tas

ok bud.

are you going to go through shot by shot, play by play, and give me your specific analysis to back up this pattern you've noticed? if not, it's nothing more than confirmation bias.

of course not, but a shot from a high danger area isn't necessarily a higher quality chance than one from a low danger area, either. if I'm not going through the game myself making shot by shot judgments, i don't really trust those numbers.

me neither, I'm not a fancy stats guy. especially ones like that where I have to trust some nobody's subjective definition of a high quality scoring chance.

as I mentioned, to give those guys reps to keep them in game shape (they're going to be needed, injuries always happen) and to see what they can bring in a real game at a time when they can probably afford to lose a couple. as far as the familiarity aspect, even if the coaches chose not to put them together, they had the option to if they were really horrified by what they saw with other pairings. it's a fall back position.

canucks have also outshot the opposition in 3/4 games. edit: in fact, canucks lead the NHL in shots on goal.

the canucks play high event hockey by design.

it gives them the option to put them together should they choose. they chose not to.

you conveniently ignored the other couple reasons there.

you talkin' preseason? I learned a long time ago not to overanalyze preseason game performance. if it was really indicative, sergei shirokov would be in the ring of honour. not to mention the salary cap hurdles this year with bringing guys up.

I'm really getting the impression that the more ... volatile ... canucks fans on cdc and social media were determined all along to just ignore anything positive that happened this year and then scream loudly when the bad things happen. the team was GOOD for the first 3 games. they had ONE bad game. there's nothing to wake them up from.

so you want to play a borderline nhl player (burroughs) on his wrong side and slot in a guy who has routinely proven he isn't an nhl player on his right? I'm sorry, but assembling a team isn't as simple as making a list of your "best" 20 players and sticking it on the lineup card. these are individual human beings who perform differently in different circumstances.

what kind of accountability are you looking for? do you want them to call a press conference and announce that the team will be collectively donating their pay from last night's game to canucks place as a penance for their heinous crime of not meeting the absurd expectations of their mindless fans?

no, I'm not, because I'm capable of understanding and empathy. a big part of the benefit of having depth throughout the lineup is the interchangeability it offers. burroughs has played really well so far, with rathbone. his performance on other pairings is so far mostly unknown. with hughes out, the team knew that rathbone would be elevated in the lineup, separating that pairing. since the pairing was being separated anyway, it made sense to put in both hunt and schenn, both to get them reps and see what they can do before results become critically important, and also because they've been playing as a pair together for the last two weeks, and that familiarity should make stepping into the lineup easier. it won't hurt burroughs to sit for a game or 2. it's not punishment. it's not a reflection of what the coaching staff thinks of his play.