Grantland: Advanced stats say Leafs are a bad team

[LLJ]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/979 ... nced-stats

And the bad news wasn't limited to possession stats. The Leafs had the league's highest PDO, a stat that adds shooting and save percentages and can be a good indicator of which teams had the best luck.4 In his Hockey Abstract, Rob Vollman created a formula for measuring team luck that included PDO as well as injuries and other variables; he concluded that out of 150 teams over five seasons' worth of data, last year's Leafs team was the luckiest.

Percentages can be applied to individual players, too, like in this late-season article by the Globe and Mail's James Mirtle5 that examined the breakout season of center Nazem Kadri and concluded that it, too, was largely a product of good luck. Kadri was an extreme example, but other Leafs posted similarly unusual numbers.

So the advanced stats are virtually unanimous about the Toronto Maple Leafs. They're a bad team, one that gets consistently outplayed and relies on luck to remain competitive. If last season hadn't been shortened by a lockout, some argue, the Leafs probably wouldn't have even made the playoffs. (The 5-seed in the East, the Leafs lost to the Boston Bruins in seven games in the first round.) This year, they should finish near the bottom of the standings.

What do you guys think?

[advaita]

They lead in give-a-ways but also take-a-aways... they are def being outplayed a lot but the goaltending is great for Tornto, goaltending isn't luck. It's extra help. I think the leafs won't stay first in the east but they will def make the playoffs. And they are without Clarkson and Fraser still, important parts of the team.

[wicked_crossova]

Only one stat that matters anyway, right?

[LLJ]

There's possibly some merit to these. The Leafs may come down to earth later on.

However, advanced stats for hockey doesn't take into account individual talent as well as, say, bball and baseball stats do. How do they account for speed, stickhandling, or that nebulous "scoring talent"? You can't just say "Oh, he shoots a better percentage than so and so, therefore he's more efficient and a better scorer. Hockey is not basketball, where scoring at the most efficient rate possible is much more important; hockey is about creating opportunities, and that's where talent comes in. Ovechkin and Kessel have bad shooting percentages because they lob a lot of shots on goal and miss a lot, but nobody is going to argue they aren't gifted goal scorers. You can't just replace them with just "any" players who shoot "better percentages" and think those players will do better in the same position. How do you quantify the ability to still get a solid scoring chance when you don't have a great look at the net? Only players with a certain amount of talent can get real scoring opportunities when still under duress.

Stats also don't always count speed as much as they should--the Leafs are FAST. They are a bunch of guys who individually can blow by opponents on the ice, making that "quick strike" thing that is talked about in the article something only fast teams can do. How do you really quantify being faster skaters than the opposition?

Offensively, I do think the Leafs are the real deal, simply because of individual talent. It's not luck that they have been near the top of the NHL in "goals for" in the past 2 seasons. I do think, however, that advanced stats should be taken seriously when it comes to the Leafs' defensive deficiencies. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors in our defensive system.

[Chevy Chase]

I was going to post this a few day ago and I'm glad you did it for me as I don't post enough to make proper links and quotes.

I found this to be fascinating. I'm an engineer by training so I usually side with the statisticians; however, I do believe that the Leafs were built to be an outlier.

And today's game against the Wild. Minny has 22 shots and Toronto 7. Guess who's up 3-1?

I really do see the leafs as a team built to keep the opposing team to the perimeter and let them make poor low percentage shots, and looking to take advantage in transition.

Look at every game this year and you can see Toronto lagging behind in shots. And the only game they lost (Avalanche, which I attended); they lost because the other team played the trap. This team is built to defeat the Bruins and other big bodied teams that cycle the puck down low. It struggles against the trap since that style just doesn't give up the odd man rushes that Toronto relies upon.

I'm really hoping they prove the number crunchers wrong.

[Brew666]

I admit I don't know much about advanced stats in regards to hockey and tend not to pay too much attention to them but they can't be dismissed. Like the seeing eye test, they add value but I don't think you can be absolute with it. And I'm interested to see if the Leafs can be the anomaly b/c like the article says, it's going to either highly credit or discredit advanced stats. The track record seems pretty good for adv. stats so it'll be interesting to see how the season ends.

