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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.