Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Kevin Bieksa you are really...


Zigmund.Palffy

Recommended Posts

I'm not gonna get back into this debate but I'd like to add that Bieksa's improved play is in fact backed up by his 5on5 stats posted on behindthenet.ca:

http://behindthenet.ca/2010/new_5_on_5.php?sort=7&section=goals&mingp=20&mintoi=15&team=&pos=D

Last Update: 3:7, 12/12/2010

About Advanced NHL Statistics

5-on-5 Statistics by team:


Show Stats Report:


Minimum Games Played: 20


Position: D


Minimum TOI/60: 15


Team:



Behind the Net Statistics	SCORING and +/-

NAME	 	POS	TEAM	NUM	GP	TOI/60	TOF/60	RATING	QUALCOMPQUALTEAMCORSIRelQoCCORSIQoCCORSIRelQoTCORSIQoTGOALS/60ASST1/60ASST2/60	PTS/60GFON/GAON	GFON/60GAON/60	+-ON/60	GFOFF/60GAOFF/60+-OFF/60

1. R. KLESLA	D 	CBJ	97	28	15.16	30.04	2.83	0.140	0.184	1.541	0.404	-4.371	-5.763	0.14	0.42	0.14	0.71	27	12	3.82	1.70	2.12	1.71	2.43	-0.71

2. S. MONTADOR	D 	BUF	4	30	17.04	29.38	2.60	0.012	0.095	0.638	1.652	0.222	3.167	0.35	0.35	0.47	1.17	28	14	3.29	1.64	1.64	1.70	2.66	-0.95

3. TONILYDMAN	D 	ANA	32	28	17.71	29.87	2.60	0.090	0.414	1.160	0.851	5.789	-7.456	0.24	0.36	0.24	0.85	26	14	3.15	1.69	1.45	1.72	2.87	-1.15

4. MARCMETHOT	D 	CBJ	3	23	15.25	30.29	1.97	0.148	0.468	1.352	-0.067	-5.460	-6.502	0.00	0.51	1.03	1.54	22	10	3.76	1.71	2.05	2.07	1.98	0.09

5. TOMASKABERLE	D 	TOR	15	29	17.33	30.07	1.84	-0.087	0.212	0.298	0.810	1.222	0.594	0.12	0.60	0.12	0.84	20	15	2.39	1.79	0.60	1.58	2.82	-1.24

6. RYANWHITNEY	D 	EDM	6	27	17.62	29.39	1.76	-0.002	-0.037	0.352	1.685	1.311	-12.767	0.00	0.76	0.76	1.51	27	22	3.41	2.77	0.63	1.81	2.95	-1.13

7. DREWDOUGHTY	D 	L.A	8	21	17.01	29.01	1.74	0.038	0.491	1.054	0.852	2.308	1.093	0.00	0.17	0.50	0.67	16	8	2.69	1.34	1.34	2.17	2.56	-0.39

8. KRIS LETANG	D 	PIT	58	31	15.68	28.91	1.72	0.023	0.148	0.430	0.221	0.575	4.711	0.37	0.37	1.11	1.85	32	17	3.95	2.10	1.85	2.28	2.14	0.13

9. JOHN M.LILES	D 	COL	4	27	16.93	29.67	1.65	0.018	0.051	0.788	0.875	-0.045	-5.559	0.39	0.92	0.52	1.84	26	14	3.41	1.84	1.57	2.92	3.00	-0.07

10. ERICBREWER	D 	STL	4	28	17.55	28.55	1.60	0.059	-0.030	0.765	-0.450	-1.459	8.414	0.49	0.12	0.00	0.61	22	15	2.69	1.83	0.85	1.80	2.55	-0.75

11. ALEXEDLER	D 	VAN	23	25	17.77	29.06	1.58	-0.008	0.324	-0.132	0.245	4.527	6.371	0.00	0.41	0.54	0.95	20	12	2.70	1.62	1.08	2.48	2.97	-0.50

12. C. EHRHOFF	D 	VAN	5	24	17.31	29.41	1.58	-0.002	0.309	-0.497	-0.337	3.588	5.707	0.14	0.00	0.00	0.14	20	12	2.89	1.73	1.16	2.38	2.81	-0.43

13. V. HEDMAN	D 	T.B	77	28	16.25	29.24	1.51	0.025	0.147	-0.031	-1.680	-0.107	8.031	0.26	0.40	0.66	1.32	21	19	2.77	2.51	0.26	2.64	3.88	-1.25

14. R. MARTINEK	D 	NYI	24	26	16.91	28.52	1.51	-0.015	0.060	0.493	0.912	-0.291	-7.905	0.14	0.41	0.00	0.55	15	17	2.05	2.32	-0.27	1.54	3.32	-1.78

15. ROBSCUDERI	D 	L.A	7	27	16.44	29.50	1.46	0.016	0.121	1.049	0.524	1.630	0.666	0.00	0.54	0.27	0.81	22	14	2.97	1.89	1.08	2.03	2.41	-0.38

