Confirmed with Link: Shanahan, Dubas, Keefe all staying

[Dekes For Days]

We didn’t get to the net for tips, screens or rebounds.

This is incorrect and is not supported by the eye test or data.

They played in the playoffs as a 9th seed, which was the first and likely only time that ever happens in the history and future of the NHL.

Also probably the only time that a team that is top-8 in the conference in points gets a 9th seed. And the only time teams play different numbers of games in a season. There's probably a lot of things that will only happen in that year of significant abnormality. Actually, with the way playoffs formats are evolving in sports, what you named is way more likely to happen again in the future. And as a proportion of total teams, the equivalent has already happened.

You keep talking about specifically their seed in specifically the conference that the adjusted rules gave them because literally everything else exposes how misleading that ranking is, as Columbus was a quality of team - even through some of the biggest injury impacts in the league - that makes the playoffs.

We lost because we are poorly constructed and poorly coached. That is supported by the on ice evidence.

That is not why we lost, and that is not supported by any "on-ice evidence" (whatever you think that vague wording means). In fact, the "on-ice evidence" suggests we are well constructed and well coached. This sounds a lot like a different way of saying the same "we lost" answer, which is a statement and not evidence for a reason.

 

[Dreakmur]

This is incorrect and is not supported by the eye test or data.

100% it’s what happened. Sorry it doesn’t jive with your Dubas worshiping.

Also probably the only time that a team that is top-8 in the conference in points gets a 9th seed. And the only time teams play different numbers of games in a season. There's probably a lot of things that will only happen in that year of significant abnormality. Actually, with the way playoffs formats are evolving in sports, what you named is way more likely to happen again in the future. And as a proportion of total teams, the equivalent has already happened.

They were tied for 8th and lost a tie-breaker. It’s pretty common in sports.

It is possible, even if unlikely, that the NHL expands their playoffs. That won’t change the fact that 2020 was an abnormal year.

You keep talking about specifically their seed in specifically the conference that the adjusted rules gave them because literally everything else exposes how misleading that ranking is, as Columbus was a quality of team - even through some of the biggest injury impacts in the league - that makes the playoffs.

You should write the NHL to ask why Columbus was the 9th seed.

That is not why we lost, and that is not supported by any "on-ice evidence" (whatever you think that vague wording means). In fact, the "on-ice evidence" suggests we are well constructed and well coached. This sounds a lot like a different way of saying the same "we lost" answer, which is a statement and not evidence for a reason.

We did lose. You think it’s just bad luck. I’m telling you it wasn’t luck. We played a certain way and the numbers reflect that.

 

[Mess]

The finger of accountability for nearly a decade now of unsuccessful years must be nearing the top of this hierarchy tree.

Shanahan - President #1 - Apr 11, 2014 — The Toronto Maple Leafs on Friday morning officially announced the hiring of Brendan Shanahan as the team's president.

Summary
GM #1 .......... [1 X missed playoffs + 2 X lost in round #1]
Coach #1...... [1 X missed playoffs + 3 X lost in round #1]
GM #2 ......... [1 X lost in play-in round #1 + 3 X lost in round #1]
Coach #2 .... [1 X lost in play-in round #1 + 2 X lost in round #1]

Shan-A-Plan .. 8 years [2 X missed playoffs] + [1 X lost in play-in round #1] + [5 X lost in round #1] ..

So then the real question becomes how many GM and Coaches do the Leafs go though before we move on to President #2?

Perhaps Shanahan is hesitant to move on to GM #3 and Coach #3, because he knows just like in baseball where 3 strikes means you're out !!!

Maybe we're asking the wrong question and expecting the wrong management personnel to make the right decision, and now we need someone in Ownership at MLSE to step up and change the course with a new President in that leadership chair as we head into year #9 of the Shan-A-Plan without a single playoff win, added on to the previous 10 years running the count up to 18 years and counting .

 

[JT AM da real deal]

Dubas got a 4 year contract last year? Do you have a link? Don’t believe I would’ve missed that.

It was all verbal but I did not hear any curve balls .. last Thursday arena sponsors got an audience with MLSE mgmt to discuss our future investment plans and what we would like to see improved to better our investment returns for our signage .. of course Scotia is da biggest sponsor by far and they are 100% happy and satisfied with everything .. Larry Nick and Cynthia were all there

 

[Dekes For Days]

100% it’s what happened.

