So, now that we know how many wins we can expect?

[Gabriel426]

I hear the same thing every year. The "new" accusations will 100% work out... and we'll just forget that we said the precise same thing the year before. And the year before. And the year before.

I think this is what this team is. Too much money on 4 forwards, not enough money for depth in numerous other places. Works out to approximately last years record. So somewhere around 28-23-5.

Still make the playoffs... and you never know what can happen there.

I think with the shorten and more intense schedule( a lot of 3-4 games in 4-5nights). Injuries aside, backup goalie will play a bigger role than ever and having Campbell is great.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Except we are 82-53-17 since spending half the cap on 4 forwards? That's not even close to .500?

27-15-5 since Keefe took over by the way, thats .628 hockey. I pointed it out to you earlier but you ignored it to continue arguing your false narrative.

Nope. Leafs record since having half the cap on 4 forwards is a mere 2 games over .500

Pointing out that the leaf players are entitled and stopped playing for a coach that wouldn't just let them do what they want isn't exactly a positive.

Let's also remember that it's common for teams to go on crazy winning streaks for a month or so after getting a new coach. Let's look at, say, January 1st and on (a little over a month for the "new coach high" to wear off). Leafs had 14 wins and 15 losses. 16 wins and 18 losses if counting the play in round.

"Bad goalies" "injuries" "bad coaches". These are just lame excuses that hide a greater problem. Half the cap on 4 forwards.

 

[Zybalto]

Nope. Leafs record since having half the cap on 4 forwards is a mere 2 games over .500

Pointing out that the leaf players are entitled and stopped playing for a coach that wouldn't just let them do what they want isn't exactly a positive.

Let's also remember that it's common for teams to go on crazy winning streaks for a month or so after getting a new coach. Let's look at, say, January 1st and on (a little over a month for the "new coach high" to wear off). Leafs had 14 wins and 15 losses. 16 wins and 18 losses if counting the play in round.

"Bad goalies" "injuries" "bad coaches". These are just lame excuses that hide a greater problem. Half the cap on 4 forwards.

5v5 save% fell from 7th in the league to 27th in the league.

Everything else, including subjective cap analysis, is below that. Literally went from top ten to bottom 5 in the league.

 

[FraumBallard]

56.

20

 

[MapleLeafs9]

Nope. Leafs record since having half the cap on 4 forwards is a mere 2 games over .500

Pointing out that the leaf players are entitled and stopped playing for a coach that wouldn't just let them do what they want isn't exactly a positive.

Let's also remember that it's common for teams to go on crazy winning streaks for a month or so after getting a new coach. Let's look at, say, January 1st and on (a little over a month for the "new coach high" to wear off). Leafs had 14 wins and 15 losses. 16 wins and 18 losses if counting the play in round.

"Bad goalies" "injuries" "bad coaches". These are just lame excuses that hide a greater problem. Half the cap on 4 forwards.

This isn't basketball, OT/SO losses don't count towards the regulation losses column like you're trying to portray it as. You can literally do that to even the best teams in the league and their win-loss wouldn't look as impressive. There are points rewarded for losing OT/SO games that count towards the standings, it's disingenuous to try to chalk up those losses as a whole because it doesn't portray the actual record correctly.

We are 27-15-5 since Keefe tookover. That's .627 hockey. No where near .500. You can't nitpick and only choose the more recent losses to try to fit your false narrative again, it's once again, disingenuous. You look at the entire body of work. Yes we were slumping a little bit before the pause, but that could have easily been turned around with another hot streak because we have gamebreaking players to do so.

Just look at the 2016-2017 leafs, 40-27-15. Decent young team with a bunch of rookies that was good enough to make the playoffs. If you combine the losses together, we were 40-42. Wow that's shit huh?! Under .500 hockey team! So bad! Except it's a disingenuous portrayal of that team. That's literally what you're trying to do throughout the thread.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

5v5 save% fell from 7th in the league to 27th in the league.

Everything else, including subjective cap analysis, is below that. Literally went from top ten to bottom 5 in the league.

Yes, hence the logic for my estimate at 28 wins. As I said, Andersen looked off last year and he's a big question mark going into this season. When half your cap is tied up in 4 forwards, there's no room for pretty much anything to go wrong.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

This isn't basketball, OT/SO losses don't count towards the regulation losses column like you're trying to portray it as. You can literally do that to even the best teams in the league and their win-loss wouldn't look as impressive. There are points rewarded for losing OT/SO games that count towards the standings, it's disingenuous to try to chalk up those losses as a whole because it doesn't portray the actual record correctly.

We are 27-15-5 since Keefe tookover. That's .627 hockey. No where near .500. You can't nitpick and only choose the more recent losses to try to fit your false narrative again, it's once again, disingenuous. You look at the entire body of work. Yes we were slumping a little bit before the pause, but that could have easily been turned around with another hot streak because we have gamebreaking players to do so.

