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

[sandysan]

As has bee said numerous times in the thread by the pro-goon crowd, having a goon in the lineup makes the rest of his team feel more confident.

Ok lets assume that is true.

Parros is in the lineup... Habs confidence +9000

Does the team score more goals? no
Allow less goals against? no, in fact the opposite occurs
Generate more scoring chances? No
Give up less scoring chances against? No in fact the opposite occurs
Have a better save percentage? No
Force more of their losses into OT losses, thus getting more points? No
Have less injuries? No
Prevents cheapshots? No
Take less penalties? No
Get more powerplays? No

And the key one, win more games? No


So really this magical confidence the Habs get from having Parros in the lineup does none of those things... yet somehow he helps us win. Please explain how, because I'm apparently clueless. I'd like to see some tangible benefit, rather than some imaginary ********.

the direct testimony of his teamates is insufficient ?

Measuring something is different from understanding something. Everyone knows, even the exelophiles, that plus minus is at best a content laden metric. Guys with better plus minuses are not better all around players than guys with lower +/-.

So using shot differentials or offensive possesion times for a guy who plays 5 minutes a game, every other game ( or less in parros case) for a guy whose primary role is to fight is idiotic. that you cant see it speaks volumes.

no one cares if a guy who is brought on to fight has crappy fancystats. no one.

 

[izzy75]

I'd like to see some tangible benefit, rather than some imaginary ********.

Here's a tangible, albeit subjective one: I played the game, and played better and bigger when I knew someone on the team had by back. We adored these guys. When I didn't have that ammo, I couldn't help it... I'd shy away from certain scenarios.

If you can't see that in how the Habs played last year, compared to the previous year. Well, not sure what tell ya.

 

[Kriss E]

Nilan, who knows a thing or two about enforcing, claims Lucic will be targeting Emelin and Weisse. Tony Marinaro suggest they ignore Lucic. Nilan doesn't totally disagree, but does suggest that he would answer the bell.

Wonder how cream puffs on this site will respond should Emelin get his (metal) face caved in?

Nilan has repeatedly been against 5min goons. He finds them useless for the most part.

Oh come on.What the hell does Chris Nilan know about the game of hockey.
He played in the 70s.
It was different then.
He probably doesn't even know how to use a spread sheet or a graph like these hockey messiah weenies do.

Probably why he's been saying for quite some time now that he finds goons generally useless.

 

[MathMan]

If you can't see that in how the Habs played last year, compared to the previous year. Well, not sure what tell ya.

Hmm. Outside of Price, they played a heck of a lot better in 02-03 than in 03-04.

 

[izzy75]

Hmm. Outside of Price, they played a heck of a lot better in 02-03 than in 03-04.

The looked much small and scared imho - more so than last year.

 

[sandysan]

Yes its ridiculous to believe that a hockey player should be measured by his impact to a team's scoring chances/scoring chances against. I mean scoring chances lead to goals, and the whole idea is to score more goals than the other team... so measuring any players impact relative to their teammates is useless, even a goon's.

the game cannot be reduced to simple variables, if it could everyone would be using the same data, but some teams go goonless and win, some teams go heavy on the goon and win.

The difference between winning an losing is often the small stuff, stuff that never shows up on your spreadsheets. And if you want to have a team with the best corsi numbers and I have a team full of guys who will run you through the boards, your corsi wont save you as you peel away from the corners every time. All things being equal you might be able to exploit this difference, but in hockey, all things are not equal.

This notion that the game can be accurately distilled into facile metrics ( and lets face it that's what these fancy stats are based on, not because they are predictive but because they are easy to measure) is a fallacy.

if you want to win the highest percentage off games, over long periods it might shake out, but you dont play to maximize points, you play to win the cup. And there is a BIG difference between a regular season team and a team built for the playoffs.

 

[LastWordArmy]

the direct testimony of his teamates is insufficient ?

Do you expect his teammates to bash him in the media? Really?

No they speak in cliches cause thats what hockey players do. Especially for a veteran like Parros who is by all accounts a good person off the ice. They aren't going to say to the media that he's useless.

Measuring something is different from understanding something. Everyone knows, even the exelophiles, that plus minus is at best a content laden metric. Guys with better plus minuses are not better all around players than guys with lower +/-.

+/- on its own, without context is a flawed stat because it doesn't measure linemates, minutes played, matchups, zone starts, strength of team and on-ice save percentage at both ends of the ice.

When you add that context (and strip away things like save percentage by using corsi/fenwick, and minutes played by using a % based system, and strength of the team by comparing to teammates), you get a useful set of stats.

Hence when we take Parros, who has a horrible set of possession stats, while playing easy minutes, with only slightly worse than average zone starts, and is far and away the worst on the team compared to team averages... we get an accurate picture of his hockey playing skill (or lack thereof).

It doesn't take fancy stats though.... anyone who is worth their salt in analyzing hockey, could have watched Parros last year and seen he brought absolutely nothing to the team other than the ability to fight the other team's goon, and that when he was on the ice he was a massive liability, to the point where the Habs might as well have played 4 on 5

So using shot differentials or offensive possesion times for a guy who plays 5 minutes a game, every other game ( or less in parros case) for a guy whose primary role is to fight is idiotic. that you cant see it speaks volumes.

no one cares if a guy who is brought on to fight has crappy fancystats. no one.

Actually the "no one" is incorrect.... hence why there are more teams today using fancy stats, and why there are less enforcers being hired today than ever befrore

 

[MathMan]

The looked much small and scared imho - more so than last year.

Well, if they were scared maybe they need to get scared more.

They went from being 5th-highest scoring team in the league to the 21st. Their goals-against improved slightly, mostly on Price going from "average" to "Vezina" -- their actual defense was worse but their goalie saved their butts. And they were on pace for 108 points on a full season.

But sure, maybe they looked small and scared to you. To me, they looked like a much better hockey club.

 

[Kriss E]

You're addressing the wrong crowd. You see, I'm in the pro-goon crowd. I believe that one-screw-loose-in-the-head guys like Chara make teams think twice. I also believe that goons help smaller players play bigger, which contributes to goals and such.

As such, I'd hate to see Emelin get his face caved in. The cream puffs on this site - they'd say he deserved it... or that the refs and league will figure it all out. It's sickening.

Emelin and Lucic have been going at it for quite a few years already, this isn't new, and you can add 10 enforcers, it's not going to change. You need to accept that.

By the way, don't you find it pretty ironic that the so called ''cream puffs'' on this site are the ones saying you don't need to hide behind an enforcer to face bigger opponents???
While the pro goons are the ones screaming that we need ''protection''. Seems to me like the people who are scared of going into a season without an enforcer are the actually cream puffs. You have things twisted buddy.

And nothing bonds a team together more than beating tougher opponents.

 

[izzy75]

Well, if they were scared maybe they need to get scared more.

They went from being 5th-highest scoring team in the league to the 21st. Their goals-against improved slightly, mostly on Price going from "average" to "Vezina" -- their actual defense was worse but their goalie saved their butts. And they were on pace for 108 points on a full season.

But sure, maybe they looked small and scared to you. To me, they looked like a much better hockey club.

I saw a team play WAY over their heads. I'm not alone in that opinion.

But I haven't been happy with this team in years.

 

[LastWordArmy]

the game cannot be reduced to simple variables, if it could everyone would be using the same data, but some teams go goonless and win, some teams go heavy on the goon and win.

The difference between winning an losing is often the small stuff, stuff that never shows up on your spreadsheets. And if you want to have a team with the best corsi numbers and I have a team full of guys who will run you through the boards, your corsi wont save you as you peel away from the corners every time. All things being equal you might be able to exploit this difference, but in hockey, all things are not equal.

I'll take a team of 20 Nick Lidstroms, you can have 20 George Parros clones, and I bet that I'll sweep your team in 4 games. With a combined score of something like 28-1

Your guys won't drill anyone into the boards, because they won't be able to catch anyone.

This notion that the game can be accurately distilled into facile metrics ( and lets face it that's what these fancy stats are based on, not because they are predictive but because they are easy to measure) is a fallacy.

The stats are not perfect, when you have someone at 50.1% and another player at 49.9% that doesn't mean that player A is better than player B, I agree.

But when you have Parros whose stats are so off the chart god awful (26%), it's actually a damn good measurement that shows his actual hockey playing ability is not at all valuable to the team. This isn't

if you want to win the highest percentage off games, over long periods it might shake out, but you dont play to maximize points, you play to win the cup. And there is a BIG difference between a regular season team and a team built for the playoffs.

Yes... there is being built for the playoffs.... where the teams built for the playoffs sit their goons. Its been shown that the vast majority of Cup Winners sit their goons in the playoffs.

06 Carolina - No goon in playoffs
07 Anaheim - Thornton 15 games... Parros 5 games...
08 Detroit - No goon in playoffs
09 Pittsburgh - No goon in playoffs
10 Chicago - No goon in playoffs
11 Boston - 18 playoff games for Thornton
12 Los Angeles - No goon in playoffs
13 Chicago - 5 playoff games Bollig (less than 25% of his team's playoff games)
14 Los Angeles - No goon.

