From The Rink: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Has Kentucky Improved Since the Non-Conference Season?

The ephemeral nature of hot starts

The crowd at Mile High Hockey are understandably jazzed about their team's start. And so they should be. It's oddly appropriate that goaltending is carrying Colorado currently, because it's goaltending that probably sunk the club more than anything else last year. They have Budaj and Raycroft to "thank" for the impressive Matt Duchene I'd say.

The kids have looked good for the Avs thus far but, frankly, if Colorado continues to win with this line-up ... Then a bunch of us would have to re-evaluate all our assumptions about creating winning hockey teams.

— Kent Wilson, Matchsticks & Gasoline

That same Avalanche gang (Mile High Hockey) was about to lynch me for this post earlier in the week, but I'm far from the only one waiting for the clock to strike midnight on this plucky team. Colorado, however, won again on Wednesday night over a team everyone had picked to finish ahead of them, recovering from two early goals against to somehow sneak by the Flames, 3-2.

Enforcer David Koci got one of the goals and netminder Craig Anderson, the toast of the NHL through 150 or so games, was again busy. The Avs won despite being out shot 32-14.

And, after 13 games, they have the best record in the NHL.

Given where pretty much everyone in the hockey world thought they'd be (i.e.), that's pretty impressive. That they're also winning while almost never out shooting their opponents (only two games), or that Anderson has so far posted an amazing .940 save percentage, or that they're leaning so heavily on some young players in key positions — well, that all raises some predictable questions about the sustainability of the hot start.

Star-divide

It's been almost exactly five years since I started this blog (well, the other one anyway), and in that time, I've learned to be leery of reading too heavily into these things. (Or even the cold spurts.) Hockey is just a game where teams and players can, often inexplicably, get hot and pull off the unexpected over 10, 15 or 20-game stretches. The Thrashers, as one example, were one of the league's best teams down the stretch last season, posting a 13-5-0 record during the hardest time of the year to pick up points, and yet they still finished 27th overall.

How were they that bad and yet so good for a quarter of the season? Who knows?

We've seen teams like the 2006-07 Senators come out of the gate 15-2-0 and disintegrate by the all-star break. Heck, even last year, in mid-January, the Habs were riding high with a 27-11-6 record and the Coyotes were in fifth in their conference.

Both imploded soon after.

Even 40-some solid games of hockey, ultimately, may not mean much given just how long and gruelling the NHL season is. Teams make up points quickly and any prolonged slide can undo a great performance over an equal stretch of the season.

Absolutely, Avs fans should enjoy this run and shout down anyone who says otherwise, but if I'm pressed to make a prediction, it's that Colorado still has a real fight on its hands to make the playoffs come April. The good news is that they've already put up more than 20 per cent of the points necessary to get in, so it'd take an epic collapse to truly bottom out, but in a league where so many 90-point teams are missing the playoffs these days, there are still miles to go before they sleep.

Smarter statistical minds than my own have written about the small sample size effect when it comes to things like this (Jonathan Willis does a nice job here, for example) and how, over the long term, there's effectively a minimum and maximum for metrics like shooting and save percentages. Colorado, so far, is over their max on both, and barring something historic happening over an 82-game schedule, they will begin to have far more difficulty scoring goals and keeping them out of their own net. (Even if the latter comes as a result of Anderson taking a breather once in a blue moon.)

But so what? Even if the Avs do fall down to seventh or eighth in the conference and squeak into the postseason, that has to be seen as a major victory for a franchise few saw coming back to life anywhere near this quickly. And I'll bet that, should that happen, Anderson and coach Joe Sacco will be in the running for some hardware in June.

What I won't tell you is that that's where we're headed based on 13 games because, after all, a month into last season, Jacques Lemaire and the Wild were the toast of the league.

And, hey, 12 months later, he's off to a decent start in New Jersey, too.

0 recs  |  Comment 87 comments  |  Add comment |

Story-email Email Printer Print

More from From The Rink

U.S. names Olympic roster

Jan 2010 by James Mirtle - 117 comments

All Thirty Teams in Action

Oct 2009 by Daniel Tolensky - 10 comments

Comments

Display:

No Lynching

Avs fans are all just over the moon at the moment, because even they didn’t expect this to happen.
We expected Stazzer and the Duke to come up big for us, but never expected much depth.
There have been a lot of very pleasant surprises over our first stretch.

Our D has really tightened up and the ‘quality of shots against’ has gone down considerably. Players who were calling it in last year (Hannan, Clark, Salei (although not applicable to this argument yet)) have really picked up their game.
Also players who we never expected to perform (Quincey, Cumiskey, Wilson) have come out great for us.
Cumiskey’s playing is, in my humble opinion, completely thanks to Sacco and his system though. Sacco has faith in the kid and he lets him use those wheels.

