The Hockey PDOcast - Episode 283: Heavy Podcasting

Episode Date: March 19, 2019

Andrew Berkshire joins the show to discuss the playoff races and how the current point system takes the fun out of it (1:20), the importance of a good power play versus good penalty kill (5:40), the best and worst broadcasts in the league (14:55), the pros and cons of 'heavy hockey' (26:10), available GM and coach candidates (34:25), the three stages of the Blues season (51:40), and how vulnerable the Predators and Jets are heading into the playoffs (58:50).See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices If you'd like to gain access to the two extra shows we're doing each week this season, you can subscribe to our Patreon page here: www.patreon.com/thehockeypdocast/membership If you'd like to participate in the conversation and join the community we're building over on Discord, you can do so by signing up for the Hockey PDOcast's server here: https://discord.gg/a2QGRpJc84 The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Media Inc. or any affiliate.

Are you ready for the most ridiculous internet sports show you have ever seen? Welcome to React, home of the most outrageous and hilarious videos the web has to offer. So join me, Rocky Theos and my co-host, Raiders Pro Bowl defensive end, Max Crosby, as we invite your favorite athletes, celebrities, influencers, entertainers in for an episode of games, laughs, and of course the funniest reactions to the wildest web clips out there. Catch React on YouTube, and that is React, R-E-A-X-X. Don't miss it. This podcast episode is brought to you by Coors Light.

These days, everything is go, go, go. It's non-stop hustle all the time. Work, friends, family, expect you to be on 24-7? Well, sometimes you just need to reach for a Coors Light because it's made to chill. Coors Light is cold-loggered, cold filtered, and cold package. It's as crisp and refreshing as the Colorado Rockies. It is literally made to chill. Coors Light is the one I choose when I need to unwind.

So when you want to hit reset, reach for the beer that's made to chill. Get Coors Light and the new look delivered straight to your door with Drizzly or Instacart. Celebrate responsibly. Coors Brewing Company, Golden Colorado. Progressing to the mean since 2050, it's the HockeyPedioCast. With your host, Dimitri... Welcome to the HockeyPedioCast. My name is Demitri Philofovich.

And he's my good buddy, Andrew Berkshire. Andrew, what's going on, man? Not much. It's Monday, so it's my day off. I'm just jazz to be on the PDOCast. It's fun to do all of your shows every time. And I'm just happy to be talking to you, Dimitri, as always. Yeah.

Well, and I'm excited. I'm always happy to have you on the show, of course, but you and I are going to last time out, late last week, I did a mailbag podcast, Emily Kaplan, I recommend everyone go check that out. And there were so many interesting, thoughtful questions from our listeners that came in that I kind of had a bit of an overflow.

and I had some leftover, and I figured you and I would go through it as well, because we are in that period of the season now where it's kind of that, a little bit of that lull, like there's the trade deadline, and it seems like we get so swept up, and then we talk about it and all the potential scenarios and the speculation, and then it feels like for the week after, we, like, still kind of dissect how the guys look in their new uniforms and the fallout from that, but then now we're still not necessarily, I don't know, like the playoff races aren't necessarily that compelling to me for the most part, so it seems like we're just kind of killing time a bit until the postseason.

know if you feel that way. Yeah, I think it's like the same group of teams that have been in that playoff race for the last little while now. So you've, if you've gone over it a couple times, you've gone over it a million times. You know, there's only so much you can say about it. With that said, I have an article upcoming on Sportsnet about the playoff races. So please check that out. But yeah, I feel like after a while, you kind of get bored of trying to fill that in. And you got to ask some questions. You got to go in some different. different directions, maybe get a little bit more esoteric and more abstract. So then you go to the mailbag, right?

Yes. Yeah. Well, I mean, with the playoff race, like, I know this is kind of, it defeats the purpose of it because I think the NHL views the loser point as, you know, a net positive because it keeps teams in the race. It keeps fan bases engaged for as long as possible because their team is still technically in it. And it provides, it kind of boosts that sort of artificially inflated parity than NHL loves to boast

about all the time, but I actually feel like it kind of has the opposite effect where it really takes the wind out of the race of it just because, like, you look at the standings and technically it's like, oh, my team's only four or five points out with 10 games left. Like, that seems very doable. But then it's like every single night, it seems like all of these teams are playing in these three-point games. And you watch some of the games yesterday on Sunday in particular. And it's like, there were some games where it's like, like, that Islander's wild game, it's like both teams are just like, okay, we, you know, we're in opposite conferences. We could both definitely use a point.

Let's get to the overtime and then see what happens after that. And then the Islander score quickly as soon as both teams have been guaranteed at least one point. And so all these games that are dishing out three points and each team involved is getting something like it makes, I don't know, it makes it seems sort of like implausible that teams are actually going to rise up the standings. And once you look at it that way, it really sort of kind of deflates the race as a whole. So I think the league definitely needs to do something about that moving forward. Yeah.

I mean, I think we've been banging that drum for. years and years now that, you know, the win, the way the points are awarded and the standings needs to change. It probably won't happen. You're right. I think the league does like the artificially inflated parity and keeping teams in longer. But you're right that when it gets to like game 65 or so, the races are for the most part over. So like you have more teams that stick in it from game like 40 to 65 where they might think they're in it for the trade deadline and there's some like manufactured excitement that way. But by the end of the season or close to the end of the season, it's so hard to make up that ground. And like you said, the teams that are looking to

make the playoffs right now, yeah, they have 10 games left and you might be like two or three points on. You're like, oh, I can make that up. But like every team that you're trying to pass of those 10 games is probably going to win six of them, you know, or at least get 60 percent of the points. So you're looking at 12 points. You have to get 16 points out of a possible 20 just to break even. So you better get that tiebreaker, right? So like at that point, can any team that's on, the edge of making the playoffs be expected to get 17 out of 20 available points at the end of the season. And then can that team expected to also compete in the first round? It kind of like, it reminds me of the Ottawa senators a few years back when they went on that miraculous run.

And then they just got absolutely destroyed in the first round by a Canadians team that was good but not great. And, you know, oftentimes we see that. And I think we saw with the St. Louis Blues a little bit this season, which I know is one of our questions. but they went on that miraculous run to get back to the playoff race, and now they're kind of running out of energy a little bit. Yeah, no, for sure. I mean, it's very tough to sustain. And then the 82 game part of this equation is a whole other thing.

But, I mean, I think the league is definitely going to prop up, especially a team like Arizona Coyotes makes the playoffs and sort of how there's all these stats of like, oh, where they were around Christmas time or where they were in January and how they've made this surge up the standings. They're obviously going to point to that as an example that the system does work and the teams can make up that difference. but I think that is kind of more so an anomaly than it's kind of the exception that proves the rule.

But anyways, let's get into some of these questions because there are some good ones, and we've got a bunch of them, and we're going to try to hammer through as many of them as we can. And one of them was, and this is kind of an interesting one to start us off here. Matt A underscore A underscore champ asks, what's a bigger factor to winning? A good power play or a good penalty game? Yeah, this one I found super interesting because I have like my opinion. on it. Right. But I don't think there's like a definitive scientific answer, right? Like I feel like obviously

you can skin the cat many different ways. You could get by with a bad penalty killing good, powerful, and vice versa, or being average, both and being a dominant pilot and five team. There isn't just necessarily one way to be a successful hockey team. Yeah, and I feel like this is one of those things where like, I don't even have a hypothesis. It's just like something that sounds logical in my head. And some people might hear me say and be like, wow, this guy's an idiot. And some people will be like, oh, that makes sense. So I'm like, I'm not

expecting any, you know, like brilliant revelations here. But in my mind, like, nobody is afraid of a good penalty kill, right? It is functional and it can really help you out. And, you know, maybe it allows you to play with a little bit more reckless abandon while, you know, you're at even strength and you're not afraid to take penalties. But if you have a wicked power play that's, you know, crushing it like the Washington Capitals of the last 10 years, right? Teams are going to be afraid to take infractions against you, and that gives you a little bit more room to create offense at even strength.

