Senators by the Numbers: #56

Lance Pitlick D 1994-1995

Born in Minneapolis in 1967, Pitlick was drafted 180^th overall by the Minnesota North Stars in 1986. After spending four years with the University of Minnesota, he was acquired by the Flyers organization and spent four years with the Hershey Bears in the AHL. He signed as a free agent with the Ottawa Senators for the 1994-1995 season. He spent most of the season with Ottawa's AHL affiliate but made his NHL debut wearing #56. While Pitlick played 15 games for the Senators in 1994-1995, he did not wear #2 until 1995-1996, a number he wore for the rest of his time in Ottawa. He signed as a free agent with the Florida Panthers in 1999-2000 and retired in 2002. Since retiring he has focused on minor hockey in Minnesota, running a hockey school and developing a product called "SweetHands" to help teach stickhandling fundamentals.

Petr Schastlivy L 1999-2000

Born in Vikhorevka, Soviet Union in 1979, Schastlivy was drafted 101^st overall by the Ottawa Senators in 1998. Petr Schastlivy is the star of "Senators by the Numbers". He barely played 100 games for the Senators over the course of five seasons and yet wore FOUR different numbers during his time in Ottawa. He could fill a bingo card with the sheer amount of numbers he collected during his time in the capital. He wore #56 during his first season with the Senators (he also wore 13, 16, and 19). He began his pro career with Torpedo Yaroslavl of the Russian Super League and came to North America for the 1999-2000 season. He spent the majority of that year with the Grand Rapids Griffins of the IHL, but did make his NHL debut with the Senators wearing #56. On February 4, 2004, Schastlivy was traded to Anaheim for Todd Simpson, ending his time in Ottawa. He played a handful of games for the Ducks but during the lockout returned to Russia to play and has since played for several RSL and KHL teams. He currently plays for Torpedo Nizhny Novgorod of the KHL.

Best #56: Petr Schastlivy

Hero of the series. Enough said.

Worst #56: N/A

Who wore it best?