Aaron Rome's Teammates Help Him Shave

PITB is all about classic, old-school, screwball comedy, so you know any time someone takes a gob to the gob, we're gonna be all over it. Here's an Aaron Rome postgame interview that comes to an abrupt halt when Kevin Bieksa, Tanner Glass, and Raffi Torres, doing their best Ryan Kesler impressions as they peer from behind the curtain, successfully conspire to smear shaving cream all over Rome's cheeks. It's a well-executed prank, probably because Keith Ballard isn't involved.

The irony is that this is probably the only time the media will ever be interested enough in Aaron Rome to interview him, and his teammates just ruined it. Later, they went out to Red Robin, told the waitress it was Rome's birthday, then threw the free sundae on the ground.

So what's the occasion for such jubilation? In his 100th game with the organization, Rome finally tallied his first goal as a Canuck, a 200-foot empty netter to seal a win in Nashville. This is only the second NHL goal of his career, and clearly, it's been a long time coming: the gleeful response from his teammates as the puck drifts over the goal line is classic. You'd have thought they were in the audience for Oprah's Favourite Things.

While Rome has all the makings of a lifelong NHL journeyman (he flies under the radar, his effort exceeds his talent, he's nearly bald at 27), he's found a home in Vancouver for the meantime. He's made some big contributions to this historic season, spending a substantial chunk of it playing a top four role because of the injuries the Canuck have suffered on the back end. All things considered, Rome probably deserves a look for the year-end unsung hero award, but most of the attention he's received for his tireless effort has been flack for getting so many minutes. Shame on you, everyone.

Anyway, it's nice to see him get a little positive recognition.

The Dreaded Two-Goal Lead: Rick Rypien Has a Beard Now

"I've never been more excited about hockey, now that I have this beard."

Canucks news comes fast and furious, and sometimes we find ourselves playing catchup. Thankfully, the Dreaded Two Goal Lead--often called "the worst lead in hockey"--is super easy to come back from. Everybody knows it's a guaranteed death sentence for those that hold it. Well, much like an ice hockey team coming from two goals down, PITB will now effortlessly catch up.

• Rick Rypien Returns From Personal Leave of Absence With a Beard

Rick Rypien has resurfaced after a lengthy leave of absence, and he appears to have received some counseling from Conan O'Brien. How else to explain his wicked new beard? If there's one lesson that Conan's taught us, it's that the best way to return is with a big patch of scruff. Last Tuesday, Rypien spoke to the media for the first time in months, saying he's "never been more excited about hockey." The Canucks announced that Ryp has joined the Moose on a conditioning assignment and may be granted special permission, under the circumstances, to stay in the AHL longer than the usual two weeks. Unless he really impresses, expect him to remain in Winnipeg for the rest of the season. For fans outside of Manitoba, you can probably follow Rypien's every shift at hockeyfights.com.

• Daniel Sedin Finally Gets an Acknowledgement His Brother Doesn't, Still Manages to Come in Second
  

Wherein the universe continues its conspiracy to make Daniel Sedin the evil twin. After surging to the top of the NHL scoring race with 3 goals and 5 assists in the past week to put him at 89 points on the season (six clear of his brother, with whom he has a longstanding blood feud), Daniel Sedin was named NHL.com's second star of the week. Poor Daniel can't get a clean win. They may as well have dumped a bucket of chicken blood on his head. Expect either an Art Ross or a fullscale psychic meltdown for Daniel by the season's end.

• Tanner Glass Has a Secret Injury

Tanner Glass sat out the Calgary game with a mysterious injury, and will miss tonight's as well. Apparently, he's been playing through this injury for awhile. Is it a wrist injury? My handshake is pretty strong. Likely not, but we've got no choice but to speculate, especially after all the Canucks recently entered a Glass cone of silence. (Note: this is a metaphorical cone of silence regarding Glass, not a literal cone made of Glass.) Jason Botchford reported that, when asked about it, Jeff Tambellini pointed to his lower abdomen. What the crap? There may be a conspiracy of vagueness in the locker room, but don't just blame the players; the media is an accomplice here. Seriously, Botch, where on his lower abdomen did Tamby point? Does that qualify as an obscene gesture?

• Kevin Bieksa is On the Mend
  

Dan Murphy recently tweeted that Kevin Bieksa, out for three weeks with a broken foot, skated with the team today and could play as early as Wednesday. Then the real controversy will start. Who comes out? Rome or Tanev? Ha ha, just kidding, it'll be Keith Ballard.

• Keith Ballard Pranks His Pants By Neglecting to Hem Them

Poor Keith Ballard is having a rough season. He can't even dress himself properly. According to Christine, who runs the blog Play Me That Ballard, the Canucks' resident prankster has apparently been pranking his wardrobe all season long. Christine recently noticed that Hips has a tendency to disregard legs, rolling up his pantlegs like a nine-year-old. Considering that Ballard's sizable contract has been a topic du jour all season, you'd think he'd have the pocket change to pay a tailor. But maybe he can't reach his pockets because of how poorly tailored his pants are to begin with? Or maybe he's just bad at dressing himself. The Canucks had meal plans made up for Kyle Wellwood, so I'm sure they can find someone to lay out Ballard's clothes for the next day.

• Chris Higgins Was On After Hours

And, in case you missed it, here's Chris Higgins on After Hours, featuring a gratuitous closeup of his mangled thumb, if you're into that sort of thing. I'll bet the Canucks are. After the Canucks started the season with a fourth-liner guy that treated his thumb with callous disregard, Chris Higgins healthy respect for a healthy thumb is likely a welcome change. Here's the whole video:

The Dreaded Two-Goal Lead: It Ate Everybody

Canucks news comes fast and furious, and sometimes we find ourselves playing catchup. Thankfully, the Dreaded Two Goal Lead--often called "the worst lead in hockey"--is super easy to come back from. Everybody knows it's a guaranteed death sentence for those that hold it. Well, much like an ice hockey team coming from two goals down, PITB will now effortlessly catch up.

