General Leafs Talk

[mr grieves]

I don't know why it seems it has to be either/or for some.  It should be adding to the discussion of a player or a team.

You're right, it should. But the reality is that it doesn't and that's mainly on the people who like them. Because they're the ones who, typically, are taking these flawed, imperfect numbers and using them to make really definitive, discussion killing statements like "Dion Phaneuf plays against the other teams top lines because QOC" and "Mikhail Grabovski wasn't given a chance offensively because he only started 36.7% of his face-offs...."

Now, does either number have some value in our understanding of how a player plays? Maybe. Does either number have enough behind it to make either of those statements? No. I'm fine with either one adding to the discussion, I'm not fine with either one settling the discussion.

But it's not always so, and any useful piece of evidence can be enlisted in a "definitive, discussion killing statement" if someone's overplaying it or just yelling loud enough. It's not in the evidence itself.

More on point are the critiques of whether the stats measure what they purport to measure, as that, in principle, leads to a refining of one's measures. Such statistics can be useful in contextualizing simple stats and correcting error, and scrutinizing those stats, contextualizing what they mean, can correct error too. Advanced stats people seem pretty open to that.

 

[Kin]

But it's not always so, and any useful piece of evidence can be enlisted in a "definitive, discussion killing statement" if someone's overplaying it or just yelling loud enough. It's not in the evidence itself.

If I may though, I think this kind of highlights the dispute. Evidence can be used to kill a discussion because evidence does. Evidence proves something. Goals and assists, for instance, should kill a discussion about whether or not Phil Kessel is a good player.

The thing with most advanced stats, really all of them, is that they're not evidence. They're argument at this point. Argument shouldn't kill a discussion. Right now, in it's relative infancy, hockey analytics arguments really need the "...provided you buy the underlying premise" attached to everything because a lot of people don't and, really, they shouldn't.

More on point are the critiques of whether the stats measure what they purport to measure, as that, in principle, leads to a refining of one's measures. Such statistics can be useful in contextualizing simple stats and correcting error, and scrutinizing those stats, contextualizing what they mean, can correct error too. Advanced stats people seem pretty open to that.

Yeah, again, the reason I'd dispute that is because as someone who read Bill James' Baseball Abstracts as a small child and who reads Pete Palmer and John Hollinger and Football Prospectus it seems like a lot of Advanced stats people, to use your term, have largely ignored the lessons that have been learned in the now near 40 year old field of sports analytics.

It looks like they're starting from scratch and starting with 1+1=3 and reacting to people who aren't on board with "Well, clearly you just don't like numbers".

 

[mr grieves]

Adding a goaltender like Bernier just strengthened their depth at that position. Adding to a strength is never a bad thing. He may have lowered the talent level in terms of raw skill but ideally, and in Nonis' mind, he actually strengthened it by acquiring a player who better fits the role that Grabovski was put into. The players currently on the roster, in my mind, have more clearly defined roles and are ideally suited to play those roles.

I agree that Bolland is better suited to the role of shutdown C... But as a judgment about the roster generally? This will, for the foreseeable future, have to be followed by an asterisk denoting "except, of course, for perpetual temporary 1C Tyler Bozak, unless 'keep Kessel comfortable' is a 'clearly defined role' in a hockey team's line-up."

If you have a 40 point centre and two 70 point wingers, or a 70 point centre and two 40 point wingers, which is better?

I don't see what point you're trying to make other than the Leafs can get by with a mediocre center on the first line.

Sure. They have for years now.

The success of the team and his elite line mates doesn't alter the mediocrity of Bozak any more than John and Paul turned Ringo into Keith Moon.

 

[Kin]

The success of the team and his elite line mates doesn't alter the mediocrity of Bozak any more than John and Paul turned Ringo into Keith Moon.

No. But nobody looks at the Beatles and says "Man, they would have really been successful if they'd had a better drummer" either.

 

[ZBBM]

A little off-topic so my apologies. At first I thought Lupul's most recent tweet was a dig toward Bozak but realize now it's just him criticizing advanced stats for whatever reason. Ha.

