Is 2 goals or 3 goals "the most dangerous lead in hockey"?

[SnowblindNYR]

I just reread the OP. I've heard 2 goal lead the most but also heard 3 goal lead. It's stupid antiquated hockey cliches that need to go the way of the dodo. And people wonder why coaches don't understand advanced stats.

 

[Kcb12345]

2 and 3 goal leads are the worst if the team gets cocky and relaxed. If they have a 1 goal lead they generally won't be laid back or think they have it won already. 2 or 3 goals it feels like sometimes give them that mindset that they've won the game basically and just need to wait for the clock to run out now.

 

[c9777666]

Just ask Edmonton.

 

[RoyalDoubleMcCheesie]

Best example of this would be the oilers losing a 3-0 lead to the ducks in game 5 last year in the second round.
But I've also heard a 2 goal lead is the dangerous one so basically depends on the team coach etc 2 or 3 goal lead is basically a coin flip as to which one is the most dangerous.

 

[Macbanan]

In the SHL I'm 100% sure a 3 goal lead is referred to as the most dangerous one.

 

[daver]

Up two going into the third.

 

[cactusjack]

here in QC i've always hear that it's the 3 goals lead. Never heard of the 2 goals lead as the most dangerous one.

 

[NyQuil]

It's just something announcers say when they aren't being particularly original.

It applies to any number of goals.

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

Up 2 going into the 3rd, especially if the trailing team scores early in the 3rd.

I'd love to see the stats on how often it gets tied.

 

[FinPanda]

4 goals is the worst lead in hockey. Ask from any Finn.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Stan Fischler says its 3.

 

[PatrikBerglund]

If you are Finland, even a 4 goal lead can be a nightmare.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

You want to know what EVERY lost 2 goal lead has in common?

They were 1 goal leads twice. So how is a 2 goal lead more dangerous?

It's 2-0. The other team scores. It's now 2-1.

"The most dangerous lead" is now no more.

 

[Kcoyote3]

Thanks for all the responses and people who read the OP.

I'm not arguing the legitimacy of the phrase or what lead is actually most dangerous, just curious what everyone remembers the cliche as.

Interesting that it's about a 50/50 split for 2 goals vs. 3 goals in here

 

[Mobiandi]

Provided there's enough time I've always though 3 goals to be more dangerous than 2. The other team starts playing more free and loose and if they get 1, they'll throw everything at you to get another one. Once it's 3-2, it often feels like a foregone conclusion that the other team will tie it.

 

[boredmale]

I would argue 1 is the most dangerous lead

 

[Mickey Marner]

The most dangerous lead is one goal, followed by two, three, four etc. This can be demonstrated statistically with thousands of NHL games taking place over the last hundred years. No amount of folksy idioms can change that, regardless of how often they're repeated.

 

[Wrath]

The cliche saying that I've always heard is "2 goals is the most dangerous lead".

But as others have pointed out (and yes OP this is straying from the question you asked, sorry!) in reality it is 1 goal, the statistics bear this out pretty clearly.

 

[aufheben]

2 goal lead

 

[King Mapes]

For the Leafs, it's any

I'd say 2. 1 shot and you cut the lead in half.

 

[Hockeyisl1fe]

"There is little evidence that 2-0 is the worst lead in practice. In football, a team leading 2-0 at half-time only goes on to lose the game in about 2% of cases. In ice hockey, statistics show that if a team builds a two-goal advantage, they go on to win the game in the majority of instances, and that a one-goal lead is far more dangerous." -Wikipedia

 

[tony d]

Went with 2 goals.

 

[Roomtemperature]

To go with the spirit of this teams leading by 1 at halftime in the nba tend to lose more then if they were down by 1 point.

 

[NoName]

No.

It is obviously a 1 goal lead.

 

[Dicky113]

Literally it's one goal.
The old saying is two goals.
Doc just doesn't know what he's talking about.

Lock the thread, this is correct on all fronts