• Harold Snepsts' Moustache (and Harold Snepsts, by Association) To the Ring of Honour

The Canucks announced early on Wednesday morning that Harold Snepsts would be the fourth former Canuck to see his name in the Ring of Honour. Snepsts is a worthy recipient, currently holding the franchise records for games played and penalty minutes. Also, he looked like this. I've heard criticism that Snepsts, a depth guy of sorts, doesn't deserve the honour--that if he didn't look the way he did, he might not be remembered as fondly. Well, Halle Berry endured similar criticism, and she's got an Oscar. Admittedly, Snepsts' look did give him a certain notoriety, but you can't fault a guy for riding his remarkable unattractiveness into the annals of Canucks' history. Somewhere, Brent Sopel is wondering if the same strategy could work twice.

• The Monster That Ate Everybody Ate Kevin Bieksa

News broke early this morning that Kevin Bieksa might be the latest devouree of The Monster That Ate Everybody, the creature that's picking offf Canucks' defenseman at a rate of one per game. It turns out that, Tuesday night in Minnesota, when Bieksa stepped in front of the large rubber disc traveling at approximately 100 miles per hour, he got hurt. Juice reportedly has a foot fracture that may keep him out of the lineup, and Evan Oberg has been recalled. Jeff Paterson points out that, if Bieksa doesn't go, Christian Ehrhoff will have 7 more NHL games played this season than the rest of the Canucks active d-corps combined. Hopefully, this occurs to Ehrhoff before he jumps into the rush.

• Surgeries For Everybody!

If you're looking for good news on the defensive front, the best anyone can do is report that everyone's surgeries went well. Edler's back surgery was successful, and Andrew Alberts' wrist surgery was as well. Normally, this wouldn't be big news, but I imagine that the recent string of bad luck had everyone a little concerned something would go wrong on the operating table. Example: Alex Edler blocked a shot during the procedure and wound up being awake through the whole thing. He's out indefinitely with incoherent rambling. Seriously, though, the way they're doling out surgeries these days, the Canucks' doctors must feel a bit like Dr. Nick Riviera. Rumour has it every patient got a free nose job.

• Ian White Not Traded to the Canucks; Everyone But Ian White is Relieved

And finally, perhaps you heard the yesterday's non-news that Ian White had been traded to the Canucks. Obviously, he hadn't, and the news was actually just a Twitter rumour that spread out of control, but still, it was scary for awhile. Reports circulated that Jannik Hansen was headed the other way, and everyone freaked out a little, which is a testament to how far Hansen has come. He wasn't a lock to make this team in the preseason. Now he's a vital cog. Anyway, the news was eventually debunked by way of a Mike Gillis tweet, which is impressively progressive, from one perspective. On the other hand, others suggested Gillis simply did it that way because he didn't want to take a call from TSN.

Kevin Bieksa on After Hours

Here's Kevin Bieksa on After Hours, and it's definitely a good watch. Bieksa's a funny guy, and his deadpan delivery never fails to amuse.

Things we learn: Bieksa is that guy that never shuts up about his "two young kids at home." We get it, loser, you love your family. Also, Bieksa claims he was approached by Firstar sports before Kesler, but he turned down the offer. In response to a question about when the KB3 line is coming out, he quips, "Not for awhile. I gotta be hurting for money."

A high point: Oake and Hrudey badger Bieksa about the trade rumours that swirled this past offseason, and he denies ever really being concerned. Bieksa's been asked this question a billion times, and he's successfully avoided any appearance of concern. I wasn't worried. I just committed myself to playing my game. It's out of my hands. I've got two young kids at home to worry about. But give Kelly Hrudey credit for his follow-up question, which successfully pierced Bieksa's veneer. Turns out he and Gillis met for brunch, and Gillis calmed any fears he might have had.

Burrows Interviews Bieksa, Unwittingly Reveals Himself as Passionate Romantic

If you haven't seen this fantastic video of Alex Burrows interviewing Kevin Bieksa from ESPN.com, you are missing out. It is remarkably hilarious.

Many stick taps and gloved taps on the helmet to Nucks Misconduct.

From the Archives: Is Lee Sweatt the Next Brian Rafalski?

If you spent the weekend engaged in activities and doin thangs, you might have missed the news that the Canucks have recalled defenseman Lee Sweatt. This is primarily a precautionary measure. Kevin Bieksa's eye is swollen shut, and because he's not Steve Nash, he probably can't play like that. Unless Juice gets better in a hurry, Lee Sweatt will get the nod.

But who is Lee Sweatt? Is he worth getting excited about? Possibly. Last September, when Sweatt was just one of many training camp hopefuls, I suggested he might be the next Brian Rafalski. I'll admit it's far-fetched to assume Sweatt can match the impressive career of the Red Wings defenseman, but it's not impossible, and the similarities between the two players are uncanny. Since interest in him couldn't be higher, I thought I'd dig the post up from the archives and give it a second tour. So, here, for your perusal, is Is Lee Sweatt the Next Brian Rafalski?, an original PITB article.

| Continue Reading |

I Watched This Game: Canucks vs Flames, January 23, 2011

Canucks 3 - Flames 4 (SO)

It's a bummer that, for the second time in as many games, the Canucks had to fall in a shootout. That said, I'm hoping that the fans are smart enough to differentiate between the sluggish team that barely managed a point versus San Jose on Thursday night, and tonight's team, which improved as the game went on and controlled the run of play for much of the third period versus the Flames. Yes, Vancouver, your team only skated away with one point, and yes, they've now lost 5 of 6, but if you were looking for improvement, it was there tonight. Or, at least I felt it was when I watched this game:

• You'll hear the media people saying that the Canucks have dropped 5 of 6, but it's somewhat sensationalistic and irresponsible to report it this way when only 1 of the 5 losses was in regulation. They've gotten six points in their last six games, which is the same amount of points they'd have collected by going 3 and 3. The next time someone tells you the Canucks are spiraling, respond by pointing out they're actually playing .500 hockey. It's still worth a mutter, as this team should be better than .500, but it's not worth a panic, as they're not worse than .500, either. Not to mention they were the only of the top three NHL teams to get a point today. Detroit and Philadelphia--the two teams with whom they're jostling at the top of the league--lost in regulation.

• The real big story, I guess, is the odd decision from the NHL war room to call Alex Tanguay's shootout attempt a goal. Vancouver fans are right to be outraged. The call goes against the NHL's rule for reviewable goals, which stipulates that the puck has to be visibly across the goal line in order to overturn an official's no-goal call. In this case, the puck was lost in Luongo's pads, and there was no way to see it cross the line. Though it obviously did, by the letter of the law, the referee's no-goal call should have stood, due to inconclusive footage. Puzzlingly, the NHL used their heads and determined that, if Luongo was in the net, so was the puck. More than anything, it's odd that they decided tonight was the night to go against the letter of the law and utilize common sense. Since when do they do that? Jason Botchford dug up three distinct instances where the War Room called this the other way, and I think that's the infuriating thing here: it's not consistent with how they've been handling this situation in the past. Plus, where was this approach when the "Intent to Blow" controversy started?

• Meh. This game really shouldn't have even gone to the shootout, anyway. The Canucks' power play, usually so good, has now thoroughly failed the team in two consecutive games and dropped to third in the NHL. Identical to last night, the team went 0-for-5 a man up, including, again, an important 4-on-3 in overtime. The unit's had a few short droughts this season, but they need to get this fixed right away. This drought has effectively cost the team two points in the last three days.

• In the first period, Kevin Bieksa took a massive blow to the eye from Tom Kostopoulos, which turned out to be a massive blow to the whole Canucks team when Bieksa didn't return. Word is he's not concussed (yea!), but one of his eyes is swollen completely shut (nay!).

• Do you remember, back in November, when the Canucks' defense was in total disarray? It got so bad that Vigneault put his foot down, then made his top two pairings and committed himself to leaving them together for better or for worse. It's been two months since then, and we've taken for granted the defensive stability that grew out of his decision. It was apparent after the loss of Bieksa threw everything back into disarray. Ehrhoff, Edler, and Hamhuis all wound up playing over twenty-six minutes, but their ice time and shifts didn't make much sense and they didn't synchronize in the slightest. Meanwhile, Keith Ballard still didn't crack twenty minutes, and Chris Tanev's minutes actually decreased from the last game.

• Worse, nobody was ready or rested to join their regular units on the powerplay, which meant seeing Hamhuis and Samuelsson on the top unit, as well as Ehrhoff and Edler with the hapless second unit. It was a waste of a powerplay. I want to say Vigneault should have used a timeout to rest Ehrhoff and Edler to join their regular forwards, but Christian Ehrhoff played a game-high thirty-three minutes tonight; Vigneault clearly forgot rest was an option for him.

• I know Manny Malhotra is one of the forwards mired in a pretty remarkable scoring slump, but he had a great game tonight. Alternate Captain Mal was all over the ice defensively, he won 13 of 22 faceoffs, and he had 5 blocked shots--a game-high.

• Raffi Torres, on the other hand, had another subpar outing, and this time he earned himself a benching. Torres only played 5:43 tonight, only thirty-seven seconds more than Kevin Bieksa. The intermission peewee teams had more icetime.

• Mason Raymond had a few grade A chances, but he's still fighting the puck. Of all the slumping forwards, he's the one that concerns me the most. The Canucks are really thin on the wing if he's not an effective weapon.

• The Sedin line was solid and dangerous again tonight, as Daniel and Henrik both collected a point. However, the real stars of their line were Alex Burrows, who had two assists and was on the ice for all three Canuck goals, and Alex Edler, who was also on the ice for all three goals, and scored two of them himself. The first goal, above, came on a beautiful one-timed snap shot. The second goal came after Jay Bouwmeester slewfooted his goaltender in an ill-advised attempt to distract Alex Burrows.

• A brief word on Daniel Sedin's crosscheck to the back of Mark Giordano: awesome. I recognize that he took a penalty for it, but good on him for responding after the referees let the Flames brutalize the twins all night. Case in point: when "Macho Man" Cory Sarich drove a flying elbow into Henrik Sedin's face. I understand the referees want to let the teams play, but WWE finishing moves are a bit much.

• Ryan Kesler played a surreal game tonight. He seems to have willed his thumb back to health, as he took an unreal 30 faceoffs and won 19 of them. He scored a shorthanded goal that tied the game in the third period. He shadowed Jarome Iginla all night and kept the all-star forward off the scoring sheet. Also, during the second intermission, he flew into outer space and punched a comet into the sun.

• Speaking of punching, the Flames' third goal was a direct result of Roberto Luongo's aggravating tendency to punch the puck instead of catching it cleanly. Somebody needs to remind him he's supposed to catch the puck, not kill it. He's the Rooster Cogburn of goalies.

• Weirdest Kevin Weekes statement: "This is why Tambellini hasn't scored--he shoots lasers." I assume he meant to say that Tambellini isn't using his great shot enough, but it sounded like he was ragging on him for literally shooting lasers. And, as everybody knows, lasers are just fine, unless the walls are covered with mirrors.

• And finally, the Canucks only had 15 hits tonight. Unacceptable. Robbie Williams has more hits, and he sucks.

Ask it to Bulis: The Greatest Canucks' Moustache & Other Inquiries

Ask it to Bulis is a regular feature wherein casual readers and hardcore Bulies alike can put their questions to two guys no more qualified to answer than they are. Harrison and Daniel preside:


Greatest Canucks' mustache: Babych or Snepsts? -- @staticotaku

H: Tough first question. I'm gonna go with Snepsts, and for totally subjective reasons. It was a slightly fuller, more unkempt mustache that covered a little more area. And because of its downward curvature, he looks the most like Mr. Johnson, the beleaguered blue Muppet who constantly makes the mistake of eating at Charlie's Restaurant, where Waiter Grover works. I have so much sympathy for Mr. Johnson, as there were clearly no other restaurants in Sesame Street (like the Red Robin in Maple Ridge), I can't help but love Harold Snepsts.

D: I have to disagree. Babych has the classier, more kempt moustache. It was big and bushy, but under control. Snepsts has a classic 'stache, but it's just a little too out-of-control for my tastes. There's a reason Babych is #7 on this list of top ten 'staches in all of sports and Snepsts doesn't even warrant a mention.

H: Because MSN.com has the last word on this, apparently.

Are they actively showcasing Schneider? -- @ttuckertweets

H: Yes and no. The Canucks don't play Schneider in games to actively showcase him to other teams. Organizations have scouts so that teams don't have to do that. However, the Canucks are definitely going to trade him eventually, and Schneider's great play is turning every one of his starts into a showcase. Effectively, and we've said this before, Schneider is showcasing himself.

D: Yes. Schneider isn't aware of this, but he's been placed in a Showcase Showdown wherein all 29 of the other General Managers in the NHL will be competing in various mini-games to test their financial acumen (Glen Sather isn't expected to get very far), presided over by a funny-looking man in a bad suit. No, not Drew Carey, I'm talking about Gary Bettman. Once they get to the Showcase Showdown, the two remaining GMs will attempt to guess closest to Cory Schneider's retail value without going over. If one of them gets the retail value exactly right, they get both Schneider and Luongo.

If Schneider continues to play well, what is his trade value in offseason? Do Canucks trade him then or wait? -- @sir_earl

H: I can safely say I have no idea what Schneider will fetch in a trade. His potential is immense, but there's little frame of reference for his open market value. Some people have pointed to Jaroslav Halak as a frame of reference (who fetched a decent prospect and a third), but I think it's a completely different situation. Schneider's younger, projects to be better, and, if the Canucks trade him this offseason, he won't require contract negotiations on the heels of a breakout postseason that could have been a fluke. Halak's situation was unique because his value spiked suddenly, and St. Louis got him for relatively cheap because they were willing to deal with that. That's why Schneider's value will be the highest if the Canucks trade him after this season: he'll still be on an affordable deal.

There are risks with acquiring Frecklesnoot too. His likely price means that he has to play like a starter for a GM to justify his acquisition. It's risky, especially since Schneider has still only played a handful of NHL games--his body of work is impressive, but it's a small sample size on which to judge the rest of his career. A hesitant GM could point to the team in front of him. You've probably noticed the Canucks are the best team in the NHL, and that tends to inflate stats. That said, Schneider still has the appearance and pedigree of a future stud, and there are teams out there I have to believe are eager to acquire his services.

The Canucks won't trade him until the offseason. Schneider remains an acceptable option if Luongo suffers a postseason injury or meltdown. And, if the Canucks go deep into the playoffs (or, perish the thought, win the Cup), then Schneider's value goes up yet again because he's got playoff experience on his impressive resume.

D: What Harrison said, mainly because we talked about this exact question over the phone and he stole all my answers.

Why and how did you pick Bulis as your blog's mascot? -- @artemchubarov

D: The phrase "Pass it to Bulis!" dates back to the 2007 playoffs, when the Canucks faced the Stars in the first round. As you may recall, game one of that series went an absurd four overtimes and was the 6th longest game in NHL history. It was an insane game: Brent Sopel had injured his back prior to the game picking up a cracker. The players needed intravenous fluids to stay hydrated between periods. Both Burrows and Cooke were injured early and ended up as the only players on the Canucks to play fewer than 20 minutes. Willie Mitchell led the Canucks with over 47 minutes in icetime. Crazy.

I was watching the game with a large group of friends. After regulation time ended, we started debating who would score the winning goal. There were votes for Naslund, Morrison, Linden, and, of course, the Sedins. I, on the other hand, figured it would be someone completely unexpected. Isn't it always the unlikely heroes that arise at such times? And who was the unlikeliest of potential heroes on the Canucks at the time? Clearly, the answer was Jan Bulis.

As time passed and the likely and expected heroes did not score, the more likely my suggestion seemed. Once we got into the second overtime, we began to shout "Pass it to Bulis!" at the TV every time the unhirsute one hit the ice. By the third overtime, we were shouting "Pass it to Bulis!" whenever the Canucks got possession of the puck, even if Jan wasn't on the ice. By the fourth overtime, we were weeping softly and muttering under our breath "will someone please, please pass it to Bulis..."

And then Henrik scored. And Jan Bulis finished with 2 points in 12 games in the playoffs. Stupid Bulis.

H: Stupid Bulis? How dare you speak ill about the patron saint of this blog! I would never.

What made Wellwood so endearing to you? -- @indelibleline

H: Well, he's adorable. But I think we've been drawn to Wellwood because he's such a unique personality. Welly's unique, but he's also uniquely self-aware in that he can speak honestly about his quirks. This is a guy who once called himself the weakest guy in the NHL, and he's never backed down from that or tried to fix it. He just doesn't like to work out. He's got incredible skill, but sometimes I think he kinds of regrets it, maybe wishes he did something else. He seems like the rare guy for whom it's just a job, and I think I admire that, because I recognize those feelings of wage-earners' ennui in myself. We are all Kyle Wellwood.

D: He's such an oddball that I'm dumbfounded that anyone could possibly dislike him. One of my favorite Wellwood moments came at the 2008 (or 2009 maybe?) Superskills. During one of the many lulls in activity, most of the Canucks were seated against the boards. Shane O'Brien was busy acting like a complete goof, entertaining many of his teammates. Everyone seemed to be in conversation, joking around and having a great time. Meanwhile, Wellwood was lounging in one of the faceoff circles, leaning on one elbow and idly playing with a puck with his stick. His ridiculous puck control while lying down in an incredibly lazy fashion while seemingly incapable of interacting normally with his peers pretty much perfectly encapsulated Welly. I also think he's a far more complete and effective player than most people, as illustrated by this adamant defense of Wellwood's defensive capabilities, and I think it's pretty natural to grow attached to a player that you're having to constantly defend.

