|
Post by seventeen on Jun 13, 2020 21:17:30 GMT -5
To build on this a bit. The Habs are a very good turnover and transition team. That often leads to higher shot totals. Too often from the perimeter or clear shots into the chest. We have all seen it. But you need sustained offensive possession to exploit second chances and to further breakdown defensive coverage these days. Those deadly cross ice pass situations that Valiquette talks about are really hard for the Habs to create if they do not do it on the first rush. You need snipers to convert on the pass and you need big bodies to maintain possession. Still some gaps in team architecture. Why do some of our most promising shifts come from the fourth line? Great cycling ability, but not the talent to convert enough from it. This was a great article. The “old school” would scoff at it and just talk about getting more home plate shots. The game has evolved. Full power to those teams that have mixed up their management and coaching staff accordingly. And then there is the concept of building your team around the mix of players you need to play the style you want to play. Also implies more than just yet another of Molson’s “reset”. To expand on it further yet, we may be too small up front. One of the top 3 goal situations is a fluke...a cross ice pass that hits someone and goes in. I believe it. I've seen that a lot and often yell out 'fluke!' But when it happens over and over again, it's less luck than simple probabilities. Do we get many of those types? I don't think so. Is that because we're easy to clear out? It's a fair question to which I don't have an answer without more research and game tapes. But this type of information is so revealing and so crucial. Are we taking advantage of it?
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Jun 13, 2020 22:37:24 GMT -5
Well, if only a "handful" of NHL teams have access to Valiquette's context-rich database (i.e. the clients are paying good coin to have access), then I have to imagine the thrifty President of the Canadiens and its old-school GM are not clients.
For me the exhausting and nuanced methodology that Valiequette undertakes is superior to that of naturalstattrick and other groups offering hockey analytics out there in the public domain.
The main take-away probably should not be that the Habs simply lack high end snipers, end of story. Of course, it is true the Habs lack high end snipers. If a stud like Matthews who can snap it off like no one's business is shooting 9 percent from the slot when the goalie is set and seeing the puck, then what do we imagine a guy with a muffin of wrister like Danault is banking? But the deeper problem is systemic and related to the roster architecture. Montreal is fast entering the attacking zone but lacks the skill, the size, and self-belief to forego the temptation to just throw something on net upon achieving a zone entry.
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Jun 13, 2020 23:58:35 GMT -5
The problem definitely is both architecture and systems. This is where we really miss Markov and how he created a lot of good percentage chances. His cross seam pass broke that Valiquette middle ice plane, got the goalie and defence moving, and moved the puck closer to the net for a shorter distance to beat the goalie. We have never replaced that. Now it is back to Weber and hope his cannon gets through. It is a good weapon, but not as high percentage as others. And it is so predictable. And teams and goalies get set up.
Julien almost certainly has the entire team set up that once that first chance and shot is missed, think about defending against an odd man rush. I do not have any data to support it, but my eye test says that the Habs don’t get nearly as many second and third chances as many opponents. And those are ones that often lead to more breakdowns and flukey deflections. Although they do have good 5-on-5 stats these days. Maybe Muller needs to pay for Valiquette’s analysis to fix those special teams.
The Habs do play a decent system, but it can evolve and get better. Not sure our old school head coach will get us there though. But he has won a Cup and that is gold in many circles. Our old boy network GM and POHO who is not a hockey man fall clearly within that circle.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 14, 2020 17:16:43 GMT -5
Yet another analytics model that only uses shots and not shot attempts ... until all attempts on net are counted , the data is skewed. How many times has that cross ice pass resulted in a shot that went wide? (I’d venture way more than someone on a breakaway missing the net ). But it is an failed high scoring chance that should count when determining the success percentage
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Jun 14, 2020 17:53:18 GMT -5
Skilly, agreed. My eyes tell me that high end players often attempt to make that cross ice pass that gets rifled wide and that big skilled guys impose possession down low on a shift that sometimes does not result in a shot on the net.
It think it still goes back to the way kids are coached when they are young, the coach repeats the mantra boys you can't score if you don't put shots on net. I'm not saying my eight year old's Mite coach is qualified to coach the Habs, but oddly enough I think a lot guys wearing the Habs sweater still think hey if we get a shot on net, don't get scored on, and don't take a penalty when we get back to the bench the coaches are going to be cool with that.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Jun 14, 2020 19:18:03 GMT -5
The problem definitely is both architecture and systems. This is where we really miss Markov and how he created a lot of good percentage chances. His cross seam pass broke that Valiquette middle ice plane, got the goalie and defence moving, and moved the puck closer to the net for a shorter distance to beat the goalie. We have never replaced that. Now it is back to Weber and hope his cannon gets through. It is a good weapon, but not as high percentage as others. And it is so predictable. And teams and goalies get set up. Julien almost certainly has the entire team set up that once that first chance and shot is missed, think about defending against an odd man rush. I do not have any data to support it, but my eye test says that the Habs don’t get nearly as many second and third chances as many opponents. And those are ones that often lead to more breakdowns and flukey deflections. Although they do have good 5-on-5 stats these days. Maybe Muller needs to pay for Valiquette’s analysis to fix those special teams. The Habs do play a decent system, but it can evolve and get better. Not sure our old school head coach will get us there though. But he has won a Cup and that is gold in many circles. Our old boy network GM and POHO who is not a hockey man fall clearly within that circle. Your eyes are not fooling you, NW. Andrew Berkshire said one of the main ways to explain how a team that takes so many shots, many poor ones from the perimeter yet also plenty from the "home plate" area, while underperforming in terms of goals scored likely relates to being "one and done" far too often (i.e. not corralling pucks and getting second and third chances). He did not have data specifically related to how many second and third chances Montreal generated off an initial shot attempt and/or shot on net, but he instead used the variable "offensive zone possession time" as a surrogate that would perhaps explain to a good extent what is going on. What he found was interesting. Under Julien (2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20), Montreal has ranked 29th, 24th, and 25th respectively in offensive zone possession time. His interpretation is that the Habs basically get a shot on net and retreat back into the neutral zone. He theorizes that it may be an issue of being coached to do this but it is also very likely a roster architecture issue whereby there is too little high end skill and far too little size to try to develop the kind of plays (think back to Valiequette's analysis of what kind of chances are harder to deal with for NHL goalies) that are likeliest to lead to goals.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 14, 2020 20:06:18 GMT -5
Yet another analytics model that only uses shots and not shot attempts ... until all attempts on net are counted , the data is skewed. How many times has that cross ice pass resulted in a shot that went wide? (I’d venture way more than someone on a breakaway missing the net ). But it is an failed high scoring chance that should count when determining the success percentage Fair enough Skilly. One comment made by Valiquette is that he doesn’t mind anyone trying to compete with his service because it’s really hard to do so. I think compiling all that data is hugely time consuming. If you had to add in missed shots it might be even worse. That may be one reason missed shots are not included. Probably, the hope is that the probabilities wouldn’t change but that’s a hope not proof. What is there seems quite valuable to me.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 15, 2020 9:09:48 GMT -5
I've heard Valiquette speak before, and I was impressed with the detail and approach to analytics that he spoke of. He more or less re-affirmed what we always hear, that teams routinely make use of "advanced stats", but what each team considers to be an advanced stat often differs from what we the public think it is. And not just from a "it's only Corsi" kind of a way. That teams track a whole bunch of things that we don't normally see in any of the publicly available sites. Which I suppose is normal, given how relatively new advanced stats are.
Having said that, I didn't get much from this article. I mean, the best goal scoring chances are when you make a cross-ice pass to a guy who is wide-open down low at the side of the net, thus forcing the goalie to pivot, and either t-push, slide, or dive both backwards and to the side, before the opposing player can get off a shot into an open net from 7-10 feet away? I don't really need a whole lot of data to tell you that's going to be a good scoring chance. Any time you make a goalie move, the higher your goal scoring is going to be, right? And the faster he has to move, the better your chances are going to be. Not exactly rocket-science.
It's why defensemen are supposed to play the pass on a 2 on 1. It's why we talk about getting sticks into passing lanes, the "Royal Road", and all that. I also think that's why we don't see a lot of crease clearing going on anymore, especially on the penalty kill. Teams are happy to put more bodies in the way of a puck, and concentrate instead on cutting off those cross-ice passes which lead to better scoring chances. If you want to try and shoot through a 6'3, 215lbs forward, AND a 6'3, 215lbs goalie who has come out to cut down the angle, then go for it. Maybe you can pick a hole, but it's probably just as likely that you'll hit one of those bodies in front of the net. I'm all for taking away a goalie's eyes, but I think most teams realize that the BIGGER threat against is that aforementioned cross-ice pass.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 15, 2020 11:20:43 GMT -5
Whatever anyone thinks about advanced stats, we KNOW what Bergevin thinks about them, which is not much. He made that abundantly clear after the Subban trade when he let the analytics guy go.
And I don't mean to say that teams should be run by the metric geeks. The best GM's incorporate everything, have a good system to manage the flow of information, and are open to ideas that may go against their preconceived notions. That's my biggest issue with Bergevin. I just don't think he's bright enough and curious enough to really embrace the new school ideas. You can tell in the guys he surrounds himself with, which is basically a lot of ex players.
The NBA is ahead of the NHL right now. You look back 10 years and you had all the ex-player GMs like Isaiah Thomas, Kevin McHale, and others who basically sucked in part because the advanced stats were just starting to take off, new questions needed to be asked, and it was just too complicated for guys like that. Now it's guys like Daryl Morey and Sam Presti in NBA, Theo Epstein and Jeff Luhnow (bad example) in MLB, and probably Julien Brisebois in the NHL. Educated guys that came up from a management track and embracing new and innovative ideas about how to build a successful sports team.
I think Bergevin pays a passing nod to the analytics, just so he can say he doesn't ignore it, and then does what he wants to do anyway. It's just not a big priority for him. And whether it's because he didn't pay enough attention to that stuff or not, his record in Montreal is not impressive.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 15, 2020 11:51:30 GMT -5
Yet another analytics model that only uses shots and not shot attempts ... until all attempts on net are counted , the data is skewed. How many times has that cross ice pass resulted in a shot that went wide? (I’d venture way more than someone on a breakaway missing the net ). But it is an failed high scoring chance that should count when determining the success percentage Fair enough Skilly. One comment made by Valiquette is that he doesn’t mind anyone trying to compete with his service because it’s really hard to do so. I think compiling all that data is hugely time consuming. If you had to add in missed shots it might be even worse. That may be one reason missed shots are not included. Probably, the hope is that the probabilities wouldn’t change but that’s a hope not proof. What is there seems quite valuable to me. I'm not denying that it has value ...lots of value. What I am contending, and have contended each time you have posted similar analytics, is that you cannot say the breakaway isn't the highest scoring chance, without counting all the "high end missed shots". In a perfect world (and it would be absolutely impossible and even harder again) you'd even count all the times a cross ice pass to an open man was intercepted, deflected, etc … now that's getting down into the weeds, but from a statistical analysis necessary. (Just as you'd count all the breakaway where someone got chased down). You'll have a hard time convincing me that a breakaway at around 30% +-2% is not the highest rate of scoring event when you include all the missed chances. It's the equivalent of saying that the highest scoring chance is when you shoot on an empty net, because 100% of the shot on net go in. Well we KNOW 100% of the attempts do not go in, not even close
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 15, 2020 13:30:35 GMT -5
Fair enough Skilly. One comment made by Valiquette is that he doesn’t mind anyone trying to compete with his service because it’s really hard to do so. I think compiling all that data is hugely time consuming. If you had to add in missed shots it might be even worse. That may be one reason missed shots are not included. Probably, the hope is that the probabilities wouldn’t change but that’s a hope not proof. What is there seems quite valuable to me. I'm not denying that it has value ...lots of value. What I am contending, and have contended each time you have posted similar analytics, is that you cannot say the breakaway isn't the highest scoring chance, without counting all the "high end missed shots". In a perfect world (and it would be absolutely impossible and even harder again) you'd even count all the times a cross ice pass to an open man was intercepted, deflected, etc … now that's getting down into the weeds, but from a statistical analysis necessary. (Just as you'd count all the breakaway where someone got chased down). You'll have a hard time convincing me that a breakaway at around 30% +-2% is not the highest rate of scoring event when you include all the missed chances. It's the equivalent of saying that the highest scoring