Confirmed with Link: [VAN/CAL] Canucks to acquire Lindholm (CAL) for Kuzmenko, Brzustewicz, Jurmo, 1st 2024, & Conditional 4th 2024

[tantalum]

and this is why all the PDO talk in the main boards are pointless, no one there is going to break down what contributes to the high PDO on a game by game basis. lets be honest, there is a LOT of jealous talk trying to knock the team down a notch. I was a doomer, nothing informed me that this team will perform that much better than last year. Hronek was nothing special in his limited games, and the defense and bottom 6 was a giant enigma wrapped in a riddle. But this season is buoyed largely by something VERY sustainable. Good management, pro scouting and good coaching. Eventually all good coaching will fall on deaf ears, management will reach a certain point in the competition cycle where they fail to adjust quick enough and fall behind the curve. But right now, we are climbing up the apex of the curve, there should be a window where we see the zenith of the team's facilities. we extend the zenith by development and keeping our top echelon of prospects. I love that we did not give up a extra 1st for Tanev. that 1st is for next year if they replicate a good level of success.

Regarding shooting percentage.

The high shooting % is also a mentality instilled by the coach, you see them fighting every chance to get to the middle of the ice, with Quinn, he can consistently set you or himself up for a shot from there. Correct me if I'm wrong, that middle of the ice is not really considered a high danger chance if its from a distance right? HD chances are more a factor of distance from net. From a probability standpoint, if you sacrifice 3 shots from anywhere and wait for something from the middle, your team shooting % will skyrocket, that shot will "spray" in a myriad of possible angles after the initial save, then, all you need is quick hands and elite finishing. We. Got. Them.

Other teams can try our approach, its no secret, but its not a matter of luck to pull it off, just like its not a simple matter of luck for McDrai to dominate PP. You need the right type of skill combination to use this strategy, and a big part is a Makar or Quinn gaining the zone and keeping the puck in. after that middle of the ice shot goes off, Miller/boeser/EP/Lindholm can tip with the best of them, and half of them have ungodly quick hands.

from Natural Stat Trick - Glossary

• Scoring Chances - a scoring chance, as originally defined by War-on-Ice.
  Each shot attempt (Corsi) taken in the offensive zone is assigned a value based on the area of the zone in which it was recorded. Attempts made from the attacking team's neutral or defensive zones are excluded.
  
  
  
  
  
