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

[jackjohnson]

They’re an average five on five team with a good powerplay. Their goaltending was awful last year and is amazing this year because this happens. Amazing run of good fortune turning shots into goals.

The lessons here:
- shooting and goaltending heavily influence the standings and can swing wildly year over year.
- People consistently underestimate the tails of the distribution when making predictions about the future.
- Don’t bet on hockey.

View attachment 795023

True, i agree with you. The numbers dont predict anything. Just dont know why people are still going on about this on this forum which is a mystery.

 

[jackjohnson]

I don't even know how to respond to this wall of text that clearly didn't read my post. I said that you shouldn't discredit people pointing out concerning underlying numbers. It had absolutely nothing to do with discrediting the Canucks. People are pointing out some valid concerns.

You need to learn to separate the trolls from the people providing honest feedback. Not every thing is an attack on your team.

I would discredit them because they are using stats that doesnt show what happens in the near future and it doesnt even predict what effects it will have on the team. People saying Canucks will not stay in first place because of this or that stat regressing in future doesnt tell anything regarding the future. To use it as a determining factor of how good the team is while ignoring other stats is also silly and foolish. So i will always discredit those people pointing out these stats as some sort of proof of how good or bad a team is or how they will end up in the standings at the end of the season or how they will play in playoffs. Its complete nonsense to predict the future and you know it.

 

[Dust]

I would discredit them because they are using stats that doesnt show what happens in the near future and it doesnt even predict what effects it will have on the team. People saying Canucks will not stay in first place because of this or that stat regressing in future doesnt tell anything regarding the future. To use it as a determining factor of how good the team is while ignoring other stats is also silly and foolish. So i will always discredit those people pointing out these stats as some sort of proof of how good or bad a team is or how they will end up in the standings at the end of the season or how they will play in playoffs. Its complete nonsense to predict the future and you know it.

It's like a meteorologist. Sometimes they are right, often times they are not. I wouldn't call it complete nonsense though.

 

[RobsonStreet]

True, i agree with you. The numbers dont predict anything. Just dont know why people are still going on about this on this forum which is a mystery.

I mean, they’re not useless. They’re better than flipping a coin and usually less biased than gut feeling. It’s just that we’re talking about the NHL, this NHL:

Boston is supposed to be bad now but isn’t bad because last year when they were supposed to originally get bad they had one amazing goalie. But then a hall of fame player retired and now they have two amazing goalies. Maybe next year someone else retires and then they have three amazing goalies? Or they maybe get bad.

Edmonton was a supposedly a cup contender and now they definitely aren’t, unless they are. But it’s Edmonton so they aren’t. Unless you like Edmonton and then… I don’t know, are they?

Buffalo and Ottawa were going to take a leap ahead like New Jersey last season. New Jersey, the team that was once bad with the promise they could one day be good but then became good, when some people thought maybe they were still bad, and others knew they were actually good. Now they are good but playing kind of bad, but not Edmonton bad or Calgary bad.

Speaking of, Calgary was supposed to be good based on their underlying numbers last year but are not good because of their regular numbers this year. I’ve had a look at their numbers for next year and let me tell you, there are several.

LA looks good, but what kind of good are they? Vegas good, Boston good, Edmonton bad-good, Vancouver good-bad, new New Jersey good, old New Jersey good?

 

[HockeyWooot]

The more important question-
"Can they continue to do it quietly?"

 

[jackjohnson]

I mean, they’re not useless. They’re better than flipping a coin and usually less biased than gut feeling. It’s just that we’re talking about the NHL, this NHL:

Boston is supposed to be bad now but isn’t bad because last year when they were supposed to originally get bad they had one amazing goalie. But then a hall of fame player retired and now they have two amazing goalies. Maybe next year someone else retires and then they have three amazing goalies? Or they maybe get bad.

Edmonton was a supposedly a cup contender and now they definitely aren’t, unless they are. But it’s Edmonton so they aren’t. Unless you like Edmonton and then… I don’t know, are they?

Buffalo and Ottawa were going to take a leap ahead like New Jersey last season. New Jersey, the team that was once bad with the promise they could one day be good but then became good, when some people thought maybe they were still bad, and others knew they were actually good. Now they are good but playing kind of bad, but not Edmonton bad or Calgary bad.

Speaking of, Calgary was supposed to be good based on their underlying numbers last year but are not good because of their regular numbers this year. I’ve had a look at their numbers for next year and let me tell you, there are several.

LA looks good, but what kind of good are they? Vegas good, Boston good, Edmonton bad-good, Vancouver good-bad, new New Jersey good, old New Jersey good?

Not totally useless in terms of saying they might regress due to higher PDO numbers but still useless in the sense that you never know when regression would happen or if it even happens because they could get Soucy back soon and maybe do trade deadline deals to improve the team even more. Its a crapshoot because team roster, coaching etc. Are never static and its more dynamic with Canucks which has made many trades over the past few months to improve their team. Many people dont factor these changes in their predictions when looking at hard numbers so thats why i say its useless to use it for accurate prediction.

 

[JAK]

No one mentioned that the Canucks scored 6 lucky bounce goals against Senators? Canucks out shot 29:11 in the last 40 after scoring 5 lucky bounces in the first!

What a game for the PDO fans to argue about.

PDO is like +/- IMO, good indicator of something, but not everything.

What PDO needs is a full breakdown.
PDO when leading/tied/trailing after 20/40.
PDO when tied from start of the game.
PDO when leading by one goal.
PDO when trailing by one goal.
PDO after scoring/giving up first goal.
PDO after two goal lead/deficit.
PDO after 3+ goal lead/deficit.
5on5 PDO for all of the above to take away PP/SH time.

And then those PDO stats over 60 minutes.
And then PDO split of back to back games.

PDO x high danger chances% also would help indicate if the team is winning by luck or are they opportunistic and then play strong defense.


No one has bothered to try and breakdown what PDO actually means, or how to actually have an objective view of it. Circumstances matter, and PDO does not care about the scores of the game.

Here's one fun one to drag in the fight debaters.
PDO after a fight when trailing by 1/2/3+
Do fighting change momentum? Does fighting belong in the game?

 

[BurnabyJoe7]

Some people in here don't even know what a statistic is. It's a measurement of something at a specific point in time, it's just data. People will make predictions with that information however they like. Just because a stat isn't predictive doesn't mean it's incorrect.

If a baseball player was batting .500 his first month of the MLB season most would agree he will regress as we haven't seen a player even hit .400 since the 1940s. When? As the season progresses. A stat isn't predicting future events and saying at game #60 team A will 100% lose and regress.

Some Canuck fans in here have such an inferiority complex that they treat every mention of historical stats as trolling. Your team is essentially batting .500 and that's expected to drop throughout the season. Sure, they might finish at .500, but it's highly unlikely. If that batting average does drop, expect to lose more games and to drop in the standings. That's the point everyone is making.

There's a reason teams have analytical departments and focus on specific advanced stats. They sure have their flaws, but it's been a great indicator of team succes when paired with other factors. The last decade of cup winners have all had great 5on5 regular season stats with the exception of Washington, which has provided a sense of confidence in using advanced stats.

If numbers and stats aren't interesting to you then just watch the games, but don't point to how useless they are just because you don't understand them and/or they don't pump your team's tires. Some of the takes in here are just embarassing from an educational standpoint.

 

[bossram]

They're team that controls 50% of shots/chances, but do have elite goaltending and above-average shooters. This is a formula that will lead to getting the balance of goals, and is what teams like Boston and the Rangers have done for multiple seasons to remain near the top of the league standings.

That said, what they're doing right now is clearly unsustainable. Unless you think they are the best shooting + saving team in recorded NHL history, they will undoubtedly regress at some point.

 

[DimitriL07]

Ooooooouooo

La La La La

 

[jackjohnson]

The more important question-
"Can they continue to do it quietly?"

Only without Oilers fans

Some people in here don't even know what a statistic is. It's a measurement of something at a specific point in time, it's just data. People will make predictions with that information however they like. Just because a stat isn't predictive doesn't mean it's incorrect.

If a baseball player was batting .500 his first month of the MLB season most would agree he will regress as we haven't seen a player even hit .400 since the 1940s. When? As the season progresses. A stat isn't predicting future events and saying at game #60 team A will 100% lose and regress.

Some Canuck fans in here have such an inferiority complex that they treat every mention of historical stats as trolling. Your team is essentially batting .500 and that's expected to drop throughout the season. Sure, they might finish at .500, but it's highly unlikely. If that batting average does drop, expect to lose more games and to drop in the standings. That's the point everyone is making.

There's a reason teams have analytical departments and focus on specific advanced stats. They sure have their flaws, but it's been a great indicator of team succes when paired with other factors. The last decade of cup winners have all had great 5on5 regular season stats with the exception of Washington, which has provided a sense of confidence in using advanced stats.

If numbers and stats aren't interesting to you then just watch the games, but don't point to how useless they are just because you don't understand them and/or they don't pump your team's tires. Some of the takes in here are just embarassing from an educational standpoint.

Nice essay but you forget hockey is not baseball and there is more luck involved in hockey. More shots doesnt always translate to wins similar to how more saves doesnt translate into wins. You can use stats but to make it as a guarantee of what will happen in the future is foolish and dumb. You can bring up the stats but dont make predictions of what will happen next.

 

[Breakers]

What did I say that wasn't just factual?

Am I lying by saying the Cancuks have poor possession stats?


Possession stats have been the most accurate predictor of playoff success for years.

Thats why people keep using them.

Isnt Pittsburgh almost dead last in their division
Despite being a top possession team?

 

[jackjohnson]

They're team that controls 50% of shots/chances, but do have elite goaltending and above-average shooters. This is a formula that will lead to getting the balance of goals, and is what teams like Boston and the Rangers have done for multiple seasons to remain near the top of the league standings.

That said, what they're doing right now is clearly unsustainable. Unless you think they are the best shooting + saving team in recorded NHL history, they will undoubtedly regress at some point.

Any team that has been playing great now will regress at some point. Problem is you dont know when that would be. Otherwise you arent saying anything ground breaking. Canucks could lose some games in the upcoming long road trip.

 

[Coffey]

Only without Oilers fans

And if we do stop, I'm sure there will be 10 threads on the mains by your fans pumping each others tires the next day.

 

[jackjohnson]

And if we do stop, I'm sure there will be 10 threads on the mains by your fans pumping each others tires the next day.

If a tree falls in a forest with no one there to hear it, will it still make a sound??

 

[Coffey]

If a tree falls in a forest with no one there to hear it, will it still make a sound??

Empty forest with nobody around to hear it?

Post it in the Flames forum then.

 

[thekernel]

Canucks have definitely made an art out of getting an early lead and sitting on it.

30 out of 32 of NHL teams have positive shot attempt differentials while losing. Canucks are blitzing the league in "time played with the lead". There's going to be some stats that look wonky as a result.

 

[BurnabyJoe7]

Only without Oilers fans

Nice essay but you forget hockey is not baseball and there is more luck involved in hockey. More shots doesnt always translate to wins similar to how more saves doesnt translate into wins. You can use stats but to make it as a guarantee of what will happen in the future is foolish and dumb. You can bring up the stats but dont make predictions of what will happen next.

xGF% is often the main advanced stat used and it's not just a measurement of shots. It's actually impressive how ignorant you are on the topic.

And did you even read my post? If you did, you're having some issues with processing the information you read because I specifically mentioned stats don't predict nor do they guarantee future events.

We get it, advanced stats don't support the Canucks being a top team in the league and that frustrates you. Get over it.

 

[North Cole]

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.

But why would you take any stats, static or otherwise? Stats either have value or they do not. Throwing out some stats because they are predictive is just subjective, what you consider static others might consider predictive.

Unless the stats are generated in some flawed way, the stats themselves are objective measures of something. This reads like you think static stats are not used to shit on or prop up teams, or to predict anything. People spam about their W-L record all the time and frequently use that to predict who the better team is.

