Those who’ve been following my coverage of the VGK over the last two seasons know about my 0-2 Theory. For new followers, the Theory is this: The next team to score in an 0-2 game will win. Last night, the Theory held true as the VGK beat the Chicago Blackhawks by a score of 4-3 with Shea Theodore’s goal in overtime.
The proof is plain and simple. Momentum plays a key element in hockey games. If the leading team scores the next goal, making it 3-0, the momentum is clearly on their side and the wind is removed from the sails of the trailing team. Having to score four goals, while giving up none, to win is asking a lot of a team at the NHL level. But if the trailing team closes the gap to just one goal, the momentum often makes a 180. The goal, and a 2-1 score, injects a positive feeling for the trailing team, at the same time setting the other team back on their heels.
Even though the Theory applies only to 2-0, Vegas actually did it twice last night, trailing by scores of 2-0 and 3-1.
It was Shea Theodore’s first goal in 20 games and those who watch the games on TV know that the VGK’s play-by-play announcer, Dave Goucher, has a golden voice, but after last night he might, in fact, also have a golden crystal ball. Just as the words “Shea Theodore hasn’t scored a goal in twenty games” were fading from the TV set, Theodore picked up the puck from Brandon Pirri, skated around and powered past Blackhawk defenseman Carl Dahlstrom (who had a tough night with a -3), and slipped the puck past Chicago goaltender Colin Delia for the winning goal and the valuable two points in the Pacific Division. Delia, playing in only his seventh game this season, has only has one regulation loss (to Calgary); his other three losses have all come in overtime.
Speaking of the Pacific Division, the top three teams are separating themselves from the other five; fourth-place Anaheim trails the last playoff spot in the Pacific Division by 14 points. Edmonton and Vancouver, fifth and sixth respectively, trail by 15 points.
The top three teams in the Pacific and Central divisions will make up six of the eight that qualify for the playoffs. Two wildcard teams will come from the entire Western Conference. Currently, both of those teams are in the Central Division, Colorado and Minnesota. Of course, there are still 35+ games to be played, but barring a complete collapse by Calgary, San Jose, or Vegas, the only way any of the other Pacific Division teams will reach the playoffs will be by earning one of the two wildcard spots.
In last night’s game, Vegas might not have played a full 60 minutes. They got a goal with just 54 seconds left in the second period when Ryan Carpenter sent them into the third with momentum, reducing a two-goal lead to one. The Knights tied the game twice in the third period, but the seemingly tying goal by Pierre- Édouard Bellemare was reviewed and disallowed for what the War Room in Toronto determined was a kicking motion.
Goals can be scored off a players skate as long as there isn’t a clear kicking motion to send the puck into the net. Its rule # 49 and it reads like this.
| Goals – Kicking the puck shall be permitted in all zones. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. | |
| A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident. The following should clarify deflections following a kicked puck that enters the goal: | |
| (i.) A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of wither team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal. | |
| (ii.) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal. Any time the puck has been kicked, makes contact with any stick, and then deflects off any player (excluding the goalkeeper) into the net, it will be ruled a good goal. | |
| (iii.) A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and the puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net. | |
| A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks any equipment (stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the blade of his own stick, causing the puck to cross the goal line. |
Watching it live, I thought it was a valid goal, and watching the replay, it still appears that it should have counted. Bellemare was in the process of slowing down as he entered the area directly in front of the net; he made no distinct kicking motion or intentionally directed the puck into the net. But the goal was overturned and the game moved on. Gallant was clearly upset and anyone who can read lips was offered a complete understanding of how Turk felt about the call.
But the hockey gods, though invisible, are present are present in every NHL arena. They’re there in case somehow, even with all this modern technology, mortals still make a mistake.
The gods loaded a goal onto the sticks of both Max Pacioretty and Paul Stastny to atone for Bellemare’s non-goal. They wanted to play it safe in case Max rang one off the post, which he did. But Stastny was johnny on the spot as the puck came off the post and he had the soft hands to knock the hip-high puck down to his feet and in one motion put it in to tie the score at 3-3, send the game into overtime, and set up Dave Goucher’s golden-crystal-ball prediction about Shea Theodore’s game-winning goal.
The VGK have beaten the Chicago Blackhawks in all six games these two teams have ever played.
Alex Tuch continues to impress with a goal and an assist to extend his point-scoring streak to nine games, a VGK record. Alex also had seven shots on goal, the game-high for both teams. Jonathan Marchessault, never shy about shooting, was second with six.
A play that might have gone unnoticed was right before the OT winning goal when Nate Schmidt deflected Brandon Saad’s shot on Fleury on a 2-on-1 when the Blackhawks caught William Karlsson flat-footed. Wild Bill was headed to the bench for a change, then decided to get back into the play, but he was beat and Nate saved the day. Stastny won the ensuing faceoff to the right of Fleury and Pirri sent Shea in for the dramatic winning goal. Why Pirri wasn’t awarded an assist on this goal is baffling.
