Archived

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

jyip

Hodgson - Only 5 Or 6 Defensive Zone Faceoffs? Really? ... Not

108 posts in this topic

Here's an article out of the Edmonton Journal that we all should read before we start hating Hodgson.

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2012/04/25/on-mike-gillis-cody-hodgson-advanced-stats-and-curious-claims/

This past season while with the Canucks, Hodgson had the following face offs:

157 - defensive zone

212 - neutral zone

171 - offensive zone

Why did Gillis dump on Hodgson yesterday? I wonder ...

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Cody had over 400 neutral and offensive zone faceoffs and only 150 defensive zone faceoffs. So Gillis was telling the truth, they were limiting his defensive responsibilities. The 5-6 was an obvious exaggeration. I'm glad MG got rid of that cry baby, drama at the age of 21. As a rookie he was not in a position to make any demands.

Sorry double post

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Cody had over 400 neutral and offensive zone faceoffs and only 150 defensive zone faceoffs. So Gillis was telling the truth, they were limiting his defensive responsibilities. The 5-6 was an obvious exaggeration. I'm glad MG got rid of that cry baby, drama at the age of 21. As a rookie he was not in a position to make any demands.

Sorry double post

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have the stats on that the last week or two before he got traded? Because that's the time I feel like Gillis was referring to.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Gillis and AV can hatch a plan to Hodgson into a 2nd line center numbers kind of guy, then come up with a plan to make Kesler into one.

Will GM's ever trust doing deals with Gillis now that everyone knows he used a 'pump and dump' on one of his assets. It's like would you trade with someone who artificially inflated stock value so he can sell it to you?

I think MG should have kept his mouth shut instead of trying to vindicate himself in the Hodgson trade.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They never used him because they needed an excuse to keep Malholtra and the excuse was he was the faceoff king in the defencive zone thats the real reason he never had many period.

No duh, he dealt with Hodgson more because they were working on getting him healthy from his back injury.What a load of BS. Every since they traded Cody the team chemistry went downhill and the team went downhill evethough they squeaked out wins.

So instead of being hounded for trading him lets make up stuff. Everyone would of liked more icetime but who wouldn't atleast ask.This will have proved to be a big mistake remember this kid led WJC team to gold playing in all the cruicial moments. The only thing fans can hope for is Kassian doesn't turn out to be a dud and he reaches his potentials as well.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did he say 5 or 6 over the whole season? I think he meant 5 or 6 per game.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillis thought he was speaking to intelligent people so the 'per game' was implied.

If you are stupid enough to think he meant 5 or 6 total for the whole season you are too stupid to follow hockey

.......but will fit in fine here.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of everyone. Please read the article before responding so you don't have to contridict yourself later. Below are some stats on a few notable players. With Canucks mismanagement of Hodgson's injury and the amount of ice he was getting ... you wonder why he was demanding. If you were Hodgson ... you probably wanted more opportunities to contribute too. Hodgson was on the ice for more defensive faceoffs in 60 games than Burrows or D Sedin this season. Kinda makes Gillis look dumb for making that statement yesterday.

Hodgson's Kesler Burrows D Sedin Edler

Defensive Zone 157 274 131 108 314

Neutral Zone 212 296 311 340 418

Offensive Zone 171 257 402 429 428

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillis thought he was speaking to intelligent people so the 'per game' was implied.

If you are stupid enough to think he meant 5 or 6 total for the whole season you are too stupid to follow hockey

.......but will fit in fine here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So ... how do you explain Edler being on the ice for less than 4 defensive faceoffs per game? Who's the stupid one again?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of everyone. Please read the article before responding so you don't have to contridict yourself later. Below are some stats on a few notable players. With Canucks mismanagement of Hodgson's injury and the amount of ice he was getting ... you wonder why he was demanding. If you were Hodgson ... you probably wanted more opportunities to contribute too. Hodgson was on the ice for more defensive faceoffs in 60 games than Burrows or D Sedin this season. Kinda makes Gillis look dumb for making that statement yesterday.

Hodgson's Kesler Burrows D Sedin Edler

Defensive Zone 157 274 131 108 314

Neutral Zone 212 296 311 340 418

Offensive Zone 171 257 402 429 428

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A better stat to know is what was Cody Hodgson faceoff %. Anybody know what that is?

The top guys in the league average around 50%+ on the faceoff dot. If Cody % was a measly 30%...it would be a no brainer for AV to limit his defensive draws.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing Edler to Hodgson when discussing faceoffs? :blink:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess reading is not a prerequisite either. We aren't talking about who's "taking" the faceoffs ... the stat refers to who's "on the ice" during the faceoffs. I guess reading classes are also in order.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.