Many thanks to Habs Eyes on the Prize for linking up the video of Trevor Timmins discussing the recent NHL draft. To read a transcript, this interview is as dull and uninformative as they come. but that's hardly the point. In the way he answers questions and to watch his body language, this Timmins interview is interesting and revealing.
Showing posts with label Skill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Skill. Show all posts
Friday, July 12, 2013
Friday, May 14, 2010
Somewhere In Between:
Habs Playoff Success
I am constantly amazed by the material I am able to find written about this edition of the Canadiens. Whether it be journalists who wrote off the team 6 times over the season and certainly after Game 4 in Washington pretending to have prophetic tendencies, fan-bloggers getting a little bit carried away with matters of the divine right and more than a little mixed up about historical events, or bitter rivals inventing frameworks that predict failure based on their limited viewing.
We (and by we I include you readers) have watched this team intently all season, seasons back. We have become familiar with what players are capable of, what is beyond their reach. We may not understand why the Habs ever win, or ever lose, but we are wise enough by now to know that we’ll probably never know.
It is why I take special offence with the extremities of the arguments both for and against this edition of the Habs. For the team, conveniently-postdated theories about Gainey’s prescience, Martin’s tactical genius and Montreal’s perfect mix are just as absurd as the curmudgeons who hang to the thread that luck has determined all and that luck is bounded by some beginning and some end.
I think we all try to find some sense here in our discussions, and I thank you all for that. Is it not then sensible to think that a combination of luck, skill, strategy and tenacity is what we just witnessed? That the combination found by the Canadiens was no more valid or invalid than the combination used by any of the three rivals set to battle for a place in the finals?
Smells of the Cup?
I used to be a big believer in destiny, in teams of destiny. Yes, I was once twelve.
Nowadays, every time I catch an RDS post-game with scenes of newly-minted fans screaming that the stars are aligned, I cringe. While I have come to accept that Montreal is a city full of manic depressive sports followers all gagging for the chance to wear a winner’s sweater, it is the misinterpretation of history that I frown upon more.
“Feels like 93” is perhaps the most hollow statement made by Habs fans these days. What does this mean? It is overused to the extreme, not only after playoff qualification, but in November, January and even August. To some, every year feels like 1993. It leads me to believe that few actually remember what 1993 was like at all. Why 93 anyway? Why not 65 or 73?
When the more thoughtful get involved, you’d think it would get better but it doesn’t. Many also dabble in the mythology of 1993. But not the real story, more the one that’s been rewritten to fit the current circumstance. Always the implication that 1993, 1986, these were somehow underserved Cups, that were it not for some celestial redirections goals would have been misses and misses against goals. I’ve written before on what a dis-service I think this is to the teams of those eras, chock full of all-stars and playoff successes both before and after these triumphs.
1993 felt a lot to different to me. After vanquishing the Nordiques, remember taking the Sabres very lightly, celebrating more for an Islanders win against Pittsburgh than any Habs win in Long Island and thinking the final could go any which way. This year feels nothing like that, except that I didn’t know we’d win the Cup until Game #5 of the Stanley Cup finals, and I don’t know anything of Cup winner now either.
Hockey is not a game of destiny. Though we talk of conspiracies, we’re aware of how impossible they would be to carry through. The playoffs are a tough slog. Winning 4 games against the same opponent in two weeks is hard work, particularly if they have talent. Hard work, commitment to playing as a team and flashes of skill all play a much more significant part than destiny.
The Luck Will Run Out
While the euphoric parade aluminum foil around the city, those who hate the Canadiens are having a parade of their own. A parade of cynicism.
As Sidney Crosby sat there in disbelief after Game 7, citing his theory that the Canadiens strategy was not a workable one (should the Pens then be virtual champs?), acolytes of the same sorts of theories did the same. While foil Cups and pretenses at prophecy make me cringe, the statisticians are making me chuckle.
Corsi-backers, whose material at the moment is so cockeyed I won’t even bother to link, are heading a column. No less than 10 posts have been made on certain sites the Montreal Canadiens, their luck and the prediction that it will al run out.
I know there’s been luck. I understand probabilities. But clearly I’ve been out of it for a while, because I must have missed the part where the stats grinders showed me the incontrovertible proof that they can show where luck begins and ends. I was still of the illusion that a coin flip has a 50% chance of being heads or tails, regardless of what the previous coin flip showed, what the previous hundred thousand showed. I didn’t know that Halak’s save percentage in one series dictated what it will be in the first period of game one of the next.
Most offensive here is the way those who follow their lovable stat with blinders call others deluded in the face of the data. Had they spilled an ounce of effort to employ real scientific curiosity as to the validity of Jacques Martin’s new (and most counterintuitive) model of hockey, then perhaps their dismissals would hold some weight. Instead they wait for the die to fall on seven without checking if they are weighted in any way.
It is the arrogance of the critics that puts me off. How they dismiss Halak as lucky. How they dismiss the Canadiens run as a dead end. How they bundle the Gionta goal at the end of Game 7 into the same shot category as the Orpik shot from the blueline. Just because one may not be able to come up with an adequate explanation for the way things are just yet does not mean that the only alternative is by default infallible. Maybe they should ask Lamarck about that, or any real scientist in the history of time, for that matter.
In between land
As I’ve said many times, I’d like to be able to put a finger on the reason for wins, to attribute points no one could dispute to our players and theirs for how things went. It’s complex, I can’t do that at the moment.
I know from watching that there’s been luck. Lots of luck. Luck that opponents haven’t found rebounds quickly enough, luck that the net isn’t an inch wider, luck that shots go in for the good guys.
I also know that there’s been skill too. Cammalleri scoring, for example. If anyone else had been in the position to have puck hit their knee, they’d probably not be noted as goalscorer on the play. Cammalleri has certain skills, and hand-eye coordination is near top the list.
And strategy. I know it’s highly counterintuitive that allowing shots will work. But the fact that it has should arouse curiosity rather than immediate blinders. Remember that in 1993 most would have laughed Swedish coaching of the trap right out of the room.
The answer is probably in between luck and skill. In between probability and strategy.
But I’ll tell you this as well. No part of the analysis, half-baked or not, tells us one iota of what might happen next week. Predicting the future is a carnival trick – make enough predictions and one will be right. The Habs have ample chance to win Game 1, the series and whatever else. While it would seem likely they’ll be deploying the tactics that work, there’s nothing to say the team won’t simply pack up that tent and find a new strategy. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s over one way or the other. The games are played for that reason. Accept it and enjoy.
The team is wiser
Thankfully, I watch the interviews and I can see all of this is understood by those players. Thankfully, I think that these players have the sense to know they’ve found something that works, but also the experience to know they’ve enjoyed some luck. Thankfully, they are not the one-dimensional adherents to the theory that shots released from the stick, if provided in enough volume, will always prevail.
These Habs have been coached well not only in back-checking and counterattack, but also in grounding. They know that luck received must be appreciated, but never expected, and that hard work doesn’t always pay off.
Most importantly, they seem to have learned that the future is unclear, that a conference final in hand is better than two, three or ten in the bush.
I have to say, in light of all the rest, their good sense makes them even more intriguing to watch.
We (and by we I include you readers) have watched this team intently all season, seasons back. We have become familiar with what players are capable of, what is beyond their reach. We may not understand why the Habs ever win, or ever lose, but we are wise enough by now to know that we’ll probably never know.
It is why I take special offence with the extremities of the arguments both for and against this edition of the Habs. For the team, conveniently-postdated theories about Gainey’s prescience, Martin’s tactical genius and Montreal’s perfect mix are just as absurd as the curmudgeons who hang to the thread that luck has determined all and that luck is bounded by some beginning and some end.
I think we all try to find some sense here in our discussions, and I thank you all for that. Is it not then sensible to think that a combination of luck, skill, strategy and tenacity is what we just witnessed? That the combination found by the Canadiens was no more valid or invalid than the combination used by any of the three rivals set to battle for a place in the finals?
Smells of the Cup?
I used to be a big believer in destiny, in teams of destiny. Yes, I was once twelve.
Nowadays, every time I catch an RDS post-game with scenes of newly-minted fans screaming that the stars are aligned, I cringe. While I have come to accept that Montreal is a city full of manic depressive sports followers all gagging for the chance to wear a winner’s sweater, it is the misinterpretation of history that I frown upon more.
“Feels like 93” is perhaps the most hollow statement made by Habs fans these days. What does this mean? It is overused to the extreme, not only after playoff qualification, but in November, January and even August. To some, every year feels like 1993. It leads me to believe that few actually remember what 1993 was like at all. Why 93 anyway? Why not 65 or 73?
When the more thoughtful get involved, you’d think it would get better but it doesn’t. Many also dabble in the mythology of 1993. But not the real story, more the one that’s been rewritten to fit the current circumstance. Always the implication that 1993, 1986, these were somehow underserved Cups, that were it not for some celestial redirections goals would have been misses and misses against goals. I’ve written before on what a dis-service I think this is to the teams of those eras, chock full of all-stars and playoff successes both before and after these triumphs.
1993 felt a lot to different to me. After vanquishing the Nordiques, remember taking the Sabres very lightly, celebrating more for an Islanders win against Pittsburgh than any Habs win in Long Island and thinking the final could go any which way. This year feels nothing like that, except that I didn’t know we’d win the Cup until Game #5 of the Stanley Cup finals, and I don’t know anything of Cup winner now either.