16. COLINWHITE	D 	N.J	5	27	16.38	31.45	1.43	0.051	-0.140	1.231	1.807	1.246	4.645	0.00	0.00	0.14	0.14	13	16	1.76	2.17	-0.41	1.48	3.32	-1.84

17. M. GIORDANO	D 	CGY	5	30	15.48	29.42	1.26	-0.065	0.111	-0.466	-0.796	0.959	4.490	0.00	0.26	0.65	0.90	24	19	3.10	2.45	0.65	1.84	2.45	-0.61

18. BRYANMCCABE	D 	FLA	24	27	16.26	32.23	1.23	-0.005	0.077	-0.045	-2.583	0.516	4.013	0.14	0.68	0.41	1.23	20	13	2.73	1.78	0.96	2.48	2.76	-0.28

19. LUKESCHENN	D 	TOR	2	29	18.56	28.84	1.12	-0.052	0.321	0.297	0.960	1.872	0.822	0.11	0.33	0.22	0.67	20	19	2.23	2.12	0.11	1.65	2.65	-1.00

20. A. FERENCE	D 	BOS	21	28	15.70	31.82	1.03	0.012	0.086	0.283	2.267	2.554	-3.825	0.00	0.00	0.41	0.41	24	12	3.28	1.64	1.64	2.36	1.75	0.61

21. L.VISNOVSKY	D 	ANA	17	31	18.83	28.30	1.03	0.077	0.589	0.822	1.149	3.989	-8.299	0.31	0.41	0.72	1.44	27	27	2.78	2.78	0.00	1.37	2.39	-1.03

22. KEVINKLEIN	D 	NSH	8	27	17.03	29.28	1.02	0.012	-0.089	0.744	2.246	-1.082	-2.320	0.26	0.39	0.39	1.04	24	15	3.13	1.96	1.17	2.13	1.97	0.15

23. J. LEOPOLD	D 	BUF	3	30	17.54	28.88	0.92	-0.002	0.403	0.379	1.326	-0.172	2.994	0.57	0.34	0.57	1.48	26	21	2.96	2.39	0.57	1.87	2.22	-0.35

24. BOUWMEESTER D 	CGY	4	30	17.64	27.26	0.85	0.097	0.134	1.246	0.261	-0.662	3.374	0.23	0.23	0.34	0.79	21	18	2.38	2.04	0.34	2.20	2.71	-0.51

25. JOHNCARLSON	D 	WSH	74	30	17.12	29.35	0.84	0.007	0.087	0.450	-1.355	0.886	7.469	0.35	0.12	0.58	1.05	24	18	2.80	2.10	0.70	2.52	2.66	-0.14

26. ZDENOCHARA	D 	BOS	33	28	19.42	28.10	0.82	0.074	0.277	0.798	2.611	1.604	-3.753	0.22	0.00	0.44	0.66	28	15	3.09	1.65	1.43	2.36	1.75	0.61

27. MARKEATON	D 	NYI	4	27	15.79	29.42	0.81	0.006	0.184	0.737	0.904	-0.658	-8.123	0.00	0.14	0.00	0.14	13	18	1.83	2.53	-0.70	1.81	3.32	-1.51

28. P.K.SUBBAN	D 	MTL	76	27	15.28	31.04	0.73	-0.044	0.089	-0.710	-0.646	2.826	4.512	0.00	0.29	0.44	0.73	16	11	2.33	1.60	0.73	2.08	2.08	0.00

29. BRADSTUART	D 	DET	23	28	16.48	29.46	0.72	0.011	0.254	1.147	-1.272	1.577	7.934	0.13	0.52	0.52	1.17	27	17	3.51	2.21	1.30	2.91	2.33	0.58

30. A. AUCOIN	D 	PHX	33	25	17.33	30.12	0.71	0.087	0.144	0.349	-0.548	0.307	0.999	0.00	0.69	0.55	1.25	23	19	3.19	2.63	0.55	2.07	2.23	-0.16

31. JOVANOVSKI	D 	PHX	55	24	16.39	31.33	0.69	0.149	0.141	0.923	0.598	0.939	1.171	0.46	0.31	0.31	1.07	18	14	2.75	2.14	0.61	2.31	2.39	-0.08

32. J. PITKANEN	D 	CAR	25	24	18.08	28.54	0.63	0.058	-0.108	0.031	-0.674	2.311	0.475	0.28	0.28	0.55	1.11	22	20	3.04	2.77	0.28	1.93	2.28	-0.35

33. D. KULIKOV	D 	FLA	7	27	15.68	32.81	0.63	-0.020	0.106	0.120	-2.554	0.266	3.894	0.00	0.28	0.43	0.71	19	15	2.69	2.13	0.57	2.51	2.57	-0.07

34. PIETRANGELO	D 	STL	27	28	15.31	30.80	0.63	-0.006	-0.014	0.510	-0.363	0.967	9.920	0.14	0.70	0.56	1.40	20	18	2.80	2.52	0.28	1.81	2.16	-0.35

35. BRENTBURNS	D 	MIN	8	26	17.85	27.91	0.61	0.025	-0.043	0.488	0.244	1.190	-8.047	0.39	0.26	0.52	1.16	17	18	2.20	2.33	-0.13	1.82	2.56	-0.74

