Do the Habs go into the season "Goonless"? Part 2

[25get]

The Laraque experiment was not a success.
Nor was the Parros experiment.

What we need a player who can play top-9 and be significant when things gets tough.

Looking at teams in the Atlantic division (by far worst in the league):

• Boston, they let Thornton go.
• Buffalo: John Scott is gone.
• Toronto: McLaren and Fraser are gone. Orr remains with his 14 points over 5 seasons...
• Ottawa: Kassian gone, Neil remains. They should remain a goon team with Borowiecki and Smith but only Neil can play more than 200 minutes of TOI.
• Detroit: Case closed;
• Tampa bay: Crombeen is gone in Phoenix, Malone in NYR!

Philadelphia is proud to have signed Rinaldo with 18 points over the last three seasons...
BTW, the difference between Chicago and the Flyers is:
One signed Richards at 2M while the other signed Rinaldo at 850K...

Removing: Thornton, Kassian, Scott, Fraser, McLaren, Parros and Crombeen from the Atlantic division changes the picture.

 

[Corncob]

Expectation amongst Leafs fans is that Orr will not be in the NHL next season either. They have plenty of bottom 6 forwards on one way deals and expect him to be waived.

 

[dkd]

A lot more than you think. Bergevin didn't sign Parros to get Parros, he signed Parros so that the big guys from our conference will touch him instead of Subban, Bourque or Gionta like 2 years ago. If the other guys didn't care, there would never be any call-outs from coaches and players to get somebody, no matter what some try to tell you...

It's all about getting somebody younger, hungrier and who can follow the pace of the game.

That's the point I was trying to emphasize.

 

[DAChampion]

What you don't understand is that maybe the confidence instilled in other players is from simply being on, or available to, the team. After all, they're together as a group all year, and the enforcers rarely play on the same line as the players they're ultimately there to protect, so why is it that literally ever manager invests in it every year, and over 95% of the players think fighting should still be part of the game? Maybe just being part of the group, and available as the coach sees fit (maybe "next time"), has always been enough to justify having one on the roster. The good ones stick around for a while instead of being replaced regularly by AHL replacements, so we shouldn't insinuate that even guys like Parros don't have (okay, maybe "had") some kind of value - even if it's a basic "pack mentality" that a team might try to draw from.

And maybe you're also not understanding that the enforcer role has never been exclusively of the Semenko-flanking-Gretzky variety, and that it's not even remotely possible that every GM, every year, has just been "guessing" how much they should be willing to invest in it. I know you want to be able to measure it somehow, but you're forced to resign to the fact that professionals have been doing it by "feel" (and consultation, obviously) for much longer than you've been trying to develop your understanding of how an underlying algorithm might be detectable for the infinitely more inexperienced viewer.

I think that in principle if the impact of enforcers were real and positive it should be measurable.

However, hockey analytics is quite primitive so they may simply be unable to find small signals.

 

[Corncob]

What you don't understand is that maybe the confidence instilled in other players is from simply being on, or available to, the team. After all, they're together as a group all year, and the enforcers rarely play on the same line as the players they're ultimately there to protect, so why is it that literally ever manager invests in it every year, and over 95% of the players think fighting should still be part of the game? Maybe just being part of the group, and available as the coach sees fit (maybe "next time"), has always been enough to justify having one on the roster. The good ones stick around for a while instead of being replaced regularly by AHL replacements, so we shouldn't insinuate that even guys like Parros don't have (okay, maybe "had") some kind of value - even if it's a basic "pack mentality" that a team might try to draw from.

And maybe you're also not understanding that the enforcer role has never been exclusively of the Semenko-flanking-Gretzky variety, and that it's not even remotely possible that every GM, every year, has just been "guessing" how much they should be willing to invest in it. I know you want to be able to measure it somehow, but you're forced to resign to the fact that professionals have been doing it by "feel" (and consultation, obviously) for much longer than you've been trying to develop your understanding of how an underlying algorithm might be detectable for the infinitely more inexperienced viewer.

The problem is that you're once again conflating several issues, ie. should fighting be part of the game, should teams avoid being physically intimidated and is it of value to carry what we are referring to as a 'goon' (and I think everyone loosely understands the kind of playing referred to). The third one is the actual topic of the thread, but you spend most of the time discussing the first two.

This is a bit disingenuous as no-one disagrees that being physcially intimidated is a good thing, few people posting in the thread advocate fighting being banned and you've yet to produce any evidence that the third actually has any impact or is of any relevance to the other two (in fact you say 'maybe' but you don't know).

It's far from true to say 'every gm, every year' carries an enforcer on the roster, unless you expand the definition so far as to include players like Prust in which case, clearly we already have Prust.

Does having an enforcer instill confidence in other players? You don't know. But if it did make them play better then the evidence would be readily available. Did the players speak well of Parros? Of course, he seems a top bloke and a 'good locker room presence'. So, you'd hardly expect team mates to be coming out slagging him off to the media. But, if we're going to obsess about what the players didn't say, lets include what they didn't say in his favour. The Habs played 99 games last season, 77 without Parros. 11 games against the 'Big Bad Bruins' 9 without Parros. In those 77 games played without Parros, there were zero occasions when players said afterwards "We really missed big George out there today". Zero occasions when a player said "You know, I felt a bit low on confidence without being able to see a big tache on the bench". Zero occasions when a player said "I was just physically intimidated, I didn't want to take the puck past Chara without the knowledge that George was there to shout at him a bit from the bench if anything happened".

 

[Corncob]

The season is about to start and we will get a front row seat watching how teams approach playing a Habs team without an enforcer (if Bergevin chooses that route)

I've seen the Habs play the Bruins without an enforcer 9 times in the past 6 months, why would I need to wait for next season to see it?

 

[Price is Wright]

Try the reverse.

Parros' role was not scoring. Parros' role was not being the shut down forward either.

Too many people are trying to place blame where there is no blame.

So in other words, Parros shouldn't be a hockey player because he isn't doing anything offensive or defensive?

 

[Dominator13]

So in other words, Parros shouldn't be a hockey player because he isn't doing anything offensive or defensive?

Unless you're new to the game, you do realise that goons have been hired for over half a century right?

 

[MathMan]

I get the impression that Southern Hab believes that if a player has one sole skill, and you fit him in with others who have a different sole skill, then that's the way to build a contending team.

Seems to be a common opinion. I've lost track of the number of people who insist that it doesn't matter if Parros or Murray suck, because they fill a role on the team. If only it worked that way.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Seems to be a common opinion. I've lost track of the number of people who insist that it doesn't matter if Parros or Murray suck, because they fill a role on the team. If only it worked that way.

It does work that way. And if they actually sucked as bad at what they're paid to do as you insist, they would have been replaced by someone coming up through the AHL years ago - not just once they hit their mid-30s.

 

[MSLs absurd thighs]

Seems to be a common opinion. I've lost track of the number of people who insist that it doesn't matter if Parros or Murray suck, because they fill a role on the team. If only it worked that way.

I'm sure Price will have a lot of fun when Lucic comes right in his crease, and Gilbert is nowhere to be seen to move him. And that Subban is the one who has to deal with the likes of Orr/Thornton running into his injured leg.

Stop acting as if physicality wasn't a factor. You have to be pretty clueless and inexperimented to believe you can ice a top-6 of Gilberts and still contend.

 

[MathMan]

I'm sure Price will have a lot of fun when Lucic comes right in his crease, and Gilbert is nowhere to be seen to move him.

Not like Murray would be anywhere to be seen anyway, as he doesn't typically play against top-6ers.

And that Subban is the one who has to deal with the likes of Orr/Thornton running into his injured leg.

If Subban is on the ice against Orr/Thornton, in all likelihood neither the play nor the puck will be anywhere near Price.

Stop acting as if physicality wasn't a factor. You have to be pretty clueless and inexperimented to believe you can ice a top-6 of Gilberts and still contend.

Well no, Gilbert is not good enough. I'd take six Lidstroms any day though.

 

[MSLs absurd thighs]

Not like Murray would be anywhere to be seen anyway, as he doesn't typically play against top-6ers.



If Subban is on the ice against Orr/Thornton, in all likelihood neither the play nor the puck will be anywhere near Price.



Well no, Gilbert is not good enough. I'd take six Lidstroms any day though.

I can guarantee if Lidstrom played with 5 other versions of himself in the late 90's, he wouldn't have been as effective as he was. Stats geeks will never understand the concept of balance and chemestry.

 

[MathMan]

It does work that way.

No, it doesn't. Your "role-players" still need to play hockey.

