Jump to content

Marc Bergevin's track record: points/playoff and drafts


alfredoh2009
 Share

Recommended Posts

I thought I would share my spreadsheet on how well the Habs have done under MB with three spreadsheets snapshots:

 

First one, is the total number of points accumulated during the season:

image.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second one is my measurement of success during the playoffs, by multiplying the season points by the winning percentage during the playoffs, this stat is really bad for the Maple Leafs 🙃:

   * five playoff participations

 

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, alfredoh2009 said:

yes, will do that now

 I don't mean to be critical. You have obviously put a lot of effort into it which is admirable.  I just feel that MB had improved a lot in the last couple years, made some good moves, a couple bad ones but the team sucked this year and he took the fall for it which is life for a GM/coach.  Molson made a decision and I would rather look forward than endlessly debate MB's record. But that is just me, perhaps others want to debate it.   I wish his successor nothing but great success.  Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 I don't mean to be critical. You have obviously put a lot of effort into it which is admirable.  I just feel that MB had improved a lot in the last couple years, made some good moves, a couple bad ones but the team sucked this year and he took the fall for it which is life for a GM/coach.  Molson made a decision and I would rather look forward than endlessly debate MB's record. But that is just me, perhaps others want to debate it.   I wish his successor nothing but great success.  Cheers

Don't worry, I understood what you meant.

 

The thing is that some discussions get out of hand because some talk without checking the facts which drives me nuts.

 

So, I am sharing it to kind of park this somewhere in case I need it.

 

I don't expect anyone to take a look. It's an eyesore

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

And this ones where I was tracking when the players signed their Entry Level Contract (ELC) and how much time it took them to become NHLers:

image.png

 

image.png

 

That’s a pretty useless stat, considering how many players we have rushed into becoming NHLER’s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

That’s a pretty useless stat, considering how many players we have rushed into becoming NHLER’s.


i can always count on your insightful commentary :)

 

Made you look !

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alfredoh2009 said:

... The thing is that some discussions get out of hand because some talk without checking the facts which drives me nuts ...

Numbers /stats are subjective (i.e., facts) ... 35 is always larger than 25 ... but when conducting an analysis, what numbers/stats to consider and how those numbers/stats are interpreted is entirely subjective ... thus the old saying ... Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

You must be a politician

 

I am a engineer. Numbers mean something to me and math is math

Great work!

 

Numbers always mean something.  We just don't all interpret them the same way, but they always tell a story.  Just because we don't like the story they tell or it is different than the one we have in our head, doesn't mean they aren't useful.

 

Again, great work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was asked yesterday whether Bergevin was a good or bad GM. After a slight pause, I came to the conclusion in my own head that Bergevin was just about an average GM.

 

I don’t think that just because Montreal would be 12 or 13th out of ~30 teams on these tables, it would mean Bergevin was without a doubt an “above average” GM. 
 

There are too many factors which can be overlooked. Including the fact that based on those statistics he likely inherited an above average team. There are also injuries (to our team and others), unforseen circumstances, exceeding expectations, underachieving, global pandemics, etc. etc. etc. 


Long story short, the Habs may have been a slightly above average team under his tenure but similar to the fact that I never placed disastrous play from our team solely on Bergevin’s shoulders, I wouldn’t be able to state that he is 100% the reason for the team’s statistical output. The players and coaches’ actions and efforts on any given day are simply out of Bergevin’s hands, despite him being the one at the helm. 
 

This is coming from someone who defended Bergevin much more than attacked him, so I have no agenda here.

 

With all that being said, we’re not far off. You see him as an above average GM, and I have him just about average. Not the end of the world, nor nothing to throw arms up in a fit about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bergevin inherited a strong hand, a team that, with minimal changes to the inherited core, went to the semi-Finals in 2014 and was 2nd overall in 2015. That is the complicating element here.

 

Once Pleks and Markov aged out, roughly 2016-17, we saw little more than drift and suckage (which these stats bear out). The team stunk and, as I kept saying even when some folks chose to buy into the 2018 “retool” narrative that great young players would have us emerging as contenders right about now, there are zero replacements for the elderly Price/Weber in the system. MB’s inability to draft and develop is the reason that we’re looking at this organization and not seeing a pathway forward to contending. His brilliant offseason moves in 2020 helped to paper over that hole and allowed the aging core to reach the Finals - he deserves praise for that - but it was not a substitute for proper drafting and development. The organization has been largely rotting from within since 2016.

 

This analysis is, I believe, consistent with alfredo’s numbers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, titanfan said:

Great work!

 

Numbers always mean something.  We just don't all interpret them the same way, but they always tell a story.  Just because we don't like the story they tell or it is different than the one we have in our head, doesn't mean they aren't useful.

 

Again, great work.

thanks fo t he kind words

here is the link to the file, if you want to play with it

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10NB0IMl-W-RRJG0hMA0m21HPbXJLMKl-/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115042049756351982926&rtpof=true&sd=true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

I was asked yesterday whether Bergevin was a good or bad GM. After a slight pause, I came to the conclusion in my own head that Bergevin was just about an average GM.

 

I don’t think that just because Montreal would be 12 or 13th out of ~30 teams on these tables, it would mean Bergevin was without a doubt an “above average” GM. 
 

There are too many factors which can be overlooked. Including the fact that based on those statistics he likely inherited an above average team. There are also injuries (to our team and others), unforseen circumstances, exceeding expectations, underachieving, global pandemics, etc. etc. etc. 


Long story short, the Habs may have been a slightly above average team under his tenure but similar to the fact that I never placed disastrous play from our team solely on Bergevin’s shoulders, I wouldn’t be able to state that he is 100% the reason for the team’s statistical output. The players and coaches’ actions and efforts on any given day are simply out of Bergevin’s hands, despite him being the one at the helm. 
 

This is coming from someone who defended Bergevin much more than attacked him, so I have no agenda here.

 

With all that being said, we’re not far off. You see him as an above average GM, and I have him just about average. Not the end of the world, nor nothing to throw arms up in a fit about. 

yes, my take too.

 

I put this together for myself, because when the team stunk some people were quick to say MB was the worst GM ever. He wasn't , he was average to above average with some good runs and some bad ones.

 

Nothing to get all worked up about, let's move on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Bergevin inherited a strong hand, a team that, with minimal changes to the inherited core, went to the semi-Finals in 2014 and was 2nd overall in 2015. That is the complicating element here.

 

Once Pleks and Markov aged out, roughly 2016-17, we saw little more than drift and suckage (which these stats bear out). The team stunk and, as I kept saying even when some folks chose to buy into the 2018 “retool” narrative that great young players would have us emerging as contenders right about now, there are zero replacements for the elderly Price/Weber in the system. MB’s inability to draft and develop is the reason that we’re looking at this organization and not seeing a pathway forward to contending. His brilliant offseason moves in 2020 helped to paper over that hole and allowed the aging core to reach the Finals - he deserves praise for that - but it was not a substitute for proper drafting and development. The organization has been largely rotting from within since 2016.

 

This analysis is, I believe, consistent with alfredo’s numbers.

 

I agree, I remember a couple of years ago it hit me that the Habs had not developed a successor to Price. Beyond a 1C and two top-4 Ds, the lack of a good NHL goalie to grow under Price was one of MBs worst oversights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

You must be a politician

 

I am a engineer. Numbers mean something to me and math is math

 

In an engineering context (hopefully) what I was saying is that if you do a stress test or a load test for a structure, the result is objective ... the number is the number ... but depending on the context in which the structure will be used defines whether or not it is sufficient for the task ... stats/results are objective but what they mean is subjective to each fan ... a player scoring 30 goals is considered great by some and insufficient by others, because that analysis is subjective ... The habs winning playoff games in the 2020 and going to the Finals in 2020 is considered proof the team was good ... to others the Habs making the playoffs in 2020 despite having the 24th best points percentage in the league and being 18th overall (10th amongst traditional Eastern Conference teams) in 2021 means the team was not a playoff quality team and needs significant changes ... it is entirely subjective, depending on perspective. 

