CBHabs_fan Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Well, the facts are, as we sit here, Mike has produced as much offense at even strength as Souray and Markov on this team, with less playing time. Most of his playing time is against the opposition's top line, behind one of the Canadien's checking lines. That means he has to be doing something right in terms of the transition game, and posessed of pretty good hockey sense to create that offense. I don't know why that concept is so difficult for you guys to grasp, but it's the last I'm going to say about it. 2 questions...1) Have you watched him play? (and do you think he actually looks like an offensively gifted dman like markov?) 2) Do you really think he would produce on the PP?? (this also depends on how you answer the first question) I like him. He is solid. He will NEVER EVER EVER be a top 5-10 scoring NHL dman, and I dont care how much ice he gets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 2 questions...1) Have you watched him play? (and do you think he actually looks like an offensively gifted dman like markov?) 2) Do you really think he would produce on the PP?? (this also depends on how you answer the first question) I like him. He is solid. He will NEVER EVER EVER be a top 5-10 scoring NHL dman, and I dont care how much ice he gets I guess nobody saw Souray coming, but Souray is like Phaneuf and McCabe, 80% of his goals are from slapshots from the point. But that being said, it is not enough to say that Komisarek has the same offensive potential as Markov and Souray. Stats can say anything you want if you look hard enough. I have never seen somebody so reliant on stats to make an argument. Stats, stats, stats, stats. Gonchar has 19 even strength points Pronger has 21 even strength points Schneider has 18 even strength points Phaneuf has 18 even strength points McCabe has 19 even strength points so given proper PP time the following defensemen can become studs like the previous 5 Nathan Paetsch has 15 even strength points Ian White has 17 even strength points Scott Hannan has 17 even strength points Barrett Jackman has 20 even strength points Bryan Allen has 19 even strength points Christoph Schubert has 17 even strength points Ken Klee has 18 even strength points Dan Hammhuis has 17 even strength points Aaron Ward has 16 even strength points Keith Carney has 16 even strength points Sean O'Dpnnell has 16 even strength points Hal Gill has 16 even strength points It is so obvious guys. Because they have the same amount of even strength points as the above listed all-stars these guys will all be big scoring defensemen. I always knew that Hal Gill and Aaron Ward had average NHL careers because they were not give PP time and not because they were slow plodding guys with hands of stone. They are just as good as Sergei Gonchar because he gets PP time and they do not. Nothing to do with vision, skating ability, crisp outlet passes, patience with the puck. HOW CAN YOU GUYS NOT SEE THIS? :?- Give me a break Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kost46 Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 No need to rip the thread starter apart guys. Komisarek has a decent slap shot believe it or not but much like Markov has trouble with his accuracy. Markov makes up for it with his great wrist shot and his amazing vision that is tops on this team. Markov's also a very good stickhandler while Komisarek is not. Usually, when someone has potential be it offensively or otherwise you notice it at some points of a game/series of games. For instance if you were to look at stats you would think Begin is a better goal scorer then Kostitsyn since he has 4 goals to Kosty's 1 in 15 games. But if you watch the game with your own two eyes, thats the best way to judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby Posted March 24, 2007 Author Share Posted March 24, 2007 I knew there would be at least one person dull and stupid enough to go through the whole list and hand pick a few examples that suited his purpose. Even if most of those examples where players who are older and get more playing time than Komo. Of the younger players, I think most of them could, or have been, pretty good offensive defensemen. No shame for Komo in being lumped with Shubert, White, or Paetsch in terms of offensive ability. White, especially, will be running the Leaf PP one of these days. Shubert will be a top offensive D man as well. Anyway, it's your worthless time.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldon_sniper_44 Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 This is Mike's 4th NHL season. He has 28 career points. Souray had 29 after 4 NHL seasons, and so did Chara. With a bit of luck, Komisarek could match or pass them within the next 7 games. Komisarek is my favorite habs! But I know and komy also knows that he isn't an offensive threat! And I don't think he ever will be . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby Posted March 24, 2007 Author Share Posted March 24, 2007 (edited) Anyone "looking at" Sheldon Souray or Zdeno Chara at 24 would have said the same thing as you guys are about Komisarek. It takes bigger players longer to smooth out their game. Komo never started playing hockey until he was 12, whereas most kids start when they are 5 or 6. Combine his late start with his size, and his development curve at 24 is probably at the spot of most 20 year old defensemen. He has a lot more upside, offensively and otherwise, than smallish 22 or 23 year olds like White and Paetsh, who have been playing hockey since they were old enough to walk. Even more ridiculous to trot out Dan Hamhuis as an example of how "little" offensive upside Komisarek has. Hamhuis was over a point per game defenseman in the WHL, which is the most defensive junior league around, was the offensive catalyst of a couple of Canadian WJC teams, second highest rated North American prospect behind Jason Spezza in the 2001 draft as A FUTURE POWERPLAY QUARTERBACK. Speaking of Paetsch, he lasted into the second round of the 2001 draft because he was considered strictly an offensive specialist and too small and soft to be a top NHL defenseman. He was taken by Washington with a Montreal draft pick that was sent to them in the Linden,/Zubrus for Zednik/Bulis deal. Montreal got Washington's first rounder which they used on Perezhogin. This was long touted as Andre Savard's signature "genius deal". Well, lo and behold, some years later, Linden is playing better than Bulis in Vancouver, Zubrus is outperforming Zednik by a country mile, and Paetsh is a regular defenseman with 24 points this season to Perezhogin's 15. Poor dumb, Andre Savard can't win for losing. Edited March 24, 2007 by bobby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMMR Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 I'm with Bobby on this one. I do not necessarily believe he will produce big offensive numbers but I think you guys need to give him a bit more credit he is a good passer ( not better than Markov) but still good. His shot is hard but you are correct not very accurate and he takes a while to get it off but that can improve with time. I really think he needs to experiment with different stick flexes and company’s until he finds something he can use a bit better in the offensive zone, without hindering his defensive play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby Posted March 24, 2007 Author Share Posted March 24, 2007 When Komisarek was drafted, it was primarily for his size and his hitting. If someone had a crystal ball at that time, and said "5 years from now, Komisarek will have as many or more points in the 2006-2007 NHL season as any of the other top rated defensemen such as Hamhuis, Colaiacovo, Gleason, Morisson, Krajicek, Popovic, Woywitka, Lynch, Tyutin, etc., and he will have more points than half of the forwards drafted in the first round, (including Chistov and Svitov who were taken ahead of him)", they would have said you were crazy. Or taken Mike right after Kovalchuk, if they believed you. It isn't like he hasn't exceeded expectations to this point in his career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBHabs_fan Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 I'm with Bobby on this one. I do not necessarily believe he will produce big offensive numbers but I think you guys need to give him a bit more credit he is a good passer ( not better than Markov) but still good. His shot is hard but you are correct not very accurate and he takes a while to get it off but that can improve with time. I really think he needs to experiment with different stick flexes and company’s until he finds something he can use a bit better in the offensive zone, without hindering his defensive play. How can you be "with Bobby" on this one, yet not "believe he will produce big offensive numbers"?? This is the whole point we are arguing with him, is that he will not be a TOP 5-10 NHL Dman POINT GETTER....only point I'm arguing (and the main statement made in his original post). I'm not arguing with him that Komi is solid, big, a good passer, and a good shot....but a top offensive dman in the NHL, that does not always make. Wamsley was well within his rights to make that list of dmen for comparison. That is how the majority of dmen produce in the league, regardless of when and for what they were drafted....and please don't use junior stats or WJC accomplishment to predict NHL performance, cuz we all know that is useless. This will be my last post on this. I am only arguing your point that he will be a top 5-10 point producer...because there is no basis for the statement. That would be like saying Lapierre will score 50...no different of a projection Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mont Royale Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 I knew there would be at least one person dull and stupid enough to go through the whole list and hand pick a few examples that suited his purpose. Kind of like what you must've done to be able to compare Komi to Phaneuf and Chara, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebusClone Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Kind of like what you must've done to be able to compare Komi to Phaneuf and Chara, eh? Actually the compaison with Chara is not that far fetched. Chara had never shown any sign for offensive succes at any level, not even the juniors, until he got to Ottawa. It's not like guys like Phaneuf and Pronger who were always regarded as blue-chip prospects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 (edited) This is Mike's 4th NHL season. He has 28 career points. Souray had 29 after 4 NHL seasons, and so did Chara. With a bit of luck, Komisarek could match or pass them within the next 7 games. The idea that Komi is the next Chara is simply priceless. He's shown NO hint of serious offensive skills at the NHL level. Now I'm not saying he couldn't be a guy who bags 35 points, but to argue that because his totals equal those of Souray in his 4th season, he is the *next Souray* is more of this bizarre mathematical calculation that has absolutely nothing to do with actual hockey. It's like saying that because Michael Ryder in his rookie year had comparable totals to Guy Lafleur in his rookie year, Ryder must be the next Guy Lafleur. Or what the hell, Chris Higgins had BETTER totals in the second half of 2006 than Lafleur had in HIS second half at the same age, Higgins can logically be projected to be BETTER than Lafleur. Woo hoo, let me stock up on Higgins rookie hockey cards, I've got my retirement nest egg! Edited March 24, 2007 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 (edited) I knew there would be at least one person dull and stupid enough to go through the whole list and hand pick a few examples that suited his purpose. Even if most of those examples where players who are older and get more playing time than Komo. Of the younger players, I think most of them could, or have been, pretty good offensive defensemen. No shame for Komo in being lumped with Shubert, White, or Paetsch in terms of offensive ability. White, especially, will be running the Leaf PP one of these days. Shubert will be a top offensive D man as well. Anyway, it's your worthless time.... The whole point dumb ass is that you can use stats to compare anything. And you pick and choose the ones that make your argument. So I pick and choose the ones that make mine. You think that there are not 50 players out there that can match the same criteria as Komisarek that did not turn into Sheldon Souray? I do not care to waste my time to contradict your posts to that level. You never base your arguments on the play on the ice, no insightful comments about Komisarek's skating, hands, vision, the play he made in game 75 that showed you his upside. No it is simplistic statistical comparisons. With no back up argument other than the stats say this, the stats say that. When somebody questions the way out statement you make, how do you back it up? WITH EVEN MORE STATS and ZERO INSIGHT! and when you do you say things like this" "You only have to watch Mike play to know that he has good offensive skills. His stretch passes are the best on the team." ummmm...Andre Markov ring a bell. But of course this will be followed by...at 16 Markov had 3 assists in the Russian Super league and Komisarek lead his team and was near the league leaders. This is why Komisarek makes better stretch passes. Your arguments are so elementary and you continue to make them. You think you know more than scouts because you glance over score sheets. You somehow have convinced yourself based on stats that Latendresse is a better prospect than Guy Lafleur and you are throwing out terms like dull and stupid??? Laughable, just like most of your posts. Take a look at Hal Gill's numbers when he was in his 20's....10/12/22/17 points. He has turned into quite an offensive monster eh. You think that is the only player that could contradict your post? Your pomposity when you spit out your useless numbers makes it that more difficult to read. I am tired of arguing your nonsense. If the posters on this board choose to believe your statistical ramblings then they can waste their time. But that is what they are Nonsensical ramblings Edited March 24, 2007 by Wamsley01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullsmith Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Im beginning to think your right. All I saw in the first period was Dandenault and Bouillon chasing the Bruins behind their own net. Carbo needs a defenceman coach. I've been worried about the lack of a former Dman as a coach, or of a coach who really specializes in training D. Jarvis is a legit, experienced coach at this point but just like Muller and Carbo, his background is backchecking, not playing D. That said, we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here. If Komi is coming along so damn well that he needs to be put on the power play and get more and more minutes, then apparently his developpment is excellent. He's a very young guy and while I must say I was a bit surprised he didn't play more minutes recently, Isn't it a bit backwards to use Komi's excellent progress to criticize the coach? ps. Anyone notice how well Souray's been playing in the defensive zone lately? Neutral zone too. Completely night and day from earlier in the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 its not about using stats. It's about using stats well. As I've said before - stats tell you exactly what they tell you, nothing more nothing less. They are incredibly useful if you read them for what they are and not improperly derive things that stats don't allow you to read. In baseball there is a system called PECOTA that looks at a player's progression AND age AND era of play and determines a set of comparisons to actual players and then derives a variety of plausible progressions in the future based on ALL of those comparisons and determines a likely progression. To point to one year and find one or two comps (either positive or negative) will never yield what you want it to. Also you very much have to normalize your data for era. Hockey is not particularly well suited to this type of analysis (as many have pointed out) especially considering the variety of rule changes that have occurred over the years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldon_sniper_44 Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 I guess nobody saw Souray coming, but Souray is like Phaneuf and McCabe, 80% of his goals are from slapshots from the point. But that being said, it is not enough to say that Komisarek has the same offensive potential as Markov and Souray. Stats can say anything you want if you look hard enough. I have never seen somebody so reliant on stats to make an argument. Stats, stats, stats, stats. Gonchar has 19 even strength points Pronger has 21 even strength points Schneider has 18 even strength points Phaneuf has 18 even strength points McCabe has 19 even strength points so given proper PP time the following defensemen can become studs like the previous 5 Nathan Paetsch has 15 even strength points Ian White has 17 even strength points Scott Hannan has 17 even strength points Barrett Jackman has 20 even strength points Bryan Allen has 19 even strength points Christoph Schubert has 17 even strength points Ken Klee has 18 even strength points Dan Hammhuis has 17 even strength points Aaron Ward has 16 even strength points Keith Carney has 16 even strength points Sean O'Dpnnell has 16 even strength points Hal Gill has 16 even strength points It is so obvious guys. Because they have the same amount of even strength points as the above listed all-stars these guys will all be big scoring defensemen. I always knew that Hal Gill and Aaron Ward had average NHL careers because they were not give PP time and not because they were slow plodding guys with hands of stone. They are just as good as Sergei Gonchar because he gets PP time and they do not. Nothing to do with vision, skating ability, crisp outlet passes, patience with the puck. HOW CAN YOU GUYS NOT SEE THIS? :?- Give me a break You honestly think you can compare HAL GIL to SERGI GONCHAR? Are you nuts... they are two completely different players! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathieu30 Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 You honestly think you can compare HAL GIL to SERGI GONCHAR? Are you nuts... they are two completely different players! I'm not sure of it, but I think he's joking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 This thread is asinine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revin5 Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Why doesn't he play more? Leads all Canadiens blueliners in even strength scoring. Same number of even strength points as Zdeno Chara and Dion Phaneuf to name just a couple. If Komo played the power play and got 25 or 26 minutes per game, he would be in the top 5 or 10 in defenseman scoring league wide and an All Star. If there were some great defensemen ahead of him on the roster, I might understand. But Bouillon? :?- C'mon Guy, wake up and smell the coffee. Komi has 13 ESP to Streit's 16 ESP. Souray 13 ESP, Markov 12 ESP. Let's talk instead about how he's fourth in the league in hits (and top D). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mont Royale Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Komi has 13 ESP to Streit's 16 ESP. Souray 13 ESP, Markov 12 ESP. Let's talk instead about how he's fourth in the league in hits (and top D). Indeed. That stats machine on nhl.com is pretty cool. I mean, it even identifies that Komisarek leads the team (not just d) in total even strength minutes played. I didn't know that! In fact, he's ahead of guys like Bouillon and Dandenault by over 300 minutes, which is the equivalent of more than 5 complete games (if the whole game was at even strength)... Hey, I wonder if THAT'S somehow related to those even strength points? Nah, probably not - Mikey K's the next Bobby Orr! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby Posted March 24, 2007 Author Share Posted March 24, 2007 You shouldn't subtract Komisarek's shorthanded points from his total when trying to assess his offensive contibutions. You should probably give him double credit for each one. Hard enough generating offense playing behind the checking line versus the other team's top line. Doubly difficult to do it when you're playing a man short. But that is what Mike has to do to earn a point in this league. It may be easy for a fan to say, leave it be, Mike contributes in different ways. But players get paid for the points they produce in the league. I'm sure Komisarek knows he could have double the amount of points in a given season with any sort of equitable distribution of playing time and power play time. That means twice the salary, probably, come contract renegotiation time. The team is going to have a problem on it's hands if they don't give him a fair shake. Ron Hainsey was a good friend, and it certainly isn't lost on Komisarek or his agent, how much better life became for Hainsey after he left the organization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby Posted March 24, 2007 Author Share Posted March 24, 2007 This thread is asinine. It didn't start out that way. Until the dickheads descended on it. None of them contribute anything original or informative, they just buzz around like horseflies looking for something to bite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 It didn't start out that way. Until the dickheads descended on it. None of them contribute anything original or informative, they just buzz around like horseflies looking for something to bite. Actually, I think the whole premise - that statistical comparisons between players at similar ages are an IRON PREDICTOR of how a player will develop in the future - is asinine to begin with. 'Hey, I got a B+ in Grade 10 chemistry and so did Albert Einstein. Therefore I am AUTOMATICALLY going to become the next Albert Einstein.' But what's even more asinine is arguing ad nauseum with the asinine premise, if you catch my drift. Some ideas really aren't worth getting too excited about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark_faerie87 Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Actually, I think the whole premise - that statistical comparisons between players at similar ages are an IRON PREDICTOR of how a player will develop in the future - is asinine to begin with. 'Hey, I got a B+ in Grade 10 chemistry and so did Albert Einstein. Therefore I am AUTOMATICALLY going to become the next Albert Einstein.' But what's even more asinine is arguing ad nauseum with the asinine premise, if you catch my drift. Some ideas really aren't worth getting too excited about. Does that mean that because I got an A in Chem 10 I'm going to be even smarter than Einstein?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Maybe the reason Komisarek is so good is because he plays the minutes he does. Never too less and never too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.