Player Discussion Alzner

[Captain Mountain]

Though it seems less than "ideal" for a variety of reasons, you're still purely guessing here. Only generating, say, 2.2 GF/60 doesn't seem quite as "inefficient" when you play between 1800-2000 minutes only averaging, say, 1.2 GA/60. Such a pairing would be part of 73 GF and only 40 GA over the course of the season's sample, and it's hard to argue that their team would be in any kind of tough spot as a result of that +33 goal differential from just one pairing.

Weber only had an on-ice above 2.2 GF/60 with Markov last year. Everyone else was closer to 1.6-1.9 range. Alzner has similar problems when he's away from guys like Carlson/Green/Niskanen. And even including incredibly sheltered defensemen, for a defenseman that has played more than half a season to achieved even close to 1.2 GA/60, they'd need to get goaltending beyond what Price did in his hart season and/or insane luck.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Weber only had an on-ice above 2.2 GF/60 with Markov last year. Everyone else was closer to 1.6-1.9 range. Alzner has similar problems when he's away from guys like Carlson/Green/Niskanen. And even including incredibly sheltered defensemen, for a defenseman that has played more than half a season to achieved even close to 1.2 GA/60, they'd need to get goaltending beyond what Price did in his hart season and/or insane luck.

Is it part of Weber's strength to produce offense with 5/5 play? I don't think so. Weber's strength is his ability to score goals on the PP and limit goals in his own end and giving other players some bumps and bruises along the way.

Expecting or evaluating Weber to be the player he is not is not reasonable. Same goes for Alzner. He's a big mobile body that plays a smart game in his own end and limits goals.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Is it part of Weber's strength to produce offense with 5/5 play? I don't think so. Weber's strength is his ability to score goals on the PP and limit goals in his own end and giving other players some bumps and bruises along the way.

Expecting or evaluating Weber to be the player he is not is not reasonable. Same goes for Alzner. He's a big mobile body that plays a smart game in his own end and limits goals.

That's my point. They don't compliment each other and don't make sense as a pair at even strength. You want someone that can move the puck and generate offense to play with Weber and Alzner.

 

[Habs Halifax]

That's my point. They don't compliment each other and don't make sense as a pair at even strength. You want someone that can move the puck and generate offense to play with Weber and Alzner.

I may have missed the point. If you are saying Alzner and Weber should not be playing together, I totally agree! I hate that pairing. I want Alzner with Petry so Petry can finally have a stable partner and be a bit more offensive. He has the skating and size to make a difference for us.

 

[VladTheLimpWhaler]

No one is arguing against Weber's pure defensive ability (although GA/60 is far less skater driven that GF/60). Its his ability to transition and affect offense. And Weber's GF/60 was below average for NHL defenseman. And that was bouyed by playing with Markov. Away from him he was in Emelin territory. Hence the need for a quality puckmover partner. Weber (and Alzner) can be good/great peices to a team, but they need to be insulated with guys that move the puck. Weber is at his best with guys like Suter/Josi/Markov. Alzner with guys like Carlson and Niskanen.

Again, we seem to be evaluating defencemen with forward criteria. Being disappointed in a defenceman's GF/60 while he is putting up the best GA/60 of his career and scoring 17 goals, that's so shortsighted I don't know where to begin. Why not complain about a Goalie's GF/60? GF is a team stat. You'd never get mad at a goalie for having below average GF/60, because you know it's not his job to score goals, but for some reason, defencemen are expected to be the catalyst behind every goal. Can we please stop acting as if the only way to score a goal in this league is by using quick transition? What percentage of goals originate from the back end anyway?

Some of you just keep repeating this "mobile defenseman" creed over and over like a mantra, but that doesn't make it true. You don't need 6 Subbans on your D to be able to score goals. And as SouthernHab has already proven, back when we had awesome transition we couldn't score any goals, because our forwards sucked. There's no evidence that having a mobile D is a prerequisite for goal scoring, or that not having a mobile D precludes a team from being able to score. So, the whole argument has been settled as far as I'm concerned, but some of you just keep repeating the nonsense over and over, acting like it's impossible to be a high scoring team unless your defence that's focused on transition and mobility.

Transition and mobility are important, but we seem to have pigeonholed those two things into the Karlsson and Subban category. Is weber really bad at transition and mobility? No. But because he's not as good as Karlsson and Subban, he must be bad, and our team can't possibly score goals.

Offense is generated a dozen different ways. Can we stop acting like a mobile defence and "transition" are the only ways to score goals. There's more than one way to skin a cat, you know. Plus, even if you could show for a fact that the more mobile your D, the more goals a team scores, it still doesn't mean what you might think it means. What if the same mobile D also gives up more goals? The point is to have a good goal differential, not to score more goals. At the end of the day it's still a balancing act.

But some of you think that you can just look at a spreadsheet and tell what's a good pairing and what's not. And then you act like your assumptions are totally scientific and should be believed with the same level of conviction as things that have been scientifically proven. So, Weber-Alzner are confirmed to be a crap defensive pairing before they ever played a single shift, just because of stats. And this is believed with such conviction because so many of you believe that these complete guesses and speculations are based in "science" and "statistics" and therefore can't be doubted. I guess 98% of scientists agree. The science is settled!

 

[1909]

Again, we seem to be evaluating defencemen with forward criteria. Being disappointed in a defenceman's GF/60 while he is putting up the best GA/60 of his career and scoring 17 goals, that's so shortsighted I don't know where to begin. Why not complain about a Goalie's GF/60? GF is a team stat. You'd never get mad at a goalie for having below average GF/60, because you know it's not his job to score goals, but for some reason, defencemen are expected to be the catalyst behind every goal. Can we please stop acting as if the only way to score a goal in this league is by using quick transition? What percentage of goals originate from the back end anyway?

Some of you just keep repeating this "mobile defenseman" creed over and over like a mantra, but that doesn't make it true. You don't need 6 Subbans on your D to be able to score goals. And as SouthernHab has already proven, back when we had awesome transition we couldn't score any goals, because our forwards sucked. There's no evidence that having a mobile D is a prerequisite for goal scoring, or that not having a mobile D precludes a team from being able to score. So, the whole argument has been settled as far as I'm concerned, but some of you just keep repeating the nonsense over and over, acting like it's impossible to be a high scoring team unless your defence that's focused on transition and mobility.

Transition and mobility are important, but we seem to have pigeonholed those two things into the Karlsson and Subban category. Is weber really bad at transition and mobility? No. But because he's not as good as Karlsson and Subban, he must be bad, and our team can't possibly score goals.

Offense is generated a dozen different ways. Can we stop acting like a mobile defence and "transition" are the only ways to score goals. There's more than one way to skin a cat, you know. Plus, even if you could show for a fact that the more mobile your D, the more goals a team scores, it still doesn't mean what you might think it means. What if the same mobile D also gives up more goals? The point is to have a good goal differential, not to score more goals. At the end of the day it's still a balancing act.

But some of you think that you can just look at a spreadsheet and tell what's a good pairing and what's not. And then you act like your assumptions are totally scientific and should be believed with the same level of conviction as things that have been scientifically proven. So, Weber-Alzner are confirmed to be a crap defensive pairing before they ever played a single shift, just because of stats. And this is believed with such conviction because so many of you believe that these complete guesses and speculations are based in "science" and "statistics" and therefore can't be doubted. I guess 98% of scientists agree. The science is settled!

 

[Captain Mountain]

Again, we seem to be evaluating defencemen with forward criteria. Being disappointed in a defenceman's GF/60 while he is putting up the best GA/60 of his career and scoring 17 goals, that's so shortsighted I don't know where to begin. Why not complain about a Goalie's GF/60? GF is a team stat. You'd never get mad at a goalie for having below average GF/60, because you know it's not his job to score goals, but for some reason, defencemen are expected to be the catalyst behind every goal. Can we please stop acting as if the only way to score a goal in this league is by using quick transition? What percentage of goals originate from the back end anyway?

