Sportsnet: Maple Leafs need to mend divided dressing room

[AustonMitchWilly]

Can you do the same for Komorov?

It's not much better. Koma is a stud.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Nope.

After looking at the numbers Gunnar had lower OZFO%, NZFO%, and higher DZFO%, than Polak.

I guess you are talking last season then? I'm not.

 

[ACC1224]

It's not much better. Koma is a stud.

Meaning it's similar to Polak?

 

[Mess]

Can you do the same for Komorov?

Some might be surprised but the situation with Leo is the same as it is with Polak.

Polak is #8th worst Dmen (of 187) in the NHL in Goals Against /60 minutes.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...300&teamid=0&type=goals&sort=A60&sortdir=DESC

Komarov is #2 worst Forward (of 312 total) in GA60.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...300&teamid=0&type=goals&sort=A60&sortdir=DESC

Both Komarov and Polak are near the very top of the NHL list for most goals against at ES 5v5 and Leafs give up more goals against as a result when they're in the line-up as opposed to out of it.

So its not hard to see why the Leafs record with or without them would vary as the goals against increases with their presence.

 

[AustonMitchWilly]

I guess you are talking last season then? I'm not.

Of course. You can only go by the numbers that they had to work with at the time of trade.

It was a bad one for us then, and especially a bad one for us now.

I guess you could compare Gunnar's stats with us to Polak's stats to us, which would favor Gunnar.

Gunnar's current stats, past stats, and Leaf's only stats all favor him being better than Polak andstronger in defensive situations.


Theres really no comparison.

 

[AustonMitchWilly]

Some might be surprised but the situation with Leo is the same as it is with Polak.

Polak is #8th worst Dmen (of 187) in the NHL in Goals Against /60 minutes.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...300&teamid=0&type=goals&sort=A60&sortdir=DESC

Komarov is #2 worst Forward (of 312 total) in GA60.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...300&teamid=0&type=goals&sort=A60&sortdir=DESC

Both Komarov and Polak are near the very top of the NHL list for most goals against at ES 5v5 and Leafs give up more goals against as a result when they're in the line-up as opposed to out of it.

So its not hard to see why the Leafs record with or without them would vary.

Holy smokes, I wouldve never expected that. Are those Zone Start Adjusted numbers?

 

[Nithoniniel]

Some might be surprised but the situation with Leo is the same as it is with Polak.

Polak is #8th worst Dmen (of 187) in the NHL in Goals Against /60 minutes.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...300&teamid=0&type=goals&sort=A60&sortdir=DESC

Komarov is #2 worst Forward (of 312 total) in GA60.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...300&teamid=0&type=goals&sort=A60&sortdir=DESC

Both Komarov and Polak are near the very top of the NHL list for most goals against at ES 5v5 and Leafs give up more goals against as a result when they're in the line-up as opposed to out of it.

So its not hard to see why the Leafs record with or without them would vary.

So I take it you are just going to ignore my answers to you where I provided the necessary context for the numbers you keep using?

Of course. You can only go by the numbers that they had to work with at the time of trade.

It was a bad one for us then, and especially a bad one for us now.

I guess you could compare Gunnar's stats with us to Polak's stats to us, which would favor Gunnar.

Gunnar's current stats, past stats, and Leaf's only stats all favor him being better than Polak andstronger in defensive situations.

Theres really no comparison.

I was responding to Mess who compared them on their record for the current season though, hence the confusion.

 

[AustonMitchWilly]

Leo also has the most points per 60 minutes at 3, when the starts are adjusted for Zone Start Percentage.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Leo also has the most points per 60 minutes at 3, when the starts are adjusted for Zone Start Percentage.

I would guess Komarov has some really bad on-ice save percentage and really good on-ice shot percentage, would explain the numbers a bit.

Don't have time to look it up, have to run. I'll take a look if I get some time over later on today.

 

[yubbers]

Dion carried Gunnar last year, just like he is carrying Franson this year. I know you don't want to see that because you hate Dion so much but it's true.

Dions play went off the deep end last year once 7 d started rolling and Phaneuf / gunner was broken up. Gunners numbers didn't plummet

That would suggest the opposite no?

 

[Stephen]

Gunnarsson is simply going to have a better time playing defense than Polak because every time there's a scramble for a puck in his own zone, his Blues wingers aren't racing up to center ice, leaving him to a) win a foot race to the puck b) win a puck battle against one or two forecheckers c) be forced to make a perfect 60 foot stretch pass.

 

[yubbers]

You're missing the point. Gunner had better numbers last year on the leafs playing far tougher minutes than Polak on a defensively sound blues team

 

[Mess]

So I take it you are just going to ignore my answers to you where I provided the necessary context for the numbers you keep using?

You're not debating me you're debating the merits of Corsi Analytics.

I'm simply using the data supplied http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com

Are you saying GA60 is not accurate when compared to all players in the NHL and both Dmen and Forwards in comparison?.