chance is when you shoot on an empty net, because 100% of the shot on net go in. Well we KNOW 100% of the attempts do not go in, not even close Speaking of preconceived notions, I was watching a Bundesliga game yesterday and they had a half time segment on how much advanced stats have advanced in soccer. So what's the most dangerous and most easily scored goal in soccer? A penalty kick, right?, from 12 yards away, great angle and so on. It works out to 76%. It's not the highest. Picked up your jaw yet? A close cross the box pass from the wing in the 18 yard box ends up in the net about 78% of the time. That surprised the heck out of me and then I remembered that even the longer crosses (which aren't quite that effective) into the box either raise my hopes or scare the hell out of me depending on which team is executing them. Of course, there aren't that many instances in a game of that type of play, but neither are there a lot of Penalty kicks either. I'm prepared to be initially surprised by new knowledge. Funny thing is that in hindsight one often thinks that it was obvious and asks why I didn't see that before. In hockey, we should have asked, "What play results in the goalie have the most openings in their body, the worst angle to the shooter and already be moving so that they can't react easily to where the puck is going?" Duh. A well executed breakaway has some of those features, but a close cross ice pass has all of them.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 15, 2020 19:28:00 GMT -5
I'm not denying that it has value ...lots of value. What I am contending, and have contended each time you have posted similar analytics, is that you cannot say the breakaway isn't the highest scoring chance, without counting all the "high end missed shots". In a perfect world (and it would be absolutely impossible and even harder again) you'd even count all the times a cross ice pass to an open man was intercepted, deflected, etc … now that's getting down into the weeds, but from a statistical analysis necessary. (Just as you'd count all the breakaway where someone got chased down). You'll have a hard time convincing me that a breakaway at around 30% +-2% is not the highest rate of scoring event when you include all the missed chances. It's the equivalent of saying that the highest scoring chance is when you shoot on an empty net, because 100% of the shot on net go in. Well we KNOW 100% of the attempts do not go in, not even close Speaking of preconceived notions, I was watching a Bundesliga game yesterday and they had a half time segment on how much advanced stats have advanced in soccer. So what's the most dangerous and most easily scored goal in soccer? A penalty kick, right?, from 12 yards away, great angle and so on. It works out to 76%. It's not the highest. Picked up your jaw yet? A close cross the box pass from the wing in the 18 yard box ends up in the net about 78% of the time. That surprised the heck out of me and then I remembered that even the longer crosses (which aren't quite that effective) into the box either raise my hopes or scare the hell out of me depending on which team is executing them. Of course, there aren't that many instances in a game of that type of play, but neither are there a lot of Penalty kicks either. I'm prepared to be initially surprised by new knowledge. Funny thing is that in hindsight one often thinks that it was obvious and asks why I didn't see that before. In hockey, we should have asked, "What play results in the goalie have the most openings in their body, the worst angle to the shooter and already be moving so that they can't react easily to where the puck is going?" Duh. A well executed breakaway has some of those features, but a close cross ice pass has all of them. I’m willing to bet, even in soccer they aren’t including when that pass is headed wide, or the pass doesn’t get to the teammate and are only counting the shots on net.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 15, 2020 22:15:51 GMT -5
I’m willing to bet, even in soccer they aren’t including when that pass is headed wide, or the pass doesn’t get to the teammate and are only counting the shots on net. [/quote] I have to admit, if I'm looking at the stats for the most dangerous play, I want it to be analyzed considering the total attempts, including all the missed, intercepted or fumbled ones. Otherwise, the cross-crease pass on a 5 on 3 is the most dangerous play in hockey with the goalie still in: it often leads to a tap-in. But it's also very often intercepted in some way, shape or form, so the numbers of total attempts vs successful attempts won't yield anything like the same numbers
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 15, 2020 22:17:08 GMT -5
Speaking of preconceived notions, I was watching a Bundesliga game yesterday and they had a half time segment on how much advanced stats have advanced in soccer. So what's the most dangerous and most easily scored goal in soccer? A penalty kick, right?, from 12 yards away, great angle and so on. It works out to 76%. It's not the highest. Picked up your jaw yet? A close cross the box pass from the wing in the 18 yard box ends up in the net about 78% of the time. That surprised the heck out of me and then I remembered that even the longer crosses (which aren't quite that effective) into the box either raise my hopes or scare the hell out of me depending on which team is executing them. Of course, there aren't that many instances in a game of that type of play, but neither are there a lot of Penalty kicks either. I'm prepared to be initially surprised by new knowledge. Funny thing is that in hindsight one often thinks that it was obvious and asks why I didn't see that before. In hockey, we should have asked, "What play results in the goalie have the most openings in their body, the worst angle to the shooter and already be moving so that they can't react easily to where the puck is going?" Duh. A well executed breakaway has some of those features, but a close cross ice pass has all of them. I’m willing to bet, even in soccer they aren’t including when that pass is headed wide, or the pass doesn’t get to the teammate and are only counting the shots on net. You don't give up, do you?
