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

[Gallagbi]

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.

Arcobello would have been available for Phaneuf.

If Gardiner rims the boards it's a turnover to the Wings D with how our forwards are positioned.

 

[Nithoniniel]

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.

I'm not dismissing anything else than stats, not at all. I do have a problem when people go against all that we know about them and what they show when it doesn't fit their opinion.

Take Jake Gardiner, the topic here. If you know what these stats show and what they don't show, you know that in a general sense, mindful of the context, Gardiner does prevent scoring chances against.

That shouldn't be argued against. It's just how it is, and that's where I lean on stats. But the topic doesn't end there.

What is it that makes him effective or not effective? How could it change if he played 25 minutes with a lot of defensive zone starts, given his skill set? How could you get more out of him? What kind of specific situations do you want to use him in, and what do you want to avoid?

Knowing how good he is in a general sense in the average situation is very helpful, but it isn't everything. That's where the subjective part comes in. One could concede that he for example is generally good 5-on-5 at helping us in both ends of the ice due to his transition ability, but that we can't rely upon him as our top pairing, tough minutes guy because that would put a focus on his flaws enough that he'd no longer be effective for us. And that would be absolutely fine argument, and something we could discuss in terms of what we see from him and his skill set.

And that's why I have argued against you. Because you argue against not the subjective part, but the end results that are what they are. Your arguments are also based on ideas that have been proven wrong by kind of thorough testing, like holding his on-ice shooting percentage against him, at which point I try to steer you right.

91Kadri91 is much better at showing references than I am at these things, it's something I should get better at.

 

[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.

Let's just break it down to something a little more tangible to digest.

You and Kardi 91 are probably two of the most knowledgeable guys on here when it comes to advanced stats.

Using advanced stats, How does Jake compare league wide among d-men? top 30? 60? 90?

 

[91Kadri91*]

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.

The stats are the results; you're arguing the minutiae. He allows less goals, relative to his teammates, than almost every single defenseman in the NHL with similar usage over the last three years: those are the results. What you're saying is that Gardiner, despite his results, is not a good defenseman (defensively), because when you watch him he doesn't look effective.

If he is as good at everything as you say

No one has ever said that Gardiner is 'good at everything'. He's not a good special teams player, and therefore not a true top-pairing defenseman at this point.

But yeah, keep building those straw men.

we wouldn't see the mistakes we see

The issue is that you only see the mistakes, and fail to acknowledge the great (of which there are many) plays.

and he would be getting all the toughest assignments etc. Coaches aren't as stupid as fans make them out to be.

All of these statistics are even-strength statistics and... oh, would you look at that, Gardiner has lead the Leafs in even-strength ice-time in each of the last two seasons!

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 wrote that he "creates offensive chances for the other team by his lack of awareness".

Despite this "lack of awareness", he allows less chances than everyone else on the team, so if Gardiner "lacks awareness", then everyone else on the team must be entirely bereft of it.

You claim shooting % is just luck to justify lack of production

I said over a short-sample-size it's luck, and it is. Over a large sample size (years of data), it isn't. Crosby, for example, has an on-iceSH%RelTM and PDO consistently above baseline. That's because (at least in part) Crosby averages four-times the league average in passes to the slot.

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.

It's just a fact: players have a higher SH% in the slot. Which, of course, makes perfect sense.

Jake is a very unlucky guy I guess.

Gardiner has a career on-iceSH%RelTM of -0.7, while his on-iceSH%RelTM last season was -2.1; his career PDO is 100.5, and was 98.2 last season; his career on-iceSV%RelTM is 0.9, last season it was 0.4.

So yes, Gardiner was very unlucky last season.

Like I said, you claim it is luck when it doesn't work for Jake and skill when it does.

No, I say it's skill when it is skill, and luck when it is luck.

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

He has a career GFRelTM of 2.0. I've never argued that he's been productive offensively: he hasn't. What I am arguing is that, aggregately, he's a good defenseman, and defensively he's very good. Perhaps he's not good defensively in the traditional sense (hit people, block shots, allow tons of goals against), but in terms of preventing goals, scoring chances and shots (things that actually matter), he's been very good throughout his career.

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.

They're not the perfect analysis, and no one has argued that they are. All I'm arguing is that they're much more reliable than the eye-test, because they are.

2nd Bolded - I stand corrected then. And who evaluates if they are the right play or not?

