General Leafs Talk: Post-Olympics Edition

[bustaheims]

How has Colorado changed so drastically?  No one would have thought they would have the season they are currently enjoying.  They changed the system, the players got older and more experienced together, and the goalies got better.  They didn't drastically overhaul the team.

Neither did Anaheim when Carlyle left. Or Tampa Bay when they changed coaches (though, they did significantly upgrade their goaltending). Or the Hawks when they fired Savard and hired Quenneville. Now, I'm not saying the Leafs are on the same level as those teams (though, if I'm being honest, outside of Tampa having the best goalscorer on the planet, I think the Leafs have the better roster), just that, sometimes, the best change you can make is behind the bench, and, after that, it's the smaller changes that put you over the top. I'm not convinced the Leafs are like that. I'm not convinced they're not, either. I want to see where they're at with a coach that has them playing a system that's a better fit for their personnel before making major changes to the roster. Unless there are clear "can't turn this down" type options on the table this summer, I wouldn't make any really big roster moves.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Wilson's system was supposed to emphasize defense?

I misread that as "euthanize defense", but of course that would be Randy's approach.

 

[Britishbulldog]

How has Colorado changed so drastically?  No one would have thought they would have the season they are currently enjoying.  They changed the system, the players got older and more experienced together, and the goalies got better.  They didn't drastically overhaul the team.

Neither did Anaheim when Carlyle left. Or Tampa Bay when they changed coaches (though, they did significantly upgrade their goaltending). Or the Hawks when they fired Savard and hired Quenneville. Now, I'm not saying the Leafs are on the same level as those teams (though, if I'm being honest, outside of Tampa having the best goalscorer on the planet, I think the Leafs have the better roster), just that, sometimes, the best change you can make is behind the bench, and, after that, it's the smaller changes that put you over the top. I'm not convinced the Leafs are like that. I'm not convinced they're not, either. I want to see where they're at with a coach that has them playing a system that's a better fit for their personnel before making major changes to the roster. Unless there are clear "can't turn this down" type options on the table this summer, I wouldn't make any really big roster moves.

That is what I was trying to convey in the ArmChair thread.  Not to change the forwards or goaltending a whole lot.  I like the top 2 lines with JVR / Bozak / Kessel, Lupul / Kadri / Kulemin.  I wish the 4th line had Komarov with McClement and Bodie and if Clarkson can't be moved then re-sign Bolland to a 'Bozak' contract and add a Marlie to the LW.  I wish that Reimer would take a 'Scrivens' 2 year deal @ $2.3 MIL  and stay with Bernier.

I don't know about the defense though.  Phaneuf and Gunnarsson are having a good year statistically.  Gleason has been boatloads better than I expected since coming in the trade.  Rielly is better than I expected.  Gardiner seems to be finding his game and if Franson (71ga 4g  25a  -16) isn't expecting more in a contract than Erik Johnson (70ga  8g 25a  +3) who makes $3.75 MIL than I would be alright with Franson as a 3rd pairing dman.

Unfortunately, the results of the games since the Olympics are sobering to say the least.  Something is fundamentally wrong with the team.  Although in March, except for the Tampa Bay loss by 2 goals and the San Jose blowout, the Leafs have only lost by 1 goal every other game (not counting the empty net markers).  How far off is the Leafs??  Does the roster need to be blown up? I am not convinced it does.

 

[Kin]

How has Colorado changed so drastically?  No one would have thought they would have the season they are currently enjoying.  They changed the system, the players got older and more experienced together, and the goalies got better.  They didn't drastically overhaul the team.

I feel, though, like you're kind of doing the two things here a disservice by throwing them in after the always vague fix-all of the change in system. Right now the top 4 scorers on Colorado are 23, 21, 23 and 18. Three of those players are top 3 draft picks. Their #1 goalie went from below average to near vezina quality. The development of supremely talented young players and going from not-so-good to great performance from a goaltender is going to have a huge impact on how good a team is. I know it fits a convenient narrative to give Patrick Roy credit for Nathan Mackinnon being a good hockey player but I'm not really sure that's something that a team in a different position should be looking to replicate. How did the Avalanche improve? Drafted high, drafted well, figured out good goaltending. How did the Blackhawks become what they are? Drafted high, drafted well, figured out their goaltending.

So the idea that the Leafs, a team without those kinds of young players in the pipeline and who are already getting good goaltending should look to those examples doesn't really make a lot of sense. There's a talent deficiency here. An internal solution would be grand but at some point Leafs fans are going to need to stop looking at coaching changes as a panacea and start accepting that until you can compete talent wise with the better clubs we're talking about self-improvement via haircuts.

I'm fine with the idea of replacing Carlyle but the fact that there's so much conversation around that and so little around that talent deficiency tells me that this is just more of the same thing we saw with Quinn and Maurice and Wilson when those talent deficits became apparent. Scrapping the roster would be "too hard" or "not a guarantee" so we might as well see who's selling the magic beans this off-season.

 

[pnjunction]

How has Colorado changed so drastically?  No one would have thought they would have the season they are currently enjoying.  They changed the system, the players got older and more experienced together, and the goalies got better.  They didn't drastically overhaul the team.

I feel, though, like you're kind of doing the two things here a disservice by throwing them in after the always vague fix-all of the change in system. Right now the top 4 scorers on Colorado are 23, 21, 23 and 18. Three of those players are top 3 draft picks. Their #1 goalie went from below average to near vezina quality. The development of supremely talented young players and going from not-so-good to great performance from a goaltender is going to have a huge impact on how good a team is. I know it fits a convenient narrative to give Patrick Roy credit for Nathan Mackinnon being a good hockey player but I'm not really sure that's something that a team in a different position should be looking to replicate. How did the Avalanche improve? Drafted high, drafted well, figured out good goaltending. How did the Blackhawks become what they are? Drafted high, drafted well, figured out their goaltending.

So the idea that the Leafs, a team without those kinds of young players in the pipeline and who are already getting good goaltending should look to those examples doesn't really make a lot of sense. There's a talent deficiency here. An internal solution would be grand but at some point Leafs fans are going to need to stop looking at coaching changes as a panacea and start accepting that until you can compete talent wise with the better clubs we're talking about self-improvement via haircuts.

I'm fine with the idea of replacing Carlyle but the fact that there's so much conversation around that and so little around that talent deficiency tells me that this is just more of the same thing we saw with Quinn and Maurice and Wilson when those talent deficits became apparent. Scrapping the roster would be "too hard" or "not a guarantee" so we might as well see who's selling the magic beans this off-season.

So it all comes back to....gas up the tank and weather the storm until we have better talent in the system, which was plan before most of us got high on a bit of success

I got sucked in by some some stretches of high shooting percentage differential, but that's probably the truth in the end.

 

[Highlander]

I think Reimer and Randy do not see eye to eye and I think Reimer with Bernier here needs a change of scenery.  Look at what Sparks has been doing with the Marlies. Perhaps he will make the big team: Sparks earned the game?s first star with his performance against Rochester and has now won his past six straight starts. In those games he?s compileds a 1.95 goals-against average and .934 save percentage. (sorry for the double post)

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Worth taking this image into consideration of any discussion of Phaneuf (and Gunnarsson).  Shows all D in the entire NHL with at least 60 games played.  X axis is percentage of offensive zone starts, and y axis is quality of competition - as you can see Phaneuf/Gunnarsson are by themselves relative to the entire league.  Very tough usage.

 

[Joe S.]

I'll just point out that Phaneuf hasn't been stellar in either Wilson's system (which was supposed to emphasize defense) or Carlyle's.  At some point you have to conclude that maybe the guy just isn't a good enough defender to be your #1 defenseman, and it's not just the system he plays.

I'm pretty sure Wilson's emphasized speed and scoring, more run and gun. Unless my memory is failing me.

 

[ZBBM]

Turf them.
Turf them all.

 

[Redleaf]

If the Leafs can beat Philadelphia tomorrow (who are on a bit of a losing streak)
and Detroit on Saturday, they're back in....

 

[Deebo]

Worth taking this image into consideration of any discussion of Phaneuf (and Gunnarsson).  Shows all D in the entire NHL with at least 60 games played.  X axis is percentage of offensive zone starts, and y axis is quality of competition - as you can see Phaneuf/Gunnarsson are by themselves relative to the entire league.  Very tough usage.

What do the different colours mean?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Worth taking this image into consideration of any discussion of Phaneuf (and Gunnarsson).  Shows all D in the entire NHL with at least 60 games played.  X axis is percentage of offensive zone starts, and y axis is quality of competition - as you can see Phaneuf/Gunnarsson are by themselves relative to the entire league.  Very tough usage.

What do the different colours mean?

Relative corsi, I believe.  Blue means higher, red/orange means lower.

 

[AvroArrow]

Worth taking this image into consideration of any discussion of Phaneuf (and Gunnarsson).  Shows all D in the entire NHL with at least 60 games played.  X axis is percentage of offensive zone starts, and y axis is quality of competition - as you can see Phaneuf/Gunnarsson are by themselves relative to the entire league.  Very tough usage.

What do the different colours mean?

And circle size?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Worth taking this image into consideration of any discussion of Phaneuf (and Gunnarsson).  Shows all D in the entire NHL with at least 60 games played.  X axis is percentage of offensive zone starts, and y axis is quality of competition - as you can see Phaneuf/Gunnarsson are by themselves relative to the entire league.  Very tough usage.

What do the different colours mean?

And circle size?

Sorry, from a different site than I thought, but found it.  Easiest if I just paste the explanation here:

The horizontal axis is the percentage of time the player started in the offensive zone, the vertical axis is a rating of how good the players he played against are, and the bubble sizes are a relative rating of how many shots were directed at the net while the player was on the ice. A blue bubble (good) means more shot attempts were made at the opposing team's net when the player was on the ice, a red bubble (bad) means the player was getting outshot.

And if you want to play around with it: http://somekindofninja.com/nhl/usage.php

 

[Coco-puffs]

Worth taking this image into consideration of any discussion of Phaneuf (and Gunnarsson).  Shows all D in the entire NHL with at least 60 games played.  X axis is percentage of offensive zone starts, and y axis is quality of competition - as you can see Phaneuf/Gunnarsson are by themselves relative to the entire league.  Very tough usage.

What you'll also notice is Gardiner and Franson are also way too far to the left side of the entire diagram.  As a team, the Leafs probably have the worst defensive zone start ratio in the league.  That comes with having terrible possession and lots of shots against.  Of course we would expect the top pairing the see the highest QoC as well.  As you said, very tough usage.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Worth taking this image into consideration of any discussion of Phaneuf (and Gunnarsson).  Shows all D in the entire NHL with at least 60 games played.  X axis is percentage of offensive zone starts, and y axis is quality of competition - as you can see Phaneuf/Gunnarsson are by themselves relative to the entire league.  Very tough usage.

What you'll also notice is Gardiner and Franson are also way too far to the left side of the entire diagram.  As a team, the Leafs probably have the worst defensive zone start ratio in the league.  That comes with having terrible possession and lots of shots against.  Of course we would expect the top pairing the see the highest QoC as well.  As you said, very tough usage.

Yeah, the whole team is low - I don't think any player on the team starts over 50% of their shifts in the offensive zone.

Here's Mirtle's take from an article today:

What?s important to note about Phaneuf?s career year in Calgary isn?t necessarily the production. What was starkly different was actually the fact he wasn?t relied on to be all things in all situations.

He split time playing with Anders Eriksson and Adrian Aucoin on a type of sheltered, offence-first second unit while stay-at-homers Robyn Regehr and Cory Sarich drew the defensive zone faceoffs and first-line assignments.

They didn?t trust Phaneuf to do the heavy lifting. And it makes you wonder how much he?s been miscast in Toronto.

Under Leafs coach Randy Carlyle, Phaneuf starts a higher percentage of his shifts in the defensive zone than any defenceman in the NHL. He faces a higher quality of competition than any other defenceman, including getting pummelled by David Backes?s big line in Tuesday?s loss.

He is, in short, in the Chris Pronger role without being Chris Pronger, and if you look at the over all results, they?re not always pretty.

...

Phaneuf is a good but flawed player. He showed in Calgary how much of a weapon he can be at one end of the ice, with his big shot and offensive instincts. In that role, he can potentially earn the behemoth new extension he signed earlier this year.

But if the Leafs are going to continue to cast him as a king, a player that can fill the Pronger role and do everything, the mixed results are at least partly on them. More than anything, he looks like another Leafs player that needs some help, just as he had in his former home.

More reasonable expectations wouldn?t hurt either.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/leafs-beat/mirtle-lofty-expectations-see-phaneuf-under-fire-as-leafs-fade-in-the-playoff-race/article17689999/

And if you care for an even more analytical analysis (from an Oilers fan no less):

I don?t disagree with James that Phaneuf isn?t Pronger. He?s right about Phaneuf?s zone starts having become a lot more difficult as well. For the years in Calgary where we have data, he had a ZoneStart of 56.6%, meaning that 56% of his offensive or defensive zone faceoffs were in the offensive zone. From the time of this trade to Toronto through the end of 2011-12, this was 50%. In 2012-13, it was 41%. This year, it?s 39.3%. The road keeps getting steeper.

I think that there?s a little more too it than that though. As I mentioned back into the summer, I kind of got into breaking zone start effects down into their constituent elements by looking at how long we could see an effect after faceoff wins/losses in given parts of the ice. I haven?t tabulated this year?s number yet but I think that we can see a real Carlyle effect on this

...

It is striking the extent to which Phaneuf?s Corsi% just collapses following DZ faceoffs once Carlyle takes over. The personnel wasn?t that different in Toronto from the Wilson era to the Carlyle era but Phaneuf?s numbers just collapse. I?m not providing a ton of context here in terms of whether those numbers are good but I can assure you that they aren?t. The thing is though, we can tell from Phaneuf in Calgary and under Wilson that he?s capable of more.

There's a table in there that you've got to click the link to see.

http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=6843

 

[ZBBM]

So the Flames sheltered him on the second pairing and had two stay-at-home guys as their #1 & #2.  Imagine that.

 

[bustaheims]

So the Flames sheltered him on the second pairing and had two stay-at-home guys as their #1 & #2.  Imagine that.

And, shockingly, they never made it out of the 1st round with that set up.

 

[ZBBM]

So the Flames sheltered him on the second pairing and had two stay-at-home guys as their #1 & #2.  Imagine that.

And, shockingly, they never made it out of the 1st round with that set up.

Are you disrespecting me AND Mirtle?  Tread carefully if you are, podner.

 

[bustaheims]

So the Flames sheltered him on the second pairing and had two stay-at-home guys as their #1 & #2.  Imagine that.

And, shockingly, they never made it out of the 1st round with that set up.

Are you disrespecting me AND Mirtle?  Tread carefully if you are, podner.

Mirtle's stating a fact, not suggesting a strategy.