Post-Game Talk: Polak Costs Us | 2-1 Canucks

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

was at the game and quite frankly, Tanev was nothing to write home about. He played like Jake, esp with that give away in the slot during the first period. Only die hard Nucks homer fans will say Nucks played a great game, Jake Virtanen was amazing and Tanev showed the league how to stop Matthews. I was with my buddies(Nucks fans) and they all were like thanks god for Markstorm.
The way the Leafs played in the second showed everyone that the Leafs can shut you down(3 shots and I think 2 of them were from PP). Nucks only got more shots in the third due to the Leafs were pressing.

Canucks fan here..the win was sweet,but the Canucks were hanging on throughout most of the last 40 minutes..After a gruelling Eastern roadswing it was obvious the Canucks were running on fumes by the end of the game..

I think the next time these two teams meet (at the ACC) will be more indicative of how these teams match up..Canucks will be fresh,and generally play better on the road..I've got it circled on the calendar.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

was at the game and quite frankly, Tanev was nothing to write home about. He played like Jake, esp with that give away in the slot during the first period. Only die hard Nucks homer fans will say Nucks played a great game, Jake Virtanen was amazing and Tanev showed the league how to stop Matthews. I was with my buddies(Nucks fans) and they all were like thanks god for Markstorm.
The way the Leafs played in the second showed everyone that the Leafs can shut you down(3 shots and I think 2 of them were from PP). Nucks only got more shots in the third due to the Leafs were pressing.

Matthews played like 70% of the game in the Canucks' end and got to the net with ease. Hard to see him as anything but dominant, and he did that against Horvat/Boeser/Tanev

 

[Keato]

My least favourite losses are those before big breaks where you just have to sit and stew over it.

 

[81Leafs50]

God ****ing damnit.

Leafs get outplayed in the first 20 minutes and Andersen gives up two weak goals and Polak is to blame.

I love how educated hockey fans are in Toronto.

 

[Hurt]

Leafs get outplayed in the first 20 minutes and Andersen gives up two weak goals and Polak is to blame.

I love how educated hockey fans are in Toronto.

Well if you want to be pedantic, the first shot was tipped so not exactly anything Andersen could have done and Polak handled the puck like a grenade on the play that resulted in the second goal. But sure, it's easy to make broad sweeping statements.

 

[Gallagbi]

Dude the data (large sample) as I have shown absolutely disagrees with all three of you (zeke, weems and yourself). and the 1 game sample in terms of tanev vs matthews also disagrees with you, weems and zeke.

I had already pointed out that the data over a large sample has nothing to do with HD scoring% and points converted; don't believe me just do the math yourself with the links provided in the posts (see below 2 links)

1. http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/polak-costs-us-2-1-canucks.2418601/page-17#post-138634295

2. http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/polak-costs-us-2-1-canucks.2418601/page-17#post-138632749


In Addition, for last game look at the image below

on a 5 on 5 Tanev Vs Matthews is nothing but a stalemate (may be tanev by an inch) as seen by the pic above.

Basically, brighter blue means home team advantage and briger brown means away team advantage. I have highlighted the matchup of Tanev Vs Matthews in RED BOXES

More on how to read this picture visit the following website;

Corsica | Games

EDIT: further more HDCF% of Matthews vs Tanev is 50% pretty even. This stat is from naturalstattrick website

I do not know how much more evidence do I need to post.
Basically, zeke, weems and yourself are actually proven wrong on

To close the loop on this I don't think your statttrick stats show what you think. The argument isn't that the top chance producers will automatically lead the league in scoring. A chance on Matthews stick is better than the same opportunity for Martin. But on a basic level the more chances any player has, the more they should be expected to score. That's just logic.

You've preached context, and that's exactly what was given to you. I highlighted specific chances, not even knowing if they classify as HD by that sites definition (I hadn't brougt up that stat) and Weems outlined shift by shift what happened.

 

[PromisedLand]

To close the loop on this I don't think your statttrick stats show what you think. The argument isn't that the top chance producers will automatically lead the league in scoring. A chance on Matthews stick is better than the same opportunity for Martin. But on a basic level the more chances any player has, the more they should be expected to score. That's just logic.

You've preached context, and that's exactly what was given to you. I highlighted specific chances, not even knowing if they classify as HD by that sites definition (I hadn't brougt up that stat) and Weems outlined shift by shift what happened.

Dude the website clearly states that between Matthews and Tanev HDCF is 50%.

So either that stats are wrong or the narrative is incorrect.

 

[weems]

Aren't one game corsi samples extremely flimsy?

 

[weems]

Matthews didnt score so if you want to be extremely technical, sure Van/Tanev did their job.

If you look at it deeper you see he had an excellent game with many chances and could have easily potted 2-3 goals with a little more luck.

On the entire roadtrip he had 11 scoring chances. 7 came in the game against VAN and it makes sense after what I watched.

It was his best game since returning and thats been echoed by a few people.

I guess some people just have differing opinions on shuting down or slowing down a player.

I didnt see a player getting slowed down or contained in any way.

 

[Hurt]

Aren't one game corsi samples extremely flimsy?

Depending on the understanding level of the person posting it, could even be purposefully misleading.

 

[Gallagbi]

Dude the website clearly states that between Matthews and Tanev HDCF is 50%.

So either that stats are wrong or the narrative is incorrect.

50% says nothing about the total number of chances. You can be "even" by allowing chances as well.

I'll also say the Corsi for will throw a wrench in there as well because 2 of the major breakdowns didn't result in a shot attempt.

 

[PromisedLand]

50% says nothing about the total number of chances. You can be "even" by allowing chances as well.

Stats have clearly proven that over a large sample HDCF and production don't necessarily have high correlation.

I also gave an example of Hyman. When Matthews saucer passed to Hyman in the slot that would count as a chance and shit metric including the shot map but the context that H. Sedin touched the puck making it harder for Hyman to shoot would not be included.

I really don't want to drag this on and on. Let's agree to disagree.

 

[Gallagbi]

Stats have clearly proven that over a large sample HDCF and production don't necessarily have high correlation.

I also gave an example of Hyman. When Matthews saucer passed to Hyman in the slot that would count as a chance and **** metric including the shot map but the context that H. Sedin touched the puck making it harder for Hyman to shoot would not be included.

I really don't want to drag this on and on. Let's agree to disagree.

Why do you keep going back to the stat that I didn't bring up rather than discussing the opportunity?

I've said in a few posts that you want to discuss context, but then back away from it.

 

[PromisedLand]

Why do you keep going back to the stat that I didn't bring up rather than discussing the opportunity?

I've said in a few posts that you want to discuss context, but then back away from it.

What metric is available that shows chances? Corsi is a close proxy but corsi is limited in explaining quality chances. Corsi is shots on net + blocked shots + shots directed towards net that may have missed or gone wide.

That is why I had zeroed in on HDCF to at least assign some form of quality to the chance metric proxy.

 

[weems]

He also fanned on two open nets.

How do you quantify that with a stat?

 

[Gallagbi]

What metric is available that shows chances? Corsi is a close proxy but corsi is limited in explaining quality chances. Corsi is shots on net + blocked shots + shots directed towards net that may have missed or gone wide.

That is why I had zeroed in on HDCF to at least assign some form of quality to the chance metric proxy.

We don't need a metric. I have specific examples that Weems then built even further with a shift by shift breakdown over a period.

Zeke notes HDCF, I'm sure that's why you zeroed in on it. Im pretty sure you even asked about it a few pages ago.

 

[PromisedLand]

We don't need a metric. I have specific examples that Weems then built even further with a shift by shift breakdown over a period.

Zeke notes HDCF, I'm sure that's why you zeroed in on it. Im pretty sure you even asked about it a few pages ago.

Quite frankly I don't agree with Weems posts. The "eye-test" what he sees is not the way I saw the play develop.

 

[weems]

Quite frankly I don't agree with Weems posts. The "eye-test" what he sees is not the way I saw the play develop.

Buddy you said the play where Matthews outmuscles Tanev in the corner and spins into the faceoff dot and gets off a shot was "from a bad angle"

You should lose all credibility right there.

 

[PromisedLand]

Buddy you said the play where Matthews outmuscles Tanev in the corner and spins into the faceoff dot and gets off a shot was "from a bad angle"

You should lose all credibility right there.

Man...

If you did a goal scoring chart how many times had Matthews scored from the RIght side compared to Left side.

