Management Thread IV

[Upoil]

Looking at the offensive zone starts

Sutter 72%
Beagle 60%
Horvat 45%
Petey 38 %

Sutter in a way made sense because he had to babysit Gaudette for 3 games and Green doesn't trust him taking Dzone faceoffs. Horvat makes sense as well he needs to take more Dzone faceoffs if Gaudette is in the lineup.

Not sure why Beagle has 60% offensive zone starts and Petey 38%.

This is bothering me.

Same thing in the Benn Thread:

Benn is getting 64% o-zone starts and Quinn Hughes is getting 32%.

The reverse is actually happening - because Green doesn't trust his 3rd pairing, Hughes is actually being played away from his strengths in tough defensive minutes.

Where are your numbers from?

They appear wrong.

Player Season Totals - Natural Stat Trick

Hughes is leading the team in ozone starts.

Sooooo... #fakenews?

Also raw numbers: Hughes 25 ozone starts. Benn 9.

Edit: even if you weren't lying and you honestly got a bad source or made a mistake... you would be willing to completely throw out what your eyes have been watching to say that Benn has hindered Hughes deployment????? You watching the games right? Amazing.

The numbers between Natural Stat Trick and https://www.hockey-reference.com are different?

Hockey-Reference has 'oZS%' which they define as 'O-Zone Faceoffs / (D-Zone Faceoffs + O-Zone Faceoffs)' at even strength.

Naturalstattrick has 'Off. Zone Faceoff %' which I can tell is their 'Off. Zone Faceoffs / (Def. Zone Faceoffs + Off. Zone Faceoffs)' with a filter of 5v5.

These should be the same? Feel like I'm missing something.

Sutter at 72.7% oZS% vs 23.5% Off. Zone Faceoff %
Beagle at 60.6% oZS% vs 28.1% Off. Zone Faceoff %
Horvat at 43.8% oZS% vs 49.18% Off. Zone Faceoff %
Petterson at 38.2% oZS% vs 81.1% Off. Zone Faceoff %
Benn at 64.4% oZS% vs 29.8% Off. Zone Faceoff %

Naturalstattrick has their actual FO stats. While Hockeyreference doesn't have their underlying stats.

Are these inverses somehow? Which one would be the actual Off Zone starts? Where does their data come from? Is this independently tracked?

I tried for a bit to find some verifying data but failed in finding any sort of FO stats that were helpful. If anybody could shed some light on where my disconnect is - that'd be great.

 

[Numba9]

This is bothering me.

Same thing in the Benn Thread:





The numbers between Natural Stat Trick and https://www.hockey-reference.com are different?

Hockey-Reference has 'oZS%' which they define as 'O-Zone Faceoffs / (D-Zone Faceoffs + O-Zone Faceoffs)' at even strength.

Naturalstattrick has 'Off. Zone Faceoff %' which I can tell is their 'Off. Zone Faceoffs / (Def. Zone Faceoffs + Off. Zone Faceoffs)' with a filter of 5v5.

These should be the same? Feel like I'm missing something.

Sutter at 72.7% oZS% vs 23.5% Off. Zone Faceoff %
Beagle at 60.6% oZS% vs 28.1% Off. Zone Faceoff %
Horvat at 43.8% oZS% vs 49.18% Off. Zone Faceoff %
Petterson at 38.2% oZS% vs 81.1% Off. Zone Faceoff %
Benn at 64.4% oZS% vs 29.8% Off. Zone Faceoff %

Naturalstattrick has their actual FO stats. While Hockeyreference doesn't have their underlying stats.

Are these inverses somehow? Which one would be the actual Off Zone starts? Where does their data come from? Is this independently tracked?

I tried for a bit to find some verifying data but failed in finding any sort of FO stats that were helpful. If anybody could shed some light on where my disconnect is - that'd be great.

NHL.com is showing the inverse (EP with 80% + off zone starts) . So I think there's something wrong with hockeyreference.com

 

[Upoil]

NHL.com is showing the inverse (EP with 80% + off zone starts) . So I think there's something wrong with hockeyreference.com

Ah. I didn't realize there were additional reports on NHL.com that showed this; under 'SAT percentages' (whatever that means). Cheers for that.

Yeah. Looks like their numbers are closer to Natural Stat Trick. How in the world is Hockey-Reference showing essentially the opposite? Weird.

 

[timw33]

They didn't waive Corrado for cap purposes did they? I seem to remember they waived Corrado because he didn't earn a spot. Hutton did. Why would they "paper" Hutton?

