No offence and your opinion is noted but this post seems a little light on facts. Rielly on the PK - takes time and experience to get good, that's a valid point absolutely. Other than that, you seem to be saying stats be damned, Rielly is better than Gardner because, well because that's the way you see it.
As far as "cognitive psychology" goes, the eye-test has been discussed again and again so not going to start with that all over again, if you choose to value your eye-test over any stats that don't agree with you, that is your privilege.
Look, another person who seem to spend more time telling other people what they think or do rather than actually present viable arguments. You can stereotype me and dismiss me all you want, it just shows that you are unable to actually counter my arguments.
Babcock said that he wants Rielly and Gardiner on separate pairings in pre-season/early season. Should be on one of the interview videos somewhere.
I know Rielly has not played the PK before, but the discussion is on who is better currently. That Rielly is new to the PK and his struggles is expected doesn't change that. Is it more understandable? Sure. But you said yourself that he'll be better with time, but the discussion was not on potential (where everyone agrees), it was on current ability.
As for "cognitive psychology", we are discussing what has been a scientifically established fact for 50 years. I'm not sure trying to dismiss it strengthens your cause here, it just comes across as ignorant.
Yeah, we are absolutely going to close thread just because you stated your opinion.
Totes, I
am ignorant of advanced stats - so I imagine I come off that way, just as you come off as a sheep. But I'm unintentionally picking stuff up - it's all scary and new (And unnecessary for fans and media). So I reached out yesterday to Rob Vollman, a hockey analytic expert who offers services to teams and who's contributed on TV (Such as ESPN)/Radio and an author of several books on the subject about this very topic.
I've learned a few things also, and maybe you will too. I learned that most people who work with statistics as a profession think fans and media needs to either get more educated or shut up about them, that they are often misrepresented as infallibles while at best they are a suggestion, and only within context.
I learned that fenwick close is the most accurate statistic for possession, and possession is awesome, and Gardiner is awesome at possession... but it's what is done with possession that makes it awesome - possession itself needs context in combination with other factors. The line of thought is that more possession leads to more shots, more shots lead to more goals, more goals to more wins, right?
Gardiner has a 37% Sthr% (The percentage of his shots that actually get on goal). Rielly's is over 40%. For a comparable I'll use Phaneuf (a #2 or#3 D), his is a touch over 43%, and a #1 like Duncan Keith is 43.7%. The context to this is that Rielly has more points, meaning Gardiners possession don't matter because he gets his shot on net with much less success, within the same context he's also a minus player with less overall points. This all translates to someone who is less effective on the ice. Someone who's possession, while fancy, isn't all that effective.
Just for the giggles there is ioSV% (Teams save-percentage when a player is on the ice in close game situations), Rielly's is
93.2% Gardiner is 91.9%. Dion's was 91.5%. Meaning that in close game situations we are safer with Rielly on the ice over the other two, which isn't something you that should hold true if Jake was a defensive god.
But yes, Gardiner has a FF% of 56.5%, Rielly's is 45.7% and someone like Keith is 51.1%. Pretty fancy, but what does it matter if his possession isn't leading to points or wins. An argument of possession on it's own holds no water, this is backed by the analytics community as well as the betting community.
Oh, and I also found that the article that was put out praising Gardiner as a defensive stud, their source has been bashed and called out because of the exact reasons I'm talking about, not providing context, which than makes people believe something that isn't true.
As far as Vollman goes, I asked this:
"I am not familiar with "Advanced Stats" myself, and while I appreciate what they can tell us, I came across a couple articles published in the Toronto star about Jake Gardiner, stating because of his advanced stats he was a #1 defenseman.
If possible, could you give me your opinion on which, Gardiner or Rielly, is the better defenseman? I'm hearing this is because Gardiner has good possession stats, yet Rielly sees more even-strength ice time, faces tougher competition and has a higher percentage of defensive-zone face offs. Rielly is also more "stable" in the defensive zone; board work, gap control, covering his man ect"
He replied with this;
"Based on your last paragraph, it sounds like you have a good understand of the argument for each player. I'd also add the fact that Gardiner doesn't kill penalties."
I can provide his Email in private if you'd like to challenge it.