Thought For The Week Goalie Wins

If you've read this site before chances are you have at some time stumbled across a debate about goaltending proficiency. A lot of the time, the issue of goaltender wins as a statistic comes up.

Lately, it seems the prevailing attitude is that wins have nothing to do with goaltending. The argument is well made and the logic sound.

So imagine my surprise when I was (goodness knows why) listening to Robert Mayer's interview from Habs Inside/Out and they asked him about his definiton of a successful season:

Question: "What would be a good season for you, for the next year?"

Mayer (without hesitation): "A good season for me? You know what, a good season for me would be if I had more wins than losses..."

No mention of other statistics, no mention of save percentgae or even strength save percentage, or games won where he outperformed his expected save percentage based on average shot quality. No, it was wins. Wins are his primary stat for evaluating a season. More wins than losses = good. All wins = perfect.

I find that interesting. I suspect he's not alone among his bretheren.

While I completely agree that it is oversimplistic to look at wins as a main crux of an argument for goaltender proficiency, I have often also wondered at the oversimplicity of just discarding the stat altogether given its likely influence on how the goalie plays (drives his motivation).

I think I'll remember Mayer's words when I look at seasons past come June.

Negotiating On Price: Habs New Arguments

Price and his agent have played their opening gambit (in our imaginations)and the Canadiens have answered (in our imaginations again). I think we can all agree that unless Gauthier comes up with some stats wizardry or another #1 goalie, the Price team is looking good to pull salary towards their notion of fair dues.

The negotiation now turns to Gauthier and his team to argue the negative (or if they're inventive, the positive) so the salary cap burden of Price is more what they had in mind when they thought he would be the much cheaper option.

[Remember that for these mock purposes, we're assuming that Carey Price’s team is for $3 million as per HabsWorld's uncited "report" (1 to 3 years) and that the Habs are coutering with $1.7 million (2 to 4 years).]

Habs arguments

Other stats

Have you met our new numbers man, Ken Morin? He was only officially hired yesterday, but he came with some numbers in hand which we thought would be handy for these discussions.

You mentioned a 0.912 save percentage. We fully acknowledge that number, but would like to say right off the bat that we don’t exclude playoffs from our analyses, so we’ll be going ahead with a 0.910 number, just so you know.

Just a quick look at other stats from this season. You already mentioned Carey’s 0.912 from the season which ranked him 21st in the league. We’d like to just highlight a few stats to add context:

(min 16 GP)
41 GP (33rd)
39 GS (32nd)
13 W (37th)
0.33 W per start (55th)
0.33 W per 60 min (54th)
2.77 GAA (36th)
0 SO (T 48th)

You present Carey as an established starter with top 20 numbers. Based on what we see, we think he is right where he should be, but is still a developing youngster climbing the ranks. We think it would be fair to pay him as such.


Trends

We have addressed a lot so far, but a common element of 2nd contract negotiations has been conspicuously absent from these talks. Usually, we can all look at a player and draw upward trends. We find the talk about pedigree a bit disingenuous when we consider the decline since season one with Carey.

Our analysis reveals that since his 48th game in the NHL (the 7th game in the 2008 Boston series), where Carey was a 2.49, 0.920 goalie, he has but for very brief bumps been declining or standing still. If this were game 92 we were talking about, there wouldn’t be any reason for concern, but this is 106 games later now – 2 entire NHL seasons.

From game 49 to game 108 (last game of 2009) Carey declined to a 2.76, 0.910 goalie. Since that time, he has stemmed the decline but only to maintain that level.

Again, we are not suggesting this is anyway abnormal for a young goalie, but suggest that paying Carey as a seasoned pro, or a near-elite at this stage is off the mark. He is learning, but learning slowly. We also hope and assume there is still learning to be done and that he’ll be working on this into the upcoming season, if not beyond. As such, we don’t think we should be paying the price as he were the finished article.


Save percentage breakdown

M. Morin has been doing some excellent work, he really has. He has showed us a lot about how to look at save percentage. That is, to see how a goalie comes to his 91% of shots saved.

