You know the saying: "Speed Kills"
In hockey it's as true as anywhere else. Essentially hockey is a series of races to find open space so the man with a little black disc can get 2 free seconds to do what he has practiced doing 65,000 times in his parents' basement and score a goal.
Without speed, there will be no space -- even big men need quick turns and quick hands to make something of their barging around. Without space there are no goals (well few) and few wins as well.
All this is making it increasingly frustrating to watch the Canadiens so far this season. The team has speed in certain places (notably up front and in Carey Prices agile lateral sweeps) and is certainly presented to us as a lightning fast team that can kill another with the slightest whiff of open space.
What has been frustrating me as I watch them try to score when they actually need to is that many times the team is actually guilty of using speed to kill its own movements. Let me explain.
The other night against Calgary there were a few rushes I noticed where the forwards would have done better to cool there jets rather than turn again to the after-burners, to use a dangle and a missed stride to confuse the defence rather than to walk into their open arms.
One 3-on-2, I watched Desharnais dart in between the two defenders while the RW carried the puck for a shot. So quick that he was behind the net before the winger had chance to even think shot. DD had created the Canadiens most typical play again, the "make sure you're there to get the puck behind the net" play because odds are that a forward will miss to the short side. It's a very effective way to win the puck for a few more seconds before the other team dumps it after your outfit comes away without a shot.
Other times (and this is common) I see the forwards pouring on the speed as they cross the blueline right until they have closed the gap between themselves and the defenders. Now call me foolish, but isn't that gap a valuable asset to the forward? Isn't that gap what one needs if one wants to cut to the middle where the best shots comes from? It's the defence's job to close the gap, so doing the job for them doesn't seem like a good strategy to me. A little pedal off the metal and the defender would have to choose, and would likely have to either stop or slow down, or even come forwards, creating that change in momentum that could really be exploited by quick feet.
And the Canadiens unfailing confidence in their own speed must surely also be why each forward nearly always opts to try and beat a defender around the boards to execute the play from above.
The Canadiens have speed. But their unsophisticated use of it is becoming very predictable. Speed is a deadly weapon when used right in this game, it's such a shame to be using it to hurt your own cause. Let's hope the Habs recognize how speed can kill before they kill anymore opportunities to take easy points.
Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
The Canadiens Need A Rethink
The other night was a mess for the Canadiens. But of the many ways to lose, 6-0 is not the worst. In fact, Don Cherry joined many a fan in thinking that a drubbing may be just the medicine for the Canadiens to open this series. A call as to what they need to expect and how far they have yet to go.
It’s a theory I have heartily bought all my years. When rivals of equal measure meet, the lopsided defeat is often the sounding of the turnaround alarm. An OT defeat, as Cherry points out gives too much optimism, sometimes warranted, often not.
It is the binding hope of all Habs fans today that Pronger, Leighton, Carle and Gagne will be so sure of their plans and abilities that they’ll forget the Canadiens are allowed to play better. It is the hope fed by that win that Carcillo and Hartnell will be unleashed, listening no more to their coach (and restrainer) as they try to get in on the act, while taking their eye off the prize.
Not minutes after a rare meeting of minds between Cherry and me did Elliotte (still dying for someone to answer a question) Friedman chat with Daniel Briere in the hallway of the Wachovia underbelly.
It was there the spanner in the works. It was there I realized that the Canadiens must beware not Briere’s shot, but his realism. For, while he succeeded in pointing a screened effort into the top corner in the second, most shots do not go in. But realism in the face of what should be bald-faced optimism by all Flyers is disturbing.
Briere would not take the bait from Elliotte on Halak, though he did admit they had looked at tape. Briere instead chose to invoke luck and timing rather than take the heaps of credit 6-0 victors usually reserve for their celebrations. It was fortune that felled Halak and fortune that prevented an answer from the bleu, blanc, rouge.
Not taking credit is nothing new. Players often credit their teammates, their goalie or their coach for what has clearly been successful exploits of their own. Players too often thank their luck.
The problem here is, rarely do I believe them.
In Briere’s case, there was too much matter-of-fact to sense it was rehearsed. He believed what he said, or so I thought.
The hockey playoffs are a race to the finish line. Each series a heat where a competitor must outrun another to succeed to the next.
As a racer, I learned a lot about psychological advantage, mind games. Most competitors have a breaking point, the point at which a lead cannot be covered, a comeback unattainable. Most competitors also have the inverse, a comfort zone from which they can drive the whole affair. The games come in with the strategy; sometimes a racer will allow his rival to lead to exploit the comfort that the lead induces, conserving energy for the strike that takes the tape away.
We’ve seen already that both these teams are plucky. Neither will roll over and die if there is a shred to hang onto. If the Canadiens, like their fans and Don Cherry, hoped that lulling the Flyers into a sleepy series was their key, I think they’d better think again. If these Flyers look to Daniel Briere in the least, they are a focused bunch.
It’s a theory I have heartily bought all my years. When rivals of equal measure meet, the lopsided defeat is often the sounding of the turnaround alarm. An OT defeat, as Cherry points out gives too much optimism, sometimes warranted, often not.
It is the binding hope of all Habs fans today that Pronger, Leighton, Carle and Gagne will be so sure of their plans and abilities that they’ll forget the Canadiens are allowed to play better. It is the hope fed by that win that Carcillo and Hartnell will be unleashed, listening no more to their coach (and restrainer) as they try to get in on the act, while taking their eye off the prize.
Not minutes after a rare meeting of minds between Cherry and me did Elliotte (still dying for someone to answer a question) Friedman chat with Daniel Briere in the hallway of the Wachovia underbelly.
It was there the spanner in the works. It was there I realized that the Canadiens must beware not Briere’s shot, but his realism. For, while he succeeded in pointing a screened effort into the top corner in the second, most shots do not go in. But realism in the face of what should be bald-faced optimism by all Flyers is disturbing.
Briere would not take the bait from Elliotte on Halak, though he did admit they had looked at tape. Briere instead chose to invoke luck and timing rather than take the heaps of credit 6-0 victors usually reserve for their celebrations. It was fortune that felled Halak and fortune that prevented an answer from the bleu, blanc, rouge.
Not taking credit is nothing new. Players often credit their teammates, their goalie or their coach for what has clearly been successful exploits of their own. Players too often thank their luck.
The problem here is, rarely do I believe them.
In Briere’s case, there was too much matter-of-fact to sense it was rehearsed. He believed what he said, or so I thought.
The hockey playoffs are a race to the finish line. Each series a heat where a competitor must outrun another to succeed to the next.
As a racer, I learned a lot about psychological advantage, mind games. Most competitors have a breaking point, the point at which a lead cannot be covered, a comeback unattainable. Most competitors also have the inverse, a comfort zone from which they can drive the whole affair. The games come in with the strategy; sometimes a racer will allow his rival to lead to exploit the comfort that the lead induces, conserving energy for the strike that takes the tape away.
We’ve seen already that both these teams are plucky. Neither will roll over and die if there is a shred to hang onto. If the Canadiens, like their fans and Don Cherry, hoped that lulling the Flyers into a sleepy series was their key, I think they’d better think again. If these Flyers look to Daniel Briere in the least, they are a focused bunch.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Somewhere In Between:
Habs Playoff Success
I am constantly amazed by the material I am able to find written about this edition of the Canadiens. Whether it be journalists who wrote off the team 6 times over the season and certainly after Game 4 in Washington pretending to have prophetic tendencies, fan-bloggers getting a little bit carried away with matters of the divine right and more than a little mixed up about historical events, or bitter rivals inventing frameworks that predict failure based on their limited viewing.
We (and by we I include you readers) have watched this team intently all season, seasons back. We have become familiar with what players are capable of, what is beyond their reach. We may not understand why the Habs ever win, or ever lose, but we are wise enough by now to know that we’ll probably never know.
It is why I take special offence with the extremities of the arguments both for and against this edition of the Habs. For the team, conveniently-postdated theories about Gainey’s prescience, Martin’s tactical genius and Montreal’s perfect mix are just as absurd as the curmudgeons who hang to the thread that luck has determined all and that luck is bounded by some beginning and some end.
I think we all try to find some sense here in our discussions, and I thank you all for that. Is it not then sensible to think that a combination of luck, skill, strategy and tenacity is what we just witnessed? That the combination found by the Canadiens was no more valid or invalid than the combination used by any of the three rivals set to battle for a place in the finals?
Smells of the Cup?
I used to be a big believer in destiny, in teams of destiny. Yes, I was once twelve.
Nowadays, every time I catch an RDS post-game with scenes of newly-minted fans screaming that the stars are aligned, I cringe. While I have come to accept that Montreal is a city full of manic depressive sports followers all gagging for the chance to wear a winner’s sweater, it is the misinterpretation of history that I frown upon more.
“Feels like 93” is perhaps the most hollow statement made by Habs fans these days. What does this mean? It is overused to the extreme, not only after playoff qualification, but in November, January and even August. To some, every year feels like 1993. It leads me to believe that few actually remember what 1993 was like at all. Why 93 anyway? Why not 65 or 73?
When the more thoughtful get involved, you’d think it would get better but it doesn’t. Many also dabble in the mythology of 1993. But not the real story, more the one that’s been rewritten to fit the current circumstance. Always the implication that 1993, 1986, these were somehow underserved Cups, that were it not for some celestial redirections goals would have been misses and misses against goals. I’ve written before on what a dis-service I think this is to the teams of those eras, chock full of all-stars and playoff successes both before and after these triumphs.
1993 felt a lot to different to me. After vanquishing the Nordiques, remember taking the Sabres very lightly, celebrating more for an Islanders win against Pittsburgh than any Habs win in Long Island and thinking the final could go any which way. This year feels nothing like that, except that I didn’t know we’d win the Cup until Game #5 of the Stanley Cup finals, and I don’t know anything of Cup winner now either.
Hockey is not a game of destiny. Though we talk of conspiracies, we’re aware of how impossible they would be to carry through. The playoffs are a tough slog. Winning 4 games against the same opponent in two weeks is hard work, particularly if they have talent. Hard work, commitment to playing as a team and flashes of skill all play a much more significant part than destiny.
The Luck Will Run Out
While the euphoric parade aluminum foil around the city, those who hate the Canadiens are having a parade of their own. A parade of cynicism.
As Sidney Crosby sat there in disbelief after Game 7, citing his theory that the Canadiens strategy was not a workable one (should the Pens then be virtual champs?), acolytes of the same sorts of theories did the same. While foil Cups and pretenses at prophecy make me cringe, the statisticians are making me chuckle.
Corsi-backers, whose material at the moment is so cockeyed I won’t even bother to link, are heading a column. No less than 10 posts have been made on certain sites the Montreal Canadiens, their luck and the prediction that it will al run out.
I know there’s been luck. I understand probabilities. But clearly I’ve been out of it for a while, because I must have missed the part where the stats grinders showed me the incontrovertible proof that they can show where luck begins and ends. I was still of the illusion that a coin flip has a 50% chance of being heads or tails, regardless of what the previous coin flip showed, what the previous hundred thousand showed. I didn’t know that Halak’s save percentage in one series dictated what it will be in the first period of game one of the next.
Most offensive here is the way those who follow their lovable stat with blinders call others deluded in the face of the data. Had they spilled an ounce of effort to employ real scientific curiosity as to the validity of Jacques Martin’s new (and most counterintuitive) model of hockey, then perhaps their dismissals would hold some weight. Instead they wait for the die to fall on seven without checking if they are weighted in any way.
