Dallas @ Vancouver

I've never been a big fan of Vigneault, but over the course of the season I've accepted his methods as different but not inneffective. I like his calm demeanor and the fact he doens't play favorites.

In my opinion the role of a coach in the playoffs is to show the players "holes" in the opposing team's methodolgies. This means that a coach attempts to explain how the opposing team's penalty kill works and what they should do to take advantage of the opposing team's system. Or they show how to get passed the opponents neutral zone trap etc.

What concerns me about Vigneault is his solution to the current problems on the powerplay are to "Try harder," Vigneault said. "That's what they have to do. Try harder". Morrison seems to know what has to happen from the coach: "For whatever reason they are being ultra-agressive. Usually, if a team is ultra-agressive, if you make the right play, you can torch a team. Usually, there's somebody open. We're just not executing now."

I think it's important to note the difference between Morrison and Vigneault, that is the team needs to find the holes in Dallas' defense and this is primarily the role of the coaching staff. As this series has progressed the Canucks have been weak in their responses to Dallas' changes, but Dallas has been effective at making changes that stiffle the Canucks. This is Vigneault's first NHL playoffs as a coach, and he may be significantly embarrased tonight, losing a series after being up 3-1. I guess he can always just call it 'bad effort' on the part of the players, because they don't really want to win (sarcasm).

VAN DAL # G EG S% G EG SV% Game 1: 5 3.6 90.0 4 4.0 86.1 Game 2: 0 1.9 95.0 2 4.0 100 Game 3: 2 2.5 95.0 1 2.0 92.0 Game 4: 2 2.0 94.7 1 1.9 90.0 Game 5: 0 0.9 95.0 1 2.0 100 Game 6: 0 0.8 95.9 2 4.9 100 Game 7: 4 2.5 91.7 1 1.2 92.0 Series [4-3] 13 14.2 94.0 12 20.0 92.3

This image displays the two team's records and goals for (GFA) and goals against (GAA) rates against only teams who made the playoffs. In addition I added my 'trademarked' estimated team value rating (I sum up all my estimated worth[$'s] of the current lineup) to give an idea about how good the lineup is in relation to the performance over the year. You can see the season series below that, and a small number in the bottom right is the number of penalties per game in the season series. The big percentage are the likelihood, based on a simplistic prediction model, of the team to win the series. The percentages are updated after every win or loss. F,D,G represent Forwards, Defense and Goaltending respectively, and are just my best guesses. If you think they're wrong tell my why and I'll likely change them.

VAN DAL Winner Even Strength GF 2.41 2.19 EGF 2.35 2.2 GA 2.24 2.08 EGA 2.21 1.95 SV% 89.9% 89.4% Power Play GF 6 5.51 EGF 8.38 6.48 GA 0.32 0.36 EGA 0.35 0.7 SV% 92.8% 91.3%

The winner column displays the dominant team in that category. The more pictures of the team's logo the more dominant the team is in that category

All the non-percentage numbers are scoring rates. For example on the first row, the Vancouver Canucks have an even strength scoring rate of 2.41 goal for per hour. [GF = goals for, GA = goals against Exx = expected xx, SV% = shot quality neutral save percentage].

In the power play section in order to calculate the expected scoring rates I multiplied the goals for rate of one team and the goals against rate of the other and divide by the league average in order to get the expected rate for these two teams combined. So for example, the Vancouver Canucks have a power play goals for rate of 6.54 and the Dallas Stars have a penalty killing goals against rate of 5.96. So 6.54*5.96/6.5=6 [league average is 6.5].

Outperforming expected goals for is a sign of a lucky team. Outperforming expected goals against is a sign of either a good goaltender or luck as well.

Each category listed has a different importance to winning, so be careful how you read these. Being able to score short-handed isn't going to win a lot of hockey games.