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

[yubbers]

No
He's really not. Maybe if he stops playing scared.

 

[RLF]

I have a few comments here. Have to say first that I appreciate reading criticism with some thought to it and that actually takes things into consideration. Here goes:

First bolded, some are saying that. Me personally, I think Gardiner is a #3 kind of D-man. I don't think that qualifies as great either. What many that I find myself arguing with is saying though is that he's awful, barely NHL-quality. That's an extreme take, and as such I have a problem with it.

Second bolded, Gardiner's +/- is driven by how little offense we created with him on the ice. That's completely the reverse from most of the criticism, which has to do with his defense. The offense comes from him having an incredibly low on-ice shooting percentage. This is not sustainable for two reasons. First, Gardiner actually helps us have more shot attempts in high scoring areas than average for the team. Second, D-men don't have control over on-ice shooting percentage so it is pretty much just noise.

Third bolded, what we actually know about QoC is that over the course of a season, Dion doesn't actually face good opposition that much more than Gardiner. As the sample size increase, the differences gets very small. It's very close to a non-factor.

Fourth bolded, this is directly connected to the third. Since QoC has a minuscule effect, this is likely not QoC-related. It's also not something that D-men have control over. So Gardiner has been getting a bit lucky defensively.

Fifth bolded, it is fair criticism that Gardiner doesn't have a physical side. Also that he doesn't block shots. Both are hot topics of discussion for how much they matter though.

Sixth bolded, also fair cricicism. Gardiner should absolutely create more offense than he does.

Seventh bolded, your theory here rests on some faulty grounds as above. First of all, zone starts is included in the calculations used for his possession game. His +/- is unsustainably bad. QoC is not the factor that you describe it as here. The percentages are noise-driven.

Eight bolded, Gardiner's play on special teams is fair criticism as well. He is most of all a 5-on-5 player.

Summary: You are right everything needs to be taken into account, but I find that you are off on some marks as above. What a statistical analysis shows is that Gardiner is a great transition D-man which helps his overall game a lot 5-on-5. This helps him mostly have an effect on defense, but offensively he has left some to be desired. 5-on-5, he has the overall effectiveness of a top pairing D-man, excluding subjective factors such as physicality and shot blocking. He is however limited to that, and as such doesn't have the value of a top pairing D-man. That's why I see him as an average #3 D-man.

If one looks at a complete analysis, one should also take into account that our system didn't punish our D-men that could skate as much as the others. This might skew Gardiner's relative stats making them look better than they would be in a better system. It'll be interesting to see what happens in this regard next season.

Now I have to run, writing this makes me about 15 minutes late. Looking forward to the reply.

First of all thanks and I agree, more enjoyable to debate when thought is put into a response other than the some who prefer "your nuts if you think that way, why? cause I disagree"lol

First - Pretty much agree. I have Jake as a potential #3 only because I rate 1,3,5 D as the anchors of a pairing and 2,4,6 are guys who are effective if they have the right partner.

Second - Because he didn't drive offensive production is the point though, low shooting% aside. As simple a stat as +/- is, it is basically a 5on5 stat based on GF-GA. Granted this is by far his worst +/- season. Since he doesn't block shots, isn't physical and gives the puck away...he needs to generate offence. Let's remember this thread was started to show Jake was a good defender last season.

Third - Here is where the eye test should show you something stats do not always. When and where on the ice the QOC is faced is more important than if it's close. If Dion is facing his high QOC on defensive zone starts and Gardiner on offensive zone starts, one will be defending against it more. Watching the games we know this is the case. Plus, if it didn't really matter, why do coaches care who they put on the ice then? Why would they care about match-ups or quickly try and change lines on the fly to get some players away from others. It seems some are suggesting because they believe QOC doesn't matter (according to how the stat is interpreted) much that if Dion and Jake switched roles, Jake would do just as well. Sorry, can't buy that.

