But it's not sustainable!!!

[Delicious Dangles*]

Offensive zone starts are a huge advantage in hockey and one of the main things you look at to depend on how easy or hard the minutes a player are given.

Offensive zone starts provides an easy chance to create offence right off a faceoff win, or the ability to establish your forecheck right off a lose and try to cause a turnover.

Why would you even want to start on your heels right in front of your goalie each faceoff?

It means you have to win faceoff or gain control of the puck, successfully breakout, then skate the length of the ice before you can get a scoring chance. Like what most of the Leafs have to do in order to try and score.

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.

Seems like Chicago benefits from it, having the #1 GF/G (0.51 more than the Leafs).

Yeah, I am sure that has nothing to do with the stacked elite talent and world-class depth they have on their team.

Lobbing it into the chest and getting a change is a much smarter hockey play then trying to pick a corner and shooting the puck so that it bounces and exits the O zone for you. Now you have a tired crew trying to backcheck to get the puck at a horrible time to change.

It depends entirely on the situation of the game. I don't think you can say either way that one is a SMARTER play. You can say that the lob into the goalie's chest is a SAFER play.

Shots very rarely bounce all the way out of the zone either... And when they do, only a fraction of the time is it against a tired crew. Unless like Kessel is shooting, and it goes off Detroit boards, very unlikely. Actually for the Leafs, they are much better at puck recovery after a shot than controlling off of a face-off.

Then why have the Leafs gotten worse in G/G, GA/G, SA/G, PK and point % from last year? Shouldn't they as well be improving and making baby steps and not regressing?

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".

I feel like it needs to be reminded that this unsustainable stuff came up after being a top team in the East last year, and a top 10 team to start the year. Now that we're more realistically in the wild card position it seems to hold some truth.

"Realistically in a wild card position"?

We are tied for the 4th most points in our conference (9th in the league), 1 point back of 3rd and 2nd in our division. The only thing that really changed was that the way standings are presented.

Not sure what the huge spiel was for as I never insisted that, stats are tools that can be used in conjunction with actually watching the game. Each one holds value but none are the one single hockey metric.

Now when I watch the Leafs I see a team that is awful defensively, has trouble winning board battles and doesn't spend a lot of time in the offensive zone.

I see them get hemmed into their zone for multiple shifts (remember florida actually getting a full change in without leaving our zone?) and get outworked in a large portion of games.

I also see lethal offensive weapons up front who may not need a ton of shots to score. And Bernier/Reimer keeping us into every game we play.

Then when I check the stats it backs up what I see, as the Leafs are bottom five in almost all defensive metrics. In some cases they are dead last by an embarrassing margin.

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 2010-11 Bruins comparison is horrible. The only thing they had in common was SA/G. In almost other metric the Bruins were way better. We're letting in 0.67 goals more per game than they did. I wouldn't be holding my breath for the Leafs to have a similar playoff run.

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.

 

[The Apologist]

That's absolutely true. The point I'm trying to make, is that "10th overall" shouldn't be taken as an exact indicator of how good the team is. Maybe an asterix next to it should indicate that they're only a couple of games out of 17th. It makes me think those people early in the year that while we were getting outplayed almost every night and our goalies were bailing us out, were saying stuff like "still 2nd in the east, then "still 4th in the east, then "still in the playoffs" and then they dissappeared when we dropped out of a PO spot. Now of course they're back again. Let's wait until the season ends before we start saying where we rank exactly is all I'm saying.

Not to take away from the Leafs, they played well last year, made the playoffs and overall they played much more consistently than they have this season.

Why stop there? Lets add an asterix to our first round loss as well. After all, we were just minutes away from a second round birth right? Much closer to being a second round playoff team than 17th overall. I'm sure you'll agree.

 

[Delicious Dangles*]

That's absolutely true. The point I'm trying to make, is that "10th overall" shouldn't be taken as an exact indicator of how good the team is. Maybe an asterix next to it should indicate that they're only a couple of games out of 17th.

Funny how you point out how close Toronto was to being lower, but fail to mention how close we were to being higher, or the bigger picture.

Last year, team #6 and team #17 were separated by all of 5 points. So unless you were a top-5 team, every team was in the same situation.

That's what happens when you have a league full of parity, and a 48-game season. The only teams in the entire league to really separate themselves from the pack were Pittsburgh and Chicago. To a lesser extent Anaheim.

