The State of the Habs

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Cucumber is right on the PP.

Our PP has had two different strategies since the lockout:

Dynamic Backend: The Souray Bomber, the Subban bomber

Dynamic Wing: Kovalev at the dot, Cammalleri one knee one timer

We either run everything from the rear or run everything about getting it to our sniper at the right time. Markov/Streit could be looked at as a strategy, but it was still mostly about a back-end passing game to get the puck to the dynamic winger.

That said, our five on five game is a bigger priority to me than our PP. But if we're gonna talk about it, we do need more weapons than just a Subban Bomber or a Dynamic winger. This is where someone might think we need a Guy Boucher to come in and add multiple PP strategies but for me, it's about getting Galchenyuk and Plekanec more ice time.

In 09-10, Plekanec was our PP points leader with 24 PP points. He was second in 10-11 with 18 and second again in 11-12 with 18. In 12-13 he dropped to third with 15 and this year is only fifth with 7.

But what about his minutes? He's averaging 1:52 right now. What about those other years, that looks like a decline?

12-13: 2:58

11-12: 3:05

10-11: 2:55

09-10: 2:38

Look at that drop. And it continues to drop with Therrien. When Eller got more minutes it came at Plekanec's expense and now that DD is scoring again, Plek's minutes are cut down even more. Plek can play every situation. Much like Subban not getting PK time, Plekanec's PP time keeps getting cut down with no reasonable explanation. He isn't treated like a PP1 center. That's a change that can be made without bringing anyone in.

[Neech]

One problem is that whenever Pleks is on the powerplay it's automatically with Gionta, and then usually Bourque. Leave Gio on the bench, he's no longer an offensive threat. Put Pleks out with Eller, or even with Patches and DD to move Gallagher around a bit.

[DON]

Am a Markov fan, but I wouldn't go more than 2 years in a new deal; but. think a three year deal will be agreed to and we will just have to hope his health isnt a big issue.

But, 'structural' issues are a long term item to fix and by drafting big forwards in McCarron, delaRose & long shot Crisp, signing Nevins, Murray, Prust and the "culture change", Bergevin seems to be listening to, or just is of similar thinking as fans/media, to have a bigger-tougher balance to roster/farm system prospects.

Shake up locker room, will be only be minor deals on/before March 5 and I think Habs will be fairly quiet. Maybe pick-up a depth 4th line face-off guy, like Malhotra for Dumont, Malhotra is effective & cheap and Carolina should be toast by end of Feb. But, just don't think an exciting blockbuster one will be done during this season.

[comfortfablyHABS]

Teams that have a high Corsi generate more shots than an opponent, and this correlates with winning. How could this be the other way around - teams generate a lot of shots because they are winning? That doesn't make sense.

I feel like it's good to be skeptical of new stats, but lots of the arguments I hear against them seem like kneejerk dismissals. What if there was a graph that showed that, over time, teams with the best Corsi tend to have the best record? Shouldn't we at least put Corsi in with the other more familiar stats, in that it's apparently useful?

I find that EOTP goes overboard - like they give us a player's Fenwick or Corsi number for a single game as the only reason that he played good or bad. But it helps to be out in front of the advanced stats phenomenon - they're not going away, and they'll only become more sophisticated. Rather than focussing on their supposed faults (it's not baseball, etc), look at the ways in which it's helpful and has served as a reliable predictor in the past. It's not and won't ever be perfect, but that's not the point.

Analytics in basketball have taken huge strides over the past five years, and hockey is realistically about 5-10 years behind. There's a larger fanbase and much more money being put into basketball analytics (plus, it's a sport with more readily tabulated stats), but hockey will get there in a few years. For instance, basketball and soccer teams now have SportVu cameras which track and compile player movements on the court, so we can know exactly what their tendancies are. I expect hockey to eventually implement something similar (they already have shot charts). Coaches and organizations that use these tools will have an advantage over those that don't.

I said maybe it is the other way around or both corsi/winnings are produced by other factors. It is not hard to imagine that. But to make a case that Corsi may be a product of a successful team and not the other way around think about it: if this was true, all I would have to do as a coach is to say "look, whenever you guys have a chance, just shoot, this will increase the Corsi and our likelihood to win will increase!". Does it make sense? I don't think so.

About the graph you've said. I can assure you, this is one of the most common mistakes people make when analyzing "stats". This is Stats 101. But Stats 101 cannot deal with the complexity of hockey. Things can trend together and have no causality at all. There are so many examples out there but one that is very well known is the ice cream causing drowning example. In the beginning of the past century, some stats "experts" came with this conclusion after extensively observation (the rest is from wikipedia in quote marks):

"- As ice cream sales increase, the rate of drowning deaths increases sharply.

- Therefore, ice cream consumption causes drowning.

The aforementioned example fails to recognize the importance of time and temperature in relationship to ice cream sales. Ice cream is sold during the hot summer months at a much greater rate than during colder times, and it is during these hot summer months that people are more likely to engage in activities involving water, such as swimming. The increased drowning deaths are simply caused by more exposure to water-based activities, not ice cream. The stated conclusion is false."

See? Now put this in a graph and you'll see them trending together, but this does not mean anything. Worse than that, make a regression with this two variables and the R-squared will be huge. The same thing is happening in these NHL stats blogs. People are starting to predict based on on or two factors that may be not causing one or the other at all. They make nice regressions, put some graphs, show the R-squared (goodness of fit). This is just so bad. But you believe me if you want, bud. I might be wrong but with the current set of information I can read, I don't think so.

As Corsi and other stats get more sophisticated, as you said, this will only demand more sophisticated models. Again, because hockey is very dynamic, it is almost impossible to enlist all the factors that affect a play, a game or a successful team. I see guys modifying Corsis and Fenwicks, trying to clean from the noise. But still, this will only provide ONE part of the puzzle. Basketball is easier to analyze than Hockey too ( not as easy as baseball). Basketball is a fast paced game where points are scored frequently. This makes much easier to analyze since the whole goal of the game is to see whoever finish with the most. But Hockey is a long game and points are SCARCE. It is a bit like soccer (I believe soccer is even harder because there are only 3 substitutions, "2 periods" for an extensive period of time, small sample (only a couple games per tournament if compared to Hockey... anyway, the randomness is huge). Because to score is so hard in hockey and the dynamics are huge, I can assure that hockey is behind basketball in stats term because it is much harder.

Edited January 16, 2014 by comfortfablyHABS

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Statistics should always be about context. The mistake of the Berkshire's of the world is that they are used as elements of argument. You know who last year had a Top 10 Corsi, almost as good as Crosby? David Clarkson. But that's not fair to mention, it's only fair to talk about the players who are doing poorly that are being argued about, or the players being argued against.

I think my biggest problem when it comes to advanced stats is the viewpoint that a long enough timeline, shot quality doesn't matter. It's pretty much the most ridiculous statement that can be made.

[DON]

When NHL starts becoming predictable and all the so-called experts-pundits actually can do better than a Monkey making its picks by spinning a friggin roulette wheel, I will start buying into the research stuff.

I think it is something crazy like 30-40% upsets in the 1st round isn't it? Do the fenwick-corsi guys get that correct and make a killing betting on underdogs?

But I couldn't even finish brainiac's post on just how bad habs are, why the whole organization is clueless and going down the crapper.

I think if Habs were 47-0, that 'Habfan' poster would still find a stat to back his assertion ("they only win by 1 goal in Tuesday games", "team is too old, small, slow and should trade now or will suck next year", "fire GM, let me take over", "I try and tell them what should be done but Molson wont return my calls, old-school dummies")

[Habsfan]

Habsfan, it's been the same old story for years and years. The Habs' bigger players tend to avoid the net, while the Habs' players who do drive the net and screen on the PP tend to be shrimps like Gally and Gio. People have screamed over the years about guys like Moen and Darche being used on the power play, but what all that b*tching overlooked was that at least those guys would go to the net. And that is the reason they were used in that way.

I'm actually not one of these size fetishists like Pierre Macguire, who goes orgasmic over any player with size and dismisses dudes like Ribeiro as non-NHLers. But I am getting pretty tired of the team having the same structural problems year after year after year. It just gets bloody boring.

I also understand that you can't have a team full of 6'3" big boys. I have nothing against small forwards...as long as they play with 2 big boys on their line. When we had DD, MaxPac and Cole on one line I thought that was perfect. You could have a 5'6" player on that line cause the other two guys were bigger than average.

I am also aware that you can get big guys who play small and small guys who play big...the problem with our Habs is that they have 5 (D.D., Brière, Gio, Gally and Plex) of their top 9 forwards who are 5'10" or less, and 4 larger forwards (MaxPac, Chucky, Bourque and Eller) who aren't very physical. So basically, we have almost no physicallity up front on our top three lines!

I also agree with you that this situation has been going on for more than a decade. If we want to go deep in the playoffs, we will need more size up front... We all saw what happens to smaller teams when the season wears on...they get tired faster and don't go far in the playoffs!

[dlbalr]

When NHL starts becoming predictable and all the so-called experts-pundits actually can do better than a Monkey making its picks by spinning a friggin roulette wheel, I will start buying into the research stuff.

Don't diss the monkey, that was captivating, much-watch television...or at least the part where she tried to claw Duthie was.

[Habsfan]

I think if Habs were 47-0, that 'Habfan' poster would still find a stat to back his assertion

I hope you aren't talking about me?!?!

[DON]

I hope you aren't talking about me?!?!

Nyet, the author of item pasted in start of thread.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

We all saw what happens to smaller teams when the season wears on...they get tired faster and don't go far in the playoffs!

Again, Chicago was just as small as Montreal last season.

The difference is always skill.

[BlueKross]

Again, Chicago was just as small as Montreal last season.

The difference is always skill.

No they weren't. Did they have 6-7-8 guys under 6'. What 1 maybe 2?

[Machine of Loving Grace]

http://mirtle.blogspot.ca/2013/01/2013-nhl-teams-by-weight-height-and-age.html

Chicago height: 72.3

Montreal height: 72.1

Based on opening rosters.

http://mirtle.blogspot.ca/2013/10/2013-14-nhl-teams-by-height-weight-and.html

This season, St. Louis on height is only 0.5 bigger. Montreal got heavier this year (they were the lightest team last season) and are now heavier than the Flyers and the Canucks.

[hab29RETIRED]

The five important questions are:

1) did Chicago have 3 players under 5'9" in their top 6?

2) are any of their midgets washed up like Goonta?

3) are any of their midgets as slow as DD?

4) what is the production of the Chicago midgets vs ours?

5) is Chicago carrying any washed up dmen under 5'9"?

The answer to these questions is where any comparasion with Chicago falls apart.

Lastly, stats like average height or weight are as misleading as CORSI and Fenwick.

[Neech]

I said maybe it is the other way around or both corsi/winnings are produced by other factors. It is not hard to imagine that. But to make a case that Corsi may be a product of a successful team and not the other way around think about it: if this was true, all I would have to do as a coach is to say "look, whenever you guys have a chance, just shoot, this will increase the Corsi and our likelihood to win will increase!". Does it make sense? I don't think so.

About the graph you've said. I can assure you, this is one of the most common mistakes people make when analyzing "stats". This is Stats 101. But Stats 101 cannot deal with the complexity of hockey. Things can trend together and have no causality at all. There are so many examples out there but one that is very well known is the ice cream causing drowning example. In the beginning of the past century, some stats "experts" came with this conclusion after extensively observation (the rest is from wikipedia in quote marks):

Things can trend together and be causally unrelated, but your ice cream example doesn't really apply here, because shots are causally related to scoring goals, which are causally related to winning games, so there's an obvious causal chain, rather than an obscure connection between disparate trends.