  Attempts from the yellow areas are assigned a value of 1, attempts from the red areas are assigned a value of 2, and attempts in the green area are assigned a value of 3.
  Add 1 to this value if the attempt is considered a rush shot or a rebound. A rebound is any attempt made within 3 seconds of another blocked, missed or saved attempt without a stoppage in play in between. A rush shot is any attempt within 4 seconds of any event in the neutral or defensive zone without a stoppage in play in between (originally defined by David Johnson on the now-offline Hockey Analysis, and modified to 4 seconds by War-on-Ice).
  Decrease this value by 1 if it was a blocked shot.
  Any attempt with a score of 2 or higher is considered a scoring chance.
  • SCF - Count of Scoring Chances for the selected team while that combination of players is on the ice.
  • SCA - Count of Scoring Chances against the selected team while that combination of players is on the ice.
  • SCF% - Percentage of total Scoring Chances while that combination of players is on the ice that are for the selected team. SCF*100/(SCF+SCA)
• High Danger Scoring Chances- a scoring chance with a score of 3 or higher.
  • HDCF - Count of High Danger Scoring Chances for the selected team while that combination of players is on the ice.
  • HDCA - Count of High Danger Scoring Chances against the selected team while that combination of players is on the ice.
  • HDCF% - Percentage of total High Danger Scoring Chances while that combination of players is on the ice that are for the selected team. HDCF*100/(HDCF+HDCA)
• High Danger Goals- goals generated from High Danger Scoring Chances
  • HDGF - Count of Goals off of High Danger Scoring Chances for the selected team while that combination of players is on the ice.
  • HDGA - Count of Goals off of High Danger Scoring Chances against the selected team while that combination of players is on the ice.
  • HDGF% - Percentage of total Goals off of High Danger Scoring Chances while that combination of players is on the ice that are for the selected team. HDGF*100/(HDGF+HDGA)
• Medium Danger Scoring Chances- a scoring chance with a score of exactly 2.
  • MDCF - Count of Medium Danger Scoring Chances for the selected team while that combination of players is on the ice.
  • MDCA - Count of Medium Danger Scoring Chances against the selected team while that combination of players is on the ice.
  • MDCF% - Percentage of total Medium Danger Scoring Chances while that combination of players is on the ice that are for the selected team. MDCF*100/(MDCF+MDCA)
• Medium Danger Goals- goals generated from Medium Danger Scoring Chances
  • MDGF - Count of Goals off of Medium Danger Scoring Chances for the selected team while that combination of players is on the ice.
  • MDGA - Count of Goals off of Medium Danger Scoring Chances against the selected team while that combination of players is on the ice.
  • MDGF% - Percentage of total Goals off of Medium Danger Scoring Chances while that combination of players is on the ice that are for the selected team. MDGF*100/(MDGF+MDGA)
• Low Danger Scoring Chances- a scoring chance with a score of 1 or less. Does not include any attempts from the attacking team's neutral or defensive zone.
  • LDCF - Count of Low Danger Scoring Chances for the selected team while that combination of players is on the ice.
  • LDCA - Count of Low Danger Scoring Chances against the selected team while that combination of players is on the ice.
  • LDCF% - Percentage of total Low Danger Scoring Chances while that combination of players is on the ice that are for the selected team. LDCF*100/(LDCF+LDCA)
• Low Danger Goals- goals generated from Low Danger Scoring Chances
  • LDGF - Count of Goals off of Low Danger Scoring Chances for the selected team while that combination of players is on the ice.
  • LDGA - Count of Goals off of Low Danger Scoring Chances against the selected team while that combination of players is on the ice.
  • LDGF% - Percentage of total Goals off of Low Danger Scoring Chances while that combination of players is on the ice that are for the selected team. LDGF*100/(LDGF+LDGA)

 

[arttk]

Take a knee Son. You got clobbered again.

isn't it interesting that some posters still can't get past the fact they got it completely wrong and still want to cling on the idea that this team should not be good and everything will fall apart because <invented reasons> even if those reasons don't make sense.

our shoot% is too high and everyone is playing at career levels despite the fact that is only true for a handful of players and our success mostly comes from the fact we don't allow high danger chances against and insulate our goalie enabling them to excel because goalies tend to do better when they don't have to go east west on every shot against.

even if we reduce our GF, our GA is low enough that it shouldn't affect our record that much but some folks want the regression story to be true so they can be "right".

 

[sting101]

It will take more of the wizardry we've seen this season and last summer.

Surely we can just use the PDO argument when we renegotiate contracts?

 

[M2Beezy]

Two goals is fine n all but neither was the game winner which is a letdown considering what we gave up for him. If he cant get it going tomorrow against the Bruins gotta consider this trade a train wreck loss. Ffs Lindy pull it together

 

[Lindgren]

Two goals is fine n all but neither was the game winner which is a letdown considering what we gave up for him. If he cant get it going tomorrow against the Bruins gotta consider this trade a train wreck loss. Ffs Lindy pull it together

I could say something pre-emptive here to take care of the inevitable post from one of the few remaining who don't get your sense of humour, but ... oh well.

 

[Angry Little Elf]

Two goals is fine n all but neither was the game winner which is a letdown considering what we gave up for him. If he cant get it going tomorrow against the Bruins gotta consider this trade a train wreck loss. Ffs Lindy pull it together

Is this Michael Buble’s burner account?

 

[VanJack]

It's interesting......the teams vying for Lindholm either weren't willing to give up a first round draft pick; or didn't have one to surrender.

