The Thread About Offense (or Lack Thereof)

[vector209]

I'm just posting this to strictly discuss the offense, not the defense, not AV, not Luongo, or when Kassian will go bald. If people wish to chime in and discuss the Canucks' scoring woes and where they think things might have gone wrong or whatnot, then I'd love to hear them.

I've noticed an increasing trend where the Canucks resort to going to OT or the shootout over the past season and, curious, decided to investigate to see if it was merely observation bias or actual fact.

According to stats pulled from ESPN, in the 2011-12 season, the Canucks scored 4 or more goals 19 times from October up until the end of December. That's a period of just under 3 months or 39 games, and in that time, they went to OT or the shootout 6 times (3 OT, 3 SO). Here is the link:

http://espn.go.com/nhl/team/schedule/_/name/van/year/2012/vancouver-canucks

Now, for the period of January until the end of the season in April (just over 3 months or 43 games), The Canucks scored 4 or more goals 12 times. During that span, they also went extra minutes 18 times (6 OT, 12 SO).

Cleary, this shows a disparity between the two segments, particularly the extra time required for the Canucks to conclude their games. Now, there's merit behind the argument that all the extra time that compounded over the second half of the season could have lead to their demise, in the sense that it contributed to fatigue and complacency.

Fast forward to this season, where the Canucks continue to display the same pattern. Throughout 6 games, they've scored 4 or more goals once and have gone extra time in 3 of them (all SO). Granted, this team isn't at full health yet, but the signs are alarming.

I decided to do even deeper digging, going back to their dominant 2010/11 season, just to see if there was an even greater discrepancy in stats:

http://espn.go.com/nhl/team/schedule/_/name/van/year/2011/vancouver-canucks

Over the entire year, the Canucks scored 4 or more goals 36 times (compared to 31 in the following year) and went to extra time 17 times (8 OT, 9 SO). Again, this is lower than the 24 total times they accomplished this in the subsequent season. Is their a correlation between sputtering offense and extra minutes played? Perhaps.

I'm sure the coaches and staff have examined this themselves, but it's just some food for thought for the fans, especially those who are still wrongly convinced that this team is offensively competent, when the signs clearly show a decline over the past couple of years.

Click to read more...

 

[RobertKron]

Is this anomalous relative to the rest of the league? I was under the impression that it's pretty much a league-wide thing for games, generally, to tighten up down the stretch.

 

[AlphaMale]

You do realize they're missing Booth and Kesler.

 

[Scurr]

All you've shown is that we were a better team during the 2010/11 season and half way through the 2011/12 season than we have been since. I think most fans would tell you that without the stats.

Why is that? Because Sedin, Sedin, Kesler haven't been the same players... or haven't been there at all. It's nice to add pieces and increase depth but you can't expect a team to play its best unless their best players are.

 

[vector209]

This thread isn't aimed at realists, it's aimed at those who erroneously assume this team is generally the same as the one a few years back, based on the principle that most of the core is the same.

I'm also trying to show if there's a correlation between their abysmal play and the increased game time courtesy of OT and shootouts.

 

[opendoor]

Last year the number of games going past regulation did increase in the 2nd half, but not by near as much as the Canucks did in that same span. In the first half the Canucks went to OT 15% of the time while the rest of the league went to OT about 21.5% of the time. In the 2nd half the Canucks' OT rate nearly tripled to 42% while the rest of the league saw a fairly minor jump to about 26%. So it wasn't just the league tightening up that caused the Canucks' propensity to not get it done in regulation.

Also notable was the Canucks' completely unsustainable and likely unrepeatable .786 record in 1 goal games in the 2nd half of last season (compare that to their .538 record in games decided by more than 1 goal in that same period). If the 2nd half of last season was played again and the Canucks put up similar performances they could easily have 10 points lopped off their total when all was said and done.

Contrast that with a team like LA who was being dragged down by a pretty terrible record in 1 goal games. If their record in those was similar to their record in multi-goal games they would've finished with probably 10 more points.


Not that this is anything new. I think a lot of people realized that their success in the 2nd half last year was largely a mirage. Their scoring and their PP went in the toilet and it was mostly the combined .931 sv% that Luongo and Schneider put up from New Year's onwards as well as a fair bit of luck that gave them that success.

 

[Luongos Knob]

Did someone say... LACK!?!?!?!?!

 

[Steve Bennett*]

I'm just posting this to strictly discuss the offense, not the defense, not AV, not Luongo, or when Kassian will go bald. If people wish to chime in and discuss the Canucks' scoring woes and where they think things might have gone wrong or whatnot, then I'd love to hear them.

I've noticed an increasing trend where the Canucks resort to going to OT or the shootout over the past season and, curious, decided to investigate to see if it was merely observation bias or actual fact.

According to stats pulled from ESPN, in the 2011-12 season, the Canucks scored 4 or more goals 19 times from October up until the end of December. That's a period of just under 3 months or 39 games, and in that time, they went to OT or the shootout 6 times (3 OT, 3 SO). Here is the link:

http://espn.go.com/nhl/team/schedule/_/name/van/year/2012/vancouver-canucks

Now, for the period of January until the end of the season in April (just over 3 months or 43 games), The Canucks scored 4 or more goals 12 times. During that span, they also went extra minutes 18 times (6 OT, 12 SO).

Cleary, this shows a disparity between the two segments, particularly the extra time required for the Canucks to conclude their games. Now, there's merit behind the argument that all the extra time that compounded over the second half of the season could have lead to their demise, in the sense that it contributed to fatigue and complacency.

Fast forward to this season, where the Canucks continue to display the same pattern. Throughout 6 games, they've scored 4 or more goals once and have gone extra time in 3 of them (all SO). Granted, this team isn't at full health yet, but the signs are alarming.

I decided to do even deeper digging, going back to their dominant 2010/11 season, just to see if there was an even greater discrepancy in stats:

http://espn.go.com/nhl/team/schedule/_/name/van/year/2011/vancouver-canucks

Over the entire year, the Canucks scored 4 or more goals 36 times (compared to 31 in the following year) and went to extra time 17 times (8 OT, 9 SO). Again, this is lower than the 24 total times they accomplished this in the subsequent season. Is their a correlation between sputtering offense and extra minutes played? Perhaps.

I'm sure the coaches and staff have examined this themselves, but it's just some food for thought for the fans, especially those who are still wrongly convinced that this team is offensively competent, when the signs clearly show a decline over the past couple of years.

That is interesting and worrying. I wonder about their slow starts they've done the last few years and if this 6 games to start the season is another part of that trend, and that they start to pick it up after the first 10 games or so or what. There are a number of factors worth considering

A) They play in a poor division and even if they do play poorly for the first quarter or third of this season they will luckily still have a good chance to get the third seed.
B) This is a short season, and maybe if Edmonton and Minnesota actually play somewhat decent hockey the Canucks could be screwed.
C) Kesler and Booth will hopefully be back sometime in February.

Will their goals go up when Kesler and Booth return and also when they get out of their usual starting funk to a season? I would think so but I have no crystal ball. But at the same time I'd be much happier if they went out and traded for a proven top 6 winger. That issue really needs to be addressed, even when Kesler and Booth are back. The last several cup winners have really deep forwards that could throw out three efficient scoring lines. Right now the Canucks have 1 and a half. Booth, Kesler and another guy would obviously give a more offensive dynamic.

It's difficult to just go get a proven top 6 forward, but luckily for us we are shopping Luongo so it's not that unreasonable.

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

All you've shown is that we were a better team during the 2010/11 season and half way through the 2011/12 season than we have been since. I think most fans would tell you that without the stats.

Why is that? Because Sedin, Sedin, Kesler haven't been the same players... or haven't been there at all. It's nice to add pieces and increase depth but you can't expect a team to play its best unless their best players are.