Fourth - Again see above. Sometimes I think people can overthink the stats and forget how the game is coached and what we see on the ice to look for context of the stat. From watching the games, there is no doubt in my mind that Dion started against higher QOC in our end than Jake and therefore defended more often against better quality shooters than Jake.

Fifth/Sixth - As a whole it is important imo. If he is not creating offence, he needs to find other ways to contribute more. Being a puck mover is one thing, but making it any easy night on opponents is another, especially if you are not helping out-score your lack of physical play and keeping the puck out of your net 5on5.

Seventh - I wasn't referring to possession stats as such, more how he is used and what results do we get. Let's say we are playing Pitt. Where do you think Carlyle preferred to start Jake if Crosby was on the ice...offensive or defensive zone? Conversely, Do you think Johnston would try and get Crosby out against Dion or Jake for an offensive zone start(our end)? Because coaches look for the best match-ups, it can appear QOC is similar, but like I said, it depends on where on the ice the competition is mostly faced. That said, when I look at how Jake is used, his poor+/- and giveaways last season and favourable zone starts and goaltending stats, low blocked shots, hits and pts...it doesn't scream good/great overall defender imo

Eighth - Thanks, I believe, most importantly you have to look at how a player is used.

Summary - bolded - I am not disagreeing there. No doubt Jake moves the puck, carries the puck and drives play up ice and helps possession. Personally I still see a d-man who hasn't put it all together consistently. How much longer management will be patient, I don't know. I think he has the skills to anchor a second pairing (#3), but right now is a 4/5 based on what I see, how he is used and then taking all stats into context. Some will blame the coach on how he is used, but the stats don't support putting him in a higher role.imo

Interesting to see how he does under a different coach for sure. Does he reach potential or is he what he is...inconsistent.

 

[TeamBester]

For all the people that are complaining about Gardiner, what were your expectations? What is it you expected from him and what do you see him as?

Stop making brain dead plays, that is all.

 

[Shwaguy*]

Doughty and Keith in the same sentence/comparison of "numbers" as Gardiner..... We might as well sell a package of Mr. Noodles at the same price as a prime rib at The Keg. That is how similar those 2 are with Gardiner.

Let's use baseball (Jays) as an example to compare what Gardiner is. Gardiner is like Hutchison. Numbers say he is great, when in fact, as a fan, you really hope he does well, but it's an adventure every time he takes the mound. Plus, you cringe, knowing it is only a matter of time before the runs start piling up (and not in your favour). But, I am sure there are some who will say he is the best pitcher on the team ( just like finding numbers that say Gardiner is the best d-man - which is laughable), and is better than a guy like Dickey (just for example). He's 13-4, Kershaw is 13-6. The numbers say this is true right???? Let's ignore ERA (+/-).....

This is a horrible example. Hutchison has terrible Sabremetric stats while Gardiner has great Corsi stats. Numbers do not say Hutchison is great unless you don't know anything about baseball and the only thing you look at is Wins.

Comparing a raw useless stat like Hutchison having a good W-L ratio to Gardiner having strong Advanced stats is ridiculous.

Wins are the +/- of baseball. Your comparison of Hutchison would be more fit for comparing to a guy like Mark Fraser the year we made the playoffs. High +/- (High Wins), but obviously he's not very good.

 

[Swayze*]

I see a few posters reading some data and trying to tell everybody how great Jake is

If you're just looking at data to form your opinion and believe in that, then there would be zero reason to ever actually scout a player. No logical person would ever go this route but it seems many here are advocating just that.

The truth is jake is soft and makes terrible bonehead plays

 

[Gary Nylund]

I see a few posters reading some data and trying to tell everybody how great Jake is

If you're just looking at data to form your opinion and believe in that, then there would be zero reason to ever actually scout a player. No logical person would ever go this route but it seems many here are advocating just that.

The truth is jake is soft and makes terrible bonehead plays

I haven't seen even one post where anyone has said this. Since you say there are many perhaps you can show me at least one?