You have to hand it to Allvin.....I really thought the last place Lindholm would ever end up would be in Vancouver. But then I said the same thing about Zadorov. Normally, inter-divisional trades are pure poison. GM's would rather have the players they've t traded playing in another conference.

But the Canucks stepped up the plate, while other either didn't or couldn't.

 

[Regress2TheMeme]

Lindholm standing in front of the net on the PP is a bit of a revelation. Canucks always hold the puck up high and don't threaten much from down low.

A good net front guy will give people an easy good option to throw the puck at the net. If PKs start to cover Lindholm it's going to open up more space for everyone else.

 

[Petey O]

Two goals is fine n all but neither was the game winner which is a letdown considering what we gave up for him. If he cant get it going tomorrow against the Bruins gotta consider this trade a train wreck loss. Ffs Lindy pull it together

Just

 

[Wisp]

re: pdo

its actually leveled out a lot. their underlying form improved a lot to blunt regression's impact. lots of one goal games lately for example instead of winning 5-2.

that's probably one of the most fascinating things about this team is it's continued evolution throughout the season. A lucky team becoming a genuinely good team becoming a contender. last time we throttled the standings like this, in 2011, the team was really quite static throughout the season. The team playing in November wasn't radically different from the team playing in March.

 

[AlainVigneaultsGum]

Two goals is fine n all but neither was the game winner which is a letdown considering what we gave up for him. If he cant get it going tomorrow against the Bruins gotta consider this trade a train wreck loss. Ffs Lindy pull it together

Man I love this take

 

[pitseleh]

A few thoughts on the PDO debate.

There's no question that the team has been lucky. The range of PDO is usually ~.98 to 1.02. Only three teams since 2007 have had PDOs above 1.03 in 82 games, and all of those teams were between 1.031 and 1.04. That's a 1 in 150 outcome, so those results were almost certainly accompanied by some luck (especially since none maintained). The Canucks are at 1.05 right now. Tocchet seems to be a great coach but its a stretch to think he's unlocked some magic formula that lets the Canucks achieve heights unseen since the 90s Penguins and 80s Oilers.

Every team with a high PDO will have a big chunk of that driven in part by blowouts. The Sharks and Oilers wins maybe add a few extra goals compared to what other teams experience, but its not a huge driver.

I don't see why one goal games would be a relevant metric either. There have also been games the team has won by 2+ where they probably would have lost if the percentages weren't in their favour.

That said, there is enough here to say this team is probably at the top end of the league in terms of expected PDO because (1) Demko is proving he is great, and (2) there is enough of a track record to expect this team can finish at an above average rate.

When you consider regression, the expectation is that the team should regress toward their true talent level which is probably closer to ~1.02 instead of the 1.05 they have been running, and not, as pessimists seem to imply, that they are going to play at 0.95 the rest of the season because they've been lucky so far (gambler's fallacy). They may not be best team in the league good, but they're a good possession team backed by a great goalie and great finishing, which is certainly enough to be competitive.

 

[TomWillander1RD]

Take a knee Son. You got clobbered again.

 

[Ernie]

A few thoughts on the PDO debate.

There's no question that the team has been lucky. The range of PDO is usually ~.98 to 1.02. Only three teams since 2007 have had PDOs above 1.03 in 82 games, and all of those teams were between 1.031 and 1.04. That's a 1 in 150 outcome, so those results were almost certainly accompanied by some luck (especially since none maintained). The Canucks are at 1.05 right now. Tocchet seems to be a great coach but its a stretch to think he's unlocked some magic formula that lets the Canucks achieve heights unseen since the 90s Penguins and 80s Oilers.

Every team with a high PDO will have a big chunk of that driven in part by blowouts. The Sharks and Oilers wins maybe add a few extra goals compared to what other teams experience, but its not a huge driver.

I don't see why one goal games would be a relevant metric either. There have also been games the team has won by 2+ where they probably would have lost if the percentages weren't in their favour.

That said, there is enough here to say this team is probably at the top end of the league in terms of expected PDO because (1) Demko is proving he is great, and (2) there is enough of a track record to expect this team can finish at an above average rate.

