Post-Game Talk: Canucks 4 @ Panthers 5 | 20/12/15 | 1:00 PM SNP

[lousy]

Why the **** would I sort by anything other than offensive zone starts when making a point on how the 4th line starts in the offensive zone too much.

What do you want me to do? Sort by defensive zone faceoffs to find if the 4th line starts in the offensive zone too much?



This isn't cherry picking. You just don't like the data so you're trying to dismiss it as misleading.

You are cherry picking stats when sorting your results that way. You were using your charts to complain about the usage of the lines, and you are neglecting the fact that you usually do not want to start your 4th line in your own zone if you have a choice. Especially when you are on the road and the other team has the last change. Do you give the opponent the opportunity to line up their 1st line against our 4th in our zone? But the 4th line has to be used to prevent the other lines from being overused, so where do you use them? Seems like the safest place is in the offensive zone.

I am sorry this hurts some peoples heads, but every factor has to be looked at. Not just simple offensive zone start numbers.

When is comes to usage, I would first look at overall ice time. Coaches make changes on the fly to adjust for what is out there, and TOI would reflect that. Even better would be average time on ice.

 

[lousy]

If you think that is messing with data then obviously you never messed with data before.

Clicking on a column and sorting based on ONE metric is anything but spin.

It is spin when you are using that metric for your whole argument and ignoring all the other stats.

 

[Verviticus]

feel free to make your own argument

 

[Verviticus]

"I dont LIKE this argument. do another!!'"

 

[lousy]

"I dont LIKE this argument. do another!!'"

I have no idea what you are getting at. Feel free to "do another!"

I would also like to add that during home games the opposing team is trying to get their top lines out in our zone as much as possible. Which again limits when we can put our 4th line out in our defensive zone and adds to the 4th line being deployed safely in the offensive zone.

 

[Verviticus]

by how much? 1%?

 

[WTG]

You are cherry picking stats when sorting your results that way. You were using your charts to complain about the usage of the lines, and you are neglecting the fact that you usually do not want to start your 4th line in your own zone if you have a choice. Especially when you are on the road and the other team has the last change. Do you give the opponent the opportunity to line up their 1st line against our 4th in our zone? But the 4th line has to be used to prevent the other lines from being overused, so where do you use them? Seems like the safest place is in the offensive zone.

I am sorry this hurts some peoples heads, but every factor has to be looked at. Not just simple offensive zone start numbers.

When is comes to usage, I would first look at overall ice time. Coaches make changes on the fly to adjust for what is out there, and TOI would reflect that. Even better would be average time on ice.

So what you are saying is that the 4th line is so bad that we HAVE to give it offensive zone starts because if we start them in the defensive zone they get hemmed in.

Why not bench the 4th line entirely during the 3rd period? They aren't contributing anyway.

 

[lousy]

So what you are saying is that the 4th line is so bad that we HAVE to give it offensive zone starts because if we start them in the defensive zone they get hemmed in.

Why not bench the 4th line entirely during the 3rd period? They aren't contributing anyway.

I am not saying that. But wouldn't you deploy your teams assets correctly and use your weakest link in a sheltered way? Isn't that what people call good coaching?

 

[vancityluongo]

I have no idea what you are getting at. Feel free to "do another!"

I would also like to add that during home games the opposing team is trying to get their top lines out in our zone as much as possible. Which again limits when we can put our 4th line out in our defensive zone and adds to the 4th line being deployed safely in the offensive zone.

That's pretty easy to resolve. Willie could just, y'know, play the fourth line less...

 

[lousy]

That's pretty easy to resolve. Willie could just, y'know, play the fourth line less...

That still wouldn't change the offensive zone start percentages that people here are complaining about

 

[WTG]

I am not saying that. But wouldn't you deploy your teams assets correctly and use your weakest link in a sheltered way? Isn't that what people call good coaching?

Wouldn't giving your offensive players like Horvat and McCann more offensive zone starts while skipping the 4th line be using your assets correctly?

I mean the 4th line isn't contributing offensively. Why even have them out on the ice. Especially on a offensive zone faceoff. Why put your bad players on the ice?

 

[Pip]

If you can't trust the fourth line then they need to be benched when the game is close in the third. It does say a lot that McCann and Horvat are apparently more trusted against top lines than the 5 million dollar wonder duo of Prust and Dorsett.

 

[VC]

Shortening the bench when the time is appropriate is a good thing but you cannot run a 3 line team and have any sustained success. Having your weakest link start away from your net more often than not is a defensive strategy.

 

[lousy]

If you can't trust the fourth line then they need to be benched when the game is close in the third.

Sure, I agree with this. And it isn't about not completely trusting the 4th line, it needs to be played during games and when can you put it out? And where? But that is just looking at the third period now, the stats quoted were only for 1 goal differences which could be during any period.

 

[Wilch]

Why even have them out on the ice. Especially on a offensive zone faceoff. Why put your bad players on the ice?

Need to justify stupid decisions (Benning for acquiring these plugs and WD for playing them) by continuing to make stupid decisions. Let the mentorpede grow.

 

[pitseleh]

What is terrible about those zone start numbers is that Dorsett and Prust get more ice time than any other forwards when the Canucks are down a goal.

http://www.vancourier.com/pass-it-t...-dorsett-plays-more-than-the-sedins-1.2136715

Just incompetence.

 

[quat]

That still wouldn't change the offensive zone start percentages that people here are complaining about

Why does a coach give a "defensive" line of vets with little scoring prowess more offensive starts? It's counter intuitive. That said, it does fall in line with many of Willie's coaching decisions. Inexplicable is what comes to mind.

