For a Coach, Mason Raymond and Mikael Samuelsson Require Completely Different Approaches

Ryan Kesler's wingers are polar opposites. It's like a sitcom on ice.

Early in Sunday's game versus the Calgary Flames, Canucks' winger Mikael Samuelsson turned the puck over in his own zone, allowing Flames' center Michael Backlund to walk in, uncontested, and score the game's first goal. It was painful. For this ill-timed and completely avoidable mistake, Samuelsson was summarily benched, and wouldn't return from fourth-line exile until much, much later in the game.

It was a kneejerk benching, albeit deserved, but it warranted an interesting observation from a few: Mason Raymond, Samuelsson's linemate, has a tendency to make similar mistakes, yet he's rarely benched in such a reactive fashion. Granted, Samuelsson's error was pretty terrible, and most certainly a valid reason to bench a guy, but the observation remains valid. Alain Vigneault does appear quicker to bench Mikael Samuelsson than Mason Raymond. Why?

Because they're very different, and one has an abundance of the selfsame confidence the other lacks.

Mason Raymond is a young prospect. He's still learning and developing both his skillset and his mental fortitude. He's open to coaching, introspective to a fault, and still emotionally shakeable. And, like a lot of young players, he has a tendency to lose confidence when things aren't going his way. In many cases, the worst thing for him is to get stapled to the benched, as he gets down on himself, and winds up holding his stick too tight and trying to overcompensate. If he gets himself stuck in a rut, it's better to let him play through his issues than to feed them. We've seen this all year. He's had a spotty season, but Alain Vigneault has exercised a lot of patience with Raymond, knowing that, often, a benching would merely exacerbate his struggles.

Mikael Samuelsson, on the other hand, is an aged veteran. He's not as teachable, and he's not nearly as emotional. He's an even-keeled player, and he's got the mental fortitude to take a benching without taking a hit to his confidence. He's also downright robotic at times, but he can drift too far down that path, often forgetting to invest emotion into his play. Thankfully, Samuelsson's got temper issues. What to do if you catch him drifting to sleep? Offend him. His reaction to a personal slight is to thumb his nose at the perpetrator, then go out to prove him wrong.

Here's Mikael Samuelsson, from an article by Brad Zeimer, on using his snub from the Swedish olympic team last year as motivation:

"It's not only a coincidence," Samuelsson said Tuesday, acknowledging for the first time that he has been motivated by the Swedish snub. "I was pissed and I'm still like, not upset, but I said what I think and I still think that. Obviously, I had something to prove, I guess. . . I want to play good hockey and I want to prove to guys that I can."

And here he is, after a benching earlier this month, from an article again by Brad Zeimer, (who apparently works nights as Samuelsson's psychologist):

"I don't want to say anything, but I got pissed off, for sure," said Samuelsson, who was dropped down to skate with Maxim Lapierre and Tanner Glass, while Jeff Tambellini was moved up to skate with Mason Raymond and Ryan Kesler on Vancouver's second line.

You'd think Samuelsson was quoting himself.

In that same article, Alain Vigneault admits that the decision to demote Samuelsson came after the Swedish forward took a couple shifts off. Effectively, Sammy was benched to wake him up, a strategy that simply wouldn't work for Mason Raymond, whose confidence would be damaged by the same tactic.

"It was a simple decision of reading your team," Vigneault explained. But it's not so simple. Ittakes a watchful eye and an attention to detail to properly decipher and manage the wide array of personalities in any dressing room, and Vigneault has these guys figured out. As a result, when benched, Mason Raymond powers down, but Mikael Samuelsson gets fired up.

I Watched This Game: Canucks vs Sharks, January 20, 2010

Canucks 1 - 2 Sharks

Before we go any further, a brief dissertation on the first game back from a road trip: we saw, in The Game That Shall Not Be Named, and in the wise words of the team's sleep doctor, that the first game back from a road trip often yields a team at the peak of their exhaustion. In fact, while some expect the game to be renewed with energy, the game is usually more an extension of the trip that just ended than the first game after it. Take a look at the Canucks' schedule after their last five-game road trip: after petering out on the road, they came back and dropped games on back-to-back nights versus Chicago and Phoenix. That's because they had yet to have any home rest. Then, when they finally got it, they recuperated and began the jaw-dropping streak that is only now coming to an end.