When you consider regression, the expectation is that the team should regress toward their true talent level which is probably closer to ~1.02 instead of the 1.05 they have been running, and not, as pessimists seem to imply, that they are going to play at 0.95 the rest of the season because they've been lucky so far (gambler's fallacy). They may not be best team in the league good, but they're a good possession team backed by a great goalie and great finishing, which is certainly enough to be competitive.

I don't disagree with most of your points but the Canucks have already "regressed." Their PDO is at 103 since that string of blowouts to start the season. That's 3rd in a league after the Bruins and the Jets.

I also think you're a little too dismissive of how the blowouts have tilted things. They are on pace for a +102 season right now. That's a ridiculous number - higher than the Lightning had with their 128 point season in 2019. The Canucks could easily have the same record with a much lower goal differential.

I don't know if the Canucks are the best team in the league, but I think there is a very credible case to be made that they are in the top 5.

 

[pitseleh]

I don't disagree with most of your points but the Canucks have already "regressed." Their PDO is at 103 since that string of blowouts to start the season. That's 3rd in a league after the Bruins and the Jets.

I certainly didn’t mean to imply that they hadn’t started falling down to Earth - that is certainly the case. But they also went through a PP SH% streak right after their ES numbers fell back down which kept their all situations PDO up for longer.

Since the new year though things are much closer to what you’d expect - but their possession game has caught up.

I also think you're a little too dismissive of how the blowouts have tilted things. They are on pace for a +102 season right now. That's a ridiculous number - higher than the Lightning had with their 128 point season in 2019. The Canucks could easily have the same record with a much lower goal differential.

The Canucks have gone +25 in their four biggest goal differential games. That Lightning team went +23 (three six-goal wins and a five-goal win) in theirs, propping up their goal differential (and PDO) too though.

Good teams will inevitably have a few blowouts but they haven’t run the PDO the Canucks have been. The extra few goals the team has scored in those blowouts doesn’t take away from the fact they were fortunate on the whole.

I don't know if the Canucks are the best team in the league, but I think there is a very credible case to be made that they are in the top 5.

Agreed. I’d have them almost certainly amongst the top half dozen teams in the league but am less confident on where they slot in there. If they can add a quality defenceman at the deadline I think they’d credibly be top 3.

 

[VanJack]

I suppose you can't blame long-suffering Canuck fans for having a 'sky is falling' mentality about the current team. After all, they've had their hopes dashed so many times with teams that went on runs late in the season, and couldn't sustain it in October.

But breaking down this team....where are the holes?. They have three guys at the top of the scoring parade. And another guy in Boeser who has 55 points and 30 goals. Now they've added Lindholm who up until this season was a PPG player. And in terms of depth scoring, they lead the league in players who've scored 10 goals or more.

On the back end, they've got a Norris Trophy finalist in Huges.....paired with another guy like Hronek on pace for 55-60 points. And they've got size and physicality in Myers, Zadorov and Soucy who are 6'5" or more.

And finally Demko is a true impact goaltender.....and in the Vezina conversation. No doubt there will be ups and downs the rest of the way. But if the Canucks aren't the best team in hockey, I'm not sure which team is.

 

[Ernie]

I certainly didn’t mean to imply that they hadn’t started falling down to Earth - that is certainly the case. But they also went through a PP SH% streak right after their ES numbers fell back down which kept their all situations PDO up for longer.

Heh I don't really even factor in the special teams numbers. Just way too small of a sample size to be parsing that data one way or another unless you have a whole season of data.

Since the new year though things are much closer to what you’d expect - but their possession game has caught up.

I think xG might be the most overrated stat out there. It's an attempt to make up for the deficiencies of some of the other possession stats but it largely suffers from the same lack of context. Case in point: the Canucks were 18th in xG and underwater while winning back to back President's Trophies in 2011 and 2012. I suspect some of the private xG models made by the PhD's are probably quite a bit better, though the SportLogiq model has the Canucks fairly low.

