Evaluating Chris Tanev

With the news that Kevin Bieksa has started practicing with the team again, the next step will be his return to the Canucks lineup, maybe even as early as tomorrow's game against Detroit. This means that one of the Canucks' current defensemen will be hitting the pressbox, unless Sami Salo breaks again. It's almost a certainty that the odd man out will be Chris Tanev. The reasons are numerous: he's an inexperienced rookie, he's not yet used to the long haul of an NHL schedule, and Aaron Rome has kidnapped Vigneault's children and is holding them for ransom in a ploy to get more ice-time.

You will notice, however, that none of those reasons mention the quality of Tanev's play. Part of this is that it's been very difficult to properly assess Tanev: the word that keeps coming to commentator's lips is "poised", but poise is remarkably hard to quantify. It's hard to miss his lack of panic with the puck and his ability to make good outlet passes; mentally, he seems ready for the NHL and certainly has a higher ceiling than someone like Aaron Rome. But is he currently ready physically for the NHL, particularly the grind of the playoffs? Alain Vigneault has stated that Tanev won't be returned to the minors and that he has been impressed with his play, but he'll likely see significant time in the pressbox; come playoff time, with Alex Edler and Andrew Alberts returning, will Tanev see any playing time at all? Would his development be better served playing more significant minutes with the Manitoba Moose?

To help answer some of these questions, I want to take a look at Tanev's history and some of Tanev's statistics over his 27-game stint with the Canucks. All of the statistics are from NHL.com and behindthenet.ca, with the minimum games played set to 20.

Most of the focus for Tanev has been on his remarkable growth spurt that changed his hockey fortunes from being unable to find a place to play to the NHL in just 5 years. At the age of 16, Tanev was 5'0" and 100 lbs. Now he's 6'2", 185 lbs, and still growing into his frame. For some perspective, he's the same height as Christian Ehrhoff but almost 20 pounds lighter. Manny Malhotra is 6'2", but weighs 220 lbs. At the age of 21, Tanev still has some time to grow.

Unfortunately, he's not going to fill out that frame this season. As poised as he has been on the ice, he's taken a lot of punishment, finding himself on the receiving end of hit after hit. To his credit, he takes hits to make plays and is able to avoid some checks, but he frequently gets knocked down and outmuscled along the boards. He does not yet have NHL-level strength, which is an especially daunting prospect as the Canucks approach the playoffs. As the intensity ratchets up and the physical play increases, there is a concern that Tanev will not be able to handle it.

That said, Tanev's quick adjustment to the speed of the NHL game is a credit to his abilities and his intelligence. Although he averages only 13:54 in ice-time, Vigneault has not been shy about using him in difficult situations. With Ehrhoff continuing to get prime offensive opportunities, the rest of the defense has started the majority of their shifts in the defensive zone and Tanev is no exception. Tanev starts in the offensive zone only 43.5% of the time: amongst Canucks defensemen, only Andrew Alberts has started more in the defensive zone. He moves the puck in the right direction as well: he finishes his shifts in the offensive zone 52.2% of the time, second only to Christian Ehrhoff amongst Canucks defensemen. The major difference is that Ehrhoff starts in the offensive zone 60.4% of the time, leading all Canucks defensemen.

Tanev's CORSI rating shows further proof of his ability to move the puck up ice: he has the third highest CORSI amongst Canucks defensemen with a +9.59 rating, behind only Ehrhoff and Hamhuis. And his rating is not due to playing against scrubs: his quality of competition is third amongst Canucks defensemen behind Bieksa and Hamhuis, and his quality of teammates is second worst amongst Canucks defensemen. Despite his limited icetime, Tanev is facing tough competition with poor linemates and keeps the puck moving in the right direction. Remarkably, he's managed to do so without taking a single penalty.

These statistics confirm what we're seeing on the ice: Tanev makes smart plays that move the puck out of the defensive zone with possession. The key word there is possession. Jim Jamieson got a great quote from Tanev's father: "When he got the puck in the corner I always made him wait and make the pass to somebody's stick, and he's been doing that from a very young age." This is one of the reasons he's absorbing so many hits, however, as he avoids simply banking the puck off the glass, preferring to make a pass that retains possession. Unlike many rookie defensemen who hang on to the puck too long because they're unsure what to do with it, Tanev hangs on to the puck because he knows exactly what to do with it. This patience is one of his best qualities, but also one of the reasons he's taking so much physical punishment.

It's understandable that the Canucks would want to keep Tanev around in case of further injuries, but I can't help but think that a prospect of his caliber would be better served playing big minutes in all situations with the Manitoba Moose as they head into the playoffs. With the Canucks, Tanev gets under 14 minutes of icetime per night, minimal time on the penalty kill, and no time whatsoever on the powerplay. Mind you, his development wasn't hurt too much when he was unable to find a team to play for at the age of 16, so my concerns are likely overblown. Suffice it to say, I'm a big fan of Tanev and I look forward to watching him develop as a Canuck.

Manny Malhotra is an Enabler

Pictured: Manny Malhotra, ultimate team player, enabling Ryan Kesler to complete a fist-bump.

It wasn't that long ago that Manny Malhotra was receiving premature buzz for the Selke Award. Now, mired in a 16-game pointless drought, questions are being raised about his role as the third-line center, with some suggesting that Hodgson might supplant him before the season is done. I heard from some quarters that Hodgson's line with Tanner Glass and Jeff Tambellini may as well have been the third-line against the Coyotes, as they often seemed more effective on the ice than the trio of Malhotra, Torres, and Hansen. And tonight on the Team 1040, one of the topics of conversation was whether Malhotra is actually worth his pricey 2.5 million dollar contract.

Yes. The answer is yes, he is.

