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
08-29-2011, 08:18 AM
  #276
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxpac View Post
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.
It's perfectly fine to watch the game purely as entertainment! It's fine to like watching fights and hits (so long as nobody gets hurt, of course) as part of that entertainment package.

I like to watch hockey too, more for the skill and speed than the physical game. However, I've got a very Cartesian mind, though, and I also like to examine the game from the angle of figuring out what makes a team win and how a team might improve. Hence all the stats.

Thing is, if you're interested purely in the entertainment value, then don't try to present it as the necessarily superior "tactical" option as well. Obviously, what's more effective on the ice may or may not be what's more entertaining -- just remember the trap system! Of course, the entertainment is what sell tickets, so a team may go with what's entertaining over what's effective anyway; then again, often not -- think of the trap system again.

Incidentally, if you want to talk about cognitive dissonance, "useless stats" would be a fine example. Insisting that fighting has hockey value in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary by dismissing the evidence out of hand is also a fine case of cognitive dissonance...


Last edited by MathMan: 08-29-2011 at 08:28 AM.
MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 08:22 AM
  #277
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
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.
I think that the notion of Alex Tanguay's softness has been overblown, and the impact thereof even more so. He's a very good player, that should be the bottom line. His being "soft" has done little to diminish his effectiveness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
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.
It had more to do with being "semiskilled" than "small". There was also an interesting pattern over the last few years where good 5-on-5 players would instantly get worse when they got on the Habs and get better when they left; this regardless of size, grit, which team they played for before, et caetera. So I think coaching may have been a factor.

But I wouldn't be surprised to see the Habs well in the top half for 5-on-5 scoring. They'd only need to add six goals to get there, but I think they'll do much better than that. They're actually pretty much where Boston was last year, though Boston's luck swung completely the other way this year.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 08:26 AM
  #278
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,705
vCash: 500
As the season wears on, would the Habs grab a guy like Chris Neil from the Sens? Could be a major help in the playoffs?

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 09:17 AM
  #279
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
As far as I understand it mediocre does not mean average or middle of the pack it means below average or below middle of the pack or at bare minimum lower middle of the pack. I've never heard the word "mediocre" being used to express something as "average" as that isn't what it is.

It's funny even dictionary.com #1 and #2 are walking contradictions of each other so I can understand the confusion, check it out:

1.
of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate: The car gets only mediocre mileage, but it's fun to drive. Synonyms: undistinguished, commonplace, pedestrian, everyday; run-of-the-mill. Antonyms: extraordinary, superior, uncommon, incomparable.

Clearly here it states that it is average but again antonyms paint a different picture as the opposite of extraordinary or superior to me is... well... not average but garbage, inferior etc.

2.
not satisfactory; poor; inferior: Mediocre construction makes that building dangerous. Synonyms: meager, low-quality, second-rate; so-so. Antonyms: excellent, superior.

Clearly here it uses the words "poor", "inferior" or "low-quality"

Antonyms being excellent and superior... opposite of that to me is garbage and inferior. Before anyone jumps on it I obviously don't mean garbage in the true sense of the word but you know what I mean, opposite of excellent would be terrible.

Also to anyone saying Alex Tanguay isn't soft. He was cleared to play by the doctors but refused to play in an important string of playoff games due to being a UFA. He has always been considered soft in general anyways but to say he isn't soft after that is ridiculous. Let me tell you something, Chris Pronger wouldn't refuse to play if the doctors okayed him, whether or not he's a pending UFA.

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:00 AM
  #280
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
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.
Downey didn't play a single playoff game. Neither did Godard with the Penguins. Also franzen, hoilmstrom and kronwall are about as tough as cole, subban and pacioretty. In fact we currently have more toughness than that red wings team who won the cup in 08. (also phillipe Boucher played only 9 playoff games, I doubt it is because of him they won the cup).

In fact looking at those rosters, we have as much toughness and every team there with the exception of the ducks and bruins.

With the players you listed for each team, then I really don't see how you can exclude players such as subban, cole, pacioretty, white and moen as being tough, considering you have guys like Dupuis and Bolland as part of your definition for grit...I really don't see how you can exclude the Habs players I just mentioned, which in doing so would give us as much grit as the teams you've listed. Guys like bolland, while they play a fearless game,they are by no means an intimidating force out there.

Lastly, you're also insinuating that teams like the bruins won primarily because of their toughness to skill ratio which is false. The bruins had to play three 7 game series. They won because they had a hot goaltender, had good fortune(considering every team they played had significant injuries while they played healthy until the final series in which they lost one man) good defensive play and buying into Julien's passive neutral zone and lastly good depth at forward. Ironically,three of these 4 things can be applied to montreal's success the year with halak, yet this is more of a complaint amongst fans than a positive.

To say the bruins won because of their grit is revisionist history and simply not true.

If you want to look at of the true cause of why these teams won a cup, go look at their lineups and go see the amount of depth these teams had at the forward position.


Last edited by Andy: 08-29-2011 at 10:37 AM.
Andy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:00 AM
  #281
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
Also to anyone saying Alex Tanguay isn't soft. He was cleared to play by the doctors but refused to play in an important string of playoff games due to being a UFA.
Was that actually confirmed anywhere reputable, or is that only one of those rumors that get commonly accepted as fact?

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:01 AM
  #282
Maxpac
Registered User
 
Maxpac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: hockey city
Posts: 14,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathman
Incidentally, if you want to talk about cognitive dissonance, "useless stats" would be a fine example. Insisting that fighting has hockey value in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary by dismissing the evidence out of hand is also a fine case of cognitive dissonance...

Not really, Cause we have presented a bunch of evidence of why we think having a fighter is a must, it's you guys that choose to not to believe it. It's you guys that think that if 1 player has an injury or a concussion that a fighter is useless. That fact if the matter is, no matter how hard you try, you can't put the positive mental side of having a protector or a fighter on a piece of paper, just like you can't do it with leadership, confidence or work ethic. You like seeing your best players coming back to the bench with their heads between their tales? That's fine, but I don't. Our best forward said during an interview that he wouldn't mind an enforcer, you know just like everybody else that when the mikes are off it means "get me help, ASAP." We're part of the toughest division with no equipment to defend ourselves, that's what I call a need.


Last edited by Maxpac: 08-29-2011 at 10:07 AM.
Maxpac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:04 AM
  #283
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
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.
but by taking one of the "skill" players off the roster to make room for tougher players, we'd have a better MIX ?

and that's the main thing here... we dont already have a Getzlaf or a Lucic on the roster... we have smaller players on our top 6/top 9...

cause if you want to get tougher, it isnt the Moen or White you have to sacrifice... it's the others...

and guess what ? we dont have PPG players, or even 70 pts player (not a single one)... so one less of these "others", would make a big difference on the offensive juggernaut that are the Habs... unfortunately for us, it wont be a positive one...


so, next time, before talking about having the right MIX of players, think about this : our best forward got 57 pts last season...

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:16 AM
  #284
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxpac View Post
Not really, Cause we have presented a bunch of evidence of why we think having a fighter is a must, it's you guys that choose to not to believe it. It's you guys that think that if 1 player has an injury or a concussion that a fighter is useless. That fact if the matter is, no matter how hard you try, you can't put the positive mental side of having a protector or a fighter on a piece of paper, just like you can't do it with leadership, confidence or work ethic. You like seeing your best players coming back to the bench with their heads between their tales? That's fine, but I don't. Our best forward said during an interview that he wouldn't mind an enforcer, you know just like everybody else that when the mikes are off it means "get me help, ASAP." We're part of the toughest division with no equipment to defend ourselves, that's what I call a need.
Actually it's quite the opposite. A tremendous amount of evidence has been posted in this thread to prove the exact opposite, that a fighter isn't needed and that more often than not the team which wins the cup is one of the lowest fighting major teams in the league. It's you and the rest of the people with a hard on for toughness who choose to deflect ignore or disbelief the facts and evidence presented before you countless times in this and other threads.

In fact not a single person in this thread has listed a fighter who was available who wouldn't hurt our team and would be better than any of the players we have on our squad now but of course the toughness crowd ignores that or tries to even say Konopka is a good player when in fact he really isn't.

As per the positive mental side, somebody already listed a bunch of cup winning teams in the last decade and out of them like 1 had a high fighting majors, the rest were in the lower bracket of the league, so I think that just goes to show the mental aspect you keep referring to is hogwash, but hey hold onto your delusions and ignore facts when they're presented to you, because that's basically all the people in this thread know how to do.

Also just like plenty of the toughness crowd don't expect the non-toughness crowd to formulate arguments based entirely on assumptions I expect the same of you. You don't know what's said when the mics are off, there isn't any "we all know what it means". There are people who use their own delusions to backup their arguments and then there are people who use facts. You sir are just ignoring all the evidence which supports our claim that one isn't needed and rambling on about what if's. Go back and re-read the thread, there are plenty of examples that more than prove the whole fighter being important theory has no real backing. This isn't the 70s anymore where there were plenty of not-so talented people on a lot of teams anyways. Now a days you need to compete and be at the same level as your opponents. Adding a fighter in 90% of the cases means adding a worse player.

Where were these fighters who were all available that Gauthier didn't get who actually do know how to play hockey? They were no where to be seen, it's merely people in this thread trying to bs that guys like Konopka do know how to play hockey when clearly that isn't the case. He was signed by the worst team in the NHL because they want to tank.

Now if you want to say you want tougher players who know how to play hockey it's one thing, frankly no players of that caliber who were available have been mentioned in this thread and the players who have been mentioned either can't play hockey for **** (though some fans like to delude themselves into believing they can) or weren't available.


Last edited by neofury*: 08-29-2011 at 10:33 AM.
neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:17 AM
  #285
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxpac View Post
Not really, Cause we have presented a bunch of evidence of why we think having a fighter is a must, it's you guys that choose to not to believe it.
It's not evidence, it's biased observations and interpretations. You only believe it because you're predisposed in believing in the usefulness of fighters.

Evidence is based on fact, hence the stat-based argument. Hey, here's another article with a nifty chart where the impact of fighting on attendance and record over the last few years is examined:

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2010/...nhl-attendance

(The scale on the graph is a little annoying because they're organized by NHL rank; so the most fights are on the left and the best records are on the bottom.)

The correlation between fighting and winning is negative. That should be a pretty straightforward point here: teams that fight the most actually tend to be lower in the standings. I wouldn't go so far to suggest a causal relationship from that. To me it seems to be more that bad teams tend to fight more, rather than fighting makes teams bad. You can fight a lot and be good -- but you don't need to, and most good teams don't.


Last edited by MathMan: 08-29-2011 at 10:24 AM.
MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:32 AM
  #286
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,227
vCash: 500
We'll just leave the Tanguay thing alone. As another example though, I threw out Kyle Wellwood's name as being 'soft' because he was the most stark example of a player that fits this description. I don't think anyone would disagree with me on this because he's never been a Hab so people can put any personal feelings aside on this guy. He was widely been considered the softest player in the league until he took off for Europe when no teams would sign him up.

How can we show this statistically though? I don't think we can. We can show that he didn't get the icetime that he otherwise might. We can show that no team was interested enough in him to pick him up and so he left for Europe. But there isn't a stat that can really capture how soft this guy is. Yes, we could look at hits but even that stat only provides a hint at what the player is really all about.

Again, hockey isn't baseball. There are elements to the game that are hard to quantify in this. Just like when Pronger takes somebody out in the corner, the effects of that hit may not be felt in that period or that game, but it may benefit his club down the road. The only place you'll see it is in the win column.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxpac View Post
Not really, Cause we have presented a bunch of evidence of why we think having a fighter is a must, it's you guys that choose to not to believe it. It's you guys that think that if 1 player has an injury or a concussion that a fighter is useless. That fact if the matter is, no matter how hard you try, you can't put the positive mental side of having a protector or a fighter on a piece of paper, just like you can't do it with leadership, confidence or work ethic. You like seeing your best players coming back to the bench with their heads between their tales? That's fine, but I don't. Our best forward said during an interview that he wouldn't mind an enforcer, you know just like everybody else that when the mikes are off it means "get me help, ASAP." We're part of the toughest division with no equipment to defend ourselves, that's what I call a need.
I don't think a pure fighter is a must. I think we need more physical players and maybe some that can drop the gloves if they need to, but it's a different game than it used to be.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:33 AM
  #287
AllCanadienFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hab View Post
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!!
Unless Schultz's skating improves drastically this year he will never get there. Conboy is probably the closest and skating is an issue here too. Will be interesting to see how he has improved from last year. Maybe ready next year, possible call-up this year for a few games? For the record Henry is 6'5 and 230 lbs. and the Habs have absolutely no interest in bringing up. Nash will have to improve on his quickness and learn to play like a plus 200 pounder. This will be a big year for him with the Dogs to show what he can do.

AllCanadienFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:34 AM
  #288
Bill McNeal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
It's not evidence, it's biased observations and interpretations. You only believe it because you're predisposed in believing in the usefulness of fighters.

Evidence is based on fact, hence the stat-based argument. Hey, here's another article with a nifty chart where the impact of fighting on attendance and record over the last few years is examined:

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2010/...nhl-attendance

The reality is that the teams that the correlation is negative. That should be a pretty straightforward point here: teams that fight the most actually tend to be lower in the standings. (I wouldn't go so far to suggest a causal relationship from that. To me it seems to be more that bad teams tend to fight more, rather than fighting makes teams bad.)
Interesting link. Just the other day I did some (rudimentary) numbers work and came to the same conclusion. Of the 15 seasons since the first work stoppage in 94-95, 14 of them showed a negative correlation between points in the standings and fighting majors. The only season that didn't was 07-08 (coincidentally or not, the year after Anaheim made headlines for winning the Cup using their fists).

But like you, I believe it's more of an indication that worse teams tend to fill their rosters with worse players who, given the culture of hockey, fight more to prove they bring something of 'value'.

I also wanted to check if there was any relationship between fighting majors and injuries (as proponents of fighting would have you believe it's a deterrent). Unfortunately, there's not much historical data on man games lost due to injury, so I was only able to check the past 3 seasons. Two of the three showed that teams who fought more had slightly more injuries and the other season slightly less. Nowhere near enough info to draw any conclusions, but with what I have seen there doesn't seem to be any correlation.

Bill McNeal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:37 AM
  #289
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
The correlation between fighting and winning is negative. That should be a pretty straightforward point here: teams that fight the most actually tend to be lower in the standings. I wouldn't go so far to suggest a causal relationship from that. To me it seems to be more that bad teams tend to fight more, rather than fighting makes teams bad. You can fight a lot and be good -- but you don't need to, and most good teams don't.
It would be interesting to see how those clubs do in the playoffs though. Because it sure seems like the refs put their whistles away in the postseason.

They probably don't fight in the playoffs, but those clubs that do tend to fight more in the regular season are probably teams that play an intimidation game (Botson, Philly) That's a big reason why Pronger is such a postseason monster. The Sedins were completely shut down by Boston because of the roughousing. And what the Bruins did to the Sedins would never have been tolerated in the regular season. I still remember one of the twins being repeatedly punched in the face in front of the net and the refs doing nothing about it...

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:45 AM
  #290
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
It would be interesting to see how those clubs do in the playoffs though. Because it sure seems like the refs put their whistles away in the postseason.

They probably don't fight in the playoffs, but those clubs that do tend to fight more in the regular season are probably teams that play an intimidation game (Botson, Philly) That's a big reason why Pronger is such a postseason monster.
one of the best D in the league... so, yeah! the guy is tough, but he's also good enough to be on the top pair of ANY team... just like Chara plays a physical game, but again, the guy is good enough to be #1 D on ANY team...

I mean, Lidstrom is a "monster" too, despite NOT playing a physical game at all... wanna guess why ?

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:46 AM
  #291
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
It would be interesting to see how those clubs do in the playoffs though. Because it sure seems like the refs put their whistles away in the postseason.

They probably don't fight in the playoffs, but those clubs that do tend to fight more in the regular season are probably teams that play an intimidation game (Botson, Philly) That's a big reason why Pronger is such a postseason monster. The Sedins were completely shut down by Boston because of the roughousing. And what the Bruins did to the Sedins would never have been tolerated in the regular season. I still remember one of the twins being repeatedly punched in the face in front of the net and the refs doing nothing about it...
I know the bruins effectively shut down the Sedins...but how much of that was because of toughness and how much of it was because of Julien's tight defensive game where the Sedin's were clearly targetted especially on the PP?

I mean, look at the San Jose series, that was a much more physical series than the Bruins-Canucks one and the Sedin's didn't have many problems scoring in that series.

The biggest mistake I see people make in this thread is that they look at the roster of a team and then assume that that team won because of the major quality they see in that roster, which is not a right way to make an analysis. Sedin's struggled against Boston because Julien implemented a stingy defensive system and not because of intimidation(Conversely, the San Jose-Vancouver series was a lot more open then the Boston one). Also a lot of their lack of production in the finals also had a lot to do with Thomas standing on his head. It wasn't just the Sedin's that weren't producing, it was the entire team. And the best part is that the chances were there. The Sedins were shut down largely because of defensive play and good goaltending. Interestingly enough, the Sedin's didn't produce much in the Nashville series either, also a team who implemented tight defensive play and relied on good goaltending. I wonder if Nashville also almost came through because the Sedin's were intimidated?

I think attributing the lack of production based on the toughhness of the Bruins is a very very shallow analysis of what actually went down in the finals.

Andy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:49 AM
  #292
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
It would be interesting to see how those clubs do in the playoffs though. Because it sure seems like the refs put their whistles away in the postseason.
The problem with the playoffs is always the same, small sample size. But, keeping in mind this will be highly anecdotical, look at the Cup finalists since the lockout:

Carolina/Edmonton
Ottawa/Anaheim
Pittsburgh/Detroit
Pittsburgh/Detroit
Philadelphia/Chicago
Boston/Vancouver

Out of twelve teams, only Anaheim, Boston and arguably Philly could be considered teams that play an intimidation game.

Lots of skilled teams in that list though... but then, skill wins Cups.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
And what the Bruins did to the Sedins would never have been tolerated in the regular season. I still remember one of the twins being repeatedly punched in the face in front of the net and the refs doing nothing about it...
A cynical mind would rephrase that as "what the Bruins did to the Sedins would never have been tolerated wouldn't have been tolerated of a team that didn't employ Campbell's son".

As an aside, it's also a sad commentary on the acceptance of the NHL as a bush league that the idea of adapting one's playstyle due to increasingly substandard officiating as the games become more important is being seriously suggested.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:56 AM
  #293
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
I know the bruins effectively shut down the Sedins...but how much of that was because of toughness and how much of it was because of Julien's tight defensive game where the Sedin's were clearly targetted especially on the PP?
Well, let's not forget what the Bruins' defensive game all year really was...

Tim Thomas save%:
Game 1: .971
Game 2: .909
Game 3: .976
Game 4: 1.000
Game 5: .960
Game 6: .947
Game 7: 1.000

Total for the series: .967

This, more than any other factor, is ultimately what won Boston the series -- and was the primary reason the Sedins were shut down. By scoring chance differential, the Sedins were the best line the Canucks had 5-on-5. They just couldn't beat Thomas. (Vancouver's PP was pathetic though.)

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 11:01 AM
  #294
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Well, let's not forget what the Bruins' defensive game all year really was...

Tim Thomas save%:
Game 1: .971
Game 2: .909
Game 3: .976
Game 4: 1.000
Game 5: .960
Game 6: .947
Game 7: 1.000

Total for the series: .967

This, more than any other factor, is ultimately what won Boston the series -- and was the primary reason the Sedins were shut down.
Exactly. While watching the series, I did notice that Julien was able to limit the amount of chances teh Sedin's had through a very tight defensive system, but the Sedin's still had plenty of chances in that series, not as much as usual, but they still did. However, when they did get through, Thomas stoned them on every occasion. I remember, I think it was game 5 where Daniel hit 4 posts in one game. They weren't without their chances.

Again, even at that, the Sedin's saw a similar level of difficulty scoring in the Nashville series, but I doubt people will attribute that to Nashville's toughness. Interestingly enough, the Sedin's struggled twice in the playoffs, and both times were against teams that played a high defensive game and good goaltending. Hell, we saw this first had during the season when the Habs played the Canucks twice. The Sedins were shut down in these two games as well.

Again as I said, I think attributing the Sedin's lack of production to the toughness of the Bruins is a very shallow analysis of that series, as is the claim that the Bruins won the cup because of their toughness. The Bruins won primarily because of Thomas standing on his head, good fortune with the injury situation, good defensive play and good depth.

Andy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 11:09 AM
  #295
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
The Bruins won primarily because of Thomas standing on his head, good fortune with the injury situation, good defensive play and good depth.
I don't think the Bruins had good depth (their D was particularly shallow) but I agree with the rest. The good fortune of running into goaltending meltdowns didn't hurt either (in particular Boston was dominated by Tampa and would never have gotten past them had Roloson performed at NHL average).

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 11:17 AM
  #296
Bill McNeal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
It would be interesting to see how those clubs do in the playoffs though. Because it sure seems like the refs put their whistles away in the postseason.

They probably don't fight in the playoffs, but those clubs that do tend to fight more in the regular season are probably teams that play an intimidation game (Botson, Philly) That's a big reason why Pronger is such a postseason monster. The Sedins were completely shut down by Boston because of the roughousing. And what the Bruins did to the Sedins would never have been tolerated in the regular season. I still remember one of the twins being repeatedly punched in the face in front of the net and the refs doing nothing about it...
Keep in mind that I know the following method is pretty flawed because it's so heavily weighted by teams that don't make the playoffs (amongst other issues with trying to assign value to playoff performances)...

But by using a system that rewards 'points' for how deep a team goes in the playoffs as follows:

5 pts - Cup Winner
4 pts - Cup Finalist
3 pts - Conference Finalist
2 pts - Conference Semi-Finalist
1 pt - Conference Quarter-Finalist
0 pts - Out of playoffs

And then calculating the average for each fighting rank over a 10 season span (since 2001 when we first had 30 teams), I came up with the following chart:



Again, the trend is slightly upward for teams that fight less. I think you'll find similar results with more in depth measuring systems, but I think it's another clear indication that fighting is pretty much a non-factor in this day and age.

Bill McNeal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 11:39 AM
  #297
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
They probably don't fight in the playoffs, but those clubs that do tend to fight more in the regular season are probably teams that play an intimidation game (Botson, Philly) That's a big reason why Pronger is such a postseason monster. The Sedins were completely shut down by Boston because of the roughousing. And what the Bruins did to the Sedins would never have been tolerated in the regular season. I still remember one of the twins being repeatedly punched in the face in front of the net and the refs doing nothing about it...
Pronger is one of the best Dman of his time. The man is such a beast because he uses his size to his advantage (in terms of positioning), his skating, passing and shooting skills are great, as well as his hockey vision and understanding. That's why the guy is so good. Chirping and intimidating isn't what makes him good.

As for the Sedins, as MM pointed out, they were shutdown by Thomas. If I remember correctly, the same thing happened versus Rinne with them gathering a combined 7pts in 6GP. But the Preds aren't known for their super toughness like the Bruins are, so people won't attribute that shutdown success to that. When it happens versus the Bruins though, toughness is always the first thing that is brought up even when it isn't the main factor.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 12:12 PM
  #298
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxpac View Post
Not really, Cause we have presented a bunch of evidence of why we think having a fighter is a must, it's you guys that choose to not to believe it. It's you guys that think that if 1 player has an injury or a concussion that a fighter is useless. That fact if the matter is, no matter how hard you try, you can't put the positive mental side of having a protector or a fighter on a piece of paper, just like you can't do it with leadership, confidence or work ethic. You like seeing your best players coming back to the bench with their heads between their tales? That's fine, but I don't. Our best forward said during an interview that he wouldn't mind an enforcer, you know just like everybody else that when the mikes are off it means "get me help, ASAP." We're part of the toughest division with no equipment to defend ourselves, that's what I call a need.
not really. i have yet to see one argument passed "Most GM are hiring Fighters" which has been said multiple times, that they are being hired for the fans more then for the team itself; even if some players might feel the contrary. Ive also put together an argument that examined how behaviorally speaking, intimidation with "violence" will actually cause more "counter-violence" then "police for cheap shots" and create some kind off respect. Fighting has one large value, that of entertainment. It's impact on the ice/team is almost negligible.

uiCk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 12:54 PM
  #299
bipolarhabfan
Registered User
 
bipolarhabfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,619
vCash: 500
Skill + depth = championships. I think it really is that simple of an equation. Having a fighter who can only fight is useless because it does not allow you to roll four lines. Moreover, this type of player is usually sitting in the press box during the playoffs. They are that useless when it comes to crunch time because they cant do anything else on the ice and can easily get penalties due to their lack of skill.

What I have wanted for ages is team toughness. Give me a team with players that can score, win face-offs, block shots, and hit and take a hit. I think we are slowly getting there. This year we have one of the deepest squads we have ever had and have some decent team toughness: Cole, Pacioretty, Moen, White, Eller, Subban, Yemlin, and Gorges come to mind.

bipolarhabfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 01:57 PM
  #300
loadie
Official Beer Taster
 
loadie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Brunswick
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,109
vCash: 500
I think we just sign a tough guy and only play him against the Bruins. It would do my heart good to see Lucic or Thornton get the snot beat out of them. As for actually helping the team win, well, that's another matter...

__________________

The French Canadian rule: Read about it, go to bed smarter.

http://ultimatehockeynetwork.com/the...-or-fiction-2/
loadie 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 02:01 PM.

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.