Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

#65 Andrew Shaw 2016-17


habs_93
 Share

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, vegasrick said:

Here comes Shaw's opportunity to show the "playoff-battle-tested" aspect of his game.  He showed noticeable improvement toward the end of the season (which was clearly due to having our new coach back there), not so much in his hockey skills, but in the reduction of the number of bad penalties taken.  Let's see if he adds that "non-quantifiable" element that helps the team win some key games.  

Ya,,, I'm most interested in that part of his game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

I'll be pretty disappointed if Shaw and Weber don't combine for at least 16 game-winning goals this post-season.

I don't think we can ask any more of them than that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, kinot-2 said:

I don't think we can ask any more of them than that. 

Perhaps the most honest statement I have ever read on here, yet somehow it feels a little misleading. Expecting more would be unfair and put unnecessary pressure on the boys. I think you and Big Ted are more than fair and feel most of the fans would be happy with that. It all starts at one though. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

I'll be pretty disappointed if Shaw and Weber don't combine for at least 16 game-winning goals this post-season.

I'm not sure what to make of this.  This is a part of BigTed's game we're not used to seeing.  It's usually "all business" with him.  Now, I don't know whether to think he paid kinot to write comedy for him, or someone stole his username.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Habberwacky said:

Perhaps the most honest statement I have ever read on here, yet somehow it feels a little misleading. Expecting more would be unfair and put unnecessary pressure on the boys. I think you and Big Ted are more than fair and feel most of the fans would be happy with that. It all starts at one though. 

 

What I posted above was a joke... I of course don't expect Shaw and Weber to win every game for us. I simply think that MB overrated the whole character and grit issues and swapped skill for these two players. It's in no way the players own fault, but in many ways, MB's reputation as a GM rests upon the ability of guys like Shaw and Weber to come through in the playoffs. MB promised us that adding these players would prevent Price from getting run and it hasn't. He told us that adding this character would prevent a mid-season collapse, and this year's was just as bad as last season's. If anything, Shaw's addition led to more bad/selfish penalties. So really, the only thing MB has left to defend himself is if Shaw and Weber can lift us to a Cup and prove their worth in the playoffs. Do I expect them to win 16 games for us? No. But they absolutely have to step up and be key factors in a deep run. If they aren't, the fault lies not with them but with Bergevin's misguided leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

What I posted above was a joke... I of course don't expect Shaw and Weber to win every game for us. I simply think that MB overrated the whole character and grit issues and swapped skill for these two players. It's in no way the players own fault, but in many ways, MB's reputation as a GM rests upon the ability of guys like Shaw and Weber to come through in the playoffs. MB promised us that adding these players would prevent Price from getting run and it hasn't. He told us that adding this character would prevent a mid-season collapse, and this year's was just as bad as last season's. If anything, Shaw's addition led to more bad/selfish penalties. So really, the only thing MB has left to defend himself is if Shaw and Weber can lift us to a Cup and prove their worth in the playoffs. Do I expect them to win 16 games for us? No. But they absolutely have to step up and be key factors in a deep run. If they aren't, the fault lies not with them but with Bergevin's misguided leadership.

Here's to hoping you transform from comedian to genius by the end of these playoffs. I got it and thought that was a classic prediction. This is the first of a few moments of truth for Bergevin and the moves he made this season. To be fair to Bergevin I see success as outlasting Nashville in the playoffs this year but would prefer a cup. I believe we hired Ott to be the new bad selfish penalty guy and hopefully at this stage in his career he can make sure he fails in that role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Habberwacky said:

Here's to hoping you transform from comedian to genius by the end of these playoffs. I got it and thought that was a classic prediction. This is the first of a few moments of truth for Bergevin and the moves he made this season. To be fair to Bergevin I see success as outlasting Nashville in the playoffs this year but would prefer a cup. I believe we hired Ott to be the new bad selfish penalty guy and hopefully at this stage in his career he can make sure he fails in that role.

