The league wide scoring increase is overblown, and the habs scoring increase relative to the league increase was substantially higher. Still too many unknowns to say which way it will go but if I was to gamble with your money I would bet on regressing as opposed to another increase. Of course this is working on the assumption of the roster staying similar with no significant additions.
Speculation: What should the Habs do this offseason?
- Thread starter Mackiaveli
- Start date
The league wide scoring increase is overblown, and the habs scoring increase relative to the league increase was substantially higher. Still too many unknowns to say which way it will go but if I was to gamble with your money I would bet on regressing as opposed to another increase. Of course this is working on the assumption of the roster staying similar with no significant additions.
Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
You are overlooking the fact that top 9 depth is very good and how this helps each of those players equally. Your using past examples where Domi played with less talent around him and the Habs had pour top 9 depth. Adding Tatar, Domi, Armia, Kotkaniemi and a healthy Shaw greatly improved our top 9 depth.
Your negative approach is off the rails cause of 3 things. Healthy roster, improved top 9F depth, and a stable D in front of Price. Go do your homework... Look at the previous seasons where we finished bottom 5 and look at the reasons why? We did not have a healthy roster and our forward depth was not good.
You should talk to Kriss E about the "bottom 5 prediction" he made before last season. The reasons I gave him why he would be wrong were spot on and I'm giving you reasons why your prediction will be wrong today. The only issue is health which applies equally to every NHL team.
Last edited:
Habs Icing
Formerly Onice
Everything didn't go perfectly this season. Price crapped the bed the first two months of the year, Weber missed a third of the games, we had a back up who couldn't stop a beach ball, Bryon missed what.....almost half the season, Armia missed a quarter of the season, we only got a fourth line in the tail end of the year.
I agree though we shouldn't stay pat. Simply getting a competent back up will improve this team. Adding a top four left defense man and a winger with size and speed will do wonders.
Just Linda
Registered User
- Feb 24, 2018
- 6,652
- 6,539
Buffalo has no depth and weak D, they've improved their D but they have a lot of work ahead of them before they challenge for a playoff spot. Their number 2 centre is very comparable to a guy we are not even sure will play in the NHL next season (and if he does he would be our 3c/4c. They no doubt realize this and will do something big this offseason to enter the Atlantic arms race.
NYR will improve but by their own admission are far from being ready for a playoff spot.
Philly no doubt will improve but that'll come at the expense of Columbus or Penguins not us.
NJ is still far too flawed to be dangerous. They are a force in a couple years though.
Florida is the one who's gonna put pressure on us.
Yes there's a few teams that will make big steps forward but it'll come at the expense of other teams not us.
MSLs absurd thighs
Formerly Tough Au Lit
- Feb 4, 2013
- 9,424
- 4,280
That's three things to do, though...
I don't think Byron amd Armia would have made much of a difference at all. If anything, their injuries might have given the opportunity Shaw needed to have a career year. So you can look at it both sides.
Agreed on Weber and Price though... but these kinds of slumps happen with all teams.
Mean reversion isn't quantum entanglement lol. It's not unlikely that injuries or career setbacks can befall anyone. That doesn't mean everyone's career successes and shortcomings are temporally linked. So no, saying that you don't believe it's likely for Montreal to enjoy such calm seas next year doesn't imply that you must accept that the seas will be stormy for everyone else. For some of those teams you listed (maybe including us) things will continue amazingly well. For any given one of them, eh probably not. But the idea that they're all somehow linked is just...'wat' inducing.
Just Linda
Registered User
- Feb 24, 2018
- 6,652
- 6,539
Shaw had a career year playing the finisher next to Domi.
Domi had a career year playing top 6 exclusively for the first time
Tatar and Denault had career years playing on one of the best lines in the league with Gallagher (highest possession numbers).
Drouin was largely given top 6 minutes next to a high end passer and underachiever.
Petry had a career year playing top pairing minutes for (largely) the first time for half the season.
