Brad Treliving is doing a great job.

[TMLBlueandWhite]

I would suggest to you that coaching has also improved, Berube brings a credibility Keefe simply doesn't have

How has coaching improved?

Other than goaltending the team is doing worse: more giveaways, less hits, and fewer goals scored.

All stats from moneypuck and hockey-reference

2023/2024

200 ga, 90.83 sv%, 3869 ca, 1854 sa, 1162 blks, 2790 unblocked sa, 225 rebound shots against, 205 hdsa, 468 mdsa, 2117 ldsa, 641 giveaways, 412 defensive zone giveaways, , 2355 hits

Goalie stats: .898 sv%, 3.01 gaa, .488 qs%, 15 rbs, 105 ga%-, -12.8 gsaa

2024/2025

136 ga, 92.63 sv%, 3976 ca, 1845 sa, 1226 blks, 2670 unblocked sa, 225 rebound shots against, 173 hdsa, 449 mdsa, 2265 ldsa, 1048 giveaways, 495 defensive zone giveaways, 1883 hits

Goalie stats: .912 sv%, 2.55 gaa, .622 qs%, 12 rbs, 88 ga%-, 29.8 gsaa

Highlights

CA: 3869 vs 3976 = +107 (1.30/game)
SA: 1854 vs 1845 = -9 (-0.10/game)
Blocks: 1162 vs 1226 = +64 (0.78/game)

Teams are taking 1.3 more shot attempts per game. But those shot attempts aren't getting through as the actual shots against is almost identical. That's because they are blocking 0.78 more shot attempts per game.

Rebounds: 225 vs 225 = 0 (0/game)

Claim: defensemen are clearing the net more
Fact: rebound shots against are the exact same as last year

Giveaways: 641 vs 1048 = +407 (4.96/game)
Def Zone Give: 412 vs 495 = +83 (1.00/game)

They had a WHOPPING 407 more giveaways this year, includong 83 more in the defensive zone.

Hits: 2355 vs 1883 = -472 (-5.75/game)

Claim: the team is heavier and hitting more
Fact: they are hitting a whopping 5.75 times LESS per game

HDSA = 205 vs 173 = -32 (0.39/game)

The only shred of evidence defense is making a difference is in hdsa. At .850 sv% on hdsa that's 5 goals saved this year from last year. Of course that's more than offset by the decrease in hdsf this year but we wont get into that.

Just looking at raw sv%:

.898sv% on 1854 sa =1657 saves/197 goals

.912sv% on 1845 sa = 1688 saves/157 goals

A difference of 40 goals saved this year from raw sv% alone.

Face it... the majority of improvement has come from having better goaltenders... and that's not necessarily a bad thing and I never said it was.

 

[Dreakmur]

Being more focused on scouting responsibilities doesn't mean single-handedly deciding a franchise-altering lottery pick as a co-interim GM. We already know that's not what happened, and that it was an organizational decision, as there was reported to be input from as low down as the coach. And he was the only one reported to be against picking Marner. It's quite the stretch to suggest the coach got a say, but the co-GM didn't.

Dubas standing in the draft picture means nothing. Teams bring in children for those all the time.

Does this mean Harrison Katz drafted Connor McDavid?

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

How has coaching improved?

Other than goaltending the team is doing worse: more giveaways, less hits, and fewer goals scored.

All stats from moneypuck and hockey-reference

2023/2024

200 ga, 90.83 sv%, 3869 ca, 1854 sa, 1162 blks, 2790 unblocked sa, 225 rebound shots against, 205 hdsa, 468 mdsa, 2117 ldsa, 641 giveaways, 412 defensive zone giveaways, , 2355 hits

Goalie stats: .898 sv%, 3.01 gaa, .488 qs%, 15 rbs, 105 ga%-, -12.8 gsaa

2024/2025

136 ga, 92.63 sv%, 3976 ca, 1845 sa, 1226 blks, 2670 unblocked sa, 225 rebound shots against, 173 hdsa, 449 mdsa, 2265 ldsa, 1048 giveaways, 495 defensive zone giveaways, 1883 hits

Goalie stats: .912 sv%, 2.55 gaa, .622 qs%, 12 rbs, 88 ga%-, 29.8 gsaa

Highlights

CA: 3869 vs 3976 = +107 (1.30/game)
SA: 1854 vs 1845 = -9 (-0.10/game)
Blocks: 1162 vs 1226 = +64 (0.78/game)

Teams are taking 1.3 more shot attempts per game. But those shot attempts aren't getting through as the actual shots against is almost identical. That's because they are blocking 0.78 more shot attempts per game.

