Forgive the Canadiens for believing it, they've succumbed themselves now twice to the feat, but the Bruins third period numbers (that is goals for vs. goals against) is tied much more closely to the story that they keep leads (the majority of their games) rather than the fact they take them back.
The numbers that has the admirers slack-jawed with awe show that Boston outscored their opponents by 50 goals in third periods to the tune of 3.80 GF/60 and 2.05 GA/60. A bump in offense over their 3.15 GF/60 generally, but very consistent with their 2.08 GA/60.
Showing posts with label comeback. Show all posts
Showing posts with label comeback. Show all posts
Monday, May 05, 2014
Monday, October 24, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
First Goal All Important?
Before the playoffs, I read an article that said the team that would score the first goal would go on to win the entire series nearly 80% of the time. Now that three games in this series have been won by the team that scored first, the clever clever media are jumping all over the "all-important" first goal.
As usual with these half-baked stories, the analysis ends at the immediate past. The crux of any conclusion being that last week the team in the Boston Montreal series that scored first won.
Terribly scientific. 3 games sampled, what more could one ask for?
The first elephant in the room is that both these teams just played a whole season's worth of hockey during which they demonstrated many tendencies and displayed many habits and trends. One might think a glance at what happened in the season might be in order. But wouldn't that be good reporting?
Let's do that, shall we?
Boston and Montreal are both quality with the lead
This season Boston posted an outstanding 30-6-6 record when they had the lead. Top-notch defense and good chippy offense all season, you'd expect that to happen. But how about Montreal: 32-6-6, even better. Converting 44 first goals into 70 points in the regular season.
Boston did not roll over an die in the regular season
To go with their impressive record when scoring first, the Bruins also had a quality comeback record. 16-19-5 for the season. This was top 5 in the league by raw comeback wins and also by percentages. Only Washington with 23 comeback wins from 47 first goal deficits was better.
Montreal on the whole was not as good at coming back. Their record for 2010-11 was 12-24-2. The team didn't completely give up when scored on first, but they didn't do quite as well as the elite teams in the league. That is, if you consider the entire season.
As we know things over the season change significantly. 6 months is a long time and besides streaks and slumps, there can be significant changes in personnel. For the Habs, one of the big changes came at the end of December with Wisniewski coming in to replace Markov who had missed all but 7 games to that point. Gorges was also out, so Subban was placed with Hal Gill.
Round about that time, frustration was also mounting with Habs fans that if the team didn't score first, they'd be down and out (often being shutout, actually). It wasn't good. LIW posted this article that illustrated the issue.
Long story short. the Habs got better, they learned to come back. In fact from December 31st on (a 44-game span) the team went behind a total of 23 times. but instead of losing the vast majority, the Habs pulled out 9 wins and 2 OTLs from those first goal deficits (20 points in the standings).
This was a turning point in this regard, as one can see that prior to the turn of the year, the Habs record was 3-12-1 when allowing the first goal.
In fairness, we must see if the Bruins also turned the same trick. interestingly, they did. In their last 44 games, the Bruins actually allowed the first goal 21 times and posted 22 points (10-9-2) from those games.
Well so what?
The finding here is that while both the Bruins and Canadiens were formidable shut-down teams, it turns out that both teams were also pretty excellent comeback teams, particularly in the new year (or only in the New Year in the Habs case). The finding is something that plays out before our eyes. When the Canadiens were winning in Game 1, the Bruins weren't down and out and for a good stretch looked like the better team, fully capable of closing the gap and wining. Ditto for the result on Monday night, when the Habs came within inches of tying and taking the momentum from their superior second half of the game into a comeback bid overtime.
All that to say, it's not as simple as who scores first. It's not enough to score first. The first goal is but one goal, and unless backed up by another goal or shutout goaltending (which usually takes some pretty exceptional saves) then it is but one goal.
Boston won the other day because they scored 3 goals, not because they scored first. Montreal won in Boston because first Carey price, then some good luck made their 2 and 3 goals stand up.
Scoring first is important, but let's not make it more than it is. After all, we already have faceoffs for that.
I'll go further. The goal that seals the first comeback victory in this series will be more important that any first goal to date.
As usual with these half-baked stories, the analysis ends at the immediate past. The crux of any conclusion being that last week the team in the Boston Montreal series that scored first won.
Terribly scientific. 3 games sampled, what more could one ask for?
The first elephant in the room is that both these teams just played a whole season's worth of hockey during which they demonstrated many tendencies and displayed many habits and trends. One might think a glance at what happened in the season might be in order. But wouldn't that be good reporting?
Let's do that, shall we?
Boston and Montreal are both quality with the lead
This season Boston posted an outstanding 30-6-6 record when they had the lead. Top-notch defense and good chippy offense all season, you'd expect that to happen. But how about Montreal: 32-6-6, even better. Converting 44 first goals into 70 points in the regular season.
Boston did not roll over an die in the regular season
To go with their impressive record when scoring first, the Bruins also had a quality comeback record. 16-19-5 for the season. This was top 5 in the league by raw comeback wins and also by percentages. Only Washington with 23 comeback wins from 47 first goal deficits was better.
Montreal on the whole was not as good at coming back. Their record for 2010-11 was 12-24-2. The team didn't completely give up when scored on first, but they didn't do quite as well as the elite teams in the league. That is, if you consider the entire season.
As we know things over the season change significantly. 6 months is a long time and besides streaks and slumps, there can be significant changes in personnel. For the Habs, one of the big changes came at the end of December with Wisniewski coming in to replace Markov who had missed all but 7 games to that point. Gorges was also out, so Subban was placed with Hal Gill.
Round about that time, frustration was also mounting with Habs fans that if the team didn't score first, they'd be down and out (often being shutout, actually). It wasn't good. LIW posted this article that illustrated the issue.
Long story short. the Habs got better, they learned to come back. In fact from December 31st on (a 44-game span) the team went behind a total of 23 times. but instead of losing the vast majority, the Habs pulled out 9 wins and 2 OTLs from those first goal deficits (20 points in the standings).
This was a turning point in this regard, as one can see that prior to the turn of the year, the Habs record was 3-12-1 when allowing the first goal.
In fairness, we must see if the Bruins also turned the same trick. interestingly, they did. In their last 44 games, the Bruins actually allowed the first goal 21 times and posted 22 points (10-9-2) from those games.
Well so what?
The finding here is that while both the Bruins and Canadiens were formidable shut-down teams, it turns out that both teams were also pretty excellent comeback teams, particularly in the new year (or only in the New Year in the Habs case). The finding is something that plays out before our eyes. When the Canadiens were winning in Game 1, the Bruins weren't down and out and for a good stretch looked like the better team, fully capable of closing the gap and wining. Ditto for the result on Monday night, when the Habs came within inches of tying and taking the momentum from their superior second half of the game into a comeback bid overtime.
All that to say, it's not as simple as who scores first. It's not enough to score first. The first goal is but one goal, and unless backed up by another goal or shutout goaltending (which usually takes some pretty exceptional saves) then it is but one goal.
Boston won the other day because they scored 3 goals, not because they scored first. Montreal won in Boston because first Carey price, then some good luck made their 2 and 3 goals stand up.
Scoring first is important, but let's not make it more than it is. After all, we already have faceoffs for that.
I'll go further. The goal that seals the first comeback victory in this series will be more important that any first goal to date.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Game #52
Opportunistic Attack, Luck, Auld Help Habs Past Panthers
Details
Date: 2/2/2011
Opponent: Panthers
Location: Montreal
Win: 3-2
Habs Goalie: Auld (W)
Opposition Goalie: Vokoun (L)
Habs goalscorers: Halpern, Plekanec, Gionta
Opposition goalscorers: Timmins, Weiss
Play of the game
Dome hockey team
The 6 players we're playing in a no changes, do or die contest in the domeMax Pacioretty
Max Pacioretty nearly scored on a breakaway just after the Halpern goal. At that instant, the thought that went through my head was: "Oh, Pacioretty's playing tonight". Invisible he wasn't through the rest of the game as the Panthers defence had to open up and allow his insurgences. His work on the gamewinner was top notch and his work in getting a couple of breaks was also very good. Other than that, it was another assist, +2, 6 shots and 8 attempts on net. Good game.
Tomas Plekanec
Player of the month for January by a few votes. He must be thankful that the voting 400 picked him this time. It's a pity he can't catch Carey. He's been as good as the goalie all season, but people have just disinvested completely in this 3 star thing, if one looks at the vote totals. This game, Pleks put in another good one. His goal was earned, but was not his best play on the night. That may have been the near breakaway he manufactured through several Panthers while shorthanded. Really, this grind of a game showed what a value Pleks is to the team. He stands out against plain opposition as a dangerous player, who works constantly. To think we all once liked Higgins more.
Andrei Kostitsyn
Andrei may not have played his best game, but I thought he thought the best game of the forwards. There was only one shot in the end, but it was a well generated chance that gave a rebound. Then there were multiple passes. passes that caught the other team off guard because they were creative. A team certainly needs its cheesy bounce ins, but teams also need players like Kostitsyn to keep opposing defenders honest. Tonight, I thought he did that, opening up space for Gomez and Eller.
Defencemen
PK Subban
The play Subban made on the first goal, the cut to the inside of the ice, was a glimpse back to Subban at his precocious rookie best. It's good to see that side of him is still around, despite his new maturity and responsibility. Despite a couple of wacky hits and iffy dives, Subban was also a good bet on D tonight. His willingness to take charge diffused more than a couple of periods of threat. Two months ago we might not have anticipated Subban in the lineup, let alone leading the team in minutes. He's come a long way. He might have a long way further to go.
Roman Hamrlik
Last night I insisted on Spacek. Tonight, the "Wild and Crazy Guy" gets the call. Hammer hasn't been doing much that is too special lately. Or has he? He has taken on probably his 5th partner of the season and has made yet another pairing that puts minds at ease. Wisniewski is a good player, but it takes a solid man to help the transition of an outsider into a system (an Islander, no less). Hammer has done that and did it in fine fashion tonight. 4 blocked shots and plenty of edgy play without penalty. A good game from #44.
Goaltender
Alex Auld - Game Puck
There was never any point this evening where I sat up and thought "Wow, what a goalie". yet, thinking to the way the Florida goals went in, this could have easily also have been a 33 shot shutout. His play in the first after the goal went in, and then the shutout second were key to the victory here. Even though we're talking about the Panthers, a team of Higginses, a lesser goalie on this night would have put his team in a tie or a deficit.
