The Toronto Maple Leafs have only won one postseason series in 19 years. In fact, the team’s best players have a collective reputation for not showing up when it counts the most. They are great during the regular season but not so great during the playoffs.
A few days ago, we looked at what we called old-school measures to see which player in the Maple Leafs’ Core Five – John Tavares, Auston Matthews, Mitch Marner, William Nylander, and Morgan Rielly – had played the best over the past six postseasons. In this post, we will look at more than their goals, assists, points, and plus/minus ratings. We’ll look at their advanced analytics over these postseasons to suggest how they actually performed analytically over the past six postseasons.
On Ice Five-on-Five Goals-For
| Name | Games Played | Goals For | Per Game |
| Rielly | 44 | 35 | 0.80 |
| Marner | 44 | 30 | 0.68 |
| Matthews | 44 | 26 | 0.59 |
| Nylander | 44 | 25 | 0.57 |
| Tavares | 31 | 13 | 0.42 |
In this measurement, Rielly picks up where he left off with the old-school stats. At five-on-five, he generated the most goals and the most goals per game in the playoffs. His Goals For per game were down about 15 percent from the regular season. However, because scoring is usually lower in the postseason that makes sense.
Related: 10 Best 7th Round Picks Since 2005
Marner was on the ice for the second most goals at five-on-five. His Goals For per game dropped by 20 percent, to 0.68 per game in the playoffs from 0.85 in the regular season.
Matthews saw the biggest drop of any player in his on-ice five-on-five Goals For from 1.00 in the regular season to 0.59 per game in the playoffs. That is a 40 percent drop in production.
Nylander’s Goals For per game were about the same as Matthews’. His drop in Goals For per game was half of what Matthews was, at about 20 percent.
While Tavares was on the ice for the fewest Goals For at five-on-five, his Goals For per game matched Nylander’s. As well, the drop in his production from the regular season was on par with Rielly’s 15% decline.
On Ice Five-on-Five Expected Goals For
| Name | Games Played | Expected Goals For | Per Game |
| Rielly | 44 | 38 | 0.86 |
| Matthews | 44 | 36 | 0.82 |
| Marner | 44 | 32 | 0.73 |
| Tavares | 31 | 20 | 0.65 |
| Nylander | 44 | 28 | 0.64 |
Rielly’s Expected Goals per game in the playoffs were slightly better (0.86) than it was in the regular season (0.84). While Matthews’ actual Goals For per game saw a massive drop of 40 percent, his Expected Goals statistic was almost the same in the postseason as it was in the regular season (0.84 in the regular season, 0.82 in the postseason).
Marner saw a drop of about 15 percent in his Expected Goals For in the playoffs compared to the regular season. Tavares saw a .005, or a seven percent drop in his Expected Goals For per game in the postseason, and Nylander saw a similar drop in Expected Goals per game as Tavares at .004.
On Ice Five-on-Five High Danger Chances For
| Name | Games Played | High Danger Chances For | Per Game |
| Rielly | 44 | 175 | 3.98 |
| Matthews | 44 | 161 | 3.66 |
| Marner | 44 | 154 | 3.50 |
| Tavares | 31 | 103 | 3.32 |
| Nylander | 44 | 131 | 2.98 |
Rielly led the team in producing high-danger chances per game and did so at a better rate (3.98 per game) than he did in the regular season. While Matthews had the second-best high-danger chances per game of the Core Five, he produced those chances at a lower rate (3.66 per game) than he did in the regular season (3.91).
Related: Maple Leafs Commentary: Austin Matthews By the Eye Test
Marner was on the ice for more high-danger chances per game in the postseason (3.50) than he was in the regular season (3.30). Tavares produced high-danger scoring chances at about the same rate in the playoffs (3.32) that he did in the regular season (3.33). Nylander was on the ice for the fewest high-danger chances per game (2.98) in the postseason, down from 3.16 in the regular season.
Creating Offence: The Analytical Measures
When it came to creating offence in the postseason, the underlying stats backed up the old-school numbers. Rielly was the best of the Core Five players at creating offence. He was number one in all three categories and was better in Expected Goals For and High-Danger Scoring Chances For in the postseason than in the regular season.
While Matthews was second among the five players in two of the three categories, he was worse in all of them than he was during the regular season. Marner was better at creating high-danger chances in the playoffs than he was in the regular season. He was worse at capitalizing on them, however.
Related: Brett Lindros: A Promising Career Cut Short
By these three stats, Nylander and Tavares were not on the same level as the other three players at creating offence.
Defensive Analytics
Five-on-Five Goals Against
| Name | Games Played | Goals Against | Per Game |
| Marner | 44 | 25 | 0.57 |
| Matthews | 44 | 27 | 0.61 |
| Tavares | 31 | 21 | 0.68 |
| Nylander | 44 | 31 | 0.70 |
| Rielly | 44 | 33 | 0.75 |
Marner comes out on top of the first defensive category allowing 0.57 Goals Against per game when he was on the ice at five-on-five. That was slightly better than his 0.61 per game in the regular season. Matthews’ 0.61 Goals Against per game was slightly better than his 0.65 Goals Against per game in the regular season, and Tavares’ 0.68 Goals Against per game was exactly the same as it was in the regular season.
Nylander was the only player with a worse Goals Against per game in the playoffs (0.70) than he had in the regular season (0.59). [Note: His 0.59 Goals Against was the best of the Core Five players over the past six years in the regular season.]
Surprisingly (maybe not to some), the only defenseman of the Core Five had the worst Goals Against per game at 0.75, which was still better than his 0.80 Goals Against per game in the regular season.
