Let the vets handle the tough assignments while the rookies struggle with accountability and get fed PP time regardless of merit.

Lets call it the Yakupov System.

On a more serious note: pro Coaches have a reason for not doing that. That's no way to develop a player.
- fry

What you're saying makes no sense if you think about it. I wouldn't think you have any leadership or managing experience.

Think of this: if you're in charge, it's your job to put people into a position to succeed.

The rookies who have made the NHL have made it on merit. But thrusting a collection of your rookies into 3rd and 4th line roles doesn't help them succeed. Contrary to what you seem to think, most offensive players are put on the power-play (maybe not the first unit) as soon as they are in the NHL.

Take Brandon Perlini, he was leading the AHL in goals - why not put him with players who will help him succeed at what he's good at? Why not play a struggling offensive player on the PP where a goal might get them going?

What you're saying is just wrong on so many levels.

I love you.

What you're saying makes no sense if you think about it. I wouldn't think you have any leadership or managing experience.

Think of this: if you're in charge, it's your job to put people into a position to succeed.

The rookies who have made the NHL have made it on merit. But thrusting a collection of your rookies into 3rd and 4th line roles doesn't help them succeed. Contrary to what you seem to think, most offensive players are put on the power-play (maybe not the first unit) as soon as they are in the NHL.

Take Brandon Perlini, he was leading the AHL in goals - why not put him with players who will help him succeed at what he's good at? Why not play a struggling offensive player on the PP where a goal might get them going?

What you're saying is just wrong on so many levels.
- James_Tanner

Myself and NHL Coaches are wrong. Good thinking, James.

To paraprase Dylan Strome about a week before going back to junior: you can only go so far on talent alone. At the NHL level there is such a divide in hard work, talent, and accountability that extremely talented players often have to spend time redeveloping their game to adjust to the that level in order to play a 200 foot game properly.

If I can find that article this week I'll be happy to post it here.

I coach a hockey team myself. Since you're making assumptions about my backround. Mind if I ask if you've Coached or even played in the past?

If you think that's funny, you might find it hilarious that I don't even consider Letang that much better than Gardiner. Certainly Gardiner is among a handful of players so far this year who should get consideration for the Norris.
- James_Tanner

Now that's funny! Are you trying to find a job writing for a sitcom?

So good they were in fact traded away.
- Misterbator

good young players get traded away all the time for established players.. coyle part of burns trade and nino, well that was garth snow and we all know how good his decisions have been

Now I know you're just trolling. You might remember the guy who scored the winning goal.

Toronto dusted the Penguins last night, putting 50 shots on Fleury/Murray and attempting over 80. In fact, whenever people say the Leafs aren't going to make the Playoffs, you can point to their absolute domination of the best team in hockey as proof that they will.

Gardiner's CF% last night was like 62.......I can't even comprehend the post you just made.
- James_Tanner

You should really take another look at the game...I can't believe you don't see it.

Myself and NHL Coaches are wrong. Good thinking, James.

To paraprase Dylan Strome about a week before going back to junior: you can only go so far on talent alone. At the NHL level there is such a divide in hard work, talent, and accountability that extremely talented players often have to spend time redeveloping their game to adjust to the that level in order to play a 200 foot game properly.

If I can find that article this week I'll be happy to post it here.

I coach a hockey team myself. Since you're making assumptions about my backround. Mind if I ask if you've Coached or even played in the past?
- fry

Don't bother explaining it to Tanner. I been trying to tell him you need to develop their game slowly. But I'm not as smart as he is. No one is. That's a fact!

James, did you say the Leafs will make the playoffs?

Now that's funny! Are you trying to find a job writing for a sitcom?


- hagar58

he would if he could somehow fit a manssiere under his aquaman outfit

If you think that's funny, you might find it hilarious that I don't even consider Letang that much better than Gardiner. Certainly Gardiner is among a handful of players so far this year who should get consideration for the Norris.
- James_Tanner

Tell the mail order company that sent you your Critical Thinking diploma that you want your money back

This may be true, but he was horrendous last night. Him and Carrick pretty much handed the Pens the game....the Leafs got lucky which is nice for a change.
- Garnie

.....did you even watch the game? Gardiner was solid last night, aside from the GWG.

Now I know you're just trolling. You might remember the guy who scored the winning goal.

