So it's happened, the axe has fallen and the Canadiens have relieved Pierre Gauthier of his duties.
The criticism about strange timing is strange in itself. Who cares? The team has nothing left to play for and the GM had nothing left to do. Better that a lame duck be replaced than not.
The team will be rudderless (especially if you consider it's Molson in charge) for the next few days and then will hopefully be applying all their effort to finding excellent personnel to fill the important role of GM and whatever else is left open by a shuffle.
As the surprise move shows, no one really has any idea on how and when the Canadiens might act in this search. As such, I thought I'd provide open speculation on all the candidates for the GM job that I could think of before my fingers got tired.
Key people within the organization
Bob Gainey
Needs no introduction. He ceded the reins before for lack of passion/interest/whatever, but then never really left the team. Not sure how active he has been in his advisor role, but in terms of hockey people within the upper echelon of the organization's structure, he's top at this point. I don't think his return would be well received this time, however, so my prediction is that if he remains it will be in the shadows.
Trevor Timmins
Montreal fans are notoriously demanding and continue to rue every draft pick that goes wrong. All this despite the fact, the Habs have been pretty much the best by a few measures of drafting since Timmins was brought in. There's more to being a GM than drafting and scouting. What's more, it may not be wise to mess with a successful formula just because he's the most deserving candidate at first glance.
Frank Jay
This guy is reputed to be a talented scout, and so he should stay. He's got experience and could probably pull off the job. Like Timmins, I like him in a full scouting role if he's the star his backers say he is, because the Habs are in a rebuild.
Larry Carriere
He benefits from a few key points on his resume. First, he's new and so not associated or in anyway responsible for the more disastrous moves (Gomez) the organization has made recently. Second, he's been a GM (briefly) and an assistant GM in Buffalo. Third, he can communicate to both streams of media. He's not a sexy choice given his association with the recent coaching of the team. But we're not suggesting he be considered for the coaching job.
Patrick Boivin
Nepotism. How much of it figured in this hiring? I really know nothing of this guy other than he had a father with clout. He's currently occupying a top-level role with the team, so he's worth a mention.
Key people outside the organization
Jacques Martin
Former coach. Former GM. "Speaks" French and English. Knows hockey. He's on all the lists for sure. But again, he may not exactly represent a sexy choice or a departure from the stagnant old ways of doing things. Personally, I think the way he thinks about hockey is right and suits this group of players. I'd accept this choice.
Pierre McGuire
Someone help us. If you want to know what happens when someone spends more energy concerning himself with public image than team composition, look no further than the GM of the team with the longest playoffless and Cupless streak in the league. McGuire strikes me as the same type of person. He is stubborn in arguing his point of view to the point that it seems to get all consuming. I'm not sure a GM in a city with a million opinions will find the time to do much team building when defending his positions night and day.
Jim Nill
This is Detroit's next in line. What he would bring might be an instant improvement in the way the team looks at development. If Timmins got some development gurus to work with, the team might take off. I don't know if Nill fits the bill, but he'd surely know some people to hire.
Pierre Lacroix
On the list of Quebecois who sued to be GMs. I don't look at Lacroix's record with the same rose-glasses as many others do. He inherited a team poised to be champions and he didn't mess it up. Kudos for taking advantage of a green GM trading a superstar goalie, but otherwise show me why he's up to building challenge.
Julien BriseBois
The team's former capologist is a hot candidate. But this isn't about capology, and this isn't Hamilton or Tampa we're talking about. It may make more sense to bring him back into the fold in a slightly more sheltered role.
Serge Savard
In retrospect, our complaints about Savard were a bit like our complaints about Timmins. A spoiled group of fans unwilling to accept that 15 more teams meant less frequent Cups. Savard was a good GM. Sure he made bad moves, but evidence might show he was less than free to do otherwise (Corey). The real question with Serge is why would he want to take this on? He certainly knows what the job entails.
Marc Bergevin
If you want to believe Bruce Garrioch (from which day, you say?), then Marc Bergevin is a candadate here. He's a Quebecois holding an assistant GM post on a success story, so I guess he just connected the same dots we all did. But he's very fresh to the assistant GM role, so I wonder why he'd even be ahead of BriseBois.
Don Maloney
This one's from me. Look Phoenix is done as a hockey destination, aren't they? The man who built the groundwork of a perennial challenger from basically nothing should be mooving to the province one way or the other. As an ambitious young GM, why wouldn't his ears perk up with the news of an opening? There are manay reasons why he wouldn't be the right candidate, but anyone that can egt David Rundblad for Kyle Turris has a fan in me. Perhaps competition from Edmonton here though.
Chuck Fletcher
Another one from me. I don't know if he's in trouble with the Wild. They probably aren't too thrilled with their standing either. Either way, Current GMs are free to explore their opportunities aren't they? Maybe not. Anyway, my point being he is a Montrealer, in charge of scouting for Anaheim in the much ballyhooed draft of 2003 where they were clear winners, apprenticed in Pittsburgh under Shero. He's got pedigree.
Vincent Damphousse
This one is making the rounds. Credibility from being a union rep? I hope not. I mean if he's to be judged from his on air opinions, I'd be afraid of the future with him at the rudder.
Patrick Roy
Oh the romanticism. Not sure what qualifies him to be a GM, but it'd be fun to hear a trade going down between Roy and Burke wouldn't it? He's a proven winner, for sure. But would he cede enough responsibility to the right people as a GM must?
Key requirements
We talk about people. But this opportunity really allows for the team to seek out candidates (known or unknown to them) who fill the characteristics they now recognize have been missing for years:
Expertise in pro scouting
Come on, it's about time someone that knows NHL talent when he sees it has some clout.
Expertise in development
Someone that can hire the right people and oversee a more efficient farm system. Maybe one that doesn't sap the life out of goalscorers before they lace up in Montreal?
Willingness to work
The Habs have suffered greatly because of the throw-away player attitude they have taken. The next GM will be a star if he can take the Mike Ribeiros he picks and outlasts the immature months.
This should be some fun guys. Go Oilers Go.
Showing posts with label Winning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Winning. Show all posts
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
The Brain Drain
For Christmas I was given a copy of Jean Beliveau's memoirs. I have been reading the book and am only pages from finished now.
What strikes the reader of this book, other than the fact that Beliveau just seems like a genuinely down-to-earth, nice guy, is how the Habs have changed since he came and left the team. Beliveau speaks about it a bit, but is too generous to indict anyone too much.
The Canadiens, as we know from their record, dominated the NHL from the mid-50s to the 1980s. Their success is gauged by Stanley Cups and other trophies, but it was built with amazing strategy and foresight. While the slow down in Cups is an obvious red flag for this organization, it is perhaps the dissociation with the latter that is more significant.
The Canadiens of the 1930s by all accounts were a good team, but by the late part of the decade, it was clear they weren't the pace setters in the league. That honour, on examination, must by rights go to the Toronto Maple Leafs who had the championships and the strategic minds to go with. Someone at this critical juncture recognized enough was enough and plucked a towering hockey mind (Tommy Gorman) to steer the club. He in turn found his man in Dick Irvin and did what it took to secure his service. Then, when Gorman left and somewhere along the way, and I won't get into the intrigue, Conn Smythe and Frank Selke split company and Selke arrived in Montreal. Beliveau doesn't go into all that much about Selke himself, but there are a few interesting snippets that point to the kind of manager he was.
First and foremost, it seems that Selke was an excellent (if not infallible) evaluator of talent. But being sensible, he also knew not to rely completely on his eye, and he probably realized that his rivals were pretty good too. He knew quantity of talent would likely yield better quality and so he set out creating teams and leagues to feed the Canadiens. The 1950s Habs were a big product of the seeds he had sown in his earlier tenure with the Habs and by the time the Canadiens were ready to start winning Cups they had too much talent to be stopped.
We predictably focus on the on-ice talent, but I think Selke knew the importance of off-ice talent as well. The advisors he kept around him and the apprentices he developed were just as important as those players. When Dick Irvin left as coach, Selke (according to Beliveau) wanted to replace his friend with an old acquaintance from Toronto. But it's a testament to the man that he was obviously open to collaboration as Ken Reardon was able to convince him of the case for Toe Blake. Greatness was retained in the organization in that instance, because greatness was recognized.
While players would change and Cups would come and go, the commitment to quality people in the front office was clearly there long after Selke. On his retirement, his replacement was a well-groomed candidate from within the organization, Sam Pollock. Pollock was to take the team into a much less stable era (with expansion, a draft and a rival league) and duplicate, if even exceed what Selke had done.
Their legacy
The legacy of Irvin and Selke was passed to Blake and Pollock and Bowman. From there it was absorbed no doubt by some in the organization, both on (Lemaire, Robinson, Gainey, Dryden, Savard) and off the ice (Cliff Fletcher, Caron, etc.)
Following Pollock's decision to retire, he apparently struggled with the naming of a replacement. Though he clearly recognized in Scotty Bowman a unique talent, he also recognized a fiery temper that might befit a GM of a team with other egos.
Some point to the selection of Irving Grundman as the beginning of the end for the Canadiens dominance, and perhaps it was. But at this stage, the Habs still had a bevy of learned people in their employ who knew the ways of Selke and Pollock.
Perhaps it's not important where the chain was broken, only that we know it was. Somehow the team that provided the model for both management and coaching for many decades ended up with Rejean Houle guiding Mario Tremblay. Somewhere along the line the braintrust filtered down the drain.
How it happened is not something that can be treated in one blog post, but there's little question that it did. With the braintrust gone, so was the culture of patientce and the feeling that the management held the upper hand over the always braying Montreal media.
That was ages ago now.
The attempt to restore the line was made in 2003 when Bob Gainey was headhunted for a return. Gainey, a 1970s Canadien himself must have learned a thing or two from Pollock and from Selke.
Restoring the tradition
What is missed by people that believed Gainey was just another in the line of graduates from the Montreal school is critical review of what he actually did. A review suggests there was some conviction, but perhaps not enough patience, and certainly not enough examination of what can be done under the current regulations to push an advantage over opponents to the extremes that Selke and Pollock once did.
I write this piece in the shadow of the Mike Cammalleri trade, and so it may seem like a criticism. Perhaps it should be. But I could have written it without that particular trade.
Gauthier himself is clearly an intelligent man and a thinker who puts care into his work. Yet he's no Selke. This would perhaps not be so important were there no mirrors of the great GM ion the modern game, but that doesn't appear to be so. With the Red Wings topping the West for yet another season, their management team shines above all. But there are examples of much more clever manoeuvring than that accomplished by Gauthier (and indeed Gainey) in San Jose, Philadelphia, Boston and other places.
As a Habs fan, I have to ask why.
Why should an organization that learned time and time again the importance of quality running through every vein (on or off ice) be so content to fill its ranks so? Why should all the organizational currency in managers and coaches be allowed to filter out only to come back and haunt the team?
In its longest ever Cup drought, the Canadiens need a Tommy Gorman moment. An admission that better people exist somewhere and that finding them should become a priority. Because Gorman doesn't become Irvin to Selke to Blake to Pollock to Bowman without that moment of truth.
I wish this team of owners would stop hoping they'll luck into something and put some of the Markov profits into some serious recruiting efforts. And for me this doesn't mean Gauthier needs to go, just that he has to be surrounded and fed by the best budgets will allow. And that in moments of pause, assistant coaches, 16 months into their time with the organization won't have to be the lone available option.
M. Jean Beliveau is far too much of a gentleman to ever say it, but every line between the lines in his memoir spoke of quality. I can't see how he wouldn't be with us on this.
What strikes the reader of this book, other than the fact that Beliveau just seems like a genuinely down-to-earth, nice guy, is how the Habs have changed since he came and left the team. Beliveau speaks about it a bit, but is too generous to indict anyone too much.
The Canadiens, as we know from their record, dominated the NHL from the mid-50s to the 1980s. Their success is gauged by Stanley Cups and other trophies, but it was built with amazing strategy and foresight. While the slow down in Cups is an obvious red flag for this organization, it is perhaps the dissociation with the latter that is more significant.
The Canadiens of the 1930s by all accounts were a good team, but by the late part of the decade, it was clear they weren't the pace setters in the league. That honour, on examination, must by rights go to the Toronto Maple Leafs who had the championships and the strategic minds to go with. Someone at this critical juncture recognized enough was enough and plucked a towering hockey mind (Tommy Gorman) to steer the club. He in turn found his man in Dick Irvin and did what it took to secure his service. Then, when Gorman left and somewhere along the way, and I won't get into the intrigue, Conn Smythe and Frank Selke split company and Selke arrived in Montreal. Beliveau doesn't go into all that much about Selke himself, but there are a few interesting snippets that point to the kind of manager he was.
First and foremost, it seems that Selke was an excellent (if not infallible) evaluator of talent. But being sensible, he also knew not to rely completely on his eye, and he probably realized that his rivals were pretty good too. He knew quantity of talent would likely yield better quality and so he set out creating teams and leagues to feed the Canadiens. The 1950s Habs were a big product of the seeds he had sown in his earlier tenure with the Habs and by the time the Canadiens were ready to start winning Cups they had too much talent to be stopped.
We predictably focus on the on-ice talent, but I think Selke knew the importance of off-ice talent as well. The advisors he kept around him and the apprentices he developed were just as important as those players. When Dick Irvin left as coach, Selke (according to Beliveau) wanted to replace his friend with an old acquaintance from Toronto. But it's a testament to the man that he was obviously open to collaboration as Ken Reardon was able to convince him of the case for Toe Blake. Greatness was retained in the organization in that instance, because greatness was recognized.
While players would change and Cups would come and go, the commitment to quality people in the front office was clearly there long after Selke. On his retirement, his replacement was a well-groomed candidate from within the organization, Sam Pollock. Pollock was to take the team into a much less stable era (with expansion, a draft and a rival league) and duplicate, if even exceed what Selke had done.
Their legacy
The legacy of Irvin and Selke was passed to Blake and Pollock and Bowman. From there it was absorbed no doubt by some in the organization, both on (Lemaire, Robinson, Gainey, Dryden, Savard) and off the ice (Cliff Fletcher, Caron, etc.)
Following Pollock's decision to retire, he apparently struggled with the naming of a replacement. Though he clearly recognized in Scotty Bowman a unique talent, he also recognized a fiery temper that might befit a GM of a team with other egos.
Some point to the selection of Irving Grundman as the beginning of the end for the Canadiens dominance, and perhaps it was. But at this stage, the Habs still had a bevy of learned people in their employ who knew the ways of Selke and Pollock.
Perhaps it's not important where the chain was broken, only that we know it was. Somehow the team that provided the model for both management and coaching for many decades ended up with Rejean Houle guiding Mario Tremblay. Somewhere along the line the braintrust filtered down the drain.
How it happened is not something that can be treated in one blog post, but there's little question that it did. With the braintrust gone, so was the culture of patientce and the feeling that the management held the upper hand over the always braying Montreal media.
That was ages ago now.
The attempt to restore the line was made in 2003 when Bob Gainey was headhunted for a return. Gainey, a 1970s Canadien himself must have learned a thing or two from Pollock and from Selke.
Restoring the tradition
What is missed by people that believed Gainey was just another in the line of graduates from the Montreal school is critical review of what he actually did. A review suggests there was some conviction, but perhaps not enough patience, and certainly not enough examination of what can be done under the current regulations to push an advantage over opponents to the extremes that Selke and Pollock once did.
I write this piece in the shadow of the Mike Cammalleri trade, and so it may seem like a criticism. Perhaps it should be. But I could have written it without that particular trade.
Gauthier himself is clearly an intelligent man and a thinker who puts care into his work. Yet he's no Selke. This would perhaps not be so important were there no mirrors of the great GM ion the modern game, but that doesn't appear to be so. With the Red Wings topping the West for yet another season, their management team shines above all. But there are examples of much more clever manoeuvring than that accomplished by Gauthier (and indeed Gainey) in San Jose, Philadelphia, Boston and other places.
As a Habs fan, I have to ask why.
Why should an organization that learned time and time again the importance of quality running through every vein (on or off ice) be so content to fill its ranks so? Why should all the organizational currency in managers and coaches be allowed to filter out only to come back and haunt the team?
In its longest ever Cup drought, the Canadiens need a Tommy Gorman moment. An admission that better people exist somewhere and that finding them should become a priority. Because Gorman doesn't become Irvin to Selke to Blake to Pollock to Bowman without that moment of truth.
I wish this team of owners would stop hoping they'll luck into something and put some of the Markov profits into some serious recruiting efforts. And for me this doesn't mean Gauthier needs to go, just that he has to be surrounded and fed by the best budgets will allow. And that in moments of pause, assistant coaches, 16 months into their time with the organization won't have to be the lone available option.
M. Jean Beliveau is far too much of a gentleman to ever say it, but every line between the lines in his memoir spoke of quality. I can't see how he wouldn't be with us on this.
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Why All The Winning?
A week off and we content generators must occupy our minds with something.
The trend I am responding to is the one where everyone has a go at deciding why the Canadiens, so bad a week ago, suddenly veered to victory 3 times in a row to restore the hopes and dreams of millions.
Yesterday, I read a few accounts in which the authors’ insight was that Habs won more games because they didn’t lose. Wait that’s unfair, they actually did go a step further than that – that the team won because they scored more goals than the other team.
Today, Sean Gordon “drills down” on the Habs winning streak. In looking in all the familiar places a few hundred yards off shore, he claimed to turn up sand, not oil. As for drilling deeper, it seems he’d rather assume it’d only turn up sea water. Outside the metaphor, he decided to call it luck or law of averages or whatever you like, after he’d checked the shots, blocked shots and PP numbers.
It’s a fair point and one that I see more and more people subscribing to. Basically, as Sean puts it:
Both theories, Sean's and that of those who distill to the only cold hard facts there are imply that the Canadiens fate is at least in some part out of their own control. The notion that what will happen will happen due to so many factors, it hardly bears thinking about.
What this leads me to is the question: "Is the exercise of playing 100 games with all of us watching really just an elaborate exercise in coin flipping?" Provided the coins (teams) are relatively balanced (sorry Florida most years), are the outcomes really just hinged on whether someone’s skate happens to deflect a puck an inch inside or outside the post?
My feeling is that it is not. I may well be deluding myself.
Teams wouldn’t bother to hire scouts, coaches and all the rest of the entourage if it were thus. Surely if we can admit that teams can be off the pace at the bottom end of things (Florida’s decade) then we must have room for the idea that some teams at the top are off the pace set by some of the others. How?
Personnel. By this I mean players as well as scouts and coaches.
Fitness. This may be leveling out, but I don’t think its level yet, amazing as that is to digest.
Tactics. It’s clear as day that some teams operate with different tactical priorities to others. I’d think that many tactics fluctuate in efficiency in this relative way.