Rebounds: 225 vs 225 = 0 (0/game)

Claim: defensemen are clearing the net more
Fact: rebound shots against are the exact same as last year

Giveaways: 641 vs 1048 = +407 (4.96/game)
Def Zone Give: 412 vs 495 = +83 (1.00/game)

They had a WHOPPING 407 more giveaways this year, includong 83 more in the defensive zone.

Hits: 2355 vs 1883 = -472 (-5.75/game)

Claim: the team is heavier and hitting more
Fact: they are hitting a whopping 5.75 times LESS per game

HDSA = 205 vs 173 = -32 (0.39/game)

The only shred of evidence defense is making a difference is in hdsa. At .850 sv% on hdsa that's 5 goals saved this year from last year. Of course that's more than offset by the decrease in hdsf this year but we wont get into that.

Just looking at raw sv%:

.898sv% on 1854 sa =1657 saves/197 goals

.912sv% on 1845 sa = 1688 saves/157 goals

A difference of 40 goals saved this year from raw sv% alone.

Face it... the majority of improvement has come from having better goaltenders... and that's not necessarily a bad thing and I never said it was.

I never denied goaltending was better.

It could not possibly be worse Samsonov was unplayable for a HUGE chuck of last season.

That doesn't mean coaching isn't also better.

Berube brings credibility that Keefe simply doesn't have.

 

[ToneDog]

Dubas standing in the draft picture means nothing. Teams bring in children for those all the time.

View attachment 1018367

Does this mean Harrison Katz drafted Connor McDavid?

This guy should own the Devils.

 

[TMLBlueandWhite]

I never denied goaltending was better.

It could not possibly be worse Samsonov was unplayable for a HUGE chuck of last season.

That doesn't mean coaching isn't also better.

Berube brings credibility that Keefe simply doesn't have.

How? What's he doing differently?

He came.in preaching about accountability and wanting a heavier faster team. Yet he's still not holding the stars accountable. And they're an even softer wimpier team.

Give me something tangible here instead of just saying he's got some street cred from riding a hot goaltender to a stanley cup before tanking largely the same team Montgomery has in the playoffs today.

 

[Mess]

How? What's he doing differently?

He came.in preaching about accountability and wanting a heavier faster team. Yet he's still not holding the stars accountable. And they're an even softer wimpier team.

Give me something tangible here instead of just saying he's got some street cred from riding a hot goaltender to a Stanley cup before tanking largely the same team Montgomery has in the playoffs today.

Just sit back and chillax and watch your Leafs perform in this years playoffs.

Those are regular season stats and worth very little when it comes to determining playoff success.

Leafs are likely about to have their best playoffs since the Salary Cap was instituted in 2005 in the past 20 years, The bar has been set for 5 playoff wins in any playoff season as their best water mark.

Through vastly improved goaltending, a real defense core, and a real proven coach Treliving has put the Leafs in the best position they have ever been in the past 2 decades as far as Cup Competitiveness. The core 4 is still flawed and overpaid which is a disadvantage, but no longer are they the sole source behind winning and loosing.

 

[Dekes For Days]

When experts are asked why this Leaf team is different, they don't only point to goaltending as you say. How the team is playing, and are they prepared for the rigors of playoff hockey, is more important.

Searching for feelings that reinforce your feelings doesn't make feelings true, sorry. Facts are facts. These aren't experts, there to tell you the truth. They are media personalities, with the same human biases (and even more exposure to traditional hockey narratives), who are there to sell you the most simplistic version of the story that you want to hear. They sell this every year; a reason why "this year is different". It means nothing.

We are different in some ways, especially relative to last year (which is why most analysts intentionally compare to that), but different doesn't mean better. I don't know why some feel the need to trash past versions of the team and pretend everything is now better to feel optimistic and hopeful about this year. Is this the best version of this team? No. Is this team still capable of winning? Absolutely. Just enjoy the ride, instead of trying to make it something it's not.

This team is playing well heading into the playoffs, 9-1 in the last 10, 19-8 in the last 27. They are also playing a different style as a result of their coach. They have a better top 4 D than any iteration in 9 years. They've relied less on just outscoring the opposition using only a handful of players, not taking chances and not blowing coverage like they have in the past.

