, 2003
60,153
3
Kelowna, BC
Trust me, I know stats just fine. Again there is no need to apply significance to something that has already happened. This is not projecting the future or to a larger population. It is simply explaining the contributions to the decline. Rate is no more "not significant" than minutes in this case. Both are factors, period.

As do I.

If he had 10 minutes and 0 points would you argue that the drop in rate is significant and that they are both factors.

The drop in rate can be heavily influenced by the drop in minutes.
 

CanaFan

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
19,887
5,849
BC
If he had 10 minutes and 0 points would you argue that the drop in rate is significant and that they are both factors.

I would argue the fact that he has not scored in 10 minutes has a lot to do with why he has zero points, yes.

Also please don't argue with extremes. He hasn't played 10 minutes or scored 0 points. He's played 87 minutes and in that time his rate is what it is. How is his rate not a part of why it's lower? It mathematically is. Sure maybe it picks up with a huge game on Tuesday, but guess what? He wouldn't be below in raw numbers either and this whole stupid argument wouldn't have come up. Which I honestly wish it hadn't.

And maybe the drop in rate is caused by a drop in minutes and maybe it's not. Maybe it influences it the other way too. That's a throwaway statement in absence of an established relationship.
 

Rotting Corpse*

Registered User
Sep 20, 2003
60,153
3
Kelowna, BC
Because it's two points.

He has two fewer points than would be expected.

I already told you that you are free to consider that significant if you want to.
 

CanaFan

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
19,887
5,849
BC
Because it's two points.

He has two fewer points than would be expected.

I already told you that you are free to consider that significant if you want to.

I never argued the points were or weren't meaningful, that was you and another poster. I disputed that TOI alone was the cause.

'Night. Not gonna argue this further.
 

Pip

Registered User
Feb 2, 2012
69,198
8,537
Granduland
I really hope Subban gets a look, even if he has some major flaws in his game. Anybody but Larsen.
 

JuniorNelson

Registered User
Jan 21, 2010
8,631
320
E.Vancouver
It's amazing that Markstrom still isn't getting starts when the season is done and he has a *three year extension* and we don't even know what we have because he never god damned plays.

That's the biggest reason to trade Miller—to just let Markstrom be the guy so we can find out if he can play sustainably good with a heavy workload.

I don't think the Markstrom situation looks right. They don't seem to trust him. Maybe he is sick or injured but take away the extension and it looks like he's done here. Of course, he is signed for three more years, so maybe they think he is developing? Usually, when a team treats a back-up like this, he is gone quickly.

Miller put on quite a display in this game. If teams were scouting him he didn't further his chances at a trade, IMO.

Who was that kid that hit a Shark? Is this the kid Canuck material? He seems violent! Who was that last guy that went around hitting people? I think he's in Edmonton, now.
 
Last edited:

tc 23

#GaunceForGM
Dec 11, 2012
11,359
21
Vancouver
I'm glad McEneny had a solid first showing in his call-up stint. Been a big advocate of the guy since juniors. Must feel good for him to make it to the show, even if only for a few call-up games, after he was (in my opinion) unjustly thrown to the ECHL.
 

Cancuks

Former Exalted Ruler
Jan 13, 2014
3,924
3,287
At the EI office
I don't think the Markstrom situation looks right. They don't seem to trust him. Maybe he is sick or injured but take away the extension and it looks like he's done here. Of course, he is signed for three more years, so maybe they think he is developing? Usually, when a team treats a back-up like this, he is gone quickly.

Miller put on quite a display in this game. If teams were scouting him he didn't further his chances at a trade, IMO.

Who was that kid that hit a Shark? Is this the kid Canuck material? He seems violent! Who was that last guy that went around hitting people? I think he's in Edmonton, now.

He's much too physical and violent for all the soy latte sipping social justice warriors in Vancouver. :nod:
 

thepoeticgoblin

Registered User
Dec 16, 2011
2,082
4
Sweden
I don't think the Markstrom situation looks right. They don't seem to trust him. Maybe he is sick or injured but take away the extension and it looks like he's done here. Of course, he is signed for three more years, so maybe they think he is developing? Usually, when a team treats a back-up like this, he is gone quickly.

There is actually something in this I think. But I think Jim wants to play Marky more, but Willie prefers Miller (the difference between the two is neglible over the two seasons they have shared the crease but whatever) and is desperately trying to save his job. He's also been known to do this with players. Some are given massive leeway, others not.

It's a very weird situation that is being lost among other storylines. Miller has started 17 out of 23 in 2017. Marky has played like 11 backends of back to backs. He's been demoted from 1B to 2 - even though he has shown that he's better when he plays MORE, rather than less (Utica's run, Miller's injury, December 2016 etc.). I think Willie just doesn't trust the guy. Like at all.
 

arttk

Registered User
Feb 16, 2006
18,015
9,918
Los Angeles
I never argued the points were or weren't meaningful, that was you and another poster. I disputed that TOI alone was the cause.