We better outlast Nashville! Nashville has inferior goaltending and they play in a much harder division than us. But put the Habs in that division with Chicago as a first-round opponent and Minnesota or St. Louis as a 2nd round one, and I doubt we come out of it either. Put Nashville in with the Rangers, Sens, and Bruins, and they too might make the conference finals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

We better outlast Nashville! Nashville has inferior goaltending and they play in a much harder division than us. But put the Habs in that division with Chicago as a first-round opponent and Minnesota or St. Louis as a 2nd round one, and I doubt we come out of it either. Put Nashville in with the Rangers, Sens, and Bruins, and they too might make the conference finals.

I can't complain if we only have two tough battles to win on the way to a cup, but with Price that is possible.Our Chicago acquisitions need to provide some of that Blackhawk experience. I am looking forward to seeing Shaw perform and hope he can keep the emotions under control. I think we are slightly better than Nashville at this time. The west has some very tough teams and I would not overlook the Oilers. With young stars coming up in the east, we may be looking at the fading out of some of those western teams in a couple of years. Montreal needs to step up. Nashville is hard to figure out. They have great young talent, skilled defencemen and currently uderaverage goaltending, but in my mind look at little worse than before and since PK's arrrival. They will be fun to watch in the playoffs and I hope PK does well..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Habberwacky said:

Our Chicago acquisitions need to provide some of that Blackhawk experience. I am looking forward to seeing Shaw perform and hope he can keep the emotions under control.

If he doesn't, will you admit "character" and "grit" are nebulous and effectively meaningless, or will the goalposts move again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, habs_93 said:

If he doesn't, will you admit "character" and "grit" are nebulous and effectively meaningless, or will the goalposts move again?

Character and grit are in the eye of the beholder.  Some players are highly skilled at many aspects of the game. I really like Shaw's style of play and absolutely hate the stupidity he displayed earlier in the year. I think a player of his stature can significantly impact the opposition in a win 4 type of series. Stupidity is only nebulous and meaningless to the player who cannot recognize what it is. Let's hope Shaw has seen the light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, habs_93 said:

If he doesn't, will you admit "character" and "grit" are nebulous and effectively meaningless, or will the goalposts move again?

To further this point, a player who punches another player in the face or challenges the other team's bench to a fight or flips the bird to the fans is deemed to have "character." A player who blocks three shots and throws two big hits is deemed to have "grit." It doesn't matter that the first player put his team short-handed three times in one game or that the second is constantly chasing the puck and doesn't put up any points. Players can also be deemed to have these attributes if their team has success in the playoffs, regardless of whether the player was the driving force of that success.

Conversely, a guy like Phil Kessel can be one of the premiere playoff performers of his generation, but because he doesn't like speaking to the media and because he doesn't hit or fight a lot, he gets ragged on and deemed to be a "cancer to the room" and "not a character guy." A guy like Subban can wear fancy clothes and support charities publicly and he's labeled "selfish" and "not a team player." Even Pacioretty can score 35 goals a year but if he doesn't score for 5 games, he's deemed not to be contributing and less valuable than players like Shaw, Martinsen, and Ott, who "do their job on a nightly basis."

Don't get me wrong. I can see value in players like Shaw in the playoffs, if they're going to the net and hitting and getting under the other team's skin and drawing them off their game. But you also need players who score goals and carry the puck and don't take bad penalties or make costly turnovers. What Shaw brings in "grit" and "character" is far less important than which players go out and score goals and drive possession to prevent goals against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Habberwacky said:

Character and grit are in the eye of the beholder.

Indeed.

10 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Even Pacioretty can score 35 goals a year but if he doesn't score for 5 games, he's deemed not to be contributing and less valuable than players like Shaw, Martinsen, and Ott, who "do their job on a nightly basis."

This is it, so much. Humans made it out of the wilderness because our brains are wired for pattern recognition. We hunt for patterns in everything so we can gain some sort of advantage. If we see something over and over, to a certain extent we become habituated to it. But not all the patterns we perceive actually exist. There's a psychological phenomenon called Apophenia, which is finding patterns in things which are mostly or totally random. Sometimes, it's fun. Who doesn't like to imagine what the shapes in the clouds look like? But it's also a way to come to erroneous conclusions or make bad decisions.