 

[HamiltonNHL]

I haven't seen even one post where anyone has said this. Since you say there are many perhaps you can show me at least one?

I'm one.

 

[Nithoniniel]

First of all thanks and I agree, more enjoyable to debate when thought is put into a response other than the some who prefer "your nuts if you think that way, why? cause I disagree"lol

First - Pretty much agree. I have Jake as a potential #3 only because I rate 1,3,5 D as the anchors of a pairing and 2,4,6 are guys who are effective if they have the right partner.

Second - Because he didn't drive offensive production is the point though, low shooting% aside. As simple a stat as +/- is, it is basically a 5on5 stat based on GF-GA. Granted this is by far his worst +/- season. Since he doesn't block shots, isn't physical and gives the puck away...he needs to generate offence. Let's remember this thread was started to show Jake was a good defender last season.

Third - Here is where the eye test should show you something stats do not always. When and where on the ice the QOC is faced is more important than if it's close. If Dion is facing his high QOC on defensive zone starts and Gardiner on offensive zone starts, one will be defending against it more. Watching the games we know this is the case. Plus, if it didn't really matter, why do coaches care who they put on the ice then? Why would they care about match-ups or quickly try and change lines on the fly to get some players away from others. It seems some are suggesting because they believe QOC doesn't matter (according to how the stat is interpreted) much that if Dion and Jake switched roles, Jake would do just as well. Sorry, can't buy that.

Fourth - Again see above. Sometimes I think people can overthink the stats and forget how the game is coached and what we see on the ice to look for context of the stat. From watching the games, there is no doubt in my mind that Dion started against higher QOC in our end than Jake and therefore defended more often against better quality shooters than Jake.

Fifth/Sixth - As a whole it is important imo. If he is not creating offence, he needs to find other ways to contribute more. Being a puck mover is one thing, but making it any easy night on opponents is another, especially if you are not helping out-score your lack of physical play and keeping the puck out of your net 5on5.

Seventh - I wasn't referring to possession stats as such, more how he is used and what results do we get. Let's say we are playing Pitt. Where do you think Carlyle preferred to start Jake if Crosby was on the ice...offensive or defensive zone? Conversely, Do you think Johnston would try and get Crosby out against Dion or Jake for an offensive zone start(our end)? Because coaches look for the best match-ups, it can appear QOC is similar, but like I said, it depends on where on the ice the competition is mostly faced. That said, when I look at how Jake is used, his poor+/- and giveaways last season and favourable zone starts and goaltending stats, low blocked shots, hits and pts...it doesn't scream good/great overall defender imo

Eighth - Thanks, I believe, most importantly you have to look at how a player is used.

Summary - bolded - I am not disagreeing there. No doubt Jake moves the puck, carries the puck and drives play up ice and helps possession. Personally I still see a d-man who hasn't put it all together consistently. How much longer management will be patient, I don't know. I think he has the skills to anchor a second pairing (#3), but right now is a 4/5 based on what I see, how he is used and then taking all stats into context. Some will blame the coach on how he is used, but the stats don't support putting him in a higher role.imo

Interesting to see how he does under a different coach for sure. Does he reach potential or is he what he is...inconsistent.

I'll cut the discussion down to a few focal points.

First I'd like to mention cognitive bias. As humans we filter information, we see what we want to see in many ways. That goes a long way to explain why we experience Dion playing against much tougher competition than Gardiner on a consistent basis. Consider this. Half the games every season is played away, where the opposing coach can control match ups. That's half the sample size where the opposing coach will be getting away from the match ups he doesn't want. No wonder the differences are not that big in the end.

Edit: Noticed you brought this up. Sure, it tells something about how Gardiner is in the defensive zone compared to Phaneuf that match ups are the way they are. My point is simply, over the course of the season, Gardiner plays the top players almost as much as Phaneuf. Until we see the data, we can't actually say anything about how they do in those specific situations. What we can say is that they are not a part of the reason why Gardiner keeps shots, scoring chances and goals against down compared to Dion. The only thing I've seen on that is someone writing that when looking at the top scorers of the league, the most effective defense against them had been keeping the puck away from them. Can't verify the authenticity of that claim though.

The other is this. Jake is a 5-on-5 guy, we agree on that. If we are to judge him fairly on this, we need to judge him on what he can control. Holding it against him that he was outscored 5-on-5 is not fair since that was unsustainable, outside his control. His impact on the game at 5-on-5, taking QoC and ZS% among other things into account, should in general help us outscore the opposition. Next season he might have 14% on-ice shooting percentage and have a great +/-, and it'll be just as little due to him. It's just variance.

Last point. You judge him based on +/-, a stat that has been shown to be about team, usage, linemates and player in that order. You bring up blocked shots, that is very questioned in whether having a lot of it is actually good. It basically just means that opposition has a ton of chances to shoot at goal against you. You mention hits, when physicality has no correlation to success. You mention goaltending stats, but D-men don't have an effect on that either. And you mention zone starts and overall usage, which is incorporated in the statistical analysis that maintain that Gardiner has a great effect.

These things tell about who the player is and what style he plays, what the context is. Not how good he is.

Edit 2: Just about +/-. It's not really a 5-on-5 thing exclusively. If you want that, you should use just even strength GF/60-GA/60. Someone playing PP and no PK will always have a bunch of minuses extra. Think Toronto had around 10 SHGA this season. That's a lot of minus.

 

[Swayze*]

I'll cut the discussion down to a few focal points.

First I'd like to mention cognitive bias. As humans we filter information, we see what we want to see in many ways. That goes a long way to explain why we experience Dion playing against much tougher competition than Gardiner on a consistent basis. Consider this. Half the games every season is played away, where the opposing coach can control match ups. That's half the sample size where the opposing coach will be getting away from the match ups he doesn't want. No wonder the differences are not that big in the end.

Edit: Noticed you brought this up. Sure, it tells something about how Gardiner is in the defensive zone compared to Phaneuf that match ups are the way they are. My point is simply, over the course of the season, Gardiner plays the top players almost as much as Phaneuf. Until we see the data, we can't actually say anything about how they do in those specific situations. What we can say is that they are not a part of the reason why Gardiner keeps shots, scoring chances and goals against down compared to Dion. The only thing I've seen on that is someone writing that when looking at the top scorers of the league, the most effective defense against them had been keeping the puck away from them. Can't verify the authenticity of that claim though.

The other is this. Jake is a 5-on-5 guy, we agree on that. If we are to judge him fairly on this, we need to judge him on what he can control. Holding it against him that he was outscored 5-on-5 is not fair since that was unsustainable, outside his control. His impact on the game at 5-on-5, taking QoC and ZS% among other things into account, should in general help us outscore the opposition. Next season he might have 14% on-ice shooting percentage and have a great +/-, and it'll be just as little due to him. It's just variance.

Last point. You judge him based on +/-, a stat that has been shown to be about team, usage, linemates and player in that order. You bring up blocked shots, that is very questioned in whether having a lot of it is actually good. It basically just means that opposition has a ton of chances to shoot at goal against you. You mention hits, when physicality has no correlation to success. You mention goaltending stats, but D-men don't have an effect on that either. And you mention zone starts and overall usage, which is incorporated in the statistical analysis that maintain that Gardiner has a great effect.

These things tell about who the player is and what style he plays, what the context is. Not how good he is.

Edit 2: Just about +/-. It's not really a 5-on-5 thing exclusively. If you want that, you should use just even strength GF/60-GA/60. Someone playing PP and no PK will always have a bunch of minuses extra. Think Toronto had around 10 SHGA this season. That's a lot of minus.

Basically you're just picking out stats and data that YOU deem important for success.

I think we can all agree, the Leafs, their D and Jake have not been successful in any way for a while now.

