Playing to the level of competition

[BTH]

Every year I hear people say that the Habs play well against good teams and poorly against bad teams. Every year I'm skeptical. I think it's just that few people remark on games where Montreal beat a bad team or lose to a contender. Only games that have reached some improbable outcome are remembered by fans. After enough of the season has passed, enough of these improbable outcomes have been accumulated so that people begin to see narratives emerge, usually caused by people forgetting all the ordinary games that passed between these rare abnormal ones.

Below I listed all the games Montreal has played this year and separated them based on the quality of the competition.

Unfortunately, I only have the current standings and not the standings from the respective dates of the games. This makes my listings a bit inaccurate. For example, when Montreal lost to New Jersey on October 21, they lost to one of the lower ranked teams in the league. But when they lost to New Jersey on February 6, the Devils were still low in the rankings but were on an incredible stretch of good hockey. We also need to consider that Montreal was much healthier in certain parts of the season relative to others and that Montreal started off the season doing very well.

Games against teams that are currently 3+ points ahead of Montreal in the standings:

Sat, 9 Oct 2010 MTL (3) - PIT (2)

Wed, 13 Oct 2010 TBL (4) - MTL (3) OT

Mon, 25 Oct 2010 PHX (2) - MTL (3) OT

Tue, 9 Nov 2010 VAN (0) - MTL (2)

Thu, 11 Nov 2010 MTL (3) - BOS (1)

Tue, 16 Nov 2010 PHI (0) - MTL (3)

Mon, 22 Nov 2010 MTL (2) - PHI (3)

Sat, 4 Dec 2010 SJS (1) - MTL (3)

Fri, 10 Dec 2010 MTL (2) - DET (4)

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 PHI (5) - MTL (3)

Thu, 16 Dec 2010 BOS (3) - MTL (4)

Tue, 28 Dec 2010 MTL (0) - WSH (3)

Thu, 30 Dec 2010 MTL (1) - TBL (4)

Thu, 6 Jan 2011 PIT (1) - MTL (2) SO

Sat, 8 Jan 2011 BOS (2) - MTL (3) OT

Wed, 12 Jan 2011 PIT (5) - MTL (2)

Tue, 25 Jan 2011 MTL (2) - PHI (5)

Tue, 1 Feb 2011 MTL (3) - WSH (2) SO

Wed, 9 Feb 2011 MTL (6) - BOS (8)

Tue, 22 Feb 2011 MTL (3) - VAN (2)

Record: 11-8-1

Games against teams that are currently 3+ points behind Montreal in the standings:

Thu, 7 Oct 2010 MTL (2) - TOR (3)

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 MTL (2) - BUF (1)

Sat, 16 Oct 2010 OTT (3) - MTL (4)

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 NJD (3) - MTL (0)

Sat, 23 Oct 2010 MTL (3) - OTT (0)

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 NYI (3) - MTL (5)

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 MTL (3) - NYI (1)

Sat, 30 Oct 2010 FLA (3) - MTL (1)

Tue, 2 Nov 2010 MTL (0) - CBJ (3)

Fri, 5 Nov 2010 MTL (3) - BUF (2)

Sat, 6 Nov 2010 OTT (3) - MTL (2)

Sat, 13 Nov 2010 CAR (2) - MTL (7)

Sat, 20 Nov 2010 TOR (0) - MTL (2)

Fri, 26 Nov 2010 MTL (0) - ATL (3)

Sat, 27 Nov 2010 BUF (1) - MTL (3)

Wed, 1 Dec 2010 EDM (4) - MTL (3) OT

Thu, 2 Dec 2010 MTL (5) - NJD (1)

Tue, 7 Dec 2010 OTT (1) - MTL (4)

Sat, 11 Dec 2010 MTL (1) - TOR (3)

Sun, 19 Dec 2010 MTL (2) - COL (3)

Thu, 23 Dec 2010 MTL (3) - CAR (2)

Sun, 26 Dec 2010 MTL (1) - NYI (4)

Fri, 31 Dec 2010 MTL (3) - FLA (2) OT

Sun, 2 Jan 2011 ATL (4) - MTL (3) OT

Tue, 11 Jan 2011 MTL (2) - NYR (1)

Sat, 15 Jan 2011 NYR (2) - MTL (3)

Tue, 18 Jan 2011 MTL (1) - BUF (2) OT

Fri, 21 Jan 2011 MTL (7) - OTT (1)

Wed, 2 Feb 2011 FLA (2) - MTL (3)

Sat, 5 Feb 2011 NYR (0) - MTL (2)

Sun, 6 Feb 2011 NJD (4) - MTL (1)

Thu, 10 Feb 2011 NYI (4) - MTL (3) SO

Sat, 12 Feb 2011 TOR (0) - MTL (3)

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 BUF (3) - MTL (2) SO

Thu, 17 Feb 2011 MTL (1) - EDM (4)

Thu, 24 Feb 2011 TOR (5) - MTL (4)

Sat, 26 Feb 2011 CAR (3) - MTL (4)

Record: 21-12-5

Games against teams currentl within 3 points of Montreal in the standings:

Thu, 18 Nov 2010 NSH (3) - MTL (0)

Wed, 24 Nov 2010 LAK (1) - MTL (4)

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 MTL (2) - DAL (5)

Mon, 17 Jan 2011 CGY (4) - MTL (5) OT

Sat, 22 Jan 2011 ANA (4) - MTL (3) SO

Sun, 20 Feb 2011 MTL (0) - CGY (4)

Record: 2-3-1

Given that the teams behind Montreal are worse, we expect Montreal's record against them to be a bit better than it is against the top teams - and it is. My conclusion confirms my hypothesis: basically, Montreal plays just as hard against the top teams as they do against the bottom ones, and they even have a better chance of beating a weak team than they do of beating a stronger one. As I mentioned above, the flaw in this analysis is that for all I know, at the time the games were played, some of the teams now ahead of Montreal may have been below them and vice versa. But off the top of my head, I can't recall any examples of teams that made significant leaps or drops in the standings during the season except for WSH, LA and CGY.

Edited March 1, 2011 by BTH

[YeahBud]

Impressive list and while you make a good point its the fact that we have losing records against the Devils (1-2), Leafs (2-3), Blue Jackets (0-1), Thrashers (0-2) , Oilers (0-2), that is the problem. We just seem to have abysmal showings against them.

Do we actually play as hard against these lesser teams as we do the Pens, Caps, Bruins, Flyers? or do the players mentally check out and figure we can roll over them? And do these lesser teams play a better game because its against the best hockey team that ever was?

While I agree that over the season our chances of beating a crap team will come out in our favour, but I can't help but think there is some other forces at play than strictly a numbers game

[BTH]

Impressive list and while you make a good point its the fact that we have losing records against the Devils (1-2), Leafs (2-3), Blue Jackets (0-1), Thrashers (0-2) , Oilers (0-2), that is the problem. We just seem to have abysmal showings against them.

Do we actually play as hard against these lesser teams as we do the Pens, Caps, Bruins, Flyers? or do the players mentally check out and figure we can roll over them? And do these lesser teams play a better game because its against the best hockey team that ever was?

While I agree that over the season our chances of beating a crap team will come out in our favour, but I can't help but think there is some other forces at play than strictly a numbers game

Why are they 1-3 against the Flyers? 0-1 against Detroit? 0-1-1 against Tampa Bay? 4-1 against Ottawa? 3-0 against Carolina?

It probably has more to do with the match ups then it does about Montreal taking certain teams lightly. Montreal had problems with Philly, Atlanta, and the Columbus and Nashville games because those teams played a defensive shell to perfection and the Habs just aren't able to score against those teams.

Against the Leafs and Oilers they tend to try to play run and gun hockey instead of their usual systematic game. This isn't a good strategy for the Habs. But the Habs and Oilers have only played 2 games this season. That isn't a big enough sample size to say that Montreal plays down to them. I don't see anything strange going on.

[dlbalr]

If you're looking for standings by date (if you want to dig deeper in your analysis), use this site: http://shrpsports.com/nhl/stand.htm

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Why are they 1-3 against the Flyers? 0-1 against Detroit? 0-1-1 against Tampa Bay? 4-1 against Ottawa? 3-0 against Carolina?

It probably has more to do with the match ups then it does about Montreal taking certain teams lightly. Montreal had problems with Philly, Atlanta, and the Columbus and Nashville games because those teams played a defensive shell to perfection and the Habs just aren't able to score against those teams.

Against the Leafs and Oilers they tend to try to play run and gun hockey instead of their usual systematic game. This isn't a good strategy for the Habs. But the Habs and Oilers have only played 2 games this season. That isn't a big enough sample size to say that Montreal plays down to them. I don't see anything strange going on.

First, that's awesome work, BTH. Another example of an obvious and important theme that only finds systematic treatment on the internet rather than in the 'professional' media.

Second, I think you are absolutely right here that the key to Habs' success is not the 'excellence' of the opposition so much as the style the opposition plays. At least when tolerably healthy, we are excellent against teams that play an east-west game. Against big, physical north-south teams with hermetic defences, we are doomed. But I'd have to take the time to go through that entire list to test this hypothesis.

[Wamsley01]

This is awesome BTH.

Exactly the type of stuff I rail about daily. Sacred Cow tipping, well done!!

[sakiqc]

This is awesome BTH.

Exactly the type of stuff I rail about daily. Sacred Cow tipping, well done!!

+1

Although with the leveling of the competition (aka parity), this is less a factor to consider as it used to be. The best team in the league is the Devils (9-1-0), so go figure !lol Any team can beat you at any time.

[Wamsley01]

+1

Although with the leveling of the competition (aka parity), this is less a factor to consider as it used to be. The best team in the league is the Devils (9-1-0), so go figure !lol Any team can beat you at any time.

Small sample size.

The last 3 Stanley Cup champions have had runs of 10 games where they play .200 hockey.

I equate it to Aces in poker. People complain about not winning when they get aces, but it comes from expectation. When you see a pair of bullets in your hand you start counting how many chips you will win in your head. When you lose you are shocked and you suffer from a loss.

People are wired to overvalue what they own. When you bank the poker winnings or the two points in hockey the pain of the loss is more severe.

So expectation of beating the Islanders or Leafs creates a sense of loss where as beating Vancouver feels like free money.

I have absolutely no problem with people mentioning that we have lost 7 games to the Oilers, Leafs and Islanders, but they need to mention that the Habs are actually 3-5-2 against those teams. It misrepresents an 0-7.

[Colin]

Nice work putting that together, BTH.

I wonder, though, if you could interpret your findings in a different manner. Montreal's record against teams better than them is 11-8-1; that's a pretty darn good record against the best teams in the game, I would think. Our record against worse teams is 21-12-5, and on the face of it, that's a pretty exceptional record. However, I believe you may have actually proven that Montreal plays to the level of its competition.

Consider: you've offered up concrete evidence that Montreal plays extremely well against better competition. They have a winning record against the teams ahead of them. It should be expected, however, that Montreal would probably have a very slightly losing record (being 10th OA, or thereabouts). Against the teams behind them in the standings, they seem to have a very good record, but I submit that it's not nearly as good as it looks. Essentially, they're 21-17, or a mere four games above .500 against these teams. If they were actually a more consistent team, would they not have a better record against these lowly teams if they had such a positive record against the elite?

Based on their record against the best teams, one would expect Montreal to be higher in the standings. Based on their record against those worse, they're just above treading water. That makes me believe that they play a little over their heads against the best and a little below average against the worst. If they were relatively consistent, I would expect a marginally losing record against the best and a slightly better record against those lower.

Personally, I think you've proved exactly what you set out to disprove. For whatever reason, there seems to be less motivation against the lesser clubs; they beat these better teams, then assume they can skate out easier wins against the losers of the league, and instead take the games too lightly.

It's an interesting study, nonetheless.

[BTH]

Nice work putting that together, BTH.

I wonder, though, if you could interpret your findings in a different manner. Montreal's record against teams better than them is 11-8-1; that's a pretty darn good record against the best teams in the game, I would think. Our record against worse teams is 21-12-5, and on the face of it, that's a pretty exceptional record. However, I believe you may have actually proven that Montreal plays to the level of its competition.

Consider: you've offered up concrete evidence that Montreal plays extremely well against better competition. They have a winning record against the teams ahead of them. It should be expected, however, that Montreal would probably have a very slightly losing record (being 10th OA, or thereabouts). Against the teams behind them in the standings, they seem to have a very good record, but I submit that it's not nearly as good as it looks. Essentially, they're 21-17, or a mere four games above .500 against these teams. If they were actually a more consistent team, would they not have a better record against these lowly teams if they had such a positive record against the elite?

Based on their record against the best teams, one would expect Montreal to be higher in the standings. Based on their record against those worse, they're just above treading water. That makes me believe that they play a little over their heads against the best and a little below average against the worst. If they were relatively consistent, I would expect a marginally losing record against the best and a slightly better record against those lower.

Personally, I think you've proved exactly what you set out to disprove. For whatever reason, there seems to be less motivation against the lesser clubs; they beat these better teams, then assume they can skate out easier wins against the losers of the league, and instead take the games too lightly.

It's an interesting study, nonetheless.

After the past 4 games, their record against better teams is now 12-8-1 and their record against worse teams is now 24-12-5.

12 wins divided by 21 games = 57.14 winning %

24 wins divided by 41 games = 58.54 winning %

Not to mention that Montreal is 2.5 times as likely to pick up the loser point against the lesser teams.

So they are a little more likely to win a game against a worse team. But the numbers can fluctuate a little depending on how you count. For much of the season, Boston was behind Montreal in the standings, and the Habs and Rangers have leapfrogged each other regularly. When the Habs lost their first game to the Leafs, they lost to a "top team" given that Toronto started the season 4-0. I also decided to put the teams within 3 points of Montreal into a different category. Some of those teams are no longer within 3 points of Montreal, just 4 games later. Then you need to consider that teams go on hot and cold streaks. Had the season started on January 8, the Atlantic division standings would look like this: 1. New Jersey 2. New York Islands 3. Philadelphia 4. Pittsburgh 5. New York Rangers. Yet I counted a January 25 loss to Philly as a loss against a better team and February losses to NJ and NYI as losses against worse teams. There is no perfect way to calculate this, but their record seems to suggest that the myth that Montreal is actually more likely to beat a top team than a bad team is outright false.

The Habs just beat 3 teams behind them in the standings in a row. Nobody said a word about it. Watch them lose the game to the Blues on Thursday and I bet the media brings up how they just lost to another bad team. People remember what they want to remember, see what they want to see.

EDIT: Montreal doesn't play to the level of competition, they play to the level of a 57.5 winning percentage.

Edited March 6, 2011 by BTH

[YeahBud]

Watch them lose the game to the Blues on Thursday and I bet the media brings up how they just lost to another bad team. People remember what they want to remember, see what they want to see.

You're right. The last few games have gone very well and the team is starting to look like a team.

I'd just like to see us beat the teams with loosing records more often. My argument is that when a crappy team plays us they tend to really 'bring it' because we are les Habs.

maybe you can go thru the stats and glean backing information to support this hypothesis?

We can always find excuses for losing to any team, its hockey of course and anything can happen. Let alone injuries, bad bounces, missed opportunities, questionable officiating, poor coaching decisions, lack of player motivation, etc.

it wouldn't surprise me if we beat the Bruins and then shat the bed against the Blues... thats hockey and human nature.

[BTH]

You're right. The last few games have gone very well and the team is starting to look like a team.

I'd just like to see us beat the teams with loosing records more often. My argument is that when a crappy team plays us they tend to really 'bring it' because we are les Habs.

maybe you can go thru the stats and glean backing information to support this hypothesis?

We can always find excuses for losing to any team, its hockey of course and anything can happen. Let alone injuries, bad bounces, missed opportunities, questionable officiating, poor coaching decisions, lack of player motivation, etc.

it wouldn't surprise me if we beat the Bruins and then shat the bed against the Blues... thats hockey and human nature.

I don't think it's possible to find stats that prove this. Who really knows what the opposing players are thinking when they play Montreal? Who really knows what the Montreal players are thinking?

I've seen people say in interviews that it's easy to get motivated to play in the Bell Centre. It's possible but I don't think it's provable.

[Wamsley01]

I don't think it's possible to find stats that prove this. Who really knows what the opposing players are thinking when they play Montreal? Who really knows what the Montreal players are thinking?

I've seen people say in interviews that it's easy to get motivated to play in the Bell Centre. It's possible but I don't think it's provable.

Of course it's unprovable, because we are analyzing the result based on boxscores and not actually diving into the game.

They lost to the Devils early in the season before they lost Parise, they destroyed them when they were really struggling 5-1 and they lost to them again after Lemaire was hired.

To somebody who wants to prove they lose to bad teams that becomes 1-2.

They lost to the Avs when they were 18-10-4 and had won 5 in a row, this can be represented in losing to a terrible team.

That becomes 1-3 for the argument they do, in reality none of those losses were a surprise at the time.

The Habs wouldn't be where they are if they struggled with poor to mediocre teams.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Wamsley01

[BrenDittero]

Of course it's unprovable, because we are analyzing the result based on boxscores and not actually diving into the game.

They lost to the Devils early in the season before they lost Parise, they destroyed them when they were really struggling 5-1 and they lost to them again after Lemaire was hired.

To somebody who wants to prove they lose to bad teams that becomes 1-2.

They lost to the Avs when they were 18-10-4 and had won 5 in a row, this can be represented in losing to a terrible team.

That becomes 1-3 for the argument they do, in reality none of those losses were a surprise at the time.

The Habs wouldn't be where they are if they struggled with poor to mediocre teams.

I would argue that the Habs would be in a much better spot of they didn't struggle against poor to mediocre teams.

Post all the stats you like, I think it's pretty clear that while they've done ok against Boston, Pitts, Philly etc they've lost a lot of games that, statistically, they shouldn't have.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as happy as any other fan when we have a big game and get a key win against a top team in either conference. That goes a long way in keeping a team confident and focused.

But, all of the points they lost early this year to lesser teams is what makes the difference in where we are seated going into the playoffs.

6th place is great, but 2nd is where we should be and maybe we'll get there yet.

I have no doubt that the Canadiens are guilty of thinking they were going to get an easy game and played to the level of the competition. In fact it happens , based on the stats, a bit less than half the time.

Edited March 7, 2011 by BrenDittero

[Wamsley01]

I would argue that the Habs would be in a much better spot of they didn't struggle against poor to mediocre teams.

Post all the stats you like, I think it's pretty clear that while they've done ok against Boston, Pitts, Philly etc they've lost a lot of games that, statistically, they shouldn't have.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as happy as any other fan when we have a big game and get a key win against a top team in either conference. That goes a long way in keeping a team confident and focused.

But, all of the points they lost early this year to lesser teams is what makes the difference in where we are seated going into the playoffs.

6th place is great, but 2nd is where we should be and maybe we'll get there yet.

I have no doubt that the Canadiens are guilty of thinking they were going to get an easy game and played to the level of the competition. In fact it happens , based on the stats, a bit less than half the time.

In 2008 the Habs won the Eastern Conference and lost twice to the TB Lightning, twice to the Thrashers, four times to the Leafs, once to the Blue Jackets, twice to the Panthers. All non playoff teams.

What would their record have been if they had taken care of those games? Should they have had 126 points instead of 104?

Edited March 7, 2011 by Wamsley01

[BrenDittero]

In 2008 the Habs won the Eastern Conference and lost twice to the TB Lightning, twice to the Thrashers, four times to the Leafs, once to the Blue Jackets, twice to the Panthers. All non playoff teams.

What would their record have been if they had taken care of those games? Should they have had 126 points instead of 104?

Again I don't see the reasoning in talking about years gone by. It's great that you can bring up these stats and records seemingly at will but I don't think it proves anything.

I am not talking about 2008. I'm talking about 2010 / 2011.

What the Habs did three seasons ago has nothing to do with the current season or this discussion.

The Canadiens have lost quite a few times to teams that fans perceive as being inferior clubs. Your own research has proven that.

The idea here is that the Canadiens were not playing as hard or abandoned defensive strategy against some of the lesser teams leading to losses. That suggests that for various reasons they struggle against teams lower in the standings.

They seem to regroup before a big game and more often than not ( 57.14% ) pull out a win.

From what I have seen this year that, I think, is a pretty accurate statement.

Then the question becomes " why does a great team drop so many games to bad teams?" The answer could be that they were playing to the level of the competition.

If you disagree that fine, I hear that happens sometimes on the internet.

Edited March 8, 2011 by BrenDittero

[Wamsley01]

Again I don't see the reasoning in talking about years gone by. It's great that you can bring up these stats and records seemingly at will but I don't think it proves anything.

I am not talking about 2008. I'm talking about 2010 / 2011.

What the Habs did three seasons ago has nothing to do with the current season or this discussion.

The Canadiens have lost quite a few times to teams that fans perceive as being inferior clubs. Your own research has proven that.

The idea here is that the Canadiens were not playing as hard or abandoned defensive strategy against some of the lesser teams leading to losses. That suggests that for various reasons they struggle against teams lower in the standings.

They seem to regroup before a big game and more often than not ( 57.14% ) pull out a win.

From what I have seen this year that, I think, is a pretty accurate statement.

Then the question becomes " why does a great team drop so many games to bad teams?" The answer could be that they were playing to the level of the competition.

If you disagree that fine, I hear that happens sometimes on the internet.

Of course it doesn't. There is zero correlation there.

[BrenDittero]

Of course it doesn't. There is zero correlation there.

The idea of playing to the level of competition is only a theory that has some credence given to it by the stats. At least the theory suggests that the Habs didn't bring their "A" game. I have a much easier time accepting that than they just weren't good enough to bury a lower tier team.

I do like that you refuse to give it any more thought than two sentences and an emoticon.

I guess you have all the answers.

Edited March 9, 2011 by BrenDittero

[BTH]

The idea of playing to the level of competition is only a theory that has some credence given to it by the stats. At least the theory suggests that the Habs didn't bring their "A" game. I have a much easier time accepting that than they just weren't good enough to bury a lower tier team.

I do like that you refuse to give it any more thought than two sentences and an emoticon.

I guess you have all the answers.

Which stats? You just shrugged away all the stats that showed you otherwise.

Lower-ranked teams beat higher-ranked teams all the time in hockey. Every night. That's parity for you, there isn't such a big difference between the 5th-8th seeds and the 9th-13th seed. Especially when injuries occur.

There's very little to suggest that the players don't try as hard against weaker opponents.

[BrenDittero]

Which stats? You just shrugged away all the stats that showed you otherwise.

Lower-ranked teams beat higher-ranked teams all the time in hockey. Every night. That's parity for you, there isn't such a big difference between the 5th-8th seeds and the 9th-13th seed. Especially when injuries occur.

There's very little to suggest that the players don't try as hard against weaker opponents.

Your own numbers reflect that out of 62 games the Habs have won 58% of the time.

Out of those 62 games 41 have been against lower tier teams and 21 against upper tier.

The Habs have lost almost twice as many games to lower ranked teams this season.

Just from watching these match ups I was always interested to see that Montreal tends to play better against a Boston, Philly or Pitts etc.

But then will lose to Toronto or Edmonton for example.

On those nights it didn't seem that Montreal was playing their "A" game and it made me wonder why.

I find this thread and idea interesting because I don't believe I'm alone in thinking that more often than not we've played better against a top seated team and fallen apart or been surprised by clubs in the bottom seven.