Game #76 Dubious Calls, PK Serve Habs And Flyers Goals

Details

Date: 24/03/2012
Opponent: Flyers
Location: Philadelphia

Loss: 1-4

Habs Goalie: Budaj (L)
Opposition Goalie: Bryzgalov (W)

Habs goalscorers: Plekanec
Opposition goalscorers: Timonen, Briere (2), Read

Play of the game

I thought the lone goal was a beauty. My favourite aspect was the instinctual no-hesitation pass made by Lars Eller to a Plekanec on the break. So often a second of thought can diffuse an opportunity like this one. The right play through the brief window of opportunity allowed Pleks to display his talents as goalscorer one more time this season.

Dome hockey team

The 6 players we're playing in a no changes, do or die contest in the dome

Forwards

Lars Eller - Game Puck
I really found Eller suited to the Flyers defensive coverage. Their reliance on size was met by determination on his part and he frequently slipped his coverage to get excellent position. His early pass, had it been to Kostitsyn, or anyone but the abysmal Rene Bourque, might have been the highlight goal. There was his play of the game pass and a few more.

David Desharnais
Desharnais didn't win the best short guy award in this contest. Neither did he make me want to turn off the TV with over the top celebration and weaselly smirk. Once again, David was on the ball in his play, often dissecting the defence with a quick and precise pass. On the puck, he is prone to bumping, but amazingly seems to end games leaving a better impression of puck protection than his much taller and heavier counterparts.

Tomas Plekanec
This game was a microcosm of Plekanec's season. On the whole, one would have to say he's still proficient and a positive contributor to the team. He is generally good on the PK (despite the goals that ended up going in this one). But he can trace his lack of goals this season to the fact that most of his chances seem to come now on breakaways, with few people finding him in established shooting positions, on the PP or not. I look to his return to goalscoring next year, though it probably depends on a winger transplant of fairly significant proportion.

Defencemen

Alexei Emelin
This game wasn't a shining moment for an NHL defence. Emelin did OK in what he does. He ended up with a good number of his custom hits and frustrating the Flyers on several occasions. As he matures, he continues to show glimpses of an offensive instinct that I feel we will be thankful for when he can replace the now almost clueless Gorges on PP assignments.

Andrei Markov
The PP was not successful, but this was perhaps not Markov's fault. He is still the calm and confident QB that offers hope for something better. Yet again, he made plays that rank so high above anything that we saw before his return. Drawing the penalty on a late PP should have paid off, but for no one willing to stand in front of the net for shots on the 5-on-3 (whether it's their supposed MO or not).

Goaltender

Carey Price
Budaj was alright, but ultimately below the standard necessary to compete against a team like the Flyers. The positive aspect of this for the management and fans is that this is exactly the result we wished for when we heard Carey would rest. Budaj fulfilled the mission by allowing Briere an opening that should never have been there on goal three and sealing his team's fate in doing so. It's not often, a goalie will get kudos from me for being less than even his own best, but on a night his team was risking playing into points, he answered the call.

Comments

This is what games would have been like were it not for Hal Gill and the amazing PK this season. The Canadiens lulled into being near Flyers who fell or whose sticks needed a nudge to break would have lost games this way. The game was not as lopsided as the score indicated, but it served the goals of both teams at this point of the season. The Flyers got their points as they stretch themselves to gain home ice against either Pittsburgh or NJ. The Canadiens quietly lose another, cling onto 3rd place in their own race and erase another game in which they might have accidentally hurt their future prospects.

The question has been asked, and was examined again, whether the Canadiens can repeat the feats of the playoff eschewing Flyers from 2007. I would suggest there's a lot of ground to make up. Even if one suggests that the Canadiens stable is the equal of the Flyers youngsters back then, the Habs just never did enough at the trade deadline -- Geoffrion and some second rounders won't surpass Coburn, and the Flyers return for Forsberg that season. The reall proof will be in June and July when we watch to see if the Canadiens can match the haul of Timonen, Hartnell and Briere that Holmgren managed to really overhaul his fortunes. We accept that Markov can be the Timonen piece by virtue of return, but the Habs may still need to show grab a couple more forwards ready to produce now if the Habs hope to accomplish anything close to a Philly turnaround.

Last night was also, as it happens, the night the Habs were formally eliminated from the playoffs (so poor is the East this season). With a full bandwagon now to back the losses, it should be an interesting final 6 games. All that remains in their way are the other teams who are due to fall by the playoff wayside in short order.

Games With Meaning

Once again you and I sit here as winter turns to spring looking ahead to a host of meaningful Canadiens games. Tonight is the first. The Buffalo Sabres are grappling for the playoffs (if you can call 6-6-4 over 14 grappling) and the Habs need more points to achieve any peace of mind.

But it’s not so for everyone.

Down the road in Ottawa, for example, games with meaning expired in January. That’s when they entered the puzzling realm where fans start to accept and even encourage the loss. I recently attended an Ottawa game and will be attending the Habs game in Kanata as well. Watching the post-trade deadline Senators face the Bruins was interesting from an academic point of view, but I can assure you that not many of those fans seem to revel in the clean back pass like I do. By the time the Habs play the Sens in April, it may be that the result means less to both teams. It begs the question: why are people paying the same amount to watch this game as the early season run-ins with everything still on the line.

The teams at the bottom struggle to bring in fans (especially where fans were already scarce) as cheering for the loss is just as easily done without the $100 price tag. Maybe this wouldn’t be so bad if the teams at the top weren’t also playing meaningless games as the season runs down.

Vancouver and Philadelphia are the only two teams that have formally clinched their playoff berths. But there are also several teams that have a 100% chance of making the playoffs if you round up the decimals (Washington has escaped all scenarios in which they could miss thanks to head-to-head games of those chasing).


Few games with meaning

So ten teams with less than 1% chance of making it and 9 teams with a less than 1% chance of missing. With playoffs being the only pressing reason to win a game that suggests that most teams don’t have very much left to play for.

In my opinion, this part of the season is just another thing that is fundamentally wrong with the NHL. I think there’s a problem at the top and at the bottom of the pile.


League champions

To start with, the league’s attitude to the President’s trophy only fuels the fans disdain. 82 games is a long and arduous season for players and fans when the single reward for most teams is berth in the playoffs. Add to that the possibility that a first round loss will completely eclipse any notion of accomplishment. Imagine a first round sweep.

There aren’t many good reasons as to why the league couldn’t do more to elevate the league champion. I am not suggesting that anything like the right to play for the Cup be reinstated as it was in the beginning. There could, however, be ways to honour the winners. Presenting the trophy could be a start. Other possibilities could include making the champs participants in the outdoor game, or the all-star game (and making a trophy for the victors of that as yet meaningless contest). Some sort of hockey champion’s league to start the season (as opposed to random selection for European involvement) might also create interest in hockey that way.

A fan of North American sports will point out that not recognizing accomplishment for the regular season is the norm for all sports. Of course, in doing so, said fan would have to ignore the reality that sport takes place outside of North America too and those leagues routinely find ways to honour two achievements and make them meaningful to fans. They would also be condoning the 162-game debacle that leads to months of meaningless baseball games every year.

Why must we cling to a system that was made for 6 teams, when we can clearly see the problem that a single honour to go around for 30 teams is creating disinterest? Why must the NHL copy the NFL when the difference between 16 games and 82 games is so clear?


Lottery winners

The same could be said for the bottom. As I was discussing the Senators last night with my father-in-law, I needed to explain why the teams missing the playoffs must now attempt to lose as many games as possible. We both agreed this gave fans a very good reason for their apathy.

Of course, this doesn’t need to be the way forward either.

The top pick to bottom team system is in place to allow recycling of teams from top to bottom. It works in that regard. But in 10 years when Crosby and Malkin are on their last legs, will we again be staring down the threat of one of the NHL’s most legitimate markets losing its team? The more Pittsburgh try to win now, the more likely it seems we will.

And what for? So that teams from far less viable markets can take a turn at the top?

The solution might need to be creative, but there could certainly be a way to make missing the playoffs on a tie-break (like Florida has done a couple of times recently) worth more than trading away all NHL talent in March like that team did this year. It’s not every day that the Toronto Maple Leafs stumble on viable solutions to problems, but they may be onto something with their first round swap – winning to prevent a rival’s reinforcement seems to entertain.



At the end of the day, fans cheer for the goal, the save, the win. Not many are so forward-looking to be cheering for the increased odds of nabbing Couturier. Certainly not when they’ve paid to watch a hockey game. As a fan willing to pay for a late season game this year, but beginning to question, I can speak to this.

Want to know why hockey is sucking air in Florida and Atlanta. Want to know why Colorado failed before and could just as easily lose interest again? Want to know why Columbus is no longer selling out? Look no further than meaningful games. In addition to showing some iota of concern for player safety, I think this sham leadership has to address this situation where meaningless games make up 15% of the schedule.

So as Toronto face Minnesota to decide Boston’s draft position, enjoy the game tonight.

(Note: Of course I never expect a league run by the current team – who can’t even muster enough interest to deal with serious injury – to do anything. It’s still something I think needs to be addressed by the next competent guy they get in a leadership position)

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?

The Skew Of The Draft

Those of you paying attention will have noticed that the Boston Bruins today traded their own forst round draft pick (15th overall) in a bunble that was sent to Florida for Nathan Horton.

Analysis of that trade aside, let's dwell a moment on the 15th pick shall we?

Does it puzzle anyone else how Boston earns the right to the very best pick for playoff teams when Montreal garners pick #27?

Boston won the same number of regular season games as the Canadiens, yet gathered 3 more OTLs and points. Boston won a playoff round and won exactly two less playoff game than the Habs this spring. Yet there they are 12 picks ahead.


Now I understand what the draft rankings we see all over the place have done. The non-playoff teams come first in reverse order (barring a shift with due to lottery pick, which didn't happen this year). Following that, it seems to me that all the playoff teams that won either one round or none are again stratified on regular season results. Then, because the reward of losing later must be so great, the conference finalists, Stanley Cup runner up and Champion Blackhawks.

My question is this: Why factor playoff success at all if you're not going to do it properly?

As I said, the Canadiens won 9 of 19 playoff games, the Bruins 7 of 13. Sure it's an extra round. But then why don't the sabres then get a better pick than the Bruins. Surely the sometimes hapless Avalanche, a first round victim and final playoff qualifier in the West deserve a better pick than the Habs, but why not better than the Bruins?

It's a strange formula it seems, with latter winners like Boston and Pittsburgh.

For one round, this might pass. But the fact that Montreal will pick 12 places less than its rival Boston in every round is silly.

And I'm only a Habs fan. How do you tell a Buffalo Sabres fan that they'll pick 3 places after Pittsburgh in every round. Pittsburgh had more points than the sabres in the season, more wins, won an extra playoff round, had more playoff wins and earned more revenue in doing so. Not to mention the NHL has never done Buffalo any favours, but its sweetheart Pens somehow come out winners here again.


Once again, the NHL just doesn't seem to find ways to make sense.

Tanking For A Pick Why The Habs Should Keep Winning

A win on the books has done little to turn minds away from tanking. Some analysts feel quite strongly about their ability to see the future months of 2010, so much so that the "towel", they insist, must still be thrown in.

I take issue with that argument for a few reasons. Some of which I elaborate on here.


The missing argument

When people advocate the tank, they always point to the Pittsburgh Penguins as the poster child. Pittsburgh drafted in the top 5 for 5 consecutive years on the backs of some horrible seasons. This landed them Staal, Crosby, Malkin, Fleury and Whitney. It seems a convincing argument, but how much more valid is it than saying a team should wear red to win, or a team should acquire Scott Niedermayer to win. It's not pure coincidence, we can see that. But while Pittsburgh turned their losing into winning, does that mean tanking is a reliable method?

The counter argument is often missed. That is, that teams that have been bottom of the league for nearly a generation have been enjoying near the same frequency of high draft picks as Pitssburgh, yet not turning that into results they can be proud of.

Take the Florida Panthers. You may remember them from lottery draws from nearly every year in living memory. Their most recent go-around in the land of top 5 picks was from 2001 to 2003. In 2001, they selected Stephen Weiss 4th overall. In 2002, Bouwmeester first. Then in 2003, after winning the lottery they traded down to pick Nathan Horton at 3rd. Their next season in the "build" phase, it was Rotislav Olesz at 7th. So that's 4 years building through the draft with results many in Montreal would consider unacceptable. And where has it left them? Last time I checked they missed the playoffs in 2008-09 and are in the thick of the race to miss again.

Florida's not alone. Columbus clocked up Klesla and Zherdev in the top 5 to go with Nash in building their version of the playoff evaders. Atlanta, famous for never winning a playoff game in their history also show a disturbing trend, even selecting well in Heatley and Kovalchuk, can't build a winner (at least in part due to duds Lehtonen and Stefan as top 5 picks). The San Jose Sharks may look like an example to follow now, but their success is mostly down to industry in trades and not due to selecting Andrei Zyuzin, Patrick Marleau then Brad Stuart to affect their outcomes. I could go on (hello Winnipeg).

