Jake gardiner is better than rielly

[diceman934]

Or perhaps I have a case I can make where I don't need to resort to insults?

First of all. Watching the game means you put your faith in your cognitive ability, your eye test, which is highly biased and not to mention subjective. Understanding that is key to evaluation.

Utilization is not a better indicator of quality than actual performance, as it depends on a lot of factors. That should be obvious especially when the subject is Rielly, who has not been utilized on the PP. We know that's not indicative of his abilities there.

Nevertheless, Babcock has been very clear that he does not want Gardiner and Rielly on the same pairing as he wants them on two different pairings to push possession. So that's why Gardiner is on the second pairing.

I really don't want to go into the whole "Rielly on his off-side" again, I have half a dozen posts on the subject already. But sure, it's a factor.

Jake played almost exactly as much as Dion, and has had his role increase with Dion's departure. And Hunwick is tied to Rielly's hip, I hope everyone understands the reason for this isn't that he's our second best D-man.

Gardiner being an offensive D-man has never been very accurate. People label any D-man who can skate as that, regardless of other qualities. Gardiner is a transition D-man whose biggest impact on the game is defensively. That he can provide 30 points as well with PP time is a bonus.

QoC has a insignificant effect over the course of a season. Rielly will end up playing against slightly tougher opposition at season's end. Changes in QoC almost never results in any big statistical effect, because the differences are so small.

You then mention Gardiner having "obscenely high ZS%". This is especially funny as Gardiner has slightly above average ZS, not to mention that it's worth as a contextual factor is highly questioned.

So what Rielly has on Gardiner is 1 minute more ES time, playing PK while being one of our worse performers there, and a bit better ES production.

Gardiner has much better possession driving numbers and much better defensive numbers, by pretty much any standard and including numbers that take QoC and ZS% into account.

I'm sure that in a year, Rielly has improved enough on the PK for it to be a factor in his favor, and has continued to evolve enough that the things in his favor weigh up squarely with everything in Gardiner's favor, but right now any kind of statistical analysis will favor Gardiner. And that's no slight to Rielly at all, whom I'm very excited for. That he is closing in on Gardiner at the tender age of 21 is amazing.



Didn't want to betray my dripping irony to anyone who wasn't paying attention

Really like when I did not agree with your points.....I could not read?

The comparison needs context as they are both being used differently and not comparable without context.

QOC, Zone starts, playing your weakside, playing partner and the PK, less PP and more points, vs better zone starts, weaker competition, lots of PP time and better playing partner and less points.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Really like when I did not agree with your points.....I could not read?

The comparison needs context as they are both being used differently and not comparable without context.

QOC, Zone starts, playing your weakside, playing partner and the PK, less PP and more points, vs better zone starts, weaker competition, lots of PP time and better playing partner and less points.

Seriously?

"Can you please take the time to read what I said" is not the same thing as "You cannot read". I've never said or meant the latter. Which I've of course already told you, ironically enough. I'm not responsible for you taking my comments and making them into something else.

And again, I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. I don't have a problem with people preferring Rielly. I welcome to the discussion. Can you please stop making up nefarious motivations of mine when I have already said they are not true? The issue I had with you was that I made arguments and you seemed to completely ignore or misrepresent them. I find that disrespectful.

If you are going to continue like this, I won't respond any more.

And as I've said, context needs to be used knowingly, with a clear knowledge on impact. Not just deciding that impact arbitrarily.

When I use contextual factors according to what we know of their impact, you seem to call it "dismissing context". That's not the case. I really don't see how arbitrarily deciding on the impact of contextual factors on gut feeling is a better tool in evaluation than using the plethora of established literature on the subject. Can you explain that?

I've also looked at stats that take zone starts and quality of competition into account, and as always they don't change things much.

I have already addressed almost all the factors you bring up.

QoC: We know this has a negligible effect. Numbers that account for it don't change things much.
ZS: Highly criticized. Numbers that account for it don't change things much.
Partner: Using WOWY, you can see that Gardiner is unaffected by what partner he has. Rielly has been better away from Hunwick, most notably with Gardiner.
PK: I don't give credit for participation, you have to perform. Rielly is still one of our weaker options, at what I call replacement level. That means that his impact on the PK is of a level that should be readily replaced by any franchise.
Production: The biggest factor in Rielly's favor.