Of course 'Corsi is a product of a successful team', that is precisely the point. I'm not arguing for 'the cart pushing the horse'. Corsi's imperfect (a good example would be when Pacioretty took four wacks to beat Bernier on a breakaway - if he had beat him with a better first move his corsi score would have been lower). But over time, you see that certain teams generate more shots than their opposition, and that those teams tend to be more successful. The statistical anomalies even themselves out, and you're left with clear-cut trends.

[habs rule]

The thing with Chicago is they are all 6 ft tall, no midgets, no giants. We look taller than we are cause we have a few guys who are 6'5 which is very misleading. Let's see how tall the guys they have who play more than 10 minutes a game are vs how tall our line up is that play the same. And let's leave the goalies out of it. I am going to bet you we are now much smaller. Habs29 is right very misleading stat to look at total team height.

[BlueKross]

http://mirtle.blogspot.ca/2013/01/2013-nhl-teams-by-weight-height-and-age.html

Chicago height: 72.3

Montreal height: 72.1

Based on opening rosters.

http://mirtle.blogspot.ca/2013/10/2013-14-nhl-teams-by-height-weight-and.html

This season, St. Louis on height is only 0.5 bigger. Montreal got heavier this year (they were the lightest team last season) and are now heavier than the Flyers and the Canucks.

I like the direction we appear to be heading. I hope we got enough. I took acception to the statement that Chicago was as small as Montreal last year. Habs Retired covered that.Typically big teams win the stanley Cup, but there have been a few exceptions. i would like the Canadiens to be able to compete on skill, speed and strength. I think you loose advantage if you are short on one of them.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

The five important questions are:

1) did Chicago have 3 players under 5'9" in their top 6?

2) are any of their midgets washed up like Goonta?

3) are any of their midgets as slow as DD?

4) what is the production of the Chicago midgets vs ours?

5) is Chicago carrying any washed up dmen under 5'9"?

The answer to these questions is where any comparasion with Chicago falls apart.

Lastly, stats like average height or weight are as misleading as CORSI and Fenwick.

The answer is always, "Height and weight does not matter when skill is imbalanced"

Chicago has far more skill. We beat them only in net and maybe on the fourth line. Skill is the difference every time. Sometimes skill teams have size, but all great teams have high levels of skill.

[hab29RETIRED]

That's it in a nutshell. None if our midgets has Patrick Kane's talent.

The answer is always, "Height and weight does not matter when skill is imbalanced"

Chicago has far more skill. We beat them only in net and maybe on the fourth line. Skill is the difference every time. Sometimes skill teams have size, but all great teams have high levels of skill.

[bigbigbear]

It's funny reading about the height argument, if Tinordi, Parros and Murray were included in the height data, the data would be incorrect. These players are not on the ice much.

It's simple even with our small players, our so called "bigger players" don't play big. Bourque is scared of his shadow like a groundhog on most nights

We have guys like Bouillon playing defense that barely arrive at other forwards' chin strap.

We are not a big team and have to play differently.

Edited January 17, 2014 by bigbigbear

[DON]

That's it in a nutshell. None if our midgets has Patrick Kane's talent.

When was last time Habs had a #1 pick like Kane was in 2007 (1980?)? Hawks also got #3pick in 2006 in Toews, #7 pick in 2005 and #3 pick in 2004.

So, if give Timmins 3-4 crappy bottom dwelling seasons in a row to get 4 straight top seven picks and Habs skill could be as good as Hawks (or could also go the Oiler/Columbus way also I suppose, but need a Kevin Lowe-type to do that).

But, can you imagine how crazy Habfans would be after 3-4 lottery pick seasons in a row! Habs had 1 crap season and seems Galchenyuk could be a super addition (as Price has been).

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I've been thinking about this. We don't have the Hawks's talent, either now or in the system. But one thing we do have is Carey Price. IF Price can continue to play like he has this season, and carry that level of play into the playoffs on a reliable basis, then we won't need to have the overall talent level of a Chicago, because we can out-goaltend them in any given game or playoff series; thus, if MB's plan unfolds as it should - with extant young players getting better, and upgrades being added in a couple of key spots - we will be able to contend even if our team is a notch below the Chicagos in terms of the five-man position player roster.

The 'rebuild' ultimately hinges, then, as it was always ordained to, on whether Carey Price can become a truly dominant goalie from pole to pole, year after year. What a fateful pick that #5 choice was all those years ago. We will live or die by it.

[hab29RETIRED]

Agreed we haven't had the 3 or 4 years of having a top 5 pick like the Hawks have.

But why is it the way keep targeting small skilled players for the top 6 if they aren't elite high end players? Why can't we seem to draft skill with SOME size and character? We do a great job of finding skilled smurfs but only drafted 2 players with elite skill and size in the last 10 years (Galchenyuk and maxpac) that are legitimate top 6 forwards and are still with us. Why is that??

Why do we have such a hard time finding skilled, players with size AND character AND help them develop??

I love Gallegher. He is probably among my top 5 favorite habs and someone I'd want going forward as part of our core. But unless we have Gallegahar, Patrick Kane and St. Louis, I don't want 3 guys that small on our top 6, or even top 9. DD and Gionta need to go.

When was last time Habs had a #1 pick like Kane was in 2007 (1980?)? Hawks also got #3pick in 2006 in Toews, #7 pick in 2005 and #3 pick in 2004.

So, if give Timmins 3-4 crappy bottom dwelling seasons in a row to get 4 straight top seven picks and Habs skill could be as good as Hawks (or could also go the Oiler/Columbus way also I suppose, but need a Kevin Lowe-type to do that).

But, can you imagine how crazy Habfans would be after 3-4 lottery pick seasons in a row! Habs had 1 crap season and seems Galchenyuk could be a super addition (as Price has been).

[hab29RETIRED]

I live price, but wanted Kopitor than and despite Price being a dominant and elite goalie, still wish we had taken Kopitar. The scary thing is that had he been available, Gainey probably would have taken Pouliot.

The other pick that WILL always haunt is not taking Getzlaf. He was projected to be a top 10 pick. We had the tenth pick and passed. I wanted Geztzlaf and my brother wanted Parise. The habs went if the board and blew it in the best draft in history.

I've been thinking about this. We don't have the Hawks's talent, either now or in the system. But one thing we do have is Carey Price. IF Price can continue to play like he has this season, and carry that level of play into the playoffs on a reliable basis, then we won't need to have the overall talent level of a Chicago, because we can out-goaltend them in any given game or playoff series; thus, if MB's plan unfolds as it should - with extant young players getting better, and upgrades being added in a couple of key spots - we will be able to contend even if our team is a notch below the Chicagos in terms of the five-man position player roster.

The 'rebuild' ultimately hinges, then, as it was always ordained to, on whether Carey Price can become a truly dominant goalie from pole to pole, year after year. What a fateful pick that #5 choice was all those years ago. We will live or die by it.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

I live price, but wanted Kopitor than and despite Price being a dominant and elite goalie, still wish we had taken Kopitar. The scary thing is that had he been available, Gainey probably would have taken Pouliot.

The other pick that WILL always haunt is not taking Getzlaf. He was projected to be a top 10 pick. We had the tenth pick and passed. I wanted Geztzlaf and my brother wanted Parise. The habs went if the board and blew it in the best draft in history.

Gainey was given the choice of elite goalie (Price) or elite defenceman (Staal) by Timmins. Savard wanted Gilbert Brule (revisionist history turned it into Kopitar). Gainey makes the final choice but he always trusted Timmins on the picks.

The 2003 draft... ugh. I mean, sure we weren't the Rangers taking Jessiman but wow did we blow it on that one. Timmin's first draft on the job and he fell in love with the idea that teams were misdiagnosing Andrei Kostitsyn and that he had the skill to be the first overall pick if it wasn't for epileptic issues. Carter, Brown, Parise, Getzlaf, Burns, Kesler, Richards, Perry... all drafted after Kostitsyn. That draft and the Jason Ward drafts get me angry thinking of them haha.