And on the seventh day …

Gionta

They rested.
Riding the euphoria of two OT road wins, Jacques Martin gave the Canadiens Sunday off to hang with their families, watch some football and do whatever normal people do.
The team is back in action against Buffalo at the Bell Centre Monday night.

Pat Hickey’s game story

Pierre Ladouceur’s game report card

Miller doesn’t mince words on Lucic

•  •  •

Ottawa CH fan Chris O’Brien suggests a Stephen Foster adaptation:

Campdown ladies sing this song:

Budaj! Budaj!

•  •  •

And may we safely conclude that KHL coach Andrey Nazarov did not learn behind-the-bench demeanour from Jacques Martin?

384 Comments

  1. HardHabits says:

    Inuition. Feelings. Gut. These have been guiding most if not all of the most gifted and creative people since the dawn of man’s history.

    I am sure Mozart relied on stats when he composed music.

    • Jordio-oh says:

      And I am sure Einstein never developed the theory of general relativity based on irrational hyperboles he remembered from something he saw 24 hours prior. Statistics matter, regardless of your terrible anecdote.

  2. RC-51 says:

    Just wondering, they said AM79 would be back in the lineup early Nov (gm10) it is now mid Nov (gm17) and still no sign of him! Anyone? Anyone?

  3. RS says:

    Any word on Ryan White? When is he ever coming back?

  4. Timo says:

    Didn’t watch the saturday game, was in Van. Did Gomez score both of Habs goals?

  5. Bill says:

    Berkshire, Twilight, et al:

    To take a step back, the debate is to some extent about the value of statistics – as opposed to observation – as a source of knowledge/truth.

    Both are flawed and can only be trusted to a small extent. Any philosopher can you tell you that.

    Observation without measurement yields subjective opinion, for better and worse. At worst, this results in the propagation of simple falsehood; but at best, it leads to intuitive leaps and insights that deductive science can’t match.

    Statistical analysis avoids some of the pitfalls of subjectivity by defining terms and quantifying events as data. The problem with stats is that they are extremely limited in terms of what they describe: in order to be meaningful, they must be interpreted, and subjectivity reenters at the interpretive level.

    You could statistically argue a lot of things that are simply untrue. Basically, any of the hockey stats out there tell us very tiny, very specific things, which don’t necessarily correlate to anything important. The flawed +/- stat, for instance, is no more flawed than any other stat: it’s just that most people understand its limitations. It tells us a small numerical tidbit and leaves a lot of important information out. All stats are like that, even more advanced ones like relCorsi.

    But observation and subjective opinion aren’t any more reliable. Basically its Don Cherry versus a computer simulation: whose opinion do you trust? For me, it’s neither.

    Resolution? There is none. Two things I have I learned: first, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics; second, people who “trust their gut” are really just rolling the dice.

    Full Breezer 4 Life

    • Problems arise with stats if you overstate their limits or their context. When speaking about Corsi for example, one should never say that a player with an excellent Corsi number will be an elite scorer, that’s false and not what Corsi measures. What Corsi measures is puck possession, so someone like Gomez can be a Corsi monster his whole career (he has been) while not being an elite scorer because he is excellent at driving the play and keeping the puck under control for his team, always has been.

      The main difference between the “gut” analysis and the statistical one when it comes to hockey, is that the gut analysis involves one or a few plays, the importance of which is vastly exaggerated. Meanwhile the objective stats look at huge sample sizes to make predictions. One is clearly more reliable, and it’s pretty apparent if you read Gabe Desjardins or Derek Zona.

      ______________________________
      Seriousfan09 has started a Movember team named McPhee’s Irregulars. Donate to him, or me or the team to raise money for a great cause!
      http://mobro.co/AndrewBerkshire

      • Bill says:

        You still have to interpret the stats, and that’s crucial … and also subjective.

        Even with that aside, the flip side of your argument is that the stats can’t really “predict” much of anything because they break down at the level of specific examples. This is why Gabe Desjardins is not a Pro-Line millionaire.

        Example: two years ago, Montreal “should have” had a better record than they did; last year, they “should’ve” had a worse record. The fact that the underlying stats didn’t match the actual results on the ice shows the disconnect between stats and reality and undercuts whatever “reliability” they could be said to possess.

        I guess my main point is that stats tell you part of the puzzle, but there’s another part, at least as important, that cannot be quantified – otherwise the games would always go as the stats predict – and which can only be understood by subjective observation.

        So again, one without the other is insufficient.

        Full Breezer 4 Life

        • You have it backwards about which year the Habs were good/bad, but at the same time you’re illustrating my point. Put those 164 regular season games together, and the Habs regressed to the mean in the second half. It sucks, but that’s what happened.

          And I think you’d be startled with the success rate of the predictions made by Desjardins. He does get paid more than $200/hour to consult with NHL teams regularly, there’s a reason for it.

          The interpretation isn’t subjective at all. If you have a decade of data and it all points overwhelmingly in one direction, your conclusion is clearly objective.

          ______________________________
          Seriousfan09 has started a Movember team named McPhee’s Irregulars. Donate to him, or me or the team to raise money for a great cause!
          http://mobro.co/AndrewBerkshire

      • The Dude says:

        If a gut feeling is based on experience “experience is an inner stat sheet built chemically into one’s synaptic nerve endings that one accumulates with time” and the persons whom have it have an open mind and can tie a shoelace , it’s the most powerful tool of tools at one’s disposal. And does it ever make the young oh so jealous,ha!

        • Nope, it’s biased perception that usually makes someone look like a fool. Like when they spend 2 seasons saying Halak is a god and Price isn’t NHL ready, only to see Halak traded and crumble while Price hits his prime as an elite goaltender. That’s what your gut gets you, the wrong answer.

          ______________________________
          Seriousfan09 has started a Movember team named McPhee’s Irregulars. Donate to him, or me or the team to raise money for a great cause!
          http://mobro.co/AndrewBerkshire

          • The Dude says:

            Yep ,you proved my point. I remember when Halak made chaps like you look real young…like …a 7 year old wondering when he was going to be able too finally figure shisel out…Dam you Halak!

        • mamacat says:

          yu r all illogical. incorrecct computtions. saf

    • habstrinifan says:

      Enjoyed reading this.

  6. habs001 says:

    Ellers stats last 4 years

    2007-2008 …54 games 9 goals 17 assists

    2008-2009… 53 games 15 goals 20 assists

    2009-2010… 84 games 22 goals 42 assists

    2010-2011… 77 games 7 goals 10 assists

    The games include a mix of hockey levels from world junior b games to nhl…Eller should be a good player but the stats he has put up dont jump out at you and indicate that he will be a special point producer…there are hundreds of players who have had these type of stats and many did not make the nhl and the ones who did mostly became 15-35 point producers…i am sure there are examples that have these type of stats and scored at a high level but most players who score 60 or more points in the nhl had pretty good stats prior to the nhl..

    • showey47 says:

      Didn’t you also put some kind of a stat pack together last year stating the same thing aboug maxpac?

    • Mark C says:

      It’s not just the stats, you also need to consider his age relative to his competition at each level. For example, his one AHL season was as a 20-year-old. Leading your AHL team in points in your 20-year-old season is very impressive. He was 4th on his SEL team in scoring as a 19-year-old. He’s always been young for his league.

      Please show me the 100s of 20-year-old players who put a 70-18-39-57 line in the AHL at such a young age.

      • habs001 says:

        ellers scoring stats just dont look anything special..our 2 best nhl goal producing forwards camm and gion have some very impressive scoring stats prior to the nhl…it is not easy to score in the nhl so i am not sure why people think that a player will score at levels in the nhl that he has never shown before..

        • Mark C says:

          They were also playing US college hockey whereas Eller was in the SEL and AHL. You have to consider this. Heck, Nicklas Backstrom’s stats did not look special before the NHL, yet he seems to be scoring just fine now. Zetterberg had 10 goals in 48 games the year before he came to the NHL. Datsyuk had 9 goals in 42 games. Leagues and ages have need to be considered when analyzing Eller’s production to date.

          By no means am I saying Eller will be like any of those players.

  7. ooder says:

    Hey AB
    I noticed your psot below where you said that DD is not capable of playing against first line opponents.
    However neither is gomez.. in fact i don’t see gomez do good against any line that he is put up against.
    he just does the same thing over and over again.. skates fast to the blue line, stops and passes it to his teammates.. which is very easy to defend against.
    DD actually has some creativity and goes to the net when necessary
    ——————
    The 2010-11 Stanley Cup was not won, but given

    • Gomez has demonstrated over his career that he’s much better at handling that competition than DD is now, and probably ever will be. Whether Gomez is in decline however is up for debate.

      ______________________________
      Seriousfan09 has started a Movember team named McPhee’s Irregulars. Donate to him, or me or the team to raise money for a great cause!
      http://mobro.co/AndrewBerkshire

      • ooder says:

        how was this demonstrated? considering this is DD second season.. and even last season he only played half its kind of hard to predict what his NHL career will be like. But I can tell you one thing, he goes to the net and is way more creative then Gomez.
        Saying Gomez played well 5 years ago is hardly an argument at all.
        as for Gomez’s decline.. kind of hard to debate.. because as of now he is on pace for 11 points this year…
        ——————
        The 2010-11 Stanley Cup was not won, but given

        • ProHabs says:

          Ha, Gomez’s career is not on the decline??????? Are you serious??He hasn’t scored a goal in what is it now, 40 games.

          • ooder says:

            i assume that was a response to Andrew, because there is no way you can debate Gomez’s decline

            ——————
            The 2010-11 Stanley Cup was not won, but given

          • ProHabs says:

            Exactly Ooder. If Gomez’s career is not on the decline, then AB must think his career is on the rise. How crazy is that.

        • It’s clear that barely anyone can speak about Gomez rationally on this board. I get it, he had a terrible season offensively, especially at even strength. Compounding that his contract is ridiculous. But it’s time people start learning to differentiate between salary and performance, as well as points.

          As it stands Gomez has had one solid season in Montreal, one bad one, and 7 games where he hasn’t produced offensively but he’s made a difference in other zones.. I’m not going to say he’s done based on 7 games.

          ______________________________
          Seriousfan09 has started a Movember team named McPhee’s Irregulars. Donate to him, or me or the team to raise money for a great cause!
          http://mobro.co/AndrewBerkshire

          • ooder says:

            “It’s clear that barely anyone can speak about Gomez rationally on this board”… dunno what you mean by that but ok.
            just because some people see the fact that he has not been good for MTL and that we would be better off without him doesn’t mean we are not rational.. you know applying scientific method and such

            ——————
            The 2010-11 Stanley Cup was not won, but given

          • Whether the team would benefit from him being moved wasn’t the question though, Mikhail. I’ve seen 2 questions raised in this thread, whether or not DD is better (he isn’t), and whether or not Gomez is in decline. I said Gomez being in decline is up for debate, indicating I’m not sure either way. The sample size from this season is too small to draw any conclusions. Plekanec had 39 points in 2008-09, he wasn’t in decline, he just had a bad year. The same could be true for Gomez.

            What I’m saying is that there is no rational discussion when it comes to Gomez. Everything is ridiculous hyperbole “he’s done” or “Blunden is better”.

            Desharnais has 34 career points in 70 career games, that’s not much better than 38 for Gomer last year. And that’s while getting soft matchups, while it’s already been acknowledged that Gomez doesn’t get those.

            Separate the player from the salary for a moment and look at it objectively. Gomez has been a disappointment, one that most of us expected, although maybe not that bad. That doesn’t mean he will continue to be. However I don’t think Gomez is capable of putting up numbers that would satisfy the people on this site. I don’t think any player on the Habs could.

            ______________________________
            Seriousfan09 has started a Movember team named McPhee’s Irregulars. Donate to him, or me or the team to raise money for a great cause!
            http://mobro.co/AndrewBerkshire

          • ooder says:

            my observation isn’t even from the salary.. it’s from his play.
            he has failed this team defensively and offensively.
            his play is predictable and very stoppable.
            i find DD has more creativity and plays a better game then Gomez

            ——————
            The 2010-11 Stanley Cup was not won, but given

          • If DD is so creative, why does he have less than a shot per game on net? Why is he on the negative side in Corsi, Fenwick, shots and scoring chances at ES while playing against 3rd line competition with two wingers who are positive in all categories? He’s just not that good. He’s the 4th best center on the team by a fairly wide margin and was last year as well.

            ______________________________
            Seriousfan09 has started a Movember team named McPhee’s Irregulars. Donate to him, or me or the team to raise money for a great cause!
            http://mobro.co/AndrewBerkshire

      • The Dude says:

        Gomez $7.4 mill per…A corporate welfare scoring machine
        DD $8 hundred thousand per ….A working mans player

  8. Caballero says:

    I am sick of reading this argument that we would take Lucic on our team in a second. Perhaps, but only to see him clobber Lucic since we are speculating about some hypothetical situation here.

    • Bill says:

      I wouldn’t want him or any other dirty SOB. If we’re being hypothetical, I say let’s take Larry Robinson in his prime on today’s Habs so he could take time out from being a classy, dominant HOF player to teach Lucik a lesson.

      That said, if Lucik had been drafted by the Habs and developed by the Habs, he wouldn’t be the a-hole he is today. He plays for a coach and a team that maniacally encourages dirty play. Group psychology is powerful.

      Full Breezer 4 Life


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.