Why no lead is safe, the Sam Bennett effect, and other Round 2 lessons of the Stanley Cup playoffs
-
Ryan S. Clark
-
Kristen Shilton
Sixteen games have been played in the second round of the 2024 Stanley Cup playoffs. Some trends from Round 1 have continued. Others have not.
With multiple teams on the cusp of elimination, it’s time for another set of playoff takeaways, courtesy of NHL reporters Ryan S. Clark and Kristen Shilton.
Jake Oettinger bolstering his case to be Team USA’s No. 1 goalie
Thatcher Demko. Connor Hellebuyck. Jake Oettinger. Jeremy Swayman. These appear to be the four leading names for who could play goal for the United States at the upcoming 4 Nations Face-Off in 2025, along with the Winter Olympics in 2026.
Having their pick of these goaltenders reinforces the belief that the U.S. is one of the front-runners to win both tournaments. Of course, one of them is expected to miss out, with teams usually taking three goalies. That’s a question that will likely get answered over time. But right now, Oettinger is using the 2024 playoffs to make a case to not only make the team but potentially get the nod in net.
Oettinger’s 24-save performance in the Dallas Stars‘ 5-1 win in Game 4 against the Colorado Avalanche means he is now 7-4 with a 2.12 goals-against average and a .923 save percentage this postseason. He has provided the sort of stability that has allowed the Stars to come within a game of reaching the Western Conference finals. And he did it while playing a proverbial SEC schedule, with the Stars facing the defending Stanley Cup champion Vegas Golden Knights in the first round followed by the Avs, who won the Cup in 2022.
It’s possible that Demko, who has battled injuries the last few months, could return for the Vancouver Canucks if they can reach the conference finals. Hellebuyck, who is the favorite to win the Vezina Trophy, endured his most challenging postseason, with a GAA that was north of 5.00 and an .870 save percentage. As for Swayman, he’s posted a 2.28 GAA with a .920 save percentage, although the Boston Bruins‘ past three losses to the Florida Panthers have seen him surrender more than three goals per game since winning Game 1 of the series.
Other factors will go into the team selection (and lineup) process. But this postseason, Oettinger is providing the consistent high-level goaltending that Team USA will need in the upcoming best-on-best tournaments. — Clark
Bennett didn’t arrive until Game 3 of the Florida Panthers‘ series against the Boston Bruins, but suffice it to say, the man has made his mark. The Panthers forward has one goal, one assist, one controversial hit on Brad Marchand (that took the Bruins’ captain out of Game 4 with an upper-body injury) and one contentious scoring sequence under his belt already.
And the fans in Boston were happy to let Bennett have it whenever he touched the puck in Game 4.
Bennett is the latest example of a player becoming a playoff lightning rod. The question is: Will his antics galvanize the Bruins from here and help them overcome a 3-1 series deficit? Or is Bennett’s button-pushing going to give Florida further confidence to stay on top of its Atlantic Division rivals?
Game-changers in the playoffs aren’t always determined through the X’s and O’s, and Bennett has certainly spiced up the Florida-Boston matchup in unexpected ways. — Shilton
0:50
Sam Bennett evens score with clutch power-play goal
Sam Bennett takes advantage on the power play and nets a huge goal for the Panthers to even the score against the Bruins.
Why can’t anyone in the West hold a lead?
One of the common threads in the Western Conference semifinal series is that no lead is safe. The Dallas Stars found that out in Game 1 when the Colorado Avalanche came back from a three-goal deficit to win in overtime. Game 2 saw the Stars build a 4-0 lead only to see the Avs score three before the Stars won 5-3. In Game 3, the Stars had a 1-0 lead until the Avs tied the game. The Stars scored again but were under threat before a pair of empty-net goals gave them a 4-1 lead.
The Edmonton Oilers had a two-goal lead in Game 1 before the Vancouver Canucks won 5-4. The Canucks had a pair of one-goal leads in Game 2 before the Oilers won it in overtime. Game 3 saw the Oilers jump out to a 1-0 lead before the Canucks scored three straight. Even then, the Oilers scored two of the game’s final three goals and made life hectic for the Canucks after they scored early in the third period before losing 4-3.