The only other is playing on the right side, and if it makes such a big deal for Rielly's performance then he shouldn't be there. I don't think that's true, as I think he's versatile enough to be adept at both positions.

 

[diceman934]

Seriously?

"Can you please take the time to read what I said" is not the same thing as "You cannot read". I've never said or meant the latter. Which I've of course already told you, ironically enough. I'm not responsible for you taking my comments and making them into something else.

And again, I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. I don't have a problem with people preferring Rielly. I welcome to the discussion. Can you please stop making up nefarious motivations of mine when I have already said they are not true? The issue I had with you was that I made arguments and you seemed to completely ignore or misrepresent them. I find that disrespectful.

If you are going to continue like this, I won't respond any more.

And as I've said, context needs to be used knowingly, with a clear knowledge on impact. Not just deciding that impact arbitrarily.

When I use contextual factors according to what we know of their impact, you seem to call it "dismissing context". That's not the case. I really don't see how arbitrarily deciding on the impact of contextual factors on gut feeling is a better tool in evaluation than using the plethora of established literature on the subject. Can you explain that?

I've also looked at stats that take zone starts and quality of competition into account, and as always they don't change things much.

I have already addressed almost all the factors you bring up.

QoC: We know this has a negligible effect. Numbers that account for it don't change things much.
ZS: Highly criticized. Numbers that account for it don't change things much.
Partner: Using WOWY, you can see that Gardiner is unaffected by what partner he has. Rielly has been better away from Hunwick, most notably with Gardiner.
PK: I don't give credit for participation, you have to perform. Rielly is still one of our weaker options, at what I call replacement level. That means that his impact on the PK is of a level that should be readily replaced by any franchise.
Production: The biggest factor in Rielly's favor.

The only other is playing on the right side, and if it makes such a big deal for Rielly's performance then he shouldn't be there. I don't think that's true, as I think he's versatile enough to be adept at both positions.

A simple sorry would have been acceptable....

You asked me to read again twice....and by doing so inferred that I could not comprehend what you wrote.

We have been debating context and that is it....I have not misrepresented any thing.

I posted my opinion which you disagreed with. You think because I did not agree with yours that I lacked reading skills and or reasoning skills.

The fact you have addressed my factors by dismissing or minimizing them does not change my opinion about them.

I disagree with your opinion and your reasoning as it is severely lacking in context, you seem willing to minimize the context that I mention while I think it plays a huge part.

As for your threat of not responding to me....well you do what you think is best.

 

[PhiladelphiaKessel]

i consider them fairly equal now but you have to consider the age difference

 

[Nithoniniel]

A simple sorry would have been acceptable....

You asked me to read again twice....and by doing so inferred that I could not comprehend what you wrote.

We have been debating context and that is it....I have not misrepresented any thing.

I posted my opinion which you disagreed with. You think because I did not agree with yours that I lacked reading skills and or reasoning skills.

The fact you have addressed my factors by dismissing or minimizing them does not change my opinion about them.

I disagree with your opinion and your reasoning as it is severely lacking in context, you seem willing to minimize the context that I mention while I think it plays a huge part.

As for your threat of not responding to me....well you do what you think is best.

Well I am sorry that you misunderstood what I said.

The bolded is a good example of you misrepresenting what I say. I have not said or inferred anything of the sort, it's simply a construct of your own. This will be the third or fourth time I say to you that it's not true, yet you continue to claim this. I don't really see the point in continuing to be upset about something that you just completely misunderstood? How can you even claim to know what I think?

I am willing to minimize some contextual factors because I've read up on them and learned their effect, not because it fits some narrative of mine.

If you have some arguments for why the knowledge gathered about these contextual factors and how they work doesn't apply in this case, then I'd be happy to hear you out.

 

[one77]

Rielly is better now, and has more potential/higher ceiling.

Not even on the same level in terms of hockey IQ... which is important in being a #1. Both great skaters, good vision and passing, but Rielly has the much higher hockey IQ and more potential despite being younger. Gardiner is a good #2-3 though.

 

[BM14]

Gardiner is much better at being out of position and occasional brain farts.

That's about it.

 

[diceman934]

Diceman, please read what I say.

I know Jake doesn't play RD. This is the third time I'll say this.

Versatile D-men are able to play both sides without a drop in performance.

If Rielly is one of them, he'd have the same performance on the left side.

If Rielly would have a much better performance at LD, he is not really all that versatile.

I don't know how I can explain it any clearer than this.

As for "against the top players in the league", I suggest you read up on how big impact that has over the course of a season.

I told you to really read what I say because you still don't seem to get the point. Illustrated by you suddenly now, after the third time, making a big thing of me saying Gardiner doesn't play RD.

(1) I am basing my opinion on the clear statistical edge in Gardiner's favor. I am basing it on how these two players have performed, on the context that has happened and what effect it has been calculated to have.

(2) I am not dismissing or minimizing context. I am analyzing it. You keep using Rielly playing RD as both a point in his favor and an excuse. It doesn't work both ways.

(3) No, QoC is never significant. It is always a small difference over the course of the season. We know this. I don't see the point in just absolutely ignoring all we know about it.

(4) And yet again, that's fine. But then Rielly is not a versatile player, and just like Gardiner he struggles on the RD.

My point has been consistent through every post that I've made. Gardiner has been performing great, Rielly has been managing. QoC doesn't make up for the difference, this has been shown over and over when testing this factor.

And about the weak side. Either Rielly is versatile (something in his favor) and his numbers wouldn't change much on the left side, or both of them belong on the left side and it causes Rielly's numbers to be worse. Either way, it doesn't explain the gap between them entirely.

That's been my main issue all along. You make Rielly better in part because he can play both positions, but you also seem to claim that his numbers would be much better on the left. But that's what happened with Gardiner, and you are quite comfortable dismissing him as only being able to play on the LD. Can you at least address this?

Well I am sorry that you misunderstood what I said.

The bolded is a good example of you misrepresenting what I say. I have not said or inferred anything of the sort, it's simply a construct of your own. This will be the third or fourth time I say to you that it's not true, yet you continue to claim this. I don't really see the point in continuing to be upset about something that you just completely misunderstood? How can you even claim to know what I think?

I am willing to minimize some contextual factors because I've read up on them and learned their effect, not because it fits some narrative of mine.

If you have some arguments for why the knowledge gathered about these contextual factors and how they work doesn't apply in this case, then I'd be happy to hear you out.

Look at the bold.....

You are telling me that I misunderstood

I stand by my opinion and I place a larger weight with the context that I have stated...you seem to believe that you are some authority on the value of context by stating that they are minimal when I have yet to see any documented study or statistical value of young D man playing their weak side.....then add in against the top player in the league.


We can agree to disagree about the context and the weight it should hold on this comparison...as neither of us will concede.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Look at the bold.....

You are telling me that I misunderstood

I stand by my opinion and I place a larger weight with the context that I have stated...you seem to believe that you are some authority on the value of context by stating that they are minimal when I have yet to see any documented study or statistical value of young D man playing their weak side.....then add in against the top player in the league.

We can agree to disagree about the context and the weight it should hold on this comparison...as neither of us will concede.

And nowhere in the bolded am I saying that you can't read. Nowhere in the bolded am I saying you are not capable of understanding. So you thinking those things are clearly a misunderstanding.

All I did was ask you nicely if you can take extra care in reading, and explain that it's because you misunderstand my point.

This has gone beyond ridiculous.

Oh, and I would absolutely concede if you provided some support for your opinion, some arguments or something substantial to make it more than just an idea. Why wouldn't I want to see more positive arguments in favor of our most important player?

 

[CrazyCanuck89]

How is this even up for debate? Reilly plays on the top pairing, the first PP unit and the first PK unit. Gardiner wishes he was as good as Reilly.

 

[Ovate]

How is this even up for debate? Reilly plays on the top pairing, the first PP unit and the first PK unit. Gardiner wishes he was as good as Reilly.

Because usage =/= impact. Regardless of who you believe is better, saying one gets played more is not proof.

 

[Rogie]

These are two of my favorite and respected posters having a good debate.

I think Gardiner is better according to numbers BUT my eye test tells me Rielly is a better player.

 

[Wafflewhipper]

I think this debate will get interesting when Morgan plays on the first pairing of the World cup possibly with Ekblad.

 

[SprDaVE]

 

[Wafflewhipper]

Nice tidbit. I didn't realize that. Pretty telling stat. Morgan's scoring stats when we have some serious talent in a few years will be possibly .65 a game i think. Its not out of the realm of possibility that he puts up .75 a game three years from now actually.

 

[Cotton]

First of all. Watching the game means you put your faith in your cognitive ability, your eye test, which is highly biased and not to mention subjective. Understanding that is key to evaluation.

Utilization is not a better indicator of quality than actual performance, as it depends on a lot of factors. That should be obvious especially when the subject is Rielly, who has not been utilized on the PP. We know that's not indicative of his abilities there.

Nevertheless, Babcock has been very clear that he does not want Gardiner and Rielly on the same pairing as he wants them on two different pairings to push possession. So that's why Gardiner is on the second pairing.

So what Rielly has on Gardiner is 1 minute more ES time, playing PK while being one of our worse performers there, and a bit better ES production.

Gardiner has much better possession driving numbers and much better defensive numbers, by pretty much any standard and including numbers that take QoC and ZS% into account.

That's cute. But no, firstly you get your reception dealt with, than you can stop piggy-backing on the various analytics articles that were put out about Gardiner and develop an opinion through first hand account. It hasn't really escaped anyone that all of these Gardiner=Defensive God people came out of the woodwork after these very public articles were put out there, one of which I'll link at the bottom.

Secondly, being that the subject is a game in which winning is the goal, utilization is an artifact of proficiency. This is why Rielly is given more minutes in all situations beyond the PP, but in this specific case Babcock had already addressed why Rielly wasn't getting PP minutes, otherwise he would simply dwarf Gardiner in all situations. To it's bedrock, Gardiner is a spoon and Rielly is a swiss-army knife; Gardiner is good for specific things, Rielly is serviceable in all situations - so we tend to use it(him) more because it's(he's) more proficient.

But I hadn't read where Babcock has stated he specifically wants Jake and Mo on separate lines, I'd be interested in reading that if you could link it.

Thirdly, Rielly isn't some awesome PK'er no, but he isn't terrible either. And you keep bringing it up without the context that he was never played on the PK. Babcock is developing him so that soon enough he will, hopefully, be awesome on the PK. And that takes experience and time.

Rielly's gaining on Gardiner? I think you mean pulling further away.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs...t-defensive-defenceman-analytics-suggest.html

"Jake Gardiner isn’t the player you think he is.

The prevailing view of the Leafs’ 24-year-old, $4 million per season defenceman is that he plays a high-risk, high-reward style that so far this season has led to little reward and lots of rubber flying in the direction of poor Jonathan Bernier and James Reimer.

His elite skating ability has led to flashes of brilliance almost reminiscent of a raw Paul Coffey. But Gardiner’s glaring mistakes in the defensive end have cast doubt on what seemed like almost limitless potential"

"But even as real and as glaring and as grotesque as some of his defensive zone play has been, would it surprise you to hear that there’s an argument that Gardiner is actually the best defensive defenceman on the Leafs . . . by a lot?"

Notice that this is supposed to be a news flash, because almost everyone who watched him reached the same conclusion? If it were only a fraction you could call cognitive ability into question - when it's the vast majority, it's something else. But this article, unsurprisingly, uses the same excuse you did (Coincidence?) to explain why most people think he sucks in his own end...

"So what we’re left with is another example of how perception doesn’t always match reality"

Gotta love how advanced-stats guru's are trying to bring cognitive psychology into their argument.

Anyway, I apologize if you felt insulted. It was more a sarcastic suggestion than an insult, but regardless, we are Leafs fans - we don't have to agree on all thing but I'm not intending to insult you (I know you know your stuff, and have valid points).

 

[Gary Nylund]

That's cute. But no, firstly you get your reception dealt with, than you can stop piggy-backing on the various analytics articles that were put out about Gardiner and develop an opinion through first hand account. It hasn't really escaped anyone that all of these Gardiner=Defensive God people came out of the woodwork after these very public articles were put out there, one of which I'll link at the bottom.

Secondly, being that the subject is a game in which winning is the goal, utilization is an artifact of proficiency. This is why Rielly is given more minutes in all situations beyond the PP, but in this specific case Babcock had already addressed why Rielly wasn't getting PP minutes, otherwise he would simply dwarf Gardiner in all situations. To it's bedrock, Gardiner is a spoon and Rielly is a swiss-army knife; Gardiner is good for specific things, Rielly is serviceable in all situations - so we tend to use it(him) more because it's(he's) more proficient.

But I hadn't read where Babcock has stated he specifically wants Jake and Mo on separate lines, I'd be interested in reading that if you could link it.

Thirdly, Rielly isn't some awesome PK'er no, but he isn't terrible either. And you keep bringing it up without the context that he was never played on the PK. Babcock is developing him so that soon enough he will, hopefully, be awesome on the PK. And that takes experience and time.

Rielly's gaining on Gardiner? I think you mean pulling further away.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs...t-defensive-defenceman-analytics-suggest.html

"Jake Gardiner isn’t the player you think he is.

The prevailing view of the Leafs’ 24-year-old, $4 million per season defenceman is that he plays a high-risk, high-reward style that so far this season has led to little reward and lots of rubber flying in the direction of poor Jonathan Bernier and James Reimer.

His elite skating ability has led to flashes of brilliance almost reminiscent of a raw Paul Coffey. But Gardiner’s glaring mistakes in the defensive end have cast doubt on what seemed like almost limitless potential"

"But even as real and as glaring and as grotesque as some of his defensive zone play has been, would it surprise you to hear that there’s an argument that Gardiner is actually the best defensive defenceman on the Leafs . . . by a lot?"

Notice that this is supposed to be a news flash, because almost everyone who watched him reached the same conclusion? If it were only a fraction you could call cognitive ability into question - when it's the vast majority, it's something else. But this article, unsurprisingly, uses the same excuse you did (Coincidence?) to explain why most people think he sucks in his own end...

"So what we’re left with is another example of how perception doesn’t always match reality"

Gotta love how advanced-stats guru's are trying to bring cognitive psychology into their argument.

Anyway, I apologize if you felt insulted. It was more a sarcastic suggestion than an insult, but regardless, we are Leafs fans - we don't have to agree on all thing but I'm not intending to insult you (I know you know your stuff, and have valid points).

No offence and your opinion is noted but this post seems a little light on facts. Rielly on the PK - takes time and experience to get good, that's a valid point absolutely. Other than that, you seem to be saying stats be damned, Rielly is better than Gardner because, well because that's the way you see it.

As far as "cognitive psychology" goes, the eye-test has been discussed again and again so not going to start with that all over again, if you choose to value your eye-test over any stats that don't agree with you, that is your privilege.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

Gardiner is better than Reilly ?
It's like saying a Monarch flies better than a Caterpillar.
Sure, now he does .... but when that Monarch was a Caterpillar he was a shell of the current Caterpillar.

TLDR

Reilly > Gardiner /close thread.

 

[Brewsky]

People are seriously underrating Gardiner in this thread. His point share as a 21 year old was around 5.2, while Rielly's is a 3.5.

For me, I don't care who's better because they're both on my team who gives a crap.

 

[Gary Nylund]

People are seriously underrating Gardiner in this thread. His point share as a 21 year old was around 5.2, while Rielly's is a 3.5.

For me, I don't care who's better because they're both on my team who gives a crap.

Same here. I do think that as of right now, Gardiner is somewhat underrated and Rielly is somewhat overrated but whatever, I'm glad to have them both on our team.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

Jake looks better this year. Much less brain farting.
Reilly is overrated. I still hold out hope he'll be something ... but I want Defensive defense-men ... which he is not.

 

[Nithoniniel]

That's cute. But no, firstly you get your reception dealt with, than you can stop piggy-backing on the various analytics articles that were put out about Gardiner and develop an opinion through first hand account. It hasn't really escaped anyone that all of these Gardiner=Defensive God people came out of the woodwork after these very public articles were put out there, one of which I'll link at the bottom.

Secondly, being that the subject is a game in which winning is the goal, utilization is an artifact of proficiency. This is why Rielly is given more minutes in all situations beyond the PP, but in this specific case Babcock had already addressed why Rielly wasn't getting PP minutes, otherwise he would simply dwarf Gardiner in all situations. To it's bedrock, Gardiner is a spoon and Rielly is a swiss-army knife; Gardiner is good for specific things, Rielly is serviceable in all situations - so we tend to use it(him) more because it's(he's) more proficient.

But I hadn't read where Babcock has stated he specifically wants Jake and Mo on separate lines, I'd be interested in reading that if you could link it.

Thirdly, Rielly isn't some awesome PK'er no, but he isn't terrible either. And you keep bringing it up without the context that he was never played on the PK. Babcock is developing him so that soon enough he will, hopefully, be awesome on the PK. And that takes experience and time.

Rielly's gaining on Gardiner? I think you mean pulling further away.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs...t-defensive-defenceman-analytics-suggest.html

"Jake Gardiner isn’t the player you think he is.

The prevailing view of the Leafs’ 24-year-old, $4 million per season defenceman is that he plays a high-risk, high-reward style that so far this season has led to little reward and lots of rubber flying in the direction of poor Jonathan Bernier and James Reimer.

His elite skating ability has led to flashes of brilliance almost reminiscent of a raw Paul Coffey. But Gardiner’s glaring mistakes in the defensive end have cast doubt on what seemed like almost limitless potential"

"But even as real and as glaring and as grotesque as some of his defensive zone play has been, would it surprise you to hear that there’s an argument that Gardiner is actually the best defensive defenceman on the Leafs . . . by a lot?"

Notice that this is supposed to be a news flash, because almost everyone who watched him reached the same conclusion? If it were only a fraction you could call cognitive ability into question - when it's the vast majority, it's something else. But this article, unsurprisingly, uses the same excuse you did (Coincidence?) to explain why most people think he sucks in his own end...

"So what we’re left with is another example of how perception doesn’t always match reality"

Gotta love how advanced-stats guru's are trying to bring cognitive psychology into their argument.

Anyway, I apologize if you felt insulted. It was more a sarcastic suggestion than an insult, but regardless, we are Leafs fans - we don't have to agree on all thing but I'm not intending to insult you (I know you know your stuff, and have valid points).

Look, another person who seem to spend more time telling other people what they think or do rather than actually present viable arguments. You can stereotype me and dismiss me all you want, it just shows that you are unable to actually counter my arguments.

Babcock said that he wants Rielly and Gardiner on separate pairings in pre-season/early season. Should be on one of the interview videos somewhere.

I know Rielly has not played the PK before, but the discussion is on who is better currently. That Rielly is new to the PK and his struggles is expected doesn't change that. Is it more understandable? Sure. But you said yourself that he'll be better with time, but the discussion was not on potential (where everyone agrees), it was on current ability.

As for "cognitive psychology", we are discussing what has been a scientifically established fact for 50 years. I'm not sure trying to dismiss it strengthens your cause here, it just comes across as ignorant.

Gardiner is better than Reilly ?
It's like saying a Monarch flies better than a Caterpillar.
Sure, now he does .... but when that Monarch was a Caterpillar he was a shell of the current Caterpillar.

TLDR

Reilly > Gardiner /close thread.

Yeah, we are absolutely going to close thread just because you stated your opinion.

 

[Stigma]

Same here. I do think that as of right now, Gardiner is somewhat underrated and Rielly is somewhat overrated but whatever, I'm glad to have them both on our team.

Agreed. I'm starting to cringe when I see his name in fantasy trade proposals. We went through countless "Marincin" years with Gardiner. Finally, all of that patience has paid off and he's grown into a great defender.

 

[Guided by Veseys]

Jake seems more comfortable and aware of what he is doing. He grew into that role a few years ago after breaking away from the free wheeling exciting rusher persona.
Rielly is still getting things figured out. Not surprised if Jake has been a more effective defenseman this year.

 

[Mad Brills*]

Rielly has the upside of a top 15 dman while gardiner is a top 25 dman.