Mike Chen's Hockey Blog

Next entry: Can Dallas Survive Morrow's Injury?

Previous entry: Mike Chen vs. Spector: Part Deux

Don’t Hit That Panic Button

by Mike Chen on 11/20/08 at 10:52 AM ET
Comments (7)

I saw this headline from the boss this morning regarding the second-to-last-place Ottawa Senators but I’m not pushing the panic button yet on any team, not even the St. Louis Blues. Put it this way: ten years ago, if I told you your team was two games under .500 and three points out of a playoff spot, would you panic? Probably not, but because of the gradual increase of parity in the league over the past decade, that sort of record will put you in the cellar.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that the traffic jam in front of a team with that record is closer than you think. So standings aren’t a reason to panic yet, not for Ottawa, St. Louis, Florida, or any other team finding them in the lower half of the leagues standings. What are genuine reasons to panic?

If you’re a team like the Tampa Bay Lightning, you look at goals-for. When you’re barely scrapping past two goals a game, that’s a problem.

If you’re a team like the Dallas Stars, you look at goaltending. When your goalie’s “improvement” is reducing his goals-against from 3.9 to 3.4, that’s a problem.

If you’re a team like the Ottawa Senators, you look at secondary scoring. When your secondary scorers are all bunched in the 4-6 point range, that’s a problem.

If you’re a team like the Columbus Blue Jackets, you look at special teams. When your power play is barely scrapping the bottom of the barrel and a sniper like Rick Nash isn’t producing, that’s a problem.

If you’re a team like the New Jersey Devils, you look at primary scoring. When you can’t rely on Martin Brodeur to steal games, players like Patrik Elias need to step up. When they don’t, that’s a problem.

Even if you’re winning games like the Minnesota Wild, you still have to look at problems with putting the puck in the net. Minnesota’s got a ridiculous 31 goals against in 16 games; that means in 82 games, they’re projected to only let in 155 or so goals. Do you think they’ll be able to keep that up? They better because they’re not scoring at a much higher clip. Any sort of defensive breakdown will mean the Wild’s thin line of success will break.

It’s all about trends right now, not actuals. The bad trends in certain areas are what will kill you in the long run, but there’s enough time to fix them. The issue, of course, is how to fix that without removing any assets from your roster.

Filed in: NHL | Mike Chen's Hockey Blog | Permalink
Tags: Standings,

Comments

Mike, listened to your radio show last night with Lyle ‘Spector’ Richardson. Excellent program.

IMHO the issue in Ottawa isn’t so much ‘hitting the panic button’ as the scratching of heads about how management has allowed the Sens to slide down the slope since their run to the Cup Final 18 months ago.

An examination of that decline and its possible consequences, which includes perspectives on the realistic options open to the Senators, would be welcome, as I have not seen any of the hockey media tackle this specific situation.

Thanks!

Posted by davetherave on 11/20/08 at 12:54 PM ET

Two games under .500 is one thing, but average in the NHL these days is more like .550, thanks to the OT/SO loser point that’s handed out. Another way to look at that 6-9-3 is to simply call it 6-12. But that looks a lot worse, doesn’t it?

Posted by Forechecker from Nolensville, TN on 11/20/08 at 01:13 PM ET

Another way to look at that 6-9-3 is to simply call it 6-12. But that looks a lot worse, doesn’t it?

Probably because it is a lot worse, and I’m not sure what that transformation accomplishes. I guess the optimistic view is to pretend that it the record is 6-0-12?

I think there is a big distinction between losing in regulation and tying in regulation. I don’t really get what benefit there is in pretending they are the same.

Posted by Earl Sleek from Anaheim, CA on 11/20/08 at 01:34 PM ET

Earl, the benefit is that then, league-wide, the number of wins equals the number of losses, which means 0.500 really is the average. 6-9-3 is clearly a better record than 6-12, but it’s also a worse record than 6-9 with 3 ties. Both 6-9-3 and 6-12 are wrong, but at least they’re wrong in different directions, so you can kinda figure the truth is somewhere in between.

To tell the story in a much clearer way than either of those options, compare your team’s points per game to the conference average. To normalize so that 0.500 is average, divide by two. The average points per game in the Eastern Conference is about 1.12 (305 points in 272 games). The Sens have 15 points in 18 games, for 0.833. That’s about 74% of the conference average, which makes them a 0.372 team.

By way of comparison, 6-9-3 implies they’re a 0.416 team, and 6-12 implies they’re a 0.333 team.

Oh, and it’s getting pretty close to panic time for the Sens. To get back up to a real 0.500 average, calculated my way, they’ll probably need 77 points in the remaining 64 games, 1.2 per game, which will likely be a real 0.535 average. That’s a lot of improvement to ask in not much time. If they play the next 18 games like they did the last 18, they’ll need a real 0.601 average. Practically impossible.

Posted by Ryan from Toronto on 11/20/08 at 04:24 PM ET

To tell the story in a much clearer way than either of those options,
compare your team’s points per game to the conference average.

Heck, I think the clearest picture is just to rank 15 teams according to points-per-game. In the top 8, you’re ok for now, if you’re not—time to step on that gas.

I didn’t really mean to imply that the W-L-O technique was mathematically pure, but it is what will decide who makes the postseason and who doesn’t. Whether good or bad, may as well use those actual results and not try to mix different types of losses into one blended “loss” column. That’s oversimplification to the point of uselessness.

Posted by Earl Sleek from Anaheim, CA on 11/20/08 at 04:32 PM ET

Maybe not panic but if your a Sens fan you have to be concerned with the early trends.

Posted by fauxrumors from Here on 11/21/08 at 10:34 AM ET

Heck, I think the clearest picture is just to rank 15 teams according to points-per-game. In the top 8, you’re ok for now, if you’re not—time to step on that gas.

Yeah, that works great. In fact, it’s basically the exact thing I suggested. But then you need to be looking at all 15 teams. My formula takes the conference into account, so you can just look at a single team and know how far above or below average it is.

The problem with people using W-L-OTL is that people naturally use them the same way they used W-L-T, which makes bad teams appear much better than they really are. If you’re smart enough that you can look at a record of 15-13-4 and know whether that’s probably a playoff team or not without looking at the rest of the conference, good for you. But you’re in a very small minority of hockey fans.

Posted by Ryan from Toronto on 11/21/08 at 04:05 PM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Most Recent Blog Posts

“He would just like this to all go away.”

Team USA’s Personality Experiment

Bidding War? No Thanks

You Can Take The Awards Show Out Of Toronto…

Jim Balsillie’s Flaming Bag o’ Dog Poop

Picking Conn Smythe

On Apologies & Bar Tales

Something We Can (Hopefully) All Agree On

“I’m hungry and have to pee.”

What Does Gary Bettman Actually Do?

About Mike Chen’s Hockey Blog

Mike Chen prides himself in being the only hockey writer integrating puck discussion with both Morrissey quotes and Star Wars references. Since 2004, he’s blogged about all things hockey and currently contributes to FoxSports.com, the Battle of California, and RotoRob.

Questions? Comments? Hate mail? Contact Mike here.