Who wins the first game of the regular season: Leafs or Jets?

[kelsier]

I think 19 year old Laine will be a lot different than 18 year old Laine. This has to be their year.

Absolutely. First healthy off-season since..? He was on pace for 40 goals despite not being physically overly ready at the rookie year. I do expect Laine to look a whole a lot different this season and a lot more explosive. Add that with hopefully improved PP usage and who knows where that leads.

As for Jets, they have a stronger team on the paper while the Leafs have far superior coaching and a good core as well, so it's going to be interesting match-up, not only based on the debut but seasonally speaking. But you are right, this has to be the year. At least no one can claim Maurice hasn't been given the keys to success.

 

[Whileee]

I think 19 year old Laine will be a lot different than 18 year old Laine. This has to be their year.

I also think Connor is ready to burst onto the NHL scene and add to the Jets' firepower. Remember when Connor was "scrawny"?

Not so much anymore....



He tore up the AHL in the second half of last season and looked dynamic in a late-season game with the Jets.

 

[Kamiccolo]

You are making up a narrative to try to explain a lot of injury luck. The Leafs have plenty of players with injury histories, as I pointed out. Pretending that having so few injuries was due to good management is just hopeful. Let's see if their injury luck holds out next season.

P.S. The Leafs had the 2nd highest injury toll in 2015/16 (based on cap hit), and the 2nd lowest in 2016/17. Did they turn it all around over one season?

Convenient how they tanked that year when the context implies a negative for the Leafs, but then it's flipped to "they were injured a lot" which is EXACTLY what many fans said LAST offseason.

By the way, can you explain how just because they were "lucky" with injuries this year, means they will be decimated with injuries next year? Why would it not regress to the middle? Why not imply they probably lose random guys for a week or two for freak injuries, probably lose Bozak for a few weeks, maybe lose this guy or that?

That is more realistic than the entire core of Toronto being nailed by every imaginable injury like some imply is the reality.

Love the built in excuses. They can win a cup 3 years in a row and some on here would find excuses to discredit it all.

 

[Whileee]

Convenient how they tanked that year when the context implies a negative for the Leafs, but then it's flipped to "they were injured a lot" which is EXACTLY what many fans said LAST offseason.

By the way, can you explain how just because they were "lucky" with injuries this year, means they will be decimated with injuries next year? Why would it not regress to the middle? Why not imply they probably lose random guys for a week or two for freak injuries, probably lose Bozak for a few weeks, maybe lose this guy or that?

That is more realistic than the entire core of Toronto being nailed by every imaginable injury like some imply is the reality.

Love the built in excuses. They can win a cup 3 years in a row and some on here would find excuses to discredit it all.

Find one remark that suggested that the Leafs would be "decimated with injuries" or "nailed by every imaginable injury". Those are just your exaggerations for some sort of rhetorical purpose.

The point is that last season the Jets had an unusually large number of injuries (just like Tampa Bay) and the Leafs had an unusually low number of injuries (like the Caps, Blue Jackets and Flames). I think it's reasonable to assume that last season's huge injury gap between the Jets and Leafs contributed to the difference in performance, and that the injury gap between the two teams is most likely to narrow this year, based on probabilities. Those aren't "excuses", they are well-founded opinions. If you would like to refute the opinions, provide evidence that injuries don't affect team performance and some research or data to support the notion that we should expect the huge gap in injuries between the Jets and Leafs to persist in the future.

 

[Kamiccolo]

Find one remark that suggested that the Leafs would be "decimated with injuries" or "nailed by every imaginable injury". Those are just your exaggerations for some sort of rhetorical purpose.

The point is that last season the Jets had an unusually large number of injuries (just like Tampa Bay) and the Leafs had an unusually low number of injuries (like the Caps, Blue Jackets and Flames). I think it's reasonable to assume that last season's huge injury gap between the Jets and Leafs contributed to the difference in performance, and that the injury gap between the two teams is most likely to narrow this year, based on probabilities. Those aren't "excuses", they are well-founded opinions. If you would like to refute the opinions, provide evidence that injuries don't affect team performance and some research or data to support the notion that we should expect the huge gap in injuries between the Jets and Leafs to persist in the future.

Someone tried that and you decided to ignore it. Leafs have one of the most heavily invested sports science departments in the NHL, if not the best. Jets have players who every single year are injured. Those players can realistically be expected to get injured again this year.

Just like Bozak and Kadri probably miss some games next year. The issue is, the Jets lost a lot depth players, yet you assume the Leafs will lose their core players. Sheif and Laine did not miss significant time. I'd argue that Andersen coming back from injury and missing camp and being declared the worst goalie in the NHL after 4 games last year and then him getting a concussion leading to the playoffs equals out Laine missing those games.

Besides, Leafs have the depth to over come injuries.

 

[Whileee]

Someone tried that and you decided to ignore it. Leafs have one of the most heavily invested sports science departments in the NHL, if not the best. Jets have players who every single year are injured. Those players can realistically be expected to get injured again this year.

Just like Bozak and Kadri probably miss some games next year. The issue is, the Jets lost a lot depth players, yet you assume the Leafs will lose their core players. Sheif and Laine did not miss significant time. I'd argue that Andersen coming back from injury and missing camp and being declared the worst goalie in the NHL after 4 games last year and then him getting a concussion leading to the playoffs equals out Laine missing those games.

Besides, Leafs have the depth to over come injuries.

I didn't ignore it. I am looking for actual data that shows that these sorts of investments and methods actually make a huge difference to injury rates. Do you have any of that evidence to share with us?

I am not making any claims about who will be injured on either team. I am suggesting that it is more probable than not that the huge discrepancy in significant injuries last season will be narrowed this season, with an impact on their relative performance.

Little, Perreault, Myers, Trouba, Enstrom - those are not "depth players".

It's ludicrous to think that you can accurately predict who will and who will not be injured.

The Jets also have very good depth.

 

[Mugzy97]

Not sure why people are so stuck on this and want it to keep happening to the kid. He might have learned a valuable lesson here.

I don't want it to happen to anybody but to say it wasn't his fault is a false statement.

You feel the same criticism applies to Nylander I guess then? And Nylander was even bad enough to get concussed by junior players!

Yes - Nylander should have had his head up as well.

It was just a really unfortunate turn of events and I wish people like you would realize that injury wasn't all Laine's fault.

Anyway, I'd rather keep it positive and remember the time Laine scored his first hat trick when he played against Leafs for the first time. That is also a lot more relevant to this topic than some random injury that happened against Sabres in January.

Scapegoat argument. I like to reminisce too, about Matthews' record-breaking rookie season.

 

[Gurilla]

I also think Connor is ready to burst onto the NHL scene and add to the Jets' firepower. Remember when Connor was "scrawny"?

Not so much anymore....



He tore up the AHL in the second half of last season and looked dynamic in a late-season game with the Jets.

Damn he's looking thicc

 

[Hokinaittii]

Scapegoat argument. I like to reminisce too, about Matthews' record-breaking rookie season.

How cute of you to think that.

I originally replied to a troll account who brought up Laine getting concussed again when Leafs actually had nothing to do with it in the first place. Considering how that poster is most likely a Leafs fan, I think that little jab was justified.

Not to mention, it was you who randomly brought up the whole "was it Laine's fault or not" when that had nothing to do with the thread.

 

[TDK67]

I didn't ignore it. I am looking for actual data that shows that these sorts of investments and methods actually make a huge difference to injury rates. Do you have any of that evidence to share with us?

I am not making any claims about who will be injured on either team. I am suggesting that it is more probable than not that the huge discrepancy in significant injuries last season will be narrowed this season, with an impact on their relative performance.

Little, Perreault, Myers, Trouba, Enstrom - those are not "depth players".

It's ludicrous to think that you can accurately predict who will and who will not be injured.

The Jets also have very good depth.

I provided proof and sources that strongly suggest the Leafs are on the forefront of sports science as a method to increase players' durability and overall health.

The "actual data" is the number of man games lost to injury last year by the Leafs--which was among the fewest in thd league.

It's one thing to pretend the data doesn't exist (which is false, because it does) and it's another thing to say you don't believe the data/results. I think you fall into the latter camp, which is fine but an important distinction to make as it's more about your personal bias/skepticism than an actual lack of evidence.

 

[CraigsList]

The Leafs' defense scares me a bit.

Jets win, Matthews has more points than Laine.

 

[Zhamnov5GoalGame]

but you said "any" game, hence why I picked NJ because you can look at that game right now, about 5 weeks before it happens and you can say that is a game Toronto should win, and that is even if Zajac was healthy.

Zajac isn't healthy he will not play and chances are A the devils will not win and B it will not be close, NJ does not have the firepower up front that a healthy Toronto team has so assuming Toronto is healthy, and granted that is the unknown Toronto is highly likely to win because as of now we don't know if Toronto will be healthy but we do know NJ won't be.

You are correct with this but it's still not a certainty. A few years back the Jets played the Panthers (I think) and they had a ridiculous injury situation going on. We were essentially playing their AHL team and coming off a bit of our own hot streak. But we lost that game. I meant predicting the game between the Leafs and Jets specifically.

 

[Whileee]

I provided proof and sources that strongly suggest the Leafs are on the forefront of sports science as a method to increase players' durability and overall health.

The "actual data" is the number of man games lost to injury last year by the Leafs--which was among the fewest in thd league.

It's one thing to pretend the data doesn't exist (which is false, because it does) and it's another thing to say you don't believe the data/results. I think you fall into the latter camp, which is fine but an important distinction to make as it's more about your personal bias/skepticism than an actual lack of evidence.

If you think that the Leafs' injury record last year is "evidence" of the success of their "sports science" initiative, then you and I disagree on the definition of evidence. That's an anecdote, not evidence.

The Leafs hired their Director of Sports Science in the summer of 2015, and then were near the top of the NHL in injuries in the 2015/16 season.

Guess which other team has had a "Sports Science" Director and initiative for the past two seasons? The Penguins (https://www.nhl.com/penguins/news/penguins-name-andy-obrien-as-director-of-sport-science-and-performance-andreas-huppi-as-sports-massage-therapist/c-774763).

Guess which team has led the NHL in injuries (by cap hit lost) over the past two seasons? The Penguins.

So, unless you can show me real evidence that investing in "sports science" results in fewer injuries, I'll remain skeptical.

 

[TDK67]

If you think that the Leafs' injury record last year is "evidence" of the success of their "sports science" initiative, then you and I disagree on the definition of evidence. That's an anecdote, not evidence.

The Leafs hired their Director of Sports Science in the summer of 2015, and then were near the top of the NHL in injuries in the 2015/16 season.

Guess which other team has had a "Sports Science" Director and initiative for the past two seasons? The Penguins (https://www.nhl.com/penguins/news/penguins-name-andy-obrien-as-director-of-sport-science-and-performance-andreas-huppi-as-sports-massage-therapist/c-774763).

Guess which team has led the NHL in injuries (by cap hit lost) over the past two seasons? The Penguins.

So, unless you can show me real evidence that investing in "sports science" results in fewer injuries, I'll remain skeptical.

6 Leafs regulars from 15-16 were on the Leafs in 16-17. The one Leafs regular who missed significant time in both 15-16 and 16-17 is Bozak who has an extensive history of not playing full seasons due to injury.

The 15-16 roster has almost nothing to do with the 16-17 roster yet you keep arbitrarily focusing on it. This is to make no mention of the fact that a sports science department in its inception (i.e. year 1) is probably going to be very different as it grows and improves (i.e. year 2).

The "data" of 16-17 involves 20+ players and 1600+ man games. I think you need to seriously look up the definition of "anecdote" and "statistically significant sample" before preaching what does or doesn't constitute "evidence".

Like I said, its ok to be skeptical here. I don't care if you or anyone else chooses to do so regarding this subject. In fact, I have my own doubts about the whole matter, BUT please don't pretend to be some kind of arbiter on what is or isn't sufficient "evidence" when by all objective standards, last year has plenty of "data" to support some correlation between an increased focus on sports science and athletes' health on the Leafs.

As for the Pens--maybe they're not buying into whatever their sports science department is recommending as much as the Leafs. Or maybe the man games lost were from players with extensive injury histories. Either way, the Pens results have zero bearing on the Leafs results in this field. We can only judge the Leafs sports science department's success based on the Leafs' health, not the Pens' health.

 

[Advanced stats]

Little, Perreault, Myers, Trouba, Enstrom - those are not "depth players".

So...how many core players do you actually have?
Schief
Laine
Ehlers
Wheeler
Connor
Buff
Morrissey
Little
Perreualt
Myers
Trouba
Enstrom..any more?

