I Think I Figured Out Marc Bergevin's Strategy...

[gunnerdom]

In a way baseball is less of an individual sport than hockey. You can build a hockey team around a single player who can carry the team. In baseball no one player can carry his team in the same way.

What makes baseball good for statistical analysis is repetition. Every at bat is basically the same situation, so you can quite easily compare two players since they face the exact same situation. That's at odds with hockey in which a player's stats are massively effected by his team/role so it's much harder to draw comparisons.

Moneyball is actually different things put together. Yes it's based on using statistical analysis to evaluate players, but the genius of it was in redefining what you need to to win the game. It was recognizing that on-base percentage contributed much more to winning games then fielding ability. That insight is what lead to being able to find and then acquire under valued assets.

I have to disagree because baseball requires no chemistry. Hockey requires actual teamwork, players rely on other players. Baseball, they do not really. You can have a bunch of individuals that do not even get along at all and still be good. Because there is minimal interaction between players except for throwing the ball to each other. In baseball you don't need a mix of different kinds of players to succeed.

 

[DAChampion]

The fact that hockey is a team sport makes the statistics more intellectually challenging but it does not make them meaningless.

There are a lot of correlated variables in nature, scientists and statisticians have written books on how to deal with them.

 

[Sorinth]

I don't agree that a hockey team can be built around a single player, with the possible exception of late 1990s Dominik Hasek.

1 player and a bunch of crap players no, but 1 top player and a bunch of average players absolutely. Just look at us finishing 1st in the East in 07-08, we were basically the same team we had been for the previous 5 years (A playoff bubble team) the only thing that changed was Kovy went from a good to a great player, and suddenly we are a top team.

In hockey an elite player has a greater impact on the game than baseball. Take the best hockey player (Crosby) put him on the worst team and you probably have a team fighting for the playoffs. Do the same in baseball and that team would win a few more games but not much more, and they'd still be in the basement. The reason is in hockey there is a much bigger ripple effect caused by the top player. Not only does he make the 4 other skaters on the ice with him better, all the other players benefit indirectly from getting easier matchups and get less focus.

I have to disagree because baseball requires no chemistry. Hockey requires actual teamwork, players rely on other players. Baseball, they do not really. You can have a bunch of individuals that do not even get along at all and still be good. Because there is minimal interaction between players except for throwing the ball to each other. In baseball you don't need a mix of different kinds of players to succeed.

I'm not sure you even follow baseball with a comment like that. Camaraderie, team spirit, etc... have just as big an impact on baseball as it does hockey. There are plenty of successful hockey teams where not every player was buddy buddy with all his teammates.

 

[MathMan]

Just look at us finishing 1st in the East in 07-08, we were basically the same team we had been for the previous 5 years (A playoff bubble team) the only thing that changed was Kovy went from a good to a great player, and suddenly we are a top team.

They were a bad team with good goaltending that got lucky on the PP one year.

 

[Sorinth]

They were a bad team with good goaltending that got lucky on the PP one year.

They had always been an average team that relied on goaltending and the PP. The difference was 1 player playing at an Elite level. Kovalev's play that season was a huge reason why they "got lucky" on the PP. That led to great seasons from Markov, Streit, Plekanec, Kositsyn. And even guys like Koivu and Higgins had some very strong seasons because the opposition focus was on Kovalev.

If you don't like the Habs example, let's look at what happened when Sutter left Nashville, last season. Nashville went from a fairly consistent 100pt team to the basement and Minny went from a bottom 10 team to a playoff team.

One elite player has a huge impact.

 

[DAChampion]

They had always been an average team that relied on goaltending and the PP. The difference was 1 player playing at an Elite level. Kovalev's play that season was a huge reason why they "got lucky" on the PP. That led to great seasons from Markov, Streit, Plekanec, Kositsyn. And even guys like Koivu and Higgins had some very strong seasons because the opposition focus was on Kovalev.

If you don't like the Habs example, let's look at what happened when Sutter left Nashville, last season. Nashville went from a fairly consistent 100pt team to the basement and Minny went from a bottom 10 team to a playoff team.

One elite player has a huge impact.

Kovalev was the 11th best forward in the league that year so he doesn't explain the Habs being 1st in the east.

 

[TheGoalJudge]

Bergevin's strategy is to not make any crippling free agent signings or trades (ala Gomez long-term big money). He doesn't want to trade draft picks either. He's basically set on re-signing our current players and hoping we find great players through the draft while maintaining cap flexibility in case a star on a valuable contract pops up in the market (trade or free agency).

 

[Sorinth]

Kovalev was the 11th best forward in the league that year so he doesn't explain the Habs being 1st in the east.

Well there's more to the game then points, if I remember there was even some Hart consideration for him that year, I think he ended up 5th or something in voting.

But in any case I'm not arguing that all a teams success is dependent on one player. But the impact one player can have in hockey is much greater than the impact a single player can have in baseball.

 

[Teufelsdreck]

No, it's the opposite. If he used advanced stats, Parros, Murray and Briere would never have been signed, and Diaz would still be on our team. He also would have never hired Therrien.

Nor would he have traded for Vanek.

 

[Mr Jackpot]

I guess in some senses the pre Bergevin Habs have employed a bit of a moneypuck style strategy with regards to the whole smurf thing but I wouldn't really say it was an organizational strategy or anything.

Players like Gallagher, Diaz, and Desharnais are providing value at the NHL level and we got them either for free or late in the draft because they're small or "soft". Gionta was signed to an entirely reasonable contract since he's small, look at the deal Nathan Horton signed this summer, his career production is very similar to pre Habs Gionta but he got more money and 2 more years. Cammalleri's contract was also pretty reasonable since he's small, 27 year old guys coming off a 39 goal year usually don't get signed to 5 year deals at reasonable cap hits.

So far Bergevin has been the polar opposite. The more efficient signing in the summer would have been to either retain Ryder, go after a guy like MacArthur, or find a guy like Raymond who had fallen out of favour and sign him cheap, not go after a name like Briere and give him money after a steep decline.

Diaz is the kind of player a GM exploiting market inefficiencies would hang onto, and Emelin is the type they would let go. Emelin's value is inflated because he's physical and Diaz's value is less because he's perceived as soft. The efficient move would be to retain Diaz and not hand out big money and term to Emelin. Then there's the dead horse that is Murray, he's the polar opposite of a GM exploiting market inefficiencies when a guy like Tom Gilbert or Ron Hainsey was still available. The only reason Murray is in the NHL is because the market is inefficient for big guys who hit.

It's not about taking guys who nobody wants because they're past their prime (Murray, Parros, Briere), it's about acquiring good players who are undervalued because they're soft/small/Russian/lazy (Gallagher, Diaz, Kovalev, Ryder).

I can't believe what I just read...

Anyway, just for fun, all the players in bold are either retired or out of the playoffs.

 

[Mike8]

I can't believe what I just read...

Anyway, just for fun, all the players in bold are either retired or out of the playoffs.

Which, of course, isn't all that relevant.

 

[Mr Jackpot]

Bergevin's strategy is to not make any crippling free agent signings or trades (ala Gomez long-term big money). He doesn't want to trade draft picks either. He's basically set on re-signing our current players and hoping we find great players through the draft while maintaining cap flexibility in case a star on a valuable contract pops up in the market (trade or free agency).

This is pretty much it, Bergevin's strategy from day one is to build a contender for years to come, it has nothing to do with Brière, Parros, Murray or some other players mentionned like Gilbert, Ryder, MacCarthur, etc... all these players are not part of the big picture, they are just there to add depth to the current team.

All the players acquired by Bergevin fill a specific need, just listen to all his press conference, it's all explained there.

 

[Mr Jackpot]

Which, of course, isn't all that relevant.

I know, that's why I said just for fun, it's just a lucky coincidence that all the players mentionned are playing golf at the moment.

 

[Mike8]

All the players acquired by Bergevin fill a specific need, just listen to all his press conference, it's all explained there.

Right. But every manager thinks they're filling a need when they make an acquisition. The issue is whether that manager has identified the right players for the right needs. I'd argue that Bergevin's track record is spotty. And people in this thread have argued that other players, some of which you've bolded, would have been better choices for Montreal's particular needs. I don't think they'd be wrong on some of those names, either.

 

[Mr Jackpot]

And people in this thread have argued that other players, some of which you've bolded, would have been better choices for Montreal's particular needs. I don't think they'd be wrong on some of those names, either.

Let's pick Murray and Parros, we had a need for toughness, intimidation and to become a more respected team. I heard Murray on 24CH treathened to cut the head of Kucherov if he takes another rebound after the penalty shot. Parros is a heavyweight enforcer that we needed to get some respect. All the other players mentionned in this thread don't fill that need for toughness and respect.

We also needed depth on offense, on my part, I think Brière was a very good addition to fill this need.

Now if people argue with those needs, we have another discussion.

 

[Habs]

Where would this team be without Price?

 

[Mr Jackpot]

Where would this team be without Price?

That doesn't really matter because we're not a contender yet, we're part of the middle pack. Some of those teams will have one or 2 players that will make a big difference and bring their team to the playoffs, which is the case for Tampa and Montreal.

 

[Ghetto Sangria]

Where would this team be without Price?

Where would the 94 team be without Roy? Where would the 2011 Bruins be without Thomas? Probably out of the first round against the habs.

Where would Chicago be without Toews? Do you get it now?

 

[hockeyfan2k11]

Where would the 94 team be without Roy? Where would the 2011 Bruins be without Thomas? Probably out of the first round against the habs.

Where would Chicago be without Toews? Do you get it now?

Not really. Habs would be a lottery team without Price. Those other teams may have bee worse, but not remarkably worse.

I also have o idea what 94 team you're talking about. You mean the 93 team

 

[BaseballCoach]

Still holding out hope that MB will be a good GM. His next few moves will tell the tale.

Do Weise, Weaver and Vanek count?

 

[HCH]

Maybe if by MoneyPuck you mean "doing the opposite". He's about as old-school, anti-analytical as you can get.

Here's an interesting excerpt about Dudley, Bergevin's right-hand man: http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2010/04/15/atlantas-new-g-m-rick-dudley-book-excerpt/

Bergevin's attitudes seem to line up with Dudley's; I wouldn't be utterly shocked if you told me that Dudley was really driving the team through the inexperienced Bergevin, but in any case the result is the same. Bergevin does pretty much exactly what the analytics would tell him not to do, with the unfortunate results we've gotten.

Wrong... AGAIN

 

[BaseballCoach]

Maybe if by MoneyPuck you mean "doing the opposite". He's about as old-school, anti-analytical as you can get.

Here's an interesting excerpt about Dudley, Bergevin's right-hand man: http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2010/04/15/atlantas-new-g-m-rick-dudley-book-excerpt/

Bergevin's attitudes seem to line up with Dudley's; I wouldn't be utterly shocked if you told me that Dudley was really driving the team through the inexperienced Bergevin, but in any case the result is the same. Bergevin does pretty much exactly what the analytics would tell him not to do, with the unfortunate results we've gotten.

What a difference six weeks makes.

What "unfortunate results"? The team finished in the top third of the NHL for the second year in a row, after being the third worst team in 2011-12, before MB took over.

 

[VirginiaMtlExpat]

In hockey, market inefficiencies (players who are undervalued) would be:

- smaller, less physical players
- players coming off of "bad" seasons because they were victimized by shooting/save percentages
- two-way players (less so than it used to be) and otherwise strong possession players
- no-name goaltenders

A Moneypuck strategy would tend to target those players, over the qualities overvalued by other GMs (size, hitting, shot blocking, grit, character, etc.)

That's about the reverse of what Bergevin is doing.

If hockey were not a contact sport, and one where intimidation can affect the final result (think back when the Bruins shut down the Canucks for their last SC), your list would be complete. But hockey is in fact a contact sport with a significant amount of intimidation, so we also end up with a couple of relatively unloved, flawed players who combine brawn with lackluster skating, but who are nonetheless needed and have some usefulness when facing teams built on brawn and intimidation.

Edit: Beyond that, there are often temporary situations where players fall out of favor with a coach for perfectly invalid reasons, such as Weise, who are worth snapping up for qualities unseen by their previous teams (speed, toughness). That too amounts to buying low.

 

[zx81]

Not really. Habs would be a lottery team without Price. Those other teams may have bee worse, but not remarkably worse.

oh please. Without Price we would have another number 1 goalie, not Budaj...who still managed to get a winning record.

 

[Habs]

Where would the 94 team be without Roy? Where would the 2011 Bruins be without Thomas? Probably out of the first round against the habs.

Where would Chicago be without Toews? Do you get it now?

No, I don't think you get it.