The core, on offense. On defense: well....

[mr grieves]

Not sure why you left this out:

7. Defence appears to be the major concern, though. But even then, score adjustment ranks the Leafs 15th in shot attempt against rate (26th), 12th in unblocked attempts (19th), 4th in shots against (10th), 10th in expected goals against (8th), and 9th in scoring chances against (15th). That's an above average defensive team to start the year, and that's despite certain shot-bleeding defensive defencemen existing. The areas where they're weak un-adjusted align with the idea of team's attempting riskier shots while trailing against Toronto (score effects), which suggests that the team is, by and large, doing the right things.

This was written before last night's gong show, so all those numbers are going down I expect.

I don't think anyone is unhappy with the offensive play of the young forwards -- they are showing that offense is not now, and likely won't ever be, a problem.  And I think discerning fans understand that their poor defensive play so far is something that will improve with Babcock's coaching (it's not for lack of effort, as far as I can see ... none of them are floating).

The problem is squarely with the defensemen and goaltending.  There, the Leafs are "that concerning."

Will they? I thought they held Tampa to under 25 shots, had 40+ of their own. Even adjusting for score effects, I'm pretty sure they carried much of the play when the game was close... So, those stats aren't likely to reflect their poor play.

 

[jonlleafs]

I would suggest that even the best goaltenders in the game struggle from time to time. I would also suggest that that happens more to goalies that are coming off recent injuries, starting on a new team and with new systems, playing behind a porous defence, and those without a wealth of experience in the national hockey league. Having all those things working against him, I would be willing to give him more than just 4 games with his new team before coming to my final analysis or before pronouncing him a BUST.

Agreed.  Considering he's done well the last 3 years.

 

[McGarnagle]

I know most were happy to see the back of him, and not disputing the move, but it's probably relevant to point out that Phaneuf is an upgrade on virtually the entire defense suiting up since the beginning of the season.

Thinking team D would regress somewhat with his subtraction and no additions in the short term doesn't seem unreasonable.

 

[TBLeafer]

I know most were happy to see the back of him, and not disputing the move, but it's probably relevant to point out that Phaneuf is an upgrade on virtually the entire defense suiting up since the beginning of the season.

Thinking team D would regress somewhat with his subtraction and no additions in the short term doesn't seem unreasonable.

[tweet]790596838537695232[/tweet]

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle  Oct 24
Meanwhile Phaneuf is at 39.6% possession after five games this year in Ottawa. Wow.

 

[jonlleafs]

I know most were happy to see the back of him, and not disputing the move, but it's probably relevant to point out that Phaneuf is an upgrade on virtually the entire defense suiting up since the beginning of the season.

Thinking team D would regress somewhat with his subtraction and no additions in the short term doesn't seem unreasonable.

[tweet]790596838537695232[/tweet]

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle  Oct 24
Meanwhile Phaneuf is at 39.6% possession after five games this year in Ottawa. Wow.

I don't get how possession numbers are relevant for a defenseman who like Phaneuf is more of a defensive guy now versus offensive since he doesn't really skate it much up the ice.  His job is to just get the puck and push it up to the forwards.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding the way possession % is calculated.

 

[TBLeafer]

I know most were happy to see the back of him, and not disputing the move, but it's probably relevant to point out that Phaneuf is an upgrade on virtually the entire defense suiting up since the beginning of the season.

Thinking team D would regress somewhat with his subtraction and no additions in the short term doesn't seem unreasonable.

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle  Oct 24
Meanwhile Phaneuf is at 39.6% possession after five games this year in Ottawa. Wow.

I don't get how possession numbers are relevant for a defenseman who like Phaneuf is more of a defensive guy now versus offensive since he doesn't really skate it much up the ice.  His job is to just get the puck and push it up to the forwards.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding the way possession % is calculated.

If he was successful at pushing it up to his forwards and they were generating a stronger possession % for than against while he was out, you would be onto something.  That isn't the case though.

The coach loves his vet leadership though.  He's their Hunwick, right down to wearing the A.  No points, -5.  Its all good. 

 

[LuncheonMeat]

I know most were happy to see the back of him, and not disputing the move, but it's probably relevant to point out that Phaneuf is an upgrade on virtually the entire defense suiting up since the beginning of the season.

Thinking team D would regress somewhat with his subtraction and no additions in the short term doesn't seem unreasonable.

