This is a quick summary post of the 82-game season, in terms of chances. I'll have some more detailed individual summary posts in the coming days.
Game |
Opp |
Overall |
ES |
PP |
SH |
ChF |
ChA |
Net |
% |
ChF |
ChA |
Net |
% |
ChF |
ChA |
Net |
% |
ChF |
ChA |
Net |
% |
1 |
MTL |
22 |
24 |
-2 |
47.8% |
10 |
18 |
-8 |
35.7% |
11 |
3 |
8 |
78.6% |
1 |
3 |
-2 |
25.0% |
2 |
PHI |
10 |
20 |
-10 |
33.3% |
7 |
11 |
-4 |
38.9% |
2 |
0 |
2 |
100.0% |
1 |
9 |
-8 |
10.0% |
3 |
OTT |
27 |
19 |
8 |
58.7% |
21 |
18 |
3 |
53.8% |
6 |
0 |
6 |
100.0% |
0 |
1 |
-1 |
0.0% |
4 |
COL |
19 |
17 |
2 |
52.8% |
16 |
16 |
0 |
50.0% |
3 |
0 |
3 |
100.0% |
0 |
1 |
-1 |
0.0% |
5 |
NSH |
17 |
13 |
4 |
56.7% |
13 |
8 |
5 |
61.9% |
4 |
0 |
4 |
100.0% |
0 |
5 |
-5 |
0.0% |
6 |
EDM |
17 |
21 |
-4 |
44.7% |
14 |
14 |
0 |
50.0% |
3 |
0 |
3 |
100.0% |
0 |
7 |
-7 |
0.0% |
7 |
MIN |
7 |
18 |
-11 |
28.0% |
3 |
11 |
-8 |
21.4% |
4 |
1 |
3 |
80.0% |
0 |
6 |
-6 |
0.0% |
8 |
CAR |
13 |
23 |
-10 |
36.1% |
11 |
18 |
-7 |
37.9% |
1 |
1 |
0 |
50.0% |
1 |
4 |
-3 |
20.0% |
9 |
CHI |
9 |
25 |
-16 |
26.5% |
6 |
19 |
-13 |
24.0% |
3 |
0 |
3 |
100.0% |
0 |
6 |
-6 |
0.0% |
10 |
ANA |
11 |
15 |
-4 |
42.3% |
10 |
10 |
0 |
50.0% |
1 |
0 |
1 |
100.0% |
0 |
5 |
-5 |
0.0% |
11 |
CLB |
13 |
22 |
-9 |
37.1% |
9 |
16 |
-7 |
36.0% |
4 |
2 |
2 |
66.7% |
0 |
4 |
-4 |
0.0% |
12 |
PIT |
13 |
21 |
-8 |
38.2% |
7 |
12 |
-5 |
36.8% |
4 |
0 |
4 |
100.0% |
2 |
9 |
-7 |
18.2% |
13 |
EDM |
12 |
19 |
-7 |
38.7% |
11 |
16 |
-5 |
40.7% |
1 |
0 |
1 |
100.0% |
0 |
3 |
-3 |
0.0% |
14 |
CGY |
13 |
17 |
-4 |
43.3% |
12 |
13 |
-1 |
48.0% |
1 |
0 |
1 |
100.0% |
0 |
4 |
-4 |
0.0% |
15 |
VAN |
12 |
20 |
-8 |
37.5% |
9 |
15 |
-6 |
37.5% |
3 |
0 |
3 |
100.0% |
0 |
5 |
-5 |
0.0% |
16 |
NJD |
18 |
15 |
3 |
54.5% |
9 |
15 |
-6 |
37.5% |
8 |
0 |
8 |
100.0% |
1 |
0 |
1 |
100.0% |
17 |
BOS |
14 |
20 |
-6 |
41.2% |
11 |
15 |
-4 |
42.3% |
3 |
0 |
3 |
100.0% |
0 |
5 |
-5 |
0.0% |
18 |
MIN |
14 |
26 |
-12 |
35.0% |
9 |
17 |
-8 |
34.6% |
5 |
0 |
5 |
100.0% |
0 |
9 |
-9 |
0.0% |
19 |
BUF |
17 |
10 |
7 |
63.0% |
14 |
5 |
9 |
73.7% |
3 |
0 |
3 |
100.0% |
0 |
5 |
-5 |
0.0% |
20 |
BUF |
17 |
14 |
3 |
54.8% |
13 |
12 |
1 |
52.0% |
4 |
0 |
4 |
100.0% |
0 |
2 |
-2 |
0.0% |
21 |
NYI |
20 |
21 |
-1 |
48.8% |
17 |
17 |
0 |
50.0% |
