Post-Game Talk: 10/26/17 | Capitals 1 @ Canucks 6 | Alex Who?

[m9]

Overall game takeaway - I loved the defense again tonight. MDZ and Tanev are playing at an extremely high level right now. I consider Gudbrandon a 4/5 tweener.. well, right now he is playing like the '4' and not the '5'. Hope he's alright.

 

[MS]

I think this "luck" take on Dorsett is pretty weak. You mention a lucky bounce but not the exceptional forecheck by Dorsett to cause the turnover that led directly to the play? This was also essentially the same thing he did on an earlier goal this year, I think maybe Sutter in the first game of the year. Those are at least two points not caused by luck and instead a direct result of an excellent hockey play along the boards separating the man from the puck.

I've been extremely complementary of Dorsett's play. He'd have been one of our best players this year even if he had two points on the season. This isn't an effort to slag Dorsett at all.

His points have been absurdly lucky. Pucks bouncing off faces into the net. Shots taking crazy deflections into the top corner. Pucks bouncing off feet into nets and right onto teammates sticks with open nets. Rebounds falling onto his stick with open nets in front of him. Outright open nets with the goalie pulled.

And this is of course backed up by his league-leading 37.5 shooting % (from a 6% career shooter coming into this season) and absolutely insane 107.1 PDO. He's the biggest outlier in the NHL in the two most luck-driven stats in the sport.

Is he playing well and making good plays? Absolutely! Do those good plays lead to goals this frequently in any normal situation? Absolutely not.

 

[Ryan Miller*]

Who is one of Calgary's top prospects. They're very happy with that trade.

This isn't true at all by the way.

I read off-site Calgary boards because they're more informed and better-running than this one. Calgary fans have very mixed feelings, mostly in the negative range, on this trade.

For all your hyping of Andersson—bizarrely you do more of it than actual Calgary Flames fans—he's still a 21-year old defenceman who can't beat out Matt Bartkowski for a job.

 

[MS]

This isn't true at all by the way.

I read off-site Calgary boards because they're more informed and better-running than this one. Calgary fans have very mixed feelings, mostly in the negative range, on this trade.

For all your hyping of Andersson—bizarrely you do more of it than actual Calgary Flames fans—he's still a 21-year old defenceman who can't beat out Matt Bartkowski for a job.

Andersson doesn't play the same side as Bartkowski. He's behind Hamilton, Hamonic, and Stone on the RH side of their blueline and is in the AHL rather than sitting in the pressbox as their #7 guy.

I follow Calgary pretty closely, too. Here's a recent article explaining his strong play and current situation :

https://www.matchsticksandgasoline....0/the-case-of-rasmus-andersson-calgary-flames

He's one of their top prospects and is off to a flying start in the AHL this year with 6 points in his first 7 games. He's a miles better prospect than a guy like Brisebois here who was taken in the same draft.

It's fine to say that has been a good trade for us. It has. But to make it out like highway robbery where the other team got screwed is just completely inaccurate. Calgary is perfectly OK with that trade and the asset they got from a player who didn't fit into their plans.

 

[ItalianCanuck1]

- Nilsson continues to excel. Will be interesting to see who gets the next game.

For me it's a no brainer.
You can't put this Nilsson on the bench (except if it's a back to back situation)

 

[David Bruce Banner]

Well, i thought the Caps would bury us, but I'm happy to be wrong. I'm enjoying these days in the sunlight, but I still believe our lack of depth will eventually be our downfall.

My fear is that management will get greedy and try to add depth at the expense of youth and picks, when they should just be happy that we're showing some signs of improvement.

Another high pick or two... and a bit of non-Canuck luck... and we might have a good team on our hands in a couple of years.

 

[m9]

I've been extremely complementary of Dorsett's play. He'd have been one of our best players this year even if he had two points on the season. This isn't an effort to slag Dorsett at all.

