HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-18-2011, 09:08 PM
  #201
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
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.
He doesn't have to be a savior. He's going to be paired with Subban or Markov. He doesn't need to lead a pair.

And he's played in WCs. It's not like he's never played against NHL-caliber opposition. Some of those KHL clubs have really good players too. Jaromir Jagr, for example, I'm told he might make the NHL.

Point is, Yemelin isn't a raw rookie. He's a seasoned vet who was a minute muncher in the second-toughest hockey league in the world. That gives him a serious head start over someone coming up from the AHL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
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.
People keep bringing up his fight with Lucic as if it was a turning point. It's a cool story, especially for those who believe that fighting matters, but the reality is that he always was the weak link on his pairing, and only ever was effective when Markov babysat him. Anytime they were separated, Komi got in trouble.

It's like Zednik and McLaren. People say Zednik was never the same after the McLaren hit. Yet he only started struggling until later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
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.
Yes, it has. And you've been offering up your personal impressions as if they somehow had more intrinsic value. Stats are at least somewhat objective. If you want to attack stats, you need to do something different than say "they're not true".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
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.
You haven't offered any explanations that I haven't seen before, whenever someone questions the notion of transient shooting percentage versus persistent puck possession. And your explanations don't account for the well-documented, oft-repeated case that teams that have extremes of shooting percentages, in either direction, are never able to persist them for long.

Whether it's "luck" or something else, frankly, is somewhat irrelevant: the reality is that teams that are consistently weak or consistently strong in shooting percentage simply do not exist. There are zero cases of teams showing especially good or especially bad shooting percentage on a long-term basis. If the Habs keep having crappy shooting percentages over the next two or three years (because, I'll remind you, they were average last year) -- they will be the first since at least the lockout.

I'm all for Habs exceptionalism, but I don't see any reason to believe they are this different from the rest of the NHL. I see no reason to believe that their finishing skill is the worst in modern NHL history, and worse than the Edmontons, Floridas, and Colorados of the world.

If teams don't control it, I call it luck. Feel free to give it a different name, it doesn't change the underlying notion: it won't last.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
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.
No, it's not. Horton and Lucic had the effect one would expect: Boston was a slightly better possession club in 10-11 than in 09-10 (even though they lost Wideman in the process). The Bruins were incrementally better offensively.

It does not, however, explain why the Bruins as a whole managed to go from 6.9% to 8.7% shooting at even strength. That would require Lucic and Horton to have a massive impact when they're not on the ice.

Dude, Boston isn't special. Teams swing in shooting percentages all the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
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?
Not for a second, no. It's not that I don't think you aren't being sincere, but it's the natural tendancy of humans to attempt to find agency where there is none.

I bring up Boston as an example. There are any number of teams for which this happened over the years, and there are any number of post hoc explanations to why it happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
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.
YES! That is exactly my point! The good teams are those who get more shots to the net. This is sustainable goodness. This is what consistenlty good teams do: they outshoot their opponents. Shooting percentage is transient. It is not a real skill that some teams have and some teams don't.

Teams that score a lot because they get a lot of shots on net are going to continue to score. Teams that score a lot because of high shooting percentage aren't. Why are San Jose and Detroit consistently great? Because they outshoot teams. Why did Colorado have one good year and then went to the basement? Because they didn't outshoot teams, they just had great percentages. Why did Dallas fall off from the top spot this year? Because they didn't outshoot teams, they just had great percentages. Why am I very, very afraid of New Jersey? Because they outshoot teams, they just had absolutely crummy percentages.

Why do you think Washington lost 100 goals relative to last year? They had a good shooting year. And then it went away. Washington's talent didn't go away. They did cut down on their shots and became a more low-event team. They are still a good team: they outshoot opponents, and they won the conference. But the main reason of their decline is that they had an absolutely absurd year for shooting (11% at evens!) and this year they went back to league-average (8.1%). Why did they have a swoon earlier this year? Because of crummy percentages. Why did they get better and win the conference? Because, crummy percentages or not, they outshoot teams.

This is why I think the Habs going from a team that gets outshot to a team that outshoots is so significant. Because percentages don't last. And because the hallmark of good teams, of consistently good teams, is outshooting.

(At even strength, mind. Special teams are a whole different animal.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
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?
The players' talent level. The Habs imported a bunch of high-quality 5-on-5 players in the summer of 2009. But they all fell like a rock in 2009-2010. In fact everyone who joined the Habs has sunk like a rock since at least 2007-2008... until last year.

Last year, everyone who had been on other teams went back to their career averages. And outshooting is a sustainable skill. Outshooting is what makes good teams consistently good.

The Habs have a lot of puck possession talent. We know this because the guys they have have excelled on other teams. For all of them, 10-11 doesn't look like a fluke -- it's 09-10 that does.

(I owe Olivier a post on the subject. I might get around to doing it this weekend. Do you read French? I'll point you to it, but his excellent blog at enattendantlesnordiques.blogspot.com is exclusively in French. And numbers. )

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
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.
There are limits to the "Sabremetrics", because of all the factors in hockey, and also because of the sheer parity involved. But like all stats, they are very telling when examining extremes and outliers. Things that stick out like sore thumb. If two teams are close together, they won't be able to tell you which is better with any precision. However, if they see something that's out of norm (extremes of shooting percentage come immediately to mind ) they can point them out as anomalies,

And if you want to learn about it, you shouldn't be reading me. You should be reading Gabriel Desjardins and Vic Ferrari, the guys who do it and pioneer it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
As for most fan bases, I disagree. Most overestimate how good their teams are.
The Habs fanbase have been so conditioned into thinking their team is a bubble team (and a mediocre one at that!) that I doubt they'll be able to realize when they have a team that's better or worse than it is. Take this year. They were happily chugging along in 6th place, with a sizable cushion versus 9th, and dwindling games to play, and we kept being told that they were in deep trouble, that it would take a herculean effort to even make the playoffs and that Price would need to steal many games for them to squeeze in.

Predictably, they made the playoffs without incident, in sixth place, four full wins ahead of the hard-charging 9th-place team.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 09:10 PM
  #202
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by macavoy View Post
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.
Sorry, I do tend to be verbose. And I think LG and I are a lot alike.

But I admit I end up having to cut off portions of his posts. We're both far too wordy for our own good. I need to put that "make your point in 30 seconds" book in practice.

...naaah, that'd never work.


Last edited by MathMan: 06-18-2011 at 09:54 PM.
MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 09:17 PM
  #203
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Houston, Tx
Country: United States
Posts: 7,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Sorry, I do tend to be verbose. And I think LG and I are a lot alike.
Very similar, actually I think you are two of the posters that I consider to be most like me


Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
But I admit I end up having to cut off portions of his posts. We're both far too wordy for his own good. I need to put that "make your point in 30 seconds" book in practice.
Thats ok, that is one of the great thing about dividing up quotes, you can delete the parts you don't want to talk about and most people are too lazy to click the arrow to go back and see the context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
...naaah, that'd never work.
Your right, you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

macavoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2011, 08:52 AM
  #204
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToysInTheAttic View Post
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.
Hopefully Maxpac is our guy...

BLONG7 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 02:36 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.