Line Combos: Leafs roster [Before] & [After] and work in progress

[Gary Nylund]

Because it's not a reason at all it's a result.

Not sure it eases anything, truthfully it's more infuriating to me. Its a lot easier to plug obvious holes or simply ask if you've improved an under talented roster but that's not the Leafs. We're in a spot where we need our talent to breakthrough and produce. Chances are there by every measure and informed eye test. Conversion is not recently

I'd say we could sit here and cry about the results all summer instead of discussing the why, how it's addressed or what the impact will be, but a few posters have that covered in spades already. The chart posted is an interesting response on how ALL teams have done so far this summer. Truthfully I'm surprised we've increased in the result, but it's a decent look at things that are a hell of a lot more interesting than the usual sludge posted on here.

I don't think anyone knows the why, can you tell me where this has been covered? I'd be happy to have a look if anyone has any ideas but I'm pretty sure nobody knows. How it's addressed - do you mean roster changes? Every team has roster changes but nobody can say what the impact will be.

You're surprised we've increased in the result, for me, I'd say skeptical better describes what I think. I don't know how this model was calculated and I have no reason to believe this model is accurate (and no model is 100% accurate anyway). But even if it's accurate, what does it even mean? The chart says we improved and on a scale of 1-5, our improvement rates a 1 but WTF does 1 mean? We don't know so we're just guessing but it doesn't sound like much to me.

Like I said earlier, Zeke's always showing us models/numbers/stats showing the team in a positive light, never negative and the in the playoffs we always lose so one of two things must be true:

1 - the models/numbers/stats he's using have zero predictive value
2 - he's cherry picking what he posts and leaves out anything bad

Either way, it's nothing but meaningless chest thumping.

One stat that doesn't like then leafs, then.

One stat, seriously? OK firstly, let me say that what I find telling is that when I posted on that subject during last season, you said my math was wrong (as if you're some authority) but when I challenged you on that you had zero to back up your claim. Then the Athletic came out with numbers that showed things were even worse than I had said so perhaps you'd like to admit you were wrong? I've never seen you admit to being even a little bit wrong about anything, maybe now would be a good time to start. You're constantly posting things from the Athletic so it seems you find them a credible source, correct?

Now back to your LOL "one stat" comment. I can list some numbers if you want but what's the point? The Leafs have been brutal in the playoffs, you yourself even called the last game the worst loss in Maple Leaf history or something like that IIRC and a few days ago you called our stars "choking dogs" so I'd be surprised if you're not aware that the numbers aren't pretty. But if you're feeling masochistic then say the word and I'll show you some more stats. Not models or expected this or that but cold hard stats based on actual real world results.

Like the Avalanche.

I think you asked me something about the Avalanche before, I'm not sure why. This is the Leafs board, they're not even in the same conference we are so what are you on about? What's your point?

 

[Gallagbi]

I don't think anyone knows the why, can you tell me where this has been covered? I'd be happy to have a look if anyone has any ideas but I'm pretty sure nobody knows. How it's addressed - do you mean roster changes? Every team has roster changes but nobody can say what the impact will be.

You're surprised we've increased in the result, for me, I'd say skeptical better describes what I think. I don't know how this model was calculated and I have no reason to believe this model is accurate (and no model is 100% accurate anyway). But even if it's accurate, what does it even mean? The chart says we improved and on a scale of 1-5, our improvement rates a 1 but WTF does 1 mean? We don't know so we're just guessing but it doesn't sound like much to me.

Like I said earlier, Zeke's always showing us models/numbers/stats showing the team in a positive light, never negative and the in the playoffs we always lose so one of two things must be true:

1 - the models/numbers/stats he's using have zero predictive value
2 - he's cherry picking what he posts and leaves out anything bad

Either way, it's nothing but meaningless chest thumping.

Honestly man, I just hope you saw the first response and we'll leave it at that.

 

[zeke]

I think you asked me something about the Avalanche before, I'm not sure why. This is the Leafs board, they're not even in the same conference we are so what are you on about? What's your point?

The point was to test whether you could maintain a consistent position between your leafs opinions and opinions on other teams. I.e. whether you could be objective.

You failed, btw.

 

[Eb]

1 - the models/numbers/stats he's using have zero predictive value
2 - he's cherry picking what he posts and leaves out anything bad

Or 3 - you and many others on this forum cannot grasp how much luck is involved in the sport of hockey. For better or worse.

