Restricted Free Agents Benoit Pouliot and Tom Pyatt not qualified by Habs' brass
By not tendering qualifying offers to Benoit Pouliot and Tom Pyatt the Montreal Canadiens handed the two young forwards their proverbial hockey-freedom. The likely reason behind the two decisions were two-fold. Both players were passed on the depth chart by other young forwards, and the decision (particularly in the Pouliot case) freed up some cap-space; either for the future long-term signings of PK Subban and Carey Price, or a modest dip into the upcoming UFA pool.
As Alain Vigneault once explained in reference to Darcy Tucker, neither player sat comfortably in their chair. Pouliot was supposed to be a player who produced offense, while Pyatt was supposed to play strong minutes in the defensive-zone.
Why didn't they fit their chair?
Lets see what the numbers say.
Pouliot
Using multiple numerical values within my system we see that Pouliot just didn't put up numbers warranting a spot among the team's top-9 forwards. He ended the regular season with grade of 60; three percentage-points below the team average, and 20th among 27 teammates scouted.
His overall risk/reward rating of 0.47 was 0.17 points below the team-average, and 24th out of 27 players rated.
Pouliot was a player counted on to produce offense. But, his offensive-zone risk/reward rating ranked 22nd among all Montreal players. Pouliot's play in the defensive-zone didn't make up for his offensive-numbers, as his defensive-zone risk/reward rating placed him 21st among Habs players.
Number 57's playoffs numbers didn't help his cause. He finished last among his teammates in total grade (49), overall risk/reward (-0.16), and (incredibly enough) offensive-zone risk/reward (0.00). The negative number in overall risk/reward simply means that pouliot actually hurt the team (missed pass, lost puck-battle) more than he helped the team (won puck-battle, successful dump-in).
Pyatt
Pyatt was never a player meant to produce offense, so looking at his offensive-numbers would be counter-productive. Number 94's regular season grade of 61 ranked 17th among his scouted teammates, while his overall risk/reward rating (0.47) placed 25th out of 27 players
His defensive-zone risk/reward rating (0.05) was particularly disappointing, as it was only good enough for 21st place, while also being well below average.
Pyatt's defensive numbers in the playoffs severely hurt his cause, as he ended the playoffs with the lowest defensive-zone risk/reward rating (-0.01) among all players scouted.
Be free! Be free young men!
*Follow the "Quick Links" at the top-left of the page for all the Habs numbers from last season*
THE PLAYER DATA SPECIALIST
MTL 2011-12
- What is Boucher Scouting?
- GOALIE REPORTS
- HABS PROSPECTS
- HABS 2011-12
- HABS 2010-11
- 2012 DRAFT
- ARMSTRONG 2012-13
- BEAULIEU (AHL)
- BOURNIVAL (AHL)
- BOURQUE 2012-13
- DESHARNAIS
- DIAZ
- ELLER
- EMELIN
- GALCHENYUK 2012-13
- GALLAGHER (AHL)
- GIONTA 2012-13
- GORGES 2012-13
- KABERLE
- LEBLANC 2011-12
- LEBLANC (AHL)
- MARKOV
- MOEN
- NATTINEN (AHL)
- PACIORETTY
- PLEKANEC 2012-13
- PRUST 2012-13
- RYDER 2012-13
- QUAILER (AHL)
- SUBBAN
- TINORDI (AHL)
- WEBER
- WHITE
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Monday, June 27, 2011
Habs Prospect Olivier Archambault One-game Scouting Report
Archambault's speed key to decent overall risk/reward rating
Olivier Archambault was chosen by the Montreal Canadiens during the fourth round of the 2011 NHL entry draft. The 5'11", 178 lbs winger was the 108th player chosen overall. The left-handed shooter played right wing during the game scouted. He played last season with Val d'Or of the QMJHL, but was recently traded to the Drummondville Voltigeurs; where he is set to play next season.
*Numbers from game 4 of Val d'Or's playoff series against the Quebec Remparts (March 30th, 2011)*
Overall Grade
Archambault posted a slightly below-average grade of 62 during the game scouted. He had an even plus/minus to go along with 1 goal, and 3 shots on net.
