Post-Game Talk: Game #59: Canucks lose 5-2 to the Canadiens

[Bad Goalie]

Bingo.

On a team like LA, where they were underachieving all year and simply snakebitten in 2012, you can see the potential for a run there. We could sense that they came in on fire and it wasn't going to be easy. And it wasn't.

Whereas with this cluster**** of ****** ballsack team, there is nothing there. We aren't snakebitten anymore. It's not like the slumping players are hitting post after post and dominating out there - they aren't generating ****. It's ****ing embarrassing. If we somehow get into the playoffs, we will be absolutely destroyed and probably swept for a third straight year.

It's just brutal. All we can hope for is that we get the best pick we can and that Winnipeg makes it in. That team is getting hot at the right time.

1. I have to admire fans who love their team so much they refuse to give up hope. Eternal optimists.

2. This is the NHL. The game is brutal and guys get hurt on all teams. Established veteran teams have a solid farm team to provide adequate fill-ins to hold the fort.

3. Even with injuries to their team real good players will still put up decent efforts and respectable numbers even if it's not enough.

4. Posters are saying players seem to be putting forth less effort and seem not to care.

1a. There comes a point when reality needs to set in. Yes, the Canucks have a chance to still make the playoffs, but that chance is shrinking daily. If they should make it, it just creates false hope. The playoff results of the past few years have shown the Canucks to be in need of some major changes not just tweaks.

2a. The replacements are not adequately replacing the injured as the farm system was neglected by Management for the past several years and is now being addressed. It will take several years to get it where it needs to be and the Canucks will have continued difficulties until the young guys are truly NHL ready, if this injury thing occurs again.

3a. Most of the established veterans who are considered real good players are not putting up good numbers and some are having horrible seasons.

4. The concern that some players appear to not care anymore is often the case when one becomes frustrated and depressed at one's impending fate. No matter what they do it doesn't seem to matter and a kind of acceptance sets in. Torts could have something to do with this as well. Many NY Rangers were accused of the same behavior. Hard nosed, demanding coaches get great things from guys who respond to it, but other guys shut down and go through the motions. If he stays, those coasters must be traded for guys who respond well to his style. It's true of players on any team. Some guys just never seem to play for a particular coach. You fire one or the other. Torts was just hired so my guess is it will be some of the players.

Post Script:
Before people start jumping all over me, most of this is simple outsider observation. Most of it is clear to anyone not too emotionally involved in the situation like real serious die hard fans. Vancouver was very good a few short years ago, but that is not now. Many Canucks fans keep stating the team is aging. It has. The GM is working to bring in younger replacements, the farm is being stocked. Realistically it is going to take some time to ascend to the lofty heights people remember. The current team does not stack up to that level in today's NHL. Even when healthy, they are a middle of the pack team like a whole lot of other teams with proud pasts who are undergoing the same growing pains. Parity is a *****! Vancouver's star will rise again, but not without some major adjustments. It won't come with just a couple of tweaks. Many of this thread's posters are on that same page. Others are not. I lean with the first group.

I am a Utica Comets fan and hope only good for the Vancouver franchise. This was by no means an attack. It is as I said an outsider's observation after reading reams of posts on various sites from numerous Canuck fans. Hard and often unpopular decisions sometimes have to be made and your GM is now at that crossroads. If not now, he will be forced to act soon to keep the team on the right course to the level that Vancouver fans have become used to.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

It's not "luck". It's regression. The way you are framing arguments, it's no wonder we are continuing to disagree.

They had the 19th ranked offense last year. Better than SJ and on par with DET. They were 5th in G/G in 2012.

Does the goal drought of 4 top6 wingers mean much in this narrative of yours?

If you are saying you expect regression to the mean, you are essentially saying their luck will turn around, or even out. We disagree because I don't believe poor luck has put them in this position.

Did you look at their goals for totals over the 2nd half of '11-12? They fell off a cliff. So this is a downward spiral lasting 2 and a half seasons.

Yes, the goal drought means something in my narrative. It means this team isn't skilled enough to compete with the current personnel. A narrative that you're starting to warm up to. Better late than never I suppose.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I believe in regression to the mean, yes. Still do. Only, the team's two best scorers have injury issues. Daniel, confirmed by Botchford. Burrows, coming off his with a cage.

The Canucks were neck and neck with DET for 48 games last year. 2.54 goals/game each. What is this 100 game speal?

