GDT: Game 3 Vancouver @ LA Kings - April 15 7:30pm - CBC

[Larry Goodenough]

Over the 3 games, Vancouver's even strength puck possession stats are 60%. They turned LA into a 60% fenwick team since the deadline into a 40% team. Vancouver is dominating a team 5 on 5 that was itself dominating through March and April.

Gillis and Vigneault talk about "the process". This is the process, control the puck more than the other team and give yourself better percentages to win. Brain dead plays by Edler that end up in the net or unlucky bounces on special teams that end up in the net have been the difference. Coaching or the process has not.

Over the course of a season, with possession stats like that, Vancouver would win another presidents trophy and LA would be 30th overall. However, Quick has had a lucky/unsustainable/hot run over the very small 3 game sample and here Vancouver sits 3 buzz. You can criticize Vancouver's inabilities to score, but I'll point out other other team, including it's goalie has alot to say about your scoring as well.

Quick's regular season save percentage was .929. Vancouver had 99 shots over the last 2 games. If Quick plays only up to his Vezina calibre regular season level, instead of a .980 level, Vancouver would have scored 5 more goals in the last 2 games. That would probably mean 2 wins instead of two losses.

I'll throw this quote out there one more time

"Hockey is a little bit schizophrenic in this way. It holds two mutually contradictory values, the short-term and the long-term, and this is reflected in the structure of the season itself. The regular season is constructed to prize durable, sustainable talents, to average out streaks and slumps and give the favorable position to the most consistent teams. But then that reward is followed up by a tournament of ridiculously small sample sizes where any little surge of awesomeness, from anyone, no matter what their true talent level, might make the difference between a Cup ring and a golf cart. The game is designed, in the end, to give out its highest prizes based on unsustainable streaks."

Larry, you think too much. The number crunching is crazy, over analyzing. Strip it down to it's simplest form, and you might notice that it's just 10 men (made up of two teams, 5 aside) with sticks chasing a small, flat black object around an ice surface while wearing shoes attached to a sharp piece of medal to help them glide while trying to put the flat, black object it into the opposing teams net that is being protected by a human being standing in front of it called a goalie. May the best man win, or should I say team.

Dude, for someone who has issues with the Christian side of David Booth, I figured you lean towards the science and irrefutable facts of hockey as opposed to the metaphysical aspects of the game.

[Orcasfan]

Totally agree with RoyalDude! The problem is the scoring - and especially the 2nd line. And the problem with that line is Kessler. He should be on the wing! He is a great checking center, but he is not a playmaker! When was the last time you saw him make a great pass to his open winger in the offensive zone? If he is not making plays, who, on that line, is? Certainly not Booth, and we won't even mention Raymond (though it's a toss-up if he is a worse playmaker/passer than Kes!). Until they get someone who is a bone-fide 2nd line C - we are going to see the same shit over and over.

And, they did try Kes on the wing with Cody at center (way back early in the season). No luck. Cody may have developed into that center in a couple of years, but he is not there yet!

And I guess the "switch" only refers to effort and not much else!

[Waffle]

If anyone is wondering about the shots on goal versus “scoring chances,” Cam Charron over at canucksarmy has been posting such stats for Vancouver for a long time.

The Canucks may have had more shots on goal, but LA won the scoring chance battle.

http://canucksarmy.com/
BROWN DOES IT ALL FOR KINGS - RECAP AND SCORING CHANCES

-9-13 the scoring chances in this one, in LA's favour. 8-11 at even strength and 4-10 with the score tied at 5-on-5. A lot of the Canucks' game, generating rebounds, creating chances off of blocked shots and the like. Jonathan Quick, as he has all series, kept those rebounds away, and the Kings' defence just cleared those rebounds away with unimpressive efficiency, creating little in the way of scoring chances for Vancouver.

-That chance at 5:02 to go in the third was the Canucks' season in a nut-shell. Mason Raymond makes a great play in the offensive zone, making moves around defenders, bringing it in front to a very good spot, and throwing a pretty weak attempt on net. The Canucks have accomplished very little with all the time they've spent in the offensive zone.

“-Rough game for the Chris Tanev-Keith Ballard pairing, against no significant matchup.”
As an aside, Tanev was on the ice for one scoring chance for and 5 against.

