The Importance of Context

Hockey blogging and stats dredging were born around the same time. Since that time, there has been an expanding following for "advanced" statistics. From the Oilogosphere, the adoption of Corsi, Fenwick, scoring chances and other new ways of twisting the NHL stats record have popped up.

I like to think I was a relatively early adopter of these things. I was excited about the possibilities of Corsi before Toronto missed the playoffs for the 2nd season in a row. I was liking where the future of player analysis was going.

What I've noticed lately, however, is that I am increasingly jaded with the whole lot of them. I still track the numbers and keep a record. I still think there is value to the data. I suppose what I am finding is that I am finding many people to stretch interpretation beyond its bounds. Sometimes simple numbers like shots (on net or off net) are given far too much importance and stretched too thin.

What prompted me to write this piece was a simple segue link from Habs Eyes on the Prize:

In Winnipeg, it was a bit different. The Canadiens scored on their second shot of the game off a steal in the neutral zone. It was a killer play, but in the world of trying to find enough stats in order to create a meaningful sample, it was only a single shot on net, a single positive point towards Corsi. In the context of the game, however, it caused Winnipeg to change gameplan -- something which opened them up to further breakthrough passes.


Remember limitations
You can see the importance of context here. We all watch the Canadiens a fair bit and know that when they get a lead they are not a team that risks much to press for a bigger lead. Their preference is to guard 1-0 or 2-1 than to find breathing room at the risk of leaving that tying goalscoring chance to the opponent.

We may or may not agree with the strategy (my nerves don't agree), but the time for that discussion is later. The point here is that we don't need to leave that observation out of our interpretations of things.

Did Montreal play better against Toronto than they did against Winnipeg? Well, no. If the goal is to win by scoring, the Toronto game for all the defensive poise and nice breakouts did not produce a single seam cutting pass like the Moen PK effort. There was not a rush with a wide open goalscorer getting a clear shot like Pacioretty's goal. There were only shots in volume hoping to go in.

If every win and loss this season follow the pattern of the first two games (unlikely, but bear with me), then let's please not extol the virtues of the positive Fenwick/Corsi man too much. Rather we might need to consider a better way to evaluate a team that buttons up when it's winning and only pours on shots when it's not. Remembering of course that winning is better than not winning.


I still encourage everyone to read up on these stats. I encourage everyone to get their fill of Olivier and Chris Boucher's efforts (and they're big efforts). But if you can be left feeling that the stats do not gibe with what you have just seen, question the statistics as well as observer bias.

The answer to everything has not yet been found. And it's only questioning that will get us there.

"Chris Boucher's analysis shows the Habs played better against the Toronto Maple Leafs than the Winnipeg Jets."

To be completely fair to Boucher, his piece is not one of the pieces I am talking about. He approaches his data like a scientist in a discussion section of a published paper. It's all questions and few presumptions. Sorry Chris that it was your piece that set me off then.

Apology aside now. Let's look simply at the Canadiens first two games.


Stats without context

In the first game the Habs lost to the Toronto Maple Leafs yet outshot them and pretty widely outstretched the Leafs in Fenwick and Corsi. If you only looked at that one element of the game then the Habs were the better team. If the Habs played like this all season, we'd hear how good they were and how they were incredibly unlucky not to score.

In their second game, the Habs were widely outshot, their Fenwick was overall worse than the Jets and so was their Corsi. it was the reverse in terms of these statistics of the Toronto game. The Habs should have lost and if they played like this all season we'd be hearing (like we did in the playoffs of 2010) how lucky the team was and how they didn't deserve anything they were getting.


A dash of context

OK, now how about some context.

In the Toronto game, I would take that above analysis for the first period. The Habs did outplay Toronto and were unlucky (somewhat) not to be winning. They'd have been quite unlucky to be losing. They were a bit unlucky to be losing 33 seconds into the second period, in fact, when they allowed a short-handed goal. But after that, the game changed to the observer. The Leafs seemed to find a new gear and the Canadiens mustered almost nothing of threat for 30 minutes or more. For more than half the game, the Canadiens were in fact the far worse team despite the average Corsi. The NHL record says they had 4 shots to the Leafs 8 in the second period. Olivier recorded chances though as 0 to 12.

Defining The Scoring Chance The 6-Minute Abs?

By now, a hockey fan, you've heard plenty about advanced stats and the rise of the scoring chance.

When I was a much more naive stats geek, I used to make a lot of assumptions about what I was hearing and extrapolate that information to make my own (ultimately flawed) interpretations. I can tell you that when I first found out the working definition of scoring chance being used by the squadron of scoring chance trackers around the league, I was more than a little bit surprised.

I want to show you all some work I've been doing with scoring chances over the last couple of seasons. So as a service to those who are starting from where I was just a little while ago, I thought I'd clear up the assumptions before we start.

How better to do that than to ask the Patriarch of Habs Scoring Chances, Olivier of En Attendant les Nordiques, the question:

"Just what is a scoring chance anyway?"

I asked him more questions than that, and he kindly answered them all. But by the end of this, we should, agree or disagree about the methodology, at least be on the same page about the stat in question.

Without further ado:

What is a scoring chance?

My definition: a scoring chance is a shot on goal or a missed shot unleashed from the "home plate" area. The home plate area goes from goalposts, up to the face-off dots, then up toward the blue line to the top of the face-off circles.

(image taken from Copper and Blue, 2010)


So every shot is not a scoring chance?

No, when the shot is taken from outside the zone and doesn't result in a goal, it isn't a scoring chance.


And some non-shots are scoring chances?

That's right. Both missed shots and shots on goal from inside the home plate area are accounted for because I see them as successful attempts to challenge the opposition's goaltender. A blocked shot is not, in my opinion, a scoring chance because a defender actually thwarted the challenge.

I should say here that I give myself some leeway; if a guy floats a feeble backhander from the top of the plate and the goaltender easily follows it, I don't give a chance. A hard shot from the limit of the zone will be counted as a chance.


You say a shot can also be a scoring chance if it results in a goal?

A goal scored from outside that zone is counted as a scoring chance *if* it's an actual attempt to challenge the goaltender. So, Gill floating a wrister from the blue line is a scoring chance. Other guys recording scoring chances have some variations to their definitions: some count screened shots from the blue line, some never allow a chance from a shot from outside the home plate even if it's a goal.


So not every goal is the result of scoring chance then?

Not in my record of chances, no. Best example is a goal scored by Jeff Halpern early in the 10-11 season: he was behind the net and attempted a pass in front, only to see the puck deflect on a defender's skate into the net.

But that doesn't mean being behind the goal rules out a chance. I've also given a chance on a Moen Goal where he was behind the goal line and clearly shot it on the goaltender's leg to bounce it into the net.

Basically, to be a chance, there has to be an attempt at challenging the net.


So we are left with:

1) A shot released from inside the home plate or a goal, that
2) "Challenges the net"

is a scoring chance.