It's not what happened. We can see that in the game tape, and we can see that in the data. Columbus was the best playoff team we faced at defending us 5v5 (which makes sense as the best defensive team in the league that season), but we still got plenty of great looks, including tips, rebounds, and chances with screens. You're also overestimating the impact that "obstruction" actually has for a large proportion of opportunity types, and how common it is around the league. Fact is, Columbus got objectively amazing goaltending. Set the NHL playoff save record against the Cup champs right after us too.

They were tied for 8th and lost a tie-breaker. It’s pretty common in sports.

They were actually tied for 6th in the (much stronger) conference in points, which would be 8th with the tiebreakers, but because the pandemic abruptly halted the season, they went by point percentage and the free-falling Islanders who had played less games got seeded higher. That's not common at all in sports.

It is possible, even if unlikely, that the NHL expands their playoffs. That won’t change the fact that 2020 was an abnormal year.

Nobody is disputing that 2020 was an abnormal year. They're disputing your misrepresentation of Columbus' quality.

We did lose. You think it’s just bad luck. I’m telling you it wasn’t luck. We played a certain way and the numbers reflect that.

"We lost" is not evidence of a reason for why we lost. I never said anything about it being "just bad luck". Please don't put words in people's mouths. The numbers reflect that we played at a very high level and lost by the slimmest of margins to the back-to-back Cup champs that went on to sweep the President's trophy winners. That reflects well on our construction and coaching.

 

[Dreakmur]

It's not what happened. We can see that in the game tape, and we can see that in the data. Columbus was the best playoff team we faced at defending us 5v5 (which makes sense as the best defensive team in the league that season), but we still got plenty of great looks, including tips, rebounds, and chances with screens. You're also overestimating the impact that "obstruction" actually has for a large proportion of opportunity types, and how common it is around the league. Fact is, Columbus got objectively amazing goaltending. Set the NHL playoff save record against the Cup champs right after us too.

They got such good goaltending because we created the perfect storm of high volume shots with no traffic.

They were actually tied for 6th in the (much stronger) conference in points, which would be 8th with the tiebreakers, but because the pandemic abruptly halted the season, they went by point percentage and the free-falling Islanders who had played less games got seeded higher. That's not common at all in sports.

Again, you’re just arguing whatever side you think will make Dubas look good. Imagine arguing that you shouldn’t go by win percentage when teams have played a different number of games.

Nobody is disputing that 2020 was an abnormal year. They're disputing your misrepresentation of Columbus' quality.

Nobody is saying Columbus was bad. We were a better team. We lost to an inferior team. If you don’t think we were the better team, you can’t also blame Babcock for our lower seeding.

Pick a thing.

"We lost" is not evidence of a reason for why we lost. I never said anything about it being "just bad luck". Please don't put words in people's mouths. The numbers reflect that we played at a very high level and lost by the slimmest of margins to the back-to-back Cup champs that went on to sweep the President's trophy winners. That reflects well on our construction and coaching.

I told you why we lost. You just can’t understand it because it didn’t display it in a bar graph or a scatter plot.

Bad luck is our exact argument. You keep saying we get goalied but refuse to acknowledge that the way Toronto plays contributes to opposing goalie performance. The only remaining excuse is bad luck…. Except this year it was bad officiating.

 

[Dekes For Days]

They got such good goaltending because we created the perfect storm of high volume shots with no traffic.

That is incorrect, and is not supported by the game tape, any of the data from our series, or the fact that it continued after our series.

Imagine arguing that you shouldn’t go by win percentage when teams have played a different number of games.

Nobody is arguing that. The discussion was about the abnormality and adjusted rules that led to that conference seeding, that was a pretty bad representation of the team quality that Columbus had, especially when one simultaneously dismisses all relevant context.

Nobody is saying Columbus was bad.

Except you.
"They weren’t good at all."

We were a better team.

I think we were a better team, and I said that pages ago, but Columbus was also better than their record indicated and a good team themselves.

I told you why we lost.