[tweet]790596838537695232[/tweet]

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle  Oct 24
Meanwhile Phaneuf is at 39.6% possession after five games this year in Ottawa. Wow.

I don't get how possession numbers are relevant for a defenseman who like Phaneuf is more of a defensive guy now versus offensive since he doesn't really skate it much up the ice.  His job is to just get the puck and push it up to the forwards.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding the way possession % is calculated.

Maybe I'm off base, or this is an oversimplification, but when Phaneuf is on the ice the other team has the puck 60% of the time. If his job as a defensman is to get the puck and push it up to the forwards, and he is doing a good job of that, his number would likely be better than 39.6%.

 

[jonlleafs]

I know most were happy to see the back of him, and not disputing the move, but it's probably relevant to point out that Phaneuf is an upgrade on virtually the entire defense suiting up since the beginning of the season.

Thinking team D would regress somewhat with his subtraction and no additions in the short term doesn't seem unreasonable.

[tweet]790596838537695232[/tweet]

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle  Oct 24
Meanwhile Phaneuf is at 39.6% possession after five games this year in Ottawa. Wow.

I don't get how possession numbers are relevant for a defenseman who like Phaneuf is more of a defensive guy now versus offensive since he doesn't really skate it much up the ice.  His job is to just get the puck and push it up to the forwards.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding the way possession % is calculated.

Maybe I'm off base, or this is an oversimplification, but when Phaneuf is on the ice the other team has the puck 60% of the time. If his job as a defensman is to get the puck and push it up to the forwards, and he is doing a good job of that, his number would likely be better than 39.6%.

But is this line possession or individual possession.  Because I can't see a single person have possession 100% of the time.  Also, it could also mean that he is pitted against the best opposing players who control the puck well.

 

[TBLeafer]

I know most were happy to see the back of him, and not disputing the move, but it's probably relevant to point out that Phaneuf is an upgrade on virtually the entire defense suiting up since the beginning of the season.

Thinking team D would regress somewhat with his subtraction and no additions in the short term doesn't seem unreasonable.

[tweet]790596838537695232[/tweet]

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle  Oct 24
Meanwhile Phaneuf is at 39.6% possession after five games this year in Ottawa. Wow.

I don't get how possession numbers are relevant for a defenseman who like Phaneuf is more of a defensive guy now versus offensive since he doesn't really skate it much up the ice.  His job is to just get the puck and push it up to the forwards.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding the way possession % is calculated.

Maybe I'm off base, or this is an oversimplification, but when Phaneuf is on the ice the other team has the puck 60% of the time. If his job as a defensman is to get the puck and push it up to the forwards, and he is doing a good job of that, his number would likely be better than 39.6%.

But is this line possession or individual possession.  Because I can't see a single person have possession 100% of the time.  Also, it could also mean that he is pitted against the best opposing players who control the puck well.

And if that's the case, Phanny's doing a real poor job at that too, right now.  Hence the 0 points and -5 rating.

 

[disco]

In defense of the trade, it's a scorched earth rebuild. You move all the assets that aren't young and/or cheap for picks and prospects, then you draft cheaper, younger and hopefully better players. Do Kessel and Phaneuf make you better in the short term? Of course, but it's about the picks and the prospects at this point. Nothing else. And Phaneuf at $7-million and Kessel at $8-million, the salaries coming back make it a wash.

 

[McGarnagle]

5 games in, I'll bet you could cherrypick a lot of top players and find some pretty bad advanced stats if you looked hard enough.

 

[disco]

5 games in, I'll bet you could cherrypick a lot of top players and find some pretty bad advanced stats if you looked hard enough.

Good point McGarnagle, across the league. You're back on the case!

 

[CarltonTheBear]

It also appears as though he might be being held back by his defence parter, Cody "OTT wouldn't trade him for Drouin" Ceci.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

But is this line possession or individual possession.  Because I can't see a single person have possession 100% of the time.  Also, it could also mean that he is pitted against the best opposing players who control the puck well.

When Mirtle says "possession" he actually means shot attempts (or Corsi) during 5-on-5 play. Most people don't like to use the word possession when describing the stat because it's a) confusing and b) maybe not totally accurate. So through 5 games if you look at all the shot attempts made while Phaneuf has been on the ice 5-on-5, 40% of them have came from the sens and 60% of them have came from the opposing team. That's a bad ratio no matter how you cut it, although it's a very small sample size.

