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

[Chairman Maouth]

@Chairman Maouth operation thread lock seems be in full effect, we’ve moved on from the fact that PDO has already been disproved to just full name slinging. They want to wreck the juju now!

I don't have the extra buttons to do that anymore.

Even if I did I would not. The bottom line, this is the main board where everybody is equal. You're going to be disagreed with. Can it become overwhelming? That's the rub. Equality is granted here, but it can come at a price.

 

[Three On Zero]

I don't have the extra buttons to do that anymore.

Even if I did I would not. The bottom line, this is the main board where everybody is equal. You're going to be disagreed with. Can it become overwhelming? That's the rub. Equality is granted here, but it can come at a price.

Generating discussion is always healthy, fans will always have rose coloured glasses and think higher of the team/player they cheer for.

The best part is it’s usually two Canadian franchises squabbling while they both have achieved next to nothing that’s worth squabbling over.

I think we also see frustration from fan bases that expect more

1. Vancouver has floundered and missed the playoffs due to Benning
2. Edmonton has floundered and struggled with a player who’s going to do down as a top 10 all time

 

[Chairman Maouth]

Yeah, I'll be honest. Jackjohnson makes it a little hard to be a Canucks fan on these boards.

But judging the Canucks fan base on these boards by the actions of Jackjohnson is like judging a society by the inmates in a maximum security prison.


Lol. Two sides of the same coin.

Jack is certainly ambitious and outspoken in Canucks' threads, but he is not reflective of Canucks' fans. He is only reflective of himself. In fact, none of us are reflective of anyone but ourselves. I agree with some of what Jack says and disagree with other things. What he does on threads involving other teams - I have no idea.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

This is also the mainboards, where we're allowed to come in and voice our opinions.

If you wanted a echochamber about how amazing Vancouver is this year, you have a subforum for that, dont you guys?

I, for one, miss when Canucks fans were crying about Benning and how bad of an owner Aquilini was

 

[eviohh26]

I, for one, miss when Canucks fans were crying about Benning and how bad of an owner Aquilini was

Those really were the days weren't they? Good times.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

Those really were the days weren't they? Good times.

it really was, there was no such thing as Canucks fans

 

[EpochLink]

I, for one, miss when Canucks fans were crying about Benning and how bad of an owner Aquilini was

Aquaman is still a bad owner, Jim Benning went into the witness protection program for years then came out defending his draft stance on Elias Pettersson.

All we see now is Aquaman chill with Wayne Gretzky, Chad Kroeger, Sean Payton and whoever is in his inner circles if the old boys club.

As for Jim Benning, boy got fat and stressed.

 

[eviohh26]

it really was, there was no such thing as Canucks fans

Ah yes. The entire fanbase is a bandwagon. Because you said so.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

Aquaman is still a bad owner, Jim Benning went into the witness protection program for years then came out defending his draft stance on Elias Pettersson.

All we see now is Aquaman chill with Wayne Gretzky, Chad Kroeger, Sean Payton and whoever is in his inner circles if the old boys club.

As for Jim Benning, boy got fat and stressed.

Pettersson
Demko
Miller
Boeser
Hughes

give that man some respect

 

[Rowlet]

Pettersson
Demko
Miller
Boeser
Hughes

give that man some respect

Give the scouting team the respect. Benning went ahead and took Virtanen over Nylander, Juolevi over Tkachuk, McCann over Pastrnak, and wanted Glass over Pettersson.

 

[EpochLink]

Pettersson
Demko
Miller
Boeser
Hughes

give that man some respect

He wanted to draft Cody Glass over Pettersson, it wasn’t until he was over ruled by the powers that be to get Pettersson instead. If Benning had his way, his meat and potatoes bullshit would’ve stuck.

 

[ChaoticOrange]

Yeah, I'll be honest. Jackjohnson makes it a little hard to be a Canucks fan on these boards.