This is probably at odds with what a lot of people think at this point. It was definitely at odds with what I thought before knowing the definition being used by trackers myself. I used to think of a scoring chance as a shot that "challenged the net" basically from anywhere. I think I was also quite surprised to find out that missed shots were scored in the same way that shots on net were.

To me there still exists a massive undescribed hierarchy of scoring chances within the scoring chances that are being tracked around the league. Call them good scoring chances, great scoring chances, quality scoring chances, whatever you like. I think many like me are left thinking on the inherent difference between miss from inside the home plate and save on a breakaway or two on one.

I brought it up with Olivier and he was unfazed.


But with this definition all scoring chances are equal. Are all scoring chances equal?

As far as scoring chances are concerned, quantity *is* quality. A scoring chance is a shot attempt from a zone that leaves almost no reaction time for the goaltender. Whatever difference in quality one can find between scoring chances is, I think, drowned by the fact that you actually *got* a scoring chances.

Let me put it this way: over a normal game, I record around 35 scoring chances. Of those, maybe 25 are at even strength. One team getting 15 ES scoring chances in a game is huge, below 10 is feeble. So, is this scoring chance better or worse than that scoring chance? I think the important point is that scoring chances are very dangerous events, 15% of which ending in goals while maybe 4% of Shots+Missed shots are converted in goals.


Why not at least track whether the shot was on net or off net? That could be an interesting aspect of quality to look at down the road.

That might actually be doable trough a script. But I don't think it would tell us about the "quality" of the scoring chance.

What is more dangerous: a 20 foot wrister that Cammalleri sends 6 inches over the cross bar, or a 20 foot wrister Moen buries into the goalies crest?

Missed or not, the guy tried to bury it by unleashing a shot from a given spot. When you talk about "quality", it seems to me you see that said quality comes from the spot the shot was unleashed from, not what the shot looked like going toward the net. That's an important point.


I think there'd be disagreement about this from observers of the game. Just as the scoring chance people have broken away from simply using shots. In "Something About Mary" the hitchiker has just thought of 6-minute abs as a revolutionary idea to replace 7-minute abs. Ben Stiller's character asks what will happen when someone invents 5-minute abs.

So what if scoring chances as they are now is the 6-minute abs? What if someone comes along and ranks shots from the zone where people score most often calling them really good scoring chances?

Are Scoring Chances the 6-minute abs? Yes they are, I am absolutely certain of that.

I record scoring chances for three main reasons, and I list them in order of importance to me: 1) I enjoy doing this 2) bunched together in a multi-game data stream, they give a better idea of who's driving the bus 3) If I take said data, make cool table out of them and write my toughest about them on a blog, people come around and we end up having very enjoyable discussions about stuff I enjoy.

Can someone come up with a better ranking of where shots are coming from? Yes, probably. I have an iPad and am fairly convinced that I could, should I beat myself into building the right tool, use it as a too for recording scoring chances in a more interesting fashion. Somebody, somewhere, will eventually hammer out such a thing and we'll end up with richer data. The question is, where will this data come from?

The NHL is putting charts up on the game centers pages of each game where you have a goaltender's save% on shots from different spots in the defensive zone. The 5 minute abs may very well be just around the corner.


Anyway, agree or disagree about the detail of the statistic, they are still useful to fans looking for more, right? On their use, is a scoring chance a team or an individual statistic?

Both. Scoring chances are useful because they are a "purer" from of shot-based metric. That is, they give you a more precise understanding of who was more challenging to the opposition. Even tough they are a team metric, they are more useful as an individual measure. They give a more reliable understanding of who is generating offense, even over a short span of time (that is from 10 games to a full season) and help weed out the luck factor.

I see two levels of individual statistics: individual achievements (Andrei Kostitsyn had a shot from between the dots, accounting for a scoring chance) and on-ice events (AKost, Cammalleri, Pleks, Gill and Subban were on the ice for a scoring chance). From my perspective, scoring chances as on-ice events is where they are more revealing about a given player.

As I wrote earlier this summer, Scott Gomez was terribly unlucky this past season: he was on the ice for the same amount of time at even strength as in 09-10 (about 1190 minutes) and the team had about the same amount of scoring chances while he was on the ice, about 370. Yet, the team scored 20 goals less in 10-11 (35 to 55) and Gomez ended up with 20 ESPoints instead of 40 (his career norm up until then). That is bad luck, pure and simple. I think scoring chances tells you who's actually driving the offense, luck be damned. Obviously, wingers will get more individual scoring chances than centers, who will get more than defensemen, but that's a structural reality.


How do you think scoring chances will be used in future stats analysis (by fans)?

It's all about the data made available. You look at advanced stats analysis done by fans and they mostly use behindthenet.ca and timeonice.com's outputs as building blocks. The managers of those two sites are, by the way, to be recognized as the enablers of the whole scoring chance projects you see left and right. Desjardins, of BehindThenet, used his site as a hub of analysis of data collected by Chances Recorders and timonice is the site that gives public access to a script that allows anybody to punch in time codes and notes and get a nice set of HTML tables of scoring chances data. Without these guys, there is no "Scoring Chances" as we see them being batted around in the hockey blogosphere nowadays. Making multiple years of scoring chances data on multiple teams available to fans is what will allow them to take these data stores and cross reference them with other sources such as Behindthenet.ca and timeonice.com and come up with some new analysis.

On what? Off the top of my head: defining shot quality, quality of competition faced by goaltenders (who, of Halak and Price, saw the highest rate of scoring chances against in 09-10? If I'm not mistaken, Halak), luck-independent offensive and defensive output. Stuff like that, y'know.


When are fans on the laggard teams gonna get on this? Any word, because with the small sample now, it might as well be the Habs alone

The problem is, we aren't pooling the data already being collected so it's hard to tell who's on board. Of the 2010-11 season, I'm fairly certain the Habs, Leafs, Caps, Flames, Rangers, Flyers were recorded. I think some work was done with Chicago.

The next step would be some form of aggregation of data; seeing the data store would probably be an incentive for fans of uncharted teams to do the legwork.


The NHL teams record scoring chances, do you ever foresee these stats being available to fans?

No. Actually, I think NHL teams data stores are way more granular than anything we ever see out in the open (touches? Zone time?) and I think the NHL's data stores are way more refined than what we see on their website. But team's data stores are an asset that they manage so to give them a competitive advantage. They will *never* publish current data. The data published by the NHL is, if I'm not mistaken, the only data eligible for salary arbitration process. So whatever data we currently have from the big guys, it will all stay the same unless the new CBA states so or, maybe, if the NHL comes up with something akin to MLB's Pitch F/X. I'm not holding my breath.

What would be insanely cool is if some historian/researcher could convince old franchises such as the Habs, Rangers or Wings, to open up whatever archives they have so to give us a glimpse of how they approached stats in, say, the 40's, 50's or 60's.


Thanks again of course to Olivier for answering all of my basic questions so fully and clearly (even under challenges).