'Night. Not gonna argue this further.

Not even sure what you two are arguing about anymore.

Another way to argue this should be. Our PP is crap with our without Edler. Hell no matter who we rotate on it, it's still crap. No personnel change so far has affected its efficiency, it should be clear at this point that it's not about the personnel but coaching because of that.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
54,047
86,374
Vancouver, BC
Edler has always been crap on the PP, but in the past he was able to rack up points as the weakest player in a dominant group.

His drop in PP scoring rate this year is probably due to the fact he's seen more 2nd unit time and that our PP is worse in general.
 

LeftCoast

Registered User
Aug 1, 2006
9,052
304
Vancouver
Edler has always been crap on the PP, but in the past he was able to rack up points as the weakest player in a dominant group.

His drop in PP scoring rate this year is probably due to the fact he's seen more 2nd unit time and that our PP is worse in general.

Edler on the PP is frustrating to watch. I know we didn't have a lot of options last night, but damn. His shot gets blocked more than any player I've ever seen, and now his passes are getting blocked. I don't know if he is staring at the opposing forward's shin pads when he shoots and passes, but that's where the puck goes every time.

Edit: In the years when the Canucks PP was dominant (2010 - 2012) Edler benefited from having Salo and Ehrhoff on the other point. Their shots had to be respected, and you can't aggressively challenge both points without spreading your box out too much and giving up the down low play (Sedins). Edler rang up points walking in from the weak side and ripping it point blank.
 
Last edited:

Bitz and Bites

Registered User
May 5, 2012
1,720
827
Victoria
Man even if they do pull off a decent deadline we're just in such a deep pit in terms of depth and talent on this team, with no real hope of being a solid team for several seasons. Had Benning not gone for this age gap BS and acquired and stockpiled picks and prospects instead of bad waiver fodder NHL players we'd be so much further along in our rebuild.

Not to mention absolute flubs in the first round and lack of 2nd round picks. We could be sitting here with a forward core built around Horvat Ehlers Tkachuck, and possibly Pastranak (if you feel pretty generous with hindsight).

We have one really good and exciting young player in Horvat. The rest of the drafted guys we just don't have enough info at the pro level to get excited, let alone them even being signed. But say Boeser and Gaudette do pan out nicely, we're still really poorly constructed and have horrible issues with organizational depth, a poor development system, poor pro scouting, poor coaching, a couple good scouts mixed in with a lot of trash scouts, ownership that gets too hands on, a puppet of a president and a bottom-3 general manager who is in way over his head.

I have to agree with a lot of this.

We're going to need several years of stockpiling picks (including high ones) and really good drafting to build depth in our prospect pool thanks to JB's horrible mismanagement by trading picks and prospects for band-aids that didn't work.
Hopefully we can land some good NCAA free agents (like Stetcher) for our forward group.There's defnintely a ton of opportunity here for any of them.

Our defense prospect pool does have some good depth but no clear cut top pairing/PPQB type.Maybe someone we have will emerge as one of those guys but probably not both.Stetcher could be the PPQB,or Forsling could have been but he got traded for crap.Juolevi I see as more of a complementary top pairing guy but he is still developing so he's a bit of a wildcard.Brisbois looks to have a similar ceiling as well.

Like you said,we have exactly one bona fide exciting young player who's an established top sixer.Baertschi is kind of a Jan Bulis type,top six on a bad team but not a fit on a strong team as he can't play down the lineup.
Boeser and Gaudette are projecting as top sixer's but neither are signed.Lockwood,so far,seems like a 2/3 tweener and isn't signed either.
After that,our forward group falls off a cliff.Virtanen needs to turn it around big time or he's another Jack Skille.I'd probably rate Jordan Subban as our next best offensive forward after that and he's playing defense in the AHL.
Mckenzie is worth a look as a potential bottom sixer but the rest aren't worth an NHL contract.
The lost opportunities here will keep us in the NHL basement for the next several years.

I think a bunch of us wanted Barbashev over McCann (can't recall many advocating for Pastranak but props to those that did) so it will be interesting to see how he pans out as an NHLer.His Jr and AHL numbers post draft look promising,though.

We need to build some depth in goal as well just in case Demko doesn't pan out.One more good G prospect like him in the pipleline would solidify things but because of our awful forward depth and lack of picks,we can't afford to address this now which we should.
 

VanJack

Registered User
Jul 11, 2014
21,540
14,939
Pretty obvious the Canucks are going to be in the wilderness for some time....but when you look at what some of other teams around them in the Western Conference and what already have in their NHL lineup, and who they've got coming, it gets frightening.

Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, even the teams at the top of the pile like the Wild. Their rosters and prospect pool will be superior for years....all of which made Jimbo's decision to trade away so many picks just mind-numbing.

Once you get past Horvat, not really a single guy in the lineup who is a proven, bonafide, young-star....rest are mostly 'hopers' and 'prospects'.

It's only the owner who can fix this mess now...and it has to start with the top.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad