2013-14 Vancouver Canucks Schedule Released

Dimitri Filipovic
July 19 2013 12:39PM


Expect no love to be lost on December 14th, when the Bruins roll into town.

When it comes to the hockey world these days, I think it's safe to say that things could be more exciting. We've officially entered the "dog days of summer", as the news trickling in has been few and far between. This stretch has been especially slow for Canucks fans, who have been eagerly waiting for something interesting to happen surrounding their team after since the relatively inactive free agency period; with apologies to Benn Ferriero and Brandon DeFazio. 

Our saving grace has arrived! No, it's not a resolution to the Roberto Luongo situation. But it's still something that we can collectively sink our teeth into: the 2013-14 schedule, which was released by the NHL on this lovely Friday morning.

For some, this will fly under the radar as they really couldn't care less about these sorts of things while they're gearing up for a day at the beach in the middle of July. But for others, this provides an opportunity to start getting ready for the upcoming season; you can now begin to get excited about certain match-ups, and start circling your calendars for certain games you may wish to attend.

Read on past the jump for a closer look at some of the key dates.

The Format

A quick reminder: don't be alarmed if you can't locate the Northwest Division as look through the list of teams, because, well, you shouldn't be able to locate it. It doesn't exist anymore. With the new realignment set to take place this coming season, the Canucks will still obviously be in the Western Conference, but will now be competing in the Pacific Division comprised of 6 other teams (Anaheim, Calgary, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and San Jose). 

The link above actually has a fairly succint breakdown of how things will work, but I'll sum it up once again on this platform. Basically they'll play 5 of their newesly established division rivals 5 times, while playing 1 of them on only 4 occasions. They'll play the 7 members of the Central Division (Chicago, Colorado, Dallas, Minnesota, Nashville, St. Louis, Winnipeg) 3 times each, as well. Finally, they'll go up against each squad in the Eastern Conference 2 times (once home, once away). Say what you will about this new format, but I love the fact that we'll get to see every team up close and personal as often as we will.

In terms of playoff berths, the top 3 teams in each division earn a spot. Then, the next 2 best teams - regardless of which division they're in - get in as "Wild Cards". You better get used to this new system, because it's here to stay for at least the next three seasons.

The Key Dates/Notes

  • Training Camp opens on September 11th (with preseason games beginning just 2 days later).
  • Regular Season begins for the Canucks in San Jose on October 3rd, which if you'll recall, is the place we last saw them.
  • By the month: 15 games in October (6 H, 9 A), 13 in November (7 H, 6 A), 13 in December (7 H, 6 A), 15 in January (8 H, 7 A), 6 in February (2 H, 4 A), 14 in March (6 H, 8 A), and 6 in April (5 H, 1 A).
  • The Canucks haven't exactly drawn themselves the easiest of starts, as they see their season kick off with 9 of the first 13 games on the road (including a 7-game trip out East). 
  • The Big Bad Boston Bruins come into town on December 14th, which will be part of Hockey Night in Canada. For me, that's probably the game caught my eye right off the bat. At least in terms of one particular match-up. What excites me the most about the schedule is definitely getting to see some of the stars from Eastern Conference up close and personal (i.e. Tavares, Stamkos, Crosby, Malkin, and Ovechkin).
  • Speaking of Hockey Night in Canada: the Canucks will be on CBC 15 times this season. One of those will come on March 2nd, when the Canucks host the Ottawa Senators in the Tim Hortons Heritage Classic set to be played at BC Place.
  • By my count, the Canucks will have 17 back-to-back scenarios this year.
  • The longest home-stand comes in the middle of November, as they'll be playing 6 straight games in the friendly confines of Rogers Arena. Though I'd be weary of chalking those games up as wins; the opposition during that stretch is rather daunting. 
  • The New Jersey Devils come into town just 4 games into the season, on October 8th. What type of reaction do you think Cory Schneider gets? That should be a fun one to take in, despite the fact that the Devils will be putrid.
  • The Canucks close out the season with 6 of their final 7 games at home, facing the likes of Anaheim (twice), Calgary, Edmonton, and Colorado. There will be plenty of time for predictions later, but I don't think the Canucks will be all that impressive this season. As of right now, I have them squeaking into the playoffs, which means that the final home stretch (pun intended) could prove to be a crucial one.
  • You'll also notice that there are no games scheduled from February 9th to the 25th, with the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics officially being given the green light by the NHL.