Because Hutton was waiver ineligible, and if I remember correctly we needed to put Higgins on IR but had to have him on the day 1 roster so we needed to make a move and literally could have just papered Hutton down, put Higgins on IR, then papered Hutton back up without him having to leave Vancouver.

 

[F A N]

Because Hutton was waiver ineligible, and if I remember correctly we needed to put Higgins on IR but had to have him on the day 1 roster so we needed to make a move and literally could have just papered Hutton down, put Higgins on IR, then papered Hutton back up without him having to leave Vancouver.

But Hutton made the team. Corrado didn't. Corrado was being cut and he was behind Biega on the depth chart. This whole getting under the cap business with regards to Corrado is nonsense. The only reason Canucks fans were upset with losing Corrado to waivers was the idea that he was worth something in trade and that he had NHL potential based on his debut with the Canucks. He didn't play well enough to make the team. Plain and simple. Hutton forced his way onto the team that preseason and Biega too outplayed Corrado. Who here thought he deserved a spot over Hutton or Biega at the time, likelihood of passing through waivers aside?

 

[timw33]

But Hutton made the team. Corrado didn't. Corrado was being cut and he was behind Biega on the depth chart. This whole getting under the cap business with regards to Corrado is nonsense. The only reason Canucks fans were upset with losing Corrado to waivers was the idea that he was worth something in trade and that he had NHL potential based on his debut with the Canucks. He didn't play well enough to make the team. Plain and simple. Hutton forced his way onto the team that preseason and Biega too outplayed Corrado. Who here thought he deserved a spot over Hutton or Biega at the time, likelihood of passing through waivers aside?

That's not the point here....they didn't have to waive anyone they just needed to paper Hutton down, put Higgins on the roster for Day 1 then onto IR to open the spot, then bring Hutton back up a day later.

The point is that they unnecessarily exposed an asset to waivers, and the NHL reminded them they didn't have to and they still did it.

 

[Askel]

I'm curious to see what they do when Roussel is clear to return. They have to clear over $3m off the roster somehow. Demoting Gaudette gives them about $1m? Where are the rest going to come from? Does the above include Biega? If so then they just have to clear a little bit more.
I'm not sure how they are going to wiggle themselves out of this. If Gilman was here I'll be more at ease, but with Benning's group, who has shown they can't get under the cap on their own in the past, this might be too much for them to handle.

They only have to clear 1,6 million. Sending down a forward and McIntyre and Sautner makes them cap compliant.

 

[F A N]

That's not the point here....they didn't have to waive anyone they just needed to paper Hutton down, put Higgins on the roster for Day 1 then onto IR to open the spot, then bring Hutton back up a day later.

The point is that they unnecessarily exposed an asset to waivers, and the NHL reminded them they didn't have to and they still did it.

Okay... so your point is that Corrado could have been kept on the roster. My question is why would you do that? He didn't make the team. Hutton did. Biega outplayed Corrado. Why is Corrado not waived and sent down to Utica? He didn't deserve to be on the Canucks roster so he was cut.

 

[Canucks1096]

That's not the point here....they didn't have to waive anyone they just needed to paper Hutton down, put Higgins on the roster for Day 1 then onto IR to open the spot, then bring Hutton back up a day later.

The point is that they unnecessarily exposed an asset to waivers, and the NHL reminded them they didn't have to and they still did it.

They did need to waive Corrado. It's a 23 man roster, this was the roster in 2015/2016 game 1

Sedin Sedin Sutter
Baer Horvat Vrbata
Burrows Macann Hansen
Prust Cracknell Dorsett
Virtanen

Edler Tanev
Hamhuis Hutton
Sbisa Bartkoski
Weber Biega

Miller
Markstrom

I am not sure what is this paper work thing you are talking about it. It's not true

 

[DL44]

That's not the point here....they didn't have to waive anyone they just needed to paper Hutton down, put Higgins on the roster for Day 1 then onto IR to open the spot, then bring Hutton back up a day later.

The point is that they unnecessarily exposed an asset to waivers, and the NHL reminded them they didn't have to and they still did it.

Why are we still talking about this... maybe I’ll scroll back and find out. Maybe I don’t. Ok.. I won’t.

With what you just posted it seems clear the Canucks.. and eventually every other team.. did not want or think Corrado was an NHL Dman. People yelled and screamed about asset management at the time... but what value did this asset have. None.

Then Babcock ensured he had less than none.

