General Leafs Talk: Post-Olympics Edition

[ZBBM]

mirtle: Since the first month, the Leafs have won only 26 of 61 games. Eight of those were shootout wins. That's a ROW less than every three games.

That begs the question: what were they doing the first month that was radically different?  Because if there's nothing we can pinpoint, then citing stats since then don't have any real value.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

mirtle: Since the first month, the Leafs have won only 26 of 61 games. Eight of those were shootout wins. That's a ROW less than every three games.

That begs the question: what were they doing the first month that was radically different?  Because if there's nothing we can pinpoint, then citing stats since then don't have any real value.

Huh?  Can you expand on what you mean?

 

[bustaheims]

That begs the question: what were they doing the first month that was radically different?  Because if there's nothing we can pinpoint, then citing stats since then don't have any real value.

Well, the first month of the season often leads to some outliers in terms of records, performances, etc. I'm not sure they were necessarily doing anything different, but, rather, what they were doing was a little more successful because the league as a whole was just starting to settle into their rhythm for the season. I think the Leafs just caught some teams off guard early in the year.

 

[ZBBM]

That begs the question: what were they doing the first month that was radically different?  Because if there's nothing we can pinpoint, then citing stats since then don't have any real value.

Well, the first month of the season often leads to some outliers in terms of records, performances, etc. I'm not sure they were necessarily doing anything different, but, rather, what they were doing was a little more successful because the league as a whole was just starting to settle into their rhythm for the season. I think the Leafs just caught some teams off guard early in the year.

The old ambush factor, eh?  I dunno.

 

[bustaheims]

The old ambush factor, eh?  I dunno.

It's really more of the first month of the season meaning a lot less than the rest of the season. Things happen in the first month that don't translate even if there are no changes to point to.

 

[ZBBM]

mirtle: Since the first month, the Leafs have won only 26 of 61 games. Eight of those were shootout wins. That's a ROW less than every three games.

That begs the question: what were they doing the first month that was radically different?  Because if there's nothing we can pinpoint, then citing stats since then don't have any real value.

Huh?  Can you expand on what you mean?

I've made the same point before, but I guess not very well.

Picking out a team's record over any given stretch of a season to make a particular point is fine, but only if we keep in mind that all the games being left out count just as much as the ones the person chose for the example.  If I were to say "The Leafs are awful, look at their record over the past 7 games, it's 0-7-0," that's doing the exact same thing as Mirtle is.  Unless there's something really, really different about these last 7 games ? let's say both goalies and the backup from the Marlies all get injured and they had to play an ECHL guy in the first game of the losing streak ? these last 7 games are not more significant than the Leafs' overall record.  Which is the only record that really counts in the end, by definition.  Same logic applies to this post by Mirtle, or any such like it.

 

[ZBBM]

The old ambush factor, eh?  I dunno.

It's really more of the first month of the season meaning a lot less than the rest of the season. Things happen in the first month that don't translate even if there are no changes to point to.

No, every game, no matter when it occurs in the schedule, "means" the same as far as the standings are concerned ... which is the only metric that matters, ultimately.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

mirtle: Since the first month, the Leafs have won only 26 of 61 games. Eight of those were shootout wins. That's a ROW less than every three games.

That begs the question: what were they doing the first month that was radically different?  Because if there's nothing we can pinpoint, then citing stats since then don't have any real value.

Huh?  Can you expand on what you mean?

I've made the same point before, but I guess not very well.

Picking out a team's record over any given stretch of a season to make a particular point is fine, but only if we keep in mind that all the games being left out count just as much as the ones the person chose for the example.  If I were to say "The Leafs are awful, look at their record over the past 7 games, it's 0-7-0," that's doing the exact same thing as Mirtle is.  Unless there's something really, really different about these last 7 games ? let's say both goalies and the backup from the Marlies all get injured and they had to play an ECHL guy in the first game of the losing streak ? these last 7 games are not more significant than the Leafs' overall record.  Which is the only record that really counts in the end, by definition.  Same logic applies to this post by Mirtle, or any such like it.

Well I think you're free to pick out a stretch and, if you can make a coherent argument for a specific point relating to those games then it's just as valid as another argument.  In this case, he's arguing that the team's last 60+ games is more indicative of their play than the first month's games because it's a larger sample.  I don't think that is disregarding the first set of games, it is just putting it into context with the remainder of the regular season.

 

[AvroArrow]

Picking out a team's record over any given stretch of a season to make a particular point is fine, but only if we keep in mind that all the games being left out count just as much as the ones the person chose for the example.  If I were to say "The Leafs are awful, look at their record over the past 7 games, it's 0-7-0," that's doing the exact same thing as Mirtle is.  Unless there's something really, really different about these last 7 games ? let's say both goalies and the backup from the Marlies all get injured and they had to play an ECHL guy in the first game of the losing streak ? these last 7 games are not more significant than the Leafs' overall record.  Which is the only record that really counts in the end, by definition.  Same logic applies to this post by Mirtle, or any such like it.

Doesn't it simply show a trend?  As in, after a hot start in the first month, the team has trended to terrible.

The last 7 show a trend of collapsing outside the playoff picture.

You're right that in the end, the team's final position is dependent on ALL games, but that's not the only thing that you can look at with the numbers.

 

[caver]

Keep - Van Reimsdyck - Bozak - Kessel
Lupul - ------- - --------
Kulemin - Bolland - ---------
Bodie - Mc Clement - --------

Reilly - --------
Gardiner - Gunnarrson
Franson - Gleason
Ranger

Bernier


Fire Carlyle !! 

 

[gunnar36]

There is zero character on this team.  The fans care more about this team winning then the players themselves.  If they could somehow channel our collective anger onto the ice, they would be tougher team to play against.

 

[Leaflifer]

There is zero character on this team.

I completely agree. My first clue was the game 7 collapse. Watching the Leafs lay down and die in the face of adversity was extremely disappointing, aside from the loss itself. Even more so.

The stunned look on the bench, even while still tied, in that game, spoke volumes about the character of this team. No one stood up, no one took charge, no one said a word.

Boston's leadership was off the charts at that point.

The Leafs just tucked their collective tails between their legs and lay down in defeat...before defeat even happened.

There was no Kirk Muller, shouting in the faces of his teammates, Dave Keon tearing a strip of everyone, Ed Belfour giving the guys an earful..

The Leafs are a talented team, not contenders yet, but have goaltending and can score. Not bad attributes at all for a middle of the pack team that should be looking at the next level.

But there is something missing that is evidenced by their inability to play for 60 minutes, bad starts, deep losing funks, and showing up many nights looking disinterested.

Phaneuf is no captain. 24/7 confirmed that in my eyes. I think he's a good D and has a spot on a contending team, but he's not the guy to lead the way.

It's not only his job though, leadership can, and probably should, come from a few different players.

The Leafs are young, wealthy dudes who are products of charmed lives for the most part. They need role models they can relate to, guys who never take a shift off (there's yer Jonny Toews)

IMO, that's the Leafs biggest need to address this offseason. To create a culture in that dressing room of urgency and accountability to each other.

Oh yeah, and fire Randy.

 

[gunnar36]

Great post, I completely agree Mostar.

I belive that stripping Phaneuf of the captaincy would take some weight of his shoulders and make him a much better player.  Clearly he is not comfortable with the role.

 

[Courtnall]

Trade all of them. No one on this team deserves to wear the blue and white after this being the third colossal breakdown in three years. I don't want to cheer for anyone who lets down there's fans in this fashion three years in a row. If I could I would stop cheering for them.........if I could.

 

[Andy007]

Trade all of them. No one on this team deserves to wear the blue and white after this being the third colossal breakdown in three years. I don't want to cheer for anyone who lets down there's fans in this fashion three years in a row. If I could I would stop cheering for them.........if I could.

Finally, a voice of reason!

 

[Redleaf]

Trade Franson, Riemer, and Lupul. Bring in O'Reilly, and a steady mobile d-man to relieve Phaneuf of the big minutes. Bring up some Marlies to fill out the team, and let's see if we can introduce this team to the concept of two-way play.

 

[Andy007]

Trade Franson, Riemer, and Lupul. Bring in O'Reilly, and a steady mobile d-man to relieve Phaneuf of the big minutes.

Wait, are you suggesting that O'Reilly and a steady, mobile d-man can be acquired with the Leaf names you mentioned or are they separate deals? Because O'Reilly alone is worth quite a bit more than Lupul.

 

[Redleaf]

Trade Franson, Riemer, and Lupul. Bring in O'Reilly, and a steady mobile d-man to relieve Phaneuf of the big minutes.

Wait, are you suggesting that O'Reilly and a steady, mobile d-man can be acquired with the Leaf names you mentioned or are they separate deals? Because O'Reilly alone is worth quite a bit more than Lupul.

Theyd have to be in separate deals. Colorado probably isn't looking for more depth up front, at least not at the center position. I wonder what it would take to land O'Reilly. Kadri? Gardiner? I think he'd be a perfect fit in Toronto.

 

[Jalili]

Trade Franson, Riemer, and Lupul. Bring in O'Reilly, and a steady mobile d-man to relieve Phaneuf of the big minutes.

Wait, are you suggesting that O'Reilly and a steady, mobile d-man can be acquired with the Leaf names you mentioned or are they separate deals? Because O'Reilly alone is worth quite a bit more than Lupul.

Theyd have to be in separate deals. Colorado probably isn't looking for more depth up front, at least not at the center position. I wonder what it would take to land O'Reilly. Kadri? Gardiner? I think he'd be a perfect fit in Toronto.

O'Reilly is awesome. But I think if he were available Colorado would be looking to exchange him for a stud D-man, which the Leafs don't really have.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Bruce Arthur alluded to this on the radio today, but it's really quite insane that in the era of the OT point you can go 8 straight without getting a single point.