If their shots never go in and the team doesn't score when they're on the ice, then yes, a player's shot is mostly irrelevant. Just like Ryan Johnson's shot blocking prowess was irrelevant because it did nothing to help the PK (and arguably made it worse).
Physical play is great, but if the end result is you spend a bunch of time in your own zone getting bailed out by your goalie then it's not a useful attribute.
Oh man.
Good thing they don't play hockey games in math class.
Isn't Martinek playing in Europe right now? Is he a good option to play the right side here? If so, wonder how much it would take to acquire him from the Isles?
I'm wondering if they are "showcasing" Ballard a la Hodgson with an eye on moving him. He and Tanev are playing 14 minutes a night against other teams 3rd and 4th lines. They are playing essentially no special teams time. I think Garrison could play quite well with Tanev (like Weaver in Florida) playing tough minutes well. But for now they want Ballard as comfortable and sheltered as possible to keep his level of play up.
With regards to people who have said Ballard and Tanev's play has regressed, they had a .980 save % when they were on through the first 11 games. That was bound to come down and they were going to let in a few goals that might have been stopped earlier in the season.
I have no doubt they're sheltering Ballard (both for effectiveness and probably part of it is to make him look better), but the type of minutes he's getting aren't much different than what he got in his first 2 years here. He's playing against mostly the 3rd and 4th lines with some 2nd lines sprinkled in there and he's on the ice with the same types of guys (mostly the Canucks' 3rd line with some time with the Sedins).
He was always getting fairly easy minutes on the Canucks but until this year he wasn't up to the task of handling even those. IMO what's different this year is more his play (and maybe a more solid partner in Tanev) than it is his ice time. Which is good IMO, because it suggests he might be able handle tougher minutes if he gets put in that situation due to injuries.
should alberts be traded? or does van really need alot of depth on D as possible. he hasnt played because most of the guys that are playing arent hurt or whatever..
should alberts be traded? or does van really need alot of depth on D as possible. he hasnt played because most of the guys that are playing arent hurt or whatever..
I would look to trade him, and bring up Vandermeer. Alberts is a crap defenseman IMO.
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
I just think its simplistic to suggest hockey is scoring and not allowing scoring.
LA's size and physicality was a huge factor in why they scored and didn't allow scores en route to hoisting lord Stanley's mug.
Who's saying physicality can't positively affect a team's fortunes? People are just saying it's not an end but rather a means to an end.
LA was successful because they were able to control the game. This was clearly reflected in their numbers both in the stretch run and the playoffs. Here's an article prior to the playoffs highlighting their dominant possession numbers to end the season:
A team being physical is of no benefit if it doesn't lead to good results. The Kings won because they used physicality to run the play just as a team like Chicago used mobility and skill to win. They're all tools that can be used for success, but that's all they are is tools used to reach the goal of winning hockey games.
Physical play is great, but if the end result is you spend a bunch of time in your own zone getting bailed out by your goalie then it's not a useful attribute.
IMO Bieksa's physical play does show up in shots for and against. People are quick to point to shifts where he gives the puck away and spends it in our zone but tend not to mention really good pinches that give us a shift of zone time. Despite his -0.28 corsi rating he has contributed positively to the team and his physical play is part of that.
I have no way to quantify this but imo a guy like Kevin Bieksa also makes his teammates play bigger and more physical.
IMO Bieksa's physical play does show up in shots for and against. People are quick to point to shifts where he gives the puck away and spends it in our zone but tend not to mention really good pinches that give us a shift of zone time. Despite his -0.28 corsi rating he has contributed positively to the team and his physical play is part of that.
I have no way to quantify this but imo a guy like Kevin Bieksa also makes his teammates play bigger and more physical.
He's still much better than he's shown thus far, IMO.
I don't think he's been terrible or anything and I think he's been improving as the season goes on, but we're not seeing Bieksa play where he's capable of just yet. And to be fair to Bieksa you can say that about all the top 4 to some degree.
When he's on his game I fully agree that his physical game and aggressiveness is an asset that greatly benefits the Canucks, but that's not a replacement for the other aspects of his game which are far more crucial to his and the team's success IMO. Given the choice I'd take a less aggressive Bieksa that plays solid hockey over the inverse. Luckily he's capable of doing both.
At this point, I'd trade Ballard for Ehrhoff or M. Streit out of NYI (adding a minor prospect or a pick to even it up).
Though Ballard has played well, I liked Edler when he was the defensive conscience on his pairing. Not that Ehrhoff didn't have his faults (and his contract is just goofy).
Anyhow, I'd expect (hope?) Edler continues to improve. He looks jittery out there at times, and I wonder how he'd to against an aggressive forecheck.
