Post-Game Talk: Canucks 1, Blue Jackets 2 (OT) - Part II

[opendoor]

So why is that I look back and don't know if I should have bought Canucks TV or watched that many games last year?

I love stats. I use stats every day. But this isn't baseball. Hockey is a dynamic game. the action is continuous, not discrete. Fenwick does an adequate job, at best. And us having a generally positive shot differential didn't make me any less bored last year.

I don't think it's high expectations to be entertained in a manner in which the team has used previously to also get a President's Trophy. Did our different style of play negatively affect our advanced stats in 2009 or 2010? And yet IMO our personnel got better and faster.

It's also not unreasonable to expect to see a decent energy and effort level in a game. We might have played like a 100+ point team statistically but we definitely achieved that with a casual team
attitude. That's freaking infuriating.

Whether you were entertained or not has nothing to with them being outplayed which is what I was talking about.

And we did get outplayed in a significant amount of games that we managed to win. No, not every game but it doesn't behoove you to come in and use stats to argue for the other extreme.

What extreme was I arguing? I said their record flattered them but that the idea that they put up a .700 record while being outplayed in almost every game is ridiculous.

You don't win vastly more games, score more goals, and possess the puck more than your opposition over a 40 game span while being outplayed in most of the games. I mean, you're basically admitting that you thought less of their play because it was boring. How is that anything resembling an objective look at the effectiveness of their play or one that should take precedence over their actual results in terms of goals, shots, wins and puck possession?

Now I'm not trying to argue that the Canucks have been exciting or that they've been amazing. I just find the argument that they've managed to play .640 hockey over the last 63 games while being mired in an unfixable slump to be intellectually dishonest and somewhat naive. The Canucks aren't that good or that talented that they can half ass their way to a top 5 pace over nearly a full season.

 

[arsmaster*]

Open question re. Alberts:

Has he played a game for the Canucks where he hasn't taken a mindnumbingly stupid penalty? I can't believe the guy doesn't understand or learn what a fking penalty is. Same story over and over again. I actually don't think he's as terrible a d man as some of you guys, but I can't stand how stupid he is about the penalties he takes.

The crushing hit in the slot, awesome, no problem with that. The dumb-ass slash, hook, elbow in every game I have a problem with.

To be fair, did you watch the game last night?

The refs didn't call a single infraction the entire game until Lappy had to continue to be an idiot.

That slash was a love tap that guys who aren't 7/8 defensman in the league get away with nightly.

It's the case of being big, low profile, and on the Canucks

 

[tantalum]

I do hope they end the Alberts-Barker experiment soon. I could walk around Barker for goodness sakes. At least Alberts is good for one crushing hit a game.

 

[deadinthewater]

I do hope they end the Alberts-Barker experiment soon. I could walk around Barker for goodness sakes. At least Alberts is good for one crushing hit a game.

But both Ballard/Bieksa are injured.

 

[mossey3535]

Whether you were entertained or not has nothing to with them being outplayed which is what I was talking about.



What extreme was I arguing? I said their record flattered them but that the idea that they put up a .700 record while being outplayed in almost every game is ridiculous.

You don't win vastly more games, score more goals, and possess the puck more than your opposition over a 40 game span while being outplayed in most of the games. I mean, you're basically admitting that you thought less of their play because it was boring. How is that anything resembling an objective look at the effectiveness of their play or one that should take precedence over their actual results in terms of goals, shots, wins and puck possession?

Now I'm not trying to argue that the Canucks have been exciting or that they've been amazing. I just find the argument that they've managed to play .640 hockey over the last 63 games while being mired in an unfixable slump to be intellectually dishonest and somewhat naive. The Canucks aren't that good or that talented that they can half ass their way to a top 5 pace over nearly a full season.

Exactly. So what you're arguing is that the Canucks were actually playing quite well for all of last season because all the metrics you have point to that. That's the opposite extreme of 'we have been in a huge slump but our record says otherwise'.

What I'm saying is that although I don't think they totally sucked, I don't think they performed well either. I also think the ARE in a slump, and have been since last year's Boston game. That's what watching the team play and considering their very successful performances in previous years is telling me. Yes, it's an eyeball test.

I know, you are going to fall back on stats again. But are you looking at the right stats? I don't have time to look up all the Fenwick and Corsi like I used to, so tell me - what was the variance in our advanced stats last year? What was the net and variance compared to the previous year? What was it compared to other top teams? What was the average record of our competition? What was it compared to other top teams? What was that Fenwick differential for all those comparisons?

I don't believe the stats truly reflect the lack of effort this team has been putting in for 1.5 years now. And I say that because we (and I am also guilty of this) often forget that statistics have their limitations, especially when you are using them as a catch-all metric. It's just easier to express my feelings in terms of 'entertainment value' because I get lazy.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Gotta love the you haven't watched any games quip. So tell me if it was only the goalies who won the games I guess that means other teams don't have as good a goalies. If the only reason the team won is the goaltending then the other teams goaltending must have been way worse since the Canucks were able to outscore them while being a far inferior team. There is no pleasing some people.

What exactly is there to be positive about? The team is in a slump spanning a year now, plays mind numbingly dull hockey and shows no indicate of righting a sinking ship. We all know our best opportunity to win is with the Sedins and likewise, have seen the perpetual disappointment that has been San Jose's 'legacy.' I would rather not mirror them or god forbid, become Calgary.