Leafs Far Superior to Record

[James_tanner123]

Most people will probably think this is just a click-bait piece, but I honestly have about a dozen stats to prove it: the Leafs are a good team beset by bad luck and that is the only reason their in the basement. I also think this is a problem because when they start winning, they'll give up the high draft pick they need. Check it out:




http://thehockeywriters.com/despite-...ats-a-problem/

[Big Ev]

They have little talent at each position. Even when they get luck they won't have the skill to finish off plays or not let pucks in.

[petegreg21]

They have little talent at each position. Even when they get luck they won't have the skill to finish off plays or not let pucks in.

Agreed. Check the stats at the door and watch this team on the ice. They're a disaster.

[rangerfan2430]

They have little talent at each position. Even when they get luck they won't have the skill to finish off plays or not let pucks in.

Exactly. They just don't have any real good talent

[Kofax]

Interesting take. Well written article.

[rataylor22]

Most people will probably think this is just a click-bait piece, but I honestly have about a dozen stats to prove it: the Leafs are a good team beset by bad luck and that is the only reason their in the basement. I also think this is a problem because when they start winning, they'll give up the high draft pick they need. Check it out:




http://thehockeywriters.com/despite-...ats-a-problem/

The first 12 words, followed by the second set of highlighted words (where you can't even figure out which there/their/they're to use), is really a stunningly accurate representation of the "quality" (read: lack of) of your writing.

[Instant Karma]

It looks to me like yet another article where you cherry-pick some stats in order to confirm your own preconceived notions, which in this case is that the Leafs aren't bad, just "unlucky".

And the stats that are bad you just claim "will improve". Really? Why, because you want them to?

You base this conclusion that their power-play efficiency is certain to double, but you neglect that the stats upon which you base your argument are themselves based on a relatively small sample size and are just as likely to regress as their power-play efficiency is to increase.

So, come January and the Leafs are still in the bottom-third, that will likely be why: their power play efficiency moved up closer to the norm whereas the others regressed to the norm.

This is just a case of taking some stats and spinning them however you like.

Statistics are just tools. You can give a crappy carpenter the best tools in the world, but if he can't use them with skill, whatever he builds will inevitably be shlt.

I mentioned this to you once before when you published that crazy article claiming that Kadri was better than RyJo. If you come up with a hypothesis that seems bizarre, the first thing you should do at that point is to apply some critical thinking to the problem, which will likely show you why that hypothesis is in fact bizarre.

[Axeman33]