TSN: Jake Gardiner or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Advanced Stats

[LeafsNation75]

Gardiner was lousy tonight defensively...He stinks. He's going to be hard to trade with that contract.

I don't think his contract is that bad and if they want to trade him, I think there will be a team who will take a chance on him.

 

[MapleLeaf]

I honestly think he would be better suited playing as a winger in the NHL. Both Wendel and Gary Leeman were defensemen.

 

[BodaciousBeefBazooka]

He's honestly really bad

 

[Woll Smoth]

Does anyone else think Jake does not think the game as well since his concussion?

He's never been a good decision maker. He just had the "rookie mistake" thing working for him before.

I said it before and I'll say it again: Jake Gardiner is the same player now that he was on day 1 as a Leaf.

 

[Ovate]

He logged the most minutes of any defensemen. The RWs tied him up and scored a goal, that was a good play on their part. He still made a lot of good little plays and consistently got the puck out of our zone (which barely anyone else on the team was doing).

 

[Hockey Talker29]

Great coverage on that goal there.

He won the race to the puck behind the net. Unfortunately, none of his teammates can say the same. Not sure how that goal is his fault.

 

[Duke Silver]

He won the race to the puck behind the net. Unfortunately, none of his teammates can say the same. Not sure how that goal is his fault.

I'm a huge Gardiner fan but he was too concerned with not taking contact and allowed for the Wings player to force a turnover. He needs to be harder on the puck and stop playing scared.

 

[Nithoniniel]

I'm a huge Gardiner fan but he was too concerned with not taking contact and allowed for the Wings player to force a turnover. He needs to be harder on the puck and stop playing scared.

Yeah. That was an example of where those saying he is afraid to take a hit to make a play is absolutely right. He preferred to leave the puck behind in the hopes of support from Dion rather than taking the hit there.

He screwed up there, but it was far from the worst screw up in the game from our defensemen. Rielly and his tape to tape pass to an opponent and Dion making a line change when they are in the middle of a controlled zone entry takes that price.

Still. Players should never be judged based on isolated events. It's the mass of what they can contribute that is important.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

Hockey, especially defense is a game of mistakes. Jake is solid (good Corsi) until he makes a mental gaff or plays soft and the puck ends up in the net.

He is a liability at all times and can't be counted on in a crunch time. I would trade him in a heartbeat.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Hockey, especially defense is a game of mistakes. Jake is solid (good Corsi) until he makes a mental gaff or plays soft and the puck ends up in the net.

He is a liability at all times and can't be counted on in a crunch time. I would trade him in a heartbeat.

He can't be counted on in a crunch time? He's one of the few players we have that actually steps it up then.

And you are not wrong in how you describe him. It's just that having someone who can transition and play that solid between mistakes and soft plays is much more effective than having someone who is never soft and barely make mistakes, but can't transition.

 

[Gallagbi]

I'm a huge Gardiner fan but he was too concerned with not taking contact and allowed for the Wings player to force a turnover. He needs to be harder on the puck and stop playing scared.

He takes the hit and reverses to Phaneuf, who doesn't support him. If anything, he should have completely tried to avoid contact and put the puck somewhere he could skate to.

 

[RLF]

Hockey, especially defense is a game of mistakes. Jake is solid (good Corsi) until he makes a mental gaff or plays soft and the puck ends up in the net.

He is a liability at all times and can't be counted on in a crunch time. I would trade him in a heartbeat.

Bolded -This is exactly what I have been saying for a while.

I have always compared the guy to Mike Green. The Caps gave Green his big contract because he had the ``potential`` to turn around his play without the puck and reduce giveaways. He could skate well, transition well and helped with possession, he also put up big points which helped his team outscore his defensive deficiencies. Green is still soft on the puck, and his play without the puck, although improved, is still not very good. 5 on 5, he is not going to be counted on to keep the puck out of his net by being sound ``defensively``. The hope is, he gets control and moves it out, so he has to defend as little as possible. With the puck, he's an asset, without the puck, not so much, but still better than Gardiner imo.

Enter Gardiner - similar player imo, but he does not create the offence or have an NHL caliber shot that he can score on his own like Green can/does. Yes, Jake has good advanced stats in many areas, but they do not tell the whole story imo, despite what some may say. Jake cheats a lot in his own end looking for loose pucks and leaves his position to do so, leaving a guy wide open. Look at the Montreal game, the only goal they got is because Jake was cheating looking for a loose puck and leaves his man wide open in front of the net, puck comes loose, goal. He does some things better than others, but what he doesn't do well, he is really bad at.

He is a puck watcher, he gets caught out of position because he drifts toward the puck, this can help if the puck comes to him, even help some of his stats, but when the opposition gets control, it creates prime scoring chances and often ends up in our net. He may do 75% really well during a game, but the other 25% is poor to brutal plays with or without the puck. This is why, right now, I would not call him a "pretty good defenceman" in a positive way because defence is a big part of a defenceman's game.

He is a defenceman who can help you control the puck, so that you defend less. I will not debate that. The problem is, you will still have to defend, and with him on the ice, expect giveaways, soft board play and poor positional play. So unless you get unbelievable goaltending, and guys able to cover his positional gaffs constantly, you will be pulling the puck out of your own net more than the opposing net because he doesn't create enough offence.

I like the tools Jake has, he could be a #3 d-man, but unless he can overcome being hypnotized by the puck and learn to play his position better, he is still a defensive liability on the ice and will always be a 4-5 guy.

 

[diceman934]

He takes the hit and reverses to Phaneuf, who doesn't support him. If anything, he should have completely tried to avoid contact and put the puck somewhere he could skate to.

Dion and puck support.....never happens, he can not read the play well enough to support the puck. People think that Gardiner has a low IQ but it is well above Dion.

 

[Nithoniniel]

He is a defenceman who can help you control the puck, so that you defend less. I will not debate that. The problem is, you will still have to defend, and with him on the ice, expect giveaways, soft board play and poor positional play. So unless you get unbelievable goaltending, and guys able to cover his positional gaffs constantly, you will be pulling the puck out of your own net more than the opposing net because he doesn't create enough offence.

Actually, without noise factors he does produce enough offense. We create more zone time with him, and get chances from closer to the net. He didn't get a lot of goals last season because our on-ice shooting percentage was extremely low for him. That happens, and has nothing to do with Gardiner.

 

[RLF]

Actually, without noise factors he does produce enough offense. We create more zone time with him, and get chances from closer to the net. He didn't get a lot of goals last season because our on-ice shooting percentage was extremely low for him. That happens, and has nothing to do with Gardiner.

I really don't want to get into another advanced stats debate. Maybe the on ice shooting % is low because he is not finding the open man and getting it to a guy with a low scoring chance instead? How would that not have anything to do with Jake? Closer to the net, doesn't always relate to the best chance to score. If he is so good at creating offence, finding the right man etc, he wouldn't be under 30 pts per season avg for his career. This is not enough for what he lacks without the puck and how he creates offensive chances for the other team by his lack of awareness.imo

In the end, it's how many go into their net compared to ours. Advanced stats may show he can create offensive "chances" and improve zone time, but that doesn't mean he is always making the best offensive play. There are no advanced stats to show us all decision making by a player and if they were the best decisions.

 

[Nithoniniel]

I really don't want to get into another advanced stats debate. Maybe the on ice shooting % is low because he is not finding the open man and getting it to a guy with a low scoring chance instead? How would that not have anything to do with Jake? Closer to the net, doesn't always relate to the best chance to score. If he is so good at creating offence, finding the right man etc, he wouldn't be under 30 pts per season avg for his career. This is not enough for what he lacks without the puck and how he creates offensive chances for the other team by his lack of awareness.imo

In the end, it's how many go into their net compared to ours. Advanced stats may show he can create offensive "chances" and improve zone time, but that doesn't mean he is always making the best offensive play. There are no advanced stats to show us all decision making by a player and if they were the best decisions.

It has nothing to do with Jake because it's been tried and tested, and D-men have no control over their on-ice shooting percentage. It's a factor out of their control that jumps up and down from season to season.

And I don't get your logic in that second part. So you are saying that Gardiner's decision-making doesn't at all connect to how he creates quality and volume of offense? He can provide both, but his decision-making isn't good so it doesn't count? Help me out here, because I don't understand the thought process.

You can look at goals in and goals out all you want, but when you do you introduce a lot of variables that say nothing about a players performances. And that's obviously not a good idea when you are trying to evaluate said players performance.