36. N. LIDSTROM	D 	DET	5	28	15.49	30.45	0.61	0.080	0.392	1.747	-0.970	1.119	7.768	0.14	0.28	0.55	0.97	25	16	3.46	2.21	1.24	2.96	2.32	0.63

37. TREVORDALEY	D 	DAL	6	28	17.06	28.70	0.60	-0.045	0.189	0.093	0.762	-0.585	-7.406	0.25	0.38	0.50	1.13	25	19	3.14	2.39	0.75	2.16	2.02	0.15

38. JOECORVO	D 	CAR	77	26	17.23	29.42	0.60	0.115	0.099	0.630	0.263	-1.628	-2.518	0.40	0.00	0.27	0.67	19	18	2.54	2.41	0.13	2.43	2.90	-0.47

39. MIKELUNDIN	D 	T.B	39	29	15.91	29.55	0.52	0.006	-0.031	0.300	-1.611	0.795	8.545	0.00	0.39	0.52	0.91	21	24	2.73	3.12	-0.39	2.52	3.43	-0.91

40. C. CAMPOLI	D 	OTT	14	31	15.10	32.09	0.47	-0.047	0.138	-0.826	-0.245	1.228	1.613	0.13	0.13	0.38	0.64	14	15	1.79	1.92	-0.13	1.99	2.59	-0.60

41. R. HAMRLIK	D 	MTL	44	28	16.33	30.70	0.44	0.036	0.086	1.205	1.394	-0.057	2.382	0.13	0.26	0.52	0.92	19	13	2.49	1.71	0.79	2.09	1.75	0.35

42. F. BOUILLON	D 	NSH	51	27	17.01	29.60	0.43	0.046	0.044	0.543	1.274	-0.824	-2.141	0.13	0.52	0.26	0.91	25	20	3.27	2.61	0.65	1.88	1.65	0.23

43. THEOPECKHAM	D 	EDM	49	25	15.71	31.66	0.38	0.036	0.012	0.199	1.131	1.199	-12.885	0.15	0.46	0.15	0.76	15	15	2.29	2.29	0.00	2.73	3.11	-0.38

44. MIKEGREEN	D 	WSH	52	24	17.80	28.98	0.34	-0.058	0.111	0.871	-0.599	1.405	7.523	0.28	0.42	0.28	0.98	16	13	2.25	1.83	0.42	3.11	3.02	0.09

45. D. MURRAY	D 	S.J	3	25	16.26	30.02	0.32	0.112	-0.093	1.048	0.051	-0.243	8.270	0.15	0.30	0.15	0.59	19	19	2.80	2.80	0.00	1.92	2.24	-0.32

46. BROOKSORPIK	D 	PIT	44	25	16.45	28.78	0.29	0.045	0.237	0.477	0.194	0.459	4.493	0.15	0.15	0.44	0.73	19	13	2.77	1.90	0.88	2.92	2.34	0.58

47. A. SEKERA	D 	BUF	44	29	15.31	31.04	0.27	0.042	-0.206	0.263	1.217	0.159	3.540	0.14	0.27	0.27	0.68	14	12	1.89	1.62	0.27	2.53	2.53	0.00

48. T. ENSTROM	D 	ATL	39	30	17.38	30.20	0.26	0.089	0.129	0.567	1.985	5.012	-5.033	0.12	0.35	0.23	0.69	25	25	2.88	2.88	0.00	2.12	2.38	-0.26

50.F.BEAUCHEMIN	D 	TOR	22	29	18.66	28.74	0.20	0.073	-0.197	0.723	1.096	-0.252	-0.315	0.11	0.22	0.22	0.55	19	23	2.11	2.55	-0.44	1.73	2.38	-0.65

51. E. KARLSSON	D 	OTT	65	29	17.10	30.01	0.19	-0.035	0.015	0.066	0.299	-1.520	-0.352	0.36	0.48	0.24	1.09	16	19	1.94	2.30	-0.36	1.93	2.48	-0.55

52. T. GLEASON	D 	CAR	6	26	17.07	29.58	0.18	0.102	0.194	0.552	0.136	-0.141	-1.603	0.27	0.14	0.14	0.54	14	15	1.89	2.03	-0.14	2.81	3.12	-0.31

53. PAULMARTIN	D 	PIT	7	31	16.05	28.54	0.17	0.022	-0.102	0.041	-0.213	0.331	4.474	0.12	0.24	0.36	0.72	23	16	2.77	1.93	0.84	2.92	2.24	0.68

54. M. CARLE	D 	PHI	25	31	16.23	28.48	0.16	-0.008	-0.024	0.480	0.624	1.314	4.441	0.12	0.83	0.72	1.67	33	22	3.93	2.62	1.31	2.72	1.56	1.16

55. PAVELKUBINA	D 	T.B	13	29	16.01	29.45	0.13	-0.059	0.049	-0.241	-1.970	-0.077	8.167	0.13	0.39	0.26	0.78	21	26	2.71	3.36	-0.65	2.53	3.30	-0.77

