Proposal: Anaheim - Toronto

[lindholmie]

haha so you were serious about Manson >> Rielly? ok, sounds good, you guys might as well deal Lindholm then, you won't need him

Of course I wasn't. I was clearly mocking you for posting the chart as proof that gardiner was better than Fower. Sure his chart looks prettier. Meanwhile Fower led his team to the Jennings with 5 regulars 24 years and younger. And gardiner was behind Reilly who led them to last place

 

[Randy Randerson]

Of course I wasn't. I was clearly mocking you for posting the chart as proof that gardiner was better than Fower. Sure his chart looks prettier. Meanwhile Fower led his team to the Jennings with 5 regulars 24 years and younger. And gardiner was behind Reilly who led them to last place

Well hey, since we're talking about context, should we also mention that the Leafs were icing a team that probably wasn't better than their AHL lineup infront of one of the worst goaltending combinations in the league?

My point wasn't that Gardiner is better than Fowler, it was that they're comparable, in response to someone else saying that Fowler>>Gardiner and its not close. For the record, I think they're both good second pairing guys

 

[Albus Dumbledore]

The guy says Gardiner is better at everything? Fowlers plays Pk and Gardiner doesnt ... did i miss something?

no need for gardiner to play pk though. Just cause gardiner doesnt pk doesnt make him bad at it, he could be good he could be bad but we dont know cause thats not how the coach wants him deployed.

 

[Mr Hockey*]

no need for gardiner to play pk though. Just cause gardiner doesnt pk doesnt make him bad at it, he could be good he could be bad but we dont know cause thats not how the coach wants him deployed.

Its seems you are trying tovpush me into a debate?

Who is Gardiner and who is Fowler?


A

• GP - 79
• ATOI - 20:37
• D-Z% - 48%
• PK TOI - 0:20
• PP TOI - 2:19
• 7 gls - 24 assists

B

• GP - 69
• ATOI - 22:47
• D-Z% - 54%
• PK TOI - 2:10
• PP TOI - 2:59
• 5 gls - 23 assists

 

[Albus Dumbledore]

A is obviously gardiner
i fail to see the point

 

[Mr Hockey*]

A is obviously gardiner
i fail to see the point

my point? its all good

 

[Vipers31]

no need for gardiner to play pk though. Just cause gardiner doesnt pk doesnt make him bad at it, he could be good he could be bad but we dont know cause thats not how the coach wants him deployed.

It's not like Gardiner is playing as many minutes as he could handle, unless he has terrible fitness issues. If he isn't able to earn the coach's trust to take one minute of PK TOI away from Matt Hunwick, or any time away from the rest of a group that was average at PK'ing overall, yeah, he's not getting a benefit of the doubt that he's actually a hidden gem in that area.

 

[Albus Dumbledore]

my point? its all good

k, good job man. I wasnt pushing for a debate, but just cause a player doesnt pk doesnt make them bad at pking necessarily. Not even saying one is better then the other either.

 

[Albus Dumbledore]

It's not like Gardiner is playing as many minutes as he could handle, unless he has terrible fitness issues. If he isn't able to earn the coach's trust to take one minute of PK TOI away from Matt Hunwick, or any time away from the rest of a group that was average at PK'ing overall, yeah, he's not getting a benefit of the doubt that he's actually a hidden gem in that area.

Babcock played him like he wanted, you cant say for certain if hes bad or not, just cause he doesnt really do it. I posted a bunch of quality dman above not really pking does that make them bad pkers too? of course it doesnt.

 

[Vipers31]

Babcock played him like he wanted, you cant say for certain if hes bad or not, just cause he doesnt really do it. I posted a bunch of quality dman above not really pking does that make them bad pkers too? of course it doesnt.

Guys like Faulk or OEL are working at their capacity or close, so it makes sense to manage their minutes - that's a huge difference to a guy like Gardiner, who could easily handle a few more minutes. And you won't hear many arguments about Klingberg being a particularly good PKer. We could just as well be arguing that we don't know whether some random AHLer isn't actually an all star talent, just because the coach decides to enjoy him in the AHL. Players earn those accolades, they don't get them until proven otherwise. It they don't earn them from their coaches despite more minutes not being a problem, then that's on them.

