Does Montreal Need An "Enforcer"?
Before I went on vacation this summer I was linked to this story on Bleacher Report. I had planned to write about it earlier but when preparing for a wedding, time runs away on you. I think most who know me know my stance on this subject, and I believe as far as the contributors on this blog go, we're all in agreement here. However this article took the care to break down several reasons why the Montreal Canadiens need and "enforcer", so since it's the summer and everyone is looking for a new hockey article to read, a full on debunking of this idea is in order.
Before I go into the main article, I think it's important to look at the word enforcer. Where does this title for fighters come from? Just what are they enforcing. When the Habs employed Georges Laraque he had some convoluted, unreasonable "code" that he claimed everyone followed, but seemed to be alone in that regard. Are they enforcing the rules? Clearly not since fighting in itself is against the rules and hence; is a penalty, a major one at that. There's mythical notion that enforcers protect star players, but unless the supposed enforcer is capable of playing with those star players every game, how can he protect them? If the fighter leaves the bench on the play, he gets an automatic 10 game suspension from the NHL.
Either enforcer is a term for a fighter from a bygone era, or it refers to a player who can play top line minutes and fights once in awhile to stick up for teammates. The term certainly does not apply to modern day fighters in the NHL who play barely 5 minutes a game and fight all the time. Now to get to the 6 "reasons" Montreal needs a fighter, according to Jason Sapunka:
1. Francis Lessard shoved Tom Pyatt into the boards
Sapunka begins with an "honourable mention", but we'll just say he listed 6 reasons. As he notes in the article, Francis Lessard received a major penalty and game misconduct. What he failed to mention however, was that while Pyatt was winded on the play, he wasn't hurt. Pyatt played his shifts the rest of that game, and had his best statistical game of the entire year 2 days later. Unfortunately Montreal did not score on the ensuing powerplay, but that's how it goes in the NHL sometimes. This isn't enough for the author however:
"The problem with letting the rulebook do a team's fighting is that it doesn't stop the players from being hurt, and it doesn't prevent players from doing this again in the future."
Wait a second, the powerplay doesn't stop a player from being hurt? You don't say. Pyatt wasn't hurt though. There's also the major problem with this statement, fighting would also not stop a player from being hurt. If in fact Pyatt was hurt on the play, and for argument's sake Travis Moen or Ryan White went in and fought Lessard, the result would be a fighting major, and that's it. Does anyone in their right mind think a player like Francis Lessard, a talentless 32 year old AHL goon with 68 AHL points in 523 games to go along with 2544 PIM would be fearful of a fight, ANY fight? No. The man makes his living fighting. Is he going to not lay a dirty hit because someone just like himself will come after him? If that's the way he operated, his professional hockey career would be over already.
2. Milan Lucic Hammered Jaroslav Spacek
Yes, Milan Lucic his Spacek from behind. Yes, it was a dirty hit (good luck getting any Bruins fan to admit it though). Lucic is indeed an intimidating figure as far as physicality is concerned, especially with that hunchback thing he has going on, he literally looks like a cartoon villain. However Milan Lucic is also a hell of a hockey player, and he isn't the toughest player in the NHL in spite of his fearsome reputation. In fact he loses a fair portion of his fights whenever he fights someone in his own weight class. Even in the fight that really gave Lucic his gold star as a fighter, he only started to win the fight after his opponent threw a punch that separated his own shoulder (I'm looking at you Mr. Komisarek). So why is he such an effective NHL player? Because he doesn't back down. Having a fighter on your team isn't going to make Lucic run away with his tail between his legs. If you have a pure fighter with no talent to play the game, like for instance Georges Laraque, he'll just ignore him and score a goal, like he did on November 22nd, 2008. We're starting to see the author's inherent lack of understanding of the game right away here, and this quote really proves it:
In their second-to-last game of the season, the Canadiens continued a trend of being pushed around they had followed all year long.
Did they now Mr. Sapunka? You can see in the replay that at the time Lucic hit Spacek, Montreal was tied with Boston 1-1 and facing elimination. The got pushed around SO bad in that game, that they won and forced a 7th game.
3. Darroll Powe was a one-man wrecking crew
Powe laid two questionable to dirty hits in the game the author references. Neither player who was hit missed significant time. Halpern left the game as a precaution but played two nights later. This time a Canadiens player attempted to step up to "enforce"... something, and Maxim Lapierre got his arse handed two him in an embarrassing fight with a guy nearly 4 inches shorter than him. So someone stepped up and tried right, shouldn't the author be ok with that? Nope.
In one of the few responses Montreal actually attempted, they were further embarrassed by a poor fight effort.
Okay, so now if someone is going to attempt retribution for a dirty hit, they can't lose. So it's gone from a need for any old fighter to drop the mitts and just try, to a fighter who never loses. This sounds pretty tough to find. How much of an impact did Powe have on the game though? Did he intimidate the Canadiens so badly that they folded and just let the Flyers pound them into oblivion? No, they won that game 3-0. In spite of this bellyaching, the "tough" team never got a sniff of victory.
4. The Bruins destroyed them in a line brawl
Of course, here comes the most over-hyped game of the decade, the so-called "Beantown beatdown". Hockeyfights.com lists 6 fights during the 8-6 mess on February 9th, 2011. Travis Moen, Benoit Pouliot and Carey Price are all listed as winners of their fights, while Shawn Thornton, Johnny Boychuk and Gregory Campbell are listed as the winners of theirs. That puts the fight tally at a 3-3 tie. Let's look deeper.
All three of the fights Boston won, were at 19:11 of the 3rd period. 49 seconds left in the game, it's been decided already as Boston is leading 8-5, and that's the first time a Boston player wins a fight in this game. Perhaps it's because it's one of the last things that happened, but it seems many Habs fans only remember Tom Pyatt being beaten with a plastic elbow pad, and not the rest of the hockey game. The last 40 minutes of the hockey game were actually played completely even, with Montreal holding a 27 to 16 shot advantage and each team scoring 6 goals.
The reality of the 8-6 game is that it was won in the first period as the Canadiens came out completely flat, and the Gomez line had its worst game of the season. Boston was up 2-0 before there was a hint of gooning around. The writer continues to chisel away at his already thin credibility with this gem:
Even though some of Montreal's players were saved by the referees (in addition to some mercy from the Bruins who were pounding away at them), there were multiple beatings this night, and not one Canadien has made the Bruins pay since.
Yes Jason, there were multiple beatings. Three for each team in fact. Although you obviously didn't watch the video if you think any Bruins were "merciful" in their actions. In all 3 fights that the Bruins won, they continues to hit the Canadiens players when they were down. When Montreal players won their fights, they stopped throwing punches. It's this little thing called class. But the pièce de résistance of the ridiculousness that is this statement is "and not one Canadien has made the Bruins pay since". Not one? Not a single one? So I guess this never happened in the next game between the two teams then, eh? Because no Bruin has ever payed since. Try to ignore the retardation of NESN commentary as Ryan White reconfigures Boychuk's face after an attempted knee on Subban.
Johnny Boychuk vs Ryan White Mar 8, 2011 (via hockeyfightsdotcom)
5. Zdeno Chara almost broke the neck of Max Pacioretty
Umm... He DID break his neck. You posted this article on May 24th, Mr. Sapunka, did you not read any hockey news for two and a half months? Or are you a proponent of Dr. Recchi's diagnosis? Most of your point seems to be "Chara did it on purpose", but let's ignore that as it's been discussed ad nauseum for almost 6 months now. Your main point seems to be this:
"This act of revenge taken by Zdeno Chara was just another incident which proved that anyone [*] could push around the Montreal Canadiens without ever having to pay a price for it."
*emphasis is mine
Anyone? Anyone? It's Zdeno Chara! He's 6'9" and 260lbs! The biggest, strongest player to ever play in the NHL. What player exactly is going to intimidate Chara? Who's going to stop him from making that hit? Be reasonable for a fraction of a second. Chara could have made that hit on any player against any team, and there's not a damn thing anyone could do about it. The league had a chance to punish the hit and chose to call a clear penalty (a penalty by definition by the way, is not a hockey play, that's why it's penalized) a hockey play and move on. There is no one in the NHL or any other hockey league who's going to intimidate Chara.
6. There's no excuse not to
Well for starters, this isn't a reason to employ a fighter. Just because something is available doesn't mean you should acquire it. Secondly, there is an excuse not to, it's called fielding a competitive team. None of the players listed in this section of the article are capable NHL players. They're 5 minutes or less per game guys who always drag their team down with stupid penalties and poor play on the ice. Sure you can dig up empty platitudes about how teammates always adore the fighters on their team, that's because they're usually good guys in the room, not because they have any effect on the ice. The only real effect they have on the ice is a negative one.
If fighters had any value, even at the job they DO perform, then they would be the ones fighting when the game matters, but when the numbers are crunched, the opposite was found to be true.
Over at Copper and Blue, the always excellent Derek Zona broke it down to down to a science to find that a goon costs a team at least one loss per season.
Maple Leafs blogger 67sound broke down a statistical analysis on whether goons and fighting help teams win games as well.
And here's an excellent discussion of the subject by some of the most respected hockey writers out there.
Fighters don't win hockey games, they don't swing momentum, they don't stop injuries from happening (ask Marc Savard or Nathan Horton), and they don't enforce a code that doesn't exist. They are a side show that can be entertaining. We went through this neurotic need from a select portion of the fanbase before Bob Gainey acquiesced and brought in Laraque. The team is still paying for him to NOT play. Do we really want to go down that route again?
Habs fans need to realize that since the beginning of last season the roster has changed a lot. Erik Cole, Max Pacioretty, Ryan White and Alexei Yemelin will all be on the roster this year. The team has gotten bigger and more physical without sacrificing skill or speed. This is the way to build a contender.
58 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
a straight up play 5 min a night enforcer? No.
what they need to to find a big guy who can play and hit.
It’s a harder role to fill, but there needs to be less goons and enforcers in the League and more multi talented people.
but if the Habs really need one you can probably get colton orr for cheap…
Supporter of the CC / Fan of Ananas / All Hail Admin Bot 3000
Fans tend to complain that the Canadiens “used” to have tough guys, but the ones that they revere are guys like Nilan who played a regular shift and was an effective hockey player without the fighting. They mention the 70’s, but the backbone of that teams toughness was a Chara like figure who was virtually indestructible in Larry Robinson who also happened to be one of the best defenseman in the league.
The late 80s and early 90s did have players like Odelein (once again, a player who took a regular shift), Ewen and Roberge but what team wants to waste cap space on guys who are marginal players?
I am all for having a guy who can kick ass and take names, but the guy has to be able to contribute in other aspects of the game to justify his presence. At the end of the day, the Habs had the Bruins maim a player and win 7 of 8 fights yet in the playoffs that team of “intimidators” required three OT victories to knock out the Habs and were life and death to do so. Nobody on any NHL roster was going to take care of Chara, that was the NHL’s job, one they spectacularly failed at.
I have just gotten used to “smurfs” lacks toughness etc. It is uneducated hyperbole.
Hyperbole indeed. You forgot to mention the other revered Habs tough guy; John Ferguson. Another player who could play a regular shift who just happened to be tough as nails. Unfortunately those kinds of players are nearly extinct these days.
In the last few decades fighting has become so removed from the game, the clique of fighters in the NHL are almost in their own league in that they only worry about each other. They barely play hockey and only fight. To me it just looks like fighting is slowly being phased out of hockey.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Aug 16, 2011 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions
If these guys would say that they want Jarome Iginla or the next Brendan Shanahan, hey, who the hell doesn’t. But they honest to god want the Georges Laraque’s of the world. It’s incredible.
The only reason to have a pure goon is if your team sucks already and you need a reason to watch to avert your attention to the terrible actual hockey in front of you.
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.
by Bruce Peter on Aug 16, 2011 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions
You mean like the New York Islanders?
You hit the nail on the head there.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Aug 16, 2011 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions
If these guys would say that they want Jarome Iginla or the next Brendan Shanahan, hey, who the hell doesn’t. But they honest to god want the Georges Laraque’s of the world. It’s incredible.
It’s the same guy who want guys like Arthyukin for the 4th line. The fanbase has been so brainwashed on the size-and-toughness argument that they’ve come to believe it’s valuable for its own sake, that it’s worth sacrificing hockey skill for, and that it can be usefully provided by a 4th liner.
How many posts on the Woywitka signing either concentrate on the fact that he’s 6’3" and 225 pounds, or ask whether he can fight or hit (bonus points for Youtubes of his fights)? How many ask if he can actually defend at the NHL level?
Heh, I’ll admit to pondering Artyukin before. Never looked too in depth about it. I’ve seen him good on occasion, really causing havoc in front of the opponent’s goal and behind the net. Then again, it was mostly at the Worlds. :)
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.
Luckily our management group doesn’t buy into that nonsense. As I said earlier, we’ve managed to get bigger and more physical without sacrificing skill or speed. It’s actually very impressive how they’ve managed to bring in so many players who fit that mold in under a calendar year.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Aug 16, 2011 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Fergie pretty much innovated the enforcer in the NHL. But as Andrew mentioned he, and most after, were capable of at least double digits in the goal department.
Oddly enough that the NHL wants fighting out, but does EA’s NHL 12 have goalie fighting??
Problem with fighting these days is the instigator rule, which prevents players from protecting others from cheapshots, etc. White going after Boychuk was reminiscent of those days, and forced the Matt Cookes of the world had to answer for what they did or attempted to do,
Kevin van Steendelaar
http://www.twitter.com/kvansteendelaar
but don't forget...
http://www.twitter.com/HabsEOTP
by Kevin van Steendelaar on Aug 16, 2011 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions
The BS thing about White and Boychuk was the fact that White got the instigator after a knee on knee on Subban. I could deal with that at the time on it’s own, but when coupled with 7 Bruins instigating EVERY fight in Boston a week earlier and no instigator penalties, it was a major piss off.
The instigator rule is BS in itself. The person laying the dirty hit that causes a fight is the instigator in my mind, not the person who jumps in. If the NHL doesn’t want players sticking up for each other after dirty hits, they need to learn how to punish them properly.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Aug 16, 2011 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions
If Ferguson played today he would be what, a first-line forward? Count me in as wanting another one of those.
He played on a line with some guy named Jean Beliveau, so yeah I think he would have been a first liner. ;)
Kevin van Steendelaar
http://www.twitter.com/kvansteendelaar
but don't forget...
http://www.twitter.com/HabsEOTP
by Kevin van Steendelaar on Aug 17, 2011 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions
NHL12 will have goalie fights
it’s not entirely new though. i still play my NHL04 for my PS2, and while there’s no controlling when they happen, goalie fights will break out occasionally. when i see the trigger to start a fight, if i decide to start one, at very random (and not too infrequent) times, the game will show, instead of a tussle between the two players whose names were listed on the “start fight” trigger, a tussle between a player and a goalie. the opposing goalie will then tackle the other goalie from behind, and a fight will ensue between the goalies.
You wanna tell me that to mah face?!
YET ANOTHER Detroit Red Wings blog.
by uvgt2bkdnme on Aug 17, 2011 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Chris, I’d also like to add that I really do like tough hockey. I like it when players fight their own battles. It doesn’t seem like this happens as much as it used to anymore… it might be that we watch way more hockey now than we used to and our memories are playing games on us.
If we had a bunch of players that could both play and lay a licking on an opponent when needed, I’d be ecstatic. But I’m increasingly anti-goon.
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.
Doesn’t everybody like tough hockey?
I loved watching the Habs win their share of brawls, but this isn’t 1987 anymore. There is a cap, there is an instigator, there is a monster suspension if you leave the bench etc.
It isn’t essential to have one to win anymore. Outside of the Bruins bullying there way to a fortunate championship in 2011, when was the last team that won the Cup that had a major enforcer? The Wings? Penguins? Hawks? Canes? Lightning? Devils?
The only team I can recall was the Ducks in 2007 with Parros. Like the 2011 Bruins, the Ducks were a late game five goal away from being in big trouble against the weak and feeble Red Wings.
I think that everybody relies on their historical knowledge and recollections and concludes that toughness is essential, but you don’t need to know how to fight to win puck battles, to refuse to quit, to push back.
We would all love to have Cam Neely, but those guys are very rare. For the first time in 15 years the Canadiens have talent AND tenacity. They have had years in which they possessed one, but not both. I expect good things in 2012.
by Chris Boyle on Aug 16, 2011 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hell no
even though the Habs of ‘10-’11 were relatively small, a bit older (Spacek,Hamrlik) and one of the more skilled teams in the NHL, I really don’t remember a time when they were bullied or pushed around. The Bruins games (brawl and Charra felony) were disappointing and frustrating, but not because they guys didn’t stand up. With players like Cole, MaxP, Yemelin, White and Moen, I think the Habs have enough gritty but talented players to do great in 49 out of 50 games, and you can’t build a roster to “be ready” for that 1 or 2 nights when the game goes ’70’s retro and the Broad Street Bullies are unleashed.
Rather than an enforcer, I wish they had a coach who could better adapt his in-game strategy to give his talented bunch the best chance to win every night.
You’re exactly right. You can’t build a team around a situation that happens at most 2 times per season.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Aug 16, 2011 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Interesting finding by Tyler Dellow over at mc79hockey. He looked for guys that fit the modern no-talent goon profile and found that its a relatively recent invention, with it being totally non-existant prior to 1980. In the earlier NHL there were tough guys but all tough guys were actual players with toughness, not guys that couldn’t do anything but fight.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the expansions the league has gone through? More roster spots in the league allows for more low end players around.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Aug 17, 2011 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Also the roster expansion. There suddenly was room for an enforcer to be the 18th best skater in a lineup that only plays for 5 minutes a night.
by Stephan Cooper on Aug 17, 2011 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Red Wings fan here
i completely agree with pretty much every point you’ve made here. as a Red Wings fan, i’ve pretty much seen the death of the enforcer’s role on Detroit’s team. (the only reason Brad May played when he did was because the forward corps lacked so much depth. Aaron Downey a few years ago, you’ll have to ask someone else why he was on the team.)
You wanna tell me that to mah face?!
YET ANOTHER Detroit Red Wings blog.
Detroit is certainly the ideal model. Even when Detroit had legitimate fighters like Probert, he was a 15-20 goal scorer and 40 point player.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Aug 17, 2011 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions
You make a lot of good points here, and your posting of the White fight is appropriate, as with White and Moen in the bottom 6, we have enough fighters to “enforce” whenever it is required.
Having a “goon” — a better term these days for the antiquated term of enforcer — is really only necessary if you are going out and actively looking to start fights in a market where the hockey demands it or needs it to sell tickets (see Gilles in Long Island).
By the way, yup, “retard” — still not a politically correct term for any kind of respectable journalism (or rant), even after the film “Tropic Thunder”.
c.
Retard: to delay or hold back from progress.
It’s a word, it’s not an offensive word. It’s used correctly to describe a station that calls the game in an archaic way, like we’re living in the 1980’s. If you have a problem with that, fine. But I don’t.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Aug 17, 2011 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
“Try to ignore the retardation of NESN commentary”…is not functioning as a form of the verb “to retard: delay or hold back”. Saying otherwise just makes you look silly, and it cannot function rhetorically in the way that you imply.
If you don’t have a problem with the narrative tone it creates, fine, but it is rather easy to use more professional wording. I do find the easy and colloquial use of the word offensive in the context that it was used in your article.
By the way — I find your articles quite an insightful read, and don’t mean to imply otherwise.
You can say you don’t like how I used the word, fine, but you can’t say that the word can not be used like that because it can.
As for “professional wording”, I apologize but I don’t ascribe to political correctness in the manner you’re trying to enforce it. There’s absolutely nothing offensive about the word retard. It’s the same situation as the word handicap. Every few years there has to be a new word to describe what these words define, and within a couple years the new ones are “offensive”. It’s just a word. There’s no difference between poop and shit either, in spite of social norms dictating otherwise. Again, if you don’t agree, that’s okay, but I’m not going to be constrained by political correctness that’s so unnecessary. Seems like a lot of people these days are always looking for reasons to be offended.
Thanks for the compliment, and I didn’t think you implied otherwise. :-)
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Aug 19, 2011 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
How can any Hab fan not love White after that?
Smoked Boychuk and he can actually play.
I was surprised when I looked back this year and White was a +5. Very impressive.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Aug 17, 2011 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
He had a solid start for a depth rookie. Playing soft minutes with Desharnais certainly helped. The most important thing for his future is to learn how to play on the PK so he will a full value bottom six utility player.
by Stephan Cooper on Aug 17, 2011 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree. From what I remember he’s already a pretty good shot blocker, but he’ll need to continue to hone his defensive play.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Aug 17, 2011 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Thinking...Thinking.... this sounds like someone we know.. doesn't it??
Listen to ourselves. We are totally complaining that we don’t have Claude Lemieux anymore. Seriously. This guy was the nasty, the bang and crash, the stick a player when the ref wasn’t looking, and the overtime winning goal scorer. Awesome in the playoffs (#5 in career Playoff scoring!!).
Although White was a nice surprise, and Laps was oo kay… Clause Lemieux is the pinnacle of this hybrid player we seek.
by Cruisin4aBruisin on Aug 17, 2011 2:24 PM EDT reply actions
I would like to have a guy like Lemieux added to the forward group (still hoping to fill out the 3rd-line), but I have to say the playoff thing bothers me a bit.
Career Goals per game/Playoffs GPG: 0.65 /0.67
Career Points per game/Playoffs PPG: 0.31 /0.34
Granted, the playoff numbers look a bit better because you’re playing against teams that are slightly better, but Lemieux was the same player in the playoffs as he was in the regular season. It all comes down to random variations of shooting percentage in some years in the playoffs, and for a few of those years (85-86, 94-95, 96-97) Lemieux’ was lucky that his team went deep into the playoffs but there wasn’t enough time for his shooting percentage to regress.
Quality player, but not a clutch performer (yes, you didn’t say he was clutch). Just in the right place at the right time and the same player he was during the regular season.
I think after 234 NHL playoff games, maintaining better production than you do during regular season play can qualify you as clutch. Especially when he managed to do the same kind of raising of the bar in minor hockey, the QMJHL and the Swiss league. His whole career he accumulated more points in the playoffs than regular season.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Aug 17, 2011 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
7 “extra” goals over those 234 games isn’t all that much, well within range for randomness to cause a few lucky bounces.
I guess it comes down to your definition of clutch… mine is based on the traditional baseball narrative, which is doing more than expected in big situations. Playing about to what one would expect you to (Either slightly below or slightly above) isn’t choking/clutch in my eyes.
Whether the improvement was slight or not, there was improvement. I think he earned his clutch label. There’s a reason he has a Conn Smythe. You’re saying it’s luck, but his points per game numbers improved in every single league he played in during the playoffs his whole career. That’s not luck.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Aug 17, 2011 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions
His Points-per-game were up 3.1% comparing the regular season to the playoffs. Goals-per-game is more significant (up 10% and some of it driven by more shots so there could be some skill there).
Throwing out the last 3 playoff seasons (where he had 1 point in 13 playoff games… and was old, and under-performed in all 3)):
Lemieux out-performed his regular season scoring rate 8 occasions (Age 20, 21, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33)
Lemieux under-performed his regular season scoring rate on 7 occasions (Age 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30, 34)
It looks to me like it’s more likely to be randomness than a skill. Why didn’t he step up in those down years? Particularly ages 22-24 and 30 when he played in more than one series and wasn’t on the clear back-end of his career?
Has any player in history ever outperformed their season in the playoffs in every single opportunity? No. What you’re arguing is that there’s no such thing as being clutch, not that Lemieux wasn’t clutch.
In several seasons Joe Sakic scored far less in the playoffs than during the regular season, yet no one would ever say he wasn’t clutch. Random variation obviously is a factor in all statistics, but to deny some one is clutch after an entire career average of numbers shows that he did in fact score more often when it matters is putting far too much faith in luck. For example, was Joe Sakic just lucky to score 8 overtime winners in his career? He had nowhere close to that kind of average in the regular season. In fact he scored nearly twice as many game winning goals per playoff game than regular season game. All luck? Well according to you Sakic’s 172 career playoff games is too small of a sample size so it can only be random variation.
Considering the fact that the intensity level rises in the playoffs and the competition gets far higher, I don’t see how you can just blindly toss out improved numbers over a career across 4 leagues.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Aug 17, 2011 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions
What you’re arguing is that there’s no such thing as being clutch
I do personally believe that is pretty much true.
And that is where we differ.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Aug 18, 2011 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions
It all depends on the definition of clutch.
In order for their to be no clutch, there could be no choke. No player could outperform their regular season and nobody could underperform. The genius of such argument is that if a player under/over performs the term “small sample size” comes into play and any argument against becomes unprovable.
In order for the notion that there should be no expected change in performance we would all have to agree that the variables in the playoffs and regular season are identical. We would also have to assume that all players have the same basic makeup (Work ethic, intelligence, determination, etc).
That isn’t true which is why you get some players that are able to maintain their regular season success and some that are not. Is it clutch to maintain your regular season performance? Is it choking if you don’t over a long sample size?
I don’t believe that Claude Lemieux looks at the calendar and says “time to play better now”, but I do believe that his personality/style were better suited for the playoffs than others. Add in some big goals and you get the media defining him as Mr. Clutch.
Choking has been studied a lot in golf in particular. Some people choke because instead of relying on their muscle memory and believing what they did the first 10 000 times will work again, they overthink it (is my hand in the right place? What about my feet?). In hockey, a player with a high shot rate going into the playoffs that decides to start looking for the perfect shot instead is choking. Even if his goals/60 stays the same because of good shooting luck.
Now, while I believe in choking, I don’t think we can look at someone’s numbers and conclude they choked. If a guy’s shots/60 and goals/60 goes down in the playoffs, it can be because he was covered by a Chara or a Lidstrom. It can be bad luck. It can be any number of things. Choking exists but it’s not as frequent as the media make it out to be.
On being clutch, I think it can be a mix of things. As Chris said, a style can be more suited to the playoffs (less penalties come to mind when talking about Lemieux). It could also be that his coach believed in being clutch and made him play more minutes. Or, imagine being a goalie facing Sakic on a breakaway in overtime. You don’t have time to think, but if you do, that’s exactly what choking is. Did the goalie choke or is Sakic clutch?
If a phenomenon can be explained by statistical variation, it only means that for every occurrence we see, we need to remember that it might be luck. MIGHT be. It doesn’t mean the phenomenon doesn’t exist.
by Simon Lamarche on Aug 18, 2011 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions
I think that the definitions of “choking” and “clutch” are largely in the eye of the beholder, and are built on personal observer biases, perception of timing, reputation, expectations, and, yes, luck — not actual elevation of play.
For example, it’s interesting to me that it seems to be virtually impossible for an European player to develop a reputation as a “clutch” hockey player. There’s a few here and there (I imagine, even though I can’t think of any right now), but they are rare indeed and acknoweldged only grudgingly. Likewise it’s amazing how many Europeans are labelled chokers. Personal biases at work. Expectations also factor in heavily; it’s thoroughly impossible to be a choker unless you are generally good, by definition.
I’m also endlessly amused by the notion that players should “give everything they got every shift” and yet “elevate their game in the playoffs”. This is obviously incompatible by definition. Yet they are traits that are often ascribed to the very same players.
It all falls in the blue collar ethic of hockey, I guess, the notion that it’s all, first and foremost, about hard work.
The problem with clutch is that in order to be what the “media” determines as clutch, you cannot fail in any playoff ever.
Patrick Roy stunk in the 1991-1992 playoffs, clutch in 1993? Is it clutch to give up a goal from center ice in Game 7? A goal that was the difference in the final score? My answer would be he wasn’t clutch in 1991 or 1993. He was just a great player who happened to succeed more often than not.
Ultimately there are players that are better playoff performers than regular season performers. Some players are better suited for a different style of play. The definition of clutch takes on a life of it’s own when placed in the hands of the media.
Claude Lemieux becomes overrated in the playoffs because he was underrated in the regular season. Regular joe fan thinks of Claude Lemieux as a gritty 3rd line agitator guy, not a player who scored 25+ goals 9 times. Not a player who scored 41 goals in a season. So when he scores like a 41 goal scorer everybody acts surprised and says “where was this guy in the regular season?”.
Then we get the clutch definition to even out the initial misperception .
I believe in the ability of individuals to tackle the spotlight. Players who want the responsibility and are not afraid. I have played with players like that. I have also played with players who wanted to avoid the humiliation of failure. To ignore the human element and mental toughness of players is unfair.
MathMan stepped in and said most of what I would have wanted to say, but anyway:
What you’re arguing is that there’s no such thing as being clutch
Believing/arguing that there’s no such thing as being clutch and saying Lemieux wasn’t clutch doesn’t seem contradictory to me.
I don’t believe “clutch” exists as an ability, though I can see it existing and there being a small positive effect (emphasis on small) from it. It’s hard to tell.
Regarding Lemieux, it’s a shame we don’t have ice-time data from the 90s. It would be interesting to see if his ice-time jumped in the playoffs from his coaches using him in that situation.
I think that players being labeled as clutch is mostly the result of their team winning and the player performing well. There are some exceptions, goaltenders carrying teams in the playoffs are able to get that clutch reputation, but by and large team effects seem to play a large role. Would Claude Lemieux be labelled as clutch if he performed just as as he did but his teams never won a Stanley Cup? I’m not so sure.
This is only tangentially related, but Matt Bradley had some interesting comments about Alexander Semin recently and Semin and I’ve seen Semin’s name bandied about as a playoff choker in his mere 37 playoff appearances. Semin’s points-per-game rate has dropped 11% from regular season to the playoffs. Playoff performer Joe Sakic saw his points-per-game drop 9% over his career (though Sakic’s shot-rate is basically the same so there was probably some bad luck/better goaltending there).
Semin gets a bad rap for some horrendous luck one year against Halak.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Aug 18, 2011 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Semin wasn’t unlucky, Halak was clutch ;)
by Simon Lamarche on Aug 19, 2011 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Halak was definitely clutch, combined with Semin being unlucky. :-D
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Aug 19, 2011 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Dale Hunter was labeled clutch without the Cup victories.
by Chris Boyle on Aug 18, 2011 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions
My problem with this position...
is that in order for your scenario to be true all variation in player performance has to be down only to luck. I highly doubt you would challenge an assertion that the tempo, intensity and degree of difficulty of playing in the NHL increases significantly in the playoffs. Therefore keeping a steady points/game average from the regular season to the playoffs is NOT an equivalent performance. To increase your production consistently for your entire career when the competition gets higher and scoring is more difficult can not be called luck.
Sean Bergenheim scoring at an obscene rate this year’s playoffs was luck. Players who do it once or twice in a 15 year career, that’s luck. But to do it consistently over 200+ playoff games is not. Some players are just better at doing the right things under high pressure situations.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Aug 19, 2011 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
All right, but then can you actually name players you do view as “clutch”, in that they “consistently elevate scoring rates over 200+ playoff games”?
You look at guys like Claude Lemieux and Joe Sakic, who are traditionally revered as “clutch players”, and you realize that their career playoff scoring rates are pretty much the same as their regular season scoring rates.
When speaking of 200+ I was speaking specifically about Lemieux. And “about the same” isn’t the same. In every league he ever played in he put up more points in the playoffs than the regular season.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Aug 19, 2011 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions
The problem is that the difference with the regular season is so small — pretty much the sort of difference you’d expect to see if you picked 200 games at random from his career. His “clutchness” would’ve made very little difference, if any.
You’re asserting it’s a small difference, I don’t believe that to be the case at all. The difference between playing the Senators for 6 games a year and the Bruins in the playoffs last year for instance is massive.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Aug 20, 2011 12:57 AM EDT up reply actions
I meant in scoring production.
But the Bruins are a much better club than the Sens. So it’s not exactly surprising one would be tougher than the other.
I just don’t think we can take 200 playoff games and say that they match the regular season scoring rate, making them in essence equal.
If you took Sakic’s yearly production against playoff teams and removed say the bottom 5-6 teams, the Islanders, Panthers, Blue Jackets etc, what would that career average be? Does that equate to the same as his playoff average when he is playing the top half of the league nightly? What would his regular season production be if every night he had been scouted with the intensity that playoff games are scouted? How would his point level be affected if in the first round he was matched against Chara, then Pronger?
Statistical analysis is dependent upon analyzing the proper data. The data that is being represented here barely skims the surface in terms of relevance because it doesn’t present the proper context.
If somebody took the time to go through all the “clutch” players and told me the regular season data (without the stat padding teams) matched the production against playoff teams, then I would buy the argument.
It is like looking at Derek Jeter in the 2001 World Series and saying he choked or that his numbers were based on a small sample size. The reason his numbers sucked were because he faced the two best pitchers in the league 4 of 7 games. If you increased his sample size against those same two dominant pitchers for 60% of his at bats you would get similar results. No different than if Plekanec and Cammalleri played every shift against Chara and Lidstrom.
That is blindly following basic numbers. We all know that the game is different in the playoffs, so why deny that in this type of analysis?
Like I said before, I don’t believe Lemieux just decides to be better, but I do believe that the changes in the playoffs suit his game better and that is why he excelled.
by Chris Boyle on Aug 20, 2011 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions


















