Jake Gardiner 2015-2016 Expectations

[Bluelines]

So Todd Richards is supposed to be infallible? What I find funny is that both Carlyle and Horachek continued to extensively use Gardiner. This is especially the case when looking at even-strength minutes. More than Phaneuf, Polak, and even Rielly.

What does this tell us?

If you look at what the Leafs were going through under Horachek, I think its pretty clear why Jake was being deployed in that manner.

 

[Brock Radunske]

There is one of these up for Rielly and I would be curious what you guys think Jake can do next season.

My expectations for Gardiner is to be thoroughly disappointing.

 

[MapleLeaf4ever]

My expectations for him are low, all I want is for him to no longer have me ready to beat him w a big stinky fish every time he makes an aweful turnover that usually results in a goal against. If he can get rid of that feeling then he'll have a successful season imo.

 

[Bluelines]

You can actually use multiple stats to form a more complete picture? Fascinating. If only I had known this before! And here I thought if you pulled a stat out of all context everything turned much clearer!

You have totally convinced me. Now that I know to use QoC and PDO as context, I realize that players like Gardiner, Muzzin, Ekman-Larsson and Hamilton are all completely worthless!

It's fun reading you rant with your condescending tone about obvious things to justify your belief that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

Again, if you want to have an actually discussion then describe your process. What stats you use. Why you use them. How they influence each other, to what degree and what you base that on. If you did that, then we have the basis for a good discussion. Right now, all you are doing is being condescending because we (and the rest of the statistical community) don't agree with you, and you'd rather be a condescending **** than actually argue for why your way is better.

For your information, I was sarcastic in the first part of this post. We are all well aware of how to use multiple stats to form a complete picture, we all know how important context is. I've stressed it a dozen times over in this thread alone. The difference here is that we don't agree with how you use some stats, and we got plenty of material backing that up. Personally, I'd rather not use a stat that players have no sustainable control over and which evens out for all players over time in any attempt to pinpoint their effectiveness as a player.

Isolate, insult, distort I guess that's one way to approach a discussion. Not a terribly mature way but its a way none the less.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Isolate, insult, distort I guess that's one way to approach a discussion. Not a terribly mature way but its a way none the less.

I was attempting to be funny. I'm also not sure you should say something considering how you have approached the discussion.

I'm willing to step above that if you can cut down on the superiority act and the condescending tone and actually talk.

I've been asking you here and before to give reasons, other than "I know best", for your stance.

I'm not really asking for much here. I know you want to use context. I agree with that, no number should be used in isolation. I just question the impact of the numbers (Rel QoC and PDO) you have used based on the many articles I've read and tests I've seen conducted on these numbers. I'd like to get a response on why you have come to the conclusion that you have regarding their value, not just theoretically but in practice. I'd also like to know why you involve PDO, when it says little to nothing about what we can expect from the player going forward. I don't see the point in adding something to the discussion that is just unsustainable noise.

You have said that one shouldn't just accept everything one reads, so I'd like to know what you base your dismissal of the findings regarding PDO and QoC. You haven't highlighted any weaknesses in these findings, and you haven't shown what you base your differing opinion on.

If you're as good and used to handling data as you say, doing this should be a cakewalk for you.

 

[DopeyFish]

While PDO and QoC (heck, all fancy stats) absolutely suck... It doesn't change the fact that Gardiner is a really good defenseman.

 

[Purity*]

You can actually use multiple stats to form a more complete picture? Fascinating. If only I had known this before! And here I thought if you pulled a stat out of all context everything turned much clearer!

You have totally convinced me. Now that I know to use QoC and PDO as context, I realize that players like Gardiner, Muzzin, Ekman-Larsson and Hamilton are all completely worthless!

It's fun reading you rant with your condescending tone about obvious things to justify your belief that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

Again, if you want to have an actually discussion then describe your process. What stats you use. Why you use them. How they influence each other, to what degree and what you base that on. If you did that, then we have the basis for a good discussion. Right now, all you are doing is being condescending because we (and the rest of the statistical community) don't agree with you, and you'd rather be a condescending **** than actually argue for why your way is better.