In our unending search for the 5-minute abs, and new and more interesting ways of crunching data in 6 minutes, we'll share some scoring chance extrapolations with you in the upcoming while.

At least now we can all start on the same page.

Gorging On Shooting Stats

The other day I read that Josh Gorges better look out at arbitration, because he is in fact the worst defenceman in the entire league at putting shots on net – or at least he was last season.

The stats compiled by Scott Cullen at TSN rely on two statistics – shots on goal and missed shots. Add them together and one can get an idea of how many shots released by a player actually hit the net. Josh Gorges was the worst Dman in the league with a meager 51.3% of his shots actually hitting the net. I’m not sure this will really be the breaking point for Gorges, however, as he only directed 39 shots on or off the net anyway.

Still, the article did inspire me to delve a little deeper into the stats I collected this past season. For your summertime pleasure, then, I present a look into chances, shots and attempts for the 2010-11 Montreal Canadiens (regular season).


Shots on net

Credit to Scott Cullen for a good topical subject. To go further, however, I am going to look at all shots (not just the ones recorded on the NHL’s main page) from the season, including those that were blocked by defenders.
Sadly for Josh Gorges, the news gets worse. When we factor in his 23 blocked attempts, we actually find that he only got 32% of the shots released from his stick on net. I don’t know how the NHL stacks up in this regard, but I can tell you only Andreas Engqvist was worse on the Habs, and he only had 4 attempts.

% shots/attempt

Top tier (>60%): Moen (72%), Lapierre, White, Desharnais, Pouliot

Second tier (51-60%): Dawes, O’Byrne, Pacioretty, Mara, Darche, Gionta, Plekanec, Gomez, Cammalleri, Halpern, Pyatt, Markov, Kostitsyn, Subban

Third tier (41-50%): Palushaj, Nash, Wisniewski, Hamrlik, Eller, Gill, Picard, Boyd

Bottom tier (<40%): Weber, Spacek, Sopel, Gorges, Engqvist (25%)

From this data, I think we can infer a few things. First, forwards have clearer sightlines and so generally convert more of their attempts into shots on net. Second, getting shots on net is not really a great measure of player quality (sorry, Scott Cullen). I think we all watched enough of Travis Moen, Maxim Lapierre and Ryan White to know we’d rather see a few missed shots if it means a player who is actually capable of beating a goalie can have the puck on his stick once in a while.


Chances on net

Just as a blocked shot or a missed shot may be a waste, so too could an ill-advised shot from a bad angle, a low percentage shot.
Thanks to Olivier at En Attendant les Nordiques we now have two seasons worth of analysis on which shots came from dangerous positions.

% chances/attempt

Outlier (>50%): Palushaj (67%)

Top tier (41-50%): Kostitsyn, Cammalleri, Moen, Lapierre, Plekanec, Darche, Desharnais, Eller, Gionta, Pouliot

Second tier (31-40%): Dawes, Halpern, Pacioretty, Gomez, Boyd

Third tier (21-30%): White, Pyatt, Engqvist, Markov

Fourth tier (11-20%): Wisniewski, Subban, Picard

Bottom tier (1-10%): Hamrlik, Gorges, Weber, Gill, Spacek

No chances (0%) Sopel, Mara, Nash, O’Byrne


Kostitsyn and Cammalleri’s presence at second and third is telling because most think of those two as the best pure shooters on the team. Given that a scoring chance in Olivier’s analysis is defined as an attempt (on net, missed or blocked) from a dangerous area, this data shows how these two guys excel at getting in position (or at least in not shooting from bad positions).

Defencemen don’t have the same opportunity to get into “chance” territory. But consider that 22% of Andrei Markov’s attempts were scoring chances … positioning again, and we can just see the PP pinch.


Chances needed to score

A common exclamation in my household is: “How many chances does this guy need to be fed to put one in?” The mark of a scorer is reliability in good positions. But like shooting percentage, this stat gives insight into the luck (good or bad) that was at play as well.

Chances/goal

Top tier (<5): Jeff Halpern (3.73), Subban, Wisniewski, Desharnais, Picard, Gill, Pacioretty

Second tier (5-10): Gorges, Darche, Hamrlik, Boyd, White, Pouliot, Gionta, Plekanec, Markov, Cammalleri, Kostitsyn, Lapierre, Eller

Bottom tier (>10): Moen, Spacek, Gomez, Weber, Pyatt (17.00)


Conspicuous in these lists are players at the top and bottom that are no longer around: Pyatt for his utter futility around the net given good chances and Halpern, Picard and Wisniewski based on the bet they might never replicate this form. Gomez too should be ashamed of his presence on this list, as it’s hard to blame everyone else for one’s poor stats when one take nearly 13 chances to score a goal.


Chance creation while on ice

In fairness to Josh Gorges, his job when he’s on the ice is not shot or chance creation. In fact, when he’s on the ice as part of a 5-man unit, he is usually the 5th (sometimes the 4th) player responsible for that aspect of the game.

To evaluate Gorges contribution to offense is difficult. Really it is about how he creates space for his teammates through quick and crisp defensive play and transition. Of course, there’s not one measure of this. If there were, we wouldn’t need to waste our time with things like Corsi.

One measure that comes close to this is zone shift. Unfortunately, I don’t track that. So my proxy for this activity today will be percentage of attempts that are scored as scoring chances while a player is on the ice – the idea being that each player is ultimately driving to create scoring with his team unit and avoid non-chances, so this percentage gives one look into the quest.


% ChFON/AttFON

Top tier (>50%): Cammalleri (54%)

Second tier (41-50%): Plekanec, Wisniewski, Kostitsyn, Gionta, Subban, Markov

Third tier (31-40%): Desharnais, Gomez, Hamrlik, Darche, Pacioretty, Weber, Gorges, Spacek, Gill, Picard, Moen, Sopel, Lapierre

Fourth tier (21-30%): Boyd, Halpern, Mara, Pouliot, Pyatt, Eller, White, Palushaj

Bottom tier (<20%): O’Byrne, Nash, Dawes, Engqvist (8%)

Maybe it’s the way we watch the game, but it’s uncanny how this list pans out. I think of Cammalleri as really the only undisputed star on the Habs, and there I he is, miles ahead. The next tier lists the guys I would say have better than average offensive instincts. That fourth tier has a lot of “steer clears”.

The big surprise (though obviously not to Habs management) is Pouliot. While he ranked highly in converting his own attempts into scoring chances, it seems those he played with were simply bad. Apparently management didn’t think his hands were clean in this debacle.

This look into shots is no more definitive than Scott Cullen's work, but it does at least give Josh Gorges a little bit of hope. It appears from this at least that shots/attempt is the area in which he performed worst last season. In fact, in some of the other areas he did quite well. And to vindicate management decisions here, he does appear to be better than Mara, Sopel and some of the other former Habs.

Apart from Gorges, there's more insights, I'm sure. Cammalleri looks good in most lists and Markov looks the class at the back end. So at least logic isn't defied. Further than this, I'll leave the conclusions to you all.

Price vs. Price 40 Games By Stats

Carey Price just played his 40th game of the season on Saturday night. An accomplishment in itself for the oft-beleaguered netminder of 2009. As it happens 40 games provides an interesting point to have a more in-depth look at Carey's stats.

As a whole, we rated Carey as a solid A last week, and heard arguments for A-. Overall, I think we'd all have to admit there's been some brilliant goaltending along the way. That's not to say there aren't lingering concerns from our previous roller coaster seasons with the young goalie. Is this an excellent season? Or did Carey just have one excellent stretch? On to the stats...


The 20-20 dichotomy

The 20th the game of the season was Carey Price's 4th shutout. It propelled him to unthinkable numbers: 2.05 GAA and 0.932 Sv%. It was his 19th dome in 19 starts. 12 wins from 19. Critics, we heard were silenced.

At the turn of the 40th, that 31st save clinched a 22nd win and firmed his above average output of 2.37 in GAA and 0.919 in Sv%. At 40 games it is still critic-silencing stuff. He's a winning goalie challenging in important stats categories. Yet his early excellence prompts some examination.

What does it take to get from 0.932 to 0.919? How many goals a game does a goalie have to allow to slip from 2.05 every 60 minutes to 2.37?




Team output?

This is the favourite of many. While it is certainly true that in some games Carey received incredibly poor support from his teammates. the averages tell us that it went both ways. In fact, if you look below, you can see that the Habs scored more goals, allowed fewer shots and fewer chances over the 20 games. If all else was equal, one might have expected a stabilization in stats, if not an improvement.

Looking at things this way is far too simplistic, i realise. But it remains that this is one of the things to examine in this puzzle. It is not the main part of any explanation it seems, from a quick check at least.




A return to earth?

Some stats, no matter how much we want to believe otherwise, are probably just too good to be true. In stats circles, there's endless talk about regression to the mean (they don't like Tim Thomas all the time). In Carey's case, the stat that stood out like a sore thumb was his SHSv%. Over the years I have kept an eye on these things, and can tell you that anything over 0.850 in this category is exceptional. For a goalie to post 0.917 over a season would thoroughly smash established marks and norms. All to say, it probably wasn't going to last.

Since the 20 game mark, Carey has posted a very very good 0.869 on the PK. However, the return to very good from out of this world is at least partially responsible for the drop in all numbers.




A slip in preparation?

At the beginning of the season (at least after those preseason debacles), I marvelled at Carey Price's preparation. Every game, he would come in and just look an impenetrable fortress. His numbers tell the tale.

Below are two charts. The first shows his stats by period. One can see clearly here that in the first twenty games, Carey was truly outstanding at the beginning of games. Over 0.948 for two periods. The second chart shows the stats I have been tracking on when goals go in. Again, Carey was just amazing at Game 20 here. He was allowing the first goal only after an average of nearly 15 shots were taken (and nearly 7 quality scoring chances) -- this gave him game starting numbers of 0.937 and 0.869 for chances. Both outstanding.

But has something happened? The second twenty show little change in play after the second period, but now Carey is a 0.910ish goalie in the first frames. What's more, he's been allowing goals after just 9 shots instead of 15, and 3.6 chances instead of 6.65, dropping his starting game numbers significantly.





Perhaps this is only luck, or a regression to the mean as well. But I'd swear that he's looked different.


The next 20 games are critical

This is all very interesting, but I don't think this sample answers many questions for us just yet. I find it too difficult to dissect from the numbers just now. The slip in preparation teamed with a return to earth seem most likely to hold the key explanation, but we've yet to see.

The biggest question has to be about what that first stretch of the season was. Was it a pleasant surprise? A fortuitously timed one-off streak? Or was it Carey taking his play to a new level? The next 20 games will help us answer which streak (the incredible one or the latest below average spell of ten games) is the real outlier in his play.

For anyone who watched those first 20-30 games as closely as I did, it is tempting to suggest that the real Carey Price played in October and November. But getting real answers takes time. This is an interim update, the final analysis is yet to come.

Working Stats

Whatever happens with the score tonight, Oilers fans will find a new stat to show they were the better team.

Tonight the Habs face the Oilers, and their army of stat-generating mathematicians.

I exaggerate, of course. Oilers fans can be very critical of their team. But it remains true that the Oilogosphere is the burning orb around which the new world of NHL statistics was born and now orbits.

We Habs fans are doing a relatively good job catching up, but are a relative Pluto compared to those who have been extolling the virtues of Dustin Penner for years.

If you want to have a different read for this game, and I've noticed other blogs like referring their game prep elsewhere, then having a good trawl through the Oilogosphere is as fun as any other trip you can take. They speak in a different language, sometimes. One where words like Fenwick and Zone starts flow off the tongue. But to any burgeoning stats fan, it's a good read.

Cult of Hockeey - sidebar especially (Dave Staples)
Irreverent Oiler Fans - archives now (Vic Ferrari)
The Copper and Blue (Derek Zona, Jonathan Willis, et al)
Lowetide
mc79 (Tyler Dellow, Colin Campbell whistleblower)
Battle of Alberta (Matt Fenwick, et al)
...


And for the Habs fans with tunnel vision like myself. Stick to the Habs with Olivier's numerical looks at the Habs:

En Attendant les Nordiques (Olivier)


Enjoy the game, and while Corsi may not be kind, let's hope the Habs win the most important statistical category (and least important for goalies...), the normalized win-loss differential.

Putting Corsi In Its Place

The playoff version of the 2010 Canadiens are an affront to well-trained hockey stats gurus everywhere. The team is testing the limits of shots and chances allowed vs shots and chances generated and coming out way behind. Yet, they somehow manage to find a positive balance in goals and wins up to now.

Those who've staked the biggest claim in these stats ventures are digging in their heels now. The Canadiens, they say will fall if they continue with the strategy they used to beat the best team in the NHL.

The problem I have with this argument is that it often relies too heavily on one single parameter (shots), and often isn't accompanied by observation.


Once, I was browsing a popular stats site, and there were questions being asked about how the Canadiens could possibly be winning the games they were.

In a frank and simple response, I suggested the stats man should watch the games.

Naturally, in his own backyard, he took offense. I stand by my advice, though. I don't think it's wrong. Although one can indeed prove that shots directed at the net correlates to more shots and shots in turn correlate to more goals and they in turn to more wins. One also shouldn't forget the exceptions at every step. There will always be teams one needs to watch to understand.

Whenever one takes this argument to the number crunchers, one gets accused of cock-eyed bias, of blind fandom. It's certainly true that fans of a team can ignore the bits they don't like and focus on the positive. Interesting as well, however, is the point to which these some-time name-callers invest the same amount of energy and passion as you and I do into a sports team we like to watch into the very numbers they claim to be objective defenders of. I think at some point the hardest fans of shots directed at goal and Corsi numbers have to realize the cracks in the thing they choose to support with blinders.



