SteverenO - (Steve O. )
Member since March 10, 2011Montreal
http://www.montrealapartmenthotel.com
Habs fan since: 1957
Favorite current player: David Desharnais
All-time favorite player: J.C. Tremblay
Signature:
regards,
Steve O.
Recent Comments
- Comment on Habs' Therrien not among Jack Adams Award finalists
Points are well taken. I believe that I have posted a "baseline" so to speak when I posted the numbers of all the other forward on the team. if Gallagher was just slightly worse than teh others the numbers could be questioned and it could very well be a case of "bad luck" or just circumstances: I will agian post what I believe are the relevant numbers but let me first say that I think Gallagher was a tremendous asset to the team this year. AT even strength I believe that not only was he the best (most productive) player on the Habs, his ratio of the team scoring a goal every 14 minutes at even strength is among the best in the entire league. That being said the numbers below PROVE beyond any reasonable doubt that he was NOT an asset to the team on the PP: EVERY single other HABS forward shows a significant advantage on goal scoring frequency on the PP except for Gallagher. Player / minutes per goal Even strength/ mins per goal PP Gallagher/14 MPG ES / 12 MPG PP Ryder/ 22 MPG ES / 6 MPG PP Plekanec/ 25 MPG ES / 7 MPG PP Gionta/ 26 MPG ES / 8.6 MPG PP Bourque/ 29 MPG ES / 7.4 MPG PP Desharnais/ 20 MPG ES /8.7 MPG PP Pacioretty/ 16 MPG PP /8.5 MPG PP If someone wants to come up with a reasonable explanation for the fact that the team scored almost equally as often on the PP as they did at even strength while Gallagher was on the ice, please go ahead. My "hunch" is that Gallagher is more of an "opportunist" type player , he catches the other team off guard, creates turnovers and chances and is excellent at the transition game. All valuable skills at even strength but not very helpful on the powerplay. On the powerplay the skills that lead to goals are puck controllers, positional players, Size in front of the goalie, etc. In any case, the truth is that it doesn't matter why Gallagher does not benefit from having the man advantage, or that the team does not benefit by playing Gallagher on the PP, itONLY matters that the coach should recognize this undeniable fact and make adjustments, FIrst thing would be to try replacing Gallagher with someone else. If the coach feels that it is impoirtnat for gallaghers progress to be on the PP , then he should at least make adjustments to who he is playing with or adjust the PP system to suit Gallaghers style of play. Continuing to send him put with the same linemates for more than 100 shifts with out any results is , in my opinion, assinine behavior, and most certainly not worthy of a coach that wants to be considered as among the best in the league. regards, Steve O. - Comment on Habs' Therrien not among Jack Adams Award finalists
I answered below ,.but here it is again; You say that plus-minus only measure "presence", and in away you are correct. It measure a player's presence on the ice when his team either scores a goal or allows a goal. What I don`t understand is what you have against this measurement. Lets first look at defence. Can a player do anything BESIDES be present on the ice when the other team DOES NOT score a goal? therefore you have to give some credence to the "minus" side of the plus minus. You can argue that a certain player does not play against the other teams "top" forwards as often as another one,but there is not a lot a player can do when he is NOT on the ice. The best he can do is keep the opponents that he plays against from scoring. It is the coaches job to recognize a plyers efficiency and a good coach should give players who keep their opponents from scoring more and ,more responsibility, and more minutes until such time as the player shows he cannot play against a certain quality of opposition. If a player can only "shut" down the other teams 4th line and does not contribute offensively , why is he even on the team? On offense, in a competitive league like the NHL , I find it difficult to believe that you think a player can simply rack up good "stats" and effective plus minus by simply being "present". while it happens some times, a turnover and an unassisted goal, or a player going in alone on a one on three beating the goalie, the majority of goals are scored because all the players on the ice have worked hard and at the least force an opposing player to cover them and not be able to double team the puck carrier. The evidence of this is the rarity of short handed goals. If scoring a goal does not require a contribution from all 5 players on the ice, than a team with 4 players playing 5 should score almost as often as when they are 5 on 5. This is not "pond" hockey, Loonie. everyone is involved . Desharnais is a great example,I have seen him on many occassions get "in the way" of the defender allowing his linemates to keep possession of the puck in the offensive zone. If a goals is scored he may not get an assist but he certainly contributed to the goal being scored.. Do you honestly believe that the wingers could score frequently playing on a line with a weak center? take some time to look at the numbers ,Loonie,and you will find, in most evry case that they do in fact reflect a players contribution relative to his teammates. Obviously you cannot compare the plus-minus of a Florida panther with that of Boston Bruin, but you will ALWAYS find that a teams better players on or near the top of the list of their own team's plus minus numbers. Think about it, for a moment. If a players team scores more often and allows less goals when he is on the ice he is by definition contributing to the success of his team. On the other hand if his team scores few goals and allows many while a player is on the ice what value does can he really have? Look at 20012-2012; three centremen: 1)team scored once per 18 minutes of ice time (DD) 2) team scored onceper 23 minutes of ice time (Plek) 3) team scored once oer 32 minutes of ice time (????) Care to guess which player was number 3 on the list? that player was bought out and this years numbers look like this: 1) team (habs)scored once per 20 minutes of ice time (DD) 2) team (habs)scored once per 25 minutes of ice time (Plek) 3) team (sharks)scored once per 40 minutes of ice time (Gomez) The numbers don't lie. Accept it. The truth will set you free. You are correct about my "agenda" if yu can call it that. I spend little time thinking about or discussing trades, draft picks etc. because as a fan I root for the team that is on the ice, whoever the players are. I sincerely believe that the coach's decisions can, and do, impact the teams performance, and their win loss record over the course of the season. In a single game , a team can won despite and coaching decisions and lose even if the coach did everything "perfectly". Over the course of a season if a coach who makes bad decisions it will inevitably result in ad consequences for the team. I spelled out in detail many bad decisions the coach made and all of them had an impact in the way the season ended. The over use of Markov, was the biggest coaching mistake and the mis-management of personnel especially on the PP was the second. Think of how the series may have played out had the Habs rested MArkov after we clinched the playoffs instead if continuing to burn him out EVEN THOUGH He was a big part of the reason the team was losing at the end. slump. What if we has scored a PP goal with the two man advantage in game 1. (There is no guarantee that we would have scored with our "most" productive PP unit on the ice but the numbers clearly indicate we would have had almost twice as good a chance to score) What if he played Armstrong and Halpern (our "shut down" defenders) more often in the third period with two goal lead instead of leaving them on teh bench? What if the better PP unit had been on the ice and we had scored a pp goal ,or at least not given up a shorthanded goal, when we were trailing 2-1 in game 5? All Coaching decisions. all of which I railed against NOT AFTER they happened but BEFORE. If Therrien paid attention to the numbers, if he did his homework, it may have made and we could be playing the Rangers right now. Coach of the year? Hardly! I don't follow any other NHL teams as closely as I follow the Canadiens ,but it would surprise me to find that other coaches make as many OBVIOUS mistakes in judgement as does Therrien regards, Steve O. - Comment on Habs' Therrien not among Jack Adams Award finalists
You say that plus-minus only measure "presence", and in away you are correct. It measure a player's presence on the ice when his team either scores a goal or allows a goal. What I don`t understand is what you have against hi measurement. Lets first look at defence. Can a player do anything BESIDES be present on the ice when the other team DOES NOT score a goal? therefore you have to give some credence to the "minus" side of the plus minus. You can argue that a certain player does not play agianst the other teams "top" forwards as often as another one,but there is not a lot a player cando when he is NOT on the ice. The best he can do is keep the opponents that he plays against from scoring. It is the coaches job to recognize a plyers efficiency and a good coach should give players who keep their opponents from scoring more and ,more responsibility, and more minutes until such time as the player shows he cannot play against a certian quality of opposition. If a player can only "shut" downth eother teams 4th line and does not contribute offensively , why is he even on the team? On offense, in a competitive league like the NHL , I find it difficult to believe that you think a player can simply rack up good "stats" and effective plus minus by simply being "present". while it happens some times, a turnover and an unassisted goal, or a player going in alone on a one on three beating the goalie, the majority of goals are scored because all the players on the ice have worked hard and at the least force an opposing player to cover them and not be able to double team the puck carrier. The evidence of this is the rarity of short handed goals. If scoring a goal does not require a contribution from all 5 players on the ice, than a team with 4 players playing 5 should score almost as often as when they are 5 on 5. This is not "pond" hockey, Loonie. everyone is involved . Desharnais is a great example,I have seen him on many occassions get "in the way" of the defender allowing his linemates to keep possession of the puck in the offensive zone. If a goals is scored he may not get an assist but he certainly contributed to the goal being scored.. Do you honestly believe that the wingers could score frequently playing on a line with a weak center? take some time to look at the numbers ,Loonie,and you will find, in most evry case that they do in fact reflect a players contribution relative to his teammates. Obviously you canot compare teh plus-minus of a Florida panther with that of Boston Bruin, but you will ALWAYS find that a teams better players on or near the top of the list of their own team's plus minus numbers. Think about it, for a moment. If a players team scores more often and allows less goals when he is on the ice he is by definition contributing to the success of his team. On the other hand if his team scores few goals and allows many while a player is on the ice what value does can he really have? Look at 20012-2012; three centremen: 1)team scored once per 18 minutes of ice time (DD) 2) team scored onceper 23 minutes of ice time (Plek) 3) team scored once oer 32 minutes of ice time (????) Care to guess which player was number 3 on the list? that player was bought out and this years numbers look like this: 1) team (habs)scored once per 20 minutes of ice time (DD) 2) team (habs)scored once per 25 minutes of ice time (Plek) 3) team (sharks)scored once per 40 minutes of ice time (Gomez) The numbers don't lie. Accept it. The truth will set you free. regards, Steve O. - Comment on Habs' Therrien not among Jack Adams Award finalists
Bump! (You know that I could not let Loonie get away with that response:) Loonie wrote: So you wanted Therrien to have rookies on the ice in the third period with the game on the line and criticize him for playing Tinordi on the penalty kill when he struggled? ************************************* In the regular season he did not use the rookies in the third period,than decided that (one of those same) rookies should be a primary penalty killer in the playoffs. Do you not recognize the difference? ********************************************** Loonie: You criticize him for playing Markov too much and don’t mention that the drop off from defenseman #2(Markov) to defenseman #3(Gorges) is long. ************************************************ Markov at even strength did not perform as our number #2 he performed as our number #6 both offensively and defensively PRIMARILY because he was overplayed. Minutes on ice per goal scored: (lower number the better) Markov; 27 Minutes TOI PER Team Goal Scored Diaz: 26 Minutes TOI PER Team Goal Scored Gorges: 24 Minutes TOI PER Team Goal Scored Emelin: 24 Minutes TOI PER Team Goal Scored Bouillon: 21 Minutes TOI PER Team Goal Scored Subban: 19 Minutes TOI PER Team Goal Scored Minutes on ice per goal Allowed: (higher number the better) Markov; 21 Minutes TOI PER Goal Against Bouillon: 23 Minutes TOI PER Goal Against Emelin: 26 Minutes TOI PER Goal Against Gorges: 27 Minutes TOI PER Goal Against Subban: 29 Minutes TOI PER Goal Against Diaz: 38 Minutes TOI PER Goal Against ************************************************* Loonie: His alternatives to Gallagher on the powerplay for the large majority of the season were Eller and Galchenyuk. Questionable that he didn’t use them more but a half season provides a very small sample size to evaluate from. ************************************************ Small sample size Gallagher played over 100 minutes on the PP. I noticed after 50 minutes, (approximately 50 shifts) that the team was almost never scoring when Gallagher was on the PP unit. the production was no better in the last 50 shifts than it was in the first 50. Should I be nominated for coach of the year? ************************************************ Loonie: Maybe he continued to use Gallagher on the powerplay because he has a nose for the net, an excellent shot and wins battles against larger competition routinely. Or as you put it earlier in the season when we discussed the glaring holes in your statistical analysis. Maybe Gallagher brings something that isn’t quantified on the scoresheet. ************************************************ Whatever Gallagher “brings” it clearly shows at even strength where the team scored a goal every 14 minutes when Gallagher was on the ice at EVEN STRENGTH. By the same token whatever he “brings” to the PP clearly does not help as the team scored on average one goal every 12 minutes with the man advantage. Look again at his chart: Player / minutes per goal Even strength/ mins per goal PP Gallagher/14 MPG ES / 12 MPG PP Ryder/ 22 MPG ES / 6 MPG PP Plekanec/ 25 MPG ES / 7 MPG PP Gionta/ 26 MPG ES / 8.6 MPG PP Bourque/ 29 MPG ES / 7.4 MPG PP Desharnais/ 20 MPG ES /8.7 MPG PP Pacioretty/ 16 MPG PP /8.5 MPG PP Don’t you find it the least bit “strange” that Gallagher is the only player whose “skill set” did not result in a SIGNIFICANTLY increased goal scoring frequency when playing with the man advantage? There weer two other players (forwards) whose numbers reflected that they were not an “asset” on the powerplay this year Galchenyuk: 16 mins per GF even strength / 13 Mins per GF PP Prust; 19 mins per GF even strength / Zero goals in 16 Mins on the PowerPlay. How much would you like to bet that he majority of those players powerplay minutes were on a line with Gallagher? (I would bet my house on it.) ************************************************** Loonie: Or as you put it earlier in the season when we discussed the glaring holes in your statistical analysis. Maybe Gallagher brings something that isn’t quantified on the scoresheet. But again, you used that argument when it was of benefit to your opinion and disregarded it when it opposed your opinion. Not a surprise. ************************************************** As I have repeated, ad infinitum, I don’t really have an “argument” I analyse the available data and form my opinions based on the FACTS. There are many qualities that every player has that are not reflected on the score sheet, that goes without saying. The discussion here is about the coaches “contribution to the teams success”. The PowerPlay is a two minute man advantage opportunity given to the non-penalized team . The coach’s responsibility to utilize the players that give his team the best chance to capitalize (score) during those two minutes. It is BEYOND clear that having Gallagher on the ice with the man advantage did NOT give the team the best chance to score. Ergo, the coach did NOT do a good job. Your continuing to persist in confusing opinions with facts despite overwhelming evidence is what is surprising to me. (With all due respect, of course.) regards, Steve O. - Comment on Habs' Therrien not among Jack Adams Award finalists
Sure it matters, Jackal. Gallagher played 10 minutes and 44 seconds on the PP in the series against Ottawa. The TEAM scored only one PP goal during the time he was on the ice. That s why stats are so important, we "remember" highlights, but taken out of context they do not help in evaluating a players performance . A player can score amazing goals and be featured regularly on sportscenter, but if the numbers show that he doesn't score very often, or if his team scores more frequently when that player is NOT on the ice, who good are the highlights? regards, Steve O. - Comment on Habs' Therrien not among Jack Adams Award finalists
Loonie wrote: So you wanted Therrien to have rookies on the ice in the third period with the game on the line and criticize him for playing Tinordi on the penalty kill when he struggled? ************************************* In the regular season he did not use the rookies in the third period,than decided that (one of those same) rookies should be a primary penalty killer in the playoffs. Do you not recognize the difference? ********************************************** Loonie: You criticize him for playing Markov too much and don’t mention that the drop off from defenseman #2(Markov) to defenseman #3(Gorges) is long. ************************************************ Markov at even strength did not perform as our number #2 he performed as our number #6 both offensively and defensively PRIMARILY because he was overplayed. Minutes on ice per goal scored: (lower number the better) Markov; 27 Minutes TOI PER Team Goal Scored Diaz: 26 Minutes TOI PER Team Goal Scored Gorges: 24 Minutes TOI PER Team Goal Scored Emelin: 24 Minutes TOI PER Team Goal Scored Bouillon: 21 Minutes TOI PER Team Goal Scored Subban: 19 Minutes TOI PER Team Goal Scored Minutes on ice per goal Allowed: (higher number the better) Markov; 21 Minutes TOI PER Goal Against Bouillon: 23 Minutes TOI PER Goal Against Emelin: 26 Minutes TOI PER Goal Against Gorges: 27 Minutes TOI PER Goal Against Subban: 29 Minutes TOI PER Goal Against Diaz: 38 Minutes TOI PER Goal Against ************************************************* Loonie: His alternatives to Gallagher on the powerplay for the large majority of the season were Eller and Galchenyuk. Questionable that he didn’t use them more but a half season provides a very small sample size to evaluate from. ************************************************ Small sample size Gallagher played over 100 minutes on the PP. I noticed after 50 minutes, (approximately 50 shifts) that the team was almost never scoring when Gallagher was on the PP unit. the production was no better in the last 50 shifts than it was in the first 50. Should I be nominated for coach of the year? ************************************************ Loonie: Maybe he continued to use Gallagher on the powerplay because he has a nose for the net, an excellent shot and wins battles against larger competition routinely. Or as you put it earlier in the season when we discussed the glaring holes in your statistical analysis. Maybe Gallagher brings something that isn’t quantified on the scoresheet. ************************************************ Whatever Gallagher "brings" it clearly shows at even strength where the team scored a goal every 14 minutes when Gallagher was on the ice at EVEN STRENGTH. By the same token whatever he "brings" to the PP clearly does not help as the team scored on average one goal every 12 minutes with the man advantage. Look again at his chart: Player / minutes per goal Even strength/ mins per goal PP Gallagher/14 MPG ES / 12 MPG PP Ryder/ 22 MPG ES / 6 MPG PP Plekanec/ 25 MPG ES / 7 MPG PP Gionta/ 26 MPG ES / 8.6 MPG PP Bourque/ 29 MPG ES / 7.4 MPG PP Desharnais/ 20 MPG ES /8.7 MPG PP Pacioretty/ 16 MPG PP /8.5 MPG PP Don't you find it the least bit "strange" that Gallagher is the only player whose "skill set" did not result in a SIGNIFICANTLY increased goal scoring frequency when playing with the man advantage? There weer two other players (forwards) whose numbers reflected that they were not an "asset" on the powerplay this year Galchenyuk: 16 mins per GF even strength / 13 Mins per GF PP Prust; 19 mins per GF even strength / Zero goals in 16 Mins on the PowerPlay. How much would you like to bet that he majority of those players powerplay minutes were on a line with Gallagher? (I would bet my house on it.) ************************************************** Loonie: Or as you put it earlier in the season when we discussed the glaring holes in your statistical analysis. Maybe Gallagher brings something that isn’t quantified on the scoresheet. But again, you used that argument when it was of benefit to your opinion and disregarded it when it opposed your opinion. Not a surprise. ************************************************** As I have repeated, ad infinitum, I don't really have an "argument" I analyse the available data and form my opinions based on the FACTS. There are many qualities that every player has that are not reflected on the score sheet, that goes without saying. The discussion here is about the coaches "contribution to the teams success". The PowerPlay is a two minute man advantage opportunity given to the non-penalized team . The coach's responsibility to utilize the players that give his team the best chance to capitalize (score) during those two minutes. It is BEYOND clear that having Gallagher on the ice with the man advantage did NOT give the team the best chance to score. Ergo, the coach did NOT do a good job. Your continuing to persist in confusing opinions with facts despite overwhelming evidence is what is surprising to me. (With all due respect ,of course) regards, Steve O. - Comment on Habs' Therrien not among Jack Adams Award finalists
How about the opposite? Make icing a penalty (perhaps a one minute penalty) . This nonsense about not allowing a change after an icing is ridiculous, in my opinion. The players can simply skate slowly and"mill around" before lining up for the face off, plus, in what other sport do you ever see one team being allowed to change players but not the other.Either icing is a penalty or it is not, this "quasi" penalty nonsense in juvenile. while we are at it, can we finally get rid of the trapezoid area where the goalie cannot touch the puck? The only thing it does is encourage dump-ins. Who wants to see more dump ins? Now that I think of it,I don't really find that the no center line and the elimination of the offside (two line) pass has improved the game . I don:t know how it would work, but if the objective is to increase the offense why not experiment with eliminating the blue line, perhaps making the center ice line the "offside" line for both teams? Or, we could just go back to the rules that served the game very well for the first hundred, or so. years. And for christ sakes; one blind ignoramus with a striped shirt on the ice is much preferable to two of them. regards, Steve O.
Loading ...