GF/60 AND GA/60 aren't really the most predictive stats for anyone, but its impossible to debate on here if the stat debated with doesn't involve goals. Nice strawman with Goalie GF/60 though. I'd love to as soon as a goalies meaningfully produce points.

But do you honestly think GF/60 is strictly a positional stat? Does that mean GA/60 is too? Does that mean I shouldn't care about the defensive play of forwards.

And BTW, GF/60 and GA/60 are on-ice stats. And while I don't care if Weber or Alzner are putting up points when they're on the ice, I care if there's a negative relationship between them being on the ice and scoring goals, because that means Pacioretty and Gallagher may not be reaching their scoring potential because Weber negatively affect offense.

Some of you just keep repeating this "mobile defenseman" creed over and over like a mantra, but that doesn't make it true. You don't need 6 Subbans on your D to be able to score goals. And as SouthernHab has already proven, back when we had awesome transition we couldn't score any goals, because our forwards sucked. There's no evidence that having a mobile D is a prerequisite for goal scoring, or that not having a mobile D precludes a team from being able to score. So, the whole argument has been settled as far as I'm concerned, but some of you just keep repeating the nonsense over and over, acting like it's impossible to be a high scoring team unless your defence that's focused on transition and mobility.

I'm pretty sure I was talking about transitioning the puck, not mobile D (although anyone watching the game should figure out why that's important). I definitely don't need 6 mobile D guys. I'm pretty sure I was talking about Markov to, nobody's idea of mobile anymore.

Transition and mobility are important, but we seem to have pigeonholed those two things into the Karlsson and Subban category. Is weber really bad at transition and mobility? No. But because he's not as good as Karlsson and Subban, he must be bad, and our team can't possibly score goals.

There's quite a few more defensemen between Karlsson and Subban and Weber when talking about transition. Weber isn't bad at transition and mobility, but he isn't good at it either. And Alzner is at best mediocre at moving the puck and is on the slower side of NHL D-men. Montreal doesn't need a Karlsson or Subban. They have a Petry which is great. They could even use a Krug, Schmidt or Myers type. Someone that can transition the puck effectively. Whether its by great mobility, great vision or both.

Offense is generated a dozen different ways. Can we stop acting like a mobile defence and "transition" are the only ways to score goals. There's more than one way to skin a cat, you know. Plus, even if you could show for a fact that the more mobile your D, the more goals a team scores, it still doesn't mean what you might think it means. What if the same mobile D also gives up more goals? The point is to have a good goal differential, not to score more goals. At the end of the day it's still a balancing act.

THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT. Weber doesn't have great goal differential away from good puck-movers.

But some of you think that you can just look at a spreadsheet and tell what's a good pairing and what's not. And then you act like your assumptions are totally scientific and should be believed with the same level of conviction as things that have been scientifically proven. So, Weber-Alzner are confirmed to be a crap defensive pairing before they ever played a single shift, just because of stats. And this is believed with such conviction because so many of you believe that these complete guesses and speculations are based in "science" and "statistics" and therefore can't be doubted. I guess 98% of scientists agree. The science is settled!

There's a difference between forming an opinion on something based on an analytic process and Could I be wrong? sure. But I'd rather be wrong based on constantly tested and refined understanding of the game than blindly looking for good things and growing your opinion out of that whilst not testing my understanding of the stats and ignore anyone who does the same. Please, lets see an evidence based argument! Test the repeat-ability of GA/60! Look at Weber's effect of on-ice sv%! Test Alzner's effect on GA! Disprove the relationship between defensemen and creating offense at even strength. I would sincerely love to debate that stuff instead of playing NHL20** Be a GM on this board.

Just don't come at me with you're wrong because I don't agree with you.

 

[smcgreg]

Cap space mean that we are open to any opportunity, a UFA, a trade for a big contract like Giroux.

It's not a trading assets. But it's a very huge card we have in our box. It might also be one of the most important tools we have to acquire another player of big talent.

So that's why you don't overpay for the Radulov and Oshie of this world.

How about the Shaws and Alzners of the world?

