Coco-puffs
New member
Frank E said:Coco-puffs said:Frank E said:Coco-puffs said:tcabber24 said:Feels a little like the lockout shorten season 2012-2013. Winning games while the stats tell a different story. Are we really as good as standings show? Doesn't feel or look like it.
The "stats" are nowhere near as bad as you are making them out to be. Nowhere close to the '12-13 season. Leafs sit at 50.3% CF which is average for the NHL. For expected goals, which takes into account shot quality, they sit at 51.9% which is 9th in the league.
Even a game like last night is a bit misleading when you look at the shot clock. It looks like they got completely dominated. Yet, the 5v5 CF% was still 47.9%. Breaking down the overall shots based on quality:
High Danger: 12-9 Flames.
Medium Danger: 16-16 (Tied)
Low Danger: 20-4 Flames
If you take away the low danger shots from the 48-29 "dominance", the Leafs were outshot 28-25.
My main complaint about the Leafs this season is how often they are missing the net or having their shots blocked. Last night they had 24 shot attempts blocked and missed the net on another 21 of them. This seems to be a bit of a recurring theme. Not going to score if you can't hit the net 60% of the time you try and shoot.
Do low danger shots turn into rebounds though, which can turn into high-danger shots?
The Leafs are allowing shots at an alarming rate, I posted above 3rd highest in the league, and I don't see that translating into a successful playoff run.
Well, yes, then they'd show up in the high-danger shot count wouldn't they? Which would translate into higher xGA. The Leafs do sit 3rd last in xGA/60- so you absolutely have a point that they aren't very strong defensively. I don't think anyone would argue that.
But they also sit 2nd in xGF/60, and as I pointed out before, overall they sit at close to 52% xG%, which is 9th in the league. That gives you information regarding how they have played so far- and their place in the standings isn't far off from 9th in the league (in terms of points percentage they are very close).
However, CF% still has more predictive value and them sitting middle of the league at 50.3% isn't great if you fancy them as a Stanley Cup contender. They may begin to fall a bit in the standings if they keep playing the way they have, so we do have reason to be concerned that they aren't playing as well as they can.
Your original point was how this team feels like the '12-'13 Leafs. They were a 44% CF & 43% xG team, which was awful. There is a night and day difference here.
Thanks Coco.
Also, I didn't have an original point. I don't usually have any points.
Sorry, thought it was cabber24 responding- I meant his original point.