OT: Official Scoring problems thread and solutions

[TheWanderer]

I suggest this one thing:

If you are going to make a like of Daniel - Richardson - Burrows, can you PLEASE reduce their ice-time? This line is not going to produce offense. Stop giving them offensive zone face-offs.

The coaching staff needs to start playing the players who are hot. Give Kassian more ice-time. Stick him on a line with Higgins.

Stop giving Hansen so much ice-time.

These slumping players need to stop being put on the 1st unit PP, as well.

 

[bure 96]

Get Daniel off the PK so that he has some energy and tenacity for regular shifts.

 

[BB6]

Let's talk about our incredibly poor scoring prowess this year.

A ton of people are blaming our forwards, but I actually think it's the back end which is hurting us significantly, not our forwards. We simply have way to many defensive d-men.

Let's go over our defense, and why I think we are struggling scoring goals.

1 - Bieksa: Decent puck moving d-man, has an Okay shot, makes defensive mistakes, but is maybe the best "overall" D-man on the team. (as in offensive and defensive balance)

2 - Hamhuis: Most "consistant" d-man on the team, Very good defensively, Very average offensively, Good skater, and passer, average puck mover.

3 - Edler: Big strong d-man, Can hit when he is engaged, Overrated skating, above average at best. Has a cannon, but has poor acuracy, and not good at handling the puck. Decent passer and slow puck mover.

4 - Garrison: Slow strong d-man, Has a cannon of a shot, but has trouble finding the lanes, Not a good puck mover, average passer and skater.

5 - Stanton: Very good defensively, Above average skater, Strong player, young but is steady. Below average offensively. No comment on puck moving yet.

6 - Tanev: Again, very good defensively, good shot blocker, good positionally, and decent puck mover, Good passer, but Black hole offensively. ZERO shot.

This is the problem, we have WAY to many defensive d-men's on the back end, when we lost ehrhoff we lost our true #1 puck moving and skating d-man, he was the key to our dominance on the PP back then, we need to find a QUICK skating d-man.

Summary: IMO it's not our forwards, we just have to many defensive d-men. We need a TRUE puck moving d-man, Somebody who can skate BY defensive men, and make accurate passes while breaking the mid zone. We just have way to many players who do the same thing.

Solution: Trade for a #1 puck moving d-man, Use Edler + Tanev in a package.

Can't blame the D, the problem is that we've had two 2nd lines for most of the season.

 

[Jyrki]

Can't blame the D, the problem is that we've had two 2nd lines for most of the season.

Actually, the lack of puck-moving D is a HUGE problem for our offense. You watch most teams in the league play, and they'll usually have at least one blue liner capable of taking the puck into the zone if all else fails.

The Blue Jackets are a good example. Did you know they're top 10 in scoring? They don't play an offensive brand of hockey nor are they loaded on scoring forwards. But if there's one thing they can do extremely well is bring the puck from their zone across the neutral zone, thanks largely to having puck movers like Jack Johnson and James Wisniewiski. They actually don't carry the puck in all that often, but they're always an option to gain the zone when the Jackets are transitioning the puck and in Wiz's case, also having the alternative of entering through stretch passes. That makes the Jackets a lot less predictable in transition and lets the team as a whole have more room when they make it to the O-zone; setting up and creating chances off the rush is a lot easier.

When the Canucks try to gain the zone, it's usually a very different story. Pretty much all our D-men can pass the puck out of the D-zone, but only as far as the red line. Although we do have good skaters (Bieksa, Hamhuis) they aren't very good at controlling the puck and making plays in stride - meaning they can't be relied to take the puck themselves into the zone. Edler does have the skill, but he just isn't Ehrhoff with his skating. Stretch passes seem to rarely occur, unless someone like Hamhuis or Edler is trying to find a forward and send him away in an odd-man rush; during regular play it doesn't seem to be an option. The end result is that our opponents don't have to respect our blue liners very much when defending in the neutral zone, and that's why for the Canucks, the area seems to be clogged every time they try to take the puck the other way. Entries are almost always carries along the wall or dump-and-chase, essentially forcing the team to play the cycle down low until there's more room to try something else. The team just doesn't make much happen in transition, because they don't have the tools to consistently beat opponents in the neutral zone. It's something that also carries into the Power Play, I think - even though there's a man less to go up against, the team still struggles to gain the zone and make room for themselves to get set up.