The problem with Corsi

I like the Corsi number (or the total shots directed on net plus minus, if you prefer). I think it does give something to think about. But it only gives something extra, not something new and complete for us to ignore everything else, such as actual goals, actual play.

One reason I think it is at times and imperfect stat is that it doesn't often account for what the smart thing to do is. For example, a high Corsi number is easily achieved by bombarding the opposition net with shots (even off net or into defenders) when in the opposition zone. I think we and some of Alexander Ovechkin's Washington teammates from the last round might agree that sometimes taking wild shots from everywhere is actually a bad idea. I think even the staunchest Gomez fans might advise him to stop padding his Corsi and concentrate on what he's great at (passing) a little more often.

The same goes at the other end. A team can allow fewer shots by leaving men in prime position open so that passes are attempted. Even though it's probably better to force players outside and clean that first rebound, Corsi numbers sometimes say that a team would be better off on average by tempting a pass into the net.

If you watch the game, this is less of a problem. One watching understands that a breakdown that results in a 2 on 0 with a post (no shot) is more dangerous than a shot from beside the net (even from 4 feet away). It is a problem for those who don't watch, however, as that missed shot (post) doesn't outstrip the close range exercise in futility.


The quality of shot

Today I read that there is no way that Montreal can continue with their strategy of allowing shots from outside or that Cammalleri can continue to shoot at 26%. While I agree, I also take issue with the complete dismissal of the idea.

What shot counts, blocked shots and missed shots don't record is the quality of the shot. Attempts have been made to approximate the shot quality, but they rely thus far entirely on very shaky ground (the distance of shot release, estimated by an NHL recorder). They do not interpret context (i.e., a shot from 50' when the goalie has fallen and the net uncovered is actually a high percentage chance) and without concerted effort to record these efforts live (like Olivier is doing for the Habs) it cannot really be done very completely at all.

Mike Cammalleri could shoot 26% from now if he only took high success rate shots, for example. A team can let up 35 shots 5% success shots from the perimeter if they score enough on counter attack. It's not a strategy I enjoy watching, particularly, but neither is it completely invalid.

If one doesn't know the quality of shot (i.e., watch the game) then one shouldn't really be making catch-all pronouncements on what happened in that game, or series, or season. Ron MacLean take note.


Fatigue

The real chances in hockey come from breakdowns. Breakdowns can be manufactured in the opposition through skill, or they can start happening on their own when players can't keep up.

I've already said that the Stanley Cup playoffs are probably the most grueling test in sports when it comes to a single trophy. So many games over so little time. Recovery time is short and energy systems are tested.

When looking at the prospects of winning this tournament, fatigue has to come in to consideration. Here the question of game strategy and our friend Mr. Corsi come in yet again. As Jacques Martin has designed his tactics for these two series, he seems to me to have had the fitness of his players at least somewhat in mind. I think that's where the strategy of collapsing and allowing certain shots comes in. A player like Gill running around trying to prevent the puck carrier from passing or shooting, or actually trying to strip the puck at every possession will tire him, much more so that waiting for the low percentage shot and the player to turn it over of his free will.

The same theory has been applied in the offensive zone. The reason we are all fretting that the Canadiens aren't sustaining possession is because they aren't really putting any effort into that game at all.

I am a massive proponent of the possession game. I think that holding the puck is better than chasing it, both from a game and a fatigue standpoint. I am, however, also a realist. If Martin thinks his team is incapable of keeping up with our skill match, then I don't find many arguments for that. I think Cammalleri probably would get burned out if he spent all his energy on the boards fighting it out, I think Gill' energies would be mis-spent pursuing with his skating.

While Corsi says a game plan must seek massive shots for, with few against as the ideal, it doesn't really account for contexts where Tom Pyatt is playing Sidney Crosby or Hal Gill is defending Malkin.

I think that while shot management is important, it is not the whole picture. As stats interpreters must consider lots of numbers, so coaches can't get so streamlined in thinking.

Last game, the Canadiens seemed to conserve energy early on with a pay-off of a tie in the first. Going in, maybe not a good strategy, but coming into the second, it's hard to say that it was a loser. From there, they actually visibly wore on the Penguins. A PP goal turned the Pens into more desperate and less thoughtful shooters and the 3rd goal was available because star players were worn out by the tenacity of the Montreal zone defence.

You can say they lost the shot game, the Corsi game. But they won the game in my opinion because they won in other areas of play undetected by stats. One was energy management.

Canadiens Shots Allowed Flawed Implementation Or Implementing Flawed Approach

If you're like me, I think you thought that the addition of Jacques Martin to the fold would be a boon for the goalies, and perhaps ultimately the fans, as the haphazard defensive manner to which we were accustomed would be banished and replaced with simple play and reduced shots.

Now that we've given the system until the New Year (like we said we would), I think it's time to air a grievance: this isn't at all how I thought this would work.


Currently, the Canadiens sit in 11th position for GAA in the league. Not bad, but consider where they'd be without two 0.920 save percentage goalies, as they are also 28th in the NHL in shots allowed per contest. Their total currently stands at 32.8 SA/G (which may sound like a miraculously low total considering the recent onslaughts).

Certainly some of the onus for this high shot total must fall at the feet of the penalty takers (or victims of Chris Lee, if you prefer), since the Habs have given up the most PPs in the league (193). However, that might slightly gloss over the fact that their ES play is actually the bigger contributor to their SA totals. in fact, the Habs are one of the elite teams at preventing shots on the PK (analyse that...), but would allow a massive 31.5 shots per contest if they were penalty free.

Given that Jacques Martin is supposedly in charge of organizing and plotting team strategy for the 5-on-5, I was wondering what on earth was going on. If we don't have possession stats, we certainly have eyes – and those tell me that the Habs trend (espcially lately has been to sit and wait for shots and chances to come). Perhaps the comfort of two good goalies prevents fretting over the defensive pitfalls of this approach, but a look at ES scoring shows that a little more possession for the good guys might help to pad a few leads, win a few more close games.


Chances for and against

As I said, we don't have possession stats per se, but we do have some proxies. One of the better proxies at even strength is the CORSI numbers. However, as you know, though i like the number, I find it often oversimplifies matters. After all, there are several ways to get a good CORSI number: play bad defensively but take a lot of shots (misses and blocked shots count for you), play really well defensively and take shots, play unbelievable defence and take barely more than average shots. In light of that, I like to present the whole story (i.e., chances for and against), and relate those to what the league is doing. I present the status quo for the Habs below, with shots for (SF), chances for (ChF), shots against (SA), chances against (CA), and the differences between offense and defence:

