Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How many folks here pay for 'The Athletic'?
#1
One of the few things I'm willing to fork over for. Well worth it, IMO.

Very interesting stuff here:

https://theathletic.com/352908/2018/05/1...he-devils/

A snippet: 

"The fascinating thing here is how different it is for different teams. Let’s contrast Montreal and New Jersey. You can see through six seconds, the Canadiens allowed 105.7 shot attempts per 60 minutes from forwards; the Devils allowed forwards to generate shot attempts at just over half the rate, 56.9 shot attempts allowed. That is a monstrous difference. If Montreal allowed shot attempts to forwards here at the same rate as the Devils, they’d have allowed 49 fewer shot attempts. With shot attempts from forwards in this situation turning into goals about 4.4 per cent of the time, that’s worth a pair of goals.

(Actual retail value last year? The Canadiens gave up eight goals to New Jersey’s two in the six seconds after a defensive zone loss. Montreal had some other issues going on in addition to the shot attempt volume but they did give up a ton of shot attempts.)

From the seventh second post-DZL through the sixtieth second, the gap narrows substantially. Montreal is still slightly worse than New Jersey at preventing shot attempts from forwards here but it’s a much smaller difference — 3.2 shot attempts per 60 minutes versus 48.8 shot attempts per 60 minutes in the first six seconds. If Montreal prevented shot attempts by forwards like New Jersey in seconds seven through sixty, they have allowed 11.5 fewer shot attempts from forwards. So in Montreal’s case, 80 per cent of the the difference between the Canadiens and the Devils in terms of what they give up to forwards in the minute after defensive zone losses occurs in the first six seconds.

Now, this leads to some additional questions. First, I guess, is what the hell are the Devils doing that the Canadiens aren’t? There’s an old adage amongst coaches that the best coach is the one who gets off the bus with the best players. On the one hand, it’s true but on the other hand, I’d be stunned if “New Jersey’s players are better” is why it’s difficult for forwards to generate shot attempts against them after the Devils lose a defensive zone faceoff, whether in comparison to the Canadiens or the league as a whole. New Jersey’s players are not, as a group, particularly stellar at preventing shot attempts. They’re absolute nails right after they lose that defensive zone faceoff though, particularly against opposition forwards.

What does that leave? The coaching staff, really. (New Jersey’s scorers were long famous for an inability to count things properly but that issue seems to have largely resolved.) When you contrast the pattern of unblocked shot attempts in the six seconds after a defensive zone faceoff loss for the Devils with that of the Canadiens, it’s shockingly different. It’s one thing to know, on an intellectual level, that New Jersey does this amazing job at suppressing shot attempts. It’s another thing to see it.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#2
The Athletic is awesome - well worth the nominal fee.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#3
I agree. The Athletic caters to all sorts of sports fans. You a stat nerd? You're covered. Like in depth profiles? You're covered. Provocative takes? You're covered.

The Habs have English and French boards (mainly the same writers, but not all).

All NA sports, and a new effort to cover world footie.

AFA this article is concerned; a fellow like Dellow might be a good add to the coaching staff, as long as he's not a PK fan.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#4
(2018-05-17, 06:17 PM)Pouzar Wrote: The Athletic is awesome - well worth the nominal fee.

What's the nominal fee? Just curious.
Ancient Chinese Proverb: A mosquito landing on your testicle should help you realize that violence doesn't solve every problem
Reply
Thanks given by:
#5
I think I paid something like $80 for the year (so less than $10/month) but there were many "offers" that were available after I signed up for less.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#6
(2018-05-17, 07:15 PM)Pouzar Wrote: I think I paid something like $80 for the year (so less than $10/month) but there were many "offers" that were available after I signed up for less.

Thanks. I wonder how large the membership is?
Ancient Chinese Proverb: A mosquito landing on your testicle should help you realize that violence doesn't solve every problem
Reply
Thanks given by:
#7
That I have no idea but the content that is put out on a daily basis is sensational.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#8
(2018-05-17, 08:02 PM)Pouzar Wrote: That I have no idea but the content that is put out on a daily basis is sensational.
Believe me, it costs a lot to run a web site with good content, from the technical side to the content side to the rights side, if done properly; the amount of people involved, the hours involved, the server, access to information in the first place... That's why I was wondering about the total membership, to see on how much revenue they were running the site. Mind you, there's surely a venture capitalist or an organization (news) behind the site (I haven't researched it) in the first place to bankroll it.

