In the wake of announcements made by Gary Bettman about the seriousness that the NHL is going to start ascribing to head hits, this week the NHL Wheel of Justice assessed Dany Heatley 2 games for a deliberate (if not very injurious) elbow to the head of Steve Ott, Lecavalier was handed a game misconduct for a deliberate high-stick to PK Subban’s head, and even Bruin Brad Marchand is getting a suspension for an unpenalized play. Given that the GMs have just finished a meeting specifically addressing concussions and head hits (among other things), it’s worth asking whether the league has done enough to address what a lot of hockey minds seem to think is a key issue facing the game today?
Ken Dryden, Habs legend and one of the more intelligent players to ever grace the game, had a very smart piece in the Globe and Mail last Friday where he compares today’s perceptions of head hits to yesteryear’s perceptions of the health risks of smoking (i.e. none) and asks the question: "How could we be so stupid?" This is a valid point, and 20 or 30 years from now I think many doctors and family members will be asking the same question. It is all too easy to think of our players as gladiators and heroes, and that head trauma is just part of earning their stripes; part of the the job.
This certainly seems to be the outlook of the NHL executive committee, with very little about head hits and concussions coming of this week’s GM meeting. What we got was a very public 5-point "action plan" from Gary Bettman after the first day, which seemingly calmed sponsors by making it sound like the league is really going to do something. My feelings are obviously a little mixed on the subject. I certainly hate their data on the source of concussions – especially the category labelled "accidental hits." According to their classifications, the Chara hit would have been "accidental" simply because it wasn’t ruled as intentional (i.e. suspension-worthy) by the executive, and I don’t think this provides a very meaningful representation of the data.
One point I was very happy with, and that was the new protocol for determining what constituted a potential concussion threat and how the teams are expected to react. Clear rules are set for what scenario requires an intervention by the team doctor, and the player is removed to “a quiet place free from distraction” for examination with a validated acute concussion assessment tool. These are good steps, most of all because they are clear, logical, and will probably improve the prognosis for players with concussions dramatically. In fact, the only way that this could be better is if doctors had an obligation to share data from tests (maybe at season’s end) for use in evaluating how various rule or equipment changes affect concussion rates.
The rest of the list I’m less excited about. The first item is for Brendan Shanahan to lead an investigation into whether equipment size can be reduced without compromising safety. I think that the answer is a resounding “yes.” Equipment size has grown rather dramatically over the past three decades, mostly in the name of player safety. However, I wonder whether this has backfired somewhat; protection against higher forces seems to have encouraged harder hits, and likely leads to less forgiving impacts between players. It is important to remember that no equipment can protect a player completely from injury, however, and that changes made at a cultural level might be more effective in reducing concussions.
The second, related, item is the naming of Joe Nieuwendyk, Rob Blake, Steve Yzerman and Brendan Shanahan to a committee investigating concussions and concussion-related issues. I have tremendous respect for all of these men as hockey players, but have less faith their ability to ask smart, testable questions about why concussions have been on the rise, and supervise the data collection and analysis required for this job. I’m biased, being a scientist, but I’d like to see people who do this kind of analysis for a living doing this work.
Which brings me to the next point, which is the hiring of an independent safety consulting team to tour the 30 NHL arenas to ensure they conform to the highest safety standards. My question is: how is this not a routine procedure for the league? The same could be said for the last point, which is penalizing teams as a whole for repeated offences by multiple players, though I can’t find anything saying 1) how many offences it takes to become a “repeat offender, or 2) how many “repeated offenders” would qualify as enough for a fine or other punishment.
What I hate most about this is that, unlike the new head injury protocol, it doesn’t seem to be clear, logical, or structured. It requires on-the-fly judgement calls that will lead to inconsistent rulings from referees and the disciplinary committee, which is why so many of us refer to them as the "Wheel of Justice." Inconsistency and judgement calls are ruining the punitive structure of the league both on the ice and in suspensions (although our friend Down Goes Brown seems to have the suspensions figured out). Decades of psychology research have shown that if punishment is not consistent, it doesn’t change behaviour, and that’s what we’re seeing on the ice.
My dad and I were talking about this last night, and came up with a good example: in the old days (for me this means the 1980s), 3 steps and leaving your feet meant a whistle and 2 minutes for charging. Now, charging is a rather abstract concept because, as Colin Campbell freely admits in his emails (remember those?), referees are more or less expected to be inconsistent by making calls based on the score, the number of previous penalties and the flow of the game. Bad judgement by the referee on some stickplay between Subban and Lacavalier in front of the net last night led to frustration and the eventual 2-handed blow to Subban’s face that saw Vinny ejected. It never should have gone that far, even if it meant 2 minutes for PK and none for Lacavalier.
I think overall the league has taken some steps in the right direction by introducing independent safety consultants, clear criteria for high-risk hits, and protocols for how deal with these hits. However, we’ve been taking a lot of steps in the wrong direction over the last couple years in terms of man-games lost to injury. Until the punitive structures are made more severe and consistent, I think we’ll continue to watch that stat rise.
Showing posts with label injuries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label injuries. Show all posts
Friday, March 18, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
No Blood, No Foul?
Predictably, there's many here in Montreal braying for Chara's blood, even to the point of calling 911 on Wednesday to report an assault. While calling 911 outside of emergency situations is very much discouraged, I think it illustrates the seriousness that some - not all - are ascribing to what we'll refer to as "The Hit."
Max is in stable condition and the hearts of the whole city and much of the hockey-loving world are with him, and we all wish him a complete and speedy recovery. What he definitely isn't is "okay," as too many sportswriters and commentators are saying. He's in a hospital bed with his head immobilized. He came within a couple millimetres of living the rest of his life in a wheelchair. He's dazed with a major concussion. Not insignificantly, he's upset and feels betrayed by the league.
There's a lot of trust on the ice in an NHL game. You trust the referees to keep a handle on the game, you trust your fellow players to play with safety in mind, and you trust the league will punish those who violate that trust. The league failed Max on two of those three accounts, and I think it's disgusting. He hit the nail on the head himself talking to Bob McKenzie on TSN: "I'm not mad for myself, I'm mad because if other players see a hit like that and think it's okay, they won't be suspended, then other players will get hurt like I got hurt."
A typically vitriolic and highly coherent rant from our friends at FHF lays out the arguments better than I can about "intent to injure" and the way the league seems to be interpreting that. It's good read, but perhaps even more important is the video still they have posted. I thought I saw Chara's hand on Max's head, but wasn't sure from the footage I saw so I kept my mouth shut. Now I'm sure. It's there. Again, I'm 100% convinced that Chara didn't mean to nearly kill or paralyze Max, but I'm equally convinced that he meant to run Max into that stanchion. Chara isn't generally a dirty player, agreed. He's never been suspended. However, basing suspensions and punitive actions on previous suspensions is a flawed strategy, as HF29 is quick to point out by amusing analogy. If Chara (or anyone else with a clean record) does the same thing next week, will they cite a lack of previous suspensions as reason to not issue any punishment whatsoever?
What I think is interesting, and completely hypocritical of the league, is that there are already rules dealing out additional punishments depending on the outcome of the infraction. High-sticking is a 2-minute minor; drawing blood gets you an extra 2 minutes. Do the referees worry about whether a player "intended" to draw blood? If the league is willing to accept that players have to accept responsibility for the consequences of an unintentional high-stick, why are they so reluctant to have players face responsibility for an accident with far more dire consequences?
The league has sent a message. That message is basically "as long as you don't blatantly look like you intended to hit the player in the head, we don't care if you cause a head injury." Their decision to not suspend Chara is in line with the letter of league law, but is definitely not in line with the spirit of any rule trying to prevent head injuries and seems to spit in the face of the idea of playing safe on the ice. And Max has every right to be furious about the decision.
This message is being heard far and wide, and it is heartwarming to me that corporate sponsors of the NHL seem to have more concern for the players than the league itself. Air Canada, a company that understands concepts like negligence and liability, has taken a firm stand against head injuries by threatening to withdraw their support of the league if they do not take serious and immediate action against headshots. I never thought I would refer to something Air Canada does as "heartwarming," but there you go.
The reason that this is so important is that it's difficult to influence the NHL by consumerism. Thousands of Montrealers could decide that they're going to boycott the rest of the season in protest of this travesty, and the Bell Centre would still sell out. But thanks to business buzzwords like "corporate social responsibility," corporations like Air Canada seem to have sprouted consciences over the last decade and are taking public stands on ethical issues.
And that's what this is. An ethical issue regarding the responsibility of players to each other on the ice and the obligation of the league to its players. It's tragic and utterly shameful that the NHL doesn't seem to recognize this and needs corporations like Air Canada to point it out to them. Fortunately for the players, they are in a position to significantly influence the league's bottom line, which is apparently the only thing that Bettman, Murphy and co. understand. I find it equally tragic that the NHLPA hasn't taken a stronger stand on head injuries and the safety of their members, and fully expect this to be a serious issue in the next CBA if the NHL continues this negligent practice.
Let us know in the comments what you think of the league's decision, and whether you can think of anything we can do as fans to express our discontent with the league over this incident.
Get well soon, Max.
Max is in stable condition and the hearts of the whole city and much of the hockey-loving world are with him, and we all wish him a complete and speedy recovery. What he definitely isn't is "okay," as too many sportswriters and commentators are saying. He's in a hospital bed with his head immobilized. He came within a couple millimetres of living the rest of his life in a wheelchair. He's dazed with a major concussion. Not insignificantly, he's upset and feels betrayed by the league.