It is the arrogance of the critics that puts me off. How they dismiss Halak as lucky. How they dismiss the Canadiens run as a dead end. How they bundle the Gionta goal at the end of Game 7 into the same shot category as the Orpik shot from the blueline. Just because one may not be able to come up with an adequate explanation for the way things are just yet does not mean that the only alternative is by default infallible. Maybe they should ask Lamarck about that, or any real scientist in the history of time, for that matter.
In between land
As I’ve said many times, I’d like to be able to put a finger on the reason for wins, to attribute points no one could dispute to our players and theirs for how things went. It’s complex, I can’t do that at the moment.
I know from watching that there’s been luck. Lots of luck. Luck that opponents haven’t found rebounds quickly enough, luck that the net isn’t an inch wider, luck that shots go in for the good guys.
I also know that there’s been skill too. Cammalleri scoring, for example. If anyone else had been in the position to have puck hit their knee, they’d probably not be noted as goalscorer on the play. Cammalleri has certain skills, and hand-eye coordination is near top the list.
And strategy. I know it’s highly counterintuitive that allowing shots will work. But the fact that it has should arouse curiosity rather than immediate blinders. Remember that in 1993 most would have laughed Swedish coaching of the trap right out of the room.
The answer is probably in between luck and skill. In between probability and strategy.
But I’ll tell you this as well. No part of the analysis, half-baked or not, tells us one iota of what might happen next week. Predicting the future is a carnival trick – make enough predictions and one will be right. The Habs have ample chance to win Game 1, the series and whatever else. While it would seem likely they’ll be deploying the tactics that work, there’s nothing to say the team won’t simply pack up that tent and find a new strategy. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s over one way or the other. The games are played for that reason. Accept it and enjoy.
The team is wiser
Thankfully, I watch the interviews and I can see all of this is understood by those players. Thankfully, I think that these players have the sense to know they’ve found something that works, but also the experience to know they’ve enjoyed some luck. Thankfully, they are not the one-dimensional adherents to the theory that shots released from the stick, if provided in enough volume, will always prevail.
These Habs have been coached well not only in back-checking and counterattack, but also in grounding. They know that luck received must be appreciated, but never expected, and that hard work doesn’t always pay off.
Most importantly, they seem to have learned that the future is unclear, that a conference final in hand is better than two, three or ten in the bush.
I have to say, in light of all the rest, their good sense makes them even more intriguing to watch.
We (and by we I include you readers) have watched this team intently all season, seasons back. We have become familiar with what players are capable of, what is beyond their reach. We may not understand why the Habs ever win, or ever lose, but we are wise enough by now to know that we’ll probably never know.
It is why I take special offence with the extremities of the arguments both for and against this edition of the Habs. For the team, conveniently-postdated theories about Gainey’s prescience, Martin’s tactical genius and Montreal’s perfect mix are just as absurd as the curmudgeons who hang to the thread that luck has determined all and that luck is bounded by some beginning and some end.
I think we all try to find some sense here in our discussions, and I thank you all for that. Is it not then sensible to think that a combination of luck, skill, strategy and tenacity is what we just witnessed? That the combination found by the Canadiens was no more valid or invalid than the combination used by any of the three rivals set to battle for a place in the finals?
Smells of the Cup?
I used to be a big believer in destiny, in teams of destiny. Yes, I was once twelve.
Nowadays, every time I catch an RDS post-game with scenes of newly-minted fans screaming that the stars are aligned, I cringe. While I have come to accept that Montreal is a city full of manic depressive sports followers all gagging for the chance to wear a winner’s sweater, it is the misinterpretation of history that I frown upon more.
“Feels like 93” is perhaps the most hollow statement made by Habs fans these days. What does this mean? It is overused to the extreme, not only after playoff qualification, but in November, January and even August. To some, every year feels like 1993. It leads me to believe that few actually remember what 1993 was like at all. Why 93 anyway? Why not 65 or 73?
When the more thoughtful get involved, you’d think it would get better but it doesn’t. Many also dabble in the mythology of 1993. But not the real story, more the one that’s been rewritten to fit the current circumstance. Always the implication that 1993, 1986, these were somehow underserved Cups, that were it not for some celestial redirections goals would have been misses and misses against goals. I’ve written before on what a dis-service I think this is to the teams of those eras, chock full of all-stars and playoff successes both before and after these triumphs.
1993 felt a lot to different to me. After vanquishing the Nordiques, remember taking the Sabres very lightly, celebrating more for an Islanders win against Pittsburgh than any Habs win in Long Island and thinking the final could go any which way. This year feels nothing like that, except that I didn’t know we’d win the Cup until Game #5 of the Stanley Cup finals, and I don’t know anything of Cup winner now either.
Hockey is not a game of destiny. Though we talk of conspiracies, we’re aware of how impossible they would be to carry through. The playoffs are a tough slog. Winning 4 games against the same opponent in two weeks is hard work, particularly if they have talent. Hard work, commitment to playing as a team and flashes of skill all play a much more significant part than destiny.
The Luck Will Run Out
While the euphoric parade aluminum foil around the city, those who hate the Canadiens are having a parade of their own. A parade of cynicism.
As Sidney Crosby sat there in disbelief after Game 7, citing his theory that the Canadiens strategy was not a workable one (should the Pens then be virtual champs?), acolytes of the same sorts of theories did the same. While foil Cups and pretenses at prophecy make me cringe, the statisticians are making me chuckle.
Corsi-backers, whose material at the moment is so cockeyed I won’t even bother to link, are heading a column. No less than 10 posts have been made on certain sites the Montreal Canadiens, their luck and the prediction that it will al run out.
I know there’s been luck. I understand probabilities. But clearly I’ve been out of it for a while, because I must have missed the part where the stats grinders showed me the incontrovertible proof that they can show where luck begins and ends. I was still of the illusion that a coin flip has a 50% chance of being heads or tails, regardless of what the previous coin flip showed, what the previous hundred thousand showed. I didn’t know that Halak’s save percentage in one series dictated what it will be in the first period of game one of the next.
Most offensive here is the way those who follow their lovable stat with blinders call others deluded in the face of the data. Had they spilled an ounce of effort to employ real scientific curiosity as to the validity of Jacques Martin’s new (and most counterintuitive) model of hockey, then perhaps their dismissals would hold some weight. Instead they wait for the die to fall on seven without checking if they are weighted in any way.
It is the arrogance of the critics that puts me off. How they dismiss Halak as lucky. How they dismiss the Canadiens run as a dead end. How they bundle the Gionta goal at the end of Game 7 into the same shot category as the Orpik shot from the blueline. Just because one may not be able to come up with an adequate explanation for the way things are just yet does not mean that the only alternative is by default infallible. Maybe they should ask Lamarck about that, or any real scientist in the history of time, for that matter.
In between land
As I’ve said many times, I’d like to be able to put a finger on the reason for wins, to attribute points no one could dispute to our players and theirs for how things went. It’s complex, I can’t do that at the moment.
I know from watching that there’s been luck. Lots of luck. Luck that opponents haven’t found rebounds quickly enough, luck that the net isn’t an inch wider, luck that shots go in for the good guys.
I also know that there’s been skill too. Cammalleri scoring, for example. If anyone else had been in the position to have puck hit their knee, they’d probably not be noted as goalscorer on the play. Cammalleri has certain skills, and hand-eye coordination is near top the list.
And strategy. I know it’s highly counterintuitive that allowing shots will work. But the fact that it has should arouse curiosity rather than immediate blinders. Remember that in 1993 most would have laughed Swedish coaching of the trap right out of the room.
The answer is probably in between luck and skill. In between probability and strategy.
But I’ll tell you this as well. No part of the analysis, half-baked or not, tells us one iota of what might happen next week. Predicting the future is a carnival trick – make enough predictions and one will be right. The Habs have ample chance to win Game 1, the series and whatever else. While it would seem likely they’ll be deploying the tactics that work, there’s nothing to say the team won’t simply pack up that tent and find a new strategy. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s over one way or the other. The games are played for that reason. Accept it and enjoy.
The team is wiser
Thankfully, I watch the interviews and I can see all of this is understood by those players. Thankfully, I think that these players have the sense to know they’ve found something that works, but also the experience to know they’ve enjoyed some luck. Thankfully, they are not the one-dimensional adherents to the theory that shots released from the stick, if provided in enough volume, will always prevail.
These Habs have been coached well not only in back-checking and counterattack, but also in grounding. They know that luck received must be appreciated, but never expected, and that hard work doesn’t always pay off.
Most importantly, they seem to have learned that the future is unclear, that a conference final in hand is better than two, three or ten in the bush.
I have to say, in light of all the rest, their good sense makes them even more intriguing to watch.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
NHL Draft Theory
The NHL draft is 10 days away now and the previews are coming thick and fast. I've been doing some analysis and will offer a preview of what I think the Canadiens should do very soon. To start with, though, I thought I would indulge a little abstract discussion on how I think a team's scouting department should target their efforts.
Generally speaking there are two ways that teams seem to approach a draft:
1) Address specific organizational needs
OR
2) Pick the best player available
Both are very good approaches with arguments for and against. I dissect each below.
Organizational needs
This method is the favourite of analysts. For one thing, it allows them to predict which teams will take which players. It's clearly also a very popular approach among teams.
What this tack has going for it is that when you get it right, your team can tick over as a self-contained machine. The NHL club will be stocked with players from minor league clubs which are all fed through the draft at each position. You'll always have 6 goalies, 20 odd defencemen and many more forwards in the system to keep it alimenting the major league team.
The problem with this approach is that it requires teams to draft things like defensive defencemen and third line wingers. Scouts already have enough trouble seeking out the one player that could be an offensive star one day, giving them extra briefs to fill all on the same day every year is a tough one.
Another problem is that it assumes organizational strength throughout, not only at judging new talent but also at judging the talent within. Call me crazy, but I don't think most organizations are rightly equipped to approach the draft in this way. Most teams have enough trouble picking a GM and a coach, to expect not only that but also excellent NHL level scouts, heads of amateur scouting and eyes on the local arenas is probably stretching reality.
To boot, you'll end up being called the Nashville Predators.
Best player
Those who fall under the Montreal umbrella will be accustomed to hearing the party line that is "Best player available" for a while now. Trevor Timmins in particular is a premier adherent to this school of thought.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with picking who you think is the best, but you would run the risk of overstocking at one position (say defence) while other positions (like goalie and right wing, for example) are perilously weak.
It does alleviate the problem, however, of having to know what you've got in the system. That taxing activity removed would give more time for actually assessing the new potential coming through. I do like the focus of this idea a lot.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, but this system of choosing draft picks does require a good system to build equilibrium be in place. In my experience, a good NHL team has a balance of talent. It's very rare (and probably foolhardy to go against experience) to ice 6 great defenders a decent goalie and AHL forwards and expect much silverware. Similarly, 3 top centers with no defencemen doesn't work for most. That's to say, your GM better be darn good at trading away defensive prospects for forwards if your a head scout who constantly picks defensive stalwarts from Minnesota.
If your team's track record for trading up (or even sideways) in value and bringing in good players through free agency is poor, then you'd better be looking to the draft to fill some of the other positions as well.
Which system for the Canadiens?
Having looked at the alternatives, I'm not really turned on by either. I do feel the Canadiens have a good scouting network in place they certainly seem to turn up more late round steals than an average NHL club. That said, I wouldn't want to be limited to a team built from the draft - the club still does have it share of shocking picks and misses.
It's tempting to think that the best player approach is a worthy one, but I think these last few years have shown us a few things about Timmins' and Gainey's little theory. Drafting loads of defencemen is no good at all when the GM can't flip one in a trade - it just creates a log jam where perfectly good prospects are lost into the ether (or the KHL). It has to be said that losing Emelin and Valentenko when both Mathieu Aubin might be left as the top centre in Hamilton next season is criminal.
