GDT Game 63: 2/25/18|11:00 AM CT|@ Predators|NBC/KMOX

[theohall]

Sum total of 141 games were won of the 1271 played when a team scored 2 goals or less in the NHL. Approximately 1 games in 10 are won if you don't score more than 2 goals in the current state of the NHL. So regardless of who is playing goal for any team in the league, if you don't score more than 2 goals, you are going to lose approximately 9 of 10 games. Offense is a much bigger concern.

[Irish Blues]

Counter point. I don't care who is in goal. You can't win on any consistent basis in the NHL today scoring less than 2 goals per game.

I could point to four (4) games of the 13 where Allen allowed 2 or fewer goals, and say "OK, if he gets a little help here there's a shot to win it." (But let's not pretend like the Blues are incapable of winning those games; also see below.) When he allows 4 or 5, or like the Florida game where we led 2-0 and 3-2 and he helped piddle away leads, or the Dallas game where we were up 2-1 before he decided to play the puck behind the net and futzed it up and then futzed up getting back into position, or games as of recent where he gets beaten like a rented mule short-side because he can't execute basic positioning, it's unrealistic to consistently call to the offense and bail him out. At some point, he just needs to quit f-ing up and make the saves he should be making and quit burying his team in a hole.

Sum total of 141 games were won of the 1271 played when a team scored 2 goals or less in the NHL. Approximately 1 games in 10 are won if you don't score more than 2 goals in the current state of the NHL. So regardless of who is playing goal for any team in the league, if you don't score more than 2 goals, you are going to lose approximately 9 of 10 games. Offense is a much bigger concern.

Let's get this accurate for this season.

Through 956 games of this season (excluding yesterday's games), the team losing had scored 2 or fewer goals in 683 of them. In 172 of those, the winning team scored 2 or fewer goals before the shootout. (That includes a scoreless game between the Rangers and Capitals back on 12/27.)

This Blues team? They've gone 8-6-1 this year when they score 2 or fewer and they allow the opposition to 2 or fewer. Exactly one (1) of those wins is by Allen, who held off the Islanders 3-2 in a shootout win ... back on October 9. (He's got 5 of the losses, all in regulation. I leave it to others to deduce what Hutton's record is in those games.)

Those other 510 games? Whoever's losing is giving up an average 4.12 goals per game. Well, there's 3-2 games that you're counting in that. That's 198 of the 510, meaning that about 46% of the time if you're scoring 2 or fewer goals you're giving up 4 or more - and in those games, on average you're giving up 4.84 goals a game.

So while it's easy to point to the offense and say, "go score more goals" the reality is
-- Close games (1-0, 2-1, even 2-2 going into a shootout) aren't as frequent as you'd think.
-- If you're not scoring goals, you're probably getting beaten handily and so "moar offense" isn't the problem.
-- Again, the last 13 losses Allen's been 3.44, .890. At some point, offense can't covering all of that up.

I'll leave you with one final stat to ponder.
-- Allen's total goal support: 84 goals in 19 wins, 30 goals in 21 losses. That's 114 goals in 40 results, or 2.85 goals a game.
-- Hutton's total goal support: 42 goals in 15 wins, 14 goals in 8 losses. That's 56 goals in 23 results, or 2.43 goals per game

One of those two manages to make do with a lack of offensive support and still leads the league in GAA and SV%; the other needs his team to pot goals like Sittler's having another all-time game against the Bruins. What's up with that?

[theohall]

So you're fine with a team averaging 1.64 goals/game in one goaltender's last 17 starts. Got it.

[Irish Blues]

So you're fine with a team averaging 1.64 goals/game in one goaltender's last 17 starts. Got it.

I love when people make up things that I clearly didn't say and attempt to pass it off as fact, when the record clearly shows otherwise. I love it even more when people think they know what I'm thinking, when we both know they have no idea what I'm thinking.

[Toasted Oates]

Hutton's outplayed Allen. He's started 17 less games than Allen but I digress.

According to Armstrong, the last 2 bad losses are why Stastny got traded. Let's say Allen gave up 2 goals or less in those games. Let's even say he carries a shutout into the 3rd period. Do the Blues win those games? Would they have played harder if the score was 0-0 after 1 or 2 periods? I'm not so sure.

Hutton will likely start tonight. The Blues are living on a game to game basis right now, so tonight's the most important game until the next one. Let's see how well he has to play for this team to score a goal or two.

[Toasted Oates]

I guess if I had to choose, I'd rather the Blues had the ice tilted in their opponents' direction rather than depending on a goalie rescue every night.

[theohall]

So you're fine with a team averaging 1.64 goals/game in one goaltender's last 17 starts. Got it.

I love when people make up things that I clearly didn't say and attempt to pass it off as fact, when the record clearly shows otherwise. I love it even more when people think they know what I'm thinking, when we both know they have no idea what I'm thinking.

The record shows you defending the Blues not scoring goals as if it's somehow the goaltender's fault.

You wrote a really long post about a lack of scoring and pointed at Allen's GAA in those games. What does the goaltender's GAA have to do with the Blues not scoring goals in front of him? somehow Allen is supposed to steal parts of 14 games in which the Blues were shut out 4 times and only scored 1 goal 4 other times.

You do realize Martin Brodeur at his best had a 1.88 GAA. That's a higher GAA than the number of goals the Blues are scoring (1.64) in front of Allen. In other words, not even Brodeur would win games in front of that crappy offense.

But continue to defend the lack of scoring and keep pointing at Allen as the problem. It just shows a lack of awareness as to where the game is today in a scoring era when the league average for goals per game is 2.96 while the Blues playing in front of Allen are more than a goal below that.

[Irish Blues]

The record shows you defending the Blues not scoring goals as if it's somehow the goaltender's fault. Actually, the record shows me pointing out that Allen's stats have been shit and that lack of offense doesn't explain away a 3.44 GAA - but I apparently don't read at your level.

You wrote a really long post about a lack of scoring and pointed at Allen's GAA in those games. What does the goaltender's GAA have to do with the Blues not scoring goals in front of him? How much more offense should the Blues have to put up when he's allowing 3 goals and change a game? A goal? 2 goals? Apparently, based on the games he's won this season, it's about 3 more goals. (Franking) offense, how dare it not perform a goal and a half better than the league average. somehow Allen is supposed to steal parts of 14 games in which the Blues were shut out 4 times and only scored 1 goal 4 other times. I'd say read my note on the 4 games where he allowed 2 or fewer goals that could reasonably be explained away by lack of offense, but I guess in those games where they scored 0 goals or 1 goal they should have been putting up 4, 5, or 6 to make up for the fact that he was giving up 3, 4, or 5.

You do realize Martin Brodeur at his best had a 1.88 GAA. That's a higher GAA than the number of goals the Blues are scoring (1.64) in front of Allen. I'm trying to decide if you're just being obtuse in trying to make a point, or if you really don't understand the non sequitur here. I'm going to vote the latter. In other words, not even Brodeur would win games in front of that crappy offense. Brodeur would be expected to win twice as many games, because he was giving up half as many goals. Well, except in your world, where apparently everything is about moar offense and we don't dare look at the goalie's stats - especially when they're significantly worse than the league average.

But continue to defend the lack of scoring and keep pointing at Allen as the problem. Yeah, it's not been Allen dragging his ass out of position or making shitty plays with the puck or getting regularly beaten on the far side because he can't execute basic positioning or having guys shoot pucks in on the near side because he can't hug the (Franking) post for once in his life, or him leaving his 5-hole more open than a hooker's legs in Vegas during a Greek Fraternities convention. That's not the problem. It's that goddamn offense not scoring 4.4 goals a game [like it does when he wins games] to cover for him playing like shit. It just shows a lack of awareness as to where the game is today in a scoring era when the league average for goals per game is 2.96 while the Blues playing in front of Allen are more than a goal below that. For the last 15 games he's been in net. For the season, when Allen has been in net the Blues score 2.85 goals per game, which means when he's in net they've been ... well, pretty much near the league average and they were even above that for his first 25 games. They've also generated more offense on the season when Allen's been in net than when Hutton has been in net - and yet, Hutton has a vastly superior GAA and SV% which you totally ignore. But please, do continue to ignore about 75% of the data available so it fits your narrative better -
because that's easier than acknowledging the facts about the offense that's supported both of our goalies.

Comments in bold. You apparently aren't going to address Allen's play and are instead going to waste more internet ink on "lack of offense" so I don't see a point to continuing this. Go ahead and say whatever you want, and declare victory or whatever.

[Oaklandblue]

The record shows you defending the Blues not scoring goals as if it's somehow the goaltender's fault. Actually, the record shows me pointing out that Allen's stats have been shit and that lack of offense doesn't explain away a 3.44 GAA - but I apparently don't read at your level.

You wrote a really long post about a lack of scoring and pointed at Allen's GAA in those games. What does the goaltender's GAA have to do with the Blues not scoring goals in front of him? How much more offense should the Blues have to put up when he's allowing 3 goals and change a game? A goal? 2 goals? Apparently, based on the games he's won this season, it's about 3 more goals. (Franking) offense, how dare it not perform a goal and a half better than the league average. somehow Allen is supposed to steal parts of 14 games in which the Blues were shut out 4 times and only scored 1 goal 4 other times. I'd say read my note on the 4 games where he allowed 2 or fewer goals that could reasonably be explained away by lack of offense, but I guess in those games where they scored 0 goals or 1 goal they should have been putting up 4, 5, or 6 to make up for the fact that he was giving up 3, 4, or 5.

