Has Craig Anderson's play made one-year Senate Reform possible?

by Mark Parisi on Jun 20, 2011 7:00 AM EDT in Analysis

Earlier this month, we looked at the suggestion that if the Ottawa Senators were truly committed to a goal of long-term success, they needed to consider trading Jason Spezza--and the case against making that move. . The reaction to the suggestion of moving Ottawa's best player was predictably emotional, and most of the arguments for keeping him centered on the benefits his intangible qualities brought to the team. Given that intangibles are inherently unquantifiable, this made for a dubious argument of opinion.

Perhaps it was because the suggestion was so emotional that the original hypothesis -- the length of time of an average NHL rebuild wasted Spezza's best remaining years on uncompetitive teams -- and supporting facts were sometimes clouded in dissenting opinions. While Adnan was gracious enough base his compelling counter-argument on the same facts as my original hypothesis, I found it surprising that no one else actually asked the same question I asked while compiling data: "What if the Senators are closer returning to the playoffs than the average indicates?"

There are reasons to believe they are, and they begin with the team's goaltender, Craig Anderson.

Anderson, as fans know, started his Senators career with a 47-save shutout masterpiece against Toronto. He went on to post an 11-5-1 record, including another shutout, a .938 save percentage and a 2.05 GAA for the rest of the year. While achieving these numbers over an entire season isn't unreasonable -- Tim Thomas posted very similar ones this year -- I felt that expecting the same level of outstanding play we saw in a short audition to sustain itself was. We can't deny the possibility that Anderson might be that excellent for a whole year, but it's more likely his play will slip a little bit, simply based on the law of averages.

That meant finding a different criteria to evaluate Anderson's impact on the team. Save percentage is generally agreed upon as the best indicator of a goalie's play, but I wasn't interested in how great Anderson was individually; I was looking for a way to determine if he was making a impact for the team. With this in mind, I chose goal differential by period as my method of evaluation. It was chosen for simplicity --literally, is the goalie giving his team a chance to win? If the score is even or Ottawa is ahead, that's a reasonable shot at winning. If Ottawa is behind or the goalie has been pulled, they haven't given their team a good chance to win the game.

As was the case with the Spezza article, the following numbers are not intended to make a definitive statement about Ottawa's goaltender play for the 2010-11 season. For instance, they do not take into account the way goals were scored -- so a 5-on-3 back door, no-chance goal is weighted the same as a softie from the red line. They are also not normalized based on sample size. In addition, empty net goals were not counted against the goalies, but empty net goals for the Senators were counted in their favor, and goals scored before or after a goalie was pulled were not counted against them.Consider these stats as a rough, simplified look at goalie impact.

The Stats

Because it would be meaningless to only look at Anderson's numbers (what would we be comparing him to?), I compiled the same numbers for all six goalies that saw time in between the pipes for the Senators this year. I then then averaged them to get a general sense of whether a goalie was more or less likely to have his team behind in any given period. I then put the averages side by side for easy comparison. Since the assumption is a goal deficit (pessimistic, huh?) the higher a number is, the worse it is.

So, in the words of the Joker's surgeon, let's see how we did:

Deficit_by_period_medium

Some observations:

Lehner appears to be the goalie giving the Senators the best chance of winning, but he fades terribly in the third period. This is probably the best proof both that he needs more seasoning and of his potential.
All of the magic of Mike Brodeur is gone. He can't be considered an NHL-level goaltender.
Leclaire's teams start out behind and fall further behind. He's not the goalie you mount a comeback on.
Elliott is not as bad statistically as we would think. While his deficit average is always small, it's always always positive, meaning with Elliott in net, you're more likely to be playing from behind at any given point in a game.
Anderson, on the other hand, seemed to improve as the game went on. The slight deficit he has in first periods is erased by the second period, and massively eclipsed by the third period. This means that Anderson is the best choice to give his team a chance to win, regardless of the score.

So, we see on average, Anderson was the goalie that best gave the Senators a chance to win last year. It's interesting to note that McElhinny was the second-best option, though again, small sample size must be stressed here.

Now that we have an idea of how the goaltenders fared on average, let's look at what that means in terms of percentage. What do these averages tell us about frequency, anyway? It's great that Anderson gave the Senators the best chance to win, but how often did that happen? Obviously we know from his record that it happened more often than not, but I was more interested in a breakdown by period. Here's how all our goalies looked.

First, the old guard:

Some observations

Interestingly enough, Leclaire's percentages by period tell a much different story than his average. In about two thirds of his starts, the Senators had a chance to win the game going into the third period. That they did not would appear to be more an indictment of the team rather than the goaltender except that Anderson, as we'll see, posts similar numbers without the crushing third periods. Still, there's enough here to at least consider the possibility that talent isn't Leclaire's problem.
Elliott's numbers fade as the game goes on, to the point where he's practically a 50/50 split in the third. Combined with his positive goal-deficit average, it's reasonable to conclude that when the Senators got down with Elliott, it was often by more than one goal. That's ugly to think about, because it means the team was either eking out wins or getting blown out.
Not Martin is not quite as terrible as his onslaught of red indicates. Remember that sample size is a factor here, and he saw very limited action this year -- he just wasn't any good when he did

Now, the replacements:

Observations:

Here, we see that almost 75% of the time, Anderson's teams left the first period tied or up, and they converted that into a lead almost half the time after two periods. However, unlike Leclaire, Anderson was able to make those leads stick. The Senators eared a point in ~63% (any rallies after he was pulled aren't reflected in these stats) of his games, compared with a measly 39% for Leclaire.
McElhinny was a pretty decent backup.
Lehner was unsurprisingly erratic.

I skipped the pretty pictures, what does it all mean?

The bottom line is that Anderson was not just spectacular last season, but that he consistently gave his team a chance to win. Given that opportunity, we saw the same Senators team that was mired in a battle with Edmonton for last place suddenly able to post wins over playoff-bound teams like the Washington Capitals, Philadelphia Flyers, and Montreal Canadiens.

What it does not mean, however, is that all of the team's problems have been solved.

Why?

Most importantly, the numbers tell us that when Anderson was not on his game, he was almost as bad as Elliott. Consider that despite being even or tied 75% of the time after one period, his average goal deficit was positive. In other words, despite being down just 25% of the time, the Senators were down by such a large margin that it outweighed the even and up pieces -- even though they were three times as likely to occur! Translation: When Anderson is bad, he gets shellacked. I'm willing to bet Colorado fans will support this claim.

Given that we expect Anderson's play to slide back towards more average numbers, that fact must give us pause before we declare the Senators to be back in playoff contention next year on Anderson's play alone. If the Senators find themselves down in a game and Anderson isn't spectacular, do they have the talent to come back on their own? If the Senators find themselves in a wild shootout, do they have the skill to keep pace?

The answer to both these questions is unfortunately obvious: No.

Reasons for optimisim

With a plethora of rookies joining the team and dearth of scoring talent next year, it's sadly easy to envision the team in one of those two scenarios frequently next year, and though the results won't be as ugly as they were last season, they won't be pretty, either.

But in 2012-13, the combination of rookies having one more year of experience, this year's top picks possibly being ready to contribute, a strong free agent market, and the shedding of some of last season's dead weight tells a different story.

If Anderson can give a roster that's about to get pretty decent influx of talent the same consistent chance to win, the Senators could very well be returning to the playoffs sooner than most expect.

Tweet Comment 40 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

As much as I tend toward optimism...

there would need to be some pretty serious wheeling and dealing to bring this team to contender status and not just eking out a play-off spot, imo. The comparison to Tim Thomas/Boston is an interesting one. I don’t believe we have the depth/character on our team yet to make a run similar to what Boston did. Thomas was undoubtedly their best player. But, if not for Peverley, Kelly, Seidenberg, et al. (i.e. players they picked up in the last 1.5 yrs) Boston doesn’t get it done, especially after losing Horton.

