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 mid-season report cards

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-10-2011, 12:34 PM
  #26
Captain Saku
Registered User
 
Captain Saku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 10,946
vCash: 500
I don't understand the hate for Picard. They remind me of the hate for Darche at the beginning of the season. Picard is far from being the problem in Montreal, he's been actually fine, deserves at least a C for his overall play. But people just love to hate sometimes.

Captain Saku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2011, 12:42 PM
  #27
Newhabfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 2,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Saku View Post
I don't understand the hate for Picard. They remind me of the hate for Darche at the beginning of the season. Picard is far from being the problem in Montreal, he's been actually fine, deserves at least a C for his overall play. But people just love to hate sometimes.
I honestly don't "hate" Picard, like I don't "hate" any current or ex player from the habs (minor exceptions like Komisarek and Grabovski). I remembered he was doing well at the season's start. He had a reasonable 1-2 months and is now going through a less stellar period. Just like Cammalleri, Kostytsin and Gionta. He (they) will get better, I hope.

What's annoying to me is to see some of the media and posters who refuse to see any of his errors to the point where the Brunet/Houde duo don't even name him as (at least partially) responsible for the two goals against Boston. It's blind love that's the problem not blind hate.

However having him rated better than Subban for the first half of the season is preposterous.

Newhabfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2011, 08:50 PM
  #28
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Why do you persist in this autoerotic fantasy? You don't accept empirical evidence. This isn't an iceskating competition in which judges award points based on their subjective impressions. Your rating of Eller is preposterous. He hasn't played a significant role in any of the 40 or so games that have elapsed. It would be a chore to wade through the NHL website to find his statistics unless you started from the bottom. Hockey is a team game but Pouliot was outstanding in the game against Pittsburgh and has contributed to other victories yet from your Oympian peak you judge him. You must be trying to peer through clouds. I wonder whether the clouds exist in the atmosphere or in in your neural pathways. Or maybe there's a simpler explanation. Have you had an eye exam recently?
That's your opinion and I respect it. As for the comments in bold, I refuse to go down that road, sorry. If you do want to discuss in a mature, non-confrontational way though, I'll gladly do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newhabfan View Post
However having him rated better than Subban for the first half of the season is preposterous.
That's because you're thinking of it as a "school environment" rating, and it's not wrong to think that way.

Here's what I was thinking. You may or may not agree with it, but that's where I'm coming from... In my opinion, with what he had shown in the playoffs, my expectations on PK were such that he'd be battling for the rookie of the year this year. Was it setting the bar too high? Maybe, but I do beleive that he's capable.

On the other hand, I wasn't even expecting Picard to make the team. So to have him sitting where he's at is a huge accomplishment.

Another example is Mathieu Darche ahead of Mike Cammalleri. In no way am I saying that Darche is a better player, but the expectations on Cammy are different than what they were in Darche. Cammy is having somewhat of a slow start to his standards, while Darche exceeds my expectations on him.

Voilą.

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2011, 12:30 AM
  #29
Newhabfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 2,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asterix View Post
That's because you're thinking of it as a "school environment" rating, and it's not wrong to think that way.

Here's what I was thinking. You may or may not agree with it, but that's where I'm coming from... In my opinion, with what he had shown in the playoffs, my expectations on PK were such that he'd be battling for the rookie of the year this year. Was it setting the bar too high? Maybe, but I do beleive that he's capable.

On the other hand, I wasn't even expecting Picard to make the team. So to have him sitting where he's at is a huge accomplishment.

Another example is Mathieu Darche ahead of Mike Cammalleri. In no way am I saying that Darche is a better player, but the expectations on Cammy are different than what they were in Darche. Cammy is having somewhat of a slow start to his standards, while Darche exceeds my expectations on him.

Voilą.
You are free to use whatever evaluation procedure you like. You can compare them with your own expectations (note that you introduce a double level of subjectivity).

You can compare them with the performances of the player who had the same position in the 93 edition of the Habs if you like.

I was merely pointing that the rating system you used (A to F) is not adequate and misleading. A to F mostly suggest absolute measures and is supposed to allow intersubject comparison. Since you only did intra subject comparisons you should have used qualitative categories, nominal if possible ("Slightly better than expected", "A lot worse than expected" are examples). Otherwise people will think, as normal when using A to F ratings, that you rated Picard higher than Subban and Darche higher than Cammalleri. It's not the reader's fault.

Imagine your kid gets home with a C in maths, because he was always very good in maths so it's hard to improve, while another kid gets an A because he changed his abysmal scores into acceptable ones. And the teacher tells you "well, that's the system I want to use, a system that rewards improvement".

But hey, it's the internet, you're free to write whatever you want anyway.

Newhabfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2011, 12:53 AM
  #30
Jedrik
Registered User
 
Jedrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,819
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asterix View Post
On the other hand, I wasn't even expecting Picard to make the team. So to have him sitting where he's at is a huge accomplishment.
I don't really understand how a player who goes from 'not expected to make the team' to a number 6 D-man, who hasn't been very reliable defensively, grabs a 'B' rating. He essentially went from #8 to #6. And it's arguable that he shouldn't even be there anyway. He earns maybe a bump from N/A to a C- or something.

It's a bit strange to watch people complain about JM's roster decisions (and I complain myself about him), especially surrounding the 'who's in/who's out' scenarios, but then praise Picard for maintaining a roster spot. I think several people will agree that JM doesn't appear to reward based strictly on merit or performance.

Otherwise, I do get that expectation has to factor into these ratings, or else it would just turn into a stats game.

Jedrik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2011, 02:24 AM
  #31
Munchausen
Full Time A-hole
 
Munchausen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stuck in traffic
Posts: 5,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newhabfan View Post
You are free to use whatever evaluation procedure you like. You can compare them with your own expectations (note that you introduce a double level of subjectivity).

You can compare them with the performances of the player who had the same position in the 93 edition of the Habs if you like.

I was merely pointing that the rating system you used (A to F) is not adequate and misleading. A to F mostly suggest absolute measures and is supposed to allow intersubject comparison. Since you only did intra subject comparisons you should have used qualitative categories, nominal if possible ("Slightly better than expected", "A lot worse than expected" are examples). Otherwise people will think, as normal when using A to F ratings, that you rated Picard higher than Subban and Darche higher than Cammalleri. It's not the reader's fault.

Imagine your kid gets home with a C in maths, because he was always very good in maths so it's hard to improve, while another kid gets an A because he changed his abysmal scores into acceptable ones. And the teacher tells you "well, that's the system I want to use, a system that rewards improvement".

But hey, it's the internet, you're free to write whatever you want anyway.
His grading system isn't wrong and your example, no offence, is borderline demagogic. Nobody expects the grading to compare player A to player B based on identical criteria simply because their potential level are often in two very different stratospheres, doesn't matter if he uses letters, stars or little chickens to grade. The player's role and importance to the team HAS to be taken into account, there's no way around it and the reviewer shouldn't have to express or explain this basic notion beforehand.

Maybe a better way to do it would have been to clearly establish what the goal was for each player and grade according to how close or far said player came to reach it, but in no way can you compare a 4th liner like Darche and a core player like Cammalleri based on the same criteria, otherwise what's the point of grading? Every 4th liner, 5-6th Dman will always get the lowest grade no matter how hard he worked and how dedicated to his team and his role he was, compared to a star player who can impact the course of a game much more even with a half-assed effort due to superior skillset.

So yeah, damn right, Darche, a guy with a very limited skillset who has worked his ass off all year long, doing the little things, doing what his coach asked (going to the net, taking abuse to create chances), never whinning when he got scratched, potting the odd goal, key ones at times, should be getting a higher grade than often frustrated, indisciplined and underproducing Michael Cammalleri (who I still like btw) as he is clearly not filling the double role of leader and scorer his salary and pedigree suggest.


Last edited by Munchausen: 01-11-2011 at 02:32 AM.
Munchausen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2011, 09:29 AM
  #32
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newhabfan View Post
Otherwise people will think, as normal when using A to F ratings, that you rated Picard higher than Subban and Darche higher than Cammalleri. It's not the reader's fault.