Most of his goals have come from the left side of the ice.

Just because you think that angle is good and I don't doesn't mean that I am 100% wrong.

When it comes to "eye test" people see what they want to see and it is subjective.

That is why eye test together with data provides more context.

You claimed that wrap around was a quality chance; I don't think that it wasn't a quality chance, puck went through the blue paint with no leafs around and was easily cleared by the Canucks.

Should I now jus say your credibility should be zero because you don't view the things the same way as I do?

 

[weems]

Man...

If you did a goal scoring chart how many times had Matthews scored from the RIght side compared to Left side.

Most of his goals have come from the left side of the ice.

Just because you think that angle is good and I don't doesn't mean that I am 100% wrong.

When it comes to "eye test" people see what they want to see and it is subjective.

That is why eye test together with data provides more context.

You claimed that wrap around was a quality chance; I don't think that it wasn't a quality chance, puck went through the blue paint with no leafs around and was easily cleared by the Canucks.

Should I now jus say your credibility should be zero because you don't view the things the same way as I do?

Regardless of what side a player scores more on doesnt change the quality of shot and to go even further and say it was from a bad angle is just misinformation.

I have absolutely zero problems with someone posting the video of the game and we can go over every single play in depth and we can all see how downright terrible Tanev was?

 

[Gallagbi]

Quite frankly I don't agree with Weems posts. The "eye-test" what he sees is not the way I saw the play develop.

The problem is your eye tests are questionable. You say nobody is around on the wraparound, but Hyman is in the crease digging.

You said earlier none of the chances were off a tape to tape pass when Hyman hits him on the tape streaking to the net late in the first.

It seems like every discussion has you shifting the posts a bit for why these weren't chance.

If you want to go with a chance is only a chance if it results in a goal, that's fine, it is just going to be heavily debatable.

 

[PromisedLand]

Regardless of what side a player scores more on doesnt change the quality of shot and to go even further and say it was from a bad angle is just misinformation.

I have absolutely zero problems with someone posting the video of the game and we can go over every single play in depth and we can all see how downright terrible Tanev was?

I am not saying Tanev was great; but if you put the collected stats for the game and watch the videos then it is pretty evident that Tanev wasn't absolutely brutal as you claim. CF% b/w in a head to head match up between tanev and Matthews was 59% in favour of Matthews and was dead even at 50% in HDCF.

 

[PromisedLand]

The problem is your eye tests are questionable. You say nobody is around on the wraparound, but Hyman is in the crease digging.

You said earlier none of the chances were off a tape to tape pass when Hyman hits him on the tape streaking to the net late in the first.

It seems like every discussion has you shifting the posts a bit for why these weren't chance.

If you want to go with a chance is only a chance if it results in a goal, that's fine, it is just going to be heavily debatable.

See I don't think that Hyman's pass is as tape to tape, was it a tap in opportunity yes? But the pass was too hot to handle, when the d pressures you, you make plays much faster and b cause of that d pressure you don't make the play as effectively as you would make with no pressure. That to me is context instead of saying that yea Matthews was there and the pass came to him.

Eye test on its own is subjective if you claim something wrong is with how I view the game then I will throw that sentiment right back at you

 

[weems]

I am not saying Tanev was great; but if you put the collected stats for the game and watch the videos then it is pretty evident that Tanev wasn't absolutely brutal as you claim. CF% b/w in a head to head match up between tanev and Matthews was 59% in favour of Matthews and was dead even at 50% in HDCF.

I've claimed he was absolutely brutal in the first period and I 100% stand by that statement and will go as far as youd like on that one. We could have someone post the video. We could put a little money on if you want because thats how confident I am in what I saw that period. Matthews had a barrage of chances and Tanev was basically falling all over the place.

Matthews had more chances in that first period then he had basically had the previous 6 periods.

 

[PromisedLand]

I've claimed he was absolutely brutal in the first period and I 100% stand by that statement and will go as far as youd like on that one. We could have someone post the video. We could put a little money on if you want because thats how confident I am in what I saw that period. Matthews had a barrage of chances and Tanev was basically falling all over the place.

Matthews had more chances in that first period then he had basically had the previous 6 periods.

Oh boy.... now just one period? How about you just talk about one shift then tell people how wrong they are....