Recent Habs success stats

[BCHabnut]

In the Gainey days, or just after, somebody did some really good work, showing some of the success teh Habs have had recently in being competitive. It was a huge breakdown, with 5 years worth of tracking. If you guys know what i'm talking about, please link it for me.

[BCHabnut]

the post i was reffering to had a break down of all the teams which made the playoffs and how many times. The teams which won the 1st round how many times, 2nd round, how many times. it was pretty good and actually showed that the team has been more competitive than we think. i wish i could find it. my buddy is telling me how much more competitive the canucks have been over the last 5 or 6 years.

[BTH]

the post i was reffering to had a break down of all the teams which made the playoffs and how many times. The teams which won the 1st round how many times, 2nd round, how many times. it was pretty good and actually showed that the team has been more competitive than we think. i wish i could find it. my buddy is telling me how much more competitive the canucks have been over the last 5 or 6 years.

I think it was saskhab that posted that.

It pointed out that Montreal is one of the only teams in the league to make the playoffs 5 times out of the past 6 seasons, and that we have a conference title to our name. We were also above average in the playoffs, getting to the second round twice (or thrice?) and the conference finals once.

Cynics will say that we were mediocre every season except one and got fluky last season but the numbers suggest that Montreal has been one of the most successfully run franchises over the past 6 seasons. Detroit and NJ are probably the only two teams in the league that have been playoff locks and Cup contenders every season. The rest make it some seasons, don't on other seasons. Montreal is always on the bubble, but almost always makes it - and then often surprises once in the playoffs.

[BCHabnut]

I need to find that. there were some great facts in there

[saskhab]

I think it was saskhab that posted that.

It pointed out that Montreal is one of the only teams in the league to make the playoffs 5 times out of the past 6 seasons, and that we have a conference title to our name. We were also above average in the playoffs, getting to the second round twice (or thrice?) and the conference finals once.

Cynics will say that we were mediocre every season except one and got fluky last season but the numbers suggest that Montreal has been one of the most successfully run franchises over the past 6 seasons. Detroit and NJ are probably the only two teams in the league that have been playoff locks and Cup contenders every season. The rest make it some seasons, don't on other seasons. Montreal is always on the bubble, but almost always makes it - and then often surprises once in the playoffs.

It sounds familiar... I think I pointed out how little parity there actually has been post-lockout in the East, and the Habs have been relatively successful in the conference all things considered since Gainey came on board. He didn't deal Gauthier the best hand ever, but he gave him a pretty good base.

Actually, yeah, now I definitely remember doing that. Don't know where I posted it, though.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

It sounds familiar... I think I pointed out how little parity there actually has been post-lockout in the East, and the Habs have been relatively successful in the conference all things considered since Gainey came on board. He didn't deal Gauthier the best hand ever, but he gave him a pretty good base.

Actually, yeah, now I definitely remember doing that. Don't know where I posted it, though.

Yes. Montreal has quietly become one of the more successful franchises in the NHL by the measures that actually count: 5 out of 6 playoff appearances, 3 out of 5 going past the first round, one semi final appearance, one finish at 1st in the East. I find it funny that we get ZERO respect despite a track record that defies the opinions of the 'experts.' Things do seem to be slowly and almost imperceptibly changing on the 'respect' front, though. The first sign was the flood of UFAs signing here in 2009. The second sign is the increasingly respectful tone adopted in the wake of the 2009 playoff run. One more serious charge and we will finally get there, in terms of media/fan perception.

[Wamsley01]

Yes. Montreal has quietly become one of the more successful franchises in the NHL by the measures that actually count: 5 out of 6 playoff appearances, 3 out of 5 going past the first round, one semi final appearance, one finish at 1st in the East. I find it funny that we get ZERO respect despite a track record that defies the opinions of the 'experts.' Things do seem to be slowly and almost imperceptibly changing on the 'respect' front, though. The first sign was the flood of UFAs signing here in 2009. The second sign is the increasingly respectful tone adopted in the wake of the 2009 playoff run. One more serious charge and we will finally get there, in terms of media/fan perception.

