Introduction and Methodology

I was thinking about something unique I could take a look at earlier this week, and then it came to me: ice time. What if we examine across the season thus far and see if anything interesting pops out? So I set about grabbing ice time per game for Canucks with a minimum of 20 games played.

About 5 minutes into throwing time-on-ice tables from hockeyreference into Excel, I realized this was a terrible idea.

Since any change to a given players’ ice time ends up getting a lot of discussion when it occurs, by now everyone already has a rough idea of how team deployment has played out over the season.

Doing a macro analysis is probably frivolous, then, because at best I’ll be confirming things people already know, and at worst I’ll be creating the graphical equivalent of a box of tangled Christmas lights:

Deciding that maybe something could be salvaged from this monstrosity, I decided to forge ahead.

Variance in Deployment

Looking at time on ice across the season at least gave me the chance to look at each player’s standard deviation from their mean TOI.

The higher the number, the greater the range of results varies from the mean, which basically tells you how much variance players have had in their deployment across the season.

However, the problem here is that ice time can vary for a very wide range of reasons. Injuries naturally account for huge swings in ice time. For example, Ben Hutton (more on him later) played just 13:41 in his first game of the season, but also played a team high of 29:25 one game when Edler was out with injury. Penalties taken and penalties drawn also cause big game-to-game differences for individual players depending on their special teams deployment. Another factor is opposition deployment, as Green notably likes to match lines – particularly with the use of shut down lines.

All of this is to say that this information is useless without knowing the context of individual players, at which point we should just be looking at them individually, thus again making this macro analysis pointless.

But there are some interesting things in there. Not only is Jake getting more ice time this season, he’s getting some of the most consistent deployment. His old 10 minute nightly performances have been bumped to a consistent 15, which is no small feat (am I right fellas? Heyoooo.)

Pouliot varies like crazy, likely due to the powerplay chances he got for the first quarter of the season which were later claimed by Hutton. Goldobin has bounced around a lot. Stecher sits firmly in the middle of the pack in both ATOI and variability. Tanev gives you a reliable 20 minutes a night no-questions-asked.

Confirming what intuition already told us about individual deployment variance, let’s move to examining our different cohorts.

Backend Boys

Taking a closer look at defencemen, a couple things immediately stick out: there’s a positive correlation in ice time between defenseman that play on the same pairing and a negative correlation between defenceman that play the same position. This is a pretty good example of something that in academia is sometimes called arguing folk wisdom – taking a needlessly complex approach to confirming something very obvious.

One thing this does illustrate, however, is how important Edler’s injury time likely was for Ben Hutton. His ice time not only jumped during that period but was consistently elevated afterward. He seized the opportunity to prove something to Green. We can also see that Pouliot has been trending pretty poorly. Stecher was trending in the right direction before the hit in game 37, sinking his ice time for that game and leaving him out for a few matches.

I also want to mention here that the first couple times I included MDZ in this graph the formatting went haywire. I don’t like to criticize players too harshly, but in this case I was pretty disappointed in him. He was cut.

Golden Boys

If you ask anyone about who on the current roster is untouchable, these three names will pop up the most. There isn’t too much to draw from this. Powerplays play a big role for deployment for Boeser and Pettersson. Boeser’s scoring stretches naturally coincide with his time stuck to Pettersson, and his “down” period have been with Horvat, as the two have surprisingly not seen the same chemistry as last year.

Regardless, with the spectre of Sutter playing big minutes haunting fans at the beginning of the season, the elevated deployment of Horvat and Pettersson has been is nice.

Battle Boys

These are the forwards that should fit the ethos of the Canucks’ Battle Brand – they are meant to play tough checking roles and chip in offensively once in a while. They are a blend of young, youngish, old, and oldish.

These guys are all over the place. There’s not much correlation between their usage, partially because I grouped them as guys that get varied deployment, mostly in the bottom nine. I’ve enjoyed Roussel’s ability to slot in up and down the lineup, and Motte has played very well with his mostly-limited deployment.

Eriksson’s usage is pretty consistent. Granlund has really benefited from injuries to the rest of the Canucks’ centre group this season, but even with a fairly healthy group Green likes to rely on him.

Lost Boys

At the beginning of the season I labeled these three as the Misfits because of their combination of potential and challenges. Now I am labeling them the Lost Boys because it fits my titling scheme. Regardless, these three are Green’s project players, which means a very tight leash and so their deployment is quite interesting.

It’s been very pleasant to see 2 out of the 3 earn Green’s trust and gain more consistent ice time as the season progresses. Most notable is Hutton, who deserves a lot of credit for tackling the deficiencies in his game and fitness from last year. Jake has seen a gradual improvement as well, continuing a trend from the end of last season.

That leaves us with Goldobin, who has struggled to earn ice time aside from a period of excellence alongside Pettersson. While it might be discouraging to see him in the doghouse over the last few weeks, Hutton and Virtanen are evidence that Green doesn’t blacklist players; that ice time is still there for Goldobin to win.

Tim Schaller and Michael Del Zotto… Boys

At first glance, there doesn’t appear to be much point comparing a depth forward and a depth defenceman. Aside from their similar contract structures and replaceable performances, there doesn’t seem to be much connection between the two.

But on further inspection, it becomes evident that together they form a kind of pre-cambrian toad that emerged from the depths to lay eggs in the Canucks’ press box:

Conclusion

Ice hockey players play ice hockey on ice for intermittent periods and variable lengths of time. Also, it is important to have a clear research question before you start gathering data.

Finally, please be aware that the amateur graphs were a deliberate choice; I felt Tableau wouldn’t have the same immersive effect for the reader as they explore this near total waste of 4 1/2 hours of time.

To keep up to date with this and other frivolous analysis, follow me on Twitter @pacific_hockey.