NAME	GP	SFON/60	ChF/60	SAON/60	ChA/60	Sh Diff	Ch Diff
Andrei Kostitsyn	40	24.3	49.8	27	53.8	-2.7	-4
Andrei Markov	9	30.4	56.2	42.5	70.6	-12.1	-14.4
Benoit Pouliot	19	32.3	57.1	28.3	55.7	4	1.4
Brian Gionta	23	29.9	61.9	30.2	57.6	-0.3	4.3
Geln Metropolit	38	24.8	50	26.5	58.6	-1.7	-8.6
Georges Laraque	23	15	32.3	28.6	68.5	-13.6	-36.2
Hal Gill	30	20.9	45.6	28.5	57.1	-7.6	-11.5
Jaroslav Spacek	42	26.3	54.1	29.5	59.5	-3.2	-5.4
Josh Gorges	44	21.8	44.6	26.7	56.6	-4.9	-12
Marc-Andre Bergeron	37	24.5	53	27.8	56.2	-3.3	-3.2
Matt D'Agostini	29	20.4	48.1	27.9	55.4	-7.5	-7.3
Max Pacioretty	43	25.7	52.7	28.3	56.1	-2.6	-3.4
Maxim Lapierre	44	18.4	44.5	30.5	61.5	-12.1	-17
Michael Cammalleri	44	25	54.2	28.9	57.8	-3.9	-3.6
Paul Mara	34	22.3	49	30.7	59.4	-8.4	-10.4
Roman Hamrlik	37	25.1	52.4	26.4	55.8	-1.3	-3.4
Ryan O'Byrne	24	20	43.7	31.3	59.4	-11.3	-15.7
Ryan White	13	14.4	37.1	31.1	62.6	-16.7	-25.5
Scott Gomez	40	28.5	56.7	30.1	56.3	-1.6	0.4
Sergei Kostitsyn	19	21.8	44.2	31.2	59	-9.4	-14.8
Tom Pyatt	19	19.2	40	31	63	-11.8	-23
Tomas Plekanec	44	23.1	47.6	28.6	58.2	-5.5	-10.6
Travis Moen	44	24	46.5	28.8	57	-4.8	-10.5

Legend

Top 10% NHL

11-20% NHL

21-40% NHL

Average NHL

61-80% NHL

81-90% NHL

Bottom 10% NHL

As you can see, chances for with the Habs is a mixed bag. Gionta, Gomez, Pouliot and Markov generate top tier chances, while the offensive laggards (Laraque and co.), well, lag. I'm sure there's lots to be mined from the numbers and the relationships between them, but not today.

Chances against are more homgenous. They are all blue. It is systematic. This, for me, is most interesting. Once again, the bad players are bad. However, even the players we heap praise on for defensive awareness are allowing above average number of shots to be released from opponents' sticks.

Leaving the offensive stats behind, I delved deeper into the defensive numbers to try and figure out what is happening. I present the numbers for you to consider below for shots against (SA), missed shots against (MA), blocked shots (BF), chances against (ChA) and percentage of shots against making the net (SA%):

NAME	GP	SAON/60	MAON/60	BFON/60	ChA/60	SA%
Andrei Kostitsyn	40	27	11.4	15.4	53.8	50.2%
Andrei Markov	9	42.5	13.7	14.4	70.6	60.2%
Benoit Pouliot	19	28.3	13.7	13.7	55.7	50.8%
Brian Gionta	23	30.2	13.2	14.2	57.6	52.4%
Geln Metropolit	38	26.5	13.9	18.2	58.6	45.2%
Georges Laraque	23	28.6	18.6	21.3	68.5	41.8%
Hal Gill	30	28.5	13.4	15.2	57.1	49.9%
Jaroslav Spacek	42	29.5	12.2	17.8	59.5	49.6%
Josh Gorges	44	26.7	12.9	17	56.6	47.2%
Marc-Andre Bergeron	37	27.8	11.7	16.7	56.2	49.5%
Matt D'Agostini	29	27.9	9	18.5	55.4	50.4%
Max Pacioretty	43	28.3	10.7	17.1	56.1	50.4%
Maxim Lapierre	44	30.5	12.4	18.6	61.5	49.6%
Michael Cammalleri	44	28.9	12.6	16.3	57.8	50.0%
Paul Mara	34	30.7	12.3	16.4	59.4	51.7%
Roman Hamrlik	37	26.4	12.2	17.2	55.8	47.3%
Ryan O'Byrne	24	31.3	10.6	17.5	59.4	52.7%
Ryan White	13	31.1	12.7	18.8	62.6	49.7%
Scott Gomez	40	30.1	12.1	14.1	56.3	53.5%
Sergei Kostitsyn	19	31.2	11	16.8	59	52.9%
Tom Pyatt	19	31	13.1	18.9	63	49.2%
Tomas Plekanec	44	28.6	12.4	17.2	58.2	49.1%
Travis Moen	44	28.8	11.9	16.3	57	50.5%

Legend

Top 10% NHL

11-20% NHL

21-40% NHL

Average NHL

61-80% NHL

81-90% NHL

Bottom 10% NHL

This table is most interesting for those who want to get to the bottom of the Jacques martin system, I think. Column by column, it's pretty consistently league average or below, or league average and above.

The breakdown of chances across the whole team seems to be summed up by lots of shots attempted against, an enormous amount blocked, many opponents forced to shoot wide, but still more than average shots getting to the net.

Shots against (as we noted earlier) is troubling, even if it doesn't result in goals 92% of the time. Most Habs are belowe the league average in preventing shots on their goal.

Blocked shots is an interesting category. It must be the only statistic in the league where the Canadiens could look like such a star outfit. No less than 12 Habs fall into the top 10% of the league in blocked shots at ES while they're on the ice. The rest are above average (only Pouliot, with his Wild numbers incorporated, spoils the whitewash). Missed shots is similar, if not quite as dominant, almost all Habs being above the league average.

Add up below average shot prevention, more than average missed shots and more than average blocked shots and you get the blue mess that follows in chances against. The numbers in that column are sub-optimal by most standards and some are downright abysmal (see >60 ChA/60).

It seems to me (and maybe to you as well, dear readers) that this is a bit of a red flag for the passive approach to defence that is currently being employed by Martin and his boys. While the defensive clogging of the slot is surely leading to some impressive blocked and missed shot totals, it seem to me that the Canadiens aren't perhaps negotiating the next part of the strategy very well at all – which should be making the shot a turnover by recovering the puck.


System performers

So, we've got to the bottom of the system (at least the one used so far). Allow the shot from the outside – block it or force the player to shoot wide – then recover the puck and start an attack. As a system it's not stupid, the team that seems to use it best this season is Pittsburgh who translate above average chances against into below average shots against. However, it must also be said that most teams we think of as defensive outfits don't trust this way of defending. New Jersey, Boston, Detroit, these teams all reduce chances overall and limit the number of shots that have to be blocked or forced wide.

In addition to the Penguins, there are players on the Habs who seem to get this system and can play it with some success. To me, these are the players that have warmer shades in the SA column and top rankings in the missed and blocked columns. The standouts seem to be Glen Metropoilt, Josh Gorges and Roman Hamrlik. All three players (and observation I think would back this up) play their position well and are good at jumping to retrieve the loose stuff after the initial chance.


