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

[Grifter3511]

Well duh, they lead the west in points.

Nowhere but down to go for the Rangers too.

They are exactly as good as their record indicates.

The difference between the Canucks and the Rangers is that this is a thread about the Canucks.

If you want to talk about the Rangers, and it is actually bothering you that people in a Canucks thread aren't taking shots at the Rangers, maybe you should start a Rangers thread?

 

[belair]

Oilers play Vegas 3 times this year

Until the playoffs, of course.

 

[jackjohnson]

Generally but it tends to even out after 82 games usually.

You look at the top ten teams in points from last season:
1.036
.992
1.003
1.013
1.010
1.006
1.012
1.013
.989

from 21/22
1.005
1.014
1.010
1.002
1.023
1.011
1.012
1.024
1.017
.991

Canucks so far 1.048. Bruins had 1.036 last season and set a regular season record for points. That was a big outlier.

Clearly nowhere to go but down for Vancouver. Doesn't mean the Canucks are going to miss the playoffs, but they aren't anywhere near as good as their record indicates.

I'm not sure why some fans are so reluctant to amid that luck plays a big part in hockey games. I mean its pretty clear that it does when you watch the games.

Ok nostradamus, you arent predicting anything new by saying they have no where to go but down. Well when you are on top of the standings, you cant go higher than 1st, so if there is movement, then it means either staying at number 1 or going down. And if a team has an outstanding season one year, usually they could have a let down the year after. Not sure what point you are trying to make. In the end, Canucks have a higher chance of making playoffs than not which is what matters most.

 

[Jason316]

Vegas Vancouver LA Edmonton going to be a dog fight Pacific division playoffs!!!!!

 

[jackjohnson]

Vegas Vancouver LA Edmonton going to be a dog fight Pacific division playoffs!!!!!

One team has poor goalie. Guess which team??

 

[Dust]

One team has poor goalie. Guess which team??

I think they're all fairly financially well off compared to the rest of us.

 

[strattonius]

I think the Canucks will regress their ass all the way back to 5th. What a horrible regression it will be.

 

[Fishy McScales]

I think the Canucks will regress their ass all the way back to 5th. What a horrible regression it will be.

I think that's a bit doomsday-y from you. I think they make it fairly comfortably.

Though it would be hilarious if you were correct of course.

 

[tom_servo]

Would be cool to see a Canucks-Rangers SCF rematch on the 30th anniversary of their 1994 series.

 

[Bank Shot]

Ok nostradamus, you arent predicting anything new by saying they have no where to go but down. Well when you are on top of the standings, you cant go higher than 1st, so if there is movement, then it means either staying at number 1 or going down. And if a team has an outstanding season one year, usually they could have a let down the year after. Not sure what point you are trying to make. In the end, Canucks have a higher chance of making playoffs than not which is what matters most.

If the Canucks had good stats I would say they have a good chance of staying in first.

But they don't. So they will regress to the mean. Probably lose in the first round and go back to being an average team next year fighting for a playoff spot.

 

[Chairman Maouth]

If the Canucks had good stats I would say they have a good chance of staying in first.

But they don't. So they will regress to the mean. Probably lose in the first round and go back to being an average team next year fighting for a playoff spot.

One point out of first place overall in the league; most wins in the league; first in goals for; 5th in goals against; two players in the top 10 in scoring; two defencemen among the top 10 defencemen in scoring; arguably the best goaltending tandem in the league.

Those are hard stats. They are not predictive.

Using your predictive advanced stats, let us know which team is awarded the Stanley Cup based on advanced stats. Last year Boston won the cup. I think it's on the shelf beside their President's Trophy.

 

[North Cole]

One point out of first place overall in the league; most wins in the league; first in goals for; 5th in goals against; two players in the top 10 in scoring; two defencemen among the top 10 defencemen in scoring; arguably the best goaltending tandem in the league.

Those are hard stats. They are not predictive.

Let us know the next time the Stanley Cup is awarded to the team with the best advanced stats. Last year Boston won the cup. I think it's on the shelf beside their President's Trophy.

I mean, couldn't someone say let us know the next time the team with regular season stats you just quoted won the cup too? Neither the predictive stats theyre quoting or the hard stats youre quoting have anything to do with winning the cup at this juncture. Boston had the most impressive hard stat of all and then shit their pants.

 

[Baby Pettersson]

I mean, couldn't someone say let us know the next time the team with regular season stats you just quoted won the cup too? Neither the predictive stats theyre quoting or the hard stats youre quoting have anything to do with winning the cup at this juncture. Boston had the most impressive hard stat of all and then shit their pants.

Yes you could. Which is why you're also correct. Noone said the Canucks are guaranteed winners of the cup this year.

