Stanley Cup winners with negative goal differentials

[Canadiens1958]

Overlooking

Like I said, less professional.

I suspect the Nucks in the 1st round up 3-0 just coasted hoping the Hawks would lay down.

They did the same in Game 3 this series.

Overlooking that the Hawks were without Dave Bolland the first three games and that the Canucks have major problems, especially Luongo, playing against a team that has a LHS / RHS center combination - Toews and Bolland. Two previous playoffs with a healthy Toews and Bolland the Canucks were beat easily and Luongo looked pedestrian since the varied attack put him totally out of sync.

Boston has such an advantage but their coaching is not strong enough or has not been to date, for it to impact on the road. The same was true for San Jose.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Overlooking that the Hawks were without Dave Bolland the first three games and that the Canucks have major problems, especially Luongo, playing against a team that has a LHS / RHS center combination - Toews and Bolland. Two previous playoffs with a healthy Toews and Bolland the Canucks were beat easily and Luongo looked pedestrian since the varied attack put him totally out of sync.

Boston has such an advantage but their coaching is not strong enough or has not been to date, for it to impact on the road. The same was true for San Jose.

I'm not sure where to begin here. So I'll just point out a few things:

1. There is scant evidence that Luongo struggles against Chicago; for example his save percentage against them in the regular season this year was .938 (including .984 on the road). When you focus only on his bad games, he'll look bad. But the overall picture is not nearly so clear.

2. Bolland was very good in the three wins Chicago managed against the Hawks. But in these three games, Toews had one assist and was -1. Invoking him as a reason Luongo struggled against Chicago is bizarre.

3. Your explanation relies on incompetence on the part of the coaches of Boston and San Jose to explain why this LHS/RHS advantage (which is actually quite common - even Nashville had it with Legwand and Fisher) magically disappears when it doesn't support your argument.

4. In Boston's case you're attempting to explain a difference of five full goals per game with the idea that Boston coaching is great for home games but terrible for road games. That's another extraordinary claim that would require absolutely extraordinary evidence to support it. How many Bobby Orrs do you need to add to your team to get a difference of five goals per game? And you suggest that variance in one aspect of coaching from home to road games explains it?

There's more I could say, but I'll just leave those points there for others to consider. I don't have any interest in debating this topic, since it won't go anywhere.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Thank You

I'm not sure where to begin here. So I'll just point out a few things:

1. There is scant evidence that Luongo struggles against Chicago; for example his save percentage against them in the regular season this year was .938 (including .984 on the road). When you focus only on his bad games, he'll look bad. But the overall picture is not nearly so clear.

2. Bolland was very good in the three wins Chicago managed against the Hawks. But in these three games, Toews had one assist and was -1. Invoking him as a reason Luongo struggled against Chicago is bizarre.

3. Your explanation relies on incompetence on the part of the coaches of Boston and San Jose to explain why this LHS/RHS advantage (which is actually quite common - even Nashville had it with Legwand and Fisher) magically disappears when it doesn't support your argument.

4. In Boston's case you're attempting to explain a difference of five full goals per game with the idea that Boston coaching is great for home games but terrible for road games. That's another extraordinary claim that would require absolutely extraordinary evidence to support it. How many Bobby Orrs do you need to add to your team to get a difference of five goals per game? And you suggest that variance in one aspect of coaching from home to road games explains it?

There's more I could say, but I'll just leave those points there for others to consider. I don't have any interest in debating this topic, since it won't go anywhere.

Thank you for admitting that a small sample space is valid grounds for study. Regular season Vancouver and Chicago only played four games?

!.) SV% your argument omits three shoot-out goals on three shots that Luongo allowed in the first meeting in Chicago.Effectively his SV% varied from .800 to 1.000 in the four games during the regular season.Bolland played in all four, Not exactly a model for consistency.

Playoffs. First three games,no Bolland, Luongos SV% =~.944. Next 3 games against Bolland SV~ .793 giving up respectively 6,5 and 1(in a back-up role) Game 7 after having observed the Hawks offensive flow Luongo bounces back with an excellent game stopping 31/32 shots.

2.) Bolland / Toews. Focusing strictly on the offensive part of how a RHS/LHS center duo influences the game is rather superficial. Since the major impact is on defense and speed. The offensive consequences follow. Who actually does the scoring does not matter as long as the scoring is sufficient to win.

3.)The RHS/LHS advantage has to be supported with appropriate talent. Getting Fisher allowed Nashville to advance beyond the first round for the first time BUT neither Legwand or Fisher nor the supporting forwards have the skill set to sustain an east/west game. The addition of Fisher did help Nashville's overall defense since it forced the opposition to adapt their offense every few shifts.
San Jose. Nice collection of RHS centers - Pavelski, Mitchell, Ferriero, to go along with LHS Couture and Thornton. Issue in San Jose has always been getting Joe Thornton to play a complete game.He has made progress but still has room for improvement. Until Thornton integrates offense and defense to the extent Yzerman did the team will suffer.

4.) Boston / Vancouver coaching.Neither team is doing anything worthwhile on the road. Vancouver in Boston has three meaningless third period goals while not playing a disciplined game.Boston in Vancouver has played one good period, 2nd of game 2. Other than that they have allowed the Canucks to dictate the match-ups. Acoach has to be willing to fight for the match-ups he wants. Bowman was a master. CJ has a ways to go especially having see first hand what works in Boston the reversal to form in Game 5 was revealing. Both teams have good RHS/LHS combos at center just a question of using them to advantage in specific circumstances.

BTW coaches are more than happy to discover the grain of sand advantage that makes a difference.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Thank you for admitting that a small sample space is valid grounds for study. Regular season Vancouver and Chicago only played four games?

I'm actually not saying it's valid, if you read what I wrote. I'm saying it's unclear. Focusing on a small number of games where Luongo played badly is offset by another small number of games where he played very well against them. So overall, it's unclear.

I didn't say there's solid evidence that he plays especially well against Chicago. I'm saying the evidence of the opposite extreme is unconvincing, leaving the middle ground (he plays as well against them as against other teams of their calibre) the most likely conclusion.

!.) SV% your argument omits three shoot-out goals on three shots that Luongo allowed in the first meeting in Chicago.Effectively his SV% varied from .800 to 1.000 in the four games during the regular season.Bolland played in all four, Not exactly a model for consistency.

Shootouts are never included in save percentage stats, because they artifically deflate goalie save percentages, especially for those goalies who end up in a lot of shootouts.

Bolland did play in all four games. So what does this do to your suggestion that it was Bolland that made Luongo play badly in the playoffs? If Luongo handled Bolland fine in the regular season, why did he have so much trouble in the postseason?

No goaltender is a "model of consistency" over four games like this. A goalie with a .920 save percentage does not have a .920 save percentage in every game. Sometimes it's 1.000, sometimes it's .800, more often it's in between.

Playoffs. First three games,no Bolland, Luongos SV% =~.944. Next 3 games against Bolland SV~ .793 giving up respectively 6,5 and 1(in a back-up role) Game 7 after having observed the Hawks offensive flow Luongo bounces back with an excellent game stopping 31/32 shots.

Why did he wait until game 7 to use what he learned observing the Hawks offensive flow? Why didn't he do it in game 6? This strikes me as just another ad hoc explanation, with no evidence to support it.

2.) Bolland / Toews. Focusing strictly on the offensive part of how a RHS/LHS center duo influences the game is rather superficial. Since the major impact is on defense and speed. The offensive consequences follow. Who actually does the scoring does not matter as long as the scoring is sufficient to win.

Toews was -1, as I said, which means the Canucks outscored the Hawks at ES when he was on the ice. That includes offence and defence. Being outscored by the opponents does not greatly contribute to winning.

3.)The RHS/LHS advantage has to be supported with appropriate talent.

So you're saying the RHS/LHS is too simplistic to explain anything by itself? I would agree with that.

BTW coaches are more than happy to discover the grain of sand advantage that makes a difference.

No kidding. But you're arguing there's a boulder sitting right in front of them and that they can't see it.

Once again, it's all about degrees. Your arguments about advantages are often valid, in that they are advantages. The trouble comes when you try to explain too much with them. You take them to absurd degrees, saying this small advantage here fully explains this huge discrepancy there, all the while ignoring any other reasons.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Again..............

I'm actually not saying it's valid, if you read what I wrote. I'm saying it's unclear. Focusing on a small number of games where Luongo played badly is offset by another small number of games where he played very well against them. So overall, it's unclear.

I didn't say there's solid evidence that he plays especially well against Chicago. I'm saying the evidence of the opposite extreme is unconvincing, leaving the middle ground (he plays as well against them as against other teams of their calibre) the most likely conclusion.