 

[habs73]

How about the Shaws and Alzners of the world?

so true, the Habs cap would be so much better if they weren't paying these replaceable players significant dollars with a lot of term. They actually have quite a few value contracts with their top forwards but overpaying 3rd liners cancels out those savings at the top.

 

[MXD]

so true, the Habs cap would be so much better if they weren't paying these replaceable players significant dollars with a lot of term. They actually have quite a few value contracts with their top forwards but overpaying 3rd liners cancels out those savings at the top.

With regards, I'm not quite sure Alzner can be considered a replaceable player...

 

[Andrei79]

How about the Shaws and Alzners of the world?

Well, that's the thing isn't it ?

Are we better without Shaw, with the 2nd rounders AND with Radulov at 6.5M AAV over 5 years ?

Obviously we are, but that's MB being MB, focusing on fake character over team building.

 

[MXD]

Well, that's the thing isn't it ?

Are we better without Shaw, with the 2nd rounders AND with Radulov at 6.5M AAV over 5 years ?

Obviously we are, but that's MB being MB, focusing on fake character over team building.

WTH, Shaw doesn't prevent Radulov from being here. Like, at all. Geez, there's 9M of capspace, really enough room to sign Radulov all things considered, but MB didn't sign him for God knows which reasons.

 

[OldCraig71]

If we had ROR and JD I would be a very optimistic poster but until that time I wait.

 

[smcgreg]

With regards, I'm not quite sure Alzner can be considered a replaceable player...

With regards, why not?

 

[smcgreg]

Well, that's the thing isn't it ?

Are we better without Shaw, with the 2nd rounders AND with Radulov at 6.5M AAV over 5 years ?

Obviously we are, but that's MB being MB, focusing on fake character over team building.

Yeah, that's the frustrating thing about him. I like the JD deal. Giving up Serg hurts, but getting JD and the contract he's on is great. At the same time, trading for Shaw and giving him that contract is ridiculous. Then, the UFA he spends all his money on (OK, not all, but overpriced) is Alzner? Really? Granted, yes, there are some big holes on D right now, but with Price between the pipes, spend your money on offensive talent that doesn't cost assets and fill the holes with cheaper players. Just frustrating.

 

[MXD]

With regards, why not?

I don't know... #3/4 D... will spend around 21-22 mins a night on the ice... That's very borderline to me.

 

[smcgreg]

I don't know... #3/4 D... will spend around 21-22 mins a night on the ice... That's very borderline to me.

Sorry, I don't get your point. You said,

"I'm not quite sure Alzner can be considered a replaceable player"

If he's very borderline, how is he not replaceable?

 

[G0bias]

I don't know... #3/4 D... will spend around 21-22 mins a night on the ice... That's very borderline to me.

By that metric, Emelin who regularly had the 3rd or 4th highest TOI and getting 20+ mins a night is considered not replaceable?

 

[Hector Salamanca]

Well since alzner is the only "prove" top 4 ld... Yes hes kind an important piece. Ld look very meh with him right now .. So without him lol.

 

[PaulD]

so true, the Habs cap would be so much better if they weren't paying these replaceable players significant dollars with a lot of term. They actually have quite a few value contracts with their top forwards but overpaying 3rd liners cancels out those savings at the top.

Every team has their share of over paid players.

Shaw
Petry
Alzner
Plekanec

About 22 mill a year for these four?

 

[DAChampion]

Every team has their share of over paid players.

Shaw
Petry
Alzner
Plekanec

About 22 mill a year for these four?

The total overpayment on those four players is roughly 7.5 million a year in my opinion.

 

[Scriptor]

If they re-sign Plekanec after this year, I'm jumping off a bridge. I can smell the petition being passed around for Bergevin to do just that

 

[McGuires Corndog]

The total overpayment on those four players is roughly 7.5 million a year in my opinion.

So essentially a game breaking forward...

I agree.

 

[Belial]

Every team has their share of over paid players.

Shaw
Petry
Alzner
Plekanec

About 22 mill a year for these four?

Yes because those guys are overpaid by 100%!

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

Alzner and Petry are not overpaid. Plekanec is on the last year of his deal after having his play nosedive. Shaw might be overpaid, but by what, 0.9m?