Post-Game Talk: Leafs lose to Rangers 4-1

[Bluelines]

Didn't have a good vibe about this game so didn't watch.

But are we saying Sparks would have had to have had a shutout to win?

These playoffs are going to be interesting, have to see if they can bear down when they come up against good goaltending.

A better goalie probably would have had one of those 3 goals but the loss shouldn't be placed on his shoulders, for as poor as he has been this year, his last 2 games are among his best this year. The guy appears to be developing into a legit NHL back up.

 

[Bluelines]

Chris Keider is on my trade wish list for Leafs playing along side Matthews on his LW.

That is the type of big powerforward that can really play.

I listened to part of the game in Sirrus XM and their feed was the NYR home feed, the announcers suggested that Kreider and McQuade would be good pick ups for the Leafs but Kreider would demand a high price, where McQuade , probably slots in 6 or 7 on our depth chart would be had for a low pick, like a 6th or 7th round.

 

[notDatsyuk]

It IS a good "excuse ", most teams record isn't as good on the 2nd game of back to back games. You can't take 1 team whose record is amazing after back to back games and imply that's the norm.

It's an excuse. They lost because they played a more physical team, that kept the slot clear so most of their shots weren't as dangerous, and their goalie had a good game, largely because he was getting good looks.

 

[57 Years No Cup]

HDCF are high danger scoring chances.

xGA are the expected goals against based on shot quality.

Subjective judgments made by humans. 36 "high danger" chances in this game? LOL.

 

[ToneDog]

It's an excuse. They lost because they played a more physical team, that kept the slot clear so most of their shots weren't as dangerous, and their goalie had a good game, largely because he was getting good looks.

Some teams actually have their legs in the second game of b2b games.

 

[GodEmperor]

What you can glean from JVR's repeated 30 goals is he is a good goal scorer, to determine if he is a good player you have to establish the measurement criteria first. If you personally feel goal scoring = good player, that is maybe on you not understanding you can be one but not the other and visa versa. Perhaps you've conflated scoring goals with a good player.

So we are not winning the games with enough panache? Not your style? Boo hoo, well there are more than 10 different metrics that would suggest that the style we are playing is not monochrome but multifaceted and effective.

Your glib reply does you no justice, try again?

Yeah and what we can learn from your statistics is that the Leafs are a good team, do you think I or any of the other fans care if we're just "good?" Should we just be "good" after acquiring Matthews, Nylander, Marner and Tavares?

Some more context:
Leafs are tied for 6th in the league
There are 2 other teams within 2 points of them
Basically they are just one of the best 1/3 teams in the league, something they've been for the previous two years WITHOUT Tavares, WITHOUT Nylander having his massive contract and without Matthews getting paid
The Leafs are ranked 28th in PP since December
The Leafs are barely over 500 since December
Leafs have a LOSING record v non playoff teams since January
Matthews has 4 goals in his last 13 games and 1 in his last 4 since his massive contract
Babcock is still making horrible decisions like he did in Detroit and like he did since his first year here

But keep acting like everything is ok because you can contort stats to justify your narrative, the reality is that this was a team that was supposed to take a step forward this year, they're on pace for the same amount of points as last year. Marner, Matthews and Nylander's ELC deals are done, Kapanen and Johnsson need new contracts and we just signed Tavares and Nylander to big contracts to pace for the SAME amount of points as last year.

Maybe you're right though, I look forward to the good parade down Yonge that we give all our good teams.

 

[notDatsyuk]

Some teams actually have their legs in the second game of b2b games.

I think that's true a lot of the time, and the Leafs didn't play like they were tired. I find the third game in four nights more problematic.

 

[biotk]

Subjective judgments made by humans. 36 "high danger" chances in this game? LOL.

They based on shot location not subject judgements.

 

[57 Years No Cup]

Chris Keider is on my trade wish list for Leafs playing along side Matthews on his LW.

That is the type of big powerforward that can really play.

Isn't he the same age as Marleau?

 

[57 Years No Cup]

Yeah and what we can learn from your statistics is that the Leafs are a good team, do you think I or any of the other fans care if we're just "good?" Should we just be "good" after acquiring Matthews, Nylander, Marner and Tavares?

Some more context:
Leafs are tied for 6th in the league
There are 2 other teams within 2 points of them
Basically they are just one of the best 1/3 teams in the league, something they've been for the previous two years WITHOUT Tavares, WITHOUT Nylander having his massive contract and without Matthews getting paid
The Leafs are ranked 28th in PP since December
The Leafs are barely over 500 since December
Leafs have a LOSING record v non playoff teams since January
Matthews has 4 goals in his last 13 games and 1 in his last 4 since his massive contract
Babcock is still making horrible decisions like he did in Detroit and like he did since his first year here

But keep acting like everything is ok because you can contort stats to justify your narrative, the reality is that this was a team that was supposed to take a step forward this year, they're on pace for the same amount of points as last year. Marner, Matthews and Nylander's ELC deals are done, Kapanen and Johnsson need new contracts and we just signed Tavares and Nylander to big contracts to pace for the SAME amount of points as last year.

Maybe you're right though, I look forward to the good parade down Yonge that we give all our good teams.

Ah, yes. The Participation Parade. And we all get ribbons!

 

[Bluelines]

Yeah and what we can learn from your statistics is that the Leafs are a good team, do you think I or any of the other fans care if we're just "good?" Should we just be "good" after acquiring Matthews, Nylander, Marner and Tavares?