56. NICKSCHULTZ	D 	MIN	55	28	16.10	30.24	0.09	0.054	-0.021	0.618	0.238	0.996	-8.281	0.27	0.40	0.27	0.93	16	18	2.13	2.40	-0.27	1.84	2.20	-0.35

57. ROBYNREGEHR	D 	CGY	28	29	15.73	28.94	0.08	0.121	-0.022	1.611	0.751	-0.522	3.235	0.00	0.00	0.26	0.26	15	16	1.97	2.10	-0.13	2.50	2.72	-0.21

58. S. ROBIDAS	D 	DAL	3	27	16.49	29.36	0.08	0.096	-0.055	1.257	1.921	0.678	-6.423	0.13	0.27	0.13	0.54	20	16	2.70	2.16	0.54	2.50	2.04	0.45

59. M. ROZSIVAL	D 	NYR	33	22	16.97	29.63	0.02	-0.012	-0.249	0.594	0.027	-0.017	-4.646	0.32	0.48	0.16	0.96	13	14	2.09	2.25	-0.16	2.39	2.58	-0.18

60. CAMFOWLER	D 	ANA	4	26	17.16	29.90	-0.02	-0.006	-0.043	0.400	0.380	-3.495	-13.466	0.13	0.27	0.67	1.08	14	17	1.88	2.29	-0.40	2.16	2.55	-0.39

61. DANBOYLE	D 	S.J	22	29	18.67	27.73	-0.04	0.124	-0.067	0.818	-0.460	0.047	8.298	0.11	0.44	0.44	1.00	26	27	2.88	2.99	-0.11	2.09	2.16	-0.07

62. M. DELZOTTO	D 	NYR	4	30	15.78	30.95	-0.06	-0.075	-0.089	0.361	-0.509	-0.481	-5.058	0.00	0.13	0.25	0.38	23	25	2.91	3.17	-0.25	2.00	2.20	-0.19

63. PAULMARA	D 	ANA	23	31	16.20	30.85	-0.16	-0.063	-0.067	0.279	1.210	-1.781	-12.073	0.12	0.00	0.00	0.12	14	18	1.67	2.15	-0.48	2.38	2.70	-0.31

64. ERIKJOHNSON	D 	STL	6	28	16.36	29.75	-0.19	0.012	0.146	0.234	-0.669	0.267	9.591	0.00	0.13	0.39	0.52	16	18	2.10	2.36	-0.26	2.16	2.23	-0.07

65. KARLALZNER	D 	WSH	27	30	15.80	30.67	-0.26	0.045	0.198	0.427	-1.161	2.028	8.185	0.13	0.00	0.38	0.51	17	17	2.15	2.15	0.00	2.87	2.61	0.26

66. GREGZANON	D 	MIN	5	28	17.34	29.00	-0.27	0.064	-0.041	0.733	0.363	1.646	-8.012	0.00	0.00	0.12	0.12	14	18	1.73	2.22	-0.49	2.07	2.29	-0.22

67. B. SEABROOK	D 	CHI	7	30	18.59	29.28	-0.28	0.108	-0.303	0.906	0.190	1.196	7.273	0.00	0.32	0.22	0.54	22	24	2.37	2.58	-0.22	2.53	2.46	0.07

68. JEFFSCHULTZ	D 	WSH	55	28	17.12	29.65	-0.31	0.005	0.177	1.200	-0.427	2.659	8.246	0.00	0.00	0.38	0.38	19	18	2.38	2.25	0.13	2.96	2.53	0.43

69. HJALMARSSON	D 	CHI	4	28	16.36	31.42	-0.32	0.036	0.113	0.612	0.147	0.260	6.961	0.13	0.00	0.13	0.26	15	18	1.97	2.36	-0.39	2.66	2.73	-0.07

70. M. ZIDLICKY	D 	MIN	3	22	15.64	30.47	-0.36	0.069	-0.034	0.909	0.553	1.210	-7.930	0.35	0.52	0.70	1.57	15	15	2.62	2.62	0.00	2.15	1.79	0.36

71. MARCSTAAL	D 	NYR	18	31	18.72	27.99	-0.38	0.025	-0.305	1.195	0.086	0.152	-4.534	0.10	0.21	0.21	0.52	20	23	2.07	2.38	-0.31	2.63	2.56	0.07

72. N. KRONWALL	D 	DET	55	28	16.31	29.64	-0.49	-0.101	-0.231	-0.342	-2.170	-0.855	6.272	0.53	0.00	0.26	0.79	20	16	2.63	2.10	0.53	3.40	2.39	1.01

73. N. GROSSMAN	D 	DAL	2	28	15.14	30.63	-0.56	0.085	0.008	1.430	1.742	0.615	-6.568	0.00	0.14	0.28	0.42	13	13	1.84	1.84	0.00	2.87	2.31	0.56

74. DANGIRARDI	D 	NYR	5	31	17.39	29.32	-0.58	0.016	-0.203	1.348	0.197	0.488	-4.201	0.11	0.56	0.22	0.89	24	28	2.67	3.12	-0.45	2.24	2.11	0.13