And if they actually sucked as bad at what they're paid to do as you insist, they would have been replaced by someone coming up through the AHL years ago - not just once they hit their mid-30s.

It's actually quite inexplicable why Murray wasn't. Murray was quite a bit inferior to the average AHL callup, let alone the guys the Habs had available to replace him.

As for Parros, well, he was not acquired for his hockey skills. He was expected to suck, and didn't disappoint.

 

[MathMan]

I can guarantee if Lidstrom played with 5 other versions of himself in the late 90's, he wouldn't have been as effective as he was.

Seriously?

If anything he'd be scarier. My God, I can barely imagine what a Lidstrom-Lidstrom pairing could do in soft minutes against fourth-liners. That would be murder on the Canada-vs-Italy scale.

Stats geeks will never understand the concept of balance and chemestry.

Chemistry helps, but it can only carry you so far, and it's dwarfed by plain skill. The only reason teams don't align six star defensemen, say, is that there aren't enough to go around. Otherwise, if they could they absolutely would. If a team had the Team Canada roster, they wouldn't start trading guys for grinders for more "balance".

But we've gotten into our heads that grinders have intrinsic value just because they're grinders and you need "balance". The reason grinders are grinders is because they're not good enough to be non-grinders. The scorers and (especially) the two-way guys are more valuable and get paid more because they do more to help your team win.

 

[Kriss E]

What you don't understand is that maybe the confidence instilled in other players is from simply being on, or available to, the team.

I do understand that this is a theory, but if it were actually true, it would be measurable.
If confidence was so affected to the point it is worthy of mention, then you'd be able to notice a clear difference in performance for when a goon is dressed or not.
It has been tested, and the result is that there's zero difference. You purposely choosing to ignore this data doesn't make it immeasurable or non-existent. It's there, you can ignore it all you want, but it's there.
I know, how freaking crazy it is that the data shows how someone that is regularly scratched and plays for about 5min a game doesn't hold an impact on its team. That's just insane! Who would have thought!

After all, they're together as a group all year, and the enforcers rarely play on the same line as the players they're ultimately there to protect, so why is it that literally ever manager invests in it every year, and over 95% of the players think fighting should still be part of the game? Maybe just being part of the group, and available as the coach sees fit (maybe "next time"), has always been enough to justify having one on the roster. The good ones stick around for a while instead of being replaced regularly by AHL replacements, so we shouldn't insinuate that even guys like Parros don't have (okay, maybe "had") some kind of value - even if it's a basic "pack mentality" that a team might try to draw from.

Nobody is talking about whether or not fighting should be part of the game.

And maybe you're also not understanding that the enforcer role has never been exclusively of the Semenko-flanking-Gretzky variety, and that it's not even remotely possible that every GM, every year, has just been "guessing" how much they should be willing to invest in it. I know you want to be able to measure it somehow, but you're forced to resign to the fact that professionals have been doing it by "feel" (and consultation, obviously) for much longer than you've been trying to develop your understanding of how an underlying algorithm might be detectable for the infinitely more inexperienced viewer.

If your argument has been brought down to ''GMs hire them'' then it's time for you to stop engaging in this debate.
First off, GMs hire terrible players all the time. They also give 5.5M to Brooks freaking Orpik. Do you need to be a team exec to realize this is a terrible contract?
Second, you completely ignore the fact that hiring enforcers is a tradition, one that is slowly dying.
Those same GMs you speak off hire half the number of enforcers they did a decade ago. That trend is dying, get with the times.

It does work that way. And if they actually sucked as bad at what they're paid to do as you insist, they would have been replaced by someone coming up through the AHL years ago - not just once they hit their mid-30s.

So a player cannot worsen throughout his career??

 

[Kriss E]

I'm sure Price will have a lot of fun when Lucic comes right in his crease, and Gilbert is nowhere to be seen to move him. And that Subban is the one who has to deal with the likes of Orr/Thornton running into his injured leg.

Stop acting as if physicality wasn't a factor. You have to be pretty clueless and inexperimented to believe you can ice a top-6 of Gilberts and still contend.

Like in the POs?? Oh please God don't let Price play like he did in the POs..Likewise for PK..

Btw, Orr is expected to see close to no NHL action by Leafs fan, and Thornton plays for Florida now.