All of this is to say that the team we saw last night could have played much, much worse, and we can reasonably expect the team that shows up Saturday night to be much, much better (and I'm sure it won't hurt that they're playing Calgary). Anyway, I watched this game:

• I should say I'm not offering this as an excuse; I'm simply making the point that the Canucks deserve more credit for taking points from their last two games than they're getting. That's what you have to do in the current NHL--get points when you're outplayed. The Canucks have done it twice in a row and it deserves, at the very least, a golf clap.
  

• In the last game, I said that, while the Canucks were playing without rest, Roberto Luongo had seen plenty of it. Superstar goalie that he is, he needed to bail out his sleepy team. If you recall, in Denver, he didn't, but last night he did. While the Canucks were a little sounder defensively, they were still giving up shots all over the place: 46 in total, 25 of those in the second period alone. Thankfully, Roberto Luongo stopped all but one, and without his strong play, the Canucks don't get this one to overtime. He made some stellar saves, too, like getting the cheater of his glove on Joe Thornton's breakaway wrister. His rebound control was excellent as well--he was smothering the puck all night. Not since Othello killed Desdemona in her bed have I seen such thorough smothering.

• The funny thing about the shot count is that it didn't tell the whole story. San Jose had most of the shots in the second period, but they really didn't dominate the way it appears they did on the stat sheet. The Sedins had a litany of extended shifts in the offensive zone that didn't always yield shots, but did a good job of stalling San Jose's attack for long stretches.
  

• Man, were the Sedins good. While they only produced one goal on the night (the pretty one, above), they lived inside San Jose's blue line most of the evening. They had a ton of chances and a ton of shots. Line you thought you'd never hear: Henrik Sedin had a game-high seven shots. In fact, he and Daniel combined for 13, over a third of Vancouver's shot total. Tony Gallagher often complains that the Sedins regularly put up two points apiece but don't play consistently dominant games. Last evening, they did the opposite. You just got served, Tony.

• Alex Burrows had a decent game too, but the poor guy was thoroughly manhandled every time he went to the net. I didn't think you could do that. Apparently you can.

• The shootout remains a stupid way to decide a hockey game. May I suggest, instead, two mouse traps and one mouse.
  

• So it turns out those moronic bits where John Garrett talks about snack foods he likes are planned. During a stoppage in play, Dan Murphy introduced the featured product of the night: Quaker Crispy Minis. This was followed by about seven seconds of dead air, as John Shorthouse waited for Garrett to say how much he likes to eat them. Instead, Garrett briefly forgot he existed, and Shorty had to prompt him. I've long felt Garrett watches the games from behind a sleep mask, but in this case, he was genuinely asleep on the job.
  

• I was briefly puzzled by Sergei Shirokov's third-period benching, but on second glance, it makes sense. First, Shirokov was playing overly flashy--twice he cut to the inside of the ice instead of putting a shot on goal with traffic heading to the net, and both times waited too long and wound up accomplishing nothing. Second, he wasn't winning his puck battles. Until Vigneault reunited Raymond, Kesler, and Samuelsson, the second line wasn't getting any sustained offensive pressure at all, and much of that had to do with Shirokov's play. He's still good, though. Hopefully he remains with the team and adjusts his play accordingly.

• Speaking of Samuelsson, it was nice to see Angry Samuelsson return. While fighting for a puck along the boards, he took a check from Jason Demers, and rather than not taking a stupid retaliatory penalty, he turned around and punched Demers in the head. Way to go. But, as detrimental as Angry Samuelsson can be sometimes, he plays better when he's like this, so this might be a good sign.

