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

Rank the habs defense


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

The problem is that we say this every year. He plays fine for 10 games to start the year, he goes into a funk. He recovers a bit after the all-star break, then he fades again. He played well in the bubble after a long rest. I doubt he's any more injured than the rest of the players all the time, and I suspect a large part of this is just age, fatigue, and wear and tear. He's not young and 90% of D men kind of drop off in performance in their early to mid 30's. I think he's have spurts where he does better and he'll hold up more against teams with less firepower on offence, but at the end of the day I think the Weber we're seeing is something he'll be for the rest of his career. I don't think he can play 20+ minutes for 60-80 games in a row any more, especially with a condensed season like we're seeing.

Not all of us say that every year. he is not what he once was but he is not as bad as he is playing right now. if we could get to a point where we only take say 3-4 penalties a game we may see him do better....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, maas_art said:

I mean, "slightly above average top 4" may be a bit harsh for someone with 16 points in 17 games and a +15.  He's been talked about in the Norris discussion all year... yes we're only 1/4 of the way through but i think he's top 2 on pretty much any team in the league right now. 

A bit harsh, maybe. I think he is a good #2 or #3 on a lot of teams and on a couple of teams like ours he would look better than that,. 

I don't put much emphasis on the Norris noise since it is an trophy voted on by the media and can often become a popularity contest. However, I do agree that having his name in the mix is a positive statement on his recent play.  He has also been recently mentioned for consideration for the 2022 US Olympic team but most media analysts ( C Button is an exception) are doubtful he would crack the top 10 of US defensemen let alone the top 8 but it would be great if he could. I like him as a player and given our team's options I like the pairing with Edmundson. 

We all see players differently and my opinion is just that, only an opinion. I hope I am forced to upgrade the "slightly" as the season progresses.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, habs1952 said:

Ben Chiarot playing 24:14 minutes against the Jets tells you all you need to know about the Habs. 

That's a stomach turning stat. One of our issues may be that nobody on the current roster is able to play with a diminished Weber but how will we know if we keep sending them out there every game. Something has to give soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, H_T_L said:

That's a stomach turning stat. One of our issues may be that nobody on the current roster is able to play with a diminished Weber but how will we know if we keep sending them out there every game. Something has to give soon. 

I would argue that probably anyone else on our d corps should make Weber look less diminished 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

This list seems to be rapidly evolving, albeit not in a good way... here's where I have them now:

1. Petry (a #1 D man but one who still needs to have his minutes managed on account of his age/fatigue)

2. Kulak (underrated, maybe a decent #4 but who's being asked to do more than he can right now)

3. Weber (overrated, he too could be a good #4 but the team needs to first recognize he's no longer a top-pairing player. It's the single biggest thing holding us back right now)

4. Romanov (slowly improving, I still think he'll get to where we want him to be over time, most likely a 2nd-pairing guy for his career)

5. Edmundson (he was strong with Petry, he's been weak with Weber. The truth is probably somewhere in between)

6. Chiarot (needs to be on the 3rd pairing when he comes back)

7. Mete (he's a great skater but a bad defenceman, so hard to find a role for him)

 

Guessing Merrill will be weaker than the top 4 and slot somewhere around where the other 3 are. So once again, a depth piece who doesn't really address the team's needs for a top-pairing puck-moving LHD.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

This list seems to be rapidly evolving, albeit not in a good way... here's where I have them now:

1. Petry (a #1 D man but one who still needs to have his minutes managed on account of his age/fatigue)

2. Kulak (underrated, maybe a decent #4 but who's being asked to do more than he can right now)

3. Weber (overrated, he too could be a good #4 but the team needs to first recognize he's no longer a top-pairing player. It's the single biggest thing holding us back right now)

4. Romanov (slowly improving, I still think he'll get to where we want him to be over time, most likely a 2nd-pairing guy for his career)

5. Edmundson (he was strong with Petry, he's been weak with Weber. The truth is probably somewhere in between)

6. Chiarot (needs to be on the 3rd pairing when he comes back)

7. Mete (he's a great skater but a bad defenceman, so hard to find a role for him)

 

Guessing Merrill will be weaker than the top 4 and slot somewhere around where the other 3 are. So once again, a depth piece who doesn't really address the team's needs for a top-pairing puck-moving LHD.