Don't get me wrong. His point-scoring drought is regrettable and it would be nice if he and Torres broke out of their slumps to provide some tertiary scoring, but Malhotra's value isn't found in directly providing scoring. Instead, Malhotra is an enabler. He enables the scoring in others, particularly in Ryan Kesler and the Sedins.

Unlike a playmaker, who enables scoring in linemates, Malhotra enables the scoring of those on other lines.

The addition of Malhotra has had a trickle up effect, as he takes on the checking role previously held by Kesler, freeing Kesler up to greater offensive opportunities, which he has capitalized on with aplomb. Meanwhile, despite Kesler's increased offensivity, Henrik Sedin and his line have been able to continue in their primarily offensive role thanks to Malhotra's presence in the lineup.

I'm going to take a look at how this plays out using two different statistics from Behind The Net: Corsi Relative Quality of Competition (Corsi Rel QoC) and Offensive Zone Start Percentage (Ozone%) and how Malhotra compares to the two centres above him, Kesler and Sedin. I will then be following it up with a brief discussion of faceoffs. I will be limiting each to players who have played at least 20 games.

As I pointed out in a footnote in a recent post, Manny Malhotra has the lowest Ozone% on the Canucks. He starts in the offensive zone a miniscule 27.7% of the time. He is trusted to take the vast majority of the Canucks' defensive zone faceoffs, and for good reason: he's currently second in the NHL in faceoff percentage, right behind Washington's David Steckel, who has taken 370 fewer faceoffs. In fact, Malhotra has won the most faceoffs in the NHL, with 591 victories. NHL.com doesn't distinguish between defensive and offensive zone faceoffs, which is unfortunate, but from observation I can tell you that the majority of those wins were in the defensive zone.

To illustrate the significance of this, note that Malhotra has the second lowest Ozone% in the entire NHL. Malhotra is on pace to take 1495 faceoffs this season. Of those, 1081 will be in the defensive zone. That averages out to around 13 defensive zone faceoffs per game, compared to 5 offensive zone faceoffs. What's especially interesting is that this is a massive drop in offensive zone starts for Malhotra. In San Jose last season, he started in the offensive zone 45.3% of the time. In Columbus the year before, it was 43.4%.

The biggest impact of this stat has been on Henrik Sedin. In 2008-09, Sedin started in the offensive zone 49.9% of the time. This saw a modest bump to 57.7% in 2009-10. This season, with the addition of Malhotra, Sedin is starting in the offensive zone a whopping 70.1%, good for third in the NHL behind Cam Janssen and--surprise!--Daniel Sedin. In the article on Alex Edler, I referred to this kind of discrepancy in zone starts as sheltering Edler, but it might be more accurate to refer to it as putting your best offensive players in the best position to score. Kesler has also seen a modest bump in Ozone%, but it's about as modest as Bristol Palin's outfits and, like Bristol Palin, not really worth mentioning.

When it comes to Corsi Rel QoC, however, the addition of Malhotra has made a massive difference for Kesler. First, a quick definition of terms: Corsi is a measurement of total shots attempted both for and against. Essentially, add up all the goals, shots, blocked shots, and missed shots that your team has taken while you are on the ice and subtract all the goals, shots, blocked shots, and missed shots that the opposition has taken while you are on the ice. It's a measure of puck possession that strongly correlates to scoring chances and, therefore, goals. Relative Corsi is a method of normalizing a Corsi rating by comparing a player's Corsi rating with the team's Corsi rating when he is off the ice. It's considered to more accurately measures an individual players contribution to puck possession. Finally, Corsi Rel QoC is a measurement of the quality of competition a player faces based on the Relative Corsi of his opponents. It's more accurate than the base Quality of Competition stat, which uses +/-. Does that make sense? Good. Moving on.

In 2008-09, Kesler led the team in Corsi Rel QoC, with a rating of 1.265, just ahead of Willie Mitchell. This was good for 13th in the NHL; night in and night out, Kesler faced the best players the opposition had to offer and earned his first Selke nomination. Last season, Kesler was second on the Canucks, just behind Willie Mitchell. Kesler continued to face tough competition, increased his offensive production, and was once again nominated for the Selke. This year, however, Malhotra is taking the heat off Kesler, as Malhotra is third in Corsi Rel QoC on the Canucks, first among forwards. Meanwhile, Kesler is facing the 8th toughest competition, freeing him from his checking duties. The result: Kesler has embraced the offensive side of his game: he has already bested his career high in goals, is on pace for 47 goals and 32 assists, and is receiving hype not for the Selke, but the Hart. With Malhotra bearing the brunt of the opposition's offensive pressure, Kesler has gone from first amongst Canucks forwards in Corsi Rel QoC to sixth.

Intriguingly, the total number of faceoffs taken has been fairly evenly split between Malhotra, Kesler, and Sedin. The three centres are on pace for 1495, 1471, and 1437 faceoffs respectively. The total difference from top to bottom is less than one faceoff per game. Last season, Henrik took 1527 faceoffs to Kesler's 1401. Next closest was Kyle Wellwood with 725. The difference was more pronounced in 2008-09 as Henrik took 1364 faceoffs to Kesler's 976, with Wellwood lagging behind at 621. To be fair, Kesler played on Mats Sundin's wing for the latter part of that year. Oddly enough, despite being one of the best faceoff men in the league last season at 62.5%, Malhotra took only 664 draws for the Sharks. It could be argued that the Sharks underutilized him, though to be fair, Scott Nichol is not too shabby at faceoffs.

