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

Habs management doesn't get it...(umpteenth toughness thread)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-28-2011, 01:44 PM
  #251
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 28,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
Yeah you said he was not the type of guy you win with and that's clearly false.
You're taking me out of context. Please show me where I wrote that a team can't win a cup with Alex Tanguay on it.

I said he's not going to lead you anywhere. I said he was mediocre (good but not great) and not the kind of guy you can build around. He's not a huge difference maker.

If you're going to attack my argument, attack what I'm actually saying. I don't think Tanguay sucks, I think he has some talent. I just don't think we should waste our time on this kind of player when we aren't contenders and he won't lead us anywhere. I also think that he's not as good as Mathman's stats suggest he is because I see him as one dimensional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
The difference between him and Aebischer is the fact that Tanguay was one of the most important player on the team when they won...
not a backup. That's why your argument has no value.
I took an extreme example to make a point. And I went on to elaborate, it's not like I just threw out Abby's name and walked away. Of course he's of more value than Abby was. Give me some credit man. You are focusing on one statement and ignoring the actual argument I made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
Look at the video he scores two goals in game 7 on the stanley cup finals against the New Jersey trap in the height of the clutch and grab era. If it's not heart and clutch play I don't know what it is.
Great. But the whole reason that team is in the finals in the first place is because of players like Sakic, Forsberg and Roy. True superstars like that will will eventually win you a cup. It doesn't matter if Tanguay is on the team or not. Did he contribute? Sure. That doesn't mean he's going to make us tremendously better if he comes here like a Sakic or Forsberg would. If Forsberg is your best player, your team may have a shot at the cup. If Tanguay is your best player, you have no chance. See the difference here?

Again, you are avoiding my main point. Guys like Sakic, Forsberg and Roy LEAD teams to cups. Guys like Tanguay, Gomez and Gill can play a helpful role, but they aren't going to lead you anywhere. And they won't win unless there are true HOF type guys like Crosby, Brodeur, Stevens, Malkin and Neidermayer there to lead the team.

We don't have those kinds of players and that's why building with complimentary 30 year old guys like Gomez and Tanguay is a waste of time. Tanguay might make Koivu or Kovalev a little better, but the margin of difference that he brings isn't going to make us contenders. And if we aren't already contenders, why waste our time with this kind of player?


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 08-28-2011 at 02:16 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2011, 02:14 PM
  #252
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Again though, you want it to be one or the other and you're missing the point. You have to look at the whole picture. If I were to push you to your logical conclusion, I could provide you with an extreme example where a rookie plays 5 seconds in a season and manages to score a goal.
Surely you know about sample size. A 5-second sample is not significant. Tanguay's entire career, though, would seem to be a sample that's just a little bit more significant than a rookie's 5 seconds.

Look, why do you persist here? You seem adamant on insisting that Tanguay would not have produced at the same rate if he'd gotten more icetime, even though he did so repeatedly, including last season. You insist that a player who plays more will produce at a lower rate, while providing no actual evidence that this is the case for the numbers we are looking at in general, and against the fact that Tanguay specifically has done so repeatedly, both before and after his time with the Habs.

I'm straining to see how you have an argument here. When I say you ignore any fact that opposes your pre-existing opinion, this is exactly what I mean. Your point is as demonstrably wrong in this specific case as it can be in sports, and yet you insist your unsupported opinion somehow trumps the facts it directly contradicts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Your spreadsheet also doesn't take into account WHY he's playing less.
Nope. But personally, I blame Carbonneau's incompetence in personnel management and his insistence on overplaying grinders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Great. Overall though, he struggles to get 20 goals per year when he's not playing with Joe Sakic or Peter Forsberg.
His best statistical season came while playing mostly with Dan Hinote and Ian Laperriere. That's another of those facts you liked to ignore completely way back then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Sure he did. And like I said he's not a bad player. He can absolutely pass the puck, but he's not as good as his points per minute suggest because he relies more on his linemates than they rely on him. He's a complimentary player and one dimensional.
This is only your own, unsupported personal opinion. For which you have offered no evidence and against which there are many facts that you continually ignore. That's why it has absolutely no value whatsoever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Wow! More hits than Kovalev and the Smurfs? That's quite the accomplishment.
The numbers were also typical of playmakers like Sidney Crosby and Pavel Datsyuk, and well ahead of Henrik Zetterberg, all of whom are well-known as soft, one-dimensional perimeter players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
And again, are we talking totals or are we talking per minute stats again because I've already shown you that this is problematic.
You have shown nothing of the sort. You said that, then offered not a shred of justification for your statement, and instead stuck your fingers in your ears and kept repeating it in the face of contradictory evidence as if repetition was an argument. Apparently I'm expected to ignore the fact that it's demonstrably false in the case of Tanguay, and take your word for it instead.

Per-minute stats are more significant than per-game statistics. It's per-game statistics that are problematic, as demonstrated in the case of Tanguay among others, because a player has no direct control over his icetime. These are the facts. Stop ignoring them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
And the season before he managed 37 points...
He undeniably had a single mediocre season by his standards. It happens. It doesn't derail a career.

Besides, Tanguay's standards of production are very high: his 1.63 points per 60 were far and away his worst season since long before the lockout, but they are still within top-6 forward range and are in fact comparable to Brian Gionta's 2010-2011 numbers. We need more guys whose standards are so high that they consider this kind of 5-on-5 production an awful season!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
You call it baseless narrative but when I look at the cup winners over the years, they have elite talent and grit. We haven't had either. We've built with mediocre soft players and that's why we don't win.
Not this again. With you everything is an excuse to get back to your favorite narrative warhorse, and you'll ignore any fact that doesn't further your narrative, let alone those who contradict them. Those facts are flawed or irrelevant -- they must be, since you're right and they contradict you!

This is why it is pointless to argue with you. You have no case. You just offer your personal opinion as fact, and do not support it. You consistently ignore the fact that the facts contradict your opinion. You don't even recognize when you are demonstrably wrong. You've made up your mind and you'll be damned if you don't force the world to conform to your world-view!

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2011, 02:15 PM
  #253
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,255
vCash: 500
Incidentally, look up "mediocre". It does not mean "good but not great".

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2011, 02:21 PM
  #254
buddahsmoka1
Registered User
 
buddahsmoka1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: México, D.F.
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,038
vCash: 500
Its been discussed on this board a few times, the English version and the French version is a little differed.

buddahsmoka1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2011, 02:25 PM
  #255
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Its been discussed on this board a few times, the English version and the French version is a little differed.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mediocre

It means "of moderate or low, value, ability, or performance". That's not any kind of "good".

Dictionary.com's second meaning is even clearer about its connotations of 'inferior': http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mediocre

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2011, 02:35 PM
  #256
buddahsmoka1
Registered User
 
buddahsmoka1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: México, D.F.
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,038
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mediocre

It means "of moderate or low, value, ability, or performance". That's not any kind of "good".

Dictionary.com's second meaning is even clearer about its connotations of 'inferior': http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mediocre
But it can also be used as ordinary in the French language.

Its annoying as hell, its come up more than a few times. But I do not disagree with you, just pointing it out.

buddahsmoka1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2011, 02:42 PM
  #257
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
But it can also be used as ordinary in the French language.
Hmm. That's never been my impression. And being the pedantic arse that I am , I also looked it up in French, and Larousse also definitely defines it as below-average: http://www.larousse.com/fr/dictionna.../m%C3%A9diocre

"That which is well below average, that is insufficient; modest"

Seems a lot like the English definition. In any case that's not any kind of "good" either.

No big. Just that when I see "mediocre" I think "barely average to below average without being awful".

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2011, 02:56 PM
  #258
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 28,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Surely you know about sample size. A 5-second sample is not significant. Tanguay's entire career, though, would seem to be a sample that's just a little bit more significant than a rookie's 5 seconds.

Look, why do you persist here? You seem adamant on insisting that Tanguay would not have produced at the same rate if he'd gotten more icetime, even though he did so repeatedly, including last season. You insist that a player who plays more will produce at a lower rate, while providing no actual evidence that this is the case for the numbers we are looking at in general, and against the fact that Tanguay specifically has done so repeatedly, both before and after his time with the Habs.

I'm straining to see how you have an argument here. When I say you ignore any fact that opposes your pre-existing opinion, this is exactly what I mean. Your point is as demonstrably wrong in this specific case as it can be in sports, and yet you insist your unsupported opinion somehow trumps the facts it directly contradicts.
Of course I understand sample size. I used an extreme example to show you that you can't simply can't rely on one stat without context. That's why totals are important. You also have to look at the bigger picture.

You keep going back to the point per minute stat and say... look, he did it again last season but again... you are ignoring other factors.




Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Nope. But personally, I blame Carbonneau's incompetence in personnel management and his insistence on overplaying grinders.

His best statistical season came while playing mostly with Dan Hinote and Ian Laperriere. That's another of those facts you liked to ignore completely way back then.
Uh no. His best season came playing with Jarome Iginla (one of the best players in the league.) The very next season he was taken off that line by Keenan and wound up with 58 points. That's why he demanded the trade. Iggy on the other hand didn't miss a beat and went on to have a 98 point season without Tanguay.

Tanguay then went on to score 41 (in 50 games) and 37 points in his next two seasons.

Yes, he had a great year last year but... he was teamed with Iggy.

Again, put him on with Forsberg or Iginla and he does really well. Take him off and not so much.

All you have to do is Google this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
This is only your own, unsupported personal opinion. For which you have offered no evidence and against which there are many facts that you continually ignore. That's why it has absolutely no value whatsoever.

The numbers were also typical of playmakers like Sidney Crosby and Pavel Datsyuk, and well ahead of Henrik Zetterberg, all of whom are well-known as soft, one-dimensional perimeter players.

You have shown nothing of the sort. You said that, then offered not a shred of justification for your statement, and instead stuck your fingers in your ears and kept repeating it in the face of contradictory evidence as if repetition was an argument. Apparently I'm expected to ignore the fact that it's demonstrably false in the case of Tanguay, and take your word for it instead.

Per-minute stats are more significant than per-game statistics. It's per-game statistics that are problematic, as demonstrated in the case of Tanguay among others, because a player has no direct control over his icetime. These are the facts. Stop ignoring them.
I'm not ignoring them and I'm sorry if it seems like I am.

Those point per minute totals are good. But again they don't tell the whole story. I don't think Tanguay's awful by any stretch but he's one dimensional.

As for it being my opinion... this kind of goes to the whole heart of the matter. You are asking me to put it into a statistical number so you can verify it. My whole argument is that not everything can fit into your little basket. And just because something can't (or isn't easily quantified statistically) it doesn't mean that it doesn't carry weight.

I know you want to say that it's just my opinion but that's not the case. Do I have to statistically back up the case that Kyle Wellwood is soft too? I shouldn't have to do this man. You're asking me to prove that water is wet. It just is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
He undeniably had a single mediocre season by his standards. It happens. It doesn't derail a career.
Sure it doesn't. But it's telling that when he's not playing with Iggy of Forsberg that his totals dip dramatically. When he's playing with those guys his numbers go up.

Again, he relies more on them than they do on him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Besides, Tanguay's standards of production are very high: his 1.63 points per 60 were far and away his worst season since long before the lockout, but they are still within top-6 forward range and are in fact comparable to Brian Gionta's 2010-2011 numbers. We need more guys whose standards are so high that they consider this kind of 5-on-5 production an awful season!
Alex Tanguay can be a helpful player if you have a team that makes up for what he lacks. If you put him on a team full of one dimensional players like him though, he doesn't bring the kind of value that you're going to need to win. We've built with players of his ilk for a long time and that's why we're always spinning our wheels.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Not this again. With you everything is an excuse to get back to your favorite narrative warhorse, and you'll ignore any fact that doesn't further your narrative, let alone those who contradict them. Those facts are flawed or irrelevant -- they must be, since you're right and they contradict you!

This is why it is pointless to argue with you. You have no case. You just offer your personal opinion as fact, and do not support it. You consistently ignore the fact that the facts contradict your opinion. You don't even recognize when you are demonstrably wrong. You've made up your mind and you'll be damned if you don't force the world to conform to your world-view!
The stats don't contradict me. When we signed him I told you I figured we'd probably get somewhere around 65 points out of him with maybe 20 goals. That's what he produced (or at least was on pace for) for us.

My argument was that he was more of the same that we already had. The kind of complimentary guy that isn't going to make a real difference for us or lead us anywhere.

My view is different from yours because you rely ONLY on stats. That's where we differ. And when I bring these things up, you dismiss it.

The whole point that I'm making to you is that not everything can be encapsolated in a spreadsheet, but that's the only thing you'll accept as evidence of anything. And that's where you have your shortcomings.

Again, hockey isn't like baseball and it's not nearly as easy to dissect it in the statistical way that Bill James has done.

You dismiss Pronger's wins as fluke or luck... nobody can be that lucky. The guy is better than what his stats show him to be. Just look at the win column.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Incidentally, look up "mediocre". It does not mean "good but not great".
In the context of first liners, I think it sums up Tanguay pretty well. He helps his linemates and has some skills, but he's also more reliant on them to put up points than they are on him.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2011, 02:57 PM
  #259
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 28,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Hmm. That's never been my impression. And being the pedantic arse that I am , I also looked it up in French, and Larousse also definitely defines it as below-average: http://www.larousse.com/fr/dictionna.../m%C3%A9diocre

"That which is well below average, that is insufficient; modest"

Seems a lot like the English definition. In any case that's not any kind of "good" either.

No big. Just that when I see "mediocre" I think "barely average to below average without being awful".
Really? I always considered 'mediocre' to mean 'middle of the road.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mediocre

It means "of moderate or low, value, ability, or performance". That's not any kind of "good".

Dictionary.com's second meaning is even clearer about its connotations of 'inferior': http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mediocre
Very well. Substitute 'not bad but not great' instead if it makes you feel better.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2011, 03:31 PM
  #260
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
You keep going back to the point per minute stat and say... look, he did it again last

season but again... you are ignoring other factors.
Such as? Keeping in mind that last season was only the latest in a long string of examples, please?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Uh no. His best season came playing with Jarome Iginla (one of the best players in the league.)
We've been over that before, haven't we? I think it's notable though that his 58-point season still had him produce 2.21 points per 60 minutes -- a number second only on his team to Iginla. The main reason why he didn't produce as much was because of circumstance, yes. The Flames seriously lacked forward depth and Tanguay was basically used to carry Craig Conroy and Owen Nolan in the second line in the hopes that they would have a line that would not be destroyed by opposing top-6 forwards. It's a testament to Tanguay's ability that he still produced top-60 level 5-on-5 production despite this. Less than with Iginla, sure, but whose production wouldn't suffer when going from Langkow-Iggy as linemates to Conroy-Nolan?

What you view as an indictment of Tanguay's ability to carry a line is actually more a demonstration thereof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I'm not ignoring them and I'm sorry if it seems like I am.
Yes you are. You keep bringing points per game as if it were more relevant to 5-on-5 production, despite my stat being more narrowly focussed to the matter at hand (as points per game includes special teams production) and a better measure of the player's ability (despite players having no direct control on their icetime). You're trying use less relevant stats to try to prop up your point, when the more significant stats contradict you.

You're right at least in that 5-on-5 points-per-60 is not the be-all end-all, but it is nonetheless inherently better as a measure of "5-on-5 production" than total points per game. The other factors to be considered are strength of linemates, strength of opposition, importance of percentages versus puck possession, and the like. I am deeply aware of the importance of circumstances and opportunity -- more than most. Yet... pretty much all the context factors also favor Tanguay. He's productive with Iginla and productive with Conroy. He's productive against top opposition.

Points per game is a bit like RBIs in baseball. A comfy traditional stat with less significance than given to it. PPG is more significant, I think, but it still hides a bunch of detail.

Heck, in a way, my point is precisely that the points-per-game stat that doesn't tell the whole story about Tanguay's performance and you need to factor in other factors -- like his opportunity measured by icetime -- to get a better picture of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
As for it being my opinion... this kind of goes to the whole heart of the matter. You are asking me to put it into a statistical number so you can verify it. My whole argument is that not everything can fit into your little basket. And just because something can't (or isn't easily quantified statistically) it doesn't mean that it doesn't carry weight.
If your intangibles don't, on some level, impact a player's ability to outscore the opposition, I question how much relevance it has in a game where the objective is to outscore the opposition. I do believe in intangibles, but if they're going to have actual effects on hockey games, the stats, which are only measures of results after all, are going to reflect that effect. If the effect on winning hockey games is so small as to be undetectable, I'm going to have to question its importance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Again, hockey isn't like baseball and it's not nearly as easy to dissect it in the statistical way that Bill James has done.
So it's been said, yet even so we know enough about hockey statistics to make some salient conclusions. It's just that people aren't as accepting of the notion as they were in baseball yet (and "not like baseball" is one of the frequent cop-outs people use to ignore the things about statistical analysis of hockey we DO know.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
You dismiss Pronger's wins as fluke or luck... nobody can be that lucky. The guy is better than what his stats show him to be. Just look at the win column.
Like see, that's exactly like evaluating a pitcher based on his wins, except that an individual hockey skater has even less impact on a hockey team's performance than a pitcher does in baseball.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
In the context of first liners, I think it sums up Tanguay pretty well. He helps his linemates and has some skills, but he's also more reliant on them to put up points than they are on him.
Interesting to call any NHL first-liner "mediocre". Yet Tanguay is above average even by that standard -- but there is a strong tendency to overestimate the amount of production a typical first-liner should get, often requiring a player to be constantly a point-per-game player to classify him as such (nevermind that Tanguay has repeated point-per-game seasons). Failing to separate 5-on-5 and PP production is a very common mistake as well.


Last edited by MathMan: 08-28-2011 at 03:58 PM.
MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2011, 08:39 PM
  #261
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 28,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Such as? Keeping in mind that last season was only the latest in a long string of examples, please?
I gave them to you two or three posts ago. Linemates (esp. when it's Jarome Iginla) is but one example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
We've been over that before, haven't we? I think it's notable though that his 58-point season still had him produce 2.21 points per 60 minutes -- a number second only on his team to Iginla. The main reason why he didn't produce as much was because of circumstance, yes. The Flames seriously lacked forward depth and Tanguay was basically used to carry Craig Conroy and Owen Nolan in the second line in the hopes that they would have a line that would not be destroyed by opposing top-6 forwards. It's a testament to Tanguay's ability that he still produced top-60 level 5-on-5 production despite this. Less than with Iginla, sure, but whose production wouldn't suffer when going from Langkow-Iggy as linemates to Conroy-Nolan?

What you view as an indictment of Tanguay's ability to carry a line is actually more a demonstration thereof.
Not at all. The guy's points are much lower playing without elite players. However, his linemates still continue to put up great numbers without him.

You may turn around and point to his point per minute numbers but again, if he's so great... why is he sitting on the bench?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Yes you are. You keep bringing points per game as if it were more relevant to 5-on-5 production, despite my stat being more narrowly focussed to the matter at hand (as points per game includes special teams production) and a better measure of the player's ability (despite players having no direct control on their icetime). You're trying use less relevant stats to try to prop up your point, when the more significant stats contradict you.
It's not one or the other. It's looking at ALL the information available, not cherrypicking one stat and then basing a conclusion on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
You're right at least in that 5-on-5 points-per-60 is not the be-all end-all, but it is nonetheless inherently better as a measure of "5-on-5 production" than total points per game. The other factors to be considered are strength of linemates, strength of opposition, importance of percentages versus puck possession, and the like. I am deeply aware of the importance of circumstances and opportunity -- more than most. Yet... pretty much all the context factors also favor Tanguay. He's productive with Iginla and productive with Conroy. He's productive against top opposition.
He didn't put up nearly the same points with Conroy as with Iginla. Iginla though put up great numbers pretty much on his own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Points per game is a bit like RBIs in baseball. A comfy traditional stat with less significance than given to it. PPG is more significant, I think, but it still hides a bunch of detail.

Heck, in a way, my point is precisely that the points-per-game stat that doesn't tell the whole story about Tanguay's performance and you need to factor in other factors -- like his opportunity measured by icetime -- to get a better picture of it.
PPG is nothing like RBIs and I think you know this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
If your intangibles don't, on some level, impact a player's ability to outscore the opposition, I question how much relevance it has in a game where the objective is to outscore the opposition. I do believe in intangibles, but if they're going to have actual effects on hockey games, the stats, which are only measures of results after all, are going to reflect that effect. If the effect on winning hockey games is so small as to be undetectable, I'm going to have to question its importance.
Who says they don't? How do you measure the effect of intimidation? It doesn't show up on a scoresheet but it does shows up in the win column. It IS detectable, just not in the manner that you would like it to be.

If you hammer a soft player enough, he won't go into the corners anymore and won't be as effective. That means he won't score as much and you've done your job. So yes, it IS significant. It's just harder to quantify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
So it's been said, yet even so we know enough about hockey statistics to make some salient conclusions. It's just that people aren't as accepting of the notion as they were in baseball yet (and "not like baseball" is one of the frequent cop-outs people use to ignore the things about statistical analysis of hockey we DO know.)

Like see, that's exactly like evaluating a pitcher based on his wins, except that an individual hockey skater has even less impact on a hockey team's performance than a pitcher does in baseball.
If you base your analysis solely on wins I completely agree with you. Some stats are better indicators than others for sure.

But when a guy like Chris Pronger consistently wins in the playoffs on different clubs, it stands to reason that he's a pretty damn good hockey player and is probably better than his point production suggests. His intimidation may not show up on your James-like analysis but it certainly shows up in the win columns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Interesting to call any NHL first-liner "mediocre". Yet Tanguay is above average even by that standard -- but there is a strong tendency to overestimate the amount of production a typical first-liner should get, often requiring a player to be constantly a point-per-game player to classify him as such (nevermind that Tanguay has repeated point-per-game seasons). Failing to separate 5-on-5 and PP production is a very common mistake as well.
If Tanguay is the best player on your roster you aren't going to win anything. It didn't surprise me in the least that he didn't have the impact you expected he would with us. And again, we should stop wasting our time trying to build around these kinds of players and work towards a contending team that actually has a shot at winning something someday.

Anyways, we're running in circles again. Feel free to finish this off again.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2011, 08:50 PM
  #262
ECWHSWI
Spartan mic'
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
If Tanguay is the best player on your roster you aren't going to win anything. It didn't surprise me in the least that he didn't have the impact you expected he would with us. And again, we should stop wasting our time trying to build around these kinds of players and work towards a contending team that actually has a shot at winning something someday.
You probably didnt know that, but last team to win the Cup did it with no player getting over 65 pts during their season...

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2011, 09:09 PM
  #263
habfaninvictoria
Registered User
 
habfaninvictoria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 1,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beendair Donedat View Post
Why no toughness added over the off season so far in our bottom 6 or defense? All other priorities were met and addressed, except the usual elephant in the Habs dressing room. The anti-fighting fairies will be out I'm sure to criticize but it's a legitimate concern, specifically when every other divisional rival in the North East is much tougher. Guys like Vandermeer (defense), Carkner, Clarkson, Rupp, Konopka, Winchester etc... All could be obtained and would add muscle to an extremely soft lineup. You guys ever watch Subban, Cole, or Pacioretty drop the gloves? It's like watching Christians vs Lions.

And please don't mention the Laraque experiment - he said numerous times he didn't want to fight and said specifically he wouldn't fight if he was traded (from his Oiler days).

