The Vancouver Canucks are just five games away from the end of the regular season and the beginning of the playoffs.
It’s an exciting time for Canucks fans but it’s also a little bit terrifying. It’s been nine years since a playoff game was played in Vancouver and it’s understandably nerve-wracking as the stakes get higher. Suddenly, there are dozens of things to fret about that were never a concern when the team was already out of the playoff picture well before April.
One of those worries is that the Canucks haven’t settled on any firm forward lines. Even two players who were joined at the hip all season — J.T. Miller and Brock Boeser — have recently been split apart as head coach Rick Tocchet tinkers with the lineup trying to find the right combination.
To be fair, now is a better time to tinker than in Game 1 of the first round of the playoffs.
Are the Canucks' current lines their best lines?
At Monday’s morning skate ahead of their game against the Vegas Golden Knights, the Canucks used the following lines, with Phil Di Giuseppe and the injured Elias Lindholm also taking the ice as extra forwards.
Nils Höglander - Elias Pettersson - Brock Boeser
Dakota Joshua - J.T. Miller - Conor Garland
Ilya Mikheyev - Teddy Blueger - Vasily Podkolzin
Pius Suter - Nils Åman - Sam Lafferty
Are those the best lines for the Canucks come playoff time? Do the Canucks have better options for any of those lines? Where does Lindholm fit when he returns from injury?
These are complicated questions with a lot of factors to weigh, which is why Tocchet continues to tinker. There’s chemistry to consider, as players that look on paper like they should fit together might not work out as well on the ice. Each line needs a role, whether they’re primarily a scoring line meant to rack up goals, a match-up line designed to go head-to-head against the opponents’ top forwards, or an energy line intended to disrupt the opposition’s momentum with a hard forecheck and grinding along the boards, preferably in the offensive zone.
One thing we can do is look at the analytics of how each of the Canucks’ lines has performed this season. It’s not quite as simple as saying, “This line has good numbers, that line has bad numbers,” but it can give us an idea of which lines have worked and which ones really haven’t.
Running the numbers on the Canucks' forward lines
To start, let’s get on the same page. Here’s a sortable table of every group of three Canucks forwards that has spent at least 30 minutes together at 5-on-5. That gives us 24 line combinations to sort through. The table is also searchable: you can put a player’s last name into the search bar and see every line combination with that player.
The table includes how much ice time the trio has spent together, as well as three main categories of statistics: shot attempts (corsi), expected goals, and goals. You can see shot attempts for and against and the resulting percentage and the same for expected goals and goals. The data comes from Evolving-Hockey and includes an adjustment for score effects.
While there are certainly other things to consider, this at least tells us how each line has performed in puck possession, scoring chance creation and negation, and actual goals for and against.
Now that we’re looking at the same data, let’s begin with the top-six.
Should the Canucks reunite the Lotto Line?
It’s a given that Elias Pettersson and J.T. Miller are going to be the centres of the Canucks’ two top-six lines. They are the Canucks’ two leading scorers and they give the Canucks a one-two punch down the middle that can compete with any team in the NHL.
There are some who argue that they shouldn’t be a one-two punch but instead be on the same line along with Brock Boeser: the famous Lotto Line. But there’s a good reason why Tocchet hasn’t turned back to the Lotto Line, apart from a few shifts here and there: their underlying numbers together are actually quite poor.
Searching by either Miller and Pettersson, the Lotto Line shows up at the bottom for both centres in expected goals percentage (xGF%). While the trio has scored a lot together, they haven’t actually created a lot of quality scoring chances, raising concerns that the scoring might not be sustainable. They have also struggled defensively and given up a lot of scoring chances against.
That’s a line that can be put together in a pinch when the team needs a goal but they’re too high risk to be put together on a regular basis.
Who should play with J.T. Miller?
There are two line combinations with truly excellent results alongside Miller, whether in corsi, expected goals, or actual goals.
The first is Pius Suter with Miller and Boeser. Among lines that don’t have puck possession powerhouse Conor Garland on them, Suter - Miller - Boeser has the best xGF% on the team at 67.39%. That line has created and prevented chances at an elite rate clip, with the second-lowest rate of expected goals against (xGA/60) among lines with at least 100 minutes together at 5-on-5.
While Suter isn’t the best finisher, the subtleties his off-puck play were a boon to Miller and Boeser’s ability to create and finish chances: among Canucks lines with at least 100 minutes together, only the Lotto Line has scored at a higher rate. But, unlike the Lotto Line, the Suter - Miller - Boeser line has been top-tier defensively, allowing just 1.07 goals against per 60 minutes (GA/60).
The other line combination that has worked well with Miller is his current one with Garland and Dakota Joshua on his wings.
That line has maintained a 61.77 xGF% and has created scoring chances at the highest rate among all Canucks line combinations. While they give up a little bit more defensively than the Suter - Miller - Boeser line, it’s still a potent combination if you’re looking for a scoring line that can also control puck possession.
So, that’s two potential top-six lines centred by Miller:
Pius Suter - J.T. Miller - Brock Boeser
Conor Garland - J.T. Miller - Dakota Joshua
Who should play with Elias Pettersson?
Finding the right linemates for Elias Pettersson has been a season-long struggle for the Canucks.
Andrei Kuzmenko failed to recreate the chemistry with Pettersson that led to a 39-goal season and was traded away. Ilya Mikheyev has struggled after returning from knee surgery and has found himself out of the top-six altogether. His linemates have repeatedly rotated — he notably has far more line combinations than Miller.
Searching for Pettersson in the above table, however, shows that even with those struggles, every line combination that includes Pettersson — aside from the Lotto Line — has an xGF% above 50%. No matter who he’s played with and whatever scoring slumps he’s gone through, Pettersson has remained a consistent two-way force for the Canucks.
The most dominant combination saw Pettersson matched with the team’s most high-motor players: Nils Höglander and Conor Garland.
The Höglander - Pettersson - Garland line has a stunning 75.90 xGF%, as they utterly dominated puck possession. That possession also turned into goals, with the highest rate of goals for per 60 minutes (GF/60) of any Canucks line, while simultaneously giving up very little defensively.
That’s a potent line but there’s one problem: Garland might be needed elsewhere.
The next best line in xGF% is, surprisingly, Sam Lafferty with Pettersson and Mikheyev. The Mikheyev - Pettersson - Lafferty line was excellent defensively, giving up very little in the defensive zone, and carried a 61.02 xGF%.
The trouble with that line is that it was very low-event and didn’t create a lot of offence. In the playoffs, the Canucks are going to need Pettersson’s line to score and that’s not a line that can be relied on to come through with a big goal.
Replacing Lafferty with Suter saw an uptick in goals but only over a small sample and they actually have a lower xGF/60 together.
The next best option from an offensive standpoint is the current combination of Höglander, Pettersson, and Boeser. That line has been solid in puck possession and chance creation, though they haven’t been able to capitalize on as many of their chances.
The best sign for the Canucks is that Höglander is on both of the team’s most potent offensive combinations with Pettersson, while simultaneously not giving up much defensively. That shows the growth in Höglander’s game, as he’s established himself as a legitimate top-six forward.
So, like with Miller, we’ve got two good options for Pettersson lines, along with a couple of low-event defensive lines in the Canucks’ back pocket:
Nils Höglander - Elias Pettersson - Conor Garland
Nils Höglander - Elias Pettersson - Brock Boeser
Who belongs on the Canucks’ checking line?
While both Miller and Pettersson may be asked to go power versus power against the opposition’s top lines in the playoffs, the Canucks would ideally like to have a third line capable of matching up against elite competition. The more that the Canucks can get Miller and Pettersson out against weaker competition, the more they’ll be able to score.
With that in mind, I’m going to look at which potential third lines make the most sense to match up against tough competition using both the data from the table above and data from PuckIQ, which looks at how the Canucks have performed against elite players.
This table includes the amount of time on ice spent against elite competition, as well as their results against that competition: shot attempts and goals for and against, as well as PuckIQ’s dangerous fenwick (DF), which aims to include shot quality in a similar way to expected goals.
The player who has performed best against elite competition by dangerous fenwick percentage (DFF%) is surprisingly Vasily Podkolzin, albeit in a small sample size of just under 40 minutes. He has also unfortunately been on the ice for the second-highest rate of goals against in those minutes, so there are a few grains of salt to pinch here.
Aside from Podkolzin, the Canucks have gotten DFF% results above 50% from Conor Garland, Teddy Blueger, Ilya Mikheyev, and Elias Pettersson.
In terms of just goals against — preventing top opponents from scoring is the entire idea — Brock Boeser leads the way, followed closely by J.T. Miller, Phil Di Giuseppe, Pius Suter, and Dakota Joshua.
Setting aside surefire top-six forwards like Pettersson, Boeser, and Miller, that leaves several bottom-six forward options for a third line that can match up against elite competition: Garland, Blueger, Mikheyev, Di Giuseppe, Suter, and Joshua.
So, let’s return to the line combinations: which line combinations including those forwards have performed best together?
Garland - Suter - Joshua have had a 71.20% xGF% together and haven’t given up a single goal against in over 77 minutes together at 5-on-5. That’s pretty good.
Mikheyev - Blueger - Garland is an option, with sterling underlying defensive numbers in a small sample, though they were out-scored together as a line. They have the best xGA/60 of any Canucks line, tied with Höglander - Pettersson - Garland.
Then, of course, there’s The Good Job Boys: Garland and Joshua on the wings with Blueger. While their numbers together aren’t quite as good as Garland and Joshua with Suter, they did over a lot more minutes, playing nearly 360 minutes together at 5-on-5. That’s a proven line that out-scored their opposition by a greater than 2-to-1 margin.
The trouble with all three lines is that Garland is on all three. With Garland also one of the best options to play with Miller or Pettersson, that creates an issue for the third line.
The Di Giuseppe - Blueger - Lafferty line at least has an xGF% of close to 50% but both Di Giuseppe and Lafferty have struggled against elite competition this season, with the two lowest DFF% on the team.
If we look at lines with less than 30 minutes together, Mikheyev with Blueger and Laffery have an xGF% of 67.31% in 22.2 minutes. That’s somewhat promising.
Then there’s the current combination of Mikheyev with Blueger and Podkolzin. They’ve held their own with a 50.2 xGF%, albeit in just 14 minutes. It remains to be seen if that’s a line that can regularly face elite competition.
Or, here’s a wild card: the line combination of Nils Åman with Blueger and Podkolzin has a bonkers xGF% of 90.48%. That’s in just 16.4 minutes of ice time and they were certainly deployed more as a sheltered fourth line than a match-up third line, but that might be worth another look.
But really, the Canucks’ best third lines all include Conor Garland, though we’ll include the current incarnation as an option:
Conor Garland - Pius Suter - Dakota Joshua
Ilya Mikheyev - Teddy Blueger - Conor Garland
Conor Garland - Teddy Blueger - Dakota Joshua
Ilya Mikheyev - Teddy Blueger - Vasily Podkolzin
A high-energy, low-event fourth line
Sometimes, the best you can hope for from your fourth line is that nothing happens — at least on the scoreboard.
The Canucks’ fourth line, whoever is on it, is unlikely to dominate puck possession or put up a lot of points. What they need to be able to do is limit chances for the opposition and attempt to shift the momentum by getting the puck deep in the offensive zone and keeping it there.
The line of Höglander - Åman - Lafferty was very good at that. They had an xGF% of 52.44% while limiting the opposition to just 1.91 xGA/60. Sure, they didn’t create much offensively, but neither did their opponents.
Thing is, Höglander’s a top-six forward alongside Elias Pettersson now, so that’s no good.
Unfortunately, the Canucks don’t have many other good options or, at least, not proven ones over any significant length of time. The only other fourth line that spent at least 30 minutes together was Di Giuseppe with Åman and Lafferty and that line got absolutely lit up, with the highest rate of goals against of any Canucks line.
Instead, we have to look for gems among the smaller samples, like the Åman - Blueger - Podkolzin or Mikheyev - Suter - Lafferty lines mentioned above. Perhaps, if they’re not third lines, maybe there’s a lineup where one of those is the fourth line.
The Canucks’ current combination of Suter, Åman, and Lafferty probably isn’t it. In their 16.8 minutes together at 5-on-5 — admittedly a very small sample — they have a dreadful 28.0 xGF%.
That said, Suter - Åman - Lafferty has been a very, very low-event line, with a minuscule 0.25 xGF/60 and 0.64 xGA/60. That line is being outplayed, certainly, but in such a way that they’re not likely to give up a goal against. There’s something to be said for that.
Another low-event option is Mikheyev - Åman - Di Giuseppe, who have 0.75 xGF/60 and 0.92 xGA/60 in just over 18 minutes together as a line.