3 |
0 |
3 |
100.0% |
0 |
4 |
-4 |
0.0% |
22 |
NSH |
19 |
18 |
1 |
51.4% |
15 |
14 |
1 |
51.7% |
4 |
0 |
4 |
100.0% |
0 |
4 |
-4 |
0.0% |
23 |
WAS |
25 |
26 |
-1 |
49.0% |
23 |
20 |
3 |
53.5% |
2 |
0 |
2 |
100.0% |
0 |
5 |
-5 |
0.0% |
24 |
CLB |
5 |
18 |
-13 |
21.7% |
5 |
13 |
-8 |
27.8% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
#DIV/0! |
0 |
5 |
-5 |
0.0% |
25 |
PIT |
14 |
26 |
-12 |
35.0% |
12 |
21 |
-9 |
36.4% |
2 |
0 |
2 |
100.0% |
0 |
5 |
-5 |
0.0% |
26 |
BUF |
16 |
19 |
-3 |
45.7% |
14 |
13 |
1 |
51.9% |
2 |
0 |
2 |
100.0% |
0 |
6 |
-6 |
0.0% |
27 |
MTL |
12 |
26 |
-14 |
31.6% |
10 |
19 |
-9 |
34.5% |
2 |
3 |
-1 |
40.0% |
0 |
4 |
-4 |
0.0% |
28 |
SJS |
19 |
20 |
-1 |
48.7% |
11 |
14 |
-3 |
44.0% |
8 |
1 |
7 |
88.9% |
0 |
5 |
-5 |
0.0% |
29 |
DAL |
18 |
28 |
-10 |
39.1% |
13 |
21 |
-8 |
38.2% |
4 |
1 |
3 |
80.0% |
1 |
6 |
-5 |
14.3% |
30 |
OTT |
15 |
27 |
-12 |
35.7% |
12 |
19 |
-7 |
38.7% |
2 |
0 |
2 |
100.0% |
1 |
8 |
-7 |
11.1% |
31 |
BOS |
21 |
14 |
7 |
60.0% |
16 |
12 |
4 |
57.1% |
5 |
0 |
5 |
100.0% |
0 |
2 |
-2 |
0.0% |
32 |
LAK |
24 |
11 |
13 |
68.6% |
19 |
10 |
9 |
65.5% |
5 |
0 |
5 |
100.0% |
0 |
1 |
-1 |
0.0% |
33 |
STL |
10 |
26 |
-16 |
27.8% |
8 |
22 |
-14 |
26.7% |
2 |
1 |
1 |
66.7% |
0 |
3 |
-3 |
0.0% |
34 |
CHI |
23 |
15 |
8 |
60.5% |
20 |
13 |
7 |
60.6% |
3 |
1 |
2 |
75.0% |
0 |
1 |
-1 |
0.0% |
35 |
PIT |
19 |
19 |
0 |
50.0% |
16 |
17 |
-1 |
48.5% |
3 |
0 |
3 |
100.0% |
0 |
2 |
-2 |
0.0% |
36 |
FLA |
16 |
16 |
0 |
50.0% |
13 |
12 |
1 |
52.0% |
2 |
1 |
1 |
66.7% |
0 |
3 |
-3 |
0.0% |
37 |
PHX |
12 |
17 |
-5 |
41.4% |
11 |
16 |
-5 |
40.7% |
1 |
1 |
0 |
50.0% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
- |
38 |
DET |
12 |
20 |
-8 |
37.5% |
8 |
19 |
-11 |
29.6% |
4 |
1 |
3 |
80.0% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
- |
39 |
NYR |
19 |
23 |
-4 |
45.2% |
15 |
15 |
0 |
50.0% |
4 |
0 |
4 |
100.0% |
0 |
8 |
-8 |
0.0% |
40 |
BUF |
26 |
21 |
5 |
55.3% |
21 |
19 |
2 |
52.5% |
5 |
0 |
5 |
100.0% |
0 |
2 |
-2 |
0.0% |
41 |
CAR |
15 |
25 |
-10 |
37.5% |
11 |
25 |
-14 |
30.6% |
4 |
0 |
4 |
100.0% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
- |
42 |
DET |
11 |
22 |
-11 |
33.3% |
9 |
16 |
-7 |
36.0% |
2 |
0 |
2 |
100.0% |
0 |
6 |
-6 |
0.0% |
43 |
NYR |
19 |
27 |
-8 |
41.3% |
18 |
21 |
-3 |
46.2% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
#DIV/0! |
0 |
6 |
-6 |
0.0% |
44 |
NYI |
15 |
11 |
4 |
57.7% |
11 |
9 |
2 |
55.0% |
4 |
1 |
3 |
80.0% |
0 |
1 |
-1 |
0.0% |
45 |
CAR |
13 |
23 |
-10 |
36.1% |
12 |
13 |
-1 |
48.0% |
0 |
1 |
-1 |
0.0% |
1 |
9 |
-8 |
10.0% |
46 |
WAS |
23 |
17 |
6 |
57.5% |
13 |
16 |
-3 |
44.8% |
8 |
0 |
8 |
100.0% |
2 |
1 |
1 |
66.7% |
47 |
NJD |
20 |
22 |
-2 |
47.6% |
15 |
17 |
-2 |
46.9% |
5 |
0 |
5 |
100.0% |
0 |
5 |
-5 |
0.0% |
48 |
BOS |
13 |
22 |
-9 |
37.1% |
7 |
17 |
-10 |
29.2% |
5 |
2 |
3 |
71.4% |
1 |
3 |
-2 |
25.0% |
49 |
BUF |
15 |
13 |
2 |
53.6% |
12 |
11 |
1 |
52.2% |
2 |
0 |
2 |
100.0% |
0 |
2 |
-2 |
0.0% |
50 |
MTL |
16 |
20 |
-4 |
44.4% |
13 |
16 |
-3 |
44.8% |
3 |
0 |
3 |
100.0% |
0 |
4 |
-4 |
0.0% |
51 |
PHX |
12 |
24 |
-12 |
33.3% |
8 |
13 |
-5 |
38.1% |
4 |
5 |
-1 |
44.4% |
0 |
6 |
-6 |
0.0% |
52 |
COL |
17 |
18 |
-1 |
48.6% |
13 |
16 |
-3 |
44.8% |
4 |
1 |
3 |
80.0% |
0 |
1 |
-1 |
0.0% |
53 |
DAL |
8 |
22 |
-14 |
26.7% |
8 |
19 |
-11 |
29.6% |
0 |
2 |
-2 |
0.0% |
0 |
1 |
-1 |
0.0% |
54 |
WPG |
15 |
19 |
-4 |
44.1% |
12 |
15 |
-3 |
44.4% |
3 |
1 |
2 |
75.0% |
0 |
3 |
-3 |
0.0% |
55 |
TBL |
17 |
23 |
-6 |
42.5% |
13 |
13 |
0 |
50.0% |
2 |
3 |
-1 |
40.0% |
2 |
7 |
-5 |
22.2% |
56 |
FLA |
17 |
18 |
-1 |
48.6% |
12 |
14 |
-2 |
46.2% |
4 |
1 |
3 |
80.0% |
1 |
3 |
-2 |
25.0% |
57 |
OTT |
16 |
13 |
3 |
55.2% |
13 |
12 |
1 |
52.0% |
2 |
0 |
2 |
100.0% |
1 |
1 |
0 |
50.0% |
58 |
FLA |
15 |
19 |
-4 |
44.1% |
14 |
19 |
-5 |
42.4% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
- |
1 |
0 |
1 |
100.0% |
59 |
TBL |
31 |
20 |
11 |
60.8% |
28 |
20 |
8 |
58.3% |
3 |
0 |
3 |
100.0% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
- |
60 |
VAN |
16 |
12 |
4 |
57.1% |
14 |
7 |
7 |
66.7% |
2 |
0 |
2 |
100.0% |
0 |
5 |
-5 |
0.0% |
61 |
NYI |
14 |
25 |
-11 |
35.9% |
12 |
19 |
-7 |
38.7% |
1 |
2 |
-1 |
33.3% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
- |
62 |
MTL |
15 |
18 |
-3 |
45.5% |
13 |
15 |
-2 |
46.4% |
1 |
1 |
0 |
50.0% |
1 |
2 |
-1 |
33.3% |
63 |
CLB |
16 |
19 |
-3 |
45.7% |
11 |
19 |
-8 |
36.7% |
4 |
0 |
4 |
100.0% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
- |
64 |
NYR |
23 |
22 |
1 |
51.1% |
22 |
19 |
3 |
53.7% |
1 |
1 |
