Toronto Maple Leafs vs Boston Bruins - Round 1

[Bender]

I know it won't but I hope last night, and the playoffs to date, put the final nail in the coffin of the idiotic nonsense we've had to deal with for months in the GDT's about the Leafs being doomed and fundamentally unable to even make it a close series. That's just not how the modern NHL works. That's not true of any team vs. any team in a series. Some goaltending and some breaks and Ottawa could beat Tampa two or three times out of seven.

The Leafs could lose the next four straight or win the next three or any variation therein. That is true of every series in the playoffs and every series that will ever happen so long as the NHL maintains its current set-up.

As soon as Boston scores a goal you'll hear how garbage the Leafs are and have no hope of competing in the series courtesy of lc9. If Leafs win he'll barely post in the thread.

If they win: "WELL THEY WON'T BEAT TAMPA! TEAM IS SO SOFT."

I remember when we had things to complain about and the Leafs were trash year after year there was one beacon of optimism that we could really use again. Nutman!!  ;D

 

[Kin]

I wasn't really intending my post to be about one poster in particular as we've heard stuff like that from multiple parties(although clearly I've touched a nerve).

Really though, I think my point can be sort of broadened towards the larger question of how we look at numbers and probabilities within the game. We all know that hockey games rely on all manner of bounces and luck. A shot from the point hits a stick going towards the net and sometimes it banks in and sometimes drops right to a defender for an easy clear or counter attack and just about any game can swing on that sort of thing, that happens dozens of times a night, going one team or the other's way maybe two or three times.

What a lot of the "Leafs have no hope" crowd did was just talk out of their butt. Trying to reduce all of those bounces and all of the thousands of variables that go into a game besides and think that they were somehow smart enough to reduce it to simple percentages. Team X has only a 10% chance against Team Y but a 40% chance against Team Z. Trying to attach their yammering nonsense to numbers like that in the hopes that it would lend weight to their opinions.

Meanwhile what the people actually interested in breaking down the numbers(who, because it didn't fit their preconceived conclusions, a lot of the same people dismissed) were saying was really just in the realm of "Doing certain things, having certain kinds of players, are how teams put their thumb on the scale". Getting shots from higher percentage locations, having players who lead to more shots generated...it doesn't negate all of the variables, it just puts you in the best situation for them. If things can break 55-45, you want the 55.

People struggle with the concept of probability. After the last Presidential election people said that the outcome disproved the models that had the result as being only 25% possible or whatever. But that's not how things work. All you can do is put together a group to be in the best possible position, you can't control for everything.

 

[Kin]

I remember when we had things to complain about and the Leafs were trash year after year there was one beacon of optimism that we could really use again. Nutman!!  ;D

No, that's very much missing the point. The issue isn't one of optimism/pessimism, it's about realistically measuring the information we have. People saying that the team with Toskala in net were definitely playoff bound weren't any less annoying and were actively arguing against the sort of team-building strategy that led the Leafs to build the current roster.

 

[Zee]

Team X has only a 10% chance against Team Y but a 40% chance against Team Z.

That's me.  Team Z.

 

[Kin]

Thank you, Peter Parity.

And that's always been my beef with the quest for parity. The more parity you have, the more likelihood you have that it's those random chance things that determine a series.

Which doesn't even mean the way the puck might bounce. I think the playoffs these days are as much about players getting hot at the right moments as anything but what makes players have hot streaks is essentially a mystery. We like ascribing certain narratives to players who get hot in the playoffs vs. players who get cold in the playoffs(or the beginning of the year vs. end of the year) but that's a by-product of how we've all been raised by dopes trying to fill column inches.

 

[herman]

Really though, I think my point can be sort of broadened towards the larger question of how we look at numbers and probabilities within the game. We all know that hockey games rely on all manner of bounces and luck. A shot from the point hits a stick going towards the net and sometimes it banks in and sometimes drops right to a defender for an easy clear or counter attack and just about any game can swing on that sort of thing, that happens dozens of times a night, going one team or the other's way maybe two or three times.

What a lot of the "Leafs have no hope" crowd did was just talk out of their butt. Trying to reduce all of those bounces and all of the thousands of variables that go into a game besides and think that they were somehow smart enough to reduce it to simple percentages. Team X has only a 10% chance against Team Y but a 40% chance against Team Z. Trying to attach their yammering nonsense to numbers like that in the hopes that it would lend weight to their opinions.

Meanwhile what the people actually interested in breaking down the numbers(who, because it didn't fit their preconceived conclusions, a lot of the same people dismissed) were saying was really just in the realm of "Doing certain things, having certain kinds of players, are how teams put their thumb on the scale". Getting shots from higher percentage locations, having players who lead to more shots generated...it doesn't negate all of the variables, it just puts you in the best situation for them. If things can break 55-45, you want the 55.

People struggle with the concept of probability. After the last Presidential election people said that the outcome disproved the models that had the result as being only 25% possible or whatever. But that's not how things work. All you can do is put together a group to be in the best possible position, you can't control for everything.

 

[Bender]

I remember when we had things to complain about and the Leafs were trash year after year there was one beacon of optimism that we could really use again. Nutman!!  ;D

No, that's very much missing the point. The issue isn't one of optimism/pessimism, it's about realistically measuring the information we have. People saying that the team with Toskala in net were definitely playoff bound weren't any less annoying and were actively arguing against the sort of team-building strategy that led the Leafs to build the current roster.

Maybe true to a degree, but I don't see anything in the code of conduct against being a Leafs homer when the team isn't good. Besides, his optimism isn't completely unfounded now. "Endlessly bashing" on the other hand...

 

[Bender]

Thank you, Peter Parity.

And that's always been my beef with the quest for parity. The more parity you have, the more likelihood you have that it's those random chance things that determine a series.

Which doesn't even mean the way the puck might bounce. I think the playoffs these days are as much about players getting hot at the right moments as anything but what makes players have hot streaks is essentially a mystery. We like ascribing certain narratives to players who get hot in the playoffs vs. players who get cold in the playoffs(or the beginning of the year vs. end of the year) but that's a by-product of how we've all been raised by dopes trying to fill column inches.

One thing I heard on the broadcast yesterday was that Mitch hadn't scored in a while and they though "Has he lost his confidence?"

Imo that sounds like such a ridiculous narrative to weave together. I think the guy with 94pts to lead the team doesn't have confidence issues, or at least it's ridiculous to chalk that up to why he hadn't scored for a while.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Team X has only a 10% chance against Team Y but a 40% chance against Team Z.

That's me.  Team Z.

Only in the US..Up here you're Team ZED!!

 

[Kin]

Maybe true to a degree, but I don't see anything in the code of conduct against being a Leafs homer when the team isn't good. Besides, his optimism isn't completely unfounded now. "Endlessly bashing" on the other hand...

I'm not a mod/admin so I have no real opinion on whether any rules were actually broken. I'm just saying that from my perspective I genuinely don't mind any opinion/outlook so long as it's reasonable and well argued and isn't just repeated over and over again.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Maybe true to a degree, but I don't see anything in the code of conduct against being a Leafs homer when the team isn't good. Besides, his optimism isn't completely unfounded now. "Endlessly bashing" on the other hand...

I don't see where "endlessly bashing" is forbidden in the rules either.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'll also say, since it's painfully obvious who we're talking about, all of lc9's posts in last nights GDT were pretty reasonable. Some people handle losing differently and I understand why he gets on most people's (including mine) nerves but I don't agree with suggestions that he's simply a troll and doesn't deserve to take part in a Leafs message forum.

 

[Bender]

I wasn't really intending my post to be about one poster in particular as we've heard stuff like that from multiple parties(although clearly I've touched a nerve).

Really though, I think my point can be sort of broadened towards the larger question of how we look at numbers and probabilities within the game. We all know that hockey games rely on all manner of bounces and luck. A shot from the point hits a stick going towards the net and sometimes it banks in and sometimes drops right to a defender for an easy clear or counter attack and just about any game can swing on that sort of thing, that happens dozens of times a night, going one team or the other's way maybe two or three times.

What a lot of the "Leafs have no hope" crowd did was just talk out of their butt. Trying to reduce all of those bounces and all of the thousands of variables that go into a game besides and think that they were somehow smart enough to reduce it to simple percentages. Team X has only a 10% chance against Team Y but a 40% chance against Team Z. Trying to attach their yammering nonsense to numbers like that in the hopes that it would lend weight to their opinions.

Meanwhile what the people actually interested in breaking down the numbers(who, because it didn't fit their preconceived conclusions, a lot of the same people dismissed) were saying was really just in the realm of "Doing certain things, having certain kinds of players, are how teams put their thumb on the scale". Getting shots from higher percentage locations, having players who lead to more shots generated...it doesn't negate all of the variables, it just puts you in the best situation for them. If things can break 55-45, you want the 55.

People struggle with the concept of probability. After the last Presidential election people said that the outcome disproved the models that had the result as being only 25% possible or whatever. But that's not how things work. All you can do is put together a group to be in the best possible position, you can't control for everything.

What's interesting is I don't think a lot of the Leafs' underlying numbers have been good in the last month. I haven't looked at myself but so I've heard.

 

[Kin]

What's interesting is I don't think a lot of the Leafs' underlying numbers have been good in the last month. I haven't looked at myself but so I've heard.

Without Gardiner and Dermott I wouldn't be surprised if that were true. Gardiner is, and has been for a while, the ultimate example of the guy with the good underlying numbers who nevertheless was written off as absolute garbage by the "Watch the game!" brigade.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

What's interesting is I don't think a lot of the Leafs' underlying numbers have been good in the last month. I haven't looked at myself but so I've heard.

Since March 1st their CF was 53.7%, good for 6th in the league in that span.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

This is somewhat a repost of mine, but the Leafs were surging in March and were just sunk by crappy goaltending (chart from @ChartingHockey):

 

[herman]

What's interesting is I don't think a lot of the Leafs' underlying numbers have been good in the last month. I haven't looked at myself but so I've heard.

For the first chunk of the month, it was already the worst. Goalie hell week especially, when some quick high deflections found their way in and the team couldn't be bothered to put themselves on the line to get more points given all the injuries and illnesses happening at that time already.

https://twitter.com/Billius27/status/1115624739316424705

The end of March, even without seeing the results on the scoreboard, saw the Leafs rounding into form. We're not even at full strength right now due to Gardiner and Dermott's injury recoveries (neither are the Bruins, but their listed injuries are to no one important in my mind).

EDIT: Ah, Carlton beat me to it.

Here is the same chart/data with Boston included:
https://twitter.com/Billius27/status/1115324703932145664

 

[Bullfrog]

...
People struggle with the concept of probability. After the last Presidential election people said that the outcome disproved the models that had the result as being only 25% possible or whatever. But that's not how things work. All you can do is put together a group to be in the best possible position, you can't control for everything.

"The more I practice, the luckier I get." ~ Efron Reyes

 

[93forever]

However, the two wild cards are Kadri and Gardiner.  If Kadri can be a pest and create some offense and if Gardiner can stop passing the puck to Bruin players, and actually play defense responsibly, the Leafs will take out the Bruins in 7.

Really? That's the difference between a loss in 5 and a win in 7?

Like I said, Kadri and Gardiner will be keys to the series.  Who knows what would have happened if Kadri wasn't a bonehead in game 2.  Maybe the Leafs get a second goal.  They need Gardiner to play solid defensively which is what he is doing, but the Kadri thing may cost the Leafs the series.  If I am wrong and the Leafs take the series, I will be the first to say that you were right and I was wrong, I do hope I am wrong, I really do.

 

[sickbeast]

However, the two wild cards are Kadri and Gardiner.  If Kadri can be a pest and create some offense and if Gardiner can stop passing the puck to Bruin players, and actually play defense responsibly, the Leafs will take out the Bruins in 7.

Really? That's the difference between a loss in 5 and a win in 7?

Like I said, Kadri and Gardiner will be keys to the series.  Who knows what would have happened if Kadri wasn't a bonehead in game 2.  Maybe the Leafs get a second goal.  They need Gardiner to play solid defensively which is what he is doing, but the Kadri thing may cost the Leafs the series.  If I am wrong and the Leafs take the series, I will be the first to say that you were right and I was wrong, I do hope I am wrong, I really do.

Yesterday the Bruins were the team I feared.  Big, physical, fast, and mean.  Losing Kadri will be brutal.  I am hopeful that the Leafs can pull it off but I definitely think Boston is in the driver's seat now, particularly if they can win game 3 and win back home ice advantage.  Who comes off the bench to fill in while Kadri is out?

Hopefully Babcock can pull off some coaching wizardry.  We'll see tomorrow.