It depends what they're trying to define. They measure pretty much measure everything: successful pass attempts in all three zones, pass attempts to particular areas within the zones, loose-puck recoveries, without puck plays, with puck plays, defensive-zone success rates, offensive-zone success rates, slot passes, o-zone touches etc.

I think there are three categories they use predominantly: LPR (loose-puck recoveries), PDP (possession driving plays) and successful d-zone plays (without the puck). There's more subcategories, but I think those are the big three that they classify plays into to start, and then work to further pinpoint their classifications (I could be wrong though).

I am sure some would disagree with some of their analysis.

Currently, sure, but that's only because they haven't released most of the information/data they have collected.

How does Jake compare?

I'm not sure. They've released a couple Leafs articles, but they focused on Rielly and Gardiner being fantastic at zone-exits (which we all know, I think), and Phaneuf being poor defensively and having a really bad contract (which I think most people know).

 

[RLF]

Arcobello would have been available for Phaneuf.

If Gardiner rims the boards it's a turnover to the Wings D with how our forwards are positioned.

I didn't say rim the boards hard, I said to move it around them. The scoring opportunity would have been less from sideboards then from side of net. The safe play was to move it around the boards. imo

 

[Nithoniniel]

Let's just break it down to something a little more tangible to digest.

You and Kardi 91 are probably two of the most knowledgeable guys on here when it comes to advanced stats.

Using advanced stats, How does Jake compare league wide among d-men? top 30? 60? 90?

All in all? I personally have him in the 70-80 range since he doesn't play either special teams very well.

 

[Gallagbi]

I didn't say rim the boards hard, I said to move it around them. The scoring opportunity would have been less from sideboards then from side of net. The safe play was to move it around the boards. imo

Short dump to the corner was the other option IMO, but I didn't mind the reverse to his partner where there should have been support and numbers.

generally moving the puck "around the boards" is rimming it.

 

[RLF]

The stats are the results; you're arguing the minutiae. He allows less goals, relative to his teammates, than almost every single defenseman in the NHL with similar usage over the last three years: those are the results. What you're saying is that Gardiner, despite his results, is not a good defenseman (defensively), because when you watch him he doesn't look effective.



No one has ever said that Gardiner is 'good at everything'. He's not a good special teams player, and therefore not a true top-pairing defenseman at this point.

But yeah, keep building those straw men.



The issue is that you only see the mistakes, and fail to acknowledge the great (of which there are many) plays.



All of these statistics are even-strength statistics and... oh, would you look at that, Gardiner has lead the Leafs in even-strength ice-time in each of the last two seasons!



You wrote that he "creates offensive chances for the other team by his lack of awareness".

Despite this "lack of awareness", he allows less chances than everyone else on the team, so if Gardiner "lacks awareness", then everyone else on the team must be entirely bereft of it.



I said over a short-sample-size it's luck, and it is. Over a large sample size (years of data), it isn't. Crosby, for example, has an on-iceSH%RelTM and PDO consistently above baseline. That's because (at least in part) Crosby averages four-times the league average in passes to the slot.

It's just a fact: players have a higher SH% in the slot. Which, of course, makes perfect sense.



Gardiner has a career on-iceSH%RelTM of -0.7, while his on-iceSH%RelTM last season was -2.1; his career PDO is 100.5, and was 98.2 last season; his career on-iceSV%RelTM is 0.9, last season it was 0.4.

So yes, Gardiner was very unlucky last season.



No, I say it's skill when it is skill, and luck when it is luck.



He has a career GFRelTM of 2.0. I've never argued that he's been productive offensively: he hasn't. What I am arguing is that, aggregately, he's a good defenseman, and defensively he's very good. Perhaps he's not good defensively in the traditional sense (hit people, block shots, allow tons of goals against), but in terms of preventing goals, scoring chances and shots (things that actually matter), he's been very good throughout his career.





They're not the perfect analysis, and no one has argued that they are. All I'm arguing is that they're much more reliable than the eye-test, because they are.



It depends what they're trying to define. They measure pretty much measure everything: successful pass attempts in all three zones, pass attempts to particular areas within the zones, loose-puck recoveries, without puck plays, with puck plays, defensive-zone success rates, offensive-zone success rates, slot passes, o-zone touches etc.

I think there are three categories they use predominantly: LPR (loose-puck recoveries), PDP (possession driving plays) and successful d-zone plays (without the puck). There's more subcategories, but I think those are the big three that they classify plays into to start, and then work to further pinpoint their classifications (I could be wrong though).



