For my first post, I want to pivot off of an article written by Blake Murphy on CanucksArmy. Check it out here. It's a good read (so good that I'm going to steal one of his charts). Blake is discussing how many players we should expect the Canucks to use during the next season (how far down the depth chart we can expect them to go). Check out this chart that Blake provides for us.
# of Players used by each team
| Season | Tortorella | Canucks | NHL Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005-2006 | 30 | 37 | 29 |
| 2006-2007 | 28 | 34 | 28.6 |
| 2007-2008 | 35 | 36 | 28.4 |
| 2008-2009 | Didn't Coach | 32 | 29.5 |
| 2009-2010 | 35 | 32 | 29.3 |
| 2010-2011 | 35 | 39 | 29.7 |
| 2011-2012 | 32 | 35 | 29.8 |
| 2012-2013 | 35 | 33 | 28 |
| Average overall | 32.9 | 34.8 | 29 |
This is a chart of how many players were used by the Canucks and Tortorella for each season since the lockout, along with the league average for each year and average totals at the bottom. From this chart, Blake decides that the Canucks shouldn't expect much of a change in depth chart usage. I disagree with his conclusion and some additional information should clarify why I feel this way. Here's a chart of hit totals for Tortorella teams and Canuck teams for each season since the 04/05 lockout.
# of Hits by each team
| Season | Tortorella | Canucks | NHL Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005-2006 | 975 | 1358 | 28th and 11th |
| 2006-2007 | 1275 | 1206 | 24th and 28th |
| 2007-2008 | 1616 | 1232 | 11th and 28th |
| 2008-2009 | Didn't Coach | 1315 | 30th |
| 2009-2010 | 2330 | 1499 | 2nd and 27th |
| 2010-2011 | 2333 | 1791 | 1st and 20th |
| 2011-2012 | 2419 | 1826 | 1st and 18th |
| 2012-2013 | 1413 | 1020 | 3rd and 23rd |
| Average overall | 1765.8571 | 1405.875 |
Along with a chart of blocked shot totals for the same time period.
# of Shots Blocked by each team
| Season | Tortorella | Canucks | NHL Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005-2006 | 1075 | 965 | 16th and 24th |
| 2006-2007 | 1006 | 870 | 26th and 28th |
| 2007-2008 | 1072 | 988 | 8th and 19th |
| 2008-2009 | Didn't Coach | 993 | 22nd |
| 2009-2010 | 1176 | 991 | 11th and 24th |
| 2010-2011 | 1301 | 1071 | 4th and 25th |
| 2011-2012 | 1338 | 1019 | 4th and 27th |
| 2012-2013 | 773 | 566 | 6th and 27th |
| Average overall | 1105.8571 | 931.625 |
The first thing that jumps out at me is the apparent shift in philosophy for Tortorella between 06/07 and 07/08. For the first two years, Tortorella's teams are similar to the Canucks with low hit totals and low shots blocked totals. Since then, his teams have hit and blocked a lot more (typically in the top 10 or even top 5 in both categories) while the Canucks have stuck with a less physically wearing style of hockey.
I've often thought that this was intentional on the part of either Vigneault or Gillis. The Canucks travel more than most teams and less physical play should reduce physical wear. Also, the Canucks of this era have not been designed to be a crash and bang team.
Which makes me wonder many things. In particular, should we expect a different coaching style from Tortorella on the west coast? He appears to have altered his style to adapt to the "new NHL" on the east coast, can we expect the same thing for the west coast?
Assuming Torts doesn't change his style, how many injuries can the Canucks expect next year?
My educated guess, more than we're used to. Injuries are unpredictable and there are sample size issues but it appears that Tortorella's shift in coaching style brought an increase in injuries from 07-13 (where he averaged 34.25 players per season) compared to 05-07 (where he averaged 29 players for those two seasons).
Meanwhile, the Canucks have played a less physical style but incurred a similar number of injuries. It makes me think that we can expect to see a lot of injuries this year, and when you consider our lack of depth compared to recent seasons and other teams, this expectation can quickly turn to concern. Hopefully I'm wrong but the Canuck travel schedule plus Tortorella hitting and shot blocking sounds like a recipe for a lot of injuries to me.