So yes the goal is to be a team built for the playoffs... and somehow, those goons don't seem necessary to win in the playoffs.

Apparently these guys are so important to winning but they sit at the time when winning is most important. Its such a contradiction.

 

[izzy75]

Parros who is... useless.

I hated the signing. But I liked Murray. I've never seen a more calm crease than when Murray was on the ice.

God I hope Tinordi gets full line duty this year.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I hated the signing. But I liked Murray. I've never seen a more calm crease than when Murray was on the ice.

It was calm because Murray would screen Price all by himself. The other team would just pass the puck around him like a pylon and then wait for him to ice it.

 

[sandysan]

I'll take a team of 20 Nick Lidstroms, you can have 20 George Parros clones, and I bet that I'll sweep your team in 4 games. With a combined score of something like 28-1

Your guys won't drill anyone into the boards, because they won't be able to catch anyone.



The stats are not perfect, when you have someone at 50.1% and another player at 49.9% that doesn't mean that player A is better than player B, I agree.

But when you have Parros whose stats are so off the chart god awful (26%), it's actually a damn good measurement that shows his actual hockey playing ability is not at all valuable to the team. This isn't



Yes... there is being built for the playoffs.... where the teams built for the playoffs sit their goons. Its been shown that the vast majority of Cup Winners sit their goons in the playoffs.

06 Carolina - No goon in playoffs
07 Anaheim - Thornton 15 games... Parros 5 games...
08 Detroit - No goon in playoffs
09 Pittsburgh - No goon in playoffs
10 Chicago - No goon in playoffs
11 Boston - 18 playoff games for Thornton
12 Los Angeles - No goon in playoffs
13 Chicago - 5 playoff games Bollig (less than 25% of his team's playoff games)
14 Los Angeles - No goon.

So yes the goal is to be a team built for the playoffs... and somehow, those goons don't seem necessary to win in the playoffs.

Apparently these guys are so important to winning but they sit at the time when winning is most important. Its such a contradiction.

no one said they are necessary, you can win with them you can win without them. It depends on how your team is built. The kings can lose a great deal more in the regular season but still be succcessful in the playoffs. The bruins can be successful in the regular season AND in the playoffs with guys who can thow. There is not one path.

But because the kings ( who despite having not many guys who throw) have a lot of team toughness they might not need a specialist. But the notion that a team like montreal who is decidely NOT like the kings and lacks team toughness, that they could be as succesful as the kings with no specialist is, in my opion, completely intellectually dishonest.

as you your nick lidstrom comment, yeah that's a fair playing field. But philadelphia seemingly did ok against far more "talented" teams. Boston seemed to do ok against a "more" talented vancouver team.

if you can win by gooning it up, then that's a perfectly viable way to seek the cup its not for everybody and it might not even be sustainable, but who cares ?

 

[Hoople]

In just 22 games, and 100 minutes of ice time Parros was a -6, (9 goals against, 3 for) (Lets give him positive for the 3 goals for, thats more than 1 goal against every 4 games he played. 1 goal against for every 16:40 minutes of ice time)

His Corsi For was 26.9% (21.9% worse than the team average)
His Fenwick For was 26.8% (24% worse than the team average)

Thats pretty freaking bad, and is absolutely a liability every time he was thrown over the boards.

And thats without counting the number of pps he gave the other team.

Now pull out your spreadsheet and explain to us how those 9 goals adversely affected the Habs this past season?

Next, post up why the Habs allowed the other 195 goals against when Parros was not dressed. And be thorough with your analysis with regard to who was on the ice for those goals just like you were with the analysis above.

Do you have the courage to do it? Remember, there is a player on the roster who led the team for most goals scored while he was on the ice.

Have at it...........

 

[Hoople]

no one said they are necessary, you can win with them you can win without them. It depends on how your team is built. The kings can lose a great deal more in the regular season but still be succcessful in the playoffs. The bruins can be successful in the regular season AND in the playoffs with guys who can thow. There is not one path.

But because the kings ( who despite having not many guys who throw) have a lot of team toughness they might not need a specialist. But the notion that a team like montreal who is decidely NOT like the kings and lacks team toughness, that they could be as succesful as the kings with no specialist is, in my opion, completely intellectually dishonest.

as you your nick lidstrom comment, yeah that's a fair playing field. But philadelphia seemingly did ok against far more "talented" teams. Boston seemed to do ok against a "more" talented vancouver team.

if you can win by gooning it up, then that's a perfectly viable way to seek the cup its not for everybody and it might not even be sustainable, but who cares ?

It has been said many times on this thread that the Habs are 2-3 years away from having overall team toughness like what the Kings have.

And it has been ignored just as many times by the spreadsheet crowd.

Great posts in this thread by the way.

 

[Kriss E]

no one said they are necessary, you can win with them you can win without them. It depends on how your team is built. The kings can lose a great deal more in the regular season but still be succcessful in the playoffs. The bruins can be successful in the regular season AND in the playoffs with guys who can thow. There is not one path.

But because the kings ( who despite having not many guys who throw) have a lot of team toughness they might not need a specialist. But the notion that a team like montreal who is decidely NOT like the kings and lacks team toughness, that they could be as succesful as the kings with no specialist is, in my opion, completely intellectually dishonest.

There isn't a team that gets to Conference Finals and finishes top 4 by lacking team toughness. It just doesn't happen. I know you hate to admit this, but Montreal is a tough team to play against. It's not because we don't have 10 guys that will drop the gloves and deliver crushing hits that we're not tough.

With such a stupid notion that you need to be big, physical and aggressive to be tough then I guess 99% of women aren't tough.

as you your nick lidstrom comment, yeah that's a fair playing field. But philadelphia seemingly did ok against far more "talented" teams. Boston seemed to do ok against a "more" talented vancouver team.

Philly lost versus Chicago, and here's what they had:
-Briere (in his good years, he had 30pts in 23gp in POs)
-Richards
-Carter
-Timmo
-Pronger
-Gagné
-Hartnell
-Leino (also in his peek year)
-Giroux
-Carle
-Coburn (in his good days)

So ya, they were pretty stacked. That's why they made it to the SCF with freaking Boucher/Leighton. I mean come on, freaking Boucher/Leighton! Give them a good goalie and I could easily argue they'd beat Chicago.

Boston had more talent than Vancouver, and incredible depth. So not sure what you're saying here.

if you can win by gooning it up, then that's a perfectly viable way to seek the cup its not for everybody and it might not even be sustainable, but who cares ?

You can't win by gooning it up. Teams that goon it up usually do it after they have a pretty decent lead. Maybe you can have the odd win but you do not get to the Cup now do you win it by gooning it up.

 

[Kriss E]

It has been said many times on this thread that the Habs are 2-3 years away from having overall team toughness like what the Kings have.

And it has been ignored just as many times by the spreadsheet crowd.

Great posts in this thread by the way.

It's been ignored because it's completely irrelevant to whether or not a goon is useful. Not so surprisingly, you have a tough time following.

 

[Corncob]

It has been said many times on this thread that the Habs are 2-3 years away from having overall team toughness like what the Kings have.

We're also 2-3 years away from you posting that we need a goon because tough top six players are too valuable to be getting into fights.

We signed Prust and everyone's whinging that he's fighting all the kind of guys he's fought his whole career.

 

[Corncob]

the direct testimony of his teamates is insufficient ?

That'd be great. Find me a quote from one of the 77 games we played without Parros last year where a player said they felt less confident due to his absence or physically intimidated when he wasn't there. Just one.

 

[Hoople]

That'd be great. Find me a quote from one of the 77 games we played without Parros last year where a player said they felt less confident due to his absence or physically intimidated when he wasn't there. Just one.

Find me a quote where any of the Habs players said that they did not want an enforcer.

Hint.....there are players on the record saying that they were glad to have Parros on the team.

Good luck. Just one.

 

[Corncob]

Find me a quote where any of the Habs players said that they did not want an enforcer.

But you wouldn't expect any professional sports player to come out and say they didn't want any of their team mates on the team, so that's not really a surprise is it?

It's not uncommon though for players to reflect that the team missed a certain player who had not played in a match/series of matches. With Parros missing about 4/5 of the matches played, surely one of them would have been honest enough to say at some point what a big loss it was and admit that they had lower confidence as a result?

 

[JLP]

crazy franco s.o.b. leftwing heavyweight please

 

[Hoople]

But you wouldn't expect any professional sports player to come out and say they didn't want any of their team mates on the team, so that's not really a surprise is it?

It's not uncommon though for players to reflect that the team missed a certain player who had not played in a match/series of matches. With Parros missing about 4/5 of the matches played, surely one of them would have been honest enough to say at some point what a big loss it was and admit that they had lower confidence as a result?

You want black and white and it does not exist in hockey.

Murray was on the ice for a lot of games that Parros missed and to have a guy willing to stand up and fight John Scott would foster some of this confidence that you cannot see so you dismiss.

 

[Kriss E]

You want black and white and it does not exist in hockey.

Murray was on the ice for a lot of games that Parros missed and to have a guy willing to stand up and fight John Scott would foster some of this confidence that you cannot see so you dismiss.

Confidence is measurable.