No, I never claimed that, the point isn't that they are different, it's that they were *so* different for an extended period of time before dropping back to being very close for the majority of the season.
The peak before the drop is 17%. And after the so-called "regression" there is a 13% peak.
In fact, them being at similar points seems to be the rarer occurrence. There is a sizeable gap for a long stretch both before and after the supposed regression.
It's not unusual. What's unusual is for a team to be able to maintain it (which the Leafs didn't) thus it appears to be good evidence that they regressed. Teams get hot and get lucky for stretches, but teams haven't sustained these numbers over a season long basis
Well of course nobody is going to sustain their peak over an entire season. No Leaf fan was saying that we were going to win 75% of our games this season. That is why it is a peak. It is the very definition. You said yourself that it is a season of highs and lows, and that is what the graph shows.
Sustainability in hockey is not keeping everything exactly the same for every game all season. That is impossible. There are too many ever-changing variables. It is about having a combination of highs and lows that together consistently result in a good record over the course of a season.
Leafs had elite stretches of play near the beginning of the season and around the halfway mark of the season. Our worst stretch came in between, when a lot of other impeding variables were present. Our position in the Eastern conference has held relatively stable as well. That is not evidence of regression.
Except that *both* teams have a chance to win in 5v5 close games so you'd expect the other team would be playing good as well. Close refers to games within 1 goal, so it's not as if the generic EV data is just adding in 5 goal blowout games. Either way, it seems strange for a team to willingly play significantly worse during *any* game, regardless of the score.
Both teams have a chance to win, but if one already has the lead, they don`t need to do as much. And when the Leafs hold the lead in the 3rd, even in 1-goal games, they DON'T do as much. The system completely changes, and nearly all offensive pressure aside from counter-attacks stops.
On the other side of the coin, when we are trying to gain hold of a lead, we can be downright dominating.
It may seem strange that such gigantic swings can take place based on the score, but it is in fact very common to see, and even more common than average for the Leafs. That is what happens when you have a league full of parity that relies heavily on momentum, and a team that changes strategy based on situation.
And actually yes, the generic EV data WOULD be adding in a lot of blowout games for the Leafs.
The point is that the shots for differential between 5v5close and generic EV isn't different by very much, which indicates that the style of play didn't change all that much. Unless your claim is that for most of the game in a 5v5close game the Leafs have a better shot differential but the game long numbers (even 5v5close) are hurt because we go into a shell at the end of games? In that case, I think you're dramatically over estimating the effect at the end of close games.
That is a pretty huge assumption to say that because the shots for differential remains similar, that means that style of play doesn't change. Style of play changes A LOT. It is also quite a stretch to assume that teams play the same in all scenarios of close games, regardless of down by 1, tied, or up by one.
I think you are dramatically
underestimating the shell that the Leafs go in. It is not uncommon for the entire final shot differential for the game to be caused by a single period of play.
That's exactly the point. In generic EV situations, the goals for rate never gets above 20% by any significant amount. However in close situations, which end up having the biggest impact on points earned, it was frequently above 20 and always above 15 for a stretch of 20-25 games.
Both show extended stretches above the shot lines, with the close situations line going below or above the All EV situations line at different times.
20% isn't some magic number. The point is that generic EV scoring rate and 5v5close scoring rate should be fairly close. Even if you want to argue that 5v5close should be higher because for some reason the Leafs try harder and actually play when a game is close (but their opponents don't) having it so much higher for a 20 game stretch, but not for the other 50 games on record indicates that there's at least a portion of luck involved and luck is, by definition, not sustainable.
Except it is NOT so much different for the other 50 games.
I could argue just as easily that it is so much lower for the 20 game stretch in the middle, which is not consistent with the other 50 games.
You have given no proof to support the assertion that EV scoring rate and 5v5 close scoring rate should be fairly close, is fairly close for all other teams in the league. And this would be going under the incorrect assumption that we play like the rest of the league anyway.