0 |
50.0% |
0 |
2 |
-2 |
0.0% |
65 |
PHI |
23 |
18 |
5 |
56.1% |
22 |
12 |
10 |
64.7% |
1 |
0 |
1 |
100.0% |
0 |
6 |
-6 |
0.0% |
66 |
ANA |
12 |
28 |
-16 |
30.0% |
9 |
22 |
-13 |
29.0% |
2 |
0 |
2 |
100.0% |
1 |
6 |
-5 |
14.3% |
67 |
SJS |
13 |
34 |
-21 |
27.7% |
8 |
32 |
-24 |
20.0% |
3 |
0 |
3 |
100.0% |
2 |
2 |
0 |
50.0% |
68 |
LAK |
18 |
22 |
-4 |
45.0% |
10 |
14 |
-4 |
41.7% |
5 |
0 |
5 |
100.0% |
2 |
8 |
-6 |
20.0% |
69 |
WAS |
13 |
18 |
-5 |
41.9% |
10 |
12 |
-2 |
45.5% |
3 |
0 |
3 |
100.0% |
0 |
6 |
-6 |
0.0% |
70 |
DET |
19 |
23 |
-4 |
45.2% |
13 |
18 |
-5 |
41.9% |
4 |
0 |
4 |
100.0% |
0 |
5 |
-5 |
0.0% |
71 |
TBL |
23 |
18 |
5 |
56.1% |
16 |
15 |
1 |
51.6% |
3 |
0 |
3 |
100.0% |
0 |
3 |
-3 |
0.0% |
72 |
MTL |
23 |
13 |
10 |
63.9% |
19 |
10 |
9 |
65.5% |
2 |
0 |
2 |
100.0% |
0 |
3 |
-3 |
0.0% |
73 |
NJD |
17 |
19 |
-2 |
47.2% |
8 |
16 |
-8 |
33.3% |
5 |
0 |
5 |
100.0% |
0 |
3 |
-3 |
0.0% |
74 |
STL |
14 |
25 |
-11 |
35.9% |
10 |
21 |
-11 |
32.3% |
4 |
1 |
3 |
80.0% |
0 |
3 |
-3 |
0.0% |
75 |
PHI |
14 |
21 |
-7 |
40.0% |
10 |
14 |
-4 |
41.7% |
1 |
2 |
-1 |
33.3% |
0 |
5 |
-5 |
0.0% |
76 |
DET |
16 |
18 |
-2 |
47.1% |
13 |
14 |
-1 |
48.1% |
1 |
2 |
-1 |
33.3% |
2 |
2 |
0 |
50.0% |
77 |
CGY |
12 |
13 |
-1 |
48.0% |
12 |
11 |
1 |
52.2% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
- |
0 |
2 |
-2 |
0.0% |
78 |
BOS |
15 |
22 |
-7 |
40.5% |
8 |
21 |
-13 |
27.6% |
3 |
0 |
3 |
100.0% |
1 |
1 |
0 |
50.0% |
79 |
WPG |
13 |
22 |
-9 |
37.1% |
8 |
19 |
-11 |
29.6% |
4 |
1 |
3 |
80.0% |
0 |
2 |
-2 |
0.0% |
80 |
TBL |
20 |
20 |
0 |
50.0% |
17 |
17 |
0 |
50.0% |
3 |
1 |
2 |
75.0% |
0 |
2 |
-2 |
0.0% |
81 |
FLA |
20 |
27 |
-7 |
42.6% |
14 |
21 |
-7 |
40.0% |
2 |
1 |
1 |
66.7% |
0 |
5 |
-5 |
0.0% |
82 |
OTT |
18 |
23 |
-5 |
43.9% |
11 |
16 |
-5 |
40.7% |
6 |
2 |
4 |
75.0% |
0 |
5 |
-5 |
0.0% |
Total |
All |
1335 |
1648 |
-313 |
44.8% |
1026 |
1291 |
-265 |
44.3% |
253 |
48 |
205 |
84.1% |
26 |
304 |
-278 |
7.9% |
The Leafs had a couple of brief periods where they got up above 50% in the 10-game rolling average, most notably in the time just around the Olympic break. The poor run right before that time, and the weak finish stand out, with the Leafs unable to even get to 45% consistently in the closing games of the season.
