Leafs @ Ducks - Mar. 3rd, 10:00pm - TSN4, Fan 590

[slapshot]

I think long term I'd rather miss out on a handful of points than tell the goalie we're heavily invested in over the next 4 years that we've lost faith in him.

I concur. This is about long term and I am sure they'll figure it out over time.

 

[disco]

Go Leafs Go!

 

[Redleaf]

That's kind of why I'm frustrated with this. You, and many others dont feel it's important enough to address in any meaningful and substantial way. The argument boils down to not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings. With nine or so points now lost in the shootout already this season, at what point does the coach say, 'alright. enough already' and try some different approaches to this. Who knows, maybe it works and in 5-10 years (if they haven't done away with this god awful carnival side show they call the shoot out) teams will employ shoot-out specialists that only step on the ice if the game gets to a dreaded S.O. I know it sounds ridiculous but so does the idea of keeping the shoot-out part of an NHL regular-season game. 

 

[Andy007]

With McElhinney between the pipes tonight, I'll feel a lot more comfortable should it go to a shootout again.

I'm starting to think it would be better to use McElhinney for all shootouts moving forward. It's getting to the point where I'd rather they put in a completely cold goaltender over Anderson. For whatever reason, his confidence sinks like a stone the second that first shooter bears down on him in the S.O. I'm sure to this point Babcock has been letting him work through it, but every situation eventually needs to be addressed. The time has come to try something different here.

I think it's bad reads on Anderson's part. He seems to be backing in too soon, even when the attacker appears to be set to shoot, opening up too much space for them. Kopitar last night was just another example. Hopefully goalie coach can get him to make some adjustments by showing him videos. I wonder how often they get a chance to practice shoot-outs?

That goal in last night's SO was the only goal he let in. The Leafs scored zero. I'm not sure why changing the goalie is even being discussed, particularly since this team just can't score in that thing.

 

[Kin]

That's kind of why I'm frustrated with this. You, and many others dont feel it's important enough to address in any meaningful and substantial way. The argument boils down to not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings.

No, the argument boils down to the risks vs. the rewards. If I were convinced that being good in the shootout was a testable and repeatable attribute then I'd think you should make that sort of change. Being as overwhelming wealth of evidence we have says that it really isn't, change for change's sake doesn't appeal to me.

Even if it were life and death that the Leafs make the playoffs(and let's be real, if you're obsessing over lost shootout points it's probably not a team that desperately needs to make the post-season) I'd still need to see evidence that there would likely be a positive result vs. "Change it because who knows?"

 

[ZBBM]

That's kind of why I'm frustrated with this. You, and many others dont feel it's important enough to address in any meaningful and substantial way. The argument boils down to not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings. With nine or so points now lost in the shootout already this season, at what point does the coach say, 'alright. enough already' and try some different approaches to this. Who knows, maybe it works and in 5-10 years (if they haven't done away with this god awful carnival side show they call the shoot out) teams will employ shoot-out specialists that only step on the ice if the game gets to a dreaded S.O. I know it sounds ridiculous but so does the idea of keeping the shoot-out part of an NHL regular-season game.

Well, I think Andersen had has best SO game last night so I would be in favor of letting him keep working on it.  But you actually make some good points.  I could see a team having a "shootout specialist" in the lineup primarily for that.  It's no weirder in principle than "defensive zone FO specialist."

 

[Kin]

Well, I think Andersen had has best SO game last night so I would be in favor of letting him keep working on it.  But you actually make some good points.  I could see a team having a "shootout specialist" in the lineup primarily for that.  It's no weirder in principle than "defensive zone FO specialist."

Sure it is. Defensive zone faceoffs happen every game, multiple times a game. I think the high for any one team in the shootout in a year is around one every four games.

Likewise, there aren't really many guys who have shown an ability to be good in the shootout on a year to year basis who aren't, you know, good hockey players.

 

[Redleaf]

Risk vrs reward is exactly what it is. The reward of 5-10 extra points on a team that could use every single one to make the dance should be priority number one.

Also, changing thing ups for the sake of changing things up happens all the time on the coaches watch. There really doesn't have to be volumes of proof on whether or not something is worth giving a try.  More times than not, it's a mental block, a lack of confidence that is the root of these issues. Whether or not that's the case here with Andersen and the shoot-out isn't really 100% known but instead of letting his ego take a bigger hit after every SO lose (the hole he's in now is only getting deeper if he continues to pile up loses), why not let him work through it at practise rather than to continue to jepordize the teams chances of making the playoffs? My point being, there are more than a few options to try and help resolve this problem. Why can't they try something new here?

 

[LuncheonMeat]

That's kind of why I'm frustrated with this. You, and many others dont feel it's important enough to address in any meaningful and substantial way. The argument boils down to not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings. With nine or so points now lost in the shootout already this season, at what point does the coach say, 'alright. enough already' and try some different approaches to this. Who knows, maybe it works and in 5-10 years (if they haven't done away with this god awful carnival side show they call the shoot out) teams will employ shoot-out specialists that only step on the ice if the game gets to a dreaded S.O. I know it sounds ridiculous but so does the idea of keeping the shoot-out part of an NHL regular-season game.

Well, I think Andersen had has best SO game last night so I would be in favor of letting him keep working on it.  But you actually make some good points.  I could see a team having a "shootout specialist" in the lineup primarily for that.  It's no weirder in principle than "defensive zone FO specialist."

They already have one. His name is Tyler Bozak. He's 15/37 for his career (40.5%), although 1/7 last year, and no attempts this year. Crosby has a NHL career mark of 47.2%, McJesus is 0% (2 attempts - they figured out he sucks early on), Ovechkin 38%, Patrick Kane 36.6%.

Honestly, the Leafs have no shortage of players who can score in the shootout. I would take my chances with Bozak, JVR (8/22 career 36.4%), Marner, Matthews, Nylander, etc. What I'm curious about is whether the Leafs, over the time the shootout has been a thing, are really that much worse than everyone else. Unfortunately, I don't have a clue how to put that together.

 

[Kin]

Risk vrs reward is exactly what it is. The reward of 5-10 extra points on a team that could use every single one to make the dance should be priority number one.

That's not really a reasonable description of the potential reward. It's inaccurate in a number of ways. For instance:

1) We don't have good year to year evidence that a goalie will be great in a shootout consistently. We certainly don't see that in the sort of back-up goalies who would effectively serve as substitutes in a shootout.

2) How "good" a goalie is in a shootout is only one factor in whether or not a team wins the shootout. As mentioned, the Leafs could have easily won last night's shootout if any of their shooters had scored.

3) The expectation that any shift would result in a 100% shootout winning percentage has basically no basis in reality.

So even at the most extreme examples, where a team is getting into 10-12 shootouts a year, losing most of them because their goalie is inherently not good at shootouts and has a back-up specifically chosen for his ability in shootouts, you're not talking about the difference between 0-12 and 12-0, you're probably talking about the difference between 3-9 and 8-4 or 9-3.

So at its very extremes, you're talking about a difference of 5 or 6 points a year. Realistically, even if we accept the premise that this is a real thing, you're probably talking about a 2-3 point swing a year at most.

There really doesn't have to be volumes of proof on whether or not something is worth giving a try.

If there's a risk involved there doesn't need to be volumes but there really should be some. I don't believe that coaches, smart ones anyway, do make changes just for the sake of change without any actual reasoning behind their decision. I think they may try different things to see if they work but they don't pick names out of a hat, they still do so based on the evidence they have in front of them.

 

[Highlander]

I think long term I'd rather miss out on a handful of points than tell the goalie we're heavily invested in over the next 4 years that we've lost faith in him.

You don't think he hasn't already come to that conclusion himself? He stinks at shootouts. Addressing the issue hardy constitutes losing faith in his goaltending abilities during the course of a game. He just doesn't have it for whatever reason, with the skills competition we've ended up having to confront way too many times this season. I have a hard  time understanding why more coaches don't differentiate the two more and try different things to secure that extra point at games end. Those extra points could be the difference between making the playoffs or not. Try something different!!

I'd rather them play an extra 5 minutes of 3 on 3 than the shootout. If its tied after the extra 5 minutes of 3 X 3 then it ends in a tie with both teams getting point. What the hay we used to have ties in games and the wheels didnt fall off hockey

 

[herman]

The shootout is Rock, Paper, Scissors Chicken with 10 additional options, advanced video scouting of limited samples, and probabilities of improper execution from either participant. The main thing holding players back in the shootout is overthinking.

 

[mr grieves]

They already have one. His name is Tyler Bozak. He's 15/37 for his career (40.5%), although 1/7 last year, and no attempts this year. Crosby has a NHL career mark of 47.2%, McJesus is 0% (2 attempts - they figured out he sucks early on), Ovechkin 38%, Patrick Kane 36.6%.

Honestly, the Leafs have no shortage of players who can score in the shootout. I would take my chances with Bozak, JVR (8/22 career 36.4%), Marner, Matthews, Nylander, etc. What I'm curious about is whether the Leafs, over the time the shootout has been a thing, are really that much worse than everyone else. Unfortunately, I don't have a clue how to put that together.

Where'd you find that? Here's what I see for career shootout percentages...

Some recent Leafs who are good at these: Joe Colborne (8 in 18, 44%), Brad Boyes (39/88, 44%), P.A. Parenteau (20/46, 44%), Peter Holland (6/14, 43%), Mike Santorelli (15/35, 43%), Joffrey Lupul (14/36, 39%), Brooks Laich (7/19, 37%). Quite the assortment of talent...

 

[dekedastardly]

With the Ducks coming off their bye week I think we'll be in good shape if we get on the board early and often. As far as changing the shootout strategy, i'd sooner let one of the unusuals have a go than put a cold goalie in there. Gardiner's been shooting well lately, let him have a try. Or let Connor Brown have a shot. With a record of 1 in 8, it's time to switch it up.

 

[dekedastardly]

Doesn't Pirri play for the Rags?  I was kinda wanting to see the Leafs sign him in the off-season.

edit: I see it lists Nielsen with the Isles too

 

[mr grieves]

Doesn't Pirri play for the Rags?  I was kinda wanting to see the Leafs sign him in the off-season.

edit: I see it lists Nielsen with the Isles too

Sporting Charts has out of date teams (Holland is still listed as TOR)

Found 2016-17 stats on NHL.com (it doesn't even bother listing teams). Our best shootout guy this year is... Brian Boyle (has gone 2 for 3).

 

[LuncheonMeat]

They already have one. His name is Tyler Bozak. He's 15/37 for his career (40.5%), although 1/7 last year, and no attempts this year. Crosby has a NHL career mark of 47.2%, McJesus is 0% (2 attempts - they figured out he sucks early on), Ovechkin 38%, Patrick Kane 36.6%.

Honestly, the Leafs have no shortage of players who can score in the shootout. I would take my chances with Bozak, JVR (8/22 career 36.4%), Marner, Matthews, Nylander, etc. What I'm curious about is whether the Leafs, over the time the shootout has been a thing, are really that much worse than everyone else. Unfortunately, I don't have a clue how to put that together.

Where'd you find that? Here's what I see for career shootout percentages...

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/crosbsi01.html

Scroll down to the fourth table - NHL Miscellaneous - and you'll see shootout by year and career at the end of that table.

 

[mr grieves]

Filtering out those with fewer than 15 attempts... First number is attempts, second is goals. Column after the shooting % is game deciding goals. (strangely, stars who have generally unimpressive numbers do show up toward the top if sorted this way: Kane, Crosby, Kessel, Letang, Pavelski, Nash, Perry, Bergeron, and Ovechkin all have 10 or more).

Anyhow, if tonight's game goes to shootout, we'll be facing the best in the league.

Also worth noting... 3 of the best were moved or were rumored to be available at the deadline. Vanek was traded for a 3rd and a prospect, PAP for a 6th, and ARI didn't get their asking price for Vrbata (2nd, according to Friedman).

edit: ... and Montreal traded Desharnais to Edmonton for defenseman Brandon Davidson.

 

[ZBBM]

Well, I think Andersen had has best SO game last night so I would be in favor of letting him keep working on it.  But you actually make some good points.  I could see a team having a "shootout specialist" in the lineup primarily for that.  It's no weirder in principle than "defensive zone FO specialist."

Sure it is. Defensive zone faceoffs happen every game, multiple times a game. I think the high for any one team in the shootout in a year is around one every four games.

Likewise, there aren't really many guys who have shown an ability to be good in the shootout on a year to year basis who aren't, you know, good hockey players.

No it isn't.  The principle is exactly the same: a particular skill that contributes to a win.  The frequency with which it is employed has nothing to do with the principle.

 

[ZBBM]

Kadri dragged down and ... nothing.