Canuck special teams

[mooger_35]

At least that has picked up where they left off last year.

PP: 2nd (26.4%) leader is Colorado (26.7%)
PK: 4th (88.9%) leader is Buffalo (93.3%)

Next comes more wins (please?)

 

[puckhead]

At least that has picked up where they left off last year.

PP: 2nd (26.4%) leader is Colorado (26.7%)
PK: 4th (88.9%) leader is Buffalo (93.3%)

Next comes more wins (please?)

was 7th before last night's game.

 

[mooger_35]

5 for 6 will do that.

 

[puckhead]

Since the return of Ryan Kesler on October 18th, the Canucks have killed off 37 of their last 38 short-handed situations (97.4%).

and other good stuff: Jeff Paterson: Did you know? - Vancouver Canucks - Features

 

[Automattic]

Gotta be all the Sedin diving...

 

[jstewismybastardson]

Gotta be all the Sedin diving...

 

[jstewismybastardson]

interesting read

The Soft Sedin Myth | Vancouver Sun Sports Blogs

So I attempted to find some objective way to view how the Sedins play against physicality. The issue is that statistics that measure physicality are in short supply. There are really only two that are generally used: penalty minutes and hits. For my purposes, penalty minutes are not of much use as an increase in penalty minutes generally just means an increase in powerplays, so it wouldn’t be surprising to see a correlation between the Sedins’ point totals and the opponents penalty minutes. As we at PITB have pointed out in comic form, the Sedins love powerplays.

With penalty minutes out of the picture, I am left with hits. Using all 82 games of last season, I put together a spreadsheet comparing each Sedins’ point totals compared to the number of hits the opponent had in each game to see if there is a correlation. If the Sedins respond poorly to toughness, we would expect to see fewer points scored in games where the opponent had more hits and vice versa.

Unfortunately for proponents of this view, such is not the case.

The average number of hits per game that the Canucks’ faced was 22.7. In games with fewer hits than the average, Henrik averaged 1.14 points per game, while Daniel averaged 1.18 points per game. In game with more hits than the average, Henrik’s production rose slightly to 1.16 points per game. In other words, the larger number of hits had no negative impact to his point production whatsoever. Daniel’s production, however, went up by a much more significant amount to 1.37 points per game.

That’s right: both Sedins were more productive in games with higher than average hits. But let’s say that more than 22.7 hits is not a high enough number of hits to count as properly tough and physical. Let’s say that 30 or more hits is a better standard. There were 11 such games last season when the Canucks’ opponents had 30 or more hits. In those 11 games, both Sedins had 15 points each, for a 1.36 point per game average.

The Sedins’ production didn’t decrease against toughness, it increased.

 

[Vadered]

interesting read

The Soft Sedin Myth | Vancouver Sun Sports Blogs

So I attempted to find some objective way to view how the Sedins play against physicality. The issue is that statistics that measure physicality are in short supply. There are really only two that are generally used: penalty minutes and hits. For my purposes, penalty minutes are not of much use as an increase in penalty minutes generally just means an increase in powerplays, so it wouldn’t be surprising to see a correlation between the Sedins’ point totals and the opponents penalty minutes. As we at PITB have pointed out in comic form, the Sedins love powerplays.

With penalty minutes out of the picture, I am left with hits. Using all 82 games of last season, I put together a spreadsheet comparing each Sedins’ point totals compared to the number of hits the opponent had in each game to see if there is a correlation. If the Sedins respond poorly to toughness, we would expect to see fewer points scored in games where the opponent had more hits and vice versa.

Unfortunately for proponents of this view, such is not the case.

The average number of hits per game that the Canucks’ faced was 22.7. In games with fewer hits than the average, Henrik averaged 1.14 points per game, while Daniel averaged 1.18 points per game. In game with more hits than the average, Henrik’s production rose slightly to 1.16 points per game. In other words, the larger number of hits had no negative impact to his point production whatsoever. Daniel’s production, however, went up by a much more significant amount to 1.37 points per game.

That’s right: both Sedins were more productive in games with higher than average hits. But let’s say that more than 22.7 hits is not a high enough number of hits to count as properly tough and physical. Let’s say that 30 or more hits is a better standard. There were 11 such games last season when the Canucks’ opponents had 30 or more hits. In those 11 games, both Sedins had 15 points each, for a 1.36 point per game average.

The Sedins’ production didn’t decrease against toughness, it increased.

That article mentions correlation of hits and points, but throws out the most obvious confounding variable - penalties. In games where the opponents are hitting more, wouldn't it naturally make more sense that the opponents are taking more penalties as well? That seems like a reasonable assumption to me.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

That article mentions correlation of hits and points, but throws out the most obvious confounding variable - penalties. In games where the opponents are hitting more, wouldn't it naturally make more sense that the opponents are taking more penalties as well? That seems like a reasonable assumption to me.

thats a good point ... I dont know ... is it neccessarily a reasonable assumption that a team that hits more would be penalized more?

 

[Automattic]

lol!

How come the other sister doesn't have a stick? Easier to tuck and roll?

 

[jstewismybastardson]

That article mentions correlation of hits and points, but throws out the most obvious confounding variable - penalties. In games where the opponents are hitting more, wouldn't it naturally make more sense that the opponents are taking more penalties as well? That seems like a reasonable assumption to me.

thats a good point ... I dont know ... is it neccessarily a reasonable assumption that a team that hits more would be penalized more?

very briefly looked at last years team hits leaders

only 4 of the top 10 hitting teams from last year were also on the top 10 most penalized teams list

 

[dash]

That Canucks PP is a treat to watch. Flames had 17 minutes of PP time (that's 3 minutes short of a period, thanks Darkstone) last night and scored zero, zilch, zip, nada, nyet...

 

[puckhead]

That Canucks PP is a treat to watch. Flames had 17 minutes of PP time (that's 3 minutes short of a period, thanks Darkstone) last night and scored zero, zilch, zip, nada, nyet...

#3 (24 seconds) and #5 (right at end) were very pretty.
when you instill the fear of a good point shot, some pretty options open up

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

That article mentions correlation of hits and points, but throws out the most obvious confounding variable - penalties. In games where the opponents are hitting more, wouldn't it naturally make more sense that the opponents are taking more penalties as well? That seems like a reasonable assumption to me.

thats a good point ... I dont know ... is it neccessarily a reasonable assumption that a team that hits more would be penalized more?

Any hit that results in a penalty is not recorded as a hit for statistical purposes. So a dirty team won't necessarily have a high hit total if they're getting penalized for each of them.