For the third time in four seasons, Mats Sundin has returned to the Maple Leafs after a serious mid-season injury and questions arise regarding his influence on the team. Based on anecdotal evidence – the 2002 Playoffs and November 2006 – it seems as if the Leafs do worse when their captain dresses:
2002 Playoffs Arm Injury
Last Five Games Before the Injury (4/12 to 4/23):
Record: 4-1-0 (8 pts)
Points per Game: 1.60 ppg
Goals Scored per Game (for – against): 3.20 – 2.20
Shots on Goal per Game (for – against): 29.2 – 29.8
Power Play: 12.5% (3 – 24)
Mats Sundin Productivity: 2 G – 5 A – 7 Pts – +6 – 12 Shots
Mats Sundin’s Absence (4/24 to 5/16):
Record: 7-5-0 (14 pts)
Points per Game: 1.17 ppg
Goals Scored per Game (for – against): 2.83 – 2.75
Shots on Goal per Game (for – against): 28.8 – 28.4
Power Play: 21.5% (11 – 51)
Mats Sundin’s Return (5/19 to 5/28):
Record: 1-4-0 (2 pts)
Points per Game: 0.4 ppg
Goals Scored per Game (for – against): 0.80 – 1.80
Shots on Goal per Game (for – against): 26.8 – 25.4
Power Play: 15.0% (3 – 20)
Mats Sundin Productivity: 1 G – 3 A – 4 Pts – +1 – 13 Shots
2005 Eye Injury
Injury Occurred During Season Opener (10/05):
Record: 0-0-1 (1 pt)
Points per Game: 1.00 ppg
Goals Scored per Game (for – against): 2.00 – 2.00
Shots on Goal per Game (for – against): 25.0 – 23.0
Power Play: 11.1% (1 – 11)
Mats Sundin Productivity: 2:53 minutes of ice time
Mats Sundin’s Absence (10/08 to 11/03):
Record: 6-5-1 (13 pts)
Points per Game: 1.08 ppg
Goals Scored per Game (for – against): 3.58 – 3.50
Shots on Goal per Game (for – against): 26.33 – 32.67
Power Play: 27.0% (20 – 74)
Mats Sundin’s Return (11/05 to 11/12):
Record: 3-2-0 (6 pts)
Points per Game: 1.20 ppg
Goals Scored per Game (for – against): 4.20 – 4.20
Shots on Goal per Game (for – against): 28.60 – 32.80
Power Play: 23.5% (8 – 34)
Mats Sundin Productivity: 2 G – 5 A – 7 Pts – E – 15 Shots
2006 Elbow Injury
Last Five Games Before the Injury (10/30 to 11/6):
Record: 4-1-0 (8 pts)
Points per Game: 1.60 ppg
Goals Scored per Game (for – against): 3.60 – 2.00
Shots on Goal per Game (for – against): 28.2 – 34.4
Power Play: 21.4% (6 – 28)
Mats Sundin Productivity: 3 G – 6 A – 9 Pts – +1 – 19 Shots
Mats Sundin’s Absence (11/09 to 11/24):
Record: 4-2-1 (9 pts)
Points per Game: 1.29 ppg
Goals Scored per Game (for – against): 4.00 – 2.43
Shots on Goal per Game (for – against): 33.57 – 29.29
Power Play: 33.3% (12 – 36)
Mats Sundin’s Return (11/26 to 12/2):
Record: 0-4-1 (1 pt)
Points per Game: 0.25 ppg
Goals Scored per Game (for – against): 1.25 – 3.75
Shots on Goal per Game (for – against): 37.25 – 24.50
Power Play: 8.0% (2 – 25)
Mats Sundin Productivity: 2 G – 0 A – 2 Pts – -3 – 23 Shots
Sundin’s Value to Toronto: Does Mats Sundin make a positive contribution to the Leafs? Despite the recent losing streak, I think the answer is yes. This question can be divided into two issues, which I think can be answered by coaching and the team’s character.
Improved Performance During Sundin’s Absence: Adversity motivates the Toronto Maple Leafs to improve their intensity and focus. This is a strategy that other coaches can use to inspire teams to play harder, together, and smarter. In the past two seasons, the team has bettered their defensive numbers, in terms of goals and shots against. The offensive numbers decline but this is because the Leafs have made the games tighter and more conservative. The team improves its focus, making the most of power-play chances. Combating adversity is a button that Toronto coaches and alternate captains have been able to press to lift team performance.
Play After Sundin Returns: Mats Sundin is still the Leaf’s most skilled offensive player and as he goes, so does the team’s offence. When the team has not played well offensively, Sundin has still been able to get shots on goal and score his usual percentage of the team’s points. But there seems to be a let-up in intensity, as defensive numbers fall. Shots by both teams increase, perhaps indicating that the games have become more wide open. The Leaf’s power-play execution falls, which I think can be attributed to an over-reliance on Sundin and a drop in team chemistry caused by suddenly inserting someone who plays a great deal of ice time into the lineup.
Summary: The statistics – provided by ESPN.com – and analysis are too superficial to provide a concrete answer. First of all, Sundin doesn’t affect the team as much as the disruption caused by his absence does. The team is 1-2 in the first game after the injury but has been able to turn things around into a winning record.
Sundin’s first game back was likewise disruptive as the team went 1-2 despite riding winning streaks at the time. The adversity motivational tactic helps players raise their levels of focus and intensity and they seem to drop after Sundin returns. Also, each player was required to do more while Sundin was away, increasing team fatigue levels (so the team may have started losing games whether Sundin had returned or not).
Given that the coaches handled the absence of the team’s key player well, they could probably do more to prepare for his return. Paul Maurice stuck Sundin on the third line whereas Pat Quinn had returned him to his usual place on the first line. Neither tactical strategy was successful in 2005 or 2006 so it suggests that a mental training strategy would be necessary.
Losing the leading scorer was initially challenging for a team that I am coaching as every player felt the responsibility to replace the missing contribution themselves. This inconsistent performance was followed by a realization that the team was in a deep hole. That challenge – combined with a strategy of breaking up team goals into smaller, achievable ones – permitted the team to play better and come together as a team. When the key player returns, positive reinforcement and a reminder of team tactics are necessary.
The Toronto Maple Leafs need Mats Sundin. When he returns from injury, his performance is high (whether the team does well or not). During his absences, he likely continues to lead, motivating the team by modeling the way and creating a positive atmosphere. The responsibility falls to the team’s management to mitigate the disruption caused by his return and maintain the team’s performance.