• With another subpar night in the faceoff circle, it's clear that Ryan Kesler's thumb is still bothering him. He's not Wolverine (as far as I know), so he might need rest or treatment or something. I'm concerned that eventually it's going to turn completely blue like the band in that Daft Punk movie, then fall off. You need your thumb to flip coins. How will Kesler ever decide between two things?
  

• Dan Hamhuis had a fabulous game with an assist to go with four blocked shots and three takeaways. You don't always notice him, but he always seems to be in the right place. This is excepting that one shift where he led a botched rush and found himself two zones away from Joe Thornton's breakaway. I haven't seen a guy this out of position since my wedding night. I did a lot of guessing.
  

• Tanner Glass fought Jamal Mayers, whose name, if slightly mispronounced, rhymes with bears. Coincidence? No. There's no connection whatsoever.
  

• Christian Ehrhoff had four blocked shots and an assist. Unfortunately, the goal on which he assisted was scored by Logan Couture. You can't make a play like that in front of the best player on the Sharks, or you'll get burned. But cut Ehrhoff some slack--I'm sure, like most of us, he couldn't believe that, on a team with four Olympians, rookie Logan Couture is their best player. It's not a good thing.

• Had the Vancouver power play been as effective last night as it was on Tuesday, the Canucks might have won this game going away. Unfortunately, it was drier than Stephen Lynch and not nearly as enjoyable to watch. They went 0-for-5 on the night, including an overtime 4-on-3 that probably should have been automatic.
  

• And finally (and most importantly), it was good to see Kyle Wellwood back, and you can tell that he's ecstatic. He was smiling from ear to ear all night. We love Welly here at PITB, so this meant we were smiling from ear to ear all night. Seriously, I smiled so hard my hair parted like the grinch, which is impressive, because I'm bald.

Shirokov's Playing, So Who Sits?

Yes, this picture is from the future. Don't ask how we got it.

Earlier today, news broke that the Canucks had recalled Manitoba's leading scorer Sergei Shirokov, likely in response to my goading. Shirokov becomes the thirteenth forward on the Canucks' active roster, a spot that opened up when Alex Bolduc went down with another shoulder injury. Despite joining a team with twelve healthy forwards, however, Shirokov will immediately draw into the lineup in Colorado.

This is wisdom for two reasons: first, the Canucks are having a wee bit of trouble scoring goals lately. Vancouver is suffering through a perfect storm of scoring slumps right now, as half the forward corps seems suddenly incapable of bringing offense. Fans in Minnesota and New York would be forgiven for thinking Jonathan Roy is more likely to beat a goaltender than this team's forwards. Second, Shirokov is in the midst of a 12-game point streak. He's hot now. You don't call a guy like that up just to sit him; good on the Canucks for rewarding his strong play with an immediate spot in the lineup.

But who's sitting if Shirokov isn't? Gord McIntyre speculates that it might be Jeff Tambellini, and while it may well be, it's not that cut and dry. There are five guys who might find themselves sitting next to Derek Jory tomorrow night. After the jump, PITB examines who they are and why they might be in line for a benching.

JEFF TAMBELLINI

Why he might sit: He can't seem to find his Magic Shooty Spot. After potting 4 in 5 games, the tiny winger has gone 10 without a point, and if we wanted an Italian leprechaun that never scores, we would have signed Paul Giamatti.

Why he might not: Alain Vigneault likes Tamby's defensive play, and might see fit to start him as the 4th-line center. Vigneault has gone on record saying Tambellini's doing everything but scoring which, while true, is a dangerous ice of rhetoric. Coincidentally, Brian Burke announced today the Toronto Maple Leafs are doing everything but winning.

AARON VOLPATTI

Why he might sit: Apart from a well-timed fight in Minnesota that briefly stalled Minnesota's strangehold on the momentum, Volpatti rarely stands out.

Why he might not: It's hard to scratch a guy when you forget he's even on the roster.