Imagine your kid gets home with a C in maths, because he was always very good in maths so it's hard to improve, while another kid gets an A because he changed his abysmal scores into acceptable ones. And the teacher tells you "well, that's the system I want to use, a system that rewards improvement".
I understand what you're saying but once again, I've explained a few times now and yet, in that last example, you're reverting back to the "school rating". I don't know how else to say it, it's not meant that way... anyhow, it's all fun and game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munchausen View Post
His grading system isn't wrong and your example, no offence, is borderline demagogic. Nobody expects the grading to compare player A to player B based on identical criteria simply because their potential level are often in two very different stratospheres, doesn't matter if he uses letters, stars or little chickens to grade. The player's role and importance to the team HAS to be taken into account, there's no way around it and the reviewer shouldn't have to express or explain this basic notion beforehand.

Maybe a better way to do it would have been to clearly establish what the goal was for each player and grade according to how close or far said player came to reach it, but in no way can you compare a 4th liner like Darche and a core player like Cammalleri based on the same criteria, otherwise what's the point of grading? Every 4th liner, 5-6th Dman will always get the lowest grade no matter how hard he worked and how dedicated to his team and his role he was, compared to a star player who can impact the course of a game much more even with a half-assed effort due to superior skillset.

So yeah, damn right, Darche, a guy with a very limited skillset who has worked his ass off all year long, doing the little things, doing what his coach asked (going to the net, taking abuse to create chances), never whinning when he got scratched, potting the odd goal, key ones at times, should be getting a higher grade than often frustrated, indisciplined and underproducing Michael Cammalleri (who I still like btw) as he is clearly not filling the double role of leader and scorer his salary and pedigree suggest.
This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Thanks.

While I'm doing all right in English, sometimes I see that being my second language, I'm not quite effective enough to get the message across.

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2011, 11:25 AM
  #33
Newhabfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 2,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asterix View Post
I understand what you're saying but once again, I've explained a few times now and yet, in that last example, you're reverting back to the "school rating". I don't know how else to say it, it's not meant that way... anyhow, it's all fun and game.
As I said - you're free to do whatever you want. It's the internet. I'm posting mostly because of the fun of having a theoretical discussion on evaluation in a Hockey board

Any evaluation is designed with a purpose. Say you are an employer and you have 10 employees. You will evaluate them differently depending on your objective.

A. If you have to decide who you will promote among them - you want the absolute best. You will compare them to each other. The one that rates the highest is the best, the most performant, no matter if it's because his talent, his experience or his effort.

B. If you want to decide who you will give a small incentive, you will probably look at who improved the most and made the most effort - you want to make exap

C. If you have to decide who you will send to a training program, the criteria will be - who needs it most, and who might improve more.

There could be other options.

In Habs terms

Case A - if you want to decide who you need to sign at the end of the season. What players you absolutely need to keep long term. Cammy goes way in front of Darche, or Subban ahead of Picard.

Case B - That's the sort of evaluation Martin has to do after each game, sometimes even during the game. That's what got Darche to the main PP unit. And indeed, Darche delivers a lot more than Cammy this year.

Case C - That's why do not scratch Spacek or Gomez but you will scratch Subban or Pouliot. That's why you might send Eller to Hamilton, but it would be pointless to send Picard or Subban.

From the (too concise) formulation of your OP it seemed like you wanted to rate the players in an absolute manner, while in fact you rated them according to how they delivered relative to the expectations. That was somehow confusing.

Newhabfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2011, 01:49 PM
  #34
RNiner
Registered User
 
RNiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 333
vCash: 500
Nice blog. A few differences of opinion:

Pouliot has met expectations, so a C grade seems unrealistic. He is getting better as he gets more confortable.

MaxPac is probably graded ok, but like a few other guys he hasn't been around long enough for me to really feel confident in the grade. The last few games for example he's been near A territory. His end-of-year grade will reflect a more accurate score imho.

There's just no way Gill and Spacek should have the same score. Both should be capable of performing as 2nd pairing guys, and while Gill has shown an ability to log serious minutes and fill a much-needed role (leadership and excellent PK) Spacek has been a waste of 3.8 mil and icetime. Spacek gets a D from me. His 'improvement' of late bumped him up from a D-. Gill on the other hand I'd give a B- or B. He's had to play more then we should have counted on, and he's done a perfectly fine job.

Auld is another one I'd give no grade to. He just hasn't been used enough to judge imo.

Martin's grade is too low. We all know what his system is, and whatever our opinion of it, he's doing it well. I think its a mistake to have this kind of a system with the speedy, talented guys we have, but if we are going to go with a trapping system, Martin is doing it as well as any other coach is. If anything, the poor choice in system has to fall on the GM.

Pyatt's grade makes no sense. What were the expectations for him coming into the season? I expected decent PK'ing, a 4th line role, and regular press box time depending on the team we were playing. He's done exactly what I expected him to, maybe even exceeded a bit on the PK'ing front. He doesn't get anywhere near enough 5on5 icetime to be expected to produce even 10 goals, so I'm not sure what this is about. Again, if him being on the roster at all is seen as a problem, thats the GM's fault... but given what is expected of him he has met my pre-season expectations.

RNiner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2011, 04:01 PM
  #35
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 31,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asterix View Post
On the mental aspect, I agree. I'd even add the arrival of Auld.

But on the physical and technical side of it, Groulx has a lot to do with Price getting back to his old style.
Price's style hasn't changed since last year, he just does more with it by being confident and focused.

Monctonscout is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2011, 09:04 PM
  #36
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNiner View Post
Nice blog. A few differences of opinion:

Pouliot has met expectations, so a C grade seems unrealistic. He is getting better as he gets more confortable.

MaxPac is probably graded ok, but like a few other guys he hasn't been around long enough for me to really feel confident in the grade. The last few games for example he's been near A territory. His end-of-year grade will reflect a more accurate score imho.

There's just no way Gill and Spacek should have the same score. Both should be capable of performing as 2nd pairing guys, and while Gill has shown an ability to log serious minutes and fill a much-needed role (leadership and excellent PK) Spacek has been a waste of 3.8 mil and icetime. Spacek gets a D from me. His 'improvement' of late bumped him up from a D-. Gill on the other hand I'd give a B- or B. He's had to play more then we should have counted on, and he's done a perfectly fine job.

Auld is another one I'd give no grade to. He just hasn't been used enough to judge imo.

Martin's grade is too low. We all know what his system is, and whatever our opinion of it, he's doing it well. I think its a mistake to have this kind of a system with the speedy, talented guys we have, but if we are going to go with a trapping system, Martin is doing it as well as any other coach is. If anything, the poor choice in system has to fall on the GM.

Pyatt's grade makes no sense. What were the expectations for him coming into the season? I expected decent PK'ing, a 4th line role, and regular press box time depending on the team we were playing. He's done exactly what I expected him to, maybe even exceeded a bit on the PK'ing front. He doesn't get anywhere near enough 5on5 icetime to be expected to produce even 10 goals, so I'm not sure what this is about. Again, if him being on the roster at all is seen as a problem, thats the GM's fault... but given what is expected of him he has met my pre-season expectations.
Fair enough and quite justifiable. Thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
Price's style hasn't changed since last year, he just does more with it by being confident and focused.
His style has changed greatly since Groulx talking over. He challenges more and doesn't go down on every shot, playing a bit more of a hybrid style.

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2011, 09:57 PM
  #37
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,646
vCash: 500
Asterix, it's time you retracted your gradss of Pouliot and Eller. Pouliot rates a B, Eller a D-. He gets a chance to play because Cammalleri is ill, and the first thing he does is hook a Ranger. He needs a paid vacation in Hamilton Ontario, the sooner the better.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2011, 10:01 PM
  #38
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Asterix, it's time you retracted your gradss of Pouliot and Eller. Pouliot rates a B, Eller a D-. He gets a chance to play because Cammalleri is ill, and the first thing he does is hook a Ranger. He needs a paid vacation in Hamilton Ontario, the sooner the better.
I won't retract anything as this was for the first 41 games of the season.

I am thrilled to see Pouliot (who I really like) play well recently and I'm not worried about Eller (who I also like). I just think that the kids need time and mostly, their coach's confidence in knowing that they won't wear off their pants on the bench at every mistake, making them play way too nervously. Same goes for Subban and Weber.

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2011, 10:38 PM
  #39
Sined
The AndroidBugler!
 
Sined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,530
vCash: 500
I wouldn't be worried about Markov, Wiz has had surgeries 3 on the same knee.

Sined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 12:39 AM
  #40
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sined View Post
I wouldn't be worried about Markov, Wiz has had surgeries 3 on the same knee.
The reason why I worry is because he wasn't a shadow of his old self this season when he played, speed-wise and defensively, on the back check. I'm concerned that he may never be the same as his game is (was) based on speed, mobility and positioning.

Habsterix* 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 08:28 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.