Overall Risk/Reward
Archambault's overall risk/reward rating of 1.24 would rank 24th when compared to 41 other 2011 draft-eligible prospects scouted this past season. Much of Archambault's grade is the product of his speed. He won 9 of 12 offensive-zone puck battles, but the vast majority were won because he beat opposing players to loose pucks. He also managed the bulk of his positive marks by successfully skating the puck into the offensive-zone.
Offensive-zone Risk/Reward
Despite winning many of his puck battles in the offensive-zone, Archambault had trouble creating offense after gaining possession of the puck. He completed only 44% of his offensive-zone pass-attempts, and just 25% of his attempts to beat opposing defenders 1on1 (deaks) in the o-zone.
Defensive-zone Risk/Reward
Archambault tended to fly the defensive-zone early, and as such had few total events in the defensive-zone. That said, his wheels did allow him to cover up for multiple bad-pinches by his defensive-teammates. All-in-all his stick just doesn't seem to be very strong, as he was only able to win 3 of 7 defensive-zone puck-battles; all 3 wins were the product of his speed, not his stick.
Neutral-zone Risk/Reward
Archambault's work in the neutral-zone carried his grade. He led many offensive-rushes, and as such was able to successfully carry the puck into the offensive-zone 8 times. His speed through the n-zone made up for his inability to win 1on1 puck-battles, as he won only 3 of 9 neutral-zone puck battles.
Top Attributes
-Speed and puck-carrying ability in open-ice
-puck decisions through neutral-zone
Top concerns
-weak stick
-bad puck-decisions in offensive-zone
-lack of engagement in defensive-zone
Raw Data
Olivier Archambault was chosen by the Montreal Canadiens during the fourth round of the 2011 NHL entry draft. The 5'11", 178 lbs winger was the 108th player chosen overall. The left-handed shooter played right wing during the game scouted. He played last season with Val d'Or of the QMJHL, but was recently traded to the Drummondville Voltigeurs; where he is set to play next season.
*Numbers from game 4 of Val d'Or's playoff series against the Quebec Remparts (March 30th, 2011)*
Overall Grade
Archambault posted a slightly below-average grade of 62 during the game scouted. He had an even plus/minus to go along with 1 goal, and 3 shots on net.
| 10 | ||
| WINS | 51 | WINS |
| EVENTS | 82 | EVENTS |
| GRADE | 62 | GRADE |
| PLAYER | 10 |
Overall Risk/Reward
Archambault's overall risk/reward rating of 1.24 would rank 24th when compared to 41 other 2011 draft-eligible prospects scouted this past season. Much of Archambault's grade is the product of his speed. He won 9 of 12 offensive-zone puck battles, but the vast majority were won because he beat opposing players to loose pucks. He also managed the bulk of his positive marks by successfully skating the puck into the offensive-zone.
| 10 | ||
| MINUTES | 17 | MINUTES |
| POS/MIN | 3.00 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 1.76 | NEG/MIN |
| 10 | ||
| EVENTS/ MIN | 4.76 | EVENTS/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 1.24 | RISK/REWARD |
| 10 |
Offensive-zone Risk/Reward
Despite winning many of his puck battles in the offensive-zone, Archambault had trouble creating offense after gaining possession of the puck. He completed only 44% of his offensive-zone pass-attempts, and just 25% of his attempts to beat opposing defenders 1on1 (deaks) in the o-zone.
| 10 | ||
| MINUTES | 15 | MINUTES |
| POS/MIN | 1.40 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 1.07 | NEG/MIN |
| 10 | ||
| EVENTS/ MIN | 2.47 | EVENTS/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 0.33 | RISK/REWARD |
| 10 |
Defensive-zone Risk/Reward
Archambault tended to fly the defensive-zone early, and as such had few total events in the defensive-zone. That said, his wheels did allow him to cover up for multiple bad-pinches by his defensive-teammates. All-in-all his stick just doesn't seem to be very strong, as he was only able to win 3 of 7 defensive-zone puck-battles; all 3 wins were the product of his speed, not his stick.
| 10 | ||
| MINUTES | 15 | MINUTES |
| POS/MIN | 0.60 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 0.40 | NEG/MIN |
| 10 | ||
| EVENTS/ MIN | 1.00 | EVENTS/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 0.20 | RISK/REWARD |
| 10 |
Neutral-zone Risk/Reward
Archambault's work in the neutral-zone carried his grade. He led many offensive-rushes, and as such was able to successfully carry the puck into the offensive-zone 8 times. His speed through the n-zone made up for his inability to win 1on1 puck-battles, as he won only 3 of 9 neutral-zone puck battles.
