So here’s my statsy take on this first round matchup.
I’ll do this post backwards - I’ll start with my conclusion, and work backwards, so that all the eye-glazing stats come at the end. But as a prize, if you read all the way to the end, you'll get my actual prediction. Though I guess you could just scroll down.
Who is the favorite this Series?
Boston. Yep, Boston. The golden rule of stats is to look at a good sample size, and any good sample size we have says that Boston is (slightly) better. If I was a dispassionate betting man that had to bet on this series blind, I’d bet on Boston. That being said, If I were a betting man, i wouldn’t bet on this series, because there’s no safe pick here. Because if we look at a smaller recent sample size, like the latter half of this season, then the difference between the two teams pretty much dissappears completely. And with a team led by a young core like the Leafs, that feeds easily into a “young and improving” narrative.
As you’ll see lower down if you keep on reading, I find that most of the narratives surrounding this series are...poop. I don’t think the Leafs have more depth at forward, and I don’t think the Bruins have better dmen. I don’t think the Bruins are significantly bigger, and I’m not sure the Leafs are significantly faster. The Leafs might look deeper because they don’t stack their top line, and the bruins’ best players may look better because they stack theirs, but that’s just coaching and chemistry stuff, not talent.
So for me, this series is most likely going to be decided by STARS, not DEPTH. If Matthews takes this opporunity to grab a hold of his stardom, the leafs win. If Bergy shuts him down and marchand takes over, the bruins win. For me, it’s that simple.
The Rosters, By the Numbers
So here’s my attempt to match up the rosters player by player, using the best stats I have learned to love (and yeah, I do think they’re damn good at describing what happens on the ice).
As usual - I look forward to your feedback. There's plenty to disagree about in these stats - both coaches employ key parts of their roster differently, and there's a huge issue in trying to determine which players are earning possession and points by themselves and which are mostly leeching off of others. All sorts of good things to argue about. If you come at me with some anti-stats stuff, though, that'll be as boring as these stats are to you in the first place.
DISCLAIMER: Unlike most advanced stats afficionados, I believe very strongly in Quality of Competition. I think it’s a massive factor that the analytics community has dismissed too eagerly due to poorly thought out stats experiments. For me, any statistical analysis that doesn’t factor in usage is useless. While we don’t have any great stats for quality of competition (using opponents’ CF% is an awful way to look at it, for example), we do have a very simple stat which I’ve found is very effective - Opponents’ Ice Time. (TOIqoc). Unfortunately, even the people who have come up with and calculated that stat have dismissed its importance...but for me, they dismissed it for bad reasons. Long story short, I have converted opponents TOI into a simple letter grade metric which imo gives us a very good read on what kind of usage the coach is giving that player, and who he trusts or doesn’t trust him against. So really, I'm an analytics guy who thinks that most current analytics analysis is really bad.
Legend:
toi = time on ice
Letter Grades qoc = Quality of Competition measured by opponents' time on ice, Converted into Letter Grades for simplicity
p/60 = points per 60 minutes
p1/60 = primary points per 60 minutes
CF% = Corsi For Percentage (i.e. shot attempts for percentage)
xGF% = Expected Goals For Percentage (i.e. shot attempt percentage adjusted for shot quality) - this stat is already adjusted for zone deployment and game score
rel = CF% and xGF% relative to team
dsv% = difference between save percentage and expected save percentage
Note: In every player comp you will see a comp of this year's stats first, followed by their 2 year stats second.
Note 2: The Bruins as a team kind of break corsi and it seems to boost everyone. For that reason, I'll lean on the relative stats in brackets quite a bit. Though at the same time acknowledging that relying just on the relative stats might be unfair to the guys at the bottom of the roster as they're getting compared to the insane corsi dominance at the top of the roster. (See, even I don't think analytics are perfect).
The MVPs
Matthews ES 62gms, 15:57 (A+ qoc), 3.03p/60, 2.71p1/60, 50.9cf% (+0.4), 53.3xgf% (+2.9) -- PP 2:08, 5.89p/60, 3.63p1/60
Marchand ES 68gms, 14:49 (A+ qoc), 3.09p/60, 2.41p1/60, 55.9cf% (+3.4), 52.7xgf% (-1.4) -- PP 3:05, 6.60p/60, 4.31p1/60 -- PK 1:48
Matthews ES 144gms, 15:30 (A- qoc), 2.59p/60, 2.34p1/60, 51.3cf% (+0.7), 52.6xgf% (+2.2) -- PP 2:19, 6.29p/60, 4.49p1/60
Marchand ES 148gms, 14:50 (A+ qoc), 2.82p/60, 2.19p1/60, 58.1cf% (+5.6), 56.5xgf% (+3.2) -- PP 2:52, 6.64p/60, 3.89p1/60 -- PK 1:51
The two best players in the series, IMO they’re both actually legit NHL MVP candidates, even if they won’t get the votes for imo bad reasons. I would call these two guys pretty even at this point, but would lean towards giving Matthews the edge. The single season stats are probably more accurate to assess where young Matthews is now, and not his rookie performance. And I think Matthews’ edge in primary points and xGF outweigh Marchand’s CF advantage, especially since Matthews plays with 1 first liner while Marchand gets to play with 2. But still, very close - and these two may decided the series all by themselves.
The Other First Liners
Kadri ES 80gms, 14:39 (A qoc), 1.83p/60, 1.45p1/60, 50.0cf% (-1.2), 48.3xgf% (-4.0) ----- PP 2:05, 6.94p/60, 5.84p1/60
Bergy ES 64gms, 14:39 (A+ qoc), 2.20p/60, 1.67p1/60, 56.8cf% (+4.3), 51.5xgf% (-1.2) -- PP 2:57, 6.71p/60, 5.43p1/60 -- PK 1:49
Kadri ES 162gms, 14:30 (A qoc), 1.96p/60, 1.51p1/60, 51.2cf% (+0.5), 50.9xgf% (-0.3) ----- PP 2:08, 6.33p/60, 5.27p1/60
Bergy ES 143gms, 14:28 (A+ qoc), 1.85p/70, 1.43p1/60, 59.1cf% (+6.7), 56.9xgf% (+4.6) -- PP 2:57, 5.52p/60, 4.65p1/60 -- PK 2:00
Nylander ES 82gms, 14:38 (A- qoc), 2.42p/60, 1.86p1/60, 51.4cf% (+0.9), 51.1xgf% (+0.0) -- PP 2:01, 4.39p/60, 4.02p1/60
Pastrnak ES 82gms, 14:52 (A qoc), 2.48p/60, 2.08p1/60, 54.6cf% (+1.5), 51.1xgf% (-3.0) --- PP 3:05, 6.20p/60, 4.29p1/60
Nylander ES 163gms, 14:09 (B+ qoc), 2.14p/60, 1.55p1/60, 52.1cf% (+1.8), 51.9xgf% (+1.6) -- PP 2:11, 6.59p/60, 5.57p1/60
Pastrnak ES 157gms, 14:05 (A qoc), 2.33p/60, 1.97p1/60, 55.7cf% (+2.5), 54.7xgf% (+0.9) --- PP 2:52, 6.72p/60, 4.70p1/60
Marner ES 82gms, 14:09 (B qoc), 1.94p/60, 1.40p1/60, 52.1cf% (+1.9), 53.6xgf% (+3.5) -- PP 2:11, 8.40p/60, 6.05p1/60
Krejci ES 64gms, 14:24 (B qoc), 1.94p/60, 1.54p1/60, 52.7cf% (-0.9), 52.4xgf% (-0.6) ---- PP 2:13, 5.56p/60, 3.85p1/60
Marner ES 159gms, 14:13 (B qoc), 2.08p/60, 1.53p1/60, 50.9cf% (+0.1), 50.9xgf% (+0.1) -- PP 2:17, 7.49p/60, 5.16p1/60
Krejci ES 146gms, 14:53 (B qoc), 1.86p/60, 1.54p1/60, 52.9cf% (-1.8), 51.6xgf% (-3.6) ---- PP 2:23, 4.71p/60, 3.49p1/60
So maybe surprisingly to some, if we look at actual usage and performance in that usage, it’s actually Kadri that matches up best to Bergy. They both get elite quality of competition, and both perform similarly….offensively. At ES and on the PP. Which is kind of impressive for Kadri given how much time he spent with Leo and Brown, instead of Marchand and Pastrnak. That being said, Bergy does destroy him possession wise, because Bergy is still about as elite a shutdown center as there is in hockey. So Bergy beats Kadri comfortabley and is still the best of this group of 1st liners. Nylander and Pastrnak look pretty similar to me - Pastrnak’s stats are slightly better across the board, but given that he’s a clear 3rd wheel on his line while Willy is one of his line drivers, I’d call it even. Then we have Marner and Krejci, two 1st line skill players playing against secondary competition. Surprisingly, Krejci is still matching Mitch offensively, at least at even strength (mitch has a clear edge on the PP).. But Mitch seems to be the clearly better possession guy and only getting better.
