The Leafs are 'lucky' to be in last place

[LeafsNation75]

According to James Mirtle the Leafs are lucky to be in last place.

Click to read more...

 

[hoglund]

To be honest I didn't read the article, but I would say they are lucky to be last because, they're really better than their record, they've lost a lot of 1 goal games and probably should have 10 more points than they do. They're the opposite of Detroit, they've allowed 9 more goals than they've scored, but have a winning record and are in a playoff spot.

 

[Mats13]

Here's the way I see it:

The last place team has a 20% chance of picking first and a 52.5% chance of picking top 3.

The second last team has a 13.5% chance at first and a 39% chance at top 3.

The odds just get worse from there.

So completely ignoring the first pick, our chances of picking top 3 are immensely higher than everyone else if we finish last.

 

[Jeypic]

To be honest I didn't read the article, but I would say they are lucky to be last because, they're really better than their record, they've lost a lot of 1 goal games and probably should have 10 more points than they do. They're the opposite of Detroit, they've allowed 9 more goals than they've scored, but have a winning record and are in a playoff spot.

You summed up my feelings. Which probably summed up that's guys feelings. I'm not gonna read it either lol.

Things are going as good as possible this year. Our team is in last, they're competing way harder then last year. Structure is there. Rookies are looking good. And so is our draft pick.

I feel like this team will be hungry to start part two of the rebuild next year, which means winning.

 

[Wafflewhipper]

We'll be even luckier if we get Matthews.

 

[Riellyfan04]

were lucky because we play much better than Flames,Jets,Oilers and a lot more teams.

 

[Menzinger]

Mirtle is spot on here.

Yes, the Leafs are terrible but we've gotten lucky a bit to be THIS terrible. Lots of recent losses were decided by only 1 goal - could have gone either way.

 

[LeafFever]

Honestly, I do get a little tired of people like Mirtle basing all opinions on advanced stats.

 

[HellasLEAF]

Lots of one goal losses. And many of those without the loser point.

 

[Bluelines]

Honestly, I do get a little tired of people like Mirtle basing all opinions on advanced stats.

Agreed, advance stats without skill means nothing.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Honestly, I do get a little tired of people like Mirtle basing all opinions on advanced stats.

Doubt that he does. However, he actually backs his opinions up with something, and that can never be a negative thing.

I mean, even in this article he talks a lot about things that have nothing to do with advanced stats so I'm not sure where you got that from.

 

[The_Chosen_One]

More importantly, we're playing excellent hockey despite our last place status. Edmonton, despite having a stronger forward core, a D-core that is more-or-less similar to ours, have been atrocious.

 

[Leaf Rocket]

According to James Mirtle the Leafs are lucky to be in last place.

This was actually a very interesting article and I do sort of agree. We are in the last place but there are teams that are near us in the standings that if you see them...man they are some terrible.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Mirtle is spot on here.

Yes, the Leafs are terrible but we've gotten lucky a bit to be THIS terrible. Lots of recent losses were decided by only 1 goal - could have gone either way.

Didn't read the article but a few days ago they had 25 one goal losses and another 6 losses where they were less than a minute from a one goal loss (it then became a two goal loss), so for all intents and purposes, 31 one goal losses.

 

[ShaneFalco]

Edmonton - they just bring suck to a whole new level

And I don't think it's lucky, but if it is, it's about damn time the Leafs had some luck

 

[SprDaVE]

This is good. Get really unlucky when we need it the most. Then hopefully, our luck will go our way when we really need it over the next couple years.

 

[Pookie]

The premise of the article is that the advanced stats look positive. Yet the results aren't there.

Must just be bad luck.

Can't possibly be that the "advanced stats" really aren't correlated to a high degree with success.

Naw. Can't be. Must be the way they put their pants on in the morning or the way they drive to the rink. Remember that time JVR washed his jersey? Yeah, that threw the whole thing out the window.

 

[Ari91]

The premise of the article is that the advanced stats look positive. Yet the results aren't there.

Must just be bad luck.

Can't possibly be that the "advanced stats" really aren't correlated to a high degree with success.

Naw. Can't be. Must be the way they put their pants on in the morning or the way they drive to the rink. Remember that time JVR washed his jersey? Yeah, that threw the whole thing out the window.

Did you actually read the article? The premise of the article is using advanced stats to show that the structure of team play is better than their record would suggest. He clearly acknowledged that the difference between the statistics and results are a combination of a lack of talent and bad luck. It's bad luck to lose one of your best players early on. It's bad luck when a previously solid goaltender shows up this season and seemingly forgets how to stop a puck. If JVR normally gets knocked out of the season this early or if it was normal for Bernier to play the way he has this season then you wouldn't consider it bad luck, would you? You would call it consistent and expected.

No way anyone looks at this roster and says, 'yeah, that looks like a roster that can be competitive in games with a chance to win'. Yet despite the lack of talent and goaltending issues, this is a team that has found itself in many games were they've were right in it to the very end and gave themselves the opportunities to actually win. Take those facts and consider, couldn't a healthy JVR and a Bernier from the previous 2 seasons be the difference maker in some of those games? Of course they could have been.

The stats are positive and hopeful because it's indicative of the type of play he expects for his players. Take that play and sub in talented players and the winning possibilities become greater. Of course, this is all theory, but it would be ill conceived to think that just because sports are played in real time that there are no uses for analysis of the game (whether it be statistics or commentary).

 

[SprDaVE]

Did you actually read the article? The premise of the article is using advanced stats to show that the structure of team play is better than their record would suggest. He clearly acknowledged that the difference between the statistics and results are a combination of a lack of talent and bad luck. It's bad luck to lose one of your best players early on. It's bad luck when a previously solid goaltender shows up this season and seemingly forgets how to stop a puck. If JVR normally gets knocked out of the season this early or if it was normal for Bernier to play the way he has this season then you wouldn't consider it bad luck, would you? You would call it consistent and expected.

No way anyone looks at this roster and says, 'yeah, that looks like a roster that can be competitive in games with a chance to win'. Yet despite the lack of talent and goaltending issues, this is a team that has found itself in many games were they've were right in it to the very end and gave themselves the opportunities to actually win. Take those facts and consider, couldn't a healthy JVR and a Bernier from the previous 2 seasons be the difference maker in some of those games? Of course they could have been.

The stats are positive and hopeful because it's indicative of the type of play he expects for his players. Take that play and sub in talented players and the winning possibilities become greater. Of course, this is all theory, but it would be ill conceived to think that just because sports are played in real time that there are no uses for analysis of the game (whether it be statistics or commentary).

Well said.

 

[Clark4Ever]

If this team had consistent goaltending and remained relatively healthy this season, we would be nowhere near last place.

 

[Pookie]

Did you actually read the article? The premise of the article is using advanced stats to show that the structure of team play is better than their record would suggest. He clearly acknowledged that the difference between the statistics and results are a combination of a lack of talent and bad luck. It's bad luck to lose one of your best players early on. It's bad luck when a previously solid goaltender shows up this season and seemingly forgets how to stop a puck. If JVR normally gets knocked out of the season this early or if it was normal for Bernier to play the way he has this season then you wouldn't consider it bad luck, would you? You would call it consistent and expected.

No way anyone looks at this roster and says, 'yeah, that looks like a roster that can be competitive in games with a chance to win'. Yet despite the lack of talent and goaltending issues, this is a team that has found itself in many games were they've were right in it to the very end and gave themselves the opportunities to actually win. Take those facts and consider, couldn't a healthy JVR and a Bernier from the previous 2 seasons be the difference maker in some of those games? Of course they could have been.

The stats are positive and hopeful because it's indicative of the type of play he expects for his players. Take that play and sub in talented players and the winning possibilities become greater. Of course, this is all theory, but it would be ill conceived to think that just because sports are played in real time that there are no uses for analysis of the game (whether it be statistics or commentary).

Is it bad luck when you lose a player? Sure why not.

Are you suggesting that the Leafs are the only team in the NHL to have injury issues or a challenge with goaltender?

To simplify this to say that if only JVR were healthy. Or if only Bernier or Reimer saved more... including the stretches where they were +.960... is missing the big picture. The teams they play weren't perfect either.

As for the "advanced" stats, you are suggesting that this a variable that should dictate success. But it doesn't. Other variables are more important.

Therefore improvement here is moot and very weakly correlated to success.

Meaning nothing to see here but thanks for clicking on my link. Be sure to check back next week when Mirtle postulates that playoff bound teams probably out score their opponents frequently.

 

[Mad Brills*]

Is it bad luck when you lose a player? Sure why not.

Are you suggesting that the Leafs are the only team in the NHL to have injury issues or a challenge with goaltender?

To simplify this to say that if only JVR were healthy. Or if only Bernier or Reimer saved more... including the stretches where they were +.960... is missing the big picture. The teams they play weren't perfect either.

As for the "advanced" stats, you are suggesting that this a variable that should dictate success. But it doesn't. Other variables are more important.

Therefore improvement here is moot and very weakly correlated to success.

Meaning nothing to see here but thanks for clicking on my link. Be sure to check back next week when Mirtle postulates that playoff bound teams probably out score their opponents frequently.

Jesus.

I think you're thinking too much with this.

 

[highslot]

More importantly, we're playing excellent hockey despite our last place status. Edmonton, despite having a stronger forward core, a D-core that is more-or-less similar to ours, have been atrocious.

they definitely don't have a stronger d corp. marincin is the second coming of cory cross; loov who isn't even our top d prospect looks much better than him, as well as percy, when his head is screwed on straight.

our forwards as a team play better d than edmonton, and i think our bottom six are grittier.

 

[Ari91]

Is it bad luck when you lose a player? Sure why not.

Are you suggesting that the Leafs are the only team in the NHL to have injury issues or a challenge with goaltender?

To simplify this to say that if only JVR were healthy. Or if only Bernier or Reimer saved more... including the stretches where they were +.960... is missing the big picture. The teams they play weren't perfect either.

As for the "advanced" stats, you are suggesting that this a variable that should dictate success. But it doesn't. Other variables are more important.

Therefore improvement here is moot and very weakly correlated to success.

Meaning nothing to see here but thanks for clicking on my link. Be sure to check back next week when Mirtle postulates that playoff bound teams probably out score their opponents frequently.

Talk about over-simplifying to the point where you completely miss the point. Go back and read the article - it's about the Leafs being lucky to be in LAST PLACE. No one is saying that bad luck is the distinction between them being a last place team and a competitive team or a middle of the pack team, etc. They'd still be a bad team. Articles would be very lengthy if the writer had to spell out every little detail to its reader. Mirtle is obviously playing on the fact that the Leafs are rebuilding. The point is that while last place is ideal for them, their play (which he uses advanced stats to support) would suggest that relatively speaking, they haven't been playing like a last place team and that there are certain unexpected factors that fall into the 'bad luck' category rather then the 'simply bad' category. It's not at all unreasonable to think that a healthy player like JVR and what was considered normal goaltending by Bernier could be the difference in some of those 1 goal games. If that were the case, you know what would happen? The Leafs wouldn't be in last place anymore...so again, go back to the title of the article and perhaps try reading it with the proper context.

Dictate and probability do not have the same definition so don't claim I said something that I didn't. I in no way suggested that advanced stats help dictate success. I said that increases the probability of success. They do not mean the same thing.

 

[Ovate]

Is it bad luck when you lose a player? Sure why not.

Are you suggesting that the Leafs are the only team in the NHL to have injury issues or a challenge with goaltender?

To simplify this to say that if only JVR were healthy. Or if only Bernier or Reimer saved more... including the stretches where they were +.960... is missing the big picture. The teams they play weren't perfect either.

As for the "advanced" stats, you are suggesting that this a variable that should dictate success. But it doesn't. Other variables are more important.

Therefore improvement here is moot and very weakly correlated to success.

Meaning nothing to see here but thanks for clicking on my link. Be sure to check back next week when Mirtle postulates that playoff bound teams probably out score their opponents frequently.

Every team should expect to lose some player games to injury. But losing your top scorer for over half the season goes beyond that into bad luck territory.

Goaltending fluctuates from year to year. But having .906 goaltending after going into the season with career .913 (Reimer) and .916 (Bernier) goalies goes beyond that into bad luck territory.

You're so anti-advanced stats that you're opposing anything that uses them, even though the case for the Leafs being unlucky could be just as well made without them.