Sharks @ Leafs - Dec. 13th, 7:30pm - TSN4, TSN 1050

[herman]

More surprisingly good (and quick) analysis by the TSN crew:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/video/did-refs-make-mistake-on-leafs-called-back-goal~1015889

Would've been a different game if the refs didn't see the need to ding Kadri for goaltender interference. And a big what's up to those that still think Rielly doesn't have a shot.

I liked the way the Leafs came back from that normally soul-sucking call to go generate chances and end up with a goal the refs could not call back.

 

[Frank E]

Well, 28 points in the first 28 games, good for 25th in the league.

Which incredible intelligent prognosticator has them at 82 points this year?

 

[L K]

I know the Leafs are bad at the shootout and everything but when is the NHL going to do away with this nonsense?

I'm sure you wouldnt have a problem with shootouts if the Leafs weren't perpetually terrible at them.

I'm sure he would, and so do I.  It's like breaking a tie on a 4-round golf major on a mini-putt course.

And the Leafs are 20-19 in shootouts since the beginning of the 2013-2014 season, so calling them perpetually terrible at them isn't exactly accurate.

Yep. I've been pretty consistent in my dislike of the shootout.  You don't have shootouts in the playoffs.  You shoudln't have them in the regular season.  Awarding bonus points for a skills competition makes no sense.
There was never a problem with ties.

 

[Kin]

Well, 28 points in the first 28 games, good for 25th in the league.

I think that's pretty significant right now. Andersen's rebounded to the point where their goaltending has been roughly league average. They've been largely healthy. They're on the wrong side of PDO but just barely.

This team has largely produced a fair representation of the talent on the club and they're pretty firmly in the bottom third of the league.

 

[Coco-puffs]

This team has largely produced a fair representation of the talent on the club and they're pretty firmly in the bottom third of the league.

You really believe the Leafs roster is in the bottom third of the league in terms of talent? 

I think their inexperience is what puts them in the bottom third of the league.  They generate a TON of offensive chances, tops in the league, and while a lot of that is related to the aggressive system Babcock is instilling, you need talent to do that.  They also give up a ton of chances defensively, and while some that is talent (er Hunwick/Polak/Smith/Martin), its more due to inexperience and the aggressive system in place.

Don't forget, the Leafs are Top 10 in terms of time leading games, and if they hadn't blown 6 third-period leads, they'd be right in the middle of the standings. 

I'm not saying the team is the top third in terms of "talent", but they are closer to it than the bottom third. 

 

[TBLeafer]

Well, 28 points in the first 28 games, good for 25th in the league.

Which incredible intelligent prognosticator has them at 82 points this year?

I have them at 85, which is still reasonably obtainable I think. 

 

[bustaheims]

I think that's pretty significant right now. Andersen's rebounded to the point where their goaltending has been roughly league average. They've been largely healthy. They're on the wrong side of PDO but just barely.

This team has largely produced a fair representation of the talent on the club and they're pretty firmly in the bottom third of the league.

Agreed. I think this team has performed roughly as well as can reasonably expected for such a young, inexperienced group - I mean, on any given night, half the team's forwards are playing in their first full NHL season. There's plenty of reason to be optimistic about this team's future, but there's still a fair amount of growing pains they need to work through. We're still much closer to the beginning of the rebuilding process than we are to the end.

 

[Kin]

You really believe the Leafs roster is in the bottom third of the league in terms of talent? 

Broadly speaking, yes. At least in as much as talent can be defined of the current abilities of the players on the team. The gaps they have on the wing, on defense...those things matter when talking about the talent level on a club. Someone like Matthews will eventually be even better than he is right now but that's a separate question.

 

[McGarnagle]

Would've been a different game if the refs didn't see the need to ding Kadri for goaltender interference. And a big what's up to those that still think Rielly doesn't have a shot.

I liked the way the Leafs came back from that normally soul-sucking call to go generate chances and end up with a goal the refs could not call back.

I thought the penalty on SJ to make it a two man advantage was even worse than the Kadri call. If the officials had allowed the Reilly goal to stand, I'd bet the leafs never would have been given that 2 man PP.

So, I don't think the game would have turned out any differently.

 

[Coco-puffs]

You really believe the Leafs roster is in the bottom third of the league in terms of talent? 

Broadly speaking, yes. At least in as much as talent can be defined of the current abilities of the players on the team. The gaps they have on the wing, on defense...those things matter when talking about the talent level on a club. Someone like Matthews will eventually be even better than he is right now but that's a separate question.

"Twenty-eight games into the season, the Maple Leafs have possessed a second-intermission lead 16 times. As of Wednesday, no NHL team had led more games through two periods. In other words, in the After 40 Minutes standings ? which, granted, don?t actually exist ? Toronto is currently in first place."

https://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/2016/12/14/leafs-nhls-best-after-40-minutes-feschuk.html

This team is an inexperienced one that has better than bottom-third level "talent"- leading after 2 periods more than any NHL team shows the talent level, and the end results show their inexperience.  More experience for half of the roster (all of the rookies, plus Carrick and Reilly to an extent) would put this team in the playoffs.  They wouldn't be a contender, but they would be a playoff team. 

 

[Kin]

I mean, I don't agree obviously. I can just as easily chalk up leading after two periods as a result of teams not really taking them seriously and then blowing third period leads as a result of what happens when better teams actually start to press. The Leafs lack of top quality defensemen/defensive forwards contribute heavily to an inability to hold a lead and, again, that's an issue of the quality of the players on the team.

But this seems more like a disagreement over the definition of talent. If it's the word that bothers you, feel free to replace it with "this is how good the team is currently, whether because of a lack of talent or experience". 

 

[Coco-puffs]

I mean, I don't agree obviously. I can just as easily chalk up leading after two periods as a result of teams not really taking them seriously and then blowing third period leads as a result of what happens when better teams actually start to press. The Leafs lack of top quality defensemen/defensive forwards contribute heavily to an inability to hold a lead and, again, that's an issue of the quality of the players on the team.

But this seems more like a disagreement over the definition of talent. If it's the word that bothers you, feel free to replace it with "this is how good the team is currently, whether because of a lack of talent or experience".

I counter your second sentence by saying they are blowing leads because they are taking the foot off the gas with the lead trying to protect it, instead of trying to continue to possess the puck and play in the other teams zone.  I disagree that teams aren't taking them seriously- this is the NHL and teams take it seriously unless they are playing Arizona. 

If I use your definition of talent as the capability of winning games, then you are right- they are bottom third in the league.  I think our definitions of talent are definitely different here.  I don't see why I'm the person who has to change their wording though.

Talent:  "natural aptitude or skill."

Clearly they have an aptitude for generating offense (Top 4 in every offensive category!).  Clearly, they lack an aptitude for strong defensive play (Bottom 4 in every defensive category).  Which do you think comes more naturally?  Which is easier to improve? 

Feel free to change your wording from "talent" to "capability".  Here's your original sentence re-worded:

"This team has largely produced a fair representation of the capabilities of the club and they're pretty firmly in the bottom third of the league."

 

[bustaheims]

Oh good. A semantics debate.

 

[Kin]

I counter your second sentence by saying they are blowing leads because they are taking the foot off the gas with the lead trying to protect it, instead of trying to continue to possess the puck and play in the other teams zone.

Which presupposes that how the play is carried is entirely within the control of the Leafs, that a team like Chicago would be powerless to counter the Leafs offense if the Leafs would only press.

Your argument here is pretty weak being as the whole "We can't sit back on a lead, we have to take it to them" is such a hockey cliche that it's not really believable that it's a fault of design. They're trying to keep up their play but the other team isn't letting them.

Regardless, we could disagree about that all day. That really just underlines that "Leading after 40 minutes" isn't a typically cited proof of a team's abilities for a reason.

I disagree that teams aren't taking them seriously- this is the NHL and teams take it seriously unless they are playing Arizona.

Ok, we disagree. If you don't think teams have a little more spring in their step for a game against a top team, well, then we just won't see eye to eye.

I don't see why I'm the person who has to change their wording though.

You don't. That was an olive branch extended because I don't think either of us really wants to get buried in the semantic disagreement of what talent means. You seem bothered by my word choice, I'm not.

Talent:  "natural aptitude or skill."

Is a definition, another could be: a special often athletic, creative, or artistic aptitude. Whether talent is innate or can be learned is not a question solved by dictionary.com. Again, your objection seemed to be a semantic one but quite frankly if it's going to rest on a definitive or singular definition of what "talent" is then you probably shouldn't have bothered.

Clearly they have an aptitude for generating offense (Top 4 in every offensive category!).  Clearly, they lack an aptitude for strong defensive play (Bottom 4 in every defensive category).  Which do you think comes more naturally?  Which is easier to improve?

Neither. And neither. Also, I'd caution against using 28 games worth of statistics as being especially meaningful here.

Feel free to change your wording from "talent" to "capability".  Here's your original sentence re-worded:

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/talent?s=t

Second one down. Synonyms, man, they're a trip.

 

[Coco-puffs]

Teams almost always have an extra spring in their step against the Leafs, especially at the ACC where lots of players are returning to their home province etc.  That's not an argument that carries any weight for me, even when the Leafs suck. 

And yes, I am bothered by your use of the word talent in that specific statement.  My argument will continue to be that the reason they are in the bottom-third in the standings is due to lack of experience, not due to a lack of talent.  I think this team is capable of being in the middle of the standings with more experience.  If they had the same roster next year and the year after, would they still be in the bottom third of the league "talent"-wise?

And I love your passive aggressive tone at the end.  Very nice.

 

[Kin]

Teams almost always have an extra spring in their step against the Leafs, especially at the ACC where lots of players are returning to their home province etc.

Sure. 

And yes, I am bothered by your use of the word talent in that specific statement.

That's great. However being as my use of the word is certainly acceptable by its definition I'm not super concerned about it bothering you. Being as I apparently didn't make it clear, whether or not I used the synonym you would have preferred is not a super interesting topic of discussion to me.

If you have something substantive though, knock yourself out.

 

[Coco-puffs]

Teams almost always have an extra spring in their step against the Leafs, especially at the ACC where lots of players are returning to their home province etc.

Sure. 

And yes, I am bothered by your use of the word talent in that specific statement.

That's great. However being as my use of the word is certainly acceptable by its definition I'm not super concerned about it bothering you. Being as I apparently didn't make it clear, whether or not I used the synonym you would have preferred is not a super interesting topic of discussion to me.

If you have something substantive though, knock yourself out.

And yet you continue to respond.  Ironic. 

Anyways, I'm checking out of this debate because I need to put my talents- er capabilities- to better use.

 

[Kin]

And yet you continue to respond.

Well, we're both regular posters on the board and you continued to labour under the impression that I was looking for a editor. Seemed like a good decision just in case you have any future difficulties with your thesaurus.

 

[herman]

Oh good. A semantics debate.

Scrollololol

 

[Coco-puffs]

And yet you continue to respond.

Well, we're both regular posters on the board and you continued to labour under the impression that I was looking for an editor. Seemed like a good decision just in case you have any future difficulties with your thesaurus.

Agreed.  I shouldn't have bothered with a semantics discussion.  I do love editing though