Leafs @ Panthers - Dec. 28th, 7:00pm - SN, TSN 1050

[Frank E]

Straight from Babcock's mouth:

Coach Mike Babcock?s message was: ?You can ask guys to work hard. You can teach guys to block shots. Who?s going to score? Who?s going to bring the offence?? It?s now the mantra for all of Hockey Canada.

...

"To me you take the best players, that?s what you do, and you can always get them to do whatever you want them to do, you just tell them what you want.?

The context is player selection for tournaments like the Olympics or WJHC.

So the Leafs don't have Team Canada's depth. No team does. What is it about the NHL regular season that changes this philosophy then? Could just be that Babcock doesn't believe we have the depth yet and put a hard cut off on the 9.

Teams that are pushing to go top-12 instead of top-6/9 (with varying degrees of efficacy): Pittsburgh, Montreal, New York Rangers, Boston, Tampa Bay, Columbus, Calgary, Winnipeg.

I don't necessarily disagree with you at all on the issue at hand, but nonetheless, I think there's a very big difference between asking a talented player to play a different role in a short tournament with a huge payoff and asking a talented player to play a different role for an entire season (and possibly an entire career).

Agreed.  Different challenge, and I think that's why you see teams employing the role players in the low minute roster spots...they don't have their sights on becoming a top 6 forward/top 4 defenseman.

EDIT:  Also, these short tournaments really don't affect a guy's paycheque, so he'd be much more willing to play whatever role is requested.

 

[bustaheims]

I'm just trying to figure out who Leafer is rallying against. Has anyone championed the idea of a full-out tank to further player development? Or is he mistaking the people who acknowledge the fact that this team is young and full of flaws and isn't near contending yet for ardent "tankers"?  And why would a win against a mid-range team at game 34 of the season prove anything to anyone on either of these two potential sides?

Those are all very good questions. I don't think there's a single person who things tanking is good for player development. What some of us see is a situation where another high pick would be for the best in terms of team building/acquiring what appears to be the last remaining "big piece" of the puzzle - another top pairing defenceman. And, because of the flaws/growing pains/learning curves/etc., we expect the team to end up with another high pick - not because we want them to be bad or don't see anything to be excited about, but, because, well, that's just how things often play out for teams that are relying on as many rookies as the Leafs currently are.

It's not about "tanking." It's about recognize some realities of the team's situation, and the way they're playing. Sure, they're 3 points out of a playoff spot, but they're also 4 points out of 28th overall. And, through this stretch where they're relied on excellent goaltending to give them a chance to win, they've still only won 7 of 14. It's not like they've solidified anything. A small drop in Andersen's performances without an improvement to their goal-scoring (and their 5-on-5 shooting percentage is already in the top 10 in the league), and they'll be right back in the bottom 5.

 

[bustaheims]

I don't necessarily disagree with you at all on the issue at hand, but nonetheless, I think there's a very big difference between asking a talented player to play a different role in a short tournament with a huge payoff and asking a talented player to play a different role for an entire season (and possibly an entire career).

I don't think you're necessarily asking them to play a different role. You're just looking to fill every spot in your lineup with guys that have more well-rounded games. Instead of having guys on the 3rd and 4th lines that really only contribute through physical play, on the PK, etc., you have guys that can do that and play well with the puck. Instead of role players, you have versatile players who can fill a number of different roles. Instead of the Smiths and Martins of the league, you fill the bottom of your lineup with guys like Soshnikov, Brown, Hyman, Gauthier (if his recent play is evidence of his overall game being better than previously reported), etc.

 

[Frank E]

I don't necessarily disagree with you at all on the issue at hand, but nonetheless, I think there's a very big difference between asking a talented player to play a different role in a short tournament with a huge payoff and asking a talented player to play a different role for an entire season (and possibly an entire career).

I don't think you're necessarily asking them to play a different role. You're just looking to fill every spot in your lineup with guys that have more well-rounded games. Instead of having guys on the 3rd and 4th lines that really only contribute through physical play, on the PK, etc., you have guys that can do that and play well with the puck. Instead of role players, you have versatile players who can fill a number of different roles. Instead of the Smiths and Martins of the league, you fill the bottom of your lineup with guys like Soshnikov, Brown, Hyman, Gauthier (if his recent play is evidence of his overall game being better than previously reported), etc.

That's all good and fine in the short term, but some of those guys are going to be looking for more minutes to develop their careers beyond $1m short term contracts.  There's likely to be some challenges there in terms of organizational behaviour. 

 

[bustaheims]

That's all good and fine in the short term, but some of those guys are going to be looking for more minutes to develop their careers beyond $1m short term contracts.  There's likely to be some challenges there in terms of organizational behaviour.

Then you trade them, and replace them with similar players. These types of players aren't especially difficult to find. You just need to use them appropriately. It's really that simple. The only players you need to commit to are your core pieces. The rest can all be replaced when they become too expensive/are unhappy/etc. And, really, if they play well enough, even on the lower lines, they can earn the bigger/longer contracts. Guys that aren't one-dimensional players tend to earn the opportunity to do that - and, ultimately, having guys that are working hard to earn better paycheques is good for the team's overall success.

 

[herman]

Busta is explaining it better than I am.

It's a business and it's a game, so why not play your good cards where possible to maximize your assets? Barring a managerial and salary cap misfire in decision making, the worst thing that can happen from having too many pretty good multidimensional players is that you have to trade them for assets before they hit UFA. Or they become key components in home run swing trades for the push. Or a new core piece is revealed and another player has to be moved for assets. To my eye, isn't that the point of having a prospect pipeline stocked with skilled players?

How sweet would the team be if the worst players were Zach Hymans and Connor Browns and Frank Corrados with developmental up-curves still ahead of them? We are very nearly there.

 

[Frank E]

That's all good and fine in the short term, but some of those guys are going to be looking for more minutes to develop their careers beyond $1m short term contracts.  There's likely to be some challenges there in terms of organizational behaviour.

Then you trade them, and replace them with similar players. These types of players aren't especially difficult to find. You just need to use them appropriately. It's really that simple. The only players you need to commit to are your core pieces. The rest can all be replaced when they become too expensive/are unhappy/etc. And, really, if they play well enough, even on the lower lines, they can earn the bigger/longer contracts. Guys that aren't one-dimensional players tend to earn the opportunity to do that - and, ultimately, having guys that are working hard to earn better paycheques is good for the team's overall success.

I think we're on the same page here...since they'd be traded out for other assets, those players tend to be temporary/short term players.  Really, they're role players until they're promoted with more responsibility/ice-time.

I think that's why you don't see teams with all kinds of talent throughout their lineups season after season, given that they can't afford the cap space or the opportunity to keep strong talent in the bottom 6/bottom 3.

I think where things get more complicated is when you have a guy who can play a decent offensive game, but can't crack your top 6-9, and can't play well in a more defensive role.

 

[bustaheims]

I think where things get more complicated is when you have a guy who can play a decent offensive game, but can't crack your top 6-9, and can't play well in a more defensive role.

I don't think it's that complicated at all. If a player isn't good enough to be a significant offensive contributor to your team, and isn't good defensively either, you punt him. Either trade him to a team that will have a spot for him as part of their offensive attack, or send him to the AHL/stick him on waivers.

 

[Frank E]

Busta is explaining it better than I am.

It's a business and it's a game, so why not play your good cards where possible to maximize your assets? Barring a managerial and salary cap misfire in decision making, the worst thing that can happen from having too many pretty good multidimensional players is that you have to trade them for assets before they hit UFA. Or they become key components in home run swing trades for the push. Or a new core piece is revealed and another player has to be moved for assets. To my eye, isn't that the point of having a prospect pipeline stocked with skilled players?

How sweet would the team be if the worst players were Zach Hymans and Connor Browns and Frank Corrados with developmental up-curves still ahead of them? We are very nearly there.

As I mentioned, I think the problem there is when you have a player that excels offensively, but isn't yet good enough defensively for regular NHL duty on your team.  Maybe Griffith was that guy, and maybe not, but you end up waiving that guy and people get bent out of shape because a defensive player like Ben Smith is on the roster and he can play that defensive role.

 

[bustaheims]

As I mentioned, I think the problem there is when you have a player that excels offensively, but isn't yet good enough defensively for regular NHL duty on your team.  Maybe Griffith was that guy, and maybe not, but you end up waiving that guy and people get bent out of shape because a defensive player like Ben Smith is on the roster and he can play that defensive role.

The issue with Smith is that he can't actually play the defensive role. He's a one-dimensional player, and that dimension is winning faceoffs of the PK. When the team needs to be able to do more than dump the puck down the ice, he's a liability. Griffith, on the other hand, could actually do things when the team had the puck.

 

[Frank E]

I think where things get more complicated is when you have a guy who can play a decent offensive game, but can't crack your top 6-9, and can't play well in a more defensive role.

I don't think it's that complicated at all. If a player isn't good enough to be a significant offensive contributor to your team, and isn't good defensively either, you punt him. Either trade him to a team that will have a spot for him as part of their offensive attack, or send him to the AHL/stick him on waivers.

Again, I think herman was arguing that Griffith should have played in Smith's spot because he had more offensive talent/upside than a guy like Smith.  I have to think that the team didn't feel as though Griffith was as good as Smith in that spot, so they waived him.

 

[bustaheims]

Again, I think herman was arguing that Griffith should have played in Smith's spot because he had more offensive talent/upside than a guy like Smith.  I have to think that the team didn't feel as though Griffith was as good as Smith in that spot, so they waived him.

And, I agree with herman. Smith is a one-dimensional player. Griffith has more to his game. In this case, one skill was overvalued - and other areas of Smith's game that are lacking were overlooked - and the team opted for the more traditional "role player" (read: one-dimensional) over a more well-rounded player. I don't think the team would have performed any worse with Griffith in the lineup over Smith - and, quite likely, the 4th line would have performed better thanks to including another player with puck skills.

 

[herman]

Again, I think herman was arguing that Griffith should have played in Smith's spot because he had more offensive talent/upside than a guy like Smith.  I have to think that the team didn't feel as though Griffith was as good as Smith in that spot, so they waived him.

And, I agree with herman. Smith is a one-dimensional player. Griffith has more to his game. In this case, one skill was overvalued - and other areas of Smith's game that are lacking were overlooked - and the team opted for the more traditional "role player" (read: one-dimensional) over a more well-rounded player. I don't think the team would have performed any worse with Griffith in the lineup over Smith - and, quite likely, the 4th line would have performed better thanks to including another player with puck skills.

Just to clarify, I wasn't arguing for Griffith over Smith's spot, I was arguing for not having Martin, Smith in the lineup at all, so our 4th line could be a modicum of effective (or at least getting development time). This also means not trading Holland for a haha-what pick that will never materialize.

Griffith might not have been able to handle the rigours of a defense-only line, but he can definitely handle sheltered scoring with early Matthews (Nylander-Matthews-Griffith), or playmaker on the limited 4th line with Soshnikov/Komarov and Holland (who was on pace to being the most productive 4th line centre we've had in 10 years). He only didn't fit the role that Babcock wanted specifically: old school checking PK.

Smith's PK faceoff prowess is quite good, but the numbers bear out that he wins maybe, what, 2-3 more faceoffs a week (That's probably hyperbole)? That, and the importance of a faceoff is overblown.

I would boil this down to a kitchen analogy, one in which resources like money and space are constrained: do you buy a chef's knife, or do you get an egg slicer + garlic chopper + cheese wire? Monofunctional investments are death in a resource constrained environment.

 

[Bullfrog]

Awful. Just awful. JVR's was so much more deserving of a PS.

I'm not totally up to snuff on the rules for penalty shots, but don't the impeding actions need to make contact during the shooting motion?

This isn't basketball Herman! 

It just needs to be an infraction on a breakaway, more-or-less. That is, if the team has a scoring chance and there's no defenders between them and the opposing goalie and then there's a penalty (by either defenders or the goalie) then it's a penalty shot. Defining a breakaway is actually the larger challenge.

 

[Coco-puffs]

This Ben Smith vs Seth Griffith argument is a tad bit annoying, but I'll chime in because, well, I'm stupid.

Seth Griffith has played exclusively on the wing.  Ben Smith has played almost exclusively at Center (I think he played one game on the wing with Holland at center).  Swap them and I do wonder what the results will be.  Ben Smith has a much tougher job.  I think he's much better suited as a 4th line winger-PK/faceoff specialist.  I'm pretty sure in '13-14 with the Blackhawks, the year he put up 14 goals and 26 points, he was used on the wing and as a faceoff/PK specialist.  (EDIT:  I looked it up.  809 mins 5-on-5 that year.  65% of which was spent as Bollig-Kruger-Smith.  Less than 12% ice-time with other forwards on Chicago.  Also took close to 400 faceoffs.)

Really, the argument should be whether Seth Griffith should replace any of our wingers.  The stronger argument was always Holland over Smith instead of this one.

 

[herman]

This isn't basketball Herman! 

That sounds familiar now. Thanks!

Really, the argument should be whether Seth Griffith should replace any of our wingers.  The stronger argument was always Holland over Smith instead of this one.

The argument was never "Seth Griffith should replace Ben Smith".

No one said anything about Griffith being better than Nylander, either. But if we're going to bring that up, Griffith is more skilled than Smith, Martin, Hyman, Soshnikov, Komarov, Holland, Leivo, Froese, Gauthier, and Leipsic, and might be comparable to Brown. Picking him up on waivers was a coup. Letting him go because he did not fit our preconceived requirement that our fourth line had to be a certain way is a missed opportunity.

Just to clarify, I wasn't arguing for Griffith over Smith's spot, I was arguing for not having Martin, Smith in the lineup at all, so our 4th line could be a modicum of effective (or at least getting development time). This also means not trading Holland for a haha-what pick that will never materialize.

 

[Coco-puffs]

This isn't basketball Herman! 

That sounds familiar now. Thanks!

Really, the argument should be whether Seth Griffith should replace any of our wingers.  The stronger argument was always Holland over Smith instead of this one.

The argument was never "Seth Griffith should replace Ben Smith".

No one said anything about Griffith being better than Nylander, either. But if we're going to bring that up, Griffith is more skilled than Smith, Martin, Hyman, Soshnikov, Komarov, Holland, Leivo, Froese, Gauthier, and Leipsic, and might be comparable to Brown. Picking him up on waivers was a coup. Letting him go because he did not fit our preconceived requirement that our fourth line had to be a certain way is a missed opportunity.

Just to clarify, I wasn't arguing for Griffith over Smith's spot, I was arguing for not having Martin, Smith in the lineup at all, so our 4th line could be a modicum of effective (or at least getting development time). This also means not trading Holland for a haha-what pick that will never materialize.

Sorry... you may not have argued for it, but it was the focus of the discussion in recent posts AND other threads have included the "I can't believe we lost Griffith on waivers and kept Ben Smith".  Not saying it was you, but its been there.

Also, according to their game scores, Seth Griffith (0.37 so far this year, 0.36 projected) is only better than Sosh, Smith and Martin.  Close with Komarov (0.39, 0.45 respectively) and definitely not Brown (0.43, 0.52) or Hyman (0.53, 0.59).

https://gamescorecharts.wordpress.com/atlantic/
https://gamescorecharts.wordpress.com/atlantic-projected/

 

[Kin]

I'm just trying to figure out who Leafer is rallying against. Has anyone championed the idea of a full-out tank to further player development? Or is he mistaking the people who acknowledge the fact that this team is young and full of flaws and isn't near contending yet for ardent "tankers"?  And why would a win against a mid-range team at game 34 of the season prove anything to anyone on either of these two potential sides?

Like Busta said earlier, it's about mistaking an argument that the Leafs should still be primarily focused on building a talent pool(and that to that end finishing lower in the standings is ultimately to the team's benefit) with an appeal to "tanking".

And like you say, a win over the Panthers where they give up 47 shots isn't exactly the smoking gun in the "The team's ready now" case.

 

[bustaheims]

Also, according to their game scores, Seth Griffith (0.37 so far this year, 0.36 projected) is only better than Sosh, Smith and Martin. 

Just for the sake of reference, Griffith's game score is almost equal to the total for those three players - 0.37 for Griffith, 0.38 total for the Leafs' 4th line - and Smith & Martin rank among the 30 worst regularly dressed forwards in the league by this measure.

 

[Coco-puffs]

Also, according to their game scores, Seth Griffith (0.37 so far this year, 0.36 projected) is only better than Sosh, Smith and Martin. 

Just for the sake of reference, Griffith's game score is almost equal to the total for those three players - 0.37 for Griffith, 0.38 total for the Leafs' 4th line - and Smith & Martin rank among the 30 worst regularly dressed forwards in the league by this measure.

Oh I saw that.  Again, Smith plays center and Griffith is a winger.  Maybe he'd do better if Griffith was on his wing instead of Sosh.  (Btw, Smith+Griffith together were very good in a very small sample size... 62% CF% in 17mins).  I don't see many people arguing that Sosh should have stayed with the Marlies and we should have kept Griffith though.  And I say that completely realizing that Martin is a waste of space, but as we all know, he's not coming out of the lineup because truculence.