Comments
In a way, I think the Canadiens were lucky here to get points. In what must surely be the stupidest two days the NHL schedule makers put together, several teams were made to come back from their week off to a one-day road trip with a game at home the following night. It takes a tough team to come back from a one week break to win two comeback games in different cities. They'll appreciate these points in March.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Bruins Take Habs Song, But Used Wrong Script
The Boston Bruins were trying to emulate the Montreal Canadiens by coming back from a 3-1 series deficit with hot goaltending and a renewed team effort.
Instead they aired a repeat of the 2007-08 Canadiens – taking the conference crown, beating their main rival in the first round, only to slip vs. a team they had beaten handily 4 out of 4 times over the year.
It must be said that Bruins prolonged the agony (and interest) longer than last year's round 2 Montrealers, but in the annals of the Stanley Cup they don't make room to record the details of teams who slip two rounds away.
It was the rare piece of satisfaction that remained in these playoffs where only exciting hockey and academic interest remain. The Bruins were the only team left that I either loved or hated – and to see them go (especially after being taunted and lumped under the term disgrace by the collective smugness) was a pleasure. It is also a big feeling of escape, because the Bruins that dominated the Canadiens looked good enough to emerge from the East, and that would be too close for comfort.
Incidentally, the Bruins probably brought it on themselves as it's never a good idea to plagiarise. Same coach as our 3-1 comeback? Michael Ryder? Mark Recchi? It's been done... It's also probably not a good idea borrow a chief rival's fight song (which proved a loser anyway).
[I should note that the song here was "created" by the "Gifted" Losers some time after the Canadiens were eliminated from the playoffs. The Bruins are only one of the teams featured with the interchangeable lyrics (lame). Nevertheless, one hapless Bruins blogger posted it, so...]
The better and original version, with its own lyrics and player contributions is form 1991: "Courtnall in flight man, what a goal!"
Instead they aired a repeat of the 2007-08 Canadiens – taking the conference crown, beating their main rival in the first round, only to slip vs. a team they had beaten handily 4 out of 4 times over the year.
It must be said that Bruins prolonged the agony (and interest) longer than last year's round 2 Montrealers, but in the annals of the Stanley Cup they don't make room to record the details of teams who slip two rounds away.
It was the rare piece of satisfaction that remained in these playoffs where only exciting hockey and academic interest remain. The Bruins were the only team left that I either loved or hated – and to see them go (especially after being taunted and lumped under the term disgrace by the collective smugness) was a pleasure. It is also a big feeling of escape, because the Bruins that dominated the Canadiens looked good enough to emerge from the East, and that would be too close for comfort.
Incidentally, the Bruins probably brought it on themselves as it's never a good idea to plagiarise. Same coach as our 3-1 comeback? Michael Ryder? Mark Recchi? It's been done... It's also probably not a good idea borrow a chief rival's fight song (which proved a loser anyway).
[I should note that the song here was "created" by the "Gifted" Losers some time after the Canadiens were eliminated from the playoffs. The Bruins are only one of the teams featured with the interchangeable lyrics (lame). Nevertheless, one hapless Bruins blogger posted it, so...]
The better and original version, with its own lyrics and player contributions is form 1991: "Courtnall in flight man, what a goal!"
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
You Asked For Optimism
Every 33 Seasons Teams Come Back From 3-0 Down
It took 33 years after the founding of the seed NHA league (which became the NHL) for a team to come back from a 3-0 deficit in a seven-game series – never mind the seven-game series wasn't the standard format, that's irrelevant.
Exactly 33 years later, the New York Islanders overcame the Pittsburgh Penguins when their nose was to the grindstone.
You're astute is you've done the math and figured that that means there should have been a comeback in 2008 – 33 years on from 1975. What you're missing, just like the Canadiens marketing money grabbers, is that no season took place in 2004-05 and the NHL skipped a season of play in their own books. That means that the Canadiens (I guess St. Louis missed the memo), in their 99th season of play have put themselves in prime position to be the first team to pull off the incredible feat.
Robert L has a nice entry on the power of numbers in the Canadiens organisation as he focuses in on unlucky 13.
While I appreciate the effort, the connection of the number 13 with the Canadiens specifically is tenuous. I would suggest there's much greater cause to believe in the power of 33.
Isn't there?
Invoking the greats (3 Montreal boys who've done the deed – albeit with a Boston team)
Exactly 33 years later, the New York Islanders overcame the Pittsburgh Penguins when their nose was to the grindstone.
You're astute is you've done the math and figured that that means there should have been a comeback in 2008 – 33 years on from 1975. What you're missing, just like the Canadiens marketing money grabbers, is that no season took place in 2004-05 and the NHL skipped a season of play in their own books. That means that the Canadiens (I guess St. Louis missed the memo), in their 99th season of play have put themselves in prime position to be the first team to pull off the incredible feat.
Robert L has a nice entry on the power of numbers in the Canadiens organisation as he focuses in on unlucky 13.
While I appreciate the effort, the connection of the number 13 with the Canadiens specifically is tenuous. I would suggest there's much greater cause to believe in the power of 33.
Isn't there?
Invoking the greats (3 Montreal boys who've done the deed – albeit with a Boston team)
Monday, February 09, 2009
Canadiens Mood Swings
Backbreakers and Gamesavers
The Canadiens are beginning to look like a very enigmatic group to us. In many ways, that is an accurate take – there seem to have been lots of ups and downs. However, there have been some consistent traits for the Canadiens of late – namely starting from behind and the inability to blow the lid off opponents.