 

[Cams]

My main point in this whole silly debate is how the title relates to the reality of it all. Gardiner is a pretty good defenseman is true, but not in the defensive part of the game. Yet, if he is an offensive d-man (one who drives the play towards the other team), his point totals should be a lot higher than what they are. I use Karlsson again as an example....he is an elite defenseman..... for putting up points...defensively....not so much.

RE: blocked shots, hits..... guys like Polak (using a TOR example) go out of their way to block shots, and engage opponents physically. Watch Gardiner..he follows the opponent into the corner, avoids contact. How do you think teams plan their attack....If Gardiner is on the ice - get the puck deep, and initiate contact with him...that's what I would do, and that's what teams have been doing.

And his blind giveaways - throwing the puck up the ice to nobody. Maybe take a look to see if the winger is in position for the puck, or if there even is one nearby....? This can't all be blamed on the forwards. This happens in the O-zone too. One game I like to refer to - was in Minnesota (last year I think), Leafs had pressure, cycling the puck, even got a line change in I think.... Gardiner gets the puck... fluffs it towards the corner right to the other team... had he moved to his partner or hammered it into the corner - Leafs retain possession.

Trust, I will say this again...I want him to succeed, and be a top Dman..but the way he has played in the last 2 seasons..... I just don't see it. I hope Babcock can fix his game. I'm not asking him to be Lidstrom...I'm just asking for him to stop making so many rookies mistakes so often. He has been a very frustrating player to watch.

 

[91Kadri91*]

Basically you're just picking out stats and data that YOU deem important for success.

I think we can all agree, the Leafs, their D and Jake have not been successful in any way for a while now.

So what you're arguing is that preventing goals, shots and/or scoring chances are not measures of good defense? Yeah, best of luck with that.

 

[Woll Smoth]

My main point in this whole silly debate is how the title relates to the reality of it all. Gardiner is a pretty good defenseman is true, but not in the defensive part of the game. Yet, if he is an offensive d-man (one who drives the play towards the other team), his point totals should be a lot higher than what they are. I use Karlsson again as an example....he is an elite defenseman..... for putting up points...defensively....not so much.

RE: blocked shots, hits..... guys like Polak (using a TOR example) go out of their way to block shots, and engage opponents physically. Watch Gardiner..he follows the opponent into the corner, avoids contact. How do you think teams plan their attack....If Gardiner is on the ice - get the puck deep, and initiate contact with him...that's what I would do, and that's what teams have been doing.

And his blind giveaways - throwing the puck up the ice to nobody. Maybe take a look to see if the winger is in position for the puck, or if there even is one nearby....? This can't all be blamed on the forwards. This happens in the O-zone too. One game I like to refer to - was in Minnesota (last year I think), Leafs had pressure, cycling the puck, even got a line change in I think.... Gardiner gets the puck... fluffs it towards the corner right to the other team... had he moved to his partner or hammered it into the corner - Leafs retain possession.

Trust, I will say this again...I want him to succeed, and be a top Dman..but the way he has played in the last 2 seasons..... I just don't see it. I hope Babcock can fix his game. I'm not asking him to be Lidstrom...I'm just asking for him to stop making so many rookies mistakes so often. He has been a very frustrating player to watch.

Agree with this.

Jake Gardiner on day 1: Silky smooth skater, calm and cool under pressure, makes rookie mistakes.

Jake Gardiner today: Silky smooth skater, his calm and cool demeanor ended up being a lack of urgency, and his rookie mistakes were just low defensive IQ.

The main problem I have with Gardiner is that he didn't really develop, he's been the same player since day 1. You'd expect a player who shows a lot of promise to start weeding out some of the bad plays and decisions, or add something to his defensive game once he gets used to the speed and strength of the NHL, but no, Gardiner is still the exact same player.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Basically you're just picking out stats and data that YOU deem important for success.

I think we can all agree, the Leafs, their D and Jake have not been successful in any way for a while now.