Quoted for truth. When your best players are going the rest of the team follows suit. Imagine where the Canucks would be with the Sedins, and a healthy Kesler and Booth?

 

[Fat Tony]

You do realize they're missing Booth and Kesler.

Strangely, neither were in the Canucks lineup to start last season either.

 

[InjuredChoker]

I think this is right place to ask about this.

To me Canucks looked the most deadliest and dangerous transition team in 10-11 season; but they haven't looked like that since, especially for the past year. Obviously there has been injuries and small roster changes but still. Is it the injuries, other teams figuring it out, Vigneault not getting the message true or what?

That imo is the biggest change that has happened, that deadly transition that killed many teams in 10-11. Though I haven't seen too many Canuck games, will give that.

 

[Luongos Knob]

I think this is right place to ask about this.

To me Canucks looked the most deadliest and dangerous transition team in 10-11 season; but they haven't looked like that since, especially for the past year. Obviously there has been injuries and small roster changes but still. Is it the injuries, other teams figuring it out, Vigneault not getting the message true or what?

That imo is the biggest change that has happened, that deadly transition that killed many teams in 10-11. Though I haven't seen too many Canuck games, will give that.

No Ehrhoff

 

[Pump n Dump]

This thread isn't aimed at realists, it's aimed at those who erroneously assume this team is generally the same as the one a few years back, based on the principle that most of the core is the same.

I'm also trying to show if there's a correlation between their abysmal play and the increased game time courtesy of OT and shootouts.

Seems fairly intuitive that when the team scores less the games are more likely to end regulation time in a tie.

 

[Grub]

I feel our offense has been lost since Erhoff was gone. That man really led the rushes and really made our offense dynamic.

 

[TheBleedingEdge]

No Ehrhoff

Exactly, no Ehrhoff to break out or play the passing game with the Sedins. This IMO was Gillis's biggest mistake to date. I fully understand his internal cap and all of that but when you have a winning recipe you should keep it intact.

Id much rather have Salo and Ehrhoff then Garrison and Ballard at this point.

PS. Good for Ballard to have a bit of a bounceback season though this year playing with Tanev.

 

[RobertKron]

Exactly, no Ehrhoff to break out or play the passing game with the Sedins. This IMO was Gillis's biggest mistake to date. I fully understand his internal cap and all of that but when you have a winning recipe you should keep it intact.

Id much rather have Salo and Ehrhoff then Garrison and Ballard at this point.

PS. Good for Ballard to have a bit of a bounceback season though this year playing with Tanev.

Ehrhoff got 10 yr/40 million dollars. There's no way the Canucks match that, and really no way they should have.

Yes, losing him was a big hit, but **** happens.

 

[Scurr]

Ehrhoff went as the twins went, whoever plays with them (Garrison?) will do the same. I think you could point to Ehrhoff being the difference if we hadn't struggled to score so much in the 2011 playoffs while he was still here.

 

[TBIF]

Obviously Luongo needs to work on his passing game so he can break out the forwards better. AV has to give them the go ahead though. Hopefully this can all be achieved before Kassian goes all Getzlaf on us

 

[Steve Bennett*]

Ehrhoff went as the twins went, whoever plays with them (Garrison?) will do the same. I think you could point to Ehrhoff being the difference if we hadn't struggled to score so much in the 2011 playoffs while he was still here.

True that, the glimpses of offensive ineptness began before Ehrhoff was gone. As MW said, poo happens, time to move on.

Somewhat related to this thread right now, the question should be, what piece do the Canucks need right now the most? Could that be acquired in a Luongo deal? I'm thinking one or two bonified 2nd line scorers would be swell...

 

[Hodgy]

I don't think it is all that surprising. When you break down our current lineup, it is easy to see why we are having difficulties scoring goals. In fact, I think the coaching staff is well aware of this. As a result, I think the coaching staff has the team playing a much more defensive style of play, not that dissimilar from the style we played when Daniel Sedin was out of the lineup last year in the playoffs.