When we look at when goals are scored, we can see a massive gulf in between what goaltender we get at the beginning of a game compared to the end. Whereas, after a goal is allowed, Carey is on par with those you say are his peers (2.53, 0.920), for the start of games, he has an entirely different set of peers (3.30, 0.892).

Again we’re fully on board with the learning and will support Carey as long as it takes. But this is taken from this past season, and is further evidence of the fact that learning is not done. We think this bolsters our suggestion that paying for the finished article at this point is premature.


Support

Throughout his career until now, we have provided Carey with the best support and opportunities ever afforded to a goaltender of his age. We have showed our support by trading Halak and by signing in a veteran back up willing and able to support 60 games from Carey.

We continue to show this support and will do as he continues to learn his trade at this high level. Knowing Carey the way we do, and knowing what he needs from our years together, we think we offer him the best environment there is to thrive at the moment.


Opportunity

Currently Montreal stands as one of two teams (if we assume Huet and Niemi haven’t been settled on) where there is a starting position. Rather than looking on starts as a burden, we think starts are an asset to your client. We don’t think he can get this opportunity anywhere else in the NHL at the present time.



In the balance

Gauthier digs deep here. But is it enough to overcome the fact he chose Price long ago and would rely on Auld and an AHLer if Price were to opt out?

Eastern Conference Playoffs Looking for Sweeps, Upsets and Regular season Records

A lot has been published about the optimal opponents for each team come playoff time. I don't want to theorize too much on the topic this time around. Instead, I offer you some data for you to chew on by yourselves:

First up is the head-to-head table for all possible contenders from the Eastern Conference this season (please note, OT/SO goals for/against not counted).



As you can see, most top teams deserve to be there as they have accrued points against playoff-bound rivals.

What you might also spot is that there are some curious results: both plum match-ups (New Jersey getting Pittsburgh, say) and ones to avoid (New Jersey getting Philly).


From this, you can piece together how well each team did solely against playoff teams from the East.



Of note here seems to be that Buffalo are in above their heads, and it seems to be at Ottawa's expense.


Finally, and probably most important for those in imminently scheduled playoff pools like me is the record against teams that they could possibly face in the first round:



Pittsburgh, leaving the standings behind, must be licking their chops for their first round entrance.

The F Stands For Fairweather Fans

Any of you who run a website will know that there's much pleasure amd grief to be had by following your own statistics on Google Analytics. The site tracks readers as numbers, by minutes on the site, pages read and location. It's a fun insight and a source of encouragement when numbers trend upwards. By the same token, it shows dips in readers and leads one to question what has changed. Like a 6-0 victory against the Rangers, one can't take Google Analytics to heart.

Earlier this year I was having a bit of fun with my Google Analytics data and trying to do some retrospective analysis of reader numbers as they relate to Canadiens winning and losing. Winning means more readers and losing means less.

Being that this is the Olympic break and we're in the midst of a Canadiens losing streak in a middling season, I feel pretty comfortable in saying that anyone reading this particular piece is in the hardcore. If there's one thing hardcore fans lie to do, it's complain about the softcore – those who wear a Bruins shirt under their Habs sweater – you know, just in case.

For you then, hardcore fans, I wanted share my examination of the Canadiens bandwagon, how big it is, how it reacts to wins, losses and stretches with little change


Bandwagon size

I start my assessment of the bandwagon with an assumption. The assumption is that anyone reading a relatively obscure hockey blog during a losing streak is a big fan – not a fan hopping on and off depending on the latest result. As such, I use reader numbers during a losing stretch as the non-bandwagon baseline.

From that point, I can control for number of days after wins, days of the week, exciting events (like trades) and such and come to estimates as to how many extra people follow the team closely when it's fashionable to do so. These are the numbers I see on this site:

Day after game: Loss (1.0); Win (1.30)
Two days after game: Loss (1.0); Win (1.45)
Three days after game: Loss (1.0); Win (0.97)

Here you can see that people flock to read about the team after a win (30% more readers), with peak bandwagon happening on Day 2 (45% more readers). The dip at Day 3 may be real, but it is hard to assess as there have been so few 3 day breaks in between games this year – usually Day 3 after a win is Day 1 after a W or a L.

To look a bit deeper, I compared what happens in a streak. So the day after the first win in a winning streak is W1. If on Day 3, the team wins again that would be W3, and W4 the next day and so on. One might speculate that the bandwagon would grow over time as excitement about the team winning increases. Maybe that happens at more mainstream sites, but here's how it goes down at LIW:

Day 1 of streak: L1 (1.0); W1 (1.19)
Day 2 of streak: L1 (1.0); W1 (1.30)
Day 3 of streak: L1 (1.0); W1 (1.29)
Day 4 of streak: L1 (1.0); W1 (1.16)
Day 5 of streak: L1 (1.0); W1 (1.33)

Again, the winning leads to a bump, but rather than accumulating over time, as one might expect, there seems to be a leveling off followed by what I might call streak fatigue from Day 4, with a more marked drop at Day 6 of a streak

It seems that not only are the fairweather fans in our midst quick to become scarce at the earliest sign that they might be supporting a losing team, but they also suffer from attention deficit, such that winning for too long isn't very interesting.


So what?

Good question. Well, as I said, it doesn't really matter. I was only sharing this because I did it for a bit of fun and thought one or two of you might get a laugh out of it.

But might it matter to the team as well?

I'd say that some of the people in the marketing and sales departments might be quite interested in this information. Filling the building is one of the concerns, of course. If there are 60,000 fans trying to get tickets to each game, then something like this wouldn't matter. But let's say there are only 25,000 fans wanting to see the Phoenix Coyotes in November, even in a winning run. Well, if the bandwagon drops out by 25% (1.0/1.3), then the team is suddenly looking at having to get creative to fill 3,000 or so seats.

I might also think that too big a bandwagon gets a bit unwieldy. I've always thought the pressure of the playoffs, for example, where everyone to the man or woman in the city is talking about the team and attaching themselves in some way to the team might be a lot to handle.


What of the total bandwagon?

This little snapshot only shows how our blog fluctuates in winning and losing. If you think about the profile of people who read a blog written by fans then I think you'd agree it's not your typical bandwagon. It's not the guy at the office who suddenly starts wearing Habs gear everyday in April as the Habs turn up on the verge of eliminating the Bruins. If anything, I'd say the real bandwagon is much much bigger in percentage terms. And, I'd guess that it fluctuates even more dramatically.

I also think that bandwagon fans can be the most demanding of all, and the most unreasonable. Coming in as they do with their craving for instant gratification, they sometimes don't understand what has come before, why things are being done a certain way. The fans that buy a ticket for a single game at the end of a winning streak to see a win are the ones who boo Halak loudest for letting in 5 goals after 3 months of excellence, the ones who scream shoot 10 seconds into every PP, the ones who rant about firing the coach every losing streak, and firing the GM every January.

In short, I don't relate to them that well. Still, as a subject of study and observation, the bandwagoneer is a fascinating animal.

Does Halak Get The Easy Marks?

Let's dispel a myth shall we?

In what have become ever more numerous attempts to stir the pot with this goalie thing again (as if winning few games is too boring for the press to take), the publication of Price's really poor goal support has been coming to light.

As you know, I am trying to get to the bottom of what is going on there (no scientist jumps to mere coincidence without a few questions). Until then, I just wanted to address one of the things I think it isn't – Halak getting more than his fair share of easy starts.

To get to the bottom of it, I had a look at the records of each goalie vs. the teams they have played. To be fairer than most analysts, I have omitted the games in question as contribution to the total. So, the Philadelphia Flyers who are a 19-19-3 team with the game against us, are actually a 19-18-3 (or above 0.500 in the standings team) here.

Games vs. teams above 0.500 in the standings

	GP	W	L	OTL	Pts	W%	Real W%
Canadiens	32	14	16	2	30	0.469	0.438
Price	19	7	10	2	16	0.421	0.368
Halak	13	7	6	0	14	0.538	0.538

Games vs. teams below 0.500 in the standings

	GP	W	L	OTL	Pts	W%	Real W%
Canadiens	12	7	4	1	15	0.625	0.583
Price	8	3	4	1	7	0.438	0.375
Halak	4	4	0	0	8	1.000	1.000

Now, from looking at that, it seems that Price got more than his share of games against teams below 0.500 based on his pro-rated share of all starts. His 61% share of all starts should have meant he started 7 games against the bottom feeders. he started 8. Halak is in fact missing a start if you go by this theory.

But hang on, we all know the standings are a complete mess. Teams above 0.500 in the standings like the Islanders by this method are well below once you equate their OTLs with losses. So once again, this time with real wins and losses:

Games vs. teams above 0.500 in real terms

	GP	W	L	OTL	Pts	W%	Real W%
Canadiens	22	6	15	1	13	0.295	0.273
Price	15	5	9	1	11	0.367	0.333
Halak	7	1	6	0	2	0.143	0.143

Games vs. teams below 0.500 in real terms

	GP	W	L	OTL	Pts	W%	Real W%
Canadiens	22	15	5	2	32	0.727	0.682
Price	12	5	5	2	12	0.500	0.417
Halak	10	10	0	0	20	1.000	1.000

In this case, it seems that Halak has had an extra start or two handed to him. His 17 from 44 would suggest he deserved 8 or 9 starts, and he had 10. Price, missed out on 1 or 2 then. However, if you were the coach of the 10-0-0 goalie when facing the real dregs, would you put in the 5-5-2 guy just to boost his record? I thought so. Plus, Carey needed the rest in some cases, which probably contributed to his much more combative efforts against top teams than Halak.

There might be some reason beyond play on the ice, GAA and save percentage that explains the discrepancy in Canadiens goaltenders' wins, but I don't think that Halak getting all the plum assignments has that much to do with it after looking at this, do you?

Streak ThreeConfused Fans Need To Remember The Aim

streak

noun 1 a long, thin mark of a different substance or colour from its surroundings. 2 an element of a specified kind in someone’s character: a ruthless streak. 3 a spell of specified success or luck: a winning streak.

verb 1 mark with streaks. 2 move very fast in a specified direction. 3 informal run naked in a public place so as to shock or amuse.

— DERIVATIVES streaker noun streaking noun.

— ORIGIN Old English, related to STRIKE.



The Canadiens are on a losing streak. It is worth remembering the definition from above.

It's a funny thing that in the past few years, I have come to associate Canadiens winning or losing with the word streaky.

In other parts of the world, there are many types of bacon. Back bacon is the most commonly sold and consumed. But you can also get streaky bacon. Streaky bacon is what we might call bacon in Canada. In fact, if you buy Canadian bacon, it is invariably the streaky kind. So allowing for the spelling variation of our French cousins (Canadien), even in the world of charcuterie, the Canadiens are synonymous with streakiness.

The Habs have fulfilled this affiliation recently (since the lockout really) with their play. There's no regular win-loss-win-loss-win. We can't depend on them beating any team no mater how lowly, nor can we depend on them losing to any team no matter how lofty.

But you know what? We aren't alone.

Remember those Flyers last year – the ones that looked contenders as they mauled us in round 2? They lost 10 games in a row midseason last year. Washington, though people hailed Boudreau as the greatest thing since sliced bread, streaked their way into the playoffs too; this year they are topping us thanks to a mssive streak. Buffalo, New Jersey, Pittsburgh, Carolina, all our peers are as streaky as the rest.


Fans

As fans streaks are hard to take. Win or lose. But they are certainly integral to the experience. Streaks are what allow us to dream, to grumble, to hope, to despair.

The emotional ride is what watching and caring for the adopted team is all about. If I think about my mood after a loss, I can say it is as sour as my temperament after a win is bubbly. Streaks are borne as a fan, because the reward of the next win will be greater. Cup droughts can heighten the taste for that champagne once again.

One Canuck fan I read about today (at Dennis Kane's blog) has had enough with streaks. He has given up on the Canucks.

Now, far be it from me to criticise a man who is choosing to spend more time with his wife or child. I think it is a great call on his part.

But is being a fan all or nothing? Is there no option for weekends only? Highlights during the season, whole games in the playoffs? Watching when you feel like it?


The aim

I used to get tied up in every win and loss, just like that poor renounced Canuck fan. Every losing streak was painful to endure. But after years of watching the Habs rollercoaster and, more importantly, watching our rivals make finals and win Cups; I decided that we may be getting carried away with the wrong thing. I think I found a way to proof myself against streakitis.

My immunity: solidifying the expectations for the team into points they need to make the playoffs (in the case of this year – with a few games to spare), has shown the streaks for what they really are: spells of specified success, insufficiency or (of course) luck.

A loss is just a goal against in the game of the season, where a tie spread over all rivals is enough to get another period of hockey (particularly if you can lose in OT a lot). A 10 point lead in December is no safer than a 3-1 lead coming into the second intermission – 5 points clawed back and it's a jittery closing session.

Now when the Canadiens lose three in a row, I update my points left in the 98-o-meter and do a quick calculation. I revise the date and leave the phrase: Ahead of the pace in place. Even when it's not ahead of the pace, I can look at that pace, and as long as it's around 1.1 to 1.3; I'm breathing fine.

It's worth remembering these goals every once in a while too. We want a Stanley Cup not a President's trophy (enjoy that Sharks). We want wins, not Plekanec goals. We want to play our best hockey in May, not January.

Wisdom, as they say, comes from the mouths of babes (courtesy of the best Habs interview in an age – a coup considering the 100 some-odd scrum was scooped by a blog on this one):

"Interviewer: It's the centennial season for the Canadiens, and the team finished first in the conference last season. How do you handle the expectations from fans and media that your team should win the Stanley Cup this season?

Sergei K: Our main goal is to make the playoffs. And once we get there, everyone will try and play their best game..."

Timing

The Canadiens are currently in 5th place in the Eastern conference. As I mentioned, they are ahead of the 98-point pace. In fact, they're ahead of last year's pace. There's no need to panic, no need to do what Richard formerly a 7th man for the Canucks (number retired and all) and jump – his team is tied 7th, btw.

Streaks in the regular season, by and large reflect the general expenditure of energy and the turn of luck of a given period. If luck is what you make, then it all comes down to energy. (So you know I'm not getting a 22 on my jersey, by effort, I mean directed skill as a team – players making extra effort to control passes, protect possesion, create space, etc.).

A study of two consecutive seasons watching the Senators showed me that when you're expending more effort to get wins (and thus streak) is much more important than how much you streaked over a season (i.e., 105 points > 113 points, if done right):

- In 2005-06, the Sens got off to their usual blistering start with a 19-3-0 record going into December. They finished the year top of the division on the back of that achievement. A look at how they got their 52 wins shows that their streaks were ill-timed – 13 wins by Game 15; 26 wins by Game 35 (20 games); 39 wins by Game 58 (23 games); and 52 wins by Game 82 (24 games)

– 2006-07 (the year they made the finals), they seemed to have learned something. The only accumulated 48 wins, but they were more constant instead of slipping each quarter – 12 wins by Game 25; 24 wins by Game 45 (20 games); 36 wins by Game 62 (17 games); and 48 wins by Game 82 (20 games)

Consequently, Daniel Alfredsson, the man who would have won the Conn Smythe trophy, scored 87 points in 2006-07 compared to 103 the year before.


The relevance here to the Canadiens is the pacing. Last season, the Canadiens came into Game 68 with 36 wins. 15 games later, they had 47. It was admirable they gave their all to win the division, clinch home ice and beat the Penguins, but ultimately, their timed outburst of energy fooled none of those who'd been focusing on how the playoffs would go, rather than how the standings would look.

Carey Price blamed fatigue for his form. He was tired because he was used in all those nerve-wracking late season wins. He was tired because he had never played on a team that had so many meaningful games in a row. Kovalev burned energy in those last months too, as did Plekanec and Komisarek. It was rookie errors from a team that had no idea what winning in the regular season should feel like, much less what winning in the playoffs was all about.

This season, like the Senators of Cup year, the Habs have behaved like a team heading for 48 or so wins the whole way. They have put the experience of being good into confidently carrying themselves as a good (if not surprising) team: 12th win in Game 21 (one quarter mark); 24th win by 40th game (half-way mark).

Their lack of urgency is nothing to be alarmed with. Their lack of urgency is something to hope they can maintain as they clinch points and a berth.


On that note, let's not do a Richard the 7th and get all in a huff over 3 losses, 4 losses, whatever. Nor get over the moon like a fair-weather Bruins fan basking in Tim Thomas' string of wins. As we turn on the televisions for another game in Florida, banish the words "must-win", "costly defeat" and all the others and remember the game:

98 points, 4 wins, 4 wins, 4 wins, 4 wins...

Welcome Opponent One: The Boston Bruins

The Bruins hardly need much introduction. After all, we have all seen them 8 times since October, 10 times since September if you're keen. They lost to us in Montreal. they lost to us in Boston. They even lost to us in Halifax.

Strange thing though. Since the Habs beat these opponents 8/8 times (or 10/10 if you prefer) it doesn't feel like we know the Bruins the way we should. At least not the bruins the rest of the league knows.

We've heard ad nauseum (from myself included) that if the Habs had lost to the Bruins just 4 times, the Bruins (45-25-11: 101 points) would be ahead of the Canadiens (43-29-10: 96 points).

We know the world doesn't work this way: eliminating the team you play worst against would make a similarly enchanting story for most of the teams in the league. Even so, the fact that the Bruins cultivated more points against the rest of the league than the Habs is a matter of some intrigue.

For me the first question that cam to mind was: "Well, who did they beat?"

The answer: Everyone at least a little bit.

vs. Southeast (10-9-1: 21 pts)
Wins: Atlanta (3), Carolina (1), Florida, Tampa and Washington (2 each)

vs. Northeast – sans Montreal (13-6-5: 31 points)
Wins: Toronto (5), Buffalo and Ottawa (4 each)

vs. Atlantic (12-4-4: 28 pts)
Wins: Philadelphia, Islanders and Rangers (3 each), Pittsburgh (2), New Jersey (1)

vs. West (6-3-1: 13 pts)
Wins: Chicago, Columbus, Nashville, LA, Phoenix, San Jose


Basically, the Bruins were steady as we thought. They never slipped too far down the standings, even despite a brutal December. They picked up a lovely 12 bonus points for losing to the Canadiens 10. But while the Habs gave up on this habit of slipping in for points somewhere around the illustrious Xmas road trip, the Bruins have used it as a tried and tested method for point collection.

Interestingly for a team that gets to OT so frequently, they have not seemed to learn how to win from it: going 8-12 in 60+ minute games this season.


If you take the wins another way and examine which teams the Bruins like and dislike, you can see certain patterns emerging:

1) The teams they lost to most frequently are faster than they are: Montreal, Carolina, Buffalo, New Jersey and Pittsburgh

2) With the exception of New Jersey, all the teams above like to win by scoring – the Bruins don't seem to enjoy that

3) Many of the teams they were most successful had trouble scoring in general as well: New York Rangers, New York Islanders, Atlanta, Toronto

4) They poached bad goaltending: Atlanta, Philadelphia, Toronto and Ottawa after their crisis mode

NOTE: The Bruins were also involved in 3 (count 'em, 3) scoreless draws, twice with the Rangers alone. These guaranteed point (and fan-pleasing) affairs got them 4 points and a good-looking record against the Rangers.


From all these results you begin to get a picture of how the Bruins win and lose. If a team skates at them, passes around them and generally tries to play normal hockey, the opponents have a good chance of winning. If a team gets into a jousting match with them, the Bruins hold more cards.


As a final enquiry, I contacted someone who knows a heck of a lot more about the Bruins than me – Russ from the Bruins Report (a great Bruins blog) – check it out if you have the time. I asked:

How were the Bruins so good against the rest of the teams in the East?

