(upbeat music) Back in on Canot Central, bikes are working. At least these two are. Here in the Kintec Studio. Kintec Canada's favorite orthotics provider, powered by thousands of five-star Google reviews. sort of feet. What are you waiting for? Canot Central is for enzyme-specific Vancouver's premier Chrysler, Dodd-RAM, and Jeep Superstore on Second Avenue between Canby and Maine, or at enzyme-specificcrysler.ca. This text from Chris and Duncan. So Dan, I guess we saw a preview of a four-game sweep in the Western Conference Finals. Last night at Roger's Arena. Alluding to the joke I made way too many times. That's not really a joke, it was just a comment. I mean, hey, like I was saying in the first segment too, like I don't think the Canucks have no chance against Colorado, but as good as they were at times yesterday and as good as they've been at times against Colorado, it has not been good enough. They have to be better if they truly want to have a chance to beat them. - Raymond, if Myers has a bad playoff, no chance, they bring him back. If he's good, wouldn't he price himself out of the Vancouver markets? - Well, not if they extend him before the postseason. - Yeah. - Now it all depends on when and how, right? Honestly, I agree with Raymond in terms of, it's probably best to wait, let things play out. But if they already see what they want and like, see that it can work at the number that they like, getting ahead of it before the AW season, it's always like, it makes it cleaner for the front office. - Yeah. - 'Cause it just takes away so many spots they have to fill 'cause you're literally every single one of these spots, you have to find a way to fill. And it's not like there is an easy replacement coming up. You can talk yourself into perhaps Oman, take a bigger role if you lose blue or maybe, but that's probably not gonna be the solution. It's gonna be going to bring somebody else into compete at the very least. So for their planning purposes, I just think they'd like to get a lot of this stuff done if they can, or at least have a good idea. Because like, you know, the trade discussions are ongoing now about the AW season. - Yeah. - You know, and the earlier you can get in on stuff and be ready for when the stay on the cup gets awarded. And that's when some bigger trades happen leading up to the draft. Like I think the Canucks wanna have a really good picture of where they're going, what they're doing, and have a lot of groundwork laid to be aggressive in the AW season. - Well, that's essentially what management is doing right now, right? Like the deadline has passed, there's not much they can do to influence the roster now for the rest of this season. Of course, you're gonna have call-ups and injury situations to deal with and those kinds of things. But right now, like future planning for the summer is huge. They did this last year after the deadline. They really started to focus on bringing guys in, whether it was college free agents, getting some depth guys organizationally signed up and into contract. So I would expect no different now. And that's why, as Patrick Colvin told us last week, they've offered a contract to Philip Pronik. And we're hearing all these reports that they're starting to prioritize which UFA's they wanna keep. It's because they wanna start to get some business done so that they can be better prepared for when July 1st and the draft hits. - Precisely, and I think these are the guys that they clearly want to bring back. - Yeah. - And to me, it doesn't mean necessarily that Zadorov's out of the equation. But I just think the number and term just made out a line. - Yeah. - And I think it's pretty telling that, he's not one of the guys. And even Linholm too, whereas with Linholm, I think, and Alvin said this himself, they brought him in and even Rutherford mentioned, with hopes of keeping him and extending him. And they saw a world where they could keep him alongside Patterson and Philip Pronik. And not to say that I've seen enough and things might not change. I just don't know if it fits there or worth it. - Yeah. - I like him a lot, even though it hasn't worked in the top six, having him on his own line. Now, he had a bad mistake in his Colorado last night, paid for it. But I see a lot of value, and we've mentioned this a lot about the playoffs. And I think having those guys on the middle makes a big difference. So I love the value for this year and what he can do in the postseason. I'm just not sure I want to commit to that player long term, especially with the type of contract he's going to command. And really, with the lack of offense that he's able to provide. Like, he's really generating next to nothing. Now, defensively, I love what he's doing. I think, again, I like a lot of things that he does. And I'm all for him being a big part of it this year. But how comfortable are you signing him to a contract when he's showing the offensive side of the game is going to be a bit of a challenge. - He's like, I don't know if it's debatable who's brought more value since the trade. Him or Teddy Blueger, but it's not a slam dunk that Lindholm has brought a lot more value than Teddy Blueger since he's come over. - I think he has, I understand your argument. I think he has, but the offense isn't there for it to be this gigantic leap. Like, I think he's better, but I don't think it's been like, I'd rather pay this guy $6 million even and have no longer. - The door's at least open. You can make the Teddy Blueger argument. - You can make it in terms of price. I think that would I rather pay Teddy Blueger $2.5 million over four years or pay Elias Lindholm $7 million over a seven? - Yeah, I'd much rather do Teddy Blueger, right? And even, honestly, even if you could get Elias Lindholm's sign to $6 million, I wouldn't touch it. - Yeah. - To me, he's not driving enough offensive play and doing enough in that regard for me to feel comfortable making a big investment in this player. And I don't know how the front office feels, but maybe through what they've watched and the fact that, and maybe he's also in that very willing to sign and want to be here long term, perhaps his eyes set on a different destination or something, or perhaps wants to at least explore other possibilities. But it is telling that they're not really going down, going far down the road of Elias Lindholm extension. And I just don't see one that would make sense for this team. Like, do you see one that makes sense? That could actually be workable? - No. Not with the way that the fit has been so awkward so far. - Yeah. - Elliot mentioned in his 32 thoughts blog, the Canucks did have some damage control with Elias Lindholm. They weren't happy that it got out. He was even remotely considered to be moved. And then in the end, he says, in the end, I don't believe the three way between Boston, Pittsburgh, and Vancouver came anywhere close to occurring. But it did get out, so the damage was done. And then if you're Patrick Levine and the rest of the Canucks front office, you got to start putting out fires. - Yeah, imagine every three ways. - Yes. - That's all it was. (laughing) - But I've had those. - Phrasing, right. - No, like I've thought of trades, what do you think? - Three way trades. - Three way trades. - Three way trades. - Most are imaginary, to be honest. Everybody dreams of them and they're all imaginary. - One side always shuts it down. (laughing) - Well, yeah, 'cause I mean, you need three parties. It's hard to get all three parties to agree. - Schedules sometimes don't work. - That too, that could be a bit of an issue. Timing, timing, apparently. But that, I mean, as soon as it came out that the Canucks were talking with the Boston Bruins, we were a big skeptical on the whole thing. - Yes. - Now, you made this point too, before the show, and Josh made the point as well, that hey, when things like this get out and trade doesn't happen, obviously they're gonna say there was nothing to it. Like of course, they're gonna sell it as there's nothing to it. And there is some of like, hey, if you don't, if you protest too hard, maybe you're trying to say something. But the anger from the Canucks on this is genuine. - Yeah. - Like they were genuinely pissed about this. And we even heard it from Patrick Alvey when we spoke. He was really disappointed that that came out. I think the way they've framed it is that we have not been engaging. We were not engaging seriously in any sort of Elias Lindholm conversation. Can players' names come up over the course of discussion sometimes? - Yeah. - Yes. And would we be doing our jobs if we don't at least listen to some suggestions that come along just because you just wanna know, right? 'Cause value gives you an indication and sometimes tells you also about a team's intention, right? So always listen 'cause you learn something when you listen. Even if you're not willing to trade the player, right? I think that's how they kind of view this situation. Again, we don't know what's really true. You hear one side and another side. So I think from their estimation, there was nothing really serious ever on this. And if the name came up, it was never really with any real intent of trying to move 'em or not. So I think that's why they were disappointed. - I always wonder, like, who's gaining from the news coming out? Pittsburgh was obviously very much in cell mode, trying to create as robust a market for Jake Genssel, as they possibly could. The Boston Bruins have long been linked to Elias Lindholm. Maybe they were trying to send out the bat signal, like, "Hey, we really like ya." Even if it's, you know, sort of setting the stage for the summer when he hits unrestricted free agency, like, "Hey, we really like ya." We even tried to trade free at the deadline when things weren't going well in Vancouver. I don't know, but it always is interesting that this gets out and even happened with Linus Allmark and the Boston Bruins that a potential move to the L.A. Kings was shot down by the Allmark. - And the name that was kind of rumored was pure Luke Dubois trading him before as no trade kicks in. - Yeah. - You know, and that was kind of the discussion, isn't it? - The Kings were like, "Hey, how did this get out?" Like, "Who's ruffling these feathers over here?" So it's always a little bit interesting, but clearly things haven't gone as well for Elias Lindholm and Vancouver as one would hope. - No, it hasn't, right? So in terms of-- - Can we get 'em on the power play, please? That's all I have. - Yeah, I'm with you on that. - Again, like, I think it's a situation, not so much that multiple things can be true at the same time, but I think you can do multiple things at the same time. I think you can use the value of Lindholm and take advantage of it, and it can help you, but then say goodbye in the off season. And be okay with the price you paid, especially if you do have some playoff success, right? Like, I think you have to be willing to live in that world. We are getting a lot of people texting in, saying you have to keep Zadorov, GMAS says, "How come you guys are not promoting?" They should prioritize Zadorov. He's got the size, toughness, skill. I agree. Again, the thing is, depends on what he wants, how much are you willing to pay and how many years are you willing to give him? Because if he's looking for five or six years, he wants between 25 and 30 million dollars. - Yeah, me? Yeah. (laughs) - And the thing is-- - So that's either five by five or six by five, like something in that kind of range, right? And that's a lot of money for Nikita Zadorov, who, you know, it would kind of be, everybody hated the Tyler Myers contract for all these years that he's been here. And you would kind of, like, it would feel similar to that. - And the other thing about it-- - Maybe a little bit cheaper, but similar. - And I agree, he does a lot of things really well, and he had a fantastic game. Now, he has games like that. - Yeah. - And then he'll have games that are, you know, like we mentioned, there's a wide range. Sometimes, like, I think the lack of consistency is probably one of the reasons why he doesn't get trusted to play 20 plus minutes a game. He's playing 17 minutes a game in Vancouver. 17.02, he's averaging. - Yeah. - That's not really second pair of minutes. - No. - It's kind of borderline second, third pair of minutes, kind of on that border. Are you paying a guy, the coaching staff, isn't utilizing as a legitimate top four defense men, top four money long term? To me, that's what it comes down to, 'cause I agree wholeheartedly with his edge, and I would love to have him on the roster. I'd love to have him here on your third pair, right? It all depends on the number, though. I can't justify paying him top four demand money if he's not gonna play a top four role on this team. And especially if he's a lefty, they need somebody on the right side. You already have Susie as well signed up, and you have Hughes. Like, his spot is on the third pair here. - Yeah. - Like, so it's, I think that's the issue. Otherwise, it'd be all four keeping him. He's playing well over a minute less than he was in Calgary, and it's been mixed results. I think he's had a lot more good games than bad lately. And when the good games have come, like last night, and he has the Gordy Hal hat trick, it looks amazing and feels great. You're like, wow, I love this guy. Brings edge, scores goals, big hits, you even threw a couple of massive hits in the first period. I mean, it wasn't really anything that he did wrong last night. And yet, it's still a very big question mark whether or not he stays in Vancouver. And it should be, because I think these defense men, this year, something we talked about recently with the 32th teams, and you look through all the teams and how weak they are defensively. All of these middle pair-ish guys that are hitting unrestricted free agency this summer, like their agents are, you know, they're there just like rubbing their hands together in anticipation of getting a big payday for a lot of their clients, because it feels like it's going to be very much a good market for UFA defense when the summer, including Nikita Zadorov. - Yeah, it's tough. And I think that's the problem with Zadorov. And again, like I love to keep him around. The volatility in his game at times, the role he's playing, the money he's going to command, it's kind of like him at Linholm. There's a reason I think they're not priorities. - Yeah. Realistic, I don't think. - Okay, I did want to get to this. Mikayev scores his first goal in 73 years last night. JT Miller has a big game, and that line was easily the Canucks best line last night. And it's really worked since they put Ilya Mikayev with Miller and Besser. It's something we've talked about on this show for a long time. Mikayev profiles as a guy that would fit really well next to Miller and Besser. And now it's working well out of the gate. And Mikayev is playing his best hockey of the season right now. Is this a line that the Canucks can really lean on moving forward? - Man, I've been wanting to see this, Trio. We've talked about this on the post-game show going back several months, a lot about it. And we talked about it too. It was like, hey, you know who's a souped up version of PDG? It's kind of Ilya Mikayev, you know, and as long as it's working with Patterson I get, you want to keep them together. But I love the fit in terms of his pace 'cause I do think as good as Besser has been with his finishing, there's a serious lack of pace when they had PDG on the other wing or even pew suiter on the other wing. They could still be effective at times, but there was really no push. Man, now they can stretch the stretch teams with having Mikayev there. The forechecking ability he has, how quickly he gets on, Pox, he buys time for his teammates to get in on it as well. Like, he's been really effective using his speed and his forechecking ability, and it's added a real nice dimension to that line. Like, it's not a coincidence that there's a bit more space for JT Miller to skate through when he's playing with Mikayev, when Mikayev's able to use his speed and get in on the forecheck. And I'm just so happy, squirt a goal, you know, that he got that off his back. And hopefully he gets hot now. And him getting finding his game down a stretch drive into the playoffs could be the perfect alignment for this Canucks team. Like, they really need him to get going. And if he can get going now into the playoffs, it's almost like making an addition at the trade deadline 'cause we weren't sure what to expect from him the rest of the season. - He, I mean, I said it before the deadline, I think it would be a mistake to give up on Mikayev in order to make an ad somewhere else, because there is still a good player in there and I know it's expensive and I know he hasn't scored since December, but you've got to wait to see how he looks when he gets his burst back. And these last few games, it feels like Mikayev has got his burst back. And that's huge for the Vancouver Canucks if he can maintain a lot of this moving forward. You know, in general, he is on pace to have a pretty decent season, right? 27 points in 63 games. All a lot of that came in the first half of the season, but now if he can finish strong and really solidify this second line, whatever you wanna call it with Miller and Besser, I think that certainly helps the Canucks. And now you just have to worry about, can we get Patterson going? Do we move Lindholm back to the wing and see if that creates another real top six line that can allow us to really lean on teams when the situation calls for it, reunite Blueger, Garland and Joshua. Like there's just, if you have this line figured out, it would help a lot of your other decisions or potential options that you have down the stretch. - It would. And I think once you get Joshua back, like you mentioned, it gives you the option to perhaps put Lindholm back with Patterson again, if you wanna get away from, you know, having Lindholm be on his own line. 'Cause I don't wanna sell everything that Hoaglander, Patterson and Souter have done because they had a bad game. 'Cause I thought the previous four games over the Canucks four game winning streak leading into last night, that line played really well. - Yeah. - They weren't dominating in terms of points, but they were scoring pretty much every game. They were effective on the four check, playing well defensively. So I don't know if I wanna say, you know, that's over. It was their first bad game together. - Yeah. You probably give them another chance to see or a couple of chances to get out of it, but if that can't work, you kinda have to try something different. - Dan Reicho, Sati Arshot, lots of texts coming in. We'll get to some of them in the next hour of the show. Also, John Mattis of the score is going to join us. His most recent piece on how NHL teams are continuing to integrate analytics into their decision making. We'll get to that and some more news and notes from around the National Hockey League next on Canucks Central. - The most opinionated Canucks show out there, Canucks taught with Jamie Dodd and Thomas Drans. Be sure to subscribe on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. (upbeat music) - Dan Reicho, Sati Arshot, back in the context of the studio, hour number two of the program, Kintec, Canada's favorite orthotics provider, powered by thousands of five-star Google reviews. Sorty, what are you waiting for? A lot of reaction to our recent conversations. We'll get to some of your texts, 650, 650 on the Dunbar Lumber Tech message inbox. Shortly, but now we go to the dispatch plumbing heating and air conditioning. Hotline, the first call, the only call. It is John Mattis, senior NHL writer for the score joining us here on Canucks Central. Thanks to this, John, how are you? - I'm doing well, guys. Love that groovy intro, I'm into it. - Well, we always are spinning the best royalty-free music you can find. Our producers scour the internet for the best royalty-free music known to man and that is actually findable. - They do have good ears, though. They do find some good things. - There's a lot to wait through. - There's a lot of junk that you have to look through, kind of like the free agent market in the summer. All right, so I liked your recent piece on analytics. I don't wanna get in on that a little bit, but for now, let's focus on the Western Conference and we're beyond the trade deadline here. Canucks are first in the Pacific Division, but it feels like, especially seeing Colorado last night and with the moves that the Vegas Golden Knights made, as much as the Canucks are a facts-only first place hockey team, they aren't one of the top, top contenders of the Western Conference, how do you see it? - Yeah, I'm a similar thought. I mean, I would put Vancouver somewhere in like four to six out of the Western teams as far as like my confidence of them winning the cup or just, you know, what they look like on paper. But I think Colorado's gotta be ahead of them. I think Vegas, I realize that Vegas is further down the standings and technically the second wildcard, but I really don't think that the level of an issue getting in. And, you know, there's a caveat there, of course, that we don't know what they look like at full health and when the trade line acquisitions are fully up and running, you know, that could just not work. Could be too many bodies added. We'll see. But yeah, Colorado is probably at the top of the heap. I mean, Edmonton, when you got McDavid and dry settle on their prime, they're always in the conversation. And I think Dallas is sneaky is the wrong word because they're, you know, they have 89 points on the season. But like, you know, there's so many strong teams in the West that we kind of forget about Dallas, I feel like nationally, internationally, and just sort of say, okay, they're a very good team. But, you know, are they actually great? I think that there's a chance of that because they've made some really astute moves lately, whether it was in the summer with bringing Matt Duchain on a three million dollar deal. That's worked out fantastically for them. You know, Thomas Harley's really broken out for them. Obviously getting Chris Tan up was a huge boost to the blue line. They didn't do anything on deadline day, but I didn't think it really mattered. Especially when you factor in that, someone like Logan Stankovin has really made his mark in the first 10 games of his career. So the West is a bit of a gauntlet. I mean, like you can even throw Winnipeg in there. I was pretty high on LA at the beginning of the year. I know that they've gone through some rough stretches, including the one that got Todd McClellan fired. So they're sort of lurking, you know, probably more of a dark horse than anything. But compared to the East, I think the West is significantly better. - Yeah, it's so much deeper. You're right. I mean, there's about a list of six teams that could win the Stanley Cup in the Western Conference. Now obviously, some teams are more favored than others, but there are six teams that could potentially pull it off. And part of it is, I mean, looking at all these teams, they all have some level of flaws. I love Dallas as well. And with you, I think the forward group is very underrated and it's very deep. And now adding Chris Tan, have you really solidifies an already pretty high-end defense? Their flaw has ironically been their goal-tending. Jake Audinger has not been at the level you would expect Jake Audinger to be at. And if you look at Colorado, they have some issues as much as they've loaded up, but obviously they're a fantastic team. But it seems like every single squad in the league, even the contenders, have at least one or two flaws that we wouldn't always attribute to cup-contending level teams. I think it also shows kind of where the league's at right now. Yeah, I think that's fair. I would counter with Florida maybe being the one team that doesn't seem to have a major flaw. Like we never know with Sergey Barrowski, right? I mean, this is a guy who has won two vests and has gone deep in the playoffs, but then there's been stretches of his career where you go, you know, I can't believe this guy makes $10 million. He shouldn't even be making $2 million at this point. But so far this season has been fantastic. They've been a well-oiled machine, pretty much wired a wire here. And not only do they have a ton of points, but they're underline numbers, you know, whether it's sort of the stuff you can find on an evolving walk, a hockey or sport logic, like it's all off the charts and especially defensively. I mean, that's a huge feather in their cap as far as what they can do in the playoffs. And this is all a continuation of last year. And then last year was kind of a continuation of the year before when they won the president's trophy. So they're not sneaky, you know, if we can kind of compare them to Dallas, like sneaky's not the word for them either. But I think that if you look across the league, Florida might be the one team where you go. They've kind of got it all figured out. And, you know, Sat, you mentioned like the parity. You know, you say that one day and then five days later, the team's falling apart. That's just the nature of the sport and of the league when you have 32 teams. But Florida is probably the one exception to the rule at this point. - Yeah. And, you know, at this time of year, we're kind of looking at a lot of different awards ballots. And last night, you know, as mentioned, Colorado in town, we got to see the heart trophy favorite and Nathan McKinnon. He did his thing helping the abs come back from that three gold deficit. And it was another viewing of Hughes versus Macar. But I'm sort of at the point now, John, where I don't know, like Macar's going to have to have a pretty strong finish to the season in order to usurp Quinn Hughes as the favorite for the Norris Trophy. - Oh, 100%. I think the Norris is rough. I'm saying it's locked up is the wrong way to put it because there is enough runway here for someone to steal it from Hughes. But looking at other awards, a heart, that's going to be down to the wire as far as who ultimately kind of puts their nose across the finish line first. And I think there's going to be a lot of split ballots there. Whereas the Norris, I mean, it's Hughes and then a gap. And then guys like Roman Yosi and, you know, Macar and Forzling and Fox and Dobson, like Yosi, if the Panthers, or sorry, not the Panthers, the Predators continue on this run, which is unlikely if we're being honest because of kind of the personnel they have and how hot they've been. But let's just say they do. And it turns into almost like a Taylor Hall of five, six years ago, but for the Norris Trophy where, you know, towards the end of the season, Yosi has such huge momentum as far as what he's done that perhaps that challenges Hughes. But the body at work from Hughes has been nothing short of incredible. And I just, it's one of those, it's one of those things where I think even if Macar was at full health and full performance, it would be a good debate. But likely given what Hughes has done, he would probably still win. But the fact that you take Macar out of it, I mean, he's basically the bobby or of this generation and it's almost sacrilegious to say that, but it's kind of true. He's such a unique dynamic player and so special, but he just hasn't been himself the full season. So that leaves a big gaping hole. You know, guys like Hayskin in or like Headman, they haven't quite been up to Norris-caliber. So even though the league is, and I've talked about this on your, you guys show before, like the league is extremely deep in defense right now. Like it's kind of a golden air in a lot of ways. But this here has been a little odd in terms of guys really being above the rest. And I just think that Hughes is kind of the no brainer at this point for the Norris, assuming down the stretch, nothing crazy happens. - Now for sure. And I mean, you're right. I mean, a lot can still happen. You mentioned before in five days because of like parody, things can change pretty dramatically. So we'll see, but, you know, the other big trophy is the heart trophy. And we got to see Nathan McKinnon last night too. And we obviously get a chance to see Conor McDavid up close and personal a lot in Vancouver with them being the same division. Is it fair to say that McKinnon's actually been better than McDavid this year? - Yeah, gotten to my head if I was voting today for the heart, I think I would go with McKinnon. But it wouldn't be easy. It wouldn't be me, you know, really feeling great about it. Because, I mean, whether it's McDavid and, you know, the run he's been on lately and carrying his team or McKinnon, you know, the injuries in Colorado and just the night-to-night dominance. It's very McDavid ask if we're being honest. And then Kuchra being whatever is 50 points ahead of the second high score on Tampa. I mean, that's incredible. Hollabook's been really good in Winnipeg. I think he's really, you know, run away with the Vessna a little bit here. And then so if you loop that into the heart trophy conversation, you certainly in the conversation in that top five group. And then Matthews, I mean, if the guy hits 70 goals, it's gonna be difficult to, well, one, leave him off your heart ballot and two, leave him out of your top three. And then you start going, okay, well, you know, goals are the most difficult thing to do in the league. He is very good defensively. We need to consider Austin Matthews. So, yeah, it's really quite something. And like it's one of those things where, you know, if you do it enough times, the voting, it feels like every year it's hard or every year it's, you know, you're kind of having the same conversation about all these players that are having unbelievable years and how well it's so difficult. But I honestly do think, I think I voted like five or six years. I think this year is legitimately like, I can even go back in my head. It's legitimately the most difficult heart decision of my, you know, memory. And, you know, we'll see. Again, there's some runway here where someone can separate themselves from the pack, but like I wouldn't feel, like I said, I wouldn't feel great about putting mechanic number one, but I probably would do it at this point in time. - So, I was reading your piece up now at the score, a feature on basically analytics in the game. And it's called Open People's Eyes, how the NHL's evolved in the decade of data from John Mattis, our current guest here on Canucks Central via the Dispatch Cloming Heating and Air Conditioning Hotline. And there's a lot in here. And it's from an angle of how the league is using it, how players are using it, how coaches are using it, how front offices are using it. And there's different values to every one of those categories and how you use the data. One thing we've talked a lot about here on the show, John, just to bring you in on it a little bit is how different the data can be for what we see in the public and what teams are using. Is that something you've uncovered in talking to players and coaches about this? - Yeah, I mean, I would say I luckily have access to sport logic data, not the full back end of it, but I get to sort of some reason stuff. And even that, I know that their expected goals model is way more sophisticated than say what you see on evolving hockey, natural stat trick, whatever. And it kind of bears out when you look at the goalie stats, when we're talking about goals saved above average, it certainly seems to line up more with the eye test, what you see in sport logics numbers than elsewhere. So that's a little taste that I've had where you kind of see, okay, you've got the hobbyist people who are making these websites that houses advanced stats and they do a great job. It's tremendous and it's free. We can't really complain. But when you've got actual manpower behind it, you've got artificial intelligence. You've got really like, you know, these smart developers and engineers. And you've got tags in jerseys and in the puck and cameras in the ring to collect all this data. It can really, one, make it more accurate, two, you know, just give you a lot more raw data. So if you're a data scientist for the Canucks, for example, you get all this raw data and then you can make your own metrics. You can go down this rabbit hole, that rabbit hole. You can turn into whatever you want to turn it into. So there's that aspect as well. And, you know, even so, for example, clear site analytics, which you guys would know as far as them focusing on goalies. I'm really interested in them and the way that they've been able to capture, you know, save percentage in a different way. Where, you know, a shot from the point that screened is infinitely more difficult to stop than a clear shot from the point. Like it's very logical, it makes a ton of sense, but it's just not part of the mainstream data that's out there. Well, now this company is capturing it. So if I'm a team making a big decision in the summer, I'm gonna, you know, put some money into learning about all these nuances of the data and how it can inform your decision making because, you know, there's certain goalies that are really good in certain environments. So do you want to, you know, fire your coach or change all your skaters to have a whole different style? Or do you want to find a goalie that fits your style as it already is? So in the summer, maybe you don't go up to the marquee guy, you go after a goalie that's proven over a decent sample that he actually does well in your current environment. So I find that stuff super interesting where if you put sort of your fantasy GM hat on and start to think about the strategy of it all, that really gets the wheels turning. And just to give you guys a little sort of behind the scenes on the story and all my reporting, one of the main things that I took away and that didn't necessarily get reflected in the piece was a lot of these people that work for teams, director of hockey analytics, folks or data scientists, engineers, et cetera, they, you know, obviously they're involved in the day to day, you know, pregame reports, postgame reports, talking to coaches, et cetera. But it's kind of shifted more towards strategy. Like there was one guy who works for a team, a director of hockey analytics who said like, you know, analytics for player evaluation, that's fine. But like, I'm focused on strategy. Where are some big picture pillars that we can use data to help us understand? So, you know, if it's a draft, like how are we actually going to attack the draft as an organization over the next 10 years? Like, is it going to be, we're going to go for high upside players? Or are we going to, you know, play it a little safer and try to get, you know, players that are just going to play in the NHL? You know, like let's go hard into one direction because we believe in it and the data says it's doable or let's go in this direction because it's safer. Those types of conversations, I find super interesting. And it's kind of enlightening that, you know, 10 years ago, all these, let's call them smart people who have these fancy degrees and are working with this data, they get brought into the fold with the hockey operations. And they're kind of just doing a lot of rudimentary stuff. And, you know, okay, tell us about our shot attempts and tell us about penalty differential. It's all very elementary. Now they've gone to this next level where they're big decision-makers for one and two, they're kind of thinking more strategic and how do we shape the organization, shape our pillars and ultimately shape the roster and the salary cap and sort of our image and inform our decision-making is ultimately informed by a lot of data. - Well, and I think, you know, the public data is obviously helpful. It's a resource you can use and it does give you an indication. Generally speaking, if you look at teams that give up a lot of high-danger scoring chances, they're gonna be not amongst the better teams. And teams that create a lot of high-danger engineers will generally be some of the better teams. However, how a high-danger chance gets charted is very different. And not every high-danger chance is the same and considering how much pre-shot movement there is, whether it's from the players themselves or screens or how much the puck goes east or west before a shot gets taken, all of these factors add to a more likelihood of a puck potentially going in. And I think with hockey, especially considering how volatile the game is and how many factors change from one moment to another because of the dynamism in the game, I think we kind of needed these stats to be more tailored to how the game truly gets played because there's so many things that happen in hockey that you can't just look at a shot and say, "Well, this shot came from this direction. "This means it was dangerous." - Oh, absolutely. I think a perfect example of this, that is if you take a shot like a rebound shot where the goalie's glove is right there, a pad is right there, it's almost an impossible shot to score on, but the quote-unquote expected goal value of that is going to be through the roof. It'll be like 0.7 or whatever. Whereas like a point shot, that's whatever, 0.2, that's actually going to be a better shot because when you're just stuffing it into a goalie's pad, that's just not going to go in. So at least from the point, you have a chance of it fluttering or the guy misplaying it or something. So there's a lot of nuance lost with what we have available publicly. And I think it's getting better by the year in terms of what people are putting into their models and trying to figure this out from the outside. And then I think honestly from the inside, they haven't totally