 

Yeah, man...i dont even know how to rank them anymore.   To begin the season it felt like we had Weber & Petry & not much else... now it feels like Petry.. and not much else.

In order to rank them I have to sort of 'guess' what they would be like under different situations - like Weber has been Abysmal but I think if he is pushed down the lineup he probably is fine at that position.   Romanov, conversely, is playing as our #5-6 but is probably one of our top 3-4. I know your list is based purely on what we're seeing but I think i rank mine based at least in part on what i think we'll see.  Like right now Kulak is probably better than Romanov but i find he gets more rattled at times & I think it wouldnt be a shock to see Romanov overtake him very soon.  

I think i would go:

Petry 


then a huge gap


Weber (i know he's been terrible but a] I think its not as bad as it seems and b] i think pushing him back a pairing would do wonders)
Romanov
Kulak
Edmundson
Chairot


I suspect Merrill will sit somewhere between Romanov and Edmundson. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kulak rated above Edmundson!  I just don't get it.  Put Edmundson back with Petry and both of them would perform better. Every time I watch Kulak I see flash but no substance, he's acceptable as a bottom pairing guy but we all see players differently. Romanov does show more promise than Kulak and I see him as a second pairing guy in the future.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RCAF48 said:

Kulak rated above Edmundson!  I just don't get it.  Put Edmundson back with Petry and both of them would perform better. Every time I watch Kulak I see flash but no substance, he's acceptable as a bottom pairing guy but we all see players differently. Romanov does show more promise than Kulak and I see him as a second pairing guy in the future.

 

 

You read my mind! since Petry has been separated from Edmundson poof no more offence and it takes him a while to get comfortable with changes too. our best bet is to put them back together put Merill with Romanov so the kid has more leeway and Merill can stay on the defensive side Webber was better when he was with Chiarot but I think we could do other things there from time to time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://torontosun.com/sports/traik-eotomy-does-joe-thornton-still-have-a-place-in-the-maple-leafs-lineup

 

… After acquiring Erik Gustaffsson and Jon Merrill at the deadline, I’ll put Montreal’s defence against any other team’s in the North Division. Trying to pick a top-six once Ben Chiarot returns from injury is going to be a fun challenge for head coach Dominique Ducharme, especially after seeing how Alexander Romanov was able to physically keep Matthews in check the other night 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

With the new guys added...

1. Petry

2. Kulak

3. Romanov

4. Weber

5. Merrill (but remains to be seen if he's any better than Edmundson or Chiarot if asked to play the top 4, so he could easily fall down the rankings)

6. Edmundson

7. Gustafsson

8. Chiarot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

With the new guys added...

1. Petry

2. Kulak

3. Romanov

4. Weber

5. Merrill (but remains to be seen if he's any better than Edmundson or Chiarot if asked to play the top 4, so he could easily fall down the rankings)

6. Edmundson

7. Gustafsson

8. Chiarot

I agree with your list, the only thing I would add is that Gustafsson has not looked half as bad as he did in Philly or Calgary. He made a couple of nice plays to get the Habs out of trouble last night. I wouldn't rank him any higher though until he proves he can do it more consistently, but the potential to rise is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

I agree with your list, the only thing I would add is that Gustafsson has not looked half as bad as he did in Philly or Calgary. He made a couple of nice plays to get the Habs out of trouble last night. I wouldn't rank him any higher though until he proves he can do it more consistently, but the potential to rise is there.

I like Gustavsson too he seems to be really making an effort to keep his job he has skill he just needs to settle down and play I like that list too other than Kulak he would not be on my list other than as a reservist I find him to soft under pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Petry

2. Weber

3. Edmundson

# 4 through # 7 are interchangeable depending on the opposition.

8. Kulak

 

 I can't drink the kool-aid on Kulak, I've seen him bewildered too often and then move quickly to the wrong area.  Perhaps after I see more of Merrill and/or Gustafsson my opinion will change but right now if my job was on the line and I was serious about winning games they would be my third pairing of what we have available. Merrill made several nice plays last night and Gustafsson didn't look out of place on the PP. Romanov is still a project but hopefully he will continue to improve. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

With the new guys added...

1. Petry

2. Kulak

3. Romanov

4. Weber

5. Merrill (but remains to be seen if he's any better than Edmundson or Chiarot if asked to play the top 4, so he could easily fall down the rankings)

6. Edmundson

7. Gustafsson

8. Chiarot

For me, its:

 Petry  - although he's looked a little rattled lately (he's been getting more top pairing minutes so that is a concern) he's still our best. 