Have we won a lot going into the playoffs? Yes, that's great! Have we done that before? Yes. Are we playing a different style? Yes, though it's more similar to how we tend to play in game 7s, which a lot of people used to hate. Is that style better in general, better for this team, or more conducive to playoff success? No. Do we have 4 good defensemen? Yes. Is it better than every other iteration? No, and our bottom pairing and defense from our forward depth has been worse, and the system hasn't been working well. Have we relied less on our core? No. Do we blow coverage less? No.

So if these guys suggest that we're playing differently under this coach, that we have a better chance to win than any other year, why do you insist on constantly hammering us with advanced stats that prove squat in the long run?

What these guys suggest is meaningless to me. We all have opinions and feelings. Why are you afraid of the objective data? I included multiple different stats (including ones people have used and ones that address claims people have made), and broke it down into different game states for everyone. A lot of the people dismissing these stats were happy to use them when they supported their narrative. The real question is, if all of the objective data points in one direction, why do some insist on constantly repeating these disproven claims?

 

[Dekes For Days]

And when was Marner drafted? After that….

Yes, Marner was drafted June 26th, 2015, which is after he took over co-GM of the Leafs (April 12th, 2015) and before he stopped that role (July 23rd, 2015).

You think it’s right for the NHL GM to take credit from the AHL GM who actually acquired the player?

I think it's right that the NHL GM who signed the AHL GM, oversaw the initial AHL signing, developed him, signed him to the NHL, and first played him in the NHL gets credit for that player. It would be pretty weird to not think that...

 

[Dreakmur]

Yes, Marner was drafted June 26th, 2015, which is after he took over co-GM of the Leafs (April 12th, 2015) and before he stopped that role (July 23rd, 2015).

Uh huh..

I think it's right that the NHL GM who signed the AHL GM, oversaw the initial AHL signing, developed him, signed him to the NHL, and first played him in the NHL gets credit for that player. It would be pretty weird to not think that...

Why did you hold the exact opposite opinion when Justin Holl was signed by then AHL GM Kyle Dubas? I wonder….

Spin spin spin!

 

[Dekes For Days]

Why did you hold the exact opposite opinion when Justin Holl was signed by then AHL GM Kyle Dubas?

Holl was brought in while Dubas was still Leaf co-GM, for the record, and I didn't hold any opposite opinion.

Spin spin spin!

You certainly are.

 

[CabanaBoy5]

Searching for feelings that reinforce your feelings doesn't make feelings true, sorry. Facts are facts. These aren't experts, there to tell you the truth. They are media personalities, with the same human biases (and even more exposure to traditional hockey narratives), who are there to sell you the most simplistic version of the story that you want to hear. They sell this every year; a reason why "this year is different". It means nothing.

We are different in some ways, especially relative to last year (which is why most analysts intentionally compare to that), but different doesn't mean better. I don't know why some feel the need to trash past versions of the team and pretend everything is now better to feel optimistic and hopeful about this year. Is this the best version of this team? No. Is this team still capable of winning? Absolutely. Just enjoy the ride, instead of trying to make it something it's not.

Have we won a lot going into the playoffs? Yes, that's great! Have we done that before? Yes. Are we playing a different style? Yes, though it's more similar to how we tend to play in game 7s, which a lot of people used to hate. Is that style better in general, better for this team, or more conducive to playoff success? No. Do we have 4 good defensemen? Yes. Is it better than every other iteration? No, and our bottom pairing and defense from our forward depth has been worse, and the system hasn't been working well. Have we relied less on our core? No. Do we blow coverage less? No.

What these guys suggest is meaningless to me. We all have opinions and feelings. Why are you afraid of the objective data? I included multiple different stats (including ones people have used and ones that address claims people have made), and broke it down into different game states for everyone. A lot of the people dismissing these stats were happy to use them when they supported their narrative. The real question is, if all of the objective data points in one direction, why do some insist on constantly repeating these disproven claims?

I'm not afraid of objective data. That data should be used to inform, not to make definitive conclusions about the overall state of a team. Context also plays a part. Were there injuries that may account for some inconsistency, like Matthews out for a month. Did the team have to adapt to a new system. Did the players take time to buy in, etc.

As for the opinions of the experts, I refer to them to inform me and I make my opinions by using them along with the objective data. What makes your opinion, someone who has probably never played the game, more worthy of listening to than theirs? Good managers do not solely make decisions based on advanced stats. Trust me on that one point as someone who has coached successfully at a provincial level.

 

[Dreakmur]

Holl was brought in while Dubas was still Leaf co-GM, for the record, and I didn't hold any opposite opinion.

You are literally the person who convinced me that Dubas acquired him because he was the AHL GM at the time. He was the primary person responsible for that acquisition, so he should get credit.

Unlike Marner and McMann.

 

[ClarkSittler]

What stats support that we linematch, forecheck, or have good puck management?

And why don't you tell us why the systems are great?

Our team doesn't have a ton of hits, giveaways aren't good, takeaways aren't good, and we don't have any statistics that lead you to think we have played good hockey.

Does it all come back to the "eye test" and trusting the poster?

You’re asking for stats to measure systems, linematching, forechecking, and puck management like they exist in some tidy little row on Natural Stat Trick. That’s the problem, you’re so deep in the numbers that you’ve convinced yourself only what's quantified is real. Not everything in hockey shows up in your beloved spreadsheets.


Forechecking intensity? Neutral zone structure? In-zone coverage shifts? Those aren’t always captured by hits or takeaways, especially if the system emphasizes containment over chaos. Linematching success isn’t reflected in basic player stat lines, but it shows up in things like reduced high-danger chances against or keeping top opposing scorers quiet—which, ironically, are the kinds of contextual outcomes you're ignoring.


Also, systems aren't always about flashy stats. Sometimes, they're about limiting chaos—playing a low-event game, dictating tempo, forcing dump-ins, and making smarter decisions at the blue line. That doesn't generate pretty numbers in giveaways or hits, but it does tilt the flow of play, which you’d notice if you watched beyond the data.


So yes, part of the analysis relies on the so-called “eye test”, but from people who know what they’re looking at. If you think watching the game is irrelevant unless it fits neatly into a stat column, maybe ask yourself if you're analyzing hockey or just reading spreadsheets for fun.

 

[notbias]

You’re asking for stats to measure systems, linematching, forechecking, and puck management like they exist in some tidy little row on Natural Stat Trick. That’s the problem, you’re so deep in the numbers that you’ve convinced yourself only what's quantified is real. Not everything in hockey shows up in your beloved spreadsheets.

Well your eyes appear to be wrong, so I'd like something better than that.

Forechecking intensity? Neutral zone structure? In-zone coverage shifts? Those aren’t always captured by hits or takeaways, especially if the system emphasizes containment over chaos. Linematching success isn’t reflected in basic player stat lines, but it shows up in things like reduced high-danger chances against or keeping top opposing scorers quiet—which, ironically, are the kinds of contextual outcomes you're ignoring.

All opinion, I haven't seen any of that.

Our xGA/60 is similar to other seasons, not even the best in the last 5 years.

Have had better HDCA in 2 of the last 5 years.

Also, systems aren't always about flashy stats. Sometimes, they're about limiting chaos—playing a low-event game, dictating tempo, forcing dump-ins, and making smarter decisions at the blue line. That doesn't generate pretty numbers in giveaways or hits, but it does tilt the flow of play, which you’d notice if you watched beyond the data.

None of those things happen, we give up a lot of high quality chances.

Our xGF% is atrocious.

So yes, part of the analysis relies on the so-called “eye test”, but from people who know what they’re looking at. If you think watching the game is irrelevant unless it fits neatly into a stat column, maybe ask yourself if you're analyzing hockey or just reading spreadsheets for fun.

Go to the MVP thread and ask why people are saying Stolarz is the MVP when he's played less than 50% of the games... goaltending being the MVP is not usually an indicator of our great systems.

 

[ClarkSittler]

Well your eyes appear to be wrong, so I'd like something better than that.



All opinion, I haven't seen any of that.

Our xGA/60 is similar to other seasons, not even the best in the last 5 years.

Have had better HDCA in 2 of the last 5 years.



None of those things happen, we give up a lot of high quality chances.

Our xGF% is atrocious.



Go to the MVP thread and ask why people are saying Stolarz is the MVP when he's played less than 50% of the games... goaltending being the MVP is not usually an indicator of our great systems.

You're clinging to your stats like they're holy scripture, but the second anything falls outside your spreadsheet, it's suddenly "just opinion." That’s not analysis, that’s tunnel vision with an ego.


You keep asking for proof of systems like they’re going to magically pop up in a row on your favorite site. Sorry to break it to you, but not everything in hockey fits into a clean chart. Forechecking, structured zone exits, smart line deployment—these things actually happen whether your xGF% approves or not.


And the Stolarz MVP point? Great, you noticed a goalie playing well. But elite goaltending doesn’t cancel out system play, it benefits from it. If the team really was an uncoached mess giving up grade-A chances nonstop, he’d be getting shelled nightly, not praised for timely saves. You think one player performing well is proof the rest of the team is garbage? That’s some elite-level logic gymnastics.


Maybe instead of shouting “where are the stats” every time someone makes a point, try watching the games like they aren’t just background noise while you reload Natural Stat Trick.

 

[arso40]

How has coaching improved?

Other than goaltending the team is doing worse: more giveaways, less hits, and fewer goals scored.

All stats from moneypuck and hockey-reference

2023/2024

200 ga, 90.83 sv%, 3869 ca, 1854 sa, 1162 blks, 2790 unblocked sa, 225 rebound shots against, 205 hdsa, 468 mdsa, 2117 ldsa, 641 giveaways, 412 defensive zone giveaways, , 2355 hits

Goalie stats: .898 sv%, 3.01 gaa, .488 qs%, 15 rbs, 105 ga%-, -12.8 gsaa

2024/2025

136 ga, 92.63 sv%, 3976 ca, 1845 sa, 1226 blks, 2670 unblocked sa, 225 rebound shots against, 173 hdsa, 449 mdsa, 2265 ldsa, 1048 giveaways, 495 defensive zone giveaways, 1883 hits

Goalie stats: .912 sv%, 2.55 gaa, .622 qs%, 12 rbs, 88 ga%-, 29.8 gsaa

Highlights

CA: 3869 vs 3976 = +107 (1.30/game)
SA: 1854 vs 1845 = -9 (-0.10/game)
Blocks: 1162 vs 1226 = +64 (0.78/game)

Teams are taking 1.3 more shot attempts per game. But those shot attempts aren't getting through as the actual shots against is almost identical. That's because they are blocking 0.78 more shot attempts per game.

Rebounds: 225 vs 225 = 0 (0/game)

Claim: defensemen are clearing the net more
Fact: rebound shots against are the exact same as last year

Giveaways: 641 vs 1048 = +407 (4.96/game)
Def Zone Give: 412 vs 495 = +83 (1.00/game)

They had a WHOPPING 407 more giveaways this year, includong 83 more in the defensive zone.

Hits: 2355 vs 1883 = -472 (-5.75/game)

Claim: the team is heavier and hitting more
Fact: they are hitting a whopping 5.75 times LESS per game

HDSA = 205 vs 173 = -32 (0.39/game)

The only shred of evidence defense is making a difference is in hdsa. At .850 sv% on hdsa that's 5 goals saved this year from last year. Of course that's more than offset by the decrease in hdsf this year but we wont get into that.

Just looking at raw sv%:

.898sv% on 1854 sa =1657 saves/197 goals

.912sv% on 1845 sa = 1688 saves/157 goals

A difference of 40 goals saved this year from raw sv% alone.

Face it... the majority of improvement has come from having better goaltenders... and that's not necessarily a bad thing and I never said it was.

I would agree

 

[notbias]

You're clinging to your stats like they're holy scripture, but the second anything falls outside your spreadsheet, it's suddenly "just opinion." That’s not analysis, that’s tunnel vision with an ego.


You keep asking for proof of systems like they’re going to magically pop up in a row on your favorite site. Sorry to break it to you, but not everything in hockey fits into a clean chart. Forechecking, structured zone exits, smart line deployment—these things actually happen whether your xGF% approves or not.


And the Stolarz MVP point? Great, you noticed a goalie playing well. But elite goaltending doesn’t cancel out system play, it benefits from it. If the team really was an uncoached mess giving up grade-A chances nonstop, he’d be getting shelled nightly, not praised for timely saves. You think one player performing well is proof the rest of the team is garbage? That’s some elite-level logic gymnastics.


Maybe instead of shouting “where are the stats” every time someone makes a point, try watching the games like they aren’t just background noise while you reload Natural Stat Trick.

You've convinced me, good job.

We are defensive juggernaughts now, the systems we are playing are working.

It is why we never need elite goaltending to bail out our poor play.

