The Canucks dig deep, did what they had to do, and won their first game of the season.
An older version of me may have been a bit more concerned with the way the Canucks beat Seattle Thursday night. After all, I had the shot attempts at 58-30 for the Kraken and scoring chances at 18-12. Surely, the Canucks didn’t deserve to win this one.
This is probably the first game this season that we had any indication of score effects. For those of you newer to hockey analysis, score effects are the reason a team that is being beaten begins out-shooting the opponent, especially as the game drags on late. The incentives for each team change: down 1 in the 3rd, Seattle were pressing, moving the puck quickly into the OZ, while the Canucks, up by 1, opted to defend the front of the net, move the puck out, didn’t worry about icing the puck, and generally being happy with a period that bled the clock.
I don’t know if this was a full value win for the Canucks. They played Seattle pretty evenly, and I give them credit for some big shot blocks late in the game that sealed with win, particularly JT Miller’s painful block of Andre Burakovsky in the final seconds. I also doubt that this played a factor in the end result, but the Canucks came out physical and seemed like they wanted to hurt the Kraken a little. They finished their checks with gusto in the early going (and then dialed it back a little as the game got into higher leverage moments).
The Kraken scattered 12 good chances to score in the 3rd period, with two being on the powerplay early in the period and two during the empty net sequence (also on a powerplay). There were otherwise no extended sequences where the Canucks were barely hanging on, save for a little bit of a nervous rebound given up for Bjorkstrand with Thatcher Demko in a full snow-angel midway through. The Canucks did what they had to do, got a win, and and least have something to build on before coming back home to face Pittsburgh tonight.
I’m not going to get into the playoff math. The team will have to win 4 or 5 in a row at some point before we can broach that topic again.
5v5 scoring chances
Still, the Canucks generated very little offence from the back-end. So did Seattle, as this was a game driven by the forwards.
The Kraken got an advantage in their shots and scoring chances thanks mainly to shots on the rush or in transition, meaning they didn’t really waste any time getting looks when they brought the puck in. This was probably one of the reasons why the Canucks didn’t really look ever in too much danger of relinquishing the lead: they were pretty good at shutting down any long, extended possessions leading to forecheck or cycle shots.
Individuals:
Vancouver:
- Once again, a third period scoring chance set up by a defenceman was the difference in the game. There was a twist this time, as it was Luke Schenn’s odd primary assist (the puck took a hop off Carson Soucy before making it to Elias Pettersson, but I credited Schenn with the chance setup all the same since I think he was trying to put it to Petey in the slot)
- It was a pretty quiet night for most of the Canuck forwards. Horvat, Mikheyev, and Joshua each had a pair of chances. No line really stood out.
- Again, very little puck movement prior to scoring chances for Vancouver. They badly need to get some more motion in the OZ to open up those passing lanes, or they’ll be relying on their shooters to beat goalies one-on-one.
Seattle:
- The Kraken also had a fairly quiet night on offence, as a lot of their later shots were efforts from distance that didn’t qualify as scoring chances for me. That said, I’ve always been a big Oliver Bjorkstrand booster. The Kraken were able to steal him away from Columbus just by having cap space, and he was the most dangerous player at 5v5 in this game.
- McCann also had a decent night, taking 3 chances and setting up 2 more.
- I’m also a big Beniers believer. For you Kraken fans that made your way here, I’m planning on taking a closer look at him at some point this fall. I like how he has no fear working the puck in tight spaces, is confident to make dangerous passes, and has a killer release. He reminds me a lot of a certain young centreman in Toronto whose career I’m familiar with.
- Tonight, though, Beniers had just the one scoring chance, a breakaway opportunity set up by Schwartz, and no cheapie of a secondary assist by Eberle (though I don’t track those)
5v5 zone entries
Controlled entries:
Zone entry attempts by period:
1st: 32-24 Seattle
2nd: 28-24 Seattle
3rd: 37-18 Seattle
So the Kraken kind of held onto the advantage all night in terms of volume. Even though both teams had the same controlled entry percentage, the Kraken had 12 more controlled entries (and created 8 more scoring chances off those entries) than the Canucks did. It was really not until the third that the Kraken really had that high entry differential, which is expected when a team is trailing. Leading teams don’t forecheck or pressure down ice as much, meaning its easier for the trailing team to get the puck in the neutral zone.
Dump-ins:
Probably the thing that concerned me the most about this game was the high rate of recoveries allowed by the Canucks. This has been a weakness for them this season, as they’re allowing their opposition to recover more shoot-ins and a sign that their D is not quite handling the forecheck great (though the zone exit numbers have largely held up this year and been pretty competent).
68% of Seattle shoot-ins were recovered by them, compared to just 59% for Vancouver. That’s a high number for the Canucks as well, but Seattle had volume in their favour. Still, the focus on Vancouver was to protect the net front, not necessarily win pucks in the corners.
Vancouver:
- I know that Podkolzin hasn’t really scored much this season, but I don’t think it made much sense to split up him and Petey. Neither line really moved the puck well in this game, despite some recent fantastic performances by Pettersson.
- The first line had a bit better of a night in terms of volume than they’ve had in past games, but they weren’t entering with control much, and created a single scoring chance off a controlled entry.
- Garland and Hoglander were both puck hounds Thursday night. Both players won two puck retrieval races, and both forced multiple turnovers (Garland 4 and Hoglander 2). For Hoglander, this is despite moving back down to the 4th line.
- There’s some rumours kicking around that the Hurricanes have been sniffing on Hoglander for a while, and that makes sense to me. He’s the type of player who would thrive in Carolina’s system. The Canucks need to find a way to make those talents useful here, as you can never have too many guys you can trust to recover the puck.
Seattle:
- There were quite a few Kraken players that had controlled entries, but if you look at the scoring chance column, neither of the players that had big nights in the neutral zone really moved the needle all that much when it came to scoring chances. Beniers, Burakovsky, Bjorkstrand, and Gourde each had 4 controlled entries, but that led to just 4 scoring chances total. The Canucks did a decent job of shutting things down after the entry.
- The Kraken also commit several turnovers at the offensive blueline, with Gourde and Burakovsky each failing to enter the OZ four times.
Entry Defence
Vancouver:
- The Canucks fared a lot better on the right side than the left. Myers had a real good night: the Kraken targeted him often, but he turned 8 controlled entries against him into just 3 scoring chances, while the Kraken had a little more success on the other side against OEL.
- Myers, Burroughs, and Schenn each forced 4 failed entries, as well. While I’m not sure that it’s a great D group necessarily, I think Myers, Burroughs and Schenn can hang with a lot of groups in the league. Burroughs I think has been a bit of a revelation. The team may not know how good he is. He’s probably a little too old for the team to see him as part of the next great Canucks team, but I imagine he fetches a decent pick at the trade deadline if he continues to play like this.
Seattle:
- Seattle’s D were fairly untested throughout the night, since a lot of the play was pointing in the other direction.
- Schultz and Oleksiak each had strong nights, each allowing just 1 controlled entry on 5 attempts, leading to just one scoring chance.
Exits and DZ touches
As you might expect, the Kraken held a huge advantage in zone exits, which led to that high entry differential we saw earlier. While a lot of that was due to score effects, the Kraken did have a very strong first two periods as well, exiting with control 63% of the time in P1 and 76% of the time in P2 (same as their P3 number).
The Canucks had quite a few turnovers in this game, but we’ll see that that pretty much applied to only one player…
Vancouver:
- Oh boy, Ilya Mikheyev just could not get the puck off his stick in this game, committing 6 turnovers on just 10 DZ touches. Now, unless this becomes a recurring theme, I’m willing to treat it as just a bad game. Still, I’m a little concerned with how little we’ve seen of Mikheyev’s speed. He hasn’t really broken out in that regard. The Canucks either need to get pucks into the middle of the ice for him so he can exit the zone with speed, or send a Hail Mary or two down-ice so that he can race onto it. He scored twice, sure, but the guy is the fastest skater in hockey and I’m worried you people will never believe me when I say that because of how little we’ve seen of him.
- Better night moving the puck for OEL, with 5 controlled exits on 7 attempts, but turnovers were still an issue, particularly late. Now, I do want to clear up something I said on Canucks Talk with Drance and Dodd yesterday, since I got quoted on Twitter: I don’t think that OEL is an NHL-level defenceman right now. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the ability to improve, but he’s essentially been outplayed by replacement-level players this season. If I’m an opponent, I’m itching to play against him. He’s got some bad boots right now and is doing a lot of things that would really annoy me if I worked for the Canucks. His passes aren’t crisp, he’s making bad reads, and he’s getting beaten in multiple puck races every game. That doesn’t mean you can write him off for the rest of his NHL career, but he’s playing below an NHL standard right now and needs to improve for this team to have much of a hope. I have no vendetta against the player, but coming in pretty fresh to this team and not really knowing what to expect since this is the first time I’ve watched a lot of these players closely for multiple games, there is a lot about Ekman-Larsson’s game to dislike. If that improves, I’ll be the first to give him credit.
Seattle:
- Quiet night for Beniers in most areas of the game, but he was very effective in moving the puck out for the Kraken, and was also VERY active in the DZ, with 14 touches, a game-high for forwards. I just love how he has the confidence to move the puck in tight areas in the most dangerous spots on the ice.
- The Canucks kind of laid off on the forecheck as the game went along and the Kraken didn’t really have too many opportunities to turn the puck over at that point. The D probably did what they had to do, getting the puck out and on the sticks of their teammates in the NZ , and no D for Seattle had a notoriously bad night in that regard.
Before signing off (I still have to go through the Leafs-Sharks game), I want to direct people to my piece at The Athletic that went up yesterday. It’s basically a compilation of all the numbers you find here, plus a little extra.
—
Thank you for reading. I hope you found something informative in here. I’m not a huge fan of website comments, so if you have suggestions, notes on what you liked or didn’t like, kindly get at me on Twitter @camcharronyvr, or send me an email camcharron@gmail.com.
These postgame reports will be free through the month of October. If you enjoyed the content, please consider buying a site subscription when the option becomes available.
Cam Charron's Hockey Stats 