Why are Canucks fans finding things to rag on Luongo about? Is he forever going to be the focal point of fans' whining? -- @camdavie

H: Yes. Luongo's been touted as the savior of a skeptical Canucks' fanbase, and they're constantly looking for flaws in his game to validate their pessimism. There are a number of other factors, too. First, people don't really understand the goaltending position or how situational it is. They don't understand that no goalie stops every shot, or that Martin Brodeur, widely believed to be the greatest goalie of all time, played much better behind a solid defense in a solid defensive system. Marty's not playing so well these days, but nobody's clamoring to strip him of his legacy. They understand he doesn't have the team in front of him that he once did. Luongo, on the other hand, takes the blame for every goal that goes in, because he has yet to achieve the Brodeur-like success people expect of him, and Cup-hungry fans examine those expectations in a vacuum.

D: Canucks fans are so used to ragging on their goaltenders that they simply don't know what to do with a goaltender who isn't terrible and isn't going anywhere. For a long while the Canuck net was filled with a series of mediocre goaltenders, none of whom were able to replicate the success of the most-praised goalies in franchise history, Richard Brodeur and Kirk McLean. Quite frankly, no goaltender will be considered to be "good" until they help carry the Canucks to the Stanley Cup finals as Brodeur and McLean did. It's nonsensical, but true. The reason Kirk McLean is held in such high esteem isn't just because he was a great goalie (he was), but because he carried the Canucks to the Stanley Cup finals and made The Save. No goaltender will be able to avoid the constant criticism in this market until he takes a team to the Stanley Cup finals.

Are the Canucks happy with Bieksa and Hamhuis as the shutdown pair or are we short a top stay-at-home D? -- @arby18

H: I think they're extremely happy with the pairing. Bieksa and Hamhuis are a shutdown defensive pairing that moves the puck exceptionally well, but if you want to know where their real strengths are, it's along the boards. Between Hamhuis' team-best hipchecking and Bieksa's team-best pinching, these guys control the boards in both zones, severely cutting down on the workload in front of their own net.

D: With Hamhuis and Bieksa constantly facing the toughest competition night in and night out and still posting fantastic +/- numbers, there's not really anything to complain about. It seems that Mike Gillis prefers to have a defensive corps that can all move the puck rather than having a mix of stay-at-home and offensive types.

Do we have a number one defenceman? -- @beninvictoria

H: Yes we do. His name is Alex Edler. Although I know what you're getting at. The Canucks rely heavily and equally on four guys. I think Canuck fans see guys like Lidstrom, Pronger, Keith, or Doughty, and assume we can't win unless we have a perennial all-star like that, and we don't.

But the assumption isn't true. Other Cup prerequisites that aren't true: you can't win with a Euro captain; you can't win with a high-paid netminder; a skilled team can't beat a gritty team; you can't win with a questionable fourth-line. Here's what happens every year: the best team in the NHL wins the cup, and then people extrapolate their strengths and claim that's the special formula for winning. Think about the previous Cup winners and how, every season, the radio guys claim the Canucks don't have enough of whatever that team's best element was. Carolina didn't have a defensive stud. Detroit had a Euro captain. Marc-Andre Fleury made five million a year.

The Canucks have a different model for their defense than Chicago did, relying equally on four guys rather than heavily on two. If it works out for them, you'll hear people saying you need two top pairings rather than one. If it doesn't, people will continue to clamour for a defensive stud to anchor the defense.

D: Yes we do. His name is Kevin Bieksa.

Kidding, kidding. I'm going to disagree with Harrison on this one and say that we don't have a number-one defenceman. As much as Edler has the potential to become one, he's not quite there yet. The top-four defencemen for the Canucks all average over 22 minutes a night. Edler is at the top of that list at 24:08, but there's not much of a gap in ice time between any of them. They all have a similar +/- and Edler and Ehrhoff's have similar point totals. Edler averages an extra shift per game, which isn't quite enough to vault him into number one territory.

Why is Samuelsson playing [badly]? -- @RE4713

H: He isn't. Samuelsson has been fourth in team points almost all season, and still remains the top scorer after the Sedins and Kesler. He remains one of the team's headiest players, and his patience and stickhandling continue to make room for his teammates. He plays a similar plodding style to the Sedins, however, and that confuses people who think: slow=bad; fast=good.

That said, he's not playing as well as last season, but last season was a bit of a peak year for him. An inordinate number of his goals were fluky (Sam's Surprises, we called them). He was bound to come back to earth, and he has. Unfortunately, this is why people are on him. Ignore the decreased goal totals and look a little closer: you'll see he's still making massive and valuable contributions.

D: Agreed. He's not playing poorly, he's just not matching the career year he posted last season. Also, with the emergence of Jeff Tambellini and the continued progression of Jannik Hansen, he's not going to see the same number of minutes that he did last season and won't be able to put up the same number of points. He's also not getting as luck as last season: his shooting percentage hit the lofty heights of 13.7%. His previous three seasons he had a shooting percentage of 7.4%, 4.4%, and 7.4%. His shooting percentage this season? 7.5%. Really, he's not playing poorly, this is just a regression to his normal self. And his normal self is still fourth on the Canucks in points.

One of my friends thinks the Sedins should be the first option for defensive zone faceoffs. He says that a team should send out their best players to defend their own zone against the opposition's top line because they have the skill to break up plays and exit the zone, with possession. I disagree and would like to hear your thoughts. -- Reid

H: The short version: you're right and your friends are wrong. The long version: zone starts are one of the ways a coach can manage the game from the bench, and it's a pretty simple principle. Get your offensive stars out in the offensive zone, where they have a headstart on what they do best. Conversely, get your top defenders out in the defensive zone for the same reason. Why do otherwise? Your best offensive players may stickhandle out of the defensive zone, but they waste their energy playing defense and skating through the neutral zone, then all they've got left is to dump it in and change. If you have a choice, you start them in the offensive zone and hope they stay there.

D: I'm going to be more blunt than Harrison. Your friends are stupid. You need smarter friends. Ryan Kesler and Manny Malhotra are two of the best defensive forwards in the NHL. The Sedins are decent in the defensive zone, but there's no reason to have them start there when Kesler and Malhotra are the other options. There's a reason the Sedins point totals have improved with the emergence of Ryan Kesler. One of the reasons is that he provides a secondary scoring threat that the other team needs to contend with, but the primary reason is that he (and now Malhotra as well) starts in the defensive zone against the opposition's best players, allowing the Sedins to get prime offensive zone starts.

There's a reason why the Sedins have one of the most favorable offensive zone start percentagesin the league and Manny Malhotra has one of the most unfavorable. It's not because Alain Vigneault is stupid.

H: Right. Your friends are the stupid ones.


If you have a question for a future edition of Ask it to Bulis, send an e-mail to passittobulis@gmail.com or tweet us at @passittobulis with the hashtag #askittobulis.

I Watched This Game: Canucks at Stars, December 31, 2010

Canucks 4 - 1 Stars

The Canucks closed out 2010 the same way they opened it: with a win over the Dallas Stars, but don't let the 4-1 score fool you into thinking this was just another rout of a good team. Vancouver outscored Dallas, but that's about the only stat category they won. Thankfully, it's the only one that matters after sixty minutes, but they were lucky to escape Dallas with a victory. I've been skeptical of the Stars, especially after hearing about their astronomical shooting percentages and their litany of one-goal wins and overtime points. Ignore the cynics: Dallas is good.

The Stars have evolved into the prototypical Marc Crawford team. At their best: highly-skilled, offensively strong, and gritty. At their worst: unpoised, defensively suspect, and undisciplined. After living through Vancouver's ultimately failed Marc Crawford era, it was great to see his team have its weaknesses exposed by a smarter team without it meaning a Canucks loss. I watched this game, and it was cathartic:

• There are two ways to look at the massively lopsided shot totals: You could say, with forty-five shots to Vancouver's 22, Dallas outshot the Canucks by a margin of 2 to 1. Or, you could say, with 44 saves to Kari Lehtonen's 10 or Andrew Raycroft's 8, Cory Schneider outsaved both Dallas goaltenders by a margin of 4 to 1. I choose the latter.

• Yes, Cory Schneider was incredible tonight. He had a bit of luck and Dallas hit a couple of posts, and he got himself into a bit of trouble (including the lone goal against) with his indecision with the puck, but he was still incredible. His lateral movement was as strong as I've ever seen, he was square with the shooter every time, his rebound control was sound, and he was strong along the ice. If the Canucks are hoping to showcase this kid for an eventual trade, I'd save tape of this game. He soundly outplayed two NHL goaltenders and was rightly named the game's first star.

• My only quibble with Schneider: his nickname. In the blogosphere, folks are calling him Ginger Jesus. I don't like it. I've been wracking my brain for a better nickname, but the only redheaded goalie I remember is Archie Andrews, who played goal for Riverdale High in many a strip. (In a classic, Betty & Veronica go to see him play, not knowing he's the goalie, and when they can't find him--due to the mask he's wearing and because they're dumb girls--they leave.) Anyway, Archie's nemesis Reggie often called him Frecklesnoot. Let's go with that.

• As the calendar year ends, it was nice of Marc Crawford to remind us that one thing will never change: he will always, always have the worst hair in hockey. He looks like he killed a hedgehog and glued it to his scalp. Someone needs to find the stylist who keeps dying only the top and not the sides of his hair, then gingerly feathering it, then slicking it back, and convince them to pick a new career.

• It's no surprise that Alain Vigneault's shut down pairing munched the big minutes against an offensive machine like Dallas. Bieksa and Hamhuis skated for over twenty-three minutes each. In that time, Hamhuis had 1 assist, 3 shots, 3 blocks (including one that surely saved a goal), and 2 hits; Bieksa scored a goal and added an assist to go with 2 blocks, a hit and a takeaway. The pair was shaky at times (Hamhuis had 3 giveaways), but the Canucks don't win without their contributions.

• It was a rare rough night in the faceoff circle, as the Canucks lost 35 of 58 draws, and only Ryan Kesler finished at 50%. Henrik Sedin, who really is hot or cold in the faceoff circle, was colder than supercooled beer, at a frosty 3-for-12, including 0-for-6 in the defensive zone. If you're wondering why you hardly noticed the Sedins at even stength, it's because they spent the whole game scrambling to get the puck out of their zone after Henrik lost the draw.

• I heard Grumpy Old Man Gallagher on the Team 1040 today complaining about the Sedins, as he often does. He grumbled that Henrik and Daniel are points machines, even when they don't play particularly well. He was probably pulling his hair out tonight when the Sedins did exactly that, by putting up a goal and an assist each while playing badly, for the most part. Somebody needs to remind him that points are awarded when your team scores goals, and the team with the most goals wins hockey games.

• That said, the Sedins helped Vancouver put this one away early by engineering two very similar power play goals (one above, the other here). Along with Torres's solo rush, they came suddenly, and were major momentum killers. On the opening goal, Henrik whiffs on the pass, but Karlas Skrastins is so busy fighting with Ryan Kesler he doesn't even see the puck until it trickles to Daniel. Vancouver's power play went 3-for-6 tonight.
  

• Poor Kesler. Though his work in front of the net on the two power play goals might have deserved an assist, he didn't get one. His streak came to an end tonight, but that's why they call it a streak: because, eventually, it stops. A streak that never stops is called a nudist colony.

• Kesler will have to settle for the other streak of which he's a major part: Vancouver's 4-game win streak, which sees them finish 2010 with an NHL-best .708 win percentage.

• In typical Raffi Torres fashion, he had a so-so night, but scored a goal on a sudden burst of skill against the flow of the play. He fought off a can opener from Karlas Skrastins and deked out Kari Lehtonen forty-seven seconds after the Canucks had opened the scoring.

• Brad Richards had a message for the homers saying Kesler is the best player in the Western Conference. Something along the lines of: I am also good. He had 6 shots tonight, with another 5 missing the net and another 5 blocked. He looked dangerous every time he was on the ice, which was quite often. He played 23:41, more than any Canuck player, save Kevin Bieksa.

