News Article: Loss of Horvat didn't hurt the Canucks powerplay
- Thread starter Bougieman
- Start date
I doubt we’ll feel the loss of Horvat much when we still have Pettersson, Miller, Kuz and Hughes. Horvat was an luxury we couldn’t afford. We do need to find his replacement because I don’t know how many seasons Miller can play at the level he has been playing at. I think the question we should be asking is was picking Miller over Horvat the right decision? I think Miller is the better player but Horvat being two years young may have a longer shelve life.
Horvat's scoring basically cratered after he left the Canuck. When he was traded, he had 32 goals and by the end of the season he was stuck on 37.
Islanders sold the farm and threw in the deed, by signing Horvat to an eight-year extension. And judging from the comments on other forums, Islander fans already have worry beads out over his contract.
Have to admit I was wrong to question trading Horvat instead of Miller. J.T. may be older, but he's a light-years better player. And I predict Horvat's performance on the Island going forward will remove all doubt.
Islanders sold the farm and threw in the deed, by signing Horvat to an eight-year extension. And judging from the comments on other forums, Islander fans already have worry beads out over his contract.
Have to admit I was wrong to question trading Horvat instead of Miller. J.T. may be older, but he's a light-years better player. And I predict Horvat's performance on the Island going forward will remove all doubt.
I've said this before when everyone was saying Horvat and Barzal would be a good fit together. Horvat has traditionally found chemistry with his left wingers. Horvat also plays a direct game. Barzal is a playmaker who is at his best when he has the puck and aloud to rove around. It's not a natural fit. Of course Barzal being a playmaker he makes his linemates better.
As for the Canucks PP, I think there will be a decline without Horvat playing the bumper role. But we've seen downturns before with the same personnel. The Canucks just need to keep the puck moving on the PP and not become predictable.
As for the Canucks PP, I think there will be a decline without Horvat playing the bumper role. But we've seen downturns before with the same personnel. The Canucks just need to keep the puck moving on the PP and not become predictable.
I love Horvat but it really is no secret he was benefited from EP,QH,JTM,AK.
I said I would trade him instead of JTM but judging from his 8 year extention and his performance after the trade JTM looks to be the better choice.
I said I would trade him instead of JTM but judging from his 8 year extention and his performance after the trade JTM looks to be the better choice.
Iron Mike Sharpe
Registered User
- Dec 6, 2017
- 950
- 1,129
TruGr1t
Proper Villain
- Jun 26, 2003
- 23,343
- 7,236
The issue was more organizational centre depth than Horvat specifically. They are trying to complete and losing a legit second-line centre (plus the flexibility to play Miller at wing) hurts period, plus he fits in well here in the general scheme of things. Obviously, we live in a salary-cap world so this is just general attrition. Centre depth remains a massive issue for this team for the foreseeable future.
I'd still prefer Horvat here to the 8-year Miller contract at something like 6-7 years at sub-$7M AAV, or whatever you could have gotten him for if you'd proactively signed him before basically pitting him off against Miller in salary talks, but that's rather irrelevant.
But yes, the Isles f'd up and I wouldn't want much to do with him on that deal. Though still like him generally as a player. I don't think the Canucks will miss him much on the PP specifically.
I'd still prefer Horvat here to the 8-year Miller contract at something like 6-7 years at sub-$7M AAV, or whatever you could have gotten him for if you'd proactively signed him before basically pitting him off against Miller in salary talks, but that's rather irrelevant.
But yes, the Isles f'd up and I wouldn't want much to do with him on that deal. Though still like him generally as a player. I don't think the Canucks will miss him much on the PP specifically.
And I would prefer we had McDavid…
People need to stop saying this. It wasn’t ever an option. Sure you can dream it, it just wasn’t a reality… and yes I know you mean before we signed Miller.
Hoglander
I'm Höglander. I can do whatever I want.
Yeah, everyone knows that Horvat was a complimentary piece to the PP, and that EP/Hughes/Miller are the players that drive the PP. Kuzmenko has been a very good addition there, and I think a rejuvenated (and in top shape) Boeser, will be form a dangerous PP unit for at least the next couple seasons.
82Ninety42011
Registered User
Chemistry is a thing just maybe Miller wasn't the one causing division between the team. They really seemed to jell as season went on obviously Tocchet made a difference but the players seemed happier to.
- May 3, 2021
- 8,166
- 8,317
What's wrong with what @TruGr1t said? You cut out the part where he said "or whatever you could have gotten him for if you'd proactively signed him." 100% the Canucks could have signed Horvat last summer. Horvat's agent used Couturier as a comparable. I think it's safe to assume that the Canucks could have signed Horvat for less than Couturier's contract.
We can all debate Miller vs Horvat but signing Horvat was clearly an option.
To be fair a "complimentary" piece could be incredibly valuable. Take Kesler in our Cup Run year. He was very much a complimentary piece but a very productive one.
Personally I think Horvat has proven to be a consistent offensive producer. He may be streaky goal scorer but in terms of his offensive production from season to season he is incredibly consistent. Will the Islanders get their money's worth? I doubt it. But absent a sudden decline, I think Horvat is going to produce the way he has produced in the past.
TruGr1t
Proper Villain
- Jun 26, 2003
- 23,343
- 7,236
It was absolutely an option to commit to Horvat, we just never went down that path.
I don't think it's easy to get any sort of statistical accuracy on the claim or not.
First, ignoring the stupid Oilers PP there is a 37 goal difference between second place and last place for PP goals scored. About a half goal per game. So for a 30 game stint you are looking at a difference of about 13 goals...between the second best and worst PPs in the league. That's sort of the maximum spread you'd see if a guy leaving caused the second best PP to operate at a level similar to the worst PP.