Joffrey Lupul ‏@JLupul 2h
If you bring certain attributes and you play to win. I'll take you on my team 7 nights a week. Lets not look at this like Moneyball.

Joffrey Lupul ‏@JLupul 2h
contracts aren't awarded by this CORSI i am hearing all about. They are awarded for an equal value of skill and depth (at a certain position

This gave me a good chuckle and set a lot of adv. stats purists spinning.

Someone I follow tweeted this, which I agree with wholeheartedly...

@MapleLeafsHH I don't question the validity of adv. stats, what I have an issue with is the complete dismissal of everything else that can't be measured.

Who completely dismisses everything that can't be measured?

Well, I do actually.

OK more accurately I'm a dyed in the wool empiricist, and so what I say is that everything can be measured including socalled intangibles. Anything can be quantified, and in principle quantified so that it provides valuable ranking info. So the question, as this thread has recognized, is whether any particular stat is good or not. As several on here have said, no single stat tells the whole story. But I have no doubt that hockey stats will become more sophisticated as the years go by, and those more sophisticated stats will become more generally accepted.

 

[Corn Flake]

The success of the team and his elite line mates doesn't alter the mediocrity of Bozak any more than John and Paul turned Ringo into Keith Moon.

No. But nobody looks at the Beatles and says "Man, they would have really been successful if they'd had a better drummer" either.

Exactly. As much as I think we all agree Bozak is not a top line centre, if Kessel can put up 80 pts, JVR or Lupul can put up 60'ish then why do people get so bent out of shape about it?  Bozak does many other things very well, such as the PK and penalty shots, faceoffs, and he's bloody fast.

At some point Kadri will likely surpass him on the depth chart and we shall all rejoice that the great demon Tyler has been relegated to second or third line duty for ever more. Kadri gets the princess (Kessel?).

Sundin had "meh" wingers and we screamed for years.  Kessel has a "meh" centre and we have been screaming for years. Crosby has had "meh" wingers his entire career. He's done ok.

 

[mr grieves]

The success of the team and his elite line mates doesn't alter the mediocrity of Bozak any more than John and Paul turned Ringo into Keith Moon.

No. But nobody looks at the Beatles and says "Man, they would have really been successful if they'd had a better drummer" either.

Sure. I'm just saying I'd rather have Keith Moon playing drums than Ringo. And I know that by saying that I'm ignoring that bands are group endeavors and hockey is a team sport until I've maximized my parts.

 

[mr grieves]

The success of the team and his elite line mates doesn't alter the mediocrity of Bozak any more than John and Paul turned Ringo into Keith Moon.

No. But nobody looks at the Beatles and says "Man, they would have really been successful if they'd had a better drummer" either.

Exactly. As much as I think we all agree Bozak is not a top line centre, if Kessel can put up 80 pts, JVR or Lupul can put up 60'ish then why do people get so bent out of shape about it?  Bozak does many other things very well, such as the PK and penalty shots, faceoffs, and he's bloody fast.

Probably for the same reason people were always complaining that Sundin had "meh" wingers. He might've had more points, the team more goals and wins, had he had better talent around him.

 

[Kin]

Sure. I'm just saying I'd rather have Keith Moon playing drums than Ringo. And I know that by saying that I'm ignoring that bands are group endeavors and hockey is a team sport until I've maximized my parts.

See, what I don't get about that is has anyone said that Tyler Bozak is their #1 choice for the #1 center position and I've just missed it? Has anyone said that he's the best possible person for the job? The best thing I've seen said about Bozak is, taking contract into account, he's the best of the possible options. To take it to the analogy, Dave Grohl maybe would have played neater fills on Come Together, but he wasn't hanging around Liverpool in 1961 so it's not all that relevant. To be the ideal drummer for the Beatles, Ringo didn't have to be better than Keith Moon, he had to be better than Pete Best.

And also, and now we're really stretching the analogy, but fit does matter. It's not just a question of skill. I don't want a 3 minute Keith Moon solo in the middle of Blackbird.

 

[Zee]

Lupul spoke out against advanced stats, and given that he's a golden god, that's good enough for me.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[TML fan]

Adding a goaltender like Bernier just strengthened their depth at that position. Adding to a strength is never a bad thing. He may have lowered the talent level in terms of raw skill but ideally, and in Nonis' mind, he actually strengthened it by acquiring a player who better fits the role that Grabovski was put into. The players currently on the roster, in my mind, have more clearly defined roles and are ideally suited to play those roles.

I agree that Bolland is better suited to the role of shutdown C... But as a judgment about the roster generally? This will, for the foreseeable future, have to be followed by an asterisk denoting "except, of course, for perpetual temporary 1C Tyler Bozak, unless 'keep Kessel comfortable' is a 'clearly defined role' in a hockey team's line-up."

If you have a 40 point centre and two 70 point wingers, or a 70 point centre and two 40 point wingers, which is better?

I don't see what point you're trying to make other than the Leafs can get by with a mediocre center on the first line.

Sure. They have for years now.

The success of the team and his elite line mates doesn't alter the mediocrity of Bozak any more than John and Paul turned Ringo into Keith Moon.

So you got my point exactly. We'd all like the Leafs to pull a legitimate first line centre out of their collective butts but that just isn't realistic.

Actually, if they each pull part of a legitimate first line centre out of their butt, maybe they can piece one together....

 

[hockeyfan1]

...if Kessel can put up 80 pts, JVR or Lupul can put up 60'ish then why do people get so bent out of shape about it? 

Sundin had "meh" wingers and we screamed for years.  Kessel has a "meh" centre and we have been screaming for years. Crosby has had "meh" wingers his entire career. He's done ok.

It also means the Leafs did something right, advanced stats or not. It goes to show the depth of skill (and greater possible potentials) of these players, even with mediocre support on their line.

That can't denote anything bad.  It's all good and positive.

 

[Corn Flake]

Lupul spoke out against advanced stats, and given that he's a golden god, that's good enough for me.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Advanced stats say he's a lousy hockey player. Which of course is a mountain of horse s@*t.

Advanced stats also said the 29th place 2009 Maple Leafs should have been one of the best.  They also said the 2013 New Jersey Devils were #1 and #2 in Corsi and Fenwick respectively.

Take them advancie stats with a large boulder of salt.

 

[hap_leaf]

The success of the team and his elite line mates doesn't alter the mediocrity of Bozak any more than John and Paul turned Ringo into Keith Moon.

No. But nobody looks at the Beatles and says "Man, they would have really been successful if they'd had a better drummer" either.

Exactly. As much as I think we all agree Bozak is not a top line centre, if Kessel can put up 80 pts, JVR or Lupul can put up 60'ish then why do people get so bent out of shape about it?  Bozak does many other things very well, such as the PK and penalty shots, faceoffs, and he's bloody fast.

Probably for the same reason people were always complaining that Sundin had "meh" wingers. He might've had more points, the team more goals and wins, had he had better talent around him.

You make perfect sense, mr grieves.  And good on you for not accepting the mediocrity we have endured since 07-08 when Sundin left town.  There has been no replacement provided since then.  Except for possibly hoping in the emergence of Joe Colborne as a home grown alternative.  And I'm good with that outlook except by all accounts its not happening.

We could have had this resolved with:
Jeff Carter 2011 OR 2012 for a bluechip and a 1st.
Paul Stastny rumoured to be available at various times.
Brad Richards 2008 for 3 players and a 4th OR UFA 2011 $$
Jordan Staal 2012 for 2 players and a 1st.
Matt Duchesne 2009 by trading up in the draft to #3 (#7 Kadri plus ?)
Vincent Lecavalier 2013 UFA $$
Joe Thornton 2008 to present.  Why has this not happened?  Can you imagine Kessel, Thornton and JVR?  What price would you pay to see THAT!?

This is TORONTO...we deserve better than Bozak-Bolland-Kadri-McClement.

 

[mr grieves]

Sure. I'm just saying I'd rather have Keith Moon playing drums than Ringo. And I know that by saying that I'm ignoring that bands are group endeavors and hockey is a team sport until I've maximized my parts.

See, what I don't get about that is has anyone said that Tyler Bozak is their #1 choice for the #1 center position and I've just missed it? Has anyone said that he's the best possible person for the job? The best thing I've seen said about Bozak is, taking contract into account, he's the best of the possible options. To take it to the analogy, Dave Grohl maybe would have played neater fills on Come Together, but he wasn't hanging around Liverpool in 1961 so it's not all that relevant. To be the ideal drummer for the Beatles, Ringo didn't have to be better than Keith Moon, he had to be better than Pete Best.

And also, and now we're really stretching the analogy, but fit does matter. It's not just a question of skill. I don't want a 3 minute Keith Moon solo in the middle of Blackbird.

I actually don't much like the Beatles at all, so I'd probably take a Moon solo just about anywhere in their catalogue.

Anyhow, you already know I'm not complaining we didn't trick the Pens into extending Malkin on the Leafs. And you already know what I have in mind when I say I don't think Bozak's the "best of all possible options." 

The disagreement, I think, comes down to how we define "possible options" -- for me, it comprises what's available via trade, on the UFA market, or in the system. For you, it seems to be all that, plus the additional limiting factor of who the coach is going to play in what position.

I'd look at the list of players available thinking only that the coach is going to put those of comprable skill level together. The limiting factor you add, though it does describe how Nonis settled on Bozak as their "best possible," only really tells us about a shortcoming of coaching and management -- or a management bias we can disagree with -- not that better centers than Bozak weren't available for the top 6 for competitive prices.

That Tyler Bozak was the most probable top-6 center for Nonis-Carlyle does not make him the "best possible" top-6 center for the Leafs.

 

[mr grieves]

The success of the team and his elite line mates doesn't alter the mediocrity of Bozak any more than John and Paul turned Ringo into Keith Moon.

No. But nobody looks at the Beatles and says "Man, they would have really been successful if they'd had a better drummer" either.

Exactly. As much as I think we all agree Bozak is not a top line centre, if Kessel can put up 80 pts, JVR or Lupul can put up 60'ish then why do people get so bent out of shape about it?  Bozak does many other things very well, such as the PK and penalty shots, faceoffs, and he's bloody fast.

Probably for the same reason people were always complaining that Sundin had "meh" wingers. He might've had more points, the team more goals and wins, had he had better talent around him.

You make perfect sense, mr grieves.  And good on you for not accepting the mediocrity we have endured since 07-08 when Sundin left town.  There has been no replacement provided since then.  Except for possibly hoping in the emergence of Joe Colborne as a home grown alternative.  And I'm good with that outlook except by all accounts its not happening.

We could have had this resolved with:
Jeff Carter 2011 OR 2012 for a bluechip and a 1st.
Paul Stastny rumoured to be available at various times.
Brad Richards 2008 for 3 players and a 4th OR UFA 2011 $$
Jordan Staal 2012 for 2 players and a 1st.
Matt Duchesne 2012 by trading up in the draft to #3 (#7 Kadri plus ?)
Vincent Lecavalier 2013 UFA $$
Joe Thornton 2008 to present.  Why has this not happened?  Can you imagine Kessel, Thornton and JVR?  What price would you pay to see THAT!?

This is TORONTO...we deserve better than Bozak-Bolland-Kadri-McClement.

Well... as long as I"m here I should say I don't really endorse any of those moves as very likely or desirable. Many of those guys would only be available for assets the Leafs either didn't have or couldn't afford to give up when the transactions happened.

Of them, throwing Lecavalier a bunch of money -- well, not a Clarkson bunch, but, you know, more than 5 x 4.5M... so 4.7M? -- sure does sound better than Bozak + $500K of cap space for David Clarkson.

