Former Canucks Thread (Dan Hamhuis retires)

[MikeK]

Was a great Dman for the Canucks. He had a great career.

 

[vanuck]

I miss Hamhuis. Such a rock for us back in the day. Still wonder what could've been had he not tried to hip check Lucic in Game 1 against the Bruins.

 

[rypper]

Hamhuis is one of those players, like Brad Richardson, that i wish the team would have just re-signed as opposed to signing/ trading for the player they did. Would have been much better off in the long run and usually cheaper.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Good Retirement Hammer. One of my favourite Canucks from the 2011 team.

 

[krutovsdonut]

loved hammer. gillis' best signing. buggest mistake benning made was to let him go to make room for gudbranson.

 

[Bankerguy]

In his prime he was a solid number 2 guy. Miss his hip checks

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i especially liked how the hamhuis signing felt like a callback to when pat quinn would go out if his way to bring bc guys home banking that they’d play their hearts out here. adams, ronning and courtnall, ryan walter

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Hammer ;-;

Great career, and one I still wish he finished with us. One of my favourite players during our heyday. Never a hugely dynamic player but just incredibly reliable.

 

[mathonwy]

Hammer.

Thanks for patrolling our blue line like a boss, thanks for mentoring Tanev and and thanks for helping Yannick score a 1.5M contract for the 15-16 season.

I'm sure Chris would have turned into a great d-man on his own, however, it certainly didn't hurt having one of the best Canucks defense first d-men to learn from.

Consistent. Reliable. Trustworthy.

Here's to you Dan.

 

[F A N]

Good luck in retirement Dan! I think Hamhuis underachieved a bit and have largely been underappreciated partly due to being stuck behind who are/will be HOFers. He deserves greater recognition.

 

[Hit the post]

Good luck in retirement Dan! I think Hamhuis underachieved a bit and have largely been underappreciated partly due to being stuck behind who are/will be HOFers. He deserves greater recognition.

From what I understand, Trotz often used Hamhuis to help ‘break in’ many of their D prospects/developing D back earlier in his 1st stint with the Preds.

Based on overall career with team, best UFA D signing by the Canucks (though Gillis’ job was half done in that Hamhuis wanted to sign here; I think he turned down a higher offer from Philly)

 

[LuckyDay]

I mean it’s pretty stupid that it is even asked of goalies to play b2b games nowadays but still an interesting comment. Smart of Lu

His biggest problem was the opposite of laziness. Did he ever invoke this clause? I'd be shocked if he did.

Management's requirement to get Schneider more games was what managed to get Lou the energy he needed for the 2011 run. It was the only time they reigned him in because they exploited his drive instead of holding him back which is what he needed. He collapsed after playing too many consecutive games and that was bad coaching for not seeing it.

 

[CanuckleBerry]

Definitely some great Hammer memories. Class act.

A white 2000s era Prince George Cougars jersey with #5 Hamhuis on the back is one of my most wanted jerseys.

 

[iceburg]

Was really disappointed when Hamhuis left. In the end his AAV over the past 4 years was $2.5M which is incredible value. The downside would have been that he might have made the team that much better so they wouldn't have gotten Hughes and Pettersson...

 

[iceburg]

I did an analysis for just 1st round picks from 2010 - 2016 (recent enough to account for the preference of skill/speed over size, but not so recent as to screw up the results for players who are just beginning their NHL careers like Cody Glass). It's just for the odds of picks becoming NHL players, not necessarily top 4 dmen/top 6 forwards, though.

Results and Analysis

Here are some interesting takeaways:

• 73.33% of the 1st round picks became NHL players (132 out of 180 players).
• The most notable drop off occurs at 22nd overall, where the chances go from 83% in the top 21 picks to 50% in the bottom 9 picks.
• Another drop off occurs from 11th to 13th overall, which goes from 90% in the top 10 picks to 56% from picks 11th – 13th overall (although this might be the result of a small sample size more than anything else).
• The worst spots to pick are 25th, 27th, and 29th overall, with only a 33.33% chance for each pick becoming an NHL player.
• The worst draft was 2011, which yielded a 66.66% success rate in drafting NHL players.
• The best drafts were 2012 through 2015, with a 77% success rate in drafting NHL players for each draft.

The following are the results for the success rates of picks becoming NHL players. The players listed in the brackets are the ones that failed to meet the requirements to be considered NHL players.

1. 83.33% (Yakupov)
2. 100%
3. 100%
4. 83.33% (G. Reinhart)
5. 83.33% (Dal Colle)
6. 100%
7. 100%
8. 66.66% (Burmistrov and Pouliot)
9. 100%
10. 83.33% (McIlrath)
11. 66.66% (Siemens and Morin)
12. 50% (Ryan Murphy, Grigorenko, and Gurianov)
13. 50% (Gormley, Baertschi, and Zboril)
14. 83.33% (Honka)
15. 83.33% (Senyshyn)
16. 100%
17. 83.33% (Hishon)
18. 83.33% (McNeill)
19. 66.66% (Rychel, Svechnikov)
20. 83.33% (B. Bennett)
21. 100%
22. 50% (Tinordi, Biggs, and Poirer)
23. 66.66% (Morrow, Bleackley)
24. 66.66% (Puempel, Shinkaruk)
25. 33.33% (Howden, Percy, Schmaltz, McCarron)
26. 50% (Gaunce, Scherbak, Juulsen)
27. 33.33% (Visentin, Samuelsson, Dano, Goldobin)
28. 50% (Phillips, Klimchuk, Ho Sang)
29. 33.33% (Etem, Jensen, Matteau, Carlsson)
30. 66.66% (Quenneville, Merkley)

It is worth noting that this analysis does not account for players playing on bad teams who otherwise would not be NHL regulars. This assessment was not intended to determine the quality or skill of the players, just whether they are NHL regulars. It also does not account for “late bloomers” who may prove this assessment wrong.

