HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

What do we have to do to contend for the cup next season?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-17-2011, 05:06 PM
  #176
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I find this hard to believe. If he has no skills and isn't effective defensively, why the heck is he in the NHL and playing for not one but two teams that have made the final?
Because teams that make the Finals don't have superstars throughout their roster. Because while he was in over his head in the role he was assigned, he's still a NHL-level player, as a third-pairing D-man.

He's not unlike Brent Sopel, actually, and Sopel has a ring too. Actually that's not a terrible comparable. Ference is probably a fair bit better though. Sopel wouldn't have played for the Habs if they'd been just a bit healthier.

Also, because Boston does have a tendency to value "rugged and intimidating" over actual hockey ability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
They may take shots from the perimeter, they may not get a second chance at rebounds... The Bruins actually did win the cup dude and while Thomas was great, the Bruins D was stifling.
It was not. We have people who've counted scoring chances, which are defined as shots taken from the center of the ice, and counted by, imagine that, actually watching the games -- so we know this. Tampa in particular torched them.

Vancouver was less effective than Tampa, much to my puzzlement, but the Bruins actualy seldom outchanced the Canucks, particularly at even-strength. Which, granted, is not unexpected when a team has a lead, especially a big lead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
The Bruins had one of the best GAs in the league... maybe it did show up on your spreadsheet. I forgot though, GA is just a fluke and corsi is the be all and end all.
They had one of the best GAs in the league, combined with one of the worst shot-against totals in the whole NHL (second worst actually). Which tells us that they had really, really, really good goaltending.

I'm sorry, but while "shots from the perimeter" is a nice theory, it doesn't hold up in practice over the long run. We've seen this story before; the Habs defense was credited with the whole perimeter-shot thing last year, especially in the playoffs. That turned out to be wrong too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
How many goals are dirty goals that get scored while fighting in front of the net? How many are rebounds in traffic? We don't score that many dirty goals, we tend to make the pretty passes and the goals that we get look terrific. But at the end of the day our shooting percentage sucks right?
That's all perception, and it's a perception I don't share. I think that if you counted, you'd see that the Habs don't have fewer rebound shots than anyone. I don't have that data unfortunately, but then neither do you. (I'm actually a little surprised though, I'll check to see if I can't dig out something somewhere. I know it's been done in the past.)

Assuming that the shots were low-quality is completely circular. Why did the Habs have a low shooting percentage? Because the shots were low quality. How do you know that? Because they didn't score. You need to actually demonstrate that the shots were low quality, and since the scoring chances data indicates an increase in dangerous shots rather than a decrease, that's a pretty hefty burden of proof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
It was definitely the biggest factor. But to sit there and claim that Boston didn't do a great job against the best offense in the league is to be willfully blind. I don't care what your spreadsheet tells you.
Vancouver was worse offensively than Tampa against the Bruins. I found that very weird, but then they were in a hole a lot and teams that lead a lot back into a defensive mode, and are more effective at keeping the total number of chances down for both sides. Still, I would have expected the Canucks to do something resembling Tampa's. They were, in a word, disappointing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
It's not irrelevant to this discussion. You're talking about 'the real problem' and again... the answer isn't on a spreadsheet. It isn't his salary either.

We know kind of talent this guy has, we've seen it in flashes. The 'real problem' is that he doesn't do it consistently enough.
From a team-building standpoint, that is not a problem at all. From a team-building standpoint, what you have is a player that gives your team 3.5 million of value being paid 3.5 million of cap space. The fact that the fans or the media think that the 10th overall pick in 2003 should be a 6 million value player is of no significance unless he takes up six million in cap space.

The main knock against Andrei Kostitsyn is the perception that he has the tools to do better. That perception may even be true. It's also completely irrelevant. The guy we think he should be is not the guy who plays for the Habs. The guy he is plays for the Habs, and that guy has a certain value and brings certain things to the table.

There are certain things he doesn't bring, for whatever reason, but he's not being paid for those (it would be a problem if he were, but he's not). He's being paid for the things he does do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullsmith View Post
Geez, MathMan, yer not living up to your handle on this topic.
You're bringing up his icetime on a team that I've just said lacks D depth and has to play him because they don't have anyone better. You're also bringing up plus-minus as if it were a defensive stat, which it isn't.

You honestly think that Boychuk is better than at least three of Markov, Subban, Gorges, Yemelin, Gill, and Spacek? Honestly, I don't see him bumping off any of the above; at best he'd be #6.

I'm absolutely flaggerbasted that you think he could take Hamrlik's minutes and do an equal job.

*sigh* This is why I didn't want the Bruins to win the Cup. Now they're overhyped and overrated to the point that they're mythical creatures.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 05:16 PM
  #177
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,563
vCash: 500
The Bruins showed the NHL how to win a Cup. And it was with AGGRESSIVE play on offense and defense.

They were not afraid to send in two forwards on the forecheck. They were not afraid to have their Dmen pinch constantly. They hit every Canuck that touched the puck. And they had guys in front of Luongo all of the time.

It was the exact opposite of the passive offense and defense that we employ in Montreal.

Aggressive hockey takes commitment from the players and the coaches. But it does allow you a legitimate shot at winning the Cup.

SouthernHab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 05:17 PM
  #178
Habsaholic
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 518
vCash: 500
Sign Greg Campbell

Habsaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 05:18 PM
  #179
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsaholic View Post
Sign Greg Campbell



That is funny, sad and true at the same time.