The goaltending Anderson has just been unbelievable. If one would just watch the NHL recaps, they’d see how an unorthodox style should work (I’m looking at you Theo, even though you’re doing quite well with the caps as of now).

And the last great thing is: If we exclude IR we have 9M in cap left!

Svatos has been disappointing so far and should be offloaded if he doesn’t see some 2nd line playing time. He’s just useless if his linemates aren’t great passers.

by Tommelot on Oct 29, 2009 8:37 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

1) Agreed that its way to early to make proclamations based upon 10 games, but have to be impressed with the Av’s and Anderson specifically, nonetheless.
2) Eventually though you’d have to think that ‘the water will find its level’ and the ‘lanche will come back down to where most thought they’d be. In the mean time its a nice story

I find sometimes it's easy to be myself
sometimes I find it's better to be somebody else

by Fauxrumors on Oct 29, 2009 8:38 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

the ‘lanche will come back down to where most thought they’d be

So despite this start they will still finish last in the West…as predicted? No, I don’t think so…

by From the Point on Oct 29, 2009 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

hah

so true. Preseason predictions are often incredibly wrong, and I’d say there’s no way now that the Avs finish last in the west. But they’ll come back to the pack, and that’s to be expected.

"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky

by Karina on Oct 29, 2009 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Avs nice start is a great story, but...

We’re all confident that the clock will strike midnight at some point. Last night on the radio in Nashville, Ray Ferraro made the observation that in practical terms, the duo of Ryan O’Reilly and Matt Duchene are going to hit a wall as the long grind of the NHL season sets in.

Denver fans should enjoy the ride, though. There’s no doubt that picking up Anderson was a real coup, and the future for the Avs looks much brighter than it did a few months ago.

More fun than a stick to the face!
On the Forecheck is SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators.

by Dirk Hoag on Oct 29, 2009 8:52 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Ray Ferraro

Wow, that observation must be based on facts then. Maybe he’ll win a Nobel prize for his groundbreaking work in the field of physics!

The fact is that no-one knows how hard Rayzor and Boy Wonder have been training this off-season. Don’t back up an argument with “someone else said so”.

That said, I agree that it’s very unlikely they won’t get tired at some point. The team already started to look slow at the end of the first roadtrip (which was the longest roadtrip in franchise history, mind you).

by Tommelot on Oct 29, 2009 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

So you get all worked up over an opinion expressed by someone with years of experience around the NHL not being “based on facts”, and then you end up agreeing that it’s very unlikely that the kids won’t wear down? Make up your mind!

It was just an observation shared by an analyst, not a comprehensive academic study.

More fun than a stick to the face!
On the Forecheck is SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators.

by Dirk Hoag on Oct 29, 2009 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Rayzor Radar

fixed. (Just seeing “Rayzor” makes me feel ill.)

Beachie: Injuring hottie Avs players' almighty groins since 1996

by BeachNSnowGirl on Oct 30, 2009 7:28 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sorry, slip of the finger :s

by Tommelot on Oct 31, 2009 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Duchene may have hit the wall already

I mean, 13 GP with 1 G, 5 A, and a -4. It’s not exactly like he’s tearing it up statistically.

I thought you knew that algebra was all razzamatazz. A Globetrotter always saves the good algebra for the final minutes.

by SlamDunkTheFunk on Oct 29, 2009 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That’s true, but his game is a lot better than his stats would perceive.

by Tommelot on Oct 29, 2009 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh, I agree.

He’s bound to have some games like he’s had recently where he’s a young kid used to having the game come easy to him and suddenly things aren’t working like they always do and he’s trying to do too much.

It just seems like people are quick to say “THE KIDS CAN’T KEEP IT UP” without really taking a look at the stats. I mean, in terms of production, O’Reilly is the one everyone needs to be looking at for a drop-off.

I thought you knew that algebra was all razzamatazz. A Globetrotter always saves the good algebra for the final minutes.

by SlamDunkTheFunk on Oct 29, 2009 12:34 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Quincey’s the guy who I don’t think can keep it up!

He never struck me as a huge offensive producer.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Oct 29, 2009 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Speaking defensively

he has been awesome. Offensively, I dunno. It seems like everyone has had their stretches of really good. I can tell you the PP misses Liles pretty badly. It’s been such a bizarre season so far it’s hard to tell who is for real and who isn’t. I mean, Darcy Tucker has four goals!

I thought you knew that algebra was all razzamatazz. A Globetrotter always saves the good algebra for the final minutes.

by SlamDunkTheFunk on Oct 29, 2009 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hey, give the kid a break that’s the same point total as Havlat.

It's never about the eventual destination, but rather the long journey and its challenging obstacles that are presented and what it takes to overcome them, that makes the taste of success all the more worthwhile!!!

by hawks61 on Oct 29, 2009 9:49 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

still up in the air

It’s still far too early to tell where the Avs will end up, but I thought the Anderson signing was brilliant the day it happened, and that it would keep them out of the cellar.

If the Avs have one of those “everything goes right” seasons (i.e., no significant injuries), they should challenge for a playoff spot. If something bad happens (e.g., a replay of their injury situation last year, or Anderson goes down) they’ll likely plummet quickly. In the most likely scenario, somewhere between those two extremes, I would speculate they’ll finish around 10th in the conference.

As others have said, enjoy the ride. I’ve seen a couple Avs games this season, and I think the future is bright out there. With a little more depth and a few seasons of NHL experience on the part of the rookies, this will be an exciting team soon.

P is for Latrobe.

by holiday park on Oct 29, 2009 10:01 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Injuries
If the Avs have one of those "everything goes right" seasons (i.e., no significant injuries)

Our injured list is MASSIVE at the moment:

Liles, Salei, Tucker, McLeod, Preissing and Budaj.

That’s probably about 30% of our cap, right there.

by Tommelot on Oct 29, 2009 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

add in galiardi now

Beachie: Injuring hottie Avs players' almighty groins since 1996

by BeachNSnowGirl on Oct 30, 2009 7:30 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Where's the statistical analysis?

This seems like a situation ripe for some examination of statistics — which Avs are playing at a pace that is unlikely or impossible to sustain?

For instance, Wojtek Wolski has a shooting percentage of 30.8 after last night’s game. Nobody ever finishes a season with that kind of percentage, so look for him to tail off. (HIs career percentage is 12.1.) Also, the Avs are getting secondary scoring from their whole line-up right now. They have 10 players already with 2 or more goals, and only Adam Foote and Ryan Wilson have not scored among players who’ve played in a majority of their games. Stuff like this just doesn’t carry through an entire season. As Dirk said above, it’s pretty unlikely that Ryan O’Reilly will score 70 points this season (11 in 13 games so far.). John-Michael Liles: nearly a point per game player? (6 in 7 games so far.) Kyle Quincey is going to play 25 minutes every night without a fall-off? (He averaged 21 minutes last season with L.A.)

So count me as yet another person who doesn’t expect the Avs to stay on top, but I like to think there are statistical reasons rather than just “a feeling”.

by attaboy on Oct 29, 2009 10:04 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

If we collapse the Avs fans will be the first to explain, then bitch, why it’s happening. But what I don’t get is the “inevitable” bifurcation that people predict. None of us think we’ll finish 1st in the conference. Agreed. But evidently, it’s either 1st or 10th and lower. What about 6th or 7th. 96 points, behind Calgary in the division, etc. Everyone speaks in platitudes “they are good now, they’ll cool down and miss the playoffs, but a great future!” What about a logical outcome. We will cool off. But we have compiled a lot of points which, like Mirtle said, makes a small collapse not as much as a detriment as it would be if we were say, where Detroit sits. Every game we win now, lowers the needed wins after the new year to make the playoffs. We have more wiggle room for losses, or a losing streak. Look, i predicted the Avs to suck. I am wrong. I also predicted the Flyers to suck a few seasons back after finishing near the bottom. Predictions can be wrong.

Avalanche 2009-2010: We fend off 7 man power plays? Do you?

by c6hor8 on Oct 29, 2009 10:22 AM CDT up reply actions   2 recs

I don’t necessarily disagree with you — note that personally, I didn’t say that the Avs will miss the playoffs, just that they’re not going to stay on top. But I think the reason most people have them 10th or so is that when you look around the conference, there are a lot of other teams that ought to be good and ought to be better than the ‘Lanche, and some of them haven’t played that well yet. (I’m looking at you, Detroit, Vancouver, St. Louis and Anaheim.) I think Colorado can squeak into the playoffs if one or two of the teams everyone expects to be good end up having a bad season.

by attaboy on Oct 29, 2009 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Us Avs fans have every reason to be elated. After how poorly last season went, we’re getting what we normally expect from the team and better. It’s like we got our same broken down car back from the shop with a few “performance modifications” from the repairman.

For example, the D is only slightly changed, but we’re getting awesome play out of John-Michael Liles, and especially Scott Hannan. Kyle Quincey fills a glaring hole in last season’s team. We’re getting a lot of value out of our offensive depth from good players in our system whose talent was overshadowed by how disastrous last season was.

There’s nothing that can be said of Craig Anderson that hasn’t already been said.

A lot of it has to do with Joe Sacco. He appears to have a knack for drawing potential out of players, as he’s gotten a level of play out of this team that we only talked about existing on paper. We knew Wolski was capable of being in the league-wide scoring race, and my god, after three seasons, he’s actually doing it. Sacco also doesn’t ever let the team give up when they’re down. See the Flames game last night.

Teams still seem to be coming into their games with the Avs thinking this is the night they cool off, and this is not a team to take lightly. There’s a level of heart that just wasn’t present last year, and it makes the difference. I hate to bring the intangibles in, but they have a knack for confounding statistics.

The level of play may come down, but why would it be a collapse? It’ll be a gradual decline if anything – those of us watching the team nightly are already seeing it in a couple players, but we’re using our depth and finding ways to win.

Colorado Avalanche: Preventing itchy playoff beards since '09

by FiveJeffFingerDiscount on Oct 29, 2009 10:13 AM CDT reply actions   1 recs

Trying to get more traffic to your site, I see. Well, can we all at least just agree to hate the Red Wings?

Hey Peter McNab, I'm starting to see sunshine and rainbows here.

by Bob in Boulder on Oct 29, 2009 10:43 AM CDT reply actions   1 recs

I’m not sure pissing off fans in Denver is the best way to get traffic.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Oct 29, 2009 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Honestly

I’m not even all that upset by this. It’s kind of fun for me, personally. Last year and the beginning of this year everyone was kind of just laughing at us and feeling sorry for us. Now people are doing everything they can to explain why we’re winning so much. I really don’t downside.

I thought you knew that algebra was all razzamatazz. A Globetrotter always saves the good algebra for the final minutes.

by SlamDunkTheFunk on Oct 29, 2009 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

To be fair, I wasn’t feeling sorry for you guys at all. Laughing, yes. Feeling bad about it? Hardly.

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on Oct 29, 2009 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

lol

+1 for honesty.

Beachie: Injuring hottie Avs players' almighty groins since 1996

by BeachNSnowGirl on Oct 30, 2009 7:33 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

To me, I don’t understand where stating facts, comparing where those numbers are to long-term averages, and then drawing conclusions of “this will not continue” pisses people off so much.

It’s not about disrespect, it’s about the law of averages and the fact that we’re only 10-15% through the season.

The Sabres started 6-0-2 last year. They followed that by losing seven or eight of the next 10 games, and then a Miller injury killed what was left of their hopes.

Sabres have started 7-1-1 again this year, and I’m more scared than excited, even though their averages are “safer” compared to long-term norms. I know how fast it can come crumbling down, and your example of Ottawa is a perfect one.

by Afino on Oct 29, 2009 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

then drawing conclusions of "this will not continue" pisses people off so much.

It’s not this, everyone knows this won’t continue. It’s the statements that “The wheels will fall off” and the implication that this is a 27th place team masquerading as a cup contender. Avs fans aren’t upset that people think the avs won’t continue at this torrid pace. Avs fans are upset that people seem to think they will fall back into the basement of the Western Conference. This is a better team than last year. Probably not as good as their record indicates, but much better than last season’s.

We just wish people would acknowledge that aspect, instead of focusing on the flukiness.

The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 29, 2009 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Fair enough.

by Afino on Oct 29, 2009 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Avs fans are upset that people seem to think they will fall back into the basement of the Western Conference. This is a better team than last year. Probably not as good as their record indicates, but much better than last season’s.

Well, I don’t think that, otherwise that’s what I would have said. But I do think they still have a very big fight on their hands to get into the playoffs. I imagine they’ll be in those 7 to 11 spots by the end of the season.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Oct 29, 2009 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That’s certainly how it comes across. I mean you’re talking about implosions, disintegrations, wheels falling off, smoke and mirrors, and falling apart.

That’s a lot stronger language than what you’re saying here.

The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 29, 2009 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

… if I’m pressed to make a prediction, it’s that Colorado still has a real fight on its hands to make the playoffs come April. The good news is that they’ve already put up more than 20 per cent of the points necessary to get in, so it’d take an epic collapse to truly bottom out, but in a league where so many 90-point teams are missing the playoffs these days, there are still miles to go before they sleep.

Okay, so I’m saying that they have a fight to make the playoffs and that 90 point teams miss often, thereby implying Colorado could easily be in this group. So… by that reasoning, they’d be better than last season.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Oct 29, 2009 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

No I get it

but that’s kind of a backhanded way of saying it don’t you think?

The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 29, 2009 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Has beating the drums of doom for the Leafs been helping?

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Oct 29, 2009 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh yeah, the Leafs. What have they been up to this year?

I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.

by Smoboy41 on Nov 2, 2009 7:07 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Let’s rec the hell outta that one!

by Tommelot on Oct 29, 2009 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I second that motion. Hate the Wings.