His transition abilities help him spend so little time in the defensive zone that whatever defensive woes he's got still means that it hinders more offense for the opposition than the average D-man. The same transition abilities help him make sure we spend enough time in the offensive zone that we get an increase in both volume and quality of chances, so that we on average will create a decent amount of offense from it.

In the end, he will help us create more chances and reduce chances against. The results may vary from season to season, as these things do, but that's true for all D-men.

Edit: I feel what you do is you dismiss any results that doesn't fit how you see things. Most of us would probably say that of course D-men should influence shooting percentage of their team, because good players create better chances, but tons of hours of study from very qualified people have tested this and found it to be false. I don't see the point in just closing ones eyes to that.

 

[dimi78]

I'm a huge Gardiner fan but he was too concerned with not taking contact and allowed for the Wings player to force a turnover. He needs to be harder on the puck and stop playing scared.

Yeah. That was an example of where those saying he is afraid to take a hit to make a play is absolutely right. He preferred to leave the puck behind in the hopes of support from Dion rather than taking the hit there.

He screwed up there, but it was far from the worst screw up in the game from our defensemen. Rielly and his tape to tape pass to an opponent and Dion making a line change when they are in the middle of a controlled zone entry takes that price.

Still. Players should never be judged based on isolated events. It's the mass of what they can contribute that is important.

Your both wrong and both aren't paying attention too the little things Babcock is implementing. Nithoniniel you touched on Dion on that play. Well pay attention it's a set play to have that drop pass but Dion wasn't there was late on the play. They've been doing this all camp as part of a plan to beat the forcheck.

That goal was all Dion's fault was late and didn't communicate to Gardiner to wheel in that case not to mention didn't do much defending either when Detroit got the puck as well.

This is a case of when a coach talks about trust. Trusting the system and more importantly trusting your teammates. Detroit on the other side has this do to continuity and that was the major difference in last nights game. This is what's going to happen a lot in the early going under Babcock. Set plays in structure from the breakout, PP etc. that will look all wrong. They don't have enough repetition so we're going to see a lot of trust mistakes where a turnover appears and it's not the guy turning the puck over at fault.

 

[RLF]

It has nothing to do with Jake because it's been tried and tested, and D-men have no control over their on-ice shooting percentage. It's a factor out of their control that jumps up and down from season to season.

And I don't get your logic in that second part. So you are saying that Gardiner's decision-making doesn't at all connect to how he creates quality and volume of offense? He can provide both, but his decision-making isn't good so it doesn't count? Help me out here, because I don't understand the thought process.

You can look at goals in and goals out all you want, but when you do you introduce a lot of variables that say nothing about a players performances. And that's obviously not a good idea when you are trying to evaluate said players performance.

His transition abilities help him spend so little time in the defensive zone that whatever defensive woes he's got still means that it hinders more offense for the opposition than the average D-man. The same transition abilities help him make sure we spend enough time in the offensive zone that we get an increase in both volume and quality of chances, so that we on average will create a decent amount of offense from it.

In the end, he will help us create more chances and reduce chances against. The results may vary from season to season, as these things do, but that's true for all D-men.

Edit: In the end, I feel what you do is you dismiss any results that doesn't fit how you see things. Most of us would probably say that of course D-men should influence shooting percentage of their team, because good players create better chances, but tons of hours of study from very qualified people have tested this and found it to be false. I don't see the point in just closing ones eyes to that.

1st bolded - So how is it that Jake can influence other players and the teams production in a positive way, but it is every one else who influences his lack of production or lack of defensive prowess if it is negative? If you can show me how a team wins while constantly being out-scored, I am more than willing to listen. If goals in/out don't matter...might as well keep the whole team together.

2nd Bolded - And that is fine, you can feel what ever you want, you are entitled to your own opinion. Personally, I feel you rely too much on advanced stats (the new "in thing") and argue them as being without fault or debate. The real difference being, is that you seem to judge a player based on advanced stats alone and I see them as a tool for making a judgement without disregarding what I see, because advanced stats cannot account for everything. You tend to argue that they do.

I feel you are as blinded by numbers as you seem to feel I am by what I see. You say you don't see the point in "closing ones eyes", but you have yours closed to on ice analysis and anyone who evaluates at all by what they see if it doesn't coincide with your stats analysis. I severely doubt a guys like Dubas insists stats tell everything, so forget about all else.

