I included this blog post for Sioux fans because the 2009-2010 Fighting Sioux hockey team had a propensity to blow/throw a few away games after they had taken a two goal lead.
In an otherwise excellent piece criticising the Ottawa Senators for their collapse in game six against the Penguins, Wayne Scanlan remarks that the pressure was building as the Senators “set out to defend what Don Cherry always calls the worst lead in hockey: the two goal advantage.”
Now I know what he’s getting at: With a one-goal lead, a team keeps its focus, and with a three goal lead it would require a serious collapse to lose. But two goals? It’s close enough that you need to stay focused, but big enough to convince you that it is OK to relax. But is there any indication that a two goal lead is, objectively, a worse lead to have than a one- (or three-) goal lead? I find it hard to believe.
First thing to keep in mind is that all failed two-goal leads are also failed one-goal leads. That is, on its way to squandering a two-goal lead, a team must also squander a one-goal lead. So, it is analytically the case that the number of squandered one-goal leads is equal to, and empirically a certainty that it is greater than, the number of squandered two-goal leads. [MACLEAN'S.CA]
The best way I've heard it explained is that when you get a one goal lead you stay on your toes and continue to be agressive. When your up by 2 you tend to settle back on your heels and protect the lead. Then when your opponent scores to bring it back to a one goal lead they have all the momentum and your stuck on your heels while the other team is coming full force. I'm a strong believer in this. Seen it happen so many times.
ReplyDelete