SouthernHab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 05:22 PM
  #180
Habsaholic
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 518
vCash: 500
Honestly, I think we are damn close. 1 major issue we have is the 11.05 mil we pay Gomez and Spacek. We need the off the books. Id like to see us get a big body upfront with an attitude.

Habsaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 05:40 PM
  #181
jlgib21*
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by macavoy View Post
I wasn't debating the french language issue, did you see me mention that anywhere? My point was that if you read jlb's post, they are all pretty much bashing the habs, whether its management or players.
I'll discuss this. I bash management,and will continue to do so.They've lied to us for years trying to fill the seats. PG says we were going to get tougher,then dumps our two leading hitters.Bg says he was going to get power forwards for Saku..nothing. I bash Halpern,Spacek and Pyatt bc they are awful IMO. I bash AK and BP bc I think they both totally dog it in the playoffs.Pointing out that Markov's top 10-15 ability has never translated in the playoffs isn't a bash. Nothing but praise for Gomez' effort,Pax,Cammi,PK,Price,Wiz,White,Gio,Pleks,DD.P raise for Moen and Gill in playoffs.I don't understand the manlove for Eller.7 G 10 a. He has potential.That's it so far.Marchand,as a rookie,had more po goals and pts then Eller did ALL YEAR.These are my opinions.

jlgib21* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 05:49 PM
  #182
HCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlgib21 View Post
I'll discuss this. I bash management,and will continue to do so.They've lied to us for years trying to fill the seats. PG says we were going to get tougher,then dumps our two leading hitters.Bg says he was going to get power forwards for Saku..nothing. I bash Halpern,Spacek and Pyatt bc they are awful IMO. I bash AK and BP bc I think they both totally dog it in the playoffs.Pointing out that Markov's top 10-15 ability has never translated in the playoffs isn't a bash. Nothing but praise for Gomez' effort,Pax,Cammi,PK,Price,Wiz,White,Gio,Pleks,DD.P raise for Moen and Gill in playoffs.I don't understand the manlove for Eller.7 G 10 a. He has potential.That's it so far.Marchand,as a rookie,had more po goals and pts then Eller did ALL YEAR.These are my opinions.
If you are praising Gomez, you are living in an upside down world! The rest of your comments seem almost equally delusional.


Last edited by HCH: 06-17-2011 at 05:55 PM.
HCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 07:42 PM
  #183
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
my post : one single sentence...


your reply :


so yeah, was it so f-ing hard ?
Okay, for one thing the guy has already won a Norris trophy. He was also nominated two other times as well as being in a SC final before he was with the Bruins. He's also been a first team all-star and second team all-star twice each (not counting this year where he's a shoe in for another first team selection and probable Norris trophy.) Even without Chara's success this year Markov has never done any of those things.

Better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Because teams that make the Finals don't have superstars throughout their roster.
Most cup winners have more than one HOF player leading the way so that's actually not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Because while he was in over his head in the role he was assigned, he's still a NHL-level player, as a third-pairing D-man.

He's not unlike Brent Sopel, actually, and Sopel has a ring too. Actually that's not a terrible comparable. Ference is probably a fair bit better though. Sopel wouldn't have played for the Habs if they'd been just a bit healthier.

Also, because Boston does have a tendency to value "rugged and intimidating" over actual hockey ability.
I don't think he's elite by any stretch but you make him sound like a borderline NHL'er. That's not the case. In fact, as much as I hate Ference we could use a guy like him in our lineup.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
It was not. We have people who've counted scoring chances, which are defined as shots taken from the center of the ice, and counted by, imagine that, actually watching the games -- so we know this. Tampa in particular torched them.

Vancouver was less effective than Tampa, much to my puzzlement, but the Bruins actualy seldom outchanced the Canucks, particularly at even-strength. Which, granted, is not unexpected when a team has a lead, especially a big lead.
I think the Canucks did a good job at getting chances but the Bruins were excellent at limiting rebounds and forcing them to the perimeter. Thomas was able to see most of the shots because there was nobody standing in front of him. There was not a whole lot of traffic standing in front of that net.

Again though, this won't show up on your spreadsheet unless you start considering goal totals... which you are reluctant to do because they don't line up at all with what you've been arguing. You just pick and choose which stats to look at and which to ignore. And if they don't line up for you it's just 'bad luck.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
They had one of the best GAs in the league, combined with one of the worst shot-against totals in the whole NHL (second worst actually). Which tells us that they had really, really, really good goaltending.
Goaltending tends to be better when goalies can see the shots and the blueliners clear the rebounds. When a goalie as good as Thomas can see what's coming from a mile away, he's going to stop the puck. And it's tough getting any good scoring chances off the rebounds if you're getting clotheslined by Zedeno Chara in front of the Bruins net.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
I'm sorry, but while "shots from the perimeter" is a nice theory, it doesn't hold up in practice over the long run. We've seen this story before; the Habs defense was credited with the whole perimeter-shot thing last year, especially in the playoffs. That turned out to be wrong too.
Strange how our Corsi numbers are so high yet we still can't score. I wonder if it has to do with us not being big enough to get to the rebounds or create traffic in front of the net.