Yes, our forwards have been hurting for much of the year but our depth isn't completely inadequate. The problem is that when guys like Daniel and Burrows aren't scoring off the cycle, they aren't scoring - period.

 

[BB6]

I guess for me I feel like if the forwards were going our D would look alot better, I'm not saying our D have been stellar or anything but to me the bigger problem is the slumping forwards, we're obviously looking at it from two different points of view.

Are we in a slump or were we playing above ourselves earlier in the year? depends on your standpoint there I guess, I feel like we're in a slump and injury has played its part(yes every team gets hurt) more importantly our top 4 D all have an NTC and so I try to focus on other areas, a puck moving D would be nice but again I'm electing to look at our forward core because yes, they've been struggling harder imo than our D, some of the D have too but more so the forwards.

 

[WinterEmpire]

Might be worth a shot... A pissed off Samuelsson is a force to be reckoned with

No...Samuelsson is done. He's been worse than Booth, if that's even possible.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Actually, the lack of puck-moving D is a HUGE problem for our offense. You watch most teams in the league play, and they'll usually have at least one blue liner capable of taking the puck into the zone if all else fails.

The Blue Jackets are a good example. Did you know they're top 10 in scoring? They don't play an offensive brand of hockey nor are they loaded on scoring forwards. But if there's one thing they can do extremely well is bring the puck from their zone across the neutral zone, thanks largely to having puck movers like Jack Johnson and James Wisniewiski. They actually don't carry the puck in all that often, but they're always an option to gain the zone when the Jackets are transitioning the puck and in Wiz's case, also having the alternative of entering through stretch passes. That makes the Jackets a lot less predictable in transition and lets the team as a whole have more room when they make it to the O-zone; setting up and creating chances off the rush is a lot easier.

When the Canucks try to gain the zone, it's usually a very different story. Pretty much all our D-men can pass the puck out of the D-zone, but only as far as the red line. Although we do have good skaters (Bieksa, Hamhuis) they aren't very good at controlling the puck and making plays in stride - meaning they can't be relied to take the puck themselves into the zone. Edler does have the skill, but he just isn't Ehrhoff with his skating. Stretch passes seem to rarely occur, unless someone like Hamhuis or Edler is trying to find a forward and send him away in an odd-man rush; during regular play it doesn't seem to be an option. The end result is that our opponents don't have to respect our blue liners very much when defending in the neutral zone, and that's why for the Canucks, the area seems to be clogged every time they try to take the puck the other way. Entries are almost always carries along the wall or dump-and-chase, essentially forcing the team to play the cycle down low until there's more room to try something else. The team just doesn't make much happen in transition, because they don't have the tools to consistently beat opponents in the neutral zone. It's something that also carries into the Power Play, I think - even though there's a man less to go up against, the team still struggles to gain the zone and make room for themselves to get set up.

Yes, our forwards have been hurting for much of the year but our depth isn't completely inadequate. The problem is that when guys like Daniel and Burrows aren't scoring off the cycle, they aren't scoring - period.

totally OTM. even in the first half of the '12 season when we were scoring goals, you could see how we were a different team without ehrhoff; the sedins, for instance, weren't scoring off the rush the way they had done in '10 and '11. when we gain zone entry now, the opposing defense has already set. bieksa is a pretty good puck carrier, hamhuis and edler are both able to skate with the puck, but all of them are only good enough at it to skate the puck out of trouble. none of them have the speed or ability to find open space to gain zone entry while the opposition is still transitioning. that's what ehrhoff used to do.

the whole makeup of the team's style changed when he left. i think our D is better at outlet passes than we generally give them credit for, but without the "other look" that ehrhoff gave us, it's become much easier for opposing defense to play us the same way every shift. whereas they used to defend us differently because there was the possibility of a guy exploiting them as they were getting back on D.

the sad thing, though, is that keeping ehrhoff probably wouldn't have helped in the long run, except that we'd have one guy capable of quick and accurate stretch passes. from everything i've heard out of buffalo, after the '11 playoffs he hasn't consistently been the same player that he was his two years here.

