NHL analysis

From Ken Campbell at the Hockey News:

“Here’s another idea. The Senators should make a bold and concerted pitch to get Mats Sundin. Yes, Mats Sundin, the captain of their hated archrival Toronto Maple Leafs.”

While the idea most definitely holds some merit (Sundin has to be considered more valuable than Forsberg at this stage of their respective careers) there are also some stumbling blocks beyond what Campbell mentions.

Most notably, he suggests this move would (finally) trigger a necessary rebuild in Toronto but then argues the Leafs should hold out for Mike Fisher as part of the return package for their beloved captain. Fisher, signed for the next 5 years, he argues, could be an instant fit as the replacement first line center in Toronto.

Now, how exactly does this spur a rebuild for the Leafs? Replacing Sundin with a 27 year old would merely perpetuate more of the same in Toronto. If the Leafs are indeed out of the playoff picture as the trade deadline approaches, Ferguson (or whoever is in charge at that time) would be remiss if he did not at least discuss Sundin waiving his no-trade clause. All feel-good stories aside, it makes immense sense for the Leafs to bolster their youth and depth with a few extra draft picks or prospects rather than standing pat and missing the playoffs with nothing to show for it.

If Sundin continues to play the way he has, we’ll continue to see rumours surrounding him, of course. The flip side is that if Sundin continues at his current pace, he has a good chance of almost single-handedly dragging the Leafs to at least within spitting-distance of the post-season.

Something fishy is going on in Toronto. How can a team possibly score 3.62 goals per game (heading into Friday night’s action - 3rd in the league) while converting on only 11.9% of its power play chances (27th in the league)?

Let me point out before I go any further that I’m not a fan of criticizing NHL coaches (I make a willing exception for a few, notably Mike Keenan and Bob Hartley). Anytime I wonder why a team has failed to make this adjustment or change that strategy, I remind myself that I’m watching an NHL game while sitting on my couch and eating nachos. I have just slightly less experience than the man I am about to criticize.

With that out of the way, I have to point out what seem to be some pretty obvious problems with the strategies in use by the Toronto power play.

The Leafs’ power play is run by Mats Sundin and Tomas Kaberle. The two move the puck back and forth, looking for openings for open shots from either themselves or the defenceman on the right point (usually Bryan McCabe, lately Pavel Kubina). Occasionally they also look for the cross-ice pass, though with Darcy Tucker out of the lineup this has not been seen much. While this is a quite legitimate way to run a power play - two legitimate shot threats, two open forwards to look for tips or rebounds, and an alternate threat from the far point - I make out three fundamental flaws with the specifics in the Leafs’ case:

First, the Leafs lack a skilled playmaker down low. Opposition teams know full well the shots are going to come from one of the defenceman or Sundin, and they play those three tightly as a result. When the Leafs do move the puck down low they don’t have a single player in their lineup who poses a significant threat from that angle. Kyle Wellwood normally would fill that role, ideally suited for it given his right handed shot and creative passing skills. Until he returns, there’s just no danger the Leafs can offer from down low.

Second (and related to the first), too many shooters, no passers. While Kaberle can move the puck well, his position is always too well covered (he’s directly between the two credible threats to shoot). Sundin is an excellent playmaker but his job on the power play unit is to shoot as often as possible. If he’s going to be the playmaker he needs to move lower towards the goal line to stretch out the defenders, and the entire power play would change its shape.

Third, the two remaining forwards are underutilized. They aren’t active enough in high danger areas to force the opposition to cover them and they don’t create enough of a threat in front of the net. A shot heavy power play works if and when the forwards in such situations crash the net at every possible opportunity. The best goaltender in the world can’t stop a third or fourth rebound, and the power play team has an extra player on the ice and should get to most rebounds first.

I do understand that Maurice would want to put Blake and Antropov out on the first power play unit (to keep the latter hot and hopefully get the former going), but with such a shooter-heavy fivesome on the ice a crash-the-net strategy seems like the only logical strategy. So why haven’t we seen it yet?

Of course, all of this is somewhat of a moot point. Adding a few power play goals won’t help the Leafs’ woeful goals against average, which is the real problem they’re struggling.

Phew. I’ve waited a full day before commenting on my Leafs’ atrocious 7-1 collapse against the Carolina Hurricanes. I figured I was just about calm enough to analyze what happened rationally rather than rant and rave (remember, it was merely one game - how good does any team, any individual, anything look when you isolate the bottom of its barrel?

Then I saw this article this morning from Steve Simmons and my calm mood got thrown out the window.

This is John Ferguson’s legacy. He made the mess but can’t clean it up. Question is: Can anyone?

First off, yes, the Leafs have problems. They gave up too many goals a year ago, they’ve given up too many goals this year. But let’s at least be fair year. When you’ve played but 4 games, one outing where your opponent nets 7 markers stilts the average just a bit beyond reasonable. The Leafs currently sport an ugly 4.25 GAA, but removing the blowout against the Hurricanes drops that to 3.33 - still ugly, but far less atrocious. If you count only Vesa Toskala’s first two games the GAA drops to about a 2.5.

Fair to remove the worst two outcomes of a 4 game season? Of course not! But recognize that the Leafs ugly totals in goals against have far more to do with the fourth game they’ve played than with the three that preceded it.

The commitment was made by Ferguson to build this team around the most expensive defence in the National Hockey League. That wasn’t the plan — there never has been a plan — but it’s how things have worked out.

Seven million a year for McCabe.

OK, here’s where Simmons loses me entirely. For the record, as if it hasn’t been pointed out enough times already, McCabe’s salary this season is different from his salary cap hit. That he’s taking home over $7 million this season does not mean he uses up $7 million in cap space - his average salary over the course of his contract is $5.75 million.

Would discussing McCabe’s faults as a $5.75 million defenceman rather than a $7 million man have changed the argument? No! So why make yourself look silly with such a glaring error?

It’s no surprise I’m not a fan of Bryan McCabe, particularly his monster contract. It’s no secret that I think the Leafs would be better off benching him and playing a rookie in his place most nights. It’s no enigma that I feel his albatross of a contract is what does - and most frightening, will - tie the Leafs’ hands when attempting to lure a replacement for Mats Sundin.

However, there’s more to this story than McCabe tripping over his own skates for $5.75 million per season.

As David Johnson pointed out recently, little separates the Leafs and the supposed cream of the crop Ottawa Senators. The Leafs stack up quite well against their provincial rivals in terms of goals scored and shots allowed. The difference between the two teams over the past two years has boiled down almost entirely to goaltending - as in the Sens have had it and the Leafs have not. The supposedly sloppy and invisible Leafs defence gave up about 150 shots less than the Senators did last season.

Behind the Net is really making me take a closer look at the Leafs’ blueline, notably Bryan McCabe. Statistics do not back up McCabe’s label as the sloppy, offense-not-defence blueliner. The Leafs goals against average with McCabe on the ice last season was 2.63 (these numbers count only 5-on-5 play, something I will get to in a minute); with McCabe off the ice the GAA rose to 2.72. In other words, the Blue’n'White were a little better at keeping the puck out of their own net with McCabe on the ice than on the bench.

I think there are three reasons why McCabe gets so much heat for his play: firstly, his contract is monstrous. He’s the highest paid player on the team - he makes more than Mats Sundin, more than Toskala and Raycroft combined (not true after this season, but close), just a bit more than Nik Antropov and Jason Blake combined. With big money comes big responsibility, and when McCabe tries to do too much, he inevitably fails. He’s much better at being a $3 million defenceman than a $5.75 million dollar one.

Secondly, McCabe is prone to making the glaring, brutally obvious giveaways. When he decides to make a gaff, he goes all-out - gift wrapped and hand-delivered. Contrast that to Hal Gill, who is often stripped by fleeter opposing forwards but tends to at least maintain position and presence afterwards, McCabe’s giveaways look worse and draw far more attention.

