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

[Baby Pettersson]

Demko is a good goaltender and there's nothing fishy about a .916 save percentage from him.

It's the offensive numbers that are as egregious as I've ever seen it in the NHL. Relative to the rest of the league, which is the point of sustainability here, you have to go back like 4 decades to find a stat as stupid as Vancouver at 13.8%.

If you regress them to 12.2%, which would STILL be unsustainable and STILL be #1 in the NHL this year, they'd lose 20 goals in 40 games played. That's like 8 points in the standings alone, and it doesn't address how GF going down often equates to GA going up. Less offensive confidence, less conservative hockey protecting leads, etc.

They should still be a playoff team? I don't think so. At least, not a safe one. They'd be in the wild card fight. This makes sense as they're at best an inch better on paper than they have been in years past and other tell-tale numbers like shot differential and scoring chance differential are signaling this is an average hockey team.

All I'm saying is enjoy this while it lasts and hope your management team understands it's not real., because there is serious work that needs to be done if they want to get back here.

Bro, if you take away 8 points, Canucks are still 1st in the Pacific.

Glad you can finally see they are a 1st place team.

 

[Raistlin]

I’ve been trying to catch more Canucks games to watch. They have been pretty damn impressive every time I’ve seen them.

They are just entertaining. Every game, someone is giving an all star performance. I expect immediate improvement, but I didn't believe they can be #1 in the league at the halfway point. Just along for the ride.

 

[BCNate]

Not sure what Joy you guys get from discussing this to death like it will change anything. Then you make up a stupid theory that if their PDO is lower then they would be 8 points lower in the standings. Sure and if they don't have Demko and Petersson and Miller then they would be lower than Flames. If you also take out tocchet and Hughes, they would be lower. If I was taller the. I would be in NBA.

I mean these nonsense arguments just only proves how much you don't know about hockey.


It's so funny how he comes up with this out of thin air. They are trying to use algebra to determine how good Canucks are.

I mean if you take 8 points away from us, we are tied with Vegas for the division lead.

 

[jackjohnson]

I mean if you take 8 points away from us, we are tied with Vegas for the division lead.

Yep but it's funny how they are now trying to discredit Canucks win by trying to lower their PDO and make up BS theories of how many points they would lose in the standings. That's some mental gymnastics to get that conclusion

Nope. Their possession numbers are overall worse when they're tied in games. Bottom 10 in shot share and CF% when tied.

None of what was posted there accounts for the biggest gap in team shooting percentage in over 40 years.

That means the Canucks are the best team in over 40 years buddy. It just proves how elite these Canucks are right now, even more so than the lowly Oilers

 

[andora]

You wouldn't have a +24 goal differential outside of this thought experiment. You'd trail in more games, you'd give up more goals trying to get back into them. That's just how it works.

All we need is time to bear this out. So let's just see.

Cool.. what goals in which games did you take away.. i dont want to pick the same ones when pull my shit out of thin air

 

[RooBicks]

Yep but it's funny how they are now trying to discredit Canucks win by trying to lower their PDO and make up BS theories of how many points they would lose in the standings. That's some mental gymnastics to get that conclusion

It has absolutely no grounding in statistics - the conversions they're trying to make don't pass muster from a statistical perspective. The relationship between shooting percentage and/or save percentage and wins is just not so easily converted, and the idea that any given team's successes on either front immediately and entirely boil down to luck is a tired and lazy assumption. It's a bunch of amateurs trying to sound smart while effectively saying "I hate that team."

PDO is a potentially interesting indicator, but establishing its causes in any given case requires deeper analysis, and none of these dopes has even tried. They just cry "lucky" and pray they're correct. It's lazy and uninteresting analysis, and a better motivated statistician would work harder to get to the bottom of it. In fact, I would LOVE to hear a good faith effort at doing so because, while I think the Canucks have been lucky to a certain extent, I don't think the entirety of their historically unique PDO is explained by luck, and it would be interesting to hear a deeper dive into the impact of how their style of play may (or may not) be impacting the outcome.

