Vancouver is No Good 3

[Bingo]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1754936286308114559

[Cali Panthers Fan]

So what you're saying is that is totally sustainable, right?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

So what you're saying is that is totally sustainable, right?

It's actually a very neat look at PDO and score effects. The Canucks get five or six early chances, get a lead and then from then on counter punch. When a team constantly has an early lead, and usually a multiple goal lead, it changes how the game plays. And it keeps happening. The question of sustainability has flown this season. It's a repeated story line game in and game out.

What we don't know and don't have enough data on is how does this team play from behind? When you're scoring first in 65+% you don't really get to find out. A real easy plan for a team in the play-offs against the Canucks is "get an early goal or two"

Could the Canucks be just as effective playing from behind? Maybe. They did come back again the blues and jackets recently, but they're not exactly great.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

It's actually a very neat look at PDO and score effects. The Canucks get five or six early chances, get a lead and then from then on counter punch. When a team constantly has an early lead, and usually a multiple goal lead, it changes how the game plays. And it keeps happening. The question of sustainability has flown this season. It's a repeated story line game in and game out.

What we don't know and don't have enough data on is how does this team play from behind? When you're scoring first in 65+% you don't really get to find out. A real easy plan for a team in the play-offs against the Canucks is "get an early goal or two"

Could the Canucks be just as effective playing from behind? Maybe. They did come back again the blues and jackets recently, but they're not exactly great.

Reminds me of the Flames a few years ago.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

It's actually a very neat look at PDO and score effects. The Canucks get five or six early chances, get a lead and then from then on counter punch. When a team constantly has an early lead, and usually a multiple goal lead, it changes how the game plays. And it keeps happening. The question of sustainability has flown this season. It's a repeated story line game in and game out.

What we don't know and don't have enough data on is how does this team play from behind? When you're scoring first in 65+% you don't really get to find out. A real easy plan for a team in the play-offs against the Canucks is "get an early goal or two"

Could the Canucks be just as effective playing from behind? Maybe. They did come back again the blues and jackets recently, but they're not exactly great.

There's no score effects in being last in rush chances but 1st in rush goals.

That's just an unsustainable heater.

Getting ahead early can certainly affect your overall corsi numbers and potentially expected goal splits but it doesn't transform shooting percentage or save percentage or the graphic above.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Bingo

There's no score effects in being last in rush chances but 1st in rush goals.

What? Yes there is. When you have a lead you have the other team pushing at you. You also end up with more dangerous chances going the other way on turn overs. That's entirely what score effects can cause.

Originally Posted by Bingo

That's just an unsustainable heater.

If you keep saying the word, maybe it will happen! Time to let the question of sustainability go for this year. The Canucks are 50 games in. Their numbers for most things are above the middle of the pack. It's not a fluke. It's not surprising. No one is watching Canucks games and saying "That's not a game they should have won." or "that was lucky." Reducing shooting percentage doesn't drop the Canucks out of the play-offs, hell it doesn't even put them in the wild card. It's a good, well coached team that plays their system well.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

What? Yes there is. When you have a lead you have the other team pushing at you. You also end up with more dangerous chances going the other way on turn overs. That's entirely what score effects can cause.

If you keep saying the word, maybe it will happen! Time to let the question of sustainability go for this year. The Canucks are 50 games in. Their numbers for most things are above the middle of the pack. It's not a fluke. It's not surprising. No one is watching Canucks games and saying "That's not a game they should have won." or "that was lucky." Reducing shooting percentage doesn't drop the Canucks out of the play-offs, hell it doesn't even put them in the wild card. It's a good, well coached team that plays their system well.

On the first point...I think for the stat that Bingo mentioned he's right.

It shouldn't impact the Canucks ability to finish those chances, what should be impacted is the volume of those type of chances they are getting.

If anything it should be the opposite if what you are saying is happening and they should be generating a higher volume of rush chances because teams are taking risks and overcommiting in the offensive zone on them.

In terms of the sustainability I don't think 50 games is a large enough sample when it comes to sustainability.

IMO the Canucks are a good and talented team, but I think a bit fortunate to be first in the conference / league, but to your point still a playoff team either way.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

What? Yes there is. When you have a lead you have the other team pushing at you. You also end up with more dangerous chances going the other way on turn overs. That's entirely what score effects can cause.

If you keep saying the word, maybe it will happen! Time to let the question of sustainability go for this year. The Canucks are 50 games in. Their numbers for most things are above the middle of the pack. It's not a fluke. It's not surprising. No one is watching Canucks games and saying "That's not a game they should have won." or "that was lucky." Reducing shooting percentage doesn't drop the Canucks out of the play-offs, hell it doesn't even put them in the wild card. It's a good, well coached team that plays their system well.

Not on this stat ...

We have no definition on quality. You're assuming without any data that the Canucks have had on average higher quality rush chances.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

On the first point...I think for the stat that Bingo mentioned he's right.
It shouldn't impact the Canucks ability to finish those chances, what should be impacted is the volume of those type of chances they are getting.

If your rush chances are coming predominantly in odd-man situations your shooting % has a pretty good chance to be a fair bit higher.

