Canucks Management Discussion | Part 23

[racerjoe]

I have been student of the game for 20 years. I trust my eyes over your hero charts.

Then what do your eyes show you, where is he better? What does he do better?

 

[RandV]

I have been student of the game for 20 years. I trust my eyes over your hero charts.

Then you should be able to see that our defense, while potentially an improvement over last season, is still a far cry what we've been used to since 2000 and likely not playoff caliber. I mean last season we went into training camp with Sbisa-Weber-Bartkowski-Corrado penciled in as our #4-7, so imagine if Hutton didn't have a breakout year. Really shouldn't be hard to top that lineup.

 

[Verviticus]

I have been student of the game for 20 years. I trust my eyes over your hero charts.

so what you're saying is that in all time you spent watching hockey, you actually cant describe on a fundamental level how it works, and thus can't extrapolate that into an explanation of what you said earlier? cool

 

[CherryToke]

Ridiculous assertion. Ben Hutton will be better. Let's not forget that he kind of ran out of gas down the stretch due to playing the longest schedule he ever has.

Edler will (hopefully) be healthier.

Sbisa will give us some more time. He was actually decent last year, but it takes fans awhile to catch up on things like that. This said, I don't think he's a fit with Tryamkin, so if we can get rid of him, we will.

Tanev is bae.

Gudbranson will absolutely be better than most of what Hamhuis has provided for the past two years. I know Hamhuis was fairly good down the stretch, after his facial reconstruction. But let's not forget that he played like hot garbage most of the last couple of years. In a perfect world we replace Sbisa with him, but there's no other D I would replace with him. And I do like Hamhuis, but he's not the right fit stylistically/age range for this team in any other slot.
While his hero charts may not be as impressive as others, Gudbranson brings exactly what we need to this team. A little balls. A guy who forces other team's forwards to keep their head's up and pay the price.

I know the game is trending away from the type of hitting that we saw in the 80's or 90's, but it's still an important part of the game and one that advanced stats don't do a good job of quantifying.
Take it from someone who played/plays the game, tough defensemen are difficult to play against.


Tryamkin is an unproven commodity. But to say he won't outplay Weber or Bartkowski seems unnecessarily pessimistic. The two of them were bottom 10 Dmen in the league. We could find better waiver wire fodder if Tryamkin needs more time. But I think he'll be good.

What do you think you're doing? Being positive is forbidden in this thread.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

I've been watching the game for 20 years too. So I guess we are at an impasse. Oh wait, no its 22 years for me! Therefore I am correct. Sit down son.

 

[Hit the post]

What do you think you're doing? Being positive is forbidden in this thread.

Right you are; we should be happy we didn't finish in last place in the league or 2nd last place in the league!

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

I agree with a lot of this. Nobody is calling us a cup contender, but we're not as bad as a lot of the chicken littles claim.

If the team is existing in a vacuum, yes.

But there are a number of better teams in the West and we don't slot in above a lot of them.

Most of the teams that finished in playoff spots will continue to push for playoff spots. San Jose and maybe Anaheim are the only 2 teams I'd really expect to expect a bit of a falloff year over year.

Calgary addressed their biggest issue (goaltending) and should be stable in that position this season. I can't really expect Edmonton to lose McDavid to another freak injury, so they should be a bit better.

I haven't really paid attention to what exactly Winnipeg and Phoenix have done this offseason, but they finished three points ahead of us, so it's a crapshoot with them.

The best you can say about the Canucks defense is that it was sidegraded. I'm not convinced that replacing Weber/Bart with Trymakin/Larsen is an upgrade. Gudbranson is a sidegrade with Hamhuis and it is entirely possible Hutton hits a sophomore slump.

Plus, our overall D depth is weaker than it was last year.

We may have gotten a little more top heavy in terms of overall skill to our D corps, but I don't think we are any deeper, which is gonna hurt once the inevitable injuries come forth.

 

[VanJack]

Yes....lots of things have to come together for the Canucks to contend for even as playoff spot: "if" the Sedins don't start to hit the wall; "if" Horvat plays the whole season the way he played in the second half; "if" Gudbranson and Hutton can form a legitimate second pairing; "if" Larsen upgrades the pp; "if" the Canuck goaltending holds up the way it did last year; "if" Sutter can bounce back from injury and be a complimentary scorer; and "if" Eriksson can score 30 again....a lot of dominoes have to fall.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

Yes....lots of things have to come together for the Canucks to contend for even as playoff spot: "if" the Sedins don't start to hit the wall; "if" Horvat plays the whole season the way he played in the second half; "if" Gudbranson and Hutton can form a legitimate second pairing; "if" Larsen upgrades the pp; "if" the Canuck goaltending holds up the way it did last year; "if" Sutter can bounce back from injury and be a complimentary scorer; and "if" Eriksson can score 30 again....a lot of dominoes have to fall.

