Prospect Info: Timothy Liljegren

[Gary Nylund]

You misinterpreted me. He has load of skills. But he is not a defender and never will be a defender. He is a very good offensive player who will always look best with lots of time and space at beginning of season. As season progresses and into playoffs his weaknesses get exposed and he becomes a major liability. No one can cover them up even a true #1 defender.

I take it you're addressing me. If that's the case then my answer to you is that no I didn't misinterpret anything, you misspoke.

If you say something dumb you should just admit it and we can all move on, we all say dumb things from time to time, it's no big deal. Spewing nonsense and then accusing people of not understanding what you said however is just compounding your original mistake.

Cheers!

 

[ShaneFalco]

I think Dubas really likes Gardiner, and would keep him if he could.

Agreed. I'd like to see him back too but it just isn't happening - he'll cash in and do well with his new team.
And that's not saying he wasn't hard to watch at times

 

[Randy Randerson]

You misinterpreted me. He has load of skills. But he is not a defender and never will be a defender. He is a very good offensive player who will always look best with lots of time and space at beginning of season. As season progresses and into playoffs his weaknesses get exposed and he becomes a major liability. No one can cover them up even a true #1 defender.

Gardiner has really carried partners (Zaitsev, Polak, Phaneuf) in 2nd pairing usage to very good results (well above even possession across the board, so Toronto has been the better team while the 2nd pairing is on the ice). I think it's fair to say that Gardiner didn't reach his ceiling, but he's a well above average defenseman in the best league in the world. @Gary Nylund is probably underselling him as a "sold #3" and "elite #3" is probably more accurate - if Jake Gardiner is on your 2nd pairing, you have a better than average 2nd pairing.

He's a high event player who makes some memorable mistakes, but the net effect of having him is very positive

 

[Morbo]

I love the phrase "high event". we can't just say "bad defensively" anymore I guess.

 

[Randy Randerson]

I love the phrase "high event". we can't just say "bad defensively" anymore I guess.

you could, but it wouldn't be true in Gardiner's case, assuming you're lumping: blueline defense, shot suppression, ability to regain puck possession, zone exit ability, etc, into Defense

 

[Eye Test]

I take it you're addressing me. If that's the case then my answer to you is that no I didn't misinterpret anything, you misspoke.

If you say something dumb you should just admit it and we can all move on, we all say dumb things from time to time, it's no big deal. Spewing nonsense and then accusing people of not understanding what you said however is just compounding your original mistake.

Cheers!

Repost

 

[Morbo]

you could, but it wouldn't be true in Gardiner's case

depends entirely on what competition he's facing and if the situation has any pressure involved.

 

[Randy Randerson]

depends entirely on what competition he's facing and if the situation has any pressure involved.

I edited my post. He's over his head in 1st pairing competition, but is a very good zone entry defender, possession regainer and zone exit player. He's not a good shot suppressor and he loses possession in the defensive zone too often. The net effect is very positive in 2nd pairing usage, so he's not "bad defensively", he's "good defensively" but he's very noticeable due to being involved in a lot of plays around the puck both good and bad

 

[Morbo]

I edited my post. He's over his head in 1st pairing competition, but is a very good zone entry defender, possession regainer and zone exit player. He's not a good shot suppressor and he loses possession in the defensive zone too often. The net effect is very positive in 2nd pairing usage, so he's not "bad defensively", he's "good defensively" but he's very noticeable due to being involved in a lot of plays around the puck both good and bad

he's ok against secondary opposition, mostly when he has the puck on his stick...unless there's any pressure of course, whereupon he explodes into a million grenade fragments. I don't look at that aggregate picture and see "good defensively".

There's no advanced stat for being mentally weak, either. If anything, he's that. Not a winner and has let us down multiple times.

 

[Eye Test]

This thread is getting derailed because of people’s agendas to put down gardiner in an effort to promote Lilly which is ridiculous.

We all know gardiner wont be back , we all know he is bad under pressure and made mistakes in important games. But to flat out call him a bad defenseman and someone who constantly bear hugs his opponents is also ridiculous and false.

Why don’t we focus on Lilly instead of gardiner ?

 

[Gary Nylund]

I edited my post. He's over his head in 1st pairing competition, but is a very good zone entry defender, possession regainer and zone exit player. He's not a good shot suppressor and he loses possession in the defensive zone too often. The net effect is very positive in 2nd pairing usage, so he's not "bad defensively", he's "good defensively" but he's very noticeable due to being involved in a lot of plays around the puck both good and bad

Amazed people are still arguing that Gardiner isn't good defensively.

 

[Randy Randerson]

he's ok against secondary opposition, mostly when he has the puck on his stick...unless there's any pressure of course, whereupon he explodes into a million grenade fragments. I don't look at that aggregate picture and see "good defensively".

There's no advanced stat for being mentally weak, either. If anything, he's that. Not a winner and has let us down multiple times.

I can tell you're making your decisions based on feeling, which is the disconnect with Gardiner - he's a lot better than he feels because you notice him do stupid things too often and those stick out in your memory. Objectively, he is the reason that the Leafs 2nd pairing has been better than the opposition while it's been on the ice for the last number of years on aggregate (even through the Carlyle era when the team was being utterly dominated). He is a very high average 2nd pairing dman with high peaks and low valleys.

Personally I'll take that over a guy you don't notice as much but who helps your cause less on average, chances are that it will be a net positive. In Gardiner's case it's also hurt us at important times like last year's Boston series game 7, but we also forget that he was our best player in the '12-'13 series against Boston

And don't get me wrong, I feel the same way about his decision making, he could have been a #1D if he didn't make bad passes in his own zone or get caught with the puck

Amazed people are still arguing that Gardiner isn't good defensively.

Being noticeable works against him - in a game that he makes a pass infront of his own net that gets picked, but where he got the puck back in our own zone 6 times and made 3 stretch passes that gave us two odd man rushes, people only remember the pass that got picked off infront of his own net

 

[PromisedLand]

friendly advice, plus/minus is not a useful stat for evaluating individuals, and the format it's kept in makes it almost valueless for any reason

Gardiner's abysmal game 7 last playoffs when he kept giving away the puck leading to goals against

or

This season when Gardiner reversed the puck behind the net when he got pressured and no leaf anywhere near the reverse that led to boston taking the lead and another giveaway that led to another goal against

is directly correlated with his plus/minus

 

[Randy Randerson]

Gardiner's abysmal game 7 last playoffs when he kept giving away the puck leading to goals against

or

This season when Gardiner reversed the puck behind the net when he got pressured and no leaf anywhere near the reverse that led to boston taking the lead and another giveaway that led to another goal against

is directly correlated with his plus/minus

sure, the plus/minus column on his season (or anyones season) stats sheet is only of value if you do that same analysis for every goal for and against. If you want to do all of that to use it, great, but there's just better metrics available

 

[PromisedLand]

Gardiner is so much more Tentative and hesitant than Liljegren. Really two different styles of puck moving.

Gardiner does use his skating to his advantage. He allows the opposition to initiate contact and tries to hold them up with the puck which turns an easy puck retrieval into a puck battle.

Liljegren is much more decisive and uses his skating to avoid puck battles. This is much more effective in tight games and playoff hockey than the turnovers you usually see when Gardiner is under pressure.

This!

 

[Morbo]

I can tell you're making your decisions based on feeling, which is the disconnect with Gardiner - he's a lot better than he feels because you notice him do stupid things too often and those stick out in your memory. Objectively, he is the reason that the Leafs 2nd pairing has been better than the opposition while it's been on the ice for the last number of years on aggregate (even through the Carlyle era when the team was being utterly dominated). He is a very high average 2nd pairing dman with high peaks and low valleys.

100% based on what he does on the ice, not emotion.

what is most "noticeable" about it -- when it happens. It's not feelings. He's one of the most bipolar players I've ever seen over his regular season career as a Leaf, and unfortunately he's put up some of his poorest games when we needed him the most. The Leafs need to move on from players who have repeatedly failed them. I'm sure he loves being a Leaf and he's a great guy, but we need to start winning some playoff rounds. To do that you need players you can count on in pressure situations. It's not personal to Jake.

Also, without emotion whatsoever...we can look at his age, current health status(facing back surgery), existing cap room, organizational depth at the position(LD), and what a likely next contract would have to look like, and conclude that things are pointing a certain direction here.

 

[Morgs]

I love the phrase "high event". we can't just say "bad defensively" anymore I guess.

Bad defensively is just untrue though. Based on isolated impact (RAPM.Def_xGA) he was actually the 2nd best defensively on our team (After Oz), and 45th ranked for defenseman that played over 500 minutes last sesason. This isn't just this season too, he's always been a positive defensive player (Unlike Rielly). Let's not kid ourselves, he will be missed; especially when his offensive isolated impact (RAPM.Off_xGF) in 9th ranked for defenseman that played over 500 minutes. We're just in a far better place than we've ever been to lose a top-30 defenseman in the entire league, but really Dubas should be trying his best to keep him (assuming he'll get back to full health).

 

[Randy Randerson]

100% based on what he does on the ice, not emotion.

what is most "noticeable" about it -- when it happens. It's not feelings. He's one of the most bipolar players I've ever seen over his regular season career as a Leaf, and unfortunately he's put up some of his poorest games when we needed him the most. The Leafs need to move on from players who have repeatedly failed them. I'm sure he loves being a Leaf and he's a great guy, but we need to start winning some playoff rounds. To do that you need players you can count on in pressure situations. It's not personal to Jake.

Also, without emotion whatsoever...we can look at his age, current health status(facing back surgery), existing cap room, organizational depth at the position(LD), and what a likely next contract would have to look like, and conclude that things are pointing a certain direction here.

well here's a snapshot of what his on-ice results look like, it's hard to find negatives: Jake Gardiner Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

So again, I think what you're criticizing him for is more about how you feel about him than what his results objectively are. And I will say that the weighting of some events over others when he's on the ice by way of noticing them more is the literal definition of feelings-based evaluation. But that's not a criticism and I understand why people do that with Gardiner, he does a lot of things that stand out and unfortunately the negative ones overshadow the positive ones for a lot of people even if they weigh the same on the outcomes.

I'm also not advocating for us keeping Gardiner, I don't think we have the money for that to be possible so I think it's a foregone conclusion that he will be somewhere else next year. But I will also say that his replacement, even if he doesn't have the same frequency of low points, will probably be a worse player on aggregate than Gardiner (unless that's Dermott, who legitimately looks like he has the makings of being a Ryan Suter, but then Rosen replacing Dermott is probably a net-loss to the lineup)

 

[stickty111]

This defence will be fun to watch without Gards, and by fun I mean ugly.

 

[Morbo]

Bad defensively is just untrue though. Based on isolated impact (RAPM.Def_xGA) he was actually the 2nd best defensively on our team (After Oz), and 45th ranked for defenseman that played over 500 minutes last sesason. This isn't just this season too, he's always been a positive defensive player (Unlike Rielly). Let's not kid ourselves, he will be missed; especially when his offensive isolated impact (RAPM.Off_xGF) in 9th ranked for defenseman that played over 500 minutes. We're just in a far better place than we've ever been to lose a top-30 defenseman in the entire league, but really Dubas should be trying his best to keep him (assuming he'll get back to full health).

View attachment 226503

He'll be missed primarily in the regular season, and mostly because our overall depth past Rielly and Muzzin is inexperienced at the moment especially with Dermott on the shelf now.

 

[GoonieFace]

This is funny. People comparing Lily who plays in the AHL, to Gardiner a very good NHL defenceman. People need to realize that we get to see Gardiner 82 games a year or more, and sure he makes mistakes, but so does every other dman in the NHL.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I wonder, do the same people who don't think Gardiner is valuable because you know, stats are meaningless and the eye-test shows that Gardiner is soft and dumb think that Kadri was really valuable in the playoffs?

I mean the stats aren't great but what do you expect, he didn't play that many minutes so you could hardly expect more. But oh boy that eye-test, did you see him smash DeBrusk in the face? That'll teach him to mess with us, we clearly need more players like Kadri and less players like Gardiner. Right?

 

[Morgs]

He'll be missed primarily in the regular season, and mostly because our overall depth past Rielly and Muzzin is inexperienced at the moment especially with Dermott on the shelf now.

He'll be missed in general. He's our 2nd best defenseman, and will be the best LD on virtually any team he goes to.

 

[Morbo]

I wonder, do the same people who don't think Gardiner is valuable because you know, stats are meaningless and the eye-test shows that Gardiner is soft and dumb think that Kadri was really valuable in the playoffs?

I mean the stats aren't great but what do you expect, he didn't play that many minutes so you could hardly expect more. But oh boy that eye-test, did you see him smash DeBrusk in the face? That'll teach him to mess with us, we clearly need more players like Kadri and less players like Gardiner. Right?

If you're talking to me, I never said Gardiner wasn't a decent player. he is.

We're trying to win a Cup though. We need defencemen who don't crumble at the toughest time of year.

As for Kadri, I've listed him as a guy who should go as well. Check my recent post history.

 

[Morbo]

well here's a snapshot of what his on-ice results look like, it's hard to find negatives: Jake Gardiner Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

So again, I think what you're criticizing him for is more about how you feel about him than what his results objectively are. And I will say that the weighting of some events over others when he's on the ice by way of noticing them more is the literal definition of feelings-based evaluation.

What? no it isn't. Using the word literal makes it even worse.

Saying he blows up under pressure isn't feelings. The game tapes are out there, should you wish to review them.