Confirmed with Link: Sheldon Keefe extended 2 years

[IPS]

I didn't say it can't work, just that it's a preference shared by some of the best coaches in the game. I certainly don't think Brodie is elite enough to justify the disadvantage.

Those coaches you referenced literally did it themselves. Babs actually put many LHD partners alongside both Lidstrom and Kronwall during his time in Detroit.

You yourself actually droned on about how Rielly was only good when he had Hainsey. That's another double LHD pairing that Babs put together.

Your post contradicts itself all over the place.

 

[IPS]

Right. He played Marner 22:30 against the Habs including 3:58 short handed. Willie 13:14 and JT 16:11 TOI . I guess he didn't learn anything about load management from last year. We are literally going to repeat last season's game but somehow expect a fresh result. WTF Sheldon?

Seems to be evading the entire sports science team.

 

[Leaf Fans]

Thank you for your support!

You are welcome.

 

[WinnieThePooh]

Already explained that. Vegas played tougher opponents before Montreal. Montreal played teams that were easy to play against.

You seem to be very open to handing excuses to Vegas, but none to the Leafs. A lot went wrong for Toronto in that first series, a lot of bad luck.

 

[Metroid]

You seem to be very open to handing excuses to Vegas, but never any to the Leafs.

its his internet schtick. some people need to entertain themselves online due to whatever reason...

 

[The CyNick]

Those coaches you referenced literally did it themselves. Babs actually put many LHD partners alongside both Lidstrom and Kronwall during his time in Detroit.

You yourself actually droned on about how Rielly was only good when he had Hainsey. That's another double LHD pairing that Babs put together.

Your post contradicts itself all over the place.

Wrong.

Only you see it that way because you don't understand that not all situations have the same options.

Reilly was at his best with Hainsey. IMO that was true. It can also be true to say if you could clone Hainsey as a RHD, he would be more effective than the LHD Hainsey. The Leafs didn't have a good RHD option at the time, and frankly still don't.

Lidstrom is among the best D in the history of the game. I'm sure he would have success with a number of different partners, regardless of what hand they are. But again, it would always be better if that same partner was on his strong side. A player on his weak side is always at a disadvantage. It's just a fact of hockey. If you don't get that, I question how much hockey you have played. Now, can a LHD play well on the right side? Yes, of course. But they would always be MORE effective on their strong side.

I can guarantee you this, nobody on the Leafs D is in the same galaxy as Lidstrom in terms of capabilities as a D, so using him in this context is laughable.

What we know as a fact is many of the great coaches have a PREFERENCE for LHD-RHD pairings. Some people trust the science, in this case I trust whar the coaches say.

 

[The CyNick]

You seem to be very open to handing excuses to Vegas, but none to the Leafs. A lot went wrong for Toronto in that first series, a lot of bad luck.

Vegas has been to a Cup Final. They have had playoff success. It's not an excuse, I think it was a massive failure for them to lose to the Habs. But I can see why attrition would be a huge factor when the Habs basically waltzed into the semis with very little adversity and two easy series.

The Leafs were unlucky to lose Tavares, but still should have had enough to win the series. It seems like luck has been used year after year with embarrassing playoff failures. I believe you make your own luck, and the Leafs don't have the character to do that.

 

[IPS]

I question how much hockey you have played.

What a shocker you think your peewee hockey experience applies to the NHL.

Many, many LHD have said it themselves that they prefer the right side and they've done it to success. They've won cups and everything.

But yeah all you seem capable of doing in an argument is talking in circles.

 

[notbias]

What a shocker you think your peewee hockey experience applies to the NHL.

Many, many LHD have said it themselves that they prefer the right side and they've done it to success. They've won cups and everything.

But yeah all you seem capable of doing in an argument is talking in circles.

I am not involved in this back and forth, but have just found this debate interesting since I can see pros and cons for D playing their strong side.

How many is "many, many"? I think when there was that big thing about Babcock taking D with the proper handedness to the Olympics there were some statistics to back up that there is a slightly better performance for D playing on their strong side. Having said that, there are exceptions to the rule, but it is a general rule that D play better on their strong side.

Brodie for example I think has probably played his offside for so long he is more comfortable and effective there, and even then when constructing a team I'd obviously take a Muzzin playing RD over a Holl playing RD.

