Top Defensive Players by Defensive Errors - Leafs Leaders - 2016-17

[WordsOfWisdom]

Since the Leafs are having a bye week, I figured I'd post the mid-season stats (it's close enough):

 

 

Notes:

• Connor Brown has surged up the list of scorers. 
• Hunwick continues to have a remarkable turnaround season.
• Komarov continues to play nearly flawless "D" at .997.
• Matthews and Marner lead the team in TPM (true +/-).
• Carrick continues to struggle with an abysmal TPM score of -10. He is a prime candidate for replacement. Expect to see him sent back to the minors, traded, or released. Marincin may not be far behind.
• Polak continues to provide quiet, effective "D", albeit no scoring.
• The Gardiner vs. Rielly debate tightens up slightly, although Gardiner is still doing more at both ends of the ice.
• Kadri and Bozak have been relegated to secondary scoring, and they're still in the bottom half defensively.

[WordsOfWisdom]

Jan. 13: TOR vs NYR

1. Zaitsev
2. Matthews

Final score: 4-2 TOR.

 

1: Zaitsev needs to pick up his guy here in front of the net. He's standing right next to him and isn't defending him.

2: Turnover by Matthews leads to a 3-on-2 goal. 

 

Good win by Toronto against a good team.

 

[hobie]

Words, that's a different chart you've put up, Def%, where did it come from. Who compiled it? 

[WordsOfWisdom]

Jan. 14: TOR vs OTT

1. Gardiner
2. Kadri, McElhinney

Final score: 4-2 TOR.

 

1: Tough break for Gardiner as the puck hits him and goes in.

2: Kadri with the turnover and McElhinney with the bad angle goal.

 

Another big win by the Leafs!

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

10 hours ago, hobie said:

Words, that's a different chart you've put up, Def%, where did it come from. Who compiled it? 

 

It's a stat that I made (which I shamelessly plug here in the forum).  

 

Long story short:  The stat I made is called "Defensive Errors" (DE for short). I currently track it for the Leafs (except I don't get paid to do it) and post the results here in the forum. Def% stands for "Defensive Percentage". It's calculated by comparing defensive errors to ice time (total ice time) and is my attempt to create something akin to baseball's fielding percentage in hockey to measure defence.

 

A player with no errors has Def% = 1.000.

 

 

[hobie]

Ya, it's surprising how well TO is doing, 8-1-1 in the last 10 games is awesome.

 

How TO wins is hardly perfect so I'm sure Leaf fans are waiting on the 18 wheeler but their underlying numbers supports the results to here. It's not smoke and mirrors.

[WordsOfWisdom]

3 minutes ago, hobie said:

Ya, it's surprising how well TO is doing, 8-1-1 in the last 10 games is awesome.

 

How TO wins is hardly perfect so I'm sure Leaf fans are waiting on the 18 wheeler but their underlying numbers supports the results to here. It's not smoke and mirrors.

 

Yep, they're definitely trending upward. I think we're past the "18 wheeler off the cliff" days. They might make the playoffs this year although I think it's still a tad too early for that yet.

 

[hobie]

2 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

It's a stat that I made (which I shamelessly plug here in the forum).  

 

Long story short:  The stat I made is called "Defensive Errors" (DE for short). I currently track it for the Leafs (except I don't get paid to do it) and post the results here in the forum. Def% stands for "Defensive Percentage". It's calculated by comparing defensive errors to ice time (total ice time) and is my attempt to create something akin to baseball's fielding percentage in hockey to measure defence.

 

A player with no errors has Def% = 1.000.

 

 

 

Interesting, didn't think I'd heard of this before.

 

There's a lot of interesting fancy stats floating around so the more fancy the better.

[BluPuk]

Gotta love it. Blew a 2-goal lead but then came back and scored 2 more when they really needed them against a divisional opponent, in the opponent's rink.

As a "side" note McElhinney was great. I wonder how relieved Babs is... 