There's a lot of trust on the ice in an NHL game. You trust the referees to keep a handle on the game, you trust your fellow players to play with safety in mind, and you trust the league will punish those who violate that trust. The league failed Max on two of those three accounts, and I think it's disgusting. He hit the nail on the head himself talking to Bob McKenzie on TSN: "I'm not mad for myself, I'm mad because if other players see a hit like that and think it's okay, they won't be suspended, then other players will get hurt like I got hurt."
A typically vitriolic and highly coherent rant from our friends at FHF lays out the arguments better than I can about "intent to injure" and the way the league seems to be interpreting that. It's good read, but perhaps even more important is the video still they have posted. I thought I saw Chara's hand on Max's head, but wasn't sure from the footage I saw so I kept my mouth shut. Now I'm sure. It's there. Again, I'm 100% convinced that Chara didn't mean to nearly kill or paralyze Max, but I'm equally convinced that he meant to run Max into that stanchion. Chara isn't generally a dirty player, agreed. He's never been suspended. However, basing suspensions and punitive actions on previous suspensions is a flawed strategy, as HF29 is quick to point out by amusing analogy. If Chara (or anyone else with a clean record) does the same thing next week, will they cite a lack of previous suspensions as reason to not issue any punishment whatsoever?
What I think is interesting, and completely hypocritical of the league, is that there are already rules dealing out additional punishments depending on the outcome of the infraction. High-sticking is a 2-minute minor; drawing blood gets you an extra 2 minutes. Do the referees worry about whether a player "intended" to draw blood? If the league is willing to accept that players have to accept responsibility for the consequences of an unintentional high-stick, why are they so reluctant to have players face responsibility for an accident with far more dire consequences?
The league has sent a message. That message is basically "as long as you don't blatantly look like you intended to hit the player in the head, we don't care if you cause a head injury." Their decision to not suspend Chara is in line with the letter of league law, but is definitely not in line with the spirit of any rule trying to prevent head injuries and seems to spit in the face of the idea of playing safe on the ice. And Max has every right to be furious about the decision.
This message is being heard far and wide, and it is heartwarming to me that corporate sponsors of the NHL seem to have more concern for the players than the league itself. Air Canada, a company that understands concepts like negligence and liability, has taken a firm stand against head injuries by threatening to withdraw their support of the league if they do not take serious and immediate action against headshots. I never thought I would refer to something Air Canada does as "heartwarming," but there you go.
The reason that this is so important is that it's difficult to influence the NHL by consumerism. Thousands of Montrealers could decide that they're going to boycott the rest of the season in protest of this travesty, and the Bell Centre would still sell out. But thanks to business buzzwords like "corporate social responsibility," corporations like Air Canada seem to have sprouted consciences over the last decade and are taking public stands on ethical issues.
And that's what this is. An ethical issue regarding the responsibility of players to each other on the ice and the obligation of the league to its players. It's tragic and utterly shameful that the NHL doesn't seem to recognize this and needs corporations like Air Canada to point it out to them. Fortunately for the players, they are in a position to significantly influence the league's bottom line, which is apparently the only thing that Bettman, Murphy and co. understand. I find it equally tragic that the NHLPA hasn't taken a stronger stand on head injuries and the safety of their members, and fully expect this to be a serious issue in the next CBA if the NHL continues this negligent practice.
Let us know in the comments what you think of the league's decision, and whether you can think of anything we can do as fans to express our discontent with the league over this incident.
Get well soon, Max.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Know When To Fold 'Em
You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away...
When Andrei Markov went down with injury, this team was a franchise defenceman away from being a contender in most eyes. They've done a solid rendition of being a contender at times without him, though.
Then, December. Josh Gorges out.
Now, January and Cammalleri is gone for a good old length of time.
These are not just three injuries. They are three deep cutting injuries. Markov can't be replaced, not in this league, not without surrendering much more than a 2nd rounder. Gorges at his his best is hard to find in a package lying around the trade tables too. Cammalleri is one of those pure scorers at his best, that only comes to market once every few years, not more.
Since Cammalleri got hurt a couple of days ago, there has been an explosion of talk about who will replace him. There is cap space (if the GM files for it), there is a roster place. It's understandable.
My question at this point: What for?
Kenny Rogers may have known a thing or two about poker coming from Texas. Maybe he didn't. He sure wrote like he knew something. Poker is a game of hands. Winning one hand does not mean winning or losing the next. A sensible poker player has to understand that not every hand is winnable, that knowing when to fold is just as important as all the other tricks and skills learned.
Hockey GMs aren't strictly speaking gamblers. They don't need to be if they do their legwork. But to an extent, hockey for a GM is like the game of poker. A season is a hand, the organizational chart is the chips at his disposal. He has to recognize a team that can win, and importantly one that can't. If he can't do this, a GM risks betting his chips on a team that never had a chance (see Burke, Brian).