 

[Albus Dumbledore]

Guys like Faulk or OEL are working at their capacity or close, so it makes sense to manage their minutes - that's a huge difference to a guy like Gardiner, who could easily handle a few more minutes. And you won't hear many arguments about Klingberg being a particularly good PKer. We could just as well be arguing that we don't know whether some random AHLer isn't actually an all star talent, just because the coach decides to enjoy him in the AHL. Players earn those accolades, they don't get them until proven otherwise. It they don't earn them from their coaches despite more minutes not being a problem, then that's on them.

Sounds like a bad case of conjecture
Gardiner was going to play pk over whom exactly?
Rielly, polak, phaneuf or hunwick?
Yeah gards could have played more pk but there were less talented players to do that (hunwick,polak)

And the only options for the pp were gards, phaneuf and rielly. Leading gards to play a lot of ev minutes. But you knew that cause you follow the leafs right?

 

[KaseMeOutside]

This website has jumped the shark when people start saying things like Gardiner is better than Fowler. Get a grip folks.

 

[Atomos2]

This website has jumped the shark when people start saying things like Gardiner is better than Fowler. Get a grip folks.

Uhh, Gardiner is better than Fowler. You mean to tell me Lindholm corsi activists that were arguing so vehemently for the validity of corsi stats are actually gonna flip flop now when the argument doesn't suit their narrative?

 

[diceman934]

Uhh, Gardiner is better than Fowler. You mean to tell me Lindholm corsi activists that were arguing so vehemently for the validity of corsi stats are actually gonna flip flop now when the argument doesn't suit their narrative?

It is mind boggling....

Gardiner is better....why is that so hard to understand? If Fowler was a right shot I would have some interest, but he would be our 3rd best left shot D man and we have at best a limited interest in him.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Fowler is better than Gardiner IMO, but I base that on my feeling that Fowler would perform admirably in a role similar to what Gardiner has for the Leafs. A statistical analysis favors Gardiner quite clearly, so that is just my gut feeling. I don't see Fowler being far ahead though.

As for Gardiner as a PK player. It's actually quite funny because the times I've seen him on the PK, he's been so unorthodox that he surprised opponents. He'd use his supreme mobility to launch quick strikes on puck receivers on the half-boards. It was amusing to see. I don't think it was very translatable to a regular PK role though.

A PK D-man uses a lot less mobility and, most of all, transition ability compared to an ES D-man. More focus is put on the ability to handle forwards in front of the net, and more on positioning and stick work over cover ability.

The only part of Gardiner's game that would translate well to the PK would be his above average stick work. But that's fine. He's still a guy who can fill a 20 minute role and excel in it.

 

[Force951]

Uhh, Gardiner is better than Fowler. You mean to tell me Lindholm corsi activists that were arguing so vehemently for the validity of corsi stats are actually gonna flip flop now when the argument doesn't suit their narrative?

? I don't think most ducks fans have argued that corsi is 100% infallible. Some of its parts are good informational tools, but the way corsi is currently run its a horrible stat (if you can even call it one).

 

[garyturner3]

We should just learn, leafs player are the best and noone comes close, ( And we all wounder why Leafs came last with the best players, best coach, best management, best streetsname, best towles etc etc)

Posts like this are what derails threads FYI. You're not contributing anything with that garbage.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

All of those proposals are horrible for Anaheim. Even the Nylander one.

 

[diceman934]

Fowler is better than Gardiner IMO, but I base that on my feeling that Fowler would perform admirably in a role similar to what Gardiner has for the Leafs. A statistical analysis favors Gardiner quite clearly, so that is just my gut feeling. I don't see Fowler being far ahead though.

As for Gardiner as a PK player. It's actually quite funny because the times I've seen him on the PK, he's been so unorthodox that he surprised opponents. He'd use his supreme mobility to launch quick strikes on puck receivers on the half-boards. It was amusing to see. I don't think it was very translatable to a regular PK role though.

A PK D-man uses a lot less mobility and, most of all, transition ability compared to an ES D-man. More focus is put on the ability to handle forwards in front of the net, and more on positioning and stick work over cover ability.

The only part of Gardiner's game that would translate well to the PK would be his above average stick work. But that's fine. He's still a guy who can fill a 20 minute role and excel in it.

Statistically on a better team he performs worse yet he is better?

 

[Vipers31]

Sounds like a bad case of conjecture
Gardiner was going to play pk over whom exactly?
Rielly, polak, phaneuf or hunwick?
Yeah gards could have played more pk but there were less talented players to do that (hunwick,polak)

And the only options for the pp were gards, phaneuf and rielly. Leading gards to play a lot of ev minutes. But you knew that cause you follow the leafs right?

I follow the Leafs a fair bit. But one wouldn't really need to in order to figure out that "just because his coach doesn't like using him over all the other guys, who aren't all PKing experts and are part of an average PK overall, that's not saying he's not good at it, he might be amazing" is dreadful logic. What's next? Is Rich Clune's lack of PP time not allowing us to discount the possibility that he's actually really good on the PP? You aren't a good PKer "by default until proven otherwise". It's a label you earn. You don't earn it over being one of the last options your coach chooses despite being physically able to handle the additional workload. This really isn't a tough concept.

 

[Vipers31]

Statistically on a better team he performs worse yet he is better?

Yes. Stats are a crappy translation of a complex game, those kinds of incongruencies aren't too uncommon, nor are they surprising when understanding limitations of these stats.

And it's only partially worse in terms of these statistics, but some creative minds just decided that shot-attempt-differential numbers for everyone on the ice while a certain player is on mean more than individual zone-exit stats, for example, where Fowler is among the league's elite. But yeah, I too would care much more about who's badly selected shot attempt gets immediately blocked and never comes close to fulfilling hockey's actual goal of scoring.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Statistically on a better team he performs worse yet he is better?

It's as simple as that the statistics we have give us indications, not a universal truth. Gardiner performs better relative to his team playing a smaller role on a worse team, sure. At least until we get better tools to dive into specific cases. But that does not necessarily mean that he would perform better in Fowler's role, or that Fowler couldn't match him if he stepped into Gardiner's shoes.

You know me, I like using statistical analysis. But I also believe that one should be careful to not use the stats as a sign of something more than they are.

 

[Albus Dumbledore]

I follow the Leafs a fair bit. But one wouldn't really need to in order to figure out that "just because his coach doesn't like using him over all the other guys, who aren't all PKing experts and are part of an average PK overall, that's not saying he's not good at it, he might be amazing" is dreadful logic. What's next? Is Rich Clune's lack of PP time not allowing us to discount the possibility that he's actually really good on the PP? You aren't a good PKer "by default until proven otherwise". It's a label you earn. You don't earn it over being one of the last options your coach chooses despite being physically able to handle the additional workload. This really isn't a tough concept.

Yeah it isn't a tough concept, babs had other players playing pk that aren't capable of playing the pp which gards can. Your making up a lot of what if scenario
For no reason. I'm sure gards could play more pk but babs had him not play it with gards elite shot suppression I guess he would be a bad choice.

 

[Vipers31]

Yeah it isn't a tough concept, babs had other players playing pk that aren't capable of playing the pp which gards can.

Yet again, Gardiner's PP minutes didn't make his workload rule out an extra minute of PK time. It would have been entirely manageable. That excuse just doesn't fly.

Your making up a lot of what if scenario
For no reason. I'm sure gards could play more pk but babs had him not (...)

That's pretty ironic. You're trying to put a quality PK label on Gardiner for an entire "what if" scenario of him even playing such situations. There's no what ifs in my stance of having to earn something by playing in those situations. It's the very opposite of a "what if".

 

[Albus Dumbledore]

Yet again, Gardiner's PP minutes didn't make his workload rule out an extra minute of PK time. It would have been entirely manageable. That excuse just doesn't fly.


That's pretty ironic. You're trying to put a quality PK label on Gardiner for an entire "what if" scenario of him even playing such situations. There's no what ifs in my stance of having to earn something by playing in those situations. It's the very opposite of a "what if".

Never even said gardiner was good at PKing either I don't believe I'm just saying he doesn't play it cause he doesn't need to he plays 20-21 mins a game and 2 and change on the pp, he plays a lot ov ev which he is used at his best playing pk would be a waste since we had dion and polak for much of last season and ofc rielly. Once again he wasn't going to pk over thsee guys you gt that right? And if anything his elite shot suppression would suggest that he would be fine on the pk.