Hockey is not a game of destiny. Though we talk of conspiracies, we’re aware of how impossible they would be to carry through. The playoffs are a tough slog. Winning 4 games against the same opponent in two weeks is hard work, particularly if they have talent. Hard work, commitment to playing as a team and flashes of skill all play a much more significant part than destiny.
The Luck Will Run Out
While the euphoric parade aluminum foil around the city, those who hate the Canadiens are having a parade of their own. A parade of cynicism.
As Sidney Crosby sat there in disbelief after Game 7, citing his theory that the Canadiens strategy was not a workable one (should the Pens then be virtual champs?), acolytes of the same sorts of theories did the same. While foil Cups and pretenses at prophecy make me cringe, the statisticians are making me chuckle.
Corsi-backers, whose material at the moment is so cockeyed I won’t even bother to link, are heading a column. No less than 10 posts have been made on certain sites the Montreal Canadiens, their luck and the prediction that it will al run out.
I know there’s been luck. I understand probabilities. But clearly I’ve been out of it for a while, because I must have missed the part where the stats grinders showed me the incontrovertible proof that they can show where luck begins and ends. I was still of the illusion that a coin flip has a 50% chance of being heads or tails, regardless of what the previous coin flip showed, what the previous hundred thousand showed. I didn’t know that Halak’s save percentage in one series dictated what it will be in the first period of game one of the next.
Most offensive here is the way those who follow their lovable stat with blinders call others deluded in the face of the data. Had they spilled an ounce of effort to employ real scientific curiosity as to the validity of Jacques Martin’s new (and most counterintuitive) model of hockey, then perhaps their dismissals would hold some weight. Instead they wait for the die to fall on seven without checking if they are weighted in any way.
It is the arrogance of the critics that puts me off. How they dismiss Halak as lucky. How they dismiss the Canadiens run as a dead end. How they bundle the Gionta goal at the end of Game 7 into the same shot category as the Orpik shot from the blueline. Just because one may not be able to come up with an adequate explanation for the way things are just yet does not mean that the only alternative is by default infallible. Maybe they should ask Lamarck about that, or any real scientist in the history of time, for that matter.
In between land
As I’ve said many times, I’d like to be able to put a finger on the reason for wins, to attribute points no one could dispute to our players and theirs for how things went. It’s complex, I can’t do that at the moment.
I know from watching that there’s been luck. Lots of luck. Luck that opponents haven’t found rebounds quickly enough, luck that the net isn’t an inch wider, luck that shots go in for the good guys.
I also know that there’s been skill too. Cammalleri scoring, for example. If anyone else had been in the position to have puck hit their knee, they’d probably not be noted as goalscorer on the play. Cammalleri has certain skills, and hand-eye coordination is near top the list.
And strategy. I know it’s highly counterintuitive that allowing shots will work. But the fact that it has should arouse curiosity rather than immediate blinders. Remember that in 1993 most would have laughed Swedish coaching of the trap right out of the room.
The answer is probably in between luck and skill. In between probability and strategy.
But I’ll tell you this as well. No part of the analysis, half-baked or not, tells us one iota of what might happen next week. Predicting the future is a carnival trick – make enough predictions and one will be right. The Habs have ample chance to win Game 1, the series and whatever else. While it would seem likely they’ll be deploying the tactics that work, there’s nothing to say the team won’t simply pack up that tent and find a new strategy. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s over one way or the other. The games are played for that reason. Accept it and enjoy.
The team is wiser
Thankfully, I watch the interviews and I can see all of this is understood by those players. Thankfully, I think that these players have the sense to know they’ve found something that works, but also the experience to know they’ve enjoyed some luck. Thankfully, they are not the one-dimensional adherents to the theory that shots released from the stick, if provided in enough volume, will always prevail.
These Habs have been coached well not only in back-checking and counterattack, but also in grounding. They know that luck received must be appreciated, but never expected, and that hard work doesn’t always pay off.
Most importantly, they seem to have learned that the future is unclear, that a conference final in hand is better than two, three or ten in the bush.
I have to say, in light of all the rest, their good sense makes them even more intriguing to watch.
Monday, January 26, 2009
New Ideas Please!
Even A Good All-Star Weekend Has Me Longing For A Meaningful Game
Even though the weekend ended as well as anyone could have hoped for from a Montreal standpoint, the headlines of the morning after are certainly touching on overkill:
I went into the weekend with hope, honestly. 4 Canadiens. In Montreal. There's something to work with here. But hope deflates as quickly as an 18-minute farce they call the Young Stars game. My enthusiasm for the skills competition quickly deflated to the level clearly being shown by those players being interviewed (I won't even mention the interviewers).
It's a shame, because with all the talent there – there must surely be a way to entertain a crowd and television audience who only turn up or tune in because they truly love the sport already.
All this got me to thinking. As usual, I feel that it is silly to criticise if one doesn't have anything better to suggest. So, I wanted to share with you some of my ideas. And I know you must surely have ideas of your own, imaginative and articulate as you all are...
Skills competition
The skills competition for me could be summed up by one quote (from memory):
Andrew Cogliano was not an all-star (merely a second year Young Star – the losing type) and he was not even the fastest Oiler (apparently). So, what I gather from this is that he was the fastest guy from among the 6 who competed. nothing more, nothing less.
Isn't it obvious to the NHL? What is stopping them from actually inviting the fastest from the teams around the league? What is stopping them from inviting the people who actually have the hardest shots?
Each and every team could (if they don't already) hold their own skills competition. the results could be compiled across the league and the top 8-12 players could be gathered for a race, shot competition, whatever.
It would certainly add some cachet to the event – we'd actually be seeing the fastest players, hardest shots, etc. The winner would be the champion in that skill. It would give players who aren't all-stars a chance to show that they are stars in their given skill (Plekanec could take Cogliano, I think...) and make the event a real competition.
If I think of the only exciting event at any all-star competition, it would be the home run derby from baseball's midsummer classic. It combines the show case of a skill, with the suspense of the home run (something that is still hard to achieve). The NHL's equivalent (accuracy shooting) pales in comparison. There's no drama anymore since Ray Bourque sucked it all out.
But do you remember that Wayne Gretzky McDonald's ad? The one where he was betting Mats Sundin? That ad has some good ideas in it. Several shots could be taken from different places around the ice (including from the defensive zone a la McD ad). 20 opportunities to score as many goals as possible. It could be the NHL's own home run competition. The drama would come from the difficulty (obstacles?) and the players who battle to overcome that.
Young stars game
This part of the weekend is the most ridiculously boring of all. Even the NHL knows this, as they sandwich in between the skills competition in hope of having people watch – and keep the only truly exciting competition (hardest shot) until after this farce is run out.
It would be so easy to make this game better. For the sake of argument, I'll retain the Young Stars game. But instead of pitting rookies against second year players who couldn't care less, I suggest having the best young NHLers play the best non-NHL youngsters.
From a practical point of view, perhaps it could be the AHL All-stars (or stars under 25). Perhaps it could be the best from that Don Cherry/Bobby Orr game.
Pitting these two groups would hopefully make the bragging rights on reward worth winning. Both sides would be out with something to prove. Imagine – some of the non-NHLers could even win a job out of this.
All-star game
If you listen to the game's biggest critics, they will tell you that the reason the game is boring is because it doesn't have hitting, fighting or, by and large, defending. They often miss the most important lack – the reason to care.
Think in terms of Montreal fans alone:
- In the regular season, there's hardly a moment of quiet
- In the playoffs, fans go home hoarse and not having spoken/heard a word to their friends on either side
- Last night, in Montreal, I could hear the players talking... (it was louder than last year in Atlanta, but not louder than a Tuesday in November vs. last place Atlanta)
The fans don't care as much because it makes no difference who wins. The players don't care either and it shows.
The solution here (I think) harks back to the past. The all-star team should play an NHL team. Obviously the ideal would be the Stanley Cup Champions, but it could also just be the host team. But there's a twist.
The host (or SC Champs) can make an all-star team of their own – using any player from the league (or still able to play) that has ever worn that team's sweater – ever (draft, game, practice, three-way trade).
Think about that. The Habs as hosts suit up this team:
Kostitsyn Plekanec Kovalev
Petrov Koivu Recchi
Higgins Ribeiro Ryder
Lemieux Tucker Keane
Markov Schneider
Streit Hamrlik
Souray Chelios
Price
Huet
Vokoun
Teams with GMs a little more active than Gainey (wouldn't be difficult) would have even more choice. In Boston, you'd have Thornton back, Ottawa gets Hossa, Chara and Havlat. It could be interesting.
Not only would it give a chance to reconcile with players (Ribeiro, Ryder, Streit). It would make the game Montreal vs. players that would rather not have Montreal win. Irreconcilable differences (Grabovski), well those guys just wouldn't be invited...
To add to the stakes, I'd suggest a wager (paid by the losers – own cash) to a worthy charity (Chosen by the winners). $100,000 at least to make a dent and an impression. There could be a Cup too (why not?).
Finally, I'd move the game to the week after the Stanley Cup finals (which would be earlier without this current break).
Now we have a weekend to get a bit excited about... Whaddya think?
Unforgettable (NHL.com)
I went into the weekend with hope, honestly. 4 Canadiens. In Montreal. There's something to work with here. But hope deflates as quickly as an 18-minute farce they call the Young Stars game. My enthusiasm for the skills competition quickly deflated to the level clearly being shown by those players being interviewed (I won't even mention the interviewers).
It's a shame, because with all the talent there – there must surely be a way to entertain a crowd and television audience who only turn up or tune in because they truly love the sport already.
All this got me to thinking. As usual, I feel that it is silly to criticise if one doesn't have anything better to suggest. So, I wanted to share with you some of my ideas. And I know you must surely have ideas of your own, imaginative and articulate as you all are...
Skills competition
The skills competition for me could be summed up by one quote (from memory):
JB: "Andrew how do you feel to be the fastest man in the NHL?"
AC: "Um, I don't think I am really. We had this competition in Edmonton and I lost..."
Andrew Cogliano was not an all-star (merely a second year Young Star – the losing type) and he was not even the fastest Oiler (apparently). So, what I gather from this is that he was the fastest guy from among the 6 who competed. nothing more, nothing less.
Isn't it obvious to the NHL? What is stopping them from actually inviting the fastest from the teams around the league? What is stopping them from inviting the people who actually have the hardest shots?
Each and every team could (if they don't already) hold their own skills competition. the results could be compiled across the league and the top 8-12 players could be gathered for a race, shot competition, whatever.
It would certainly add some cachet to the event – we'd actually be seeing the fastest players, hardest shots, etc. The winner would be the champion in that skill. It would give players who aren't all-stars a chance to show that they are stars in their given skill (Plekanec could take Cogliano, I think...) and make the event a real competition.
If I think of the only exciting event at any all-star competition, it would be the home run derby from baseball's midsummer classic. It combines the show case of a skill, with the suspense of the home run (something that is still hard to achieve). The NHL's equivalent (accuracy shooting) pales in comparison. There's no drama anymore since Ray Bourque sucked it all out.
But do you remember that Wayne Gretzky McDonald's ad? The one where he was betting Mats Sundin? That ad has some good ideas in it. Several shots could be taken from different places around the ice (including from the defensive zone a la McD ad). 20 opportunities to score as many goals as possible. It could be the NHL's own home run competition. The drama would come from the difficulty (obstacles?) and the players who battle to overcome that.
Young stars game
This part of the weekend is the most ridiculously boring of all. Even the NHL knows this, as they sandwich in between the skills competition in hope of having people watch – and keep the only truly exciting competition (hardest shot) until after this farce is run out.
It would be so easy to make this game better. For the sake of argument, I'll retain the Young Stars game. But instead of pitting rookies against second year players who couldn't care less, I suggest having the best young NHLers play the best non-NHL youngsters.
From a practical point of view, perhaps it could be the AHL All-stars (or stars under 25). Perhaps it could be the best from that Don Cherry/Bobby Orr game.
Pitting these two groups would hopefully make the bragging rights on reward worth winning. Both sides would be out with something to prove. Imagine – some of the non-NHLers could even win a job out of this.
All-star game
If you listen to the game's biggest critics, they will tell you that the reason the game is boring is because it doesn't have hitting, fighting or, by and large, defending. They often miss the most important lack – the reason to care.
Think in terms of Montreal fans alone:
- In the regular season, there's hardly a moment of quiet
- In the playoffs, fans go home hoarse and not having spoken/heard a word to their friends on either side
- Last night, in Montreal, I could hear the players talking... (it was louder than last year in Atlanta, but not louder than a Tuesday in November vs. last place Atlanta)
The fans don't care as much because it makes no difference who wins. The players don't care either and it shows.
The solution here (I think) harks back to the past. The all-star team should play an NHL team. Obviously the ideal would be the Stanley Cup Champions, but it could also just be the host team. But there's a twist.
The host (or SC Champs) can make an all-star team of their own – using any player from the league (or still able to play) that has ever worn that team's sweater – ever (draft, game, practice, three-way trade).
Think about that. The Habs as hosts suit up this team:
Kostitsyn Plekanec Kovalev
Petrov Koivu Recchi
Higgins Ribeiro Ryder
Lemieux Tucker Keane
Markov Schneider
Streit Hamrlik
Souray Chelios
Price
Huet
Vokoun
Teams with GMs a little more active than Gainey (wouldn't be difficult) would have even more choice. In Boston, you'd have Thornton back, Ottawa gets Hossa, Chara and Havlat. It could be interesting.
Not only would it give a chance to reconcile with players (Ribeiro, Ryder, Streit). It would make the game Montreal vs. players that would rather not have Montreal win. Irreconcilable differences (Grabovski), well those guys just wouldn't be invited...
To add to the stakes, I'd suggest a wager (paid by the losers – own cash) to a worthy charity (Chosen by the winners). $100,000 at least to make a dent and an impression. There could be a Cup too (why not?).
Finally, I'd move the game to the week after the Stanley Cup finals (which would be earlier without this current break).
Now we have a weekend to get a bit excited about... Whaddya think?
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Habs Superskills
Not An Impressive Bunch Over The Years
The NHL Skills (or Superskills as it is now known) has not been kind to Montreal Canadiens players over the years. With Kovalev, Komisarek, Markov and Price in play is that about to change?
Breakaway Challenge
The premier event with Ovechkin in it. He is pitted against Alexei Kovalev and some other dudes who should have fun watching (Getzlaf, Kane and Crosby's replacement).
Historical winners
2008 Alexander Ovechkin and no one else, after he swung and missed at a puck lasts season.
Hardest shot
An event with some historical pedigree, this is the 100m of the skills competition. The NHL is billing Souray vs. Chara (both previous winners. But Mike Komisarek (entered) could have a shout so long as someone tells him to aim 15 feet to the right of the net. Habs heartthrobs Lecavalier and Streit (who we know shoots straighter than Komi), as well as Shea Weber are also in this one.
Historical winners
2008 Zdeno Chara 103.1 mph
2007 Zdeno Chara 100.4 mph
2004 Sheldon Souray/Adrian Aucoin 102.2 mph
2003 Al MacInnis 98.9 mph
2002 Sergei Fedorov 101.5 mph
2001 Fredrik Modin 102.1 mph
2000 Al MacInnis 100.1 mph
1999 Al MacInnis 98.5 mph
1998 Al MacInnis 100.4 mph
1997 Al MacInnis 98.9 mph
1996 Dave Manson 98.0 mph
1994 Al Iafrate 102.7 mph
1993 Al Iafrate 105.2 mph
1992 Al MacInnis 93.0 mph
1991 Al MacInnis 94.0 mph
1990 Al Iafrate 96.0 mph
Fastest skater
Jeff Carter, Zach Parise, Brian Campbell and Jay Bouwmeester compete here. I think Carey Price could do well trying to get away from these four who score against him a t will sometimes...
Historical winners
2008 Shawn Horcoff (elimination races)
2007 Andy McDonald 14.03 seconds
2004 Scott Niedermayer 13.783 seconds
2003 Marian Gaborik 13.713 seconds
2002 Sami Kapanen 14.039 seconds
2001 Bill Guerin 13.690 seconds
2000 Sami Kapanen 13.649 seconds
1999 Peter Bondra 14.640 seconds
1998 Scott Niedermayer 13.560 seconds
1997 Peter Bondra 13.610 seconds
1996 Mike Gartner 13.386 seconds
1994 Sergei Fedorov 13.525 seconds
1993 Mike Gartner 13.510 seconds
1992 Sergei Fedorov 14.363 seconds
Shooting Accuracy
Here we have defending champ Tomas Kaberle facing those who don't have other events: Jonathan Toews, Ilya Kovalchuk, Jarome Iginla, Dany Heatley, Marc Savard, Mike Modano and Evgeni Malkin. Conspicuous in his absence is Andrei Markov - I guess they didn't want the fans at the event to get too excited and interested in goings on...
Historical winners
2008 Tomas Kaberle 8 hits, 9 shots (new format)
2007 Marian Hossa, Eric Staal 4 hits, 5 shots
2004 Jeremy Roenick 4 hits, 4 shots
2003 Jeremy Roenick 4 hits, 6 shots
2002 Jarome Iginla, Markus Naslund 4 hits, 6 shots
2001 Ray Bourque 4 hits, 6 shots
2000 Ray Bourque, Viktor Kozlov 4 hits, 5 shots
1999 Ray Bourque, Jeremy Roenick, Keith Tkachuk 4 hits, 6 shots
1998 Ray Bourque, Peter Forsberg, Brendan Shanahan 4 hits, 6 shots
1997 Ray Bourque 4 hits, 7 shots
1996 Mark Messier 4 hits, 4 shots
1994 Brendan Shanahan 4 hits, 5 shots
1993 Ray Bourque 4 hits, 4 shots
1992 Ray Bourque 4 hits, 4 shots
1991 Mark Messier 4 hits, 6 shots
1990 Ray Bourque 4 hits, 7 shots
The now defunct puck control relay (where an individual showdown was held) was one other event a Hab had won, with Pierre Turgeon taking it in 1996. Other winners mostly included Paul Kariya.
Of course, Patrick Roy won the goalie standings a couple of times with the Habs too. but somehow tying with Vanbiesbrouck for 12 of 16 saves, doesn't seem superskillish to me. Compound that with Roy's most GAA in the all-star game and it's not something I'm blowing the horn about.