His points have been absurdly lucky. Pucks bouncing off faces into the net. Shots taking crazy deflections into the top corner. Pucks bouncing off feet into nets and right onto teammates sticks with open nets. Rebounds falling onto his stick with open nets in front of him. Outright open nets with the goalie pulled.

And this is of course backed up by his league-leading 37.5 shooting % (from a 6% career shooter coming into this season) and absolutely insane 107.1 PDO. He's the biggest outlier in the NHL in the two most luck-driven stats in the sport.

Is he playing well and making good plays? Absolutely! Do those good plays lead to goals this frequently in any normal situation? Absolutely not.

These are all things that happen when you forecheck hard and go to the net. I just find it odd that the takeaway is "Dorsett's lucky" and completely ignore what led to the goal.

 

[MS]

These are all things that happen when you forecheck hard and go to the net. I just find it odd that the takeaway is "Dorsett's lucky" and completely ignore what led to the goal.

I'm not sure what you're not getting here.

Of course it's a good play and of course it can lead to a goal. But most good forechecks don't (thinking a bit of poor Gaunce last year). Most players make dozens of good plays before one leads to a goal, while right now literally everything positive the guy does is ending in the back of the net.

This is not to take away from how he's playing. But he's been absurdly lucky, and the talk should be more about his defensive improvement than his lucky scoring.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

Well, i thought the Caps would bury us, but I'm happy to be wrong. I'm enjoying these days in the sunlight, but I still believe our lack of depth will eventually be our downfall.

My fear is that management will get greedy and try to add depth at the expense of youth and picks, when they should just be happy that we're showing some signs of improvement.

Another high pick or two... and a bit of non-Canuck luck... and we might have a good team on our hands in a couple of years.

Depth is the maun strength of this team. Maybe the only one, but like Vegas has shown it is a big one to have.

 

[m9]

I'm not sure what you're not getting here.

Of course it's a good play and of course it can lead to a goal. But most good forechecks don't (thinking a bit of poor Gaunce last year). Most players make dozens of good plays before one leads to a goal, while right now literally everything positive the guy does is ending in the back of the net.

This is not to take away from how he's playing. But he's been absurdly lucky, and the talk should be more about his defensive improvement than his lucky scoring.

That's my issue in a nutshell - to you it's "lucky" Dorsett and "poor" Gaunce. How many times last year did Gaunce cause a great scoring chance directly because of his great forecheck? I don't remember Gaunce doing that at all, and if so maybe a few times. Certainly not multiple times over a 10 game period. Same thing with going to the net.

Even compare the player to himself. Dorsett first year - very effective player, 25 points. Next season - far less effective player, 16 points. Unlucky, or playing worse hockey?

 

[MS]

That's my issue in a nutshell - to you it's "lucky" Dorsett and "poor" Gaunce. How many times last year did Gaunce cause a great scoring chance directly because of his great forecheck? I don't remember Gaunce doing that at all, and if so maybe a few times. Certainly not multiple times over a 10 game period. Same thing with going to the net.

Even compare the player to himself. Dorsett first year - very effective player, 25 points. Next season - far less effective player, 16 points. Unlucky, or playing worse hockey?

Are you actually arguing that his 37.5% shooting % and 107.1 PDO are sustainable and the result of his performance rather than luck?

Gaunce created a lot of quality chances last year but that line was extremely unlucky. And again, most of Dorsett's points this year aren't actually off quality chances - they're pucks that bounced off faces or skates, or were into an EN.

Dorsett in 15-16 was both a far worse player and much less lucky.

 

[Wo Yorfat]

Such a hyper sensitivity on here. Acknowledging that our lord and savior DD (not sarcasm) has been running incredibly lucky isn't discounting the fact that he's been playing great. They aren't exclusive. With avg luck he'd probably have 5 points right now, and would still be playing great hockey. Annoying when almost everyone is on the same page, they're just arguing about who's interpreting the text correctly. On a related note, Dorsett related GDT please?

 

[Ryan Miller*]

"poor Gaunce" is legendary stuff.