| 10 | ||
| MINUTES | 15 | MINUTES |
| POS/MIN | 1.07 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 0.53 | NEG/MIN |
| 10 | ||
| EV/ MIN | 1.60 | EVENTS/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 0.53 | RISK/REWARD |
| 10 |
Top Attributes
-Speed and puck-carrying ability in open-ice
-puck decisions through neutral-zone
Top concerns
-weak stick
-bad puck-decisions in offensive-zone
-lack of engagement in defensive-zone
Raw Data
| 10 | ||
| OZPBW | 9 | OZPBW |
| OZPBL | 3 | OZPBL |
| OZPASS+ | 4 | OZPASS+ |
| OZPASS- | 5 | OZPASS- |
| OZDEAK+ | 2 | OZDEAK+ |
| OZDEAK- | 6 | OZDEAK- |
| SKI + | 8 | SKI + |
| SKI- | 1 | SKI- |
| DI+ | 2 | DI+ |
| DI- | DI- | |
| OZTA | 2 | OZTA |
| 10 | ||
| DZPBW | 3 | DZPBW |
| DZPBL | 4 | DZPBL |
| DZPASS+ | 2 | DZPASS+ |
| DZPASS- | 1 | DZPASS- |
| DZDEAK+ | DZDEAK+ | |
| DZDEAK- | 1 | DZDEAK- |
| PK DUMP+ | PK DUMP+ | |
| PK DUMP- | PK DUMP- | |
| DZTA | 2 | DZTA |
| DZ-BL-SHOT | DZ-BL-SHOT | |
| DZ-BL-PASS | 2 | DZ-BL-PASS |
| 10 | ||
| NZPBW | 3 | NZPBW |
| NZPBL | 6 | NZPBL |
| NZPASS+ | 1 | NZPASS+ |
| NZPASS- | NZPASS- | |
| NZDEAK+ | 1 | NZDEAK+ |
| NZDEAK- | 1 | NZDEAK- |
| NZTA | 1 | NZTA |
| 10 | ||
| DZFOW | DZFOW | |
| DZFOL | DZFOL | |
| DZPKFOW | DZPKFOW | |
| DZPKFOL | 1 | DZPKFOL |
| OZPPFOW | OZPPFOW | |
| OZPPFOL | OZPPFOL | |
| OZFOW | OZFOW | |
| OZFOL | OZFOL | |
| NZFOW | NZFOW | |
| NZFOL | NZFOL | |
| 10 | ||
| PS THRU | 4 | PS THRU |
| OZ PS BL | 2 | OZ PS BL |
| POINTS X2 | 2 | POINTS X2 |
| +/- | +/- | |
| SHOTS | 3 | SHOTS |
| 10 | ||
| WINS | 51 | WINS |
| EVENTS | 82 | EVENTS |
| GRADE | 62 | GRADE |
| PLAYER | 10 |
Sunday, June 19, 2011
2011 NHL DRAFT: Top Defensive-Zone Puck-Battle Winning-Percentage Among Scouted D-Men
Stuart Percy posts the top defensive-zone puck-battle winning-percentage
Defensive-zone puck-battles are a key play for any team. A team with a group of defensemen who can win the majority of these plays will undoubtedly be successful keeping the opposition off the score sheet.
Defensive-zone puck-battles can be won with raw physical strength, but most are won with a good stick. A good stick is the main ingredient in any successful defenseman. Whether their name is Nicklas Lidstrom or Andrei Markov, a close eye on how they actually win most of their defensive-zone puck-battles will justify this point.
A player is credited with a successful defensive-zone puck-battle when one of the following events occur:
-Wall or open-ice 1on1 puck-battle is won
-Race to loose puck is won
-Player breaks up a rush
-Player lifts another player's stick in the slot to prevent a scoring chance.
