Confirmed with Link: Kyle Dubas Not Returning

[SeaOfBlue]

I agree and Shanahan knew that offering Dubas a contract was all for show. He might have structured that contract in such a way that Dubas wouldn't be interested.

This was a relationship that has been strained for almost 2 years now.

If both sides "truly" wanted a deal, they would have found a way to get it done.

IDK seems like a lot of unnecessary theatrics, especially in this market. Why bother? If anything, it is causing more unnecessary tension around the team and makes him look really incompetent as president... And he has certainly done enough of that in press conferences as it is. Would anyone really bat an eye if he just said "we decided to go in another direction"?

Sure, some may disagree with the decision, especially in regards to finding someone who will be as good/better than Dubas was, but he would be criticized if he extended Dubas too. If he had a good plan in place in terms of his replacement... I don't think anyone would really complain. Of course, the replacement will be compared to Dubas, as Dubas was to Lou, and there is uncertainty, but this is why Shanny gets paid big money and he should know all of this.

Now from Dubas' perspective, I guess he could have done the same thing: Just say he was not interested in coming back. But I think he wanted to continue running the Leafs, just not in the same fashion as before.

 

[Antropovsky]

Yea.. you'd probably have beat Tampa last year and would have Brandon Hagel who was better than almost every Leaf vs Tampa this year lol.

Probably? He had 6 points in 23 playoff games last year. You think he would be put us over the top? Tampa Bay fans weren't overly impressed at that time.

This year he had 1 goal and 4 assist vs the Leafs.

Hagel had 64 points this year on a line with Brayden Point (95 points) and Kucherov (113 points)... Could be a Bunting type player.

Knies ceiling could be a 1st line power forward. A very rare type of a player.

If we traded Knies and a 1st, then we are one 1st short than we have now or we don't get Oreilly this postseason.

Dubas was just burning through all our assets and quickly set us up to have nothing in the cupboard in a few years. Other teams like Chicago, and Pittsburgh experienced the same fate, except at the very least they always had playoff success with their core. Leafs had zero success with their core another Bunting typenolayer wasn't going to change that.

 

[Leaf Fans]

If I had to hazard a guess, Dubasites, DDL, and DDC are all derogatory terms used to describe Hfboards posters who are extremely supportive and loyal to former Toronto Maple Leafs GM Kyle Dubas.

These people are willing to ignore all of Kyle Dubas' mistakes and get very defensive and agitated whenever Dubas is criticized by anybody in the anti-Kyle Dubas camp.

They will try to spin anything that reflects negatively or poorly on Kyle Dubas by any means necessary including making up positive stuff about Kyle which doesn’t actually exist or turning any valid negative comments into a positive one in Kyle Dubas’ favour even though it probably doesn’t have any merit at all.

Will the Dubasites, DDL, and DDC back the new Toronto Maple Leafs GM or crap on him like they did to Lou Lamoriello?

Hmm… we will all find out pretty soon!!

Maybe they will redefine themselves as real Leaf fans and only shit post the team when the team loses? That might be something new

 

[Turin]

Probably? He had 6 points in 23 playoff games last year. You think he would be put us over the top? Tampa Bay fans weren't overly impressed at that time.

This year he had 1 goal and 4 assist vs the Leafs.

Hagel had 64 points this year on a line with Brayden Point (95 points) and Kucherov (113 points)... Could be a Bunting type player.

Knies ceiling could be a 1st line power forward. A very rare type of a player.

If we traded Knies and a 1st, then we are one 1st short than we have now or we don't get Oreilly this postseason.

Dubas was just burning through all our assets and quickly set us up to have nothing in the cupboard in a few years. Other teams like Chicago, and Pittsburgh experienced the same fate, except at the very least they always had playoff success with their core. Leafs had zero success with their core another Bunting typenolayer wasn't going to change that.

Those are the guys you win with, heavy forecheckers who can read a play and score ala Chris Kunitz. 5 points in 6 games as a winger with no PP time is mint. Bunting is already getting underrated because he had a dumbass hit, he was one of Dubas' best moves. Hagel and Bunting are ideal third wheel top six players. That, with Fleury, would have given the Leafs a good dynamic IF that deal was ever really on the table.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

Seems like there's spin on both sides.

At the end of the day, the new guy walks into a team with 3 top players in their prime, a top 5 team in the league overall, options to improve and cap flexibility. Its not perfect with the Murray and Tavares situation, but all considered a PPG center and a goalie with options leaves the new person in a good spot.

His job is to make this team into a cup winner.

Anyone could look at anything pessimistically or optimistically.

There are also those who choose to just look at results and others who choose to look at the process. The former obviously think Dubas sucks. The latter are probably a little bit more kind to Dubas. At the same time, the former probably think Masai Ujiri is a genius for taking a huge swing on Leonard and having it connect, whereas the latter look at it a little bit more critically... A few lucky bounces were the difference between winning a championship and putting this team in its current state (which, FWIW, is not a good place) with absolutely nothing to show for it. Does not mean he should not do that deal again, but I can guarantee the perception of Ujiri changes dramatically if Leonard didn't hit that Game 7 buzzer beater against Philly and TO subsequently loses in OT (for those who care about results). For those who care about the process, presumably their perception of Ujiri doesn't change all that much either way.

I have not supported every one of Dubas' moves, but I have liked the bulk of work he has done. I think he has set this team up for more success than it has achieved. I am clearly someone who appreciates the process and the nuances of what he has done more than just pure results, even though I obviously still care about those as well. And personally, I do not care if people are 100% about the results and choose to dislike Dubas because he hasn't achieved said results. Fair enough. We all enjoy sports for different reasons.

My qualms come when people who clearly know very little about the process start to criticize it (same could apply to analytics), or think that because results are good/bad, then the process reflects accordingly. Sure, there is a correlation between a good process and good results, and I would certainly prefer we put ourselves in a good position process-wise because you are far more likely to get good results, but it is certainly not cause-and-effect.

At the end of the day, there are no guarantees in sports, and for those in coaching and management, their job is about giving the team the greatest probability for success. They aren't playing the game. They can ultimately put out an All-Star lineup and have a coaching master class and technically still lose to a bunch of ECHLers and a random guy name Joe off the street as coach. Obviously a hyperbole because Dubas and Keefe didn't do THAT good of a job, but they did give their team an amazing chance to go far, and they merely did not come through. And those players, or whoever is left, needs to figure it out because they are mostly responsible for being on the wrong side of history right now.

But at that point we just get into a bunch of 'what-ifs' and I think my post is long enough without those.

 

[HofT]

In the end, I believe the key lesson to be learned from this situation is that the Board of Directors holds significant authority and they are not willing to invest money in what they consider to be the best option. At least, not anymore.

Dubas' departure is not due to how he built the team; in fact, they were pleased with his performance. Rather, it solely revolves around the contract and the business aspects. The board simply does not want to allocate additional funds, extend contract terms, or grant more authority. This stance is a complete reversal of our previous perception that MLSE was unconcerned with budgeting for the Leafs. It is evident now that they do prioritize financial considerations.

 

[ShaneFalco]

y... A few lucky bounces were the difference between winning a championship and putting this team in its current state

Yeah you lost me here
f*** the excuses , f*** the entitlement and "caring"

 

[WillNy29]

My issue with the over reliance on analytics is the nerds who cherry pick stats that fit their agenda and ignore stats that don’t.

Case in point - - Justin Holl had been on the ice for 70% of goals against in the playoffs, but Dubas’ hand picked buddy Keefe still insisted on force feeding Holl 20+ minutes of ice time.

Just watch the game and you’ll know Holl is a God-awful defenceman and a total liability every time he’s on the ice. You don’t even need to study a spreadsheet to figure that out.

I think it's naive to think fans have an understanding of the actual statistics teams use to put together their rosters.

Derrick Lalonde all but admitted to using statistics and video review together in helping shape their d zone coverage when they won cups in Tampa. no need to be afraid of math its all around you and if teams can use it to further their advantage then they should invest in it. Statistical analysis in a luck based sport is not perfect but it is 100% helpful. I know you think you got some kind of Gotcha with Justin Holl on me but you don't considering he actually was not a bad number 4 in the regular season.

 

[andora]

Anyone could look at anything pessimistically or optimistically.

There are also those who choose to just look at results and others who choose to look at the process. The former obviously think Dubas sucks. The latter are probably a little bit more kind to Dubas. At the same time, the former probably think Masai Ujiri is a genius for taking a huge swing on Leonard and having it connect, whereas the latter look at it a little bit more critically... A few lucky bounces were the difference between winning a championship and putting this team in its current state (which, FWIW, is not a good place) with absolutely nothing to show for it. Does not mean he should not do that deal again, but I can guarantee the perception of Ujiri changes dramatically if Leonard didn't hit that Game 7 buzzer beater against Philly and TO subsequently loses in OT (for those who care about results). For those who care about the process, presumably their perception of Ujiri doesn't change all that much either way.

I have not supported every one of Dubas' moves, but I have liked the bulk of work he has done. I think he has set this team up for more success than it has achieved. I am clearly someone who appreciates the process and the nuances of what he has done more than just pure results, even though I obviously still care about those as well. And personally, I do not care if people are 100% about the results and choose to dislike Dubas because he hasn't achieved said results. Fair enough. We all enjoy sports for different reasons.

My qualms come when people who clearly know very little about the process start to criticize it (same could apply to analytics), or think that because results are good/bad, then the process reflects accordingly. Sure, there is a correlation between a good process and good results, and I would certainly prefer we put ourselves in a good position process-wise because you are far more likely to get good results, but it is certainly not cause-and-effect.

At the end of the day, there are no guarantees in sports, and for those in coaching and management, their job is about giving the team the greatest probability for success. They aren't playing the game. They can ultimately put out an All-Star lineup and have a coaching master class and technically still lose to a bunch of ECHLers and a random guy name Joe off the street as coach. Obviously a hyperbole because Dubas and Keefe didn't do THAT good of a job, but they did give their team an amazing chance to go far, and they merely did not come through. And those players, or whoever is left, needs to figure it out because they are mostly responsible for being on the wrong side of history right now.

But at that point we just get into a bunch of 'what-ifs' and I think my post is long enough without those.

Not too long.. could have been longer

Need more of these regardless

 

[MCR74]

Yea.. you'd probably have beat Tampa last year and would have Brandon Hagel who was better than almost every Leaf vs Tampa this year lol.

LOL! Yeah. Hagel was the missing piece. Christ...

 

[SeaOfBlue]

I think it's naive to think fans have an understanding of the actual statistics teams use to put together their rosters.

Derrick Lalonde all but admitted to using statistics and video review together in helping shape their d zone coverage when they won cups in Tampa. no need to be afraid of math its all around you and if teams can use it to further their advantage then they should invest in it. Statistical analysis in a luck based sport is not perfect but it is 100% helpful. I know you think you got some kind of Gotcha with Justin Holl on me but you don't considering he actually was not a bad number 4 in the regular season.

Absolutely, and another example of lacking context for those stats too.

Which is the main reason why there is hesitancy with +/- as a stat. I personally think there is some value to it, but of course you need context on it.

Holl was on the ice for 70% of the goals against. That is factual. Usually, not a good thing. Certainly a correlation worth exploring. The thing is, and this is why I really question people's eye tests, is that when you do dig deeper, you see that on more than a few of those goals, he is far from the reason why it went in the net. Forwards were missing assignments. Samsonov let some really soft goals in the net. Some really poor play from his partners. Sure Holl messed up too on some of them, and he, like many of the other defensemen on our team, had a rough playoffs at times.

Since I feel as though people will get too caught up in the biases of using names, I will just use a very simple to understand (and likely unrealistic) example: *Disclaimer, I am in no way saying that this applies to Justin Holl specifically and I do not want to suggest this is how it is when Holl is on the ice.

Say there is a defense pairing. We'll call them Pairing A. They play 25 minutes a night against tough competition. Never gives up anything more than a couple unscreened, undeflected floaters from the blue line... In other words, shots that the goalie should be making close to 100% of the time. But the goalie, for whatever reason, can't save it for crap. Goes in every time, 2 or 3 times a game. For the other 35 minutes, he is the best ice hockey goalie to ever grace this earth even though the other two pairings are complete tire fires and shouldn't even be in the NHL. Rarely gives up a goal, regardless of it being a Grade A one-timer or a breakaway.

Pairing A is probably on the ice for let's say 90% of the GA. So statistically, or at least in that statistic, they obviously suck. However, looking at their other statistics or even just watching them on the ice, anyone would see that clearly it is not their fault as much as the goalie on the ice. The goalie would have a brutal xGSA with Pairing A on the ice. They'd probably have the best underlying metrics in NHL history (and yes, even those require context).

Meanwhile, the other two pairings would be the polar opposites. Terrible underlying numbers but their actual numbers are great.

If Pairing A's goalie makes the saves he is supposed to make, they are likely never on the ice for a goal against for as long as they continue playing like they have. Meanwhile, the other two pairings likely find themselves out of work very fast as soon as the goalie stops bailing them out. Which would you prefer? I would think anyone with eyes would still take Pairing A, but at the same time, there are very few times when it is that obvious of a discrepancy as well.

People who are actually good at statistics and analytics know how to find and understand this context, or when a stat does not tell the entire story about a player, and they know that it does not exclusively come from looking at a spreadsheet... Which is exactly why that is not what they do. Of course, it also does not exclusively come from their eye test either. The good ones are able to find the best associations between statistics and know how to apply statistics to reality; for example:

- Is there a relationship between xGA and GA? Spoiler: A fairly strong positive correlation between the two.
- Do we care about a lot of chances or just having a few good ones?
- Is there anything supporting a player continuing to have a 20% shooting percentage long term, or is he just on a hot streak?
- Is Pairing A really as bad as their GA numbers suggest, or is there something else involved?

These are easier questions an NHL analytics department would be able to answer, with numbers alone, but there would never be a decision made without getting a scout or even an analytics person themselves (since believe it or not, people who work in NHL analytics departments often know more about hockey than a typical fan) to confirm the numbers. And the best teams are able to leverage both of those perspectives harmonically to be able to make the best, or at least most informed, decisions possible. And the more informed decisions you make, the better chance you are to make the decisions which lead to good results.

But I think the main lesson to glean from what I said is that analytics people do not just look at spreadsheets. At least not the good ones. I do not work for the Leafs, but I would be willing to bet that they are not only looking at spreadsheets either. As for Justin Holl, it has been proven time and again that most people's eye-tests on him are extremely biased at best or downright faulty at worst... And he is a lot better than the scrub they think he is.

 

[andora]

Absolutely, and another example of lacking context for those stats too.

Which is the main reason why there is hesitancy with +/- as a stat. I personally think there is some value to it, but of course you need context on it.

Holl was on the ice for 70% of the goals against. That is factual. Usually, not a good thing. Certainly a correlation worth exploring. The thing is, and this is why I really question people's eye tests, is that when you do dig deeper, you see that on more than a few of those goals, he is far from the reason why it went in the net. Forwards were missing assignments. Samsonov let some really soft goals in the net. Some really poor play from his partners. Sure Holl messed up too on some of them, and he, like many of the other defensemen on our team, had a rough playoffs at times.

Since I feel as though people will get too caught up in the biases of using names, I will just use a very simple to understand (and likely unrealistic) example: *Disclaimer, I am in no way saying that this applies to Justin Holl specifically and I do not want to suggest this is how it is when Holl is on the ice.

Say there is a defense pairing. We'll call them Pairing A. They play 25 minutes a night against tough competition. Never gives up anything more than a couple unscreened, undeflected floaters from the blue line... In other words, shots that the goalie should be making close to 100% of the time. But the goalie, for whatever reason, can't save it for crap. Goes in every time, 2 or 3 times a game. For the other 35 minutes, he is the best ice hockey goalie to ever grace this earth even though the other two pairings are complete tire fires and shouldn't even be in the NHL. Rarely gives up a goal, regardless of it being a Grade A one-timer or a breakaway.

Pairing A is probably on the ice for let's say 90% of the GA. So statistically, or at least in that statistic, they obviously suck. However, looking at their other statistics or even just watching them on the ice, anyone would see that clearly it is not their fault as much as the goalie on the ice. The goalie would have a brutal xGSA with Pairing A on the ice. They'd probably have the best underlying metrics in NHL history (and yes, even those require context).

Meanwhile, the other two pairings would be the polar opposites. Terrible underlying numbers but their actual numbers are great.

If Pairing A's goalie makes the saves he is supposed to make, they are likely never on the ice for a goal against for as long as they continue playing like they have. Meanwhile, the other two pairings likely find themselves out of work very fast as soon as the goalie stops bailing them out. Which would you prefer? I would think anyone with eyes would still take Pairing A, but at the same time, there are very few times when it is that obvious of a discrepancy as well.

People who are actually good at statistics and analytics know how to find and understand this context, or when a stat does not tell the entire story about a player, and they know that it does not exclusively come from looking at a spreadsheet... Which is exactly why that is not what they do. Of course, it also does not exclusively come from their eye test either. The good ones are able to find the best associations between statistics and know how to apply statistics to reality; for example:

- Is there a relationship between xGA and GA? Spoiler: A fairly strong positive correlation between the two.
- Do we care about a lot of chances or just having a few good ones?
- Is there anything supporting a player continuing to have a 20% shooting percentage long term, or is he just on a hot streak?

These are easier questions an NHL analytics department would be able to answer, with numbers alone, but there would never be a decision made without getting a scout or even an analytics person themselves (since believe it or not, people who work in NHL analytics departments often know more about hockey than a typical fan) to confirm the numbers. And the best teams are able to leverage both of those perspectives harmonically to be able to make the best, or at least most informed, decisions possible. And the more informed decisions you make, the better chance you are to make the decisions which lead to good results.

But I think the main lesson to glean from what I said is that analytics people do not just look at spreadsheets. At least not the good ones. I do not work for the Leafs, but I would be willing to bet that they are not only looking at spreadsheets either. As for Justin Holl, it has been proven time and again that most people's eye-tests on him are extremely biased at best or downright faulty at worst... And he is a lot better than the scrub they think he is.

you listened...

ok keep em coming

 

[SeaOfBlue]

you listened...

ok keep em coming

I would rather people just read and understand those two posts first, because otherwise I am just wasting my time. If they don't care about understanding, then nothing changes. Just arguing against a wall at that point.

 

[weems]

Absolutely, and another example of lacking context for those stats too.

Which is the main reason why there is hesitancy with +/- as a stat. I personally think there is some value to it, but of course you need context on it.

Holl was on the ice for 70% of the goals against. That is factual. Usually, not a good thing. Certainly a correlation worth exploring. The thing is, and this is why I really question people's eye tests, is that when you do dig deeper, you see that on more than a few of those goals, he is far from the reason why it went in the net. Forwards were missing assignments. Samsonov let some really soft goals in the net. Some really poor play from his partners. Sure Holl messed up too on some of them, and he, like many of the other defensemen on our team, had a rough playoffs at times.

Since I feel as though people will get too caught up in the biases of using names, I will just use a very simple to understand (and likely unrealistic) example: *Disclaimer, I am in no way saying that this applies to Justin Holl specifically and I do not want to suggest this is how it is when Holl is on the ice.

Say there is a defense pairing. We'll call them Pairing A. They play 25 minutes a night against tough competition. Never gives up anything more than a couple unscreened, undeflected floaters from the blue line... In other words, shots that the goalie should be making close to 100% of the time. But the goalie, for whatever reason, can't save it for crap. Goes in every time, 2 or 3 times a game. For the other 35 minutes, he is the best ice hockey goalie to ever grace this earth even though the other two pairings are complete tire fires and shouldn't even be in the NHL. Rarely gives up a goal, regardless of it being a Grade A one-timer or a breakaway.

Pairing A is probably on the ice for let's say 90% of the GA. So statistically, or at least in that statistic, they obviously suck. However, looking at their other statistics or even just watching them on the ice, anyone would see that clearly it is not their fault as much as the goalie on the ice. The goalie would have a brutal xGSA with Pairing A on the ice. They'd probably have the best underlying metrics in NHL history (and yes, even those require context).

Meanwhile, the other two pairings would be the polar opposites. Terrible underlying numbers but their actual numbers are great.

If Pairing A's goalie makes the saves he is supposed to make, they are likely never on the ice for a goal against for as long as they continue playing like they have. Meanwhile, the other two pairings likely find themselves out of work very fast as soon as the goalie stops bailing them out. Which would you prefer? I would think anyone with eyes would still take Pairing A, but at the same time, there are very few times when it is that obvious of a discrepancy as well.

People who are actually good at statistics and analytics know how to find and understand this context, or when a stat does not tell the entire story about a player, and they know that it does not exclusively come from looking at a spreadsheet... Which is exactly why that is not what they do. Of course, it also does not exclusively come from their eye test either. The good ones are able to find the best associations between statistics and know how to apply statistics to reality; for example:

- Is there a relationship between xGA and GA? Spoiler: A fairly strong positive correlation between the two.
- Do we care about a lot of chances or just having a few good ones?
- Is there anything supporting a player continuing to have a 20% shooting percentage long term, or is he just on a hot streak?
- Is Pairing A really as bad as their GA numbers suggest, or is there something else involved?

These are easier questions an NHL analytics department would be able to answer, with numbers alone, but there would never be a decision made without getting a scout or even an analytics person themselves (since believe it or not, people who work in NHL analytics departments often know more about hockey than a typical fan) to confirm the numbers. And the best teams are able to leverage both of those perspectives harmonically to be able to make the best, or at least most informed, decisions possible. And the more informed decisions you make, the better chance you are to make the decisions which lead to good results.

But I think the main lesson to glean from what I said is that analytics people do not just look at spreadsheets. At least not the good ones. I do not work for the Leafs, but I would be willing to bet that they are not only looking at spreadsheets either. As for Justin Holl, it has been proven time and again that most people's eye-tests on him are extremely biased at best or downright faulty at worst... And he is a lot better than the scrub they think he is.

Yes I agree Holl is underrated by some especially when you factor in the context of usage and zone starts.

For example he was being deployed in much less favorable situations last season than Rasmus Sandin.

 

[andora]

I would rather people just read and understand those two posts first, because otherwise I am just wasting my time. If they don't care about understanding, then nothing changes. Just arguing against a wall at that point.

oh i know.. i didn't mean immediately

i have found this thread so fascinating.. everything from short takes on someone 'sucking' to work just stopping because one person is gone, to heroes and villains and powerplays and emotions etc.. all of it.

what's amazing is a fraction of this thread is probably useful and interesting perspective (excluding Hockeywiz's articles he posts)

 

[SeaOfBlue]

Yes I agree Holl is underrated by some especially when you factor in the context of usage and zone starts.

For example he was being deployed in much less favorable situations last season than Rasmus Sandin.

Which is why people at least need to pause before saying that Sandin is better or more deserving of a roster spot than Holl. But there is a lot of other things that need to be considered too, the main one being that they are two entirely different defensemen who bring entirely different skill sets and value to a lineup... And that neither likely end up doing better in the other's respective roles.

 

[Antropovsky]

Those are the guys you win with, heavy forecheckers who can read a play and score ala Chris Kunitz. 5 points in 6 games as a winger with no PP time is mint. Bunting is already getting underrated because he had a dumbass hit, he was one of Dubas' best moves. Hagel and Bunting are ideal third wheel top six players. That, with Fleury, would have given the Leafs a good dynamic IF that deal was ever really on the table.

Hagel would have maybe helped us for one year longer than Knies.And even then we don't know if he'd have been a lot of help, he only put up 1 goal and 6 points for Tampa in 23 post season games. The very next year, Knies was instrumental in our first series win. That's not a maybe, it's a fact. He's bigger, younger, cheaper, and has a higher ceiling and goes us much needed size in our top 9. Knies was the surprise of the playoffs and everyone was gushing over his skillset and ceiling (even on other teams broadcasts). We haven't even discussed the 1st yet.

A 1st and Knies is a huge price to pay for Hagel. If Shanahan blocked it, then we are very lucky.

 

[hamzarocks]

Absolutely, and another example of lacking context for those stats too.

Which is the main reason why there is hesitancy with +/- as a stat. I personally think there is some value to it, but of course you need context on it.

Holl was on the ice for 70% of the goals against. That is factual. Usually, not a good thing. Certainly a correlation worth exploring. The thing is, and this is why I really question people's eye tests, is that when you do dig deeper, you see that on more than a few of those goals, he is far from the reason why it went in the net. Forwards were missing assignments. Samsonov let some really soft goals in the net. Some really poor play from his partners. Sure Holl messed up too on some of them, and he, like many of the other defensemen on our team, had a rough playoffs at times.

Since I feel as though people will get too caught up in the biases of using names, I will just use a very simple to understand (and likely unrealistic) example: *Disclaimer, I am in no way saying that this applies to Justin Holl specifically and I do not want to suggest this is how it is when Holl is on the ice.

Say there is a defense pairing. We'll call them Pairing A. They play 25 minutes a night against tough competition. Never gives up anything more than a couple unscreened, undeflected floaters from the blue line... In other words, shots that the goalie should be making close to 100% of the time. But the goalie, for whatever reason, can't save it for crap. Goes in every time, 2 or 3 times a game. For the other 35 minutes, he is the best ice hockey goalie to ever grace this earth even though the other two pairings are complete tire fires and shouldn't even be in the NHL. Rarely gives up a goal, regardless of it being a Grade A one-timer or a breakaway.

Pairing A is probably on the ice for let's say 90% of the GA. So statistically, or at least in that statistic, they obviously suck. However, looking at their other statistics or even just watching them on the ice, anyone would see that clearly it is not their fault as much as the goalie on the ice. The goalie would have a brutal xGSA with Pairing A on the ice. They'd probably have the best underlying metrics in NHL history (and yes, even those require context).

Meanwhile, the other two pairings would be the polar opposites. Terrible underlying numbers but their actual numbers are great.

If Pairing A's goalie makes the saves he is supposed to make, they are likely never on the ice for a goal against for as long as they continue playing like they have. Meanwhile, the other two pairings likely find themselves out of work very fast as soon as the goalie stops bailing them out. Which would you prefer? I would think anyone with eyes would still take Pairing A, but at the same time, there are very few times when it is that obvious of a discrepancy as well.

People who are actually good at statistics and analytics know how to find and understand this context, or when a stat does not tell the entire story about a player, and they know that it does not exclusively come from looking at a spreadsheet... Which is exactly why that is not what they do. Of course, it also does not exclusively come from their eye test either. The good ones are able to find the best associations between statistics and know how to apply statistics to reality; for example:

- Is there a relationship between xGA and GA? Spoiler: A fairly strong positive correlation between the two.
- Do we care about a lot of chances or just having a few good ones?
- Is there anything supporting a player continuing to have a 20% shooting percentage long term, or is he just on a hot streak?
- Is Pairing A really as bad as their GA numbers suggest, or is there something else involved?

These are easier questions an NHL analytics department would be able to answer, with numbers alone, but there would never be a decision made without getting a scout or even an analytics person themselves (since believe it or not, people who work in NHL analytics departments often know more about hockey than a typical fan) to confirm the numbers. And the best teams are able to leverage both of those perspectives harmonically to be able to make the best, or at least most informed, decisions possible. And the more informed decisions you make, the better chance you are to make the decisions which lead to good results.

But I think the main lesson to glean from what I said is that analytics people do not just look at spreadsheets. At least not the good ones. I do not work for the Leafs, but I would be willing to bet that they are not only looking at spreadsheets either. As for Justin Holl, it has been proven time and again that most people's eye-tests on him are extremely biased at best or downright faulty at worst... And he is a lot better than the scrub they think he is.

Your post is trying to gleam up the ability of people to interpret and break value from analytics through an extreme based scenerio that isnt akin to reality

If a pairing is on the ice for 90% of goals against despite the goals being considered low quality per a stat like expected shot quality then the first thing to do is review the tape of the goal factoring in the forwards and not isolating the defensive pairing alone. You need to see what was the result of the shot chance which is deemed to be low quality and understand if its being given up consistently and ending in the back of the net consistently then the defensive strategy does not work to the goalie in net and defensive structure of the team

A coach needs to adjust and have the pairing adjust there plau style to limit chances the goalie is repeatedly letting in. Whether those are down low bang bang type goals, point shots through screens, bad angle goals etc

A player like Holl has been overrated routinely due to people overlooking his limitations firstly in the offensive zone (a major part of being a D, being able to jokd the line, make good reads and pinches, amd have a nice shot which gets screens or at minimum through). He is extremely limited in the offensive zone and has little value there

Neutral zone, hes not an elite skater so he isnt a threat to rush the puck in an get the offense initiated.

The defensive zone is where he needs to provide his value, but this year in particular his defensive game faded, as he was out of position on plays, not aggresive in front of the net, and miscuing on zone exits which he was able to connect witb previously.

The 70% of goals he was on the ice was a overflow of goals against for sure, but he wasn't playing defensively in a manner that limitef chances vs tampa

Very hesitant to use his frame to knock of players as they got the puck, often losing focus of the play and caught pukc watching. His bad habits resulted in a terrible series and playoffs which was the worst he could play.

He's been a solid bottom pairing guy who played as a #4D when Muzzin was good. Since then, his play has changed and he isnt capable of playing the minutes keefe fed him

The relation b/w XGA and GA may be strong over a sustained long period for 100s of shooters/players. It doesnt work for Toronto's current team under the keefe system who routinely have nanaged to get higher quality chances on XG but have been "goalied".

We need some one who is able to understand why our team underperfomrs there expected goals in the playoffs every year basically.

Is it the shooters?
Is it the opposing defense system/strategies.
Is it the shot quality being overrated by expected goal valuation?
Is it the that those type of chances (say slot chances) being something this goalie excels against and the team plays around?

Dubas/Shanny management failed to utilze stats to be able to find solutions to the struggles we had.

We kept on retaining kerfoot and holl who were extremely limited players to begin with in roles above their capabilities due to them being considered strong analytic players.

Our next GM needs to find an innovative coach who works to strategize and formulate our approach vs a team using data available for them on recent reg+playoff stats and be able to have counter strategies should the data output not work as expected

Keefe+Dubas failed at doing this

 

[hockeywiz542]

Leafs Lunch talks Dubas' tenure and Keefe's future

TSN

May 20, 2023

TSN Hockey Insider Chris Johnston joins Leafs Lunch to share his thoughts on Kyle Dubas' tenure in Toronto, explain why he thinks it's likely that head coach Sheldon Keefe won't return, discuss if this could affect Auston Matthews re-signing with the Leafs, and more.

 

[stickty111]

If I had to hazard a guess, Dubasites, DDL, and DDC are all derogatory terms used to describe Hfboards posters who are extremely supportive and loyal to former Toronto Maple Leafs GM Kyle Dubas.

These people are willing to ignore all of Kyle Dubas' mistakes and get very defensive and agitated whenever Dubas is criticized by anybody in the anti-Kyle Dubas camp.

They will try to spin anything that reflects negatively or poorly on Kyle Dubas by any means necessary including making up positive stuff about Kyle which doesn’t actually exist or turning any valid negative comments into a positive one in Kyle Dubas’ favour even though it probably doesn’t have any merit at all.

Will the Dubasites, DDL, and DDC back the new Toronto Maple Leafs GM or crap on him like they did to Lou Lamoriello?

Hmm… we will all find out pretty soon!!

I mean this could be used the other way too. If you want to say some people go overboard with the praise, thats fine but "dubasites" is an embarrassing way to go about it. Also Lou still gets a lot of praise from fans here, so I don't agree he gets criticized a lot. Honestly anyone who used nicknames on either side of the argument shouldn't be taken seriously. You can have a good discussion without name calling and that goes for Dubas supporters and detractors.

 

[LaPlante94]

Yes I agree Holl is underrated by some especially when you factor in the context of usage and zone starts.

For example he was being deployed in much less favorable situations last season than Rasmus Sandin.

Here's my thing. Some of those same analytics people that say Holl is underrated and people fail to look at his deployment and all that context stuff you brought up will do the exact same thing with 4th liners on our team. They were starting 90-95% of their shifts in the d zone and people wondered why they didn't look great. Find me any player that starts that percentage of their shifts in the d zone that look good or have a good game. Keefe finally starts to fix that deployment and they became effective. So when I see them say that and then say Holl is better than what these analytics say or what most people say I can't really take them seriously. Other then being a damn good shot blocker on the PK what is it about him that makes him a top 4 defender like analytics people will say? I see a guy who struggles under pressure, handles the puck like a grenade, not very fast and pretty damn weak for his size. He's had stretches where you can make an argument that he could be a useful defender but he's not consistent.

 

[The Masters]

I want to make note that Dubas ran the day to day operations for the Leafs. Shanny was involved obviously and would be the final check mark on major deals. Ownership is not involved in everyday personnel decisions. Not sure where friedman was going with that one and he made it seem like every decision is run up the mlse board chain before approval, thats wrong. He clearly didnt know what he was trying to explain there which is why he said would elaborate more when he gets more info. Shouldnt have even mentioned that because ppl on here thing ownership is running operations. Go watch that amazon 6 episode leafs thing where they made the filogno deal. Heck, dubas made the deal on the spot without telling shanny about the extra pick. This whole thing that ownership has to approve transactions is false.

I also believe and its clear that the writing was on the wall for dubas when they board didnt want to extend him last off season. And why would they? There were no results. They werent going to invest another 5 years in him. Shanny knew this and im sure theres a list shanny had throughout the year. Lets see who he gets.

 

[nuck]

Anyone could look at anything pessimistically or optimistically.

There are also those who choose to just look at results and others who choose to look at the process. The former obviously think Dubas sucks. The latter are probably a little bit more kind to Dubas. At the same time, the former probably think Masai Ujiri is a genius for taking a huge swing on Leonard and having it connect, whereas the latter look at it a little bit more critically... A few lucky bounces were the difference between winning a championship and putting this team in its current state (which, FWIW, is not a good place) with absolutely nothing to show for it. Does not mean he should not do that deal again, but I can guarantee the perception of Ujiri changes dramatically if Leonard didn't hit that Game 7 buzzer beater against Philly and TO subsequently loses in OT (for those who care about results). For those who care about the process, presumably their perception of Ujiri doesn't change all that much either way.

I have not supported every one of Dubas' moves, but I have liked the bulk of work he has done. I think he has set this team up for more success than it has achieved. I am clearly someone who appreciates the process and the nuances of what he has done more than just pure results, even though I obviously still care about those as well. And personally, I do not care if people are 100% about the results and choose to dislike Dubas because he hasn't achieved said results. Fair enough. We all enjoy sports for different reasons.

My qualms come when people who clearly know very little about the process start to criticize it (same could apply to analytics), or think that because results are good/bad, then the process reflects accordingly. Sure, there is a correlation between a good process and good results, and I would certainly prefer we put ourselves in a good position process-wise because you are far more likely to get good results, but it is certainly not cause-and-effect.

At the end of the day, there are no guarantees in sports, and for those in coaching and management, their job is about giving the team the greatest probability for success. They aren't playing the game. They can ultimately put out an All-Star lineup and have a coaching master class and technically still lose to a bunch of ECHLers and a random guy name Joe off the street as coach. Obviously a hyperbole because Dubas and Keefe didn't do THAT good of a job, but they did give their team an amazing chance to go far, and they merely did not come through. And those players, or whoever is left, needs to figure it out because they are mostly responsible for being on the wrong side of history right now.

But at that point we just get into a bunch of 'what-ifs' and I think my post is long enough without those.

But did they give the club chances to go far or was it the same three forwards and Reilly that Lou had? Sub out $4.5M Kadri for $11M JT and thats the key players that are left. 105pts and lose to the Caps or 111pts and lose to Fla. For all the tinkering and outbound draft capital how are they left with a better chance to win by Kyle this year than by LL five seasons back? The Big 3 are all about to take advantage of NTs and they have Murray to wish away so they are in worse shape then when Dubas started. They haven't even paid all the picks yet for the players they won't start next season with.

I get your perspective but isn't it just as valid to say the club never realized Dubas vision because he may have hired and stuck with the wrong coach after some beat downs that should have told him time to make a shift? It could be on the players but they did not choose the mix of skills on the team or the coach or somehow forbid the team from adjusting the core (except for the Willie promise but that's on Kyle).

It would have been much easier to judge the core if we knew that Keefe was getting all they had to give rather than riding on the talent he inherited. When the Penguins changed from Mike Johnston to Mike Sullivan they actually had a core that had had won a championship but it was the change that sparked the winning. My thought is Dubas' teams may have been better than the results or he may have dug his own hole with the choice of coach and the adventures in the net. As you say, what ifs.

 

[hockeywiz542]

I mean this could be used the other way too. If you want to say some people go overboard with the praise, thats fine but "dubasites" is an embarrassing way to go about it. Also Lou still gets a lot of praise from fans here, so I don't agree he gets criticized a lot. Honestly anyone who used nicknames on either side of the argument shouldn't be taken seriously. You can have a good discussion without name calling and that goes for Dubas supporters and detractors.

@stickty111 I completely agree with you. That is a nice and fair response.

 

[weems]

Here's my thing. Some of those same analytics people that say Holl is underrated and people fail to look at his deployment and all that context stuff you brought up will do the exact same thing with 4th liners on our team. They were starting 90-95% of their shifts in the d zone and people wondered why they didn't look great. Find me any player that starts that percentage of their shifts in the d zone that look good or have a good game. Keefe finally starts to fix that deployment and they became effective. So when I see them say that and then say Holl is better than what these analytics say or what most people say I can't really take them seriously. Other then being a damn good shot blocker on the PK what is it about him that makes him a top 4 defender like analytics people will say? I see a guy who struggles under pressure, handles the puck like a grenade, not very fast and pretty damn weak for his size. He's had stretches where you can make an argument that he could be a useful defender but he's not consistent.

I guess me saying he's underrated is towards the people who say he's absolute trash and shouldn't play.
If you're a contender and he's slotting in on your second pair, that's probably not a good thing but I defintely think he's good enough to be in alot of teams top 6 and be a solid contributer on a 3rd pairing. I honestly see both sides to this argument and have had stretchs were I saw Holl as an effective player but then other times where you question if he should play. He is a very polarizing player thats forsure.