Give yourself some time to soak it all in, since this is all you're probably getting in terms of entertaining news for the forseeable future. Having that time might not be the worst thing though, especially after that helter skelter whirlwind of a condensed season we just finished up. Refresh, reenergize, and then let's get back at it.

What say you? Which games are you looking forward to the most?

7482b25b962fb1661ea9028fb4e0db36
Dimitri Filipovic writes about hockey on the internet, and is the Managing Editor of Canucks Army. You can follow him on Twitter @DimFilipovic, and email him at dimitri.filipovic@gmail.com.
Avatar
#1 Van C Native
July 19 2013, 01:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

The Canucks better not wuss out against Boston this coming December like they did in the finals. Well, at least AV's not here anymore to motivate the group with his gum chewing.

Avatar
#2 NM00
July 19 2013, 05:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

How much value has Vancouver received from Mike Gillis' draft picks so far?

To help answer this question, I conducted a simple study to look at NHL games played from 2008 - 2012 draft picks.

Full credit is given to the team that drafted the player.

For example, 100% of Cody Hodgson's games are attributed to Vancouver and 100% of Zack Kassian's games are attributed to Buffalo.

Now, to be clear, I personally value quality a lot more than I do quantity.

Quantity can be found easily enough on the free agent market. Quality...not so much.

But quality is a lot more subjective and would take a hell of a lot more work.

Here are the total games played by draft picks from 2008 - 2012:

1. NYI (1,392) 2. LAK (972) 3. TBL (876) 4. COL (873) 5. EDM (801) 6. WPG (793) 7. NYR (775) 8. BUF (731) 9. OTT (728) 10. NAS (656) 11. WAS (631) 12. ANA (624) 13. PHI (571) 14. PHO (555) 15. FLA (556) 16. CBJ (515) 17. TOR (500) 18. NJD (487) 19. CAR (429) 20. STL (384) 21. BOS (369) 22. MIN (349) 23. SJ (322) 24. CHI (314) 25. CAL (247) 26. DAL (247) 27. VAN (180) 28. MTL (161) 29. PIT (83) 30. DET (72)

On its own, this doesn't tell us much. It's not surprising that the Islanders are on top considering where they have been selecting on draft day.

To put this into better context, I have weighted the average draft position based on the number of potential games each draft selection has had the opportunity to play.

For example, a 2012 draft selection has had the opportunity to play 48 games. A 2008 draft selection has had the opportunity to play 376 games.

2008 - 2012 has been weighted at 35/28/20/12/5.

I have also used a +/- score to show the difference from the expected games total based on weighted average draft position and the actual total:

1. NYI (0) 2. WPG (-4) 3. TOR (-14) 4. EDM (-1) 5. CBJ (-11) 6. FLA (-9) 7. LAK (+5) 8. TBL (+5) 9. STL (-11) 10. COL (+6) 11. PHO (-3) 12. OTT (+3) 13. MIN (-9) 14. BUF (+6) 15. NAS (+5) 16. CAR (-3) 17. CAL (-8) 18. DAL (-8) 19. ANA (+7) 20. NYR (+13) 21. VAN (-6) 22. BOS (+1) 23. NJD (+5) 24. CHI (0) 25. MTL (-3) 26. WAS (+15) 27. SJ (+4) 28. PIT (-1) 29. PHI (+16) 30. DET (0)

At -6, the Canucks have the worst +/- score amongst the bottom 10 teams in terms of weighted average draft position.

Now, some context needs to be added. Teams that draft late are typically in contention. It stands to reason that these teams have been more willing to sacrifice draft picks.

Here are 1st round picks yielded in trade excluding 1st rounders traded for multiple later round draft picks:

SJ (2008, 2009, 2011), PHI (2009, 2010, 2011), BOS (2010, 2011), MTL (2008), PIT (2008), VAN (2010), NJ (2010), WAS (2011), DET (2012), CHI (N/A).

There are also 2 significant trades that have helped these bottom 10 teams gain man games from high draft picks.

The Kessel trade netted Boston Seguin (203 games) and Hamilton (42 games).

The Carter trade netted Philly Couturier (123 games).