What is it about the Western Conference right now? Why is it that each of the four teams presents equal arguments for how it can charge out to a lead — and could lose it just as easily? One reason is that all four were rather strong at comebacks in the regular season. The Stars were 23-15-4 when their opponents scored first, while the Avalanche were 20-17-0 when their opponent got the first goal. As for the Oilers, they were 18-18-3 in those situations whereas the Canucks were 12-12-5.
“It’s certainly a mental boost and a pick-me-up if you believe in what your team’s doing and have firepower, which, I think, all the teams have firepower and can score,” Avalanche coach Jared Bednar said. “You get something going your way, it’s snowballing going downhill and the other team is trying to survive for a little bit. If you can capitalize on a chance or two, it starts turning the tide.
“The belief gets stronger and stronger. … When you are playing from behind, you get to a certain part of the game where you have nothing to lose. You’re either going out with a loss or pushing to try and make it a win. I think it’s evenly matched teams, all desperate to try to survive and advance and lay it all on the line.” — Clark
Go big or go deep?
The New York Rangers–Carolina Hurricanes series is a fascinating look at how two great teams approached the trade deadline this season — with varied results.
Last season, the Rangers went all-in, acquiring Patrick Kane and Vladimir Tarasenko to (theoretically) give them a boost come playoff time. New York’s would-be stars never acted their part, and the Rangers made a first-round exit. This season, New York added depth in Alex Wennberg and Jack Roslovic so that its core could shine as is — and it’s working.
Meanwhile, Carolina followed the Rangers’ script from last season with the deadline blockbuster (hello, Jake Guentzel). But somehow, the Hurricanes’ ship plotting toward a Stanley Cup Final took on significant water in the second round.
Now, it’s not all due to one factor (or player). But this illustrates how it’s not always big swings that ultimately determine a team’s fate. Maybe it’s a mindset or mentality that comes with staying the course. New York essentially bet on itself to get the job done, and it’s working. Carolina gathered reinforcements, and that hasn’t paid off as quickly. And oddly enough, if anyone can relate, it’s the Rangers. — Shilton
Lingering questions on the Oilers’ goaltending
Stuart Skinner has become a topic of conversation for a second straight postseason. Last year, he was a rookie who was pulled four times, with three of those early exits coming in the second round. Fast forward to this postseason. In Game 3, he was pulled after two periods and now has a 4.63 goals-against average and a .790 save percentage in three games against the Canucks.
It left Oilers coach Kris Knoblauch with a decision ahead of Game 4. Does he return to Skinner? Does he turn to Calvin Pickard, who replaced Skinner in Game 3? Or does that all open the door for Jack Campbell? Even while trying to answer those questions, there’s another one facing the Oilers.
How will the decision facing Knoblauch this postseason impact the club going forward? Campbell is under contract for three more years at $5 million annually, while Skinner has two years left at $2.6 million annually. Pickard is a pending unrestricted free agent on a team that Cap Friendly projects will have a little less than $9 million in space in the offseason.
The past five years have watched the Oilers go from a team of promise with two generational talents in Leon Draisaitl and Connor McDavid to one that carries championship expectations into each season. In that time, the Oilers’ front office has worked to address their needs, which have ranged from finding secondary scoring to strengthening a defense to getting the goaltenders they feel can help them win a title.
But with their current situation, what could next season look like for the Oilers in goal? Especially when they have 10 UFAs, seven of whom are forwards. And even that comes with the context that whatever they do this offseason could impact what happens in the summer of 2025, when Draisaitl could hit the open market. — Clark
Is Edmonton built to last?
There’s no doubt the Oilers can score. They’ve done plenty of it in the postseason. But is Edmonton designed to win over the long haul here?
Consider that the Oilers have tallied 33 goals total — but only 17 at even strength. That top-ranked power play has been a vital part of Edmonton’s success to date, and now it is experiencing what happens when it runs up against a sensational penalty kill like Vancouver’s. Pucks can stop finding twine as frequently on the man advantage. The Oilers are 4-for-8 on the power play through three games; the Canucks are nearly matching them, though, at 3-for-9. If the special teams battle becomes neutral ground, it’s fair to question whether the Oilers can get out of the second round based purely on their even-strength play.
McDavid has one 5-on-5 goal in the playoffs. Draisaitl has two. But each has 10 total points on the power play. Maybe there’s still a shift coming. That special teams mojo better start translating throughout the game for Edmonton, though. — Shilton
-
Greg Wyshynski
The Winnipeg Jets defended star goaltender Connor Hellebuyck after another disastrous performance on the road, a 5-2 loss Friday night in which the St. Louis Blues forced Game 7 in their Stanley Cup Playoff opening-round series.
Hellebuyck was pulled after the second period in favor of backup Eric Comrie, the third straight game in St. Louis that he failed to finish. Hellebuyck surrendered five goals on 23 shots, including four goals on eight shots during a 5-minute, 23-second stretch in the second period that cost the Jets the game.
As has become tradition in this series, Blues fans mockingly chanted, “We want Connor!” after Hellebuyck left the game and the Jets’ bench.
“This isn’t about Connor,” Winnipeg coach Scott Arniel said. “Tonight was not about Connor. Tonight, we imploded in front of him. Now, it’s a one-game showdown. It’s our goalie against their goalie, our best players against their best, our grinders against theirs. I have a lot of confidence in our [entire] group — not just Helly.”
Hellebuyck won the Vezina Trophy last season as the NHL’s top goaltender, as voted on by the league’s general managers. He also won the award in 2019-20 and is the favorite to win it for a third time this season. Hellebuyck is also a finalist for the 2024-25 Hart Trophy, awarded to the NHL’s most valuable player. He was the starting goaltender for Team USA at the 4 Nations Face-Off tournament in February and was expected to do the same for the U.S. in next year’s Winter Olympics in Italy.
But his recent performances in the Stanley Cup playoffs have been the antithesis of that success.
Over the past three postseasons, two of which the Jets lost in the first round in just five games, Hellebuyck is 5-11 with an .860 save percentage.
Hellebuyck failed to finish any of the three games played in St. Louis during the series. He was pulled with 9:28 left in regulation in Game 3, having given up six goals on 25 shots. In Game 4, Hellebuyck was pulled 2:01 into the third period after surrendering five goals on 18 shots. Hellebuyck has allowed four or more goals in seven straight road playoff games, tying the second-longest streak in Stanley Cup playoff history
At home against the Blues in this series, it has been a different story, if not necessarily a great one: Hellebuyck is 3-0 in Winnipeg, with an .879 save percentage and a 2.33 goals-against average.
His home numbers in the regular season: 27-3-3 with a .938 save percentage and a 1.63 goals-against average in 33 games. His road numbers: 20-9-0 with a .911 save percentage and a 2.43 goals-against average. Hellebuyck was not pulled in his 63 appearances in the regular season.
Even with Hellebuyck’s multiple seasons of playoff struggles, his team exonerated him from blame for the Game 6 loss.
“I don’t need to talk about Bucky,” said forward Nikolaj Ehlers, who returned to the lineup for the first time since April 12 after a foot injury. “He’s been unbelievable for us all year. He’s continued to do that. We’ve got to be better.”
Said forward Cole Perfetti, who had a goal in Game 6: “Things got carried away. We lost our game for four or five minutes. They got a couple pucks through, and they found the back of the net. It’s frustrating. Happened a couple of times now this series where we fell asleep and they jumped on us.”
Perfetti said the Jets have rebounded from losses like this — one reason their confidence isn’t shaken ahead of Sunday’s Game 7.
“We had a loss like that in Game 4 [in St. Louis],” he said. “We went home and got the job done in Game 5. We’ve got the home ice. We’ve got the fans behind us and our barn rocking.”
-
Bill Connelly
Almost no word in the English language makes a college football fan more defensive than the L-word: luck.
We weren’t lucky to have a great turnover margin — our coaches are just really good at emphasizing ball security! We’re tougher than everyone else — that’s why we recovered all those fumbles!
We weren’t lucky to win all those close games — we’re clutch! Our coaches know how to press all the right buttons! Our quarterback is a cool customer!
We weren’t lucky to have fewer injuries than everyone else — our strength-and-conditioning coach is the best in America! And again: We’re just tougher!