For your information, I was sarcastic in the first part of this post. We are all well aware of how to use multiple stats to form a complete picture, we all know how important context is. I've stressed it a dozen times over in this thread alone. The difference here is that we don't agree with how you use some stats, and we got plenty of material backing that up. Personally, I'd rather not use a stat that players have no sustainable control over and which evens out for all players over time in any attempt to pinpoint their effectiveness as a player.

This poster reminds me a lot of Silentbob (whatever happened to him?) in the sense that he holds his own opinion in such high regard while severely berating other people's opinion like they have less bearing than his own.

 

[Purity*]

There's a pretty damn good reason why I put extremely little faith in other people's "eye test." And it goes back to Nith's posts about human cognition and how we see only what we want to see, especially humans with ego problems who want have an obsession with "being right all the time."

In fact, you can even see it on an online message board it becomes so clear. Gardiner's harshest critics absolutely refuse to acknowledge his clear-cut strengths like his excellent transition game and how the ice tilts the other way when he's on but will absolutely pound away at the flaws in his game like it's what the majority of his game is.

It seriously annoys me when people cite +/- (which has proven to be a completely unreliable stat time and time again) to criticize Gardner and then in the very same breath say how a stat like GA/60 is flawed and doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[Longshot]

I expect Gardiner to be run out of town.

He's 24 years old. Has two full years in the NHL. He's a smooth skating d-man that was drafted in the first round.

Sounds exactly like the kind of player to get rid of...

I seriously question whether fans in this city even understand what the term "rebuild" means.

 

[080]

I'm hoping that with a decent partner (i.e. not Franson or the youngster Rielly) that he can a decent d-man. I think playing more a responsible game will help our defensemen out a lot. Not having the Bozak line out there ****ing the dog in the defensive zone will make a huge difference.

 

[i1]

Think Babcock will do wonders with Gardiner and Rielly; Detroit has always been known for smooth skating, possession-based "Wings hockey" which is those guys' strength. If the Leafs are lucky enough to get Hanifin they could have the most dangerous D in the league in a few years.

 

[Bernier the Boats]

I would like to see his offensive game take a step forward. Last year he didn't look as good offensively as he has in the past.

 

[Nithoniniel]

I would like to see his offensive game take a step forward. Last year he didn't look as good offensively as he has in the past.

Spot on. For all the talk of his defense, it was offensively that he struggled.

 

[The_Chosen_One]

If you look at what the Leafs were going through under Horachek, I think its pretty clear why Jake was being deployed in that manner.

Jake Gardiner was the best defenceman during that stretch. His defensive issues are totally overstated. What he was lacking in last season was on the point production front.

Someone possessing his toolset need to be more offensive. If he can progress in that manner, I can see Gardiner displacing Phaneuf on the top pairing.

Spot on. For all the talk of his defense, it was offensively that he struggled.

That's what the "eye test" has been suggesting as well. Gardiner is going to be liked if he exceeds his 10 goals , 30 points rookie season.

 

[Sypher04]

I'm not one of the people who take shots at Gardiner over his defensive play. There are times when does some exceedingly boneheaded things, and when his confidence isn't up he seems to spend a good deal of time out of position, but I think these are coachable offenses. There have been periods of dominant hockey, and I think he can still get there. I'm hoping with increased responsibility, and improved coaching, Jake is primed to take the next step this year. To me, he falls in the Nazem Kadri area of players we'd regret moving. And ultimately, at the onset of a rebuild, they are the exact type of players you want to be playing to see what you have.

As to the discussion earlier in the thread regarding why his stats are all so good if he's so bad. Well, the answer is that he's not as bad as people get stuck in their head. That said, it's reasonable to assume he's not as good as the numbers are making him look either. These advanced statistics are quite subjective in their usage, whether we're talking things like CORSI, or more simple items like SA, there are too many assumptions made. Not everything is hockey is created equal.

Neither the eye test, nor the metrics are going to paint a clear picture. The answer can and almost always will lay somewhere in the gray area between.

 

[Sypher04]

Jake Gardiner was the best defenceman during that stretch. His defensive issues are totally overstated. What he was lacking in last season was on the point production front.

Nitpicking here, but I think Rielly was our best player during the Horachek portion of the season. Gardiner was not too far back though.