Every player that had a career year did so in a setting designed for them. Shaw will be hard to replicate his season but there's no reasons others can't especially since their roles likely won't change.
admiralcadillac
Registered User
- Oct 22, 2017
- 7,493
- 6,727
I agree with your assessment - there is one other thing however, save Petry all of those players had roles they've never been given before. I really don't understand why everyone here is so cynical about guys in the primes of their careers not doing as well next year.
Absolutely
You've missed the point.
1) Scoring was up throughout the league. 2) Most teams had multiple players who hit career-high totals. 3) There's nothing unique/unusual about the Habs players that makes them more likely to regress than other players.
"Mean reversion", "quantum entanglement"... what the hell are you talking about, man?
No, Habs scoring was not relatively higher. Domi, Tatar, etc. didn't have nearly the same spikes as the top players of other teams.
Why do people say this as a first response? It's totally possible -- mundane even -- that people could catch the point, and not agree with it.
They could be exactly as likely as each other to regress. But there's that word: ''likely.'' That implies we're talking about things probabilistically. That means when we roll the yahtzee cup of dice that is the NHL season, some teams get really lucky (like we were this season), and some teams don't. You listed a bunch of teams. Would you like to take the bet that we will enjoy the smooth sailing we did this season against the bet that at least one of the other teams you have listed will enjoy the smooth sailing that they did this season? Why or why not?
Just because teams could be equally likely to revert to a mean does not mean that they all will if one does. We get to roll our dice maybe it goes well, maybe it doesn't: but we're playing against 30 others. Quantum entanglement on the other hand would imply such a result.
Let me illustrate this for you with an example: let's say we model this with coins like harvey dent. But these are weighted coins. 70% chance of tails, 30% chance heads. Let's say all of 10 teams, us included, has to flip one to decide whether some shit goes down (tails) or not. What would you expect to happen? Well, you'd expect some shit to go down for the habs (70% chance). Would you expect some shit to go down for all 10 teams? No. That has a 2.8% chance of happening. So, we expect to lose ground relative to the crowd when this year things mostly went our way, in this scenario.
League scoring was up 1.2% or something of that sorts, and Habs scoring increased by 15% or slightly more. You are going to tell me that isn't relatively higher? I ran the numbers a few weeks ago so that is coming off the top of my head but they are in the ball park of what the exact numbers are.
Add it to the growing list of Annoying Social Media Habits, along with memes, silly acronyms and GIFs of kittens.
Nobody is debating math probabilities. We all know that no team will continue along a linear trajectory into next season.
I'm countering the repeated argument that everything went right for Montreal, when that's not true. Every factor that 'went right' for us 'went right' as much for our competition. Production, roster age, health -- Montreal didn't profit any more than Toronto, Boston, Florida, Tampa, Columbus, NYI, etc. The team finished at the level of its talent, not above.
If you're saying that we could be unlucky next season, I agree. Every year, a few teams' seasons are killed by injuries and/or internal problems. While it could happen to us, there's no reason to expect it to happen.
We changed personnel. Different players produce different results. Look at San Jose -- they had a huge scoring spike because they added a few exceptional players to their roster. Same with St Louis, Columbus, probably a few more...
CauZuki
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2008
- 12,339
- 12,171
That's what I'm saying jaffy , I don't think it's reasonable to expect to count on us signing a high profile UFA. The odds are very slim that we land someone like Panarin or Duchene.
We have a lot of roster players signed and I think adding Poehling full-time (in a top 9 role ideally) and the natural evolution of our youngsters could lead to another interesting season. It could also lead to us finishing in the bottom 10 as we still don't have any franchise/elite forwards or D. I'd much rather develop our prospects properly and keep adding to the core while hoping that one (or more) of our young players becomes a star.
Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
I think the probability says we fall short on a impact UFA but the door is open till it closes. I just hope we are not desperate to spend the cap space cause we have it.
Anybody have a quick list of potential UFA's for the 2020 off season? I wonder what the chances are that Hall gets to UFA?
No we don't. That's why we talkin' probabilities son. That's what we do when we don't know (dice aren't random, we just don't know what the outcome will be).
Everything did go right for Montreal though, and we were out of the playoffs. And as you go on to say
...it might not happen again. At this point, I would normally put a halmos to mark the end of the exposition. But I want you to read the last blurb back to yourself, slowly.
Shaws been a 40 point player all his career, paces out at 60 points. Tatars been between mid 40's and mid 50's his whole career never had b2b 50 pt seasons. Petry's production fell off in the new year. He picked it up the year before when Weber was out, had a great start to this year when Weber was out and had a good Dec with Weber but then slowed.
Columbus looks like they had a minor roster changes until the deadline. Biggest difference is a lot of their top 6 guys were healthy all year (Atkinson, Anderson) and Dubois got to play with Panarin for the whole year instead of part of the year. Chalk some up to progression but make no mistake Panarin is the straw that stirs that drink, you can look at the splits on dobberhockey. So I suppose KK can pick up the slack but he also needs opportunity, and habs had no substantial top 6 injuries out side of middle six tweeners like Shaw and Byron. Columbus also increased their scoring by half of what the Habs did. San Jose added the best offensive d-man in the game while giving up nothing substantial off their roster. Ill just have to agree to disagree at this point.
Scintillating10
Registered User
The success Columbus had will change how teams deal at trade deadline in future.
Going to see many more teams who are close go all in.
Scintillating10
Registered User
Take on a contract to get a deal on a young playrr. Something like Carolina did to get Tervavinen by taking Brickell. Only a defenseman instead.
Except it didn't. Which factor went more right for Montreal? Production? Impact of injuries? Lucky bounces? Hot streaks? Nope. None of those factors were more favourable for our team than our competition. Some of our players had very good seasons. True. Except some of every team's players had very good seasons. According to the injury graph (from another thread) the overall impact of injuries on our team was exactly mid-pack compared to the rest of the league.
There's nothing you can point to that gave Montreal an edge over anyone else. That's the crux of this entire debate -- the notion that we profited from a lucky dice roll. Except the facts say it ain't true. Good players had good seasons. For us, and for other teams.
Do you not see how this is a reverse Motte and Bailey argument? Nothing in my argument requires me to defend the idea that things went ''more'' right than for anyone else. Absolutely nothing. The claim that you directly quoted was ''everything went right for Montreal.'' Not ''everything went more right for Montreal than for everyone else.'' To be frank, this is so dishonest that it's completely out of character for you.
You can go back and address the myriad points I've made so far, but if you don't choose to do so, we're done here.
Scintillating10
Registered User
Fix the powerplay needs definite help. For 3 years Muller has run it we are 21st in league. No doubt he is part of the problem. Probably have more imput from Ducharne. Sign an offensive LD. Gardiner is good on powerplay and Leafs were a lot of worse team when he was out. Provided Gardiner is healthy.
You said "Everything did go right for Montreal". That makes no sense. Please explain what went right for us that didn't go just as right for our competition. Scoring? No. Health? No. So what is the 'everything' that went right? And how did it benefit us more than our competition?
If 'everything went right', Montreal would've made the playoffs. The reason we missed them is because everything didn't go right and we didn't benefit more than other teams. Montreal's extra scoring didn't bump them in the standings, because while Domi and Tatar were having career seasons, players on other teams were having even better career seasons. None of our players pulled a William Karlsson, none were in the top-45 in scoring, we lost an average number of impact players to injury, we had the worst backup goalie in the league. Everything did not go right.
Everything didn't go wrong either, naturally, but that's a different subject. The Habs weren't unlucky any more than they were lucky. They finished where they deserved to finish.
When you say 'everything went right', it presumes that once everything stops going right, we'll drop in the standings. Sure, we might drop, just like any team might drop. However, expecting us to drop based on zero evidence makes no sense.
Last edited:
Ad
Latest posts
-
Series Talk: WCQF: (C3) Colorado Avalanche vs (C2) Winnipeg Jets | Avs Win 4-1- Latest: NorthernAvsFan
-
-
-
