WordsOfWisdom

TRIVIA TIME:

Can anyone think of a recent team that would have a high clutch score?     

(This would be a team that routinely creeps into a bottom playoff position and then sets the world on fire in the playoffs.)

Perhaps the Montreal Canadiens? 

How about some guesses as to the biggest clutch performers in NHL history, and conversely, the biggest chokers in NHL history?

(As defined by the stat of course.)

clutch = (playoff winning %) / (regular season winning %)

It's just that simple. 

So taking a look at the Leafs for the past five seasons, this is what we find:

------------------------------------------ GP--W---------------------------GP-W------------------------------------------------------

2016–17	2016–17	Eastern	Atlantic	4th	82	40	27	—	15	95	251	242	6	2	4	—	16	18	Lost in First Round, 2–4 (Capitals)
2017–18	2017–18	Eastern	Atlantic	3rd	82	49	26	—	7	105	277	232	7	3	4	—	16	21	Lost in First Round, 3–4 (Bruins)
2018–19	2018–19	Eastern	Atlantic	3rd	82	46	28	—	8	100	286	251	7	3	4	—	17	23	Lost in First Round, 3–4 (Bruins)
2019–20[y]	2019–20	Eastern	Atlantic	3rd	70	36	25	—	9	81	238	227	5	2	3	—	10	12	Lost in Qualifying Round, 2–3 (Blue Jackets)
2020–21[z]	2020–21	—	North	1st	56	35	14	—	7	77	187	148	7	3	4	—	18	14	Lost in First Round, 3–4 (Canadiens)

Therefore, the Leafs CLUTCH scores from 2016 until now are:

(2/6) / (40/82) = .683

(3/7) / (49/82) = .717

(3/7) / (46/82) = .764

(2/5) / (36/70) = .778

(3/7) / (35/56) = .686

(In other words, abysmal.)

Now let's see how the Leafs CLUTCH scores looked during their championship years in the 1960's:

--------------------------------GP--W--L--T---------------------GP-W-L------------------------------------------------------------

1961–62	1961–62	—	—	2nd	70	37	22	11	—	85	232	180	12	8	4	—	40	30	Won in Semifinals, 4–2 (Rangers) Won in Stanley Cup Finals, 4–2 (Black Hawks)[53]
1962–63	1962–63	—	—	1st	70	35	23	12	—	82#	221	180	10	8	2	—	31	16	Won in Semifinals, 4–1 (Canadiens) Won in Stanley Cup Finals, 4–1 (Red Wings)[54]
1963–64	1963–64	—	—	3rd	70	33	25	12	—	78	192	172	14	8	6	—	39	31	Won in Semifinals, 4–3 (Canadiens) Won in Stanley Cup Finals, 4–3 (Red Wings)[55]
1964–65	1964–65	—	—	4th	70	30	26	14	—	74	204	173	6	2	4	—	14	17	Lost in Semifinals, 2–4 (Canadiens)[56]
1965–66	1965–66	—	—	3rd	70	34	25	11	—	79	208	187	4	0	4	—	6	15	Lost in Semifinals, 0–4 (Canadiens)[57]
1966–67	1966–67	—	—	3rd	70	32	27	11	—	75	204	211	12	8	4	—	35	30	Won in Semifinals, 4–2 (Black Hawks) Won in Stanley Cup Finals, 4–2 (Canadiens)[58]

(8/12) / [37/(70-11)] = 1.063

(8/10) / [35/(70-12)] = 1.326

(8/14) / [33/(70-12)] = 1.004

(8/12) / [32/(70-11)] = 1.229

What an astounding difference. 

2 hours ago, CoachX said:

they just stopped winning cups!

Yes but the Stanley Cup is always in Toronto at the HHOF... so at least the fans can see it anytime they want to.   

(I'm sure the Leafs players could buy a ticket and see it at the HHOF too if they want to get close to it and take a selfie.)

2 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

 

Ok fine, I will go easy on you, but your opening premise is a bit wanting. Like, when you say "everything" do you also mean things that have yet to be invented? 

Sure why not?  lol  

Before you get on me, I realize everything already exists. I won't be the least bit surprised if someone posts a link showing me that this stat has been around forever already in some dark corner of the web. However, since *I've* never heard of it, here's the idea:

In honor of the Toronto Maple Leafs (who I believe will be at the very BOTTOM in this statistic), here we go:

The CLUTCH statistic is a measure of regular season team performance versus playoff performance. It measures which teams play BETTER when the stakes are high, and which teams (Toronto) FAIL to live up to expectations.

The stat is calculated as follows:

CLUTCH = (Playoff team winning percentage*) / (Regular season team winning percentage*)

*I'm going to redefine these for simplicity into TRUE winning percentages as follows: 

WINNING PERCENTAGE = WINS / GAMES PLAYED.  The end. Anything that is not a win in today's NHL, is a loss. To evaluate games ending in TIES (for the old NHL) you can just remove those from the GP total like they never happened. Thus, 10 tie games = 10 fewer GP. 

So, using the Leafs as an example (from last season):

Toronto lost in 7 to Montreal (3-4 record ~= .429 winning percentage). In the regular season, Toronto was 35/56 (35 wins in 56 games = .625 winning percentage).

Therefore, Toronto's "clutch" stat = .429 / .625 ~= .686

If the value is BELOW 1, it means you're a "choker" in the playoffs. If the value is ABOVE 1, it means you play better when it matters the most. If the value = 1, it means you are consistent (regular season and playoffs). 

Thoughts?  

1 hour ago, radoran said:

They have competed for the Stanley Cup every year since 1967.

1 hour ago, flyercanuck said:

And they have participation ribbons to prove it!

Looking at the Leafs realistically, with their current group of players, they're in the top 16 of the league and are one of these teams who could (in theory) win if everything breaks just right for them.

It just seems that NOTHING ever goes right for the Leafs come playoff time. On paper, they're every bit as good as the teams that make deep playoff runs (albeit a notch below teams like Tampa). There's no explanation for why a team like Vegas (for example) can make deep playoff runs and not the Leafs. There's no reason why a team like Montreal can get to the Finals and not Toronto. Toronto had Montreal down and out in that series and then choked (as usual). It just proves that the Leafs can beat any team out there (except Tampa, jury still out on that) and if they ever caught a break they could do some serious damage in the playoffs. It's just astonishing that it NEVER happens.   

2 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

Joking aside, you're not wrong. 

That's why I enjoy this hockey forum, even if it isn't a Leafs-only forum because there are still real hockey fans here and knowledgeable hockey fans. 

3 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

The Flyers are probably 5th in the sports depth chart in Philly (Eagles, Sixers, Phillies, college basketball, possibly something else. 

And that's where the difference is, but that applies to all US cities versus Canadian cities when it comes to hockey. In every Canadian city, hockey is #1.  Until the Flyers have more media and fan coverage than those other teams you mentioned (NFL, NBA, MLB, etc...) then it'll never be close.  Toronto has ~5 million people and three major sports franchises: Leafs, Jays, Raptors. The Leafs have always been #1 on that list.

Even non-Toronto NHL franchises get more coverage from Toronto than they do from their own home cities. It's as though Toronto is like the watchful eye tower from LOTR, aware of everything that goes on everywhere. 

8 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

The Flyers have a rabid core base that is slowly aging and shrinking due to utter stupidity of the franchise and also being priced out.    The local network that used to cover hockey (Comcast SportsNet) has reduced their morning show to a repeating 10-minute old-Headline News Network-style headline thing.   In 10 minutes you have 7 minutes of what Eagle went to the bathroom and the consistency of the result, followed by equal shared time of Sixers, Flyers, and Phillies depending upon who played just last night, who was fired, or who was accused of pushing pills.    They used to have an afternoon roundtable group of reporters, etc., but that was killed because it actually talked about non-Eagles stuff for large minority portions.   It has currently been replaced by putting a radio show on camera and watching the host ramble on with callers about why Jalen Hurts' pants are too tight and are hampering blood and oxygen flow to his brain.