Shootouts are never included in save percentage stats, because they artifically deflate goalie save percentages, especially for those goalies who end up in a lot of shootouts.

Bolland did play in all four games. So what does this do to your suggestion that it was Bolland that made Luongo play badly in the playoffs? If Luongo handled Bolland fine in the regular season, why did he have so much trouble in the postseason?

No goaltender is a "model of consistency" over four games like this. A goalie with a .920 save percentage does not have a .920 save percentage in every game. Sometimes it's 1.000, sometimes it's .800, more often it's in between.


Why did he wait until game 7 to use what he learned observing the Hawks offensive flow? Why didn't he do it in game 6? This strikes me as just another ad hoc explanation, with no evidence to support it.


Toews was -1, as I said, which means the Canucks outscored the Hawks at ES when he was on the ice. That includes offence and defence. Being outscored by the opponents does not greatly contribute to winning.


So you're saying the RHS/LHS is too simplistic to explain anything by itself? I would agree with that.


No kidding. But you're arguing there's a boulder sitting right in front of them and that they can't see it.

Once again, it's all about degrees. Your arguments about advantages are often valid, in that they are advantages. The trouble comes when you try to explain too much with them. You take them to absurd degrees, saying this small advantage here fully explains this huge discrepancy there, all the while ignoring any other reasons.

First the Hawks and the Canucks split the regular season 2 games each The Canucks won 3 of 3 games in the playoffs without Bolland playing for the Hawks while losing 3 of 4 with Bolland playing for the Hawks.Going back two playoffs when Bolland played neither Luongo or the Canucks played well.

You will have to ask Alain Vigneault why he didn't start Luongo in game 6. Evidence - SV% and results show that when Luongo entered game 6 he applied what he learned and this application continued to game 7.

RHS/LHS. Not too simplistic by itself. If you do not have the balance it cannot be applied. Having the balance does not mean it will be used properly and if both teams are balanced then other factors enter the picture.

A small advantage will produce a large discrepancy since the opposition will always work on exploiting it. Winning is not defined by the size of the differential but by its existance.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The reason that GF/GA is used is that it generally predicts future success (in terms of W-L-T) than actual past W-L-T does. This implies that it is a better measure of team effectiveness than W-L-T is.

your second statement doesn't follow the first. Being a better predictive measure over the aggregate does not make it a better measure of an individual team's effectiveness than the team doing what they are actually playing to do (win games).

 

[Iain Fyffe]

You will have to ask Alain Vigneault why he didn't start Luongo in game 6. Evidence - SV% and results show that when Luongo entered game 6 he applied what he learned and this application continued to game 7.

Typo, of course. Why didn't he do it in game 5? The Hawks scored 6 goals in game 4, and then 4 on 12 shots in game 5. What is the magic number of minutes or shots Luongo needs to have faced to learn their flow or whatever you said?

RHS/LHS. Not too simplistic by itself. If you do not have the balance it cannot be applied. Having the balance does not mean it will be used properly and if both teams are balanced then other factors enter the picture.

How does this refute the idea that it's too simplistic by itself? If you have to apply it correctly, and if other factors enter the picture, how does this mean it's not too simplistic by itself?

A small advantage will produce a large discrepancy since the opposition will always work on exploiting it. Winning is not defined by the size of the differential but by its existance.

This is ridiculous, of course. The effect than an advantage has on winning a game is utterly dependant on the degree of advantage provided. Otherwise adding Bobby Orr to your lineup does nothing more to help you win than adding, say, Brad Park. Park would be an advantage to most any team, but Orr would be moreso.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

your second statement doesn't follow the first. Being a better predictive measure over the aggregate does not make it a better measure of an individual team's effectiveness than the team doing what they are actually playing to do (win games).

Teams are trying to win games, and GF/GA is the better predictor of that. You seem to be advancing the idea of playing to the score, or something like that. But if that had a significant effect, then GF/GA should not be a better predictor than W-L-T.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Learning.......................

Typo, of course. Why didn't he do it in game 5? The Hawks scored 6 goals in game 4, and then 4 on 12 shots in game 5. What is the magic number of minutes or shots Luongo needs to have faced to learn their flow or whatever you said?


How does this refute the idea that it's too simplistic by itself? If you have to apply it correctly, and if other factors enter the picture, how does this mean it's not too simplistic by itself?


