Where Will The Leafs Finish This Year And Why?

[Nick]

On the topic of kicking anyone out, how can you justify booting someone if they don't have at least 2 strikes etc. Shouldn't they be getting strikes if they've been inactive or not setting up things correctly? If they haven't whose fault is that? What's the point of the warning system if you escalate to booting instantly?

Unless both of these guys are both on 2 strikes or whatever the system it is, can't see how your kicking both of them out. The league has a ton of systems to deal with these situations, theres just a tendency to bypass them all when we want to get something done.

We don't just kick people out despite some members preference to talk that way. Aidan doesn't have that many strikes against his name and is not currently garnering any...

[kimmer]

well what do we do though say if one of them dont come back in time for season and dont set their lineups?

[Nick]

well what do we do though say if one of them dont come back in time for season and dont set their lineups?

Failing to check in, failing to submit missing CBS assets, failure to submit a legal roster in the roster submission thread, and failure to dress a legal lineup would add up to multiple strikes and likely a vote for removal unless there were extenuating circumstances.

Aidan did check in... let's get some accuracy in what we're talking about here. He is following our minimum activity standards, however we do note that extended periods of time at our minimum levels often result in a contentious view from some GMs, and we encourage and even require more than minimum activity over a long period of time.


Phion has racked up his warnings for removal and just recently the CC passed as vote for removal. This wasn't a decision taken lightly, Phion was notified directly and the follow-up with a replacement GM is/has taken place.

[inferno31]

Well written and interesting perspective.


Corsi is interesting no doubt, and extremely useful in a within-team comparison (whereas even within team +/- is closer to useless). However across teams do you not feel like it's comparing apples to oranges? Tactically, are the leafs supposed to try and shoot when the Hawks or Canucks do? Because this stat comparison assumes they do. Does a team's positioning not encourage the spots another team shoots from?

I agree PDO + Corsi is a good amount of information, and it does add insight into what's going on. However was Reimer THAT good last year? Did the leafs score on a disproportional # of shots that won't be repeated? Both PDO and Corsi are shot based - not exactly a novel concept that they suggest the same thing.

In terms of a more direct measure of stats, the info suggest the leafs were fine. 5v5 GF/GA is 1.05 or 12th in the league, PP% was 14th, PK was #2, we were 10th in earning a point%. We were actually 7th in winning when we were out-shot, which is actually really interesting, Detroit and us both lose games when we out-shoot our opponents. they win 43% of the games where they out-shoot their opponent, but win 66.7% when they are out-shot. Our numbers are similar 41.7% when we shoot more and 58.3% when we are out-shot. To me that screams teams that play a certain way when they have the lead - and the advanced stats do no take into consideration a change is tactics - this is actually true for a lot of team.

So I'll suggest that Corsi is heavily influenced by in game tactics, and due to cases where a coach changes how he wants his players to play, when they have a lead, it will be common for the lower-Corsi rated players, to be winning more games. Kinda against the purpose of the measure, no?

You're right in that Corsi doesn't account for in game tactical changes, which are especially significant when one team is up or down by 1 or more goals. That's why people have begun using fenwick close (spoiler the leafs are 2nd last). I do think Reimer was THAT good last year, I really believe he turned in a top 5 goaltending performance league wide.

The numbers you picked on Detroit and Toronto are actually pretty interesting. I totally agree that teams will obviously play different with a lead and generate less shots. Unfortunately I don't think the sample last year is large enough to draw a conclusion, and I'd love to see if over 82 games if teams that are outshot win more or lose more. Accounting for that though it still paints a pretty poor picture of how we do via Fenwick close in games that are within one goal, when there isn't a justification for a huge tactical change.

I also understand why you'd think that when a team has a lead lower corsi rated players should overall win more games. But most of games aren't spent with a 2+ goal lead by either team. In those situations both teams should be trying to generate chances fairly evenly. One of the bigger arguments is that corsi etc. doesn't account for shot quality, but with enough data it should be fairly normally distributed. The argument is last year Carlyle's system forced more shots to the outside, the data isn't very supportive of this but it's still not conclusive either.

Advanced statistics don't account for many things, but I do believe they do provide a little bit more insight into how a team is doing than we'd normally get. If you go over fenwick close in the article or even Corsi in the last few years it gives a pretty decent correlation to teams that make the playoffs and ones that are ultimately successful.