 

And that's literally about it.

Sorry to hear that.   

Thankfully you can find lots of stuff on the internet these days, and that breaks down the wall of local television limitations.  

12 hours ago, Icechipper said:

If a Maple Leaf trips getting off the bus, you'll read about it....

Center of the hockey universe remember? I love all the whining and sour grapes lol. Makes me feel good.

The Flyers actually have *some* hardcore hockey fans, unlike many teams. Now just take what you have and multiply that by a bajillion and you would have what the Leafs have in terms of rabid hockey fanbase.   

12 hours ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

Leafs flying around fast n loose, leaving all sorts of opportunities for Philly forwards.

None of which, they are taking advantage of.

I really would like the Flyers to win this so I don't have to endure how the Leafs are "Cup Contenders" once again on most media outlets.  

The Leafs never stopped being Cup contenders!   

18 hours ago, CoachX said:

I really, really HATE the fcking leafs!!

LOL!

12 hours ago, Podein25 said:

 

This makes no sense. Neither you nor your union filed a claim with the WSIB? Workers compensation.

 

Grocery stores has to be a covered industry in Ontario, I cannot imagine it is not.

Hmm. I'm trying to remember. I don't think so. I simply asked if there was something else I could do that was light duty so that I could work with one arm and perhaps at a slower pace, so that I was at least getting paid. They said "no" and it was for "insurance reasons". I asked the union and they said that they have to offer me light duty work instead of putting me on layoff. Only if I rejected the light duty work would I get laid off. They just immediately put me on layoff for two months. 

So basically the union talked to them and said "no, you can't do that" and the company said "yes we can and insurance reasons" and ultimately the settlement was that I got paid... to stay home and recover.  

WSIB would only apply if the injury happened at work.  

1 hour ago, radoran said:

Ask Eric Lindros about the medical staff trying to put him on a plane with a punctured lung.

Exactly my point.

1 hour ago, radoran said:

The WWE is a completely different situation with their "employees" being "contractors".

And no union to keep the WWE in check.

1 hour ago, radoran said:

The flip side is also a situation where the player can't just decide on some herbal remedy to fix their broken bone (extreme example). The player is always empowered to not sign their guaranteed, $80M contract.

But there's never a middle-ground right?  You can't work for an employer AND still be treated like a human being right?

Here are my thoughts (of course I'm not a doctor

My GUESS is that the surgery Eichel wanted is the OPTIMAL surgery to fix his neck properly both now and for the future. I'm GUESSING that the surgery Eichel wanted would have put him out longer, but would have been better in the long run for HIM.

I'm GUESSING that the surgery the SABRES wanted him to get is the surgery that would have patched him together the fastest, got him back on the ice sooner, but would have compromised his long term health. In other words, a band-aid solution to get him back in the lineup to help the team now and f__k his long term future because the Sabres don't care one iota about what happens to him in the future.

Now, you mentioned that nobody has ever had the surgery Eichel wanted. Is that because it's a new surgery? New technology? Or because it's a bad idea? I find it hard to believe that a player would overrule the decision of an IMPARTIAL doctor (a doctor not working for the Sabres) and randomly pick a surgery he knows nothing about. For Eichel to choose that option, he must have spoken to a doctor that gave him DIFFERENT advice from what the Sabres were giving him.

10 hours ago, radoran said:

That said, honestly, I'm seeing some indications that the Sabres might have wanted to get out from under that contract and may have had concerns about Eichel "in the room."

From the sound of things, he was turning into a whiny b_tch. There aren't too many young players these days who put the team first any more. It's all about them. 

10 hours ago, radoran said:

You would if your $10M contract says that the decision is made by your employer's doctors. And Eichel's did.

So you don't see any conflict of interest there? 

