Western Conference Quarterfinals: (1) Vancouver Canucks vs (8) Los Angeles Kings

[ericdaoust]

well that's an exaggeration Dutch, they aren't a 'shitty' team but you make a good point for sure, that's an extra 8 games against divisional opponents that were non-playoff teams, its hard to argue that they would have been as dominant without that advantage

Suppose you take away 8 points from their season, that gives them 103 points, good for the #5 seed in the West. That's still a very good season.

[mister_mcgoo]

Suppose you take away 8 points from their season, that gives them 103 points, good for the #5 seed in the West. That's still a very good season.

you piqued my interest so I ran a quick analysis on it...only 20 of the Nucks 51 wins came against playoff teams...considering 16 of the 30 teams make the playoffs that's not as impressive as it seems at first. They're definitely a playoff worthy team, I just think both the fans and players were a little fooled by their numbers going into the playoffs this year and they got burnt for it

[GMGates]

you piqued my interest so I ran a quick analysis on it...only 20 of the Nucks 51 wins came against playoff teams...considering 16 of the 30 teams make the playoffs that's not as impressive as it seems at first. They're definitely a playoff worthy team, I just think both the fans and players were a little fooled by their numbers going into the playoffs this year and they got burnt for it

Interesting stuff. Like you state in the end though, that may very well have been their downfall.

[mister_mcgoo]

Interesting stuff. Like you state in the end though, that may very well have been their downfall.

yeah that's the thing with the NHL, if you ever take your opponent for granted in the playoffs you're very likely going to find yourself burned...the Nucks and Pens are feeling that quite sharply right now, hopefully the Rags and Bruins will soon follow suit

[Loch]

you piqued my interest so I ran a quick analysis on it...only 20 of the Nucks 51 wins came against playoff teams...considering 16 of the 30 teams make the playoffs that's not as impressive as it seems at first. They're definitely a playoff worthy team, I just think both the fans and players were a little fooled by their numbers going into the playoffs this year and they got burnt for it

The thing you have to factor in is that the Canucks played less playoff bound teams than non-playoff teams (37 games vs 45 games).

Let's look at how they did against playoff teams:
20 - 11 - 6 :46pts (62.2% of points)
For comparison, the Blues vs playoff teams:
23 - 12 - 8 :54pts (62.8% of points)
... and the Rangers vs playoff teams:
26 - 15 - 3 :55pts (62.5% of points)

You can make an argument that the Canucks had an easier schedule, but I don't see that they were deficient compared to their rivals in their performance against playoff calibre teams.

I'd chalk up about a 2 point difference based on strength of schedule... I'd say it got them them the president's trophy, but it isn't likely a big drop in the standings if they had a similar strength of schedule to what StL and NYR faced.

[blayze]

this isn't simply running into Quick. The Canucks stunk this series, period. Saying "they had a good season" is a joke.

Agreed... who cares if they had a "good season". If that helps you guys sleep better at night fantastic, but if I were a Canucks fan I'd be extremely disappointed. Pitiful showing this year by the Nucks.

[Loch]

but if I were a Canucks fan I'd be extremely disappointed. Pitiful showing this year by the Nucks.

I'm not that disappointed... I was unsure of this team for the last 2 months of the season. Agreed, the post-season showing was pitiful.

[bondon]

yeah that's the thing with the NHL, if you ever take your opponent for granted in the playoffs you're very likely going to find yourself burned...the Nucks and Pens are feeling that quite sharply right now, hopefully the Rags and Bruins will soon follow suit

You're assuming they took them for granted. The Canucks and Kings split the regular season 2-2 and the Nucks got their butts thoroughly handed to them on New Years Eve by the Kings. Was a brutal game. They also only scored a total of seven goals on Quick through four games during the regular season. Don't see what part of that would lead to them taking the Kings for granted.

Agreed... who cares if they had a "good season". If that helps you guys sleep better at night fantastic, but if I were a Canucks fan I'd be extremely disappointed. Pitiful showing this year by the Nucks.

