General Leafs Talk: Post-Olympics Edition

[Andy007]

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?

 

[TML fan]

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?

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.

 

[Kin]

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.

 

[Kin]

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.

 

[TML fan]

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.

 

[Kin]

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.

Sure it is. You said that this is a problem that can be addressed through a matter of "style". That, through coaching, a bad defensive team can press the attack to a point that they're less likely to give up goals.

Regardless, it's a meaningless distinction. There is no collection of players that you could assemble that would make even the most incompetent of coaches want to be defending more than attacking.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

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?

 

[#1PilarFan]

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?

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.

Where's cw when you need him?

 

[Kin]

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.

Well, it's important to keep in mind that we're talking about two different things when we talk about blown third period leads and we talk about a team's record after two periods. Toronto, for instance, blows a lot of third period leads but has a fine record after two periods. But when you look at team's records after 2 periods while it's generally true that bad teams are near the bottom and good teams near the top, there's a ton of variation there. 

So, yeah  I would expect those teams to be near the top in terms of wins when leading after two but only because they're the leaders in terms of wins in general. When it comes to just measuring "who allows the most third period goals that tie the score" I have to assume it relates closer to just who allows the most third period goals.

 

[Derk]

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.

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.

They are 2-15-3 when trailing after 2. I would be more interested in seeing their records when giving up a 3rd period lead to see if they still come out ahead more times than not - they did beat the Rangers after leading after 2, but lost to both the Islanders and Montreal after trailing after 2 and coming back to take the lead (twice against the Isles).

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

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.

 

[Deebo]

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?

4 of the 20 blown leads occurred in the 3 of last 4 games. 2 against the Isles, 1 against the Habs and 1 against the Rangers. The Leafs collected 4 out of 6 points in those games.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

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?

 

[Corn Flake]

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?

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. 

 

[Kin]

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?

I think that it's encouraging, I guess, in as much as it presents an interesting alternative going forward but unless there's a real specific need for that money next year I think they're better served by crossing their fingers that this was just a freakishly bad year.

 

[bustaheims]

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.

 

[Derk]

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.

Precisely. That is why I think it would be interesting to see their record in the games where they have given up the lead in the 3rd, and how many of those games have gone to OT / shootout.

Since playoff OT is not 4-on-4 / shootout, this becomes even more of an issue. In the playoffs, all it takes is one blown 3rd period lead and they are done.

 

[Corn Flake]

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.

Sure.  A trade scenario would be a completely different animal than a buy out.

It honestly wouldn't shock me to see him moved to a team like Edmonton who wanted him badly in the off season.  He has a modified NTC, but seems to be a proud enough guy to recognize if things aren't working he would go somewhere who wanted to give him a shot. 

 

[AvroArrow]

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?

I WANT this to happen (assuming a trade is out of the question).  Slotting D'Amigo or Ashton in his spot is about 100x more effective, and about half the cost (when you include the buyout penalty).

 

[Highlander]

Clarkson was playing his best hockey from Jan up to the Olympics and then the break. It seems he cannot gain any momentum. I am hoping against hope that he can show some old form and make this a good signing. So far with Bollands injury and the fiasco with Clarkson and timing this has been a very unsettling year.