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

[vanarchy]

They’re still seething over getting beat by the Canucks in 3 straight games by an aggregate score of 18-6. It’s a coping mechanism.
And to be fair, it’s not all Oiler fans, just some very vocal ones.

But that was a small sample size and we will cool down in 5 10 20 30 40 50 games!

 

[sr edler]

Van vs Oil playoff match up could be good fun.

 

[Zombotron]

Van vs Oil playoff match up could be good fun.

hasn't happened since 1992 — we are very overdue

 

[BCNate]

In Early December the Canucks were on a roll and at the top of the standings, all we heard about was PDO, sh%, and how steep the regression would be. They have gone 16-2-3 since then, and are getting better. Yet everyone is still here talking about regression?

At what point do these guys actually start watching the games and see this is an excellent team that can beat you in many ways. This is the best team the Canucks have ever had.

 

[bandwagonesque]

You really think teams from the 80s are comparable to teams in 23/24?

Good luck with that.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? If your implication is that teams then tended to shoot at a higher percentage, wouldn't that suggest the Canucks' numbers are an even greater departure from a likely outcome and therefore even less likely to be the result of chance deviation? It seems like you're just reflexively contradicting me without really thinking through any of the arguments you're making.

 

[Sykur]

You really think teams from the 80s are comparable to teams in 23/24?

When it comes to PDO, the only difference between then and now is the ratio of SV% to SH%. Back then the mean was closer to 85:15, today it's closer to 90:10.

But it's still the same statistic. Teams in the 80s had high PDOs because of high scoring. Teams today have high PDOs because of good goaltending. In fact, it's more realistic to call PDO the goalie stat since its slightly biased toward teams with good goalies/defense. Its easier for a goalie to put up a SV% 90+ night after night than it is for a team to put up a SH% of 10+.

Why is the Canucks PDO so high? Probably because last night was their 7th shutout.

 

[Honkybonk]

Why is the Canucks PDO so high? Probably because last night was their 7th shutout.

I thought it was only 6 shutouts? 5 by Demko and 1 by DeSmith?

 

[Bank Shot]

In Early December the Canucks were on a roll and at the top of the standings, all we heard about was PDO, sh%, and how steep the regression would be. They have gone 16-2-3 since then, and are getting better. Yet everyone is still here talking about regression?

At what point do these guys actually start watching the games and see this is an excellent team that can beat you in many ways. This is the best team the Canucks have ever had.

They aren't even close to the 2010 finals team that dominated in every statistical category.

 

[BCNate]

They aren't even close to the 2010 finals team that dominated in every statistical category.

They are ahead of that team by record, and are a much better built team than the Sedin Era teams. This is just the start of their window.

 

[Bank Shot]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? If your implication is that teams then tended to shoot at a higher percentage, wouldn't that suggest the Canucks' numbers are an even greater departure from a likely outcome and therefore even less likely to be the result of chance deviation? It seems like you're just reflexively contradicting me without really thinking through any of the arguments you're making.

Why would you think a massive outlier is less likely to be a result of chance?

That goes against logic.

We know players dont shoot over 20% consistently.

No player in the last 30 years has done this. Any player that has done it for a season, drops back down the next.

Not sure I'm I'm even bothering responding. Have a good one.

 

[vanarchy]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? If your implication is that teams then tended to shoot at a higher percentage, wouldn't that suggest the Canucks' numbers are an even greater departure from a likely outcome and therefore even less likely to be the result of chance deviation? It seems like you're just reflexively contradicting me without really thinking through any of the arguments you're making.

If this thread has proven anything, it's that he has an infinite amount of straws to grasp at.

 

[Coffee]

They aren't even close to the 2010 finals team that dominated in every statistical category.

They are much better 5on5 than that team. And that’s just facts.

 

[Bank Shot]

They are ahead of that team by record, and are a much better built team than the Sedin Era teams. This is just the start of their window.

2010-2011 won the President's trophy by 10 points.

This team is one point up on teams with games in hand.

What's with all the alternative facts?

 

[bandwagonesque]

Why would you think a massive outlier is less likely to be a result of chance?

You're asking me to explain how probability works. If you can ask this question in earnest, your understanding of what we're talking about is too limited for you to have understood most of what others in the thread have said about it.