Carlyle does have wins on his side and although he's old school, I do agree with some of his choices. If you can limit the shots to the outside [bad angles], then you're going to limit the scoring chances for the other team. I 100% disagree w/ the article in regards to shot quality, it matters in my mind. Getting good quality shots [Offense] versus limiting chances [defense] are different things in my mind too. Can players score from bad angles while being forced on the outside by a strong forecheck? Sure, but you'll be less likely to score than if you're in the slot. And another huge factor when it comes to shot quality is if the defense can clear the front of the net/give the goalie a clear view of the puck. I can't argue that teams can ensure better shots but teams can definitely limit the opponents shot quality. I'm more interested in legitimate scoring chances v. shots.

I'd agree w/ the article that the Leafs have been lucky this year [they seem to take at least one period off a game] but don't good teams always find a way to win, even when they're being outplayed? No question in my mind, the Leafs have to improve their play but I see it as a positive when a team can hold on long enough to eek out a win like they have been.

I still play hockey and have been playing for quite a few years and understand the correlation between possession and winning but I don't believe it's the be all end all. I believe Grabo rates really well [and I bet Berezin back in the day would've too] in regard this stat and I think it can be fool's gold. Grabo is a good player but he also has a habit of not passing and not getting rid of the puck when he should [This was Kadri's biggest fault, he would always carry the puck too long instead of dumping it in]. Do teams that play dump and chase hockey have a lower possession rate? I'd guess so but I'm don't know. How do teams that play the trap score in regards to possession? Does the stat account for goaltending? I have no idea how the stats value these variables.

I should also add the Leafs have one of the best PP and PK in the league and special teams are huge when it comes to wins/losses. I would have to think that has to be a variable that should be accounted for but if the Leafs are one of the worst teams in the league according to adv. stats then I'm not sure how it accounts for special teams.

I read Pension Plan Puppets at times and they seem absolutely convinced that this team would've been better with Grabovski and MacArthur and I disagree. Grabo was never going to be a top six forward on this team [for more than one reason] and I'll take Bolland and McClement as defensive/checking centres over Grabo. MacArthur was pretty good on the wing but he was replaceable. I would've been fine w/ a 2nd line of Lupul, Kadri and MacArthur [move Lupul back to RW] but I'm definitely in the circle that believes phyiscal teams are harder to play. I haven't seen enough of Clarkson but if he's putting pressure on the other team to get rid of the puck b/c they're expecting to be hit, it's a huge advantage and it forces mistakes. If the Leafs are constructed as a team to take advantage of turnovers then having a player that can put pressure on the other team's D is definitely a plus over someone like MacArthur.

Maybe I'm bias but there are so many variables in hockey that I don't if there is one stat that can identify a good player v. a bad player. If it was more individual it'd be an easier assessment but there are so many little things that good players do that are not accounted for [positioning is 1/2 the battle].

It's obvious that I lean towards the seeing eye test but I can't dismiss the track record of adv. stats. I guess my opinion at the moment is that I believe the Leafs are a well constructed team and can win hockey games with this style but it needs tightening up.

I also disagree with some of the 'facts' the writer brought up too.

[wicked_crossova]

Truly how good are these "advanced stats" if all they can say about a team playing well is that they "got lucky"? Isn't one point of statistics to explain WHY a team is doing well, not just say "luck" when they can't explain it?

[YogiStewart]

Truly how good are these "advanced stats" if all they can say about a team playing well is that they "got lucky"? Isn't one point of statistics to explain WHY a team is doing well, not just say "luck" when they can't explain it?

basically, you can't sustain what the Leafs are doing over a 80 game season. they're playing with fire and winning. that's not a stanley cup winning formula.
the eyeball test says that the leafs are getting away with murder. the standings say otherwise.
few to no pundits are watching the leafs and saying they're a scary or good team. so take that for what its worth.
they need a lot of help in a lot of areas and until they clean up some major blemishes, pundits (me, included) are waiting for them to come crashing back down to earth.

[Brew666]

the eyeball test says that the leafs are getting away with murder. the standings say otherwise.

I'm not sure if I was clear before but I agree with this. Carlyle said this the other day, and I agree, that standings/wins/losses is simply just another stat and doesn't mean the team is playing good or bad hockey.

they need a lot of help in a lot of areas and until they clean up some major blemishes, pundits (me, included) are waiting for them to come crashing back down to earth.

Yogi, do you think the team is poorly put together or do you think it has to do w/ execution? I know you don't like how little cap space the team has but there are 10 teams in the league [including Pitts and Boston] that have zero cap space like the Leafs. Strictly looking at the team on the ice, and if the team was completely healthy, do you expect them to make the playoffs as is? Adv. stats suggest they are one of the worst teams in the league [3rd last in corsi %], is this more in line w/ your thinking?

Personally, if the team is firing on all cylinders, I'd say they're definitely a playoff team and would have them seated between 5-7.

[YogiStewart]

Yogi, do you think the team is poorly put together or do you think it has to do w/ execution? I know you don't like how little cap space the team has but there are 10 teams in the league [including Pitts and Boston] that have zero cap space like the Leafs. Strictly looking at the team on the ice, and if the team was completely healthy, do you expect them to make the playoffs as is? Adv. stats suggest they are one of the worst teams in the league [3rd last in corsi %], is this more in line w/ your thinking?

Personally, if the team is firing on all cylinders, I'd say they're definitely a playoff team and would have them seated between 5-7.

at the beginning of the season, i said that the Leafs would be battling it out for the last playoff seeds. seeing how bad the East looks this year and how the West is dominating them in head to head battles, i may have to take back my statement.

i created a thread about their cap space. i do not think that the Leafs manage their assets overly well. i've stated that i hate the Bozak and Clarkson signings/contracts and the handling of the Reimer situation is a great way to piss away an asset. it also puts them in tough cap situations for this entire season.
the Leafs' D is sub-par and i would have shipped Phaneuf out in a heartbeat. Reiley's proving that Phaneuf is not a top 2 D-man.

i think that Carlyle gets this team to overperform. but if you look at what MacArthur and Grabo said about him, i do question his long-term benefits to growing the team.

[Chevy Chase]

I too would love to ship Phaneuf out. I would suspect that he's not in their long term plans unless he come in at a huge hometown discount. I like the Kessle deal, but not for that many years. I haven't seen enough of Clarkson (anything) to make my mind up on that deal.

[whysoserious]

i think that Carlyle gets this team to overperform. but if you look at what MacArthur and Grabo said about him, i do question his long-term benefits to growing the team.

I don't think Carlyle is a problem just yet, in fact he's a positive and the results are there to back it up. But his act will wear thin eventually. Even though Edmonton has had a rough start, I think the Leafs may regret letting Eakins go and wanted to see him get a shot after Wilson was fired. A lot of the young guys were already familiar with him and his style.

[Chevy Chase]

Not sure how but these leafs continue to defy the odds.

Every game they get outshot, a give up considerable puck control time yet find a way to win.

Maybe Nonis was onto something when he said he'd rather allow other teams to pepper his goalie with shots as long as they were from the perimeter and could been clearly seen. I will say this about Toronto's weak defense, they don't give up many second chances.

So far, they are exciting to watch.

[LLJ]

The sample size keeps increasing. They've basically been playing like this since last season, although I've only briefly scanned through last season's stats. I think we're already 3/4 of a season, going back to last season, doing this playing "style" and they're still a winning team.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Obviously, goaltending and goal scoring are the big equalizers. You can win a cup with a great goalie and a so-so team. The stats tell the truth in that shot discrepancy and puck possession are the consistent qualities of good teams. I don't think this is a great team, but they're young and can get better at playing the game. What's more important to me is that they seem to have a lot of character. They've been in most of the games they've lost and definitely won some games they had no business being in. I think that kind of stuff matters in the playoffs more than how well you can cycle the puck.

[Idontknowurlife]

My eyes told me the same thing.

[LLJ]

My eyes told me the same thing.

Then why didn't you post this insight back in December when you joined, smarty pants? This article was posted when the Leafs were riding high the first month of the season.