One of the fascinating aspects of each new NHL season are the reactions to small sample size performances.
Whether it’s an offense being labeled atrocious due to struggles with scoring thanks to an unsustainably bad shooting percentage, a new player having trouble gelling in his new surroundings, or a coach being on the hot seat because his team lost three games in a row, small sample sizes can frustrate.
No owner envisions his team being awful right away, or his big ticket free agent player having trouble producing points. High expectations off the bounce are hard to break. The first 5-10 games can show you strengths and weaknesses your team has, but they don’t always dictate how your team will perform for the 85 percent of the season. Hence, why overreactions happen.
Ask Todd Richards, who’s Columbus Blue Jackets were a mess to start 2015-16, starting 0-7, which ultimately cost him his job. Seven games was enough to justify replacing him with a headcase like John Tortorella. Richards was a widely respected coach, who led the Jackets to three consecutive winning seasons, and with a seven-game slump, he was out of a job. His talented roster underperformed and it cost him. It can happen that fast.
Kekalainen on Richards firing: "Team wasn't responding the right way…it was a difficult decision. #BlueJackets
— SiriusXM NHL Network Radio (@SiriusXMNHL) October 21, 2015
How about the Anaheim Ducks, who couldn’t buy a goal in the team’s first 10 games, posting a 1-7-2 record.
The pitchforks were out for head coach Bruce Boudreau, calling for his firing when really the Ducks were just tremendously unlucky. They shot 2.7 percent at even strength, scoring only six five-on-five goals in their first 10 games. That hapless rate couldn’t possibly continue. To put it in perspective, the Arizona Coyotes shot an NHL-worst 5.72 even strength shooting percentage in 2014-15. Even if the Ducks were at their worse over a full season, it wouldn’t mirror their first 10 games. General manager Bryan Murray wisely didn’t rush to judgement like his peers in Columbus, saying he wasn’t inclined to change things solely because the poor start.
It was a smart bet on Murray’s part, as Anaheim has turned their fortunes around, reeling off wins in four straight games while scoring eight goals at even strength on a more than tripled 8.5 5v5 shooting percentage. The Ducks weren’t doomed.
Now, it’s fair to scrutinize a player for going stretches without scoring, especially when they’re counted on to produce big numbers. However, it’s not entirely fair to speculate a player is broken, or in the midst of a decline because they’re slow out of the gate.
Even the best players can experience rough starts. Corey Perry was a prime example of the Ducks struggles, with one point in his first eight games, while scoring his first goal in game 12. Like almost every Anaheim player, he couldn’t buy a goal. Perry wasn’t suddenly half the player he was in 2014-15, when he scored 33 goals, nor was he in the start of a decline at just 30-years-old. It’s just a small sample size which Perry, for many reasons, couldn’t score.
Sidney Crosby, one of the most talented players in the league, went pointless for the first five games. Was he struggling? Absolutely. But, he was still firing shots at a healthy rate and playing with good linemates. It wasn’t a question of if he was going to turn things around, but when. His production wasn’t suddenly going to take a nose-dive.
On the flip-side, Dale Weise of the Montreal Canadiens, Oscar Lindberg of the New York Rangers and Joel Ward of the San Jose Sharks are all on pace for over 40 goals this season. With respect to all three players who’ve had fabulous starts to the campaign, there’s almost zero chance they can keep up that rate.
Not everybody claims the sky is falling, but fans and owners need to take a step back and get some fresh air before assuming the worst.
The first few games of the NHL season are tricky. You could take a small portion of any part of a season and the stats won’t be fully indicative of a full 82-game performance. Not to say small sample sizes are useless, but they’re not entirely prophetic. Whether good and bad, they should be taken with a grain of salt.