 

[Hit the post]

What is terrible about those zone start numbers is that Dorsett and Prust get more ice time than any other forwards when the Canucks are down a goal.

http://www.vancourier.com/pass-it-t...-dorsett-plays-more-than-the-sedins-1.2136715

Just incompetence.

Don't blame the fool. Blame the fool that hired the fool.

 

[mossey3535]

I am not saying that. But wouldn't you deploy your teams assets correctly and use your weakest link in a sheltered way? Isn't that what people call good coaching?

Well I think AV is a pretty reasonable standard for good coaching especially in the regular season.

His strategy was simple - Sedins in the ozone all day every day.

His best faceoff guy in his own zone, that being Malhotra or Kesler.

Problem with your narrative is that Cracknell's FO% is horrid. Also, even with skewed o-zone starts they tend to generate less shots than they allow.

You're also basically admitting that they aren't the best defensive line and need sheltering.

I think you need to drastically rethink your position. The most effective strategy would be to play the 4th line only in neutral zone faceoffs.

 

[biturbo19]

We are giving the 4th line sheltered minutes that we could be used to shelter McCann.

Instead we basically let our 4th line play against their 4th line while starting in the offensive zone.

What if, instead we used our 1st,2nd,3rd lines against their 4th line in the offensive zone. That would create more chances and would help shelter our younger players.

The thing is, if there's one major element in which McCann probably most needs "sheltering", it's in the physical grinding aspects of the game. Keeping him away from goons, plugs, headhunters...and those shifts where the entire time is spent with shovel in hand, digging trenches along the wall at whichever end.

Intentionally starting a player like McCann against the opposing teams 4th line muckers and grinders consistently is a lot like serving the kid up on a silver platter for them to take runs at.


When you're looking at this zone deployment and corsi charts and the rest...you've gotta look at the other end of the equation as well, and the roles each player is playing, and against what opposing roles. His linemates matter, his opposition's style of play matters.

Do you play a guy like McCann against opposing skill players where you hope he's going to learn and develop in his ability to play that game which he'll eventually be expected to play anyway? Or do you "gift" him minutes against a bunch of energy line grinders who may well set out headhunting on the kid?


I also think these bubble charts highly oversimplify zone deployment in that it's all a big "lump sum" of data points. Doesn't really take into account the important details of zone deployment, line usage, minutes management.

WillieD is pretty poor at many aspects of bench management...but it's not as simple as just lining up the chart bubbles on the fly. It's a gross oversimplification of the game of hockey.

 

[Hit the post]

WillieD is pretty poor at many aspects of bench management...but it's not as simple as just lining up the chart bubbles on the fly. It's a gross oversimplification of the game of hockey.

Kind of sounds like Willie's bench management.

 

[Wilch]

The thing is, if there's one major element in which McCann probably most needs "sheltering", it's in the physical grinding aspects of the game. Keeping him away from goons, plugs, headhunters...and those shifts where the entire time is spent with shovel in hand, digging trenches along the wall at whichever end.

Intentionally starting a player like McCann against the opposing teams 4th line muckers and grinders consistently is a lot like serving the kid up on a silver platter for them to take runs at.

So why haven't our talentless plugs taken runs at the other team's younger, smaller, skilled players?

Moreover, if McCann can't avoid getting plastered by these sub million players, he's going to get creamed by guys getting paid even more (whether it's physical punishment or goals against).

 

[biturbo19]

So why haven't our talentless plugs taken runs at the other team's younger, smaller, skilled players?

Moreover, if McCann can't avoid getting plastered by these sub million players, he's going to get creamed by guys getting paid even more (whether it's physical punishment or goals against).

Because...other coaches don't just throw their "kids" out every time our 4th line comes over the boards either?

Bench management is a dance, takes two to tango. If the other coach doesn't want their "kids" out against our Dorsetts and Prusts, they're not going to be out there. And that in itself, is a "value" in these type of players. If you can "intimidate" a coach away from a potentially desirable "skill matchup"...your 4th line is doing its job.

There are fundamental differences in the way each line is expected to go out there and play. Top-6, even Top-9 players these days, they're expected to go out there and produce offense. 4th liners are out there to grind away at an opponent, establish some zone time, make hits, influence the flow of the game, eat up some minutes...and maybe bang a greasy one in.

You serve a prime target up time after time to these opponents 4th line guys...someone's going to make it their job to knock McCann's block off. Would hardly call that "shelter".

I'd much rather see them take their chances with McCann as a skill player - which he is.


Though at times, i think having him playing with 4th line wingers for additional "shelter" and also due to WillieD idiosyncrasies, while McCann was first starting out in the NHL with very low minutes and very limited zone starts of any kind...has likely skewed "zone deployment" stats for players involved.


I still really don't grasp how the the coach demonstrating some remarkable faith in a 19 year old rookie to take important defensive zone faceoffs is somehow a huge problem though. Does WillieD hate the kids, or does he trust them too much? Which is it?

 

[biturbo19]

So why haven't our talentless plugs taken runs at the other team's younger, smaller, skilled players?

Moreover, if McCann can't avoid getting plastered by these sub million players, he's going to get creamed by guys getting paid even more (whether it's physical punishment or goals against).

Should also note...

Our most "talentless plug" Sbisa ran the **** over Ehlers.

Is there a more clear example to be had?

 

[Wilch]

So wait, is Sbisa a talentless plug or what?

Because if I remember correctly, you were one of his biggest supporters.

So according to your standard, he's a mid-end utility defenseman whose contributions aren't readily assessed by any available metrics out there (unless it conveniently helps your argument).

So in essence, Ehler was hit by a mid-end utility defenseman, not a useless plug.

And plus, what if it was Shea Weber, David Backes or PK Subban that knocked the hell out of Ehlers?

Then what?

Let's not play rookies at all?