And I feel like that actually creates more positive impact at even strength than a great penalty kill does, right? There's that fear that's introduced. So, like, if you're looking at just the impact of each special team, they're essentially the same. But I think having a great power play also has a really positive impact at evens. And I think that's where the differentiation comes from. But that's just me.

Yeah. Yeah, though it's a really interesting sort of, like, philosophical question. I mean, if you just look at, like, the top penalty kill teams this year versus the top power play teams this year, you know, there's a little bit of an overlap, but I think, you know, something you keep coming back to is, like, a good power play is generally a sign of a really talented, skilled team, right?

Like, if you look at the top powerplay teams, it's Tampa Bay, it's Boston, Winnipeg. Pittsburgh, San Jose, Toronto, Washington, Calgary. Like, it's all the teams you'd expect there. Now you see Florida and Colorado maybe there as well in the top 10 in terms of efficiency. And it kind of checks out in the fact that both those teams, while they're flawed, have amazing top, top lines and top, top skill players. And it makes sense that they also have a good power play.

Whereas with a penalty kill, there's very few teams where, like, Tampa Bay is the top penalty kill team. So maybe this sort of just speaks to how good they are at every single thing. but there's like a couple guys there like Blake Coleman on on New Jersey or Michael Grabmer now that he's back with Arizona or an Anthony Sorrelli on Tampa Bay where it's like their like legitimate threats are on the penalty kill but you're right I don't think it's striking the fear into opposing coaches and being like oh god we can't what are we got to what are we going to do are we going to like kind of be a more conservative attack here in the power play just

to compensate for these guys that might generate a chance every once in a while on the penalty kill like that's not a thing that's happening in your game plan yeah I think the main thing is like the thing you have to watch out for on the like while you're on the power play for aggressive penalty kills is those passes across the the blue line right and I think as much as that's still a part of power plays the point shot is drifting away a lot so I I'm noticing a lot more defensemen trying to get the puck in deep and engaging the cycle a lot more so maybe there's like less of a risk of that with good power plays I mean I'd have to look into it more aggressively and and see if, you know, great power plays that take,

they create a lot of chances, give up more chances as well, but I haven't put in the work on that at this moment. Well, and I think, yeah, I think it's like the power, the power play, if you have the weapons, you have the horses for it. Like, it's kind of linked to winning in that way. I guess it's kind of like the chicken or the egg, but like I feel like with penalty kills, it's a lot easier to devise a game plan,

sort of cover for you don't necessarily need to have a grade a penalty killers you can kind of or we can find those guys easier because they might be less expensive and they're just kind of fast guys who are kind of tenacious and bug opposing guys with their speed but you're not necessarily paying for top penalty killers whereas with a power play no like you can't really you're not going to take a guy and just be like okay like he's not really good but all of a sudden we're going to put him into the system and he's going to kill it as a power play guy like so i think that's the sort of differentiation when you know those two. But it's, the penalty kill is such a tough thing for us to, to quantify.

I remember like you and I were talking about this, I think even like last summer or two years ago and where we were doing a similar mailbag and someone asked about a system versus actual player and sort of looking at the discrepancies between if a guy switched teams and whether he's carried over the penalty kill success of different teams. And we were talking about that as a potential fun exercise to do sometime down the road. But I feel like there's still a lot of a lot of work to be done in terms of quantifying and analyzing and actually evaluating what goes into that penalty kill portion of the game. Yeah, it's really interesting.

And I think you're right that for the most part, I mean, you probably still have to have some pieces that you can't have just a bunch of HL pluggers and have great penalty kill. I think there's like certain skills that you need to have, like guys who have good agility, right, to cover lanes, good sticks and the ability to just like get the puck out quickly. But you don't need to pay huge amounts of money to get eight decent. and penalty killers in your team. Whereas on the power play, as much as power play offense is more system generated than even strength offense, you need to have player types, right? Like, I think this is the thing that, you know, living in Montreal, I've seen this year, the worst power play

in the league, you have lots of playmakers on that team in Max Domi, Jonathan Durenne, and you have, you know, Brennan Gallagher, Andrew Shaw for Netfront presence. So like, you've got some pieces there, but the Canadians don't have a single bona fide sniper outside of Brennan Gallagher, and Gallagher is sitting in the net front on the powerplay, so he can't get his shot off. Right? So, like, they're deferring to Shea Weber, who has a great shot on the power play,

but you're still taking, like, that should be a tertiary option to shoot from the point. Like, power plays just don't do that anymore, not successful ones. So without, like, this is the one area where I think they've really missed Alex Kilchenyuk and Max Patchretti. Patchretti's never been a huge powerplay score, but his shot from the middle of the ice there

where he would camp out was something that had to be respected by penalty killers, right? So he draws coverage, which opens lanes for other guys, and Alex Gauchennik just had a lethal one-timer, and those two together worked really well. They don't have that anymore, so they just haven't been able to format a good power play all year long. It's been, like, hilarious to watch how inept they are,

despite having some pretty good offensive players. So, like, you need to have the pieces there, as much as it's also system generated. Whereas, like we said, the penalty kill, you can kind of mix and match and find some decently skilled players to fit in those holes. Right. Yeah, I know, like the teams that

are good generally, where we think of them as being good teams, but have bad power plays for whatever reason, even though they might have other skilled guys or like the Montreal, the Columbus is, and the nationals of the world, and sort of the common thing I see from watching those teams is they do have just like,

maybe a bit of it is by necessity, as you mentioned, with Montreal, but some of it is just like this outdated tactic of just centering your entire powerplay around shots from the point with your defensemen and we sort of come to know that like the way you're going to pick apart an opposing penalty kill is with a lot of that east-west action between your two forward and two skilled guys so like getting that type of movement is much more important than just having a big shock in the point they can tee it up all the time so I think that's something we've we've definitely come to know and I think I don't know without looking at the numbers for this I just imagine that The repeatability of a good power play if you have the players is much easier. It feels like the penalty kill would be a much more volatile thing from year to year and be more dependent obviously on your goalie being your best penalty killer with that cliche as opposed to like we know that like the San Jose's and the Washington's of the world because of the guys they've had for all these years are always near the top of the list

and that's for a reason. And I feel like sort of that confidence in that also leads me towards that being, you know, to answer our listeners' question, a bigger factor for winning just because it is a bit more of a predictable or translatable skill. Yeah, I mean,

it's a lot easier to build a competent power play when you're starting every year with Ovechkin and Baxter, right? Like, if you've got those two, you can plug and play

some other skilled players and it's probably going to work out pretty well. Yeah, that's going to know else's bias. Just get, get Joe Thornton, get Alex Ovechkin, get those guys, and then everything else is used.

Get near generational players and your power play will be okay. Yes, yeah. Okay, cool. Yeah, if Seattle wants to hire a Berkshire, Philipovich ticket to the under team, we can bring that type of savvy to the organization. So John Solo at Darn Sock asks, what teams have the best broadcasts?

He says he's a Rangers fan, dabbles in watching opponents feeds just for the grins. Mention that it is in Dallas and can't stand Razor and can stand via Stars broadcast, which is, I almost didn't want to include that in this question because it kind of like decreases the legitimacy of his take because that's a battle. Yeah, I got to say, like, I'm sorry, John, I got to call you out a little bit that Razor's amazing. Yeah. Like, I find the Dallas Stars broadcast is one of the best in the league.