The lesson for me in all this is that defencemen are an asset, yes. But defensive projects are not, at least not in a trade. Most clubs trading away value are looking for value that will pay dividends in the relative short term - they don't want David Fischer until they see whether he's able to handle the jump to the NHL at age 25.
I think the Canadiens need a third way to approach this conundrum.
A third system
The third way is a bit different. Rather than selecting the best player, I think the Canadiens should be looking to select the best organizational asset with each pick they make.
Best asset
The first step is to be realistic about how the NHL is run. The draft is what it is, but it is not the only tool available to those building a Stanley Cup contending team. In order to fashion a team to win, a GM must also effectively use free agency, waivers and trades. In the context of all these other avenues of player acquisition, drafting recedes in importance. It is still vital, but in order to maximise your chances your overall, you need to understand what the draft is best for. Moreover, you need to understand what the draft can provide that unrestricted avenues like free agency and waivers cannot.
It's simple really, simple economics: supply and demand.
Recent history shows that the hardest things to get your hands on (from another team) are reliable scoring forwards and top-notch defencemen. Incidentally, these are also the two categories of player that will cost you the moon on July 1st - and due to taxes and other issues are probably out of Montreal's reach altogether in free agency. It follows that having these assets in the system for a possible trade will offer the best return should you want it.
By contrast, drafting and developing defensive or lower scoring forwards is something anyone can do. These players can be traded for with relative ease, signed on July 10th when the dust settles or even acquired through non-draft routes as undrafted players. In other words, one should not look at as a defensive forward or a future back-up goalie as a true organizational asset.
Swing for the fences
Another part of being realistic about the NHL is knowing that having 43 good prospects is not that much better than having 8. Trades are few and don't look to be rising, and teams with a raft of prospects often get shorted on trades because of the perception they are not giving up as much.
Knowing that you don't have to have seven draftees making it all the way to the NHL or the AHL or even the ECHL should be a relief. It's realistic. My question prior to each pick wouldn't be who has the best odds of being an NHL player, but rather who has the best odds (even if they're outside) of being the best offensive star or, if a defenceman, top defender.
A team shouldn't be using any pick, let a lone a top pick to select a player who's already called a defensive forward or defensive defenceman at the junior level. You can't criticise much in the draft, but you can criticise this.
Habs fans, how would you like to have Travis Zajac. He was picked 2 selections after Kyle Chipchura as a risky offensive prospect. He's already played 3 seasons on the New Jersey Devils and is a first/second liner with a 20-goal season by age 23. The Devils swung for the fence and the Canadiens have a forward that can play like their waiver wire pick-up Geln Metropolit (if they're lucky). Chipchura may one day have me eating my words, but Gainey could have traded Huet for him instead of that second round pick in a pinch if he liked him so much - it's just not hard to acquire the Chipchuras of this world. The Zajacs, well you tell me...
If your drafting is any good, and ours is, swinging for the fences should come off once in a while. And who knows, maybe we can replicate our Markov pick with a Datsyuk and Zetterberg of our own.
Trade picks if the math adds up
There will come times when someone comes knocking for that pick. At those times, I can only advise listening.
The Tanguay trade was a classic example of an opportunity well taken. No matter how you sliced it, the likelihood of getting a player as good as Tanguay (a scoring star – one of those rare assets) in either the first or second round of the NHL draft was slim to none. Gainey missed a chance at an organizational asset, but added an actual asset. Also, the addition of Tanguay bumped people down in the organization. Corey Locke, for example was now expendable and used in a trade for something of use to the team.
Trading picks like this is to be encouraged in my third approach, so long as the opportunity cost calculation is sound. a 25th pick for Tanguay (even for one year) is a win. Had that pick been a 10th overall, the choice gets murkier. 5th overall and it's a loser.
In sum
Don't pick the player with the best chance of being an NHLer, pick the one with a chance at being a star Don't even bother picking the types of players you can easily pick up by other means (i.e., OK goalies, defensive defencemen and bottom line forwards) Trade the pick if the organization gets a better asset mix from the swap
This is the strategy I can only hope the Canadiens look to in the future. I hope that this year will be the first of many home run swinging affairs and to that 18th pick – whether we use it to choose an amateur or to bring in a pro.
Generally speaking there are two ways that teams seem to approach a draft:
1) Address specific organizational needs
OR
2) Pick the best player available
Both are very good approaches with arguments for and against. I dissect each below.
Organizational needs
This method is the favourite of analysts. For one thing, it allows them to predict which teams will take which players. It's clearly also a very popular approach among teams.
What this tack has going for it is that when you get it right, your team can tick over as a self-contained machine. The NHL club will be stocked with players from minor league clubs which are all fed through the draft at each position. You'll always have 6 goalies, 20 odd defencemen and many more forwards in the system to keep it alimenting the major league team.
The problem with this approach is that it requires teams to draft things like defensive defencemen and third line wingers. Scouts already have enough trouble seeking out the one player that could be an offensive star one day, giving them extra briefs to fill all on the same day every year is a tough one.
Another problem is that it assumes organizational strength throughout, not only at judging new talent but also at judging the talent within. Call me crazy, but I don't think most organizations are rightly equipped to approach the draft in this way. Most teams have enough trouble picking a GM and a coach, to expect not only that but also excellent NHL level scouts, heads of amateur scouting and eyes on the local arenas is probably stretching reality.
To boot, you'll end up being called the Nashville Predators.
Best player
Those who fall under the Montreal umbrella will be accustomed to hearing the party line that is "Best player available" for a while now. Trevor Timmins in particular is a premier adherent to this school of thought.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with picking who you think is the best, but you would run the risk of overstocking at one position (say defence) while other positions (like goalie and right wing, for example) are perilously weak.
It does alleviate the problem, however, of having to know what you've got in the system. That taxing activity removed would give more time for actually assessing the new potential coming through. I do like the focus of this idea a lot.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, but this system of choosing draft picks does require a good system to build equilibrium be in place. In my experience, a good NHL team has a balance of talent. It's very rare (and probably foolhardy to go against experience) to ice 6 great defenders a decent goalie and AHL forwards and expect much silverware. Similarly, 3 top centers with no defencemen doesn't work for most. That's to say, your GM better be darn good at trading away defensive prospects for forwards if your a head scout who constantly picks defensive stalwarts from Minnesota.
If your team's track record for trading up (or even sideways) in value and bringing in good players through free agency is poor, then you'd better be looking to the draft to fill some of the other positions as well.
Which system for the Canadiens?
Having looked at the alternatives, I'm not really turned on by either. I do feel the Canadiens have a good scouting network in place they certainly seem to turn up more late round steals than an average NHL club. That said, I wouldn't want to be limited to a team built from the draft - the club still does have it share of shocking picks and misses.
It's tempting to think that the best player approach is a worthy one, but I think these last few years have shown us a few things about Timmins' and Gainey's little theory. Drafting loads of defencemen is no good at all when the GM can't flip one in a trade - it just creates a log jam where perfectly good prospects are lost into the ether (or the KHL). It has to be said that losing Emelin and Valentenko when both Mathieu Aubin might be left as the top centre in Hamilton next season is criminal.
The lesson for me in all this is that defencemen are an asset, yes. But defensive projects are not, at least not in a trade. Most clubs trading away value are looking for value that will pay dividends in the relative short term - they don't want David Fischer until they see whether he's able to handle the jump to the NHL at age 25.
I think the Canadiens need a third way to approach this conundrum.
A third system
The third way is a bit different. Rather than selecting the best player, I think the Canadiens should be looking to select the best organizational asset with each pick they make.
Best asset
The first step is to be realistic about how the NHL is run. The draft is what it is, but it is not the only tool available to those building a Stanley Cup contending team. In order to fashion a team to win, a GM must also effectively use free agency, waivers and trades. In the context of all these other avenues of player acquisition, drafting recedes in importance. It is still vital, but in order to maximise your chances your overall, you need to understand what the draft is best for. Moreover, you need to understand what the draft can provide that unrestricted avenues like free agency and waivers cannot.
It's simple really, simple economics: supply and demand.
Recent history shows that the hardest things to get your hands on (from another team) are reliable scoring forwards and top-notch defencemen. Incidentally, these are also the two categories of player that will cost you the moon on July 1st - and due to taxes and other issues are probably out of Montreal's reach altogether in free agency. It follows that having these assets in the system for a possible trade will offer the best return should you want it.
By contrast, drafting and developing defensive or lower scoring forwards is something anyone can do. These players can be traded for with relative ease, signed on July 10th when the dust settles or even acquired through non-draft routes as undrafted players. In other words, one should not look at as a defensive forward or a future back-up goalie as a true organizational asset.
Swing for the fences
Another part of being realistic about the NHL is knowing that having 43 good prospects is not that much better than having 8. Trades are few and don't look to be rising, and teams with a raft of prospects often get shorted on trades because of the perception they are not giving up as much.
Knowing that you don't have to have seven draftees making it all the way to the NHL or the AHL or even the ECHL should be a relief. It's realistic. My question prior to each pick wouldn't be who has the best odds of being an NHL player, but rather who has the best odds (even if they're outside) of being the best offensive star or, if a defenceman, top defender.
A team shouldn't be using any pick, let a lone a top pick to select a player who's already called a defensive forward or defensive defenceman at the junior level. You can't criticise much in the draft, but you can criticise this.
Habs fans, how would you like to have Travis Zajac. He was picked 2 selections after Kyle Chipchura as a risky offensive prospect. He's already played 3 seasons on the New Jersey Devils and is a first/second liner with a 20-goal season by age 23. The Devils swung for the fence and the Canadiens have a forward that can play like their waiver wire pick-up Geln Metropolit (if they're lucky). Chipchura may one day have me eating my words, but Gainey could have traded Huet for him instead of that second round pick in a pinch if he liked him so much - it's just not hard to acquire the Chipchuras of this world. The Zajacs, well you tell me...
If your drafting is any good, and ours is, swinging for the fences should come off once in a while. And who knows, maybe we can replicate our Markov pick with a Datsyuk and Zetterberg of our own.
Trade picks if the math adds up
There will come times when someone comes knocking for that pick. At those times, I can only advise listening.
The Tanguay trade was a classic example of an opportunity well taken. No matter how you sliced it, the likelihood of getting a player as good as Tanguay (a scoring star – one of those rare assets) in either the first or second round of the NHL draft was slim to none. Gainey missed a chance at an organizational asset, but added an actual asset. Also, the addition of Tanguay bumped people down in the organization. Corey Locke, for example was now expendable and used in a trade for something of use to the team.
Trading picks like this is to be encouraged in my third approach, so long as the opportunity cost calculation is sound. a 25th pick for Tanguay (even for one year) is a win. Had that pick been a 10th overall, the choice gets murkier. 5th overall and it's a loser.
In sum
- Don't worry about organizational needs – worry about the players available
This is the strategy I can only hope the Canadiens look to in the future. I hope that this year will be the first of many home run swinging affairs and to that 18th pick – whether we use it to choose an amateur or to bring in a pro.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Do You Trust Sportsnet?
If you do: the Canadiens seem to have found a coach
If not, welcome to the club.
Let's pretend we are expecting the press conference this afternoon...
There could not be a better candidate for the Canadiens head coaching job, considering the limitations, could there?
French-speaking? Check
Experience at shaping a body-checking brute into defenceman to look forward to watching? Check
Experience at teaching young forwards to take on a system? Check
Advocate of fitness? Check
Not a former failure in Montreal? Check
If it is true, it is a nice change in direction. An admission that this team is not ready to take on the league through firewagon games with two inexperienced goalies to back them up.