Weber - he was horrendous for a while but looking far better lately. Still some bad plays here and there but probably 2nd best guy. Would be better with the right partner. 

Romanov - he's a tough one because he has been excellent - but mostly against worse players. Is he as good if he gets tougher minutes? tough call.

Kulak - i do think he gets rattled easily, but i think he's really underrated and I definitely think he's better than some of our slower guys. 

Edmundson/Chairot are somewhat interchangeable to me.  I think Edmundson seems to play better up the lineup but i think on the 3rd pair (where they both should be) its possible Chairot is the better of the two.  Ben actually skates fairly well I just think he's vastly overpowered (Not physically but mentally) by the top players in the league. Put him on the 3rd pair & I bet we all have a different opinion of him.

---------

Merrill / Gustaffson - I cant really rank either right now. I really liked Merrill in Vegas and I thought Gustaffson was a beast in Chicago but i know my friend there said he was scary defensively. I think its possible that one or both of them could thrive here but i could also see either flopping.   If i reevaluate in a few weeks I wouldnt be surprised to see either (especially Merrill) bumped up into the top 4 on my list.   I dont know if Kulak will get much playing time now tbh, which is a mistake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The narrative about Kulak being bad defensively is really just that, it's fiction. People might have some recall bias about 1-2 plays that stand out in their minds. If you look at the numbers, Kulak is the #1 D-man on the team defensively.

He is #1 for fewest goals allowed per ice time that he's on... #1. Edmundson is #2. Romanov is #3. So we can't even just say that this was his benefiting from playing with Petry, because Petry's near the bottom of the roster, along with Merrill, Weber, and Chiarot. Then you look at expected goals against per ice time. This stat looks at where shot attempts are coming from, how dangerous they are, and what would be expected to go in with standard goaltending, so it's taking out the noise of a player benefiting from luck of his goalie making incredible saves for him and so on. It's a validated measure of how a player is playing to affect chances against. Once again, Kulak has been our best defenceman this year. With this stat, Merrill actually moves up from last in actual goals against to 2nd best in expected goals against. Chiarot, Weber, Petry, Edmundson, and Romanov are all kind of lumped in the same range after that. Or if you just want to measure pure scoring chances against per ice time? Kulak once again number one on the team.

So what does this tell us?

- Kulak has done the best job of all our D men at preventing pucks from going in the net. It's an objective stat. Fewer pucks go in our net with Kulak on than with any other defenceman on.

- In addition, the numbers also support the fact that the other team's chances to score on us are the lowest when Kulak is on than with any other D man. So this isn't just Kulak getting great help from his goalies that other D men didn't get. There are fewer actual goals going in because there are fewer chances against when Kulak is on.

- As discussed before, this isn't just because Kulak played 3rd pairing minutes with Romanov. Because when Kulak played top-pairing minutes with Petry, those numbers were sustained. In fact, Petry's numbers shot up with Kulak compared to when he played with Edmundson.

 

Everyone has their own cup of tea, and if someone wants to come on here and post that they don't like Kulak, so be it. But it's a complete fictional narrative to suggest Kulak is bad defensively. He's actually been our BEST defensive defenceman this season, and that's not something I'm saying based on opinion, it's what the numbers are telling us. For my money, I'm still taking Petry as the best and most complete D man on the team, but the numbers are telling us Kulak has been our best D man at even strength and it's really not even close. He's also #2 on the team for expected goals for per 60, just 0.01 behind Petry and well ahead of everyone else.

Want to look back at last year? Guess who our best defenceman was at expected goals against per ice time among our regular D men? Kulak, tied for first with Victor Mete, despite the fact Kulak spent most of last year playing in the top 4 with Petry. Two years ago? Kulak again. This isn't a fluke. All three years he's been here, he's been the top defenceman at preventing goals against. All three years.