[inferno31]

On the topic of kicking anyone out, how can you justify booting someone if they don't have at least 2 strikes etc. Shouldn't they be getting strikes if they've been inactive or not setting up things correctly? If they haven't whose fault is that? What's the point of the warning system if you escalate to booting instantly?

Unless both of these guys are both on 2 strikes or whatever the system it is, can't see how your kicking both of them out. The league has a ton of systems to deal with these situations, theres just a tendency to bypass them all when we want to get something done.

We don't just kick people out despite some members preference to talk that way. Aidan doesn't have that many strikes against his name and is not currently garnering any...

Good to see, I'm only basing what I'm writing based off the comments in this thread.

[Nick]

Anyone have the numbers for Leafs win% when Orr fights versus when he doesn't versus when he doesn't dress ?

[inferno31]

Anyone have the numbers for Leafs win% when Orr fights versus when he doesn't versus when he doesn't dress ?

http://theleafsnation.com/2013/6/14/pro ... ers-payday

Not exactly what you wanted, but on that topic.

[Robin Hood]

Bah, Neel. Now I have to address all of that even though we’ve talked about it ad nauseum.

1. Last year we got incredibly lucky
As Bruyns posted the Leafs enjoyed the second highest PDO last year, which is generally regarded as a measure of luck. I understand the arguments against using PDO as well, it's practically a measure of your team's shooting percentage and save percentage compared to average. The idea is that you'll eventually regress to the mean. Obviously it isn't always the case as good teams will normally have better PDOs, but unless you think the leafs are the 2nd best team it's hard to deny we did have some luck on our side.
But my main issue with last year isn't PDO, it's actually what our Corsi % was. Which by the way is a ridiculous name. What this really is a shot +/-, the same way we have +/- for goals this is for shot attempts (missed shots + blocked shots + actual shots). Now the huge issue with actual +/- is that we all agree it's a useless stat because it's affected by so much and you can get a + if you just jump on the ice at the right time etc. The way Corsi functions is to simply introduce a ton of more data into this equation, so you don't just judge goals which are relatively rare, but shots which are 10-15x more frequent. It adds a lot more data into the analysis, and Corsi ends up being a fair predictor of a team's overall possession. Where did the Leaf's finish last year? 30th. Dead Last. We were out shot consistently, throughout the season. Of the top 16 teams in Corsi % last year, 13 made the playoffs the major exception was New Jersey. In the last two seasons of the 20 teams that finished bottom 10 in Corsi %, 4 made the playoffs. Almost all of them on the back of outstanding goaltending (Rinne & Lundqvist last year). I think Reimer gave us that last year to be honest, and his outstanding play at the end of the season stopped a slide that could of been devastating.
It's not a be end all of statistics or even analysis, but this along with PDO is certainty suggestive.

I’ll post Nick’s post which pretty much sums up my thoughts on the issue:

Taking too much meaning from any 1 advanced stat is always a risk - especially with zero attempt to control any confounds.

I don't hear people saying Pitts or Wash should regress to the norm from their PDO scores... Why should our sv% fall ? Did our goalies or defensive system get worse? What is the reason for our shooting% to decrease ? There's so many variables in shooting% that even using it seems silly to me, kinda like +/-. Regression to the norm is a fair argument if all other aspects are equal... but as all of us know, they are not.

I hate the Corsi/PDO argument because it fails to account for specific scenarios/other factors contributing to the stat/quality of shots (I understand that Corsi argues this is supposed to even out over a large sample, but not necessarily the case).

2. Lack of Depth
What player started as a greater % in the offensive zone out of all leaf players last year? Must be Kessel.. No he's #3. JVR? No he's #5. Kadri? #8. The top two spots go to Mclaren and Orr. We have a fourth line which can NOT actually play hockey, but are also actively shielded by our coach from defensive responsibilities. This is frustrating one because plays that start in the offensive zone are more likely to be converted into goals, and to protect our goons we squander the ability to score several times a game. It's even more frustrating because it means our top 9 are leaned on for more difficult minutes, and when the game is close we have to play 3 lines. Over 48 games this is a problem, over 82 games it's a disaster. Even without injuries this will catch up to us in the long run, with injuries it'll be a tragedy. You cannot play 3 line hockey all season, it not only makes life more difficult for our forwards it limits our scoring chances too.
Due to trades and other personnel decisions our bottom 6 are now Jay McClement, Bolland, Kulemin, McLaren, Orr and maybe one of Colborne/D'Amigo. Due to the lack of cap space we probably can't call up rookies to take up roster spots either. So we will likely be playing one of McLaren or Orr every single night, and many nights we'll be playing both of them.

This to me is one of those things that I hate when Fans do. They assume that all the moves available to a GM have been exhausted.

There are about 8 months between now and the trade deadline. Not to mention the Free Agent avenue has not been exhausted. Perfect example – Mason Raymond. If we sign him for 600K-900K, a lot of points Neel makes above change drastically. And that’s ONE move.

Furthermore, the offensive zone % starts that Neel makes are flawed. As a percentage of their starts, obviously they start more in the offensive zone. But that doesn’t mean they are stealing offensive zone starts from Kessel’s line or Kadri’s line. Carlyle isn’t trying to ensure Orr and Maclaren see enough ice time lol. Instead he throws out the 4th line only when the 3 lines are tired/things are getting rough. It’s not like we get an offensive zone faceoff and Carlyle thinks “This is the perfect time to throw out Orr and McLaren” lol.

Now, one thing I agree with is that McLaren and Orr played together is a bad move and we should try to avoid. It is very possible we do avoid it, however. If Raymond comes in, you open up options for several of the Marlies to jump into the line-up to take one of McLaren’s and Orr’s spots.

3. Poor Personnel Decisions[/b]
Dave Nonis now has us entering the season with the bottom 6 I just mentioned. That's pretty horrific if you ask me. I personally hated the grabo buyout. I constantly heard people shit on him for his lack of production last season. He put up a paltry 16 points in 48 games. In the two seasons prior he'd put up on average 58 points in an 82 game season. One bad stretch of 48 games and he got bought out. But why did he do so badly this year? Let's take a closer look.

Grabovoski started a stunning 36.7% of starts in the offensive zone. Some comparables among centers in the league - Brodziak, Chris Kelly, Marty Reasoner, Eric Belanger, Brandon Suter (who put up only 19 points btw). Not a ton of offensive names really jump out at you do they? Turns out it's ridiculously tough to score when you start 150+ feet from the net.
But don't worry, Bolland will take his role and Bolland is a much better two way, or at least defensive center. You mean the Dave Bolland who started 49.6% of his starts in the offensive zone and managed 14 points in 35 games? Bolland played 37% of his time last year with Kane & Sharp as linemates, He played another 25% of the time with Kane in some measure. The year before Bolland played much more defense with around a 33% offensive zone state. So Bolland last year did not play much of defensive role, and struggled to produce in an offensive role (With Kane & Sharp). To me this means if he returns to form we'll be okay, but even still he likely can't slot well into a number 2 slot. If he doesn't return to form we may be in trouble, as that third line will face some of the toughest defensive minutes in the league.

Bozak Signing. Where to start? Shiv says Bozak is a perfect placeholder because we couldn't go out and get a number 1 center. I understand that line of thinking, I disagree the fact that he's a placeholder really at all. Bozak struggles to keep up with the number 1 line, and in my opinion actually is holding them back. There's a ton of articles showing Kessel's production with all other Centers - Grabovoski, Kadri, even Connolly and consistently Bozak ranks as the worse possible option offensively. I think faceoffs are grossly overrated which you can read more about here http://theleafsnation.com/2013/5/8/talkin-faceoffs and the HNIC crew put way too much emphasis on them last year. I think even if you think faceoffs are a useful skill, Bozak's ability at them are overstated. He ranks about 8th in Faceoff % of the top 20 faceoff takers in the league. I think he's a totally wasted signing and I don't necessarily think other options weren't there be them Weiss, Stastny or even keeping Grabovoski and letting Bolland play third line.

Clarkson signing not many people disagree that they don't quite like one of the term or the contract. I don't think David Clarkson is a bad hockey player. I think he'll be a good addition, but I think our fans will vilify him within 3 years for that contract. Offensively over the last 3 seasons he's put up slightly less points per game as MacArthur (Who I also thought it'd be wise to bring back) at 88 points for about a 0.42 pt per game pace vs Mac 125 points for 0.65 pt per game. So we lost some offense which Macarthur also accomplished with arguably less talented line mates in less ice time. But Clarkson adds quite a bit of presence and hitting. The issue is the type of game he plays, those sort of players normally dramatically fall off at 32 or so. The long term implications of this contract may haunt us, even if the cap does go up.

Of the contracts the Leafs had available for buyout, Komisarek, Liles and Grabovski were the prime candidates to buy out.

Before we landed Bolland, Komisarek and Liles seemed like the obvious candidate. But with the Bolland acquisition, there is NO CHANCE you could spend 5.5 on Grabovski.

Let’s start with Grabovski.

Let’s say we kept him and Let Bozak walk. You then have a situation where Grabovski is your Line 1 C with Kessel, Kadri is your Line 2 C. Grabovski cannot handle the responsibilities of a Line 1 C. The years in which he put up the offensive numbers that he did, he was the Line 2 C behind Kessel-Bozak’s line. The reason for this is that Grabovski does not have the tools to control the play when matched up with the primary shutdown pairs of the opposition/top lines. Perfect examples: Last year, he was forced to stop parading in the offensive zone for the team in order to be effective as a 3rd line C. And his offense plummeted. The argument that he had such few offensive zone starts doesn’t prove that he wasn’t given opportunity. It proves that Grabovski cannot be both offensive and defensive. He must focus on one to execute it effective.

Another reason is that he is not good at FO – always hovering around 50% as a 2nd line C or a 3rd line C over the last 3 years. And if you look at his FO on the Road (eg situations in which the opposing coach gets the chance to match-up whoever he wants against Grabovski, Grabo’s FO% drops below 50% over the last 3 years – low of 46.9% two years ago on line 2, last year on line 3 it was 49.7%). This tells us that Grabo does not match up well against the better FO guys in the league and favourable line combinations at home bring up his average. The line 3 % of 49.7% is particularly important because it can be inferred that he was matching up against Line 1s he was getting crushed, winning more against Line 3s when he got the match-up.

Onto Bolland.

Bolland is terrible offensively. Saying he had Kane as a linemate and he sucked is a fair statement. But that is not what he is being brought in here for. He is being brought in here to do what Grabovski was not good at last year – anchor the third line. We don’t need Bolland to put up 50 points. We need him to put up 30 while shutting down 1st and 2nd lines at home and on the road, which he has proven over and over to be extremely effective at. Furthermore, his ability as a playoff performer shouldn’t be overlooked. I would much rather have a line centred by Bolland face off against Krejci’s line than a line centred by Grabovski.

Clarkson.

This is another scenario where I think fans assume all options have been exhausted.

I agree entirely that Clarkson’s term is too long. But the option to move him in 3-4 years is still there. These things are fluid. We don’t know what Clarkson will be in 3-4 years. Nor do we know what we will get for him. And to make a judgment on the term now is silly IMO. If he still has game in 3-4 years, I actually expect the Leafs to move him without question.
In the meantime though, Clarkson brings something the Leafs DESPARATELY need, which everyone knows. Size and grit on the wings. He also has hands of gold in front of the net and will be an asset on the PP.

Bozak + Team Building.

Need to preface my argument for this. This is a little abstract but:

I am of the belief that Stanley Cup winning teams have roughly 16-18 “Cup-Winning” pieces on their teams. 15 is rare. Bruins probably had 18. LA, I’d say had 16. Chicago, 16-17 etc. etc.

If we look at the Leafs line-up, we are slowly putting together pieces of a cup-winning team. And we’ve made MAJOR progress on this front.

Pieces that I’d say are sure fits on Cup winning teams include:
Kessel
Jvr
Lupul
Clarkson
Bolland
McClement
Kulemin
Phaneuf
Gunnarsson

That’s 9.

The following pieces can be debated on some level but still fit if they develop/continue at a similar pace:
Kadri
Franson
Gardiner
Reimer/Bernier (counting the tandem as 1)

That’s 12/13 – I leave some leeway for Franson/Gardiner instead saying 13 as a sure thing.

Which brings us to Bozak.