I took a look back a number of games. I started with the number 20 in mind, but extended it to 22. That number is most significant because it reaches back to about our last really solid win – the 5-2 victory over the Flyers. Coincidentally, it also corresponds to a tumultuous time when Koivu and Higgins were lost and Komisarek was brought back in.
Letting up the first goal
Allowing the first goal is a tough blow for a hockey team in turmoil, but not that bad for one with its strategy and confidence in order. Even so, repeatedly starting form behind must wear on anyone.
In the last 22 games:
– The Canadiens have allowed the first goal on 15 occasions
- Their record on those 15 occasions has been a pretty respectable 7 wins and 8 losses
– In 11 of the 15 games, the Habs have clawed back to 1-1
– In those games they have a winning record of 6-5
In the other 4 games, where they fell behind 0-2, the Habs posted 1 win and 3 losses
It hardly matters who is to blame on these occasions, it is not helpful as a team to look for a scapegoat. Encouragingly, this team seems to have a bit of doggedness in them to make sure they score the second goal of the game, even once coming back from 2 down to win.
Letting up the third goal
When a team battles back, as it did 11 out of 15 games; it can sometimes be deflating to fall behind again. Comebacks are built on momentum swings and sometimes it is a lot to ask for a game to swing back twice to your side, given it's only 60 minutes (and some of that time is frittered away with useless 4th line hockey).
– The Canadiens have let up the third goal in 6 of 11 of games they've come back to tie
– In those games, they have still managed to win 2, but predictably also lost 4
– The Habs have scored third in 5 of the contests where comebacks have been on
– In those games, they've won 4 and lost only once
Going down by two goals
In a game with as much parity as there is, it's not surprising that going down by 2 isn't a good tactic. Yet, the Habs (obviously despite their wishes and best efforts) have still been behind by 2 quite frequently in the last 22 games:
– The Canadiens have trailed by 2 goals on 10 occasions in the last 22 games
– They won a solitary game from those occasions, losing the other 9
– That one win is the only time they've even fought back to tie it up
– They only fought back to be within one goal on 3 occasions (once being the win)
So, as you can see, the Canadiens backs are broken at 2 goals down (pretty much) – making that save ever so critical. By the same token, if the defence and goalie can hold on to bring it back to 1-1, then the team has a winning record. Even down 1-2, the team has it in them to pull it back sometimes. If the 4th goal goes to the Habs after falling 1-2, then they have a 2-1 record.
So you can see that if a goal is not allowed, what would have been a backbreaking goal, is now a gamesaving save.
When we score first
Just as games aren't wrapped up at 0-1, nor are they sealed at 1-0. The thing is, though, they almost are.
– The Habs have scored first in 7 of the last 22 games
– Their record in those games is 5-2
When they score again, it's over. Admittedly the statistical relevance of the single 2-0 lead in the last 22 games is questionable. One certainly cannot question the momentum it gave the team to go on and crush the Leafs.
Amazingly, whether it's the team or the goaltenders, there has been some conspiracy for two months to never make the other team feel left out in the cold.
– 7 games where we took the lead have become 1-1 draws
- In 2 of the 6 we let the other team score again, losing both times
– In the other 4, we scored the third goal, winning them all
Here too, the backbreakers come into play. It's as if, the team says "There you go D, we got you the lead" and can manage if the D and G buckle down and limit the goals against. But should it be two straight for the opponents, that second is a "here we go again" backbreaker.
Is every loss lost this way
Quite frankly no. Some games I watch and think that if the game were cut at 50 minutes we would have won, or if it had been extended by an extra 20, we would have won as well.
Some losses are ebb and flow type stuff, where time runs out. These losses, as they say, are part of the game. The "back broken" losses are the hardest to take as an air of futility creeps into the whole affair. The crowd goes quite, the coach goes sour-faced, players are benched, others are sulking.Some continue to press, but by definition the backbone of the team (the majority of players) have been snapped and defeated.
The past 22 games has seen 10 losses in all. During the first month, the losses were (with the exception of that loss to the Devils) ebb and flow type stuff.
Lately (as in the past 9 games), it's been backbreakers all around.
Team morale
I've been on a lot of teams over the years. I know enough to know that momentum swings are hard to take. Going down 0-1 all the time is hard, compound that with the fact that most times a comeback is only answered by a 1-2 deficit. And on top of all that, when the team gets a lead, they just as often find the whole they put the other team in being patched over by their own mistakes.
It's draining this stuff. The drain is what you can see on the faces of players, in the skating of the forwards, in the body language on the bench.
The bottom line is that some people feel they have been holding up their end of the bargain (66 goals scored in 22 games); while they feel their contemporaries have not (73 goals against in 22 games).
It's great that Mike (accomplice in the futility) Komisarek is backing Carey Price, but his opinion matters little. Kovalev, Koivu, Plekanec, Kostitsyn wouldn't say it publicly, but they show it – they are tired of working hard for the goals when they are constantly being let down. What's more, they get the blame for missing their coverage, while others get off scott-free.
Don't believe me, watch them skate straight to the bench in disgust time after time in this clip (if you can bear it):
Goaltending
It's easy to blame the goalies as they say. But, I think it's equally easy and a heck of a lot more commonplace, not to.
Let's face it, over the past 9 games, the goaltending has been absurd in its hopelessness. Price did win the game puck once, but has seen the wrath of the bench in the dome an astounding and sickening 6 times. I should note that there is usually some argument when Tobalev goes so hard on the goalie. There was only argument once in these 6 disses. So, it's pretty safe to say he's been sub-sub-par.
It all starts with Halak fluffing 3 straight goals to Atlanta, but continues with the Shakespearian comedic turn of Carey Price who, uncharacteristically or not, has broken the spirit of the team in front of him.
Blame game
I'm loathe to blame a 21-year-old, so I won't. I'll blame the coach. Specifically, the pretty consistently pathetic Roland Melanson.
Oh sure, he's a good coach when everything is tickety-boo, but when goalies go into slumps and actually need some advice and counsel, he has an appalling record.
During his time here now he has overseen some promising projects in Montreal. It started with Thibault who was never coached well enough to stop playing 1/4 of the game on his stomach, then Theodore whose glove-side lethargy would never be cured, Aebischer who slid into a bad slump never to recover and now Price (for the second time in 50 odd games) losing all semblance of wherewithal in the net.
He has never dealt with relatively easy and obvious faults like stick-handling (i.e., telling the guys not too – Theodore, Huet, Price and Halak), nor has he ever really reversed a slump.
You can't ignore either that during this time, Dallas has pumped out Turco, Dan Ellis and Mike Smith; the Sharks Nabokov and Kirpusoff; Minnesota Roloson, Fernandez and Backstrom.
What's more, I think Melanson is wasting space on our team that should focus on not allowing shots on goalies who are great with angles but terrible shot stoppers (when shooters have time). What we need is a defensive coach to deal with AWOL projects like Komisarek and O'Byrne.
Fans are starting to get the same ideas as us here, and are beginning to question what Melanson actually does.
I took a look back a number of games. I started with the number 20 in mind, but extended it to 22. That number is most significant because it reaches back to about our last really solid win – the 5-2 victory over the Flyers. Coincidentally, it also corresponds to a tumultuous time when Koivu and Higgins were lost and Komisarek was brought back in.
Letting up the first goal
Allowing the first goal is a tough blow for a hockey team in turmoil, but not that bad for one with its strategy and confidence in order. Even so, repeatedly starting form behind must wear on anyone.
In the last 22 games:
– The Canadiens have allowed the first goal on 15 occasions
- Their record on those 15 occasions has been a pretty respectable 7 wins and 8 losses
– In 11 of the 15 games, the Habs have clawed back to 1-1
– In those games they have a winning record of 6-5
In the other 4 games, where they fell behind 0-2, the Habs posted 1 win and 3 losses
It hardly matters who is to blame on these occasions, it is not helpful as a team to look for a scapegoat. Encouragingly, this team seems to have a bit of doggedness in them to make sure they score the second goal of the game, even once coming back from 2 down to win.
Letting up the third goal
When a team battles back, as it did 11 out of 15 games; it can sometimes be deflating to fall behind again. Comebacks are built on momentum swings and sometimes it is a lot to ask for a game to swing back twice to your side, given it's only 60 minutes (and some of that time is frittered away with useless 4th line hockey).
– The Canadiens have let up the third goal in 6 of 11 of games they've come back to tie
– In those games, they have still managed to win 2, but predictably also lost 4
– The Habs have scored third in 5 of the contests where comebacks have been on
– In those games, they've won 4 and lost only once
Going down by two goals
In a game with as much parity as there is, it's not surprising that going down by 2 isn't a good tactic. Yet, the Habs (obviously despite their wishes and best efforts) have still been behind by 2 quite frequently in the last 22 games:
– The Canadiens have trailed by 2 goals on 10 occasions in the last 22 games
– They won a solitary game from those occasions, losing the other 9
– That one win is the only time they've even fought back to tie it up
– They only fought back to be within one goal on 3 occasions (once being the win)
So, as you can see, the Canadiens backs are broken at 2 goals down (pretty much) – making that save ever so critical. By the same token, if the defence and goalie can hold on to bring it back to 1-1, then the team has a winning record. Even down 1-2, the team has it in them to pull it back sometimes. If the 4th goal goes to the Habs after falling 1-2, then they have a 2-1 record.
So you can see that if a goal is not allowed, what would have been a backbreaking goal, is now a gamesaving save.
When we score first
Just as games aren't wrapped up at 0-1, nor are they sealed at 1-0. The thing is, though, they almost are.
– The Habs have scored first in 7 of the last 22 games
– Their record in those games is 5-2
When they score again, it's over. Admittedly the statistical relevance of the single 2-0 lead in the last 22 games is questionable. One certainly cannot question the momentum it gave the team to go on and crush the Leafs.
Amazingly, whether it's the team or the goaltenders, there has been some conspiracy for two months to never make the other team feel left out in the cold.
– 7 games where we took the lead have become 1-1 draws
- In 2 of the 6 we let the other team score again, losing both times
– In the other 4, we scored the third goal, winning them all
Here too, the backbreakers come into play. It's as if, the team says "There you go D, we got you the lead" and can manage if the D and G buckle down and limit the goals against. But should it be two straight for the opponents, that second is a "here we go again" backbreaker.
Is every loss lost this way
Quite frankly no. Some games I watch and think that if the game were cut at 50 minutes we would have won, or if it had been extended by an extra 20, we would have won as well.
Some losses are ebb and flow type stuff, where time runs out. These losses, as they say, are part of the game. The "back broken" losses are the hardest to take as an air of futility creeps into the whole affair. The crowd goes quite, the coach goes sour-faced, players are benched, others are sulking.Some continue to press, but by definition the backbone of the team (the majority of players) have been snapped and defeated.
The past 22 games has seen 10 losses in all. During the first month, the losses were (with the exception of that loss to the Devils) ebb and flow type stuff.
Lately (as in the past 9 games), it's been backbreakers all around.
Team morale
I've been on a lot of teams over the years. I know enough to know that momentum swings are hard to take. Going down 0-1 all the time is hard, compound that with the fact that most times a comeback is only answered by a 1-2 deficit. And on top of all that, when the team gets a lead, they just as often find the whole they put the other team in being patched over by their own mistakes.
It's draining this stuff. The drain is what you can see on the faces of players, in the skating of the forwards, in the body language on the bench.
The bottom line is that some people feel they have been holding up their end of the bargain (66 goals scored in 22 games); while they feel their contemporaries have not (73 goals against in 22 games).
It's great that Mike (accomplice in the futility) Komisarek is backing Carey Price, but his opinion matters little. Kovalev, Koivu, Plekanec, Kostitsyn wouldn't say it publicly, but they show it – they are tired of working hard for the goals when they are constantly being let down. What's more, they get the blame for missing their coverage, while others get off scott-free.
Don't believe me, watch them skate straight to the bench in disgust time after time in this clip (if you can bear it):
Goaltending
It's easy to blame the goalies as they say. But, I think it's equally easy and a heck of a lot more commonplace, not to.
Let's face it, over the past 9 games, the goaltending has been absurd in its hopelessness. Price did win the game puck once, but has seen the wrath of the bench in the dome an astounding and sickening 6 times. I should note that there is usually some argument when Tobalev goes so hard on the goalie. There was only argument once in these 6 disses. So, it's pretty safe to say he's been sub-sub-par.
It all starts with Halak fluffing 3 straight goals to Atlanta, but continues with the Shakespearian comedic turn of Carey Price who, uncharacteristically or not, has broken the spirit of the team in front of him.
Blame game
I'm loathe to blame a 21-year-old, so I won't. I'll blame the coach. Specifically, the pretty consistently pathetic Roland Melanson.
Oh sure, he's a good coach when everything is tickety-boo, but when goalies go into slumps and actually need some advice and counsel, he has an appalling record.
During his time here now he has overseen some promising projects in Montreal. It started with Thibault who was never coached well enough to stop playing 1/4 of the game on his stomach, then Theodore whose glove-side lethargy would never be cured, Aebischer who slid into a bad slump never to recover and now Price (for the second time in 50 odd games) losing all semblance of wherewithal in the net.
He has never dealt with relatively easy and obvious faults like stick-handling (i.e., telling the guys not too – Theodore, Huet, Price and Halak), nor has he ever really reversed a slump.
You can't ignore either that during this time, Dallas has pumped out Turco, Dan Ellis and Mike Smith; the Sharks Nabokov and Kirpusoff; Minnesota Roloson, Fernandez and Backstrom.
What's more, I think Melanson is wasting space on our team that should focus on not allowing shots on goalies who are great with angles but terrible shot stoppers (when shooters have time). What we need is a defensive coach to deal with AWOL projects like Komisarek and O'Byrne.
Fans are starting to get the same ideas as us here, and are beginning to question what Melanson actually does.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Sharks Reinstate Claude Lemieux
Wilson: "Thinking How To Mess Up The Season Is Hard"
Thinking of ways to keep people interested while winning streaks drag on is the burden of the San Jose Sharks. Unaccustomed to actually starting well as finishing well, the Sharks have found their minds wandering to keep themselves occupied. Their most recent move cannot be described any other way:
Claude Lemieux should add an interesting piece to an already interesting team – one that already has two elite centres and Jeremy Roenick.
But is there anything beyond an interesting story here? Can Claude Lemieux help this team be better – in the playoffs that is.
One would have to think that was Doug Wilson's actual logic. But can we really attribute logic to a man who invites a 43-year-old, 5.5 years into retirement, to come back and play for his stacked team? Can we really say that Doug Wilson is doing anything other than rolling the dice? After all, he built a team he hopes will win the Cup around Joe Thornton (not to mention Patrick Marleau).
I get the thinking too:
My players = All chokers
Claude Lemieux = Has always found ways to win (even Conn Smythes!)
Despite that, in my humble opinion, Claude Lemieux will not help the Sharks. You can't expect a reclamation project like him to come in and turn a team's stomachs around. Nor could you expect him to fare very well in the new faster NHL. He didn't help Phoenix at the end of his real playing days, did he? His effectiveness was spent more than 9 years ago.
If anything, with Thornton and Roenick already crowding the dressing room; I think he's a personality too far. What's more, some poor youngster who could be learning the ways of winning will now be relegated back down so Claude can exorcise his whim.
I wish Claude all the best, but I'm infinitely glad we didn't sign him. Normally, I'm the first to criticise Bob Gainey for canny manouevres he missed out on. But this is not a canny manoeuvre in my book, and I wholeheartedly disagree with JT's fanciful take on the matter:
And, what is it about the late 80s Habs that just won't retire. Chelios, Richer and his repeated attempts at comebacks and now this. If Larry Robinson wants back in, we have a gaping place open for him at 6th defenceman...
The NHL-leading Sharks recalled the four-time Cup winner Monday from their minor league affiliate in Worcester, Mass. Lemieux practiced in San Jose, and he's likely to play Tuesday night against Vancouver in the Sharks' final game before the All-Star break.
Claude Lemieux should add an interesting piece to an already interesting team – one that already has two elite centres and Jeremy Roenick.
But is there anything beyond an interesting story here? Can Claude Lemieux help this team be better – in the playoffs that is.
One would have to think that was Doug Wilson's actual logic. But can we really attribute logic to a man who invites a 43-year-old, 5.5 years into retirement, to come back and play for his stacked team? Can we really say that Doug Wilson is doing anything other than rolling the dice? After all, he built a team he hopes will win the Cup around Joe Thornton (not to mention Patrick Marleau).
I get the thinking too:
My players = All chokers
Claude Lemieux = Has always found ways to win (even Conn Smythes!)
Despite that, in my humble opinion, Claude Lemieux will not help the Sharks. You can't expect a reclamation project like him to come in and turn a team's stomachs around. Nor could you expect him to fare very well in the new faster NHL. He didn't help Phoenix at the end of his real playing days, did he? His effectiveness was spent more than 9 years ago.
If anything, with Thornton and Roenick already crowding the dressing room; I think he's a personality too far. What's more, some poor youngster who could be learning the ways of winning will now be relegated back down so Claude can exorcise his whim.
I wish Claude all the best, but I'm infinitely glad we didn't sign him. Normally, I'm the first to criticise Bob Gainey for canny manouevres he missed out on. But this is not a canny manoeuvre in my book, and I wholeheartedly disagree with JT's fanciful take on the matter:
If Gainey passed over Lemieux without at least considering making him an offer, I worry the Habs GM is too conservative or unimaginative to give his team a leg up on the other teams scrabbling to be the best...
And, what is it about the late 80s Habs that just won't retire. Chelios, Richer and his repeated attempts at comebacks and now this. If Larry Robinson wants back in, we have a gaping place open for him at 6th defenceman...
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Beating The Bruins
Remembering What Habs Knew So Well
Last season, thanks to Montreal, the Bruins were a middling regular season club. Last year, thanks to the Canadiens, the Bruins were a first round eliminee. This year, the Bruins have another fate on their minds, and barring a collapse of Ottawaian proportions, they have already surpassed middling. But can the Habs remember a bit of the spellbinding trickery that won them 8 of 8 meetings with their most vicious rivals?
Boston has some astonishing numbers so far this year, so maybe their biggest weakness for the second half will be the law of averages. Take Blake Wheeler and David Krejci's shooting % for example (whose numbers have both started falling since I started researching this): over 20% is unsustainable for even the Ovechkins of the world. Reason says they can't go on shooting at over 20% forever. History tells us scoring streaks like theirs sometimes, but rarely last a whole season – only 2 players topped 20% last season: Mike Ribeiro (who lucked out a whole season at 25%) and Brad Boyes; the next guys were at 18%. Take their goaltenders, both have inordinately high save percentages at the moment. Are they the best tandem of all time, or have they saved their bad goals and sub .900 games for the end of the season?
A real weakness that Boston has is their comeback ability. Someone who wants to impress you will tell you that Boston has only trailed 13 times after the first period and 8 times they have come back from the deficit to win. But I also noticed that the Bruins have not once come back from a deficit at the second intermission. In 7 games (I admit that's impressive), they are 0-6-1.
It's hardly a game plan to say: let's score lots of goals and have a lead at the end of 2 (although it is genius Julien's plan). Yeah, no kidding. However, consider teams top teams like Detroit and San Jose come back after the second nearly 40% of the time. The Habs themselves have rescued 5 wins and an OTL from 14 deficits (0.357). It tells me that if you can get them down, you get get them out of their game, out of their comfort zone.
In a game strategy, I'd make sure that every battle you can win, you win. They are a team that has had things their own way and clearly don't like it when they don't. Score first, score early. Check Chara, expose the others. Take the game to them and don't let them bring it to you.
I saved this article from a week ago about a strategy for beating the Bruins. It was written after a couple of losses about a team that you would have thought from the tone was unbeatable:
It talks sense, even if it does over-exaggerate the risks of playing in Boston.
Lessons should be easy to come by for the Habs when it comes to beating this Bruins team. Each game last year speak to the same kind of stuff at that article and the fact the Bruins don't like to be out of the driver's seat:
Game 1, we pounded them early and they laid down to take the punishment
Game 2, we did it with defence; but also scored 2 before they could show up
Game 3, we gave them a complex by trading goals for 2 periods before burying them under 25 shots and 3 straight killer goals
Games 4, 5, 6 and 7 we scored first and never gave the Bruins a sniff of victory
Game 8 was the first the Bruins made a contest of it. We toyed with them and took it in a shootout
Over these 8 games, the Bruins never led the Habs. Not for a minute. And, with the exception of Game 5 in the playoffs, the Bruins never came back from a deficit to win against us last season – that was 12 victories for us out of 13 where we took a lead.
They are the team that needs a strategy, methinks. Probably something beyond the genius tactics of a man who twice got himself shipped out from a team who would make the playoffs:
And besides, is this year's Bruins team so different anyway?
Not on paper they aren't. Wins and stats-wise they are worlds apart. But really, let's see. Even Chuck Kobasew looked like a scorer once down there. Time and reality will make us better judges of this Boston hockey outfit.
We must acknowledge they have learned and improved somewhat – for they have beaten the Canadiens twice already, and got points in all three meetings. However, their embarrassing displays against us last season were unnatural. What's more, they are still a team with weaknesses (as per this pseudo-Bruins fan), such as unorthodox goaltending:
And average defence:
Add to that injuries to players like Bergeron, Kessel, Sturm and even Lucic, and they will have to be superhuman to repeat their 62 points from the next half season. The quiet Habs can catch this team as it settles back into Bruins 2008. Let's start tonight.
Boston has some astonishing numbers so far this year, so maybe their biggest weakness for the second half will be the law of averages. Take Blake Wheeler and David Krejci's shooting % for example (whose numbers have both started falling since I started researching this): over 20% is unsustainable for even the Ovechkins of the world. Reason says they can't go on shooting at over 20% forever. History tells us scoring streaks like theirs sometimes, but rarely last a whole season – only 2 players topped 20% last season: Mike Ribeiro (who lucked out a whole season at 25%) and Brad Boyes; the next guys were at 18%. Take their goaltenders, both have inordinately high save percentages at the moment. Are they the best tandem of all time, or have they saved their bad goals and sub .900 games for the end of the season?
A real weakness that Boston has is their comeback ability. Someone who wants to impress you will tell you that Boston has only trailed 13 times after the first period and 8 times they have come back from the deficit to win. But I also noticed that the Bruins have not once come back from a deficit at the second intermission. In 7 games (I admit that's impressive), they are 0-6-1.
It's hardly a game plan to say: let's score lots of goals and have a lead at the end of 2 (although it is genius Julien's plan). Yeah, no kidding. However, consider teams top teams like Detroit and San Jose come back after the second nearly 40% of the time. The Habs themselves have rescued 5 wins and an OTL from 14 deficits (0.357). It tells me that if you can get them down, you get get them out of their game, out of their comfort zone.
In a game strategy, I'd make sure that every battle you can win, you win. They are a team that has had things their own way and clearly don't like it when they don't. Score first, score early. Check Chara, expose the others. Take the game to them and don't let them bring it to you.
I saved this article from a week ago about a strategy for beating the Bruins. It was written after a couple of losses about a team that you would have thought from the tone was unbeatable:
"A dastardly plan that will frustrate and eventually defeat the high-powered Bruins attack, and leave their scoring machine in the shop for repairs. Granted, not every team has the talent or discipline or chutzpah to implement Operation Beat the Bruins but teams with enough scoring skills — or grit – to get a lead and a good enough goaltender could do it."
It talks sense, even if it does over-exaggerate the risks of playing in Boston.
Lessons should be easy to come by for the Habs when it comes to beating this Bruins team. Each game last year speak to the same kind of stuff at that article and the fact the Bruins don't like to be out of the driver's seat:
Game 1, we pounded them early and they laid down to take the punishment
Game 2, we did it with defence; but also scored 2 before they could show up
Game 3, we gave them a complex by trading goals for 2 periods before burying them under 25 shots and 3 straight killer goals
Games 4, 5, 6 and 7 we scored first and never gave the Bruins a sniff of victory
Game 8 was the first the Bruins made a contest of it. We toyed with them and took it in a shootout
Over these 8 games, the Bruins never led the Habs. Not for a minute. And, with the exception of Game 5 in the playoffs, the Bruins never came back from a deficit to win against us last season – that was 12 victories for us out of 13 where we took a lead.
They are the team that needs a strategy, methinks. Probably something beyond the genius tactics of a man who twice got himself shipped out from a team who would make the playoffs:
“I think for every team, every game, we talk about [scoring first] and getting an early lead and taking control of the game.”
– Claude Julien
And besides, is this year's Bruins team so different anyway?
Not on paper they aren't. Wins and stats-wise they are worlds apart. But really, let's see. Even Chuck Kobasew looked like a scorer once down there. Time and reality will make us better judges of this Boston hockey outfit.
We must acknowledge they have learned and improved somewhat – for they have beaten the Canadiens twice already, and got points in all three meetings. However, their embarrassing displays against us last season were unnatural. What's more, they are still a team with weaknesses (as per this pseudo-Bruins fan), such as unorthodox goaltending:
Another puzzling part of the picture is Boston's goaltending. Tim Thomas has a 2.08 GAA and .933 save percentage, which defy explanation. Thomas (and most Boston fans would agree) has atrocious positioning and lacks basic fundamentals. Yet, Like Dominic Hasek, he makes the save, no matter how ugly.
And average defence:
A puzzling aspect is Boston's defense, which has remained largely the same since last year. Zdeno Chara is still woefully incompetent with the puck in his own end, and Andrew Ference, Shane Hnidy, Matt Hunwick, Matt Lashoff, Mark Stuart, Dennis Wideman, and Aaron Ward round out what would otherwise be a group of very average defensemen.
Add to that injuries to players like Bergeron, Kessel, Sturm and even Lucic, and they will have to be superhuman to repeat their 62 points from the next half season. The quiet Habs can catch this team as it settles back into Bruins 2008. Let's start tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)