And, as if to corroborate what all the circumstantial evidence says, he replied:

The Bruins were good against the rest of the East because they have, for the most part, played a solid, simple defensive scheme in their own zone that allowed them to minimize scoring chances down low, and kept the majority of the shots to the perimeter. Tim Thomas was more effective playing behind this style of defense, and allowed him to modify his "crazy flailing everywhere like Hasek only not as good"
style.

He went on to qualify:

The Canadiens, however, have proven that the Bruins have a hard time defending against a team that uses their speed to quickly get into the Bruins' zone, and not allow them to set up in their "Box Plus 1" formation. Montreal was very good all season long at both getting into the offensive zone, as well as forcing the Bruins to take multiple penalties trying to neutralize their speed. As evidence, the Canadiens on the PP had a 30% success rate against the Bruins' 28th ranked penalty kill.

So, combine strong team speed with a solid powerplay, and you see where the Canadiens were able to beat the Bruins this season. It remains to be seen if the Bruins can 1) find a way to clog up the neutral zone enough, and forecheck strong enough, to stop the Canadiens breakout, and 2) stay out of the box. If they *can*, it'll be a decent series.

Hence the Canadiens need to stick to the gameplan. Adjust for Anaheim, maybe. Not for these guys...


By the way, stay tuned to Lions in Winter for a couple more primers on this series. I (Topham) handle the key Bruins players to watch for the series and beyond and Tobalev chimes in with his expert views on the critical players from the Habs.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Even with the Canadiens playing so frequently, I have opted to get away this Christmas.

As I will be relying on wireless connections in hotels here and about, I am not sure if I will have the time to be blogging. So, my entries in between games may have to wait until 2008.

If not, I just wanted to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year too, as well as best wishes to those who may be celebrating for any other reasons.

A good Christmas present for us all will be a road trip of .500 hockey or better to see us through the holidays with a PK Subban show for Canada and Pacioretty show for the US at the WJC.

Best wishes,

Topham

Halak shoulld start; Lemieux should sit

Tomorrow's game is against the (once and still) Mighty Red Wings.

Want a change to the way things have been going? How about starting a goalie that has never lost at the Bell Centre...

No not Brodeur, Jaroslav Halak.


In 7 starts at the Bell Centre (or Molson Centre if you're the editor of Yahoo), Halak has won every time out. He also has 2 shutouts on top of everything else. His stats in Montreal are sensational in fact (see here).

In other news, the Canadiens feel they need to prolong a Tuesday game by honouring the rivalry with the 81-year Red Wings. Apart from the timing being completely strange (will we do this every time a square number comes around?), the ceremony stands to be very strange. According to Habs Inside/Out:

The Red Wings are expected to be represented by legends Gordie Howe, Ted Lindsay, Alex Delvecchio, Marcel Pronovost and Marcel Dionne. The Canadiens are expected to have icons Jean Béliveau and Dickie Moore taking part, with Jean-Guy Talbot, Stéphane Richer and Claude Lemieux.

Now, I may not remember the rivalries of Gordie Howe, Pronovost, Beliveau and Moore, but I'm pretty sure the Habs are stretching when they ask Richer and Claude Lemieux to come along. In Richer's heyday (that would have been his first time here), the Red Wings were an awful outfit, only making the playoffs because Yzerman was putting up 120+ seasons and the North Stars and Maple Leafs couldn't get their acts together either. Lemieux was here during that time too, and left Montreal well before Sergei Fedorov and Niklas Lidstrom arrived to turn the RWs around.

Ironically though, of the post-expansion players. Claude Lemieux would probably be classified as Red Wing rival (maybe even enemy) #1. His hit on Kris Draper at the Avalanche-Red Wings back-and-forth was the powderkeg that set that (probably more tangible) on fire.

Besides the fact his hit was dirty. And that Draper will be on the ice. I don't see many good reasons for Lemieux to be at a ceremony with guys like Howe, Beliveau, Dionne and Delvecchio. I think Lemieux should call up tomorrow morning and excuse himself from this one.



His ceremony will come the day they reinstate the Hartford Whalers.