RAFFI TORRES

Why he might sit: Shirokov likes to hit too, so Torres's greatest asset might not be as missed as you'd think. Furthermore, Torres has gone 9 games without a goal, and worse, he's been suspect without the puck. In Minnesota, rather than check his man, Torres made like a kid in his a Christmas pageant by completing losing his focus, facing the wrong way, picking his nose, then waving at his dad.

Why he might not: I can't be the only one who lives by the don't piss off the guy with the crazy eyes and the tattoos code. Plus, this is the third time this season he's had a 9-game goalless streak, so he's totally due.

MASON RAYMOND

Why he might sit: After scoring in his first game back since missing a month with a wrist injury, Raymond has gone cold, going eight games without a goal and six games without a point. He's lost his permanent spot on Ryan Kesler's wing, isn't burying his chances and put himself in an awkward position: he suddenly appears replaceable and his contract is sizable enough to be happily moved.

Why he might not: Of the slumping forwards, Raymond's goalless drought is the most jarring. He remains a vital part of the Canucks' top six, and curing him of his struggles is paramount to the team's offensive game. But this slump didn't come from nowhere; he's coming off an injury and may still be suffering from it. Is sitting him the best option, or are his issues something he needs to play his way out of? It's like when your cat gets herself stuck in a plastic grocery bag. She could suffocate without your help, but she also needs to learn how to get herself out in case this happens again. There's no right answer.

MIKAEL SAMUELSSON

Why he might sit: Samuelsson has gone 11 games without a goal, and only has one assist in that span. Though he played a strong individual game in New York, he's not clicking with his linemates and has looked disinterested at times this season. If we wanted an intelligent but often enigmatic and alienating Swede, we would have signed Ingmar Bergman.

Why he might not: While he responds well to getting snubbed, nobody on the coaching staff wants to tell him he's sitting out. You're never too old or too mature to have your feelings hurt when someone tells you to go [forget] yourself.

Big Numbers: Interesting Stats, Eight Games In

Below you will find a compendium of interesting stats. Take from them what you will. Or, if you're feeling particularly sluggish this morning, take from them what I have taken from them. Yes, feel free to plagiarize my thoughts, like the government does through the microchip they've implanted in my utricle. I long ago lost the will to fight it.

1. Through the first eight games, Henrik Sedin and Ryan Kesler are six seconds apart in total time on ice at 159:20 in 196 shifts and 159:14 in 197, respectively. The difference between their TOI per game is one second. In short, their time on ice has been basically identical through eight games. Interestingly, it's not even close to the same type of ice time. Henrik has nearly twenty total minutes more time at even-strength, and Kesler spends far more time on special teams time on both sides of the man advantage. He's got seventeen more minutes of PK time, and two more minutes of power play time. Huh?
   
   
2. Kesler really shouldn't have more total power play time. He not only leads the team in missed shots with 17--he's first among forwards and second overall in the NHL. Who's in front of him? Duncan Keith. That's a double-edged sword for the Blackhawks. Keith's missed shots numbers are going to be inflated because he's a defenseman and he plays so many minutes a game. But he's only got three assists for a guy who plays nearly half of every Blackhawks game. Both Kesler and Keith are offensive catalysts for their team, hence the frequency with which they shoot. This stat is a large part of the slow start in both Vancouver and Chicago. Both of these guys needs to start hitting the net. Note: Keith also leads the league in giveaways. Don't get me wrong--he's still an incredible player, but he's not playing as well as they're saying. He's just playing a lot.
   
   
3. Before we move on, you should also know the Canucks are 2nd in the NHL in the team missed shots category, behind only Pittsburgh. Not too surprising, as Alain Vigneault once said that Pittsburgh plays the exact same style as the Canucks. There are, as a result, other statistical similarities, like the one below:
   
   
4. Vancouver is second in the league in total hits with 216, behind only Pittsburgh's 240. And not that it's paying off, but the Canucks lead the NHL in hits on the road, with 120. They are 10th in hitting at home. Strangely, Pittsburgh has the inversion of this stat, leading the league in hits at home and sitting 11th on the road. Here's the weird part: Pittsburgh is below .500 at home and 3-0-1 on the road; The Canucks are winless on the road and 3-0-1 at home. Why do these teams win less when they hit more? I couldn't say for certain. My guess is that, while they're already very hitty teams, they hit more when trying to come from behind.
   