How well has the WWF and its doctors looked after wrestlers historically?

10 hours ago, radoran said:

There's absolutely no relationship between what you do in your job and what a $10M professional hockey player does.

Other than the law, ethics, and human rights. Quite frankly, the ONLY difference is the dollar figure.

I guess my point is that we as a society are getting very lax on what we allow employers to put into employment contracts, and I'd hate to see a return to the days where employers literally owned and controlled their employees 24/7 as if they were cattle, because that kind of stuff (if they can do it to NHL players) will eventually trickle down to the little guys like us. 

Boring Historical Personal Story:

I used to work at a grocery store long time ago. Your typical manual labour job. Heavy and repetitive lifting to stock shelves. I got injured (not at work, during my leisure time) and showed up to work with a cast on my arm to describe what had happened. The employer's reaction was like: "Oh that sucks. Get well soon. For insurance reasons, we can't let you work."  There were some positions at the store that were light duty work or in some cases, just computer-related work. I could have potentially done the light duty stuff like arranging flowers, gift cards, magazines, etc... with one arm. I could have potentially done data entry work by entering inventory on the computer or scanning it using one of the code readers. Long story short: since the company didn't offer me any light duty alternatives to keep me working, the union ordered them to pay my salary...... while I was injured for two months recovering from a broken bone.    

(The fact that my employer didn't care one bit at the prospect of me going two months without a paycheque shows why we need to keep a close eye on these contracts.)  

5 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

 

With Eichel gone, Buffalo is better. ( Ok, with Eichel and Ristolainen gone) How does that help Toronto?

  Well if you subscribe to the theory that Buffalo lost the trade to rid themselves of a player who wanted out, then Buffalo got weaker (long term) by not having Eichel. 

On 11/4/2021 at 10:24 AM, Math said:

I'm less worried about Tampa, Colorado and Toronto, they will find their cruise control.

Toronto's cruise control always seems to land them in third place in the division.  They need to start cruising in a higher gear. 

With Eichel gone, that helps Toronto.

With Quenneville gone, that also helps Toronto. 

Two division rivals got weakened this past week and that's just fine by me.   

Here's a question (and I know Eichel has since been traded):

Why would the Buffalo Sabres argue over HOW Eichel gets his neck fixed?  Is it not HIS neck that's on the line (literally)?

I've never heard of a team squabbling over the TYPE of surgery a player gets to return to health. Is the team paying for it or is Eichel paying for it?

Basically, what's the difference?

(Here we go again with employer-employee rights.....)

If I got injured at work, my employer wouldn't be telling me HOW I should recover from that injury. I'd go to a doctor. The DOCTOR would present a list of options and the DOCTOR would make recommendations. Then *I* would decide what route to take. Why would the employer care other than they want me to fully heal and get back to work as soon as possible.

11 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

Well if they scored 50 they are. 

11 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

It still means something. It makes you a 50 goal scorer in the NHL. That is, if you actually do it.

Ah, much better.   

10 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

He just isn't a 50 goal scorer until he actually scores 50 goals. 

Neither are the players who played in the NHL prior to the introduction of the 82-game schedule (and color TV).

Face it, the 50-goal mark used to mean something in the NHL... when you could actually count on the NHL playing a FULL 82-game season every year.  The fact that this league doesn't play 82 games in a season more than 2/3 of the time these days means the 50-goal mark is now meaningless. Whether a player gets there or not depends on what year he had his good season in. Did he luck out and perform during an 82-game season or did he perform during a lockout or covid year? The projected metrics are now the standard for player evaluation because they're the only thing you can count on any more.

On 11/2/2021 at 12:41 PM, radoran said:

I'd ask how that worked out for them, but we've pretty much seen how that worked out for them.

 

Isn't it interesting how every other franchise that bottoms out and rebuilds through lottery picks manages to win the Stanley Cup shortly thereafter....... except Toronto and Edmonton?

Starting to wonder if Canada's teams are cursed...

On 11/2/2021 at 12:41 PM, radoran said:

Well, I'm sure he'll turn it around at age 31. As you noted earlier, it's what tends to happen with players...

 

Except that he's surrounded by star players now and they tend to boost each other's stats.  There's a chance Tavares could be a 50-goal scorer if he's playing with Matthews, Marner, and Nylander. Also, the fact that other players take the pressure off him. Opposing "D" can't focus on Tavares because then Matthews gets 50. That's why it's so important to have multiple lines that can score.   

On 11/1/2021 at 11:02 AM, radoran said:

 

You mean the eight rounds of playoffs (plus qualifying round), a Cup Final appearance and a Conference Final that the Isles have to the Leafs' - *checks notes* - two plus a qualifying round loss?

 

#wonthesigning

 

It's easier to turn over your entire roster and jettison star players when nobody is watching.  The Islanders had nothing to lose. They were on the verge of becoming Hamilton/Markham/Quebec City/Hartford. The city had all but bid them farewell.  

Toronto had gone through it's first proper rebuild in franchise history and fans were ready to see some results after enduring last place finishes. 

First season Tavares was here, he was spectacular.  We need to see more of THAT guy again.    

On 11/1/2021 at 10:58 AM, OccamsRazor said:

 

That is what the Isles did and haven't looked backed....(glances towards the Leafs.)

 

Yes, that's where the Leafs are: always in the rearview mirror. Don't you forget it mister lol!  

On 11/1/2021 at 10:54 AM, radoran said:

Yeah, but not so "proven" - he was a good player on a bad team. Good players tend to put up numbers on bad teams.

They also tend to win Stanley Cups once you put them on a good team.  (Phil Kessel, Brett Hull, Ray Bourque, Dominik Hasek, and so on......)

The thinking was that Tavares would be even better if surrounded by an offensively-minded team with players who were at his level, so that opponents couldn't just focus their efforts on stopping him. 

On 11/1/2021 at 10:54 AM, radoran said:

Tavares took a "home town discount" of $11 million dollars to play for a "Stanley Cup contender" and hasn't been out of the first round.

Yeah I think the "home town discount" died a death long time ago now.  

On 11/1/2021 at 10:54 AM, radoran said:

He'd better be a 90-100 point, 40-50 goal scorer for the next several years but since he's "on pace" for 14 goals and 27 points this season you may have a point.

27 minutes ago, radoran said:

Sometimes you've got to let the other guy take the hit.

 

They "had to have Tavares" who has been "fine" in the regular season, but eight points, -13 in the playoffs for them and is now a cap problem. He's the sixth highest cap hit in the league and was tied for 24th in points per game last season at .89. He was 26th the year before that.

 

The Islanders improved when Tavares left and they got nothing for him. Tavares hasn't won anything as captain and his 4 points in 10 games at major international play (Olympics/World Cup) isn't exactly overwhelming.

 

The Leafs paid top dollar for a "good" player and they're stuck with it.

I agree, but look at where the Leafs were at that moment in time: Matthews and Marner were rookies. The Leafs didn't know what they had there. The opportunity came up for a proven #1 center, one the Leafs had coveted for a long time (and a Toronto boy no less) so they jumped at it. 

Being on the Islanders and not having a winning track record sort of goes without saying. The franchise was circling the drain and seemed to be headed towards relocation. Nobody ever pinned the Islanders failures on Tavares here in Toronto. The Islanders have since made a number of good trades and acquisitions to improve their team. They're a defensive powerhouse now. That wasn't the case a few years ago. 

27 minutes ago, radoran said:

Crosby scored 100+ points in 13-14 (at 26) and again in 18-19. Was "on pace" for 90+ the past two years and has been a point per game player or better from his 104 point season in 13-14 onwards.

 

Ovechkin since 17-18 has scored 49, 51, 48 (on pace for 57), and 24 (on pace for 43). He's "on pace" for 92 goals and 153 points this season...

 

Crosby has two Cups and OV has one in the past six years.

 

Not sure these are the best examples you could have come up with.

Didn't Crosby have something like 120 points in one of his first seasons?  Has he repeated that since?

Didn't Ovechkin have ~65 goals in one of his first seasons? Has Ovechkin had another 65 goal season?

That's my point. The chances of Matthews having another season where he would get to 65 goals over 82 games is slim to none.

27 minutes ago, radoran said:

Again you're just making stuff up. I have absolutely no quarrel with Matthews over the past two seasons. 47/80 in 70 games and 41/66 in 52 is nothing to sneeze at.

 

However, if - as you say - Matthews is on the "downside" of his career at 24, you've got Real Problems.

Not necessarily on the "down side", but I think we've seen the peak and what comes now is going to be something less than what we've seen the past two seasons. No different that what happens to most NHL players. Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Crosby, Ovechkin, Mogilny, Selanne, Hull, etc........ Name any player in NHL history and look at where their BEST season(s) occur. They come early on and then that's it. They're not duplicated later on. 

EDIT: Teemu Selanne and Mario Lemieux are the outliers here. They're the only players I can think of who managed to turn in eye-popping early career numbers late in their career.  

27 minutes ago, radoran said:

Matthews isn't your cap problem. Tavares is. He's been a point per game player once for the Leafs since signing and, again, has 8 points and is -8 in 13 playoff games. For $11M. And he's 31 and signed for three years after this one with a NMC.

 

He's 100% the reason they couldn't keep Hyman.

At this point, yes I agree. Tavares is the logical pick to move out for cap space.   

On 10/26/2021 at 1:43 PM, flyercanuck said:

All I know is 7 games into the Leafs season Auston Matthews (pro-rated of course) is on pace for just under a 12 goal season.

 

I think he should be annointed as the greatest 12 goal (almost) scorer the Leafs have ever had.   

I think Matthews has already had the two best seasons of his career. With age and injuries, it's doubtful that he'll ever achieve those heights again. Just like Crosby and Ovechkin never achieved the same heights as their careers went on.

People outside Leaf-land don't see anything special about Matthews' performance the past two seasons, and that's fine. People outside Leaf-land equate the once-in-a-century covid-19 stoppage to being exactly the same thing as a player being injured or not wanting to play when tired, and that's fine.  But to Leafs fans, he had the 2nd greatest goal-scoring season in Leafs history. Better than Mahovlich and Vaive. (Charlie Conacher just barely gets the nod for #1.)  If allowed to play out for the full 82 games, we all know he would have destroyed the single season Leafs record for goals, so it's his by default on account of covid-19. We're not going to play silly "what-if" games and hypothesize fantasy scenarios where Matthews suddenly goes ice cold and doesn't score for the last 25 games of the season. That's BS. He was at 100% health and on pace for ~65 GOALS.  SIXTY-FIVE. Just like nobody questions a Mario Lemieux, there's no doubt Matthews would have got there with 82 games. 

21 hours ago, radoran said:

Please. The Leafs couldn't win in a league with more than six teams WITHOUT a salary cap.

The Leafs "uncapped and enabled" period went from 1990 - 2005.  That's it. 15 years. 

From Harold Ballard's death to the lockout and beginning of the salary cap is the only period of time since the championship years of the 60's where the Leafs had both the ownership and the league's approval to spend money on their roster.

From 1990 - 2005, the Leafs made four conference final appearances. They SHOULD have been in the Final versus Montreal in 1993 if not for cheating on the part of Kerry Fraser. 

21 hours ago, radoran said:

Maybe if they hadn't signed Tavares for $11M they could have kept Hyman. Instead they're stuck with a terribly overrated player at far above his salary range and that cap problem is 100% their own fault

But that's the problem: You don't get Tavares for less than $11M. If the Leafs had offered him say $8M, then he signs somewhere else for $11M.  That's the crux of the salary cap in the NHL and why I hate it. Getting Tavares for less money was never an option.