[WordsOfWisdom]

4 hours ago, BluPuk said:

Gotta love it. Blew a 2-goal lead but then came back and scored 2 more when they really needed them against a divisional opponent, in the opponent's rink.

As a "side" note McElhinney was great. I wonder how relieved Babs is... 

 

Does this mean we've seen the last of Enroth?

 

[BluPuk]

3 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Does this mean we've seen the last of Enroth?

 

 

Ummm, I think so - unless the Habs grab him. I hear their goalie has started letting in a LOT of goals..  

[hobie]

Enroth was traded to Anaheim on Jan. 11 for a conditional draft choice?

[WordsOfWisdom]

Jan. 17: TOR vs BUF

1. Andersen
2. Brown, Matthews, Hyman
3. Hunwick

Final score: 4-3 TOR.

 

1: Giveaway.

2: Turnover, lost coverage (dropped stick), lost coverage

3: Lost coverage.

 

Another win by the Leafs! This is an incredible run that the team is on right now.  

[BluPuk]

Just for the record I thought Andersen should have had both of the first two Buffalo goals. If I were doing the scoring I'd assign the blame to Andersen for both. 

 

LOL. I didn't think either team played worth a damn. We stole that one but we'll take it. 

[WordsOfWisdom]

1 hour ago, BluPuk said:

Just for the record I thought Andersen should have had both of the first two Buffalo goals. If I were doing the scoring I'd assign the blame to Andersen for both. 

 

LOL. I didn't think either team played worth a damn. We stole that one but we'll take it. 

 

Andersen was definitely a strong candidate to get the error on the second goal as well. He got a "break" because the defence was backing in to defend a 3-on-2, and it was a one-timer from the circle, so not a gimmie by any stretch. It falls under the category of "he probably should have stopped that, but it's reflected in his save% and isn't grotesque enough to be considered a defensive error". 

 

Basically the main culprits here were the forward group that provided no back-checking support for the defence. Matthews dropped his stick and skated to retrieve it, Brown turned the puck over, and Hyman didn't back-check either. There shouldn't have been a 3-on-2 there. 

 

 

[hobie]

TO has been getting a lot of breaks that have helped to extend the winning and that's fine.

 

Every missed assignment, e.g. back check, shouldn't result in a goal, every bad goal shouldn't result in a loss for TO only.

 

No team, no player is perfect and so long as the opposition's errors exceed TO's, TO should be able to continue to win.

 

However, underlying numbers have been taking a hit lately and there may be good/understandable reasons for this, like normally being ahead on the scoreboard, so things may not be as good as the standings imply. We have seen some pretty poor fancy stat teams have pretty decent years like Calgary and Colorado 2 years ago. It's possible to have good results for a single year but poor fancy stats usually catch up. 

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

On 1/18/2017 at 0:37 PM, hobie said:

TO has been getting a lot of breaks that have helped to extend the winning and that's fine.

 

For sure. It's nice to see some wins.

 

Given how terrible the division is right now, it's quite possible that the Leafs could make it. It's also quite likely that the rookies will experience a sophomore slump in year two and the team will regress before moving forward again. So we may get a brief top 8 appearance this season followed by a miss next year, and then (during that time span with more key building blocks put in place) the Leafs launch themselves forward to the top of the division in year 3. 

[WordsOfWisdom]

Jan. 19: TOR vs NYR

1. C. Carrick, Kadri
2. Hyman, Brown, Hunwick
3. Van Riemsdyk, Hunwick, Zaitsev
4. Bozak
5. (Empty net.)

Final score: 5-2 NYR.

 

Very sloppy effort defensively in this game and the Leafs get burned. 

[BluPuk]

What he said ^^^^ 

[hobie]

I like Kadri, when he's on he brings a lot a great attributes but one thing he isn't is a passer even at the top of his game. Why would TO use him on the half boards on a PP mystifies me, that's where great passers need to be?

[hobie]

Quote

Toronto Maple Leafs claim Seth Griffith (again), assign him to the Toronto Marlies

https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2017/01/20/toronto-maple-leafs-claim-seth-griffith-again/

 

Since nobody else claimed him TO can send him straight to the Marlies who are hurting right now.

[hobie]

20 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

Jan. 19: TOR vs NYR

1. C. Carrick, Kadri
2. Hyman, Brown, Hunwick
3. Van Riemsdyk, Hunwick, Zaitsev
4. Bozak
5. (Empty net.)

Final score: 5-2 NYR.

 

Very sloppy effort defensively in this game and the Leafs get burned. 

 

Was this a sloppier effort than normally or simply a case of TO paying for sloppy defense.

 

I think TO has one of the highest shots against averages in the league, commonly in the mid 30s or higher which I would think indicates subpar defensive capability.

 

Learning how to defend is an experience thing so we can hope that improvement will come in time, in house.

 

On the 4th goal I seem to remember Kadri making an ill advised cross rink pass while on the PP that was intercepted by Grabner and he ended up with a breakaway. 

[WordsOfWisdom]

4 hours ago, hobie said:

Was this a sloppier effort than normally or simply a case of TO paying for sloppy defense.

 

Well, the stat measures based on the goals allowed. It's possible for some mistakes not to result in goals, but the law of averages takes care of that eventually.

 

4 hours ago, hobie said:

I think TO has one of the highest shots against averages in the league, commonly in the mid 30s or higher which I would think indicates subpar defensive capability.

 

In general yes. A strong defensive team will allow fewer shots on goal. The Leafs have not been a strong defensive team for many many years. 

 

4 hours ago, hobie said:

Learning how to defend is an experience thing so we can hope that improvement will come in time, in house.

 

Hopefully, although I'd still like to find a proven guy that can help right now. 

 

4 hours ago, hobie said:

On the 4th goal I seem to remember Kadri making an ill advised cross rink pass while on the PP that was intercepted by Grabner and he ended up with a breakaway. 

 

Unless I messed up terribly, that was Bozak whose turnover pass got intercepted for the breakaway.

 

[hobie]

22 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Well, the stat measures based on the goals allowed. It's possible for some mistakes not to result in goals, but the law of averages takes care of that eventually.

 

 

In general yes. A strong defensive team will allow fewer shots on goal. The Leafs have not been a strong defensive team for many many years. 

 

 

Hopefully, although I'd still like to find a proven guy that can help right now. 

 

 

Unless I messed up terribly, that was Bozak whose turnover pass got intercepted for the breakaway.

 

 

I'm pretty sure it was Kadri. From years of watching the Leafs, I would say Kadri is one of the poorest passers I've seen from any NHL player playing center in the top 6 of any team in recent memory.

 

I looked at the replays and you're right, it looks like Bozak made an area pass where TO had more men but the Rangers got the puck first.  

[WordsOfWisdom]

9 hours ago, hobie said:

 

I'm pretty sure it was Kadri. From years of watching the Leafs, I would say Kadri is one of the poorest passers I've seen from any NHL player playing center in the top 6 of any team in recent memory.

 

I looked at the replays and you're right, it looks like Bozak made an area pass where TO had more men but the Rangers got the puck first.  

 

Here's the video I'm looking at on the 4th goal:

 

https://www.nhl.com/video/grabners-breakaway-shg-in-3rd/t-283292170/c-48555603

 

Bozak tosses it into the middle where the Rangers player is waiting. The puck is quickly sent out of the zone and a breakaway ensues on the counterattack. That's definitely #42 Bozak at the boards making the pass.  He actually placed it between two different Leafs players, but the pass wasn't close to either of them. Kadri had no chance of receiving that pass. 

 

Hope that helps.

 

 

On goal #5, the following guideline applies:

 

1. For every goal allowed, charge ONE, TWO, or THREE different players on the defending team with a DE on the play.

• EXCEPTION: No DE is charged on an empty net goal (when the goaltender is pulled for an extra attacker) unless it is for a penalized player (rule #3 applies).