Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Playoff Arrows
How do you pick playoff series? I get pulled in eighteen different directions by various factors. This time I'm doing it systematically (with one notable exception).
I wouldn't say that the system I've chosen is the right one; not at all. But at least there's a method to it, as opposed to (for example), deciding that Rangers will beat the Caps because you (correctly) believe that Lundqvist is a better goalie than Theodore, without accounting for why the Caps finished 13 points ahead of the Rags despite that truth. Call it an experiment.
So in the East:
At right is the same info as above, but with the 16 teams ranked by their EVSV% (score tied since Feb1 etc.). Anyone else notice a slight gap there between 15th and 16th? I'll listen to arguments that Calgary gives up higher quality scoring chances than any other playoff team, but: that's not a slight gap, it's a giant chasm, and a lot of it has got to be on #34.
Now, having had 76 regular season starts in which to warm up, Kipper needs to be better in the playoffs. He just does. If he (or his replacement, haha) isn't, the team isn't going far.
On the bright side though (seriously), they're in the playoffs, and when you're in, you have a chance. It sure beats the hell out of the alternative.
Go Flames.
I wouldn't say that the system I've chosen is the right one; not at all. But at least there's a method to it, as opposed to (for example), deciding that Rangers will beat the Caps because you (correctly) believe that Lundqvist is a better goalie than Theodore, without accounting for why the Caps finished 13 points ahead of the Rags despite that truth. Call it an experiment.
- I'm looking at EV play, because most of the game is played at EV and (b) some of the things that make players successful at EV translate to the PP/PK as well
- I'm interested in Shots+/-, because I think in a sample that's large enough, it tells me what I want to know better than Corsi#, and yet it's still small enough that GF/GA is subject to too much randomness.
- I'm looking at play when the score is tied only. Because my intention is to use shots as a proxy for scoring chances, I'd rather not use the shot data from when one team is ahead, because there's some decent evidence (see mc79hockey) that a trailing team shoots more and those shots are less likely to go in. In other words, if I included all shots data regardless of score, it might run counter to my purpose.
- I'm looking at data since February 1st only. The idea is partly to acknowledge that some teams have improved or suffered internally since the first half of the season, but mostly because the roster compositions since then will more closely approximate playoff rosters (re: injuries, acquisitions, etc.). I think it's a big enough sample (30-odd games worth of shots) to be useful; YMMV.
So in the East:
- Add in the reasonable assumption that Hankqvist will stop an extra 1 of 100 shots than Theodore, and Caps/Rags looks like a coin flip.
- Pitt should handle Philly even if they don't sustain those insane percentages.
- Montreal looks like a not-very-good team, the Bruins are the right pick.
- Maybe if the Hurricanes had home ice they'd be worth a look, but it looks like the Devils are the pick there.
- Columbus has actually relapsed a bit since the first half. Better goaltending won't be enough to beat the Wings.
- The Sharks' shooting can't stay that cold forever, so they're the pick.
- The Blues look real. Don't forget that they had solid special teams all season too. I'm with Puck Daddy -- Blues in 6. Sorry Mirtle.
- Uhhhhh, Flames in 6!!!
At right is the same info as above, but with the 16 teams ranked by their EVSV% (score tied since Feb1 etc.). Anyone else notice a slight gap there between 15th and 16th? I'll listen to arguments that Calgary gives up higher quality scoring chances than any other playoff team, but: that's not a slight gap, it's a giant chasm, and a lot of it has got to be on #34.Now, having had 76 regular season starts in which to warm up, Kipper needs to be better in the playoffs. He just does. If he (or his replacement, haha) isn't, the team isn't going far.
On the bright side though (seriously), they're in the playoffs, and when you're in, you have a chance. It sure beats the hell out of the alternative.
Go Flames.
# posted by Matt @ 4:42 pm 
Comments:
I'm just going to requote Quain here, because he hit the nail on the head:
"Look, let me break it down for you Jonathan, because I know you've never played professional hockey like I have.