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 15, 2020 22:41:52 GMT -5
I'm always finding interesting pieces that I share, (whether you like it or not ). The Investment company I deal with has a lot of virtues that I like. One of them is that they go out of their way to hire people from differing backgrounds, they promote informal communication, they cultivate differing views and they never make fun or criticize anyone's ideas, even newbies. Some of their best investment ideas have come from ideas or thinking that was 'out of the box'. Here's an excerpt from one of their blogs about Mitigating Confirmation bias. You might think it;s boring, but what else can one expect from a company whose motto is "Be Boring, Make Money"? As you may have gleaned (since I practically shout it out so often), I'm not a fan of the judgment displayed by Montreal's brain trust. Yet we hear that Bergevin has no issues with anyone questioning a move. Frankly, I find that debateable, but what if that is indeed the case? Maybe he does accept criticism. When then have so many poor decisons been made over the 8 years he's been in power. The following excerpt helps answer that, IMO. The blog is from an Investment Company, so examples used are from that industry, though they would apply in any organization. It seems self-evident that a team-based approach should help mitigate an individual’s propensity for motivated reasoning. And while true, it depends on the team: a team comprised of individuals who all think the same way can have the opposite effect and exacerbate the problem.
This should be baked into the hiring process. Recognizing that humans have bias toward affinity, an assessment of a candidate’s background and skillsets that are different and additive to the existing team should be made an explicit component of the evaluation criteria. Investment teams comprised of individuals who all grew up in the same country, went to the same school, majored in the same discipline, or read the same morning paper, run the risk of having too narrow a perspective. An engineer thinks differently than a history major; both approaches are valuable.
(Interviews, by the way, are another area where confirmatory thinking can run rampant. There’s a reason it’s so important not to make typos on your resumé, as it may cause your interviewer to use the hour to look for further evidence that you’re careless and don’t pay attention to detail…if you get an interview at all!)
To further harness these perspectives, we’ve deliberately chosen to organize ourselves as generalists within asset classes, and to refrain from intense specialization. While there are certainly merits to a more focused approach, we feel these are outweighed by the risk that the team could be tempted to defer to the “expert,” reducing the checks and balances on that individual’s opinions. The reason I’ve always thought that an ostrich hides its head in the sand when scared is likely because somebody I trusted as more knowledgeable than me once said so, and I never questioned it—thanks a lot, Mom and Dad!
Finally, we encourage independent thinking. One of our most important portfolio construction tools is our Matrix process, a framework that involves scoring the relative attractiveness of new and existing holdings across the various elements of our investment philosophy (strength of business model, strength of management team, and ability to purchase at a discount to intrinsic value). The Matrix ultimately helps us determine what weight to ascribe to a given security. Perhaps more importantly, the Matrix is a wonderful tool in focusing debate. To ensure this debate reflects the diversity of opinions across the team as much as possible, each member of an asset class team is tasked with preparing their own Matrix scores independently. This reduces the risk that differences go unnoticed or that Matrix scores and opinions across the team unconsciously converge.
Good ideas borne from a diversity of perspectives are wasted if they go unvoiced or unheard.As I've mentioned in the past, Bergevin seems to hire people he has known in the past. Do they have different backgrounds than him? I have no idea, but it doesn't appear that way. There's not a lot of Rhodes scholars amongst Habs employees. At the top level of hockey management it's mostly former players Mellanby, Lapointe, Carriere, Ramage, the Cube. TImmins is the outlier, not even showing up on Hockeydb. Have I made my point yet? Did anyone stand up and tell Bergevin that the Aho offer sheet was doomed to failure? Would anyone (forget having the guts) have stood up and said that maybe they needed to look at it like a trade and determine what would be acceptable to the Canes if the Habs were trading for Aho. Would a first, second and 3rd round pick have been accepted as adequate return for a 21 year old centre who scored 83 points and 30 goals the previous season and was defensively responsible? Clearly, that was insufficient, as Carolina proved soon after. Minimum would have been the next tier with 2 first rounders. I suspect even that level would have been matched. Three would have been adequate IMO, but the next step up required 4 first rounders, so the debate should have centred around that point rather than the deal they settled on. Was that because they all thought a 1st, 2nd and 3rd were sufficient? If so, there's a systemic problem in place and it's not getting fixed until MB is gone.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 15, 2020 22:56:53 GMT -5
I’m willing to bet, even in soccer they aren’t including when that pass is headed wide, or the pass doesn’t get to the teammate and are only counting the shots on net. I have to admit, if I'm looking at the stats for the most dangerous play, I want it to be analyzed considering the total attempts, including all the missed, intercepted or fumbled ones. Otherwise, the cross-crease pass on a 5 on 3 is the most dangerous play in hockey with the goalie still in: it often leads to a tap-in. But it's also very often intercepted in some way, shape or form, so the numbers of total attempts vs successful attempts won't yield anything like the same numbers[/quote] Oi don't disagree with you guys as you want the most representative datea you can get. I don't know how they calculate their populations. Maybe they include shots that miss the net. I suspect there's some consistency in "attempts that don't go in" into their data base, wherever they originate from. It is curious, is it not, that despite the Habs controlling so much of the play, it doesn't translate to goals, but what they don't do well seems to mesh reasonably well with what Valiquette's data suggests. They aren't good at cross ice passes. It affects their PP. Their primary weapon involves a great shot from a guy mostly fed from the point and somehow not enough of those pucks go in. I like stuff that makes sense and so far Valiquette's theory makes more sense than a lot of advanced stats that come our way.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 15, 2020 23:59:31 GMT -5
