East Meets West

Raffi F. Torres

The Sharks shock and surprise that Brendan Shanahan is reviewing a Raffi Torres hit is about as surprising as the Sharks surprise that Marty Havlat gets injured.

Raffi Torres hit a player, Jarrett Stoll, and that hit involved head contact. 

Now, maybe, if you are not Raffi Torres, there is a benefit of the doubt. 

But you're Raffi Torres, and dude you're going down. And you're going down by a lot. And your team is going to suffer. 

As for whether it's a hockey play or not, I am of the opinion, that all hits to the head are not hockey plays. And that the hitter has an obligation to not make hits that can hit another player in the head. The old-school mantra that accidents happen is no longer good enough. 

The thing that drives me nuts, is that back in the day we had hits to the knee. And then Cam Neely's career ended because of those hits. And then we stopped having those kinds of hits. And at the time we talked about hockey plays and accidents, but somehow we managed to eliminate those kinds of plays. 

Hockey Plays evolve over time. And it's time for them to evolve one more time. 

 

We wuz halaked part 2

Check out this blog post by Olivier:

http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2013/5/11/4321698/retour-sur-le-match-5-canadiens-vs-senateurs

Out chanced 10-3 in the first, Montreal was down 2-1. This only happens when one goaltender is playing incredibly well and the other not so much. 

Sigh. 

It happens. 

We wuz halaked

 

In 2010, I had the joy of watching Jaroslav Halak put together an astonishing series of games that eliminated a great Washington team that then went into a spiral of despair and confusion that it only recently has emerged from.

Hockey, unlike basketball, has a high luck component. In the sense that over a short series of events, random events can cancel out a better team's dominance. Montreal dominated the Senators. A lot of bloggers, and journalists and fans will arrive at the wrong conclusion that somehow Montreal failed to generate chances, failed to score because it lacked the right players, that the team is too small, european, etc, instead of acknowledging that a great team can be eliminated by a bad team because of luck. 

Montreal has done it many times (see Boston so many times to count that I am losing track of the number of times it happened). 

The danger, and it's real, is that Montreal make the same set of mistakes Washington made in 2010. Sometimes the better team loses because of luck. Luck doesn't change the fact that they were the better team. Washington proceeded to go into a death spiral as they changed the very nature of their club and have yet to recover. 

The only mistake Marc Bergevin can make is if he looks at the outcome of this series and thinks that he was beaten by a better team. 

Montreal outchanced the Senators. They outshot and out-possessed them inspite of

1. missing Eller. Eller was a 2-way center who exploited the gaps created by the DD and Max-Pac combo. NHL teams are forced to protect against Max-Pac leaving Eller to feast on whatever is left over. Looking at game 1, you saw what was going to happen, if he never got injured. 27 shots in one period is not an accident.
2. Max-Pac being injured. DD is Max-Pac's center. He helps create offense for Max-Pac. But without Max-Pac at full efficiency, DD is a small overmatched center who can only do so much. as for not scoring in 5 games, let's be clear over a 5 game sample, a 50 point center may score 0 points. Without Eller creating defensive mismatches DD was simply overmatched. 
3. Emelin forcing us to play Tinordi. Tinordi is a rookie, and he played well, but ... 
4. Carey Price had a bad series. This happens. Only in Montreal do we compare every goaltender to Roy, Dryden and Plante. Price is no Roy, Dryden or Plante. But he is not chopped liver. He gets paid about what you would expect to pay a goalie who keeps us in most games. Did he suck this series? Yup. But to think that there are much better goalies out there is silly.
5. Gionta. And Gionta who disturbed our defensive matchups and is a great playoff performer
6. An injured Brandon Proust. 

In spite of being a broken team we were still better than Ottawa. 

So how did we get eliminated?

One word, Anderson.

Anderson was unreal. Folks who think McLean "out-coached" Therien miss the insane Save Pct of Anderson. Having watched him play for the Avalanche, and watch him almost single-handedly eliminate the San Jose Sharks, his performance is not surprising. He can and has put together insane streaks of goaltending. There is a lot of stupidity out there saying that the reality was that Anderson didn't have to play that great because he didn't face many hard chances. Poppy-cock. McLean's D was bailed out again and again and again by Anderson. It happens. Montreal outchanced the Senators whenever they tried to score. And the reality is Anderson was amazing. I don't think folks realize how surreal a .940 save percentage is. And unlike that freak, Thomas who was really a symbiotic creature who benefited from Chara's play, Anderson plays great without the awe inspiring talent that is Zdeno Chara. 

