The only trophy that any Montreal Canadiens player will get this season (other than the hopelessly goaltender biased Molson Cup) has been given to Josh Gorges.
To quote HI/O: "The honour goes to a member of the team whose contributions have been under-recognized in the course of a season."
Not that I have any grudges with Josh Gorges, but this trophy is silly. All of the Canadiens are unrecognized this season, are they not? Apart from Carey Price, no one will get an award from either team or league. Diaz was the only one who was even honoured with an invitation to sub in at the All-Star game.
This trophy probably made a lot more sense when it was devised for the inaugural season of 1981-82. In the 1970s, there was plenty of Canadiens recognition to go around and the sight of a Habs player giving an acceptance speech in June was not so rare.
But nowadays, the Canadiens as a group are rarely recognized. Subban got a nod for the All-Rookie team last season. But the last trophy won by a member of the Montreal Canadiens was the King Clancy trophy in 2006-07. The last trophy for hockey related achievements was the Roger Crozier award to Cristobal Huet in 2005-06. And the last major trophy won by anyone in bleu, blanc, rouge was taken in by Jose Theodore a decade ago.
As I said, nothing against Gorges, but this season has been watchable thanks to three major contributors, only one of whom is being recognized (and that's that flawed process again). The team, or the media, or whoever, needs to adapt to the times and recognize the major contributor before bestowing the only trophy of the season to the a man who has worn the underrated tag like a badge of honour for 6 whole seasons now. Can you even be unrecognized or underrated anymore if every story about you touts you as one of the most underrated players in the world? Maybe having won the trophy for being unrecognized (the second to last trophy won by anyone on the team) should be a hint.
Recognition first for the "recognized". We'll do it here once all the games and stats are in. That's something I guess.
Showing posts with label Jacques. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jacques. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
Monday, December 19, 2011
What Just Happened?
The Canadiens Recalibration Project
Jacques Martin was released on Saturday, hours before a game, days before Xmas. The team is still mired in the battle for a bottom playoff spot, but it was also coming off a long series of games in which points were gathered and sometimes hard-earned.
As coaching changes go, this was one was strange. primarily in its timing.
Because it is strange, I think it is important that we step back and ask ourselves some questions.
In our traditional view of things there are several reasons why one would fire a coach:
1) The team's results don't match their potential
2) The players have asked for a change
3) There is a better candidate
4) The GM is grasping at one last straw
The answer to all these questions in this case are slightly unclear.
No one can dispute that the Canadiens are sitting near the bottom of the standings and behind some important benchmark peers. However, all but the blindly optimistic thought there would be periods of sitting outside the playoff list as the team battles to get in. In effect, the team is matching those expectations, and is merely battling back from a slump that happened to occur at the beginning rather than in the midst of a season. Taking into account injuries to some key players over these months, the expectation are even more in line with what reasonable people would expect from this list of talent at the stages they are all in in their careers.
As for the players, I think the core buy what Martin is selling. Any reasonable member still skating from the 2010 playoff team will know that they made a playoff run because of his strategies built to suit their talent deficit. I'm relatively certain that they can still see there's no Lidstrom or Crosby in their midst and are happy to go with the pragmatic approach that Martin employs. I don't think they asked for this move.
Better candidate? Perhaps. But he's not been installed. That alone undercuts this argument.
GM panic? From what I've been hearing and reading, this is the position of most who've run through the other possibilities. It's possible, but I have another set of questions first.
A few weeks ago I read an article by Michael Farber about Louis Leblanc that delved much deeper than that. If you look back at it, it is like a harbinger that signalled the end of Martin and perhaps even Gauthier.
Farber starts predictably enough down the line of francophone vs. other on the team, in the organization. But as his thesis develops, he hones in on something else.
Montreal as a city may or may not have given birth to hockey, but it certainly gave it its upbringing. The earliest hockey leagues were at their most relevant when Montreal teams were involved. Montreal was the home of the Stanley Cup in the beginning and the league's (and game's) decision makers. The rules were written in Montreal and apart from the cosmetic surgery that has been taking place the past few seasons, the rules were perfected there as well. And it's not only been the administration of the game that has mattered. The Montreal teams through the years, and the Canadiens in particular have shaped the game in so many ways. There aren't many rules originating from the problems posed by the New York Rangers, for the Canadiens there have been.
But it's the Canadiens in particular on which the city has settled. And not just the Canadiens come what may. Rather the Canadiens cast as Flying Frenchmen.
In the early years of the franchise, the "Flying Frenchmen" tag was more of a marketing tag than a comment on the hockey. But at some point, the brand infused the team. The Flying Frenchmen became a philosophy. And later still, I think the brand was adopted by this city.
There are those whose constant gaze is fixed on the word Frenchmen, and this is where Farber started. But then he lands on short examination of what I would call the Flying half of this couplet:
I thought this was an insight at time. Maybe an insight I would write about later. But later is now when people are looking for possible answers to "why?" and "why now?"
Isn't it indeed the "Flying" that defines our love affair with this team?
From rough and tumble beginnings from which a modern Don Cherry might have shielded his view, the Canadiens emerged with Howie Morenz to change hockey with this attacking mentality. The heritage was passed next to the teams of the 50s, 60s and 70s, even 80s -- al the while emblazoning itself on the hearts and minds of its followers.
When Farber notes:
he suggests the answer could be Louis Leblanc. Perhaps.
But if someone were really asking this question (someone like say Geoff Molson), would his recalibration begin and end with a 20 year-old already comfortable in the ways of deferring to defensive assignment for the win?
I wouldn't have thought so. He might start by identifying the roots of the alienation that has been occuring between once adoring fan and the "Flying Frenchman" brand. He might overhear all the begrudging admissions that Jacques Martin is successful , but somehow just not right; that playing the percentages is sound statistically, but ever so tedious a spectacle.
Clear your minds of preconceived notions for a minute:
- Maybe this firing is not about the Candiens wins and losses of a partial season
- Maybe this has nothing to do with Randy-on-the-spot Cunneyworth (I'll bet money it doesn't)
- Maybe there isn't a hero in the wings
Maybe what we are seeing is some recognition at long last that Montreal so loves not hockey, but their hockey; winning, but not at any cost (not at this cost); that the city if not able to boast about strings of Stanley Cups (and most are realistic to know those days are past) would at least wish to look down their noses on the adherent of trapping and negative tacttics as their team skates for goals.
Maybe what we are seeing is a deep recalibration, not just a superficial one, ten times tried in 20 years.
For me, this is the line of questioning that leads to the best answers. And for that reason, if no other, it's worth asking.
As coaching changes go, this was one was strange. primarily in its timing.
Because it is strange, I think it is important that we step back and ask ourselves some questions.
In our traditional view of things there are several reasons why one would fire a coach:
1) The team's results don't match their potential
2) The players have asked for a change
3) There is a better candidate
4) The GM is grasping at one last straw
The answer to all these questions in this case are slightly unclear.
No one can dispute that the Canadiens are sitting near the bottom of the standings and behind some important benchmark peers. However, all but the blindly optimistic thought there would be periods of sitting outside the playoff list as the team battles to get in. In effect, the team is matching those expectations, and is merely battling back from a slump that happened to occur at the beginning rather than in the midst of a season. Taking into account injuries to some key players over these months, the expectation are even more in line with what reasonable people would expect from this list of talent at the stages they are all in in their careers.
As for the players, I think the core buy what Martin is selling. Any reasonable member still skating from the 2010 playoff team will know that they made a playoff run because of his strategies built to suit their talent deficit. I'm relatively certain that they can still see there's no Lidstrom or Crosby in their midst and are happy to go with the pragmatic approach that Martin employs. I don't think they asked for this move.
Better candidate? Perhaps. But he's not been installed. That alone undercuts this argument.
GM panic? From what I've been hearing and reading, this is the position of most who've run through the other possibilities. It's possible, but I have another set of questions first.
A few weeks ago I read an article by Michael Farber about Louis Leblanc that delved much deeper than that. If you look back at it, it is like a harbinger that signalled the end of Martin and perhaps even Gauthier.
Farber starts predictably enough down the line of francophone vs. other on the team, in the organization. But as his thesis develops, he hones in on something else.
Montreal as a city may or may not have given birth to hockey, but it certainly gave it its upbringing. The earliest hockey leagues were at their most relevant when Montreal teams were involved. Montreal was the home of the Stanley Cup in the beginning and the league's (and game's) decision makers. The rules were written in Montreal and apart from the cosmetic surgery that has been taking place the past few seasons, the rules were perfected there as well. And it's not only been the administration of the game that has mattered. The Montreal teams through the years, and the Canadiens in particular have shaped the game in so many ways. There aren't many rules originating from the problems posed by the New York Rangers, for the Canadiens there have been.
But it's the Canadiens in particular on which the city has settled. And not just the Canadiens come what may. Rather the Canadiens cast as Flying Frenchmen.
In the early years of the franchise, the "Flying Frenchmen" tag was more of a marketing tag than a comment on the hockey. But at some point, the brand infused the team. The Flying Frenchmen became a philosophy. And later still, I think the brand was adopted by this city.
There are those whose constant gaze is fixed on the word Frenchmen, and this is where Farber started. But then he lands on short examination of what I would call the Flying half of this couplet:
The Canadiens' failure is not one of falling short of some mythical quota, but one of imagination.
The players who have most touched the city in recent seasons were not French Canadians but the problematic Alexei Kovalev, an artiste in style and temperament, and defenseman P.K. Subban, whose game is layered with curlicues. Indeed when Martin scratched Subban last season, there was general outrage about his efforts to stifle the player rather than applause that the team, with its dandy rookie exiled to the press box, actually won a few games in a row.
I thought this was an insight at time. Maybe an insight I would write about later. But later is now when people are looking for possible answers to "why?" and "why now?"
Isn't it indeed the "Flying" that defines our love affair with this team?
From rough and tumble beginnings from which a modern Don Cherry might have shielded his view, the Canadiens emerged with Howie Morenz to change hockey with this attacking mentality. The heritage was passed next to the teams of the 50s, 60s and 70s, even 80s -- al the while emblazoning itself on the hearts and minds of its followers.
When Farber notes:
This current iteration of the Canadiens, lagging even the rebuilding Ottawa Senators in the Northeast Division, has not made many new friends and might be in the process of temporarily alienating some old ones.
he suggests the answer could be Louis Leblanc. Perhaps.
But if someone were really asking this question (someone like say Geoff Molson), would his recalibration begin and end with a 20 year-old already comfortable in the ways of deferring to defensive assignment for the win?
I wouldn't have thought so. He might start by identifying the roots of the alienation that has been occuring between once adoring fan and the "Flying Frenchman" brand. He might overhear all the begrudging admissions that Jacques Martin is successful , but somehow just not right; that playing the percentages is sound statistically, but ever so tedious a spectacle.
Clear your minds of preconceived notions for a minute:
- Maybe this firing is not about the Candiens wins and losses of a partial season
- Maybe this has nothing to do with Randy-on-the-spot Cunneyworth (I'll bet money it doesn't)
- Maybe there isn't a hero in the wings
Maybe what we are seeing is some recognition at long last that Montreal so loves not hockey, but their hockey; winning, but not at any cost (not at this cost); that the city if not able to boast about strings of Stanley Cups (and most are realistic to know those days are past) would at least wish to look down their noses on the adherent of trapping and negative tacttics as their team skates for goals.
Maybe what we are seeing is a deep recalibration, not just a superficial one, ten times tried in 20 years.
For me, this is the line of questioning that leads to the best answers. And for that reason, if no other, it's worth asking.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Jacques Martin
Gotta Go?
Every few days bloggers like myself receive comments about the team, its players, its management. Since Jacques Martin was hired, it's a pretty good bet that comments about him having to go come along just as frequently.
Just yesterday, a Guest posted this:
It was a comment among many similar comments seen at LIW and HI/O and FHF, and any Canadiens discussion forum. Usually I would respond to this comment in place. but as it seems to be a recurring theme, I thought a more lasting form of response was fitting.
The complaint
As far as I can tell, the common elements of the complaint against Martin are that:
a) He is boring
b) He employs a boring system of hockey (sometimes named "the trap")
c) He is stifling the team's talent
d) He doesn't yell enough behind the bench
e) This is costing the team wins
f) He has never won anything
These are very fair points. He is quite a boring interviewee (Personally, I deal with that by not listening to any of his interviews). He does favour some defensive responsibility, a variation on the trap. And he certainly never yells at the referees. All true.
Where I start to take issue is with the notion that we extrapolate these things into our personal conclusions. That defensive play is stifling the talent, that this is costing the team wins. That not ranting over calls is costing points and wins.
I think some of these stretch the imagination. Don't you?
To those who really believe he is stifling the team. I ask you to consider an honest assessment of the talent on the team. What sets this group apart from the 9 teams ahead of the Canadiens that they should supposedly be putting points over on?
I think an honest look shows that we don't have a Crosby, Zetterberg, Datsyuk or Ovechkin, or even a Gaborik, Backstrom, Richards, Carter, Chara, Thomas, etc. Right now the team is being led by Plekanec, who works at a formidable rate, but still paces well below a point a game (a pace that would be lower if he played defences as good as Philly's game in, game out). An honest assessment would show that the Habs are doing just as they should with the group they have. Probably even better considering their injuries.
Complaints about the system are just as porous. Necessity is the mother of invention and necessity has created this system.
When Jacques Martin was in Ottawa he coached a team that scored more goals than anyone, because he had the goalscorers to carry the strategy. In Florida he didn't. In Montreal he hasn't. Necessity in Montreal is a young (and, until recently, fragile) goaltender starting all games. Necessity is 3 veterans who can't skate all that fast, but who can compete when a system allows them to. Necessity is having two rookies make up the other defensive numbers. necessity is playing to Gomez and Gionta's strengths, which include a grounding in New Jersey hockey. Necessity is the absence of people to pick up any real slack beyond the top 6 forwards.
What other system would we have him employ? Opening up the ice doesn't look great on Hamrlik and Gill. Nor does it seem to suit forwards who despite being named fast, somehow always manage to find their coverage before the blueline. We'd all love to be Detroit, but years of good as well as lucky drafting aren't yet behind this team.
Finally, can we give a rest to the notion that Jacques Martin hasn't won anything?
What we mean is that he hasn't won a Stanley Cup. How many coaches have? A handful. How many have won with a team like these Canadiens? Less. Martin has won well over 600 NHL games. He's won the league, the division, the race to the playoffs more times than not. He's won something. he's won a Memorial Cup (one more than Guy Boucher).
No he's not Scotty Bowman, but Scotty's not coaching anymore.
It's fine to criticise the coach. I 'll do it in the future, I'm sure. In fact, criticise all you want. But if you alternatives enough can't be found to list against the complaints, consider before posting that maybe that's because there might not be very many.
And if your team sits well above the position of the year before and the one before that, consider that maybe the coaches are doing something right in amongst all their wrongs.
Just yesterday, a Guest posted this:
JM has to go ...he is a dinosaur holding back a fast team in the name of the almighty trap....he says nothing when we get jobbed by refs....dump him...etc., etc.
It was a comment among many similar comments seen at LIW and HI/O and FHF, and any Canadiens discussion forum. Usually I would respond to this comment in place. but as it seems to be a recurring theme, I thought a more lasting form of response was fitting.
The complaint
As far as I can tell, the common elements of the complaint against Martin are that:
a) He is boring
b) He employs a boring system of hockey (sometimes named "the trap")
c) He is stifling the team's talent
d) He doesn't yell enough behind the bench
e) This is costing the team wins
f) He has never won anything
These are very fair points. He is quite a boring interviewee (Personally, I deal with that by not listening to any of his interviews). He does favour some defensive responsibility, a variation on the trap. And he certainly never yells at the referees. All true.
Where I start to take issue is with the notion that we extrapolate these things into our personal conclusions. That defensive play is stifling the talent, that this is costing the team wins. That not ranting over calls is costing points and wins.
I think some of these stretch the imagination. Don't you?
To those who really believe he is stifling the team. I ask you to consider an honest assessment of the talent on the team. What sets this group apart from the 9 teams ahead of the Canadiens that they should supposedly be putting points over on?
I think an honest look shows that we don't have a Crosby, Zetterberg, Datsyuk or Ovechkin, or even a Gaborik, Backstrom, Richards, Carter, Chara, Thomas, etc. Right now the team is being led by Plekanec, who works at a formidable rate, but still paces well below a point a game (a pace that would be lower if he played defences as good as Philly's game in, game out). An honest assessment would show that the Habs are doing just as they should with the group they have. Probably even better considering their injuries.
Complaints about the system are just as porous. Necessity is the mother of invention and necessity has created this system.
When Jacques Martin was in Ottawa he coached a team that scored more goals than anyone, because he had the goalscorers to carry the strategy. In Florida he didn't. In Montreal he hasn't. Necessity in Montreal is a young (and, until recently, fragile) goaltender starting all games. Necessity is 3 veterans who can't skate all that fast, but who can compete when a system allows them to. Necessity is having two rookies make up the other defensive numbers. necessity is playing to Gomez and Gionta's strengths, which include a grounding in New Jersey hockey. Necessity is the absence of people to pick up any real slack beyond the top 6 forwards.
What other system would we have him employ? Opening up the ice doesn't look great on Hamrlik and Gill. Nor does it seem to suit forwards who despite being named fast, somehow always manage to find their coverage before the blueline. We'd all love to be Detroit, but years of good as well as lucky drafting aren't yet behind this team.
Finally, can we give a rest to the notion that Jacques Martin hasn't won anything?
What we mean is that he hasn't won a Stanley Cup. How many coaches have? A handful. How many have won with a team like these Canadiens? Less. Martin has won well over 600 NHL games. He's won the league, the division, the race to the playoffs more times than not. He's won something. he's won a Memorial Cup (one more than Guy Boucher).
No he's not Scotty Bowman, but Scotty's not coaching anymore.
It's fine to criticise the coach. I 'll do it in the future, I'm sure. In fact, criticise all you want. But if you alternatives enough can't be found to list against the complaints, consider before posting that maybe that's because there might not be very many.
And if your team sits well above the position of the year before and the one before that, consider that maybe the coaches are doing something right in amongst all their wrongs.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Adieu Guy Boucher
This past week, the Montreal Canadiens lost their young dauphin, the rising star that is Guy Boucher. A French Canadian student of the game who has succeeded at every level so far due to his diligence and the creative new development of tactics.
He’s the coach that any team would want. Eventually.
Habs fan reaction has been predictably sour on this departure. Boucher was seen as a star signing last season, even before he went to work for the organization. Following a season of success in the AHL and of player development the likes of which we have seldom seen in three decades in Montreal, his star only seemed brighter.
My personal take on this is that the Habs did the right thing here.
First, they did the right thing for the man. Boucher now leaves the Canadiens family with nothing but cherished memories. This will always be the team that gave him his break, and now too the team that didn’t begrudge him his next one.
Second, they honour their commitment to Jacques Martin, who like his calm demeanor or not, must be given loads of credit for his revamp of the team that can suddenly compete with the big boys.
Finally, they didn’t panic. Panic would have been hiring Boucher on as head coach for fear that he may be great. Such hirings are unwise, as they take us further from the well laid plan that was so painful to instigate one short year ago. A veteran coach was needed, and probably still is, while veterans are forged from the young generation of leaders coming through.
Still reasons to denounce this move do exist. In the vein of a Leclair trade that still haunts many a fan’s dreams, there’s the what if? What if Boucher wins the Cup elsewhere? What if he wins the Jack Adams?
It’s easy to get caught up in all these what ifs, but often forgot is the other side of the coin: What if Guy Boucher takes time to adjust to the league like the vast majority of coaches who come through?
Among the reasons to take confident comfort in this move, the story of one William Scott Bowman is foremost.
Scotty Bowman entered the Canadiens organization as a star more than 50 years before Guy Boucher ever did. At his hiring in the early 1950s, Bowman was a former junior Canadien who had impressed his mentors. Early in his post-player days, Scotty was made assistant of the Junior Canadiens under the mercurial Sam Pollock. Memorial Cup finals and championships followed as he made his name within the Forum’s halls.
After stints coaching in Ottawa and Peterborough, Scotty was moved internally to the position of chief scout of amateur talent (a latter-day Trevor Timmins). In any case, the Canadiens weren’t going to let his feet get cold. When he was ready, he took full duties as coach of the Montreal Junior Canadiens ¬ the main feeder to the star-laden team in the NHL.
Then, in 1967-68, the NHL expanded its operations to include 6 more cities. Opportunities that had been sewn up by playing and coaching talent alike until then were suddenly doubled. For the Canadiens, this presented a choice. Would Scotty Bowman be shoehorned into the pro ranks alongside Toe Blake, would they put their organizational foot down and try to bar his way, or would they let the star they had nurtured fly the coop.
They chose the latter and Scotty was allowed to depart in order to become an assistant to Lynn Patrick in St. Louis. As Scotty recalls it, he decided to take a chance then too:
"Montreal was a very strong team at the time. Toe Blake was coaching. I got a chance to go to the NHL when they expanded. It's hard to turn down a chance to get into the NHL. I was coaching the Junior Canadiens who had moved back to Montreal. I got the opportunity to go to St. Louis from Lynn Patrick. He was going to be the general manager, and I coached his son Craig in junior hockey in Montreal. When he got the job with the Blues, he hired me as his assistant. I decided I really should take a chance. I was fortunate the league expanded and I got an opportunity to get to one of the expansion franchises."His time in St. Louis was a success, after becoming head coach after mere weeks into the season, Scotty’s teams went on to reach the finals in each of his first three seasons in the NHL. No doubt Scotty learned much.
Apprenticeship completed, his old head coach and friend Sam Pollock convinced Scotty to rejoin his hometown club in 1971. The rest is history.
Guy Boucher may never match Scotty Bowman’s achievements, but his path to the NHL coaching ranks is at least somewhat similar. In both cases, the coaches had keen eyes for talent, a commitment to winning and the determination to outstretch their rival coaches. Both were also known stars of the Canadiens organizations they were part of.
In following Bowman’s path out of the Canadiens family to stretch his legs, we hope that the similarities continue ¬ there’s really nothing else to be done. In the new world of the NHL, where teams from one season rarely resemble the one three years down the line, there’s no real reason to fret over Boucher. We simply hope he can learn and thrive while keeping the candle he has for the Canadiens organization flickering until the opportunity for his return may come.
Suivant, next.
On a related note, one would think that the hiring of Guy Boucher last year will have taught the Canadiens management team a valuable lesson about installing quality personnel under the main team. I hope that in addition to holding early camps, firing scouts, signing Americans and negotiating with Plekanec that Gauthier is dedicating a substantial slab of time to scouting the next Bulldogs coach.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Habs Vs. Pens
Time To Give Byslma Something To Think About
The playoffs is a unique portion of the NHL seson.
At other times, it may suffice to devise one's own strategy and take it to each and every opposing arena. Not so in the playoffs. Because the opponent is the same every game and the stakes so high, all strategies are sussed out and countered by any coach worth his weight.
Thankfully for the Canadiens, Bruce Boudreau had no counter. All that talk of AHL success perhaps more pertinent now than ever in assessing his true ceiling.
The difference for Jacques Martin is that from here he will be facing people with mettle. Bylsma has won a Cup and recovered the Pens from the mess that was Therrien's reign. Claude Julien is showing he's so good at convincing players that trapping is winning that he's redeeming his reputation again. In the West, there are finalists at every corner, bar Vigneault.
But never mind any of them. The immediate task is to vanquish the Penguins and hoodwink Bylsma. Last game, Bylsma somehow convinced the free-flowing Penguins to stop shooting and adopt a congestive defensive zone. It was the perfect adaptation to Montreal's reliance on counter attack. It was possible because Martin's plan has been the same since the Washington series. it was read, understood and countered.
The risk then is that the Habs over-rely on this same system, sans tweaks from here on. It could work, it's a workable system. However, there's no need to be so entrenched. Martin has options.
My humble suggestion
Assuming there is no sudden surge in confidence in the abilities of Metropolit, Darche and others, I think Martin will continue to employ 3 lines with mixes.
Fair enough, I see his point. Play the guys of higher caliber more often. Pre-empt outlandish Crosby matchups if possible.
If I buy that, I don't buy the guys on the bench. Why have Darche, Metropolit, Maxwell (non-threats) sit there when you could dress Sergei the Terrible? Why trot Andrei Kostitsyn out with offensive donkeys when he could thrive with a mere 4 minutes of fraternal passing?
Come on Jacques. Bury the hatchet and give Bylsma something to really think about. Your new fourth line:
AK46 - Metropolit - SK74
At other times, it may suffice to devise one's own strategy and take it to each and every opposing arena. Not so in the playoffs. Because the opponent is the same every game and the stakes so high, all strategies are sussed out and countered by any coach worth his weight.
Thankfully for the Canadiens, Bruce Boudreau had no counter. All that talk of AHL success perhaps more pertinent now than ever in assessing his true ceiling.
The difference for Jacques Martin is that from here he will be facing people with mettle. Bylsma has won a Cup and recovered the Pens from the mess that was Therrien's reign. Claude Julien is showing he's so good at convincing players that trapping is winning that he's redeeming his reputation again. In the West, there are finalists at every corner, bar Vigneault.
But never mind any of them. The immediate task is to vanquish the Penguins and hoodwink Bylsma. Last game, Bylsma somehow convinced the free-flowing Penguins to stop shooting and adopt a congestive defensive zone. It was the perfect adaptation to Montreal's reliance on counter attack. It was possible because Martin's plan has been the same since the Washington series. it was read, understood and countered.
The risk then is that the Habs over-rely on this same system, sans tweaks from here on. It could work, it's a workable system. However, there's no need to be so entrenched. Martin has options.
My humble suggestion
Assuming there is no sudden surge in confidence in the abilities of Metropolit, Darche and others, I think Martin will continue to employ 3 lines with mixes.
Fair enough, I see his point. Play the guys of higher caliber more often. Pre-empt outlandish Crosby matchups if possible.
If I buy that, I don't buy the guys on the bench. Why have Darche, Metropolit, Maxwell (non-threats) sit there when you could dress Sergei the Terrible? Why trot Andrei Kostitsyn out with offensive donkeys when he could thrive with a mere 4 minutes of fraternal passing?
Come on Jacques. Bury the hatchet and give Bylsma something to really think about. Your new fourth line:
AK46 - Metropolit - SK74
Friday, April 02, 2010
The Continued Booing of Carey Price
The other night after a game that Tobalev broadly described as one with lots to take from, the biggest story is that Carey Price received some boos from the fans.
In Montreal's own way, the city has found an incident that no other team would concern itself with, analyzed it and is now onto analyzing the response. In keeping with the level of "commitment", I am prompted to comment on both and then the analysis itself. Maybe we should all be committed.
The boos
Generally I am not a booer. I boo bad calls at games and Bruins goals, but save my voice for cheering. I used to boo more in my youth, and I have booed players on my own team. It's not something I want to vigorously defend. Let's just say there are a lot of things I've grown out of.
But to briefly touch on booing. The stands are a lieu of limited vocab. Nobody really sings in these terraces, so there are essentially two words to choose from: the affirmative (cheer, whistle, clap) or the negative. It's not subtle. The third is the absence of one or the other when it might have belonged – but this is subtle for drunken Molson zoners. Speaking of subtlety, you can see there isn't much. If I want to voice my displeasure over a trade of a player I thought should have stayed, how can I boo Rejean Houle? I might need to use a proxy (or I would have in those student days). If I am booing Mike Cammalleri for bad pass that leads to a goal, will anyone know I'm not booing Price, Gill, Martin?
The sledgehammer subtlety is important here as the Canadiens had just lost. I know some fans, for example, had been booing from the end of the game – every announcement reinvigorating their disappointment. The absence of cheering and some not so clever sheep made this more an issue.
The game Carey had
Carey's last two games have been good ones, two domes and a game puck from us. The fact he lost both is puzzling if you've gone down that wormhole, but all goalies play well and lose. The fans should be able to recognize a good goaltending performance in a loss by now. I would never have come up with this piece myself, but The Other Wing gets it right in message here. The team winning is supposed to be the reason we cheer, write, gripe, etc. Booing Carey after a game like Wednesday's is counterproductive. He didn't deserve intensified booing. He didn't even deserve the absence of cheers.
The season Carey is having
This is where things get muddled. We can all admit that Carey's had some bad luck over two games. What I won't do is go to Stubbs level of hyperbole and call these two games his season in a microcosm. It simply isn't. If these games were a microcosm of his season, there wouldn't have been a remaining fan to keep quiet as the 50 boo-birds carried their tune.
What we kep getting told, however, is that Carey Price has lost 25 games because the team has let him down. 20 in regulation because the team has let him down. Stubbs talks about the investigative reporting that produced yet another gem on Hockeybuzz:
He's been unlucky at times, that's true. But a few more wins wouldn't veil the fact that his stats show he's 28th in the league race for least goals allowed per game and that while good (well above replacement level) is not in the echelon of greatness yet with save percentage.
I guess what I'm saying here is that at least 12 of those losses are merited. Had his effort been more Herculean, the tragic references would have rung more true.
Regardless of whether us fans ever accept that, it will be important for Carey himself to realize, admit that. Fueling his notion that he is some snakebit victim of unseen proportion is as counterproductive, if not more so when you consider development and lessons, than the booing from high.
Jacques Martin's response
This whole rant was prompted by Dave Stubbs' article about Jacques Martin. I thought I'd reach the punchline sooner, but here I am.
Stubbs, wholesale believer in the snakebite theory, wanted to hear more from Jacques Martin to bash the fans than this:
Rather than taking issue with the lack of expected response, I like to question why. The assumption is that Martin thinks highly of Price and recognizes him now as a convert to hard work every day in practice. It's an assumption. I'm not sure from Martin's muted support that he left that podium regretting he didn't say it Stubbs' way.
That may have been counterproductive too. Maybe not. Heck, it may even be productive. Jacques job is to awaken this sleeping giant from his slumber in Carey- is-just-unlucky-land, not to massage egos or bash 50 loudmouths and 9,000 silent fans (those already sprinting for their cars get reprieve).
Maybe this was just his latest wake-up call.
In Montreal's own way, the city has found an incident that no other team would concern itself with, analyzed it and is now onto analyzing the response. In keeping with the level of "commitment", I am prompted to comment on both and then the analysis itself. Maybe we should all be committed.
The boos
Generally I am not a booer. I boo bad calls at games and Bruins goals, but save my voice for cheering. I used to boo more in my youth, and I have booed players on my own team. It's not something I want to vigorously defend. Let's just say there are a lot of things I've grown out of.
But to briefly touch on booing. The stands are a lieu of limited vocab. Nobody really sings in these terraces, so there are essentially two words to choose from: the affirmative (cheer, whistle, clap) or the negative. It's not subtle. The third is the absence of one or the other when it might have belonged – but this is subtle for drunken Molson zoners. Speaking of subtlety, you can see there isn't much. If I want to voice my displeasure over a trade of a player I thought should have stayed, how can I boo Rejean Houle? I might need to use a proxy (or I would have in those student days). If I am booing Mike Cammalleri for bad pass that leads to a goal, will anyone know I'm not booing Price, Gill, Martin?
The sledgehammer subtlety is important here as the Canadiens had just lost. I know some fans, for example, had been booing from the end of the game – every announcement reinvigorating their disappointment. The absence of cheering and some not so clever sheep made this more an issue.
The game Carey had
Carey's last two games have been good ones, two domes and a game puck from us. The fact he lost both is puzzling if you've gone down that wormhole, but all goalies play well and lose. The fans should be able to recognize a good goaltending performance in a loss by now. I would never have come up with this piece myself, but The Other Wing gets it right in message here. The team winning is supposed to be the reason we cheer, write, gripe, etc. Booing Carey after a game like Wednesday's is counterproductive. He didn't deserve intensified booing. He didn't even deserve the absence of cheers.
The season Carey is having
This is where things get muddled. We can all admit that Carey's had some bad luck over two games. What I won't do is go to Stubbs level of hyperbole and call these two games his season in a microcosm. It simply isn't. If these games were a microcosm of his season, there wouldn't have been a remaining fan to keep quiet as the 50 boo-birds carried their tune.
What we kep getting told, however, is that Carey Price has lost 25 games because the team has let him down. 20 in regulation because the team has let him down. Stubbs talks about the investigative reporting that produced yet another gem on Hockeybuzz:
"Blogger Eric Engels reported yesterday that the Canadiens have scored more than twice in only four of Price's 25 losses this season, including overtime and shootouts. So in 21 games, he needed to allow no more than a single goal for his team to win in regulation time"It may be true, but why leave out the fact that Carey has actually only posted a save percentage over 0.900 in 7 of those games. And why also leave out that his team won two games where he was below average. His unbalanced bad luck has cost the team 5 losses this season, not 25. Two of those games took place in the past while – we've been dealing with the other three as 15 then 16 then 19 all season long.
He's been unlucky at times, that's true. But a few more wins wouldn't veil the fact that his stats show he's 28th in the league race for least goals allowed per game and that while good (well above replacement level) is not in the echelon of greatness yet with save percentage.
I guess what I'm saying here is that at least 12 of those losses are merited. Had his effort been more Herculean, the tragic references would have rung more true.
Regardless of whether us fans ever accept that, it will be important for Carey himself to realize, admit that. Fueling his notion that he is some snakebit victim of unseen proportion is as counterproductive, if not more so when you consider development and lessons, than the booing from high.
Jacques Martin's response
This whole rant was prompted by Dave Stubbs' article about Jacques Martin. I thought I'd reach the punchline sooner, but here I am.
Stubbs, wholesale believer in the snakebite theory, wanted to hear more from Jacques Martin to bash the fans than this:
"I respect the fans. They pay good dollars to be entertained and they have a right to an opinion," he replied. "As a professional athlete, or a coach, you have to work within the framework.As Stubbs points out, it's not exactly forceful.
"Sure I'd like to see better results (for Price), as he would. At the same time, I can't say we lost the game because of him."
Rather than taking issue with the lack of expected response, I like to question why. The assumption is that Martin thinks highly of Price and recognizes him now as a convert to hard work every day in practice. It's an assumption. I'm not sure from Martin's muted support that he left that podium regretting he didn't say it Stubbs' way.
That may have been counterproductive too. Maybe not. Heck, it may even be productive. Jacques job is to awaken this sleeping giant from his slumber in Carey- is-just-unlucky-land, not to massage egos or bash 50 loudmouths and 9,000 silent fans (those already sprinting for their cars get reprieve).
Maybe this was just his latest wake-up call.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Canadiens Shots Allowed
Flawed Implementation Or Implementing Flawed Approach
If you're like me, I think you thought that the addition of Jacques Martin to the fold would be a boon for the goalies, and perhaps ultimately the fans, as the haphazard defensive manner to which we were accustomed would be banished and replaced with simple play and reduced shots.
Now that we've given the system until the New Year (like we said we would), I think it's time to air a grievance: this isn't at all how I thought this would work.
Currently, the Canadiens sit in 11th position for GAA in the league. Not bad, but consider where they'd be without two 0.920 save percentage goalies, as they are also 28th in the NHL in shots allowed per contest. Their total currently stands at 32.8 SA/G (which may sound like a miraculously low total considering the recent onslaughts).
Certainly some of the onus for this high shot total must fall at the feet of the penalty takers (or victims of Chris Lee, if you prefer), since the Habs have given up the most PPs in the league (193). However, that might slightly gloss over the fact that their ES play is actually the bigger contributor to their SA totals. in fact, the Habs are one of the elite teams at preventing shots on the PK (analyse that...), but would allow a massive 31.5 shots per contest if they were penalty free.
Given that Jacques Martin is supposedly in charge of organizing and plotting team strategy for the 5-on-5, I was wondering what on earth was going on. If we don't have possession stats, we certainly have eyes – and those tell me that the Habs trend (espcially lately has been to sit and wait for shots and chances to come). Perhaps the comfort of two good goalies prevents fretting over the defensive pitfalls of this approach, but a look at ES scoring shows that a little more possession for the good guys might help to pad a few leads, win a few more close games.
Chances for and against
As I said, we don't have possession stats per se, but we do have some proxies. One of the better proxies at even strength is the CORSI numbers. However, as you know, though i like the number, I find it often oversimplifies matters. After all, there are several ways to get a good CORSI number: play bad defensively but take a lot of shots (misses and blocked shots count for you), play really well defensively and take shots, play unbelievable defence and take barely more than average shots. In light of that, I like to present the whole story (i.e., chances for and against), and relate those to what the league is doing. I present the status quo for the Habs below, with shots for (SF), chances for (ChF), shots against (SA), chances against (CA), and the differences between offense and defence:
Legend
As you can see, chances for with the Habs is a mixed bag. Gionta, Gomez, Pouliot and Markov generate top tier chances, while the offensive laggards (Laraque and co.), well, lag. I'm sure there's lots to be mined from the numbers and the relationships between them, but not today.
Chances against are more homgenous. They are all blue. It is systematic. This, for me, is most interesting. Once again, the bad players are bad. However, even the players we heap praise on for defensive awareness are allowing above average number of shots to be released from opponents' sticks.
Leaving the offensive stats behind, I delved deeper into the defensive numbers to try and figure out what is happening. I present the numbers for you to consider below for shots against (SA), missed shots against (MA), blocked shots (BF), chances against (ChA) and percentage of shots against making the net (SA%):
Legend
This table is most interesting for those who want to get to the bottom of the Jacques martin system, I think. Column by column, it's pretty consistently league average or below, or league average and above.
The breakdown of chances across the whole team seems to be summed up by lots of shots attempted against, an enormous amount blocked, many opponents forced to shoot wide, but still more than average shots getting to the net.
Shots against (as we noted earlier) is troubling, even if it doesn't result in goals 92% of the time. Most Habs are belowe the league average in preventing shots on their goal.
Blocked shots is an interesting category. It must be the only statistic in the league where the Canadiens could look like such a star outfit. No less than 12 Habs fall into the top 10% of the league in blocked shots at ES while they're on the ice. The rest are above average (only Pouliot, with his Wild numbers incorporated, spoils the whitewash). Missed shots is similar, if not quite as dominant, almost all Habs being above the league average.
Add up below average shot prevention, more than average missed shots and more than average blocked shots and you get the blue mess that follows in chances against. The numbers in that column are sub-optimal by most standards and some are downright abysmal (see >60 ChA/60).
It seems to me (and maybe to you as well, dear readers) that this is a bit of a red flag for the passive approach to defence that is currently being employed by Martin and his boys. While the defensive clogging of the slot is surely leading to some impressive blocked and missed shot totals, it seem to me that the Canadiens aren't perhaps negotiating the next part of the strategy very well at all – which should be making the shot a turnover by recovering the puck.
System performers
So, we've got to the bottom of the system (at least the one used so far). Allow the shot from the outside – block it or force the player to shoot wide – then recover the puck and start an attack. As a system it's not stupid, the team that seems to use it best this season is Pittsburgh who translate above average chances against into below average shots against. However, it must also be said that most teams we think of as defensive outfits don't trust this way of defending. New Jersey, Boston, Detroit, these teams all reduce chances overall and limit the number of shots that have to be blocked or forced wide.
In addition to the Penguins, there are players on the Habs who seem to get this system and can play it with some success. To me, these are the players that have warmer shades in the SA column and top rankings in the missed and blocked columns. The standouts seem to be Glen Metropoilt, Josh Gorges and Roman Hamrlik. All three players (and observation I think would back this up) play their position well and are good at jumping to retrieve the loose stuff after the initial chance.
System failures
Troublingly, the successes are outnumbered by the strugglers. Ignore Markov for now (he's had offense on the mind in his return), but do cast an eye to O'Byrne, Lapierre and Mara. These three players all allow 59 chances an hour or more. They are all on the ice for plenty of blocked shots and missed shots, but the sheer number of reloads they are allowing means they are also on the ice for a shot every 2 minutes or less.
Add to these players, Spacek, Gill, Gomez, Sergei Kostitsyn and even Gionta and we're in trouble.
When to change?
45 games into a season and many players appear on paper (and on TV) to be having significant trouble with a system that demands passivity, patience and then quickness to make it work properly. It begs the question, should Martin persist with this system.
If not, how late is too late to change? After all, it seems to be unravelling more than it is coming together at this point in the season. What's more, i think we've al seen enough proof that it doesn't work as well against good teams as it seems to against the Islanders.
If I were the coach, I'd be having a little think about all this.
I'd like to know what all of you think...
Now that we've given the system until the New Year (like we said we would), I think it's time to air a grievance: this isn't at all how I thought this would work.
Currently, the Canadiens sit in 11th position for GAA in the league. Not bad, but consider where they'd be without two 0.920 save percentage goalies, as they are also 28th in the NHL in shots allowed per contest. Their total currently stands at 32.8 SA/G (which may sound like a miraculously low total considering the recent onslaughts).
Certainly some of the onus for this high shot total must fall at the feet of the penalty takers (or victims of Chris Lee, if you prefer), since the Habs have given up the most PPs in the league (193). However, that might slightly gloss over the fact that their ES play is actually the bigger contributor to their SA totals. in fact, the Habs are one of the elite teams at preventing shots on the PK (analyse that...), but would allow a massive 31.5 shots per contest if they were penalty free.
Given that Jacques Martin is supposedly in charge of organizing and plotting team strategy for the 5-on-5, I was wondering what on earth was going on. If we don't have possession stats, we certainly have eyes – and those tell me that the Habs trend (espcially lately has been to sit and wait for shots and chances to come). Perhaps the comfort of two good goalies prevents fretting over the defensive pitfalls of this approach, but a look at ES scoring shows that a little more possession for the good guys might help to pad a few leads, win a few more close games.
Chances for and against
As I said, we don't have possession stats per se, but we do have some proxies. One of the better proxies at even strength is the CORSI numbers. However, as you know, though i like the number, I find it often oversimplifies matters. After all, there are several ways to get a good CORSI number: play bad defensively but take a lot of shots (misses and blocked shots count for you), play really well defensively and take shots, play unbelievable defence and take barely more than average shots. In light of that, I like to present the whole story (i.e., chances for and against), and relate those to what the league is doing. I present the status quo for the Habs below, with shots for (SF), chances for (ChF), shots against (SA), chances against (CA), and the differences between offense and defence:
| NAME | GP | SFON/60 | ChF/60 | SAON/60 | ChA/60 | Sh Diff | Ch Diff |
| Andrei Kostitsyn | 40 | 24.3 | 49.8 | 27 | 53.8 | -2.7 | -4 |
| Andrei Markov | 9 | 30.4 | 56.2 | 42.5 | 70.6 | -12.1 | -14.4 |
| Benoit Pouliot | 19 | 32.3 | 57.1 | 28.3 | 55.7 | 4 | 1.4 |
| Brian Gionta | 23 | 29.9 | 61.9 | 30.2 | 57.6 | -0.3 | 4.3 |
| Geln Metropolit | 38 | 24.8 | 50 | 26.5 | 58.6 | -1.7 | -8.6 |
| Georges Laraque | 23 | 15 | 32.3 | 28.6 | 68.5 | -13.6 | -36.2 |
| Hal Gill | 30 | 20.9 | 45.6 | 28.5 | 57.1 | -7.6 | -11.5 |
| Jaroslav Spacek | 42 | 26.3 | 54.1 | 29.5 | 59.5 | -3.2 | -5.4 |
| Josh Gorges | 44 | 21.8 | 44.6 | 26.7 | 56.6 | -4.9 | -12 |
| Marc-Andre Bergeron | 37 | 24.5 | 53 | 27.8 | 56.2 | -3.3 | -3.2 |
| Matt D'Agostini | 29 | 20.4 | 48.1 | 27.9 | 55.4 | -7.5 | -7.3 |
| Max Pacioretty | 43 | 25.7 | 52.7 | 28.3 | 56.1 | -2.6 | -3.4 |
| Maxim Lapierre | 44 | 18.4 | 44.5 | 30.5 | 61.5 | -12.1 | -17 |
| Michael Cammalleri | 44 | 25 | 54.2 | 28.9 | 57.8 | -3.9 | -3.6 |
| Paul Mara | 34 | 22.3 | 49 | 30.7 | 59.4 | -8.4 | -10.4 |
| Roman Hamrlik | 37 | 25.1 | 52.4 | 26.4 | 55.8 | -1.3 | -3.4 |
| Ryan O'Byrne | 24 | 20 | 43.7 | 31.3 | 59.4 | -11.3 | -15.7 |
| Ryan White | 13 | 14.4 | 37.1 | 31.1 | 62.6 | -16.7 | -25.5 |
| Scott Gomez | 40 | 28.5 | 56.7 | 30.1 | 56.3 | -1.6 | 0.4 |
| Sergei Kostitsyn | 19 | 21.8 | 44.2 | 31.2 | 59 | -9.4 | -14.8 |
| Tom Pyatt | 19 | 19.2 | 40 | 31 | 63 | -11.8 | -23 |
| Tomas Plekanec | 44 | 23.1 | 47.6 | 28.6 | 58.2 | -5.5 | -10.6 |
| Travis Moen | 44 | 24 | 46.5 | 28.8 | 57 | -4.8 | -10.5 |
Legend
| Top 10% NHL | 11-20% NHL | 21-40% NHL | Average NHL | 61-80% NHL | 81-90% NHL | Bottom 10% NHL |
As you can see, chances for with the Habs is a mixed bag. Gionta, Gomez, Pouliot and Markov generate top tier chances, while the offensive laggards (Laraque and co.), well, lag. I'm sure there's lots to be mined from the numbers and the relationships between them, but not today.
Chances against are more homgenous. They are all blue. It is systematic. This, for me, is most interesting. Once again, the bad players are bad. However, even the players we heap praise on for defensive awareness are allowing above average number of shots to be released from opponents' sticks.
Leaving the offensive stats behind, I delved deeper into the defensive numbers to try and figure out what is happening. I present the numbers for you to consider below for shots against (SA), missed shots against (MA), blocked shots (BF), chances against (ChA) and percentage of shots against making the net (SA%):
| NAME | GP | SAON/60 | MAON/60 | BFON/60 | ChA/60 | SA% |
| Andrei Kostitsyn | 40 | 27 | 11.4 | 15.4 | 53.8 | 50.2% |
| Andrei Markov | 9 | 42.5 | 13.7 | 14.4 | 70.6 | 60.2% |
| Benoit Pouliot | 19 | 28.3 | 13.7 | 13.7 | 55.7 | 50.8% |
| Brian Gionta | 23 | 30.2 | 13.2 | 14.2 | 57.6 | 52.4% |
| Geln Metropolit | 38 | 26.5 | 13.9 | 18.2 | 58.6 | 45.2% |
| Georges Laraque | 23 | 28.6 | 18.6 | 21.3 | 68.5 | 41.8% |
| Hal Gill | 30 | 28.5 | 13.4 | 15.2 | 57.1 | 49.9% |
| Jaroslav Spacek | 42 | 29.5 | 12.2 | 17.8 | 59.5 | 49.6% |
| Josh Gorges | 44 | 26.7 | 12.9 | 17 | 56.6 | 47.2% |
| Marc-Andre Bergeron | 37 | 27.8 | 11.7 | 16.7 | 56.2 | 49.5% |
| Matt D'Agostini | 29 | 27.9 | 9 | 18.5 | 55.4 | 50.4% |
| Max Pacioretty | 43 | 28.3 | 10.7 | 17.1 | 56.1 | 50.4% |
| Maxim Lapierre | 44 | 30.5 | 12.4 | 18.6 | 61.5 | 49.6% |
| Michael Cammalleri | 44 | 28.9 | 12.6 | 16.3 | 57.8 | 50.0% |
| Paul Mara | 34 | 30.7 | 12.3 | 16.4 | 59.4 | 51.7% |
| Roman Hamrlik | 37 | 26.4 | 12.2 | 17.2 | 55.8 | 47.3% |
| Ryan O'Byrne | 24 | 31.3 | 10.6 | 17.5 | 59.4 | 52.7% |
| Ryan White | 13 | 31.1 | 12.7 | 18.8 | 62.6 | 49.7% |
| Scott Gomez | 40 | 30.1 | 12.1 | 14.1 | 56.3 | 53.5% |
| Sergei Kostitsyn | 19 | 31.2 | 11 | 16.8 | 59 | 52.9% |
| Tom Pyatt | 19 | 31 | 13.1 | 18.9 | 63 | 49.2% |
| Tomas Plekanec | 44 | 28.6 | 12.4 | 17.2 | 58.2 | 49.1% |
| Travis Moen | 44 | 28.8 | 11.9 | 16.3 | 57 | 50.5% |
Legend
| Top 10% NHL | 11-20% NHL | 21-40% NHL | Average NHL | 61-80% NHL | 81-90% NHL | Bottom 10% NHL |
This table is most interesting for those who want to get to the bottom of the Jacques martin system, I think. Column by column, it's pretty consistently league average or below, or league average and above.
The breakdown of chances across the whole team seems to be summed up by lots of shots attempted against, an enormous amount blocked, many opponents forced to shoot wide, but still more than average shots getting to the net.
Shots against (as we noted earlier) is troubling, even if it doesn't result in goals 92% of the time. Most Habs are belowe the league average in preventing shots on their goal.
Blocked shots is an interesting category. It must be the only statistic in the league where the Canadiens could look like such a star outfit. No less than 12 Habs fall into the top 10% of the league in blocked shots at ES while they're on the ice. The rest are above average (only Pouliot, with his Wild numbers incorporated, spoils the whitewash). Missed shots is similar, if not quite as dominant, almost all Habs being above the league average.
Add up below average shot prevention, more than average missed shots and more than average blocked shots and you get the blue mess that follows in chances against. The numbers in that column are sub-optimal by most standards and some are downright abysmal (see >60 ChA/60).
It seems to me (and maybe to you as well, dear readers) that this is a bit of a red flag for the passive approach to defence that is currently being employed by Martin and his boys. While the defensive clogging of the slot is surely leading to some impressive blocked and missed shot totals, it seem to me that the Canadiens aren't perhaps negotiating the next part of the strategy very well at all – which should be making the shot a turnover by recovering the puck.
System performers
So, we've got to the bottom of the system (at least the one used so far). Allow the shot from the outside – block it or force the player to shoot wide – then recover the puck and start an attack. As a system it's not stupid, the team that seems to use it best this season is Pittsburgh who translate above average chances against into below average shots against. However, it must also be said that most teams we think of as defensive outfits don't trust this way of defending. New Jersey, Boston, Detroit, these teams all reduce chances overall and limit the number of shots that have to be blocked or forced wide.
In addition to the Penguins, there are players on the Habs who seem to get this system and can play it with some success. To me, these are the players that have warmer shades in the SA column and top rankings in the missed and blocked columns. The standouts seem to be Glen Metropoilt, Josh Gorges and Roman Hamrlik. All three players (and observation I think would back this up) play their position well and are good at jumping to retrieve the loose stuff after the initial chance.
System failures
Troublingly, the successes are outnumbered by the strugglers. Ignore Markov for now (he's had offense on the mind in his return), but do cast an eye to O'Byrne, Lapierre and Mara. These three players all allow 59 chances an hour or more. They are all on the ice for plenty of blocked shots and missed shots, but the sheer number of reloads they are allowing means they are also on the ice for a shot every 2 minutes or less.
Add to these players, Spacek, Gill, Gomez, Sergei Kostitsyn and even Gionta and we're in trouble.
When to change?
45 games into a season and many players appear on paper (and on TV) to be having significant trouble with a system that demands passivity, patience and then quickness to make it work properly. It begs the question, should Martin persist with this system.
If not, how late is too late to change? After all, it seems to be unravelling more than it is coming together at this point in the season. What's more, i think we've al seen enough proof that it doesn't work as well against good teams as it seems to against the Islanders.
If I were the coach, I'd be having a little think about all this.
I'd like to know what all of you think...
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Play of the Week
RDS is reporting that some sharp-shooting Habs player has finally managed to hit the target.
It happened in practice, mind you, but the Canadiens recipient of play of the week (unnamed in the report) hit Hal Gill in the foot. It appears that the shot was both accurate and forceful enough to sideline the big galoot. Mathieu Carle will be replacing him.
Meanwhile...
Things that won't win next week's play of the week:
Jacques Martin playing the Mathieu-Marc combo together while Gil recovers. Hopefully the personnel-management challenged coach will find a way to let us experience addition by subtraction...
It happened in practice, mind you, but the Canadiens recipient of play of the week (unnamed in the report) hit Hal Gill in the foot. It appears that the shot was both accurate and forceful enough to sideline the big galoot. Mathieu Carle will be replacing him.
Meanwhile...
Things that won't win next week's play of the week:
Jacques Martin playing the Mathieu-Marc combo together while Gil recovers. Hopefully the personnel-management challenged coach will find a way to let us experience addition by subtraction...
Friday, October 30, 2009
Martin Getting There
New Habs Lines Spread The Wealth
In his brief time here in Montreal, Jacques Martin has found our best line. On his ten question exam, that was the first problem, the giveaway warm up one.
And while it's a "well done" to Jacques for discovering that putting the 39 goalscorer with duo that combined for goals galore and Cups in the past, it wasn't exactly a headscratcher.
What was and remains a headscratcher was/is finding out how to get some offensive production from his lower lines, most specifically his wingers. The problem of making his team hard to defend against (something which they have proved they are not when facing the better teams in the league).
After 12 regular season games and 8 in the pre-season, Jacques should be starting to get a feel for some of his assets beyond the obvious big three. What he might have noticed by now is that Plekanec is a very good, if temperamental, player. He may have noticed that Andrei Kostitsyn is the only forward from the remaining group who can beat a player one on one and certainly the only one who can stare down a goalie who has set his feet for the save and score. He may have noticed that Latendresse has hands but needs a big brother to push him into the role he seems reluctant to take. And he may have noticed that the rest of the guys deserve credit for their effort, but aren't going to a big part of the solution to the scoring problem in the long-term.
Line changes
Today we have news that good old Jacques is shuffling the deck. And while the Francois Gagnon's of the world will be infuriated that Andrei Kostitsyn appears to be getting rewarded for his lack-lustre production. As always the one-eyed critics miss the point entirely.
This move isn't about rewarding Andrei Kostitsyn in the least. It isn't about the individual players at all. What it is about is the search for the chemical equation that will yield two good offensive lines from a list of 12 possible reagents.
I have to say I am in full agreement. i think the time for rewarding Travis Moen for working hard or rewarding Max Pacioretty for not being a sulky Belarussian has come and gone. Sooner or later, Jacques had to look beyond sending messages to a couple of players and begin sending the message to the league (and us fans) that the Canadiens will be a team to be reckoned with.
The more astute among you will have noticed that these changes actually happened between periods 2 and 3 of the last game when Martin swapped Cammalleri for Kostitsyn straight up. The most astute readers will remember that based on some reason and statistical precedent, this was the first line that we all thought should be trotted out as number 1 (or 2, if you consider centre 1 and winger 1 will now be united).
I'll just refresh the memory as to why we thought it might make sense in the first place:
1) Kostitsyn and Plekanec no longer work well together.
They didn't all last season, they haven't in the first spell this season. Don't ask me why, it's just so. Might as well work on another combo
2) Gomez and Gionta (the unbreakable duo for now) both shoot like crazy.
Their default setting is shoot, even Gomez's passes are often shots. It made less sense, to me anyway, to add another shooting machine to the line. After all, who would be the puck holder, who would challenge the goalie to think that a pass might come instead. Cammalleri was successful on the first line, but looking at his goals, a lot were self-made and many were quick shots that happened to come off. What we have seen against good teams is that they can allow the shots (knowing they'll come) and set their minds to cleaning up the rebounds.
3) Kostitsyn is in all likelihood the second best (if not the best) shooter on the team in terms of accuracy and quality of release.
At the end of the day, this will probably translate to more goals than 15 of the group of 18 forwards. In short, he's a top goal threat. So no matter what his attitude to mucking it up in the corners may be, it is in the interest of the coaches to potentiate this asset. Allowing him his first experimental run with Scott Gomez is a logical step in the experiment to get him firing again.
Almost there
If he's found the way to play Kostitsyn on a scoring line without Plekanec, Jacques still has to figure out which of the young French Canadian duo is the goalscorer.
PLaying Maxim Lapierre on line two is a nice plaudit for the young man, which he deserves after last season, but come April it would be surprising if his name were to be found above that of Guillaume Latendresse when you sort the stats for goals scored.
Max is a lot of things, plucky, committed, competitive, spiny, energetic; but he won't ever be mistaken for a goal-machine. That's not to say that Gui will ever be said machine. However, with Plekanec's smoothe passing and Cammalleri's machine-gunning pucks at the net, the quicker hands should win the day here.
If it's not to be Guillaume, Maxim is still the wrong choice in my books. The place beside the top scorers is more suited to wingers like Pacioretty and D'Agostini, so Lapierre can get back to doing what he actually does well.
And, not to nit pick, but this is only questions 2 and 3 on Martin's exam sheet. There's that whole defence to work out next. Maybe once he gets to it, he'll even realise that Hal Gill is not a defender for every type of opponent and that he should get hold of the ear of his GM to mention that spare money kicking around because he hasn't replaced Markov.
Patience. Again.
Although I'm fairly convinced that some of the reasons I put forward these lines in the first place were right, I would hesitate to say everything falls into place this evening against the Hawks.
Once again, a little bit of patience is required. Both Gomez and Gionta have been good, but will need time to acclimatise to having a puck-carrying and more discerning shooter at their sides. Ditto Plekanec, who will have to adjust a bit to the frantic pace of a Cammalleri shift.
I tell you what though, if this works, then teams like Pittsburgh will have to think twice about trotting out Martin Skoula to defend the line Kostitsyn's on.
And while it's a "well done" to Jacques for discovering that putting the 39 goalscorer with duo that combined for goals galore and Cups in the past, it wasn't exactly a headscratcher.
What was and remains a headscratcher was/is finding out how to get some offensive production from his lower lines, most specifically his wingers. The problem of making his team hard to defend against (something which they have proved they are not when facing the better teams in the league).
After 12 regular season games and 8 in the pre-season, Jacques should be starting to get a feel for some of his assets beyond the obvious big three. What he might have noticed by now is that Plekanec is a very good, if temperamental, player. He may have noticed that Andrei Kostitsyn is the only forward from the remaining group who can beat a player one on one and certainly the only one who can stare down a goalie who has set his feet for the save and score. He may have noticed that Latendresse has hands but needs a big brother to push him into the role he seems reluctant to take. And he may have noticed that the rest of the guys deserve credit for their effort, but aren't going to a big part of the solution to the scoring problem in the long-term.
Line changes
Today we have news that good old Jacques is shuffling the deck. And while the Francois Gagnon's of the world will be infuriated that Andrei Kostitsyn appears to be getting rewarded for his lack-lustre production. As always the one-eyed critics miss the point entirely.
This move isn't about rewarding Andrei Kostitsyn in the least. It isn't about the individual players at all. What it is about is the search for the chemical equation that will yield two good offensive lines from a list of 12 possible reagents.
I have to say I am in full agreement. i think the time for rewarding Travis Moen for working hard or rewarding Max Pacioretty for not being a sulky Belarussian has come and gone. Sooner or later, Jacques had to look beyond sending messages to a couple of players and begin sending the message to the league (and us fans) that the Canadiens will be a team to be reckoned with.
The more astute among you will have noticed that these changes actually happened between periods 2 and 3 of the last game when Martin swapped Cammalleri for Kostitsyn straight up. The most astute readers will remember that based on some reason and statistical precedent, this was the first line that we all thought should be trotted out as number 1 (or 2, if you consider centre 1 and winger 1 will now be united).
I'll just refresh the memory as to why we thought it might make sense in the first place:
1) Kostitsyn and Plekanec no longer work well together.
They didn't all last season, they haven't in the first spell this season. Don't ask me why, it's just so. Might as well work on another combo
2) Gomez and Gionta (the unbreakable duo for now) both shoot like crazy.
Their default setting is shoot, even Gomez's passes are often shots. It made less sense, to me anyway, to add another shooting machine to the line. After all, who would be the puck holder, who would challenge the goalie to think that a pass might come instead. Cammalleri was successful on the first line, but looking at his goals, a lot were self-made and many were quick shots that happened to come off. What we have seen against good teams is that they can allow the shots (knowing they'll come) and set their minds to cleaning up the rebounds.
3) Kostitsyn is in all likelihood the second best (if not the best) shooter on the team in terms of accuracy and quality of release.
At the end of the day, this will probably translate to more goals than 15 of the group of 18 forwards. In short, he's a top goal threat. So no matter what his attitude to mucking it up in the corners may be, it is in the interest of the coaches to potentiate this asset. Allowing him his first experimental run with Scott Gomez is a logical step in the experiment to get him firing again.
Almost there
If he's found the way to play Kostitsyn on a scoring line without Plekanec, Jacques still has to figure out which of the young French Canadian duo is the goalscorer.
PLaying Maxim Lapierre on line two is a nice plaudit for the young man, which he deserves after last season, but come April it would be surprising if his name were to be found above that of Guillaume Latendresse when you sort the stats for goals scored.
Max is a lot of things, plucky, committed, competitive, spiny, energetic; but he won't ever be mistaken for a goal-machine. That's not to say that Gui will ever be said machine. However, with Plekanec's smoothe passing and Cammalleri's machine-gunning pucks at the net, the quicker hands should win the day here.
If it's not to be Guillaume, Maxim is still the wrong choice in my books. The place beside the top scorers is more suited to wingers like Pacioretty and D'Agostini, so Lapierre can get back to doing what he actually does well.
And, not to nit pick, but this is only questions 2 and 3 on Martin's exam sheet. There's that whole defence to work out next. Maybe once he gets to it, he'll even realise that Hal Gill is not a defender for every type of opponent and that he should get hold of the ear of his GM to mention that spare money kicking around because he hasn't replaced Markov.
Patience. Again.
Although I'm fairly convinced that some of the reasons I put forward these lines in the first place were right, I would hesitate to say everything falls into place this evening against the Hawks.
Once again, a little bit of patience is required. Both Gomez and Gionta have been good, but will need time to acclimatise to having a puck-carrying and more discerning shooter at their sides. Ditto Plekanec, who will have to adjust a bit to the frantic pace of a Cammalleri shift.
I tell you what though, if this works, then teams like Pittsburgh will have to think twice about trotting out Martin Skoula to defend the line Kostitsyn's on.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Habs Rough Start Was Expected
The Canadiens with their new defence, attack and coach are living up to all the predictions we ever made about adjustment periods. The start has been rough. They've lost 5, they could have lost 7 – mind you they've won 2 and might have won another 2.
To add insult to injury, though Tobalev's been up on the game reports, I've been having an extremely rough start to the season myself. I have to apologise for that. I have been very busy working on a side project about the history of swimming that turned out to be much more interesting and thus much more time-consuming than originally anticipated. Anyway, I'm done that now, so you needn't worry about 4 days between posts for the next while.
Next, how about the Habs get their acts together?
What's wrong anyway?
Markov being injured doesn't help at all. The balance of good goaltending to average shows in the standings. The PP has lost a QB and the main zone winning and coverage drawing element too.
Also, we mustn't forget that all those pundits who fretted about too many changes on the Canadiens (including the coaching staff) did so because they were drawing on the experience of other overhaul experiments. It takes more than two weeks to learn how a defence partner positions himself, more than a fortnight for a passer to find his wingers on instinct alone. The coaching change too was massive, meaning even the incumbent players are newbies on the rebranded Habs. It'll take time to unlearn Carbo's system from the past few years. Imagine players who've been playing so unfettered for their whole careers – for them the Martin system will be at least a year-long project.
And then, on top of it all, I think the players are having trouble adapting to their new physical training regime, which from the sounds of it preseason was a lot more intense than they have ever been used to. You can see the Habs come out flying, but flagging as the game rolls on – signs of early fatigue and conditioning issues.
Unfortunately for those of us watching the standings, the only remedy for all of these issues is patience. And a healthy dose.
I understand that patience is hard to find in the 7th year of the 5-year plan. I understand because I feel it too. My trick is to remember last year. Last season, the Canadiens came out extremely strongly – firing on many cylinders. By December they were solidly in 4th (and were it not for the Bruins amazing feats of shooting and save perfection of last fall) would have also been vying for the conference lead. The team had 3 legitimate all-star shouts, a scarily solid looking top 4 on defence and a strong offence without overly taxing Kovalev. Of course, we all remember how that ended.
Of course the teams that we don't watch mostly started slower than the Canadiens, yet at least 3 teams who lagged behind by the yuletide season outperformed our Habs in the balance of their games. That one of them was Pittsburgh must be of some comfort. Philly started last season's first 7 at 0-3-4. St. Louis made the playoffs from 14-22-2 in early January; Minnesota missed from a 6-0-1 start.
Every year has stories like these. Every year we are served with the lesson of patience, of waiting to see how things unfold. But just as blogs and papers need to be written daily, so too the fretting about every mis-step, every stray pass, every loss.
Take the positive
It might be highly optimistic to ignore all that's clearly wrong and focus instead only on the positive morsels we've been tossed. But really, why not? Sure the optimist will be the one who stands wrong at the close of the campaign if the Habs really do never score a PP goal again, or if Carey Price and Halak do let in two back-breaking goals per contest. I'd rather be wrong with some hope than right about hopelessness. And so, the reasons to see the end of the tunnel:
1) Tomas Plekanec: He's been producing shots, chances, goals and plays again. He's already reached more than 20% of his assists form last season. We keyed on him for success and he seems ready again to deliver.
2) Acquisitions at forward: Gionta is great. Gomez is good. Cammalleri is tricky. And Moen is better than expected. Gainey's brought in some quality at the front. Though Gomez will tick along at 6% shooting, Cammalleri probably won't sick on 3.8%.
3) Even without Markov, the top three have been a top three: Thanks to Josh Gorges re-upping the ante, we do have a legitimate three to turn to. For their faults, Hamrlik, Spacek and Gorges have showed promise. If Markov comes back, Martin could go all Anaheim and play 5 and 6 for fewer minutes than Georges Laraque in a playoff game.
4) Sergei Kostitsyn has pride: It seems he does after all. Though he took some time to find it, Sergei might well respond the way Jacques probably hoped he would after a slap in the face. His 2-goal starring effort in the Bulldogs last win indicates he may post numbers that finally push the "great entitled" of the third and fourth lines to do something once in a while.
5) Curtis Sanford: The Cedrick Desjardins buffer has re-found his Moose form, which should he continue will press Gainey to do something about our current pair sporting early 1980s statistics.
6) The New York Islanders: Last season when their first (incredibly lacklustre) team all went down with injury, the Islanders iced an ECHL line and pairing nightly and still cranked out 61 points by season's end. The lesson for me is that every team should be getting 26 wins a year, it's the new floor.
There's more too. I'm sure you can all add. So patience all. When we said we'd give Martin time to establish his print, I for one meant it.
To add insult to injury, though Tobalev's been up on the game reports, I've been having an extremely rough start to the season myself. I have to apologise for that. I have been very busy working on a side project about the history of swimming that turned out to be much more interesting and thus much more time-consuming than originally anticipated. Anyway, I'm done that now, so you needn't worry about 4 days between posts for the next while.
Next, how about the Habs get their acts together?
What's wrong anyway?
Markov being injured doesn't help at all. The balance of good goaltending to average shows in the standings. The PP has lost a QB and the main zone winning and coverage drawing element too.
Also, we mustn't forget that all those pundits who fretted about too many changes on the Canadiens (including the coaching staff) did so because they were drawing on the experience of other overhaul experiments. It takes more than two weeks to learn how a defence partner positions himself, more than a fortnight for a passer to find his wingers on instinct alone. The coaching change too was massive, meaning even the incumbent players are newbies on the rebranded Habs. It'll take time to unlearn Carbo's system from the past few years. Imagine players who've been playing so unfettered for their whole careers – for them the Martin system will be at least a year-long project.
And then, on top of it all, I think the players are having trouble adapting to their new physical training regime, which from the sounds of it preseason was a lot more intense than they have ever been used to. You can see the Habs come out flying, but flagging as the game rolls on – signs of early fatigue and conditioning issues.
Unfortunately for those of us watching the standings, the only remedy for all of these issues is patience. And a healthy dose.
I understand that patience is hard to find in the 7th year of the 5-year plan. I understand because I feel it too. My trick is to remember last year. Last season, the Canadiens came out extremely strongly – firing on many cylinders. By December they were solidly in 4th (and were it not for the Bruins amazing feats of shooting and save perfection of last fall) would have also been vying for the conference lead. The team had 3 legitimate all-star shouts, a scarily solid looking top 4 on defence and a strong offence without overly taxing Kovalev. Of course, we all remember how that ended.
Of course the teams that we don't watch mostly started slower than the Canadiens, yet at least 3 teams who lagged behind by the yuletide season outperformed our Habs in the balance of their games. That one of them was Pittsburgh must be of some comfort. Philly started last season's first 7 at 0-3-4. St. Louis made the playoffs from 14-22-2 in early January; Minnesota missed from a 6-0-1 start.
Every year has stories like these. Every year we are served with the lesson of patience, of waiting to see how things unfold. But just as blogs and papers need to be written daily, so too the fretting about every mis-step, every stray pass, every loss.
Take the positive
It might be highly optimistic to ignore all that's clearly wrong and focus instead only on the positive morsels we've been tossed. But really, why not? Sure the optimist will be the one who stands wrong at the close of the campaign if the Habs really do never score a PP goal again, or if Carey Price and Halak do let in two back-breaking goals per contest. I'd rather be wrong with some hope than right about hopelessness. And so, the reasons to see the end of the tunnel:
1) Tomas Plekanec: He's been producing shots, chances, goals and plays again. He's already reached more than 20% of his assists form last season. We keyed on him for success and he seems ready again to deliver.
2) Acquisitions at forward: Gionta is great. Gomez is good. Cammalleri is tricky. And Moen is better than expected. Gainey's brought in some quality at the front. Though Gomez will tick along at 6% shooting, Cammalleri probably won't sick on 3.8%.
3) Even without Markov, the top three have been a top three: Thanks to Josh Gorges re-upping the ante, we do have a legitimate three to turn to. For their faults, Hamrlik, Spacek and Gorges have showed promise. If Markov comes back, Martin could go all Anaheim and play 5 and 6 for fewer minutes than Georges Laraque in a playoff game.
4) Sergei Kostitsyn has pride: It seems he does after all. Though he took some time to find it, Sergei might well respond the way Jacques probably hoped he would after a slap in the face. His 2-goal starring effort in the Bulldogs last win indicates he may post numbers that finally push the "great entitled" of the third and fourth lines to do something once in a while.
5) Curtis Sanford: The Cedrick Desjardins buffer has re-found his Moose form, which should he continue will press Gainey to do something about our current pair sporting early 1980s statistics.
6) The New York Islanders: Last season when their first (incredibly lacklustre) team all went down with injury, the Islanders iced an ECHL line and pairing nightly and still cranked out 61 points by season's end. The lesson for me is that every team should be getting 26 wins a year, it's the new floor.
There's more too. I'm sure you can all add. So patience all. When we said we'd give Martin time to establish his print, I for one meant it.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Jacques Martin Again
Look Forward To Better Player Development
When I was putting together a piece on Jacques Martin, player development is what I had in mind. I have to admit to getting sidetracked by a tangential thought that grew into an article.
I say player development, because if winning against Toronto in the playoffs is what Jacques Martin is worst at, developing players into future stars is perhaps what he is best at. It's good thing too, because there's a fairly broad consensus on those who give report cards to the Canadiens organization that the mark for Gainey and co. should be "Needs improvement" or even "Unsatisfactory".
In fact, if one were to try and pinpoint the key element that has led to Gainey pressing reset on his five-year plan (i.e., the reason his original 5 years were eventually deemed a bust) it could well be player development. After all, 25 goalscorers completely losing confidence is right up there with sudden and inexplicable inability to win in the playoffs as the theme of the half decade. It's not nice to harp on about Carbonneau, but let's just say his name and "player development", though often finding their way into the same sentence were more often than not also accompanied by phrases like "has no aptitude for", "doesn't like" or "would rather go tie shopping".
Can't keep burning through prospects
The Canadiens have done an admirable job of piling up half decent prospects at most positions in the draft without really having to lose the league. But be realistic, they've been a bit lucky – they've avoided the busts that sometimes happen to even the best scouting departments. What this means for the future is probably that they are due a bust or two, and that they can't expect to keep pulling in top talent from later rounds.
When you're drowned in what seems like a wealth of new faces (like autumn 2007-08), ruining one or two careers or alienating a talent doesn't seem like such a big deal.
But it doesn't take long for the tide to turn does it?
A minute ago we had too many offensive minded centres to fit Grabovski into the plans. A few slumps and a few trades later and we're looking at Ben Maxwell to step in as the number two centre if there's an injury. I looked at centre, I could have looked at the wings, where there are even less enticing propositions.
From plenty to pittance in just a season – it's no wonder Gainey decided to say no more. In taking on Jacques Martin (who's more than a French Canadian, as we're discovering by the day), Bob has opted to put a stake in the development of the assets he has left. He has invested in a policy that might turn the career of Sergei Kostitsyn around, that might prevent Matt D'Agostini from descending from 8-goal wonder to on-ice nightmare again and who might even help more established stars push their limits.