This is ridiculous, of course. The effect than an advantage has on winning a game is utterly dependant on the degree of advantage provided. Otherwise adding Bobby Orr to your lineup does nothing more to help you win than adding, say, Brad Park. Park would be an advantage to most any team, but Orr would be moreso.

This implies that learning is somehow bound by time and space which it is not.

Simplistic for some is intricate for others.

What is ridiculous is you try to build something out of an incomplete analogy. Any addition to your line-up comes with a cost, the resulting subtraction.The positive net is a small factor. The nature of the subtraction regardless of how small it is could be dramatic if the resulting hole cannot be overcome.Adding an Orr at the cost of a starting goalie that is replaced by the weakest goalie in NHL history may not produce desired results.Replacing a depth center with an upgrade combining talent, variety, completeness and flexibility will only help.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

This implies that learning is somehow bound by time and space which it is not.

Say what now? That doesn't address my question. You've provided a positive assertion that Luongo performed better once he learned Chicago's offensive flow. But you haven't based that on anything other than needing something to explain his change in performance. You have no evidence that he learned anything, much less the timing of said learning, and as such it's just an empty conjecture.

Adding an Orr at the cost of a starting goalie that is replaced by the weakest goalie in NHL history may not produce desired results.

So take my example at its face value then, without adding extraneous details, since it's intended to be a very simple illustration. Take 25 to 30 minutes of defenceman ice time and put Bobby Orr in instead of whoever would have been playing those minutes. Don't mess around with hypothetical goaltenders.

 

[reckoning]

Teams are trying to win games, and GF/GA is the better predictor of that. You seem to be advancing the idea of playing to the score, or something like that. But if that had a significant effect, then GF/GA should not be a better predictor than W-L-T.

Is there somewhere online where this data has already been presented that supports that? I'm curious about how much difference there is in accuracy between the two methods.

And by predicting future performance, does that mean playoffs or the following regular season?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Difference

Say what now? That doesn't address my question. You've provided a positive assertion that Luongo performed better once he learned Chicago's offensive flow. But you haven't based that on anything other than needing something to explain his change in performance. You have no evidence that he learned anything, much less the timing of said learning, and as such it's just an empty conjecture.


So take my example at its face value then, without adding extraneous details, since it's intended to be a very simple illustration. Take 25 to 30 minutes of defenceman ice time and put Bobby Orr in instead of whoever would have been playing those minutes. Don't mess around with hypothetical goaltenders.

The change in performance speaks for itself supported by his SV% in games 4 & % combined was.750 Game 6, after watching his opponents from the bench and playing all of Game 7 his Sv% was ~.955. In games 4 & 5 he faced 40 shots stopping 30, Balance of game 6 and all of game 7 after the learning experience he stopped 43 of 45 shots. So there were positive results unless you believe that a .205 difference in SV% does not matter or represent adjustments or other learning related factors.

Degree of advantage provided.Putting Orr in for a defenceman. Okay for the dynasty Canadiens lets first replace Bob Turner with Bobby Orr. With Bob Turner the Canadiens managed to play .659 hockey during the regular season getting 461 out of 700 points and .815 hockey during the playoffs, winning 40 out of 49 games. How much better would they be with Orr assuming you can come-up with a supportable degree of advantage provided over Turner.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Is there somewhere online where this data has already been presented that supports that? I'm curious about how much difference there is in accuracy between the two methods.

I'll have to dig around for some links.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

The change in performance speaks for itself

No it doesn't, because you have put forward a specific reason for the change in performance. What reason do you have to suggest this reason, other than it seems good to you? Why is it what you suggest, any more than it's blind luck?

So there were positive results unless you believe that a .205 difference in SV% does not matter or represent adjustments or other learning related factors.

It can represent any number of things, including luck to a large degree, and still have nothing to do with the reason you've put forward.

Degree of advantage provided.Putting Orr in for a defenceman. Okay for the dynasty Canadiens lets first replace Bob Turner with Bobby Orr.

Yikes, forget about Orr already. It was a shorthand way of saying "great big advantage", not a detailed statistical argument.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Usual

No it doesn't, because you have put forward a specific reason for the change in performance. What reason do you have to suggest this reason, other than it seems good to you? Why is it what you suggest, any more than it's blind luck?


It can represent any number of things, including luck to a large degree, and still have nothing to do with the reason you've put forward.


Yikes, forget about Orr already. It was a shorthand way of saying "great big advantage", not a detailed statistical argument.

Have a nice life Iain

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Have a nice life Iain

Will do, thanks.

Another thread, another pile of unanswered questions. Should've known better.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

This implies that learning is somehow bound by time and space which it is not.

Simplistic for some is intricate for others.

What is ridiculous is you try to build something out of an incomplete analogy. Any addition to your line-up comes with a cost, the resulting subtraction.The positive net is a small factor. The nature of the subtraction regardless of how small it is could be dramatic if the resulting hole cannot be overcome.Adding an Orr at the cost of a starting goalie that is replaced by the weakest goalie in NHL history may not produce desired results.Replacing a depth center with an upgrade combining talent, variety, completeness and flexibility will only help.

The problem with Luongo and the Hawks example is that your premise of Luongo "learning" must also have him un-learning and re-learning in multiple instances, since he's gone from good to awful back and forth in all three series against them.

Luongo basically emulates the team in front of him more than any other goaltender I can remember. I find the Canucks generally play a very good defensive system in their own zone, choking off shooting and passing lanes with superb proficiency when they're in their comfort zone. That is, leading a game, tied, or even down by just a single goal. They will let the other team come at them, but not allow many dangerous chances. This leads to Luongo racking up a whole bunch of average saves, feeling confident, and everyone else is all warm and fuzzy inside, touting his Vezina-caliber performance.

But as soon as Vancouver falls out of the comfort zone, that is, trails by two goals or more, it's disasterous. The defensive discipline is lost, the system breaks down quickly, and Luongo is left to get lit up. The Canucks have never once won a playoff game when trailing by two goals during Vigneault's entire tenure. Approximately 0-15 by my rough count. A good portion of those have turned into 6 or 7 goals-against shellackings.

This year's series against Chicago was right in line with what we've always seen. The Canucks locked it down pretty good in the first three games, and the Hawks were a bit snake-bitten around the net, result: 3-0 lead. As soon as Chicago got some rhythm going and took a two-goal lead in Game 4, the floodgates opened. The Canucks finally closed them by re-establishing their defensive shell in front of Luongo for Game 7.

I've watched pretty much every playoff game Luongo has played in Vancouver. It's almost uncanny how very few times his individual performance has been significantly different from that of his team. Very rare I've gone away from a game thinking Vancouver was outplayed, but Luongo stole it, and pretty much equally rare that I felt Vancouver played great but Luongo blew it.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The problem with Luongo and the Hawks example is that your premise of Luongo "learning" must also have him un-learning and re-learning in multiple instances, since he's gone from good to awful back and forth in all three series against them.

Luongo basically emulates the team in front of him more than any other goaltender I can remember. I find the Canucks generally play a very good defensive system in their own zone, choking off shooting and passing lanes with superb proficiency when they're in their comfort zone. That is, leading a game, tied, or even down by just a single goal. They will let the other team come at them, but not allow many dangerous chances. This leads to Luongo racking up a whole bunch of average saves, feeling confident, and everyone else is all warm and fuzzy inside, touting his Vezina-caliber performance.

But as soon as Vancouver falls out of the comfort zone, that is, trails by two goals or more, it's disasterous. The defensive discipline is lost, the system breaks down quickly, and Luongo is left to get lit up. The Canucks have never once won a playoff game when trailing by two goals during Vigneault's entire tenure. Approximately 0-15 by my rough count. A good portion of those have turned into 6 or 7 goals-against shellackings.

This year's series against Chicago was right in line with what we've always seen. The Canucks locked it down pretty good in the first three games, and the Hawks were a bit snake-bitten around the net, result: 3-0 lead. As soon as Chicago got some rhythm going and took a two-goal lead in Game 4, the floodgates opened. The Canucks finally closed them by re-establishing their defensive shell in front of Luongo for Game 7.