The Sens are not scrappy pesky, they are a team that rode an unreal save percentage by their goalie to the playoffs. McLean will get the Adams award, ink will be spilled about the clutch nature of their Canadian players, Karlson will be deified, and Anderson will not be recognized for how core to that team he is. 

The nonsense about the Habs not being built for the playoffs is crap. Luck allows worse teams to win in the playoffs. And sometimes they win cups. That's why I love hockey. Better teams can be eliminated by worse teams. 

So I will bow to Anderson because he neutralized the Habs offense, allowing a crappy Senators team to exploit their luck and Montreal's bad goaltending. 

But for the love of God, Marc B. don't think you lost to the better team. 

Look at the end of the day Therien out-coached McLean. McLean's entire season was bailed out by Anderson. his playoffs was bailed by Anderson. Anderson would be the indisputable MVP + Vezina trophy winner if he didn't get injured. 

The rest of the Ottawa team thinks they are actually doing something, they're not. Anderson eliminates the huge disadvantage in chances they concede through his play, which then allows a mediocre team to beat a much better team.

For the future, if Anderson keeps playing like he did this season we might be looking at the greatest goalie of all time. And Ottawa has a bright future. If Anderson reverts to a more human level, Ottawa is toast.

Obviously, the joker for Ottawa is Karlson. Watching Karlson play, this series was a disappointment. He never dominated play, he never created offensive opportunities. 

For Montreal, a window of opportunity has opened that centers around PK Subban. As long as PK Subban is as great as he appears, we can win the cup. This may be a 10 year opportunity. Hopefull we figure it out in the next 10.  

Can we overcome?

After going down 3 games to 1 against the Senturds, I wondered whether it was possible for Montreal to come back.

To believe that you had to believe the following

1. Bad luck is a bigger source of the results than the relative play of the teams

The reason (1) is so important is because without it you have to believe in an incredible run of luck for your team. 

So I'll come out and say it, Montreal has been out-lucked. 

If we look at the metrics like PDO or chances (calculated by the awesome Olivier) what you'll notice is that Montreal has out chanced the Senators (excluding game 3) 54-34. In the real world, this means Montreal should be up 3-1 not down 3-1. For crying out loud, in game 4 the Senators scored on a shot that was not a scoring opportunity. 

What that means, in my mind, is that assuming that the cumulative effects on injuries don't affect things too much, even with Budaj in nets, Montreal can eliminate the Senators in 7. 

The downside with such an assessment is that it assumes that the Senators are no longer the beneficiaries of extraordinary luck in the form of advantageous referring or bizarro deflections or hits that, "accidentally", injure key players from Montreal. And because there is very little room for error, this kind of luck will influence games. 

If Montreal was not suffering from the set of injuries we seem to be suffering from, I would be more optimistic. 

Therefore, although it's entirely possible, and in my mind, not surprising if Montreal wins in 7, my expectation remains that Montreal gets eliminated in 5 games. 

Bourque's Thuggery and the cult of the head hit.

A friend of mine, who is a Montreal Canadiens and an Ottawa Sentaors fan, asked me if I was the kind of annoying fan I whined about recently... The kind that complains about his team getting pummeled but is curiously silent when his team commits crimes.

He asked because I didn't express the same kind of outrage I expressed about the Gryba hit for the Bourque hit. 

In my defense, I chose to not watch game 3. I don't think Montreal, without Emelin and Eller, is able to beat the Sens who have an increasingly healthy Karlsson. And I am not interested in watching my team lose. And I have a limited number of hours in the day, and I'd rather hang with my kid, help my wife and go to a Sharks game :-)

So... I didn't see the game. Which is why I am late to the party...

If Bourque did what he did, and the Montreal press said he did, shame on him. And I hope, ask, that Shannahn punish him in whatever way is appropriate. If he really did make contact with someone's head with an elbow, then shame on him. That was a dirty hit. And a wrong hit. And I am dissapointed he did that. And I am delighted to hear no Sen's player is concussed or in the hospital. A potentially bad outcome was averted!