But judging the Canucks fan base on these boards by the actions of Jackjohnson is like judging a society by the inmates in a maximum security prison.


Lol. Two sides of the same coin.

Criticism of the Canucks: I think they might not be quite as good as some think they are, their advanced stats aren’t great and everyone is having career years. Probably not sustainable longterm but they’ll comfortably make the playoffs

Criticism of the Oilers: LOL
COILERS SUCK

 

[Grifter3511]

Criticism of the Canucks: I think they might not be quite as good as some think they are, their advanced stats aren’t great and everyone is having career years. Probably not sustainable longterm but they’ll comfortably make the playoffs

Criticism of the Oilers: LOL
COILERS SUCK

That must suck for you.

 

[Shareefruck]

It's not really that interesting a question though. I think we know the answer.

We know there are teams and styles of play that do lead to above-100 PDOs consistently. We've seen it over time (in the modern era, teams like Boston and New York). Though in most cases, teams with blistering PDOs tend to return back to a more normal number.

However the Canucks are running a PDO hotter than a Penguins team that had Jagr and Lemiuex. The only conclusion that could lead one to believing that this level of shooting efficiency is sustainable for the Canucks is that they are simply the most skilled and efficient shooting team in the history of the NHL. This seems hard to believe.

I think we can conclude that luck definitely has a significant degree to their success. It doesn't mean they are not a good team.

I certainly don't know the answer, and I find this explanation pretty unsatisfying, personally-- Admittedly I haven't paid attention to the PDO stat before this, but I would like someone who's watched these high PDO teams and watched the Canucks to clarify these results more in context so that they make sense and paint a clearer picture for me of what's actually happening.

Did Boston and New York ACTUALLY play a similar style as the Canucks currently do, where they seem to deliberately and consciously avoid peppering the net with shots (even though peppering as many shots as possible COULD be a better strategy, even for a highly skilled team)? Or are we just saying that they were highly skilled puck possession teams who were so skilled that you would expect them to get high PDOs? Because I don't think that's the same scenario (if that's really all that people are looking at, I'd consider their takes on what's happening pretty flawed).

If they DID play the same style (beyond just being highly skilled and having strong puck possession), however, WHY did they return back to a more normal number? What did people observe on the ice and in their games that became a visible problem of unsustainability? Did those high danger chances start to disappear, if so, why? Did they get just as many high danger chances/perfect play/open-net tip-ins, but they just inexplicably started to miss on them at a rate that matches teams that shoot on lower percentage chances? Did they become predictable and easy to plan around because their style of play was too fancy and hesitant? Is waiting for the perfect chance before shooting somehow too taxing, resulting in less effectiveness over time? What was the actual culprit?

What's working for the Canucks right now isn't really a matter of how much skill is present or whether a team has Jagrs or Lemieuxs, from what I've observed (although some baseline skill is obviously necessary to play the style they are), it's a matter of approach and play style, IMO. Dakota Joshua is playing the same way, and he's not really that skilled.

I'm open to the idea of what they're doing being unsustainable, or hell, even the possibility that they actually AREN'T a good team (your reassurance that they are means nothing to me-- my skepticism doesn't come from feeling offended on behalf of the team or something-- who cares about that?).

I'm just looking for a better argument than "The numbers continuing would be unprecedented/historic, ignoring all other factors leading to them, and there's no way they're as good as teams with more highly skilled guys (which again seems pretty irrelevant)".

 

[mkatcherin00]

I for one welcome all the crying Oiler fans. Tell me again about this PDO you speak of. Sounds to me like you guys could use some PDO

They could actually. Need some of that accuracy magic. Our top shooter % wise would rank 8th on Vancouver lol

Now if we could just combine how badly we outplay teams with that % going up, then we're cookin

 

[trellaine201]

Sorry I hope they collapse. They do look for real though.

