Why is Holl still in the lineup??

[The Management]

Holl is like mayonnaise on a sandwich. If you notice it, it's probably because you used too much. It's when you're not really paying attention to the mayonaise, that the mayonaise does its job.

Or maybe a better analogy, would be that he's not the bacon and eggs of the blueline, but the perfect accompaniment: Hollandaise Sauce.

... Sorry.

 

[Zybalto]

Holl didnt lose the game against edmonton but as a player, he drives me nuts. If he had the discipline to stick with what he was good at and not get distracted by a squirrel, he would be solid. Pushing up offensively is not what he should be doing. Plays well when challenged for a job....not reliable when he is not. Not the player I trust in the pos

You have a point when it comes to his "adventures", although they rarely cost us.

 

[Notsince67]

You have a point when it comes to his "adventures", although they rarely cost us.

I'll make a deal. Holl can stay if Keefe goes. Keefe's choices in deploying him in certain situations and not reining him in adequately is equally as bad.

 

[zoA]

Holl works well when he's playing systematically and not thinking too much. I'd be happy with Holl as a 6th or 7th because I do think he's solid when he's sticking to his strengths. The issue I have with Holl is that when he spaces out, he REALLY spaces out, and that tends to happen more when the pressure is turned up and things get chaotic. Holl thrives under the KISS methodology, but he just doesn't seem fully bought into that yet -- if he just plays a quiet game, he's a great bottom pairing PK specialist that helps the team more than hurts them.

 

[Zybalto]

I'll make a deal. Holl can stay if Keefe goes. Keefe's choices in deploying him in certain situations and not reining him in adequately is equally as bad.

Would be a bold move sacking the coach the best winning% in modern history despite having no where near the solid goaltending other coaches have had over that stretch (which also does a lot to explain the playoff losses)

I think, outside of the key players of course, that Holl is gone quite quick over Keefe. Whatever the reason, the underlying numbers of the team (especially defensively) went through the roof the minute he took over. If we had a Vasy, we'd probably have a cup. Tampa cup runs were basically Tampa scoring only 1 or 2 goals in big games and Vasy getting shutouts/lettting in a single goal. What brilliant coaching!

 

[LeafGrief]

The problem with statistical averages is that they often don't show the frequency distribution of all events good and bad. Sure he provides some solid performance but if you rank order all events good to bad, his distribution would show a long tail and that tail would represent catastrophic mistakes. Last couple of games he played ok but Justin Holl in the worse possible time will eventually turn into Justin Loll and it will not be a small thing. That is on Keefe for overdeploying him during critical times

This post is backwards. What Holl does well, which is separating players from the puck on the rush and in the corners, he does a dozen times every game. Some speedy bastard like Suzuki will come flying through the neutral zone and attack our blueline, and Holl just calmly angles him into the boards, pins him, and shoves the puck into the corner where one of our forwards or his D partner retrieve it. His distribution is heavily weighted towards these average plays which he makes with no fanfare and no fuss, it's just his job and he does it well. It doesn't end up in the highlight reels because it's just fundamentals.

The reason that people write long posts about his catastrophic mistakes is that when he does screw up, such as a bad outlet pass or puck watching in front of the net, it's more likely to end up in our net. As you correctly identify, it's a catastrophe, rather than a mundane mistake. Your very next sentence implies that his distribution is towards average games where he does his job and then will have a single catastrophic game of "Justin Loll" (which is an excellent nickname and I will steal it).

Keefe throws Holl over the boards because he knows that 98/100 times Holl is going to do his job defensively, and that we have the offensive talent and defensive group to make up for those mistakes. Keefe literally plays him to his strengths and accepts the weaknesses, and that's why we're a top defensive team even with Holl playing 20 minutes a night.

 

[AvroArrow]

Plays the right side, PK's well. I think people are asking too much of him, he's a perfectly fine bottom pairing guy. People here want a guy like Brodie on the 3rd pair it's just not realistic. He's exactly the kind of guy you want on your bottom pair, he does dumb shit from time to time but thats gonna be every 5-6D.