Don't hold your breath.

It will take the media another 3 weeks to recognize the Habs if they continue playing like this, while they fawned all over

the Leafs after starting 4-0.

The problem with the respect level stems from finishing in 8th, 10th, 7th, 7th, 10th, 1st, 8th and 8th. Outside of one season the Habs

have been life and death to make the playoffs. That is not going to earn you a ton of respect. Their playoff runs also all had similar

storylines, being badly outshot and hot goaltending carrying them through.

That is not going to impress the masses.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Don't hold your breath.

It will take the media another 3 weeks to recognize the Habs if they continue playing like this, while they fawned all over

the Leafs after starting 4-0.

The problem with the respect level stems from finishing in 8th, 10th, 7th, 7th, 10th, 1st, 8th and 8th. Outside of one season the Habs

have been life and death to make the playoffs. That is not going to earn you a ton of respect. Their playoff runs also all had similar

storylines, being badly outshot and hot goaltending carrying them through.

That is not going to impress the masses.

I guess I can't argue with that. Still, there's something in the idea that the pattern of our making the playoffs and, once there, doing some damage would eventually start to register. You know, the last three years as a Habs fan have been more rewarding in terms of impact triumphs than the last three years as (say) a Canucks fan. Yet Habs fans are the ones constantly being told they're cheering for nothing also-rans.

There's another way of approaching it. That is to ask why, if Montreal is consistently only a 'bubble team,' as those regular season results indicate, we seem to end up on the right side of the 'bubble' remarkably regularly, and to do playoff damage when we do. I suppose it could just be that we luck out with goaltending. But I'd speculate that another reason might be the fact of Montreal itself - that the community offers that extra push of excitement and energy to a team in that situation. The combination of sheer terror at the fan nightmare that failure to make the playoffs will unleash, along with the exhilaration of the supportive hysteria of the fans when the team is succeeding, just might give us that extra nudge to put us over the top among the bubble teams.

I'm not saying it's everything...but it might be something.

[BTH]

I guess I can't argue with that. Still, there's something in the idea that the pattern of our making the playoffs and, once there, doing some damage would eventually start to register. You know, the last three years as a Habs fan have been more rewarding in terms of impact triumphs than the last three years as (say) a Canucks fan. Yet Habs fans are the ones constantly being told they're cheering for nothing also-rans.

Part of it is that every year, one key Montreal player is replaced and every year, the media decides that that one player was the key to our success.

When Souray left: Bubble team that depended on its PP - Souray = bottom feeder.

When Huet left: Bubble team that depended on great goaltending - Huet = bottom feeder.

When Koivu, Komisarek and Kovalev left: Bubble team "desperately" changing cores = bottom feeder.

When Halak left: Bubble team whose success was entirely do to goaltending - Halak = bottom feeder.

And yet the year after Montreal won the East, the critics predicted that this same team would contend for the Cup.

[Wamsley01]

Part of it is that every year, one key Montreal player is replaced and every year, the media decides that that one player was the key to our success.

When Souray left: Bubble team that depended on its PP - Souray = bottom feeder.

When Huet left: Bubble team that depended on great goaltending - Huet = bottom feeder.

When Koivu, Komisarek and Kovalev left: Bubble team "desperately" changing cores = bottom feeder.

When Halak left: Bubble team whose success was entirely do to goaltending - Halak = bottom feeder.

And yet the year after Montreal won the East, the critics predicted that this same team would contend for the Cup.

This is true and it is mainly because the media continues to misidentify the reason for success.

They over simplify and it leads them to basic simplistic assessments.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

This is true and it is mainly because the media continues to misidentify the reason for success.

They over simplify and it leads them to basic simplistic assessments.

Well, to carry the thought further and tie it back to my question, what is the reason(s) for our relative success over this span? It does seem to be enough of a pattern to raise the question.

[illWill]

Well, to carry the thought further and tie it back to my question, what is the reason(s) for our relative success over this span? It does seem to be enough of a pattern to raise the question.

I think the biggest reason for the Habs recent success is mostly attributed to Gainey. When he came in he made people believe once again and gave us direction and stability. No matter what he did it was " in Gainey we trust" and it was for good reason. Even with his questionable moves you could always see the silver lining in the deal and envision that it was all part of the "plan". Having solid leadership from the top all the way to the bottom is very important in building a successful franchise and having an identity. Here is quick summary of his effect since he was hired in 2003:

Points Playoffs

1998-99 75 didnt qualify

1999-00 83 didnt qualify

2000-01 70 didnt qualify

2001-02 87 lost in 2nd round

2002-03 77 didnt qualify

2003-04 93 lost in 2nd round

2004-05 lockout

2005-06 93 lost in 1st round

2006-07 90 didnt qualify

2007-08 104 lost in 2nd round

2008-09 93 lost in 1st round

2009-10 88 lost in 3rd round

I know the regular season point totals are skewed a bit since the overtime loss point started but the results are there nonetheless. We can see that we missed the playoffs 4 out of 5 seasons before Gainey came and then made the playoffs 5 out of 6 years since. His fingerprints are all over this team now and have been ever since he started. He hired Julien, Carbonneau and Martin, all defensive minded coaches. The mold of the team is the same as it has been since then even with completely different players. He had a blueprint of what kind of team he wanted to put on the ice and it has been successful. I was very disappointed when he handed the team over to Gauthier but I'm confident it's in good hands since he learned from Uncle Bob how to put a team together right.

Edited October 29, 2010 by illWill

[Wamsley01]

Well, to carry the thought further and tie it back to my question, what is the reason(s) for our relative success over this span? It does seem to be enough of a pattern to raise the question.

I think it was a very conservative approach that didn't involve much risk taking.

From their personnel moves to the philosophy on the ice. It always kept them competitive, but never able

to make the leap. In all reality, we could very easily be talking about how the Canadiens always just seem

to miss the playoffs and how frustrating it is.

Since 2002 they have made the playoffs by

2000 - - 2 points

2001 - -17 points

2002 - +2 points

2003 - -6 points

2004 - + 8 points

2006 - + 3 points

2007 - - 2 points

2008 - +12 points

2009 - 0 points (tiebreaker)

2010 - + 1 point

Outside of 2001 and 2008 they have been life and death EVERY season. Five of the last 10 seasons their playoff fate

has been decided by 1 win. If they had lost one shootout in 2009 they are out. If they lost the Anaheim game that they

stole last season, they are out in 2010, then the whole view of their success is skewed the other way where we can discuss

how the Habs have missed the playoffs 4 out of the last 7 seasons.

These type of results can randomly be skewed by one major injury or bounce. I don't think you can really give credit to the

organization for these results outside of being average and trying to sneak into the playoffs every season.

They have slowly made strides over the decade and their prospect cupboard that was bare in 2000 is now producing elite talents

like Subban and Price, players we haven't seen in Montreal for a very long time. With their consistent finish around the middle

slow development should be expected.

I don't think they deserve any real attention about developing as an elite organization until they can comfortably make the playoffs

for at least 2-3 seasons in a row.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Wamsley01

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I think it was a very conservative approach that didn't involve much risk taking.

From their personnel moves to the philosophy on the ice. It always kept them competitive, but never able

to make the leap. In all reality, we could very easily be talking about how the Canadiens always just seem

to miss the playoffs and how frustrating it is.

Since 2002 they have made the playoffs by

2000 - - 2 points

2001 - -17 points

2002 - +2 points

2003 - -6 points

2004 - + 8 points

2006 - + 3 points

2007 - - 2 points

2008 - +12 points

2009 - 0 points (tiebreaker)

2010 - + 1 point

Outside of 2001 and 2008 they have been life and death EVERY season. Five of the last 10 seasons their playoff fate

has been decided by 1 win. If they had lost one shootout in 2009 they are out. If they lost the Anaheim game that they

stole last season, they are out in 2010, then the whole view of their success is skewed the other way where we can discuss

how the Habs have missed the playoffs 4 out of the last 7 seasons.

These type of results can randomly be skewed by one major injury or bounce. I don't think you can really give credit to the

organization for these results outside of being average and trying to sneak into the playoffs every season.

They have slowly made strides over the decade and their prospect cupboard that was bare in 2000 is now producing elite talents

like Subban and Price, players we haven't seen in Montreal for a very long time. With their consistent finish around the middle

slow development should be expected.

I don't think they deserve any real attention about developing as an elite organization until they can comfortably make the playoffs

for at least 2-3 seasons in a row.

I completely see your point, but I still think there's something in the simple fact that we consistently DO make the playoffs (not to mention that we do damage once there). It's akin to the 1993 Finals where we won 10 straight OT games. I've had arguments with people who use that stat to prove that the 1993 Habs weren't very good - their point being that, in OT, one bounce, one fluke, one mistake or bit of good luck, and you can just as easily lose as win. To which my response is: that's true for one or two or even three OT wins, but when you win 10 in a row, it stops being luck.

Similarly here. 5 out of 6 playoff appearances as a so-called 'bubble' team to me suggests a pattern that demands explanation, not simple luck. I'm not denying that their profile has indeed been that of a bubble team...my hypothesis is that the culture of the city and the fanbase, as damaging as they can be, may also contribute to giving the team an extra edge when it comes to the crunch.

It could also be solid management that avoids making major mistakes and adds useful bits heading into the stretch drive; for that matter, even a conservative reluctance to make bold moves at the deadline could reap dividends in terms of team chemistry. I'd have to look more closely at each season's GM decisions to assess the value of that theory.

[JoeLassister]

Well, maybe the explanation is : we're just simply one of the best mid-conference team in the East...

[brobin]

We are definitely better then we were, no doubt. That isn't really hard since we really sucked for a number of years..

Still, this team is still a bubble team, albeit leaning towards the high side of the bubble. We overachieved in the play offs last year due to some amazing goaltending, timely goals, and a team defensive strategy against two teams who were all about offense. I would argue we were better the year we won the conference and under performed in the playoffs (I personally feel that is because we dumped Huet and put too much pressure on Price, who didn't play the way both him and Huet had to get us to the top of the conference).

So far this year we are having success, but it really is too early to celebrate. We have one real injury (Markov). Wait until Pleks blows a knee, or Cammy gets hurt, or Price gets a groin injury, and we will see if this team can keep winning.

I do think we are too small, and for good or bad, that seems to hang up the media. A few bigger, tougher, but still skilled players would make us a better team, but you could say that for many teams. some teams wish they had our goaltending. some wish they had our defense. Most teams have weaknesses. As good as Pitts and Washington are, they both have crap in net. They can both be stymied by a great goalie and team defense.

The real key is how we move forward. I think we are standing still again. We need to win a trade or two at some point, or have another surprise from the draft to take the next step. Look at Boston.. they were on the way down, but Toronto gave them top young players via picks that allowed them to bring in more vet talent with the savings. They have two goalies that are alternating great seasons. Imagine if we had the number 2 pick for a change??

All in all, it is much funner being a Habs fan the last 5 years then it was the 10 prior.

[Wamsley01]

I completely see your point, but I still think there's something in the simple fact that we consistently DO make the playoffs (not to mention that we do damage once there). It's akin to the 1993 Finals where we won 10 straight OT games. I've had arguments with people who use that stat to prove that the 1993 Habs weren't very good - their point being that, in OT, one bounce, one fluke, one mistake or bit of good luck, and you can just as easily lose as win. To which my response is: that's true for one or two or even three OT wins, but when you win 10 in a row, it stops being luck.

Similarly here. 5 out of 6 playoff appearances as a so-called 'bubble' team to me suggests a pattern that demands explanation, not simple luck. I'm not denying that their profile has indeed been that of a bubble team...my hypothesis is that the culture of the city and the fanbase, as damaging as they can be, may also contribute to giving the team an extra edge when it comes to the crunch.

It could also be solid management that avoids making major mistakes and adds useful bits heading into the stretch drive; for that matter, even a conservative reluctance to make bold moves at the deadline could reap dividends in terms of team chemistry. I'd have to look more closely at each season's GM decisions to assess the value of that theory.

The problem I have with the 1993 playoff analogy is that the Canadiens went 16-4 to win the Cup.

Anybody who tries to degrade that accomplishment has an agenda to degrade the accomplishment.

The Quebec series had 3 OT games. The game they actually lost they had a 2-0 lead with 2 minutes to go and blew it.

So after 2 games it should have been 1-1. In game 3, the Habs outshot the Nords 50-35 and won in OT.

In Game 5 they were outplayed and won in OT, the closed out game 6 in dominant fashion.

As far as I am concerned, they won a game they should have lost and lost a game they should have won, same result.

All 3 OT games against the Sabres required 3rd period comebacks by Buffalo just to get to OT. Up 3-0 in the series the Sabres scored

with 10 seconds to go to get to OT where Muller eliminated them.

The Isles got to two OTs, but the Canadiens blew a third period lead in Game 2. Game 3 the Isles deserved to win, but the Habs stole it.

Once in the Finals the Habs needed the Desjardins miracle to tie, but the shots through 2 periods were 28-14 Montreal and it was tied 1-1.

Then the Kings got an early lead and the Canadiens outshot the Kings 41-24 in total.

Games 3 and 4 had the Canadiens blowing 3 and 2 goal leads.

There were 3 games out of those 10 that they didn't deserve, the rest were a dominant defensive team taking the reigns and winning.

You could alter the 1993 results to 7-3 and still get a Canadiens Stanley Cup. It would just have made for longer series.

If you removed 2 points from 4 of the last 8 years and the Habs results are altered dramatically. I appreciate the analogy, but I don't think

that the results since 2004 are indicative of anything but an average team sneaking in a couple times by the hair of their chin.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Putting it all together, here'd be my conclusion:

1. The Habs have been a 'bubble team' over the past 6 years, but also consistently one of the best bubble teams over that span. This means that after the ice chips have settled, they will be in the playoffs more often than not. This helps to explain the 84% success rate in making the playoffs. Not all 'bubble teams' are created equal - a point usually lost on commentators and pessimistic Habs fans.

2. The difference between a high-end bubble team and a top-4 or top-5 team in the Conference manifests itself most clearly over the long, sustained grind of a regular season. Thus, over 82 games, Team A clearly pulls ahead of Team B and finishes with, say, 10-12 more points. In a seven-game winner take all series, though, the difference between the two becomes much finer. The fundamental underlying reality of today's NHL is parity in this sense: all teams have real weaknesses, and on any given night Team A really isn't that much better than Team B. Therefore, Team B often has a legitimate chance to defeat team A in a playoff series. (In this context, it helps if Team B is a high-end bubble team rather than a weak one that somehow squeaks in due to competitors' injuries or other flukes). This helps to explain why the Habs have gotten out of the first round three times in the last five years despite their 'bubble' profile. We're not THAT much weaker than Boston or Pittsburgh, and if we bring our 'A' game and they don't, we win.

3. Other variables, such as stability in management, a conservative style that doesn't take big risks heading into the stretch, and - I still cling to this - a fanatical fan culture that can really put the winds in the sails of a team that is having success, as well as produce true desperation in a team that need it - all of these also contribute to giving the Habs an edge over their 'bubble' competitors, as well as giving them an extra edge, perhaps, once in the playoffs.