Just because every stat shows we are getting outplayed and not great defensively, it means nothing.

Who cares if teams also value these stats, what do they know?

I trust your eyes and your amazing breakdown of the systems, I was really amazed when you said "smart line deployment", it was a masterclass breakdown and very detailed.

Thank you.

Please stop quoting me if you are going to write 4 paragraphs to just say "trust me", I'd rather you just respond with "trust me", it saves us all time.

 

[ClarkSittler]

So in other words you got nothing.

No, I gave you lots, you just don’t know what to do with it unless it fits into a chart you already agree with. That’s not me having nothing, that’s you refusing to deal with nuance and having a bad case of confirmation bias..

 

[Dekes For Days]

You are literally the person who convinced me that Dubas acquired him because he was the AHL GM at the time. He was the primary person responsible for that acquisition, so he should get credit. Unlike Marner and McMann.

Not sure what you're talking about. He did bring him in. He was in charge of the AHL. He was also Leafs co-GM. He played a big part in all 3 of those referenced players joining the Leafs, and was Leafs GM at the time. You can credit the AHL GM for McMann all you want. He was hired and employed by Dubas, so it still goes back to Dubas.

 

[Dreakmur]

Not sure what you're talking about. He did bring him in. He was in charge of the AHL. He was also Leafs co-GM. He played a big part in all 3 of those referenced players joining the Leafs, and was Leafs GM at the time. You can credit the AHL GM for McMann all you want. He was hired and employed by Dubas, so it still goes back to Dubas.

 

[Jimmy Firecracker]

A team having bad underlyings, especially xgf%, in the regular season doesn't always mean that those trends will continue into the playoffs. The 2018 Washington Capitals are the most glaring example, going from ranking 26/31 with a 46.88 xGF% at 5 on 5 in the regular season to ranking 7/16 with a 50.19 xGF% in the postseason.

Along with them you have the 2011 Bruins who went from ranking 19/30 at 49.15 xGF% at 5 on 5 in the regular season to 7/16 in the playoffs with a 51.13 xGF%.

The 2015 regular season Blackhawks were better, but league wide weren't great ranking 17/30 with a 50.68 xGF%. In the playoffs they got even worse, ranking 12/16 with a 48.20 xGF% at 5 on 5 in the playoffs. That's a bit worse than what the Leafs accomplished this season.

A team isn't locked in to being a bad possession team in the playoffs just because they were in the regular season. You don't even have to be good in the playoffs to reach hockey's mountain peak. The 2017 Penguins had an xGF% of 48.33 in the postseason. And the 2019 Blues had 49.17 xGF% in their run.

This isn't a large list of teams, especially comparing over the past 14 Champions. 2/14, the 2018 Caps and 2011 Bruins, improved their sub-50 regular season xGF% in the playoffs. 3/14 championship teams had a sub-50 xGF% in the postseason, those being the 2015 Blackhawks, 2017 Penguins, and 2019 Blues.

The main point is that the Leafs aren't DOA just because their possession numbers are poor. Based on precedence, there's a chance, a small chance, they can turn it around and become a better possession team in the playoffs and ride that to a championship. There's also a small chance they won't have to, and they can ride their talent to the Cup while their possession stats remain poor.

Berube's 2019 Blues had a 53.45 xGF% in the regular season before dropping to 49.17 xGF% in the playoffs. It's not like Berube hasn't coached a team with good possession numbers. Maybe this year it goes the opposite for him, and the Leafs improve in this category as the playoffs go along. Berube's Blues also improved from the regular season to the playoffs in xGF% in 2019-20.

 

[notbias]

A team having bad underlyings, especially xgf%, in the regular season doesn't always mean that those trends will continue into the playoffs. The 2018 Washington Capitals are the most glaring example, going from ranking 26/31 with a 46.88 xGF% at 5 on 5 in the regular season to ranking 7/16 with a 50.19 xGF% in the postseason.

Along with them you have the 2011 Bruins who went from ranking 19/30 at 49.15 xGF% at 5 on 5 in the regular season to 7/16 in the playoffs with a 51.13 xGF%.

The 2015 regular season Blackhawks were better, but league wide weren't great ranking 17/30 with a 50.68 xGF%. In the playoffs they got even worse, ranking 12/16 with a 48.20 xGF% at 5 on 5 in the playoffs. That's a bit worse than what the Leafs accomplished this season.

A team isn't locked in to being a bad possession team in the playoffs just because they were in the regular season. You don't even have to be good in the playoffs to reach hockey's mountain peak. The 2017 Penguins had an xGF% of 48.33 in the postseason. And the 2019 Blues had 49.17 xGF% in their run.

This isn't a large list of teams, especially comparing over the past 14 Champions. 2/14, the 2018 Caps and 2011 Bruins, improved their sub-50 regular season xGF% in the playoffs. 3/14 championship teams had a sub-50 xGF% in the postseason, those being the 2015 Blackhawks, 2017 Penguins, and 2019 Blues.

The main point is that the Leafs aren't DOA just because their possession numbers are poor. Based on precedence, there's a chance, a small chance, they can turn it around and become a better possession team in the playoffs and ride that to a championship. There's also a small chance they won't have to, and they can ride their talent to the Cup while their possession stats remain poor.

Berube's 2019 Blues had a 53.45 xGF% in the regular season before dropping to 49.17 xGF% in the playoffs. It's not like Berube hasn't coached a team with good possession numbers. Maybe this year it goes the opposite for him, and the Leafs improve in this category as the playoffs go along. Berube's Blues also improved from the regular season to the playoffs in xGF% in 2019-20.

Obviously what has happened in the regular season doesn't need to carry over to the playoffs, and obviously you can win with bad underlying stats, we've done it all year.

The argument is, relying this heavily on goaltending (if we continue to do so) may come back to bite us, it doesn't seem like a reliable way to try to win 4 out 7 games each series.

Also, the narrative that we have somehow got amazing defensively when we haven't, is just that, a narrative.

Having said all this, Stolarz has been great, and if the play continues, he may be able to steal some games, and lots of teams have gone far with hot goaltending, so lets hope it is us this year.

This year it feels like they are trying to play 50/50 hockey and rely on that extra good bounce to win, you just need the puck to bounce right when you aren't dominating play.

 

[Jimmy Firecracker]

Obviously what has happened in the regular season doesn't need to carry over to the playoffs, and obviously you can win with bad underlying stats, we've done it all year.

The argument is, relying this heavily on goaltending (if we continue to do so) may come back to bite us, it doesn't seem like a reliable way to try to win 4 out 7 games each series.

Also, the narrative that we have somehow got amazing defensively when we haven't, is just that, a narrative.

Having said all this, Stolarz has been great, and if the play continues, he may be able to steal some games, and lots of teams have gone far with hot goaltending, so lets hope it is us this year.

This year it feels like they are trying to play 50/50 hockey and rely on that extra good bounce to win, you just need the puck to bounce right when you aren't dominating play.

I dunno, the vibe I’m getting from your and others argument I’m seeing is that “we’re so much worse than what Keefe and Dubas gave us, so stop having fun and all this teams accomplishments should have an asterisk.”

Acting like our advanced stats being worse, some slightly, some largely, means this team is “worse overall” than past iterations is wrong. We’ve had this argument before, but by far I take this years teams defence and goaltending over any other iteration of the Matthews era Leafs.

If goaltending is so important, and it is, maybe the previous regime should’ve invested more into it instead of relying on a career backup, trading for damaged goods, or lucking into Samsonov who gave us one good year and series.

 

[notbias]

I dunno, the vibe I’m getting from your and others argument I’m seeing is that “we’re so much worse than what Keefe and Dubas gave us, so stop having fun and all this teams accomplishments should have an asterisk.”

Acting like our advanced stats being worse, some slightly, some largely, means this team is “worse overall” than past iterations is wrong. We’ve had this argument before, but by far I take this years teams defence and goaltending over any other iteration of the Matthews era Leafs.

If goaltending is so important, and it is, maybe the previous regime should’ve invested more into it instead of relying on a career backup, trading for damaged goods, or lucking into Samsonov who gave us one good year and series.

No, the vibe you should be getting is the narrative that we have become this amazing defensive team is nothing but a narrative.. we are similar to past seasons.. last year Treliving assembled the worst team possible, but outside that, this is a normal seaon.

Previous regime signed, they signed wildcards like Stolarz, they didn't work... Treliving resigned Samsanov...

Goaltneding is hard, I hope Stolarz works out, and Treliving should get credit, but at the same time, you can only sign goalies (or trade for them) if they are available.

 

[arso40]

What the hell is domi doing