Kipper is easily a Vezina candidate this year because he makes the BIG save. Nobody cares that Smith was making little saves in losing efforts. He wasn't making saves that were going to win the team the game, because he's a poor goaltender. If he were a good goaltender, he'd make the BIG saves and prevent HUGE goals. His team would have confidence in front of him to make BIG plays and SCORE BIG goals.
Kipper, on the other hand, makes HUGE saves. Like, last night: Sure, he was given a 4-1 lead and nearly blew it by giving up two goals, but what happened when it was 4-3 and Detroit was knocking? HE MADE THE BIG SAVES. Sure, he had the save percentage of an AHL goaltender last night, but he WON the GAME with BIG saves at THE right MOMENT. All that matters is BIG SAVES, not being laying flat on your belly while Datsyuk rips one from the sideboards above you. BIG SAVES.
AND THAT'S WHY KIPPER IS A MONSTER!"
And unfortunately I cut off his wonderful last paragraph:
"Sometimes, I have days where I like to be facetious. I wonder if that's how talking heads are every day, or if they just don't want to explain anything to their coworkers when they go out for drinks after the show. BIG DRINKS. With umbrellas. BIG ONES."
On the bright side though (seriously), they're in the playoffs, and when you're in, you have a chance. It sure beats the hell out of the alternative.Pfff. I relish the opportunity to rest our legs and improve our team in the lengthened off-season.
Scott -- thanks, but as usual, it's all Vic and timeonice.com. I meant to put the sample link in the post, and now I'm at the wrong computer. I'll try to drop it in tomorrow.
Oh, and L.Bob: I'd say "Suck It!!", but it's fair enough, I suppose. I eagerly await the year when I can turn that running gag around on Oiler fan. If my arthritis allows!!!!1!1!1111!!!111
Heh, I kill me.
Scott, here is the typical link for tie games. As usual, change the team abbrev, and/or first and last game numbers, to find what you're looking for. That one is for the Oilers since Feb1.
I was tempted to take the Blues, too, but I decided that in the small sample size of a single playoff series, the percentages would be more likely to have an impact, and that Luongo would have a better chance of pulling the percentages in his favour because, well, he's a better goaltender than Chris Mason, and more likely to sustain that kind of ridiculous percentage.
I enjoyed this post very much.
Last night's Rangers-Caps game sure didn't look like a coin flip to me. It looked like one team completely dominating the other but because of almost impossibly bad goaltending and a head-scratching non-interference call on the Rangers' first goal it lost the game. It's hard for me to imagine that scenario repeating 3 out of the next 6 games. We'll see if the Rangers outshoot the Caps once this series; my guess is no.
It's not that I've given up on hockey. I've been watching plenty of games since my Edmonton Oilers were bounced ignobly from the post-season due to the incompetent coaching. I'm probably watching more than I did during round one and I'm enjoying the game as much as ever.
Why is that?
For one, I still have a vested interest in the playoffs. My office pool has no more players from the West but my guys from Carolina and Buffalo are doing wonders for me in the East. As for my auction-draft team, we lost out bad by picking Mike Modano, Brenden Morrow and Michael Nylander, but are still alive and kicking with Joffrey Lupul, Francois Beachemin and Rod Brind'Amour.
I also happen to enjoy great playoff hockey in general, especially with these series being contested right now. The game is as exciting as it's ever been - it's fast, hard-hitting, and leads are suddenly surmountable. If only there were consistency in the officating, which has been at times wonderful and atrocious, this could be considered the dawning of a new Golden Age on ice.
The fact is, I'm afraid to say, lest I receive attacks on my character and loyalty, but I'm actually kinda, sorta glad that the Oilers are done. And I'm not the only one.
Many of my fellow Edmontonians expressed that same sentiment shortly after the team lost. It's not because we didn't want them to win: who doesn't want the bragging rights of a Stanley Cup champion, especially with the obnoxious buffoons residing three hours south on the QEII? We were all disappointed at the quick exit of the Oil and will deal with that for the next three or four months.