 

[FroshaugFan2]

They did need to waive Corrado. It's a 23 man roster, this was the roster in 2015/2016 game 1

Sedin Sedin Sutter
Baer Horvat Vrbata
Burrows Macann Hansen
Prust Cracknell Dorsett
Virtanen

Edler Tanev
Hamhuis Hutton
Sbisa Bartkoski
Weber Biega

Miller
Markstrom

I am not sure what is this paper work thing you are talking about it. It's not true

Biega was a callup who had just cleared waivers.

Why are we still talking about this... maybe I’ll scroll back and find out. Maybe I don’t. Ok.. I won’t.

With what you just posted it seems clear the Canucks.. and eventually every other team.. did not want or think Corrado was an NHL Dman. People yelled and screamed about asset management at the time... but what value did this asset have. None.

Then Babcock ensured he had less than none.

The discussion is about the Canucks inability to manage the cap. They needed the NHL's help to set their roster for the start of the 2015-16 season.

 

[MS]

Waiving Corrado is one thing I backed Benning on at the time and will still back him on.

Corrado was absolutely awful that preseason (and was basically unplayable during his callups the previous year) and belonged nowhere near our NHL roster. The only real option was to try and get him cleared to Utica. The guy needed to play games to straighten his failing career out, not sit pointlessly in an NHL pressbox.

And when he was claimed, it wasn't a loss. And I'm not saying that in hindsight, although hindsight has certainly confirmed it.

 

[DL44]

The discussion is about the Canucks inability to manage the cap. They needed the NHL's help to set their roster for the start of the 2015-16 season.

Ah yes.
When they discovered they could keep Corrado up, but didn't care if they lost him. Fans lose their minds over a fringe asset.

 

[FroshaugFan2]

Care to provide an example of how "Benning's group... has shown they can't get under the cap on their own in the past?"

Twice they couldn't fit bonuses under the cap and were dinged with bonus overages the following season. That will likely be the case again this season.

 

[F A N]

Twice they couldn't fit bonuses under the cap and were dinged with bonus overages the following season. That will likely be the case again this season.

The relevance of this is that they have two players (Boeser and Pettersson) who earned a bunch of ELC bonuses that most do not reach.

 

[Hit the post]

Waiving Corrado is one thing I backed Benning on at the time and will still back him on.

Corrado was absolutely awful that preseason (and was basically unplayable during his callups the previous year) and belonged nowhere near our NHL roster. The only real option was to try and get him cleared to Utica. The guy needed to play games to straighten his failing career out, not sit pointlessly in an NHL pressbox.

And when he was claimed, it wasn't a loss. And I'm not saying that in hindsight, although hindsight has certainly confirmed it.

Didn't the Leafs just have him sit alot in the pressbox after claiming him? Think that was a FAR bigger impact on his lack of development. What a waste of a prospect (this is a knock on the Laffs *NOT* the Benning management).

 

[xtra]

Eriksson didn’t make this team either based on the preseason why was he not put on wiavers? Oh that’s right not to waste an asset (value aside).

you can say corrardo sucks and that’s fine but you don’t lose an asset for nothing cause then you have players like Andrew pedan and Taylor fedun playing for us in 2015-2016.

also the discussion about them not knowing the CBA is also confirmed with them giving Traymkin the wrong contract so continue on about corrado to avoid admiring your wrong.

 

[F A N]

Eriksson didn’t make this team either based on the preseason why was he not put on wiavers? Oh that’s right not to waste an asset (value aside).

you can say corrardo sucks and that’s fine but you don’t lose an asset for nothing cause then you have players like Andrew pedan and Taylor fedun playing for us in 2015-2016.

also the discussion about them not knowing the CBA is also confirmed with them giving Traymkin the wrong contract so continue on about corrado to avoid admiring your wrong.

You lost me when you said that Eriksson wasn't put on waivers because they didn't want to "waste an asset?" Like wow.

 

[MS]

Eriksson didn’t make this team either based on the preseason why was he not put on wiavers? Oh that’s right not to waste an asset (value aside).

you can say corrardo sucks and that’s fine but you don’t lose an asset for nothing cause then you have players like Andrew pedan and Taylor fedun playing for us in 2015-2016.

also the discussion about them not knowing the CBA is also confirmed with them giving Traymkin the wrong contract so continue on about corrado to avoid admiring your wrong.

Eriksson wasn't placed on waivers because the team doesn't want to be embarrassed and because there's zero chance he would ever be taken. The team would LOVE to 'waste the asset'.