 

[Kin]

Anyhow, you already know I'm not complaining we didn't trick the Pens into extending Malkin on the Leafs.

Honestly, I'm not inclined to give you that sort of credit. The entirety of the complaining about Bozak as the team's #1 center seems centered around guys who are, at best debatable marginal upgrades and none of whom remotely fall into the category of ideal choices for the position.

Any sort of player of that caliber would have to be acquired by trade and we don't know who's available. We don't know what they would cost. There is no reason to just assume that if Nonis wanted to he could snap his fingers and get a deal done.

Look at the post above you. Look at all of the great "options" the Leafs had to add a better center. Lecavalier, who everyone swears up and down didn't want to play in a market like Toronto, could have just been had for money! We could have traded for the #3 pick for Kadri and ?? and, quite frankly, when's the last time ?? has helped the team!

Really all you're doing is making the same sort of assumptions when you say that we should factor "who was available in trade" when determining how Bozak fits in to the "options" Nonis had.

I'd look at the list of players available thinking only that the coach is going to put those of comprable skill level together.

Which, quite frankly, is crazy. It's just not how hockey teams are put together. The idea that Nonis or Carlyle are somehow operating beyond the norm for considering things like how players fit with each other and whether their styles compliment each other as opposed to just putting their three best players on the top line...I mean, that's not something that fits in with a basic understanding of the game.

The limiting factor you add, though it does describe how Nonis settled on Bozak as their "best possible," only really tells us about a shortcoming of coaching and management -- or a management bias we can disagree with -- not that better centers than Bozak weren't available for the top 6 for competitive prices.

Again, this assumes that the issue of how good Tyler Bozak is vs. the other centers available is a settled matter. It isn't. This is what I meant earlier when I said that it seems as though your primary interest is limiting, rather than broadening discussion by making these declarative statements on the shakiest of possible "evidence". The idea that Bozak is a "less skilled" player than the others available is strictly your opinion. It is not the majority one. There is no one definition of skill.

 

[mr grieves]

Lupul spoke out against advanced stats, and given that he's a golden god, that's good enough for me.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Advanced stats say he's a lousy hockey player. Which of course is a mountain of horse s@*t.

Advanced stats also said the 29th place 2009 Maple Leafs should have been one of the best.  They also said the 2013 New Jersey Devils were #1 and #2 in Corsi and Fenwick respectively.

Take them advancie stats with a large boulder of salt.

Yeah, I think it's pretty unfair and silly to think anyone who looks to advanced stats believes good Corsi numbers beat worst in the league goaltending.

There's a belief out there -- evidenced nicely in this post -- that the people who look at these stats either don't bother to look at the simpler ones you see on TSN.ca or have their preferred stat that will rule them all that they look at to explain everything that happens in a season of hockey.

 

[Kin]

There has been no replacement provided since then.  Except for possibly hoping in the emergence of Joe Colborne as a home grown alternative.  And I'm good with that outlook except by all accounts its not happening.

I don't get this. Why in the world have people forgotten Kadri's season so quickly? He just had a season of 44 points in 48 games. What if he gets better next year? If he does I guarantee that Kadri will be the #1 center or, at the very least, Kadri will get ice time equivalent to a #1 center elsewhere. Bozak's deal in no way bars Kadri from turning into the team's #1 center if he's judged to be able and right now he seems like the team's best bet.

Bozak's contract, I'd think, would tell people pretty clearly that the team doesn't look at him as their long term answer in the top spot.

 

[Kin]

Of them, throwing Lecavalier a bunch of money -- well, not a Clarkson bunch, but, you know, more than 5 x 4.5M... so 4.7M? -- sure does sound better than Bozak + $500K of cap space for David Clarkson.

You know the Leafs met with Lecavalier, right? And that they attempted to sign him? And he, as a free agent, chose Philly?

This isn't a video game. You don't just get whoever you want if you offer them marginally more than what they got elsewhere.