|
Overall |
ES |
5-on-5 close |
|
For |
Against |
Net |
% |
ChF |
ChA |
Net |
% |
ChF |
ChA |
Net |
% |
Corsi |
2121 |
2744 |
-623 |
43.6% |
1596 |
2125 |
-529 |
42.9% |
1955 |
2694 |
-739 |
42.1% |
Chances |
1335 |
1648 |
-160 |
44.6% |
1026 |
1291 |
-125 |
44.3% |
586 |
750 |
-164 |
43.9% |
Toronto outperformed their Corsi in terms of chances, but with both below 45%, it's not a surprise that they ended up struggling to compete for a playoff spot.
Period |
For |
Against |
Ch% |
1 |
321 |
427 |
42.9% |
2 |
334 |
413 |
44.7% |
3 |
320 |
401 |
44.4% |
4 |
35 |
28 |
55.6% |
At one point, the third period was the Leafs' weakest, but in the final quarter of the year, they had serious problems at the start of games, making the first period the weakest.
State |
For |
Against |
Ch% |
-4 |
18 |
21 |
46.2% |
-3 |
27 |
38 |
41.5% |
-2 |
114 |
126 |
47.5% |
-1 |
202 |
231 |
46.7% |
Trailing |
361 |
416 |
46.5% |
0 |
342 |
461 |
42.6% |
Leading |
266 |
354 |
42.9% |
1 |
166 |
212 |
43.9% |
2 |
73 |
91 |
44.5% |
3 |
19 |
38 |
33.3% |
4 |
8 |
13 |
38.1% |
The Leafs didn't perform much differently when leading versus when the game was tied, which is a fairly damning statement on their performance with the scores level. They also were unable to get a majority of chances while chasing games. As shown below, this held even in the third period of games.
State |
For |
Against |
Ch% |
3rd Chasing |
120 |
126 |
48.8% |
-1 |
69 |
72 |
48.9% |
-2 |
51 |
54 |
48.6% |
3rd Defending |
95 |
130 |
42.2% |
1 |
55 |
82 |
40.1% |
2 |
40 |
48 |
45.5% |
3rd Other |
105 |
145 | 42.0% |
Even while chasing games in the third period, the Leafs were unable to generate the majority of chances in games; this contrasts with their opponents, who earned almost 60% of chances with the Leafs trying to defend a third period lead.
Period |
Margin |
For |
Against |
Ch% |
1 |
-2 |
18 |
19 |
48.6% |
1 |
-1 |
49 |
82 |
37.4% |
1 |
0 |
194 |
261 |
42.6% |
1 |
1 |
50 |
57 |
46.7% |
1 |
2 |
7 |
3 |
70.0% |
2 |
-4 |
3 |
6 |
33.3% |
2 |
-3 |
13 |
15 |
46.4% |
2 |
-2 |
45 |
53 |
45.9% |
2 |
-1 |
84 |
77 |
52.2% |
2 |
0 |
83 |
127 |
39.5% |
2 |
1 |
61 |
73 |
45.5% |
2 |
2 |
26 |
40 |
39.4% |
2 |
3 |
12 |
19 |
38.7% |
3 |
-4 |
15 |
15 |
50.0% |
3 |
-3 |
11 |
18 |
37.9% |
3 |
-2 |
51 |
54 |
48.6% |
3 |
-1 |
69 |
72 |
48.9% |
3 |
0 |
65 |
73 |
47.1% |
3 |
1 |
55 |
82 |
40.1% |
3 |
2 |
40 |
48 |
45.5% |
3 |
3 |
7 |
19 |
26.9% |
3 |
4 |
4 |
12 |
25.0% |
The only score state which regularly occurred that the Leafs were above even in was while trailing by one in the second period; their number while tied in the second, though, was particularly pathetic.