Some more context:
Leafs are tied for 6th in the league
There are 2 other teams within 2 points of them
Basically they are just one of the best 1/3 teams in the league, something they've been for the previous two years WITHOUT Tavares, WITHOUT Nylander having his massive contract and without Matthews getting paid
The Leafs are ranked 28th in PP since December
The Leafs are barely over 500 since December
Leafs have a LOSING record v non playoff teams since January
Matthews has 4 goals in his last 13 games and 1 in his last 4 since his massive contract
Babcock is still making horrible decisions like he did in Detroit and like he did since his first year here

But keep acting like everything is ok because you can contort stats to justify your narrative, the reality is that this was a team that was supposed to take a step forward this year, they're on pace for the same amount of points as last year. Marner, Matthews and Nylander's ELC deals are done, Kapanen and Johnsson need new contracts and we just signed Tavares and Nylander to big contracts to pace for the SAME amount of points as last year.

Maybe you're right though, I look forward to the good parade down Yonge that we give all our good teams.

OMG, the sky is falling, we are near or top 5 in most team categories. OMG the shame, to think we actually lost a game this year... FIRE EVERYONE!!!!!!!!! What possible over reaction will ... we have today?

OOOh horrible decisions 4 wins and 1 loss in the last 5....ohhhh... horrible....

OOOh our PP sucks, the PP that has among the least opportunities in the league but yet we are the best scoring team 5 on 5... Ohhhhh the horror... for 6 minutes a game (our average PP time per game) we are ineffective but for the other 54 we are the best goal scoring team in the league.... ohhh the horror..... how can we ever recover from those 6 minutes.... ohhhh me..... oh myyyyyyy....

Then there is tripe, tripe, more tripe and them more tripe in your previous post... I think I covered all the over reaction for today?

You've touched me so much with your overreaction, I dedicate this song to you... keep a stiff upper lip slugger
...

 

[ToneDog]

Isn't he the same age as Marleau?

He is 27. Will be 28 April 30. Cap hit of $3,257,392

 

[57 Years No Cup]

They based on shot location not subject judgements.

So a dribbler from the "right" location with two Rangers hanging on you that barely makes it to the goalie is a "high danger" scoring chance?

Bullshit stat.

 

[57 Years No Cup]

He is 27. Will be 28 April 30. Cap hit of $3,257,392

Must have him mixed up with someone else. My bad.

 

[notDatsyuk]

They based on shot location not subject judgements.

True. That means that a dribbler from the slot with a defenceman draped all over you is 'high danger', while an Ovechkin one-timer from a cross-ice pass isn't, because he was a foot outside the area.

 

[biotk]

So a dribbler from the "right" location with two Rangers hanging on you that barely makes it to the goalie is a "high danger" scoring chance?

Bull**** stat.

A dribbler from the right location that goes in the net is just as much a goal as any other goal.

League wide this year the shooting percentages from

high danger locations: 18.3%
medium danger locations: 10.2%
low danger locations: 3.6%

 

[biotk]

True. That means that a dribbler from the slot with a defenceman draped all over you is 'high danger', while an Ovechkin one-timer from a cross-ice pass isn't, because he was a foot outside the area.

Yawn.

 

[57 Years No Cup]

A dribbler from the right location that goes in the net is just as much a goal as any other goal.

League wide this year the shooting percentages from

high danger locations: 18.3%
medium danger locations: 10.2%
low danger locations: 3.6%

Great. Use it to learn where to position your players then. In no way shape or form is this stat indicative of the quality of the chance though, nor is it evidence that you "outplayed" your opponent. It just proves you got to a spot.

 

[Nithoniniel]

True. That means that a dribbler from the slot with a defenceman draped all over you is 'high danger', while an Ovechkin one-timer from a cross-ice pass isn't, because he was a foot outside the area.

Which is an issue when you look at individual shots, but that's not what we are doing here.

 

[1specter]

Just thought I share this with you all for a good laugh

Pagnotta is a moron. Check the heat map you dumb f***

 

[57 Years No Cup]

Yawn.

This reply rates 100 in LERP/60.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

I'm not going to lament about losing our other back-ups to waivers but I'm really not sure Sparks is/will be an NHL goalie.
It's possible that I'm just spoiled with Steady Freddy but I hate the way he looks in net. It's like a Riemer/Bernier combo. If you aren't Hasek, a frantic net-style never works long-term.

Aww, a Reimer / Bernier combo for your backup ain't so bad.

 

[notDatsyuk]

A dribbler from the right location that goes in the net is just as much a goal as any other goal.

League wide this year the shooting percentages from

high danger locations: 18.3%
medium danger locations: 10.2%
low danger locations: 3.6%

Yes, the averages show that. But averages mean nothing in individual situations. (The average life span is 70 years, but that does not mean you and I will both die on our 70th birthday.) If you watched the game, you would know that there may have been 36 shots from the 'high danger' area, but there weren't 36 'high danger' shots.

 

[57 Years No Cup]

Which is an issue when you look at individual shots, but that's not what we are doing here.

How do they compile the stat if they're not looking at individual shots?

 

[notDatsyuk]

Which is an issue when you look at individual shots, but that's not what we are doing here.

It's not? The original post said we had 36 high danger shots. Of those 36 shots from the 'high danger' area, how many were actual high danger shots? Not many.