There’s no clear standout option for the fourth line, no combination of grinders that has made the fourth line their own, but here’s what the Canucks have got:
Nils Åman - Teddy Blueger - Vasily Podkolzin
Ilya Mikheyev - Pius Suter - Sam Lafferty
Pius Suter - Nils Åman - Sam Lafferty
Ilya Mikheyev - Nils Åman - Phil Di Giuseppe
Where does Elias Lindholm fit?
The one player that has the ability to change everything about the Canucks lineup is Elias Lindholm.
It should be clear from the above analysis that the promotion of Conor Garland and Nils Höglander into the top-six has left the bottom-six bereft of their primary play-drivers. Garland and Höglander helped give the bottom-six their identity in the first half of the season; without them, the bottom-six has floundered.
Lindholm, who has missed several games with a wrist injury that he said was “brutal to deal with,” has the potential to solve this problem.
Either Lindholm slots into the top-six as a winger, allowing Garland to move back to the third line, or he centres the third line, providing a strong two-way game that can match up against tough competition with Garland remaining in the top-six.
While Lindholm hasn’t performed particularly well against elite competition since coming to the Canucks, it’s a role he has excelled in before with the Calgary Flames.
Lindholm has only spent at least 30 minutes with two line combinations at 5-on-5 with the Canucks: one each in the top-six and bottom-six.
Höglander - Pettersson - Lindholm was a decent combination for the Canucks, with a 53.50 xGF% that scored at a much higher rate than their 2.62 xGF/60. In fact, that line’s 5.30 GF/60 is the fourth-highest among Canucks lines with at least 30 minutes together at 5-on-5.
The combination of Garland - Lindholm - Podkolzin on the third line, however, was much less successful, with a 41.09 xGF%. In fact, that’s the only Canucks line with Garland on it to fall below 60% in xGF%. Garland and Lindholm evidently don’t belong together.
While putting Lindholm with Höglander and Pettersson in the top-six is an option, finding a third line that works with Lindholm would be nice. If we look at lines that had a smaller sample size together, one jumps out: Mikheyev and Lafferty on Lindholm’s wings.
The Mikheyev - Lindholm - Lafferty line spent a little over 26 minutes together at 5-on-5 and carried an xGF% of 56.81% while not conceding a single goal against. That line used Lindholm’s cautious two-way game in combination with the speed of Mikheyev and Lafferty to good effect: Mikheyev and Lafferty crashed in on the forecheck, while Lindholm stayed above the opposition's forwards to prevent rushes the other way.
So, that gives us two good options for Lindholm when he returns:
Nils Höglander - Elias Pettersson - Elias Lindholm
Ilya Mikheyev - Elias Lindholm - Sam Lafferty
Putting it all together: what is the ideal Canucks lineup?
This is a whole bunch of analysis, but where does it leave us? What is the best combination of lines based on their results this season?
I think there are two distinct options. For the first option, we go with the two top-six lines that have put up the best numbers together and let the rest of the lineup fall as it may. That gives us the following lines:
Nils Höglander - Elias Pettersson - Conor Garland
Pius Suter - J.T. Miller - Brock Boeser
Ilya Mikheyev - Elias Lindholm - Dakota Joshua
Nils Åman - Teddy Blueger - Vasily Podkolzin
Those are two very potent top-six lines but the bottom-six lines are little more up in the air. Dakota Joshua is left in limbo without any of his usual linemates, forcing him onto the third line in place of Sam Lafferty, with no idea if that will work or not.
Here’s another combination based around the same idea of just loading up the top two lines:
Nils Höglander - Elias Pettersson - Brock Boeser
Conor Garland - J.T. Miller - Dakota Joshua
Ilya Mikheyev - Elias Lindholm - Sam Lafferty
Pius Suter - Teddy Blueger - Vasily Podkolzin
Of course, this is just the Canucks’ current top-six with a rearranged bottom-six based on Lindholm’s return. Suter hasn’t really played with Blueger at all this season but that should theoretically be a very good fourth line.
But what if the Canucks instead look to create more balance by returning Garland to the third line that worked so well all season until Joshua was injured?
Nils Höglander - Elias Pettersson - Elias Lindholm
Pius Suter - J.T. Miller - Brock Boeser
Conor Garland - Teddy Blueger - Dakota Joshua
Ilya Mikheyev - Nils Åman - Vasily Podkolzin
That seems like a pretty solid set of lines, especially if Garland, Blueger, and Joshua can find the same magic that they had together earlier in the season.
What do you think the Canucks' lines should be?
