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

[Hoople]

Confidence is measurable.

Awesome. Glad you are up to the challenge. You can start with a preseason game so you can refine it.

First, you will have to get permission from Therrien to sit on the bench with the Habs (hell, I will even let you try it on only one player to start).

Next, you will have to immediately interview that player and have him give a detailed account of every conscious thought that he had for the entire shift. Second by second. Be quick with your interview and recording because you will also have to find out what he is thinking while sitting on the bench waiting for the next shift.

I'm glad you are willing to try this. Thanks.

Oh, remember, hockey is a fast paced game with a lot of activity and physicality. Be sure to record the micro thoughts and try not to focus too much on the macro. You dont want to skew the results with your own bias. Thanks again.

 

[Kriss E]

Awesome. Glad you are up to the challenge. You can start with a preseason game so you can refine it.

First, you will have to get permission from Therrien to sit on the bench with the Habs (hell, I will even let you try it on only one player to start).

Next, you will have to immediately interview that player and have him give a detailed account of every conscious thought that he had for the entire shift. Second by second. Be quick with your interview and recording because you will also have to find out what he is thinking while sitting on the bench waiting for the next shift.

I'm glad you are willing to try this. Thanks.

Oh, remember, hockey is a fast paced game with a lot of activity and physicality. Be sure to record the micro thoughts and try not to focus too much on the macro. You dont want to skew the results with your own bias. Thanks again.

If the presence of a player increases the confidence of others, then removing that player would decrease the confidence right??
If there's zero, or close to it, difference in production/performance when you insert/remove the player who allegedly influences confidence, then you know your theory is wrong.
It doesn't mean that it actually doesn't influence confidence, just that it's such a small influence it's irrelevant.

Take a look at Eller. He had issues with confidence right? What happens when his confidence is up? He produces. What happens when it's not? He looks terrible.

So if goons had a big impact on confidence, then you would see a correlation with the play of others and the presence, or lack there of, of a goon. We don't.

 

[Deluded Puck]

Here's an idea.

Formulate your own thoughts and ideas and then state them on a message board. Next, quit wasting time with useless posts as above stating what you think (incorrectly) I believe.

Thanks.

1) I have done so plenty of times, if you need proof my post history is easily accessible.

B) I'm just trying to understand what your line of thinking is, because it honestly makes no sense to me at face value (i.e. often mentioning Subban in a negative comparison to Murray). No disrespect.

3) That was the only solid conclusion I could come to, after all you complain about the CH not being big and tough enough, but you don't see Desharnais being the no.1C as a problem in this.

D) Keep defending various one-dimensional players and I won't be the only one raising an eyebrow in regards to your post(s).

 

[sandysan]

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.

I'm optimistic but not so convinced.

And even if the plan is to go that way, what do we tell all the small soft imminently exploitable players we have now? That the calvary is coming but you have to hold the fort by yourselves for the next two years, good luck?5

 

[Corncob]

what do we tell all the small soft imminently exploitable players we have now?

We tell them (if they exist) to gtfo out because they don't have the necessary attributes to play in the NHL.

I don't personally think there are any such players on the current roster, but who do you identify as such?

 

[Corncob]

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

No not black and white. Little bit of grey would be fine. Just some small shred of evidence that the things you claim to be true might be true and might actually influence the performance of the team in some way.

 

[Hoople]

1) I have done so plenty of times, if you need proof my post history is easily accessible.

B) I'm just trying to understand what your line of thinking is, because it honestly makes no sense to me at face value (i.e. often mentioning Subban in a negative comparison to Murray). No disrespect.

3) That was the only solid conclusion I could come to, after all you complain about the CH not being big and tough enough, but you don't see Desharnais being the no.1C as a problem in this.

D) Keep defending various one-dimensional players and I won't be the only one raising an eyebrow in regards to your post(s).

It's fine to question anyone's line of thinking. It's absurd to state what you think anyone's line of thinking is like you did previously.

Your part "D" states what I have been saying all along. There are no absolutes in hockey. There are no black and white. There are many variables and many shades of gray.