Taylor Fedun playing for us instead of Corrado (or Sbisa, or Larsen, or Gudbranson) would have been terrific. He was the best defender Benning brought into the organization in his first 5 years here.

I'm all about asset management but you can take it too far. You don't keep a bad AHL defender on your NHL roster at the expense of better players just because you're scared of losing him. Corrado was horrific that preseason and not in the top 10 on our depth chart at that point.

 

[xtra]

You lost me when you said that Eriksson wasn't put on waivers because they didn't want to "waste an asset?" Like wow.

Eriksson wasn't placed on waivers because the team doesn't want to be embarrassed and because there's zero chance he would ever be taken. The team would LOVE to 'waste the asset'.

Taylor Fedun playing for us instead of Corrado (or Sbisa, or Larsen, or Gudbranson) would have been terrific. He was the best defender Benning brought into the organization in his first 5 years here.

I'm all about asset management but you can take it too far. You don't keep a bad AHL defender on your NHL roster at the expense of better players just because you're scared of losing him. Corrado was horrific that preseason and not in the top 10 on our depth chart at that point.

eriksson was a bad example but at the end of the day someone out there (Babcock) though he had value/use at the point of him being out on waivers. again I’m not saying corrardo is good it’s about giving away something for nothing.

What happened after is irrelevant to the discussion of asset management or the point that started it all that benning and company needed their hand held on cba matters (incl the traymkin contract) because they didn’t know it.

 

[Jay Cee]

eriksson was a bad example but at the end of the day someone out there (Babcock) though he had value/use at the point of him being out on waivers. again I’m not saying corrardo is good it’s about giving away something for nothing.

What happened after is irrelevant to the discussion of asset management or the point that started it all that benning and company needed their hand held on cba matters (incl the traymkin contract) because they didn’t know it.

What you don't appreciate is most teams have at least one vet they wish they hadn't overpaid as much as they did. Every team has 2-3 guys who they thought had promise where the clock has run out of waiver eligibility. How do these players have value?

All things being equal it would be nice if they did but they don't. We can only pay our team so much and we can only have so many people on our pro roster and everyone is in the same situation.

The extreme level of asset management some people aspire to is in fantasy land. Sometimes you just take your lumps and hope you didn't waste your pick too badly and you didn't invest too many years and money.

 

[F A N]

eriksson was a bad example but at the end of the day someone out there (Babcock) though he had value/use at the point of him being out on waivers. again I’m not saying corrardo is good it’s about giving away something for nothing.

Babcock as in Maple Leafs coach Mike Babcock? If he thought Corrado had value/use at the point that he was picked up on waivers he either didn't show it or changed his opinion the moment he saw Corrado in practice. Credit to you for an original take.

 

[4Twenty]

What you don't appreciate is most teams have at least one vet they wish they hadn't overpaid as much as they did. Every team has 2-3 guys who they thought had promise where the clock has run out of waiver eligibility. How do these players have value?

All things being equal it would be nice if they did but they don't. We can only pay our team so much and we can only have so many people on our pro roster and everyone is in the same situation.

The extreme level of asset management some people aspire to is in fantasy land. Sometimes you just take your lumps and hope you didn't waste your pick too badly and you didn't invest too many years and money.

The good teams do it less and get value out of their failed prospects more.

Benning has spent years chasing these Corrado level prospects.

Expecting more out of the guy being paid millions to do the job isn’t extreme. I find myself looking at the good teams and the good managers and they seem to be able to manage assets better, I think it’s fair and reasonable to expect more.

 

[Jay Cee]

The good teams do it less and get value out of their failed prospects more.

Benning has spent years chasing these Corrado level prospects.

Expecting more out of the guy being paid millions to do the job isn’t extreme. I find myself looking at the good teams and the good managers and they seem to be able to manage assets better, I think it’s fair and reasonable to expect more.

No arguments there I think. We chased bad players for the most part and any team does and should make very little movement in age gap territory for assets or even claiming on waivers.

 

[Hit the post]

No arguments there I think. We chased bad players for the most part and any team does and should make very little movement in age gap territory for assets or even claiming on waivers.

We'd have two such contracts had not Benning got lucky in unloading Guds for a decent player in Pearson.

Useless trivia: Lynn Patrick was the GM of the Bruins that dealt Ken Dryden to the Montreal Canadian for "two ham & eggers". He was also the GM of the Bruins that got Bobby Orr signed to their protection list (or whatever it was called back then).