Commandant

No, the reason the Jets didn't make the playoffs has nothing to do with Schiefele, and everything to do with having the worst goaltending in the NHL. And Malkin would be a great player even without Crosby. Like when he won the scoring title and Hart trophies when Crosby was injured with his concussion/whiplash problems. As great as Crosby is, Malkin would be a great player on any team in the NHL. He's not a product of Crosby.

And if faceoff wins lead to chances, they are captured in Corsi and Fenwick. Those stats do not exclude chances after faceoff wins. What they do is capture all chances. So if you are bad at faceoffs, but make up for it in other areas, that is captured, which is why Schiefele can be a dominant forward at around 45% on faceoffs... or why no one cares that Malkin is at 40% and never talk about moving him to wing. If you give up a couple chances a game due to losing a faceoff, but then create 10 more chances than the average player, are you going to swap that guy out for someone who is well rounded in all areas and is 50% on faceoffs, and 50% on chances? I'd rather have the players who create/prevent most chances in all aspects of the game than worry about faceoffs. If Drouin is scoring points and playing decent defence, but losing faceoffs, why would we care? Corsi/Fenwick/Scoring Chance %.... these are the stats measuring how a player does in all aspects of the game. Faceoff %... this is a stat that measures only one specific aspect. So you are right... why would you look at the stat that only measures one aspect in stead of the one that measures how you excel in all aspects.

Thats why scoring chance %, or corsi % is so much more important. Cause it tracks winning all battles. The reality is that the goal is to create chances at the offensive end, and prevent chances at the defensive end. If you are doing that, creating more chances than you give up, then you are a good two way player, regardless of how many face-offs you win or lose. Bergeron's winning faceoffs isn't what makes him a great two way player. Winning battles all over the ice, preventing scoring chances against his team and creating chances for himself and teammates is what makes him valuable. Really though who cares about won or lost battles that don't lead to chances to score. Chances to score and goals are what matters.

Its also a comment about who he is going to play with in the regular season. Right now Byron and Shaw look like fourth liners. Byron - Mitchell/Holland - Shaw ... seems to be the plan.

Notes i see immediately 1) Jerabek is being given big responsibility and opportunity. That pair will likely face the Devils line with Taylor Hall. 2) Poor Byron. 3) Price going in back to backs (i know he's playing half the game) this early in pre-season... oof. 4) DLR at C, and McC at RW is notable.

All puck battles lead to possession. 1 on 1 puck battles have also been studied, its about a 5 to 1 ratio vs faceoffs. Winning an uncontrolled puck battle was also said to lead to slightly more High Danger Scoring Chances than a faceoff. This is because teams are not coached and set up to defend winning/losing a one-on-one battle in the corner, where there are numerous strategies to defend against a face-off loss. Yes, they aren't always successful, and some faceoffs lead to good chances and goals, but the fact remains that more chances are created from winning a battle for a loose puck following a rebound, or in a corner than off a draw. Are face-offs important? sure. Are they more important than other puck battles? No. in that way, faceoff percentage has become overrated. Give me the players HDSC% or Corsi% over his face-off number any day of the week. I care about the total number of chances he is on the ice for, at both ends of the rink created from all situations (including but not limited to faceoffs). To me that is a far more relevant number than a pure percentage of faceoff wins. yet another example of a stat that is becoming outdated. ... like plus/minus. Useful in some contexts, but others are far more important indicators of whether or not the player will become a good centre.

Face-off percentage is largely overrated IMO. It is merely a measurement of just one of the dozens of one-on-one puck battles that happen every shift. I think a bigger issue is if Drouin will be defensively responsible without the puck, playing 5 on 5. That is what will make or break him as a centre. Not his faceoff percentage.

Maxime Fortier was also sent back to the Q.

Ouch

He doesn't have Krug's shot, which is a rocket... but he has everything else. Mete is probably a better skater. This isn't to say that Mete's shot is bad, but Krug has an elite slap shot and Mete can't match that. Mete's defensive game is ahead of where Krug was at the same age.

Jerabek might be Weber's partner, not to start the season... but to finish it.

Team played decent. Result doesn't matter as much in these games as how you play. Habs were the better team.

Garbage goal

Drouin looks damn good as a PP quarterback.

Streit is playing against Kuznetsov-Ovechkin. Obviously not the matchup that he would get in the regular season... but yes, looked bad. Drouin is one period of the first pre-season game. I think this experiment will take a little longer before we make any judgment.

Its the NHL cracking down on shit. Which means they will call everything in pre-season and by the fifth game of the regular season it will be back to normal.

Same way i ranked them at the time... Barbashev, Scherbak, Goldobin

If you watch pre-season hockey around the NHL, and not just the Habs... you see it all the time. Veterans are not head and shoulders about the rest of the players out there at 1/2 speed. Not at this point in camp. It doesn't happen. The kids desperate to make the team, or to make the AHL team, or to get any type of shot whatsoever, those are the guys who look best in these early games. That will change closer to the regular season. But no, he is not head and shoulders above a junior player when he is going half speed, and neither are other NHL vets. The gap isn't so big that these guys can dog it and still be better than a player working his tail off.

Pre-Season Hockey is full of veterans giving lack of effort.

Once he plays a KHL game after the start of the NHL season... he will need to clear waivers to return to the NHL during the year. It is highly unlikely he has an out clause during the season. it is possible he has an out clause next summer though.

Tampa is also interested. He's good friends with Kucherov.

Ottawa was one. Columbus was another. Carolina and Winnipeg are two teams which can improve significantly if they get goaltending. Depends if you see Darling as an upgrade on Ward, and Mason as an upgrade on Hellebucyk/Pavelec. They were better possession teams than their record shows, largely due to really poor goaltending.

Florida wasn't really that good even the year they won the division. They had almost no injuries that year, and they were vastly overperforming their advanced stats, just like Colorado did they year they won their division... just like Calgary did the year Bob hartley won the coach of the year... etc... It really wasn't surprising to see them fall. And given that they have even less talent now due to an off-season of purging money... I don't see how they are anything more than a wild card. And that's at best.

TB is due to step up. I'm not convinced Florida is. I think 2015-16 is the aberation for them, not last year. I think Ottawa takes a step back too. I still think the Habs are in the playoffs. Tampa, Montreal, Toronto, top 3 in the division. Habs vs Leafs in the first round.

I don't agree that we have fewer weapons than last year. I think we have the same (not that this is good enough)... with the possibility of more if one of Hemsky, Gallagher, Plekanec come through, or if Lehkonen takes another step forward. But of course I'd love to add another forward weapon. On defence Jerabek is the ultimate wildcard. He can be anywhere from Zaitsev Caliber to Not NHL caliber (with the latter more likely, unfortunately since Zaitsev is just a rarity). I'm intrigued to see him.