I have nothing more to add.......for now.

Moderator: Referees
Of course not, but I'm not really basing my assessment on merely these ten games. Most of these players were on pace for in and around these numbers last season (except for Hansen).Jovocop wrote:It's great to see both Santorelli and Richardson playing well above expectation. However, it's only been 10 games in the season. I assume you would not expect both of them outscoring Daniel, Henrik, and Kesler in a 82-games season, would you? Stanton, so far, has 1 goal which is more than Bieksa and Tanev. Are you expecting him to score 1 goal every 10 games from now on and outscoring Bieksa?? Perhaps Stanton can outscore TanevMondi wrote:The team is 10 games into the season, and they have
Daniel 2
Henrik 2
Burrows 0 (I know he's injured)
Kesler 3
Hansen 2
Higgins 2
That's a lot of top six guys on pace for 16 goal seasons.
Booth has 1, Kassian has 1 and god bless Mike Santorelli and Brad Richardson both outscoring all of our $2 million plus forwards.
I would look at trading anyone on this team for offensive help, today. No one is untouchable. Nor should they be.
However, I'd be careful asking GMMG to make any trades as his track record suggests we'd probably do something like Shinkaruk and a first for Tomas Fleischmann!.
No really if you want any relevant data. It's an incredibly long season. If you look at the underlying data for these players and the team as a whole, we are doing OK.Mondi wrote:I mean an 1/8 of the season is surely enough to draw some conclusions?
Thank you, Herb!herb wrote:No really if you want any relevant data. It's an incredibly long season. If you look at the underlying data for these players and the team as a whole, we are doing OK.Mondi wrote:I mean an 1/8 of the season is surely enough to draw some conclusions?
I love the early season for the simple fact I love to watch all of the armchair critics out there gush at the guys who rocket out of the gate and shit on those who get off to a slow start.
Dan Hamhuis only has two points this season (on pace for 16...). What the hell conclusions can we reliably make from that other than he's having a slow start?
In their most recent seasons with the Canucks, Booth, Hansen and Higgins have scored at a 23, 17 and 20 goal paces (over 82 games) respectively. I fully expect these established veteran players to score at similar paces this year.
Dank, Kesler and Higgins are currently 7th, 8th and 9th in league wide shots taken, yet neither of these guys has more than three goals. Combined, they have taken 114 shots, but have only scored seven times, which results in a pathetic shooting percentage of 6. In previous years, these three scored at around a 10% clip.
I'm a bit more concerned about Booth, Kassian and Hansen at this point as they are simply not getting enough pucks on net, but I think they will come along.
Your math with respect to Booth is banana sandwich, unless you're going back two years for your projection. Not to mention, said player is now a healthy scratch (being replaced by a defenseman).herb wrote:No really if you want any relevant data. It's an incredibly long season. If you look at the underlying data for these players and the team as a whole, we are doing OK.Mondi wrote:I mean an 1/8 of the season is surely enough to draw some conclusions?
I love the early season for the simple fact I love to watch all of the armchair critics out there gush at the guys who rocket out of the gate and shit on those who get off to a slow start.
Dan Hamhuis only has two points this season (on pace for 16...). What the hell conclusions can we reliably make from that other than he's having a slow start?
In their most recent seasons with the Canucks, Booth, Hansen and Higgins have scored at a 23, 17 and 20 goal paces (over 82 games) respectively. I fully expect these established veteran players to score at similar paces this year.
Dank, Kesler and Higgins are currently 7th, 8th and 9th in league wide shots taken, yet neither of these guys has more than three goals. Combined, they have taken 114 shots, but have only scored seven times, which results in a pathetic shooting percentage of 6. In previous years, these three scored at around a 10% clip.
I'm a bit more concerned about Booth, Kassian and Hansen at this point as they are simply not getting enough pucks on net, but I think they will come along.
Not sure why I would analyze seasons where there was very little to no data to build any conclusions off of other than he was injured the entire time. Shocking he didn't put up points when he didn't play, I know. You're right though; Booth probably won't play the rest of the year.Mondi wrote:Your math with respect to Booth is banana sandwich, unless you're going back two years for your projection. Not to mention, said player is now a healthy scratch (being replaced by a defenseman).
What does a second line player on a cup contender score over 82 games? 50ish points...hey look, Saad, Stalberg and Bickell scored at similar rates with Chicago last year as Higgins and Hansen.Mondi wrote:I do expect Hansen and Higgins to chip between 15 and 20 goals a piece, probably not enough from bona fide second liners on a Cup contender. Unless you have a couple of other 40-goal men up front...
Wouldn't be a total shock if these two don't eclipse their career highs.Mondi wrote:As for Daniel, and Kesler...they have been trending down the last couple season. In my view, 30 to 35 goals a piece will be necessary to make up fro the lack secondary scoring Vancouver did have when they were challenging for President's Trophies and indeed the Cup. They could get there, but I think the last 40+ NHL games for Daniel have yielded 6 goals. Of course, that's not a great sample size. Then again, you can work with the data you have.
Shot difficulty is impossible to quantify. Are you suggesting these players are taking shots from different areas than they did in the past and that this trend is likely to continue for the foreseeable future? Over the long term, their shooting percentages will probably revert closer to their career averages (~10%).Mondi wrote:As for your analysis on shots taken, that's great. But you also have look at the games and see where those shots are coming from. The long range wrister from the boards isn't exactly a high percentage shot. Even Torts was getting on the boys about not getting to the scoring areas.
Who wouldn't be excited for more offense? Just please don't make it at the expense of what little exciting prospect depth we have, because this is very likely a transition year and not a "go all in" year.Mondi wrote:I guess my point wasn't to raise the ire of all the resident homers, just that I'd be up for a hockey trade to inject some creativity in the offence outside of one Henrik Sedin (the greatest Canuck of all time).
Why Johnny...I do believe that's the funniest thing you've ever posted!JonT21 wrote:I think seeing how the past 10 games are crucial that we know for a fact that Mike Smith will now score more goals then Kopitar, Giroux, Stepan, and Nash combined....
Sweet!dbr wrote: Can't think of too many times with three thirty goal scorers and four more twenty goal scorers
Dammit!dbr wrote:not that it matters because of how insanely premature it is to draw conclusions like this......
This is a Canucks message board.Mondi wrote: I guess my point wasn't to raise the ire of all the resident homers
OR... you're delusional.Mondi wrote:Actually I don't really care what you think SL.
Then again, you seem to respond to all of my posts.
You're so obsessed with me.