It's never about the eventual destination, but rather the long journey and its challenging obstacles that are presented and what it takes to overcome them, that makes the taste of success all the more worthwhile!!!

by hawks61 on Oct 29, 2009 9:50 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Flames in 01-02 had a ridiculous start as well. I can’t remember their record but they were amazing for the first bit of the season when Jarome was lighting up the league, but fell off significantly and missed the playoffs.

by Bosc Ulrich on Oct 29, 2009 11:48 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

They were 13-2-2-2 . And Roman Turek was at around .930 or thereabouts for a SV%, but ended the year at .906. The Flames finished with 79 points. In Colorado’s favor, Craig Anderson’s likely not headed off the face of the earth the way Turek was.

by Robert Cleave on Oct 29, 2009 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Yeah, the Avs can’t sustain this pace. Craig Anderson can’t play every game and he can’t play this well in every game. They’ll get over their fast start and eventually fall back. It’s tough to hear, especially when you watch a team every game and you see them winning, but it’ll happen.

Now the Kings, they’re going to keep winning all season…

The West Coast is the Best Coast.

by RudyKelly on Oct 29, 2009 2:02 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Glad to see you’re sharing in our Kool Aid! It’s good, huh??

(FWIW, I live in HB and support the Kings in their quest …as long as it doesn’t hurt our quest of course. Also, if Smyth had to go anywhere, I’m glad it was LA. At least I get to see him all the time!)

Beachie: Injuring hottie Avs players' almighty groins since 1996

by BeachNSnowGirl on Oct 30, 2009 7:38 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think the term is ‘regressing to the mean.’ It happens to everyone. It’s already started for the Rangers. The Avs, Sabres and Pens are next. In what order? Who knows.

Ta,

by Tom Luongo on Oct 29, 2009 3:25 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Don’t forget the Leafs are regressing to the mean…or is it progressing to the mean?

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Oct 29, 2009 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Agree

That isn’t the same as wheels falling off or complete collapse

The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 29, 2009 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Statistically speaking, a sample of 82 isn’t very reliable either.
I’m getting pretty sick and tired of people using statistics as some ‘holy bible’.
They will cool down, but not NECESSARILY because ‘statistics would indicate so’.

by Tommelot on Oct 29, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Of course I meant sample size.

by Tommelot on Oct 29, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You’re condemning people for using statistics to back up their statements? Stats will help support why a certain team should regress to the average and enable someone to draw conclusions. That certainly sounds more reliable than, “This team is playing out of their minds. How do I know? I just do, since I see it every year.”

Supporter of the Sergei Berezin "Give and Go" - You give me puck, then you go to hell

by bkblades on Oct 29, 2009 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That’s like saying that E=mc² is valid when we’re talking about non-relative speeds. Every formula used in maths and physics is only as valid as the context surrounding it. Some vague idea about sampling sizes and means doesn’t make you a scientist and it sure as hell doesn’t back up your argument.

by Tommelot on Oct 29, 2009 4:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

But how is saying 13 games as a ridiculously small sample size mean it’s an invalid statistic? This isn’t like people are bringing up statistics about player’s heights or anything of that nature.

Supporter of the Sergei Berezin "Give and Go" - You give me puck, then you go to hell

by bkblades on Oct 29, 2009 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

First of all, ridiculous isn’t a scientific term. 2nd of all, I’m just saying that any sample size regarding # of games is going to be an invalid statistic, mathematically speaking.

Who is talking about player’s heights? I kind of get the feeling you need to brush up your statistics, no offence.

by Tommelot on Oct 29, 2009 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I didn’t use ridiculous as a scientific term. I used ridiculous as an adjective in the English language, describing something as absurd. For example, “Using 13 games to make a definitive statement about a team’s future performance is absurd.”

I was merely using “player’s height” as an extreme example, rather than taking it literally. Just as using a player’s height isn’t a statistic worth comparing in this case, making a value judgment and throwing out 13 games because it doesn’t fit your argument doesn’t work either. Colorado has been the best team in the NHL so far, but if you’re using 13 games as extrapolation, it’s just not enough of a sample to compare.

At least with 25 games or so, we can find a trend as to a team’s success. Anderson isn’t going to continue performing at a .940 SV% clip, since no other goaltender has maintained those type of numbers before. But that’s what 13 games has told you. That’s all I’m saying. Care to patronize me more? :)

Supporter of the Sergei Berezin "Give and Go" - You give me puck, then you go to hell

by bkblades on Oct 29, 2009 8:33 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

but if you’re using 13 games as extrapolation

Nobody is but you!

At least with 25 games or so, we can find a trend as to a team’s success

No. I hate to be rude, but could you explain to me how you get that number?

the fact is that, without the Student’s T-interval, you can’t really tell anything about a number of samples smaller than 500, because the gaussian curve is just not there yet.

by Tommelot on Oct 30, 2009 2:13 AM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Oh Tommy...

there you go again, getting all scientific on us with your sound logic and citing decades of proven truths. it’s part of why we love ya, tho!

Beachie: Injuring hottie Avs players' almighty groins since 1996

by BeachNSnowGirl on Oct 30, 2009 7:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I disagree with you on some respect. The shooting numbers are in the thousands, and that’s a large enough sample for things to even out statistically. Even PPs are going to be in the 200+ over the course of the season.

The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 29, 2009 5:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree. Shooting stats are more evened out over the season, and so are PP.

But which formula do you use to connect them with wins?

by Tommelot on Oct 30, 2009 2:14 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

oh

I don’t. Behind the net has shown that GF/GA is the best connection to wins that there is… far and away. Shots trend with goals, but to a point, but there’s a shot quality factor in there as well. Some teams have better offenses and create better chances (I know there’s some disagreement on whether shot quality evens out over a season, but I’m inclined to disagree.)

Behind the net (I think) showed (and I can’t remember the article, so i can’t link to it) that statistically a team that was out shot by 3-5 shots per game should lose 70% of the time, but the actual number is only 53%, mainly because all shots aren’t equal. Which is why I am not as worried about being outshot, and I don’t think it’s as catastrophic an indicator as some others tend to believe.

The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 30, 2009 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

To be fair

You guys over at MHH have long been guilty of using strong language to illustrate your opinions.

Case in point: I was basically run out of town and branded a troll for arguing that Darcy Tucker was not, in fact, the worst player in NHL history, nor was it his intention to rob poor Kronke of millions while he secretly grinned and intentionally played horribly.

Going back to January, I recall being one of the few Avs fans who considered the team good already, but was told to restrict that minority opinion to my “rainbows and puppy dogs” articles on another site.

So before condemning James for his choice of words, try to recall the absolute terms being bandied about by your membership. Not one of you argued that maybe Tucker could progress to the mean. He was crucified for his perceived lack of talent to the point where you named him Shamwow – that which sucks more than any other substance.

Opinion sans strong language is of no use to anyone. Nobody should realize this better than the gang from MHH, who travel in packs, each person echoing the thoughts of the last. Nearly 99% agreed and used some very strong language to brand Tucker as the worst player in the league on hundreds of occasions. James used the phrase “wheels fall off” one time. Let it go.

by TD O'Dell on Oct 29, 2009 3:52 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hey TD,

I think I agreed with you last year, when stating that the team was quite good already. They just lacked effort and got unlucky with injuries and inconsistent goaltending and such. And don’t forget Tyler “I refuse to skate” Arnason!

I never really liked Tucker as a player, just like I never liked Lemieux and random goons (Lemieux and Tucker aren’t just goons). Tucker was unlucky being on Tyler “Bag o’ pucks” Arnason’s line, and as such had a sub-par year.

Regarding the strong language. Read the title of the first comment on this thread!

Shamwow was a joke made by DD if I remember. No need to defend it.

It’s a fan website, of course there’s going to be criticism on things you say on the site, that’s the whole point of posting! You are free to say what you want, and will never get run out of town as long as you talk about hockey.

On behalf of MHH, join our community and post some stories (if you want)!

by Tommelot on Oct 29, 2009 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You were never run out of town, nor branded a troll. I don’t remember the details of the discussions very well (and I’m not looking it up), but I remember arguing with you over a bunch of things.

And Tucker sucked balls last season. He was Awful with a capital A. He has been 100x better this season.

The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 29, 2009 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

So before condemning James for his choice of words, try to recall the absolute terms being bandied about by your membership. Not one of you argued that maybe Tucker could progress to the mean. He was crucified for his perceived lack of talent to the point where you named him Shamwow – that which sucks more than any other substance.

Yeah, well, Tucker was Shamwow last year and I am sure the longer that you argued that he wasn’t the more frustrating it got for anyone over there with two eyes.

This year he started hot but let’s see how he recovers from the concussion. My guess is that he’ll be back at Shamwow levels again unfortunately.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Oct 30, 2009 12:52 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, well, Tucker was Shamwow last year and I am sure the longer that you argued that he wasn’t, with very little evidence to back your point of view, the more frustrating it got for anyone over there with two eyes.

amended.

The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 30, 2009 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Any chance Joe might change the sub-title over at MHH?

You guys have made it clear that your site does not, in fact, welcome fans of the Nordiques. And why should you? The team itself denies the franchise’s history (e.g. Sakic’s banner which reads 1995-2008), so why should you people be any different?

I’m referring, today, to the countless examples of the phrase “best start in franchise history” among the various MHH-related blogs. I recall writing a piece on the 1995 Nords that emphasized their 12-1-0 start, which served as a sister article to my “rainbows and puppy dogs” piece about the 1981 Nords and their historical (19-4-5) post-ASG run that could have been replicated eight months ago.

While 10-1-2 is the best start in their short Denver history, can you people not even mention once that the team that moved to Denver had started 12-1 just four or five months before getting to town?

by TD O'Dell on Oct 29, 2009 4:19 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Overall, I hate it that the Avs, as a franchise, have mostly acted as if they just started in Colorado and Quebec never happened. I just find it disrespectful. Of course, they aren’t alone in doing that.

by Malurous on Oct 29, 2009 5:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

my "rainbows and puppy dogs" piece about the 1981 Nords and their historical (19-4-5) post-ASG run that could have been replicated eight months ago.

No wonder that piece wasn’t received well. The team was in the midst of finishing third last in the league.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Oct 30, 2009 12:55 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m referring, today, to the countless examples of the phrase "best start in franchise history" among the various MHH-related blogs

Actually Joe wrote:

And just in case you hadn’t heard, 10-1-2 is the best start in Avalanche history

I find that most Avs usually qualify it by saying “Avs” not franchise

The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 30, 2009 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Please don’t confuse Avalanche Co. with MHH fans. If you read through a lot of our posts, you’ll see a serious desire to pay hommage to the roots of the organization. Case in point: most of us hoped (and were greatly disappointed when it didn’t happen) that the new third jerseys would be Nordique-esque.

Beachie: Injuring hottie Avs players' almighty groins since 1996

by BeachNSnowGirl on Oct 30, 2009 7:48 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

A couple more things

I think one of the major questions surrounding the Avs’ start has been Anderson. The guy has been downright phenomenal, 2nd in the NHL to Ryan Miller (who continues to be neglected even though he leads the league in GAA and SV%, by the way). But Anderson is still a journeyman goalie. Granted, he was great when he had a chance to play in Florida, but this guy has never shouldered the load as a #1 netminder. Who knows what his play is going to be like when he’s being asked to start twice as many games as he ever has before?

Second, the Avs are getting outshot like crazy at even strength. EVERY statistical metric points to a strong causal relationship between outshooting your opponent at even strength and consistent success. The converse is equally true. The Avs are benefiting from some fantastic variance right now, but this is going to turn, sooner or later. They will likely already have enough points banked up to make the playoffs by that point, but this team simply cannot finish in the top 3 in the West playing this way.

by HarryNeale'sGarden on Oct 29, 2009 5:58 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Second, the Avs are getting outshot like crazy at even strength. EVERY statistical metric points to a strong causal relationship between outshooting your opponent at even strength and consistent success.

No it doesn’t. 6 teams last season were outshot more than they shot and made the playoffs, including the Stanley Cup Champs.

The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 29, 2009 6:02 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Most of the shots they’ve allowed seem to have come from the outside, not produced rebounds

Could this be because there is less pressure to shoot when your team is up by a number of goals….?

Regardless of when the Avs bubble bursts its interesting to look at the statistical constructs that strongly predict whether a team should be doing well or not…

by HugoAgogo on Oct 29, 2009 6:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That’s purely anecdotal evidence, it doesn’t mean anything. There’s no way to prove or disprove it.

by HarryNeale'sGarden on Oct 29, 2009 6:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Of course – different teams behave differently at different times as far as how to defend a lead goes…

It would be good if some of the statistical constructs were cleaned up a bit such that data coming from a blowout doesn’t skew the numbers obtained in a one-goal game. Just a basic example – if person A has 4 GWG’s in games with a 3 goal difference or greater and person B has 4 GWG’s in games with a 1/2 goal difference, we can make a good claim that B’s contribution is more important than A to team X’s success.

The point of this I guess is this: there are some very good advanced stats measures (personally I find zone starts is a really good territorial measure) – but clearly they can still be improved. Sometimes though, anecdotal evidence is all you have to say that factor X is possibly confounding the effect seen…

by HugoAgogo on Oct 29, 2009 6:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Are you sure that’s an even-strength metric? Or just total SOG/SOGA, which are skewed by special teams opportunities. Also, one season isn’t sufficient to disprove analysis from statistics taken over every NHL game for more than a decade. Variance exists.

The guys over at HockeyAnalysis and BehindTheNet have done some great work. The numbers speak for themselves, I don’t know what else to tell you. This level of play by the Avs is unsustainable in the long-run. THAT DOESN’T NECESSARILY MEAN it will catch up with them tomorrow, in January, or in the Stanley Cup finals. Just that it will EVENTUALLY, and there’s no way around that.

by HarryNeale'sGarden on Oct 29, 2009 6:06 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It’s SOG/SA metric, mainly because NHL.com doesn’t break it out by EV. I didn’t have the time during the day today to look at Behind the net or other places to fins the ES data.

The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 29, 2009 8:02 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

If the analysis includes a decade of data…well, then that would say last year was the anomoly, not this year. Statistically speaking, the Avs have been a powerhouse for the past decade, with the “wheels falling off” last year.

Beachie: Injuring hottie Avs players' almighty groins since 1996

by BeachNSnowGirl on Oct 30, 2009 7:54 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

EVERY statistical metric points to a strong causal relationship between outshooting your opponent at even strength and consistent success.

