Brad Treliving is doing a great job.

[TMLBlueandWhite]

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..

No... you got nothing... you just pop-poo the evidence provided without providing any of your own.

You also didn't even acknowledge that I already provided the fundamentals you are looking for here; and here; and here; and here. You have provided nothing and your attempts to discredit the evidence have been nothing more than fiat declarations that statistics don't paint the whole story meanwhile providing nothing substantial of your own. Either man up and start showing some evidence to support your claim or give up.

Because right now you just come across as a flat earther.

 

[ClarkSittler]

You throwing around links like that alone wins the argument, but padding your post count isn’t the same as proving a point. I didn’t "poo-poo" your stats—I pointed out they don’t fully capture the systems and structure we're actually discussing. You’re demanding evidence in the form of metrics that literally don’t measure what’s being debated, then declaring victory when someone brings in context you don’t want to hear.


And let’s be real—comparing someone to a flat earther because they argue that hockey systems involve nuance beyond raw numbers? That’s projection. You’re the one pretending the only valid evidence is what fits your favorite data set. If you’re going to call for people to “man up,” maybe start by recognizing that hockey analysis requires more than Ctrl+F on Natural Stat Trick.

 

[TMLBlueandWhite]

You throwing around links like that alone wins the argument, but padding your post count isn’t the same as proving a point. I didn’t "poo-poo" your stats—I pointed out they don’t fully capture the systems and structure we're actually discussing. You’re demanding evidence in the form of metrics that literally don’t measure what’s being debated, then declaring victory when someone brings in context you don’t want to hear.


And let’s be real—comparing someone to a flat earther because they argue that hockey systems involve nuance beyond raw numbers? That’s projection. You’re the one pretending the only valid evidence is what fits your favorite data set. If you’re going to call for people to “man up,” maybe start by recognizing that hockey analysis requires more than Ctrl+F on Natural Stat Trick.

Like I said... provide some evidence.

Talk is cheap and that's all you've done. I never said it had to be stats provided either. Let's see a breakdown of the difference in systems you keep talking about.

You keel bringing up systems and stuff but it doesn't even sound like you understand any of it since you aren't actually talking about them to support your argument.

You got nothing...

 

[ClarkSittler]

Like I said... provide some evidence.

Talk is cheap and that's all you've done. I never said it had to be ststs provided either. Let's see a breakdown of the difference in systems you keep talking about.

You keel bringing up systems and stuff but it doesn't even sound like you understand any of it since you aren't actually talking about them to support your argument.

You got nothing...

Provided tons of it, try reading my posts again, this time for comprehension.

 

[TMLBlueandWhite]

You throwing around links like that alone wins the argument, but padding your post count isn’t the same as proving a point. I didn’t "poo-poo" your stats—I pointed out they don’t fully capture the systems and structure we're actually discussing. You’re demanding evidence in the form of metrics that literally don’t measure what’s being debated, then declaring victory when someone brings in context you don’t want to hear.


And let’s be real—comparing someone to a flat earther because they argue that hockey systems involve nuance beyond raw numbers? That’s projection. You’re the one pretending the only valid evidence is what fits your favorite data set. If you’re going to call for people to “man up,” maybe start by recognizing that hockey analysis requires more than Ctrl+F on Natural Stat Trick.

No you didn't.

All you did was say the stats don't show everything. Then rambled on about how systems and forechecking and line changes matter. But don't say anything about Berube's system or Keefe's system or anything about how they implement their line changss or the differences in their forechecking etc...

Come on and give us an in depth breakdown of the difference between the two then.

 

[ClarkSittler]

No you didn't.

All you did was say the stats don't show everything. Then rambled on about how systems and forechecking and line changes matter. But don't say anything about Berube's system or Keefe's system or anything about how they implement their line changss or the differences in their forechecking etc...

Come on and give us an in depth breakdown of the difference between the two then.

Oh, so now it's “no you didn’t” because I didn’t write you a dissertation on forecheck variations mid-thread? Come on. You asked why systems matter, I explained why stats alone don’t capture them, and now you're pretending I dodged the topic because I didn’t give you a coaching seminar on Berube vs Keefe on demand.


If you genuinely wanted a real breakdown, you’d be asking in good faith—not trying to dunk. But since we’re here: Berube traditionally runs a more conservative 1-1-3 or passive 1-2-2 forecheck to control the neutral zone and force dump-ins, especially with a lead. Keefe’s system relies more on aggressive pressure high in the zone with an emphasis on puck recovery and possession cycling once established. Berube also leans on tighter back-pressure and positional structure through the middle—more risk-averse. Keefe, at least before this year, often traded defensive structure for offensive zone time and relied on skill to compensate.