figured it out. It's still a work in progress here. And you brought up a good point, the sort of chaotic, major of hockey, that's the elephant in the room a little bit with this whole conversation around data and analytics and how it can help you. This isn't baseball. It's not even basketball where there's a lot of more sort of possessions where it's more strategy and Xs than O's. This is so free flowing hockey. And it's a lot of like the games become off the rush a lot, a lot emphasis on the slot. Like it's really fascinating where it's like, okay, you can care about the data all you want, but the sport is just so difficult to grasp sometimes as far as the numbers. And there's whatever, there's 10 skaters out there, they're on skates, they're on like knives and they have stick. And they're playing with this rubber disc that is frozen and there's line changes and there's a goalie involved. It's just, it's so chaotic that it's not exactly ripe for perfect analysis through the data, but that's that. I think it's still very valuable and it's certainly still something that every team should be heavily invested in. - Some of the parts that I found super interesting were players talking about how using data has helped them and their decision making on the ice. And there's a quote here from Travis Connectney where I was doing this, but now after seeing some of the data and learning about it, I knew I had to get to different areas of the ice in order to have a better chance of scoring and you're seeing him pop off. It reminds me of pitchers in baseball being like, well, if I throw this pitch in this count on this area, the plate, I have this much more of a chance of success. And it's just really digging into the numbers to find any little edge that you possibly can. And having players and coaches sort of really dive into that and really invest their off ice time into that, I think could be helpful for a lot of guys. - Yeah, there's a couple things there, Dan. Like number one, I've always thought, even like if we go back 10 years when people were arguing on Twitter about courtesy and all that nonsense, like I always thought, even back then, that it didn't make sense that coaches were against advanced stats, against data because when you're watching film, I mean, why wouldn't you want to have the data that's sort of capturing what happens in the video? Why wouldn't you wanna do a video presentation and go, hey, we're getting killed in this area and here's the data. Here's one data point to really drive it home and that whole thing. So I've always thought there's a huge, great connection there. And I think it's come around. I think there's a lot of coaches that are quite interested in the data and use it. And that obviously connects to players, where if in the case of Connect Me, as you bring him up, basically two years ago, he's in a slump. He's this former first round pick that was on a great trajectory. And then for whatever reason, gotten to some bad habits in the offensive zone, where he's just gaining the line and just shooting the puck on net, or even when he's trying to play make, he's just always on the outside and it's just some low percentage stuff. And if you do it all season, you're just not gonna see any results. And I think there was some crazy stat I didn't include in the piece, but where it was like, players with 300 shots or 200 shots, he had the second lowest shooting percentage in the entire league, which is crazy because he's a pretty skilled player, pretty smart player. But anyway, so he sits down with Danny Breair and sits down with their director of hockey analytics. And they just talk, they show him some video and they show him some statistics and say, "Hey, listen, this is what it's telling us "as far as what you're doing "and then this is what you've done in the past "and this is what you're able to do in the future "if you make a few tweaks." And it took some time, it took some effort on his part to sort of rewire his brain, to sort of get into new habits in the offensive zone. But basically, the messaging from Breair and the hockey analytics guy was just get closer than that. Like, it's pretty simple stuff, but for it to click with ConnectMe, he had to sort of see the hard data and he had to look in the mirror for lack of a better way to put it and start to get to work. So that's pretty interesting in it. It all relates to this generation of player now, right? So not only are these guys growing up on YouTube or TikTok and stuff like that, but I think that Gen Z generation is pretty tech savvy, pretty data savvy. Like they want these things in their life. You always hear about coaches saying, these guys want to know why, they want to know more. They don't want to be told what to do. They want to be involved as a partnership. Well, that comes into play here too. - Hey, John, really appreciate the time and the insights and good work on the piece. We really enjoyed it. - Thanks, fellas. Thanks for having me on as usual. Have a good one. There is John Mattis, senior NHL writer at the score. - And one of the good guys too. - Yeah. - Great dude, good insight. And it's a tremendous piece. - Yeah. - If you haven't read it, you know, once the show ends. - Yeah. - Make sure to go and check it out on the score. And I do find it really fascinating, kind of living through the stats revolution. It's kind of been through our era of hockey watching and not just in hockey, but through sports in general, right? It's something that had been going on with Bill James and baseball, but that took a long time. It wasn't until the athletics, so to speak, and Billie Bean that that became-- - Money ball, yeah. - And honestly, I do find it funny, you see it in the movie too, that Billie Bean has a lot of credit for it, but they, you know, Cleveland, the franchise was ahead of them, 'cause they were already-- - Yes. - So it was already going on to some degree in baseball, but it was very surface level, and it was also kind of something that wasn't spoken about really in the public sphere a lot, right? So it was kind of, you know, in the 90s it starts coming out a little bit, but the 2000s, and we kind of lived through the real pushback initially, 'cause first it was like, what's Corsi? Who cares about Corsi? And there was this reluctance to trust any of this stuff, and