I think it just comes down to giving and receiving passes and potentially board play, and I remember some D talking about how it is easier to defend the rush on their offside, which I am assuming just has to do with your top hand being closer to the boards generally.

 

[WinnieThePooh]

Vegas has been to a Cup Final. They have had playoff success. It's not an excuse, I think it was a massive failure for them to lose to the Habs. But I can see why attrition would be a huge factor when the Habs basically waltzed into the semis with very little adversity and two easy series.

The Leafs were unlucky to lose Tavares, but still should have had enough to win the series. It seems like luck has been used year after year with embarrassing playoff failures. I believe you make your own luck, and the Leafs don't have the character to do that.

I mean couldn't I just say Vegas should have had enough to beat Montreal? They didn't have 2 key injuries.

Just seems weird to be lenient to one group and not the other. Past success/failure doesn't really play into it, as both team have had turnover.

 

[zeke]

Wrong.

Only you see it that way because you don't understand that not all situations have the same options.

Reilly was at his best with Hainsey. IMO that was true. It can also be true to say if you could clone Hainsey as a RHD, he would be more effective than the LHD Hainsey. The Leafs didn't have a good RHD option at the time, and frankly still don't.

Lidstrom is among the best D in the history of the game. I'm sure he would have success with a number of different partners, regardless of what hand they are. But again, it would always be better if that same partner was on his strong side. A player on his weak side is always at a disadvantage. It's just a fact of hockey. If you don't get that, I question how much hockey you have played. Now, can a LHD play well on the right side? Yes, of course. But they would always be MORE effective on their strong side.

I can guarantee you this, nobody on the Leafs D is in the same galaxy as Lidstrom in terms of capabilities as a D, so using him in this context is laughable.

What we know as a fact is many of the great coaches have a PREFERENCE for LHD-RHD pairings. Some people trust the science, in this case I trust whar the coaches say.

what's funny is that we have clear evidence that Brodie's worst seasons - especially that mysterious "off" season when he wasn't with Gio - came while playing the left side, while he's put up elite defensive results pretty much every year he's played the right side.

 

[The CyNick]

what's funny is that we have clear evidence that Brodie's worst seasons - especially that mysterious "off" season when he wasn't with Gio - came while playing the left side, while he's put up elite defensive results pretty much every year he's played the right side.

So you think one example with wonky evidence is enough to ignore decades of history? I would guess there were other factors with Brodie.

Forget about examples. I'm going to assume most people here have played hockey at some point in a rink. If you have, do you prefer to play D on your strong or weak side? I always preferred my strong side. I literally cannot think of one person who I ever played with who preferred their weak side. Some guys could do it. Some guys were even good at it. But I don't really know any who not only preferred but did better on their weak side.

Waits for random one off examples or suddenly to have a community of guys who prefer their weak side...

 

[Dekes For Days]

So you think one example with wonky evidence is enough to ignore decades of history? I would guess there were other factors with Brodie.

I mean, we're talking about Brodie here, so I would say Brodie's results are pretty much exclusively relevant.

 

[zeke]

So you think one example with wonky evidence is enough to ignore decades of history?

Yes Brodie would be a decent example for Brodie.

 

[Menzinger]

I saw on a thread earlier that he was going up Willy's ice time by giving him PK duty. So we can have both 16 & 88 expending energy as shut down players.

Get you best players on as much as possible, just like they do in peewee.

Though Nylanders icetime has potential to grow. Imo one of the bigger complaints towards Keefe's has been underplay info him in terms of overall TOI. Hes probably got room to spare for an extra 1.5 min or so of icetime per game without it threatening his exhaustion levels

 

[egd27]

Though Nylanders icetime has potential to grow. Imo one of the bigger complaints towards Keefe's has been underplay info him in terms of overall TOI. Hes probably got room to spare for an extra 1.5 min or so of icetime per game without it threatening his exhaustion levels

Ok, but if we all agree Nylander should get a few more minutes, is the PK the place you'd prefer to add them?

I'd rather him take an extra couple of shifts with 34 in the O zone over the course of the game.

Let the Kampf's and Kase's handle the PK

 

[Menzinger]

Ok, but if we all agree Nylander should get a few more minutes, is the PK the place you'd prefer to add them?

I'd rather him take an extra couple of shifts with 34 in the O zone over the course of the game.

Let the Kampf's and Kase's handle the PK

I'd like to see more how they're new PK strategy will work. Seems like they're leading towards a more aggressive than passive one. If it works well with the Leafs skilled guys keeping the puck out of the Leafs zone than no issue with it. If it doesn't work out then he shouldn't be there.

For Nylander and coaching my biggest concern is hoping he stays on that 1st pp unit.

 

[Zybalto]

Marner's ranking out of the 44 forwards to play at least 100 PK minutes last year:

Fewest Shots Against/60: 2nd out of 44
Fewest Scoring Chances Against/60: 5th out of 44
Fewest High Danger Chances Against/60: 2nd out of 44
Lowest Expected Goals Against/60: 1st out of 44

 

[nuck]

Though Nylanders icetime has potential to grow. Imo one of the bigger complaints towards Keefe's has been underplay info him in terms of overall TOI. Hes probably got room to spare for an extra 1.5 min or so of icetime per game without it threatening his exhaustion levels

But doesn't that come back to the Marner thing, and I don't mean too much ice time in general. When Mitch or Willie are on the PK whose minutes are they taking? The Leafs PK was 24th in the league last year so hardly elite. Only 3 SHG, tied for 16th, and none by Mitch so his offense didn't impact them. Given that, if they insist on playing a top 5 point producer, isn't the better return at ES where Marner was also top 5 in PP60? Willie is just more of the same, no ROI.

Willie needs the minutes but there are other players I would much sooner see blocking shots than him or Marner. The top talents should know how to PK but that isn't the game changing ability they were acquired for. Almost any other forward on the team is capable of contributing to a PK thats better than 24th. There is no reason for throwing the club's most skilled players into a defensive role, its a waste, as opposed to Willie replacing less skilled players at ES where its clear win.

 

[egd27]

Marner's ranking out of the 44 forwards to play at least 100 PK minutes last year:

Fewest Shots Against/60: 2nd out of 44
Fewest Scoring Chances Against/60: 5th out of 44
Fewest High Danger Chances Against/60: 2nd out of 44
Lowest Expected Goals Against/60: 1st out of 44

How did he do in actual goals against /60?

 

[Zybalto]

How did he do in actual goals against /60?

Depends on who was in net under the same system.

Campbell (near best PK save% in the league) and Hutch (still decent) vs. Andersen (sub .800 and top ten worst in the past 15 years on the PK for goalies)

I like a more aggressive approach myself but I hope they don't mess too much with the personell on a solid PK sabotaged by the play of Andersen last year.

 

[deprw]

Vegas has been to a Cup Final. They have had playoff success. It's not an excuse, I think it was a massive failure for them to lose to the Habs. But I can see why attrition would be a huge factor when the Habs basically waltzed into the semis with very little adversity and two easy series.

You call Leafs - Habs series easy for Habs? 7 games, being down 3-1, bailed by their goalie? Yeah, real easy series for Habs. Would you have said it was easy for us, if we would have won game 7 in that series?

 

[The CyNick]

You call Leafs - Habs series easy for Habs? 7 games, being down 3-1, bailed by their goalie? Yeah, real easy series for Habs. Would you have said it was easy for us, if we would have won game 7 in that series?

It was a long series, but definitely not difficult. When I say difficult it's did the series take months off your career. The only guy who felt like that was Tavares. None of the Habs guys were really punished. It wasn't a grueling physical series. The Leafs didn't grind at the Habs. It was like 7 regular season games for the Habs. All you had to do was flip channels between the Leafs-Habs series and almost any other first round series and you would see a much higher level of intensity. The games looked like they were being played in different leagues. As many players have said, playing the Leafs is like a night off physically.

 

[Leaf Fans]

It was a long series, but definitely not difficult. When I say difficult it's did the series take months off your career. The only guy who felt like that was Tavares. None of the Habs guys were really punished. It wasn't a grueling physical series. The Leafs didn't grind at the Habs. It was like 7 regular season games for the Habs. All you had to do was flip channels between the Leafs-Habs series and almost any other first round series and you would see a much higher level of intensity. The games looked like they were being played in different leagues. As many players have said, playing the Leafs is like a night off physically.

Or as Dj Smith says "the Leafs "'motivated, on a mission' "

Smith says Maple Leafs look 'motivated, on a mission' - Sportsnet.ca

 

[zeke]

Or as Dj Smith says "the Leafs "'motivated, on a mission' "

Smith says Maple Leafs look 'motivated, on a mission' - Sportsnet.ca

Agreed, DJ.