Leafs @ Canadiens - Feb. 8th, 7:00pm - CBC, Fan 590

[Bullfrog]

Did our new backup just help us secure 3 out of 4 points in back to back starts on the tail end of a 4 in 6 playing his first two games after being traded across the country while the team in front was down its starting goaltender and top RW and top LD?

I like how you slipped that in at the end.  ;D

 

[herman]

Do you know how many teams Nylander would be the top scorer on?
21 teams would be led by Nylander?s current 25 goals.

 

[Strangelove]

No the partying was probably worse in decades past. Look at some of the legendary sports boozers like Mantle, Bobbie Hull and Ruth.  All loved to party.  I have no problem with alcohol as part of someones life, my only point is if it affecting your ability to play 100% then that is a problem. It will with excess shorten careers and can ruin lives.  That is my main concern.
Heck we are not Spartans, no team is going to emulate the 300. 

Yes, but the thought that "partying" is why they are sluggish in the 2nd of a back to back is grasping at straws.

They had 2 shots on net for a good chunk of the third Friday night vs the Ducks. Is this because of partying? Did someone's aunt call with bad news about jimmy on the farm? Were they abducted by aliens that implanted programming that allowed them to only play 40 minutes of the game? Is it because of Donald Trump?

Knowing a guy who's friend has a sister that dates hockey players is not reason to make sh*t up on a message board and try to pass it off as intelligent analysis of what's actually happening on the ice. Seeing a hockey player have 8 drinks, in the summer, is also not reason to try to pass that off as some reason players don't have energy in the 3rd period of a game being played in February.

We all know a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy.

There?s no point having a discussion if you?re just going to completely misconstrue what I?m saying. Making up a dumb argument and then pointing out that it?s dumb isn?t a particularly useful exercise.

The bottom line is that the Leafs played really well for the first 2.5 periods and then basically stopped playing at all. Which is a bummer, man.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

No the partying was probably worse in decades past. Look at some of the legendary sports boozers like Mantle, Bobbie Hull and Ruth.  All loved to party.  I have no problem with alcohol as part of someones life, my only point is if it affecting your ability to play 100% then that is a problem. It will with excess shorten careers and can ruin lives.  That is my main concern.
Heck we are not Spartans, no team is going to emulate the 300. 

Yes, but the thought that "partying" is why they are sluggish in the 2nd of a back to back is grasping at straws.

They had 2 shots on net for a good chunk of the third Friday night vs the Ducks. Is this because of partying? Did someone's aunt call with bad news about jimmy on the farm? Were they abducted by aliens that implanted programming that allowed them to only play 40 minutes of the game? Is it because of Donald Trump?

Knowing a guy who's friend has a sister that dates hockey players is not reason to make sh*t up on a message board and try to pass it off as intelligent analysis of what's actually happening on the ice. Seeing a hockey player have 8 drinks, in the summer, is also not reason to try to pass that off as some reason players don't have energy in the 3rd period of a game being played in February.

We all know a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy.

There?s no point having a discussion if you?re just going to completely misconstrue what I?m saying. Making up a dumb argument and then pointing out that it?s dumb isn?t a particularly useful exercise.

The bottom line is that the Leafs played really well for the first 2.5 periods and then basically stopped playing at all. Which is a bummer, man.

Making a dumb argument was my way of proving how dumb the notion was.

Sure it's a bummer. But throwing darts at a board to try and figure out why isn't a particularly useful exercise.

 

[Kin]

We used to have a rule here that we didn't discuss the players personal lives because we were about on ice stuff and weren't a bunch of old country yentas.

 

[Bender]

Teams a joke. No clue how to put teams away.
Like Xmas all year round with this team keep on giving.

On one hand I somewhat agree because this is what happened recently but they're 21-2-2 when leading after 2. For comparison the Bruins are 18-1-6. Their real problem is how often they've trailed after 2 and how few times they've actually come back to win or tie.

I wouldn't get caught up in the stats too much.
Detroit is 7-3-1 when leading after 2.
LA Kings are 12-1-1.

My biggest beef is giving points away by not finishing teams in regulation.

I would like to know of all the Leafs victories when leading after 2 how many were won in OT by the Leafs after squandering some sort of lead.

It's the points they give away by not finishing games in regulation.

Leafs would have won last night in OT everyone would of said hey we won awesome grabbed the 2 points but I don't look at it that way.

Can't keep gifting points to anyone and especially divisional opponents.

You can use the excuse of the B2B that hurt us but as soon as they scored and sat back I knew it was going to be trouble.
They controlled the game, limited Mtl opportunities, held them to 12 shots after 2 I believe and played a good road game until the goal and then sat back.

I don't really have much to say to someone after I make a valid point with data to back it up and they basically ignore it.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

We used to have a rule here that we didn't discuss the players personal lives because we were about on ice stuff and weren't a bunch of old country yentas.

It's really silly

 

[azzurri63]

Teams a joke. No clue how to put teams away.
Like Xmas all year round with this team keep on giving.

On one hand I somewhat agree because this is what happened recently but they're 21-2-2 when leading after 2. For comparison the Bruins are 18-1-6. Their real problem is how often they've trailed after 2 and how few times they've actually come back to win or tie.

I wouldn't get caught up in the stats too much.
Detroit is 7-3-1 when leading after 2.
LA Kings are 12-1-1.

My biggest beef is giving points away by not finishing teams in regulation.

I would like to know of all the Leafs victories when leading after 2 how many were won in OT by the Leafs after squandering some sort of lead.

It's the points they give away by not finishing games in regulation.

Leafs would have won last night in OT everyone would of said hey we won awesome grabbed the 2 points but I don't look at it that way.

Can't keep gifting points to anyone and especially divisional opponents.

You can use the excuse of the B2B that hurt us but as soon as they scored and sat back I knew it was going to be trouble.
They controlled the game, limited Mtl opportunities, held them to 12 shots after 2 I believe and played a good road game until the goal and then sat back.

I don't really have much to say to someone after I make a valid point with data to back it up and they basically ignore it.

I'm not disagreeing that you provided data and yes the data is correct. What I'm saying is the 2 worse teams in the league have good records when leading after 2 so how much can you put into the data. Like I said I would like to know of all their games that they won with your data how many of them came in either a shootout or overtime after giving up a lead to force overtime. Great that they can win the games but giving teams that 1 point is huge when they can beat teams in regulation.

 

[Kin]

I'm not disagreeing that you provided data and yes the data is correct. What I'm saying is the 2 worse teams in the league have good records when leading after 2 so how much can you put into the data. Like I said I would like to know of all their games that they won with your data how many of them came in either a shootout or overtime after giving up a lead to force overtime. Great that they can win the games but giving teams that 1 point is huge when they can beat teams in regulation.

If you think the Leafs have a high percentage of their wins coming in OT or the shootout isn't it incumbent on you to maybe to the research to actually find out if that's true rather than just reject the actual facts presented to you?

 

[Deebo]

Like I said I would like to know of all their games that they won with your data how many of them came in either a shootout or overtime after giving up a lead to force overtime. Great that they can win the games but giving teams that 1 point is huge when they can beat teams in regulation.

They have 7 games where they won in OT/SO.

Lead by 1 going into the 3rd twice (BOS/BUF), Lead by 2 once (ANA)
Trailed by 1 going into the 3rd once (NJD)
Tied 3 times.

To summarize, the OT/SO wins after leading going into the 3rd has resulted in 1 point each to BOS, BUF and ANA. So pretty much no impact to the playoff race.

 

[bustaheims]

Like I said I would like to know of all their games that they won with your data how many of them came in either a shootout or overtime after giving up a lead to force overtime. Great that they can win the games but giving teams that 1 point is huge when they can beat teams in regulation.

They have 7 games where they won in OT/SO.

Lead by 1 going into the 3rd twice (BOS/BUF), Lead by 2 once (ANA)
Trailed by 1 going into the 3rd once (NJD)
Tied 3 times.

To summarize, the OT/SO wins after leading going into the 3rd has resulted in 1 point each to BOS, BUF and ANA. So pretty much no impact to the playoff race.

And, on only 4 times, did the Leafs lose in OT/SO when they held the lead at any point of the game. In 3 of those 4, they only ever held a one goal lead, and the 3rd was an early season collapse against Montreal, when they blew the lead AND tied the game in the 3rd period.

5 times - including the game against Montreal where they blew the lead - the Leafs tied the game in the 3rd period, only to lose in OT/SO. So, they've basically broken even there.

There's a lot of recency bias in play here, as they've been awful in 3rd periods over the last few games.

 

[herman]

Oprah was handing out man-colds

 

[Kin]

I feel like something that is probably hurting this discussion is the idea of protecting third period leads as a test of mental toughness or character rather than, you know, an element of the game of hockey where a team's strength's and weaknesses factor into things.

Late in third periods is when a trailing team will throw everything they have at the leading team. Give more shifts to better offensive players, take risks for offense, obviously pull the goalie when it's time. A good defensive team will be better suited to handle these things than a not so good defensive team. A not so good defensive team that is, say, missing their best defenseman will probably be especially vulnerable to that.

So the Leafs, hampered by injuries and not being very good defensively to begin with, might get a cluster of games where things get bad for them in the third. I don't think this is much of a mystery that needs solving.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

The Bruins have the 6th worst winning percentage when leading after 2 periods in the league. Clearly a terrible team that can't hold a lead and won't be able to do anything in the post-season.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Like I said I would like to know of all their games that they won with your data how many of them came in either a shootout or overtime after giving up a lead to force overtime. Great that they can win the games but giving teams that 1 point is huge when they can beat teams in regulation.

They have 7 games where they won in OT/SO.

Lead by 1 going into the 3rd twice (BOS/BUF), Lead by 2 once (ANA)
Trailed by 1 going into the 3rd once (NJD)
Tied 3 times.

To summarize, the OT/SO wins after leading going into the 3rd has resulted in 1 point each to BOS, BUF and ANA. So pretty much no impact to the playoff race.

Posting facts isn't allowed!!!

 

[Joe S.]

It seems like months ago we were complaining about their first period starts.

 

[Deebo]

It seems like months ago we were complaining about their first period starts.

Well they were pretty bad, they gave up the first goal in like 18 of the first 20 games or something crazy like that.

 

[rdowdall]

It seems like months ago we were complaining about their first period starts.

Well they were pretty bad, they gave up the first goal in like 18 of the first 20 games or something crazy like that.

Why can't this team just be perfect ready?

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Late in third periods is when a trailing team will throw everything they have at the leading team. Give more shifts to better offensive players, take risks for offense, obviously pull the goalie when it's time.

Come on man, Montreal doesn't have offensive players. Look out! Here comes Thomas Tatar!