In any case, the number of faceoffs that Malhotra takes for the Canucks dwarfs Kyle Wellwood's contributions the last couple of seasons. As good as Wellwood was on the draws, Malhotra is even better and is clearly more trusted by the coaching staff. This balance in faceoffs taken spreads the responsibility around, with Malhotra taking the majority of defensive zone faceoffs, Henrik taking the majority of offensive zone faceoffs, and Kesler splitting between the two fairly evenly. And with Malhotra taking over the role of checking line center, facing the toughest competition the other team has to offer, Kesler has been free to focus on his goalscoring.

It's also noteworthy that even with his 16-game drought, Malhotra is still on pace for 27 points this year, right on par with his post-lockout career totals. He has been carrying the puck to the net with some authority recently and has come achingly close on numerous scoring chances to end his slump. But the Canucks are not dependent on him doing so: he just needs to continue lightening the load of his teammates on the top-two lines, enabling them to continue their potentially award-winning seasons.

Alex Edler is Not a Number One Defenceman

I had intended to write this article prior to hearing that Edler was out one game and then indefinitely. Now, it almost seems in poor taste to write it, as the consensus seems to be wailing and gnashing of teeth now that Edler is gone for the foreseeable future. However, I noticed that Puck Daddy and the Vancouver Sun referred to Edler as the Canucks' "top defenceman" and some Canucks fans were coming just short of throwing themselves off bridges with the news that Edler would be out of the lineup. Heck, Jeff Paterson compared the Canucks losing Edler to the Flyers losing Pronger. I'm hoping he wasn't saying that Edler is as important to the Canucks' success as Pronger is to the Flyers', and instead, merely pointing out that good teams overcome injuries to good players. Yes, I hope that's all he's saying.

Let's not go overboard, people. Edler is a great defenceman: he leads the Canucks in average ice-time, powerplay time, and points from the defense. But he is not the Canucks' top defenceman. To be quite frank, the Canucks don't have a "top defenceman." Edler is merely a very good defenceman who plays with other very good defencemen. No one is doubting his contributions to the Canucks or that those contributions will be sorely missed, but there are too many components missing to label him the Canucks' top defenceman. While he has the potential, he is not yet a number one defenceman.

Edler is putting up fantastic offensive numbers and was set to surpass last season's point-total until this setback. But he's been putting up those numbers while playing some of the most sheltered minutes on the Canucks. While he leads the Canucks in average time-on-ice, that doesn't tell the whole story. Firstly, he's leading that statistic by just over one minute and is playing approximately the same number of shifts per game as Dan Hamhuis. The top-four defencemen for the Canucks are all averaging over 22 minutes per game. Combine them with Keith Ballard, who averaged 22:24 per game with the Florida Panthers last season, and you have five Canucks defencemen capable of playing top-four minutes. Conveniently, that is one more than they needed.

But that is beside the point. Let's look at Edler's minutes and breakdown the situations that he plays in, who he plays with, and who he plays against. In these types of endeavors, Behind The Net is a hockey blogger's best friend and NHL.com's statistics page is the guy in the blogger's group of friends that you mainly hang out with because he's the only one with Hi-Def and the full cable package.

First, let's look at his Quality of Competition. Of Canucks players to play at least 20 games this season (weeding out players like Peter Schaefer), Edler is 11th on the team in the quality of opponents he faces. Of the defence, he's 4th, well behind Dan Hamhuis and Kevin Bieksa in the statistic. The Ham-Juice defensive pairing continually faces the top competition night in and night out, leaving Edler and Ehrhoff to a much easier task. In comparison, players who are rightly called number one defencemen around the league generally face much stiffer competition. Duncan Keith is third on his team, just behind his defensive partner Brent Seabrook. Zdeno Chara is second on his team, first amongst the defence. Shea Weber is first in quality of competition in Nashville and Dan Boyle leads defencemen in the category in San Jose. There are exceptions, of course. The aforementioned Chris Pronger is 9th on his team, third amongst defencemen. Keep in mind, however, the injury troubles he faced and the improved depth on the Flyer's blueline; they appear to be sheltering him somewhat. Last season, he led the Flyers' defence in quality of competition and will likely see that number rise as the season progresses.

There are other considerations, of course. I've shown the quality of competition Edler faces, but that's just one component of the situations he plays in. Another area to consider is zone starts. Where do Edler's shifts begin? A whopping 59.2% of Edler's shifts begin in the offensive zone. This places him fourth on the Canucks, first amongst defencemen¹. For perspective, that's the 12th most favorable O-Zone start percentage in the entire NHL amongst defencemen. It's clear from this stat combined with his quality of competition that Edler is not asked to focus on the defensive side of the ice. This isn't a knock on Edler, just an acknowledgment of his strengths as an offensive player.

Again, let's compare this to other defencemen who are considered number one defencemen. Duncan Keith is 12th on the Blackhawks, Zdeno Chara is 14th on the Bruins, Shea Weber is 12th on the Predators, and Dan Boyle is 12th on the Sharks. Each of these players plays in all situations but trends towards below 50% in offensive zone starts as they are counted on in tough situations. Edler is not.

Finally, let's look at a breakdown of Edler's time-on-ice. As mentioned above, Edler's icetime doesn't tower over his teammates as the icetime of number one defencemen generally do (Dan Boyle is averaging almost 6 minutes more icetime per game than his closest teammate). In addition, Edler gets almost twice as many minutes per game on the powerplay than he does shorthanded. Bieksa and Hamhuis, unsurprisingly, log the most shorthanded minutes. Again, a comparison with number one defencemen in terms of shorthanded time-on-ice: Duncan Keith leads his team, Zdeno Chara leads his team, and Dan Boyle leads his team. Shea Weber ends up in a situation much like Edler's and sees most of his special teams icetime on the powerplay. Chris Pronger, on the other hand, is second on his team for defencemen in shorthanded icetime despite his slightly sheltered minutes this season. Unsurprisingly, last season he led his team.