[mathonwy]

[mathonwy]

Larry, you think too much. The number crunching is crazy, over analyzing. Strip it down to it's simplest form, and you might notice that it's just 10 men (made up of two teams, 5 aside) with sticks chasing a small, flat black object around an ice surface while wearing shoes attached to a sharp piece of medal to help them glide while trying to put the flat, black object it into the opposing teams net that is being protected by a human being standing in front of it called a goalie. May the best man win, or should I say team.

God forbid Larry actually introduces statistics to disprove your "argument".

Now THAT would be crazy. Everything should be as subjective as possible and there should be no right and wrong. Then we can all circlejerk around you forever and you get to eat the cracker.

[Reefer2]

Quick is winning the series, Vancouver is not losing it.

Well Larry I think you and I are watching different games, majority of the shot the Canucks take are from the outside/point with no one screening Quick. Quick has not been exposed for the goalie he really is (jk) he is not bad but the team has not properly tested him.

[Topper]

Larry, you think too much. The number crunching is crazy, over analyzing. Strip it down to it's simplest form, and you might notice that it's just 10 men (made up of two teams, 5 aside) with sticks chasing a small, flat black object around an ice surface while wearing shoes attached to a sharp piece of medal to help them glide while trying to put the flat, black object it into the opposing teams net that is being protected by a human being standing in front of it called a goalie. May the best man win, or should I say team.

Bang on Dude.

Stats are a compliment to observation not a replacement for them. Larry reminds me of any recent born again christian who has to flash his second navel at every chance.

[dbr]

Finally, LA played alot of games against offensive weaklings during the regular season, who most likely got off hundreds of even shittier shots. Yet, Quick's save percentage was still .929 during the large regular season sample vs .980 over the last 2 games.

In the end, with a big regular season sample, quality shots vs shitty shots and lucky bounces vs unlucky bounces will even out and you're left with a clear save percentage that quite closely reflects a goalie's repeatable talent.

I agree.

That being said, in a seven game series you can't throw up your hands and say "yeah, but over a larger sample size"..

Well, you can as a fan.. but when 'you' are responsible for the team's performance it just doesn't make sense. If you wait for the team's luck to turn around or for the percentages to even out, your season might well be over before it happens.

Sometimes a team has to go out there and force the issue.

If the Canucks can't rely on Quick to stop making the saves you are saying he shouldn't be making, then they need to go out there and stop him from making those saves; get in his way, obstruct his view, hell run him over and get his head out of the game.

[the Dogsalmon]

Larry, you think too much. The number crunching is crazy, over analyzing. Strip it down to it's simplest form, and you might notice that it's just 10 men (made up of two teams, 5 aside) with sticks chasing a small, flat black object around an ice surface while wearing shoes attached to a sharp piece of medal to help them glide while trying to put the flat, black object it into the opposing teams net that is being protected by a human being standing in front of it called a goalie. May the best man win, or should I say team.

God forbid Larry actually introduces statistics to disprove your "argument".

Now THAT would be crazy. Everything should be as subjective as possible and there should be no right and wrong. Then we can all circlejerk around you forever and you get to eat the cracker.

thats the last time i put crackers in my cream of broccoli soup...

[Farhan Lalji]

Re: Quick is NOT stealing this series for LA

I want to go on record as saying that I do NOT agree with the notion that Quick is stealing the series for LA right now. He is not.

Just as was the case with Tim Thomas from Games 3 and onwards, the Canucks are making Quick to look MUCH better than he actually is.

Quick might be facing a ton of shots, but most of them are of low quality and/or from weak angles........thanks in large part, to LA's excellent positional play and team defense..........which is directly a result of our 'predictable' way of penetrating the defensive zone and/or doing the exact same thing again and again.

[Larry Goodenough]

Re: Quick is NOT stealing this series for LA

I want to go on record as saying that I do NOT agree with the notion that Quick is stealing the series for LA right now. He is not.

Just as was the case with Tim Thomas from Games 3 and onwards, the Canucks are making Quick to look MUCH better than he actually is.

Quick might be facing a ton of shots, but most of them are of low quality and/or from weak angles........thanks in large part, to LA's excellent positional play and team defense..........which is directly a result of our 'predictable' way of penetrating the defensive zone and/or doing the exact same thing again and again.

LA used the same players, the same system and gave up the same types of shots all season. Most teams couldn't penetrate LA's defensive zone all season long. Yet his save percentage went from .929 to .980

That's not opinion, but fact.