At the end of the day, if you believe they are just historical snapshots then there is nothing to suggest that the Vancouver that beat Ottawa last night is better than Philly. The only thing that would matter would be their head to head record. It would be entirely irrelevant that Vancouver is considerably ahead of them in the standings and GD and anything else, because that amalgam of stats were generated by playing other teams. Thus by static stats, Vancouver is both better than every team they beat, and worse than every team they lost too. Sure, I guess that results in you living in the moment at any given time but it seems awfully convulted.

Edit - also it should be noted that your "static" stats are dynamic. Especially since you frequently tout the position in the standings. GF, GA, and win/loss frequently change. If a team did a full 180, they would drop like a rock or rise quickly in pretty well all of those stats. You can argue how likely a team is to do a 180, but that doesn't change the reality that if they did, their counting stats would get badly obliterated.

 

[jackjohnson]

xGF% is often the main advanced stat used and it's not just a measurement of shots. It's actually impressive how ignorant you are on the topic.

And did you even read my post? If you did, you're having some issues with processing the information you read because I specifically mentioned stats don't predict nor do they guarantee future events.

We get it, advanced stats don't support the Canucks being a top team in the league and that frustrates you. Get over it.

I dont have issue with processing information. You seem to have issues with anyone disagreeing on how to use stats properly. Underlying stats dont tell the whole story either. If you take last nights canucks game, you would think Sens dominated the Canucks based on shots and barely lost but that was never the case as Canucks scored 5 in the first and cruised to a win. They wonnthe game in the first 20 minutes but underlying stats want you to think opposite of what actually happened. This is why i dont solely rely on stats. Say what you want, but looking at stats only is foolish especially when taken out of context.

 

[bossram]

Any team that has been playing great now will regress at some point. Problem is you dont know when that would be. Otherwise you arent saying anything ground breaking. Canucks could lose some games in the upcoming long road trip.

No, this is clearly nothing groundbreaking. But still needs to be said because so many people don't understand it.

No. A team that is playing sustainably dominant hockey shouldn't be expected to regress.

Yes, I expect the Canucks to lose some games on this road trip and do not expect them to have a .689 points percentage going forward.

 

[jackjohnson]

Canucks have definitely made an art out of getting an early lead and sitting on it.

30 out of 32 of NHL teams have positive shot attempt differentials while losing. Canucks are blitzing the league in "time played with the lead". There's going to be some stats that look wonky as a result.

Its good that you notice this and how it affect their underlying stats. Too bad the stat nerds dont analyze every stat to figure this out. Scoring first in most games and getting leads early and often will lead to the team cruising for the win while being outshot. Canucks have had this pattern for many games which leads to the wonky stats. This is why people need to analyze all the stats and look at the big picture insread of just looking at xGF. Numbers without any context is useless in terms of determining if a team is good or bad, especially in hockey.

 

[jokesondee]

The Jets and Canucks havent played each-other yet but play 3 times coming up. Should be fun!

 

[BCNate]

The Jets and Canucks havent played each-other yet but play 3 times coming up. Should be fun!

Canucks have 7 games VS Kings and Jets left. Have to figure these games will have significant impact on the playoff seeding. It's going to be awesome to finally play some meaningful games down the stretch.

FYI, for those expecting a huge regression--- .500 from here on out puts them at 96 points. Canucks are running out of runway to have this epic collapse you are expecting.

 

[jackjohnson]

No, this is clearly nothing groundbreaking. But still needs to be said because so many people don't understand it.

No. A team that is playing sustainably dominant hockey shouldn't be expected to regress.

Yes, I expect the Canucks to lose some games on this road trip and do not expect them to have a .689 points percentage going forward.

Canucks could very well keep that 0.689, improve on it or go down. No one knows what will happen similar to how people predicted Canucks will not sustain their point percentage at 10 game mark yet here were are at 40 game mark and they still have similar point percentage as the 10 game mark in the beginning of the season. As i said, you cant predict what will happen in the near future but can say they could possibly regress at some point. That point, no one knows. It could be on the road trip, could be next month or next year. But i can tell you they have factors that could maintain their current play for sometime. Their coach, their goalies, forward depth, elite centers and elite dman and their structure in teems of how they play defense and how they forecheck. If it was a team composed of scrubs and young rookies then they would have regressed a long time ago like Anaheim but this is not the case.