 

BTW: The actual tables are an impressive collection of data

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hyperbole of "worst GM ever", I don't think that belief was widely held here. However, if you take his more recent body of work (last 5 years) the "above average" starts to fade a bit, even just going by something as simple as points in the standings. Habs drop to 20th over the past 5 years. I think the fade would've been more acceptable had the team started to field bonafide prospects, but the lack of drafted players cracking the roster (whether picks were traded, prospects traded, etc is irrelevant) while the team was also getting progressively worse meant a change was needed. The root cause of the lack of drafting and development also falls at the feet of the GM, as ultimately, he's responsible for that. One would like the think the goal of a sports franchise is to draft and develop all of their own players. While a team of 100% draftees is certainly a pipe dream, the Habs should have more top 9, top 4 "homegrown" players than they do.

 

In a nutshell (and much like @The Chicoutimi Cucumber said, this points to Bergevin inheriting a decent team, being unable to draft and develop the replacement players as the inherited team "aged out", and now no homegrown youth to lead the charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alfredoh2009 said:

 

I agree, I remember a couple of years ago it hit me that the Habs had not developed a successor to Price. Beyond a 1C and two top-4 Ds, the lack of a good NHL goalie to grow under Price was one of MBs worst oversights.

I think the hope was that Primeau would be that goalie, but as is often said, evaluating goalie prospects is pretty much voodoo, and in this case it looks not to have worked. Primeau is likely an NHL goalie, but whether he will be legit starter is still TBD. And he's unlikely to be an elite goalie.

 

Prior to Primeau, other goalie draft picks were really too early given Price's (expected!) career span and were likely viewed as AHL potential or at best Price's backup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alfredoh2009 said:

yes, my take too.

 

I put this together for myself, because when the team stunk some people were quick to say MB was the worst GM ever. He wasn't , he was average to above average with some good runs and some bad ones.

 

Nothing to get all worked up about, let's move on


Confused about your last line. Who’s getting worked up? And why should we move on? He was just fired. Seems reasonable to discuss the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As my thoughts continue....

 

My general sentiment is that on either end of the spectrum, there is and has been too much emphasis and focus placed on Marc Bergevin.

 

The team’s successes and failures are much bigger than him.
 

Of course the general manager plays an important role in the composition of the lineup however when I look at the top and see teams like Pittsburgh and Washington, I think of Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin. These are players who have been on their respective teams for 15+ years. 
 

Pittsburgh and Washington have been through multiple GMs in that timespan. Furthermore, there was nothing in Bergevin’s power that could be done to prevent Pittsburgh and Washington from having those type of players. This is simply my point, in that there are a large amount of factors that are being overlooked with this data.

 

Who has been the player who gives our team the main perceived recipe for success? Carey Price. Also here for 15+ years and longer than our GM’s tenure. Had Carey Price maintained a super human level at any point, the Habs may have a cup and it would have had little to do with Bergevin. This can obviously only be said in retrospect considering we did not win, and I understand that. On the other end of the spectrum, having Carey Price, our best player on the team, has nothing to do with Bergevin, so how does he deserve credit or angst for his performance?

 

I apologize that it comes off as attacking the hard work put in, as it is not intended that way. It is true, however that the tables were started with an agenda in mind and while I am on the same side of the fence that Bergevin was an average GM, rather than the worst GM in the league, I think that the debate is still up in the air and basically anyone can have their own opinion on the topic.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:


Confused about your last line. Who’s getting worked up? And why should we move on? He was just fired. Seems reasonable to discuss the topic.

Me, I should not get worked up and K should move on from reminiscing about MB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...