Team MVP

[drummond]

For me it is Phil Kessel, who leads the team in goals, assists, points, PPG, PPA, GWG and shots
Runner ups: James Reimer and Dion Phaneuf

 

[AlmosGirl]

I think it's great that a case can be made for several players.  This isn't a team that's riding on just one or two big names.

I'd say Phaneuf has the second hardest job on the ice, after Reimer, and there's no way to make that look easy; plus he has the C on his chest, so I think people expect more out of him than your average player.  However, if you set that aside and simply look at what he's contributed to the team, I think he's definitely in the running, and quite possibly the guy.

That said, Reimer has stolen a couple of insanely hard games, and has come away with wins despite the team being outshot as much as 3 to 1.  And this is on top of a lot of testing periods where he and Scrivens were swapping spots, which has to be hard on the nerves.  He's been amazing since the trade deadline and I'd say he's the biggest reason why the leafs have clinched their first playoff spot in 9 years.

I feel like it's one of those two guys, though there are a lot of honourable mentions.  Kessel and Kadri have both been responsible for a lot of points, and Kadri's in particular have resulted in a lot of almost single-handed wins.  Also, I have the feeling that if Lupul had been healthy all year, it'd be him, no contest.  And there are a few other guys who have had great years in general, who have been invaluable; McClement, for example, has been a huge reason for the way the Leafs have turned the 3rd worst PK into the 3rd best.

Agree with everything.

 

[Corn Flake]

I guess all in all, Corsi looks like a crazy amount of conclusions drawn just on shot counts.

And you know, you know I'm a super big numbers guy when it comes to Baseball so this isn't an issue of not liking numbers vs. human observation for me but rather just that the advanced metrics in hockey...they're not there yet.

I think it's pretty telling, for instance, that in this ERA where Baseball and Basketball, and even Football to an extent, are embracing advanced statistics on a professional level we haven't really seen that in hockey.

Right, and I guess until the league embraces and begins to track more stats then it's not happening at any point.  You can only base so much on the numbers we have available.. the expense alone of tracking stats has to be huge given the number of bodies alone involved in each game to track things like puck posession time, zone time, pass tracking, etc.

one of the reasons I haven't jumped more into these stats any deeper is because I knew if you weren't using them, they were probably not reliable.  ;D

 

[Corn Flake]

I guess all in all, Corsi looks like a crazy amount of conclusions drawn just on shot counts.

And you know, you know I'm a super big numbers guy when it comes to Baseball so this isn't an issue of not liking numbers vs. human observation for me but rather just that the advanced metrics in hockey...they're not there yet.

I think it's pretty telling, for instance, that in this ERA where Baseball and Basketball, and even Football to an extent, are embracing advanced statistics on a professional level we haven't really seen that in hockey.

Well from recent articles by people like Mirtle, it seems like a number of teams are using advanced metrics, and they already keep their own versions of "corsi."

I think it's a good thing to add to the conversation.  I agree with the central idea of corsi as it relates to puck possession correlating to success.  I don't think you can be a poor corsi team and be successful over the long haul.

I can see why teams would track their own version of it.. well, let's not call it a version of Corsi.. they are tracking proper stats to come to proper conclusions on things like puck posession, probably based on actual puck posession time rather than basing it on shots.

So some dude in the back room with a stopwatch or two is calculating exactly how much time a player spends with the puck or how much the team has it when he's on the ice, etc. etc... a literal calucation has value. 

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I can see why teams would track their own version of it.. well, let's not call it a version of Corsi.. they are tracking proper stats to come to proper conclusions on things like puck posession, probably based on actual puck posession time rather than basing it on shots.

Over 82 games if you are consistently getting more shots, or getting outshot, that's a pretty good indicator of possession, or lack thereof.  If teams are calculating actual possession then I'm sure that's great, but for what we are privy to with these stats, I think it gives a pretty good picture of which players are playing well.  Just use it as another tool in evaluation, over a large enough sample size.

 

[Kin]

I think it's a good thing to add to the conversation.

It depends, I guess, on what you mean by it. Anything is good to add to the conversation if it's used in proper context and given appropriate weight. I don't think, though, that's being done with QoC precisely because of things like Lupul and like McClement.

It's like the AL MVP debate last year. Advanced metrics can be fun to add to a conversation if it's not "Mike Trout had a higher bWAR than Miguel Cabrera so he's a better player, case closed" because that's not a fun conversation to have. It does add value if the conversation is "A player is far more valuable if he contributes in all areas of the game than in only one area, as evidenced by Mike Trout having a much higher bWAR than Miguel Cabrera".

 

[Corn Flake]

I can see why teams would track their own version of it.. well, let's not call it a version of Corsi.. they are tracking proper stats to come to proper conclusions on things like puck posession, probably based on actual puck posession time rather than basing it on shots.

Over 82 games if you are consistently getting more shots, or getting outshot, that's a pretty good indicator of possession, or lack thereof.  If teams are calculating actual possession then I'm sure that's great, but for what we are privy to with these stats, I think it gives a pretty good picture of which players are playing well.  Just use it as another tool in evaluation, over a large enough sample size.

See I don't exactly agree... I think it's a reach to suggest that shots = possession time.  as one example.. take teams that employ lots of dump and chase.. they won't necessarily register shots correlating to how much time they spend with the puck along the boards, even though they are in possession of the puck for large amounts of time.  In addition I don't agree that possession time means your team is inferior, but that's a different argument.

But I do agree you can use it as a tool if you want, just not a key reference point.

 

[sampson]

Reimer all the way. There is no question.

 

[lamajama]

What are the team awards? I'd be up for choosing those...

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

This makes a pretty good case for Kessel for Hart, let alone MVP of the team: http://theleafsnation.com/2013/4/26/phil-kessel-should-be-in-the-hart-trophy-discussion

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

See I don't exactly agree... I think it's a reach to suggest that shots = possession time.  as one example.. take teams that employ lots of dump and chase.. they won't necessarily register shots correlating to how much time they spend with the puck along the boards, even though they are in possession of the puck for large amounts of time.  In addition I don't agree that possession time means your team is inferior, but that's a different argument.

But I do agree you can use it as a tool if you want, just not a key reference point.

But teams that dump and chase have been shown to be less effective at generating offense.  If you're dumping it in, you're giving up possession, and you're getting less chances/shots.  So it stands to reason you're scoring less, right?  No teams have been able to replicate very high SH% season to season, so it would be very very difficult to have sustained success dumping the puck in.  I doubt a team could cycle the puck so often and not generate chances over a season that it would skew the numbers much.

It's more numbers, but again, it makes sense to me: http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/7/11/more-on-the-advantages-of-puck-possession-over-dump-and-chase

The conclusions he came to:

Carrying the puck in is way better than dumping it in, more than twice as good -- and it's not because of odd-man rushes or player skill or any other external factor; it's just because having the puck in the opponent's zone headed towards the goal is a lot better than trying to outrace the opponent to try to get the puck in the corner.

Most people don't recognize just how big the difference is, and the data suggests that teams should be trying harder than they are to carry the puck in. If coaches are telling their third line to dump the puck, they are probably giving away scoring chances. If coaches are telling the players to dump the puck in borderline situations where they think carrying it might lead to a turnover, they are probably giving away scoring chances. Even regrouping and trying again might be better than dumping the puck in, especially when the team has their top line on the ice.

I think this is part of what makes Kessel so good - he's great at gaining the zone with possession of the puck.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

It's a toss-up for me between Reimer, Kessel and McClement.

This.

I'd vote Reimer with McClement and Kessel coming in right behind him.

I guess a case can be made for Kadri, but I still think he has some big holes in his game.

As for Phaneuf, I'm not a fan of his style of play but I must say that I haven't noticed the glaring mistakes he was making at the start of the season for the last 2 months.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

See I don't exactly agree... I think it's a reach to suggest that shots = possession time.  as one example.. take teams that employ lots of dump and chase.. they won't necessarily register shots correlating to how much time they spend with the puck along the boards, even though they are in possession of the puck for large amounts of time.  In addition I don't agree that possession time means your team is inferior, but that's a different argument.

But I do agree you can use it as a tool if you want, just not a key reference point.

But teams that dump and chase have been shown to be less effective at generating offense.  If you're dumping it in, you're giving up possession, and you're getting less chances/shots.  So it stands to reason you're scoring less, right?  No teams have been able to replicate very high SH% season to season, so it would be very very difficult to have sustained success dumping the puck in.  I doubt a team could cycle the puck so often and not generate chances over a season that it would skew the numbers much.

It's more numbers, but again, it makes sense to me: http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/7/11/more-on-the-advantages-of-puck-possession-over-dump-and-chase

The conclusions he came to:

Carrying the puck in is way better than dumping it in, more than twice as good -- and it's not because of odd-man rushes or player skill or any other external factor; it's just because having the puck in the opponent's zone headed towards the goal is a lot better than trying to outrace the opponent to try to get the puck in the corner.

Most people don't recognize just how big the difference is, and the data suggests that teams should be trying harder than they are to carry the puck in. If coaches are telling their third line to dump the puck, they are probably giving away scoring chances. If coaches are telling the players to dump the puck in borderline situations where they think carrying it might lead to a turnover, they are probably giving away scoring chances. Even regrouping and trying again might be better than dumping the puck in, especially when the team has their top line on the ice.

I think this is part of what makes Kessel so good - he's great at gaining the zone with possession of the puck.

I think they are oversimplifying why a team uses the dump and chase mentality.

 

[Bullfrog]

Kessel, Reimer, Phaneuf, McClement, in that order.

 

[maplesyrup]

Kessel, Reimer, Phaneuf, McClement, in that order.

Those would be my top 4 for sure. I think there's a case to be made for any of them.

 

[Kaberle15]

Reimer, Kessel, McClement, Phaneuf, Kadri in that order.

Reimer: Biggest question mark at the start of the season, own the Sens, Canadiens, and the Leafs net. Hands down MVP, without him the Leafs wouldn't be near the playoffs.

Kessel: The Quiet leader, he is a much complete player this season, plays some defense, scores, assists, has over a PPG rate, 1st Leaf in top 10 in points in back to back seasons.

McClement: Leads the NHL in SH minutes played, is the big reason the PK is top 3 and not the usual bottom 3.

Phaneuf: Logged a ton of ice time, this season he didn't tryed to do too much, he didn't fight as much (I don't remember him fighting this season), top 10 in the league in points, lead the team and the PP.

Kadri: A 1st rounder by the Leafs that is producing almost in a PPG rate, scores, assists, hits, he is so sick with his moves, him and Lupul are dynamite together.

And I can only imagine what kind of record the Leafs would have if Lupul was healthy the whole season.

Anyway, lets lock up the 5th spot tomorrow.

 

[Redleaf]

Reimer, Kessel, McClement, Phaneuf, Kadri in that order.

Reimer: Biggest question mark at the start of the season, own the Sens, Canadiens, and the Leafs net. Hands down MVP, without him the Leafs wouldn't be near the playoffs.

Kessel: The Quiet leader, he is a much complete player this season, plays some defense, scores, assists, has over a PPG rate, 1st Leaf in top 10 in points in back to back seasons.

McClement: Leads the NHL in SH minutes played, is the big reason the PK is top 3 and not the usual bottom 3.

Phaneuf: Logged a ton of ice time, this season he didn't tryed to do too much, he didn't fight as much (I don't remember him fighting this season), top 10 in the league in points, lead the team and the PP.

Kadri: A 1st rounder by the Leafs that is producing almost in a PPG rate, scores, assists, hits, he is so sick with his moves, him and Lupul are dynamite together.

And I can only imagine what kind of record the Leafs would have if Lupul was healthy the whole season.

Anyway, lets lock up the 5th spot tomorrow.

Yep. Reimer wins it though.

 

[cw]

Kessel, Reimer, Phaneuf, McClement, ...

I agree that those four would be at the top of my list. But I'm not settled on my order. I could be persuaded otherwise. Here's my order until I give it more thought:

Reimer, Phaneuf, Kessel, McClement

 

[Omallley]

Reimer takes it in my books, although there is definitely a case that could be made (to me at least) for Kessel. Phaneuf, Kadri and especially McClement deserve honourable mentions.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

See I don't exactly agree... I think it's a reach to suggest that shots = possession time.  as one example.. take teams that employ lots of dump and chase.. they won't necessarily register shots correlating to how much time they spend with the puck along the boards, even though they are in possession of the puck for large amounts of time.  In addition I don't agree that possession time means your team is inferior, but that's a different argument.

But I do agree you can use it as a tool if you want, just not a key reference point.

But teams that dump and chase have been shown to be less effective at generating offense.  If you're dumping it in, you're giving up possession, and you're getting less chances/shots.  So it stands to reason you're scoring less, right?  No teams have been able to replicate very high SH% season to season, so it would be very very difficult to have sustained success dumping the puck in.  I doubt a team could cycle the puck so often and not generate chances over a season that it would skew the numbers much.

It's more numbers, but again, it makes sense to me: http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/7/11/more-on-the-advantages-of-puck-possession-over-dump-and-chase

The conclusions he came to:

Carrying the puck in is way better than dumping it in, more than twice as good -- and it's not because of odd-man rushes or player skill or any other external factor; it's just because having the puck in the opponent's zone headed towards the goal is a lot better than trying to outrace the opponent to try to get the puck in the corner.

Most people don't recognize just how big the difference is, and the data suggests that teams should be trying harder than they are to carry the puck in. If coaches are telling their third line to dump the puck, they are probably giving away scoring chances. If coaches are telling the players to dump the puck in borderline situations where they think carrying it might lead to a turnover, they are probably giving away scoring chances. Even regrouping and trying again might be better than dumping the puck in, especially when the team has their top line on the ice.

I think this is part of what makes Kessel so good - he's great at gaining the zone with possession of the puck.

I think they are oversimplifying why a team uses the dump and chase mentality.

It doesn't go into why a team would use the mentality, it is simply comparing a dump & chase method vs maintaining possession for producing offense over time.