   
5. The Canucks are 2nd in the NHL in total faceoff percentage, at 56.6%. All three of the Canucks top faceoff men are over 50% at the dot, with Manny Malhotra leading the league at an ungodly 66.9% over 139 faceoffs. That is a very large sample size at which to win two-thirds of your draws. Ryan Kesler is 14th in the NHL at an impressive 57.6%, and Henrik Sedin is 40th with 51.6%. How's about that fourth line? Well, interestingly enough, only the three guys mentioned above have even taken enough faceoffs to merit statistical consideration. 11 other guys have taken draws, and only Peter Schaefer has taken more than ten. Of note: Rick Rypien has nine; he's won six of them.
   
   
6. Considering Malhotra and Kesler are defensive centers with excellent faceoff percentages, it's probably no surprise they lead the team in shorthanded time on ice among forwards. Who is the highest clocking winger? Peter Schaefer, to nobody's surprise. He has been an excellent defensive player. Following him, it's Jannik Hansen.
   
   
7. Do you hear that? It's the sound of nobody missing Shane O'Brien. Andrew Alberts, who won his job in the preseason, shares the team lead for hits with Jannik Hansen at 23 apiece. Alberts is also second in blocked shots, with 13. Who leads the team? Alex Edler, with 15. Interestingly, Ryan Kesler also has 13, and the next best shot-blocking forward only has 5. It's Peter Schaefer. Keith Ballard had 8 blocked shots in two games before he was knocked out with the concussion. He would likely be leading the team right now.
   
   
8. Speaking of Jannik Hansen, let us say something about his 23 hits. While he might not hit as hard as Alberts, he's hitting with frequency and efficiency. Hansen has the ability and multi-dimensionality to be this team's Kris Versteeg--a gritty guy with enough skill to occasionally surprise. Last game was a nice start, but he needs to do that more often. Here's hoping the chemistry he appears to have with Malhotra is for real.
   
   
9. Kevin Bieksa leads the team in giveaways, as he has since the first game of the season. He has nine now, widening the gap since the last time I brought this up. Bieksa just might run away with this dubious category. Christian Ehrhoff is second on the team with six, but I don't remember each one of his nearly as vividly. You probably know exactly how I feel about Kevin Bieksa, so I'll just move on.
   
   
10. Mason Raymond leads the team in takeaways with 8. He doesn't get nearly enough talk about his defensive play. The Sedins are up there as well, with 7 apiece. They don't just hold onto the puck spectacularly; they regularly take the puck.
    
    
11. Canuck forwards without a goal are Tanner Glass, Guillaume Desbiens, Peter Schaefer, Jannik Hansen, Rick Rypien... and Henrik Sedin. It doesn't mean anything, especially considering he plays on the one of the most productive lines in hockey and he leads the league in assists, but the less time he spends on a line--even a stat line--with Tanner Glass the better.
    
    
12. And finally, penalty minutes. Here's an interesting stat: through eight games, there isn't a single Canuck with more than one major penalty. Torres, Rypien, Alberts, and Desbiens have all fought one time and only one time. In total penalty minutes, Raffi Torres leads the team, but don't start ripping on him just yet. There are four guys with more minor penalties: Jannik Hansen, Mikael Samuelsson, Andrew Alberts, and Kevin Bieksa all have four. Do you know who shouldn't have four? Mikael Samuelsson. His temper doesn't get a lot of play, but it should. Ask Sweden: he can muster a boatloads of antipathy in a very short time. Most of his penalties are acts of aggression directed towards somebody who has pissed him off. He's a heady veteran who should know better than to take so many retaliatory penalties.