Early season thoughts: Are the Avs for real?
by James Mirtle on Oct 26, 2009 1:20 PM CDT
94 comments
It may feel like the season has just started, but we're already 147 games in — 12 per cent — and many are drawing some early conclusions about where the 2009-10 season is headed.
It's still far too early for me to believe that some teams are as good (Colorado, Phoenix) or as bad (Toronto, Minnesota) as they currently look, but here's a look at the standings in both conferences along with a few thoughts on what's happened to this point:
| GP | W | L | OTL | PTS | P% | GF | GA | ||
| 1 | Pittsburgh | 11 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 18 | 0.82 | 37 | 25 |
| 2 | Buffalo | 8 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0.81 | 26 | 16 |
| 3 | Washington | 10 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0.70 | 37 | 30 |
| 4 | NY Rangers | 11 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 15 | 0.68 | 41 | 31 |
| 5 | New Jersey | 9 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 12 | 0.67 | 26 | 22 |
| 6 | Ottawa | 9 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0.67 | 30 | 26 |
| 7 | Philadelphia | 9 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 11 | 0.61 | 31 | 27 |
| 8 | Atlanta | 8 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 9 | 0.56 | 28 | 24 |
| 9 | Boston | 10 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 11 | 0.55 | 30 | 32 |
| 10 | Montreal | 10 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 10 | 0.50 | 27 | 30 |
| 11 | Tampa Bay | 9 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0.50 | 24 | 32 |
| 12 | Carolina | 10 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 0.35 | 24 | 34 |
| 13 | NY Islanders | 9 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 0.33 | 20 | 34 |
| 14 | Florida | 9 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 0.28 | 19 | 35 |
| 15 | Toronto | 8 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 0.06 | 15 | 35 |
There actually hasn't been a ton in the East that's all that shocking. The Rangers and Senators are mild surprises to me, with New York getting some strong performances from their rookie blueliners and Ottawa getting solid goaltending from Pascal Leclaire.
The Bruins are probably in trouble trying to keep pace given their injuries, although they could very well be one of the many bubble teams the East will have this year. Toronto, on the other hand, has to worry about just getting out of the basement; the playoffs are likely already out of reach for the Leafs. Phil Kessel will help.
The Islanders look like they'll be picking first overall again. (And their attendance is well down even with John Tavares in the lineup and playing well.)
| GP | W | L | OTL | PTS | P% | GF | GA | ||
| 1 | Colorado | 11 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 18 | 0.82 | 38 | 26 |
| 2 | Calgary | 10 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 15 | 0.75 | 41 | 33 |
| 3 | Los Angeles | 12 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 16 | 0.67 | 44 | 38 |
| 4 | Phoenix | 9 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 12 | 0.67 | 24 | 17 |
| 5 | Chicago | 10 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 13 | 0.65 | 33 | 26 |
| 6 | Dallas | 11 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 14 | 0.64 | 37 | 32 |
| 7 | San Jose | 12 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 15 | 0.63 | 42 | 35 |
| 8 | Columbus | 10 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 12 | 0.60 | 33 | 34 |
| 9 | Edmonton | 11 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 13 | 0.59 | 38 | 33 |
| 10 | Vancouver | 11 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 12 | 0.55 | 31 | 28 |
| 11 | St. Louis | 9 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 9 | 0.50 | 24 | 25 |
| 12 | Detroit | 9 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 8 | 0.44 | 25 | 31 |
| 13 | Anaheim | 9 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 7 | 0.39 | 22 | 31 |
| 14 | Nashville | 10 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 0.35 | 18 | 33 |
| 15 | Minnesota | 10 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 6 | 0.30 | 22 | 32 |
Almost every prediction I saw in preseason had the Avs in dead last in the West, so good on them — and Craig Anderson — for this showing. If they do make the playoffs, that'll be one of the stories of the season, and I expect the Joe Sacco for coach of the year talk to start up shortly.
It's worth keeping in mind, however, that we've seen plenty of teams well in playoff position at midseason fall apart down the stretch, when the pace picks up and younger players have difficulty keeping up (see: 2008-09 Coyotes). Anderson can't play like this all season, just as the Kings can't remain the highest scoring team in the league long term, not when they were the NHL's lowest scoring team at even strength a year ago.
Good (or bad) 10- or 12-game stretches are pretty commonplace, but they seem to gain more significance at the beginning of the season.