I've definitely watched less hockey this year than usual, just taking a bit of a break. And I, like, Sport Logic has a function where I can watch essentially play, after the game and just look at what I want to look at. So I have been watching as much live hockey. So I don't have as much experience as usual with the other broadcast. But I like getting good information on the broadcast, but I'm also very much aesthetically driven. And so like there's people who are very good play-by-play announcers.

Would you call that announcers? Yeah. That I don't really care for. Like I think Jim Houston technically is a very good play-by-play. I play caller, but I don't like his inflections as much. So, like, I'll prefer a Bob Cole who gets 80% of things wrong, but I just find his tone that he calls the game with so pleasant. So, like, I really like, he mentioned the Rangers.

I really like, I think his name is Rosen, the guy who doesn't play my play for the Rangers. I really like his voice. I don't know what it is. I just really like it. It's, like, very pleasing to my ear. I agree. So that's like one of the guys that really stands out for me. I forget who his name is, but one of the guys who does Carolina's broadcast once in a while.

I think he's their full-time guy now. I really like as well. Yeah, John Forsland. He does. Yes, that's the one, Forzland. Yeah, he does some NBC games as well. It feels like they rely on unless they obviously go with the go-to Doc Emrick pairing with Edzo and Pierre McGuire. You're right.

I think all out of it obviously is going to be subjective. And I think different people are going to like different things just based on sort of what they like from the, from the voice more so than sort of the subjective actual call nature of it and sort of what they're saying but i agree with you i think razor's amazing for dallas and it feels like there's like a functionality to his wordplay as well and and some of the fun words he uses as opposed to doc emrick where he's just like saying stuff that doesn't even make sense just because it's different from the word past when he's like saying like they got sockered and got off board it's like it feels like you're trying to let's just like just relax okay just just call again well and he's got his

his go-to is right like off the pipe yeah yeah you're like okay calm down yeah chill out it's like off the outside of the bottom of the net i think there's also like uh it feels like you're kind of like conditioned um when there's like a certain team calling a game it just gives it like a kind of a big game feel and i feel that way with with ray ferraro and gordon miller or uh actually my personal favorite is is i mean ferrara and miller gives you that vibe of uh growing up watching the world juniors as well or in the past handful of years like it kind of adds that um element to it but I think my personal favorite actually is Ferraro and Chris Cuthbert when they get to do the games together. I think they're amazing. I remember they did like the Vegas LA series for as short as it was last year. Definitely for NBC and they were a blast. I was like going out of my way to watch as many of those games possible even though it was such a blowout in favor of Vegas and it wasn't necessarily the best hockey just because I really enjoyed everything they were saying. So it's amazing how sometimes like there can be such a positive effect from that and then sometimes the inverse how like There's certain teams.

I know, like, with the NHL TV function, I think it automatically sends you to the home feed when you're switching over to a game. And then there's, like, certain teams like Columbus or Detroit or Pittsburgh where it's like, I dread their home games just because if I'm flipping over to it, I know there's going to be like a three-second gap where I have to hear what their commentary team is saying. I'm like, I really hope it's a commercial break. Yeah, root sports is terrible. Altitude, Colorado avalanche is terrible. I think that he's not as terrible, but I don't like Jack Edwards in Boston. I know some people like him. I guess he's an acquired taste, but I just, I don't like the very cheap theatrics.

I find that he's just like very fake to me. And I know he's a real fan, and that's great. But it just seems so overproduced in the way that he talks about the game. And I find him, they're like anti-informative. Yeah. And it's always why, like, whenever there's a fight in a Boston game and the Bruins player could get pummeled. And they're like, oh, the Bruins player's beating the crap out of them now. And I'm like, just say what's happening.

You don't have to pretend that it's the opposite. It's okay. The Bruins beat people up all the time. They can get beat up once in a while. You don't have to like pretend that they've never been hurt. So they annoy me. I really like, I mean, this is, people will say it's biased because I know he's a friend of both of ours, but I really like Mike Johnson, whatever he's on color.

I think part of the reason why we both like him is, like, we were both friends with him is we liked his commentary and then we kind of like reached out to him and got to know him that way. So I find he's probably among the most informative color guys in the league, if not the most informative and very easy to talk to as well. If you ask him a question or bring something up, he's, you know, willing to go back and forth on issues and things like that. So I really like him. Well, what MJ does the best, I think, and I think you'd agree with this is that he like, he adds that element of obviously having played in the NHL so he can add personal identity dills but he's not necessary like his whole his whole schick isn't I've played in

an NHL so I know and I don't have to explain myself to you like he doesn't come in with that arrogance he he's willing to listen and talk and have a conversation but also you know change his mind on certain topics I'm sure now that he's been in the game and he's been following a lot of this stuff since he's retired I'm sure his opinions and certain topics have change from when he was a player and that speaks to sort of that nature of being able to evolve and adapt as new information present itself and and that's why i feel like he he can explain his stuff as opposed to just you know having that arrogance of having played so he knows and you don't because you didn't yeah he comes by everything honestly right there's no um conceit in the way that he

talks about things and i love that i really appreciate that with him i think you know you learn more from people like that than the people who just make the argument from authority. And, you know, you never played the game at the NHL levels. You don't know what you're talking about. And there's, in some instances, that can be true. But I think that when you start that way, people, you know, harden their hearts to put it dramatically. Yeah.

Well, speaking of dramatically, yeah, your point about Jack Edwards, I do think he's a bit of an acquired taste. Like, he's definitely grown on me in the past handful of years because I just, like, I've embraced the fact that he's just the biggest homer ever. and you're never going to get like if you watch an S in broadcast and you watch him call the game, you're never going to get this impartial objective opinion. Like it's clearly going to be a Brune-centric. And so if you acknowledge that and you know what you're getting into,

I find it much more palatable and it can be enjoyable. And his enthusiasm for the Bruins and for the game definitely comes across. And so I kind of enjoy that sometimes as well. Like it is a bit more upbeat. But you're right. I mean, when they beat Carolina the other day and he's like talking about like stripping the fat off of a whale and you know, you just like, oh, but you need to relax a little bit right now. Like, this is a hockey game.

Just chill. There's kids watching. Yeah, one thing I will give Jack Edwards and the Nesson broadcast is as much as their Bruins homers, they will, like, make a big deal if another team scores. Whereas with root sports, there have been goals against the penguins where I was watching and I didn't even know the puck went in because they didn't say anything. Yeah. They just, like, kept going on on the tangent that they were talking about, like, not even, like,

just monotone and then like a minute later when the face loss is going on they're like and i guess uh the penguins have a loud one it's like what are you guys watching the game like what's going on did that go in is there a review like well they're the crazy they're the wildest with like when there's like questionable hits or a way there's like a penalty call in question and like just how like heavily they're campaigning for the penguins to always get a five-minute powerplay for a major on like a just regular body check against abgeny walkin and Yeah, they're, they're infuriating. The Columbus guy is really bug me for some reason.

I think Carolina, as you mentioned, is really good from the local ones. I think Vegas is really good. Nashville's really good. Chris Mason has some of that, like John Silleman, you were saying about being willing to adapt and actually speak on stuff and then Dallas. So, yeah, there's a good mix there. I do recommend people, especially if you're watching a ton of games and you're bouncing around and you're not just watching your favorite team to dabble in some of these other broadcasts

because they all have a different flare for it. and I feel like some of them certainly are trying to incorporate different elements into it as well. So, yeah, there's a lot of good stuff out there and obviously the national ones we mentioned. So anyways, let's take a quick break here. We hear from a sponsor and then we're going to pick up with some of these other questions and the other things. Sounds good. Sponsoring today's episode of the HockeyPedio cast is Seek. Seek knows that getting tickets online can be far too complicated with hundreds of websites and varying levels of reliability.