Yet another defeat for Toronto completes a disastrous end to the season, and is likely the final appearance for a number of players, most notably James Reimer, as well as a potential farewell for coach Randy Carlyle.
The Leafs were unable to get ahead in the first period, which ended scoreless, despite a lot of chances either way, with Toronto having the best of it at even strength.
Ottawa took charge of the game in the second period, getting a goal on the powerplay through Spezza, and dominating play, holding the Leafs to just two chances in the period.
The Leafs were clearly outchanced at even strength in the third period, but the real blame for their inability to get level falls to the powerplay, which came up with several good chances, but were unable to pull Toronto level, a continuation of a problem that has highlighted their late season collapse.
Ottawa outchanced Toronto, taking the win 16-11 at ES, and 23-18 overall. The Senators also managed to edge Toronto in ES close chances, 11-9.
A summary of the scoring chances:
Status |
Overall |
ES |
Team |
Toronto |
Ottawa |
Toronto |
Ottawa |
1 |
8 |
9 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
8 |
2 |
6 |
3 |
8 |
6 |
2 |
5 |
Total |
18 |
23 |
11 |
16 |
Details below.
Toronto slumped to a defeat in their first meaningless game of the season, handily outchanced and beaten by an eliminated Florida team.
Florida took the lead through Pirri, and dominated the first period, outchancing Toronto 7-4. Things didn't improve in the second, with Toronto getting crushed in chances again. They were really fortunate to get level midway through the period, through Bozak, and while they were unlucky to give up a goal in the last three seconds, it's hard to argue that Florida didn't at least deserve to keep the period even.
As usual, the Leafs struggled in the third, Bjugstad scoring twice to put the game away. Toronto at least managed a decent chase, getting the last six chances, including one of their best stretches with an empty net in quite a while.
Florida handily took the chances, though the third period saw Toronto win the overall, between a powerplay and the empty net chances. The Panthers also won the ES close chances, 16-10.
A summary of the scoring chances:
Status |
Overall |
ES |
Team |
Toronto |
Florida |
Toronto |
Florida |
1 |
4 |
7 |
4 |
7 |
2 |
6 |
14 |
6 |
9 |
3 |
10 |
6 |
4 |
5 |
Total |
20 |
27 |
14 |
21 |
Details below.
In the final meaningful game of the Leafs' season, they actually managed to stay level with their opponent on chances, but, unlike much of the season, were unable to put any of their chances in, and slumped to a defeat. A familiar problem for the Leafs saw them outchanced in the third period, despite chasing the game, and, in theory at least, their playoff lives.
The Leafs had a solid start in the first, struggled in the middle section, at one point giving up six of seven chances, but closed out the frame by pulling a few back, including a couple on a late powerplay. However, there were no goals scored by either side.
They then had one of their unluckiest periods of the season, broadly outchancing the Lightning in the second, but falling behind on a pair of goals from Ondrej Palat. In particular, Phil Kessel was all over Tampa, but couldn't put one in or set up a teammate, a familiar story down the stretch.
Yet again, Toronto were unable to do anything serious in the closing period, giving up the first five chances, and not getting a chance of their own until the second half of the period. They did manage to come up with four chances in the frame, but it wasn't nearly good enough.
An even game, with the two teams level overall and at ES. Losing the third period in chances made it eight straight games in which the Leafs have been outchanced in the last 20 minutes of regulation. ES close chances were also level, at 9-9.
A summary of the scoring chances:
Status |
Overall |
ES |
Team |
Toronto |
Tampa Bay |
Toronto |
Tampa Bay |
1 |
7 |
7 |
4 |
6 |
2 |
9 |
7 |
9 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
6 |
4 |
6 |
Total |
20 |
20 |
17 |
17 |
Details below.
