But it's not sustainable!!!

[Gary Nylund]

Lol, still stuck on that? As I said before, not the best data to look at, but really the only relevant data we have, at least that is quantifiable. You have provided no evidence to disprove this statement, as usual.

I see you had time to attack me, but conveniently no time to reply to yet another post asking you hard questions and exposing your lies and lack of research. Are we here to have a rational argument, or am I just here for you to take pot shots at me when you lose and can't handle it?

You have asked me a ton of "questions", I have answered most of them. You keep demanding answers yet you don't answer any questions yourself, even though I ask so few. Why don't you answer a question now and then yourself? I posted a link with odds to win the cup which you dismissed as meaningless. Why is it then that you refuse to say what the odds should be? Here are my questions to you again:

"The "true" odds are of course different in theory then the betting odds, but in practice there's not much difference between them. You keep bringing up the fact that they are different, what is your point? Do tell, which of the numbers offered in Vegas are way off? *

"You don't like the 50-1 and 15-1 odds. OK then, according to you, what are the odds of LA winning the cup this year, and same for the Leafs?"

Here's the link for you again:

http://www.vegasinsider.com/nhl/odds/futures/

 

[The Legend]

I wonder if they'll be able to feel any happiness at all, at our making the playoffs, or will they be bitter at being proven wrong?

We'll have to wait & see.

Yeah definitely bitter. Lifelong Leafs fan, but cheering against the team.

 

[Delicious Dangles*]

You have asked me a ton of "questions", I have answered most of them. You keep demanding answers yet you don't answer any questions yourself, even though I ask so few. Why don't you answer a question now and then yourself? I posted a link with odds to win the cup which you dismissed as meaningless. Why is it then that you refuse to say what the odds should be? Here are my questions to you again:

"The "true" odds are of course different in theory then the betting odds, but in practice there's not much difference between them. You keep bringing up the fact that they are different, what is your point? Do tell, which of the numbers offered in Vegas are way off? *

"You don't like the 50-1 and 15-1 odds. OK then, according to you, what are the odds of LA winning the cup this year, and same for the Leafs?"

Here's the link for you again:

http://www.vegasinsider.com/nhl/odds/futures/

You have answered almost no questions from anybody, least of all me. The closest you have come to an answer is deflecting to another discussion entirely.

As for your odds question, like ALL questions asked of me, I already answered that.

Frankly, it doesn't matter what I think the odds are. Unlike you, I don't change my definitions and the value I place on variables like hot/cold stretches based on the quality of the team, or the name on the jersey.

If you must know, I think both have a pretty equally slim chance, but the experience is still extremely valuable and there's always a chance.

Applying arbitrary numbers to the process serves no purpose. Even aside from the fact that odds serve no purpose in our original discussion to start with.

As for your other question, I already answered it. ALL of the odds are off for the purpose you are using them for, because they are not measuring what you need them to measure. And even if it did, it would serve no purpose in your argument, because odds should not factor into the equation for a variable that should have constant value, regardless of quality of team.

By what measure do you claim they aren't "far off"? Your own personal view, which holds no value as a baseline.

Now let's see you go back and answer EVERY question asked of you in this thread (and the other one).

 

[The Legend]

Exactly like the 'WAR' stat in baseball. It's been around for a while, but was used by one or two individuals in the media and all of a sudden everyone is an expert and thinks it's the bees-knees to evaluate talent, yet they can't even give me a definition if they tried.

A stat that's overused and misinterpreted in baseball?

RBI, Wins, Losses, Saves, Runs, Batting Average....

WAR? Nowhere close to those....but keep it up with the generalizations.

 

[The Legend]

By what measure do you claim they aren't "far off"? Your own personal view, which holds no value as a baseline.

This whole thread is a "personal view". Part of the reason I only trust stats.

 

[Gary Nylund]

You have answered almost no questions from anybody, least of all me. The closest you have come to an answer is deflecting to another discussion entirely.

As for your odds question, like ALL questions asked of me, I already answered that.



Applying arbitrary numbers to the process serves no purpose. Even aside from the fact that odds serve no purpose in our original discussion to start with.

As for your other question, I already answered it. ALL of the odds are off for the purpose you are using them for, because they are not measuring what you need them to measure. And even if it did, it would serve no purpose in your argument, because odds should not factor into the equation for a variable that should have constant value, regardless of quality of team.

By what measure do you claim they aren't "far off"? Your own personal view, which holds no value as a baseline.

Now let's see you go back and answer EVERY question asked of you in this thread (and the other one).

LOL. What does that even mean?

And no you have not answered. Once again:

What are the odds of the Leafs winning the cup this year?
What are the odds of LA winning the cup this year?

 

[blueberrie]

Obviously you don't WANT to be starting in your own zone, but I fail to see how it is a significant advantage or disadvantage either way, especially for a team that thrives off of the rush. If anything, starting in our offensive zone allows us to utilize our speed on the attack. With an offensive zone face-off, even if you win (only ~50% of the time) and are able to keep it in, you are 5 skaters going up against 5 players set in their system and ready to defend.

With a defensive zone face-off, you pretty much have the exact same chance of controlling the puck. The only difference is then you may be able to utilize the speed to get a jump, and either give the attacking players an odd man rush or at the very least, more space.

The only thing an offensive zone start is really proof of in isolation is an unsuccessful shot.

Okay, guess we'll have to agree to disagree. IMO offensive zone faceoff % are a good indication of where the play on the ice normally is.

Because contrary to popular belief around these parts, progression is NOT always 100% linear, especially when comparing two seasons with highly varied variables like injuries, distractions (24/7), roster, schedule, length of schedule, etc. And especially not in EVERY SINGLE STATISTICAL CATEGORY. We also have a lot of youth, which invites inconsistency.

We lost significant scoring depth in the off-season, and have run into a lot of injuries this year. That also affects things, not just in the scoring numbers, but in other areas because it changes the roles throughout the team.

For example, our PK% plummeted when Bozak was out, and McClement was forced into significantly bigger minutes. This not only dries up our offense because he is a black hole, but also makes our PK struggle (aside from losing Bozak and Komarov, big pieces from last year) because he is not always fresh.

Our defensive statistics dropping can be attributed to increased youth on the blueline (and bottom-6 forwards), Franson falling off a cliff, and the key pieces responsible for that (centers, defense, goalie) are mostly either rookies, or injured, or both.

It is incredibly short-sighted to call this year "regression".

Sure but every other team had their share of injuries, lose of depth or any other excuses you can come up with. The Leafs are no different.

I don't think this year was a regression but there was no progression shown at all on the defensive side of the puck. Same ol' outscoring their problems.

Well, I don't fully agree with what you see, but I guess this is back to a matter of opinion. The stats don't support your opinion any more than anybody else's.

The Leafs are bottom 5 in almost all defensive categories. That's still true regardless of opinion.

Where did I say I expect us to have a similar playoff run?

The comparison isn't horrible for the point I was trying to make. That looking at one or even a few statistics to evaluate a quality of team is worthless. That weaknesses, even huge, embarrassing ones, can be overcome with strengths, even all the way to a cup.

Even if you consider Corsi one of many stats to judge the defensive prowess of a team, the rest seem to support that the Leafs are a bottom ten team (maybe even bottom 5).

2012-13 ---2013-14
17th ------- 25th GA/G
27th ------- 30th SA/G (IIRC on pace to set a NHL record for most shots against in a season)
2nd -------- 28th PK
30th ------- 30th Games Outshot
30th ------- 30th Offensive Zone Start % (As far as I can tell)
Corsi/Fenwick... still not so good.

It's not just corsi, most other stats suggest the Leafs are not very good defensively, and a team who thrives on outscoring their problems is not one I'd trust to go deep in the playoffs.

 

[TootooTrain]

A stat that's overused and misinterpreted in baseball?

RBI, Wins, Losses, Saves, Runs, Batting Average....

WAR? Nowhere close to those....but keep it up with the generalizations.

Everyone can understand those stats and know what they represent (maybe less so with wins), I'm not sure your run of the mill fan can do the same with corsi/fenwick. I was just making a simple comparison, don't need to get your defenses up.

 

[Delicious Dangles*]

LOL. What does that even mean?

And no you have not answered. Once again:

What are the odds of the Leafs winning the cup this year?
What are the odds of LA winning the cup this year?

It's quite clear. I don't know what part you are having trouble with.

All of the odds presented are WRONG for the purposes of our discussion, as betting odds have no relevance. I then went on to explain that the actual odds would have no bearing on the original discussion anyway, because quality of team should not matter when evaluating the representative value of slumps.

I already answered your odds question. See previous post.

I repeat. Where are all your answers? We are all waiting.

 

[Delicious Dangles*]

Sure but every other team had their share of injuries, lose of depth or any other excuses you can come up with. The Leafs are no different.

This "all teams have injuries so they don't matter" stance is ridiculous. Yes, all teams have injuries. However, not all teams have injuries that have the same impact, at the same times, through the same stretches of competition, and not all teams have the depth to overcome it in the same way.

Even if two teams had the EXACT same man-games lost, and the players that were lost were of the EXACT same relative quality/importance, the effects can very easily be DRASTICALLY different.

We are in a very awkward phase depth-wise. Most of our good prospects are too young, and the ones that are old enough simply aren't very good.

It's also a lot easier to support your team with young depth when the rest of your team isn't so young.

We are also talking about a comparison between this year's team and last year's team. Therefore differences in injuries for the Leafs in those 2 years. Not a comparison to the rest of the league.

I don't think this year was a regression but there was no progression shown at all on the defensive side of the puck. Same ol' outscoring their problems.

I don't know why anyone expected us to get better defensively this year, or why it has to happen instantly.

Our D got more inexperienced, Franson dropped off a cliff defensively, and we have dealt with more relevant injuries. Our defense has looked much better since getting a stabilizing veteran force in Gleason, and getting some bodies back.

Many teams use their strengths to overcome their problems.

The Leafs are bottom 5 in almost all defensive categories. That's still true regardless of opinion.

Yes, they are, with a rookie goalie, one of the most inexperienced defenses in the league, and without their two shutdown centers for a lot of the season.

Stats can also only show so much, and they leave out context. Especially for "defensive stats", which don't necessarily represent much in terms of defensive ability.

I never actually said the Leafs were good defensively anyway. We're not. But how big of a deal that is, and how representative those stats are of the team we may have in the playoffs (or in future years), is what I question.

 

[ULF_55]

Is it true they lose more than they win if we exclude shootouts?

23 ROW
24 ROL

They are 9 win, 4 losses in shootouts.

You don't get outshot in the shootout.

We want to improve on the regulation and overtime wins.

It's great they've got someone besides Bozak who can score in the shootout this year.

Does anyone need advanced stats to know that they have top 10 goaltending and bottom 5 defense?

Are save percentages and goals against considered advanced stats? They seem basic, and nothing new about them.

 

[Holymakinaw]

Is it true they lose more than they win if we exclude shootouts?

23 ROW
24 ROL

No it's not, actually.

If you "take away" their shootout wins & losses, their record is 23-22-2. Still a winning record. The NHL doesn't add OT losses to losses to show a team's record, and you shouldn't either......unless you're deliberately trying to spin the numbers.

But AGAIN........even if we don't count shootouts in corsi arguments, those are still TIES that they earned. So why delete all those games and assume that they'd get nothing for them in a vacuum?? There's NO WAY that they'd lose all 13 games and get nothing in the post-season!!

So it's EASY to ignore the shootout wins, but the reality is that if we'd kept playing those OT's instead of going to the shootout, we would have had even MORE wins. How many, is impossible to guess at.

 

[Trainspotter]

This whole thread is a "personal view". Part of the reason I only trust stats.

Statistics show that there is a close correlation between ice cream sales at the seaside and shark attacks.

 

[Holymakinaw]

Statistics show that there is a close correlation between ice cream sales at the seaside and shark attacks.

Yeah, but if you take away the 13 visits you made to the seaside on Sundays, by train, you NEVER would have had any ice cream!!!

 

[ULF_55]

No it's not, actually.

If you "take away" their shootout wins & losses, their record is 23-22-2. Still a winning record. The NHL doesn't add OT losses to losses to show a team's record, and you shouldn't either......unless you're deliberately trying to spin the numbers.

But AGAIN........even if we don't count shootouts in corsi arguments, those are still TIES that they earned. So why delete all those games and assume that they'd get nothing for them in a vacuum?? There's NO WAY that they'd lose all 13 games and get nothing in the post-season!!

So it's EASY to ignore the shootout wins, but the reality is that if we'd kept playing those OT's instead of going to the shootout, we would have had even MORE wins. How many, is impossible to guess at.

23 Regulation and overtime wins
22 Regulation losses
2 Overtime losses

Is that better?

Should the overtime wins be separated?

 

[blueberrie]

I don't know why anyone expected us to get better defensively this year, or why it has to happen instantly.

Our D got more inexperienced, Franson dropped off a cliff defensively, and we have dealt with more relevant injuries. Our defense has looked much better since getting a stabilizing veteran force in Gleason, and getting some bodies back.

Many teams use their strengths to overcome their problems.

Because one of the youngest teams in the league should show a little bit of improvement no? That's thrown around quite a bit on these boards and one of the connotations behind that should be improvement in their play. Were you expecting them to get worse defensively?

We've had Kessel, Lupul, Bozak, Dion, Gunnarsson as our core for 4-5 seasons and they've been an awful defensive team almost every year.

That leadership group should be taking the next steps into contention and you still seem the same periods of lost zone coverage, failed breakouts and sustained play in our own end.

Yes, they are, with a rookie goalie, one of the most inexperienced defenses in the league, and without their two shutdown centers for a lot of the season.

Stats can also only show so much, and they leave out context. Especially for "defensive stats", which don't necessarily represent much in terms of defensive ability.

I never actually said the Leafs were good defensively anyway. We're not. But how big of a deal that is, and how representative those stats are of the team we may have in the playoffs (or in future years), is what I question.

Where would you place this group defensively? I think a sound defensive game is something a contender needs and the Leafs IMO are a fringe bottom 5 team.

Now that we've locked in our core you'd think there would be improvements besides letting more shots past you than any expansion team every did.

The top six is built on high octane offensive wingers who range among the league's worst defensively (Kessel, Lupul) to adequate (JVR, Clarkson).

Really the only forwards who spend time in the top six with good two way play are Bozak and sometimes Kulemin.

Our defensive core is full of offensive minded D who need a stabilizing presence beside them in order to play their game.

Dion - Gunnarsson are a good first pair but Gardiner, Franson, Rielly are wildly inconsistent for what they bring to the defensive side of the puck.


We're getting pretty far off the thread intention though. I view corsi as one of many defensive statistics that show the Leafs are not good defenders.

I don't think that style of play is sustainable to be a top team in the NHL. Perhaps it's sustainable enough to make playoffs most years but defence wins championships and unless Bernier goes god mode I don't see this core going the distance barring massive upgrades.

 

[Holymakinaw]

23 Regulation and overtime wins
22 Regulation losses
2 Overtime losses

Is that better?

Should the overtime wins be separated?

Go to NHL.com and see how THEY list it......and then do that.

It is their sport/their rules after all.

You'll have to find some OTHER way to spin things to the negative!

 

[Mess]

This thread has reached its limit of 1000 posts.

Team Canada Hockey demonstrated how Corsi stats don't lie.

/Closed