Vancouver is pretty much in the middle. They haven't traded three 1st round picks like SJ.

They also haven't pulled off what Boston did to get Seguin & Hamilton.

I have also looked at the 5 drafts (2003-2008) prior to Gillis.

Here are the total games played by draft picks from 2003-2007:

1. MTL (4,874) 2. SJ (4,374) 3. CHI (4,374) 4. PIT (4,279) 5. BOS (4,069) 6. CBJ (3,971) 7. BUF (3,625) 8. STL (3,515) 9. ANA (3,502) 10. NAS (3,406) 11. WAS (3,277) 12. LAK (3,144) 13. EDM (3,126) 14. PHI (3,088) 15. COL (2,905) 16. DAL (2,893) 17. FLA (2,833) 18. NYR (2,824) 19. MIN (2,722) 20. PHO (2,637) 21. CAR (2,620) 22. OTT (2,498) 23. NYI (2,497) 24. VAN (2,394) 25. DET (2,247) 26. TOR (2,171) 27. NJ (1,977) 28. ATL (1,751) 29. CAL (1,750) 30. TBL (1,073)

And here is the weighted (24/21/21/18/16) average draft position for 2003-2007 draft picks along with a +/- rating:

1. PIT (-3) 2. CBJ (-4) 3. CHI (0) 4. WAS (-7) 5. PHO (-15) 6. CAR (-15) 7. LAK (-5) 8. FLA (-9) 9. ATL (-19) 10. MTL (+9) 11. MIN (-8) 12. BOS (+7) 13. NYI (-10) 14. NYR (-4) 15. ANA (+6) 16. BUF (+9) 17. STL (+9) 18. EDM (+5) 19. NAS (+9) 20. SJ (+18) 21. TOR (-5) 22. CAL (-7) 23. PHI (+9) 24. VAN (0) 25. COL (+10) 26. OTT (+4) 27. TBL (-3) 28. DAL (+12) 29. NJ (+2) 30. DET (+5)

In terms of man games, the Canucks have received the expected value for draft picks selected from 2003-2007.

And that includes a big asterisk next to Luc Bourdon (RIP) that very few franchises have had to endure.

Off memory, I can think of only the Canucks and the Rangers with Cherepanov (RIP) as far as first rounders go.

There was nothing wrong with Canuck draft selections prior to Gillis in terms of quantity.

In terms of quality relative to draft position, I’d argue it was pretty solid before Gillis was hired as well.

Also, the Canucks drafting strategy under Gillis should, in theory, be conducive to accumulating man games from draft selections.

Gillis has drafted forwards exclusively in the first round.

In general, forwards are much quicker to develop than defenseman and goaltenders. And, realistically, goaltenders don’t have an opportunity to play 82 games.

Even by employing a forwards only first round strategy, the Canucks have received very few games from Gillis draft selections.

To sum up, the Canucks have not been the only team to draft late in the Gillis era. Many teams have had it worse, in fact.

In terms of man games to date, the Canucks are doing very poorly relative to their contending cohorts in the Gillis era.

Avatar
#3 Unknown Comic
July 19 2013, 05:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Dmitri - who do you have finishing ahead of Vancouver in the Pacific? LA and San Jose are two of the three or four I assume?

Avatar
#5 JCDavies
July 19 2013, 09:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

Interesting decision to compare 10 seasons of games from the Pre-Gillis era to the five seasons for the Gillis era; I wonder how the Gillis era will look in five years time.

It's conceivable that, next season, the Canucks could come close to doubling the games-played stat you are using. Coho has been pretty healthy the last couple seasons and it is quite likely that he plays close to 80 games next season and it's possible that Connauton gets some game in Dallas next season. We also know that the Canucks are going to give games to their own young players this season. We don't yet know who those players will be or how they will perform but some of those draft picks are going to get games this season.

So far, the numbers for the Gillis era don't look great (a year ago they probably looked worse) but there are signs they might be beginning to regress.

Avatar
#6 Lemming
July 20 2013, 02:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

It's going to be much tighter than we're used to based purely on the fact that the Canucks don't play in a division with 4 other teams not expected to be in the playoffs. I think the Canucks will be much better than last year if Kesler and Booth are both playing most of the season, I really think this is one aspect of Vancouver most people gloss over when it comes to next year.

Avatar
#7 NM00
July 20 2013, 12:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
JCDavies wrote:

Interesting decision to compare 10 seasons of games from the Pre-Gillis era to the five seasons for the Gillis era; I wonder how the Gillis era will look in five years time.

It's conceivable that, next season, the Canucks could come close to doubling the games-played stat you are using. Coho has been pretty healthy the last couple seasons and it is quite likely that he plays close to 80 games next season and it's possible that Connauton gets some game in Dallas next season. We also know that the Canucks are going to give games to their own young players this season. We don't yet know who those players will be or how they will perform but some of those draft picks are going to get games this season.

So far, the numbers for the Gillis era don't look great (a year ago they probably looked worse) but there are signs they might be beginning to regress.

But all the other teams that have been accumulating man games from their draft selections will go up as well.

Why are the Canucks going to start accumulating man games from their 2008-2012 draft selections at a faster rate than other teams?

As much as anything, this study shows that the Canucks have not been keeping up with other contending teams in terms of man games from draft selections in the Mike Gillis era.

Why exactly is this going to change?

Avatar
#8 JCDavies
July 20 2013, 06:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

It has to do with sample size and variance and whether the data are suitable for comparative analysis. If you are trying to convince us that Gillis has made some poor personnel decisions since taking over the Canucks, you won't have to try very hard - many readers of CA (including myself) believe that Gillis has a poor trading record and that some of his drafts have been less than great. But if you are trying to demonstrate how poorly he has been, and if he has been materially worse than the other NHL teams, you can't do that with the data you provided. You can't come to the conclusion that Gillis has done "very" poorly based on those numbers alone. I also don't think comparing a smaller, more volatile, sample with a large sample provides us with a fair comparison either.

Avatar
#9 NM00
July 20 2013, 10:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@JCDavies

The point of showing Canuck drafting prior to Gillis isn't to compare a larger sample with a smaller one.

It's more to ask the question "is the problem with Gillis' drafting to date that he was taking over a flawed scouting system?"

In terms of man games, the answer is 'no'.

In terms of quality, that's open for debate.

But I'd suggest finding Kesler, Schneider, Edler, Hansen, Raymond & Grabner without the benefit of high draft picks is pretty good.

The main focus was to look at how Gillis has been doing at the draft table to date compared to other teams that have been drafting late from 2008-2012.

It's not fair to expect the Canucks to outdraft the Isles considering where they have been selecting.

But it's perfectly reasonable to compare them to New Jersey, Chicago, Washington and the other teams that have not had the benefit of high picks from 2008-2012.

Of course it's a small sample. Of course these numbers could look different a few years down the road.

Hence the first sentence "how much value has Vancouver received from Mike Gillis' draft picks SO FAR?"

Avatar
#10 pheenster
July 21 2013, 12:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Glad to see this thread is staying on topic.

Avatar
#11 JCDavies
July 21 2013, 04:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

"is the problem with Gillis' drafting to date that he was taking over a flawed scouting system?"

In terms of man games, the answer is 'no'. "

You haven't proven this.

If your goal was to show how much value Vancouver has received from Gillis' draft selections relative to the other NHL teams and you intended to use games played as the measure of value, you conveniently left out of your discussion probably the single biggest factor to determining how many games young players get to play: organizational depth.

You used a five-year sample that included the deepest teams in the 42-year history of the franchise - teams that were bound to be outliers - without trying to explain why they might be outliers or how that would influence the results. You further compounded this by then comparing this smaller sample with a larger less-volatile sample that would not have been as affected by individual seasons.

You are deliberately using misleading statistics to convince readers of your already established viewpoint.

The way you decided to deal with traded picks is also very interesting. Any draft pick that was traded away essentially becomes a black hole leaving the team that traded it away with no value. If Vancouver had traded the 25th pick in the 2010 draft to Pittsburgh for Crosby instead of for Ballard, they would've received enormous value from the trade of the late first-round draft pick, but your model would value both trades equally: 0 games = no value. Any team that traded away a draft pick was automatically hurt by your model, regardless of the actual outcome.

