Post-Game Talk: 18/19 Endless boilerplate arguments regarding Management thread | Pt. V. Oil up your mouse wheel.

[Intangibos]

Not 100% sure they have exactly what you are looking for, but my search for most stats starts here: NHL Stats, History, Scores, & Records | Hockey-Reference.com

I'm just wondering the statistics of empty net/extra attacker goals. It seems like you get a 3:1 ratio of goals against/for with the empty net and you're only scoring an average of 0.04 goals for at even strength per minute. Not only that but the other team has the same odds of scoring while 5 on 5 anyway. It seems like pulling to goalie early to get the 1:3 ratio would easily be worth it if the goal per minute with the extra attacker was high enough to offset your chance of scoring 5v5 while not getting scored on as well.

I'm 100% positive they have analytics for this, but honestly I'm surprised teams don't pull their goalies earlier especially when they're down 2. Given that the odds of scoring 2 goals within 6 minutes is like 0.04% anyway why wouldn't you pull the goalie earlier to see if you can pot one. If you close a 3-1 game to 3-2 you can put the goalie in and reevaluate if there is enough time left or keep him out if there isn't much time left. 25% of the time (when a goal is scored) you'll have cut the lead and if the 75% chance of getting scored on is the result you threw away a 1/20 chance of scoring 2 goals at even strength, again while the other team has the opportunity to score on you as well.

In a 3-1 game given the odds that you're actually score twice I'm not sure if pulling the goalie earlier is a significant risk at all. You would almost certainly need to pull your goalie anyway to get 2 goals in 6 minutes, so why does it matter if you pull him at 6 minutes or 3 minutes? Not only are 2 in 6 unlikely, but scoring 2 in 3 if you would pull him at 3 minutes is very unlikely so you're risking even less

Anyway I would just love to do/see the math but I don't know the goals/60 with an extra attacker to see if the risk is worth it, but it seems like it must be when you're down more than 1 goal as you're very unlikely to come back anyway. I'm sure I'm wrong because analytic firms get paid a lot of money for this kind of stuff, but I would love to see exactly where the equilibrium is because I'm surprised we don't see goalies heading to the bench early for what seems like a low risk high reward play. Maybe I'm just doing the math wrong because it's late but this isn't exactly calculus

 

[Peter10]

This is stupid. First of all, that's not even related to what I was responding to. Second of all, did Gillis replace the above? Most of those guys weren't even Gillis' acquisitions. There was a moment in time where that group of players with Sedins at their best allowed the team to compete for the Cup.



From what you are saying, the team has their 1st and 2nd line C, and a young 1st line RW in place. You make it sound like that's nothing. They also have Quinn Hughes and "some good prospects." Yes the short term future doesn't look great, but in terms of the long term future, the team does have some good young players/prospects in place IMO.

Its not stupid. The post you responded to said all this team has done in 4 years is to replace the Sedins and nothing else - although even that is a stretch right now to compare two guys who havent even played a combined 100 games to 2 hall of famers..

Second of all: ButGillis again, sure no other defense available anymore I guess. Gillis has brought in the like of Ehrhoff, Samuelsson, Malhotra, Torres, Garrison, Hamhuis, Tanev via trade or free agency. Bennings best non-draft addition has been Stecher probably. So whats your point?

Having your first and 2nd line C and 1st line RW is place is great, mind you though that while Boeser and Pettersson look awesome, they still have to establish themselves as a high end Center and RW respectivly. And still, it is worth nothing if the rest of the team is crap. Edmonton has McDavid, Draisaitl and Nugent-Hopkins and still they arent a good team.

 

[F A N]

Its not stupid. The post you responded to said all this team has done in 4 years is to replace the Sedins and nothing else - although even that is a stretch right now to compare two guys who havent even played a combined 100 games to 2 hall of famers..

Fair enough. Like I said, I wasn't sure what that poster was trying to say. Reading it again, I think your interpretation is the correct one.

Second of all: ButGillis again, sure no other defense available anymore I guess. Gillis has brought in the like of Ehrhoff, Samuelsson, Malhotra, Torres, Garrison, Hamhuis, Tanev via trade or free agency. Bennings best non-draft addition has been Stecher probably. So whats your point?

My point is that the yardstick you are using has little to no value. Did any GMs after Quinn replace Bure or Mogilny? Bertuzzi since Keenan? Horvat isn't a replacement for Kesler. A lot of those acquisitions you mentioned are either not acquired by Gillis are aren't long term solutions. Besides Hamhuis and Tanev, how many of those guys you mentioned were great for 3 years +?

You do realize that the Canucks are not a franchise with a long history of having a #1 C, #1 Dman, and or #1 goalie in place right?

Having your first and 2nd line C and 1st line RW is place is great, mind you though that while Boeser and Pettersson look awesome, they still have to establish themselves as a high end Center and RW respectivly. And still, it is worth nothing if the rest of the team is crap. Edmonton has McDavid, Draisaitl and Nugent-Hopkins and still they arent a good team.

Sure. But IMO it's easier to build around high end building blocks than trying to acquire them.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Didnt Benning also said that a few GMs called him to say what a great contract he gave to Dorset? I feel like other GMs are just messing with Benning, complimenting his bad moves so he makes more of them in the future. Like at poker where everybody complimenting a guy who calls all in with bottom pair, they want him to keep doing that because its profitable for the rest of the table. Just my hunch though.

Nice mental gymnastics to avoid facing the truth that these players actually have value despite what some new age trendies armed with their spreadsheets might try to convince themselves.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Nice mental gymnastics to avoid facing the truth that these players actually have value despite what some new age trendies armed with their spreadsheets might try to convince themselves.

Oh for sure they have value, they are NHL players afterall. Just like Eriksson has value too, he can still play. Is he worth $6M/year though, thats the question. None of Dorset, Sbisa, Eriksson, Gudbranson, Gagner, Beagle, Roussel, etc are worth their contract.
I'm willing to change my mind though if you can make a convincing argument as to why those guys are worth their contract or why their contract reflect their value. But please none of the "they have intangibles" unmeasurable arguments please.

 

[RobertKron]

Nice mental gymnastics to avoid facing the truth that these players actually have value despite what some new age trendies armed with their spreadsheets might try to convince themselves.

Okay, cool. The team has been hopelessly terrible but it’s not so bad because, in isolation, a few GMs apparently said some of the moves were okay. Do you feel better now?

 

[Peter10]

My point is that the yardstick you are using has little to no value. Did any GMs after Quinn replace Bure or Mogilny? Bertuzzi since Keenan? Horvat isn't a replacement for Kesler. A lot of those acquisitions you mentioned are either not acquired by Gillis are aren't long term solutions. Besides Hamhuis and Tanev, how many of those guys you mentioned were great for 3 years +?

Huh? All the guys I mentioned in that post were acquired by Gillis. And who cares if they are long term solution? It just goes to show that even those guys are better than pretty much anything that Benning has brought in besides the draft. Stecher might end up being a solid #4-5 defender, Goldobin has shown flashes of a decent top 6 forward. Baertschi is Baertschi, nothing special and no long term solution either.

You do realize that the Canucks are not a franchise with a long history of having a #1 C, #1 Dman, and or #1 goalie in place right?

The potential is there but I would hold my breath when expecting Hughes becoming a bonafide #1 D and even Demko is questionable at this stage. Dont get me wrong I like all those guys but they have a long way to go.

 

[F A N]

Huh? All the guys I mentioned in that post were acquired by Gillis.

Right, but that post was in the context of and was a continuation of your previous post where you mentioned Bieksa and Salo etc.

And who cares if they are long term solution? It just goes to show that even those guys are better than pretty much anything that Benning has brought in besides the draft. Stecher might end up being a solid #4-5 defender, Goldobin has shown flashes of a decent top 6 forward. Baertschi is Baertschi, nothing special and no long term solution either.

Under your standards, Benning did bring in Vrbata. He scored 31 goals and 63 points one season. Pretty sure he's better than any forward Gillis brought in no? Nonis brought in Anson Carter for one year too. Vanek I think outperformed Torres. So why wouldn't Canucks fans care about whether players are long term solutions matter. Do you seriously care that Vrbata had a 31 goal 63 point season, making him the most productive forward acquired through trade or free agency since... (my guess) Brendan Morrison?

Really though, did you care whether Beagle was good in the last year of his contract? Samuelsson in his (let's say) 2 seasons here is better than Baertschi. But at the time we signed him he was turning 33 that year. Are you saying that on this team you would take a soon to be 33 year old Samuelsson over the current Baertschi over the next 3 years?

The potential is there but I would hold my breath when expecting Hughes becoming a bonafide #1 D and even Demko is questionable at this stage. Dont get me wrong I like all those guys but they have a long way to go.

That's fair. But we were talking about "replacing" players. My point is the Canucks don't have a history of replacing players such as the Sedins or even Kesler at his best here. Quinn acquired Bure and Naslund. Who replaced those guys? Who replaced Bertuzzi? Jovo? Even Gillis didn't replace Ehrhoff at his best. The Sedins were drafted in 1999. Who has come as close as Pettersson and Boeser in replacing those two since 1999?

 

[M2Beezy]

Okay, cool. The team has been hopelessly terrible but it’s not so bad because, in isolation, a few GMs apparently said some of the moves were okay. Do you feel better now?

Also superb drafting. Pettersson Boeser Gaudette Demko Hughes Lockwood Brassard Etc

 

[Peter10]

Also superb drafting. Pettersson Boeser Gaudette Demko Hughes Lockwood Brassard Etc

Calling Lockwood and Brassard superb drafting is rather bold.

