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

[Orca Smash]

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

I have only looked really at corsi rel qoc and on stats at behind the net before, and that was for individual players, never paid much attention fenwick or looked at an entire team or what it means, so that does not mean the hawks are going to control puck possession and is very likely going to win whenever down by 2 this season?

Either way it is a funny stat anytime its 100%

 

[Lindt]

But how was it worse? Cammaleri has a wicked shot and used a defenseman as a partial screen. Schneider didn't have to worry about anyone but Burish, could've been as far out as he wanted to and got scored on from the same distance as Luongo by a much worse player.

They're both horrible goals that shouldn't have happened. The one that might be worse is actually the one scored on Schneider.

It doesn't matter who has a more "wicked" shot. Camalleri's shot on Luongo was nothing close to wicked. In fact, it was probably going over the net had Luongo not touched it. As you say, both were horrible goals, but Burish's shot was a more difficult save.

The logic around here is unbelievable. If it were Stamkos and the shot was exactly the same would that make it a more difficult save / better shot?

 

[thegutter]

i thought that was a really good game even though they lost in the shootout. if niemi wasnt stopping everything we would have won

 

[ItsAllPartOfThePlan]

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



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.

I was thinking of this as well. Our PP was effective when we had defenseman pinching in the back door. Edler and Ehrhoff used to do this really well with the Sedins. Edler for some reason has stopped and Schroeder never leaves the point.

I would like to see Hamhuis and Garrison now that he is getting up to speed on that point. Hamhuis seems like pinching in the back door and Garrison's shot seems to be finding the net these days.

Let Schroeder run things on the second unit with Edler and Bieksa on the points with Kassian in front and Higgins or Booth on the other side. Higgins right now as he seems to be playing really well.

 

[tantalum]

Had Schroeder hit the top corner instead of shooting just wide late in the third his place on the PP would have been "inspired". To me he didn't look terrible. He was moving and trying to open up passing lanes. If you aren't happy with the D-men you have on the bench I have no issue with the canucks trying that again to see if he can get comfortable.

 

[Proto]

Niemi has to be the early frontrunner for the Vezina.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Some belated thoughts on the game...

Don't see much cause for handwringing in this one. The Canucks were - for at least 85% of the game - the far superior team. Outskated, out hustled, out hit and outchanced the Sharks. Niemi, for as much as I rag on him, had a very strong game between the pipes for San Jose.

Similarly, Schneider was great for Vancouver, the second goal excluding. I don't care which goalie that is, that was a weak goal - looked to me like Schneider misread the height of the puck, knicked his glove and went in. Not all that dissimilar from Cammaleri's goal in Calgary, from my perspective.

But other than that one play, Schneider was outstanding.

The Twins...where to begin? Their efforts in the LA and SJ games over the last few days have been astounding. Giving opposing defenders fits down low and just generating chance after chance.

The PP really came on as the game went on. So many chances on that PP in overtime, but again, Niemi stood tall. At the end of the day, we'll lament the fact that our PP couldn't bury it, but there was some very promising progress in that regard on this night.

Tanev is looking so smooth - not out of place at all in the top four. His hockey IQ is superb as he always seems able to slow the play down and move the puck out of danger.

Funny moment of the night - when the Sharks had the open net and hit Barker, I was on the phone with my Dad. I sent him into fits with my call of the play.

"Holy - thank God Barker blocked that. Wait - Barker?! What the #%#% is he doing on the PK with two minutes to go?!"

I know the Canucks like their depth on D, but neither Alberts nor Barker have looked good at all in their limited action. One hopes that as they settle in they'll become more reliable depth defenders, but it's sure not looking that way at this point.

The only line up front that I had issues with was the fourth line, in particular, Sestito - he had a pretty dreadful game after two solid outtings. Schroeder needs to be bumped to the third, and Lapierre needs to play with Sestito and Weise.

All in all though, this is a game we were unlucky not to win. Hope we can get back in the right column tomorrow.

 

[mossey3535]

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

If each game is an independent event well predicted by the measurement you've chosen 'randomness' doesn't mean anything. If it's actually based on statistics on a volume of data, random chance should have been built in already.

Basically there are some huge issues with these stats on a fundamental level. There is a distinct possibility that neither Corsi or Fenwick is relevant in ANY CONTEXT if it fails so horribly in distinct segments of the season to do the same thing.