Sedin - Sedin - Kassian

They have been pretty good. Unfortunately, the Sedins look slower than ever and they appear to be shaking off some rust. Hopefully they can get back to where they were last year and can be point per game players. On the other hand, Kassian has been excellent. Can't ask for much more from him.

Raymond - Schroeder - Weise

This line hasn't been able to produce much offensively. Raymond has been very good and has been able to produce despite playing with unproven offensive players. However, Raymond is a bit of a top six tweener and really shouldn't be expected to carry a second line offensively. Weise is more of a bottom six player, and at this point, should be on the 4th line. Schroeder has been good defensively but hasn't been able to produce much offensively. By my count he has just two scoring chances and needs to find a way to generate more shots. Overall, for a second line, this line is quite poor offensively.

Hansen - Burrows - Higgins

This line is good defensively but really shouldn't be expected to produce much offensively. You have the most gifted, offensively, of the three playing in his off position which doesn't help. Higgins also looks rusty as hell and appears to have lost a step. Hopefully he can shake that rust off. Hansen has been ok offensively, but as we all know, his strength is tenacious, hard checking, sound defensive hockey.

 

[Fat Tony]

Seems fairly intuitive that when the team scores less the games are more likely to end regulation time in a tie.

Not really. If you score less and give up a lot of goals, you don't wind up in the OT/SO very often. Goal differential is what you should look at.

 

[NoRaise4Brackett]

nvermind

 

[Fat Tony]

Ehrhoff got 10 yr/40 million dollars. There's no way the Canucks match that, and really no way they should have.

Yes, losing him was a big hit, but **** happens.

I miss Ehrhoff but there was no way Gillis could agree to that kind of contract and not hurt the team.

 

[YogiCanucks]

2/3 of our 2nd line is missing......

Plus Sedins aren't playing great. I think I've seen more missed 10 foot passes (hits a skate, not on the tape, intercepted) by them in the start of this season than all of last year.

 

[me2]

I'm just posting this to strictly discuss the offense, not the defense, not AV, not Luongo, or when Kassian will go bald. If people wish to chime in and discuss the Canucks' scoring woes and where they think things might have gone wrong or whatnot, then I'd love to hear them.

I've noticed an increasing trend where the Canucks resort to going to OT or the shootout over the past season and, curious, decided to investigate to see if it was merely observation bias or actual fact.

According to stats pulled from ESPN, in the 2011-12 season, the Canucks scored 4 or more goals 19 times from October up until the end of December. That's a period of just under 3 months or 39 games, and in that time, they went to OT or the shootout 6 times (3 OT, 3 SO). Here is the link:

http://espn.go.com/nhl/team/schedule/_/name/van/year/2012/vancouver-canucks

Now, for the period of January until the end of the season in April (just over 3 months or 43 games), The Canucks scored 4 or more goals 12 times. During that span, they also went extra minutes 18 times (6 OT, 12 SO).

Cleary, this shows a disparity between the two segments, particularly the extra time required for the Canucks to conclude their games. Now, there's merit behind the argument that all the extra time that compounded over the second half of the season could have lead to their demise, in the sense that it contributed to fatigue and complacency.

Kesler got injured in January. His points per game tanked and that tanked the guys on his line, and in return the entire team. So scoring was down. AV went back to a defensive style in response which also lowered the GF, but allowed us to grind out enough wins to overtake teams and take the PT but low scoring = more OT.

It's not hard to work out what's happening. Take the LA game we just lost in a shoot out, add back Kesler and Booth and maybe we score another goal and win 3-2 and everything is great. Maybe Kesler is out in the last minute shutting down LA and we win 2-1 and everything is great.

All this highlights is how dependent we are on Kesler and the Sedins. We need more offensive depth to cover injuries or we become a 1 line team. A PP dman wouldn't hurt either.