However, for those of us who were around during the 2006 run, a time filled with nostalgia of legendary proportions, we realized at once how much of a shit-show those two months were. Every day was a Oilers day: one was either talking about the game the night before, getting ready for the next game, or in some bar filled with carcenogenic smoke, spilled rye on blue jerseys, a dozen TVs and make-shift projection screens. Everyone was geared up. School kids, waitresses, rap musicians, my 55-year-old Philippino woman technician who, at one point, embroiled me in an argument over the merits of having Jaro Spacek quarterbacking the powerplay. It went on and on and on and on.
Suddenly, it was over. We attempted to find our bearings and discovered that we went from April to the end of June and missed out on the entire spring season. [Something that happens in July in Edmonton] was a mere two weeks away, giving us all pause as to the best way to scrape up some dollars and energy to do it all over again.
As magical a time as it was, I don't think anyone who experienced 2006 -- other than drunk-ass teenagers and their like-minded wannabes -- was really aching to do it all over again. It would have been too much.
That's the prevailing view from around town.
But we're still watching hockey. We would just rather anyone other than Calgary destroy themselves this time around.
As long as the Sedins play like they did during the season, Vancouver will be fine. Sure they won't out shoot a lot of teams, but do you need to with Luongo in goal?
Guess we'll see.
Oh, and L.Bob: I'd say "Suck It!!", but it's fair enough, I suppose. I eagerly await the year when I can turn that running gag around on Oiler fan. If my arthritis allows!!!!1!1!1111!!!111
Ha! You're gonna have a loooooong wait!
Hey, wait a minute...
Great post. I have one question.
Why did you prefer to use SF/SA as opposed to Corsi numbers?
Aren't Corsi numbers a better indicator of territorial play than SF/SA, as there are more events, even less chance for luck to be at play, if we're trying to figure out how much time a player, or a team -- spends in the offensive zone?
Or do you think the event -- a missed shot -- doesn't indicate much, and you'd prefer to focus only on an event, such as a shot for, that is more likely to indicate a positive play?
I use a system similar to yours but have one added stat, past series between the two clubs.
Some teams just own other teams, there is no logical explanation for it.
Boston for example, can beat any other team in their conference easily, except for Montreal.
I think of it as different teams having diffrent styles and some styles are better aginst others.
But to win the pool you have to predict the biggest upset otherwise you are just swimming in the middle of the pack along with everyone else.
Blues in 6!
Have a good summer on the links. Enjoy the Canucks' playoff run.I still don't see anything in the Canucks' play to suggest that they can hold their own against the even strength juggernauts in the West. Enjoy Detroit running Luongo into the ground, I guess.
Detroit is an 'even strength juggernaut'? Surely you jest?
You Flames fans can continue to mock the Canucks all you like, but it's very simple, really.
This team has one of the best goalies - if not the best - in the league playing at the top of his game.
This team has two of the most dominant even-strength players in the NHL (see Mirtle's recent analysis of the Sedin twins).
This team has a tremendous top-six defence corps.
This team has decent, if not excellent secondary scoring (Kesler, Burrows, Demitra...even Wellwood and Bernier).
Scoff all you like but this is the best all-around team the Canucks have had since 1994. And I like our chances against any team in this conference, especially Detroit.
The Flames meanwhile...
Detroit is an 'even strength juggernaut'? Surely you jest?Detroit is the best team in the league at even strength, hands down.
This team has two of the most dominant even-strength players in the NHLMirtle's analysis doesn't include outshooting and out-possession, which firmly places the Sedins in the "good but not spectacular" range. Certainly not "dominant". Even if I concede that they have higher shooting percentages to make up for it...
... that's still about where it ends for the Canucks. They have a good first line but down the roster they have gotten killed and will continue to be killed at even strength. They are a mediocre team across the board when it comes to outshooting opponents, and they will only continue to outscore its opponents if Luongo continues putting up 0.940+ play. Even then, at some point it is likely that his play will not be enough.
The Canucks may be at their strongest since 1994, but that still firmly puts them in the "mediocre" category. You have benefited in this first round by drawing another weak ES team in St. Louis.
The Flames meanwhile...
What about the Flames? Make your arguments about the Flames. Try to back them up with facts though.
Well, for starters, they are about to be eliminated in the first round.
Against a tougher opponent than St. Louis? Yes.
That's because the Canucks reeled the Flames in and overtook them over the last month-and-a-half of the season. You know, by having one of the best records in the league over the last few months of the season.
Rest assured, the Canucks will show you how to beat the Hawks if/when the time comes.
Mediocrity, indeed.
That's because the Canucks reeled the Flames in and overtook them over the last month-and-a-half of the season. You know, by having one of the best records in the league over the last few months of the season.Interesting. The Canucks won the division by two points. I could point to the extreme jobbing that the Flames received at the hands of the Canucks posts on April 7, or the questionable calls in numerous Canucks games (e.g. against Carolina, Anaheim) that led to them earning undeserved points on the back of Luongo's theatrics. I might also point to their overall shooting% of 0.104 or their Corsi metrics or similar figures that indicate that the Canucks have been unreal lucky all season.
But I won't, because you seem to know better. The Flames suck and the Canucks are the Cup favorite, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Well, the evidence is ultimately in the results.
You know, scores that determine winners and losers, for example.
The Canucks (a) won the division, (b) had a better record head-to-head, and (c) are doing much better thus far in the playoffs.
That speaks volumes in support of my claim that Vancouver is the better team, if you want to disregard my previous points about particular elements of the Canucks team.
On all the metrics that count at the end of the day, the Canucks are better. Simple as.
Well, the evidence is ultimately in the results.Not really. The results don't diffentiate whether you arrived at them through doing the things that consistently get you to those results, or whether you've gotten lucky and won't get there in the future. That's why we bother with these advanced metrics, so that we can figure this stuff out.
The Canucks (a) won the division, (b) had a better record head-to-head, and (c) are doing much better thus far in the playoffs.The Flames had more wins, and that's with the Canucks picking up at least 3 wholly undeserved points in the season from Luongo dives.
The head-to-head thing would be tied (with Calgary taking the division) but for three Vancouver posts. If you're trying to tell me that the results your team has achieved have been borne from lucky bounces, well... I agree with you!
Also, the Canucks are playing the Blues, so it's not surprising they're doing better. I thought we went over this already.
That speaks volumes in support of my claim that Vancouver is the better team, if you want to disregard my previous points about particular elements of the Canucks team.
On all the metrics that count at the end of the day, the Canucks are better. Simple as.No, it speaks volumes about how Vancouver has been a.) luckier, and b.) dirtier. Whet it comes to doing the things to win consistently, I don't see it in the Canucks.
Oh, and RO, your excuses are laughable!
The delusion of some Flames fans is astonishing. Actual results are explained away by 'dirty play,' 'luck' and outright refusal to accept reality. Sorry, but the results in this league are based on points. End of. Period. The Canucks had more. The Canucks had more head-to-head. The Canucks had an easier first round opponent because of this. It's not rocket science.
It's no wonder Sutter holds down a job so easily in Calgary. You exemplify the fans throughout the city who refuse to hold their own team accountable for their failures.
2004 is long gone, by the way. You might want to win a playoff series again sometime before that euphoria completely wears off.
The next thing you'll tell me that Stanley Cup championships should be mitigated by the number of unfair calls a team purportedly benefits from, 'lucky goaltending,' better meals for the victorious team on game days, etc.
For christ's sake, this isn't moneyball baseball, no matter how much you want it to be. Hockey is not entirely reducible to various sequences and series' of binary scenarios that can be ascertained completely with statistical analysis.
Get a damn life and actually watch the games. I do. The Canucks are the real deal. Whether you like it or not, you best get prepared to accept it.
The delusion of some Flames fans is astonishing. Actual results are explained away by 'dirty play,' 'luck' and outright refusal to accept reality. Sorry, but the results in this league are based on points. End of. Period. The Canucks had more. The Canucks had more head-to-head. The Canucks had an easier first round opponent because of this. It's not rocket science.
Well if you feel your season is complete by getting the division title and 100 points in the regular season - great. We'll end the discussion here.