So unless you are going to petition for asterisks for everybody else, or point out how close everybody else was to no playoffs, your argument holds no water.

 

[Holymakinaw]

Putting an "asterisk" beside just the Leaf's record.

LMAO.

It gets worse & worse.

 

[Gary Nylund]

How long did the Leafs drop out of a playoff spot for?

I don't know, how long? How long were they in 2nd? 4th? Who cares? I think it makes sense to wait until the end of the season before shouting out "we're the Nth best team in the East".

That was not the only question asked of you, and you did NOT explain yourself for even that one.

It has become quite clear that you have no answers, and would just like to continue to ignore and deflect until people give up so that you can continue on complaining and making outrageous claims with absolutely nothing to back up said statements.

Everybody should take whatever you say with a grain of salt, and not expect any of the hard answers out of you. You know you are wrong. You just like to stir up trouble.

I tried explaining several times, I posted a link, what more do you want? But OK, one more time. Perhaps you had trouble with the link I posted?

As a whole:
1. Containing all components; complete: a whole wardrobe for the tropics.
2. Not divided or disjoined; in one unit: a whole loaf.

Which part of this are you having a hard time with? I will help you if I can.

Glass half full or glass half empty? I don't pay any attention to Corsi due to high variabilities but certainly the Leafs are absolutely playing with fire when getting outshot almost every game. They ride a fine line between winning and losing. Don't need Corsi to see that, just common sense.
That being said I believe they are getting better as the season goes forward and getting outshot will become the exception rather of the rule.

Common sense is not so common apparently. I hope you're right about it being the exception going forward, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.

Why stop there? Lets add an asterix to our first round loss as well. After all, we were just minutes away from a second round birth right? Much closer to being a second round playoff team than 17th overall. I'm sure you'll agree.

Put an asterix anywhere you want. All I'm saying, is that when people say stuff like "we were a top 10 team" I want to roll my eyes. Any time someone brags about being "top 10" it's a safe bet that they were exactly 10th. If they brag about being a top 3 team, they were 3rd. It's like a friend of mine keeps saying that Chris Paul is "a top 3 NBA player" and I keep telling him well maybe he's third I dunno, but Lebron and Durant are 1-2 and if CP is the 3rd best he's much closer to being 4th than 2nd.

Person 1: We're a top 10 team.
Person 2: Cool. What were you, 2nd, 4th, 7th?
Person 1: 10th.
Person 2: Ah OK, why didn't you say so.

That's basically how I feel. But go ahead and call the Leafs a top 10 team if it makes you happy. Not to mention that it ignores the fact that the West is much stronger than the East and if the Leafs were in the West they would be likely be significantly lower than they are in points.

Funny how you point out how close Toronto was to being lower, but fail to mention how close we were to being higher, or the bigger picture.

Last year, team #6 and team #17 were separated by all of 5 points. So unless you were a top-5 team, every team was in the same situation.

That's what happens when you have a league full of parity, and a 48-game season. The only teams in the entire league to really separate themselves from the pack were Pittsburgh and Chicago. To a lesser extent Anaheim.

So unless you are going to petition for asterisks for everybody else, or point out how close everybody else was to no playoffs, your argument holds no water.

I never said anything about an asterix. If you don't like the idea, go quarrel with whoever brought it it up.

 

[Kyle Doobas*]

Putting an "asterisk" beside just the Leaf's record.

LMAO.

It gets worse & worse.

Haha, no kidding. Do these people even watch other teams? It's seriously almost as if they aren't even aware that other teams have weaknesses too and can struggle with consistency. Even the best teams in the league aren't perfect, and don't always 'look good' when they win. Quite a few Bruins fans were calling for Julien's head throughout the year they ended up winning the Cup, even into the playoffs. The Kings barely squeaked into eighth place and ended up winning the Cup.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Haha, no kidding. Do these people even watch other teams? It's seriously almost as if they aren't even aware that other teams have weaknesses too and can struggle with consistency. Even the best teams in the league aren't perfect, and don't always 'look good' when they win. Quite a few Bruins fans were calling for Julien's head throughout the year they ended up winning the Cup, even into the playoffs. The Kings barely squeaked into eighth place and ended up winning the Cup.

LA was awfully good for an 8th place team though, possibly the best 8th seed ever. They were 13th overall and had they played in the weaker East they would likely have been better than that. And didn't "barely squeak" into 8th, they ended up 5 points ahead of the 9th place team so they had a few meaningless games at the end of the season to get ready.

More importantly though, they were a different team when the playoffs started than they were when the season started. They traded for Jeff Carter who played well during their run, and going into the playoffs it was clear they were a very good team.

But why are we talking about the Kings? Because Dangles brought up the fact that LA went into an 11 game tailspin thus trying to minimize the fact that the Leafs were laying turds for a couple of months there. Thing is though, La won the cup, then last year they made it to the semis, they beat 2 very good teams to get there before losing to the eventual cup winner. They have pretty much the same players, they have established a ton of credibility which carries a lot more weight than the fact they had an 11 game slump. What credibility have the Leafs established? When was the last time they won a playoff series? There is a reason LA is 15-1 to win the cup and the Leafs are 50-1 despite that the road to the final is exponentially harder for LA.

If Toronto were to start a 7 game series against LA today, nobody outside of this city would give Toronto much of a chance. LA is considered to be a much better team than Toronto for a reason. Just because they won as an 8th seed, doesn't mean that every 8th seed has a good chance at winning. Each case has to be taken on it's own merit.

 

[MajorityRules*]

LA was awfully good for an 8th place team though, possibly the best 8th seed ever. They were 13th overall and had they played in the weaker East they would likely have been better than that. And didn't "barely squeak" into 8th, they ended up 5 points ahead of the 9th place team so they had a few meaningless games at the end of the season to get ready.

More importantly though, they were a different team when the playoffs started than they were when the season started. They traded for Jeff Carter who played well during their run, and going into the playoffs it was clear they were a very good team.

Just because they won as an 8th seed, doesn't mean that every 8th seed has a good chance at winning. Each case has to be taken on it's own merit.

And in typical fashion you ignored his point and focused on his comparisons. Spin spin spin.

 

[Gary Nylund]

And in typical fashion you ignored his point and focused on his comparisons. Spin spin spin.

And what point was that, that no team is perfect? You want me to comment of grass being green next?

 

[Delicious Dangles*]

I tried explaining several times, I posted a link, what more do you want? But OK, one more time. Perhaps you had trouble with the link I posted?

As a whole:
1. Containing all components; complete: a whole wardrobe for the tropics.
2. Not divided or disjoined; in one unit: a whole loaf.

Which part of this are you having a hard time with? I will help you if I can.

Still answers nothing asked of you, but yes, as a whole means ALL the components, as in including goaltending.

And as a whole, we are an above average team.

Any time someone brags about being "top 10" it's a safe bet that they were exactly 10th.

And why is this a problem? Top 10 teams implies there are 10 teams in that grouping. If you are one of those 10, you are a top 10 team. I don't know what's so hard about this, or why this would make you angry unless said team being a top 10 team is ACTUALLY what makes you angry.

Not to mention that it ignores the fact that the West is much stronger than the East and if the Leafs were in the West they would be likely be significantly lower than they are in points.

Guess what? The ranking of teams that has them top 10 INCLUDES all western teams.
Guess what else. Leafs are one of the better teams in the East against the West.

I never said anything about an asterix. If you don't like the idea, go quarrel with whoever brought it it up.

You never said anything about an asterisk you say?

Then what is this:

That's absolutely true. The point I'm trying to make, is that "10th overall" shouldn't be taken as an exact indicator of how good the team is. Maybe an asterix next to it should indicate that they're only a couple of games out of 17th.

 

[Delicious Dangles*]

But why are we talking about the Kings? Because Dangles brought up the fact that LA went into an 11 game tailspin thus trying to minimize the fact that the Leafs were laying turds for a couple of months there. Thing is though, La won the cup, then last year they made it to the semis, they beat 2 very good teams to get there before losing to the eventual cup winner. They have pretty much the same players, they have established a ton of credibility which carries a lot more weight than the fact they had an 11 game slump.

No, we are talking about LA because you claimed that teams that went into such tailspins weren't good teams, and then when confronted with a contender that went into a similar tailspin, you started a tailspin of your own.

Basically what you are saying is, for teams that you like, such stretches mean nothing. For the Leafs, they are an indicator of a weak team.

What happened to applying consistent standards?

 

[MajorityRules*]

And what point was that, that no team is perfect? You want me to comment of grass being green next?