 

[Grifter3511]

I don't know the answer, and I find this explanation pretty unsatisfying, personally-- Admittedly I haven't paid attention to the PDO stat before this, but I would like someone who's watched these high PDO teams and watched the Canucks to clarify these results more in context so that they make sense and paint a clearer picture for me of what's actually happening.

Did Boston and New York ACTUALLY play a similar style as the Canucks currently do, where they seem to deliberately and consciously avoid peppering the net with shots (even though peppering as many shots as possible COULD be a better strategy, even for a highly skilled team)? Or are we just saying that they were highly skilled puck possession teams who were so skilled that you would expect them to get high PDOs? Because I don't think that's the same scenario (if that's really all that people are looking at, I'd consider their takes on what's happening pretty flawed).

If they DID play the same style (beyond just being highly skilled and having strong puck possession), however, WHY did they return back to a more normal number? What did people observe on the ice and in their games that became a visible problem of unsustainability? Did those high danger chances start to disappear, if so, why? Did they get just as many high danger chances/perfect play/open-net tip-ins, but they just inexplicably started to miss on them at a rate that matches teams that shoot on lower percentage chances? Did they become predictable and easy to plan around because their style of play was too fancy and hesitant? Is waiting for the perfect chance before shooting somehow too taxing, resulting in less effectiveness over time? What was the actual culprit?

What's working for the Canucks right now isn't really a matter of how much skill is present or whether a team has Jagrs or Lemieuxs, from what I've observed (although some baseline skill is obviously necessary to play the style they are), it's a matter of approach and play style, IMO. Dakota Joshua is playing the same way, and he's not really that skilled.

I'm open to the idea of what they're doing being unsustainable, or hell, even the possibility that they AREN'T a good team (your reassurance that they are means nothing to me-- my skepticism doesn't come from feeling offended on behalf of the team or something). I just need a better argument than "The numbers continuing would be unprecedented/historic, ignoring all other factors leading to them".

I have no idea what the Rangers PDO was like the past few years, but Rangers definitely liked to hold onto the puck WAY too long. Countless posts in gdts and 'this is not a good team' threads about how everyone is looking for the perfect pass and they need to stop playing so east/west and play a little more north/south.

So, in that respect, Rangers offense somewhat mirrored what we see from the canucks this year.

What's changed for them this year? A new coach for one. I'm not sure what else would explain the increased shooting, other than with injuries they just have more shoot first players, and ahl fodder.

One thing that has changed for sure is that Shesterkin sucks now.

 

[Shareefruck]

I have no idea what the Rangers PDO was like the past few years, but Rangers definitely liked to hold onto the puck WAY too long. Countless posts in gdts and 'this is not a good team' threads about how everyone is looking for the perfect pass and they need to stop playing so east/west and play a little more north/south.

So, in that respect, Rangers offense somewhat mirrored what we see from the canucks this year.

What's changed for them this year? A new coach for one. I'm not sure what else would explain the increased shooting, other than with injuries they just have more shoot first players, and ahl fodder.

One thing that has changed for sure is that Shesterkin sucks now.

Thanks for the insight.

Okay, so in this one case with the Rangers, they were in the same scenario, but instead of that style proving to be unsustainable over time despite continuing to be deployed with similar personnel, they instead actually just CHANGED their style/personnel to one that resulted in a higher quantity of low % shooting?

So then this one isn't really much of a comparable/precedent, right?

 

[Grifter3511]

Okay, so they were in the same scenario, but instead of that style proving to be unsustainable over time despite continuing to be deployed with similar personnel, they instead actually just CHANGED their style/personnel to one that resulted in a higher quantity of low % shooting?

So then it's not really much of a comparable/precedent, right?

Yeah. It may be oversimplifying things a bit, but overall I'd say that's correct.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Mathematically, the longer this goes on the less likely it is that this is simply a hot streak. The handful of teams that have done the same thing to this point all had brilliant individual players and went deep into the playoffs.