 

[opendoor]

totally OTM. even in the first half of the '12 season when we were scoring goals, you could see how we were a different team without ehrhoff; the sedins, for instance, weren't scoring off the rush the way they had done in '10 and '11. when we gain zone entry now, the opposing defense has already set. bieksa is a pretty good puck carrier, hamhuis and edler are both able to skate with the puck, but all of them are only good enough at it to skate the puck out of trouble. none of them have the speed or ability to find open space to gain zone entry while the opposition is still transitioning. that's what ehrhoff used to do.

the whole makeup of the team's style changed when he left. i think our D is better at outlet passes than we generally give them credit for, but without the "other look" that ehrhoff gave us, it's become much easier for opposing defense to play us the same way every shift. whereas they used to defend us differently because there was the possibility of a guy exploiting them as they were getting back on D.

the sad thing, though, is that keeping ehrhoff probably wouldn't have helped in the long run, except that we'd have one guy capable of quick and accurate stretch passes. from everything i've heard out of buffalo, after the '11 playoffs he hasn't consistently been the same player that he was his two years here.

If Ehrhoff had such a massive effect, then why did the top 6 actually produce more offense without him on the ice in 10-11 compared to when he was out there? In 10-11 H. Sedin and Kesler averaged 2.97 GF/60 min with Ehrhoff on the ice and 3.01 GF/60 min with him on the bench.

He was a good defenseman and he helped the PP, but he didn't play that vital of a role in driving the offense. Any Canucks' decline after he left has far more to do with Kesler and the Sedins not being the offensive players they once were than it does him leaving.

 

[LolClarkson*]

Alain has the Rangers PP in top 10 when JT had the Rangers in bottom 5 when he was there

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

If Ehrhoff had such a massive effect, then why did the top 6 actually produce more offense without him on the ice in 10-11 compared to when he was out there? In 10-11 H. Sedin and Kesler averaged 2.97 GF/60 min with Ehrhoff on the ice and 3.01 GF/60 min with him on the bench.

He was a good defenseman and he helped the PP, but he didn't play that vital of a role in driving the offense. Any Canucks' decline after he left has far more to do with Kesler and the Sedins not being the offensive players they once were than it does him leaving.

Who was Ehrhoff playing with at those times? My guess is matchup related reasons, but I don't know the whole story. Its an interesting case, I might look into it if I have time later...

 

[DennisReynolds]

Alain has the Rangers PP in top 10 when JT had the Rangers in bottom 5 when he was there

Newell Brown ran our PP. Phoenix last year was at 14.8%, this year, 20%.

Last year Canucks had 15.8% while this year, they have 13.8%.

So no, coaching hasn't been the problem. It's the players.

 

[VanillaCoke]

What happened to sestito in front of the net?
With the most laughable PP in the league it's better than staying with the status quo...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

If Ehrhoff had such a massive effect, then why did the top 6 actually produce more offense without him on the ice in 10-11 compared to when he was out there? In 10-11 H. Sedin and Kesler averaged 2.97 GF/60 min with Ehrhoff on the ice and 3.01 GF/60 min with him on the bench.

He was a good defenseman and he helped the PP, but he didn't play that vital of a role in driving the offense. Any Canucks' decline after he left has far more to do with Kesler and the Sedins not being the offensive players they once were than it does him leaving.

i don't know.

but my point was that when he was here we regular created offense off the rush. we didn't gain zone entry, then curl around, then pass it around the perimeter until garrison shoots it into someone's shin pads. that's partially because we were defended against differently when ehrhoff was here. do you disagree with that? we all saw it didn't we?

we can disagree on the reason that the rush disappeared for this team -- i think it was because of the ehrhoff's skating potential -- but i don't think we can disagree that it did in fact disappear that off-season.

