Why the Avs will regress next year

PepsiCenterMagic

Food is Great
Jul 17, 2013
651
44
I see them finishing around 15th overall. They were overacheiving this year.

I don't think there is a such a thing as overachieving.

I mean, how can there be? The Avalanche had more wins than some teams who possessed the puck more (which possession is assessed by shot attempts?), and by that basis, we are discrediting them for not performing consistent with a relative and evolving theory?

That is only an example. A team is what a team is. The U.S men's hockey team can be as low as supposed underdogs as they want, but once they beat the "better" Russia team (which is based off track record), then all suppositions and analysis don't matter anymore. They are the better team, didn't overachieve. If they overachieved, they went farther than we predicted, or performed better than we thought possible. Well that one is on us, for guessing wrong. Our projections on a team are just a probability, a chance. If a team differs from that, labeling them a certain way using our method as a control in the experiment is against and besides the point. We are proving a system to match the results, not the opposite. The results are in the history books, and our methods only partially right.
 

Gigantor The Goalie

Speak for the Goalies
Feb 4, 2012
13,076
2,529
New London
It's not uncommon for first year coaches to capture the lightning in a bottle and go on and run.

but it IS uncommon for them to keep it. The players never buy in like they did that first year, and opponents never really got a chance to pick you apart. It gets harder every year after that. I'm sure Colorado fans will take it as a slight against their team or some individual players, but it's more a reality of coaching than anything.

Avs fans know what a rookie coach can do. The situation you describe is akin to Sacco and not Roy. The only thing the 2009-10 team and 2013-14 team have in common is that Sacco and Roy were rookie coaches. That's where the similarities end.

Sacco 2009-10
Hot start
Squeezed into the 8th seed
43-30-9 Record = 95 points
Eliminated in 6 Games by the Sharks
Three players with +50 points
Four players with +20 goals
Defence consisted of Cumisky, Liles, old Foote, Wilson, Hannan, Quincey
Six 3-game losing streaks
One 4-game losing streak
Last 10 games of season: 3-5-2

Roy 2013-14
Tied for best start to a rookie coaches career
1st in Central Division, 2nd in Conference, 3rd in League
52-22-8 = 112 points
Eliminated in 7 game by the Wild
5 players with +60 points
5 players with +20 goals
Defence consists of Johnson, Barrie, Hejda, Holden, Geunin, Wilson, Sarich, Benoit
Three 3-game losing streaks
One 4-game losing streak
Last 10 games of regular season: 7-1-2

The difference and gap is quite large.
 

tigervixxxen

Optimism=Delusional
Jul 7, 2013
53,056
6,154
Denver
burgundy-review.com
I hope we finish in last place and get to draft McDavid so he can finally have a chicken macnugget eat off with MacKinnon. If McDavid wins MacKinnon has to change his last name to McKinnon and if MacKinnon wins then McDavid has to change his last name to MacDavid. Cody McLeod officiates.

Jamie McGinn wants to join the party too.
 

tigervixxxen

Optimism=Delusional
Jul 7, 2013
53,056
6,154
Denver
burgundy-review.com
I keep saying it but everyone is looking at the two year sample size and not considering the 5 or 7 year sample size. Yes it's fair to question 29th to 3rd or 39 points to 112 points. But what about a three year span of 95, 69, 95? Which is the anomaly? How about 95, 68, 88? Not as clear cut, huh? This isn't a team that hugged the bottom for 5 years and then got fortunate. There is more to the story here.
 

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
59,988
19,060
w/ Renly's Peach
You're telling me the avs aren't going to win the toughest division in the league every year from now until eternity? YOU LYING, BLASPHEMOUS *****!!!!!
 

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
59,988
19,060
w/ Renly's Peach
Avs fans know what a rookie coach can do. The situation you describe is akin to Sacco and not Roy. The only thing the 2009-10 team and 2013-14 team have in common is that Sacco and Roy were rookie coaches. That's where the similarities end.

