Player Discussion 3 Reasons Why the Canucks Will Be a Tougher Team This Season

[Krnuckfan]

I wasn't making any argument...

My bad, I definitely didn't ready properly and jumped the gun. Sorry for being an ass.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Yeah I'm sure Edler being out is the sole factor for that right? These are such simplistic dumb arguments. When pettersson was out the canucks record is identical to the canucks record when he played. Let's just trade him since he doesn't make us a better team.

No no its all fair. I asked for the stats and he provided the stats, with no spin or a hot take to boot.

 

[krutovsdonut]

The biggest difference in records with Edler in/out is due to the OT coinflip - we went 10-5 in OT with him in the lineup and 3-5 with him out.

We were 18-22-15 in regulation this year with Edler in the lineup with a negative goal differential. He obviously helped a bit in the standings but this notion that we were a playoff team with him that missed the playoffs only because of his unlucky injury is just nonsense.

i think that your stats mean the canucks were 4-14-8 through regulation when edler was out? if so, canucks were .450 in regulation with edler in and .222 in regulation when he was out. that's suggests he did more than "help a bit".

 

[MS]

i think that your stats mean the canucks were 4-14-8 through regulation when edler was out? if so, canucks were .450 in regulation with edler in and .222 in regulation when he was out. that's suggests he did more than "help a bit".

... and that's clearly a statistical anomaly, not a measure of his worth.

Like, there have been studies done on this and the best players in the NHL (Crosby, McDavid, etc.) are worth maybe 8-10 points/year in the standings vs. not being there. The notion that Edler was worth about 30 points to the team last year is just comical.

Edler in the lineup vs. being injured for the year is probably worth about 5 points in the standings. Which is a lot.

 

[krutovsdonut]

... and that's clearly a statistical anomaly, not a measure of his worth.

Like, there have been studies done on this and the best players in the NHL (Crosby, McDavid, etc.) are worth maybe 8-10 points/year in the standings vs. not being there. The notion that Edler was worth about 30 points to the team last year is just comical.

Edler in the lineup vs. being injured for the year is probably worth about 5 points in the standings. Which is a lot.

that should be easy to test.

what's the team's regulation record with and without edler over the last 3 years?

 

[MS]

that should be easy to test.

what's the team's regulation record with and without edler over the last 3 years?

In 2017-18 they went 7-4-1 without Edler in regulation and 18-36-16 with him in the lineup. So basically a 100% reversal of the results last year.

In 2016-17 they went 5-7-2 without Edler in regulation which was slightly better than their regulation win % with him.

So yeah, statistical anomaly.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Rather be tougher to play against than tougher.

 

[krutovsdonut]

In 2017-18 they went 7-4-1 without Edler in regulation and 18-36-16 with him in the lineup. So basically a 100% reversal of the results last year.

In 2016-17 they went 5-7-2 without Edler in regulation which was slightly better than their regulation win % with him.

So yeah, statistical anomaly.

thanks for looking that up. i cannot figure out how to extract that stat.

 

[MS]

thanks for looking that up. i cannot figure out how to extract that stat.

There are probably sites that do it cleaner but I just used hockey-reference. Thankfully Edler missed all his 2016-18 games in one big block each year, so I could just look up the team's record in those games.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

My bad, I definitely didn't ready properly and jumped the gun. Sorry for being an ass.

No Problemo..

 

[Catamarca Livin]

They will be tougher to play against because they are so much heavier up front. It's been the additions to the forward group over the past 2 offseasons that have really changed the look and feel of the forward corps.

Virtanen- 225
Ferland- 218
Miller- 217
Horvat- 215
Beagle- 210
Boeser- 208

That's half the forward group at 208+.

Then you have a couple bigger bodies in Pearson and Leivo that are hard on the puck, with a couple smaller bodies in Roussel and Motte that play a feisty, aggressive game.

That's 10 guys that are either big, heavy or aggressive. The parade of small ,wispy wingers we've seen over the last few years is a thing of the past now. Completely different look and feel up front going forward.

With the Russian Lion waiting in the wings.

This. The team is actually big and for the most part physical. It started last year the team was physical vs Calgary and other less physical teams like TB. It was the first year we were not at a disadvantage vs all teams. I thought Calgary and TB would have issues in the playoffs based off those games. We were dominated by Vegas and Columbus at home. I still think Vegas should have won the cup last year.

 

[me2]

There are probably sites that do it cleaner but I just used hockey-reference. Thankfully Edler missed all his 2016-18 games in one big block each year, so I could just look up the team's record in those games.

That's a good site for it. A shortcut is to look the player's "Game Finder" and filter on wins/losses etc. It will list all the games, and number them, get the last game number.

Alexander Edler Player Game Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[arttk]

that should be easy to test.

what's the team's regulation record with and without edler over the last 3 years?

You have to look at who else is missing as well. It’s rare for the team to just not have Edler and everyone else healthy.
The one thing you can probably correlate is that injuries to Edler leads to more minutes for Tanev and then that gets him injured too or vice versa and our record without both of them should be pretty bad.

 

[Hoglander]

I sure hope we can aim a little higher with Ferland than Guddy or Schenn Jesus Christ

I wasn't comparing their play on the ice, but the way they used their toughness.

Gudbranson was only tough after somebody did something to him.

Schenn didn't let anyone get away with taking any kind of run at Hughes at all.

I hope Ferland is not like Gudbranson in this regard, or any for that matter.

 

[vanuck]

@OP if you could demonstrate why more toughness leads to more wins as opposed to having better hockey playerd that'd be great, thanks.

 

[maroon 6]

The notion that we were supposed to be dead last last season is a massive strawman. Detroit and Ottawa were widely considered the two worst teams in the NHL heading into the season and we were considered a bottom 3-5 team by most. And yes, that’s still bad but let’s not overstate things or make things up.

We did a bit better than that finishing 23rd but were 26th in regulation and propped up by our OT record. So in regulation, we were 1 spot better than the bottom 5 position we were projected at. Whoopee. That this is considered some sort of big success highlights just how low the bar for Benning is.

And, per the topic of this thread, any improvement we made was almost entirely on the back of breakout seasons by Horvat and Markstrom and because Pettersson is really good. Not because of some mythical contribution by the grit of Jay Beagle.

The Canucks were tied for the 5th worst record in 17-18 season. That off season we lost 2 50 points players in the Sedins and signed Beagle, Roussel and Schaller. There was a huge question mark about our offence that offseason and many including myself expected us to finish last.

 

[Marcel]

Remind me again how we did last season?

Even if your claims in the first paragraph are indisputably true, the Canucks still fell well short of a playoff spot. In other words, even if Ferland does add toughness to the lineup, does it actually matter enough for it to be a primary reason for signing him?

Don't get me wrong: I don't have big issue with the Ferland contract per se. The cap hit is decent but the term is probably a year too long. I just think it wasn't the right move to make at this point. As I said in a previous post, I think this deal will ultimately be decided by the offensive contribution of Ferland, rather than the nebulously defined "toughness" he may or may not provide.

I take it you've never played in a competitive sport where intimidation is allowed? The team is a bigger, stronger team which in turn makes everyone on the team grow an inch or two.

The more comfortable a player is the more effective he is.

Fingers crossed that with a bigger, stronger team and a better schedule this year the injuries go down significantly.

And its not just this seasons additions, the pipeline has some bigger, stronger prospects who stand a chance of making the parent team over the coming seasons.

 

[Hit the post]

I take it you've never played in a competitive sport where intimidation is allowed? .

I take it you’ve never played for the Canucks where Kelly Sutherland was one of the officials.

 

[PecaFan]

I take it you've never played in a competitive sport where intimidation is allowed?

That would be great if the Canucks played in the local rec league, but this is the NHL and players who can be intimidated never make the league in the first place, or have extremely short careers.

Intimidation/deterrence is such a bogus concept. If you ask the Canucks, they'll all swear that their large players intimidate the other teams in the league. If you ask those same Canucks if they are afraid of the large players on the other teams in the league and meekly back down in games, they'll also swear that of course they're not afraid of them, they'll still continue to do their job like Real Men Do.

Literally every team in the league thinks the same thing. "Oh no, not us, it's all the rest of the teams who get intimidated!"

 

[Hit the post]

That would be great if the Canucks played in the local rec league, but this is the NHL and players who can be intimidated never make the league in the first place, or have extremely short careers.

Intimidation/deterrence is such a bogus concept. If you ask the Canucks, they'll all swear that their large players intimidate the other teams in the league. If you ask those same Canucks if they are afraid of the large players on the other teams in the league and meekly back down in games, they'll also swear that of course they're not afraid of them, they'll still continue to do their job like Real Men Do.

Literally every team in the league thinks the same thing. "Oh no, not us, it's all the rest of the teams who get intimidated!"

Didn’t Jethro Bodine say the Canucks were intimidated by the mean Calgary crowd? That’s it! Restrict all Canuck holders to people 250+ pounds and over 6 feet Five!

 

[Marcel]

That would be great if the Canucks played in the local rec league, but this is the NHL and players who can be intimidated never make the league in the first place, or have extremely short careers.

Intimidation/deterrence is such a bogus concept. If you ask the Canucks, they'll all swear that their large players intimidate the other teams in the league. If you ask those same Canucks if they are afraid of the large players on the other teams in the league and meekly back down in games, they'll also swear that of course they're not afraid of them, they'll still continue to do their job like Real Men Do.

Literally every team in the league thinks the same thing. "Oh no, not us, it's all the rest of the teams who get intimidated!"

It might be a bogus concept for you, but its not a bogus concept in the NHL.

“This is not going to be fun team to play against,” said Treliving, who will also employ classic agitators in Matthew Tkachuk and Sam Bennett once their contracts are ironed out.
“There’s still a little bit of the law of the jungle here. It’s like running with a group of guys – the top guys just feel better. Nobody is going to mess around. Intimidation is still part of the game.”

I'm surprised that someone would argue against it, if you've played the game even at the rec level you would understand it. If you have watched and listened to the players in the NHL you would have seen and heard it.

 

[PecaFan]

You're just proving my point. Of course the Flames believe that others are afraid of them, that's exactly what I said.

All 31 teams are afraid of no one, but think the other 30 teams are afraid of them.
Which is of course simultaneously stupid and impossible.

These are the same guys who think always putting a certain skate on first makes them play better, and a play by play guy uttering the word 'shutout' jinxes their goalie.

 

[Marcel]

You're just proving my point. Of course the Flames believe that others are afraid of them, that's exactly what I said.

All 31 teams are afraid of no one, but think the other 30 teams are afraid of them.
Which is of course simultaneously stupid and impossible.

These are the same guys who think always putting a certain skate on first makes them play better, and a play by play guy uttering the word 'shutout' jinxes their goalie.

Not sure why this is so hard for you to accept.

Intimidation is a fact of life, whether it be in the sporting world or on the streets.

If you want to argue that having an intimidating team is or isn't a pre requisite for a winning team, that would be a debate that might be worth having.

In the meantime, for those Flame fans who are calling for the heads of their management for making the Lucic deal, a silver lining they see is that Gaudreau should be able to concentrate on playing the game without the constant hacks and whacks.

Will that allow him to perform better? We will see.

As for your comment on superstitions, I take it that you either don't understand or accept the mental side of the game. That doesn't make it stupid.

 

[MS]

You're just proving my point. Of course the Flames believe that others are afraid of them, that's exactly what I said.

All 31 teams are afraid of no one, but think the other 30 teams are afraid of them.
Which is of course simultaneously stupid and impossible.

These are the same guys who think always putting a certain skate on first makes them play better, and a play by play guy uttering the word 'shutout' jinxes their goalie.

It’s the same way you constantly hear ‘man, our guy getting in that fight really fired up the team!’ .... except the other team also had a guy in a fight firing them up.

Amusingly, in studies done on this sort of stuff (and it’s been linked here in the past but I can’t find it now) there’s actually a negative correlation between winning fights and the team’s response. IIRC, in fights where there was a decisive winner and another goal was scored in the game, the team who won the fight only scored the next goal 47% of the time. And same deal for injuries, where there has also been a negative correlation between the amount of fighting majors a team has and man-games lost to injury.

 

[Marcel]

It’s the same way you constantly hear ‘man, our guy getting in that fight really fired up the team!’ .... except the other team also had a guy in a fight firing them up.

Amusingly, in studies done on this sort of stuff (and it’s been linked here in the past but I can’t find it now) there’s actually a negative correlation between winning fights and the team’s response. IIRC, in fights where there was a decisive winner and another goal was scored in the game, the team who won the fight only scored the next goal 47% of the time. And same deal for injuries, where there has also been a negative correlation between the amount of fighting majors a team has and man-games lost to injury.

We aren't talking about fighting.