View Single Post
11-14-2013, 03:35 PM
Registered User
Sorinth's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,062
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
More or less, it goes like this: we're dominant when Markov-Subban is on the ice, roughly even when Gorges-Diaz is on the ice (because they get tough defensive assignments), and getting pasted when Bouillon-Murray is on the ice. If Bouillon-Murray could just break even, Markov-Subban would pull the team ahead. As it is, Bouillon-Murray are getting creamed more than Markov-Subban can compensate.

Illustrative numbers: with Subban on the ice, 5-on-5, the Habs have outshot their opponents by 24, which is pretty good, especially given his matchups. But in less than a fourth of the icetime, with Murray on the ice, the Habs have been outshot by 28. Bouillon's numbers are grim, but not as grim.
Since he's matched up against 3rd/4th liners those 28 shots against aren't the same quality as Subbans 24. So Subban/Markov should still pull the team ahead.

Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
PWF types tend to be top-6ers of exactly the sort who feast on vulnerable, slow-footed defensemen with no puck skills, such as Murray. He's exactly the kind of guy you don't want Murray out against; he already has more than enough trouble dealing with fourth-liners.
I guess the term PWF means different things to different people. I don't want Murray going up against a Lucic, but I'd rather Murray go up against Neil than Bouillon.

Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
It's too bad it ends up being undermined by the fact he can't play effective defense, but thankfully, with Emelin in the lineup who brings size and physicality in the package of an effective defenseman, that "hole" is much less of an issue.

As a side note though, I've never understood while it was okay to ice an objectively substandard player because he somehow "fills a role". I don't think NHL teams particularly need bad players of any sort.
Emelin might make it less of an issue, though even last year with a healthy Emelin it was an issue though not as bad.

As for players filling a role, I disagree. Having a worse "overall" player who is specialized in a certain aspect of the game can be better for the team overall. For example having someone who can be QB a power play whose bad defensively can be better for a team than a player simply ok both offensively and defensively. The coach has some control over matchups and can put players in situations that play to their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. A team isn't simply a sum of each individual players ability.

Sorinth is offline   Reply With Quote