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

[Czechboy]

Don’t really understand why the Oilers have to be discredited

Yesterday I was told that the first HALF of our schedule was too easy... a nice easy 41 game stretch of fluffy games.lol

 

[Pucklington]

Yesterday I was told that the first HALF of our schedule was too easy... a nice easy 41 game stretch of fluffy games.lol

Which is funny. Their strength of schedule in the second 41 is actually easier.

 

[Czechboy]

Which is funny. They strength of schedule in the second 41 is actually easier.

This wasn't a serious poster saying it.lol

We win 19 out of 23 and it's also been called an easy schedule. I maintain there is absolutely no such thing as an easy quarter or half NHL season.lol I get an easy road trip, an easy 5 games.. sure. But 24 games or 41.. GTFO!lol

 

[krutovsdonut]

Please elaborate and I'll determine how well the proverbial dots are connected.

your response of "whatabout when canucks are mean in "oilers threads" (whatever that means given there is no ownership of threads in the main boards)" implies that like me you also consider the commentary here by oilers fans to be saltiness rather than genuine sincere objective discussion of the state of the canucks. rather than refute this point you argue that for some unstated reason it is illegitimate for me to point that out because bad things have happened somewhere else in the world. whataboutism is a rhetorical technique that is largely discredited in contemporary discussion because it contributes nothing whatever to the question of whether the original point being challenged is accurate or not and rather seeks to deligitimize all discussion of a particular subject matter, usually for partisan reasons.

so i accept your concession but consider your response to be nonsensical and "problematic".

 

[ScottishCanuck]

Yesterday I was told that the first HALF of our schedule was too easy... a nice easy 41 game stretch of fluffy games.lol

This is a forum of extremes. You’re either shit or amazing and there’s seemingly nothing in between

 

[Sykur]

I'm at the point where I think the Nuck's are a great team. I really want to play them in the playoffs too. If I were a Nuck's fan and I'd change my photo and handle to say something like PDO King's and just embrace it so 'some' of the Oil posters will just shut up about it.lol

Oiler Troll: Hey Nucks, it's all PDO and you will regress
Sincere Nuck's fan: I love the smell of PDO in the morning

 

[Fishy McScales]

your response of "whatabout when canucks are mean in "oilers threads" (whatever that means given there is no ownership of threads in the main boards)" implies that like me you also consider the commentary here by oilers fans to be saltiness rather than genuine sincere objective discussion of the state of the canucks. rather than refute this point you argue that for some unstated reason it is illegitimate for me to point that out because bad things have happened somewhere else in the world. whataboutism is a rhetorical technique that is largely discredited in contemporary discussion because it contributes nothing whatever to the question of whether the original point being challenged is accurate or not and rather seeks to deligitimize all discussion of a particular subject matter, usually for partisan reasons.

so i accept your concession but consider your response to be nonsensical and "problematic".

Your implication seemed to me to be that Oilers fans in particular were coming in here to whinge about the Canucks, being salty as you say, and I merely pointed out that such similar saltiness has been exhibited to the extreme when the roles are reversed and therefore alluded to expressions pertaining to such things. Therefore I think calling it whataboutism is inaccurate.

Besides, I think most people are quite succinct in why they believe the Canucks will not be able to continue their results (unsustainable SH%/PDO) which is the question posed in the thread title. Canucks fans just get awfully defensive about it even when their team gets praised, which ironically produces more posts by opposing (Oilers?) fans to reiterate and reinforce their stance, which in turn ironically leads to even more of this "salt" that you seem so averse to.

 

[Rowlet]

How exactly?

Let Allvin figure that out

 

[Sykur]

I think most people are quite succinct in why they believe the Canucks will not be able to continue their results (unsustainable SH%/PDO)

 

[BCNate]

110 points over 82 game under Tocchet. How long does it take for a PDO regression to take place?

 

[Tobias Kahun]

110 points over 82 game under Tocchet. How long does it take for a PDO regression to take place?

Vancouver fans cant seem to understand that people aren't saying when the PDO regresses they'll be a bad team.

 

[BCNate]

Vancouver fans cant seem to understand that people aren't saying when the PDO regresses they'll be a bad team.

No, there are certainly people pushing the PDO thing who get that, but many are using PDO as an excuse for the teams success. Look at the post/reply above mine for example.

Either way, I meant my comment as a joke.

 

[Jay26]

I'm at the point where I think the Nuck's are a great team. I really want to play them in the playoffs too. If I were a Nuck's fan and I'd change my photo and handle to say something like PDO King's and just embrace it so 'some' of the Oil posters will just shut up about it.lol

Oiler Troll: Hey Nucks, it's all PDO and you will regress
Sincere Nuck's fan: I love the smell of PDO in the morning

Something like that. It's the new 'trigger' word around here... went from Corsi to AINEC to PDO.lol

Eg. everytime Bouch gets another point I just type shit like 'remember, this man sucks' or 'hate to see him miss a few games to go to the ECHL all star game'.

RNH gets a point... I immediately now type Powerplay Merchant (especially if it is at even strength)

Remember, they are all a product of that selfish, non shot blocking McDavid and that trade request to Toronto is all but typed up by now.

Keep burning down everyones villages Nucks... I REALLY hope my Oil play you in playoffs and I hope you are 100% healthy when we do. I say it goes to 7 and and at least 100 posters get banned during that one playoff round.

I'm down!

In seriousness, it better be in the conference finals. I want no part of those Oilers before that.

 

[BB6]

We've sucked for 10 years, our PDO was probably in the gutter for 10 years, now begins 10 years of sky high PDO to bring us back to the mean.

I hope

 

[North Cole]

your response of "whatabout when canucks are mean in "oilers threads" (whatever that means given there is no ownership of threads in the main boards)" implies that like me you also consider the commentary here by oilers fans to be saltiness rather than genuine sincere objective discussion of the state of the canucks. rather than refute this point you argue that for some unstated reason it is illegitimate for me to point that out because bad things have happened somewhere else in the world. whataboutism is a rhetorical technique that is largely discredited in contemporary discussion because it contributes nothing whatever to the question of whether the original point being challenged is accurate or not and rather seeks to deligitimize all discussion of a particular subject matter, usually for partisan reasons.

so i accept your concession but consider your response to be nonsensical and "problematic".

Whereas nebulous ad hominems such as "some Oiler fans are excavating salt mines", does not seek to delegitimize any conversations.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Whereas nebulous ad hominems such as "some Oiler fans are excavating salt mines", does not seek to delegitimize any conversations.

it's not nebulous at all. i am clearly calling some oilers fans posting in this thread salty. also it is not "ad hominem" even as to those oilers fans. i am not attacking the oilers fans collaterally, but simply pointing out they are being salty aka biased. an allegation of bias addresses the argument being made. it is not an ad hominem attack and it's no different from calling canuck fans homers. it is entirely appropriate in a debate to point out bias.

now if i was to say "some oilers fans in this thread put processed cheese on their burgers" that would be ad hominem because it is a collateral attack that does not address the arguments they are making.

 

[North Cole]

it's not nebulous at all. i am clearly calling some oilers fans posting in this thread salty. also it is not "ad hominem" even as to those oilers fans. i am not attacking the oilers fans collaterally, but simply pointing out they are being salty aka biased. an allegation of bias addresses the argument being made. it is not an ad hominem attack and it's no different from calling canuck fans homers. it is entirely appropriate in a debate to point out bias.

now if i was to say "some oilers fans in this thread put processed cheese on their burgers" that would be ad hominem because it is a collateral attack that does not address the arguments they are making.

It literally is an ad hominem, even to those Oiler fans you've 'called out'. I use that term loosely because you quoted no one in the post I referenced, which is why I called it nebulous. It's an ad hominem every which way. You seem to know a great deal about logical fallacies, so I don't see how you'd argue "Some oiler fans are excavating salt" is not a logical fallacy. That sentence is designed to discredit an argument at the source of the argument (Oiler fans + salt implies bias from being an Oiler fan and bias from being mad), not the argument itself.

You keep talking about addressing arguments made but again, there was no argument addressed or referenced in your salt mine post. All you've done is muddy the waters with an incendiary post. Normally I'd just ignore it and move on because I know it doesn't apply to me since I made quite a long post about the stats that everyone ignored; however, you going off on someone else for whataboutism is hypocritical.

 

[krutovsdonut]

It literally is an ad hominem, even to those Oiler fans you've 'called out'. I use that term loosely because you quoted no one in the post I referenced, which is why I called it nebulous. It's an ad hominem every which way. You seem to know a great deal about logical fallacies, so I don't see how you'd argue "Some oiler fans are excavating salt" is not a logical fallacy. That sentence is designed to discredit an argument at the source of the argument (Oiler fans + salt implies bias from being an Oiler fan and bias from being mad), not the argument itself.