Yes, Brandon Pirri played the dreaded 10th game with Vegas and can no longer be returned to the Chicago Wolves without clearing waivers. He’s played well enough to force GM George McPhee to gamble a bit when all the injured players return to the lineup and someone has to be sent down and hopefully clears waivers.
Good for Pirri. He’s earned this after being shuffled around the league from 2010 to 2017, with 226 games played in the NHL on Chicago, Florida, Anaheim, the New York Rangers, and Vegas. He played two games last year with the VGK and scored three goals; in his 10 games this season, he has seven goals and four assists. In his VGK career of 12 games, he has 10 goals and four assists. It’s a problem for GM GM, but a good kind of problem.
And the following adds another dimension to the situation. Players on loan to an affiliated league may be recalled without waivers under emergency conditions, established when injury, illness, or suspensions result in the availability of fewer than two goalkeepers, six defensemen, and 12 forwards. Players recalled under emergency conditions must be returned as soon as the emergency is over.
For purposes of determining emergency conditions, players at the trade deadline are considered to be on loan for the remainder of the season and playoffs, even if the minor league club’s season is finished.
If Pirri is considered an emergency callup his waiver status may still allow him to remain with the club beyond the 10 games. I haven’t been able to confirm if Pirri is in fact still on the roster under an emergency callup. Thursday he was sent back down to Chicago Wolves, then approximately 90 minutes later, he was recalled. It was a paper move that might have been utilized just to protect Pirri from going beyond the 10-game threshold.
The VGK power play continues to struggle, going 0-2 in last night’s game. When this is fixed and it will be, the VGK will be a team to fear. Not that they aren’t already, but if their power play is clicking, how will opposing teams counter their speed? Trying to slow them down by holding and hooking will be a dangerous game plan.
My 3 Stars of the Game: Alex Tuch (1 goal, 1 assist, 7 SOG), Shea Theodore (game winner in OT), Alex DeBrincat (2 goals that kept Chicago in the game)
The next game is Tuesday Jan 15 vs. the Jets in Winnipeg at 5 p.m., a Western Conference Finals rematch.
Your comments and opinions are welcome and appreciated here at Las Vegas Advisor (to comment, you just have to register on the site, which takes all of 30 seconds and is free, of course). You can also contact me directly at [email protected] or visit my Facebook page, Vegas Hockey Guy.
And for the most comprehensive coverage of the Vegas Golden Knights’ historic inaugural season, take a look at our book Vegas Golden Knights—How a First-Year Expansion Team Healed Las Vegas and Shocked the Hockey World.

Never miss another post
A comment I received
Joe, one of the guys at work has a similar theory about the Wings. He says if the Wings get up by 2 goals they are going to lose. I’ll be damned, every time I turn on a game and they are up by 2 we lose. Maybe we just have a shity defense. One of the two for sure tho.
John it’s uncanny how this theory seems to always come true
A comment I received.
Excellent review of the game. 👍🤠❤️🏒
The “theory” is nonsense. I’d be willing to bet my left testicle that if a team trails 2-0 and then scores, it still loses the majority of the time. And of course, if a team is already ahead 2-0, it will probably win, so winning after making it 3-0 wouldn’t actually significantly increase its winning chances–maybe from .800 to .900.
So the basis for the “theory” is that when the score is 2-0, an additional score for the team that is ahead doesn’t increase its winning chances by all that much, while a score for the team that is behind significantly increases its winning chances. The flaw in the logic is that in a 2-0 game, the team that scores the next goal is more likely than not to be the team that is already ahead. The team that is ahead is, all other things being equal, probably the better team and is more likely to score the next goal. That makes it that much more likely that the team that scores that goal is the team that is already up 2-0, and thus, the team that scores that third goal is indeed likely to win.
But tell ya what. Next time there’s a game where the team trailing 2-0 scores a goal to make it 2-1, phone me up and I’ll take your bet on the trailing team. Heck, I’ll even give you 6-5! (And no fair avoiding games where there are only two minutes left to play when the goal that makes it 2-1 is scored!!!)
Kevin just to be clear you do still have your right testicle because I wouldn’t want to leave you with none.
You want the bet? You’d have to put up something of your own, of course.
A proper statement of the so-called 0-2 theory would be:
If the score is 2-0 and another goal is scored:
1. The team that is now down 2-1 will probably lose.’
2. The team that is now up 3-0 will probably win.
I think that only an idiot would dispute either contention. We could restate it as, “the team that’s ahead will probably win.” I’m sure that could be tested with the mountain of sports data that is available.
A comment submitted to me
Awesome review! Love reading your thoughts and analyses
Comment from a reader
Thanks for the article and explanations!