 

[pucksakes666]

I hope they put nylander back with matthews next season they seem to be better

 

[meefer]

While factually correct that we've lost 5 first rounds in a row, I do find the obsession with that fact to be somewhat self-serving.

*We were the surprise of the 16/17 season and really had no legit expectations of beating Washington. We weren't good enough
*17/18 saw our right side being manned by: Hainsey, Polak and Zaitsev, Kadri going Kadri, and a combined save % of .889. We weren't good enough.
*18/19 gave us our first legit chance. Again, we got Kadri'd, I still didn't like our RD, but our best scored, our goaltending solidified and we lost to a Stanley Cup finalist. A toss up.
*The last two playoffs we should have won. In 19/20 we scored 10 goals in 5 games. Not good enough. 20/21...I got nothing, chief. Choked!

To the title of the thread 'a work in progress', do you now look at this team with hope, despair or ambivalence? I'll take the coward's way out and say that I'm cautiously optimistic.
*Losing Bogo hurts, but was he integral to our success? I'm hoping TL can make the jump. The decision on Rielly is concerning.
*Do I expect Marner and Matthews to continue underperforming in the first round, no. I also don't expect JT to be gone after 10 minutes, while Nylander's improvements are significant.
*For all the praise being directed towards Hyman, he contributed 13 points in 32 playoff games for the Leafs, 5 points in his last 19 games. His presence did not elevate M&Ms performance to a degree that warranted 1st line minutes. I believe his contributions in the playoffs can be replaced and hopefully exceeded. But, by whom?
*With the talent we have, can we expect our PP to improve? Yes. Will this help? Yes. I think the same about our PK.
*I'm cautiously optimistic about our goaltending, with the convenient escape route of saying goalies and predictions are impossible. If they play close to their abilities, we can head into the playoffs with 2 goalies who I'd be ok with, as opposed to one. That helps me sleep at night.

Concerns:
*3C - We're very strong at 1 and 2, but three leaves me wanting. Can Kerfoot, mmmm I don't know...Kampf, production is wanting...Spezza/Engvall/Brooks, I'd want more. I suspect a trade to solidify our 3C, which in turn helps distribute our wingers into roles where they have a greater chance for success.
*Rielly - Sign, trade, or your own rental? Would Muzz/Dermott/Sandin be sufficient? How do you replace 23.5 min/night during the regular and 25:48 in round one? I like Morgan, but at 7.5M+ ??? As currently structured, I'm good with the team's D, even without Bogo, and would argue that successfully getting Liljegren in the line-up would be optimal. To me that means pairing him with Muzzin. I can't remember the last time a young D on this team was given the chance to develop with a quality partner. With Rielly on the team this is possible, off the team? The most vexing of our issues.

Predictions:
*A Rielly trade where a 1st round pick is a part of the return package, along with a LD.
*The 1st + Kerfoot being moved for an upgrade at 3C and ... ?

**Given the talent, contracts, and timeline, I suspect Dubas will be pushing all in. Whether one agrees with how the team has been constructed or not is immaterial. We are where we are. I think we are a playoff team. How far we go depends on our best players. A repeat of the last two post season efforts won't be tolerated. Kyle's job may well be on the line, as might some of our better paid players. This is not the team with which we will be heading into the playoffs.

 

[Stonehands1990]

Or 3 - you and many others on this forum cannot grasp how much luck is involved in the sport of hockey. For better or worse.

There it is. The luck argument. Can’t ever discuss advanced stats without the “luck” fail safe switch

 

[sparxx87]

Or 3 - you and many others on this forum cannot grasp how much luck is involved in the sport of hockey. For better or worse.

Claiming they were unlucky is a losers excuse. You make your own luck when preparation meets opportunity.

The Leafs aren’t prepared for an opportunity.

They’re a bunch of divas and snowflakes. Zero luck involved in that.

 

[Racer88]

Or 3 - you and many others on this forum cannot grasp how much luck is involved in the sport of hockey. For better or worse.

If luck is such a big factor why are we paying 3 of them 11 million dollars.
Couldn’t we just look for 3 cheaper but luckier guys

 

[Gary Nylund]

Honestly man, I just hope you saw the first response and we'll leave it at that.

So you're not interested in thoughtful discussion, OK then.

The point was to test whether you could maintain a consistent position between your leafs opinions and opinions on other teams. I.e. whether you could be objective.

You failed, btw.

When you ask a question that seems to have no relevance to the subject at hand and you're unable to explain any relevance when asked, it is you who has failed. I'm here to discuss the team I love, not to be quizzed by you about other teams that I don't care about. Capiche?

And you're still unable to admit you were wrong about anything, even when it's been proven. Here's a newsflash for you - nobody's as smart as you think you are.

I notice you ignored the rest of my post, gee I wonder why. Sure you don't want to see some more stats?

Or 3 - you and many others on this forum cannot grasp how much luck is involved in the sport of hockey. For better or worse.

We don't even compete in series deciding games. I believe we've been outscored 11-2 over the last 3 such events, 18-6 over the last 4. That's four seasons down the tubes without a fight, if you think that's nothing more than bad luck then you my friend, are in denial.

If luck is such a big factor why are we paying 3 of them 11 million dollars.
Couldn’t we just look for 3 cheaper but luckier guys

Fair question. I really hope Dubas has done extensive analysis of the expected luck stats of our new players.

 

[Bomber0104]

Would you rather have Montreal and Columbus rosters?

At this point the Leafs can play pretty well any team in the first round in the bottom half of the league and be at serious risk of losing in a best of 7.

It's not even disputable anymore.

Columbus wasn't a playoff team and the Habs wouldn't even have qualified for the playoffs in a regular year.

Leafs still lost.

And do you think our front office's guiding principle is to appease bloggers?

Definitely.

While other teams are focused on chasing playoff success and winning Cups, the Leafs are chasing the blogger stats crown.

 

[Bomber0104]

One stat that doesn't like then leafs, then.

Playoff series wins.

Next.

 

[Bomber0104]

Because it's not a reason at all it's a result..

Counting shots and where they come from isn't a result, at all.

The object of the game is to outscore the other team - not outshooting the other team closer to their net.

 

[Eb]

If luck is such a big factor why are we paying 3 of them 11 million dollars.
Couldn’t we just look for 3 cheaper but luckier guys

Because the main goal is still to give your team the best chance to win. Putting together a team with elite stars and trying to surround them with the best supporting cast does that.
Dubas has mentioned this a ton of times.

 

[Eb]

There it is. The luck argument. Can’t ever discuss advanced stats without the “luck” fail safe switch

To disregard luck's effect in hockey is being complete naive.

 

[Mess]

While factually correct that we've lost 5 first rounds in a row, I do find the obsession with that fact to be somewhat self-serving.
.

If one is diehard Leafs fan that is cheering passionately for their team to win (like most fans do in all fan bases) as that is the true objecting when cheering in sports, then when it continues to lose its not self-serving, but frustrating, aggravating and disappointing, particularly when it happens over and over again.

The obsession that does appear self-serving is the fans that are accepting of the losses, and continually try and explain them away to soften the emotional lows of disappointment, to make only themselves feel better I suppose, as that serves no one but themselves. IMHO

 

[mydnyte]

While factually correct that we've lost 5 first rounds in a row, I do find the obsession with that fact to be somewhat self-serving.

*We were the surprise of the 16/17 season and really had no legit expectations of beating Washington. We weren't good enough
*17/18 saw our right side being manned by: Hainsey, Polak and Zaitsev, Kadri going Kadri, and a combined save % of .889. We weren't good enough.
*18/19 gave us our first legit chance. Again, we got Kadri'd, I still didn't like our RD, but our best scored, our goaltending solidified and we lost to a Stanley Cup finalist. A toss up.
*The last two playoffs we should have won. In 19/20 we scored 10 goals in 5 games. Not good enough. 20/21...I got nothing, chief. Choked!

To the title of the thread 'a work in progress', do you now look at this team with hope, despair or ambivalence? I'll take the coward's way out and say that I'm cautiously optimistic.
*Losing Bogo hurts, but was he integral to our success? I'm hoping TL can make the jump. The decision on Rielly is concerning.
*Do I expect Marner and Matthews to continue underperforming in the first round, no. I also don't expect JT to be gone after 10 minutes, while Nylander's improvements are significant.
*For all the praise being directed towards Hyman, he contributed 13 points in 32 playoff games for the Leafs, 5 points in his last 19 games. His presence did not elevate M&Ms performance to a degree that warranted 1st line minutes. I believe his contributions in the playoffs can be replaced and hopefully exceeded. But, by whom?
*With the talent we have, can we expect our PP to improve? Yes. Will this help? Yes. I think the same about our PK.
*I'm cautiously optimistic about our goaltending, with the convenient escape route of saying goalies and predictions are impossible. If they play close to their abilities, we can head into the playoffs with 2 goalies who I'd be ok with, as opposed to one. That helps me sleep at night.

Concerns:
*3C - We're very strong at 1 and 2, but three leaves me wanting. Can Kerfoot, mmmm I don't know...Kampf, production is wanting...Spezza/Engvall/Brooks, I'd want more. I suspect a trade to solidify our 3C, which in turn helps distribute our wingers into roles where they have a greater chance for success.
*Rielly - Sign, trade, or your own rental? Would Muzz/Dermott/Sandin be sufficient? How do you replace 23.5 min/night during the regular and 25:48 in round one? I like Morgan, but at 7.5M+ ??? As currently structured, I'm good with the team's D, even without Bogo, and would argue that successfully getting Liljegren in the line-up would be optimal. To me that means pairing him with Muzzin. I can't remember the last time a young D on this team was given the chance to develop with a quality partner. With Rielly on the team this is possible, off the team? The most vexing of our issues.

Predictions:
*A Rielly trade where a 1st round pick is a part of the return package, along with a LD.
*The 1st + Kerfoot being moved for an upgrade at 3C and ... ?

**Given the talent, contracts, and timeline, I suspect Dubas will be pushing all in. Whether one agrees with how the team has been constructed or not is immaterial. We are where we are. I think we are a playoff team. How far we go depends on our best players. A repeat of the last two post season efforts won't be tolerated. Kyle's job may well be on the line, as might some of our better paid players. This is not the team with which we will be heading into the playoffs.

Kampf was picked up to fill the #3C and shutdown C role. He may surprise some people, and solidify the 3rd line, and the PK C spot, so we dont need to use Spezza/Matthews for draws.

 

[Phion Keneuf]

In layman’s term what does this chart actual say?

We got better while spending less money.

I agree with that personally.

 

[mydnyte]

Claiming they were unlucky is a losers excuse. You make your own luck when preparation meets opportunity.

The Leafs aren’t prepared for an opportunity.

They’re a bunch of divas and snowflakes. Zero luck involved in that.

I'm sorry, but, your Captain being nearly decapitated in the 1st game 1st period does quality as 'unlucky' ...they didnt finish out the series, and there is no excuse for that, but, you cant 'make' your own luck out of the Tavares situation.
If Kucherov got knocked out in game 1, period 1 TB doesnt win the Cup, and that is a certainty
Somtimes, 'luck' is your players not getting hurt, or you get a crossbar and in, rather than out, or Hyman's butt doesnt block an open net gimmie of a goal in the series clinching game. ...that is 'luck' also, but, for the other team.

 

[mydnyte]

If one is diehard Leafs fan that is cheering passionately for their team to win (like most fans do in all fan bases) as that is the true objecting when cheering in sports, then when it continues to lose its not self-serving, but frustrating, aggravating and disappointing, particularly when it happens over and over again.

The obsession that does appear self-serving is the fans that are accepting of the losses, and continually try and explain them away to soften the emotional lows of disappointment, to make only themselves feel better I suppose, as that serves no one but themselves. IMHO

i relate this to mask wearing ...i do it because i have to.
you dont like the losses, but, you cant control them either, so, you have to accept it and move on, or, be worth 1 billion dollars, buy the team, and remake it in your image.
the problem is, some of us have been accepting the losses since the Ballard era (or longer) and disappointment is almost expected.

 

[Racer88]

Because the main goal is still to give your team the best chance to win. Putting together a team with elite stars and trying to surround them with the best supporting cast does that.
Dubas has mentioned this a ton of times.

Are they really elite when they fail to show up and produce when it really matters. At 11 million each they should be able to push past the other teams cheaper shut down line otherwise they have no value whatsoever

 

[Bomber0104]

Because the main goal is still to give your team the best chance to win. Putting together a team with elite stars and trying to surround them with the best supporting cast does that.
Dubas has mentioned this a ton of times.

Evidently it does not.

All it takes is a Pierre-Luc Dubois or a Phillipe Danault to come around and completely shut them down...

 

[Eb]

Are they really elite when they fail to show up and produce when it really matters. At 11 million each they should be able to push past the other teams cheaper shut down line otherwise they have no value whatsoever

I will answer your question by responding asking if you think McDavid and Mackinnon are really elite?

 

[Racer88]

I will answer your question by responding asking if you think McDavid and Mackinnon are really elite?

McDavid for sure and MacKinnon is pretty close now

 

[Eb]

Evidently it does not.

All it takes is a Pierre-Luc Dubois or a Phillipe Danault to come around and completely shut them down...

Evidence shows all recent stanley cup winners won with elite superstars. We haven't found that right mix of the supporting cast, yet.