Rejean Tremblay opines that Damphousse should be the next President of Hockey Operations for the Canadien. I doubt this is a source-based rumour. I am firmly in the camp who believes Montreal --in line with other big complicated markets such as Toronto, New York Rangers, Boston-- would benefit from having a popular hockey knowledgeable individual positioned between ownership and the GM. For me it would be helpful to have a President set the strategic plan of the organization and enhance the brand with both the fans and the business community. This person would also fulfill an important oversight role over the GM. Anyway, I am definitely not convinced that Molson would remove himself from a role that he currently occupies. And even if he would, I am not sure that Damphousse would be among my top three choices. I have no faith left. If the Hab’s have an 80 game losing streak next season, Molson will say we are headed in the right direction and MB is one of the most respected GM’s in the league. He must base it on longevity, not wins. Now Molson has an excuse for the coming drop in attendance. He makes more money selling condos than tickets.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 16, 2020 7:06:51 GMT -5
Did anyone stand up and tell Bergevin that the Aho offer sheet was doomed to failure? Would anyone (forget having the guts) have stood up and said that maybe they needed to look at it like a trade and determine what would be acceptable to the Canes if the Habs were trading for Aho. Would a first, second and 3rd round pick have been accepted as adequate return for a 21 year old centre who scored 83 points and 30 goals the previous season and was defensively responsible? Clearly, that was insufficient, as Carolina proved soon after. Minimum would have been the next tier with 2 first rounders. I suspect even that level would have been matched. Three would have been adequate IMO, but the next step up required 4 first rounders, so the debate should have centred around that point rather than the deal they settled on. Was that because they all thought a 1st, 2nd and 3rd were sufficient? If so, there's a systemic problem in place and it's not getting fixed until MB is gone. Just to throw a few more whacks at this dead horse, the Aho offer was never meant to be a fair trade. The amount of hockey-value compensation that would go to the Canes was not a part of the consideration. Of course a 1st, 2nd, and a 3rd was not adequate compensation, nobody thought that. So having somebody stand up in the room and say "this isn't adequate compensation!" really wasn't necessary. Bergevin freely admitted, with Geoff Molson sitting right beside him, that the offer was aimed at Tom Dundon. They said, out loud, that they didn't think Dundon had the financial means - or willingness - to spend $21 million up front. Because of the revenue Carolina pulled in, because of Dundon's failed XFL venture, because he has a reputation for being cheap. Now of course everybody dismisses that because "well, he's a billionaire, what's $21 million to a billionaire?", but my counter-argument to that would be: A) why did we have three separate lockouts because some teams were losing $5-10 million a year, if $21 million is nothing to a billionaire? B) why are all these billionaire owners laying off guys making minimum wage during this pandemic? C) why are they desperately trying to salvage this season, to the point of being ridiculous, if these are all just toys to these guys? C) Eugene Melnyk Some guys don't like spending money. Some guys claim to have more money than they actually have. Some guys want to make money, even pennies, no matter what. They gambled that Dundon fell into one of those categories, and they were wrong. The REAL criticism, in my opinion, isn't in the details of the offer, if you ask me. It's the fact that in their attempts at transparency they said the quiet parts out loud. By publicly attacking Dundon they got his defenses up. MAYBE if they had of kept their mouths shut Dundon would have taken the offer. Maybe not. But they challenged him, and I guess he felt he had no choice but to respond. I still do not think Dundon is happy with paying Aho $21 million up front like that. Probably even less so given what's happened since. The mistake wasn't in thinking that a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd was going to get it done, the mistake was in publicly shaming the owner.
|
|
|
Post by frozone on Jun 16, 2020 8:32:37 GMT -5
I’m willing to bet, even in soccer they aren’t including when that pass is headed wide, or the pass doesn’t get to the teammate and are only counting the shots on net. I have to admit, if I'm looking at the stats for the most dangerous play, I want it to be analyzed considering the total attempts, including all the missed, intercepted or fumbled ones. Otherwise, the cross-crease pass on a 5 on 3 is the most dangerous play in hockey with the goalie still in: it often leads to a tap-in. But it's also very often intercepted in some way, shape or form, so the numbers of total attempts vs successful attempts won't yield anything like the same numbers Oi don't disagree with you guys as you want the most representative datea you can get. I don't know how they calculate their populations. Maybe they include shots that miss the net. I suspect there's some consistency in "attempts that don't go in" into their data base, wherever they originate from. It is curious, is it not, that despite the Habs controlling so much of the play, it doesn't translate to goals, but what they don't do well seems to mesh reasonably well with what Valiquette's data suggests. They aren't good at cross ice passes. It affects their PP. Their primary weapon involves a great shot from a guy mostly fed from the point and somehow not enough of those pucks go in. I like stuff that makes sense and so far Valiquette's theory makes more sense than a lot of advanced stats that come our way. Determining the most dangerous play is a fun debate, but from a data analytics standpoint, I would argue that it's a useless one because it's ultimately comparing apples vs oranges. In the history of the NHL, I don't think a player has ever had to decide between executing either of these two events in a single moment of time. "Should I make the cross crease pass to my teammate, or send him on a breakaway?" You'll never have to ask yourself that question because they play out at very different locations on the ice. Not to mention, if you're looking at failed cross crease pass attempts, then you should also factor in failed breakaway passes too. A fair number of those go unconverted. Not to mention, a good chunk of NHL breakaways come from defensive interceptions. Like I said apples and oranges. If I was a coach, I would want the data analytics team to focus on formations and positioning that best lead to successful conversions. The Habs, for example, wholeheartedly believe in the cross ice pass, but they're doing it in the wrong locations as you/Valiquette point out. Knowing which of the breakaway vs cross crease pass is more dangerous, on the other hand, would not be useful for a coach.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 16, 2020 19:48:35 GMT -5
Did anyone stand up and tell Bergevin that the Aho offer sheet was doomed to failure? Would anyone (forget having the guts) have stood up and said that maybe they needed to look at it like a trade and determine what would be acceptable to the Canes if the Habs were trading for Aho. Would a first, second and 3rd round pick have been accepted as adequate return for a 21 year old centre who scored 83 points and 30 goals the previous season and was defensively responsible? Clearly, that was insufficient, as Carolina proved soon after. Minimum would have been the next tier with 2 first rounders. I suspect even that level would have been matched. Three would have been adequate IMO, but the next step up required 4 first rounders, so the debate should have centred around that point rather than the deal they settled on. Was that because they all thought a 1st, 2nd and 3rd were sufficient? If so, there's a systemic problem in place and it's not getting fixed until MB is gone. Just to throw a few more whacks at this dead horse, the Aho offer was never meant to be a fair trade. The amount of hockey-value compensation that would go to the Canes was not a part of the consideration. Of course a 1st, 2nd, and a 3rd was not adequate compensation, nobody thought that. So having somebody stand up in the room and say "this isn't adequate compensation!" really wasn't necessary. Bergevin freely admitted, with Geoff Molson sitting right beside him, that the offer was aimed at Tom Dundon. They said, out loud, that they didn't think Dundon had the financial means - or willingness - to spend $21 million up front. Because of the revenue Carolina pulled in, because of Dundon's failed XFL venture, because he has a reputation for being cheap. Now of course everybody dismisses that because "well, he's a billionaire, what's $21 million to a billionaire?", but my counter-argument to that would be: A) why did we have three separate lockouts because some teams were losing $5-10 million a year, if $21 million is nothing to a billionaire? B) why are all these billionaire owners laying off guys making minimum wage during this pandemic? C) why are they desperately trying to salvage this season, to the point of being ridiculous, if these are all just toys to these guys? C) Eugene Melnyk Some guys don't like spending money. Some guys claim to have more money than they actually have. Some guys want to make money, even pennies, no matter what. They gambled that Dundon fell into one of those categories, and they were wrong. The REAL criticism, in my opinion, isn't in the details of the offer, if you ask me. It's the fact that in their attempts at transparency they said the quiet parts out loud. By publicly attacking Dundon they got his defenses up. MAYBE if they had of kept their mouths shut Dundon would have taken the offer. Maybe not. But they challenged him, and I guess he felt he had no choice but to respond. I still do not think Dundon is happy with paying Aho $21 million up front like that. Probably even less so given what's happened since. The mistake wasn't in thinking that a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd was going to get it done, the mistake was in publicly shaming the owner. I keep bringing up the dead horse Aho offer sheet because of the underlying aspects of it which relate to Habs management in general. I know what their thinking was. They thought they had a guy by the short hairs and he'd give it up. Yes, it was foolish to actually come out and say why they planned it that way. (Yet another example of their lack of judgment). But they still missed the basics of an offer sheet. Put aside for a moment the possibility that Dundon was in a cash crunch. There are two simple aspects to an offer sheet. The player has to like it and the current team has to find it palatable. Was a first, second and third palatable? How does Dundon go the fan base that he's doing his damndest to attract and tell them he let his best player go for a 50% shot at an NHL player. Not a star, just a guy who can play 200+ games in the NHL. That's not good marketing, so besides the metaphorical slap in the face by suggesting he can't come up with the money, you're twisting the knife by swapping gruel for filet mignon. The front loading was just part of the equation, but the not so sharp pencils (or cheap ones) at the top went with an offer guaranteed to be matched. It probably took Dundon a week to ask his buddy Mark Cuban for s short term loan or re-arrange things with his bankers. Not an difficult obstacle as Cranky pointed out in earlier posts. But give Dundon 4 first rounders and I bet he can take that to his fan base. If not, then you've hamstrung him with a fat, cash crunch contract. Hell, those 4 first rounders (and you could have started them off with the 2021 year) would all be in the 20-30 range. Junk, much of the time. And we'd have an elite centre. Deep enough that one could look at moving one for a defenseman. So many good things could have come from a successful offer sheet but they either completely misjudged Dundon or were too cheap to pay the right price.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 16, 2020 19:54:00 GMT -5
I have to admit, if I'm looking at the stats for the most dangerous play, I want it to be analyzed considering the total attempts, including all the missed, intercepted or fumbled ones. Otherwise, the cross-crease pass on a 5 on 3 is the most dangerous play in hockey with the goalie still in: it often leads to a tap-in. But it's also very often intercepted in some way, shape or form, so the numbers of total attempts vs successful attempts won't yield anything like the same numbers Oi don't disagree with you guys as you want the most representative datea you can get. I don't know how they calculate their populations. Maybe they include shots that miss the net. I suspect there's some consistency in "attempts that don't go in" into their data base, wherever they originate from. It is curious, is it not, that despite the Habs controlling so much of the play, it doesn't translate to goals, but what they don't do well seems to mesh reasonably well with what Valiquette's data suggests. They aren't good at cross ice passes. It affects their PP. Their primary weapon involves a great shot from a guy mostly fed from the point and somehow not enough of those pucks go in. I like stuff that makes sense and so far Valiquette's theory makes more sense than a lot of advanced stats that come our way. Determining the most dangerous play is a fun debate, but from a data analytics standpoint, I would argue that it's a useless one because it's ultimately comparing apples vs oranges. In the history of the NHL, I don't think a player has ever had to decide between executing either of these two events in a single moment of time. "Should I make the cross crease pass to my teammate, or send him on a breakaway?" You'll never have to ask yourself that question because they play out at very different locations on the ice. Not to mention, if you're looking at failed cross crease pass attempts, then you should also factor in failed breakaway passes too. A fair number of those go unconverted. Not to mention, a good chunk of NHL breakaways come from defensive interceptions. Like I said apples and oranges. If I was a coach, I would want the data analytics team to focus on formations and positioning that best lead to successful conversions. The Habs, for example, wholeheartedly believe in the cross ice pass, but they're doing it in the wrong locations as you/Valiquette point out. Knowing which of the breakaway vs cross crease pass is more dangerous, on the other hand, would not be useful for a coach. Yes, exactly. It's pretty hard to teach anyone how to generate a breakaway. But cross ice passes are a coachable technique, assuming the player has the skill to execute. As a PP coach, Id' certain spend a lot of time on those types of plays rather than setting up someone from a blue line pass as we do for Weber. Now if you can move the puck around so quickly that the goalie isn't set when Weber releases the shot, that's worth working on. Tougher to do that than from a direct wing pass on the other side of the box.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 17, 2020 9:52:02 GMT -5