The same holds true for people and the opinions they have. Just because I believe no other center has surpassed DD with regard to offensive skills has zero to do with this issue.

 

[izzy75]

If the presence of a player increases the confidence of others, then removing that player would decrease the confidence right?? .

There's a great clip of Tony Twist explaining why - if he doesn't play in a certain game - it won't matter because hockey players have good memories. Teams know which teams are scary. And things do get settled eventually. And if it's true that things such as a fans applause - or a players jinx rituals - make a difference, than its safe to assume that knowing someone has your back will make you play larger and more fierce.

This is so obvious, I can only assume the people who don't get this have never played a game of contact hockey in their lives.

 

[Price is Wright]

If enforcers adjusted confidence, enforcers would play in the post-season.

More teams would do what Gainey was doing in 2009, what with Laraque playing the powerplay.

 

[Kriss E]

There's a great clip of Tony Twist explaining why - if he doesn't play in a certain game - it won't matter because hockey players have good memories. Teams know which teams are scary. And things do get settled eventually. And if it's true that things such as a fans applause - or a players jinx rituals - make a difference, than its safe to assume that knowing someone has your back will make you play larger and more fierce.

This is so obvious, I can only assume the people who don't get this have never played a game of contact hockey in their lives.

The point isn't whether or not it'll make you play larger or fiercer. Personally, I don't think having Parros on our roster is suddenly going to make Plekanec into a player that rushes the net or is happy going into corners with big physical and aggressive Dmen. That just won't happen imo.

But even if it did, if it doesn't influence the scoreboard, then it's pretty irrelevant.
Also that memory theory holds more water for the era Twist played in.
Nowadays it's cimpletely different. But I know deep down for you having a goon is for revenge and entertainment purposes, not because you think they're essential to a hockey team.

 

[Hoople]

If enforcers adjusted confidence, enforcers would play in the post-season.

More teams would do what Gainey was doing in 2009, what with Laraque playing the powerplay.

You keep ignoring recent events. Boston winning a Cup with Thornton. Chicago with Bollig.

I will say that the playoffs are a different dynamic though. The stakes are too high so most teams press box the enforcer because other teams do as well....but there are exceptions.

One of those exceptions was the Senators inserting Matt Kassian in the playoff lineup against the Habs in that display of domination through intimidation.

As long as you can grasp the concept that there are no absolutes in hockey, you will come to realize that enforcers are role players that can be used if the situation or need arises.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I do understand that this is a theory, but if it were actually true, it would be measurable.

So until you finally understand it and can measure it, it doesn't exist, huh? Right on buds...

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

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.

Hey, whatever it takes to help Price stop a higher percentage of pucks. Which apparently and measurably, he did.

 

[Dominator13]

If the presence of a player increases the confidence of others, then removing that player would decrease the confidence right??
If there's zero, or close to it, difference in production/performance when you insert/remove the player who allegedly influences confidence, then you know your theory is wrong.
It doesn't mean that it actually doesn't influence confidence, just that it's such a small influence it's irrelevant.

Take a look at Eller. He had issues with confidence right? What happens when his confidence is up? He produces. What happens when it's not? He looks terrible.

So if goons had a big impact on confidence, then you would see a correlation with the play of others and the presence, or lack there of, of a goon. We don't.

No you wouldn't, because most of the time it's a moment thing. Sometimes you go for a fight when you're down 3-0 to bring back life on the bench or you fight your teammate gets cheapshoted, like Prust, Tinordi and Parros did in bunches over the last 2 seasons. Are you that addicted to Corsi that you're trying to find a match between 2 guys fighting and a goal scored? Just stop trying to justify yourself and THINK about what you're saying. You're on this mission trying to explain that the hundreads of GM's, coach's and players are all wrong and you're right. Don't look at the stats, look at the game. Thousands of games have had momentum shifted after a good hit or fight, IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE GOING TO SCORE 5 GOALS IN THE NEXT 10 MINUTES, because there's still a goalie and 5 players to beat.

