Stars @ Leafs - Feb. 7th, 7:30pm - TSN4, Fan 590

[Kin]

http://theleafsnation.com/2017/2/7/leafs-postgame-luck-of-the-draw

A lot of last night's goals were scored shortly after winning the draw. Naturally, TSN 'analysts' and commentators alike, chewed that bone to the nib.

Sarcasm translation for the above article: Face-offs are not insignificant in and of themselves. But pursuing and expending assets on a 'face-off specialist' (e.g. 53% vs 47%) is a folly if that face-off specialist is only good at face-offs and bad everywhere else because the difference between being 'good at face-offs' and 'bad at face-offs' is nominal at best.

I think this is an area where the analytics are relatively right but they're coming to a bad conclusion. In the larger macro sense of things the difference between being a 53% face-off guy and being a 47% one isn't big. The problem is at key moments winning face-offs is a big deal and if someone is 47% against the league in aggregate, how are they against someone who might be among the league's best?

Where I'd agree though is that it's not maybe something that should be thought of as "We aren't good at face-offs, let's go acquire someone who is" but rather an element that should be part of development/training and solved internally.

Someone like Matthews, for instance, is strong, quick and has pretty solid hand/eye coordination. I don't see there as being any particular reason that he can't develop into a very good face-off taker.

 

[Frank E]

http://theleafsnation.com/2017/2/7/leafs-postgame-luck-of-the-draw

A lot of last night's goals were scored shortly after winning the draw. Naturally, TSN 'analysts' and commentators alike, chewed that bone to the nib.

Sarcasm translation for the above article: Face-offs are not insignificant in and of themselves. But pursuing and expending assets on a 'face-off specialist' (e.g. 53% vs 47%) is a folly if that face-off specialist is only good at face-offs and bad everywhere else because the difference between being 'good at face-offs' and 'bad at face-offs' is nominal at best.

Late in a 1 goal game (a many of them seem), if a team has pulled their goalie, that possession in the defensive zone is a lot more important than an arbitrary one midway through the first period, no?

 

[Kin]

Also, "we should pick up someone who's good at face-offs but bad everywhere else" strikes me as something of a straw man as I doubt anyone arguing for any player transaction has ever made that case.

 

[herman]

Thems fair points, Nik and Frank, especially:

it's not maybe something that should be thought of as "We aren't good at face-offs, let's go acquire someone who is" but rather an element that should be part of development/training and solved internally

Usually when they acquire said specialist, they tout the specialty but obviously never mention the downsides. At least Babcock doesn't play Smith 15-18 minutes a night like Steckel and McClement were.

Face-off skill tends to grow with the number of years in the league (and the reps taken). Like Rock, Paper, Scissors is easier vs your friends that you know well, compared to strangers.

 

[Kin]

Usually when they acquire said specialist, they tout the specialty but obviously never mention the downsides. At least Babcock doesn't play Smith 15-18 minutes a night like Steckel and McClement were.

I don't really think McClement fits into that mold as he was really sold as a defensive specialist as opposed to a face-off guy(his FO% was 51.3 the year before joining the Leafs which was lower than both Grabo and Bozak) and he only got 15 minutes a night the year where he produced points at a fairly reasonable rate and finished 6th in Selke voting.

Steckel got under 13 minutes a night his one year here.

 

[herman]

Was I thinking of Spaling? Probably just unresearched hyperbole as usual.