 

[opendoor]

i don't know.

but my point was that when he was here we regular created offense off the rush. we didn't gain zone entry, then curl around, then pass it around the perimeter until garrison shoots it into someone's shin pads. that's partially because we were defended against differently when ehrhoff was here. do you disagree with that? we all saw it didn't we?

we can disagree on the reason that the rush disappeared for this team -- i think it was because of the ehrhoff's skating potential -- but i don't think we can disagree that it did in fact disappear that off-season.

There are a lot of reasons. The Sedins, Kesler, and Burrows were more dynamic back then and some of the secondary forwards were a little better suited to that kind of game. And the quality of defensive hockey they had to face was much less than it is now. There was far less obstruction allowed back then and the quality of the Western Conference simply wasn't anywhere close to what it is now. That year an Anaheim team that missed the playoffs the year before and would miss the next year ended up finishing 4th with a +5 goal differential. This year the 4th place team will likely end up with a similar points % to what Vancouver won the President's Trophy with that year and a +60 goal differential.

The whole team played like that back then and Ehrhoff was just one small part of it. When the Sedins were on the ice with Hamhuis (who rarely played with Ehrhoff) they generated about 60% more offense per 60 minutes in 10-11 compared to this season. Ehrhoff's presence (or lack of) has basically nothing to do with that discrepancy.

 

[SnapIt]

Powerplay needs to start forcing other team's to chase. At present, the PP passes along the perimeter of the box way too much, leaving the inside under-utilized. Using a pass to the inside from along the half boards would open up the point quickly and finally use the shots of Garrison/Edler/Bieksa, while giving the possibility for shots from Kesler and/or Kassian.

/hatethisPP

 

[Yossarian54]

If Ehrhoff had such a massive effect, then why did the top 6 actually produce more offense without him on the ice in 10-11 compared to when he was out there? In 10-11 H. Sedin and Kesler averaged 2.97 GF/60 min with Ehrhoff on the ice and 3.01 GF/60 min with him on the bench.

That's a bit of a weird stat to pull out - given that H.Sedin and Kesler played together extremely rarely at ES in 10-11. In fact, I can't remember a single game where the Sedin's had Kesler on the wing that year. So unless that includes PP time (which would be an incredibly low GF/60 for PPs...), I think that must be an extremely small sample size. Unless it's a combined H.Sedin+Ehrhoff and Kesler+Ehrhoff, in which case the Kesler+Ehrhoff might be the component reducing the numbers.

Pass it to Bulis [URL="Pass it to Bulis"/]http://vansunsportsblogs.com/2012/03/02/drance-numbers-how-much-do-the-sedins-miss-christian-ehrhoff/[/URL] had an article where they looked at GF/60 with Henrik and Ehrhoff from 09-11, and there is a definite spike indicative of chemistry.

 

[opendoor]

That's a bit of a weird stat to pull out - given that H.Sedin and Kesler played together extremely rarely at ES in 10-11. In fact, I can't remember a single game where the Sedin's had Kesler on the wing that year. So unless that includes PP time (which would be an incredibly low GF/60 for PPs...), I think that must be an extremely small sample size. Unless it's a combined H.Sedin+Ehrhoff and Kesler+Ehrhoff, in which case the Kesler+Ehrhoff might be the component reducing the numbers.

It's not H. Sedin and Kesler on the ice together, it's H. Sedin and Kesler's GF/60 combined with and without Ehrhoff because that roughly approximates the Canucks' top 6. The Sedins saw a slight reduction without Ehrhoff and Kesler saw a slight increase without him. If he was driving the offense, you'd expect the Canucks' best players to produce more with him compared to the other 2 pairings.