 

[jackjohnson]

It has absolutely no grounding in statistics - the conversions they're trying to make don't pass muster from a statistical perspective. The relationship between shooting percentage and/or save percentage and wins is just not so easily converted, and the idea that any given team's successes on either front immediately and entirely boil down to luck is a tired and lazy assumption. It's a bunch of amateurs trying to sound smart while effectively saying "I hate that team."

So true but it's funny how most Oilers fans became expert staticians this season

 

[petterdaddy]

My fun / 60 is through the roof this season, at least. Luck or not, this is the most enjoyment I’ve had as a Canucks fan since 2010-11.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

Demko is a good goaltender and there's nothing fishy about a .916 save percentage from him.

It's the offensive numbers that are as egregious as I've ever seen it in the NHL. Relative to the rest of the league, which is the point of sustainability here, you have to go back like 4 decades to find a stat as stupid as Vancouver at 13.8%.

If you regress them to 12.2%, which would STILL be unsustainable and STILL be #1 in the NHL this year, they'd lose 20 goals in 40 games played. That's like 8 points in the standings alone, and it doesn't address how GF going down often equates to GA going up. Less offensive confidence, less conservative hockey protecting leads, etc.

They should still be a playoff team? I don't think so. At least, not a safe one. They'd be in the wild card fight. This makes sense as they're at best an inch better on paper than they have been in years past and other tell-tale numbers like shot differential and scoring chance differential are signaling this is an average hockey team.

All I'm saying is enjoy this while it lasts and hope your management team understands it's not real., because there is serious work that needs to be done if they want to get back here.

If you take away 8 pts from Edmonton they will be near the very bottom of the league

And if you do the same thing to Vancouver, they will still be leading the division

 

[andora]

If you take away 8 pts from Edmonton they will be near the very bottom of the league

And if you do the same thing to Vancouver, they will still be leading the division

No no.. he forgot to say edmonton gained those 8 goals he took away.. they gained them in third periods they were tied in october and november

 

[Gurilla]

Canucks Jets

Top of the league

 

[bossram]

As someone who's into analytics, I'm fully willing to admit this run definitely has some luck factored into it, PDO luck and even injury luck as well(Soucy has really been the only big significant injury this season so far). But at the same time the PDO crowd is overlooking some things:

1. Canucks average a league high 24.5 mins per game at 5v5 with the lead, guess what score factors do to corsi/xgf? For context, the next highest team is LA and they're a distant 2nd at 20.5 mins and the league average is around 16 mins. And before you throw score adjusted numbers at me, I find those formulas to be flawed, sure they can help but only so much.

2. Using a PDO baseline of 100 for every team is just a lazy/flawed way to analyze teams, it's the classic analytical safety net argument of "well I can't predict it with the public data available to me so it must be luck!". The fact is that that some teams do have better goaltending, some teams do defend against cross ice passes and off the rush better. Some teams do a better job of screening opposing goalies on their shots, some teams do have more gifted shooters and playmakers that generate higher quality shots for their teams. The Blues had a run for about a couple of years with their on-ice sh%'s were pretty high, then you dig deeper and realize they were also one of the best teams in the league at high danger passing and cross ice passes, so rather than 100+ games of luck, it's much more likely that they passed up on low danger shots and instead preferred trying to get goalies to mvoe laterally before shooting the puck. Meanwhile teams like Carolina will shoot from anywhere. There's no way in hell I'm going into a season expecting the Canucks and Canes to finish with similar on-ice PDO with the way both teams are built.


I think once public data improves, we'll improve on xGF models and get better at projecting teams' baseline PDO. Just like how we improved on corsi with xgf in the first place, it wasn't too long ago when Corsi(or Fenwick) was king and teams/players were getting called lucky/unlucky until xgf helped clarify some of that. I fully expect we see xgf models improve in the next few years and some of these "luck" explanations will go away.

I mean yeah, most of the reasonable people in this thread (including me) know that some teams can sustain a PDO that is *not* 100 based on playstyle or the talent level of the players at their disposal. I mentioned the Rangers and Bruiins as modern era examples of that.

However, that typically floats them at a 101-102 PDO, with their shooting or save percentages being roughly 1% above average.