You keep talking about addressing arguments made but again, there was no argument addressed or referenced in your salt mine post. All you've done is muddy the waters with an incendiary post. Normally I'd just ignore it and move on because I know it doesn't apply to me since I made quite a long post about the stats that everyone ignored; however, you going off on someone else for whataboutism is hypocritical.

ad hominem refers to an irrelevant personal attack and is frowned upon as a logical fallacy.

if we were in the realm of the philosophers debating pure logic where the words used form the whole of the debate you might have a point. but we are not.

in the real world an allegation of bias against a person making factual assertions and purpoting to put forward an objective analysis of those asserted facts is not irrelevant and it is not a fallacy. it is useful to a person assessing the reliability of such analysis to know the person putting it forward is biased.

so yes we can call people homers here, or point out they are driven to post negative things by irrational tribal hatred. it is not against the rules.

good grief.

 

[Chairman Maouth]

110 points over 82 game under Tocchet. How long does it take for a PDO regression to take place?

 

[ziploc]

I think they reasonably will have five 20 goal scorers (they already have three), and possibly as many as nine (though that is unlikely).

They have three excellent lines currently, and need to figure out the second line, which likely will have to be done via trade.

They have a (usually) elite goalie and a solid backup.

They have a top defensive pairing for maybe the first time in Canucks history, and good defensive depth 3-8. Probably will add some more depth at the deadline.

They play (usually) a disciplined system thanks to Tocchet, with accountability. They are almost money in the bank when it comes to playing with the lead in the third.

I think they have a real shot to make noise in the playoffs, though the offseason will be a chore keeping everyone around. Myers and Kuzmenko are the only truly egregious contracts relative to play at this time.

 

[bandwagonesque]

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.

If the high shooting percentages on the team are statistical aberrations, why is that nearly every forward is shooting a very high percentage? Wouldn't you expect to see it distributed randomly among the team's players?

The same principle applies to the other half of PDO, shooting percentage. Many people explain the Canucks' success by suggesting Demko is mainly responsible for it. If that's true, why does his journeyman back up have nearly identical statistics?

 

[Dust]

I think they reasonably will have five 20 goal scorers (they already have three), and possibly as many as nine (though that is unlikely).

They have three excellent lines currently, and need to figure out the second line, which likely will have to be done via trade.

They have a (usually) elite goalie and a solid backup.

They have a top defensive pairing for maybe the first time in Canucks history, and good defensive depth 3-8. Probably will add some more depth at the deadline.

They play (usually) a disciplined system thanks to Tocchet, with accountability. They are almost money in the bank when it comes to playing with the lead in the third.

I think they have a real shot to make noise in the playoffs, though the offseason will be a chore keeping everyone around. Myers and Kuzmenko are the only truly egregious contracts relative to play at this time.

Any time you have a goalie like Demko, you have a chance to make noise in the playoffs. Even if everyone else went relatively quiet, he could steal a series. The only thing I might worry about is the lack of playoff experience on the team. Outside of Miller and Cole there's not a whole lot of games played.

 

[ziploc]

Any time you have a goalie like Demko, you have a chance to make noise in the playoffs. Even if everyone else went relatively quiet, he could steal a series. The only thing I might worry about is the lack of playoff experience on the team. Outside of Miller and Cole there's not a whole lot of games played.

True. Usually teams need some playoff seasoning and some devastating losses before they get there. I don't think this current team will have that "luxury" though.

If the high shooting percentages on the team are statistical aberrations, why is that nearly every forward is shooting a very high percentage? Wouldn't you expect to see it distributed randomly among the team's players?

The same principle applies to the other half of PDO, shooting percentage. Many people explain the Canucks' success by suggesting Demko is mainly responsible for it. If that's true, why does his journeyman back up have nearly identical statistics?

Magic.

 

[thekernel]

ad hominem refers to an irrelevant personal attack and is frowned upon as a logical fallacy.

if we were in the realm of the philosophers debating pure logic where the words used form the whole of the debate you might have a point. but we are not.

in the real world an allegation of bias against a person making factual assertions and purpoting to put forward an objective analysis of those asserted facts is not irrelevant and it is not a fallacy. it is useful to a person assessing the reliability of such analysis to know the person putting it forward is biased.

I feel like every thread that gets to 50 pages on this site distills down to this exact post

I also feel like the purpose of this thread has been lost, Canucks are 8-1-1 in January

 

[M2Beezy]

I also feel like the purpose of this thread has been lost, Canucks are 8-1-1 in January

Yeah but PDO