Seriously, all this stat nonsence makes me doubt some of you even watch (nevermind play) hockey from the start. I mean what's next? Will we start calculating coach or captain speaches between periods and goals or wins? How bout a correaltion between confidence and how many times you change sticks during a game?

 

[Kriss E]

So until you finally understand it and can measure it, it doesn't exist, huh? Right on buds...

Euh no. You should try to read more than one sentence, there's probably an explanation coming up afterwords.
If a player's confidence was involved, then you'd see differences in the way teams perform with/without an enforcer. Why wouldn't there be, if it did influence confidence to the point where it's worthy of mention?
The fact that we don't see any significant differences makes your belief crap.

But I guess you're going to ignore this and just tell me I should take your word for it?? Ya..right on indeed bud..
Let's ignore logic and rationale.

Hey, whatever it takes to help Price stop a higher percentage of pucks. Which apparently and measurably, he did.

You mean Price had a higher percentage when the quality of competetion was its lowest? Wow, shocker.

 

[Kriss E]

No you wouldn't

If you wouldn't then it's because the impact is insignificant.

And yes, I watch the games, I bet I probably watch more hockey than you. I PVR the games I miss, I also re-watch some games, and I download some as well. My viewing isn't just limited to the habs either. So ya, I watch plenty of hockey.
Guess what, I'm also a fan of fighting! I love to see someone knock an opponent on its ass after they tried something on one of our guys. I'm just not going to pretend that having such poor hockey players is actually a key player. That's flat out ridiculous. The only thing that is more ridiculous than this claim are the arguments presented to ''support'' it.

 

[LastWordArmy]

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 ?

Team toughness is fine.... having Kyle Clifford on the Kings who can fight and play hockey is a great addition. Boston has guys who can fight and play hockey in the McQuaid, Lucic, Chara type. These aren't goons.

Wayne Simmonds on Philly can sure fight. He's not a goon.

Chris Neil can play third line minutes... He's not a goon.

I have no problem acquiring a player who fights (but can also PLAY HOCKEY). I have a big problem with a one-dimensional goon who is a liability every time he steps on the ice.

I don't think anyone here, not me, not Kriss E, not Mathman, not Lafleur's Guy, not any of the people who have argued against a goon is against getting actual good players who can drop the gloves when necessary.

This argument that you need "team toughness" is something we all agree on.

Where we don't agree, is that some cement head who plays less than five minutes a game is going to make Desharnais and Pacioretty tougher on the first line. He's never on the ice with them, and with the way the instigator rule is today, you can't protect from the bench the way you could in the 70s. It doesn't happen if you aren't on the ice at the time of the incident. Instead you just end up punching their goon in a staged fight while the real perpetrator goes unpunished.

One other thing that has made the goon useless is the salaries today. A guy like Matt Cooke makes millions, and part of the reason he makes millions is because he's a piece of **** to play against. He's got some talent and he can get away without playing that style... but lets look at some less talented agitators.

If Patrick Kaleta isn't running around and hitting the other team's best players, he's got no use in the NHL, and teams will get rid of him. The difference between an AHL and NHL salary is so great that there is no deterrence to being punched in the face. So what? You get a black eye or two over the course of a season. Maybe lose a few fights and a few teeth. Small price to pay to be a millionaire when you retire, instead of a guy who never made it to the show. The only thing that effects these guys is suspensions and hitting them in their wallet (which the NHL is unwilling to do in any effective way given our small suspensions and low fines), so we get what we have today.

Goons don't stop it. Not in 2014 cause the instigator protects the Kaleta (and I'm not saying get rid of the instigator, because what happened in the early 90s was a guy like Kaleta would drop the gloves and start a fight with a star player, so you'd be bringing that back)... as well as the high salaries making guys be willing to sacrifice getting beat up.

So what do you do? Simple, you need 1) team toughness, a bunch of players who can drop on occassion (say 2-3 times a year) and can play 15 minutes a night without hurting you. And if you can find top 6 guys all the better. 2) a mentality from every player on the team to stick up for the guy beside him, and not look to the goon to do their fighting for him.

 

[LastWordArmy]

If enforcers adjusted confidence, enforcers would play in the post-season.

More teams would do what Gainey was doing in 2009, what with Laraque playing the powerplay.

Exactly... the guys who are so important to winning don't play when winning is most important.

To take it one step further, If enforcers adjusted confidence the 13th forward on an Olympic Team would be John Scott intimidating the other team. Play him in the gold medal game and nothing more. Yeah he'd get suspended for a fight, but its the last game, who cares? His very presence is going to intimidate and drain the confidence of the other team, and give your team confidence. Or so the theory goes.

 

[Monctonscout]

If enforcers adjusted confidence, enforcers would play in the post-season.

More teams would do what Gainey was doing in 2009, what with Laraque playing the powerplay.

Teams don't try to goon it up at playoff time(unless it's a blowout) because a PP could mean losing the game and possibly early elimination. The stakes on each goal is much higher.

 

[Lshap]

Team toughness is fine.... having Kyle Clifford on the Kings who can fight and play hockey is a great addition. Boston has guys who can fight and play hockey in the McQuaid, Lucic, Chara type. These aren't goons.

Wayne Simmonds on Philly can sure fight. He's not a goon.

Chris Neil can play third line minutes... He's not a goon.

I have no problem acquiring a player who fights (but can also PLAY HOCKEY). I have a big problem with a one-dimensional goon who is a liability every time he steps on the ice.

I don't think anyone here, not me, not Kriss E, not Mathman, not Lafleur's Guy, not any of the people who have argued against a goon is against getting actual good players who can drop the gloves when necessary.

This argument that you need "team toughness" is something we all agree on.

Where we don't agree, is that some cement head who plays less than five minutes a game is going to make Desharnais and Pacioretty tougher on the first line. He's never on the ice with them, and with the way the instigator rule is today, you can't protect from the bench the way you could in the 70s. It doesn't happen if you aren't on the ice at the time of the incident. Instead you just end up punching their goon in a staged fight while the real perpetrator goes unpunished.

One other thing that has made the goon useless is the salaries today. A guy like Matt Cooke makes millions, and part of the reason he makes millions is because he's a piece of **** to play against. He's got some talent and he can get away without playing that style... but lets look at some less talented agitators.

If Patrick Kaleta isn't running around and hitting the other team's best players, he's got no use in the NHL, and teams will get rid of him. The difference between an AHL and NHL salary is so great that there is no deterrence to being punched in the face. So what? You get a black eye or two over the course of a season. Maybe lose a few fights and a few teeth. Small price to pay to be a millionaire when you retire, instead of a guy who never made it to the show. The only thing that effects these guys is suspensions and hitting them in their wallet (which the NHL is unwilling to do in any effective way given our small suspensions and low fines), so we get what we have today.

Goons don't stop it. Not in 2014 cause the instigator protects the Kaleta (and I'm not saying get rid of the instigator, because what happened in the early 90s was a guy like Kaleta would drop the gloves and start a fight with a star player, so you'd be bringing that back)... as well as the high salaries making guys be willing to sacrifice getting beat up.

So what do you do? Simple, you need 1) team toughness, a bunch of players who can drop on occassion (say 2-3 times a year) and can play 15 minutes a night without hurting you. And if you can find top 6 guys all the better. 2) a mentality from every player on the team to stick up for the guy beside him, and not look to the goon to do their fighting for him.

Nicely said. And thanks for saving me the time to say it.

I think the pro-goon crowd has been so scarred by our team's softness that it doesn't realize we're already a much tougher, bigger team than we were during the dark days of Smurfdom. True, we're not the Kings, but we're not doormats either. It's time to retire a lot of those wimpy adjectives.

 

[Kriss E]

Nicely said. And thanks for saving me the time to say it.

I think the pro-goon crowd has been so scarred by our team's softness that it doesn't realize we're already a much tougher, bigger team than we were during the dark days of Smurfdom. True, we're not the Kings, but we're not doormats either. It's time to retire a lot of those wimpy adjectives.