I've watched pretty much every playoff game Luongo has played in Vancouver. It's almost uncanny how very few times his individual performance has been significantly different from that of his team. Very rare I've gone away from a game thinking Vancouver was outplayed, but Luongo stole it, and pretty much equally rare that I felt Vancouver played great but Luongo blew it.

i hadn't realized that, but it is very interesting considering that the same team has a reputation for coming back down two or more goals in the third period of regular season games.

vancouver is actually a great third period team. they outlast you, especially the sedins, which happened in games 1 and 2 of the finals.

so why haven't they been able to translate their seemingly excellent rallying ability in the third period of playoff games when down? i think you'd have to look at what point in series all of these blowout games are. with the exception of game 2 in the 2009 chicago series, all of these losses are game 3 or later (game 3 against LA last year was as bad as any). the difference, i think, is that we have seen many times coaches "figuring out" vancouver's system. and vancouver never seems to be able to adapt effectively.

i wrote in the "did vancouver choke?" thread on the main board:

there are many troubling reasons why the canucks have lost the games they have lost. and yes, this includes the all-powering propensity to "choke."

1. injuries and suspensions. but perhaps the biggest factor is not even missing certain guys or kesler, henrik, ehrhoff, and possibly edler not being close to 100%:

yes hamhuis is very important. you lose him you also, to a degree, lose bieksa who needs a hamhuis or mitchell or he turns into what we've seen in this series.

but rome is not very important at all. why did we fall apart after rome made the big hit and got tossed? i suspect the same reason we fell apart last night when raymond was crushed into a cube like an american car. for whatever reason (AV and bones, i'm looking at you), our guys don't seem to know how to play without their regular linemates or d partners. for the most part, they do not seem to be interchangeable parts that can be slotted up and down the lineup. burrows is one exception, hansen and lapierre are two more, and on the back end salo is pretty consistent even with changing partners. other than that, guys start running around, losing defensive assignments, and BAM, schneider's putting his gloves on.

2. adatability. this is related to the first one. in a seven game series, and we have seen this over and over for the last three years, when the other team's gameplan changes, we keep plowing ahead (either, in the case of LA or nashville eventually winning due to superior talent, or in the case of chicago and for now boston losing... badly). then when everyone recognizes that the tide has definitely turned, we try to turn it back by running around and playing like sopels. AV seems to have no answer. for anything. ever.

our PP in this series is a great example. and what makes no sense to me is that we were able to turn around our PP and destroy san jose. and we would just have to make the exact same adjustment in this series -- guys moving around and trading spots, more purposeful puck movement, get their D and thomas moving side to side -- which is by the way exactly what tampa did to light up thomas last series. maddening.

3. toughness. is this a gameplan issue, is this a how GMMG built the team and the philosophy he expects them to play by issue, is this a deficiency in our players issue, is this a reffing issue? probably all of the above. again, adaptability. yes, we destroyed the regular season by playing disciplined no-nonsense GMMG hockey. it's clearly not working now. will it magically start to work again, or do we need to try something different?

4. trust. which also comes down to leadership. the guys don't believe in lou. they haven't believed in him since '07 when he fell apart down the stretch because of his wife's difficult pregnancy and they didn't make the playoffs.

it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, this idea that lou is going to let everyone down. the wheels fell off on the d, not on lou, in game 3. game 4 wasn't really his fault either, though by then he wasn't making saves that he maybe could have. last night, that was his meltdown, but it was a result of the snowballing lack of confidence and poor play of a team in front of him that is not doing its job and instead hanging back and crowding the net, trying to block shots but actually blocking his view of the play/puck.

i don't think you could say the team choked. but they created a situation where, last night, luongo choked.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

^

Agree with much of what you wrote. I could have very well included Vigneault in with Luongo in that how he and his players perform in a game is often very closely linked.

I believe Vignealut comes up with very good gameplans, and has his players very well programmed to carry out the gameplan. But if the opposing coach throws something unexpected at him or adapts mid-game, he has no ability to respond or make adjustments. Or, the players themselves are completely unable to carry out any scenario that deviates from the original game plan.

It's interesting how you note the lack of "replaceable parts" with Burrows being the exception. On a team that boasts the last two Art Ross winners, a 40-goal Selke candidate, and a Vezina candidate, Burrows of all people has been their best player throughout the playoffs. The only guy that has showed up for all four series. Tim Thomas has probably wrapped up the Conn Smythe win or lose, but if it had to go to a Canuck, it would likely be Burrows. Talk about an absurd reality.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

"set plays" are my favourite and least favourite thing about vigneault. when they work, it's beautiful to watch. but his reliance on them is indicative of the way he approaches the game. the players don't seem prepared at all to adapt, and hockey is a fluid game-- you can't have a set play for every possible situation.

in a lot of ways i feel like vigneault overrelies on short cuts or looks for advantages to the point where he is hurting his team. there are many games where the sedins get completely taken out of the flow of the game because he is too busy line trying to line match and create the perfect scenario for them. they both have art ross trophies, i think you can trust them to create their own mismatches.

i've been calling for his head for three years now. a lot of canucks fans are. win or lose tomorrow night, i want him gone. but obviously he is here to stay after the success he's had this season.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Consider

The problem with Luongo and the Hawks example is that your premise of Luongo "learning" must also have him un-learning and re-learning in multiple instances, since he's gone from good to awful back and forth in all three series against them.