Maybe if our team is competing way beyond expectations leading up to the trade deadline Murray stocks up on those types of guys (I think we would have the cap room). It would be a team turn-around for the ages though. I’m not saying it’s impossible as we have some premier players on our roster (Spezza, Anderson-maybe, Karlsson, Gonchar) but the odds are certainly against us.

by west-sider on Jun 20, 2011 7:31 AM EDT reply actions

Yeah, the Thomas numbers were really interesting to me when they came up

But it’s worth noting that Thomas’s numbers this season weren’t routine; he set an NHL record for save percentage (thanks to Ottawa). It’s just not realistic to expect record-setting play from anyone.

Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs

by Mark Parisi on Jun 20, 2011 8:41 AM EDT up reply actions

Plus with Boston, it's not just a case of being terrible one year then better the next

They were in the Eastern Finals last year and were up 3-0. Sure, they then went out and blew that series, but they were there. Then they assessed their weaknesses, played well the next year, and then added a couple more pieces that aided them in the Cup run.

Sens can’t expect that same sort of success and have fallen off the boat for up to three years after their own successes of Eastern Finals in 03 and Cup finals in 07

A Goal Horn Haiku

Hoooonk hoooonk honk honk hooooonk
That's the sound the train horn makes
Suck it, Toronto

by Nightbreak on Jun 20, 2011 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions

One year reform VERY unlikely

If we expect Anderson to be a magician every night, then that is IMO an upset waiting to happen… particularly with a developing defence behind him, not to mention alot of young forwards learning new systems.

So many things would have to be right for a one year reform, not the least of which is filling the scoresheet, because you cannot win every game 1-0 or 2 – 1. Four of five unexpected players would have to have knock-your-socks-off kind of years.

I’d rather look at it as this year is for development, and next year when we find out who fits into this new Sens mold, and who gets brought is, then with the maturing of some of the young guns, we may be ready to be moving towards being a playoff team.

by Marvellous on Jun 20, 2011 7:46 AM EDT reply actions

I think you're confused

This year is year one of Senate Reform. A one-year rebuild would mean a return to the playoffs in 2012-13.

Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs

by Mark Parisi on Jun 20, 2011 8:44 AM EDT up reply actions

Exciting times

OK a one year return to the playoffs in 2012 is a good thing to optomistically hope for.

I think that it would be a mistake to assume that players will continue to perform exactly as they have performed. A new coach brings changing roles which will motivate some players to excel and suppress others who don’t like their new role or whatever. Players like Regin and Foligno, and even Lee may blossom (if they aren’t traded away)… we never know.

With so many unknowns including what prospects will be added, these are exciting times. Bring it on.

by Marvellous on Jun 20, 2011 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, there's too many unknowns to say for sure

The only thing I think we can say is that if Anderson is able to provide consistent above-average goaltending, he’ll give a good, young team the chance to make the playoffs. It remains incumbent on the team to actually perform.

Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs

by Mark Parisi on Jun 20, 2011 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions

Best I think we can hope for in the short term is becoming like that Colorado team that played well a couple of seasons ago, eked into the playoffs and went out in the 1st round. I say best we can hope for because, like that Colorado team, everyone will probably pick Ottawa to finish near the bottom of the league, and they might surprise. That team also had a few vets – Hejduk, Foote – and some young talent – Duschene, Stastny. Hopefully we won’t find ourselves in the same situation a year or two from now where expectations are raised and the GM starts pulling off huge trades to try and get back to bubble team mode.

by Varada on Jun 20, 2011 9:24 AM EDT reply actions

Agreed

It would be a big mistake to cease a methodically planned rebuild for something more radical the minute it starts showing results.

Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs

by Mark Parisi on Jun 20, 2011 9:38 AM EDT up reply actions

I floated this exact theory in a Fanpost a few weeks ago

modsuperstar dot ca | SlideawayMedia

by modsuperstar on Jun 20, 2011 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions

Weird, the link didn't show up

Link

modsuperstar dot ca | SlideawayMedia

by modsuperstar on Jun 20, 2011 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions

it's all in the intangibles

I agree with your point that given the play of the team, it looks like a quick turnaround could be possible, but I also agree with you that it is a small sample size. But the stat you use here is a team stat. It does not measure the performance of a goalie except a a part of a team. The only way you could make any pronouncements about a goalie in this case is if nothing else was different in the team from goalie to goalie. No difference in roster, time of year, etc. The result of the last part f the season was much more than the goalie. This is why BOTH Anderson and his back-up had similarly good numbers. This to me is a clear example of how using quantifiable statistics can result in more “dubious” arguments than informed discussions of intangibles. The big question from the end of last year can only be addressed in intangibles – was the team as a whole really that good, or did they just play that way for some intangible reason?

by timac on Jun 20, 2011 10:40 AM EDT reply actions

You're right, it is a team stat

After all, I was trying to quantify Anderson’s impact on the team, not his individual play.

As for your big question, I completely agree. I think we’ll get a sense of the answer in this upcoming season. If they’re not as good as they appeared, good goaltending probably won’t be enough to make up the difference.

Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs

by Mark Parisi on Jun 20, 2011 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions

Great post Mark and very good point timac...

There are many things to take into consideration for the end of the year performance such as no pressure because the team already bombed, the young players auditioning real hard, the fans being very supportive and excited about this reform, and so on. All these are intangibles that I am sure had an impact on the team’s end of year play and Anderson’s for that matter.

Will these carry on to the next year? Will Alfie return foully healthy to provide his plethora of intangibles? It may turn out that the team is as good for him as he is good for the team.

by Los Blancos Chicca on Jun 20, 2011 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions

We can all agree that we hope Alfie returns foully healthy

and plays disgustingly great.

Space for rent.

by awr.campbell on Jun 21, 2011 2:03 AM EDT up reply actions

I am super optimistic

And some would say crazy.

But yeah, I am not even discounting the playoffs for the upcoming season. While a lot of things have to go right relative to last season, you also have to say that last season a lot of things went wrong relative to the year before.

We don’t need Anderson to have .930 save %, but if he is around 2.5 GAA and .915 save % and Spezza is a point/game, then we could be in the neighbourhood. Of course, there are a lot of other factors to consider. But still, making the playoffs is not hard, more than half the teams do it. Now becoming a contender again, that’s a different story. Still, I feel we are on the right track.

The one thing I don’t want to see us do is trade a draft pick if we are in 10th place at the deadline. Go with a young roster and see where it takes you without sacrificing future.

An Ottawa Senators supporter in Toronto, Ontario. I am cool like that.

by Adnan on Jun 20, 2011 1:02 PM EDT reply actions

I agree

While I won’t expect a return to the playoffs, it has a reasonable shot of happening. We’ll have a young team, but we’ll still have some talent and leadership from Spezza, Alfredsson, Karlsson, Gonchar, etc. We’ve seen teams like this squeeze into 7th or 8th in recent years (LA, St. Louis, Colorado).
If that does end up happening, Murray could then add some free agents in the summer and start turning us back into a condender!

by Sports Fan! on Jun 20, 2011 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Good analysis on the stats by the way!

by Sports Fan! on Jun 20, 2011 1:32 PM EDT reply actions

Great piece

I don’t think the Senators will make the playoffs next season, but I don’t expect them to have the completely awful year they had this year. I hope not, at least.

Silver Seven: the Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators blogs.

by DarrenM on Jun 20, 2011 1:54 PM EDT reply actions

Thanks, man

I’m in the same boat. I can’t see a way for them to make the playoffs this year, but I do see reasons for optimism.

Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs

by Mark Parisi on Jun 20, 2011 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions

I can see a way

I wouldn’t go so far as to predict it as a likelihood, but I could see it happening.

Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay

by Peter Raaymakers on Jun 20, 2011 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions

In a league where more than 50% of the teams make the playoffs, pretty much anything is possible in terms of who gets in and who doesn’t. There are always going to be situations like Colorado a couple of years ago where everyone is picking a team to finish at the bottom of the conference and then, somehow, they make it in.

I think it cheapens the NHL’s regular season.

by dzuunmod on Jun 23, 2011 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions

I disagree with the method of analysis

A goalie can’t control his goal support. Ottawa’s goal support was abysmal, and very inconsistent this year. That, combined with the small sample sizes, plays havoc with your numbers. Besides, I think it’s wrong to evaluate a goalie based significantly off of the performance of his teammates. If you were to do an analysis like that of Ottawa’s past goaltenders, Patrick Lalime would’ve likely come out on top. And not because he’s a particularly good goalie. Similarly, other mediocre-to-good goaltenders with better goal support would dust the pre-lockout Luongos, the Vokouns, the early Haseks, etc. who play phenomenally but get no support.

Do I think Ottawa can turn it around? It’s going to take more than Anderson. He’s not Hasek. It’s going to require a full team renaissance if spring hockey’s going to be held in the nation’s capital next year.

by TheGuineaPig on Jun 20, 2011 2:21 PM EDT reply actions

Interesting

I suppose the question becomes, “Which factor affected the numbers more?”

If the Senators’ goal support was abysmal (and let’s face it, it was) for the whole season, wouldn’t that indicate that Anderson was a primary factor in the team’s success during his starts (i.e. the team was winning despite abysmal goal support)? That seems like a logical conclusion to me.

Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs

by Mark Parisi on Jun 20, 2011 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't think it's wrong to conclude that Anderson was a huge part of the late-season surge

But I think your methodology is not the way to go about doing it. A large part of it is the sample size; that’s clear enough in Lehner’s results. Secondly, the team changed so significantly over the course of the year that it got to the point where you might as well be comparing goalies from different years.

You could point out that his goal support (2.6 G/game) was only slightly better than the support other Ottawa tenders received, but his winning percentage was much higher. You could point to the how his play compared to Ottawa’s win threshold. You could point to the number of games Ottawa won when scoring less than 3 goals (5).

Or you could just contextualize how great the numbers he put up in Ottawa were.

by TheGuineaPig on Jun 20, 2011 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions

This is a totally fair criticism

I wanted to stay away from things like winning percentage, because all that shows is that he won more games than he lost. I felt goal deficit was the easiest way to illustrate his impact on the team. It’s certainly not the only way to examine it.

Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs

by Mark Parisi on Jun 21, 2011 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions

Why the hate on Lalime? The Dude gave us some pretty solid goaltending for the time he was here and he gets zero respect. All everyone remembers is that crummy Niewendyk goal in game 7, but forgets he backstopped us to within 1 game of a Stanley Cup appearance the year before, losing to future hall of famer Marty Brodeur. In fact, if you look back at all the series losses he took as a Senator you’ll notice he lost each time to a future Hall of Famer (Joseph x2, Belfour, Brodeur). He was a great goalie, but obviously didn’t have that last gear that separates the good goalies from the great goalies.

modsuperstar dot ca | SlideawayMedia

by modsuperstar on Jun 20, 2011 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions

He wasn't a great goalie

You don’t get points for being average. And that’s what he was. The pre-lockout Sens teams were year after year among the best of the best. He was the Osgood. Or the Turek. Or dare I say it, the Brodeur.

And the funny thing is, you’re right that he gets no respect for his playoff performances. Which is ironic, considering he played a lot better in the playoffs than in the regular season. That game seven casts a long shadow, but the fact is that Ottawa’s offence sputtered every year in the post-season (they literally averaged a goal a game less in the playoffs from 2000-04). I don’t think Lalime is to blame for the playoff failures.

Though, I suppose it could be argued that if Lalime had been better in the regular season Ottawa would’ve won the conference, and perhaps the President’s Trophy, considering how good the rest of the team was.

by TheGuineaPig on Jun 20, 2011 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions

He wasn't great, but he was better than people remember

Not sure if his reputation will ever recover from that game seven meltdown, but you’re right, he had some good times—in fact, many more good times than bad.

Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay

by Peter Raaymakers on Jun 20, 2011 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions

No one remembers that series against Philly

Where he let in 2 goals in 5 games, when Ottawa was the 7th seed.

by TheGuineaPig on Jun 20, 2011 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions

Whoops, that list line should have said he was a good goalie, not a great goalie. My bad.