So, what for?
I ask what for, because with three injuries on the roster, two season-ending, one happening during a critical phase, one has to come clean and start asking whether this team, this one:
Pacioretty - Gomez - Gionta
Eller - Plekanec - Kostitsyn
Pouliot - Halpern - Darche
Pyatt - Desharnais - Moen
Wisniewski - Hamrlik
Spacek - Weber
Subban - Gill
Price
Auld
has any real chance of making the playoffs, and much more importantly contending when they get there.
I presume those who call for a trade think not. Let's say then Pyatt is replaced by the winger who another team doesn't want enough to trade for Ben Maxwell, or a third round pick, or the rights to Alexei Emelin. Does that make the difference?
How is this team going to overcome Pittsburgh and Washington without the element of surprise?
How will they score on Philadelphia?
How will they match Boston over 7 games?
How do they defend Stamkos and St. Louis over a whole series?
That's just the East...
I don't want to be a downer. I'm a big believer in timing and good fortune. I'm a believer that we have players who can crank it up a notch, who know the playoffs better than those on other teams. But even with that, I don't see this team as a better version of last year's team. Do you?
It's for that reason that I hope Gauthier doesn't do anything too drastic to try and save a season at the expense of his next four goes around. If Kaberle can be had for a 5th rounder, or a decent option comes up on waivers, then by all means. It's the big trade I fear could hurt.
I hope he knows when to fold 'em.
When Andrei Markov went down with injury, this team was a franchise defenceman away from being a contender in most eyes. They've done a solid rendition of being a contender at times without him, though.
Then, December. Josh Gorges out.
Now, January and Cammalleri is gone for a good old length of time.
These are not just three injuries. They are three deep cutting injuries. Markov can't be replaced, not in this league, not without surrendering much more than a 2nd rounder. Gorges at his his best is hard to find in a package lying around the trade tables too. Cammalleri is one of those pure scorers at his best, that only comes to market once every few years, not more.
Since Cammalleri got hurt a couple of days ago, there has been an explosion of talk about who will replace him. There is cap space (if the GM files for it), there is a roster place. It's understandable.
My question at this point: What for?
Kenny Rogers may have known a thing or two about poker coming from Texas. Maybe he didn't. He sure wrote like he knew something. Poker is a game of hands. Winning one hand does not mean winning or losing the next. A sensible poker player has to understand that not every hand is winnable, that knowing when to fold is just as important as all the other tricks and skills learned.
Hockey GMs aren't strictly speaking gamblers. They don't need to be if they do their legwork. But to an extent, hockey for a GM is like the game of poker. A season is a hand, the organizational chart is the chips at his disposal. He has to recognize a team that can win, and importantly one that can't. If he can't do this, a GM risks betting his chips on a team that never had a chance (see Burke, Brian).
So, what for?
I ask what for, because with three injuries on the roster, two season-ending, one happening during a critical phase, one has to come clean and start asking whether this team, this one:
Pacioretty - Gomez - Gionta
Eller - Plekanec - Kostitsyn
Pouliot - Halpern - Darche
Pyatt - Desharnais - Moen
Wisniewski - Hamrlik
Spacek - Weber
Subban - Gill
Price
Auld
has any real chance of making the playoffs, and much more importantly contending when they get there.
I presume those who call for a trade think not. Let's say then Pyatt is replaced by the winger who another team doesn't want enough to trade for Ben Maxwell, or a third round pick, or the rights to Alexei Emelin. Does that make the difference?
How is this team going to overcome Pittsburgh and Washington without the element of surprise?
How will they score on Philadelphia?
How will they match Boston over 7 games?
How do they defend Stamkos and St. Louis over a whole series?
That's just the East...
I don't want to be a downer. I'm a big believer in timing and good fortune. I'm a believer that we have players who can crank it up a notch, who know the playoffs better than those on other teams. But even with that, I don't see this team as a better version of last year's team. Do you?
It's for that reason that I hope Gauthier doesn't do anything too drastic to try and save a season at the expense of his next four goes around. If Kaberle can be had for a 5th rounder, or a decent option comes up on waivers, then by all means. It's the big trade I fear could hurt.
I hope he knows when to fold 'em.
Monday, August 09, 2010
Could The Habs Do A Losing Season?
Over the weekend, I was watching TSN and was surprised to see a feature on a Canadiens prospect at the Canadian junior camp. It was Louis Leblanc again, of course, and the story revolved around his decision to pull out the stops by playing in the QMJHL. Part of the report noted that good old Louis had had a great little scrimmage at the camp. Apparently, he’s been creating some one-game chemistry with Sean Couturier.