But if you want your team to progress any further - say, past Detroit - then getting good results in the past doesn't 100% correlate with getting results in the future. Your past results may have been driven by playing good hockey, or getting the bounces (and favorable calls), or both. The difference is that good hockey is sustainable and bounces are not. This is not rocket science, it's common sense.
Enjoy your victory tonight. Don't let the fact that it was on the back of a perfectly good yet inexplicably and inexcusably disallowed goal by St. Louis, who utterly outplayed your team tonight, bother you. Seriously, the St. Louis fanbase deserves better.
Utterly outplayed us?
Spoken like a true Calgary fan.
The Canucks dominated this game until they let the Blues back into it. Yes, the Blues had the run of the play in the third. And, yes, apart from the first and last few minutes, the Blues availed themselves well in OT (incidentally, with the help of six minutes in power play time, including a four-minute man advantage).
Fortunately for us, we had 'lucky' Luongo in there. And 'lucky' Burrows. And 'dirty' Bieksa. And 'cheating' Mitchell. Oh yeah, and the Sedins and that Wellwood flake.
Man, with my luck I should be playing the lottery.
Utterly outplayed us?Do you know what Corsi is? I assume so because you are reading and replying in this fine blog. Well, in game 4, St. Louis registeered +20 in total, which means they directed 20 more shots at the net that Vancouver did. Now, generally having such a high Corsi in a game means that one team dominated the other territorially, and that's exactly what happened (I watched the game too, y'know). St. Louis dominated Vancouver in game 4, it was not even close, and if it weren't for the happy whistle of the referee, that series would be going to game 5.
(Because I'm pretty sure you don't know what Corsi is, it's the difference in shots directed towards the net at even strength only. So you can't exactly cry about getting shafted on PP's, because the Blues dominated your team at even strength in game 4.)
Post a Comment
<< Home
I'm just going to requote Quain here, because he hit the nail on the head:
"Look, let me break it down for you Jonathan, because I know you've never played professional hockey like I have.
Kipper is easily a Vezina candidate this year because he makes the BIG save. Nobody cares that Smith was making little saves in losing efforts. He wasn't making saves that were going to win the team the game, because he's a poor goaltender. If he were a good goaltender, he'd make the BIG saves and prevent HUGE goals. His team would have confidence in front of him to make BIG plays and SCORE BIG goals.
Kipper, on the other hand, makes HUGE saves. Like, last night: Sure, he was given a 4-1 lead and nearly blew it by giving up two goals, but what happened when it was 4-3 and Detroit was knocking? HE MADE THE BIG SAVES. Sure, he had the save percentage of an AHL goaltender last night, but he WON the GAME with BIG saves at THE right MOMENT. All that matters is BIG SAVES, not being laying flat on your belly while Datsyuk rips one from the sideboards above you. BIG SAVES.
AND THAT'S WHY KIPPER IS A MONSTER!"
And unfortunately I cut off his wonderful last paragraph:
"Sometimes, I have days where I like to be facetious. I wonder if that's how talking heads are every day, or if they just don't want to explain anything to their coworkers when they go out for drinks after the show. BIG DRINKS. With umbrellas. BIG ONES."
On the bright side though (seriously), they're in the playoffs, and when you're in, you have a chance. It sure beats the hell out of the alternative.Pfff. I relish the opportunity to rest our legs and improve our team in the lengthened off-season.
Scott -- thanks, but as usual, it's all Vic and timeonice.com. I meant to put the sample link in the post, and now I'm at the wrong computer. I'll try to drop it in tomorrow.
Oh, and L.Bob: I'd say "Suck It!!", but it's fair enough, I suppose. I eagerly await the year when I can turn that running gag around on Oiler fan. If my arthritis allows!!!!1!1!1111!!!111
Heh, I kill me.
Scott, here is the typical link for tie games. As usual, change the team abbrev, and/or first and last game numbers, to find what you're looking for. That one is for the Oilers since Feb1.