That’s the tip of the iceberg, but if your response is just going to be “lol eye test,” save it. This isn’t me avoiding the conversation—it’s me refusing to play along with your moving the goalposts.

 

[TMLBlueandWhite]

Oh, so now it's “no you didn’t” because I didn’t write you a dissertation on forecheck variations mid-thread? Come on. You asked why systems matter, I explained why stats alone don’t capture them, and now you're pretending I dodged the topic because I didn’t give you a coaching seminar on Berube vs Keefe on demand.


If you genuinely wanted a real breakdown, you’d be asking in good faith—not trying to dunk. But since we’re here: Berube traditionally runs a more conservative 1-1-3 or passive 1-2-2 forecheck to control the neutral zone and force dump-ins, especially with a lead. Keefe’s system relies more on aggressive pressure high in the zone with an emphasis on puck recovery and possession cycling once established. Berube also leans on tighter back-pressure and positional structure through the middle—more risk-averse. Keefe, at least before this year, often traded defensive structure for offensive zone time and relied on skill to compensate.


That’s the tip of the iceberg, but if your response is just going to be “lol eye test,” save it. This isn’t me avoiding the conversation—it’s me refusing to play along with your moving the goalposts.

You poo-poo the evidence provided then offer nothing substantial of your own other than coughing up a small little blurb (that is wrong btw - the only time Berube runs a 1-1-3 is during line changes to prevent the other team from executing a stretch pass).

I'm not moving the goalposts at all... YOU were the one demanding this sort of conversation... now that you got it you refuse to participate.

Like I said it doesn't sound like you understand the systems and forechecking and the little blurb you provided here being factually incorrect seems to confirm that.

 

[IPS]

You poo-poo the evidence provided then offer nothing substantial of your own other than coughing up a small little blurb (that is wrong btw - the only time Berube runs a 1-1-3 is during line changes to prevent the other team from executing a stretch pass).

I'm not moving the goalposts at all... YOU were the one demanding this sort of conversation... now that you got it you refuse to participate.

Like I said it doesn't sound like you understand the systems and forechecking and the little blurb you provided here being factually incorrect seems to confirm that.

Dude, the Leafs are dominating 6-2. Lighten up a little eh? Maybe Berube's system has a better carry over to playoff style hockey?

 

[TMLBlueandWhite]

Dude, the Leafs are dominating 6-2. Lighten up a little eh? Maybe Berube's system has a better carry over to playoff style hockey?

Maybe... guess we'll find out soon enough.

 

[ClarkSittler]

You poo-poo the evidence provided then offer nothing substantial of your own other than coughing up a small little blurb (that is wrong btw - the only time Berube runs a 1-1-3 is during line changes to prevent the other team from executing a stretch pass).

I'm not moving the goalposts at all... YOU were the one demanding this sort of conversation... now that you got it you refuse to participate.

Like I said it doesn't sound like you understand the systems and forechecking and the little blurb you provided here being factually incorrect seems to confirm that.

You keep acting like yelling “wrong” is some kind of mic drop, but you’ve yet to show anything beyond smug corrections and repetition. I gave a broad overview to engage, not to pretend I was diagramming a coaching clinic on a forum thread. You fixated on one line about Berube like that invalidates everything else, when in reality, coaches adjust systems situationally all the time—including Berube, who has used variants of both 1-2-2 and 1-1-3 depending on game state, opponent, and personnel. Acting like there's only one “correct” answer is laughable and proves you have no clue what you're talking about.


You’re not holding anyone to a standard—you’re gatekeeping a conversation and calling it debate. If you actually wanted to talk systems, you wouldn’t be throwing tantrums over phrasing and declaring victory anytime someone doesn’t bend to your script. You’re not debating in good faith, and no, I’m not obligated to jump through hoops just because you moved the conversation from "where's the evidence" to "explain every detail or you're clueless." Your ignorance of how systems work is embarrassing.

 

[TMLBlueandWhite]

You keep acting like yelling “wrong” is some kind of mic drop, but you’ve yet to show anything beyond smug corrections and repetition. I gave a broad overview to engage, not to pretend I was diagramming a coaching clinic on a forum thread. You fixated on one line about Berube like that invalidates everything else, when in reality, coaches adjust systems situationally all the time—including Berube, who has used variants of both 1-2-2 and 1-1-3 depending on game state, opponent, and personnel. Acting like there's only one “correct” answer is laughable and proves you have no clue what you're talking about.


You’re not holding anyone to a standard—you’re gatekeeping a conversation and calling it debate. If you actually wanted to talk systems, you wouldn’t be throwing tantrums over phrasing and declaring victory anytime someone doesn’t bend to your script. You’re not debating in good faith, and no, I’m not obligated to jump through hoops just because you moved the conversation from "where's the evidence" to "explain every detail or you're clueless." Your ignorance of how systems work is embarrassing.

So in other words you got nothing... got it.

 

[ClarkSittler]

So in other words you got nothing... got it.

Not sure if posting it twice was for emphasis or just an echo, but either way—nope, still not accurate.

 

[TMLBlueandWhite]

Not sure if posting it twice was for emphasis or just an echo, but either way—nope, still not accurate.

Goaltending was the only major improvement this year... prove me wrong.

Should be easy for you.

 

[ClarkSittler]

Goaltending was the only major improvement this year... prove me wrong.

Should be easy for you.

Easy. The D-core was completely reshaped—Tanev, Carlo, and OEL have reshaped our defense and helped improve defensive structure. Plays are dying earlier, and high-danger chances are way down. Tanev leads the team in blocked shots.


Berube’s north-south system is a massive shift too. No more east-west, overpassing nonsense. The Leafs play with pace, purpose, and layers in the D-zone. That alone has changed the entire flow of games.


And let’s not ignore the core guys: Matthews, Marner, and Tavares have all stepped up defensively. They’re playing real 200-foot hockey now, and it’s showing in the results.


Plus, Knies, McMann, Stolarz and Robertson are actually contributing offensively. That kind of depth didn’t exist last year.


Yes, goaltending got better—but acting like it’s the only reason the team looks different? That’s just lazy. Again watch the games.

Want more proof? We just scored 6 goals and went 3 for 6 on the Powerplay.

 

[ClarkSittler]

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.

Wow, we're being outplayed so bad, we finished second in the Conference. Lucky we had Patrick Roy or we would've missed the playoffs.

Glad we had that elite goaltending that was responsible for 4 players being among the top 30 in NHL scoring, Knies and McMann exploding. McCabe, Tanev, Carlo and OEL playing sound defensively. The Leafs playing a more playoff friendly system which resulted in a 6-2 win yesterday. We went 3 for 6 on the Powerplay, let me guess goaltending right! You just keep playing with your little spreadsheets, but make sure you're taking notes on how a cup winning coach employs his team. If only the Leafs hired a genius like you instead of Berube, we'd be guaranteed a cup win for sure!

 

[Donnie740]

Unrelated to the argument you guys are having, but I wonder if these days it would be far more likely that a kid like Marner would go the US college route instead of junior hockey.

No, the CHL is still the best route for players aspiring for the NHL.

Let’s think it through logically - - players start in the CHL when they’re 16yrs old. They’re not going to be finished high school at that point, so the NCAA isn’t even an option.

They’re CHL is light years better than the USHL, so the top 16yr old players would obviously be better served playing against better competition.

And when you’ve been with a CHL team for two years, when you’re a potential 1st round NHL pick you’re expected to be a centrepiece of the team in your draft year. In comparison, if you’re just starting out in the NCAA at age 18, there’s less chance of immediately being considered the centrepiece of the team when first arriving.

And then after being drafted as a top pick in the NHL draft, why would anyone want waste their time sitting in a classroom instead of spending their time practicing, training and studying film to become a better hockey player?

Let’s be honest - - any player drafted in the first round of the NHL draft is going to make way more money playing hockey than they’ll make getting a 9-to-5 job after college or university. And I’m pretty sure they’d enjoy playing hockey much more than they’d enjoy sitting in a cubicle doing data entry.

 

[Donnie740]

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

Don’t you just hate it when the spreadsheets say the Leafs should lose, but on the scoreboard the Leafs actually win?

That’s almost as bad as when the spreadsheets say the Leafs should win, but on the scoreboard the Leafs end up losing.

 

[Donnie740]

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

You don’t seem to comprehend how spreadsheet analysis is completely lacking in context.

Max Pacioretty leveling Jack Hughes with a thunderous check in the offensive zone counts as a hit just like Timid Liljegren bumping into someone in the neutral zone counts as a hit.