Whenever something doesn't line up with shooting percentage or Corsi you say it's luck. Sorry but you'll have to do better than that. 'Luck' may account for some things but when clubs consistently get results despite those stats you're throwing out, there's an other explanation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
That's all perception, and it's a perception I don't share. I think that if you counted, you'd see that the Habs don't have fewer rebound shots than anyone. I don't have that data unfortunately, but then neither do you. (I'm actually a little surprised though, I'll check to see if I can't dig out something somewhere. I know it's been done in the past.)

Assuming that the shots were low-quality is completely circular. Why did the Habs have a low shooting percentage? Because the shots were low quality. How do you know that? Because they didn't score. You need to actually demonstrate that the shots were low quality, and since the scoring chances data indicates an increase in dangerous shots rather than a decrease, that's a pretty hefty burden of proof.
The burden of proof is on you dude. Montreal was near the bottom of the league in 5 on 5 and scoring overall. It's been that way for a long time. You're the one who has to find excuses for this not me. The fact that you're Corsi numbers don't support the results calls into question the validity of that stat to begin with. And it's not surprising to me because again, hockey is a lot harder to quantify than baseball is.




Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Vancouver was worse offensively than Tampa against the Bruins. I found that very weird, but then they were in a hole a lot and teams that lead a lot back into a defensive mode, and are more effective at keeping the total number of chances down for both sides. Still, I would have expected the Canucks to do something resembling Tampa's. They were, in a word, disappointing.
Or they were... intimidated. That tends to happen when a 7 foot guy tells you that he's going to rip off your head and shove it up your butt in between whistles when the ref isn't around to protect you.

Again though, it won't show up on your spreadsheets. Maybe it wasn't luck after all though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
From a team-building standpoint, that is not a problem at all. From a team-building standpoint, what you have is a player that gives your team 3.5 million of value being paid 3.5 million of cap space. The fact that the fans or the media think that the 10th overall pick in 2003 should be a 6 million value player is of no significance unless he takes up six million in cap space.

The main knock against Andrei Kostitsyn is the perception that he has the tools to do better. That perception may even be true. It's also completely irrelevant. The guy we think he should be is not the guy who plays for the Habs. The guy he is plays for the Habs, and that guy has a certain value and brings certain things to the table.

There are certain things he doesn't bring, for whatever reason, but he's not being paid for those (it would be a problem if he were, but he's not). He's being paid for the things he does do.
We're talking about two different things.

I believe the discussion was WHY does he take so much heat and I've given you the answers. Some of it is deserved and some of it isn't.

As far as production vs. salary nobody should have a problem with that. He earns what he's paid to do. But that's not the 'real problem' that was being discussed here.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 01:22 AM
  #184
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,942
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Okay, for one thing the guy has already won a Norris trophy. He was also nominated two other times as well as being in a SC final before he was with the Bruins. He's also been a first team all-star and second team all-star twice each (not counting this year where he's a shoe in for another first team selection and probable Norris trophy.) Even without Chara's success this year Markov has never done any of those things.
when ?

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 05:15 AM
  #185
jlgib21*
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
If you are praising Gomez, you are living in an upside down world! The rest of your comments seem almost equally delusional.
And yet we have another mediocre year,with no relief for at least the next three years,with these giant contracts to the smurfs. Gomez sux,but he gives 100%,unlike a couple of the dogs and softies we have

jlgib21* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 09:44 AM
  #186
Melvin Udall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
Byfuglien is like Wisniewski with no clue what to do in his own end. pronger is a broken down old man.

Byfuglien was an outstanding power forward in Chicago.

Had Towes not won the Conn Smythe Trophy in 2010, Byfuglien likely would have! Seriously doubt the Hawks would have won the Cup in 2010 without him.

As a D-man he scored 20g + 33A (53 points) in Atlanta......could he have helped out the Habs as a power forward (something the Habs have not had in maybe 20+ years) this past season?




And what if this is...as good as it gets (for the Habs)?

Melvin Udall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 09:55 AM
  #187
Crusher20
Registered User
 
Crusher20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Country: Ecuador
Posts: 4,645
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Crusher20 Send a message via Yahoo to Crusher20
I think we need a top 6 with credentials (Jagr comes to mind, until a longer term solution is found) a healthy line-up and markov signed. Already i would feel so much better. Overall i feel 3 lines with offensive abilities will help us greatly our defense is set and wishing Emelin as an imediate impact .

Crusher20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 10:17 AM
  #188
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,259
vCash: 500
Contending next year would be easier if we could avoid key players injuries...key players. Obviously every team gets injured players, but if the Bruins lose Chara as we did Markov...well you know...anyhow we are not that far from being a team that vies for the top 4 spots instead of one of the bottom 4 spots...

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 10:33 AM
  #189
HCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlgib21 View Post
And yet we have another mediocre year,with no relief for at least the next three years,with these giant contracts to the smurfs. Gomez sux,but he gives 100%,unlike a couple of the dogs and softies we have
I don't have a clue what you are saying. And if you think Gomez gives 100%, you obviously have a different idea of what 100% means than almost everyone else here. Gainey talked to him about it and even Gomez admitted he had to work harder.

Where do you come up with these ideas?

HCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 10:38 AM
  #190
NLHabsFan
Registered User
 
NLHabsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
Contending next year would be easier if we could avoid key players injuries...key players. Obviously every team gets injured players, but if the Bruins lose Chara as we did Markov...well you know...anyhow we are not that far from being a team that vies for the top 4 spots instead of one of the bottom 4 spots...
Good health is what's going to come down to next season. Every team gets banged up, but long term injuries to multiple key/top players really drags down the team, and very few teams in the league can handle that. There is a couple changes I would like to see the team make for next season, but I don't see them making many changes at all. Especially if they re-sign both Markov and Wiz.

Right now the forward group looks like this:

Cammalleri (6) - Plekanec (5) - Kostitsyn (3.25)
Pacioretty (RFA) - Gomez (7.357) - Gionta (5)
Desharnais (RFA) - Eller (1.271) - Darche (0.7)
Moen (1.5) - XXX - White (RFA)
Pouliot (RFA) - Pyatt (RFA)

The defence could look like this:

Markov (UFA) - Wisniewski (UFA)
Gorges (RFA) - Subban (0.875)
Gill (2.25) - Yemelin (0.9842)
Spacek (3.833) - Weber (RFA)

Goaltending:

Price (2.75)
Back-up (UFA)

I would like another RW to play in place of Darche and bump him down a little bit, but he played well last season and I think the Habs are going to pencil him in the line-up. Fourth line center is open, but I think they may be high on Engqvist and may leave the spot open for him. I don't see many changes up front, but I would like to see more grit in the extra forwards, such as Rupp and Winchester, instead of Pouliot and Pyatt. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Habs weren't interested. The team desperately needs at least 2 top 4 dmen, but they should be Markov and Wiz.

So for next season it's going to come down to better health for all the players, and continued improvements from the younger ones, such as Pacioretty, Eller, Desharnais (I think he is going to surprise people on the wing), Subban, Weber, and Price. More consistency from the high priced players would be great as well.

NLHabsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 12:53 PM
  #191
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I don't think he's elite by any stretch but you make him sound like a borderline NHL'er. That's not the case. In fact, as much as I hate Ference we could use a guy like him in our lineup.
He'd be press box fodder, and he's too good for that. I don't think he's better than Yemelin, Spacek or Gill, and certainly not Markov-Subban-Gorges, so he'd be at least #7. He's good enough that he might get rotated in and would be fine for injury replacement (and probably cost too much for that purpose). But Montreal's D is unusually deep; Ference would make the bottom-pairing of most teams, but not the top-4 of most playoff teams (or if so, maybe as a #4 and paired with a better D-man).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Again though, this won't show up on your spreadsheet unless you start considering goal totals... which you are reluctant to do because they don't line up at all with what you've been arguing. You just pick and choose which stats to look at and which to ignore. And if they don't line up for you it's just 'bad luck.'
If there were goals, how do you know that means there was traffic, there were rebounds, or that the goalie wasn't as good? You don't know unless you count them, and compare them to an average/standard.

What you cannot do is look at the goal totals and assume that it means something. Lots of things go into a goal. You need to complete the picture with other data, such as scoring chances counts. Your personal impressions are not data; personal impressions are notoriously inaccurate, especially when trying to make explanations for something that strikes us as unlikely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Strange how our Corsi numbers are so high yet we still can't score. I wonder if it has to do with us not being big enough to get to the rebounds or create traffic in front of the net.
It doesn't, unless the Habs somehow got significantly worse at this relative to last year and all the previous years. Which is, of course, perfectly silly.

Their shooting percentage was very low relative to themselves as well as the rest of the league.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Whenever something doesn't line up with shooting percentage or Corsi you say it's luck. Sorry but you'll have to do better than that. 'Luck' may account for some things but when clubs consistently get results despite those stats you're throwing out, there's an other explanation.
Other clubs do not consistently get results despite those stats. Remember Boston last year? Lowest-scoring team in the league? Third-lowest scoring 5-on-5? And then the very next year they are the highest-scoring 5-on-5 club.

How did that happen?

Shooting percentage.

Of course, I'm guessing the Bruins were a soft, small team last year that didn't know how to screen goalies or getting to the rebounds or maybe they didn't have any finishers, and they all acquired these traits this year, right? And that was the case with every club that had a low shooting percentage the year before. And every club with a high shooting percentage that sees it go back to normal the next year suddenly stops screening the goalie and going for rebounds.

The Habs' situation is hardly unprecedented. Why would the Habs be so specially terrible that their iteration of that situation is unlike anyone else's? Familiarity breeds contempt, and bemoaning the club's weakness is the fanbase's natural pastime, but don't you think that's a bit much?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
The burden of proof is on you dude.
No it's not, not anymore. I propose facts and points and analysis and I am replied to with circular arguments, unsupported observations, and some weird sense of reversed Canadiens exceptionalism. You have nothing, nothing consistent to support your position except rejecting whatever I say with no explanation other than "no, you're wrong". This has never stopped you from arguing ad nauseam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Or they were... intimidated. That tends to happen when a 7 foot guy tells you that he's going to rip off your head and shove it up your butt in between whistles when the ref isn't around to protect you.
Please spare me this nonsense, will you? That idea wouldn't be so popular if the media commentariat wasn't populated with ex-goons trying to preach for their profession. Even if it were true, you don't play in the NHL, especially in the Western Conference, without learning to deal with that.

Besides (he added facetiously), we've been told so often Chara isn't this kind of player, it must be true, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
We're talking about two different things.

