Post-Game Talk: Holl wins it in OT. Leafs defeat the Sens 3-2

[ToneDog]

They've got 20 goals in their last 7gms. 29 in their past 10. One goal under 3 goals per game.

Most teams would kill for that to be their offense in a "slump".

There is no 3 on 3 in the playoffs so let's not count those goals. Continuing to get "stoned" by average goalies is concerning to me.

 

[Gallagbi]

Correct and defence plays a big part of an incredible percentage such as that.

No praying required.

Pretty sure Ottawa didn't want to give up the quality of chances they did last night

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

Correct and defence plays a big part of an incredible percentage such as that.

No praying required.

I think you know that a defense can't just decide to force the other team to shoot at 5% over the course of a series. The Leafs shot at 21.3% on high danger chances in the regular season and 9% on high danger chances against CBJ

 

[Mr Hockey]

I agree

Hyman needs to be with Marner and Mathews .

I really don't get the coaches reasoning.

yea the hyman line got 4th line minutes last game, im not sure what the strategy behind that is especially since Hyman had been on fire lately imo ...

 

[Gallagbi]

There is very little value in expected goal stats. The game is played on the ice, not on spread sheets.

They are just people for people who don't fully understand hockey.

The numbers are generated from on-ice play. They're a record of what occured.

 

[Bomber0104]

Pretty sure Ottawa didn't want to give up the quality of chances they did last night

They managed the game in their end fairly well, and with a 5th string goalie to boot.

 

[Dekes For Days]

They managed the game in their end fairly well

They didn't though.

 

[Gary Nylund]

How many more backups, waiver pick ups, AHL goalies have to shutdown our potent offence before we start attributing some of blame on our offence ?? 23 goals in the last 9 games including 2 OT winners since we beat the Oilers 6-1.

It's all Andersen's fault. No more Andersen, problem solved. The fact that we could only score twice in regulation against a last place team on a back to back while we were more rested and healthy then we've been all season is just a blip on the radar my friend, don't you worry.

the trick to beating the Leafs is to pray for a .950 sv% and now everyone knows it

Considering how many people blame Andersen and his .936 SV% for our loss to CLB, it seems like praying for a .950 sv% is our formula for success as well.

 

[egd27]

Fun fact from last night:

The Leafs were recorded to have produced 25 High Danger Chances against the Sens which is the highest amount by any team in any game this year.

High danger chances were 17-10 last night. Not sure if you need to take a course on statistics but regression will come and the leafs will start scoring goals again.

Depends on who is deciding what an HDC is?

 

[Gallagbi]

They managed the game in their end fairly well, and with a 5th string goalie to boot.

They also allowed a number of key chances against that simply didn't end up in their net. Call it lack of finish, great goaltending, but the chances were there. That's with very little offense created by them as well

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

It's all Andersen's fault. No more Andersen, problem solved. The fact that we could only score twice in regulation against a last place team on a back to back while we were more rested and healthy then we've been all season is just a blip on the radar my friend, don't you worry.



Considering how many people blame Andersen and his .936 SV% for our loss to CLB, it seems like praying for a .950 sv% is our formula for success as well.

Nobody blames Andersen because they think he sucked. People are pissed that he was badly outplayed by two goalies who combined for half of his salary while the Leafs outplayed the Columbus skaters

 

[Gary Nylund]

The numbers are generated from on-ice play. They're a record of what occured.

They're a record of a small part of what occurred, imperfectly measured and without context over a small sample size they're not very meaningful.

Someone earlier said that over the course of a full season, expected goals are probably pretty good but then again, you could just look at actual goals at that point.

 

[egd27]

Got the bounces? Explain.

One bounced off of Mik's chest and the other bounced off a defender's ass.

 

[Jimmy Firecracker]

 

[Gallagbi]

It's all Andersen's fault. No more Andersen, problem solved. The fact that we could only score twice in regulation against a last place team on a back to back while we were more rested and healthy then we've been all season is just a blip on the radar my friend, don't you worry.



Considering how many people blame Andersen and his .936 SV% for our loss to CLB, it seems like praying for a .950 sv% is our formula for success as well.

You know what's funny? This is the exact style of game that Andersen has allowed a 3rd goal against lately so we lose in regulation. Control the play, control the chances, have a relatively small play end up in our net and lose. Campbell basically put 2 pucks in his net last night and it was still enough

 

[Gary Nylund]

Nobody blames Andersen because they think he sucked. People are pissed that he was badly outplayed by two goalies who combined for half of his salary while the Leafs outplayed the Columbus skaters

So we agree that people are blaming Andersen, cool. The rest is splitting hairs, hopefully in the future our zillion dollar offense will convert better on their chances not allowing opposing goalies to put up FOH numbers against us.

 

[Gallagbi]

They're a record of a small part of what occurred, imperfectly measured and without context over a small sample size they're not very meaningful.

I'd say it's a meaningful reflection of the process, but not the result. You want the process to drive the result.

I do find if interesting how often I've been willing to build on stats for actual interpretation, but it's usually dismissed. If people don't want (or can't understand) the eye test, but also ignore stats, whats left aside from bias?

Someone earlier said that over the course of a full season, expected goals are probably pretty good but then again, you could just look at actual goals at that point.

xGF is more of a team reflection, while GF/GA would reflect situations and goaltending a bit more.

 

[egd27]

How many more backups, waiver pick ups, AHL goalies have to shutdown our potent offence before we start attributing some of blame on our offence ?? 23 goals in the last 9 games including 2 OT winners since we beat the Oilers 6-1.

I don't see it happening.

We got shut out for 2.9 games out of 5 and HF Faithful still want to pin the series loss on the .930 goalie

 

[napoleon in rags]

I'll admit I was distracted during the game so I could be wrong but to me, this seems fishy to put it mildly. At least offhand I'd say there have been games where we've been more dangerous offensively, and it seems highly unlikely that not just us but no team in the NHL this season has had even one game with more high danger chances. Maybe I'm wrong, would be curious to hear what others think who watched the game more closely.

I'm surprised by that number. How are 'higher danger chances' calculated/counted? It must be derived by subjective observation, no?

 

[egd27]

The numbers are generated from on-ice play. They're a record of what occured.

Many are an interpretation of what occurred rather than a record of what occurred.

 

[Zybalto]

They managed the game in their end fairly well, and with a 5th string goalie to boot.

By giving up 41 shots and the most high danger chances recorded in the entire NHL this year?

Forsberg was one of the three stars of the game and even the NHL.com story headline is telling:

Maple Leafs top Forsberg, Senators on OT goal by Holl

 

[Zybalto]

Depends on who is deciding what an HDC is?

All situations vs 5v5. Not quite the thrashing we usually give the Jets as we gave up a few too many but still a dominant performance.

 

[Bomber0104]

I'm surprised by that number. How are 'higher danger chances' calculated/counted? It must be derived by subjective observation, no?

It's almost entirely derived from shot location, no account for the actual player taking the shot.

An Ovechkin bomb from the point, ceteris paribus, is valued the same as one from Luke Schenn.

The use of the word "danger" for the statistic is borderline laughable.

A more apt name for the stat should be "Closeness of Shot from the Net plus a few other trivial things".

 

[zeke]

I'm surprised by that number. How are 'higher danger chances' calculated/counted? It must be derived by subjective observation, no?

There are simple ones and more complex ones.

Simple ones like on naturalstattrick.com simply track shot location, and high danger and scoring chances are defined simply by what box on the ice those shots are from.

Other more complex scoring chance measures factor in whether shots come off rushes, rebounds, cross ice passes, and the quality of the shooter.


Of course no matter which measures you prefer, they all say the same thing about the leafs.

And even the pure shot location measures prove that anyone who claims the leafs don't get shots from inside is clearly wrong.

 

[PromisedLand]

with oilers and habs game postponed today too; oilers will be well rested. anyway... besides that is there a chance that tomorrow's game with oilers for us gets postponed too? cant find any stories regarding that