Post-Game Talk: Nucks 3 Hawks 4 (SO): Hawks extend their streak, Honey Badger Don't Give A ****â„¢

[Bourne Endeavor]

I dont need stats, i watch the games.

Evidently, not all of them. Salo has terrible last season. Frequent miscues, poor defensive coverage, bad reads and the list carries on. At this point he is merely a high caliber MAB and should not be relied upon for anything beyond a booming slapshot. I had no issues with Gillis opting to walk away from Salo, although seeing him in anything but a Nucks jersey is.... wrong.

 

[Tiranis]

Evidently, not all of them. Salo has terrible last season. Frequent miscues, poor defensive coverage, bad reads and the list carries on. At this point he is merely a high caliber MAB and should not be relied upon for anything beyond a booming slapshot. I had no issues with Gillis opting to walk away from Salo, although seeing him in anything but a Nucks jersey is.... wrong.

Or at least in our system that's what he was. Maybe he lasts another 5 years playing in Tampa at a high level but their defense plays nothing like ours.

 

[biturbo19]

What about when a losing team has good possession numbers, as in the case of LA before they went on their cup run? Do these metrics mean anything then? Or now when again LA is a good fenwick team. If they make the playoffs, do you become a believer?


If Hedman is stated to be playing against weaker competition, along with Salo, does it not enlighten you further on what you are seeing? I'm pretty sure Edler could look like an allstar playing against buttery soft opposition, maybe that will sate some of the posters here? Is that what you want?



Everything in context. Advanced stats help provide a context where there is none. If you say Hedman is a stud and I say he's taking advantage of the lesser lights, how do we determine who's right? Youtube clips?

No. The endgame is not 'Youtube clips' to 'prove who is right'. The endgame is evaluating hockey players. And that 'context' you're referring to is...hockey games. It's not complicated. It's not a pissing contest you can measure with an advanced metric and 'who was right'. It's watching hockey, enjoying the game, and evaluating how players play and react in a huge range of situations and scenarios.

Or at least in our system that's what he was. Maybe he lasts another 5 years playing in Tampa at a high level but their defense plays nothing like ours.

And this is the biggest problem with all of these 'advanced metrics'.

If a player like Salo is so capable of playing at an entirely different level for a different length of time in a different system (which is pretty evident throughout history)...Then exactly what good are metrics based on what a player does in a specific system in a specific set of unpredictable circumstances?

 

[Bleach Clean]

No. The endgame is not 'Youtube clips' to 'prove who is right'. The endgame is evaluating hockey players. And that 'context' you're referring to is...hockey games. It's not complicated. It's not a pissing contest you can measure with an advanced metric and 'who was right'. It's watching hockey, enjoying the game, and evaluating how players play and react in a huge range of situations and scenarios.

Right, but if you and I disagree with what we are seeing in the hockey games, what do you suggest is the best way there is to get to the truth of the matter? Of the more logical conclusion to the matter? Or do we continue to throw out our subjective interpretations until the other tires? That to me is the pissing context, not trying to re-interpret what I have seen using another method (stats).



There are a lot of posters who profess to "know the game". If these posters have logically reasoned their opinions, more of than not, people will agree with them. However, sometimes the opinions aren't reasoned and remain purely subjective, at which point you get a disagreement. How is it best to resolve the matter at that point?

And this is the biggest problem with all of these 'advanced metrics'.

If a player like Salo is so capable of playing at an entirely different level for a different length of time in a different system (which is pretty evident throughout history)...Then exactly what good are metrics based on what a player does in a specific system in a specific set of unpredictable circumstances?

These metrics are tracked for TBay too, in case you didn't know?


Again, you would have to put Salo's performance in context with past defenders on TBay, his contribution based on comparisons to current defenders on TBay, and his prior career data in VAN to come to any logical conclusion. It's not that he switches teams and you throw the whole system out, if that's what you're thinking.

 

[Canucker]

Advanced stats have their place but I agree with biturbo19, watching the games is infinitely more telling of how an individual is playing. There are too many unquantifyable variables that can influence an individual's metrics IMO.

I do agree that Salo was pretty bad last year but I'm not able to say with any real confidence that Edler carried that pairing....he was better than Salo and he produced a lot of offense but he was still highly inconsistent defensively and prone to a lot of bonehead mistakes. So he may have been the much better player in the pairing but he didn't exactly strap Salo to his back and dominate.

 

[Hammer79]

Stats are what we have to fall back on when there are differences of opinion, but no doubt hockey is a harder game to break down by the numbers than MLB for example.

 

[Potatoe1]

Edler can carry a pairing. He was dragging Salo around all of last year.

That.

People ripping on Edler clearly do not understand how difficult it is to transition from the Left to the Right side.

I hope this experiment eventually works but it's going to take a while.

 

[Proto]

A few people took issue with me before this three-game losing streak when I suggested that the Canucks were due to fall back to earth. The Canucks needed -- and still need -- their special teams to improve, as their ES goaltending was due for a downturn to normal elite levels.

Canucks were outclassed and Schneider was terrific. Sharp alone should have had 4 goals. Move on to the next game and thank Cory for the single point.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

A few people took issue with me before this three-game losing streak when I suggested that the Canucks were due to fall back to earth.

Well yeah, the Canucks weren't going to finish the season 38-0. They have still been the better team and deserved to win in 2 of their last 3...

The problem with advanced stats is every player only represents about 10% of what happens on the ice. That's why the numbers can't be taken at face value. Too much depends on teammates and situational matchups. The stats cetainly aren't useless, they're just not the be-all, end-all.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I'm alarmed by our record against non-division opponents.

 

[Grumbler]

Post Game by Bieksa:

Interviewer "Talk about the fact that is yet another game where you haven't played a FULL 60min. Is that cause for concern for those in the locker room."

Bieksa "well its maybe not cause for concern...we knew to beat these guys on home ice we definitely have to play a full 60 minutes. You know we almost beat them with playing maybe 40. It just shows you if we put together a full game, we'll be a dangerous team."

Question: Why would you not be able to put together 60 minutes against the hawks???

And it seems everybody else thought they played fairly well. Nobody seems to think that it was Goaltending the ONLY reason the game was even close

 

[Proto]

Well yeah, the Canucks weren't going to finish the season 38-0. They have still been the better team and deserved to win in 2 of their last 3...

The problem with advanced stats is every player only represents about 10% of what happens on the ice. That's why the numbers can't be taken at face value. Too much depends on teammates and situational matchups. The stats cetainly aren't useless, they're just not the be-all, end-all.

It has nothing to do with a "problem" of advanced stats. It was really clear before this streak the Canucks were winning because of goaltending. Canucks lost some games they deserved to win and had been winning some games they might have deserved to lose.

 

[PhilMick]

Post Game by Bieksa:

Interviewer "Talk about the fact that is yet another game where you haven't played a FULL 60min. Is that cause for concern for those in the locker room."

Bieksa "well its maybe not cause for concern...we knew to beat these guys on home ice we definitely have to play a full 60 minutes. You know we almost beat them with playing maybe 40. It just shows you if we put together a full game, we'll be a dangerous team."

Question: Why would you not be able to put together 60 minutes against the hawks???
And it seems everybody else thought they played fairly well. Nobody seems to think that it was Goaltending the ONLY reason the game was even close

Answer: Problems with coaching and leadership. Same problems that have been there since the first playoff meltdown vs the Hawks. When was that, '09?

Also, what's with all the Salo smack? He was fine last year. If our top 4 this year were playing as well as he did last year we'd have won last night going away.

 

[Potatoe1]

A few people took issue with me before this three-game losing streak when I suggested that the Canucks were due to fall back to earth. The Canucks needed -- and still need -- their special teams to improve, as their ES goaltending was due for a downturn to normal elite levels.

Canucks were outclassed and Schneider was terrific. Sharp alone should have had 4 goals. Move on to the next game and thank Cory for the single point.

Really...

So this 3 games is a down turn, and it's just us "regressing to the mean" and not playing against 2 of the best teams in the conference.....

Next time your argument would probably be more compelling if you said, hey I think the Canucks record will be worse in the short term because their schedule will be a lot tougher.

That argument would have been a lot more compelling

The advanced stats are cool but people are really starting to get carried away.

 

[BerSTUzzi]

I'm alarmed by our record against non-division opponents.

I'm alarmed at how **** up our D pairings are when we play a good team. We can get away with our D (in our own zone) against our division but not against the better teams. Ugly at times

 

[Proto]

Really...

So this 3 games is a down turn, and it's just us "regressing to the mean" and not playing against 2 of the best teams in the conference.....

Next time your argument would probably be more compelling if you said, hey I think the Canucks record will be worse in the short term because their schedule will be a lot tougher.

That argument would have been a lot more compelling

The advanced stats are cool but people are really starting to get carried away.

You shouldn't use quotes when you're not quoting someone.

And save percentages and shooting percentages are not "advanced stats". Silly. Similarly, it doesn't take a genius to realize the Ducks won't shoot 12-13% as a team at ES all year, so unless they see an uptick in other areas of their game, they'll come crashing back to earth, too.

 

[Jyrki]

I'm the guy with the Salo wallpaper but hes simply not worth it for the nucks the deal he was looking for. I'd take him if it was a 1 year thing but you can't give injury prone vets that lenght if you're a cap team. The decision to sign jg was the right one

 

[NYVanfan]

Answer: Problems with coaching and leadership. Same problems that have been there since the first playoff meltdown vs the Hawks. When was that, '09?

Also, what's with all the Salo smack? He was fine last year. If our top 4 this year were playing as well as he did last year we'd have won last night going away.

also that we have no legit scoring threats at forward beyond the sedins.
D had to come up with the last 2G (and the first was a fluke)

next best forward scorers are kes, burr and booth ...all of whom have scored more than 20-something goals just once in their careers. Daniel is the only guy on this team who's done it more than once.

Hawks have 3 multi-season 30+ scoreres, and Kane is not one of them (though he's only been under 70 pts once in 5 years career.)

Sharks have 3 (not incl Pavelski & Couture)
Wings have 3 (not incl Franzen)
Kings have 5 (not incl Brown & Doughty)

it's great that we have elite goaltending, defensive depth and fast forwards, but we need more proven scorers, i am becoming more and more convinced of this.


ps, also dont get the Salo bashing. When healthy, I take him over Garrison, to this point.

 

[arsmaster*]

You shouldn't use quotes when you're not quoting someone.

And save percentages and shooting percentages are not "advanced stats". Silly. Similarly, it doesn't take a genius to realize the Ducks won't shoot 12-13% as a team at ES all year, so unless they see an uptick in other areas of their game, they'll come crashing back to earth, too.

What is the best way to grammatically emphasize something then?

I'm no scholar, and I know I tend to do the same thing with quotes...I'm just looking for a way to improve my writing.

Is there a difference between " and '....I imagine I could emphasize better using font changes,

 

[freakydave]

Rome is a Top 4 player in Dallas. Not only that, Rome is Dallas' top shutdown player and has managed decently well in that role on a pretty average team.



I think the hope is that he might be able to step into your Top 4 in case of injuries. But if a deal comes along I'm sure they would pull the trigger, especially if they could get a depth D back in that trade.

Rome is not top 4 in Dallas-Robidas,Daley,Dillon,Larsen,Goligoski Benn all avg more icetime/gm(when played)--how is that top 4 minutes????

 

[Potatoe1]

You shouldn't use quotes when you're not quoting someone.