But...

Earlier in the game, I am told Subban got cross-checked in the head. And that cross-check precipitated an amazing bout of silliness. And I would like to believe that McLean didn't ask one of his players to do something like that, because he knew Subban would go ballistic, but I don't. McLean knew that Subban would go ballistic and he told his players to go after Subban. And yes, he never said "hit him in the head", but after his unequivocal support of the Gryba hit, I am sure the message was recieved that as long as it wasn't too outrageous, the Ottawa Senators organization wouldn't look down on the player. And hell, we know the Ottawa Sun wouldn't. And the neanderthals in the sport would just say that Subban had it coming... 

I wish I could say I am imagining this. But ...

I was involved in competitive debating in my youth. And there was a coach who observed that I was a few millimeters from being completely unhinged. And so he told his team to act stupid in a debate to cause me to become unhinged. After they got me to go completely nutso, they then, in their conclusion, instead of making a case about the debate, read a prepared statement about how insane I was. And, of course, I lost. It was a life lesson. 

So yes, McLean targetted Subban with every intent to get him unhinged, because with Subban unhinged there was no way Montreal could win. Injury wasn't the objective, getting him off his game was the objective.  

Coaches do that. They play dirty. And they would be stupid to do otherwise. And I don't like that. 

So ... 

The reason I hate hits to the head is that they target great players. And instead of seeing great players play hockey I see third rate NHL'ers.

After a few days, I realize I am not angry at the hit. A marginal player's reckless play had far greater consequences than the player intended. Stupid foolish people sometimes do things they wish they didn't. 

I am angry, still very angry, that the discussion wasn't about how Eller was injured, and oh my goodness, a promising player may have his career ended. I am livid with the Ottawa Sun that decided to use an image of a hurt human being to promote their local team. I am disgusted with the neanderthals who rushed to defend a player who did the hit, and the right of people to hit people in the head. I am appalled with McLean's indifference to the injured player.

In a sane humane universe, the hitter apologises, everyone wishes a speedy recovery on the part of the injured, and we all agree that we should try harder to avoid those kinds of accidents. And we don't have stupid silly discussions about a walrus. 

But I don't live in a sane universe. I live in this one. 

Babcock is the problem

I may have to give up hockey. abdelkader hurt the ducks player in the worst possible way. He jumped up and hit the guy in the head. And Babcock said it was a hockey play. A hockey play is not jumping to hit the guy in the head area. that is a mugging. Progress will be made when a coach says It was an unfortunate hit by my player and i hope the other guy is okay. And I tell my players to not do hits like that. and my team thinks hits like that are wrong.

Teach Mr. Burish something about head shots

Just finished reading this:

 

“I’d take a one-game suspension for that hit,” said Sharks forward Adam Burish, when it seemed one game might be all Gryba would get. “It was a game-changer. One game? It was worth it.”

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Dirty+debate+over+Senators+Eric+Gryba+clean/8335747/story.html#ixzz2SNoaHtiL

 

And was so disgusted and appalled that I wrote to the Sharks a letter expressing my outrage. As a season ticket holder, and with 70% of their budget coming from season ticket holders... I am doing my part:

Basically the short version is that anyone who thinks destroying another person's life is "okay" is a neanderthal who has never watched their entire future shattered. The only correct answer is that a hit like that is an unfortunate accident and that I hope that the player gets well. 

I hope that Todd and the rest of the team don't share his point-of-view. 

Attitudes like that are disgusting and appalling. And I don't care what he thinks in private, but he is a representative of your organization and I think less of your organization that he said that. 

Concussions destroy lives any hit that can create one is a mistaken decision by the hitter.

 

Hits to the head

As a hockey fan reading the faux outrage of fans when their guy is hit in the head is infuriating. 

And it can be particuarlly infuriating if your team's player accidentally hit the guy in the head and got penalized and it was an accident.

So I want to explain my outrage about hits to the head. 

A friend of mine got caught in the cross fire of my outrage.

In 1996 I got a concussion. It was a stupid accident. I slipped and fell on the ice while walking around Brown University.

I went to the emergency room that night, and there was nothing wrong. The next morning things were wrong. The world was spinning. I couldn't move from my room to the bathroom. The Brown EMT had to carry me in a stretcher, all 260 pounds, to a local emergency room. There the doctor's x-rayed my head, did an MRI and told me that basically I had a brain bruise and the prognosis was uncertain. It might go away in 4-6 weeks and it might not. 