That's a big part of the reason why I still see Detroit turning things around. If Chris Osgood continues to struggle and Jim Howard can't step in, they may be another team looking for a goaltender. The blueline is essentially unchanged from a year ago and should be able to bring that goals against figure down, however, even if goal scoring is hard to come by.
Where I'd be worried is in Columbus, Anaheim, Nashville and Minnesota. Steve Mason has really struggled for the Blue Jackets lately, and may give up far more starts to Mathieu Garon than anyone predicted. The Ducks, meanwhile, are having serious issues with depth on the blueline and have been asking too much from their top three.
The Predators can't seem to score and are weak beyond their big three on the back end, while the Todd Richards experiment in Minnesota has thus far resulted in a real mess. For the first time I can remember, the Wild look disorganized.
Something tells me the Western Conference playoff race is going to be something to watch this season.
0 recs |
94 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
I have a hard time understanding why everyone is so shocked (and pessimistic) about the Avalanche. This is a team that truly sucked for one season, and a lot of that has to do with injuries and truly epic goaltending fails. But the Avs as a group are a good team with some serious talent, and with a semi-decent goalie in net and good health they’re ALWAYS going to contend.
Figures the one year they suck they get Matt Duchene. I mean, seriously – that kind of karma, luck, call it what you will, is simply mind-boggling.
The Western Conference is going to be a barn-burner, though. The difference right now between leading your division and being dead last is only a couple of points and it’s likely to stay that tight all year long.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Oct 26, 2009 1:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
The team is playing hard and Sacco won’t settle for less. They are fairly talented up front and much improved in net. But the defense needs to improve, Anderson an’t eat this many pucks all season or the nidseason drop-off is a certainy.
Injuries are already starting up but as long as it doesn’t get as bad as last season they should be fine. I don’t expect them to stay in first all season either but the Avs should be able to stay in the playoff hunt, no problem.
by From the Point on Oct 26, 2009 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, Colorado’s just not that deep. Kyle Quincey is playing 26 minutes a night. They have two 18-year-olds playing 15.5 minutes or more a night. Tucker was on pace for a 30-goal season. T.J. Galiardi and David Jones are in top six roles.
etc., etc.
The wheels will fall off at some point.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Oct 26, 2009 1:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Galiardi has been playing on the third and fourth lines all year as one of the Avs’ best shut down guys. Jones is playing very, very well, and had four points in his first two games.
Quincey is damn good. He’s near the top in points-scoring, he’s hitting hard and peppering the net. He’s earned every one of those minutes he plays.
And those “two 18 year-olds” are Matt Duchene and Ryan O’Reilly, and are out-playing most of the 25-30 year-olds they face every night.
Not saying the Avs can’t or won’t slow down, but give credit where it’s due. It’s not like the Avs are half-assing anything or relying on just one or two guys. Their scoring is all over the roster.
The Avs may (or may not) suck now, but they've still won a Cup more recently than 75% of the NHL.
by Joe Dunman on Oct 26, 2009 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They get all the credit in the world for a good 11-game stretch, but that’s just not worth beans over 82. We’ll see, but I think this team will run out of gas at the 30-game mark and beyond.
But they’ve already accomplished way more than anyone said they would.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Oct 26, 2009 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
To take it the other way
Paul Stastny was playing subpar. And the Avs have been without Salei, Liles, and Preissing (whom i’m not expecting much from). Chris Stewart has been sub-par as well.
Their PK and PP, which was abysmal last season, has benefited greatly from something the Avs lacked last year called “coaching”.
I don’t know if you’ve seen Jone play much, but he definitely has the talent for top-6 line material.
I still think the Avs will cool off, but “The Wheels will come off” is a bit strong. The wheels came off last season, I don’t see it happening again.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, no…I don’t think the wheels are going to fall off. But the two 18 yr olds is a good point, this is a long long season. Nonetheless, it appears that Sacco (and his assistants) are getting more out of these guys than anyone expected. There is no reason to expect that to change.
As for Quincey, he has played well. And if he or say, Wilson get lazy, the Avs have other D-men that can be put in. None of them are world class though, so the weight is still on Anderson.
by From the Point on Oct 26, 2009 2:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
http://gospelofhockey.blogspot.com/2009/10/avalanche-chances-games-1-to-10.html
Scott’s been counting scoring chances for the Avs. At even strength they’re getting outchanced 46-54, which is not the profile of a top team.
Their record is smoke and mirrors. Unless they somehow all collectively improve at EV (or double their output on the PP or something) the wheels will start falling off.
by R O on Oct 26, 2009 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There appears to be really no correlation between being out shot and winning losing.