Let's see where this story goes...
If not, welcome to the club.
Let's pretend we are expecting the press conference this afternoon...
There could not be a better candidate for the Canadiens head coaching job, considering the limitations, could there?
French-speaking? Check
Experience at shaping a body-checking brute into defenceman to look forward to watching? Check
Experience at teaching young forwards to take on a system? Check
Advocate of fitness? Check
Not a former failure in Montreal? Check
If it is true, it is a nice change in direction. An admission that this team is not ready to take on the league through firewagon games with two inexperienced goalies to back them up.
Let's see where this story goes...
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Gainey's Tactical Overhaul
During his press conference on Monday, one of the most damning things Gainey said about Carbonneau (in my opinion), was that he had some simple solutions himself to implement right away that could help turn the team around. Damning because, he wasn't even coaching and he saw them. Damning because Guy did not, could not.
We don't know what those solutions are yet. Last game many of us (Tobalev, myself and assorted other bloggers) watched the game very closely for an indication. It was difficult to see much. it probably was unreasonable to think a travel day would yield much change, really...
However, going into the next few weeks, as time and practices pass, we're bound to notice something. While I'm sure we here at LIW will have something to say about those changes at a later point in time, I thought it would be fun (right now) to imagine/guess/speculate/predict what they would be.
The following list of tactics, conversations, ideas assumes a few things about Bob Gainey that I'll lay out up front:
1) He's married to the idea of starting Price. No need to deny that.
2) He has some ideas
3) His ideas will be designed to make this hockey team play more efficient NHL-style hockey (I don't expect a redesign, though I'd relish it)
Change 1: Defensive patience
Gainey watched the Buffalo game and noted his team was big on the defensive gamble – the big dive in for the puck. There was little patience. Perhaps to his shame, he noticed that during the Atlanta game, the Thrashers gave his team a clinic in how to play patient defence and were rewarded by stifling a good enough offense and a shutout.
Gainey decides system 2 (Atlanta's) over system 1. He lays it out to his team simply. Defend the middle of the ice at all costs – with your bodies and with an outstretched stick. Let the opposition have the puck on the outside. Track and watch them while they play out there. Keep moving the defence to hold the middle. Don't dive in too early (Kovalev will tell you why – he loves desperate defenders). Track and watch and wait for that mistake.
The following is how the change will probably be explained to Mike Komisarek:
"Mike, we love your hitting. It's great. It really pumps up the fans, and it even puts a little fear into opponents. But Mike, we don't pay you to hit alone. We pay you to be a defender as part of a team; and in that scheme, the goal is winning. So Mike, we're asking you to think more about hitting. If the hit takes you out of the play, think twice. If the hit leaves Andrei alone against 2 forwards, lay off. Think of your ability to hit as a tool. One tool that can be used in some, but not all, situations."
"Push those forwards to the boards but not necessarily through them, Mike. Let them know they can only skate to your right. Guard the middle (not the boards) with all your energy."
Change 2: Positional awareness
Something Guy knew about well enough, but couldn't seem to communicate – I wonder why...
Gainey runs the team through drills in practice to emphasize his points. He takes special care with the forwards, noting to each one of them to forget their position on the game card and rather pay attention to their position at any given time.
Here he explains to Andrei Kostitsyn: "Andrei, I know you are concerned that you have been moved from wing to win to wing. Andrei, I couldn't care less what it says on the game sheet. If I thought you could only play on one side of the ice, or with one side of your stick, you wouldn't have a contract here. I want you to start thinking about things differently. When you see two forwards closer to the opposition end than you, no longer think of yourself as RW, line 1. Think of yourself in that situation as forward 3 (first to cover on D). As you dive in to win a loose puck, you then become forward 2 or 1, Koivu or Tanguay become forward 3. If you see a defenceman ahead of you – you are now the D, there will be no diving in then."
"You know how other teams always seem to have three men back every time we start a rush? Yes, I thought you noticed that. They can do that because of this simple trick. if we can do that too, they'll need to open up more and as a result, you'll be freer up front as well."
Change 3: No crosschecking
Gainey illustrates with 5 minutes of Craig Rivet and Mike Komisarek video clips how crosschecking actually achieves nothing, and is often penalised.
Change 4: Skate to get off the ice
Better yet skate hard.
To all the team: "You all get far too much rest to be called athletes as it is. Please do not take the last 5 seconds of your shift off. You are not so good as Usain Bolt that you can coast to world records. Until you are, you will any energy you have to get to these boards."
Change 5: No blind passes
Nothing blind for that matter – no blind clearances, no blind dump ins.
Gainey and the coaches demonstrate how the best blind passes work because the passer actually knows where his linemate will be. Thanks to the awareness he is playing with, no doubt.
More important than blind passes up front. Blind passes in the back end are banned. Gainey goes on to tell the team, if their only option is a blind pass, they will be holding that puck from now on – finding the boards and holding and protecting with all their strength and know-how.
I thought that'd be fun. It was. I even convinced myself some of those things might work.
What would you guys do if you were Gainey? the possibilities are endless...
We don't know what those solutions are yet. Last game many of us (Tobalev, myself and assorted other bloggers) watched the game very closely for an indication. It was difficult to see much. it probably was unreasonable to think a travel day would yield much change, really...
However, going into the next few weeks, as time and practices pass, we're bound to notice something. While I'm sure we here at LIW will have something to say about those changes at a later point in time, I thought it would be fun (right now) to imagine/guess/speculate/predict what they would be.
The following list of tactics, conversations, ideas assumes a few things about Bob Gainey that I'll lay out up front:
1) He's married to the idea of starting Price. No need to deny that.
2) He has some ideas
3) His ideas will be designed to make this hockey team play more efficient NHL-style hockey (I don't expect a redesign, though I'd relish it)
Change 1: Defensive patience
Gainey watched the Buffalo game and noted his team was big on the defensive gamble – the big dive in for the puck. There was little patience. Perhaps to his shame, he noticed that during the Atlanta game, the Thrashers gave his team a clinic in how to play patient defence and were rewarded by stifling a good enough offense and a shutout.
Gainey decides system 2 (Atlanta's) over system 1. He lays it out to his team simply. Defend the middle of the ice at all costs – with your bodies and with an outstretched stick. Let the opposition have the puck on the outside. Track and watch them while they play out there. Keep moving the defence to hold the middle. Don't dive in too early (Kovalev will tell you why – he loves desperate defenders). Track and watch and wait for that mistake.
The following is how the change will probably be explained to Mike Komisarek:
"Mike, we love your hitting. It's great. It really pumps up the fans, and it even puts a little fear into opponents. But Mike, we don't pay you to hit alone. We pay you to be a defender as part of a team; and in that scheme, the goal is winning. So Mike, we're asking you to think more about hitting. If the hit takes you out of the play, think twice. If the hit leaves Andrei alone against 2 forwards, lay off. Think of your ability to hit as a tool. One tool that can be used in some, but not all, situations."
"Push those forwards to the boards but not necessarily through them, Mike. Let them know they can only skate to your right. Guard the middle (not the boards) with all your energy."
Change 2: Positional awareness
Something Guy knew about well enough, but couldn't seem to communicate – I wonder why...
Gainey runs the team through drills in practice to emphasize his points. He takes special care with the forwards, noting to each one of them to forget their position on the game card and rather pay attention to their position at any given time.
Here he explains to Andrei Kostitsyn: "Andrei, I know you are concerned that you have been moved from wing to win to wing. Andrei, I couldn't care less what it says on the game sheet. If I thought you could only play on one side of the ice, or with one side of your stick, you wouldn't have a contract here. I want you to start thinking about things differently. When you see two forwards closer to the opposition end than you, no longer think of yourself as RW, line 1. Think of yourself in that situation as forward 3 (first to cover on D). As you dive in to win a loose puck, you then become forward 2 or 1, Koivu or Tanguay become forward 3. If you see a defenceman ahead of you – you are now the D, there will be no diving in then."
"You know how other teams always seem to have three men back every time we start a rush? Yes, I thought you noticed that. They can do that because of this simple trick. if we can do that too, they'll need to open up more and as a result, you'll be freer up front as well."
Change 3: No crosschecking
Gainey illustrates with 5 minutes of Craig Rivet and Mike Komisarek video clips how crosschecking actually achieves nothing, and is often penalised.
Change 4: Skate to get off the ice
Better yet skate hard.
To all the team: "You all get far too much rest to be called athletes as it is. Please do not take the last 5 seconds of your shift off. You are not so good as Usain Bolt that you can coast to world records. Until you are, you will any energy you have to get to these boards."
Change 5: No blind passes
Nothing blind for that matter – no blind clearances, no blind dump ins.
Gainey and the coaches demonstrate how the best blind passes work because the passer actually knows where his linemate will be. Thanks to the awareness he is playing with, no doubt.
More important than blind passes up front. Blind passes in the back end are banned. Gainey goes on to tell the team, if their only option is a blind pass, they will be holding that puck from now on – finding the boards and holding and protecting with all their strength and know-how.
I thought that'd be fun. It was. I even convinced myself some of those things might work.
What would you guys do if you were Gainey? the possibilities are endless...
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Beating The Bruins
Remembering What Habs Knew So Well
Last season, thanks to Montreal, the Bruins were a middling regular season club. Last year, thanks to the Canadiens, the Bruins were a first round eliminee. This year, the Bruins have another fate on their minds, and barring a collapse of Ottawaian proportions, they have already surpassed middling. But can the Habs remember a bit of the spellbinding trickery that won them 8 of 8 meetings with their most vicious rivals?
Boston has some astonishing numbers so far this year, so maybe their biggest weakness for the second half will be the law of averages. Take Blake Wheeler and David Krejci's shooting % for example (whose numbers have both started falling since I started researching this): over 20% is unsustainable for even the Ovechkins of the world. Reason says they can't go on shooting at over 20% forever. History tells us scoring streaks like theirs sometimes, but rarely last a whole season – only 2 players topped 20% last season: Mike Ribeiro (who lucked out a whole season at 25%) and Brad Boyes; the next guys were at 18%. Take their goaltenders, both have inordinately high save percentages at the moment. Are they the best tandem of all time, or have they saved their bad goals and sub .900 games for the end of the season?
A real weakness that Boston has is their comeback ability. Someone who wants to impress you will tell you that Boston has only trailed 13 times after the first period and 8 times they have come back from the deficit to win. But I also noticed that the Bruins have not once come back from a deficit at the second intermission. In 7 games (I admit that's impressive), they are 0-6-1.
It's hardly a game plan to say: let's score lots of goals and have a lead at the end of 2 (although it is genius Julien's plan). Yeah, no kidding. However, consider teams top teams like Detroit and San Jose come back after the second nearly 40% of the time. The Habs themselves have rescued 5 wins and an OTL from 14 deficits (0.357). It tells me that if you can get them down, you get get them out of their game, out of their comfort zone.
In a game strategy, I'd make sure that every battle you can win, you win. They are a team that has had things their own way and clearly don't like it when they don't. Score first, score early. Check Chara, expose the others. Take the game to them and don't let them bring it to you.
I saved this article from a week ago about a strategy for beating the Bruins. It was written after a couple of losses about a team that you would have thought from the tone was unbeatable:
It talks sense, even if it does over-exaggerate the risks of playing in Boston.