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

If anything it should be the opposite if what you are saying is happening and they should be generating a higher volume of rush chances because teams are taking risks and overcommiting in the offensive zone on them.

Why do more when less do trick

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

In terms of the sustainability I don't think 50 games is a large enough sample when it comes to sustainability.

So after which game they repeat the same sort of script do we get to call it sustainable?

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not on this stat ...
We have no definition on quality. You're assuming without any data that the Canucks have had on average higher quality rush chances.

Sure, but I'm watching all the games. My eyes aren't lying on me as they frequently come up ice with a 3on2 or 4on3 and generate a shot from the open man.

I mean, cling to this if it makes you feel better. It's not going to change the outcomes. The stat people say is unsustainable changes every few weeks, but the Canucks just keep on keeping on.
PDO Rocket. Moon. Nyeeeeeerm

[Bingo]

But as an aside ... this happens.

I'm sure it happens in all sports, but it certainly happens in hockey. Talent can explain some of it. .. the Canucks have a great goaltender for example, the Oilers with two generational players and their powerplay.

But everything is going right for Vancouver this year. The numbers support that. The bubble may last all the way to June for all I know but it's likely not sustainable.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Bingo

But everything is going right for Vancouver this year.

See, that's true.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

What? Yes there is. When you have a lead you have the other team pushing at you. You also end up with more dangerous chances going the other way on turn overs. That's entirely what score effects can cause.

Score effects can lead to rushes. Full stop. But score effects don't make you more likely to score on those rushes. 1st in goals, despite being last in chances off the rush. Say it out loud a few times.

If you keep saying the word, maybe it will happen! Time to let the question of sustainability go for this year. The Canucks are 50 games in. Their numbers for most things are above the middle of the pack. It's not a fluke. It's not surprising. No one is watching Canucks games and saying "That's not a game they should have won." or "that was lucky." Reducing shooting percentage doesn't drop the Canucks out of the play-offs, hell it doesn't even put them in the wild card. It's a good, well coached team that plays their system well.

They are well coached. And they are playing well. They are also on a crazy heater, with a crazy high shooting percentage.

It is not only possible to keep it going all year, it's actually fairly common. The challenge, with these types of seasons is that the playoffs are a new season, and it doesn't transfer. You play with that confidence all year, and pucks keep going in. Then you get to the playoffs and the intensity is different, and every player is giving 100% every shift, and suddenly it is much harder to score, and the confidence that got you through regular season games doesn't get you through playoff games.

Then everyone finds themselves asking 'what happened'. And fans talk about choking.

[Enoch Root]

All rush chances are odd man rushes.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bingo

https://twitter.com/user/status/1754936286308114559

Nevermind the Canucks. I'm shocked to see the Flyers that high.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

I would be interested to know what the gross numbers actually are. The Canucks are more playing above their heads right now, there is no doubt about that. No one really had them as a playoff team this year and for good reason, their past two seasons were abysmal. That being said they keep finding ways to win games, against all teams, they have a goals against near the top in the league and are second in goals for.

I guess their pace is unsustainable but I do think that they deserve more credit than just saying that 50 games is a small sample size. Something that they are doing is working.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

It's actually a very neat look at PDO and score effects. The Canucks get five or six early chances, get a lead and then from then on counter punch. When a team constantly has an early lead, and usually a multiple goal lead, it changes how the game plays. And it keeps happening. The question of sustainability has flown this season. It's a repeated story line game in and game out.

There's actually an easy way to figure this out - just adjust all the numbers for "score close", which only uses data from when the score is tied or within 1 goal in periods 1-2, and only when tied in period 3. I would think that this deep into the season, those numbers should be available.

EDIT: Just checked Naturalstattrick's "within 1" numbers for even strength expected goals and the Canucks are 7th.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I would be interested to know what the gross numbers actually are. The Canucks are more playing above their heads right now, there is no doubt about that. No one really had them as a playoff team this year and for good reason, their past two seasons were abysmal. That being said they keep finding ways to win games, against all teams, they have a goals against near the top in the league and are second in goals for.

I guess their pace is unsustainable but I do think that they deserve more credit than just saying that 50 games is a small sample size. Something that they are doing is working.

No question. Beyond being on a heater, they have a great goalie, and a great coach. They have some good players, and Hughes has taken his game to another level this year.

But they're still no good, and the heater will cool soon enough.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

and the heater will cool soon enough.

He says as he worships to the alter, stabs the voodoo doll, prays to god, does the secret dance to appease the deities, leaves an offering and sacrifices a small animal.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

He says as he worships to the alter, stabs the voodoo doll, prays to god, does the secret dance to appease the deities, leaves an offering and sacrifices a small animal.

actually, all I do is piss on a Nuck jersey (usually when there is someone wearing it ), but maybe I should try some of those things too - can't hurt!

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

actually, all I do is piss on a Nuck jersey (usually when there is someone wearing it ), but maybe I should try some of those things too - can't hurt!

This does bring up a story of a local guy having an alcohol fueled mental breakdown and filming himself pissing on his former rec team's jersey. That's what I pictured. I pictured you as a crazy guy filming himself taking a wee on a jersey. Considering the Flames season, an alcohol fueled mental breakdown or two isn't shocking I suppose.