And so here's why some of you are probably still scratching your heads about how these stats can be true. Because most of us in North America who spent countless years listening to the likes of Don Cherry and Brian Burke and so on associate good defence with being tough and hitting guys and blocking shots. But the adage is that when you're throwing lots of hits and blocking lots of shots, it's because the other team has the puck and has it in your end zone. That's bad. What helps keep the puck out of your net even more? Having the puck. Being first on loose pucks. Getting on rebounds. Getting the puck out of your own zone maintaining possession rather than fending off an attack and just dumping it out onto the other team's sticks so they bring another wave of offence right back at you. So the guys who can skate well and have better puck skills actually tend to give you better defence. The numbers are there to support this, even if you don't like it and even if it challenges your notions of what playing defence is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

The narrative about Kulak being bad defensively is really just that, it's fiction. People might have some recall bias about 1-2 plays that stand out in their minds. If you look at the numbers, Kulak is the #1 D-man on the team defensively.

He is #1 for fewest goals allowed per ice time that he's on... #1. Edmundson is #2. Romanov is #3. So we can't even just say that this was his benefiting from playing with Petry, because Petry's near the bottom of the roster, along with Merrill, Weber, and Chiarot. Then you look at expected goals against per ice time. This stat looks at where shot attempts are coming from, how dangerous they are, and what would be expected to go in with standard goaltending, so it's taking out the noise of a player benefiting from luck of his goalie making incredible saves for him and so on. It's a validated measure of how a player is playing to affect chances against. Once again, Kulak has been our best defenceman this year. With this stat, Merrill actually moves up from last in actual goals against to 2nd best in expected goals against. Chiarot, Weber, Petry, Edmundson, and Romanov are all kind of lumped in the same range after that. Or if you just want to measure pure scoring chances against per ice time? Kulak once again number one on the team.

So what does this tell us?

- Kulak has done the best job of all our D men at preventing pucks from going in the net. It's an objective stat. Fewer pucks go in our net with Kulak on than with any other defenceman on.

- In addition, the numbers also support the fact that the other team's chances to score on us are the lowest when Kulak is on than with any other D man. So this isn't just Kulak getting great help from his goalies that other D men didn't get. There are fewer actual goals going in because there are fewer chances against when Kulak is on.

- As discussed before, this isn't just because Kulak played 3rd pairing minutes with Romanov. Because when Kulak played top-pairing minutes with Petry, those numbers were sustained. In fact, Petry's numbers shot up with Kulak compared to when he played with Edmundson.

 

Everyone has their own cup of tea, and if someone wants to come on here and post that they don't like Kulak, so be it. But it's a complete fictional narrative to suggest Kulak is bad defensively. He's actually been our BEST defensive defenceman this season, and that's not something I'm saying based on opinion, it's what the numbers are telling us. For my money, I'm still taking Petry as the best and most complete D man on the team, but the numbers are telling us Kulak has been our best D man at even strength and it's really not even close. He's also #2 on the team for expected goals for per 60, just 0.01 behind Petry and well ahead of everyone else.

Want to look back at last year? Guess who our best defenceman was at expected goals against per ice time among our regular D men? Kulak, tied for first with Victor Mete, despite the fact Kulak spent most of last year playing in the top 4 with Petry. Two years ago? Kulak again. This isn't a fluke. All three years he's been here, he's been the top defenceman at preventing goals against. All three years.

And so here's why some of you are probably still scratching your heads about how these stats can be true. Because most of us in North America who spent countless years listening to the likes of Don Cherry and Brian Burke and so on associate good defence with being tough and hitting guys and blocking shots. But the adage is that when you're throwing lots of hits and blocking lots of shots, it's because the other team has the puck and has it in your end zone. That's bad. What helps keep the puck out of your net even more? Having the puck. Being first on loose pucks. Getting on rebounds. Getting the puck out of your own zone maintaining possession rather than fending off an attack and just dumping it out onto the other team's sticks so they bring another wave of offence right back at you. So the guys who can skate well and have better puck skills actually tend to give you better defence. The numbers are there to support this, even if you don't like it and even if it challenges your notions of what playing defence is.

 

If he were the best "defensively " then he'd be up there with Edmondson in +/- stats also. The "corsi" stats and most advanced stats really don't work well with defenseman. Kulak also hasn't been put in the same roles game in and out and asked to play the same assignments. A defenseman's role is defense first. This may not look great to fantasy hockey leagues. Players like Ghost on Philly and others can "look" great but then end up over the long haul having a hard time staying in teams line ups. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

The narrative about Kulak being bad defensively is really just that, it's fiction. People might have some recall bias about 1-2 plays that stand out in their minds. If you look at the numbers, Kulak is the #1 D-man on the team defensively.