It seemed as this might be another result for the Leafs despite themselves; they were outchanced in the first period, but came just seconds from escaping the period with a lead. After that, though, they were thoroughly outplayed, and ended up taking a deserving defeat that will pretty much eliminate them from any playoff chance.
After a goal and a couple of early chances, Winnipeg seized control, getting six straight chances, and pulling the game level. Toronto then scored a second off a terrible giveaway, and had a few chances of their own in the last two minutes, until Winnipeg got one back at the death.
Toronto had a decent start to the second, but after a powerplay midway through the period that failed to score, Winnipeg took over, again getting six straight chances, as well as taking a 3-2 lead.
With their season on the line, the Leafs' chase in the third period was pathetic. They generated just two ES chances, while Winnipeg came up with seven. A fourth goal from Jokinen gave the Jets some insurance, but they may not have ended up needing it anyways.
A terrible performance from Toronto, outchanced 22-13 overall and 19-8 at ES. This included the 7-2 in the third period and 5-1 in the second. The ES close numbers also favoured Winnipeg, 12-6.
A summary of the scoring chances:
Status |
Overall |
ES |
Team |
Toronto |
Winnipeg |
Toronto |
Winnipeg |
1 |
6 |
8 |
5 |
7 |
2 |
4 |
7 |
1 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
7 |
2 |
7 |
Total |
13 |
22 |
8 |
19 |
Details below.
A classic Randy Carlyle Leafs game, as they pulled out to a lead thanks to a couple of goals from the big line, then went into an absurd defensive shell, rarely venturing out of their own zone until Boston managed to draw level in the third period. However, unlike what we saw in the playoffs last year, the Leafs were able to salvage a result from the game, Nazem Kadri scoring in overtime to win it and secure two important points.
Boston dominated much of the first period, but Paul Ranger put Toronto ahead, only to see Marchand pull the lead back almost immediately afterwards. The Leafs did have a couple of powerplay chances, but it was still Boston carrying the play, and Toronto's second, going in off of Bozak in front, really came against the run of play.
Van Riemsdyk made the lead two in the first minute of the second, and while Boston had a number of chances right after that, the Leafs managed to finish the period almost level, as they did well in the second half of the period. With Boston chasing the game in the third, the Leafs were totally shut down, not generating a single ES chance, and allowing 7 ES and 8 overall to Boston. Two of these went in, one past Bernier and one past James Reimer, sending the game to overtime.
Some questionable penalties in the closing minutes gave both sides powerplays in the extra frame, and it was the Leafs who took advantage, Nazem Kadri getting a huge goal to earn Toronto the win.
The Leafs were obliterated in chances, mostly due to that blowout third period. It was 22-15 overall, and a huge 21-8 at ES. Close chances weren't a whole lot better, with Boston taking those, 11-5.
A summary of the scoring chances:
Status |
Overall |
ES |
Team |
Toronto |
Boston |
Toronto |
Boston |
1 |
5 |
8 |
3 |
8 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
8 |
0 |
7 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Total |
15 |
22 |
8 |
21 |
Details below.
Toronto finally got back to winning ways with former GM Brian Burke and the Calgary Flames in town. The Leafs got the breaks in this one that they hadn't in a while, and managed to hold onto a lead down the stretch for the win.
The first period was pretty dull affair, with just five chances and no goals. An early marker in the second put Toronto ahead, and they could have added to it, with a number of chances coming after that, but were unable to. Calgary took advantage, seizing the second half of the period, getting the last 4 chances of the frame and an equalizing goal.
The two teams then contested a back and forth third period, exchanging early chances. The Leafs, for the first time in a while, got the bounces they needed, one goal going in off a Calgary skate and Clarkson getting free for a third. Russell pulled one back almost immediately, but the Leafs were able to hold on in the last 12 minutes, holding Calgary to 3 ES chances, while generating two themselves. Russell had a chance late, with the Flame net empty, but put it wide, and the Leafs had a win.
For the first time since the game with Montreal, the Leafs managed to outchance an opponent at ES, winning the first two periods, and holding on in the third. Toronto also narrowly won ES close chances, 8-7.
A summary of the scoring chances:
Status |
Overall |
ES |
Team |
Toronto |
Calgary |
Toronto |
Calgary |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
7 |
5 |
6 |
Total |
12 |
13 |
12 |
11 |
Details below.