Not one of these stats is definitive on its own. In each category, a comparison can be drawn to a player who is considered a number one defenceman. Combined, however, and they paint a picture of a defenceman used primarily in offensive situations against easier competition. This is not a coincidence: the strength of the Canucks' defensive corps allows Edler (and Ehrhoff, but no one's running around claiming he's a number one defenceman) the luxury of playing with two of the top offensive players in the NHL in prime offensive opportunities, just like the strength of the Canucks' forwards allows the Sedins the same luxury. Edler's skill and poise is what earned him that position and he's an extremely valuable player to the Canucks. The powerplay will certainly miss his slapshot from the point and, more importantly, his sublime passing skills, but he's not the versatile, one-man show that a true number one defenceman needs to be. He doesn't play in all situations, he doesn't shutdown the opposition's best players, and he doesn't start on the penalty kill; he is not a number one defenceman.

Fortunately for the Canucks, they don't need him to be.



1. It's interesting to see the Sedins and Burrows at the top of the list and Manny Malhotra at the bottom. A big reason for the Sedins skyrocketing offensively is the increasingly sheltered minutes they have been able to play. It's also a big reason why Malhotra, Torres, and Hansen haven't been scoring a whole lot of points. Also note Keith Ballard's position on that list: you can stop wondering why he hasn't been scoring like many Canucks' fans had hoped.

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.

Random Oddity: Alex Edler has Taken 2 Faceoffs?

It's remarkably easy to spend an excessive amount of time clicking around NHL.com's stat pages. While it doesn't quite reach the addictive qualities of Wikipedia and is miles away from TV Tropes, a puckhead like me can easily see time disappear faster than every contestant's hopes of winning on Ninja Warrior.

Today, however, I stumbled across something odd: Alex Edler has taken two faceoffs. In fact, he is one of only three defencemen in the NHL to record more than one faceoff this season.

Now, before you all rush to the message boards and declare Alex Edler to be the Canucks new fourth line centre, a couple caveats. First, that's stupid. And second, he apparently lost both faceoffs.

But I'm more interested in knowing how it happened. When a centre is waved out of the faceoff circle (which can happen for a multitude of reasons), he's normally replaced by a winger. There are many reasons for this, but it should suffice simply to say that defencemen just aren't meant to take faceoffs; let's say it's against their nature. If the second player taking the faceoff also commits a faceoff violation, the team gets a 2-minute bench minor for delay of game, so you simply won't see several players waved out until a defenceman is the only one remaining to take the draw.

The only occasion I can think of when a defenceman might be called in is if the team is defending a 5-on-3 powerplay with one forward and two defencemen. Oddly enough, the one record I could find in the Canucks season so far of Edler taking a faceoff it was in their unfortunate 6-2 loss to the Minnesota Wild in October where there were no 5-on-3 powerplays for the Wild. In fact, the faceoff was in the offensive zone. To make things even more confusing, the Canucks were on the powerplay at the time with both Henrik Sedin and Ryan Kesler on the ice.

So is it just a clerical error? Did someone write down #23 instead of #33? Well, yeah, probably. Unfortunately, I couldn't track down the other game that he took a faceoff in to see if it too was a typo or a mistake. Given the vital importance of this stat, I enlist you, the fine Bulies reading this, to track down that faceoff!

Can Ryan Kesler Get Even Better?

With another 3-point night to extend his point-scoring streak to 8 games, Ryan Kesler has suddenly become the subject of speculation: is he the best player in the Western Conference? Twitter was abuzz with the question last night, it was one of the main topics of conversation on the Team 1040 morning show on my drive in to work, and Gordon McIntyre even asks if he's the best player in hockey. The sentiment is nice, but off-base. The argument could be made that he is the hottest player in the Western Conference (in terms of his play on the ice, not his physique), but one hot streak does not make him the best.

Don't get me wrong, I like Ryan Kesler and would argue that he is just as important to the team's success as Luongo and the Sedins, but in a conference with Pavel Datsyuk, Nicklas Lidstrom, and the aforementioned Sedins, it's a little early to anoint him with oil and declare him king. It's especially frustrating to see the Sedins continue to get short shrift despite making their nest among the top five in Western Conference scoring. Of note: 14 of Kesler's 34 points were on the powerplay, where he plays with the Sedins. This is not a coincidence.

He has, however, entered into the conversation, which is impressive in and of itself. And there is one statistic that leads to the question posed in the title of this post: can Ryan Kesler get even better?

The Inside the Numbers section of the upcoming January 17th edition of The Hockey News looks into the best and worst players in the latter half of the season. The main metric used is points-per-game, specifically the greatest increases and decreases in points-per-game between the first and the last halves of the season. Since the lockout, the player with the greatest increase in points-per-game during the second half of the season is Ryan Kesler. From The Hockey News:

The 26-year-old has had a better points-per-game production in the second half of every season since the lockout (except in 2007-08, where he dropped by a measly 0.05 points/game played). Over the past five seasons, Kesler managed 89 points in 203 games in the first half while earning 121 points in 171 games in the second half, an increase of .27 points per game. Among current players, no one can touch Kesler's mark.

It's a touch strong to say no one can touch Kesler, when Sam Gagner's increase of 0.265 is just 0.004 behind Kesler's mark of 0.269, but those are still impressive numbers that show just how much Kesler is able to elevate his game. We are almost at the halfway mark of the season and Kesler has 34 points in 35 games, for a point-per-game average of 0.97, putting him on pace for 80 points this season, which would best last season's career high 75.

