Thread: Confirmed with Link: Brandon Prust to Montreal [4 years, $10M]
View Single Post
Old
07-02-2012, 08:43 PM
  #460
Talks to Goalposts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
if you don't understand the difference between what a player like Prust can add to the team vs guys like Halpern/McClement/Moore, then that explains everything.

Let alone the fact that we had 2 of those 3 in our lineup in recent years, and while both fulfilled their roles adequately, even the previous management group (who apparently like yourself, did not value the physical aspect/impact of role players) decided that they were both redundant and easily replaceable. Likewise, when they left montreal, they weren't getting 2M$+ offers... There's a reason why Prust was able to hold out for and get more.

if you don't appreciate toughness, or the role it plays in a contact sport, so be it. Thankfully, our new management understands/appreciates it far better than the previous group did, and their first moves reflect that strongly.

Being "hard to play against" (in the physical sense) is a very real factor. Even successful teams that didn't have particularly "goonish" players on their roster, had/have several individuals that opposing players would be wary of on the flight in. You don't get nervous/worried about lining up against a Moore or a Halpern.

Psychology is a massive part of sport, ignoring it's impact because it isn't superficially or statistically obvious doesn't negate it's impact.

adding a token goon like Laraque is a misguided attempt at addressing this need... stocking your bottom six with guys like Moen, White, Prust, Armstrong is a much much better approach... especially when they complement skilled players (Eller, Leblanc?, Palushaj?) and specific use players (Noke).
I know what you and others think it brings to the team. I just disagree on it having the effect you think it does.

Sports psychology is how you view the game and that's nice. But we're not talking real scientific sports psychology here. We're talking about folklore and pop psychology here. No systemic observation or hypothesis tested. This isn't empiricism, this is folk religion dressed up in fancy talk.

Now you believe that adding bottom line toughness will necessarily make the team better. That having these guys will prevent other teams from taking liberties which leads to confidence and so one. But here's were it falls down if it does work (which again something assumed and not proven):

I don't believe deterrence works in the slightest in the modern NHL. Every team gets cheap shotted and the tough ones can't anything about it. Cooke took out Savard with Lucic and Chara on the ice and just after Thorton had a shift. And Montreal's injury problems, last year almost none of them are due being victims of dirty plays.

Talks to Goalposts is online now   Reply With Quote