Overall, these trios of 1st liners look pretty dang even to me.
The Depth - Grit/Intangibles Group
Marleau ES 82gms, 14:35 (A qoc), 1.57p/60, 1.20p1/60, 50.4cf% (-0.5), 48.1xgf% (-4.2) ---- PP 1:59, 3.35p/60, 2.60p1/60
RicNash ES 71gms, 13:03 (A- qoc), 1.73p/60, 1.40p1/60, 49.8cf% (+3.4), 53.7xgf% (+4.4) -- PP 2:21, 2.52p/60, 2.52p1/60 --- PK 1:37
Marleau ES 164gms, 14:19 (A- qoc), 1.57p/60, 1.25p1/60, 51.0cf% (-0.2), 50.5xgf% (-1.5) --- PP 2:30, 3.59p/60, 2.24p1/60
RicNash ES 138gms, 13:09 (A- qoc), 1.70p/60, 1.47p1/60, 48.2cf% (+0.9), 51.6xgf% (+2.2) -- PP 2:11, 3.19p/60, 3.19p1/60 --- PK 1:25
Hyman ES 82gms, 14:33 (A qoc), 1.73p/60, 1.47p1/60, 50.5cf% (-0.3), 52.5xgf% (+2.2) -- PK 2:39
RilNash ES 76gms, 13:05 (B qoc), 1.98p/60, 1.30p1/60, 52.9cf% (-1.0), 55.0xgf% (+2.0) -- PK 1:54
Hyman ES 164gms, 14:08 (A- qoc), 1.52p/60, 1.23p1/60, 51.2cf% (+0.5), 52.5xgf% (+2.1) -- PK 2:43
RilNash ES 157gms, 12:25 (B- qoc), 1.44p/60, 1.04p1/60, 53.0cf% (-1.7), 55.7xgf% (+1.6) -- PK 1:55
Brown ES 82gms, 12:00 (C+ qoc), 1.39p/60, 1.14p1/60, 50.0cf% (-0.9), 49.7xgf% (-1.7) --- PP 1:10, 1.27p/60, 1.27p1/60 -- PK 1:49
Backes ES 57gms, 13:14 (C+ qoc), 1.40p/60, 1.16p1/60, 56.2cf% (+2.5), 54.9xgf% (+1.2) -- PP 1:57, 3.21p/60, 3.21p1/60
Brown ES 164gms, 12:29 (B qoc), 1.42p/60, 1.17p1/60, 50.4cf% (-0.5), 49.5xgf% (-1.9) --- PP 1:11, 2.47p/60, 1.85p1/60 -- PK 1:54
Backes ES 131gms, 13:55 (B qoc), 1.48p/60, 1.17p1/60, 55.8cf% (+1.7), 54.7xgf% (-0.2) -- PP 2:03, 2.95p/60, 2.72p1/60
We start with the two old goats still trucking away against top competition. Rick has a slight edge offensively over Patty, but a more solid one possession wise. Neither is very effective on the PP anymore, though. Hyman and Riley both enjoyed breakout offensive years this year, and while Hyman has slight edge offensively overall he also gets to play with better offensive players, so I’d call that even there. But Hyman has a pretty huge edge both in quality of competition and in possession, so Zach gets the call here. Backes and Brown again show similar offense against similar competition, but in this case Backes is the one with the solid edge in possession.
Overall, the Bruins get the edge in this depth category for me.
The Depth Scorers
VanRyk ES 81gms, 12:35 (C- qoc), 1.84p/60, 1.59p1/60, 54.0cf% (+4.4), 56.0xgf% (+6.6) -- PP 2:16, 6.22p/60, 5.24p1/60
Debrusk ES 70gms, 12:29 (C qoc), 2.36p/60, 1.60p1/60, 53.2cf% (-0.9), 52.2xgf% (-1.1) --- PP 1:48, 4.29p/60, 3.34p1/60
VanRyk ES 163gms, 13:01 (C+ qoc), 2.13p/60, 1.72p1/60, 52.5cf% (+2.3), 52.7xgf% (+2.4) - PP 2:20, 6.01p/60, 4.59p1/60
Debrusk ES 70gms, 12:29 (C qoc), 2.36p/60, 1.60p1/60, 53.2cf% (-0.9), 52.2xgf% (-1.1) ---- PP 1:48, 4.29p/60, 3.34p1/60
Bozak ES 81gms, 13:26 (C- qoc), 1.72p/60, 1.26p1/60, 52.4cf% (+2.4), 55.2xgf% (+5.5) ---- PP 2:11, 4.10p/60, 3.08p1/60
Heinen ES 77gms, 12:43 (B- qoc), 1.94p/60, 1.25p1/60, 55.0cf% (+2.3), 57.6xgf% (+6.0) ---- PP 2:00, 4.65p/60, 1.94p1/60
Bozak ES 159gms, 13:42 (C+ qoc), 1.90p/60, 1.45p1/60, 51.7cf% (+1.1), 51.7xgf% (+0.9) --- PP 2:16, 5.02p/60, 3.68p1/60
Heinen ES 85gms, 12:46 (B- qoc), 1.78p/70, 1.15p1/60, 54.7cf% (+2.0), 56.9xgf% (+5.1) --- PP 1:59, 4.26p60, 1.77p1/60
Here is probably the most underrated part of the Bruins forwards - these two rookie scorers who have singlehandedly transformed Boston’s depth situation. They’ve been pretty much as dangerous offensively as the Leafs’ pair, aside from JVR’s work on the PP. But we have to be cautious with the Bruins’ pair’s sample size, especially since their point production leans a little too heavily on non-primary points. Possession wise, Heinen is actually the most impressive given he has had the toughest usage, though on the flipside Debrusk has been the weakest.
Overall, surprisingly, I have to call this even. The only reason I might give an edge to the Leafs here is due to JVR’s unique ability on the PP.
The Deep Depth
Plekanec ES 77gms, 12:59 (B- qoc), 1.30p/60, 1.06p1/60, 52.1cf% (+0.7), 56.5xgf% (+4.2) - PK 1:58
Schaller ES 82gms, 11:18 (C qoc), 0.92p/60, 0.66p1/60, 52.6cf% (-1.3), 55.7xgf% (+2.7) --- PK 1:53
Plekanec ES 155gms, 13:27 (B qoc), 1.18p/60, 0.89p1/60, 53.2cf% (+1.2), 54.7xgf% (+2.3) - PK 1:58
Schaller ES 141gms, 11:03 (C qoc), 1.05p/60, 0.89p1/60, 51.7cf% (-3.2), 54.7xgf% (+0.7) -- PK 1:34
Komarov ES 74gms, 12:30 (B qoc), 0.67p/60, 0.40p1/60, 46.7cf% (-4.7), 47.0xgf% (-5.3) --- PP 0:41, 3.57p/60, 2.38p1/60 --- PK 2:34
Acciari ES 60gms, 11:27 (C- qoc), 0.80p/60, 0.80p1/60, 49.8cf% (-4.7), 52.4xgf% (-1.2) --- PK 1:22
Komarov ES 156gms, 12:41 (A- qoc), 0.90p/60, 0.62p1/60, 48.9cf% (-2.3), 49.0xgf% (-2.6) - PP 1:24, 3.55p/60, 2.73p1/60 -- PK 2:21
Acciari ES 89gms, 11:02 (C qoc), 0.87p/70, 0.75p1/60, 49.8cf% (-4.7), 53.6xgf% (-0.0) --- PK 0:59
Kapanen ES 38gms, 10:08 (D- qoc), 1.11p/60, 0.95p1/60, 52.4cf% (+1.5), 52.8xgf% (+2.7) - PK 1:04
Kuraly ES 75gms, 11:00 (C- qoc), 0.89p/60, 0.66p1/60, 51.7cf% (-2.5), 55.4xgf% (+2.3) ---- PK 1:10
Kapanen ES 46gms, 9:58 (D- qoc), 1.06p/60, 0.93p1/60, 52.5cf% (+1.1), 52.2xgf% (+1.8) -- PK 1:08
Kuraly ES 83gms, 10:48 (C- qoc), 0.88p/60, 0.61p1/60, 52.3cf% (-1.8), 55.0xgf% (+1.8) --- PK 1:04
Moore ES 50gms, 9:01 (F qoc), 1.34p/60, 0.94p1/60, 50.9cf% (+0.3), 49.2xgf% (-2.2) ---- PK 1:13
Wingels ES 75gms, 9:45 (C- qoc), 0.90p/60, 0.82p1/60, 49.4cf% (-4.8), 51.7xgf% (-0.3) -- PK 1:16
Moore ES 132gms, 10:05 (D qoc), 1.28p/60, 0.87p1/60, 50.0cf% (-3.7), 49.8xgf% (-4.3) --- PK 1:41
Wingels ES 148gms, 9:49 (C- qoc), 0.97p/60, 0.88p1/60, 48.5cf% (-4.2), 51.0xgf% (-0.1) - PK 0:59
Johnsson ES 9gms, 9:41 (D qoc), 1.42p/60, 1.42p1/60, 59.7cf% (+6.1), 59.2xgf% (+7.7) --- PP 1:17, 5.17p/60, 0.00p1/60
Donato ES 12gms, 12:14 (C+ qoc), 2.06p/60, 2.06p1/60, 53.1cf% (+0.9), 56.3xgf% (+9.2)--- PP 2:27, 8.15p/60, 6.11p1/60
Here I think the Leafs do get the depth edge. For me, all these Bruins are true 4th liners (except Donato of course), while for the Leafs, the only guy I’d say that about is Moore. Pleks is still a solid 3rd line C, Leo has struggles in tough usage but would still probably be a solid 3rd line guy, while Kappy and Johnsson clearly have more than 4th line skill, and have good possesion impact to boot. (on a side note - if I'm coach, both Johnsson and Donato are in the starting lineups).
Overall, i think the Leafs forward depth advantage is hugely overstated. I think the Bruins can pretty much match the forward depth player for player, except at the very bottom of the lineup, and even have a good edge in secondary depth. I think the depth myth just comes from coaching styles - if Babs stacked his top line with his 3 best forwards, or Cassidy split up his 3 best forwards, I think the results would be similar either way.
As it stands now, given the coaching decisions, the Bruins should have the 1st line advantage, the Leafs should have the 2nd line advantage, the 3rd lines should be pretty even imo, and the 4th line should be an edge for the Leafs….but really, the 4th line shouldn’t matter much.
So I’ll go against the grain here - for me, the forwards are even. The big question mark to me is whether Matthews or Marchand grab hold of this series and make it their own.
The #1 Dmen
Rielly ES 76gms, 18:15 (A qoc), 1.04p/60, 0.82p1/60, 51.5cf% (+1.8), 50.5xgf% (-0.5) ----- PP 2:11, 8.82p/60, 3.31p1/60 - PK 1:08
McAvoy ES 63gms, 19:22 (A- qoc), 1.16p/60, 0.71p1/60, 55.6cf% (+2.6), 54.0xgf% (+2.3) - PP 1:59, 3.40p/60, 1.46p1/60 - PK 0:47
Rielly ES 152gms, 18:32 (A qoc), 0.97p/60, 0.75p1/60, 51.3cf% (+1.0), 50.3xgf% (-0.9) ----- PP 1:34, 7.39p/60, 3.06p1/60 --- PK 1:45
McAvoy ES 63gms, 19:22 (A- qoc), 1.16p/60, 0.71p1/60, 55.6cf% (+2.6), 54.0xgf% (+2.3) -- PP 1:59, 3.40p/60, 1.46p1/60 --- PK 0:47
Neither of these 2 young dmen are Norris candidates quite yet, but make no mistake, both are legit #1 dmen playing very well against elite compeition every night. At even strength, their offense is comparable, and while Rielly gets tougher competition, McAvoy has a solid possession edge (though it has to be said that he has a better defense partner than Rielly does). Rielly also has a pretty massive edge in PP production. Overall, we have to be wary of McAvoy’s sample size, but I’d still call these two #1s pretty dang even.
