Rumor: 2015 World Championships

[Pyrophorus]

Joakim Lindstrom is with the Swedes too.

 

[johnny_rudeboy]

Joakim Lindstrom is with the Swedes too.

But not with the Leafs.

 

[Derrty]

But not with the Leafs.

 

[Pyrophorus]

But not with the Leafs.

for 10 days now.

 

[sessiroth]

Is it me or has Gardiner just been a disappointment since his first season with the leafs. He reminds me of Luke schenn in that category. Thank god Rielly hasn't follow suit.

 

[Bluelines]

QoC has been kinda thoroughly discarded as a meaningful factor. The difference are just completely negligible. And PDO just means he got unlucky, you know. Measuring the luck factor against career numbers of the player is pretty much the only use for PDO.

Clearly wrong on both points but you are free to believe what you want.

 

[91Kadri91*]

Is it me or has Gardiner just been a disappointment since his first season with the leafs. He reminds me of Luke schenn in that category. Thank god Rielly hasn't follow suit.

It isn't just you who feels that way, but it really should be.

 

[91Kadri91*]

Clearly wrong on both points but you are free to believe what you want.

He's absolutely right on both points.

 

[91Kadri91*]

Its called context, if he was doing what you say he was doing against Crosby, Malkin, Getzlef, etc then I'd say you have a good argument, he had one of the LOWEST Corsi Rel QOC (RANKED 4 OUT OF 7 REGULARS) and one of the worst PDO ( RANKED 6 OUT OF 7 REGULARS) stats on the Leafs against fairly weak opponents.

You are saying all D-mens ice time is equal, when in reality Jake is rarely used to do the heavy lifting and when he is used the puck ends up in our net, simply he is a guy that cant be trusted in his own end.

This, meanwhile, is entirely erroneous (or meaningless). If you're going to use advanced statistics, you may want to know a thing or two about them.

 

[Bluelines]

Is it me or has Gardiner just been a disappointment since his first season with the leafs. He reminds me of Luke schenn in that category. Thank god Rielly hasn't follow suit.

I think he's a disappointment relative to what we've seen him do . He was a beast during that Boston series a few years back. He's played spurts of dominate hockey unfortunately he's been more bad than good.

Maybe the new contract coupled playing with a gutless team last year played with his head and he lost his confidence, I think the kid has all kinds of talent, the questions is will he burn out in a few years or will he figure it out and be that dominate back end that I think he can be under the right circumstances.

 

[Bluelines]

This, meanwhile, is entirely erroneous (or meaningless). If you're going to use advanced statistics, you may want to know a thing or two about them.

I'm a trend analyst by trade...Uh I think I know enough about numbers to know what is legit and what is bunk.

 

[Rare Jewel]

Is it me or has Gardiner just been a disappointment since his first season with the leafs. He reminds me of Luke schenn in that category. Thank god Rielly hasn't follow suit.

Gardiner was terrific in the series vs. Boston. Changed the series in many ways IMO. People should remember that Kostka played instead of him in game #1, Blocked a shot and was hurt.

That was two years ago now, And he can't live of that forever. But it's showed a level of talent you just can't throw away for a mid round pick or whatever some may like to do. The talent is there, People question the hockey sense, But I believe it's good enough to be a top-4 on most teams. What he lacks in bad way is consistency and probably confidence because of that as well.

His best year was under Ron Wilson who is an offensive coach primarily, The years after that were with RC who seems to like all of his D-men to be strong/massive and more defensive oriented.

I'd be interested to see him with a coach that he sees more eye to eye with him and his playing style because he can still be a very good player.

 

[Bluelines]

He's absolutely right on both points.

Clearly you're misinformed.

 

[Bluelines]

Gardiner was terrific in the series vs. Boston. Changed the series in many ways IMO. People should remember that Kostka played instead of him in game #1, Blocked a shot and was hurt.

That was two years ago now, And he can't live of that forever. But it's showed a level of talent you just can't throw away for a mid round pick or whatever some may like to do. The talent is there, People question the hockey sense, But I believe it's good enough to be a top-4 on most teams. What he lacks in bad way is consistency and probably confidence because of that as well.

His best year was under Ron Wilson who is an offensive coach primarily, The years after that were with RC who seems to like all of his D-men to be strong/massive and more defensive oriented.

I'd be interested to see him with a coach that he sees more eye to eye with him and his playing style because he can still be a very good player.

Exactly, I think Jake is a guy who needs to to filter out the noise, he's a touch and feel guy, he has to just trust his god given ability. Unfortunately Morgan and Jake both play a similar game and I don't see how you can have 2 guys who play that type of game in a top 6 D corp.