[Larry Goodenough]

Larry, you think too much. The number crunching is crazy, over analyzing. Strip it down to it's simplest form, and you might notice that it's just 10 men (made up of two teams, 5 aside) with sticks chasing a small, flat black object around an ice surface while wearing shoes attached to a sharp piece of medal to help them glide while trying to put the flat, black object it into the opposing teams net that is being protected by a human being standing in front of it called a goalie. May the best man win, or should I say team.

Bang on Dude.

Stats are a compliment to observation not a replacement for them. Larry reminds me of any recent born again christian who has to flash his second navel at every chance.

I agree with you. With that being said, my observation of Quick is he's very good positionally, as opposed to Tim Thomas would flails alot. So I would suggest the average fan sees the spectacular Thomas save and thinks he's stealing a series. He does not see Quick diving about, so Vancouver must not be doing enough.

So I look to the stats to compliment these observations. Stopping 97 or 99 shots suggests something we're not seeing.

Also, I thought the response was yawn and fart? BTW, your yawns smell worse than your farts.

And as I mentioned earlier, Born Again Christian's don't necessarily embrace science.

[Meds]

Re: Quick is NOT stealing this series for LA

I want to go on record as saying that I do NOT agree with the notion that Quick is stealing the series for LA right now. He is not.

Just as was the case with Tim Thomas from Games 3 and onwards, the Canucks are making Quick to look MUCH better than he actually is.

Quick might be facing a ton of shots, but most of them are of low quality and/or from weak angles........thanks in large part, to LA's excellent positional play and team defense..........which is directly a result of our 'predictable' way of penetrating the defensive zone and/or doing the exact same thing again and again.

LA used the same players, the same system and gave up the same types of shots all season. Most teams couldn't penetrate LA's defensive zone all season long. Yet his save percentage went from .929 to .980

That's not opinion, but fact.

Thats not because Quick is elevating his game, it's because the Canucks are lobbing softballs at him from the perimeter thinking that that will be enough to solve him. Other teams waited and picked their shots. Any goalie is going to get an instant boost in save percentage when suddenly he is the beneficiary of an extra 10+ low speed perimeter shots every game.

Even you, Larry, would post great numbers in Quick's skates right now by simply being in the right spot and dropping to a butterfly and letting the puck hit you.

[donlever]

...it's because the Canucks are lobbing softballs at him from the perimeter thinking that that will be enough to solve him.

Ahh, is that what they're thinking??

I was wondering re: the reasoning.

Thanks Meds.

[Larry Goodenough]

Re: Quick is NOT stealing this series for LA

I want to go on record as saying that I do NOT agree with the notion that Quick is stealing the series for LA right now. He is not.

Just as was the case with Tim Thomas from Games 3 and onwards, the Canucks are making Quick to look MUCH better than he actually is.

Quick might be facing a ton of shots, but most of them are of low quality and/or from weak angles........thanks in large part, to LA's excellent positional play and team defense..........which is directly a result of our 'predictable' way of penetrating the defensive zone and/or doing the exact same thing again and again.

LA used the same players, the same system and gave up the same types of shots all season. Most teams couldn't penetrate LA's defensive zone all season long. Yet his save percentage went from .929 to .980

That's not opinion, but fact.

Thats not because Quick is elevating his game, it's because the Canucks are lobbing softballs at him from the perimeter thinking that that will be enough to solve him. Other teams waited and picked their shots. Any goalie is going to get an instant boost in save percentage when suddenly he is the beneficiary of an extra 10+ low speed perimeter shots every game.

Even you, Larry, would post great numbers in Quick's skates right now by simply being in the right spot and dropping to a butterfly and letting the puck hit you.

?

What evidence do you have that "other teams picked their shots"? If that is the key to success, why is Vancouver not doing it? How are these answers so easy for anonymous internet fans, but not to a professional organization that just went to the finals? Wanting it more, working harder, better team chemistry, better coaching... all fan psychodrama that distracts from the fact talent influences hockey over the long term, but luck can play a factor short term.

Again, the actual evidence is LA is playing the same personel and the same defensive system that they played all season. They forced everyone to take shots from the outside all season long. LA has not magically changed their game, neither has Vancouver. Quick saw plenty of softballs all season long. His save percentage all season long was 93%.

And I never once said Quick elevated his game. That is impossible unless he purposely played a lesser game in the regular season. He is a great goalie on a hot/lucky streak - a double whammy. Sometimes you can flip heads 7 times out of 10.