When you start claiming that certain players were allowing oodles of goals without substantiation.
Except those players were allowing oodles of goals. Not high % chances.
"Just win baby", remember?
When you start claiming that certain players were allowing oodles of goals without substantiation.
The top players need to produce and drive play. The coaches need to adapt to Montreal’s winning game plan and put the players in the most advantageous position to do so. This is tantamount.
But the “depth players don’t really matter” card is a curious one to play in hockey, the sport that glorifies bottom of the roster players like no other. I’m glad to know Fletcher traded multiple picks for meaningless bottom 6 roster spots that were already being filled admirably in house. The performance of which — in 1/3 of the game at least — doesn’t actually matter. (This never has been and never will be a winning argument).
Nate Thompson is a bum. But when he has 1 goal in 6 games and G, Couts, tk, Hayes, jvr, and Jake have 1 goal in the same 6 games, well it seems a tad bizarre to lay this on Nate Thompson.
People love preaching “the nothing matters” mantra. Does it matter that those 6 have nothing production wise? I guess with them it’s ok to say “nothing matters.”
And all of those are veterans except Thomas, who is 6'1 190.
Thompson, Grant, Frost, Bunnaman, none are ideal, I'd prefer Raffl, Patrick and Lindblom myself.
The reason we have this conversation in the past was the lack of good options on the bottom six, this season if we are healthy, we don't have this discussion, next year it's going to be about which solid forward we have to bench.
Of course the top of the roater matters. But while the top half of the roster may not be scoring, they at least aren't getting scored.
Being a net positive is what matters. Thompaon scored a goal, sure. But he's responsible for letting several more in with his terrible play.
I just checked. He was on for goal 4 in game 2 only 1 es goal in 5 games. The one that bounced in off ghost skate.
Where are the “several” goals that were caused by “his terrible play”? Just curious.
They don’t. Frost should be tried. No doubt. But you know what? If he played last game and had a hat trick, the boys lose 5-3.Morgan Frost isn’t going to fly in like Superman and save the day. But he might just make a play that leads to a goal. The Habs certainly haven’t been watching film or game planning for him. So yeah, he might not make a difference, but perhaps he just might.
Since Thompson has been horribly bad and is bringing nothing to the table right now, what the hell do they have to lose?
Wow, thanks Captain Obvious. Shit Bobby Clarke in his prime couldn’t have singlehandedly won yesterday’s game. What does that have to do with trying Frost instead of Thompson tomorrow?They don’t. Frost should be tried. No doubt. But you know what? If he played last game and had a hat trick, the boys lose 5-3.
Year (games) | shots on net/60 (5v5) | individual shot attempts/60 (5v5) | individual expected goals/60 (5v5) |
2008-2009 (6) | 6.66 | 15.82 | 0.76 |
2009-2010 (23) | 6.67 | 11.04 | 0.56 |
2010-2011 (11) | 5.79 | 12.30 | 0.42 |
2011-2012 (10) | 6.68 | 14.16 | 0.46 |
2013-2014 (7) | 6.42 | 14.59 | 0.61 |
2015-2016 (6) | 4.45 | 8.90 | 0.30 |
2017-2018 (6) | 6.24 | 14.83 | 0.57 |
2019-2020 (5) | 7.16 | 11.25 | 0.54 |
There is more to hockey than raw goal totals. Like, for instance, their overall play. Especially when we are dealing in a very tiny sample size.
Everyone you have listed has played better and created more chances than Thompson has. All of them. There has been a substantial amount of bad luck involved with a lot of them. G has hit multiple posts, for instance. He's also created a ton of chances for others. Thompson isn't doing that, either.
Those other players will do better given enough time. Thompson will not. That's a massive difference. If those players were playing as badly as Thompson, then we'd have a major issue.
Wow, thanks Captain Obvious. Shit Bobby Clarke in his prime couldn’t have singlehandedly won yesterday’s game. What does that have to do with trying Frost instead of Thompson tomorrow?
FFS, no one is expecting the kid to come in and be Danny Briere circa 2010, we just want the best players in the lineup.
So he was on the ice for SEVERAL goals on the pk? Asking for a friend. Lol! I’ll check. It seems you like using the word “several” very liberally.Can you only play terribly at 5v5? Asking for a friend.
One goal against killing. Tatar’s from the other side of the ice he was defending. Yep, definitely several.Can you only play terribly at 5v5? Asking for a friend.
No it’s about needing production from our top players. Guess the sarcasm was a little above your head. Did you miss me saying frost should be playing instead of Thompson? Captain obvious.Wow, thanks Captain Obvious. Shit Bobby Clarke in his prime couldn’t have singlehandedly won yesterday’s game. What does that have to do with trying Frost instead of Thompson tomorrow?
FFS, no one is expecting the kid to come in and be Danny Briere circa 2010, we just want the best players in the lineup.
JFC no one is blaming Thompson for yesterday’s loss. Every player deserves a share of the blame for that debacle. He’s simply the logical guy to replace with Frost because, on a good day, he’s still a crappy player.
We can also go back to the Pittsburgh Cups where young depth was vital to their win, if you'd like.
It's weird that you insist these depth players don't matter, and then turn around and act like it's deeply important that only this set group plays. If it doesn't matter, then it makes no difference if Frost starts getting time.
I never looked at these stats. Striker explained them to me a little while back. Do you ever look at the high danger stats? To me, if I understand them correctly, they seem to matter the most. If you are on the ice for 4 shots against and 2 for you get a bad Corsi number. I believe. If your 2 shots are high danger shots and the 4 against are perimeter shots you have a very good hdcf%. I would think your on ice quality shots for and against are the best judge of success.If this isn't the definition of being caved....View attachment 361500
If this isn't the definition of being caved....View attachment 361500
I never looked at these stats. Striker explained them to me a little while back. Do you ever look at The high danger stats? To me, if I understand them correctly, seem to matter the most. If you are on the ice for 4 shots against and 2 for you get a bad Corsi number. I believe. If your 2 shots are high danger shots and the 4 against are perimeter shots you have a very good hdcf%. I would think your on ice quality shots for and against are the best judge of success.
xGF are the best overall metric because it takes into account where you shoot
High danger against is a measure of "carelessness" on defense, and play making on offense.