General Leafs Talk: Post-Olympics Edition

[bustaheims]

It's good that it didn't go to OT, but honestly I'd rather the Habs have won it. I'm content with the Atlantic going BOS-TB-MON. We're going to be battling for the wild card so it doesn't really matter how many points the Habs have. CBJ is the bigger threat to our playoff aspirations.

I'm just trying to find a silver lining. Stop raining on my rainbow!

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Can't even make that Detroit last second goal up.

They scored 2 quick ones in the 3rd too to make a game of it.

And Pittsburgh couldn't score on a 5:00 PP.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Can't even make that Detroit last second goal up.

They scored 2 quick ones in the 3rd too to make a game of it.

And Pittsburgh couldn't score on a 5:00 PP.

This is karma hitting back for last season.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Wilson did have Reimer back there.

He only had Reimer there for half of his 3rd season, and Reimer put up great numbers. Had he been with the team from the start and played at that same level the 10/11 team likely makes the playoffs. The next season was concussed Reimer, who isn't the same goalie as not-concussed Reimer.

 

[L K]

Wilson did have Reimer back there.

He only had Reimer there for half of his 3rd season, and Reimer put up great numbers. Had he been with the team from the start and played at that same level the 10/11 team likely makes the playoffs. The next season was concussed Reimer, who isn't the same goalie as not-concussed Reimer.

Let's even accept that Reimer was there for part of Wilson's tenure.  The team was 31-21-9 with Reimer in net up until Wilson got fired.  That's a 95 point pace team. 

Overall from January of 2011 when Reimer became a full-time member of the team to Wilson's firing the Leafs were 53-43-14.  Correcting for shoot-out wins the Leafs were 47-6-43-14.

Reimer under Carlyle has the team at 33-21-6.  That's a 98 point pace team.  Overall the Leafs are 68-53-16 under Carlyle.  Correcting for shoot-out wins the Leafs are 58-10-53-16.  So overall the only difference between Ron Wilson and Randy Carlyle is shootout wins. 

Again though, the difference between that 2011-2012 team and the 2012-2013 team and beyond is:
OUT: Tim Connolly, David Steckel, Jay Rosehill, Luke Schenn, Mike Komisarek, Joey Crabb, Matthew Lombardi, Phillipe Dupuis
IN: JVR, Jay McClement, Frazer McLaren, Colton Orr, Nazem Kadri, Leo Komarov, Mark Fraser

Looking at that 2011-2012 roster, it was a bad team.  A lot of guys who just werent' NHL hockey players anymore.  There was a lot of junk on lasts years roster too but I think they served a bit of a role in an abbreviated training-camp free year where the Leafs were physically intimidating against teams that weren't up to top speed.  This year that lack of speed/mobility was quickly apparent and a lot of those players either were traded, demoted or play less than 5 minutes a night.

One of the arguments for this team was that it is young.  Two years of Carlyle and the team isn't really all that young anymore.  They have a better collection of players and play to the same level as Wilson's later time with the team.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

So every team in the East that played last night got at least a point except for Montreal and Ottawa.

Oh, and I didn't realize last night, but three of Detroit's goals, including the OT winner with a second left, bounced in off Pittsburgh defensemen.  Ridiculous.

 

[Kin]

The next season was concussed Reimer, who isn't the same goalie as not-concussed Reimer.

I'd be sympathetic to the idea of Reimer's lousy year being attributable to the concussion that the team repeatedly said he didn't have if it weren't for the simple fact that of the terrible, awful goaltenders that Wilson had to work with, every single one of them has subsequently been able to put up pretty good numbers for other coaches in other systems.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'd be sympathetic to the idea of Reimer's lousy year being attributable to the concussion that the team repeatedly said he didn't have if it weren't for the simple fact that of the terrible, awful goaltenders that Wilson had to work with, every single one of them has subsequently been able to put up pretty good numbers for other coaches in other systems.

Are we pretending that Toskala doesn't exist anymore? Because I've tried really hard to do that but haven't been able to so if you have any tips I'd greatly appreciate them.

Gustavsson's first season with Detroit he had a 0.879, but it was in just 7 games because he dealt with injuries (and the lockout of course). This season he's at .912, which is an improvement from his Leafs day but still 27th among goalies with 20+ games. And he's playing in a back-up role which he's probably better suited for.

Giguere's numbers are pretty similar to what he posted as a Leaf, which again aren't really amazing. His SA% over those 3 years is .913, which like Gus is about average and he did so in a back-up role not as a starter. And of the 4 goalies Wilson had Giggy was probably the 2nd best after Reimer. But he only played 13 games the one season when he was acquired late and 33 the next because of his wonky groin.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

One of the arguments for this team was that it is young.  Two years of Carlyle and the team isn't really all that young anymore.  They have a better collection of players and play to the same level as Wilson's later time with the team.

I know the average age of NHL teams has the Leafs as one of the youngest in the league, but I'd be interested to see what a list of the median age looks like. I really don't think this team is very young. The vast majority of them are all in the primes of their careers. We just don't have any 32+ old players bumping up our average. But it's not like the core of this team is 18-22 years old or anything. We only have one rookie playing a large role on the team, which I would imagine almost every team has. Our next two youngest are Kadri and Gardiner, who are both 23 and while they aren't veterans they shouldn't be handled like toddlers. Everybody else, like I said, is essentially in the primes of their careers.

 

[Kin]

Are we pretending that Toskala doesn't exist anymore? Because I've tried really hard to do that but haven't been able to so if you have any tips I'd greatly appreciate them.

No, for that statement to work you don't have to forget Toskala so much as you have to accept work in a small sample size(.918 SV% in 6 Calgary games). While I'd typically not put much stock in 6 games A) it fits the pattern and B) it makes for a more punchy post when I can say "All of his goalies" as opposed to "All of his goalies, with the exception of Toskala who never really was a NHL goalie again" and I'm trying to convince people here. 

Gustavsson's first season with Detroit he had a 0.879, but it was in just 7 games because he dealt with injuries (and the lockout of course). This season he's at .912, which is an improvement from his Leafs day but still 27th among goalies with 20+ games. And he's playing in a back-up role which he's probably better suited for.

Giguere's numbers are pretty similar to what he posted as a Leaf, which again aren't really amazing. His SA% over those 3 years is .913, which like Gus is about average and he did so in a back-up role not as a starter. And of the 4 goalies Wilson had Giggy was probably the 2nd best after Reimer. But he only played 13 games the one season when he was acquired late and 33 the next because of his wonky groin.

Yeah, but saying that all of these guys subsequently had better years after Wilson doesn't require them all to win 8 straight Vezina trophies for it to be true. It just speaks to the fact that all of them were capable of performing better than they did with Wilson as their coach.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'd be sympathetic to the idea of Reimer's lousy year being attributable to the concussion that the team repeatedly said he didn't have if it weren't for the simple fact that of the terrible, awful goaltenders that Wilson had to work with, every single one of them has subsequently been able to put up pretty good numbers for other coaches in other systems.

Are we pretending that Toskala doesn't exist anymore? Because I've tried really hard to do that but haven't been able to so if you have any tips I'd greatly appreciate them.

Gustavsson's first season with Detroit he had a 0.879, but it was in just 7 games because he dealt with injuries (and the lockout of course). This season he's at .912, which is an improvement from his Leafs day but still 27th among goalies with 20+ games. And he's playing in a back-up role which he's probably better suited for.

Giguere's numbers are pretty similar to what he posted as a Leaf, which again aren't really amazing. His SA% over those 3 years is .913, which like Gus is about average and he did so in a back-up role not as a starter. And of the 4 goalies Wilson had Giggy was probably the 2nd best after Reimer. But he only played 13 games the one season when he was acquired late and 33 the next because of his wonky groin.

Yeah, I mean Gustavsson had a similar run under Wilson as he has this season in Detroit.  He has made 23 starts this season.  In 2011-12 he made 24 starts pre-All Star game with Wilson and had a .910 SV% (it's .913 this season) - it's just he ended up playing in 42 games and starting 36 of them, which won't happen this season in Detroit.  He made more starts for the Leafs in 11-12 than he has total with Detroit.  Gustavsson's 5 on 5 SV% (which accounts for ~1000 of his ~1300 total minutes played) is 38th out of 58 goalies who have played at least 17 games.  Giguere's is 37th.

Even this season Gustavsson's SV% has been dropping every month (it was .978 in February, but it was only 2 games, and has only had 1 in March, so excluding those two - or you can include them and it's gone down every month since October except for 2 starts in Feb).  So he had a .927 SV% in 8 games over Oct/Nov, and in 16 games since it is .903.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

B) it makes for a more punchy post when I can say "All of his goalies" as opposed to "All of his goalies, with the exception of Toskala who never really was a NHL goalie again" and I'm trying to convince people here.

Can't argue with that.

Yeah, but saying that all of these guys subsequently had better years after Wilson doesn't require them all to win 8 straight Vezina trophies for it to be true. It just speaks to the fact that all of them were capable of performing better than they did with Wilson as their coach.

I still think there's a difference between putting up "pretty good numbers" and putting up save percentages that are exactly at the average level. And while the main focus of the Ron Wilson was actually greatTM movement has been on the goalies of his time, like LK said the rosters that he had in general were god awful. Particularly in his first 3 years. So saying that Toskala*/Gus/Giggy couldn't be even decent starters on a terrible team doesn't mean that I don't think they could have been average back-ups on decent teams.

* Toskala sucks.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Even this season Gustavsson's SV% has been dropping every month (it was .978 in February, but it was only 2 games, and has only had 1 in March, so excluding those two - or you can include them and it's gone down every month since October except for 2 starts in Feb).  So he had a .927 SV% in 8 games over Oct/Nov, and in 16 games since it is .903.

Giggy's stats outside of Oct/Nov where he went on that 6-0 run aren't that great either.

 

[Kin]

I still think there's a difference between putting up "pretty good numbers" and putting up save percentages that are exactly at the average level.

Well, that's a little semantic-y for my tastes but I'd be happy to revise my statement from "pretty good" to "better than they were" if that settles the objection. Although, that said, I think in the context of receiving league-worst goaltending describing league average as "pretty good" would have had a lot of supporters in those days.

And while the main focus of the Ron Wilson was actually greatTM movement has been on the goalies of his time, like LK said the rosters that he had in general were god awful. Particularly in his first 3 years. So saying that Toskala*/Gus/Giggy couldn't be even decent starters on a terrible team doesn't mean that I don't think they could have been average back-ups on decent teams.

I mean, in the more general sense I'm not as inclined to divorce individual performance from a coach's influence as you may be and I think there are enough examples of non-goalies playing poorly, being terribly used under Wilson that the goaltending numbers are just a piece of the overall argument rather than the whole thing. I don't think, for instance, the Stempniak trade gets made if Steen doesn't look terrible under Wilson or if Wilson sees his long-term value to the club.

I realize that it's an argument that relies on a lot of what ifs but I think if we're going to just write off the teams he had to work with as being terrible you have to put a lot of that on what he did with the players he had.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

 

[Kin]

Obviously I don't want it to happen but there would be a sort of cosmic fit in this terrible change to the playoff system uniquely screwing over the Leafs.

 

[ZBBM]

Obviously I don't want it to happen but there would be a sort of cosmic fit in this terrible change to the playoff system uniquely screwing over the Leafs.

I'm at great peace if it will mean the end of Carlyle.

 

[Kin]

I'm at great peace if it will mean the end of Carlyle.

I really don't think you're going to enjoy June.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Well, that's a little semantic-y for my tastes but I'd be happy to revise my statement from "pretty good" to "better than they were" if that settles the objection. Although, that said, I think in the context of receiving league-worst goaltending describing league average as "pretty good" would have had a lot of supporters in those days.

I'm fine with that, but again I'm not exactly disagreeing with you on this point. I'm sure the day Gus and Giggy signed deals with their new teams I said they would put up better numbers because they were going to be used in a smaller role and they'd be playing behind a team that was actually comprised of mostly NHL players.

I mean, in the more general sense I'm not as inclined to divorce individual performance from a coach's influence as you may be and I think there are enough examples of non-goalies playing poorly, being terribly used under Wilson that the goaltending numbers are just a piece of the overall argument rather than the whole thing. I don't think, for instance, the Stempniak trade gets made if Steen doesn't look terrible under Wilson or if Wilson sees his long-term value to the club.

I realize that it's an argument that relies on a lot of what ifs but I think if we're going to just write off the teams he had to work with as being terrible you have to put a lot of that on what he did with the players he had.

This entire argument is based on a giant what-if so I don't have any problems with that. I can't bring myself to defend anybody from the Leafs organization regarding the Steen trade so I'll concede entirely to that point. But what other examples are you referring too? The mediocre top-6 players that he was given like Stajan, Poni, Hagman, and Blake all had some if not their best seasons under Wilson. The Kulemin, Grabovski, MacArthur line obviously thrived under him.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'm at great peace if it will mean the end of Carlyle.

Reimer's definitely going to be the one thrown under the bus for this.

I'm also not sure how I feel about Carlyle coming back next season. On the one hand, I think he's a bad coach. On the other, if he stays our chances at the McDavid sweepstakes increase, especially if the NHL opens up the lottery a bit more.