Lessons should be easy to come by for the Habs when it comes to beating this Bruins team. Each game last year speak to the same kind of stuff at that article and the fact the Bruins don't like to be out of the driver's seat:
Game 1, we pounded them early and they laid down to take the punishment
Game 2, we did it with defence; but also scored 2 before they could show up
Game 3, we gave them a complex by trading goals for 2 periods before burying them under 25 shots and 3 straight killer goals
Games 4, 5, 6 and 7 we scored first and never gave the Bruins a sniff of victory
Game 8 was the first the Bruins made a contest of it. We toyed with them and took it in a shootout
Over these 8 games, the Bruins never led the Habs. Not for a minute. And, with the exception of Game 5 in the playoffs, the Bruins never came back from a deficit to win against us last season – that was 12 victories for us out of 13 where we took a lead.
They are the team that needs a strategy, methinks. Probably something beyond the genius tactics of a man who twice got himself shipped out from a team who would make the playoffs:
And besides, is this year's Bruins team so different anyway?
Not on paper they aren't. Wins and stats-wise they are worlds apart. But really, let's see. Even Chuck Kobasew looked like a scorer once down there. Time and reality will make us better judges of this Boston hockey outfit.
We must acknowledge they have learned and improved somewhat – for they have beaten the Canadiens twice already, and got points in all three meetings. However, their embarrassing displays against us last season were unnatural. What's more, they are still a team with weaknesses (as per this pseudo-Bruins fan), such as unorthodox goaltending:
And average defence:
Add to that injuries to players like Bergeron, Kessel, Sturm and even Lucic, and they will have to be superhuman to repeat their 62 points from the next half season. The quiet Habs can catch this team as it settles back into Bruins 2008. Let's start tonight.
Boston has some astonishing numbers so far this year, so maybe their biggest weakness for the second half will be the law of averages. Take Blake Wheeler and David Krejci's shooting % for example (whose numbers have both started falling since I started researching this): over 20% is unsustainable for even the Ovechkins of the world. Reason says they can't go on shooting at over 20% forever. History tells us scoring streaks like theirs sometimes, but rarely last a whole season – only 2 players topped 20% last season: Mike Ribeiro (who lucked out a whole season at 25%) and Brad Boyes; the next guys were at 18%. Take their goaltenders, both have inordinately high save percentages at the moment. Are they the best tandem of all time, or have they saved their bad goals and sub .900 games for the end of the season?
A real weakness that Boston has is their comeback ability. Someone who wants to impress you will tell you that Boston has only trailed 13 times after the first period and 8 times they have come back from the deficit to win. But I also noticed that the Bruins have not once come back from a deficit at the second intermission. In 7 games (I admit that's impressive), they are 0-6-1.
It's hardly a game plan to say: let's score lots of goals and have a lead at the end of 2 (although it is genius Julien's plan). Yeah, no kidding. However, consider teams top teams like Detroit and San Jose come back after the second nearly 40% of the time. The Habs themselves have rescued 5 wins and an OTL from 14 deficits (0.357). It tells me that if you can get them down, you get get them out of their game, out of their comfort zone.
In a game strategy, I'd make sure that every battle you can win, you win. They are a team that has had things their own way and clearly don't like it when they don't. Score first, score early. Check Chara, expose the others. Take the game to them and don't let them bring it to you.
I saved this article from a week ago about a strategy for beating the Bruins. It was written after a couple of losses about a team that you would have thought from the tone was unbeatable:
"A dastardly plan that will frustrate and eventually defeat the high-powered Bruins attack, and leave their scoring machine in the shop for repairs. Granted, not every team has the talent or discipline or chutzpah to implement Operation Beat the Bruins but teams with enough scoring skills — or grit – to get a lead and a good enough goaltender could do it."
It talks sense, even if it does over-exaggerate the risks of playing in Boston.
Lessons should be easy to come by for the Habs when it comes to beating this Bruins team. Each game last year speak to the same kind of stuff at that article and the fact the Bruins don't like to be out of the driver's seat:
Game 1, we pounded them early and they laid down to take the punishment
Game 2, we did it with defence; but also scored 2 before they could show up
Game 3, we gave them a complex by trading goals for 2 periods before burying them under 25 shots and 3 straight killer goals
Games 4, 5, 6 and 7 we scored first and never gave the Bruins a sniff of victory
Game 8 was the first the Bruins made a contest of it. We toyed with them and took it in a shootout
Over these 8 games, the Bruins never led the Habs. Not for a minute. And, with the exception of Game 5 in the playoffs, the Bruins never came back from a deficit to win against us last season – that was 12 victories for us out of 13 where we took a lead.
They are the team that needs a strategy, methinks. Probably something beyond the genius tactics of a man who twice got himself shipped out from a team who would make the playoffs:
“I think for every team, every game, we talk about [scoring first] and getting an early lead and taking control of the game.”
– Claude Julien
And besides, is this year's Bruins team so different anyway?
Not on paper they aren't. Wins and stats-wise they are worlds apart. But really, let's see. Even Chuck Kobasew looked like a scorer once down there. Time and reality will make us better judges of this Boston hockey outfit.
We must acknowledge they have learned and improved somewhat – for they have beaten the Canadiens twice already, and got points in all three meetings. However, their embarrassing displays against us last season were unnatural. What's more, they are still a team with weaknesses (as per this pseudo-Bruins fan), such as unorthodox goaltending:
Another puzzling part of the picture is Boston's goaltending. Tim Thomas has a 2.08 GAA and .933 save percentage, which defy explanation. Thomas (and most Boston fans would agree) has atrocious positioning and lacks basic fundamentals. Yet, Like Dominic Hasek, he makes the save, no matter how ugly.
And average defence:
A puzzling aspect is Boston's defense, which has remained largely the same since last year. Zdeno Chara is still woefully incompetent with the puck in his own end, and Andrew Ference, Shane Hnidy, Matt Hunwick, Matt Lashoff, Mark Stuart, Dennis Wideman, and Aaron Ward round out what would otherwise be a group of very average defensemen.
Add to that injuries to players like Bergeron, Kessel, Sturm and even Lucic, and they will have to be superhuman to repeat their 62 points from the next half season. The quiet Habs can catch this team as it settles back into Bruins 2008. Let's start tonight.
Monday, November 17, 2008
PR Machine
Georges Fight Anyone
PR Machine
Georges Fight Anyone
Someone has their eyes on the blogs, their ears on the talk shows. Someone before Saturday night's game told Georges Laraque he must fight.
It was pure PR. A stupid ploy to entice back the most willing of fans.
But honestly? How easy do they think we are?
Our opinions on Laraque were a little better rooted than that, weren't they? (En Route Pour La Coupe, The Other Wing, and me).
I didn't bite when Laraque fought Josh Gratton. His fight was not part of the game.
Am I hard to please? Maybe. Perhaps some of you would say impossible to please. But Laraque's fight did not answer any of the concerns that we all expressed in our well considered arguments. He did not intimidate anyone, he did not respond to any incident. All he did was throw a body check on the only guy on the ice he could catch (Andrew Alberts). He was then confronted by Gratton (incensed at the hit (and not the least bit intimidated of Big Georges!!!) and had to fight. It might as well have been orchestrated in its meaningless effect on the game.
I'd like to say that Laraque's got a long way to go to impress this blogger. Quite a hole to get out of from his supremely ineffectual first 20% of the season. Fred like me is not enthralled...
Flyers just big, not bad
Incidentally, did anyone else notice the Flyers used the exact same game plan they had used in the playoffs against us – I guess it's too much to expect Carbonneau to revise his own plan a mere 6 months after the playoffs – a plan that worked in just the same way.
The Canadiens forwards were crowded and ushered to the boards every time they entered the zone. They were rushed into passes. In the defensive zone, the Flyers forwards merely made sure they made every dump in recovery a battle.
The Flyers, nominally not that much biger than the Habs, used their big players well – targetting our small guys in mismatched battles (a coaching strategy?? I thought you were only allowed to changes lines...). They did not play dirty. And once again they showed us how to shoot.
In contrast, we helped Biron look like an NHL goalie again by repeatedly shooting from bad positions and at chest height.
This seesm to be the recipe for success against us now (not roughing us up). I wonder how long it will take our coach to catch on with his line-up selection (I'm looking at you Georges) and maybe even some new ideas one of these days.
I suspect it'll be a while.
It was pure PR. A stupid ploy to entice back the most willing of fans.
But honestly? How easy do they think we are?
Our opinions on Laraque were a little better rooted than that, weren't they? (En Route Pour La Coupe, The Other Wing, and me).
I didn't bite when Laraque fought Josh Gratton. His fight was not part of the game.
Am I hard to please? Maybe. Perhaps some of you would say impossible to please. But Laraque's fight did not answer any of the concerns that we all expressed in our well considered arguments. He did not intimidate anyone, he did not respond to any incident. All he did was throw a body check on the only guy on the ice he could catch (Andrew Alberts). He was then confronted by Gratton (incensed at the hit (and not the least bit intimidated of Big Georges!!!) and had to fight. It might as well have been orchestrated in its meaningless effect on the game.
I'd like to say that Laraque's got a long way to go to impress this blogger. Quite a hole to get out of from his supremely ineffectual first 20% of the season. Fred like me is not enthralled...
Flyers just big, not bad
Incidentally, did anyone else notice the Flyers used the exact same game plan they had used in the playoffs against us – I guess it's too much to expect Carbonneau to revise his own plan a mere 6 months after the playoffs – a plan that worked in just the same way.
The Canadiens forwards were crowded and ushered to the boards every time they entered the zone. They were rushed into passes. In the defensive zone, the Flyers forwards merely made sure they made every dump in recovery a battle.
The Flyers, nominally not that much biger than the Habs, used their big players well – targetting our small guys in mismatched battles (a coaching strategy?? I thought you were only allowed to changes lines...). They did not play dirty. And once again they showed us how to shoot.
In contrast, we helped Biron look like an NHL goalie again by repeatedly shooting from bad positions and at chest height.
This seesm to be the recipe for success against us now (not roughing us up). I wonder how long it will take our coach to catch on with his line-up selection (I'm looking at you Georges) and maybe even some new ideas one of these days.
I suspect it'll be a while.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Time For A Change
Coach Can We Lengthen The Shifts Now?
Time For A Change
Coach Can We Lengthen The Shifts Now?
With a second article on ice time already this season, you probably all think I sit there with a stop watch analysing line changes all game. I don't, but the length of NHL shifts (and the inherently related topic of player fitness) has been something that has interested me for some time. A recent event triggered a memory and the memory triggered a rant. And so it goes.
Sitting at home watching the final stages of the Canadiens Hurricanes game the other night, I was fully astounded by what I saw. It was something so uncommon, running so purposefully against the grain of ingrained coaching wisdom that one couldn't help but sit up and take notice.
With half the overtime period gone, Mike Komisarek plasters Eric Staal into the boards. As Staal was not injured, the hit was clean. But the separation between the two players and again between player and boards made it an awkward hit. Legal in the eyes of the ref. Obviously not in the eyes of Staal. From his prone position, Staal tangled himself in Komisarek's legs and brought him down. A penalty is called, in overtime. Hallelujah there are rules in OT (that's clearly a topic for another time).
What happened next was the interesting bit.
For the 4 on 3 opportunity, Carbonneau sent out what could only described as the old boys. Well, old boys with Markov instead of Brisebois or Hamrlik. Lang, Kovalev, Koivu and Markov then proceeded to put on the most exciting display of hockey (form a Habs point of view) for the whole 65 minutes. They had sustained possession, pressure and were peppering the net with shots (4 on target, 5 off-target or blocked). For a good minute after winning the puck back, the Habs group had complete possession and control and had no opportunity to leave the ice.
The first stoppage was at 4:26 in OT making the shift 1:51 seconds for all four players. Interestingly (and sensibly), Carbo stuck with the four same players to finish out the game. All told, the three forwards ended up playing the final 2:25 of the game with only a minute or so rest. Markov, who had been on the ice for the infraction before the PP played almost the entire final 4 minutes, in addition to a 40 second shift to start the period.