I always found it like really funny. I'm like, you don't want to know about where the scoring chances are coming from. Like, you don't want to know-- - You don't want to know how to help yourself essentially. - Yeah, like it's, you know, it's essentially like, yeah, we're looking at which team has created more scoring chances. - Yeah. - And I think sometimes people push back on something, 'cause they're like, well, all you're trying to do is talk about how to score goals. What about how to play the game the right way? And I think that's something that hasn't changed. And I think all the old school coaches, and they would understand this, would say, sure, I can try and create a more offensive team and try to look at value in here and there and try to overthink things, or I can get the guys to play good, clean, you know, dependable hockey. - Yeah. - And that hasn't changed. Being on the right side of the puck, protecting the front of the net, boxing guys out, for instance, winning board battles, being available as outlets not blowing the zone. - Yeah. - Like, these are things that have been going on in hockey forever. Like, there's nothing new here, right? And as long as you do those things, the analytics shouldn't matter so much, 'cause if you do those things, you give yourself a chance, so to speak. But now with the advancements in the sport, and also with every team trying to get an edge, every team is fighting so hard to maximize everything that they do, that if you're not on board and trying to find ways to maximize your performance, you're gonna fall behind. - Yeah. - And it's just really incredible how far that evolution has happened, 'cause it's evolved dramatically over the past 20, 25 years. - It is funny, some of the pushback we had as, I guess, in the 2000s and early 2010s, as Corsi started to become more of a thing, and it's just like, well, how long have we been looking at the shot clock? That's all Corsi is, just with a different name. - Yeah, yeah, 'cause it's Jim Corsi, the goaltender who named it, and it's just shot attempts rather than just shots on net. - And it also breaks down in different situations. You can get shot attempts five on five, versus even strength versus power play PK, and you need to sift through each of those different game situations to see how you rank in different situations across the league, right? And honestly, I do think now with how the game is evolving, looking at shot metrics alone doesn't really tell you a whole lot. You know, like you see some of the best teams in a league kinda be average on a shot metrics. That's not a greatest indicator anymore. Like I think if you went back maybe 15 years, if you looked at the raw Corsi numbers for teams, and the best teams generally were the best teams, but with how the game is now changing with how they're trying to create scoring chances and how specific it's become, it's no longer a strong indicator of which team is most dangerous. - And there's so much of, you know, we talk about this with Connor Garland at times, you know, sometimes he'll just gain the blue line and throw the puck in on net. Maybe he gets an offensive zone face off, whatever it might be, like, teams might look at a shot on net from a non-dangerous area just as a turnover. - Yeah. - So why are we taking that shot? - You have a less than 1% chance of scoring. - So now it's a face off. Instead of us on 100% having the puck, now there's a 50/50 chance we get the puck back. - Yeah, now every situation is different. You're at the end of a shift. Maybe you just, you wanna get off, get the offensive zone face off. It's sort of harmless in a way, or it can feel harmless. And you just, you move the game along kind of a thing, but there are situations where you're taking a bad shot and potentially creating a turnover. This is all puck management kind of scenarios that we talk about so much with the Canucks. When are you making a pass into the slot? Is it a safe place to give that pass into the slot? Can it quickly be turned around for a three on two back the other way if we're not covered up in those situations? So like these kinds of things, it's funny because coaches have talked about them forever, but it's more just like really identifying where the danger areas are and even cross-ice passes. We've always known you get a goalie moving post-to-post. You got a better chance of scoring. - I remember playing NHL 96. - Yes, the NHL video games have been the same forever. If you get a one-timer going post-to-post cross the ice, you're probably scoring a goal. - That's good chance. - That was the entire basis of the game. Get the one-timer going across the ice and you're probably good. And hockey's always been the same. Guys in the '70s knew you get that kind of a play going. You're probably going to have success. But now it's, now there's more information about what doesn't work. - Yeah, what doesn't work, but also just how well it works. - Yes, exactly. - Like, oh, the goalie's got a 500 save percentage on plays like this, like, okay, how do we generate more plays like that? - Yeah. - We really want to generate more plays like that. - Like the flash screen you hear about that, right? Like, which is, it's nothing new necessarily, but I do think it's something that either focusing in on more, getting more layers on the screens. And, you know, instead of just getting traffic on net and hoping that works out, like you're very specific about how you're trying to layer your screen in a shot before it goes in. And that doesn't mean, you know, that you're going to score so many more goals all the time, but I don't think it's a coincidence that scoring's gone up. I know the, you know, player skills changing, right? The sticks are different and everyone's a better shooter now than they ever were. The goaltender's, I don't know if they've fallen off 'cause I don't think they have. Like, it wasn't long ago we were talking about how goalies are hard to the expansion conversation. There's an extra four goalies in the league and maybe their talent is high. - I think there's some of that going on too. But I don't think it's a coincidence that scoring's gone up when these things have evolved to find out more efficiencies in how to score goals and how to prevent goals. - I will take some more of your texts coming up next