I was tempted to take the Blues, too, but I decided that in the small sample size of a single playoff series, the percentages would be more likely to have an impact, and that Luongo would have a better chance of pulling the percentages in his favour because, well, he's a better goaltender than Chris Mason, and more likely to sustain that kind of ridiculous percentage.
I enjoyed this post very much.
Last night's Rangers-Caps game sure didn't look like a coin flip to me. It looked like one team completely dominating the other but because of almost impossibly bad goaltending and a head-scratching non-interference call on the Rangers' first goal it lost the game. It's hard for me to imagine that scenario repeating 3 out of the next 6 games. We'll see if the Rangers outshoot the Caps once this series; my guess is no.
It's not that I've given up on hockey. I've been watching plenty of games since my Edmonton Oilers were bounced ignobly from the post-season due to the incompetent coaching. I'm probably watching more than I did during round one and I'm enjoying the game as much as ever.
Why is that?
For one, I still have a vested interest in the playoffs. My office pool has no more players from the West but my guys from Carolina and Buffalo are doing wonders for me in the East. As for my auction-draft team, we lost out bad by picking Mike Modano, Brenden Morrow and Michael Nylander, but are still alive and kicking with Joffrey Lupul, Francois Beachemin and Rod Brind'Amour.
I also happen to enjoy great playoff hockey in general, especially with these series being contested right now. The game is as exciting as it's ever been - it's fast, hard-hitting, and leads are suddenly surmountable. If only there were consistency in the officating, which has been at times wonderful and atrocious, this could be considered the dawning of a new Golden Age on ice.
The fact is, I'm afraid to say, lest I receive attacks on my character and loyalty, but I'm actually kinda, sorta glad that the Oilers are done. And I'm not the only one.
Many of my fellow Edmontonians expressed that same sentiment shortly after the team lost. It's not because we didn't want them to win: who doesn't want the bragging rights of a Stanley Cup champion, especially with the obnoxious buffoons residing three hours south on the QEII? We were all disappointed at the quick exit of the Oil and will deal with that for the next three or four months.
However, for those of us who were around during the 2006 run, a time filled with nostalgia of legendary proportions, we realized at once how much of a shit-show those two months were. Every day was a Oilers day: one was either talking about the game the night before, getting ready for the next game, or in some bar filled with carcenogenic smoke, spilled rye on blue jerseys, a dozen TVs and make-shift projection screens. Everyone was geared up. School kids, waitresses, rap musicians, my 55-year-old Philippino woman technician who, at one point, embroiled me in an argument over the merits of having Jaro Spacek quarterbacking the powerplay. It went on and on and on and on.
Suddenly, it was over. We attempted to find our bearings and discovered that we went from April to the end of June and missed out on the entire spring season. [Something that happens in July in Edmonton] was a mere two weeks away, giving us all pause as to the best way to scrape up some dollars and energy to do it all over again.
As magical a time as it was, I don't think anyone who experienced 2006 -- other than drunk-ass teenagers and their like-minded wannabes -- was really aching to do it all over again. It would have been too much.
That's the prevailing view from around town.
But we're still watching hockey. We would just rather anyone other than Calgary destroy themselves this time around.
# posted by 
: April 16, 2009 2:33 pm
: April 16, 2009 2:33 pm As long as the Sedins play like they did during the season, Vancouver will be fine. Sure they won't out shoot a lot of teams, but do you need to with Luongo in goal?
Guess we'll see.
Oh, and L.Bob: I'd say "Suck It!!", but it's fair enough, I suppose. I eagerly await the year when I can turn that running gag around on Oiler fan. If my arthritis allows!!!!1!1!1111!!!111
Ha! You're gonna have a loooooong wait!
Hey, wait a minute...
Great post. I have one question.
Why did you prefer to use SF/SA as opposed to Corsi numbers?
Aren't Corsi numbers a better indicator of territorial play than SF/SA, as there are more events, even less chance for luck to be at play, if we're trying to figure out how much time a player, or a team -- spends in the offensive zone?
Or do you think the event -- a missed shot -- doesn't indicate much, and you'd prefer to focus only on an event, such as a shot for, that is more likely to indicate a positive play?
I use a system similar to yours but have one added stat, past series between the two clubs.
Some teams just own other teams, there is no logical explanation for it.
Boston for example, can beat any other team in their conference easily, except for Montreal.
I think of it as different teams having diffrent styles and some styles are better aginst others.
But to win the pool you have to predict the biggest upset otherwise you are just swimming in the middle of the pack along with everyone else.
Blues in 6!
Have a good summer on the links. Enjoy the Canucks' playoff run.I still don't see anything in the Canucks' play to suggest that they can hold their own against the even strength juggernauts in the West. Enjoy Detroit running Luongo into the ground, I guess.
Detroit is an 'even strength juggernaut'? Surely you jest?
You Flames fans can continue to mock the Canucks all you like, but it's very simple, really.
This team has one of the best goalies - if not the best - in the league playing at the top of his game.
This team has two of the most dominant even-strength players in the NHL (see Mirtle's recent analysis of the Sedin twins).
This team has a tremendous top-six defence corps.
This team has decent, if not excellent secondary scoring (Kesler, Burrows, Demitra...even Wellwood and Bernier).
Scoff all you like but this is the best all-around team the Canucks have had since 1994. And I like our chances against any team in this conference, especially Detroit.
The Flames meanwhile...
Detroit is an 'even strength juggernaut'? Surely you jest?Detroit is the best team in the league at even strength, hands down.
This team has two of the most dominant even-strength players in the NHLMirtle's analysis doesn't include outshooting and out-possession, which firmly places the Sedins in the "good but not spectacular" range. Certainly not "dominant". Even if I concede that they have higher shooting percentages to make up for it...
... that's still about where it ends for the Canucks. They have a good first line but down the roster they have gotten killed and will continue to be killed at even strength. They are a mediocre team across the board when it comes to outshooting opponents, and they will only continue to outscore its opponents if Luongo continues putting up 0.940+ play. Even then, at some point it is likely that his play will not be enough.
The Canucks may be at their strongest since 1994, but that still firmly puts them in the "mediocre" category. You have benefited in this first round by drawing another weak ES team in St. Louis.
The Flames meanwhile...
What about the Flames? Make your arguments about the Flames. Try to back them up with facts though.
Well, for starters, they are about to be eliminated in the first round.
Against a tougher opponent than St. Louis? Yes.
That's because the Canucks reeled the Flames in and overtook them over the last month-and-a-half of the season. You know, by having one of the best records in the league over the last few months of the season.
Rest assured, the Canucks will show you how to beat the Hawks if/when the time comes.
Mediocrity, indeed.
That's because the Canucks reeled the Flames in and overtook them over the last month-and-a-half of the season. You know, by having one of the best records in the league over the last few months of the season.Interesting. The Canucks won the division by two points. I could point to the extreme jobbing that the Flames received at the hands of the Canucks posts on April 7, or the questionable calls in numerous Canucks games (e.g. against Carolina, Anaheim) that led to them earning undeserved points on the back of Luongo's theatrics. I might also point to their overall shooting% of 0.104 or their Corsi metrics or similar figures that indicate that the Canucks have been unreal lucky all season.
But I won't, because you seem to know better. The Flames suck and the Canucks are the Cup favorite, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Well, the evidence is ultimately in the results.
You know, scores that determine winners and losers, for example.
The Canucks (a) won the division, (b) had a better record head-to-head, and (c) are doing much better thus far in the playoffs.
That speaks volumes in support of my claim that Vancouver is the better team, if you want to disregard my previous points about particular elements of the Canucks team.
On all the metrics that count at the end of the day, the Canucks are better. Simple as.
Well, the evidence is ultimately in the results.Not really. The results don't diffentiate whether you arrived at them through doing the things that consistently get you to those results, or whether you've gotten lucky and won't get there in the future. That's why we bother with these advanced metrics, so that we can figure this stuff out.
The Canucks (a) won the division, (b) had a better record head-to-head, and (c) are doing much better thus far in the playoffs.The Flames had more wins, and that's with the Canucks picking up at least 3 wholly undeserved points in the season from Luongo dives.
The head-to-head thing would be tied (with Calgary taking the division) but for three Vancouver posts. If you're trying to tell me that the results your team has achieved have been borne from lucky bounces, well... I agree with you!
Also, the Canucks are playing the Blues, so it's not surprising they're doing better. I thought we went over this already.
That speaks volumes in support of my claim that Vancouver is the better team, if you want to disregard my previous points about particular elements of the Canucks team.
On all the metrics that count at the end of the day, the Canucks are better. Simple as.No, it speaks volumes about how Vancouver has been a.) luckier, and b.) dirtier. Whet it comes to doing the things to win consistently, I don't see it in the Canucks.
Oh, and RO, your excuses are laughable!
The delusion of some Flames fans is astonishing. Actual results are explained away by 'dirty play,' 'luck' and outright refusal to accept reality. Sorry, but the results in this league are based on points. End of. Period. The Canucks had more. The Canucks had more head-to-head. The Canucks had an easier first round opponent because of this. It's not rocket science.
It's no wonder Sutter holds down a job so easily in Calgary. You exemplify the fans throughout the city who refuse to hold their own team accountable for their failures.
2004 is long gone, by the way. You might want to win a playoff series again sometime before that euphoria completely wears off.
The next thing you'll tell me that Stanley Cup championships should be mitigated by the number of unfair calls a team purportedly benefits from, 'lucky goaltending,' better meals for the victorious team on game days, etc.
For christ's sake, this isn't moneyball baseball, no matter how much you want it to be. Hockey is not entirely reducible to various sequences and series' of binary scenarios that can be ascertained completely with statistical analysis.
Get a damn life and actually watch the games. I do. The Canucks are the real deal. Whether you like it or not, you best get prepared to accept it.
The delusion of some Flames fans is astonishing. Actual results are explained away by 'dirty play,' 'luck' and outright refusal to accept reality. Sorry, but the results in this league are based on points. End of. Period. The Canucks had more. The Canucks had more head-to-head. The Canucks had an easier first round opponent because of this. It's not rocket science.
Well if you feel your season is complete by getting the division title and 100 points in the regular season - great. We'll end the discussion here.
But if you want your team to progress any further - say, past Detroit - then getting good results in the past doesn't 100% correlate with getting results in the future. Your past results may have been driven by playing good hockey, or getting the bounces (and favorable calls), or both. The difference is that good hockey is sustainable and bounces are not. This is not rocket science, it's common sense.
Enjoy your victory tonight. Don't let the fact that it was on the back of a perfectly good yet inexplicably and inexcusably disallowed goal by St. Louis, who utterly outplayed your team tonight, bother you. Seriously, the St. Louis fanbase deserves better.
Utterly outplayed us?
Spoken like a true Calgary fan.
The Canucks dominated this game until they let the Blues back into it. Yes, the Blues had the run of the play in the third. And, yes, apart from the first and last few minutes, the Blues availed themselves well in OT (incidentally, with the help of six minutes in power play time, including a four-minute man advantage).
Fortunately for us, we had 'lucky' Luongo in there. And 'lucky' Burrows. And 'dirty' Bieksa. And 'cheating' Mitchell. Oh yeah, and the Sedins and that Wellwood flake.
Man, with my luck I should be playing the lottery.
Utterly outplayed us?Do you know what Corsi is? I assume so because you are reading and replying in this fine blog. Well, in game 4, St. Louis registeered +20 in total, which means they directed 20 more shots at the net that Vancouver did. Now, generally having such a high Corsi in a game means that one team dominated the other territorially, and that's exactly what happened (I watched the game too, y'know). St. Louis dominated Vancouver in game 4, it was not even close, and if it weren't for the happy whistle of the referee, that series would be going to game 5.
(Because I'm pretty sure you don't know what Corsi is, it's the difference in shots directed towards the net at even strength only. So you can't exactly cry about getting shafted on PP's, because the Blues dominated your team at even strength in game 4.)
Post a Comment
<< Home