Hockey is a game heavily influenced by random chance, and one in which small behaviours by players can have massive influence on the result of games. This is a combination ripe for magical thinking, "gut instinct", and illusory pattern perception. I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again, but goals in today's NHL are rare. The mean 5-on-5 save percentage for 82-game seasons since 2007-08 is .922, or to put it in reverse the mean 5-on-5 shooting percentage in that time is 7.8%. There's a lot of stuff going on—around almost 55 per game of shots, blocked shots, and missed shots—and not a lot of it is going in the net. And we can tell through standard, thoroughly understood statistical methods that a lot of this is random noise. I'm not saying goals aren't a function of skill for the offence, defence, and goalie. What I'm saying is where there is skill—even great, generational skill—it's regularly hidden in noise.

I'm not telling anyone not to enjoy every second of this wonderful game, or lose any of the awe and reverence for it that we all have. Believe it or not, I get a awfully romantic and sappy about sports. But I also like objectively understanding what's going on. I understand that a lot of people have a hard time accepting that so much of the game is random. But it empirically is. I can't give you a definitive reason why, or even really suggest how this could (or if it should) change in an evidence-supported manner. And to be totally honest, I don't care that much. I'm interested in describing with as much accuracy what the game is, right now, not in the 90s when I enjoyed it more, or in a hypothetical future with smaller goalie pads or etc etc. The game as it is, is what it is.

It's human nature to mentally overvalue observations of gross actions with instant payoff which confirm a conception of something you're already operating within, as opposed to giving careful consideration to fine actions which are harder to keep track of and don't instantly show if they've succeeded or failed. We become habituated to bad play by limited or marginal players because their failure doesn't "look" like what we've been conditioned to describe as failure: a goal against, or failing to get a goal. Players of limited utility like Shaw don't cost their teams every second they're on the ice, but they don't benefit their teams very much, either. And that's the problem in the modern game: safe is death, neutral is reverse. Every second you're conceding shot attempts against you're dooming yourself, because it's hard for everybody to score goals, and luck happens for everyone at roughly the same rate over large enough samples. More offensively gifted players succeed in generating offensive pressure, but a lot of it doesn't "look" like what we intuitively expect offensive pressure to look like, so we get frustrated. And because they're taking "risks", there are cases of exceptional, memorable bad luck induced failure which our brains are conditioned to remember as "failure" more than the massive pile of minutes wasted by "grinding" that didn't burn us out of sheer good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, habs_93 said:

Indeed.

This is it, so much. Humans made it out of the wilderness because our brains are wired for pattern recognition. We hunt for patterns in everything so we can gain some sort of advantage. If we see something over and over, to a certain extent we become habituated to it. But not all the patterns we perceive actually exist. There's a psychological phenomenon called Apophenia, which is finding patterns in things which are mostly or totally random. Sometimes, it's fun. Who doesn't like to imagine what the shapes in the clouds look like? But it's also a way to come to erroneous conclusions or make bad decisions.

Hockey is a game heavily influenced by random chance, and one in which small behaviours by players can have massive influence on the result of games. This is a combination ripe for magical thinking, "gut instinct", and illusory pattern perception. I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again, but goals in today's NHL are rare. The mean 5-on-5 save percentage for 82-game seasons since 2007-08 is .922, or to put it in reverse the mean 5-on-5 shooting percentage in that time is 7.8%. There's a lot of stuff going on—around almost 55 per game of shots, blocked shots, and missed shots—and not a lot of it is going in the net. And we can tell through standard, thoroughly understood statistical methods that a lot of this is random noise. I'm not saying goals aren't a function of skill for the offence, defence, and goalie. What I'm saying is where there is skill—even great, generational skill—it's regularly hidden in noise.

I'm not telling anyone not to enjoy every second of this wonderful game, or lose any of the awe and reverence for it that we all have. Believe it or not, I get a awfully romantic and sappy about sports. But I also like objectively understanding what's going on. I understand that a lot of people have a hard time accepting that so much of the game is random. But it empirically is. I can't give you a definitive reason why, or even really suggest how this could (or if it should) change in an evidence-supported manner. And to be totally honest, I don't care that much. I'm interested in describing with as much accuracy what the game is, right now, not in the 90s when I enjoyed it more, or in a hypothetical future with smaller goalie pads or etc etc. The game as it is, is what it is.

It's human nature to mentally overvalue observations of gross actions with instant payoff which confirm a conception of something you're already operating within, as opposed to giving careful consideration to fine actions which are harder to keep track of and don't instantly show if they've succeeded or failed. We become habituated to bad play by limited or marginal players because their failure doesn't "look" like what we've been conditioned to describe as failure: a goal against, or failing to get a goal. Players of limited utility like Shaw don't cost their teams every second they're on the ice, but they don't benefit their teams very much, either. And that's the problem in the modern game: safe is death, neutral is reverse. Every second you're conceding shot attempts against you're dooming yourself, because it's hard for everybody to score goals, and luck happens for everyone at roughly the same rate over large enough samples. More offensively gifted players succeed in generating offensive pressure, but a lot of it doesn't "look" like what we intuitively expect offensive pressure to look like, so we get frustrated. And because they're taking "risks", there are cases of exceptional, memorable bad luck induced failure which our brains are conditioned to remember as "failure" more than the massive pile of minutes wasted by "grinding" that didn't burn us out of sheer good luck.

Translation: HOCKEY'S COOL!

Oh, and.....Good Luck, Habs!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/04/2017 at 6:32 AM, habs_93 said:

Indeed.

This is it, so much. Humans made it out of the wilderness because our brains are wired for pattern recognition. We hunt for patterns in everything so we can gain some sort of advantage. If we see something over and over, to a certain extent we become habituated to it. But not all the patterns we perceive actually exist. There's a psychological phenomenon called Apophenia, which is finding patterns in things which are mostly or totally random. Sometimes, it's fun. Who doesn't like to imagine what the shapes in the clouds look like? But it's also a way to come to erroneous conclusions or make bad decisions.

Hockey is a game heavily influenced by random chance, and one in which small behaviours by players can have massive influence on the result of games. This is a combination ripe for magical thinking, "gut instinct", and illusory pattern perception. I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again, but goals in today's NHL are rare. The mean 5-on-5 save percentage for 82-game seasons since 2007-08 is .922, or to put it in reverse the mean 5-on-5 shooting percentage in that time is 7.8%. There's a lot of stuff going on—around almost 55 per game of shots, blocked shots, and missed shots—and not a lot of it is going in the net. And we can tell through standard, thoroughly understood statistical methods that a lot of this is random noise. I'm not saying goals aren't a function of skill for the offence, defence, and goalie. What I'm saying is where there is skill—even great, generational skill—it's regularly hidden in noise.

I'm not telling anyone not to enjoy every second of this wonderful game, or lose any of the awe and reverence for it that we all have. Believe it or not, I get a awfully romantic and sappy about sports. But I also like objectively understanding what's going on. I understand that a lot of people have a hard time accepting that so much of the game is random. But it empirically is. I can't give you a definitive reason why, or even really suggest how this could (or if it should) change in an evidence-supported manner. And to be totally honest, I don't care that much. I'm interested in describing with as much accuracy what the game is, right now, not in the 90s when I enjoyed it more, or in a hypothetical future with smaller goalie pads or etc etc. The game as it is, is what it is.

It's human nature to mentally overvalue observations of gross actions with instant payoff which confirm a conception of something you're already operating within, as opposed to giving careful consideration to fine actions which are harder to keep track of and don't instantly show if they've succeeded or failed. We become habituated to bad play by limited or marginal players because their failure doesn't "look" like what we've been conditioned to describe as failure: a goal against, or failing to get a goal. Players of limited utility like Shaw don't cost their teams every second they're on the ice, but they don't benefit their teams very much, either. And that's the problem in the modern game: safe is death, neutral is reverse. Every second you're conceding shot attempts against you're dooming yourself, because it's hard for everybody to score goals, and luck happens for everyone at roughly the same rate over large enough samples. More offensively gifted players succeed in generating offensive pressure, but a lot of it doesn't "look" like what we intuitively expect offensive pressure to look like, so we get frustrated. And because they're taking "risks", there are cases of exceptional, memorable bad luck induced failure which our brains are conditioned to remember as "failure" more than the massive pile of minutes wasted by "grinding" that didn't burn us out of sheer good luck.