Bozak is not a line 1 C. He could be a line 2 C on some teams. He’d definitely be a line 3 C on almost all teams.

Bozak is a unique piece in that he brings a mix of skillsets that is really not out there on the marketplace. It is true that Connolly/Grabovski/Kadri may have generated more offense with Kessel. But Bozak brings much more to that line that the others.

I’ll say btw that if we got Weiss, Bozak signing would be stupid. But we didn’t so here we are. But the Leafs will not, in the foreseeable future, land a true #1 C barring a miracle trade/Kadri developing into one.

And the great thing about Bozak is not just his FO ability.

First, he shelters Kadri. You don’t want to throw Kadri out to the dogs yet. You want Kessel’s line going up Chara, not Kadri. It will lead to him developing poor habits and trying to create “shortcuts” to find a way through. Instead you want Kadri to thrive in the Line 2 C role.

Second, Bozak between Kessel and Lupul allows the wingers to take liberties on offense. He is defensively responsible. He makes up for mistakes Kessel makes on the defensive side of the puck.

Third - addressing FO ability: Bozak’s ability on the dot should not be undersold. Neel just pointed out that Bozak is 8th in FO% in the league among the Top 20 FOW guys. LOL as if that is a bad thing??? Let’s list the 7 guys above him shall we? Crosby, Toews, Bergeron, Giroux, Mikko Koivu, Datsyuk, Duchene. That btw means that Bozak is ahead of guys like Eric Staal, Plekanec, Jordan Staal, Stepan, Tavares, Backes, Kopitar, Backstrom etc. etc.

That is insanity.

The #1 C spot needs to be held by a person who can hang with that group just listed. Not get crushed. In the Bruins series Bozak had the unfortunate luck of sometimes facing Bergeron (the best FO% in the league at 62%). But think about if we faced another team? NYI, CAR, MTL, WSH – we’d have the best FO taker in the series. That is not a joke. I expect to lose the FO battle against teams that have Crosby, Toews, Bergeron, Giroux and Datsyuk. I also expect to lose the FO battle vs teams with Eric Staal and Tavares. But Bozak neutralizes that.

Which brings me to my next point – Core Competencies.

The Leafs live in a world where opposing teams almost always have a better Line 1 C. So Nonis and Co have decided to play moneyball and pursue a different advantage: have better wingers than almost any team we face. If the Leafs end up with a Winger core of: Lupul, JVR, Kessel, Clarkson, Kulemin, Raymond on the top 9, we will have one of the top 5 winger cores in the league.

Bozak allows us to compete with teams that have Top Cs – our top Wingers give us an edge in the match-up.

Onto my last point. What is Success for the Leafs?

Many Leaf fans who hate on the off season moves look at this season to be the end-all-and-be-all. But it isn’t. The cap is expected to go up to 78M in 3 years. With our core of 12 pieces that could be on Stanley Cup contending teams, we will have plenty of opportunity to improve.

Yes we paid Clarkson 5.25, when he was likely worth 4.5 but that is how she goes in the FA market.

For the Leafs, I’d have the following expectations in terms of what I’d define as successful seasons for the next 3 years:

2013-14
1. Make the Playoffs
2. Try to Win a Round

2014-15
1. Make the Playoffs
2. Win Round 1
3. Try to Win Round 2

2015-16
1. Make the Playoffs
2. Win Round 1
3. Win Round 2
4. Try to make a run

And given the state of our team at the moment, I think we are well on our way to that roadmap. We may not be in a position to make a run till 2016-2017 but we're surely getting there slowly.

[Peter]

16th in east

[Robin Hood]

who should we cut?

BUF and COL seem like obvious options.

yea I thought it went without saying.

I actually like Phion and wish he'd make his way back but it looks as though he has lost interest.

Hey Bruyns, feel free to thank Shook and I by letting us win a trade big or something in the future.

[MSP4LYFE]

I hate when people use advanced statistics as the be all and end all of an argument, it is one part of the equation, not the whole thing. Vice versa with traditionalists who ignore advanced statistics altogether.

[MSP4LYFE]

As an aside, why are we placing so much emphasis on CORSI and PDO over a 48 game sample size? Isn't the rule of thumb to evaluate both stats over the duration of 2-3 seasons so as to eliminate as much noise as possible?