Currently, sure, but that's only because they haven't released most of the information/data they have collected.



I'm not sure. They've released a couple Leafs articles, but they focused on Rielly and Gardiner being fantastic at zone-exits (which we all know, I think), and Phaneuf being poor defensively and having a really bad contract (which I think most people know).

You have taken a lot of what I have said and misinterpreted it or flat out ignoring it. I did not say he has not shown to be effective at all. I also have acknowledged his good parts of the game. I also gave him credit for being very effective for a high % of the time (75%), it is the 25% that seems to be glaring and ends up in our net.

Bolded...how can he be better statistically defensively then almost all defencemen in the League and not be a true first pairing d-man? Your arguments to defend him are all statistic based, but then say he is not a true #1 d-man at this point because of special teams play? I will pose this question...where does Jake stand statistically against all d-men in the league? top 30? 60? 90?

 

[RLF]

All in all? I personally have him in the 70-80 range since he doesn't play either special teams very well.

Is that an opinion or statistics would show this? Where is he 5 on 5?

 

[Hockey Talker29]

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.

When Jake starts pursuing the puck behind the net, he glances and clearly sees that Dion is there to receive a pass if he can move it past the Wings' first forechecker.

Unfortunately, Dion does not move at all, while the Wings' second forechecker pursues with pace.

Jake maybe should have gone up the boards, but that play is hardly his fault. As I noted earlier, he's the only guy on that play that actually did his job.

 

[RLF]

Short dump to the corner was the other option IMO, but I didn't mind the reverse to his partner where there should have been support and numbers.

generally moving the puck "around the boards" is rimming it.

eh, even if it made it around the boards to the point, the scoring chance was less. It is his responsibility to manage the puck. If a dump in comes to the goalie and the d-man doesn't give him a good out to pass to and the goalies gives it away...still ultimately the goalies fault if he blindly gives it away. Jake blindly gave it away, but got no help afterward.

 

[RLF]

When Jake starts pursuing the puck behind the net, he glances and clearly sees that Dion is there to receive a pass if he can move it past the Wings' first forechecker.

Unfortunately, Dion does not move at all, while the Wings' second forechecker pursues with pace.

Jake maybe should have gone up the boards, but that play is hardly his fault. As I noted earlier, he's the only guy on that play that actually did his job.

He looks back after he gives the puck away, not before. he may have planned to reverse harder to the corner, but it didn't make it.

 

[91Kadri91*]

You have taken a lot of what I have said and misinterpreted it or flat out ignoring it. I did not say he has not shown to be effective at all.

I didn't say you did.

You said he's not productive offensively (which I agree with), and that his gaffes allow more chances for the opposing team (which I vehemently disagree with). You can argue that he allows more chances than he otherwise would if he didn't have his faults, but that can be said for any defenseman in the league... ever.

I also have acknowledged his good parts of the game. I also gave him credit for being very effective for a high % of the time (75%), it is the 25% that seems to be glaring and ends up in our net.

Okay? That doesn't change the fact that, despite this '25%', Gardiner still allows significantly less goals against than the supposed defensive stalwarts this team employs (Phaneuf, Polak).

You tried arguing that Gardiner is poor defensively, I refuted. You began using arbitrary numbers that are of no significance, and I ignored them because they didn't pertain to the discussion.

Bolded...how can he be better statistically defensively then almost all defencemen in the League and not be a true first pairing d-man?

Because he's hasn't produced offensively? Also, the stat we're discussing is relative, so when the team improves, Gardiner's relative numbers will decrease (although they'll still be good) and his raw metrics will increase (to be more reflective of the quality player that he is).

Your arguments to defend him are all statistic based, but then say he is not a true #1 d-man at this point because of special teams play?

And because he has not been particularly productive offensively (although last season there was certainly some bad luck involved in his poor production).

I will pose this question...where does Jake stand statistically against all d-men in the league? top 30? 60? 90?