The next day, I was in a complete funk. Thinking was impossible. I would sit in my dorm room and stare at the ceiling. I couldn't play computer games. I couldn't read. I couldn't walk without taking anti-nausea drugs. The doctor's were nice, but helpless. 

I needed to get my degree or else I couldn't get my visa and then I had to back to Greece. And their idea of help was "patience".

Thank God I had already gotten a job offer that I had accepted. Because I couldn't answer my name straight, never mind do an interview. My employer, when I told them I got a concussion, freaked out. They were wondering did they hire damaged goods? Thank goodness there are laws and decent human beings out there. But I could imagine a different employer with different laws who would have taken the offer back. After all, they hired my brain and the prognosis was uncertain. 

Meanwhile I still needed a degree because without the degree I don't get the H1B. And I can't think. 

I've met another woman who had a severe concussion. And her boyfriend and friends were confused how this woman who had an MBA from Harvard after 6 months couldn't work. There is a temptation to look at people with concussions with a sense of disbelief. That it can't be that bad. 

It is. It's that bad. Everything that is special about you as an intelligent human being is taken from you. You stop being special. You stop being you. And you have no idea when it's going to get better or if it will get better. 

I was lucky. My concussion got better in time for me to pass a class I needed to pass to graduate with a Bachelor's in Computer Science from Brown University. And by pass, I mean the professor was gracious enough to give me a passing grade even though I got 23% on the final. Basically she valued my pre-concussion work higher than my post concussion work. 

But for the next year, I was sensisitive to not getting enough sleep, to even marginal hits to the head... 

In my universe, any hit to the head is a potential life destroying event for the victim. And I get in a sport like hockey accidents happen. We let people drive even though accidents happen. But when an accident happens we still punish people because we acknowledge that it's not okay to kill or maim someoen. 

I want to applaud Mr. Shannahan for his willingness to change the sport. Hits to the head are never okay. And even if it's an accident it was still not okay. The hitter must always be thinking, always, am I risking a hit to the head, just a little bit? And if I am, then I change my decision. Does that mean my team might lose the game, yes but there are more important things than winning a game.

And obviously, accidents happen. And we punish those less severely than willful hits, but we still punish them. 

Every single NHL pundit, or fan or player who says: it was a hockey play when a player gets hit in the head thinks its okay to destroy a human being. And as far as I am concerned that makes me think a little bit less of them. 

We need to change our views in society about hits to the head. 

Damien Cox said it best, in my mind, said it best:

I'm still not sure this was a clear heat shot or a hit to the head as a principal point of contact.

What it was, however, was a hit on a vulnerable player and one that caused severe head injury. In an era where we're starting to understand the gravity of these head injuries and their long-term effects, this was a decision that basically said you can't go out and hurt a guy and inflict a brain injury just because the opportunity is there or because somebody gave that player a suicide pass.

That's old school thinking. New school thinking is that Gryba didn't have to make that hit, that he had options - how about going for the puck? - and elected to make the choice that simply isn't good for the game even if it was once seen as the correct course of action.

 

 

Thuggery

The Montreal Canadiens were eliminated from the playoffs when a Senator player made a reckless decision.

Bull shit.

Players are superhuman. They are able to move faster and react faster than the rest of us. A hockey player is able to move at speeds approaching 30km an hour. They are able to deal with pucks moving 160km/h.  The idea that any injury is an accident is silly. Players know the risks when they take actions. The player made the decision to be reckless with the hope that the opponent would get hurt.

And the player was hurt. Objective achieved. Playoffs over. Maybe next year.

Meh.

After watching Montreal dominate the first 30 or so minutes of hockey, I was optimistic about the playoffs.

And then Lars Eller gets hit. And then I knew it was over.

Now, the story line reads, incorrrectly, that Price blew it. The real story line is the following:

Michael Therrien plays a very situational brand of hockey. Essentially instead of creating top lines he creates a collection of lines that can play effectively in different roles. Lars Eller's line was essential because it exploited the opportunities created by Plekance and DD. 

It was a great regular season run. Let's hope for an even better year next year!

Go Habs Go!