Avalanche have won only 5 of past 27 games

[Anglesmith]

5 of 27. What a ******ed sample size. Try to even pick some round numbers to not appear cherry picking some stats that support your agenda.

If a team goes on a 10-game losing streak, then keeps losing, is it permissible to discuss the length of the streak before it reaches 15 games? Or is the non-roundness of those numbers objectionable to you?

 

[Bleedred]

Amazing work by Grubauer and Varlamov.

Watching Varlamov last week when doing my reviews, I thought of you.

He let in one piss poor goal against the Islanders in a game that was a one goal loss. Then against the Capitals? He was BRUTAL. I counted 3 stoppable goals and he allowed 4 in total. 3 were stoppable, including the OT winner that he should have had shut down, but it squeaked through the 5-hole. Yes, it was a breakaway, but pretty inexcusable after 2 stinkers before that. He makes some earlier stops and it doesn't get to overtime.

He even got bailed out on one goal against that didn't count. An Ovechkin shot trickled through him. He had it shut down, he had it stopped, he was square, it just trickled through him. Refs thought he had it and whistled it, but he really didn't. It was in the blue paint and they put it in after the whistle. So he gets bailed out on that, then not too long later, an identical shot from Ovechkin dribbles through him and lays in the paint and once again it's deposited. This time it counted.

People can argue ''It's Ovechkin!'' but still over 80% of Ovechkin's shots have been stopped by goalies this year.

 

[Atas2000]

Has goaltending been the biggest issue for this team?

Smart tank. Look at Ottawa.

 

[hotcabbagesoup]

Bednars system - shoot from the point, get rebound, repeat.

That system has worked for the Sharks. But the Sharks have Burns and Karlsson on the point so it's more successful.

 

[Ivan13]

Watching Varlamov last week when doing my reviews, I thought of you.

He let in one piss poor goal against the Islanders in a game that was a one goal loss. Then against the Capitals? He was BRUTAL. I counted 3 stoppable goals and he allowed 4 in total. 3 were stoppable, including the OT winner that he should have had shut down, but it squeaked through the 5-hole. Yes, it was a breakaway, but pretty inexcusable after 2 stinkers before that. He makes some earlier stops and it doesn't get to overtime.

He even got bailed out on one goal against that didn't count. An Ovechkin shot trickled through him. He had it shut down, he had it stopped, he was square, it just trickled through him. Refs thought he had it and whistled it, but he really didn't. It was in the blue paint and they put it in after the whistle. So he gets bailed out on that, then not too long later, an identical shot from Ovechkin dribbles through him and lays in the paint and once again it's deposited. This time it counted.

People can argue ''It's Ovechkin!'' but still over 80% of Ovechkin's shots have been stopped by goalies this year.

Dude went to save a shot that was knuckling over the net and after it hit his blocker it ended up in the net. Sad, yet funny at the same time. Skaters have been playing great for a large part of that 27 game streak, but lately you can see the clown show in net have taken its toll on their psyche.

 

[Avsboy]

The problem has mostly been goaltending. Suddenly it's doing better but it may be too little too late. Grubauer sucks balls and Varly has lost a lot of mobility; either he's checked out mentally or whatever was left of his groin is no longer there.

 

[Bedards Dad]

Well, it WOULD be, if we didnt take into account the NHLs patented "loser point" system, from which the Avs have been a huge benefactor.

They'll most definitely hit 65 points as a result, even if their actual win rate remains the same.

100% they will have more, that's not what I said. 22 wins in 56 games is a 65 point pace, nothing more or less is being implied. The poster said that isnt that bad, I disagree.

 

[Daishi]

If a team goes on a 10-game losing streak, then keeps losing, is it permissible to discuss the length of the streak before it reaches 15 games? Or is the non-roundness of those numbers objectionable to you?

I’ll answer to you and ignore the background noise that somehow thought my comments were laughable.

If a team loses 13 games straight, I have no objections discussing it, as it’s a real streak. Winning 4 games from a sample size of for example 16 is questionable automatically as it’s not a streak, it’s just a sample size.

Why the 16 games? Did something happen in the beginning of this sample size for it to be chosen?

For example: The team has won only 4 in 16, counting from the time they changed coaches/player x was injured/whatever. It then serves the purpose of illustrating the effects of something happening.

If nothing happened, the truth is, the sample size is chosen to emphasize a losing or winning record, or points etc. But what does a sample size of 16 or 27 games or whatever actually tell the reader? Absolutely nothing. As a time frame it’s meaningless and the reader can’t connect it with the real world. How many weeks or months is that? It only exists to create as extreme a record as possible — to create buzz — making it agenda driven.

The original poster even went so far into the realm of stupidity to wonder what on earth (as a fan of other teams) his agenda could be. The answer is ludicrously obvious and it has nothing to do with hockey: To create interest to his thread (for whatever reason).

I hope this satisfies all of your curiosity as to why I think ”5 of 27” is a garbage stat and/or cherry picking. It being 100% accurare doesn’t make it any less moronic.

 

[AvsFan29]

Well, it WOULD be, if we didnt take into account the NHLs patented "loser point" system, from which the Avs have been a huge benefactor.

They'll most definitely hit 65 points as a result, even if their actual win rate remains the same.

A huge benefactor of the loser point?

It may look that way, because the Avs have won 1/13 games past regulation, but when considering they have won 14/26 points past regulation, they haven't benefitted at all from OT.

If they had even been .500 in OT, they would have 6 more points, and be in the top wild card spot, and 2 points behind 3rd in the West.

 

[Dr Pepper]

A huge benefactor of the loser point?

It may look that way, because the Avs have won 1/13 games past regulation, but when considering they have won 14/26 points past regulation, they haven't benefitted at all from OT.

If they had even been .500 in OT, they would have 6 more points, and be in the top wild card spot, and 2 points behind 3rd in the West.

They've gained 11 points in the standings solely because they lost after regulation, instead of before.

Colorado's true record is 22-34, it's just that the NHL wanted to be creative with how these losses are quantified. No ties anymore, so this is the new standard.

It's even refered to as "OTL" in the standings, so the league readily admits that it's still a loss.

Every team has benefitted from it, of course, not just Colorado. Didn't mean to single them out. It's just that they seem to benefit more than the rest.

 

[BigGulpsEh]

I’ll answer to you and ignore the background noise that somehow thought my comments were laughable.

If a team loses 13 games straight, I have no objections discussing it, as it’s a real streak. Winning 4 games from a sample size of for example 16 is questionable automatically as it’s not a streak, it’s just a sample size.

Why the 16 games? Did something happen in the beginning of this sample size for it to be chosen?

For example: The team has won only 4 in 16, counting from the time they changed coaches/player x was injured/whatever. It then serves the purpose of illustrating the effects of something happening.

If nothing happened, the truth is, the sample size is chosen to emphasize a losing or winning record, or points etc. But what does a sample size of 16 or 27 games or whatever actually tell the reader? Absolutely nothing. As a time frame it’s meaningless and the reader can’t connect it with the real world. How many weeks or months is that? It only exists to create as extreme a record as possible — to create buzz — making it agenda driven.

The original poster even went so far into the realm of stupidity to wonder what on earth (as a fan of other teams) his agenda could be. The answer is ludicrously obvious and it has nothing to do with hockey: To create interest to his thread (for whatever reason).

I hope this satisfies all of your curiosity as to why I think ”5 of 27” is a garbage stat and/or cherry picking. It being 100% accurare doesn’t make it any less moronic.

You’re very upset over this lol

 

[AvsFan29]

They've gained 11 points in the standings solely because they lost after regulation, instead of before.

Colorado's true record is 22-34, it's just that the NHL wanted to be creative with how these losses are quantified. No ties anymore, so this is the new standard.

It's even refered to as "OTL" in the standings, so the league readily admits that it's still a loss.

Every team has benefitted from it, of course, not just Colorado. Didn't mean to single them out. It's just that they seem to benefit more than the rest.

But if the league had ties, they would have 1 point less. While other teams who have won in OT, have gained that second point. The Avs haven't benefitted the least from OT games.

 

[Crosbyfan]

If you truly want to evaluate 1/3 of the Avs' season, you'd actually look at their last 82 periods (27 games + the 3rd period of the 28th game).

Any other time frame and you CLEARLY have an agenda.

Well 27 games in base 10 is a 1,000 in base 3. 1,000 seems like a reasonable sample size to choose...

So (base 3) they've won just 12 of their last 1,000 games...

 

[The Macho King]

Bednars system - shoot from the point, get rebound, repeat.

I noticed that in the Leafs game but didnt say anything. They always seem to go from low to high, and MacK seemed like he was playing as a third defenseman.

 

[Dr Pepper]

But if the league had ties, they would have 1 point less. While other teams who have won in OT, have gained that second point. The Avs haven't benefitted the least from OT games.

I'm not suggesting the league should bring back ties, I'm suggesting they should stop rewarding teams that lose in OT or in the shootout. Currently the Avs lead the league in this category, which has in turn propelled them up the standings. If these loser points were removed from every team, it would impact Colorado the most.

Well, maybe not, as they're already out of a playoff spot. I don't have time to run the numbers right now but there might be a team that would drop from playoff spot to no playoff spot. Bigger impact, even if they haven't amassed as many loser points.

 

[AvsFan29]

I'm not suggesting the league should bring back ties, I'm suggesting they should stop rewarding teams that lose in OT or in the shootout. Currently the Avs lead the league in this category, which has in turn propelled them up the standings. If these loser points were removed from every team, it would impact Colorado the most.

Well, maybe not, as they're already out of a playoff spot. I don't have time to run the numbers right now but there might be a team that would drop from playoff spot to no playoff spot. Bigger impact, even if they haven't amassed as many loser points.

Nobody wants 2 points determined by 3v3 or a shoot out, with the loser getting 0 points.

The game is 5v5 for 60 minutes, and a team who ties the actual game, shouldn't walk away empty handed because of a 3v3 or shootout. I'd rather have no OT, with 1 point for a tie.

The NHL has decided that ties aren't exciting, and got rid of them. The real benefactors of OT, are the teams playing Colorado lol they know that a regulation tie is most likely an OT win.

 

[AvsFan29]

I noticed that in the Leafs game but didnt say anything. They always seem to go from low to high, and MacK seemed like he was playing as a third defenseman.

Mack floats shots from the point at landeskog who has a pretty good redirection rate. Landeskog and Rantanen are a lot better on the boards, so there's no point in him being down low, and he doesn't like playing in the slot for some reason

 

[Dr Pepper]

Nobody wants 2 points determined by 3v3 or a shoot out, with the loser getting 0 points.

The game is 5v5 for 60 minutes, and a team who ties the actual game, shouldn't walk away empty handed because of a 3v3 or shootout. I'd rather have no OT, with 1 point for a tie.

The NHL has decided that ties aren't exciting, and got rid of them. The real benefactors of OT, are the teams playing Colorado lol they know that a regulation tie is most likely an OT win.

I'm glad we can at least agree on this. You're 100% right, the league did get rid of ties. Which makes the fact that they still give out the points, for "regulation ties", apparently, all the more amusing. If a baseball game goes into extra innings, no additional reward is given to the losing team. Same with any soccer, er, "football" match that goes past injury time into overtime. No special points handed out, the winner gets it all.

If teams knew going into OT that there was a chance they could walk away with nothing, maybe we'd see some better hockey. Instead, they think "well, at least we got something" and perhaps don't try as hard. Especially if it's late in the season and that one point clinches a playoff spot. Every game should be all or nothing, three point games shouldn't exist.

 

[AvsFan29]

I'm glad we can at least agree on this. You're 100% right, the league did get rid of ties. Which makes the fact that they still give out the points, for "regulation ties", apparently, all the more amusing. If a baseball game goes into extra innings, no additional reward is given to the losing team. Same with any soccer, er, "football" match that goes past injury time into overtime. No special points handed out, the winner gets it all.

If teams knew going into OT that there was a chance they could walk away with nothing, maybe we'd see some better hockey. Instead, they think "well, at least we got something" and perhaps don't try as hard. Especially if it's late in the season and that one point clinches a playoff spot. Every game should be all or nothing, three point games shouldn't exist.

Loser points don't count towards tie breakers, so that's one thing I guess.

If the league were to get rid of the loser point, they would have to go back to 5v5 OT with no shoot out.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Loser points don't count towards tie breakers, so that's one thing I guess.

If the league were to get rid of the loser point, they would have to go back to 5v5 OT with no shoot out.

Increase OT to ten minutes, and I'd be all for it. Gotta have a winner, though, so I'm not sure how they can guarantee someone would score in that time.

 

[Anglesmith]

I’ll answer to you and ignore the background noise that somehow thought my comments were laughable.

If a team loses 13 games straight, I have no objections discussing it, as it’s a real streak. Winning 4 games from a sample size of for example 16 is questionable automatically as it’s not a streak, it’s just a sample size.

Why the 16 games? Did something happen in the beginning of this sample size for it to be chosen?

For example: The team has won only 4 in 16, counting from the time they changed coaches/player x was injured/whatever. It then serves the purpose of illustrating the effects of something happening.

If nothing happened, the truth is, the sample size is chosen to emphasize a losing or winning record, or points etc. But what does a sample size of 16 or 27 games or whatever actually tell the reader? Absolutely nothing. As a time frame it’s meaningless and the reader can’t connect it with the real world. How many weeks or months is that? It only exists to create as extreme a record as possible — to create buzz — making it agenda driven.

The original poster even went so far into the realm of stupidity to wonder what on earth (as a fan of other teams) his agenda could be. The answer is ludicrously obvious and it has nothing to do with hockey: To create interest to his thread (for whatever reason).

I hope this satisfies all of your curiosity as to why I think ”5 of 27” is a garbage stat and/or cherry picking. It being 100% accurare doesn’t make it any less moronic.

I think you're overthinking it. You are correct- 27 games is chosen specifically because it best encapsulates the streak of futility, but it is not being done maliciously, or to hurt anyone's feelings. It's done to be more complete and concise. A person could choose a 25 game stretch instead, but there is literally no reason to choose 25 games instead of 27. If you choose 25 games, you then also have to acknowledge that those 25 games came on the heels of two other losses.

This is why I brought up losing streaks. You say a "real streak" is different than a "sample size," but it really isn't. Your complaints about picking a non-round number apply equally to both situations. The 27 games being selected here represent a streak of futility, and picking anything other than 27 games fails to adequately describe it. If you pick a longer sample size, you are picking games that were played prior to the streak of futility. If you pick a shorter sample size, you are excluding games that were part of it. Your complaint is that, for some reason, one of these two options is better. Compare that to a winning streak. If you're talking about a team on a 14-game winning streak, you are purposefully ignoring the fact that they lost the game before it started. They won 14 of 15, but a 14 game sample size is being selected specifically to emphasize only the games they have won. Why is it acceptable to pick the non-round sample size in this scenario, but not when describing more general scenario?

You might say that it would be silly to call a 14-game winning streak and an 11-game winning streak both a 10-game winning streak, and I would agree. Obviously, if you're only going to a round number, you're going to be equating streaks and stretches that are not equivalent. And that's why people don't pick round numbers.

 

[AvsFan29]

Increase OT to ten minutes, and I'd be all for it. Gotta have a winner, though, so I'm not sure how they can guarantee someone would score in that time.

They would have a tie after 10 minutes. If they have to have a winner, then you end up with the system we have now, and then we're back to a loser point. You can't have a 3v3 or shootout without a loser point.

 

[Dr Pepper]

They would have a tie after 10 minutes. If they have to have a winner, then you end up with the system we have now, and then we're back to a loser point. You can't have a 3v3 or shootout without a loser point.

Well, that's fair.

As long as no team gets points in a game that they ended up losing.

Either 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss, or both teams get 1 point and that's the end of it. If the NHL went back to that system, I'd be fine.

 

[notsocommonsense]

Yes, I’ve noted that journalists and hockey fans alike constantly use hyperbole and cherry picked garbage stats to support their agenda, whether it is to make someone look bad or to pump their tires.

Yea, I don’t think anyone is “making” the avalanche look bad. . They’ve been awful, not sure why you think this is someone’s agenda

 

[Jayan]

So Avs going for Hughes (AND) Kaakko?