Brad Treliving is doing a great job.

[DarkKnight]

Still need the results, but I've never seen a Leafs D corp so effective out front and on the wall. Love it!

 

[notDatsyuk]

Exactly lol. It means exactly what I said whether you can read or not. Cheers.

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less. ... The question is which is to be master - that's all. ... They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs, they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say."

Humpty Dumpty - Through the Looking Glass

 

[Dekes For Days]

Carlyle system sucked in part because that team didn't have the personnel for it.

One could easily argue that this is not the best system for our personnel either. The bigger point though, is that cups are won in many different ways, and it's not automatically attributable to some infallible system. It doesn't automatically mean that your system is amazing, or best for every team. The idea that we can't question concerning systemic results because the guy fluked into a cup 6 years ago is ridiculous. Nobody had any trouble criticizing the systems of Carlyle and Babcock.

Natural Stat Trick has Carlyle's Leafs as being more terrible possession-wise than this version of the team.

The 2013 team was definitely worse, but that's not very reassuring. That team wasn't supposed to be good. This team is supposed to be good. I think most people feel that we upgraded our skater personnel relative to last year, so our skater results dropping off doesn't reflect great on the system.

I'd also point out that the Leafs also were trending downwards to end the 2013 regular season, while Berube's Leafs ended the season on a 5 game win streak and as one of the hottest teams in the NHL since the trade deadline.

That is true, but that was primarily a result of goaltending, not our system. We had the best goaltending in the league over the final 10 games.

The Blues underlyings improved once from the regular season to the postseason under Berube, that was 2019-20.

According to Moneypuck, their overall xGF% dropped from 50.01% In the regular season to 43.28% in the playoffs in 2020. Even 5v5, it went from 50.42% to 48.95%. Not sure what you looked at, but heads up that NaturalStatTrick is missing data from one of their games.

 

[Jimmy Firecracker]

According to Moneypuck, their overall xGF% dropped from 50.01% In the regular season to 43.28% in the playoffs in 2020. Even 5v5, it went from 50.42% to 48.95%. Not sure what you looked at, but heads up that NaturalStatTrick is missing data from one of their games.

And

 

[Dekes For Days]

View attachment 1024968
View attachment 1024969

As I noted, NaturalStatTrick is missing the data from one of their games that year. They played 9 games, not 8. Moneypuck has all 9 and has them at 48.95% at 5v5. Both sites have them in the negatives overall. I wouldn't exactly call that encouraging.

 

[CabanaBoy5]

One could easily argue that this is not the best system for our personnel either. The bigger point though, is that cups are won in many different ways, and it's not automatically attributable to some infallible system. It doesn't automatically mean that your system is amazing, or best for every team. The idea that we can't question concerning systemic results because the guy fluked into a cup 6 years ago is ridiculous. Nobody had any trouble criticizing the systems of Carlyle and Babcock.

The 2013 team was definitely worse, but that's not very reassuring. That team wasn't supposed to be good. This team is supposed to be good. I think most people feel that we upgraded our skater personnel relative to last year, so our skater results dropping off doesn't reflect great on the system.

That is true, but that was primarily a result of goaltending, not our system. We had the best goaltending in the league over the final 10 games.

According to Moneypuck, their overall xGF% dropped from 50.01% In the regular season to 43.28% in the playoffs in 2020. Even 5v5, it went from 50.42% to 48.95%. Not sure what you looked at, but heads up that NaturalStatTrick is missing data from one of their games.

It's not just goaltending that had us finishing so well. Part of it is the defensive system and part the changes Treliving has done to the defence. Treliving has assembled the best d-core of the Matthews era. Stolarz and Woll will tell you that the defence does a great job blocking shots and clearing the front of the net. Former players and coaches have commented how much the defence has improved and how much more difficult is to get to the net.

Just for shits and giggles, I typed into google "what makies the Toronto Maple Leafs defence so difficult to play against". This is the AI overview generated:

The Toronto Maple Leafs' defense is difficult to play against due to a combination of factors, including a more mature defensive system, a strong emphasis on structure and discipline, and a reduced risk of turnovers and scrambling, making it harder for opponents to launch counterattacks.

Here's a more detailed look:

• Maturity and Discipline:
  The Leafs' defensive system now emphasizes calmness under pressure, avoiding overreactions and collapsing inward to cut off high-danger lanes. This prevents opponents from exploiting turnovers and counterattacking.
• Strong Structure:
  The Leafs' defensive structure, starting with the coaching staff, ensures that top defensemen take short shifts, make efficient clears, and receive support from forwards who are actively backchecking.
• Reduced Risk:
  The team's defensive approach reduces the risk of turnovers, making it harder for opposing teams to set up counterattacks that have been effective against previous Leafs teams.
• Depth and Talent:
  The Leafs have added key defensive players like Chris Tanev, Oliver Ekman-Larsson, and Brandon Carlo, adding depth and talent to the lineup.
  
