If that was all there was then I would probably be writing about something else but we are given more quotes from Leiweke, "There are players we have in our organization today whose numbers are off the chart good and whose character is just terrible. I don't care how good your numbers are, if you have bad character, you are doomed for failure."

What did he just say? Some of his players, ones with great analytics, have terrible characters? Oh-no! What was he thinking?

If Nonis is trying to move these bad eggs off onto other teams then his comment will be triggering alarm bells for the other 29 GM's. Why would he do this? Why would he spend so much time and money to gain a competitive advantage only to undercut it by announcing that some of his best players are not really good for the team?

Even TSN's Scott Cullen jokingly tweeted "Someone on the Leafs has analytics numbers that are off-the-charts good?"

I am convinced that comments made like that only work against all the good the Leafs are trying to do and can only suggest some fatherly advice taken from Vito Corleone to son Santino in The Godfather, "Never tell anybody outside the family what you're thinking again."

Leiweke goes on, "We are very convinced analytics make us smarter. We are very convinced that analytics will reduce our mistakes. We are convinced that analytics at the end of the day will be key to getting this team back on track. But that said they will never ever replace our ability to determine one's character and passion for the game of hockey. You have to be good at both, not just one."

He previously admitted that the team was wrong in their past non-stat assessments of some players still on the team and now he indicates that they have to be good at both evaluations.

So how do the analytical stats change the "you have to watch them" test? The answer is that they don't.

Is it implied that they got better in the eye test when they replaced their assistant coaches and assistant GM's this summer? The proof of that will only be revealed as the future games are played out.

In Scott Cullen's analysis of the Leafs he points out that they really lost their way in the last 20 games of the 2013-14 season. The fact is that the team was basically the same from the start to the end of the season with the same poor possession stats throughout and they were in the hunt for the playoffs.

We are kidding ourselves if we believe that Dave Bolland, Jerry D'Amigo, Tim Gleason, Carl Gunnarsson, Nikolai Kulemin, Drew MacIntyre, Jay McClement, Paul Ranger and Mason Raymond, all players that were removed from the Leaf roster this summer, must have been some of those bad character guys.

The question remains, how did the Leafs get better in the eye test?

I applaud them for trying to improve and I am encouraged that they will find some value using advanced stats. Even armed with a new set of analytical statistics it seems like the Leafs are making the same mistakes again.