And thirdly, the Leafs don’t play McCabe to his strengths. Bryan McCabe has played nearly five minutes per game short-handed so far this season. Now, I know the Leafs are short-handed alot, and I know they’re a bit short on shut-down defenceman, but 5 minutes a night short-handed is just ridiculous for Byran McCabe. I know they lack the size, but give more of this time to the swifter (and more sound positionally!) Tomas Kaberle or Ian White. Give it to the more defensive-minded Andy Wozniewski.

McCabe’s contract is a reality the Leafs have to deal with but it’s not as bad as some make it out to be. But both he and the Leafs need to start playing to his (and their) strengths before it’s too late.

Major Additions: Vesa Toskala, Mark Bell, Jason Blake, Scott Clemmenson

Major Subtractions: Michael Peca, Jeff O’Neil, J.S. Aubin

Analysis

John Ferguson Junior must be sweating by now. With one of his major acquisitions, Bell, suspended for at least 15 games, and a second, Toskala, shaky at best in his pre-season appearances, it’s not looking so good for the Leafs so far - lucky the games don’t start counting for another few days.

Let’s be honest here - Toskala should be better than we’ve seen so far. For that matter, Andrew Raycroft should be better than he was a year ago, now that he has some competition in the crease and a little less pressure.

Now how about the bad news? The bad news is the Leafs give up too many high quality scoring chances, their best player isn’t getting any younger, and they continue to trade away draft picks like they’re going out of style. This is a team desperate to win - finally - but not desperate for a Stanley Cup. And therein lies the problem.

I try not to pay much attention to pre-season games but there are some distressing signs from the perspective of a Leafs’ fan. I’m not overly concerned by Toskala’s early troubles (it’s been about 5 months since Toskala played in NHL game that counted; he deserves some time to get his timing back); I’m prepared to be patient with him. What does concern me is the continuation of the problems that plagued the team last year, problems that were far more troubling to me last season than when Raycroft struggled. Too many defensive lapses. Too many opponents given too much time in the Leafs’ zone. Too many missed opportunities to clear the puck away from danger zones. Too many penalties. These are problems that cannot be fixed by adding a goaltender or a 40-goal scorer. These are systematic, horrific lapses in judgment and discipline, on a team and individual level, that if left unchecked will doom a team - any team. And this is particularly important here because the Leafs, unlike many teams, do not have the skill or the talent to make up for these lapses.

Part of me really wants Blake to score 40 or more, Toskala to shine and the Leafs to roar into the playoffs and score a huge upset over the Senators in the first round. But realistically, I can’t see this team making the playoffs. And part of me thinks that could be the best thing that could happen to the franchise.

I’ll admit it - I’ve been eagerly looking forward to Saturday night’s Habs-Leafs matchup as the deciding factor in who sneaks in to 8th.  Then I took a look at the standings and tonight’s matchups, and realized it might not matter.

If the Leafs fall one more point behind the Habs, then it’s all over for them.  The Islanders, on the other hand, are all but eliminated but they won’t quit until the math says it really is impossible.  That could also happen tonight but it hasn’t happened yet.

The point is that no team can afford to look beyond its next game at this time of year.  Worrying about the Habs could leave the Leafs looking forward to nothing.

As I write this, the teams seeded 1 through 8 in both the Eastern and Western conferences have more wins than any of their competitors who are on the outside looking in. Even if Toronto finishes the season 3-0 while Montreal finishes with three losses, the 8th and 9th place teams in the East would still be tied with 41 wins each.  In other words, while there would be some position jockeying if the NHL threw out the 3 point games and simply recorded wins and losses, exactly the same 16 teams would qualify for the playoffs.
The extra point for losing in overtime (or the shootout) is supposed to reward teams in close games and encourage them to ‘go for it’ rather than playing for the tie. Unfortunately, all this does is inflate the points of teams with extra helpings of skill or luck in shootouts while encouraging teams to play for the tie in the final minutes of regulation rather than in OT.

It also rewards teams for losing, as long as they don’t lose in regulation. Detroit and Anaheim, currently sitting 1st and 3rd in league standings, each have lost 12 games after the third period.