My point: It is possible!
The fixation on 45 seconds
The basis for a 45 second shift is not random. Average human physiology shows that relatively well-trained athletes can endure about 45 seconds of anaerobic activity in a spurt without inducing the lactic acid system. So players can sprint, check, stop, start, all at full power for about 45 seconds without requiring too much recovery time. If a player slips into the lactic acid zone, the time for recovery is exponentially longer than it would be if he hadn't. Repeat incursions into the lactic acid zone require a good few minutes to shake it out (so not very conducive of good hockey).
So the theory is correct.
The problem as I see it, is that the theory relies wholly on the assumption that players are exerting themselves to the fullest extent (at least 135%, not a mere 110%, if you hear the players) all the time.
I don't know about you, but in watching a lot of hockey, it doesn't seem to me that that is the case. Maybe in the final period of the Stanley Cup finals, maybe for 5 minutes here and there throughout a season. But game in game out, I don't think some of these players are even doing anaerobic exertion for more than a few seconds every other shift. And, if players aren't going all out, then the 45 second reasoning is less valid.
So, is it time for a moratorium on short shifts?
Consider this point of view, which I borrow from a very well hidden article in an IIHF hockey forum:
I do sympathise with a coach who needs to impose a universal system, designed so that even the least fit, least intelligent player (lowest common denominator) can adhere, but this guy makes a point. I have at times both recently and in the past been frustrated by what appears to be intense focus on making a line change instead of getting a shot or scoring chance. I've also had moments of annoyance when the stars shifts only last a few seconds, even if 30 seconds of it were spent trading errant passes in the neutral zone.
What Carbonneau allowed us to witness the other night in overtime was the product of letting players do what they do best – play. The forwards knew they weren't going to face the wrath of the coach for overstaying their time on the ice and so concentrated on winning the game (they nearly did). It also showed that the players were fully capable of playing for more than 45 seconds at a time and well into what should have been failure time had they been playing in the lactic acid generation zone. What Koivu, Kovalev, Lang and Markov did was give a clinic in efficient hockey.
Fitness
Every part of this argument is predicated on fitness. Fitness and efficiency.
The 45 second shift rule became popular at a time when it was probably more applicable. A time when players' idea of preparing for the season was drinking 12 beers a day instead of 18 for the month of August. Nowadays, there is much more of a focus on fitness throughout the league. The Senators are always, always on those bikes. And overweight players are even frowned upon – you must now come to camp ready to go.
In this league with fitter players, the question of shift length becomes more flexible. Because not only can players now actually do a full 45 seconds of anaerobic activity (I doubt most players of the 70s could have if asked), they can also do a lot more at an aerobic level because that system is fitter too.
The greater fitness around the league to me means that physiologically-speaking, the 45 second premise is out of date. All averaged in (part of the shift being aerobic that is), I bet most players would be comfortable over a minute with the next two and half off. The thing keeping the system in place is strategy and man management, and of course unfit players.
Strategic line deployment
I've learned it's never a good idea to criticise all the time if you don't have something useful to propose as an alternative. So, I do. I call it strategic line deployment.
On any team in the NHL, you will have very fit players and relatively unfit players. Some unfit players are well known (Jason Allison) as are fit ones (Rod Brind'amour, Chris Chelios). Seeing as even I know this kind of stuff, I am going to make a leap of faith and bet that an NHL coach will have some idea of how fit every player on his own team and the team he is about to face is.
Based on this knowledge I would suggest not only a system of line matching to exploit differences in fitness, but also a plan to extend shifts beyond the 45 seconds in order to exploit the gulfs. In fact some teams are already doing this (like the Canucks).
From watching the Canadiens a bit, I don't think it would be wrong to suggest that they are a pretty efficient and fit group (exceptions of course). As such, I think it would be wise for the team to start taking advantage of fitness mismatches in the way proposed as much as they can. In doing this, Carbonneau could potentially leave out the efficient line of Plekanec, Kostitsyn and Kovalev for say 1:30 seconds to push the checkers into fatigue. Thereby forcing the checkers to either change or play on at half strength – either way you can create a temporary advantage by getting second choice checkers or by playing against a fatigued line.
Ever since the salary cap, teams have become closer in terms of quality and personnel, so it is important to look for any little advantage to stand above. The Red Wings have chosen to focus on passing and patience. This would still be a good idea for us, but why not also the strategically employed long shifts like OT two nights ago?
In the old days there was a term in the old days to describe a star player. He was known as a 60-minute man. This was in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Perhaps with a little irreverence to the established norms we can evolve a modern alternative, the 60-second men...
Sitting at home watching the final stages of the Canadiens Hurricanes game the other night, I was fully astounded by what I saw. It was something so uncommon, running so purposefully against the grain of ingrained coaching wisdom that one couldn't help but sit up and take notice.
With half the overtime period gone, Mike Komisarek plasters Eric Staal into the boards. As Staal was not injured, the hit was clean. But the separation between the two players and again between player and boards made it an awkward hit. Legal in the eyes of the ref. Obviously not in the eyes of Staal. From his prone position, Staal tangled himself in Komisarek's legs and brought him down. A penalty is called, in overtime. Hallelujah there are rules in OT (that's clearly a topic for another time).
What happened next was the interesting bit.
For the 4 on 3 opportunity, Carbonneau sent out what could only described as the old boys. Well, old boys with Markov instead of Brisebois or Hamrlik. Lang, Kovalev, Koivu and Markov then proceeded to put on the most exciting display of hockey (form a Habs point of view) for the whole 65 minutes. They had sustained possession, pressure and were peppering the net with shots (4 on target, 5 off-target or blocked). For a good minute after winning the puck back, the Habs group had complete possession and control and had no opportunity to leave the ice.
The first stoppage was at 4:26 in OT making the shift 1:51 seconds for all four players. Interestingly (and sensibly), Carbo stuck with the four same players to finish out the game. All told, the three forwards ended up playing the final 2:25 of the game with only a minute or so rest. Markov, who had been on the ice for the infraction before the PP played almost the entire final 4 minutes, in addition to a 40 second shift to start the period.
My point: It is possible!
The fixation on 45 seconds
The basis for a 45 second shift is not random. Average human physiology shows that relatively well-trained athletes can endure about 45 seconds of anaerobic activity in a spurt without inducing the lactic acid system. So players can sprint, check, stop, start, all at full power for about 45 seconds without requiring too much recovery time. If a player slips into the lactic acid zone, the time for recovery is exponentially longer than it would be if he hadn't. Repeat incursions into the lactic acid zone require a good few minutes to shake it out (so not very conducive of good hockey).
So the theory is correct.
The problem as I see it, is that the theory relies wholly on the assumption that players are exerting themselves to the fullest extent (at least 135%, not a mere 110%, if you hear the players) all the time.
I don't know about you, but in watching a lot of hockey, it doesn't seem to me that that is the case. Maybe in the final period of the Stanley Cup finals, maybe for 5 minutes here and there throughout a season. But game in game out, I don't think some of these players are even doing anaerobic exertion for more than a few seconds every other shift. And, if players aren't going all out, then the 45 second reasoning is less valid.
So, is it time for a moratorium on short shifts?
Consider this point of view, which I borrow from a very well hidden article in an IIHF hockey forum:
Short shifts produce two frustrating results. First, teams spend so much time changing lines on the fly that they rarely have a chance to generate momentum or create an offensive flurry. They go up and back, get to center ice, dump the puck in, and head off on a line change.
The second problem is that star players don't play nearly as much today as stars of previous eras, both on a shift-by-shift basis and an overall ice-time basis. Wayne Gretzky routinely stayed out for lengthy stretches, double-shifting at his coach's insistence. Today, Sidney Crosby routinely is on the ice for 30 or 40 seconds and then heads off to allow those proverbial fresh troops on to the ice.
I do sympathise with a coach who needs to impose a universal system, designed so that even the least fit, least intelligent player (lowest common denominator) can adhere, but this guy makes a point. I have at times both recently and in the past been frustrated by what appears to be intense focus on making a line change instead of getting a shot or scoring chance. I've also had moments of annoyance when the stars shifts only last a few seconds, even if 30 seconds of it were spent trading errant passes in the neutral zone.
What Carbonneau allowed us to witness the other night in overtime was the product of letting players do what they do best – play. The forwards knew they weren't going to face the wrath of the coach for overstaying their time on the ice and so concentrated on winning the game (they nearly did). It also showed that the players were fully capable of playing for more than 45 seconds at a time and well into what should have been failure time had they been playing in the lactic acid generation zone. What Koivu, Kovalev, Lang and Markov did was give a clinic in efficient hockey.
Fitness
Every part of this argument is predicated on fitness. Fitness and efficiency.
The 45 second shift rule became popular at a time when it was probably more applicable. A time when players' idea of preparing for the season was drinking 12 beers a day instead of 18 for the month of August. Nowadays, there is much more of a focus on fitness throughout the league. The Senators are always, always on those bikes. And overweight players are even frowned upon – you must now come to camp ready to go.
In this league with fitter players, the question of shift length becomes more flexible. Because not only can players now actually do a full 45 seconds of anaerobic activity (I doubt most players of the 70s could have if asked), they can also do a lot more at an aerobic level because that system is fitter too.
The greater fitness around the league to me means that physiologically-speaking, the 45 second premise is out of date. All averaged in (part of the shift being aerobic that is), I bet most players would be comfortable over a minute with the next two and half off. The thing keeping the system in place is strategy and man management, and of course unfit players.
Strategic line deployment
I've learned it's never a good idea to criticise all the time if you don't have something useful to propose as an alternative. So, I do. I call it strategic line deployment.
On any team in the NHL, you will have very fit players and relatively unfit players. Some unfit players are well known (Jason Allison) as are fit ones (Rod Brind'amour, Chris Chelios). Seeing as even I know this kind of stuff, I am going to make a leap of faith and bet that an NHL coach will have some idea of how fit every player on his own team and the team he is about to face is.
Based on this knowledge I would suggest not only a system of line matching to exploit differences in fitness, but also a plan to extend shifts beyond the 45 seconds in order to exploit the gulfs. In fact some teams are already doing this (like the Canucks).
From watching the Canadiens a bit, I don't think it would be wrong to suggest that they are a pretty efficient and fit group (exceptions of course). As such, I think it would be wise for the team to start taking advantage of fitness mismatches in the way proposed as much as they can. In doing this, Carbonneau could potentially leave out the efficient line of Plekanec, Kostitsyn and Kovalev for say 1:30 seconds to push the checkers into fatigue. Thereby forcing the checkers to either change or play on at half strength – either way you can create a temporary advantage by getting second choice checkers or by playing against a fatigued line.
Ever since the salary cap, teams have become closer in terms of quality and personnel, so it is important to look for any little advantage to stand above. The Red Wings have chosen to focus on passing and patience. This would still be a good idea for us, but why not also the strategically employed long shifts like OT two nights ago?
In the old days there was a term in the old days to describe a star player. He was known as a 60-minute man. This was in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Perhaps with a little irreverence to the established norms we can evolve a modern alternative, the 60-second men...
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The Elephant in the Arena
The Return of the Eight
The Elephant in the Arena
The Return of the Eight
Now that many of my peers have become syndicated members of Habs Inside/Out, I see even more need to express views that just don't get press – perhaps because they are overlooked topics, perhaps because they are difficult for people so close to the team.
(Once again, this minor incident - like Saku's ice time - is hardly a controversy worth taking to 110% or Team 990 airwaves, but is just about worth the few minutes of exposure it will get on this site. We Habs fans don't really have too many elephants around yet - thankfully - so please indulge me again while I make an elephant out of a mole, so to speak, to get this weekly segment rolling...)
We were all very relieved to see Francis Bouillon return to the lineup after a lay off of 5 games. But, to be honest, the manner in which he was reinserted in to the lineup was very strange indeed.
You will all no doubt recall (despite the unusually long interval in between games) that Francis started Game 6 against the Panthers on the fourth forward line with Maxim Lapierre and Mathieu Dandenault (his former partner on defence).
I say it is strange because anyone who knows a little bit about hockey and has been following the Canadiens knows two things:
1) We have a queue of forwards forming waiting to play
2) Our biggest weakness is on defence
This situation is a mirror of last season, where all the quality reinforcements were up front as well, but has been exacerbated even further by the subtraction of Mark Streit from possible defenders only to be replaced by Robert Lang.
When I wrote about this very same topic at the outset of last season, I posed three questions to get to the bottom of things. They were:
1) Do we have too many NHL quality defencemen?
2) Are the extra guys here to get a look at the NHL?
3) Are we so low on forwards that it makes no difference?
The answers for me still run the same way as last season, with no, no and no. You should also remember that the Canadiens turnaround last season, to the exact game, occurred when Carbonneau realised these answers, scrapped the 8th defenceman in the lineup, and opted for the much much more dynamic Sergei Kostitsyn to better complement the team.
So, I am a bit baffled as to why Carbonneau opted for the return to this tired and largely failed option. Even on the night it looks like a bad decision. Looking at our lineup vs. Florida, it would not be too controversial for me to say that our bottom four players being iced came from the group of 8 defencemen.
Too conservative
From a strategic standpoint alone (money from Gillett's pocketbook aside), the decision was baffling considering the opposition. Florida have about 2/3 of one line that needs any kind of shadowing and were always going to come in with their go-to gameplan of 1-1, see what happens in OT. This game, played in Montreal as well, offered a perfect opportunity for Carbonneau and his team to impose their will on a lesser opponent, to practice all that they preached and to just generally go for it. Instead Carbo replaces his injured (and most dynamic) goalscorer by Francis Bouilon straight up.
To borrow a thought from a previous post – the Habs need to start thinking about creating wins rather than preventing losses. Playing 8 defencemen is not innovative, new or proactive. Nor was it the right strategy to rack up goals against a team that can't really offer a scoring threat themselves. Of course, we won the game, so some could say this disproves my point. I disagree. If holding on to tap in an empty netter vs. Florida is the limit of the Canadiens and the coaching staff's creative aspirations then we could be in for some rude awakenings later in the season.
To suggest an alternative: I would have either played Georges Laraque or Steve Begin and benched the unmentionable one (who's due a break). Alternatively, 71 plays and Bouillon's in for Dandenault. Both ways we get to shed some dead wood and play an extra forward. An even wilder idea would have included calling up someone who could actually score (Maxwell, Pacioretty) to take Andrei's place, then Begin in for 71.
Learn the lessons
All in all, this strategic hiccough didn't cost us, and we come off unscathed this time. And, to be fair to Carbonneau, he did even adjust during the game, which allowed him to bench O'Byrne in the end. But strategic misplay, it was.
I only hope someone (hopefully Carbonneau, to be honest) learned something from 2006-07 and early 2007-08 that playing 8 defencemen does not suit the group of players that we have. And, I hope that paying Gregory Stewart's salary and airfare for one game will never stand in the way of putting the best team forward (and forward is the operative word) again.
(Once again, this minor incident - like Saku's ice time - is hardly a controversy worth taking to 110% or Team 990 airwaves, but is just about worth the few minutes of exposure it will get on this site. We Habs fans don't really have too many elephants around yet - thankfully - so please indulge me again while I make an elephant out of a mole, so to speak, to get this weekly segment rolling...)
We were all very relieved to see Francis Bouillon return to the lineup after a lay off of 5 games. But, to be honest, the manner in which he was reinserted in to the lineup was very strange indeed.
You will all no doubt recall (despite the unusually long interval in between games) that Francis started Game 6 against the Panthers on the fourth forward line with Maxim Lapierre and Mathieu Dandenault (his former partner on defence).
I say it is strange because anyone who knows a little bit about hockey and has been following the Canadiens knows two things:
1) We have a queue of forwards forming waiting to play
2) Our biggest weakness is on defence
This situation is a mirror of last season, where all the quality reinforcements were up front as well, but has been exacerbated even further by the subtraction of Mark Streit from possible defenders only to be replaced by Robert Lang.
When I wrote about this very same topic at the outset of last season, I posed three questions to get to the bottom of things. They were:
1) Do we have too many NHL quality defencemen?
2) Are the extra guys here to get a look at the NHL?
3) Are we so low on forwards that it makes no difference?
The answers for me still run the same way as last season, with no, no and no. You should also remember that the Canadiens turnaround last season, to the exact game, occurred when Carbonneau realised these answers, scrapped the 8th defenceman in the lineup, and opted for the much much more dynamic Sergei Kostitsyn to better complement the team.
So, I am a bit baffled as to why Carbonneau opted for the return to this tired and largely failed option. Even on the night it looks like a bad decision. Looking at our lineup vs. Florida, it would not be too controversial for me to say that our bottom four players being iced came from the group of 8 defencemen.
Too conservative
From a strategic standpoint alone (money from Gillett's pocketbook aside), the decision was baffling considering the opposition. Florida have about 2/3 of one line that needs any kind of shadowing and were always going to come in with their go-to gameplan of 1-1, see what happens in OT. This game, played in Montreal as well, offered a perfect opportunity for Carbonneau and his team to impose their will on a lesser opponent, to practice all that they preached and to just generally go for it. Instead Carbo replaces his injured (and most dynamic) goalscorer by Francis Bouilon straight up.
To borrow a thought from a previous post – the Habs need to start thinking about creating wins rather than preventing losses. Playing 8 defencemen is not innovative, new or proactive. Nor was it the right strategy to rack up goals against a team that can't really offer a scoring threat themselves. Of course, we won the game, so some could say this disproves my point. I disagree. If holding on to tap in an empty netter vs. Florida is the limit of the Canadiens and the coaching staff's creative aspirations then we could be in for some rude awakenings later in the season.
To suggest an alternative: I would have either played Georges Laraque or Steve Begin and benched the unmentionable one (who's due a break). Alternatively, 71 plays and Bouillon's in for Dandenault. Both ways we get to shed some dead wood and play an extra forward. An even wilder idea would have included calling up someone who could actually score (Maxwell, Pacioretty) to take Andrei's place, then Begin in for 71.
Learn the lessons
All in all, this strategic hiccough didn't cost us, and we come off unscathed this time. And, to be fair to Carbonneau, he did even adjust during the game, which allowed him to bench O'Byrne in the end. But strategic misplay, it was.
I only hope someone (hopefully Carbonneau, to be honest) learned something from 2006-07 and early 2007-08 that playing 8 defencemen does not suit the group of players that we have. And, I hope that paying Gregory Stewart's salary and airfare for one game will never stand in the way of putting the best team forward (and forward is the operative word) again.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Someone Save Them From Us
Winning the Stanley Cup will take a team at least 98 games, at most 110. We're talking about 100 hours of competitive hockey, 10,000 or so shifts, maybe 3,000 shots for and against.
To earn the right to lift it at the end of all that is even more difficult, a team must win at least 56 of those games, while probably getting to the end of regulation or ahead or even in 70 or more.
In other words, this Stanley Cup thing is not a sprint.
When I was younger, I used to be a runner and a swimmer. I specialised (in both sports) in longer events - all races that took about two to four odd minutes. When you race these kind of races, you quickly learn two things:
1. You cannot go all-out the whole race, sprinting runs out at a minute or sooner
2. Going in with a strategic plan is vitally important
I see the race to the Stanley Cup in those terms sometimes. First, you have the heats (regular season) and the finals (playoffs). Secondly, results show that every year the thing that matters most is finishing strong - and it doesn't matter who leads after the first, second or third laps. All that is forgotten when the tape is broken or the wall is reached.
In the NHL, it is common and, well strategically sound, for teams to cruise for much of the season, winning games with little effort and without much fuss. After all, for 6 months all that matters is that you secure a place in the playoffs. Nothing else. Beat half the teams in the league, and you're there. Last year, we harped on about this (with the 96 point goal) and I still stand by it - set a points goal, achieve it, then worry about the finals.
In other sports, competitors that exert themselves too much in the heats are at a disadvantage, and it is the competitors that can "cruise" into the final that hold the cards. There is something to be said for good lanes (just like good playoff match-ups), but the best still get a decent lane every time, even on half efforts. The parallel is true in the NHL, teams with some kind of strategic plan for the season in mind often progress well in the playoffs.
If it were up to the fans
Many a fan in Montreal will grasp this. Many will proclaim saving energy for the playoffs as gospel truth. The problem seems to be that once we all cross into the Bell Centre, no matter what tie of year, this philosophy and strategy we most often agree would be best to meet our ultimate goal, is completely tossed out the window. If it were up to some of us, 82 wins and 4 playoff series. When we get in that building - it's win, win, win; score, score, score; sprint, sprint, sprint for every minute of every shift in every game.
Well, no Cup recently, no conference finals in ages. It makes me think, is this one of the problems? Well have a look at these quotes and stories from last night:
Fancois Gagnon leads with "Like in the playoffs"
Mike Boone wrote 5 or 6 posts during the exhibition game, as did Gagnon for that matter.
Plekanec had this to say (English from French from English):
Lapierre echoed those sentiments:
A lot of coverage for a game that counts for nothing in two weeks time. I have to admit, I used to be immensely proud of the fact that Montreal fans could get so worked up for a game against Ottawa B, even after years of seeing teams beat others in the exhibition season and then getting clobbered 3 night later when the real line-ups meet.
But now, I tend to see everything through the guise of the road to the Cup. I guess I'm tired of waiting. In that respect, expectation, encouragement at that level, performance - all of it - it can't be sustained. Not when the teams you are trying to beat cruise through 5 months anonymously before first exerting some effort in April.
I'm not sure myself, and I'm certain someone like Dave Stubbs, Robert L, Dennis Kane, or other knowledgeable readers could confirm, that when the Canadiens were winning Cups, the exhibition games were not this crazy. I am thinking that every year as our desperation creeps ever further that we lose a bit of perspective and control over our emotions and mistake an exhibition win for a meaningful result.
When I was competing, I would often finish a race and tell someone who was very kindly and sincerely cheering their heart out for me on the first lap in the heats to save it for the last length or the finals please. In swimming especially, cheering can give a competitor an idea that they are either right ahead of or right behind someone and need to step up the pace, which is important because of all the blind spots. If the cheering is at its most intense right from the blocks, then any ramping up becomes impossible, any warnings to gear up, ineffectual.
I think the same must be true of a hockey team in a 100 game race. Shouldn't the cheering during Game 5 of the second knockout series be louder. It should if we want a reaction to our roars. I mean everyone talks about the mythical "seventh man", and how at the Bell Centre, it is a constant contributor. I think that if from exhibition game 4 to regular season game 51 to Stanley Cup playoffs game 14 the intensity never changes, there will be desensitization. The crowd becomes the jackhammer outside your front window day after day, it becomes your loud buzzing fridge - it is background noise that is no longer remarkable.
