Do The Canadiens Miss Their Most Useless Player?
by Chris Boyle on Dec 7, 2011 8:49 PM EST
in Habs Player Profiles
Email
Print
If you asked Canadiens fans and media who the most useless player on the team is, you would likely get the answer Scott Gomez. If you ask that question here you will get a different response.
Last weekend I posted about process versus result and introduced how Fenwick results correlate strongly to playoff participation. As the league moves towards fewer powerplays, even strength production and possession becomes a strong predictor of future success.
The first year after the lockout, the league awarded 23,679 penalty minutes. It resulted in plummeting save percentages (.901 league average, in 2012 it is .913) and 2545 powerplay goals.
That number has plummeted over the last 4 seasons and with it the success of teams who rely heavily on special teams to qualify for the playoffs
| YEAR |
POWERPLAY
MINUTES
|
POWERPLAY
GOALS
|
-.500 FENWICK
PLAYOFF TEAMS
|
| 2008 | 17,107 | 1871 | 7 |
| 2009 | 16,487 | 1938 | 5 |
| 2010 | 14,854 | 1664 | 4 |
| 2011 | 14,339 | 1571 | 2 |
The 2008-2010 Canadiens managed to succeed with poor Fenwick numbers because of elite special teams. With the hiring of Martin the possession stats began to climb to the point where I believed with a healthy roster that they were legitimate Cup contenders.
Even with the loss of Markov the Canadiens managed to avoid disaster and although the results indicated a desperate/terrible team, the process indicated every thing was okay. They were controlling the play for the majority of time and their Fenwick numbers were strong.
I noticed in my graphic on the weekend that the Fenwick number had steadily declined over the last 2-3 weeks. After last night's uninspiring performance against the Blue Jackets I wondered where the slippage began.
I looked at both significant Fenwick declines and they measured up consistently with local millionaire and whipping boy Scott Gomez's absence. This could be a coincidence, but Gomez has a strong history of positive puck possession so it could be that he isn't as useless as the fans believe. I used a couple scripts and crunched some numbers and came up with the following visual to display team Fenwick with and without Gomez.
This visual is stunning in terms of Fenwick production (Gomez games highlighted in gold). With Gomez in the lineup the Canadiens have maintained a Fenwick % that is on line with the last four Stanley Cup champions (.541). Without him in the lineup it plummets to the level of league doormat (.433). I looked to see if there was any significant injuries that would coincide with his absence and there have been. Significant Fenwick horses like Andrei Kostitsyn (.559/3 games) and Max Pacioretty (.536/3 games) have been missing at different times, but they are somewhat offset by Mike Cammalleri's horrific Fenwick season missing 3 games (.457). At no point did any of their absences overlap.
I don't believe that one player is irreplaceable on any roster. If the Penguins survived without Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin, then I certainly wouldn't submit that the Canadiens are struggling because of the absence of Gomez. Although his absence does pose problems that a ranting fan may ignore.
In the preseason, Stephan Cooper's preview pointed out that Jacques Martin likes to use Travis Moen on the second line to create a strong defensive unit with Gomez and Brian Gionta and open things up for the third line to take advantage of offensive opportunities. If that is the case, then losing Gomez alters the match-up plan. It heaps more responsibility on Tomas Plekanec, Lars Eller and David Desharnais and removes that depth advantage that looked to provide the Canadiens with a match-up edge.
As currently constituted the Montreal Canadiens are built around the "power vs power" concept. The best defensive centers are also the best offensive ones in Plekanec and Gomez and get used in a shutdown role. Meanwhile the two bottom line centers (Eller and Desharnais) are offensively oriented and will be expected to provide scoring against their weaker opponents.
The assumption here (EOTP) was that Desharnais may be exposed to tougher minutes and suffer. This has not been the case. David Desharnais' numbers have been substantially better in Gomez's absence.
Does that mean the Habs don't need Gomez? Maybe it does, but it might have something to do with DD being flanked by Cole and Pacioretty, consistently strong possession hounds. Desharnais has also had pretty stable linemates. Looking at the Canadiens forward combinations used this season, Desharnais has yet to play without one of Pacioretty or Cole on his wing. Desharnais has proven our assumptions wrong.
The biggest hit has been seen in Tomas Plekanec's numbers. His possession numbers have been in free fall without Gomez. I don't know if it is based on increased defensive responsibility (his defensive zone starts are at 60% up from 50% in 2011) or if it is his revolving linemates, but his possession numbers have been hit hard.
Brian Gionta has also been an absolute mess without Gomez, yet continues to fly under the anger radar.
Gomez is an important member of the Canadiens and Lars Eller is not ready to absorb the minutes that would open up should Gomez be part of a salary dump.
This is only a probing look into the recent decline and by no means is implying that Gomez was the sole reason for early season fenwick success. All of these numbers could be a coincidence based upon a small 28 game sample size, but I do think it provides food for thought on what Scott Gomez does provide the Montreal Canadiens. He will never provide the offense of a $7M player, but he does provide under rated value.
185 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Brilliant.
What doesn’t show here is Desharnais’s home/away splits, who certainly aren’t great. Martin has used a “load balancing” act with Gomez and Plekanec over the last few years, Pleks being run against the top comp, Gomez acting as a “rabbit” more than a pure matchup guy (that is, as a high OZone starts player of some offensive proficiency, other teams will try and match him to their secondary matchup guys, even sometimes their defensive specialists). And then we always had a 4th line C who took a load of defensive zone faceoffs, but mostly against the opposition’s dregs. That meant some soft, plump minutes for the 3rd line and obviously Martin had those minutes written up for Desharnais on LW, Eller and AKost before the season began.
Alas…
That beind said, I think Gionta’s numbers are so much worse without Gomez because of the zone starts.
Yeah, I looked at his linemates without Gomez and he has been riding shotgun with Plekanec. The zone starts alone will drag his fenwick down. Like I said, it was just a probe. Surface level, but with the amount of heat Gomez takes I had to put it up.
i agree with olivier about some of the caveats (especially re: zone starts), but you’re right, this needed to be said. regardless of what he’s paid, gomez is an extremely useful player who couldn’t be readily replaced at any price. particularly given the habs inglorious history on the trade/ufa market.
It was not more than a surface level look, but the point was that removing Gomez forces players into roles that they aren’t necessary efficient at.
It isn’t simple plug and play like most believe…
“Move Desharnais up to the 2nd line, Eller up to the 3rd line and we are good to go, who needs Gomez?”
And to your point about forcing them into roles, etc…the absence of any member of a team, particularly a key player expected to play top 6 minutes with top 6 responsibilities, will affect the entire lineup. Perfect example is Markov’s lengthy recovery and its effect on the defence; who is paired together, how much ice time they get, how forwards may have to alter their games to compensate particularly on special team assignments, etc.
Good article Chris. It will be interesting to see just how the numbers reflect the record (or visa versa) when either of these guys return.
Great work Chris!
This really demonstrates that a player’s contributions don’t need to be counted in just goals and assists.
Gradually more and more fans and media are grasping this concept of micro stats and this is another great example for it.
Kevin van Steendelaar
http://www.twitter.com/kvansteendelaar
but don't forget...
http://www.twitter.com/HabsEOTP
by Kevin van Steendelaar on Dec 7, 2011 10:36 PM EST reply actions
Excellent work, Chris. I think everyone knows I am a Gomez defender, but the splits are a lot more stark than I would have thought!
He’s really a key part of making that team a strong 5-on-5 club.
I have been watching a lot of archived footage for a project we are working on and Gomez places the puck in areas that lead to success. They really miss his ability to lug it through the neutral zone and gain the line as well.
That’s part of his problem I think, he’s so good at moving the puck through the neutral zone that it creates the impression it’s all he does. People call him a one-trick pony because of it. They also don’t seem to realize that it’s a very, very useful trick!
He is really good at holding the puck and identifying passing lanes as they open and close. It is all irrational and based on his salary. The guy is a good player, he is simply overpaid.
Seems a bit like Olli Jokinen on his first tour here in Calgary. Not worth the star salary he’s getting, but still a capable contributor, and for about half the price, everything becomes much easier to stomach.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
He approaches the platonic ideal of what a center needs to be without being particularly good at the extra bits. Possesion play and playmaking is pretty much the heart of what a center does (and from my stat watching, they seem to have the biggest effect on things like corsi/fenwick compared to other positions except exceptionally good or bad defensemen).
A bit like how Gill is great at being a stay at home defenseman and nothing else. Most his play is AHL level or below, but for the most important thing for his position (defending against quality scoring chances) he’s brilliant.
Even when Gomez is playing third line that means a lot for the zone time for the team which means higher ground for everyone else.
Also unnoticed, his point production has rebounded to a not great but respectable 1.57 per 60 and since he has so few secondary assists his rate of goals + 1st assists really isn’t that far back from Plekanec or Desharnais. His numbers look worse then they are on a per game basis because of minutes lost to injury and no powerplay points (where he hasn’t played much and no one has been good).
by Stephan Cooper on Dec 7, 2011 11:44 PM EST up reply actions
Well off course you noticed. You’re the Heimdall of advanced stats when it comes to Montreal.
by Stephan Cooper on Dec 8, 2011 12:16 AM EST up reply actions
Is that a Thor reference I detect?
Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 8, 2011 12:25 AM EST up reply actions
I know my Nordic mythology, so really it could be both. The recent movie made the reference more current.
by Stephan Cooper on Dec 8, 2011 12:43 AM EST up reply actions
I alluded to this during the game yesterday on HIO, and got the predictable response. Great job as always, Chris. This is a great breakdown.
The impotent anger directed at Gomez is ridiculous and needs to be called as such.
Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 8, 2011 12:03 AM EST reply actions
Great article Chris. Breath of fresh air.
Gomez had always been a player I greatly admired before coming to the Habs so I was excited about his arrival despite the salary/scoring misgivings of others. Three things I particularly liked – his puck possession, his confidence and his aggression. To me he seemed to play with a deserved cockiness and pretty healthy chip on his shoulder.
The first of these you show he has largely retained; the other two I don’t see as much and is something I miss – and I think he misses. Like many, he plays a lot better when he is confident and a little pissed off.
That’s it! give him the “C”.
What a great way to look at those numbers, and to show what this guy can do at 5 on 5.
Give him Cole and Pacioretty….just to have a look.
I think that those game without AK and Pacioretty are important too. Those guys have been real good to keep the puck on the good side.
Gomez is definitely a good player, but I want to add something… the pure salary dump idea and not replacing him with anyone is dumb, I agree, but if his $7.3m was invested in another Cole and Pacioretty type combo, I’d have to imagine guys like Eller would be able to handle a lot more. If we lose Gomez’s $7.3m in salary just to re-invest in the players we already have, it will probably be a net loss, even with expected improvement from guys like Eller.
But the Fenwick drop also speaks to just how much of an impact Gomez’s salary has on our ability to compete. We’re without 2 of our top 3 highest paid players when he’s out, since Markov has been gone all year. That plummets the Habs down about $12m in terms of the payroll we ice every night ($7.3+$5.75-replacements). When you add players like Spacek and Campoli, let alone Cammalleri, Kostitsyn, or Pacioretty, it’s a huge obstacle. Gomez isn’t irreplaceable, I agree, but due to our investment in him and Markov, when they go down there isn’t near the same quality behind them.
Puck Worlds: Chasing Pucks from here to Turku.
For Twitter Updates on Puck Worlds, follow @puckworlds. For updates plus additional witty banter from yours truly, follow @saskhab.
I understand what you are saying, but the Canadiens are not depending solely on their big salaried players for success. If they were, they would be in big trouble.
When Markov went down, the Canadiens adequately replaced him last season with a maturing Subban and Wiz for under $4M. If you have young impact players they can give you value above replacement player at less than replacement player salary. The Canadiens have Subban, Price and Pacioretty who are all providing an impact at $5.125 combined.
I know what you are saying though. That contract is an albatross and I totally agree on the impact being lessoned if the Habs can develop another strong young forward and ticket the rest Of Gomez’s salary for a replacement to shelter Eller.
I know you and I have mentioned this in the past, but the Habs are playing Gill right now like he was played in Toronto, overworked and overexposed, and its hurting the team. He’s playing not as a complimentary piece but as a key cog on his pairing, and it’s the 2nd pairing. Last year, the team survived without Markov and Gorges, and in fact did pretty decent. But they had a healthy Hamrlik that entire time and then added Wizniewski. This year, without Markov they have Gorges back but nothing else… Diaz and Emelin aren’t ready to step up into top 4 roles (or be the go to guys on their pairings) and without Campoli or Spacek, Gill is overworked. Subban and Gorges are worth a lot more than their combined salary, but its just one pairing… the guys behind them are simply what you pay for, guys not a lot different than Nokelainen or Darche or even Eller back there.
I guess I’m saying that the forwards might be suffering a lot because of the situation behind them. Maybe Eller isn’t this bad of a player without Gomez, but a shored up blueline (and let’s face it, we’re only using 5 guys back there right now as Weber is in the doghouse) would also be an area to invest in lieu of Gomez’s salary.
Puck Worlds: Chasing Pucks from here to Turku.
For Twitter Updates on Puck Worlds, follow @puckworlds. For updates plus additional witty banter from yours truly, follow @saskhab.
Agree. Their defense is stretched way too thin. Like I said, it might totally be a coincidence and over 82 games might look totally different. At this point I thought it was interesting.
I certainly didn’t hammer the point that he was the reason alone.
I am always confused with expectation. If I told all of the fans in September that Markov and Campoli will miss three months, Spacek will miss a month and a half and the defense will be two sophomores and two rookies that the reaction would be “we’re screwed!”.
Then it happens and everybody is mad at Gomez and Martin when they manage to stay at .500 with a brutal defense corp all the while outplaying the opposition for the first 20 games. The psyche of a fan is fascinating.
The thing is, the fans have been trained to view things by the lens of a player, partly because they identify with the team, partly because it’s the way the media presents these things. What makes sense for a player does not necessarily make sense for an outside observer, but most fans don’t think like outside observers, and really, they don’t want to; personal investment is part of the fun.
Which leads to statements such as “injuries should not be an excuse”. A player has to think that way because he and his mates are the ones who have to bear down and try to mitigate the impact of the missing player. But for an outside observer, it’s ridiculous to think that way; it carries the implicit notion that better players have no impact on the team’s results, which no fan would agree with outside the context of injuries.
Throw in a very small attention span, give them only sources of information that analyze by boxscore, and this is what you get.
Gabe Desjardins said that Markov was worth about 3-4 wins over 82 games.
Do you agree with that? Do you believe that Markov would only be worth 1-1.5 wins if he misses half a season? If that is the case, then are injuries a legit excuse?
I think that a certain amount of injuries can be overcome, but losing half your defense core and replacing it with 14 games expereince (on average combined between Diaz, Emelin and Weber) is going to show up in your results at some point.
In general, I have a problems with existing WAR-like stats (GVT, namely) in hockey because they ignore context. Markov’s individual contribution might be worth 3-4 wins. But when he’s out, you don’t just lose those 3-4 wins. Subban has to take up the #1 D position, and his contribution suffers as a result because context is not considered. The replacement D-man coming in makes for lower quality-of-teammates when he’s on the ice, which reduces everyone’s contributions. And so on. GVT is good at what it does, but as an all-encompassing measure of contribution I see it as flawed for this reason. (It also explicitly does not differentiate luck and skill.)
The other problem is that injuries have a compound effect. As Bruce points out below, losing Markov AND losing Spacek has more of an impact than adding the individual losses together.
by MathMan on Dec 8, 2011 11:06 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Had to rec this. Very good reasoning.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
Replacement level can get really complicated in hockey because measuring it kinda assumes an average ability by each lineup to move a guy one up on the depth chart. When you have a huge gap between Markov and the next guy (I guess Gorges for even strength, Weber for powerplay).
Also, 3-4 wins in an 82 game season is still a pretty big difference. Of the top of my head that’s last years Canadiens versus last years Leafs in terms of results.
Writer for http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/
by Stephan Cooper on Dec 8, 2011 3:30 PM EST up reply actions
MathMan – that’s not how it works!
First, I analyzed Markov using exactly the same method as we see here.
Second, it doesn’t matter what your matchups are. When you lose your #1 or #2 D, the average D on the ice drops one rung on the depth chart. Player values don’t change significantly when they pick up 1-2 minutes a night of TOI. And the value of the defensive corps as a whole is shifted by the injured player’s value less than value of the 7th or 8th (replacement) defenseman.
Well, if you figured Markov’s value via WOWY, of course that’s a different story. I was referring specifically to existing WAR-like metrics, and in that case I don’t think you can do a simple subtraction.
The strength of opposition of your #3 D-man changes when he’s forced into the #2 D role and ends up with, say, more defensive zone starts and higher qualcomp — two things that have a significant impact on possession metrics, but aren’t taken into consideration by current value-above-replacement metrics.
A “true” VAR metric would take these things in consideration and the same player would have the same VAR regardless of whether he was a second liner with 60% O-zonestart or a tough-minutes guy with 40% zonestart. You could then just subtract the replacement’s value from the injured player’s and that would be the team’s loss. That would be the Holy Grail, I think. To my knoweldge, though, we don’t have a metric that’s this all-encompassing.
I don’t think it makes sense to ditch a center (where the team ultimately is thinnest) to increase the blueline investment. It would make sense if what we were seeing was the Habs’ true depth, but that’s just not the case. The majority of the Habs’ ludicrous injury situation is back there. If the unit wasn’t half-injured. Gill would not have to pretend to be a #3 defenseman. He’s actually #6 on the full depth chart, probably even as low as #7 as Emelin seems to have slid in front of him.
Montreal’s blueline isn’t naturally thin, it’s just decimated. I personally thought it would have been a strength of the team, but I was assuming more than half the guys would get to play…
Injuries are hard to overcome because they remove the luxury of placing guys in a situation to succeed. I loved Gill last season, but that was because they allowed him to do what he does best and nothing more.
I will never forget what Gorges said about Markov last season. That when he gets in trouble he flips it to the other side and lets Markov deal with it. Komisarek got a $4.5M contract doing exactly that.
I just hope this lineup gets healthy enough to compete at their true level.
I don’t disagree, but what I was more saying is that what we are seeing from Eller and Plekanec right now may have a lot to do with the absences on the blueline AS WELL as doing more work in Gomez’s absence. It’s tough enough to do more than what’s assigned to your position alone because of injuries, but when you have so many players in the same boat on the ice at the same time it makes the job incredibly difficult.
If the Habs were missing Gomez and had their real defence back there, I don’t think it’d have a huge impact, much like the defensive injuries were overcome when there was a fairly healthy forward corps. The Habs are hurting at two key positions right now, though, and the team is really plummeting.
Puck Worlds: Chasing Pucks from here to Turku.
For Twitter Updates on Puck Worlds, follow @puckworlds. For updates plus additional witty banter from yours truly, follow @saskhab.
Could you do us 'nay sayers" a solid?
Good work Chris, sincerely. As a non-stats guy this is a new affirmation of his usefulness.
OK so his possession of the puck is something that puts Montreal on the top end of the spectrum for Fenwick when he plays. Which apparently puts everyone at a miraculous position to score points. Sorry for the sarcasm. But it appears to not translate into anything.
Right now watching Gomez is like watching Russ Courtnall. Courtnall was IMHO the same pony as Gomez. Great possession, possibly decent at gaining the zone but hit or miss with his shot, lacked a defensive drive, and caused more off side than 90% of his line mates.
IS there a stat for this? Comparable stat defining the reaching of the Offensive Zone and Causing Offsides? And does this have any bearing on overall effectiveness.
My point has always been regardless of his talent Gomez is missing something. We can analyze this to death make it about his strengths and claim there are others who are not pulling their weight when he is on his game. To constantly harp on the readiness of guys who obviously do not have the experience Gomez does (whether DD, Eller, AKos-different position I know) is in material because the longer that Gomez is in that position none of the youngins will have experiences to match what Gomez brings. So saying they aren’t ready is a myth. Playing a team game you need to not isolate the stats/possibilities of one player and defend or confirm or affirm he is or isn’t a good player, which your claim in this is that the stats show he brings about better play from those he plays with. Look at the team play. Does he bring about wins, is he a game changer, do you have him to start the game, the overtime, shoot in the shootout (Which I hate for the NHL) does he lead?
Last season may have been a negative mirage on his career, or maybe there is a decline in his feeling of being effective. But team play is brought about by human dynamics. We watched soo many line combinations to try and bring him out of a funk these past 2 seasons, and despite (you noted) increase 1.57 per 60… have the Habs become a better team- Won more games due to his being on the ice, or not being there?
My point is we can make anyone look respectable when working with numbers, whether in the Offensive zone or defensive or on the PP or shorthanded… everyone has worth somewhere. But claiming that the young guys are not ready when they don’t get opportunities when he is in the lineup is short sighted. 28 game sample or not, good or not, Gomez worth on this particular team is not so much they could not do without him. Would some players struggle, yes, would the team lose more games? Maybe. Would the young guys learn their positions? Yes. At least they would have the opportunity to see where they fit… despite the stats crowd or observers only. DD surprises people… I don;t think I am surprised. I like the way he works, I see his attempts, which, regardless of whatever type of player you think Gomez is, you do not see him work. He can handle a puck, he can’t shoot for shit, and occasionally he gets a pass through. No more, no less. And if we aren’t getting 7mill worth of production from him, you are correct, we could never expect 7 mill worth of anything back in trade.
Ultimately, The Habs have bigger fish to fry than try and coax an almost has-been into performing his job at a mediocre level. Its time to move on from this experiment.
by Cruisin4aBruisin on Dec 8, 2011 9:59 AM EST reply actions
I think you’ve articulated the opposing view well. The fact that there isn’t an answer readily available on behindthenet will be a sticking point on getting you an answer I believe. Few seem really willing to question using these shot based stats at the individual level for every player, even a player that posesses an exceptionally bad shot that he uses at a greater thyan average rate.
You are missing the point. Fenwick is possession based. If you own the puck for 55% of the game, it is 55% of the game in which you cannot be scored upon.
I will say it again, this was not written to justify Gomez’s salary or his scoring ability. What it was meant to do was remove you from your pre-conditioned “Gomez doesn’t score, he makes $7M per season, therefore he sucks” mode.
Is he overpaid. Yes. I will not argue that. Is he underproducing points. Yes. I will not argue that. Is he a valuable member of the team. Yes. He is. If Gomez made $4M per season nobody would talk about him. All of this scapegoating is about expectation. The same thing happens with Kostitsyn. Nobody assess his play, everybody assess him in regard to who we could have had instead of him or that we were told he was the “sleeper” and “most talented” player in the draft.
Just because Gomez ISN’T a 70 point center, doesn’t mean he isn’t doing good things on the ice. Doesn’t mean he lacks value and it doesn’t mean they are better off without him at this point.
by Chris Boyle on Dec 8, 2011 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
You don’t quite get my point either.
Fenwick’s proven correlation to score and results is a team-based metric based on the average player over a long period of time. Everyone accepts that judging a team over a short window is a violation of the sample size rule that fenwick was built on, but people seem to be less strict when they extrapolate what was discovered for teams to individual players.
Is Fenwick possession? No it is not, it is a proxy for the average player. Perversely, giving away possession is actually what is used to determine possession. For the average player this has been determined to be right and a good proxy. But that is not to say that it works for all players.
If I was a player who cared about boosting my fenwick, i could simply shoot from outside the blueline on the net whenever I got the chance. I may never have any possession in the offensive zone, but I would be credited as if I did based on this statistic. It’s extreme, but I think we need to decide whether Gomez does indeed fall at an extreme. His shooting deficiency suggests that he might in that his shots are less likely to result in goals than avaerage players (this we know).
So, I suppose the core issue is. Can we trust the Fenwick to be a true proxy for possession in Gomez’s case? Or are all those extra missed shots and saves he produces compared with the average player actually points to be counted against him in some way, rather than for him as fenwick does.
I don’t expect an answer or an admission. I just wanted to articulate the view that I and maybe a few others hold. We looked at Fenwick/Corsi with Gomez and have concluded something might be off.
Shots against.
Fenwick is a differential remember. Gomez is not just good at generating shots for, he’s also good at preventing shots against. That tends to point to real possession because while it’s possible his shot-to-possession ratio is out of whack, it seems highly unlikely the variety of opponents he faces are skewed in the opposite direction.
P
by MathMan on Dec 8, 2011 6:21 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
Ugh, mobile fail.
The point is, when Gomez and his mates are busy shooting the puck at one end, the opponent is also not shooting the puck at the other end. This year especially Gomez has been aces at not getting pucks shot at his net. That tends to point to the differential representing real possession, I think.
2 things here:
1 – Lemme put it this way: if, as a player, you favoured your fenwick by shooting from everywhere, Jacques Martin wouldn’t be caught dead playing you 1500+ minutes a year. Yet, that’s the kind of icetime Gomez is getting with Jacques (this year’s TOI numbers are skewed by 2 games he quit early and the one he cam back and played 9 minutes on the 4th line). My point is: you can’t play to artificially boost your fenwick/corsi and actually get icetime in the NHL, coaches just won’t allow you to keep playing if you do. They’re pretty dickish about it, from what I can tell, but hey, it’s just me.
2- That shouldn’t distract us from the very important point you keep making, that is the use and value of Fenwick/Corsi numbers. Corsi numbers, if we go back to those Jim Corsi interviews, aren’t proxy for puck possession, they are a goaltender workload metric. Following some of the more analytical bloggers, we keep Corsi as a possession proxy and Fenwick as a scoring chances proxy. Sample size is always an issue and thus, we may at least, as Fewick devouts, entertain the notion that, say, a 10 games rolling average is not a good enough sample size.
Other than that, I find this debate very interesting.
I thought Fenwick was a possession proxy as well. That’s certainly what I understand when I hear discussions on the merits of Corsi vs. Fenwick.
I think my point about Gomez is not that he shoots from anywhere, but rather that his shot taken from the same place as the average player is a worse option 9 times out of 10. This is borne out in the stats that show actual vs. expected shooting in fairly dramatic fashion. You don’t need a large sample size to show that Souray has a better shot than Gomez for example, even if you do to show that some players closer to his ability do.
I guess my thinking is that Gomez’s adaptationto his poor shooting is not showing through anymore. I am more and more offended that his shots that have no chance at going in are counted in a positive score towards this mythical ability of his. He is giving away possession to gain it in proxy votes.
As a goalie, I don’t know if I agree that a weak shot is a waste or forcing one is a good strategy. In a vacuum on it’s own, yes it is preferred to face a guy with a slow release and lack of pace. In a situation with traffic and secondary options and with Gomez’s ability to alter your depth and angle with his lateral movement I don’t agree that him putting any shot on goal is not a strong play.
When Gomez enters the zone and moves laterally through the zone he opens up a ton of passing lanes and causes a goalie difficulty trying to locate primary and secondary options. It is not the same as setting up on angle with the proper depth and swallowing up a weak wrister.
If we are talking replacing him with Anze Kopitar, then yes, I would prefer to face Gomez.
I am just commenting that because Gomez has a weak shot does not mean that it is preferred that he shoots (from a goaltenders perspective). I prefer guys who streak north and south to east and west.
When you move laterally the possibility for drift and loss of angle exists, also well placed shots result in rebounds regardless of pace or release.
I sympathize with your position here and agree with it partially. I think if there are a natural on ice shooting percentage, Gomez’s would tend to being lower than average, largely on the back of his own poor shooting talent.
But I don’t think he fundamentally plays a different game from when he was he was producing. A random down-swing in non-repeatable performance makes sense given his history. So while straight fenwick proportionately overstates Gomez ability I see little reason to think he’s as terrible as his scoring rates were last season.
Also, as a driver of possesion he could also have an effect on how well the collective does in possesion/territorial terms is helping everyone else out even if he’s not personally racking up the points.
Writer for http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/
by Stephan Cooper on Dec 8, 2011 6:53 PM EST up reply actions
Obviously this has gone over well with the choir here.
Like the previous comment, I wonder if further analysis is what’s needed to convert the naysayers. For instance, why doesn’t his Fenwick convert to his GF/GA ratio this year? How do you explain the fact that missing their most important possession generator has led to a better record for the Canadiens?
I guess the point here is that Fenwick is one thing. it shows whether a player is good or not at driving the proxy for puck possession. I can’t diagree that Gomez is good at this. It’s something we noticed right from the start. I only have to point to the fact he introduced turning back into the defensive zone to a team that was fixated on forward puck movement.
I thik you explained yourself well above. I think you couched this as what it is, an observation awaiting a conclusion. but don’t be too surprised if it doesn’t convert minds yet. I think something deeper would be required for that.
I am just pointing out that he has value. I mean it is detrimental enough to have to point out what type of value a $7M player has, but he has been such a magnet for anger that what he does well is virtually ignored.
It is along the same vein as Martin. Fire Martin, then what? Dump Gomez, then what?
I am open to him being criticized. I am open to him being traded, but provide me with a scenario in which the Canadiens are better without him. Bruce provided a scenario above in which I would not have a problem dealing Gomez, but reactionary statements like “he sucks”, “dump him and his $7M” are stupid.
Chris, I thought I just did present you a scenario in which the Canadiens are better without him. They have won more games and obtained more points without him in the lineup than with him.
I can live with the explanation that this is mere coincidence, luck if you will.
I think your point above is meant to read, present me with a situation in which the Canadiens maintain or improve their Fenwick rating without him. For this, I am not sure one could improve. Gomez is uniquely geared to generating a good rating in these departments.
My consideration and perhaps others iss that for all his “possession” it doesn’t seem to equate to the results one would expect. In the past, I deemed this to be due to bad line assignments (a non-recognition of Gomez’s specialist strengths). is this still the case? Or, is there some other aspect of Gomez’s arsenal that is worth mentioning (he’s been pretty horrible defensively this year for example).
I think there is a scenario where the Canadiens could improve, but it would involve things they are not likely willing to do: demote and pay Gomez his NHL salary in the AHL, trade a serious asset from a glut position (say Beaulieu) for a Fenwick-proven option who isn’t also one of the league’s worst shooters.
Anybody who looks at it honestly also knows that the record with him should include two victories over Buffalo and a victory over Colorado. Like I said, process over result.
If you look at his gamelog, how many of those games can you say Montreal played poorly in?
Pittsburgh? Islanders? I was really happy with their play up until the last week and a half.
I think we have to see what happens from here. Don’t you?
I mean now we’re down to about 4 recent games against very different opposition in different circumstances to make our comparisons.
While dumping Gomez for space is something I support in general, I doubt its a realistic prospect to do anything significant with it at this point.
When he was acquired the Habs were so strapped for real talent that they could tolerate the massive cap hit just to get a decent player at a premium position (top-six centers almost never move unless there is something wrong with them or overpayment).
They’ve regenerated their talent by both internal and external options so the previous situation that made Gomez a worthwhile investment are ending. With both Eller and Desharnais making progess I think the best move is to get rid of his cap-hit best you can during next off-season. Probably so you keep everyone else together while shoring up the blueline.
However, for the moment they still need him as a bridge to the next generation.
Writer for http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/
by Stephan Cooper on Dec 8, 2011 3:53 PM EST up reply actions
The only way a pure Gomez dump makes sense is if one of the kids is ready to step up somewhere in the top-9. Doesn’t need to be a center, Desharnais certainly looks like he can deliver as an exploitation center and Eller would probably be okay next year as a secondary tough matchups guy slotted beside Cole (who really is the guy carrying Desharnais trough the tougher sledding IMHO). But it’s a stretch; other than Leblanc, there is no short-term top-9 prospects available, the next batch of kids certainly aren’t making it to the NHL before 2013-14. And I doubt Leblanc can be relied on as a top-9 option right next season.
Off season you could probably get a solid top-nine guy without that much difficulty. Leblanc/Palushaj is an open question, we’ll have to see how the end the year before making judgements,
Writer for http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/
by Stephan Cooper on Dec 8, 2011 6:58 PM EST up reply actions
“How do you explain the fact that missing their most important possession generator has led to a better record for the Canadiens?”
For me, it’s luck, mostly. The way I see it, the team was actually playing its best hockey during its infamous losing streak, but couldn’t buy a win during the stretch. Gomez was present for all those games. It was inevitable that the team’s luck would recover (the Habs just were not a sub-50 point club, with or without Gomez) regardless of who was on the roster.
Let me reiterate: it was inevitable that the team would eventually start having a better record even if it ended playing worse.
When Gomez was injured, it was predicted over here that the team would start doing better (because it was bound to) and that the absence of Gomez would be offered up as an explanation (because that’s how scapegoating work). The same prediction was made about the Pearn firing. In both cases, the real explanation was regression to the mean, but the easy explanations were too good for superficial observers to pass up.
Fans tend to believe in skill. When a guy snipes a corner they are amazed, as a goalie when a guy snipes a corner the first thing I do is look at my depth and angle. If it is right, then my first thought is "let’s see you make that shot again". More often than not, they can’t.
Is that luck or just random variance? If you ask Phil Kessel to skate into the zone at break-in speed and release a snapshot from the slot 10 times and place a 1 by 1 foot target in the top right corner how many does he make? All-Stars struggle in the target drill at the All-Star game when they are stationary.
When I see an improbable shot go in my first thought is luck. The proper process not being rewarded with the likely 70-80% success rate and the process rewarding the shooter with their 20-30% rate. That is how I view luck and why I am such a fan of the modern goaltending style.
It’s a serious investigator’s responsibility to exhaust the possibilities other than luck though.
I think there could be more to Gomez’s scenario than luck. Might he be an exception to the Fenwick/Corsi rule for example. It is a rule after all built on aggregate being tenuously applied to individuals. Does it matter that he has just about the third worst shot in the league of all players that took enough shots to consider? One might think it would enter into the conversation once ina while.
I don’t believe we can disregard his struggles as lack of luck, but I do believe that it can be used to explain why they were 1-5-2 after 7 games when they were outshooting everybody by a large margin.
So what are we talking about the other single game where he played primarily with Gionta and Moen at ES?
Theoretically, it could be that Gomez possesses a truly unique form of incompetence that causes his on-ice shooting percentage to be depressed despite being strong in pretty much every other area. The problem with this explanation is that this incompetence abruptly started last year… then vanished this year.
Seeing as his shooting percentage was depressed for only one season and went back to normal this year, I’m inclined towards the fluke explanation, though whether it be caused by luck or something else.
Personally, I’m in general a lot more dubious of the unique-snowflake explanation than the luck explanation.
He’s talking about team on ice shooting percentage.
Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 8, 2011 1:50 PM EST up reply actions
If I was Vic Ferrari I’d name it MathMan% in your honour.
Sadly that process has resulted a number of names no layman can understand. For example, I spent far to much time wondering what the hell PDO stood for.
Writer for http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/
by Stephan Cooper on Dec 8, 2011 3:57 PM EST up reply actions
I looked up PDO so many times to see if I could get a definition of the abbreviation before I learned it was just some dude’s username.
Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 8, 2011 4:14 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, the naming conventions are heavily swung in favour of Alberta-team fans, due to the origin of many of the metrics. You’re more likely to get it named for Kent Wilson or someone like that, anyway. ;)
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
I vote, the Gretzky Index™.
Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 8, 2011 4:14 PM EST up reply actions
While this is a sound principle, on the other hand any explanation that seeks to be credible must beat luck as an explanation.
Luck really isn’t the best word for what we’re talking about since it has all sorts of connotative meanings that we don’t actually want to imply. Non-repeating performance factors is what is really meant by it. Some might be shear random chance, so might be a player performing a little bit better or worse than average at a particular aspect of the game so may be the assorted jumble of things that happen because of the fantastically complex interactions of 12 different guys being on the ice at the same time.
I also think that its fairly reasonable to postulate that Gomez’s “natural” on ice shooting percentage is lower than average. As a player with a odd skill set, I’d say its likely Fenwick over-values him to some degree (how much is uncertain) because it tracks what Gomez brings to the table very well but he’s limited elsewhere. I really doubt that its naturally as low as it was last season (random variation has to be a leading candidate there). Especially since I don’t think Gomez has fundamentally changed his way of playing from that of previous seasons.
I’d also guess that a player like Gomez might be subject to strange fluctuations in results due to style of play but he was an incredibly consistent producer across 3 separate teams before that.
by Stephan Cooper on Dec 8, 2011 2:19 PM EST up reply actions
I think that is the problem with using the term “luck”.
If I play poker with somebody and I tell them that they got lucky, they usually get defensive or angry. Like I am discounting what they discern to be skill.They may have made an aggressive play and knew that it was a gamble and they had factored in that luck. We know it isn’t really luck, that the probability can be calculated and the risk known before the card is drawn. Sometimes it is a reckless decision and is totally a result of luck.
The term luck carries baggage. Like I said earlier and you have pointed out here nicely with non-repeating performance, it is possible to lose a game 3-0 when you have 20 scoring chances and the other team has 3, but playing like that long-term will not lead to success. Was the 3-0 victory lucky or statistically improbable?
Control the controllables and the rest will eventually fall into place.
I’ve always hated the term “luck,” because it encompasses so many things beyond the lay definition of the term as to be almost meaningless in communicating outside the stats community. Some of the stats guys get strangely defensive about it, though, and I just don’t understand.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
The word luck is what originally lead me to believe advanced stats were BS to be honest. It was only once a couple people explained what they actually meant that I came around.
Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 8, 2011 2:47 PM EST up reply actions
I think that’s how most people who aren’t familiar see it. Try telling some of the pioneers that.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
It’s natural that they’re stubborn, but I think Stephan has it right that more people would be ready to accept it if you use the terms random variance or unrepeatable performance. Either way, I think advanced stats are slowly working their way into common knowledge.
Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 8, 2011 3:06 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, absolutely. The concept isn’t bad, it just needs a better name.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
It made perfect sense to me because I come from a science background and figured out how they were talking about something analgous to the pure random variation that effects every experiment.
Also since to modern science the idea that we live in a purely deterministic universe is false and that a large number of things that are basically deterministic in form are too chaotic to be describe in anything but probabilistic terms.
From a physics standpoint I doubt you could describe hockey as anything but a chaotic process whose results are determined by weighted averages of a number of interacting meta-processes (things we describe conceptionally as possession, territory, shooting and save rates etc.).
by Stephan Cooper on Dec 8, 2011 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’d pay good money for the opportunity.
Writer for http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/
by Stephan Cooper on Dec 8, 2011 3:35 PM EST up reply actions
Seconded
Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 8, 2011 4:13 PM EST up reply actions
I think we would have to cover for Stephan’s pain medication afterwards too, but still, would be worth it indeed.
And a new pair of shoes.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
by Doogie2K on Dec 9, 2011 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
BTW
I love this description of hockey
a chaotic process whose results are determined by weighted averages of a number of interacting meta-processes
Some of you have probably seen this already, but I love this comic.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
Knew what it was before and still clicked, love it.
Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 9, 2011 6:09 PM EST up reply actions
I was of course referrring to his own shooting, not that of his teammates when he is on the ice. Beindthenet offers an analysis whereby we can see expected percentage of shots that would be goals vs. actual percentage. Desjardins preferes to subtract one number from the other to give a Delta, and Gomez’s is pretty bad. But if you divide actual by expected it gives a quotient that shows he is shooting about 56% as effectively as he should based on 4 + years of data. Only Travis Moen and Gregory Campbell are worse.
Yet he shoots more often than I’d like. And teams are tempting him to do that. I happen to think this affects a lot of things, not least his own Fenwick score.
Fenwick is based on more than just his own shots, and his shots are actually significantly down in Montreal compared to the rest of his career as he’s opted to feed Gionta instead.
Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 8, 2011 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, Gionta’s shots on net and goal production exploded when he started playing with Gomez again. He seems to be a regular 20 man without Gomez and a 30 goal one with him. Gionta’s shooting woes last season was one of the biggest factors in Gomez’s lack of production.
by Stephan Cooper on Dec 8, 2011 1:58 PM EST up reply actions
Especially early in the year. Over the first ten games I recall Gomez putting a goal on Gionta’s stick multiple times a game and getting nothing.
Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 8, 2011 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
I understand what Fenwick is based on. But I would be wary of someone who dismisses Gomez’s own shot. It can affect the play in many ways, particularly if (I say if as though it hasn’t already happens) he gets predictable in his attacks.
The problem I’ve always had with the predictability argument is this: if Gomez is so predictable, defensemen should be picking off his passes rather than allowing the shot. A predictable Gomez should thus normally result in less possession, less shots for, and more shots against, as the defensemen move to block predictable shots or anticipate and pick off passes, generating turnovers.
Of course, by allowing the shot, this is what I presume them to be doing, either that or adding coverage to more dangerous shooters.
Allowing Gomez’s shot is thus a defensive strategy in itself. We accept that shots from the outside are allowed, why not shots from close from bad shooters. I’d be advocating this as a coach, i find it hard to believe no one else would do it.
His predictability is that he can’t shoot but is willing to do it anyway, as I see it. He is quite willing to give up actual possession to generate “proxy” possession if you will.
Here’s the thing though; Gomez has been on the ice for as many shots for as ever, if not more so. But his personal number of shots actually went down last season.
That means the other shooters were taking more shots. That doesn’t sound like the sort of thing that should halve the team’s shooting percentage.
What we need to realize is that what isn’t measured in the instance of the shot is how well covered that player is, or how little time he had to get off the shot. A scuffed shot while tied up = a clear shot = a goal.
If players are allowing Gomez to shoot it is not so they can go on coffee break, it is so they can deal with other threats like Pacioretty or Gionta.
I’m using Olivier’s numbers and some others to look at these sorts of thing, so I’ll get back to you all on it ewhen the time comes.
My point is, Gomez shot less last season. That means more shots by Pacioretty and Gionta. Again there’s the problem of why those shots are being allowed with such frequency if these two guys are so well-covered.
As I said, I’m looking at things. I’ll get back.
But because all shots are not equal, but they are counted as equal I don’t see a problem. The problem is mine in getting to the bottom of this sort of thing.
Who knows, Gomez may surprise. Perhaps the worst shooting influence could be a player I less expect.
It should be noted that with Travis Moen as a frequent linemate of Gomez, this goes a little ways to explaining why his teammate’s on ice shooting % was a lot lower last year.
Puck Worlds: Chasing Pucks from here to Turku.
For Twitter Updates on Puck Worlds, follow @puckworlds. For updates plus additional witty banter from yours truly, follow @saskhab.
Absolutely, and representing a colossal failure on the coaching staff’s behalf to pair players that complement one another.
I guess if you think foregoing all that fenwick is meant to bring in goals is good strategy, then yeah.
They use the top two lines to neutralize the opposition. They use the third line as an exploitation line. Gomez doesn’t need to score a lot to be successful under this plan, he just needs to assure that he remains fairly neutral.
It makes sense to me.
5-on-5 Shots per 60 minutes allowed when Gomez is on: 20.4, second-best on the team, and 16th-best among all NHL forwards with 10 GP or more.
Price’s 5-on-5 save percentage behind Gomez so far: .867.
I’d say it’s very likely to be bad luck.
Especially given that Gomez’s save percentage last season was a respectable .925.
Writer for http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/
by Stephan Cooper on Dec 8, 2011 7:02 PM EST up reply actions
He’s a very lucky guy that no one ever questions his bad luck in every category. That’s all I can say.
Well, what’s an alternate explanation? .867 is not normal even if a player was outright putrid defensively, and a putrid defensive player would presumably give up more shots against too.
So what else can it be? Gomez gives up nothing but breakaways? He’s simultaneously done a good lob of preventing shots against, but put an hex on Price so that he becomes a terrible goalie when he’s on the ice?
.867 is a heck of a lot of difference from the norm for a single skater to be personally responsible for; for one guy out of five to be THAT bad defensively requires special talent.
Not all exceptions are due to luck. It is in examining true exceptions where understanding is increased.
Water increases in volume as it freezes. This is an exception to a general rule for the majority of substances. but it is a rule for water.
It’s my opinion that the rules that apply to the average player for Fenwick and Corsi (which let’s be clear have been built on averages) shouldn’t be liberally appplied to this special player Gomez.
His greatest exception in this case is his shooting. So I think I am wrong in putting this comment in answre to your point about defence.
There’s that, and there’s also the notion that 2010-2011 was way off the norm relative to Gomez’s own averages, rather than the league’s.
It is certainly likely that his weak shooting weakens his team’s overall shooting percentage while he’s out there. But it wouldn’t suddenly halve it for a year relative to what it was in Gomez’s previous seasons. Gomez has always been a crappy shooter; that can’t explain 2010-2011 alone.
I like to call that the “unique-snowflake” hypothesis: that Gomez possesses a unique form of badness that his performance is inherently unlike any other player that’s had a similar statistical profile. :)
Now it’s actually a valid hypothesis, even though I feel it is unlikely to be true. But the burden of proof then has to go to showing that Gomez is indeed such an exception.
Completely agree. The burden of proof is there.
I would only clarify in saying that its not actually unique badness. Just uniqueness. He’s actually outstanding at many of the things that Fenwick/Corsi are meant to show (getting in the zone for example, or not turning it over on a dead-end rush due to his patience) but I always wonder whether given his unique combination of skills (or lack thereof) we can apply all rules. Furthermore, and the reason I’m arguing at all is that I feel his unique combination actually contributes to undermine this stat as a proxy for him.
Its not an ideal strategy but it whether its a good one really depends on the make up of the rest of the lineup and whether the offensively minded winger you could put on Gomez’s wing would score more playing with Gomez against good players or by playing with a different center against lesser players. That’s going to depend pretty heavily on who that winger is and who the other center is.
You also might not score all that often but prevent goals by holding the puck for the majority of shifts against good opponents.
If you have 6 wingers that are legitimate offensive threats then its a really dumb set up, but right now that either means being completely healthy and moving Desharnais or Eller to the wing, play Darche whose been putrid or running with one of Leblanc or Palushaj who might not be ready. Although I think we can legitmately hope that one of the AHL RWs will make the jump this season.
by Stephan Cooper on Dec 8, 2011 1:55 PM EST up reply actions
Strange that you call Eller’s numbers the biggest disaster of them all, when Gionta and (especially) Plekanec have had much more precipitous drop-offs in possession with the change in workload. Or has the increase in Eller’s workload caused it to have more of an immediate impact?
But an excellent demonstration of how losing one key player can have a ripple effect through the lineup.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
Yeah, an editing error. Added in things that weren’t originally going to be there and didn’t remove it. It made more sense in it’s original context.
Ah, I can understand that.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
Adequate...
As I’m not savvy in the stat dept. where would one have to be in terms of Corsi/Fenwick to be adequate replacement for Gomez?
It does appear he is an enigma (Does Kovalev compare?? Just a thought) where he could be cashing in on his linemates goals- currently not happening, and has crazy possession numbers. Do the Habs Ultimately need someone with these magical numbers for them to be more effective? And, if we all agree he’s overpaid, then why should it matter the cost of the ‘new guy’? If an Eric Nystrom (shooting the lights out at a rate of 10 goals for 40 shots) doesn’t have possession numbers based on his (I think) 11 mins per game, but scores at an aggressive rate with what little time he does have on ice, does he adequately fill a need for Dallas? Yes I keep in mind his shooting percentage of 25 + % will not last…
My meaning here is that regardless of expectation (I am sure Dallas didn’t think Nystrom could score 10 in 21, and that Habs expected more out of someone like Gomez) fair return looks a little different when you are trying to make things happen. If trading Gomez secures a guy with a shooting percentage of 12%-18%, decent numbers for both Fenwicka dn COrsi, why would DD or Eller not progress with a guy like that on their line?? Could then someone step up?? Fill the Void… change the dynamic of what’s needed in Montreal, make things more bearable to those with and without stats savvy??
by Cruisin4aBruisin on Dec 8, 2011 2:38 PM EST reply actions
1) these statistics are not magical.
2) the question of replacing Gomez with a winger to give to Eller has already been addressed.
3) Eric Nystrom, I don’t understand why you’re bringing him up. He’s a borderline NHLer having an unsustainable shooting year.
Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 8, 2011 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
Or in other words, Nystrom is an extreme example of what Moen has done this year.
by Stephan Cooper on Dec 8, 2011 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
Definitely, although Moen is a significantly better hockey player.
Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 8, 2011 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
Don’t fixate on the wrong example. He spells out the player he means in words: “a guy with a shooting percentage of 12%-18%, decent numbers for both Fenwicka dn Corsi,”
This is politician stuff to pick up on a slip up and avoid the actual point guys.
I think even if the Habs got a player with average shooting (that is to say, he gets the shooting percentage that would be expected based on where he takes his shot from) and good Corsi/Fenwick we could be better off.
Yes it’s difficult to trade for this player. but it’s not entirely impossible.
Anyway, there’s no need to crush a commenter
That kind of player is rarely available, if ever.
Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 9, 2011 6:11 PM EST up reply actions
I am willing to deal anybody that makes sense for the long term and short term development of the Canadiens that also addresses future and current cap flexibility. So including a guy like Subban needs to return somebody with his cap control and impact.
I love Carey Price, but I am not in love with paying him $6M per season. So there really are no untouchables for me.
Ditto here.
Willingness to trade a guy for a better option, though, does not imply that such a better option is available. (This includes trades of the form “dump the useless bum in the minors and use the money on someone useful”.)
It’s very unlikely, for example, that a deal involving Subban exists out there that would be favorable for the Habs, so that makes him virtually “untouchable” in practice.
Either way, all of this is exactly why I posted this graphic.
So that the community could offer up it’s hypothesis on how or why this may be occurring. All of the discourse serves to educate all of us and offer counters to what we do and don’t believe.
I don’t get it unless the Habs:
1- are willing to bury the contract once they’re done using him
2- genuinely feel he can get back to somewhere near the level he was 2 years ago
3- hope for 2 but are prepared to do 1
4- are setting up for something else
His metrics in Carolina have not been good, but that team is awful. Last year they were… I guess neutral?
It seems odd to do this as a panic move, TBH, especially with Spacek poised to return which would have been a shakeup on its own.
I only know one thing: If this team goes into next season with Gomez and Kaberle I will take a break from watching.
Was Kaberle playing on the left side with Carolina. I had this discussion with Kaberle’s buddy last night and he indicated to me that Kaberle has been playing on his off-side all season with Carolina and wasn’t placed on his proper side until Muller was hired.
If the Habs turn Kaberle into a Wiz replacement, then his contract isn’t nearly as bad. If they manage to get him back to something near his glory days, it’s a steal.
I’ll hold out hope for the former, the latter is a massive long shot.
Look, you know we have to resign Price, Subban, Gorges and Pacioretty and hopefully Kostitsyn this summer. Even if we can get rid of Gomez that´s not going to be easy with another 4,25m being added. In the end it could mean that we lose AK because of the old bum Kaberle is. That would be a disgrace.
The habs have a few good D prospects coming to Hamilton next year. If Kaberle plays well the rest of the way, don’t be surprised if Gorges walk on july 1st.
I hope not. Gorges strikes me as the sort of deal that can be signed on a value contract.
I would not be overly surprised, OTOH, if cap relief came in the form of deleting Gomez’s contract somehow.
I’m sure Gauthier has a plan. But it all depends on the CBA renewal anyway. They just might get a one-time no-cap-hit buyout period like last time, which would give a rich team like Montreal tremendous flexibility in dealing with unwanted cap hits.
I love Gorges and hope he signs long term, but, for no discernible reason I just have this feeling that habs may be unwilling to commit significant money.
I’m still blown away that he got the one-year deal and Markov got the three. The hell does that make any sense ever?
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
Gorges was a RFA and didn’t have a lot of options so the habs could have him relatively cheap, but that doesn’t explain the short term deal.
We’ll see, but they’re probably not willing to give him much.
Let me check that. The short term deal makes him available for less money this year, but he’s getting more expansive for 2012 and beyond by the day.
Exactly. Especially since he’s UFA next year.
The Gorges/Markov contracts, more than the Kaberle trade, are what make me question what the hell Gauthier is thinking here. Sign the older, more injury-prone guy to big money and term, and the younger guy with only one major injury to his name to a short-term deal with zero UFA years? That’s some Oilers-esque asset management, there.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
The Habs never negociate with their players until their contracts are over (a strategy that probably helped them dodge a bullet with Komisarek) but the one year contract to Gorges is a bit of a head scratcher. Maybe Gorges wants to take a shot at free agency because the Habs won’t pay him or the team wanted to see him play a season post surgery before negotiating.
Can you really count on Spacek to stay health though? The way I see it those two players have similar contracts value and one of them is significantly younger and less injury-prone. If Kaberle doesn’t catch the plague (or whatever is haunting the Hab’s locker room) and play at Spacek’s level, the Canadiens have made a good deal.
The problem is the term, I think. If Kaberle was a pending UFA like Spacek, I don’t think anyone would pan this move.
4,25 M$ for the next two years isn’t the end of the world, but I agree it’s not ideal and the Habs have to be ready to bury him if he’s Carolina bad.
Basically, you want Kaberle to:
- Take St-Denis’s minutes at ES
- Take Gorges’s minutes on the PP.
I think there is a fair chance he covers the bet. Also, I’m pretty darn sure he isn’t here next season. More precisely, I think Gauthier is betting on an inter-CBA buyout-window / less stringent buyout rules in the new CBA scenario. Knowing under the actual CBA Kaberle can be bought out for 1.4 per year and that the cap is at 65 millions and never going down without a salary roll-back, it’s a shrewd move by Gauthier.
So there, I love it: low risk, high reward and mostly costs us the one thing we have a never-ending supply of: money.
Plus, we actually get to watch a power play that scores more than it gets scored on! Or at least a PP that generates more Scoring Chances than it allows…
Ain’t that a cool thing, at least in theory?
Yeah, I’m not on the negative side that everybody is on this.
I am always amazed that fans want something done now, the Habs make a deal that helps immediately and the first thing out of their mouth is how it affects the cap over the next two seasons.
The negativity has reached an absurd level.
What I find especially surprising is that everybody acts this way toward the cap when we all know the CBA is up and thus the whole thing is to be re-worked. In fact, we may even get a lock-out, so why bother with next year?
A lot of fans get up in arms about cap hits for no reason. Salary cap doom has constantly been predicted for a lot of teams yet they are doing fine.
Next offseason, with the CBA up, buyouts may be possible and Gomez’s contract becomes interesting for salary floor team.
There is no cap issue here and Kaberle for Spacek is a win for the Habs. Why is everyone complaining?*
* purely rhetorical, unfortunately
now, even more useless
Just logged on to see if all of the apologists can find a way to justify the Kaberle trade …. up is down, black is white, and Kaberle is a good valuable pick up. Right … not the useless player that we’ve watched for 3-4 years that couldn’t even play for the worst team in the East.
Yes. Your facts are irrefutable.
Kaberle can’t play for the worst team in the East, but he can win a Cup with the Bruins. He was a useless player that has averaged 44 points per season over the last 4 years.
Are you here to troll? Or is that your real opinion? I can’t really tell.
Real opinion, just woefully uninformed.
Co-editor of Eyes on the Prize
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Dec 10, 2011 12:55 AM EST up reply actions
Just a question: Does that include Kaberle?
Here’s your free Leaf-fan scouting report, so you know what to expect:
-Assist machine, not noted for his shot. Pretty accurate with the first-pass.
-Comes with above-average passing!
-Also comes with below-average boardplay. Not physical at all – will turn the puck over if pressed. Can be frustratingly timid.
-10+ years in Toronto, we learned to work around him. Seemed to have chemistry trouble after he was traded.
-Is having a horrendous start to this season in Carolina. Quote:
“He came into camp and didn’t prepare himself properly,” Rutherford said. "He came in like the Boston Bruins did after winning the Stanley Cup and enjoyed his summer, and he hasn’t caught up.
If you can make that work then all the power to you. Spacek was significantly more responsible with the puck than Kaberle(-12 this season) though. I’m not sure how this will help play in MTL’s end.
Will be… interesting
Our play in our own end has been pretty good this year, mostly without Spacek. The biggest problem has been our PP, made worse by a penchant for giving up shorties.
Puck Worlds: Chasing Pucks from here to Turku.
For Twitter Updates on Puck Worlds, follow @puckworlds. For updates plus additional witty banter from yours truly, follow @saskhab.
Also, Spacek may be a better defenseman, but the distinction is at best conceptual at this point. I doubt Spacho has much more that 25 NHL games left in him.
I`m not sure I like this for even strength but they desperately need a decent quarterback for the powerplay.
I could feel OK about Spacek as the 2nd LD on ES, not sure if Kaberle can do that anymore.
Not sure if they might not have been better of seeing what Campoli can do before moving for Kaberle though. The solution may have been internal.
How the pairings work out is anyone`s guess right now. There are the two top pairing guys (Subban, Gorges) the two LD special teams specialists (Kaberle, Gill) and two LH and RH young defenders (Campoli, Emelin, Diaz, Weber). I like the LD youngsters more than the RD ones which doesn`t work with the veteran specialists being in the lineup. Maybe we`ll see Gorges move to the right side so Campoli or Emelin can play.
Writer for http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/
by Stephan Cooper on Dec 9, 2011 3:43 PM EST up reply actions
Boone used to give Tomas the middle initial “F.” for his play against the Habs, like he does for Brodeur and Aflredsson.
Puck Worlds: Chasing Pucks from here to Turku.
For Twitter Updates on Puck Worlds, follow @puckworlds. For updates plus additional witty banter from yours truly, follow @saskhab.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Habs Eyes On The Prize
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