The question being debated here is whether the Canucks can maintain the highest PDO of the modern era and keep shooting at 13%. It seems pretty unlikely.

Really good points here. Would quibble a bit with #3 - I don't think score effects are really coupled to PDO (I do think their early scoring, which to a degree is percentage driven, contributes a bit to their pedestrian posession numbers).

IIRC there were studies done by public analytics people showing that teams leading typically have a higher shooting percentage.

It's an odd cycle. They have fortunate shooting luck to constantly be in the lead, which in turn creates a generally higher shooting percentage because they are already in the lead.

 

[bossram]

This is more informative, but again, it doesn't really answer my question, I'm curious what the reason is behind those other teams not being able to continue their high PDOs if their playstyles supported it. Is it ACTUALLY a sustainability issue (where they keep doing the things that would lead to that high PDO, but it just can't keep happening?), and what makes that play style unsustainable? Or is it just a matter of it being impossible for injuries/personnel/coaching to remain consistent enough to allow those conditions to exist long term? (as a Rangers fan seemed to point out, in their case, it wasn't really anything to do with being unable to sustain it, their playstyle just went in a different direction for some unrelated reason)

The onus isn't on anyone to prove anything (you're saying that as if I'm suggesting it necessarily IS sustainable, which I'm not intending to do), I'm looking for an actual explanation that's more compelling and interesting to me than "the numbers make it statistically unlikely for it to bear out, period, so I'm going with that."

Sure, it might be far more likely one way than the other, which allows you to play the odds, but that doesn't really tell you anything-- it isn't really a satisfying explanation that makes you go "Oh, of course that's actually what's happening, and I can see why that can't continue".

In the cases of the Rangers and Bruins, as I mentioned, they carried above-100 PDOs for several consecutive years. Is that not "sustainable"?

Again, these are answered questions. The Rangers coaching took their playstyle in a different direction. The Bruins are still running a 102 PDO this season. And yes, in other cases, you answered it yourself - there is constant roster and coaching turnover every year, as well as injuries, such that teams can't robotically produce the same outcomes or style of play. Opposing teams are also going to try to stop them from doing this, and I would assume coaching to counteract these playstyles is also a factor.

Some posters have provided several very thoughtful answers and explanations. You just ignore them and say, "well that explanation is not interesting or compelling to me". Alright then, that's fine. Then the onus IS on you to explain these phenomena. Why is elevated PDO generally not sustainable and why would it be sustainable in the case of the Canucks?

I don't want to come across as combative. I appreciate we can have a reasoned discussion. There are others in this thread that are just so uninformed and illogical that it's completely not worth responding to them.

 

[SK13]

So true but it's funny how most Oilers fans became expert staticians this season

Oilers fans pioneered half these analytics when Canucks fans were.. well, there were no Canucks fans. You're here in numbers because these are the only 6 good months you've had in a decade and the bandwagon is full.

I look forward to not one of you having the balls to post here once it happens.

 

[Petey O]

Canucks Jets

Top of the league

I'd like to meet whoever had that prediction before the season started so I can get the winning lotto numbers.

 

[bossram]

Cool.. what goals in which games did you take away.. i dont want to pick the same ones when pull my shit out of thin air

Andora, I know you're better than this man.

It's not unreasonable to say, "well, if a team had a lower shooting percentage, they'd probably have fewer wins because they scored fewer goals".

 

[bossram]

It has absolutely no grounding in statistics - the conversions they're trying to make don't pass muster from a statistical perspective. The relationship between shooting percentage and/or save percentage and wins is just not so easily converted, and the idea that any given team's successes on either front immediately and entirely boil down to luck is a tired and lazy assumption. It's a bunch of amateurs trying to sound smart while effectively saying "I hate that team."

PDO is a potentially interesting indicator, but establishing its causes in any given case requires deeper analysis, and none of these dopes has even tried. They just cry "lucky" and pray they're correct. It's lazy and uninteresting analysis, and a better motivated statistician would work harder to get to the bottom of it. In fact, I would LOVE to hear a good faith effort at doing so because, while I think the Canucks have been lucky to a certain extent, I don't think the entirety of their historically unique PDO is explained by luck, and it would be interesting to hear a deeper dive into the impact of how their style of play may (or may not) be impacting the outcome.

