For a guy named Foote, you’ve got to hand it to him. Vancouver Canucks head coach Adam Foote sure knows how to turn the narrative onto himself and away from his struggling team.

Speaking with the media on Monday, Foote dropped a number of classic and questionable quotes about analytics and the people who purvey them, all in a somewhat obvious attempt to put the negative spotlight on him and his decision-making, rather than the performance of his players on the ice.

But it wasn’t all PR-wrangling. The fact of the matter is that Foote has made some interesting decisions thus far in 2025-26, to say the least, and now that the results are what they are, some interesting questions are being raised about those interesting decisions.

One such query on a lot of minds lately is the one in the headline. Why does Evander Kane continue to lead Canucks forwards in five-on-five ice-time, despite looking all-too-often like a play- and momentum-killer out there?

First and foremost, the facts. Kane is still the even-strength ice-time leader for Vancouver forwards through 23 games, as he has been for most of the year. Right now, his average five-on-five ice-time per night is 15:58, nearly a full minute ahead of Elias Pettersson in second place (15:09). And that, on the surface, is a little bit of a headscratcher. Because neither the statsheet nor the eye-test really support Kane being such a minute-muncher.

The points aren’t there. Kane has just three goals and 11 points, which puts him on pace for just 11 goals and 39 points over a full 82-game schedule. That is quite easily the least productive Kane has ever been. It gets a little worse when we realize that Kane has scored three of those 11 points on the power play. That means he’s achieved just eight five-on-five points in 367 five-on-five minutes, which means it is taking Kane about 45 minutes of ice-time per point.

Only three Vancouver forwards who have played 10 games or more have a lower points-per-60 than Kane: Lukas Reichel, Arshdeep Bains, and Jake DeBrusk.

The underlying numbers are not all that good, either. Kane has been outscored 14-17 at five-on-five. He has a 49.09% Corsi rating, a 46.31% control of shots, a 47.81% control of scoring chances, and a 44.59% control of high-danger chances.

Now, these are not awful results in the greater context of the 2025-26 Canucks. Hardly anyone has positive advanced analytics right now. That Corsi, for example, is still the seventh-best on the team, and the control of scoring chances is eighth-best.

But that still doesn’t really explain the preponderance of minutes given to Kane. Especially since other forwards have definitely been trusted with tougher defensive deployments, while Kane’s matchups remain essentially the league average in terms of quality of competition.

Another interesting wrinkle here is that Kane leads the Canucks in both penalty minutes (36) and minor penalties (13). In other words, he’s spent the most time on the ice at five-on-five despite being in the box the most. But this actually makes sense, if you think about it. With Kane in the box, no one is playing five-on-five, so no one else is taking away from his lead in that category.

Penalties taken by the other team might be a stronger explanation here. Simply put, Kane is probably the Canucks’ best forward who does not kill penalties. They’ve got players better than Kane, to be sure, including Elias Pettersson, Conor Garland, Kiefer Sherwood, and DeBrusk, but they’re all regular PKers. That means that some of their minutes need to held in reserve, whereas that’s not an issue for Kane. Even Brock Boeser has killed an average of 30 seconds a night, compared to Kane’s 46 seconds of PK time on the entire year.

Kane has, at times, been the only player in the top-six not killing penalties. That’s often meant he’s the first guy out there again when it’s back to five-on-five, and that little reality has definitely juiced those five-on-five minute-totals.

It could be speculated that one of the reasons Kane is receiving so much ice-time from Foote is a positive impact on teammates. That’s hard to believe for fans who have been watching Kane fumble, or outright get in the way of, setups from the likes of Pettersson and Garland on a nightly basis. But the advanced stats say that, in terms of possession and chances, both Pettersson and Garland play better with Kane, and are worse off away from him.

This is a bit of a smokescreen, however, because of the excess defensive responsibility Pettersson and Garland often bear on top of their top-six duties. Think of it this way: late game, small lead, who’s out there? Chances are it’s going to be Pettersson and Garland, but not Kane. In essence, because Pettersson and Garland are often given tougher defensive assignments in their time away from Kane, especially in certain situations, their numbers are going to suffer as a result.

Kane certainly hasn’t seemed to have a positive impact on either player’s production.

In the end, it’s hard not to feel like this comes down to a stylistic preference. Foote was known for being ornery and often over-the-line during his playing days, and there aren’t many players like that left in the league, but Kane is one of them. Foote obviously enjoys that presence out there on the ice, and if his latest comments can be taken at face value, it’s going to take a lot more than an abundance of scoring chances against to change his mind.

There’s also the slightly-harsh reality that there just aren’t that many folks deserving of more ice-time at the present moment. Most of the forwards on the team are built for the bottom-six. Some, like Pettersson and Garland, are already overburdened defensively. Others, like DeBrusk, have been dreadful at five-on-five. Others, like Boeser, just aren’t built for a ton of minutes.

It may be as simple as Kane being ready, willing, and if not able, then at least as able as the rest of the options Foote has available to him right now.