 

[bossram]

I certainly don't know the answer, and I find this explanation pretty unsatisfying, personally-- Admittedly I haven't paid attention to the PDO stat before this, but I would like someone who's watched these high PDO teams and watched the Canucks to clarify these results more in context so that they make sense and paint a clearer picture for me of what's actually happening.

Did Boston and New York ACTUALLY play a similar style as the Canucks currently do, where they seem to deliberately and consciously avoid peppering the net with shots (even though peppering as many shots as possible COULD be a better strategy, even for a highly skilled team)? Or are we just saying that they were highly skilled puck possession teams who were so skilled that you would expect them to get high PDOs? Because I don't think that's the same scenario (if that's really all that people are looking at, I'd consider their takes on what's happening pretty flawed).

If they DID play the same style (beyond just being highly skilled and having strong puck possession), however, WHY did they return back to a more normal number? What did people observe on the ice and in their games that became a visible problem of unsustainability? Did those high danger chances start to disappear, if so, why? Did they get just as many high danger chances/perfect play/open-net tip-ins, but they just inexplicably started to miss on them at a rate that matches teams that shoot on lower percentage chances? Did they become predictable and easy to plan around because their style of play was too fancy and hesitant? Is waiting for the perfect chance before shooting somehow too taxing, resulting in less effectiveness over time? What was the actual culprit?

What's working for the Canucks right now isn't really a matter of how much skill is present or whether a team has Jagrs or Lemieuxs, from what I've observed (although some baseline skill is obviously necessary to play the style they are), it's a matter of approach and play style, IMO. Dakota Joshua is playing the same way, and he's not really that skilled.

I'm open to the idea of what they're doing being unsustainable, or hell, even the possibility that they actually AREN'T a good team (your reassurance that they are means nothing to me-- my skepticism doesn't come from feeling offended on behalf of the team or something-- who cares about that?).

I'm just looking for a better argument than "The numbers continuing would be unprecedented/historic, ignoring all other factors leading to them, and there's no way they're as good as teams with more highly skilled guys (which again seems pretty irrelevant)".

Drew Doubty had a fantastic answer on the Canucks inflated PDO below. It matches what I think and again fits in why I think this is mostly a solved question.

Regarding the other teams mentioned, yes, they did play deliberate styles (as well as have the talent) to support higher PDOs. The Rangers during the Shesterkin era have been a rush-heavy team, taking high quality, but a lower quantity of chances, with few cycle/in-zone shots being taken. Prior to this year, Shesterkin was playing at an elite level, which puffed up their PDO too. The Bruins have been a consistently stifling defensive team, protecting the house and allowing lower-grade shots against. Both styles facilitate higher PDOs (though crucially, not a 105 level like the Canucks).

From what I observed of the Canucks, they do create a low-ish quantity of overall shots, but do have the skill to create quality looks. I also observe them scoring an inordinate amount of deflection/random carom goals, as well as unscreened mid-range shots, and that is mostly due to luck.

Again, to believe the Canucks can sustain the highest ever PDO in NHL history, you'd have to believe they're either more efficient/talented than any other team ever, or they've unlocked a playstyle that maximizes efficiency that no other coach or club has discovered. I think the onus would be on you to explain why either of these scenarios would be true. Based on watching nearly every game and just the general likelihood of one of these scenarios, I do not find these to be plausible conclusions.

They are a good team. In the past 30 games they're above 52% xG and scoring chance share. And we know they have efficient players and plus-level goaltending. That is a threatening mix. They've also had a healthy dose of luck. It's possible to accept both things.

In no particular order I'd say the explanations for the Canucks high PDO are as follows:

1. Choosey shooters like Kuzmenko, Pettersson and Miller. Even Boeser isn't really a pure volume guy.
2. Many good -> great 1 shot scorers
3. Leading so often in games, especially early. I think they have scored first more than any team in the league and have the best differential in periods 1 and 2 - that leads to long periods of time where score effects are in play.
4. A top 5 goalie duo
5. A defensive structure which focuses on protecting the middle of the ice and allowing perimeter shots.
6. Luck - there's no question this is a factor here.

