Leafs @ Rangers - Mar. 5, 7:30pm - TSN, TSN 1050

[Derk]

I much prefer they make the playoffs because of shootout success rather than missing the playoffs because they were terrible at it.

[Potvin29]

Because they now have the talent to win despite these problems, weather in regulation/OT or in the shootout. I prefer this to the days where they would "outplay" the opposition and lose because the goaltenders weren't good enough or they didn't have talented players to score goals.

I found those games much more frustrating to watch because I wasn't able to see the path to improvement. I think its an easier task for a GM to find ways to address the areas that currently need improvement rather than trying to find top end talent and solid starting goaltending.

The path to improvement was improving the goaltending.  It's not that hard to find solid starting goaltending - Nonis did not have to give up much to grab Bernier, Reimer developed from within, and multiple solid goaltenders have been traded for very little in the last few years.

There are no shootouts in the playoffs, which is why it is alarming to a lot of people that they are in a playoff position on the back of having a high number of shootout wins.

There are no shootouts in the playoffs, there is also more than 5 minutes of OT in the playoffs so we don't really know how those games would have gone if they played continuous OT. The Leafs are 3-4 in games that have been decided in OT.

And if games didn't go to a shootout and there were just ties like there used to be, they would be 24-31-13.

So in games not decided by a shootout the Leafs are 24-31 (24 regulation/OT wins, 23 regulation losses + 8 OT losses).  That doesn't strike me as a strong bet for the playoffs.

[Nik]

That doesn't strike me as a strong bet for the playoffs.

Realistically, this team was never going to go into the playoffs as anything resembling a favourite. They're just not that good. Going into the season I think just about anyone would have put them as a bubble playoff team that would have to cross their fingers and hope in the first round. Since that's what ended up happening I don't think most people are going to be disappointed or alarmed going forward because as much as shootout success may read to some as winning with smoke and mirrors, it's still probably going to be the way some games get decided over the next couple of months and the Leafs success in it does speak to their ability to make the playoffs.

[RedLeaf]

There are no shootouts in the playoffs, which is why it is alarming to a lot of people that they are in a playoff position on the back of having a high number of shootout wins.

There are no shootouts in the playoffs, there is also more than 5 minutes of OT in the playoffs so we don't really know how those games would have gone if they played continuous OT. The Leafs are 3-4 in games that have been decided in OT.

I really don't see how you can be satisfied with the product the Leafs are putting on the ice as a whole right now.

Because they now have the talent to win despite these problems, weather in regulation/OT or in the shootout. I prefer this to the days where they would "outplay" the opposition and lose because the goaltenders weren't good enough or they didn't have talented players to score goals.

I found those games much more frustrating to watch because I wasn't able to see the path to improvement. I think its an easier task for a GM to find ways to address the areas that currently need improvement rather than trying to find top end talent and solid starting goaltending.

This.

[Deebo]

The path to improvement was improving the goaltending.  It's not that hard to find solid starting goaltending - Nonis did not have to give up much to grab Bernier, Reimer developed from within, and multiple solid goaltenders have been traded for very little in the last few years.

I really don't buy that goaltending was the only reason that those teams weren't good. SV% only tells part of the story IMO.

And if games didn't go to a shootout and there were just ties like there used to be, they would be 24-31-13.

So in games not decided by a shootout the Leafs are 24-31 (24 regulation/OT wins, 23 regulation losses + 8 OT losses).  That doesn't strike me as a strong bet for the playoffs.

How would they have lost 8 more games and played 4 more games if there weren't shootouts? Those would be ties and OTL still existed. Regulation and OT losses would be the same, SO wins and SO losses would become ties.

Under the old system they'd be, 24-23-13-4 (W-L-T-OTL).

In games not decided by shootouts, they are 24-23-4. (W-L-OTL)

But we were comparing regular season to playoffs not current regular season rules to past rules, so I'm not sure why that is relevant.

My point was that games decided in OT have been close to equal for the Leafs so not having shootouts in the playoffs shouldn't be alarming as you suggested, we may have won those games if there was continuous OT.

[Zee]

The path to improvement was improving the goaltending.  It's not that hard to find solid starting goaltending - Nonis did not have to give up much to grab Bernier, Reimer developed from within, and multiple solid goaltenders have been traded for very little in the last few years.

I really don't buy that goaltending was the only reason that those teams weren't good. SV% only tells part of the story IMO.

And if games didn't go to a shootout and there were just ties like there used to be, they would be 24-31-13.

So in games not decided by a shootout the Leafs are 24-31 (24 regulation/OT wins, 23 regulation losses + 8 OT losses).  That doesn't strike me as a strong bet for the playoffs.

How would they have lost 8 more games and played 4 more games if there weren't shootouts? Those would be ties and OTL still existed. Regulation and OT losses would be the same, SO wins and SO losses would become ties.

Under the old system they'd be, 24-23-13-4 (W-L-T-OTL).

In games not decided by shootouts, they are 24-23-4. (W-L-OTL)

But we were comparing regular season to playoffs not current regular season rules to past rules, so I'm not sure why that is relevant.

My point was that games decided in OT have been close to equal for the Leafs so not having shootouts in the playoffs shouldn't be alarming as you suggested, we may have won those games if there was continuous OT.

I was told there wouldn't be any math involved.

[nutman]

I just watched the game in six, and Phaneuf was in on both goals, to bad it was the NYR goals.  Can't be doing that at his pay scale.

[Andy]

I just watched the game in six, and Phaneuf was in on both goals, to bad it was the NYR goals.  Can't be doing that at his pay scale.

The 2nd one was a two-on-one after a brutal giveaway by Kessel. it's like certain players have targets on their heads and others are untouchable. And I'm not even that much of a Phaneuf fan.

[Nik]

The 2nd one was a two-on-one after a brutal giveaway by Kessel. I probably shouldn't take "to" much stock into this post considering the author but man, it's like certain players have targets on their heads and others are untouchable. And I'm not even that much of a Phaneuf fan.

Except there's merit here too. The way I understand it the textbook thing for a defenseman to do on a 2 on 1 is to play the pass and let the goalie play the shooter. Phaneuf did the exact opposite, pressuring the puck carrier, failing to stop the pass and turning the subsequent pass to Moore into a 1 on 0.

Phaneuf shouldn't take too much heat because A) 2 on 1's are tough regardless and he could have done everything right and still allowed a goal B) It was, as you say, Kessel's gaffe that started the play and C) Pretty much perfectly executed by the Rangers but with all that said, it wasn't a great handling of a 2 on 1.

[Deebo]

The path to improvement was improving the goaltending.  It's not that hard to find solid starting goaltending - Nonis did not have to give up much to grab Bernier, Reimer developed from within, and multiple solid goaltenders have been traded for very little in the last few years.

I really don't buy that goaltending was the only reason that those teams weren't good. SV% only tells part of the story IMO.

And if games didn't go to a shootout and there were just ties like there used to be, they would be 24-31-13.

So in games not decided by a shootout the Leafs are 24-31 (24 regulation/OT wins, 23 regulation losses + 8 OT losses).  That doesn't strike me as a strong bet for the playoffs.

How would they have lost 8 more games and played 4 more games if there weren't shootouts? Those would be ties and OTL still existed. Regulation and OT losses would be the same, SO wins and SO losses would become ties.

Under the old system they'd be, 24-23-13-4 (W-L-T-OTL).

In games not decided by shootouts, they are 24-23-4. (W-L-OTL)

But we were comparing regular season to playoffs not current regular season rules to past rules, so I'm not sure why that is relevant.

My point was that games decided in OT have been close to equal for the Leafs so not having shootouts in the playoffs shouldn't be alarming as you suggested, we may have won those games if there was continuous OT.

I was told there wouldn't be any math involved.

Math might be the only thing I'm good at.

[Andy]

The 2nd one was a two-on-one after a brutal giveaway by Kessel. I probably shouldn't take "to" much stock into this post considering the author but man, it's like certain players have targets on their heads and others are untouchable. And I'm not even that much of a Phaneuf fan.

Except there's merit here too. The way I understand it the textbook thing for a defenseman to do on a 2 on 1 is to play the pass and let the goalie play the shooter. Phaneuf did the exact opposite, pressuring the puck carrier, failing to stop the pass and turning the subsequent pass to Moore into a 1 on 0.

Phaneuf shouldn't take too much heat because A) 2 on 1's are tough regardless and he could have done everything right and still allowed a goal B) It was, as you say, Kessel's gaffe that started the play and C) Pretty much perfectly executed by the Rangers but with all that said, it wasn't a great handling of a 2 on 1.

I guess I can agree with that. I just don't see why Phaneuf is the only guy singled out.

[Nik]

The 2nd one was a two-on-one after a brutal giveaway by Kessel. I probably shouldn't take "to" much stock into this post considering the author but man, it's like certain players have targets on their heads and others are untouchable. And I'm not even that much of a Phaneuf fan.

Except there's merit here too. The way I understand it the textbook thing for a defenseman to do on a 2 on 1 is to play the pass and let the goalie play the shooter. Phaneuf did the exact opposite, pressuring the puck carrier, failing to stop the pass and turning the subsequent pass to Moore into a 1 on 0.

Phaneuf shouldn't take too much heat because A) 2 on 1's are tough regardless and he could have done everything right and still allowed a goal B) It was, as you say, Kessel's gaffe that started the play and C) Pretty much perfectly executed by the Rangers but with all that said, it wasn't a great handling of a 2 on 1.

I guess I can agree with that. I just don't see why Phaneuf is the only guy singled out.

Well, realistically, Phaneuf just signed a contract that's about to pay him like he's one of the best defensemen in the league. If he's not contributing a ton offensively, as he isn't this season, he's got to justify his salary through defensive play(as opposed to, say, Kessel). On a night like yesterday, or really the last three games where he's been notably ineffective, where he makes poor plays on both opposition goals, that contract starts to look pretty questionable.

[Tigger]

I really don't see how you can be satisfied with the product the Leafs are putting on the ice as a whole right now.

Fwiw I'm not 'satisfied' but then I think the team is heading in a better direction than it has for some time. Pointing out negative elements like row's and some of Carlyle/Nonis choices is fine and all but sometimes it feels like that's all anyone cares about, like the population of a one dead horse town is rapt by the beatings.

To me the talent level overall is getting better, it's not where it needs to be, but it's getting better and I'm encouraged by that.

[RedLeaf]

I really don't see how you can be satisfied with the product the Leafs are putting on the ice as a whole right now.

Fwiw I'm not 'satisfied' but then I think the team is heading in a better direction than it has for some time. Pointing out negative elements like row's and some of Carlyle/Nonis choices is fine and all but sometimes it feels like that's all anyone cares about, like the population of a one dead horse town is rapt by the beatings.

To me the talent level overall is getting better, it's not where it needs to be, but it's getting better and I'm encouraged by that.

It's getting better, and I really don't think that too many more parts are needed. Once the young guys get more accustomed to the league, and Nonis weeds out the slackers, adds a few d-men, this team could be a contender in the next few years.