Offense VS Defence

[nuck]

For a team that has accomplished precious little, it still amazes me how defensive fans here get when media members state very obviously correct things.

The Leafs are playing low event hockey. The Leafs are not scoring much at even strength. The Leafs aren't driving play. The Leafs don't win in the playoffs.

It's okay to let people criticize them and ask very valid questions like "is this the best utilization of this roster?"

But is the new system why Matthews is producing at a 30 goal rate vs a 70 goal rate? Willie and JT are ahead of their typical Keefe goal pace so I would think probably not. They are tied for 5th overall with AM producing like a 2nd line talent. They have beaten teams from other divisions with a far better goal differential and what they did to Washington is more reminiscent of what other clubs have done to them in the past.

I am with you in that they aren't producing enough in all offensive areas but they have a ton of time to evolve and we don't know they won't. To be fair the complete ineffectiveness of Kampf and Holmberg might be more due to limited skill sets than misuse. They were playing low shot, low event under Keefe as well. But with just a little more from them and a little more from 34 the club is 2nd overall and Bourne has to write about something else.

 

[weems]

Its kind of hard to truly get an accurate view on our offense, when our top goal scorer, who is the best goal scorer in the world and one of the highest paid players has been very quiet thru 15 or so games.

I don't expect Matthews to continue on a 30 ish goal pace.

 

[Dreakmur]

Either you made a mistake when posting, you made a mistake when reading, you replied to the wrong person, or you're trying to agree with me in a really weird way.

… or you couldn’t understand a simple concept.

You keep forgetting to stop lying about what I believe.

You have repeatedly argued that the results are not evidence. The winner is just randomly lucky.

You haven't shown any results that show that low event hockey is more successful.

The results are the teams that win… did you want me to show you that?

 

[DarkKnight]

Of course Jonas picked up on this with Mirtle on their podcast. It was driving me nuts. They were trying to say how much worse we were on offensive, okay, but then only marginally better on defence, which isn't true. They're offsetting each other completely from what I've read. Just seemed going out of their way to be negative, this style will lead to fewer chances, but also AGAINST! Maddening to listen to.

 

[Dekes For Days]

… or you couldn’t understand a simple concept.

I understand what you said. I don't understand why you're saying it. You said "Just because you can pick a few outliers doesn’t mean the vast majority of winning teams are good defensively." Where did I pick outliers or even say anything about specific teams? Where did I say that the vast majority of winning teams are good defensively? Why are you trying to argue that winning teams are bad defensively in the first place? What does this have to do with the discussion about low and high event hockey and their success rates?

You have repeatedly argued that the results are not evidence. The winner is just randomly lucky.

I haven't argued that. Not sure what you're talking about.

The results are the teams that win… did you want me to show you that?

No, but you could start with literally any evidence that "the teams that win" play low event hockey.

 

[Racer88]

They are trying a different method - time will tell whether it's the right one or not.
Early results suggest they aren't a cup contender, which is what we had them pegged as before the season started.
So when media discuss that, I fail to see why people get so upset by it.


Why not?

Thinking this is some sort of new distinct era of Leafs hockey is .... inaccurate? The same roster building mistakes, playoff wounds, and insecurities still plague this roster.

Ya, you’re not wrong. We haven’t been a legit cup contender for decades but specific to the group certainly since Shanny got here

 

[Maple Leaf]

Its kind of hard to truly get an accurate view on our offense, when our top goal scorer, who is the best goal scorer in the world and one of the highest paid players has been very quiet thru 15 or so games.

I don't expect Matthews to continue on a 30 ish goal pace.

can matthews score without money marner? Put him on the third line and lets find out

 

[notDatsyuk]

Why not?

Thinking this is some sort of new distinct era of Leafs hockey is .... inaccurate? The same roster building mistakes, playoff wounds, and insecurities still plague this roster.

They have a new coach who is trying a very different system ('utilization' to use your word).

Saying that the new system doesn't work because "the Leafs don't win in the playoffs" despite the fact that this system hasn't been tried in the playoffs is disingenuous at best.

 

[Menzinger]

I like Berube, but imo it's too early to say one way or the other. He deserves a lot more time to get his systems embedded with the team - he also has to definitively prove he can get more out of the team which he obviously hasn't done yet

 

[Dreakmur]

I understand what you said. I don't understand why you're saying it. You said "Just because you can pick a few outliers doesn’t mean the vast majority of winning teams are good defensively." Where did I pick outliers or even say anything about specific teams? Where did I say that the vast majority of winning teams are good defensively? Why are you trying to argue that winning teams are bad defensively in the first place? What does this have to do with the discussion about low and high event hockey and their success rates?

Are syllogisms really too complicated to grasp?

Good defense leads to low event hockey. Good defense also leads to winning. Therefore....

I haven't argued that. Not sure what you're talking about.

A million times you have. It's kind of your thing.

No, but you could start with literally any evidence that "the teams that win" play low event hockey.

The results are the evidence.

 

[Suntouchable13]

IT seems it's a struggle in every sport to find the right balance between O and D. Look at the Blue Jays, great defensive team (the best in fact) but absolute dog shit on offence. How do you find that balance? It's challenging in every sport.

Look, I think for the Leafs is play low event hockey and you have 4 game breakers that other teams don't have that can break the game for you. That's basically what it is. That's what these players are paid to do. Carry you.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Are syllogisms really too complicated to grasp? Good defense leads to low event hockey. Good defense also leads to winning. Therefore....

No, you just don't seem to be grasping that your original reply argues the opposite - that winning teams weren't good defensively. Seemed to be an odd take. Of course, being good defensively and playing low event hockey are also not the same things, so I don't really see the relevance of your comment regardless. Good defense leads to winning, but so does good offense. In fact, while defense is important and winning teams tend to be good defensively, winning teams through the cap era have on average ranked better in offense and goaltending than defense.

A million times you have. It's kind of your thing.

No, I haven't argued that. Not sure if you're confusing me for somebody else, or your thing is just making stuff up.

The results are the evidence.

That's... not an answer. What about the "results" show that "the teams that win" play low event hockey? The results seem to contradict that.

 

[TMLBlueandWhite]

Remember during the Dubas years the team kept telling us to focus on the process.

Only a loser team with poor results would say that. Well I feel like it's the same thing happening all over again under Treliving. Only with a different process to get the exact same garbage results.

The data proves this team isn't improved.

It's still poorly built top heavy. Their record is no better than last year. Next year they'll likely be even worse with regression to aging key players.

It was a poor plan executed in the most incompetent way possible.

They have it in them to be mediocre. And mediocre can make the playoffs. Which appears to be the standard of success for this group.

Because we all know they're not cup contenders regardless of which process they use.