The debate is annoying because so many people want to say its all luck or its all skill rather than obviously being a mix of both. How much is anyone's guess, but the longer they do this, the more it tips in the direction of this team being able to maintain an above 100 pdo. 105? Not a chance.

 

[Sykur]

If they DID play the same style (beyond just being highly skilled and having strong puck possession), however, WHY did they return back to a more normal number? What did people observe on the ice and in their games that became a visible problem of unsustainability? Did those high danger chances start to disappear, if so, why? Did they get just as many high danger chances/perfect play/open-net tip-ins, but they just inexplicably started to miss on them at a rate that matches teams that shoot on lower percentage chances? Did they become predictable and easy to plan around because their style of play was too fancy and hesitant? Is waiting for the perfect chance before shooting somehow too taxing, resulting in less effectiveness over time? What was the actual culprit?

As a rule, ALL teams that have a hot start inevitably see a reduction in a stat like PDO as the season progresses and it has nothing to do with "regression to the mean". It has to do with the wear and tear of the season. The first month of the season a team is relatively healthy. The last month, everyone is sore. During the season, there are injuries, personnel changes, opponent adjustments, lead protection schemas/"greasy road games", trades/callups, playoff clinching, and other variables that a shit stat like PDO doesn't account for, but all contribute to a team's production efficiency.

NHL teams are not video game teams, where you get the same effort/performance out of your sprites in every game. The cumulative wear and tear of a protracted season has an attritional effect on every team, such that the team at the end, the one that hoists the Cup, is not the most skilled or best coached team, but simply the team that outlasts the others. PDO has no mechanism for determining which team this is.

 

[Mobiandi]

Probably the most obvious 1st round exit

 

[Sykur]

I'm just looking for a better argument than "The numbers continuing would be unprecedented/historic, ignoring all other factors leading to them, and there's no way they're as good as teams with more highly skilled guys (which again seems pretty irrelevant)".

Here's something to chew on: Thus far the Canucks have yet to lose a single game to injury to any of their core.

If you want to call PDO the luck stat, that's fine. They have been VERY lucky thus far. But that luck is through having a full lineup every game for half the season. If a major player (Demko, Pettersson, Miller, Hughes) suddenly has a season ending injury tomorrow (especially Hughes), and then the PDO drops to the mean and the team has an average record right to the playoffs and a R1 exit, you can point at the regression and say "atodaso".

But all that means is PDO is not the luck stat at all. It is the health stat. Because the team that stays healthiest stays good. And there's no such thing as a perfectly healthy team for a whole season. Every team gets its bumps and bruises (and even the Canucks have had a few - Soucy and Suter come to mind. They're integral members of the team, but they're not Hughes or Petey).

And for what it's worth: The Canucks were a shit team for the past decade (no one is denying that), but they also lost the most man-games to injury of any team in the entire NHL.

So for an entire decade the Canucks were not just bad, but extremely unlucky. Maybe this is the year the hockey gods finally smile on this west coast fanbase for once.

 

[andora]

Here's something to chew on: Thus far the Canucks have yet to lose a single game to injury to any of their core.

If you want to call PDO the luck stat, that's fine. They have been VERY luck thus far. But that luck is through having a full lineup every game for half the season. If a major player (Demko, Pettersson, Miller) suddenly has a season ending injury tomorrow, and then the PDO drops to the mean and the team has an average record through the playoffs and a R1 exit, you can point at the regression and say "atodaso".

But all that means is PDO is not the luck stat at all. It is the health stat. Because the team that stays healthiest stays good.

And for what it's worth: The Canucks were a shit team for the past decade (no one is denying that), but they also lost the most man-games to injury of any team in the NHL.

View attachment 802172

You are the variable witch

It is a compliment