Team scoring is one thing, but this is the first time Daniel and Burrows have gone goalless for this long. If they were at their normal rate, and the team was still losing like this, then I would be far more receptive to what you are saying. As is, I think your take is alarmist - and I say that while being angered at the current slide myself.

I think they _should_be_ winning, based on their possession and shot totals, but are not. You think they will not win regardless. That's the difference in our opinion I think.

I find it hard to believe that Daniel has been injured. Sounds like fabrication to me. A couple days ago people were passing off Botchford reports as worthless, but now that he comes out with something that can be used as an excuse for Daniel they want to jump all over it?

 

[Drop the Sopel]

I find it hard to believe that Daniel has been injured. Sounds like fabrication to me. A couple days ago people were passing off Botchford reports as worthless, but now that he comes out with something that can be used as an excuse for Daniel they want to jump all over it?

Daniel has looked injured for quite some time. I would be surprised if he wasn't.

You heard for yourself when Gillis was asked in that interview today. Why do you think he paused for 3 seconds before answering?

Don't worry, he's still not going to be the Art Ross level player he was, even when he's healthy. You still have that to hang your hat on.

 

[Bleach Clean]

If you are saying you expect regression to the mean, you are essentially saying their luck will turn around, or even out. We disagree because I don't believe poor luck has put them in this position.

I think it has, so yes, we disagree based on this alone.

Did you look at their goals for totals over the 2nd half of '11-12? They fell off a cliff. So this is a downward spiral lasting 2 and a half seasons.

Yes, the goal drought means something in my narrative. It means this team isn't skilled enough to compete with the current personnel. A narrative that you're starting to warm up to. Better late than never I suppose.

Warm up to? Lol. If that's what you get from me disagreeing with you, feel free to assume anything. Good that you recognized it's a narrative though...

I'll ask you again, did you expect SJ and DET to rebuild after VAN beat/matched their goal output without Kesler in the line-up? Goal output by itself means little when most of the field is seeing a decline, and relative to their peers, the Canucks kept pace.

As I said earlier, if their output was lower while Daniel+Burrows+ a few others had maintained a normative pace, then you would have something. As is, it's just a story.

I find it hard to believe that Daniel has been injured. Sounds like fabrication to me. A couple days ago people were passing off Botchford reports as worthless, but now that he comes out with something that can be used as an excuse for Daniel they want to jump all over it?

Not an excuse. Injury or not, his goalscoring has seen a drop. The injury edit: provides another reason as to why...

 

[Gormo]

How this guy gets a free pass...

@botchford: Daniel: I thought we played really well

Someone tell this guy to STOP ****ING SAYING THIS

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

You know it's a depressing year when Daniel Sedin has less goals 60 games in than Mason Raymond.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Daniel has looked injured for quite some time. I would be surprised if he wasn't.

You heard for yourself when Gillis was asked in that interview today. Why do you think he paused for 3 seconds before answering?

Don't worry, he's still not going to be the Art Ross level player he was, even when he's healthy. You still have that to hang your hat on.

LOL now we're counting how long it takes Gillis to answer a question as confirmation? Really grasping at straws here.

 

[VanillaCoke]

You know it's a depressing year when Daniel Sedin has less goals 60 games in than Mason Raymond.

And for 1 million....

 

[Drop the Sopel]

Warm up to? Lol. If that's what you get from me disagreeing with you, feel free to assume anything. Good that you recognized it's a narrative though...

Anyone who disagrees with you has a 'narrative'?

You're coming around. I have seen you start to question the makeup of the forward group, finally.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

LOL now we're counting how long it takes Gillis to answer a question as confirmation? Really grasping at straws here.

Well, that and reports that Daniel Sedin has been seen spending time with the trainers.

Gillis paused for 3 seconds and then proceeded to dance around the question for a reason. In the past he's been asked the same question about other players and has just said flat out no. He wasn't willing to do that.

Keep in mind you said there was no chance Henrik was playing hurt either. As it turned out, he was.

 

[David71]

Games before the deadline:

- Leafs
- Blues
- Wild
- Sens
- Coyotes

They basically need to win all those games.

EDIT:

I'll put it this way: If the Canucks go .500 before the deadline (3-3-0) ... they would need to go roughly 12-5-0'ish to make the playoffs the rest of the way, and that's being conservative on the win side.

