• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Standings of Reality

LeafGm said:
Yeah, somewhat predictably, Namesnikov isn't doing quite as well playing with Zuccarello & Vesey as he did with Stamkos & Kucherov. Just 3 points in 9 games.

Miller, on the other hand, has 5 goals & 9 points in 7 games in Tampa.

Will be interesting to see what Tampa does with Miller going forward, though. As much as he's a young guy under team control, he may still just end up being a rental. He's an RFA at the end of the season, and I can't see how Tampa could jam him under their cap any more than they would've been able to with Namestnikov.
Click to expand...

He will almost 100% chance be traded at the draft.
 
Vs Bottom-6 Teams (BUF, ARZ, VAN, OTT, DET, MTL)

TOR: 15gms, 9-6-0, 18pts, +7gdiff (.600pts%, +0.47gdiff/gm)
BOS: 19gms, 15-3-1, 31pts, +25gdiff (.816pts%, +1.32gdiff/gm)

Vs Everyone else

TOR: 56gms, 33-16-7, 73pts, +28gdiff (.652pts%, +0.50gdiff/gm)
BOS: 50gms, 29-14-7, 65pts, +28gdiff (.650pts%, +0.56gdiff/gm)



TOR: 5 games remaining against bottom-6
BOS: 1 games remaining against bottom-6
 
All Strengths:

Corsi For %

BOS 52.8% (4th)
TOR 49.7% (16th)

Yikes, that's a big gap.

but wait....

Scoring Chances For %

BOS 54.1% (2nd)
TOR 52.0% (7th)

Hmm, still better than us, but maybe not so much.

but wait....

High Danger Scoring Chances For %

TOR 53.4% (6th)
BOS 52.0% (9th)

whoa, maybe they're not actually better at all.
 
Habspatrol said:
For a pretty decent return too though.
Click to expand...

Depends on his contract demands I'd think. With the pumped up cap number, how much are you giving up for a JT Miller looking for 6-8 years and 5.5-6 million?

I could see them trade Miller for an upgrade on a shorter term deal that aligns with their Kucherov window though. Miller, +, + for OEL and really take a run at a cup.
 
zeke said:
All Strengths:

Corsi For %

BOS 52.8% (4th)
TOR 49.7% (16th)

Yikes, that's a big gap.

but wait....

Scoring Chances For %

BOS 54.1% (2nd)
TOR 52.0% (7th)

Hmm, still better than us, but maybe not so much.

but wait....

High Danger Scoring Chances For %

TOR 53.4% (6th)
BOS 52.0% (9th)

whoa, maybe they're not actually better at all.
Click to expand...

We allow a lot of possession around the fringes, and don't generate a whole lot of the same type of possession along the boards. We own the middle of the offensive zone and do an okay job keeping opposition teams out of the middle of the defensive zone. It's why we give up so many shots, but they're largely low quality shots. At a glance, using shitty methods of analysis we're a bad defensive team, but every time you dig a level deeper in the analysis we come out looking a bit better, which should surprise no one considering our use of analytics in our team building and strategy. We nitpick over every Babcock decision here, but it's come out quite a bit over the last few years how much the inner circle uses analytics. Babs isn't as reliant on "saskatchewan science" as he jokes about.
 
MindzEye said:
Depends on his contract demands I'd think. With the pumped up cap number, how much are you giving up for a JT Miller looking for 6-8 years and 5.5-6 million?

I could see them trade Miller for an upgrade on a shorter term deal that aligns with their Kucherov window though. Miller, +, + for OEL and really take a run at a cup.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm sure there are a bunch of combinations. I'd think a team with cap space that fancies themselves a couple pieces away from being a contender would give up a mid-late 1st. Or a solid prospect and a 2nd.
I think they'll recoup a decent amount of what they gave up for McDonagh.
 
ATL

1.TBL 117
2.BOS 114
3.TOR 105
-------------
4.FLA 93
5.MTL 74
6.OTT 74
7.DET 73
8.BUF 66

MET

1.WSH 103
2.PIT 99
3.NJD 94
-------------
4.PHI 94*
5.CBJ 94*
6.CAR 83
7.NYR 82
8.NYI 81


CEN

1.NSH 120
2.WPG 109
3.MIN 101
-------------
4.COL 97*
5.DAL 96*
6.STL 93
7.CHI 79

PAC

1.VGK 110
2.SJS 101
3.LAK 97
-------------
4.ANA 96
5.CGY 91
6.EDM 76
7.VAN 68
8.ARZ 67


NHL

1.NSH 120
2.TBL 117
3.BOS 114
4.VGK 110
5.WPG 109
6.TOR 105
7.WSH 103
8.MIN 101
9.SJS 101
10.PIT 99
11.LAK 97
12.COL 97
13.DAL 96
14.ANA 96
15.NJD 94
16.PHI 94
17.CBJ 94
18.FLA 93
19.STL 93
20.CGY 91
21.CAR 83
22.NYR 82
23.NYI 81
24.CHI 79
25.EDM 76
26.MTL 74
27.OTT 74
28.DET 73
29.VAN 68
30.ARZ 67
31.BUF 66
 
MindzEye said:
We allow a lot of possession around the fringes, and don't generate a whole lot of the same type of possession along the boards. We own the middle of the offensive zone and do an okay job keeping opposition teams out of the middle of the defensive zone. It's why we give up so many shots, but they're largely low quality shots. At a glance, using shitty methods of analysis we're a bad defensive team, but every time you dig a level deeper in the analysis we come out looking a bit better, which should surprise no one considering our use of analytics in our team building and strategy. We nitpick over every Babcock decision here, but it's come out quite a bit over the last few years how much the inner circle uses analytics. Babs isn't as reliant on "saskatchewan science" as he jokes about.
Click to expand...

This is mostly eye test stuff, but where the Leafs really struggle defensively is with aggressive, speedy forechecking teams. They can become completely discombobulated under a heavy forecheck. I think this is where people get the feeling that they're not so good defensively.

It would be neat to see how the metrics stack up when you isolate the heavy and light forechecking teams. I suspect you'll see that HDCF% tank with the heavy forechecking.
 
And that, I think, is the Leafs Achilles heel in a playoff series. Any coach worth their salt should be sending forwards in hard on the Leafs and especially on the right side.
 
BeLeafer said:
This is mostly eye test stuff, but where the Leafs really struggle defensively is with aggressive, speedy forechecking teams. They can become completely discombobulated under a heavy forecheck. I think this is where people get the feeling that they're not so good defensively.

It would be neat to see how the metrics stack up when you isolate the heavy and light forechecking teams. I suspect you'll see that HDCF% tank with the heavy forechecking.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

These things get exploited when you play the same team over and over again in a 1-2 week period.
 
leaffan2005 said:
Bingo.

These things get exploited when you play the same team over and over again in a 1-2 week period.
Click to expand...

Assuming no adjustment. This is where Babcock has to earn his contract. If he's coached a team that's been easily exploited in a playoff series, that's pretty bad regardless of personnel (which he's had a big say in, in any event).

My guess is they'd adjust and cover the weakness to some extent. That combined with some good goaltending and the Leafs firepower, should be enough.
 
BeLeafer said:
And that, I think, is the Leafs Achilles heel in a playoff series. Any coach worth their salt should be sending forwards in hard on the Leafs and especially on the right side.
Click to expand...

If our coaches could get the forwards to come back just a bit more, we'd be fine. I understand why this team loves breaking out with a big pass, but we have the skill to tic-tac our way out as well, at least when we're being pressured like you mention.
 
zeke said:
All Strengths:

Corsi For %

BOS 52.8% (4th)
TOR 49.7% (16th)

Yikes, that's a big gap.

but wait....

Scoring Chances For %

BOS 54.1% (2nd)
TOR 52.0% (7th)

Hmm, still better than us, but maybe not so much.

but wait....

High Danger Scoring Chances For %

TOR 53.4% (6th)
BOS 52.0% (9th)

whoa, maybe they're not actually better at all.
Click to expand...

Boston would be the clear favourites in any playoff matchup.
 
Bleedsblue&white said:
If our coaches could get the forwards to come back just a bit more, we'd be fine. I understand why this team loves breaking out with a big pass, but we have the skill to tic-tac our way out as well, at least when we're being pressured like you mention.
Click to expand...

I recall when Babcock first coached the team they were very focused on the five man unit approach and short passes. That seemed to work nicely from a defensive pov, particularly breaking out of the zone. Not sure why this has been largely abandoned. But, yeah, that's a big part of it.

However, there are defensemen (particularly Zaitsev and Carrick) who have low panic thresholds and others prone to brainfarts and what not. I think Dermott helps a lot here but he's still a very green rookie. It's one thing I've always valued in blueliners -- calm under pressure. We don't have enough of it. Holl seems to have this as well. Would really like to see him back up with the Leafs for further testing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top