Jump to content

GAME#37 Habs vs Arizona 4:00pm EST Jan 17 2022


DON

Recommended Posts

Just now, Commandant said:

When someone says... his 7 goals are tied for the team lead... the 3 goals on 3 shots counts. 

 

4 out of 12 is still 33.33% which is still insanely high too. 

Yes. It's a cute stat but not meaningful. Kind of like Poehling averaging three goals per game.

 

But I do like his shot. Maybe he can find a role on the Habs yet. We'll have to wait and see how busy the exit doors are in March.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tomh009 said:

Yes. It's a cute stat but not meaningful. Kind of like Poehling averaging three goals per game.

 

But I do like his shot. Maybe he can find a role on the Habs yet. We'll have to wait and see how busy the exit doors are in March.

 

I edited it in, so maybe you didn't see it. 

 

But the issue of finding a role, isn't how good his shot is, its can he get himself into position to take a high volume of shots at the NHL level.  The shot can be good but the key is going to be creating offence consistently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

That stat is really skewed by his three goals on three shots against Seattle. Take that out, and it's four goals on 12 shots. Still high but not as outrageous. He needs to shoot way more to maintain this level of scoring.

 

But I do stand by my earlier comment: he has a nice shot.

 

I stand by that comment too, anyone that disagrees with his shooting accuracy is using a logical fallacy of a strawman argument.  i.e. he has around a 20% S% in every league he has played in.  even in his outlier years he has over 10% S%.  It's fair to say his shot has above average accuracy.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

 

I stand by that comment too, anyone that disagrees with his shooting accuracy is using a logical fallacy of a strawman argument.  i.e. he has around a 20% S% in every league he has played in.  even in his outlier years he has over 10% S%.  It's fair to say his shot has above average accuracy.  

 

 

 

You do realize there is a huge difference between 10%-20% and 50%.

 

He would have 2 goals if he was shooting 15%.  

 

and thats without even getting into the fact the goalies in the NHL are much better than what he faced in lower leagues.  There are almost zero nhl players who can put up a 20% shooting percentage over multiple years.  It just doesnt happen.

 

His shot may be good but its not at a level where he can maintain a shooting percentage 2.5 to 3 times better than the NHL's best shooters.

 

If he wants to be a consistent scorer it comes down to shot volume.  The same as every goal scorer in the NHL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Commandant said:

If he wants to be a consistent scorer it comes down to shot volume.  The same as every goal scorer in the NHL.

By logic it should be possible for a player to gain a higher shooting percentage by passing instead of taking low-percentage shots. However, that may produce a worse result for the team. And this is just a hypothesis, I have not validated it! 🤪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tomh009 said:

By logic it should be possible for a player to gain a higher shooting percentage by passing instead of taking low-percentage shots. However, that may produce a worse result for the team. And this is just a hypothesis, I have not validated it! 🤪

 

Paul Byron is actually an example of a player who maintains a high shooting percentage by the fact that most of his shots are either right around the net, or on a breakaway. 

 

he's still a 15-20% shooter

 

30+ is just not possible on a consistent basis... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drouin continues to be the most constant forward for the Habs this season

 

The Lehkonen-Evans-Armia 4th line was good. But with Dauphin playing himself out of the lineup, it was broken.

 

Poehling continues playing reasonable well; I would like to see him with Pitlick/Byron on the 3rd line 

 

Romanov has been coached well into his top-4 role. He can replace Chiarot once he is dealt.

 

Caufield, Primeau are

not NHL-ready yet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

By logic it should be possible for a player to gain a higher shooting percentage by passing instead of taking low-percentage shots. However, that may produce a worse result for the team. And this is just a hypothesis, I have not validated it! 🤪

 

In most of his seasons he seems to get close to an equal number of assists too.  

 

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

His shot may be good but its not at a level where he can maintain a shooting percentage 2.5 to 3 times better than the NHL's best shooters.

 

 

 

Correct, he will not perform the impossible or be the all time leader in S%, but thats not an argument that his shooting accuracy isn't high.

 

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

 

Paul Byron is actually an example of a player who maintains a high shooting percentage by the fact that most of his shots are either right around the net, or on a breakaway. 

 

he's still a 15-20% shooter

 

Yes, and thats exactly why I mentioned Byron.  Armia also has a fairly high S%. If Pitlick will be as good as them defensively and become Byron or Armia 2.0 is unknown.   However, even if he doesn't turn out to be as good as them defensively, he could still become Hoffman 2.0. 

That's still good for a free waiver pickup, who could be resigned for a very low costing positive value contract.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

 

In most of his seasons he seems to get close to an equal number of assists too.  

 

 

Correct, he will not perform the impossible or be the all time leader in S%, but thats not an argument that his shooting accuracy isn't high.

 

 

Yes, and thats exactly why I mentioned Byron.  Armia also has a fairly high S%. If Pitlick will be as good as them defensively and become Byron or Armia 2.0 is unknown.   However, even if he doesn't turn out to be as good as them defensively, he could still become Hoffman 2.0. 

That's still good for a free waiver pickup, who could be resigned for a very low costing positive value contract.   

 

Its been two games.... lets pump the brakes on calling him as good as Armia, Byron or Hoffman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Commandant said:

Its been two games.... lets pump the brakes on calling him as good as Armia, Byron or Hoffman.

Well, Sir B did say "If Pitlick will be as good as them defensively and become Byron or Armia 2.0 is unknown."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

18 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

Its been two games.... lets pump the brakes on calling him as good as Armia, Byron or Hoffman.

 

I'm not calling him as good as them.   I'm suggesting that he very well could be a diamond in the rough, similar to them.  i.e. under valued players that were picked up free or cheap that  turned out really good for the Habs.  His S% is significantly above average, just like the players I mentioned.  

 

10 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

Well, Sir B did say "If Pitlick will be as good as them defensively and become Byron or Armia 2.0 is unknown."

 

I've said numerous times that Armia with his S% he could potentially get 30g/yr.  Most posters here think thats crazy, but some do agree.  Well, Pitlicks S% is higher than Armia's, so it could be potentially possible for him to hit Hoffman's highest g total.  

 

Also, he seems like he could be decent on the PP, and might even be able to be a PP QB too.  i.e. his stats seem to suggest that he is not just a shooter he also has good eyes.  Hence, a reason to compare him to Hoffman, who gets 30g+/yr, and basically the same amount of a's.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, Goal scoring is more dependent on volume of shots than shooting percentage.  He still.has to prove he can get a good enough shot volume to be that kind of player.

 

No matter how good his shot is (and while good its not hoffman)... but still its dependent on volume.  Hoffman has scored a lot of goals in this league.  Its really premature to compare any waiver wire pickup to him.

 

If you cant get the offensive zone time and possession to get off a high volume of shots, youll never score a lot of goals over the long term, good shot or not.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, DON said:

Why note this?

Pitlick is blond, has as much relevance as weight, unless doing a tug-of-war i suppose.

 

 


You must be joking, we aren’t talking twenty pounds (maybe ten as mentioned) of beer gut.   An extra 10-20 lbs of muscle and leg strength is a huge benefit and definitely plays a factor in player potential/ratings.   

To compare it to hair colour is so basic that if you were serious I am baffled by that post.   There is a reason small, successful players (especially short and light) are still a rarity even today once they get to upper levels.

 

Crosby is perfect example of height mattering less when you have a solid core and heavy weight, thick legs (his legs are huge).  

Someone mentioned Suzuki thriving/surviving as he is built solidly, and it is true. He would not have gotten up from some of the massive hits he has taken if he was not so strong/solid.  
It plays a factor and was an obvious downside of Adam Brooks, but this appears to not be the case with Pitlick.  That is good thing for Habs so why not just enjoy the little thing that it is.  Why make an absurd comparison just to rain negativity? 

Shorter players who are solidly built, with a low centre of gravity can be very effective in many roles and positions.  The weight a player can put behind a shot is a big deal, their battling ability (Mete haha), their ability to stake claim to space, all affected by weight.

 

Shorter players that are also light have to be hockey geniuses with elite skills/skating in order to have a shot and even then are limited in what roles they can best play (obv exceptions exist).  


Mass matters in athletes, hair colour does not.  

 

Two identical players:

player A : 5’10”  185lbs

player B : 5’10”  170lbs

 

It’s not even a choice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, hockeyrealist said:


You must be joking, we aren’t talking twenty pounds (maybe ten as mentioned) of beer gut.   An extra 10-20 lbs of muscle and leg strength is a huge benefit and definitely plays a factor in player potential/ratings.   

To compare it to hair colour is so basic that if you were serious I am baffled by that post.   There is a reason small, successful players (especially short and light) are still a rarity even today once they get to upper levels.

 

Crosby is perfect example of height mattering less when you have a solid core and heavy weight, thick legs (his legs are huge).  

Someone mentioned Suzuki thriving/surviving as he is built solidly, and it is true. He would not have gotten up from some of the massive hits he has taken if he was not so strong/solid.  
It plays a factor and was an obvious downside of Adam Brooks, but this appears to not be the case with Pitlick.  That is good thing for Habs so why not just enjoy the little thing that it is.  Why make an absurd comparison just to rain negativity? 

Shorter players who are solidly built, with a low centre of gravity can be very effective in many roles and positions.  The weight a player can put behind a shot is a big deal, their battling ability (Mete haha), their ability to stake claim to space, all affected by weight.

 

Shorter players that are also light have to be hockey geniuses with elite skills/skating in order to have a shot and even then are limited in what roles they can best play (obv exceptions exist).  


Mass matters in athletes, hair colour does not.  

 

Two identical players:

player A : 5’10”  185lbs

player B : 5’10”  170lbs

 

It’s not even a choice.

Gallagher, Marchand, Debrincat, from the top of my KKursed Potato head, come to mind.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

He has 7 goals on 15 shots....  in other words... not sustainable. 

Better than 1g on 70 shots anyways, no matter sustainable or not. (Chiarot 5g 70shots must make Caufield even worse)

 

Great to see Pitlick/Poehling score, would love to see Poehling get more icetime than 13minutes.

Caufield-Anderson being gone today should help that I hope.

 

Dvorak? Has he made a good play or had any offensive chances all year? I hope he has a nagging injury ot something to explain him crapping the bed all year.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, DON said:

Better than 1g on 70 shots anyways, no matter sustainable or not. (Chiarot 5g 70shots must make Caufield even worse)

 

Great to see Pitlick/Poehling score, would love to see Poehling get more icetime than 13minutes.

Caufield-Anderson being gone today should help that I hope.

 

Dvorak? Has he made a good play or had any offensive chances all year? I hope he has a nagging injury ot something to explain him crapping the bed all year.

 

Dvorak doesn't seem to have high Hockey IQ. He rarely makes his wingers "better" with his play, he is not physical and is 50%-50% on board battles (unlike Lehknonen or good-Armia). The times when he has had success is with Drouin who can distribute the puck and Armia when he was playing well earlier this season. If I am not mistaken, he looked good with Anderson too.

 

He is frustrating like Patches was in that he needs others to make him better! but he is so much less skilled.

 

He wins faceoffs, can be net-front/garbage-goal type of player and is ok playing defense without being a dominant shutdown centre.

 

He is 25 years old, same as Evans, and I see him more as a 3rd-line centre than 2C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DON said:

Better than 1g on 70 shots anyways, no matter sustainable or not. (Chiarot 5g 70shots must make Caufield even worse)

 

Great to see Pitlick/Poehling score, would love to see Poehling get more icetime than 13minutes.

Caufield-Anderson being gone today should help that I hope.

 

Dvorak? Has he made a good play or had any offensive chances all year? I hope he has a nagging injury ot something to explain him crapping the bed all year.

 

 

I'd take the 1g on 70 shots right now.   Unless its clearly an issue of the shot like Mete was. 

 

Because the fact is that getting off lots of shots is more predictive of future offensive contribution than a high shooting percentage on few shots. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

I'd take the 1g on 70 shots right now.   Unless its clearly an issue of the shot like Mete was. 

 

Because the fact is that getting off lots of shots is more predictive of future offensive contribution than a high shooting percentage on few shots. 

this is my concern with Gallagher since his last hand injury: he doesn't shoot as much and is trying to jam it in more often than before

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18-17 Dallas today, how will this one play out. Hope Poehling pots a couple and not sure much hope Caufield will score but has to sooner or later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

this is my concern with Gallagher since his last hand injury: he doesn't shoot as much and is trying to jam it in more often than before

 

He's slightly below his normal rate. 

I'm not sure this is injury related though.  He was at his normal rate last season. 

I think this is more because Tatar-Danault-Gallagher was one of the best puck possession lines in all of hockey.  All three players had more shots because as a team we almost always had the puck and took lots of shots.  Without those two linemates, he's not experiencing the same amount of zone time and getting about 0.5-0.8 shots per game less this year than in his seasons with those two. 

 

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.

×
×
  • Create New...