This would seem to be a reasonable explanation of the peculiar mix of success and failure that characterizes the Gainey-era Canadiens. The glass really has been half full. :hlogo:

[Wamsley01]

Putting it all together, here'd be my conclusion:

1. The Habs have been a 'bubble team' over the past 6 years, but also consistently one of the best bubble teams over that span. This means that after the ice chips have settled, they will be in the playoffs more often than not. This helps to explain the 84% success rate in making the playoffs. Not all 'bubble teams' are created equal - a point usually lost on commentators and pessimistic Habs fans.

2. The difference between a high-end bubble team and a top-4 or top-5 team in the Conference manifests itself most clearly over the long, sustained grind of a regular season. Thus, over 82 games, Team A clearly pulls ahead of Team B and finishes with, say, 10-12 more points. In a seven-game winner take all series, though, the difference between the two becomes much finer. The fundamental underlying reality of today's NHL is parity in this sense: all teams have real weaknesses, and on any given night Team A really isn't that much better than Team B. Therefore, Team B often has a legitimate chance to defeat team A in a playoff series. (In this context, it helps if Team B is a high-end bubble team rather than a weak one that somehow squeaks in due to competitors' injuries or other flukes). This helps to explain why the Habs have gotten out of the first round three times in the last five years despite their 'bubble' profile. We're not THAT much weaker than Boston or Pittsburgh, and if we bring our 'A' game and they don't, we win.

3. Other variables, such as stability in management, a conservative style that doesn't take big risks heading into the stretch, and - I still cling to this - a fanatical fan culture that can really put the winds in the sails of a team that is having success, as well as produce true desperation in a team that need it - all of these also contribute to giving the Habs an edge over their 'bubble' competitors, as well as giving them an extra edge, perhaps, once in the playoffs.

This would seem to be a reasonable explanation of the peculiar mix of success and failure that characterizes the Gainey-era Canadiens. The glass really has been half full. :hlogo:

There is little difference between seed 5 through 20 that a hot goaltender, injury or dedicated game plan can not overcome. Then you have the top 5 seeds who are decimated by the cap the next season and reduced to level

5 through 20. If the home crowd at the Bell Center is even worth 2 goals in a series, it could be enough to turn the tide.

This is Gary Bettman's NHL 2.0. Parity and everybody has a chance. Which makes the Red Wings accomplishments

and the Leafs/Panthers/Thrashers all the more shocking.

Everybody is excited about the October start, myself included, but since the lockout the Habs are a .716 hockey club

in October on average! Yet 4 out of those 5 seasons resulted in a desperate last week playoff run. Last seasons 7-7

is by far the worst start. In 2007 the Habs started 13-5-3 and through December were 22-11-5 (.645 W%) and went

19-24-1 to miss the playoffs.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

There is little difference between seed 5 through 20 that a hot goaltender, injury or dedicated game plan can not overcome. Then you have the top 5 seeds who are decimated by the cap the next season and reduced to level

5 through 20. If the home crowd at the Bell Center is even worth 2 goals in a series, it could be enough to turn the tide.

This is Gary Bettman's NHL 2.0. Parity and everybody has a chance. Which makes the Red Wings accomplishments

and the Leafs/Panthers/Thrashers all the more shocking.

Everybody is excited about the October start, myself included, but since the lockout the Habs are a .716 hockey club

in October on average! Yet 4 out of those 5 seasons resulted in a desperate last week playoff run. Last seasons 7-7

is by far the worst start. In 2007 the Habs started 13-5-3 and through December were 22-11-5 (.645 W%) and went

19-24-1 to miss the playoffs.

Next question: what explains that pattern of hot starts? No, just kiddin.

I too am cautious about making too much out of a hot October (I spent too many seasons watching Brain Savage!!), but as we've both said, the underlying patterns - strong 5-on-5 play, loads of wins without Markov, controlled shots against, incidents of total domination of opponents - DO point to the possibility of a team that is fundamentally stronger than in years past. Another 15 games like this and my cautious optimism will begin to turn into confidence. Fingers crossed.