It's hard to know who to trust out there. But that's why Seekek is the way to go because they're going to take all that guessing out of the equation for you and do all the work for you, making your life easier, saving you time, money, and effort. So you keep going to pull millions of tickets to one place so you can easily find the seats you want for a price you're willing to pay. There's nothing quite like being there in person and seekeek's going to get you closer to action for a great value.

They're designed to make your ticket buying experience easier than ever before by searching multiple ticket sites and grading every ticket based on value. Seek helps you immediately identify the best seats that fit your budget. Plus, every purchase is fully guaranteed so you can shop for tickets on Zique with with confidence, knowing that what you pay for is what you're going to get. All of that is why you need to make Seekkeek your go-to ticket source for everything from sports and concerts to comedy and theater. And if that wasn't enough, as my listener, you're going to get $10 of your first Seek purchase. And I highly recommend that if you've been holding out until now, you get into it.

You dip your toes in the water. You dabble a little bit. You go out to a game. Whether it's, listen, this is the best time of the sporting year, I think. Whether it's, you know, baseball starting or NHL and NBA playoffs coming up around the corner. You've got March Madness. There's so much good stuff happening that I'm sure there's something out there that's going to appeal to you that's going to be interesting. And I highly recommend you go on Seeky to check it out because they are a one-stop shop.

They're going to really do all of it for you. And I've found constantly whenever I've used it to go to any of these events that they really do save you that time, money, and effort. And you can't ask for more. So all you have to do is download the Seeky app and enter the promo code PDO. That's promo code PDO for $10 off your first purchase on CECD. geek. Now let's get back to the show. So I have a question here from Johnny Joe Star who's

citing a recent article that friend of the podcast and good friend of ours Dom Lose Chicken wrote about heavy hockey and he asks which contenders play quote unquote heavy hockey and do teams that don't play this style have a chance of winning the cup this season. Did you have a chance

to check that out and sort of give a little bit of thought to the idea of that or at least what it represents in your mind? Yeah, I did. And what I wanted to do was cross-reference in, like, entirety, the list that he came up with for heavy hockey versus some of the stats that I have access to. And I didn't have time to do all of that. But what I did find interesting is that his estimation came exactly in line on number one with the actual data that I was looking at. So the Vegas Golden Knights are now confirmed in both look and feel to be the heaviest hockey team in the league.

Right. well i think the definition of this is important right and sort of the distinction because i think Vegas is a great example of uh you know like functionality of it right like especially last year when you watch them play um it's that forecheck of theirs that generates a ton of turn over a ton of pressure it prevents the opposing defenseman from clearing the puck cleanly and sort of making them think twice about what they're going to do with it and maybe making decisions faster than they would otherwise. And I think they're really successful because of it in the neutral zone.

And there's that element to it. And I think there's this misconception where people like you and I would be against that. And it couldn't be further from the truth. I think where we have an issue with it is when you're sacrificing the functionality just for the sake of having guys who throw body checks because they're constantly changing, chasing the game and chasing the play and never have it on their stick. And so if you can have players that can play that type of style, without giving anything up on the skill department

or not necessarily having to pick one or the other, obviously you'd prefer that. The problem is that, and maybe this will change in the coming years as the game has evolved and gotten faster and people's thought processes have changed, but I know in the past those guys can become overrated and overpriced, and so you kind of either have to take them really high in the draft or you have to spend a lot of the on the minimum free agency or via trade,

and then at that point you're sacrificing skill, and that's where I have an issue with it. Yeah, I think that's where, We're in total agreeance there. And I think we talked about this before when we were looking at Carolina's acquisition of Michael Furland, right? We were talking about the owner saying that they wanted to get bigger and get tougher in the off season. We were like, oh, no. Then they get Michael Furland?

Okay. Well, that's good. That's actionable skill, you know, like actionable heavy hockey. So, yeah, the Vegas Golden Knights are a really smart team in the way that they not only play, but in the way that they acquire talent. they tend to overpay a little bit, but I think it's because they can afford to with all the picks they've had in the first three drafts. But I think most people aren't going to look at a guy like Mark Stone

and say, this guy plays heavy hockey, but he happens to be one of the best forecheckers in the league. Like, he's just incredible. And two of this stats that I look at when I'm trying to quantify heavy hockey or like forechecking ability are, number one, how often are teams removing possession from opponents in their own defensive zone? So, you know, when the defending team has the puck and they're getting ready to break it out,

how often are you engaging with them, poking the puck off their stick, putting the body on them, moving the puck away from them, how often are you getting in lanes, intercepting passes, and how often are you actually recovering those pucks that you create, those loose pucks that you create? So Vegas leads the league in loose puck recoveries in the offensive zone. There's a reason for that. One team that really jumped up from Dom's breakdown to the data that I had was Carolina. They were in the, I think, lower half or like almost dead even middle of Dom's breakdowns. They're not a big team.

They're not a weighty team, but they're a very effective smart team in the way that they forcheck. And they're second in the league in the loose puck recoveries. And some of the other teams are teams that you know have a good forecheck, right? St. Louis, San Jose, Winnipeg, Tampa Bay, Boston. Those teams are teams that make more sense. But Carolina is a team that kind of flies under the radar. Yeah, no, I agree with that. and their fortrick has been a big reason for why they sort of generate that kind of similar to Vegas last year, I think,

kind of like a bit of that brandic, health or skeletor pace that works in their favor and works with the talent they have. Yeah, and like you, sorry to interrupt you, but like Los Angeles, right, used to have the most, like, devastating forecheck in the league when they were winning Cubs. Right. But now, like, as the league has gotten faster, they're a big, heavy team, but they're just too slow. They actually have the worst forecheck in the league this year in terms of effectiveness. They recover the fewest pucks in the league. So that's super interesting to me to see a team that, you know, at once was at the pinnacle of this under the Daryl Sutter years and like the max talent of their roster. And now they're just wasting away.

And there's a reason why, you know, when you're a team that has trouble generating high danger scoring chances at the best of times, but you kind of win on volume and your bread and butter forecheck kind of falls by the wayside because you're now too slow to catch up to teams, you're not going to be very good. And that's exactly what's happened to L.A. Well, and part of that is the game getting faster. And then a bigger part of that is those guys aging out, right? Yes, exactly. I remember the time where people were like pointing to L.A. as an example of how, like, you do need big players in the playoffs to succeed. And it's like, well, yeah, if those guys are going to be onzee Kopitar and Jeff Carter in their prime,

sure, yeah, I will take their size to go along with all the skill they have. But it, and an interesting component of this as well from a roster building perspective, it doesn't necessarily matter like in the present now in terms of this question of winning the cup this year but i think we'd be in agreement that um if you're projecting forward um you know especially as you get into the late 20s and then early 30s of different player types i imagine there's like a lot more fear about um heavier more physical players kind of like a wayne simmons now for example he's going to be an interesting topic this summer and his impending free agency and sort of how he's looked this year is like you don't want to invest necessarily long term and

type of player style because it seems like it's going to age worse and once you you have less speed to lose while still being effective so if you lose even like a quarter of a step all of a sudden you just become a massive liability as opposed to maybe a shift year more skilled player you have a bit more wiggle room there to decline physically while still maintaining your effectiveness in different ways of the game yeah i think anybody who takes a lot of punishment and you know tries to double it out and has not the best foot speed you're all always a little bit worried about how they age. Wayne Simmons makes me sad because I wonder how much of it is just that hip injury that he

suffered that he played through all that one year and then had surgery to repair and never really felt right last year. And this year, he's struggling big time. He's still a really good power play net front guy. But right now that's all he really is. And can he recover next year? He's only 30. So maybe, you know, like that is when decline starts.

but it's been such a steep decline for him over the last couple years that that's very worrying. Like I feel bad for him. This is literally the worst possible time for him to be an unrestricted free agent. But maybe he can, you know, make some noise in the playoffs for Nashville and score some power play goals and get his name back out there. But yeah, you always have to worry about guys, especially with the way the league is trending. I think it's really hard to project out, you know, five years or so what's going to be going on in the league, whether it'll be, you know, shifting to more offense or more defensive style. But the one thing that you can probably predict is the league will get faster.

And it seems like that's been, you know, ever since the first full year lockout in 2005, it seems like it's continued to get quicker and quicker and quicker. And even as obstruction, it's kind of squirled its way back into the game, it hasn't really slowed it down. You're right. And obviously there's a lot of an advantage out there, a competitive advantage for teams that can forecast what the league will look like five years from now and get ahead of it, as opposed to sort of playing from behind and constantly

having to make changes according to when it's too late. Mos Murray here asks, who are some under the radar slash intriguing GM candidates in Edmonton and head coach candidates in Ottawa? Yeah, I'm terrible at the head coach one because I think in order to know what a good coach actually is. Yeah, and it's tough. And it's really tough to judge H.L success because how, how. much is a team investing in their American

hockey league roster? How much are they focused on winning versus development? How much of development can be put on coaches? And then do you look at the junior ranks? I mean, I feel like you just have to look at what, this is like the last remaining section where I look at what hockey people

are saying, and I'm like, it's got to be this guy. So like, I tend to trust the people who I already know are smart, and it seems like Dallas Eakins is pretty close to ready now or has been ready for a couple years now. He was put in a really crap situation in Edmonton. I'd be interested to see what he can do in the NHL for sure.

GM candidates, I feel like the big ones are like Mike Fuda is always up there. There's some analytics heavy guys that I'd be interested in. The guy that I always looked at for years, it was my go-to answer for this question was Julian Breesbois, but now he's the GM, so he's no longer on the list. Mike Food has an interesting name you bring up because I think he gets a lot of a lot of praise and deservedly so for more of the work he's done in terms like the draft and sort of identifying talent there and while I think that is a very useful skill there's so much that goes into the GM

position beyond that I think sometimes like just hire a really good director for your draft or I understand maybe if the if the guy becomes so good sometimes he sort of exceeds that position and all of a sudden you can't get him for that and you have to hire him for it to be an assistant GM or actual GM. But I do think like there's so many different components to you, to juggling and and handling that like we've seen this with Jim Benning in Vancouver where just if all you're good at is the draft and all you're good at is identifying talent at the top of the draft. Like that's a useful skill. But if it's going to lag in a lot of your other business decisions, that can be a really slippery slope. So I think there's different.

things that I'd favor beyond just that. So not to say, Mike Ludo wouldn't make for a good jam, I'm just kind of bringing that up as a topic of discussion. I've talked about, you know, the combination of Mike Gillis and Lawrence Gilman here on the podcast before and how they'd be interesting for both Edmonton or both Seattle. Like, obviously, I think you just want a GM that is going to be willing to adapt and evolve as the league changes and also be willing to try out stuff and not necessarily just do things just because the NHL has always done them a certain way and sometimes that can

rub people the wrong way but I think if I want someone you know building my team and running my organization I'm going to want someone who's going to be willing to experiment and try things even if they might be different from what other teams out there are doing yeah I think I really like that point that you made about not going scout heavy because as much as you know I brought up food up mostly because that's the name that's always out there as the top of the list candidate right but I agree with you that if your main focus is scouting, you probably shouldn't be a general manager. And it sucks for people who are really great at scouting.

There's kind of like a max threshold that you can reach before it gets to like the Peter principle where you're promoted beyond your skill set. And it's not to say that people who are great at the draft can't also be great managers. But I think when you're looking at a general manager, as much as, you know, you and I have a bias towards wanting people who will do things differently. and be aggressive with new ideas. But at the same time, I think your primary function is management, right?

It's just people managing, getting the right people for the jobs, being confident enough to hire somebody that you think is smarter than you. I think that's the biggest asset that you can have as a manager is being able to build that team that works, right? So I think a lot of the times that we look at the general manager as, you know, the key to everything. when really they're just the person that's putting everything together. They're not necessarily the primary decision maker on any one thing.

I think the ideal gender manager is somebody who listens to the smart people that they have acquired. And it's much harder to identify that person outside of knowing the actual managers personally, right? So that's why the interview process matters so much. But, you know, putting people's names out there, I think for the most part, the people that we're going to come up with are either too early in their career to not necessarily be general managers or more suited to being an advisor to the general manager or ahead of a specific department. Because it's just really tough to identify that. Like if I'm looking at a general manager, do I want to get a Lawrence Gilman or a who's the guy in Toronto? was like,

uh, Prendergast or something like that, the, the capologists. I know the, Pritum, yeah, Brandon Pritam.

Like, do you want that guys? You're in general manager? Because they're like the numbers, people, and that would be great. Right. But are they the best manager?

Yes. And it's always, you never know what you're going to get in the other skill sets when you hire somebody who's just amazingly qualified in the one area. And sometimes they'll work out and sometimes they won. I feel like if I'm looking at,

getting a new general manager for a team and I'm coming in fresh, I'd probably be looking at lawyers more than anything. Yeah, yeah, for sure. And the tricky component of this as well is, like, a lot of the names that keep coming up every summer, every time we do this, are sort of the same names. And it's guys who are in lower positions in successful organizations, right? And while that makes sense, because you'd see, like, you'd think, like, okay, well, first off, this person probably played some role in helping make this organization successful in the first place. But even if they didn't necessarily play a direct role, at least, they were sort of close enough to the action to take away a couple of tricks of the trade and sort of incorporate that in their new landing spot to make that kind of replicate it and copy it and make that new team of their successful. But it can be sometimes tricky because you never know if just because two people were working together as a GM and an assistant GM or what have you, that they were necessarily aligned or that they would do the same job if they had the same job.

see that time and time again where whether it's an assistant coach gets hired and they're way different philosophically like a mike sullivan well has with with john georrella and we see that in pittsburgh or whether it's like brian mcclellan as an assistant GM for uh george mcfee and then him getting hired to take over that job after mcfrey gets fired and instantly making a bunch of different moves that help watch and get over the top like you never know how it's going to go that way so you're right obviously you just have to do your due diligence and do the interview process and sort of be valuing the right things, but I don't necessarily think there's one right answer. For the head coach component of this, though, there's obviously a couple big names out there

in Dallas-Eakins, as you mentioned, and based on the success he's had with San Diego and the fact that the Edmonton saga of things has enough times past that I feel like he will get a second chance. I think, like, we'll see how the season plays out, but I imagine if they miss the playoffs or if they make it again and lose in five games in round one. considering Paul Fenton didn't hire Bruce Boudreau. I talked to about those Emily last time on the show, but I feel like that's going to be a name to watch.