No player not named McDavid and/or Draisatl is going to have that affect. So you are operating in a region of a few goals difference at most.
And it's sort of like the discussion when a team gets a 40 goal scorer. They didn't get an extra 40 goals. They got an extra 40 goals-the goals a player in his icetime before would get. This is just the reverse. They didn't lose, say, 6 PP goals they lost 6 PP goals from Horvat-the PP goals from whoever takes his place for his icetime.
First, ignoring the stupid Oilers PP there is a 37 goal difference between second place and last place for PP goals scored. About a half goal per game. So for a 30 game stint you are looking at a difference of about 13 goals...between the second best and worst PPs in the league. That's sort of the maximum spread you'd see if a guy leaving caused the second best PP to operate at a level similar to the worst PP.
No player not named McDavid and/or Draisatl is going to have that affect. So you are operating in a region of a few goals difference at most.
And it's sort of like the discussion when a team gets a 40 goal scorer. They didn't get an extra 40 goals. They got an extra 40 goals-the goals a player in his icetime before would get. This is just the reverse. They didn't lose, say, 6 PP goals they lost 6 PP goals from Horvat-the PP goals from whoever takes his place for his icetime.
It wasn't the being proactive and signing Horvat I took issue with... but the thought we could have had him for so much cheaper. Most here (including myself) scoffed at Horvat getting that type of money... then he got a lot more. We just weren't getting him for anything close to a better deal then what we have Miller.
People talk about the length with miller, but his contract takes him to what a year longer?
If we could have gad Horvat at even low 7's I would have said yes. Just the evidence isn't really there.
Szechwan
Registered User
- Sep 13, 2006
- 5,771
- 5,320
One thing I've never understood is the penchant to settle on a single look and stick with it whether it works or not.
This powerplay has some of the most talented players in the league with the puck on their stick, you're telling me you can't have 2-3 formations to cycle through? Last season the bumper worked amazingly for a while, then teams figured it out, then we just kept trying to ram it through the bumper, PP after PP.
Hoglander
I'm Höglander. I can do whatever I want.
I disagree, Kesler was totally a team driver during the cup run season. He was excellent all over the ice, and drove the 2nd line like a boss. On the PP, the Sedin's were obviously the stars, so I guess Kesler was more complimentary there, but clearly he was better than Horvat otherwise.
Horvat is a good player, I certainly think he'll produce for NYI better than he did last season- no doubt. But as far as the Canucks PP goes, Horvat really didn't even touch the puck that much. He was good at getting in position for the bumper shot, but he was like the 4th option on the PP, and his go-to move relied heavily upon the other players drawing the defender away so he could get his shot off. I'm not surprised that they can swap Horvat out for a different top-6 player and get similar results.
Bo was also key on the draw and entry. Someone needs to step up and replace his goals. Without him, it's really just Miller and Kuz. The rest of the unit combined barely had as many as they did individually.
sting101
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 15,940
- 14,848
Was gonna say this..... Bo was key on draws and entries that would keep possession and help get set up....will lose some of that effectiveness with Boeser as he will turn more pucks over and it will be left to Miller to take a lot more key faceoffs which might not be that big a deal short term.
It's gonna be interesting how they set this up. Will Kuz take Miller's spot and then JT slides into net front or will Boeser go net front back door from Pettersson while Miller and Kuzmenko try and rotate the bumper?
I dont see the efficiency dropping if Boeser can shoot this year. Pettersson and Hughes are bound to score more PP goals. Miller and Kuz will continue to be prolific especially with how much room they will get from 43 and 40
I would like to see EP as the bumper. It keeps the lefty to lefty connect with Miller.
EP is just wayyyyy to picky about his shot selection, a play like the bumper where there's no choice but to shoot could be good for him. Also he's good at deflecting the point shots.
I could see a scenario where Hughes and Hronek skate around between Hughes and EP's current position. Set up the big shot, also Hughes finding Kuz cross crease.
Pastor Of Muppetz
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 26,195
- 16,084
I wouldnt..I think it squanders his exceptional playmaking abilities to be planted in front of the net..Let somebody else get worked over, and get hit with blistering shots from the point.
Not only that..EP has one of the strongest shots in the league..utilize it.
That position doesn't exactly take a beating these days. While EP has a hard one timer, its all over the map, high and wide. He just hasn't been using it well since his rookie year. He had like zero goals and only a handful of primary assists by the half way mark this year. He's squandered a lot of his tools in his current spot himself.
Put him in the middle where he can let some instinct take over. Fast release, tips on pucks etc. There's been too much hesitation from him for too long.
Everyone should also be moving around more, but EP as the bumper shot seems the best choice without displacing someone already producing big results.
Last edited:
IYou're right, it isn't easy to get any sort of statistical accuracy. I'll go beyond that. It is impossible to get any sort of statistical accuracy on a claim about whether the loss of Horvat did or didn't affect the power play.
That isn't to say people can't form opinions, even fairly reasonable opinions, on the basis of the information that is available, but if one really wants to test a hypothesis that losing Horvat did or didn't affect the power play, everything must be held constant except the one variable-the loss of Horvat. That wasn't the case.
In particular there was a big change in the way the team performed after the coaching change. Another factor is that the remaining part of the season after Horvat left could have been considered garbage time as the team was so far out of the playoffs. They ended up making a run, but were too far out to have ever had a good chance. Even changes in injury status from game to game are enough to mean that statistically nothing can be certain.
We can each have our opinions, but statistically nothing can be proven (and the article in CA didn't claim it could be and was quite reasonable in listing other factors that weren't the same with and without Horvat.)
- May 3, 2021
- 8,166
- 8,317
