Leafs have 10 players with 40pts or more

[BruinLVGA]

Speaks to what people are resorting to when their most compelling argument is someone who barely got over 16 minutes TOI only got 69 points instead of 70.
You really think no player getting 70 is a big deal? Matthews was injured. But the Leafs are lucky with injuries!
That does not change the argument they had the best depth. If they had less depth, Marner would have over 70 easily. But would that mean they are better for it?
Grasping at straws?

You are: of the top 10 points producers, only Matthews has lost significant time. Nobody else has.

 

[LeafFever]

You are: of the top 10 points producers, only Matthews has lost significant time. Nobody else has.

"Only".
My point was the "Everything went perfect" comments last year were horrible and I was proven correct.

 

[Holymakinaw]

But not one with over 70 or more.

LOL. Who cares? Only you and some other Leaf haters.

Our top scorers are each 20 years old, and they've already each have multiple 60+ point seasons.

Couldn't be happier.

 

[Guffman]

I guess if Perreault had 1 more point and Myers four more points, the Jets would also have 10 40+ players. Not sure why that metric is noteworthy.

Congrats? Here’s some sparkle dust to celebrate.

*.*.-…*

 

[LeafFever]

Guys, the "No One Got 70" argument we've seen countless times since last night is such a bad argument. Someone even stated it means they will get swept.
Just stop it. It's a terrible, terrible argument. The depth is why no one got 70. You think on a team with less depth Marner gets that ice-time?
A good team does not change if the leading scorer got 69 or 70 points.
This is why Leaf fans claim people are biased.

 

[joe dirte]

My point is that one can't say that they're much better than anyone else, if the others all missed a ton of men games.

10 is better than 8 though isn't it?

this is hockey not golf.

 

[howkie]

1 question? Is not great depth when you get tons of injuries and still keep the scoring rate high? So it is like noone notice someone is missing. Leafs strenght is that they kept scoring without out Matthews and did not fall flat on their stomache.

Is their any ratio for goals per man game missed or something, so you really se the depth when players need to fill out for injuries.

 

[joe dirte]

So, according to you, personal points production is not affected by how many games players play. That is what you describe as "asinine".

yes we've already established that the Bruins would have had less players hit 40 points had Bergeron and Krejci not gotten injured.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

Yup. Also Nashville has 8 and Jarnkrok has 35 points but missed 14 games and Ryan Ellis out for half a season with a knee injury but he still has 32 points in only 44 games. They would have easily hit 40.

As I already said, this is a thread glorifying good luck re no injuries.

Our franchise player missed 20 games. Our Vesina candidate goalie missed a few games. Komorov, Dermott, Reilly all key players and all missed significant time. It's not like they we were blessed with an injury free season.

 

[nobody]

I am not disputing that you have ten 40 points players. I am disputing that it's so much ahead of anyone else, when it's clear that there's at least three other teams who, had it not been for injuries, would have been right there.

And if this is petty "revenge" for statements from before the season (I think that's what you are inferring)...
There's been scores of you guys saying that the Bruins were going to drop to earth once March arrived, that we were not good, only played easy teams. Well, we're at 112 points, possibly up to 114. No one is starting "revenge" threads for that. Ffs.

The Bruins have won quite a few games this year that they had no business winning. Thankfully things balance out eventually.

 

[Peggy]

Best team in the league with the widest roster and the sharpest top end. People have been underestimating the Leaf's and Matthews for too long, this will change when they dominate the Play-offs and advance to at least the SCFs.

I guess the standings have been underestimating the leafs too huh?

 

[BruinLVGA]

This is a bit of an irritating "chest thumping" type thread but that doesn't change the fact that you are flat out wrong this year about the Leafs injury "luck". That narrative holds up for last season, but this year the Leafs have had major injuries to both core guys like Matthews (1C), Reilly (1D), Zaitsev (top-4 D) and depth guys like Komorov (3d-line winger).


The numbers clearly show you are pushing a false narrative here. The Leafs have had to overcome their share of injuries this season, like most other teams; it is why guys like Johnsson and Dermott got called up in the first place.

Chest thumping, when things are presented in a exhaustive manner, are a-ok. It's good to be happy about one's performance. It's when things are not presented fully and/or with context (when a significant context exists), that it becomes very iffy. Which is the case here.

It's a thread about the top 10 points producers having 40 points or more, with an added brag about how nobody is even near (<- not true).
In that light, my numbers don't push any false narrative: of the Leafs top 10 points producers, there's a total of 30 men games lost. 20 for Matthews, 6 for Rielly, 4 for the remaining eight players.
Do the same exercise for the Bruins and the number is so far 122 - ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-TWO. More than FOUR times the Leafs'. The two are simply not comparable.
And if we go outside the top 10 points producers, we are pushing 200 - TWO HUNDRED. Again, not the same.

Go look at Nashville and Tampa too, and you will find players who could have easily had those 40 points, if it wasn't for injuries.

 

[joe dirte]

i love this. some posters are getting so unhinged.

 

[LeafFever]

"No One Got 70" is the new "Everything Went Perfect" argument. Haters will milk this for months.

 

[LeafFever]

i love this. some posrers are getting so unhinged.

But they don't hate the Leafs.

 

[BruinLVGA]

"Only".
My point was the "Everything went perfect" comments last year were horrible and I was proven correct.

What do you mean?

 

[Peggy]

What do you mean?

apparently they think their team wouldn't have done worse if they had more injuries

kind of like how Winnipeg was just bad and injuries had nothing to do with it

 

[BruinLVGA]

I guess if Perreault had 1 more point and Myers four more points, the Jets would also have 10 40+ players. Not sure why that metric is noteworthy.

Congrats? Here’s some sparkle dust to celebrate.

*.*.-…*

Exactly.

 

[nobody]

I guess the standings have been underestimating the leafs too huh?

Well we flat out threw away 3 or so games this year where we either didn't show up or blew a multigoal lead in the third to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Having a healthy Matthews might've also helped pick up a couple more wins. But all in all the record is fairly indicative of their play. It's still a very young team and we're still officially only in year 3 of the Shannyplan rebuild.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

Leafs still have the 2nd best offense in the league after TB, so it doesn't really matter if nobody got 70 points

 

[LeafFever]

apparently they think their team wouldn't have done worse if they had more injuries

No we would have doen worse. We also think it was relevant to state they were dead-last in a skills competition and that it likely would not happen again (It did not). So even if they had more injuries (They did), they could improve.
Sorry, we were right. I even made a thread about this point that everyone disputed and took their shots at me for.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Guys, the "No One Got 70" argument we've seen countless times since last night is such a bad argument. Someone even stated it means they will get swept.
Just stop it. It's a terrible, terrible argument. The depth is why no one got 70. You think on a team with less depth Marner gets that ice-time?
A good team does not change if the leading scorer got 69 or 70 points.
This is why Leaf fans claim people are biased.

Bolded: I agree.

 

[leaffaninvancouver]

What do you mean?

A fair number of people last year tried to discredit the Leafs making the playoffs by insisting everything went perfect for them. That was the argument we often saw when people said they would miss them this year.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

I don't understand why so many of you always like to use skewed numbers (=without presenting any context) to make a point.

.
.
.
.

Men games missed by the top 10 points producers:
- Toronto: 30 (pretty much the bulk is Matthews).
- Boston: 122.

LOL at this.

Talk about skewing stats. Good thing we didn't lose a lot of point production when Andersen went down. LOL indeed.

 

[BruinLVGA]

apparently they think their team wouldn't have done worse if they had more injuries

kind of like how Winnipeg was just bad and injuries had nothing to do with it

Ahhhh! Wow I hope that's not what he REALLY meant, because otherwise