So why no toughness? Ryan White will try bless his heart but he's an average middleweight at best. Moen isn't much better.
Sounds like you need to start rooting for a different team. Perhaps one that embodies how you envision the game should be played. "Fans" such as yourself who continually ***** and moan about how the team is run. I'm a fan of the team, sometimes I don't like what they do, but really, do threads like this actually help.

habfaninvictoria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2011, 09:10 PM
  #264
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 28,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
You probably didnt know that, but last team to win the Cup did it with no player getting over 65 pts during their season...
Sure. But Tanguay wouldn't have been close to the best player on that team either. BTW, that cup winning team certainly had players who could play physical which kind of reinforces what I've been arguing here. The points per minute weren't great and they didn't score a whole lot of goals but they intimidated the Sedins... So no, it doesn't show up in points per minute but the intimidation did show up in the win column. Thanks for the example.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 08-28-2011 at 09:16 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2011, 09:49 PM
  #265
ECWHSWI
Spartan mic'
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Sure. But Tanguay wouldn't have been close to the best player on that team either. BTW, that cup winning team certainly had players who could play physical which kind of reinforces what I've been arguing here. The points per minute weren't great and they didn't score a whole lot of goals but they intimidated the Sedins... So no, it doesn't show up in points per minute but the intimidation did show up in the win column. Thanks for the example.

and yet, smaller players than the Sedins, such as Cammy, Gionta, Plekanec, Pyatt, DD didnt look intimidated one bit VS them...

I mean, Gionta led the team in the first two PO games and Cammy took care of the offense the remaining 5 games...

So yeah, no problem for the example!

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2011, 09:53 PM
  #266
Pax Macioretty
Registered User
 
Pax Macioretty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: hockey city
Posts: 15,213
vCash: 500
So why exactly are you guys talking about the softest player in the Habs history, a player who quit on us in the playoffs, in the toughness thread?!!

Pax Macioretty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2011, 10:05 PM
  #267
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Hmm. That's never been my impression. And being the pedantic arse that I am , I also looked it up in French, and Larousse also definitely defines it as below-average: http://www.larousse.com/fr/dictionna.../m%C3%A9diocre

"That which is well below average, that is insufficient; modest"

Seems a lot like the English definition. In any case that's not any kind of "good" either.

No big. Just that when I see "mediocre" I think "barely average to below average without being awful".
I've noticed the love from a lot French people on this board for the word mediocrity, because in English it's more related to average, while in French, the meaning is closer to below average.

And in any case, Habs have been over average in many respects over the last 5 years. Not saying we've reached promised land, but it's not as awful as the word mediocrity makes it sound.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2011, 11:31 PM
  #268
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxpac View Post
So why exactly are you guys talking about the softest player in the Habs history, a player who quit on us in the playoffs, in the toughness thread?!!
The point was that Tanguay was a victim of perception, and that the perception of his "softness" caused the fans to turn on an excellent hockey player who was the Habs' best forward at the time.

It's a caveat of the perils of overvaluing grit and toughness for its own sake... and how those are often more in the eye of the beholder than in reality.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2011, 11:50 PM
  #269
Pax Macioretty
Registered User
 
Pax Macioretty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: hockey city
Posts: 15,213
vCash: 500
Hill

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
The point was that Tanguay was a victim of perception, and that the perception of his "softness" caused the fans to turn on an excellent hockey player who was the Habs' best forward at the time.

It's a caveat of the perils of overvaluing grit and toughness for its own sake... and how those are often more in the eye of the beholder than in reality.
Caveat of the perils? You're turning Latin on us now? While you like to extract evey possible (and most of the time useless) stats possible, I like to enjoy the game for what it is and represents. Fights and hits are part off the show, they have been part of every great rivalry and to me tu still hold great value in any game. There's a marketing term that I learned in school " cognitive dissonance", which is mostly trying to justify positively what you own or bought, you guys are doing the EXACT same thing with the have current system, if we had a Jared Boll, a Shawn Thornton or a Paul Bissonnette on the team nobody would be sting a damn thing, but hey, since we're soft as hell, might as well undervalue the physical aspect if the game as much as we can, because we all know if you don't walk all day with your rose colored glasses saying how trest we are you're not a real Habs fan.

Pax Macioretty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 12:03 AM
  #270
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 28,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
and yet, smaller players than the Sedins, such as Cammy, Gionta, Plekanec, Pyatt, DD didnt look intimidated one bit VS them...

I mean, Gionta led the team in the first two PO games and Cammy took care of the offense the remaining 5 games...