There was a spell after his 00-01 season that he was in the conversation to be the #3 goalie for Team Canada at the Olympics. Obviously didn’t happen after his so-so 01-02 season, but he was one of the guys being considered behind Joseph and Brodeur.

modsuperstar dot ca | SlideawayMedia

by modsuperstar on Jun 20, 2011 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions

He in no way deserved that

Belfour, obviously deserved to be above him. Then I would’ve taken all of Sean Burke, Mike Dunham, Manny Fernandez, and Ron Tugnutt above him, and that’s just off the top of my head.

by TheGuineaPig on Jun 21, 2011 7:30 AM EDT up reply actions

Awesome post

Some great analysis in here.

One quick note: The Senate Reform, in my opinion, started long ago. I’d argue it started with the 2009 NHL Entry Draft, when the Senators identified a need to re-stock the prospect cupboards and hold on to (most of) their draft picks in order to do so.

Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay

by Peter Raaymakers on Jun 20, 2011 3:45 PM EDT reply actions

How many teams were taking the late 2011 season Sens serious? I’m pretty sure that not too many teams did. One of the better indicators whether your opponent takes you serious or not is the opponents goalie. Let’s look at them starting with the Leafs: (+ serious/ – not serious)

Feb 19, W, +, Reimer emerged as the #1 G for Toronto.
Feb 23, W, -, FLA started back-up. How does that game end with Vokoun in net?
Feb 25, L, +, Miller was in net
Feb 26, W, +, Boucher emerged as the starter towards the final games
Mar 01, L, -, Rask in net
Mar 03, W, -, Back-up Mason got the nod
Mar 04, L, +, Henke in goal for NYR
Mar 08, W, +, Future Hall of Famer in net
Mar 10, W, +, This time Vokoun was between the pipes
Mar 13, L, -, Enroth over Miller
Mar 15, L, -, Back-up played
Mar 24, W, +, Again Henke
Mar 25, W, -, Varlamov wasn’t and didn’t play in the PO
Mar 27, L, -, Atlanta again with Mason
Mar 31, W, -, Clemenson for FLO
Apr 02, L, +, Reimer starts
Apr 05, W, -, Bobrovsk counts as a back up here
Apr 07, W, -, Auld in net instead of Price

How many wins did Anderson have when he faced the other teams #1 goalie: 5

How many wins did Anderson have when he faced the other teams back-up: 6

How many losses did Anderson have when he faced the other teams #1 goalie: 3

How many losses did Anderson have when he faced the other teams back-up: 4

Next season, Anderson will start as #1 against most teams #1 goalies and based on the numbers above, I expect that his performance will slip. This raises the question whether Colorado rise to the top of the division in first half of 2009-10 can be attributed to a massive underestimation (similar to Ottawa this season) of Anderson and his Avs. The struggles of the Avs this season must coincide with an improved recognition of Anderson and his team. I expect a similar fate for him and the Sens in 2011-12.

Based on this, I don’t expect any miracles for next year. A Top3 finish for the 2012 draft isn’t totally out of question.

by Acer9 on Jun 21, 2011 9:17 AM EDT reply actions

Nice analysis!

I’m not expecting any miracles next year, either. It’s 2012-13 where I think our chances start to take a turn for the better.

Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs

by Mark Parisi on Jun 21, 2011 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions

These are good points

But less a reflection of Anderson’s play then that of the team. It’s not as though Anderson is shooting on the opposition’s back-up, after all… he’s just playing against him. And it’s not like he allowed lots of goals, but won games against opposition back-ups because the Sens outgunned them; the Sens can’t really outgun anyone, can they?

You point is valid and well-taken, but I don’t necessarily think it disqualifies Anderson from playing well in games against whatever goalie’s in the other net.

Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay

by Peter Raaymakers on Jun 21, 2011 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions

I should also point out

That Ottawa’s goal support (at 2.6 goals/game) was only a sliver above their season total (2.3 goals/game), so it’s hard to say for certain whether playing against a higher number of backups would’ve greatly affected Ottawa’s record for that period.

And as Peter points out, that doesn’t affect the way Anderson played at all.

by TheGuineaPig on Jun 21, 2011 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions