I understand what you're saying and I even agree to a certain extent(like Tampa having most wins) but you have to remember, ties were always there . The Leafs this season had 100 points and zero shootout wins, so those were legitimate 100 points. Last season though, the Leafs had 7 shootout wins in an 105 point season. Still though, they're not where they are because of getting 1 point
You satnothing apart from "Babcock sucks" with no actual rhyme or reason behind it other than the Leafs lost in the playoffs this year, which a very short sighted way to look at things. You refused to argue any points I made because quite frankly, you actually have nothing to say, you have no rebuttal because you know you're wrong. You resort to distorting history and flat out lying about what I said too, which is a bad look for you, not for me. The Leafs finished dead last was not because of Babcock's coaching by any means, they finished last because they wanted to tank for Matthews. Why do you ignore what he did the following season in 2016-2017 by making the playoffs with hardly a stacked team by any means, and a bunch of rookies? That same season not only did the Leafs own management expect them to miss the playoffs, but it earned Babcock a Jack Adams nomination for best coach that season. There's a reason you stopped short of talking about that. Like I've been trying to explain to you, 100 point season is
1 level of success because there are multiple levels of success, I have not said, the only barometer to success is 100 points , nor did I say that there only success I want is 100 points. You need to stop lying. My point is you don't win the raffle if you don't enter itt. That's what a 100 point season does, if you don't have 100 points, you aren't likely entered to get a chance at winning the raffle that is winning the Stanley Cup. Barry Trotz, John Tortarella, Dan Bylsma, and Joel Quenville all have one thing in common, they won nothing before winning a cup. It's like there's a pattern here or something