• Keith Ballard had a strong game, finishing with 4 hits and 2 blocked shots. He had a respectable 16:29 of ice time, but consider the Canucks were up 4-0 going into the third. Vigneault also gave nearly ten minutes to the fourth line. Tanner Glass had 11:04.

• Awesome Glass moment: after Jeff Woywitka horse-collared Alex Bolduc, Tanner Glass was the first man into the scrum, and can be seen quietly wailing on Woywitka before becoming lost in the mess of bodies.

• What, exactly, was Jannik Hansen doing tonight that was making the Stars so mad? Stephane Robidas gave him two gloved punches with no regard for the penalty he was about to take. I can't imagine Hansen chirping. He's got the highest voice on the team. It's like getting chirped by Kristen Schaal.

• And finally, PITB would like to wish every Bulie from here to Australia a happy new year.
  

Kevin Bieksa Will Drag His Knuckles Across Your Face

Often lost in the ongoing dispute over Kevin Bieksa's defensive ability is his extraordinary knack for fisticuffs. Juice (so called because he likes pineapple juice, but also conveniently fits with his predisposition to rage) has had a reputation as a fighter to be avoided since he broke into the NHL by one-punching arrogant and highly-disliked prospect Fedor Fedorov in a parking lot. Canucks' management was pleased with this, likely because A) toughness is never unwanted, and B) Fedorov had been asking for it for awhile.

Since then, the long-held opinion has been that Kevin Bieksa--like Bruce Banner--is not your friend when he's angry. He's also an entertaining scrapper, sometimes beginning spats with a GSP-style Superman punch. Early in his career, Bieksa was often compared to Ed Jovanovski, a contrast that wasn't quite accurate, hockey-wise. It was apt, however, during fights: Jovanovski was generally to be avoided because he punched to concuss (just ask Adam Deadmarsh); Bieksa is similarly spirited when he trots out the knuckles. He fights to win. There is rarely any debate over his contributions to Vancouver when he resorts to violence.

Speaking of fighting and winning, he's already done so twice this season, both times decisively walloping his opponents (Kevyn Adams and Aaron Voros, respectively). Canuck fans treated both affairs as a rare treat, but in the big picture, he's actually fought 27 times in six seasons as a Canuck.

And, according to HockeyFights.com, he trends towards indisputable victory. Of those 27 fights, according to his fight card (where winners are determined through voting) he's 24-1-2. Put another way: in six years, he's lost only 2 times, and of those two, neither was overly decisive. His wins are much more so. Of his 24 wins, 15 have garnered at least 70% of the vote, with 8 garnering 90% or more. The verdict? Bieksa will crush you. After the jump, exhibits A through E:

Kevin Bieksa vs. Aaron Voros (December 8, 2010)

Kevin Bieksa vs. Alexandre Picard (October 21, 2008)

Kevin Bieksa vs. Craig Adams (October 22, 2007)

Kevin Bieksa vs. Karl Stewart (February 7, 2007)

Kevin Bieksa vs. JF Jacques (December 4, 2006)

Bieksa averages about five fights a season, so we can be expectant that he'll drop the gloves a few more times before April. That is, unless nobody else wants a concave face.

In Defense of Bieksa's Defense

Kevin Bieksa did not end last season well. His infamous double slide (what does it mean?) in the playoffs against the Blackhawks gave those who dislike Bieksa plenty of ammunition throughout the summer to criticize the beleaguered blueliner and demand him to be traded. In fact, with the acquisition of Ballard and Hamhuis, it seemed a foregone conclusion that Bieksa was on his way out of town, given his $3.75 million contract does not include a no trade clause.

The trade rumours did make sense: after all, Bieksa has put up two 40+ point seasons, intriguing numbers for any GM wanting to add an offensive weapon to their blueline. Meanwhile, a large portion of Canucks fans have become disillusioned with Bieksa, discounting his offensive contributions because of his defensive deficiencies. Many hoped that opposition GMs would perk up at the sight of a 40-point defeseman and conveniently ignore his career -18 rating and boneheaded mistakes.

Then, Sami Salo shockingly got injured playing floor ball. Shane O'Brien failed to make the starting roster. Ballard and Hamhuis, models of health prior to joining the Canucks, fell victim to injuries just a few games into the season. And suddenly, Kevin Bieksa is a key defensive cog in the Canucks machine.

Kevin Bieksa's detractors are quite vocal (I should know, I frequently watch Canucks games with one), but I think their distaste is misguided. I won't deny what their eyes are telling them: Bieksa does make mistakes. Those mistakes, however, are rarely as egregious as they may seem, not as plentiful as imagined, and not as detrimental to his overall defensive play as generally posited. In fact, 12 games into the Canucks season, Bieksa has been a defensive stalwart. Instead, as mentioned in a Houses of the Hockey's blog post, Bieksa's detractors are suffering from confirmation bias: due to a few plays like the double-slide mentioned above, every mistake Bieksa makes is magnified and held up as confirmation of his awful defensive play. Meanwhile, every great defensive play is ignored as being inconsequential or simply, "Every defenseman should make that play." The statistics paint a different picture.

I'm going to make a radical suggestion here: the coaching staff often know what they're doing. This isn't a popular suggestion amongst Canucks fans who always know better than those inside the organization, but there is a reason Alain Vigneault is a professional NHL coach who has led the Canucks to 1st in the Northwest three of the last four seasons. Even though his decisions sometimes confuse and infuriate me, he has also been phenomenally successful as the head coach of the Canucks. Sometimes, but only sometimes, I know better than Alain Vigneault, but it's fair to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And the way Alain Vigneault has been using Kevin Bieksa in the absence of Dan Hamhuis is illuminating. Bieksa has faced the highest Quality of Competition (QoC) on the Canucks this season. He and Alberts have consistently been sent out against the top competition, with Bieksa seeing significantly more ice time per game than Alberts. Meanwhile, Alexander Edler and Christian Ehrhoff, while leading the Canucks in ice-time, have been playing very sheltered minutes, with Edler facing the lowest QoC of any defenseman not named Keith Ballard.

So, Bieksa faces the toughest competition night in and night out while playing an average of 22 minutes a night. The composition of those 22 minutes is also enlightening. In the absence of Dan Hamhuis, Bieksa leads all Canucks defensemen in shorthanded time-on-ice. He is consistently relied upon to kill penalties and is only exceeded in total minutes shorthanded by Manny Malhotra, who never seems to leave the ice on the penalty kill.

Now, all of this time spent on the ice would be detrimental to the Canucks success if Kevin Bieksa was the defensive liability he is purported to be. And yet, while he has only managed to put up 3 points this season (with 1 on the powerplay and therefore not contributing to his +/-), Bieksa is still +4.

Now I hear the stat-heads shouting already, "Small sample size!" so let's open things up from just goals scored at even-strength (which plus-minus tracks) to shot-differential at even-strength (which the Corsi statistic tracks). In a nutshell, Corsi is meant to be a measure of puck possession, using the metric of shots, including missed shots and blocked shots. Bieksa, despite being used against the opponent's best players, ranks just behind Christian Ehrhoff for his on-ice Corsi numbers with a 10.09 rating. Simply put, Bieksa moves the puck in the right direction: when he is on the ice, more pucks are directed at the opponent's net than his own.

So how do we explain this, when the story we've been given is that Kevin Bieksa is an offensive defenceman who is a liability in his own end? How do we explain Alain Vigneault consistently using him against the top players from the opposition? How do we explain his shorthanded time-on-ice? How do we explain his Corsi numbers? We've seen the mistakes with our own eyes, we decry every error he makes during each game, but the statistics for this season indicate that those mistakes either aren't as egregious as they seem or are made up for by the rest of his game. Bieksa is strong on the boards and smart with his stick, currently leading all Canucks defencemen in takeaways. He gets into shooting lanes and is third on the team in blocked shots. And he's a solid passer, getting the puck out of the defensive zone safely and still in Canuck possession.

But my theory is that one of the main reasons for his solid defensive statistics is due to what is likely the strongest area of his game: pinching down the boards in the offensive zone. Bieksa is extremely aggressive in the offensive zone, pinching all the way down past the goal line at times. With his strength along the boards, he frequently is able to keep the puck deep in the offensive zone, where the Sedins can cycle, the Kesler line can skate with the puck, and the third line can grind down the opponent's defense. And every successful pinch by Bieksa is a failed attempt to clear the zone for the other team, negating their ability to create offense. Sometimes, this tendency leads to odd-man rushes the other way, but Bieksa has shown excellent awareness thus far this season, limiting those opportunities and using his strong skating to get back into position quickly.

I mentioned confirmation bias earlier, and I admit that I am susceptible to this issue myself, as I like Bieksa and feel he has been unfairly maligned. I confess, I find myself frequently watching Canucks games keeping a close eye on positive contributions by Bieksa and risk letting those confirm my bias towards him, but I feel that the statistics strongly indicate that he is much stronger defensively than his reputation would indicate. He's not Willie Mitchell and I doubt he'll shake the reputation as offense-first, but he deserves praise for his play in the absence of Dan Hamhuis and I sincerely hope he continues his strong defensive play throughout the season.

I Watched This Game: Canucks at Oilers, September 26, 2010

I Watched This Game is a recurring feature on Pass it to Bulis, chronicling the insights and observations of two guys that watched a hockey game.

Eight goals for the Edmonton Oilers. Eight. What in tarnations?

That was, suffice it to say, a terrible game. If I were coach of the team, I'd cut everyone in this unit and start the season with the squad that beat the Ducks last night. Mind you, that's why I'm not the coach of the team. I have faith that AV will be able to sort through this mess and send the guiltiest parties back to Manitoba (ex: Kevin Bieksa). Thankfully, I won't dwell on this too much. It was a preseason game, and Dexter's on in half an hour. Let's make this quick.

• We watched this game with our wives. During the anthem, they commented on the size of Horcoff's nose. Skeeter's response: "Horcoff has a heck of a honker." Weird.
• Hodgson looked reasonable in his first preseason game, quickly getting into the game with some physical play. He looked strong and confident, though not confident enough to try anything especially creative. He played a safe, responsible game and did not look out of place with Kesler and Raymond. With a couple more strong performances, this could actually be a line we see at the start of the season, with Samuelsson starting with the Sedins. In any case, it's hard to gauge Hodgson's performance given that the team collectively sucked.
• As mentioned above, Bieksa did not have a good game. He wasn't alone, as the defense was just plain bad. Lee Sweatt was arguably the best defender, but he made several mistakes as well, notably a poorly advised pinch on the Oiler's fourth goal. There was a wealth of odd-man rushes for the Oilers to take advantage of, mostly caused by poor positioning by the defense. It's comforting to note that Ehrhoff, Edler, and Hamhuis weren't in this game, but Ballard, Bieksa, and SOB were and they were not good. At all.
• While he didn't have much support in front of him, Cory Schneider had a poor game. He let in 8 goals, there's not much more to say. Quite frankly, Eddie Lack has outplayed Schneider in the preseason. There wasn't a battle for the backup role heading into camp, but 8 goals opens up the debate.
• The following Canucks were not terrible: Oreskovich, Morrison, Kesler, Raymond, Hodgson, and Malhotra. The rest were terrible or, at best, unnoticeable.
• I desperately want to make a drunk Khabibulin joke, but Skeeter's the one typing this (awkwardly writing in the third person), so it's not happening.
• Funniest part of the game was Hordichuk trying to steal Volpatti's fight and getting a penalty. "No, Volpatti, you're not making the team by fighting, I am! That's my job!" Guess what, Hordi, it's not going to be your job in the future. As in, this season.
• Hordichuk did manage to get in a fight with Zack Stortini, but the real highlight was after the fight, when the penalty box camera captured him watching his fight on the Jumbotron and making some sweet reaction shots. The video above stops just before the first of these.
• Burrows claimed that the Canucks' sluggish play might be due, in part, because they flew in that day and didn't get to indulge in their pre-game nap. That puts hockey alongside kindergarten as the only place where a nap makes or breaks the success of the day.