 

[MSLs absurd thighs]

Like in the POs?? Oh please God don't let Price play like he did in the POs..Likewise for PK..

Btw, Orr is expected to see close to no NHL action by Leafs fan, and Thornton plays for Florida now.

It's not a point I was trying to make, but I wouldn't brag about what happened to Price in the playoffs to make a point if I were you, knowing what ended up happening. And I'm sure Emelin's performance against the Rangers had nothing to do with the fact he single-handedly countered Lucic for 2 straight weeks and was just exhausted physically, heh?

 

[Kriss E]

It's not a point I was trying to make, but I wouldn't brag about what happened to Price in the playoffs to make a point if I were you, knowing what ended up happening. And I'm sure Emelin's performance against the Rangers had nothing to do with the fact he single-handedly countered Lucic for 2 straight weeks and was just exhausted physically, heh?

Oh yes, because Kreider would have definitely not slid into Price if Parros was on the bench
Price played amazing hockey without Murray or Parros in. Case closed.

Emelin struggled all year. Him facing Lucic has absolutely nothing to do with being so lost that he's waiting near the boards for a puck when there's a guy alone in front of the net. He made stupid mistakes like those all year long.

 

[Andy]

Oh yes, because Kreider would have definitely not slid into Price if Parros was on the bench
Price played amazing hockey without Murray or Parros in. Case closed.

Emelin struggled all year. Him facing Lucic has absolutely nothing to do with being so lost that he's waiting near the boards for a puck when there's a guy alone in front of the net. He made stupid mistakes like those all year long.

Wasn't Prust on the ice? That didn't stop Kreider

 

[MSLs absurd thighs]

Wasn't Prust on the ice? That didn't stop Kreider

Nobody said he did his job. I remember being pretty damn pissed at him for doing nothing also.

As for Emelin, he was faced against Lucic, Krejci and Iginla for the entire series, and these three didn't do **** offensively. But sure, let's say he was terrible all year long and that this series wasn't any achievement of some kind.

 

[Andy]

Nobody said he did his job. I remember being pretty damn pissed at him for doing nothing also.

As for Emelin, he was faced against Lucic, Krejci and Iginla for the entire series, and these three didn't do **** offensively. But sure, let's say he was terrible all year long and that this series wasn't any achievement of some kind.

Isn't the job of guys like Prust to prevent those type of things from happening though? Pounding Kreider after the incident doesn't change the fact that Price was hurt.

Emelin was pretty awful for a good chunk of the year. He picked it up in the POs, but he was still hit or miss even there, more hit though.

 

[MSLs absurd thighs]

Isn't the job of guys like Prust to prevent those type of things from happening though? Pounding Kreider after the incident doesn't change the fact that Price was hurt.

Emelin was pretty awful for a good chunk of the year. He picked it up in the POs, but he was still hit or miss even there, more hit though.

Once again, I said clearly in my answer to KrissE that I didn't want to make a point on Price's injury. I just thought it was curious, coming from him, to mention Price to prove a point that big, tough d-men are not needed, when he was pretty much hurt without any retribution.

As for Emelin, being alone to do the dirty work against Lucic certainly played a role in getting him exhausted quicker than expected.

 

[Rapala]

Wasn't Prust on the ice? That didn't stop Kreider

Nothing was stopping Kreider.
We showed up unprepared for that series and it bit us big time.
The NYR's number one perogative was to run Price.
Why we didn't know that going in is beyond me.
Intimidation only works before the fact not after...
They beat us to the punch no pun intended.

 

[Kriss E]

Once again, I said clearly in my answer to KrissE that I didn't want to make a point on Price's injury. I just thought it was curious, coming from him, to mention Price to prove a point that big, tough d-men are not needed, when he was pretty much hurt without any retribution.

As for Emelin, being alone to do the dirty work against Lucic certainly played a role in getting him exhausted quicker than expected.

What the heck are you talking about man? You said ''I'm sure Price will have a lot of fun when Lucic comes in his crease with Gilbert no where the be seen''. I pointed at the Boston series where Price excelled despite us scratching Murray. And then you flip flop onto the NYR series. Stop making a fool out of yourself.

Price has people rushing his crease every single game. Nothing new, and a Parros type will do nothing to prevent that.

As for Emelin, he did mistakes all year long. Blame it on fatigue all you want, but he did stupid mistakes consistently throughout the year.