Just to throw a few more whacks at this dead horse, the Aho offer was never meant to be a fair trade. The amount of hockey-value compensation that would go to the Canes was not a part of the consideration. Of course a 1st, 2nd, and a 3rd was not adequate compensation, nobody thought that. So having somebody stand up in the room and say "this isn't adequate compensation!" really wasn't necessary. Bergevin freely admitted, with Geoff Molson sitting right beside him, that the offer was aimed at Tom Dundon. They said, out loud, that they didn't think Dundon had the financial means - or willingness - to spend $21 million up front. Because of the revenue Carolina pulled in, because of Dundon's failed XFL venture, because he has a reputation for being cheap. Now of course everybody dismisses that because "well, he's a billionaire, what's $21 million to a billionaire?", but my counter-argument to that would be: A) why did we have three separate lockouts because some teams were losing $5-10 million a year, if $21 million is nothing to a billionaire? B) why are all these billionaire owners laying off guys making minimum wage during this pandemic? C) why are they desperately trying to salvage this season, to the point of being ridiculous, if these are all just toys to these guys? C) Eugene Melnyk Some guys don't like spending money. Some guys claim to have more money than they actually have. Some guys want to make money, even pennies, no matter what. They gambled that Dundon fell into one of those categories, and they were wrong. The REAL criticism, in my opinion, isn't in the details of the offer, if you ask me. It's the fact that in their attempts at transparency they said the quiet parts out loud. By publicly attacking Dundon they got his defenses up. MAYBE if they had of kept their mouths shut Dundon would have taken the offer. Maybe not. But they challenged him, and I guess he felt he had no choice but to respond. I still do not think Dundon is happy with paying Aho $21 million up front like that. Probably even less so given what's happened since. The mistake wasn't in thinking that a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd was going to get it done, the mistake was in publicly shaming the owner. I keep bringing up the dead horse Aho offer sheet because of the underlying aspects of it which relate to Habs management in general. I know what their thinking was. They thought they had a guy by the short hairs and he'd give it up. Yes, it was foolish to actually come out and say why they planned it that way. (Yet another example of their lack of judgment). But they still missed the basics of an offer sheet. Put aside for a moment the possibility that Dundon was in a cash crunch. There are two simple aspects to an offer sheet. The player has to like it and the current team has to find it palatable. Was a first, second and third palatable? How does Dundon go the fan base that he's doing his damndest to attract and tell them he let his best player go for a 50% shot at an NHL player. Not a star, just a guy who can play 200+ games in the NHL. That's not good marketing, so besides the metaphorical slap in the face by suggesting he can't come up with the money, you're twisting the knife by swapping gruel for filet mignon. The front loading was just part of the equation, but the not so sharp pencils (or cheap ones) at the top went with an offer guaranteed to be matched. It probably took Dundon a week to ask his buddy Mark Cuban for s short term loan or re-arrange things with his bankers. Not an difficult obstacle as Cranky pointed out in earlier posts. But give Dundon 4 first rounders and I bet he can take that to his fan base. If not, then you've hamstrung him with a fat, cash crunch contract. Hell, those 4 first rounders (and you could have started them off with the 2021 year) would all be in the 20-30 range. Junk, much of the time. And we'd have an elite centre. Deep enough that one could look at moving one for a defenseman. So many good things could have come from a successful offer sheet but they either completely misjudged Dundon or were too cheap to pay the right price. It is great for everyone to cry pay Aho $10,568,591 … but is he the person to pay that to? I liked what Bergevin attempted. For once he actually thought outside the box. And if the 4 draft picks are going to be "junk", where is the incentive for Dundon?
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 17, 2020 12:25:51 GMT -5
I keep bringing up the dead horse Aho offer sheet because of the underlying aspects of it which relate to Habs management in general. I know what their thinking was. They thought they had a guy by the short hairs and he'd give it up. Yes, it was foolish to actually come out and say why they planned it that way. (Yet another example of their lack of judgment). But they still missed the basics of an offer sheet. Put aside for a moment the possibility that Dundon was in a cash crunch. There are two simple aspects to an offer sheet. The player has to like it and the current team has to find it palatable. Was a first, second and third palatable? How does Dundon go the fan base that he's doing his damndest to attract and tell them he let his best player go for a 50% shot at an NHL player. Not a star, just a guy who can play 200+ games in the NHL. That's not good marketing, so besides the metaphorical slap in the face by suggesting he can't come up with the money, you're twisting the knife by swapping gruel for filet mignon. The front loading was just part of the equation, but the not so sharp pencils (or cheap ones) at the top went with an offer guaranteed to be matched. It probably took Dundon a week to ask his buddy Mark Cuban for s short term loan or re-arrange things with his bankers. Not an difficult obstacle as Cranky pointed out in earlier posts. But give Dundon 4 first rounders and I bet he can take that to his fan base. If not, then you've hamstrung him with a fat, cash crunch contract. Hell, those 4 first rounders (and you could have started them off with the 2021 year) would all be in the 20-30 range. Junk, much of the time. And we'd have an elite centre. Deep enough that one could look at moving one for a defenseman. So many good things could have come from a successful offer sheet but they either completely misjudged Dundon or were too cheap to pay the right price. It is great for everyone to cry pay Aho $10,568,591 … but is he the person to pay that to? I liked what Bergevin attempted. For once he actually thought outside the box. And if the 4 draft picks are going to be "junk", where is the incentive for Dundon? Pay Aho $10.6MM? Absolutely. Where is the incentive for Dundon? To many hockey fans, 4 first rounders is a gold mine. We know that depends heavily on where they fall in the first round, but it sure sounds good and is something an owner could sell.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Jun 17, 2020 14:50:35 GMT -5
Maybe I'm the only one but if it was up to me, I would rather spend my hard stolen billions on a local who is also an impact player.