No. Stop lying on the intrawebs.

by Tommelot on Oct 30, 2009 2:16 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

How is it that you believe the “fantastic variance” you speak of will level out, but the shots against won’t? It’s unlikely that only some of the stats will norm out but others won’t.

Beachie: Injuring hottie Avs players' almighty groins since 1996

by BeachNSnowGirl on Oct 30, 2009 7:51 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ok, so I threw a ton of numbers into STATA really quick, so I can’t promise that all of this is 100% accurate, since I probably typed something in wrong somewhere.

Of the teams that were outshot at even strength last year, only Philadelphia and Montreal made the playoffs. Boston, Pittsburgh, St Louis, and Vancouver were all outshot on average, but outshot their opponents at even strength. Regressing the Flyers’ and Habs’ win percentage over their shot margins, the covariance is really mediocre. This means that the shot margins had a marginal (at best) impact on the win percentage of both teams.

Doing the same for the Avalanche this year is ridiculous. The covariance is so low it’s not even funny. Basically, less than 1/50 of the Avs’ win% can be described in terms of their SOG margin, which makes sense as it’s hugely negative, whereas the same data for the teams at the top of the NHL last year in EV shot diff (SJ, DET, CHI, WAS) have a high portion of their win% explained by this metric, statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Now, this sample size is extremely small, meaning every game would swing the data wildly.

Suffice to say, though, if they get outshot by 10 at EV every night, they’re going to start dropping (several) games at some point in the future. As far as when that is, your guess is as good as mine.

by HarryNeale'sGarden on Oct 29, 2009 6:48 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Thanks for the useful analysis…

Btw…are you new around here? (If so…welcome…)

by HugoAgogo on Oct 29, 2009 7:03 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks

Yeah, I’ve been reading Mirtle since the old days….and the Sabres blog on SB Nation was the only hockey blog around here for a long time, so I’ve been a regular in these parts.

Never used to post, though. But I haven’t been getting my hockey talk fix lately, so what better place to start than a blog I’ve been reading for five years?

by HarryNeale'sGarden on Oct 29, 2009 7:11 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Welcome. Good to have you. It’s been a bit quiet here so far this season so I need some of you lurkers to chime in.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Oct 30, 2009 12:22 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Of course, ubt I haven’t seen any team that has gotten outshot by 10… that, as well as all the other stats listed, will also regress to the mean.

i.e the Avs have had a couple games where they were outshot by 20+, but most of their other games were pretty close to even in shots.

The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 29, 2009 8:04 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

They’re getting outshot by over 9 shots/game at even strength over a 13-game sample.

Meaning that even if they were outshot in 4 of their 13 games by 25 shots at even strength, the other 9 games they’re still being outshot by roughly 3 shots at even-strength….which isn’t significant at 0.05 but would be at 0.1 over an 82-game sample.

You can’t really dress this up; the numbers aren’t even close to pretty. But, hey, your Avs are 10-1-2. So take it for what it is and enjoy the ride!

by HarryNeale'sGarden on Oct 29, 2009 8:11 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

We are enjoying the ride.

For me, personally, I’m also enjoying watching a lot of people digging into stats and coming armed to shout down any Avs fan by saying “Ooohhhh just you wait!”. It’s fun when you’re winning. See you in a few months when things might have changed =(

I thought you knew that algebra was all razzamatazz. A Globetrotter always saves the good algebra for the final minutes.

by SlamDunkTheFunk on Oct 29, 2009 11:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Outshooting, Game States, and Correlation to winning

Everyone should head over the Behind The Net to read the latest posts by Gabe that cover those topics.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Oct 30, 2009 12:56 AM CDT reply actions   2 recs

Gabe’s great.

by Afino on Oct 30, 2009 9:17 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs


User Tools

Welcome to SBN's blog on all things hockey

Start posting on From The Rink »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

One_lindsay05_small
Getzlaf injured; Olympics in question?
Small
Lightning sale imminent-what about PHX?
Small
Dave Tippett for the Jack Adams award!
Small
Raffle
Small
Collective Intelligence or Popular Delusions:Visualizing NHL Trade, Award Rumors
Small
Phoenix sale?
Gary_bettman_s_nightmare_small
Developing Player Value: Defensive Value per 20 Minutes (DV/20)
One_lindsay05_small
Kings GM & Johnson at odds over University of Michigan
Img_0706_small
Penguins scouting heavily Maple Leafs’ Alexei Ponikarovsky
Img_0706_small
Georges Laraque’s demise as an NHL enforcer

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Blog extras


Bloggers-in-chief

Awkwardmarleau_small Mike Chen

Editors

Penguins_cup_08__small FrankD

Canes-country-logo_small Bob Harwood Waeghe

Cc_cory_small Cory Lavalette

Gabby_small Joe Fortunato

Moderator(s)

Calvin_small PPP

643c0d9c_small saskhab