And save percentages and shooting percentages are not "advanced stats". Silly. Similarly, it doesn't take a genius to realize the Ducks won't shoot 12-13% as a team at ES all year, so unless they see an uptick in other areas of their game, they'll come crashing back to earth, too.

Sure...

But taking a one stat from a small sample, and using it to predict an outcome over an even smaller period of time is silly.

Especially when there are far more valid predictors of game outcomes i.e playing 2 of the best teams in the conference.

 

[Proto]

What is the best way to grammatically emphasize something then?

I'm no scholar, and I know I tend to do the same thing with quotes...I'm just looking for a way to improve my writing.

Is there a difference between " and '....I imagine I could emphasize better using font changes,

Using italics is most acceptable, but bold or even asterisks would probably work. It's just confusing to follow a conversation when people are using quotations like that.

 

[arsmaster*]

also that we have no legit scoring threats at forward beyond the sedins.
D had to come up with the last 2G (and the first was a fluke)

next best forward scorers are kes, burr and booth ...all of whom have scored more than 20-something goals just once in their careers. Daniel is the only guy on this team who's done it more than once.

Hawks have 3 multi-season 30+ scoreres, and Kane is not one of them (though he's only been under 70 pts once in 5 years career.)

Sharks have 3 (not incl Pavelski & Couture)
Wings have 3 (not incl Franzen)
Kings have 5 (not incl Brown & Doughty)

it's great that we have elite goaltending, defensive depth and fast forwards, but we need more proven scorers, i am becoming more and more convinced of this.


ps, also dont get the Salo bashing. When healthy, I take him over Garrison, to this point.

Get your facts straight, without even looking I know Kesler has a 21, 25, 22, and 41 goal season. I'm guessing you meant 30 goal seasons?

Burrows has also put up over 25 for what 4 or 5 straight years now?

Hawks have 4 elite forwards, but I take our forwards 5-12 over their's any day.

Sharks have Marleau who is proven - Couture is not, Thornton is H. Sedin with a better shot, Clowe has NO goals right now, Havlat is almost a 2/3 tweener at this point.

I agree that the Canucks are running short on players who are one shot scorers, I think Kesler is our best at this (Daniel finishes off pretty plays more than he snipes IMO).

Now for the Kings - Mike Richards isn't a prototypical 30 goal guy anymore than Kesler is, Simon Gagne is 5 years removed from his last 30 goal season, Kopitar and Carter are still legit 30 goal threats, but I definitely don't agree with you lumping Gagne and Justin Williams into a 30+ goal scoring threat team (Williams hasn't hit 30 in 8 years).

 

[Proto]

Sure...

But taking a one stat from a small sample, and using it to predict an outcome over an even smaller period of time is silly.

Especially when there are far more valid predictors of game outcomes i.e playing 2 of the best teams in the conference.

Did I predict an outcome over a small period of time? I'm pretty sure I did not. I said if the Canucks don't improve in other areas (special teams being the most glaring), they're in for a downturn in results because they were relying on unsustainable ES goaltending.

It could take weeks or months for something like that to even out. My point was more to deflate all the people on here that were crowing about how the Canucks were the deepest team in the league and didn't need to make any moves etc. etc. It just takes a bit of digging to find some obvious weaknesses.

Heck, Patrick Marleau's January 2013 Hart Memorial Trophy is gathering dust as we speak

 

[Reign Nateo]

What is the best way to grammatically emphasize something then?

I'm no scholar, and I know I tend to do the same thing with quotes...I'm just looking for a way to improve my writing.

Is there a difference between " and '....I imagine I could emphasize better using font changes,

Italics or bold. Quotations can provide emphasis, but normally done incorrectly.

" is a direct quote; "You miss every shot you don't take."

' is generally quoting within a quote, but can also be used for quoting something indirect.

Basically, if you're quoting something, use " and if there's a quote within it, use '. If you're trying to emphasize something use italics, bold if you're really trying to make a point.