You didn't. You made an incorrect claim about why we lost, and then refused to support that claim with anything - instead just repeating "we lost".

Bad luck is our exact argument.

That is incorrect.

You keep saying we get goalied but refuse to acknowledge that the way Toronto plays contributes to opposing goalie performance.

1. We only really "got goalied" twice, and one of them was an externally shortened series. That's not really "keep saying".
2. There is no evidence that those goalie performances were a result of Toronto playing in any particular way. Not only did those goalie performances extend beyond our series, but there's also nothing in the game tape or series data that indicates as such. By your logic, we've cracked the code this year anyway.

 

[BrannigansLaw]

That is incorrect, and is not supported by the game tape, any of the data from our series, or the fact that it continued after our series.

Nobody is arguing that. The discussion was about the abnormality and adjusted rules that led to that conference seeding, that was a pretty bad representation of the team quality that Columbus had, especially when one simultaneously dismisses all relevant context.

Except you.
"They weren’t good at all."

I think we were a better team, and I said that pages ago, but Columbus was also better than their record indicated and a good team themselves.

You didn't. You made an incorrect claim about why we lost, and then refused to support that claim with anything - instead just repeating "we lost".

That is incorrect.

1. We only really "got goalied" twice, and one of them was an externally shortened series. That's not really "keep saying".
2. There is no evidence that those goalie performances were a result of Toronto playing in any particular way. Not only did those goalie performances extend beyond our series, but there's also nothing in the game tape or series data that indicates as such. By your logic, we've cracked the code this year anyway.

Nice post.

Fire Dumbas, Shanahan and Keefe

 

[BlackandOrange]

I would have fired Keefe after they lost to Montreal last year. He didn't speak to the team after the game 7 loss, therefore he is not (or was never) qualified to lead troops into battle.

 

[Dreakmur]

That is incorrect, and is not supported by the game tape, any of the data from our series, or the fact that it continued after our series.

It is 100% on the game tapes. As I’ve said before, I can’t watch them for you.

Nobody is arguing that. The discussion was about the abnormality and adjusted rules that led to that conference seeding, that was a pretty bad representation of the team quality that Columbus had, especially when one simultaneously dismisses all relevant context.

You are arguing that. You said they shouldn’t have been the 9th seed.

Except you.
"They weren’t good at all."

There’s a middle ground between good and bad. That’s where Columbus was.

I think we were a better team, and I said that pages ago, but Columbus was also better than their record indicated and a good team themselves.

We lost to an inferior team, which means we’ve lost to multiple inferior teams in a row. That means there’s something wrong with the team.

You didn't. You made an incorrect claim about why we lost, and then refused to support that claim with anything - instead just repeating "we lost".

For the 5th time - We lost because we were poorly constructed and poorly coached. Too soft, too easy to play against, too much avoiding contact, too much perimeter play.

That is incorrect.

Goalies having unexplained elite performances is luck.

1. We only really "got goalied" twice, and one of them was an externally shortened series. That's not really "keep saying".

You keep saying that we did. You’re a still saying it now.

2. There is no evidence that those goalie performances were a result of Toronto playing in any particular way. Not only did those goalie performances extend beyond our series, but there's also nothing in the game tape or series data that indicates as such. By your logic, we've cracked the code this year anyway.

There 100% is evidence on the game taps, but you can only see it if you know the difference between a hockey stick and your elbow.

 

[BrannigansLaw]

Underrated in how bad Dubas is at his job is his horrendous drafting. We really need some young ELC players to start filling in some spots given his awful cap management. He's only drafted one in Sandin and I'm not sold on him at all as of yet.

 

[Bomber0104]

Underrated in how bad Dubas is at his job is his horrendous drafting. We really need some young ELC players to start filling in some spots given his awful cap management. He's only drafted one in Sandin and I'm not sold on him at all as of yet.

Neither is Dubas seeing as how he keeps blocking Sandin's path towards any meaningful minutes with the team with free agent signings.

Wouldn't be surprised if he's traded for more immediate roster help since Dubas is basically in career-survival mode in present time.

 

[rocketman588]

Neither is Dubas seeing as how he keeps blocking Sandin's path towards any meaningful minutes with the team with free agent signings.

Wouldn't be surprised if he's traded for more immediate roster help since Dubas is basically in career-survival mode in present time.

If he really trusted him he would have signed Riley with the intention of trading him for assets and have Rasmus and the cap space

But hey can't have your "prospect pool" found out if they don't go to the NHL

We have the best hypothetical players in the league

 

[Dekes For Days]

It is 100% on the game tapes.

It is not on the game tapes, which is why it's not reflected in the data, and why it continued beyond our series. Saying "watch the tapes" over and over is not evidence of anything other than the fact that you have no evidence.

You are arguing that. You said they shouldn’t have been the 9th seed.

I did not argue that, and I did not say that. I explained the abnormal way they came to be the 9th seed in the conference, and showed you how that was a misleading representation of their quality, especially when intentionally used in isolation without any context.

There’s a middle ground between good and bad.

You got caught. Columbus was not one of the best teams in the league, but they were a quality team, and "not good at all" is an inaccurate description.

We lost to an inferior team, which means we’ve lost to multiple inferior teams in a row. That means there’s something wrong with the team.

To be clear, Columbus had the same record as us through similarly significant injury impacts, and was the best defensive team in the league. Montreal rode their goalie to the Stanley Cup finals, sweeping Winnipeg and beating 120-point pace Vegas easier than they beat an injury-plagued Toronto. Tampa was the 110 point (without Kucherov for half a season) back-to-back Stanley Cup champs, that went on to sweep the President's trophy winners. "Inferior team" doesn't really capture the situations. All series went to the absolute limit.

While the losses are disappointing, and adjustments have and will be made, the context you keep ignoring is important, and none of this means that there is a significant issue with the team's construction or coaching.

For the 5th time - We lost because we were poorly constructed and poorly coached. Too soft, too easy to play against, too much avoiding contact, too much perimeter play.

None of that is true, and you've brought nothing to substantiate any of those claims.

Goalies having unexplained elite performances is luck.

Goalie performances fluctuate for reasons beyond just luck, and the only truly abnormal performance relative to shown potential was Korpisalo.

You keep saying that we did.

Actually you're the one that brought this up, and it's only happened twice - both times very obviously. I'm not really sure why we're discussing playoffs from years ago in the first place.

There 100% is evidence on the game taps

There is no evidence that those goalie performances were a result of Toronto playing in any particular way. Not in the game tape, and not in any of the data. Those goalie performances also extended beyond our series, so apparently whatever you think you saw is pretty common in playoff teams that advance in the playoffs, and by your logic, we've cracked the code now.

 

[LeafEgo]

There is no evidence that those goalie performances were a result of Toronto playing in any particular way. Not in the game tape, and not in any of the data. Those goalie performances also extended beyond our series, so apparently whatever you think you saw is pretty common in playoff teams that advance in the playoffs, and by your logic, we've cracked the code now.

You recently claimed that Kucherovs weak performance was a result of Leafs strong D, and wanted evidence to support why he would all of a sudden play poorly for reasons outside of the Leafs.

Here you are saying that Korpisalos strong performance was not a result of Leafs weak F. Is there evidence to support why he would all of a sudden play so well for reasons outside of the Leafs?

 

[Dreakmur]

It is not on the game tapes, which is why it's not reflected in the data, and why it continued beyond our series. Saying "watch the tapes" over and over is not evidence of anything other than the fact that you have no evidence.

Your ability to analyze game tapes has led you to think Toronto would win the last 5 playoff series, so I’m not sure why you think your analysis should mean very much.

I did not argue that, and I did not say that. I explained the abnormal way they came to be the 9th seed in the conference, and showed you how that was a misleading representation of their quality, especially when intentionally used in isolation without any context.

Strange that you always need context for negative results from the leafs, but positive results are just unimpeachable.

You got caught. Columbus was not one of the best teams in the league, but they were a quality team, and "not good at all" is an inaccurate description.

I sure got caught by calling a mediocre team not good. How will I ever recover?

To be clear, Columbus had the same record as us through similarly significant injury impacts, and was the best defensive team in the league. Montreal rode their goalie to the Stanley Cup finals, sweeping Winnipeg and beating 120-point pace Vegas easier than they beat an injury-plagued Toronto. Tampa was the 110 point (without Kucherov for half a season) back-to-back Stanley Cup champs, that went on to sweep the President's trophy winners. "Inferior team" doesn't really capture the situations. All series went to the absolute limit.

