Andy007
Active member
Nik the Trik said:Andy007 said:Calgary is 2nd worst.
Ok...so the 4th worst team is 2nd worst. What's the full list look like?
Can't find anything after extensive amounts of google-ing. Anyone else?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nik the Trik said:Andy007 said:Calgary is 2nd worst.
Ok...so the 4th worst team is 2nd worst. What's the full list look like?
Nik the Trik said:CarltonTheBear said:The Leafs are the LeBron James of blowing 3rd period leads.
Realistically though, if you went into the season sight unseen what team would you assume would give up the most 3rd period leads? It wouldn't be one of the worst teams in the league, they wouldn't have enough 3rd period leads. It would be, I assume, a team that scored a lot of goals but had a bad or at least overly offensive collection of defensemen and not great defensive forwards, right?
TML fan said:So wouldn't the logical approach be to develop and implement a style that doesn't lean so heavily on defense? It seems to me that if your team is strong offensively and weak defensively, then you'd want to be on the attack a lot more than you are defending.
Andy007 said:Can't find anything after extensive amounts of google-ing. Anyone else?
Nik the Trik said:TML fan said:So wouldn't the logical approach be to develop and implement a style that doesn't lean so heavily on defense? It seems to me that if your team is strong offensively and weak defensively, then you'd want to be on the attack a lot more than you are defending.
Except there are practical limits to any style that would preach "being on the attack" for the entire game. There really isn't any coaching solution to a poor defensive team allowing a bunch of goals.
TML fan said:Nik the Trik said:TML fan said:So wouldn't the logical approach be to develop and implement a style that doesn't lean so heavily on defense? It seems to me that if your team is strong offensively and weak defensively, then you'd want to be on the attack a lot more than you are defending.
Except there are practical limits to any style that would preach "being on the attack" for the entire game. There really isn't any coaching solution to a poor defensive team allowing a bunch of goals.
Right, but that isn't what I said.
Hate to pull a Bill Clinton here, but doesn't that depend on how you define "worst"? I mean, I personally wouldn't be surprised to see a low ranking team (like Calgary) among the leaders in blown third period leads, because consistently blowing third period leads points to a serious problem with the team that would likely result in a lousy record.Nik the Trik said:Realistically though, if you went into the season sight unseen what team would you assume would give up the most 3rd period leads? It wouldn't be one of the worst teams in the league, they wouldn't have enough 3rd period leads. It would be, I assume, a team that scored a lot of goals but had a bad or at least overly offensive collection of defensemen and not great defensive forwards, right?
#1PilarFan said:Hate to pull a Bill Clinton here, but doesn't that depend on how you define "worst"? I mean, I personally wouldn't be surprised to see a low ranking team (like Calgary) among the leaders in blown third period leads, because consistently blowing third period leads points to a serious problem with the team that would likely result in a lousy record.
I would think the opposite would also be true. For instance, I would expect St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Anaheim to be among the league leaders in wins leading after two periods though admittedly I'm too lazy to google those (and any other) numbers.
I was going to bring up number 4. They are 23-1-2 when leading after 2 periods. Granted, looking at NHL.com, 9 teams have no regulation losses when leading after 2, and the Leafs are part of a group of another 9 than have only one loss. They are 9th in winning percentage at .885 when leading after 2.Nik the Trik said:Andy007 said:Can't find anything after extensive amounts of google-ing. Anyone else?
Well, with a pin in that for the time being, I think there are a handful of unavoidable truths here.
1. Giving up a 3rd period lead relies having a lead to give up, increasing the chances of a good team doing it.
2. There's really only so much any coach can do to cut down on another team's scoring chances in the third period relative to scoring chances at any other point in the game
3. Relying on "blown 3rd period leads" as a measurement of defensive acumen holds that giving up a goal to make it 3-3 is somehow worse than giving up a go-ahead goal.
4. The Leafs emphatically do not have a poor record when leading after two periods.
Derk said:I was going to bring up number 4. They are 23-1-2 when leading after 2 periods. Granted, looking at NHL.com, 9 teams have no regulation losses when leading after 2, and the Leafs are part of a group of another 9 than have only one loss. They are 9th in winning percentage at .885 when leading after 2.
OldTimeHockey said:Weren't a couple of the last few 'blown' 3rd period leads games in which the Leafs entered the 3rd period trailing and battled back to take the lead in frame only to give it up?
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:So they'd save about 3 million per year if they bought him out, thoughts about addition by subtraction and bringing in a player at the 3 million mark who could contribute more than Clarkson?
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:So they'd save about 3 million per year if they bought him out, thoughts about addition by subtraction and bringing in a player at the 3 million mark who could contribute more than Clarkson?
Corn Flake said:Okaaay but we aren't the Flyers here.. as pessimistic as many are about Clarkson going forward, you've got to give it at least one more season before doing something like that.
Potvin29 said:Derk said:I was going to bring up number 4. They are 23-1-2 when leading after 2 periods. Granted, looking at NHL.com, 9 teams have no regulation losses when leading after 2, and the Leafs are part of a group of another 9 than have only one loss. They are 9th in winning percentage at .885 when leading after 2.
The issue to me is less that they did win those games, but the number of blown leads is indicative of a team struggling to hold down a lead (and we know how that hurt them in the playoffs) and if they give up leads but end up winning in OT/SO they are giving a lot of points back to other teams that they are in playoff races with.
bustaheims said:Corn Flake said:Okaaay but we aren't the Flyers here.. as pessimistic as many are about Clarkson going forward, you've got to give it at least one more season before doing something like that.
Yeah. I mean, as much as I hated the signing when it happened (heck, before it happened) and as useless as he's been this season, giving up on a 7 year deal after one year feels like a poor way to manage a team. However, if some other team is willing to take him off the team's hands, after the season he's had, it's absolutely not unreasonable to move him.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:So Clarkson's buyout in the summer(which will never happen) would look like so...
David Clarkson buyout from CapGeek.com -
2014-15: $2,291,667
2015-16: $1,541,667
2016-17: $41,667
2017-18: $41,667
2018-19: $2,291,667
2019-20: $3,791,667
2020-21: $1,791,667
2021-22: $1,791,667
2022-23: $1,791,667
2023-24: $1,791,667
2024-25: $1,791,667
2025-26: $1,791,667
So they'd save about 3 million per year if they bought him out, thoughts about addition by subtraction and bringing in a player at the 3 million mark who could contribute more than Clarkson?