 

[Hodgy]

Even overly praising Gaudette, Demko and Hughes is premature. Those three could all bust.

 

[Peter10]

Even overly praising Gaudette, Demko and Hughes is premature. Those three could all bust.

To be fair from what we can say so far, Gaudette and Demko indeed look to be solid picks for where they were picked. And normally I wouldnt call Hughes superb drafting since he was pretty much to most logical pick at this stage and can be considered BPA but then again I remember we have Benning and under his watch such easy things arent always a given.

 

[Hodgy]

To be fair from what we can say so far, Gaudette and Demko indeed look to be solid picks for where they were picked. And normally I wouldnt call Hughes superb drafting since he was pretty much to most logical pick at this stage and can be considered BPA but then again I remember we have Benning and under his watch such easy things arent always a given.

Agreed. They all appear to be good picks right now, especially Gaudette. Demko and Hughes are more difficult to evaluate. Demko could end up never being an NHL player, in which case it would be hard to describe that pick, being a very high second round pick, as a good pick. Hughes was a top ten pick, so if he busts, the pick was poor notwithstanding the fact that it wasn't an objectively poor pick at the time like Virtanen or even Juolevi.

 

[Hit the post]

Even overly praising Gaudette, Demko and Hughes is premature. Those three could all bust.

Eddie Lack looked pretty darn good after one season in the NHL (after solid AHL performance). Where is he now? Still trying to get a full-time gig in the NHL in New Jersey. Or Carrado for a bigger flameout after a fairly impressive debut for the Canucks in the post-season.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Nice mental gymnastics to avoid facing the truth that these players actually have value despite what some new age trendies armed with their spreadsheets might try to convince themselves.

You can belittle analytics all you want, it just reflects poorly on you. Analytics aren't some made up numbers...they're a quantified representation of events that happen on the ice. You can choose to ignore them all you want but that doesn't change what they are.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Also superb drafting. Pettersson Boeser Gaudette Demko Hughes Lockwood Brassard Etc

superb??? There's a very high chance that Brassard and Lockwood never play an NHL game...you know that right?

And if you're willing to call Hughes a superb draft pick I guess it's not too early for you to call Juolevi a bad pick at 5th overall? What about Virtanen at 6th overall? I'd say Virtanen at this point is a bust.

And it's still quite possible that Demko never develops into a number 1 goalie, let alone a number 1 star goalie. Gaudette hasn't shown anything at the NHL level in his limited games, though still very early. He's an older prospect (not 18 or 19) so you would expect him to put things together sooner rather than later now.

From that list Pettersson and Boeser are the only ones to really be celebrated. Hughes is an elite prospect, picked at 7th overall so it's not like he uncovered some hidden gem. The others are still question marks. Stop overrating our prospects.

 

[Askel]

You can belittle analytics all you want, it just reflects poorly on you. Analytics aren't some made up numbers...they're a quantified representation of events that happen on the ice. You can choose to ignore them all you want but that doesn't change what they are.

He has his own form of analytics.
https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/149515035/

 

[y2kcanucks]

He has his own form of analytics.
https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/149515035/

I have absolutely no clue what the hell he was talking about. Trades happen when both GM's are willing to make a trade? Yeah of course...what point is he trying to get across here?

 

[Motte and Bailey]

You can belittle analytics all you want, it just reflects poorly on you. Analytics aren't some made up numbers...they're a quantified representation of events that happen on the ice. You can choose to ignore them all you want but that doesn't change what they are.

I don’t belittle analytics, I discount people who latch on to the trend without understanding it or it’s limitations.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I don’t belittle analytics, I discount people who latch on to the trend without understanding it or it’s limitations.

No you discount analytics.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Seeing the success Tkachuk and DeBrincat are having and realizing both could have easily been Canucks makes me sad. Throw Barzal in there too.

 

[racerjoe]

Nice mental gymnastics to avoid facing the truth that these players actually have value despite what some new age trendies armed with their spreadsheets might try to convince themselves.

Says the guy who has yet to answer a single question ever asked of him on this board...

 

[F A N]

Seeing the success Tkachuk and DeBrincat are having and realizing both could have easily been Canucks makes me sad. Throw Barzal in there too.

You must be perpetually sad. Kopitar. Karlsson, Subban, Lucic etc. etc. over the years.

 

[MadaCanuckle]

Nice mental gymnastics to avoid facing the truth that these players actually have value despite what some new age trendies armed with their spreadsheets might try to convince themselves.

Nice mental gymnastics to avoid facing the truth that the GM said in the past three years that we were a playoff team despite everyone and their dog warning that was not possible, because old age dinosaurs saying eye test is more important and analytics are crap. Did we won a Stanley Cup? Are we a playoff consistent team? No? Alright then.

 

[Jyrki21]

Y’all as incredulous as I that Benning is still at the helm? The next season is on its way: