Claude Loiselle To Be Habs Next GM?
by Robert L on Jan 1, 2012 7:11 PM EST
in Opinions and other Habs links
Email
Print
It appears as though the Montreal Canadiens have already begun making inquiries as to a potential successor for General Manager Pierre Gauthier. Over the New Year's weekend, I came upon a pair of acquaintances who both mentioned that current Maple Leafs assistant GM Claude Loiselle had been contacted recently by the Montreal organization. I'll be honest, I do hear all kinds of nonsense about the team from fans, rumours often so ridiculous they have absolutely no foundation. This rumor is a bit different. I've long known that Loiselle has relations living near and in my Cornwall hometown. The two people who mentioned his name over the past few days however, are not related to each other, nor do they know each other personally. One apparently has heard word that it was the parents of the assistant GM who let the rumor slip, while the other has said the former NHL player's wife confided to a friend that the Canadiens had called. Admittedly, this is nothing much to go on of course. Rumours of this sort fly all the time and little comes of them. I just figured I'd throw this out there, strictly because of how it came to me, and see if there are the usual denials that follow and what type of sentiment Loiselle's name brings. As for a comment concerning Loiselle's potential appointment, I'd have say first that it flies completely under the radar of names currently being mentioned as replacements for Gauthier. My opinion would be that the Canadiens' fix needs an experienced man, and not the star GM prospect that Loiselle appears to be. Another point of view that has merit is that the Canadien's situation requires fresh eyes.
For more on Loiselle's career, here are two links that I found informative. National Post, Wiki
In other news, the current GM has done a smart and rare in season move, signing defenseman Josh Gorges to a six year contract extension. Story here.
68 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Whose more likely to be aware of/adopt advanced statistics and not believe that determination and hardwork, etc., are the key to success, as with RC’s 4th line logic.?
Who is more likely to recognize the solid core we have and not blow us up?
Those are the two questions that I think are important to ask when thinking about an experienced GM vs a prospect and any given candidate’s track record.
No one needs “advanced statistics” to see that a player’s game is all crooked.
by Robert L on Jan 1, 2012 7:55 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Well, without them one might misunderstand the value of a Scott Gomez, say, to the club.
Furthermore, a GM who doesn’t pay attention to the right things could be disastrous for the franchise, and set them back ten years. Consider all the ways a GM might mess this up:
- Belief that the “blow it up” rebuild is not only a good strategy, it is the one to be taken by the Habs at this juncture
- Belief that trades for shakeup purposes have value
- Overpaying for short-term performance
- Overpaying for goaltending
- Overvaluing “size, grit, work ethic” over skill
- Valuing players solely by scoring, especially short-term scoring
- Believing that a transitory drop in scoring is due to a player’s game being “all crooked”
- Failing to understand the distinction between 5-on-5 and power play ability
- Inability to manage the cap
…and more.
The next GM has to be a strong analytical mind who’s not going to fall into the all-too-typical clichés. Understanding of advanced stats would certainly give the candidate a leg up.
There is nothing that advanced stats can tell you, that you cannot see with your own eyes if you know what to look for. Advanced stats are likely what caused Gainey to trade for Gomez in the first place, because they certainly made him look to be more valuable that he was. Me, I just look at the direction his skates turn in traffic. Those kinds of things will tell you more about any player than a composite set of figures ever will.
by Robert L on Jan 1, 2012 8:27 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
There is nothing that advanced stats can tell you, that you cannot see with your own eyes if you know what to look for.
lol
by Hunter Durfee on Jan 1, 2012 9:53 PM EST up reply actions
No, it’s just that people who continue to use the same arguments as you when it comes to advanced stats remind me of those who believe in creationism.
by Hunter Durfee on Jan 2, 2012 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
Here’s the thing though: Gomez is actually very valuable to the Habs, and we’re seeing the proof right before our very eyes.
It’s really his second injury that sent the team spinning down the drain. With him in the lineup, Montreal was a top-10 possession club; without him, they’re pretty much the worst since the lockout. Part of that is due to the Habs lacking a suitable replacement for him, of course, but the whole point is that players like Gomez, who can do heavy lifting from the centre position, don’t grow on trees. Martin’s juggling from the Carolina game on was designed to cope as well as he could with having only Plekanec able to do the job, something which Cunneyworth unfortunately seems to grasp dimly at best. Hence the sad situation we find ourselves in now.
Understanding the impact of a player like Scott Gomez is exactly the sort of thing I’m afraid the next GM cannot recognize. Someone who knows what to look for, as you put it, might be able to recognize how essential he is to the club, but advanced stats certainly help in this regard, and help combat the caricatural image of him the media has created.
Players like Gomez don’t grow on trees.
Thanks goodness for that!
See, this is exactly why I don’t trust stats. When they can actually be used to show that Gomez has any worth whatsoever, there is something wrong. Yes Gomez makes good speed between the bluelines with the puck, and his pass % is about 50/50, but he’s one dimensional, so predictable its laughable, he fears going to the net, is unaccountable in puck battles, and he has gotten to be horrible in his own zone without the puck. The few games he played in this season, aside from one, showed that he does not make the team better at all.
I’m not brainwashed by advanced stats. They are just not valid in my eyes. There are too many things that can affect numbers, starting with the play of four teammates together and the quality of goaltending. It’s like the plus/minus stat. One player makes a bad play, a turnover, and every other guy on the ice is docked. I don’t believe that the theory of shots on goal, misses and blocked infallibally determines puck possession time. Teams often spend over a minute inside the other team’s zone on a PP without a shot hitting the net. There are just too many variables and mitigating factors in what comprise any number to rely too heavily on them.
The kind of stats I’d be interested in seeing will never see the light of day. Things such as a player’s percentage of puck battles won, a puck possession timer that would truly show the uselessness of the turnover stat (as it is presently calculated), a pass completed/missed ratio for players (lookout AK 46), and a plus/minus ratio for a team’s players in combination with who they potentially play with. (For example, what is the +/- for Plekanec when he’s on the ice with Subban, as opposed to when P.K. is not on the ice with him.)
These kinds of stats would truly show the individual’s worth.
by Robert L on Jan 1, 2012 11:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
No, to me, you sound more like you’re brainwashed by lazy, empty media “analysis”. Which is certainly not valid in my eyes.
More seriously, I think you ought to go back and re-read any of the excellent analysis published on this blog, or on Olivier’s at En Attendant Les Nordiques. Or even Chris Boucher over at Boucher Scouting, who tracks, among other things… percentage of puck battles won and pass completion ratio. You’re missing some good stuff if you’re not looking at all this.
You also find out about player usage, about matchups, about who starts in the offensive zone and who starts in the defensive zone and who gets matched against who, what Martin was doing, what Cunneyworth is doing differently, and why it isn’t working as well. All very important stuff with real impact on the game and stuff the media won`t even mention, presumably because they don’t look at the games closely enough to notice these things.
Here, on the specific subject of Gomez, you may find these interesting, if you haven’t read them already:
http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2011/12/7/2618623/do-the-canadiens-miss-their-most-useless-player
http://enattendantlesnordiques.blogspot.com/2011/12/limpact-de-gomez-sur-plekanec.html
Okay, I’ve read Chris’ piece a second time and I believe I’ve come to a similar conclusion as before.
What I take from it is that Gomez helps eat up about 16 to 18 minutes per game in which all his attributes combined makes it so that nothing eventful happens either way – to the benefit or detriment of the team – while he is on the ice. His value to the team in this, is that his contributions allow for longer stretches in which the Canadiens can stay in the game, holding a lead, remaining tied, etc.
What I wished I could deduce, or find somewhere, is something that would translate this bland effectiveness into a concrete advantage. With all this icetime, Gomez is not a player known to draw penalties. He’s more prone to taking bad penalties. If the effectiveness of Gomez’ presence at even strength is a virtue that allows for the Habs PP (when producing) to win games, then I don’t see a correlation.
What Chris’ article best exposes for me, is that combined, DD and Eller are not yet ready to eat up Gomez’s uneventful game minutes. (Eller, it should be said, has many of 11’s same bad penalty tendencies).
Chris did good in noting the other Fenwick horses that could potentially affect perceptions, but regarding the PP effectiveness that plays into the Canadiens’ success, it wasn’t noted that this year, the Habs have no player on the PP point commanding the respect of Markov, Wiz or MAB. The PP this season, has been greatly ineffective with Pleks and someone other than Subban on the first unit, for the most part, Diaz and PK on the second wave.
That’s what kills me about such flatline analysis. There are simply too many mitigating factors to draw a simple conclusion. I like the study, I just can’t say that it is conclusive or convincing enough for me to place blind faith in.
Olivier’s latest, is not the one I thought I had read before. I’ll give it a look, but it won’t be on this late night. I’ll try to check it out tomorrow and get back to it.
by Robert L on Jan 2, 2012 12:37 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The habs weren’t too bad when Gomez missed 9 games at the beginning of the season. But since he went down in Carolina, they’ve rocked a 4-14 record. Martin was 3-7 (one OT loss, three shootout losses), Cunneyworth 1-7 (all regulation losses).
It’s not only Gomez, obviously. Gionta is a huge loss too.
My understanding is that, under Martin, Gomez was sent out to play against the second toughest opponents behind Plekanec.
Pleks was also used as a fireman: if the 3rd or 4th line had to take a Defensive zone faceoff, often Martin would send Plekanec instead. Martin, it has to be noted, never sent Plekanec to bail Gomez out. Also, he’d often pull a “1-2-1-2” sequence, that is send Plekanec, then Gomez, then Plekanec again, then Gomez again (often he’d do that around a timeout, a commercial pause, stuff like that). Those kind of moves were even more often used at home, wher the last change helps spotting your guy agains the right opposition.
This year, where Desharnais played a tonne, all those shenanigans essentially meant that Plekanec was used to releive Desharnais of defensive zone faceoffs and Gomez was left on his own.
With Gomez out, Martin had to use Pleks to help, not only Desharnais, but also Eller. He eventually came to trust Eller more (at the beginning of december), but right there and then, Gionta went down.
Gomez is not a world-beater, but he doesn’t need help or sheltering either. In a first half where the two other centers, Eller and Desharnais, needed protection (again, Eller is looking like he might have taken a step forward in that department), loosing #11 was pretty bad. Had Gauthier went out and gotten, say Phalsson instead of Nokelainen, thing might be different today.
Bad spelling? We’re all victim of that when passionate!
Here’s the thing, and I apologize for this, but I am so beyond discussing Gomez, that I feel like I’m wasting life minutes that I’ll never get back.
If I could be convinced, or could have been convinced by what I’d seen with my own eyes, that Gomez was even a factor in the dozen games or so that he played this year, I’d be remotely interesting in pursuing the theory that his absense continues to matter at this point regrading games he did not play in.
We’ve all beaten the subject to death on this site, with little movement from either side. I am not willing to create animosities over what I believe to be right, so I’m bpwing out of it.
Just one questions – I’ve always liked Sami Pahlsson, but I cannot say I’ve seen much of him the last two years. How effective has he been with CBJ this season?
Honestly, I’d given up on MSM analysis eons ago. They make me angry, and they don’t even touch upon a tenth of what I catch in games.
I’ve read a bunch (not lots) of what Olivier and Chris are doing and I can admit that it is excellent research….but its only one piece of the pie, per se.
Players just factor too much into each others stats for me to be convinced that one appraisal based strictly on numbers is definitive.
You can surely say that my hockey IQ is from a different time, but I can still tell just by the way a player looks up ice that he about to make a mistake with the puck.
The media take a lot of flack for their type of coverage, but what they produce is akin to fast food. They are defined by their lack of time and space. If you remember my post game reports and this site, I would be writting from 11PM to 4AM and it would take you 10 to 15 minutes to read through it. If you still think that I am brainwashed by lazy media…..well all I can say is no one has ever looped me in with that crew, ever!
by Robert L on Jan 1, 2012 11:57 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
At 7 million+ the main stat for me, is at that price, he should be producing at least 80 points per season, which would = more wins, especially with the amount of shootout losses and one goal game losses this team has accumulated.
He’s a useful player at that amount. He could easily play as a fourth line center without any expectations.
On the contrary — the team has been vastly better with Gomez than without, especially in terms of scoring chances for and against. He makes the team much better. Gomez faces top-6 opposition far more effectively than any centre on the club not named Plekanec, he’s instrumental in getting the puck to the offensive zone, he’s strong defensively leading to very few shots and chances against, and his passing is a major factor in chances for. The team misses him, and misses him badly.
But, like you say, you need to know what to look for. (Which is a bit of the problem with pure observation: we’ll see the same thing and have vastly different interpretations.)
Yes Matt, but those are just flat number observations. He gets pucks to the offensive zone quite fluidly, but once there he’s so damn predictable that he’s countered easily and so are his linemates. Unless he’s brave enough on a particular incursion and beats a D-man to the outside, Gomez will either float a lame shot on net, dump it behind the goal, or pass to a partially covered teammates. He gets a better % of passes on sticks from behind the net, but often that has much to do with the qualify of the defenders playing against him.
Defensively, he’s experience enough to position himself quite well, but his lack of physical attributes makes him a wet noodle in puck battles.
“He gets pucks to the offensive zone quite fluidly, but once there he’s so damn predictable that he’s countered easily and so are his linemates”
I get that explanation a lot. It makes absolutely no sense given the facts that we have. The fact is, Habs take waaay more shots than the opponents while Gomez is on the ice. Forget about any special significance that may have in advanced stat land, and just think about the fact on its basic face. If Gomez is so predictable, how come so many shots are directed at the opponent`s net, and so few at the Habs’? How come Gomez’s oh-so-predictable passes aren’t routinely picked off and turned into odd-man rushes, leading to lots of shots against? How come Gomez’s linemates somehow end up taking so many shots instead?
In short, if Gomez is so predictable, why aren’t D-men predicting his passes and picking them off?
His “predictability” is a post-hoc explanation, just like “the Habs lost to the Flyers in 2007-2008 due to lack of size”. It’s something that sounds like it makes sense given the result, but it doesn’t match all the facts when looked at in any depth.
Incidentally, according to Boucher scouting, who actually goes and counts these things, Gomez wins a percentage of defensive-zone puck battles similar to Plekanec. The notion that he loses a lot, much like the notion that he takes too many penalties, is pretty much projection; because he gets observed with the preconception that he’s bad, his losses stick out more in our minds, even though he really doesn’t necessarily do worse when you go through the trouble of counting.
You’ll probably find this interesting: http://www.boucherscouting.com/2011/12/excllusive-statistical-represention-of.html
"He gets pucks to the offensive zone quite fluidly, but once there he’s so damn predictable that he’s countered easily and so are his linemates"
I get that explanation a lot. It makes absolutely no sense given the facts that we have. The fact is, Habs take waaay more shots than the opponents while Gomez is on the ice.
I see what your getting at, but this is exactly why I stand firm in stating that flatline numbers cannot ever tell the full story.
The number of scoring chances are deceiving, and so are shots on goal. To me, a scoring chance, a good one, is best told to me when it lifts my butt from the coach. A shot taken by forward, with a defensemen between him and his goalie, doesn’t always register with me. If it has low percentage, it is nothing more than a shot on statistically. Look at how many times either Gomez or Gionta have scored from beyond the faceoff circle in three years, and you’ll get my sense of low percentage. Gionta has a good dozen, but few with Gomez as his center.
Gomez might create chances, but they are strictly about 75% perimeter chances. This applies to his linemates as well. Goals aren’t scored in the NHL this way, and it explains why SG hasn’t had one in almost 50 games.
In short, if Gomez is so predictable, why aren’t D-men predicting his passes and picking them off?
They are, were, big time.
Gomez might create chances, but they are strictly about 75% perimeter chances.
Scoring chances, of the sort counted by Olivier, are defined as shots from in front of the net and the middle of the ice, a “home plate” shaped area between the two faceoff dots. By definition, they are not “perimeter chances”.
These are just not low-percentage shots.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the shots taken when Gomez is on the ice are any lower quality than for any other player. Even the shooting percentage of the team when Gomez is on the ice has gotten back to normal, though Gomez has not had enough luck to rack up secondary assists from them (his primary assist rate per icetime, OTOH, actually leads the team).
They are, were, big time.
If they were, then they would be doing astonishingly little with the puck after that.
Sorry, “luck” does not factor into statistical discussions.
As for the “sort counted by Olivier,” I can only sigh, and bless him.
There’s a reason why Gomez’s stats read like a relief pitcher’s won/loss record.
If, in your opinion, he contributes so much, explain then why he hasn’t scored in almost fifth games?
Sorry, "luck" does not factor into statistical discussions.
Um…. actually, it factors in a great deal. One could say that one of the main goals of the entire exercise is to figure out what players have actual control over and what is just waves in the sea of variance that is a hockey season.
If, in your opinion, he contributes so much, explain then why he hasn’t scored in almost fifth games?
Because he’s a passer and is actually a terrible shot?
Bringing up Gomez’s goal-scoring as if it were of much significance is silly. It’s never been the point of Gomez.
This is a loser’s response, totally.
C’mon Matt, I’m daring you to show me now how “luck”, or bad luck, figures into positive advanced stats showing Gomez’s worth.
Luck can be a deflection, a goal post, a pass hitting a skate. There’s a stat for that, really?
Gomez’s goal scoring in itself, is not of significance, because if he was actually scoring goals, he would be a threat. The fact that he does not do the work neccessary to score goals is why his linemates are covered like a condom over a cock.
Watch the fucking games and you would see this as plain as a nose on a face.
I’m done debating this.
Robert, Gomez has been an effective 5-on-5 point producer for ten seasons. Somehow, he suddenly got totally figured out by the league in 2010-2011? If it really took that long for opposing coaches to figure out that he can’t shoot, and that he’s predictable and easy to defend, well, how dumb are NHL coaches, really?
But on the broader picture. How do you think “advanced” stats are gathered, if not by “watching the fucking games”? And if I just told you, “yes, I watched the fucking games and I think you’re completely out to lunch”, where would that get us? It’s pointless, which is why I avoid doing that.
And, well, I’ve read some of your other comments so I’ve really got to ask: how much does “watching the fucking games” factor in for you, anyway? After reading your stories about how one player’s influence has dwindled in the locker room and now he sucks because of that, or how another player may never be a #1 D-man because he doesn’t back his yapping and he’s (according to your speculations) alienating his own teammates with his antics…
Well, to me it’s really starting to sound like what actually happens in the games doesn’t actually have as much importance than the stuff happening around and between them. This is all about stuff that happens between the whistles or in the dressing room, nothing about how the players actually play.
We clearly have very different views on hockey. I may be weird, but I’m personally a lot more interested in how the players actually play. The speculations that surround the game about what happens in the dressing room and about player A or B’s attitude… frankly, I’ve always found those to be pretty much entirely a matter of interpretation.
Gomez has been an effective 5-on-5 point producer for ten seasons.
With many of those better seasons with Brodeur in goal, Neidermayer and Stevens on defense, making his numbers look good.
That said, and pointed out, you have yet to acknowledge that all five players on the ice affect one anothers stats. Example above – there you have have it.
I may be weird, but I’m personally a lot more interested in how the players actually play.
Not you’re not. I’m the one telling you how the players play. You, keep going back to stats.
Nice try!
With many of those better seasons with Brodeur in goal, Neidermayer and Stevens on defense, making his numbers look good.
The idea that teammates matter is a good thought, and it’s certainly true. But crediting teammates for the enitrety of Gomez’s production?
One problem was that neither Stevens nor Niedermeyer was with the Devils past the lockout, including for his infamous 2005-2006 season when Gomez had his most productive season ever. Then he continued to be productive for the Devils, for the Rangers, and for his first year with the Habs — three different teams, three different sets of teammates.
Then in 2010-2011, even though his teammates were mostly the same than in 2009-2010, and stronger overall, the league figured him out and that’s why he stopped producing?
Nice try!
I’m the one telling you how the players play.
Do you really? To me, you sound like you’ve decided Gomez is useless because he doesn’t get enough points (note how this is a stat) and you’re basically trying to find explanations to support this argument. So far we’ve gone over predictability, perimeter shots, and teammates.
Me, watching Scott Gomez I saw a guy who played 2010-2011 much like 2009-2010, but had the misfortune of teammates who failed to bury his passes.
And you are always finding excuses for Gomez, it´s beyond ridiculous. He is not useless but at the same time he should be nowhere near our top two lines. Teammates who failed to bury his passes? Better passing would help as well as the ability to put the fucking puck into the net by himself once in a while. FFS, at this point he´s not a even a 10 goal per season player anymore.
Apart from his ability to carry the puck niceless through the neutral zone his game at this point has no real strength but many weaknesses and he definitely is predictable. I´ve never seen a player trying so many blind-passes. Oh well, he has a second strength, that´s avoiding traffic.
He isn’t a top two line player under the premise in which you assume the top two lines need to be used.
The problem with this whole discussion is close minded viewpoints in which ego is overtaking discourse.
Gomez is not worth $7M per season. We all agree on that, but when the emotion takes over and states
I don’t even figure in salary. He’d be garbage at 800K.
then we are getting into confirmation bias and emotionally charged arguments.
How many 800K players can hold top two line opposition to a standoff and actually outperform their opposition slightly? Should I assume a guy like Nokelainen or Blunded can perform this task? That they can shut down top team scoring lines and outshot them while starting the majority of their shifts in their own zone where a lost faceoff can add to a negative fenwick almost instantly?
That is essentially what Robert is saying with this statement. This isn’t even a talking point because it is ridiculous and exposes the emotional bias being used in this context.
All of these types of arguments are based on expectation and disappointment. The same guys who would want to trade Subban are howling that we didn’t re-up Gorges. Gorges has always existed as a player who was a throw in for Rivet and has always surpassed expectation.
Price got skewered because of the Calder Cup, the 5th overall pick and the World junior MVP. Halak would have got smoked in this city after the playoff performance just like Penney was in 1985 and 1986. He is a hero when people expected nothing and a bum when he doesn’t repeat the unrepeatable.
Bitching about Gomez is a waste of time because they are proving right now that there is no replacement for his minutes. Everybody here defends Gomez because the arguments against him are all the same, but everybody here will totally endorse a deal for him that returns a replacement player or a transaction that makes the Habs better.
Everybody is free to emotionally rant about the Habs all they want here as far as I am concerned, but be prepared to back it up with tangible evidence. Tangible evidence is not “my eyes” because everybody’s eyes tells them something different based upon what their brain tells them to look for.
Simple as that.
by Chris Boyle on Jan 2, 2012 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Everybody is free to emotionally rant about the Habs all they want until the deciders of what is tangible choose to disagree and back their points with advanced stats, thereby alienating 95% of the EOTP readership. This was a post concerning a potential GM, yet a few comments in, the thread was hijacked and turned back into a discussion about stats. There are more ways than one to look at hockey, and most require the use of eyes, yet that is now considered foolish or out of touch. I’m hardly against the use of new learning tools to enhance the understanding of the game. I’ve endorsed such thinking often while I was at the helm of this site. But now it has come to dominate every argument and point made. If anyone begs to differ, offer a fresh perspective from this, they are accused of havings mandates or biases. Sorry Chris, but you’ve come to epitomize the two terms you despize the most.
by Robert L on Jan 2, 2012 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well, if alienating 95% of our readership results in a 30% increase in viewership year over year, then we will continue to alienate away.
If actually asking readers to expect to be held accountable for their opinion is a bad thing, once again I will continue to epitomize what I despise.
Statistics dominate a discussion because they are the only thing that can tangibly disprove what somebody’s “eyes” are telling me.
Your eyes told us the following…
but he’s one dimensional, so predictable its laughable, he fears going to the net, is unaccountable in puck battles, and he has gotten to be horrible in his own zone without the puck. The few games he played in this season, aside from one, showed that he does not make the team better at all.
Mathman countered with something that was totally reasonable. Pointing you to Chris Boucher’s site that actually tracks all the plenty of the things that you said would be useful, but never see the light of the day.
The kind of stats I’d be interested in seeing will never see the light of day. Things such as a player’s percentage of puck battles won, a puck possession timer that would truly show the uselessness of the turnover stat (as it is presently calculated), a pass completed/missed ratio for players (lookout AK 46), and a plus/minus ratio for a team’s players in combination with who they potentially play with. (For example, what is the +/- for Plekanec when he’s on the ice with Subban, as opposed to when P.K. is not on the ice with him.)
These kinds of stats would truly show the individual’s worth.
Gomez hits just below 60% of his offensive zone passes at even strength. He makes close to 80% in the defensive zone and around 85% in the neutral zone.
Gomez is well over 50% in every zone for his puck battles according to Boucher scouting.
Those aren’t advanced stats, they are tracked by Chris Boucher and they tend to disagree with your eyes. So now should I trust your eyes, or the guy who is watching every game and breaking down every single event during a game?
Is it unreasonable for me to rely on the expertise of Olivier who tracks every scoring chance and has Gomez as a + as well as Chris Boucher, then take a guy like Gabriel Desjardins or Vic Ferrari who write scripts that take every game sheet in a season and break it down into a million different categories instantly (something that would take you or I a year to accumulate), then trust my own eyes, plus the research that has charted over 60,000 shots over your “eyes” and the assertions that Mathman challenged enough for me to doubt your perspective?
I am willing to take the advice of 5-6 individuals, absorb their expertise and feedback, take my own opinion and contrast it to my findings to create my opinion and then push forth my viewpoints.
I am collaborating within the community for a group perspective and you are offering a singular viewpoint. If you feel that is unreasonable, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Advanced Stats, EOTP and Gomez
As a more objective, occassional participant, you’d really have to have your Eyes completely closed not to recognize that the primary focus of the main contributors to EOTP is beating the livin’ hell out of “advanced stats” that seem to often contradict the results and performances that we watch on the ice. Defending Gomez ends up high-jacking every posting because you guys are so dead set on convincing anybody who doesn’t believe that black is white that Gomez is more valuable than he appears to be while actually playing.
Leaving salary aside, I look to minus-15 rating in ‘10-11 with 7 goals and less than 40 points for a #2 center playing 18+ minutes/game, and the fact that I’m stunned if something notable or remotely positive happens for the Habs with Gomez on the ice … answer is, No! He’s no threat to score and he’s not creative in the O zone. He can complete passes, occassionally win puck battles, and he’s 50/50 on face-offs … but a liability in his own end. That’s Gomez.
Is there a stat that says he’s better than he seems to be? Maybe. Do those convince me that up is down? No, not really.
by Watty4ever on Jan 2, 2012 8:32 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If you are looking for a site that isn’t looking for tangible proof then this site isn’t for you. There are plenty of sites that read body language and create narratives based on partial information, this isn’t it.
Nor is it a site that ‘the masses’ are treated with any form of respect. I can actually hear the sighs coming from my computer when someone doesn’t ‘back’ a comment up with stats. To put the sport of hockey under a micro scope, and for ‘backstage’ locker room details to ‘mean nothing to the overall sport’, you should just have androids on the ice and create the nice neat numbers you always talk about. Better yet get back on your pc and play Hockey League Simulator.
My apologies, in any of my posts since I came here I have not targeted anyone, nor called out people on their personalities, or their education (or lack thereof), nor of their affinity to numbers. I had no intention of doing so.
But, in my defence, there is a callousness amongst the number crunchers, an underlying disdain for the mere mention of notions from ‘emotional fans’.
An appreciation to those fans, basically because it is those fans that buy the memorabilia, the tickets to the games, cheer and boo when things are right and wrong. A stats fan, by definition, can look at numbers from their home computers any hour of any day and come up with suppositions, and connections, and permutations and combinations… but dismissing the value of a personality, a characteristic, a value or belief of each and every player for the mere chance that your numbers add up misses the overall purpose of hockey. Its a game, played by teams, made up of players, who got to be on that team due to their merit and said characteristics… not likely because in grade 7 their Corsi and Fenwick were off the charts good, but that they had good work ethic, respected their teammates and coaches, were fun to play with, made things light in the locker room when things were getting tense. This is what you dismiss, take away when you only live in the bubble of numbers.
Yes, I am sure all the aforementioned stat collectors do a great job, and I thank them whoever they may be that share with us. I think its a neat way to view, but not the only way to view, the best game in town.
Chris : If the goal is to tantalize one side of your audience with baubles they enjoy, and up your precious site numbers, then congrats. Here here.
If, the site was ever about appreciating the differences that fans posses, the different takes that can be had on any one game or one player, I think that time has passed.
Alienating one group to make another look smarter, more elite, more educated steals the genuine fan feeling from here.
I wrote Robert lately, expressing my gratitude for his being able to balance the emotional fans with the stats fanatics. He did this very well. I also expressed to him that its hard to stay silent when there are so many things to say on a topic, but for the stats groups fascination with humiliating emotional fans I often say nothing.
Tangible proof is such a ambiguous notion. Tangible proof of a team being good, or playing well should include wins and no worries about getting into the playoffs. Tangible proof that there is, evidence based, something wrong with Gomez in Montreal despite all the stats no one scores with him, and he does not score. Whatever he may do right does not translate into anything. Having a player play 18 mins so that no progress and no mistakes are made is USELESS. Younger players can learn what Gomez does right, Gomez cannot unlearn what he does wrong. So addition by subtraction- let the youth get seasoned, don’t worry about ‘replacing’ whatever Gomez brings (I for one have no idea what he brings to this team other than provide dissention among the ranks and soft play), make him disappear and others will provide for the team. If the team worried or was scared about stats not being made up by whoever takes the minutes, Gomez will never leave Montreal – the stats group has eloquently put together 25 articles (I exaggerate) on what ails the Habs and it isn’t Gomez apparently. So keep him and trade away everyone who isn’t living up to what Gomez is bringing… thus changing the luck factor that does or doesn’t exist.
No, sorry I do not have the numbers to illustrate the learning curve of young players, and how their speed of learning will hinder the overall production of the Habs in every possible format (PP,PK,5-5, 3-5,OT), but I will say that a team that is given breathing room for learning and growth together will have an enhanced sense of ‘team’ and will outproduce teams that do not see themselves as ‘connected’. Take that to the bank. If I trust you I will die for you, if I mistrust you I will give up on you…. I don’t know how that translates in stat talk. But its what is going on for Gomez right now.
Sorry for the Gomez, Stats, garbled message. I just don’t know if I have time to sit and wait for equality on this site…
Enjoy your numbers fellas….
by Cruisin4aBruisin on Jan 3, 2012 10:03 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t understand why the analytical and emotional approaches can’t coexist. I can look at the stats and understand how valuable Subban is to the team, but it doesn’t mean I don’t curse when I see him turn the puck over in our end.
by Hunter Durfee on Jan 3, 2012 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
Plus-minus
I dunno. Plus-minus figures are fairly tangible. Most goals win. If the other team scores more goals when you’re on the ice, that suggests (to me) in a very simple, tangible way that you are net-net a negative for your team. Kind of like the old Economics 101 joke – you can’t take a loss on every item sold and make it up in volume. Doesn’t work that way. Score more goals, you win games. Winning games is how you make the playoffs, win playoff games, win Cups.
they're all flawed stats ....
Where’s your perfect stat? Is that a forrest, or just a bunch of trees?
There is no perfect stat. However, there are stats that are inherently more accurate than others. Looking at multiple stats that address different aspects of a players performance or examine them with different methodologies can give a fairly accurate assessment of a player’s value.
by Hunter Durfee on Jan 3, 2012 3:30 PM EST up reply actions
Point is -
Proof of what? Your stats ARE partial information. Sports aren’t played via computer. The human element and all that this engenders can’t be captured by stats, no matter how esoteric and/or “advanced” … team chemistry, and heart, and outperformance, and luck, and bad bounces, grit, leadership, in-game strategy, etc., all figure in to your results. You can try to harness the game (any game) objectively, but the human element (subjective) often separates the winners and losers night-in and night-out. If you forget that basic lesson of sports, you’re just navel gazing and circle jerking trying to explain why the guy who looks good on paper doesn’t produce results on the playing field (or ice). That’s why “upsets” happen over and over again in all sports; as the saying goes, That’s why they play the games!
The question is do you want to swap opinions or construct arguments? Opinions don’t need to be backed up by much evidence (although its better if they are). Arguments need support though and the better the evidence the better the argument.
What perturbs me in these discussions is that numerical and systemic analysis is held to a much higher standard than the emotional, psychological or story-telling explanation. The epistemological standards are out of wack in my opinion.
The psychological element that you’re talking about for example, how on earth to you expect to have any idea about what’s going on inside a guy’s head while on the ice? I’d be dubious of a sport psychology expert’s opinion for that, let alone a fan’s.
Which is to say, I often find myself in the position of:
“I don’t know if you’re right or not but you’re not giving a strong enough argument for me to substitute your opinion for my own.”
Writer for http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/
by Stephan Cooper on Jan 3, 2012 5:27 PM EST up reply actions
We can all agree -
Stephen – Agreed. For example, Andrew laid out a lengthy analysis on the team’s Quarterly Report using 8-9 detailed metrics (Advanced stats). But his conclusion, quoted from memory, was that basically 80% of the Habs who played more than 5 games this year are rated 7, 8, 9 or 10 on a 1-10 scale … I think only 3-4 players were rated 5 or 6, with none below 5. On a 10-scale, where 4-6 is “average”, that suggests that the vast majority of this team have been “good”, “very good”, or “excellent” in 2011 …. based on these Stats. Or his analysis of these Stats. It’s counter-intuitive that if your inputs are the correct inputs, that somehow the team’s results are so very far removed from the performance of the players. Said another way, how can a .500 team that has a terrible PP, is in the bottom 1/3 of the NHL in scoring goals, and repeatedly gives up leads to lose close games … be populated by almost nothing but players who are playing well above the league average??
Something doesn’t compute. Either your inputs or your conclusions. So either these Stats aren’t meaningful or your use of them is influenced by personal biases that smack of the same “uninformed, emotional” fanatic views that the rest of us suffer.
I think you just hit the nail on the head there Robert, Gomez is afraid, and plays like he is. The funny thing is that he has never had a huge injury or an Richard Zednick-like incident that changed his game. I think he just lost that fire he had; that willingness to go home hurt and play through the pain he had earlier in his career. He’s afraid to get hurt, he’s afraid to sacrifice; and in the end that is what makes him a bad player. He’s got enough skill and talent to still be a somewhat effective player, but nothing more.
You can’t train heart, and you can’t train out fear. Gomez just lost it, and in my opinion doesn’t want to pay the price to get it back. Not while making over 7 million a year for the foreseeable future.
by Silvertip on Jan 2, 2012 2:51 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
My personal belief, and this goes back a season and a half, is that Gomez’s balls were cut off by Hal Gill in the 2010 post-season. He hasn’t been the same player since!
The story was not given much attention in the media at the time, but it boiled down to influence in the Canadiens dressing room as it approached playoff time.
If you can recall, the Canadiens, with all their new free agents under new coach Jacques Martin, played dislexic hockey for most of the 2009-10 season. From what I had read, the Canadiens players were divided over Martin’s system even then. Some players thought the team should be an offensive juggernaut with their talent, while others, considering their size upfrony, favored a more defensively responsible game plan. The former was the Gomez view, while the latter involved Gill siding with the coach. Gill, it is told, won this battle of influence, starting with Game 5 against Washington. We all know the rest.
Since that time – call it a defining dressing room moment – Gomez has been nil and neutered regarding influence. It is no coincidence that since then, he is not the player he once was.
And thank you Robert ...
for a more refreshing view on an often debated topic at EOTP
One can see the true impact of a GM that know how to bulid/rebuild a team. Dale Tallon comes to mind. Look at what he did in Chicago, and look at what he is now doing in Florida.
What Tallon has done in a half season in Florida shouldn’t be overrated. He’s profited for the time being from high draft picks due to the failure of previous regimes and over the summer signed a wadful of high priced free agents no other teams were willing to gamble on. I don’t yet see long term success for Florida based on this. They are no doubt rejuvenated for now, but I’d still take what Canadiens own over what the Panthers have. Tallon’s legacy will most likely be judged on how all the kids in this years WJC pan out.
I like what the Canadiens own as well. However, time will tell how these players develop over the long term. The way the habs have been managed over the last 15 years or so, clearly shows poor direction so far.
I think that Montreal since 2003, have been a big improvement over the previous 7 or 8 years. I still believe this club has the right core to go forward. I like what Timmins has done a lot. Every team makes a few srewups in drafts but no team is over scrutinized like the Habs. You never hear the flak directed at 20 other organizations that passed up Claude Giroux, for example.
Presently, I think the biggest problems are Cunneyworth’s assistants. Who of Ladouceur, Carriere or Groulx could settle down Subban in a game? Someone of Larry Robinson’s stature and expertise would help, but the two jokers they have now amount to a deck full of deuces.
I disagree that Ladouceur is a Deuce; he simply lacks the coaching experience. He’s a great guy to have around and is passionate about the game. I have met him several times and nobody could ever fault his love for the game or teaching it to the young guys around him. Unfortunately for him…and the Habs, he has yet to acquire the experience or gravitas to guide a guy like Subban. I agree that Larry Robinson would represent everything the Habs need as an assistant coach. I just don’t see them hiring anyone new until the next head coach is chosen.
If anyone here thinks that Cunneyworth will still be at the bar of the Habs after this season; I have some really nice bottom land to sell you…just don’t ask what its at the bottom of…
Sorry Silvertip, but I think that in disagreeing with me, you’ve also argued my point.
Maybe the "deuce’ term was harsh – Ladouceur deserves a better word for all his experience, but as you suggest, he doesn’t quite have the rep to come down hard on PK.
In fairness to Randy, there’s lots of other stuff currently playing into and affecting what he can and cannot do. No doubt that RL is a good teacher, many coaches are. Presence is something I never had as a coach. I cab recognize that, and I recognize it in him.
bring in Robinson
Habs would be foolish to bring in the unproven Loiselle… he’s being taught by the worst GM in the NHL Brian Burke. Habs need to bring in Larry Robinson. He’s a champ not Loiselle who’s a minor leaguer in all aspects of hockey.
Great passionate debate… something I have been saying vs Gomez, but eloquently stated by Robert. Enough on that topic.
I don’t know the status of GM-ing in the league to be commenting one way or other on who comes in. Though a change is needed and, I guess Molson is going to hold true on his French requirements for GM as well as coach. This unnerves me when you can think that re-treads can happen and with former coaches (who are now GM material) I am building up to a complete let down within the next 9 months.
It all depends (IMHO) on who actually has Molson’s ear. Based on all of the comparisons through the media, that the Canadiens are like a religion, I think there should be a separation between church and state (province) and the next Coaches and GMs should be nominated by the general consensus of former coaches and players still active in the Canadiens organization. Once the list has been finalized at 10 or so candidates, then those “elders” who chose the nominees should be kept in secret, enclave, in a former Canadiens ‘Holy’ facility (too bad the old forum wasn’t still somehow hockey relevant). The should hold up there until the decision is made, a smoke signal sent in the air to identify that the choice is made, and for Molson to appear and announce the new coach and GM.
This would be the biggest media frenzy since the Gretzky Trade, and all will have been settled, one hand in the other, the right knowing what the left was doing, and we’d hopefully have someone in those positions that could not be argued about.
On top of that I want world peace in 2012, thanks.
by Cruisin4aBruisin on Jan 2, 2012 1:32 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Love the smoke signal idea.
Other than that, I’d rather have Brisebois. Tampa isn’t raising hell this season but they are “thinking outside the box” in many ways and stick to their guns. I like that.
Also, Brisebois had some time ind the Habs org, so he isn’t a total stranger to the whole situation.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Habs Eyes On The Prize
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