Given a choice between Dubois and Aho, I pick Dubois every day of the week. Of course the risk is that Dubois wilts in his own market but given his penalty minutes, it's a big hint that he carries a lot pride and a chip on his shoulder. You don't "learn" that, you own that....
Last French Canadian with a large chip on his shoulder was a buy called Maurice....
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Jun 17, 2020 17:09:53 GMT -5
Gerry Johannsen, Aho's agent, misled Molson and Bergevin. Granted, they should have known better. The draft pick compensation, even at the max, is not enough for a point per game 22 year old #1 centre. Therefore, the only hope (and it would still be slight) is to overpay in dollar terms for the player.
Fast forward here to 2020, I would have no problem if management tries to get Dubois or Barzal to sign an offer sheet. And by all means, go big -- 7 years/$77 million with tonnes of money in the form of July 1 signing bonuses.
I certainly will not criticize if a massive push like that comes up short. The fact is that I remain convinced that Columbus would not let Dubois depart and I am early convinced the Islanders would not let Barzal go.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 17, 2020 18:14:42 GMT -5
Gerry Johannsen, Aho's agent, misled Molson and Bergevin. Granted, they should have known better. The draft pick compensation, even at the max, is not enough for a point per game 22 year old #1 centre. Therefore, the only hope (and it would still be slight) is to overpay in dollar terms for the player. Fast forward here to 2020, I would have no problem if management tries to get Dubois or Barzal to sign an offer sheet. And by all means, go big -- 7 years/$77 million with tonnes of money in the form of July 1 signing bonuses. I certainly will not criticize if a massive push like that comes up short. The fact is that I remain convinced that Columbus would not let Dubois depart and I am early convinced the Islanders would not let Barzal go. Unless you have TONS of cap space you have to limit your offer sheet term to 5 years. Going longer distorts the CAP penalty and unless the player is Gretzky, Lemieux or Orr, it's not worth it.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 17, 2020 18:21:21 GMT -5
Maybe I'm the only one but if it was up to me, I would rather spend my hard stolen billions on a local who is also an impact player. Given a choice between Dubois and Aho, I pick Dubois every day of the week. Of course the risk is that Dubois wilts in his own market but given his penalty minutes, it's a big hint that he carries a lot pride and a chip on his shoulder. You don't "learn" that, you own that.... Last French Canadian with a large chip on his shoulder was a buy called Maurice.... I think in a few years we'll look back and realize how singular the Aho situation was for an offer sheet. Almost all the time you can guarantee the current team will match. Columbus will match. The Islanders will match. It won't matter what you offer. The Aho situation was different, of course. New owner, possibly with cash flow issues because of investments in other areas (XFL) that had gone sour. You had to make use of a stick AND a carrot. It may be another 20 years before we see a similar opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 17, 2020 18:43:13 GMT -5
Maybe I'm the only one but if it was up to me, I would rather spend my hard stolen billions on a local who is also an impact player. Given a choice between Dubois and Aho, I pick Dubois every day of the week. Of course the risk is that Dubois wilts in his own market but given his penalty minutes, it's a big hint that he carries a lot pride and a chip on his shoulder. You don't "learn" that, you own that.... Last French Canadian with a large chip on his shoulder was a buy called Maurice.... I'd tread carefully on that assessment between the two guys. Both are great young players and any team should give their left nut to get one of them. Production wise there is a difference, though in fairness, PLD is a year younger and hasn't had his 4th pro year yet, when a jump can take place. Dubois
|
|
| Aho.
|
|
| Age
| PPG | +/- | Age | PPG | +/- | 19 | .59 | +8 | 19 | .60 | -1 | 20 | .74 | +16 | 20 | .83 | +4 | 21 | .70 | -2 | 21 | 1.01 | +25 | 22 |
|
| 22 | .97 | +10 |
Aho plays with Terevainen sometimes but Dubois had the chance to play with Panarin except for this past season (and his ppg took a drop, but not as much as you'd expect from losing that quality of teammate)
It's quite possible Dubois has more upside left in him, but Aho is a proven ppg player and Dubois hasn't taken that leap yet, so there is a pretty good argument for Aho being the better player at this point in time.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Jun 17, 2020 18:44:57 GMT -5
Good catch, seventeen. You really cannot go over five years for an offer sheet because that hit will be crazy. So basically if Bergevin went in with 5 years/$55 million that would be a really strong statement.
Columbus needs to win before the summer of 2022 because that is when Jones becomes a UFA (he will command at least $9 per if not $10) and Werenski will need a qualifying offer that cannot be less than the final season of this deal (i.e. he gets $7+ even on a dead end one year deal for 2022-23 and signing UFAs years from him would cost them $8 per if not $9).
Kekalainen and the McConnell family are unlikely to be able to keep all their big time stars (Jones, Werenski, Dubois) long-term. But they would cross that bridge later. For me their next two seasons are the strike while the iron is hot moment.
The Islanders are also in win-now mode because most of their core is in their late 20s. However, because Lou is so old-fashioned and Barzal almost seems to needle the organization by musing publicly about how they have not even talked to his agent and how it would pretty cool if something happens on the offer sheet front, it leaves a window whereby maybe a mega-offer would work or, more likely, it opens a door for Bergevin or whoever to have serious discussions about what is possible in a blockbuster trade for Barzal.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Jun 17, 2020 23:39:47 GMT -5
My take on Aho versus Dubois.....I will always take the one with angry dandruff on their shoulders. Beliveau was a better player then Richard, but I will always go to war with Richard.
Forgive me, I'm old fashioned....
|
|