From RW's article:

Even with the possession decline I believe that the amount of offense Sheahan provided more than made up for it. Sheahan also plays minutes on the penalty kill which is useful because he isn't a complete bum at 5v5. The team would avoid going down the"PK specialist" road where they get a useless player who hurts the team more than they help IE: Tom Kuhnhackl

I'm pleasantly surprised to see RW say Sheahan's production outweighed his poor possession numbers. Yes to signing him especially if you can keep him close to his qualifying offer.

The second part of that paragraph is important in how I'd plan things. Keep the guys who kill penalties and are actually good at hockey. Hagelin, Sheahan, Rust, and ZAR make a good group and I'd like to use Jake a little there too who had a great sample and could use a couple more minutes since he doesn't get much PP time. Let's move on from Rowney and Kuhnhackl.
- Tojo.

If Sheary is on the team next season I think he should kill penalties. He's fast and smart enough.

If Sheary is on the team next season I think he should kill penalties. He's fast and smart enough.
- Thorny87

I agree on the speed and have thought of that. He gambles a little too much for my liking, but I wouldn't mind trying it to see if he could prove me wrong.

The Knights are similar to last years Pens in that they weather a storm and turn one break into a goal. That was a soul crusher for the jets tonight.

Can we kick the stammer guy off this board. HE doesn't even understand the charts he is posting.

If you look at that age chart it shows a negative (below 0) war for every age group. This would mean that a player peaks at 18 and declines his entire career.

I knew something with that chart didn't make make sense a long time ago.

Something is wrong with the data or how it is charted or theirs a statistical distortion going on (like if you have 19 players in an age group improve .25 war and one player career crashes and burns from injury making the entire sample negative.

It's a stupid chart that when you look at the numbers it's showing makes it impossible.

Yeah I think peak age is largely misunderstood because it takes 2 or 3 years of good performance sometimes before we recognise a player being good.
- Feds91Stammer

No you are a fraud that post a chart indicating players peak at 19 or earlier.

For the record I have zero clue what that chart I should posting. "Change in overall average war"? My best guess was how can that be negative every year? It sounds like a first derivative of war.....a rate of change but that isn't making sense.

Very easy to lie with charting. There's an article going around in the dumbest finance charts out there that come to ridiculous conclusions because of scaling etc.