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

This forum is to discuss game day happenings. New threads will be posted for each game.

Moderator: Referees

Re: Quick is NOT stealing this series for LA

Postby Farhan Lalji » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:59 am

Cornuck wrote:
Farhan Lalji wrote:And my point is that much like they did with Tim Thomas, the Canucks are making Quick to look way better than he actually is......due to an inability to get effective quality shots on him.


Or you could say that the LA Defense (and system) is making Quick look good. We're not taking low % shots as a choice.

Just like Boston - if we can out-coach the system, then we're doomed to taking perimeter shots.


But here's my question: (as it relates to Boston...........since I have no idea what's in store for LA if they do get passed us).

Why could a team like Tampa Bay light up Thomas for 20+ goals, despite the greatness of Thomas and despite Boston's tremendous defensive system?

When we played Nashville last year, we also struggled to generate offense (sans Kesler).......and yet Anaheim from the series before didn't have much of a problem.

Yes - Quick is an excellent goalie and the Kings have an excellent defensive system..............but aren't elite players such as Henrik Sedin (with or without Daniel) and Kesler supposed to be able to overcome this? The truth of the matter is that we're NOT "just another team."

We are the Canucks are we're supposed to make opposing teams out there afraid with our offense.

If the Kings gets passed us, it will be interesting to see how other teams perform against them in terms of producing offensively.
Farhan Lalji
 

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

Postby Farhan Lalji » Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:03 pm

donlever wrote:..929 save percentage 1.95 GAA 10 shutouts Vezina candidate.

Apparently a good number of teams made Quick look better than he is this season.


The Canucks aren't supposed to be "a good number of teams."

Again - look at the Bruins from last year. Like LA, Thomas was invincible and the Bruins defensive system was tremendous (like LA's).......and yet Tampa had no problem lighting them up (Tampa's downfall was that they couldn't play defense worth Nigerian shit).

If we're comparing ourselves to a "good number of teams", then there's no reason for me to bitch.

However - if we're comparing ourselves to teams that are equally as offensively dangerous as us, and that team is getting far more out of their top players, then fingers need to pointed.
Farhan Lalji
 

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

Postby Puck » Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:14 pm

My concern is this: Van could come out and totally dominate, getting shots from everywhere (including the slot) with lots of rebound chances and Quick IS good enough to still keep it to 1 or less GA. Since the Canucks have no lives left, that will be it. Remember game 1 of the '94 finals? 50+ shots by the Rangers and the 'Nucks managed to win in OT (thanks Adams).

I'm pretty nervous that something like this could easily happen to your Canucks tonight. Here's hoping the Kings have a very bad case of the Schneids tonight and Danny scores 4 from being all pent up on the sidelines.
User avatar
Puck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

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

Postby clem » Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:28 pm

One game at a time.

Put our best effort on the ice. It's all you can do.

That's the way the Canucks should be looking at it.
User avatar
clem
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:45 am

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

Postby Waffle » Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:25 pm

There was an interesting discussion about Quick and comparing his performance to the Vancouver goalies over at Canucks Misconduct recently:
Behind the Numbers: Is Jonathan Quick overrated?
http://www.nucksmisconduct.com/2012/4/1 ... -overrated

As far as the stats related to goal scoring and number of shots versus the quality of the shot vs the quality of the chance vs luck, there are so many variables in terms of definitions and time frames in the numbers, that the results can only be said to be interesting, but meaningless.

If all shots have an equal liklihood of going in, then hockey would be a game of teams lining up on their own goal line the cheapest people they could find who could hold a hockey stick and having them take turns shooting the puck at the other team's net, because, after all, what's the point of skating all over the ice and working to get shots closer to the other teams' goal when all shots have the same likelihood of going in, no matter who the player and where they shoot from. Statistics to the contrary, I don’t think that anyone would believe that having the puck in the slot with no one checking you and a wide open net in front of you results in the same chance to score as shooting from your own goal line with the goalie in position, no matter how lucky the goalie or the shooter has been in the last few games. Remember that the stats relate to long periods of time and not to an individual circumstance.

