Fundamentally Flawed?

You know, usually I am one to preach more calm than panic. And, you know what, having a team you watch play a sport win or lose probably shouldn't elicit such violent reaction anyway. But 7 games into a season, I wanted to suggest that perhaps those that have been calling for the most drastic action after losses may in fact have a point.

I've heard keep calm and carry on many times over since that opening shutout. While I don't disagree (I still highly recommend having the results of contests you can't control occupy the right strata in your life), I am starting to find that throwaway line as naive as the "fire the coach" that comes out after a line is broken up.

You see, the problem with the "don't worry, it's early" approach to things is that it assumes that a) this is a beginning and b) that we haven't seen enough. Of course, we know this isn't true. The Canadiens didn't shoot up from the ground in September, nor did this edition of the team. The group is largely the same one that we watched a few months ago and most of the core elements are the same as the team that we have been watching now for 2+ years.

And while it's true that this team has been a winner (at least in the sense it's won more than it's lost), we also know that at critical times it has shown itself to be lacking.

So if your concern is solely rooted in whether this team will ever win a game again this season. Then by all means, please subscribe to the "keep calm" mantra. They will simply because every team encounters teams that play worse than them sometimes, not matter how flawed an approach.

But, if like me, your primary concern is whether the team actually has a chance to win the singularly important game that can only happen in June (and win enough in order to get there) then perhaps we should be more concerned with some of the demonstrable traits of past teams found lacking showing up in this one.

Let me explain.

I think the team has a pretty fundamental flaw relative to its rivals and I see it and feel it as I watch our opponents' approaches to games as they contrast with that of our Habs.

Some would say it's that the team can't score, but I don't think that's subtle enough. What I am starting to think it is, is that the team cannot devise a way to play when they are behind. It goes beyond scoring (though that's obviously the chief symptom), it goes to choosing where to attack knowing when to change, holding onto any momentum, even clearing a zone.

And let's not get into a silly argument about the word "cannot". I don't mean in absolute terms, I mean that relative to their rivals and especially relative to those teams we can recognise as true contenders, they fall well short.

I wrote about this last year (To Watch Beyond Goal 1?), but I've since beefed up the piece with some research with depth to it.

Take this set for example:

Record after trailing first



This is the combined record of the Habs since the true new beginning of the summer of 2009 when they got new personnel all over the ice and a new coach. This is not to say they were a good comeback team before that point (they weren't really), but just to identify a logical point where I can stop compiling.

27th in a 30 team league (CBJ is better if you look) and not exactly in the best company down there, though at least those teams got their draft picks. The telling thing really is the gap between the Canadiens and the better teams in the league over this time.

Washington over the same period actually achieved what most would consider a record above 0.500 from trailing first and several key teams got points from more than half of those contests (Detroit, San Jose, Pittsburgh). The other teams that we might consider elite from this span like Vancouver and Chicago are right near the top of this pile as well.

The Habs by contrast got points in only about a third of the contest in which they fell behind first to put themselves in the company of the lottery crew.

If you want some encouragement, you will notice that at least unlike the Bruins, the Habs have made a habit of scoring first more often than not over this two-plus year period. So perhaps their record when scoring first (setting the table themselves) makes up for their other shortcoming.


Record after scoring first



To this I'd say, the team has done well. It's good to score first more often than not, and it's very good to win more than 70% of those games in which you do that. But as we can see from the list, the team is not exactly setting NHL records with the early leads. They have been the 11thish best team over the span and in a group of teams around the same level.

We know from having had to eat a lot of fingernails in recent springs that the team hasn't offset one shortcoming with an enormous strength.


In wanting to create some composite of this, I landed on a simple quotient.

Difference in winning percentage Scoring and Trailing 1st



It's probably not that useful, but it does seem to highlight a few points.

For one thing, St. Louis is weird.

For another, 2 generally seems to be a number that you'd rather be under than over in this case. Boston and Vancouver hover at that level, but being well to one side of 2.00 like the Habs are seems to mean something entirely different from being on the other side if you take association to mean anything.


One way to win, lots of ways to lose

Last night marked the fourth time this season that the team has scored first. It was the third loss from ahead. If you combine this misfortune with what I think is amounting to a pretty hefty trend showing plenty of writer's block within the comeback thinktank then I do think there's proper reason for a sensible amount of concern.

Time will tell certainly, and when I wrote my piece last season, the team answered with "Nothing but comebacks" January.

Still, when I am looking for the evidence that come April I won't be rocking back and forth hoping for a goal I have a good feeling will never come to preserve a season, I would take comfort in getting a glimpse of that evidence this month.

I don't recommend you fans change anything about your routine or your belief in the team, but I do hope that those who do this for their living (any coach, ahem) has a little look into this phenomenon. If they can spare the time.

Boston's Cherry-Picking Season Is Over

Third-ranked Boston. 103 Points. 246 GF, 195 GA.

Powerhouse.

Or not?


The Boston Bruins did a classic job on this season. They got the points where they should, they scored in bunches and they rode the best save percentage of all time to place 3rd in the East.

The stats that look unbeatable, and maybe feel unbeatable if one only chooses to remember the final meeting between these particular teams, only look that way thanks to the placement of more than a few cherries.

A look at their record broken down in a few ways:

Vs. Eastern Conference teams: 38-18-8
Vs. Western Conference teams: 8-7-3

Vs. Eastern Playoff teams: 16-11-5
Vs. Western Playoff teams: 3-6-2

Vs. Eastern Non-Playoff teams: 22-7-3
Vs. Western Non-Playoff teams: 5-1-1

Vs. Playoff teams: 19-17-7
Vs. Non-Playoff teams: 27-8-4


More often than not, when faced with a team that proved themselves over a season to be of superior calibre, the Bruins would lose the game. They lost 24 times in 43 meetings in fact, Their record is like that of a team that lost six 7-game playoff series 3 game to 4.

Oh, but they won games. A ton of games against feebler opposition. 27 wins out of a possible 39.


In regular season percentages, this shows that the Bruins were a 0.744 team against non-playoff opposition and barely middling (0.523 with OTLs credited) against decent opposition. In the more unforgiving playoff win-lose method, they are a 0.690 team against weaklings and a weak 0.442 against opposition that is still alive now.

This is classic cherry picking and it shows up the Bruins as a real challenge to the Cup, in my opinion. It's one thing to impress against the Islanders and quite another to put up results against the contenders.

This is not to say that the Bruins didn't best some playoff teams in a season series -- they did. But they were essentially 0.500 against Eastern playoff teams and poor against the West. Part of their problem right now is their poor record was in large part fuelled by the 2-3-1 showing against the Montreal Canadiens.


But don't all playoff teams do this?

I haven't done the full analysis. But I did look at one other team (guess which?)

Vs. Eastern Conference teams: 36-21-7 (38-18-8)
Vs. Western Conference teams: 8-8-2 (8-7-3)

Vs. Eastern Playoff teams: 17-11-4 (16-11-5)
Vs. Western Playoff teams: 6-2-1 (3-6-2)

Vs. Eastern Non-Playoff teams: 19-10-3 (22-7-3)
Vs. Western Non-Playoff teams: 2-6-1 (5-1-1)

Vs. Playoff teams: 23-13-5 (19-17-7)
Vs. Non-Playoff teams: 21-16-4 (27-8-4)


The Habs were actually better against teams that eventually made the playoffs than against those that didn't -- handy when those that made the playoffs are those left to be played. Where the Bruins cherry picked their way to a deceptive points total, the Canadiens total actually belies some of the underlying achievements.

The playoffs are the great equalizer, they say. And a playoff series begins a fresh season. This may be so, but coming in wouldn't you rather be supporting the team that has shown it can win a lot of hard fought games with tough opposition than the one who took the easy lobs and fluffed a lot of the sterner tests?

Shots Against Counterintuition At Play

Montreal media lamenting a loss – too many shots against.

Montreal media complaining about an undeserved win – too man shots against.

Bob Gainey's analysis of Carbonneau's team – too many shots against.

Too many shots against is a bad strategy, it a consensus. It can be proven with stats...

Not so. Read this astounding piece on the Canadiens website. It turns everything you know about defence upside down.

"When the lockout ended and hockey returned in 2005-06, the NHL wanted to open up the game - have goalies face more rubber and perhaps have a few more get by them. While that was the wish, the pair don’t always go hand in hand. The league’s masked men have proven that the busier they are, the better they are."

In fact, the numbers are astounding:

96-86-41 in 2005-06
87-54-34 in 2006-07
78-57-28 in 2007-08
73-71-36 in 2008-09

Combine that's 334-268-139 for at least (because the stats end at 60 minutes) 807 points out of a possible 1482 – a 0.544 winning percentage.

Based on these averages, it would not be an insane coaching move to let up 40+ shots a a game, every game (provided you had the goalie to cope). If you did so over 82 games and averages played in your favour, you'd be in line for 37 wins, 30 losses and 15 trips to OT. Even if you lost every one of those OT games, you'd have 89 points. If you give your goalie some benefit of the doubt (after all he does rescue you 54% of the time in regulation) you could probably get 8 more points for a respectable and playoff-bound 97 points.

A very interesting article indeed...


I'm not sure what the reason for this oddity is, but it should be a combination of the following:

a) Goalies are better when facing more shots
b) Teams that take a lot of shots are being impatient
c) Teams taking a lot of shots are lost for ideas as to how to beat the goalie
d) A saved shot is a turnover opportunity
e) Paying for the top goalies (winners) leaves little money for paying a functional defensive corps

I'll let you guys decide which you think is more likely in a new poll in the right-hand column...