  Take this for what it's worth (AI Overview is experimental) but it details almost everything that we Treliving supporters have been saying.

 

[Dekes For Days]

You claimed I didn't give you facts. I gave you facts. You ignore the facts I gave you, or minimize them. You point to other facts. So you think your facts are more important than mine?

You gave a few facts once it was pointed out that you were relying on feelings and opinions. They weren't ignored or minimized. They were addressed right here. But even the ones that were correct didn't justify your position or claims. You've tried to find good stretches or specific aspects of play in certain game states that we've improved, but even the facts and stats you choose do not show us to be better overall. So that belief is entirely rooted in feeling, not fact. And if you need to believe that we are better to believe we have a chance, then go ahead, because we do have a chance, but you can't get mad when people want to talk about the actual evidence of what's happened.

You ignore where I say that advanced stats have a place in sports, just not the be-all, end-all you think it is.

It's not just advanced stats. It's all stats - from the most basic to the most advanced. They are a snapshot of what happened, and unlike the opinions of you, I, and some guy on TV, they are unbiased. I am not ignoring what you're saying, but what you're saying is just a fancy way of saying that you'll only use stats when they match what you already think, and that's not really using stats. You had many chances to let them inform you, and you rejected it.

I have respected people who have played and managed the sport agreeing with what I've said but let's ignore them because you think they have other agendas.

There are "respected people" with a wide range of opinions and approaches. You cannot conclude that you are right and the method you enjoy more is magically superior in some secret way because you found some media personalities that told you what you want you want to hear.

I didn't say we didn't have great teams in the past, only that those teams were ultimately unsuccessful in achieving the final goal. The methods/systems, coaching, player selection, etc they used did not get us to that ultimate goal. You claim it is only the goaltending that gives us the opportunity of success this time. But, if we had better coaching, better systems, players more conducive to a playoff environment, those teams could have won because the goaltending in the end gave us a chance in those game 7's.

You've done quite a bit of trashing past versions of the team. And while yes, we did not achieve the ultimate goal, a lot of people still don't seem to get that achieving the ultimate goal isn't just about your team. External factors have a big impact on playoff outcomes.

Goaltending is internally the only position where we got better results than what we've got before, but external differences are what actually give us a better opportunity for success. The decline of the division and conference around us, and the unlikelihood that we continue facing the quality of goaltending we have. We had players conducive to a playoff environment. We had a good coach and systems. But goaltending "giving you a chance" isn't enough when some of the best playoff goalies of all time are popping out SV%s between 0.967 and 1.000 in game 7s. Quite a change from the 0.848 goaltending we're facing now.

It's not just goaltending that had us finishing so well. Part of it is the defensive system and part the changes Treliving has done to the defence.

No. It was goaltending. We didn't do well defensively during that stretch.

Treliving has assembled the best d-core of the Matthews era.

He hasn't, but if you believe he has, then that means he's failed somewhere else to create worse defensive results.

Stolarz and Woll will tell you that the defence does a great job blocking shots and clearing the front of the net.

We block the same number of shots as last year, and blocking shots doesn't provide a net benefit if you're just blocking the extra shot attempts you allow. We have been pretty bad at allowing rebounds and clearing the front of the net. You may personally prefer how we approach that objective now, but facts are facts.

 

[CabanaBoy5]

But goaltending "giving you a chance" isn't enough when some of the best playoff goalies of all time are popping out SV%s between 0.967 and 1.000 in game 7s. Quite a change from the 0.848 goaltending we're facing now.

Why are we talking about SV% of goalies in game 7's and comparing them with the 0.848 goaltending we're facing after 5 games here? Vasilevskiy had an .875 after six games in 2023. For all we know, Ullmark can pull off a 1.000 in game 7 if this series goes the limit.

We have been pretty bad at allowing rebounds and clearing the front of the net.

Who is giving up these rebounds? The goalies you say have led to the one and only reason you say this year's team is different? So we can conclude this improved defence Treliving has assembed is doing a great job at clearing the front of the net and cleaning up the mess the goalie creates when the shots do get through. Btw, we were No. 3 in % of goals against from rebounds in the last 20 games of the season.

No. It was goaltending. We didn't do well defensively during that stretch.

In the last 10 games, we were No. 1 in blocked shots with 173. We were 11th in high danger shots against. We were No. 1 in rebound goals against with 0. As a defence, we were 7th in shots against in the last 20 games. Actually, our defence has been very good since the Four Nations and into the playoffs.

I am not ignoring what you're saying, but what you're saying is just a fancy way of saying that you'll only use stats when they match what you already think, and that's not really using stats.

Pot calling the kettle black.

You've tried to find good stretches or specific aspects of play in certain game states that we've improved, but even the facts and stats you choose do not show us to be better overall.

Pot calling the kettle black.

There are "respected people" with a wide range of opinions and approaches. You cannot conclude that you are right and the method you enjoy more is magically superior in some secret way because you found some media personalities that told you what you want you want to hear.

Of course I'm going to do that, doesn't diminish what these analysts are saying. It's called supporting your argument. Why would I use someone who doesn't agree with what I'm saying? lol

 

[Dekes For Days]

Why are we talking about SV% of goalies in game 7's and comparing them with the 0.848 goaltending we're facing after 5 games here?

Just pointing out how much opposing goaltending can impact outcomes. So far, this is the worst goaltending we've ever faced in a series.

Who is giving up these rebounds? The goalies you say have led to the one and only reason you say this year's team is different? So we can conclude this improved defence Treliving has assembed is doing a great job at clearing the front of the net and cleaning up the mess the goalie creates when the shots do get through.

Every goalie gives up some rebounds. It is the job of the defence to prevent those from turning into rebound shots. If the defence was doing a "great job at clearing the net front", we would not be allowing a lot of rebound shots. We allowed the 4th most rebound shots in the league this year.

Btw, we were No. 3 in % of goals against from rebounds in the last 20 games of the season.

You were looking at just 5v5 again. We were actually 6th. And that is because of goaltending. Over the last 20 games, we allowed the 4th most rebound shots In the league. That was the defense's part of this. The goalie's part was facing those 76 rebound shots and only allowing 4 of them in the net.

In the last 10 games, we were No. 1 in blocked shots with 173. We were 11th in high danger shots against. We were No. 1 in rebound goals against with 0. As a defence, we were 7th in shots against in the last 20 games.

Again, you're only looking at 5v5. In the last 10 games, we were 1st in blocked shots with 207. But, because our defense simultaneously allows so many shot attempts in the first place, being 1st in blocked shots only lowered our shots against to the 6th most shots against in the league (5th most over the last 20). We allowed the 10th most high danger shots against in the league. The defence allowed the 3rd most rebound shots in the league and then the goalies saved our butts by stopping 43 of those 44 rebound shots.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Nope. My use of stats is not dependant on if it aligns with my preconceived beliefs.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Nope. I didn't pick out the most favourable stretches. I looked at the entire season. I didn't pick out specific aspects of play. I looked at both more detailed and macro level results. I didn't pick out any game state. I looked at every game state, and the overall results. Nothing shows us to be better overall.

It's called supporting your argument.

No, supporting your argument means using facts and evidence to show that your argument is true. It does not mean finding somebody with a similar opinion.

 

[Stringer Bell]

Still need the results, but I've never seen a Leafs D corp so effective out front and on the wall. Love it!

Agreed. Yet the reason why we can't win in the playoffs seems to be our inability to score. If we could score in the playoffs we might have been a contender this year.

 

[notbias]

Agreed. Yet the reason why we can't win in the playoffs seems to be our inability to score. If we could score in the playoffs we might have been a contender this year.

It's the issue every single year, but they never address it.

 

[Larcos_Unal]

1st rounder for Carlo? fine, it lines up the D pairs
1st rounder for Laughton when you have problems scoring goals? sheer madnessssssssssssss

 

[saffronleaf]

NewGM is doing great! Reverse sweep one-up's Dubas!

 

[leafs in five]

The Dubas Fan Boi Club was confidently predicting a tough battle in the first round - - and privately hoping for an upset.

After game 1, the narrative was “advanced stats prove Toronto was lucky to win”

After game 2, the narrative changed to “just some random bounces that went Toronto’s way.”

After game 3, the narrative has now become “this 3-0 lead shouldn’t be a surprise, Toronto is a much more experienced and far superior team.”

Honestly I blame you guys

 

[Donnie740]

Just when I thought the over reliance on spreadsheets and obscure “expected stats” couldn’t get any worse, now we have AI generated “scouting reports”.

Evidently, it’s way too old fashioned to actually watch the game and draw your own conclusions based on what you’ve observed.