The Matchup Defensive Dmen
Hainsey ES 80gms, 17:44 (A+ qoc), 0.70p/60, 0.39p1/60, 48.4cf% (-3.1), 49.5xgf% (-2.2) - PK 3:58
Chara ES 73gms, 18:51 (A qoc), 0.85p/60, 0.54p1/60, 53.7cf% (-0.2), 52.9xgf% (-0.6) ---- PK 3:38
Hainsey ES 152gms, 18:15 (A- qoc), 0.62p/60, 0.40p1/60, 48.8cf% (-2.3), 50.9xgf% (+0.2) - PK 3:31
Chara ES 148gms, 18:59 (A- qoc), 0.92p/60, 0.59p1/60, 53.5cf% (-1.2), 53.9xgf% (-0.3) --- PK 3:42
The two old goats get matched up against the other team’s top guys every night, and play the whole PK too. In this case, though, 40yr old Chara still gets the edge. Babcock has probably overused Hainsey this year - he’s given Hainsey the toughest competition in the entire league this year, and while Hainsey is a solid defensive dman, he’s not THAT solid. That being said, when we look at the 2yr numbers where their quality of compeition was more similar, the possession battle is actually pretty close. But even then, Chara beats him offensively. So here’s a pretty clear advantage for the Bruins.
The Puckmovers
Jake ES 82gms, 20:04 (B+ qoc), 1.21p/60, 0.76p1/60, 50.3cf% (-0.8), 51.2xgf% (+0.2) -- PP 2:04, 5.33p/60, 2.49p1/60
Krug ES 76gms, 16:36 (B- qoc), 1.36p/60, 0.88p1/60, 53.5cf% (-0.7), 53.4xgf% (-0.6) -- PP 3:25, 5.55p/60, 4.16p1/60
Jake ES 164gms, 19:22 (B qoc), 1.13p/60, 0.72p1/60, 51.2cf% (+0.5), 51.4xgf% (+0.6) --- PP 2:18, 4.29p/60, 1.59p1/60
Krug ES 157gms, 17:18 (B- qoc), 1.11p/60, 0.75p1/60, 55.3cf% (+1.5), 54.5xgf% (+0.1) --- PP 3:20, 5.57p/60, 3.94p1/60
Two dynamic skaters who can control the ice when they’re on. They have a similar possession impact, and similar production, but Jake does that in much bigger minutes, and against tougher competition. I have to give Jake the edge in this matchup.
The Depth Dmen
Zaitsev ES 60gms, 19:02 (B qoc), 0.65p/60, 0.54p1/60, 48.2cf% (-3.7), 50.2xgf% (-1.3) -- PK 2:56
Miller ES 68gms, 17:09 (B- qoc), 0.63p/60, 0.37p1/60, 54.1cf% (+1.2), 55.1xgf% (+2.3) --- PK 2:13
Zaitsev ES 142gms, 18:36 (A- qoc), 0.75p/60, 0.51p1/60, 49.4cf% (-2.2), 49.5xgf% (-2.3) - PP 1:15, 3.76p/60, 0.68p1/60 --- PK 2:14
Miller ES 126gms, 16:30 (C+ qoc), 0.65p/60, 0.38p1/60, 53.8cf% (-0.2), 54.0xgf% (-0.3) --- PK 2:07
Dermott ES 37gms, 15:31 (D+ qoc), 1.17p/60, 0.53p1/60, 56.8cf% (+7.2), 56.4xgf% (+7.4)
Grzelcyk ES 61gms, 15:33 (C+ qoc), 0.70p/60, 0.34p1/60, 55.2cf% (+2.6), 554.xgf% (+3.4)
Dermott ES 37gms, 15:31 (D+ qoc), 1.17p/60, 0.53p1/60, 56.8cf% (+7.2), 56.4xgf% (+7.4)
Grzelcyk ES 63gms, 15:24 (C+ qoc), 0.69p/60, 0.31p1/60, 55.1cf% (+2.2), 55.2xgf% (+2.9)
Polak ES 54gms, 15:07 (D+ qoc), 0.82p/60, 0.45p1/60, 49.5cf% (-0.4), 50.0xgf% (-0.8) ----- PK 2:30
McQuaid ES 38gms, 13:35 (C qoc), 0.35p/60, 0.12p1/60, 50.3cf% (-5.6), 45.8xgf% (-10.8) -- PK 2:05
Polak ES 129gms, 15:03 (C- qoc), 0.63p/60, 0.38p1/60, 49.2cf% (-1.9), 50.5xgf% (-0.4) ------- PK 2:44
McQuaid ES 115gms, 15:04 (B- qoc), 0.35p/60, 0.21p1/60, 53.5cf% (-1.8), 50.8xgf% (-5.1) ---- PK 2:17
Carrick ES 47gms, 14:47 (D qoc), 0.71p/60, 0.35p1/60, 53.5cf% (+2.6), 54.8xgf% (+5.4)
Holden ES 73gms, 16:30 (B qoc), 0.65p/60, 0.40p1/60, 47.4cf% (-0.1), 51.4xgf% (+1.5) --- PK 2:00
Carrick ES 114gms, 15:12 (C- qoc), 0.53p/60, 0.32p1/60, 52.9cf% (+1.7), 53.2xgf% (+3.0)
Holden ES 153gms, 17:26 (B qoc), 0.89p/60, 0.53p1/60, 47.9cf% (-0.1), 49.3xgf% (-0.7) -- PK 1:50
TBH, these look like comparable groups to me. Miller has the advantage over Zaitsev this year, because Zaitsev has admittedly been crap this year, but then again Zaitsev has been quite good since returning from injury a couple months ago, and the 2yr stats I’d say are more impressive than Miller’s given the quality of competition. Dermott and Grzelcyk are both impressive rookies, with Dermott being more dynamic offensively. Dermott has the big edge in possesion but Grzelcyk faces tougher competition so that balances out. Polak and McQuaid seem like two pretty similar defensive goons to me. If there’s any edge here I’d say it comes in the Holden-Carrick matchup, and really based on the numbers both these guys should be in their team’s lineup.
So yeah, I’ll go against the grain here and say that once again, the public perception of the Bruins having a big advantage on the defensive end is also overstated. These look like 2 comparable groups to me, with comparable depth.
The Starters
Freddy: 66gms, 91.8sv%, +1.0dsv% / ES 92.3sv%, +0.7dsv% / PK 89.1sv%, +3.7dsv%
Rask: 54gms, 91.7sv%, +0.5dsv% / ES 92.4sv%, +0.4ddsv% / PK 90.0sv%, +1.9dsv%
Freddy: 132gms, 91.8sv%, +0.9dsv% / ES 92.4sv%, +0.7dsv% / PK 89.6sv%, +3.4dsv%
Rask: 119gms, 91.6sv%, +0.1dsv% / ES 92.1sv%, -0.2ddsv% / PK 89.2sv%, +1.4dsv%
Again, looks pretty similar to me. The stats say Freddy does have an edge on the PK - but then again, individual stats for the PK are pretty much the most useless stats we have. Maybe a slight edge for Freddy here but I’d call it closer to even.
The Backups
McElhinney: 18gms, 93.3sv%, +2.3dsv% / ES 94.7sv%, +2.2dsv% / PK 86.3sv%, +1.8dsv%
Khudobin: 31gms, 91.3sv%, +0.6dsv% / ES 92.0sv%, +0.5dsv% / PK 88.2sv%, +0.7dsv%
McElhinney: 39gms, 92.4sv%, +1.1dsv% / ES 93.6sv%, +1.4dsv% / PK 86.7sv%, -0.2dsv%
Khudobin: 47gms, 91.1sv%, +0.2dsv% / ES 91.5sv%, -0.1dsv% / PK 89.3sv%, +1.7dsv%
So yeah, the stats say McBackup is awesome, but the sample size for backups makes these stats useless. If either team is relying on their backup they’re probably toast.
Wrap it Up, Zeke
So yeah, like I said, i see two very evenly matched rosters from top to bottom, at forward, on defense, and in net. None of the cliche narratives around this series match what I see in the numbers. For me, this series likely comes down to which teams’ STARS step up. Do the Bruins’ veteran stars use all their experience to take over the series and shut down the young Leafs’ Stars? Or do the young Leafs’ stars take this opportunity to really grab hold of their stardom, and run the bruins ragged?
No really, Wrap it Up Zeke
Leafs in 4
