Now that the season is finished I thought I would do a follow up to my mid-year potential Bojo Biscuit Award nominees piece. There were some valid criticisms about the statsI used to go about my mid-year frontrunners and I tried to address them in this piece. First, I ditched the defensive game rating stat since it is apparently meaningless. Second, I added both Corsi For % and CF% Rel to the list of stats to look at with the old ones that were hits, giveaways, takeaways, giveaway takeaway differential, shot blocks, time on ice, shorthanded time on ice, hits per 60, and shot blocks per 60. I gave my reasoning for why I think these stats matter in choosing players for the Bojo so I won’t retread all that (even though I really need the money).

I took the top 10 players in each of those stats that had a minimum of 20:00 TOI and added them to the list to compare. When all was said and done I ended up with 41 defenders with every team in the league being represented at least once. I used basically the same rules as before but since this list was four times longer than the previous list I only counted the top 20 in each stat. First place in a stat would get the player 20 points, 2nd 19 points, and so on. After each category was tallied the sum of a player’s points is their Bojo Score. For this article a perfect Bojo Score would be 220.

Without further ado here is the list of defensemen, from least likely to most likely, to be nominated for the Bojo Biscuit Award.

Spreadsheet

Kaspars Claude
Team: New Orleans Bojo Score: 23

Argument for: What got Claude on this list was his above average CF% and even more so his CF% Rel. New Orleans is a very solid team and Claude’s CF% of 59.1 shows that he is in control of the game more often than not. On our list he is near the top of relative CF% which shows how important he is to New Orleans’ possession numbers.

Argument against: Claude is below average in every other category that we are looking at. Some are just a shade below average like his TOI but others and some of the worst like his giveaway takeaway differential. The combination of giving the puck away more than he takes it away with low hit and block numbers make a strong case against him being nominated.


Miikka Salo
Team: Tampa Bay Bojo Score: 25

Argument for: Tampa Bay had a very hard go of this season so I’m sure many are surprised to see defensemen from there on the list. I will say this right now just because the team was as bad as you could be doesn’t mean individual players could not play well or have something positive throughout the season. Salo’s saving grace for Tampa was that they did not give the puck up a whole which Tampa sorely needed. This lead to a slightly above average GT differential even though Salo had below average takeaways.

Argument against: Salo was bottom of the barrell in four of the categories and below average in 5 others. Salo doesn’t play much as far as this list goes, just barely crossing the 20 minute minimum but does play a fair amount of PK time all things considered. But without blocking shots and having a CF% of 17.5 it is hard to say Salo is Bojo bound.

Jax Duggan
Team: Hamilton Bojo Score: 26

Argument for: Duggan had an excellent CF% of 67.2 with Hamilton this season. He was just about average in regard to giveaways as well.

Argument against: Duggan’s low CF% Relative score shows that he is not incredibly vital to Hamilton’s possession numbers. Duggan just broke the 20 minute minimum by a second as well. His time on ice combined with negative giveaway takeaway numbers and low shot blocks paint a more negative than positive picture.

Tony Ford
Team: Los Angeles Bojo Score: 32

Argument for: Ford is the most balanced of defensemen that we have seen so far. He doesn’t have super highs or lows. He is noticeable above average in giveaways and CF% and right around average in hits, shot blocks, hits per 60, and blocks per 60.

Argument against: He is noticeably below average in takeaways which almost completely negates his good giveaway numbers. He doesn’t play a ton and has a negative CF% Rel which shows he is hurting his teams possession just a bit.

Gabriel Johnson
Team: Hamilton Bojo Score: 35

Argument for: Johnson has an excellent CF% of 64.3 and above average takeaway numbers which leads to slightly above average GT differential.

Argument against: Johnson gets below average ice time on any given night and plays the second least of anyone on the list shorthanded. Johnson also has a -3.3 CF% which makes it seem like the quality play of Hamilton is propping him up rather than the other way around.

Reginald MacIntyre
Team: Manhattan Bojo Score: 35

Argument for: MacIntyre plays a good amount of short handed time which I think is a big part of what makes a defensive defenseman. He is also slightly above average in hits and hits per 60 and floating right around or under average in giveaways, time on ice and CF%.

Argument against: MacIntyre doesn’t take away the puck very much which drags his differential pretty deep into the negative. He doesn’t block many shots and has a -0.6 CF% Rel. He is playing import PK time but not helping out much besides that.

Akira Ren
Team: Chicago Bojo Score: 36

Argument for: Ren only has 10 giveaways on the season which leads to an above average differential. He also has a very strong 60.5 CF%.

Argument against: Ren is below average in everything else. He barely breaks the 20 minute minimum and plays some of the least time on the PK. His -4.3 CF% Rel added to this looks like another case of a very good team propping up a player.

Igor Volkov
Team: New England Bojo Score: 39

Argument for: Volkov plays a lot of PK minutes with few giveaways and a slightly above average GT differential.

Argument against: Volkov just breaks the 20 minute mark. He doesn’t hit or block shots and really hurts New England’s possession numbers with a -6.2 CF% Rel. These numbers could be affected from changing teams midway through the year.

Tor Tuck
Team: Edmonton Bojo Score: 39

Argument for: Tuck plays average minutes every night while blocking an above average amount of shots and shots per 60. He is right around average in hits, hits per 60, takeaways and CF%.

Argument against: Tuck gives the puck away a lot. So much in fact it brings his average takeaways into a negative differential. He also sports a -2.7 CF% Rel.

Guy Zheng
Team: New England Bojo Score: 42

Argument for: Zheng plays almost 2 minutes more than average a night and is in the top tier for CF%. He also has an average number of takeaways.

Argument against: He gives the puck away more than average, almost never hits, and doesn’t block a ton of shots. His CF% Rel is just 0.5 which says to me he isn’t contributing much to that nice CF% he boasts.

Noah Tedla
Team: Minnesota Bojo Score: 43

Argument for: Tedla plays big minutes every night. More than 3 minutes above average normally and 2:43 of PK. A definite workhorse that can eat the minutes up.

Argument against: He doesn’t exactly wow in any of the other categories. Far below average in hits, just 2, and hits per 60 and 29 giveaways on the season. His 78 blocked shots isn’t super below average but factoring in his playing time shows the difference in blocks per.

Poopity Scoop
Team: Buffalo Bojo Score: 44

Argument for: Scoop boasts the second best CF% on this list at a whopping 71.3 and also a CF% Rel of 3. He is right around average in hits, TOI, SHTOI, and hits per.

Argument against: Scoop gives the puck up more than average while taking it away less than and doesn’t block a lot of shots I know with CF numbers like that one would expect to not have high block totals but while Scoop’s CF Rel is above average it isn’t top tier. Buffalo is a great team hence solid possession numbers.

Samuel Michaud
Team: Hamilton Bojo Score: 50

Argument for: Michaud plays above average PK time has good takeaway numbers and a great CF% of 63.6. He is also floating around average in hits and hits per.

Argument against: Michaud plays below average in 5 on 5 play and has some of the most giveaways on the list. He doesn’t block many shots and his -4.4 CF% Rel shows he is being carried a bit by a great team in Hamilton.

Perry Morgan
Team: New England Bojo Score: 51

Argument for: Morgan has an excellent CF% of 66.1 with above average numbers in hits, hits per, and slightly in CF% Rel.

Argument against: Morgan rarely blocks shots, which is connected to the CF% most likely. His giveaway and takeaway also leave something to be desired. Also he plays slightly below average minutes in 5 on 5 and short handed situations.

Alexander Selich
Team: Buffalo Bojo Score: 53

Argument for: Insane takeaway and CF% numbers here, 40 and 70.9 respectively. Selich also has above average stats in GT differential and CF% Rel.

Argument against: Selich is below average in everything else. Not deep in the pits below average but below it. Selich has the second most takeaways on the list but so many giveaways that it drags his differential into the bottom half of the top twenty.

Joln Dubolk
Team: New Orleans Bojo Score: 54

Argument for: Dubolk has the second fewest giveaways on the list. He is responsible with the puck and is trusted with more than 2 minutes of PK time on average. He is below average in terms of raw blocked shots but above average in blocks per and a very good GT dif score to go along with that.

Argument against: Dubolk is near the bottom in terms of TOI. He also doesn’t throw the body around a whole lot and isn’t great at stripping the puck from the opposition. He also as a CF%Rel of -3.7 so he is hurting New Orleans possession numbers a bit.

Charlie Schieck
Team: San Francisco Bojo Score: 57

Argument for: Schieck has excellent takeaway and GT Dif numbers with solid above average giveaway numbers. He also plays about a minute above average of ice time each night.

Argument against: Schieck doesn’t hit or block very much and he doesn’t have the high CF% of other guys as an excuse. He also has a -4.2 CF% Rel which shows despite his good GT numbers he isn’t helping a lot possession-wise.

Tig Murphy
Team: Hamilton Bojo Score: 57

Argument for: Murphy has one of the best CF%s on the list with a 67.6. He coughs the puck up less often than the average and is average or ever so slightly below in hits, takeaways, GT dif, TOI, CF%Rel, and hits per. Murphy is only near the bottom in one category.

