I first heard the phrase “dreaded two-goal lead” during one of the recent EA NHL games by commentator Gary Thorne. I initially scoffed at this saying because, in addition to being an excuse to hate on Thorne (I dislike the EA in-game play-by-play crew), it just sounds stupid. Why would a two-goal lead be bad? Two goals are better than one, aren’t they?
Well, for the 2014 NHL playoffs, my pal Thome seems quite correct in his assessment. If one thing is certain in these games, it’s that no lead is safe, especially if it’s by two goals.
Perhaps most notable of these was game two in the Montreal-Boston series, where the Canadiens were leading 3-1 to start the third period, only to lose 5-3 after four straight Boston goals.
Or you might remember game seven of the Anaheim-Dallas game, when it looked like the eighth-placed Stars might upset the first in the western conference Anaheim Ducks, rushing out to 2-0 in the first 10 minutes.
While rallying against an early 2-0 lead is not all that impressive, Dallas achieved three different two-goal leads (Anaheim would score, then Dallas would score, restoring the lead), with the last one remaining intact before Anaheim scored with 2:10 left in the third period. Before that goal the score was 4-2; by the time the game ended, it was 5-4 in Anaheim’s favour.
Why does this happen? One would assume a two-goal lead should be fairly safe, especially with how strong some of these teams’ defenses are, and how talented the goalies are. A two-goal lead, you would think, is better than a one goal lead, with at least some room for margin for error.
The reason: momentum. Once you score, you generally gain momentum, and the team that was scored on will play worse, probably resulting from nervousness after losing their seemingly safe lead. Now it only takes one goal to tie up the game, and generally, it seems, the team who scored is able to dominate for a while.
After being scored on, a team will play worse, probably resulting from nervousness after losing their seemingly safe lead.
At this point, a second goal by the trailing team is a fairly good possibility and if it is achieved, the momentum has swung completely, giving the formerly trailing team the likeliest chance of scoring the next goal, and winning the game.
With a three-goal lead, however, there is a cushion after being scored on, protecting the team from the immediate momentum gained. That being said, comebacks from three goals or more do still happen (as seen last year in Toronto’s glorious meltdown).
In these playoffs, the dreaded leads do not just apply to the games individually but to series as well. St. Louis, after winning their first two games at home, ended up losing 4-2 in the series to Chicago. More recently, the New York Rangers came back from a 3-1 deficit to win in seven against the Pittsburgh Penguins.
However, it should be noted that now the two goal leads seem to be evening out, with the collapses appearing less frequently, as compared to the first round where nearly every game held an amazing comeback.
(A)side jab: With all the recent talk about pulling goalies sooner, it was hilarious to see Boston, in game six, pull their goalie with four minutes left and be scored on immediately. They were down 3-0 and likely to lose anyways, so the consequence was not too severe. Nevertheless, it was funny to see Boston fall flat.
