Teams playing to protect the lead are getting killed

[Anglesmith]

I certainly haven't watched every minute of the playoffs, but of the games I have taken in, it seems like the playoffs have been full of third-period comebacks. And in just about every one of them, the lead disappears after a stretch of the play in the third period where the team in the lead shows very little interest in possessing the puck beyond the red line.

It makes me curious: to what extent is this style of play a product of strategic/system changes based on the situation, and to what extent is it just a result of physical and mental fatigue? I feel like all fans absolutely hate it, and if it's a strategic decision, it does not seem to be a sound one. Could a team break the mould and just continue playing the way they did to get the lead, and would they not have greater success doing so?

 

[edevils]

It's called the NJD strategy. It's simple: Never have a lead. Never lose a lead.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

ANGER RISING

 

[tabness]

Need Torts "SAFE IS DEATH" mentality

 

[Divine]

I certainly haven't watched every minute of the playoffs, but of the games I have taken in, it seems like the playoffs have been full of third-period comebacks. And in just about every one of them, the lead disappears after a stretch of the play in the third period where the team in the lead shows very little interest in possessing the puck beyond the red line.

It makes me curious: to what extent is this style of play a product of strategic/system changes based on the situation, and to what extent is it just a result of physical and mental fatigue? I feel like all fans absolutely hate it, and if it's a strategic decision, it does not seem to be a sound one. Could a team break the mould and just continue playing the way they did to get the lead, and would they not have greater success doing so?

It's partly human nature. If you're already leading, you're more risk-adverse because you don't need the next goal and you don't want to risk giving up the next goal. You would rather make the safe play than take a risk to expand the lead. Naturally, the other team doesn't care about making safe plays because if the game ends and they don't score, they lose.

That's why score effects have such a huge impact on games. Regardless though, the team that takes the lead and sits back wins the game the majority of the time. So even though it looks like a bad strategy it's actually pretty successful for most teams. Many teams have amazing records when leading after 1/2 periods, but watching it you'd think otherwise. Sitting back and playing it safe is stressful on the fans but statistically it's a pretty successful strategy for most teams.

 

[sbhnur]

Go tell Tortorella, he will tell you you know absolutely nothing about hockey!

You also can play like having a lead from minute 1 and try to protect this imagined lead. That's next level IQ by Torts all this teams in the playoff still need to learn.


Back to the topic: these teams are all quality teams. If they fight back hard while the other team just slightly leans back a little too much this kind of stuff happens quickly.

 

[cgf]

Safe is death. Always has been.

 

[ijuka]

I certainly haven't watched every minute of the playoffs, but of the games I have taken in, it seems like the playoffs have been full of third-period comebacks. And in just about every one of them, the lead disappears after a stretch of the play in the third period where the team in the lead shows very little interest in possessing the puck beyond the red line.

It makes me curious: to what extent is this style of play a product of strategic/system changes based on the situation, and to what extent is it just a result of physical and mental fatigue? I feel like all fans absolutely hate it, and if it's a strategic decision, it does not seem to be a sound one. Could a team break the mould and just continue playing the way they did to get the lead, and would they not have greater success doing so?

The best way to protect the lead is STILL to keep up the pressure and not give the opponent any room to breathe.

This has been empirically proven time after time after time, yet teams STILL instead sit on their lead and allow the opponent to freely have all the momentum.

It's so incredibly stupid.

Something worked for you to gain your team a three-goal lead? Hurr durr, better change my playstyle to the exact opposite, that'll surely work better than just doing what's worked thus far.

 

[MK9]

John Hynes saw that firsthand yesterday against Vegas. Sadly, I've zero doubt that put in that exact same position in the future, he'd play it the exact same way.

 

[Anglesmith]

It's partly human nature. If you're already leading, you're more risk-adverse because you don't need the next goal and you don't want to risk giving up the next goal. You would rather make the safe play than take a risk to expand the lead. Naturally, the other team doesn't care about making safe plays because if the game ends and they don't score, they lose.

That's why score effects have such a huge impact on games. Regardless though, the team that takes the lead and sits back wins the game the majority of the time. So even though it looks like a bad strategy it's actually pretty successful for most teams. Many teams have amazing records when leading after 1/2 periods, but watching it you'd think otherwise. Sitting back and playing it safe is stressful on the fans but statistically it's a pretty successful strategy for most teams.

I think historically it has been successful. But (and I admit I haven't actually sat down and gone game by game to confirm this suspicion) it really seems like at this current time, the strategy is working at most half of the time.

There have been several games where teams have had a third period lead, lost it, but then won it by scoring another goal, but those shouldn't be attributed to the shell working.

I feel like with the inability of teams to clutch and grab and lock it down by just not letting the other team physically stand near the net, the modern game just inevitably leads to goals if you provide the team with continuous access to your defensive zone with the puck.

If I'm right about the success rates going down (big if) then I wonder if we'll see an adjustment in coaching.

 

[GlitchMarner]

I say good.

It can be boring to watch teams sit back and do nothing but defend, block shots and chip pucks out.

Unfortunately, my team plays that way when leading. It has yet to bite the Leafs in the ass in the playoffs, though (thanks to OT goals).

 

[Elvs]

The best way to protect the lead is STILL to keep up the pressure and not give the opponent any room to breathe.

This has been empirically proven time after time after time, yet teams STILL instead sit on their lead and allow the opponent to freely have all the momentum.

It's so incredibly stupid.

Something worked for you to gain your team a three-goal lead? Hurr durr, better change my playstyle to the exact opposite, that'll surely work better than just doing what's worked thus far.

I think stupidity has nothing to do with it. I think it's just basic psychology. If you are under by three goals, you are gonna be a hell lot more desperate to step on the gas pedal versus if you're leading by three. And after you let in the first goal, the fear can start creeping in. Even more so in the playoffs with what's at stake, and especially for teams who have some tough memories trying to defend leads in the past.

 

[BagHead]

I remember when Jacques Lemaire coached the Wild, they used to constantly play the "protect the lead" style in the 3rd period. He was asked about it once by a reporter and his response was, and I paraphrase, "you think I tell dem to play dat way? I don't tell dem to play dat way. They just do it".

No coach coaches their team to suddenly play a different style when they're winning. I think it's typically a combination of the other team pushing hard to tie up the game, putting the leading team on the back foot for a period of time, and the psychological result for the individual players of the team with the lead trying to make the "smart and safe" play to maintain the lead.

 

[GlitchMarner]

I think stupidity has nothing to do with it. I think it's just basic psychology. If you are under by three goals, you are gonna be a hell lot more desperate to step on the gas pedal versus if you're leading by three. And after you let in the first goal, the fear can start creeping in. Even more so in the playoffs and high-stake games and especially for teams who have some tough memories trying to defend leads in the past.

Momentum is a real thing as well.

It can be difficult to "flip the switch" and start playing with more intensity and effort.

If a team goes into the third leading by three and starts the period relaxed and complacent, and the opposition really ramps up the effort and comes out swinging, it can be tough for the team that came in with the lead to reverse the tide of momentum. I think that's one reason we see teams that look to be in a good position get dominated for entire periods.

 

[ijuka]

I think stupidity has nothing to do with it. I think it's just basic psychology. If you are under by three goals, you are gonna be a hell lot more desperate to step on the gas pedal versus if you're leading by three. And after you let in the first goal, the fear can start creeping in. Even more so in the playoffs with what's at stake, and especially for teams who have some tough memories trying to defend leads in the past.

Stupidity has a lot to do with it, because more often than not, it's an intentional decision due to thinking that that indeed is the best way to protect a lead.

Though you see it as the chesing team stepping on the gas pedal, I see it as the leading team turning down the gas. If the chasing team was the worse team all along, there's no logical reason they should one-sidedly be able to just suddenly turn the tides. It requires co-operation from the team that initially has the lead.

And we've seen it too, when teams never let up with a lead. These matches turn out to be completely lopsided, and the chasing team never can properly even begin going for an opportunity.

Of course, it would be different if teams truly were TRYING to play actively and just couldn't due to succumbling to psychological factors, but this very rarely seems to actually be the case. They really believe that sitting back and letting the opponent do whatever they want is the way to go.

 

[NVious]

When you're behind you can afford to play looser and looser as well, the psychological pressure shifts and you're able to play freer. Whereas in tied games the psychological pressure of "don't f*** up" exists for both teams.

 

[NVious]

Stupidity has a lot to do with it, because more often than not, it's an intentional decision due to thinking that that indeed is the best way to protect a lead.

Though you see it as the chesing team stepping on the gas pedal, I see it as the leading team turning down the gas. If the chasing team was the worse team all along, there's no logical reason they should one-sidedly be able to just suddenly turn the tides. It requires co-operation from the team that initially has the lead.

And we've seen it too, when teams never let up with a lead. These matches turn out to be completely lopsided, and the chasing team never can properly even begin going for an opportunity.

Of course, it would be different if teams truly were TRYING to play actively and just couldn't due to succumbling to psychological factors, but this very rarely seems to actually be the case. They really believe that sitting back and letting the opponent do whatever they want is the way to go.

If you've ever played chess, you'll actually get to experience what pro athletes deal with in these scenarios.

When you're up a pawn or piece you're double making sure you're not blundering or doing something stupid and your opponent can afford to make the fastest/most aggressive moves because they're already down, so who cares about going down more.

It sound easy to just tell yourself to stay aggressive and be quick, but that's not how it works. Same thing happens in Hockey, everyone is out there making safer plays in a slower fashion which bodes well for the team that is behind.