As loath as we may be to admit it, a large percentage of a given college football season — with its small overall sample of games — is determined by the bounce of a pointy ball, the bend of a ligament and the whims of fate. Certain teams will end up with an unsustainably good turnover margin that turns on them the next year. Certain teams (often the same ones) will enjoy a great run of close-game fortune based on some combination of great coaching, sturdy quarterback play, timely special teams contributions … and massive amounts of unsustainable randomness. Certain teams will keep their starting lineups mostly intact for 12 or more games while another is watching its depth chart change dramatically on a week-to-week basis.
As we prepare for the 2025 college football season, it’s worth stepping back and looking at who did, and didn’t, get the bounces in 2024. Just because Lady Luck was (or wasn’t) on your side one year, doesn’t automatically mean your fortunes will flip the next, but that’s often how these things go. Be it turnovers, close-game fortune or injuries, let’s talk about the teams that were dealt the best and worst hands last fall.
Jump to a section:
Turnover luck | Close games luck
Injuries and general shuffling | Turnaround candidates
Turnover luck
In last year’s ACC championship game, Clemson bolted to a 24-7 halftime lead, then white-knuckled it to the finish. SMU came back to tie the score at 31 with only 16 seconds left, but Nolan Hauser‘s 56-yard field goal at the buzzer gave the Tigers a 34-31 victory and a spot in 2024’s College Football Playoff at Alabama’s expense.
In the first series of the game, Clemson’s T.J. Parker pulled a perfect sack-and-strip of SMU QB Kevin Jennings, forcing and falling on a loose ball at the SMU 33-yard line. Clemson scored two plays later to take a 7-0 lead. Late in the first quarter, Khalil Barnes picked off a Jennings pass near midfield, ending what could have become a scoring threat with one more first down. A few minutes later, Clemson’s Cade Klubnik fumbled at the end of a 14-yard gain, but tight end Jake Briningstool recovered it at midfield, preventing another potential scoring threat from developing. (Klubnik fumbled seven times in the 2024 season but lost only one of them.)
Early in the third quarter, after SMU cut Clemson’s lead to 24-14, David Eziomume fumbled the ensuing kickoff at the Clemson 6, but teammate Keith Adams Jr. recovered it right before two SMU players pounced.
Over 60 minutes, both teams fumbled twice, and Clemson defended (intercepted or broke up) eight passes to SMU’s seven. On average, 50% of fumbles are lost and about 21% of passes defended become INTs, so Clemson’s expected turnover margin in this game was plus-0.2 (because of the extra pass defended). The Tigers’ actual turnover margin was plus-2, a difference of 1.8 turnovers in a game they barely won.
Clemson was obviously a solid team in 2024, but the Tigers probably wouldn’t have reached the CFP without turnovers luck. For the season, they fumbled 16 times but lost only three, and comparing their expected (based on the averages above) and actual turnover margins, almost no one benefited more from the randomness of a bouncing ball.
It probably isn’t a surprise to see that, of last year’s 12 playoff teams, eight benefited from positive turnovers luck, and six were at plus-3.3 or higher. You’ve got to be lucky and good to win, right?
You aren’t often lucky for two straight years, though. It might be noteworthy to point out that, of the teams in Mark Schlabach’s Way-Too-Early 2025 rankings, five were in the top 20 in terms of turnovers luck: No. 5 Georgia, No. 7 Clemson, No. 9 BYU, No. 11 Iowa State and No. 17 Indiana (plus two others from his Teams Also Considered list: Army and Baylor).
It’s also noteworthy to point out that three teams on Schlabach’s list — No. 6 Oregon, No. 8 LSU and No. 15 SMU — ranked in the triple-digits in terms of turnovers luck. Oregon started the season 13-0 without the benefit of bounces. For that matter, Auburn, a team on the Also Considered list, ranked 125th in turnovers luck in a season that saw the Tigers go just 1-3 in one-score finishes. There might not have been a more what-could-have-been team in the country than Hugh Freeze’s Tigers.
Close games
One of my favorite tools in my statistical toolbox is what I call postgame win expectancy. The idea is to take all of a game’s key, predictive stats — all the things that end up feeding into my SP+ rankings — and basically toss them into the air and say, “With these stats, you could have expected to win this game X% of the time.”
Alabama‘s 40-35 loss to Vanderbilt on Oct. 5 was one of the most impactful results of the CFP race. It was also one of the least likely results of the season in terms of postgame win expectancy. Bama averaged 8.8 yards per play to Vandy’s 5.6, generated a 56% success rate* to Vandy’s 43% and scored touchdowns on all four of its trips into the red zone. It’s really hard to lose when you do all of that — in fact, the Crimson Tide’s postgame win expectancy was a whopping 98.5%. (You can see all postgame win expectancy data here)
(* Success rate: how frequently an offense is gaining at least 50% of necessary yardage on first down, 70% on second and 100% on third and fourth. It is one of the more reliable and predictive stats you’ll find, and it’s a big part of SP+.)
Vandy managed to overcome these stats in part because of two of the most perfect bounces you’ll ever see. In the first, Jalen Milroe had a pass batted at the line, and it deflected high into the air and, eventually, into the arms of Randon Fontenette, who caught it on the run and raced 29 yards for a touchdown and an early 13-0 lead.
In the second half, with Bama driving to potentially take the lead, Miles Capers sacked Milroe and forced a fumble; the ball sat on the ground for what felt like an eternity before Yilanan Ouattara outwrestled a Bama lineman for it. Instead of trailing, Vandy took over near midfield and scored seven plays later. It took turnovers luck and unlikely key-play execution — despite a 43% success rate, Diego Pavia and the Commodores went 12-for-18 on third down and 1-for-1 on fourth — for Vandy to turn a 1.5% postgame win expectancy into a victory. It also wasn’t Alabama’s only incredibly unlikely loss: The Tide were at 87.8% to beat Michigan in the ReliaQuest Bowl but fell 19-13.
(Ole Miss can feel the Tide’s pain: The Rebels were at 76.0% postgame win expectancy against Kentucky and 73.7% against Florida. There was only a 6% chance that they would lose both games, and even going 1-1 would have likely landed them a CFP bid. They lost both.)
Adding up each game’s postgame win expectancy is a nice way of seeing how many games a team should have won on average. I call this a team’s second-order win total. Alabama was at 10.7 second-order wins but went 9-4. That was one of the biggest differences of the season. Somehow, however, Iron Bowl rival Auburn was even more unfortunate.
Based solely on stats, Arkansas State should have won about four games, and Auburn should have won about eight. Instead, the Red Wolves went 8-5 and the Tigers went 5-7.
Comparing win totals to these second-order wins is one of the surest ways of identifying potential turnaround stories for the following season. In 2023, 15 teams had second-order win totals at least one game higher than their actual win totals — meaning they suffered from poor close-game fortune. Ten of those 15 teams saw their win totals increase by at least two games in 2024, including East Carolina (from 2-10 to 8-5), TCU (5-7 to 9-4), Pitt (3-9 to 7-6), Boise State (8-6 to 12-2) and Louisiana (6-7 to 10-4). On average, these 15 teams improved by 1.9 wins.
On the flip side, 19 teams overachieved their second-order win totals by at least 1.0 wins in 2023. This list includes both of 2023’s national title game participants, Washington and Michigan. The Huskies and Wolverines sank from a combined 29-1 in 2023 to 14-12 in 2024, and it could have been even worse. Michigan overachieved again, going 8-5 despite a second-order win total of 6.0. Other 2023 overachievers weren’t so lucky. Oklahoma State (from 10-4 to 3-9), Wyoming (from 9-4 to 3-9), Northwestern (from 8-5 to 4-8) and NC State (from 9-4 to 6-7) all won more games than the stats expected in 2023, and all of them crumpled to some degree in 2024. On average, the 19 overachieving teams regressed by 1.9 wins last fall.
It’s worth keeping in mind that several teams in Schlabach’s Way-Too-Early Top 25 — including No. 6 Oregon, No. 8 LSU, No. 11 Iowa State, No. 13 Illinois and, yes, No. 21 Michigan — all exceeded statistical expectations in wins last season, as did Also Considered teams like Army, Duke, Missouri and Texas Tech. The fact that Oregon and LSU overachieved while suffering from poor turnovers luck is (admittedly) rather unlikely and paints a conflicting picture.
Meanwhile, one should note that three Way-Too-Early teams — No. 12 Alabama, No. 23 Miami and No. 25 Ole Miss (plus Washington and, of course, Auburn from the Also Considered list) — all lost more games than expected last season. With just a little bit of good fortune, they could prove to be awfully underrated.
Injuries and general shuffling
Injuries are hard to define in college football — coaches are frequently canny in the information they do and do not provide, and with so many teams in FBS, it’s impossible to derive accurate data regarding how many games were missed due to injury.
We can glean quite a bit from starting lineups, however. Teams with lineups that barely changed throughout the season were probably pretty happy with their overall results, while teams with ever-changing lineups likely succumbed to lots of losses. Below, I’ve ranked teams using a simple ratio: I compared (a) the number of players who either started every game or started all but one for a given team to (b) the number of players who started only one or two games, likely as a stopgap. If you had far more of the former, your team likely avoided major injury issues and, with a couple of major exceptions, thrived. If you had more of the latter, the negative effects were probably pretty obvious.
Despite the presence of 1-11 Purdue and 2-10 Kennesaw State near the top of the list — Purdue fielded one of the worst power conference teams in recent memory and barely could blame injury for its issues — you can still see a decent correlation between a positive ratio and positive results. The six teams with a ratio of at least 2.8 or above went a combined 62-22 in 2024, while the teams with a 0.5 ratio or worse went 31-56.
Seven of nine conference champions had a ratio of at least 1.3, and 11 of the 12 CFP teams were at 1.44 or higher (five were at 2.6 or higher). Indiana, the most shocking of CFP teams, was second on the list above; epic disappointments like Oklahoma and, especially, Florida State were near the bottom. (The fact that Georgia won the SEC and reached the CFP despite a pretty terrible injury ratio speaks volumes about the depth Kirby Smart has built in Athens. Of course, the Dawgs also enjoyed solid turnovers luck.)
Major turnaround candidates
It’s fair to use this information as a reason for skepticism about teams like Indiana (turnovers luck and injuries luck), Clemson (turnovers luck), Iowa State (close-games luck), Penn State (injuries luck) or Sam Houston (all of the above, plus a coaching change), but let’s end on an optimistic note instead. Here are five teams that could pretty easily enjoy a big turnaround if Lady Luck is a little kinder.
Auburn Tigers: Auburn enjoyed a better success rate than its opponents (44.7% to 38.5%) and made more big plays as well (8.9% of plays gained 20-plus yards versus 5.7% for opponents). That makes it awfully hard to lose! But the Tigers made exactly the mistake they couldn’t make and managed to lose games with 94%, 76% and 61% postgame win expectancy. There’s nothing saying this was all bad luck, but even with a modest turnaround in fortune, the Tigers will have a very high ceiling in 2025.
Florida Gators: The Gators improved from 41st to 20th in SP+ and from 5-7 to 8-5 overall despite starting three quarterbacks and 12 different DBs and ranking 132nd on the list above. That says pretty spectacular things about their overall upside, especially considering their improved experience levels on the O-line, in the secondary and the general optimism about sophomore quarterback DJ Lagway.
Florida Atlantic Owls: Only one team ranked 111th or worse in all three of the tables above — turnovers luck (111th), second-order win difference (121st) and injury ratio (131st). You could use this information to make the case that the Owls shouldn’t have fired head coach Tom Herman, or you could simply say that new head coach Zach Kittley is pretty well-positioned to get some bounces and hit the ground running.
Florida State Seminoles: There was evidently plenty of poor fortune to go around in the Sunshine State last season, and while Mike Norvell’s Seminoles suffered an epic hangover on the field, they also didn’t get a single bounce: They were 129th in turnovers luck, 99th in second-order win difference and 110th in injury ratio. Norvell has brought in new coordinators and plenty of new players, and the Noles are almost guaranteed to jump up from 2-10. With a little luck, that jump could be a pretty big one.
Utah Utes: Along with UCF, Utah was one of only two teams to start four different quarterbacks in 2024. The Utes were also among only four teams to start at least 11 different receivers or tight ends and among five teams to start at least nine defensive linemen. If you’re looking for an easy explanation for how they fell from 65th to 96th in offensive SP+ and from 8-5 to 5-7 overall, that’s pretty succinct and telling.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway