Or Edmonton’s last ~20 games would be their actual level of performance
Vancouver led the league in points at Christmas, Can they continue this run into the New Year?
- Thread starter Brookbank
- Start date
North Cole
♧ Lem
- Jan 22, 2017
- 11,844
- 13,525
Right, so the Canucks barely beating the Hawks on Dec 17 was due to losing in MIN the night before? The wild seem considerably worse than DET, so I'm not sure why the Canucks had trouble with either of those games. Or Nov 25, they lost to the SJS because it was what? A B2B game and they expended too much energy blowing out the zero goaltending kraken?Barely beating Sabres at the tail end of a road trip that had us playing 3 games inn4 nights is impressive. Especially when we had to beat NYI which the Oilers lost to, NYR, NJD, Pittsburgh etc. And the start time for the Sabres game was stupid and early which Canucks don't usually wake up for. The rested Oilers faced three trash teams consecutively with rests in between and also a big break between the Sens and Chicago game. But go on, tell me how it's the same
It's the modern NHL. Everyone should know by now, teams win and lose all the time against any opponent. Unless you'd like to tell us that the Canucks have some kind of conditioning issue that causes them to collapse in the second half of back to backs?
- Oct 13, 2018
- 4,595
- 5,470
I don't care about PDO, just enjoying the year.
Hope the team goes all in and tries to win the cup while they have this opportunity. Add Tanev, Guentzel, Lindholm, trade the 1st and anyone who isn't essential not named Willander, or Lekkerimaki.
Hope the team goes all in and tries to win the cup while they have this opportunity. Add Tanev, Guentzel, Lindholm, trade the 1st and anyone who isn't essential not named Willander, or Lekkerimaki.
This has been a great year for the Canucks. And honestly, after so many years of being irrelevant, it's great to see that the Canucks actually have haters again (or so it would seem in this thread, anyways).
Nucker101
Foundational Poster
- Apr 2, 2013
- 22,029
- 18,194
I doubt you’ll find a single rational take that suggests they’ll maintain this PDO. My other point is that their shot rates are hurt by score effects, there’s your catch 22. High pdo = more time spend leading = corsi deflation
I will say that the Kings are a wagon though, the fact they’ve spent so much time leading and still have strong possession numbers is impressive but still the Canucks do have a significant lead on them in time spent with the lead per game at 5v5.
Great season for Vancouver so far. But crazy how much Edmonton jumped in the standing. They have 4 games in hand, if they win those, they are only 6 points out from Vancouver. I remember at one point, Vancouver were like 25+ up
Two things on PDO :
1) People act like PDO is a thing that (like a coin flip) regresses to 100.0 over time and anything outside of that isn't sustainable, and that's not the case. If you have a great goaltender and some talented star players, both your save % and your shooting % will be above league average and you'll have a high PDO. TB has driven a 102-ish PDO for the last 5+ years, and it isn't luck. It's because they have elite players and a great goalie.
2) Like any stat, you have to look at the context to evaluate the impact.
If a team had a PDO of 105 and were sitting at 22-2-1 or something in one-goal games and constantly eking out results in games they didn't deserve to win ... yes, there will almost certainly be a big regression in the standings when that unsustainable PDO regulates.
Vancouver is 8-5-3 in one-goal games. Basically a .500 8-8 without loser points. The high PDO has not led to the team winning a disproportionate number of close games.
I tried explaining this to people when the team was 12-3-1 to start the year with a 109 PDO. The team had a +34 goal differential after 16 games but +22 of that was in 3 blowouts they won by a combined score of 24-2. So while the PDO was unsustainable ... it was essentially 'wasted' PDO as it came mostly in blowouts and didn't contribute to winning close games. The team wasn't 12-3-1 because of PDO or luck, they were 12-3-1 because the were outplaying the opposition almost every night. But people who weren't watching the games didn't understand that.
And what I said at that point was that the PDO and goal differential wasn't sustainable, but because those weren't directly leading to wins, that the team's overall record *was* sustainable based on their overall level of play. And that's exactly what's happened. After having a +34 goal differential in the first 16 games, it's +31 in the the next 27 - a drop basically in half - but the team just kept winning.
It's a bizarre thing where if the Canucks had won those three games by a combined score of 8-4 or something instead of 24-2 leading to a much lower PDO but the same record, the masses would consider that record *more* sustainable despite a *worse* overall performance, which obviously makes zero sense. And this is the problem with blindly looking at statistics out of context.
1) People act like PDO is a thing that (like a coin flip) regresses to 100.0 over time and anything outside of that isn't sustainable, and that's not the case. If you have a great goaltender and some talented star players, both your save % and your shooting % will be above league average and you'll have a high PDO. TB has driven a 102-ish PDO for the last 5+ years, and it isn't luck. It's because they have elite players and a great goalie.
2) Like any stat, you have to look at the context to evaluate the impact.
If a team had a PDO of 105 and were sitting at 22-2-1 or something in one-goal games and constantly eking out results in games they didn't deserve to win ... yes, there will almost certainly be a big regression in the standings when that unsustainable PDO regulates.
Vancouver is 8-5-3 in one-goal games. Basically a .500 8-8 without loser points. The high PDO has not led to the team winning a disproportionate number of close games.
I tried explaining this to people when the team was 12-3-1 to start the year with a 109 PDO. The team had a +34 goal differential after 16 games but +22 of that was in 3 blowouts they won by a combined score of 24-2. So while the PDO was unsustainable ... it was essentially 'wasted' PDO as it came mostly in blowouts and didn't contribute to winning close games. The team wasn't 12-3-1 because of PDO or luck, they were 12-3-1 because the were outplaying the opposition almost every night. But people who weren't watching the games didn't understand that.
And what I said at that point was that the PDO and goal differential wasn't sustainable, but because those weren't directly leading to wins, that the team's overall record *was* sustainable based on their overall level of play. And that's exactly what's happened. After having a +34 goal differential in the first 16 games, it's +31 in the the next 27 - a drop basically in half - but the team just kept winning.
It's a bizarre thing where if the Canucks had won those three games by a combined score of 8-4 or something instead of 24-2 leading to a much lower PDO but the same record, the masses would consider that record *more* sustainable despite a *worse* overall performance, which obviously makes zero sense. And this is the problem with blindly looking at statistics out of context.
I think you are misremembering. Despite going on an absolute tear under Knoblauch, they haven't actually gained much on Vancouver at all. Since starting 2-9-1, the Oilers have gone 21-7-0 (28gp) but over that same time span the Canucks have gone 20-9-2 (31gp). Even if you removed the short two week stint after his hiring where the Oilers were roughly .500 and start on November 23rd, the Oilers have gone 18-3-0 (21gp) vs. the Canucks going 16-5-2 (23gp); gaining on the Canucks a measly 2 points. You're probably remembering the biggest difference between Vancouver and Edmonton and not accounting for the gap in games played but retroactively doing so now to assume they win those 4 games in hand.
That being said, they have absolutely eviscerated the gaps between them and VGK, LAK which is extremely impressive.
I would call it playing game 6 of a 7 game roadtrip. Also Vancouver has been on the road for 11 of their last 14 games, yet continue winning going 7-3 on the road so far, with all three road loses by one goal and 2 of them in OT and SO.
Thing is Oiler fans claiming Vancouver`s record is unsustainable, while believing that Edmonton can keep winning at the rate they have recently is laughable, as well as a little hypocritical
coolboarder
Registered User
PDO doesn't really show how many times the Canucks held the puck in the offensive zone and made extra passes instead of the shots. Whenever there's a shot, it indicate that there's a defensive breakdown because someone is open somewhere in the zone for the goal. You can hold the puck all day without a shot and score 2 out of 2 shots and your PDO would be extreme high.
There are many factors of built-in the Canucks system where they like to hold on the puck and if they see an opening, they would pass the puck to them, if it's a bad angle, he would then held the puck even more to find another opening. It is not the shots for and against, and it is how many turnover without a shot but their time in the zone is like a minute long without a shot. It is also another factor why opponents doesn't have too many shots in a long period, of time but when they do shoot, it is low percent shot showing frustration of the Canucks system thrown on them.
That is why opponent momentum has been flamed out because of that. This account for that. Most teams would spend 15-30 seconds then a shot attempt but not the Canucks. That is how you control the game that way and later in the game, we notice that our shot meter is very low and it is not indicative of the measurement. Holding the puck possession is a part of their system and they are extremely good at it. Hughes is a big factor of it.
There are many factors of built-in the Canucks system where they like to hold on the puck and if they see an opening, they would pass the puck to them, if it's a bad angle, he would then held the puck even more to find another opening. It is not the shots for and against, and it is how many turnover without a shot but their time in the zone is like a minute long without a shot. It is also another factor why opponents doesn't have too many shots in a long period, of time but when they do shoot, it is low percent shot showing frustration of the Canucks system thrown on them.
That is why opponent momentum has been flamed out because of that. This account for that. Most teams would spend 15-30 seconds then a shot attempt but not the Canucks. That is how you control the game that way and later in the game, we notice that our shot meter is very low and it is not indicative of the measurement. Holding the puck possession is a part of their system and they are extremely good at it. Hughes is a big factor of it.
Lack of consistency is one of the distinctive parts of "system" teams. We saw it in Vancouver just in two previous seasons. They owned the league when BB just became their coach. And the next season it was disaster.
It won't surprise me if the same happens to Tocchet.
It won't surprise me if the same happens to Tocchet.
- Oct 9, 2012
- 32,944
- 31,892
A cup or bust team also just barely beat Ottawa, Detroit, Chicago and Montreal. Perhaps parity is stronger across the league than some want to admit?
coolboarder
Registered User
They were in latter end of the stretch that involved 3 3rd games in 4 nights stretch in 15 days. No other team has gone through with the schedule like this Most teams would have gone through 3rd games in 4 night twice in 15 days same stretch with so much travelling. What amazed me the most is that they continue with one win one loss stretch for 10 games in that crazy stretch without a long losing streak. Once they had their rest with home cooking stretch, they started to win games.
I was responding specifically to a poster who had been doing exactly what I described. There is a difference between saying "they should be out of the playoffs but for shooting percentage" and approaching it in a more nuanced way, and I agree that the latter has occurred in this thread. I was more agreeing with the broader sentiment that there were other factors involved, and proposing that the more interesting approach would be to try and break down the PDO statistic. The "missing link" that may have been lurking in the back of my head was that I'm not sure we have the data to do so in a completely compelling way, but that as player positioning data improves, that may change. As it stands, we have a lot of informed comparison of similar teams, but not a lot of data to work with to really break down the similarities and differences and make confident projections. I agree people have expressed similar intuitions in this thread, and I was identifying myself as a member of that crowd that was critical of the less nuanced approach.
eviohh26
Registered User
I want a live stream. Dont care if you roast it, bbq it, air fry it. Whatever you prefer. It must be a used hat at that too. And you need to eat 100% of it.
Your missing the fact that this is next season for Tocchet.
Two years ago the team started the season 8-15-2 under Travis Green before he was let go. Bruce Boudreau came in and went 32-15-10. Nice but hardly qwning the league. The following season Boudreau went 18-25-3 before he was let go. Tocchet came in and went 20-12-4. Tocchet has continued this season going 29-11-3 so far..
Bruce Boudreau total Games 103- 50-40-13
Rick Tocchet total Games so far 79-49-23-7
So far Tocchet in 24 less games is one win and 10 points away from matching what Boudreau accomplished in Vancouver.
Tocchet already had his so called new coach bump last season.
It won`t suprise me if by the end of the regular season there are a lot of doom and gloom fortune tellers here eating some well deserved crow.
Vancouver had a positive Xgf and there defensive stats are good.
Here's the kicker a GM from the east commented on the PDO and the nucks in general and pointed out that the child stats as he calls them are largely hokum but have all turned around in the nucks favour and the real anylytics ones that teams pay a shitload of money for all paint Vancouver in a very good light. He also said they are causing a lot of the brass of other teams to take notice.
As for the game yesterday those child stats showed Vancouver completely dominated, buffalo had 5 even strength shots after the 1st, it was a complete defensive team effort.
What's really funny about you and a few other oiler fans is you shit on Vancouver because they are efficient, while the oilers somehow because they put up 48 shots or 55 or 40+ and score 1 goal, 2 goals or maybe 3 against teams that are re-building. Super impressive.
And they call Vancouver fans delusional.
Jesus Christ man you have written this book like 5 times already and it's still just flawed models.Genrally teams with consistently high PDOs do it with goaltending and defence. Not shooting percentage. If you can find me a team that is consistently top five in 5v5 shooting % I'd also like to see it.
Teams do play a little differently, but the majority of the difference comes down to whether teams are good or bad. In the defensive end teams generally play man on man, zone, or box+1. There are a few types of forechecks and neutral zone systems, but many teams use a variety of these systems depending on the situation.
Again, if you can find teams that have consistently shot the lights out for a 3 year stretch, let me know.
Also shooting % generally stays consistent for players when they change teams, but team shooting % bounces around a lot. I guess this is due to talent level and shot selection choices for individual players.
Almost all teams have more in common with systems play than they do differences. You don't see teams play a 1-4 shell all game, and you don't see teams doing a 4 man forecheck. I think the general ideas of what works the best in hockey are pretty well established, and if someone does start doing something different that works (like the drop pass entry on the PP) it is picked up and utilized almost immediately by other teams becase they are constantly analyzing video.
Just look at shots per game data. The Oilers are shooting the most in the NHL rn. They take 34 shots per game. The Ducks are 26th at 29. The difference between the no 1 team and the 26th team is only 5 shots per game. That's peanuts and mostly has to do with strength of roster. The difference between systems leads to a difference of about 2 shots per game or less for most teams. It is nearly nothing.
NHL Stats
The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.www.nhl.com
Here are the shooting percentage leaders since 1990 with over 500 games played.
Gary Roberts 1 with 18.7%
Alex Tanguay 2 with 18.6%
Draisaitl 3 with 18.1 %
Top six forwards generally fall between 10-16%.
I'm not uncertain that the shooting percentages for the Canucks players shooting the lights out will fall. I'm certain. The only question is when.
Your average 20 goal scorer only gets maybe 2-3 tap ins per year. Goals are hard to score in the NHL. If you had a theoretical player that was so averse to shooting that they had a 30% shooting percentage they would score like 4 goals per year and pass up many potential goals. That would be like employing a player that only turns left, or a player that only takes slapshots. Any player that doesn't have enough hockey sense to shoot the puck on quality chances just isn't going to be good enough to make the NHL.
PDO is not taken seriously by any pro teams Anylytic department.
And like I pointed out above, the models you nerds will never have access to show things that have them as an elite team which matches what GMs are saying.
And once again the child anylytics have all turned into positive for Vancouver, they show a positive XGF and XGA. So you understand that the high shooting % that has you nickers all twisted now align with the XGF, you understand that right
Actually that's not true. Vancouver turned their season around about 6 games before BB took over and the only thing that changed under BB was Demko and EP went on heaters.
If you disagree simply see last season under BB when Demko wasn't stealing games.
People lived Bruce and it skewed people's view of him. The truth is he had no systems and under Tochett and his staff the team is 100% bought in to the system.
The Canucks core under TG, BB and now Tochett have always been able to score a lot without a high shot volume, their talent was never in question.
It was their work ethic, defensive game and system play that was.
Joe Rogan
Registered User
- Jun 21, 2019
- 350
- 913
Oilers fans call the pdo wave unsustainable and ignore the reasoning, but honestly believe that their team with a bottom third of the league defence, and worst goaltending tandem in the league is going to lead to continued success, and is not a new coach bump. You would think after RNH having 72 coaches in a decade they would be able to recognize a new coach bump.
jackjohnson
Registered User
- Feb 9, 2021
- 8,093
- 5,332
This is true. How come Oilers fans don't acknowledge their 10 game winning streak being unsustainable while the most consistent team in the league so far which is Canucks through 42 games is considered unsustainable for them? I would respect some of the Oilers fans here if they weren't this salty, always reminding Canucks fans how their teams PDO is unsustainable while never giving credit where credit is due.
jackjohnson
Registered User
- Feb 9, 2021
- 8,093
- 5,332
If you have zero idea about hockey and Canucks then you should not make misinformed opinions. The big reason Bruce got fired was due to the lack of "system" or defensive structure which was clearly pointed out many times by JR even in HNIC interviews if you bothered to watch them. Tocchet bringing a defensive structure is the reason why Myers looks decent and Canucks are tops in Goals Against versus last season where they were at the bottom. Obviously some defensive depth acquired in the summer helped too but it's obvious how forwards are back checking versus pervious season. Watch the Canucks games, research before commenting on things you have zero idea about.
