Post-Game Talk: Canucks def. Predators - 3-1 (Pettersson, Boeser, Lammikko)

[DL44]

This is easy. Just look at the roster of historically bad teams and go down the list of their top goal scorers.

Like Clayton Keller. By my count, the Coyotes are 4-9 when Keller scores a goal and 1-6 when Crouse scores a goal this season.

But have you seen their record when Keller AND Crouse get a point in a game? Unreal...

 

[F A N]

But have you seen their record when Keller AND Crouse get a point in a game? Unreal...

Haha what is it?

 

[Melvin]

L

Same as the 'Team X has a great record when scoring first! And leading after 2 periods!'

Like, duh.

Co sign both of these.

i will also add that it annoys the crap out of me that a decent percentage of the public thinks this is what “analytics” is. Like no, it’s just dumb trivia.

 

[mathonwy]

Glad to see you like Petey that much Platotld

I love Petey but I don’t “love” Petey if you know what Im sayeen

 

[DL44]

Haha what is it?

No idea... The idea of it just took me back to when they used talk about "When Daniel & Henrik both score a point, their record is X"...

I used think to myself... well... would ANY two random teammates have an outstanding record if they were to both get a point in a game?
Maybe even more so than the twins, since the twins played together so ofter...

i.e. wouldn't the Canucks record be more impressive if they picked another Canuck?... like say.. Henrik and Kesler... I bet the team record there is probably more impressive (other than sheer sample size)

 

[F A N]

No idea... The idea of it just took me back to when they used talk about "When Daniel & Henrik both score a point, their record is X"...

I used think to myself... well... would ANY two random teammates have an outstanding record if they were to both get a point in a game?
Maybe even more so than the twins, since the twins played together so ofter...

i.e. wouldn't the Canucks record be more impressive if they picked another Canuck?... like say.. Henrik and Kesler... I bet the team record there is probably more impressive (other than sheer sample size)

I get your point but it is a pretty impressive record though and I haven't seen that with any other players. If you think about it, it stretches back to when the Sedins ~36-42 point players.

 

[DL44]

I get your point but it is a pretty impressive record though and I haven't seen that with any other players. If you think about it, it stretches back to when the Sedins ~36-42 point players.

But relative to what?
Pick ANY two other players on the same era canucks... probably similar..
Hell pair any one of them with a twin and its probably a better record than 22-33.

The actual most interesting part of the stat they used to pull up was sheer quantity of the games in which they both scored.. But they never focused on that part of it... it was the win-loss record.

 

[DL44]

Haha what is it?

3-3-3

When Keller and Crouse both get a point.... 3-3-3

Team is 9-24-4 overall.

I was bored ok.

 

[F A N]

But relative to what?
Pick ANY two other players on the same era canucks... probably similar..
Hell pair any one of them with a twin and its probably a better record than 22-33.

The actual most interesting part of the stat they used to pull up was sheer quantity of the games in which they both scored.. But they never focused on that part of it... it was the win-loss record.

I don't think it would have been similar.

First of all, you'll be hard pressed to find two players who played as many games together, nevermind spending as much time playing on the same line as the Sedins. 9 out of 10 times they factored into each other's points accumulations. So it's actually not "2 goals" when the Sedins each produce a point.

Second of all, when they were playing behind the WCE, the Canucks probably did win their fair of games when the Sedins' line was producing. Of course when the Sedins were "front-line" players they were high end point producers on President Trophy winning teams. When they were producing the Canucks likely won. As good as those teams were, the Sedins did carry those teams offensively. When they weren't the Canucks likely lost. Near the end of their careers they were still carrying the team offensively.

Regardless, my point is that the stat is impressive nonetheless and I think you would be hard pressed to find many comparables. A similar pairing would probably be Malkin and Crosby.

 

[Shareefruck]

Even more simple than that...
a lot more goals are scored in wins than losses... therefore, goals are a lot more likely to be associated with wins... 75% of the goals scored last night were in a win. 2-1 win? 66% of the goals scored - win!