So yeah, no problem for the example!
Right, sorry... I forgot we're the ones who won the cup.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 01:03 AM
  #271
Mr. Hab
Registered User
 
Mr. Hab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,535
vCash: 500
Wanted to know if any of you would know how some of our ''tough guys'' are doing? (thanks in advance):


Schultz (1 year away? 2 years away?)
Conboy (1 year away? or less? or more?)
Alex Henry 6'6 ,240lbs (can't he be called up just for the games vs the Bruins?! or no ?! 11 forwards and 7 dmen for those games,imo).
Nash? (some decent potential as a dman who can play, but is he also capable of defending smaller teammates? tough enough? I've only seen Henry in 1 or 2 Hab games...it didn't look like he was used to the NHL pace so he may need more time to adapt to fast skaters or he should only play vs 4th liners,etc...).

Any one in our system (prospects) with good potential (incl. the above players) as a 4th line forward? (or 3rd line forward) ; or 3rd pairing dman? (or 7th dman).




Go Habs Go!!

Mr. Hab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 01:51 AM
  #272
ECWHSWI
Spartan mic'
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Right, sorry... I forgot we're the ones who won the cup.
Yup, with the help of cotonnelle Krejci and pampers Sedin leading their team in PO points

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 06:33 AM
  #273
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
The point was that Tanguay was a victim of perception, and that the perception of his "softness" caused the fans to turn on an excellent hockey player who was the Habs' best forward at the time.

It's a caveat of the perils of overvaluing grit and toughness for its own sake... and how those are often more in the eye of the beholder than in reality.
I like most of your arguments, but when you say Alex Tanguay was not soft, you kinda lose me. This isn't a miss-perception, it's been a concern of every gm who he has ever played for.

Alex Tanguay is extremely soft, anyone who has watched the game for more than a few years can see this. He's a perimeter player much like gomez who has difficulty generating his own scoring chances, albeit his skill set is better than Gomez.

Tanguay would be a good complimentary player to a team who doesn't already have too many players like him. IMO it is no coincidence that a small semiskilled team struggles to score 5vs5 every single year. You can write it off as bad luck or whatever else you wish to attribute it to, but until this team is in the top half in 5vs5 scoring your metrics mean very little.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 06:51 AM
  #274
Habs Icing
Formerly Onice
 
Habs Icing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 6,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post

And in any case, Habs have been over average in many respects over the last 5 years. Not saying we've reached promised land, but it's not as awful as the word mediocrity makes it sound.

Mediocre means average, middle of the pack, so so.

30 teams in the league

10-11 Montreal finishes 14th overall - loses in the 1st round
09-10 Montreal finishes 19th overall - loses in the 3rd round
08-09 Montreal finishes 13th overall - loses in the 1st round
07-08 Montreal finishes 3rd overall - loses in the 2nd round
06-07 Montreal finishes 19th overall - out of the playoffs

I'll let the stats speak for themselves.

Habs Icing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 07:16 AM
  #275
Habs Icing
Formerly Onice
 
Habs Icing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 6,253
vCash: 500
I picked some names of hard-nosed, gritty players off the Cup winning teams of the last 5 years. Tell me if the Habs of 11-12 have as many of these players as these Stanley Cup winners.

11-Bruins
Boychuk
Chara
Lucic
McQuaid
Thornton

10-Blackhawks
Bolland
Byfugien
Eager
Ladd
Burish

09-Pens
Cook
Godard
Oprik
Talbot
Guerin
Boucher
Dupuis

08- Red Wings

Holmstrom
Frazen
Kronwall
Downey
McCarty

07- Ducks
Beauchemin
Pronger
Rome
Parros
May
Thornton
Moen


My answer is no.

I know these teams didn't win solely because of these players. These teams won because they had a right mix of talent and grit. The Habs are no where close to having that mix.

And for all those posters that claim we're an exceptionally fast skilled team, look again. When it comes to skill & speed we're not in the top 5-6 teams. So we haven't got grit and we're not one of the top teams when it comes to skill.


Last edited by Habs Icing: 08-29-2011 at 07:25 AM.
Habs Icing 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 05:30 PM.

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.