I know what they are TRYING to claim. What is actually happening may or may not be entirely different.

 

[Wheatley]

I know the Canucks like their depth on D, but neither Alberts nor Barker have looked good at all in their limited action. One hopes that as they settle in they'll become more reliable depth defenders, but it's sure not looking that way at this point.

I'm not going to defend Alberts or Barker, and I really wish neither of them were on this team, BUT I can't imagine how tough it would be to go such a long time without playing games.

Considering that, I actually don't think they've been as horrible as I'm sure many of us thought they'd be. Remember the first game of the year against Anaheim? *shudders*

 

[LiveeviL]

I am fine with Alberts as long as he is used according to capacity (i.e. not like Rome who was ok if AV had used him with more care). One can not expect to have top guys down the depth, we are better of at #8-9 than many teams who actually have to dress guys like Alberts every game.

 

[HAMMY5]

Some belated thoughts on the game...

Don't see much cause for handwringing in this one. The Canucks were - for at least 85% of the game - the far superior team. Outskated, out hustled, out hit and outchanced the Sharks. Niemi, for as much as I rag on him, had a very strong game between the pipes for San Jose.

Similarly, Schneider was great for Vancouver, the second goal excluding. I don't care which goalie that is, that was a weak goal - looked to me like Schneider misread the height of the puck, knicked his glove and went in. Not all that dissimilar from Cammaleri's goal in Calgary, from my perspective.

But other than that one play, Schneider was outstanding.

The Twins...where to begin? Their efforts in the LA and SJ games over the last few days have been astounding. Giving opposing defenders fits down low and just generating chance after chance.

The PP really came on as the game went on. So many chances on that PP in overtime, but again, Niemi stood tall. At the end of the day, we'll lament the fact that our PP couldn't bury it, but there was some very promising progress in that regard on this night.

Tanev is looking so smooth - not out of place at all in the top four. His hockey IQ is superb as he always seems able to slow the play down and move the puck out of danger.

Funny moment of the night - when the Sharks had the open net and hit Barker, I was on the phone with my Dad. I sent him into fits with my call of the play.

"Holy - thank God Barker blocked that. Wait - Barker?! What the #%#% is he doing on the PK with two minutes to go?!"

I know the Canucks like their depth on D, but neither Alberts nor Barker have looked good at all in their limited action. One hopes that as they settle in they'll become more reliable depth defenders, but it's sure not looking that way at this point.

The only line up front that I had issues with was the fourth line, in particular, Sestito - he had a pretty dreadful game after two solid outtings. Schroeder needs to be bumped to the third, and Lapierre needs to play with Sestito and Weise.

All in all though, this is a game we were unlucky not to win. Hope we can get back in the right column tomorrow.

You forgot to mention Edler with another dreadful Game of Turnover after Turnover

other then that I think your pretty much spot on with everything

 

[opendoor]

I have only looked really at corsi rel qoc and on stats at behind the net before, and that was for individual players, never paid much attention fenwick or looked at an entire team or what it means, so that does not mean the hawks are going to control puck possession and is very likely going to win whenever down by 2 this season?

Either way it is a funny stat anytime its 100%

It just means that in the instances where they were down by 2 goals (which has likely only happened a couple of times for very brief periods this season) that they didn't allow any shots to be directed at their net before they scored and made it a 1 goal game. So they've produced 100% of the shots and shot attempts in that span. It's just a tiny sample though, and that's why the numbers are weird.

 

[Edo]

Not having Garrison in OT on the PP is such a ridiculous move. At some point, you need to take the power away from the Sedin's and force them to integrate our most lethal shot onto the PP. No excuse for not having him there.

 

[opendoor]

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.

Score adjusted Fenwick doesn't become less reliable as the season goes on, it's just that the predictive abilities between it and straight Fenwick Close more or less disappears.

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.

The games don't become more random, it just becomes harder to predict smaller samples no matter how accurate the methodology. If you flip a coin long enough you're going to get near or at 50/50 but that doesn't you won't get 5 heads in a row if you flip a coin 5 times. But if you flip it 60 times, chances are you're going to be pretty close to a 30/30 split.

 

[Shareefruck]

i don't mind the move too much, he's been hot lately and better SO choices (schroeder, kassian) haven't exactly been lighting it up in recent shootouts

Like the Sedins, I think he's a lost cause on shootouts regardless of how hot he is