While no guarantee, his historical trend of increasing his point production in the stretch drive is a good sign. For the sake of argument, let's say that he continues his 0.97 points-per-game pace through game 41 on the schedule and increases his production by the 0.269 mark mentioned in The Hockey News, pushing him up to 1.24 points-per-game through the final 41 games of the season. That would give him 51 points on top of the 40 he would have tallied through the first half, giving him a total of 91 points on the season, which is not an unreasonable mark.

91 points would match Brad Richards output from last season, where he finished second to Henrik Sedin in points in the Western Conference. 91 points would put him among the elite scorers in the NHL. 91 points would be a good argument, along with his continued stellar defensive play, for naming him the best forward in the Western Conference. He's not there yet, but he has the potential, which is extremely exciting.

As an aside, two other Canucks made the top-30 in point-per-game increase: Alexandre Burrows and Manny Malhotra, who have managed +0.145 and +-.142 increases post-lockout respectively. Unfortunately, a Canuck factors into the top-20 decreases in point-per-game production, Mason Raymond, with a -0.163 drop. At least he doesn't come close to the "leader" in that category, Ilya Kovalchuk, who has had a -0.271 decrease in points-per-game average over the second half of the season since the lockout. Yikes.

Merry Christmas from Pass it to Bulis

It's Christmas Eve and I'm with my wife's family in Redmond, WA. "Die Hard 2" has been watched, stockings have been stuffed, and the cinnamon rolls for tomorrow morning's breakfast are in progress right now. As for me, I'm left to ponder the Canucks Christmas gift to their fans, a marvelous 7-3 victory over the Columbus Blue Jackets that featured arguably the first example of true Sedin dominance this season. What is truly astonishing is that it came in a game where they played just over 15 minutes each.

With that performance, the Sedins put themselves fourth in the league with 43 points each. Henrik is first in the league in assists with 35 and Daniel is fourth in the league in goals with 18. Against all odds, the Sedins have been able to continue the elite level of play they established last season.

On top of that, Ryan Kesler is immediately behind Daniel in goals, with 17. Kesler is playing some of the best hockey of his life going into the Christmas break with 13 points in his last 8 games and is seventh in the league in faceoff percentage at 59 percent. The only Canuck ahead of Kesler in faceoff percentage is Manny Malhotra, who sits at second in the league at 62.8%. Even Henrik Sedin is in the top 30 at 53.9%.

As a team, the Canucks are leading the NHL in faceoff percentage by a wide margin. They're at 57.2%, with the second-place Sharks at 53.6%. Sometimes those percentages don't always illustrate the Canucks' dominance effectively. To put it another way, the Canucks have won 1141 faceoffs and lost 854. On a game-to-game basis, that comes out to 35 wins to 26 losses, 9 more faceoff wins per game. That's huge.

The Canucks have lost only one game in regulation out of the last 13, with a record of 10-1-2. They lead the Western Conference in goal differential at +26. A big reason for that is their special teams: the powerplay is back to first in the league at 24.4% and the penalty kill is fifth at 85.5%. And after a rough start this season at even-strength, the Canucks are tied for 6th with Detroit for team +/-. Every single aspect of the Canucks' game is clicking and the Canucks have firmly established themselves as one of the elite teams in the NHL, with a 20-8-5 record. They lead the Western Conference in point percentage, getting 45 points out of a possible 66.

Basically, it's a good time to be a Canucks fan. Merry Christmas, Canucks fans. And while all the wonderful statistics above are surely present enough for our wonderful Bulies, make sure to read these two Christmas-themed posts if you missed them:

Holiday Gift Ideas for the Vancouver Canucks on Your List

Daniel's Worst Christmas - An Original Holiday Tale

Winning the Games They're Supposed to Win

Tony Gallagher wrote an article after the Canucks downed the Maple Leafs 4-1 on Saturday criticizing the effort from the Canucks and wondering how much longer they could play lackadaisical hockey and expect to win. He came just short of accusing the Canucks of playing with the Maple Leafs like a cat with a mouse. There's an inherent expectation in Gallagher's article that the Canucks need to build proper habits now in the regular season so that the habits are properly ingrained come playoff time. Never mind that it's only December, the Canucks should be playing with playoff intensity now.

I'm used to hearing the opposite from Canucks fans and media. I'm used to hearing after every loss to a supposed "inferior" team, The Canucks should be able to beat these guys! or These are the games you have to win! and my favorite Good teams don't lose to bad teams!

The fact is that good teams do lose to bad teams: even the worst team in the league wins a few games and by definition that means they beat "superior" teams. But the complaint has been especially acute amongst Canucks fans. The theory is that the Canucks continually play down to their opponent's level and lose games they should win. Witness the 2005-06 Canucks, who lost all 4 of their meetings with the last-place St. Louis Blues, finishing 3 points out of a playoff spot. Their inability to beat the worst team in the league became the story of that season.

I've even heard the complaint in reference to last season, as some of my more cynical friends pointed to 2 losses against the Edmonton Oilers, the team that finished 12 points behind Toronto for last in the NHL. So is this the case? Did the Canucks play worse against lesser opponents, squandering points that might have put them in a better position in the playoffs?

The Canucks finished the 2009-10 season with a 49-28-5 record, for 103 points out of a possible 164. That gives them a point percentage of 0.628. This tied them for 5th in the NHL behind Washington, San Jose, Chicago, and Phoenix. Their record against teams that missed the playoffs was 25-15-1, for 51 points out of a possible 82. Their point percentage against teams that missed the playoffs was 0.622. Their point percentage against teams that made the playoffs was 0.634.

While not a major difference, it is true that the Canucks had a worse point percentage against teams that missed the playoffs when, by all rights, they should have a better point percentage against such teams. So it's true that the Canucks may have played down to their opponent's level last season. A few more wins against the lesser lights of the NHL would have put them within striking range of 2nd or 1st in the Conference, meaning a better playoff seeding and the possibility of not meeting the Blackhawks in the second round.

So what is happening this season? Are the Canucks continuing the pattern? Will the "game-playing," as Gallagher puts it, hurt the Canucks down the road, perhaps preventing them from a higher finish?

The answer, thus far, is no. As of today, the Canucks have a record of 19-8-4, collecting 42 out of a possible 62 points, a percentage of 0.677. Their percentage against teams who are currently sitting under the playoff bar is 0.737 and against teams currently in the playoffs, 0.583. The Canucks are beating the teams they should beat, even if it isn't with the style, panache, or intensity that Gallagher would like to see. Instead, the Canucks have been calm, collected, and zen-like in their approach to such games, efficiently getting the job done. It's actually been enjoyable to see the Canucks win such games without the intensity that has seemed so necessary in the past. Indeed, it seems that these games that the fanbase feels should be easy victories have been, well, easy.

More concerning is their point percentage against the rest of the NHL, which sits well below last season's excellent pace. Tonight's battle against the Red Wings for second place in the Conference will be a good test of their mettle, as will games at the end of the month against the Conference-leading Flyers and Stars. In-between, I expect they will bring their miniature rakes to work against the Blue Jackets and Oilers, coolly and calmly winning the games they're supposed to win.

Keeping Track of Puck Battles: Can Puck-Strength Be Quantified?

I think Jannik Hansen wins puck battles, but I don't know if I can prove it.

Tuesday morning on the Team 1040, Scotty Rintoul and Ray Ferraro held their regular weekly interview with Mike Gillis. These interviews tend to range in their entertainment value, depending on whether Gillis feels like needling Scotty for the inanity of his questions or not, but there was one particularly interesting moment. Because Gillis attended the Moose/Heat game on Saturday, he was asked about what he looks for in a young prospect in terms of bringing them up to the NHL. He didn't hesitate to answer¹: "the one most telling test is their puck-strength and their ability to win puck battles...that's what really separates guys from the American League and the NHL." He talked about strength in protecting the puck and winning puck battles as being the number one thing he looks for on the ice. Not skating, not shooting, not defensive positioning, not stickhandling - puck-strength.

I was intrigued by this, as puck-strength is one of those qualities of a player that seems to defy quantification: there are no statistics that track how strong a player is on a puck, yet it is one of the foundational abilities that leads to success at the NHL level. It's also one of the most easily discernible differences between a rookie and a veteran in the NHL: rookies tend to be knocked off the puck easily and lose puck battles along the boards, while veterans do not. They've got old-man strength. I'd like to look at the one particular area of puck-strength that Mike Gillis mentioned: winning puck battles.

Earlier this month, Justin Bourne wrote an article on Hockey Primetime on the topic of puck battles, stating that they are "hockey's most underrated non-statistic," and identifying some of the abilities that help win puck battles. He talked about turning 50/50 pucks into 60/40 pucks, the tiny difference leading to tremendous success. Unfortunately, there currently is no statistic keeping track of puck battles won--at least no statistic that is publicly available. I have a hunch that savvy coaches and general managers do keep track of this, or at least try to, though coaches may simply rely on their impressions in the moment. It's easy to watch a game and get frustrated with a player who seems to consistently lose puck battles and it's clear that Mike Gillis watches games with an eye for puck-strength and who wins those battles. It's unclear, however, whether anyone in the organization is actively tracking won and lost puck battles.

Instead, statisticians are far more concerned with keeping track of results: shots, goals, assists, etc. or, if they are especially keen, missed shots, blocked shots, and points in relation to time-on-ice, teammates, and opponents. The issue is that many of these statistics are the result of winning puck battles. A statistic that purports to measure puck possession, such as Corsi, is profoundly influenced by consistently winning puck battles. Is there a way to get to the source and quantify puck battles with a statistic?

On the surface, the task seems easy enough. Statistics are already kept for faceoffs, which are just a particular breed of puck battle. It's simple: the team that gains possession off the faceoff has won the faceoff. The issue is one of identification. Identifying a faceoff is easy: the play has stopped and the linesman drops the puck to re-start play. There are two clear players involved who oppose each other: the winner of the faceoff is the one whose team gains possession, even if his teammates played a key role in gaining that possession. There is a clear beginning to a faceoff and a somewhat muddled, but still identifiable, ending.

Identifying a puck battle is far more difficult. When does a puck battle begin? When does it end? It's a problem of segmentation, which is a common problem for hockey statistics. Baseball, which easily has the most advanced statistical analysis in sports, is easily segmented. Every pitch is a separate event that can be analysed relatively easily. Each pitch has a distinct result that can be further segmented: if the batter reaches base, it could be from a hit, error, walk, or other circumstance that can be quantified. In hockey, the continuous flow of play resists segmentation: there is no distinct beginning or ending to any given event. Has a puck battle begun when two players meet with the puck on one of their sticks? Then a hit is a type of puck battle, which seems counter-intuitive. Perhaps a puck battle can be defined as when more than one player has the puck on their stick at the same time or within a given timeframe, but this is also not without its difficulties.

If the problem of identifying when a puck battle has begun can be solved, the measurement of winning and losing said puck battle seems to be simple, as it can be measured in a similar fashion to faceoff wins and losses. There are, however, further difficulties. For instance, what about players who win a puck battle when the odds are stacked in their favour, such as when they begin with possession of the puck? What about players who lose a puck battle under the same circumstances? Furthermore, which players are involved? Teams with excellent puck support can swing puck battles in their favour simply by having more players involved. Can that be measured? Is it fair to say a player lost a puck battle when the opposing team had two players involved? Would it be possible to measure such a statistic on an individual basis or only as a team?

Indeed, given the wide variance in how seemingly simple statistics such as hits and blocked shots are counted in different arenas in the NHL, it may be a hopeless task to expect a more nebulous event like a puck battle to be counted accurately. But I am willing to bet that a GM like Mike Gillis would appreciate knowing who wins the most puck battles, especially when it comes time to re-sign pending free agents². For instance, both Kevin Bieksa and Christian Ehrhoff are set to be UFAs following this season. The consensus amongst the majority of Canucks fans is that Ehrhoff needs to be re-signed, while Bieksa can be traded this season with little damage done to the on-ice performance of the Canucks as a whole. Hypothetically, if a statistician could show that Bieksa consistently wins more puck battles than Ehrhoff, this could play a huge role in deciding who stays and who goes. Is a won puck battle as important as a hit or a takeaway? More important? Can it be quantified as equivalent to a certain percentage of a goal?

I am not sure of what work is being done in this area of hockey statistics and must admit to a certain deficiency in myself in that I am not a statistician. However, Elliotte Friedman indicated in a recent 30 Thoughts that the late Pat Burns was angriest when players lost puck battles and that Craig Ramsay, the current head coach of the Atlanta Thrashers, does indeed keep a "battles won" statistic³. Has he solved the issue of identification of what is and is not a puck battle? Are any other hockey statisticians, coaches, or general managers doing any work in this area? Or will this very important facet of hockey remain in the realm of qualia, remaining a subjective judgement? To be quite honest, I do not know. I am just beginning to ask the question.

1. The question and response starts at 11:43 in the linked podcast.

2. Which would fit neatly into Gillis's oft-cited Moneyball philosophy. If winning puck battles is a huge part of winning hockey games, analogous to on-base percentage in baseball, and winning puck-battles is undervalued by the market, the Canucks could gain a huge advantage in paying less money for players who play a large part in winning games but do not have gaudy traditional statistics, and avoid paying big money to players who have decent counting statistics but consistently fall short in those areas that win games.

3. Massive hat-tip to @ArtemChubarov who reminded me in the comments section of this fantastic tidbit from Elliotte Friedman. I feel foolish for having forgotten it in the first place.

What's the Story With Mason Raymond?

Canucks fans rejoiced this summer when Mike Gillis avoided arbitration with Mason Raymond, the speedy winger that had broken out with a career-high 25 goals. Optimists said that Raymond was a future 30-goal scorer and that he would reach the next level this season.

His renovated ceiling and a new echelon of comparable players led to offseason chatter (or, at the very least, rumours mongered by superagent J.P. Barry) that Raymond was looking for somewhere north of 3.5 million dollars in arbitration. On the steps of the courthouse, however, the Canucks and Raymond agreed to a deal worth 2.5 million for two years. Here's what I said at the time:

I love [this signing]. Gillis gets Raymond at a reasonable cap hit for two years. This is brilliant, because if he turns out to be a one-season wonder as a genuine top-six forward, he's still got a ton of value as a speedy checker. Even if his scoring numbers dip a little bit, Raymond is worth 2.5.

It was and is a reasonable contract, which might be the only reason he's yet to be seriously called out for his slow start to the season. He isn't overpaid, and in a cap world, that seems to be all that matters to people. Furthermore, he's still contributing as a checker (fore- and back-); he doesn't take penalties (only 1 minor all season); he's an important part of Canucks special teams; and his speed backs off defenders 5-on-5, giving his linemates space and time to work. He's got 9 assists for his efforts, only one point back of his point totals through 22 games last year.

But he's not scoring. It's problematic, and it's tough to know what the problem is. Through 22 games, he has 4 goals. The season is still young, but last year, through 22 games, he had 8. A year after scoring 25, Raymond is on pace for nearly half that, at 14. So what's the problem? It's hard to say. He could simply be a one-season wonder. He could also be playing hurt. Was that last year an anomaly or is there something else wrong?

He hasn't missed any games this season, but there's been scuttlebutt about Raymond suffering a wrist injury early in the year. He admitted as much. From the Sun:

"I don't feel my best right now. My body's not 100 per cent, but that's all part of hockey. Some days are better than others. You're never 100 per cent."

If it was severe enough to genuinely hinder his play, you'd think he'd sit out in order to heal, but Raymond continues to dress, and it certainly hasn't prevented him from shooting the puck. You'd think he'd be shooting less if there was a problem with his wrist, but Raymond has registered 59 shots this season, two more through 22 games than last year. In fact, his shot totals are the third-highest on the team, behind Mikael McShooterson and a similarly trigger-happy Ryan Kesler.

Raymond isn't passing up opportunities to fire the puck on net. He's just not beating netminders this year. Raymond's shooting percentage is 6.8, the lowest of his career, and a full 3 points below his career 9.8 shooting percentage. We could turn our attention, again, to his mystery injury. Is it that his wrist shot, one of his best assets, just isn't strong enough right now to beat goalies the way it did last season?

The third option is that Raymond is just a streaky player, and he's poised for another strong December. Last season, he scored 8 times in the month, including a hat trick in Calgary. If Raymond closes out the calendar year with a handful of tallies, then this whole post is a waste of time. I wouldn't mind. Is MayRay on the verge of a criticism-silencing hot streak?

Maybe. Maybe not. It's tough to know if he's going to turn this around; it's tough to know if he's playing hurt, especially when he's playing. Worse, it's tough to know if the Raymond we're seeing right now is the Raymond we should get used to seeing.

Scoring from the Back-End

Hey guys, remember when this blog was about hockey?

I promise, that's not a euphemism. Instead, I want to talk about our defencemen and the lack of scoring we've seen from them so far this season. It seems like an odd time to bring this up, considering Alex Edler is tied for 8th in scoring amongst defensemen with 13 points in 17 games, a 62-point pace. The Kurtenblog wrote a piece today praising Edler for his play thus far, and rightly so. Christian Ehrhoff is not far behind, with 10 points so far this season. But what I want to talk about is goal scoring.

Through 17 games, the Canucks defense has scored a grand total of 6 goals. This puts them on pace for 28.7 goals in 82 games. Last season, the Canucks defense scored 42 goals, 14 of them from Christian Ehrhoff. After 2 goals in the first 3 games of the season, Ehrhoff hasn't scored since. The second-leading goalscorer from the blueline, Sami Salo, may not even play this season. Those 42 goals were a big chunk of the Canucks' Western Conference leading 268 goals-for.

Fortunately for the defense, the forwards have stepped up in a big way to pick up the slack. Indeed, despite the lack of goalscoring from the defense, the Canucks are still on pace for 261 goals-for this season, with Daniel Sedin leading the way. His 12 goals in 17 games puts him on pace for 58 goals this season, which would shatter his career high of 36. Last season, Steven Stamkos and Sidney Crosby shared the Rocket Richard trophy with 51 goals.

Still, this lack of goalscoring from the defense is a concern. As much as we hope that Daniel Sedin will continue his goal-scoring prowess and that the Canucks' leading goal-scorer last season, Alex Burrows, will round into form as he gets settled into the season, the Canucks need scoring from the defense in order to remain a well-rounded team that is difficult to shutdown.

So why hasn't the defense been scoring? Ehrhoff's stall at the beginning of this season and the lack of Sami Salo are definitely the main contributors, but neither Dan Hamhuis nor Keith Ballard have been able to improve their offensive game upon coming into Vancouver and have been hampered by injuries. Kevin Bieksa has clearly been told to focus on his defensive abilities rather than scoring and was only able to score 3 goals last season in any case. Quite frankly, the defense has been a bit of a mess over the last couple weeks. I am confident that this will change. This is why I'm not too worried yet, even though they're on pace for 13 fewer goals than last season.

Ehrhoff is capable of being better, Edler is showing steady improvement while playing 25 minutes per game, and Hamhuis and Ballard can only improve as they complete their recovery from injuries and, in Ballard's case, off-season surgery. With more steadiness surrounding him, Bieksa will have room to open up his offensive game and, while I doubt he will return to 40 points, could certainly score a few more than the 3 goals he managed last year.

As always, I am optimistic about the Canucks and their abilities, but I do not want to be blindly optimistic. The Canucks defense has been shaky defensively on this road trip, but they also have been questionable offensively. I am confident the goals will come (Edler and Ehrhoff are in the top-15 in the league in shots), but if the trend continues throughout the season, it will be troubling come playoff time. A team that relies too heavily on scoring from forwards is more easily shutdown.

Big Numbers: 3 Things That Are, Like, Whaaaaat?

Hi there! Do you like stats? Here are a few stat-things to help get you through Monday, a generally unliked day, according to cats and Boomtown Rats. (You'll notice that Monday doesn't have a Facebook fan page. That's because nobody likes it.) Well, it's possible these stat-things will make you say "Whaaaaaat?", and therefore inject some life into your Monday.

Thing 1: Canucks are Good at Faceoffs

The Canucks are the best faceoff team in the NHL at 55.6%. Granted, their lead over the next closest team--San Jose--is only 0.1% (the Sharks have a 55.5% success rate), but these are still impressive numbers. Last year, the Canucks finished 7th in the NHL in faceoffs, and they've done well to improve on that so far.

It's not just Manny Malhotra either. Granted, his 62.3% success rate is a large part of this stat, and he's certainly got more than a few tricks to teach the other drawmen, such as using the glove. I pointed out earlier this season that Malhotra wins a lot of defensive draws by getting low enough to sweep the puck back with his glove if the stick is tied up. Did you notice Kesler winning the opening draw of the Maple Leafs game the same way? Granted, it's a glove pass if you're not in the defensive zone, but let's not quibble over small details. Kesler's success rate has jumped from 55.1% to 57.4%. It may not look like much, but it's definitely something. And if you're starving for a larger statistical jump, take a look at Henrik Sedin, who finished last year at 49.5%: so far this season, he's winning draws at a 51.4% success rate.

Thing 2: Canucks Win When Outshot

Vancouver's record when being outshot by the opposition: 5-0-1. That's correct: they have not lost in regulation when they've been outshot. Only the Washington Capitals have the same success in these circumstances .

How do you account for this? Two things. First, good goaltending. While Canuck nation tears Roberto Luongo apart any time he lets in more than one goal, it's hard to be too critical when he keeps the Canucks in games where they don't have the run of play. Second, the Canucks apparently don't need to pepper the opposition goaltender to score. They're 5th in the NHL, averaging 3.19 goals per game, but only 10th in the NHL in shots per game, at 31.5.

Also interesting: most of their goals are coming in the third period. In fact, only Washington has scored more after forty minutes. And if you love weird negative anomalies, consider this: Vancouver has only scored 10 goals in 2nd periods. That is the lowest total in the NHL.

Thing 3: Canucks Tend to Score When They Have More Guys on the Ice Than the Other Team

The Canucks have the 2nd best power play in the NHL, behind only the Minnesota Wild. On the road, however, it's the best powerplay in the league. Last year, the Canucks powerplay was 11th on the road (6th overall). These improvements bode well for new powerplay coach Newell Brown, who has given some new looks and structures to the Canucks' special teams.

I initially thought it was a crazy idea to put Ryan Kesler on the Canucks' first unit, but he's got 4 power play goals this season, second only to Daniel Sedin's 5. Kesler has busted out of an early-season scoring slump and is making Newell Brown look like he knows more than casual fans. I refuse to believe this is the case.

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.