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

[Bullseye]

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.

You've touch upon some of what plagues his game - it's those little details. Babs believes these details are fixable. Giddy-up.

 

[yubbers]

Playing scared is his problem. Only Gardiner can fix that.

 

[Yosho]

The best defence is a good offence.

You don't need to defend when you have the puck most of the time.

This is hockey, one of the most back-and-forth games on the planet.

If you can defend, you're useless.

 

[Gary Nylund]

This is hockey, one of the most back-and-forth games on the planet.

If you can defend, you're useless.

Thank you for that expert analysis. With insight like this, statistical analysis becomes exposed as being completely useless.

 

[Kubus]

Babcock has been talking Gardiner up since he got here. He has commented that Gardiner still makes mistakes, but those are things they can work on. Gardiner himself has been telling us that Babcock is always talking to him, letting him know when he was out of position or if his stick was not in the right place.

Gardiner has all the tools to be a good top 4 guy, now he also has a coach that can help him get better and play more responsible.

 

[Yosho]

Thank you for that expert analysis. With insight like this, statistical analysis becomes exposed as being completely useless.

Are you saying that I'm wrong?

 

[RLF]

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.

Yes, he seems very straight forward with his answers. He is also smart enough to know which players, depending on personality, confidence etc, he can speak more openly about in public in order to motivate.

Gardiner-seems to struggle with confidence and even played scared at times. Scared to make mistakes etc.
Kadri-if anything struggles with over-confidence and current management seems to be taking a more tough love approach to show him he is not entitled just because he is talented and even using the media to get point across.

Two different player personalities needing two different approaches. Just because he said publically he wasn't happy with Naz, doesn't mean he is going to be publically as blunt with all of Jake's games. He is trying to build Jake's confidence and show him he has his trust, pointing out any errors to the public would not help his cause. The fact he played him the most in the pre-season is a good indication he is trying to build his confidence and show his trust. Jake has made some mistakes, a glaring one in the Habs game, and Babcock has done nothing but praise him, which is probably what Gardiner needs at the moment.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Yes, he seems very straight forward with his answers. He is also smart enough to know which players, depending on personality, confidence etc, he can speak more openly about in public in order to motivate.

Gardiner-seems to struggle with confidence and even played scared at times. Scared to make mistakes etc.
Kadri-if anything struggles with over-confidence and current management seems to be taking a more tough love approach to show him he is not entitled just because he is talented and even using the media to get point across.

Two different player personalities needing two different approaches. Just because he said publically he wasn't happy with Naz, doesn't mean he is going to be publically as blunt with all of Jake's games. He is trying to build Jake's confidence and show him he has his trust, pointing out any errors to the public would not help his cause. The fact he played him the most in the pre-season is a good indication he is trying to build his confidence and show his trust. Jake has made some mistakes, a glaring one in the Habs game, and Babcock has done nothing but praise him, which is probably what Gardiner needs at the moment.

True enough. Not saying that Gardiner hasn't deserved the praise at times this preseason.

 

[RLF]

True enough. Not saying that Gardiner hasn't deserved the praise at times this preseason.

He has deserved some praise for sure. Still needs help with positioning and get out of the habit of puck watching, but he seems to be using his tools more to his advantage than the past so far. BTW, when you said you personally rank him in the 70-80 range, is that opinion or stats?

 

[Nithoniniel]

He has deserved some praise for sure. Still needs help with positioning and get out of the habit of puck watching, but he seems to be using his tools more to his advantage than the past so far. BTW, when you said you personally rank him in the 70-80 range, is that opinion or stats?

Opinion based on stats

There's no unifying stat, so you have to take what each stat says about a particular thing and piece together a complete picture. So what I used to go on statistically was:

* Great possession player (which I personally find very important)
* Plays a ton of 5-on-5 minutes (also very valuable)
* Not great individual production (that certainly should be considered)
* Not very good on the PP (barely any credit for this*)
* Doesn't play the PK (no credit)
* Not much of a physical game (tiny factor for me personally)

Compared to other most other players, he compares well from a possession compared to ice time and production stand point. Top pairing for sure. But there are many players behind him that makes important contributions on special teams, which causes him to fall.

Then of course there is an eye test and opinion based factor as well, but I tried to ignore that one to eliminate any bias. I do like Jake after all. Sometimes.

* I don't view special team contributions like many others do. For me, you don't get any credit for just playing. You need to be sufficiently good that not just anyone can replace you and do it just as well. Therefor Gardiner doesn't get much credit for his PP, for while he plays some he isn't all that much better compared to replacement level. I calculated a replacement level player by looking up all d-men who would play PP in an injury-free, equal league, and then looked at what the 30 next in line are able to do. What the average next choice in line would be able to do.

 

[RLF]

Opinion based on stats

There's no unifying stat, so you have to take what each stat says about a particular thing and piece together a complete picture. So what I used to go on statistically was:

* Great possession player (which I personally find very important)
* Plays a ton of 5-on-5 minutes (also very valuable)
* Not great individual production (that certainly should be considered)
* Not very good on the PP (barely any credit for this*)
* Doesn't play the PK (no credit)
* Not much of a physical game (tiny factor for me personally)

Compared to other most other players, he compares well from a possession compared to ice time and production stand point. Top pairing for sure. But there are many players behind him that makes important contributions on special teams, which causes him to fall.

Then of course there is an eye test and opinion based factor as well, but I tried to ignore that one to eliminate any bias. I do like Jake after all. Sometimes.

* I don't view special team contributions like many others do. For me, you don't get any credit for just playing. You need to be sufficiently good that not just anyone can replace you and do it just as well. Therefor Gardiner doesn't get much credit for his PP, for while he plays some he isn't all that much better compared to replacement level. I calculated a replacement level player by looking up all d-men who would play PP in an injury-free, equal league, and then looked at what the 30 next in line are able to do. What the average next choice in line would be able to do.

The reason I asked, is because when you look at the stats Kadri 91 provided...

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.


He would seem to rank higher statistically then 70-80. He basically places in the top 40 for most stats. You say "Top pair for sure", then rank him outside the top 60, it seems you have really dropped him down based on little pp, pk duty based on your opinion of their importance. Also, it seems you only used what you deem important stats to base your evaluation. You put a lot of personal opinion in there on how to rate the stats importance as well.

I have to admit, I am a little confused. Our debate was started basically because I said advanced stats are not the be all end all, subject to interpretation, opinion, and they don't tell the whole story. Every time I have had an opinion on Gardiner or how a stat can be used, you have come back with a stat to show I am off base. Now you rank Gardiner, not based on all stats, but what you deem important stats to form an opinion. Since, as you said, there is no "unifying stat" to be able to do so, you have formed your own opinion based on what is available to you and what importance you put on it. Is this not what I was doing, interpreting stats and their importance to me? Seems a little hypocritical to use what you deem important for evaluation and then say others are wrong for doing so. Not trying to argue, just find it one-sided.

 

[Nithoniniel]

The reason I asked, is because when you look at the stats Kadri 91 provided...

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.


He would seem to rank higher statistically then 70-80. He basically places in the top 40 for most stats. You say "Top pair for sure", then rank him outside the top 60, it seems you have really dropped him down based on little pp, pk duty based on your opinion of their importance. Also, it seems you only used what you deem important stats to base your evaluation. You put a lot of personal opinion in there on how to rate the stats importance as well.

I have to admit, I am a little confused. Our debate was started basically because I said advanced stats are not the be all end all, subject to interpretation, opinion, and they don't tell the whole story. Every time I have had an opinion on Gardiner or how a stat can be used, you have come back with a stat to show I am off base. Now you rank Gardiner, not based on all stats, but what you deem important stats to form an opinion. Since, as you said, there is no "unifying stat" to be able to do so, you have formed your own opinion based on what is available to you and what importance you put on it. Is this not what I was doing, interpreting stats and their importance to me? Seems a little hypocritical to use what you deem important for evaluation and then say others are wrong for doing so. Not trying to argue, just find it one-sided.

What we argued about was that you made statements that directly contradicted what stats have shown, made statements that was completely erroneous, and referring to things that were out of his control and therefor a confounding element in an evaluation. Not that you didn't only use stats.

Neither 91Kadri91 or me had a problem with you thinking that while Gardiner has a great possession game, he doesn't score enough. That's just fair, nobody can tell you that you are wrong in how you value production for D-men, for example. But you made statements where you blamed him for a negative goal differential, and that becomes problematic because it's not a subjective matter. It's a statement based on blaming Gardiner for a noise factor, something that has nothing to do with him as a player. And that is just erroneous use of a statistical evaluation.

Here is how it started:

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.

I was simply trying to point out where you make mistakes in a statistical evaluation.

Edit: Also, "you use what you deemed important statistics". Care to elaborate on that?

 

[RLF]

What we argued about was that you made statements that directly contradicted what stats have shown, made statements that was completely erroneous, and referring to things that were out of his control and therefor a confounding element in an evaluation. Not that you didn't only use stats.

Neither 91Kadri91 or me had a problem with you thinking that while Gardiner has a great possession game, he doesn't score enough. That's just fair, nobody can tell you that you are wrong in how you value production for D-men, for example. But you made statements where you blamed him for a negative goal differential, and that becomes problematic because it's not a subjective matter. It's a statement based on blaming Gardiner for a noise factor, something that has nothing to do with him as a player. And that is just erroneous use of a statistical evaluation.

Here is how it started:





I was simply trying to point out where you make mistakes in a statistical evaluation.

Edit: Also, "you use what you deemed important statistics". Care to elaborate on that?

The debate goes back before the statement you showed and I have no intent on re-hashing when it started. My point was that stats may show certain things because of certain factors. Every time I brought a possible factor up, I got "there is research that disproves that". IIRC, you even said on another thread that every question anyone here could ever think of regarding advanced stats has already been asked and taken into the equation. Stats may also show player X(mid tier guy) is better than player Y(high end guy), but no one in his right mind would choose player X over player Y.
You have used these stats consistently to prove points showing how effective Jake is, and have said I interpret them incorrectly which is why I do not see what the stats say. You say I consider too many noise factors etc and they should be disregarded because stats show different. If all this is correct, then player X would be better and more valuable than player Y...without question. We know this not to be true, even if stats tell us otherwise. So maybe there actually is other things to consider even though the belief is that all questions and variables have been accounted for.

My confusion is when evaluating Jake, your 70-80 rank seems to go against the statistical data. He only has one stat outside top 80 and one at 80. The rest are better than the position you rank him...seems to go against what you have preached to be proof of how he plays. You have also claimed you do not like to consider the eye test. So, it is a fair question to ask, If you have interpreted all stats correctly, and they will show how effective a player is, then why rank him much lower than the stats seem to do?

As for elaborating...I bolded parts of your initial response where you clearly indicate what stats you find most important and how you rank their importance.

 

[diceman934]

Are you saying that I'm wrong?

Yes he is.....there was a word left out of your post that changed the whole point....

If you can defend you are useless.....

I would bet you meant if you can not defend you are useless.

 

[Nithoniniel]

The debate goes back before the statement you showed and I have no intent on re-hashing when it started. My point was that stats may show certain things because of certain factors. Every time I brought a possible factor up, I got "there is research that disproves that". IIRC, you even said on another thread that every question anyone here could ever think of regarding advanced stats has already been asked and taken into the equation. Stats may also show player X(mid tier guy) is better than player Y(high end guy), but no one in his right mind would choose player X over player Y.
You have used these stats consistently to prove points showing how effective Jake is, and have said I interpret them incorrectly which is why I do not see what the stats say. You say I consider too many noise factors etc and they should be disregarded because stats show different. If all this is correct, then player X would be better and more valuable than player Y...without question. We know this not to be true, even if stats tell us otherwise. So maybe there actually is other things to consider even though the belief is that all questions and variables have been accounted for.

My confusion is when evaluating Jake, your 70-80 rank seems to go against the statistical data. He only has one stat outside top 80 and one at 80. The rest are better than the position you rank him...seems to go against what you have preached to be proof of how he plays. You have also claimed you do not like to consider the eye test. So, it is a fair question to ask, If you have interpreted all stats correctly, and they will show how effective a player is, then why rank him much lower than the stats seem to do?

As for elaborating...I bolded parts of your initial response where you clearly indicate what stats you find most important and how you rank their importance.

The statistical data based on his 5-on-5 play is better than my ranking. Hockey is more than 5-on-5, thus lowering the range in which I put him. What is so confusing there?

I didn't pick and choose statistics. I used pretty much everything there is available to evaluate a players performance. When it comes to how you value 5-on-5 statistics versus how useful you are on special teams, there are no clear guidelines on how to do that. Thus it is subjective.

 

[LeafingTheWay]

Just a glimpse at what Gardiner is on the ice:
http://public.tableau.com/shared/2GSHKJKJW?:display_count=yes

Of course it doesn't tell everything, but it summarizes it real well.
A lot of people are fooled with the eye test on players like Gardiner, Stralman, Letang and even Subban because of the way they play.

 

[Trapper]

Just a glimpse at what Gardiner is on the ice:
http://public.tableau.com/shared/2GSHKJKJW?:display_count=yes

Of course it doesn't tell everything, but it summarizes it real well.
A lot of people are fooled with the eye test on players like Gardiner, Stralman, Letang and even Subban because of the way they play.

So what does the year by year chart look like? Does that have the entire time he's been in the NHL? How many games played and what competition was he up against? Crosby/Malkin/Giroux? Or 3rd/4th line players? Or both?
I see these charts but what do they all take into account?

 

[Gary Nylund]

So what does the year by year chart look like? Does that have the entire time he's been in the NHL? How many games played and what competition was he up against? Crosby/Malkin/Giroux? Or 3rd/4th line players? Or both?
I see these charts but what do they all take into account?

I believe it's for the last 3 years.

 

[WilliamNylander]

Seems he will be our #1 dman, at least to start the year...

 

[RLF]

The statistical data based on his 5-on-5 play is better than my ranking. Hockey is more than 5-on-5, thus lowering the range in which I put him. What is so confusing there?

I didn't pick and choose statistics. I used pretty much everything there is available to evaluate a players performance. When it comes to how you value 5-on-5 statistics versus how useful you are on special teams, there are no clear guidelines on how to do that. Thus it is subjective[/B].

I thought we were talking a 5 on 5 ranking? Were we not?

Bolded-That is what I have been saying and it has been you saying there is no subjectivity because all variables have been asked and accounted for. Yes, you will say stats don't show everything, but then follow up with a stat to show or disprove something. You don't see how your statement is confusing when now it is you that is saying stats don't show everything and you can't evaluate play on them alone? It is now you saying there is no clear guidelines, when earlier, they couldn't be clearer and I just don't understand them.

I do find It funny though that they seem to have a formula to compare players in all areas for everything except one that compiles all stats per player and then ranks them against each other. You would think it would be very useful. Maybe the results would show players like Tanev, Gardiner etc more effective than Weber, Keith, etc and then advanced stats would be in question to how well they actually evaluate players.

 

[RLF]

So what does the year by year chart look like? Does that have the entire time he's been in the NHL? How many games played and what competition was he up against? Crosby/Malkin/Giroux? Or 3rd/4th line players? Or both?
I see these charts but what do they all take into account?

Apparently, QOC has very little impact over a year and other variables have all been accounted for. Personally, I find it difficult to believe QOC doesn't matter, but statisticians have calculated that it doesn't.

 

[LeafingTheWay]

So what does the year by year chart look like? Does that have the entire time he's been in the NHL? How many games played and what competition was he up against? Crosby/Malkin/Giroux? Or 3rd/4th line players? Or both?
I see these charts but what do they all take into account?

Just a reminder that these charts shouldn't be used by themselves or to tell the whole story. They just give the reader a sense of the trend/type of player the player is. In this case, it indicates that Gardiner is producing very great results - top pairing results. And that's when the reader has to look further into it and see his other usages, stats, etc.

As for QoC, it's been calculated to be not an important factor. Zone starts, minutes played and QoT are the three main factors. Considering Gardiner doesn't get sheltered, plays on the fringe of top-pairing minutes averaging last 3 years (basically has played as a #3 on the team in terms of minutes), and doesn't has as strong quality of teammates as everyone else, I'd say we're okay in terms of looking at the chart (i.e we're not missing out on a whole lot else).

 

[Ovate]

Apparently, QOC has very little impact over a year and other variables have all been accounted for. Personally, I find it difficult to believe QOC doesn't matter, but statisticians have calculated that it doesn't.

I believe this is a myth and I challenge it every time it comes up. Can anyone provide any statistical evidence that the impact of QoC is negligible?

 

[Purity*]

Apparently, QOC has very little impact over a year and other variables have all been accounted for. Personally, I find it difficult to believe QOC doesn't matter, but statisticians have calculated that it doesn't.

I think the way it's calculated isn't entirely accurate due to how coaches want to work the match-ups.

QoC straight up, you god damn right it makes a difference. Say you're facing a team like Montreal, there's a huge difference between being on the ice against Markov/Subban than Emelin/Petry. Or forward-wise against a team like Washington, being against Ovechkin/Backstrom vs whoever is on their 2nd line.

 

[TeamBester]

Apparently, QOC has very little impact over a year and other variables have all been accounted for. Personally, I find it difficult to believe QOC doesn't matter, but statisticians have calculated that it doesn't.

This should be good.