Fancy stats suggest Penguins are much better than their record indicates. That true? |
Breakfast With Benz

Fancy stats suggest Penguins are much better than their record indicates. That true?

Tim Benz
Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
The Pittsburgh Penguins’ Dominik Kahun celebrates his goal against the Philadelphia Flyers in the third period Tuesday, Oct. 29, 2019 at PPG Paints Arena.

Want hard-hitting Penguins analysis? You’ve got it!

It’s in this week’s hockey podcast with Brian Metzer of the Penguins Radio Network.

Well, after a few minutes of discussion about Tool, Poison, Def Leppard, Mötley Crüe and Kiss.

Per usual.

Then we get into more pressing matters such as Jim Rutherford’s Hall of Fame induction, Dominik Kahun’s emergence, the power play, the rivalry with the New York Islanders, odd scheduling and fancy stats.

The advanced analytics say the Penguins are much better than their record indicates. Is that true? Or are all the charts and graphs for the birds?

You know. Like the new Tool book and the latest ’80s metal comeback tour.

No. Seriously. There’s lots of hockey in here. I swear.

Matt Murray’s contractual future. Bryan Rust’s good play. Potential trade interest in Tristan Jarry. Paranormal hockey activity.

Trust me. Just listen.

Tim Benz and Brian Metzer first talk ’80s metal, then dive into Penguins news including Jim Rutherford’s Hall of Fame induction, Dominik Kahun’s emergence and the rivalry with the Islanders

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at [email protected] or via Twitter. All tweets could be reposted. All emails are subject to publication unless specified otherwise.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.