You do realize Martin Brodeur at his best had a 1.88 GAA. That's a higher GAA than the number of goals the Blues are scoring (1.64) in front of Allen. I'm trying to decide if you're just being obtuse in trying to make a point, or if you really don't understand the non sequitur here. I'm going to vote the latter. In other words, not even Brodeur would win games in front of that crappy offense. Brodeur would be expected to win twice as many games, because he was giving up half as many goals. Well, except in your world, where apparently everything is about moar offense and we don't dare look at the goalie's stats - especially when they're significantly worse than the league average.

But continue to defend the lack of scoring and keep pointing at Allen as the problem. Yeah, it's not been Allen dragging his ass out of position or making shitty plays with the puck or getting regularly beaten on the far side because he can't execute basic positioning or having guys shoot pucks in on the near side because he can't hug the (Franking) post for once in his life, or him leaving his 5-hole more open than a hooker's legs in Vegas during a Greek Fraternities convention. That's not the problem. It's that goddamn offense not scoring 4.4 goals a game [like it does when he wins games] to cover for him playing like shit. It just shows a lack of awareness as to where the game is today in a scoring era when the league average for goals per game is 2.96 while the Blues playing in front of Allen are more than a goal below that. For the last 15 games he's been in net. For the season, when Allen has been in net the Blues score 2.85 goals per game, which means when he's in net they've been ... well, pretty much near the league average and they were even above that for his first 25 games. They've also generated more offense on the season when Allen's been in net than when Hutton has been in net - and yet, Hutton has a vastly superior GAA and SV% which you totally ignore. But please, do continue to ignore about 75% of the data available so it fits your narrative better -
because that's easier than acknowledging the facts about the offense that's supported both of our goalies.

Comments in bold. You apparently aren't going to address Allen's play and are instead going to waste more internet ink on "lack of offense" so I don't see a point to continuing this. Go ahead and say whatever you want, and declare victory or whatever.

Fair warning, many see Jake Allen as the golden child of this squad and any questioning of him is generally responded with how the rest of the team is doing and there's some truth to that as the D has been trash beyond belief. On that same note, and with a smaller sample size, Hutton has been rocking it which is the weird thing about this team: in the last decade, for the team, whoever is the backup has wound up being the stronger netminder, sample size nonwithstanding.

With Hutton being the hotter hand and with the playoffs at stake, I would have started him. Why I noted "Start Hutton" on my earlier post. Whether Jake's the Starter or not shouldn't matter imo, these are desperate times and the Blues must make the playoffs. Mathematically they can't sink far enough down to get a high enough pick to make it worth it and iirc they don't have a pick for the upcoming year for it to matter and making the playoffs will help to put some coins into the coffers.

[theohall]

Yes, Hutton has been better than Allen. Duh.

That doesn't excuse the basic tanking of the offense the past two months. Heck, 3 months when Allen is in net.

Worst road power play in the league, but the Blues don't have offensive issues. Whatever.

[Toasted Oates]

Mathematically they can't sink far enough down to get a high enough pick to make it worth it and iirc they don't have a pick for the upcoming year for it to matter and making the playoffs will help to put some coins into the coffers.

The Blues' pick that was traded for Schenn is top 10 protected for the 2018 draft. BUT if the Blues do pick in the top 10 this yr, the Flyers would then receive the Blues 2019 1st AND 3rd round draft picks. That is, if I'm remembering all that correctly. And they have the Jets 1st this yr, of course.

Looking @ the standings, you may be right, though. The Blues are still 8 points ahead of Florida, the 10th worst team. I guess if they lose out, anything's possible, but man...they're in no man's land where they almost have to lose out to make it worth it.

I'm with you: try like hell to get in the bracket.

[theohall]

Looking @ the standings, you may be right, though. The Blues are still 8 points ahead of Florida, the 10th worst team. I guess if they lose out, anything's possible, but man...they're in no man's land where they almost have to lose out to make it worth it.

If they keep losing Central Division games, 8 points is easy to lose.

[Toasted Oates]

Probably, but that's just Florida. Can they sink below another 5-6 teams? If you're gonna tank, no half measures. Improve those lottery odds.

[theohall]

Just to pile on since someone wanted to mention Allen's 1st 25 games.

The Blues were scoring 3.35 goals/game over the first 2 months of the season. Hmm, winning games when the offense was working.

Since December 12, that's dropped to 2.18 goals/game, well below the league average.

But clearly Allen not playing well is somehow more impactful than the offense drying up.

I would point out the Blues only played 4 divisional games in those 1st two months, but that probably won't matter either, even though it's clear the Blues aren't competitive in their division against the playoff caliber teams in the division.