I believe the discussion was WHY does he take so much heat and I've given you the answers. Some of it is deserved and some of it isn't.
Oh, I see. I know why he takes heat. I just think it's not a 'real' problem for the Habs.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 01:54 PM
  #192
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
He'd be press box fodder, and he's too good for that. I don't think he's better than Yemelin, Spacek or Gill, and certainly not Markov-Subban-Gorges, so he'd be at least #7. He's good enough that he might get rotated in and would be fine for injury replacement (and probably cost too much for that purpose). But Montreal's D is unusually deep; Ference would make the bottom-pairing of most teams, but not the top-4 of most playoff teams (or if so, maybe as a #4 and paired with a better D-man).
We have no idea how good Emelin is. And give me a guy like Ference over Spacek any day. There's no way that guy rides the pine for us. And given the kind of physical limitations that we have throughout the lineup, I'm pretty sure he'd see a lot more icetime that you think he would. Gill would sit a lot more than he does now.

And before you get into the whole 'Gill is better than Ference' rant, remember it's about playing roles on a team. We are sorely lacking in the dimension that a guy like Ference brings. That's why everyone loved Komisarek before he forgot how to play hockey. Here's hoping that Tinordi can become a guy like that for us... or maybe Emelin. I hope he pans out because we need it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
If there were goals, how do you know that means there was traffic, there were rebounds, or that the goalie wasn't as good? You don't know unless you count them, and compare them to an average/standard.

What you cannot do is look at the goal totals and assume that it means something. Lots of things go into a goal. You need to complete the picture with other data, such as scoring chances counts. Your personal impressions are not data; personal impressions are notoriously inaccurate, especially when trying to make explanations for something that strikes us as unlikely.
The burden of proof isn't on me dude. It's on you.

The goals haven't been there. You're sitting there telling us that the Corsi numbers indicate that they should be. Well, they aren't. You come back and say that it's luck and ask for another explanation and I've given you some that don't show up on a spreadsheet. And to me, they seem like common sense explanations that everyone else already knows because they watch the games instead of looking at their calculators. Your shooting percentage is going to be lower if you have no traffic in front of the net and the goalie can see every shot. It's also going to be low if you aren't strong enough in front of the opposition's net to get to the rebounds. That's just common sense and it goes a long way towards explaining the disconnect between your numbers and the reality of what happened on the ice last season. You say we were unlucky... okay. We still came in 26th in the league in 5 on 5 scoring dude and it's been that way forever.

Again, before this season began I told you that we were going to have problems scoring and that's exactly what happened. Folks here keep saying that we're going to light it up... well, when is that going to happen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
It doesn't, unless the Habs somehow got significantly worse at this relative to last year and all the previous years. Which is, of course, perfectly silly.

Their shooting percentage was very low relative to themselves as well as the rest of the league.
Why do you think that is? Is there a reason other than luck?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Other clubs do not consistently get results despite those stats. Remember Boston last year? Lowest-scoring team in the league? Third-lowest scoring 5-on-5? And then the very next year they are the highest-scoring 5-on-5 club.

How did that happen?

Shooting percentage.

Of course, I'm guessing the Bruins were a soft, small team last year that didn't know how to screen goalies or getting to the rebounds or maybe they didn't have any finishers, and they all acquired these traits this year, right? And that was the case with every club that had a low shooting percentage the year before. And every club with a high shooting percentage that sees it go back to normal the next year suddenly stops screening the goalie and going for rebounds.

The Habs' situation is hardly unprecedented. Why would the Habs be so specially terrible that their iteration of that situation is unlike anyone else's? Familiarity breeds contempt, and bemoaning the club's weakness is the fanbase's natural pastime, but don't you think that's a bit much?
Why do you find the Bruins all that surprising though? They had a huge change to their top six. Of course their offense was better, Lucic was 21 last year, this year he's 22 and improved greatly. That's par for the course. They also added Nathan Horton who was on fire for them when he arrived and cooled down as the year went on. That's going to help the centers get more points too. The rest of the main guys produced at about the same level they did last year with Bergeron getting a small bump because he was playing with better wingers. Why are you saying this is a fluke?

As for us, we have consistently been among the lowest scoring teams in the league esp five on five. We continue to build our rosters the same way. A small number two center miscast in the role of a number one with other small players following along. Koivu and Ribs vs. Pleks and Gomez... same thing different year. It's not at all surprising that we haven't scored.

You've said our Corsi numbers were much higher than the year before. Who knows if that was a fluke. You talk like there's no possible way that this will fall, well maybe it will. Maybe we just aren't that good at scoring goals...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
No it's not, not anymore. I propose facts and points and analysis and I am replied to with circular arguments, unsupported observations, and some weird sense of reversed Canadiens exceptionalism. You have nothing, nothing consistent to support your position except rejecting whatever I say with no explanation other than "no, you're wrong". This has never stopped you from arguing ad nauseam.
You are offering us statistical analysis and I'm challenging you on it. You've asked me to explain WHY as opposed to luck we haven't scored and I've gone out of my way to provide you with reasons.

You say it's 'unsubstantiated' well, I say it is. Just look at our goals for and our 5 on 5 scoring. It IS substantiated. YOU are providing us with stats that aren't supporting the results we are getting. And the whole basis for my argument is that there are variables that CAN'T be substantiated on a spreadsheet except when you look at the final results. Intimidation won't show up on a spreadsheet for example but it can certainly lead to shutting down the Sedin twins and improve your goals against average. Maybe the Sedins were able to get good first chances but were afraid or unable to go after the rebounds effectively...

