Learning To Live Without Markov

As the game unfolded the other night against Tampa, it marked the 16th game of the season that we had begun without our all-star Andrei Markov. It may not sound like much, but it's the first time since Andrei made the NHL grade that he has missed more than 15 games in a single season.

In the past sometimes, it seemed like an injury to Markov was a one-way ticket to losing streak. However, this time around, the Canadiens have done an OK job of battling for points and scrounging some wins. As we descend into the next 30 games without Andrei, I thought I'd take a glance at some of the stats with and without him manning the back line.


Winning and losing

It's sometimes hard to test the value of any given player, because the experiment consists of so many variables. Even with a mere 24 game sample from the regular season and a lone playoff series, I don't think we'd be reaching a false conclusion if we suggested the Canadiens are a much worse outfit without Andrei Markov. Really the stats speak for themselves:

24 games, 5 wins, 19 losses, 13 points. It's not flattering for the rest of the guys is it? Certainly when you compare that record to the record with him in the lineup over the same period (168-107-30 for 366 points).

If you pro-rate the stats to an 82-game schedule the Habs from 2005-09 without Markov would have been a pitiful 44 point outfit (17-55-10) – not seen since the days of expansion newbies and Pittsburgh dogging it. With him in the lineup, their pro-rated points total would be a solid 96-point group (45-29-6).

But the impact goes well beyond the wins and losses. As you can see from the limited sample, what has tended to happen when Markov has been missing has shown his talent at both ends of the ice. In the 24 previous games, goals for dropped by one full goal per 60 minutes, while goals against rose by an equally remarkable 0.7 per game.


Special teams

Being that Markov is an all-star who perennially flirts with the scoring lead among defenceman, it's perhaps not surprising to see a drop in PP efficiency wen he's not around to distribute. But take a look at the PK in his absence – a reminder of his second personality:

With the best overall PP in both 2006-07 and 2007-08, and a pretty decent scoring clip before and after, it's pretty safe to say that Markov is one of the premier QBs of the circuit. In fact, you get 5 PPs with Markov in a game, you'd be disappointed not to score a goal.

The Canadiens, however, have been blessed with some insulation for Markov on the PP at times – Souray and Streit, for example in 2006-07 – so his absence has cost but not too too drastically. Glance at the PK situation without Markov, though, and get an idea of what he means at the defensive end. Whether it be quick movement and anticipation, or using his passing skills to find the way out of the zone, his skills on the PK have been missed to the tune of nearly 12.5%. If you translate that to a whole season – with about 360 penalties – you're talking about 45 goals.

I suppose a forward moving to the point is much less of a downgrade than having a 5th defender playing with regularity on a penalty kill.


2009-10

This season, Markov was lost to serious injury a mere 50 minutes in. Given our understanding of the previous 24 games without him, there was understandable gloom at the time. I certainly felt some major doubts.

If you look across the stats, you can see that the PP is suffering as much if not more than it has ever done, but that goalscoring is holding truer. You can see that PK is sub-standard, but still within a few goals of the Markov standard and the overall goals against have been holding closer as well. You can fret about each of those, especially compared to league averages. Nonetheless, here we stand 17 games in, and 6 weeks closer to February, with 16 points from 17 games. Not great, perhaps, but a minor miracle given the precedent.

I think it speaks a little bit to some of the moves that were made over the summer (many of which have received a proper thrashing from fans), specifically:

1) Gionta
He's been a goalscorer from unconventional plays which has helped and a solid contributor up front. What's more, he's been able to tip the ice in the Habs favour by a large margin thus far.

2) Spacek
I said I liked the signing at the time, but I didn't really know what to expect. Well, he's no Markov on the PP (not even close), but he eats minutes and has been on the ice for 22 more chances at even strength than he has allowed, and 41 overall.

3) Letting Bouillon go
A hard move to put through given his popularity and his familiarity with the RDS crew, but one that needed to be made. Last season he was on the ice for a GA every 20 minutes he played. Had he been under contract as a #6 this year, that'd be a goal a game. I don't want to disparage a player I loved, but I think his last legs were correctly recognised.


As I said, there weren't miracles here, just quiet steps in the general direction. Could a team really be as bad as the Habs have been without Markov in the past over a sustained period? Hard to say. I don't think after the 0-7-1 end to last season, anyone would have asked to put it to the test.

I think if anything good is to come from this injury to Andrei it will be the shedding of an over-reliance on a single player in all aspects of play. Perhaps when he comes back he can be introduced gradually, rather than straight into 30 minutes a night.


Who misses Markov most?

Finally, I wanted to note that though we all miss Markov, none might miss him more than Carey Price and Jaroslav Halak. If only for his poise on the PK alone, Carey might have added 100 points to his sub-standard PK save rating, and he and Halak might have been able to count on zone clearances actually happening.

What Is Carbo After?Lines That Make Sense Vs The Crapshoot

Today's article from The H Does Not Stand For Habs has prompted me to do a piece I have been putting off for a long time. I find her revelations similar to mine, but a little out of kilter.

A little while ago, I found this website that provides some great statistical breakdowns to look at. One of my favourites, and the one I have been gravitating to recently is the analysis of goals scored while a given player is on the ice (only available at even strength).


This statistical obscurity may sound trivial, but I think there is something to it. For on thing, it tends to confirm what I see from a subjective point of view. For another thing, lines are built for even strength – and so these stats are highly relevant for the discussion of line pairings. It looks at team goals when a player is on the ice rather than individual points. Ultimately this is more reflective of my goal for the player – to be on the ice for (and thus part of) a lot of Habs goals, regardless of whether he touches the puck.

In her article, JT had two revelations that took me aback.

The first, and this was news to me: Andrei Kostitsyn is clearly a right winger:

He has always been a right winger, and the only reason he was a left winger last year was because Alex Kovalev is a right winger. On Lang's line, Kostitsyn is the right winger, and it was evident in his play, as one of the very few bright spots in a dismal display, that he prefers to play on his natural side. He's better there, and he should not be moved back to the left.

Forgive me for being a skeptic, but despite Andrei's decent play the past few games – he was far better at point last year when playing the left wing! Her conclusion that Kostitsyn is more vibrant with Lang and his brother was plain to see, and the statistics play it out too. But could it be due to something other than a switch to right wing. After all (and good scientists in the readership will have noticed) a lot of variables were changed in the move – different centre, different winger, more responsibility, less shadowing, etc.

Personally, I don't think Andrei is better as a right wing. He is better when he is free to do what he wishes, and when he gets a bit of the puck. At least, that's what I've seen.

Her second revelation was equally as puzzling to me – Kovalev is back to 2006-07 form:

As it stands, he's managed to mess up the Plekanec/Kostitsyn combo. With him on the wing last night, the Koivu/Tanguay duo had its worst game of the year. If he's going to drag down whatever line he's on, he's either going to have to look after his health/mental issues or sit.

Now forgive JT again for being contrary, but I thought Kovalev actually played pretty well two nights ago. If I were to be entrusted the keys to the dome (won't happen anytime soon, I've been told), he was on my list of contenders.

Her observation was of course correct form the statistical point of view – but then again there was only a solitary goal on Tuesday to feed the stats. But I still can't accept that it is Alex dragging down every player he plays with, even in a slump like this one.

Looked to the stats
Having been in these arguments before with bloggers (particularly about Kovalev), I know I have to bring more to the table than a subjective view on the game. Else I only get the retort: "I watched the game too!". For that reason, I summoned the statistical breakdownery of that wonderful website I mentioned before. It being kind enough to show scoring rates at even strength (per 20 minutes), productivity of pairs of players with and without each other, and keep an archive back as far as I require it today. Without further ado:

Goals on ice for per 20 min (ES all linemates)

Player	2006-07	P2007-08	P2008-09
Kovalev	0.726	1.042	0.637
Plekanec	0.921	1.017	0.794
A Kostitsyn	1.095	1.057	1.359

