Leafs are the Victims: Editor in Leaf

[FraumBallard]

I wouldn't really described the Habs goal scoring that series as being the result of driving to the net or grinding out garbage goals. Most of their important ones seemed to come from the rush/error capitalization (the Gally game 5 OT blunder, Anderson's goal during game 1 ect).

Sure.
Corey Perry.

 

[Stonehands1990]

I wouldn't really described the Habs goal scoring that series as being the result of driving to the net or grinding out garbage goals. Most of their important ones seemed to come from the rush/error capitalization (the Gally game 5 OT blunder, Anderson's goal during game 1 ect).

I’d say it’s a bit of both. Their game plan was definitely to counter punch and attack when we made mistakes. But in the offensive zone their mandate was to get pucks to the net WHEN there’s traffic

 

[FraumBallard]

If you implement it perfectly, you don't allow any xGF since you're limiting/eliminating quality opportunities from prime scoring areas. Montreal wanted to play that line to a 0-0 xGF (so no advantage), then exploit the rest of our line-up down a key piece.

When you're allowing slot changes, onetimers, odd man rushes and prime scoring opportunities - that's when you get caved in on xGF, which is basically what we saw. We also saw poor conversion from that top line - and even throughout the line-up on those quality looks.

Man.
Try just watching the game.
Almost all analytics are junk.
They don’t mean shit.
Certainly not helping us.
At all.

 

[FraumBallard]

This just seems like perception above reality to be honest. The narrative that many push is MTL and CLB shut-down Toronto's offense and limited chances.

The xGF stat isn't necessarily about trading chances, it is a measure of carrying play and generating opportunities and it is why you'll commonly see it referenced both as a raw stat, but also a %.

For this year:
- We carried xGF
- We carried rebounds created (quick count shows we doubled the rebounds that the Habs had). So it's an odd claim to say we didn't have traffic.
- We failed to convert on golden opportunities; specifically late in the series when your opportunities didn't seem to drop
- Call it poor conversion, bad goaltending by Campbell (he wasn't good late in this series) or Price standing on his head - personally I saw a combination of all 3.

Basically all of the things we want to harp on the Leafs not doing enough of in this series, we still seemed to do more often and with more talented players than the Habs as far as skaters go.

Wow.
Ostrich.

 

[Gallagbi]

Do you think it’s a fluke that Montreal limited Matthews to 1 goal, Stone to 0 goals and Point to 0 goals? Do you think they just “didn’t convert”

Or did Montreal have a clear and concise game plan that isn’t pretty on the advanced stats side of the ledger but wins games when you don’t have a lot of skill?

Fun fact, both Point and Stone had under 1 xGF for each of them.

Almost like they didn't generate chances vs. mtl while Matthews did

Kuch and Coleman led TB in xGF for the series with a little over 2, and they combined for 5 goals.

 

[FraumBallard]

To me it all comes down to the 1st. line just failing to deliver.

You can post all the positive/negative feel good/feel bad advanced stats you want and ... 1 goal explains it to me.

Not sure how many have to take the blame for such failure, coach, gm, players, or the individuals?

All of the above and Shanny too.

 

[FraumBallard]

It means exactly what the stat reflects.

It means for HDCF we generated a number of opportunities from that area. For rebounds, it monitors the rebound chances. For hits it measure how often we made and took a hit. Same with shots, goals, etc.. The stats are reflective of play.

It doesn't change the outcome, but it helps highlights the on ice events that influenced that final score. From there, you can discuss, adapt and adjust to improve on those results - ideally.

Or we could sit and cry about the results with little to no context and just make up anecdotal garbage that doesn't hold up statistically or with a re-watch.

It means nothing.

 

[Stonehands1990]

Fun fact, both Point and Stone had under 1 xGF for each of them.

Almost like they didn't generate chances vs. mtl while Matthews did

Kuch and Coleman led TB in xGF for the series with a little over 2, and they combined for 5 goals.

Matthews has a ridiculous release that he can get off with zero time which allowed him to to rack up shots and drive xG but I wouldn’t call them chances. Montreal knows Marner won’t drive the net and Hyman was completely ineffective. Whenever Matthews shot the puck Price was outside the crease taking away the angle completely

These ARE NOT scoring chances. These are routine saves for Price that look good in xG models but don’t work in real life. It’s why we’ve had identical results for 2 playoffs

And if we don’t make adjustments we will continue to have the same results

 

[FraumBallard]

Isn't that exactly Vegas's reputation? That they have a big, physical team that competes. They battle hard and fight for everything. How'd they do?

Way better than we did.
Every year they have been in the league.
You know that , right?

 

[FraumBallard]

I thought NHL.com tracked hits taken, but it's been a while since I checked.

For Marner, I thought he was slow to react in a lot of spots. I didn't see much less time and space compared to normal playoff intensity, but I did see him overhandling pucks and slowing things down too much. I was REALLY hard on him during thr playoffs themselves. As I rewatched, he was better than I first thought, but not good enough. There's a lot of self sabatoging within his game this playoff.

He is afraid to get hit.
Period.

 

[FraumBallard]

Fun fact, both Point and Stone had under 1 xGF for each of them.

Almost like they didn't generate chances vs. mtl while Matthews did

Kuch and Coleman led TB in xGF for the series with a little over 2, and they combined for 5 goals.

xgf?
Oh.
Not goals?
Useless stat.
This aint baseball.

 

[usernamezrhardtodo]

Matthews has a ridiculous release that he can get off with zero time which allowed him to to rack up shots and drive xG but I wouldn’t call them chances. Montreal knows Marner won’t drive the net and Hyman was completely ineffective. Whenever Matthews shot the puck Price was outside the crease taking away the angle completely

These ARE NOT scoring chances. These are routine saves for Price that look good in xG models but don’t work in real life. It’s why we’ve had identical results for 2 playoffs

And if we don’t make adjustments we will continue to have the same results

I honestly cannot recall a single instance where AM had a chance to unleash his shot with time and space. Not once did I say "Shit...AM usually pots that shot" during the series. They managed to disrupt him very well.

 

[FraumBallard]

I agree and that's my point. This isn't TB just driving thr net and all problems going away. Montreal beat a number of favored teams this playoffs and truthfully they looked to have outplayed Winnipeg and Vegas along the way.

Our stats and actually opportunities are alot closer to TB than WPG or VGK in the series played.

How’s the weather in whatever alternate reality where useless stats reign supreme?

 

[usernamezrhardtodo]

How’s the weather in whatever alternate reality where useless stats reign supreme?

It's expected to rain.

 

[Stonehands1990]

I honestly cannot recall a single instance where AM had a chance to unleash his shot with time and space. Not once did I say "Shit...AM usually pots that shot" during the series. They managed to disrupt him very well.

There was always a forward bearing down on him, a D man with a stick or body in his shooting lane and a goalie taking away all the angle.

It’s embarrassing that these were classified as “chances”

 

[usernamezrhardtodo]

There was always a forward bearing down on him, a D man with a stick or body in his shooting lane and a goalie taking away all the angle.

It’s embarrassing that these were classified as “chances”

Until analytics get so in depth that they can lower or raise a goalies save % based on who shot from where...this stuff is not telling us much more than the eyes do. The stats were supposed to help someone make a decision...not make the decision for you.

 

[Gallagbi]

Matthews has a ridiculous release that he can get off with zero time which allowed him to to rack up shots and drive xG but I wouldn’t call them chances. Montreal knows Marner won’t drive the net and Hyman was completely ineffective. Whenever Matthews shot the puck Price was outside the crease taking away the angle completely

These ARE NOT scoring chances. These are routine saves for Price that look good in xG models but don’t work in real life. It’s why we’ve had identical results for 2 playoffs

And if we don’t make adjustments we will continue to have the same results

Matthews has routinely beat Price and comparable goalies clean throughout his career and he also had a humber of rebounds chances.

Just because you're saying it, doesn't mean it is supported.

You're looking at the results and backing into a narrative

 

[Stonehands1990]

Matthews has routinely beat Price and comparable goalies clean throughout his career and he also had a humber of rebounds chances.

Just because you're saying it, doesn't mean it is supported.

You're looking at the results and backing into a narrative

During the regular season….

 

[Gallagbi]

During the regular season….

So Price doesn't try then when his team is fighting for the playoffs?

You're welcome to do a deeper dive on some of the playoffs series outside just this one. Compare vs. Cbj, Boston, even Washington. Holtby is the only weak goalie amongst them IMO

 

[Stonehands1990]

So Price doesn't try then when his team is fighting for the playoffs?

You're welcome to do a deeper dive on some of the playoffs series outside just this one. Compare vs. Cbj, Boston, even Washington. Holtby is the only weak goalie amongst them IMO

Montreal hard matched lines and went with a full 5 man shutdown unit. That’s the difference between playoffs and regular season. Question how do you not recognize that? Matthews got shots off but nothing really dangerous. They only look good on xG, not real life

As for a deeper dive in one of the Boston series and the Washington series Matthews torched them for I believe 9 goals total. But that’s what happens when you have a coach that gets his stars away from shutdown units. Keefe clearly just looks at the analytics and thinks we are doing well

 

[The CyNick]

This dude is right. Results Prejudice is an epidemic in sections of Leafs' Nation where the fans are too stupid to see the finest of the world's most delicate silks also known as Expected Victories.

When I take my kids to games I love pointing at the expected Stanley Cup banners hanging in the rafters. Makes me happy that I was alive to see the team win them. And the memories of the expected Cup parades I will cherish for the rest of my days on earth.

 

[Gallagbi]

Montreal hard matched lines and went with a full 5 man shutdown unit. That’s the difference between playoffs and regular season. Question how do you not recognize that? Matthews got shots off but nothing really dangerous. They only look good on xG, not real life

Montreal limited his chances compared to normal. They didn't eliminate his quality chances. Matthews was scoring about a goal a game coming in vs. mtl and he averaged about .8 GPG. Nobody is saying his stats suggest he scores 5+ goals in the series, 3-4 is much more realistic.

You see this in the stats, you see this in the other series MTL played and how those humber are reflected vs. Other stars, specifically the ones mentioned in Stone and Point. Throw in scorers like Kuch and Coleman who saw a similar, slightly lower frequency of chances but higher (or more accurately normal) production.

As for a deeper dive in one of the Boston series and the Washington series Matthews torched them for I believe 9 goals total. But that’s what happens when you have a coach that gets his stars away from shutdown units. Keefe clearly just looks at the analytics and thinks we are doing well

Boston split their attention on Matthews over their series. They shut him down 1 year, but not the other. Washington didn't play a shutdown line.

How's his xGF compare in these series to actual output?

 

[Mess]

Do you think it’s a fluke that Montreal limited Matthews to 1 goal, Stone to 0 goals and Point to 0 goals? Do you think they just “didn’t convert”

Or did Montreal have a clear and concise game plan that isn’t pretty on the advanced stats side of the ledger but wins games when you don’t have a lot of skill?

What are you hoping to achieve by applying logic and reasoning to raw data found in a spreadsheet?

Sometimes I wonder why they even bother to play the games when all you have to do to determine the winner is look at the raw data, and if you have the better expected goals for/against you win, and if you generate more high danger scoring chances you win and if you win the Corsi battle and control possession and shot clock you win.

No need to play the games as the numbers already have some convinced it determines winners and losers with only "luck" the one missing component.

The article says " The last two series were bad. The Leafs should have won both of them, but they got unlucky. The Leafs have a positive expected goals rating in 11 of their last 12 playoff games". Leafs were suppose to win 11 of those 12 games based on the flawed stat of xGF/xGA .. Yet we know Leafs actual record 5W - 7L in last 12 games. So Leafs lost > 50% of the games in which they had better expected goals and were expected to win. How could any reasonable thinking person rely on data if they're accurate only 1/2 the time at best, or have a margin of error of 50%?

At those odds you might as well just ignore the spreadsheet, and simply flip a coin because that also give you 50% of being correct of predicting winners and losers at the same rate as analytics.

 

[Stonehands1990]

What are you hoping to achieve by applying logic and reasoning to raw data found in a spreadsheet?

Sometimes I wonder why they even bother the play the games when all you have to do to determine the winner is look at the raw data and if you have the better expected goals for/against you win, and if you generate more high danger scoring chances you win and if you win the Corsi battle and control possession and shot clock you win.

No need to play the games as the numbers already have some convinced it determines winners and losers with only "luck" the only missing component.

The article says " The last two series were bad. The Leafs should have won both of them, but they got unlucky. The Leafs have a positive expected goals rating in 11 of their last 12 playoff games". Leafs were suppose to win 11 of those 12 games based on the flawed stat of xGF/xGA .. Yet we know Leafs actual record 5W - 7L in last 12 games. So Leafs lost > 50% of the games in which they had better expected goals. How could any reasonable thinking person rely on data is the accurate only 1/2 at best?

At those odds you might as well just ignore the spreadsheet, and simply flip a coin because that also give you 50% of being correct.

This x 1,000

It always comes down to “luck” apparently

I’m willing to argue that the prerequisite of being part of the analytics crowd is not playing hockey ever. They refuse to accept the impact systems and strategy have on the game. And as mentioned xG is extremely flawed

 

[Racer88]

Until someone can explain to me how a Mikheyev shot from the slot is counted the same as AM shooting from there...I don't value xGF or any of that stuff they trot out to say we are elite. You would need much, and I mean much more data on both the shooter, the goalie and the shot location to make this stat useful IMO.

Or when Price is in net or a Zamboni driver……..oh wait a minute, to the Leaf shooters it’s no difference