Pass it to Bulis [URL="Pass it to Bulis"/]http://vansunsportsblogs.com/2012/03/02/drance-numbers-how-much-do-the-sedins-miss-christian-ehrhoff/[/URL] had an article where they looked at GF/60 with Henrik and Ehrhoff from 09-11, and there is a definite spike indicative of chemistry.

H. Sedin's 09-10 season was the best 5-on-5 season by a player in the last 15-20 years. I'm not sure we can draw too many conclusions from a season where absolutely everything was going in for them. Andrew Alberts and Shane O'Brien had elite GF/60 numbers with the Sedins that year. Ehrhoff played a role, but it was nothing that was repeatable or sustainable as we saw the next season when the Sedins' GF/60 went back to its usual that we've seen in 08-09, 10-11, and 11-12.

 

[LolClarkson*]

Newell Brown ran our PP. Phoenix last year was at 14.8%, this year, 20%.

Last year Canucks had 15.8% while this year, they have 13.8%.

So no, coaching hasn't been the problem. It's the players.

Why the hell did we let go of the guy running a successful PP ?

Ralph Kruger had the Oilers top 10 in PP and PK last year. We should hire him as an associate coach.

 

[opendoor]

Why the hell did we let go of the guy running a successful PP ?

In the full season's worth of games prior to AV and Brown getting fired the Canucks' PP was operating at about 14% which is really no better than the 13.8% they've done this year. I'm not seeing much evidence that the Canucks' PP problems are coaching related.

 

[Yossarian54]

It's not H. Sedin and Kesler on the ice together, it's H. Sedin and Kesler's GF/60 combined with and without Ehrhoff because that roughly approximates the Canucks' top 6. The Sedins saw a slight reduction without Ehrhoff and Kesler saw a slight increase without him. If he was driving the offense, you'd expect the Canucks' best players to produce more with him compared to the other 2 pairings.

Cool, thanks. It'd be interesting to see the relative times the Ehrhoff pairing spent with both players that year - my guess is significantly more deployment with the Sedins, but if not that would certainly put the nail in the coffin from a stats perspective.

H. Sedin's 09-10 season was the best 5-on-5 season by a player in the last 15-20 years. I'm not sure we can draw too many conclusions from a season where absolutely everything was going in for them. Andrew Alberts and Shane O'Brien had elite GF/60 numbers with the Sedins that year. Ehrhoff played a role, but it was nothing that was repeatable or sustainable as we saw the next season when the Sedins' GF/60 went back to its usual that we've seen in 08-09, 10-11, and 11-12.

Yeah, his shot % that year was pretty huge, so looking at 09-11 as a whole makes me nervous.

I still think there is some merit to the loss of Ehrhoff being a contributing factor to both PP and Sedin scoring struggles (mainly the PP actually). From a purely visual perspective the transition game looks/looked less smooth without him.

Why the hell did we let go of the guy running a successful PP ?

Ralph Kruger had the Oilers top 10 in PP and PK last year. We should hire him as an associate coach.

The Oilers forward group is pretty much built for the PP for mind. They excel when there is less pressure and physical engagement as there is 5 on 4. RNH, Hall, Eberle, Schultz, Yakupov, Hemsky etc. We can't replicate that personnel wise.

 

[opendoor]

Cool, thanks. It'd be interesting to see the relative times the Ehrhoff pairing spent with both players that year - my guess is significantly more deployment with the Sedins, but if not that would certainly put the nail in the coffin from a stats perspective.

He spent about 540 minutes with the Sedins and 373 minutes with Kesler which represents 45% and 34% of Sedin and Kesler's 5-on-5 TOI respectively. So pretty large samples for both lines with and without Ehrhoff.

Yeah, his shot % that year was pretty huge, so looking at 09-11 as a whole makes me nervous.

I still think there is some merit to the loss of Ehrhoff being a contributing factor to both PP and Sedin scoring struggles (mainly the PP actually). From a purely visual perspective the transition game looks/looked less smooth without him.