Basically you have just said that better players don't make better plays, they just get lucky that their teammates find the back of the net and that is why they put up more points, and Jake is unlucky because his teammates are missing their opportunities. You honestly believe decision making has nothing to do with production or defensive abilities?

 

[RLF]

Your both wrong and both aren't paying attention too the little things Babcock is implementing. Nithoniniel you touched on Dion on that play. Well pay attention it's a set play to have that drop pass but Dion wasn't there was late on the play. They've been doing this all camp as part of a plan to beat the forcheck.

That goal was all Dion's fault was late and didn't communicate to Gardiner to wheel in that case not to mention didn't do much defending either when Detroit got the puck as well.

There is no set play to drop the puck into pursuing back pressure. Dion was not expecting the drop because Jake had back pressure and the far side was open. Jake made a bad decision because he didn't look first and panicked a bit under pressure, Dion was late and Arcobello didn't pick up his man. There were 2 missed assignments(Dion and Arc), but the initial bad play by Jake started it in motion.

 

[dimi78]

There is no set play to drop the puck into pursuing back pressure. Dion was not expecting the drop because Jake had back pressure and the far side was open. Jake made a bad decision because he didn't look first and panicked a bit under pressure, Dion was late and Arcobello didn't pick up his man. There were 2 missed assignments(Dion and Arc), but the initial bad play by Jake started it in motion.

Like I said and look for it tonight on the drop pass. They've been doing this all camp to beat the forcheck but this was an occasion where the communication "TO WHEEL" wan't made since he was being beet to that spot was at fault and trusting the system, trusting your teammates left an egg in Gardiner's face. Dion is to blame for that entire transactions.

Jake Gardiner slips by checkers on that play like he always does but no communication was present to bail on the set play.

Most mistakes are caused by no communication.

 

[91Kadri91*]

I really don't want to get into another advanced stats debate. Maybe the on ice shooting % is low because he is not finding the open man and getting it to a guy with a low scoring chance instead?

On-ice shooting percentage is reliant on luck (over a short sample), just as on-ice save percentage is.

How would that not have anything to do with Jake? Closer to the net, doesn't always relate to the best chance to score.

Shots closer to the net result in a higher SH% (more goals) than shots away from the net.

If he is so good at creating offence, finding the right man etc, he wouldn't be under 30 pts per season avg for his career.

He needs to produce more, but there's reason to believe he will, and he does create offensive chances.

This is not enough for what he lacks without the puck and how he creates offensive chances for the other team by his lack of awareness.imo

For the millionth time, Gardiner allows less chances and goals against than any other defenseman on the Leafs.

In the end, it's how many go into their net compared to ours.

It certainly is, and Gardiner's GFRelTM over the last three seasons is 0 (Phaneuf is at 0.8); he neither hurts, nor helps, the team from an aggregate goals standpoint. What he does do, however, is prevent goals.

So which is it? Is he terrible defensively (like you claim), or do goals not matter (which you deny)? If goals against matter, then Gardiner is very good defensively; if they don't, then you can make the argument that he's not good defensively (assuming you also believe that shots and scoring chances against don't matter).

Advanced stats may show he can create offensive "chances" and improve zone time, but that doesn't mean he is always making the best offensive play.

But the decisions he is making are resulting in more slot shots for, and less slot shots against, which will, over a large sample, result in more goals for than against (assuming he continues to produce/prevent shots from the slot).

There are no advanced stats to show us all decision making by a player and if they were the best decisions.

There is actually. They're not all publicly available (most are not), but SportLogIQ tracks every event in a hockey game using motion tracking, and subsequently classifies those plays.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Your both wrong and both aren't paying attention too the little things Babcock is implementing. Nithoniniel you touched on Dion on that play. Well pay attention it's a set play to have that drop pass but Dion wasn't there was late on the play. They've been doing this all camp as part of a plan to beat the forcheck.

That goal was all Dion's fault was late and didn't communicate to Gardiner to wheel in that case not to mention didn't do much defending either when Detroit got the puck as well.

This is a case of when a coach talks about trust. Trusting the system and more importantly trusting your teammates. Detroit on the other side has this do to continuity and that was the major difference in last nights game. This is what's going to happen a lot in the early going under Babcock. Set plays in structure from the breakout, PP etc. that will look all wrong. They don't have enough repetition so we're going to see a lot of trust mistakes where a turnover appears and it's not the guy turning the puck over at fault.

I considered this, but I didn't want to make that point on a hunch really.

1st bolded - So how is it that Jake can influence other players and the teams production in a positive way, but it is every one else who influences his lack of production or lack of defensive prowess if it is negative? If you can show me how a team wins while constantly being out-scored, I am more than willing to listen. If goals in/out don't matter...might as well keep the whole team together.

2nd Bolded - And that is fine, you can feel what ever you want, you are entitled to your own opinion. Personally, I feel you rely too much on advanced stats (the new "in thing") and argue them as being without fault or debate. The real difference being, is that you seem to judge a player based on advanced stats alone and I see them as a tool for making a judgement without disregarding what I see, because advanced stats cannot account for everything. You tend to argue that they do.

I feel you are as blinded by numbers as you seem to feel I am by what I see. You say you don't see the point in "closing ones eyes", but you have yours closed to on ice analysis and anyone who evaluates at all by what they see if it doesn't coincide with your stats analysis. I severely doubt a guys like Dubas insists stats tell everything, so forget about all else.

Basically you have just said that better players don't make better plays, they just get lucky that their teammates find the back of the net and that is why they put up more points, and Jake is unlucky because his teammates are missing their opportunities. You honestly believe decision making has nothing to do with production or defensive abilities?

He can influence players in the same way every D-man can influence them. If he had a huge on-ice shooting percentage, I would be saying the same thing. Like I have with Kadri and his shortened season for example, another player I defend around here.

And you are not listening. I didn't say goals in and out are unimportant. I said that they are in a good part based on factors beyond an individual players control, and therefor muddles any evaluation of said individual player.

I don't argue that advanced stats are everything. I have put considerable time into studying what they do and do not show though. You'll find me all over this thread agreeing and disagreeing with a lot of eye-test based evaluations of him. I watch more and work more with hockey than is probably healthy. I don't dismiss the stats because they don't fit my opinion though.

There might be a ton of reasons to why it is exactly that Gardiner hinder opposition offense. I'm not denying that, and I'm welcome to discuss it. That he actually does hinder opposition offense is as close to fact as we can get though.

And I have no idea where you got that last part. Better plays leads to more pressure, more pressure leads to increase in quantity of shots. Haven't said anything different. Decision making is of course a vital part of production and defensive abilities. Haven't said anything different.

I questioned you since you said the following: "Advanced stats may show he can create offensive "chances" and improve zone time, but that doesn't mean he is always making the best offensive play"

Decision making is not separate from what the advanced stats show. It's part of the formula. To say otherwise would be to say that it had no effect.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that I noted that part about how Gardiner had us getting chances from better areas because people always bring up how he might carry the puck up, but then just circles around and nothing happens. That is simply not true from that perspective. But when discussing how good a player is, then you want to look at quantity. If not, you're welcome to bring very good reasons for why the whole statistical community, including people now working for NHL teams, are wrong.

 

[RLF]

On-ice shooting percentage is reliant on luck (over a short sample), just as on-ice save percentage is.



Shots closer to the net result in a higher SH% (more goals) than shots away from the net.



He needs to produce more, but there's reason to believe he will, and he does create offensive chances.



For the millionth time, Gardiner allows less chances and goals against than any other defenseman on the Leafs.



It certainly is, and Gardiner's GFRelTM over the last three seasons is 0 (Phaneuf is at 0.8); he neither hurts, nor helps, the team from an aggregate goals standpoint. What he does do, however, is prevent goals.

So which is it? Is he terrible defensively (like you claim), or do goals not matter (which you deny)? If goals against matter, then Gardiner is very good defensively; if they don't, then you can make the argument that he's not good defensively (assuming you also believe that shots and scoring chances against don't matter).



But the decisions he is making are resulting in more slot shots for, and less slot shots against, which will, over a large sample, result in more goals for than against (assuming he continues to produce/prevent shots from the slot).



There is actually. They're not all publicly available (most are not), but SportLogIQ tracks every event in a hockey game using motion tracking, and subsequently classifies those plays.

If you read all, I have said he can play very well 75% of the game, it is his 25% that is poor and in some cases awful, which could easily explain how the stats favour him, even if the results do not always. If he is as good at everything as you say, we wouldn't see the mistakes we see and he would be getting all the toughest assignments etc. Coaches aren't as stupid as fans make them out to be.