If the Canadiens were the Usain Bolts or the Michael Phelps of their sport, where no matter what they did, they would win, then the argument that cheering too enthusiastically right now would be meaningless. the fact is they are not. For the most part, the NHL could be a dead heat. There are at least 12 teams that could win the Cup if we look now. 12 different ones when we look in April. Come June, there are usually 2 that can't be separated from one another very easily. No, the Canadiens need to be wary of teams that come one or two positions behind them in the standings without trying in the last games of the season, whose players didn't spend all their energy in March. Last year could teach us that much.
As fans, we need to play our part. We need to hold the power to be remarkable. We need to have the ace up the sleeve that helps inject extra energy when it is most needed. To do that, I think we have to learn to hold it back, learn that this is two long sprints, with heats and finals. We need someone to save us from ourselves.
To earn the right to lift it at the end of all that is even more difficult, a team must win at least 56 of those games, while probably getting to the end of regulation or ahead or even in 70 or more.
In other words, this Stanley Cup thing is not a sprint.
When I was younger, I used to be a runner and a swimmer. I specialised (in both sports) in longer events - all races that took about two to four odd minutes. When you race these kind of races, you quickly learn two things:
1. You cannot go all-out the whole race, sprinting runs out at a minute or sooner
2. Going in with a strategic plan is vitally important
I see the race to the Stanley Cup in those terms sometimes. First, you have the heats (regular season) and the finals (playoffs). Secondly, results show that every year the thing that matters most is finishing strong - and it doesn't matter who leads after the first, second or third laps. All that is forgotten when the tape is broken or the wall is reached.
In the NHL, it is common and, well strategically sound, for teams to cruise for much of the season, winning games with little effort and without much fuss. After all, for 6 months all that matters is that you secure a place in the playoffs. Nothing else. Beat half the teams in the league, and you're there. Last year, we harped on about this (with the 96 point goal) and I still stand by it - set a points goal, achieve it, then worry about the finals.
In other sports, competitors that exert themselves too much in the heats are at a disadvantage, and it is the competitors that can "cruise" into the final that hold the cards. There is something to be said for good lanes (just like good playoff match-ups), but the best still get a decent lane every time, even on half efforts. The parallel is true in the NHL, teams with some kind of strategic plan for the season in mind often progress well in the playoffs.
If it were up to the fans
Many a fan in Montreal will grasp this. Many will proclaim saving energy for the playoffs as gospel truth. The problem seems to be that once we all cross into the Bell Centre, no matter what tie of year, this philosophy and strategy we most often agree would be best to meet our ultimate goal, is completely tossed out the window. If it were up to some of us, 82 wins and 4 playoff series. When we get in that building - it's win, win, win; score, score, score; sprint, sprint, sprint for every minute of every shift in every game.
Well, no Cup recently, no conference finals in ages. It makes me think, is this one of the problems? Well have a look at these quotes and stories from last night:
Fancois Gagnon leads with "Like in the playoffs"
Mike Boone wrote 5 or 6 posts during the exhibition game, as did Gagnon for that matter.
Plekanec had this to say (English from French from English):
"Nowhere but Montreal could a game end like it did tonight in what is the exhibition season."
Lapierre echoed those sentiments:
"It was as loud as if we had won a playoff game in overtime"
A lot of coverage for a game that counts for nothing in two weeks time. I have to admit, I used to be immensely proud of the fact that Montreal fans could get so worked up for a game against Ottawa B, even after years of seeing teams beat others in the exhibition season and then getting clobbered 3 night later when the real line-ups meet.
But now, I tend to see everything through the guise of the road to the Cup. I guess I'm tired of waiting. In that respect, expectation, encouragement at that level, performance - all of it - it can't be sustained. Not when the teams you are trying to beat cruise through 5 months anonymously before first exerting some effort in April.
I'm not sure myself, and I'm certain someone like Dave Stubbs, Robert L, Dennis Kane, or other knowledgeable readers could confirm, that when the Canadiens were winning Cups, the exhibition games were not this crazy. I am thinking that every year as our desperation creeps ever further that we lose a bit of perspective and control over our emotions and mistake an exhibition win for a meaningful result.
When I was competing, I would often finish a race and tell someone who was very kindly and sincerely cheering their heart out for me on the first lap in the heats to save it for the last length or the finals please. In swimming especially, cheering can give a competitor an idea that they are either right ahead of or right behind someone and need to step up the pace, which is important because of all the blind spots. If the cheering is at its most intense right from the blocks, then any ramping up becomes impossible, any warnings to gear up, ineffectual.
I think the same must be true of a hockey team in a 100 game race. Shouldn't the cheering during Game 5 of the second knockout series be louder. It should if we want a reaction to our roars. I mean everyone talks about the mythical "seventh man", and how at the Bell Centre, it is a constant contributor. I think that if from exhibition game 4 to regular season game 51 to Stanley Cup playoffs game 14 the intensity never changes, there will be desensitization. The crowd becomes the jackhammer outside your front window day after day, it becomes your loud buzzing fridge - it is background noise that is no longer remarkable.
If the Canadiens were the Usain Bolts or the Michael Phelps of their sport, where no matter what they did, they would win, then the argument that cheering too enthusiastically right now would be meaningless. the fact is they are not. For the most part, the NHL could be a dead heat. There are at least 12 teams that could win the Cup if we look now. 12 different ones when we look in April. Come June, there are usually 2 that can't be separated from one another very easily. No, the Canadiens need to be wary of teams that come one or two positions behind them in the standings without trying in the last games of the season, whose players didn't spend all their energy in March. Last year could teach us that much.
As fans, we need to play our part. We need to hold the power to be remarkable. We need to have the ace up the sleeve that helps inject extra energy when it is most needed. To do that, I think we have to learn to hold it back, learn that this is two long sprints, with heats and finals. We need someone to save us from ourselves.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Awaiting the revolution
You say you want a revolution, well...
I came to the topic of revolutions when I was browsing the battery of Habs websites on my daily list.
The first one: Dave Stubb's great piece on Paul Haynes, got me thinking about how playing a player on his off wing could have been a revolution in years gone by (see it doesn't necessarily take much). Then there were some other articles and posts here and there, which generally made me feel like everyone was pretty hunky dorey with the way things were going right at the moment (RDS, Mike Boone, this blogger)
I don't want a bloody revolution like Lenin's or Robespierre's. I want to imagine the possibility of change, without the casualties, more like say the internet revolution - a force of change so irresistible that it moves along of its own volition.
I don't think things are as bad as they've been for the Habs, but we're not "there" yet.
Where is "there"?
Well, I like to imagine it is possible for this team to go from battling for the playoffs every year (every other if I'm honest about it) to a team that wins the Cup 3 to 5 times in a ten-year span. A team fighting to maintain parity to fighting to form a dynasty. I want to watch a team that is light years ahead with their first Cup in many years and then works hard to stay in front.
Don't get me wrong an accidental Cup would be nice, but this is Montreal here.
We invent hockey, we invent 50 goalscorers, we invent draft day rip-offs, we invent playoff OT miracles, we invent the hockey dynasty.
NHL revolutions begin and end here. There's Richard; Geoffrion adopting the slapshot; Jacques Plante deciding to protect his mug; Patrick Roy playing the butterfly. And if another revolution comes along, we pooh-pooh it and win anyway, at least in time -think about Bobby Orr, Broadstreet Bullies or another team in Eastern Canada trying to be successful.
I don't know what the next revolution should be, and a good thing, since the frustration of knowing just what to do, and limited to yielding the power of this puny blog would drive me mad for certain. I just get upset with the complacency that creeps in every time we beat a hapless crew on a night in October. I also happen to know a non-revolutionary idea when I see one:
playing 7 defensemen, needlessly pursuing a goon, trading a veteran in March of his UFA year, listening to Don Cherry (eh, PJ?)...
Our team is good. It can beat any team most nights. But it still falls short of being able to beat every team most nights, most teams every night, or every team every night.
That's what you need if you start thinking like a revolutionary.
What if we started trading players as soon as they reach the height of their abilities (um, Theodore, Ribeiro maybe back when) for top returns. What if we started trading prospects we may see in 2 years for a ten year career for someone with a guaranteed value today for an 8-year stint. If done a few times over the course of one season might just turn the league on its head.
I'm not asking for Gainey and Carbonneau to go ahead and revolutionise everything by tomorrow, I merely ask that they think about being revolutionary sometimes.
I especially ask that the fans use a bit more imagination and expect something a little more revolutionary from this team - more revolutionary than benching every player who goes a game without a goal. Let's see some revolutionary ideas and be patient about their proper implementation, they just might work. And heck, they're a lot more entertaining to debate...
Once a week from now on, I'll try to come up with one revolutionary way in which I think the Habs could take steps become a dynasty again.
... don't you know it's gonna be. Alright.
I came to the topic of revolutions when I was browsing the battery of Habs websites on my daily list.
revolution
• noun 1 a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system. 2 a dramatic and far-reaching change. 3 motion in orbit or in a circular course or round an axis or centre. 4 the single completion of an orbit or rotation.
The first one: Dave Stubb's great piece on Paul Haynes, got me thinking about how playing a player on his off wing could have been a revolution in years gone by (see it doesn't necessarily take much). Then there were some other articles and posts here and there, which generally made me feel like everyone was pretty hunky dorey with the way things were going right at the moment (RDS, Mike Boone, this blogger)
I don't want a bloody revolution like Lenin's or Robespierre's. I want to imagine the possibility of change, without the casualties, more like say the internet revolution - a force of change so irresistible that it moves along of its own volition.
I don't think things are as bad as they've been for the Habs, but we're not "there" yet.
Where is "there"?
Well, I like to imagine it is possible for this team to go from battling for the playoffs every year (every other if I'm honest about it) to a team that wins the Cup 3 to 5 times in a ten-year span. A team fighting to maintain parity to fighting to form a dynasty. I want to watch a team that is light years ahead with their first Cup in many years and then works hard to stay in front.
Don't get me wrong an accidental Cup would be nice, but this is Montreal here.
We invent hockey, we invent 50 goalscorers, we invent draft day rip-offs, we invent playoff OT miracles, we invent the hockey dynasty.
NHL revolutions begin and end here. There's Richard; Geoffrion adopting the slapshot; Jacques Plante deciding to protect his mug; Patrick Roy playing the butterfly. And if another revolution comes along, we pooh-pooh it and win anyway, at least in time -think about Bobby Orr, Broadstreet Bullies or another team in Eastern Canada trying to be successful.
I don't know what the next revolution should be, and a good thing, since the frustration of knowing just what to do, and limited to yielding the power of this puny blog would drive me mad for certain. I just get upset with the complacency that creeps in every time we beat a hapless crew on a night in October. I also happen to know a non-revolutionary idea when I see one:
playing 7 defensemen, needlessly pursuing a goon, trading a veteran in March of his UFA year, listening to Don Cherry (eh, PJ?)...
Our team is good. It can beat any team most nights. But it still falls short of being able to beat every team most nights, most teams every night, or every team every night.
That's what you need if you start thinking like a revolutionary.
What if we started trading players as soon as they reach the height of their abilities (um, Theodore, Ribeiro maybe back when) for top returns. What if we started trading prospects we may see in 2 years for a ten year career for someone with a guaranteed value today for an 8-year stint. If done a few times over the course of one season might just turn the league on its head.
I'm not asking for Gainey and Carbonneau to go ahead and revolutionise everything by tomorrow, I merely ask that they think about being revolutionary sometimes.
I especially ask that the fans use a bit more imagination and expect something a little more revolutionary from this team - more revolutionary than benching every player who goes a game without a goal. Let's see some revolutionary ideas and be patient about their proper implementation, they just might work. And heck, they're a lot more entertaining to debate...
Once a week from now on, I'll try to come up with one revolutionary way in which I think the Habs could take steps become a dynasty again.
... don't you know it's gonna be. Alright.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)