Speculation: Stop Sign on the defense necessary?

[Gallagbi]

Yup, agree.

People here see the tree, and only the tree. The forest does not exist.

It is a run and gun team. Okay, they don't call it run and gun anymore, it is a possession team.

Regardless of what this style of hockey is called now, this Maple Leafs team is almost at the bottom of the league goals against, and at the top of the league goals for.

This would suggest to most people, that the stats for the players on the team, will be skewed in a certain direction.

But no, we see the tree, and it's Andersen's fault.

My opinion is that this is what Dubas wanted, and this is what we got.

Guess he succeeded then, lolz!

It's interesting, I read your post and all I can think of is GA is your "tree" and you're completely missing the forest around it.

Possession isn't the new name for run and gun either, it's actually pretty close to the opposite.

GA is a problem. Biggest factor there is goaltending based on the numbers (and my eye test), then breakdowns. We should be a middle of the pack defensive team with the amount and quality of chances we give up, sadly we're much lower with the quality of goaltending we've got this year. Fred and Hutch simply have under performed.

 

[usernamezrhardtodo]

Well just look at how many times the defense has no option to outlet a puck because the forwards are gone, long gone. The defense gets pressured and the forwards blow the zone and the passes are right in to coverage. Keefe needs to pull on the reins

I liked the 'reloading' thing when I first saw it. Now...not so much when you do it 95% of the time. We get hemmed in by 1 fore checker and keep reversing it back behind our net...We are also negating our speed advantage by going east-west all the time. If this reloading resulted in our guys bursting up the ice with speed...I am all for it..but it usually means 12 passes and a dump in where we have no speed to retrieve the puck.

I am sure there are times to use it...but ALL the time? 1 guy causes havoc and 4 sit back waiting...not smart IMO. It might have worked well in the AHL because of our skill advantage...but even a 3rd-4th line plug up in the NHL has some skill nowadays.

 

[Chief keefe]

Honestly, defence is a problem (it always has been let’s not kid ourselves) and so is goaltending. The fact Freddy had no competition the last two years made him relax and take his foot off the pedal. He’s regressed...that coming from a person who’s favourite leaf is Freddy. But the bigger problem is that we have 4 players who are entitled and don’t play defence. Those same 4 players set the culture in that room. You either trade one of them to set an example or they need to be given 1 last chance with a serious conversation about the next steps if they don’t starts back checking , hitting, covering for the D and just starting on damn time....it’s pathetic because this team is actually so stacked I’ve never witnessed anything like it..

 

[Stephen]

I liked the 'reloading' thing when I first saw it. Now...not so much when you do it 95% of the time. We get hemmed in by 1 fore checker and keep reversing it back behind our net...We are also negating our speed advantage by going east-west all the time. If this reloading resulted in our guys bursting up the ice with speed...I am all for it..but it usually means 12 passes and a dump in where we have no speed to retrieve the puck.

I am sure there are times to use it...but ALL the time? 1 guy causes havoc and 4 sit back waiting...not smart IMO. It might have worked well in the AHL because of our skill advantage...but even a 3rd-4th line plug up in the NHL has some skill nowadays.

Totally agree. When they bump it back all it does is create more space for an opposition forecheck to create pressure in a more vulnerable part of the ice as well as cut off the forwards. It should be used sparingly in the right situation to a highly skilled D pair not the default play.

Generally feels like both Keefe and Babcock have run into some issues with their curious transition methods, either the stretch pass or the bump back, or drop pass wind up. For the life of me I don't understand why we can't just come up the center ice via defense, short passes to the wing and some combination of a dump/chip in or carry it depending on personnel and circumstance like every other team. Cut out the big plays and find the creativity within a safer transition game.

 

[Stephen]

Honestly, defence is a problem (it always has been let’s not kid ourselves) and so is goaltending. The fact Freddy had no competition the last two years made him relax and take his foot off the pedal. He’s regressed...that coming from a person who’s favourite leaf is Freddy. But the bigger problem is that we have 4 players who are entitled and don’t play defence. Those same 4 players set the culture in that room. You either trade one of them to set an example or they need to be given 1 last chance with a serious conversation about the next steps if they don’t starts back checking , hitting, covering for the D and just starting on damn time....it’s pathetic because this team is actually so stacked I’ve never witnessed anything like it..

The whole big picture problem is we've spent too much at forward which has resulted in a underfunded, hastily constructed defense and an incompetent backup goalie. The backup goalie situation festered to the point of hurting the starting goaltending for whatever reason either by over utilization or pressure to perform. The poor goaltending has eroded the confidence of the defensive group as well as exposing their weaknesses. The overpaid forward group is then taxed to push more offense to make up for the defensive issues which then further exposes problems.

