Blue Jackets @ Leafs - Oct. 21st, 7:00pm - SN, Fan 590

[CarltonTheBear]

Yeah, I mean you can always lose Game 1 but at least you put yourself in the best position to bank some points. Kind of reminds me game theory a bit. 

To me it's saying that you're just happy with 2 points. It's the "safe" option. And like I said usually I'm fine with it but I think exceptions can be made. Playing Andersen tonight definitely gives us the best chance at winning at least one game. I still think playing Hutch tonight gives us a better chance at 4 points.

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/kristen_shilton/status/1186296503410790401

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Just for kicks, what does everyone think the odds are for Leafs wins in this back-to-back in each scenario?

Like Andersen tonight against Columbus is probably about a 60% chance for a win, maybe a little higher if you want to be generous. Tomorrow night against Boston though the Leafs are dinged both because they're tired and they have Hutch, so I'd say maybe those odds fall down to 40%?

Now let's say Hutchinson started tonight instead. I think we can still call the Leafs the favourites to win, 53% maybe. Then tomorrow night against Boston if Andersen plays. Normally I'd put a match-up like that at about 50/50. Leafs get dinged a few points because they're tired so I'd call it 47%.

So do you take the 60% then 40% odds, or the 53% then 47% ones? Like LK said earlier, I think especially when you factor in the divisional match-up of Boston and the fact that there's a good chance the two teams will be within a few points of each other for home-ice in the playoffs I'd have called this B2B an exception to Babcock's preference.

 

[herman]

Ceci trade seems like it is imminent.

What?

x2

Is this some esoteric subtext herman commentary? lol

All the pieces line up.

Dermott and Hyman returning soon. Holl playing well enough to be an option in sheltered minutes (as predicted). 4.5M in one lump sum covers the space required and then some.

 

[herman]

Just for kicks, what does everyone think the odds are for Leafs wins in this back-to-back in each scenario?

If we had our full lineup, I?d go Hutch-Anderson. In our depleted state, points in the bank is points in the bank.

 

[ZBBM]

Just for kicks, what does everyone think the odds are for Leafs wins in this back-to-back in each scenario?

Like Andersen tonight against Columbus is probably about a 60% chance for a win, maybe a little higher if you want to be generous. Tomorrow night against Boston though the Leafs are dinged both because they're tired and they have Hutch, so I'd say maybe those odds fall down to 40%?

Now let's say Hutchinson started tonight instead. I think we can still call the Leafs the favourites to win, 53% maybe. Then tomorrow night against Boston if Andersen plays. Normally I'd put a match-up like that at about 50/50. Leafs get dinged a few points because they're tired so I'd call it 47%.

So do you take the 60% then 40% odds, or the 53% then 47% ones? Like LK said earlier, I think especially when you factor in the divisional match-up of Boston and the fact that there's a good chance the two teams will be within a few points of each other for home-ice in the playoffs I'd have called this B2B an exception to Babcock's preference.

While the bold part can be argued, accepting your percentages I'd say the smartest thing to do is choose the option that gives you the best chance to get 2 points our of this.  60 > 53.

To adapt an old TV commercial, points is points.

 

[princedpw]

Just for kicks, what does everyone think the odds are for Leafs wins in this back-to-back in each scenario?

Like Andersen tonight against Columbus is probably about a 60% chance for a win, maybe a little higher if you want to be generous. Tomorrow night against Boston though the Leafs are dinged both because they're tired and they have Hutch, so I'd say maybe those odds fall down to 40%?

Now let's say Hutchinson started tonight instead. I think we can still call the Leafs the favourites to win, 53% maybe. Then tomorrow night against Boston if Andersen plays. Normally I'd put a match-up like that at about 50/50. Leafs get dinged a few points because they're tired so I'd call it 47%.

So do you take the 60% then 40% odds, or the 53% then 47% ones? Like LK said earlier, I think especially when you factor in the divisional match-up of Boston and the fact that there's a good chance the two teams will be within a few points of each other for home-ice in the playoffs I'd have called this B2B an exception to Babcock's preference.

While the bold part can be argued, accepting your percentages I'd say the smartest thing to do is choose the option that gives you the best chance to get 2 points our of this.  60 > 53.

To adapt an old TV commercial, points is points.

If we had 2 games against a western conference opponent and depending on the goaltender, the probabilities were:

CHOICE A:  1: 60%; 2: 40%

OR

CHOICE B:  1: 53%; 2: 47%

(For simplicity, we are assuming either a win or regulation time loss, no loser-point games.)

Then it does not matter what choice is made -- the expected number of points gained is the same:

CHOICE A:  .6*2 + .4*2 = 2
CHOICE B:  .53*2 + .47*2 = 2

More generally, if you assume that in any game, playing Andersen gives you a 10% better chance to win than playing Hutch, then it does not matter which games Andersen plays, only how many.

Now, we know for sure that playing any goalie back-to-back is a very bad thing --- there have been studies that show that playing without a days rest has a dramatic effect on save percentage.  So much so that your starter is usually worse than your backup on the 2nd night of a back-to-back.  The leafs know this.  That is why they never play the same goalie 2 nights in a row.

Aside from that, I've never seen any evidence that playing your better guy against the better team (or conversely the worse team) changes the expected number of points you get.  Or playing him the first night or the second night (when a team is tired) matters.  Or playing right after a loss (which becomes more likely if Babcock starts Hutch first) increases one's liklihood of a second loss.

When people argue Babcock should have played Andersen against the better team (or when the team is fresh or to prevent consecutive losses), they are implicitly assuming that the benefit of Andersen against the better is larger than that the benefit against the weaker team.  However, I have no reason to believe there is any difference in the magnitude of the benefit (or if there is, that it is significant).  I think Babcock sticks to his routine because the players like to know when they are playing so they can prepare themselves mentally.  The benefits of having such a routine are likely unmeasurable, but if it makes the players feel good then, there doesn't appear to be any harm.

The only exception would be in this specific case with the Bruins (or other divisional or conference rivals whose ordering with respect to Toronto in the final standings matters) because playing Andersen against the Bruins, though I don't have evidence it will increase Toronto's expected point total, we do have evidence it will likely decrease the Bruin's expected point total.

So anyway, the bottom line is I don't believe the complaints about which side of the B2B Andersen should play have any statistical merit, except, perhaps when it comes to these divisional situations.  Still, even there, the season-long impact on the Bruins total points is pretty small.  Of course, if the Leafs lose by one on a couple of bad goals from Hutch and then at the end of the season are within a couple of points of Boston then you can blame the coach for decisions this week.

 

[princedpw]

Ceci trade seems like it is imminent.

What?

x2

I didn't see where the original comment came from? ...

If they are thinking of trading him, they are doing a nice job of making him look good to potential buyers --- 3rd on the team in ice time at 22:19.  4 points.  +3.  Lots of good non-advanced stats!

But it doesn't seem likely to me.  Just because Dermott comes back, it doesn't mean the D corps will be healthy for the rest of the year.  The leafs will likely need the depth later in the year.

 

[ZBBM]

Just for kicks, what does everyone think the odds are for Leafs wins in this back-to-back in each scenario?

Like Andersen tonight against Columbus is probably about a 60% chance for a win, maybe a little higher if you want to be generous. Tomorrow night against Boston though the Leafs are dinged both because they're tired and they have Hutch, so I'd say maybe those odds fall down to 40%?

Now let's say Hutchinson started tonight instead. I think we can still call the Leafs the favourites to win, 53% maybe. Then tomorrow night against Boston if Andersen plays. Normally I'd put a match-up like that at about 50/50. Leafs get dinged a few points because they're tired so I'd call it 47%.

So do you take the 60% then 40% odds, or the 53% then 47% ones? Like LK said earlier, I think especially when you factor in the divisional match-up of Boston and the fact that there's a good chance the two teams will be within a few points of each other for home-ice in the playoffs I'd have called this B2B an exception to Babcock's preference.

While the bold part can be argued, accepting your percentages I'd say the smartest thing to do is choose the option that gives you the best chance to get 2 points our of this.  60 > 53.

To adapt an old TV commercial, points is points.

If we had 2 games against a western conference opponent and depending on the goaltender, the probabilities were:

CHOICE A:  1: 60%; 2: 40%

OR

CHOICE B:  1: 53%; 2: 47%

(For simplicity, we are assuming either a win or regulation time loss, no loser-point games.)

Then it does not matter what choice is made -- the expected number of points gained is the same:

CHOICE A:  .6*2 + .4*2 = 2
CHOICE B:  .53*2 + .47*2 = 2

More generally, if you assume that in any game, playing Andersen gives you a 10% better chance to win than playing Hutch, then it does not matter which games Andersen plays, only how many.

Now, we know for sure that playing any goalie back-to-back is a very bad thing --- there have been studies that show that playing without a days rest has a dramatic effect on save percentage.  So much so that your starter is usually worse than your backup on the 2nd night of a back-to-back.  The leafs know this.  That is why they never play the same goalie 2 nights in a row.

Aside from that, I've never seen any evidence that playing your better guy against the better team (or conversely the worse team) changes the expected number of points you get.  Or playing him the first night or the second night (when a team is tired) matters.  Or playing right after a loss (which becomes more likely if Babcock starts Hutch first) increases one's liklihood of a second loss.

When people argue Babcock should have played Andersen against the better team (or when the team is fresh or to prevent consecutive losses), they are implicitly assuming that the benefit of Andersen against the better is larger than that the benefit against the weaker team.  However, I have no reason to believe there is any difference in the magnitude of the benefit (or if there is, that it is significant).  I think Babcock sticks to his routine because the players like to know when they are playing so they can prepare themselves mentally.  The benefits of having such a routine are likely unmeasurable, but if it makes the players feel good then, there doesn't appear to be any harm.

The only exception would be in this specific case with the Bruins (or other divisional or conference rivals whose ordering with respect to Toronto in the final standings matters) because playing Andersen against the Bruins, though I don't have evidence it will increase Toronto's expected point total, we do have evidence it will likely decrease the Bruin's expected point total.

So anyway, the bottom line is I don't believe the complaints about which side of the B2B Andersen should play have any statistical merit, except, perhaps when it comes to these divisional situations.  Still, even there, the season-long impact on the Bruins total points is pretty small.  Of course, if the Leafs lose by one on a couple of bad goals from Hutch and then at the end of the season are within a couple of points of Boston then you can blame the coach for decisions this week.

That's a good analysis, but your calculations of probabilistic outcomes assume that the 2 games are independent events (you are simply adding the 2 probabilities).  Yet the common wisdom is that, when the second game involves one team for which it is a B2B and one for which it is not, then the 2 games are not independent events ? it's thought that the second game will be harder for the team playing the B2B (the Leafs, in this case).  If that common wisdom is correct (it may not be, but I suspect it is), then you'd need to adjust your calculation accordingly, yes?

 

[Kin]

Honestly if the team's ability to win with Hutchinson in net is as negatively affected as people suggest then I'm really not sure that starting him in one game vs. the other really changes how many points the Leafs should expect.

I think for me it's more about a division opponent vs. a conference opponent.  I care more about the 2 points against Boston than the 2 points against Columbus.

That's fair. But I'd also wonder if maybe you don't want to get Boston too familiar with the guy they might have to play in the playoffs.

Maybe me saying that it makes no difference is wrong but I don't think it's worth any hand wringing either way.

 

[L K]

Ceci trade seems like it is imminent.

What?

x2

Is this some esoteric subtext herman commentary? lol

All the pieces line up.

Dermott and Hyman returning soon. Holl playing well enough to be an option in sheltered minutes (as predicted). 4.5M in one lump sum covers the space required and then some.

Fair enough, I thought there was a meaningful rumor going around.  I'd agree that it's a good one to move.  Seeing Ceci's minutes as high as they are he seems to be becoming a Babcock toy.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

All the pieces line up.

Dermott and Hyman returning soon. Holl playing well enough to be an option in sheltered minutes (as predicted). 4.5M in one lump sum covers the space required and then some.

Hockeytroll.ca: Sources say Ceci trade seems like it is imminent. Also Leafs in talk to sign back-up goalie "Joe Schmo".

 

[disco]

Go Leafs Go!

 

[Coco-puffs]

Just for kicks, what does everyone think the odds are for Leafs wins in this back-to-back in each scenario?

Like Andersen tonight against Columbus is probably about a 60% chance for a win, maybe a little higher if you want to be generous. Tomorrow night against Boston though the Leafs are dinged both because they're tired and they have Hutch, so I'd say maybe those odds fall down to 40%?

Now let's say Hutchinson started tonight instead. I think we can still call the Leafs the favourites to win, 53% maybe. Then tomorrow night against Boston if Andersen plays. Normally I'd put a match-up like that at about 50/50. Leafs get dinged a few points because they're tired so I'd call it 47%.

So do you take the 60% then 40% odds, or the 53% then 47% ones? Like LK said earlier, I think especially when you factor in the divisional match-up of Boston and the fact that there's a good chance the two teams will be within a few points of each other for home-ice in the playoffs I'd have called this B2B an exception to Babcock's preference.

Dom has the Leafs at 64.6% tonight.

Also, as I posted on Friday:

Home team always has a 55% built in probability (if both teams were equal).  (This is from historical data)
Rested team vs back-to-back team adds about 3%.  (Also from historical data)

So the Leafs and Bruins, who are pretty close when Tavares is healthy and Andersen was starting would have still been a 42% going into the Bruins matchup tomorrow, if both teams were equal.

On the 17th, after JT went down this article showed the impact missing him would have:

https://theathletic.com/1302592/2019/10/17/john-tavares-is-out-until-november-what-do-the-maple-leafs-do-now/

Leafs at home vs Boston on Saturday:  55.3% with JT, 52% without
Leafs at home vs CLB on Monday:  62.3% with JT, 59.3% without
Leafs on Road vs Boston on Tuesday:  41.4% with JT, 38.4% without

If I were to guess, his projections had Hutch starting the CLB game and Andersen starting both games against Boston.  Seems like there is about a 5% difference between the goalies, hence them being 64.6% for tonight.  Will be interesting to see what their probability is tomorrow against Boston with Hutch in.

 

[Hobbes]

Just for kicks, what does everyone think the odds are for Leafs wins in this back-to-back in each scenario?

Like Andersen tonight against Columbus is probably about a 60% chance for a win, maybe a little higher if you want to be generous. Tomorrow night against Boston though the Leafs are dinged both because they're tired and they have Hutch, so I'd say maybe those odds fall down to 40%?

Now let's say Hutchinson started tonight instead. I think we can still call the Leafs the favourites to win, 53% maybe. Then tomorrow night against Boston if Andersen plays. Normally I'd put a match-up like that at about 50/50. Leafs get dinged a few points because they're tired so I'd call it 47%.

So do you take the 60% then 40% odds, or the 53% then 47% ones? Like LK said earlier, I think especially when you factor in the divisional match-up of Boston and the fact that there's a good chance the two teams will be within a few points of each other for home-ice in the playoffs I'd have called this B2B an exception to Babcock's preference.

While the bold part can be argued, accepting your percentages I'd say the smartest thing to do is choose the option that gives you the best chance to get 2 points our of this.  60 > 53.

To adapt an old TV commercial, points is points.

If we had 2 games against a western conference opponent and depending on the goaltender, the probabilities were:

CHOICE A:  1: 60%; 2: 40%

OR

CHOICE B:  1: 53%; 2: 47%

(For simplicity, we are assuming either a win or regulation time loss, no loser-point games.)

Then it does not matter what choice is made -- the expected number of points gained is the same:

CHOICE A:  .6*2 + .4*2 = 2
CHOICE B:  .53*2 + .47*2 = 2

More generally, if you assume that in any game, playing Andersen gives you a 10% better chance to win than playing Hutch, then it does not matter which games Andersen plays, only how many.

Now, we know for sure that playing any goalie back-to-back is a very bad thing --- there have been studies that show that playing without a days rest has a dramatic effect on save percentage.  So much so that your starter is usually worse than your backup on the 2nd night of a back-to-back.  The leafs know this.  That is why they never play the same goalie 2 nights in a row.

Aside from that, I've never seen any evidence that playing your better guy against the better team (or conversely the worse team) changes the expected number of points you get.  Or playing him the first night or the second night (when a team is tired) matters.  Or playing right after a loss (which becomes more likely if Babcock starts Hutch first) increases one's liklihood of a second loss.

When people argue Babcock should have played Andersen against the better team (or when the team is fresh or to prevent consecutive losses), they are implicitly assuming that the benefit of Andersen against the better is larger than that the benefit against the weaker team.  However, I have no reason to believe there is any difference in the magnitude of the benefit (or if there is, that it is significant).  I think Babcock sticks to his routine because the players like to know when they are playing so they can prepare themselves mentally.  The benefits of having such a routine are likely unmeasurable, but if it makes the players feel good then, there doesn't appear to be any harm.

The only exception would be in this specific case with the Bruins (or other divisional or conference rivals whose ordering with respect to Toronto in the final standings matters) because playing Andersen against the Bruins, though I don't have evidence it will increase Toronto's expected point total, we do have evidence it will likely decrease the Bruin's expected point total.

So anyway, the bottom line is I don't believe the complaints about which side of the B2B Andersen should play have any statistical merit, except, perhaps when it comes to these divisional situations.  Still, even there, the season-long impact on the Bruins total points is pretty small.  Of course, if the Leafs lose by one on a couple of bad goals from Hutch and then at the end of the season are within a couple of points of Boston then you can blame the coach for decisions this week.

That's a good analysis, but your calculations of probabilistic outcomes assume that the 2 games are independent events (you are simply adding the 2 probabilities).  Yet the common wisdom is that, when the second game involves one team for which it is a B2B and one for which it is not, then the 2 games are not independent events ? it's thought that the second game will be harder for the team playing the B2B (the Leafs, in this case).  If that common wisdom is correct (it may not be, but I suspect it is), then you'd need to adjust your calculation accordingly, yes?

Perhaps another consideration is playing your #1 in the first game of a B2B gives you a better chance not to be chasing the game and, ideally, have a comfortable lead early enough to put lots of extra miles on your 3rd and 4th lines in the first game, keeping your guys somewhat more fresh for the 2nd game and maybe giving them a bit better chance of winning them both. I tend to think that any win with Hutch in net is going to be one where the offense is on fire, so the fresher their legs can be going into it, the better.

 

[princedpw]

Just for kicks, what does everyone think the odds are for Leafs wins in this back-to-back in each scenario?

Like Andersen tonight against Columbus is probably about a 60% chance for a win, maybe a little higher if you want to be generous. Tomorrow night against Boston though the Leafs are dinged both because they're tired and they have Hutch, so I'd say maybe those odds fall down to 40%?

Now let's say Hutchinson started tonight instead. I think we can still call the Leafs the favourites to win, 53% maybe. Then tomorrow night against Boston if Andersen plays. Normally I'd put a match-up like that at about 50/50. Leafs get dinged a few points because they're tired so I'd call it 47%.

So do you take the 60% then 40% odds, or the 53% then 47% ones? Like LK said earlier, I think especially when you factor in the divisional match-up of Boston and the fact that there's a good chance the two teams will be within a few points of each other for home-ice in the playoffs I'd have called this B2B an exception to Babcock's preference.

While the bold part can be argued, accepting your percentages I'd say the smartest thing to do is choose the option that gives you the best chance to get 2 points our of this.  60 > 53.

To adapt an old TV commercial, points is points.

If we had 2 games against a western conference opponent and depending on the goaltender, the probabilities were:

CHOICE A:  1: 60%; 2: 40%

OR

CHOICE B:  1: 53%; 2: 47%

(For simplicity, we are assuming either a win or regulation time loss, no loser-point games.)

Then it does not matter what choice is made -- the expected number of points gained is the same:

CHOICE A:  .6*2 + .4*2 = 2
CHOICE B:  .53*2 + .47*2 = 2

More generally, if you assume that in any game, playing Andersen gives you a 10% better chance to win than playing Hutch, then it does not matter which games Andersen plays, only how many.

Now, we know for sure that playing any goalie back-to-back is a very bad thing --- there have been studies that show that playing without a days rest has a dramatic effect on save percentage.  So much so that your starter is usually worse than your backup on the 2nd night of a back-to-back.  The leafs know this.  That is why they never play the same goalie 2 nights in a row.

Aside from that, I've never seen any evidence that playing your better guy against the better team (or conversely the worse team) changes the expected number of points you get.  Or playing him the first night or the second night (when a team is tired) matters.  Or playing right after a loss (which becomes more likely if Babcock starts Hutch first) increases one's liklihood of a second loss.

When people argue Babcock should have played Andersen against the better team (or when the team is fresh or to prevent consecutive losses), they are implicitly assuming that the benefit of Andersen against the better is larger than that the benefit against the weaker team.  However, I have no reason to believe there is any difference in the magnitude of the benefit (or if there is, that it is significant).  I think Babcock sticks to his routine because the players like to know when they are playing so they can prepare themselves mentally.  The benefits of having such a routine are likely unmeasurable, but if it makes the players feel good then, there doesn't appear to be any harm.

The only exception would be in this specific case with the Bruins (or other divisional or conference rivals whose ordering with respect to Toronto in the final standings matters) because playing Andersen against the Bruins, though I don't have evidence it will increase Toronto's expected point total, we do have evidence it will likely decrease the Bruin's expected point total.

So anyway, the bottom line is I don't believe the complaints about which side of the B2B Andersen should play have any statistical merit, except, perhaps when it comes to these divisional situations.  Still, even there, the season-long impact on the Bruins total points is pretty small.  Of course, if the Leafs lose by one on a couple of bad goals from Hutch and then at the end of the season are within a couple of points of Boston then you can blame the coach for decisions this week.

That's a good analysis, but your calculations of probabilistic outcomes assume that the 2 games are independent events (you are simply adding the 2 probabilities).  Yet the common wisdom is that, when the second game involves one team for which it is a B2B and one for which it is not, then the 2 games are not independent events ? it's thought that the second game will be harder for the team playing the B2B (the Leafs, in this case).  If that common wisdom is correct (it may not be, but I suspect it is), then you'd need to adjust your calculation accordingly, yes?

I'm assuming that the increase in win probability given Andersen plays vs Hutch is always the same.  Let's suppose that increase in win probability is 10%.  So if

Hutch plays a game and the leafs have a 40% chance of winning, then if Andersen played instead, the leafs would have a 50% chance of winning

And if Hutch is at 45% then Andersen is at 55%

And if Hutch is at 55% then Andersen is at 65%

So, what I'm assuming is that Andersen gives the same boost to the team's chances regardless of whether the team in front of him is well-rested or tired and regardless of whether the opponent is good or bad.  In other words, I'm assuming the "Andersen boost relative to Hutch" is independent of the team in front of him and of the opponent.  I don't know that that is true (and indeed, it is likely "off by a little"), but it seems like a fairly plausible assumption given the lack of any other information.  It seems particularly likely in a sport like hockey where the probability of a win very rarely gets too high --- most of the time, it hovers around 40-60%.  If the win probability got up to 95% with Hutch (which it never does) then you couldn't add another 10% if you subbed in Andersen.  More generally, as the win percentage with Hutch increases, then the delta between Andersen and Hutch probably does decrease, but again, because the win probabilities don't fluctuate all that much in hockey, it probably doesn't decrease all that much.

Implicitly (probably without realizing it), the kind of assumption made by people arguing that Babcock's goalie rotation is foolish is that the "Andersen boost relative to Hutch" is very high in certain situations and very low in other situations.  However, I think that's very unlikely.  If that were true, a smart stats person would have noticed it, like they've noticed that playing a goalie back-to-back makes a big difference, and would have provided some evidence to this effect.  They haven't as far as I'm aware.  Certainly, the leafs don't think it makes any difference and they have all the data and a massive team of stats guys looking for exactly this kind of unexpected anomaly.

 

[princedpw]

Just for kicks, what does everyone think the odds are for Leafs wins in this back-to-back in each scenario?

Like Andersen tonight against Columbus is probably about a 60% chance for a win, maybe a little higher if you want to be generous. Tomorrow night against Boston though the Leafs are dinged both because they're tired and they have Hutch, so I'd say maybe those odds fall down to 40%?

Now let's say Hutchinson started tonight instead. I think we can still call the Leafs the favourites to win, 53% maybe. Then tomorrow night against Boston if Andersen plays. Normally I'd put a match-up like that at about 50/50. Leafs get dinged a few points because they're tired so I'd call it 47%.

So do you take the 60% then 40% odds, or the 53% then 47% ones? Like LK said earlier, I think especially when you factor in the divisional match-up of Boston and the fact that there's a good chance the two teams will be within a few points of each other for home-ice in the playoffs I'd have called this B2B an exception to Babcock's preference.

Dom has the Leafs at 64.6% tonight.

Also, as I posted on Friday:

Home team always has a 55% built in probability (if both teams were equal).  (This is from historical data)
Rested team vs back-to-back team adds about 3%.  (Also from historical data)

So the Leafs and Bruins, who are pretty close when Tavares is healthy and Andersen was starting would have still been a 42% going into the Bruins matchup tomorrow, if both teams were equal.

On the 17th, after JT went down this article showed the impact missing him would have:

https://theathletic.com/1302592/2019/10/17/john-tavares-is-out-until-november-what-do-the-maple-leafs-do-now/

Leafs at home vs Boston on Saturday:  55.3% with JT, 52% without
Leafs at home vs CLB on Monday:  62.3% with JT, 59.3% without
Leafs on Road vs Boston on Tuesday:  41.4% with JT, 38.4% without

If I were to guess, his projections had Hutch starting the CLB game and Andersen starting both games against Boston.  Seems like there is about a 5% difference between the goalies, hence them being 64.6% for tonight.  Will be interesting to see what their probability is tomorrow against Boston with Hutch in.

... right, so if there is just a 5% difference in win percentage between goalies for a particular game then from an "easy" game to a "hard" game, the change in percentage difference between goalies is going to be unnoticeable.  So again, it doesn't really matter (from the leafs perspective) which games Andersen plays.  It really just matters how many.

 

[disco]

https://twitter.com/davidnestico200/status/1186410983272697858

 

[ZBBM]

Good God Marner.

 

[Guru Tugginmypuddah]

Off to a great start again.