You're really kind of saying nothing here, and not following a lot of the more thoughtful posts in the thread.

There have been several posts explaining how playstyles (and specifically what those teams do) can lead to higher PDOs over a season or more (teams mentioned were STL, BOS, and NYR from the modern era). There were posts about how the Canucks playstyle is also doing this. There were also posts about how the Canucks are a legitimately good-team, from an xG or scoring chance differential perspective.

Conversely, there were posts about how the Canucks are shooting far above even the best shooting teams of the modern era, and that this is unlikely to continue. Visually, there are instances of Canucks getting "luck" in the sense of the majority of fortunate bounces going their way and that all of their core players have been healthy and in the lineup thus far.

There have been several good-faith efforts to discuss this from several posters. You're just ignoring them.

 

[jackjohnson]

Oilers fans pioneered half these analytics when Canucks fans were.. well, there were no Canucks fans. You're here in numbers because these are the only 6 good months you've had in a decade and the bandwagon is full.

I look forward to not one of you having the balls to post here once it happens.

Just loving how Canucks are living in your head rent free. The hate on Canucks is intense, can't wait to see how worst it gets if Canucks go on a cup run beating the Oilers.

You're really kind of saying nothing here, and not following a lot of the more thoughtful posts in the thread.

There have been several posts explaining how playstyles (and specifically what those teams do) can lead to higher PDOs over a season or more (teams mentioned were STL, BOS, and NYR from the modern era). There were posts about how the Canucks playstyle is also doing this. There were also posts about how the Canucks are a legitimately good-team, from an xG or scoring chance differential perspective.

Conversely, there were posts about how the Canucks are shooting far above even the best shooting teams of the modern era, and that this is unlikely to continue. Visually, there are instances of Canucks getting "luck" in the sense of the majority of fortunate bounces going their way and that all of their core players have been healthy and in the lineup thus far.

There have been several good-faith efforts to discuss this from several posters. You're just ignoring them.

The Canucks will sustain this play level and PDO until they win the cup

 

[Brookbank]

Oilers fans pioneered half these analytics when Canucks fans were.. well, there were no Canucks fans. You're here in numbers because these are the only 6 good months you've had in a decade and the bandwagon is full.

I look forward to not one of you having the balls to post here once it happens.

I expected to eventually log into this page and not read post dated salt and butthurt. But here we are 44 pages in.

Tell us which goals shouldn't have gone in. Do the last 3 games. Point out the fantom bounces.

 

[bossram]

How does PDO count empty net goals? Save % doesn't go down, but shot % goes up.

Some guy decided to make his own advanced stat by combining two stats and call it a day, why are we taking this stat seriously at all?

Just look at 5v5. Or exclude EN scenarios. It's a solved issue.

I agree, it doesn't really make sense to examine PDO as a whole. It's more of a short-hand or at a glance number. However, you can split apart Sv% and Sh% to see if one or the other is abnormally high.

 

[jackjohnson]

I expected to eventually log into this page and not read post dated salt and butthurt. But here we are 44 pages in.

Tell us which goals shouldn't have gone in. Do the last 3 games. Point out the fantom bounces.

He will have to do some of his stat mumbo jumbo and make up some numbers out of thin air to tell you which ones shouldn't have gone in and based on those premises tell us if this or that didn't happen, Canucks would have 8 points less

 

[Shareefruck]

In the cases of the Rangers and Bruins, as I mentioned, they carried above-100 PDOs for several consecutive years. Is that not "sustainable"?

Again, these are answered questions. The Rangers coaching took their playstyle in a different direction. The Bruins are still running a 102 PDO this season. And yes, in other cases, you answered it yourself - there is constant roster and coaching turnover every year, as well as injuries, such that teams can't robotically produce the same outcomes or style of play. Opposing teams are also going to try to stop them from doing this, and I would assume coaching to counteract these playstyles is also a factor.

Some posters have provided several very thoughtful answers and explanations. You just ignore them and say, "well that explanation is not interesting or compelling to me". Alright then, that's fine. Then the onus IS on you to explain these phenomena. Why is elevated PDO generally not sustainable and why would it be sustainable in the case of the Canucks?

I don't want to come across as combative. I appreciate we can have a reasoned discussion. There are others in this thread that are just so uninformed and illogical that it's completely not worth responding to them.

I didn't ignore the other explanations, I included them in my response to you (which is the part you mentioned "I answered" myself-- those were the other people's answers).

Why would the onus be on me to answer something that I am claiming ignorance to and asking questions about to try to make sense of? I didn't watch those other teams play or paid attention to PDO until now, so how could I know?

Regarding the explanation that suggests that part of it is merely due to natural turnover and injuries.. I think that makes sense but it's something low-PDO teams equally would be affected by no?-- so that doesn't sound like a reason to doubt a team with high PDO, it's more of a reason to find the "high PDO isn't sustainable" argument deceptively misleading (despite technically being true), no?

Okay, so the Bruins PDO is high and they've sustained it for quite a while. Do people expect that that will similarly regress to the mean due to unsustainability, or is it just high enough to be plausibly sustained? Do people feel that their level of high PDO is sustainable because there's no evidence of luck playing a factor?

Opposing teams inevitably coming up with strategies to counter-act these styles is pretty interesting and does potentially feel like the start of a satisfying answer to me (I don't think anyone who responded brought that up, though). Is that something people have observed, though? I just wonder what those strategies are, and if people have observed a pattern with this happening.

These are the questions that I still have. Maybe they could have been answered previously, but admittedly, I'm not combing through the entire thread (there's a lot of noise and repeat "bottom line" arguments (valid as they may be)

 

[jackjohnson]

Just look at 5v5. Or exclude EN scenarios. It's a solved issue.

I agree, it doesn't really make sense to examine PDO as a whole. It's more of a short-hand or at a glance number. However, you can split apart Sv% and Sh% to see if one or the other is abnormally high.

Using 2 stats to tell us how Canucks are and what will happen in future is the pinnacle of stupidity at this point since PDO can not accurately determine what can happen in the future and is just another underlying stat

 

[Bank Shot]

Okay, so the Bruins PDO is high and they've sustained it for quite a while. Do people expect that that will similarly regress to the mean due to unsustainability, or is it just high enough to be plausibly sustained?

Opposing teams coming up with strategies to counter-act these styles is pretty interesting and does potentially feel like the start of a satisfying answer to me (I don't think anyone who responded brought that up, though). I just wonder what those strategies are, and if people have observed a pattern with this happening.

These are the questions that I still have.

All teams play pretty similar styles. Do you think Tocchet invented a new system in his year off after coaching the Coyotes? If so, what do you think the Canucks are doing that has never been done before?

Leaving aside PDO, this is the elephant in the room:
Boeser-23%
JT Miller-21%
Hughes-11%
Dakota Joshua-23%
Lafferty-22%
Hoglander-22%

Do you really believe this will continue? If so, how did Tocchet change his coaching strategy to acheive this?

The one year his Coyotes made the playoffs, 19/20, they were 27th in 5v5 shooting %. If Tocchet's system leads to high shooting %, why is it only working this year?

 

[jackjohnson]

All teams play pretty similar styles. Do you think Tocchet invented a new system in his year off after coaching the Coyotes? If so, what do you think the Canucks are doing that has never been done before?

Leaving aside PDO, this is the elephant in the room:
Boeser-23%
JT Miller-21%
Hughes-11%
Dakota Joshua-23%
Lafferty-22%
Hoglander-22%

Do you really believe this will continue? If so, how did Tocchet change his coaching strategy to acheive this?

The one year his Coyotes made the playoffs, 19/20, they were 27th in 5v5 shooting %. If Tocchet's system leads to high shooting %, why is it only working this year?

Do you have all these stats saved in your computer?? Good God the amount of time Oilers fans invest to troll the Canucks is astounding to me.