Dan Wallace: Gotta Win 1 First

As I read this blog, all I could think of was the song "Dreamer" by Supertramp. And my own recollection is that all three GWGs went straight in, no deflections.

"but still look at this objectively and say the better team is on the losing end in all three games."


Nope, sorry. Gotta disagree. If it happens once, you can say that, twice maybe. But three straight - no.

For this time, in this series the Blues have been the better team. You simply cannot say team "A" is the "better" team when you've played almost ten periods of hockey and team "A" hasn't had a lead for one fraction of one second.

That narrative has no basis. Empty statistics fall at the feet of the only stat that matters. Scoreboard.

Indeed. Down 3 games to none I think it is clear at this point which has been the better team thus far. The goalie and the coach are part of the teams too.

The Blues are without two of the best forwards, and Tarasenko hasn't even really come out to say hello yet. And they are up 3-0.

Giving up a zillion weak shots from the outside is a perfectly viable defensive strategy, many teams use it. CORSI just doesn't accept that because CORSI is more or less a dressed up shots +/-.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say the Wild have been the better team. They've controlled more of the play and if a couple bounces go their way they could be up in this series. Luck absolutely matters.

The only problem I have with this article is the lack of recognizing the majority of the Wild's goals have also come from luck. Parise's goals have found pucks squirting right to him, including a nice pass by Brodziak.

Although Coyle's goal wasn't luck but plain old hard work.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say the Wild have been the better team. They've controlled more of the play and if a couple bounces go their way they could be up in this series. Luck absolutely matters.

The only problem I have with this article is the lack of recognizing the majority of the Wild's goals have also come from luck. Parise's goals have found pucks squirting right to him, including a nice pass by Brodziak.

Although Coyle's goal wasn't luck but plain old hard work.
- charlest

Schwartz and Paraykos goals were lucky bounces? I don't think so.

LOL! Love how butt hurt the Blues fans get when you insist the Wild have been the better team! That alone is worth saying it again and again!

Keep up the good work Dan!

I don't think it's unreasonable to say the Wild have been the better team. They've controlled more of the play and if a couple bounces go their way they could be up in this series. Luck absolutely matters.

The only problem I have with this article is the lack of recognizing the majority of the Wild's goals have also come from luck. Parise's goals have found pucks squirting right to him, including a nice pass by Brodziak.

Although Coyle's goal wasn't luck but plain old hard work.
- charlest

There's no such thing as luck.

LOL! Love how butt hurt the Blues fans get when you insist the Wild have been the better team! That alone is worth saying it again and again!

Keep up the good work Dan!
- MnGump

I hope the narrative continues for game 4. I'm really hoping to be butthurt well into the second round.

Nothing elite about the Blues?

Their defenseman say hi. Who has a better 6 defenseman?

This is a classic rope a dope strategy. Wild think they are out-playing the Blues. They aren't. For the series, how much time has the Wild led? Answer, 0:00.

The Blues are playing defensive hockey, especially once they get the lead. The Wild can continue to throw outside shots at the net.

5v5 they have had a total of 6 shots attempted on rebounds. And 6 shots attempted on rushes.

Its all one and done. Low danger shots. You can outshoot us all day like that. Heck, that helps the goalie. Constantly seeing low danger shots keeps them engaged and in the game.

I hope the narrative continues for game 4. I'm really hoping to be butthurt well into the second round.
- bcallaway

Yes, I as well am really hoping you remain butt hurt! LOL

There's no such thing as luck.
- bcallaway

Do you not believe in momentum either Andy Murray?

Are you just poking fun or are you being serious? Of course there's luck. A stick breaking at the wrong time, players hitting posts, a puck hitting a rough patch of ice and bouncing over a stick.

Let me put it this way. If you could re-do the events of these games, 9 times out of 10 the Blues are down in this series. They absolutely did not deserve to win games 1 or 2.

Schwartz and Paraykos goals were lucky bounces? I don't think so.
- Cephalopods

Believing the Blues have been the luckier team does not mean every single incident that has occurred has been a result of luck.