Simply said Canucks have good stats to back up their results. And that they do!

 

[Chairman Maouth]

I mean, couldn't someone say let us know the next time the team with regular season stats you just quoted won the cup too? Neither the predictive stats theyre quoting or the hard stats youre quoting have anything to do with winning the cup at this juncture. Boston had the most impressive hard stat of all and then shit their pants.

One set of stats is real and not open to change or misinterpretation. My point was, that predictive advanced stats are dynamic and subject to many variables throughout a season. The Canucks' stats I posted are static. They cannot be changed. Both, however, and I am in agreement with you, are pretty much useless at predicting anything down the road. That was the point of my post — dismantling the value of advanced stats and using static stats to do it. You can only trust one of them, but only as a snapshot of the day they're referenced.

Another thing is, by the time advanced stats hit this board they're subject to interpretations often based on the biases of the person who posts them. They can be massaged at the whim of the person using them in an argument. They're often used to support your own team as I did above, or to shit on a rival team like the guy above did. As I said, I'll take static stats. They are a real snapshot.

 

[Bank Shot]

One point out of first place overall in the league; most wins in the league; first in goals for; 5th in goals against; two players in the top 10 in scoring; two defencemen among the top 10 defencemen in scoring; arguably the best goaltending tandem in the league.

Those are hard stats. They are not predictive.

Using your predictive advanced stats, let us know which team is awarded the Stanley Cup based on advanced stats. Last year Boston won the cup. I think it's on the shelf beside their President's Trophy.

They actually way overacheived in the regular season. And possession stats are not really more predictive than whatever you called "hard stats".

They both tell what has happened. Its just possession stats use a bigger sample size, so they can be more predictive over large sample sizes.

Maybe you are mad that Boeser isn't going to shoot over 20% over the whole season. Get mad at math. I dont care. Math doesn't care either if you get mad.

There is a reason people use these stats and they are right way more often than the people using their gut feel.

If the Canucks were top 5 in possession stats, Canucks fans would be shouting it from the rooftops. We both know this. I mean they used it loudly and often to call Chris Tanev a top five NHL defenceman.

We both know that Vancity fans are only downplaying possession stats at this point in time because they don't favor their team.

 

[soothsayer]

Strong 2018-19 Calgary Flames vibes.

 

[Bank Shot]

One set of stats is real and not open to change or misinterpretation. My point was, that predictive advanced stats are dynamic and subject to many variables throughout a season. The Canucks' stats I posted are static. They cannot be changed. Both, however, and I am in agreement with you, are pretty much useless at predicting anything down the road. That was the point of my post — dismantling the value of advanced stats and using static stats to do it. You can only trust one of them, but only as a snapshot of the day they're referenced.

Not sure what you are talking about. Possession stats are also static based on the day you reference them.

Your so called real stats are also subject to many variables. Like no one thinks JT Miller is a top 3 offensive player in the NHL. He is sitting there according to the counting numbers, but we all know that is just due to many variables that have allowed him to temporarily hold that spot despite his actual talent being nowhere near that level.

And everyone knows he won't finish the season top 3 in scoring because the counting numbers are only good in large sample sizes. There are literally no difference between what you call predictive advanced stats and "real stats". They are both just stats. People feel that the advanced stats give a better indicator of what is actually happening on the ice because they increase the sample size by using many more events.

We know that stats are more accurate with larger sample size so it just makes sense to look at the largest sample size possible.

 

[jackjohnson]

If the Canucks had good stats I would say they have a good chance of staying in first.

But they don't. So they will regress to the mean. Probably lose in the first round and go back to being an average team next year fighting for a playoff spot.

at beginning of the year you guys were saying Canucks wont make the playoffs. Then the first 10 games you guys were talking about sample size and how canucks will still miss the playoffs. At the 20 game mark you guys brought up the PDO stats and said we could be a wild card and Oilers will soon take over the Canucks. Now you are saying the Canucks might not stay first due to bad stats at the halfway point. Its always entertaining to see how people like you always end up being wrong

My biggest wish this season is Canucks facing Oilers in playoffs and booting them out like vegas did last season.

 

[Chairman Maouth]

They actually way overacheived in the regular season. And possession stats are not really more predictive than whatever you called "hard stats".

They both tell what has happened. Its just possession stats use a bigger sample size, so they can be more predictive over large sample sizes.

Maybe you are mad that Boeser isn't going to shoot over 20% over the whole season. Get mad at math. I dont care. Math doesn't care either if you get mad.

There is a reason people use these stats and they are right way more often than the people using their gut feel.

If the Canucks were top 5 in possession stats, Canucks fans would be shouting it from the rooftops. We both know this. I mean they used it loudly and often to call Chris Tanev a top five NHL defenceman.

We both know that Vancity fans are only downplaying possession stats at this point in time because they don't favor their team.

Why the ad hominem attack? Those tactics are often used by mad people.

We're a point out of first place in the new year. And we got there partially by chewing up the Oilers and spitting them out like a mouthful of spoiled clams. Now that's a reason to be mad.

Me, mad? No. Life is quite good.

I will grant you one thing though. Predictive stats can be amazingly accurate. If there's a Canucks' thread anywhere on this board, I predict that you will be there to tell us how bad the Canucks are.

You can run with your stats all the way to Rogers Place where your stats and about 20 bucks will get you an Edmonton greaseburger.

 

[Bank Shot]

at beginning of the year you guys were saying Canucks wont make the playoffs. Then the first 10 games you guys were talking about sample size and how canucks will still miss the playoffs. At the 20 game mark you guys brought up the PDO stats and said we could be a wild card and Oilers will soon take over the Canucks. Now you are saying the Canucks might not stay first due to bad stats at the halfway point. Its always entertaining to see how people like you always end up being wrong

My biggest wish this season is Canucks facing Oilers in playoffs and booting them out like vegas did last season.

What do you mean you people? Did I say the Canucks wouldn't make the playoffs after 10 games? Seems like you are just taking what one person may have said and applying it to everyone?

 

[BurnabyJoe7]

Vancouver was expected to miss playoffs according to geniuses here, not even middle of the pack team. No wonder everyone here is shell shocked seeing them on top of the standings. Only few people that had a bit of common sense and could see improvements predicted Canucks as a wild card team. Now those people who peedicted Canucks would be bottom feeders this year seem to.have become experts in PDO and underlying stats

I know all Canuck fans aren't this ignorant. PDO is very simply save percentage+shooting percentage and a moron could understand that. Call that an underlying stat to goals scored and goals against if you will, but we're not talking about xGF or any advanced stat which have their flaws. If a player was shooting 50% and a goalie had a save percentage of .990 to start the season, would you expect them to maintain that pace? That's the only argument here: that the Canucks currently have a higher PDO than any team has finished a season with since they started tracking it. I believe the Bruins of last year hold that record and look at how that turned out for them.

Call it everyone hating on your team if you will but it's a fair assessment. Pair that with their advanced stats (which are very similar to last year at 5 on 5) and it's very fair to say they are overacheiving based on their play and where they are in the standings. If you don't like people spitting facts then maybe you should stick to the Canucks board.

 

[jackjohnson]

One point out of first place overall in the league; most wins in the league; first in goals for; 5th in goals against; two players in the top 10 in scoring; two defencemen among the top 10 defencemen in scoring; arguably the best goaltending tandem in the league.

Those are hard stats. They are not predictive.

Using your predictive advanced stats, let us know which team is awarded the Stanley Cup based on advanced stats. Last year Boston won the cup. I think it's on the shelf beside their President's Trophy.

Its tough to argue with posters that ignore facts and stats like wins, GF and GA and points and win%. They also cant bring up the sample size BS since we are already at the halfway point. So the only way to discredit the number 2 team in
the league Is by talking about underlying stats. If after 40 games, a team is 2nd in NHL, does that mean they are an average team?? A bad team?? The mental gymnastics that one goes through to justify the opposite of what the results are saying is insanity.

 

[Bank Shot]

Why the ad hominem attack? Those tactics are often used by mad people.

We're a point out of first place in the new year. And we got there partially by chewing up the Oilers and spitting them out like a mouthful of spoiled clams. Now that's a reason to be mad.

Me, mad? No. Life is quite good.

I will grant you one thing though. Predictive stats can be amazingly accurate. If there's a Canucks' thread anywhere on this board, I predict that you will be there to tell us how bad the Canucks are.

You can run with your stats all the way to Rogers Place where your stats and about 20 bucks will get you an Edmonton greaseburger.

Predictive stats can be amazingly accurate


You keep.calling them predictive stats. They are just possession stats.

If you agree that the possession stats are more predictive than the "real stats" then that just means that they are better stats.

Stats are just a proxy used to tell us what is happening in the game. If you think some stats are more accurate than others, you should probably use the stats that are more accurate rather than the ones that are less.

I mean that just makes sense from a logical standpoint.

 

[jackjohnson]

What do you mean you people? Did I say the Canucks wouldn't make the playoffs after 10 games? Seems like you are just taking what one person may have said and applying it to everyone?

I remember its certain oilers posters and you also keep discrediting Canucks every game the Canucks play.

 

[Bank Shot]

I remember its certain oilers posters and you also keep discrediting Canucks every game the Canucks play.

I am? I'm commenting in one thread that their possession stats don't indicate a first place team.