Five-On-Five Expected Goals
| Name | Games Played | Expected Goals Against | Per Game |
| Marner | 44 | 25 | 0.57 |
| Nylander | 44 | 26 | 0.59 |
| Matthews | 44 | 27 | 0.61 |
| Tavares | 31 | 19 | 0.61 |
| Rielly | 44 | 33 | 0.75 |
Once again, Marner leads in a defensive category. Coincidently his 0.57 Expected Goals Against per game was identical to what it was in the regular season. It was also the best Expected Goals Against any of the Core Five players had in the regular season over the past six years.
Nylander once again shows he is better defensively than most fans give him credit for. His 0.59 Expected Goals Against is on par with his regular season numbers (0.58) and is right behind Marner’s.
Related: Maple Leafs News & Rumors: Samsonov, Gio, Marner & Knies
Four of the five core players were extremely close in Expected Goals Against per game with only 0.04 goals separating them. Matthews and Tavares share third place in this category at 0.61 and are close to the same as their regular season numbers (Tavares 0.60, Matthews 0.64).
Rielly had exactly the same Expected Goals Against per game (0.75) as he did Goals Against per game. He also posted the same 0.80 Goals Against per game in the regular season, which was the worst of the Core Five players in both the regular season and playoffs.
Five-On-Five High-Danger Chances Against
| Name | Games Played | High-Danger Chances Against | Per Game |
| Marner | 44 | 103 | 2.34 |
| Nylander | 44 | 119 | 2.70 |
| Matthews | 44 | 122 | 2.77 |
| Tavares | 31 | 94 | 3.03 |
| Rielly | 44 | 141 | 3.20 |
In this category, Marner separates himself from the other four. Marner’s 2.53 High-Danger Chances Against per game was the best of the Core Five in the regular season. He bettered that by almost 10 percent with 2.34 High-Danger Chances Against per game in the playoffs.
Nylander finds himself in second place in this category as well at 2.70 High-Danger Scoring Chances Against per game. It is slightly higher than his regular season number, which is 2.55. Matthews shows a slight improvement in this category with a 2.77 per-game number compared to 2.80 in the regular season, and Tavares’ 3.03 High-Danger Chances Against per game is considerably higher than his 2.68 in the regular season.
Once again Rielly pulls up the rear in this category with a not very pleasing 3.20 per game number. That said, it is actually much better than his regular season High-Danger Scoring Chances Against per game of 3.58.
Offence and Defence
If we combine the offence with the defence we get the following:
| Player | GF/GA | Goals For % | XGF/ XGA | Expected Goals For % | HDCF/HDCA | High Dangers Chances % | Overall % |
| Marner | 30/21 | 58.8% | 32/21 | 56.1% | 154/103 | 59.9% | 58.3% |
| Rielly | 35/25 | 58.3% | 38/33 | 53.5% | 175/141 | 55.4% | 55.7% |
| Matthews | 26/27 | 49.1% | 36/27 | 57.1% | 161/122 | 56.8% | 54.3% |
| Nylander | 25/31 | 44.6% | 28/26 | 51.9% | 131/119 | 52.4% | 49.6% |
| Tavares | 13/21 | 38.2% | 20/19 | 51.3% | 103/94 | 52.3% | 47.3% |
The Analytics Bottom Line
While Marner was second in Goals For, third in Expected Goals For and third in High-Danger Chances For he was first in all three “Against” categories. His average percentage of 58.3 percent was the best of the five players.
Rielly’s numbers were really interesting when you consider he is a defenseman. He was first in all the offensive categories and last in all the defensive categories. His positive effect offensively outshone his negative effect defensively and he finished with the second-highest overall percentage with 55.7 percent.
Matthews was either second or third in all six categories, be it offence or defence. Overall his 54.3 percent placed him third behind Marner and Rielly. What hurt Matthews was his 26 Goals For and his 27 Goals Against, which gave him a negative 49.1 percent in goals.
Related: Remembering Maple Leafs Tough Guy Jim Dorey
Analytically, Nylander came in at a slightly negative 49.6 percent. He was strong defensively in Expected Goals Against and High-Danger Chances Against. His overall percentage was hurt by his 44.6 percent Goals For Percentage (25 Goals For/31 Goals Against). He was the worst of the five players for Expected Goals For and High-Danger Chances For.
As he did in the old-school statistics, Tavares was once again last in the analytics. His atrocious 38.2 percent in Goals For and Against (13 for/21 against) really brought his numbers down.
Combined Summary of Old-School and Analytic Measures
If we didn’t have advanced analytics to judge things, using the old-school measurement of goals, assists, points, and plus/minus, Morgan Rielly would be the best playoff performer of the Core Five hands down. Even with his not-so-pretty defensive numbers in the underlying statistics, he was still second overall analytically because of his great offensive statistics.
Despite only scoring nine goals, Marner’s 34 assists made him the only player to come close to scoring at a point-a-game pace. He was also one of only two of the players to end up as a positive with plus-8, three behind Rielly. Where Marner shone is in the analytical measures. He was strong offensively and led the group defensively.
Related: 7 Cool Things About Jarome Iginla: Calgary Flames Hall of Famer
Matthews comes in a disappointing third both old-school and analytically. He did lead the group in goals scored with 18 but the rest of his game was not as good overall as Rielly’s or Marner’s.
Nylander did score 16 goals, which was the second most on the team, but he was on for more goals against than he was for in all situations and at five-on-five. Tavares was by far the worst performer by any measurement.
[Note: I want to thank long-time Maple Leafs’ fan Stan Smith for collaborating with me on this post. Stan’s Facebook profile can be found here.]