Maybe you're just not paying attention to the right stats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Please spare me this nonsense, will you? That idea wouldn't be so popular if the media commentariat wasn't populated with ex-goons trying to preach for their profession. Even if it were true, you don't play in the NHL, especially in the Western Conference, without learning to deal with that.

Besides (he added facetiously), we've been told so often Chara isn't this kind of player, it must be true, right?
How else do you explain Luongo's total collapse in Boston? Luck? Then why did it happen consistently while he was at their arena. Something got into his head... maybe it was the fans or the Bruins players or whatever, but he was not the same guy. And the Sedins virtually disappeared for most of this series despite being incredible all year. Why is that? Do you think it had anything to do with Marchand using Daniel's head as a punching bag? Sure it did.

Look, I don't believe in the Broad Street Bullies way of building your team either. Lord knows that I wouldn't want Millbury or PJ Stock anywhere near a team that I was trying to build but it's about balance. Back in the day, even when our forwards weren't superskilled we at least had a mix. Skrudland, Smith, Corson, McPhee, Walter, Carboneau... none of those guys were goons but you couldn't push them around. And guys like Mats Naslund or Russ Courtnall had a lot more freedom to do what they wanted to do because they had his back. He was playing with big guys like Richer and Smith. We don't have this now and you're crazy if you don't think that it's limited us over the past decade. I'd never have drafted anyone but Price but man, it would've been nice if we could've taken Kopitar too. He's exactly the kind of guy that we could've used. Not a superstar but at least he has size and skill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Oh, I see. I know why he takes heat. I just think it's not a 'real' problem for the Habs.
From that perspective, I don't think he's a problem either if you're just looking at him from the perspective of being a decent 2nd liner. The 'real problem' though is (and has always been) that we don't have great primary scoring or size at center.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 06-18-2011 at 02:06 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 02:00 PM
  #193
ToysInTheAttic
Registered User
 
ToysInTheAttic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Saint John, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,854
vCash: 500
I think if this team can stay healthy on defence they will be a contender. They came close to bouncing Boston out of the play-offs even minus Markov and Gorges. The team is set in goal for years to come. Also, a top 6 power forward with soft hands wouldn't hurt.

ToysInTheAttic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 02:38 PM
  #194
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
We have no idea how good Emelin is.
That's not true. Just because we've not seen him doesn't mean we have no information. We've been told that he's an above-average second-pairing D-man at the NHL level, from commenters as diverse as Pierre McGuire and Corey Pronman. I think he'll have a bit of a learning curve before he gets there, but it shouldn't be long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
And give me a guy like Ference over Spacek any day. There's no way that guy rides the pine for us.
Spacek has gotten a bad rap, but he's better than his reputation. Montreal likes to chew up their own players like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
And given the kind of physical limitations that we have throughout the lineup, I'm pretty sure he'd see a lot more icetime that you think he would. Gill would sit a lot more than he does now.
One thing I like about Habs' management is that they don't make the all-too-common mistake of confusing physicality for defense. Everyone loves a big hitter and everything, but more often than not the positionally sound D-men are more effective, and it's not unheard of for a hitter type to take himself out of the play by trying to take the body. Not that it's impossible to be both physical and effective, but there's no intrinsic value to hitting, it is a tool.

Komisarek didn't forget how to play hockey. He just no longer has Markov to babysit him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
The burden of proof isn't on me dude. It's on you.
No. I'm sick and tired of bringing things up and having them rejected with no basis at all. You don't have a scrap of anything to support your position and you keep arguing it as if it's some incontrovertible truth, and there's a bunch of research about it that you're not aware of that have looked at these things in detail.

I'm just about done wasting time and effort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Why do you find the Bruins all that surprising though? They had a huge change to their top six. Of course their offense was better, Lucic was 21 last year, this year he's 22 and improved greatly.
You're grasping at straws and making up explanations because you're unaware how common this sort of thing is. Heck, the Bruins have gone low-high-low-high in shooting percentage over the last four years. This sort of thing happens and it's not because of some magic changes to their roster or playstyle. Like the Habs, the Bruins are no different from any team that's been in their situation.

I could name more teams that have taken big transient swings in shooting percentage over the last few years. Colorado. Detroit. Philly. San Jose. There's a few every year. It never lasts. Shooting percentage at the team level is just not a sustainable talent.

Boston isn't special, and neither is Montreal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
You've said our Corsi numbers were much higher than the year before. Who knows if that was a fluke. You talk like there's no possible way that this will fall, well maybe it will. Maybe we just aren't that good at scoring goals...
Corsi is a lot more sustainable than shooting percentage. It is not impossible that it is a fluke, but it is far less likely than shooting percentage, especially because Montreal has been loading up on quality possession players and those players have merely returned to their career averages, whereas last year everyone was below.

If the Habs' puck possession goes down again, you will hear me screaming about it, don't doubt it, just like you heard it when it was horrid last year in spite of all the talent on the roster. But I don't think it will.

Dude, there's a lot of research that's gone into this stuff. No offense, but you keep arguing from a position of ignorance. And it is exceedingly frustrating to see you keep dismissing stuff that has research and evidence behind it based on nothing more than your personal impressions, which are naturally, as impressions are, molded based on your preconceived opinions.