Tanking is no guarantee for success. the only thing tanking does guarantee is a high pick and lots of losses. After that, you need more on your side – either good scouting or luck.


Franchise players

The premise of tanking as a legitimate strategy is nothing new. In the days of certain draft position, scouting departments could identify certain gems of players (Mario Lemieux, Mats Sundin, Eric Lindros, etc.) that were worth turning in a season for. And although we've been in a rich vein of drafts of late, the reality of the draft is that it's a hit or miss affair.

I had a look back at the drafts from 1990 to 2005 (supposing that 2006 draftees on are too young yet) and did some sums. What I found was that:

– In total there were 15 franchise players to be had (with some generous assessments in there) from the first round.

– Only one draft had three franchise players (1991) and 4 had two

– 6 franchise players were taken with the #1 pick

– There were only 5 franchise players taken from picks #2-5 in 16 years, compared to 4 with picks #6 to the end of the round that year


So franchise players don't come along every year, and they rarely more than one at once. What's more, you have almost as much chance nabbing one with any other pick in the first round as with one in the top 5. This is interesting enough, but then consider great players – players who once you get a few together can be the foundations of a great team.

– Only 37.5% of picks in the top 5 turned into players I judge to be great or better

– Only 34% of picks #2-5 turned into players I judge to be great or better

– Every year of the draft has produced one player great or better outside the top 5, 2003 produced multiple

– 2 years the top 5 has not produced a player great or better


That's an awfully big percentage of picks who may be able NHLers but won't fulfill the dream of tanking for Cups. Plus, good scouts show that they don't need a good pick to get the right player (and I'm not even including round 2 on).

One final thing:

– Recent drafts have been good producing 4 or 5 good to franchise players from the top 5 picks

– A run of drafts from 1991 to 1996 never produced more than 3 good to franchise players (meaning at least 2 were mediocre to poor). 1994 had four duds and 1996 only had 2 good players in the top 5, nothing more.


A better way

As you know by now, I see tanking as a highly flawed strategy that relies on a fair amount of luck and certainly timing. I think there must be a better way.

Generally, I think there is. It is demonstrated by teams like Detroit, like New Jersey, like San Jose. What these teams have shown is that attention to detail, attention to player development and shrewd management along the way can outdo and outpace the tanking strategy 9 times out of 10.

By committing to winning in Hamilton and hopefully Montreal, Gainey and his team can grow the winning mentality over time. Though they may miss the Rick Nash every once in a while, by teaching an ethic, they can make their Plekanecs into more effective players over the long run.

For me, tanking is out. I'd much prefer the Molsons to sink whatever windfalls they get form the playoffs into more men like Guy Boucher and more and better amateur and pro scouts.

When it comes to games that remain – win them all if you can. Try to win them all, no question. More good will come of 25 games of a team gelling and pulling in one direction than a 34% chance at a great player.


Draft lottery

On a final note, and as we're on the topic of the draft.

There are a lot of misconceptions about the draft lottery. My own were born of the fact I assumed I knew what was going on, so never really looked into it. As I had a look, I found out some interesting things many of you must already know, but some of you might find blow assumptions away:

1) There is only one pick determined by lottery. Once that lottery has taken place, all other picks proceed in the reverse order of the standings.

2) All teams who don't make the playoffs are in the lottery. However, the rule that a team can only move up 4 places means only the bottom 5 can actually win the 1st overall pick. Not being in the bottom five, however, does not preclude you from winning the lottery. So a team in 7th can win the lottery, but that team will only actually move up to 3rd in the draft.

3) A team can only move down one place, but this is obvious given the first finding.

This has interesting implications. The team in 5th from last can only pick 1st, 5th or 6th in actual fact. They can never acquire the 2nd, 3rd or 4th picks, because a team can't move up less than 4 places so long as there are places to move ahead. The 5thfrom last team has best odds of picking 5th (74.7%), but actually has a better chance of picking 6th (17.2%) than 1st (8.1%). The team in last is often said to have a 25% of winning the lottery, but given they retain the first pick if any team from 6th to 14th from the bottom win the lottery, they actually have a 48.2% chance of winning the first pick.