Better forward group: Tampa, Toronto or Other?

Better forward group


  • Total voters
    408
  • Poll closed .

Tad Mikowsky

Only Droods
Sponsor
Jun 30, 2008
20,857
21,557
Edmonton
if shots lead to goals, why are unwilling to use it as a measure of offense?

Because I’m not talking about offense. I’m addressing the blind assumption that GA=Good defence.

You’re trying to steer that way with your straw man argument.

Btw, Washington had the second highest shooting percentage last year. You left that out in your straw man.
 

CantLoseWithMatthews

Registered User
Sep 28, 2015
49,556
59,149
Because I’m not talking about offense. I’m addressing the blind assumption that GA=Good defence.

You’re trying to steer that way with your straw man argument.

Btw, Washington had the second highest shooting percentage last year. You left that out in your straw man.
it's not a strawman. please learn what a strawman is before saying that. If your assumption is that shots against are the measure of a defense because shots lead to goals, then it would be hypocritical to pretend shots for aren't a measure of offense for the same reason. But neither is really true
 

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,519
46,242
Goals against is a cherry picked stat? I can't think of a better stat to judge defense + goaltending of a team.

If you think backup goaltending made the difference then your admitting the teams are very close defensively.

Goals against is too heavily influenced by the goalie's performance to accurately judge a team's defense.

For example, Team A runs around their zone all night, giving up quality chance after quality chance, but their goalie stands on his head and only allows 2 goals on 40 shots. Team B plays a tight defensive system, not allowing the opposition much beyond perimeter shots, but their goalie struggles and allows 2 goals on 15 shots. Are you honestly going to argue both teams were equal defensively all because they both allowed 2 goals against?

The various shots against metrics are better because they take the goalie performance out of the equation and focus more on what the team defense gives up in terms of chances and scoring opportunities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tad Mikowsky

Tad Mikowsky

Only Droods
Sponsor
Jun 30, 2008
20,857
21,557
Edmonton
it's not a strawman. please learn what a strawman is before saying that

Fine. It’s a shitty point that’s irrelevant to what I’m talking about. Is that better?

Do you also believe that goals allowed= good defence?

Sidney the Kidney has done a good explanation of why looking at goals allowed= good defence isn’t a good argument.
 

CantLoseWithMatthews

Registered User
Sep 28, 2015
49,556
59,149
Fine. It’s a ****ty point that’s irrelevant to what I’m talking about. Is that better?

Do you also believe that goals allowed= good defence?
I think good defense is a measure of how well they work in all 3 zones to outscore the opponent, and it is heavily influenced by forward support, goaltending, and coaching. Don't forget, even if the Leafs' defense is bad at playing in their own end (which I think is fair to say), they are excellent at transitioning the puck and playing in the offensive end. That's still very important in today's game
 

Tad Mikowsky

Only Droods
Sponsor
Jun 30, 2008
20,857
21,557
Edmonton
Goals against is too heavily influenced by the goalie's performance to accurately judge a team's defense.

For example, Team A runs around their zone all night, giving up quality chance after quality chance, but their goalie stands on his head and only allows 2 goals on 40 shots. Team B plays a tight defensive system, not allowing the opposition much beyond perimeter shots, but their goalie struggles and allows 2 goals on 15 shots. Are you honestly going to argue both teams were equal defensively all because they both allowed 2 goals against?

The various shots against metrics are better because they take the goalie performance out of the equation and focus more on what the team defense gives up in terms of chances and scoring opportunities.

I think good defense is a measure of how well they work in all 3 zones to outscore the opponent, and it is heavily influenced by forward support, goaltending, and coaching. Don't forget, even if the Leafs' defense is bad at playing in their own end (which I think is fair to say), they are excellent at transitioning the puck and playing in the offensive end. That's still very important in today's game

Yes, but you’re not answering my question. Transition is fine and all but again, that is not what I’m addressing.

Do you think goals allowed= good defence?
 

CantLoseWithMatthews

Registered User
Sep 28, 2015
49,556
59,149
Yes, but you’re not answering my question. Transition is fine and all but again, that is not what I’m addressing.

Do you think goals allowed= good defence?
I don't really understand what you're asking. Do I think looking at goals against is a good tool for evaluating a team's defensemen? It's not the worst idea but I probably wouldn't do that. Looking at shots against isn't worthwhile either though
 

Tad Mikowsky

Only Droods
Sponsor
Jun 30, 2008
20,857
21,557
Edmonton
I don't really understand what you're asking. Do I think looking at goals against is a good tool for evaluating a team's defensemen? It's not the worst idea but I probably wouldn't do that. Looking at shots against isn't worthwhile either though

Yes but if you use both along with team save percentage it does paint a better picture.