That's half your flippen roster???

Their not all core players or the Jets would have won the cup for the last 2 seasons and the next 3 seasons.

Truth be told they can't even make the playoffs...

 

[Teamoo]

Jets win.
Scheifele will get 1g and 2a
Mason will get a shutout
Ehlers and Nylander will swap teams and no one will notice
Laine will have a prettier girlfriend than Matthews
Trouba will miss a bodycheck to Marner but will follow through and will destroy Kadri (Kadri gets a penalty on the play)
Buff will single handily take on the entire Leafs 4th line and two hotdog vendors
And finally...
The Mickey Moose will be decapitated and replaced by Benny "THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE!!!!"

 

[TDK67]

Myers, & Perreault haven't played a full season in the last 6 years. Little & Enstrom haven't had a full season in the last 3 years. Trouba has missed games from injuries in 3 of his 4 years in the league.

I'm not sure Jets fans should be banking on any of these guys (except maybe Trouba) playing a full 82 games this year.

 

[Daximus]

I don't want it to happen to anybody but to say it wasn't his fault is a false statement.

No, it's not.

 

[Whileee]

6 Leafs regulars from 15-16 were on the Leafs in 16-17. The one Leafs regular who missed significant time in both 15-16 and 16-17 is Bozak who has an extensive history of not playing full seasons due to injury.

The 15-16 roster has almost nothing to do with the 16-17 roster yet you keep arbitrarily focusing on it. This is to make no mention of the fact that a sports science department in its inception (i.e. year 1) is probably going to be very different as it grows and improves (i.e. year 2).

The "data" of 16-17 involves 20+ players and 1600+ man games. I think you need to seriously look up the definition of "anecdote" and "statistically significant sample" before preaching what does or doesn't constitute "evidence".

Like I said, its ok to be skeptical here. I don't care if you or anyone else chooses to do so regarding this subject. In fact, I have my own doubts about the whole matter, BUT please don't pretend to be some kind of arbiter on what is or isn't sufficient "evidence" when by all objective standards, last year has plenty of "data" to support some correlation between an increased focus on sports science and athletes' health on the Leafs.

As for the Pens--maybe they're not buying into whatever their sports science department is recommending as much as the Leafs. Or maybe the man games lost were from players with extensive injury histories. Either way, the Pens results have zero bearing on the Leafs results in this field. We can only judge the Leafs sports science department's success based on the Leafs' health, not the Pens' health.

You don't seem to have a concept of how statistical hypothesis testing works, or the rules of scientific evidence. There is considerable random variation in the rate of injuries within a team from year to year, and lots of variables. You would need to show that the Leafs (or teams with a "Sports Science" department) consistently had lower injury rates than expected, which would necessitate more than a single season of data. See, the Caps didn't have a "sports science" department in 2016/17. Neither did the Flames. Caps had fewer injuries than the Leafs, and the Flames were close. So, I could say that teams without a "Sports Science" department had as low or lower injuries than teams that did. I could also suggest that teams with predominantly red uniforms (Caps and Flames) were more likely to have few injuries than teams with predominantly blue uniforms (Jets and Lightning).

You are happy to dismiss the Pens' "Sports Science" initiative because it doesn't fit your narrative, but you have no other logical reason for doing so. By your logic, their "sports science" department looks like it actually increases injuries.

I think investing in analytics and methods to reduce injuries is a good move, and I won't be surprised if it results in fewer injuries. But to pretend that we now have evidence that the Leafs have solved the injury issue based on a single season experience is just ludicrous.

 

[Whileee]

So...how many core players do you actually have?
Schief
Laine
Ehlers
Wheeler
Connor
Buff
Morrissey
Little
Perreualt
Myers
Trouba
Enstrom..any more?

That's half your flippen roster???

Their not all core players or the Jets would have won the cup for the last 2 seasons and the next 3 seasons.

Truth be told they can't even make the playoffs...

It's probably just semantics. I think "core" players are ones that are expected to play consistent top-6 / top-4 minutes, and/or key special team roles. That list above includes 7 forwards and 5 D - so pretty close to a good "core" group.

"Depth" players are those that are more interchangeable, consistently play bottom-6 / bottom-2 roles.

Who would you cite as core players on the Leafs? Who are the "depth" players?

 

[Neutral Hockey Fan]

Absolutely. First healthy off-season since..? He was on pace for 40 goals despite not being physically overly ready at the rookie year. I do expect Laine to look a whole a lot different this season and a lot more explosive. Add that with hopefully improved PP usage and who knows where that leads.

As for Jets, they have a stronger team on the paper while the Leafs have far superior coaching and a good core as well, so it's going to be interesting match-up, not only based on the debut but seasonally speaking. But you are right, this has to be the year. At least no one can claim Maurice hasn't been given the keys to success.

If having Steve freaking Mason as your undisputed best goaltender is getting the "keys to success", then there are about 25 or 26 teams that are looking at having great success this season

 

[Whileee]

If having Steve freaking Mason as your undisputed best goaltender is getting the "keys to success", then there are about 25 or 26 teams that are looking at having great success this season

Just getting close to NHL-average goaltending will be a huge improvement for the Jets.

Are the Leafs still relying on McElhinney as their back-up? That's a bit bold.

 

[TDK67]

You don't seem to have a concept of how statistical hypothesis testing works, or the rules of scientific evidence. There is considerable random variation in the rate of injuries within a team from year to year, and lots of variables. You would need to show that the Leafs (or teams with a "Sports Science" department) consistently had lower injury rates than expected, which would necessitate more than a single season of data. See, the Caps didn't have a "sports science" department in 2016/17. Neither did the Flames. Caps had fewer injuries than the Leafs, and the Flames were close. So, I could say that teams without a "Sports Science" department had as low or lower injuries than teams that did. I could also suggest that teams with predominantly red uniforms (Caps and Flames) were more likely to have few injuries than teams with predominantly blue uniforms (Jets and Lightning).

You are happy to dismiss the Pens' "Sports Science" initiative because it doesn't fit your narrative, but you have no other logical reason for doing so. By your logic, their "sports science" department looks like it actually increases injuries.

I think investing in analytics and methods to reduce injuries is a good move, and I won't be surprised if it results in fewer injuries. But to pretend that we now have evidence that the Leafs have solved the injury issue based on a single season experience is just ludicrous.

1) Sorry, but you're shifting the goalposts now. You went from saying there's "no evidence" and that you're "looking for actual data" to now saying "there's not enough evidence". I never claimed last year is/was DEFINITIVE or SUFFICIENT proof that the Leafs have figured out how to keep players from getting injured with their sports science department. All I've been saying is that we actually do have one season's worth of data (which when broken down by actual data points is actually a decent chunk of information) and that can offer SOME proof of the success of the Leafs sports science department contrary to your claims there is "no evidence/data". So you successfully changed your tune to try and sound "right" at this point and are arguing against things I've never claimed. Good work?

2) The Pens' (or any other teams') sports science department is a completely unrelated independent variable in a different experiment that has no effect on the outcome of the Leafs' health and their own experiment with sports science. Unless two (or more) sports science departments are run by the exact same person with the exact same resources and exact same level of influence across two (or more) teams, it is downright idiotic to try and point to the results of one team as evidence as to whether another team is succeeding or failing in their own endeavors. How can you pretend you know anything about "the rules of scientific evidence" and not understand how incredibly faulty your logic in comparing these experiments across teams is?

E.g. Person A and Person B both buy two different sets of knives. We don't know where they bought them from, for how much, what brand they are, etc. Person B's knives break after one day therefore Person A's knives must also be crap even though they've survived months of use. Like...calling that "horrible logic" would be too generous

3) Feel free to quote me saying the Leafs "have solved the injury issue based on a single season". I'll wait.

 

[JetsHomer]

If having Steve freaking Mason as your undisputed best goaltender is getting the "keys to success", then there are about 25 or 26 teams that are looking at having great success this season

Over the part three seasons Mason has faced 4648 shots and let in 383 goals, a .918 sv%

Same time frame Anderson has faced 4574 shots and given up 380 goals, a .916 sv%

So I assume the Leafs are one of the 5 or 6 teams that is looking to face less success than the Jets next year??

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

Just getting close to NHL-average goaltending will be a huge improvement for the Jets.

Are the Leafs still relying on McElhinney as their back-up? That's a bit bold.

Not as bold as going with Mason as your starting goalie. What are you even trying to prove here