75. KEVINBIEKSA	D 	VAN	3	24	16.59	29.85	-0.69	0.110	-0.090	0.548	0.441	3.454	5.860	0.30	0.15	0.15	0.60	18	22	2.71	3.31	-0.60	2.18	2.09	0.08

76. H.TALLINDER	D 	N.J	7	28	18.04	29.71	-0.70	-0.023	0.032	1.038	1.485	0.074	3.805	0.00	0.12	0.12	0.24	12	27	1.43	3.21	-1.78	1.59	2.67	-1.08

77. M.E.VLASIC	D 	S.J	44	29	17.18	29.21	-0.81	0.074	-0.053	0.339	-1.160	1.425	9.313	0.12	0.00	0.12	0.24	15	20	1.81	2.41	-0.60	2.76	2.55	0.21

78. JANHEJDA	D 	CBJ	35	26	16.52	28.92	-0.86	0.004	-0.202	0.191	0.004	2.663	-0.289	0.28	0.14	0.14	0.56	16	17	2.24	2.38	-0.14	2.63	1.92	0.72

79. TOMGILBERT	D 	EDM	77	27	17.33	29.68	-0.88	0.045	0.090	0.311	1.735	0.603	-13.289	0.38	0.38	0.26	1.03	22	30	2.82	3.85	-1.03	2.17	2.32	-0.15

80. MIKEMOTTAU	D 	NYI	10	20	15.60	29.27	-0.98	-0.066	-0.222	0.057	1.393	2.299	-6.348	0.00	0.00	0.19	0.19	4	16	0.77	3.08	-2.31	1.74	3.07	-1.33

81. SEIDENBERG	D 	BOS	44	28	18.80	28.73	-1.00	0.024	-0.128	0.301	2.320	-0.011	-5.358	0.11	0.34	0.23	0.68	19	16	2.17	1.82	0.34	2.98	1.64	1.34

82. B.COBURN	D 	PHI	5	31	16.68	28.04	-1.01	-0.046	-0.120	0.212	0.554	0.500	3.764	0.00	0.35	0.46	0.81	24	19	2.78	2.20	0.58	3.38	1.79	1.59

83. D.WIDEMAN	D 	FLA	6	27	17.60	30.90	-1.01	-0.021	0.114	0.587	-1.999	-0.073	3.917	0.00	0.13	0.76	0.88	22	26	2.78	3.28	-0.51	2.45	1.94	0.50

84. SHEAWEBER	D 	NSH	6	28	17.14	29.27	-1.03	0.089	0.049	0.543	1.675	1.033	-0.784	0.38	0.38	0.13	0.88	18	21	2.25	2.63	-0.38	2.49	1.83	0.66

85. MIKEWEAVER	D 	FLA	43	27	16.35	32.15	-1.03	0.114	-0.130	0.928	-1.854	-0.354	3.473	0.14	0.41	0.00	0.54	13	17	1.77	2.31	-0.54	2.97	2.49	0.48

86. RUSLANSALEI	D 	DET	24	28	15.82	30.13	-1.07	-0.131	-0.287	-0.247	-2.274	-0.271	6.628	0.00	0.00	0.54	0.54	17	16	2.30	2.17	0.14	3.56	2.35	1.21

87. A. STRALMAN	D 	CBJ	6	22	15.48	29.40	-1.07	-0.028	-0.080	0.158	0.622	2.603	-0.830	0.00	0.00	0.18	0.18	8	13	1.41	2.29	-0.88	2.50	2.32	0.19

88. C. PHILLIPS	D 	OTT	4	31	17.02	30.16	-1.07	0.073	-0.225	1.084	0.966	-1.594	-0.294	0.00	0.23	0.11	0.34	18	28	2.05	3.18	-1.14	1.86	1.93	-0.06

89. TYLERMYERS	D 	BUF	57	30	16.01	30.41	-1.14	0.052	-0.099	0.284	1.202	1.774	4.028	0.25	0.25	0.12	0.62	16	22	2.00	2.75	-0.75	2.43	2.04	0.39

90. JOSHGORGES	D 	MTL	26	30	16.50	30.32	-1.17	0.104	-0.234	1.297	1.457	-2.280	1.075	0.00	0.12	0.48	0.61	18	20	2.18	2.42	-0.24	2.37	1.45	0.92

91. ANDYGREENE	D 	N.J	6	28	16.88	30.86	-1.25	-0.052	-0.063	0.353	0.810	0.350	3.879	0.13	0.00	0.63	0.76	12	29	1.52	3.68	-2.16	1.53	2.43	-0.90

92. Z. BOGOSIAN	D 	ATL	4	24	17.38	30.89	-1.27	0.061	-0.333	0.986	2.334	-2.115	-9.686	0.14	0.00	0.29	0.43	12	18	1.73	2.59	-0.86	2.75	2.35	0.40

93. DEREKMORRIS	D 	PHX	53	24	17.38	30.15	-1.28	0.149	-0.150	1.875	0.029	-0.811	0.063	0.14	0.29	0.00	0.43	15	17	2.16	2.45	-0.29	3.07	2.07	0.99

94. KEITHYANDLE	D 	PHX	3	27	18.88	29.02	-1.31	0.079	-0.165	1.066	-0.552	-2.318	-0.523	0.24	0.12	0.24	0.59	17	21	2.00	2.47	-0.47	2.99	2.14	0.84

95. DUNCANKEITH	D 	CHI	2	30	19.64	28.24	-1.31	0.083	-0.086	0.595	-0.072	2.569	8.106	0.10	0.20	0.51	0.81	23	31	2.34	3.16	-0.81	2.55	2.05	0.50

96. HALGILL	D 	MTL	75	30	15.50	31.32	-1.34	0.062	-0.252	0.703	0.986	-2.071	1.100	0.00	0.00	0.13	0.13	13	16	1.68	2.06	-0.39	2.62	1.66	0.96

97. JOHNODUYA	D 	ATL	29	30	16.86	30.72	-1.39	0.064	-0.292	0.853	2.132	-1.718	-9.406	0.24	0.36	0.36	0.95	16	25	1.90	2.97	-1.07	2.67	2.34	0.33

98. J. JOHNSON	D 	L.A	3	27	17.48	28.47	-1.47	-0.027	0.221	0.444	0.227	0.970	0.175	0.00	0.38	0.38	0.76	21	27	2.67	3.43	-0.76	2.19	1.48	0.70

99.J.WISNIEWSKI	D 	NYI	20	25	16.48	29.07	-1.59	-0.052	-0.152	0.352	-0.084	0.559	-7.234	0.00	0.44	0.29	0.73	11	27	1.60	3.93	-2.33	1.98	2.72	-0.74

100. S.GONCHAR	D 	OTT	55	31	17.64	29.54	-1.73	0.069	-0.129	0.964	0.900	-1.566	-0.311	0.11	0.11	0.11	0.33	13	27	1.43	2.96	-1.54	2.23	2.03	0.20

101. Z.MICHALEK	D 	PIT	4	22	15.68	29.92	-1.98	0.017	0.066	0.069	-1.043	2.360	5.707	0.00	0.35	0.17	0.52	11	14	1.91	2.43	-0.52	3.56	2.10	1.46

102. IANWHITE	D 	CAR	7	26	16.71	29.18	-2.09	0.014	0.171	0.145	-0.627	1.570	2.719	0.14	0.00	0.41	0.55	9	23	1.24	3.18	-1.93	2.61	2.45	0.16


As for any discrepancies, here's what Gabriel Desjarden told me:

> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:33 PM, wrote:

>>

>> Hi Gabriel (or whomever it may concern),

>>

>> I really enjoy your statistics and frequently visit your site. However,

>> there seems to be a discrepancy in your stats and it's been that way for

>> awhile. Nhl.com as Bieksa listed as +4 with 22GF (6 of which were on the

>> PP) & 16GA (4 of which were on the PP) when on the ice in 17gp whereas

>> your

>> site has him down for 12GF & 12GA when on the ice in 15gp. He's a -1 in

>> his

>> last two games played and the Canucks only have 1 shorthanded goal for and

>> none against so something is amiss in your numbers...

>>

>>

>> http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.htm?fetchKey=20112VANDADAll&sort=plusMinus&viewName=plusMinus

>

>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gabriel Desjardins"

> <gabriel.desjardins@gmail.com>

> To:

> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 9:43 PM

> Subject: Re: Kevin Bieksa's 2010/2011 5on5 GF/GA stats

>

>

> hi

>

> My site lists 5v5 and does not include 4v4, which is usually the

> source of the discrepancy.

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:00 AM, wrote:

> I guess so but that still doesn't add up because the Canucks have only

> scored twice 4on4 so even if he were on the ice for both he'd still be on

> for 13GF (Bieksa was on the ice for Vancouver's only SHG scored) and 12GA at

> 5on5. Maybe the missing GF was scored with Luongo/Schneider out of the net

> for a 6on5?

>

> Nonetheless, thanks for taking the time to reply and thanks for taking the

> effort to compile all these stats. It's a great site!

>

> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gabriel Desjardins"

> <gabriel.desjardins@gmail.com>

> To:

> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2010 9:02 AM

> Subject: Re: Kevin Bieksa's 2010/2011 5on5 GF/GA stats

>hey,

There are time when the NHL's gamesheets don't match the NHL's master

stats. They're done by two different groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not gonna get back into this debate but I'd like to add that Bieksa's improved play is in fact backed up by his 5on5 stats posted on behindthenet.ca:

http://behindthenet.ca/2010/new_5_on_5.php?sort=7&section=goals&mingp=20&mintoi=15&team=&pos=D

Bieksa was a lot higher than -0.69 earlier in the year. His career average is -1 or something so he might be on his way back to that mark again this year unfortunately. I don't think many here care for these statistics though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bieksa was a lot higher than -0.69 earlier in the year. His career average is -1 or something so he might be on his way back to that mark again this year unfortunately. I don't think many here care for these statistics though.

No, I know that. We had a discussion about it much earlier in the thread where everyone agreed Bieksa's defensive game was improved from last year. My point was he was bottom 5 3 years running, and at that point in time Bieksa was once again bottom 10, but this year he's only bottom 25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I know that. We had a discussion about it much earlier in the thread where everyone agreed Bieksa's defensive game was improved from last year. My point was he was bottom 5 3 years running, and at that point in time Bieksa was once again bottom 10, but this year he's only bottom 25.

Yea, I'll probably be looking up this stat again once the year is done to see if any improvement there was made or not. Bieksa was good to start the year but his play has tailed off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bieksa is having a very solid season and doing a great job making tons of little to big plays that help the team every night.

Thats why the coaches, players and GM stick with him is because they know he brings a good game to the table overall and aren't brain dead.

I would love to see and would pay big money to see Bieksa with canucklion and wallstreetamigo in a dark back ally talking like they do it would be priceless!

This constant ranting about Bieksa's so called errors is flat out sickening and as far as i am concerned these guys aren't true canucks fans and are a disgrace.

On a side note wtf kind of names are these canucklelion and wallstreetamigo anyway ?? even the names sound stupid haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bieksa is having a very solid season and doing a great job making tons of little to big plays that help the team every night.

Thats why the coaches, players and GM stick with him is because they know he brings a good game to the table overall and aren't brain dead.

I would love to see and would pay big money to see Bieksa with canucklion and wallstreetamigo in a dark back ally talking like they do it would be priceless!

This constant ranting about Bieksa's so called errors is flat out sickening and as far as i am concerned these guys aren't true canucks fans and are a disgrace.

On a side note wtf kind of names are these canucklelion and wallstreetamigo anyway ?? even the names sound stupid haha

You don't seem to know the difference between being a Canuck fan and being a card carrying Bieksa fanboy.

Bieksa's 3.75 mil of cap space is more valuable to the team than Bieksa's error filled play. Hamhuis has been baby sitting him the last couple of games, just think of how much better Hamhuis and the rest of the D would be if they could just play instead of having to constantly be concerned with holding Bieksa's hand, so he won't make too much of a mess pulling his bonehead plays on the ice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't seem to know the difference between being a Canuck fan and being a card carrying Bieksa fanboy.

Bieksa's 3.75 mil of cap space is more valuable to the team than Bieksa's error filled play. Hamhuis has been baby sitting him the last couple of games, just think of how much better Hamhuis and the rest of the D would be if they could just play instead of having to constantly be concerned with holding Bieksa's hand, so he won't make too much of a mess pulling his bonehead plays on the ice.

You forgot the "lol".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like every other dman on the team other than Alberts, Hamhuis has only looked like he was playing his game and living up to what he needs to be for this team when he was not paired with Bieksa.

Anyone who is objective will see that the constant Bieksa mistakes are taking a toll on Hamhuis who is struggling to constantly cover for them rather than playing his game.

As I have said many times before, Bieksa makes his defense partners worse, not better. This is in stark contrast to Salo, who makes anyone he plays with better.

Here's hoping Salo will be back soon and Bieksa will be traded. The huge improvement in Ballard the last half dozen games or so is encouraging. It, combined with Alberts solid play and Rome as an adequate fill in on the 3rd pairing, is fast making Bieksa and his high risk/limited reward play this season expendable.

More of your "anyone who's objective" crap. :rolleyes:

Just because we don't jump on your hating bandwagon, doesn't mean we're not objective. I pointed out exactly what happened on both the goals that you and your idiot cronies are calling 100% Bieksa's fault. If you have an actual case other than your overestimation of the value of your opinion, please share it.

But spare us the "anyone who's objective" crap.

Say what you want about CANUCKLELION, but this is not a blind hate statement towards Bieksa. This is 100% correct.

Absolute garbage.

One of CDC's most noted trolls is calling as goal "all Bieksa's fault" and you, as supposed "moderate" are agreeing with him.

I thought you said you know hockey. If you agree with Canuckelion's assessment, then you don't know sh!t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More of your "anyone who's objective" crap. :rolleyes:

Just because we don't jump on your hating bandwagon, doesn't mean we're not objective. I pointed out exactly what happened on both the goals that you and your idiot cronies are calling 100% Bieksa's fault. If you have an actual case other than your overestimation of the value of your opinion, please share it.

But spare us the "anyone who's objective" crap.

Absolute garbage.

One of CDC's most noted trolls is calling as goal "all Bieksa's fault" and you, as supposed "moderate" are agreeing with him.

I thought you said you know hockey. If you agree with Canuckelion's assessment, then you don't know sh!t.

The post wall was replying to does not say it was all Bieksa's fault, check again.

Might want to edit your other "eat crow" post as well, wall has made it quite clear that he does not believe that play was solely on Bieksa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, you don't know what you are talking about. I never said Bieksa was 100% at fault for the goal. I said his mistake (and it was a huge one) is what led to any possibility of other mistakes on the play. That is actually a fact. Without the terrible D by Bieksa, there would be no goal. Anyone who denies that actually doesn't know what they are talking about.

Bieksa was flat out terrible all around last night even outside of this huge blunder.

So you're not saying Bieksa is 100% at fault, you're just saying it's his fault. :lol:

Just as a side note: I've seen Ballard, Hamhuis, Edler and Ehrhoff all go for hits this season only have it side stepped by lesser players than Stamkos. Does that mean they play terrible D as well? Or is it only terrible when it happens to Bieksa?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're not saying Bieksa is 100% at fault, you're just saying it's his fault. :lol:

Pretty simple concept, If player A doesn't do something then event A happens. If player B doesn't do something then event A happens. Neither player A or B are 100% at fault for the occurence of event A, but if either player gets it right event A doesn't occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to see at least one Bieksa homer actually admit he was terrible last night......

I am a Bieksa "homer", wallstreet. And I agree that he was poor against the Lightning. Biggest blunder... missed hit on Stamkos. Was OK tonight against a weak Coilers crew, though.

towel.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty simple concept, If player A doesn't do something then event A happens. If player B doesn't do something then event A happens. Neither player A or B are 100% at fault for the occurence of event A, but if either player gets it right event A doesn't occur.

So wouldn't the Canuck that coughed up the puck or lost the faceoff be more responsible than Bieksa? Because if that did't happen it never gets to our zone in the first place. So who shoulders the prime responsibility? Should it be whoever gave Tampa puck possession because if that didn't happen then Bieksa never would have tried to hit Stampkos and missed. How far back in the play can we go with stupidity to lay blame? Or does that path just automatically end at Bieksa by default regardless of any other errors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty simple concept, If player A doesn't do something then event A happens. If player B doesn't do something then event A happens. Neither player A or B are 100% at fault for the occurence of event A, but if either player gets it right event A doesn't occur.

Well then in this world can't we just say everyone on the ice is responsible. If 10 plays prior player E doesn't pass the puck to player D instead of player C Event A doesn't happen. Everyone on the ice is to blame for this reason and I agree it is a pretty simple concept. That's why saying that if player A gets it right event A doesn't occur is pretty meaningless in this wishy washy equation of "it's not his 100% his fault but he did it."

Reality though dictates that there are people who are more at fault, somtimes it obvious and sometimes you have to look at an entire play to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I know that.  We had a discussion about it much earlier in the thread where everyone agreed Bieksa's defensive game was improved from last year.  My point was he was bottom 5 3 years running, and at that point in time Bieksa was once again bottom 10, but this year he's only bottom 25.

I have been looking at these stats from the start of the year. There are 2 games that the data has not been recorded from and this really skews these stats. Nhl.com stats have Edler and Ehrhoff on for 17 ESGA and they were scored against at 4 vs 4 once that I recall. That’s a 33.3% discrepancy in this stat from nhl.com to behindthenet.ca because of 2 games not recorded. Furthermore Bieksa had been on for 21 ESGF from nhl.com one of which was 4 vs 4 that I recall and behindthenet.ca has him on for 18 5vs5 goals for. This is an 11.1% discrepancy of this stat.

Since discussing stats with you when you last came on here with the behindthenet.ca numbers I have been tracking these stats myself. I don’t separate 4vs4 play from 5vs5 and combine ES, SH, and PP numbers to come up with my own +/- stat. First I calculate the players GF and GA stats in terms of minutes played. Then calculate the average ES, PP, and SH time in a 60 minute Canuck game. Using all theses numbers I calculate a +/- stat that incorporates all in game situations for each D-man.

ESGF ESGA PPGF PPGA SHGF SHGA GF GA Rating

Bieksa 2.16 2.26 0.78 0.52 0.09 0 2.93 2.78 0.15

Ehrhoff 2.37 1.75 1.19 0.39 0.13 0.06 3.56 2.14 1.41

Edler 2.24 1.59 0.99 0.67 0.10 0.05 3.23 2.26 0.97

Hamhuis 2.45 2.45 0.46 0.30 0 0 2.91 2.75 0.16

Ballard 2.59 1.95 0.79 0.93 0 0 3.39 2.88 0.51

Alberts 1.50 1.91 0.18 0.53 0.13 0 1.68 2.44 -0.76

Rome 1.37 1.71 0.89 0.80 0 0 2.26 2.51 -0.25

Parent 0.00 2.63 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 2.63 -2.63

Since Alberts has no PP to make an accurate judgement of his effectiveness on the PP his PPGF stat is calculated by using his ESGF/ESTOI information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolute garbage.

One of CDC's most noted trolls is calling as goal "all Bieksa's fault" and you, as supposed "moderate" are agreeing with him.

I thought you said you know hockey. If you agree with Canuckelion's assessment, then you don't know sh!t.

I'm hardly a troll, I'm just not an extreme Bieksa lover.

If you consider my 'trade Bieksa' posts trolling, then so are the blind Bieksa love posts exhibited by yourself and a few others. They are opposite positions that provoke a response. The definition of trolling. Mr Love troll. lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...