• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

281 Excellent

About bloodycanuckleheads

  • Rank
    Comets Star

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Hockey Hell

Recent Profile Visitors

3,159 profile views
  1. Is Daniel Sedin the most clutch goal-scorer in NHL history?

    No. Game-winning goals are a stupid stat. If you score the goal that puts your team up 4-0, and then the other team scores three goals, you get the GWG. So, it is not a measure of 'clutchness' at all. It would only be so if GWG's were only counted when the score was tied and the goal won your team the game. The Sedins can't even hold a candle to the true clutch goal-scorers (Gretzky, Lemieux). Heck, they aren't even close to our team's best (Bure). When the Canucks absolutely needed a goal, Bure was the one to create one out of thin air, not Daniel Sedin. If you want to go further, Daniel wasn't even the clutch scorer on his line (that probably goes to Burrows).
  2. goals,goals...from who?

    Go look up the final standings sorted by goals scored. You'll notice that, every year, this list looks surprisingly similar to the final standings. Scoring goals = winning. Not scoring goals = losing. And, it's a very strong relationship (you rarely see teams that can't score still winning because of defense - or teams that score a lot doing poorly in the standings). So, projecting our scoring next year will give you a very good idea of where we're going to finish in the final standings. Unfortunately, if you project our scoring honestly (something this article did not do), it sure looks like we're going to be god-awful yet again next season. We'll be one of the lowest scoring teams in the league. Again.
  3. How injuries are affecting management decisions

    Remember when Gillis had all those off-ice programs (sleep-experts, travel-experts, literally any expert that might conceivably give us an advantage)? And, remember how Benning killed all those programs, like he turfed our salary-cap and contract expert? Well, it's not a coincidence that we're getting injured more nowadays.
  4. Ed Willes: Canucks' Linden revamp left in the dust by Leafs' Shana-plan

    Actually, it would have been 100%. The Canucks were in a position to guarantee themselves last-place overall - but, instead, they won their way through a pointless California road-trip (sound familiar?). If they'd thrown the last handful of games, they would have gotten Toronto's balls in the lottery. And, those numbers ended up winning the lottery (and would have gotten us Auston Matthews). Just like this year. There was a time when we could have lost the rest of the way and gotten the ping-pong balls that won Dahlin. But, we chose to win instead.
  5. 4 Year Term is Fine!

    No. If you knew anything about WAR, you'd know that it's an extremely complicated calculation that takes virtually everything into account. I added a link for you above, you'll notice that it's absolutely massive and filled with complicated math.
  6. 4 Year Term is Fine!

    No, it implies that I don't want to spend time looking something up for you, because you're too lazy to do a google search for yourself. EDIT: OK, here you go, I don't know why it's my job to educate you and not your job to educate yourself. But here's one method of calculating WAR...
  7. 4 Year Term is Fine!

    I love this board! This [rigorous statistical analysis of every player in the league over the last 12 years] is dubious and untrustworthy - because I don't understand it and it doesn't fit with my preconceived ideas! Sorry, but I'll trust the statistical-analysis and not your gut-feeling. Also, it's worth mentioning that virtually every stat you look at declines after 25 years of age:
  8. 4 Year Term is Fine!

    WAR is wins above replacement. It's a commonly used measure that estimates how many more wins you will get with a certain player in the lilne-up vs. an average replacement-level player. If you want a more pedestrian stat, look at points-scored. NHL players start to decline (in scoring) at around 25 years of age:
  9. 4 Year Term is Fine!

    Then you consider 23 to be old, because that's the age NHL players start to decline:
  10. 4 Year Term is Fine!

    The average age in the NHL is 27. Dorsett would have been 32 when his contract ended. That's old. Especially for a grinder (who throws his body around).
  11. [Poll] Logjam at Offense

    You've got a rookie, who's never played an NHL game, penciled in as a Hall of Famer??? Putting the horse before the cart much? Also, his game isn't going to translate to the NHL as well as everyone here thinks. He floats around the outside. He's a perimeter player (which is why they're talking about starting him on wing). He plays like a Marcus Naslund (a great player), not a Henrik Sedin (an MVP and future Hall of Famer). And, he's going to have another player who plays like that (Boeser) on his line. How many times have you seen a line with two perimeter players going on to dominate the league? Also, if Hughes is the next Bobby Orr, why did the first 6 teams pass him up?
  12. Sam Gagner, why the hate?

    There were only 22 forwards on contracts like that. He's not top-3 in the league, he's barely in the top half. Big difference.
  13. 4 Year Term is Fine!

    No, not unfair. Older players tend to get injured a lot more than young players, so when you sign an older player, you have to expect injuries.
  14. 4 Year Term is Fine!

    Just thought it was funny that your example for a good 4-year signing (Dorsett) - only played 105 games of that 328 game contract!
  15. Sam Gagner, why the hate?

    That's highly misleading. There are all sorts of players who out-scored Gagne - and were paid far, far less. Also it's wrong - very, very wrong: Kyle Turris - $3.5m AAV, 51pts Mark Stone - $3.5m AAV, 62pts Cam Atkinson - $3.5 AAV, 46pts Vladimir Sobotka - $3.5 AAV, 31pts Lars Eller - $3.5 AAV, 38pts Eric Staal - $3.5m AAV, 76pts Andrew Cogliano - $3m AAV, 35pts Tomas Hertl - $3m AAV, 46pts Plus there were several others that scored 29 or 30pts.