You go ahead if you like, but where I'm living the grass is brown and is in fact covered in snow. Got any more smart-ass comments or could you possibly answer some of the questions put forth to you without trying to spin the argument in circles?

 

[Gary Nylund]

No, we are talking about LA because you claimed that teams that went into such tailspins weren't good teams, and then when confronted with a contender that went into a similar tailspin, you started a tailspin of your own.

Basically what you are saying is, for teams that you like, such stretches mean nothing. For the Leafs, they are an indicator of a weak team.

What happened to applying consistent standards?

La was brought up because someone else asked me a question where LA was mentioned, I answered, then you butted in comparing LA to Toronto because both had slumps. That's it. You have several times twisted around what I say, several times you just make stuff up.

The part I bolded - I never said that. You either find where I said that, or admit I didn't and you will restore a sliver of credibility. If you can't do that, don't bother me any more because I won't be responding.

 

[Gary Nylund]

You go ahead if you like, but where I'm living the grass is brown and is in fact covered in snow. Got any more smart-ass comments or could you possibly answer some of the questions put forth to you without trying to spin the argument in circles?

This was your earlier post addressed to me:

And in typical fashion you ignored his point and focused on his comparisons. Spin spin spin.


Sorry if this seems to me to be a smart ass comment, I don't see any point in there nor do I see a question. If you have a question, ask it? If you have a point to make, make it.

 

[Holymakinaw]

You go ahead if you like, but where I'm living the grass is brown and is in fact covered in snow. Got any more smart-ass comments or could you possibly answer some of the questions put forth to you without trying to spin the argument in circles?

No, he can't. But it doesn't matter.

The FACT is, we have a very good, but slightly flawed team, that has indeed been able to "sustain" it's winning ways in spite of the bad corsi, etc. And hopefully we can add a good D-Man and we continue to win, and all these folks can explain what went wrong when we're enjoying another playoffs soon.

Hopefully THIS time, it all comes together and we can win a few rounds.......maybe 4 of them.

 

[The Apologist]

I don't know, how long? How long were they in 2nd? 4th? Who cares? I think it makes sense to wait until the end of the season before shouting out "we're the Nth best team in the East".



I tried explaining several times, I posted a link, what more do you want? But OK, one more time. Perhaps you had trouble with the link I posted?

As a whole:
1. Containing all components; complete: a whole wardrobe for the tropics.
2. Not divided or disjoined; in one unit: a whole loaf.

Which part of this are you having a hard time with? I will help you if I can.



Common sense is not so common apparently. I hope you're right about it being the exception going forward, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.



Put an asterix anywhere you want. All I'm saying, is that when people say stuff like "we were a top 10 team" I want to roll my eyes. Any time someone brags about being "top 10" it's a safe bet that they were exactly 10th. If they brag about being a top 3 team, they were 3rd. It's like a friend of mine keeps saying that Chris Paul is "a top 3 NBA player" and I keep telling him well maybe he's third I dunno, but Lebron and Durant are 1-2 and if CP is the 3rd best he's much closer to being 4th than 2nd.

Person 1: We're a top 10 team.
Person 2: Cool. What were you, 2nd, 4th, 7th?
Person 1: 10th.
Person 2: Ah OK, why didn't you say so.

That's basically how I feel. But go ahead and call the Leafs a top 10 team if it makes you happy. Not to mention that it ignores the fact that the West is much stronger than the East and if the Leafs were in the West they would be likely be significantly lower than they are in points.



I never said anything about an asterix. If you don't like the idea, go quarrel with whoever brought it it up.

So even though they WERE a top ten team, it makes you roll your eyes when people call them a top ten team. Got it.
And lol to 'I never said anything about an asterix'.
No worries, I'll just put an asterix next to your posts.

 

[ULF_55]

So even though they WERE a top ten team, it makes you roll your eyes when people call them a top ten team. Got it.
And lol to 'I never said anything about an asterix'.
No worries, I'll just put an asterix next to your posts.

That's okay people role their eyes when we claim Kadri is a top 60 player.

 

[achtungbaby]

The Leafs are top 30 team in shots against.

 

[ULF_55]

The Leafs are top 30 team in shots against.

We should all be able to agree the team is better today than the team Burke put together with Komisarek, Beauchemin and traded for Kessel thinking he had made a playoffs team!

 

[The Apologist]

The Leafs are top 30 team in shots against.

Damn it!! One more spot and we could have Stanley Cup aspirations!!!

Luckily for us, the NHL doesn't use GA to qualify for anything at all!!

 

[Mess]

Damn it!! One more spot and we could have Stanley Cup aspirations!!!

Luckily for us, the NHL doesn't use GA to qualify for anything at all!!

If "Defense wins Championships" then I would suggest goals against matter and effect the outcome of games.

Being in the bottom 5 in goals against and making the playoffs should be considered a fortunate outcome, as that is the exception and certainly not the norm.

There might be a definitive correlation between high volume of shots against and volume of goals against.

 

[ULF_55]

Damn it!! One more spot and we could have Stanley Cup aspirations!!!

Luckily for us, the NHL doesn't use GA to qualify for anything at all!!

If "Defense wins Championships" then I would suggest goals against matter and effect the outcome of games.

Being in the bottom 5 in goals against and making the playoffs should be considered a fortunate outcome, as that is the exception and certainly not the norm.

There might be a definitive correlation between high volume of shots against and volume of goals against.

NHL uses goals to determine the winner.

As long as you stop more than the other team you're Golden.

 

[Mess]

NHL uses goals to determine the winner.

As long as you stop more than the other team you're Golden.

Top 5 offense = Goals for 178 ... Bottom 5 defense = Goals against 182.. Differential -4

#2 PP% (42 goals for) ... #28 PK% (44 goals against) .. differential -2

I suppose if you're giving up more then you're scoring you're playing for Bronze, and there is still work to do.

 

[Delicious Dangles*]

La was brought up because someone else asked me a question where LA was mentioned, I answered, then you butted in comparing LA to Toronto because both had slumps. That's it. You have several times twisted around what I say, several times you just make stuff up.

Well you're ignoring me in the other thread, and you brought up LA again, so it seemed fitting. Hi. Remember me? The guy you've been avoiding hard questions from in BOTH threads?

The part I bolded - I never said that. You either find where I said that, or admit I didn't and you will restore a sliver of credibility. If you can't do that, don't bother me any more because I won't be responding.

Really now? I'm the one that has to restore credibility? That's rich.

But since you asked so nicely:

We start off with you bashing the Leafs for their slump:

Worse than one regulation win in 20 games or whatever it was? Really?

Playing the way we did during that period is nothing to be proud of. Not for me anyway.

More bashing, that implied this means we can't be a contender:

I would prefer to see some accountability from the guys that played like crap for a very long time there. Sometimes our guys play very well, sometimes they play like crap. They're like a box of chocolates - you never know what you're going to get.

Well then what do winners/contenders do?

Winners give good effort consistently.

Sorry, I didn't quite hear that. Could you say it again?

Show me someone who thinks that "surviving without effort" is a sign of strength and I'll show you a loser. Winners take pride in their play every game, not just on select nights.

Well maybe LA sucks too? Let's see what you think.

LA wasn't a one shot wonder, they have a really good team over there. That's what I want, a good team that has a realistic shot at the cup

Confirming that there are no excuses for such stretches, valid or not:

It's because of that lack of effort that we were losing, not because of any injuries. If we had a winning culture in this town, people would be holding the guys that were sucking night after night accountable instead of making excuses for them.

Yeah, we would NEVER see you making excuses, especially for a team with a WINNING culture, right?

Thing is though, La won the cup, then last year they made it to the semis, they beat 2 very good teams to get there before losing to the eventual cup winner. They have pretty much the same players, they have established a ton of credibility which carries a lot more weight than the fact they had an 11 game slump.

Hmmm...

P.S. So we're just going to ignore this, eh?

I never said anything about an asterix.

You never said anything about an asterisk you say?

Then what is this:

That's absolutely true. The point I'm trying to make, is that "10th overall" shouldn't be taken as an exact indicator of how good the team is. Maybe an asterix next to it should indicate that they're only a couple of games out of 17th.

 

[The Legend]

If the stats are meant to show how it might impact future results, why in the next breath are you saying that getting outshot is not going to lead to future success? That sounds like quite definitive, not probable.

You've exemplified precisely why there are people who shoot down stats - instead of using it in the context of probability, you use it in the context of inevitability. An accumulation of numbers can't take the place of what transpires on the ice.

If people didn't mix it up then there might be less opposition to stats. The problem is usually not the numbers, it's the people that use them.

Sorry. It is very likely that if the Leafs continue to get out-shot that dramatically, they will lose. Better?