Vancouver led the league in points at Christmas, Can they continue this run into the New Year?

[TheStatican]

Not impressed. Everyone does everything quietly in this league, call me back when they start doing it loudly

 

[jackjohnson]

They can easily have 10 to 12 players at 10 or more goals by end of the season. And players like Garland who has 3 goals or Suter who has 6 goals can score more to make that happen.

 

[zar]

… and the closet Canuck fans slither back on to the bandwagon.

 

[jackjohnson]

They won 100% of their games in regulation against the mighty Canucks though.

How many times did the Canucks play SJ so far? 4 times? I’m sure playing the worst team in the league 4 times helps pad those stats. Most teams don’t get that luxury.

They played SJ 3 times. You make it sound like no team in the league will face SJ except Canucks and that playing SJ 3 times and beating them 2 times somehow can make a team a number 1 team in the NHL at half way point.

 

[nergish]

Remember when everybody loved the phrase "Zdeno Chara lifts the Stanley cup higher than it's ever been"?

This year, Quinn Hughes will be the shortest captain to ever hoist the cup

 

[Divine]

They played SJ 3 times. You make it sound like no team in the league will face SJ except Canucks and that playing SJ 3 times and beating them 2 times somehow can make a team a number 1 team in the NHL at half way point.

No team in the east will play SJ 3 times.

Besides that, that’s what makes this thread premature. It’s a third of the season in. By the end of the season the schedule will balance out.

Vancouver also leads the league in games played and the season won’t finish with Vancouver playing up to 6 more games than other teams.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Oh noo, the Nucks are in their nice comfy private jets a couple extra hours than eastern teams while they sleep and eat like kings on them. That’s why nobody cares and only certain western fans try use that as some sort of excuse for things or cry they have it soo bad.

now there's a hot take.

 

[Drytoast]

It is disingenuous to come in to said thread and complain about it’s existence…..free world Bud…..you should try and take advantage of it….

Show me the part of the post I made that was a complaint.

 

[bandwagonesque]

No team in the east will play SJ 3 times.

Besides that, that’s what makes this thread premature. It’s a third of the season in. By the end of the season the schedule will balance out.

Vancouver also leads the league in games played and the season won’t finish with Vancouver playing up to 6 more games than other teams.

They are 2-1 against San Jose and therefore have a better record if those games are excluded. Do you understand how this is relevant to the claim you've made?

 

[Divine]

They are 2-1 against San Jose and therefore have a better record if those games are excluded. Do you understand how this is relevant to the claim you've made?

Losing against bad teams is not a good argument.

They had the opportunity to play the worst team more often this early in the season in addition to leading the league in games.

They also played a struggling Oilers team that was out of the top 30 in the league at the time 3 times.

The Canucks are not first in the league by points percentage - only because they played 3 more games than the team that is.. and 5 more games than the other team tied with them.

 

[coolboarder]

I dont think you're lying. People just don't tend to notice it unless it's their own team, which is why we have the semi annual tradition of the talking points:

"This team is literally sent from the Gods."

"I dunno, their shooting percentage and save percentage is mighty high."

"They keep the shots from the outside and mostly shoot when they have scoring chances and/or have tons of snipers on the team."

"They'll probably regress."

"They won't regress."

Followed by a regression to closer where the team has tended to be in previous years. Note that the law of large numbers doesn't actually apply, and it's entirely possible (although unlikely) for a team to get lucky for a full season or even years at a time. The Canucks COULD, without having better snipers or a better goalie, get lucky for the rest of the season. Regression tends to be misconstrued as a gambler's fallacy, where a streak of luck must be followed by a streak of bad luck.

Shooting percentage is easy, since most teams 5v5 tend to not drastically outperform other teams. More shots tend to result in more goals, unless you're the Carolina Hurricanes.

Save percentage being lumped into PDO is pretty dumb (or rather, people talking about save percentage as if every goalie should be expected to have similar save percentage have heard that PDO tends to normalize and don't dig deeper into it), since it's very possible for a team to, long term, have 1-2% higher save percentage than another team just based on goalie skill.

The Canucks have some skilled snipers, and having a slightly higher shooting percentage than average could be expected. Demko has historically been an average to below average starting goalie, so his save percentage to be expected is probably not Vezina level (though as we just saw last year, a team can totally keep that up a full season).

I am ignorant about PDO stats and I wouldn't wish to learn about it. You need to factor in that they have keep the puck possession in the offensive zone longer than anyone else without even shooting. I have noted that they have made extra passes only for them not shooting with another extra passes or puck has gone awry for them. Even they were in a shooting position only for them to opt for a pass that frustrate me as a fan at times. As for defensive zone, they do not chase, They are playing in a zone defense and most of opponent shots are kept to outside in the perimeter and danger shots in the slot are usually saved and that factored into the high shots against.

Also one factor, Petterson is not even playing well as we know he can and yet still picking up points and this is his normal mean of producing points. I can only imagine the outburst when he is playing well and nobody can stop him when he is like that as we saw last season and so far, he's at his normal pace. Hughes wasn't even playing well and he still producing points in month of December.

I'm telling you, the crazy schedule of the stretch has tired them out in November with lack of practice time and still treading waters has impressed me the most and with more practice time and adjustment will make them even more tougher to beat. I can't even recall the last time they have truly practiced, maybe early in the month and even they have had to rest when they haven't got it. They even had scheduled practice cancelled into a rest day during their homestand at end of the crazy November stretch. That factored in how bad the schedule in November was.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Losing against bad teams is not a good argument.

They had the opportunity to play the worst team more often this early in the season.

They also played a struggling Oilers team that was out of the top 30 in the league at the time 3 times.

Let's back up a little here and see if we can understand each other.

The premise of your argument was that the Canucks' early success and record was in part attributable to the fact that they had played the Sharks frequently. However, they have a better record against the rest of the league than they do against the Sharks. This means that the fact they have played the Sharks frequently cannot be an explanation for their success. Does all this make sense?

 

[ziploc]

They are 2-1 against San Jose and therefore have a better record if those games are excluded. Do you understand how this is relevant to the claim you've made?

3-1 now.

Playing the Sharks four times has helped, of course, but you still have to win those games. I'm annoyed they lost the one they did.

Having played more games than other teams contributes in its way to having more points as well, but it also means the Canucks had to play more hockey than other teams, and at times on ridiculous road trip schedules. I am glad they have fewer games to play in the next year, which should lead to a better rested team for the playoffs. I'm not so worried about leading the NHL or President's Trophy stuff. Just want them to be well prepped and positioned for the postseason.

Weird to be even thinking about the playoffs at this point as a Canucks fan (given the last decade) but I think we can safely say they are most probably going to make it.

 

[Drytoast]

sometimes the main board needs to take a break from leaf threads and discuss the top teams in the league.

I'm already bored of the topic. Lol. What was this thread about again?

 

[bandwagonesque]

3-1 now.

Playing the Sharks four times has helped, of course, but you still have to win those games. I'm annoyed they lost the one they did.

Having played more games than other teams contributes in its way to having more points as well, but it also means the Canucks had to play more hockey than other teams, and at times on ridiculous road trip schedules. I am glad they have fewer games to play in the next year, which should lead to a better rested team for the playoffs. I'm not so worried about leading the NHL or President's Trophy stuff. Just want them to be well prepped and positioned for the postseason.

Weird to be even thinking about the playoffs at this point as a Canucks fan (given the last decade) but I think we can safely say they are most probably going to make it.

Oh shit, okay. So as of today, it is now true that the Canucks' success is a result of how often they have played the Sharks.

 

[Divine]

Let's back up a little here and see if we can understand each other.

The premise of your argument was that the Canucks' early success and record was in part attributable to the fact that they had played the Sharks frequently. However, they have a better record against the rest of the league than they do against the Sharks. This means that the fact they have played the Sharks frequently cannot be an explanation for their success. Does all this make sense?

It wasn’t single handedly against the Sharks. They got 6 points off an Oilers team that was worse than the Sharks when the Canucks played them.

How the Canucks did against the Sharks doesn’t matter - they had the opportunity to play weak teams. Just because the Canucks lost to the Sharks doesn’t mean other teams will when the opportunity presents itself.

Your premise is basically that everyone’s point percentage will drop against the Sharks because the Canucks lost to them? It’s not a good premise.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Also, how the Canucks did against the Sharks doesn’t matter - they had the opportunity to play weak teams.

Just because the Canucks lost to the Sharks doesn’t mean other teams will when the opportunity presents itself.

... wouldn't both of these statements suggest that Canucks are actually better than their current record suggests?

I don't think you're actually thinking through anything you're saying.

 

[Divine]

... wouldn't both of these statements suggest that Canucks are actually better than their current record suggests?

I don't think you're actually thinking through anything you're saying.

No, it wouldn’t.

Why would they be better than their current record suggests for losing a game against an NHL team?

Instead of playing the Sharks 3 times, the Canucks could have played the Leafs 3 times and had 0 points.

 

[rypper]

The Oilers were allegedly a cup or bust team this season, and the Canucks broke them in the season opener. Now it's some kind of knock against Vancouver for winning games against them?

 

[StumpyTown]

The pace is likely to settle a little bit. Remember that the strength of schedule remaining for the Canucks is 11th most difficult. They are doing fantastic and I'm pleasantly surprised, but I expect that they'll not keep up quite the pace they've been on.

 

[Divine]

The Oilers were allegedly a cup or bust team this season, and the Canucks broke them in the season opener. Now it's some kind of knock against Vancouver for winning games against them?

And the Senators were supposedly a playoff team and are now last in the East.

What does a team that hypes itself up have to do with anything? One of the goalies the Oilers started against the Canucks is getting lit up in the AHL currently.

 

[JumpierPegasus]

No, it wouldn’t.

Why would they be better than their current record suggests for losing a game against an NHL team?

Instead of playing the Sharks 3 times, the Canucks could have played the Leafs 3 times and had 0 points.

Leafs just lost 9-3 against the Sabres and 6-5 against the Blue Jackets

Maybe look inward first

 

[Divine]

Leafs just lost 9-3 against the Sabres and 6-5 against the Blue Jackets

Maybe look inward first

Yes, when Samsonov starts - the Leafs lose. The Leafs are sheltering him against the weak teams but he's still struggling.

They just beat the Blue Jackets 4-1 with Jones in net yesterday.

It has nothing to do with the Canucks though.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Instead of playing the Sharks 3 times, the Canucks could have played the Leafs 3 times and had 0 points.

i guess now is the time of year for leaf fans to huddle around the fire and imagine all the cool things that might happen if reality was distorted to the extent that the leafs had a goalie.

 

[jackjohnson]

No team in the east will play SJ 3 times.

Besides that, that’s what makes this thread premature. It’s a third of the season in. By the end of the season the schedule will balance out.

Vancouver also leads the league in games played and the season won’t finish with Vancouver playing up to 6 more games than other teams.

Vancouver leads the league in games played like vegas who is the defending cup champ and canucks are 2 points up on them. Easteen teams also get to play crap teams like columbus or buffalo. Even teams like sens which arent good. Not sure how your point is valid now that we are at the half way mark? Again you can keep making up excuses on why canucks are a number 1 team and pretenders but the result speak for themselves