How often does your team get blown out, and what does it mean?

[stokes84]

Sabres either get blown out, or keep it close and pick up points.

It means we are not talented and often get totally outclassed, but also have some good leadership and resiliency. Basically, we are the opposite of Edmonton in this way.

 

[Delicious Dangles*]

Extremely weird criteria for blowouts. Will skew all the numbers.

You also forgot the entire other side of the equation. How often your team blows out other teams. If blowouts are relevant, that would be relevant.

 

[Anglesmith]

By the definition of the OP, the Flames have been blown out three times this season. Once in St. Louis on the third game of the season, once in Carolina, and once by the Rangers.

I think that for the Flames, this low number (relative to their talent level) is a reflection of Hartley's message that they can't afford to take a game off. It's also a reflection of Giordano.

 

[Android 16]

The Panthers have been blown out four times:
Devils - 5-1
Flyers - 4-1
Kings - 5-2
Wild - 4-1

We've blown teams out twice :
San Jose 4-1
Ducks 6-2


And we've had 23 one-goal games lol

I give them a pass on the blow outs to the Kings and Wild, two good teams who can play both sides of the rink really well. The blow outs to the Devils and Flyers are inexcusable. They're both bs teams.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Losing a game 4-1 or 3-0 isn't a blowout, it's a bad game. Blowouts are embarrassing and something that forces the coaches and players to reevaluate what they're doing and (hopefully) get their heads on right.

I'd say the Hawks losing 5-1 to WPG was a blowout. The 4-1 losses to DET and VAN were just bad games.

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

I give them a pass on the blow outs to the Kings and Wild, two good teams who can play both sides of the rink really well. The blow outs to the Devils and Flyers are inexcusable. They're both bs teams.

Still, only four games that got away from Florida all year? To me they're playing a consistent game, and committed to a defensive system. Won't be surprised to seem them sneak in with a wildcard spot!

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

Losing a game 4-1 or 3-0 isn't a blowout, it's a bad game. Blowouts are embarrassing and something that forces the coaches and players to reevaluate what they're doing and (hopefully) get their heads on right.

I'd say the Hawks losing 5-1 to WPG was a blowout. The 4-1 level losses to DET and VAN were just bad games.

So the empty netter at the end of the Chicago jets game bumped it up to blow out?

 

[Andy6]

That's a decent number (4), but when you've given up 4.......eleven (11) times already, that's not good. Oh and btw, the Jets have yet to win one, when giving up those 4.

I'm not too terribly surprised that most of the Jets' losses have come in those games in which the other team has scored a lot of goals. I'd guess that a lot of other teams in hockey and other sports would also exhibit this mysterious correlation.

 

[FlaPnthrsPunk]

I give them a pass on the blow outs to the Kings and Wild, two good teams who can play both sides of the rink really well. The blow outs to the Devils and Flyers are inexcusable. They're both bs teams.

Agreed. The Kings completely dominated us on all ends of the ice that night and the Wild play a system that is extremely hard to overtake. That Opening Night game vs. the Devils was ridiculous with a rare off-night from Luongo. The team just looked completely deflated in Philly.

Blowouts to me are when a team is obviously entirely unprepared for their opponent or their mindset just isn't in it which is what it seemed to me in the Flyers game. We used to see a lot more of these with the Panthers, but because they're able to stay in most games no matter who the opponent is, this is refreshing to see. Now if we just had an offense that could average two goals more than the opponent...

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

That's a decent number (4), but when you've given up 4.......eleven (11) times already, that's not good. Oh and btw, the Jets have yet to win one, when giving up those 4.

Diving into those stats deep. Of those 11 games where the jets gave up 4 goals, 5 of them were in ot or shoot out, making it impossible to win those games. Of the remaining 7 games, 2 times the fourth goal was an empty netter. Of the remaining 5 games 4 of them occurred in the first 7 games of the season.

So since Oct 24th, the Winnipeg jets have only allowed 4 regulation goals (no empty netters) one time, and have had exactly that one chance to win a game you've described. Pretty impressive stat from the jets!

Interesting topic you raised Larrybiv.

 

[tigervixxxen]

I'd call a blow out losing by 3 or more (not counting ENG). Some games are a bit iffy such as Avs were up in the third in a game they lost 5-2, I don't call a blow out as much as a collapse. A blow out to me is a game you are not ever really in. But just sticking with the score definition it's funny the Avs have been blown out more this season than last but they've also blown teams out more often too.

Blown out losses:

0-5 Minnesota
2-5 Vancouver
0-6 Islanders
2-6 Winnipeg

Blow out wins:

7-3 Vancouver
5-0 Islanders
5-2 Dallas
5-1 Buffalo
5-0 St Louis

 

[KickHisAssZegrass]

The Ducks either win by 1 goal or get blown out. It's actually kind of amazing, there is no inbetween.

 

[Quares27]

For the Leafs i'd say:

Blowout wins

- 4-0 vs Buffalo
- 6-1 vs Boston
- 6-2 vs Washington
- 6-2 vs Anaheim
- 4-0 vs Dallas

Blowout losses

- 2-6 vs Buffalo
- 2-9 vs Nashville
- 4-7 vs Philadelphia
- 0-4 vs Chicago

People like to say the Leafs get blown out whenever they lose 4-1 or something like that which really isn't the case... yes they likely got outplayed but that's hardly a blowout especially when the team scores an empty netter or a late goal when the Leafs are all out attack

As for why they get blown out, it seems pretty obvious... the team is very inconsistent with their effort and can go on horrible runs like those first 2 blowouts and follow it up with 6 wins in a row before going on an awful run like the other 2 blowouts

 

[Hammer Time]

http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/bet...-brodins-feet-and-all-the-anaheim-defensemen/

Historically, a low number of blowout losses is usually associated with playoff success. There are exceptions though (e.g. 2006 Hurricanes). This makes sense, since Cup contenders usually show up for every game and won't get completely outclassed often.

 

[Seedling]

Every game. Doesn't seem to mean anything to anyone anymore. Apathy towards the Oil is well deserved.

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/bet...-brodins-feet-and-all-the-anaheim-defensemen/

Historically, a low number of blowout losses is usually associated with playoff success. There are exceptions though (e.g. 2006 Hurricanes). This makes sense, since Cup contenders usually show up for every game and won't get completely outclassed often.

Thank you for this link, this is why I'm using 3 goal games.

3-Goal Game Losses

Looking at the Stanley Cup winners over the last eight years, none of the teams that won the Cup finished in the top ten in 3-goal game losses. In fact, the team that wins the Cup rarely gets blown out, always finishing near the bottom of the NHL in this stat.

 

[Caged Great]

By the definition of the OP, the Flames have been blown out three times this season. Once in St. Louis on the third game of the season, once in Carolina, and once by the Rangers.

I think that for the Flames, this low number (relative to their talent level) is a reflection of Hartley's message that they can't afford to take a game off. It's also a reflection of Giordano.

Those were the only truly bad games this year for the Flames.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Under Torts between 11-12 and 2013 we had one 4 goal loss. Under AV we seem to have like 2 or 3 blowouts in the first 5 games and then one against the Lightning (this year we arguably had two). We had a few good blowout wins this year too.