Post-Game Talk: Habs beat NY Islanders 3-1 | Lars Eller making a very late push for the Art Ross

[Andy]

Hey guys. No more personal shots. Argue about the content of the post and not the poster. Thinly veiled attacks are still attacks and will be infracted accordingly. Play nice or you won't get to play at all.

Also, if you have questions regarding the rules, PM a mod, don't start posting your complaints about the rules in threads.

 

[Winter Eclipse]

Is that a joke? Okay, Therrien won the hockey lottery. He has a horse shoe up his yin yang.

It's not a joke, it's illustrative of the logic you're using.

"Statistics say the Habs' winning ways are unsustainable, yet here they are in 1st, ergo statistics can't really be used to criticize Therrien"

It's exactly like saying:

"Statistics say I probably won't win the lottery, yet here we are with people who do win the lottery, ergo you can't use statistics to criticize my retirement plan being: 'win the lottery' "

I mean, by your own argument, Therrien has had 3 great goaltenders playing for him at various times, and on one of those occasions he had Sidney friggin' Crosby, and yet how many Cups does this guy have again? The guy literally has a track record of gift-wrapped talent, and 0 results to show for it.

 

[mus1cx]

Lol or Therrien took over as Carey was hitting his prime? #logic.

 

[Yep]

Nonsense. LG already pointed out, but to hammer the point home, let me point out that one side of this debate has an argument grounded on a vast array of quantifiable metrics, the very same side you then compare to a religion / faith. Please explain to me how arguments based on measurable data like SF/SA, GF, GA, sv%, Corsi, Fenwick, and a host of others is akin to a faith?

After that, you can explain how the opposing side, largely based on such impartial scientific observations as "Math is for Excel spreadsheet nerds" and "You've never played the game if you disagree with me" is a more fact-based / scientifically rigorous methodology. I'm debating even mentioning the fact that one of the pro-Therrien schools' most vocal proponents literally used a made up a narrative ("we take a tone of penalties and score a lot of shorties and play a rough-in-your-face style") as the cornerstone of his position...

See Eclipse, that's what I meant by"manichean atmosphere" of the Therrien debate (either pro or anti, no middleground, with us or against us, world of light versus world of darkness, etc.).

 

[BigDaddyLurch]

See Eclipse, that's what I meant by manichean atmosphere of the debate (either pro or against, no middleground, with us or against us, world of light versus world of darkness, etc.).

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

See Eclipse, that's what I meant by"manichean atmosphere" of the Therrien debate (either pro or anti, no middleground, with us or against us, world of light versus world of darkness, etc.).

I realize it kind of comes out this way but man, the numbers are very one sided. It's almost crazy how one sided they are. We can't point to anything not involving goaltending from a statisitical standpoint that looks good for MT. The analytics are bad, the heat maps are bad, the goals and PP are bad...

If you want to dismiss the numbers altogether fine. If you want to appeal to the standings fine. But the numbers hold water with a lot of us. And quite frankly I'd say the eye test lines up with the numbers as well.

 

[Winter Eclipse]

See Eclipse, that's what I meant by"manichean atmosphere" of the Therrien debate (either pro or anti, no middleground, with us or against us, world of light versus world of darkness, etc.).

On a serious note though, what do you like about what Therrien has brought?

 

[Lshap]

I realize it kind of comes out this way but man, the numbers are very one sided. It's almost crazy how one sided they are. We can't point to anything not involving goaltending from a statisitical standpoint that looks good for MT. The analytics are bad, the heat maps are bad, the goals and PP are bad...

If you want to dismiss the numbers altogether fine. If you want to appeal to the standings fine. But the numbers hold water with a lot of us. And quite frankly I'd say the eye test lines up with the numbers as well.

Here's one thing: 5-on-5 is vastly improved over last season, much more so than can be accounted for by Price. Obviously we're not scoring a lot overall, but we're scoring much better at even-strength, which is a big predictor for the playoffs.

As far as the shot-differential problem goes, I'm more concerned about what we do in our zone than what we do in the o-zone. Because if we fix our defensive strategy, the offensive rushes will improve as well. With a stronger, more aggressive D we'll recover the puck faster in our zone and move out with the forwards, instead of having them pressured deep in our zone, forced to spend 90% of their shift backchecking. Too often by the time our dmen struggle to gain control of the puck and finally pass it out, our forwards are gassed and end up dumping the puck.

I like the physical balance Petry and Pateryn brings to our softer PMDs. I'm starting to become a fan of Pateryn and will be watching him this week to gauge if/where he fits for the playoffs. I'm telling ya' -- stronger offence starts with a stronger D.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Here's one thing: 5-on-5 is vastly improved over last season, much more so than can be accounted for by Price. Obviously we're not scoring a lot overall, but we're scoring much better at even-strength, which is a big predictor for the playoffs.

As far as the shot-differential problem goes, I'm more concerned about what we do in our zone than what we do in the o-zone. Because if we fix our defensive strategy, the offensive rushes will improve as well. With a stronger, more aggressive D we'll recover the puck faster in our zone and move out with the forwards, instead of forcing them to spend 90% of their shift backchecking. Too often by the time our dmen struggle to gain control of the puck and finally pass it out, our forwards are gassed and end up dumping the puck.

I like the physical balance Petry and Pateryn brings to our softer PMDs. I'm starting to become a fan of Pateryn and will be watching him this week to gauge if/where he fits for the playoffs. I'm telling ya' -- stronger offence starts with a stronger D.

Yes, it's better. But it's still not good. And really, how could it not improve with the likes of Cube/Murray being gone in favour of guys like Beau in the lineup?

You don't have to convince me on the roster either. I'm with you there. This is a good team.

The problem is that we're not playing anywhere near as well as we should be. And we're not playing anywhere near where a cup contender should be. So it's batten down the hatches and hope for Price... that's what it's been all year.

 

[Kriss E]

On a serious note though, what do you like about what Therrien has brought?

I think it's undeniable that Therrien did bring forth a strong work ethic mentality. He seems to be pretty good at rallying the guys together and all pulling in the same direction.
I'm sure he's also given some good tips to various players.

But tactically, he's just bad, and to me that's the most important aspect for a coach.

 

[Hope Of Glory]

On a serious note though, what do you like about what Therrien has brought?

I'd really like somebody to answer that. People that find Therrien bad have made all kind of arguments against him and yet the same people are saying again and again, essentially, "You're wrong because of the record''. Ok, I may be exagerating a bit but it's something along those lines most of the time.

So, outside of bringing a good attitude in the locker amongst the players (which is great, but not enough), what has Therrien done? If the system isn't bad like you Therrien apologists say to everybody that dares critizing it, why is it good then? What strategies are good? If he's good like you're saying it is, you shouldn't have any problem answering that question with logical arguments.

I'd honestly appreciate if somebody could explain that to me, I really want to know why some people say he's a good coach. Seriously.

 

[Yep]

On a serious note though, what do you like about what Therrien has brought?

Nothing. Nothing that can be directly attibuted to him in a measurable fashion anyway.

I do feel however that if I don't condemn him firmly enough, that if I leave a window open for other hypothesis, I will be categorized as an apologist and will have to fight alongside the frecking Ewoks (of course you had to pick the coolest side).

 

[dmanfish90]

Please be advised, this post is extremely long after the quote. It is however extremely informative.

About "the system", it's definitely flawed. It is too reliant on our greatest strength (Carey Price). It only works because our greatest strength is having arguably one of the greatest seasons a goaltender has had in the "modern" NHL.



Habs Icing said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but last time I looked they awarded the Stanley Cup on games won - best of seven. Did they change the rules since last night? Are they really awarding the cup on Corsis Fenwicks and thingamagigs.

Well I want to see if teams with a 50+ Corsi% each season have been more likely to win the Stanley Cup.

The Corsi stats only go back to 2005-06, so let's use until that season as our sample.



2013-14:

Teams that made the playoffs and their Corsi% during the regular season:

Boston: 53.1%
Detroit: 50.9%
Tampa Bay: 49.7%
Montréal: 47.0%
Pittsburgh: 49.3%
Columbus: 50.3%
New York Rangers: 52.9%
Philadelphia: 50.8%
Colorado: 46.6%
Minnesota: 48.6%
Chicago: 54.9%
St. Louis: 52.7%
Anaheim: 50.2%
Dallas: 50.9%
San Jose: 54.5%
Los Angeles: 55.7%

SCF: LAK (55.7%) vs. NYR (52.9%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2012-13:

Pittsburgh: 49.5%
New York Islanders: 50.7%
Montréal: 53.0%
Ottawa: 53.2%
Washington: 48.0%
New York Rangers: 50.9%
Boston: 53.5%
Toronto: 45.0%
Chicago: 53.4%
Minnesota: 50.9%
Anaheim: 47.9%
Detroit: 53.9%
Vancouver: 51.9%
San Jose: 51.8%
St. Louis: 52.0%
Los Angeles: 55.6%

SCF: CHI (53.4%) vs. BOS (53.5%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2011-12:

New York Rangers: 48.2%
Ottawa: 51.6%
Boston: 53.4%
Washington: 48.0%
Florida: 50.1%
New Jersey: 50.7%
Pittsburgh: 55.2%
Philadelphia: 52.0%
Vancouver: 53.0%
Los Angeles: 53.4%
St. Louis: 53.0%
San Jose: 52.9%
Phoenix: 49.4%
Chicago: 52.6%
Nashville: 46.1%
Detroit: 54.4%

SCF: LAK (53.4%) vs. NJD (50.7%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2010-11:

Washington: 51.5%
New York Rangers: 49.3%
Philadelphia: 49.8%
Buffalo: 50.0%
Boston: 50.7%
Montréal: 50.6%
Pittsburgh: 52.9%
Tampa Bay: 51.1%
Vancouver: 52.5%
Chicago: 52.2%
San Jose: 54.3%
Los Angeles: 52.1%
Detroit: 53.5%
Phoenix: 49.1%
Anaheim: 44.8%
Nashville: 49.1%

SCF: VAN (52.5%) vs. BOS (50.7%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2009-10:

Washington: 52.8%
Montréal: 47.3%
New Jersey: 51.8%
Philadelphia: 51.4%
Buffalo: 50.1%
Boston: 52.6%
Pittsburgh: 52.1%
Ottawa: 50.4%
San Jose: 51.1%
Colorado: 45.2%
Chicago: 56.3%
Nashville: 52.0%
Vancouver: 52.0%
Los Angeles: 50.7%
Phoenix: 51.0%
Detroit: 54.7%

SCF: CHI (56.3%) vs. PHI (51.4%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2008-09:

Boston: 50.3%
Montréal: 48.7%
Washington: 53.7%
New York Rangers: 53.0%
New Jersey: 52.9%
Carolina: 52.0%
Pittsburgh: 48.1%
Philadelphia: 47.6%
San Jose: 54.9%
Anaheim: 50.3%
Detroit: 57.6%
Columbus: 50.6%
Vancouver: 49.9%
St. Louis: 48.1%
Chicago: 53.8%
Calgary: 54.0%

SCF: DET (57.6%) vs. PIT (48.1%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2007-08:

Montréal: 47.2%
Boston: 49.8%
Pittsburgh: 46.5%
Ottawa: 51.2%
Washington: 53.7%
Philadelphia: 47.6%
New Jersey: 52.5%
New York Rangers: 53.8%
Detroit: 59.2%
Nashville: 50.9%
San Jose: 53.4%
Calgary: 51.9%
Minnesota: 49.1%
Colorado: 48.3%
Anaheim: 50.7%
Dallas: 51.6%

SCF: DET (59.2%) vs. PIT (46.5%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2006-07:

Buffalo: 47.8%
New York Islanders: 48.2%
New Jersey: 51.4%
Tampa Bay: 51.2%
Atlanta: 46.8%
New York Rangers: 51.0%
Ottawa: 51.0%
Pittsburgh: 47.0%
Detroit: 57.9%
Calgary: 48.1%
Anaheim: 54.6%
Minnesota: 51.1%
Vancouver: 52.2%
Dallas: 52.4%
Nashville: 48.1%
San Jose: 51.6%

SCF: ANA (54.6%) vs. OTT (51.0%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2005-06:

Ottawa: 53.3%
Tampa Bay: 52.6%
Carolina: 49.8%
Montréal: 48.6%
New Jersey: 51.6%
New York Rangers: 50.1%
Buffalo: 49.1%
Philadelphia: 52.3%
Detroit: 56.3%
Edmonton: 52.2%
Dallas: 52.0%
Colorado: 48.4%
Calgary: 50.8%
Anaheim: 52.7%
Nashville: 47.0%
San Jose: 52.2%

SCF: EDM (52.2%) vs. CAR (49.8%) [Bolded team is the winner]




So out of the 18 teams that made the SCF, only 3 of them had a CF% below 50.0% and only 2 of them won (2005-06 CAR [WON], 2007-08 PIT and 2008-09 PIT [WON]).

It's odd that of the teams that made it to the SCF and had a CF% below 50.0% during the regular season, 2/3 were coached (fully and mostly) by Michel Therrien. Kinda nuts. Have no clue what this means, just putting this info out there. [Note: Therrien's Penguins in 2008-09 were in jeopardy of not making the playoffs and their CF% should have a * beside it. Once Bylsma was the Head Coach, their possession numbers turned around and hence there CF% does reflect how bad of a team they were under Therrien's tutledge vs. Bylsma's].

I would like to think that the odds that we make it to the SCF last year if Price was healthy would be pretty high. The odds of us winning though I believe are the exact opposite.

This season (up until this date), our CF% is 48.2%. So if you're going to pick us as a favourite to win the SC, the numbers are against you. Just putting that out there as well.

EDIT: The reason why I used CF% over the regular season is because CF% is a stat that holds meaning over the long run. It indicates how a team will perform over a stretch of games, whether that includes an 82-game sample or a 20+ game sample. CF% is a great tool in predicting (with a couple outliers) the performance of a team in the long run.


Anyways if you read this all the way through, you're amazing

 

[Andy]

Please be advised, this post is extremely long after the quote. It is however extremely informative.

About "the system", it's definitely flawed. It is too reliant on our greatest strength (Carey Price). It only works because our greatest strength is having arguably one of the greatest seasons a goaltender has had in the "modern" NHL.



Habs Icing said:



Well I want to see if teams with a 50+ Corsi% each season have been more likely to win the Stanley Cup.

The Corsi stats only go back to 2005-06, so let's use until that season as our sample.

2013-14:

Teams that made the playoffs and their Corsi% during the regular season:

Boston: 53.1%
Detroit: 50.9%
Tampa Bay: 49.7%
Montréal: 47.0%
Pittsburgh: 49.3%
Columbus: 50.3%
New York Rangers: 52.9%
Philadelphia: 50.8%
Colorado: 46.6%
Minnesota: 48.6%
Chicago: 54.9%
St. Louis: 52.7%
Anaheim: 50.2%
Dallas: 50.9%
San Jose: 54.5%
Los Angeles: 55.7%

SCF: LAK (55.7%) vs. NYR (52.9%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2012-13:

Pittsburgh: 49.5%
New York Islanders: 50.7%
Montréal: 53.0%
Ottawa: 53.2%
Washington: 48.0%
New York Rangers: 50.9%
Boston: 53.5%
Toronto: 45.0%
Chicago: 53.4%
Minnesota: 50.9%
Anaheim: 47.9%
Detroit: 53.9%
Vancouver: 51.9%
San Jose: 51.8%
St. Louis: 52.0%
Los Angeles: 55.6%

SCF: CHI (53.4%) vs. BOS (53.5%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2011-12:

New York Rangers: 48.2%
Ottawa: 51.6%
Boston: 53.4%
Washington: 48.0%
Florida: 50.1%
New Jersey: 50.7%
Pittsburgh: 55.2%
Philadelphia: 52.0%
Vancouver: 53.0%
Los Angeles: 53.4%
St. Louis: 53.0%
San Jose: 52.9%
Phoenix: 49.4%
Chicago: 52.6%
Nashville: 46.1%
Detroit: 54.4%

SCF: LAK (53.4%) vs. NJD (50.7%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2010-11:

Washington: 51.5%
New York Rangers: 49.3%
Philadelphia: 49.8%
Buffalo: 50.0%
Boston: 50.7%
Montréal: 50.6%
Pittsburgh: 52.9%
Tampa Bay: 51.1%
Vancouver: 52.5%
Chicago: 52.2%
San Jose: 54.3%
Los Angeles: 52.1%
Detroit: 53.5%
Phoenix: 49.1%
Anaheim: 44.8%
Nashville: 49.1%

SCF: VAN (52.5%) vs. BOS (50.7%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2009-10:

Washington: 52.8%
Montréal: 47.3%
New Jersey: 51.8%
Philadelphia: 51.4%
Buffalo: 50.1%
Boston: 52.6%
Pittsburgh: 52.1%
Ottawa: 50.4%
San Jose: 51.1%
Colorado: 45.2%
Chicago: 56.3%
Nashville: 52.0%
Vancouver: 52.0%
Los Angeles: 50.7%
Phoenix: 51.0%
Detroit: 54.7%

SCF: CHI (56.3%) vs. PHI (51.4%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2008-09:

Boston: 50.3%
Montréal: 48.7%
Washington: 53.7%
New York Rangers: 53.0%
New Jersey: 52.9%
Carolina: 52.0%
Pittsburgh: 48.1%
Philadelphia: 47.6%
San Jose: 54.9%
Anaheim: 50.3%
Detroit: 57.6%
Columbus: 50.6%
Vancouver: 49.9%
St. Louis: 48.1%
Chicago: 53.8%
Calgary: 54.0%

SCF: DET (57.6%) vs. PIT (48.1%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2007-08:

Montréal: 47.2%
Boston: 49.8%
Pittsburgh: 46.5%
Ottawa: 51.2%
Washington: 53.7%
Philadelphia: 47.6%
New Jersey: 52.5%
New York Rangers: 53.8%
Detroit: 59.2%
Nashville: 50.9%
San Jose: 53.4%
Calgary: 51.9%
Minnesota: 49.1%
Colorado: 48.3%
Anaheim: 50.7%
Dallas: 51.6%

SCF: DET (59.2%) vs. PIT (46.5%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2006-07:

Buffalo: 47.8%
New York Islanders: 48.2%
New Jersey: 51.4%
Tampa Bay: 51.2%
Atlanta: 46.8%
New York Rangers: 51.0%
Ottawa: 51.0%
Pittsburgh: 47.0%
Detroit: 57.9%
Calgary: 48.1%
Anaheim: 54.6%
Minnesota: 51.1%
Vancouver: 52.2%
Dallas: 52.4%
Nashville: 48.1%
San Jose: 51.6%

SCF: ANA (54.6%) vs. OTT (51.0%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2005-06:

Ottawa: 53.3%
Tampa Bay: 52.6%
Carolina: 49.8%
Montréal: 48.6%
New Jersey: 51.6%
New York Rangers: 50.1%
Buffalo: 49.1%
Philadelphia: 52.3%
Detroit: 56.3%
Edmonton: 52.2%
Dallas: 52.0%
Colorado: 48.4%
Calgary: 50.8%
Anaheim: 52.7%
Nashville: 47.0%
San Jose: 52.2%

SCF: EDM (52.2%) vs. CAR (49.8%) [Bolded team is the winner]




So out of the 18 teams that made the SCF, only 3 of them had a CF% below 50.0% and only 2 of them won (2005-06 CAR [WON], 2007-08 PIT and 2008-09 PIT [WON]).

It's odd that of the teams that made it to the SCF, 2/3 were coached (fully and mostly) by Michel Therrien. Kinda nuts. Have no clue what this means, just putting this info out there. I would like to think that the odds that we make it to the SCF last year if Price was healthy would be pretty high. The odds of us winning though I believe are the exact opposite.

This season (up until this date), our CF% is 48.2%. So if you're going to pick us as a favourite to win the SC, the numbers are against you. Just putting that out there as well.

Anyways if you read this all the way through, you're amazing

You should point out that the 2008-2009 Pens being under 50% had a lot to do with MT coaching them for most of the year. There were very few games for the Pens to get their possession numbers back up after the coaching change, but they were clearly trending upwards in that regard when Bylsma was hired. The change was almost instantaneous.

You should also note that MT only really coached one SCF team as the Pens were in danger of missing the playoffs while he was employed. Only after he was fired did the team recoup and make the SCF.

 

[Yep]

I realize it kind of comes out this way but man, the numbers are very one sided. It's almost crazy how one sided they are. We can't point to anything not involving goaltending from a statisitical standpoint that looks good for MT. The analytics are bad, the heat maps are bad, the goals and PP are bad...

If you want to dismiss the numbers altogether fine. If you want to appeal to the standings fine. But the numbers hold water with a lot of us. And quite frankly I'd say the eye test lines up with the numbers as well.

 

[Lshap]

Yes, it's better. But it's still not good. And really, how could it not improve with the likes of Cube/Murray being gone in favour of guys like Beau in the lineup?

You don't have to convince me on the roster either. I'm with you there. This is a good team.

The problem is that we're not playing anywhere near as well as we should be. And we're not playing anywhere near where a cup contender should be. So it's batten down the hatches and hope for Price... that's what it's been all year.

I'm focused on our D. As they go, so does our team. Yeah, Price can (and has) saved our butts even when our dmen have been meh, but when they're solid on the puck and apply heavy pressure on the opposition, Price's job becomes much easier.

Markov is our canary in the coalmine. He's usually the first guy to slow down, lose his man, or lose the puck along the boards. Once he gets tired, Subban loses his backup and overcompensates and our PP loses any signs of life. A rested Markov is awesome; a gassed Markov is an open man around Price and a puck going into our net. IMO he really needs to be paced the next month.

 

[Capitaine Subban*]

Yes, it's better. But it's still not good. And really, how could it not improve with the likes of Cube/Murray being gone in favour of guys like Beau in the lineup?

You don't have to convince me on the roster either. I'm with you there. This is a good team.

The problem is that we're not playing anywhere near as well as we should be. And we're not playing anywhere near where a cup contender should be. So it's batten down the hatches and hope for Price... that's what it's been all year.

except Price our roster is average

Donatello

 

[dmanfish90]

You should point out that the 2008-2009 Pens being under 50% had a lot to do with MT coaching them for most of the year. There were very few games for the Pens to get their possession numbers back up after the coaching change, but they were clearly trending upwards in that regard when Bylsma was hired. The change was almost instantaneous.

You should also note that MT only really coached one SCF team as the Pens were in danger of missing the playoffs while he was employed. Only after he was fired did the team recoup and make the SCF.

Yeah I should've pointed that out. I know this myself because I've read things like that on this board. So thank you Andy! Will add that to my post.

 

[Andy]

Yeah I should've pointed that out. I know this myself because I've read things like that on this board. So thank you Andy! Will add that to my post.

No problem, excellent work btw.

That being said, you could have made reference to this chart to help you out

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Please be advised, this post is extremely long after the quote. It is however extremely informative.

About "the system", it's definitely flawed. It is too reliant on our greatest strength (Carey Price). It only works because our greatest strength is having arguably one of the greatest seasons a goaltender has had in the "modern" NHL.



Habs Icing said:



Well I want to see if teams with a 50+ Corsi% each season have been more likely to win the Stanley Cup.

The Corsi stats only go back to 2005-06, so let's use until that season as our sample.

2013-14:

Teams that made the playoffs and their Corsi% during the regular season:

Boston: 53.1%
Detroit: 50.9%
Tampa Bay: 49.7%
Montréal: 47.0%
Pittsburgh: 49.3%
Columbus: 50.3%
New York Rangers: 52.9%
Philadelphia: 50.8%
Colorado: 46.6%
Minnesota: 48.6%
Chicago: 54.9%
St. Louis: 52.7%
Anaheim: 50.2%
Dallas: 50.9%
San Jose: 54.5%
Los Angeles: 55.7%

SCF: LAK (55.7%) vs. NYR (52.9%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2012-13:

Pittsburgh: 49.5%
New York Islanders: 50.7%
Montréal: 53.0%
Ottawa: 53.2%
Washington: 48.0%
New York Rangers: 50.9%
Boston: 53.5%
Toronto: 45.0%
Chicago: 53.4%
Minnesota: 50.9%
Anaheim: 47.9%
Detroit: 53.9%
Vancouver: 51.9%
San Jose: 51.8%
St. Louis: 52.0%
Los Angeles: 55.6%

SCF: CHI (53.4%) vs. BOS (53.5%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2011-12:

New York Rangers: 48.2%
Ottawa: 51.6%
Boston: 53.4%
Washington: 48.0%
Florida: 50.1%
New Jersey: 50.7%
Pittsburgh: 55.2%
Philadelphia: 52.0%
Vancouver: 53.0%
Los Angeles: 53.4%
St. Louis: 53.0%
San Jose: 52.9%
Phoenix: 49.4%
Chicago: 52.6%
Nashville: 46.1%
Detroit: 54.4%

SCF: LAK (53.4%) vs. NJD (50.7%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2010-11:

Washington: 51.5%
New York Rangers: 49.3%
Philadelphia: 49.8%
Buffalo: 50.0%
Boston: 50.7%
Montréal: 50.6%
Pittsburgh: 52.9%
Tampa Bay: 51.1%
Vancouver: 52.5%
Chicago: 52.2%
San Jose: 54.3%
Los Angeles: 52.1%
Detroit: 53.5%
Phoenix: 49.1%
Anaheim: 44.8%
Nashville: 49.1%

SCF: VAN (52.5%) vs. BOS (50.7%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2009-10:

Washington: 52.8%
Montréal: 47.3%
New Jersey: 51.8%
Philadelphia: 51.4%
Buffalo: 50.1%
Boston: 52.6%
Pittsburgh: 52.1%
Ottawa: 50.4%
San Jose: 51.1%
Colorado: 45.2%
Chicago: 56.3%
Nashville: 52.0%
Vancouver: 52.0%
Los Angeles: 50.7%
Phoenix: 51.0%
Detroit: 54.7%

SCF: CHI (56.3%) vs. PHI (51.4%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2008-09:

Boston: 50.3%
Montréal: 48.7%
Washington: 53.7%
New York Rangers: 53.0%
New Jersey: 52.9%
Carolina: 52.0%
Pittsburgh: 48.1%
Philadelphia: 47.6%
San Jose: 54.9%
Anaheim: 50.3%
Detroit: 57.6%
Columbus: 50.6%
Vancouver: 49.9%
St. Louis: 48.1%
Chicago: 53.8%
Calgary: 54.0%

SCF: DET (57.6%) vs. PIT (48.1%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2007-08:

Montréal: 47.2%
Boston: 49.8%
Pittsburgh: 46.5%
Ottawa: 51.2%
Washington: 53.7%
Philadelphia: 47.6%
New Jersey: 52.5%
New York Rangers: 53.8%
Detroit: 59.2%
Nashville: 50.9%
San Jose: 53.4%
Calgary: 51.9%
Minnesota: 49.1%
Colorado: 48.3%
Anaheim: 50.7%
Dallas: 51.6%

SCF: DET (59.2%) vs. PIT (46.5%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2006-07:

Buffalo: 47.8%
New York Islanders: 48.2%
New Jersey: 51.4%
Tampa Bay: 51.2%
Atlanta: 46.8%
New York Rangers: 51.0%
Ottawa: 51.0%
Pittsburgh: 47.0%
Detroit: 57.9%
Calgary: 48.1%
Anaheim: 54.6%
Minnesota: 51.1%
Vancouver: 52.2%
Dallas: 52.4%
Nashville: 48.1%
San Jose: 51.6%

SCF: ANA (54.6%) vs. OTT (51.0%) [Bolded team is the winner]

2005-06:

Ottawa: 53.3%
Tampa Bay: 52.6%
Carolina: 49.8%
Montréal: 48.6%
New Jersey: 51.6%
New York Rangers: 50.1%
Buffalo: 49.1%
Philadelphia: 52.3%
Detroit: 56.3%
Edmonton: 52.2%
Dallas: 52.0%
Colorado: 48.4%
Calgary: 50.8%
Anaheim: 52.7%
Nashville: 47.0%
San Jose: 52.2%

SCF: EDM (52.2%) vs. CAR (49.8%) [Bolded team is the winner]




So out of the 18 teams that made the SCF, only 3 of them had a CF% below 50.0% and only 2 of them won (2005-06 CAR [WON], 2007-08 PIT and 2008-09 PIT [WON]).

It's odd that of the teams that made it to the SCF, 2/3 were coached (fully and mostly) by Michel Therrien. Kinda nuts. Have no clue what this means, just putting this info out there. I would like to think that the odds that we make it to the SCF last year if Price was healthy would be pretty high. The odds of us winning though I believe are the exact opposite.

This season (up until this date), our CF% is 48.2%. So if you're going to pick us as a favourite to win the SC, the numbers are against you. Just putting that out there as well.

Anyways if you read this all the way through, you're amazing

Good post.