I also think you're underestimating the amount of talent on the Habs or, rather, overestimating what's on other individual teams. But it's a common problem with Habs fans, and it's probably fairly common among all fanbases.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 02:40 PM
  #195
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
You're bringing up his icetime on a team that I've just said lacks D depth and has to play him because they don't have anyone better. You're also bringing up plus-minus as if it were a defensive stat, which it isn't.

You honestly think that Boychuk is better than at least three of Markov, Subban, Gorges, Yemelin, Gill, and Spacek? Honestly, I don't see him bumping off any of the above; at best he'd be #6.

I'm absolutely flaggerbasted that you think he could take Hamrlik's minutes and do an equal job.

*sigh* This is why I didn't want the Bruins to win the Cup. Now they're overhyped and overrated to the point that they're mythical creatures.
No, I think it's Spacek, Gill and Yemelin that are mythical creatures to you. Unlike your failing arguments with Lafleur's guy about why the habs lack of scoring is attributable to bad luck, on the issue of Boston's defence you don't have corsi numbers to misuse, in fact you don't have anything but your opinion. Good for you. As far as I can tell your opinion on this subject is a lonely one, and for obvious reasons. You are arguing that Boston's defence is BOTH shallow AND pure crap right into their top 4. So they won the cup by luck. For a guy who hides behind stats so much, you sure are fond of the luck explanation.

I hate Boston, but to not respect what Boychuk and Ference delivered on the ice just shows you don't see the game all that clearly. But hey, that's just my opinion.

Bullsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 02:58 PM
  #196
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullsmith View Post
No, I think it's Spacek, Gill and Yemelin that are mythical creatures to you.
I see Spacek and Gill as #5s with the ability to do some #4 with the right partner (and a healthy Spacek may be better than that, though that might unfortunately be a mythical creature).

I see Yemelin as a guy who should grow into a top-4 NHLer if he's not at that level already. I've heard that assessment of his skill from commenters with diverse points of view. Keep in mind, when talking about Yemelin, that this is a seasoned pro who's been a minute-muncher in a tough pro league. He isn't a raw recruit.

I think my most controversial opinion would probably be about Gorges, whom I view as a solid second-pairing D-man, with not a lick of offense but excellent defense. No matter what flaws may be ascribed to his game, ultimately Gorges keeps the enemy from getting scoring chances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullsmith View Post
Unlike your failing arguments with Lafleur's guy about why the habs lack of scoring is attributable to bad luck, on the issue of Boston's defence you don't have corsi numbers to misuse, in fact you don't have anything but your opinion.
Ference has had slightly negative Corsi with neutral zonestart and moderately weak competition. This isn't bad. But pretty much everyone on the Habs has either higher Corsi, tougher competition, or both. This isn't very surprising though; Julien leans heavily on Chara for his tough minutes (duh) and the minutes of the rest of the unit are easier as a result. Montreal's deeper unit allows Martin to spread the toughs around a bit more, though when Markov was in the lineup, he got Chara-type minutes (although fewer of them).

As for Boychuk, he was outchanced by virtually everyone he faced in the playoffs.

We don't have scoring chances data for Boston outside of the playoffs, unfortunately; we would be able to get a clearer picture if we did, and figure out if there's any truth to the notion that the Bruins forced shots to the perimeter. We do know it didn't really happen in the playoffs.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 08:12 PM
  #197
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
That's not true. Just because we've not seen him doesn't mean we have no information. We've been told that he's an above-average second-pairing D-man at the NHL level, from commenters as diverse as Pierre McGuire and Corey Pronman. I think he'll have a bit of a learning curve before he gets there, but it shouldn't be long.
We don't know how well he'll adjust and he's never played against NHL competition. He's got great potential and I'm excited that he's coming over but it's premature to say that he's going to be a huge difference maker for us. It's one thing to hope, it's another thing to have false expectations.

I hope he's great too though because we really need a tougher defensive guy in the lineup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Spacek has gotten a bad rap, but he's better than his reputation. Montreal likes to chew up their own players like that.
I'd love to replace him. But I talked about this in the other thread so I won't elaborate here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
One thing I like about Habs' management is that they don't make the all-too-common mistake of confusing physicality for defense. Everyone loves a big hitter and everything, but more often than not the positionally sound D-men are more effective, and it's not unheard of for a hitter type to take himself out of the play by trying to take the body. Not that it's impossible to be both physical and effective, but there's no intrinsic value to hitting, it is a tool.
There might not be an intrinsic statistical value to hitting but guys are going to think twice about going in front of the net if you clobber them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Komisarek didn't forget how to play hockey. He just no longer has Markov to babysit him.
He was never the seem after being smoked by Lucic. He stayed on with us and was largely ineffective with Markov. He just completely lost his confidence and was never the same again.

I guess somebody forgot to tell Lucic though that there's no intrinsic value in smoking another player. And I guess somebody forgot to tell that to the Sedin twins too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
No. I'm sick and tired of bringing things up and having them rejected with no basis at all. You don't have a scrap of anything to support your position and you keep arguing it as if it's some incontrovertible truth, and there's a bunch of research about it that you're not aware of that have looked at these things in detail.

I'm just about done wasting time and effort.
Stats need to be defended my friend. Saying that my arguments have 'no basis at all' does not lend creedence to what you've argued. Stats have to be able to endure scrutiny or they don't hold any water. You're talking like I'm just putting my hands over my ears and not listening... that hasn't been the case.

