View Single Post
Old
06-15-2011, 12:27 PM
  #102
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
I could of but I like taking alternative approaches.

Instead of this thread, I could of also made a thread titled '' A Scott Gomez away from Winning the Cup? ''

There are many ways to go about the argument of being a piece or two away from contention.
Sure. But I don't think MaxPac is the guy, do you? Of course not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
I think if we can subtract Gomez from the equation, and find a way to replace him and his cap hit with a center that plays at least to 75-85 percent of his worth, we'd be pretty close to the level of Boston (and since we tend to match-up well, I wouldn't be scared facing them at that point)...

Especially with an extra year of experience for Subban and Price. Yes, they're not superstars yet, but they're looking like real deals.

Boston is pretty thin up front (since there's no clear F superstar on their team)... the only difference is that they don't have a 7.3 million cap sucker draining them out of contention. they have Krejci, a 2nd rounder... whom I think falls short of Superstar / franchise status, but definitely productive top 6.
Most folks will be shocked if Boston wins this year and a lot of people in this forum are saying that they'd be the weakest team ever to win a cup. But even they had a great year this season.

So again, why do you want to compare us to the weakest teams to win? Why not try to build what an average cup winning team has instead? And sorry, but getting a center who plays 75 percent of what Gomez does isn't going to put us over either.

With our lack of size and grit, we'd at the very least need a superstar forward to make us true contenders. If that ever happened then maybe we can talk about this kind of stuff. But MaxPac isn't Steven Stamkos. And he's nowhere near the difference maker that this club needs to vault it into the same category as the top contending clubs. Yes, we can beat any given team in a 7 game series and yes we almost beat Boston. But for us to win Price has to be Ken Dryden and while we can hope for this we shouldn't expect it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Those are not "fluke years".
We've been offesively challenged for over a decade. One year sticks out like a sore thumb. Yeah, it's a fluke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
High and lows are just a common occurence of cycles in complex systems. That's what happens when you mix 600+ individuals into 30 groups and make them compete against each other in a pinball sport (high fluctuations) like hockey. It's 600+ individuals making thousands of decisions on and off the ice, events in their lives, that affect their play, played over thousands of games.
Sure, there are highs and lows. But for most teams they exist within a range. And our range has consistently been in the lower half or 3rd of the league for goals for. And it's been that way because our players haven't been good enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Hockey players aren't little robots, they aren't some little AI bots from a video game that respond game after game to their established 'overall'.
Really? Wow. Thanks for that awesome point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Hockey isn't like basketball either, where the number of players makes the necessity for an exceptional player all that much more desirable, whereas hockey is more a group sport, where the team is only as good as it's weakest link, not it's strongest one.
Strange how cup winning teams usually have HOF players on it in their prime. How do you explain this because history goes completely against what you're saying here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
His argument has not be refuted, only sidelined. There are a lot more ways to be a winning team without having a high +/- differential, and a static group of 20 will without a doubt bring different results year in and year out, depending on the system, the yeild will be greater or thinner, because the more variables there are, the more complex the system becomes, and the more unpredictable it becomes, the more the yeild can change.
He was trying to say that scoring more than the other guy is what matters. And the bottom line is that we're nowhere near what contending clubs are in terms of differential. And it's not just this season. So you can argue that it's just one year and there are highs and lows all you want, the bottom line is that we've consistently not performed at the level of contenders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
The best example of this is that predicting a winner in basketball is a lot easier than hockey, because they have 1/3 the variables in the player factor, compared to hockey.


Point is, no matter what paradigm of systematic approach you force upon people here, won't change the fact that you're only creating that paradigm in a tightly-closed logical loop that discounts a big part of reality, which is the common problem here and everywhere this type of thing is discussed.

No matter what paradigm you're trying to impose, the present (part) lineup has yeilded a lot more than expected while being depleted more than expected, and as such, discounting it's success is a bad approach, and also not being able to quantify the added variables properly as we've never witnessed some of the probable coming events (full season of Markov + Subban, first full season for Pac) added to the present group, which if just added to the base should already change the yeild considerably.

What has become a fluke is winning the cup. For any team, even Detroit. The difference between team #1 and team #20 is much more smaller than it was just 10 years ago (even 5 years ago), and even more so than 20 years ago. There's also the added variable of absorbing more and more talent into the same container (30 teams) for a long span, this has created a league filled with talent EVERYWHERE which makes the 600+ player group even more unpredictable in the outcomes.
Winning a cup has become a fluke? Really?

Strange how Detroit, Colorado, New Jersey, Pittsburgh and Chicago have all gone on to win as expected. The only two true flukes that I can think of were TB and Carolina (immediately before and after the lockout) both of whom had great seasons and career years from their top players.

Somebody mentioned above that an 8th place team is going to win someday. I agree, it will happen for sure. It has to. But the vast majority of times those cup winners are going to be true contenders and favourites. The last three were no suprise and if Vancouver wins tonight it won't be a surprise either.

As for Boston winning, I will personally be shocked. Maybe it's because Thomas has never really played well against us or maybe it's because I just never believed in the Bruins. But the B's have had an all-time great season from Thomas and a Norris winning season from their future HOF defenseman. And THAT constitutes a weak cup team. Most cup winners have two, three or four (sometimes even more) HOF players on it. It's not a fluke that those clubs win cups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Those numbers say nothing of the sort. They say the Habs are like all teams where it comes to shooting percentage: average. With variations year over year. Just like Boston. Or San Jose.
How do you explain how Gomez's shooting percentage is so consistently low then? You don't think the guys shooting the puck has anything to do with this?


Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Let's play a little game to illustrate. Which, of the following two teams, do you believe has had the best 5-on-5 finishers over the last four years:

Toronto Maple Leafs
Detroit Red Wings

Remember three things: Corsi refers to five-on-five play (scoring leaders typically rack up a large portion of their points on the power play) and Corsi is about outscoring more than it is about offense (outscoring is what matters in hockey, not just offense), and for individual players Corsi is heavily dependent on context (players who play softer opposition or often start in the offensive zone will get higher Corsi without being better). Icetime matters as well. You can't expect to take a list of Corsi leaders and have it match the list of top scorers; that's not what Corsi represents at all.
Then I"m not sure what value Corsi brings to any kind of analysis here. If the players with the best Corsi numbers aren't the best players in the game, then the stat is interesting but not indicative of how good a player or team is.

If say, Brett Hull or Mike Bossy's Corsi numbers suck... I really don't care. The puck is on the guy's stick for half a second and then it's in the net.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Because puck possession is a sustainable skill (unlike shooting percentage), and because the Habs loaded up on strong 5-on-5 possession players in 2009 and has had their players seriously underperform their results on other teams. I made a little study and everyone who joined the Habs saw their puck possession metrics go down when they joined the club, and everyone who left saw them go up, regardless if they were coming from strong clubs like Detroit, decent ones like the Rangers, or poor ones.

This year, however everyone played pretty much to their "average" level of historical performance. Basically, the "black hole" that joining the Habs represented is gone. Basically, the Habs' player are now playing at the level they always have, whereas last year was an anomaly for them individually.

I've complained a lot about Martin in the past, but this year he's achieved what I thought/hoped he would. I expected it last year, but maybe there was a learning curve.
This club has been inconsistent for years. You say it's a sustainable skill... we'll see about that. I agree we were better this year but I'm not convinced that this club will continue down that path next year.

Moreover, we've already seen that puck possession isn't the be all and end all. That's why Scott Gomez isn't considered a great player in this league. His corsi numbers may be stellar but he doesn't produce to a great level.

Again, you're trying to 'Sabremetrictize' (it's a word look it up) the game of hockey and it doesn't work that way. If it did, then Gomez would be a 100 point player and he's not. Having the puck is a good thing but it doesn't always translate to the results that you're claiming it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
No it wasn't. It was a massive difference. It wasn't subtle. You're merely willfully ignoring it.
The corsi number may have been a massive difference but the results were the same. You are the one ignoring the results. The scoring doesn't match up with your stats so you just say it's a fluke or luck.

It's not a fluke and it's not luck. It's a consistent pattern that we've followed for years. If it were one season that stuck out like a sore thumb the way 2008 did I'd agree with you. But every year we can't seem to bury chances that are right on the doorstep of the opposition's goal. Maybe other club's have size up front and can fight their way through the traffic in front. Maybe they have better finishers and 100 point players. Bottom line is that our forwards aren't good enough to contend. And until this changes, we aren't going to actually be in the hunt for a cup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
On the contrary, there was a huge difference. They fixed their long-standing problems with 5-on-5 this year. I'd say you just missed it, but you do have this tendency to just ignore whatever doesn't suit your argument.
I didn't miss it and I think you know this. I said I saw an improvement on the ice and I don't need a spreadsheet to tell me this. That said, we still can't score.

Be honest, do you think we'll be in the top half for offense next year with the roster we have? Seriously?


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 06-15-2011 at 01:06 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote