Francois Beauchemin's cognitive dissonance
Forget that Beauchemin thinks the Leafs could go far this season; this line really got me:
"We had one of the best finishes to the season in the league and we can build on that."
The Leafs were 3-7-11 after the Olympic break. They had one regulation win in their last 12 games. Not to burst anyone's bubble, but that's probably one of the worst finishes in the league.
over 1 year ago
Hawerchuk
50 comments
1 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Clearly, they showed enough heart, character, and promise in those 18 games the Leafs didn’t win to convince Beauchemin otherwise.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Aug 22, 2010 2:32 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
and hustle!
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Aug 22, 2010 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
18 games the Leafs didn’t win
You should check the stats. The Leafs were 13-10-3 after the Phaneuf trade. They were clearly a better team those last few months, so there is a good reason for hope.
I don’t understand how Hawerchuk can say that they went 3-7-11. So our OT/SO wins don’t count as wins, but our OT/SO losses count as losses? That is nonsense.
He can say that because they went 3-7-11. Three regulation wins, seven regulation losses, eleven “ties.” If you want to consider those SO/OT wins as something to build on, more power to you, but ask the 07-08 Edmonton Oilers how well their ‘hot finish’ carried over.
I guess you guys do have Tyler Seguin though, so maybe he’ll be able to turn it around for you.
also….if we shouldn’t build on SO/OT wins, does that mean we also shouldn’t beat ourselves up over SO/OT losses? because that would be great – we actually had more of those (9W, 14 L). should overtime results just be disregarded completely when evaluating a team?
Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.
The point being made
is that regulation wins and losses are the relevant predictor of future play. SO/OT results don’t have a significant impact on the ability to predict future outcomes… they distort things.
Since they aren’t a valid predictor of future results, then including them as OTW or OTL shouldn’t really be done, and YES you should discount all those SO/OT losses as losses… but they already lie outside the regulation loss column so that’s done for us by the NHL.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 23, 2010 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions
on average, an NHL team last year had 25% of their games go beyond regulation. to just dismiss those games as ‘irrelevant’ to future predictors is lazy.
Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.
They’re not treating them as irrelevant though, they’re treating them as regulation ties.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 23, 2010 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, they did end the season on a 1-game winning streak and got a “clutch” (read: lucky) goal in overtime.
If you want content, go to the Copper and Blue. If you want numbers, go to Behind the Net. If you want craziness, go to Pension Plan Puppets. If you want humor, go to Battle of California.If you want discussion, go to Broad Street Hockey. If you want bravery, go to Five For Howling.
If you want all of the above, go to Japers' Rink.
My blog (now featuring two Penguins fans as co-authors) and Twitter.
He might just be saying “The leafs don’t have toskala so they might be okay”
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Aug 22, 2010 2:35 PM EDT reply actions
That’s some selective number crunching right there.
After the Phaneuf trade, the Leafs were 13-10-3 (5 of those wins in regular time) for 29 points in 26 games. And while it’s definitely not the best finish in the league, I’d wager that it’s the most dramatic upswing for a team that had such other regular season titles as “8 games without their first regular season win” and “6 game losing streak,” “5 game losing streak,” and of course, “worst starting goalie in the league.”
If I'm losing an argument, I ask myself "What would a real journalist do?"
Then I cower behind: "You still don't get it. Deal with it."
And one of the more promising numbers I just found: The Leafs PK post-Phaneuf was 84.88%, a very strong improvement from the season average, league-worst 74.6 (which includes post-Phaneuf).
If I'm losing an argument, I ask myself "What would a real journalist do?"
Then I cower behind: "You still don't get it. Deal with it."
Or just regression to the mean, like were they supposed to get worse? Only 1 team post-lockout has been below 75% on the PK and surprise, it was the Leafs.
With no major personnel changes and the same coach, I’d be be hard-pressed to buy on the Leafs killing penalties at 80% or over next season.
by Corey Pronman on Aug 22, 2010 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions
One defender, especially one who isn’t an above-average player defensively or arguably not even average won’t turn a PK that’s been at 75% for 2 years and turn it into a plus 80% PK unit.
The PK is gonna rely on Komisarek and Schenn. Schenn is possible, I’m not optimistic on Komi.
by Corey Pronman on Aug 22, 2010 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions
One defender, one goalie and one forward. They shipped out a bunch of guys. Also, and I can’t stress this enough, one of those players was Vesa Toskala.
They were a different team after that trade, and the PK was significantly better. You say it’s a regression to the mean, I say I watched them and they were legitimately better. Time will tell.
According to how the NHL counts wins and losses, the Leafs had a strong finish. So Francois Beauchemin is not an idiot for having confidence about next season.
Well even while regressing to the mean, you will appear to play better. You’re right Toskala leaving will help, but the D unit as a whole needs to improve.
by Corey Pronman on Aug 22, 2010 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Last time I checked wins in OT/SO still count as 2 points in the standings. Until they change the rules the Leafs finished the season 11-6-2 the equivalent of 104 point pace which is easily good enough to make the playoffs. We can talk about ‘but some of those wins were OT or SO wins’ but if you are going to do that then you have to also point out that the Leafs had a dreadful OT/SO record since the lockout making their actual record seem worse than their point totals. But of course, people choose not to do that. If regulation record is all that mattered they would have made the playoffs a couple times since the lockout.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey
by HockeyAnalysis on Aug 22, 2010 3:21 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Last time I checked, winning a bunch of OT and SO games had no predictive value for future performance. And Beauchemin was making a statement about the predictive value of Toronto’s performance.
At any rate, it’s pretty tough to find a metric that says Toronto finished the season strong. Fenwick, for example:
Toronto Fenwick before Olympic Break: 53.3%
Toronto Fenwick after Olympic Break: 51.7%
They had the lead a lot more often after the break than before, but there’s not much evidence for some massive improvement in play.
Actually, it means you are in a lot of close games and with a little improvement in skill set and talent you’ll be winning those games. Most of the time since the lockout they were losing those games or losing games big. It’s an improvement however you look at it, unless you mistakenly choose not to.
Many of the Leafs problems over the last few years has been attributed to goaltending. If that is improved, the Leafs will be in the playoff hunt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey
by HockeyAnalysis on Aug 23, 2010 8:07 AM EDT up reply actions
Yes, as HockeyAnalysis points out, the metric is sv%. Pretty much since the lockout, the Leafs have been a decent corsi team with at or near worst in the league goaltending. I think there’s some evidence that they may give up better than average shots—so it’s not entirely goaltending—but I don’t think there’s much dispute that goaltending has been their major achilles heel. Until last year they actually mustered pretty solid offence, contrary to popular mythology.
It’s easy to say “regression to mean” or “small sample size”, particularly because the Leafs are known for meaningless late season surges. The difference between earlier seasons and last season was that there was a major change in personnel, especially in goal. THe Leafs that ended the year were vastly different from the team that began it. I am not by any means expecting Giguere to return to his ‘03-’07 form, or for Gustavsson to be the next Lundqvist. But if they can provide merely league average goaltending—which doesn’t seem so outlandish given the end of last year—they will be a dramatically improved team.
by The '67 Sound on Aug 23, 2010 8:48 AM EDT up reply actions
And by “dramatically improved” I mean they could be 8-12 in the East. I’m not that crazy to think they’re a contender.
by The '67 Sound on Aug 23, 2010 8:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Until last year they actually mustered pretty solid offence, contrary to popular mythology.
They used to have an acceptable offense, but they’ve gotten rid of most of their top offensive players from those years – Sundin, Hagman, Antropov, and Ponikarovsky are a few guys that are no longer around. Kessel and Versteeg help, but I don’t think their forwards are near the offensive caliber of those from before.
Personally, I don’t expect their offense to be much different from last year (5th worst). They didn’t have a great group of offensive players last year, but 7 of their top 10 goal scorers are gone (Hagman, Ponikarovsky, Stajan, Stempniak, Blake, Stalberg, and White).
So far, I think they’ve replaced those guys with Phaneuf, Versteeg, Caputi, Brown, Sjostrom, and Armstrong. To me, that first group looks likely to score more goals.
Games 1-13: PDO = 952, record = 1-7-5
Games 14-61: PDO = 991, record = 17-24-7
Games 62-82: PDO = 997, record = 3-7-11
There’s a lot more to think about here, but this is on point:
http://www.behindthenethockey.com/2009/10/18/1090021/on-bad-starts-by-mostly-bad-hockey
The Leafs were a .420 hockey team last year – the first 13 games need to be thrown out. But nobody is going to see them as that. If they finish with, say, 86 points, that’ll seem like a huge improvement instead of a marginal difference from where we expect them to finish (.454)
86 points is a playoff bubble team, which is pretty much what I expect. With some luck and a lot of hard work, it’s not out of the question for the leafs to be a playoff team. They are young, a lot of these guys are still developing (hell, even Phaneuf is only 24). As long as they fight to the end of the season I am happy.
86 points puts you in 12th place on a normal year, even in the East. Last year’s Eastern bubble teams were freakishly weak, and you could make the playoffs with 88 points when the threshold is usually 92 and up.
I have a hard time with
saying the threshold is “usually” 92 and up. There have only been 9 NHL seasons with 30 teams. The number of times the playoff threshold has been equal to or greater than 92 points in the East is … four times.
4 out of 9 is less than half of the time, and thus not what I would call the “typical” situation. It has been as low as 83 points on at least one occasion, and has been 90 points or less on (yet again) four occasions.