 

[TraderJim]

Reading comprehension is severely lacking if you need someone to literally explain how almost 40% shooting is lucky.

 

[Huggy]

Oh noes should we wait and see if this team comes back down to Earth??!?

THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT YAAA

 

[thepuckmonster]

Is the longest win streak we had last year 4 games? Weren’t 2 in OT/SO as well?

Here come the Canucks, 4 regulation wins in a row we’re here to heat your village but not burn it down because we don’t want to set off the forest fires again

 

[Wo Yorfat]

Is the longest win streak we had last year 4 games? Weren’t 2 in OT/SO as well?

Here come the Canucks, 4 regulation wins in a row we’re here to heat your village but not burn it down because we don’t want to set off the forest fires again

Yeah this is the part that makes it fun. If we were eeking out 2-1 wins while being outshot 36-17, I'd be annoyed and it'd be like ffs, what's the point, but when they're kinda killing teams and skating and my new best pal Guddy is crushing fools, how can you not have fun.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

Depth is the maun strength of this team. Maybe the only one, but like Vegas has shown it is a big one to have.

Well, our depth is certainly better than it was last year. But we're still only an injury or two away from seeing the the return of Megna and Chaput. {{shudder}}

 

[Zombotron]

Is the longest win streak we had last year 4 games?

It was a six-game win streak around the new year

 

[thepuckmonster]

It was a six-game win streak around the new year

I don’t know what’s worse, the fact I don’t remember this or that I’m questioning if it even occurred in this dimension

 

[HankNDank]

Well, our depth is certainly better than it was last year. But we're still only an injury or two away from seeing the the return of Megna and Chaput. {{shudder}}

Well I suppose 4 injured forwards would be enough to get down to the Chaput's and Megna's. And that is with a bunch of ineligible players to choose from before them (Pettersson, Gaudette, Lind, Dahlen, etc). Waiver wire issues also prevent other players from getting the call as well, such as Goldobin.

 

[m9]

Are you actually arguing that his 37.5% shooting % and 107.1 PDO are sustainable and the result of his performance rather than luck?

Gaunce created a lot of quality chances last year but that line was extremely unlucky. And again, most of Dorsett's points this year aren't actually off quality chances - they're pucks that bounced off faces or skates, or were into an EN.

Dorsett in 15-16 was both a far worse player and much less lucky.

Playing well and putting yourself in good positions on the ice leads to these lucky bounces. That's all.

 

[absolute garbage]

Playing well and putting yourself in good positions on the ice leads to these lucky bounces. That's all.

Can you please promise to stay consistent with this argument and call out Dorsett for playing terribly once he stops shooting at 37%? After all, he would continue this production as long as he "played well" right?

 

[MS]

Playing well and putting yourself in good positions on the ice leads to these lucky bounces. That's all.

If this was true, every player playing well and working hard would have a 37.5 shooting % and a 107.1 PDO. And that's pretty clearly not the case.

And Dorsett will probably have a stretch later this year where he's working just as hard but doesn't score a goal for 20 games.

 

[m9]

Such a hyper sensitivity on here. Acknowledging that our lord and savior DD (not sarcasm) has been running incredibly lucky isn't discounting the fact that he's been playing great. They aren't exclusive. With avg luck he'd probably have 5 points right now, and would still be playing great hockey. Annoying when almost everyone is on the same page, they're just arguing about who's interpreting the text correctly. On a related note, Dorsett related GDT please?

No sensitivity from me, and I agree with your post.

Reading comprehension is severely lacking if you need someone to literally explain how almost 40% shooting is lucky.

Reading comprehension is fine, thanks. Just genuinely interested how people interpret what they see in regards to good play & luck.

Can you please promise to stay consistent with this argument and call out Dorsett for playing terribly once he stops shooting at 37%? After all, he would continue this production as long as he "played well" right?

Of course it's not sustainable, don't put words in my mouth. But if Dorsett continues to play well, I think he will continue to get some lucky bounces.