HF Habs: Does anyone here think Bergevin truly has a plan to fix this team?

[EdAVSfan]

From my readings, I’m thinking people are discussing declining and some are discussing consistency.

Price and Pacioretty could have some decline in their play. It’s only natural as they age. There’s still always the potential that they can have another peak season or two. To me, a decline means their plateau point has been reduced, and that they’re incapable of matching their peak seasons moving forward.
I don’t think that’s the case here.

Their main problem, is that their base is going to naturally decline. Whereas they can still reach the same plateau a season or two, or more, their baseline play is likely to drop. And that’s simply because they’re going to lose their consistency.

They’re not going to be able to have as many good games/shifts as they usually do. And that’s naturally going to reduce their production.

 

[Harry22]

What a concept....they got a real GM, and we got a rookie/fake GM who can please the media...

It took time in Winnipeg. They were calling for the firing of the GM for his lack of moves (trades). But in hindsight, making no moves is much better than making the wrong moves.

 

[Captain Mountain]

I don't want to go full Babcock here with inanities, but possession from a hockey perspective is about making good things happen. Puck management. It's not enough to simply have the puck and take more shots than you give up. Keeping the puck on a string as a team, penetrating the slot on and off the puck, breaking down the defensive scheme, and getting the goalie moving or simply screened. That is what defines possession.

Regarding the Sportslogiq stats I would acknowledge that it is possible and also inherently positive that the Habs might physically obtain the puck more often than not when Pacioretty is on the ice. However what is more important than any zone exit/entry, for example, is what happens next. Patches attempts ill-advised passes in the NZ and shoots haphazardly from the LW boards too often. Away from the slot the play dies on his stick. In his defense his propensity for poor puckhandling decisions could be more a result of mediocre linemates and coaching over the years, than it is his timidness or lack of creativity.

1) I'm of the opinion that players/coaches don't pad their possession stats. For one, I'm not sure they actually know how. For another, there isn't any real value in padding possession stats rather than older and more prevalent stats

2) People track "keeping the puck on a string as a team, penetrating the slot on and off the puck, breaking down the defensive scheme, and getting the goalie moving or simply screened" a lot of that goes into scoring chances and scoring chance generating plays.

3) No arguments that Pacioretty isn't a great passer and that he sometimes takes ill advised shots. The former is a real flaw, the latter is more an issue with how he's surrounded. I'm also not arguing that Pacioretty isn't flawed, just that he's still much more than just a scorer.

I feel like there's a little bit of the not good enough treatment he's getting that Subban also got when he was here. Overplaying his flaws and underplaying all the things he does well. Which is a shame.

 

[the valiant effort]

It took time in Winnipeg. They were calling for the firing of the GM for his lack of moves (trades). But in hindsight, making no moves is much better than making the wrong moves.

It's still taking time. Winnipeg has not actually won a single playoff game yet...

(I sure hope they do though! All 16 of them)

 

[Captain Mountain]

Are the averages based on every slug out there?
I'd like to see something based on top 6 only.
How is our team ahead of the league average.
If I was compiling these stats after having watched the Habs play this year I'd toss them as useless.

There are certain areas that the team exceeds in and certain areas that they are well behind the curve.

And dismissing data because it doesn't conform to personal views is a pretty idiotic way to operate. You can have a team do certain things well and others poorly and have the team as a whole not perform well.

If you're takeaway is that the Habs are an above average team, you're missing the forest and the trees.

 

[Laurentide]

I'm not a huge fan of fancy stats and that Pacioretty graphic is a prime example. With stats you can make anything appear the way you want it to. It's just a high-tech way to polish turds. Max can pass all the fancy stat tests but he's not passing the eye test which is still the best way to evaluate any player. The fact of the matter is that even when the Habs are winning Max is rarely a root cause of it. I can't recall many games in which Max was the reason we won it or lost it. Mostly he's a non-factor despite his offensive output.

I liken Max to Michel Goulet. Goulet made it to the HHOF because he amassed numbers which, in retrospect and taken in their entirety, look impressive. But at the time when he was in his prime with the Nordiques and playing against the Habs 8 times a year I can tell you that Goulet was not a player I was overly concerned with. To me he was just a guy who scored 50 meaningless goals every year. Whenever we played Quebec, especially in the post-season, the guys who kept me awake at night were Peter Stastny and Dale Hunter, not Goulet. Every big goal that franchise ever scored against us was by one or the other of Stastny and Hunter. Whatever Goulet did or didn't do had no impact. If the Nords were losing by 4 in the third he could cut that lead to 2. If they were up a goal he could increase the lead by a couple. But when they were in a tie game or down by a goal and needing a spark, Goulet was invisible, just like Pacioretty is most nights.

To use Bergevin-speak, Goulet and Pacioretty were/are players who can get you to the playoffs but they aren't the ones who get you through the playoffs.

 

[Captain Mountain]

I'm not a huge fan of fancy stats and that Pacioretty graphic is a prime example. With stats you can make anything appear the way you want it to. It's just a high-tech way to polish turds. Max can pass all the fancy stat tests but he's not passing the eye test which is still the best way to evaluate any player. The fact of the matter is that even when the Habs are winning Max is rarely a root cause of it. I can't recall many games in which Max was the reason we won it or lost it. Mostly he's a non-factor despite his offensive output.

I liken Max to Michel Goulet. Goulet made it to the HHOF because he amassed numbers which, in retrospect and taken in their entirety, look impressive. But at the time when he was in his prime with the Nordiques and playing against the Habs 8 times a year I can tell you that Goulet was not a player I was overly concerned with. To me he was just a guy who scored 50 meaningless goals every year. Whenever we played Quebec, especially in the post-season, the guys who kept me awake at night were Peter Stastny and Dale Hunter, not Goulet. Every big goal that franchise ever scored against us was by one or the other of Stastny and Hunter. Whatever Goulet did or didn't do had no impact. If the Nords were losing by 4 in the third he could cut that lead to 2. If they were up a goal he could increase the lead by a couple. But when they were in a tie game or down by a goal and needing a spark, Goulet was invisible, just like Pacioretty is most nights.

To use Bergevin-speak, Goulet and Pacioretty were/are players who can get you to the playoffs but they aren't the ones who get you through the playoffs.

Only people that don't understand stats frame the argument as "fancy stats" vs. eye test. You need both. And ignoring "fancy stats" because you don't like the outcome and sticking to only the eye test is one of the big reasons Bergevin got the team into this hole.

You need it all. And deciding that something is not worth it because it doesn't conform to your beliefs is incredibly dangerous.

 

[the valiant effort]

Only people that don't understand stats frame the argument as "fancy stats" vs. eye test. You need both. And ignoring "fancy stats" because you don't like the outcome and sticking to only the eye test is one of the big reasons Bergevin got the team into this hole.

You need it all. And deciding that something is not worth it because it doesn't conform to your beliefs is incredibly dangerous.

These stats like those that Sportslogiq collect are definitely useful, but they're not at the forefront of the real "fancy stats" that will remain proprietary among the elite clubs for a few more years. The real analytics are focused on determining maximum output of players (in the vain of what Vancouver was doing with their sleep experts), quantifying player tendencies without the puck, where the dead areas of the ice shift from team to team, etc.

 

[Captain Mountain]

These stats like those that Sportslogiq collect are definitely useful, but they're not at the forefront of the real "fancy stats" that will remain proprietary among the elite clubs for a few more years. The real analytics are focused on determining maximum output of players (in the vain of what Vancouver was doing with their sleep experts), quantifying player tendencies without the puck, where the dead areas of the ice shift from team to team, etc.

Benning and Linden killed those analytics. And your probably overselling the number of teams that actually have significant proprietary data. A number of teams don't even have staff that's trained in collecting and interpreting data.

 

[justafan22]

his plan = build through the draft

oh wait a minute....

How much has changed honestly, since these two videos?



Start at the 5 minute mark for video 2. He has no plan. Calls him his "big centre"
"Can't trade for one" Also the origin of "they're not available"

 

[MaxDummy]

his plan = build through the draft

oh wait a minute....

How much has changed honestly, since these two videos?



Start at the 5 minute mark for video 2. He has no plan. Calls him his "big centre"
"Can't trade for one" Also the origin of "they're not available"

Holy shit...

At the 6:00 minutes mark...

Molson: "Marc bring to our organization many key qualities. HE'S BORN IN MONTREAL

That's right folks. The number one quality of our GM is to be born in Montreal.

f*** Molson.

 

[Laurentide]

Holy ****...

At the 6:00 minutes mark...

Molson: "Marc bring to our organization many key qualities. HE'S BORN IN MONTREAL

That's right folks. The number one quality of our GM is to be born in Montreal.

**** Molson.

The media demands a "ti-gars de chez nous" so that's what Molson gives them.

 

[MaxDummy]

"Toutes ces esspériensses''

"Batir une organisation qui va continuer la tradition qui à eu pendant des années ici, ont a des bons morceaux ici, pi on va ajouté ensemble, je vais écouter les personnes que je vais amener, ou qui sont déjà ici pi on va bâtir une bonne base qui est déjà là et puis continuer pour du succès."

Duthie speaking about Galchenyuk: "The kind of karakter that I think Montreal will like, not that I think that it factors into your decision but it's always a big deal"

James james james... If only you knew.

 

[Giacomo]

Um... he was re-signed, like every single player on their team. So what? Please show me any evidence this contract was such an exciting event that the Caps 'couldn't wait'.

Evidence? They were glad he signed for 3.5 mill because he would have signed for much more according to sportsman as a free agent

 

[Giacomo]

Evidence? They were glad he signed for 3.5 mill because he would have signed for much more according to sportsman as a free agent

Sportsnet

 

[CauZuki]

Don't worry, we might be so bad that we can draft Xavier Laflamme err I mean Alexis Lafreniere! It's all part of the plan...

 

[Rapala]

There are certain areas that the team exceeds in and certain areas that they are well behind the curve.

And dismissing data because it doesn't conform to personal views is a pretty idiotic way to operate. You can have a team do certain things well and others poorly and have the team as a whole not perform well.

If you're takeaway is that the Habs are an above average team, you're missing the forest and the trees.

Nothing idiotic about questioning methods very very poor response thank you.
This team does not excel at anything and giving credence to crapstats they claim they do is what I would term idiotic.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Nothing idiotic about questioning methods very very poor response thank you.
This team does not excel at anything and giving credence to crapstats they claim they do is what I would term idiotic.

1) You didn't question the methods, you said that you'd toss them as useless because they didn't conform to your eye test. That's questioning the results and not even looking into methodology. And its worse, because its an admission of confirmation bias, which basically renders any statistical analysis worthless.

2) This team does a number of things well. It does more things poorly. Which is why they suck. Drawing the conclusion that a team being bad=they do everything bad is crazy.

 

[DAChampion]

There are certain areas that the team exceeds in and certain areas that they are well behind the curve.

And dismissing data because it doesn't conform to personal views is a pretty idiotic way to operate. You can have a team do certain things well and others poorly and have the team as a whole not perform well.

If you're takeaway is that the Habs are an above average team, you're missing the forest and the trees.

That's an example of poor statistics.

What you have are three bar charts. That's great, the figure even looks nice, it's an elegant design and good for twitter.

However, the statistics are not explained. Where is the equation for "game impact relative to peers"? What does that even mean? Does it include all players, forwards, those who play at least 20 games? Does this only include even strength? 5on5 and 4on4 as well? Does it only include plays when the player is on the ice at the face-off? What does "transition" mean? Context could also be helped by making the same figure for some other key players around the league, with the players spanning a range of ability.

@Mathletic , @Talks to Goalposts ,

If this were submitted to a scientific journal it would likely be rejected for publication. I say this as someone who has already refereed 5 submitted publications for major journals this year. You can't just present a figure without adequately describing what goes into it. Sometimes, the sports-stats people (or maybe just their fanboys) try to be fancy, they try to pretend they're scientists. Well then maybe they should act like it and meet the same standards that scientists are required to meet.

Grade for the figure: F for content, A for aesthetics.

 

[Captain Mountain]

That's an example of poor statistics.

What you have are three bar charts. That's great, the figure even looks nice, it's an elegant design and good for twitter.

However, the statistics are not explained. Where is the equation for "game impact relative to peers"? What does that even mean? Does it include all players, forwards, those who play at least 20 games? Does this only include even strength? 5on5 and 4on4 as well? Does it only include plays when the player is on the ice at the face-off? What does "transition" mean? Context could also be helped by making the same figure for some other key players around the league, with the players spanning a range of ability.

@Mathletic , @Talks to Goalposts ,

If this were submitted to a scientific journal it would likely be rejected for publication. I say this as someone who has already refereed 5 submitted publications for major journals this year. You can't just present a figure without adequately describing what goes into it. Sometimes, the sports-stats people (or maybe just their fanboys) try to be fancy, they try to pretend they're scientists. Well then maybe they should act like it and meet the same standards that scientists are required to meet.

Grade for the figure: F for content, A for aesthetics.

Who submits a single chart to a scientific journal? And do you look at anything written anywhere to match the requirements of one?

And none of this a hard science. Because of course its not. And no one is suggesting its flawless. But no one is advocating relying on it either. Its a tool. And there's a limit to what's publicly available (and what can be publicly disclosed) free of charge.

Want some insight on Sportlogiq's methodology? Here's their last two papers they presented at Sloan:

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/1625.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.00893.pdf

You want more, try reaching out to them.

I'm not even sure why I need to go beyond watching Pacioretty play, because its pretty obvious that he does more than just shoot the puck, but you don't even need to get into Sportlogiq's stuff to know that he does other stuff well too.

 

[DAChampion]

Who submits a single chart to a scientific journal? And do you look at anything written anywhere to match the requirements of one?

And none of this a hard science. Because of course its not. And no one is suggesting its flawless. But no one is advocating relying on it either. Its a tool. And there's a limit to what's publicly available (and what can be publicly disclosed) free of charge.

Want some insight on Sportlogiq's methodology? Here's their last two papers they presented at Sloan:

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/1625.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.00893.pdf

You want more, try reaching out to them.

I'm not even sure why I need to go beyond watching Pacioretty play, because its pretty obvious that he does more than just shoot the puck, but you don't even need to get into Sportlogiq's stuff to know that he does other stuff well too.

It's not that hard:

Don't post stats on the forum without explaining what they are, unless it's something already well-known like corsi. In this case it's doubly as yourey using stats that you don't understand to support your argument.

You then followed up with "just watch the games", but in that case why bother posting stats in the first place?

 

[Captain Mountain]

It's not that hard:

Don't post stats on the forum without explaining what they are, unless it's something already well-known like corsi. In this case it's doubly as yourey using stats that you don't understand to support your argument.

You then followed up with "just watch the games", but in that case why bother posting stats in the first place?

Huh? Which chart are you talking about? For the first one, most of those stats are self explanatory and most are as accessible as corsi.

Here's the source of the 2nd chart, which goes more in-depth into the methodology (although not close the standards of a scientific journal):

The definitive ranking of the NHL's top 23 left-wingers over three seasons - Sportsnet.ca

As an aside, I'm not a huge fan of the lack of clarity of the weighting of inputs, but this isn't a hard science either.

As for the last piece, its because its all useful. Watching the game and learning about and trying to understanding different stats.

 

[Runner77]

Winnipeg drafted for talent, every single time.

Bergevin has been winging it the whole time, getting on one course veering into another, promising one thing doing another. Doesn't surround himself with the best available personnel.

Not only booted forward glaring needs still unfulfilled in Year 6, but actually managed to create new ones. Has shown a complete disregard with windows of opportunity, player mileage and adding age in trades when the league has been trending toward younger players.

The sooner a new GM comes in or the sooner Bergevin's decision-making is reigned in and vetted by a real hockey overseer, the less years will be needed to achieve a positive outcome.

 

[Wandering Maroon]

My plan

1) Fire Lefebvre, Carriere and son and all of the assistants (Carriere Son, Dufresne etc...) in Laval. Bring in Joel Bouchard and Domenic Duchesne. One playoff appearance in 6 years? I'll give them credit for Scherbak and Hudon but the rest of the guys that they are "developing" ..... look at the Canadiens record, Rocket's record...

2) Fire all of the assistants in Montreal. Not good enough, let Claude bring in his guys because he won't make it through another year if they suck this badly next year.
Hire Paul Fenton or Fill in the Blank as an Assistant GM, get rid of Useless Carriere and Clueless Dudles. Time to light a match under Bergevin. I am being generous becaue I would fire him on the last day of the season.

3) Fire Shayne Churla. He isn't getting it done. McCarron, Koberstein, Straum, Henriksson, Vejedemo, De La Rose etc... He drafts for mediocrity, De La Rose is a 4th line center. Put Timmins back in charge of amateur scouting.

This is a total collapse, they won't make the playoffs for the next 5 years.

 

[Lshap]

Evidence? They were glad he signed for 3.5 mill because he would have signed for much more according to sportsman as a free agent

Sorry, 3rd line depth players are not worth "Lots more than $3.5M". The only one who would be glad at that signing would be Lars Eller himself.