Since the lockout (which I assume is your reference point for this statement) it has been 92 points or above on 3 of a possible 5 occasions. That is an amazingly small sample size to be drawing many conclusions from.
The Western conference has had a higher point threshold in most of those 9 seasons (although since the lockout it actually had a lower point threshold on two of the possible 5 occasions – which approaches half the time). Even in the West though, the threshold has been under 92 points on four of the nine possible occasions since the league has had 30 teams.
So I really do think it strange that there is a perception that “92” points is the “usual” requirement to make the playoffs… let alone “92 and up”.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 23, 2010 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions
As an addendum
there have been 14 teams to make the playoffs with under 92 points since the move to a 30 team league. That’s over the course of the aforementioned 9 seasons.
That means ON AVERAGE 1.55 teams makes the playoffs with under 92 points every season since the league has had 30 teams.
Since the lockout, over the past 4 seasons, 4 teams have made the playoffs with less than 92 points. That means since the lockout ON AVERAGE 1 team makes the playoffs with under 92 points.
Normally there is a team with less than 92 points (mathematically speaking) in the playoffs.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 23, 2010 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions
There were no SO points before the lockout, so obviously there will be a lower threshold in those seasons. If we add one point for every two ties pre-lockout, then the eighth place team in the East has:
2003-04 – 96.5 points
2002-03 – 88.5 points
2001-02 – 93 points
2000-01 – 92.5 points
So two-thirds of the time (Is that “usually”? To each his own on that), teams have needed the equivalent of 92 points. Further, although you’re correct about four teams making the playoffs in the East with less than 92 points since the lockout, it’s somewhat misleading to take an average over four years when (1) there have been five years since the lockout, and (2) three of those four teams did it in the same season.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 23, 2010 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not sure if your data is accurate
Since the lockout, in the East, the 8th place team has had the following point total:
09-10: 88 (Habs)
08-09: 93 (Habs)
07-08: 94 (Caps)
06-07: 92 (Isle)
05-06: 92 (Bolts)
That’s 4 out of 5 years where 92 points was the minimum to make the playoffs, not 3.
In the West, you have the following:
09-10: 95 (Avs)
08-09: 91 (Ducks)
07-08: 91 (Preds)
06-07: 96 (Flames)
05-06: 95 (Oil)
So that’s 3 times in the 5 years since the lockout that a team has made the playoffs with less than 92 points, not 4. It’s also been 5 years since the lockout, not 4.
The original point was that 86 points is usually on the bubble for the playoffs, and looking at results since the lockout, that does not appear to be accurate (assuming by “on-the-bubble” you mean the team has a chance at the playoffs in the last couple of games of the season).
And the shootout was brought in post-lockout, so comparing the point totals required for the playoffs before this method of points inflation is inaccurate.
Umm
In 09-10 the Habs and Flyers both had 88 points and got in.
If you add in the Ducks and Preds that’s 4 teams.
As for the 5 years not 4 years… that was just a genuine idiotic mistake on my part which I’m going to chalk up to jet lag after spending 26 hours in airports and the air over the past two days.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 23, 2010 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions
In 09-10 the Habs and Flyers both had 88 points and got in.
the statement was that in a usual year, it requires 92 points to get in the playoffs. Thus, the number of teams that get in with fewer than 92 points in any given year is not really an accurate rebuttal.
For instance, let’s say one year, all 8 teams in the East got in with 91 points, but in the 7 years prior, no one did. In such a situation, it would be accurate to state that it usually takes at least 92 points to make the playoffs even though, on average, 1 team a year made the playoffs with fewer than 92 points.
Why is it invalid to say
two teams got in with 88 points in a 5 year span?
You’re creating an artificial definition of what the average point total required to enter the playoffs is … one is the average, the other is the “usual” or “normal”… this is all semantics, but the point remains the same.
We don’t have enough information to discount the possibility… and considering in 5 years, 4 teams have made the playoffs with less than 92 points, (and 88 points is quite a bit below 92) I’m not going to go out and say it’s the NORMAL threshold.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 23, 2010 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Put it this way
If you take a deck of 52 cards, and 5 times in a row you draw a card worth more than 5, your observations would lead you to the conclusion that it’s “normal” to draw cards higher than 5… but if you draw all 52 cards you’re going to end up with 20 cards that are 5 or less… really we’re just playing with what you mean by normal, and I don’t think any of this is relevant to the Leafs in regards to their coming season as it sits right now.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 23, 2010 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions
oh and
4 times in the past 4 years… is just as useful a sample size as 4 times in 5 years… this is all really damn arbitrary.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 23, 2010 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re creating an artificial definition of what the average point total required to enter the playoffs is … one is the average, the other is the "usual" or "normal"… this is all semantics, but the point remains the same.
Please be a bit more specific with what you disagree with. I believe I have mentioned this before. The issue is that the average number of teams to make the playoffs with 88 points does not equal the likelihood that a team with 88 points will make the playoffs. They are related concepts, but not the same.
The following facts are not disputable. Since the lockout, in the East:
- The average points earned by 8th place are 91.8.
- In 80% of the years, at least 92 points have been required to get 8th place.
Most would interpret those two statistics to mean that it typically requires 92 points to get in the playoffs.
As I said before, it’s possible that you could average one team per year in the playoffs with 88 points but still, in a typical season, would require much more than 88 points to make the playoffs.
Please be a bit more specific with what you disagree with. I believe I have mentioned this before. The issue is that the average number of teams to make the playoffs with 88 points does not equal the likelihood that a team with 88 points will make the playoffs. They are related concepts, but not the same.
Sorry, missed a couple of words there … should read:
… does not equal the likelihood that a team with 88 points will make the playoffs in a given season.
I disagree with the term "usual"
or “normal” or “typical”… we’re dealing with a 5 season sample, and while I think it likely the playoff threshold will clarify itself with time, I think 5 years is a bit ridiculously small as sample sizes go for determining normalcy.
The fact that teams are sliding in with 4 points less than 92 indicates to me that the norm is pretty far from being a hard and fast rule.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 23, 2010 8:51 PM EDT up reply actions
also
The following facts are not disputable. Since the lockout, in the East:
- The average points earned by 8th place are 91.8.
- In 80% of the years, at least 92 points have been required to get 8th place.
this interestingly ignores the West… which has had an additional 2 seasons in which teams with less than 92 points made the playoffs.
Thus out of the past 4 seasons, 75% of the years have seen teams with less than 92 points qualify for the playoffs in the NHL.
As I said earlier… the sample size is so ridiculously small and all the playing with East vs. West makes it fairly clear to me, that this is all entirely arbitrary.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 23, 2010 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions
It doesn't ignore the West
60% of the time, you need at least 92 points to make the playoffs in the West as well.
The Leafs can’t pick and choose which conference they qualify for each season – only 8 teams from the East make it. The fact that 88 points would get them in to the West doesn’t help them make the playoffs.
If you look at it as two 15 league teams, which is really what’s relevant for the Leafs since they only compete against 14 other teams for the playoffs, the 8th place seed has needed 92 points 70% of the time since the lockout – 4 out of 5 in the East and 3 out of 5 in the West.
Your hypothetical
season is pretty unlikely.
The fact is that 3 out of the past 4 seasons have seen at least one team make the playoffs without 92 points… and in fact this past season two teams achieved that feat.
That’s a majority of the time… why is this not considered “typical”?
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 23, 2010 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh and the shootout thing
yeah… valid point.
So the “normal” threshold is 92+… I’m still going to go with the fact that it’s an amazingly small sample size so far.
I just don’t think 86 points being a “bubble” team is that ridiculous since we all know that there is (a) huge variation in shoot out records from season to season… which is largely unpredictable, and (b) we really don’t know enough at this point to say what “normal” is… and assuming it’s 92 points plus with 5 seasons worth of data is a bit extreme.
For all we know, the NHL’s parity experimentation continues and the 100 point season grows increasingly difficult to attain… If more teams get more points, then the total required to get in may drop, or the whole concept that 92 points will be difficult for them to reach changes… either way, I’m not prepared to suddenly dub a team that could range around 86 points (+ or – 3 points based on their SO and OT record), is out of the playoff hunt… particularly before the season begins.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 23, 2010 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions
maybe he means that they really had a lot of laughs and good times together while cleaning out their lockers?
by Passive Voice on Aug 22, 2010 4:47 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
They played so well the coach gave them a bonus couple of months of vacation!
If you want content, go to the Copper and Blue. If you want numbers, go to Behind the Net. If you want craziness, go to Pension Plan Puppets. If you want humor, go to Battle of California.If you want discussion, go to Broad Street Hockey. If you want bravery, go to Five For Howling.
If you want all of the above, go to Japers' Rink.
My blog and Twitter.
by red army line on Aug 23, 2010 8:39 AM EDT up reply actions
Last 20 games
11 wins, 6 losses, 3 overtime losses.
25 points out of 40. That’s on pace for a hundred-point season. Reason enough for optimism.
Only 1 REGULATION win in their last 12 games is a bit misleading. They still had 7 wins in their last 13 and 2 overtime losses. 16 points out of 26 is above .600. Not at all accurate to call it “one of the worst finishes in the league”. At least 9 teams had fewer points in their remaining 10 games than the Leafs.
by general borschevsky on Aug 23, 2010 9:22 AM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