Methodology

So what exactly qualifies as a “regular NHL player”? The criteria depends on the year that the player was drafted. Beginning with the 2010 draft, the minimum requirements to be considered an NHL roster player are:

1. Having played at least 200 NHL games throughout the player’s career; and
2. Having played a majority of the games in the 2019-2020 season (barring injury).

For each additional draft (2011 onwards), the first requirement (total career games played) is reduced by 15% to account for the players having had less time to establish themselves by virtue of being drafted a year later. However, having played the majority of games in the 19-20 season is still a requirement regardless of a player’s draft year.

The logic behind this criteria is to ensure that the player has been a regular NHL player in previous seasons (not just an emergency call-up or fringe player for only the 19-20 season), yet is still making an impact in the NHL today.

A different criteria applies to goalies. Goalies need to have:

1. Played at least 50 NHL games throughout a goalie’s career; and
2. Played at least 20 NHL games in the 2019-2020 season.

There is a 30% reduction for each subsequent draft year for the first requirement. The reason for having a different standards being applied to goalies is because back-up goalies generally don’t play many games in a season (back-up goalies are still considered NHL regulars for the purposes of this analysis). However, this does not really impact the analysis, as there are only three goalies included in this sample (Campbell, M. Subban, and Samsonov; all of them qualified as NHL regulars).

The sample of data that was analyzed is based on six NHL drafts, from 2010 to 2015. The reason for this sample size is because: (1) it’s far enough back to fairly judge players with enough time having passed; and (2) both the league and drafting have evolved with a preference for speed and skill over size, so 2010 seemed like a good spot to draw the line.

Good effort. A couple of comments/questions:
1. Due to the small sample size (7 for each position) it's difficult to gauge the difference between say 83.33% and 66.66% when it accounts for a one player difference. It is almost certainly not statistically significant.
2. Management decisions factor into some of the results. For example, how do you distinguish whether the picks at 15 that make it are actually better than the picks at 25. Management is incentivised to give the higher picks greater opportunities for success. Another management decision example is Baertschi. He has the 200+ games. The reason he didn't play this past year was because his contract is immovable. He is definitely an NHL player but falls off because of last year and his $3M+ contract.
All that said, it seems your conclusion that there is a fall off at 22 real.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

...and selfish. I can see having an "understanding" with the coach but to actually put it in your contract is a bit much...

iirc luongo never had a problem playing back to backs did he?

the clause was probably in there because he'd played for mike keenan before. having an "understanding" is great and all but what happens if your GM gets fired and you coach gets fired and a new guy comes in and force feeds you a reckless amount of back to backs in the worst possible parts of the travel schedule as part of some kind of macho head game?

turns out of course that the crazy new coach who intentionally alienated him did it the opposite way. but not a bad idea to have your bases covered just in case.

i mean, didn't the team have an "understanding" with him that he'd be a pro? and wasn't he?

 

[VanJack]

As solid a player on and off the ice as the Canucks have ever employed. If he hadn't gone down in the playoffs in 2011, we win the Cup.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

but then also this

 

[Zippgunn]

iirc luongo never had a problem playing back to backs did he?

the clause was probably in there because he'd played for mike keenan before. having an "understanding" is great and all but what happens if your GM gets fired and you coach gets fired and a new guy comes in and force feeds you a reckless amount of back to backs in the worst possible parts of the travel schedule as part of some kind of macho head game?

turns out of course that the crazy new coach who intentionally alienated him did it the opposite way. but not a bad idea to have your bases covered just in case.

i mean, didn't the team have an "understanding" with him that he'd be a pro? and wasn't he?

Do you have any idea of how many back to back road games Keenan made Lou play? And the "crazy new coach" who "alienated" him by doing the "opposite" suggests that Lou wanted to pick and choose his every start which is, like I say, selfish. I'll say it again, he's possibly the most overrated goalie in history...

 

[VanJack]

I suppose Strombone 1 has the stats to make into the HOF one day.

But his career in VanCity will forever be marred by his meltdown in Beantown with the 'Nucks up 2-0 in the 2011 Stanley Cup final. And then his benching by Torts for the outdoor game at B.C. Place. An inglorious end to an otherwise solid career with the Canucks.

 

[CanuckleBerry]

Wonder if Hamhuis has any interest in coaching.

 

[Kryten]

Wonder if Hamhuis has any interest in coaching.

I personally doubt it. He will probably focus on family and any extra time volunteering with various church things

 

[Zombotron]

The First United Church of the Hipcheck

 

[Kryten]

The First United Church of the Hipcheck

The temple of FUCH

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

so apparently gillis (and others) talked to pierre lebrun about the horvat/cory trade — LeBrun: 7 years later, the Schneider-Horvat trade looks pretty good for Canucks

anyone with a subscription wanna give a synopsis and/or share whatever new info is coming to light here? lebrun did say on the radio that gillis said (for the first time) that the trade was contingent on horvat still being available at #9, which contradicts what i think we've all repeated for years.