1st bolded - for the millionth time back. I did not claim he doesn't allow fewer shots, goals against per 60...I said in comparison to what his goals for total to goals against total 5 on 5 it is not great, especially bad last season.

You claim shooting % is just luck to justify lack of production, but then laud him for setting up players in close, which according to you, has a better shooting % and more goals. How is it luck when you just claimed more goals are scored in close and that is where Jake sets people up. Jake is a very unlucky guy I guess.

Like I said, you claim it is luck when it doesn't work for Jake and skill when it does. He has been in the league 4 years and so far, he has not produced strong offensive numbers, apparently that is enough to claim he is as good as you say, but not enough to claim the poor stuff is more than just bad luck and should change in his favour. I'm not sure how many years are needed to make an opinion on the bad luck. Or, maybe stats aren't the perfect analysis.

2nd Bolded - I stand corrected then. And who evaluates if they are the right play or not? I am sure some would disagree with some of their analysis. How does Jake compare?

 

[RLF]

I considered this, but I didn't want to make that point on a hunch really.



He can influence players in the same way every D-man can influence them. If he had a huge on-ice shooting percentage, I would be saying the same thing. Like I have with Kadri and his shortened season for example, another player I defend around here.

And you are not listening. I didn't say goals in and out are unimportant. I said that they are in a good part based on factors beyond an individual players control, and therefor muddles any evaluation of said individual player.

I don't argue that advanced stats are everything. I have put considerable time into studying what they do and do not show though. You'll find me all over this thread agreeing and disagreeing with a lot of eye-test based evaluations of him. I watch more and work more with hockey than is probably healthy. I don't dismiss the stats because they don't fit my opinion though.

There might be a ton of reasons to why it is exactly that Gardiner hinder opposition offense. I'm not denying that, and I'm welcome to discuss it. That he actually does hinder opposition offense is as close to fact as we can get though.

And I have no idea where you got that last part. Better plays leads to more pressure, more pressure leads to increase in quantity of shots. Haven't said anything different. Decision making is of course a vital part of production and defensive abilities. Haven't said anything different.

I questioned you since you said the following: "Advanced stats may show he can create offensive "chances" and improve zone time, but that doesn't mean he is always making the best offensive play"

Decision making is not separate from what the advanced stats show. It's part of the formula. To say otherwise would be to say that it had no effect.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that I noted that part about how Gardiner had us getting chances from better areas because people always bring up how he might carry the puck up, but then just circles around and nothing happens. That is simply not true from that perspective.

But when discussing how good a player is, then you want to look at quantity. If not, you're welcome to bring very good reasons for why the whole statistical community, including people now working for NHL teams, are wrong.

I have never said statistics don't help tell a story, you just don't like that I don't place as much importance on them as you do. I have actually used them to help gain some perspective on players, including Jake, maybe some things I didn't notice. I have conceded certain things stats show and agree.

You say you don't argue that advanced stats aren't everything, then why do you always respond to me with advanced stats to try and prove me wrong about something? Here's the thing, I am fine with you wanting to use advanced stats to strongly evaluate a player, but you do not seem ok with someone who doesn't and would prefer to watch and use them just as a tool. Player evaluation is speculative, it is why teams value some players over others...despite stats.

Bolded...they are consultants, not coaches or GM's in the NHL, there is a reason some coach and some use numbers to analyze. If stats guys start being hired as coaches and GM's at the NHL level and win because of it, then we are on to something and I will have no problem saying how important they are. I do find it Funny how advanced starts are everything now, even though the sample size is too small to evaluate what there impact really is, but guys will claim it is the best way to evaluate a player...unless the sample size is too small.

 

[RLF]

Like I said and look for it tonight on the drop pass. They've been doing this all camp to beat the forcheck but this was an occasion where the communication "TO WHEEL" wan't made since he was being beet to that spot was at fault and trusting the system, trusting your teammates left an egg in Gardiner's face. Dion is to blame for that entire transactions.

Jake Gardiner slips by checkers on that play like he always does but no communication was present to bail on the set play.

Most mistakes are caused by no communication.

I agree, there are set plays at times and communication is huge. A player has to read the play himself as well though, and Jake didn't, he dropped it to a spot he shouldn't. Even if Dion was there, he would have had Cleary all over him. The play was to move the puck forward around the boards. That is on Jake to read the play. He is at fault, poor communication or not.