Argument against: That one category is short handed time on ice. PK time is usually a good indicator of being a defensive defenseman. Also to look at things another way, Murphy is only really low in one category but also only really good in one also.

Brady McIntyre
Team: Edmonton Bojo Score: 59

Argument for: McIntyre is noticeably above average in takeaways, GT dif, TOI, and quite above average in CF% and CF%Rel. He looks to be quite a big factor in Edmonton’s possession numbers.

Argument against: He’s not a huge hitter or shot blocker which with his CF% numbers can be explained somewhat. However more glaring is the almost zero time he plays short handed.

Nikolai Evans
Team: Texas Bojo Score: 62

Argument for: Evans has excellent giveaway, takeaway, and GT dif numbers. He plays slightly above average 5 on 5 and slightly under average short handed.

Argument against: He is fairly weak in all the other categories. Not a lot of hits or shot blocks while also having a sub 50 CF%. Despite his good GT numbers he has a -0.8 CF% Relso he is hurting possession a tad.

Ursin Zimmermann
Team: Toronto Bojo Score: 62

Argument for: Zimmermann is an excellent shot blocker that plays above average time even strength and short handed. He has a slightly above average CF% Rel as well.

Argument against: Zimmermann doesn’t hit very much and coughs the puck up a ton. He has a low CF% as well but that is more of a consequence of being on a lower tier team.

Kristaps Ball
Team: Baltimore Bojo Score: 63

Argument for: Ball takes the body and blocks shots quite often. He also has average takeaway numbers.

Argument against: He gives the pick up just a tad more than he takes it away. He plays below average minutes and has a rough CF% and a -2.2 CF% Rel. Not exactly helping Baltimore’s already poor possession numbers.

Oliver Cleary
Team: Los Angeles Bojo Score: 63

Argument for: Cleary is average in hits but more importantly only has 11 giveaways this season which leads to a good GT dif and a very CF% of 60.1 His CF%Rel is 2.7 so he is helpful to LA’s possession...

Argument against: ...but not vital. He plays under 21 minutes a night and below average on the PK. He is below average in the takeaways and shot block departments.

Brennan Kennedy Jr.
Team: Calgary Bojo Score: 64

Argument for: Kennedy has good numbers in giveaways, takeaways, GT dif, CF% and more importantly CF% Rel. All of this while playing more than average every night.

Argument against: Very few hits coming from Kennedy. He is below average in shot blocks a bit but it is more pronounced in his blocks per. Also he plays below average short handed time.

Karlstrasse Scholz
Team: Edmonton Bojo Score: 69

Argument for: Scholz is above average in hits, takeaways, TOI, SHTOI, CF% and Rel. His CF Rel is good for 6th best on the list. Scholz seems to be pretty important to Edmonton’s possession.

Argument against: Scholz has a lot of giveaways. Enough that it drags his GT Dif down to -11. He also only blocks almost half as many shots as the average.

Dominic Montgomery
Team: San Francisco Bojo Score: 71

Argument for: Montgomery is top tier in giveaways, GT dif, and second best overall in CF% Rel with an 8.4. He has good takeaway and CF% numbers and is floating right around average in shot blocks and blocks per.

Argument against: Montgomery plays below average minutes both even strength and short handed. He is below average in hits and hits per as well.

Cassius Darrow
Team: Buffalo Bojo Score: 74

Argument for: Darrow has the best CF% on the list at 71.5. He doesn’t cough up the puck more than average. And is also above average in blocks, blocks per, TOI, SHTOI, and CF% Rel.

Argument against: Darrow is below average in hits, hits per, takeaways and GT Dif.

Lyle Odelein III
Team: New Orleans Bojo Score: 74

Argument for: Odelein hits a lot. Close to 10 hits per 60. He also has a good CF% and Rel playing average 5 on 5 minutes every night.

Argument against: Odelein doesn’t have great giveaway, takeaway or GT dif numbers and plays below average time on the PK.

Barret McCarthy
Team: Manhattan Bojo Score: 76

Argument for: McCarthy eats up tons of minutes 5 on 5 and short handed all while not giving up the puck a lot and blocking an above average amount of shots.

Argument against: McCarthy shys away from taking the body and is just below average in takeaways. He is slightly above average in CF% but his Rel is below.

Otis B. Driftwood
Team: Calgary Bojo Score: 78

Argument for: Driftwood is above average in six stats. Most importantly he boasts a 4.7% CF Rel.

Argument against: Really low takeaway numbers with below average shot blocks and TOI.

Andrej Doskocil
Team: Manhattan Bojo Score: 79

Argument for: Doskocil is really propped up by being second best in hits and hits per with more than 300 hits on the season. He is also just above average in shot blocks and blocks per.

Argument against: He plays almost a minute below average a night and is just kind of average or a little under in every other stat. Definitely a huge factor physically though.

Parker Smeb
Team: Chicago Bojo Score: 82

Argument for: Smeb is the leader in hits and hits per with a whopping 337 on the year. He is above average in giveaways, GT dif, TOI, and CF%.

Argument against: Most glaring is about a half a minute on the PK. Smeb also doesnt block a ton of shots and has a CF% Rel of -3.8.

Rex Kirkby
Team: New England Bojo Score: 82

Argument for: Kirkby has an excellent CF% of 65.7 playing more than 3 minutes above average a night. He also has good takeaway numbers and blocks above average shots.

Argument against: Kirkby is held back by below average hits and giveaways.

Leopold Lockhart
Team: San Francisco Bojo Score: 86

Argument for: Lockhart is the most important to his team in terms of CF% Rel with a crazy 8.7. He is also top 3 in takeaways and 4th in GT dif. He is just below average in raw hits and shot blocks but slightly above average in both per 60.

Argument against: The biggest knock against Lockhart is that he plays below average minutes 5 on 5 and short handed.

Slip McScruff
Team: Winnipeg Bojo Score: 104

Argument for: Slip is known as a physical player and this year he sowed that again with 235 hits and 179 shot blocks. He plays a lot of short handed time and has good takeaway numbers.

Argument against: He also has a lot of giveaways though with a below average CF%. He also plays below average minutes 5 on 5.

Ti-Guy Emond
Team: Minnesota Bojo Score: 104

Argument for: Emond must have glue on his stick cause this man almost never gives it away with only 4 on the season. Add that to strong takeaway numbers and you have the best GT dif on the list. Emond also hits and blocks above average and plays above average time short handed.

Argument against: Emond skates below average 5 on 5 and doesn’t add much CF% Rel to an already low CF% team.

Liam O'Callaghan
Team: Tampa Bay Bojo Score: 107

Argument for: LO is tops in shot blocks, TOI, and blocks per. To go with that he is top tier in short handed time and has about 10 more takeaways than the average skater on this list with an above average CF% Rel of 3.4.

Argument against: LO hits half as much as the average and gives the puck away so much that it brings his GT dif into the negative. His very bad CF%, which is one of the worst on the list, is the stand out flaw.

Geoff Moore
Team: Baltimore (or at least it used to be :(... ) Bojo Score: 116

Argument for: Moore is above average in every category save one. He is super solid well balanced defender that doesn’t lack for much.

Argument against: His CF% is below average at 42.5%. I stand by that CF% is just as much a product of a team’s overall strength. Looking at his CF% Rel shows that he was important to Baltimore’s overall possession numbers.

Jakob Hamr
Team: Tampa Bay Bojo Score: 127

Argument for: Two Tampa defensemen in the top 5 for potential noms? When it comes down to it although Tampa was god awful LO and Hamr were as steadfast of defenders as you could ask for. I know there are people that put a lot of faith in CF but when it comes down to it these guys played a lot of defense. I mean almost literally they were in the d zone all game. Hamr is only below average in one stat and it is CF%.

Argument against: Like I said CF% is a glaring issue but honestly Hamr has excellent numbers.

Nat Emerson
Team: Baltimore Bojo Score: 127

Argument for: Emerson is in the top tier in takeaways and just outside it in hits, blocks, and those per 60. He is above average in everything else except for...

Argument against: ...giveaways and CF%. Although he is below in GvAs he is still in the top 20 on the list. I think the biggest knock against Emerson is not really dominating any category. He has a low CF% but his CF% Rel puts him in the range of the likes of Darrow and Scoop. He is just a solid defender. And handsome to boot.

Mathias Seger
Team: Minnesota Bojo Score: 131

Argument for: Seger is second best in shot blocks, blocks per, TOI, and SHTOI. To go with that he is top tier in hits, hits per, and takeaways.

Argument against: Seger had 40 giveaways on the season which brought his GT Dif into the negatives. He also had a CF% of 31.9 which I think is more a product of being on a bottom tier team but his CF% Rel of 1.6 is more telling that he wasn’t dominating while he was out there.

So there we have it. My list of the 41 most likely defensemen to be nominated for the Bojo this year. By no stretch is this a perfect measure of skill. I will be the first to admit that I put a lot of emphasis on the physical aspect of being a defenseman. I welcome all discussion.

Now we play the waiting game.

(3714 words plus research. Ready for grading.)

San-sam Emerson | Philadelphia Forge | LD | S63
Height: 6'2"
Weight: 200 lbs
Birthplace: Incheon, South Korea
Number: 88
S62 SMJHL 3OA Pick
S62 SMJHL All-Rookie Team
S63 SHL 6OA Pick
S64 Regina Elk Alternate Captain
S65 SHL All-Rookie Team
S69 Challenge Cup
S70 Second Team All-SHL
S71 First Team All-SHL
S72 Second Team All-SHL
S73 Second Team All-SHL
S74 First Team All-SHL

Nat Emerson | Baltimore Platoon | Team Latvia (RETIRED)
Height: 6'4"
Weight: 250 lbs
Birthplace: Boston, Massachusetts
Number: 34
S47 Challenge Cup
S46 IIHF Bronze Medal
S55 IIHF Top Defenseman

Nice write up! Will be Interesting to see the noms.

Nominated? Nice.

S48 Four Star Cup Champion (Vancouver Whalers)

I wish I got nominated ._.

Manhattan Rage | General Manager

thanks Sulovilen for the sig!
D | Great Falls Grizzlies | Player Page | Update Page


S46 | Andrej Doskocil | Old-school defenseman | Peak 1579 TPE | Retired
Drafted 32nd overall to the Halifax Raiders in S45 SMJHL Draft
S45|50 GP 1G/10A/11P 92 hits 48 SBs
S46|50 GP 2G/24A/26P 115 hits 57 SBs
S47|42 GP 6G/12A/18P 76 hits 48 SBs
Traded to Detroit Falcons
S47|8 GP 0G/2A/2P 15 hits 7 SBs
Drafted 8th overall to the Manhattan Rage in S46 SHL Draft
S48|50 GP 2G/7A/9P 93 hits 42 SBs
S49|50 GP 3G/12A/15P 97 hits 66 SBs
S50|50 GP 3G/10A/13P 110 hits 70 SBs
S51|50 GP 1G/17A/18P 146 hits 48 SBs
S52|50 GP 2G/20A/22P 118 hits 56 SBs
Won Challenge Cup with Manhattan Rage
S53|50 GP 3G/15A/18P 286 hits 110 SBs
S54|50 GP 3G/12A/15P 303 hits 103 SBs
S55|50 GP 6G/21A/27P 86 hits 117 SBs
S56|50 GP 7G/24A/31P 88 hits 115 SBs
S57|66 GP 8G/23A/31P 110 hits 140 SBs
S58|66 GP 5G/11A/16P 111 hits 204 SBs
S59|66 GP 6G/13A/19P 99 hits 307 SBs
Total SMJHL RS - 150 GP 9G/46A/55P 298 hits 160 SBs
Total SHL RS - 648 GP 49G/185A/234P 1647 hits 1378 SBs
Total SHL playoffs - 68 GP 5G/25A/30P 147 hits 118 SBs



S61 | Archangelo Scaradog Jr. | Defenseman | 1240 TPE

Drafted 17th overall to the Newfoundland Berserkers in S60 SMJHL Draft
Traded to Maine Timber
Drafted 30th overall to the Manhattan Rage


S72 | Arnošt Hlemýžď | Defenseman | 155 TPE

I wish I got nominated ._.

same tbh

I wish I got nominated ._.

same tbh

If it makes you feel better, I'll most likely never win my own award

my man @karlssens got a 69.

Shout out to ml002, schultzy, slashacm, tedward!


DeMaricus Smyth || C ||Atlanta Inferno/Czechia|| 1854 Peak
Name: DeMaricus Smyth
Hometown: Blansko, Czech Republic
Height: 6'2"
 Weight: 197
 Number: 42

 ----------------------------------------------------------

 Regular Season Stats:
SMJHL S38 | STL | GP: 50 | G: 3   | A: 5   | P: 8   | +/-: -2    | PIM: 2   | SHT%: 6.67%   | MP: 536
SMJHL S39 | STL | GP: 50 | G: 19 | A: 24 | P: 43 | +/-: +25 | PIM: 22 | SHT%: 14.62% | MP: 1050
SMJHL S40 | STL | GP: 50 | G: 25 | A: 32 | P: 57 | +/-: +14 | PIM: 17 | SHT%: 14.62% | MP: 1067
SHL S41 | SEA | GP: 50 | G: 12 | A: 18 | P: 30 |  +/-: +7 | PIM: 0 | SHT%: 7.50% | MP: 957
SHL S42 | SEA | GP: 50 | G: 19 | A: 18 | P: 37 |  +/-: -1 | PIM: 13 | SHT%: 13.57% | MP: 1023
SHL S43 | SEA | GP: 50 | G: 19 | A: 22 | P: 41 |  +/-: +6 | PIM: 35 | SHT%: 12.67% | MP: 1014
SHL S44 | EDM | GP: 50 | G: 15 | A: 13 | P: 28 |  +/-: +16 | PIM: 28 | SHT%: 12.30% | MP: 966
SHL S45 | EDM | GP: 50 | G: 11 | A: 20 | P: 31 | +/-: +12 | PIM: 34 | SHT%: 8.80% | MP: 710
SHL S46 | NOLA | GP: 50 | G: 16 | A: 28 | P: 44 | +/-: +9 | PIM: 28 | SHT%: 9.36 | MP: 1024
SHL S47 |NOLA ] GP: 50 | G: 28 | A: 34 | P: 62 | +/-: +27 | PIM: 38 | SHT%: 12.84% | MP: 1146
SHL S48 | NOLA | GP: 50 | G: 23 | A: 23 | P: 46 | +/-: +4 | PIM: 83 | SHT%: 11.56% | MP: 1189
SHL S49 | NOLA | GP: 50 | G: | A: | P: | +/-: | PIM: | SHT%: | MP: 
SHL S50 | NOLA | GP: 50 | G: | A: | P: | +/-: | PIM: | SHT%: | MP: 
SHL S51 | NOLA | GP: 50 | G: | A: | P: | +/-: | PIM: | SHT%: | MP: 
SHL S52 | NOLA | GP: 50 | G: 19 | A: 16| P: 35 | +/-: +7 | PIM: 62 | SHT%: 9.84% | MP: 1093
SHL S53 | NOLA | GP: 50 | G: 9 | A: 22 | P: | +/-: +1 | PIM: 45 | SHT%: 5.9% | MP: 1179
SHL S54 | NOLA | GP: 50 | G: 8 | A: 15 |  P: | +/-: +20 | PIM: 14 | SHT%: 6.4% | MP: 1047
SHL S55 | NOLA | GP: 50 | G: 9 | A: 18 | P: | +/-: +25 | PIM: 30 | SHT%: 7.8% | MP: 984
SHL S56 | ATL | GP: 50 | G: 5 | A: 14 | P: | +/-: +9 | PIM: 138 | SHT%: 6.7% | MP: 842
SHL S57 | ATL | GP: 66 | G: 2 | A: 6 | P: | +/-: -4 | PIM: 113| SHT%: 2.3%| MP: 821
SHL S58 | ATL | GP: 66 | G: 3 | A: 9 | P: | +/-: -13 | PIM: 148 | SHT%: 3.9% | MP: 983
SHL S59 | ATL | GP: 66 | G: 4 | A: 13 | P: 17 | +/-: -10 | PIM: 73 | SHT%: 5.6% | MP: 980

SMJHL Total | STL | GP: 150 | G: 47 | A: 61 | P: 108 | +/-: +36 | PIM: 41 | SHT%: 13.58% | MP: 2653

SHL Total | SEA/EDM/NOLA/ATL | GP: 400 | G: 143 | A: 176 | P: 319 |  +/-: +80 | PIM: 253 | SHT%: 11.13% | MP: 8,023
    SHL Total | SEA | GP: 150 | G: 50 | A: 58 | P: 108 |  +/-: +12 | PIM: 48 | SHT%: 11.11% | MP: 2,988
    SHL Total | EDM | GP: 100 | G: 26 | A: 33 | P: 59 |  +/-: +28 | PIM: 62 | SHT%: 10.53% | MP: 1,676
    SHL Total | NOLA | GP: 650 | G: 112 | A: 156 | P: 268 | +/-: +93 | PIM: 300 | SHT%: 11.39% | MP: 4,452
    SHL Total | ATL | GP: 248 | G: 14 | A: 42 | P: 56 | +/-: -18 | PIM: 472 | SHT%: 4.53% | MP: 3,626

----------------------------------------------------------

Playoff Stats:
SMJHL S38 | STL | GP: 10 | G: 0 | A: 1 | P: 1   | +/-: +1   | PIM: 2   | SHT%: 0.00%   | MP: 136
SMJHL S39 | STL | GP: 13 | G: 3 | A: 7 | P: 10 | +/-: +11 | PIM: 12 | SHT%: 0.00% | MP: 265
SMJHL S40 | STL | GP: 5 | G: 0 | A: 2 | P: 2 | +/-: -1 | PIM: 2 | SHT%: 12.00% | MP: 137
SHL S41 | SEA | Did not make it
SHL S42 | SEA | Did not make it
SHL S43 | SEA | GP: 6 | G: 4 | A: 0 | P: 4 | +/-: -5 | PIM: 6 | SHT%: 26.67% | MP: 135
SHL S44 | EDM | GP: 11 | G: 4 | A: 5 | P: 9 | +/-: 4 | PIM: 0 | SHT%: 16.67% | MP: 206
SHL S45 | EDM | GP: 18 | G: 6 | A: 2 | P: 8 | +/-: +1 | PIM: 35 | SHT%: 13.95 | MP: 242
SHL S46 | NOLA | GP: 20 | G: 11 | A: 6 | P: 17 | +/-: +6 | PIM: 6 | SHT%: 16.42 | MP: 436
SHL S47 | NOLA | GP: 7 | G: 2 | A: 5 | P: 7 | +/-: 0 | PIM: 2 | SHT%: 7.14% | MP: 167
SHL S48 | NOLA | GP:
SHL S49 | NOLA | GP:

SMJHL Total | STL | GP: 28 | G: 3 | A: 10 | P: 13 | +/-: +11 | PIM: 16 | SHT%: 5.17% | MP: 538  

SHL Total | SEA/EDM | GP: 35 | G: 14 | A: 7 | P: 21 | +/-: 0 | PIM: 41 | SHT%: 17.07% | MP: 583
SHL Total | SEA | GP: 6 | G: 4 | A: 0 | P: 4 | +/-: -5 | PIM: 6 | SHT%: 26.67% | MP: 135
SHL Total | EDM | GP: 29 | G: 10 | A: 7 | P: 17 | +/-: +5 | PIM: 35 | SHT%: 14.93% | MP: 448

----------------------------------------------------------

International Play: Round Robin
IIHF S38  | CZE  | GP: 10 | G: 0 | A: 0 | P: 0 | +/-: 0 | PIM: 0 | SHT%: 0.00%   | MP: 33
WJC S38 | EUC | GP: 5   | G: 2 | A: 0 | P: 2 | +/-: +2 | PIM: 4  | SHT% 18.18%  | MP: 89
IIHF S39 | CZE | GP: 10 | G: 0 | A: 1 | P: 1 | +/-: -4 | PIM: 0 | SHT%: 0.00% | MP: 111
WJC S39 | EUE | GP: 3 | G: 1 | A: 1 | P: 2 | +/-: +1 | PIM: 0 | SHT%: 10.00% | MP: 45
IIHF S40 | CZE | GP: 10 | G: 0 | A: 3 | P: 3 | +/-: -4 | PIM: 4 | SHT%: 0.00% | MP: 178
WJC S40 | USSR | GP: 6 | G: 3 | A: 2 | P: 5 | +/-: -3 | PIM: 4 | SHT%: 20:00% | MP: 123
IIHF S41 | CZE | GP: 10 | G: 0 | A: 4 | P: 4 | +/-: -6 | PIM: 0 | SHT%: 0.00% | MP: 188
IIHF S42 | CZE | GP: 10 | G: 3 | A: 3 | P: 6 | +/-: -4 | PIM: 0 | SHT%: 10.71% | MP: 216
IIHF S43 | CZE | GP: 10 | G: 3 | A: 3 | P: 6 | +/-: -1 | PIM: 0 | SHT%: 12.00% | MP: 215
IIHF S44 | CZE | GP: 10 | G: 3 | A: 6 | P: 9 | +/-: +2 | PIM: 0 | SHT%: 8.33% | MP: 214
IIHF S45 | CZE | GP: 10 | G: 3 | A: 3 | P: 6 | +/-: +1 | PIM: 2 | SHT%: 9.68% | MP: 226
IIHF S46 | CZE | GP: 12 | G: 8 | A: 8 | P: 16 | +/-: +9 | PIM: 2 | SHT%: 19.51% | MP: 287
IIHF S47 | CZE | GP: 12 | G: 3 | A: 5 | P: 8 | +/-: -3 | PIM: 2 | SHT%: 6.12% | MP: 289
IIHF S48 | CZE | GP: 12 | G:
IIHF S49 | CZE | GP:  
IIHF Total | CZE | GP: 104 | G: 23 | A: 36 | P: 59 | +/-: -10 | PIM: 10 | SHT%: 9.24% | MP: 1957
WJC Total | CZE | GP: 14 | G: 6 | A: 3 | P: 9 | +/-: 0 | PIM: 8 | SHT%: 16.67% | MP: 257

----------------------------------------------------------

International Play: Medal
IIHF S38  | CZE  | Did Not Advance
WJC S38 | EUC | GP: 2 | G: 0 | A: 0 | P: 0 | +/-: 1 | PIM: 2  | SHT%: 0.00%  | MP: 45
IIHF S39 | CZE | Did Not Advance
WJC S39 | EUE | GP: 1 | G: 0 | A: 0 | P: 0 | +/-: -2 | PIM: 0 | SHT%: 0 | MP: 16
IIHF S40 | CZE | Did Not Advance
WJC S40 | USSR | GP: 3 | G: 2 | A: 0 | P: 2 | +/-: 0 | PIM: 0 | SHT%: 33.33% | MP: 62
IIHF S41 | CZE | Did Not Advance
IIHF S42 | CZE | GP: 1 | G: 1 | A: 0 | P: 1 | +/-: 0 | PIM: 0 | SHT%: 25.00% | MP: 22
IIHF S43 | CZE | Did Not Advance
IIHF S44 | CZE | GP: 3 | G: 0 | A: 1 | P: 1 | +/-: -5 | PIM: 0 | SHT%: 0.00% | MP: 67
IIHF S45 | CZE | GP: 1 | G: 0 | A: 0 | P: 0 | +/-: 0 | PIM: 0 | SHT%: 0.00% | MP: 21
IIHF S46 | CZE | GP: 1 | G: 0 | A: 0 | P: 1 | +/-: 0 | PIM: 0 | SHT%: 0.00% | MP: 22
IIHF Total | CZE | GP: 6 | G: 1 | A: 2 | P: 3 | +/-: -5 | PIM: 0 | SHT%: 5.56% | MP: 132
WJC Total | CZE | GP: 6 | G: 2 | A: 0 | P:  2 | +/-: -1 | PIM: 2 | SHT%: 15.38% | MP: 123

----------------------------------------------------------

Transactions:
- S38 SMJHL Draft 24 OA
- Signed a One-year $3 Million contract with the Scarecrows
- S39 SHL Draft 16OA by the Seattle Riot
- S39 Signed a Two-season $4 Million contract, with a team option, with the Seattle Riot
- Named S39 St. Louis Scarecrows Assistant Captain
- S41 Signed a Three-season $17 million contract with Seattle Riot
- S41 SHL Rookie Season with Seattle Riot
- S44 Signed Two-Season $11 million contract with Seattle Riot
- S43-44 Offseason Traded to Edmonton Blizzard
- S46 Signed Six-Season $30 Million Contract with the New Orleans Specters
---------------------------------------------------------

Awards:
- S39 Laurifer Trophy: St. Louis Scarecrows || 34-14-2
- S39 Four Star Cup Championship: St. Louis Scarecrows || 8-5
- S39 St. Louis Scarecrows Luke Riggs Award
- S39 Oriens Trophy
- S39 Brodie Witzel Trophy Nominee
- S40 Raymond Lindsay Trophy
- S40 Jared Hanson Trophy
- S40 Roberto Martucci Trophy
- S40 Ideen Fallah Trophy
- S40 Zach Miller Trophy Nominee
- S40 WJC Gold
- S41 SHL All Rookie Team
- S44 Presidents Cup: Edmonton Blizzard || 35-11-4
- S45 Presidents Cup: Edmonton Blizzard || 41-6-3
- S45 Challenge Cup Champions: Edmonton Blizzard || 12-6
- S47 First Team All-Star
- S47 Ron Mexico Trophy
- S47 Sarmad Khan Throphy
- S47 Sergei Karpotsov Trophy
- S47 Jay McDonald Trophy
- S49 SHL First Team All-Star
- S49 Ron Mexico Nomination
- S49 Damian Littleton Trophy




DeMaricus Smyth || IIHF GM || Czechia || S38 -  
IIHF Overall Record: 98-97-23
- S38 Round Robin: 4-6-0
- S39 Round Robin: 4-6-0
- S40 Round Robin: 2-3-5
- S41 Round Robin: 2-7-1
- S42 Quarterfinals: 4-5-2
- S43 Round Robin: 3-7-0
- S44 4th Place: 7-6-0
- S45 Quarterfinals: 6-5-0
- S46 Quarterfinal: 7-6-0
- S47 Round Robin: 3-7-2
- S48 Round Robin:2-8-2
- S49 Bronze Medal: 9-5-1
- S50 Quarterfinals: 7-5-1
- S51 4th Place: 9-3-2
- S52 Group Stage: 3-6-3
- S53 Silver Medal: 9-4-2
- S54 Bronze Medal: 10-3-1
- S55 Quarterfinals: 7-5-1

WJC Overall Record: 22-13-2
- S38 | EUC | Semifinals: 4-3-0
- S39 | EUC | Semifinals: 3-1
- S40 | EUE | Gold Medal: 6-3-0
- S49 | UCORCAL | 4th Place: 9-6-0


I I I I

Wow look what the PT affiliation has done to our pristine league.

I personally blame the PT affiliation for handing out massive amounts of free TPE to all these players, inflating the TPE they're at when they get called up.