Tampa had Bogo on their cup run, guy is a complete bonehead, but PKs well. He made some dumbass plays when we had him briefly but that's the kind of guy you want on your 3rd pair.

Problem occurs when Keefe puts him on the top pair with Rielly.

 

[Mr_Fun]

Holl is the Nickleback of NHL defenseman.

 

[hamzarocks]

Holl is like mayonnaise on a sandwich. If you notice it, it's probably because you used too much. It's when you're not really paying attention to the mayonaise, that the mayonaise does its job.



Or maybe a better analogy, would be that he's not the bacon and eggs of the blueline, but the perfect accompaniment: Hollandaise Sauce.



... Sorry.

Now im hungry

Now im hungry

 

[Notsince67]

This post is backwards. What Holl does well, which is separating players from the puck on the rush and in the corners, he does a dozen times every game. Some speedy bastard like Suzuki will come flying through the neutral zone and attack our blueline, and Holl just calmly angles him into the boards, pins him, and shoves the puck into the corner where one of our forwards or his D partner retrieve it. His distribution is heavily weighted towards these average plays which he makes with no fanfare and no fuss, it's just his job and he does it well. It doesn't end up in the highlight reels because it's just fundamentals.

The reason that people write long posts about his catastrophic mistakes is that when he does screw up, such as a bad outlet pass or puck watching in front of the net, it's more likely to end up in our net. As you correctly identify, it's a catastrophe, rather than a mundane mistake. Your very next sentence implies that his distribution is towards average games where he does his job and then will have a single catastrophic game of "Justin Loll" (which is an excellent nickname and I will steal it).

Keefe throws Holl over the boards because he knows that 98/100 times Holl is going to do his job defensively, and that we have the offensive talent and defensive group to make up for those mistakes. Keefe literally plays him to his strengths and accepts the weaknesses, and that's why we're a top defensive team even with Holl playing 20 minutes a night.

Backwards? It is a precise description of probabistic distributions and a characteristic described as skewness.
In Holls case it isn't even a normal distribution but more described as a gamma curve. Anyone who manages such things (credit risk managers as an example) never average the probability but mange the tails for strategy.
I've conceded he does some things well but throwing him out in all situations is a recipe for failure.
You don't put him on the top pair and you don't throw him out in the latter part of a game that you are behind in.

 

[Lightsol]

I'll make a deal. Holl can stay if Keefe goes. Keefe's choices in deploying him in certain situations and not reining him in adequately is equally as bad.

Yeah, that's the part that REALLY bugs me. It's not so much Holl (he's okay for less than 10 minutes a game) as it is how Keefe keeps upping his ice time and giving him the greenlight to f***ing pinch when he sucks at it and is contantly caught out of position. I also wish they could figure out why at least once a game, Holl will cough the puck up in his own zone and then just... stand there, watching players around him go to the net. Last year in the playoffs, Tampa was clearing it at him on purpose hoping he'd do this, and he did it more than I would have liked.

Plays the right side, PK's well. I think people are asking too much of him, he's a perfectly fine bottom pairing guy. People here want a guy like Brodie on the 3rd pair it's just not realistic. He's exactly the kind of guy you want on your bottom pair, he does dumb shit from time to time but thats gonna be every 5-6D.

Tampa had Bogo on their cup run, guy is a complete bonehead, but PKs well. He made some dumbass plays when we had him briefly but that's the kind of guy you want on your 3rd pair.

Problem occurs when Keefe puts him on the top pair with Rielly.

He is a fine bottom pairing guy. The real issue is Keefe's refusal to USE him as a bottom pairing guy, and instead try to act like he's a 20 minute a game top 4.

 

[MJ65]

I would rather have him in the lineup than Schenn

 

[Antropovsky]

Leafs make big moves acquiring tough players and shipping out soft guys and Holl starts hitting and fighting pretty much the last days leading up to the deadline? Jeez Holl you couldn't start a week or two earlier and make it less obvious? Once the deadline passes, he will be old Holl again. Ship him!

 

[Sniper99]

It’s f***ing disgusting. It’s making me hate keefe and this team. I cannot watch anymore of this bs

you quitting on this team like a broken record every 2nd game you quit on them. See ya Saturday

 

[Stephen]

Holl works well when he's playing systematically and not thinking too much. I'd be happy with Holl as a 6th or 7th because I do think he's solid when he's sticking to his strengths. The issue I have with Holl is that when he spaces out, he REALLY spaces out, and that tends to happen more when the pressure is turned up and things get chaotic. Holl thrives under the KISS methodology, but he just doesn't seem fully bought into that yet -- if he just plays a quiet game, he's a great bottom pairing PK specialist that helps the team more than hurts them.

Yep. Holl gets in trouble when he has the green light offensively and starts thinking he’s Pietrangelo and free to play 200 feet of the ice, pinching at the point, roving behind the opposition net, getting caught out of position or doing too much. Aka Keefe uses him like he’s a true top 4 defenseman.

 

[Phion Keneuf]

He’s a good #6/7. Let’s keep him there.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Holl on the season:

5v5 (He's played the most 5v5 minutes of any D on the Leafs this year):

Ozone start%: 38.74% (lowest on the team among regular D)
Shot differential: 52.58
xGF%: 52.79
Goal differential: 53.87
+/-: +14

Just D numbers:

Shots against/60: 26.11
Scoring Chances Against/60: 27.81
xGA/60: 2.43
Goals Against/60: 2.33

Considering he's also a good PKer and only makes 2 million, the insane takes about him don't even get close to matching his extremely solid numbers and value this season. Are these not good shutdown D numbers on a good team?

He does have his lapses and is going to get less responsibility going forward with the added depth so lets see how things shake out with the new pairings. Straight up replacing him with McCabe and getting futures with him seeing as he's into his 30s is always an option but the team might even keep him on as a 7th minimum if we lose a Gio/Brodie/McCabe/Lilly as we know he is a guy that can step in and be effective. I also wouldnt be shocked if he starts as the 4 in the playoffs though. He's been good this season.

Your gonna have to ask the folks who obsessively look for anything wrong and find it every few games while completely ignoring any good plays made.

When a guy plays the least sheltered ozone minutes on your team and yet has great shot suppression numbers and is a +14, how did he get there? ....in a year when we went through a quarter of a season with half the D core on the DL and him being one of the rocks back there during a massive win streak.

I'm not even saying we should put him in a huge role in the playoffs, or even keep him if the price is right (although that applies to almost any player really), just that he's been an effective player for us this season.

I do have to admit that part of me wants him gone just so I don't have to listen to all the nonsense about him around here. Just look at this thread. I figure he looks like Jack Johnson out there or something the last few games but there he is with a 70%+ goal differential the last 3 games with lots of hits, a game-saving blocked shot and a scrap.

Great posts! This Holl bashing is so tiresome. He's a pretty good player and the quality of his play for us has been better than anyone has a right to expect based on his cap hit. The end.

 

[keonsbitterness]

you quitting on this team like a broken record every 2nd game you quit on them. See ya Saturday

MLSE is honoring him for reaching 1,000 quits.

 

[LeafGrief]

Backwards? It is a precise description of probabistic distributions and a characteristic described as skewness.
In Holls case it isn't even a normal distribution but more described as a gamma curve. Anyone who manages such things (credit risk managers as an example) never average the probability but mange the tails for strategy.
I've conceded he does some things well but throwing him out in all situations is a recipe for failure.
You don't put him on the top pair and you don't throw him out in the latter part of a game that you are behind in.

You have some interesting ideas about distribution and reading graphs.