 

[BCNate]

2010-2011 won the President's trophy by 10 points.

This team is one point up on teams with games in hand.

What's with all the alternative facts?

I don't really care what the other teams are doing, that isn't relevant nor is it what I commented on. I also couldn't care less about the Presidents trophy. The Canucks are tracking to finish with a better record than they did back then, which is what I said.

Since when did total points become an alternative fact?

People are really grasping at straws to find excuses for this team being very good.

 

[Bank Shot]

You're asking me to explain how probability works. If you can ask this question in earnest, your understanding of what we're talking about is too limited for you to have understood most of what others in the thread have said about it.

Yes yes. A 23 game win streak is more probable than a 14 game win streak.

I would agree with that if the underlying numbers supported it, but they don't.

 

[vanarchy]

Yes yes. A 23 game win streak is more probable than a 14 game win streak.

I would agree with that if the underlying numbers supported it, but they don't.

Except nobody here said that. You're only furthering his point.

 

[Bank Shot]

Except nobody here said that. You're only furthering his point.

He has no point.

 

[TruKnyte]

I feel like we should merge this thread and the Oilers one together, because it's just Canuck and Oiler fans chirping back and forth.

 

[Hoglander]

Canucks are too efficient, meaning they aren't really that good.

The league should just hand out the cup to the team with the most shots on net.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Yes yes. A 23 game win streak is more probable than a 14 game win streak.

I would agree with that if the underlying numbers supported it, but they don't.

You've completely misunderstood what I said, yet you've also inadvertently introduced an example that might actually make it easier for you to make sense of this with a little improvisation. There are two things it can illustrate --

1. A 23 game win streak is not more probable than a 14 game win streak, which is the entire point -- if one happens, it's less likely to be influenced by chance and more likely to be the product of other factors, simply because chance is constant and other factors are not.

2. A 23 game win streak is a more impressive accomplishment than a 14 game win streak. No one would think to explain it primarily in terms of chance or suggest it was a product of chance, even as they acknowledge chance is involved to some degree.

 

[strattonius]

In Early December the Canucks were on a roll and at the top of the standings, all we heard about was PDO, sh%, and how steep the regression would be. They have gone 16-2-3 since then, and are getting better. Yet everyone is still here talking about regression?

At what point do these guys actually start watching the games and see this is an excellent team that can beat you in many ways. This is the best team the Canucks have ever had.

I'd pump the brakes on that.

That 2010 team was absolutely dominant in every statistical category and made it game 7 of the Cup final.

Let's see if this team can win a playoff round before we start shouting 'best team in history'.

 

[Dust]

If a train leaves Vancouver heading east at 80km/h carrying the entire Vancouver Canucks roster, and a train leaves Edmonton heading west at 75km/h carrying the Oilers roster, where does the Western Conference Final take place?

 

[Sykur]

2010-2011 won the President's trophy by 10 points.

That 2010-2011 team padded their record playing the rest of their division 8 times each, all of whom were going through painful rebuilds.

(or in the case of the Oilers: First Overall hogging)

 

[CloutierForVezina]

Nobody ever shoots over 20% for any length of time. So while your "reasons" probably sound good to tell yourself. It won't persist.

Draisaitl shot 20.2% over a 5 year, 369 game stretch. Does that not count as any length of time?

I don't even disagree that 20% is an incredibly high bar and few players can consistently flirt with it, but it's gotten a whole lot easier to hit lately since they shrunk goalie equipment. The sh% we see around the league today are miles higher than what we saw in the early 2010s.

It's also completely different for someone who takes like 1 shot a game to maintain an absurd sh% because they're obviously being insanely selective with their shots. It's much harder for players who are pumping 3-4 sog/game to sustain that because not all of those are going to be tap-ins. You're complaining about someone like Joshua and he's only taken 57 shots this year. Drop him from his 21.1% down to his 15.5% from last year and you've taken out a grand total of 3 goals.

Pettersson's probably not going to be consistently around 19.4% but his career average over 372 games is 17.0%. It's not some absurd bender for him to shoot 19.4% for a season - he already did that in his rookie season over 71 games. You can talk about other players riding hot streaks but when you lump him into the conversation your point falls flat.