Luongo basically emulates the team in front of him more than any other goaltender I can remember. I find the Canucks generally play a very good defensive system in their own zone, choking off shooting and passing lanes with superb proficiency when they're in their comfort zone. That is, leading a game, tied, or even down by just a single goal. They will let the other team come at them, but not allow many dangerous chances. This leads to Luongo racking up a whole bunch of average saves, feeling confident, and everyone else is all warm and fuzzy inside, touting his Vezina-caliber performance.

But as soon as Vancouver falls out of the comfort zone, that is, trails by two goals or more, it's disasterous. The defensive discipline is lost, the system breaks down quickly, and Luongo is left to get lit up. The Canucks have never once won a playoff game when trailing by two goals during Vigneault's entire tenure. Approximately 0-15 by my rough count. A good portion of those have turned into 6 or 7 goals-against shellackings.

This year's series against Chicago was right in line with what we've always seen. The Canucks locked it down pretty good in the first three games, and the Hawks were a bit snake-bitten around the net, result: 3-0 lead. As soon as Chicago got some rhythm going and took a two-goal lead in Game 4, the floodgates opened. The Canucks finally closed them by re-establishing their defensive shell in front of Luongo for Game 7.

I've watched pretty much every playoff game Luongo has played in Vancouver. It's almost uncanny how very few times his individual performance has been significantly different from that of his team. Very rare I've gone away from a game thinking Vancouver was outplayed, but Luongo stole it, and pretty much equally rare that I felt Vancouver played great but Luongo blew it.

Kyle,

Learning is an on going process. In hockey each side has to adapt from shift to shift, period to period, game to game, series to series, and so forth thru a players career.

There is no unlearning and re-learning would only apply if there was an injury that entailed certain forced changes in a players physical status..

The part of the learning curve that is most difficult is making the appropriate choices from the accumulated tools and bank of knowledge.

I have watched Roberto Luongo play hockey since his youth hockey days.. From his Midget AAA days on he was always an intriguing prospect but there were issues in his game. There are goalies that are more fluid than him, better skaters than him, use the stick better than him, etc. That said his biggest problem is that if you get him moving east/west, north/south in/out his game falls apart and he has to put it back together again. In midget and into junior he could play thru it since the offenses and player skills were not too varied. In the NHL when this happens in a regular season game he manages to survive, The next opponent overlooking a rare back to back, brings a different offense and player skills. Playoffs are different up to 7 consecutive games against the same opponent.

You saw what happened against Chicago. Replace him let him learn by watching as opposed to doing or from videos. Put him back in for a stretch to see how he learned the latest adaptations, then go with him if the sample return shows promise.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

You saw what happened against Chicago. Replace him let him learn by watching as opposed to doing or from videos. Put him back in for a stretch to see how he learned the latest adaptations, then go with him if the sample return shows promise.

I believe Kyle's point about "unlearning" is this: Luongo has two terrible games against Boston, then comes back to stop 30+ shots to record a shutout in the next game, implying (to you) that he learned what he needed to learn about the Bruins.

Then, the next game, he gives up three goals on eight shots before being pulled. If he had learned how to handle the Bruins, it looks like he forgot.

That's the issue with a simplistic explanation like you've provided. You often need to come up with another simplistic explanation the very next game, because your previous explanation simply doesn't cut it anymore.

Compare Luongo's variation in game-to-game performance in the playoffs to his first eight games of the regular season (for example). Several great games bookkending three consecutive bad games, including two which were really terrible. It could simply be normal variation in performance; it's just more under the microscope in the playoffs.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Kyle,

Learning is an on going process. In hockey each side has to adapt from shift to shift, period to period, game to game, series to series, and so forth thru a players career.

There is no unlearning and re-learning would only apply if there was an injury that entailed certain forced changes in a players physical status..