Sacco 2009-10
Hot start
Squeezed into the 8th seed
43-30-9 Record = 95 points
Eliminated in 6 Games by the Sharks
Three players with +50 points
Four players with +20 goals
Defence consisted of Cumisky, Liles, old Foote, Wilson, Hannan, Quincey
Six 3-game losing streaks
One 4-game losing streak
Last 10 games of season: 3-5-2

Roy 2013-14
Tied for best start to a rookie coaches career
1st in Central Division, 2nd in Conference, 3rd in League
52-22-8 = 112 points
Eliminated in 7 game by the Wild
5 players with +60 points
5 players with +20 goals
Defence consists of Johnson, Barrie, Hejda, Holden, Geunin, Wilson, Sarich, Benoit
Three 3-game losing streaks
One 4-game losing streak
Last 10 games of regular season: 7-1-2

The difference and gap is quite large.

That's only true if you do more than a very simplistic scan of the scenarios with a pre-chosen conclusion you want to reach. And who the **** wants to do that? #Comingbacktoearthin2015
 

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
59,988
19,060
w/ Renly's Peach
If you lose in the SCF but had a better Corsi, did you win the cup?

In the only way that truly matters, in the minds of stat obsessed HFers who've lost all concept of why people started tracking corsi in the first place, the downside is you don't get that silly trophy/title/recognition/place-in-history/every-other-reason-teams-win.
 

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
59,988
19,060
w/ Renly's Peach
Wild ended up with 98 points, 4th place in the division. That sounds about right for the Avs next season, and that means a date with Chicago or STL in round 1 (most likely).

That doesn't sound great for the Avs unless their goaltending remains near current levels, their young core makes a rather large jump and none of them regress or level off at all, AND they improve their backline. That's a lot of ifs.

Colorado will probably be a better team (and have better advanced metrics), just a lot less lucky. Avs also have the misfortune of playing in the best division in hockey as it relates to early round playoff matchups.

Is that more ifs than people saying the avs will regress if Varly suddenly stops being great for us, if our kids stop developing at 18-23, and if Roy does nothing to address the D?

Either scenario involves a lot of ifs, and betting on a group of incredibly talented 18-23 year olds to get worse from here on out seems like a rather silly if to be trumpeting.
 

Avs44

Registered User
May 16, 2011
21,670
10,125
Its a numbers game. Words lie, the eye test is biased, but numbers are the truth.
I couldn't agree more. Eventually we'll eliminate watching games entirely. Thanks to highly accurate stats such as corsi and fenwick, we can determine how good teams are just by scanning a stats page.
 

FlaPanthers11

Cats Are Coming?
Aug 30, 2013
11,521
4,986
I keep saying it but everyone is looking at the two year sample size and not considering the 5 or 7 year sample size. Yes it's fair to question 29th to 3rd or 39 points to 112 points. But what about a three year span of 95, 69, 95? Which is the anomaly? How about 95, 68, 88? Not as clear cut, huh? This isn't a team that hugged the bottom for 5 years and then got fortunate. There is more to the story here.

But what about a three year span of 69, 95, 68? Which is the anomaly? How about 68, 88, 67? Not as clear cut, huh?

Just pick a convenient three year sample size to support your case, eh? I can do that too.
 

Lonewolfe2015

Rom Com Male Lead
Sponsor
Dec 2, 2007
17,238
2,189
But what about a three year span of 69, 95, 68? Which is the anomaly? How about 68, 88, 67? Not as clear cut, huh?

Just pick a convenient three year sample size to support your case, eh? I can do that too.

You're intentionally ignoring the point of the original poster. ANY three year sample size is noticeably ignoring the context of the situation.
 

FlaPanthers11

Cats Are Coming?
Aug 30, 2013
11,521
4,986
You're intentionally ignoring the point of the original poster. ANY three year sample size is noticeably ignoring the context of the situation.

No the poster I replied to is blatantly cherry-picking seasons that support his argument. Notice how he says 5 OR 7 year sample size. Do you know why? Because the 6th season sucked. He made two separate groups of 3 seasons in which each of the groups had two successful season. However, he took one of the seasons and used it in both groups. I made my own two groups of three seasons where I used the same tactics as the poster I was replying to who did his best to distort the information in a positive light I did my best to show the opposite was just as easily proven from his sample data.

He mentioned a larger sample so let's do that. The most logical season to start with is 2010-2011 since that was the year in which the core really started to come together.

68, 88, 67, 112

Look at the data anyway you want but it paints a much bigger picture than the poster I replied to tried to suggest. Now, obviously, past results do not predict future success. All I am doing is showing that the poster that I replied to distorted his data and did not use a good method to explain anything.
 

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
59,988
19,060
w/ Renly's Peach
No the poster I replied to is blatantly cherry-picking seasons that support his argument. Notice how he says 5 OR 7 year sample size. Do you know why? Because the 6th season sucked. He made two separate groups of 3 seasons in which each of the groups had two successful season. However, he took one of the seasons and used it in both groups. I made my own two groups of three seasons where I used the same tactics as the poster I was replying to who did his best to distort the information in a positive light I did my best to show the opposite was just as easily proven from his sample data.

He mentioned a larger sample so let's do that. The most logical season to start with is 2010-2011 since that was the year in which the core really started to come together.

68, 88, 67, 112

Look at the data anyway you want but it paints a much bigger picture than the poster I replied to tried to suggest. Now, obviously, past results do not predict future success. All I am doing is showing that the poster that I replied to distorted his data and did not use a good method to explain anything.

Other than it excluding the playoff run of the season before that...which is just convenient and not cherrypicking when you do it...why would starting in 2010-2011 be the most logical?

The core starting being put together the year before that. So in the 5 years since the rebuild started the avs have gone to the playoffs twice, just missed a third time in the last week of the season, and where in playoff spots in the other two years before the injury list just got absurd and the team collapsed in the second half of the season.
 

FlaPanthers11

Cats Are Coming?
Aug 30, 2013
11,521
4,986
Other than it excluding the playoff run of the season before that...which is just convenient and not cherrypicking when you do it...why would starting in 2010-2011 be the most logical?

The core starting being put together the year before that. So in the 5 years since the rebuild started the avs have gone to the playoffs twice, almost got in a third time and where in playoff spots in the other two years before the injury list just got absurd and the team collapsed in the second half of the season.

Their core started coming together in 2009-2010? Really? O'Relliy contributed just 26 points. Stastny was in his prime but isn't a main part of today's core. And Duchene was still a year away from breaking out into the player he would become and still is today. Meanwhile they didn't have their number one D-man, Craig Anderson was the main guy in net. Hell, I think 2010-2011 may have been a year EARLY at worst but the year before? Yeah, no?

And isn't collapsing such as what you said happened in the second half of the season what we are discussing? I don't think you should be bringing that up to support your point.
 

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
59,988
19,060
w/ Renly's Peach
Their core started coming together in 2009-2010? Really? O'Relliy contributed just 26 points. Stastny was in his prime but isn't a main part of today's core. And Duchene was still a year away from breaking out into the player he would become and still is today. Meanwhile they didn't have their number one D-man, Craig Anderson was the main guy in net. Hell, I think 2010-2011 may have been a year EARLY at worst but the year before? Yeah, no?

And isn't collapsing such as what you said happened in the second half of the season what we are discussing? I don't think you should be bringing that up to support your point.

That was the year they started to rebuild when we added our current best player and his now-partner to our current second best player. So if you're going to judge the rebuild you should start with its start.

Why shouldn't I? This team is much deeper, and those tanks took unreal injury problems. If you're going to predict hte avs are going to come back down to earth because they get decimated by injuries like few teams ever do, then I'll just ask you to put down some money on this so I can clean up.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->