Boston was outshot in nearly half their games last season, and went 32-6-5 in those games. Anaheim, Vancouver, and Philadelphia were out shot a lot as well, yet they all made the playoffs.
So far, from browsing stats the biggest indicator of W/L is GF/GA, and it’s not even close. In that regard, the Avs are doing all right.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I realize you were comparing scoring chances, but shooting data is the best I can tell.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s all right. Outshooting and outchancing correlate really well over 20+ games.
by R O on Oct 26, 2009 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Has a team that’s averaged being outshot by eight shots a game ever made the playoffs?
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Oct 26, 2009 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm
Last season the biggest differential was -5.3 shots per game (FLA). If you’re subscribng the the theory of statistical anomalies normalizing over the course of the season, well the Avs aren’t going to get out-shot by 8 shots per game all season.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And that’s going to help them!
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Oct 26, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
So they will normalize in some areas where they have been overachieving (Shooting %, and Save %) but they will also normalize in places where they have been underachieving (like shots/game)
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We’ll see how it washes out, but the goaltending can’t save them this much all year.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Oct 26, 2009 3:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
They certainly need to be better in certain areas. I think they need more scoring chances for sure.
But in games in which they are being outshot, and outchanced, it certainly doesn’t feel like they are being dominated. Even in the last game against Detroit, where they were outshot 2-1, I was shocked to see that.
They are playing good defense that results in one shot, with no rebounds.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The rebounds seem to be key to me. Last season it was a pinball machine in front of the goal. Almost NONE of that this year. It’s night and day.
But really, the D AS to do something to decrease the number of shots on Andy.
by From the Point on Oct 26, 2009 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is a correlation between outshooting now and scoring more goals (i.e. winning) in the future.
In fact the correlation between current outshooting and future outscoring is much much much higher than the correlation between current outscoring and future outscoring.
In other words, a team’s record right now means almost nothing.
Controversial opinions of the day: Boston, Anaheim, Vancouver and Philadelphia were mediocre teams last year! Boston and Vancouver had success driven by percentages on both sides of the ice, Anaheim and Philly’s success was based on special teams.
by R O on Oct 26, 2009 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Avs success has been from goaltending and Special teams this season. That seems to fit pretty nicely.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually they’re just breaking even on special teams chances. Their success is purely goaltending and there is no way Anderson maintains a SV% of 0.936. Unless you are telling me that Anderson is equivalent to Hasek at the peak of his career (0.937)
by R O on Oct 26, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They also have to give a backup some games at some point, too.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Oct 26, 2009 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We prefer to ignore that inevitability. Having the percipience of selectively forgetting backups need to play helps ease the potential of future losses.
Avalanche 2009-2010: We fend off 7 man power plays? Do you?
by c6hor8 on Oct 26, 2009 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Their PK is 6th and their PP is 5th. How in the world is that average?
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Percentages!
They are breaking even on chances (59-61) with one more PP than their opposition.
by R O on Oct 26, 2009 3:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So
and they are converting on more of them. That sounds like good special teams to me.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Percentages aren’t sustainable over the long term. This is made pretty clear by this article.
Outscoring = (sh/sv percentages) * (outshooting)
Outscoring → not sustainable at the league level
Outshooting → sustainable at the league level
Logically then, some component in SH or SV percentage is not sustainable.
It’s luck.
by R O on Oct 26, 2009 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Avs PK % is 84, last year 1/2 the teams in the league were above 81%. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say they couldn’t stay in that range.
The avs powerplay is at 26%, it will probably cool off because that’s fairly unsustainable. But it could cool off to 20% which would be well within normal %’s
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s not talking about conversion percentage, he’s talking about shooting and save percentage.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
by Doogie2K on Oct 26, 2009 5:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maths like this is way to simplistic to analyse a hockeygame.
by Tommelot on Oct 27, 2009 11:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Part of that is skewed by the last two games.
We won’t be a heavily penalized team this year.
Avalanche 2009-2010: We fend off 7 man power plays? Do you?
by c6hor8 on Oct 26, 2009 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
8 penalties in the Detroit game. Including 4 in the final period when the referees fell for every Red Wing dive. Also, 8 in the Wild game. Prior to that we were averaging significantly less. In a 10 game sample of PP chances, those 16 do skew the numbers.
However, if we start taking 6-8 penalties every game we have bigger problems and won’t make the playoffs.
Avalanche 2009-2010: We fend off 7 man power plays? Do you?
by c6hor8 on Oct 26, 2009 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I meant this part:
We won’t be a heavily penalized team this year.
Pretty hard to predict something like that.
by R O on Oct 26, 2009 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think a hockey fan can judge how dirty a team will be. Coupled with the mentality of a coach and the physicality he demands, assumptions can be made.
Avalanche 2009-2010: We fend off 7 man power plays? Do you?
by c6hor8 on Oct 26, 2009 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s pretty weak reasoning don’t you think?
by R O on Oct 26, 2009 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh
I think a better reasoning is that the Avs have had 2 games where there was a penalty parade, but the other 9 went relatively unpenalized.
I.e. there have been 2 anomaly games that are effecting the average.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can also look at past performance where the Avs have traditionally been a team that sustains a low penalty average.
Beachie: Injuring hottie Avs players' almighty groins since 1996
by BeachNSnowGirl on Oct 26, 2009 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Going back 3 years and looking at # of time shorthanded (on NHL.com)
06/07: 353 (26th)
07/08: 301 (30th)
08/09: 318 (23rd)
So maybe there’s something to that.
But it’s not as if they’re gonna make it upon the PP. Opportunities from NHL.com
06/07: 374 (24th)
07/08: 335 (22nd)
08/09: 318 (24th)
They did maintain positive or even penalty differentials all three years but they’re still low-event by league-wide standards and so they’re going to spend a lot of time playing at EV. And that might not be a good thing.
by R O on Oct 26, 2009 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We had Quenneville (Defensive minded) and Granato (hopelessly incompetent) as our coaches those years too., so I’m not sure how much those opportunities correlate to this season.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that 5-on-5 will be a problem if things continue as they are, but I was speaking solely of your challenge for stronger reasoning on the penalty issue. That said, as Jibbles mentions below, the coaching has already proven to be night and day from previous years, especially with special teams. I have faith that Sacco will not settle for the current trend at even strength.
Beachie: Injuring hottie Avs players' almighty groins since 1996
by BeachNSnowGirl on Oct 26, 2009 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also
In 61 starts since ‘06 Anderson’s save % is .930
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair oint. I’m still skeptical though, as 61 starts is the equivalent of a starter’s season, and Anderson going 0.936 is basically crowning him as the next Hasek-at-his-peak.
by R O on Oct 26, 2009 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We have great special teams this year. So....
I am confused how that post enforces your opinion. Even though you used such an eloquent exclamation points.
A team’s record now means almost nothing? Under that assumption Toronto is as likely to make the playoffs and Pittsburgh is to miss the playoffs?
Avalanche 2009-2010: We fend off 7 man power plays? Do you?
by c6hor8 on Oct 26, 2009 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have you looked at the EV of every single team with a good record over the past 10 years? I don’t think so. We are 10-12 games in. That needs to improve which it should if we believe we are a good team. This is not smoke and mirrors. We are not winning these games based on luck or bad goals. We are making better use of the chances we are given. That’s the sign of a good team. The EV should start to balance out and Sacco will be trying to fix this.
It seems a bit premature to start assuming the wheels will fall off, or the team and their wins are smoke, mirrors, and illusions, when the Gospel of Hockey hasn’t compared every other team, including your Flames.
Avalanche 2009-2010: We fend off 7 man power plays? Do you?
by c6hor8 on Oct 26, 2009 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t forget that Budaj’s a more-than-reasonable backup goaltender. Last year the D was really calling it in all year long to the point where even Foote was regarded pretty bad. This year the D is a lot more organised and although they’re getting outshot, I don’t feel the shots against are half much of a threat compared to last year.
Players like Salei are going to have to fight to get on the roster. Last year this wasn’t the case.
The Avs were also really worn out halfway through that roadtrip. You could really tell by the way they started each game they were tired.
Of course the rookies aren’t likely to go on with this much energy, but Duchene will isn’t getting half the points he deserves when you watch him play and will start to find the net sometime this season.
