| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Game 1: Compared to how lopsided the match up is, Montreal did well.
Game 2: I think most people now believe it would take a miracle.
Game 3: Montreal has given up.
Game 4: Thank goodness this series is done, that was very sad.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Who doesn't want another Boston-Montreal series?
The numbers make it look like Montreal has no chance of winning this series (although considering Boston's record 25% isn't bad - it's not impossible or even improbable).
Some people might look back to 2003-2004 when Montreal (7) beat Boston (2). However, Boston and Montreal had very similar goal differentials that year. Now Boston is +80 and Montreal is +2.
As in any series: If they can solve Thomas they have a chance.
3 comments:
I usually look at the nhl.com numbers, and I have to ask; do you compile save% in a different way? nhl.com (through the special teams page) has Carey Price at .920 and Thomas at .940; I understand that your 90.2%/92.1% are adjusted? I looked around and I'm not sure how it's done, but I think you explain that somewhere on your site; where can I find that?
Thanks!
http://hockeynumbers.blogspot.com/2008/04/playoff-summary-guide.html
The BIG numbers come only from games against teams who made the playoffs (you can get all the other data from sites like NHL.com, so there's no point posting both).
Note SQN% = 1-0.092*Goals/EG
I've just updated the images so they actual numbers match their SV% (I was using a larger multiplier than I normally use).
Montreal played pretty well in Game One, I thought, what with not having their best player in the lineup.
Granted, they gave up a lot of shots on the powerplay, which is never a good thing to have happen.
Post a Comment