08-09 vs 09-10 Blown and Stolen Games

by Theodore on Feb 5, 2010 8:06 AM MST Comment 22 comments

I was reading the thread on Theodore's consistency over at Japer's Rink (BTW - pure coincidence on the names here, I had the name first... HE should really change it) While reading the thread and comments, I saw the below criteria that Hockey Analyst uses to identify both blown and stolen games.

Stolen Games: a game in which the team scored 2 or fewer goals, allowed 30 or more shots and won or a game in which the team scored 3 goals and allowed 35 or more shots and won.

Blown Games: a game in which the team scored 4 or more goals, allowed 25 or fewer shots but lost or a game in which the team scored 5 or more goals and allowed 26-30 shots, but lost.

I thought it would be of some interest to sort the last two seasons worth of games into these categories. Do I believe these categories to be gospel? No. Have Avalanche net-minders stolen or blown games that aren't highlighted by these categories and their qualifiers? Definitely. Am I out of rhetorical questions? Yes.

'08-09' Season

Jan 21 - LA - Budaj then Raycroft - Blown
Jan 8 - Chicago - Raycroft - Stolen
Dec 27 - Detroit - Budaj - Stolen
Dec 18 - Tampa - Raycroft - Stolen
Dec 15 - Detroit - Raycroft - Stolen
Nov 15 - Edomonton - Budaj - Stolen
Nov 12 - Vancouver - Budaj - Stolen
Oct 25 - Buffalo - Budaj - Stolen

Through the entire '08-'09 season, Budaj stole 4 games and Raycroft 3. Then, on January 21st, their combined goaltender powers allowed for one blown game, a 6-5 debacle against LA where Budaj was pulled to no avail. I was suprised to only see one blown game given the Q carousel, inconsistent net-minding and overall suckitude of the Avs during the second half of last season.

'09-'10 Season

Jan 22 - Nashville - Andy - Stolen
Jan 16 - New Jersey - Andy - Stolen
Jan 11 - Calgary - Andy - Stolen
Jan 9 - Buffalo - Andy - Stolen

Nov 17 - Calgary - Andy - Stolen
Oct 24 - Detroit - Andy - Stolen
Oct 3 - Vancouver - Andy - Stolen

So, through 55 games Andy has stolen 7 games for us, and blown none. Budaj doesn't show in either category. This seems about right to me. interestingly though, 4 of the 7 stolen games occurred during our recent six game win streak. Also of interest, the '08-'09 season had the same number of stolen games through the same time frame. Though, this doesn't correlate exactly because of this year's compressed Olympic schedule.

It's also no wonder that Calgary believes we are only where we are because of our goaltending, magic anti-CORSI spells and four leaf clovers. Two of Andy's seven steals came against the fLames. I hope he steals the remaining two match ups as well because it would just rub their fan base the wrong way. (And who wants to rub a flames fan the right way? EWWWWW)

I'm also now of the opinion that Budaj should be playing more. He's a great backup, deserves to play and I'd like to see him on this team in the future. He played in front of a poorly coached, very injured and hugely demoralized team last year. Were he playing a bit more, I think the team would begin to build confidence in him again, and he could be utilized more often. This would allow for a rested Anderson to steal more games like we saw during our recent six game campaign. If BUDAJ WEER TRULLY TEH SUXXORRZ, maybe we would have seen more blown games from last season.

I was hoping that going through all of this would show clear differences between last season and this one, and thus far it hasn't. I do think that Andy will continue to steal games for us, and there might be some differences if I looked again at the end of the season. What has me very excited is the future, one where we might not need Andy to steal ten or more games to get into the playoffs. Maybe a future where he is stealing games in the Stanley Cup finals.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Nice article discussing stuff we've all been talking about lately. Also, Budaj was misspelled alot and it bugged me, so I fixed it. But then I promoted it to the front page so me and not3or4 can still be friends.

MileHighHockey.com is a fan community, allowing members to post their own thoughts and opinions on the Colorado Avalanche and hockey in general. These views and thoughts may not be shared by the editors of MileHighHockey.com.

0 recs | Comment 22 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

see the 4 or more goals for the blown game is where i find it to be overly subjective. how many times did we actually make 4 goals last year?
I’d think being up by 3 and eventually losing constitutes a blown game.

maybe an internet pipe froze and burst

by Uziel on Feb 4, 2010 4:55 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, it is very subjective. I guess they are thinking that if the team can’t muster 4 goals you can’t really call the game blown by the goalie, but by the team as a whole. On the other hand, if you get to four goals, allow few shots and don’t win, then there is no doubt that that blame should be placed squarely at the goalies skates.

by Theodore on Feb 4, 2010 5:02 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Just FYI

In 2008-2009, the league average for goals against was 2.85 goals. For the Avs it was 3.08. The Avs had an average of 2.32 goals for during last season. You could use that info to adjust the cutoffs for blown/stolen games.

The Avalanche, clearly, are down with No PP.

by Mike @ MHH on Feb 5, 2010 8:18 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

It is very subjective…I think I probably look more at a team having a 2-3 goal lead and then losing the game as a blown game as well. Especially if you look at the team going into the third period with that lead. The team climbing out of a 2-3 goal hole and winning would be a steal.

The 2009-10 Avalanche: Have the wheels fallen off the bus yet?

I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.

by Americanario on Feb 4, 2010 5:19 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but I think he’s trying to evaluate goalies here, not the team as a whole. At least that is how it seems from his comment above. Correct me if I’m wrong. If it’s a team thing I agree, I have seen plenty of “blown” games this year, and I would not blame them on the goalie.

Get rid of the loser point

ridding the world of booze: one drink at a time

Detroit Sucks

by TheRed on Feb 5, 2010 12:30 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Even so, on the “blown” games, if a goalie has a 2-3 goal lead and “blows” it…the goalie must at least share in the blame.

MHH: The Burgundy Army is on the March!

I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.

by Americanario on Feb 5, 2010 10:47 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t necessarily agree, as the goal itself must be factored in. If its an osgood softie from the red line, it’s the goalies fault. If your team takes two penalties and ends up with a 5-3 against, it’s the teams fault and probably not the goalie’s, assuming it wasn’t a softie from the red line. Stats by themselves cannot account for that.

Get rid of the loser point

ridding the world of booze: one drink at a time

Detroit Sucks

by TheRed on Feb 5, 2010 3:39 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

As the Avs average 31.9 shots against – due to this it is far easier for the Avs to steal a game than blow a game (because no matter how many goals they score, they would allow 30+ shots).

I would think that a better to go with a 2-goal lead/deficit or alternatively work out what a standard deviation from the average shots and goals allowed are and use these as the criteria.

by HugoAgogo on Feb 4, 2010 8:12 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

I fundamentally disagree with any statistic that proves Raycroft did more help than harm, even if we compare his save percentage to that of an empty net.

…I hate Raycroft.

by '96 Avs Bandwagon on Feb 5, 2010 8:30 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

This si the problem with a lot of hockey statistics…I mean this is a good set-up for this kind of stat. But already in about 9 comments, I have seen 3 or 4 different ways to interpret stats that would give you different results.

2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: The wheels are firmly secure thank you!

Advice to Red Wing Fans: If you don't want the reputation of being whiners, then stop whining about EVERYTHING. Your team is allowed to lose games, and when they do, it's not always because of the refs or Gary Bettman, and you seem to continuously claim

by chiavsfan on Feb 5, 2010 8:33 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

Or, “this IS”

2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: The wheels are firmly secure thank you!

by chiavsfan on Feb 5, 2010 8:41 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Si’s are cool too. Just ask Electra or Raphael.

The Avalanche, clearly, are down with No PP.

by Mike @ MHH on Feb 5, 2010 8:47 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I was more of a fan of Donatello’s “Bo” personally…especially in the first Turtles Nintendo game

2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: The wheels are firmly secure thank you!

by chiavsfan on Feb 5, 2010 10:53 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's what I'd like to see:

Blown game: We outshoot the other team and lose.

Saved game: The other team outshoots us and we win.

by xskatebakerrx on Feb 5, 2010 8:55 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but shots do not always equal scoring opportunity.

The Avalanche, clearly, are down with No PP.

by Mike @ MHH on Feb 5, 2010 9:21 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah… unless you are AO.

I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.

by Pinchy The Lobster on Feb 5, 2010 11:07 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Positive Corsi FTW!

I don’t mind skate’s criteria – but clearly a team that shoots a lot more than there opponent will be prone to blow more games than one that usually gets outshot (you’d expect more saved games). Clearly, you’d have to make it a team specific measure by working out a standard deviation of a team’s shots/scoring opportunities so abnormal behaviour can be readily identified for that team.

by HugoAgogo on Feb 5, 2010 1:33 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

True

But I think it shows at least a good effort

by xskatebakerrx on Feb 5, 2010 7:09 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Can you make a similar list with the Theo era and with the Roy era? And normalize the stats (so games stolen/10 career games) or something.

I’m sure it’ll show Andy having a ridiculous season!

26 Card Jet

by Tommelot on Feb 5, 2010 9:52 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

I considered this, and may still do so, but need to wait until I have more time.

by Theodore on Feb 5, 2010 8:31 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Though it may be subjective

it re-emphasizes that Andy has that “it” factor. The Flaming team from Calgary will discredit Andy as if he from Alice in Wonderland. How many games has he stolen per year for them?

Avalanche 2009-2010: Ostensibly, the worst team in the league. Realistically, more points than the Flames and Wings. But hey, your Corsi number is better.

by c6hor8 on Feb 5, 2010 11:22 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

First, thanks for the promotion to page 1.

There is some talk about whether these stats are useful for determining blown or stolen games. (Hell, every loss is a blown game in my mind). In response to concerns, I didn’t come up with these criteria, but this is how I choose to view the games that they highlight.

Blown games – Games in which the team played well as a whole. The guys in front of the goalie did their job by scoring goals and limiting shots, but the goalie just screwed the pooch and the game was lost.

Stolen games – Games in which the team did not play well as a whole, and the goalie, through stellar play, got the win.

In either case, I do believe that these criteria highlight games in which the goalie was the biggest difference maker, for better or worse. I should go back and compare the list of stolen games to the list of nights Andy was chosen as a star of the game. I like comparing qualitative and quantitative stats, and think it would be pretty exciting to see a strong correlation between the lists. I think I’ll do this later this weekend. (Excitement for correlations? Yeah I know, sorry. There’s a reason I’m friendly, good looking and single).

Also, this same analysis would have to be run many years back and across the whole league to determine how useful the criteria are/are not. Am I going to do this? Hell no. Even if this were done, what we have here is still an objective sorting that could be quantified and used as any other stat: to rank and sort players and teams. I don’t worship at the alter of CORSI, +/- or any stat. They are just numbers, often abused, that encourage discussion and might help me better understand the game and team that I love.

by Theodore on Feb 5, 2010 8:56 PM MST reply actions 0 recs