What I mean is, okay, for the reasons you've given, the percentage itself means little to nothing and will be high no matter what, but I wonder if, even considering that minimal significance... if you compared that number across players, would the higher number even suggest that one player is marginally more important (or that the team feeds off them more) than another to begin with? I suspect that it still might not, and could even reflect negatively on a player.

When some crappy player gets a point, doesn't that usually result in an even higher % of the team winning, simply because it's that much of a bonus on top of what's expected of the rest of the team? I would guess that Burroughs probably has a higher % than TJ Miller.

 

[alternate]

What I mean is, okay, for the reasons you've given, the percentage itself means little to nothing and will be high no matter what, but I wonder if, even considering that minimal significance... if you compared that number across players, would the higher number even suggest that one player is marginally more important (or that the team feeds off them more) than another to begin with? I suspect that it still might not.

When some crappy player gets a point, doesn't that usually result in an even higher % of the team winning, simply because it's that much of a bonus on top of what's expected of the rest of the team? I mean, Burroughs probably has a higher % than TJ Miller, no?

One element it could suggest is certain players are better in tighter games, or more clutch, or however you want to phrase it.

So a player that produces his points in tighter games would probably have a better win% relative to points produced. On the other hand, let's say you have I dunno a Tony Tanti who scores midway through the 3rd to put his team down 5-2 but in a tighter game is kept to the perimeter.

Don't know if there's really anything more than coincidence to these stats, but if there is something significant to them, I'd expect it speaks to *when* a player is more likely to produce (early in games/close score vs late in games when the outcome is determined).

 

[Shareefruck]

One element it could suggest is certain players are better in tighter games, or more clutch, or however you want to phrase it.

So a player that produces his points in tighter games would probably have a better win% relative to points produced. On the other hand, let's say you have I dunno a Tony Tanti who scores midway through the 3rd to put his team down 5-2 but in a tighter game is kept to the perimeter.

Don't know if there's really anything more than coincidence to these stats, but if there is something significant to them, I'd expect it speaks to *when* a player is more likely to produce (early in games/close score vs late in games when the outcome is determined).

I feel like that difference would be marginal and be completely dwarved by the more natural phenomenon I described above, wouldn't it?

Being "clutch" (compared to just typically being really good or really bad) is a thing that gets overstated and usually doesn't bear out THAT much in the numbers, right?

 

[Shareefruck]

If the chances of you producing in any given game is exceptionally low, then wouldn't you expect the chances of you winning on the rare games where you do produce be disproportionately high compared to more productive players, given a big enough sample size?

 

[BWJM]

That type of stat is so fricken useless it's no longer funny.

Reminded me of non-sensical it used to be when they used roll out the "When Daniel and Henrik both get a point, the Canucks record is an amazing X"... oh gee really? Our record when we score at least 2 goals is.... something positive? You don't say!

Can anyone produce a player that has a LOSING record when they score a goal?

You get paid generally based on production yeah? I think that's the point. We're not talking 4th liners here.

If your top players don't perform you're going to lose. Sure a 4th liner scoring might reflect a positive record but they generally score a lot less...

A lot of stats are useless... but when you get paid to put up points like a 1st liner and you don't... it's likely your team will struggle.. so it's an obvious fact more than a stat sure...

 

[DL44]

You get paid generally based on production yeah? I think that's the point. We're not talking 4th liners here.

If your top players don't perform you're going to lose. Sure a 4th liner scoring might reflect a positive record but they generally score a lot less...

A lot of stats are useless... but when you get paid to put up points like a 1st liner and you don't... it's likely your team will struggle.. so it's an obvious fact more than a stat sure...

But when we are taking about a player that has scored in 7 outta his team's 39 games... Less than 1/5... A 15-16 goal season.... I mean, wtf... Useless stat.

Would be more happy to see a 7-9-4 thru 39... Cuz it means he has at least 20 this season...

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Miller and Demko both covid positive..we’re cooked..

 

[Vector]

Miller and Demko both covid positive..we’re cooked..

Get that new GM here and start selling off.

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

Yeah, if Demko is out that's a wrap.

Look for Miller/Boeser to be moved at the very least. Wouldn't be surprised if they find a way to move Myers contract as well.