They had the same record as the 8th seed and lost the tie-breaker, which is why they were the 9th seed.

While the losses are disappointing, and adjustments have and will be made, the context you keep ignoring is important, and none of this means that there is a significant issue with the team's construction or coaching.

Losses don’t necessarily mean poor construction or poor coaching, but these particular losses did.

None of that is true, and you've brought nothing to substantiate any of those claims.

They’re soft. If you need a bar graph to demonstrate it, that’s your problem.

They’re too easy to play against. Same, no pie chart.

They avoid contact. Nope, no data matrix.

You’re just going to have to figure it out. I can’t watch for you.

Goalie performances fluctuate for reasons beyond just luck, and the only truly abnormal performance relative to shown potential was Korpisalo.

They do fluctuate for reasons beyond luck… like playing a team that avoids the front of the net because it’s dangerous.

Actually you're the one that brought this up, and it's only happened twice - both times very obviously. I'm not really sure why we're discussing playoffs from years ago in the first place.

It gets brought up because you keep denying we’ve repeatedly lost to lesser teams.

There is no evidence that those goalie performances were a result of Toronto playing in any particular way. Not in the game tape, and not in any of the data. Those goalie performances also extended beyond our series, so apparently whatever you think you saw is pretty common in playoff teams that advance in the playoffs, and by your logic, we've cracked the code now.

What data shows traffic? What data shows obstruction of the the goalie’s vision?

That’s why expected goals is flawed. You can’t measure a scoring chance with nothing more than a scatter plot.

You recently claimed that Kucherovs weak performance was a result of Leafs strong D, and wanted evidence to support why he would all of a sudden play poorly for reasons outside of the Leafs.

Here you are saying that Korpisalos strong performance was not a result of Leafs weak F. Is there evidence to support why he would all of a sudden play so well for reasons outside of the Leafs?

He takes any side of any argument to make Dubas look good. It’s too bad, because Dubas has done a pretty good job. The shills just make such ridiculous remarks that you can’t help but disagree and argue against the few mistakes made by Dubas.

 

[Dekes For Days]

You recently claimed that Kucherovs weak performance was a result of Leafs strong D, and wanted evidence to support why he would all of a sudden play poorly for reasons outside of the Leafs.

Kucherov was red hot directly before the Leaf series, and was red-hot directly after the Leaf series. Leafs are one of the best defensive teams in the league, and the Matthews/Marner line is one of the best lines in the league, that players often struggle against. Kucherov is a veteran back-to-back Cup champ, and players, especially ones like that, don't just randomly decide not to try for no reason in a closely-contested playoff battle - which is what was being suggested. The most logical conclusion is that Kucherov's performance was the result of the Leafs.

Here you are saying that Korpisalos strong performance was not a result of Leafs weak F. Is there evidence to support why he would all of a sudden play so well for reasons outside of the Leafs?

The Leafs had a significant sample of play showing them to be a high generating and well-executing offensive team. They still generated relatively well within the series, but struggled to get them past Korpisalo. Directly after our series, the same thing continued for a while against a different team - the eventual Stanley Cup champions; also a high generating and well-executing offensive team - leading to the goalie setting the NHL playoff save record against somebody other than us. The most logical conclusion is what we see often - a goalie on a hot streak, instead of two well-executing rosters suddenly executing badly around the same time against the same goalie despite generating well.

 

[ACC1224]

You recently claimed that Kucherovs weak performance was a result of Leafs strong D, and wanted evidence to support why he would all of a sudden play poorly for reasons outside of the Leafs.

Here you are saying that Korpisalos strong performance was not a result of Leafs weak F. Is there evidence to support why he would all of a sudden play so well for reasons outside of the Leafs?

Kucherov had the flu. Anyone who watched the series would know that, they mentioned it during the broadcast.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Kucherov had the flu.

Kucherov had the beginning of the flu for one game of the series (which wasn't one of the ones even being talked about). Kind of like a mild version of how Nylander had food poisoning for one game.

 

[Dreakmur]

Kucherov was red hot directly before the Leaf series, and was red-hot directly after the Leaf series. Leafs are one of the best defensive teams in the league, and the Matthews/Marner line is one of the best lines in the league, that players often struggle against. Kucherov is a veteran back-to-back Cup champ, and players, especially ones like that, don't just randomly decide not to try for no reason in a closely-contested playoff battle - which is what was being suggested. The most logical conclusion is that Kucherov's performance was the result of the Leafs.

But the most logical reason that a goalie played well isn’t the result of the Leafs. Got it. Any side of any argument as previously known.

The Leafs had a significant sample of play showing them to be a high generating and well-executing offensive team. They still generated relatively well within the series, but struggled to get them past Korpisalo. Directly after our series, the same thing continued for a while against a different team - the eventual Stanley Cup champions; also a high generating and well-executing offensive team - leading to the goalie setting the NHL playoff save record against somebody other than us. The most logical conclusion is what we see often - a goalie on a hot streak, instead of two well-executing rosters suddenly executing badly around the same time against the same goalie despite generating well.

Playoff hockey is different. Guess there’s no spreadsheet to demonstrate that for you.

 

[BrannigansLaw]

Kucherov was red hot directly before the Leaf series, and was red-hot directly after the Leaf series. Leafs are one of the best defensive teams in the league, and the Matthews/Marner line is one of the best lines in the league, that players often struggle against. Kucherov is a veteran back-to-back Cup champ, and players, especially ones like that, don't just randomly decide not to try for no reason in a closely-contested playoff battle - which is what was being suggested. The most logical conclusion is that Kucherov's performance was the result of the Leafs.

The Leafs had a significant sample of play showing them to be a high generating and well-executing offensive team. They still generated relatively well within the series, but struggled to get them past Korpisalo. Directly after our series, the same thing continued for a while against a different team - the eventual Stanley Cup champions; also a high generating and well-executing offensive team - leading to the goalie setting the NHL playoff save record against somebody other than us. The most logical conclusion is what we see often - a goalie on a hot streak, instead of two well-executing rosters suddenly executing badly around the same time against the same goalie despite generating well.

Leafs are 0-10 in elimination games across multiple series. Why is that?

 

[Dekes For Days]

Your ability to analyze game tapes has led you to think Toronto would win the last 5 playoff series

It's unfortunate that you feel the need to insult, deflect, and make things up about me and the things I say whenever you're shown to be wrong, instead of having a real discussion. Not only is analyzing game tape and predicting playoff outcomes not the same thing, and not only do I not make claims about teams winning playoff series, but I also haven't even been here for 5 years. But good to know you're psychic.

Strange that you always need context for negative results from the leafs, but positive results are just unimpeachable.

Context is important all the time. Unfortunately, the biggest pastime around here is excluding critical context to paint things in a more negative light.

Losses don’t necessarily mean poor construction or poor coaching

Exactly, and yet you've repeatedly claimed it to be the reason here with absolutely nothing to support that.

They’re soft. They’re too easy to play against. They avoid contact.

None of these things are true.

They do fluctuate for reasons beyond luck… like playing a team that avoids the front of the net because it’s dangerous.

Theoretically that could be a reason, but it's very evident in both the game tape and the series data that that is not what happened with us.

It gets brought up because you keep denying we’ve repeatedly lost to lesser teams.

Actually you brought it up all on your own in response to something completely unrelated, and all I've done is more accurately represent the teams and situations we've faced.

That’s why expected goals is flawed.

Not only looking at expected goals, and expected goals is not nearly as flawed as you like to pretend it is.

But the most logical reason that a goalie played well isn’t the result of the Leafs.

It theoretically could be, but as I discuss, it becomes far less logical and likely when it's two well-executing rosters suddenly executing badly around the same time against the same goalie despite generating well.

He takes any side of any argument to make Dubas look good.

I'll ask you once more nicely to stop spreading lies about me.

 

[LeafEgo]

Kucherov was red hot directly before the Leaf series, and was red-hot directly after the Leaf series. Leafs are one of the best defensive teams in the league, and the Matthews/Marner line is one of the best lines in the league, that players often struggle against. Kucherov is a veteran back-to-back Cup champ, and players, especially ones like that, don't just randomly decide not to try for no reason in a closely-contested playoff battle - which is what was being suggested. The most logical conclusion is that Kucherov's performance was the result of the Leafs.

The Leafs had a significant sample of play showing them to be a high generating and well-executing offensive team. They still generated relatively well within the series, but struggled to get them past Korpisalo. Directly after our series, the same thing continued for a while against a different team - the eventual Stanley Cup champions; also a high generating and well-executing offensive team - leading to the goalie setting the NHL playoff save record against somebody other than us. The most logical conclusion is what we see often - a goalie on a hot streak, instead of two well-executing rosters suddenly executing badly around the same time against the same goalie despite generating well.

Appreciate the explanation.

For Korpisalo's god like goaltending, I would offer the Columbus playoff team came in with a strong defensive strategy. Korpisalo did his part, but overall it wasn't enough to get past Tampa. For Kucherov, its suspicious that the Toronto D would so effectively shut him down specifically in comparison to their other players. The rumored flu would would also explain his on-off-on results if true.

Don't think we can get to the bottom of these two.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Neither is Dubas seeing as how he keeps blocking Sandin's path towards any meaningful minutes with the team with free agent signings.

Wouldn't be surprised if he's traded for more immediate roster help since Dubas is basically in career-survival mode in present time.

This seems to be a popular narrative these days but IMO it's nonsense. People were saying the same thing thing a few months ago - Dubas would trade a ton of futures in a desperate attempt to keep his job. Instead, he kept our top picks and prospects and nevertheless managed to swing the very excellent trade that brought Giordano (and Blackwell) into the fold.

I know it's all the rage to hate on Dubas these days but a lot of people should be giving Dubas props and eating crow on this one.

Appreciate the explanation.

For Korpisalo's god like goaltending, I would offer the Columbus playoff team came in with a strong defensive strategy. Korpisalo did his part, but overall it wasn't enough to get past Tampa. For Kucherov, its suspicious that the Toronto D would so effectively shut him down specifically in comparison to their other players. The rumored flu would would also explain his on-off-on results if true.

Don't think we can get to the bottom of these two.

I would also say that our high priced snipers were below par when it came to finishing our chances. Too many shots in the goalies chest etc. and of course Tavares missing the empty net was the best example of a high danger chance that didn't result in a goal but had nothing to do with how their goalie played.

Of course I have no spreadsheets to back this up, it's JMHO from watching every minute of every game so take it FWIW.

 

[Dreakmur]

It's unfortunate that you feel the need to insult, deflect, and make things up about me and the things I say whenever you're shown to be wrong, instead of having a real discussion. Not only is analyzing game tape and predicting playoff outcomes not the same thing, and not only do I not make claims about teams winning playoff series,

A real discussion isn't consulting a pie chart and pretending you watch game tape.

When my team loses, I try to understand why, so I can make adjustments and improve next year. Your priority seems to be defending Dubas' every move, and team success is an aftertought.

I also haven't even been here for 5 years. But good to know you're psychic.

Doesn't take a psychic to know you're always going to side with Dubas.

Context is important all the time. Unfortunately, the biggest pastime around here is excluding critical context to paint things in a more negative light.

Analysing context and then forming an opinion is important. Searching for fake context to support an already held idea that Dubas was right isn't valuable at all.

Exactly, and yet you've repeatedly claimed it to be the reason here with absolutely nothing to support that.

I didn't claim that all losses are a result of those things, but these losses are.

None of these things are true.

They're all 100% true and obvious to anyone who's ever laced up a pair of skates.

Theoretically that could be a reason, but it's very evident in both the game tape and the series data that that is not what happened with us.

No game data measures traffic. Game tape shows it.

Actually you brought it up all on your own in response to something completely unrelated, and all I've done is more accurately represent the teams and situations we've faced.

It's just one of the many excuses you've used over the years. I'm actually kind of excited to see what you'll use next year.

Not only looking at expected goals, and expected goals is not nearly as flawed as you like to pretend it is.

Every stat is flawed, but especially ones that don't even know how to measure what they're supposedly representing.

I'll ask you once more nicely to stop spreading lies about me.

What's the lie?