He is #1 for fewest goals allowed per ice time that he's on... #1. Edmundson is #2. Romanov is #3. So we can't even just say that this was his benefiting from playing with Petry, because Petry's near the bottom of the roster, along with Merrill, Weber, and Chiarot. Then you look at expected goals against per ice time. This stat looks at where shot attempts are coming from, how dangerous they are, and what would be expected to go in with standard goaltending, so it's taking out the noise of a player benefiting from luck of his goalie making incredible saves for him and so on. It's a validated measure of how a player is playing to affect chances against. Once again, Kulak has been our best defenceman this year. With this stat, Merrill actually moves up from last in actual goals against to 2nd best in expected goals against. Chiarot, Weber, Petry, Edmundson, and Romanov are all kind of lumped in the same range after that. Or if you just want to measure pure scoring chances against per ice time? Kulak once again number one on the team.

So what does this tell us?

- Kulak has done the best job of all our D men at preventing pucks from going in the net. It's an objective stat. Fewer pucks go in our net with Kulak on than with any other defenceman on.

- In addition, the numbers also support the fact that the other team's chances to score on us are the lowest when Kulak is on than with any other D man. So this isn't just Kulak getting great help from his goalies that other D men didn't get. There are fewer actual goals going in because there are fewer chances against when Kulak is on.

- As discussed before, this isn't just because Kulak played 3rd pairing minutes with Romanov. Because when Kulak played top-pairing minutes with Petry, those numbers were sustained. In fact, Petry's numbers shot up with Kulak compared to when he played with Edmundson.

 

Everyone has their own cup of tea, and if someone wants to come on here and post that they don't like Kulak, so be it. But it's a complete fictional narrative to suggest Kulak is bad defensively. He's actually been our BEST defensive defenceman this season, and that's not something I'm saying based on opinion, it's what the numbers are telling us. For my money, I'm still taking Petry as the best and most complete D man on the team, but the numbers are telling us Kulak has been our best D man at even strength and it's really not even close. He's also #2 on the team for expected goals for per 60, just 0.01 behind Petry and well ahead of everyone else.

Want to look back at last year? Guess who our best defenceman was at expected goals against per ice time among our regular D men? Kulak, tied for first with Victor Mete, despite the fact Kulak spent most of last year playing in the top 4 with Petry. Two years ago? Kulak again. This isn't a fluke. All three years he's been here, he's been the top defenceman at preventing goals against. All three years.

And so here's why some of you are probably still scratching your heads about how these stats can be true. Because most of us in North America who spent countless years listening to the likes of Don Cherry and Brian Burke and so on associate good defence with being tough and hitting guys and blocking shots. But the adage is that when you're throwing lots of hits and blocking lots of shots, it's because the other team has the puck and has it in your end zone. That's bad. What helps keep the puck out of your net even more? Having the puck. Being first on loose pucks. Getting on rebounds. Getting the puck out of your own zone maintaining possession rather than fending off an attack and just dumping it out onto the other team's sticks so they bring another wave of offence right back at you. So the guys who can skate well and have better puck skills actually tend to give you better defence. The numbers are there to support this, even if you don't like it and even if it challenges your notions of what playing defence is.

 

 A lot of words using selective stats to promote an interesting theory.  Thank you for explaining what playing defence is. 

Your non-fictional opinion that Kulak is our best defenceman is intriguing but it will not change my fictional ( I have been called worst) opinion based on absolutely nothing but watching him play. 

1 minute ago, HARBORSPORT said:

whoa !........wait !.........we have a defense ???:ph34r:

If you are an American like Capt Welly. For us north of the 49th we have a defence..........ugh even worst than the spelling police!

 

  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RCAF48 said:

 A lot of words using selective stats to promote an interesting theory.  Thank you for explaining what playing defence is. 

Your non-fictional opinion that Kulak is our best defenceman is intriguing but it will not change my fictional ( I have been called worst) opinion based on absolutely nothing but watching him play. 

If you are an American like Capt Welly. For us north of the 49th we have a defence..........ugh even worst than the spelling police!