 

[diceman934]

Nitpicking here, but I think Rielly was our best player during the Horachek portion of the season. Gardiner was not too far back though.

Agreed, Gardiners game improved when he was partnered with Rielly....Stats wise Rielly had a good finish and some on here want to say that it was as a result of him being paired with Gardiner. Rielly told everyone that he was given the green light to play his game when Carlyle was fired and after that point with an increase of minutes and the ability to react to what he saw on the ice saw his production increase.

I love Gardiner, always have. This coming year will be a big learning curve for him as he will be able to make the short easy passes when exiting his own zone. He will have a slow start and a good finish.

 

[The_Chosen_One]

Agreed, Gardiners game improved when he was partnered with Rielly....Stats wise Rielly had a good finish and some on here want to say that it was as a result of him being paired with Gardiner. Rielly told everyone that he was given the green light to play his game when Carlyle was fired and after that point with an increase of minutes and the ability to react to what he saw on the ice saw his production increase.

I love Gardiner, always have. This coming year will be a big learning curve for him as he will be able to make the short easy passes when exiting his own zone. He will have a slow start and a good finish.

Rielly benefited more by playing with Gardiner than the reverse. Jake continued to be the ES pivot under Horachek. I didn't see Rielly being given increased preference under that stretch.

 

[Dreakmur]

I expect Gardiner to be run out of town.

He's 24 years old. Has two full years in the NHL. He's a smooth skating d-man that was drafted in the first round.

Sounds exactly like the kind of player to get rid of...

I seriously question whether fans in this city even understand what the term "rebuild" means.

Maybe some people just don't agree that Gardiner is the kind of player to be kept during a rebuild. For all the good things Gardiner brings to the table, he also has some weaknesses too.

I think we can all agree that he shies away from the physical play. That's not something that is ever going to change, so he's going to continue doing that for the entirety of the rebuild and into contention.

I think we can also all agree that he has an excellent set of skills. He's a great skater and he handles the puck well.

Where I think there is disagreement is his hockey IQ. Some think he's smart, others think he's dumb. I suspect this is there the decision gets made for people. If you think he's dumb, obviously, he should get moved. If you think he's smart, then he's probably worth keeping.

 

[dballislife2]

the potential is still there, just has to improve overally at everything a bit more...hes already at least a solid 3rd pairing guy on a good playoff team

 

[WildcatMapleLeafs28]

I say he'll put together a solid season.

10 goals , 28 assists, 38 points.

While maintaining a strong defensive presence.

 

[6ix]

I think gardiner took a step back this year.. I was really close to getting his jersey when he signed his deal but my gut told me to hold off.

Lone behold he had a pretty mediocre season filled with brain lapses.

Hope he bounces back this year.

 

[sda]

I expect Gardiner to be run out of town.

He's 24 years old. Has two full years in the NHL. He's a smooth skating d-man that was drafted in the first round.

Sounds exactly like the kind of player to get rid of...

I seriously question whether fans in this city even understand what the term "rebuild" means.

I have always thought that Jake will be very good when he is 27 or28. I expected that the leafs would get impatient and dump him and like Stralman he would excell for another team

 

[Nithoniniel]

I have always thought that Jake will be very good when he is 27 or28. I expected that the leafs would get impatient and dump him and like Stralman he would excell for another team

Watching Strålman play for other teams really hurt. He's ridiculously good.

On another note, it seems that a certain poster disappeared yet again when asked to justify his beliefs by something else than self-aggrandizing.

 

[cookie]

Spot on. For all the talk of his defense, it was offensively that he struggled.

Something Gardiner and his supporters have to look forward to is the sheer fact that on-ice shooting percentage is something that is heavily luck-reliant. Some might state that Gardiner's being on the ice limits effective scoring chances for while ULF_55's signature link states something quite peculiar:

The further problem is that we are not discussing the shooting percentage of individual players. We are discussing the shooting percentage of all players on the ice when a player is on the ice. A player has little effect on the shooting percentage of others.

So what it boils down to is getting high the kind of players that historically have high shooting percentage and surround them with Gardiner. With his ability to direct play, Gardiner could very well explode offensively.