While these stats are certainly interesting, and give credence to the Kovalev drag theory. Take a look at the same stats for the three together and apart:

Goals on ice for per 20 min (ES with specific linemates)

Player	Teammate	2006-07	2007-08	2008-09
Kovalev	with Plekanec	0.815	1.036	0.841
	without Plekanec	0.617	1.064	0.000
Kovalev	with A Kostitsyn	0.265	1.180	1.155
	without A Kostitsyn	0.766	0.714	0.000
Plekanec	with Kovalev	0.815	1.036	0.841
	without Kovalev	1.047	0.866	0.571
Plekanec	with A Kostitsyn	1.382	1.116	1.250
	without A Kostitsyn	0.819	0.759	0.000
A Kostitsyn	with Kovalev	0.265	1.180	1.155
	without Kovalev	1.442	0.475	1.966
A Kostitsyn	with Plekanec	1.382	1.116	1.250
	without Plekanec	0.487	0.842	1.773

The first thing I notice from the stats is that both Kovalev and Plekanec are down. The season is early, so we'll have to see if they're just slumping or actually deteriorating.

The second thing I see is that Kovalev was not dragging down the "first line from last season". Playing with Kovalev this season, Kostitsyn's pace was actually up (I look at Kostitsyn because he was the first piece to be removed from the line, both through injury and line change – removing him was the end of the line).

Last year for the first time in living memory, we had a first line that worked. Each player (more or less) played better with the linemates than without. particularly striking is how well Kostitsyn and Kovalev fed the offence when on the ice together. This probably cost Andrei some goals, but helped the team totals massively. Can we ignore the success of last year after a few bad games?

I also look at the Kovalev drag differently. In fact, I'd say that this season, rather than Kovalev dragging the line down, Kostitsyn was dragging it up. Evidence from team goals at even strength show they happen more often when he is on the ice with most players. Look at Kovalev and Plekanec who haven't been on ice for an even strength goal in his absence. That's 73 minutes for Plek and nearly 100 minutes for Kovalev.

So by taking Kostistyn off line 1, he lost a line ticking at about 1.25 goals every 20 minutes (so a goal a game at their ice time) and completely neutralised Kovalev and Plekanec – his two best scorers from last season. He's made Lang and Sergei Kostitsyn better.

You tell me, is that maximising your assets??


The real question for Carbonneau goes deeper. Plekanec and Kovalev won't put up a duck for the rest of the season, so their dramatic difference with and without Andrei will close. But, Guy needs to ask who the focal point of the attack should be.

I see a few clear choices:

1) Kovalev
2) A Kostitsyn
3) Koivu
4) Tanguay

If the stats above tell us anything, it's that you can't make a super line without A Kostitsyn. He is an enabler. So, if it's super line we're after, why not Andrei with the suddenly dysfunctional Tanguay/Koivu duo. If it's a 2-line attack he wants then he must reunite Andrei with Kovalev and Plekanec and tinker with Tanguay/Koivu (maybe, I dunno their partner in success Latendresse?).

His waffling is costing the team right now. The one thing that was going right early on (the offence) has now come into question and all through needless tinkering. He talks about someone taking the team by the hand right now, but isn't that his job?

So what do you all think? Reunite the old line or AK46 with Saku and Tangs?

Let's beat those Sens, regardless of the answer.

2006 to 2008: Strides Ahead

Saku Koivu is hurt.

We are not sure how badly yet, but he'll miss some time, that's a certainty.


So, how does this bode for the Canadiens? Will his absence be felt to the same extent it was 2 years ago after that freak eye injury he suffered?

Firstly, I would like to address how surprised I am by the fear and worry surrounding the Canadiens from a large number of fans. Isn't Saku Koivu the player who we should have traded or unloaded? Isn't he just a passenger anyway? I find it interesting to see the very same people who criticise Koivu all year long turn around and say that his loss is critical to the team. Where is their logic?

Oh wait, if they were logical, they might have deduced the value of Koivu earlier – from the contributions of wingers he played with and results he influenced.

Despite the fact I rattle on about the value of Koivu to this team, I would not go so far as to write the Habs off should Koivu's injury be the worst case scenario. Of course his loss will be noticed. However, I think the team will be able to adapt and thrive again once they've done that. When thinking of the similarity of the current situation with 2006, I look to several different reasons to be optimistic about the Habs first-round playoff hopes, even without Koivu:

1) Opponent: Carolina (2006) vs. Undetermined (2008)

Even with our opponent up in the air, it cannot possibly be worse than 2006. That year, Carolina dominated the league for stretches, garnered 112 points and 52 wins, narrowly missed out on winning the East and scored nearly 300 goals. This year, each of our possible opponents has had at least one or two rough patches, have identifiable weak points and are not offensive juggernauts. Though we could still theoretically face any team, we are fortunate to be in a position where we are least likely to face Pittsburgh, the one team that most resembles Cup Winners Carolina from 2006.


2) Koivu's replacement: Bonk (2006) vs. Grabovski (2008)

Bonk may have had offensive potential at one point and even showed some flashes with the Habs, but realistically he was always going to be much too conservative for a number one centre. Grabovski, in contrast, has youthful exuberance, speed and creative flair going for him. For all his faults, you'd be hard pressed to hold lack of offense against him – 20 points with 8 goals in the 12 games he played during his demotion to Hamilton show how potent he can be.


3) The other line: Bulis-Ribeiro-Kovalev (2006) vs. Kostitsyn-Plekanec-Kovalev (2008)

Man to man this year's "Line 2" is better, better and better.


4) Supporting cast: Zednik, Plekanec, Perezhogin, Murray and Sundstrom (2006) vs. Lapierre, S Kostitsyn, Begin, Smolinski and Kostopoulos (2008)

Apart from Plekanec (but a rookie then), the cast from 2006 were either stalled or on the wane. There was hope with Zednik, but as we know it went unfulfilled that series. Less hope, more concrete this time. Lapierre and Begin bring more energy than any of the aforementioned. Smolinski can fill a number of roles. Kostopoulos is a strong and willing warrior. And Sergei Kostitsyn is bottled lightning. Add Latendresse who is probably resting for a return, and that gives one more legitimate NHL option.


5) The team: Playoff squeak-in and worst goal differential in the playoffs with Koivu (2006) vs. Best in the East and best offense in the league with Koivu (2008)

The Habs are just simply a better team in 2008. For reasons well-documented, they have scored more and won more games. Most importantly, they have won more important games. They have found new leaders to support Koivu. They have scored when the Koivu line hasn't. They traded their goalie because the back-up was too good to hold back again, but the starter was not in a career free fall.



6) Timing: Game 3 (2006) vs. Game -4 (2008)

In 2006, there was no hope of a Koivu return whatsoever. Even a recovery against Carolina would have left us searching for offense in the next round(s), ultimately prone to fail at some point. In 2008, Koivu may have broken his foot about 2 weeks prior to the playoffs. If he takes 2 weeks to recover, he'll be in for Game 1. If he takes 4 weeks, he could be in for the end of round 1.

Furthermore, the nature of the injury and the fact that aggravation of it is unlikely to ruin the rest of Koivu's life means that should he be sorely sorely missed, he could come back on a hobble.


So Habs fans, no need to despair. There's as much reason to be hopeful as there ever was. This Habs team has been a success because of the emphasis on team. The fact that superstar Kovalev would tell you that is proof in itself:

«Nous ne pouvons pas rester là à penser aux joueurs blessés. Nous avons d’autres joueurs qui ont travaillé fort durant toute la saison. Ils ont à saisir leur chance et montrer ce qu’ils peuvent accomplir. Les jeunes joueurs de notre pourront démontrer qu’ils appartiennent à la LNH », explique Alex Kovalev.

Playoff hockey is coming and our team is in the hunt. It's time to get excited...