Um i don't see van winning any of those games.. maybe 1... other than that the rest is history still the same team with troubles. sell at the deadline please.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Anyone who disagrees with you has a 'narrative'?

You're coming around. I have seen you start to question the makeup of the forward group, finally.

I've questioned the conversion rate of the top forwards, first and foremost. That's not coming around to "this team has no hope and we must rebuild". Or is it to you? (Edit: You also said "my narrative")

The narrative was there even before we had confirmed our disagreement. Even in the rebuild/retool thread, I questioned your phrasing/rationale. The doomsday stuff has some big holes in the reasoning. Consequently, I've pointed out one or two of those holes (top player goalless droughts and judging production vs peers). That's why I call it a narrative, instead of an informed opinion. If you think differently, I'm ok with that too...

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

What can you even say at this point? 44 shots on goal, 2 goals. We've needed scorers on this team for awhile now and that problem has yet to been solved. Daniel and Kesler are not scorers.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

The narrative was there even before we had confirmed our disagreement. Even in the rebuild/retool thread, I questioned your phrasing/rationale. The doomsday stuff has some big holes in the reasoning. Consequently, I've pointed out one or two of those holes (top player goalless droughts and judging production vs peers). That's why I call it a narrative, instead of an informed opinion. If you think differently, I'm ok with that too...

And with each passing period, my opinion looks that much more justified. While time is running out for those that have pushed the narrative this team hasn't scored because of bad luck.

Then again, we had this exact same conversation about David Booth for 18 months. I said his issues ran much deeper than poor luck - you said it was just a matter of time. You have to admit, your narrative there was way way off.

If this team makes the playoffs, I will gladly say you were right. If they miss...

 

[Bleach Clean]

And with each passing period, my opinion looks that much more justified. While time is running out for those that have pushed the narrative this team hasn't scored because of bad luck.

Then again, we had this exact same conversation about David Booth for 18 months. I said his issues ran much deeper than poor luck - you said it was just a matter of time. You have to admit, your narrative there was way way off.

If this team makes the playoffs, I will gladly say you were right. If they miss...

Did you guarantee they wouldn't make the playoffs back in DEC? As far as I can recall, the doomsday prophecies only came about recently, correct?

Booth was the best player in the game lol. Nice timing. But he's one of a group of top paid guys that haven't scored. It's not just him. Based on possession, there was every reason to believe that Booth would bounce back.

I guess what you are saying is that you don't believe in possession metrics. I'm good with you coming to that conclusion. But I will be on the look out for you using such metrics to back up your opinion in the future... Just to keep things honest.

 

[BoHorvatFan]

Well some people are saying ''doomsday'' but a lot of posters thought we would be fighting for a playoff spot this year and be a very average team with no chance at a payoff run way back in the summer and in September and were called ''negative'' for not being in fantasy land where John Garrett lives and the Canucks are favourites every year. Injuries or not I feel thats the type of team we are. Obviously they haven't helped though it's been brutal. I still think we squeak in and get to watch an extra 8 days or so of hockey in April.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Well some people are saying ''doomsday'' but a lot of posters thought we would be fighting for a playoff spot this year and be a very average team with no chance at a payoff run way back in the summer and in September and were called ''negative'' for not being in fantasy land where John Garrett lives and the Canucks are favourites every year. Injuries or not I feel thats the type of team we are. Obviously they haven't helped though it's been brutal. I still think we squeak in and get to watch an extra 8 days or so of hockey in April.

You went from "fighting for a playoff spot" to "average team with no chance" to "they will squeak in" all in one post...

The Canucks were not going to be in the top tier. After that, it's the bubble. Once there, anything can happen, and it has (the wrong way thus far).

 

[CanucksSayEh]

You know it's a depressing year when Daniel Sedin has less goals 60 games in than Mason Raymond.

It will be even more depressing when the same is true 82 games in.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

Did you guarantee they wouldn't make the playoffs back in DEC? As far as I can recall, the doomsday prophecies only came about recently, correct?

Booth was the best player in the game lol. Nice timing. But he's one of a group of top paid guys that haven't scored. It's not just him. Based on possession, there was every reason to believe that Booth would bounce back.

I guess what you are saying is that you don't believe in possession metrics. I'm good with you coming to that conclusion. But I will be on the look out for you using such metrics to back up your opinion in the future... Just to keep things honest.

So you're saying opinions shouldn't change when presented with new information? No, that's not for me.