You asked me to read your sites, I did. You asked for reasons beyond luck as to why your stats don't match up with results and I think I've done a pretty good job in doing so. You aren't giving my arguments nearly enough respect here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
You're grasping at straws and making up explanations because you're unaware how common this sort of thing is. Heck, the Bruins have gone low-high-low-high in shooting percentage over the last four years. This sort of thing happens and it's not because of some magic changes to their roster or playstyle. Like the Habs, the Bruins are no different from any team that's been in their situation.
See, this is what I'm talking about... you ask me what's the difference between the B's in 2010 and 2011 and then you scream... 'shooting percentage that's it!'

There was a huge change on that team from year to year. There top six had two guys who were much better from the year before. One, Horton wasn't on the club in 2010 and the other... Lucic made the expected strides in his development. It's not a surprise at all that they were better offensively with those two guys in the top six this season. That is not 'grasping at straws'... it is a logical explanation to your question.

Again though, it doesn't correspond with your calculator so I'm just making stuff up right? Before you ignore what I'm saying... think about it. Don't you think that there might be something to what I'm saying here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
I could name more teams that have taken big transient swings in shooting percentage over the last few years. Colorado. Detroit. Philly. San Jose. There's a few every year. It never lasts. Shooting percentage at the team level is just not a sustainable talent.

Boston isn't special, and neither is Montreal.
Who cares? You've said that Detroit's shooting percentage was the same as Toronto's and yet Detroit scored something like 50 more goals. Why? Because they're a better team and get more shots to the net.

Since when did shooting percentage become the be all and end all of things? If I take one shot over an 82 game season and it results in a goal, my shooting percentage is 100% but I'm not likely to win any games other than maybe one if my goalie gets a shutout for me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Corsi is a lot more sustainable than shooting percentage. It is not impossible that it is a fluke, but it is far less likely than shooting percentage, especially because Montreal has been loading up on quality possession players and those players have merely returned to their career averages, whereas last year everyone was below.
We're coming off a wild swing here where you told us we were pathetic in 2010 and great in 2011. Who's to say we don't fall back into the middle of those two seasons? You say it's far more sustainable, well maybe it is and maybe some teams are consistently high in Corsi. But we've had a Jeckle and Hyde seasons back to back in this statistic so who knows what's going to happen next year?

I could at least understand it if we were consistently high in Corsi and you said that sooner or later the shooting percentage will improve but that hasn't been the case with us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
If the Habs' puck possession goes down again, you will hear me screaming about it, don't doubt it, just like you heard it when it was horrid last year in spite of all the talent on the roster. But I don't think it will.

Dude, there's a lot of research that's gone into this stuff. No offense, but you keep arguing from a position of ignorance. And it is exceedingly frustrating to see you keep dismissing stuff that has research and evidence behind it based on nothing more than your personal impressions, which are naturally, as impressions are, molded based on your preconceived opinions.
I haven't dismissed it. I'm challenging it. There is a huge difference here. I have made the effort to try to understand the stats you've thrown at me and will continue to do so.

My belief right now is that the 'Sabremetrics' that you are using aren't at a mature enough level that they can offer strong accurate pictures of which players and teams will be successful. Perhaps there are others out there that I haven't read but I will always keep my mind open to it and I am willing to be convinced. The fact that I am not convinced now does not mean that I've dismissed anything.

It's pretty clear though that you've done what you're accusing me of. InYou've told me that there's no validity to what I've said. I'd say I've actually provided some strong arguments here and if you go back over them with an open mind you might actually start to see this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
I also think you're underestimating the amount of talent on the Habs or, rather, overestimating what's on other individual teams. But it's a common problem with Habs fans, and it's probably fairly common among all fanbases.
I'd say I've been dead on for the past several years. I've categorized us as a bubble team and for the most part that's what we've been. I've argued that Price would be a star and so far that seems to be true too. I'm very happy with Subban and he's been as good as anyone could've hoped for. I didn't like the signings and said it would produce bubble teams. I said Cammy would be a 40 goal guy (missed on that one) and I said Gomez would be a horrific signing (though I never thought he'd sink below 50 points.) I think I've been pretty fair with my assessments actually.

I think we've got some good young players to build around and I felt we should've contributed to that instead of getting ovepaid FAs to come over here. I said that we'd be a mediocre team with those guys and that's what's happened but I know you don't want to hear about that.

As for most fan bases, I disagree. Most overestimate how good their teams are.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 06-18-2011 at 08:19 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 08:17 PM
  #198
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,322
vCash: 243
Anyone else just completely skim past Mathman and Lafleur Guy's debates? lol they are like the perfect internet couple. Made for each other.

macavoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 08:30 PM
  #199
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by macavoy View Post
Anyone else just completely skim past Mathman and Lafleur Guy's debates? lol they are like the perfect internet couple. Made for each other.
You love it. It's HFboards porn for you 'fess up.

I agree though, it's run it's course. Mathman can have the last word here. I've said all I've got to say.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 08:52 PM
  #200
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,322
vCash: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
You love it. It's HFboards porn for you 'fess up.

I agree though, it's run it's course. Mathman can have the last word here. I've said all I've got to say.
hf > porn ainec


I generally like both of your posts but I honestly can't read either of your posts when your debating each other.

I normally love it when posters take time to properly quote sections of post and reply to each individually but with you two, the brick walls of texts are too much to even comprehend comprehending.

macavoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:08 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.