Edited November 1, 2010 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

[Wamsley01]

Next question: what explains that pattern of hot starts? No, just kiddin.

I too am cautious about making too much out of a hot October (I spent too many seasons watching Brain Savage!!), but as we've both said, the underlying patterns - strong 5-on-5 play, loads of wins without Markov, controlled shots against, incidents of total domination of opponents - DO point to the possibility of a team that is fundamentally stronger than in years past. Another 15 games like this and my cautious optimism will begin to turn into confidence. Fingers crossed.

Agree 100%, although it will take me longer than 15 games to be really confident.

Take Saturday for example. 15 years ago I would have gone into that type of game expecting a win.

If the Habs didn't win, I would be angry. Right now, that is the type of game where I expect a letdown

and when they lose, I am not angry because I expected it.

When they get me to the point where I expect them to win those games again, that is when I will be in.

It isn't a conscious decision, it is trust that they have not earned.

[Seb]

Agree 100%, although it will take me longer than 15 games to be really confident.

Take Saturday for example. 15 years ago I would have gone into that type of game expecting a win.

If the Habs didn't win, I would be angry. Right now, that is the type of game where I expect a letdown

and when they lose, I am not angry because I expected it.

When they get me to the point where I expect them to win those games again, that is when I will be in.

It isn't a conscious decision, it is trust that they have not earned.

I'm with you on this one, but the way I see it is that there are situations just like this one where your gut feeling will say "I think they're going to lose this one", but it's more because you know they won't win 82 games in a season, even though they're capable of beating every team. It's just feeling like "tonight is a game that I think they can still win, but because x, y and z (bad team, bad travel, played the night before, etc.) I think this is a game that they have a good chance of losing." Then, when they do lose, you're less disappointed.

I think even with the best teams in the league, there are simply games where it seems more likely they're going to lose because each team has to lose some. So you point to specific games such as the FLA one, where it seems likely that it's a game where the team will have a letdown, and it does happen (not always though). I guess the mark of a good team is to go into games such as these, where it seems realistic and somewhat expected that the team might lose, but they dont.

[Wamsley01]

I'm with you on this one, but the way I see it is that there are situations just like this one where your gut feeling will say "I think they're going to lose this one", but it's more because you know they won't win 82 games in a season, even though they're capable of beating every team. It's just feeling like "tonight is a game that I think they can still win, but because x, y and z (bad team, bad travel, played the night before, etc.) I think this is a game that they have a good chance of losing." Then, when they do lose, you're less disappointed.

I think even with the best teams in the league, there are simply games where it seems more likely they're going to lose because each team has to lose some. So you point to specific games such as the FLA one, where it seems likely that it's a game where the team will have a letdown, and it does happen (not always though). I guess the mark of a good team is to go into games such as these, where it seems realistic and somewhat expected that the team might lose, but they dont.

From 1985-1994 I expected the Canadiens to win EVERY game. Sure, there were games where they would play

Calgary, Boston or Edmonton and I wasn't sure if they would win, but I knew that it would take an off night or a

great game from the other team to defeat them.

Red Wing and Shark fans expect them to win every game. My attitude will change when they earn it, I have learned

over the last decade that a strong start means nothing. It will take the Habs to play like this for 60 games before I

expect a victory every night.

[Seb]

From 1985-1994 I expected the Canadiens to win EVERY game. Sure, there were games where they would play

Calgary, Boston or Edmonton and I wasn't sure if they would win, but I knew that it would take an off night or a

great game from the other team to defeat them.

Red Wing and Shark fans expect them to win every game. My attitude will change when they earn it, I have learned

over the last decade that a strong start means nothing. It will take the Habs to play like this for 60 games before I

expect a victory every night.

Well, I hope to one day feel that way. But I was born in '88, so I can't relate to a team who I believed could win every single game. But hopefully it's coming!