And any postseason questions aside, like if you're a team not sure about who your head coach is going to be next year, I feel like you sort of have to wait to see what happens there just because if you do have even a slight percent chance of getting Bruce Boudre to coach your team, that would be a home run and you sort of have to make that happen. And then obviously Joel Quenville is an interesting name, and I'm not sure what his appetite is for coaching at this point

or he seems to be kind of enjoying his life, but I imagine he will get the itch for it at some point. And I imagine also just given his track record and sort of his experience, he'll want to take over a team that can instantly be a contender and not be in it for like a three, four, five year long haul process. Yeah, it's super interesting. Not to derail the coaching discussion, but just like, I want your opinion because I'm kind of split on it.

What do you think of like Ron Hextall in Philadelphia, the job that he did because I feel like he's a guy who came from a successful at the time organization that came into a new organization that I think did things relatively differently than Dean Lombardi who he learned from I guess or learned on the job from and was fired mid-season when they probably should have just fired the coach first but what's your call on what he did in Philly? I think obviously I think he did there's no argument that it wasn't a massive net Like you can quibble with certain little things here and there. And I think towards the end, he sort of misread the situation a little bit and maybe was a bit too conservative.

And there were some obvious fixes that he could have made this summer that he just chose not to for whatever reason. And that ultimately did him in and cost him his job. But I think like if you look at the situation he inherited and just how dire things were financially and how he was creative about getting out of that hole and obviously taking advantage of other GMs and and, and, and, you know, and creating opportunities to get out from under bad contracts while also bringing back in assets and sort of how he rebuilt that team from a draft perspective and how they accumulated assets. I think all of those point to him being a really smart mind

that I would have no qualms about hiring. I'd be very curious to have a frank conversation with him about how things went in Philly towards the end there and sort of what the rationale for not making certain moves. were and sort of him standing pad and how you also never know sort of what the interaction is with ownership and how much that plays into it in some of these jobs so you take all that into account but i think he he was a massive net positive and he did a lot of great things in philly and i think he deserves to be a name that has talked about with all these other top guys

for any job that comes up this summer yeah i'm i'm with you i think uh i was pretty impressed overall with Hextol and I was really surprised when they let him go. I guess the one thing is was he too loyal to a coach, which the answer is probably yes. I think you look at what Travis Sanheim has done since the coaching change and getting bigger minutes and more trust and you're like, how was this guy not given more leash before this? It makes no sense. So there's obviously some criticism that goes that way. But yeah, in terms of like roster changing, restocking the cabinet, the cupboard, I mean, for prospects. Like, I thought Hextel did a pretty phenomenal job.

And again, how much of that is Hextel and how much of that is some of the other employees and the Flyers Management and Organization? But I thought that he probably deserved more time there. Who knows what's going to happen with how the Flyers are going to manage now? Maybe it'll be better off. But I thought they were on the right track. I thought that you looked at some of the decisions that they made. You know, shifting closed your route to the wing where initially you're like, oh, that's a crazy decision.

Then it, you know, brought out arguably the best season of his career. I think the flyers were looking dead in the water when Hextall came in and then almost opened up another window for themselves. And they're kind of en route to maybe having that window in the next couple of years. But, yeah, I guess they just never quite got there. So I guess if your judgment for success is like have to win or not, or are they, failure, then I guess he was a failure, but I thought net positive and quite positive. Well, and we talk about the different skill sets need for the job, but I imagine there is also a distinction between, you know, how those skill sets correlate with a GM who might

be good for coming into a certain situation where he sort of has to clean house and get the franchise in the off swing. And then there's certain guys who might be more of sort of a closer that would come in and make some big, difficult decisions that would get you over the top. And I think Hextall would be a very fascinating name for a team like Edmonton to consider just because they do need to make some shrewd moves this summer to get out, get some more financial flexibility and accumulate assets on the margins that would help out the core they already have in place. So he'd be a fascinating guy from that perspective to come in and sort of clean up some of that stuff. And I imagine he is one of the names that they're considering. But that's a situation where there's obviously the reward is so massive, assuming you can come in and you're actually going to get full ownership of the situation and not have people meddling above you.

Because once you have Connor McDavid and Leon Joyce Idol, you can sort of get rid of some of these contracts. Hopefully get out of take Lutche's deal this year after you pay his signing bonus. Hopefully he waives and you get him out of town and you shed some of that money. And you do a little, a few other creative things. And then all of a sudden, you have this team back in the playoffs. and you have the best player in the world and all of a sudden a lot of good things can happen. So it seemed like that's like a situation

assuming you would have autonomy that would be very intriguing to a lot of names. Yeah, I totally agree. And I feel like that the GM for certain situations is something that's always interested me. Like I often wonder, like, was Ken Holland a great GM for maintaining the Detroit Red Wings as a great team?

But as soon as they were no longer great, he became a terrible GM because he just doesn't know what to do in order to, you know, bottom out and come back up. He doesn't know how to build because he came in when they were already great, right? So he was good at making the moves to keep them great while those players were in their primes. But as soon as things started to tail off, Detroit's been managed into a bit of a shit show, right? Yeah. Like one of the worst cap situations in the league. And that's, you know, starting to in the next couple years ease off a little bit at some of those contracts end. there's still some contracts with a lot of term left on Detroit that you're like,

his guy's paid how much? Yeah. I think there's still a top five team in salary this year and they're awful, despite Dylan Larkin being amazing. No, yeah, they're atrocious. But I do think, like, and they've been very easy to make fun of the past couple years, but assuming they handle things the right way, like I think like two years from now, a lot of that money does come off the books.

And I think they have done a pretty good job the past, I think they two trade deadlines or the past two years as a whole of, And great drafts too. Of drafting and of accumulating a bunch of draft picks and actually trading guys and getting assets back for the deadline for expirings and veterans and obviously getting three picks for Thomas Satara on the trade they made last year with Vegas helps a lot.

But sort of stuff like that, I do think they're trending in the right direction. I think there's going to be a lot of losing ahead for the next couple of years, but at least like there's a blueprint there in place and whether that's Ken Holland or whether Steve Eisenman comes in to help finish that off or who have you, at least there's reasons for hope moving forward.

Yeah, I agree. And I guess that's another thing is like, from the outside, it's a lot easier to say, well, this team needs to tear it down than being the general manager of a team that's won multiple Stanley Cups. And, you know, you've still got Zetterberg and Datsuk and, you know, Yohan friends and before the last concussion that really took them out. And to sit there and actually make that decision to rip it to shreds is a lot tougher, right? It's just like in Vancouver where, you know, from the outside, we were all saying, hey, like trade the Siddines.

Like get your assets for them now. They're still good players. We get the emotional impact, but you've got to get something to rebuild. And maybe they should have. But at the same time, there's something emotional, emotionally satisfying about the Sadiens retiring as Canucks, right? And then never having played for another team. You know, I think they still live in Vancouver, don't they? Yeah.

And I imagine they will stay here, just how firmly entrenched they are in the community. Yeah. So like that kind of stuff. And I think that they also are, you know, if they're going to stay in Vancouver, they're probably going to be involved in the organization at some point because they're smart guys, whether it's in scouting or what have you. I think there's value to that. There's value to maintaining those relationships.

So I think sometimes we get a little bit too trigger-happy and like tear it down tank. And like it's not necessarily that easy when you're the one in charge. For sure. Yeah. Well, that's and that's the difficulty of the job. There are you're, you've got like, you're dealing with so many different. people and also so many different areas of team building that I guess you never really know how a guy's going to do or how a person's going to do in that job until they are eventually in it. So it's a, it's a

fascinating discussion. I'm sure it's something we'll be able to revisit once we get into the summer and some of these openings crystallize a bit more. Let's answer a couple more questions here before we get out of here. Andrew Mote asks, he needs a pulse check on where the blues are at. It says they started a week, then they went white hot, now they draw back a year. Can you, walk us through each stage. Yeah, this is going to be a super unsatisfying answer, but it's pretty much mostly goaltending and shooting luck.

I guess you can't really say it. Have you noticed any structural changes, especially defensively with Brubay versus O' because it does feel like from watching it that, I don't know if they've necessarily changed a lot, but it feels like they are making life a bit easier on their goalies. Obviously, like I think Bennington had to make like 41 saves or something the other day against Pittsburgh and look remarkable.

But for the most part, it does feel like they were quite a bit of a mess with Jake Allen and in front of him at the start of the year. And in the middle portion there, especially, it felt like they had a lot of performances where they were really doing a good job of limiting chances and shots against. I mean, there's always some stuff that's going to be missed in the data, right, where like not all chances are created equally, even if they're all scoring chances. But in terms of like the actual data, the St. those blues have been a really good defensive team the whole year,

a really good offensive team the whole year. That hot streak that they were on, they were like especially red hot, like everywhere. Yeah. But they've been, you know, at the very least, positive differentials across the board the whole season long. They've been playing like a high-end playoff team for the, for most of the season.

And for a while, they just couldn't score and they couldn't get a save. And then they could do both at the same time. So it just seems like one of those. seasons that's been super weird in that, you know, things fluctuate over time, but usually sometimes when you can score, your goaltenders are dipping a little bit, and when you can't score, your goaltender saves a day and you can ride to a great season, whereas they've had everything either bottom out or top out at the same time consistently all year long, and it's been this

wild ride, crazy roller coaster. Well, I think they're a really good team. I would be very worried about, if I was Winnipeg or Nashville, about facing the St. those blues in the first round. I think on balance, they've played better at even strengthen both those teams. Yeah. And we're going to get into Winnipeg and National in the next question. So I'll save

the conversation on them for a little bit here while we finish up on the Blues. But you're right. I mean, that would obviously, that's going to be a fascinating first round matchup because they are, it looks like, going to draw one of those teams. And the only issue for them, I guess, is that just because of that hole they dug themselves, they're not going to have home ice advantage in that series,

which is a bit of an issue, but not necessarily. a lethal blow by any means. But there was that period of time there in the middle stretch when they were white hot. There was like a 20 to 25 game window where they were like a 56 or 57% shot share team. And that included like high danger stuff.

And they were just obscene. And some of that might have been scheduled. But it was clear that like they were absolutely peaking there. And while they were rattling off that terror, which did coincide with Jordan Binnington being out of his mind and having like a 935 save percentage where they were like oh my god like this team's never going to lose again and they went

on that winning streak and they've come back down to earth a little bit obviously not having Vladimir terranco in the lineup hurts a lot especially since like his season matches up very well with the blue season as a whole which is unsurprising considering he's their go-to scorer but like at the start of the year when they were struggling and people were wondering what was wrong he wasn't scoring and he was incredibly unlucky, and his name actually started servicing in trade rumors, and then all of a sudden he went on that tear where he was pretty much scoring a goal game during that winning streak, and he was looking like the Vladimir Teresanko we expected because some of those bugs were starting to go in for him, and then now he's out,

and they've come back down earth a little bit, so I don't think there's any doubting that, you know, that's not a coincidence. But I like this team a lot moving forward, and I also like the fact that part of the reason we liked them was obviously the summer they brought in a bunch of guys who, would make their team better, even if they were sort of aging guys who might have a bit too much term on their deals, like a Tyler Bolzac or David Perron. But I like, I like their young players a lot. I like the Robert Thomas now is finally getting a chance he's playing on the top line with Ryan O'Reilly in Tarasenko's stead. I love Vince Dunn. I think Vince Dunn's one of my favorite

young players. And now he's playing on the top pairing with Alex Petrangelo. And I really am fascinated to see how he develops moving forward because there obviously is a massive gap from going from a third pair sort of sheltered guy who's crushing it in easy minutes to actually doing the heavy lifting, but he seems like he's going to be able to handle it. So they have a lot of interesting young parts there are moving forward for as well beyond this year, and they're starting to contribute now. And I think they're going to be a really, really tough out in the postseason and assuming Jordan Bennington can hold up and not necessarily be a 930, say, percentage, but even be at

least average or above average. That's such a massive difference from what they were getting at the start of the year from Chad Johnson and Jake Allen that all of that has kind of come together to make them a really fascinating sleeper team this postseason. Yeah. Do you have like the EA sports disease where you like see a name and if it's kind of boring? You're like, well, that player can't be good until you like get to know them a little bit more.

Yeah, for sure. Because I definitely have like with Vince Dunn, I'm like, who's Vince Dunn? Who cares about this guy? And then you actually, you know, have to look into him a little bit. You're like, oh, he's really good. Whereas a guy like Colton Pereko, my brain will be like, oh, he must be. interesting because his name is Colton Pereco. You know, it's just a weird thing.

But yeah, I think the blues are really interesting. I think, like you said, they brought in a lot of guys that are high impact players in the right spot, even if, you know, a few years down the line, it might be a little bit tough with a guy like Tyler Bozac, but Ryan O'Reilly, I think also had a really tough start of the year by the percentages, but was playing really well. And then I think for the last... two or three months he's like first or second in terms of like scoring chances created at even strength so that that's a guy that like you always knew he was going to rebound you were just

waiting for it but it's happened now and he's been fantastic terranco being out obviously hurts but we expect to be done great yeah but David Perron is a really good player but probably not ideal in your first line right no I think also like I like Alex Steen still like Like he's still a good player, but he's definitely taken the walk off the cliff compared to his peak years, right? So that's the kind of thing where you, whenever you're projecting St. Louis, like, they're not, they have some young players, but they also have like some pretty old core players.

So it's one of those things where you really hope they can make some noise this year because as much as the young players are promising, they've got to be really promising to make up for some of the decline around the rest of the lineup. Well, and this is, we're going to segue into this next question now, but it does feel like this opening has presented itself because, and I had a bunch of people ask this, especially about Nashville, about how worried they should be, and the Jets came up as well. And I think both of those teams, for a variety of reasons, are much more susceptible now than we probably thought they'd be and definitely than they were last year. And it feels like all year we've been kind of waiting. going like, okay, regardless of what happens in round two, we're going to get that Winnipeg Nashville rematch again. And last year's series was so awesome. And I can't wait to see what's going to happen again.

And we still might very well get that. But both teams have a lot more question marks than I envision them having coming into the season. Yeah, it's, I mean, yeah, I really thought that both teams were relatively immune to a season like this. And I guess in terms of regular season performance, they, have been because they're both going to easily make the playoffs in a walk. Right. But I expected these two to be like two of the top five teams in the league, and maybe they will be in the standings by the end of the year,

but in terms of their actual play, it hasn't been. And I know Nashville likes to push everything onto the power play, which has been terrible. But the power play aside, like they haven't exactly been inspiring at even strength either. No. Victor Arvinson has. He's been unbelievable. And part of the issue in Nashville is definitely injuries, right? Like they missed Forsberg and Arbenson for a while.

P.K. Sue Mann was out. I think they had Yossi out for a couple games. Not very long, though. So, like, Taurus has been terrible again, which is, I think, the big worry for them is they expect to be a lot stronger down the middle of this year. That just hasn't happened for them. I think the only pleasant surprise for them has been Colton Sizzins. And I still don't think he's that.

that great. I think he's a fourth line, third line tweener kind of guy. He's kind of playing in like a second line role right now and I know he's scoring at the moment but I don't believe that very much. I think they've got some problems there.

In Winnipeg, again, they've had injuries lately but they haven't played their best all season long. I don't know if it's just both those teams are a little bit complacent and expect to make the playoffs or what and they'll flip the switch in the playoffs. but I just haven't seen it from them. Patrick Line A has been pretty terrible outside of goal scoring this year.

When he's not scoring, it's rough. Have you seen the numbers for Shepley and Wheeler, who have not been very good at 5-1-5 all year, especially with Shepard? But, I mean, with line 8, I think they're like 43% or 44% of season since they've got to be. Yeah, it's not good. I mean, I think Shifley has actually been about what I expected. he's probably been the least disappointing forward.

Blake Wheeler's put up lots of points. He's falling out. Yeah, his underlying numbers scare me. If I'm the Jets, they scare me a lot, considering that huge contract he just got. Because everywhere you look at it outside of the power play where he's still like a maniac, amazing scoring chance creator, it's taking a big hit compared to last year. And, you know, Schifley and Wheeler last year also were not a positive shot share line with Kyle Conner either. They just outskilled teams, right?

They were fantastic at defending the front of the net. They're still one of the best teams, if not the best team in the league in terms of controlling pass to the slot for and against. They have an amazing slot pass differential, but they are protecting the net front as well as last year, which has led to Helibuck having more struggles, and he hasn't been as good as last year. So it's like all the things that compounded together last year to make them almost unbeatable have fallen off lately. And we saw last year with Washington, right? We're like in the regular season, it kind of felt like the only thing that they were good at was playmaking at even strength.

And they were getting outchanced, outshot, out attempted. And then in the playoffs, things kind of turned around and their goalie who was struggling all of a sudden was okay. It took over for Gruberauer after the first two games. And then they went on this incredible run. And they figured it out. So maybe that'll happen for the Jets. But I definitely am not in the place where I'm,

I was with Nashville or Winnipeg last year or with Nashville two years ago where I'd be willing to put down a good chunk of change that they would win their first round matchup, which is kind of crazy considering how talented both those rosters are. And even, you know, Nashville, most of their talent is shifted towards the back end and they just have that top line up front. You know, with Granlin in the lineup now, I feel like their second line should be a lot better. And maybe it's just taking some time to figure it out. But, you know, things haven't clicked the way you expect. And Pecorine has been good.

He's been above average, but he hasn't been amazing like last year. And that hurts a lot. Yeah. With Winnipeg, I mean, they have such exceptional talent that like,

I feel like the baseline performance for them from a shot share perspective of 515, like they don't need to be, you know, super elite or dominant because they convert, I expect them to convert a higher percentage of challenges, especially. Like,

Shaiper, Lee's line and line A's. So they just need, but it's been so underwhelming for so long now that there are red flags. Now we should say that, you know, we're talking about the injuries for Nashville and that is a fair thing to point out with Winnipeg. I mean,

they're missing Bufflin and Morrissey right now. Which is huge. Yes, obviously. And assuming they can come back and not only come back, but be their regular selves, that's obviously going to move the needle quite a bit for them. And I still, while you're right, especially

a series against St. Louis, I would definitely give a lot of thought to how that would play out. I think even a potential series against a Dallas or a Minnesota or maybe Arizona or less or their extent, but those teams do enough things well defensively that I'd worry a little bit about whether Winnipeg would have the volume to kind of break past that. But at the same time, they do have such a men's talent that I can envision a world where they do put it together and go on a spirited run. So I'd feel silly betting against it. it's just there are sign of some lingering concerns in the back of my mind. With Nashville, it's, I mean, now that they're finally healthy or healthier, we'll see.

Obviously, their top guys have played really well. The fact that they just, like, they admirably went in, all in, they pushed their chips in in the trade for tourists and signed him. They went out and signed Nick Benino in free agency. Like, they've done all this stuff in the past few years. I feel like they just made some bad bets on certain guys. and that might ultimately come back to bite them in the butt. And I didn't think I'd be saying this,

but I do think the three best teams in the West are in the Pacific Division right now, which is a massive departure from where we thought we'd be at the start of the year. And that speaks to how great those teams have been, and it also speaks to how these teams have taken a bit of a step back. Yeah, it's, like, crazy to me that Vegas is third in their division, because I think they're, like, arguably a top two team in the league. Like, they're that good. and and like it's that that Pacific division is just like incredibly tough at the top and the Central

seems like every year we're used to like five teams being really good and this year nobody's been great right it's it's really weird to me I feel like there's almost no separation between those top three teams in terms of what could be expected so yeah I mean I think Nashville the big thing for them is they've got a lot of playoff gamers on there that, you know, can turn it on. Winnipeg, like you said, the talent can just, there have been lots of games this year where I've watched Winnipeg, and they've played dreadful, and they just out-talent a team. Yeah. And especially with their power play, like, how good it is.

Yeah, and it went through a funk around the new year, and it's starting to break out of it now, but it's just so incredibly good at generating offense. And so I really like the Kevin Hayes trade. I love that you predicted that on the PEDAOC. Yeah, how about talking about it for a while? Yeah, I ended up writing a article about Kevin Hayes for the free press based on that podcast that we did. Well, there we go. I'm excited that that worked out.

Yeah, no, that was a good call. Please ignore all of the horrible calls I made over the years. Yes, yeah, only bring up the right ones. We'll pull up here, McGuire there. That's a good way to operate. Yeah, it's, and obviously moving forward for the postseason, we'll see how, some of these matchups shake out, but it is to the point where, like, while I say that the three best teams in the West are in the Pacific, especially for Vegas who will conceivably have to go

on the road and play either San Jose or Calgary, and then if they get by that, play the other team in round two on the road again. Like, that's such a brutal gauntlet they have to run that is kind of similar to how tired out big. What Winnipeg was last year by the time they made the Western Conference final. I could envision a scenario where one of these central division teams has a bit of an easier go of it through the first two rounds and all of a sudden they come into that Western Conference final a bit fresher and maybe they're healthy at the right time and all of a sudden they could conceivably make the Stanley Cup even though they're objectively worse than they were

last year and that's just sometimes how the NHL goes. Like part of the equation is your actual own team and talent and then part of it is just things kind of breaking your way at the right time and you taking advantage of that window. Yeah, I think what you mean to say is that the Trump. I think the Toronto Maple Leafs deserve an easier first round matchup. Yes, that's a good way to, uh, is that the first, I guess you mentioned them earlier when we were talking about heavy hockey, but I think that's the first, uh, Toronto Maple Leaf's reference to the podcast, which, no, I don't think, I don't think I did.

Good on us. Well, I'm glad. We should have just not mentioned that at all. Yeah, we'll edit that out. We'll edit that out. Um, Andrew, plug some stuff. What, uh, what are you working on these days? I know you're a busy man.

Uh, same thing as usual. I've got the three articles for Sports Net a week and two for the Winnipeg free press. The free press stuff is pay to read. So if you're not from Winnipeg or don't have a subscription to the free press, I'm not offended if you don't read it. But yeah, that and I've got my podcast back with Arun. We talked about Spider-Man Homecoming last week, and I've got one to post today. That'll probably be out slightly after the PDO cast. So listen to that.

Well, I highly recommend people check out your work, and I'm sure we're going to get you back on the show sometime here in the near future. And I'm looking forward to seeing how some of these races wind up finishing out and sort of what first round matchups we get them. And we'll have you back on then to a deep dive of them and discuss how all these teams match up against a round on opponents. Absolutely, man. Maybe we'll predict the first round of the playoffs, and then in the second round, we'll only talk about the ones we got right. Yes. I'm looking forward to it, man. Bye then. Thanks soon. The Hockey P.D.Ocast, Dmitri Filippovich. Follow on Twitter at Dim Philipovich and on SoundCloud

at soundcloud.com slash hockey pdocast.