 

  

 

I am an American yes but I grew up in Sault Michigan which is North of a lot of Southern Ontario. We are all just fans where we live and where we're from shouldn't make a difference. If any of us were 'experts" we'd be working in the NHL or in some capacity within hockey. I believe most of us probably played at some level or not. Like most I started skating at about 3 and started watching hockey with my father as a kid. CBC Howie and so on. No cable TV at the time "Hockey night in Canada" is what I grew up on. Watching The Canadiens of the 60's through today. Now I always buy Center Ice so I can watch as much as possible. Not retired yet so only so much. That said I have a lot of friends from Canada from sailing the Great Lakes (International Shipmasters Association ) and growing up in a border town. So to me where someone is from makes no difference to me and everyone is entitled to their personnel opinions without where there from or anything else having anything to do with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, CaptWelly said:

If he were the best "defensively " then he'd be up there with Edmondson in +/- stats also. The "corsi" stats and most advanced stats really don't work well with defenseman. Kulak also hasn't been put in the same roles game in and out and asked to play the same assignments. A defenseman's role is defense first. This may not look great to fantasy hockey leagues. Players like Ghost on Philly and others can "look" great but then end up over the long haul having a hard time staying in teams line ups. 

+/- gives you some information, but it's not a great stat. It tells you about an outcome but it doesn't tell you why that outcome happened. Here are a few pitfalls to using +/- as a measure of a player's utility:

1. +/- tells you if a goal went in but that goal might have gone in for various reasons. What if a player shot the puck from his own end and the goalie bobbled the puck and let it in? Every defender on the ice gets a -1. What if you play on a team with bad goaltending and your goalie lets in a ton of easy shots, which Price has done this season? Those are shots a goalie should ordinarily stop. The +/- stat punishes the skaters for the goalie not doing his job to a standard level of play. Expected goals takes this into account and judges what chances the players allowed as opposed to just what went in. It's a better assessment of the skaters' role in team defence.

2. +/- can only penalize players who play on the PP and only help players on the PK, so with a team like the Habs scoring a bunch of SH goals this year but also being bad defensively on the PK, it  makes it look like those who play the PK have better +/- than they actually should have. It rewards the SH goals but doesn't penalize for being a bad penalty kill.

3. +/- can also swing a lot with empty net goals... the best offensive players are usually on the ice while the net is empty, so those players tend to take the biggest hit from EN goals against, whereas guys like Edmundson, Chiarot, Merrill, etc. who never get used in this situation don't take that hit.

4. Most importantly, it is well-proven that expected goals for is a better predictor of future performance and goal differential (both for teams and individual players) than +/- (or actual goals scored) or even Corsi. Yes, +/- is telling you to some degree what happened (albeit not capturing the whole truth as I detailed above) but it's not telling you much about what role the individual player played and it's not telling you about how they're likely to do going forward, which is really what's most useful to a coach/GM.

5. And lastly, measuring goal events means you're looking at a small sample size, whereas Corsi or scoring chances or expected goals look at much larger sample sizes. That means the degree of error is much less. It necessarily comes closer to telling you the truth. +/- can be swayed greatly by a few random events. Instead of being +8, five great saves against and 5 weak goals against make that number a -2. Corsi is based on dozens of events a game and hundreds of events a season, so it's much less likely random chance changes your data. It's a more reliable indicator of a player's play for that reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, CaptWelly said:

I am an American yes but I grew up in Sault Michigan which is North of a lot of Southern Ontario. We are all just fans where we live and where we're from shouldn't make a difference. If any of us were 'experts" we'd be working in the NHL or in some capacity within hockey. I believe most of us probably played at some level or not. Like most I started skating at about 3 and started watching hockey with my father as a kid. CBC Howie and so on. No cable TV at the time "Hockey night in Canada" is what I grew up on. Watching The Canadiens of the 60's through today. Now I always buy Center Ice so I can watch as much as possible. Not retired yet so only so much. That said I have a lot of friends from Canada from sailing the Great Lakes (International Shipmasters Association ) and growing up in a border town. So to me where someone is from makes no difference to me and everyone is entitled to their personnel opinions without where there from or anything else having anything to do with it. 

Sorry if you took my comment on spelling for more than it was intended, My family and I lived in the USA for a few years while serving on an exchange tour with the USAF and when writing official correspondence I was always corrected by my American boss for using "colonial" english and not the correct American spelling gained by a free nation. It was done in jest and I took it as such. I didn't intend to give the inference that where you're from matters in anything other than in the way we spell differently. Sorry again if you took offence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • H_T_L locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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