The Canucks have gone +25 in their four biggest goal differential games. That Lightning team went +23 (three six-goal wins and a five-goal win) in theirs, propping up their goal differential (and PDO) too though.

Good teams will inevitably have a few blowouts but they haven’t run the PDO the Canucks have been. The extra few goals the team has scored in those blowouts doesn’t take away from the fact they were fortunate on the whole.

Well the Canucks have only played 60% of the season, so you can't really compare that to a full season. And compared to the Lightning, the team is less efficient at picking up wins, so the Lightning must have had closer games.

Agreed. I’d have them almost certainly amongst the top half dozen teams in the league but am less confident on where they slot in there. If they can add a quality defenceman at the deadline I think they’d credibly be top 3.

Which is a ridiculous when you think of where they were just a year ago. I think that this team will be used as an example for many years as to how to turn around an underperforming team.

 

[Ernie]

But breaking down this team....where are the holes?. They have three guys at the top of the scoring parade. And another guy in Boeser who has 55 points and 30 goals. Now they've added Lindholm who up until this season was a PPG player. And in terms of depth scoring, they lead the league in players who've scored 10 goals or more.

On the back end, they've got a Norris Trophy finalist in Huges.....paired with another guy like Hronek on pace for 55-60 points. And they've got size and physicality in Myers, Zadorov and Soucy who are 6'5" or more.

And finally Demko is a true impact goaltender.....and in the Vezina conversation. No doubt there will be ups and downs the rest of the way. But if the Canucks aren't the best team in hockey, I'm not sure which team is.

Right defense is one injury way from Juulsen playing in the top 4, and you'd really rather Myers be playing on the 3rd pairing on a contending team. So a top 4 right defencemen is a priority. The PK is still an issue of concern despite a lot of improvement.

 

[RandV]

A few thoughts on the PDO debate.

There's no question that the team has been lucky. The range of PDO is usually ~.98 to 1.02. Only three teams since 2007 have had PDOs above 1.03 in 82 games, and all of those teams were between 1.031 and 1.04. That's a 1 in 150 outcome, so those results were almost certainly accompanied by some luck (especially since none maintained). The Canucks are at 1.05 right now. Tocchet seems to be a great coach but its a stretch to think he's unlocked some magic formula that lets the Canucks achieve heights unseen since the 90s Penguins and 80s Oilers.

Every team with a high PDO will have a big chunk of that driven in part by blowouts. The Sharks and Oilers wins maybe add a few extra goals compared to what other teams experience, but its not a huge driver.

I don't see why one goal games would be a relevant metric either. There have also been games the team has won by 2+ where they probably would have lost if the percentages weren't in their favour.

That said, there is enough here to say this team is probably at the top end of the league in terms of expected PDO because (1) Demko is proving he is great, and (2) there is enough of a track record to expect this team can finish at an above average rate.

When you consider regression, the expectation is that the team should regress toward their true talent level which is probably closer to ~1.02 instead of the 1.05 they have been running, and not, as pessimists seem to imply, that they are going to play at 0.95 the rest of the season because they've been lucky so far (gambler's fallacy). They may not be best team in the league good, but they're a good possession team backed by a great goalie and great finishing, which is certainly enough to be competitive.

What I like to point out is through the first 10 games we were also one of I think 6 teams on pace for 140-150 point seasons. Yet the only team you saw being called out for 'being lucky' was the Canucks because "PDO".

The problem with it is this is just an arrangement of numbers that people have arbitrarily decided determines a 'luck' factor, and if you're above X well then that can't be right because 80's Oilers were only Y and nobodies better than them! With again being 'better' determined arbitrarily b a teams PDO number.

Only loosely related but for me this talk brings to mind Martin Brodeur, who's all time greatness and trophy cabinet was never deterred by the fact that he never really put up elite save percentages. But people had no problem comprehending that the Devils played a tight system limiting shots and his good but not great sv% numbers were a result of that and didn't detract from how capable a goalie he was.