I definitely think not having a player like him has hurt the PP (and ES to a lesser degree). I'm just not convinced that it's any more than one small factor among many, especially given that the Canucks still have 4 defensemen capable of 35+ points. If you swap out Garrison for Ehrhoff (which is likely how it would've gone) I'm not convinced there'd be much of a difference in the team's fortunes.

 

[Bleach Clean]

He spent about 540 minutes with the Sedins and 373 minutes with Kesler which represents 45% and 34% of Sedin and Kesler's 5-on-5 TOI respectively. So pretty large samples for both lines with and without Ehrhoff.

I definitely think not having a player like him has hurt the PP (and ES to a lesser degree). I'm just not convinced that it's any more than one small factor among many, especially given that the Canucks still have 4 defensemen capable of 35+ points. If you swap out Garrison for Ehrhoff (which is likely how it would've gone) I'm not convinced there'd be much of a difference in the team's fortunes.

Is that to say that finding a style fit is also small factor among many? It's hard to draw straight lines across two players and say they are equally as effective, but differ greatly in style, but if they were, would a style shift be a net benefit? (Not asking you specifically, more posing it as a question in general) Many people think we need a PMD quite badly, but if what you say is true, then a style shift will result in minimal gain.


-----


On a separate note, I wonder if there isn't some diminishing return to focusing on defense now so intently. It's isn't like the team can collectively reduce goals below 0, but they could cheat, open things up, and start to increase the GF. Something to affect their goal differential, but not necessarily their 2way ratio, if that makes sense.

 

[Dissonance]

totally OTM. even in the first half of the '12 season when we were scoring goals, you could see how we were a different team without ehrhoff; the sedins, for instance, weren't scoring off the rush the way they had done in '10 and '11. when we gain zone entry now, the opposing defense has already set. bieksa is a pretty good puck carrier, hamhuis and edler are both able to skate with the puck, but all of them are only good enough at it to skate the puck out of trouble. none of them have the speed or ability to find open space to gain zone entry while the opposition is still transitioning. that's what ehrhoff used to do.

the whole makeup of the team's style changed when he left. i think our D is better at outlet passes than we generally give them credit for, but without the "other look" that ehrhoff gave us, it's become much easier for opposing defense to play us the same way every shift. whereas they used to defend us differently because there was the possibility of a guy exploiting them as they were getting back on D.

the sad thing, though, is that keeping ehrhoff probably wouldn't have helped in the long run, except that we'd have one guy capable of quick and accurate stretch passes. from everything i've heard out of buffalo, after the '11 playoffs he hasn't consistently been the same player that he was his two years here.

Yep--and Sami Salo was also an underrated part of our transition game back then. I'm not sure we should have kept him (especially at $3.75 million per year), but his departure was definitely a big loss too.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

On a separate note, I wonder if there isn't some diminishing return to focusing on defense now so intently. It's isn't like the team can collectively reduce goals below 0, but they could cheat, open things up, and start to increase the GF. Something to affect their goal differential, but not necessarily their 2way ratio, if that makes sense.

IMO the reason you want to invest the majority of your resources/finances up front, as opposed to on the backend and in goal is because if you have a really strong forward corps you can often rack up big goals for numbers, while keeping goals against numbers down simply by having so much puck possession. On the flip side, being strong in your own end doesn't help you put the puck in the net at the other end - you need the offensive horses to do that.

When you look around at the top teams in the NHL right now they all heave one thing in common - deep, skilled forward corps'. The Canucks just don't stack up to the Blues, Hawks, Ducks, Bruins, Penguins in this regard - yet on the blueline and in net, I don't think these teams have better personnel than Vancouver right now, save the Blues.

 

[Bougieman]

I don't know how to solve the problem, but the fact that we don't have anyone in the top 50 of scoring in the NHL (Henrik and Daniel are both tied for 50th, currently) this late in the season should be a real cause of alarm for every fan of this team.

I don't think that has ever happened this late in the season in the 20 years that I've been a fan of this team. Not to my memory, anyway.