Sean Couturier? This is when my ears piqued. Sean Couturier led the QMJHL in scoring this past season. He played on the Drummondville Voltigeurs. He was born in Phoenix, but grew up partly in Quebec to Quebecois father and former junior hockey star Sylvain Couturier. He’s 6’4” and 193 lbs, is still 17 years old and is touted to e the first overall pick in the 2011 draft.
In short, the Canadiens might be interested.
The problem for the Canadiens is that since the draft started, or at least since they had a canny GM, players like Couturier are only available through a deft trading hand or the old-fashioned way, with a bit of losing. Gauthier has shown his hand at the swaps already, and it ain’t deft, so that leaves the losing.
Could the Canadiens be a loser?
Last season the Canadiens made the playoffs by a single point thanks to an OT loss in the last game of the season. While that proved to be a critical point looking back on the conference finalist season, we should not forget that it could have been so different.
So what you say? Here’s what. Had the Canadiens missed a single point it would have been early misery for Habs fans this spring. But 14 points less and it gets really interesting – the Habs would have tied the maple Leafs in points and been in line for a top two pick in the NHl entry draft.
14 points is a lot in the NHL. But 14 points can escape quickly too.
Imagine Benoit Pouliot had not stormed the barricades upon his arrival, but rather settled into his Minnesota Wild and his latter Canadiens form. Imagine Sergei Kostitsyn had been banished on a permanent basis and the Canadiens toiled some more with Pacioretty and Maxwell. Imagine Gainey had insisted on giving Carey Price every on ice learning experience he could gather, while ignoring the value that time on the bench could bring. Imagine Andrei Markov had healed like a regular human with a completely severed tendon. Imagine the Habs hadn't won so many early season OT games as they did.
I’ll admit, it’s a lot of what ifs, and it doesn’t account for corrections that could and probably would have been made to make a salvage attempt for the season. But suffice to say, it wasn’t that far off.
So remembering all those what ifs, have a look at this upcoming season. Pouliot isn’t changing teams this year (yet) and may still be playoff Ben. Sergei is gone anyway, Pacioretty and Maxwell look due some time. There is no Halak to take starts away from Carey Price anymore. And, Andrei Markov is already injured, though he may be healing just as well as before. Everyone else is healthy as I write, but injury, late night whining on French language chat shows, is an inevitability, not a variable.
The 88-point Canadiens team that just made the playoffs last year could very well be outsiders this season, and they're not many slips away from a 14-point tumble. They could be a loser.
Could the Canadiens really be a loser?
Upstairs, I postulate that it is mathematically possible for the Canadiens to be a loser. 74 points is not out of the realm of possibility. 68 points either. The team as it stands is an 88-point team that traded its best player and looks to be relying on rookies and temperamental wingers to carry significant pressure.
But in Montreal mathematics means little. What matters more than that is tolerance for loss. The tolerance of fans, coach, GM and owners. Because the opening day Canadiens will not necessarily be the closing day Canadiens.
We know a bit about fan tolerance. It’s close to nil. If 2 losses can sway millions, imagine a hopeless February and March. Tolerance from Martin might not be at its height either. This isn’t Ottawa 1995, this could be Martin’s last stand and he’ll not relish the role of lottery leader. The same must be true of “interim” GM Gauthier. He’s inherited a job without test and has moved boldly to already put his own neck on the line. I’m not sure he could rationalize the losing to save his own hide. Finally, the owners. While it may be best to take a crack at lose-win cycle that works for other teams, it may not fit with the Molson vision for the Canadiens as a fat calf.
Decisions in a losing Montreal Canadiens organization rest on a hair trigger, with movement, perhaps at a great future cost, often seen as the perfect mean to relieve the dissonance.
Could you stomach a losing season?
For me there are two competing interests in my heart on this question. Ultimately, only the Cup remains as a goal. For one, I see the cold practicality of losing badly if the team is to lose at all (that is to miss the playoffs anyway). Juxtaposed with that is the memory that the 88-point Canadiens made the conference final and were beaten by the 89-point Flyers, mediocrity in the season means less in the arena of the playoffs. And seasons of pain don’t guarantee anything at all (hello Thrashers and Blue Jackets fans).
Still: “Leblanc. Leblanc remet a Couturier. Couturier contourne Orpik. Couturier a Dumont. Et le but.” You have to admit it has a certain ring.
What do you think?
Sean Couturier? This is when my ears piqued. Sean Couturier led the QMJHL in scoring this past season. He played on the Drummondville Voltigeurs. He was born in Phoenix, but grew up partly in Quebec to Quebecois father and former junior hockey star Sylvain Couturier. He’s 6’4” and 193 lbs, is still 17 years old and is touted to e the first overall pick in the 2011 draft.
In short, the Canadiens might be interested.
The problem for the Canadiens is that since the draft started, or at least since they had a canny GM, players like Couturier are only available through a deft trading hand or the old-fashioned way, with a bit of losing. Gauthier has shown his hand at the swaps already, and it ain’t deft, so that leaves the losing.