Nice timing? Booth has provided absolutely no offense for this team. I really don't care what he did tonight in a 5-2 loss. So, is it still considered a narrative, even though everything I said about David Booth was spot on?

I don't think possession metrics are pointless. I think you need to balance what you're seeing with what the numbers tell you. Outshooting and outchancing your opponent is obviously a good thing. The issue I have is, I don't believe all shots are created equal, nor will shots and goals simply 'regress to the mean' for every team. Because not all teams have the same calibre of skill - not to mention things like dmen shots aren't worth nearly as much as forward shots. Look no further than the Canucks PP to see these effects.

So no, I'm not holding my breathe that the Canucks PP will turn things around. You have disagreed all year and I think it's safe to say, if you're not seriously questioning your earlier opinions, you should be. It's time.

 

[Bleach Clean]

So you're saying opinions shouldn't change when presented with new information? No, that's not for me.

Nice timing? Booth has provided absolutely no offense for this team. I really don't care what he did tonight in a 5-2 loss. So, is it still considered a narrative, even though everything I said about David Booth was spot on?

I don't think possession metrics are pointless. I think you need to balance what you're seeing with what the numbers tell you. Outshooting and outchancing your opponent is obviously a good thing. The issue I have is, I don't believe all shots are created equal, nor will shots and goals simply 'regress to the mean' for every team. Because not all teams have the same calibre of skill - not to mention things like dmen shots aren't worth nearly as much as forward shots. Look no further than the Canucks PP to see these effects.

So no, I'm not holding my breathe that the Canucks PP will turn things around. You have disagreed all year and I think it's safe to say, if you're not seriously questioning your earlier opinions, you should be. It's time.

So you're saying the Canucks PP hasn't been a huge difference maker on the year?

I think in your post here, you have made three arguments, none of which reference what I've said. You are arguing against yourself.

I will say though that if you don't believe in regression to the mean, and possession leading to shots leading to goals, then you don't believe in possession metrics. There is a strong correlation between shots and goals. There have been many articles on the same. Based on what we currently know of possession, this is the understanding. It's not about balance, it's questioning the rudimentary understanding of what possession is.

I've seen a poster here question your knowledge in this regard. Very recently in fact. I didn't want to comment on it/get in the middle of it (I can dig up the post if you prefer? Or PM?). But I do think it's telling when someone throws out possession when conversion falls out of line with it, and those that expect the conversion to return eventually. The former uses possession as a proxy so long as it suites them, the latter relies on possession to explain surface events, understanding that things will even out in due course. You are clearly in the former group, and I in the latter. Hence, we disagree. I'm just going to comment now based on that realization.



Edit: Just to hit this point home, here is a quote from Eric T:

Together, Fenwick/Corsi and Luck account for around 3/4 of team winning percentage. What's the remainder? Goaltending talent - which Tom Awad estimates at about 5% - and special teams, along with a very small sliver that's due to shooting talent and the oft-mentioned "shot quality."

So Fenwick/Corsi + Luck + Goaltending = 80%. Special teams, I would imagine, make up the bulk of the remainder, with a small sliver owed to shooting talent.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

They were the better team but found a way to lose because they were icing guys like Corrado and Sauve (3rd goal was on them) plus 2 unlucky goals (2nd and 4th). Meanwhile, Price had a great game.

They were the better possession team, they were the better team at creating scoring chances, they were the faster team, they were the more physical team, etc.

This is what leads me to believe a slight adjustment in personnel would do wonders. While we can near dominate the advanced stats on a relative average, we lose due to stagnation and predictably. The team is easy to read largely because it has remained particularly identical for seven years. I strong advocate one or two smart trades could result in a complete 180 in the wins/lose category.

We need a new dimension, preferably that of a skill oriented player to change our offensive approach. Another reason I feel Callahan is the wrong player to target. He is more of the same to what we already have. Question is, do we trade for it, or attempt to find it in the off season.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Strong possession stats always bode well for a team, but good possession alone doesn't win games. You need to expose defenses and goaltenders too.

 

[thekernel]

I don't even know what to say any more. It's the Utica Comets out there.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

I don't even know what to say any more. It's the Utica Comets featuring about 6 regular NHL skaters and it's getting tiresome. I'm just thankful Henrik is sitting.

We aren't really as bad as the Comets, it only seems like that because that's the level of play we keep playing at.