You seem to want to add other context (which is fine) to help explain why Polak numbers are poor compared to his teammates and NHL peers at position.

Nothing wrong with you wanting to include shooting % and save % but PDO for Buffalo dmen for example doesn't help Roman's ranking on the worst GA60 rankings.

 

[AustonMitchWilly]

Gunnarsson is simply going to have a better time playing defense than Polak because every time there's a scramble for a puck in his own zone, his Blues wingers aren't racing up to center ice, leaving him to a) win a foot race to the puck b) win a puck battle against one or two forecheckers c) be forced to make a perfect 60 foot stretch pass.

The stats prove that Gunnar was better for the leafs than Polak was for the Blues.

Before Polak was a leaf, and after, Gunnar is and was still far superior.

 

[Stephen]

The stats prove that Gunnar was better for the leafs than Polak was for the Blues.

Before Polak was a leaf, and after, Gunnar is and was still far superior.

I think Gunnarsson has better tools and I would have kept him, but anybody is going to have a much tougher time here.

 

[Durkin67]

I take Corsi QoC every morning...oh wait, that's Co Q10.

Everyone over 40 should be taking it to ensure a healthy heart...

Stats without context are all smoke and mirrors. Raw data on its own is completely misleading.

Gunner was a solid unspectacular Leaf defender who was there to mitigate the effects of Dion's penchant to drift and attack at questionable times.

Polak isnt in the same role, nor was he in St Louis. He's a better fit than Gunner because it gave the Leafs a physical right shot and allowed Dion to go back to the left side. The top pairing now has dangerous shooters on both points (Dion, Franson)

The Leafs' D needed some proven physicality that Gunner could not provide. Polak can bring it all night.

When you get your nose out of the spreadsheet and balance the information with context, you get a better picture.
Polak fills a hole that they have been looking for since Komisarek was unable to live up to the task.

 

[pucky]

I take Corsi QoC every morning...oh wait, that's Co Q10.

Everyone over 40 should be taking it to ensure a healthy heart...

Stats without context are all smoke and mirrors. Raw data on its own is completely misleading.

Gunner was a solid unspectacular Leaf defender who was there to mitigate the effects of Dion's penchant to drift and attack at questionable times.

Polak isnt in the same role, nor was he in St Louis. He's a better fit than Gunner because it gave the Leafs a physical right shot and allowed Dion to go back to the left side. The top pairing now has dangerous shooters on both points (Dion, Franson)

The Leafs' D needed some proven physicality that Gunner could not provide. Polak can bring it all night.

When you get your nose out of the spreadsheet and balance the information with context, you get a better picture.
Polak fills a hole that they have been looking for since Komisarek was unable to live up to the task.

They still give up 40 or so shots a night regardless of which one you have there.

I say, who cares - they are both mediocre dmen... well, all you list there are.

I agree with the point about the forwards, though. Blues wingers/centers probably don't cherry pick as much as Leafs forwards do.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Dions play went off the deep end last year once 7 d started rolling and Phaneuf / gunner was broken up. Gunners numbers didn't plummet

That would suggest the opposite no?

If there are a hundred things to consider, and one of those "suggests" something, there are two basic ways to react:

1 - realize than one piece of data out of 100 is in itself meaningless
2 - say oh wow, so that's the way it is

My version of common sense is to go with 1. But if you want to go with 2 and say that Gunnarson (and Robidas as shown earlier) are better players than Phaneuf that's cool.

I love numbers/logic, always have. And I cringe when when people here post numbers 99% of the time. Of course that makes all the more refreshing when someone objective makes an effort and isn't cherry picking numbers to support an agenda. A lot of sand to sift through to find those nuggets though.

 

[silentbob37*]

Couldn't be more wrong. The reason why this franchise won't be successful because it's best players aren't playing a whole 200 ft game. Kessel (one dimensional) Dion (soft as butter), JVR (one dimensional) Lupul(One dimensional) These 4 players are huge hinderances in the D-zone and a big reason why this team gives up so many shots and so many goals. If we had more players who played a hard game we'd be a lot more successful but if you can't get your best players to buy in to a 200 ft game and or commit themselves fully to the cause then the team is doomed. It's been doomed since we got these 2. It's why we have collapses every year.

Guys like Winnik, Santorelli, Polak, etc are support bottom line guys...if these guys are relied upon for us to be successful then we have been long gone for a long time. It doesn't matter if these guys are signed to 1 year deals or not, they aren't the problem. It's the guys with 7 and 8 year deals that are the problem, it doesn't matter how many "hockey guys" we sign or how long we sign them for. We have to get rid of the problems, and Kessel and Dion and others are the problem.

Thats the trick - getting top guys who play the way you want the team to play - and if that is the "Winnik, Santorelli, Polak etc... style", then they need a big change among the their top guys.

 

[Nithoniniel]

You're not debating me you're debating the merits of Corsi Analytics.

I'm simply using the data supplied http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com

Are you saying GA60 is not accurate when compared to all players in the NHL and both Dmen and Forwards in comparison?.

You seem to want to add other context (which is fine) to help explain why Polak numbers are poor compared to his teammates and NHL peers at position.

Nothing wrong with you wanting to include shooting % and save % but PDO for Buffalo dmen for example doesn't help Roman's ranking on the worst GA60 rankings.

Thanks for the answer.

I think any kind of statistic should always be used in light of others, otherwise you will miss out on key factors. That's why I always try to use more than one in any situation.

A comparison with GA/60, for example, is only fair if both players involved played the same kind of minutes, otherwise you risk having extremely sheltered players look better than star D-men.

Robidas has an even better GA/60 than Gunnarsson. Would you say that his game has been extremely good so far this season?

 

[Gary Nylund]

Thanks for the answer.

I think any kind of statistic should always be used in light of others, otherwise you will miss out on key factors. That's why I always try to use more than one in any situation.

A comparison with GA/60, for example, is only fair if both players involved played the same kind of minutes, otherwise you risk having extremely sheltered players look better than star D-men.

Robidas has an even better GA/60 than Gunnarsson. Would you say that his game has been extremely good so far this season?

There are always more questions to ask. A few factors that immediately come to mind in this situation:

- what teams they play on
- their defence partners
- forwards they play with most often
- SV% of their goalies
- SV% of opposing goalies
- GA numbers are cool, GF are just as relevant what do they look like?
- quality of competition (not just QoC, there are other factors as well)
- how healthy are they
- how healthy have their team-mates/opposition been

I could go on and on. I'm sure if everyone who posted here chipped in we could come up with a list of 50 things without trying too hard.

 

[Mess]

Thanks for the answer.

I think any kind of statistic should always be used in light of others, otherwise you will miss out on key factors. That's why I always try to use more than one in any situation.

A comparison with GA/60, for example, is only fair if both players involved played the same kind of minutes, otherwise you risk having extremely sheltered players look better than star D-men.

Robidas has an even better GA/60 than Gunnarsson. Would you say that his game has been extremely good so far this season?

The Leafs are in the bottom 5 in goals against in the NHL.

So if your sort the Leaf players only by GA/60 minutes doesn't that tell you something?.

Leafs sorted best to worst. (http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...300&teamid=28&type=goals&sort=A60&sortdir=ASC)

Why is Polak at the bottom of GA60 with a PDO of 97.1 verses Robidas at the top of Leafs defense 106.5?

 

[thewave]

Not surprised, if I were a player on this team, I wouldn't play defence either, seeing how our best players treat that side of the game.

You are only as strong as your weakest or strongest link.

You would play defence. The problem is that it becomes incredibly hard to do when the forwards aren't doing their jobs. People here hated Beauchemin... Anyone see the season following his tenure here?

It's bad. You can put Norris quality D on a team with flaky forwards and they will get their butts handed to them and made to look foolish from time to time.

 

[diceman934]

Dions play went off the deep end last year once 7 d started rolling and Phaneuf / gunner was broken up. Gunners numbers didn't plummet

That would suggest the opposite no?

It was also the opposite the year previously when Dion's numbers improved when playing with Gunnar during the last 20 games.

Gunnar was our best Defensive D man last year by a wide margin....

This year he has been banged up, but the Blues are a better team with him in the line up then without him.

 

[ryno23]

I take Corsi QoC every morning...oh wait, that's Co Q10.

Everyone over 40 should be taking it to ensure a healthy heart...

Stats without context are all smoke and mirrors. Raw data on its own is completely misleading.

Gunner was a solid unspectacular Leaf defender who was there to mitigate the effects of Dion's penchant to drift and attack at questionable times.

Polak isnt in the same role, nor was he in St Louis. He's a better fit than Gunner because it gave the Leafs a physical right shot and allowed Dion to go back to the left side. The top pairing now has dangerous shooters on both points (Dion, Franson)

The Leafs' D needed some proven physicality that Gunner could not provide. Polak can bring it all night.

When you get your nose out of the spreadsheet and balance the information with context, you get a better picture.
Polak fills a hole that they have been looking for since Komisarek was unable to live up to the task.

That is the key. If you use the advance stats properly and combine them with all the other aspects that goes into player evaluation such as role, what they bring to the table then you can comment on the fit.

What happens is some people are quoting stats but not understanding why a player was brought in for a certain role.

Polak was brought in for his compete level, physicality and he has provided that. Are his fancy numbers as good as Gunner probably not but that is not his game.

He is the only Leafs D that an opposing forward is worried about going into the corner and coming out with a mouth full of sherwood (yeah old school stick reference for you kids out there). Oh wait Holzer can provide that too but wasn't in the Leafs plans when the deal was made.

So let's always look at the whole picture and not some snapshot of a spreadsheet to evaluate players or moves