Glass half empty view, half full says all those things are quite likely to happen.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

Uh what?

Gudbranson is not better than Hamhuis. Sbisa playing more will actually be worse for this team. Jury is still out on Tryamkin, and it's entirely possible that Hutton regresses with more responsibility and being paired with another poor puck possession defenseman like Gudbranson.

A healthy Edler could help us, but then again he's subpar as a number 1.

You're seriously kidding yourself if you think this is a good defense.

My point is that if he is playing he is better than an injured non playing Hamhuis.

 

[sting101]

Why are you assuming that Edler and Tanev are going to be healthy, exactly? Tanev has, not once, missed less than twelve games in a year, while Edler is now over 30, and has played an average of 65 games every year since 2010-2011 (Adjusting for the lockout in 2012-13).

Either of them being healthy, let alone both, would be a massive anomaly. To hope for that is optimism, but to rely on that, as Benning and you appear to have done, is foolhardy.

ok so our top guys probably miss a dozen games each? Last year Edler missed 30. Hamhuis missed 24 Tanev 13 Weber 37 Sbisa 41......there is no way to compensate for those kind of losses. Its a big reason why we finished 3rd last. I cant see everyone staying healthy but i cant see it being that big of a disaster either amongst the top 5. Having a few more hammers than nails shouldn't hurt.
Its not blind optimism?

 

[coldsteel79]

What did Sbisa hurt? Was it concussion?

 

[Pip]

I have been student of the game for 20 years. I trust my eyes over your hero charts.

"Because I said so"

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Then what do your eyes show you, where is he better? What does he do better?

A lot of it has to do with fit. We had a soft defense that was far too easy to play against. Our only muscle was Sbisa (which says it all). Hamhuis was another soft, offensively impotent, puck moving D.

I know a lot of you don't believe this. But it's actually nice to have a defenseman who doesn't get pushed around like a *****.

If I was trying to find a partner for Sbisa, (Other than which side they play) I would pick Hamhuis. But we need a partner for Ben Hutton. Incidentally, Gudbranson's best numbers came playing along side another puck mover in Campbell. I think it's going to be a strong pairing.

I had actually started paying a bit of attention to Gudbranson lately because I noticed what a rough ride he gives to opposing forwards in his zone. Also the way that he backs up his teammates (e.g. the fight with Hendricks after Ekblad got smoked).

I think he's bred for the western conference and, in particular, the Pacific Division.

What a lot of people forget is that hockey isn't a bunch of numerical probabilities being run through a generator. It's people. Psychology matters. Knowing that you have a big, strong teammate makes players play taller. I know people think that's just a 'dim Jim-ism" but it's true.

Then you should be able to see that our defense, while potentially an improvement over last season, is still a far cry what we've been used to since 2000 and likely not playoff caliber. I mean last season we went into training camp with Sbisa-Weber-Bartkowski-Corrado penciled in as our #4-7, so imagine if Hutton didn't have a breakout year. Really shouldn't be hard to top that lineup.

Agreed, last year was truly pathetic. I do think we might make the playoffs. I wouldn't call it a probability, but it's far from outside the realm. And no, I'm not saying that our D is as good as it was when we had Hammer, Juice, Ehrhoff, and Edler in their primes. But it's a lot better than it was last year.
Not that I think we have one of the best in the league. But we're trending in the right direction.

so what you're saying is that in all time you spent watching hockey, you actually cant describe on a fundamental level how it works, and thus can't extrapolate that into an explanation of what you said earlier? cool

Thanks for the snarkiness. What would you like me to explain for you specifically?

What do you think you're doing? Being positive is forbidden in this thread.

Hf Vancouver has become so toxic in the last few years. I blame it on the newbies who became a fan in 2011 and thought that running roughshod through the league is how hockey works. It was an anomaly, we may never have another year like that.

I've been watching the game for 20 years too. So I guess we are at an impasse. Oh wait, no its 22 years for me! Therefore I am correct. Sit down son.

It's actually 22 for me too, I rounded down. I got into hockey at 10 during the 94 playoff run.

I'm sure it's just a failure of elucidation. If we could only see inside his brain, we'd understand!

Thanks for the pointless toxicity. Really strong contribution.

 

[Pip]

Fans that take the time to research advanced stats clearly also watch the games. I don't know why I so often hear that as a criticism of the advanced stats crowd. Many just happen to value things that directly lead to winning games more than being "tough" or "intimidating"

Give me a pillow soft team if it means that we are going to win more games. Although I don't value it personally, a premium is put on tough, "hard to play against" players and therefore you are always giving up skill when targeting those players.

 

[Fat Tony]

Glass half empty view, half full says all those things are quite likely to happen.

No, that's expecting a full glass.

 

[Intoewsables]

What a lot of people forget is that hockey isn't a bunch of numerical probabilities being run through a generator. It's people. Psychology matters. Knowing that you have a big, strong teammate makes players play taller. I know people think that's just a 'dim Jim-ism" but it's true.

how many goals is playing taller worth? how do you know this is true

 

[wavaxa2]

"Advanced" stats are not advanced. They are mostly shot based, and merely different than and an addition to traditional stats. I think it's fine when people refer to analytics, or even the somewhat misnamed term possession, but I always hated that uninformative and elitist term "advanced". They are very useful, but they aren't everything. It is so annoying when someone plunks down a HERO chart, and claims a victory in the debate in which they are engaged. As if such a limited tool is the ultimate measure of a player's worth. Puh-leeze.

Do you know what these stats don't measure? They don't take into account time lost due to injuries, which is a very important factor in whether a team wins or loses. The Canucks have had a tissue soft team for years, and this shows in the number of injuries that they suffer annually, especially on defense. Anyone who says that toughness is unimportant is not looking at the entire picture.

 

[Ryp37]

"Advanced" stats are not advanced. They are mostly shot based, and merely different than and an addition to traditional stats. I think it's fine when people refer to analytics, or even the somewhat misnamed term possession, but I always hated that uninformative and elitist term "advanced". They are very useful, but they aren't everything. It is so annoying when someone plunks down a HERO chart, and claims a victory in the debate in which they are engaged. As if such a limited tool is the ultimate measure of a player's worth. Puh-leeze.

Do you know what these stats don't measure? They don't take into account time lost due to injuries, which is a very important factor in whether a team wins or loses. The Canucks have had a tissue soft team for years, and this shows in the number of injuries that they suffer annually, especially on defense. Anyone who says that toughness is unimportant is not looking at the entire picture.

There's a difference between tough and durable

 

[Fat Tony]

Do you know what these stats don't measure? They don't take into account time lost due to injuries, which is a very important factor in whether a team wins or loses. The Canucks have had a tissue soft team for years, and this shows in the number of injuries that they suffer annually, especially on defense. Anyone who says that toughness is unimportant is not looking at the entire picture.

The Kings are on record in their use of mathematical models to predict the likelihood of injury to players when deciding whether or not to commit to them. What and how they track this is understandably hush hush.

 

[vancityluongo]

"Advanced" stats are not advanced. They are mostly shot based, and merely different than and an addition to traditional stats. I think it's fine when people refer to analytics, or even the somewhat misnamed term possession, but I always hated that uninformative and elitist term "advanced". They are very useful, but they aren't everything. It is so annoying when someone plunks down a HERO chart, and claims a victory in the debate in which they are engaged. As if such a limited tool is the ultimate measure of a player's worth. Puh-leeze.

Do you know what these stats don't measure? They don't take into account time lost due to injuries, which is a very important factor in whether a team wins or loses. The Canucks have had a tissue soft team for years, and this shows in the number of injuries that they suffer annually, especially on defense. Anyone who says that toughness is unimportant is not looking at the entire picture.

I agree with most of this. Only thing I'll say though (with very little fluency on actually interpreting and using current advanced stats) is that I don't know conceptually if you can make the argument that injuries aren't factored in. Look at man games lost, and then use a little common sense/analysis. You don't need to make up a tangible stat to understand losing Chris Tanev or Henrik Sedin for 15 games is significantly more impactful than losing Luca Sbisa or Linden Vey for 25. That would also be reflected in CF% when Daniel Sedin plays with Vey vs when he plays with Henrik, or totals shots against per minute when Edler is paired with Sbisa vs paired with Tanev.

I've always argued that what advanced stats don't show is hockey sense; a lifted stick to tie up a man in front of the net that leads to a goal for example. But really it does, because the player making that play is on the ice for the goal. In the same way, I think eventually we can get to a point where we can fully quantify the effect of a hit in game.

For example, when Virtanen plastered McDavid, one way to measure how much that hit actually had an impact is to compare McDavid's play for the rest of the game compared to it before - even by using shot metrics. Was he actually rattled and hurt? Or was it a huge hit that had little impact on that player's performance?

Next would be something like shots after hits. If Virtanen or whoever plasters a defenseman along the boards, over an entire season, how many times after that play are the Canucks the first team to generate a shot? How many times is the puck going the other way? How many times is it an ineffectual play (leading to a neutral zone faceoff)? How many times is the play interrupted for a fight?