A player is credited with an unsuccessful defensive-zone puck-battle when one of the following events occur:
-Wall or open-ice 1on1 puck-battle is lost
-Race to loose puck is lost
-Pass in defensive-zone goes through defenseman (under stick or between legs)
-Unable to handle pass in defensive-zone
-Gets beat 1on1 by onrushing opposition player
Ranking for Scouted defensemen
Players with high percentages within this metric include Stuart Percy, Adam Clendening, Jonas Brodin and Oscar Klefbom.
Stuart Percy has the top defensive-zone puck-battle winning-percentage (79%) among draft-eligible defensemen scouted. Percy has 2 of the top 5 percentages (79%, 70%), and notched these marks while playing against high-end competition in the Memorial Cup.
Adam Clendening has two d-zone puck-battle winning-percentages (78%, 66%) among the top-6 calculated. Clendening's numbers are particularly impressive because he posted them while playing in the NCAA against older players.
Highly-ranked Swedish defensemen Jonas Brodin (77%) and Oscar Klefbom (75%) round out the top-4. Brodin and Klefbom posted their numbers during the Under-18 final against the US; where they absolutely dominated 1on1 puck-battles against competition their own age.
Defensive-zone puck-battles are a key play for any team. A team with a group of defensemen who can win the majority of these plays will undoubtedly be successful keeping the opposition off the score sheet.
Defensive-zone puck-battles can be won with raw physical strength, but most are won with a good stick. A good stick is the main ingredient in any successful defenseman. Whether their name is Nicklas Lidstrom or Andrei Markov, a close eye on how they actually win most of their defensive-zone puck-battles will justify this point.
A player is credited with a successful defensive-zone puck-battle when one of the following events occur:
-Wall or open-ice 1on1 puck-battle is won
-Race to loose puck is won
-Player breaks up a rush
-Player lifts another player's stick in the slot to prevent a scoring chance.
A player is credited with an unsuccessful defensive-zone puck-battle when one of the following events occur:
-Wall or open-ice 1on1 puck-battle is lost
-Race to loose puck is lost
-Pass in defensive-zone goes through defenseman (under stick or between legs)
-Unable to handle pass in defensive-zone
-Gets beat 1on1 by onrushing opposition player
Ranking for Scouted defensemen
Players with high percentages within this metric include Stuart Percy, Adam Clendening, Jonas Brodin and Oscar Klefbom.
Stuart Percy has the top defensive-zone puck-battle winning-percentage (79%) among draft-eligible defensemen scouted. Percy has 2 of the top 5 percentages (79%, 70%), and notched these marks while playing against high-end competition in the Memorial Cup.
Adam Clendening has two d-zone puck-battle winning-percentages (78%, 66%) among the top-6 calculated. Clendening's numbers are particularly impressive because he posted them while playing in the NCAA against older players.
Highly-ranked Swedish defensemen Jonas Brodin (77%) and Oscar Klefbom (75%) round out the top-4. Brodin and Klefbom posted their numbers during the Under-18 final against the US; where they absolutely dominated 1on1 puck-battles against competition their own age.
| PLAYER | DEFENSIVE-ZONE PUCK-BATTLES WINNING PERCENTAGE | PLAYER |
| STUART PERCY | 79 | STUART PERCY |
| ADAM CLENDENING | 78 | ADAM CLENDENING |
| JONAS BRODIN | 77 | JONAS BRODIN |
| OSCAR KLEFBOM | 75 | OSCAR KLEFBOM |
| STUART PERCY | 70 | STUART PERCY |
| ADAM CLENDENING | 66 | ADAM CLENDENING |
| DYLAN DEMELO | 58 | DYLAN DEMELO |
| ROBBIE RUSSO | 58 | ROBBIE RUSSO |
| GUILLAUME CLOUTIER | 58 | GUILLAUME CLOUTIER |
| KEEVIN CUTTING | 57 | KEEVIN CUTTING |
| DYLAN DEMELO | 57 | DYLAN DEMELO |
| MICHAEL PALIOTTA | 57 | MICHAEL PALIOTTA |
| GABRIEL BOURRET | 55 | GABRIEL BOURRET |
| RASMUS BENGTSSON | 55 | RASMUS BENGTSSON |
| NATHAN BEAULIEU | 52 | NATHAN BEAULIEU |
| STUART PERCY | 52 | STUART PERCY |
| KEEVIN CUTTING | 44 | KEEVIN CUTTING |
| NATHAN BEAULIEU | 40 | NATHAN BEAULIEU |
| CONNOR MURPHY | 38 | CONNOR MURPHY |
| JAGGER DIRK | 36 | JAGGER DIRK |
| KARL JOHANSSON | 36 | KARL JOHANSSON |
| GABRIEL BOURRET | 33 | GABRIEL BOURRET |
Friday, June 17, 2011
2011 DRAFT: Stuart Percy: A Better Player Than His Draft-Ranking Indicates
Mississauga Ice Dog Stuart Percy (#5) is the 53rd ranked North American skater for the upcoming draft. The 6'1", 195 lbs defenseman has turned heads recently (including my own). He has an excellent stick, strong positioning, and makes an incredibly consistent first-pass. He makes things look easy, and has played much better hockey than his draft-ranking would indicate.