Toronto dusted the Penguins last night, putting 50 shots on Fleury/Murray and attempting over 80. In fact, whenever people say the Leafs aren't going to make the Playoffs, you can point to their absolute domination of the best team in hockey as proof that they will.

Gardiner's CF% last night was like 62.......I can't even comprehend the post you just made.
- James_Tanner

*Would be best team in hockey, if Letang and Daley weren't injured. Playing without those 2 changes the Pens immensely.

.....did you even watch the game? Gardiner was solid last night, aside from the GWG.
- j.boyd919

ah...every breakaway and 2 on 1 you guys had...he was on the ice...that pair was not solid...but lucky that we didnt get buried on those AAA+ chances....don't get me wrong I like Gardiner and Carrick...but I call a spade a spade.

James, did you say the Leafs will make the playoffs?
- Gomey

The NHL's best stats reporter puts them at 62% to make the Playoffs and as one of only ten teams with a statistical chance to win the President's Trophy.

ah...every breakaway and 2 on 1 you guys had...he was on the ice...that pair was not solid...but lucky that we didnt get buried on those AAA+ chances....don't get me wrong I like Gardiner and Carrick...but I call a spade a spade.
- Garnie

What is more likely, you remember and put too much weight on two or three plays, or the statistics from the game - who even NHL teams now believe in - are wrong?

Give me a break here man, I'm pretty sick of pretending this is just like two different opinions. I am right. You are wrong. There is no middle ground here. Evolve or get left behind.

*Would be best team in hockey, if Letang and Daley weren't injured. Playing without those 2 changes the Pens immensely.
- j.boyd919

Very True/.

What is more likely, you remember and put too much weight on two or three plays, or the statistics from the game - who even NHL teams now believe in - are wrong?

Give me a break here man, I'm pretty sick of pretending this is just like two different opinions. I am right. You are wrong. There is no middle ground here. Evolve or get left behind.
- James_Tanner

Evolve...you're hilarious.

You need to start watching these games...there's more to a hockey game then Gardiners 5 extra shot attempts. The pair were on the ice for almost as many Grade A scoring chances for the Pens, luckily Andersen played great and the Pens didnt manage to score on them. Of course Gardiner and Carrick had a few good shifts too...but you can't be giving up breakaways from the blueline in 2 or 3 or 4 times a game...it usually doesn't end well. I'm talking about 1 game here James...I'm not saying your boyfriend is a bad defenceman....chill out.

The NHL's best stats reporter puts them at 62% to make the Playoffs and as one of only ten teams with a statistical chance to win the President's Trophy.
- James_Tanner

Ok. What am I missing here? Please explain to me how a team that is 7th in their (weak) division has a 62% chance of making the playoffs and at 24th overall in the league, they are 1 of ten teams that has a chance to finish 1st? You stated that you are not a math guy, while I am and I don't have a clue what you're talking about here.

The NHL's best stats reporter puts them at 62% to make the Playoffs and as one of only ten teams with a statistical chance to win the President's Trophy.
- James_Tanner

The real stats say a 33% chance. Leafs need a top 3 finish, both wild cards come from the Metro, easily.
http://www.sportsclubstats.com/NHL.html

ah...every breakaway and 2 on 1 you guys had...he was on the ice...that pair was not solid...but lucky that we didnt get buried on those AAA+ chances....don't get me wrong I like Gardiner and Carrick...but I call a spade a spade.
- Garnie

Gardiner was on the ice for 6 scoring chances against at even strength. He was also on the ice for 13 scoring chances for. If a player is doubling the scoring chances for his team, I'll take that every game.

The real stats say a 33% chance. Leafs need a top 3 finish, both wild cards come from the Metro, easily.
http://www.sportsclubstats.com/NHL.html
- smellmyfinger

You are right about the wild cards, but I still don't see 33% (mind you I haven't crunched any numbers regarding remaining points available or strength of schedule, etc.)
We agree that Toronto needs to finish top 3 in Atl. to make the playoffs. They currently have games in hand which could see them in a tie for third with Boston. But, we are talking about a team that is well below .500 thus far so, I see no reason to assume they will take 100% of those points. On top of which, I remember reading an article in the last couple of years that stated that since the league adopted the current scoring system, with extra points being handed out for losing, the teams in a playoff position as of (American) Thanksgiving essentially stay the same. And, keep in mind that the Leafs are still not good at securing wins. Off the top of my head, I would put their chances at significantly less than one in three.

Gardiner was on the ice for 6 scoring chances against at even strength. He was also on the ice for 13 scoring chances for. If a player is doubling the scoring chances for his team, I'll take that every game.
- j.boyd919

Do the stats show quality of scoring chances because a clean breakaway and a shot from the point don't quite equate to the same thing.

I have seen the advanced stats supporters try and convince everyone that this is the answer to every hockey teams questions. I'd like to take a more cautious view and say that advanced stats are part of the answer to a hockey teams questions. To believe that you can build a winning hockey team solely by looking at advanced stats while ignoring other inputs like observation is like a family of 6 buying a Smart Car as their only vehicle because they read somewhere that it gets great gas mileage; the gas mileage is important, but maybe they should have taken more things into account before they made the purchase!

Babcock made a comment when asked about advanced stats last week. He said that yes they look at advanced stats, but they look at their own internal stats and they are a little different then the stuff you find on the internet.

Advanced stats are here to stay which is fine, but I don't think you will be seeing the older information gathering techniques going anywhere. In the end, the only stats that matter are goals and wins; if you score more goals then your opponent you win whether you had 10 scoring chances or 100; if you win enough, you make the playoffs, if you win more games in the playoffs then your opponents, you win the cup.

You are right about the wild cards, but I still don't see 33% (mind you I haven't crunched any numbers regarding remaining points available or strength of schedule, etc.)
We agree that Toronto needs to finish top 3 in Atl. to make the playoffs. They currently have games in hand which could see them in a tie for third with Boston. But, we are talking about a team that is well below .500 thus far so, I see no reason to assume they will take 100% of those points. On top of which, I remember reading an article in the last couple of years that stated that since the league adopted the current scoring system, with extra points being handed out for losing, the teams in a playoff position as of (American) Thanksgiving essentially stay the same. And, keep in mind that the Leafs are still not good at securing wins. Off the top of my head, I would put their chances at significantly less than one in three.
- Tonybere

The site runs millions of equations on points available, paths to the playoffs, schedule remaining, etc. I didn't really look but maybe Toronto has a relatively soft schedule remaining. Take a look at NJs and NYIs odds. Even though they aren't two of the three worst in points they give them the lowest odds based on strength of division and upcoming schedule.

Gardiner was on the ice for 6 scoring chances against at even strength. He was also on the ice for 13 scoring chances for. If a player is doubling the scoring chances for his team, I'll take that every game.
- j.boyd919

oh dear....I guess I'll go back and watch all these "scoring chances" Gardiner caused for the Leafs and then I'll rewatch the breakaways and the 2 on 1's the Pens had..I'm really confused I even need to have this convo as I'm pretty sure you watched the game.

I could understand if you didn't watch and are going by the extra 5 shot attempts his team made while he was on the ice.

Do the stats show quality of scoring chances because a clean breakaway and a shot from the point don't quite equate to the same thing.

I have seen the advanced stats supporters try and convince everyone that this is the answer to every hockey teams questions. I like to take a more cautious view and say that advanced stats are part of the answer to a hockey teams questions. To believe that you can build a winning hockey team solely by looking at advanced stats while ignoring other inputs like observation is like a family of 6 buying a Smart Car as their only vehicle because they read somewhere that it gets great gas mileage; the gas mileage is important, but maybe they should have taken more things into account before they made the purchase!

Babcock made a comment when asked about advanced stats last week. He said that yes they look at advanced stats, but they look at their own internal stats and they are a little different then the stuff you find on the internet.

Advanced stats are here to stay which is fine, but I don't think you will be seeing the older information gathering techniques going anywhere. In the end, the only stats that matter are goals and wins; if you score more goals then your opponent you win whether you had 10 scoring chances or 100; if you win enough, you make the playoffs, if you win more games in the playoffs then your opponents, you win the cup.
- hagar58

I usually use naturalstattrick.com to check out game event statistics and their game overview tracks corsi events, fenwick events, shots, scoring chances, high danger corsi events, and goals. So I believe it does track quality of chance being...

high danger>scoring chance>shots

The way I look at it is although a player can post a solid corsi.. if I'm not seeing scoring chances/high danger events... those shots probably aren't worth a damn. Personally, I don't think most advanced stats people ONLY look at numbers... they use numbers with the eye test in combination. Ya know? I watched the Pens game, and yeah maybe a few odd man breaks Gardiner was out there.. but he was also out there when the Leafs had sustained pressure in the Pens zone.