Again, I rarely personally use advanced stats in posts to back up an argument because they can be skewed and presented in many different ways and I simply don't know the right way to interpret them all. But to argue that they can't be extremely useful (not directed at the quoted poster) or that "watching the gamez" is the opposite of interpreting stats is bizarre. In the next few years, the teams that can better quantify non-shot based events in a hockey game and use that to determine the correlation between scoring, winning games and finding good players will be a step or two above those who watch hockey games and keep only a mental checklist guided by their gut.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

I know a lot of you don't believe this. But it's actually nice to have a defenseman who doesn't get pushed around like a *****.

If I was trying to find a partner for Sbisa, (Other than which side they play) I would pick Hamhuis. But we need a partner for Ben Hutton. Incidentally, Gudbranson's best numbers came playing along side another puck mover in Campbell. I think it's going to be a strong pairing.

I had actually started paying a bit of attention to Gudbranson lately because I noticed what a rough ride he gives to opposing forwards in his zone. Also the way that he backs up his teammates (e.g. the fight with Hendricks after Ekblad got smoked).

It's amazing how you all of a sudden started following Gudbranson and are using the exact same talking points the media are using to describe him. Coincidence, I am certain.

What a lot of people forget is that hockey isn't a bunch of numerical probabilities being run through a generator. It's people. Psychology matters. Knowing that you have a big, strong teammate makes players play taller. I know people think that's just a 'dim Jim-ism" but it's true.

Yeah, which is why Darcy Hordichuk was a rip roaring success here. Can't forget Wade Brookbank.

PS, no one thinks the first thing.

Thanks for the pointless toxicity. Really strong contribution.

When you make bold proclamations and don't actually substantiate your opinions or qualify them at all, expect a little bit of blowback. Sorry, no one on here knows you from Adam so we can't just take you at your word.

 

[hlrsr]

Hf Vancouver has become so toxic in the last few years. I blame it on the newbies who became a fan in 2011 and thought that running roughshod through the league is how hockey works. It was an anomaly, we may never have another year like that.

Oh give me a break. Do you honestly believe the anger around here comes solely from the team not dominating the league?

There's a lot of very smart posters on this board who can analyze things from many different perspectives -- historical, statistical, etc. They generally seem to be in agreement that this management group is incompetent.

You might be right that some posters take the cynicism too far, but it's incredibly condescending of you to write off the entire board as just being upset that we aren't dominating the league. You're not actually reading what the "negative" people are saying if that's what you think.

 

[Disappointed EP40]

If the team is existing in a vacuum, yes.

But there are a number of better teams in the West and we don't slot in above a lot of them.

Most of the teams that finished in playoff spots will continue to push for playoff spots. San Jose and maybe Anaheim are the only 2 teams I'd really expect to expect a bit of a falloff year over year.

Calgary addressed their biggest issue (goaltending) and should be stable in that position this season. I can't really expect Edmonton to lose McDavid to another freak injury, so they should be a bit better.

I haven't really paid attention to what exactly Winnipeg and Phoenix have done this offseason, but they finished three points ahead of us, so it's a crapshoot with them.

The best you can say about the Canucks defense is that it was sidegraded. I'm not convinced that replacing Weber/Bart with Trymakin/Larsen is an upgrade. Gudbranson is a sidegrade with Hamhuis and it is entirely possible Hutton hits a sophomore slump.
.

Edm got Lucic, Larson for Hall, McDavid back, depth D in Clendenning (which while he sucks, still made them better in that area.) And everyone is a year older. I expect them to be better than us next year. (If not, that's hiilarious)

 

[drax0s]

Again, I rarely personally use advanced stats in posts to back up an argument because they can be skewed and presented in many different ways and I simply don't know the right way to interpret them all. But to argue that they can't be extremely useful (not directed at the quoted poster) or that "watching the gamez" is the opposite of interpreting stats is bizarre. In the next few years, the teams that can better quantify non-shot based events in a hockey game and use that to determine the correlation between scoring, winning games and finding good players will be a step or two above those who watch hockey games and keep only a mental checklist guided by their gut.

Personally, I actually put a lot of merit into video tracking and analysis. Things like being able to take two players with an identical number of hits and find out which player are more likely to gain puck possession after a hit, for example

Corsi and CF% feels far too simplistic a measure for me for something that's so nuanced. It also seems to be the be-all and end all of player evaluation for a certain segment of the fanbase who like to just "mic drop" HERO/WARRIOR charts into discussions as if they're an unassailable fact.