Diatomic
Mitch Matthewlander
If soon-to-be 28 year old Tyler Bozak is still developing its safe to say 23 year old Nazem Kadri is still developing despite being an amazing #2C already AND already Toronto's best center
Nazem Kadri - Part 3
- Thread starter TMLeafer
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
If soon-to-be 28 year old Tyler Bozak is still developing its safe to say 23 year old Nazem Kadri is still developing despite being an amazing #2C already AND already Toronto's best center
ULF_55
Moderator
He is tied for 31st. PPG for centers right now.
That's pretty impressive, especially when you look at who is in front of him, all pretty good centers.
The Winter Soldier
Registered User
- Apr 4, 2011
- 71,030
- 21,383
Yeah he's pretty good offensively, that was never his weakness, this is why I advocated for him getting a shot a the #2C spot over Grabovski last season. When and if Kadri can ever be as good as Bozak in all areas of the ice, we will have a heck of a player.
Which brings me to a Remember that moment? People thought should keep Grabovski as a top 6 C over Kadri and Bozak last year. Now Both of them have passed him in points this year, however, it just took Bozak 37 games to do it to Grabovski's 50. Wonder where the posters are that said it would never happen?
William Hylander
There can be only 1
- Aug 17, 2009
- 2,618
- 353
It's refreshing to see someone actually post statistical evidence.
Hopefully this sort of reporting becomes the norm instead of Cox or whoever writing garbage, and having the masses listen simply because they work for a newspaper.
It irritates me the hate that kadri gets here.
Just reading the front page of an article about 10 players that could be dealt, and i am willing to trade kadri so some of the nonsense posted can go away
I feel for the kid
Logic cant describe it
Just reading the front page of an article about 10 players that could be dealt, and i am willing to trade kadri so some of the nonsense posted can go away
I feel for the kid
Logic cant describe it
Semantics
PUBLIC ENEMY #1
Thank you, the amount of denial and cognitive bias elsewhere on this board is astounding. Bozak comes back from injury and the Leafs did better, obviously, since it meant they were no longer a one-line team. But the confirmation bias was strong and apparently that was proof Bozak is much better than Kadri.
Nobody bothers to think that the team might have been equally bad if Kadri had been the one injured. In fact, we already have a idea of how bad the Leafs are with Bozak and without Kadri as a full time player - we drafted Morgan Rielly the last time it happened.
A certain couple of posters are almost giddy pull out Kadri's -10 this season, but if you just look at the defensive side at even strength:
Bozak: 36 goals against in 37 games
Kadri: 48 goals against in 57 games
Could it possibly be that Bozak's +/- benefits from being flanked by two Olympians???
Semantics
PUBLIC ENEMY #1
The stat deniers around these parts tend to say "lol watch the games". Well, when you watch the games it's pretty clear too that Kadri's the better defender. His negatives? He sometimes over-handles the puck and turns it over or makes a bad pass - but usually in the offensive or neutral zones. In his own end, though, Kadri's compete level is noticeably higher than Bozak's. He engages guys on the boards and wins puck battles despite not being very big, and is tighter on his checking assignments.
Quite often when Bozak's line is scored on you'll see Bozak playing loose, floating 5 feet from his man or not picking up the guy he's supposed to at all, quite often leaving the defenders looking bad as they try to defend a 2v3. This doesn't happen nearly as often with Kadri. Kadri reads the play better and identifies his assignment much quicker and will get right in his face.
The stats confirm this too. Let's look at how the Leafs d-men do GA20-wise playing with Bozak vs Kadri.
Phaneuf+Bozak0.874
Phaneuf+Kadri 0.495
Gardiner+Bozak 0.906
Gardiner+Kadri 0.735
Gunnarsson+Bozak 0.893
Gunnarsson+Kadri 0.806
Rielly+Bozak 1.295
Rielly+Kadri 1.557
Franson+Bozak 0.977
Franson+Kadri 0.995
Gleason+Bozak 0.926
Gleason+Kadri 0.834
Only two of our top six defensemen defend better with Bozak, and in Franson's case the difference is very small.
These myths that Kadri is bad defensively and that Bozak is good defensively really need to die.
Diatomic
Mitch Matthewlander
So the nonsense that Kadri is one dimensional, horrible defensively and not a team player are completely false? Good thing I didn't listen to rubbish and instead looked at your stats, thanks
The Winter Soldier
Registered User
- Apr 4, 2011
- 71,030
- 21,383
The Article was written by the same guy that wrote this.
Tyler Bozak is an awful top 6 center and here’s why
http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2013/10/29/5025720/Tyler-Bozak-Maple-Leafs-Analysis
He is hardly an authority on hockey. Infact he looks like a fool with his agenda.
Like I said Bozak has done all his talking on the ice this year.
Kadri43*
Registered User
The cherry picked stats are impressive. What I can tell you about quantitative analysis is that it is not altogether objective. Quantitative analysts are very skilled at picking certain variables (and corresponding values) to fit their arguments, such as the Tyler Bozak hater. Tyler Bozak got injured and we played terribly for weeks. The top line failed to score and we lost a load of games. Tyler Bozak comes back from injury and we start winning games along with the top line being one of, if not the best lines in the league. Moreover, NHL COACHES consistently play him on the top line and state how underrated of a hockey player he is.
Do I advocate strictly qualitative analysis? No, I think a mixed methods approach to studying hockey is the only way to go. Hockey is far, far too difficult to measure solely on quantitative methods like baseball. In other words, statistics are only useful WITH supporting qualitative data.
Do I advocate strictly qualitative analysis? No, I think a mixed methods approach to studying hockey is the only way to go. Hockey is far, far too difficult to measure solely on quantitative methods like baseball. In other words, statistics are only useful WITH supporting qualitative data.
William Hylander
There can be only 1
- Aug 17, 2009
- 2,618
- 353
The Article was written by the same guy that wrote this.
Tyler Bozak is an awful top 6 center and here’s why
http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2013/10/29/5025720/Tyler-Bozak-Maple-Leafs-Analysis
He is hardly an authority on hockey. Infact he looks like a fool with his agenda.
Like I said Bozak has done all his talking on the ice this year.
You cannot blame someone for having a bias, because you have a bias. We all have a bias but where as your bias is supported by nothing, there is statistical evidence supporting our assertions.
Bozak is playing well because he has played this season with the best offensive wingers in the NHL when the entire team has been healthy.
Kadri43*
Registered User
I fully agree with Interactif most of the time. The guy is one of the best posters on the Leafs forums. Nobody here is saying that Kadri is garbage or not a good player. Hell, I bought Kadri's jersey right after he was drafted and got vilified for years for wearing it. I am a huge Kadri supporter but he is not a better hockey player RIGHT NOW. There is no doubt that his offensive instincts are far superior to Bozak but Bozak is decent to good at everything. Kadri has an insane hockey IQ and I fully expect him to get better every year and turn into a ppg two way player in his prime. Notwithstanding a massive overpayment, I would not move him.
Yes everyone has a bias but you are arguing that qualitative analysis (watching the games, re-watching, intense scrutiny of every play etc.. ) is inferior to statistics. I expect that qualitative analysis is used by hockey experts at a greater rate than statistics (GM's, scouts, coaches etc...).
leafs in five
Registered User
When I watch games, I make sure to amplify confirmation bias by giving Bozak credit for good defensive plays and ignoring bad ones, while focusing on Kadri's mistakes instead of his good plays. Therefore, your factual statistics are wrong and Bozak is clearly the better defensive player, lol watch the games.
leafs in five
Registered User
what are all these posters supposed to have said? that Grabo/Bozak would never amass more points than Kadri? don't you also consistently take credit for endorsing Kadri on the 2nd line last year over Grabo (the Grabo "lost his job to Kadri" argument)?
zeke
The Dube Abides
- Mar 14, 2005
- 66,937
- 36,957
Last 2 years Center PPG.
(Tried to include everyone who's even close to being a C - even mostly wingers like Zetts, Carter, MacKinnon, O'Reilly, etc.)
1. Crosby 1.43
2. Stamkos 1.23
3. Malkin 1.18
4. Getzlaf 1.16
5. Tavares 1.06
6. Zetterberg 1.05
7. Backstrom 0.99
8. Giroux 0.97
9. Staal 0.96
10. Datsyuk 0.95
11. Toews 0.95
12. Duchene 0.92
13. Thornton 0.90
14. Kopitar 0.85
15. Seguin 0.85
16. Ribeiro 0.84
17. Sedin 0.84
18. Spezza 0.84
19. Kadri 0.82
20. Pavelski 0.81
21. Couture 0.79
22. Krejci 0.79
23. Koivu 0.78
24. MacKinnon 0.76
25. Bozak 0.75
26. Stepan 0.74
27. Carter 0.73
28. Little 0.73
29. O'Reilly 0.73
30. B.Richards 0.72
31. Stastny 0.71
32. Bergeron 0.70
33. Backes 0.69
34. Dubinsky 0.68
35. Hopkins 0.68
36. Turris 0.68
37. Hodgson 0.67
38. Nieslen 0.67
39. Kesler 0.66
40. Gagner 0.65
41. Hanzal 0.65
42. Lecavalier 0.65
43. Roy 0.65
44. Bonino 0.64
45. M.Richards 0.63
(Tried to include everyone who's even close to being a C - even mostly wingers like Zetts, Carter, MacKinnon, O'Reilly, etc.)
1. Crosby 1.43
2. Stamkos 1.23
3. Malkin 1.18
4. Getzlaf 1.16
5. Tavares 1.06
6. Zetterberg 1.05
7. Backstrom 0.99
8. Giroux 0.97
9. Staal 0.96
10. Datsyuk 0.95
11. Toews 0.95
12. Duchene 0.92
13. Thornton 0.90
14. Kopitar 0.85
15. Seguin 0.85
16. Ribeiro 0.84
17. Sedin 0.84
18. Spezza 0.84
19. Kadri 0.82
20. Pavelski 0.81
21. Couture 0.79
22. Krejci 0.79
23. Koivu 0.78
24. MacKinnon 0.76
25. Bozak 0.75
26. Stepan 0.74
27. Carter 0.73
28. Little 0.73
29. O'Reilly 0.73
30. B.Richards 0.72
31. Stastny 0.71
32. Bergeron 0.70
33. Backes 0.69
34. Dubinsky 0.68
35. Hopkins 0.68
36. Turris 0.68
37. Hodgson 0.67
38. Nieslen 0.67
39. Kesler 0.66
40. Gagner 0.65
41. Hanzal 0.65
42. Lecavalier 0.65
43. Roy 0.65
44. Bonino 0.64
45. M.Richards 0.63
zeke
The Dube Abides
- Mar 14, 2005
- 66,937
- 36,957
It's funny how most of the guys directly surrounding Kadri and Bozak on that list would all be regarded as "clear upgrades to a legit #1 C" by most leaf fans and media - Sedin, Pavelski, Couture, Krejci, Koivu, etc.
and of course we don't even have to mention that all those guys are way more INTANGIBLY AWESOME than our guys are. that's always the case.
and of course we don't even have to mention that all those guys are way more INTANGIBLY AWESOME than our guys are. that's always the case.
ULF_55
Moderator
Semantics
PUBLIC ENEMY #1
The fact that coaches put Bozak on Kessel's line doesn't necessarily mean he's the team's best C or better than Kadri.
First and foremost, obviously they put him on that line because he's a good fit, simple as that. He's a complementary player. He wins faceoffs (well, used to), and doesn't control the puck and try to make plays - he dishes it off to Kessel and JVR and lets them be the go-to guys while he just tries to support them. Bozak fits that line, and would be a disaster on the 2nd line because he'd be completely ineffective on a line where there's no superstars to support.
Secondly, a lot of coaches don't like to put all their eggs in one basket. Duchene doesn't normally play with MacKinnon, but that doesn't mean he's not their best C. Toews doesn't normally play on a line with Kane. Crosby doesn't play with Malkin. And so on.
Everyone knows these facts. Even Bozak's biggest fanboys acknowledge that he's a complementary player. That's why he signed for 2nd liner money.
First and foremost, obviously they put him on that line because he's a good fit, simple as that. He's a complementary player. He wins faceoffs (well, used to), and doesn't control the puck and try to make plays - he dishes it off to Kessel and JVR and lets them be the go-to guys while he just tries to support them. Bozak fits that line, and would be a disaster on the 2nd line because he'd be completely ineffective on a line where there's no superstars to support.
Secondly, a lot of coaches don't like to put all their eggs in one basket. Duchene doesn't normally play with MacKinnon, but that doesn't mean he's not their best C. Toews doesn't normally play on a line with Kane. Crosby doesn't play with Malkin. And so on.
Everyone knows these facts. Even Bozak's biggest fanboys acknowledge that he's a complementary player. That's why he signed for 2nd liner money.
Agreed with most of this. I am not convinced he is a number 1 C. Do think he is a good number 2 C though. Now if he keeps this production up for at least half of next season as well. Than sure but right not #1.
I am a big fan of bozak. I just get upset when posters sell kadri short and make bozak look elite which he is not
Semantics
PUBLIC ENEMY #1
Actually what you see in this thread is people using quantitative analysis to *validate* what they see qualitatively. It's the old "measure twice, cut once" proverb in action. Sometimes you may be able to easily eyeball the amount of wood you need to cut, but it never hurts to pull out your measuring tool just to make sure. Even if the tool isn't reliable every time, if it agrees with your qualitative observation it makes your observation *much* stronger.
And really there's not much cherry picking that goes on here - goals for and goals against are pretty simple statistics and mostly that's all people are using. We're not digging into advanced stats at all here, it's just deconstructing +/- into it's + and - components. Bozak is much better in the + component, Kadri is much better in the - component. Some pretty simple common sense explains why Bozak does better offensively, and the theory for the latter is that Kadri is better on D. But I'd love to hear from the Bozak camp why they think he's been on the ice for so many more goals against.
Semantics
PUBLIC ENEMY #1
See, this is a perfect example of where the Bozak militants tend to draw the wrong conclusion due to confirmation bias.
They conclude that because the team started winning when he came back Bozak > Kadri. But Kadri didn't replace Bozak, he just moved up to the top line, leaving a void on the second line. In this situation you have to mostly compare Bozak to Holland, McClement, and Smith. Those are the guys who ate up most of his ice time, while Kadri got maybe a couple extra minutes per game. Furthermore, Kadri himself missed 3+ games during that stretch.
Simple answer for why Bozo plays on the 1st lilne: CAP SYSTEM
Given the cap one has to spread offense with the assets at hand. Randy Carlyle as "Toaster" head as can be is still not stupid enough to put Bozak with any other players.
Nazem Kadri is the BEST center on the Leafs. A blind man hearing the commentary and a deaf man watching would say that.
As for what Don Cherry think:
It pisses me off to see that scrub bozo on the PP. Cannot believe the skilled guys like Naz do not play on 1st unit PP. Hope when Bolland is back Bozo is benched on PP
CerebralDevil
Registered User
- Jul 14, 2011
- 1,802
- 37
With all theses supposed stats people post on here, what they fail to show is that Bozak plays against the top line centres compared to who Kadri plays against. Those numbers are worthless when it actually doesn't compare the ice time and versus stats. Kadri doesn't face off against Crosby, Spezza, Tavares, or Krejci so keep your numbers and until Kadri can win a face off or actually compete against those top liners night after night consistently then we can look at the numbers.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Chaos Lurks Beneath the Surface- Latest: AlainVigneaultsGum
-