It's a good gamble. And based on the past, it may just pay off.
Jacques Martin, the nurturer of offensive egos
The other day, I wrote about how Jacques was able to take the Pitiful 1996 Senators, stabilise their defence and then move to creating an offensive powerhouse. Not only that, he actually nurtured some of the leagues very best offensive talents so that they could fulfill their potential and score goals like they were expected to.
His record on developing goalscorers is very very impressive actually. For symmetry, I looked at two 4-year periods – that since the lockout to see the current goalscoring talent and those 4 years immediately before the lockout, which coincide with Martin's powerhouse Senators teams. What I found is that Jacques' players, those drafted and brought through the Ottawa system rose above the crops from other organizations.
Goalscorers since the lockout
Since the lockout, there have been 89 players to register 30 goal seasons.
5 players have done it 4 times
13 players have done it 3 times
20 players have done it 2 times
Among the 89, there were 4 players who started their careers on Jacques Martin team. But 2 of those (Alfredsson and Hossa) are among the elite 18 who've claimed 3 30-goal marks. One other (Spezza) has done it twice.
When you look at 40 goalscorers (the real elite), Alfredsson and Hossa stand out even more since they account 4 of 54 40-goal seasons across the whole league between them.
Goalscorers before the lockout
In the 4 years before the lockout, there were only 68 players to register 30 goal seasons.
6 players did it 4 times
10 players did it 3 times
18 players did it 2 times
Once again, Jacques' proteges were up there. Hossa, again was truly elite with 4 30-goal campaigns and one 45-goal season. Throw in three more (Yashin, Alfredsson and Demitra) with a couple of 30-goal seasons apiece and Havlat with one in his fourth season in the league and it looks good again for Jacques's fostering.
How did he do it?
I'm not going to suggest that he taught these guys how to score – that would be outlandish. It looks to me like he got a lot of help from the draft. After all, Yashin, Hossa, Spezza and Havlat are all first rounders. But as we should know by now in Montreal, draft talent does not always translate. We look at teams like Ottawa from that era and Detroit now and say "good drafting". But it goes beyond that, we have that. It's actually "good drafting, great development".
What one can say without question is that he didn't hinder their goalscoring instincts, even in a defensive system. And that is a strategy that Guy Carbonneau could never quite work out.
Jacaques Martin, the purveyor of defensive reliability
As he kept an eye on his talented forwards, Martin also kept another guiding hand for the upbringing of defensive prospects.
While I'll gladly concede that a goalscorer has all the skills he needs to score goals at the age of 20, a defenceman needs a tutor, he needs a really good one, too.
Just as we can rattle off 90-point and 40-goal seasons from the Ottawa graduates (that'd be nice to do again here one day – where are you Stephane Richer?), I can also recall a list of defencemen I would have listed as elite from Jacques time down the 417. Chara, Redden, Phillips, Volchenkov, Salo have all at times been decent to excellent defenders.
We're all to familiar with the recent exploits of Zdeno Chara, but does anyone remember what a terribly awkward 23-year old he was with the 2000-01 Islanders? Sure a change of team helped a lot, but from -27 one year to +30 the next has to say something about his own improvement too. I can honestly tell you from seeing the then pylon in orange and blue at the Bell Centre that Chara and Norris trophy were not in the same realm.
Equally, Wade Redden had an exemplary ten-year stint among the sub-Norris elite of the NHL defenders. A single season in the negative (and -1 at that) speaks to how he served a system for the benefit of the team and ultimately his bank account.
The other cast members, whoever they were (and notably Phillips) always made Ottawa a difficult team to play against and a difficult team to keep the puck away from. The coach must get a lot of credit here. You can see what impact he had, because for a while after he left Ottawa still assumed they could fill any hole on defence with the next guy in the depth chart, just as Martin always always did.
I know his years in Florida weren't anything to write home about. But I tell you what, When he went in Jay Bouwmeester was not as mature and dominating as he is now. is that despite Martin? Maybe. But I'd be surprised.
Player development in Montreal
All of this is good news for Montreal, I think. Bringing in a coach at this point who can foster personalities and flair and at the same time shape defencemen into contributors to the cause is something we've longed for.
I mentioned the forwards he could salvage like Sergei Kostitsyn and D'Agostini, but I can't see his influence being a bad thing on Plekanec, Andrei Kostitsyn, Latendresse, Cammalleri and some of the other relatively young guys either. What's more, he may just be able to make a Mike Fisher or two out of all those "defensive forwards" we have waiting in the wings.
What excites me more, though. And what I expect might have been going through Bob Gainey's mind is Jacques' potential to shape all those prospects coming through. It's about Josh Gorges' consistency, Ryan O'Byrne using his size, and Yannick Weber and PK Subban taking the right first steps. If even one of those 4 make significant strides, this signing will have improved our prospects over the defensive-forward trifecta.
Carey Price. What about Carey Price? Well, as for his personal development, I'm not sure. Jacques' record in turning out clutch goaltenders is nearly league worst. But, you never know, a better defence with some offensive conversion – maybe that alone will help Carey Price take the weight of the world off his shoulders enough that he can lift his left arm. We'll see.
A chance at making the playoffs without the customary ruining of 2 young careers. How's that for more reason to be positive about the season?
I say player development, because if winning against Toronto in the playoffs is what Jacques Martin is worst at, developing players into future stars is perhaps what he is best at. It's good thing too, because there's a fairly broad consensus on those who give report cards to the Canadiens organization that the mark for Gainey and co. should be "Needs improvement" or even "Unsatisfactory".
In fact, if one were to try and pinpoint the key element that has led to Gainey pressing reset on his five-year plan (i.e., the reason his original 5 years were eventually deemed a bust) it could well be player development. After all, 25 goalscorers completely losing confidence is right up there with sudden and inexplicable inability to win in the playoffs as the theme of the half decade. It's not nice to harp on about Carbonneau, but let's just say his name and "player development", though often finding their way into the same sentence were more often than not also accompanied by phrases like "has no aptitude for", "doesn't like" or "would rather go tie shopping".
Can't keep burning through prospects
The Canadiens have done an admirable job of piling up half decent prospects at most positions in the draft without really having to lose the league. But be realistic, they've been a bit lucky – they've avoided the busts that sometimes happen to even the best scouting departments. What this means for the future is probably that they are due a bust or two, and that they can't expect to keep pulling in top talent from later rounds.
When you're drowned in what seems like a wealth of new faces (like autumn 2007-08), ruining one or two careers or alienating a talent doesn't seem like such a big deal.
But it doesn't take long for the tide to turn does it?
A minute ago we had too many offensive minded centres to fit Grabovski into the plans. A few slumps and a few trades later and we're looking at Ben Maxwell to step in as the number two centre if there's an injury. I looked at centre, I could have looked at the wings, where there are even less enticing propositions.
From plenty to pittance in just a season – it's no wonder Gainey decided to say no more. In taking on Jacques Martin (who's more than a French Canadian, as we're discovering by the day), Bob has opted to put a stake in the development of the assets he has left. He has invested in a policy that might turn the career of Sergei Kostitsyn around, that might prevent Matt D'Agostini from descending from 8-goal wonder to on-ice nightmare again and who might even help more established stars push their limits.
It's a good gamble. And based on the past, it may just pay off.
Jacques Martin, the nurturer of offensive egos
The other day, I wrote about how Jacques was able to take the Pitiful 1996 Senators, stabilise their defence and then move to creating an offensive powerhouse. Not only that, he actually nurtured some of the leagues very best offensive talents so that they could fulfill their potential and score goals like they were expected to.
His record on developing goalscorers is very very impressive actually. For symmetry, I looked at two 4-year periods – that since the lockout to see the current goalscoring talent and those 4 years immediately before the lockout, which coincide with Martin's powerhouse Senators teams. What I found is that Jacques' players, those drafted and brought through the Ottawa system rose above the crops from other organizations.
Goalscorers since the lockout
Since the lockout, there have been 89 players to register 30 goal seasons.
5 players have done it 4 times
13 players have done it 3 times
20 players have done it 2 times
Among the 89, there were 4 players who started their careers on Jacques Martin team. But 2 of those (Alfredsson and Hossa) are among the elite 18 who've claimed 3 30-goal marks. One other (Spezza) has done it twice.
When you look at 40 goalscorers (the real elite), Alfredsson and Hossa stand out even more since they account 4 of 54 40-goal seasons across the whole league between them.
Goalscorers before the lockout
In the 4 years before the lockout, there were only 68 players to register 30 goal seasons.
6 players did it 4 times
10 players did it 3 times
18 players did it 2 times
Once again, Jacques' proteges were up there. Hossa, again was truly elite with 4 30-goal campaigns and one 45-goal season. Throw in three more (Yashin, Alfredsson and Demitra) with a couple of 30-goal seasons apiece and Havlat with one in his fourth season in the league and it looks good again for Jacques's fostering.
How did he do it?
I'm not going to suggest that he taught these guys how to score – that would be outlandish. It looks to me like he got a lot of help from the draft. After all, Yashin, Hossa, Spezza and Havlat are all first rounders. But as we should know by now in Montreal, draft talent does not always translate. We look at teams like Ottawa from that era and Detroit now and say "good drafting". But it goes beyond that, we have that. It's actually "good drafting, great development".
What one can say without question is that he didn't hinder their goalscoring instincts, even in a defensive system. And that is a strategy that Guy Carbonneau could never quite work out.
Jacaques Martin, the purveyor of defensive reliability
As he kept an eye on his talented forwards, Martin also kept another guiding hand for the upbringing of defensive prospects.
While I'll gladly concede that a goalscorer has all the skills he needs to score goals at the age of 20, a defenceman needs a tutor, he needs a really good one, too.
Just as we can rattle off 90-point and 40-goal seasons from the Ottawa graduates (that'd be nice to do again here one day – where are you Stephane Richer?), I can also recall a list of defencemen I would have listed as elite from Jacques time down the 417. Chara, Redden, Phillips, Volchenkov, Salo have all at times been decent to excellent defenders.
We're all to familiar with the recent exploits of Zdeno Chara, but does anyone remember what a terribly awkward 23-year old he was with the 2000-01 Islanders? Sure a change of team helped a lot, but from -27 one year to +30 the next has to say something about his own improvement too. I can honestly tell you from seeing the then pylon in orange and blue at the Bell Centre that Chara and Norris trophy were not in the same realm.
Equally, Wade Redden had an exemplary ten-year stint among the sub-Norris elite of the NHL defenders. A single season in the negative (and -1 at that) speaks to how he served a system for the benefit of the team and ultimately his bank account.
The other cast members, whoever they were (and notably Phillips) always made Ottawa a difficult team to play against and a difficult team to keep the puck away from. The coach must get a lot of credit here. You can see what impact he had, because for a while after he left Ottawa still assumed they could fill any hole on defence with the next guy in the depth chart, just as Martin always always did.
I know his years in Florida weren't anything to write home about. But I tell you what, When he went in Jay Bouwmeester was not as mature and dominating as he is now. is that despite Martin? Maybe. But I'd be surprised.
Player development in Montreal
All of this is good news for Montreal, I think. Bringing in a coach at this point who can foster personalities and flair and at the same time shape defencemen into contributors to the cause is something we've longed for.
I mentioned the forwards he could salvage like Sergei Kostitsyn and D'Agostini, but I can't see his influence being a bad thing on Plekanec, Andrei Kostitsyn, Latendresse, Cammalleri and some of the other relatively young guys either. What's more, he may just be able to make a Mike Fisher or two out of all those "defensive forwards" we have waiting in the wings.
What excites me more, though. And what I expect might have been going through Bob Gainey's mind is Jacques' potential to shape all those prospects coming through. It's about Josh Gorges' consistency, Ryan O'Byrne using his size, and Yannick Weber and PK Subban taking the right first steps. If even one of those 4 make significant strides, this signing will have improved our prospects over the defensive-forward trifecta.
Carey Price. What about Carey Price? Well, as for his personal development, I'm not sure. Jacques' record in turning out clutch goaltenders is nearly league worst. But, you never know, a better defence with some offensive conversion – maybe that alone will help Carey Price take the weight of the world off his shoulders enough that he can lift his left arm. We'll see.
A chance at making the playoffs without the customary ruining of 2 young careers. How's that for more reason to be positive about the season?
Monday, August 10, 2009
Canadiens Outlook
The Expected Impact Of Jacques Martin
A couple of days ago, I saw a reporter joking about Bob Gainey's first answer when he's eventually asked the question about who he thinks his best off-season acquisition was. The reporter suggested that there will be no hesitation and Gainey will offer the name of Jacques Martin.
It's a joke because that's what Bob Gainey said this past winter when asked about his best move of the summer – replying without taking a breath that it was Guy Carbonneau. No sooner had he said it, was Guy losing games like a southern expansion franchise and earning his multi-million dollar salary for relaxing days on the golf course in March.
I can hear Bob Gainey giving the anticipated response. For one thing, he has that kind of humour. For another, it means he doesn't have to choose between players – the diplomat's way. But you know what, if you really think about it, shouldn't it be the answer we're all hoping for anyway? I'm sure we all hope Gomez is a success and that Spacek replaces Streit, but if come January Gainey stands up and says any name other than Jacques Martin's, I have a feeling we're not going to be a happy bunch.
Bad rap
The reason people probably don't wish to be looking to Martin as the beacon of hope in the mid-season is because of the fear for what that will mean. Upon his hiring, the media (especially outside Montreal) made a big deal about the hiring. They also tended to focus very heavily on two distinct elements of Martin's history: a) the trap and b) playoff failings.
Fair enough. Take your shots when you can get them in (Toronto). However, when one looks back over the career of Jacques Martin as a coach, one can see that the criticism as it was back in June, was a bit unfair. For one thing, labeling him as a trap-man completely ignores what he did for Ottawa at the other end of the ice. For another, his playoff record is only bad when placed in the light of the regular season success he had. Few coaches did better over the save time period.
I thought it would be interesting to look at what happened to Ottawa when Jacques Martin joins and what this might mean for the Habs.
Wins/standings
The season before Jacques Martin's first complete campaign Ottawa were a pitiful outfit garnering just 41 points. In the space of that year, Jacques took largely the same team and made them a playoff qualifier for the next 9 seasons. His first season witnessed a 36-point jump in the standings to 77 points and by his 3rd full campaign, Ottawa were perennially hovering around the 100-point mark.
The points serve as a comfort to us Habs fans, but they hardly tell the story. Many teams see jumps in points from one season to the next and many go on to sustain those jumps as well. What was more notable with Jacques' changes in Ottawa was the impact he had on the way the team played. And it was that that eventually led to the winning ways.
Defence
Here you have it trappers – evidence that Martin did indeed tighten up the Ottawa defence. The changes he made to the system were marked and it's no wonder they stick out in so many peoples' memories. In 1995-96, the last year that started without Jacques Martin as the Ottawa coach, the Senators allowed an astounding 291 goals. The very next season, without a real jump in save % (0.888 to 0.891) and very few changes to the overall makeup of the team, Jacques' Senators sliced 57 goals from that total to a "mere" 234. The story comes together when you look at shots against as well, which nosedived from 2493 in 1995-96 to 2,113 the next season.
The changes were sustained as well, with further improvements even to the point that Ottawa could be counted upon to be much better than average in the GA column and even flirt with Jennings contention into the latter stages of seasons.
Offense
Just as striking as the defensive turnaround over Martin's time in Ottawa was the complete jump start of the offensive juggernaut that they were to become under Jacques' tutelage – an oft forgotten side effect of good trapping.
While it's clear that Jacques Martin seems to target defence first, and that he certainly tailors a plan to the players he has available (see Florida), there is also a definite part in his long-term planning, it seems, for generating offensive opportunity from out of the discipline.
From 1995-96 to 1996-97, the Ottawa offense didn't roar to its full potential, but it certainly put together an encouraging start with a boost of 35 goals for (from 191 to 226). There were fluctuations along the way, but by the 4th or 5th year of his tenure they were flirting with top 5 offense in the league annually, and in 2004, when Jacques eventually parted 2004, Ottawa were the top goalscoring team in the entire NHL.
Once again, the results came from a philosophy, as evidenced by the increased and then sustained number of shots for, making sure the team had every chance of scoring at a higher rate.
Impact on Montreal
The parallel between Montreal 2008-09 and Ottawa 1995-96 is not perfect, to say the least, but there are some similarities. For one thing, Ottawa of that era moved to Jacques Martin out of a frustration with a less disciplined style that produced sporadic (and less than hoped for) results, just like our most recent Canadiens. For another, both defences can both be fairly categorised as atrocious by most standards. Both teams let up far too many shots for the calibre of goaltending they could rely on and both paid in goals against, and, to some degree, losses.
In what was a bad season for Montreal last year, the team allowed an astounding 2600 shots against. Quite a contrast with some of those numbers for Martin's Ottawa. Even if you take into account the inflation in shot totals since the lockout, there's no hiding form the fact that Montreal allowed more shots than 23 of their rivals and that most good teams see 300 or so less over a season. Surprisingly, it was an improvement on Carbonneau's system of a year before where the Habs let up 11 less shots, but in a more defensive league overall to put them 26th among their peers.
If Jacques Martin does nothing else but reduce the number of shots aimed at the Montreal end, he should succeed. If Ottawa is a relevant precedent, and the team cuts shots against by 300 or more, then Montreal could flirt with being an above average defensive team; and that's probably regardless of how Price and Halak fare.
Less goals against won't guarantee success, but they do often predict it. Specifically, a team that shoots more than they allow shots should score more than they allow. A team that scores more than they let up should (on average) produce more wins that losses. If it's about positioning yourself for wins and not losses, a cut deep into the heart of shots against is a good place to start.
From that point, if we're playoff bound, we can worry about coach Martin's other legacy when that time comes. If the regular season is negotiated with more ease than by his predecessor, I can't see him setting himself up to do any worse in the playoffs.
It's a joke because that's what Bob Gainey said this past winter when asked about his best move of the summer – replying without taking a breath that it was Guy Carbonneau. No sooner had he said it, was Guy losing games like a southern expansion franchise and earning his multi-million dollar salary for relaxing days on the golf course in March.
I can hear Bob Gainey giving the anticipated response. For one thing, he has that kind of humour. For another, it means he doesn't have to choose between players – the diplomat's way. But you know what, if you really think about it, shouldn't it be the answer we're all hoping for anyway? I'm sure we all hope Gomez is a success and that Spacek replaces Streit, but if come January Gainey stands up and says any name other than Jacques Martin's, I have a feeling we're not going to be a happy bunch.
Bad rap
The reason people probably don't wish to be looking to Martin as the beacon of hope in the mid-season is because of the fear for what that will mean. Upon his hiring, the media (especially outside Montreal) made a big deal about the hiring. They also tended to focus very heavily on two distinct elements of Martin's history: a) the trap and b) playoff failings.
Fair enough. Take your shots when you can get them in (Toronto). However, when one looks back over the career of Jacques Martin as a coach, one can see that the criticism as it was back in June, was a bit unfair. For one thing, labeling him as a trap-man completely ignores what he did for Ottawa at the other end of the ice. For another, his playoff record is only bad when placed in the light of the regular season success he had. Few coaches did better over the save time period.
I thought it would be interesting to look at what happened to Ottawa when Jacques Martin joins and what this might mean for the Habs.
Wins/standings
The season before Jacques Martin's first complete campaign Ottawa were a pitiful outfit garnering just 41 points. In the space of that year, Jacques took largely the same team and made them a playoff qualifier for the next 9 seasons. His first season witnessed a 36-point jump in the standings to 77 points and by his 3rd full campaign, Ottawa were perennially hovering around the 100-point mark.
| Season | Wins | Points |
| 1995-96 | 18 | 41 |
| 1996-97 | 31 | 77 |
| 1997-98 | 34 | 83 |
| 1998-99 | 44 | 103 |
| 1999-00 | 41 | 95 |
| 2000-01 | 48 | 109 |
| 2001-02 | 39 | 94 |
| 2002-03 | 52 | 113 |
| 2003-04 | 43 | 102 |
The points serve as a comfort to us Habs fans, but they hardly tell the story. Many teams see jumps in points from one season to the next and many go on to sustain those jumps as well. What was more notable with Jacques' changes in Ottawa was the impact he had on the way the team played. And it was that that eventually led to the winning ways.
Defence
Here you have it trappers – evidence that Martin did indeed tighten up the Ottawa defence. The changes he made to the system were marked and it's no wonder they stick out in so many peoples' memories. In 1995-96, the last year that started without Jacques Martin as the Ottawa coach, the Senators allowed an astounding 291 goals. The very next season, without a real jump in save % (0.888 to 0.891) and very few changes to the overall makeup of the team, Jacques' Senators sliced 57 goals from that total to a "mere" 234. The story comes together when you look at shots against as well, which nosedived from 2493 in 1995-96 to 2,113 the next season.
The changes were sustained as well, with further improvements even to the point that Ottawa could be counted upon to be much better than average in the GA column and even flirt with Jennings contention into the latter stages of seasons.
| Season | Goals against | Shots against |
| 1995-96 | 291 | 2493 |
| 1996-97 | 234 | 2113 |
| 1997-98 | 200 | 2030 |
| 1998-99 | 179 | 2065 |
| 1999-00 | 210 | 2061 |
| 2000-01 | 205 | 2228 |
| 2001-02 | 208 | 2123 |
| 2002-03 | 182 | 2032 |
| 2003-04 | 189 | 2037 |
Offense
Just as striking as the defensive turnaround over Martin's time in Ottawa was the complete jump start of the offensive juggernaut that they were to become under Jacques' tutelage – an oft forgotten side effect of good trapping.
While it's clear that Jacques Martin seems to target defence first, and that he certainly tailors a plan to the players he has available (see Florida), there is also a definite part in his long-term planning, it seems, for generating offensive opportunity from out of the discipline.
From 1995-96 to 1996-97, the Ottawa offense didn't roar to its full potential, but it certainly put together an encouraging start with a boost of 35 goals for (from 191 to 226). There were fluctuations along the way, but by the 4th or 5th year of his tenure they were flirting with top 5 offense in the league annually, and in 2004, when Jacques eventually parted 2004, Ottawa were the top goalscoring team in the entire NHL.
Once again, the results came from a philosophy, as evidenced by the increased and then sustained number of shots for, making sure the team had every chance of scoring at a higher rate.
| Season | Goals for | Shots for |
| 1995-96 | 191 | 2204 |
| 1996-97 | 226 | 2347 |
| 1997-98 | 193 | 2401 |
| 1998-99 | 239 | 2503 |
| 1999-00 | 244 | 2584 |
| 2000-01 | 274 | 2472 |
| 2001-02 | 243 | 2469 |
| 2002-03 | 263 | 2442 |
| 2003-04 | 262 | 2421 |
Impact on Montreal
The parallel between Montreal 2008-09 and Ottawa 1995-96 is not perfect, to say the least, but there are some similarities. For one thing, Ottawa of that era moved to Jacques Martin out of a frustration with a less disciplined style that produced sporadic (and less than hoped for) results, just like our most recent Canadiens. For another, both defences can both be fairly categorised as atrocious by most standards. Both teams let up far too many shots for the calibre of goaltending they could rely on and both paid in goals against, and, to some degree, losses.
In what was a bad season for Montreal last year, the team allowed an astounding 2600 shots against. Quite a contrast with some of those numbers for Martin's Ottawa. Even if you take into account the inflation in shot totals since the lockout, there's no hiding form the fact that Montreal allowed more shots than 23 of their rivals and that most good teams see 300 or so less over a season. Surprisingly, it was an improvement on Carbonneau's system of a year before where the Habs let up 11 less shots, but in a more defensive league overall to put them 26th among their peers.
If Jacques Martin does nothing else but reduce the number of shots aimed at the Montreal end, he should succeed. If Ottawa is a relevant precedent, and the team cuts shots against by 300 or more, then Montreal could flirt with being an above average defensive team; and that's probably regardless of how Price and Halak fare.
Less goals against won't guarantee success, but they do often predict it. Specifically, a team that shoots more than they allow shots should score more than they allow. A team that scores more than they let up should (on average) produce more wins that losses. If it's about positioning yourself for wins and not losses, a cut deep into the heart of shots against is a good place to start.
From that point, if we're playoff bound, we can worry about coach Martin's other legacy when that time comes. If the regular season is negotiated with more ease than by his predecessor, I can't see him setting himself up to do any worse in the playoffs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)