Post-Game Talk: Canucks 2, Sharks 3: Barker saves our bacon, but San Jose "Fry's" us in the SO

[opendoor]

To be fair to Vigneault, Burrows and Edler were 60% and 50% shooters last year respectively:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats....osition=S&country=&status=&viewName=shootouts

 

[BrandonL]

To be fair to Vigneault, Burrows and Edler were 60% and 50% shooters last year respectively:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats....osition=S&country=&status=&viewName=shootouts

I think Edler scored on his first couple, but he has been horrific since then. The book is out on him, and has been for over a year now.

He either goes wide or takes a weak wrist shot, sometimes both. At this point I think it's pretty clear that there are better SO options than him.

 

[David71]

at this point it doesnt really matter who shoots in the shootouts because we know for a fact, nucks stink at it. a.v and his "throw in the hat choices".

 

[Bougieman]

Is there somewhere we can find out the stat for teams records in the history of the shootout? As in: which team has the most amount of wins, and which teams has the most amount of losses since they began doing it?

 

[Bougieman]

Because that is a stat I'd be really interested to see.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Relax guys.

We played like men amongst boys tonight. We are gonna win more often than not if we play like this everynight.

Last 3 games all good efforts.

 

[vanuck]

Well, more importantly, they played the best hockey in at least a couple of weeks.

PP stucks. Newell Brown (not to mention AV) needs to be fired.

Really pathetic how this team, so much talent, struggles to score goals.

This game was lost on the inability to finish on its chances. Shades of Game 7 against Chicago all over again. There's no way a team with this many good players should be struggling to bury it so often. At some point you have to think the problem is systemic... Sharks were ****ing outclassed tonight and it wasn't even close.

Essentially it was a tie still - but with that said, it infuriates you when the coach makes idiotic shootout decisions. Basically just giving away the extra point. Why even bother...

 

[vanuck]

I don't get the booth waking up talk (I get the intended joke) just don't know why some are suggesting he's been sleeping.

He's been good every game he's played his year. Chances are there. It's only a matter of time.

And please, please let Kassian and booth play with Schroeder. That is killing me.

Lappy with Weise and Sestito has the makings of a great 4th line, and booth and Kassian are almost the perfect (on paper) linemates for Schroeder.

Those are such no-brainer combos that it should be obvious to everyone... everyone except AV that is.

And for the record, shootout losses like these might have something to do with the perception that we don't have much offensive talent outside of the Sedins and Kesler, despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[vanuck]

Not sure. We match up really well against the Sharks these days and they've been a truly crap team since their hot start, so I don't really know what to think. Probably not, but I'm pretty pessimistic these days.

I'm surprised - apparently we're still the 3rd best team in the league in score-adjusted Fenwick %, if this article is to be believed.

Unless they should be using Fenwick tied or close?

 

[VanCanucks53]

The Canucks were clearly the superior team and that's why giving away 2 points is harder to swallow. They didn't deserve them. I don't think I remember any Shark from that game besides Neimi. Their top guys were invisible. It's funny how they got on to that hot start and everyone was naming them the class of the west with Chicago but nope, they are the same old Sharks.

 

[Verviticus]

I'm surprised - apparently we're still the 3rd best team in the league in score-adjusted Fenwick %, if this article is to be believed.

Unless they should be using Fenwick tied or close?

tied or close is better after you get enough samples because teams DO outshoot when they are behind and get "complacent" when they're ahead

 

[vanuck]

tied or close is better after you get enough samples because teams DO outshoot when they are behind and get "complacent" when they're ahead

So score-adjusted doesn't account for leading/trailing situations, despite the name?

 

[Verviticus]

So score-adjusted doesn't account for leading/trailing situations, despite the name?

oh **** i ignored "score adjusted" because im Pejorative Slured pretend i didnt say anything as i dont know exactly what that is

edit: from article: Early in the season, Score-Adjusted Fenwick does a substantially better job of predicting how many points a team will earn in the remainder of the season. Later in the season the difference gets small -- both because the sample size for Fenwick Tied gets large enough that much of the noise is washed out and because the randomness of the small number of games remaining becomes increasingly difficult for any measure to predict.

edit2: thats a really good article

i think most of what i said is probably accurate somehow. generally the problem with taking only a subsection of fenwick early is that even though its better than GOALS its still a really small sample

 

[vanuck]

oh **** i ignored "score adjusted" because im Pejorative Slured pretend i didnt say anything as i dont know exactly what that is

Well nonetheless I have heard that Fenwick close or tied are better, just wasn't sure how score-adjusted compared to it.

Edit: Never mind, there you go. My bad, I jumped right to the table when I saw that article. Yeah you were right, plus I'm more interested in how we do after the season (larger sample of games) and I'm not even really interested in where we finish anyway.

 

[BoHorvatFan]

Bieksa deserves a big increase in respect, we cannot win without him. He's a large portion of the heart on this team and it shows when he's out. He is our true leader IMO.

 

[absolute garbage]

Burish's shot was better and it came from a fair bit closer as well. There should be no question in anyone's mind which goal was worse. Canuck fans are notorious for their poor judgement when it comes to goaltending. This is simply another case of that. Stoppable sure. Putrid? Yeah, putrid assessment.

And of course the biggest difference, Burish had tons of speed coming into that one. Like everyone should know, it's a lot tougher puck for goalie to stop compared to someone standing still and shooting like Cammalleri did. Not to even mention how much harder Burish's shot was.

What comes to PP, I thought in the 3rd period PP did everything but score. No question PP has been bad recently and it was again in the first two periods, but they had multiple grade A chances and good possession time in the third period. Bad luck and bad execution but goals will come if they play like that.

 

[mossey3535]

I'm surprised - apparently we're still the 3rd best team in the league in score-adjusted Fenwick %, if this article is to be believed.

Unless they should be using Fenwick tied or close?

Advanced stats have their place but if you think about it Fenwick is just a volume statistic. It HAPPENS to APPEAR to be the most convenient variable that correlates well to scoring/winning.

Think about the premise of this article:

Score-adjusted Fenwick is a good predictor of future team success.

However, score-adjusted Fenwick is no longer a good predictor of future team success as the season goes on. Why's that?

Because Fenwick tied becomes larger? Games later in the season are tied more? Maybe that's a factor they should have accounted for somehow, no? Or at least had a better explanation.

Also, the last games are 'more random'? By what measurement is it more random? If shot differential is such a good predictor of success, why does it fail with more data? Usually the opposite is true - with more historical data applied to a model, the better it becomes at predicting future events.

Later, he states that Corsi is better for less games. But Corsi just includes blocked shots, so the amount of data is larger - and therefore better. But when Fenwick takes over later (because there are more games and therefore more data) it removes all the blocked shots so it may or may not be bringing less data to the table. Then Fenwick blows up again, inexplicably, because there is TOO much data or that's what they claim.

A better question might be - what is it about ES shot differential that makes it such a strong predictor when total shot differential doesn't do much the same job?

Anyhow, don't read too much into it. Fun to think about though.

 

[JuniorNelson]

Bieksa deserves a big increase in respect, we cannot win without him. He's a large portion of the heart on this team and it shows when he's out. He is our true leader IMO.

Agree. He is like another Captain.

 

[JuniorNelson]

I thought the Canucks played pretty well overall. Every line had good chances and pressured the net. People tried hard. Guys were blocking shots. The team looked fully engaged.

I am thinking the Canucks only need to win their division, since Chicago seems unstoppable and clear favorites to win the President's mug. This lets V fart around with the line-up and try different combinations out. All good.

 

[Verviticus]

Also, the last games are 'more random'? By what measurement is it more random? If shot differential is such a good predictor of success, why does it fail with more data? Usually the opposite is true - with more historical data applied to a model, the better it becomes at predicting future events.

if you have a complicated and accurate model based off of the information of 60 games of data, it's not really too useful to predict win 61 because that's a single game with a highly random component. it's useful to predict, say, the remaining 22 games. as 22 approaches 0, predicting the remaining games is less and less accurate

so first you start with a statistic that has the most volume (and therefore becomes useful the earliest) and then as the season matures you pick the one that, when it becomes statistically useful, is more accurate.

late in the season, after the deadline, the models are probably most useful in creating a pseudo power-rankings for the playoffs (which are stupidly random to begin with), see: LA kings

 

[Verviticus]

I thought the Canucks played pretty well overall. Every line had good chances and pressured the net. People tried hard. Guys were blocking shots. The team looked fully engaged.

http://behindthenet.ca/fenwick_2012.php?sort=4&section=close

basically, the two teams you don't want to be ahead only a goal early on are the canucks and boston. 63% and 65% of events is ****ing insane because that essentially means they are getting two to your one until its tied

god help you if you're ahead by two versus the blackhawks

edit: by the way if you sort by up 1 or worse, up 2 you'll get a good idea of why teams don't just STEP ON THE GAS when they're ahead. it's a very real and very, very, very strong phenomenon that teams don't play as well while they're ahead

 

[Orca Smash]

http://behindthenet.ca/fenwick_2012.php?sort=4&section=close

basically, the two teams you don't want to be ahead only a goal early on are the canucks and boston. 63% and 65% of events is ****ing insane because that essentially means they are getting two to your one until its tied

god help you if you're ahead by two versus the blackhawks

edit: by the way if you sort by up 1 or worse, up 2 you'll get a good idea of why teams don't just STEP ON THE GAS when they're ahead. it's a very real and very, very, very strong phenomenon that teams don't play as well while they're ahead

LoL I like that hawks stat, if your up by 2 your going to loose.

So I guess hold a 1 goal lead if you play the hawks. Av will be his licking his chops to nurse that if given the chance.

 

[orcatown]

Didn't see all the game but there were some disturbing and questionable coaching decisions IMO

1) Edler seemed to be having a very difficult game especially on the PP. I felt that they could have done considerably better with Tanev out on the power play in OT. They needed some movement rather than just shuffling the puck back to Edler so he could blast away. Tanev was having a much better game and he could have given the PP much better movement. Looking for Tanev with a back door play, giving him the option to pass or shoot would at least given you a chance to get the goalie moving. Almost anything would have been better than what they did. Tanev had to be option and at least worth a try. Just another example of thick-headness of AV. He doesn't think in the moment very well.

2) Schroeder at the point did not work at all. Again it provided no movement. Schroeder for much of the power play simply stood at the point with his heels in the blue of the blue line. The one thing that Schroeder might create is movement. However, once he gets standing still his effectiveness is gone. Saw the same thing in Chicago. Schroeder got standing around on the power play and the power play was useless. Eventually he got moved right off the power play. I've got to ask if our coaches, during the lock out, were actually watching the the games in Chicago to see this.

3) The shoot out selection again seemed like pulling names out of hat. You compare this to the Sharks who have designated shoot out players all of whom are the most skilled on their team at the shoot out. The way it looks the Canucks don't even practise the shoot out. How can it be that the Sedins, two of the slickest stick handlers in the League, are so poor. Surely with practise they could develop. They have developed all other aspects of their game and seems ludicrous to think they couldn't develop better shoot out techniques with practise.

And the other thing here is that every one has a book on the shooters, but the Canucks seem to have none. Everyone has seen Couture's move and everyone knows Pavelski is going to shoot. Why not have people mimic these moves in practise before the game (where possible) so you are ready. It seems to me that the Canucks do nothing like this to prepare for shoot outs. Seems to me that, despite the value of the shoot out win point, the whole shoot out is an after-thought to our coaches.

Again, it seems to me, that our coaches are good at overall organization and developing a set routine. However, they seem lost when making critical and immediate adjustments. Just kind of leave that up to the players.

 

[604]

Didn't see all the game but there were some disturbing and questionable coaching decisions IMO
...

I hate AV more than almost anyone on this board but I think we're a little over the top these days.

It has been clearly indicated that we do practice shootouts and a "select" group has been staying after practice to work on them. The work clearly isn't paying off, but it is happening.

The team played a solid game and lost, it happens. Games like these are games I don't mind losing because they are indicators that we are going to break out of our slump.

 

[Verviticus]

LoL I like that hawks stat, if your up by 2 your going to loose.

So I guess hold a 1 goal lead if you play the hawks. Av will be his licking his chops to nurse that if given the chance.

well, it's a joke stat, but even if it meant anything, the only thing it could necessarily imply is that you couldn't go up by 3