Fair enough, Pookie.
I thought I'd make an evaluation here, of Kadri, to show people how I go about things:
I always start out by doing a statistical analysis.
First, I identify the sample size that makes sense. With Kadri, it makes sense to look at what he's done since coming up full time. It's big enough, and it is rather representative of him as the player he is now*.
Then I start looking at what he's done. First thing I check is general usage. Kadri has played an average of 13:43 TOI 5-on-5 during this period. That's close to top line minutes even strength.
Next thing is possession. The metric I like to use as a basis is CF% RelTM**. Kadri has a 2.1% impact on the possession of others, which is top line impact as well, although just barely. Now personally I like to at least have a look at ZS% here, even though that's heavily disputed. I do this because when working with this, I've found that players that change usage, either by trade or by coaching change, so that their ZS% changes significantly, they always seem to have a notable change in possession numbers as well. Kadri has 5% more defensive zone starts than offensive, a rather notable change. So if anything, he could move up that list possession-wise. His quality of competition is marginally above average, a small difference in a factor that doesn't have a lot of impact. This effect is negligible.
Then we move onto using this possession. Defensively, we know that players impact defense by limiting shots. They don't really make sure that goaltenders see easier shots. That's more system-based. And since we are dealing with quantity here, this part is already covered by looking at possession. Kadri does have a positive impact on our ability to limit shots, but he's much stronger in generating chances. Actual play in the defensive zone is muddy to evaluate statistically until we can compare against actual zone time, but that's ok. Making sure you are there for a short time is very crucial for defense anyway.
Offensively, forwards do impact conversion rates. They are also involved in finishing the play to different degrees. Kadri has a 2.02 Pts/60 over our sample size, which puts him at #49 in the league. This is in part driven by an on-ice shooting percentage of 9.8%, which is 19th in the league. Analyzing this, we find that this is driven up by an unsustainable number in the shortened season. A complete outlier. So that production is a bit on the generous side.
Another thing worth noting is penalty differential. Kadri draws penalties more than most players in the league. I can't find the calculations now, but I once found that his differential gave us enough penalties that if we converted at league-average frequency, it gives us another 8 goals on a season. Not too shabby. Could add that to projected totals, if one wishes.
That wraps up the big part. Now on to special teams. We can ignore PK, Kadri doesn't play it. PP however, is another thing. With PP, I generally judge individual production mostly, along with ice time and unit. Over this period, including last seasons bad performance, he's got 4.08 pts/60, good for #74 in the league***. Note that this is among regular PP players during this period, so it's a group of 121 forwards. Kadri has been our second most effective PP player, despite playing mostly on a significantly less effective secondary unit. I generally like to talk about performance compared to replacement level. Kadri is quite comfortably above it, but he's not exactly excelled at the PP either, although this is probably in part due to not having very strong options with him. Most of the players we've paraded through our second unit has been abysmal.
You can then support these numbers by looking at alternative metrics to see how they support or weaken the picture made here. With Kadri, it pretty much stays the same.
Before I'm done with the statistical analysis, I look through it to see if there's something I'd like to clear up, or something that looks particularly favorable or unfavorable****. Otherwise, I wrap up that part and start looking at personal impressions, mostly when they can add something to the picture.
With Kadri, I see someone who drives the play. Who needs the puck. That's a bit of a problem for him, because he's not good enough to do so on a strong first line. But he doesn't seem like the player who can play a supporting role for a stronger winger either. That's why he's often stuck being a very effective second liner, in my opinion. He needs to be the driving player on a line, and that will most likely be a second line. That in my mind makes a big difference in how you view him, and use him, going forward.
Then there is the off-ice aspect. Kadri has had many issues here, we got the suspension for unprofessional behavior last season. He seems like a follower, rather than a leader, as well. He's approaching UFA status, so any evaluation of him will have to take cap hit into account.
Conclusion:
He can perform at a top line level individually at even strength, but will most likely always be more of a top six option structurally. He's not a PK option, but he is a solid PP player who could be a bit more than that, given opportunity. His penalty drawing is an asset as well. Overall, I'd say he's somewhere in the 70-90 area of forwards in terms of on-ice impact.
However, his fit for the team is very much in the question. He needs to show and continue to show that he can clean up the off-ice professionalism, first of all. Then there's the question of contract.
In team building, I think cap and asset management is key. For that, you look at establishing a core group that you keep together and build on. You surround them with as much talent compared to cap hit as you can. When that changes, you look to move the player out.
Kadri is to me a second tier player. He's not a core player, the way I see them. He's a very strong support player, the type that you really want to keep around. So if he cleans his professionalism up, I'd absolutely love to keep him around long-term if he signs for a very manageable cap hit. But if we pay him what is fair, what his on-ice play deserves, then he should be moved out.
Two more things come to mind though.
One is that I'm a big fan of insulation. Kadri is the perfect player to use as benchmark for Nylander and Marner, the guy they need to beat out to get the big job (top line center), but also the guy that makes sure that they don't have to get thrown into the deep end to sink-or-swim.
The other is a factor that I'm starting to believe is key to center evaluation, especially for top six jobs. It's the Crosby factor, the head-to-head factor. I call it that since Crosby is the best player in the world, but head-to-head against other top centers he doesn't always come out ahead. Bergeron though is not one of the absolutely best centers, but he is just as effective playing against Crosby or Getzlaf as he is playing against Bozak or Desharnais. Having centers that can perform and compete against other top players is something I'd value a lot, so I'd be very interested in seeing such stats for Kadri.
That's it. For now. Anyone still awake?
* Sometimes too large sample size isn't good. If you have a player in his prime, looking at what he did during his developing years means you are judging him partially on performances far from what he could offer you now. With Kadri, it makes no sense to look at what he did when he was called up and down and thrown on the wing, because that is not the player he is now.
** It judges the impact a player has on his teammates, therefor doing a good job of isolating what players drive possession a lot compared to those that are just on a good line and a good team.
*** Note however, that PP is still hard to judge statistically. Good powerplays can drive either conversion, like Tampa Bay, or quantity, like San Jose. Only thing common is production rate, and it's a bit volatile. Other than for that, you have to look almost exclusively within the team and unit, at how often they are used and to what effect.
**** As an example, I've been vocal in saying that Dion's abysmal possession numbers are a bit unfair, just like those of Gardiner is a bit flattering. This is since we've been playing a system that almost demands that you have the ability to skate yourself out of problem, due to lacking forward support. Since most metrics are based on relative numbers, this means the numbers makes too much of the ability to skate the puck out, compared to passing the puck out.
?
