State of the Habs General Discussion

[Sorinth]

I expect we roll the top 3 lines pretty much evenly and then give 10min to the 4th line.

The major difference will be special teams
In terms of percentage I expect something like
Drouin: 65% PP, 0% PK
Danault: 25% PP, 25% PK
Plekanec: 10% PP, 50% PK
De La Rose: 0% PP, 25% PK

That said I also expect us to be on the wrong side of the penalty +/- and end up on the PK much more then the PP so it's quite possibly Plekanec ends up with the most total ice time.

 

[Belial]

Please share what CF% you have for both players then or are you now arbitrarily deciding what advanced stats are meaningful depending on your stance?

And yes i'm well aware of what relative Corsi means, it's not rocket science, relax

What does CF% even give you as information to begin with?

You told me GF% is pretty much useless and you want to make a point with CF%? Really? You have to be kidding me or something...

If you think GF% is not accurate then CF% is even less accurate my friend!

 

[OB5]

I expect we roll the top 3 lines pretty much evenly and then give 10min to the 4th line.

The major difference will be special teams
In terms of percentage I expect something like
Drouin: 65% PP, 0% PK
Danault: 25% PP, 25% PK
Plekanec: 10% PP, 50% PK
De La Rose: 0% PP, 25% PK

That said I also expect us to be on the wrong side of the penalty +/- and end up on the PK much more then the PP so it's quite possibly Plekanec ends up with the most total ice time.

This is going to be interesting because there's a history of the fans just going apeshit over defensive forwards geting more ice time than the stars without taking PK minutes into account. It's all about ES ice time folks.

 

[Sorinth]

There's no way Danault is playing on the wing! He's almost as good as Plekanec defensively and clearly still has some untapped offensive potential IMO while Plek is on the decline.

My guess for the centers next seasons is:

Peca, Drouin Plek and Danault in no particular order, too bad for DLR as I like that kid.

Danault's future might very well be on the wing.

Hypothetically if Drouin puts it together and becomes a top-6 center (Let's not get into this in this thread) and you have Kotkaniemi and Poehling also as top-6/9 centers then Danault is the logical choice to move to wing.

Even if Drouin doesn't become a long term C, Danault might still be moved to wing as he would still need fight it out for 3rd line C with Peca, McCarron, De La Rose, Vejdemo, Olafsson, etc...

And looking Danault's game I don't see anything that screams center.

 

[417]

What does CF% even give you as information to begin with?

You told me GF% is pretty much useless and you want to make a point with CF%? Really? You have to be kidding me or something...

If you think GF% is not accurate then CF% is even less accurate my friend!

They're all useless...i'm just trying to show you how disingenuous your arguments are.

You shift and shape your arguments based on whatever narrative you want to promote at the time.

You want to believe the coach is justified in using a 6 goal player 16 mins a game because of GF% (using this logic, Nicolas Deslauriers should be our #1LW), go ahead.

I'm done wasting my time arguing against such an untenable position.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

That site you're using is not really precise from what I've been able to generate on my own...

Wouldn't put too much emphasis on numbers taken from there, to be honest.

But we should put emphasis on your numbers instead?

what a riot

 

[Belial]

They're all useless...i'm just trying to show you how disingenuous your arguments are.

You shift and shape your arguments based on whatever narrative you want to promote at the time.

You want to believe the coach is justified in using a 6 goal player 16 mins a game because of GF% (using this logic, Nicolas Deslauriers should be our #1LW), go ahead.

I'm done wasting my time arguing against such an untenable position.

Again, I'm not some mega geek that's only basing his whole opinions on stats 100% of the time but those stats can sometimes reinforce and sometimes weaken a preconceived opinion based on the eye test.

 

[Belial]

Danault's future might very well be on the wing.

Hypothetically if Drouin puts it together and becomes a top-6 center (Let's not get into this in this thread) and you have Kotkaniemi and Poehling also as top-6/9 centers then Danault is the logical choice to move to wing.

Even if Drouin doesn't become a long term C, Danault might still be moved to wing as he would still need fight it out for 3rd line C with Peca, McCarron, De La Rose, Vejdemo, Olafsson, etc...

And looking Danault's game I don't see anything that screams center.

He could be on the 4th line if everything goes as well as you predict, and then there're trades that can be made for other needs...

 

[OB5]

He could be on the 4th line if everything goes as well as you predict, and then there're trades that can be made for other needs...

I just see him as the perfect 3C...he's got the size and speed and is good in all 3 zones on both sides of the puck. I'd love it if Kotkaniemi was 1, Poehling was 2 and Danault was 3.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

I'm not pulling those numbers out of my ass!

I'm actually putting some effort in all this statistic **** mind you...

While comparing different sources of information I noticed that guy has often erroneous numbers and I shared that info with you guys.

Listen man, that's not even the point. No one will give weight to the numbers you bring simply because people don't expect you to be precise and understand the subtleties of any complicated stats as you have shown to have a really bad grasp on context and underlying factors. You're oblivious to them because of your bias. You have one of the biggest bias here, so people don't expect any better from the numbers you bring.

You created this.

 

[Laurentide]

Again, I'm not some mega geek that's only basing his whole opinions on stats 100% of the time but those stats can sometimes reinforce and sometimes weaken a preconceived opinion based on the eye test.

Either you're a fancy stats guy or an old school eye test guy. You can't be both at the same time. You can't choose to elevate one player using certain stats that buttress your argument while simultaneously using unrelated stats or the eye test to diminish another player and then pretend that your comparison between the two is fair. It's cherry picking of the worst sort. And to then go several steps further and argue that stats compiled on a website which contradict what you "know" to be true must be unreliable simply because you disagree with them is downright Trumpian.

