Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * - 54 votes

Kevin Bieksa you are really...


  • Please log in to reply
9817 replies to this topic

#5101 TheCammer

TheCammer

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 08

Posted 12 December 2010 - 05:43 PM

Was at the game.

It wasnt Juice's best effort...for every brain cramp, he matched it with some sound play.

And honestly...anyone since last night criticizing him, i will refuse to quote you all, have no goddamned idea what you are talking about.

Its seeing games live that sometimes makes threads like this so useless, unless you actually have a full idea what you are talking about.

There were 2 specific Bieksa 'things', i had a problem with....missing the check on Stammer.....but the thing was Hammer or whoever it was as the last forward back, absolutely missed their assignment. There is no way a trailer should have been allowed a look.

The other play was just funny to me....it was a goofy pass to Hammer that ended up in his skates.

Other than that he was alright....at least Hammer was a bit better last night than the game before.

Me likee that AA guy.


Agree with you completely. Yes Bieksa should have cut Stamkos off more effectively but plenty of other issues on that play. Last time I looked 5 guys are responsible for the D-Zone coverage. Thought it was more a shifty play from Stamkos than Bieksa's fault. The other play people are referring to is Bieksa putting the puck in Hammer's skates. Actually Hammer's fault as he skates into the passing lane as Bieksa tries a stretch pass.

It wasn't Bieksa's best effort on the night but most of the people on here like CanuckLion and wallstreetamigo don't really know what they are talking about. Like sharing all the chat from the locker room with their buddies on their Div 13 hockey team. Me, I'll stick with the opinions of the expert coaching staff and the teammates that feel he is a valuable member of this team.

Last night's loss was the result of a lot of sloppy listless play for the first two periods. Our two superstar twins and Burrows were horrid in our end last night. Don't see all these "CDC experts" throwing them under the bus.
  • 0
Posted Image

#5102 Duodenum

Duodenum

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,506 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 07

Posted 12 December 2010 - 05:54 PM

Thought it was more a shifty play from Stamkos than Bieksa's fault.

Actually Hammer's fault as he skates into the passing lane as Bieksa tries a stretch pass.

I don't get why even the most obvious of errors are somehow tried to be justified.
Bieksa got owned by Stamkos, no ifs ands or buts. Hansen should have been harder on the backcheck but that's another issue.
Hammer's fault because he skated into the lane? :lol:


Bieksa could leave the puck behind the net and go for a change while the opposing team would grab the puck and score and it would be AV's fault for calling a change.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#5103 BedBeats™2.0

BedBeats™2.0

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,310 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 12 December 2010 - 06:08 PM

I don't get why even the most obvious of errors are somehow tried to be justified.
Bieksa got owned by Stamkos, no ifs ands or buts. Hansen should have been harder on the backcheck but that's another issue.
Hammer's fault because he skated into the lane? :lol:

Bieksa could leave the puck behind the net and go for a change while the opposing team would grab the puck and score and it would be AV's fault for calling a change.

Huh??!!!!

It wasnt an obvious error...he missed, comically i might add, that check...but had it worked, it would have been the safe play from where Stammer was positioned.

Its a tough choice for a defenceman.....its what makes the Sedins so hard to play against, do you shut down Hank, or shadow the wingers???!!!!

Actually Bieksa owned himself...he missed the check. ;)

Hansen missed his assignment pure and simple....Hammer could have committed but that would be terrible coverage if the trailer would have had the prescence of mind to tap the puck to the Lightning player that Hammer could have left.

Like i said...Bieksa missed that check....but the players above the goaline missed their assignments...pure and simple.

But hey.....whatever.
  • 0

Posted Image

Henrik breaking records.Kes approving.


#5104 Duodenum

Duodenum

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,506 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 07

Posted 12 December 2010 - 06:36 PM

Huh??!!!!

It wasnt an obvious error...he missed, comically i might add, that check...but had it worked, it would have been the safe play from where Stammer was positioned.

Its a tough choice for a defenceman.....its what makes the Sedins so hard to play against, do you shut down Hank, or shadow the wingers???!!!!

Actually Bieksa owned himself...he missed the check. ;)

Hansen missed his assignment pure and simple....Hammer could have committed but that would be terrible coverage if the trailer would have had the prescence of mind to tap the puck to the Lightning player that Hammer could have left.

Like i said...Bieksa missed that check....but the players above the goaline missed their assignments...pure and simple.

But hey.....whatever.

Whatever happened in the slot is another issue, I believe it was Hansen's fault as he was standing right beside the guy. I'm just explaining to the homer up there how Stamkos' move doesn't exactly remove Bieksa from fault, it was a pretty obvious error.

Edited by Duodenum, 12 December 2010 - 06:40 PM.

  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#5105 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,523 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 12 December 2010 - 06:47 PM

Not all Bieksa's fault on that play.

Seriously...watch clips.

And watch them again.

Watch them again,while missing the check was comical, place blame on the players above the goal line.

I like you ....but you are just now absolutely out to lunch.

And you are full of it. :(


When did I (or CANUCKLELION in the post I refer to) say it was ALL Bieksa's fault? As I mentioned in my other post, blame can be assigned to the backcheckers and to Schneider to a certain degree, but the initial mistake by Bieksa led to that goal. Without his bad mistake, nothing would have come of that play.
  • 0

#5106 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,523 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 12 December 2010 - 06:53 PM

Agree with you completely. Yes Bieksa should have cut Stamkos off more effectively but plenty of other issues on that play. Last time I looked 5 guys are responsible for the D-Zone coverage. Thought it was more a shifty play from Stamkos than Bieksa's fault. The other play people are referring to is Bieksa putting the puck in Hammer's skates. Actually Hammer's fault as he skates into the passing lane as Bieksa tries a stretch pass.

It wasn't Bieksa's best effort on the night but most of the people on here like CanuckLion and wallstreetamigo don't really know what they are talking about. Like sharing all the chat from the locker room with their buddies on their Div 13 hockey team. Me, I'll stick with the opinions of the expert coaching staff and the teammates that feel he is a valuable member of this team.

Last night's loss was the result of a lot of sloppy listless play for the first two periods. Our two superstar twins and Burrows were horrid in our end last night. Don't see all these "CDC experts" throwing them under the bus.


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.
  • 0

#5107 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,523 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 12 December 2010 - 06:58 PM

What the hell is wrong with your head?!!!!!!

Did it escape you that Hammer actually hasnt been playing well the last few games???!!!!!!!!

You blame that on Bieksa???!!!

Holy crapballs.

Unreal.

Cannot even believe i commented on this piece of ignorance.

How do you convince yourself of these things??!!!!


I blame Bieksa for the fact that his free wheeling (with no actual positive result coming from it in terms of offense) leaves Hamhuis to play reaction hockey and to cover for mistakes most of the time when he is out with Bieksa. His wandering in his own zone (doing it again tonight a bunch of times against EDM too) leaves Hamhuis with few options.

Mark my words, if Bieksa gets traded, you will almost immediately see an improvement in Hamhuis' play and in the overall defensive play of this defense.

Bieksa is an overall liability and his defensive play has been getting progressively worse for several games now, with an odd good game thrown in there.
  • 0

#5108 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,523 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 12 December 2010 - 07:00 PM

I would love to see at least one Bieksa homer actually admit he was terrible last night......
  • 0

#5109 Millerdraft

Millerdraft

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,509 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 04

Posted 12 December 2010 - 07:25 PM

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....=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/i...wName=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.



Edited by Millerdraft, 12 December 2010 - 07:37 PM.

  • 0

Kassian.... Taylor Pyatt 3.0

Lies. He's more of a Steve Bernier. Hopefully his talent level goes up so he can become like a Taylor Pyatt.


#5110 Duodenum

Duodenum

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,506 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 07

Posted 12 December 2010 - 07:46 PM

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....=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.

Edited by Duodenum, 12 December 2010 - 07:47 PM.

  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#5111 Millerdraft

Millerdraft

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,509 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 04

Posted 12 December 2010 - 08:14 PM

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.

Edited by Millerdraft, 12 December 2010 - 08:14 PM.

  • 0

Kassian.... Taylor Pyatt 3.0

Lies. He's more of a Steve Bernier. Hopefully his talent level goes up so he can become like a Taylor Pyatt.


#5112 Duodenum

Duodenum

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,506 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 07

Posted 12 December 2010 - 08:24 PM

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.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#5113 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,523 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 12 December 2010 - 08:35 PM

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.


Agreed.
  • 0

#5114 The Big Luongo

The Big Luongo

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,434 posts
  • Joined: 04-November 06

Posted 12 December 2010 - 10:18 PM

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

Edited by The Big Luongo, 12 December 2010 - 10:19 PM.

  • 0

#5115 CANUCKLELION

CANUCKLELION

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,078 posts
  • Joined: 22-July 09

Posted 12 December 2010 - 10:49 PM

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.
  • 0
R.I.P, Rick Rypien Posted ImagePosted Image

#5116 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,471 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 13 December 2010 - 12:37 AM

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".
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#5117 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,409 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 13 December 2010 - 12:53 AM

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.
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#5118 Duodenum

Duodenum

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,506 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 07

Posted 13 December 2010 - 02:08 AM

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.

Edited by Duodenum, 13 December 2010 - 02:12 AM.

  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#5119 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,052 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 13 December 2010 - 02:50 AM

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?
  • 0
Posted Image

#5120 Duodenum

Duodenum

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,506 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 07

Posted 13 December 2010 - 03:01 AM

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.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#5121 ITSNOTBIEKSASFAULT

ITSNOTBIEKSASFAULT

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 224 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 10

Posted 13 December 2010 - 03:16 AM

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.


BUT WHAT ABOUT EVENT B?!?!?!?Posted Image

Edited by ITSNOTBIEKSASFAULT, 13 December 2010 - 03:17 AM.

  • 0


Posted Image

"Cold Wind Blowing Through A City On Fire" ... Bring Home The Cup Boys!!!


#5122 Hugemanskost

Hugemanskost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,382 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 09

Posted 13 December 2010 - 05:38 AM

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.

Posted Image
  • 0

webkit-fake-url://D8829558-F65F-49B9-9829-A7DFC7F2E6E4/application.pdf


:towel: :canucks:


#5123 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,052 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 13 December 2010 - 06:36 AM

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.
  • 0
Posted Image

#5124 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,471 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 13 December 2010 - 08:51 AM

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.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#5125 bbllpp

bbllpp

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 08

Posted 13 December 2010 - 09:18 AM

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.
  • 0

#5126 CANUCKLELION

CANUCKLELION

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,078 posts
  • Joined: 22-July 09

Posted 13 December 2010 - 09:20 AM

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.
  • 0
R.I.P, Rick Rypien Posted ImagePosted Image

#5127 canucks_dynasty

canucks_dynasty

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 13 December 2010 - 09:22 AM

Bieksa was soooooo primed to make the big hit on Stamkos.
I was like :shock: WTF?!? when he missed his check.
Then :picard: when they scored right afterwards.

When Alberts made the big hit behind the net...I screamed at the TV.
"That's how you're supposed to hit".
  • 0

#5128 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,409 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 13 December 2010 - 09:25 AM

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.

The only reason you're not considered the biggest troll on the board is because there are clowns like Tatoes, hank&dan, Kes101 and Tomn8r for you to overcome.

Keep trying though, you're catching up.

lol
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#5129 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 13 December 2010 - 10:06 AM

The only reason you're not considered the biggest troll on the board is because there are clowns like Tatoes, hank&dan, Kes101 and Tomn8r for you to overcome.

Keep trying though, you're catching up.

lol

Posted Image
  • 0
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.


Logic at its finest.

#5130 canucks_dynasty

canucks_dynasty

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 13 December 2010 - 10:12 AM

I posted this suggestion on the VAN/NYI trade rumour thread...


A wild out-of-the box suggestion.


When Salo gets off the LTIR. VAN trades Bieksa to NYI for a 3rd. At trade deadline...NYI trades Bieksa back to VAN for a 2nd. Not sure how the cap works cuz we've all seen how a 4M player at the start of the season becomes a 2M player at trade deadline.

So basically VAN trades a 2nd for a 3rd for NYI help with the cap.

Again...not sure if this can work (need the resident CDC capologist to take a look at it).
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.