Wild @ Leafs - Dec. 7th, 7:30pm - SN, Fan 590

[mr grieves]

Well, they're still a bad team but they're a fun-bad team at least. And there's no quit in them.

Yup. They're the kind of bad that shows potential for future good, and, well, that's alright.

I dunno. I'm finding them frustratingly fun-bad. They're young and not much is expected of them, except to figure out what they can do. But when things get predictable and stop working -- e.g. Gardiner's wrist shots from point while Komarov stands in front -- the coaching staff feels slow to experiment, reluctant carry much of what they try over into another game, and desperate to stick with the same line-up.

 

[Redleaf]

Well, they're still a bad team but they're a fun-bad team at least. And there's no quit in them.

Yup. They're the kind of bad that shows potential for future good, and, well, that's alright.

You guys sound as giddy as a couple of school girls. Whoops. Was that a Sparksidiom slip?

 

[ZBBM]

Well, they're still a bad team but they're a fun-bad team at least. And there's no quit in them.

Yup. They're the kind of bad that shows potential for future good, and, well, that's alright.

I dunno. I'm finding them frustratingly fun-bad. They're young and not much is expected of them, except to figure out what they can do. But when things get predictable and stop working -- e.g. Gardiner's wrist shots from point while Komarov stands in front -- the coaching staff feels slow to experiment, reluctant carry much of what they try over into another game, and desperate to stick with the same line-up.

I feel the same. But my guess is that they are really more about trying to get systems in place than winning. Though they'd never admit that publicly.

 

[herman]

I feel the same. But my guess is that they are really more about trying to get systems in place than winning. Though they'd never admit that publicly.

I believe they're taking a macro view at the same premise behind puck possession metrics:

On the micro-play scale, make choices that lead to opportunities/generate offensive zone time: e.g. controlled exits/entries, attacking the line with speed, staying above the puck, aggressive wall pinches with forward backup. All these things will, over time, lead to more chances at the net for than against.

Goals, which are fickle, are percentage driven outcomes; generating more chances stacks the game in your favour over the course of a long period of time. More goals for than against, lead to more wins. More wins for, over a sustained period of time, leads to playoffs. More playoff entries lead to potential championships, etc.

The thing is, the only thing the players on the ice can actually control are those micro-play decisions. The goal behind advanced analytics is to find the decisions/plays that best coincide with all the above (through evidence-based analysis of long periods of time), and identify the types of players that can execute those requirements the most consistently (for the best value ideally). That means you can't let individual luck-driven events like flutterpuck goals or getting shutout by an epic-goaltending performance drive your long-term decisions.

So the way I see it, the Leafs played hard, fast, and held the opportunity advantage most of the night. They still make mistakes that look fixable (except for certain players' inability to slow down the action/speed up their decisions) that happened to find the back of the net last night, but they're heading in the right direction.