Do you like this team?

[Bluelines]

Im good, you can tell when people played based on their complaints. Hockey’s changed a bunch since the 80s and playing beer league now isn’t the same as playing competitive. Not to say I’ve played that much more recently, I was mid 90s/early 2000s.

Yes, I agree a lot of their defensive breakdowns could have been prevented, but the whole point of a defensive breakdown literally means just that. You’re asking them not to breakdown defensively ever, which is impossible.

Just look at the goals we score, odd man rushes, back door passes, etc. The plays you complain about are literally the only way to score in today’s NHL unless you’re a team that pots a bunch of ugly crash the net goals.

Hockey has changed... WOW ... what a newsflash...

You're implying that a person gets to a certain point in life and just stops learning, just has an inability to evolve with time, I know no one that fits that description, because of my job I've met thousands of people in my life time, all have shown the ability to learn.... I've taught my son, my neighbor sons, friends sons and now I'm teaching my grand son how to play the game. I've learned through my sons hockey schools, summer camps, all through the 2000's, my knowledge is not a time capsule, it evolves as new ideas come up. Equipment has changed, drills have changed, rules have changed, technique has changed, diet has changed, conditioning has changed but it's still a competitive sport, thinking the game has not changed, anticipating the play has not changed, reading the game has not changed, angles, passing to where the receiver will be not where he is, anticipating where the goalie is going and shooting where the goalie use to be has not changed, getting goalies moving laterally has not changed... simple concepts but it's stuff taught today, its stuff that was taught 50 years ago.

I'm not asking them to be perfect, I'm expecting that pro athletes have the mental focus to not make mistakes that I see kids making. Defencemen are taught to have their head on a swivel, to take the stick away from the attacker, forwards are taught that when their d pinches they are suppose to cover the point, these are not unique or high level thinking concepts. Just last game alone, simple pee wee type mistakes cost us the game. They don't have to be perfect but they do have to play like pro's.

 

[Dekes For Days]

That seems to be the biggest issue with those that have no opinion or understanding of the game. They rely on the fancy graphs and thoughts put out by ‘JFresh’ and ‘Jeffler’ as some type of proof.

On the contrary, it is the people who have greater understanding of the game that know how valuable these tools and information can be, especially when comparing how we perform relative to other teams across the league. Unfortunately, some have such an inflated perception of their own abilities that they dismiss all information and results in favour of their heavily biased personal opinions (mostly pre-conceived), that aren't supported by literally anything. They of course do this after watching a tiny portion of overall games, mostly featuring one or few teams that they have an unequal emotional investment in. You're not as informed as you think you are.

I guess having a Twitter account makes them some type of authority.

No; they just provide better insight than you because they don't ignore mountains of valuable data to create a narrative.

We saw last year when missing the playoffs that graphs won’t carry you anywhere

We didn't miss the playoffs, and the data gave a pretty clear picture of what happened last year.

 

[zeke]

The funny thing is an odd man rush is a very very easy thing to observe. Anyone can see it, no matter how little they understand the game.

It takes a much more knowledgeable eye to understand whether a team is actually good or bad at preventing them overall.

It is absolutely classic casual fan am radio nonsense to see one game with 3 rush goals allowed and claim its a team weakness, when it clearly has not been all year long.

 

[zeke]

That seems to be the biggest issue with those that have no opinion or understanding of the game. They rely on the fancy graphs and thoughts put out by ‘JFresh’ and ‘Jeffler’ as some type of proof. I guess having a Twitter account makes them some type of authority.
Dubas has put together a pretty good team here who are talented enough to go as far as their will takes them. We saw last year when missing the playoffs that graphs won’t carry you anywhere, you have to show up and play.

It's revealing that you would mock someone for doing the legwork of actually counting up all the events which you say are a hugely important issue, just because it contradicts your half-assed couch watching opinion of a minor percentage of hockey games.

 

[Bomber0104]

That seems to be the biggest issue with those that have no opinion or understanding of the game. They rely on the fancy graphs and thoughts put out by ‘JFresh’ and ‘Jeffler’ as some type of proof. I guess having a Twitter account makes them some type of authority.
Dubas has put together a pretty good team here who are talented enough to go as far as their will takes them. We saw last year when missing the playoffs that graphs won’t carry you anywhere, you have to show up and play.

Great post.

There's probably a very good reason why those types aren't working in any sort of data science / analysis position and are resigned to just erroneously post all day and night on their Twitter about both a sport and subject matter (statistics) they don't really altogether understand.

Good on them, they're clearly spending a lot of their free time doing this stuff that gets people thinking, but it's all very amateur and not to be taken seriously in any way.

 

[zeke]

Here's what professional players think of your guys' eye tests:

 

[Stephen]

It's revealing that you would mock someone for doing the legwork of actually counting up all the events which you say are a hugely important issue, just because it contradicts your half-assed couch watching opinion of a minor percentage of hockey games.

A more humble approach might be to suggest that you need a combination of analytical data and an understanding of what's going on in real time before your eyes to form a well rounded picture of how your team is performing. You'll also notice that the NHL is moving to a real time puck and player tracking system to generate even more heaps of data, so really, the more information you can generate, the more you can interpret and hope that forms greater understanding and greater insights.

And while you belittle the couch watching opinions of other fans who watch video, I'm pretty sure that after a 2 on 1 breakdown resulting in a goal and Manny Malhotra is talking it over with a player on the bench with the iPad, they're not looking at the spreadsheet and Manny isn't say "don't worry, your GA/60 is still great, just keep turning that puck over and we'll just blame the goalie."

 

[Stephen]

Here's what professional players think of your guys' eye tests:

That's not even the same sport, Zeke.

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[GrizzLeaf]

Seems I'm late to the party.

Yes, I like this team. This is the closest we've had to a great team in a few decades.

Fans are too focused on the negative. Campbell looked weak the last 2 games but don't forget the 11 games before that.

The PP will get it figured out.

This team is near the top of the standings for a reason. All teams go through highs and lows.

There's a saying among coaches. "Never too high, never too low". This is actually geared towards athletes but some fans need to hear it as well.

My advice, gut out the lows without too much emotion and enjoy the highs.

 

[zeke]

A more humble approach might be to suggest that you need a combination of analytical data and an understanding of what's going on in real time before your eyes to form a well rounded picture of how your team is performing. You'll also notice that the NHL is moving to a real time puck and player tracking system to generate even more heaps of data, so really, the more information you can generate, the more you can interpret and hope that forms greater understanding and greater insights.

And while you belittle the couch watching opinions of other fans who watch video, I'm pretty sure that after a 2 on 1 breakdown resulting in a goal and Manny Malhotra is talking it over with a player on the bench with the iPad, they're not looking at the spreadsheet and Manny isn't say "don't worry, your GA/60 is still great, just keep turning that puck over and we'll just blame the goalie."

if your eyes are telling you these leafs give up lots of scoring chances, your eyes suck.

 

[zeke]

That's not even the same sport, Zeke.

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

You know whats not the same? Junior B hockey and NHL hockey.

 

[authentic]

Hockey has changed... WOW ... what a newsflash...

You're implying that a person gets to a certain point in life and just stops learning, just has an inability to evolve with time, I know no one that fits that description, because of my job I've met thousands of people in my life time, all have shown the ability to learn.... I've taught my son, my neighbor sons, friends sons and now I'm teaching my grand son how to play the game. I've learned through my sons hockey schools, summer camps, all through the 2000's, my knowledge is not a time capsule, it evolves as new ideas come up. Equipment has changed, drills have changed, rules have changed, technique has changed, diet has changed, conditioning has changed but it's still a competitive sport, thinking the game has not changed, anticipating the play has not changed, reading the game has not changed, angles, passing to where the receiver will be not where he is, anticipating where the goalie is going and shooting where the goalie use to be has not changed, getting goalies moving laterally has not changed... simple concepts but it's stuff taught today, its stuff that was taught 50 years ago.

I'm not asking them to be perfect, I'm expecting that pro athletes have the mental focus to not make mistakes that I see kids making. Defencemen are taught to have their head on a swivel, to take the stick away from the attacker, forwards are taught that when their d pinches they are suppose to cover the point, these are not unique or high level thinking concepts. Just last game alone, simple pee wee type mistakes cost us the game. They don't have to be perfect but they do have to play like pro's.

They will continue to have "pee wee mistakes" because they are playing against other professionals. I think they have room to improve defensively, but at the same time the people you're arguing with are not wrong because we are still better than most teams.

 

[keonsbitterness]

Like the team, hate the thread.

 

[Stephen]

You know whats not the same? Junior B hockey and NHL hockey.

I'm not sure why you think watching hockey games on a couch (which I think most of us enjoy) or possibly playing Junior B hockey (which I would have loved to have played) could be considered lacking sophistication or insulting...

But it is telling that you're only able to comment on the frequency of breakdowns as a statistical capture as opposed to why they happen from a personnel point of view or a result of certain tactical decisions.

 

[Jimmy Firecracker]

Great post.

There's probably a very good reason why those types aren't working in any sort of data science / analysis position and are resigned to just erroneously post all day and night on their Twitter about both a sport and subject matter (statistics) they don't really altogether understand.

Good on them, they're clearly spending a lot of their free time doing this stuff that gets people thinking, but it's all very amateur and not to be taken seriously in any way.

Some of these “Twitter Nerds” you guys are insulting have gone farther in the NHL than anyone here dumping on them. People like Jack Han and Rachel Doerrie use these stats amd analytics as a tool and have actually worked in NHL offices and coaching staffs.

 

[zeke]

I'm not sure why you think watching hockey games on a couch (which I think most of us enjoy) or possibly playing Junior B hockey (which I would have loved to have played) could be considered lacking sophistication or insulting...

But it is telling that you're only able to comment on the frequency of breakdowns as a statistical capture as opposed to why they happen from a personnel point of view or a result of certain tactical decisions.

It's fascinating that you think it's hard to see a risky pinch backfire, or a covering forward get beat.

 

[Mess]

That seems to be the biggest issue with those that have no opinion or understanding of the game. They rely on the fancy graphs and thoughts put out by ‘JFresh’ and ‘Jeffler’ as some type of proof. I guess having a Twitter account makes them some type of authority.
Dubas has put together a pretty good team here who are talented enough to go as far as their will takes them. We saw last year when missing the playoffs that graphs won’t carry you anywhere, you have to show up and play.

How is there a better example of the spreadsheet stats than that CBJ series where Leafs entered as the 3rd highest scoring team and CBJ the 3rd lowest scoring team and it would be Blue Jackets that come out on top and outscore the Leafs in the series to advance? On paper that suggested this should have been a blowout and mismatch on the ice, that few Leaf fans even gave CBJ a chance and the advanced stats would predict going in, despite having swepted powerhouse TB the previous season. It was never about losing Panarin and Duchene etc that made any difference in the winning outcome for CBJ.

Because those that follow, have played and understand the game while watching knew that CBJ would be a formidable opponent in the series, because of their systems of an aggressive forecheck and neutral zone trap, their team defense of collapsing down low and boxing out the slot and HD scoring areas, their blue collar work effort, and their experienced coach that was up for Jack Adams just to name a few things you don't find in a spreadsheet.

So when combined data and knowledge together to form an opinion and educated prediction, you knew going in that Leafs composition and preferred style of play did not match up well against the opposition and this was a toss up series at best and analytics alone wouldn't paint the full accurate picture.

What I do like is that our young and inexperienced management is learning from past mistakes, and that once thought that a team built in a spreadsheet on speed and skill and moneypuck analytics would outsmart experienced veteran management that understood the game and didn't rely simply on fancy stats. Dubas also is evolving as he adds size, grit, toughness, experience in players like Simmonds, Foligno, Bogosian, Riley Nash etc etc to better compete on the ice and not just the spreadsheet. Finally leaving his figure skating team analytics behind and trying to assemble a winning style real hockey team instead.

There is no better example of this evolving and understanding than replacing Tyson Barrie (42 games 5-30-35 pts) with T.J Brodie (44 games 1-12-13 pts), and it doesn't matter how many fancy points Barrie puts up, it the realization that the dependable and defensive aware T.J Brodie is what makes the Leafs better and more Cup competitive by understanding defensive style of play and not just reading stats from a spreadsheet that show Barrie is a top 5 scoring Dman in the league.

 

[zeke]

Some of these “Twitter Nerds” you guys are insulting have gone farther in the NHL than anyone here dumping on them. People like Jack Han and Rachel Doerrie, use these stats as a tool have actually worked in NHL offices and coaching staffs.

The funniest part is that literally ALL of the elite teams in hockey at the moment - TB, COL, VGK, TOR, CAR - are extremely analytics-heavy teams.

Time to wake up, MTHL experts.

 

[zeke]

There is no better example of this evolving and understanding than replacing Tyson Barrie (42 games 5-30-35 pts) with T.J Brodie (44 games 1-12-13 pts), and it doesn't matter how many fancy points Barrie puts up, it the realization that the dependable and defensive aware T.J Brodie is what makes the Leafs better and more Cup competitive by understanding defensive style of play and not just reading stats from a spreadsheet that show Barrie is a top 5 scoring Dman in the league.

The nerd stats all think Brodie is one of the most valuable dmen in all hockey this year, far better than Barrie.

Yet we had leafs fans looking at the dman scoring race ruefully. In fact, I'm pretty sure we can find some posts from good old Mess mentioning Barrie's scoring this year.

 

[zeke]

I'm not sure why you think watching hockey games on a couch (which I think most of us enjoy) or possibly playing Junior B hockey (which I would have loved to have played) could be considered lacking sophistication or insulting...

Let's be clear who is insulting who here.

 

[Dekes For Days]

But it is telling that you're only able to comment on the frequency of breakdowns as a statistical capture as opposed to why they happen from a personnel point of view or a result of certain tactical decisions.

Everybody here using statistical tools knows why they happen. It's not some big secret that only guys who played junior hockey 40 years ago know. There's just many of us that would like to enjoy this great team, knowing that no matter what you do or what players you have or how experienced they are, there will always be mistakes that happen. Dwelling on every single mistake is meaningless, especially as fans, and it's frustrating when isolated examples are used to dump on the team/a player or to suggest that every statistical measure is actually wrong because they know better.

 

[Dekes For Days]

How is there a better example of the spreadsheet stats than that CBJ series where Leafs entered as the 3rd highest scoring team and CBJ the 3rd lowest scoring team and it would be Blue Jackets that come out on top and outscore the Leafs in the series to advance? On paper that suggested this should have been a blowout and mismatch on the ice

The advanced stats did not suggest it would be a "blowout". As a tip, you probably shouldn't build your entire argument around random assumptions about what things say. For somebody that puts an enormous emphasis on defense, it's interesting that you conveniently forgot to mention that Columbus was the best defensive team in the league last year, in that detailed analysis of yours.

Also, you don't even need any "fancy stats" to understand that Columbus getting 0.952 goaltending might impact the results of a 5-game series.

What I do like is that our young and inexperienced management is learning from past mistakes, and that once thought that a team built in a spreadsheet on speed and skill and moneypuck analytics would outsmart experienced veteran management that understood the game and didn't rely simply on fancy stats. Dubas also is evolving as he adds size, grit, toughness, experience in players like Simmonds, Foligno, Bogosian, Riley Nash etc etc to better compete on the ice and not just the spreadsheet. Finally leaving his figure skating team analytics behind and trying to assemble a winning style real hockey team instead.

Nothing about Dubas' vision has changed. Your description of his methodology, our team, and pretty much everything else here is wildly incorrect.

 

[Jimmy Firecracker]

How is there a better example of the spreadsheet stats than that CBJ series where Leafs entered as the 3rd highest scoring team and CBJ the 3rd lowest scoring team and it would be Blue Jackets that come out on top and outscore the Leafs in the series to advance? On paper that suggested this should have been a blowout and mismatch on the ice, that few Leaf fans even gave CBJ a chance and the advanced stats would predict going in, despite having swepted powerhouse TB the previous season. It was never about losing Panarin and Duchene etc that made any difference in the winning outcome for CBJ.

First off, hockey more than nearly any other sport has a heavy luck variance, especially in a short 5 game maximum series. I mean that pivotal game 5 the first CBJ goal that allowed them to hunker down the rest of the way deflected in off a body, and Tavares who could've tied it with a wide open net hit the post. Second, I don't think anyone who looks at analytics went into the series thinking the Leafs were a shoe-in to win the series, the only "on paper" surface level analysis that would've suggested that would be just looking at the rosters and lineups with nothing else, and no one who seriously follows this team or the game does that.

Because those the follow, have played and understand the game while watching knew that CBJ would be a formidable opponent in the series, because of their systems of an aggressive forecheck and neutral zone trap, their team defense of collapsing down low and boxing out the slot and HD scoring areas, their blue collar work effort, and their experienced coach that was up for Jack Adams just to name a few things you don't find in a spreadsheet.

I recall many people on here and across different platforms saying CBJ was our worst matchup in the qualifying rounds. Boston-light was a way of referring to them. Again I don't think too many people were taking the series for granted.

So when combined data and knowledge together to form an opinion and educated prediction, you knew going in that Leafs composition and preferred style of play did not match up well against the opposition and this was a toss up series at best and analytics alone wouldn't paint the full accurate picture.

Why is it in every "pro analytics, anti analytics" argument the "anti" side thinks the "pro" side does nothing but look at stats and spreadsheets and doesn't actually watch the games?

What I do like is that our young and inexperienced management is learning from past mistakes, and that once thought that a team built in a spreadsheet on speed and skill and moneypuck analytics would outsmart experienced veteran management that understood the game and didn't rely simply on fancy stats. Dubas also is evolving as he adds size, grit, toughness, experience in players like Simmonds, Foligno, Bogosian, Riley Nash etc etc to better compete on the ice and not just the spreadsheet. Finally leaving his figure skating team analytics behind and trying to assemble a winning style real hockey team instead.

There is no better example of this evolving and understanding than replacing Tyson Barrie (42 games 5-30-35 pts) with T.J Brodie (44 games 1-12-13 pts), and it doesn't matter how many fancy points Barrie puts up, it the realization that the dependable and defensive aware T.J Brodie is what makes the Leafs better and more Cup competitive by understanding defensive style of play and not just reading stats from a spreadsheet that show Barrie is a top 5 scoring Dman in the league.

If you think Dubas and the Leafs (or any NHL team really) has completely abandoned using analytics I've got a bridge to sell you. And as Zeke mentioned, Brodie is an analytics darling.

 

[Menzinger]

(

That seems to be the biggest issue with those that have no opinion or understanding of the game. They rely on the fancy graphs and thoughts put out by ‘JFresh’ and ‘Jeffler’ as some type of proof. I guess having a Twitter account makes them some type of authority.
Dubas has put together a pretty good team here who are talented enough to go as far as their will takes them. We saw last year when missing the playoffs that graphs won’t carry you anywhere, you have to show up and play.

Ironically enough NHL teams routinely hire these so called amateur stats folks. The Leafs stats department has the founder of ExtraSkater working for them, the WarOnIce guys got hired first by the Wild and then hired away by the Kraken ect.

Doesn't mean every single one of these public analytics sites are worth their value (they're not) but some of the sentiment in this thread is completely off the mark.

That said, agreed that the Leafs have clearly put together a smart mixed group of folks bringing together different aspects of hockey knowledge

 

[Bluelines]

They will continue to have "pee wee mistakes" because they are playing against other professionals. I think they have room to improve defensively, but at the same time the people you're arguing with are not wrong because we are still better than most teams.

We outscore our problems, if Marner and Matthews are on , we win, pretty simple formula but then again put Marner and Matthews on the Sens and the Sens are in 1st and we are in last. The system we play is possess the puck, outside of that we are a hot mess.