You're entitled to your own opinions but you're not entitled to your own facts. And if you're going to make comparisons between two players you need to apply the same standards of evaluation to both and live with the results, even if those results teach you something that you didn't know before, like how you were wrong about something.

 

[Belial]

Listen man, that's not even the point. No one will give weight to the numbers you bring simply because people don't expect you to be precise and understand the subtleties of any complicated stats as you have shown to have a really bad grasp on context and underlying factors. You're oblivious to them because of your bias. You have one of the biggest bias here, so people don't expect any better from the numbers you bring.

You created this.

Amazing!

Can you bring up some examples, you seem to be so sure of yourself...

Shouldn't be that hard to bury me into the ground as it seems that I bullshit 24/7 around here.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Amazing!

Can you bring up some examples, you seem to be so sure of yourself...

Shouldn't be hard to bury me into the ground as it seems that I bull**** 24/7 around here.

Laurentide just echoed the same overall sentiments.

This is an opinion that is shared among most regular users here. There's no bigger bias than yours. You created this with your way of dealing with arguments that contradict your untainable positions. It is just a natural reaction for people to mistrust anything you bring up. And I never said you BSed. There's a difference. What you do is you argue in a dishonest fashion, you ommit and ignore what doesn't fit your bias. You create strawmen left and right to compensate for not having a good position to hold on to.

You'd have to be in total belial to not see the myriads of similar reactions to your posts, position and arguments.

 

[Belial]

Either you're a fancy stats guy or an old school eye test guy. You can't be both at the same time. You can't choose to elevate one player using certain stats that buttress your argument while simultaneously using unrelated stats or the eye test to diminish another player and then pretend that your comparison between the two is fair. It's cherry picking of the worst sort. And to then go several steps further and argue that stats compiled on a website which contradict what you "know" to be true must be unreliable simply because you disagree with them is downright Trumpian.

You're entitled to your own opinions but you're not entitled to your own facts. And if you're going to make comparisons between two players you need to apply the same standards of evaluation to both and live with the results, even if those results teach you something that you didn't know before, like how you were wrong about something.

Again! FFS!

Can you show us some examples of what you're talking about?

Examples of me twisting numbers to try and create some fake narrative?

Numbers are numbers!

 

[417]

Again! FFS!

Can you show us some examples of what you're talking about?

Examples of me twisting numbers to try and create some fake narrative?

Numbers are numbers!

Using GF% to support the argument that Plekanec is not a black hole offensively and worse, you use it to support his usage.

 

[Belial]

Using GF% to support the argument that Plekanec is not a black hole offensively and worse, you use it to support his usage.

I'm not twisting f*** all! I'm giving you numbers and interpret it in my fashion!

You seem to think those numbers mean shit but where exactly I'm twisting anything?

 

[Runner77]

I'd say on opening night it looks like this:

Drouin
Danault
Peca
Plekanec

 

[Sorinth]

He could be on the 4th line if everything goes as well as you predict, and then there're trades that can be made for other needs...

It's pointless to use him as a 4th line center, it's a complete wast of his talent and cap space for the team. It makes way more sense to put him on wing somewhere in the top-9.

Really what's the downside of him being on wing?

 

[Belial]

It's pointless to use him as a 4th line center, it's a complete wast of his talent and cap space for the team. It makes way more sense to put him on wing somewhere in the top-9.

Really what's the downside of him being on wing?

He's a good center?

But then again, I have no problem moving him to the wing if we have even better centers.

 

[BLONG7]

Exactly. Any GM who fails to bring the Cup to Montreal will be lumped in with all the other failures of the past quarter century. In the end, it isn't really about Bergevin himself because he only differs from his recent predecessors in style. The results are no better or worse than theirs were. We're essentially arguing over degrees of failure. Does it really matter whether Bergy is a bigger failure at his job than Gauthier or Gainey were? The only salient fact is that they are all failures.

Bergy inherited a much better team, than Gainey and Gauthier did................as you say though each of them did fail, but Bergy is Houle bad and that's bad folks.

 

[habsfan909]

It's pointless to use him as a 4th line center, it's a complete wast of his talent and cap space for the team. It makes way more sense to put him on wing somewhere in the top-9.

Really what's the downside of him being on wing?

Danault will be traded as a center if our young guys work out. I don't think he'll become a winger. This, of course, is all my opinion and is what I would to. We don't need any more B-level wingers and trading Danault as a C (with a nice contract) has more value than playing him on the wing.

 

[Runner77]

Danault will be traded as a center if our young guys work out. I don't think he'll become a winger. This, of course, is all my opinion and is what I would to. We don't need any more B-level wingers and trading Danault as a C (with a nice contract) has more value than playing him on the wing.

Reggie Tremblay will have to rubber stamp his trade first.

 

[habsfan909]

Reggie Tremblay will have to rubber stamp his trade first.

I'm assuming MB in his infinite wisdom will first move Danault to the wing, and then trade him as a winger once he's destroyed his value as a center.

 

[BLONG7]

I'm assuming MB in his infinite wisdom will first move Danault to the wing, and then trade him as a winger once he's destroyed his value as a center.

Danault is one of the few, who are safe....look at how bad DD was, and he was safe for four years...I lke Danault, and don't think they would make him a winger...he is a solid type of #3 C the big problem is there, we have 3-4 guys, who all fit the same bill, and no 1-2 centre types, yet...

 

[417]

Why is there talk about Philip Danault on the 4th line? lol