There's two axis here. Quality of play and frequency. In your own words, he has mostly good games and then a catastrophic Justin Loll game. That's a distribution/skew towards the good. If the scenario implies different magnitudes of consequences between results, then yeah you'll need to manage the tail, but in hockey the worst thing that happens on any play is you fish the puck out of your net. A financial manager will incorporate the tail because the consequences are an additional consideration. Losing 100% of your money in 1% of scenarios is a big deal, it means you're done. Hockey is a series of unrelated events that have no bearing on the next ones, the best thing that happens is you score and the worst is you get scored on. You don't lose your entire fortune if you toss a pizza up the middle, so using the averages is good enough for fanboard discussions.

Whether his good/bad distribution is better represented by a typical gamma distribution (I had to look this one up) or a more typical binomial distribution is academic. Gamma curve seems fine to me, but you're still making the fundamental mistake of overemphasizing the tail. He's pulled the puck out of our net 43 times this year at ES, that's the tail and you can't invest in oil futures to offset the risk.

Holl doesn't play on our top pair and doesn't play big minutes when we're trailing. He will play 3rd period minutes because there are only six defensemen dressed on any night and you need to give your top dogs time to rest every now and then.

 

[All Mod Cons]

Graphs and shit.

 

[m1ker]

The sad reality is Brodie is so much better LD which gives us Holl, Schenn, Lil, and Timmins as options. Holl is probably the most well rounded RD we have.

 

[All Mod Cons]

Yep. Holl gets in trouble when he has the green light offensively and starts thinking he’s Pietrangelo and free to play 200 feet of the ice, pinching at the point, roving behind the opposition net, getting caught out of position or doing too much. Aka Keefe uses him like he’s a true top 4 defenseman.

One of the goals last night that we scored (think Marner), Holls position on the ice was hilarious. Didn't matter because we scored but he was playing left wing in deep.

I thought to myself, how the hell did you get there Justin.

 

[Stephen]

One of the goals last night that we scored (think Marner), Holls position on the ice was hilarious. Didn't matter because we scored but he was playing left wing in deep.

I thought to myself, how the hell did you get there Justin.

Short answer I think is Keefe coaching. There was a game last year when Lyubushkin walked off the RD point and ended up in the far LW corner. How does that happen on a team unless any and all D are encouraged to gamble?

 

[Maple Leaf]

Short answer I think is Keefe coaching. There was a game last year when Lyubushkin walked off the RD point and ended up in the far LW corner. How does that happen on a team unless any and all D are encouraged to gamble?

This D gambling is the dumbest tactic let's see how it works out

 

[Notsince67]

You have some interesting ideas about distribution and reading graphs.

There's two axis here. Quality of play and frequency. In your own words, he has mostly good games and then a catastrophic Justin Loll game. That's a distribution/skew towards the good. If the scenario implies different magnitudes of consequences between results, then yeah you'll need to manage the tail, but in hockey the worst thing that happens on any play is you fish the puck out of your net. A financial manager will incorporate the tail because the consequences are an additional consideration. Losing 100% of your money in 1% of scenarios is a big deal, it means you're done. Hockey is a series of unrelated events that have no bearing on the next ones, the best thing that happens is you score and the worst is you get scored on. You don't lose your entire fortune if you toss a pizza up the middle, so using the averages is good enough for fanboard discussions.

Whether his good/bad distribution is better represented by a typical gamma distribution (I had to look this one up) or a more typical binomial distribution is academic. Gamma curve seems fine to me, but you're still making the fundamental mistake of overemphasizing the tail. He's pulled the puck out of our net 43 times this year at ES, that's the tail and you can't invest in oil futures to offset the risk.

Holl doesn't play on our top pair and doesn't play big minutes when we're trailing. He will play 3rd period minutes because there are only six defensemen dressed on any night and you need to give your top dogs time to rest every now and then.

I don't understand what you are saying. Little difference between probability of loss vs probability of a bad play. Both a binary (good/bad) outcome. A bad outcome is a bad outcome. It means the game can be lost. You avoid the bad outcome by limiting situations which are not totally random.
Try this...x axis rank order good to bad y =frequency. You kind of want to limit the tail
I'm not saying something that isn't obvious. In hockey you might call the tail mitigation strategies sheltering.
I'm actually adding another layer to line shelting and limiting a role to purely defensive