To add to this we are unaware of what the coach or GM see as success especially in the playoffs when players are assigned specific roles. Not noticing Shaw right now may be a good thing and the fact these players aren't  giving up goals against is a bonus. The Rags are struggling at home which is a pattern I would like to see continue. I agree hockey carries with it  more luck than most other sports due to the speed, playing on ice and the subtleties related to controlling the object used in the game when compared to soccer, basketball, football or baseball. Having said that I believe that is also what attracts the fans. While Shaw may not be getting any points I think he is an improvement to the team and Bergevin has done a good job with putting together some of the intangibles that are hard to see unless you're the coach. Performance as far as points is just the most obvious to see.

 

On 10/04/2017 at 7:11 PM, BigTed3 said:

I'll be pretty disappointed if Shaw and Weber don't combine for at least 16 game-winning goals this post-season.

I like your sense of humour and apparently so does Mr. Weber. Now if we can just get Mr. Shaw to wake up. If only you had mentioned Rad too. Either way this comment still isn't to far from reality so far and Webs appears to be working at his part of the request.:5187: GO HABS GO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was surprised Shaw didn't get called for a retaliation penalty in Game 3, because he definitely retaliated when the Rags took a shot at him.  And at the time, the refs were calling us for every little thing.  He better be smart and just stick to playing hockey, where he can really contribute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, vegasrick said:

I was surprised Shaw didn't get called for a retaliation penalty in Game 3, because he definitely retaliated when the Rags took a shot at him.  And at the time, the refs were calling us for every little thing.  He better be smart and just stick to playing hockey, where he can really contribute.

In a regular season game he would have been nailed for it without a doubt. That's likely the reason his value is higher in the playoffs, because he gets away with a lot of the little garbage like most others that play his style of game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, HabsRuleForever said:

Did MB tell him the playoffs have started? OMG what a joke.

I'll take a different view. I think Shaw has played a fairly intense series and is trying hard. You can see he's fired up, he's going hard after pucks, and he's involved in the play. I haven't been a big Shaw fan since he got here, mainly on account of his bad contract and his selfish penalties and antics. But since Julien got here, he's cut way down on his bad penalties and I think he's shown value. He hasn't produced offensively in the playoffs, but then neither have most of his teammates. So yes, he can be better, but the effort has been there and I don't think he's been a complete trainwreck. To be honest, I'm more disappointed in the lack of production from Pacioretty and Galchenyuk and Byron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't really fault his playoff performance as he didn't have a good team to showoff his playoff warrior credentials.  But in the games which the team played well, he really did show glimpses of his reputed tenacity.  So give him benefit of my doubt because the sample size was just too small.

He won't leaving anytime soon, so there'll be more playoffs to prove his worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, PuckPundit said:

Can't really fault his playoff performance as he didn't have a good team to showoff his playoff warrior credentials.

It's nice to see you admit that "playoff pedigree" is a garbage narrative. If a "proven playoff performer" needs to leech off talented players to do anything, then it's pretty obvious the talented players are more important than the "character" player, wouldn't you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, PuckPundit said:

Can't really fault his playoff performance as he didn't have a good team to showoff his playoff warrior credentials.  But in the games which the team played well, he really did show glimpses of his reputed tenacity.  So give him benefit of my doubt because the sample size was just too small.

He won't leaving anytime soon, so there'll be more playoffs to prove his worth.

It's very easy to look like a playoff warrior when you're on a team like Chicago.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, habs_93 said:

It's nice to see you admit that "playoff pedigree" is a garbage narrative. If a "proven playoff performer" needs to leech off talented players to do anything, then it's pretty obvious the talented players are more important than the "character" player, wouldn't you say?

I dunno.......the Hawks traded Shaw and got swept in 4 games. maybe there is something to "character". :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...