We are so PDO.
Myers-Soucy pair is really struggling. Myers' skating is definitely still affected by the knee injury but Soucy hasn't been sharp on a lot of plays either.
Brannstrom-Desharnais is still a work in progress but man that pair looks so much better with a guy who can actually skate and move the puck. I've seen a few mistakes from Brannstrom but overall pretty happy with how he's fit in. Amazing that we managed to dump the Poolman contract and get an acutal asset back.
Never understood why people seemed to be down on Heinen. This is exactly what he does - smart player who reads his linemates well, understands how to support the puck and has the hands to finish and make plays around the net.
As others have said, we were really sloppy tonight, got a bit lucky and holy f*** did we strike gold with Lankinen. After the first 5-10 minutes this had the look of one of those dumb outlier games that ends up 8-6 or something.
I would say it's not a maybe. He's literally a cheat code.
This is probably a little tongue in cheek, but the Canucks are doing the exact same thing as last year.
The basic premise is that they are selective with shots (every team [except the Canes] does this to a certain extent now - there has been some interesting commentary on the rise in average shooting percentage over the last couple of years). The basic premise as that you want the goalie to be moving before you shoot. The Canucks also try to take a lot of point shots just wide of the net timed with forwards crashing so that the goalie is lined up to the point shot but the deflection comes from an acute angle. It results in fewer shots on net, but a higher xG per shot.
Last night's game was one of the better examples of it that I have seen though.
- Heinen goal. Extra pass from Blueger even though he had a shooting opportunity after a cross-crease pass. Almost looked like too many passes, which can be the downside of the approach.
- Miller goal. PP point shot with 2 layers of screen. Open net.
- Heinen goal 2. Shot intentionally wide for the tip. Open net.
- Garland goal. Extra pass from EP. Open net.
- Boeser goal. High tip on the PP. Mrazek is moving. Open net.
- Suter goal. Shot intentionally wide for the tip. Open net. Certainly some luck factors into this one on the bounce to Suter.
Money puck had these as 0.2, 0.88, 0.09, 0.14, 0.56, 0.33 xG = 2.2 xG total. They probably have some sort of PP factor because the Miller and Boeser goals were the most difficult of the bunch yet got the highest xG ratings. Considering just the shots that the remaining 4 had, they are all >50% to be goals, since Mrazek is either partially or completely out of position. Suter's in particular is an empty net tap in. These 6 opportunities are probably collectively worth something like 4 xG alone in a model which accounts for goalie positioning. Consider that the Canucks produced an additional 1.3 xG in this game they really weren't outshooting their xG as much as it might seem.
The Hawks had some good looks for sure, but on the defensive side the reverse is true. The Canucks generally concede shots where the goalie is set (even from relatively close-in) if it means preventing pre-shot movement and rebounds.
If they continue to outperform PDO, at a certain point we can't just keep screaming "regression!" and should actually look at it as a pattern and try to explain why it is happening.