Which is what A1Leafs is not doing. He’s cherry picking one stat.
 

IPS

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
15,463
24,489
I’m not addressing your straw man.

It’s not completely unimportant because you said so.

Shots leads to goals. In what universe can you say the Leafs defence is good when they allow that many shots? There’s two parts that goes into goals allowed: defence and goaltending.

Leafs had two good goaltenders last year. Why is this going unnoticed?

For shots allowed, it’s more clear cut.

Where's the strawman? He's simply telling you that the shots for stat can be skewed and not tell the whole story. Much like how shots against can also be skewed and not tell the whole story. You're simply talking about the same thing in a different context. The shots stat by itself can tell a little bit, but when it's supplemented with other stats it can tell a lot more.
 

authentic

Registered User
Jan 28, 2015
25,409
10,438
Just forwards? Toronto. Tampa is arguably better right now but going forward Toronto.
 

Michel Beauchamp

Canadiens' fan since 1958
Mar 17, 2008
22,971
3,191
Laval, Qc
Just forwards? Toronto. Tampa is arguably better right now but going forward Toronto.
Was the question "Who will have the better group ?" or "Who has the better group ?".

I must admit that your answer is :huh: .

If you had not written the first "Toronto", it would be a reasonable opinion, but as it is, I'm :skeptic: .
 

authentic

Registered User
Jan 28, 2015
25,409
10,438
Was the question "Who will have the better group ?" or "Who has the better group ?".

I must admit that your answer is :huh: .

If you had not written the first "Toronto", it would be a reasonable opinion, but as it is, I'm :skeptic: .

I believe it's Toronto heading into this season, aka right now, but I think it's debatable that's it's still Tampa. Within a few years time I don't believe it will be so close anymore.
 
Last edited:

Michel Beauchamp

Canadiens' fan since 1958
Mar 17, 2008
22,971
3,191
Laval, Qc
I believe it's Toronto heading into this season, aka right now, but I think it's debatable that's it's still Tampa. Within a few years time I don't believe it will be so close anymore.
So your"Tampa is arguably better right now" was white noise ?

Clearly expressing yourself is your friend...
 

Michel Beauchamp

Canadiens' fan since 1958
Mar 17, 2008
22,971
3,191
Laval, Qc
Read my post again. I bolded the part you seem to have missed. Comprehension goes a long way.
:laugh:

"Tampa is arguably better right now" does not equate "I think it's debatable that's it's still Tampa".

Expressing yourself clearly beats "comprehension" any day of the week, including Sunday.
 

authentic

Registered User
Jan 28, 2015
25,409
10,438
:laugh:

"Tampa is arguably better right now" does not equate "I think it's debatable that's it's still Tampa".

Expressing yourself clearly beats "comprehension" any day of the week, including Sunday.

I'm honestly not sure if you're serious right now. I mean in both cases it's pretty clear that I'm saying it's close enough you could go with either one lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Garthinater

Love

Registered User
Feb 29, 2012
14,999
12,231
Pittsburgh over Tampa and Toronto.

Guentzel-Crosby-Hornqvist
Hagelin-Malkin-Kessel
Sprong-Brassard-Rust
ZAR-Cullen-Sheahan

Not sure if the lines are right but this is still best in the league imo.
 

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,519
46,242
I believe Matthews and Marner will become better than Kucherov and Stamkos as they enter their primes.

But that's two players. McDavid/Draisaitl is better than a lot of team's duos, but I wouldn't consider Edmonton's forwards, as a unit, at the top of the league.
 

Pyrophorus

Registered User
Jun 1, 2009
26,197
2,905
Eastern GTA
I don't really understand what you're asking. Do I think looking at goals against is a good tool for evaluating a team's defensemen? It's not the worst idea but I probably wouldn't do that. Looking at shots against isn't worthwhile either though

This what I'm trying to get at. If GA isn't and SA isn't, then what is?
 

CantLoseWithMatthews

Registered User
Sep 28, 2015
49,556
59,149
This what I'm trying to get at. If GA isn't and SA isn't, then what is?
I'm not sure. I guess I would try looking at individual defenseman's stats and comparing them to others. that does have its own flaws though. I think the Leafs coaching and forward support really hurt their defensive metrics though, and it's unfair to pin it all on the defensemen
 

Garthinater

Registered User
Nov 22, 2015
2,841
1,481
I am serious.

Writing badly and then complaining about not being understood is bad mojo.



I don't see what your problem is. It's very clear what authentic was saying.

While, you on the other hand, I can hardly tell what your trying to get across.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->