I find it pretty funny how invested non-Canuck fans get in this. Did they show up with a poor performance in the playoffs? You bet. Are we disappointed? You bet. But there's no sense in raining a shitstorm down just because they lost to a really good team. Still enjoyed the season they put together (albeit with the shortened post-season).They got outplayed plain and simple, which leads me to my next point...

I'm not that disappointed... I was unsure of this team for the last 2 months of the season. Agreed, the post-season showing was pitiful.

Absolutely, and any logical fan that watched them play would have felt the same way.

Actually Loch it's funny you should bring that up, I got into a full scale argument with a friend of a friend of mine (over Facebook LOL) who called me an idiot when I said that the way the Canucks have been playing lately I really didn't feel they should be considered favourites even though they were pushing for the President's Cup at the time (was with a couple weeks left in the season or something). He started pulling facts out of his ass saying that the Canucks had the fourth best powerplay and were second place in the league and such. It's funny how actually watching the games completely changes your outlook on how much of a 'favourite' certain teams are.

(Also in that argument I said I thought the Pens were definite favourites in the East...so I really kind of wish I'd been right about Pittsburgh and wrong about Vancouver )

[mister_mcgoo]

The thing you have to factor in is that the Canucks played less playoff bound teams than non-playoff teams (37 games vs 45 games).

Let's look at how they did against playoff teams:
20 - 11 - 6 :46pts (62.2% of points)
For comparison, the Blues vs playoff teams:
23 - 12 - 8 :54pts (62.8% of points)
... and the Rangers vs playoff teams:
26 - 15 - 3 :55pts (62.5% of points)

You can make an argument that the Canucks had an easier schedule, but I don't see that they were deficient compared to their rivals in their performance against playoff calibre teams.

I'd chalk up about a 2 point difference based on strength of schedule... I'd say it got them them the president's trophy, but it isn't likely a big drop in the standings if they had a similar strength of schedule to what StL and NYR faced.

I'm not sure I follow your point here...they played less of their games against playoff bound teams than either of your other examples (who had 6 and 7 more GP agaisnt playoff teams respectively) ...my only initial point was that only 39% of their wins came agaisnt playoff bound teams, that's not a good ratio when you over half the league makes the playoffs. I don't see what tossing in STL or the NYR does to support your argument other than to show that the Nucks got an easier strength of schedule???

[Loch]

I'm not sure I follow your point here...they played less of their games against playoff bound teams than either of your other examples (who had 6 and 7 more GP agaisnt playoff teams respectively) ...my only initial point was that only 39% of their wins came agaisnt playoff bound teams, that's not a good ratio when you over half the league makes the playoffs. I don't see what tossing in STL or the NYR does to support your argument other than to show that the Nucks got an easier strength of schedule???

You don't follow the relatively simple point that those three teams performed almost identically in games against playoff bound opponents? How is that challenging?

People are making arguments of dropping 8 points or so from the Canuck's season total to account for their weak schedule. My point is that that level of adjustment is completely unfounded.

Look at the point percentage vs playoff and non-playoff teams for the three teams I listed (point percentage is points / games played x2)... actual winning percentage in brackets
Van:
Playoff: 62.2% (54.1%)
Non-playoff: 72.2% (68.9%)
StL
Playoff: 62.8% (53.5%)
Non-playoff 70.5% (66.7%)
NYR
Playoff: 62.5% (59.1%)
Non-playoff 71.1% (65.8%)

So the point of this comparison:

Based on in season performance it is reasonable to expect a very similar points total out of all three teams assuming similar strength of schedule. That Vancouver had a 'much easier schedule' is only relevant insofar as it bumped them slightly ahead to take the president's trophy. Without that bump they would have still been a top 3 (maybe top 4) team in the NHL.

The burning desire to discredit the Canucks place in the standings based on the perception of weak opponents is misplaced and inaccurate. They weren't great, but they were still among the league's elite.

[ericdaoust]

The burning desire to discredit the Canucks place in the standings based on the perception of weak opponents is misplaced and inaccurate. They weren't great, but they were still among the league's elite.

I get the feeling that if the Rangers lose they won't face the same criticism about having a crappy season. A lot of the hatred for the Canucks that leads to what we're seeing here has nothing to do with facts or logic, it's just a fun thing to do for some people.