In terms of GA60RelTM among defensemen with similar usage (2500+ ES MP) over the last three seasons? He's second (-0.53) out of 120, just behind Jonas Brodin (-0.55), and just ahead (-0.52) of Christopher Tanev (two players lauded for their defensive abilities). He's 64th (middle of the pack) in GFRelTM (0.0), 116th (bottom of the pack) in GF60RelTM (-0.48), 6th in CA60RelTM, 39th in CF60RelTM, 13th in CFRelTM, 27th in FA60RelTM, 53rd in FF60RelTM, 35th in FFRelTM, 80th in P/60 (ahead of Phaneuf), 18th in SA60RelTM, 39th in SF60RelTM, and 24th in SFRelTM. He had the 21st highest GAR among defensemen league-wide this season, and has ranked in the top-5 of dCAImpact in each of the two years (2nd this season) and top-30 in dFAImpact over the same period of time (5th this season). Gardiner also has the 8th best HSCF%Rel (5.50%), and the 7th best SC%Rel (4.44%) among defensemen with 2500 even-strength minutes played over the last three seasons.

 

[Gallagbi]

eh, even if it made it around the boards to the point, the scoring chance was less. It is his responsibility to manage the puck. If a dump in comes to the goalie and the d-man doesn't give him a good out to pass to and the goalies gives it away...still ultimately the goalies fault if he blindly gives it away. Jake blindly gave it away, but got no help afterward.

Not blindly when he takes a peak before going in, but has his partner pull-up on the support he's supposed to give.

 

[Jacquestrapless]

Mark Masters ‏@markhmasters 1h1 hour ago
Babcock played Gardiner more than anyone (6 GP); his analysis: "I liked him. So all the things I heard about him, none of them were true."

Mark Masters ‏@markhmasters 1h1 hour ago
Babcock on Gardiner: "I see a guy who can skate a million miles, a guy who competes, a guy who wants to be on the ice, a guy getting better"

Mark Masters ‏@markhmasters 1h1 hour ago
Babcock noted he doesn't like playing Rielly-Gardiner together; they can both push the play, keep puck moving so need to spread that around

Mark Masters ‏@markhmasters 57m57 minutes ago
Babcock on Rielly, Gardiner: "Even though they make mistakes, they look like important pieces, like good pieces"

 

[TheProspector]

Mark Masters ‏@markhmasters 1h1 hour ago
Babcock played Gardiner more than anyone (6 GP); his analysis: "I liked him. So all the things I heard about him, none of them were true."

Mark Masters ‏@markhmasters 1h1 hour ago
Babcock on Gardiner: "I see a guy who can skate a million miles, a guy who competes, a guy who wants to be on the ice, a guy getting better"

Mark Masters ‏@markhmasters 1h1 hour ago
Babcock noted he doesn't like playing Rielly-Gardiner together; they can both push the play, keep puck moving so need to spread that around

Mark Masters ‏@markhmasters 57m57 minutes ago
Babcock on Rielly, Gardiner: "Even though they make mistakes, they look like important pieces, like good pieces"

I came to the thread to point out the bolded comment on Gardiner by Babcock. Yup, our all-world coach seems to agree that Gardiner is a great defenceman.

Gardiner looked absolutely great tonight, too. As did Rielly. He might not be able to turn around Phaneuf's game, but the younger pair has already clearly benefited.

 

[Punch Drunk Loov]

Yep, I liked what I saw from him, even in 3 on 3

 

[Purity*]

Mark Masters ‏@markhmasters 1h1 hour ago
Babcock played Gardiner more than anyone (6 GP); his analysis: "I liked him. So all the things I heard about him, none of them were true."

Mark Masters ‏@markhmasters 1h1 hour ago
Babcock on Gardiner: "I see a guy who can skate a million miles, a guy who competes, a guy who wants to be on the ice, a guy getting better"

Mark Masters ‏@markhmasters 1h1 hour ago
Babcock noted he doesn't like playing Rielly-Gardiner together; they can both push the play, keep puck moving so need to spread that around

Mark Masters ‏@markhmasters 57m57 minutes ago
Babcock on Rielly, Gardiner: "Even though they make mistakes, they look like important pieces, like good pieces"

Babcock has really taken a shining to Gardiner.

 

[Hockey Talker29]

Not blindly when he takes a peak before going in, but has his partner pull-up on the support he's supposed to give.

Exactly!

 

[RLF]

I didn't say you did.

You said he's not productive offensively (which I agree with), and that his gaffes allow more chances for the opposing team (which I vehemently disagree with). You can argue that he allows more chances than he otherwise would if he didn't have his faults, but that can be said for any defenseman in the league... ever.



Okay? That doesn't change the fact that, despite this '25%', Gardiner still allows significantly less goals against than the supposed defensive stalwarts this team employs (Phaneuf, Polak).

You tried arguing that Gardiner is poor defensively, I refuted. You began using arbitrary numbers that are of no significance, and I ignored them because they didn't pertain to the discussion.