Execution. Some players are innately more efficient at executing plays than others (personnel), but I think that some plays can be learned. Execution of plays is what people must be trying to influence with practice (or is that just for internet traffic?)
I think all these matter. I think all these can be conrolled in some way by the team and its organization. I think this is part of each game, albeit the part we don't see.
So if that's true, what has changed with these parameters in a week?
We’re kind of stuck on the personnel front, though Engqvist for Nokelainen did some good. Fitness isn’t something that can change overnight. Tactics and execution can be changed (Olivier pointed out the change in the way three forwards are attacking now vs. then). But it’s hard to see what really changed over a week.
One thing's for sure, trying to answer this question is not simple at all, and definitely produces answers that are hard to justify. It’s easy to see why people assume it’ll be a futile drilling exercise.
But maybe this is because we’re just asking the wrong question. Or maybe trying to answer the question by looking at the wrong data set.
After all, I don’t really need an answer that proves to me the Habs have some chance of winning after a loss. I’ve watched enough to know the odds aren’t nil.
Maybe when we ask what has made the Habs win this week, our fixation is not with the week, but rather what the week might tell us about our true concerns. As a group of fans that is hoping there are people in the Canadiens organization taking some actions to get a step ahead of rivals, aren’t we looking beyond October, November, 2011 anyway?
The ultimate question then, as it probably always should be until that future June night: “Is this team good enough to win the championship?”. And perhaps: “Does this stretch of 11 games tell us anything in that regard?”.
I can only answer for myself, but I’d say yes.
The good signs are there. The team is not allowing themselves to be wildly outshot or outchanced and mostly they are doing this by limiting good chances against. The team and its individual parts seem to be learning as they go.
But there are troubling signs too, not forgotten after a week. The team is rigid in its approach to offense. And without flexibility, they have had trouble when either teams figure that out or just get a big enough lead. The team’s strategy of choice for defending a lead seems to put them more at the mercy of luck than the teams who are defending their leads against the Habs (by that I mean puck concession is dangerously prone to bad bounces).
History will show that these flags aren’t really new. For years this has been the run-down on the Habs. Maybe that’s why my assessment hasn’t actually changed much since September. But this team doesn’t look in many ways to have changed very substantially from teams of Octobers past. Reasonable then to think that without adequate change in approach, change in results might not be drastic.
In a round-about way, I think I’ve argued that I think Sean Gordon (and even the they won because they won crew) was correct. I think those assessments were pretty dead on – for this team. The team is good enough to beat anyone on a given night, but flawed enough to lose as well.
But I’d disagree that this is the way for every team, so that all fans should just resign itself to this epic series of coin tosses. I’d disagree that none of the coins can be weighted. A team like Washington has rigged the game enough in my opinion to make their bets better than 50-50. Quite some margin better.
Take this opinion as you like, but I’d suggest to you that it’d be good news if it were proven fact. Because I tell you what Habs fans, if it’s all just averages, it don’t look good for this team which nabbed 24 Cups in 75 or so opportunities.
The trend I am responding to is the one where everyone has a go at deciding why the Canadiens, so bad a week ago, suddenly veered to victory 3 times in a row to restore the hopes and dreams of millions.
Yesterday, I read a few accounts in which the authors’ insight was that Habs won more games because they didn’t lose. Wait that’s unfair, they actually did go a step further than that – that the team won because they scored more goals than the other team.
Today, Sean Gordon “drills down” on the Habs winning streak. In looking in all the familiar places a few hundred yards off shore, he claimed to turn up sand, not oil. As for drilling deeper, it seems he’d rather assume it’d only turn up sea water. Outside the metaphor, he decided to call it luck or law of averages or whatever you like, after he’d checked the shots, blocked shots and PP numbers.
It’s a fair point and one that I see more and more people subscribing to. Basically, as Sean puts it:
The margin between winning and losing for a team like the Habs (or the Bruins, Sabres, Leafs and even Capitals and Penguins) has become unimaginably narrow.His explanation that small things make the difference ultimately.
Both theories, Sean's and that of those who distill to the only cold hard facts there are imply that the Canadiens fate is at least in some part out of their own control. The notion that what will happen will happen due to so many factors, it hardly bears thinking about.
What this leads me to is the question: "Is the exercise of playing 100 games with all of us watching really just an elaborate exercise in coin flipping?" Provided the coins (teams) are relatively balanced (sorry Florida most years), are the outcomes really just hinged on whether someone’s skate happens to deflect a puck an inch inside or outside the post?
My feeling is that it is not. I may well be deluding myself.
Teams wouldn’t bother to hire scouts, coaches and all the rest of the entourage if it were thus. Surely if we can admit that teams can be off the pace at the bottom end of things (Florida’s decade) then we must have room for the idea that some teams at the top are off the pace set by some of the others. How?
Personnel. By this I mean players as well as scouts and coaches.
Fitness. This may be leveling out, but I don’t think its level yet, amazing as that is to digest.
Tactics. It’s clear as day that some teams operate with different tactical priorities to others. I’d think that many tactics fluctuate in efficiency in this relative way.
Execution. Some players are innately more efficient at executing plays than others (personnel), but I think that some plays can be learned. Execution of plays is what people must be trying to influence with practice (or is that just for internet traffic?)
I think all these matter. I think all these can be conrolled in some way by the team and its organization. I think this is part of each game, albeit the part we don't see.
So if that's true, what has changed with these parameters in a week?
We’re kind of stuck on the personnel front, though Engqvist for Nokelainen did some good. Fitness isn’t something that can change overnight. Tactics and execution can be changed (Olivier pointed out the change in the way three forwards are attacking now vs. then). But it’s hard to see what really changed over a week.
One thing's for sure, trying to answer this question is not simple at all, and definitely produces answers that are hard to justify. It’s easy to see why people assume it’ll be a futile drilling exercise.
But maybe this is because we’re just asking the wrong question. Or maybe trying to answer the question by looking at the wrong data set.
After all, I don’t really need an answer that proves to me the Habs have some chance of winning after a loss. I’ve watched enough to know the odds aren’t nil.
Maybe when we ask what has made the Habs win this week, our fixation is not with the week, but rather what the week might tell us about our true concerns. As a group of fans that is hoping there are people in the Canadiens organization taking some actions to get a step ahead of rivals, aren’t we looking beyond October, November, 2011 anyway?
The ultimate question then, as it probably always should be until that future June night: “Is this team good enough to win the championship?”. And perhaps: “Does this stretch of 11 games tell us anything in that regard?”.
I can only answer for myself, but I’d say yes.
The good signs are there. The team is not allowing themselves to be wildly outshot or outchanced and mostly they are doing this by limiting good chances against. The team and its individual parts seem to be learning as they go.
But there are troubling signs too, not forgotten after a week. The team is rigid in its approach to offense. And without flexibility, they have had trouble when either teams figure that out or just get a big enough lead. The team’s strategy of choice for defending a lead seems to put them more at the mercy of luck than the teams who are defending their leads against the Habs (by that I mean puck concession is dangerously prone to bad bounces).
History will show that these flags aren’t really new. For years this has been the run-down on the Habs. Maybe that’s why my assessment hasn’t actually changed much since September. But this team doesn’t look in many ways to have changed very substantially from teams of Octobers past. Reasonable then to think that without adequate change in approach, change in results might not be drastic.
In a round-about way, I think I’ve argued that I think Sean Gordon (and even the they won because they won crew) was correct. I think those assessments were pretty dead on – for this team. The team is good enough to beat anyone on a given night, but flawed enough to lose as well.
But I’d disagree that this is the way for every team, so that all fans should just resign itself to this epic series of coin tosses. I’d disagree that none of the coins can be weighted. A team like Washington has rigged the game enough in my opinion to make their bets better than 50-50. Quite some margin better.
Take this opinion as you like, but I’d suggest to you that it’d be good news if it were proven fact. Because I tell you what Habs fans, if it’s all just averages, it don’t look good for this team which nabbed 24 Cups in 75 or so opportunities.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
First Goal All Important?
Before the playoffs, I read an article that said the team that would score the first goal would go on to win the entire series nearly 80% of the time. Now that three games in this series have been won by the team that scored first, the clever clever media are jumping all over the "all-important" first goal.
As usual with these half-baked stories, the analysis ends at the immediate past. The crux of any conclusion being that last week the team in the Boston Montreal series that scored first won.
Terribly scientific. 3 games sampled, what more could one ask for?
The first elephant in the room is that both these teams just played a whole season's worth of hockey during which they demonstrated many tendencies and displayed many habits and trends. One might think a glance at what happened in the season might be in order. But wouldn't that be good reporting?
Let's do that, shall we?
Boston and Montreal are both quality with the lead
This season Boston posted an outstanding 30-6-6 record when they had the lead. Top-notch defense and good chippy offense all season, you'd expect that to happen. But how about Montreal: 32-6-6, even better. Converting 44 first goals into 70 points in the regular season.
Boston did not roll over an die in the regular season
To go with their impressive record when scoring first, the Bruins also had a quality comeback record. 16-19-5 for the season. This was top 5 in the league by raw comeback wins and also by percentages. Only Washington with 23 comeback wins from 47 first goal deficits was better.
Montreal on the whole was not as good at coming back. Their record for 2010-11 was 12-24-2. The team didn't completely give up when scored on first, but they didn't do quite as well as the elite teams in the league. That is, if you consider the entire season.
As we know things over the season change significantly. 6 months is a long time and besides streaks and slumps, there can be significant changes in personnel. For the Habs, one of the big changes came at the end of December with Wisniewski coming in to replace Markov who had missed all but 7 games to that point. Gorges was also out, so Subban was placed with Hal Gill.
Round about that time, frustration was also mounting with Habs fans that if the team didn't score first, they'd be down and out (often being shutout, actually). It wasn't good. LIW posted this article that illustrated the issue.
Long story short. the Habs got better, they learned to come back. In fact from December 31st on (a 44-game span) the team went behind a total of 23 times. but instead of losing the vast majority, the Habs pulled out 9 wins and 2 OTLs from those first goal deficits (20 points in the standings).
This was a turning point in this regard, as one can see that prior to the turn of the year, the Habs record was 3-12-1 when allowing the first goal.
In fairness, we must see if the Bruins also turned the same trick. interestingly, they did. In their last 44 games, the Bruins actually allowed the first goal 21 times and posted 22 points (10-9-2) from those games.
Well so what?
The finding here is that while both the Bruins and Canadiens were formidable shut-down teams, it turns out that both teams were also pretty excellent comeback teams, particularly in the new year (or only in the New Year in the Habs case). The finding is something that plays out before our eyes. When the Canadiens were winning in Game 1, the Bruins weren't down and out and for a good stretch looked like the better team, fully capable of closing the gap and wining. Ditto for the result on Monday night, when the Habs came within inches of tying and taking the momentum from their superior second half of the game into a comeback bid overtime.
All that to say, it's not as simple as who scores first. It's not enough to score first. The first goal is but one goal, and unless backed up by another goal or shutout goaltending (which usually takes some pretty exceptional saves) then it is but one goal.
Boston won the other day because they scored 3 goals, not because they scored first. Montreal won in Boston because first Carey price, then some good luck made their 2 and 3 goals stand up.
Scoring first is important, but let's not make it more than it is. After all, we already have faceoffs for that.
I'll go further. The goal that seals the first comeback victory in this series will be more important that any first goal to date.
As usual with these half-baked stories, the analysis ends at the immediate past. The crux of any conclusion being that last week the team in the Boston Montreal series that scored first won.
Terribly scientific. 3 games sampled, what more could one ask for?
The first elephant in the room is that both these teams just played a whole season's worth of hockey during which they demonstrated many tendencies and displayed many habits and trends. One might think a glance at what happened in the season might be in order. But wouldn't that be good reporting?
Let's do that, shall we?
Boston and Montreal are both quality with the lead
This season Boston posted an outstanding 30-6-6 record when they had the lead. Top-notch defense and good chippy offense all season, you'd expect that to happen. But how about Montreal: 32-6-6, even better. Converting 44 first goals into 70 points in the regular season.
Boston did not roll over an die in the regular season
To go with their impressive record when scoring first, the Bruins also had a quality comeback record. 16-19-5 for the season. This was top 5 in the league by raw comeback wins and also by percentages. Only Washington with 23 comeback wins from 47 first goal deficits was better.
Montreal on the whole was not as good at coming back. Their record for 2010-11 was 12-24-2. The team didn't completely give up when scored on first, but they didn't do quite as well as the elite teams in the league. That is, if you consider the entire season.
As we know things over the season change significantly. 6 months is a long time and besides streaks and slumps, there can be significant changes in personnel. For the Habs, one of the big changes came at the end of December with Wisniewski coming in to replace Markov who had missed all but 7 games to that point. Gorges was also out, so Subban was placed with Hal Gill.
Round about that time, frustration was also mounting with Habs fans that if the team didn't score first, they'd be down and out (often being shutout, actually). It wasn't good. LIW posted this article that illustrated the issue.
Long story short. the Habs got better, they learned to come back. In fact from December 31st on (a 44-game span) the team went behind a total of 23 times. but instead of losing the vast majority, the Habs pulled out 9 wins and 2 OTLs from those first goal deficits (20 points in the standings).
This was a turning point in this regard, as one can see that prior to the turn of the year, the Habs record was 3-12-1 when allowing the first goal.
In fairness, we must see if the Bruins also turned the same trick. interestingly, they did. In their last 44 games, the Bruins actually allowed the first goal 21 times and posted 22 points (10-9-2) from those games.
Well so what?
The finding here is that while both the Bruins and Canadiens were formidable shut-down teams, it turns out that both teams were also pretty excellent comeback teams, particularly in the new year (or only in the New Year in the Habs case). The finding is something that plays out before our eyes. When the Canadiens were winning in Game 1, the Bruins weren't down and out and for a good stretch looked like the better team, fully capable of closing the gap and wining. Ditto for the result on Monday night, when the Habs came within inches of tying and taking the momentum from their superior second half of the game into a comeback bid overtime.
All that to say, it's not as simple as who scores first. It's not enough to score first. The first goal is but one goal, and unless backed up by another goal or shutout goaltending (which usually takes some pretty exceptional saves) then it is but one goal.
Boston won the other day because they scored 3 goals, not because they scored first. Montreal won in Boston because first Carey price, then some good luck made their 2 and 3 goals stand up.
Scoring first is important, but let's not make it more than it is. After all, we already have faceoffs for that.
I'll go further. The goal that seals the first comeback victory in this series will be more important that any first goal to date.
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, May 18, 2010
The Canadiens Need A Rethink
The other night was a mess for the Canadiens. But of the many ways to lose, 6-0 is not the worst. In fact, Don Cherry joined many a fan in thinking that a drubbing may be just the medicine for the Canadiens to open this series. A call as to what they need to expect and how far they have yet to go.
It’s a theory I have heartily bought all my years. When rivals of equal measure meet, the lopsided defeat is often the sounding of the turnaround alarm. An OT defeat, as Cherry points out gives too much optimism, sometimes warranted, often not.
It is the binding hope of all Habs fans today that Pronger, Leighton, Carle and Gagne will be so sure of their plans and abilities that they’ll forget the Canadiens are allowed to play better. It is the hope fed by that win that Carcillo and Hartnell will be unleashed, listening no more to their coach (and restrainer) as they try to get in on the act, while taking their eye off the prize.
Not minutes after a rare meeting of minds between Cherry and me did Elliotte (still dying for someone to answer a question) Friedman chat with Daniel Briere in the hallway of the Wachovia underbelly.
It was there the spanner in the works. It was there I realized that the Canadiens must beware not Briere’s shot, but his realism. For, while he succeeded in pointing a screened effort into the top corner in the second, most shots do not go in. But realism in the face of what should be bald-faced optimism by all Flyers is disturbing.
Briere would not take the bait from Elliotte on Halak, though he did admit they had looked at tape. Briere instead chose to invoke luck and timing rather than take the heaps of credit 6-0 victors usually reserve for their celebrations. It was fortune that felled Halak and fortune that prevented an answer from the bleu, blanc, rouge.
Not taking credit is nothing new. Players often credit their teammates, their goalie or their coach for what has clearly been successful exploits of their own. Players too often thank their luck.
The problem here is, rarely do I believe them.
In Briere’s case, there was too much matter-of-fact to sense it was rehearsed. He believed what he said, or so I thought.
The hockey playoffs are a race to the finish line. Each series a heat where a competitor must outrun another to succeed to the next.
As a racer, I learned a lot about psychological advantage, mind games. Most competitors have a breaking point, the point at which a lead cannot be covered, a comeback unattainable. Most competitors also have the inverse, a comfort zone from which they can drive the whole affair. The games come in with the strategy; sometimes a racer will allow his rival to lead to exploit the comfort that the lead induces, conserving energy for the strike that takes the tape away.
We’ve seen already that both these teams are plucky. Neither will roll over and die if there is a shred to hang onto. If the Canadiens, like their fans and Don Cherry, hoped that lulling the Flyers into a sleepy series was their key, I think they’d better think again. If these Flyers look to Daniel Briere in the least, they are a focused bunch.
It’s a theory I have heartily bought all my years. When rivals of equal measure meet, the lopsided defeat is often the sounding of the turnaround alarm. An OT defeat, as Cherry points out gives too much optimism, sometimes warranted, often not.
It is the binding hope of all Habs fans today that Pronger, Leighton, Carle and Gagne will be so sure of their plans and abilities that they’ll forget the Canadiens are allowed to play better. It is the hope fed by that win that Carcillo and Hartnell will be unleashed, listening no more to their coach (and restrainer) as they try to get in on the act, while taking their eye off the prize.
Not minutes after a rare meeting of minds between Cherry and me did Elliotte (still dying for someone to answer a question) Friedman chat with Daniel Briere in the hallway of the Wachovia underbelly.
It was there the spanner in the works. It was there I realized that the Canadiens must beware not Briere’s shot, but his realism. For, while he succeeded in pointing a screened effort into the top corner in the second, most shots do not go in. But realism in the face of what should be bald-faced optimism by all Flyers is disturbing.
Briere would not take the bait from Elliotte on Halak, though he did admit they had looked at tape. Briere instead chose to invoke luck and timing rather than take the heaps of credit 6-0 victors usually reserve for their celebrations. It was fortune that felled Halak and fortune that prevented an answer from the bleu, blanc, rouge.
Not taking credit is nothing new. Players often credit their teammates, their goalie or their coach for what has clearly been successful exploits of their own. Players too often thank their luck.
The problem here is, rarely do I believe them.
In Briere’s case, there was too much matter-of-fact to sense it was rehearsed. He believed what he said, or so I thought.
The hockey playoffs are a race to the finish line. Each series a heat where a competitor must outrun another to succeed to the next.
As a racer, I learned a lot about psychological advantage, mind games. Most competitors have a breaking point, the point at which a lead cannot be covered, a comeback unattainable. Most competitors also have the inverse, a comfort zone from which they can drive the whole affair. The games come in with the strategy; sometimes a racer will allow his rival to lead to exploit the comfort that the lead induces, conserving energy for the strike that takes the tape away.
We’ve seen already that both these teams are plucky. Neither will roll over and die if there is a shred to hang onto. If the Canadiens, like their fans and Don Cherry, hoped that lulling the Flyers into a sleepy series was their key, I think they’d better think again. If these Flyers look to Daniel Briere in the least, they are a focused bunch.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Come On Habs Fans
Plenty of reason to be positive
If you watched the games this weekend, you'd be feeling down enough. But the Montreal media, the blogosphere and frothing pessimists have taken this 50-game mark as a definitive opportunity to kick all optimists while they're down.
I have to concede that we do join in the fun. In my case, I tried to limit the sucker punch to the area of your cranium reserved for feelings of pity and/or NHL forwards incapable of, well, going forward. But in general I think we try to portray our general and misguided optimism that once led us to believe the Habs would score 5 goals in 20 minutes to keep the playoff series against the Canes alive and still leads us to believe that anything is possible in 2010.
On that note, I direct all the pessimists to read the latest doom and gloom churned out from Pat Hickey and Eyes on the Prize. I invite all left (optimists, I presume) to consider all the good stuff ahead:
1) We won't need 93 points this year
A lot of articles point to the wins the Canadiens will need to achieve their 2009 point total which saw them into the playoffs on a tie-break. Don't believe the hype. Because the whole East has done a tremendous impression of the Southeast division this year, the West has won 96 of 170 contests. That means there are less points to actually go around.
Because some games are East vs. East, there are a minimum number or points left to be spread around us and our rivals. By my count the minimum is 392 points (or about 26 points each), but that would mean no OTLs and losing all games to the West form here. The maximum is 788 points (or 52 each), which means winning all Western games and going to OT each and every time out in intra-conference games – just as nonsensical.
Consider this, though, if trends continue as they've been going then there are 537 points to go around all Eastern teams. That means about 36 points each. If the Canadiens steal points over and above 36 from the right teams (or if Western teams, top Eastern or bottom Eastern teams do) then we're in like Flynn.
So banish 93. I won't promise 86 points will do it, but it could well suffice. 18 wins from 32 games doesn't seem impossible. Neither does 15-11-6...
2) More interesting games
I'm not only referring to Habs games here – those are always interesting. But maybe you'll all join me in becoming the newest big fans of New Jersey, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Washington and every Western team playing the East.
At the beginning of the year, I couldn't care less about Sabres v. Panthers or Caps v. Isles. But now these games take on a new sheen. If the Canadiens had put more points in the bank, what would I worry about when Sportscentre fires up on off days?
3) Some GMs are ready to take the dive
In Montreal, it's unheard of. Tank a season? No chance. But as parity is shown to be for the mediocre, teams that see little chance of Stanley's Cup may look to the lottery ball instead. Teams like Tampa who need more young core, Florida who can't alienate anymore fans and Hurricanes who might finally tank it properly all could go for it. We play these teams. We can win these games if they let us.
4) Teams will start playing their back-ups
It goes hand in hand with the above, but winning teams will also join the ranks. When planning for long runs of games and expected playoff workloads, back-up goalies start to see the light of day. If you were choosing teams to send Yann Danis against, wouldn't league worst in shots for look good? Ah, our clever ruse...
5) More features on Latendresse, Koivu and Kovalev
At first it seemed like we may miss our old friends, but as the Habs slip while others flourish (more or less), we get constant updates on how our departed heroes are doing. It makes it seem like they never left.
6) You can enjoy the Olympic hockey for the hockey
Imagine if you can being a Pens fan. The Olympics are a nightmare. First of all, your country entrusted player selection to a crack team of GMs who haven't seen the happy side of 90 points in some time. Next, all your best players are going and playing for countries you've barely heard of, let alone can point to on a map (Canada, Russia) and risk injuring themselves in a pursuit you don't understand.
The Habs have no such conundrum. Firstly, many players played poorly enough thus far to ensure a lengthy beach volleyball tournament will be their only chance at injury in late February. Secondly, what's the difference? The Olympic medal will be the only award anyone of the players gets a chance to look at this season. No one, after Pat Hickey has confirmed our doom, need worry about a twisted ankle ruining a Cup run.
So you see there's plenty to keep your spirits up. A few are reasons to believe this mediocrity will be enough, some that the mediocrity will bring benefits and then the final consolations of the Olympic tournament.
It's not as bad as the naysayers say. Keep the chins up Habs fans. Go Habs. Go.
I have to concede that we do join in the fun. In my case, I tried to limit the sucker punch to the area of your cranium reserved for feelings of pity and/or NHL forwards incapable of, well, going forward. But in general I think we try to portray our general and misguided optimism that once led us to believe the Habs would score 5 goals in 20 minutes to keep the playoff series against the Canes alive and still leads us to believe that anything is possible in 2010.
On that note, I direct all the pessimists to read the latest doom and gloom churned out from Pat Hickey and Eyes on the Prize. I invite all left (optimists, I presume) to consider all the good stuff ahead:
1) We won't need 93 points this year
A lot of articles point to the wins the Canadiens will need to achieve their 2009 point total which saw them into the playoffs on a tie-break. Don't believe the hype. Because the whole East has done a tremendous impression of the Southeast division this year, the West has won 96 of 170 contests. That means there are less points to actually go around.
Because some games are East vs. East, there are a minimum number or points left to be spread around us and our rivals. By my count the minimum is 392 points (or about 26 points each), but that would mean no OTLs and losing all games to the West form here. The maximum is 788 points (or 52 each), which means winning all Western games and going to OT each and every time out in intra-conference games – just as nonsensical.
Consider this, though, if trends continue as they've been going then there are 537 points to go around all Eastern teams. That means about 36 points each. If the Canadiens steal points over and above 36 from the right teams (or if Western teams, top Eastern or bottom Eastern teams do) then we're in like Flynn.
So banish 93. I won't promise 86 points will do it, but it could well suffice. 18 wins from 32 games doesn't seem impossible. Neither does 15-11-6...
2) More interesting games
I'm not only referring to Habs games here – those are always interesting. But maybe you'll all join me in becoming the newest big fans of New Jersey, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Washington and every Western team playing the East.
At the beginning of the year, I couldn't care less about Sabres v. Panthers or Caps v. Isles. But now these games take on a new sheen. If the Canadiens had put more points in the bank, what would I worry about when Sportscentre fires up on off days?
3) Some GMs are ready to take the dive
In Montreal, it's unheard of. Tank a season? No chance. But as parity is shown to be for the mediocre, teams that see little chance of Stanley's Cup may look to the lottery ball instead. Teams like Tampa who need more young core, Florida who can't alienate anymore fans and Hurricanes who might finally tank it properly all could go for it. We play these teams. We can win these games if they let us.
4) Teams will start playing their back-ups
It goes hand in hand with the above, but winning teams will also join the ranks. When planning for long runs of games and expected playoff workloads, back-up goalies start to see the light of day. If you were choosing teams to send Yann Danis against, wouldn't league worst in shots for look good? Ah, our clever ruse...
5) More features on Latendresse, Koivu and Kovalev
At first it seemed like we may miss our old friends, but as the Habs slip while others flourish (more or less), we get constant updates on how our departed heroes are doing. It makes it seem like they never left.
6) You can enjoy the Olympic hockey for the hockey
Imagine if you can being a Pens fan. The Olympics are a nightmare. First of all, your country entrusted player selection to a crack team of GMs who haven't seen the happy side of 90 points in some time. Next, all your best players are going and playing for countries you've barely heard of, let alone can point to on a map (Canada, Russia) and risk injuring themselves in a pursuit you don't understand.
The Habs have no such conundrum. Firstly, many players played poorly enough thus far to ensure a lengthy beach volleyball tournament will be their only chance at injury in late February. Secondly, what's the difference? The Olympic medal will be the only award anyone of the players gets a chance to look at this season. No one, after Pat Hickey has confirmed our doom, need worry about a twisted ankle ruining a Cup run.
So you see there's plenty to keep your spirits up. A few are reasons to believe this mediocrity will be enough, some that the mediocrity will bring benefits and then the final consolations of the Olympic tournament.
It's not as bad as the naysayers say. Keep the chins up Habs fans. Go Habs. Go.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Toronto Fans Try Valiantly To Break Hex
Support the Maple Leafs?
Wondering why you haven't won a Cup in 42 years?
Some fans seem to have cracked the code. It's the logo stupid.
The website includes a petition calling for a return to the Leafs sweater that didn't carry a curse.
Down Goes Brown sums it up very succinctly:
The basic argument [behind changing the logo] seems to go like this:
DGB goes on to give altogether too sensible argument to the alternate case, which would see the Leafs keeping their current uniforms – mainly so he can keep wearing his Wendel Clark gear to games.
While I do appreciate some good sense in small doses, I think DGB misses the point here: losing streaks are caused by curses not management. Deep down he must know that it was a modern-style Leaf and not trading draft picks for the Calle Johanssons of the world that cost the Leafs in the final hurdle.
Meanwhile a separate group of fans has come up with an equally compelling theory as to Toronto's championship drought:
Playing in the NHL
In many ways I think the move to the AHL would be easier for the Leafs than changing the uniforms anyway.
Whereas changing the sweaters would cause a massive upheaval for the fans; the current Leafs would barely have to be tweaked to make a go at a Calder Cup thanks to the excellent work of Brian Burke – since they already boast 12 AHL calibre forwards in their starting lineup.
On to Montreal...
Don't forget Habs fans, we're not living in the land of plenty anymore either. Now that we've eliminated the possibility that we weren't winning the Cup because we didn't have Patrice Brisebois on the team, I wonder what other possibilities we have. I put that one to you...
Wondering why you haven't won a Cup in 42 years?
Some fans seem to have cracked the code. It's the logo stupid.
[Since] the Leafs decided to create special uniforms for the 1967 Stanley Cup Playoffs, to a Maple Leaf similar to what was on the Canadian Flag. They would go on to win the Stanley Cup that season, but wouldn’t ever do so wearing the design for a full season.
The website includes a petition calling for a return to the Leafs sweater that didn't carry a curse.
Down Goes Brown sums it up very succinctly:
The basic argument [behind changing the logo] seems to go like this:
- The modern version is associated with the Ballard era, the darkest period in Leafs history.
- The old version has as much (or more) tradition behind it, and was worn for 10 of the Leafs' 11 Cups.
- Everyone seems to like the alternate jerseys better these days, so why not make them permanent?
DGB goes on to give altogether too sensible argument to the alternate case, which would see the Leafs keeping their current uniforms – mainly so he can keep wearing his Wendel Clark gear to games.
While I do appreciate some good sense in small doses, I think DGB misses the point here: losing streaks are caused by curses not management. Deep down he must know that it was a modern-style Leaf and not trading draft picks for the Calle Johanssons of the world that cost the Leafs in the final hurdle.
Meanwhile a separate group of fans has come up with an equally compelling theory as to Toronto's championship drought:
Playing in the NHL
"I love the Leafs. But, it’s about time they became competitive. Which is why they need to be moved to the AHL."says Roger Jolie of MakeItFive.ca
In many ways I think the move to the AHL would be easier for the Leafs than changing the uniforms anyway.
Whereas changing the sweaters would cause a massive upheaval for the fans; the current Leafs would barely have to be tweaked to make a go at a Calder Cup thanks to the excellent work of Brian Burke – since they already boast 12 AHL calibre forwards in their starting lineup.
On to Montreal...
Don't forget Habs fans, we're not living in the land of plenty anymore either. Now that we've eliminated the possibility that we weren't winning the Cup because we didn't have Patrice Brisebois on the team, I wonder what other possibilities we have. I put that one to you...
Friday, April 03, 2009
Canadiens Wrap Up Their "100th Season" Celebrations
Last night, while the Canadiens players put on a show against a team of NHL novices to a subdued crowd of what might as well have been a few hundred given the excitement; the Canadiens organisation and extended family were busy filling the Bell Centre with the customary roar of applause.
By all accounts, the celebration was great and on a great scale. This blogger expresses his amazement at the sight of so many Habs greats, the thrill of mingling with politicians and mentions how the orchestra played hockey music where they could (such as the HNIC theme, among other tunes).
The Gazette covered the story in its entertainment section, but all proof of its existence on the sports pages or their satellites seems to be missing. It nevertheless gave the impression that this was the show to watch if you wanted to be entertained from 7:30 pm last night:
The night sounded like an out-and-out success. Certainly from an entertainment and musical standpoint. The night also served as the launch for the MSO foundation, which it self was a smashing success to rival a 5-1 playoff-solidifying romp, as a whopping $2 million was raised!
At the beginning of the year, I remember writing that this would be one of the absolute highlights of the Canadiens celebratory calendar. I remember others saying as much. But I sit here feeling like the only one to remember the big party even happened.
Never mind that "Canadiens Hall of Fame" comes up with virtually no relevant results despite the fact it was meant to open this week. I did manage to find (with some trouble) that it does exist.
Considering all the fanfare that surrounded the initial announcements and the early events like the Builders' night, this decline is surprising. It's clear the ADD media gang moved on long, long ago on this one; but have the Canadiens moved on too? If so, does anyone think they're regretting starting their 100th season celebrations in their 99th season of play? Will anyone be able to muster any excitement by the time the 100th anniversary rolls around 4 years after that first press release?
Have the Canadiens soured on the whole thing at this point?
As I was saying, it seems to me that we are hearing less and less about 100 seasons these past few weeks than we had been for the preceding few hundred weeks (the first press release was 3 1/2 years ago). The players have other things on their minds, as do the coaches and GM (/coach). One has to think the fact the owner and his administrative support also have other things on their minds just now as well.
If the MSO concert had taken place in October with the parade of Cup winners who turned up, this event would surely have made the front page of the Gazette. Probably even the sports pages, and Habs Inside/Out would not have overlooked it altogether.
Even the whole shirt thing has been played down more recently than say in December. Tobalev was right to point out that the Canadiens wore a different shirt than the one they were slated to wear.
According to RDS:
"Le Canadien devait porter son uniforme dit de "barbier" de la saison 1912-1913. Bob Gainey a estimé que ce costume n'était pas approprié pour un match aussi important. Il s'est tourné vers l'uniforme plus sobre de la saison 1915-1916."
Don't blame the barber shirt
While we're all a bit fatigued by the centennial celebrations, I imagine. One can't really take it all out on the barber shirt can they? I mean, we saw it for all of 3 hours (except for that guy in the low bowl of the Bell Centre every game...). Even it's record isn't dismal enough to be blamed for the slide:
1970-71: 2-0-0, 8 GF, 4 GA
1945-46: 0-2-0, 2 GF, 5 GA
1915-16: 2-1-0, 12 GF, 8 GA
1912-13: 0-1-0, 1 GF, 3 GA
If you remember, that game was a tight 3-1 affair against the Bruins. We lost, but it also happened to be our best game over the span of a month. You could be forgiven for blaming the 45-46 vintage, which certainly didn't help anyone emulate the Punch line.
If you want something to blame, blame the whites that seem to bring the road play home:
White sweaters (Present day, 1970-71, 1945-46): 18-21-3
Red sweaters (Present day, 1915-16): 22-5-7
Alas, I'm sure Bob Gainey would put an end to the white sweaters and, more importantly, the road games if he could. Instead, he seems to have taken a look and don't what he could by putting a lid on the celebrations for the rest of the season, not just the fancy dress show. He seems to have realised that this team exists for the fans that watched a certain game in Long Island and not really those who went to meet Damphousse and Quintal after they trotted out to the strings of Beethoven.
Perhaps he was tired of giving the visitors one more reason to want to spoil the party. Or, maybe he realised that like the team did over this hockey season, this 100th season needs a rest, a talking too and a reboot before the big push:
I appreciate the pageantry when I see it, but I certainly don't mind waiting if Gainey thinks that might mean some more games against Boston or Washington...
By all accounts, the celebration was great and on a great scale. This blogger expresses his amazement at the sight of so many Habs greats, the thrill of mingling with politicians and mentions how the orchestra played hockey music where they could (such as the HNIC theme, among other tunes).
The Gazette covered the story in its entertainment section, but all proof of its existence on the sports pages or their satellites seems to be missing. It nevertheless gave the impression that this was the show to watch if you wanted to be entertained from 7:30 pm last night:
But again the proof was in the performance, galloping and remarkably clear. Nagano, looking animated, got much more than sheer sound out of the 1,500 singers. As for the solo quartet: two minutes for sounding so good.
The night sounded like an out-and-out success. Certainly from an entertainment and musical standpoint. The night also served as the launch for the MSO foundation, which it self was a smashing success to rival a 5-1 playoff-solidifying romp, as a whopping $2 million was raised!
At the beginning of the year, I remember writing that this would be one of the absolute highlights of the Canadiens celebratory calendar. I remember others saying as much. But I sit here feeling like the only one to remember the big party even happened.
April 2009
2. Montreal Symphony Orchestra Concert at the Bell Centre
Opening of the Montreal Canadiens Hall of Fame
Never mind that "Canadiens Hall of Fame" comes up with virtually no relevant results despite the fact it was meant to open this week. I did manage to find (with some trouble) that it does exist.
Considering all the fanfare that surrounded the initial announcements and the early events like the Builders' night, this decline is surprising. It's clear the ADD media gang moved on long, long ago on this one; but have the Canadiens moved on too? If so, does anyone think they're regretting starting their 100th season celebrations in their 99th season of play? Will anyone be able to muster any excitement by the time the 100th anniversary rolls around 4 years after that first press release?
Have the Canadiens soured on the whole thing at this point?
As I was saying, it seems to me that we are hearing less and less about 100 seasons these past few weeks than we had been for the preceding few hundred weeks (the first press release was 3 1/2 years ago). The players have other things on their minds, as do the coaches and GM (/coach). One has to think the fact the owner and his administrative support also have other things on their minds just now as well.
If the MSO concert had taken place in October with the parade of Cup winners who turned up, this event would surely have made the front page of the Gazette. Probably even the sports pages, and Habs Inside/Out would not have overlooked it altogether.
Even the whole shirt thing has been played down more recently than say in December. Tobalev was right to point out that the Canadiens wore a different shirt than the one they were slated to wear.
According to RDS:
"Le Canadien devait porter son uniforme dit de "barbier" de la saison 1912-1913. Bob Gainey a estimé que ce costume n'était pas approprié pour un match aussi important. Il s'est tourné vers l'uniforme plus sobre de la saison 1915-1916."
Don't blame the barber shirt
While we're all a bit fatigued by the centennial celebrations, I imagine. One can't really take it all out on the barber shirt can they? I mean, we saw it for all of 3 hours (except for that guy in the low bowl of the Bell Centre every game...). Even it's record isn't dismal enough to be blamed for the slide:
1970-71: 2-0-0, 8 GF, 4 GA
1945-46: 0-2-0, 2 GF, 5 GA
1915-16: 2-1-0, 12 GF, 8 GA
1912-13: 0-1-0, 1 GF, 3 GA
If you remember, that game was a tight 3-1 affair against the Bruins. We lost, but it also happened to be our best game over the span of a month. You could be forgiven for blaming the 45-46 vintage, which certainly didn't help anyone emulate the Punch line.
If you want something to blame, blame the whites that seem to bring the road play home:
White sweaters (Present day, 1970-71, 1945-46): 18-21-3
Red sweaters (Present day, 1915-16): 22-5-7
Alas, I'm sure Bob Gainey would put an end to the white sweaters and, more importantly, the road games if he could. Instead, he seems to have taken a look and don't what he could by putting a lid on the celebrations for the rest of the season, not just the fancy dress show. He seems to have realised that this team exists for the fans that watched a certain game in Long Island and not really those who went to meet Damphousse and Quintal after they trotted out to the strings of Beethoven.
Perhaps he was tired of giving the visitors one more reason to want to spoil the party. Or, maybe he realised that like the team did over this hockey season, this 100th season needs a rest, a talking too and a reboot before the big push:
2009-2010 SEASON
October, November, December 2009
Centennial Jersey Nights (1910 – 1911, 1909 – 1910)
December 2009
Public launch of the Canadiens motion picture « Pour toujours, les Canadiens ! »
4. Centennial game at the Bell Centre
5. Centennial Gala
I appreciate the pageantry when I see it, but I certainly don't mind waiting if Gainey thinks that might mean some more games against Boston or Washington...
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Shots Against
Counterintuition At Play
Montreal media lamenting a loss – too many shots against.
Montreal media complaining about an undeserved win – too man shots against.
Bob Gainey's analysis of Carbonneau's team – too many shots against.
Too many shots against is a bad strategy, it a consensus. It can be proven with stats...
Not so. Read this astounding piece on the Canadiens website. It turns everything you know about defence upside down.
In fact, the numbers are astounding:
96-86-41 in 2005-06
87-54-34 in 2006-07
78-57-28 in 2007-08
73-71-36 in 2008-09
Combine that's 334-268-139 for at least (because the stats end at 60 minutes) 807 points out of a possible 1482 – a 0.544 winning percentage.
Based on these averages, it would not be an insane coaching move to let up 40+ shots a a game, every game (provided you had the goalie to cope). If you did so over 82 games and averages played in your favour, you'd be in line for 37 wins, 30 losses and 15 trips to OT. Even if you lost every one of those OT games, you'd have 89 points. If you give your goalie some benefit of the doubt (after all he does rescue you 54% of the time in regulation) you could probably get 8 more points for a respectable and playoff-bound 97 points.
A very interesting article indeed...
I'm not sure what the reason for this oddity is, but it should be a combination of the following:
a) Goalies are better when facing more shots
b) Teams that take a lot of shots are being impatient
c) Teams taking a lot of shots are lost for ideas as to how to beat the goalie
d) A saved shot is a turnover opportunity
e) Paying for the top goalies (winners) leaves little money for paying a functional defensive corps
I'll let you guys decide which you think is more likely in a new poll in the right-hand column...
Montreal media complaining about an undeserved win – too man shots against.
Bob Gainey's analysis of Carbonneau's team – too many shots against.
Too many shots against is a bad strategy, it a consensus. It can be proven with stats...
Not so. Read this astounding piece on the Canadiens website. It turns everything you know about defence upside down.
"When the lockout ended and hockey returned in 2005-06, the NHL wanted to open up the game - have goalies face more rubber and perhaps have a few more get by them. While that was the wish, the pair don’t always go hand in hand. The league’s masked men have proven that the busier they are, the better they are."
In fact, the numbers are astounding:
96-86-41 in 2005-06
87-54-34 in 2006-07
78-57-28 in 2007-08
73-71-36 in 2008-09
Combine that's 334-268-139 for at least (because the stats end at 60 minutes) 807 points out of a possible 1482 – a 0.544 winning percentage.
Based on these averages, it would not be an insane coaching move to let up 40+ shots a a game, every game (provided you had the goalie to cope). If you did so over 82 games and averages played in your favour, you'd be in line for 37 wins, 30 losses and 15 trips to OT. Even if you lost every one of those OT games, you'd have 89 points. If you give your goalie some benefit of the doubt (after all he does rescue you 54% of the time in regulation) you could probably get 8 more points for a respectable and playoff-bound 97 points.
A very interesting article indeed...
I'm not sure what the reason for this oddity is, but it should be a combination of the following:
a) Goalies are better when facing more shots
b) Teams that take a lot of shots are being impatient
c) Teams taking a lot of shots are lost for ideas as to how to beat the goalie
d) A saved shot is a turnover opportunity
e) Paying for the top goalies (winners) leaves little money for paying a functional defensive corps
I'll let you guys decide which you think is more likely in a new poll in the right-hand column...
Monday, March 02, 2009
Top 6 Defenceman?
Target Sydor
It's a funny thing when it comes to Habs bloggers and trades – everyone seems to adopt a pet project.
In the summer, Arpon Basu of The Daily Hab-It was hot on Lang for about a month before the trade eventually happened. In retrospect, his instincts were right. Though, in actual fact, he had Lang here for faceoff wins and occasional scoring – rather than faceoff losses and team scoring lead...
Enter the trade deadline, and everyone is staking their territory again. The dreamers talk of Lecavalier and Bouwmeester – I wonder if they remember the salary cap? Erik Cole was just what we needed for a few minutes last week. Robert L of Eyes On The Prize is asking for another D in the form of Niclas Havelid.
I happen to think that Robert is right about the need still being at defence (or at least in a defensive-minded player). I think he's even on the right track in looking for a not-too-flashy fit-into-4th/5th/6th spot guy at this point.
Given the recent addition of Schneider, is it necessary though?
Schneider is instantly a top 2 offensive D for us and a top 4 defensive one. Mike Komisarek seems to be doing less damage as number 5 again. But, look down the lineup and tell me you're comfortable with Brisebois/Dandenault/Janik/O'Byrne/Henry in a tight playoff game.
So I have decided to put a trade stake in the mud for all to criticise and mock after we don't make the deal. I don't choose Havelid – who it should be pointed out has mostly been a regular defenceman on some pretty awful teams over his career.
Buying a house
You know that old adage about buying real estate? Never buy the best house in the bad neighbourhood. Buy a lesser house on the top street. I feel the very same way about defencemen, you know. Location, location, location.
That's why I suggest Darryl Sydor to be parachuted in to bolster our defence corps for the final portion of the season (however long that may be). Here's why:
– He has won two Stanley Cups
– He has played in no less than 5 Stanley Cup finals, including last year's
– Won a Memorial Cup and a WJC
– His teams have only missed the playoffs once since 1996 (and you can't blame him for LA)
– He has been a key deadline addition before (for Tampa)
– He says things like this:
– People say this kind of stuff about him:
– He is a respected leader
– He's not signed beyond this season
– He fits into our budget
– Gainey has used Sydor to build a champion before
Even if it weren't for anything I just listed above, the one thing that makes Sydor the target of choice is the fact he is a born winner. He frequently finds himself on teams that win (well after LA, anyway). From Junior, to 1993 to Dallas to Tampa to Pittsburgh to Team Canada. Winning follows him around in unexplained ways.
One simply cannot say the same about Niclas Havelid who has made the playoffs twice in 8 years, is rarely on a team that scored more goals than it allowed. Robert tells us he made the Stanley Cup finals. he doesn't note that Giguere's save percentage behind Havelid had to be .945 just to get there and lose.
Havelid is associated with losing. It's probably not his fault, but it's true. He has nothing to teach Josh Gorges. From the sounds of it, Darryl Sydor does:
Just an idea...
In the summer, Arpon Basu of The Daily Hab-It was hot on Lang for about a month before the trade eventually happened. In retrospect, his instincts were right. Though, in actual fact, he had Lang here for faceoff wins and occasional scoring – rather than faceoff losses and team scoring lead...
Enter the trade deadline, and everyone is staking their territory again. The dreamers talk of Lecavalier and Bouwmeester – I wonder if they remember the salary cap? Erik Cole was just what we needed for a few minutes last week. Robert L of Eyes On The Prize is asking for another D in the form of Niclas Havelid.
I happen to think that Robert is right about the need still being at defence (or at least in a defensive-minded player). I think he's even on the right track in looking for a not-too-flashy fit-into-4th/5th/6th spot guy at this point.
Given the recent addition of Schneider, is it necessary though?
Schneider is instantly a top 2 offensive D for us and a top 4 defensive one. Mike Komisarek seems to be doing less damage as number 5 again. But, look down the lineup and tell me you're comfortable with Brisebois/Dandenault/Janik/O'Byrne/Henry in a tight playoff game.
So I have decided to put a trade stake in the mud for all to criticise and mock after we don't make the deal. I don't choose Havelid – who it should be pointed out has mostly been a regular defenceman on some pretty awful teams over his career.
Buying a house
You know that old adage about buying real estate? Never buy the best house in the bad neighbourhood. Buy a lesser house on the top street. I feel the very same way about defencemen, you know. Location, location, location.
That's why I suggest Darryl Sydor to be parachuted in to bolster our defence corps for the final portion of the season (however long that may be). Here's why:
– He has won two Stanley Cups
– He has played in no less than 5 Stanley Cup finals, including last year's
– Won a Memorial Cup and a WJC
– His teams have only missed the playoffs once since 1996 (and you can't blame him for LA)
– He has been a key deadline addition before (for Tampa)
– He says things like this:
I just think that if you’re going to spend an hour a day in practice, you should do it right. Why go out there and waste time?
– People say this kind of stuff about him:
Unlike Mark Recchi, who openly chafed at his reserve role, Sydor refused to become a distraction, quietly doing some extra skating in order to keep ready.
– He is a respected leader
– He's not signed beyond this season
– He fits into our budget
– Gainey has used Sydor to build a champion before
Even if it weren't for anything I just listed above, the one thing that makes Sydor the target of choice is the fact he is a born winner. He frequently finds himself on teams that win (well after LA, anyway). From Junior, to 1993 to Dallas to Tampa to Pittsburgh to Team Canada. Winning follows him around in unexplained ways.
One simply cannot say the same about Niclas Havelid who has made the playoffs twice in 8 years, is rarely on a team that scored more goals than it allowed. Robert tells us he made the Stanley Cup finals. he doesn't note that Giguere's save percentage behind Havelid had to be .945 just to get there and lose.
Havelid is associated with losing. It's probably not his fault, but it's true. He has nothing to teach Josh Gorges. From the sounds of it, Darryl Sydor does:
Following Game 2, as several Penguins answered questions with dazed looks on their faces, unable to comprehend what was happening, Sydor sat down in a corner of the dressing room. Soon, the most respected player in the Penguins’ room, was joined by Brooks Orpik, Hal Gill, Ryan Whitney and Rob Scuderi. They wanted to hear what he had to say.
“We just talked about what was happening, why we were losing,” he said. “They wanted to know what it looked like out there.”
And they were listening. Intently. That’s why Therrien is turning to Sydor’s experience tonight. The hope is that the 15-year veteran will calm down the rattled Penguins.
Just an idea...
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The Bruins And The Habs: Poles Apart
This series is heating up. The games are interesting. The banter between fans almost more so. I have been reading around a bit and it got me thinking about how I cannot relate to anything Bruins fans say about their team, my team or, indeed, hockey.
In fact, growing up during an era when both the Bruins and the Canadiens were perennial fixtures (and often favourites) in the spring dance, I have come to appreciate that the Canadiens, the Bruins and their respective fans inhabit different planes.
Both sets of fans can watch the same game with the same players and the same referees. And come the end, most of the time, both sets of fans truly believe that their team was the better team (at least in past years). If Habs fans take the loss, we complain that our team was a victim of dirty play and inconsistent officiating. If the Bruins lose, their fans will lament the diving and whining that got the Habs the victory.
Don't buy it? I know I had conversations about the change in officiating with other fans and only just scrapped a piece I thought sounded a bit childish about inconsistent referees for the blog. As for the Bruins fans, check out this from a blogger on one of their sites (Ghosts of the Garden) in response to inflammatory jibes from an overzealous Habs fan:
The difference in club cultures
The difference in cultures goes beyond the perception of injustice. For as long as I can remember, the difference between these two teams comes down to the players the select in the draft, the ones they trade for and suit up and to the people they put in charge to run affairs.
If you look at the current edition of the Canadiens, the rule in building the franchise seems to have been players with skill and at least some character (some exceptions do exist, of course). The Bruins, in contrast, have put together a very large team. This was their preference. This was their plan. While the Habs jettisoned passengers like Downey and Dagenais, the Bruins continue to carry Reich and Thornton.
The Habs gave their highest ever contract to Andrei Markov. the Bruins gave theirs to Zdeno Chara. Things go wrong in the playoffs, Boston bench their smallest and most skilled forward. Montreal at their turn looked to try and get their 20-year-old phenom a better foil.
All this plays to the fans of course. Habs fans love goals and exciting, fast hockey. Bruins fans love winning just as much, but are often seen settling for a lot of huge body checks and oodles of "spirit". In Montreal, 5 years of plodding, hard-working hockey is remembered as one of the darkest periods in team history. Habs fans, while they admire the Lucics of the world want a goal now and again.
So what's the truth? (from a Habs fan's point of view, of course)
About the teams: probably that the Habs are a year or two ahead of the Bruins in a rebuilding process and that we got luckier with that free-for-all lottery and the gift of Carey Price.
About the fans: probably that we're all right and we're all wrong at the same time. The passionate nature of being a fan lends to irrational thought and to extreme bias in the analysis of what is right before your eyes. The fact is, both groups of fans are too engrossed in their own team and their own hockey culture to have time for silly things like self-awareness.
About the approaches of the two teams: skill has trumped size over the years. And that giants with competitive skills are harder to find than skilled players with a willingness to punch above their weight. Considering that the league was changed to favour teams like the one the Canadiens have built since that time, the Bruins fans may have to swallow many difficult pills if they want to hold onto their approach.
About the hard luck: you make your own luck. If you stick to an approach despite all evidence to the contrary and discount every failing as bad luck, you are bound to experience less success than others who don't
About this series: if the Bruins coaches and players can't put their heads together to find a way to score they are facing an impossible task – they won't beat the Habs, they wouldn't beat anyone. Even if they do, the odds are still against them.
I can see the responses coming (like this one from a pot calling a kettle black):
Now that nonsense is off my chest, I'll leave you with a "Go Habs Go" and a "Long live playoff banter".
In fact, growing up during an era when both the Bruins and the Canadiens were perennial fixtures (and often favourites) in the spring dance, I have come to appreciate that the Canadiens, the Bruins and their respective fans inhabit different planes.
Both sets of fans can watch the same game with the same players and the same referees. And come the end, most of the time, both sets of fans truly believe that their team was the better team (at least in past years). If Habs fans take the loss, we complain that our team was a victim of dirty play and inconsistent officiating. If the Bruins lose, their fans will lament the diving and whining that got the Habs the victory.
Don't buy it? I know I had conversations about the change in officiating with other fans and only just scrapped a piece I thought sounded a bit childish about inconsistent referees for the blog. As for the Bruins fans, check out this from a blogger on one of their sites (Ghosts of the Garden) in response to inflammatory jibes from an overzealous Habs fan:
too bad your team stinks too. lets face it the bruins are a team that probably do not deserve to be in the playoffs. your whining, diving and "skilled" team has barely won the the last two they have just meaked out.
what i saw was a bruins team that worked harder than the the "skilled" team. and what exactly are these skills? diving? slashing? trying to take out players knees? anyway what i saw from my team is a team that played honest and harder and did not get rewarded for it, ill take my team thank you.
and remember if you make it to the next round dont get your hopes up, your having a difficult time against the 8th seed.
The difference in club cultures
The difference in cultures goes beyond the perception of injustice. For as long as I can remember, the difference between these two teams comes down to the players the select in the draft, the ones they trade for and suit up and to the people they put in charge to run affairs.
If you look at the current edition of the Canadiens, the rule in building the franchise seems to have been players with skill and at least some character (some exceptions do exist, of course). The Bruins, in contrast, have put together a very large team. This was their preference. This was their plan. While the Habs jettisoned passengers like Downey and Dagenais, the Bruins continue to carry Reich and Thornton.
The Habs gave their highest ever contract to Andrei Markov. the Bruins gave theirs to Zdeno Chara. Things go wrong in the playoffs, Boston bench their smallest and most skilled forward. Montreal at their turn looked to try and get their 20-year-old phenom a better foil.
All this plays to the fans of course. Habs fans love goals and exciting, fast hockey. Bruins fans love winning just as much, but are often seen settling for a lot of huge body checks and oodles of "spirit". In Montreal, 5 years of plodding, hard-working hockey is remembered as one of the darkest periods in team history. Habs fans, while they admire the Lucics of the world want a goal now and again.
So what's the truth? (from a Habs fan's point of view, of course)
About the teams: probably that the Habs are a year or two ahead of the Bruins in a rebuilding process and that we got luckier with that free-for-all lottery and the gift of Carey Price.
About the fans: probably that we're all right and we're all wrong at the same time. The passionate nature of being a fan lends to irrational thought and to extreme bias in the analysis of what is right before your eyes. The fact is, both groups of fans are too engrossed in their own team and their own hockey culture to have time for silly things like self-awareness.
About the approaches of the two teams: skill has trumped size over the years. And that giants with competitive skills are harder to find than skilled players with a willingness to punch above their weight. Considering that the league was changed to favour teams like the one the Canadiens have built since that time, the Bruins fans may have to swallow many difficult pills if they want to hold onto their approach.
About the hard luck: you make your own luck. If you stick to an approach despite all evidence to the contrary and discount every failing as bad luck, you are bound to experience less success than others who don't
About this series: if the Bruins coaches and players can't put their heads together to find a way to score they are facing an impossible task – they won't beat the Habs, they wouldn't beat anyone. Even if they do, the odds are still against them.
I can see the responses coming (like this one from a pot calling a kettle black):
Montreal and their Fans have always been arrogant and irritating!!
Always over sure of themselves always ranting!!!! Never able to deal with the whole picture!!
Now that nonsense is off my chest, I'll leave you with a "Go Habs Go" and a "Long live playoff banter".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)