As I wrote before, it's pretty ironic that the guys using all the wimpy adjectives and calling anti-goons softies are the ones that need someone bigger for protection. Pretty darn ironic.

 

[Hope Of Glory]

Team toughness is fine.... having Kyle Clifford on the Kings who can fight and play hockey is a great addition. Boston has guys who can fight and play hockey in the McQuaid, Lucic, Chara type. These aren't goons.

Wayne Simmonds on Philly can sure fight. He's not a goon.

Chris Neil can play third line minutes... He's not a goon.

I have no problem acquiring a player who fights (but can also PLAY HOCKEY). I have a big problem with a one-dimensional goon who is a liability every time he steps on the ice.

I don't think anyone here, not me, not Kriss E, not Mathman, not Lafleur's Guy, not any of the people who have argued against a goon is against getting actual good players who can drop the gloves when necessary.

This argument that you need "team toughness" is something we all agree on.

Where we don't agree, is that some cement head who plays less than five minutes a game is going to make Desharnais and Pacioretty tougher on the first line. He's never on the ice with them, and with the way the instigator rule is today, you can't protect from the bench the way you could in the 70s. It doesn't happen if you aren't on the ice at the time of the incident. Instead you just end up punching their goon in a staged fight while the real perpetrator goes unpunished.

One other thing that has made the goon useless is the salaries today. A guy like Matt Cooke makes millions, and part of the reason he makes millions is because he's a piece of **** to play against. He's got some talent and he can get away without playing that style... but lets look at some less talented agitators.

If Patrick Kaleta isn't running around and hitting the other team's best players, he's got no use in the NHL, and teams will get rid of him. The difference between an AHL and NHL salary is so great that there is no deterrence to being punched in the face. So what? You get a black eye or two over the course of a season. Maybe lose a few fights and a few teeth. Small price to pay to be a millionaire when you retire, instead of a guy who never made it to the show. The only thing that effects these guys is suspensions and hitting them in their wallet (which the NHL is unwilling to do in any effective way given our small suspensions and low fines), so we get what we have today.

Goons don't stop it. Not in 2014 cause the instigator protects the Kaleta (and I'm not saying get rid of the instigator, because what happened in the early 90s was a guy like Kaleta would drop the gloves and start a fight with a star player, so you'd be bringing that back)... as well as the high salaries making guys be willing to sacrifice getting beat up.

So what do you do? Simple, you need 1) team toughness, a bunch of players who can drop on occassion (say 2-3 times a year) and can play 15 minutes a night without hurting you. And if you can find top 6 guys all the better. 2) a mentality from every player on the team to stick up for the guy beside him, and not look to the goon to do their fighting for him.

That's probably one of the best post of the thread. Sums up my feelings perfectly, and probably the ones of others too.

Some people just can't seem to handle the declining of some part of fighting (like pure goons). It's not just us, a lot of team have dropped those (Boston with Thornton, Buffalo with Scott, Ottawa with Kassian, etc). Don't get me wrong, there will always be fighting and I honestly like that but getting rid of guys who can't play hockey is good thing imo.

 

[Lshap]

As I wrote before, it's pretty ironic that the guys using all the wimpy adjectives and calling anti-goons softies are the ones that need someone bigger for protection. Pretty darn ironic.

Yeah, and that the less Parros played, the better we did. By season's end he was invisible and forgotten. There was virtually no effect of his presence - not psychologically and certainly not on the ice.

 

[hototogisu]

Yeah, and that the less Parros played, the better we did. By season's end he was invisible and forgotten. There was virtually no effect of his presence - not psychologically and certainly not on the ice.

Get ready to be told that we didn't get the "right" enforcer and that the "right" enforcer would have been way more effective.

 

[sandysan]

We tell them (if they exist) to gtfo out because they don't have the necessary attributes to play in the NHL.

I don't personally think there are any such players on the current roster, but who do you identify as such?

our top 9 ? pretty much all of them. shorties like gallagher and deharnais and softies like the rest.