Three-Game Average Grade
Percy notched 2 of the top-3 one-game grades of any prospect scouted this season. His three-game average grade would in fact, place fifth when compared with any other player's one-game grade. The only defensemen with a one-game grade that would better Percy's three-game grade is teammate, and 121st ranked North American skater Dylan Demelo and the 3rd-ranked European skater Jonas Brodin.
Three-Game Risk/Reward Rating
Through 3 scouted games, Percy Notched 2 of the top-5 one-game grades of any scouted prospect. His three-game overall-rating of 2.21 would rank 7th when compared to any other player's one-game grade.
Three-Game Offensive-Zone Risk/Reward Rating
Offensive-zone risk/reward ratings for defensemen are usually much lower than they are for forwards. That said, Percy posted the top one-game offensive-zone risk/reward rating (1.19) of any player scouted. His three-game average rating would rank 12th among any other player's one-game rating, and 4th among any other defenseman's one-game offensive-zone risk/reward rating.
Three-game Defensive-Zone Risk/Reward Rating
Percy posted the second-best one-game defensive-zone risk/reward rating of all prospects scouted. Two of his one-game d-zone ratings are among the top-5 ever scouted, while his three-game average defensive-zone risk/reward rating would rank sixth when compared with any other player's one-game rating.
Stuart Percy 3-Game Raw Data and Totals
Three-Game Average Grade
Percy notched 2 of the top-3 one-game grades of any prospect scouted this season. His three-game average grade would in fact, place fifth when compared with any other player's one-game grade. The only defensemen with a one-game grade that would better Percy's three-game grade is teammate, and 121st ranked North American skater Dylan Demelo and the 3rd-ranked European skater Jonas Brodin.
| AVERAGE GRADE | |
| WINS | 230 |
| BATTLES | 292 |
| GRADE | 79 |
| AVERAGE GRADE |
Three-Game Risk/Reward Rating
Through 3 scouted games, Percy Notched 2 of the top-5 one-game grades of any scouted prospect. His three-game overall-rating of 2.21 would rank 7th when compared to any other player's one-game grade.
| AVERAGE GRADE | |
| POS | 230 |
| NEG | 62 |
| AVERAGE GRADE | |
| MINUTES | 76 |
| POS/MIN | 3.03 |
| NEG/MIN | 0.82 |
| AVERAGE GRADE | |
| EVENTS/ MIN | 3.84 |
| RISK/REWARD | 2.21 |
| AVERAGE GRADE |
Three-Game Offensive-Zone Risk/Reward Rating
Offensive-zone risk/reward ratings for defensemen are usually much lower than they are for forwards. That said, Percy posted the top one-game offensive-zone risk/reward rating (1.19) of any player scouted. His three-game average rating would rank 12th among any other player's one-game rating, and 4th among any other defenseman's one-game offensive-zone risk/reward rating.
| AVERAGE GRAE | |
| OZ POS | 59 |
| OZ NEG | 15 |
| AVERAGE GRADE | |
| MINUTES | 76 |
| POS/MIN | 0.78 |
| NEG/MIN | 0.20 |
| AVERAGE GRADE | |
| EVENTS/ MIN | 0.97 |
| RISK/REWARD | 0.58 |
| AVERAGE GRADE |
Three-game Defensive-Zone Risk/Reward Rating
Percy posted the second-best one-game defensive-zone risk/reward rating of all prospects scouted. Two of his one-game d-zone ratings are among the top-5 ever scouted, while his three-game average defensive-zone risk/reward rating would rank sixth when compared with any other player's one-game rating.
| AVERAGE GRADE | |
| DZ POS | 140 |
| DZ NEG | 45 |
| AVERAGE GRADE | |
| MINUTES | 76 |
| POS/MIN | 1.84 |
| NEG/MIN | 0.59 |
| AVERAGE GRADE | |
| EVENTS/ MIN | 2.43 |
| RISK/REWARD | 1.25 |
| AVERAGE GRADE |
Stuart Percy 3-Game Raw Data and Totals
| 5 | 5 | 5 | TM TOT | ||
| OZPBW | 6 | 16 | 1 | OZPBW | 23 |
| OZPBL | 5 | 1 | OZPBL | 6 | |
| OZPASS+ | 6 | 15 | 3 | OZPASS+ | 24 |
| OZPASS- | 2 | 5 | OZPASS- | 7 | |
| OZDEAK+ | 2 | OZDEAK+ | 2 | ||
| OZDEAK- | OZDEAK- | 0 | |||
| SKI + | SKI + | 0 | |||
| SKI- | SKI- | 0 | |||
| DI+ | 2 | 1 | 1 | DI+ | 4 |
| DI- | 1 | 1 | DI- | 2 | |
| OZTA | OZTA | 0 | |||
| 5 | 5 | 5 | TM TOT | ||
| DZPBW | 17 | 15 | 16 | DZPBW | 48 |
| DZPBL | 16 | 4 | 7 | DZPBL | 27 |
| DZPASS+ | 22 | 18 | 27 | DZPASS+ | 67 |
| DZPASS- | 8 | 4 | 4 | DZPASS- | 16 |
| DZDEAK+ | 1 | 1 | 1 | DZDEAK+ | 3 |
| DZDEAK- | 1 | DZDEAK- | 1 | ||
| PK DUMP+ | 1 | 4 | PK DUMP+ | 5 | |
| PK DUMP- | 1 | PK DUMP- | 1 | ||
| DZTA | 3 | 2 | 1 | DZTA | 6 |
| DZ-BL-SHOT | 4 | 3 | 1 | DZ-BL-SHOT | 8 |
| DZ-BL-PASS | 2 | 1 | DZ-BL-PASS | 3 | |
| 5 | 5 | 5 | TM TOT | ||
| NZPBW | 1 | 1 | 2 | NZPBW | 4 |
| NZPBL | NZPBL | 0 | |||
| NZPASS+ | 6 | 3 | 4 | NZPASS+ | 13 |
| NZPASS- | 1 | 1 | NZPASS- | 2 | |
| NZDEAK+ | 1 | 2 | NZDEAK+ | 3 | |
| NZDEAK- | NZDEAK- | 0 | |||
| NZTA | 1 | NZTA | 1 | ||
| 5 | 5 | 5 | TM TOT | ||
| DZFOW | DZFOW | 0 | |||
| DZFOL | DZFOL | 0 | |||
| DZPKFOW | DZPKFOW | 0 | |||
| DZPKFOL | DZPKFOL | 0 | |||
| OZPPFOW | OZPPFOW | 0 | |||
| OZPPFOL | OZPPFOL | 0 | |||
| OZFOW | OZFOW | 0 | |||
| OZFOL | OZFOL | 0 | |||
| NZFOW | NZFOW | 0 | |||
| NZFOL | NZFOL | 0 | |||
| 5 | 5 | 5 | TM TOT | ||
| PS THRU | 3 | 4 | 3 | PS THRU | 10 |
| OZ PS BL | 1 | 1 | OZ PS BL | 2 | |
| POINTS X2 | 4 | POINTS X2 | 4 | ||
| +/- | 1 | +/- | 1 | ||
| SHOTS | 3 | 2 | 1 | SHOTS | 6 |
| 5 | 5 | 5 | AVG. GR. | ||
| WINS | 77 | 85 | 68 | WINS | 230 |
| BATTLES | 110 | 100 | 82 | BATTLES | 292 |
| GRADE | 70 | 85 | 83 | GRADE | 79 |
| PLAYER | 5 | 5 | 5 | AVG. GR. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)