I, like most fans, really don’t mind this team missing the play-offs this season as it’s a very young, inexperienced team. But the fact is that the Baron (Wolski)-Stazzer (Stastny)- Duke (Hejduk) line is having some serious chemistry out there to the point where they can tic-tac-toe the puck for as long as they want in the offensive zone. Our first line is definitely out there with the best first lines in the NHL.
by Tommelot on Oct 27, 2009 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m kind of shocked that Carolina has had all kinds of trouble scoring goals – is it a result of Cole being out?
by Afino on Oct 26, 2009 1:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
. If Chris Osgood continues to struggle and Jim Howard can’t step in, they may be another team looking for a goaltender. The blueline is essentially unchanged from a year ago and should be able to bring that goals against figure down, however, even if goal scoring is hard to come by.
they gave up 2.93 GA/G last season, with better goaltending. I’m not sure the same blueline as last season is much in the way of positives.
Ty Conklin really held down the fort while Osgood was so bad that the Wings may have missed the playoffs without Conklin last season. They’ve blow leads in 5 games that they ended up losing (St. Louis twice, Colorado twice, Phoenix once). Coincidentally, if you take ConkBlock’s save % last season, and project it onto the team this year, they would have given up 5 less goals.
This means that instead of sitting at 3-4-2 they could be 5-2-2 or 5-3-1. This would put them in fine position.
Paraphrasing James Carville: "It’s the goaltending stupid"
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 1:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Of course, the question is, who is really available to go out and get from a team that isn’t going anywhere and is a better option than something in-house?
Biron? Niittymaki?
by Afino on Oct 26, 2009 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The real question is
who cares?
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Thinking outside the box, what about Kari Lehtonen?
I've been looking at the sky
by Back In Black on Oct 26, 2009 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They were 26-9-8 last season with Osgood in net. How would they have missed the playoffs again?
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Oct 26, 2009 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
fine
they may not have missed the playoffs, (although they were a lot better after he got benched) but they wouldn’t have been the #2 seed.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
1) As we wrote last week concerning the ‘early season surprises’, Its the goaltending, stupid! The teams that are off to a good start can trace it back to getting well above average golatending. Colorado is the prime example. Anderson has looked like a legit #1 goalile. Something they have lacked there the last couple of seasons. Can he keep it up playing 65+ games?
2) Doesn’t look like many are too empathetic to Red Wing fans and their ‘problems’ early on. LOL
I find sometimes it's easy to be myself
sometimes I find it's better to be somebody else
by Fauxrumors on Oct 26, 2009 2:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
What about Budaj’s 15-2-2 stretch a ‘couple of years’ back?
by Tommelot on Oct 27, 2009 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Surprises to me:
- Carolina being so sluggish out of the gate.
- The Thrashers starting strong.
- That Marian Gaborik hasn’t hurt himself yet.
- Phoenix and Colorado (good). Although I thought Anderson was a brilliant signing the day it was made, and didn’t expect them to be outright bottomfeeders because of it.
- Anaheim and Vancouver (bad).
Not so surprising:
- The Bruins’ lack of consistent effort. The real question is this: did the B’s play last Nov/Dec reflect their true ability, or did they hit a hot streak and play over their heads for a while?
- The Wings’ slow start. The Franzen injury hurts, but in general this looks like an old team that’s feeling the effects of all those recent deep playoff runs and the trans-Atlantic start. Also, the whole “doing the goaltending on the cheap” thing might be finally catching up.
- That Martin Havlat has hurt himself.
- That Buffalo has a real shot at the Northeast.
- The Flyers looking like less than the sum of their parts.
Overall, it’s hard to say much at this point in the long season. No one’s really out of it yet. And I still expect that some of the deep, talented squads off to slow starts will climb the standings during the winter, while the Phoenixes (Phoenices?) and Avalanches will come down to earth a bit.
P is for Latrobe.
by holiday park on Oct 26, 2009 2:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Calgary
One place that gets me is that the same places where people expect to see statistical normalization for the Avs, other than the goaltending, where Kipper has been decidedly average (no surprise there) Calgary has been far and away the luckiest team in the league so far. They are leading the league in shooting % by a whopping amount, and their powerplay is cruising along at an unsustainable rate.
Yet their defense and goaltending has been subpar. At least with the Avs you can make the argument that the goalie is saving them, Calgary is just plain old getting lucky.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 3:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
They sure have. We at Matchsticks and Gasoline are quite concerned.
However Calgary last season was one of the most dominant teams at EV (http://www.behindthenet.ca/2008/team_data3.php) so we are all hoping for a reversal to that dominance.
Colorado has no such recent history of EV dominance.
by R O on Oct 26, 2009 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
your link doesn’t work
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
http://www.behindthenet.ca/2008/team_data3.php
The bracket at the end was causing problems.
by R O on Oct 26, 2009 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I don’t see how they were dominant at even strength. They were above average, but their +/-/60 was only +0.2.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look at shot differential/60, which correlates really well to scoring chance differential/60.
by R O on Oct 26, 2009 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t see shot differential/60…
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You have to copy it into an Excel spreadsheet and do a manual calculation (SF/60 minus SA/60)
Calgary rank in SD/60: 5th
Colorado rank in SD/60: 17th.
All at 5 on 5, for 08/09 season.
by R O on Oct 26, 2009 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How dare you!
Add the qualifier “math.”
Hey Peter McNab, I'm starting to see sunshine and rainbows here.
by Bob in Boulder on Oct 26, 2009 6:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Got it
It seems like this is a poor indicator still. Sure the top teams were all playoff teams, but 6 of the playoff teams came from the bottom half of that last season.
So while it looks like ES shot generation is a solid way of making the playoffs, it is far from a necessity.
It looks like being even at ES and playing with solid special teams is a pretty good way of having success too.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The real insight comes from looking at the year before.
http://www.behindthenet.ca/2007/team_data3.php?
Look at a team like MTL. Division winner in 07/08 and huge point total despite one of the worst EV SD/60’s in the league.
Now 08/09:
http://www.behindthenet.ca/2008/team_data3.php?sort=15
Almost the same shot profile, but a few downticks in both SH% and SV% at EV turned them into a minus team at EV. Combined with a regression in PP (a field in which, to be honest, not much research has been done) Montreal collapsed.
That’s just an anecdote. There are many ways to win (of course) but there is definitely a connection between outshooting at EV now and outscoring at EV in the future. And if you’re outshooting now, you’re likely to be doing so in the future as well.
So by all accounts it’s a sustainable (maybe the most sustainable?) way to achieve success. No mirrors, no magic, just hard work and spending more time in the offensive zone.
by R O on Oct 26, 2009 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
and it’s certainly the easiest way to do it, but not the only way. I’m certainly concerned about the avs scoring chances, as they only have 24 shots per game. That needs to be better if the avs are going to continue to be among the tops in the league.
That said, there are parts of the Avs success that haven’t been smoke and mirrors. and while some of it may normalize, I don’t expect them to go crashing into the basement as many seem to predict. In fact, given the statistical evidence, I’d expect Calgary and Edmonton to crash further and harder than the Avs.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Colorado’s currently shooting 11% at EV. Here is a list of teams that have done that over the last two seasons:
…
I think you get the picture. Pittsburgh lead the league at 10.2% last year, and 9.5% in 07/08.
by Robert Cleave on Oct 26, 2009 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure. I still think your goalie will help you be better than last year, and if your team shoots 8.1% overall and 7.2% at EV like last year, I’d be a bit shocked. The league median overall SH% last year was 9.5 and 8.3 at EV. With Stastny back, the Avs might be in hailing range of those numbers.
by Robert Cleave on Oct 26, 2009 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
That was kind of the point. I don’t think even the most optimistic Avs fan expects the Avs to continue on their pace of 134 points for the season, but the Avs shooting % last season was abysmal, and so was their goaltending (and defense, and coaching).
That’s where I think a lot of the complaining from Avs fans are coming from, it seems like everyones waiting for them to fall off of a cliff. While there are certainly signs they are playing over their head, it’s not all that unreasonable to the Avs could be above average in some of the categories that were nearly statistical anomalies last season in how bad they were (like shooting percentage and injuries).
If you couple that with some areas of actual improvement (PK, PP, Goaltending, face offs etc) It’s not all that unrealistic to think they will finish with a playoff birth this season, especially given how hot/lucky they have been at the start.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 26, 2009 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now Mirtle knows how to get traffic to his site
Discuss something that matters. Like the Avalanche.
Hey Peter McNab, I'm starting to see sunshine and rainbows here.
by Bob in Boulder on Oct 26, 2009 6:30 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs
Apparently.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Oct 28, 2009 12:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m excited about the Av’s fast start. Better competition can only accelerate the Canucks’ inevitable rise to the top. ;)
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Oct 26, 2009 7:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I’d be surprised if this ‘Nucks team makes the play-offs this year.
Of course Luongo will start to solidify (he’s one of the best goalie’s in the league), but scoring has been a real issue!
by Tommelot on Oct 27, 2009 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know it’s early but the stats back up a trend shown since 2004, playoff positioning is more correlated with goals scored per game than goals allowed. In other words it’s a more offensive league than pre lockout; defense isn’t the differentiator anymore, its offense. The Avs are scoring enough to stay in it even with a reversion in their goals allowed. Phoenix isn’t scoring enough unless they get just absolutely well above average performance from their defensive effort and goalie, and that is just too much to ask. The Blues need to score more, because their better than average defensive game is not sufficient to get them into the playoffs. The Ducks, their wheels have fallen off; they need a serious change in scoring and defense.
by sctlaw on Oct 27, 2009 9:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
So James...
after tonight’s game v. the Oilers…with 7 regs out on IR and 2 brand new call ups from Erie, a shut out, only 24 shots on goal, being #1 in the LEAGUE…do you still think they’re just smoke and mirrors??? it may be early in the season, but they Keep. On. Winning. i’m thinking that says something…
Beachie: Injuring hottie Avs players' almighty groins since 1996
by BeachNSnowGirl on Oct 27, 2009 11:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Let’s talk in January. Or even Olympic break.
It’s too early to start drawing big conclusions about any team. Even Toronto.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Oct 28, 2009 12:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
At least we can all agree
Osgood is an awful goalie.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 28, 2009 12:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
James, this team has skill. If it didn’t, they would not have the record they have no matter how early it is in the season. To say it’s all just an illusion is ridiculous and insulting to the members of that team. Will this trend contiue? Perhaps, perhaps not. Will they finish top of the league? Who knows. But I do know (and you really must admit) that this year’s Avs look good. They have a system that is working. They are talented. And they have a chance at ending up in the top of the standings rather than the basement everyone (even I) predicted. Give them at least that much credit.
Beachie: Injuring hottie Avs players' almighty groins since 1996
by BeachNSnowGirl on Oct 28, 2009 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Every team has skill! I cannot think of a single team in this league who does not have a player with elite finish, or speed, or hands, or vision. Even the lowly Islanders have that blue-chipper Tavares.
It doesn’t matter. It’s all about putting it together in the grand goal of outscoring the opponent. The Avs are outscoring but they are also finishing their shots higher than any team managed to do last season, with goaltending better than Hasek at his peak. It is absurd on the face of the matter to assume that either will continue. When it stops, the fact that the Avs are getting outchanced will cause them to lose games.
If the Avs are outshooting and outchancing their opponents 20 games from now then you have my ear.
by R O on Oct 28, 2009 11:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You said:
It is absurd on the face of the matter to assume that either will continue.
I said:
Will this trend contiue? Perhaps, perhaps not. Will they finish top of the league? Who knows.
and
And they have a chance
NEVER ONCE did I say this will continue at this pace until the end of the season. I said that there is a chance they will continue to play at a high enough level to end the season towards the top. Between now and 20 games hence, ANYTHING can happen. Thus, under your logic, no one should make any predictions right now about where any team will finish the season.
It seems no one wants to admit that the Avs are a better team than everyone (again, including myself) thought they would be. So what if they don’t keep up the way they are now? That doesn’t mean they will become the team from last year. Too much is different for that to happen and their play thus far indicates that it’s unlikely. Now, should they be beset with a ton of injuries (um, kind of like last year), the likelihood of them bottoming out is certainly higher.
But right now, they are winning and it’s not because of lucky bounces or bad officiating or any other excuse. They’re winning because they are playing better than the other team. And it’s not just Anderson; all 4 lines are contributing offensively, as are the defensive pairings. There are issues to address, but every team has issues. Right now, this team is good, not an illusion.
Beachie: Injuring hottie Avs players' almighty groins since 1996
by BeachNSnowGirl on Oct 28, 2009 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it’s not JUST because of lucky bounces
fixed.
I realize there has been some luck involved, but I don’t think it’s been that much greater than any other teams experience at times in a season. And I do believe this strong start is about more than just that..or even a goalie that’s incredibly hot right now.
Beachie: Injuring hottie Avs players' almighty groins since 1996
by BeachNSnowGirl on Oct 28, 2009 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thus, under your logic, no one should make any predictions right now about where any team will finish the season.
Not using win-loss records, that’s for sure. If you look at shots or scoring chances, you can get a reasonable idea of how often teams have the puck and how often they convert possession into scoring chances. Even more so if you extend to the previous season.
It seems no one wants to admit that the Avs are a better team than everyone (again, including myself) thought they would be.
Well I never thought the Avs were a 27th place team but nor do I think they are division-winner calibre. At season start I thought they were below-average (i.e. 16th or below, and at best a bubble playoff team) and a 12 game stretch playing above the level of the 76/77 Habs while getting smoked in shots and chances isn’t going to convince me otherwise.