I have zero problem with a pay as you go system if it's not prohibitive and it guarantees the type of content you are looking for. Is there a free trial period to see what you are getting?
Ancient Chinese Proverb: A mosquito landing on your testicle should help you realize that violence doesn't solve every problem
Reply
Thanks given by:
#9
I can't even keep up with the content on hockey let alone delve in to the MLB content which, from accounts, is off the charts.

I don't recall a free trial period.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#10
(2018-05-17, 08:15 PM)Scriptor Wrote:
(2018-05-17, 08:02 PM)Pouzar Wrote: That I have no idea but the content that is put out on a daily basis is sensational.
Believe me, it costs a lot to run a web site with good content, from the technical side to the content side to the rights side, if done properly; the amount of people involved, the hours involved, the server, access to information in the first place... That's why I was wondering about the total membership, to see on how much revenue they were running the site. Mind you, there's surely a venture capitalist or an organization (news) behind the site (I haven't researched it) in the first place to bankroll it.

I have zero problem with a pay as you go system if it's not prohibitive and it guarantees the type of content you are looking for. Is there a free trial period to see what you are getting?

One month free I believe...was thinking of signing up myself.
The MB Trifecta: Low Cost, Low Risk, No Return
Reply
Thanks given by:
#11
(2018-05-17, 07:15 PM)Pouzar Wrote: I think I paid something like $80 for the year (so less than $10/month) but there were many "offers" that were available after I signed up for less.

First year is about $50 right now I think.
The MB Trifecta: Low Cost, Low Risk, No Return
Reply
Thanks given by:
#12
Its a bargain at $80 and a steal at $50.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#13
(2018-05-17, 09:02 PM)Captain aHab Wrote:
(2018-05-17, 07:15 PM)Pouzar Wrote: I think I paid something like $80 for the year (so less than $10/month) but there were many "offers" that were available after I signed up for less.

First year is about $50 right now I think.
Thanks. Price probably went down if the sign-ups weren't as good as they hoped for. Volume is the key. 100,000 at $80 is 8M to run the site. if you only get 50,000 members and need 5M to run it, you,re still short 1M. Lowering the price and doubling the membership is better, IMO
Ancient Chinese Proverb: A mosquito landing on your testicle should help you realize that violence doesn't solve every problem
Reply
Thanks given by:
#14
Are there ads on the site? If so, that would be another reason to lower membership to attract eyes.
The MB Trifecta: Low Cost, Low Risk, No Return
Reply
Thanks given by:
#15
No ads.
Reply
Thanks given by: Captain aHab , Captain aHab
#16
Well worth it. After about two weeks I forgot completely about the cost because it really is great value, especially compared against the myriad other things folks spend much more on in a year.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#17
It's worth it. I have it and agree with pouz, there is more content then one could possibility get through without some serious time commitments.

Reply
Thanks given by:
#18
I've got one.
They have a lot of 40% off promos.

Well worth the $
Reply
Thanks given by:
#19
Nope too cheap. If I won't pay extra to watch my Habs I def won't to read about them (and other sports)
Reply
Thanks given by:
#20
In here, MB admits he never really relinquished control of the AHL team, that Carriere was (more or less, my view of it) the Laval GM in title only.

"It’s run by the big club, let’s face it," offers His Purple Heinous.

So, that means teams 'built' by MB at all three levels cratered, completely. He is a dismal failure at every possible level - and yet on he churns, into year seven.

“To put somebody just to put somebody, just to do paperwork, that doesn’t do us or that person any good either,” Bergevin said.

(Good job cashing those cheques, Larry...)

MB, when asked if Joel Bouchard will have a role in player personnel decisions, said his plate will be more than full enough with his coaching duties in Laval. 

The author rightfully asks wouldn't the same be true for the purple gonad? Isn't his plate full with Montreal, or does he have time to soil everything else, too?

One more interesting tidbit: "There also appears to be a desire to slim down the front office structure around Bergevin, with him calling it “top heavy.” Rick Dudley, who Bergevin brought on board to support him while he learned the general manager job, will not be replaced now that he has moved on to the Carolina Hurricanes. And even though Carrière is still around, his influence in the front office is clearly waning."

So, now that MB has 'learned' enough to have the team face-down for the second time in three years, he's on his own? To me, that's definitely Geoffie chopping away layers of excuse fodder.

Still a clusterbleep.
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)