 

[mr grieves]

Bumping this, as we're a 75% through the season and probably have a better idea of what the defensemen in core ought to look like.

I guess my not very originally secondary point is, no matter where we may be in the standings as the trade deadline approaches, I would listen to offers for JVR/Kadri/Bozak/Komarov, any of the veteran skaters, for a good defenseman or a good pick that can be used to draft defensemen.

The primary point, though, is that I really don't want to see them have to part with one of my suggested core guys to get that needed defenseman.  I'd try almost anything else first.

With respect to what counts as a "good pick" for drafting a much needed, top-pairing defenseman, I wonder which of the D-corps picked from the 2002-2012 drafts you find more appealing (during player's respective peaks) :

Hedman - Doughty
Rielly - Pietrangelo
Bouwmeester - Pitkanen
Larsson

or

Keith - Weber
Josi - Letang
Vlasic - Subban
Faulk

 

[ZBBM]

Choosing between those two, the first pairing you list seals it for me.  Hedman moves and skates very well for a big defenseman, and Doughty has all the intangibles in addition to pure skill.  I love that combination.  In my dreams we add a player like Hedman to our mix; he would be most complementary to the good ones we have (no of which are as good as Doughty obviously).

But at the same time I acknowledge that the second group is better overall.

 

[Kin]

With respect to what counts as a "good pick" for drafting a much needed, top-pairing defenseman, I wonder which of the D-corps picked from the 2002-2012 drafts you find more appealing (during player's respective peaks) :

Hedman - Doughty
Rielly - Pietrangelo
Bouwmeester - Pitkanen
Larsson

or

Keith - Weber
Josi - Letang
Vlasic - Subban
Faulk

It's interesting that the first group finds room for Larsson, Bouwmeester, Pitkanen and Rielly but Hampus Lindholm, Aaron Ekblad, Dougie Hamilton and Erik Karlsson didn't make the cut.

But the real answer to the question is when you want your team to contend as not many of the guys in the second group were near their peak until at least 4 or 5 years after they were drafted.

 

[mr grieves]

It's interesting that the first group finds room for Larsson, Bouwmeester, Pitkanen and Rielly but Hampus Lindholm, Aaron Ekblad, Dougie Hamilton and Erik Karlsson didn't make the cut.

Cut off was top 5. Cream of the draft crop. And I just looked at 2002-12 draft classes, so no Ekblad.

But the real answer to the question is when you want your team to contend as not many of the guys in the second group were near their peak until at least 4 or 5 years after they were drafted.

I'm not sure the guys in the first group were nearer their peaks a few years out than those in the second round. And if we don't need a defenseman at his peak, but one who's able to play top-4 minutes and make some valuable contribution within the first 2-3 years of his career, there are more than a few who were drafted in the late first and second rounds.

The point, for me, is that the Leafs aren?t likely to get a top ten pick for the foreseeable future and won't be able to trade JvR for a great young defenseman, so have a much better chance of finding a Keith, Weber, Letang, or Subban than they do of drafting a Doughty, Hedman, Ekblad, or Hamilton or trading for a Seth Jones. They just need to give themselves lots of shots in the second round.

 

[Kin]

Cut off was top 5. Cream of the draft crop. And I just looked at 2002-12 draft classes, so no Ekblad.

Yes, I picked up on that. My point is that it's a narrow enough cut-off that it says more about the mistakes made by scouting staffs than the value of picks at a specific spot. Guys like OEL or Lindholm being taken at #6 instead of #5 doesn't change the fact that those guys are available at the #5 and not the #35.

Likewise, by only looking at those years you're avoiding one of the major points in favour of drafting high which is your ability to find defensemen who can be high value contributors within a year or two of being drafted.

I'm not sure the guys in the first group were nearer their peaks a few years out than those in the second round. And if we don't need a defenseman at his peak, but one who's able to play top-4 minutes and make some valuable contribution within the first 2-3 years of his career, there are more than a few who were drafted in the late first and second rounds.

Well, I am pretty sure that there aren't any guys in the second group who had years like Doughty did in his draft+2 year. Or Ekblad in his draft+1 year. When you look at defensemen taken in the top 10 the possibility exists, whether it's either of those guys or Werenski or whoever, that you're going to find someone to contribute at a very high level very quickly. That doesn't really exist outside of the top 10 or 20. The best case scenario out of the group you chose outside of the first round is either Weber or Subban who were pretty good in their draft +4 years.

And I don't think most people do think that all the Leafs need is someone who can be a credible #4 defenseman three years from now. 

The point, for me, is that the Leafs aren?t likely to get a top ten pick for the foreseeable future and won't be able to trade JvR for a great young defenseman, so have a much better chance of finding a Keith, Weber, Letang, or Subban than they do of drafting a Doughty, Hedman, Ekblad, or Hamilton or trading for a Seth Jones. They just need to give themselves lots of shots in the second round.

The point, for me, is that they don't actually have a good chance of drafting someone like that in the second round no matter what they do and so it's a strategy akin to the JFJ-Burke-esque "We can just find a #1 C in the second round or among college FA's".

The Leafs should not be at a point where they don't have good options and are forced to pick the least bad one. That's a sure sign that something has gone wrong.

 

[mr grieves]

Likewise, by only looking at those years you're avoiding one of the major points in favour of drafting high which is your ability to find defensemen who can be high value contributors within a year or two of being drafted.

I looked at Hockey-Reference for defensemen managing positive CorsiRel and >50% CF% before turning 21 (its advanced stats go back to 2007-8). There are 27 such players. 17 were early picks (1st-15th), 10 were later picks. Chances are, obviously, better that you get a young, high value contributor with a high pick -- but there are young, high value contributors drafted in the late first and second.

Since the chances of the Leafs drafting very high are, I'd say, very low, the realistic question is how do they maximize their chances of getting a player like Subban, Letang, Maata, Severson, Hamonic, Carlson, Edler, Slavin, Faulk, or Gardiner? (and the premise is: if you add one of those, in his D+2 year, to Gardiner, Rielly, Zaitsev [on a team with a forward core of Matthews, Nylander, Marner and Kadri] do you have legitimate top-4? I'm inclined to think so, but mileages may vary...)

Well, I am pretty sure that there aren't any guys in the second group who had years like Doughty did in his draft+2 year. Or Ekblad in his draft+1 year. When you look at defensemen taken in the top 10 the possibility exists, whether it's either of those guys or Werenski or whoever, that you're going to find someone to contribute at a very high level very quickly. That doesn't really exist outside of the top 10 or 20.

And I don't think most people do think that all the Leafs need is someone who can be a credible #4 defenseman three years from now. 

That's true. But did LA draft forwards who've had the D+1, D+2, and D+3 that Matthews, Marner, and Nylander have had? Did Florida?

And do we have a better supporting cast than Doughty had in Jack Johnson, Randy Jones, Sean O?Donnell, Rob Scuderi, and Matt Greene? If so, do the Leafs really need a Drew Doughty?

The point, for me, is that they don't actually have a good chance of drafting someone like that in the second round no matter what they do and so it's a strategy akin to the JFJ-Burke-esque "We can just find a #1 C in the second round or among college FA's".

The Leafs should not be at a point where they don't have good options and are forced to pick the least bad one. That's a sure sign that something has gone wrong.

Well, this is where the forwards they have, having the D+1s, D+2s, and D+3s that they're having, comes in. The "least bad option" is only a sensible path because they seem to have gotten very lucky choosing all forwards with their high picks. What's "gone wrong" in their chances of drafting a high-pick defenseman is what's gone right in their selection of forwards. 3 rookies are on 50+ point paces, which, as far as I can tell, hasn't ever happened before.

For me, the question moving forward is whether they're better served by (1) flipping Bozak, JvR, Komarov and stockpiling 2nds and hoping that the improved scouting can land on a Subban, Weber, or Letang (because we know you can?t flip those guys for Seth Jones), (2) trading Nylander or Marner for a Seth Jones, or (3) praying for injuries creating a lost season might get them a Hedman.

That's to say we're in a really good place -- as good a crop of drafted forwards as the league's seen since... when? Crosby/Malkin or Toews/Kane? -- but its downside is that it's pretty unlikely they'll find themselves in a position to draft the sort of defenseman you think they need. So, what?s the realistic path forward to building a D-corps that can contend?

You may think that finding a useful piece, one that'll push the defense into contender territory, later in the draft is unrealistic, but I really don?t know how, given what they?ve put together at forward, you think drafting at #1 or #2 or even #6 in the next year or two is any more realistic.