In terms of predicting playoff wins, the best correlating statistic that has been produced so far is the Score Adjusted Fenwick (SAF) for the time period after the trade deadline (and over 100 years, its predictive rate would be about 75% percent accurate as far as I can tell, which is about the same as the oddsmakers in Vegas give):
http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2012/1 ... ed-fenwick

For the western teams:

.....................Post Deadline SAF...............Pre Deadline SAF
LA.........................56.6...................................51.6
St L........................54.2...................................54.7
Det........................54.0...................................55.7
San J......................52.1...................................53.3
Van........................51.1...................................52.5
Chic.......................50.8...................................52.5
Nashville..................48.5...................................45.9
Phoenix...................47.3...................................49.2

The only series not following this predictor so far are the Detroit/Nashville one, and possibly Chicago/Phoenix. None of the series are over yet though. There are 4 series so probably one of them will not follow the predictor.
Waffle
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:38 am

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

Postby the Dogsalmon » Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:35 pm

Waffle wrote:There was an interesting discussion about Quick and comparing his performance to the Vancouver goalies over at Canucks Misconduct recently:
Behind the Numbers: Is Jonathan Quick overrated?
http://www.nucksmisconduct.com/2012/4/1 ... -overrated

As far as the stats related to goal scoring and number of shots versus the quality of the shot vs the quality of the chance vs luck, there are so many variables in terms of definitions and time frames in the numbers, that the results can only be said to be interesting, but meaningless.

If all shots have an equal liklihood of going in, then hockey would be a game of teams lining up on their own goal line the cheapest people they could find who could hold a hockey stick and having them take turns shooting the puck at the other team's net, because, after all, what's the point of skating all over the ice and working to get shots closer to the other teams' goal when all shots have the same likelihood of going in, no matter who the player and where they shoot from. Statistics to the contrary, I don’t think that anyone would believe that having the puck in the slot with no one checking you and a wide open net in front of you results in the same chance to score as shooting from your own goal line with the goalie in position, no matter how lucky the goalie or the shooter has been in the last few games. Remember that the stats relate to long periods of time and not to an individual circumstance.

In terms of predicting playoff wins, the best correlating statistic that has been produced so far is the Score Adjusted Fenwick (SAF) for the time period after the trade deadline (and over 100 years, its predictive rate would be about 75% percent accurate as far as I can tell, which is about the same as the oddsmakers in Vegas give):
http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2012/1 ... ed-fenwick

For the western teams:

.....................Post Deadline SAF...............Pre Deadline SAF
LA.........................56.6...................................51.6
St L........................54.2...................................54.7
Det........................54.0...................................55.7
San J......................52.1...................................53.3
Van........................51.1...................................52.5
Chic.......................50.8...................................52.5
Nashville..................48.5...................................45.9
Phoenix...................47.3...................................49.2

The only series not following this predictor so far are the Detroit/Nashville one, and possibly Chicago/Phoenix. None of the series are over yet though. There are 4 series so probably one of them will not follow the predictor.





there is no way i can smoke enough dope for this to make sense...
User avatar
the Dogsalmon
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 665
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:12 am
Location: in the ainus

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

Postby Topper » Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:31 pm

I haven't done it, nor will I, but I can well imagine there in an inverse relationship between # of goals and distance from the net of the last touch.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4787
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

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

Postby Farhan Lalji » Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:52 pm

Topper wrote:I haven't done it, nor will I, but I can well imagine there in an inverse relationship between # of goals and distance from the net of the last touch.


According to my statistical research, an almost perfect negative correlation exists.

The higher the number of goals, the 98.11111111111111% likelihood (+/- .000000000002% standard deviation) that the distance from the net of the last touch is greater.
Farhan Lalji
 

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

Postby Waffle » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:26 pm

LOL

And we haven't even gotten into Poisson statistics related to goal scoring!

You want personal opinion? We got that here.

You want some objectivity injected into the discussion? We got that too.

Edit: finally found the David Johnson posts with thoughts about Desjardins opinions about shot quality which I am adding here for future reference

Related to shot quality, David Johnson’s thoughts (there are more in several posts after this article):

Some Thoughts on Shot Quality
http://hockeyanalysis.com/page/4/
and
On-ice Shooting Percentage as a Talent
http://hockeyanalysis.com/2011/10/10/on ... -a-talent/


on Desjardins thoughts about shot quality:

With Apologies to The Weakerthans...I hate "Shot Quality"
http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2011/10/ ... ot-quality
Waffle
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:38 am

Previous

Return to Game Day Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests