Post-Game Talk: Holl wins it in OT. Leafs defeat the Sens 3-2

[zeke]

Doesn't really matter much anyway, I don't make decisions for the Leafs so doesn't matter what I think. But reliable or not, I don't really care much about winning the Xgoals battle for a game or a series, I'd rather just win the games.

See, but looking at stats like xgoals and others helps you understand how much a team's losses are due to team failures or rather, say, goalie failures.

 

[Guided by Veseys]

You can look at it as "was our game good enough to beat an average team like the 2010s Wild/Predators if their goalie and shooters were having neither a particularly great or terrible game, and by how much".

I’d look at it like: we clearly have a team which Xgf indicates is performing at a high level. If we aren’t getting the goals and wins as expected what needs to be looked at? I doubt it all just regresses perfectly predictable to the mean.

 

[Zybalto]

More fun stats:

Campbell now has a .958 save% including .964 5v5 and .938 on the PK.

Andersen's .921 5v5 save% isnt actually too bad (sort of middle of the pack) but his .786 on the PK is historically bad.

 

[therealkoho]

I find the power play lacks focus. They don’t seem to be in a hurry to get into the offensive zone, they don’t bring the puck up cleanly and efficiently.

For all the talent they have they seem to funnel too many bodies into the slot area which descends into a garbage goal hunt with our scoring options bunched together, losing body positioning as they get boxed out. The way their formation has set up seems to be predicated on having 3 JVR’s. But since JVR left that spot seems to be a bit a dead zone to waste a forward on. First Kadri. Then Tavares. And now Matthews.

Once Matthews is healthy you want that trigger man at the hash marks but we also could use a guy behind the net, and even the point could be reinvented a little bit. Maybe more of an umbrella formation that can get the puck to each side wall with more efficiency.

Overall just very sluggish.

agreed and sluggish certainly is the right word for it, it starts(literally) with the drop backs which end up in a net result of clogging the neutral zone and/or creating a traffic jam at the defending blueline. So they don't enter with the speed necessary to create confusion and spread the defenders out or that creates an imbalance on one side to open up the remaining ice. Speed is the key, they have tons of it and aren't doing the things they could do, in order to take advantage of it.

 

[weems]

Feels like they're content looking good vs. being good. An easy zone entry and a few spins with possession at the top of the umbrella make them happy.

Not enough across the seams, or quick puck movement

Does anyone have zone entry stats for our powerplay?

It feels like out of everyone on our team, Spezza is the most effective at getting it into the zone but again that's based just on eye test.

 

[Damisoph]

Dorian is on phone right now trying to trade that Sens player who made the soft pass on that 3 on 1 with only Matthews back lol

I'd take Chabot but that $8m is a big ticket.

 

[Mr Hockey]

I'd take Chabot but that $8m is a big ticket.

he is a beauty, he would look awesome with our top 2 lines

 

[Damisoph]

People think this guy is a beauty?

Elliotte's face gets me every time

 

[kb]

There is no 3 on 3 in the playoffs so let's not count those goals. Continuing to get "stoned" by average goalies is concerning to me.

Don't forget in the playoffs there is OT. Scoring 3 on 3 counts the same as 5 on 5 like the playoffs. So not sure why you would attempt to disqualify one or possibly 2 goals scored in OT?

 

[Gary Nylund]

See, but looking at stats like xgoals and others helps you understand how much a team's losses are due to team failures or rather, say, goalie failures.

It can help, sure. I can also be misleading when sample size is small so best to tread carefully.

The goalie is part of the team BTW.

 

[Stephen]

Feels like they're content looking good vs. being good. An easy zone entry and a few spins with possession at the top of the umbrella make them happy.

Not enough across the seams, or quick puck movement

Agreed. It’s too many passes as well, like they’re collecting style points for the keep away game they think they’re playing. You almost need a grit grinder to keep things straight forward and to the point.

 

[Stephen]

Don't forget in the playoffs there is OT. Scoring 3 on 3 counts the same as 5 on 5 like the playoffs. So not sure why you would attempt to disqualify one or possibly 2 goals scored in OT?

5 on 5 playoff OT isn’t played the same way as 3 on 3 OT so I think that’s the guy’s point that success in regular season OT doesn’t translate.

 

[ToneDog]

Don't forget in the playoffs there is OT. Scoring 3 on 3 counts the same as 5 on 5 like the playoffs. So not sure why you would attempt to disqualify one or possibly 2 goals scored in OT?

IMO we clearly have advantage in 3 on 3 vs most teams. More even in sudden death vs playoff teams.

 

[BlackTipReefer]

agreed and sluggish certainly is the right word for it, it starts(literally) with the drop backs which end up in a net result of clogging the neutral zone and/or creating a traffic jam at the defending blueline. So they don't enter with the speed necessary to create confusion and spread the defenders out or that creates an imbalance on one side to open up the remaining ice. Speed is the key, they have tons of it and aren't doing the things they could do, in order to take advantage of it.

They can never get a goalie moving East- West, and they really struggle with generating rebound goals.

Earlier in the year, they were whipping the puck around like pinball. Now it seems like Marner and Rielly play catch for 30 seconds and then Rielly farts one in the general direction of the goalie.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Don't forget in the playoffs there is OT. Scoring 3 on 3 counts the same as 5 on 5 like the playoffs. So not sure why you would attempt to disqualify one or possibly 2 goals scored in OT?

Goals are much, much easier to come by in 3 on 3 compared to 5 on 5 so I wouldn't lump them in with "normal" goals.

 

[JT AM da real deal]

They can never get a goalie moving East- West, and they really struggle with generating rebound goals.

Earlier in the year, they were whipping the puck around like pinball. Now it seems like Marner and Rielly play catch for 30 seconds and then Rielly farts one in the general direction of the goalie.

Yep puck is too too too far away from golaer at all times on PP ... goaler can read it moving pretty easy as it is too far away from net ... harder to read if passes worked from behind net to triangle inside circles ... Matty and Mitch and especially Rielly are way way way too far from net

 

[Dreakmur]

See, but looking at stats like xgoals and others helps you understand how much a team's losses are due to team failures or rather, say, goalie failures.

If you’re measuring the correct thing, sure. If you’re not, it leads you down the wrong road, which causes more damage.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Agreed. It’s too many passes as well, like they’re collecting style points for the keep away game they think they’re playing. You almost need a grit grinder to keep things straight forward and to the point.

Yup. Look at the goals last night - you could call them both lucky bounces but if you shoot at the net enough, good things happen. Traffic in front and pucks at the net, it ain't fancy but it works.

 

[napoleon in rags]

It's almost entirely derived from shot location, no account for the actual player taking the shot.

An Ovechkin bomb from the point, ceteris paribus, is valued the same as one from Luke Schenn.

The use of the word "danger" for the statistic is borderline laughable.

A more apt name for the stat should be "Closeness of Shot from the Net plus a few other trivial things".

There are simple ones and more complex ones.

Simple ones like on naturalstattrick.com simply track shot location, and high danger and scoring chances are defined simply by what box on the ice those shots are from.

Other more complex scoring chance measures factor in whether shots come off rushes, rebounds, cross ice passes, and the quality of the shooter.


Of course no matter which measures you prefer, they all say the same thing about the leafs.

And even the pure shot location measures prove that anyone who claims the leafs don't get shots from inside is clearly wrong.

Unless I'm missing something then yes, it's measured by humans with all their biases and imperfections and "high danger" is subjective to begin with.

Surprised doesn't begin to cover it. I just call BS on that number, I don't trust it at all.

Thanks for all the responses. I appreciate the differences of opinion.

 

[Dreakmur]

They can never get a goalie moving East- West, and they really struggle with generating rebound goals.

Earlier in the year, they were whipping the puck around like pinball. Now it seems like Marner and Rielly play catch for 30 seconds and then Rielly farts one in the general direction of the goalie.

Sure, you get some goals off rebounds, but the Leafs lose out on most of their chances by over handling the puck before shooting. Making the goalie move doesn’t matter when you give him time to reset before your shoot.

 

[willmma]

Great visual! Here's another one I like to show how well we are playing:

View attachment 412820

How about that, the "invisible" WN + JT are in the top 3.

 

[Joey Hoser]

It can help, sure. I can also be misleading when sample size is small so best to tread carefully.

Stands to reason that the people who are into stats the most, would understand the significance of sample size the best.

 

[kb]

Holl seems to be beloved by his teammates. Matthews and Marner were over the top excited for him after the goal.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I just feel like I know better.

And that's really what it all boils down to. There's no actual argument against it. You have nothing to substantiate your claims. But you throw out valuable statistics because while watching, with all of your significant bias, it doesn't always perfectly match your feelings.

 

[zeke]

I’d look at it like: we clearly have a team which Xgf indicates is performing at a high level. If we aren’t getting the goals and wins as expected what needs to be looked at? I doubt it all just regresses perfectly predictable to the mean.

We have elite goal differential matching our expected goal differential tho.