Further, any team that acquired a pick was automatically helped by your model. For example, from your numbers, Florida received 556 games from 11 players: Markström, Robak, Bartkowski, Kulikov, Shore, Timmins, Gudbranson, Bjugstad, Howden, Petrovic and Huberdeau. Five of those 11 players were selected with draft picks acquired in trades: Markström, Robak, Bjugstad, Howden and Petrovic.

Your expected games statistic doesn't take either scenario into account.

Some readers might read your post and be convinced that Vancouver has done "very poorly" under the Gillis regime and "pretty solid" in the years before Gillis but your numbers don't lead to an accurate portrayal of what actually occurred. You can't tell from those numbers if any of the teams have been above or below average or how Vancouver compares to any of them.

Avatar
#12 JFR
July 21 2013, 06:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I'm not counting the Canucks out of having an impressive season. I think that a new voice in the locker room will help a lot. Torts is organized and defines players roles. I believe that Edler and Kassian will make the great leaps we have all been waiting for. Lazy penalties and mind numbing turnovers have plagued the Nucks the last two years and I believe it was AVs loose reigns that fostered them. Last year was a disaster for many reasons starting with the GOALIE drama, moving to lock out then having only 1 and a half centers.... Since Kess was coming back from injury, then took a shot to the ankle. Luo will be motivated by the Olympic spot and playing in a conference will help. Canucks took too many games or weeks off in the past. Game in game out they have to be on point. Nothing better than roadie off the bat to make a team gel. This team still has got talent especially on D, it's up to Torts to make them better.

Avatar
#13 NM00
July 21 2013, 07:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@JCDavies

You are really missing the point of all this.

None of this is meant to be definitive. Hence, my numerous qualifiers.

"is the problem with Gillis' drafting to date that he was taking over a flawed scouting system?"

In terms of man games, the answer is 'no'. "

You haven't proven this."

How exactly would one prove this if not by looking at man games? None of this is "proof" so much as a starting point.

"you conveniently left out of your discussion probably the single biggest factor to determining how many games young players get to play: organizational depth."

Again, you are missing the point. Other contending teams have received more man games from late draft selections than the Canucks.

Other contending teams would also have organizational depth. That is why they are contenders.

You really seem to be looking at this in a vacuum (your CoHo & KConn examples suggest as much).

"Further, any team that acquired a pick was automatically helped by your model."

Thanks captain obvious. That's why, you know, I mentioned the Kessel trade, among others, that are going to affect these numbers.

"Some readers might read your post"

I assume most CA readers have basic reading comprehension skills. Most of the time at least.

Avatar
#14 JCDavies
July 21 2013, 08:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

Really? You draw unsubstantiated conclusions from misleading statistics and you say that I'm missing the point? OK.

Avatar
#15 Tedster
July 22 2013, 02:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

How many times are you going to post your Gillis draft picks blurb? Seriously.

I think the new division will be a lot tougher and I think the Nucks might be in the middle of it if they're lucky. We are razor thin at the centre position and the core is a year older.

As always, the road trips will not be easy and the Nucks are always going to travel more than other teams. It's unfortunate and maybe they'll make some adjustments to alleviate some of the issues. The bottom 6 will have to be counted on so here's to hoping!

Avatar
#16 NM00
July 22 2013, 10:45AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
JCDavies wrote:

Really? You draw unsubstantiated conclusions from misleading statistics and you say that I'm missing the point? OK.

What are these unsubstantiated conclusions of which you speak?

It's not difficult to argue against a strawman.

Avatar
#17 JCDavies
July 22 2013, 03:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

There is no strawman. Reread my posts.

Avatar
#18 NM00
July 22 2013, 03:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

"Coho has been pretty healthy the last couple seasons and it is quite likely that he plays close to 80 games next season and it's possible that Connauton gets some game in Dallas next season."

"you conveniently left out of your discussion probably the single biggest factor to determining how many games young players get to play: organizational depth."

"You used a five-year sample that included the deepest teams in the 42-year history of the franchise"

Hmmm.

No, I was right the first time. You are missing the point.

Avatar
#19 JCDavies
July 22 2013, 03:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

? My point is, and always has been, that you are using misleading stats to confuse people.

Avatar
#20 JFR
July 22 2013, 04:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Stats are a great way to break down the game, but you can't place all your faith in stats because they only tell half the story. Giilis's real problem with drafting was his philosophy then having to change that philosophy. He drafted skill speed guys with leadership intangibles no matter size, ei. coHo and Jschoeder and gave away 2nd - 4th round picks for the Higgins and Lappys of the world. Not too mention Ballard. Wen the B's and Kings started to get away with holding and rough play in the playoffs, he was late to see the NHL relaxing the interference rules and now is playing catch up on size and even said he hated having to trade picks for players. MGs best young players have all been FA signings not draft picks. The organizations problem seems to have been lack of direction, from drafting to trades. MG would trade for Ballard or Kassian and it was apparently not run by AV, because he couldnt fit them in anywhere except the Owners box.

Avatar
#21 NM00
July 22 2013, 05:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
JCDavies wrote:

? My point is, and always has been, that you are using misleading stats to confuse people.

If my goal was to mislead people, I wouldn't have included the following:

"Now, some context needs to be added. Teams that draft late are typically in contention. It stands to reason that these teams have been more willing to sacrifice draft picks.

Here are 1st round picks yielded in trade excluding 1st rounders traded for multiple later round draft picks:

SJ (2008, 2009, 2011), PHI (2009, 2010, 2011), BOS (2010, 2011), MTL (2008), PIT (2008), VAN (2010), NJ (2010), WAS (2011), DET (2012), CHI (N/A).

There are also 2 significant trades that have helped these bottom 10 teams gain man games from high draft picks.

The Kessel trade netted Boston Seguin (203 games) and Hamilton (42 games).

The Carter trade netted Philly Couturier (123 games).

Vancouver is pretty much in the middle. They haven't traded three 1st round picks like SJ.

They also haven't pulled off what Boston did to get Seguin & Hamilton."

I'd suggest someone talking about CoHo/KConn (as if other teams aren't going to continue accumulating man games), organizational depth (as if other contending teams don't have comparable depth) and trading/acquiring picks (as if I didn't already acknowledge this and add a large footnote) is being wilfully ignorant.

But what the hell do I know?

Avatar
#22 JCDavies
July 22 2013, 05:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

If you really don't know what you are doing and this was all by accident and you intend to continue to use stats to convince others of your beliefs, then you should either find a way to improve your stats knowledge or be more willing to accept the advice of others.

BTW, other teams do not need to stop accumulating man games for the Canucks to regress.

Avatar
#23 NM00
July 22 2013, 05:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@JCDavies

If you actually want to add something to the conversation, a little less wilful ignorance would be appreciated.

Instead of "if Vancouver had traded the 25th pick in the 2010 draft to Pittsburgh for Crosby instead of for Ballard, they would've received enormous value from the trade of the late first-round draft pick, but your model would value both trades equally: 0 games = no value", perhaps you could have, you know, read the part where I talked about traded picks and that Vancouver has not been on the extreme of trading picks (like SJ) or the extreme of acquiring picks (like Bos).

"BTW, other teams do not need to stop accumulating man games for the Canucks to regress."

Thank you, once again, captain obvious. Is dot-connecting a full time job or merely a hobby?

Avatar
#24 JCDavies
July 22 2013, 06:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

I don't think you realize that that oversight makes these numbers worthless:

"I have also used a +/- score to show the difference from the expected games total based on weighted average draft position and the actual total:

1. NYI (0) 2. WPG (-4) 3. TOR (-14) 4. EDM (-1) 5. CBJ (-11) 6. FLA (-9) 7. LAK (+5) 8. TBL (+5) 9. STL (-11) 10. COL (+6) 11. PHO (-3) 12. OTT (+3) 13. MIN (-9) 14. BUF (+6) 15. NAS (+5) 16. CAR (-3) 17. CAL (-8) 18. DAL (-8) 19. ANA (+7) 20. NYR (+13) 21. VAN (-6) 22. BOS (+1) 23. NJD (+5) 24. CHI (0) 25. MTL (-3) 26. WAS (+15) 27. SJ (+4) 28. PIT (-1) 29. PHI (+16) 30. DET (0)"

Avatar
#25 Gunnar
July 22 2013, 06:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Drance quits and this site now has less content then jets nations. one article a day should not be to much to ask, pick it up boys.

Avatar
#26 NM00
July 22 2013, 06:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
JCDavies wrote:

I don't think you realize that that oversight makes these numbers worthless:

"I have also used a +/- score to show the difference from the expected games total based on weighted average draft position and the actual total:

1. NYI (0) 2. WPG (-4) 3. TOR (-14) 4. EDM (-1) 5. CBJ (-11) 6. FLA (-9) 7. LAK (+5) 8. TBL (+5) 9. STL (-11) 10. COL (+6) 11. PHO (-3) 12. OTT (+3) 13. MIN (-9) 14. BUF (+6) 15. NAS (+5) 16. CAR (-3) 17. CAL (-8) 18. DAL (-8) 19. ANA (+7) 20. NYR (+13) 21. VAN (-6) 22. BOS (+1) 23. NJD (+5) 24. CHI (0) 25. MTL (-3) 26. WAS (+15) 27. SJ (+4) 28. PIT (-1) 29. PHI (+16) 30. DET (0)"

If it was an "oversight", as you say, then why would I acknowledge that teams are trading picks and proceed to give a list of such transactions?

You seem to think that this is meant to be gospel as opposed to a starting point.

Reading comprehension. Give it a shot.

Avatar
#27 JCDavies
July 22 2013, 07:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

Yes, I can see how listing a couple trades would explain to readers how they (and all the other trades) would influence the results of your model. *My mistake*

For the record, I still don't think you understand how your model works.

Avatar
#28 NM00
July 22 2013, 07:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
JCDavies wrote:

Yes, I can see how listing a couple trades would explain to readers how they (and all the other trades) would influence the results of your model. *My mistake*

For the record, I still don't think you understand how your model works.

For the record, I still don't think you know what a strawman is.

You haven't added a single piece of insight to push the discussion forward.

Your examples suggest you don't quite understand what you have read or are being wilfully ignorant.

Teams other than Vancouver will continue to accumulate man games irrespective of what CoHo does.

Contenders aside from Vancouver have had "organizational depth" and have received man games from draft picks.

The Canucks yielding their 2010 1st rounder is not at the extreme end of what contenders have been trading during this time period.

Much like every other "point" you have made, your cherry picked example has done nothing to push the discussion forward.

Again. Reading comprehension. Try it. Then you won't be repeating points I have already made.

Avatar
#29 JCDavies
July 22 2013, 09:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

"strawman"

Nice to see you fall back on your crutch when you don't have much to add.

"Teams other than Vancouver will continue to accumulate man games irrespective of what CoHo does.

Contenders aside from Vancouver have had "organizational depth" and have received man games from draft picks."

You still don't understand outliers, sample size or regression.

"The Canucks yielding their 2010 1st rounder is not at the extreme end of what contenders have been trading during this time period. "

My point about the traded draft picks (all of them, not just the first rounders) is that they are not accurately accounted for by your model. The numbers are distorted for ALL 30 teams, not just the Canucks. You can't compare the Canucks against the other teams because their numbers aren't accurate either.

"Reading comprehension"

You should take some of your own advice.

Avatar
#30 NM00
July 22 2013, 10:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@JCDavies

"My point about the traded draft picks (all of them, not just the first rounders) is that they are not accurately accounted for by your model. The numbers are distorted for ALL 30 teams, not just the Canucks. You can't compare the Canucks against the other teams because their numbers aren't accurate either."

Captain obvious for the hat trick.

Teams have the ability to trade draft picks. We know this already.

If you want to pat yourself on the back for this "point", go for it. It does nothing to move the discussion forward, though.

Especially since I noted first rounders traded/acquired in my original post to allow people to factor that in for themselves.

As far as first rounders go, the Canucks aren't at the extreme end of trading/acquiring draft picks.

Are the Canucks trading/acquiring later round draft picks at a rate different than other contenders?

People have the ability to look that up for themselves and interpret it however they please.

Avatar
#31 JCDavies
July 22 2013, 10:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

I think we've taken this as far as it can go. There is no point in continuing this.

Avatar
#32 NM00
July 22 2013, 10:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
JCDavies wrote:

I think we've taken this as far as it can go. There is no point in continuing this.

Really?

But you were just about to convince me that draft picks can be traded after saying it for the 10th time.

Avatar
#33 JCDavies
July 22 2013, 10:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

http://www.amazon.ca/Introductory-Statistics-Prem-S-Mann/dp/0470904100/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

;)

Comments are closed for this article.