I think if the Habs do end up winning the cup, the team they would resemble the most out of all the finalists would be the Hurricanes circa 2006. Although goaltending wasn't a strong point for the Hurricanes that season, Cam Ward become an animal in the playoffs. Of course, those Hurricanes also had zero issues putting the puck in the net, as they finished second in the East in that regard and third overall. Which goes to show that having "below average" possession stats aren't the end of the world, so long as you are efficient at creating actual scoring chances and finishing those chances.

So I guess what I'm saying is that this Habs outfit has two clear paths when it comes to this year's playoffs: it's gonna be forever, or it's gonna go down in flames. In other words, if they don't make the final, I get the feeling they will be beaten quite handily in a series.

 

[Lshap]

I'd really like somebody to answer that. People that find Therrien bad have made all kind of arguments against him and yet the same people are saying again and again, essentially, "You're wrong because of the record''. Ok, I may be exagerating a bit but it's something along those lines most of the time.

So, outside of bringing a good attitude in the locker amongst the players (which is great, but not enough), what has Therrien done? If the system isn't bad like you Therrien apologists say to everybody that dares critizing it, why is it good then? What strategies are good? If he's good like you're saying it is, you shouldn't have any problem answering that question with logical arguments.

I'd honestly appreciate if somebody could explain that to me, I really want to know why some people say he's a good coach. Seriously.

The problem is in deciding which numbers are attributable to which person. There's no real debate over the stats themselves -- our shot-metrics are bad, our record is good; our scoring is low, our goaltending is sky high; good possession when behind, awful possession when ahead, etc. -- but how much of each stat can be directly attached to Therrien versus the players? Games/periods/plays can't be neatly divided into "Performance" or "System", so we extrapolate from what we've seen and make educated guesses on what caused what. Was it Therrien's system that handicapped the players, or was it poor execution that handicapped the system?

That's the grey area that keeps this debate going... and going. None of us are stupid, we all understand what the numbers tell us. But the numbers don't tell us why they happened in the first place.

 

[Lshap]

No problem, excellent work btw.

That being said, you could have made reference to this chart to help you out

Might be wrong, but at first glance that doesn't look like this season.

 

[Kriss E]

I'm focused on our D. As they go, so does our team. Yeah, Price can (and has) saved our butts even when our dmen have been meh, but when they're solid on the puck and apply heavy pressure on the opposition, Price's job becomes much easier.

Markov is our canary in the coalmine. He's usually the first guy to slow down, lose his man, or lose the puck along the boards. Once he gets tired, Subban loses his backup and overcompensates and our PP loses any signs of life. A rested Markov is awesome; a gassed Markov is an open man around Price and a puck going into our net. IMO he really needs to be paced the next month.

I find most of our defensive woes come from poor positioned forwards, not the actual Dmen.

 

[Andy]

Might be wrong, but at first glance that doesn't look like this season.

It's pretty accurate actually. Habs and Flames are the only teams below 50% in possession to be in PO spot.

While 5 out of 19 teams above 50% are in not in a playoff spot.

Considering only 16 teams make it, some +50% are bound to miss it, but your odds improve incredibly if you are over 50%.

Right now, 14 of the 16 playoff spots are occupied by teams who possess the puck more than 50% of the team. The chart above tells a similar story.

 

[Lshap]

I find most of our defensive woes come from poor positioned forwards, not the actual Dmen.

You've mentioned this and I've noticed the same thing at times -- forwards too far out expecting those frikkin stretch passes -- but that's a small part of a bigger issue, IMO. I've mentioned this before too: We often have trouble getting the puck to begin with, and then controlling it. The book on the Habs defence is to pressure them hard, because they don't punish the opposition. We get hemmed in because guys like Markov, Gilbert, Gonchar, even Beaulieu, rely on fast stickwork rather than imposing their bodies to recover the puck. We lose a large percentage of puck battles in our zone, or it takes a lot of time and energy to get it back.

Meanwhile, our forwards are usually there, backchecking to help out. But by the time our skaters have collectively gained possession and made it out of our zone, our forwards are exhausted and forced to dump it in. They spend most of their shift helping our D and have nothing left for a rush. I know brute force isn't the simple answer here, but it is part of the answer. We're seeing how much faster/better our transitions can be with Petry and even Pateryn, two guys who can outmuscle the opposition and make a solid first pass without a 10-minute wrestling match in the corner. What a difference if they settle in! With Emelin, that gives us what I think we need most -- talented PMDs with some beef to clear space for them to maneuver.