NHL Inbox: Leafs' contention window? Rangers' playoff case? Best fancy stats?

Welcome to NHL Inbox, a monthly forum in which readers can ask me anything hockey-related, and I try my best to deliver an insightful answer.

Note: the questions below were lightly edited for clarity and brevity.

Jeff M. asks: Has the Maple Leafs' Stanley Cup window closed? They still don't have a proven No. 1 goalie or No. 1 defenseman, and their No. 1 forward is injury-prone. Would it not be better to rebuild on the fly and trade Auston Matthews now? For instance, L.A. needs scoring and a superstar. Could you possibly get Quinton Byfield and Brandt Clarke for Matthews? Building around Joseph Woll, Clarke, Matthew Knies, and Byfield would give the Leafs a solid base and allow them to contend when Florida's window starts to close.

My knee-jerk reaction to this question: Uh, is Matthews suddenly underrated?

No player has scored more total goals or goals per game than Matthews since his rookie season in 2016-17. The Leafs captain has produced night after night over a massive 629-game sample, recording a whopping 401 goals (Leon Draisaitl is second with 378) for 0.64 per game (Kirill Kaprizov, 0.58).

I get the skepticism. Matthews, who turns 28 next week, always seems to be dealing with an injury or ailment. Sometimes the issue keeps him out of the lineup; other times it limits his effectiveness. Not ideal. Also, famously, his resume lacks a deep playoff run. Despite all of this, I don't think the overall concern is anywhere near the "trade a consensus top-five NHLer" threshold.

(While I wouldn't trade Matthews, I do like Jeff's creativity in sending the Arizona native to a big market close to home and getting two studs in return.)

The Cup window's open as long as Matthews and William Nylander remain ultra productive and the blue line-goalie combo is a strong suit. So, three to four years?

Toronto isn't an inner-circle Cup contender, though, and may never be in the Matthews era (two series wins in nine years is ample evidence). At the same time, I'm curious to see how things go early in the post-Mitch Marner era. I think sprinkling Marner's cap dollars throughout the forward group (versus finding one player to replace Marner) was a perfectly reasonable approach. Plus, the Leafs are, for once, entering a season with cap space to play with.

Rob F. asks: What's the ideal salary pyramid for a contending NHL team? Top pay for a handful of stars and minimum wage for the third and fourth lines? Or a more balanced share? And which teams would you say match the ideal?

Fun question.

A lot depends on the quality and quantity of high-end talent.

If you're a general manager lucky enough to have one or two of the top-10 players in the world (Edmonton, Colorado), you pay market rate or higher to keep the cornerstones happy, then fill out the rest of the roster. Everything flows downstream from superstars in a league that's more star-centric than ever.

If you have three or four star-caliber players (Toronto prior to Marner's departure, Tampa Bay), you must be careful not to overcommit to all of them. Four big-money contracts will severely limit flexibility (again, see: Toronto).

GMs tend to get themselves in trouble further down the lineup. The good ones are cutthroat with role players, refusing to hand over term to bottom-six forwards and third-pair defensemen. Pierre Engvall (seven years, $21 million) and Tanner Jeannot (five years, $17 million) come to mind as poor bets for the Islanders and Bruins, respectively. Why devote valuable cap space to a flawed veteran when a younger, cheaper option will present itself within months?

Carolina, Colorado, Dallas, and Tampa Bay are contenders with clean books.

GMs need to identify their long-term core early in the team-building process and then work to quickly sign those core pieces to long-term extensions. New Jersey and Utah are sparkling examples: Jack Hughes, Nico Hischier, Clayton Keller, and Dylan Guenther are all on sweetheart deals because management leaped at the chance to sign burgeoning stars to lengthy second contracts.

There will always be whiffs on young players. But the risk associated with signing a promising yet inexperienced talent to a long-term deal is fairly low. Take, for instance, 22-year-old Jackson Blake, who's appeared in just 81 total NHL games. If his eight-year, $45-million contract (starting in 2026-27) doesn't pan out in Carolina, surely another franchise will jump at the chance to "fix" the young forward with a change-of-scenery trade.

Charles S. asks: I've been watching the NHL for decades but have never been able to find an answer to this question: When both teams are simultaneously called for minor penalties, how do the referees decide if play will resume four-on-four or five-on-five? Is this an arbitrary, in-the-moment decision, or one based on a rule such as whether the penalties were assessed before or after the whistle?

According to the official NHL rulebook, there are three scenarios in which play is supposed to resume four-on-four after coincidental penalties.

Scenario 1

• Team A: Player assessed minor penalty and misconduct
• Team B: Player assessed minor

Scenario 2

• Team A: Player assessed minor and misconduct
• Team B: Player assessed minor and misconduct

Scenario 3

• Team A: Player assessed minor, teammate assessed misconduct
• Team B: Player assessed minor, teammate assessed misconduct

The through line here is the misconduct. Without one, play resumes five-on-five.

Joe G. asks: As a (mostly) long-suffering New York Rangers fan, is there any hope this team can bounce back and make the playoffs in 2025-26? The loss of Chris Kreider doesn't bother me as much as the fact that I have no idea what to expect from Mika Zibanejad and Alexis Lafreniere. Outside of Artemi Panarin, where is all the scoring coming from? Talk me off the ledge.

Yes, there's hope. In fact, I pegged the Rangers as a "probable playoff team" in my annual tiering of all 32 clubs. New York's floor remains pretty high after an aggressive eight-month retooling effort executed by GM Chris Drury.

Drama, roster turnover, and malaise filled the Rangers' 2024-25 season, yet they finished with a respectable 85 points. With stability restored, an Adam Fox bounce-back season coming, and Mike Sullivan's arrival providing the classic new-coach bump, the 2025-26 team is primed for 90-100 points.

Of course, claiming a playoff spot is never as simple as hitting a specific point total. If we assume Carolina, New Jersey, and Washington grab the Metropolitan Division seeds again, the Rangers are left to battle with Columbus and three to four Atlantic squads for the two Eastern Conference wild-card spots. Put another way, the postseason is within grasp but not guaranteed.

You're right, Joe: Scoring will likely be an issue. The forward group is underwhelming, and its key pieces are getting up there in age - Panarin turns 34 in October, and J.T. Miller, Vincent Trocheck, and Zibanejad are all 32. As for expectations for Zibanejad, he is what he is at this point: a slow, unreliable five-on-five producer whose heavy shot still scares goalies on the power play.

All of that said, star goalie Igor Shesterkin and a revamped blue line (Fox and Braden Schneider plus four relative newcomers, most notably shutdown stud Vladislav Gavrikov) should make up for the average attack. In his introductory press conference, Sullivan emphasized winning through stifling team defense, and the Rangers have the defensive talent to keep pucks out of their net.

Blair B. asks: What do you feel is the most important stat (or two) you would review to evaluate a player's ability? We have so many stats now - WAR, saves above replacement, Corsi, Fenwick - but which ones matter the most?

Each position is so unique, so let's break this down into three parts.

Forward: Corsi (or shot attempt differential) has become less useful over the years as the NHL has moved from obsessing over shots on goal to obsessing over grade A scoring chances. To gauge a forward's underlying contributions, I first check their five-on-five expected goals numbers. xG does a far better job capturing what happens when a player's on the ice than Corsi, plus-minus, or in some cases even points. The object of the game is to score more goals than the other team. Having a high expected goals share should, over time, lead to a positive goal differential, which, in turn, naturally leads to wins.

Defenseman: The granular metrics pumped out by Sportlogiq are extremely helpful. You can start to grasp a blue-liner's true impact on the defensive side of the puck by looking at who consistently ranks highly in loose-puck recoveries, puck-battle wins, blocked passes, stick checks, defensive-zone denials, and the like. For instance, the eye test tells us Miro Heiskanen is an elite defensive player, and his per-game rankings in those categories confirm it (first in D-zone denials, fourth in loose-puck recoveries, and ninth in blocked passes last season). We now have nuanced data to draw conclusions from.

Goalie: I never reference goals-against average in my coverage (it's a team stat, not a goalie stat!). Save percentage is OK. However, goals saved above expected is a major upgrade on both because it pinpoints the difference between the goalie's performance and the defensive environment. It's important to know the quality of shots and chances he's facing. The result: The SV% leaderboard is filled with goalies on good teams, whereas the GSAE leaderboard is filled with goalies playing well, regardless of team success.

What do you want to know, hockey fans?

There are three ways to submit a question for future NHL Inbox editions:

• Comment on this article in theScore app
• Email senior NHL writer John Matisz at [email protected]
• Send John a message on Twitter/X (@matiszjohn)