Dumping the extra point for losing in OT would simplify the standings for new(er) fans, reward teams for winning and nothing else (losing in OT in the playoffs doesn’t get you anywhere, does it?) and would simply make sense.

For all those (myself very much included) who complain about the scheduling format of the NHL, there are times when it is obvious the guys in charge got at least some parts of it sooooo right.

As of right this instant, it’s looking like the playoff race in the East is down to two teams - Toronto and Montreal - fighting for the 8th spot.  The Hurricanes and Islanders are all but finished while the Rangers and Lightning have all but clinched their spots.  Carolina and Long Island sit 4 points out of 8th with 4 games each left to play, and they would have to jump over both Toronto and Montreal to get in.

Once you’re convinced that it’s more or less a two horse race, take a peak at the schedule.  Look ahead about one week, to April the 7th.  What’s that?  Montreal in Toronto?  Damn straight!

I’m already looking forward to next Saturday night.

Here’s a look at the Eastern Conference race for the final three playoff spots, in order of least likely to most likely to make the playoffs (ordered by using my Predicted Final Standings as of March 20, 2007):

Boston is all but finished.  They sit with 73 points, 11 games left, with by far the toughest schedule of any of the teams fighting for a spot.  The weakest team that Boston plays is Montreal (three times in fact).  The best Boston can hope for is to play spoiler (two wins against Montreal would help the teams above them quite a bit).

Florida is further out but has a very slightly higher chance.  They have 73 points but only 10 games to play.  They get the bonus of playing Philadelphia and Washington, as well as Atlanta, Tampa Bay (twice) and Carolina (twice).  Given their strong play since the trade deadline, Florida remains a long shot but not out of the question.

Montreal is tied with two teams at 78 points, but they’ve played one game more than Toronto and two more than the Islanders.  They’ve been in a tailspin since December that only got worse when their starting goaltender was injured.  Three games against Boston is Montreal’s only remaining hope - anything less than a full sweep of those games would all but eliminate the Habs all on their own.  Montreal also has two remaining games against the Rangers and close the season in Toronto, so even if Montreal isn’t in the playoffs they will have a huge say in who is.

New York Islanders face a goaltending dilemma as long as Rick DiPietro is injured.  The good news is that he looks set to return.  The bad news is in his absence the Islanders went from being solidly in the playoffs to fighting for their lives.  Their schedule difficulty ranks in the middle of the pack, easier than Tampa Bay, Toronto and Boston but harder than Florida, Montreal, Carolina or the Rangers.  Ryan Smyth has had more of an impact on the Oilers (no victories since he left) than on the Islanders since the deadline.

Toronto has struggled in games they ’should’ win and done better than expected in games they should have trouble with.  With a schedule more difficult than any team in this race except for the Bruins, the Leafs are likely to fall short.  In another week this should be decided - two games against Buffalo and one against New Jersey don’t leave much room for error.  The games that follow against Carlina, the Islanders and Montreal will only be important if they don’t drop out of the picture before they get there.

Tampa Bay should be solidly in the playoffs but they are not.  How much longer will the Lightning stand behind Tortorella’s “encouragement” tactics of his goaltenders?  Tampa has a pretty tough schedule but they have the largest margin for error, leading this pack of players and even within striking distance of third by catching Atlanta (not likely given the Thrashers’ play since the trade deadline).

New York Rangers have been the only solid team in this race over recent games, due almost exclusively to the play of Henrik Lundqvist.  If that trend continues the Rangers will easily slip into the playoffs, possibly as high as 6th place.  If Lundqvist stumbles, even having (by far) the easiest remaining schedule in this race won’t save the team.  The best team the Rangers have left to play are the Penguins.  Their numerous games against teams in the race include the Islanders (twice), Montreal (twice) and Leafs.  That many “4 point” games could swing things in almost any direction.

Carolina has goaltending issues, though not the issues I long predicted.  Cam Ward has been solid enough but now he’s hurt.  Carolina’s remaining schedule is easier than anyone’s but the Rangers here and they sit in a playoff spot - barely - right now.  The Canes need other teams to stumble but that seems almost certain to happen.  Two games against Tampa Bay will be key.