I really don't know how anyone could think the Blues weren't lucky at least to have won game 1.

If we play this way in the second round we will be slaughtered. Need more of the first half of game 3.

Nothing elite about the Blues?

Their defenseman say hi. Who has a better 6 defenseman?

This is a classic rope a dope strategy. Wild think they are out-playing the Blues. They aren't. For the series, how much time has the Wild led? Answer, 0:00.

The Blues are playing defensive hockey, especially once they get the lead. The Wild can continue to throw outside shots at the net.

5v5 they have had a total of 6 shots attempted on rebounds. And 6 shots attempted on rushes.

Its all one and done. Low danger shots. You can outshoot us all day like that. Heck, that helps the goalie. Constantly seeing low danger shots keeps them engaged and in the game.
- carcus

Call it whatever your want, Wild offense has still been right there on at least a dozen chances that could have easily ended up goals had the puck not bounced the way of the Blues.

There's no doubt the Blues are playing one hell of a defensive game right now. But they're not exactly shutting the Wild offense down either and sooner or later they are going to slide and they're going to stop getting the bounces in their favor and when they do, 2 goals a game average isn't going to cut it.

Believing the Blues have been the luckier team does not mean every single incident that has occurred has been a result of luck.

I really don't know how anyone could think the Blues weren't lucky at least to have won game 1.

If we play this way in the second round we will be slaughtered. Need more of the first half of game 3.
- charlest

Why you gotta go and start being all reasonable now?! You're a Blues fan for god's sake, start acting like it! LOL

Why you gotta go and start being all reasonable now?! You're a Blues fan for god's sake, start acting like it! LOL
- MnGump

While I've read this site for years, I'm not a very active poster. I've always been reasonable though, relying on logic over emotion. My pre-series thoughts were the Wild would take this in 6.

I also received a ton of flak on a Blues forum last year for stating that the officiating made the right call on the Lehtera off-sides and non-goaltending interference in Game 3 of the Blues/Blackhawks series last year (although I do hate the reviewing of off-sides, but if you're going to do it then at least they got it right).

I'm not sure why Blues fans think we deserve to be up 3-0. We've been on the other side of this in 2012 when Quick stonewalled our team. We absolutely deserved better in that series and the Kings were very lucky.

I'm wearing my Winter Classic jersey at the office and will be cheering my guts out tonight for the Blues, admitting that they've been extremely lucky doesn't make me less of a fan.

I am hopeful for the Blues in the second round, mostly because Stastny will be returning and we'll have home ice advantage against the Preds (assuming both teams close it out). But they absolutely cannot play as they've played the majority of this series.

I also think some of the rhetoric around Yeo's turtling defensive system around here is off base. Yeo's game plan isn't to sustain 50 shots, his game plan is to forecheck and maintain puck possession. When they turtle it's because they've been outplayed and that's the safety valve being released, collapsing around the net. I don't think Yeo wants to lose the possession battle at all and is not content to sit on a one goal lead.

Wild fans are hilarious. Saying they are the better team is silly. They are playing against an injured, rebuilding team, and still can't find a winning style. Saying they are better is like saying the Timberwolves are better because they have more dunks per game. That's great, but Blues aren't playing basketball. They aren't playing possession hockey either. They are playing defense first hockey. Also known as winning hockey. Being better at playing a losing style of hockey is meaningless. Sure, if a few more bounces went Wild's way, they could be winning. And if a few more bounces went Blues way, the scores would be blowouts in Blues favor, instead of close.

Wild fans can keep their false sense of superiority. Pairs great with early tee times.

If we play this way in the second round we will be slaughtered.
- charlest

I don't think you can say that with any degree of confidence. I would say if the Blues play the way they have played, and Nashville (or Chicago) plays the way the wild have played, the Blues will have a great chance.

I am not a big fan of the Wild coach though, I believe their next round opponent will have a game plan to defeat the Blues scheme, and we will see if Yeo can adjust or not.

Do you not believe in momentum either Andy Murray?

Are you just poking fun or are you being serious? Of course there's luck. A stick breaking at the wrong time, players hitting posts, a puck hitting a rough patch of ice and bouncing over a stick.

Let me put it this way. If you could re-do the events of these games, 9 times out of 10 the Blues are down in this series. They absolutely did not deserve to win games 1 or 2.
- charlest

Everything you describe happens thousands upon thousands of times in the course of a season. All of those events are common and completely random.

It's called physics.

They're only perceived as luck because of the cumulative effect of the events surrounding any one of those common moments and what "could have happened" had they not occurred at that precise moment.

Since there's no way to describe them - they are called luck. Good luck, bad luck.

Why does no one ever talk about neutral luck?

It's like saying celebrities always die in threes. They don't.

I'm as serious as i know how to be. There's no such thing as luck.

Everything you describe happens thousands upon thousands of times in the course of a season. All of those events are common and completely random.

- bcallaway

Replacing the word "luck" with "random" doesn't really change anything as far as I can see.

Lots of 1st that have to happen for the Wild.

Gotta get more than 1 goal a game
Gotta score 5 v 5
Gotta get a lead
Gotta hold a lead
Gotta win a game

Gotta repeat all of that 4 times in a row.

Everything you describe happens thousands upon thousands of times in the course of a season. All of those events are common and completely random.

It's called physics.

They're only perceived as luck because of the cumulative effect of the events surrounding any one of those common moments and what "could have happened" had they not occurred at that precise moment.

Since there's no way to describe them - they are called luck. Good luck, bad luck.

Why does no one ever talk about neutral luck?

It's like saying celebrities always die in threes. They don't.

I'm as serious as i know how to be. There's no such thing as luck.
- bcallaway

Yes, I'm using the word luck to describe micro events whose cause and effect is outside reasonable perception or logic. More of those events have gone the Blues way, which is abnormal to occur to such a degree. I'm using the word luck for short-hand, which is entirely reasonable.

I don't think you can say that with any degree of confidence. I would say if the Blues play the way they have played, and Nashville (or Chicago) plays the way the wild have played, the Blues will have a great chance.

I am not a big fan of the Wild coach though, I believe their next round opponent will have a game plan to defeat the Blues scheme, and we will see if Yeo can adjust or not.
- Cephalopods

Here's what I can say: Jake Allen's ridiculous .975 save percentage is why the Blues have their current record (or at least it's one of the major contributing factors). Reduce it to a still astounding and stellar .94 and the Blues are not winning this series.

Imagine Allen has a .94 save percentage and the Blues are down in this series 2-1 or 3-0. How would you feel about Yeo and his system? Seriously, take a step back and think about that.

Do you think Allen will put up a .975 save percentage in the next round? It's possible, but not likely. We need to play hockey that will win without relying on ridiculous unsustainable percentages. The Blues did do this at times in game 3. They are capable, especially if Stastny returns.

Here's what I can say: Jake Allen's ridiculous .975 save percentage is why the Blues have their current record (or at least it's one of the major contributing factors). Reduce it to a still astounding and stellar .94 and the Blues are not winning this series.

Imagine Allen has a .94 save percentage and the Blues are down in this series 2-1 or 3-0. How would you feel about Yeo and his system? Seriously, take a step back and think about that.

Do you think Allen will put up a .975 save percentage in the next round? It's possible, but not likely. We need to play hockey that will win without relying on ridiculous unsustainable percentages. The Blues did do this at times in game 3. They are capable, especially if Stastny returns.
- charlest

Stop thinking so much and enjoy the ride.

49 years of failure and fans keep looking for the other shoe to drop.

It'll drop soon enough.



You see what happens when we're all given two days between games.........

Stop thinking so much and enjoy the ride.

49 years of failure and fans keep looking for the other shoe to drop.

It'll drop soon enough.



You see what happens when we're all given two days between games.........
- bcallaway

I'm having a blast, maybe more so than in the past because I didn't expect anything. I just don't think Blues fans arguing that they've been the better team in this series is fair, or makes our hockeybuzz community look particularly well.

LA fans arguing they were the better team during the 2012 series was aggravating. We don't want to be those guys.