The part of the learning curve that is most difficult is making the appropriate choices from the accumulated tools and bank of knowledge.

I have watched Roberto Luongo play hockey since his youth hockey days.. From his Midget AAA days on he was always an intriguing prospect but there were issues in his game. There are goalies that are more fluid than him, better skaters than him, use the stick better than him, etc. That said his biggest problem is that if you get him moving east/west, north/south in/out his game falls apart and he has to put it back together again. In midget and into junior he could play thru it since the offenses and player skills were not too varied. In the NHL when this happens in a regular season game he manages to survive, The next opponent overlooking a rare back to back, brings a different offense and player skills. Playoffs are different up to 7 consecutive games against the same opponent.

You saw what happened against Chicago. Replace him let him learn by watching as opposed to doing or from videos. Put him back in for a stretch to see how he learned the latest adaptations, then go with him if the sample return shows promise.

I saw a Vancouver team go into a complete defensive shell in Game 7. That game was their best defensive effort as a team in the series. Quenneville wasn't able to come up with a formula to break through (not the first time that's happened), and as a whole the Hawks looked out of gas.

You're absolutely right about Luongo often being exposed when forced to move east/west. Chicago wasn't able to get him to do this earlier in the series, or in Game 7, and that's due to Vancouver's defensive posture. I don't believe watching two periods of Game 6 from the bench suddenly turned on a lightbulb and enabled Luongo to adapt and suddenly shutdown the Hawks.

I appreciate your detailed analysis, but I think this is really a lot simpler than you make it out to be in this case. If the team in front of him is limiting scoring chances, he's going to bail them out the few times they do slip up. If the team isn't in their defensive comfort zone and letting him feel the puck on a lot of routine saves, he's going to get blown up.

I think this goaltender is who he is at this point, and after watching him play in nearly 50 playoff games over the last three years, I've seen no discernable change in the way he plays the game. The game we saw last night in Boston was the same game we saw in 2009 and 2010. The implosions continue to be just as, if not more frequent, than in previous years. This doesn't lead me to believe there's a whole lot of learning and adapting going on for either Luongo, Vigneault, or the entire team.

Pedestrian opposition coaching from the likes of Quenneville, Terry Murray, Todd McLellan, and Claude Julien has helped keep the playing field wide open of course. To the point that, despite some glaring shortcomings, the Canucks find themselves one win away from the Cup.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Patchwork

I saw a Vancouver team go into a complete defensive shell in Game 7. That game was their best defensive effort as a team in the series. Quenneville wasn't able to come up with a formula to break through (not the first time that's happened), and as a whole the Hawks looked out of gas.

You're absolutely right about Luongo often being exposed when forced to move east/west. Chicago wasn't able to get him to do this earlier in the series, or in Game 7, and that's due to Vancouver's defensive posture. I don't believe watching two periods of Game 6 from the bench suddenly turned on a lightbulb and enabled Luongo to adapt and suddenly shutdown the Hawks.

I appreciate your detailed analysis, but I think this is really a lot simpler than you make it out to be in this case. If the team in front of him is limiting scoring chances, he's going to bail them out the few times they do slip up. If the team isn't in their defensive comfort zone and letting him feel the puck on a lot of routine saves, he's going to get blown up.

I think this goaltender is who he is at this point, and after watching him play in nearly 50 playoff games over the last three years, I've seen no discernable change in the way he plays the game. The game we saw last night in Boston was the same game we saw in 2009 and 2010. The implosions continue to be just as, if not more frequent, than in previous years. This doesn't lead me to believe there's a whole lot of learning and adapting going on for either Luongo, Vigneault, or the entire team.

Pedestrian opposition coaching from the likes of Quenneville, Terry Murray, Todd McLellan, and Claude Julien has helped keep the playing field wide open of course. To the point that, despite some glaring shortcomings, the Canucks find themselves one win away from the Cup.

Kyle,

Thank you.

It is what it is patchwork learning based on the KIS principle.Sometimes it does not take much either way. A minor adjustment can work wonders short term but the fact remains that if something simple caused an improvement then it does not take much to cause a meltdown. That is Luongo's history.

Bill Russell explained on a number of telecasts that coming back is the easy part, having something in reserve to overtake and win is the difficult part.

Both teams in the finals are far from ideal. Each basically has managed to survive to play one more game, We'll see the resuly of the final game tomorrow.