Who's saying physicality can't positively affect a team's fortunes? People are just saying it's not an end but rather a means to an end.
LA was successful because they were able to control the game. This was clearly reflected in their numbers both in the stretch run and the playoffs. Here's an article prior to the playoffs highlighting their dominant possession numbers to end the season:
A team being physical is of no benefit if it doesn't lead to good results. The Kings won because they used physicality to run the play just as a team like Chicago used mobility and skill to win. They're all tools that can be used for success, but that's all they are is tools used to reach the goal of winning hockey games.
Wow, that is incredible. And you're right. Being physical means nothing itself - you have to use that physical forecheck to wear out your opponents and force them to make mistakes (see Edler). It worked for the Canucks against the Hawks as well.
I'm also a big believer that the team that initiates physicality will end up healthier than the team that is more on the receiving end in any given series. The physical edge is so important. But again, you have to be able to make it work. Nashville initially worried me because they seemed so physical, but the Canucks neutralized their forecheck by playing so well in the neutral zone. Nashville could never get in.
I think you're too focused on pairings. Ballard's problem wasn't that he was too expensive for the 3rd pairing; it's that he was terrible and bordering on unplayable in even the most sheltered roles. He was about as effective as Andrew Alberts at 4 times the cost and was outplayed by Rome.
If Garrison does find himself in the 3rd pairing at ES, it's not the end of the world. So far this season the Canucks are fairly equal in terms of ice time among their defense at ES with only 1:30 separating #1 Bieksa from #6 Tanev. If Garrison got Ballard's ES minutes with his own special teams ones he'd be a 21 minute a night defenseman which is basically exactly what was expected.
You're okay with 4.6 million dollars for 5 additional years on the third pairing?
You're okay with 4.6 million dollars for 5 additional years on the third pairing?
It depends on the makeup of the rest of the defense. If Garrison played 15-16 minutes at ES and 5 minutes of special teams per game what does it matter which pair he's on? Ehrhoff played primarily on the 3rd pair at even strength in 09-10 and he led the team in ice time.
Why couldn't you have the ice time distributed like this with Tanev taking up one of the blank spots:
And those numbers could be even higher once you factor in OT (I was basing it on 120 minutes divided up between the 6 players).
In fact other than last season, going with 5 guys at 20+ minutes has pretty much been the Canucks MO under Vigneault the last few years. Ehrhoff, Edler, Bieksa, and Salo have all gotten tons of time from the 3rd pairing at times and I don't see why it'd be considered a big failure to have Garrison there if neither he nor Edler can get comfortable on the right side.
You're okay with 4.6 million dollars for 5 additional years on the third pairing?
Only if the 3rd can actually fill a role that the others can't.
I would suggest a pairing of say Garrison and Weaver which has been one of the NHL's premier shutdown pairings over the last two years would be a great. Use that pairing to shutdown basically anybody.
The other pairings are more two-way pairings:
Edler - Tanev
Hamhuis - Bieksa
So you have Garrison - Weaver against a team's top line, Hamhuis - Bieksa against a team's 2nd scoring line, Edler - Tanev grabbing the rest of the minutes.
Edler's corsi is 3+ points better and he's up .5 P/60
His PPG is up .11, his GPG is also up.
He's playing at least as good and probably better.
And what's to say those numbers would not be better if Edler was playing on the left side? While he is not playing particularly bad per se. That may have more to do with his talent than anything else. It is quite evident on the ice Edler is uncomfortable and I do not see it as a hindrance to swap him and Garrison for a few games to see what comes out it.
Only if the 3rd can actually fill a role that the others can't.
I would suggest a pairing of say Garrison and Weaver which has been one of the NHL's premier shutdown pairings over the last two years would be a great. Use that pairing to shutdown basically anybody.
The other pairings are more two-way pairings:
Edler - Tanev
Hamhuis - Bieksa
So you have Garrison - Weaver against a team's top line, Hamhuis - Bieksa against a team's 2nd scoring line, Edler - Tanev grabbing the rest of the minutes.
How about getting just one defense-man that can consistantly play in the top pairing, rather than this rotation of 2nd and 3rd pairing players?
How about getting just one defense-man that can consistantly play in the top pairing, rather than this rotation of 2nd and 3rd pairing players?
We have two: Edler and Hamhuis. Just so happens they play together... on the top pairing. It seems to going OK so far. Edler has faced tougher competition and is still producing at a top rate. 10 point in 14 games. Average time on ice about 23min.
The defense, with about 24 million allocated to it, if extremely unlikely to change. I would just make peace with that and roll with it. It's not likely we see any drastic changes to the back end.
As an aside: If this is Edler being uncomfortable on the right side, then I'm especially amped to see him get comfortable. If he can, look out.
