I’ve been pretty consistent about what we could expect from Elias Pettersson in the SHL next season. At least, I think that about half a point per game rate would be encouraging. That’s about what most high-end prospects produce in that league after their draft year. I’d have higher expectations, but I think Pettersson’s lack of muscle will perhaps make the transition more difficult for him than it is for most prospects. These kinds of predictions aren’t an area of expertise for yours truly, but I think half a point per game is the floor for Pettersson. Ideally, he gets closer to the .75 point per game rate.
That’s an interesting way of wording that question. In short, I don’t think it’s likely that Brock Boeser will hit the 30 goal mark, but I wouldn’t rule it out entirely. He’s a hell of a player.
I think ownership will have to make a decision about Canucks general manager Jim Benning’s future at the end of the season. There are two seasons left on Benning’s contract, including this upcoming campaign. It’s unusual that a general manager enters his final season without a contract extension. When that does happen, it’s usually a sign he’s on shaky ground. I don’t think Benning is a lame duck general manager yet, but in another year he will be, barring a contract extension.
I don’t think there really is a point that we start worrying about Bo Horvat’s contract situation. Neither side seems the type to let this drag into the season, and so what if it does? Does it cost the Canucks an extra two-to-three wins if Horvat misses a month because of a contract dispute? Does that matter? Jason Botchford was on TSN 1040 AM talking about the negotiations between Horvat and the Canucks this week, and he said that the Canucks want him a little closer to Brandon Sutter’s $4.65-million than the $5-million we hear Horvat’s camp wants. That’s worth fighting for if we’re talking about an eight-year contract. Those little differences matter.
A couple of Benning’s move stick out to me as his best. The Alex Burrows for Jonathan Dahlen swap is downright highway robbery. I don’t think the Jannik Hansen deal for Nikolay Goldobin and a fourth-round pick is that far behind. And yes, drafting Elias Pettersson is commendable as well. I’m not going to mark a clear favourite; I’m not a fan, after all. But these are a handful of moves that I think make up his best work as the Canucks general manager.
  1. Loui Eriksson
  2. Daniel Sedin
  3. Markus Granlund
  4. Brock Boeser
  5. Sven Baertschi
  6. Sam Gagner
  7. Anton Rodin
  8. Brendan Gaunce
  9. Reid Boucher
  10. Jake Virtanen
I made this list keeping the current state of each player in mind, and not accounting for where they’ll be in a year from now or further on.
I’m going to say they’re not especially good. It’s not the Canucks’ scheme that is responsible for Alexander Edler’s decline. He’s just getting old; he’s not the player he once was and isn’t likely to ever return to that form.
For me, it’s about the process. The year that the Toronto Maple Leafs finished last in the league, they had an above 50% Corsi For, for example. There are ways that bad teams can play good hockey. It won’t make up for the lack of finishing talent, but that’s a good omen for me that once Canucks head coach Travis Green has some to work with, that he’ll make the best of their abilities. If the Canucks’ underlying results are relatively strong, then that’s about all you can ask for at this stage.
I have no clue.
If Petrus Palmu hits his ceiling, the Canucks will have a shifty middle-six scorer who can buzz around the net in spite of his smaller stature and create offence out of thin air. Wouldn’t that be nice?
Guest answer by Jeremy Davis, the creator of pGPS himself.
I started working on it at the end of 2015 after Cam Lawrence and Josh Weissbock were hired by the Panthers, signifying the end of our ability to use PCS. The goal was to recreate what we’d lost, and then expand upon it, which I think I’ve accomplished, especially in the realm of visual representation.
I have performed some testing on it at various stages (but regrettably I have yet to publish them – I still intend to do so in the future), by running the formula on players from a decade or so ago to see how the projections correlate with actual success. At present, the performance of the metric depends on the league, and a larger sample size of NHL players produced within the league tends to increase accuracy. The OHL has the highest r-squared value, followed by other CHL leagues, the NCAA and the SHL. Russian leagues often suffer because good players have an alternative league to play in, meaning skill (and production) is far more the only factor determining whether they play a certain number of games in the NHL, and thus accuracy is lower as a result of this unpredictability.
In any case, the system is never going to be 100% accurate, nor is it designed to be. It inherently suffers from the biases of decision makers of years past who determine which player reach the next level. I like to consider the percentages it produces as betting odds. They assign a likelihood to a player, and it’s up to the team to use everything else at their disposal to determine whether the player can beat the odds