They both count equally as one hit on the spreadsheet but which one do you suppose is more impactful?

That’s why you have to actually watch the games instead of just looking at spreadsheet data, my friend.

 

[TMLBlueandWhite]

Easy. The D-core was completely reshaped—Tanev, Carlo, and OEL have reshaped our defense and helped improve defensive structure. Plays are dying earlier, and high-danger chances are way down. Tanev leads the team in blocked shots.


Berube’s north-south system is a massive shift too. No more east-west, overpassing nonsense. The Leafs play with pace, purpose, and layers in the D-zone. That alone has changed the entire flow of games.


And let’s not ignore the core guys: Matthews, Marner, and Tavares have all stepped up defensively. They’re playing real 200-foot hockey now, and it’s showing in the results.


Plus, Knies, McMann, Stolarz and Robertson are actually contributing offensively. That kind of depth didn’t exist last year.


Yes, goaltending got better—but acting like it’s the only reason the team looks different? That’s just lazy. Again watch the games.

Want more proof? We just scored 6 goals and went 3 for 6 on the Powerplay.

The hdca being down is more than offset by the hdcf being way down (hdcf% = 47.5) which means the Leafs are net losers in that category.

Tanev blocking a lot of shots is offset by the 1.3 increase in shot attempts (corsi) per game. Total number of shots against is the same. So all that blocking of shots he is doing has net zero effect because he is only neutralizing the extra attempts per game the opposition are taking.

Hits are way down, giveaways way up, and rebound shots against are the same.

Last year MNMT accounted for 164 goals out of 298. Which means the depth accounted for 134 goals. This year MNMT scored 143 goals out of 267. Which means the depth scored 124. So depth scoring is actually down by 12 goals.

Scoring six goals was a common thing under Keefe (same with scoring three on the power play).

Glad we had that elite goaltending that was responsible for 4 players being among the top 30 in NHL scoring,

They didn't have four players in the top 30 in scoring by either points or goals.

This just isn't true.

 

[TMLBlueandWhite]

You don’t seem to comprehend how spreadsheet analysis is completely lacking in context.

Max Pacioretty leveling Jack Hughes with a thunderous check in the offensive zone counts as a hit just like Timid Liljegren bumping into someone in the neutral zone counts as a hit.

They both count equally as one hit on the spreadsheet but which one do you suppose is more impactful?

That’s why you have to actually watch the games instead of just looking at spreadsheet data, my friend.

You guys can have the "w" I'm bowing out.

I'm done arguing with the wind.

That goes for @ClarkSittler too.

 

[Dekes For Days]

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.

The data was used to inform. And then you decided to ignore what it was informing you, and instead make contradictory conclusions about the state of the team based on nothing, because you didn't like what it said.

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.

I addressed that context. We have had key injuries in other years, but I noted that Matthews' injury could be impacting the slight conversion drop relative to chance generation on the PP. I also looked at more recent samples for you (the ones you chose), to see if there was an adjustment period dragging down the results, and when there wasn't, I noted that losing our two best defensive defensemen in Tanev and McCabe for a handful of games could be contributing to the drop in our defensive results to end the year. But a lot of our issues can't be explained away by context.

As for the opinions of the experts, I refer to them to inform me

They aren't experts, and they aren't informing you properly.

What makes your opinion, someone who has probably never played the game, more worthy of listening to than theirs?

I have played the game, and you shouldn't be following anybody's subjective opinion. Not mine, not yours, not somebody on the TV. You will naturally gravitate towards any opinion that agrees with yours anyway, as we saw. You should be listening to the objective facts and data.

Good managers do not solely make decisions based on advanced stats.

Good managers do not stick their fingers in their ears and ignore every possible basic and advanced metric showing the same thing. The same thing that is also very visible with the eye test.

 

[JT AM da real deal]

Laughton is a playoff warrior .. dude dominated da ice last night and he tiled game back in our favor after 2nd and 3rd lines got waxed .. Matty played like a demon too last night .. worth da 1st rounder for that playoff performance .. I get it now .. I was wrong big time about Laughton

 

[conFABulator]

Sigh. I know we can't seem to talk about the present and the future without the ghost of Dubas overshadowing things, but I liked Dubas and didn't love the Treliving hire.

Having said this, Tre seems to be making the right moves to take what Dubas built to the next level. Is it is possible Dubas would have also? Maybe, but we have no evidence to suggest he would have.

I posted this earlier and didn't mention KD once, because this thread is about the job Treliving has done. After a very small sample size of one playoff game, the five points I made are still holding true and it was wasn't even our full A game.

1. Leadership. We seem poised and ready and there is not a lot noise around this team heading into the playoffs. I think Berube, Matthews, Tavares and probably Tre himself deserve a lot of credit for this. They actually seem "workmanlike".

2. Goaltending. Say no more. Even when it looked like Stolarz might be hurt, I thought "well, we have Woll too". No more Samankv. Say no more.

3. Defense. Did it ever feel like we were going to squander a lead or even let them back in the game? Blocking shot, boxing out, limited second chances, poise. Yep.

4. Depth. Ekman-Larson, Tanev, Laughton, Lorentz, Jarnkrok...let's not forget Knies. That's a half dozen guys that are not the big 5 or our goalie that had an impact on the game last night.

5. The Core Four. Nine points and and 3 for 6 on the PP. That's a couple of monkeys off backs early.

Yes, only one game and yes the Sens were not good but let's also remember that this team set a goal, worked hard and achieved this goal - win the division to get a first round match up to our liking.

So far, so good. Now let's see consistency and killer instinct.

 

[Donnie740]

Having said this, Tre seems to be making the right moves to take what Dubas built to the next level. Is it is possible Dubas would have also? Maybe, but we have no evidence to suggest he would have.

Kyle Dumbass didn’t “build” anything in Toronto. He inherited what Lamoriello, Nonis, Burke and Shanahan already had in place.

Matthews, Marner and Nylander all on ELCs. Kadri and Rielly on very affordable contracts. A full cupboard of draft picks and no long term boat anchor deals. His “worst” contract was ONE (1) year remaining at $6.25M for Pat Marleau.

Half a decade later, with all of that in place for him, Dumbass could only manage to win ONE (1) playoff round.

Let’s be honest and just acknowledge that Dumbass is an incompetent GM. He’s proven that again in Pittsburgh - - two years in the job there and the Penguins are in even worse shape than when he arrived.

 

[Dekes For Days]

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.

I don't think anybody has said that we are DOA. It is possible to improve our underlying play for up to 25 games against certain opponents, and it's not impossible to win even if we don't. The goaltending you get and/or the goaltending you face can overcome these weaknesses, and things like injuries, officiating, matchups, etc. can influence outcomes.

But that doesn't change that underlying play is pretty important. 15 of the past 17 winners had a positive xGF% in the regular season. Both that didn't improved to positive in the playoffs. Only 1 of the last 17 Cup winners had a negative xGF% in the playoffs (St. Louis in 2018-2019), and they were probably the weakest, most flukey win in the cap era. They had the worst record and goal differential of any cup winner too, and they probably lose to Boston if they hadn't been decimated by injury.

And I'm not sure how likely it is for our underlying play to flip, considering that while Berube was with St. Louis, their underlying play dropped off and was negative in the playoffs every single year. In 2019, it dropped from 53.4% to 47.2%. In 2020, it dropped from 50.0% to 43.3%. In 2021, it dropped from 46.2% to 31.3%. In 2022, it dropped from 50.3% to 48.4%. And even with a cup, he had a losing playoff record in his tenure...

The pushback hasn't been against people suggesting we have a chance. In fact, I've been saying all along that we have a good chance, despite some of our weaknesses. Maybe even a better chance than we've had, considering how much the division and conference has dropped off, how impactful strong goaltending is, and the likelihood of facing worse goaltending than we have in the past. The pushback has been against people making objectively false statements about this team, past teams, our system, and its conduciveness to playoff success.

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.”

Nobody has said anything close to that. Ironically, it is the other side that spent years being miserable, trashing some of the best Leaf teams we've ever had, and trying to put asterisks on every accomplishment, because of their irrational hatred of the GM. You should have fun. You should celebrate accomplishments, cup or not. This is what sports is about, and what I've been saying all along. But that doesn't require pushing false narratives. We have a good chance to win again. Let's enjoy the ride, instead of trying to pretend it's something it's not.

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.

Goaltending is important (and we had good goaltending at times through the previous regime), but it's also highly variable and inconsistent from one sample to the next. That's why, unless you have one of the few consistently best goalies, it's risky and usually counterproductive to invest heavily into the position.

Your statement doesn't make much sense, because we are spending less on goaltending this year than any other year. Stolarz himself was also a career backup. It's the same approach. Main difference is that we finally also have a quality internally developed goalie, and we still have hope that Stolarz will maintain this.