This seems like your mounting the OJ Simpson defense here.
The Leafs are 9-9-2 since Dec 1st in their last 20 games which equals playing .500 hockey (ie 20 points over last 20 games) over a length that is equal to 1/4 an NHL season. Its not because of injuries to Matthews or missing Nylander because those players played in those last 20 games,
so not a valid reason for the teams decline in performance.
I'm showing you the bloody glove as evidence, and you're claiming if it doesn't fit you must acquit.
The season stats I included show that they were a 105 point team last year and on the overall season are still on pace for that amount, despite only playing .500 hockey in the 2nd quarter of the season..Their hot start now absorb by their current struggles and the addition of 30 goal man JT has simply maintained status quo in comparison to last year.
Still 1/2 a season to go, but Leafs are trending downwards as PP%, PK%, GF/g are all declining as are the losses increase as the wins decrease and the goals against go up. So Leafs need to turn things around as they're capable of better and have shown it already (even when missing key players to injury).
The facts don't lie, so
I'm not sure exactly what your taking objection to?
I am objecting to the description of a larger picture that incites sky falling conclusions from premises that imply cloudy with a 10% chance of rain.
Note the red? The Leafs last 20 games dates to
Dec.6th, not Dec.1st.
William Nylander returned Dec.6th. Dec. 5th, the club was second overall with a plus goal differential of +29. I'll let you calculate the difference in the twenty games he's played since returning twenty games ago.
You said:
"not a valid reason for the teams decline in performance" re: injuries, Nylander's return, etc over the last twenty games. Noting the record and generalizing the team as a .500 hockey club isn't an argument. It's a description that infers the conclusion without a valid premise. As in: The club has played .500 hockey for the last twenty games, therefore they are a .500 hockey club because they've played poorly.
What changed twenty games ago? Why is it important to ask the question? Chiefly your selection of a sample size that's exactly twenty games. But equally, the return of William Nylander that bridges the previous run of success it took the club to get nine wins and the time after it took the club to get nine wins i.e. your selected sample size of twenty games.
Now, we can call the fact that the club has played .500 hockey over precisely 20 games as being the most important fact in the claim. But I think other facts: Nylander, injuries, etc...as underlying causes paint a BUT FOR picture that's much more accurate than simply describing the state of the club without noting points of congruence that contributed to the state of the club. As in, BUT FOR Nylander returning. BUT FOR Andersen getting injured. BUT FOR Matthews playing while recovering from injury. But more accurately the sum of BUT FOR: Nylander returning plus the injury to Andersen plus Matthews playing while recovering from injury.
I suppose it could all be coincidental and incidental and all invalid as explanation, but it seems awfully coincidental that within twenty games the record suffers just as these (and other) factors supplement one another.
You know when Cochrane had Simpson try on the glove, the prosecution missed the mitigating factor of the other glove that Simpson put on in order to properly determine a true fit.
The glove actually didn't fit, Mess. Mitigating factors, Mess. Mitigating factors that if you don't specifically identify them obscure one's case, for better, or worse.
I'm not omitting commonly accessible information. I'm doing the opposite. And I'm asking that you make your case without excluding those mitigating factors.
