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 dominate bruins. Lose 1-0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-22-2011, 05:31 PM
  #401
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
The reason the habs have a difficult time scoring is because they don't have anyone particularly good at it. The game isn't won by outskating your opponents, it's about putting the puck in the net and we've been terribad for years.

Cammy is the only true offensively gifted player we have. We have a bunch of nice players, but none really elite on offense, cammy when not scoring is brutal too.

It isn't bad luck, a game here and a game there, sure bad luck plays a role, this has been going on for close to 200 games and it's not likely to change. If we make the playoffs we will once again be near the bottom of playoff teams in scoring, if not dead last.
Glad to see from the tone on this thread that people are being more outspoken about the offensive talent level of this team. It's the first step in (hopefully) nudging Gauthier to do something about it. Or at least having him try something.

This team has been Groundhog Daying it for a long time on the offensive side of the puck.

Agnostic is offline  
Old
11-22-2011, 07:09 PM
  #402
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmac1160 View Post
I'm not comparing these teams to the habs, I am simply saying all of these teams would love a superstar. It shows how hard its going to be to get one, so keep dreaming. We need to work with the good team we have and stop complaining about not having a superstar.
See, I don't understand this. Why just 'dream' about it? Doesn't it make sense to proactively do something about it? How is it that other clubs manage to get these stars and we don't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmac1160 View Post
No we don't need a superstar forward to win because we have a superstar goalie. Goalies and D win championships. Look at Boston New Jersey ect...I would rather have a star goalie than an ovechkin. What has Washington ever done?
And Hasek didn't win anything until he had Detroit behind him. As for Ovechkin... he's 26 years old and on one of the best teams in the league. Are you saying he's washed up? It took Yzerman till he was 32 to win, but when he did he led his clubs to three cups and is now considered one of the best captains of all time.

Again, look at the clubs that won. Not all had the best goaltending. Not all had the best defense. And not all had the best offense. Lemieux and Gretzky's teams were offensive. Brodeur and Chara's teams were defensive.

MOST though were strong in all three areas.

But we don't have the scoring so we try to convince ourselves that it's not important. It is.

Sure you can win it without the great goaltending, but why try to build a team this way? Same with weak forwards? Why try to win this way? It doesn't make sense. It's about balance man. Going in saying well we have good goaltending and defense so we might win is silly... we shouldn't try to win with the bare minimum. We should try to build the BEST team that we can. And that includes offense.

And the choice isn't between Ovechkin and great goaltending... that's not what you should be looking for. The choice would be between Ovechkin vs. our best offensive player. Which would you rather have? Which do you think gives us a better chance at winning?


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 11-22-2011 at 07:16 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
11-22-2011, 07:15 PM
  #403
Ravenscar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 48
vCash: 500
Due to Bruins' victory, one of my friends in college wore a Bruins T-shirt today and placed a note on the T-shirt saying that he lost a bet.

Ravenscar is offline  
Old
11-22-2011, 07:58 PM
  #404
PunkinDrublic*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sutton,Qc-Sudbury,On
Posts: 8,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhlplayer7777 View Post
Due to Bruins' victory, one of my friends in college wore a Bruins T-shirt today and placed a note on the T-shirt saying that he lost a bet.
So what did you wear the two previous games ?

PunkinDrublic* is offline  
Old
11-22-2011, 08:01 PM
  #405
JGRB
#EllerThugLife
 
JGRB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
The reason the habs have a difficult time scoring is because they don't have anyone particularly good at it. The game isn't won by outskating your opponents, it's about putting the puck in the net and we've been terribad for years.

Cammy is the only true offensively gifted player we have. We have a bunch of nice players, but none really elite on offense, cammy when not scoring is brutal too.

It isn't bad luck, a game here and a game there, sure bad luck plays a role, this has been going on for close to 200 games and it's not likely to change. If we make the playoffs we will once again be near the bottom of playoff teams in scoring, if not dead last.
I'd argue that Pacioretty can be included in that club with Cammalleri, I'd go as far to say that throughout this season and the next two Patches will outscore (in goals, not just points) Cammy. He's way better defensively as well.

Cammy when used in an offensive system will be a consistent 30-35 goal guy, I'm not sure he is that guy in this system in this town in the role he is playing.. If we use him on the same PP unit as Markov he might be able to "Kovalev" his numbers going forward... Pacioretty on the other hand I am confident can score 30 regularly in his role here.

JGRB is offline  
Old
11-22-2011, 09:23 PM
  #406
Ravenscar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 48
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHMB Prez View Post
So what did you wear the two previous games ?
Well I wasn't the one with whom he had a bet with. So, I wore my normal t-shirts

Ravenscar is offline  
Old
11-23-2011, 01:48 AM
  #407
Hackett
HF Needs Feeny
 
Hackett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,655
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Too bad the Habs couldn't score first.

Where was the Gomez laddie on the Ference goal? He arrived a bit late to backcheck, no? I mean, isn't a center supposed to do that? I'm afraid he's a straw man defensively as well as offensively. I'd advise him not to stand too close to an electric fan.

The only Hab who disappointed from the opening faceoff to the final buzzer was the overrated Pernell Karl Subban. The only useful thing he did was to receive a Pouliot high stick. Allstar? Superstar? I have my doubts.

As expected, Emelin made himself known. It would be a disgrace to sit him in favor of Gill (or either of the Swissies). I know, Martin can send St-Denis to Hamilton before he has to make a hard decision.
What made it worse is that I think it went off of gomez's stick when he tried to dive into the shooting lane. Had he left it alone, Price probably has that in his back pocket. I dont want to pick at one shift though. I thought gomez had a relatively decent game, and if he continues to set up chances the way he has in the last 2 games, maybe he can get back in the form he showed in 09/10 with the habs... which still isnt good enough but a whole lot better than what he's given since.

Again, I dont have the faceoff numbers but he seems to be alot better there which is a bit of a nice bonus.

Trust me, I'm as frustrated with gomez as the next guy but at least he has looked a bit useful lately.

Hackett is offline  
Old
11-23-2011, 05:30 AM
  #408
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGRB View Post
I'd argue that Pacioretty can be included in that club with Cammalleri, I'd go as far to say that throughout this season and the next two Patches will outscore (in goals, not just points) Cammy. He's way better defensively as well.

Cammy when used in an offensive system will be a consistent 30-35 goal guy, I'm not sure he is that guy in this system in this town in the role he is playing.. If we use him on the same PP unit as Markov he might be able to "Kovalev" his numbers going forward... Pacioretty on the other hand I am confident can score 30 regularly in his role here.
You may be right. I like Pacioretty, but don't consider him an offensively gifted player like Cammy. He'll score based on volume, hard work and going to dangerous areas and picking up garbage. He doesn't have the same finish as Cammy, but he's better in other areas, I agree.

I'm reluctant to call anyone a consistent 30 goal scorer based on half a season and a good 20 game stretch. Not knocking Patches here, one of my favorite habs for sure, but to me he doesn't really have the game changing ability we need. He'll likely max at 50 points or so. 25G 25-30A, great to have for sure, but not enough to overcome the inability of players like Desharnais, Gomez, Eller and others who won't score 10.

I think Eller can be one of the game changers in the not too distant future, he has the skills, just needs to work on his decision making. I find the one downfall with Eller working within a JM system, is that he sometimes tries to force plays that are a real low percentage and they sometimes end up resulting in goals against, with more time and patience, I think he will be the biggest game changer on the team.

The fans who think Eller should get 18minutes a night and Gomez should get the equivalent of what Eller is getting now are way off base imo. Eller still makes glaring mistakes at the worst possible time. I like JM's approach to him for now. Teach him the smaller points, make him accountable, limit the high risk/low reward type situations eller tries to create and we should have a 30G 40A type guy on hand, but he's not there yet.

Shootouts, we seldom have 3 shooters who I'd consider finishers. Sure they score from time to time, but when I look at other lineups we face, they often have legitimate threats, we usually have pleks, gionta, and cammy. Cammy being the only real sniper.

habsjunkie2* is offline  
Old
11-23-2011, 05:33 AM
  #409
PunkinDrublic*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sutton,Qc-Sudbury,On
Posts: 8,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhlplayer7777 View Post
Well I wasn't the one with whom he had a bet with. So, I wore my normal t-shirts
Yay the Ruins are 1-2 against the Habs this year, plan the parade.

PunkinDrublic* is offline  
Old
11-23-2011, 05:57 AM
  #410
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,907
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Again, look at the clubs that won. Not all had the best goaltending. Not all had the best defense. And not all had the best offense. Lemieux and Gretzky's teams were offensive. Brodeur and Chara's teams were defensive.

MOST though were strong in all three areas.
Just to touch on this with an example, I cite Chicago. If anyone watched their series through, they won in spite of goaltending. Niemi was poor against Nashville while the Phily/Chicago series was laughably bad all around goalie wise. Yes their defense was stacked but what won them a cup was Toews exploding to over a PPG status. Vancouver is another example, wherein Kesler basically stole the Nashville series while the Sedins dominated San Jose. Of course, they choked in the end. Finally, Detroit has largely been successful because Datsyuk and Zetterberg hit a new high come playoffs and Franzen is an absolute beast.

We have nothing remotely comparing to the aforementioned. Price alone is not going to backstop us to a cup. We need consistent offense, not an occasional hot streak at the right moment.

Bourne Endeavor is online now  
Old
11-23-2011, 06:09 AM
  #411
Tuggy
Registered User
 
Tuggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Saint John
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackett View Post

Again, I dont have the faceoff numbers but he seems to be alot better there which is a bit of a nice bonus.

Trust me, I'm as frustrated with gomez as the next guy but at least he has looked a bit useful lately.
He was 8 for 16, 50%, last game and is at 51.7% overall. Worse than Nokelainen (52.8) but better than Plekanec (50.7) and Desharnais (49.3). Much better than Eller (44.0).

So Gomez's numbers are okay but nothing great.

Tuggy is online now  
Old
11-23-2011, 08:56 AM
  #412
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
You may be right. I like Pacioretty, but don't consider him an offensively gifted player like Cammy. He'll score based on volume, hard work and going to dangerous areas and picking up garbage. He doesn't have the same finish as Cammy, but he's better in other areas, I agree.
Thing is, both MaxPac and Cammy score the way all scorers do: with volume.

MaxPac is at 3.6 shots per game, and Cammy at 3.5. That's how you become a consistent 30+ goal scorer.

MathMan is offline  
Old
11-23-2011, 10:50 AM
  #413
Hackett
HF Needs Feeny
 
Hackett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,655
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuggy View Post
He was 8 for 16, 50%, last game and is at 51.7% overall. Worse than Nokelainen (52.8) but better than Plekanec (50.7) and Desharnais (49.3). Much better than Eller (44.0).

So Gomez's numbers are okay but nothing great.
Hmm, guess it was just my perception then.

Hackett is offline  
Old
11-23-2011, 11:53 AM
  #414
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Thing is, both MaxPac and Cammy score the way all scorers do: with volume.

MaxPac is at 3.6 shots per game, and Cammy at 3.5. That's how you become a consistent 30+ goal scorer.
If you think MaxPac's shot is as dangerous or likely to score in a given situation as Cammy's it's proof you don't really watch them play. In close, in a prime shooting area, Cammy is much more likely to produce a goal.

Your idea, that the players on he ice don't matter as long as you outshoot your opponents is completely flawed and not at all true. There are teams every year who outshoot their opponents on average for the entire season and still miss the playoffs, the opposite happens with regularity as well.

The Leafs a few years back outshot everyone and finished 15th in the conference, the problem wasn't bad luck, the problem was bad players.

habsjunkie2* is offline  
Old
11-23-2011, 12:11 PM
  #415
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
If you think MaxPac's shot is as dangerous or likely to score in a given situation as Cammy's it's proof you don't really watch them play. In close, in a prime shooting area, Cammy is much more likely to produce a goal.
Hasn't exactly shown this year, has it...

Who do you think has the better shooting percentage -- Ovechkin, or Cammalleri?

All consistent goal-scorers shoot a lot; this is undisputable fact. Not all high-shooters score a lot (Scott Gomez would be exhibit A).

Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Your idea, that the players on he ice don't matter as long as you outshoot your opponents is completely flawed and not at all true.
Shot volume does drive long-term success, and that's not "my idea", though I wish it were; that's a well-researched, well-supported discovery. You can say it's not so until you're blue in the face, but that will not change. But the notion is also not quite as simple as you make it to be: you have to factor in score effects, in that when a team is behind shoots more and scores on fewer on their shots, and vice-versa when they are ahead. This means that a team that holds a lot of leads will tend to get outshot more, even though they will garner leads by outshooting opponents when the score is tied, or close.

The other thing is that a full season is much less "long-term" than most people realize.

MathMan is offline  
Old
11-23-2011, 12:28 PM
  #416
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Hasn't exactly shown this year, has it...

Who do you think has the better shooting percentage -- Ovechkin, or Cammalleri?

All consistent goal-scorers shoot a lot; this is undisputable fact. Not all high-shooters score a lot (Scott Gomez would be exhibit A).



Shot volume does drive long-term success, and that's not "my idea", though I wish it were; that's a well-researched, well-supported discovery. You can say it's not so until you're blue in the face, but that will not change. But the notion is also not quite as simple as you make it to be: you have to factor in score effects, in that when a team is behind shoots more and scores on fewer on their shots, and vice-versa when they are ahead. This means that a team that holds a lot of leads will tend to get outshot more, even though they will garner leads by outshooting opponents when the score is tied, or close.

The other thing is that a full season is much less "long-term" than most people realize.
I don't think anything has been exclusively determined here. Only you seem to think so. I have read many articles on the topic and most use it as a tool to evaluate, you use it as the gospel. You're wrong and have been proven wrong time and time again. From gomez recovering, to the habs winning the division over the Bruins in a walk, to the bruins having no chance against the canucks ect ect, if anything, all you have shown is these stats basically have no predictive value what so ever.

Teams numbers fluctuate from year to year because their rosters change from year to year and younger players develop. When you make claims that end up actually matching results, let me know about it.

BTW: I don't necessarily agree that an entire season is a small sample. Most things balance out over 82 games, after 200 games it isn't luck anymore, it's who you are. The team will likely have an increase in scoring this year, but that will be more because we added players who do exactly that, patches/cole and not puck luck.

habsjunkie2* is offline  
Old
11-23-2011, 01:02 PM
  #417
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
You're wrong and have been proven wrong time and time again.
Have I? From where I sit the most crucial prediction, that the Habs will be one of the better 5-on-5 clubs in the league, when their percentages went back to normal looks pretty good. The notion that the PK would improve because it was good at limiting shots? Seems to be doing okay as well.

Of course, it's not like I can possibly get any credit for that. A lot of people have come up with alternate explanations, which leads to this interesting phenomenon: if a shot metrics prediction misses out, then the reasoning was crap to begin with (it's never the vargraries of probabilities), but if the prediction comes true, then it's insisted to me that it also wasn't right -- it only happened because of some other factor.

So if I predict right, the reasoning was crap but there was another factor, which proves that I was wrong. But if I predict wrong, the reasoning was crap and it cannot possibly be another factor, which proves that I was wrong.

I seem to be having a bit of trouble being right about anything in these circumstances.

Seriously, now. Shot metrics have strong predictive value, more so than most methods of prediction, but it's still a probablistic model. There's no such thing as foolproof predction in sports, let alone in a game as luck-driven as hockey. I may be prone to saying things in absolutes when they have very high or very low probabilities, but there's a reason I litter my posts with "probably" and a fair number of "ifs", too (if it'll make you happier, I'll try to do more of that in the future).

On that note, fearless long-term prediction: if Pacioretty keeps shooting 3.6+ shots a game, he will be a consistent 30-goal scorer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
BTW: I don't necessarily agree that an entire season is a small sample. Most things balance out over 82 games, after 200 games it isn't luck anymore, it's who you are.
Most things balance all. Not all. The bigger your sample, the more things will converge to the norm, but 82 games is simply not long enough that you won't end up with several outliers. Remember, this is a league where the best team in the league wins only 66% of its games and you can win a division with less than 59%.

There was an interesting study made by JLikens on his objectivenhl.blogspot.com blog. He simulated a number of seasons based on the observed spread of goals for and against in the league, to see how often the best team would win the Cup. Over the course of a season, the very best team in this simulated league won the Cup 22% of the time, but missed the playoffs 2.2% of the time (which is small but non-trivial) and even managed to end up dead last once every 200 seasons.


Last edited by MathMan: 11-23-2011 at 01:14 PM.
MathMan is offline  
Old
11-23-2011, 01:22 PM
  #418
Jmac1160*
Gomez-"Sorry Coach"
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
See, I don't understand this. Why just 'dream' about it? Doesn't it make sense to proactively do something about it? How is it that other clubs manage to get these stars and we don't?

And Hasek didn't win anything until he had Detroit behind him. As for Ovechkin... he's 26 years old and on one of the best teams in the league. Are you saying he's washed up? It took Yzerman till he was 32 to win, but when he did he led his clubs to three cups and is now considered one of the best captains of all time.

Again, look at the clubs that won. Not all had the best goaltending. Not all had the best defense. And not all had the best offense. Lemieux and Gretzky's teams were offensive. Brodeur and Chara's teams were defensive.

MOST though were strong in all three areas.

But we don't have the scoring so we try to convince ourselves that it's not important. It is.

Sure you can win it without the great goaltending, but why try to build a team this way? Same with weak forwards? Why try to win this way? It doesn't make sense. It's about balance man. Going in saying well we have good goaltending and defense so we might win is silly... we shouldn't try to win with the bare minimum. We should try to build the BEST team that we can. And that includes offense.

And the choice isn't between Ovechkin and great goaltending... that's not what you should be looking for. The choice would be between Ovechkin vs. our best offensive player. Which would you rather have? Which do you think gives us a better chance at winning?
why the hell are you consistently flipping what I say and constantly putting words in my mouth?..can you please stop assuming and actually read my posts? like really man stop with the BS and stop flipping everything I sat around.

1. Who said we aren't proactivly looking for star talent?..WHat do you think that PG is just looking for average players?..Give me a break. You really think that my mentality would be to just dream and not try to make those dreams come true? come on man.

2. Why would you think I said Ovi is washed up? again putting words in my mouth. I'm just saying he's a choke artist as of this moment, sure he will likely light it up in the playoffs and sure he has a decent chance of going all the way. I SIMPLY just said that they have not done **** and it proves that having a superstar is not the answer to everything. Please dont compare Ovi to Yzerman thats terrible.

3. Who ever said scoring is not important for us?..where did you get that from?. Are you kidding or just assuming thats what people think?

4. Salary cap says hi. And Gomez says hi. We cant get that star player till gomez is gone and 80% of teams cant have a prolific offense defense and goaltending at the same time because the cap prevents stacked teams.

5. So I guess tampa should be your best example of not winning with D or goaltending..Hows that working out for them? What about Washington?..They are ripping the league up I would rather give up 2 goals a game than give up 3-4 a game. The odds of winning are much greater.

6. you dont think thats what management is trying to do? How about you stop jumping the gun and wait till our D is healthy because thats our biggest issue here.

Jmac1160* is offline  
Old
11-23-2011, 01:33 PM
  #419
11MilesPerJohan
@BeingAHumanBean
 
11MilesPerJohan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: McLean Hospital
Country: United States
Posts: 2,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Defense first. He rarely engages our DMen on offense like the Bruins D do. Remember the good ole days when Montreal had DMen who scored a lot of goals?

Passive forecheck. Martin thinks its more important to send everyone back to our zone than to attack the other team before they reach the red line.

Dumps and chases with a small team. We have the speed to carry the puck in.

Does not teach this team patience with the puck. When one of our players are challenged, the puck goes somewhere quickly......seldom on a tape to tape pass.

Very little net presence. The Bruins ALWAYS have someone in front of Price. The Habs......hardly ever.

Idiotic PP choices. Plekanec is not a Point player on the power play but he is there all the time. Our PP is ineffective and still looks the same as it did on Game One. Very predictable. We do not have give an goes on the PP. We seldom have someone attacking the net from the weak side. Almost always straight up where a goalie does not have to move side to side.

Poor personnel choices. We have Darche. Enough said. Martin thinks he is a god. We have young centers playing wing and when not perfoming, are benched.

Martin is a tool. The one thing that he has going for him is that a LOT of Canadiens fans are happy with early playoff exits and fighting for the 8th place......as they support Martin very strongly.

Mediocrity in Montreal is the new norm.
Thanks for the detailed response...once again, as an outsider looking in, much of the criticism that is being levied against Martin is the same stuff that people were saying in Boston about Julien before he won...his system limits the players (see seguin), he rewards the wrong players with ice time (see Wideman), his power play personnel and philosophy sucks (see our miserable power play)...I agree, your D men are a bit too passive, but do you have the right personnel to play that style, besides Subban, who else on D has the ability to get up into the play and make a difference. I thought before the season started that both the loss of Hamerlik and Wisneiwski were going to be big for Montreal, b/c they depended so much on their PP for offense. Now, Hamerlik is no great Dman, but he was good on the pp. Last year Montreal had 3 legit Dmen that could operate on the PP (Subban, Hamerlik, Wisneiwski). Montreal gambled on the health of Markov, and once he went out, you lost your only other Dman that could work the PP, besides Subban. And Subban is someone who should be pulling the trigger, not dishing like Hamerlik and Wisneiwski did. So, I think that Martin has been a bit handicapped by his personnel this year, especially on the PP, which Montreal relies on for their offense. As for the forecheck, I do think that Montreal has an aggressive forecheck, at least against the Bs, their speed with two men deep usually gives the Bs bigger Dmen trouble...but yes, I agree, Montreal could to a bit more in transition, similar to our Marchand-Bergeron-Seguin line, where much of their offense comes off the rush, rather than the dump, chase, cycle. Anyway, interesting stuff...it may all get turned around faster than you think, it happened in Boston.

11MilesPerJohan is offline  
Old
11-23-2011, 02:19 PM
  #420
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Have I? From where I sit the most crucial prediction, that the Habs will be one of the better 5-on-5 clubs in the league, when their percentages went back to normal looks pretty good. The notion that the PK would improve because it was good at limiting shots? Seems to be doing okay as well.

Of course, it's not like I can possibly get any credit for that. A lot of people have come up with alternate explanations, which leads to this interesting phenomenon: if a shot metrics prediction misses out, then the reasoning was crap to begin with (it's never the vargraries of probabilities), but if the prediction comes true, then it's insisted to me that it also wasn't right -- it only happened because of some other factor.

So if I predict right, the reasoning was crap but there was another factor, which proves that I was wrong. But if I predict wrong, the reasoning was crap and it cannot possibly be another factor, which proves that I was wrong.

I seem to be having a bit of trouble being right about anything in these circumstances.

Seriously, now. Shot metrics have strong predictive value, more so than most methods of prediction, but it's still a probablistic model. There's no such thing as foolproof predction in sports, let alone in a game as luck-driven as hockey. I may be prone to saying things in absolutes when they have very high or very low probabilities, but there's a reason I litter my posts with "probably" and a fair number of "ifs", too (if it'll make you happier, I'll try to do more of that in the future).

On that note, fearless long-term prediction: if Pacioretty keeps shooting 3.6+ shots a game, he will be a consistent 30-goal scorer.



Most things balance all. Not all. The bigger your sample, the more things will converge to the norm, but 82 games is simply not long enough that you won't end up with several outliers. Remember, this is a league where the best team in the league wins only 66% of its games and you can win a division with less than 59%.

There was an interesting study made by JLikens on his objectivenhl.blogspot.com blog. He simulated a number of seasons based on the observed spread of goals for and against in the league, to see how often the best team would win the Cup. Over the course of a season, the very best team in this simulated league won the Cup 22% of the time, but missed the playoffs 2.2% of the time (which is small but non-trivial) and even managed to end up dead last once every 200 seasons.
I'm sure you would see it that way if you ignore everything you've been wrong bout, I've listed a few, there are plenty more and you attribute the increase in 5 vs 5 scoring to the underlying possession metrics. I attribute them to having players that are actually good at scoring 5vs5 that we simply didn't have last year. I predicted our 5vs5 scoring would be improved too, who is wrong? Are you correct that the only thing that matters is possession numbers? Or was my assessment of acquiring two players who are beasts 5vs5 the reason? You can't prove either way. You can say it over and over again, doesn't make it so. Could it be a combination of both, most likely.

I never said that there wasn't some underlying truths to what you are saying. I actually like what you bring to these boards and find your thoughts interesting. I don't believe they tell the whole story like you tend to say though.

We have over 2 years of data with the habs offensive woes, each year, no matter the data, we are near the bottom. This year things are looking better, although it's a small sample, I feel the habs can continue their 5vs5 scoring because they have personnel better suited for the role, you think it was a matter of time. Neither of us can prove conclusively either opinion. Although I think mine has a little more merit than the opinion that suddenly after 2 years things improved without changing anything. Kinda absurd don't you think? Likewise, you don't think losing wiz contributes greatly to our poorish results on the PP? The players on the ice matter, no matter the underlying metrics, some are better at different things, we added two 5vs5 specialist and lost our pp specialist, it should be no surprise that our 5vs5 play has improved and our pp has struggled.

When Markov returns the pp will get back on track. Then you'll claim again you were right about the pp and the underlying metrics showing it was bound to happen, ignoring the fact that Markov likely contributed much more than the underlying metrics suggest.

habsjunkie2* is offline  
Old
11-23-2011, 02:49 PM
  #421
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
I'm sure you would see it that way if you ignore everything you've been wrong bout, I've listed a few, there are plenty more and you attribute the increase in 5 vs 5 scoring to the underlying possession metrics. I attribute them to having players that are actually good at scoring 5vs5 that we simply didn't have last year. I predicted our 5vs5 scoring would be improved too, who is wrong?
Neither. MaxPac and Cole drove up the 5-on-5 possession metrics (no duh) which undeniably helped, but a significant portion of the difference in 5-on-5 scoring is due to shooting percentage regressing to the mean.

The two explanations are not mutually exclusive; some portion comes from column A and some portion from column B. And some portion comes from other columns, such as C: the continued emergence of PK Subban.

Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
We have over 2 years of data with the habs offensive woes, each year, no matter the data, we are near the bottom.
And yet, the underlying data is radically different year-from-year, but I am told this is of no relevance whatsoever. To the point where I'm starting to suspect some willfull blindless.

I have a lot of trouble with the notion that a team that gets consistently outshot and outpossessed at evens but had a great PP (2009-2010) is exactly the same as a team that can score and outscore 5-on-5 but can't buy a PP goal (2011-2012). These differences mean something. And what about the 2010-2011 team, that could outshoot and outplay at evens but couldn't buy a goal anyway?

Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
When Markov returns the pp will get back on track. Then you'll claim again you were right about the pp and the underlying metrics showing it was bound to happen, ignoring the fact that Markov likely contributed much more than the underlying metrics suggest.
I could turn it around; when the PP does turn around, it will be the easy story to claim Markov is responsible, even if the underlying metrics show that such an improvement was inevitable. Nevermind that, with 5 goals over the last 5 games, the PP is already showing signs of starting that turnaround.

It's like crediting the Pearn firing for the turnaround in the Habs' fortunes.

MathMan is offline  
Old
11-23-2011, 05:39 PM
  #422
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Neither. MaxPac and Cole drove up the 5-on-5 possession metrics (no duh) which undeniably helped, but a significant portion of the difference in 5-on-5 scoring is due to shooting percentage regressing to the mean.

The two explanations are not mutually exclusive; some portion comes from column A and some portion from column B. And some portion comes from other columns, such as C: the continued emergence of PK Subban.



And yet, the underlying data is radically different year-from-year, but I am told this is of no relevance whatsoever. To the point where I'm starting to suspect some willfull blindless.

I have a lot of trouble with the notion that a team that gets consistently outshot and outpossessed at evens but had a great PP (2009-2010) is exactly the same as a team that can score and outscore 5-on-5 but can't buy a PP goal (2011-2012). These differences mean something. And what about the 2010-2011 team, that could outshoot and outplay at evens but couldn't buy a goal anyway?



I could turn it around; when the PP does turn around, it will be the easy story to claim Markov is responsible, even if the underlying metrics show that such an improvement was inevitable. Nevermind that, with 5 goals over the last 5 games, the PP is already showing signs of starting that turnaround.

It's like crediting the Pearn firing for the turnaround in the Habs' fortunes.
The underlying metrics change year to year, but the results are the same, interesting.

I still contend that the Habs 5vs5 scoring would not dramatically increase without the additions of Cole/Pacioretty although the underlying metrics might say otherwise.


I'm not gonna get into this much further, I agree with most of what you have said here other than a few small points.


Last edited by habsjunkie2*: 11-23-2011 at 05:52 PM.
habsjunkie2* is offline  
Old
11-23-2011, 05:59 PM
  #423
Redux91
I do Three bullets.
 
Redux91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Montreal West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,597
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Redux91 Send a message via MSN to Redux91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone for your jar View Post
Bruins fan here, in war and peace. ;-)

Habs speed suffocates the Bruins. Takes away space & time, got the better of the territorial game. B's were able to compensate somewhat with strength in the puck battles, generally sound positional defense, and of course Thomas, but not by much.

This was a hard-hitting yet drama-free game (at least on the ice!), unusual by Mtl-Bos standards, and perhaps a harbinger of things to come. It's always a fascinating encounter, between these two. The teams are built off different templates, but they're becoming more like each other as time goes on, as Habs add muscle and B's add speed. In a weird way, the teams are made stronger by the other's existence.

I don't look forward to the day Markov returns.
easily one of the best posts ive ever read, every single word speaks truth from your description of the game to the evolution of both teams the last 3 years

i agree completely with everything you said and share the same view

Redux91 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 09:46 AM.

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

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