System failures

Troublingly, the successes are outnumbered by the strugglers. Ignore Markov for now (he's had offense on the mind in his return), but do cast an eye to O'Byrne, Lapierre and Mara. These three players all allow 59 chances an hour or more. They are all on the ice for plenty of blocked shots and missed shots, but the sheer number of reloads they are allowing means they are also on the ice for a shot every 2 minutes or less.

Add to these players, Spacek, Gill, Gomez, Sergei Kostitsyn and even Gionta and we're in trouble.


When to change?

45 games into a season and many players appear on paper (and on TV) to be having significant trouble with a system that demands passivity, patience and then quickness to make it work properly. It begs the question, should Martin persist with this system.

If not, how late is too late to change? After all, it seems to be unravelling more than it is coming together at this point in the season. What's more, i think we've al seen enough proof that it doesn't work as well against good teams as it seems to against the Islanders.

If I were the coach, I'd be having a little think about all this.

I'd like to know what all of you think...

Game #37 A Win, A Shutout, A Captain; Better Than A DVD Boxset

Details

Date: 19/12/09
Opponent: Islanders
Location: New York


Win: 3-0

Habs Goalie: Halak (W)
Opposition Goalie: Biron (L)

Habs goalscorers: Markov (2), Metropolit
Opposition goalscorers: None

Play of the game

Despite the Islanders territorial domination, the Habs really did give a lot to choose from tonight. Perhaps it was because things happened in a more smash and grab way for the Canadiens, rather than the settle in, stay-a-while approach from the Isles. The play of the game for me, after several reviews of the goals and plays was Jaroslav Halak's save on Matt Moulson. Which one you say? Well, indeed. The one which was built by the first passer, then Tavares, the Moulson as the tic-tac-toe candidate for goal of the month - that one. As the pass came behind the net, Halak had every reason to surge to his left to cover the post where Tavares was going. He did, and fast. But unlike some goalies who would commit all to that save, he calculated the slide to stop him at the post, taking away Tavares wrap-around dream without abandoning the shooter in front. As Tavares' sublime pass came one touch form behind, Halak moved in synchrony with it, keeping his balance so as to play the shooter with all his body. Moulson, then, was met with surprise as he did everything right in lifting the puck over the sliding pad. He was left to shake his head as Halak's blocker calmly guided the puck skyward.

Dome hockey team

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


Forwards

Glen Metropolit
Some players take a demotion as a reason to sulk. Some actually take it as a call to wake up. Glen falls into the latter group. Following his games of costly penalties and underwhelming play, he has awoken. In the first period he was player of the game with his energy and tempo. He was stealing pucks, winning pucks in the offensive zone and creating chances (if not goals). In the end the scoresheet did this selection justice, too, as he scored a simple, yet timely goal.

Scott Gomez
If this guy was only paid $2 million a year, you can mark my words, there'd be raving reviews. His play off the puck at times is exemplary, and I'm glad Sergei Kostitsyn gets such a close up view of this. In a game where the Canadiens played mostly without control, it seems only fitting to include one of the best harrowers. His work on the PK was once again a sight to see, and if you want to understand that recent streak of stinginess look beyond just Gill and see the Gomez injury timeline. In the end, the scoresheet also rewarded Scott, as he created the insurance goal through his other main skill.

Sergei Kostitsyn
This last position was more difficult to settle on. Plekanec likely would have had the biggest shout, but for his run in with unfortunate refereeing. In the end, it goes to a penalty killer. There was little to tease apart between the excellent work of Lapierre, Moen and Sergei here. But think a minute about that phrase: Sergei Kostitsyn? PK? Excellent? I think it's high time we recognise what a turnaround, what an achievement Sergei has here. Not only did he stow his sulk in a bus undercarriage, he has come to the Canadiens and is turning in games as the top penalty killer. He played 5:32 overall, a full 2 minutes more than Max, 3 more than Moen. Brunet may get on him for a rushed clearance, but this man of confidence causes no such complaint from Jacques Martin, I think.

Defencemen

Andrei Markov
How good it feels to write this. Yet this is no sympathy vote, Markov was the best offensive player tonight, and a solid defender as well. For those who had forgotten, or stats toters who never watch players before computing their value, Markov showed why the Montreal PP though good in his absence, was once great. On defence, he played not to cut shots, but a shutout in this game is reflective at least in part to the doggedness of Andrei to hone in on loose pucks. Oh, and you'll have noticed the headline. I am convinced that our captain returned this game. There's a reason why all three letters are still 'A's for the Habs in December, and it must be linked to the fact their captain would rather take the role in all but name. His play, his celebrations, his discourse on the sidelines, I saw a captain for the first time in a while.

Jaroslav Spacek
Playing with Markov must surely help, but I think Andrei could tank his partner similarly. Apart from his early fall, I thought Spacek had a good game. What set him apart from the others for me was his exceptional puck control on the PP - it didn't directly result in goals this time, but he was on the ice for that last pretty goal. Going forward, I think it will be important to have a player who complements Markov well to really turn this system around. As you know, I feel Jaro is that player. I think our first shutout in an eon gives a lot of credence to that.

Goaltender

Jaroslav Halak - Game Puck
They do make us wait, don't they? The Canadiens last shutout was last February 24th vs the Vancouver Canucks - it was Jaro then, too. In the meantime we've seen goalies play in shutout form a lot - mostly against us. What a pleasure then to watch a goalie come in and keep his concentration for a whole game. There was shutout written on more saves tonight than in most games we've seen since this tandem came along for us. Jaro almost seemed to will this one. That's not to say he was lucky. not at all. All he did was take the positional instruction and execute it without flaw. Apart from the play of the game, his saves on shorthanded breakaways stood out, his quick legs on cross-crease work made impression.

Comments

How many times to repeat the cliche? Christmas has come early.

The analogy is a good one though, because like children tossing restlessly in expectant sleep, we have been anticipating the moment of Markov's return ever since he wobbled off the ice in October. And though his return would have been enough on his own to warrant such a header, he did so much better. As he skated for us, we were a better team for having a top pairing of dynamism, and better second and third pairings. As mentioned, he also brings the general back to the defence and the team - a captain in all but name.

Before we get carried away, perhaps to address the slant of the ice in this contest. The Islanders did really have the initiative, the shots and the possession. I will support Jacques Martin's men in this one though. Perhaps not a pleasure to watch, they did certain things very well here. In giving away possession for instance, I found they often forced low quality shots while being very proactive on rebounds. No they wouldn't have gotten away with sitting on a lead as they did against the Sharks, Red Wings or Hawks; but this was the Islanders and the strategy of sit and counter-attack didn't seem so crazy as I watched. Because they scored when they did, they didn't need to press extra men up, and they seemed to be acting on instruction that they shouldn't. What's more, apart from the refs who saw penalties in run-of-the-mill plays and falls on their own whims, the Canadiens were disciplined on the whole, I thought.

Together with the previous positives from losses, the team does have a direction of travel now, and with Markov (and perhaps Hamrlik soon), it looks more and more like up.

Latendresse Vs. Pouliot Season Preview All Over Again

In the style of the beloved season previews, I offer to you Benoit Pouliot's belated preview next to the now very optimistic-looking one we did for Latendresse in September. While it certainly shows we lost a good player who many of us thought had some promise, it also reveals some surprises about the new Canadiens forward.


Guillaume Latendresse

NHL Season	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	PPG	GWG	G/60	Pts/60	Sh	S%	PIM
08-09 (MTL)	56	14	12	26	+4	1	2	1.10	2.05	117	12.0	45
07-08 (MTL)	73	16	11	27	-2	2	3	1.07	1.81	116	13.8	41
06-07 (MTL)	80	16	13	29	-20	5	3	0.95	1.73	121	13.2	47

Even-strength profile
	Above average offensively at even strength A rare green patch on the Canadiens – above average in GA at even strength Below average on preventing chances against the Montreal end Neutral CORSI: -0.2 (2nd on the Habs)

Legend


Stats notes

You could go many ways in interpreting these stats. Many numbers show clear decline, despite the progress that Gui is touted for. On the other hand, there is some stability within them too. The things to note:

1) Gui shoots straight
It's perhaps not that surprising that the skill that got him to the NHL is the one that stands out. 12.0% in an off year is not a stat I'd ever sneeze at.

2) Good production at even strength, considering
About a goal every 60 minutes of ice time is a good average to carry in you NHL career. Considering Gui's been bumped around lines a lot, not been given primo PP time and played with chance sink Kostopoulos a lot last year, then I find that encouraging. Hopefully he keeps up the pace.

3) Wonky even strength profile
As much as I'd like to think that Gui is one of the best defensive forwards on the team, the fact that I do have eyes helps me over the feeling. His profile shows us the danger of taking things out of context. Last season, Gui played at all the right times and missed the worst Price/Halak had to offer. Has it skewed the profile? Is Guillaume really 2nd best in Corsi? Perhaps the Canadiens lost all those games because he was injured? Impossible to tell for certain in a one-off experiment, but again, we do all have eyes, and sense.


As we've mentioned, 2009-10 is a big season for Latendresse. Because let's face it, another 14-16 goal campaign, while fine, certainly doesn't add to the lustre of the future 30-goal man argument. And, if it is to be 15 goals a year from here on in, then someone, somewhere is bound to surpass him, at least in terms of potential.

His shooting accuracy teamed with a new approach to shooting more should help. His defensive game and any improvement in the purpose of his hitting will make this line a very threatening one.


Tobalev on Latendresse

For some reason I am excited about Latendresse this year. Maybe it is because I see him as the best of the players from my home province, maybe it's because he is one of the longest serving Habs, or maybe it is because I actually sense a big season coming on. Whatever happens with goals and assists, Latendresse is still a player that wants to play for the Habs and generally tries pretty hard, despite some talent shortcomings.

Unfortunately for Gui, however, nothing is guaranteed. There are signs, after all that point to him not having that great of a season. His production levels have been stable for 3 years, he seems to be getting slower and he may very well get crowded out of the top-6/PP.

On the positive side, I think his new status on the team (best Quebecer) will help him, especially early in the season. Many fans and new teammates will look to him now as a leader and not just a prospect. If he can get in Martin’s good books and get himself onto a scoring line early on then I could see him there all year. If he makes the most of these chances when provided, the outlook could brighten in a hurry – I really think he could score 25 goals.

The more likely scenario, however, is that he gets bounced between the top 3 lines and into/out of the PP (thanks to injuries, slumps etc.). This will hurt his production and that is why I think he’ll likely top out at 30-35 points with most of those coming as goals.


Where Latendresse will start 2009-10: Carrying the torch for millions

Where Latendresse will end 2009-10: With a new appreciation for what he can do in this league

Points: 21 G, 24 A, 45 Pts


Benoit Pouliot

NHL Season	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	PPG	GWG	G/60	Pts/60	Sh	S%	PIM
08-09 (MIN)	37	5	6	11	+1	2	1	0.68	1.51	34	14.7	18
07-08 (MIN)	11	2	1	3	-1	0	0	1.24	1.86	10	20.0	0
06-07 (MIN)	3	0	0	0	-1	0	0	0.00	0.00	1	0.0	0

Even-strength profile
	Below average offensively at even strength Top 10% leaguewide in GA at even strength Well below average at creating chances Negative CORSI: -9.9

Legend


Stats notes
The first impression when looking at these stats side by side is something like: "My goodness, we were fleeced..." But as we know statistics do need interpreting. And, as we all recall, Guillaume's stats from last year flattered him. As this was a trade, we'll do this a bit differently, pointing out a few differences I think it is absolutely vital to note. Note also, that being a Habs fan who wants to view this trade in a positive light, I'll leave the negative comparisons to you readers to make:

1) Shot totals
Prior to this season, Benoit Pouliot managed a measly 45 shots in 51 games. Guillaume had that many shots in his NHL career well before his 20th birthday. It's worth noting because whether it be linemates, coaching or something else, Pouliot has just never had the chance to let loose his shot (of similar accuracy based on %) compared to Gui. Is he a Sergei Kostitsyn who holds and hold and holds? Perhaps, but the scouts in 2005 didn't think so.

2) Defensive numbers
Guillaume from his profile showed a good defensive player (though we mentioned this was puzzling to those who had observed him). Pouliot really does one up him. Now before you go and say that Benoit has benefited from being on the Wild, do first consider that his 1.53 GA/60 was third on the team after Boogaard and Kolanos. Other young forwards like Clutterbuck (2.11) and James Sheppard (2.84) lagged behind his defensive responsibility greatly. What's more only Pouliot came out positive on +/- from the youngsters. Not all bad from the guy with 14 previous games under his belt.

3) Games played
I alluded to experience in shots. Well, Pouliot (from the same draft year as Latendresse) has played 167 less games in all. This is also critical for waivers. Benoit Pouliot signed his first NHL contract in May 2006 at age 19. As such, it set the clock on his waiver exemption to 4 seasons or 160 games (whichever came first). Given that he's nowhere near reaching 160 games anytime soon, it means the time limit on him seeing waivers will be the outset of next season. Of course, for the Canadiens, this provides another player they can ship up and down to Hamilton (like Sergei Kostitsyn, Pyatt, White, etc.). Guillaume Latendresse would have had to clear waivers to go to Hamilton, which had been the case since his 160th game early last season. No matter how few goals he scored, how badly he sulked or how much he needed a wake up call – Gainey's hands were tied on Guillaume. Don't underestimate this factor in the trade that just occurred.


A simple glance at the stats says loss for Gainey in this file. But under a bit more scrutiny, Gainey has manufactured a bit more flex with his roster by simply trading one 2-goalscorer with potential to do more for another. When injuries heal, I truly think this flexibility will tip the balance in the Habs favour, espeically if Sulkatron-2000 was going to react to benching anything like he reacted to be being traded.




Statistics adapted from nhl.com, behindthenet.ca, Olivier