No, what I have done is read up on all the stats and data, what they mean and how to use them, and then apply that when I analyze the player.

I don't analyze Jake in any other way than I do any other D-men.

And yeah, we haven't been successful. Hopefully the Babcockian era will change that, by not putting so much pressure on our defense.

My main point in this whole silly debate is how the title relates to the reality of it all. Gardiner is a pretty good defenseman is true, but not in the defensive part of the game. Yet, if he is an offensive d-man (one who drives the play towards the other team), his point totals should be a lot higher than what they are. I use Karlsson again as an example....he is an elite defenseman..... for putting up points...defensively....not so much.

RE: blocked shots, hits..... guys like Polak (using a TOR example) go out of their way to block shots, and engage opponents physically. Watch Gardiner..he follows the opponent into the corner, avoids contact. How do you think teams plan their attack....If Gardiner is on the ice - get the puck deep, and initiate contact with him...that's what I would do, and that's what teams have been doing.

And his blind giveaways - throwing the puck up the ice to nobody. Maybe take a look to see if the winger is in position for the puck, or if there even is one nearby....? This can't all be blamed on the forwards. This happens in the O-zone too. One game I like to refer to - was in Minnesota (last year I think), Leafs had pressure, cycling the puck, even got a line change in I think.... Gardiner gets the puck... fluffs it towards the corner right to the other team... had he moved to his partner or hammered it into the corner - Leafs retain possession.

Trust, I will say this again...I want him to succeed, and be a top Dman..but the way he has played in the last 2 seasons..... I just don't see it. I hope Babcock can fix his game. I'm not asking him to be Lidstrom...I'm just asking for him to stop making so many rookies mistakes so often. He has been a very frustrating player to watch.

If opposition tactics have been going after Gardiner defensively, then that has not worked out well for them as that is when we give up the least.

Blocked shots is hard to judge. I give Polak a ton of credit for his blocking shots, but he also needs to do that since he faces so prolonged attacks. There are also other aspects. Gardiner protects passing lanes with his stick. He's been our best D-man at this. Polak has been our worst of the regulars. This means that opposition can move the puck to more dangerous areas (when Polak is not smashing them), resulting in the need to block shots.

I've said this many times before, and I don't direct this at someone in particular, but I'm baffled at how up in arms people can get over a D-man not battling it out well in the corners, yet never ever mention other D-men giving up the blue line or making ineffective decisions or not protecting passing lanes. Is Gardiner frustrating sometimes? Yes, sure. But so is Polak running around with his stick waist-high, leaving easy passing options for the opposition.

 

[GordieHoweHatTrick]

I have a few comments here. Have to say first that I appreciate reading criticism with some thought to it and that actually takes things into consideration. Here goes:

First bolded, some are saying that. Me personally, I think Gardiner is a #3 kind of D-man. I don't think that qualifies as great either. What many that I find myself arguing with is saying though is that he's awful, barely NHL-quality. That's an extreme take, and as such I have a problem with it.

Second bolded, Gardiner's +/- is driven by how little offense we created with him on the ice. That's completely the reverse from most of the criticism, which has to do with his defense. The offense comes from him having an incredibly low on-ice shooting percentage. This is not sustainable for two reasons. First, Gardiner actually helps us have more shot attempts in high scoring areas than average for the team. Second, D-men don't have control over on-ice shooting percentage so it is pretty much just noise.

Third bolded, what we actually know about QoC is that over the course of a season, Dion doesn't actually face good opposition that much more than Gardiner. As the sample size increase, the differences gets very small. It's very close to a non-factor.

Fourth bolded, this is directly connected to the third. Since QoC has a minuscule effect, this is likely not QoC-related. It's also not something that D-men have control over. So Gardiner has been getting a bit lucky defensively.

Fifth bolded, it is fair criticism that Gardiner doesn't have a physical side. Also that he doesn't block shots. Both are hot topics of discussion for how much they matter though.

Sixth bolded, also fair cricicism. Gardiner should absolutely create more offense than he does.

Seventh bolded, your theory here rests on some faulty grounds as above. First of all, zone starts is included in the calculations used for his possession game. His +/- is unsustainably bad. QoC is not the factor that you describe it as here. The percentages are noise-driven.

Eight bolded, Gardiner's play on special teams is fair criticism as well. He is most of all a 5-on-5 player.

Summary: You are right everything needs to be taken into account, but I find that you are off on some marks as above. What a statistical analysis shows is that Gardiner is a great transition D-man which helps his overall game a lot 5-on-5. This helps him mostly have an effect on defense, but offensively he has left some to be desired. 5-on-5, he has the overall effectiveness of a top pairing D-man, excluding subjective factors such as physicality and shot blocking. He is however limited to that, and as such doesn't have the value of a top pairing D-man. That's why I see him as an average #3 D-man.

If one looks at a complete analysis, one should also take into account that our system didn't punish our D-men that could skate as much as the others. This might skew Gardiner's relative stats making them look better than they would be in a better system. It'll be interesting to see what happens in this regard next season.

Now I have to run, writing this makes me about 15 minutes late. Looking forward to the reply.

Ur not Josh Ho-Sang by any chance, are you?

 

[Nithoniniel]

Ur not Josh Ho-Sang by any chance, are you?

Does Ho-Sang usually discuss statistical analysis?

 

[TeamBester]

My main point in this whole silly debate is how the title relates to the reality of it all. Gardiner is a pretty good defenseman is true, but not in the defensive part of the game. Yet, if he is an offensive d-man (one who drives the play towards the other team), his point totals should be a lot higher than what they are. I use Karlsson again as an example....he is an elite defenseman..... for putting up points...defensively....not so much.

RE: blocked shots, hits..... guys like Polak (using a TOR example) go out of their way to block shots, and engage opponents physically. Watch Gardiner..he follows the opponent into the corner, avoids contact. How do you think teams plan their attack....If Gardiner is on the ice - get the puck deep, and initiate contact with him...that's what I would do, and that's what teams have been doing.

And his blind giveaways - throwing the puck up the ice to nobody. Maybe take a look to see if the winger is in position for the puck, or if there even is one nearby....? This can't all be blamed on the forwards. This happens in the O-zone too. One game I like to refer to - was in Minnesota (last year I think), Leafs had pressure, cycling the puck, even got a line change in I think.... Gardiner gets the puck... fluffs it towards the corner right to the other team... had he moved to his partner or hammered it into the corner - Leafs retain possession.

Trust, I will say this again...I want him to succeed, and be a top Dman..but the way he has played in the last 2 seasons..... I just don't see it. I hope Babcock can fix his game. I'm not asking him to be Lidstrom...I'm just asking for him to stop making so many rookies mistakes so often. He has been a very frustrating player to watch.

Karlsson is a good comparable to Gardiner, have a lot of the same tools. The real difference between the two is one has elite offensive hockey sense, the other has no sense.

 

[Hockey Talker29]

No, what I have done is read up on all the stats and data, what they mean and how to use them, and then apply that when I analyze the player.

I don't analyze Jake in any other way than I do any other D-men.

And yeah, we haven't been successful. Hopefully the Babcockian era will change that, by not putting so much pressure on our defense.



If opposition tactics have been going after Gardiner defensively, then that has not worked out well for them as that is when we give up the least.

Blocked shots is hard to judge. I give Polak a ton of credit for his blocking shots, but he also needs to do that since he faces so prolonged attacks. There are also other aspects. Gardiner protects passing lanes with his stick. He's been our best D-man at this. Polak has been our worst of the regulars. This means that opposition can move the puck to more dangerous areas (when Polak is not smashing them), resulting in the need to block shots.

I've said this many times before, and I don't direct this at someone in particular, but I'm baffled at how up in arms people can get over a D-man not battling it out well in the corners, yet never ever mention other D-men giving up the blue line or making ineffective decisions or not protecting passing lanes. Is Gardiner frustrating sometimes? Yes, sure. But so is Polak running around with his stick waist-high, leaving easy passing options for the opposition.

The bolded is a great illustration of cognitive bias. People are looking specifically for who is soft in the corners. Those same people are ignoring the fact that Jake wins the vast majority of races to the corner. Probably the most amongst our d-men.

I'd actually argue that he's probably our best d-man in the corners for that reason. The amount of times he gets to the puck first and makes a clean pass or skates it out is greater than all of the other defensemen. This was statistically supported for the 2013-14 season. I forget exactly who prepared it (it took hundreds of hours of re-watching games), but it basically showed that Gardiner and Rielly were our best d-men at moving the puck out of our zone from an efficiency perspective.

In a 50-50 battle, Jake will be in tough. As noted, he's not physical. But he wins a lot of battles well before they become 50-50.

 

[ponder]

Agree with this.

Jake Gardiner on day 1: Silky smooth skater, calm and cool under pressure, makes rookie mistakes.

Jake Gardiner today: Silky smooth skater, his calm and cool demeanor ended up being a lack of urgency, and his rookie mistakes were just low defensive IQ.

The main problem I have with Gardiner is that he didn't really develop, he's been the same player since day 1. You'd expect a player who shows a lot of promise to start weeding out some of the bad plays and decisions, or add something to his defensive game once he gets used to the speed and strength of the NHL, but no, Gardiner is still the exact same player.

Agreed, very little development so far. I'd add "soft" to both of those points. You see a rookie dman with excellent skating, good all around skill, and calm/good confidence, and you get excited. The giveaways, general rookie mistakes, and softness seem like things that will get better as he gains experience and bulks up. So far, though, his weaknesses are just as weak as when he joined the league, and he hasn't really improved on his strengths either.

25 is still reasonably young for a dman, I can still see him maturing into a good 2nd pairing dman, but he's going to have to start improving soon. Right now he's basically no better than the day he entered the league.

 

[Menzinger]

People mention him having a low hockey iq a lot, but does anybody have anything tangible to support this - ie numbers that show he gives up more major mistakes than his peers. I often wonder how much of this criticism is selected memory bias.

 

[Hockey Talker29]

People mention him having a low hockey iq a lot, but does anybody have anything tangible to support this - ie numbers that show he gives up more major mistakes than his peers. I often wonder how much of this criticism is selected memory bias.

That assertion is strictly based on the "eye-test", and cognitive bias.

That's why his biggest critics are so surprised that he actually surrenders the lowest shot quality of all of the d-men on the team.

 

[Swayze*]

That assertion is strictly based on the "eye-test", and cognitive bias.

That's why his biggest critics are so surprised that he actually surrenders the lowest shot quality of all of the d-men on the team.

Dear lord

Why do you think he got scratched so much?

 

[Nithoniniel]

Dear lord

Why do you think he got scratched so much?

People get scratched for all kinds of reasons. Not saying that he's got a good hockey IQ.

One might just as well take the opposite stance and ask why he gets played so much if he's got a bad hockey IQ?

It's an overly simplistic position to take, IMO.

 

[Swayze*]

People get scratched for all kinds of reasons. Not saying that he's got a good hockey IQ.

One might just as well take the opposite stance and ask why he gets played so much if he's got a bad hockey IQ?

It's an overly simplistic position to take, IMO.

Lol

He got scratched for his horrid turnovers

 

[Nithoniniel]

Lol

He got scratched for his horrid turnovers

Oh, I'm arguing with a lolster....

Got a quote for that? Or are you just deciding what you want to believe and acting like it's the truth?

 

[Swayze*]

Oh, I'm arguing with a lolster....

Got a quote for that? Or are you just deciding what you want to believe and acting like it's the truth?

He was healthy scratched for his poor play. Its common knowledge.

Lol