HdC% shows that they make the best out of shot and chance quality. If it was complete ass, they'd be under the league average like the Avs that are struggling when they should be much better.

Here's another stat, on 5v5 the Canucks 12th with 27goals against. Of the 11 teams, 9 teams have points percentages of. 600 or higher. This means the Canucks are keeping up with good teams on 5v5 and showing respectable results.

Here's another stat from evolving hockey, Canucks top 6 forwards have a goal differential of +8 from their top 6 combinations, 5/6 & 4/6 lines with a positive Corsi and Expected Goals percentage. The bottom 6f lines altogether have a neutral 5v5 goal differential. However, only 2/6 lines have a positive Corsi and Expected Goals percentage. So much like last season with beagle and Sutter, the bottom 6 is struggling except they also can't pk and win faceoffs either. Similar story with the top pairing VS bottom pairing on the back end.

+/- is a terrible stat, but half the players on the team have +'s despite the team losing so much and having a goal differential of 16. It's the bottom 6 guys and the lotto line that all have minus, which pretty much sums up the team, struggling depth, non existent lotto line threat, invisible boeser/Petey those lines are the ones being outscored and out controlled during 5v5.

If they were not great at all on 5v5, the team as a whole have less than 50 corsi%, majority of the players would be in minuses, none of the core would make a positive difference and be part of the bottom 6 struggles. Pretty much like last season, the team as a whole would just be terrible altogether cuz they'd be dominated on 5v5. This season, the Canucks are costing games by having beyond shitty special teams in the NHL not because their 5v5 is not great.


This post was edited by Secksii on Nov 18 2021 02:25pm

Still not understanding why this is even relevant. Why does it matter how good they are at converting if they are severely out-chanced?

Like, if we only had 1 high-danger scoring chance all year and we scored on it, that's 100% conversion. Does that mean having 1 scoring chance over 17 games is a good thing?



Raw stats mean little. We're 14th in the league (tied with 3 other teams) at 50% goal-share at 5-on-5.

So like I said, average.

51% corsi, average.

Special teams is the reason we are losing a lot, yes of course.

But don't let that mask the many other flaws this team has.

This post was edited by LuLer on Nov 18 2021 05:20pm

Holy... I don't even.

It's literally showing you real data based on what happened so far. It's not an opinion, or bias.

You say that the Canucks get severely out chanced and aren't great on 5v5, but that's not true. For a bottom ~.300 team, they're still ABOVE average and comparable to .500 - .600 teams on 5v5. That's saying a lot because normally a terrible team like that do not have these numbers, they're most likely to be below average, hence they're bottom feeding teams in the league. This is also including the fact that their 2 best players aren't performing at all and are invisible (petey & boeser).
Here are some examples comparable to other bottom feeding teams:

You can see that other bottom teams are severely struggling to convert on their high scoring chances when given the opportunity as they're all below the HDC% of league average.
Most of them are also getting outcontrolled and outplayed as their CF is much below the 50% mark. Only the habs and kraken are controlling most of their games on 5v5. However, they're not converting on their chances or their goalie is trash, and allowing far more goals than they should while controlling the game. You can see their actual aGF/aGA with axDiff, as you'd expect from a bottom feeding team. The Canucks are literally just dead even with 27/27 and a POSITIVE axDiff of 4. These "raw" stats can mean little to you, but despite how terrible the Canucks are, they're nothing like these bottom feeding teams on 5v5. Yes, the team is average, they're not cup contenders. That's not what we're talking about though, you're saying that the Canucks aren't great on 5v5 despite the data showing you otherwise based on their current circumstances. They're doing great on 5v5, i mean the most recent game vs the avs was pretty telling but apparently we aren't watching the same game.

This team definitely has a lot of flaws, but 5v5 is least of their worries. It's the special teams that is the most concerning and is literally destroying this team. You give these special team results to any cup contending teams and they would be instantly out of the picture too. It's so fucking bad that the Canucks will probably have a higher chance winning the game if they decide to flip a coin to concede a goal or not after being called for a penalty, and going straight back to 5v5 lol.

This post was edited by Secksii on Nov 18 2021 06:30pm

For me it is pretty simple.

Give up 3 powerplay goals = lose the game.

No sense to even address anything else until that embarrassment is dealt with first.

$1.50 jumbo dog and pop. How do you beat that haha.

Often times I will just buy two and not want the other drink.

This post was edited by Killingyouall on Nov 18 2021 06:58pm

thats my number one problem, sometimes i want 2 hotdogs and only 1 drink lol

ps: we need torts back to instill some fear into our boys

What has to do with opinion or bias? Here are the updated 5-on-5 stats as per NaturalStatTrick:

CF% - 51% for 11th
FF% - 50% for 14th
eGF% - 47% for 26th
GF% - 50% for 15th (outperforming expected = lucky)
SCF% - 49% for 22nd

And by the way, this isn't 2006-2014 anymore where having a positive corsi means you're "controlling the play". Especially not when it's just 1% above average.

Corsi doesn't take into account shot quality, which eGF% does. The game is moving past these stats.

We're 26th in the league in expected goals for share, meaning we have the 26th worst ratio when it comes to the chances we get vs the chances we give up... which means we suck.

Currently we have an overall goal differential of -16
If we were average on the PP, we'd have 3 more goals = -13
If we were average on the PK, we'd give up 11 less goals = -2
-2 goal differential = average team, at best

And I'm still not understanding what the importance of the conversion stat is. That's just telling me we either have good finishers and/or we're getting lucky. I'm asking out of ignorance if anything because this is honestly the first time I've ever seen this stat mentioned.

This post was edited by LuLer on Nov 18 2021 11:00pm

Time/date does not change a definition of a stat. Analytics however, can be refined and retooled overtime, but definitions are fixed. You might as well say that GF back in 90s do not mean GF now, it makes no sense. Yes, the Canucks are "only" 51% CF for 11th out of 32 teams in the NHL. Above average, despite being a .300 team and there's usually something noticeable that can explain why that is. For example, the Canucks are because of incompetent special teams and Seattle is because of incompetent goalies. We always complained about how the Canucks are always outplayed and trapped in their own zone majority of the game, and when they finally improved on that, not just slight but immensely (5% CF boost is huge amount of change in just a season.) You're now complaining about it being.. just average...? Just so you know, even the best teams in the league are like 55%, the gap from 51-54 literally determines several spots from top 3 to 12. To add on to this, another fun fact is that the Canucks had a PDO of 95 in their 5 game losing streak which includes the blowouts, and had a CF of 53%. They're also scoring 10 goals less than expected from an average team, which is a given considering Petey and Boeser aren't doing what everyone expected them to do.

The Canucks have a goal differential of -16 because of their terribad special teams and 3 blow out games in a row when they iced 3 depth dmen (poolman suspension) and broke up OEL/Myers top pairing line in the league due to that. The Canucks 5on5 actual goals for and against are dead even. If the Canucks were average on PP/PK and gave 3 more goals AND gave up 11 less goals, that would translate to several more wins. <--- not allowing 11 goals on the PK would be the biggest change. Look at how many 1 goal games the Canuck lost due to special team diff, put 11 less goals or 3 more goals and the team's result would be much different than current. As long as Canucks special teams are extremely shit, they're gonna be .300-400 team and be shit. However, if they bring their special teams closer to league average, they'd be back to what we all expected after acquiring Garland and OEL who have been the best Canuck players so far.

The conversion stat shows that the Canucks can capitalize well when there's an opportunity to score from a high danger chance more often so than not. Based on what we watched so far, the Canucks are offensively challenged and their best finishers (Petey & Boeser) are struggling. Yet the team is still scoring when given the opportunity because of top end depth. Combine that with the fact that the team can play above average on 5on5 and there will always be few high danger scoring chances per game, and we can assume that they will score more often than not compared to the league average. Which they have been doing, but special teams completely kill any momentum or outcome of the game despite doing well on 5on5. If Pettersson/Boeser are back in form, and if the team can improve on their special teams, they have a chance to turn it around. However, if they take too long and they don't improve we can continue to expect them to suck like rn. Luck would be more like the 19/20 Canucks when they had a 14-3 run with 44% CF being heavily outplayed on nightly basis with a PDO of 105.

Playing a lowly Chicago team that played Edmonton last night.

This could be a chance for the Canucks to get rolling and leave all their failures behind.

Would be nice to see them seize the opportunity and turn things around.