Psycho_Path

Seems quite a good deal. Had 12 points in 17 games for the Hawks last year

Benning pulled the trigger now because it was a great deal, not because his job was on the line. This team will be good next year.

I can't believe he pulled off such a good deal. This team is significantly better after this.

Vodka is a hell of a thing

Was wondering why the schedule was so crammed, then remembered the Olympic break. Glad NHL players will be in the Olympics again.

So you're telling me Ballard, Raymond, and a 3rd won't get us Doughty?

Do you understand english? Nevermind. Don't bother answering.

You're right. Winning a faceoff has no correlation to puck possession. Nailed it. Edit: And just so you can cool it on your analytics high, look at how predominantly focusing on analytics (as they seem to say) has worked out for Arizona and TO. But yes, please focus more on these articles that are based on analysis of stats without properly considering the context. It'll serve you well.

Ryan Miller (G) Michael Chaput (F) Curtis Lazar (F) Colin Miller (D) Josh Leivo (F) Drew Shore (F) Adam Gaudette (F) Gabriel Landeskog (F) Michael Del Zotto (D) Andrej Sekera (D) Troy Stecher (D) Adam Cracknell (F) Kevin Connauton (D) Jonathan Quick (G) Nick Bonino (F) Jordan Weal (F) Brad Richardson (F) P.K. Subban (D) Cory Schneider (G) Anthony DeAngelo (D) Evgeni Dadonov (F) Derrick Pouliot (D) Andrey Pedan (D) Dylan Gambrell (F) Vladimir Tarasenko (F) Ondrej Palat (F) Jared McCann (F) Jake Virtanen (F) Nic Dowd (F) Jordie Benn (D) Palat, Landeskog, Tarasenko Leivo, McCann, Dadonov Gambrell, Bonino, Virtanen Gaudette, Richardson, Dowd Miller, Subban DeAngelo, Sekera Stecher, Del Zotto Quick Miller

"there were around 104000 faceoffs last year. 120 goals within 10 seconds of a faceoff 120/31= about 4 goals per team due to faceoff wins" This assumes that a goal scored after 10 seconds of a faceoff win didn't come because of the possession that resulted from the faceoff, which is pretty dumb. An offensive zone faceoff win leading to a possession that ultimately results in a goal is a significant faceoff win, regardless of how long it takes to score the goal afterwards. Even the momentum that can be generated from the puck possession of a faceoff win can have an impact on a goal being scored by the following line that comes out on the ice during a change. The other problem with using generalized stats is it doesn't take into account quality of competition on the ice, both for and against. Having a 4th liner with really good faceoff % doesn't necessarily mean much if they're predominantly on the ice against the other team's 3rd/4th line, but makes more of a difference when against the opposing team's top 2 lines, though even that statement has flaws if the team's strategy is for the 4th line to win the faceoff, transition the puck up the ice, and make a quick change to one of the top lines (while the other team still has their bottom pairing defense or forwards on the ice). There's so many other factors relevant to how useful being good at faceoffs are. Where they're the least relevant is games where they don't happen much, which isn't very frequent. Personally I think Rick Blight's post is the most relevant to whether faceoffs are a useful stat though. Outliers are not a good base for an argument.

How are we going to sign him if we don't have cap space?

Be nice if you actually got your stats correct. That record doesn't include OTLs (which are listed after Ties) Under benning we're a total of -8 Actually if you want to include OTLs in the equation then these teams all have a worse winning % (in terms of actual wins, not points %): Hurricanes Devils Blue Jackets Jets Panthers Senators Lightning

Annoyed with myself for clicking on this thread. The league is such a piece of %^&*. They never fail to show it every single year. Sucks to be a Canuck

Until you actually analyze the infractions. Canucks get called for way higher a percentage of the infractions they do than our opposition in games we play

Don't worry. There's no bias in the NHL so they obviously got this one correct. What a joke.

Forgot to mention in my last post. Was very impressed with Hoglander's vision. He passed on some attempts to make decent plays, but found the trailer for good scoring chances on multiple occasions. Very solid game by him. Virtanen had a very good defensive game as well. Hope we see him play more like he did in the 3rd though. Looked like the version of him that he's shown to be very effective at.

Reffing was terrible as usual. That penalty on Hamonic that the panel was arguing should have been a penalty shot wasn't even a penalty. He didn't hook or slash him, unless they're talking about the slash on the stick that happened just before the blue line. And that's not to mention 2 garbage crosschecking calls that you won't ever see called against our opposition for the exact same thing multiple times this year, a number of no calls including incidental high stickings by Edmonton players, interference, holding the stick, and a bunch of other crap. I hate the NHL. Wish I didn't like the Canucks, heh.

Zibanejad was on pace for 59 with his 41 in 57 games, and he was 48th. Pretty ridiculous.

I don't mind that. Certainly looks way better than that one Bo is photoshopped in IMO. That one looked pretty ugly if you ask me.

Watched The Other Guys again last night. Love that movie. One of my favorite action comedies (alongside Hollywood Homicide). So many great moments. 9/10

As dumb as that is, I'd rather read that than the nonsense that everything JB did last offseason was terrible, etc (at the time, obv). Our media is trash.

I really hope Green gives this guy opportunity to play with our skilled players as well. His numbers he put up as an overager on the wheat kings, and even last year in Ottawa (though a small sample size) putting up 2-5=7 in 12 games

Ya, this seems like the most likely scenario

If that doesn't happen, he's clearly a bust