But right now, they are winning and it’s not because of lucky bounces or bad officiating or any other excuse. They’re winning because they are playing better than the other team
I don’t think so. They’re winning because they’re finishing on shots and preventing shots at rates that can’t continue over 82 games, they most certainly are not playing better (in general – obviously they played way better than Edmonton last night).
by R O on Oct 28, 2009 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Avs were full value against Edmonton. One arrow in the right direction. But one game doesn’t mean too much (unless you concede that the Detroit game, in which Colorado was outchanced 11-26, means that Colorado is destined to be a lottery team).
The overall body of work (both this year and last) still points to luck.
by R O on Oct 28, 2009 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I’m misinterpreting you a bit, but this goes for others as well.
Here’s where Avs fans have a hard time, aren’t there plenty of indicators that last season the Avs succumbed to plenty of bad luck. They had the 2nd worst shooting percentage, and were some of the highest in the league in man games lost, and those man games were lost by guys like Sakic, Stastny, Smyth, and then a whole slew of defensemen.
That’s what’s been frustrating is that everyone assumes that Last years 15th place downtrodden squad is the normal, and that somehow the Avs will revert back to that squad. Isn’t it more likely that the Avs are somewhere between last’s seasons abysmal club and this season’s 9-1-2?
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 28, 2009 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here’s where Avs fans have a hard time, aren’t there plenty of indicators that last season the Avs succumbed to plenty of bad luck. They had the 2nd worst shooting percentage, and were some of the highest in the league in man games lost, and those man games were lost by guys like Sakic, Stastny, Smyth, and then a whole slew of defensemen.
Here’s where I agree with you. In a thousand parallel universes the Avs probably didn’t average 27th place season. Sakic was old but effective and Smyth’s a hell of a player.
And I agree that the Avs are somewhere in between 1st and 27th place. What bugs me is the opinion that the Avs record (or any of the team’s records so far) means anything. It’s absurd on the face of it – no team in the history of history has sustained a 9-1-2 pace over a full season (not even the 70s Habs, although they came oh so close in 76/77).
And if you were to come up with a list of reasonable expecations for a team that:
a.) broke even at EV last season with its best EV players (Sakic, Smyth) out of the lineup at times;
b.) is getting outchanced at EV over 12 games this young season having lost said EV players to retirement and trade; and
c.) is winning due to goaltending at a higher level than the arguably the best goaltender in the history of the league,
… well, you wouldn’t put “1st place” or even “comfortably in the playoffs” in that list, would you? Given that 20 points are already in the bank, I would put “a good shot at the playoffs” given that the Avs probably only need to go about 0.500 or so here on out to make 8th in the West. But regression from a 0.833 pace is inevitable, and the drop-off will be steep.
And you know what really bugs me? When the dropoff comes, the story will be “the Avs are inexperienced, they can’t handle the pressure of winning blah blah blah”. You know it will happen. And it will be BS.
by R O on Oct 28, 2009 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
I agree with you completely. I don’t think any of the Avs fans, even the biggest kool-aid drinkers, really expect the Avs to continue that pace. They have certainly been delightfully lucky.
I think we are in agreement, the Avs are riding a very hot (albeit still very good) goalie and have been fortunate to get some lucky goals. For god’s sakes they had a goal go in off of Mike Komisarek’s head. It’s a very improbable 9-1-2 start.
Where Avs fans are distraught is the assumption that the team will revert back to the team that was 27th place last season. I think the most likely scenario is that the Avs will fall in the 10-6 range, especially given the hot start. They could take the 3 seed, just because the NW isn’t all that good (Minnesotas bad, Vancouver’s not all that good. Edmonton and Calgary’s hot starts have been just as lucky as the Avs).
And you know what really bugs me? When the dropoff comes, the story will be "the Avs are inexperienced, they can’t handle the pressure of winning blah blah blah". You know it will happen. And it will be BS.
Yeah, and i’ll be whining about it when it happens.
At this point Avs fans are just happy to have a team playing a lot better than last season, and a lot more exciting too. We all recognize they’ve been very lucky (We won against Montreal with 2 puck deflects off of defenseman’s skate goals), but we can all see improvement in the team as well. Which is why we’re adamant that: Yes we’re going to fall off the pace, but we won’t look like a 27th place team when we do.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 28, 2009 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on From The Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Blog extras
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