Part of the problem is Leaf nation expects every young player to be complete when he hits the big team and unfortunately when you start your career at such a young age in the NHL, like a lot of Leaf youngsters do, you have yo develop in front of every one, Morgan, Jake, Kadri are all developing in the NHL. Ken Holland once said when asked about his use of the AHL, " the NHL is not a development league, you have to know how to play the game before you get here, that is what the AHL is for."

Jake needs either a mentor or sometime away from the big club to develop his game. His problem is between the ears not between his neck and his feet.

 

[thewave]

Exactly, I think Jake is a guy who needs to to filter out the noise, he's a touch and feel guy, he has to just trust his god given ability. Unfortunately Morgan and Jake both play a similar game and I don't see how you can have 2 guys who play that type of game in a top 6 D corp.

Part of the problem is Leaf nation expects every young player to be complete when he hits the big team and unfortunately when you start your career at such a young age in the NHL, like a lot of Leaf youngsters do, you have yo develop in front of every one, Morgan, Jake, Kadri are all developing in the NHL. Ken Holland once said when asked about his use of the AHL, " the NHL is not a development league, you have to know how to play the game before you get here, that is what the AHL is for."

Jake needs either a mentor or sometime away from the big club to develop his game. His problem is between the ears not between his neck and his feet.

I call him Jake the Flake. Head always up in the clouds and making decisions on the fly. If they were good decisions it would be ok...

I should probably just mention half our teams forwards suck at getting open and our breakout sucked. Maybe they should have utilize the short pass like the good teams. Jake can't pass when nobody is open and that makes him look bad.

 

[Darcy Tucker]

yeah it seems people I watch the game with can't stand Gardiner at all. He makes fans swear more than any Leaf in a while and that's saying something with all the scrubs we've had back there over the years.

But I think he still has a huge upside and can be a poor-man's Niedermeyer one day. I know that's a lot to ask of Jake but he has the tools. It may take a WHILE to get the mental part down tho.

 

[thewave]

yeah it seems people I watch the game with can't stand Gardiner at all. He makes fans swear more than any Leaf in a while and that's saying something with all the scrubs we've had back there over the years.

But I think he still has a huge upside and can be a poor-man's Niedermeyer one day. I know that's a lot to ask of Jake but he has the tools. It may take a WHILE to get the mental part down tho.

He needs to play with highly skilled forwards who are fast and can get open. It's not much use when our forwards aren't working to gain position on opponents to take a pass. Standing on their blue line is not a hockey play, it's why jake usually if he can just skates it in because the forwards are almost never in good position.

There was a time though where Kessel would wind up and carry the puck with speed down the wing... Now they are lazy and lazy doesn't win hockey games past game 50 when other team step it up and break down our system and players habits.

Jake would make a good winger just saying.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Clearly wrong on both points but you are free to believe what you want.

I'm a trend analyst by trade...Uh I think I know enough about numbers to know what is legit and what is bunk.

Haha, right. The whole statistical community doesn't know what these numbers mean, but you do.

I advice that you actually read about these numbers that you use. There are a lot of good articles that explain these things.

 

[Bluelines]

Haha, right. The whole statistical community doesn't know what these numbers mean, but you do.

I advice that you actually read about these numbers that you use. There are a lot of good articles that explain these things.

Once again its called context, if you know what data points you are using and what you're measuring its not invalid. If you understand the CONTEXT of the results, its useful, otherwise we have people like you throwing the baby out with the bath water because you don't understand.

I respect that you have an opinion but I don't have to agree with you and I cant make you understand the proper use of statistical analysis.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Once again its called context, if you know what data points you are using and what you're measuring its not invalid. If you understand the CONTEXT of the results, its useful, otherwise we have people like you throwing the baby out with the bath water because you don't understand.

I respect that you have an opinion but I don't have to agree with you and I cant make you understand the proper use of statistical analysis.

Context is important. And I've used numbers that include context, something you have decided to ignore. All numbers I used in discussing Gardiner is situationally adjusted.

Just a question. How do you explain that D-men as a group have been completely unable to sustain an effect on on-ice save percentage?

If PDO is so telling as a statistic that it invalidates everything I wrote about earlier, how come it only varies on a season-to-season basis, and has almost no variation on a career level? If it showed anything about quality, how come all established top D-men over their careers have a PDO that is just average?

You are arguing as if this discussion is about you and me, when it's more you saying that the whole statistical community is wrong and don't know what they are talking about. It's not a question of using context, it's a question of knowing the statistics you use.

PDO always evens out as sample size increase. Everybody that has worked with PDO agrees that it's usefulness lies in identifying outliers, in catching the luck factor that determines so many end results. I find it hilarious that you dismiss all that work, obviously without even reading it, just because you are a trend analyst.

It's not a matter of opinion. It's just a fact that you are wrong in this case. You are basically saying that PDO shows something about the quality of the D-man when every study of the statistic shows the complete opposite, and you base your argument on absolutely nothing.

Here is just one of many articles that you should read.

 

[ACC1224]

Is it me or has Gardiner just been a disappointment since his first season with the leafs. He reminds me of Luke schenn in that category. Thank god Rielly hasn't follow suit.

He really has such a struggle on the defensive side of the puck, maybe this will be the year he finally gets it.

Seems to have all the skill in the World and a 10 cent brain.

 

[Bluelines]

Context is important. And I've used numbers that include context, something you have decided to ignore. All numbers I used in discussing Gardiner is situationally adjusted.

Just a question. How do you explain that D-men as a group have been completely unable to sustain an effect on on-ice save percentage?

If PDO is so telling as a statistic that it invalidates everything I wrote about earlier, how come it only varies on a season-to-season basis, and has almost no variation on a career level? If it showed anything about quality, how come all established top D-men over their careers have a PDO that is just average?

You are arguing as if this discussion is about you and me, when it's more you saying that the whole statistical community is wrong and don't know what they are talking about. It's not a question of using context, it's a question of knowing the statistics you use.

PDO always evens out as sample size increase. Everybody that has worked with PDO agrees that it's usefulness lies in identifying outliers, in catching the luck factor that determines so many end results. I find it hilarious that you dismiss all that work, obviously without even reading it, just because you are a trend analyst.

It's not a matter of opinion. It's just a fact that you are wrong in this case. You are basically saying that PDO shows something about the quality of the D-man when every study of the statistic shows the complete opposite, and you base your argument on absolutely nothing.

Here is just one of many articles that you should read.

So the yokels who say shooting % and save% are significantly luck driven don't understand the concept of a weighted average. In order for luck to have a significant factor on PDO a large portion of the goals scored for and against have to be luck driven. If you take away the "luck" in shooting % and save % the difference is so insignificant it's meaningless.

Its not about me ignoring poor analytics, its about me having a mind and being able to think for myself. Instead of buying poor analytics at face value ask yourself what is the standard deviation for luck in PDO?

If one stat is dismissed because of luck, every stat in hockey has some form of luck baked into it, that means all data in hockey is invalid. Hits have a home rink bias, goals are sometimes attributed to a guy who didn't score a goal. Heck even ATOI can be wrong too.

You asked why does it vary season to season, it could be the player is having a bad year, the player is playing injured, there could have been a coaching/system change. In the end you can compare that player vs his teammates vs Corsi Rel QOC.

BTW this is not about you and me, its a discussion between two Leaf fans.

 

[Gary Nylund]

So the yokels who say shooting % and save% are significantly luck driven don't understand the concept of a weighted average. In order for luck to have a significant factor on PDO a large portion of the goals scored for and against have to be luck driven. If you take away the "luck" in shooting % and save % the difference is so insignificant it's meaningless.

Its not about me ignoring poor analytics, its about me having a mind and being able to think for myself. Instead of buying poor analytics at face value ask yourself what is the standard deviation for luck in PDO?

If one stat is dismissed because of luck, every stat in hockey has some form of luck baked into it, that means all data in hockey is invalid. Hits have a home rink bias, goals are sometimes attributed to a guy who didn't score a goal. Heck even ATOI can be wrong too.

You asked why does it vary season to season, it could be the player is having a bad year, the player is playing injured, there could have been a coaching/system change. In the end you can compare that player vs his teammates vs Corsi Rel QOC.

BTW this is not about you and me, its a discussion between two Leaf fans.

That's not what he asked at all. Here was the question:

If PDO is so telling as a statistic that it invalidates everything I wrote about earlier, how come it only varies on a season-to-season basis, and has almost no variation on a career level?

You completely ignore the part after "and". I like the concept of "thinking for yourself " in principle, in fact I'm a big fan. But being able to read and understand what others say is even more important if any meaningful discussion is to be had.

 

[Nithoniniel]

So the yokels who say shooting % and save% are significantly luck driven don't understand the concept of a weighted average. In order for luck to have a significant factor on PDO a large portion of the goals scored for and against have to be luck driven. If you take away the "luck" in shooting % and save % the difference is so insignificant it's meaningless.

Its not about me ignoring poor analytics, its about me having a mind and being able to think for myself. Instead of buying poor analytics at face value ask yourself what is the standard deviation for luck in PDO?

If one stat is dismissed because of luck, every stat in hockey has some form of luck baked into it, that means all data in hockey is invalid. Hits have a home rink bias, goals are sometimes attributed to a guy who didn't score a goal. Heck even ATOI can be wrong too.

You asked why does it vary season to season, it could be the player is having a bad year, the player is playing injured, there could have been a coaching/system change. In the end you can compare that player vs his teammates vs Corsi Rel QOC.

BTW this is not about you and me, its a discussion between two Leaf fans.

For part of my answer, I refer to this:

That's not what he asked at all. Here was the question:

If PDO is so telling as a statistic that it invalidates everything I wrote about earlier, how come it only varies on a season-to-season basis, and has almost no variation on a career level?

You completely ignore the part after "and". I like the concept of "thinking for yourself " in principle, in fact I'm a big fan. But being able to read and understand what others say is even more important if any meaningful discussion is to be had.

Also, I dismissed the statistics you used because they don't have a statistically significant effect. Other stats do, and if you had used them I would not have said anything.

Corsi Rel QoC have so small differences that they are negligible. Understanding the stat shows that. You want to use it to show that Gardiner played against much worse competition than some of his teammates, when it actually shows that he played against slightly worse competition.*

The stat that has the biggest effect of all competition-related stats is zone starts, and you could make a case that Gardiner has more offensive zone starts than his comparables on the team. However, there is not a single D-man on the Leafs that played easy minutes in that regard. I was evaluating Gardiner's ability to suppress shots relative to the rest of the league, and compared to the rest of the league he does it well and in circumstances that are far from easy.

I'm very capable of thinking for myself. Critical thinking doesn't mean you need to dismiss everything other people say. You have still not produced any kind of case for yourself, just veiled insults while putting your own knowledge on a pedestal. On the other hand, I have both my own tests and countless others that all produce results that indicate that you are wrong.

I was on the opposite side of this discussion a year or two ago, but I read and I learned and I realized I was wrong.

Since we are talking about PDO, I suggest you:

1) Look at player's ability to sustain these numbers. Hint: There is a remarkable inability for pretty much everyone to string together more than two seasons like this. The numbers bounce all over the place.
2) Look at how career PDO numbers for D-men with 500 games or more look. You'll find that they all gravitate towards that 1000-mark, elite players as much as bottom pairing guys. Over their careers, Doughty has a 994 against Jan Hejda's 995. Consistently brilliant Ekman-Larsson has a 1002 against Mark Eaton's 999.

You say this:

In the end you can compare that player vs his teammates vs Corsi Rel QOC.

In the end, as in with an increased sample size, you barely have any differences in PDO, at least among D-men. So you compare a difference that boils down to pretty much nothing against teammates, and then look at Corsi Rel QOC. The average spread there is less than 1. I suggest you look up at just how small that difference is.

In short, you judge players on unsustainable factors and modify those numbers by a small percentile difference in competition, and draw actual conclusions on quality from that. If PDO said something about the quality of players, you'd think they'd be able to sustain it more reliably. You'd think that over the course of their careers, there would be a clear separation there between the elite and the fringe players. But there isn't.

* I don't want to put words in your mouth. I assumed that this is what you mean based on your arguments so far.

Edit:

You want to dismiss Gardiner based on his low PDO this season. I think it's only fair to look at who the dominant D-men in PDO are this season:

Kevan Miller, Boston Bruins
Mark Borowiecki, Ottawa Senators
Seth Helgeson, New Jersey Devils
Cody Golobeauf, Columbus Blue Jackets
Kris Russell, Calgary Flames
David Rundblad, Chicago Blackhawks
Eric Gryba, Ottawa Senators
Stephane Robidas, Toronto Maple Leafs
Nathan Guenin, Colorado Avalanche
Kevin Klein, New York Rangers

Truly elite company, that. Meanwhile, Gardiner keeps company with Ekman-Larsson, Muzzin, Yandle and Hamilton.

 

[The_Chosen_One]

He really has such a struggle on the defensive side of the puck, maybe this will be the year he finally gets it.

Seems to have all the skill in the World and a 10 cent brain.

Gardiner tends to get to fancy with the puck so he's need a partner that has a reliable break out pass. For that reason, I can't see Polak being his partner. Moreover, his offensive number should increase once we have forwards that can actually do the heavy duty work in the offensive zone.

Both our our young LHD work best when joining the rush. Their game isn't supposed to be as cerebral as Suter. Rielly is smarter, but I could see Hanifin ( if we acquire him) offering us that kind of backend presence.