General Leafs Talk

[OldTimeHockey]

I think he was talking about the negative and impatient attitude of fans, media, and management. We sign one of top free agents available and we tear him down before he even steps on the ice. I think he was looking at the collapse in game seven. Instead of letting it drag us down to make rash decisions to use it as a motivation to improve.

Nobody tore down Clarkson. People are tearing down the contract and term.

I do think that Clarkson's contract was over examined,even before he's played a game.And yes it does reflect on him in a negative way.

I don't think so. Every big signing is going to be over examined, but it doesn't reflect poorly on the player.

He was overpaid/overcommitted to due to the lack of UFA's available. It doesn't mean he's not a good player, just that he was overvalued due to a lack of competition.

I've seen this go both ways.  If the Leafs HADN'T of signed Clarkson the cry from many would be "Leafs not doing everything they can to improve the team, cheap ownership doesn't want to hand out long term contracts to get a premier free agent"  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Oh definitely! The same thing happened with Connolly. If they wouldn't of signed Connolly, some fans would of lost their cool. Now look at how most regard Connolly.

 

[Zee]

Nice to see our own Rob Del Mundo quoted in the Sun yesterday...

And requoted on Yahoo Sports.

The linked article should clear up the statement about the culture - Leiweke wants to focus on the future rather than the (distant) past.

I agree with Rob's comments one hundred percent, especially in reference to the part where Lieweke seems to wants to do away with the past. 

As the saying goes, "How can you know where it's at, if you don't know where it's been?".  Disregarding the past achievements (Stanley Cup victories) would be like as though they never happened.

And, by the way, that poster of Frank Mahovlich holding the Cup is far more inspirational than a poster of Tyler Bozak winning a face-off!

Although I agree with honoring a team's past, I think the whole "motivational" aspect is way overblown.  Teams like Anaheim had no past to motivate them yet they managed to win a Cup regardless.  Building a great franchise can be done many ways.

 

[pnjunction]

Ex-Anschutz Boss Leiweke Maps Maple Leafs? Victory Parade Route

http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-MPZOF16TTDVH01-4JP1FK7VOBAE80ALNQDKIUG97F

Tim Leiweke, the new chief of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd., is so confident the Toronto Maple Leafs will soon end a 46-year Stanley Cup drought that he?s mapped a victory-parade route for the hockey team.

?I have it planned out and it?s going to be fantastic,? Leiweke said yesterday in his first interview since taking over the Toronto-based sports group

 

[princedpw]

I think he was talking about the negative and impatient attitude of fans, media, and management. We sign one of top free agents available and we tear him down before he even steps on the ice. I think he was looking at the collapse in game seven. Instead of letting it drag us down to make rash decisions to use it as a motivation to improve.

Nobody tore down Clarkson. People are tearing down the contract and term.

I do think that Clarkson's contract was over examined,even before he's played a game.And yes it does reflect on him in a negative way.

I don't think so. Every big signing is going to be over examined, but it doesn't reflect poorly on the player.

He was overpaid/overcommitted to due to the lack of UFA's available. It doesn't mean he's not a good player, just that he was overvalued due to a lack of competition.

I've seen this go both ways.  If the Leafs HADN'T of signed Clarkson the cry from many would be "Leafs not doing everything they can to improve the team, cheap ownership doesn't want to hand out long term contracts to get a premier free agent"  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Oh definitely! The same thing happened with Connolly. If they wouldn't of signed Connolly, some fans would of lost their cool. Now look at how most regard Connolly.

I still think the Connolly signing was a good idea.  It was a good idea that didn't work out well.  It was a good idea in exactly the way the Clarkson deal is a bad idea.  When Connolly signed, I recall, it seemed like a decent short-term way to improve the team at center, something that was desperately needed.  Connolly had a long injury history and had been criticized for his sometimes inconsistent play so there was no guarantee he would work out (if there was, his contract would have been larger).  But it didn't risk 7 years of cap space and at the time, players could be buried in the minors and their cap hit disappeared.  It didn't even risk a Jason Blake-like 4 years.  Hence the long-term downside was nil and there was actually very little short-term downside, if any.

If Clarkson had signed a 2-year contract like Connolly, everyone would be over the moon about the signing.  It's years 5-7 that people are really worried about.

 

[Fanatic]

Random observation that's probably been mentioned - Leafs signed Troy Bodie and he's marrying Tim Leiweke's daughter in August.  Now it makes sense.

I had not seen that anywhere before. Wow..... thanks, dad.

 

[Fanatic]

Wendel Clarkson Beats Troy Bodie

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Not sure if this was posted.

http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2013/07/17/an-in-depth-chat-with-associate-coach-of-the-leafs-greg-cronin/

Interesting piece, gives you an idea of how the coaching staff is measuring team success versus the advanced stat crowd and even the more traditional metrics.

 

[Kin]

Not sure if this was posted.

http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2013/07/17/an-in-depth-chat-with-associate-coach-of-the-leafs-greg-cronin/

Interesting piece, gives you an idea of how the coaching staff is measuring team success versus the advanced stat crowd and even the more traditional metrics.

That is interesting. It's telling, I think that the team isn't doing much of anything with regard to proprietary metrics but I suppose there's some sort of point where anything meaningful in that regard isn't all that different from a coach just watching a game and seeing who's playing well.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Good interview, metrics or no metrics.  One thing is clear, just because a team takes more shots than the opposition does not mean that that team automatically is slated to win the game.  As Cronin mentioned, puck possession and the quality of shots taken is equally integral to the overall strategy of winning.

Now, about that Game 7...sigh.

 

[TML fan]

Wow, I do not like this Cronin character.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Wow, I do not like this Cronin character.

Why, may I ask? 

 

[TML fan]

Wow, I do not like this Cronin character.

Why, may I ask? 

Because after reading that article, I think he's an idiot and I don't like idiots. 

He can be as unequivocal as he wants. The Leafs got outpossessed last season...nearly every single game. He talks about counter attacking against tired legs, but doesnt account for what happens after 30 or 40 seconds in your end, when they turn it over on the 3rd shot, your team is too tired to counter attack.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Wow, I do not like this Cronin character.

Why, may I ask? 

Because after reading that article, I think he's an idiot and I don't like idiots. 

He can be as unequivocal as he wants. The Leafs got outpossessed last season...nearly every single game. He talks about counter attacking against tired legs, but doesnt account for what happens after 30 or 40 seconds in your end, when they turn it over on the 3rd shot, your team is too tired to counter attack.

Good point.  Maybe the team needs an improved coaching staff.

 

[TML fan]

I'm all in favour of quality possessions, but you need to have a lot of them. I'd rather be the team that takes 3 or 4 shots a possession than the one that plays the majority of the game without the puck.

 

[hockeyfan1]

I'm all in favour of quality possessions, but you need to have a lot of them. I'd rather be the team that takes 3 or 4 shots a possession than the one that plays the majority of the game without the puck.

Cronin seemed 'pained' to explain the mechanics that led to that collapse in Game 7.  All he should have said to summarize was to say that in those crucial minutes, the Leafs didn't take enough possession of the puck.  He did mention something along the lines of --

"I think were were looking at a group of players who gad never been in that situation before in their careers. Did the pressure get to them? I don?t think they?d be human if didn?t. I don?t give a crap what your background is, that?s an experience that you?ve never gone through before. Did they react poorly? No, I don?t think they reacted poorly, they didn?t react as maturely as if they had seen it before. Simple as that."

How many agree with that statement alone?

 

[lamajama]

I'm all in favour of quality possessions, but you need to have a lot of them. I'd rather be the team that takes 3 or 4 shots a possession than the one that plays the majority of the game without the puck.

Cronin seemed 'pained' to explain the mechanics that led to that collapse in Game 7.  All he should have said to summarize was to say that in those crucial minutes, the Leafs didn't take enough possession of the puck.  He did mention something along the lines of --

"I think were were looking at a group of players who gad never been in that situation before in their careers. Did the pressure get to them? I don?t think they?d be human if didn?t. I don?t give a crap what your background is, that?s an experience that you?ve never gone through before. Did they react poorly? No, I don?t think they reacted poorly, they didn?t react as maturely as if they had seen it before. Simple as that."

How many agree with that statement alone?

I think this guy is more like a buffoon. His statements on possession are blatantly false. He makes no attempt to say why they didn't use their timeout. He admits that they don't even try to gather as much statistical information as possible on how the team/players are performing. They may not use the info as gospel but come on man! Is this organization a ship of fools?

 

[Corn Flake]

The Leafs got outpossessed last season...nearly every single game.

Based on what? Corsi?

Assuming that's what you are basing your point from, he does a pretty good job at dismantling the logic that Corsi is built on (shots equals puck possession)  and the gigantic gap in how those two things correlate.  I think he's bang on. 

You would rather have the team taking 3 or 4 low percentage shots from bad angles than generate 1 good scoring chance in close, all the while maintaining the puck far longer?  Bad shots just to generate shots on the clock?

It should be noted that the 29th place Leafs team of 2009 had some of the best Corsi numbers in the league.  (hint hint)

 

[losveratos]

Wow, I do not like this Cronin character.

Why, may I ask? 

Because after reading that article, I think he's an idiot and I don't like idiots. 

He can be as unequivocal as he wants. The Leafs got outpossessed last season...nearly every single game. He talks about counter attacking against tired legs, but doesnt account for what happens after 30 or 40 seconds in your end, when they turn it over on the 3rd shot, your team is too tired to counter attack.

What exactly do you have that proves that we were outpossessed almost every game last season? If you mean corsi and other advanced stats... those don't actually track it. They use other statistics to guess it. Sometimes they're close sometimes they're not.

He actually mentions at one point in the conversation that they do infact track possession and he alludes towards them actually stop watching it. And HE says with that exact information that they were infact not out possessed.

"GC: I want to ask you an innocent question. I know because, as a staff, we track this stuff. Who do you think had the puck the most against the Bruins?"

"AB: You don?t think the Leafs got outpossessed last season, and that shot differentials are not a good indicator of possession?

GC: Right. I unequivocally do not believe that.

AB: To be clear, you don?t believe the Leafs were outpossessed last season?

Nope."

Then alluding to the stop watch.

"These are things that we prioritize. We want the puck. I am not saying we have the right answer. I didn?t stopwatch the Chicago-Bruins series, but I know one thing; Chicago has the puck a lot."

So by reading that fully. The answer I'm receiving is that with the way they coach the team to hold the puck and only shoot when there's a high percentage chance available. And then on top of that having the goals for and high shooting %. I'd say that unless someone comes along with an actual timed per game possession stat from watching all 60+ minutes of every game and shows me that what he's saying is truely false... I just don't understand how you can call him a buffoon or idiot or whatever.

Maybe you could argue that they could coach the team to shoot more I suppose.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

What exactly do you have that proves that we were outpossessed almost every game last season? If you mean corsi and other advanced stats... those don't actually track it. They use other statistics to guess it. Sometimes they're close sometimes they're not.

He actually mentions at one point in the conversation that they do infact track possession and he alludes towards them actually stop watching it. And HE says with that exact information that they were infact not out possessed.

"GC: I want to ask you an innocent question. I know because, as a staff, we track this stuff. Who do you think had the puck the most against the Bruins?"

"AB: You don?t think the Leafs got outpossessed last season, and that shot differentials are not a good indicator of possession?

GC: Right. I unequivocally do not believe that.

AB: To be clear, you don?t believe the Leafs were outpossessed last season?

Nope."

Then alluding to the stop watch.

"These are things that we prioritize. We want the puck. I am not saying we have the right answer. I didn?t stopwatch the Chicago-Bruins series, but I know one thing; Chicago has the puck a lot."

So by reading that fully. The answer I'm receiving is that with the way they coach the team to hold the puck and only shoot when there's a high percentage chance available. And then on top of that having the goals for and high shooting %. I'd say that unless someone comes along with an actual timed per game possession stat from watching all 60+ minutes of every game and shows me that what he's saying is truely false... I just don't understand how you can call him a buffoon or idiot or whatever.

Maybe you could argue that they could coach the team to shoot more I suppose.

This is a good overview of some of the arguments: http://theleafsnation.com/2013/7/18/leafs-asst-coach-greg-cronin-talks-puck-possession

It's in that article too, but a comparison was done in the past using the NHL's old offensive zone time stat that they used to keep, and it found that shots for/against lined up pretty good with the offensive zone time numbers: http://vhockey.blogspot.ca/2008/08/zone-time.html

 

[TML fan]

The Leafs got outpossessed last season...nearly every single game.

Based on what? Corsi?

Assuming that's what you are basing your point from, he does a pretty good job at dismantling the logic that Corsi is built on (shots equals puck possession)  and the gigantic gap in how those two things correlate.  I think he's bang on. 

You would rather have the team taking 3 or 4 low percentage shots from bad angles than generate 1 good scoring chance in close, all the while maintaining the puck far longer?  Bad shots just to generate shots on the clock?

It should be noted that the 29th place Leafs team of 2009 had some of the best Corsi numbers in the league.  (hint hint)

Based on watching them play.