Just look at the 2016-2017 leafs, 40-27-15. Decent young team with a bunch of rookies that was good enough to make the playoffs. If you combine the losses together, we were 40-42. Wow that's shit huh?! Under .500 hockey team! So bad! Except it's a disingenuous portrayal of that team. That's literally what you're trying to do throughout the thread.

So my estimate of 28-23-5 isn't actually so bad. It's 5 games above .500 in a 56 game schedule. Why is that being criticized so much? They'll easily make the playoffs in our division under such a record.

At any rate, if you're going to subract out the "Babcock games" because they gave up on him, I'm going to subtract out the "new coach high" games. January 1st seems like a reasonable place to start. 14 wins in 29 games.

If you don't want such nuance, then it has to go both ways. The leafs got 36 wins in 70 games.

 

[MapleLeafs9]

So my estimate of 28-23-5 isn't actually so bad. It's 5 games above .500 in a 56 game schedule. Why is that being criticized so much? They'll easily make the playoffs in our division under such a record.

At any rate, if you're going to subract out the "Babcock games" because they gave up on him, I'm going to subtract out the "new coach high" games. January 1st seems like a reasonable place to start. 14 wins in 29 games.

If you don't want such nuance, then it has to go both ways. The leafs got 36 wins in 70 games.

To the bold, because that would be worse than what we showed last season, and you're not making any real arguments as to why you think we would dip like that other than "4 players making half the cap" which has already been a thing for 2 seasons now, or "Andersen will somehow be worse".

For the rest, coaches are a part of the team too. They are responsible for lineup decisions, pregame preparation, in game preparation, and on the fly adjustments during play. It's not a coincidence that we started playing a lot better once Babcock was fired. His coaching decisions during our last series vs Boston were comical especially during Game 7, along with the start to last season, it was clear that he wasn't the right guy for the job anymore. It's not as simple as "the players gave up on him and were just coasting until he got fired".

So therefore, I choose to look at Keefe's record for this team going forward.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

To the bold, because that would be worse than what we showed last season, and you're not making any real arguments as to why you think we would dip like that other than "4 players making half the cap" which has already been a thing for 2 seasons now, or "Andersen will somehow be worse".

For the rest, coaches are a part of the team too. They are responsible for lineup decisions, pregame preparation, in game preparation, and on the fly adjustments during play. It's not a coincidence that we started playing a lot better once Babcock was fired. His coaching decisions during our last series vs Boston were comical especially during Game 7, along with the start to last season, it was clear that he wasn't the right guy for the job anymore. It's not as simple as "the players gave up on him and were just coasting until he got fired".

So therefore, I choose to look at Keefe's record for this team going forward.

The leafs were one game above (real) .500 last year. So I'm right in line with my prediction. If you're going to subtract out the "gave up on babcock" games, then I'll subtract out the "new coach high" games. Has to go both ways.

You aren't concerned that from January to the end of season (once the new coach high wore off), the leafs had 14 wins in 29 games? The leafs even had Cambpell for more than half of those games... so the Hutch excuse goes out the window...

 

[MapleLeafs9]

The leafs were one game above (real) .500 last year. So I'm right in line with my prediction. If you're going to subtract out the "gave up on babcock" games, then I'll subtract out the "new coach high" games. Has to go both ways.

You aren't concerned that from January to the end of season (once the new coach high wore off), the leafs had 14 wins in 29 games? The leafs even had Cambpell for more than half of those games... so the Hutch excuse goes out the window...

Ok so you're just arguing in bad faith then. Gotcha.

Merry Christmas

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Ok so you're just arguing in bad faith then. Gotcha.

Merry Christmas

How on earth is this bad faith? If you won't count the "gave up on babcock" games, then I won't count the "new coach high" games. How is that unfair?

I provided the statistics that once the new coach high wore off, the leafs had 14 wins in 29 games (Campbell on the team for more than half).

When this is all pointed out to you, you accuse me of arguing in bad faith? What on earth is happening?

 

[Nineteen67]

30 to 33 would be considered a very good seasons. This format could get boring after 20 games.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

Nope. Leafs record since having half the cap on 4 forwards is a mere 2 games over .500

Pointing out that the leaf players are entitled and stopped playing for a coach that wouldn't just let them do what they want isn't exactly a positive.

Let's also remember that it's common for teams to go on crazy winning streaks for a month or so after getting a new coach. Let's look at, say, January 1st and on (a little over a month for the "new coach high" to wear off). Leafs had 14 wins and 15 losses. 16 wins and 18 losses if counting the play in round.

"Bad goalies" "injuries" "bad coaches". These are just lame excuses that hide a greater problem. Half the cap on 4 forwards.

So what qualifies as an "excuse" and what qualifies as "a real problem"? Seems like you just get to arbitrarily decide according to what meets your agenda.

 

[Nineteen67]

That would be a MASSIVE under achievement

Not in this format, unless a couple of teams quit after 20 games, which is likely to happen.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

They were one game above .500 last year. I’m the one being realistic here. The leafs will still solidly be one of the four teams in the playoffs.I’m baffled that someone could see me as being the unrealistic one.

It won’t let me edit out the italics .

In terms of points percentage, you are expecting the Leafs to go from almost .579 to .545, which may be enough to make it in the playoffs this year, but would put us in 11th last year. In terms of absolute wins it may be the same, but you are expecting them to lose more in regulation a lot more than they did last year and to remain completely stagnant otherwise.

What evidence do you have to support your belief that the Leafs would effectively play like a team that is not even on the bubble of making the playoffs?

 

[Gabriel426]

I highly doubt the Leafs will be a 500team this year. Unless huge injuries.

With the current schedule, it will come down to goaltending depth and injuries.
Having two solid NHL backups will help the Leafs get a few more Ws. I just don’t see how any starting goalie can start 40 games this season without getting injured or really bad forms due to fatigue.
Same goes for forwards as 4 in 6 nights will effect their plays.

 

[Gabriel426]

Not in this format, unless a couple of teams quit after 20 games, which is likely to happen.

you really think team will quit after 20 games, that’s a month into the season

 

[Nineteen67]

In terms of points percentage, you are expecting the Leafs to go from almost .579 to .545, which may be enough to make it in the playoffs this year, but would put us in 11th last year. In terms of absolute wins it may be the same, but you are expecting them to lose more in regulation a lot more than they did last year and to remain completely stagnant otherwise.

What evidence do you have to support your belief that the Leafs would effectively play like a team that is not even on the bubble of making the playoffs?

What this team does and how many points they get depends on Auston Matthews. If he can pull these guys up and be the team leader they could win a lot of games, and certainly win most of the games they should win. If not, they’ll continue to be mediocre.

 

[Nineteen67]

you really think team will quit after 20 games, that’s a month into the season

some will if they’re out of the playoffs.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

What this team does and how many points they get depends on Auston Matthews. If he can pull these guys up and be the team leader they could win a lot of games, and certainly win most of the games they should win. If not, they’ll continue to be mediocre.

Sounds like every team that has a player of Matthews' quality. How does EDM do without McDavid? Colorado without MacKinnon? etc.

I doubt they would be in a better position.

The Leafs will also have Tavares, Marner, Nylander, Rielly, Andersen, etc. to carry the load. It is not all going to be on Matthews, but he is going to be the most important more than likely.

Side note, but .545 is usually not even on the bubble for a playoff spot, so I would say that is worse than mediocre. We were mediocre, or more wildly inconsistent and had terrible goaltending, last year. We'd need guys to flat out not show up this season to regress that much.

 

[Nineteen67]

Sounds like every team that has a player of Matthews' quality. How does EDM do without McDavid? Colorado without MacKinnon? etc.

I doubt they would be in a better position.

The Leafs will also have Tavares, Marner, Nylander, Rielly, Andersen, etc. to carry the load. It is not all going to be on Matthews, but he is going to be the most important more than likely.

Side note, but .545 is usually not even on the bubble for a playoff spot, so I would say that is worse than mediocre. We were mediocre, or more wildly inconsistent and had terrible goaltending, last year. We'd need guys to flat out not show up this season to regress that much.

Right. If this team is ever going to become really good, its because of Matthews.

 

[Jmo89]

Are all 56 games against Canadian teams? I haven't been keeping up on the news.

 

[Rondo Hatton]

How on earth is this bad faith? If you won't count the "gave up on babcock" games, then I won't count the "new coach high" games. How is that unfair?

I provided the statistics that once the new coach high wore off, the leafs had 14 wins in 29 games (Campbell on the team for more than half).

When this is all pointed out to you, you accuse me of arguing in bad faith? What on earth is happening?

You speak as if "new coach high" is a statistical measurable fact - it is not. Your metrics are arbitrary which for a guy that wants to portray himself as a voice of reason, is not reasonable. Your prediction of 28 wins is cautious and not entirely unreasonable, but when you show your homework, clearly you're a negative, cynical, disappointed Leaf fan or a committed troll.

A hopeful, positive fan would look forward to a full season i) with Keefe ii) no Cici/Barrie/Hutchinson ii) very likely severely limited appearances by Marincin iv) upgrades on D and some other interesting acquisitions. That's your choice and as I said not entirely unreasonable but your know-it-all posture and how you have reached your conclusions? - please. Your name suits you

 

[Nineteen67]

Are all 56 games against Canadian teams? I haven't been keeping up on the news.

Yes.
The schedule is ridiculous. Under the circumstances I understand they had to do something but I fear this will not attract many eyes to the TV screen.

 

[Jmo89]

Yes.
The schedule is ridiculous. Under the circumstances I understand they had to do something but I fear this will not attract many eyes to the TV screen.

Yeah, I understand why it's happening, but don't think I'll be tuning in for all 56. I'll try though.