Because he's hasn't produced offensively? Also, the stat we're discussing is relative, so when the team improves, Gardiner's relative numbers will decrease (although they'll still be good) and his raw metrics will increase (to be more reflective of the quality player that he is).



And because he has not been particularly productive offensively (although last season there was certainly some bad luck involved in his poor production).



In terms of GA60RelTM among defensemen with similar usage (2500+ ES MP) over the last three seasons? He's second (-0.53) out of 120, just behind Jonas Brodin (-0.55), and just ahead (-0.52) of Christopher Tanev (two players lauded for their defensive abilities). He's 64th (middle of the pack) in GFRelTM (0.0), 116th (bottom of the pack) in GF60RelTM (-0.48), 6th in CA60RelTM, 39th in CF60RelTM, 13th in CFRelTM, 27th in FA60RelTM, 53rd in FF60RelTM, 35th in FFRelTM, 80th in P/60 (ahead of Phaneuf), 18th in SA60RelTM, 39th in SF60RelTM, and 24th in SFRelTM. He had the 21st highest GAR among defensemen league-wide this season, and has ranked in the top-5 of dCAImpact in each of the two years (2nd this season) and top-30 in dFAImpact over the same period of time (5th this season). Gardiner also has the 8th best HSCF%Rel (5.50%), and the 7th best SC%Rel (4.44%) among defensemen with 2500 even-strength minutes played over the last three seasons.

I am just going to comment on the rankings at the bottom because I see no point in continuing the rest. First all, thanks for doing the work. I would have thought that with all the stats available, they would have one that actually ranks them in order after all variables are calculated. Anyhow, I get an average ranking of about 38th. Would you say that is an accurate ranking of Jake among all NHL d-men?

 

[RLF]

Exactly!

He is still in the face-off circle when he takes a "peak" (which more looks like he is looking at the forechecker than behind him), there is lots of ground to cover before he reaches the puck. Point still being, he is responsible for where he puts the puck, he can't just assume, which is what he did. If you drop the puck behind your own net, you better make sure someone is there, and more importantly, a member from the other team isn't.
If Cleary went across in front of the net, you drop it, if he goes behind, you move it forward. Cleary went by Phaneuf and toward the back of the net before Jake dropped it. I am no Phaneuf fan and he was slow to react, but if you put a puck on an opponents stick without looking just because you thought a teammate would be there. It's on you.

 

[Guy Boucher]

Mark Masters ‏@markhmasters 1h1 hour ago
Babcock played Gardiner more than anyone (6 GP); his analysis: "I liked him. So all the things I heard about him, none of them were true."

Mark Masters ‏@markhmasters 1h1 hour ago
Babcock on Gardiner: "I see a guy who can skate a million miles, a guy who competes, a guy who wants to be on the ice, a guy getting better"

Mark Masters ‏@markhmasters 1h1 hour ago
Babcock noted he doesn't like playing Rielly-Gardiner together; they can both push the play, keep puck moving so need to spread that around

Mark Masters ‏@markhmasters 57m57 minutes ago
Babcock on Rielly, Gardiner: "Even though they make mistakes, they look like important pieces, like good pieces"

Music to my ears. Now if he plays Marincin/Harrington ahead of Polak, and limit Phanuef to 15 mins a game, we'll be decent.

 

[RLF]

I came to the thread to point out the bolded comment on Gardiner by Babcock. Yup, our all-world coach seems to agree that Gardiner is a great defenceman.

Gardiner looked absolutely great tonight, too. As did Rielly. He might not be able to turn around Phaneuf's game, but the younger pair has already clearly benefited.

I thought Gardiner has looked pretty good and more comfortable for sure, but honestly, what do people expect Babcock to say in response to these questions. He is working with a youngish d-man who has had some struggles, he is not going to come out and be negative about any part of his game at this point. I am glad he said what he said, but I wouldn't expect anything less.

 

[yubbers]

I thought Gardiner has looked pretty good and more comfortable for sure, but honestly, what do people expect Babcock to say in response to these questions. He is working with a youngish d-man who has had some struggles, he is not going to come out and be negative about any part of his game at this point. I am glad he said what he said, but I wouldn't expect anything less.

This

 

[Nithoniniel]

Babcock has never had a problem with being critical before. He had no problem saying that Kadri "gave him absolutely nothing" not long ago, after a bad game. He's always been very honest with his answers.