Could the Canadiens be a loser?
Last season the Canadiens made the playoffs by a single point thanks to an OT loss in the last game of the season. While that proved to be a critical point looking back on the conference finalist season, we should not forget that it could have been so different.
So what you say? Here’s what. Had the Canadiens missed a single point it would have been early misery for Habs fans this spring. But 14 points less and it gets really interesting – the Habs would have tied the maple Leafs in points and been in line for a top two pick in the NHl entry draft.
14 points is a lot in the NHL. But 14 points can escape quickly too.
Imagine Benoit Pouliot had not stormed the barricades upon his arrival, but rather settled into his Minnesota Wild and his latter Canadiens form. Imagine Sergei Kostitsyn had been banished on a permanent basis and the Canadiens toiled some more with Pacioretty and Maxwell. Imagine Gainey had insisted on giving Carey Price every on ice learning experience he could gather, while ignoring the value that time on the bench could bring. Imagine Andrei Markov had healed like a regular human with a completely severed tendon. Imagine the Habs hadn't won so many early season OT games as they did.
I’ll admit, it’s a lot of what ifs, and it doesn’t account for corrections that could and probably would have been made to make a salvage attempt for the season. But suffice to say, it wasn’t that far off.
So remembering all those what ifs, have a look at this upcoming season. Pouliot isn’t changing teams this year (yet) and may still be playoff Ben. Sergei is gone anyway, Pacioretty and Maxwell look due some time. There is no Halak to take starts away from Carey Price anymore. And, Andrei Markov is already injured, though he may be healing just as well as before. Everyone else is healthy as I write, but injury, late night whining on French language chat shows, is an inevitability, not a variable.
The 88-point Canadiens team that just made the playoffs last year could very well be outsiders this season, and they're not many slips away from a 14-point tumble. They could be a loser.
Could the Canadiens really be a loser?
Upstairs, I postulate that it is mathematically possible for the Canadiens to be a loser. 74 points is not out of the realm of possibility. 68 points either. The team as it stands is an 88-point team that traded its best player and looks to be relying on rookies and temperamental wingers to carry significant pressure.
But in Montreal mathematics means little. What matters more than that is tolerance for loss. The tolerance of fans, coach, GM and owners. Because the opening day Canadiens will not necessarily be the closing day Canadiens.
We know a bit about fan tolerance. It’s close to nil. If 2 losses can sway millions, imagine a hopeless February and March. Tolerance from Martin might not be at its height either. This isn’t Ottawa 1995, this could be Martin’s last stand and he’ll not relish the role of lottery leader. The same must be true of “interim” GM Gauthier. He’s inherited a job without test and has moved boldly to already put his own neck on the line. I’m not sure he could rationalize the losing to save his own hide. Finally, the owners. While it may be best to take a crack at lose-win cycle that works for other teams, it may not fit with the Molson vision for the Canadiens as a fat calf.
Decisions in a losing Montreal Canadiens organization rest on a hair trigger, with movement, perhaps at a great future cost, often seen as the perfect mean to relieve the dissonance.
Could you stomach a losing season?
For me there are two competing interests in my heart on this question. Ultimately, only the Cup remains as a goal. For one, I see the cold practicality of losing badly if the team is to lose at all (that is to miss the playoffs anyway). Juxtaposed with that is the memory that the 88-point Canadiens made the conference final and were beaten by the 89-point Flyers, mediocrity in the season means less in the arena of the playoffs. And seasons of pain don’t guarantee anything at all (hello Thrashers and Blue Jackets fans).
Still: “Leblanc. Leblanc remet a Couturier. Couturier contourne Orpik. Couturier a Dumont. Et le but.” You have to admit it has a certain ring.
What do you think?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Bugle Sounds For The Cavalry
Are We Right To Expect of Cammalleri and MAB?
You know what they say: absence makes the heart grow fonder. In many cases, that fond heart might benefit from an override from a cooler head.
Sometimes when a player returns, the expectations about the impact he will have reach silly proportions. We can all remember the ludicrous anticipation that preceded Ryan O’Byrne’s return as he replaced a very similar Paul Mara in the lineup.
On the eve of Mike Cammalleri and Marc-Andre Bergeron’s return I offer then some stats for the nostalgics to ponder and some counterpoint to the staunchest critics.
Mike Cammalleri
When Cammalleri was bent to breaking point in our previous loss to the mighty Senators, the team was a messy 0.500 outfit. That night, the standings put the Habs in the mix for 8th with a 25-25-6 record. Mike was the top goalscorer by a furlong and he was often the only dangerous threat going forward. The naysayers saw the game as reason to close up shop.
Since that time, the Habs have played 17 games with a return of 11-5-1 (mostly thanks to a recent spell of wins).
So Cammalleri, member of a middling team returns. What will happen to the group? Will his return upset the applecart, or will he fit silkily into Tom Pyatt’s place on a top line?
It’s hard to predict exactly what will happen. It’s worth providing more context, though.
First, Cammalleri was indeed member of a 0.500 team, but that team was largely one that played without Markov and Gionta, started Price and put hope in Guillaume Latendresse and not Pouliot. Markov’s return, closely followed by Pouliot’s debut and Halak’s usurping the throne made the Habs a different team. In fact, the twenty games that Cammalleri saw with the group saw them return 10-7-3 from 20 games (albeit even many of those lacked Andrei Kostitsyn). Without analyzing this to death, I think we can say the team was at least as good with Cammalleri as without and should benefit from having 4 top wingers for the first game in some time.
Furthermore, there are stats you just can’t argue with. Offensively, Cammalleri is the premiere player on the Canadiens bar none. He posted numbers over 56 games that others have struggled to match in 73 and his pro-rated scoring for such a long stretch is only surpassed by players who streaked and are waiting for the tail off.
Take goals created for example:
GC: 22.17 – 2nd (Plekanec – 1st, 24.75)
GC/60: 1.21 – 1st (Gionta – 6th, for reference, 0.88)
ESGC/60: 1.11 – 1st (Gionta – 6th, for reference, 0.82)
Impressive stuff. These numbers are leagues above his teammates, showing that even amongst some players we call scoring stars, he stands out.
Consider also that apart from his own goals, he is also on the ice for more goals from others than anyone else. In a league where being on the ice for 3.00 goals at even strength puts you in the top 10%, Cammalleri is right there:
ESGFON/60: 3.15 – 3rd (Gionta – 2nd, for reference, 3.20)
ALLGFON/60: 4.21 – 1st (Gionta – 5th, for reference, 3.50)
If that weren’t enough, we could cite chances for while he’s on, chances of his own (surpassed only in the past couple of games by Gionta and Gomez) and the fact that his giveaway count is scarily low for a Habs player.
The negatives are harder to tease out, but there may be some worry that other people’s numbers will suffer as Cammalleri takes more ice time and puck. I can’t worry too much about this, as every point surrendered by Pouliot or Gomez will be matched by Plekanec and Kostitsyn’s possible rebounding.
Fond hearts rejoice, even the biggest cynic couldn’t stare these down and choose Pyatt over Mike.
Marc-Andre Bergeron
We’ve touched on him already this week, so this will be brief.
MAB has one dimension at the NHL level, there’s no secret. Looking at his total numbers, his defence, his CORSI, etc. is all pointless if you don’t first consider his stats isolated from the PP. And isolated they can’t fail to impress:
PPGC/60: 2.76 – 2nd (Markov – 1st, 2.82)
PPG: 6 – 3rd
PPPts: 20 – 2nd
PPGFON/60: 12.75 ¬– 5th/1st among PP regulars (Markov – 2nd among PP regulars, 11.35)
As you can see, his contribution has been outstanding to the PP. As much as a goalmaker as Markov, it seems (by GC) he is also a boost just by sheer presence. 12.75 GF/60 if he played half of every PP (assuming 2 minutes) would mean a rough PP% of 21.25%, even when if the other unit was blanked on every occasion.
It’s not all trumps, the drawbacks are noticeable too. He’s slow to anticipate, favours dangerous passes over the hard work of taking checks and presents a substantial liability on defence. Managed in the right way, though, Martin has shown that MAB can contribute at one end, without contributing to Jack Todd’s list of zeroes.
The PP may not be in dire need of a boost, but the addition of MAB can’t help but make the defenders a little more jittery. As a result the defending that has stifled our forwards without appropriate fear for being called for fouls should also come under test.
How fast?
I write this article today because today is the day of return. That doesn’t mean I think these changes will be instantaneous. Returns from injury take time, and these two were long layoffs. I believe that all the positive repercussions will filter through, but how fast I’m unclear. I’d tell you all to be patient with this, but patience isn’t the word for staring down the Thrashers in April.
If I had to guess, I’d say give MAB a game, he won’t have forgotten how to shoot, and the rest of his “abilities” aren’t what we’re looking for anyway. And Cammalleri – he may not score this week, or reignite Kostitsyn’s 50-goal pace, but the name on his sweater alone should at least cause stir enough from the opposition to show his impact over Pyatt.
Sometimes when a player returns, the expectations about the impact he will have reach silly proportions. We can all remember the ludicrous anticipation that preceded Ryan O’Byrne’s return as he replaced a very similar Paul Mara in the lineup.
On the eve of Mike Cammalleri and Marc-Andre Bergeron’s return I offer then some stats for the nostalgics to ponder and some counterpoint to the staunchest critics.
Mike Cammalleri
When Cammalleri was bent to breaking point in our previous loss to the mighty Senators, the team was a messy 0.500 outfit. That night, the standings put the Habs in the mix for 8th with a 25-25-6 record. Mike was the top goalscorer by a furlong and he was often the only dangerous threat going forward. The naysayers saw the game as reason to close up shop.
Since that time, the Habs have played 17 games with a return of 11-5-1 (mostly thanks to a recent spell of wins).
So Cammalleri, member of a middling team returns. What will happen to the group? Will his return upset the applecart, or will he fit silkily into Tom Pyatt’s place on a top line?
It’s hard to predict exactly what will happen. It’s worth providing more context, though.
First, Cammalleri was indeed member of a 0.500 team, but that team was largely one that played without Markov and Gionta, started Price and put hope in Guillaume Latendresse and not Pouliot. Markov’s return, closely followed by Pouliot’s debut and Halak’s usurping the throne made the Habs a different team. In fact, the twenty games that Cammalleri saw with the group saw them return 10-7-3 from 20 games (albeit even many of those lacked Andrei Kostitsyn). Without analyzing this to death, I think we can say the team was at least as good with Cammalleri as without and should benefit from having 4 top wingers for the first game in some time.
Furthermore, there are stats you just can’t argue with. Offensively, Cammalleri is the premiere player on the Canadiens bar none. He posted numbers over 56 games that others have struggled to match in 73 and his pro-rated scoring for such a long stretch is only surpassed by players who streaked and are waiting for the tail off.
Take goals created for example:
GC: 22.17 – 2nd (Plekanec – 1st, 24.75)
GC/60: 1.21 – 1st (Gionta – 6th, for reference, 0.88)
ESGC/60: 1.11 – 1st (Gionta – 6th, for reference, 0.82)
Impressive stuff. These numbers are leagues above his teammates, showing that even amongst some players we call scoring stars, he stands out.
Consider also that apart from his own goals, he is also on the ice for more goals from others than anyone else. In a league where being on the ice for 3.00 goals at even strength puts you in the top 10%, Cammalleri is right there:
ESGFON/60: 3.15 – 3rd (Gionta – 2nd, for reference, 3.20)
ALLGFON/60: 4.21 – 1st (Gionta – 5th, for reference, 3.50)
If that weren’t enough, we could cite chances for while he’s on, chances of his own (surpassed only in the past couple of games by Gionta and Gomez) and the fact that his giveaway count is scarily low for a Habs player.
The negatives are harder to tease out, but there may be some worry that other people’s numbers will suffer as Cammalleri takes more ice time and puck. I can’t worry too much about this, as every point surrendered by Pouliot or Gomez will be matched by Plekanec and Kostitsyn’s possible rebounding.
Fond hearts rejoice, even the biggest cynic couldn’t stare these down and choose Pyatt over Mike.
Marc-Andre Bergeron
We’ve touched on him already this week, so this will be brief.
MAB has one dimension at the NHL level, there’s no secret. Looking at his total numbers, his defence, his CORSI, etc. is all pointless if you don’t first consider his stats isolated from the PP. And isolated they can’t fail to impress:
PPGC/60: 2.76 – 2nd (Markov – 1st, 2.82)
PPG: 6 – 3rd
PPPts: 20 – 2nd
PPGFON/60: 12.75 ¬– 5th/1st among PP regulars (Markov – 2nd among PP regulars, 11.35)
As you can see, his contribution has been outstanding to the PP. As much as a goalmaker as Markov, it seems (by GC) he is also a boost just by sheer presence. 12.75 GF/60 if he played half of every PP (assuming 2 minutes) would mean a rough PP% of 21.25%, even when if the other unit was blanked on every occasion.
It’s not all trumps, the drawbacks are noticeable too. He’s slow to anticipate, favours dangerous passes over the hard work of taking checks and presents a substantial liability on defence. Managed in the right way, though, Martin has shown that MAB can contribute at one end, without contributing to Jack Todd’s list of zeroes.
The PP may not be in dire need of a boost, but the addition of MAB can’t help but make the defenders a little more jittery. As a result the defending that has stifled our forwards without appropriate fear for being called for fouls should also come under test.
How fast?
I write this article today because today is the day of return. That doesn’t mean I think these changes will be instantaneous. Returns from injury take time, and these two were long layoffs. I believe that all the positive repercussions will filter through, but how fast I’m unclear. I’d tell you all to be patient with this, but patience isn’t the word for staring down the Thrashers in April.
If I had to guess, I’d say give MAB a game, he won’t have forgotten how to shoot, and the rest of his “abilities” aren’t what we’re looking for anyway. And Cammalleri – he may not score this week, or reignite Kostitsyn’s 50-goal pace, but the name on his sweater alone should at least cause stir enough from the opposition to show his impact over Pyatt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)