To OP's point, we just notice comebacks more because who cares about Toronto/STL/Florida/Tampa/Colorado pumping their opponents 5-1, 6-2, 7-2 etc, but if a team comes back from 2-3 goals it's a big deal.

So when a team pumps the other team aka goes up and stays up massive, it's a non story
When a team comes back it's a massive story

Decision fatigue is as real as muscular fatigue and being able to stay free/loose/think well is it's own skill , how many times have we seen young teams that go on to win a cup/win many cups get completely destroyed in the years prior? Part of the learning process for all teams.

 

[Anglesmith]

Stupidity has a lot to do with it, because more often than not, it's an intentional decision due to thinking that that indeed is the best way to protect a lead.

Though you see it as the chesing team stepping on the gas pedal, I see it as the leading team turning down the gas. If the chasing team was the worse team all along, there's no logical reason they should one-sidedly be able to just suddenly turn the tides. It requires co-operation from the team that initially has the lead.

And we've seen it too, when teams never let up with a lead. These matches turn out to be completely lopsided, and the chasing team never can properly even begin going for an opportunity.

Of course, it would be different if teams truly were TRYING to play actively and just couldn't due to succumbling to psychological factors, but this very rarely seems to actually be the case. They really believe that sitting back and letting the opponent do whatever they want is the way to go.

One goal that really sticks out to me is the Zach Hyman goal that made it 5-4 in game 1. McDavid gets past his defenceman and is bringing the puck towards the net on the left wing. Doughty is in control of the space but decides to make a snow angel. His teammates let Hyman skate directly to the net without opposition. The end result is that McDavid glides down the circle and slides a tap-in across the crease. This play should never be allowed to happen 5-on-5.

It occurs to me that this play getting defended in this same way during the first period would be unheard of. It really makes me feel like the effect is more likely a result of psychology or physical fatigue: perhaps players with lower energy are looking for shortcuts where playing proper defence is more physically demanding.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

Well, yeah. When you just give up the blueline and let people walk in this is going to happen.

They get so worried about giving odd many rushes they gave up the blueline easily and give them a good chance, or... an odd man rush over like 20 feet.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

No one who has watched Kings-oilers over the last 4 years can say with a straight face it's just the players getting tired. Sure there are some dumb individual plays, but it's clearly a huge coaching choice when they go from 2 guys forechecking relentlessly to no guys crossing the redline for an entire period.

I understand the best players in the world taking the bull by the horns...this isn't that. Or just that. this is a team that plays chickenshit 'not to lose' hockey ironically losing every time.

 

[behemolari]

Safe is death. Always has been.

except in Sweden, they know how to defend lead and make opponent die on a hill crawling back, nobody else does

NHL is for entertainment and I just leave it there

 

[Elvs]

Stupidity has a lot to do with it, because more often than not, it's an intentional decision due to thinking that that indeed is the best way to protect a lead.

Based on what? Mind reading?

Teams, when trailing, will cheat on defense thus giving them an advantage on offense. Even more so if they are under by multiple goals in the third period.

Teams, when leading or being tied, will not cheat on defense. Unless we are talking about the Edmonton Oilers ...

 

[D1az]

"Defending the lead and losing" does very much sound like the Finnish national hockey team between 1990-2010. (probably earlier, but was too young to watch hockey before that)

As noted by an above poster, Swedish players are very skilled at staying calm and holding onto the lead.
Even Swedish forwards turn into Lidström-level defensemen at that stage of the game.

I think it's extremely mental, and many are probably not as skilled at playing defense as offense.
And when losing the lead and the momentum shifts they are mentally too exhausted to switch back to chase again.

 

[CupsOverCash]

I find the lead can be either a great thing or disaster depending on the team and how they handle it. Some teams if they have the lead will not give it up and are very hard to get a goal against because they trap it so well. Others like crap their pants and play loose. For another team in this league as fast and skilled they are will get it tied most times. However like in the fl series it's maybe critical to get the first goal. I know Tampa came back yesterday but it's not a guarantee against fl and they'd feel the same against us I think.

 

[McShogun99]

I remember when Jacques Lemaire coached the Wild, they used to constantly play the "protect the lead" style in the 3rd period. He was asked about it once by a reporter and his response was, and I paraphrase, "you think I tell dem to play dat way? I don't tell dem to play dat way. They just do it".

No coach coaches their team to suddenly play a different style when they're winning. I think it's typically a combination of the other team pushing hard to tie up the game, putting the leading team on the back foot for a period of time, and the psychological result for the individual players of the team with the lead trying to make the "smart and safe" play to maintain the lead.

It’s also physically and mentally impossible to play at the pace that got the team the lead, especially when you add in the other factors you mentioned like the other team pushing back hard. Near the end of games the winning teams do change up their strategy and play a more defensive style to take less risks to protect the lead though.