Records to fall
Some records cannot fall, such as most wins at hardest shot (MacInnis - 7) and shooting accuracy (Bourque - 8) for some time. But the absolute records could:
The hardest shot ever, for example: 105.2 mph (Al Iafrate)
The fastest lap: 13.386 (Mike Gartner)
Or most goals scored by the winner of the Breakaway challenge: 0 (Alexander Ovechkin)
Have fun, and root for those Habs. there's years of futility to be set straight, and who knows if they'll let us vote the whole team in again...
Breakaway Challenge
The premier event with Ovechkin in it. He is pitted against Alexei Kovalev and some other dudes who should have fun watching (Getzlaf, Kane and Crosby's replacement).
Historical winners
2008 Alexander Ovechkin and no one else, after he swung and missed at a puck lasts season.
Hardest shot
An event with some historical pedigree, this is the 100m of the skills competition. The NHL is billing Souray vs. Chara (both previous winners. But Mike Komisarek (entered) could have a shout so long as someone tells him to aim 15 feet to the right of the net. Habs heartthrobs Lecavalier and Streit (who we know shoots straighter than Komi), as well as Shea Weber are also in this one.
Historical winners
2008 Zdeno Chara 103.1 mph
2007 Zdeno Chara 100.4 mph
2004 Sheldon Souray/Adrian Aucoin 102.2 mph
2003 Al MacInnis 98.9 mph
2002 Sergei Fedorov 101.5 mph
2001 Fredrik Modin 102.1 mph
2000 Al MacInnis 100.1 mph
1999 Al MacInnis 98.5 mph
1998 Al MacInnis 100.4 mph
1997 Al MacInnis 98.9 mph
1996 Dave Manson 98.0 mph
1994 Al Iafrate 102.7 mph
1993 Al Iafrate 105.2 mph
1992 Al MacInnis 93.0 mph
1991 Al MacInnis 94.0 mph
1990 Al Iafrate 96.0 mph
Fastest skater
Jeff Carter, Zach Parise, Brian Campbell and Jay Bouwmeester compete here. I think Carey Price could do well trying to get away from these four who score against him a t will sometimes...
Historical winners
2008 Shawn Horcoff (elimination races)
2007 Andy McDonald 14.03 seconds
2004 Scott Niedermayer 13.783 seconds
2003 Marian Gaborik 13.713 seconds
2002 Sami Kapanen 14.039 seconds
2001 Bill Guerin 13.690 seconds
2000 Sami Kapanen 13.649 seconds
1999 Peter Bondra 14.640 seconds
1998 Scott Niedermayer 13.560 seconds
1997 Peter Bondra 13.610 seconds
1996 Mike Gartner 13.386 seconds
1994 Sergei Fedorov 13.525 seconds
1993 Mike Gartner 13.510 seconds
1992 Sergei Fedorov 14.363 seconds
Shooting Accuracy
Here we have defending champ Tomas Kaberle facing those who don't have other events: Jonathan Toews, Ilya Kovalchuk, Jarome Iginla, Dany Heatley, Marc Savard, Mike Modano and Evgeni Malkin. Conspicuous in his absence is Andrei Markov - I guess they didn't want the fans at the event to get too excited and interested in goings on...
Historical winners
2008 Tomas Kaberle 8 hits, 9 shots (new format)
2007 Marian Hossa, Eric Staal 4 hits, 5 shots
2004 Jeremy Roenick 4 hits, 4 shots
2003 Jeremy Roenick 4 hits, 6 shots
2002 Jarome Iginla, Markus Naslund 4 hits, 6 shots
2001 Ray Bourque 4 hits, 6 shots
2000 Ray Bourque, Viktor Kozlov 4 hits, 5 shots
1999 Ray Bourque, Jeremy Roenick, Keith Tkachuk 4 hits, 6 shots
1998 Ray Bourque, Peter Forsberg, Brendan Shanahan 4 hits, 6 shots
1997 Ray Bourque 4 hits, 7 shots
1996 Mark Messier 4 hits, 4 shots
1994 Brendan Shanahan 4 hits, 5 shots
1993 Ray Bourque 4 hits, 4 shots
1992 Ray Bourque 4 hits, 4 shots
1991 Mark Messier 4 hits, 6 shots
1990 Ray Bourque 4 hits, 7 shots
The now defunct puck control relay (where an individual showdown was held) was one other event a Hab had won, with Pierre Turgeon taking it in 1996. Other winners mostly included Paul Kariya.
Of course, Patrick Roy won the goalie standings a couple of times with the Habs too. but somehow tying with Vanbiesbrouck for 12 of 16 saves, doesn't seem superskillish to me. Compound that with Roy's most GAA in the all-star game and it's not something I'm blowing the horn about.
Records to fall
Some records cannot fall, such as most wins at hardest shot (MacInnis - 7) and shooting accuracy (Bourque - 8) for some time. But the absolute records could:
The hardest shot ever, for example: 105.2 mph (Al Iafrate)
The fastest lap: 13.386 (Mike Gartner)
Or most goals scored by the winner of the Breakaway challenge: 0 (Alexander Ovechkin)
Have fun, and root for those Habs. there's years of futility to be set straight, and who knows if they'll let us vote the whole team in again...
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Canadiens Loss Analysed
What Do The Non-Plumbers Think?
Canadiens Loss Analysed
What Do The Non-Plumbers Think?
I am so frustrated.
Of course there's the frustration with the Habs loss – which I didn't think was nearly as bad as the media has since made out. But my main frustration is with the commentary at large, and particularly the one-track minds of Benoit Brunet and his RDS colleagues.
I liked Brunet as a player, I admired his work ethic and courage. I even thought he was pretty talented in his prime. I do not like him so much as a guy to insert comments above the play-by-play. He is a broken record, a guy with a dam in his mind where "forecheck, skate, forecheck" would normally proceed to "create a goal".
I think Benoit Brunet would be happy enough if every line played exactly like the Canadiens 4th line. A line that surely looks great in terms of battles won along the boards and possession won in the offensive zone. The problem for me is that the 4th line, for their valiant efforts, are incapable of winning us games. The chances they create are child's play for the goalie and defence of the other team. I unlike him, would not be.
Two things specifically bothered me during his coverage last night, things that prompted me to take note and get up to write this review:
1) On the first Carolina goal, Benoit Brunet instantly said, one can not blame the goalie or the defencemen on the play. The Kostitsyns and Lang had been on for a minute, and had blown their coverage. He went on to say that they should have done the sensible thing: skated hard, dunped the puck into the corner and gone off on a line change (what else?).
The line had just won the puck back and created a 3 on 2 against the Hurricanes. A line change? The score was 1-0. Too risky to try and score? Kostitsyn's pass was picked off, nothing more, nothing less – it happens 100 times a game. Anyway, you can watch the play yourself.
What I see was a fumbled chance, a recovery by the Hurricanes who went up ice with an innocuous rush. The forward did backcheck to make it 3-on-3 (Brunet mustn't have seen that) and the defence created a hole by committing to the right wing, then going for the blocked shot. I'm not saying Hamrlik, O'Byrne or Price must take the blame. The Hurricanes had a goal coming, I guess. I merely want to point out how ludicrous it is to suggest that creativity and attempting to score by means other than the "Brunet-advocated 4-man push in" are to blame here.
2) Unbelievably, Brunet revisits his earlier rant when he says something about how the Kostitsyns and Lang had put us behind in the game.
Huh? Even if you accept the first analysis, this is stretching things too far.
Andrei Kostitsyn was one of the best players on the ice all night. Sergei looked good too, though I wish he would shoot once in a while too. Lang, of course, scored the only goal on a nicely set up powerplay. How they cost us the game is beyond me. His issue was with their overly creative and "out-of-the-box"(we might as well call it "out-of-the-capability-of-Brunet") play.
(The second goal was a powerplay goal where the Hurricanes worked the puck quite well. Whitney – the uncovered man because we employ the simplistic passive box – simply claimed a rebound and shot it home. The Kostitsyns and Lang were not on the ice. If you want to blame people for this one, you have Hamrlik, Bouillon, Dandenault, Begin, Price and O'Byrne. Of course you could blame Carbonneau for employing the 4 he did too. I prefer to accept that penalty-killing is an 80% successful endeavour...)
What his issue is with offensive hockey, I have yet to understand. His fixation on hitting the net with shots warms him to players like Tanguay who were constantly trying ill-advised shots on the PP, but cools him on players like Kovalev and Kostitsyn who might have other methods up their sleeves. I would have thought there was evidence enough for Brunet on the powerplay where constant shooting (Tanguay from the point) lead to turnovers, whereas patient puck management (Kovalev) led to a goal.
With another loss for the Habs, I can't say I'll be watching the pre-game on Thursday for any of the former wisdom spewed over and over again.
Others not off the hook
My frustration does not end with Brunet and his up-down method on hockey that would leave the Detroit Red Wings salivating. There's the 4th line worship too.
Take RDS:
RDS buys what Begin had to say, but didn't they notice he just gave an explanation of exactly how not to score?
If I am a defence coach (remember those?). My plan is to usher the opponents to the boards, create battles and negate cross-ice movement. Play against this line and they do it for you.
The clue is really in what Begin says: "We know what we have to do to stay on the ice...". Their goal is not to be benched the next game, nothing more, nothing less. These guys are told to go and not do any damage. if they do, they pay with a game off. if they succeed, well not much.
I don't care whether Begin plays or not, but why do we have a line on the ice for more time than Plekanec and Higgins that has absolutely no interest in scoring? This is a coaching error.
(I should be fair here, Latendresse did play a good game, he was great at points, and did have an interest in scoring. But Steve "the robot" Begin is clearly programmed to do one thing now: not get benched.)
I am frustrated with RDS for perpetuating the myth that the 4th line holds the key to our resurgence. They do not. It is their mantra after every loss. I really wish it would cease.
I can't pretend that effort like that shown by Begin, Latendresse and Dandenault would be good to see from everyone. But in order to score, we need to let the players do what comes to them instinctually – that is why we drafted, signed and traded for these specific players.
And guess what RDS commentators, hockey is not simple. If it were simple, Florida and Columbus might have made the playoffs in living memory. Hockey goes beyond hard work (maybe take another look at Detroit guys). Goals occasionally bounce in, but very often they are the result of a conceived play. Hard working 4th liners are necessary because there isn't enough talent to spread around 30 teams – not because they are integral to successful hockey.
Different views
It's time for them.
What's good about the Habs bloggers on the internet is their different views. Agree or not, you can be sure there will be someone saying something original. RDS and the general coverage is the complete opposite. I really long for a shift in that. It's getting to the point that inane commentary can become my focus sometimes.
I want to know what a non-plumber thinks of the situations. I want to see a colour commentary from someone who was creative enough to set up plays like our powerplay goal, not guys who were the pylons defence that watched them happen.
RDS, please call Denis Savard.
Of course there's the frustration with the Habs loss – which I didn't think was nearly as bad as the media has since made out. But my main frustration is with the commentary at large, and particularly the one-track minds of Benoit Brunet and his RDS colleagues.
I liked Brunet as a player, I admired his work ethic and courage. I even thought he was pretty talented in his prime. I do not like him so much as a guy to insert comments above the play-by-play. He is a broken record, a guy with a dam in his mind where "forecheck, skate, forecheck" would normally proceed to "create a goal".
I think Benoit Brunet would be happy enough if every line played exactly like the Canadiens 4th line. A line that surely looks great in terms of battles won along the boards and possession won in the offensive zone. The problem for me is that the 4th line, for their valiant efforts, are incapable of winning us games. The chances they create are child's play for the goalie and defence of the other team. I unlike him, would not be.
Two things specifically bothered me during his coverage last night, things that prompted me to take note and get up to write this review:
1) On the first Carolina goal, Benoit Brunet instantly said, one can not blame the goalie or the defencemen on the play. The Kostitsyns and Lang had been on for a minute, and had blown their coverage. He went on to say that they should have done the sensible thing: skated hard, dunped the puck into the corner and gone off on a line change (what else?).
The line had just won the puck back and created a 3 on 2 against the Hurricanes. A line change? The score was 1-0. Too risky to try and score? Kostitsyn's pass was picked off, nothing more, nothing less – it happens 100 times a game. Anyway, you can watch the play yourself.
What I see was a fumbled chance, a recovery by the Hurricanes who went up ice with an innocuous rush. The forward did backcheck to make it 3-on-3 (Brunet mustn't have seen that) and the defence created a hole by committing to the right wing, then going for the blocked shot. I'm not saying Hamrlik, O'Byrne or Price must take the blame. The Hurricanes had a goal coming, I guess. I merely want to point out how ludicrous it is to suggest that creativity and attempting to score by means other than the "Brunet-advocated 4-man push in" are to blame here.
2) Unbelievably, Brunet revisits his earlier rant when he says something about how the Kostitsyns and Lang had put us behind in the game.
Huh? Even if you accept the first analysis, this is stretching things too far.
Andrei Kostitsyn was one of the best players on the ice all night. Sergei looked good too, though I wish he would shoot once in a while too. Lang, of course, scored the only goal on a nicely set up powerplay. How they cost us the game is beyond me. His issue was with their overly creative and "out-of-the-box"(we might as well call it "out-of-the-capability-of-Brunet") play.
(The second goal was a powerplay goal where the Hurricanes worked the puck quite well. Whitney – the uncovered man because we employ the simplistic passive box – simply claimed a rebound and shot it home. The Kostitsyns and Lang were not on the ice. If you want to blame people for this one, you have Hamrlik, Bouillon, Dandenault, Begin, Price and O'Byrne. Of course you could blame Carbonneau for employing the 4 he did too. I prefer to accept that penalty-killing is an 80% successful endeavour...)
What his issue is with offensive hockey, I have yet to understand. His fixation on hitting the net with shots warms him to players like Tanguay who were constantly trying ill-advised shots on the PP, but cools him on players like Kovalev and Kostitsyn who might have other methods up their sleeves. I would have thought there was evidence enough for Brunet on the powerplay where constant shooting (Tanguay from the point) lead to turnovers, whereas patient puck management (Kovalev) led to a goal.
With another loss for the Habs, I can't say I'll be watching the pre-game on Thursday for any of the former wisdom spewed over and over again.
Others not off the hook
My frustration does not end with Brunet and his up-down method on hockey that would leave the Detroit Red Wings salivating. There's the 4th line worship too.
Take RDS:
Le meilleur trio a été celui de Guillaume Latendresse, Steve Bégin et Mathieu Dandenault.
"C'est toujours ce qui arrive lorsqu'on traverse une période difficile. On oublie les détails, a expliqué Bégin. On le répète à chaque année. Mais c'est ce qui nous fait perdre. On se promène de gauche à droite sur la glace."
The best line was Guillaume Latendresse, Steve Begin and Mathieu Dandenault.
"The same thing always happens during a slump. We forget the details, explained Begin. It's the same every year. It's what causes us to lose. We skate from left to right on the ice."
Ce quatrième trio a souvent donné le ton au match.
"Notre jeu est simple. On sait ce qu'on doit faire pour rester sur la glace, a-t-il dit. On doit être fort le long des bandes et y aller d'un deuxième et d'un troisième effort. Mathieu est vraiment rapide tandis que Guillaume a joué un fort match. Il s'est impliqué physiquement."
This line frequently set the tempo of the game.
"Our game is simple (you don't say??). We know what we have to do to stay on the ice, he said. We have to stay strong on the boards and give a second and a third effort. Mathieu is very fast and Guillaume payed a good game. He got involved physically.
RDS buys what Begin had to say, but didn't they notice he just gave an explanation of exactly how not to score?
If I am a defence coach (remember those?). My plan is to usher the opponents to the boards, create battles and negate cross-ice movement. Play against this line and they do it for you.
The clue is really in what Begin says: "We know what we have to do to stay on the ice...". Their goal is not to be benched the next game, nothing more, nothing less. These guys are told to go and not do any damage. if they do, they pay with a game off. if they succeed, well not much.
I don't care whether Begin plays or not, but why do we have a line on the ice for more time than Plekanec and Higgins that has absolutely no interest in scoring? This is a coaching error.
(I should be fair here, Latendresse did play a good game, he was great at points, and did have an interest in scoring. But Steve "the robot" Begin is clearly programmed to do one thing now: not get benched.)
I am frustrated with RDS for perpetuating the myth that the 4th line holds the key to our resurgence. They do not. It is their mantra after every loss. I really wish it would cease.
I can't pretend that effort like that shown by Begin, Latendresse and Dandenault would be good to see from everyone. But in order to score, we need to let the players do what comes to them instinctually – that is why we drafted, signed and traded for these specific players.
And guess what RDS commentators, hockey is not simple. If it were simple, Florida and Columbus might have made the playoffs in living memory. Hockey goes beyond hard work (maybe take another look at Detroit guys). Goals occasionally bounce in, but very often they are the result of a conceived play. Hard working 4th liners are necessary because there isn't enough talent to spread around 30 teams – not because they are integral to successful hockey.
Different views
It's time for them.
What's good about the Habs bloggers on the internet is their different views. Agree or not, you can be sure there will be someone saying something original. RDS and the general coverage is the complete opposite. I really long for a shift in that. It's getting to the point that inane commentary can become my focus sometimes.
I want to know what a non-plumber thinks of the situations. I want to see a colour commentary from someone who was creative enough to set up plays like our powerplay goal, not guys who were the pylons defence that watched them happen.
RDS, please call Denis Savard.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Out of the Sporting Vacuum
Wow, if you disowned baseball when the Expos skipped town and aren't desperate enough that CFL, or minor tennis/golf tournament news can tide you over for weeks at a time, you will have no doubt noticed (as I have) that mid-summer is a vacuum for sporting excitement.
Enter the Summer Olympics. And for the first time in recent memory, they're actually taking place in the summer!
No matter what your usual sporting flavour is, there should be something to tickle your fancy at the Olympics. There are loads of sports and in excess of 300 different events over a couple of weeks. For the hockey fan, there's lots on offer (take what much of the world calls hockey for one...).
If you are of the ilk that enjoys being lifted out of your seat by a good bout, then excitement is around the corner – the Olympics are home to numerous forms of fighting, from the boxing preferred by Lyle Odelein, the martial arts Jarkko Ruutu practices and the Greco Roman wrestling of about 95% of the other fights on ice.
If fighting is not your thing, maybe speed is. If so, then you have track, cycling, swimming, rowing, canoeing, and every other imaginable way to get from A to B fastest (jumping, vaulting, riding a horse...).
And for those who enjoy the team synergy and the cooperation for a common goal, watch volleyball (the beach variety, if you read Four Habs Fans more than you should), basketball, soccer, baseball (for the last time) and one of my favourites water polo.
I am looking forward to these Olympics. It will be a nice way to get through the doldrums of August without scouring the web for news of Scandinavian hockey holdouts. Of note, I encourage everyone to catch Thomas Hall's canoe races if they can. His heats are on August 18, and he would progress to races on August 20 and then 22 if he performs at his best. Tom's a formidable athlete and a fellow Montrealer.
Athletic excellence
All that brings me round to the point I wanted to make in this piece. Watch the Olympics and records will fall – they always do. Not just national records, but World records. Every Olympics someone runs faster than anyone has run before, someone jumps higher, throws further. Past athletic achievements are laid to waste.
When I think of this, it makes me think of hockey.
In hockey, we are blessed with many experienced and knowledgeable elder statesmen, particularly in the press. Their stories and insights from the past never fail to capture the imagination, stir the emotions. But one thing that has always bothered me about this old guard is the way they cling to the older generations of the game to the point of debasing the current era at times.
Sometimes I want to tell these guys to take a look around. An objective look. Admit that things have changed. Admit that players, tactics, training, coaches, managers and everything else has improved (not devolved).
How can I be sure?
Well, consider the Olympics again. In many (probably most) sports, the average athlete at these Olympics would have been a multi-medalist at any Olympics 30 years ago. In my own sport of swimming, the standards for athletes to make it to the 2008 competition would have claimed all but three gold medals at Montreal and Moscow. Even as recently as 20 years ago, people making the current qualifying times would have been unlucky to walk away without a medal. What this tells me is that between equipment, technique and training methods, athletes in many sports have improved by leaps and bounds over the years.
Is hockey the exception? Not likely.
You only have to watch 10 minutes of hockey from the 1960s, 70s or 80s to realise things are different. Improvement in goaltending has led to less poor quality goals. Improvement in player fitness has led to better defence, tighter games and more advanced tactics. Evolution in sticks and the way players shoot has changed the way (and the speed at which) the puck moves. No, hockey is like many Olympic sports, the champions of old would stand a chance with the athletes of today.
Progress. Not many can resist it. I'm tired of people who continually try to convince me I should. That's why I'll be watching the Olympics, like I watch my hockey – admiring the incredible skill and ability I can hardly believe, right before my eyes...
A curious Habs-related Olympic note
As I was browsing the usual sites, I couldn't help but notice that RDS has a section devoted to the Olympics. It is called Pekin 2008.
Unlike English countries, some countries and their linguists have decided not to evolve their spelling of the Chinese capital's name. In English, the name Peking (the Western version of the name for the metropolis) was gradually removed from documents and maps starting in 1949 – it is all but gone nowadays. The change was due to a change in Chinese government, which led to a decision on their part to spell out the name themselves in our alphabet (Beijing).
Though the French lag in language evolution is not surprising, given their formal approach to such things, I found the possibility of a new name amusing. Given that Peking was spelled out Pekin in French, I think there is little doubt that the adaptation of Beijing into French would be done in the same way – giving me Begin.
Come to think of it, since it would obviously be far too confusing to have a Canadiens player and world city by the same name, I am betting the Office de la langue francaise is just waiting until Steve retires before putting the new name on the books.
Enter the Summer Olympics. And for the first time in recent memory, they're actually taking place in the summer!
No matter what your usual sporting flavour is, there should be something to tickle your fancy at the Olympics. There are loads of sports and in excess of 300 different events over a couple of weeks. For the hockey fan, there's lots on offer (take what much of the world calls hockey for one...).
If you are of the ilk that enjoys being lifted out of your seat by a good bout, then excitement is around the corner – the Olympics are home to numerous forms of fighting, from the boxing preferred by Lyle Odelein, the martial arts Jarkko Ruutu practices and the Greco Roman wrestling of about 95% of the other fights on ice.
If fighting is not your thing, maybe speed is. If so, then you have track, cycling, swimming, rowing, canoeing, and every other imaginable way to get from A to B fastest (jumping, vaulting, riding a horse...).
And for those who enjoy the team synergy and the cooperation for a common goal, watch volleyball (the beach variety, if you read Four Habs Fans more than you should), basketball, soccer, baseball (for the last time) and one of my favourites water polo.
I am looking forward to these Olympics. It will be a nice way to get through the doldrums of August without scouring the web for news of Scandinavian hockey holdouts. Of note, I encourage everyone to catch Thomas Hall's canoe races if they can. His heats are on August 18, and he would progress to races on August 20 and then 22 if he performs at his best. Tom's a formidable athlete and a fellow Montrealer.
Athletic excellence
All that brings me round to the point I wanted to make in this piece. Watch the Olympics and records will fall – they always do. Not just national records, but World records. Every Olympics someone runs faster than anyone has run before, someone jumps higher, throws further. Past athletic achievements are laid to waste.
When I think of this, it makes me think of hockey.
In hockey, we are blessed with many experienced and knowledgeable elder statesmen, particularly in the press. Their stories and insights from the past never fail to capture the imagination, stir the emotions. But one thing that has always bothered me about this old guard is the way they cling to the older generations of the game to the point of debasing the current era at times.
Sometimes I want to tell these guys to take a look around. An objective look. Admit that things have changed. Admit that players, tactics, training, coaches, managers and everything else has improved (not devolved).
How can I be sure?
Well, consider the Olympics again. In many (probably most) sports, the average athlete at these Olympics would have been a multi-medalist at any Olympics 30 years ago. In my own sport of swimming, the standards for athletes to make it to the 2008 competition would have claimed all but three gold medals at Montreal and Moscow. Even as recently as 20 years ago, people making the current qualifying times would have been unlucky to walk away without a medal. What this tells me is that between equipment, technique and training methods, athletes in many sports have improved by leaps and bounds over the years.
Is hockey the exception? Not likely.
You only have to watch 10 minutes of hockey from the 1960s, 70s or 80s to realise things are different. Improvement in goaltending has led to less poor quality goals. Improvement in player fitness has led to better defence, tighter games and more advanced tactics. Evolution in sticks and the way players shoot has changed the way (and the speed at which) the puck moves. No, hockey is like many Olympic sports, the champions of old would stand a chance with the athletes of today.
Progress. Not many can resist it. I'm tired of people who continually try to convince me I should. That's why I'll be watching the Olympics, like I watch my hockey – admiring the incredible skill and ability I can hardly believe, right before my eyes...
A curious Habs-related Olympic note
As I was browsing the usual sites, I couldn't help but notice that RDS has a section devoted to the Olympics. It is called Pekin 2008.
Unlike English countries, some countries and their linguists have decided not to evolve their spelling of the Chinese capital's name. In English, the name Peking (the Western version of the name for the metropolis) was gradually removed from documents and maps starting in 1949 – it is all but gone nowadays. The change was due to a change in Chinese government, which led to a decision on their part to spell out the name themselves in our alphabet (Beijing).
Though the French lag in language evolution is not surprising, given their formal approach to such things, I found the possibility of a new name amusing. Given that Peking was spelled out Pekin in French, I think there is little doubt that the adaptation of Beijing into French would be done in the same way – giving me Begin.
Come to think of it, since it would obviously be far too confusing to have a Canadiens player and world city by the same name, I am betting the Office de la langue francaise is just waiting until Steve retires before putting the new name on the books.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Welcome Opponent One: The Boston Bruins
The Bruins hardly need much introduction. After all, we have all seen them 8 times since October, 10 times since September if you're keen. They lost to us in Montreal. they lost to us in Boston. They even lost to us in Halifax.
Strange thing though. Since the Habs beat these opponents 8/8 times (or 10/10 if you prefer) it doesn't feel like we know the Bruins the way we should. At least not the bruins the rest of the league knows.
We've heard ad nauseum (from myself included) that if the Habs had lost to the Bruins just 4 times, the Bruins (45-25-11: 101 points) would be ahead of the Canadiens (43-29-10: 96 points).
We know the world doesn't work this way: eliminating the team you play worst against would make a similarly enchanting story for most of the teams in the league. Even so, the fact that the Bruins cultivated more points against the rest of the league than the Habs is a matter of some intrigue.
For me the first question that cam to mind was: "Well, who did they beat?"
The answer: Everyone at least a little bit.
vs. Southeast (10-9-1: 21 pts)
Wins: Atlanta (3), Carolina (1), Florida, Tampa and Washington (2 each)
vs. Northeast – sans Montreal (13-6-5: 31 points)
Wins: Toronto (5), Buffalo and Ottawa (4 each)
vs. Atlantic (12-4-4: 28 pts)
Wins: Philadelphia, Islanders and Rangers (3 each), Pittsburgh (2), New Jersey (1)
vs. West (6-3-1: 13 pts)
Wins: Chicago, Columbus, Nashville, LA, Phoenix, San Jose
Basically, the Bruins were steady as we thought. They never slipped too far down the standings, even despite a brutal December. They picked up a lovely 12 bonus points for losing to the Canadiens 10. But while the Habs gave up on this habit of slipping in for points somewhere around the illustrious Xmas road trip, the Bruins have used it as a tried and tested method for point collection.
Interestingly for a team that gets to OT so frequently, they have not seemed to learn how to win from it: going 8-12 in 60+ minute games this season.
If you take the wins another way and examine which teams the Bruins like and dislike, you can see certain patterns emerging:
1) The teams they lost to most frequently are faster than they are: Montreal, Carolina, Buffalo, New Jersey and Pittsburgh
2) With the exception of New Jersey, all the teams above like to win by scoring – the Bruins don't seem to enjoy that
3) Many of the teams they were most successful had trouble scoring in general as well: New York Rangers, New York Islanders, Atlanta, Toronto
4) They poached bad goaltending: Atlanta, Philadelphia, Toronto and Ottawa after their crisis mode
NOTE: The Bruins were also involved in 3 (count 'em, 3) scoreless draws, twice with the Rangers alone. These guaranteed point (and fan-pleasing) affairs got them 4 points and a good-looking record against the Rangers.
From all these results you begin to get a picture of how the Bruins win and lose. If a team skates at them, passes around them and generally tries to play normal hockey, the opponents have a good chance of winning. If a team gets into a jousting match with them, the Bruins hold more cards.
As a final enquiry, I contacted someone who knows a heck of a lot more about the Bruins than me – Russ from the Bruins Report (a great Bruins blog) – check it out if you have the time. I asked:
How were the Bruins so good against the rest of the teams in the East?
And, as if to corroborate what all the circumstantial evidence says, he replied:
He went on to qualify:
Hence the Canadiens need to stick to the gameplan. Adjust for Anaheim, maybe. Not for these guys...
By the way, stay tuned to Lions in Winter for a couple more primers on this series. I (Topham) handle the key Bruins players to watch for the series and beyond and Tobalev chimes in with his expert views on the critical players from the Habs.
Strange thing though. Since the Habs beat these opponents 8/8 times (or 10/10 if you prefer) it doesn't feel like we know the Bruins the way we should. At least not the bruins the rest of the league knows.
We've heard ad nauseum (from myself included) that if the Habs had lost to the Bruins just 4 times, the Bruins (45-25-11: 101 points) would be ahead of the Canadiens (43-29-10: 96 points).
We know the world doesn't work this way: eliminating the team you play worst against would make a similarly enchanting story for most of the teams in the league. Even so, the fact that the Bruins cultivated more points against the rest of the league than the Habs is a matter of some intrigue.
For me the first question that cam to mind was: "Well, who did they beat?"
The answer: Everyone at least a little bit.
vs. Southeast (10-9-1: 21 pts)
Wins: Atlanta (3), Carolina (1), Florida, Tampa and Washington (2 each)
vs. Northeast – sans Montreal (13-6-5: 31 points)
Wins: Toronto (5), Buffalo and Ottawa (4 each)
vs. Atlantic (12-4-4: 28 pts)
Wins: Philadelphia, Islanders and Rangers (3 each), Pittsburgh (2), New Jersey (1)
vs. West (6-3-1: 13 pts)
Wins: Chicago, Columbus, Nashville, LA, Phoenix, San Jose
Basically, the Bruins were steady as we thought. They never slipped too far down the standings, even despite a brutal December. They picked up a lovely 12 bonus points for losing to the Canadiens 10. But while the Habs gave up on this habit of slipping in for points somewhere around the illustrious Xmas road trip, the Bruins have used it as a tried and tested method for point collection.
Interestingly for a team that gets to OT so frequently, they have not seemed to learn how to win from it: going 8-12 in 60+ minute games this season.
If you take the wins another way and examine which teams the Bruins like and dislike, you can see certain patterns emerging:
1) The teams they lost to most frequently are faster than they are: Montreal, Carolina, Buffalo, New Jersey and Pittsburgh
2) With the exception of New Jersey, all the teams above like to win by scoring – the Bruins don't seem to enjoy that
3) Many of the teams they were most successful had trouble scoring in general as well: New York Rangers, New York Islanders, Atlanta, Toronto
4) They poached bad goaltending: Atlanta, Philadelphia, Toronto and Ottawa after their crisis mode
NOTE: The Bruins were also involved in 3 (count 'em, 3) scoreless draws, twice with the Rangers alone. These guaranteed point (and fan-pleasing) affairs got them 4 points and a good-looking record against the Rangers.
From all these results you begin to get a picture of how the Bruins win and lose. If a team skates at them, passes around them and generally tries to play normal hockey, the opponents have a good chance of winning. If a team gets into a jousting match with them, the Bruins hold more cards.
As a final enquiry, I contacted someone who knows a heck of a lot more about the Bruins than me – Russ from the Bruins Report (a great Bruins blog) – check it out if you have the time. I asked:
How were the Bruins so good against the rest of the teams in the East?
And, as if to corroborate what all the circumstantial evidence says, he replied:
The Bruins were good against the rest of the East because they have, for the most part, played a solid, simple defensive scheme in their own zone that allowed them to minimize scoring chances down low, and kept the majority of the shots to the perimeter. Tim Thomas was more effective playing behind this style of defense, and allowed him to modify his "crazy flailing everywhere like Hasek only not as good"
style.
He went on to qualify:
The Canadiens, however, have proven that the Bruins have a hard time defending against a team that uses their speed to quickly get into the Bruins' zone, and not allow them to set up in their "Box Plus 1" formation. Montreal was very good all season long at both getting into the offensive zone, as well as forcing the Bruins to take multiple penalties trying to neutralize their speed. As evidence, the Canadiens on the PP had a 30% success rate against the Bruins' 28th ranked penalty kill.
So, combine strong team speed with a solid powerplay, and you see where the Canadiens were able to beat the Bruins this season. It remains to be seen if the Bruins can 1) find a way to clog up the neutral zone enough, and forecheck strong enough, to stop the Canadiens breakout, and 2) stay out of the box. If they *can*, it'll be a decent series.
Hence the Canadiens need to stick to the gameplan. Adjust for Anaheim, maybe. Not for these guys...
By the way, stay tuned to Lions in Winter for a couple more primers on this series. I (Topham) handle the key Bruins players to watch for the series and beyond and Tobalev chimes in with his expert views on the critical players from the Habs.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Alex Kovalev: The One and Only
Always a favourite for quotes. Certainly always a favourite to watch. We found out yesterday that Kovalev is also one to admire for his generosity.
Not that I don't admire his generosity, but I was blown away by something peripheral to the whole video story, which I will have to revisit at some later time for distraction. In Pat Hickey's story about Kovalev and his 100% to charity project, I was stopped cold at this quote:
Five or six hours a day?? Can we even comprehend this??
If you ever wanted to know why so many NHL players can't hold a candle to Kovalev, and look like children on the ice when Kovalev applies himself, we should look to this quote. After all, practice makes perfect. And, there is no substitute. If you think about it, Kovalev has probably practiced the one-handed backhand shot more than most junior players practice over a four-year career.
Kovalev was obviously also one determined little hockey dreamer as he managed to keep playing through his problems and conceal them from his parents for a while. So, when Gretzky quotes Messier calling him a Force of Nature, it's worth considering how hard he worked to become a natural talent.
Indeed, much could be learned from an example like this. For example, Canadian hockey programs could revise their schedules and look to add more practices to reverse the current skew in game to training ratio. I would be happier if the Canadiens took some lead in working this way with their young draftees, as opposed to getting into game simulations from the get go.
Five to six hours... It shows in those clips of the video doesn't it?
Not that I don't admire his generosity, but I was blown away by something peripheral to the whole video story, which I will have to revisit at some later time for distraction. In Pat Hickey's story about Kovalev and his 100% to charity project, I was stopped cold at this quote:
"I was seven years old and I was training five or six hours a day," Kovalev recalled.
Five or six hours a day?? Can we even comprehend this??
If you ever wanted to know why so many NHL players can't hold a candle to Kovalev, and look like children on the ice when Kovalev applies himself, we should look to this quote. After all, practice makes perfect. And, there is no substitute. If you think about it, Kovalev has probably practiced the one-handed backhand shot more than most junior players practice over a four-year career.
Kovalev was obviously also one determined little hockey dreamer as he managed to keep playing through his problems and conceal them from his parents for a while. So, when Gretzky quotes Messier calling him a Force of Nature, it's worth considering how hard he worked to become a natural talent.
Indeed, much could be learned from an example like this. For example, Canadian hockey programs could revise their schedules and look to add more practices to reverse the current skew in game to training ratio. I would be happier if the Canadiens took some lead in working this way with their young draftees, as opposed to getting into game simulations from the get go.
Five to six hours... It shows in those clips of the video doesn't it?
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Why We Value Koivu
I could have written this article two years ago after a certain playoff series and the "we" would have stood for the entirety of the Habs following.
I get the feeling that if I were to make a conservative estimate of who the "we" represents now, I could only account for myself, Tobalev and some of the loyal fans of Lions in Winter who we confer with on a regular basis.
In my weekly update I alluded to the fact that Koivu's popularity has been taking a nosedive. PR from the people who have always wanted him out has been ramped up and is turning once avid supporters into fence sitters over the captain of the Canadiens:
I described the feeling of sensing Koivu's dwindling popularity as distress. I can't imagine the word I would have to use if we were to find ourselves without him.
So, before this goes any further, I thought I would start a campaign of my own - to remind Habs fans (starting with the readers of this humble blog) about why we value (or valued) Koivu so highly. No one item on its own, perhaps, is reason enough to keep Koivu, when you add up these qualities, I would argue that finding a similarly valuable asset would be a quick round of about 5-10 phone calls:
1) He gives effort every night
Not only does he give effort, but his effort is fruitful. UNlike a fourth-liner who makes the league based solely on his ability to give an energetic performance, Saku has the skill to team with his effort to create openings.
2) He is very strong in possesion
Thanks in part to being small, but mainly to his wide stance when carrying the puck he is very difficult to disposess. And, when he is dogged about it, no one can strip the puck from him (that's in the playoffs)
3) He thrives in every role he is given
Let's be honest, all we heard all summer was that Koivu told Briere he could f*%& off if he wanted to be the number one centre in Montreal, playing with Higgins and Ryder. Well as the season has worn on, Saku has accepted many different wingers and indeed many roles. Sometimes he plays babysitter teaching Latendresse and Sergei K the ropes. Other nights he gets to be on the ice with 4 defensemen.
4) He can make every winger on this team a better player
Every player, bar the three on the Eastern bloc line, has produced superior performances (and numbers) with Koivu at his side. You could call this coincidence, but in science you you call this proof. Ryder has been a 30-goal scorer because of Koivu. Higgins came out of Hamilton and made the leap to NHL-calibre scorer much quicker because of Saku. Latendresse scores when he gets the chance to play with a C of that calibre. Hard to argue with that, especially when lots of similar players to those three will be coming through in the immediate future.
5) He has incredible endurance
Anyone who harps on and on about Europeans running out of gas by playoff time may be right in lots of cases, but certainly not Koivu's. He rarely drops his scoring tempo over a season, if anything he picks it up. And, from what we've seen he accelerates into the playoffs.
6) When he has a "bad" season he is far from bad
If everyone is right (in question) and Saku Koivu is having a bad season, then we should consider he has 39 points in 54 games on pace for about 60 or so. In addition, he has been a first star 4 times already, behind only Huet and Kovalev. (Ahead of Plekanec!). A look back at the game reviews show he has been a significant factor in at least 50% of games thus far (that is one of the top forwards), win or loss.
7) He represents the kind of player we would like our youngsters to develop into
Look around the league. Which other centre would you want Plekanec or Chipchura looking up to? Daniel (money bags) Briere? Joe (house of cards) Thornton? Players like Koivu are rare. He wants to win every game. He plays like he wants to make that happen. And, he overcomes adversity and losses with grace while learning lessons for the next time. This is one of those things you call intangible. This is keeping Steve Yzerman around years after his 160 point season is behind him to mentor young centres.
8) He has seen how far this team has come
If any of those green newbies starts taking things for granted or patting himself on the back with the media in tow, Saku can tell them a tale or two about how the media once went gaga for Mario Tremblay as a coach in Montreal too.
9) He thrives in pressure games
You just can't judge Saku Koivu on a regular season. He is just one of those players you want on your side when losing a game is not an option. Consider that he had a 55-point season ahead of dominating the first round of the 2004 playoffs. Ditto his 62-point total before he owned eventual Cup Champions Carolina in 2006 (before l'incident Williams). Nevermind that whenever he steps into a knockout round robin tournament his team overachieves and he usually ends up top 5 in scoring. Dragging Finland to the final of the 2006 Olympics was probably the crowning achievement of his career, thus far.
10) He desperately wants to help Montreal to the same success as Finland
All his play, his contract negotiations, his interviews, and other behaviour belie how much Saku cares for the Montreal Canadiens. If Finland Olympics 2006 is the crowning achievement of his career, he wants to eclipse that with a Stanley Cup more than anything (and here!!!), which is more than we can say about any UFA we have approached over the last 10 years.
Finally, for those writing Koivu off as a first line centre or indeed as a member of the Canadiens altogether, I would ask them to look in the mirror and ask where they were on a certain Mr. Kovalev last season.
Jacques you may remeber saying this (quoted from Eyes on the Prize, April 10):
And, after all, you may be writing this about Kovu in a few months:
I get the feeling that if I were to make a conservative estimate of who the "we" represents now, I could only account for myself, Tobalev and some of the loyal fans of Lions in Winter who we confer with on a regular basis.
In my weekly update I alluded to the fact that Koivu's popularity has been taking a nosedive. PR from the people who have always wanted him out has been ramped up and is turning once avid supporters into fence sitters over the captain of the Canadiens:
Finally, and perhaps most distressingly for me is the marginalisation of Saku Koivu. While the language issue failed to get him out of the way, his detractors have now turned his own willingness to help the team against him. I have been told, directly and indirectly that Saku Koivu has lost it, that he is becoming no more than a third line centre and that he has a discipline problem. I recognise that a penalty at the end of the game is a bad thing, but it's hardly a discipline problem. (Click here for full post)
I described the feeling of sensing Koivu's dwindling popularity as distress. I can't imagine the word I would have to use if we were to find ourselves without him.
So, before this goes any further, I thought I would start a campaign of my own - to remind Habs fans (starting with the readers of this humble blog) about why we value (or valued) Koivu so highly. No one item on its own, perhaps, is reason enough to keep Koivu, when you add up these qualities, I would argue that finding a similarly valuable asset would be a quick round of about 5-10 phone calls:
1) He gives effort every night
Not only does he give effort, but his effort is fruitful. UNlike a fourth-liner who makes the league based solely on his ability to give an energetic performance, Saku has the skill to team with his effort to create openings.
2) He is very strong in possesion
Thanks in part to being small, but mainly to his wide stance when carrying the puck he is very difficult to disposess. And, when he is dogged about it, no one can strip the puck from him (that's in the playoffs)
3) He thrives in every role he is given
Let's be honest, all we heard all summer was that Koivu told Briere he could f*%& off if he wanted to be the number one centre in Montreal, playing with Higgins and Ryder. Well as the season has worn on, Saku has accepted many different wingers and indeed many roles. Sometimes he plays babysitter teaching Latendresse and Sergei K the ropes. Other nights he gets to be on the ice with 4 defensemen.
4) He can make every winger on this team a better player
Every player, bar the three on the Eastern bloc line, has produced superior performances (and numbers) with Koivu at his side. You could call this coincidence, but in science you you call this proof. Ryder has been a 30-goal scorer because of Koivu. Higgins came out of Hamilton and made the leap to NHL-calibre scorer much quicker because of Saku. Latendresse scores when he gets the chance to play with a C of that calibre. Hard to argue with that, especially when lots of similar players to those three will be coming through in the immediate future.
5) He has incredible endurance
Anyone who harps on and on about Europeans running out of gas by playoff time may be right in lots of cases, but certainly not Koivu's. He rarely drops his scoring tempo over a season, if anything he picks it up. And, from what we've seen he accelerates into the playoffs.
6) When he has a "bad" season he is far from bad
If everyone is right (in question) and Saku Koivu is having a bad season, then we should consider he has 39 points in 54 games on pace for about 60 or so. In addition, he has been a first star 4 times already, behind only Huet and Kovalev. (Ahead of Plekanec!). A look back at the game reviews show he has been a significant factor in at least 50% of games thus far (that is one of the top forwards), win or loss.
7) He represents the kind of player we would like our youngsters to develop into
Look around the league. Which other centre would you want Plekanec or Chipchura looking up to? Daniel (money bags) Briere? Joe (house of cards) Thornton? Players like Koivu are rare. He wants to win every game. He plays like he wants to make that happen. And, he overcomes adversity and losses with grace while learning lessons for the next time. This is one of those things you call intangible. This is keeping Steve Yzerman around years after his 160 point season is behind him to mentor young centres.
8) He has seen how far this team has come
If any of those green newbies starts taking things for granted or patting himself on the back with the media in tow, Saku can tell them a tale or two about how the media once went gaga for Mario Tremblay as a coach in Montreal too.
9) He thrives in pressure games
You just can't judge Saku Koivu on a regular season. He is just one of those players you want on your side when losing a game is not an option. Consider that he had a 55-point season ahead of dominating the first round of the 2004 playoffs. Ditto his 62-point total before he owned eventual Cup Champions Carolina in 2006 (before l'incident Williams). Nevermind that whenever he steps into a knockout round robin tournament his team overachieves and he usually ends up top 5 in scoring. Dragging Finland to the final of the 2006 Olympics was probably the crowning achievement of his career, thus far.
10) He desperately wants to help Montreal to the same success as Finland
All his play, his contract negotiations, his interviews, and other behaviour belie how much Saku cares for the Montreal Canadiens. If Finland Olympics 2006 is the crowning achievement of his career, he wants to eclipse that with a Stanley Cup more than anything (and here!!!), which is more than we can say about any UFA we have approached over the last 10 years.
Finally, for those writing Koivu off as a first line centre or indeed as a member of the Canadiens altogether, I would ask them to look in the mirror and ask where they were on a certain Mr. Kovalev last season.
Jacques you may remeber saying this (quoted from Eyes on the Prize, April 10):
"He's a disgrace to the team and its fans, and he's mocked them far too long. He's not worthy of the jersey", said the coach.
And, after all, you may be writing this about Kovu in a few months:
The 34-year-old Russian (Finn) was coming off a tumultuous, sub-par season, one of just 18 goals and 47 points which saw him heckled by fans, shrouded by controversy, shredded by the media, demoted to the fourth line before being benched by coach Guy Carbonneau and, in his opinion, hung out to dry by the Montreal organization.
Now, 55 games into this season, Kovalev (Koivu) is the powerful locomotive pulling the Canadiens Express, the creative right-wing (centre) on one of the league’s premier lines with centreman Tomas Plekanec (left-wing Chris Higgins) and left-wing (right-wing) Andrei (Sergei) Kostitsyn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)