 

[Gallagbi]

The whole big picture problem is we've spent too much at forward which has resulted in a underfunded, hastily constructed defense and an incompetent backup goalie. The backup goalie situation festered to the point of hurting the starting goaltending for whatever reason either by over utilization or pressure to perform. The poor goaltending has eroded the confidence of the defensive group as well as exposing their weaknesses. The overpaid forward group is then taxed to push more offense to make up for the defensive issues which then further exposes problems.

Seems like you're over complicating bad goaltending. We had a back-up who isn't NHL caliber for most of the year and a starter who has heavily underperformed. D seems to be what we expected and performing like a middle tier unit (which was the expectation). Forwards are scoring a ton and performing up to par. Goaltending is well below.

Give us expected goaltending and we're comfortably in a playoff spot right now, likely a borderline top 5 team in the league.

 

[Polaris1010]

It's interesting, I read your post and all I can think of is GA is your "tree" and you're completely missing the forest around it.

Possession isn't the new name for run and gun either, it's actually pretty close to the opposite.

GA is a problem. Biggest factor there is goaltending based on the numbers (and my eye test), then breakdowns. We should be a middle of the pack defensive team with the amount and quality of chances we give up, sadly we're much lower with the quality of goaltending we've got this year. Fred and Hutch simply have under performed.

Sorry, but do not buy that at all.

Go back to the very basic question, what is "Goals Against"?

It is the number of goals the team allows. Is that all on the goalie?

There use to be one answer to that question, but now there are two.

No, it is not the goalie's fault the Leafs are near the bottom of the league in GA.

The second answer to that question, is that it depends on these analytics, and the pretzel making starts.

You have to be fair and objective. Once you starting saying, "they should be", that is not being fair and objective, that is being totally biased.

 

[Gallagbi]

You have to be fair and objective. Once you starting saying, "they should be", that is not being fair and objective, that is being totally biased.

Weird take, it's biased to suggest our goaltending is allowing too many goals for the quality of shots we allow, but it's not biased to suggest it's our defenses fault? When the objective measures suggest that's exactly the case?

 

[Polaris1010]

Weird take, it's biased to suggest our goaltending is allowing too many goals for the quality of shots we allow, but it's not biased to suggest it's our defenses fault? When the objective measures suggest that's exactly the case?

[Like]!

(they took my Like button away again, lol).

 

[Dekes For Days]

There is a simple explanation for that. It is either:-

A) Hutchinson is a better goalie than Andersen.
B) There is something wrong with the methodology that no one thought of, is producing misplaced conclusions.

C) Goaltenders can fluctuate pretty wildly over smaller samples.

Go back to the very basic question, what is "Goals Against"?
It is the number of goals the team allows. Is that all on the goalie?

Goals against is a measure that is the combination of defense and goaltending, and is way more heavily affected by goaltending in this league. We have metrics that measure both defensive impact of the skaters, and goaltending quality, so that we can see where the primary strengths and weaknesses are in coming to a GA number. While in past years the defense truly has been quite bad, the primary weakness this year is goaltending.

No, it is not the goalie's fault the Leafs are near the bottom of the league in GA.

It quite literally is the primary reason.

 

[Dekes For Days]

The backup goalie situation festered to the point of hurting the starting goaltending for whatever reason either by over utilization or pressure to perform.

There is zero evidence that the backup goalie had any impact on Andersen. Andersen's individual struggles are on himself.

People hated our backup situation last year too, and Andersen had his best year as a Leaf.

 

[Stephen]

There is zero evidence that the backup goalie had any impact on Andersen. Andersen's individual struggles are on himself.

People hated our backup situation last year too, and Andersen had his best year as a Leaf.

When the discussion around Andersen leading into the season was over utilization leading to decline in performance in the playoffs, and his play continues to deteriorate with over utilization this year, that would give you a clue as to the impact of having a poor backup on Andersen's struggles.

 

[LeafingTheWay]

When the discussion around Andersen leading into the season was over utilization leading to decline in performance in the playoffs, and his play continues to deteriorate with over utilization this year, that would give you a clue as to the impact of having a poor backup on Andersen's struggles.

But here's the thing: Andersen has started less games up until getting injured this season, than at the same point in his first two years here . So the Leafs are utilizing him less slowly year by year. I just think he's having a bad period of hockey, but he'll bounce back soon.

 

[Dekes For Days]

When the discussion around Andersen leading into the season was over utilization leading to decline in performance in the playoffs, and his play continues to deteriorate with over utilization this year, that would give you a clue as to the impact of having a poor backup on Andersen's struggles.

The discussion was that Andersen might potentially be slightly better off in a deep playoff run if he wasn't tasked with playing 65+ games in the regular season. I'm not sure how you've turned a "what's ideal?" question about games after the 65+ mark of the season, into excusing a massive drop off in Andersen's play right from game 1, despite him, if anything, having more rest at this point than in the past 3 years in which he has put up great performances. He's on pace for 60 games, which ties his lowest GP with the Leafs. In fact, his worst stretches this year tend to coincide with the periods of most rest; the beginning of the season, after the holiday break, and after the all star break. We had a bad backup situation last year, and Andersen put up his best year as a Leaf. There is no basis to conclude that the backup situation is what in any way caused Andersen's struggles.

 

[Stephen]

But here's the thing: Andersen has started less games up until getting injured this season, than at the same point in his first two years here . So the Leafs are utilizing him less slowly year by year. I just think he's having a bad period of hockey, but he'll bounce back soon.

Well, he's missed a few games due to his injury, but he's still played 43 out of 59 games and on pace for a 59-60 game season which is around what he was utilized at last year. But whatever the optimal utilization rate for Andersen is, the Leafs haven't been able to give him the kind of back up support that was discussed entering the season.

 

[Stephen]

The discussion was that Andersen might potentially be slightly better off in a deep playoff run if he wasn't tasked with playing 65+ games in the regular season. I'm not sure how you've turned a "what's ideal?" question about games after the 65+ mark of the season, into excusing a massive drop off in Andersen's play right from game 1, despite him, if anything, having more rest at this point than in the past 3 years in which he has put up great performances. He's on pace for 60 games, which ties his lowest GP with the Leafs. In fact, his worst stretches this year tend to coincide with the periods of most rest; the beginning of the season, after the holiday break, and after the all star break. We had a bad backup situation last year, and Andersen put up his best year as a Leaf. There is no basis to conclude that the backup situation is what in any way caused Andersen's struggles.

How do you figure last year was Andersen's best year as a Leaf when he played more games in 2017 and 2018, recorded more wins in 2018, supported a better GAA in 2017 and posted marginally better SV% in 2017?

What it looks like is a guy who posted some consistent workhorse numbers for a few years but possibly trending downwards due to utilization rates due to over use, and speculation he would do better in a situation resembling the Halak/Rask platoon. (Because we love to cherry pick what works for Boston).

What does this all mean? Andersen probably didn't get the kind of tandem support that was discussed which led to some erosion of quality in play. The backup goaltending was definitely a problem which looks like it's finally been remedied now. It will be interesting to see how Andersen responds with a credible challenge from Campbell.

 

[LeafingTheWay]

Well, he's missed a few games due to his injury, but he's still played 43 out of 59 games and on pace for a 59-60 game season which is around what he was utilized at last year. But whatever the optimal utilization rate for Andersen is, the Leafs haven't been able to give him the kind of back up support that was discussed entering the season.

I was just pointing out that he played more in 2016/2017 and 2017/2018, even though we had a good backup then.

I agree though. If Campbell keeps up the good play, I hope we see a split of 50 games for Andersen and 32 games for Campbell next year.

 

[Dekes For Days]

How do you figure last year was Andersen's best year as a Leaf when he played more games in 2017 and 2018, recorded more wins in 2018, supported a better GAA in 2017 and posted marginally better SV% in 2017?

You're using team stats like wins and ignoring that scoring went up.

Goals saved above average:

2016/2017: 8.54 (13th)
2017/2018: 12.03 (12th)
2018/2019: 14.38 (10th)

The team's expected goals against remained very consistent during this time (25th -> 24th -> 24th).

What it looks like is a guy who posted some consistent workhorse numbers for a few years but possibly trending downwards due to utilization rates due to over use, and speculation he would do better in a situation resembling the Halak/Rask platoon.

Once again, there is zero evidence that he is "trending downwards due to utilization rates", and there is significant evidence against this being a cause, as I already showed in my previous post. This is you applying your own narrative to rationalize a goaltender that is simply struggling for a period of time, like literally all goaltenders do.

 

[Wafflewhipper]

I thought you meant like the stop sign patch on the back of jerseys to remind the other team not to body check you straight in the numbers, which would actually be pretty useful since the league seems fairly ambivalent about enforcing its own rules.

Lol yeah you aren’t even kidding ha