Jake gardiner is better than rielly

[Jerkini]

The problem I have is that people want to pay Rielly like he is one of the upper, higher tiered defenders in the NHL, when everything points to him being barely better than Jake Gardiner right now. He needs a bridge deal. We just got rid of one defence man who could never contribute to the level of his contract, I really don't want another one.

 

[Johny Drama]

The problem I have is that people want to pay Rielly like he is one of the upper, higher tiered defenders in the NHL, when everything points to him being barely better than Jake Gardiner right now. He needs a bridge deal. We just got rid of one defence man who could never contribute to the level of his contract, I really don't want another one.

I agree. He has potential to be a top pairing defender but he is not at that level yet.
I would keep away from rewarding players with long term deals until they have proven they deserve them.

Bridge deal.

 

[Macallan18]

I thought Reilly looked quite good last night with Corrado. Maybe he really needs to play his natural side? And I prefer Corrado to Hunwick.
Gardiner. Gets the anchor every game. Before it was Phaneuf. Now its Polak. You have to feel for the guy.
Glad we have both Reilly and Gardiner. It's not an either/or.
Unlike our centre spots.......

 

[RLF]

I just started reading this thread and I honestly can't believe that there is still a debate that ADV stats show certain factors such as QOC, FO starts, how a player is used, blocked shots, etc have negligible effects on players statistical results and is a good way to debate which player is better. I don't mean this as an insult to anyone who places a high value on ADV stats, but they are not the "best" way to compare players and shouldn't be used as proof in a rebuttal. They are as flawed as the eye-test alone.

For instance;

Why has Kadri dropped so much in Crel/60 this year? Shouldn't his numbers remain consistent or even improve since he is shooting at a high rate no matter his role or QOC?
How do we explain Marincin having the best Crel/60 among our d-men? Is he really that good?
How does a guy like Winnik's numbers change so much depending on what team he played for and how he was used by his coach?

There is so many variables that ADV stats cannot consider no matter how hard they try. Are they a useful tool? Yes, they can help put into context statistical results on a player, but you have to consider the players usage, the coaching style, the system the team plays, his QOC, whether he PK's or not etc.
PK is one of the most exhausting duties a player can have. A player who PK's is undoubtedly more exhausted during a game than one who doesn't PK. PP is some of the easiest, and fun for that matter, minutes you can play. Of course these things matter.

I understand that those who rely on ADV stats will just say this is an opinion, not fact. That's fine, I will give some facts as rebuttal.

Unless you believe that Babcock and all NHL coaches are idiots, why do they care about match-ups, who plays PK or PP, etc? Why not just coach based on statistics? Why doesn't organizations just hire guys like Dubas to coach? Why even hire Lamoriello, who would be a dinosaur when it comes to ADV stats? Since guys like Arcobello, Corrado, Clune are all showing good possession numbers on the team, shouldn't we be doing better than we did with poorer possession stat players like Bozak, Phaneuf, Lupul for instance. Why is Polak a player we can get possibly a 2nd round pick for and Marincin a waiver wire pick up, when Marincin is clearly better statistically? I guess coaches and execs haven't caught up to the best way to evaluate a player yet.

Check out some players ADV stats as they move from team to team or if their icetime and usage changes from year to year. Shouldn't it be more consistent most of the time if all these factors have little to no affect on results?

Can ADV stats help compare players on the same team? For sure, but they don't PROVE one is better than the other because it is impossible to have all variables the same. Hockey is not bowling where you could give two guys the same ball, the same lane, same conditions and say...let's see who is better.

Another note, when Babcock was asked, prior to the Phaneuf trade BTW, if the Leafs have a number 1 D, he said Rielly is already a very good #2 and could still develop into a #1, but mentioned Gardiner as a good 2nd pair guy. I guess Babcock just doesn't get it yet.

 

[Grandrift145]

I just started reading this thread and I honestly can't believe that there is still a debate that ADV stats show certain factors such as QOC, FO starts, how a player is used, blocked shots, etc have negligible effects on players statistical results and is a good way to debate which player is better. I don't mean this as an insult to anyone who places a high value on ADV stats, but they are not the "best" way to compare players and shouldn't be used as proof in a rebuttal. They are as flawed as the eye-test alone.

For instance;

Why has Kadri dropped so much in Crel/60 this year? Shouldn't his numbers remain consistent or even improve since he is shooting at a high rate no matter his role or QOC?
How do we explain Marincin having the best Crel/60 among our d-men? Is he really that good?
How does a guy like Winnik's numbers change so much depending on what team he played for and how he was used by his coach?

There is so many variables that ADV stats cannot consider no matter how hard they try. Are they a useful tool? Yes, they can help put into context statistical results on a player, but you have to consider the players usage, the coaching style, the system the team plays, his QOC, whether he PK's or not etc.
PK is one of the most exhausting duties a player can have. A player who PK's is undoubtedly more exhausted during a game than one who doesn't PK. PP is some of the easiest, and fun for that matter, minutes you can play. Of course these things matter.

I understand that those who rely on ADV stats will just say this is an opinion, not fact. That's fine, I will give some facts as rebuttal.

Unless you believe that Babcock and all NHL coaches are idiots, why do they care about match-ups, who plays PK or PP, etc? Why not just coach based on statistics? Why doesn't organizations just hire guys like Dubas to coach? Why even hire Lamoriello, who would be a dinosaur when it comes to ADV stats? Since guys like Arcobello, Corrado, Clune are all showing good possession numbers on the team, shouldn't we be doing better than we did with poorer possession stat players like Bozak, Phaneuf, Lupul for instance. Why is Polak a player we can get possibly a 2nd round pick for and Marincin a waiver wire pick up, when Marincin is clearly better statistically? I guess coaches and execs haven't caught up to the best way to evaluate a player yet.

Check out some players ADV stats as they move from team to team or if their icetime and usage changes from year to year. Shouldn't it be more consistent most of the time if all these factors have little to no affect on results?

Can ADV stats help compare players on the same team? For sure, but they don't PROVE one is better than the other because it is impossible to have all variables the same. Hockey is not bowling where you could give two guys the same ball, the same lane, same conditions and say...let's see who is better.

Another note, when Babcock was asked, prior to the Phaneuf trade BTW, if the Leafs have a number 1 D, he said Rielly is already a very good #2 and could still develop into a #1, but mentioned Gardiner as a good 2nd pair guy. I guess Babcock just doesn't get it yet.

But if you watched every Leafs game this year and ignored all stats Gardiner still looks better that Reily

 

[RLF]

But if you watched every Leafs game this year and ignored all stats Gardiner still looks better that Reily

Gardiner may look like he struggles less in his role, I agree, but that doesn't mean he looks like a "better" defenceman. Rielly plays the tougher role and has also been told by Babcock to work on learning D and has the reigns on him. Personally, I don't think Gardiner looks like the better D-man and neither does Babcock it seems if you consider who plays what role.

 

[diceman934]

I just started reading this thread and I honestly can't believe that there is still a debate that ADV stats show certain factors such as QOC, FO starts, how a player is used, blocked shots, etc have negligible effects on players statistical results and is a good way to debate which player is better. I don't mean this as an insult to anyone who places a high value on ADV stats, but they are not the "best" way to compare players and shouldn't be used as proof in a rebuttal. They are as flawed as the eye-test alone.

For instance;

Why has Kadri dropped so much in Crel/60 this year? Shouldn't his numbers remain consistent or even improve since he is shooting at a high rate no matter his role or QOC?
How do we explain Marincin having the best Crel/60 among our d-men? Is he really that good?
How does a guy like Winnik's numbers change so much depending on what team he played for and how he was used by his coach?

There is so many variables that ADV stats cannot consider no matter how hard they try. Are they a useful tool? Yes, they can help put into context statistical results on a player, but you have to consider the players usage, the coaching style, the system the team plays, his QOC, whether he PK's or not etc.
PK is one of the most exhausting duties a player can have. A player who PK's is undoubtedly more exhausted during a game than one who doesn't PK. PP is some of the easiest, and fun for that matter, minutes you can play. Of course these things matter.

I understand that those who rely on ADV stats will just say this is an opinion, not fact. That's fine, I will give some facts as rebuttal.

Unless you believe that Babcock and all NHL coaches are idiots, why do they care about match-ups, who plays PK or PP, etc? Why not just coach based on statistics? Why doesn't organizations just hire guys like Dubas to coach? Why even hire Lamoriello, who would be a dinosaur when it comes to ADV stats? Since guys like Arcobello, Corrado, Clune are all showing good possession numbers on the team, shouldn't we be doing better than we did with poorer possession stat players like Bozak, Phaneuf, Lupul for instance. Why is Polak a player we can get possibly a 2nd round pick for and Marincin a waiver wire pick up, when Marincin is clearly better statistically? I guess coaches and execs haven't caught up to the best way to evaluate a player yet.

Check out some players ADV stats as they move from team to team or if their icetime and usage changes from year to year. Shouldn't it be more consistent most of the time if all these factors have little to no affect on results?

Can ADV stats help compare players on the same team? For sure, but they don't PROVE one is better than the other because it is impossible to have all variables the same. Hockey is not bowling where you could give two guys the same ball, the same lane, same conditions and say...let's see who is better.

Another note, when Babcock was asked, prior to the Phaneuf trade BTW, if the Leafs have a number 1 D, he said Rielly is already a very good #2 and could still develop into a #1, but mentioned Gardiner as a good 2nd pair guy. I guess Babcock just doesn't get it yet.

Great post and I'm glad that others understand that data that is gathered is only that data, it is not a factual reality unless it could include context, which it can not.

I'm with you that Babcock knows and has answered just who is better...

 

[Wafflewhipper]

Great post and I'm glad that others understand that data that is gathered is only that data, it is not a factual reality unless it could include context, which it can not.

I'm with you that Babcock knows and has answered just who is better...

Count me in as adv stats get to much weight in posters decisions. Pat Quinn teams were the best historically and we know he used zero adv stats to build good teams for six years.

He never had a team that had a minus in GF/GA. They always competed hard and had toughness and structure. Quinn knew what the benefits of having the right intangibles were.

Edit: this pure skill drafting process management is following now is perfect though. Don't get me wrong with the intangibles comment. Skill rules and character comes a close second.

 

[RLF]

Great post and I'm glad that others understand that data that is gathered is only that data, it is not a factual reality unless it could include context, which it can not.

I'm with you that Babcock knows and has answered just who is better...

Well, it just isn't fair to compare by stats when players play different roles.imo

Gardiner is slotted where he belongs and had Dion with him most of the year. He played PP, (easier minutes) and no PK, (tougher minutes). See's 2nd quality QOC most nights.

Rielly is told he has to concentrate on defence, plays 1st pair with Hunwick, a career 5-7 guy, almost no PP, (the easier minutes) and lots of PK, (the tougher minutes). Sees 1st quality QOC most nights.

It's like giving Gardiner a bowling ball fit for him, a level lane to throw on and nice air conditioned room. And Rielly gets an old rental ball, a lane with a slight lean to one side and the A/C isn't working so it's 120 degrees in there and when Gardiner scores higher, claiming he is the better bowler. The fact Rielly has done as well as he has in his role this year, shows the talent this kid has.imo

 

[Wafflewhipper]

Well, it just isn't fair to compare by stats when players play different roles.imo

Gardiner is slotted where he belongs and had Dion with him most of the year. He played PP, (easier minutes) and no PK, (tougher minutes). See's 2nd quality QOC most nights.

Rielly is told he has to concentrate on defence, plays 1st pair with Hunwick, a career 5-7 guy, almost no PP, (the easier minutes) and lots of PK, (the tougher minutes). Sees 1st quality QOC most nights.

It's like giving Gardiner a bowling ball fit for him, a level lane to throw on and nice air conditioned room. And Rielly gets an old rental ball, a lane with a slight lean to one side and the A/C isn't working so it's 120 degrees in there and when Gardiner scores higher, claiming he is the better bowler. The fact Rielly has done as well as he has in his role this year, shows the talent this kid has.imo

The OP that started this thread was a habs fan. I don't know why he wanted to stir up the debate and do a threaf here but its is curious nonetheless.

This is not started by leaf fans. I say he or she was intentionally trying to stir the pot by calling down our best defenseman actually. Morgan is the best by the way.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I just started reading this thread and I honestly can't believe that there is still a debate that ADV stats show certain factors such as QOC, FO starts, how a player is used, blocked shots, etc have negligible effects on players statistical results and is a good way to debate which player is better. I don't mean this as an insult to anyone who places a high value on ADV stats, but they are not the "best" way to compare players and shouldn't be used as proof in a rebuttal. They are as flawed as the eye-test alone.

For instance;

Why has Kadri dropped so much in Crel/60 this year? Shouldn't his numbers remain consistent or even improve since he is shooting at a high rate no matter his role or QOC?
How do we explain Marincin having the best Crel/60 among our d-men? Is he really that good?
How does a guy like Winnik's numbers change so much depending on what team he played for and how he was used by his coach?

There is so many variables that ADV stats cannot consider no matter how hard they try. Are they a useful tool? Yes, they can help put into context statistical results on a player, but you have to consider the players usage, the coaching style, the system the team plays, his QOC, whether he PK's or not etc.
PK is one of the most exhausting duties a player can have. A player who PK's is undoubtedly more exhausted during a game than one who doesn't PK. PP is some of the easiest, and fun for that matter, minutes you can play. Of course these things matter.

I understand that those who rely on ADV stats will just say this is an opinion, not fact. That's fine, I will give some facts as rebuttal.

Unless you believe that Babcock and all NHL coaches are idiots, why do they care about match-ups, who plays PK or PP, etc? Why not just coach based on statistics? Why doesn't organizations just hire guys like Dubas to coach? Why even hire Lamoriello, who would be a dinosaur when it comes to ADV stats? Since guys like Arcobello, Corrado, Clune are all showing good possession numbers on the team, shouldn't we be doing better than we did with poorer possession stat players like Bozak, Phaneuf, Lupul for instance. Why is Polak a player we can get possibly a 2nd round pick for and Marincin a waiver wire pick up, when Marincin is clearly better statistically? I guess coaches and execs haven't caught up to the best way to evaluate a player yet.

Check out some players ADV stats as they move from team to team or if their icetime and usage changes from year to year. Shouldn't it be more consistent most of the time if all these factors have little to no affect on results?

Can ADV stats help compare players on the same team? For sure, but they don't PROVE one is better than the other because it is impossible to have all variables the same. Hockey is not bowling where you could give two guys the same ball, the same lane, same conditions and say...let's see who is better.

Another note, when Babcock was asked, prior to the Phaneuf trade BTW, if the Leafs have a number 1 D, he said Rielly is already a very good #2 and could still develop into a #1, but mentioned Gardiner as a good 2nd pair guy. I guess Babcock just doesn't get it yet.

I bolded this part just because for many, I think it might get lost in this lengthy post which otherwise seems to be a rant against advanced stats. Advanced stats are a useful tool, and like any other tool, some skill is needed to use it properly.

As far as Dubas is concerned, there are many skills one needs to have to be a good coach. Being an advanced stats expert is not one of them IMO, it's enough to understand that stats have value, and to have an expert in that are (like Dubas) to do the work in that area and offer up the results and recommendations to the coach. The fact that Dubas is employed by the Leafs is one of many signs that stats are being utilized more and more. Maybe 10 years from now, nobody will even look at advanced stats any more, who knows but I doubt it. The trend is towards more and more stats analysis, I don't see that changing any time soon and there's good reason for that.

 

[Deez Nuts]

It's no surprise that now that the advanced stats show Rielly to be challenged defensively, that these stats are now being questioned as to their credibility. Until now, they have been used to validate Gardiner's defensive ability and to highlight Kadri's offensive production that lumps him with players like Zetterberg and Tavares. Rielly's ES scoring has also been used to compare him to the best NHL defensemen for months now. Meanwhile his 5x5 production ranks around 45-50, nothing remarkable. The double standard for Rielly continues. The majority in this thread want to pay him 6-6.5 mil with max term which I feel is ridiculous. Why does he deserve to be paid as a top 10 D in the NHL?Why does he deserve to make over double what Ryan Murray just signed for? Why does he deserve to be paid 1.5 times guys like Kleinberg and Gardiner? At this point, he is a top 4 D with suspect defensive ability and mediocre point totals, especially considering his greatest strength was supposed to be off the charts offensive ability. His lack of PP opportunity is constantly used as to why his scoring is not higher. We shall see in the upcoming weeks if his scoring increases with more minutes on the PP. I don't think he has registered a point since the trade. It seems to me that Gardiner has stepped up his play since the Phaneuf trade, and has easily been the Leaf's best D this year.

 

[Wafflewhipper]

It's no surprise that now that the advanced stats show Rielly to be challenged defensively, that these stats are now being questioned as to their credibility. Until now, they have been used to validate Gardiner's defensive ability and to highlight Kadri's offensive production that lumps him with players like Zetterberg and Tavares. Rielly's ES scoring has also been used to compare him to the best NHL defensemen for months now. Meanwhile his 5x5 production ranks around 45-50, nothing remarkable. The double standard for Rielly continues. The majority in this thread want to pay him 6-6.5 mil with max term which I feel is ridiculous. Why does he deserve to be paid as a top 10 D in the NHL?Why does he deserve to make over double what Ryan Murray just signed for? Why does he deserve to be paid 1.5 times guys like Kleinberg and Gardiner? At this point, he is a top 4 D with suspect defensive ability and mediocre point totals, especially considering his greatest strength was supposed to be off the charts offensive ability. His lack of PP opportunity is constantly used as to why his scoring is not higher. We shall see in the upcoming weeks if his scoring increases with more minutes on the PP. I don't think he has registered a point since the trade. It seems to me that Gardiner has stepped up his play since the Phaneuf trade, and has easily been the Leaf's best D this year.

He is still learning and you are absolutely right he doesn't deserve a big stupid overburden contract. He deserves to be treated the way any 2nd contract player with more development to do is treated.

Just form your own fair opinion bud and dont get to caught up in the crazyness that annoys you. I always hope for the best for our players even when it seems i am debating against them. Some have agenda's here and push them extra hard to intentionally try annoying posters lol..

 

[Purity*]

It's no surprise that now that the advanced stats show Rielly to be challenged defensively, that these stats are now being questioned as to their credibility. Until now, they have been used to validate Gardiner's defensive ability and to highlight Kadri's offensive production that lumps him with players like Zetterberg and Tavares. Rielly's ES scoring has also been used to compare him to the best NHL defensemen for months now. Meanwhile his 5x5 production ranks around 45-50, nothing remarkable. The double standard for Rielly continues. The majority in this thread want to pay him 6-6.5 mil with max term which I feel is ridiculous. Why does he deserve to be paid as a top 10 D in the NHL?Why does he deserve to make over double what Ryan Murray just signed for? Why does he deserve to be paid 1.5 times guys like Kleinberg and Gardiner? At this point, he is a top 4 D with suspect defensive ability and mediocre point totals, especially considering his greatest strength was supposed to be off the charts offensive ability. His lack of PP opportunity is constantly used as to why his scoring is not higher. We shall see in the upcoming weeks if his scoring increases with more minutes on the PP. I don't think he has registered a point since the trade. It seems to me that Gardiner has stepped up his play since the Phaneuf trade, and has easily been the Leaf's best D this year.

I didn't know there were people advocating for 6-6.5 but yeah that's a ridiculous number, that's a pretty clear overpayment.

When all is said Rielly is still very young for a D-man and it could very well take him 2-3 more years before he starts playing his best hockey.

 

[leafsfan1993]

He's taking a big step but rielly has been better more consistently this year. Even against the nucks Reilly was our best dmen for the whole game. Gards stepped up in the last 30 mins but rielly was the best player for the leafs

Yes exactly, he is more consistent and a smarter defence man than Gardiner. He stepped up when the Leafs needed him where as Gardiner did not. Within the next couple years he will be one of the best defence men in the league.

 

[Deez Nuts]

He is still learning and you are absolutely right he doesn't deserve a big stupid overburden contract. He deserves to be treated the way any 2nd contract player with more development to do is treated.

Just form your own fair opinion bud and dont get to caught up in the crazyness that annoys you. I always hope for the best for our players even when it seems i am debating against them. Some have agenda's here and push them extra hard to intentionally try annoying posters lol..

I just find Rielly get's a free pass around here, is put on a pedestal, overhyped and there is clearly a double standard. It baffles me why so many want to pay him top 10D type money and consider him to be the #1 pick in a redraft. Yesterday, after his turnover all I read in the game thread is how amazing he was away from Hunwick and that he is on the verge of putting up Karldsson offensive stats. Just look at the post above, "one of the best D in the NHL within a couple years." Really?

 

[Grandrift145]

Gardiner look better on the ice and his advanced stats are better.

Why do so many keep overrating Riely

 

[Purity*]

I just find Rielly get's a free pass around here, is put on a pedestal, overhyped and there is clearly a double standard. It baffles me why so many want to pay him top 10D type money and consider him to be the #1 pick in a redraft. Yesterday, after his turnover all I read in the game thread is how amazing he was away from Hunwick and that he is on the verge of putting up Karldsson offensive stats.

He's staying at a 40-point pace on a terrible offensive team with limited PP time. He won't be coming anywhere close to Erik Karlsson's numbers but he will definitely be putting up much better numbers once he's got better forwards to work with.

 

[Deez Nuts]

He's staying at a 40-point pace on a terrible offensive team with limited PP time. He won't be coming anywhere close to Erik Karlsson's numbers but he will definitely be putting up much better numbers once he's got better forwards to work with.

Closer to a 35 point pace actually. Either way, I am not saying he sucks and many of the posters that seem overly optimistic in my opinion do indeed have very valid points/arguments why he is track to becoming a number one D. However, there is a clear double standard for goldenboy and it makes me overly critical and appear like I am rooting against him.

 

[Cotton]

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.

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.



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

Totes, I am ignorant of advanced stats - so I imagine I come off that way, just as you come off as a sheep. But I'm unintentionally picking stuff up - it's all scary and new (And unnecessary for fans and media). So I reached out yesterday to Rob Vollman, a hockey analytic expert who offers services to teams and who's contributed on TV (Such as ESPN)/Radio and an author of several books on the subject about this very topic.

I've learned a few things also, and maybe you will too. I learned that most people who work with statistics as a profession think fans and media needs to either get more educated or shut up about them, that they are often misrepresented as infallibles while at best they are a suggestion, and only within context.

I learned that fenwick close is the most accurate statistic for possession, and possession is awesome, and Gardiner is awesome at possession... but it's what is done with possession that makes it awesome - possession itself needs context in combination with other factors. The line of thought is that more possession leads to more shots, more shots lead to more goals, more goals to more wins, right?

Gardiner has a 37% Sthr% (The percentage of his shots that actually get on goal). Rielly's is over 40%. For a comparable I'll use Phaneuf (a #2 or#3 D), his is a touch over 43%, and a #1 like Duncan Keith is 43.7%. The context to this is that Rielly has more points, meaning Gardiners possession don't matter because he gets his shot on net with much less success, within the same context he's also a minus player with less overall points. This all translates to someone who is less effective on the ice. Someone who's possession, while fancy, isn't all that effective.

Just for the giggles there is ioSV% (Teams save-percentage when a player is on the ice in close game situations), Rielly's is 93.2% Gardiner is 91.9%. Dion's was 91.5%. Meaning that in close game situations we are safer with Rielly on the ice over the other two, which isn't something you that should hold true if Jake was a defensive god.

But yes, Gardiner has a FF% of 56.5%, Rielly's is 45.7% and someone like Keith is 51.1%. Pretty fancy, but what does it matter if his possession isn't leading to points or wins. An argument of possession on it's own holds no water, this is backed by the analytics community as well as the betting community.

Oh, and I also found that the article that was put out praising Gardiner as a defensive stud, their source has been bashed and called out because of the exact reasons I'm talking about, not providing context, which than makes people believe something that isn't true.

As far as Vollman goes, I asked this:

"I am not familiar with "Advanced Stats" myself, and while I appreciate what they can tell us, I came across a couple articles published in the Toronto star about Jake Gardiner, stating because of his advanced stats he was a #1 defenseman.

If possible, could you give me your opinion on which, Gardiner or Rielly, is the better defenseman? I'm hearing this is because Gardiner has good possession stats, yet Rielly sees more even-strength ice time, faces tougher competition and has a higher percentage of defensive-zone face offs. Rielly is also more "stable" in the defensive zone; board work, gap control, covering his man ect"

He replied with this;

"Based on your last paragraph, it sounds like you have a good understand of the argument for each player. I'd also add the fact that Gardiner doesn't kill penalties."

I can provide his Email in private if you'd like to challenge it.

 

[thewave]

Totes, I am ignorant of advanced stats - so I imagine I come off that way, just as you come off as a sheep. But I'm unintentionally picking stuff up - it's all scary and new (And unnecessary for fans and media). So I reached out yesterday to Rob Vollman, a hockey analytic expert who offers services to teams and who's contributed on TV (Such as ESPN)/Radio and an author of several books on the subject about this very topic.

I've learned a few things also, and maybe you will too. I learned that most people who work with statistics as a profession think fans and media needs to either get more educated or shut up about them, that they are often misrepresented as infallibles while at best they are a suggestion, and only within context.

I learned that fenwick close is the most accurate statistic for possession, and possession is awesome, and Gardiner is awesome at possession... but it's what is done with possession that makes it awesome - possession itself needs context in combination with other factors. The line of thought is that more possession leads to more shots, more shots lead to more goals, more goals to more wins, right?

Gardiner has a 37% Sthr% (The percentage of his shots that actually get on goal). Rielly's is over 40%. For a comparable I'll use Phaneuf (a #2 or#3 D), his is a touch over 43%, and a #1 like Duncan Keith is 43.7%. The context to this is that Rielly has more points, meaning Gardiners possession don't matter because he gets his shot on net with much less success, within the same context he's also a minus player with less overall points. This all translates to someone who is less effective on the ice. Someone who's possession, while fancy, isn't all that effective.

Just for the giggles there is ioSV% (Teams save-percentage when a player is on the ice in close game situations), Rielly's is 93.2% Gardiner is 91.9%. Dion's was 91.5%. Meaning that in close game situations we are safer with Rielly on the ice over the other two, which isn't something you that should hold true if Jake was a defensive god.

But yes, Gardiner has a FF% of 56.5%, Rielly's is 45.7% and someone like Keith is 51.1%. Pretty fancy, but what does it matter if his possession isn't leading to points or wins. An argument of possession on it's own holds no water, this is backed by the analytics community as well as the betting community.

Oh, and I also found that the article that was put out praising Gardiner as a defensive stud, their source has been bashed and called out because of the exact reasons I'm talking about, not providing context, which than makes people believe something that isn't true.

As far as Vollman goes, I asked this:

"I am not familiar with "Advanced Stats" myself, and while I appreciate what they can tell us, I came across a couple articles published in the Toronto star about Jake Gardiner, stating because of his advanced stats he was a #1 defenseman.

If possible, could you give me your opinion on which, Gardiner or Rielly, is the better defenseman? I'm hearing this is because Gardiner has good possession stats, yet Rielly sees more even-strength ice time, faces tougher competition and has a higher percentage of defensive-zone face offs. Rielly is also more "stable" in the defensive zone; board work, gap control, covering his man ect"

He replied with this;

"Based on your last paragraph, it sounds like you have a good understand of the argument for each player. I'd also add the fact that Gardiner doesn't kill penalties."

I can provide his Email in private if you'd like to challenge it.

Intrepid work

 

[RLF]

I bolded this part just because for many, I think it might get lost in this lengthy post which otherwise seems to be a rant against advanced stats. Advanced stats are a useful tool, and like any other tool, some skill is needed to use it properly.

As far as Dubas is concerned, there are many skills one needs to have to be a good coach. Being an advanced stats expert is not one of them IMO, it's enough to understand that stats have value, and to have an expert in that are (like Dubas) to do the work in that area and offer up the results and recommendations to the coach. The fact that Dubas is employed by the Leafs is one of many signs that stats are being utilized more and more. Maybe 10 years from now, nobody will even look at advanced stats any more, who knows but I doubt it. The trend is towards more and more stats analysis, I don't see that changing any time soon and there's good reason for that.

Then you took my post wrong if you think it is against ADV stats. It is how people interpret them and use them to prove that one player is better than another and only fans do this. I thought I was pretty clear on that. But if not, my bad.

 

[RLF]

It's no surprise that now that the advanced stats show Rielly to be challenged defensively, that these stats are now being questioned as to their credibility. Until now, they have been used to validate Gardiner's defensive ability and to highlight Kadri's offensive production that lumps him with players like Zetterberg and Tavares. Rielly's ES scoring has also been used to compare him to the best NHL defensemen for months now. Meanwhile his 5x5 production ranks around 45-50, nothing remarkable. The double standard for Rielly continues. The majority in this thread want to pay him 6-6.5 mil with max term which I feel is ridiculous. Why does he deserve to be paid as a top 10 D in the NHL?Why does he deserve to make over double what Ryan Murray just signed for? Why does he deserve to be paid 1.5 times guys like Kleinberg and Gardiner? At this point, he is a top 4 D with suspect defensive ability and mediocre point totals, especially considering his greatest strength was supposed to be off the charts offensive ability. His lack of PP opportunity is constantly used as to why his scoring is not higher. We shall see in the upcoming weeks if his scoring increases with more minutes on the PP. I don't think he has registered a point since the trade. It seems to me that Gardiner has stepped up his play since the Phaneuf trade, and has easily been the Leaf's best D this year.

Actually, I challenged their validity in regards to Kadri and Gardiner as well. So, no bias here.

 

[RLF]

Totes, I am ignorant of advanced stats - so I imagine I come off that way, just as you come off as a sheep. But I'm unintentionally picking stuff up - it's all scary and new (And unnecessary for fans and media). So I reached out yesterday to Rob Vollman, a hockey analytic expert who offers services to teams and who's contributed on TV (Such as ESPN)/Radio and an author of several books on the subject about this very topic.

I've learned a few things also, and maybe you will too. I learned that most people who work with statistics as a profession think fans and media needs to either get more educated or shut up about them, that they are often misrepresented as infallibles while at best they are a suggestion, and only within context.

I learned that fenwick close is the most accurate statistic for possession, and possession is awesome, and Gardiner is awesome at possession... but it's what is done with possession that makes it awesome - possession itself needs context in combination with other factors. The line of thought is that more possession leads to more shots, more shots lead to more goals, more goals to more wins, right?

Gardiner has a 37% Sthr% (The percentage of his shots that actually get on goal). Rielly's is over 40%. For a comparable I'll use Phaneuf (a #2 or#3 D), his is a touch over 43%, and a #1 like Duncan Keith is 43.7%. The context to this is that Rielly has more points, meaning Gardiners possession don't matter because he gets his shot on net with much less success, within the same context he's also a minus player with less overall points. This all translates to someone who is less effective on the ice. Someone who's possession, while fancy, isn't all that effective.

Just for the giggles there is ioSV% (Teams save-percentage when a player is on the ice in close game situations), Rielly's is 93.2% Gardiner is 91.9%. Dion's was 91.5%. Meaning that in close game situations we are safer with Rielly on the ice over the other two, which isn't something you that should hold true if Jake was a defensive god.

But yes, Gardiner has a FF% of 56.5%, Rielly's is 45.7% and someone like Keith is 51.1%. Pretty fancy, but what does it matter if his possession isn't leading to points or wins. An argument of possession on it's own holds no water, this is backed by the analytics community as well as the betting community.

Oh, and I also found that the article that was put out praising Gardiner as a defensive stud, their source has been bashed and called out because of the exact reasons I'm talking about, not providing context, which than makes people believe something that isn't true.

As far as Vollman goes, I asked this:

"I am not familiar with "Advanced Stats" myself, and while I appreciate what they can tell us, I came across a couple articles published in the Toronto star about Jake Gardiner, stating because of his advanced stats he was a #1 defenseman.

If possible, could you give me your opinion on which, Gardiner or Rielly, is the better defenseman? I'm hearing this is because Gardiner has good possession stats, yet Rielly sees more even-strength ice time, faces tougher competition and has a higher percentage of defensive-zone face offs. Rielly is also more "stable" in the defensive zone; board work, gap control, covering his man ect"

He replied with this;

"Based on your last paragraph, it sounds like you have a good understand of the argument for each player. I'd also add the fact that Gardiner doesn't kill penalties."

I can provide his Email in private if you'd like to challenge it.

Geez, you would almost think he is suggesting that you use the eye test as well and that roles and how they are used matter when evaluating a player. Who knew?

 

[Nithoniniel]

Totes, I am ignorant of advanced stats - so I imagine I come off that way, just as you come off as a sheep. But I'm unintentionally picking stuff up - it's all scary and new (And unnecessary for fans and media). So I reached out yesterday to Rob Vollman, a hockey analytic expert who offers services to teams and who's contributed on TV (Such as ESPN)/Radio and an author of several books on the subject about this very topic.

I've learned a few things also, and maybe you will too. I learned that most people who work with statistics as a profession think fans and media needs to either get more educated or shut up about them, that they are often misrepresented as infallibles while at best they are a suggestion, and only within context.

I learned that fenwick close is the most accurate statistic for possession, and possession is awesome, and Gardiner is awesome at possession... but it's what is done with possession that makes it awesome - possession itself needs context in combination with other factors. The line of thought is that more possession leads to more shots, more shots lead to more goals, more goals to more wins, right?

Gardiner has a 37% Sthr% (The percentage of his shots that actually get on goal). Rielly's is over 40%. For a comparable I'll use Phaneuf (a #2 or#3 D), his is a touch over 43%, and a #1 like Duncan Keith is 43.7%. The context to this is that Rielly has more points, meaning Gardiners possession don't matter because he gets his shot on net with much less success, within the same context he's also a minus player with less overall points. This all translates to someone who is less effective on the ice. Someone who's possession, while fancy, isn't all that effective.

Just for the giggles there is ioSV% (Teams save-percentage when a player is on the ice in close game situations), Rielly's is 93.2% Gardiner is 91.9%. Dion's was 91.5%. Meaning that in close game situations we are safer with Rielly on the ice over the other two, which isn't something you that should hold true if Jake was a defensive god.

But yes, Gardiner has a FF% of 56.5%, Rielly's is 45.7% and someone like Keith is 51.1%. Pretty fancy, but what does it matter if his possession isn't leading to points or wins. An argument of possession on it's own holds no water, this is backed by the analytics community as well as the betting community.

Oh, and I also found that the article that was put out praising Gardiner as a defensive stud, their source has been bashed and called out because of the exact reasons I'm talking about, not providing context, which than makes people believe something that isn't true.

As far as Vollman goes, I asked this:

"I am not familiar with "Advanced Stats" myself, and while I appreciate what they can tell us, I came across a couple articles published in the Toronto star about Jake Gardiner, stating because of his advanced stats he was a #1 defenseman.

If possible, could you give me your opinion on which, Gardiner or Rielly, is the better defenseman? I'm hearing this is because Gardiner has good possession stats, yet Rielly sees more even-strength ice time, faces tougher competition and has a higher percentage of defensive-zone face offs. Rielly is also more "stable" in the defensive zone; board work, gap control, covering his man ect"

He replied with this;

"Based on your last paragraph, it sounds like you have a good understand of the argument for each player. I'd also add the fact that Gardiner doesn't kill penalties."

I can provide his Email in private if you'd like to challenge it.

You know what annoys me now, Cotton? It's that you clearly are capable of having a great discussion on the topic, even though you admit (which I applaud) to being rather ignorant on the subject (which I mentioned in relation to cognitive science, rather than analytics). But you just have to preface your posts with going after me as a poster for simply having a different outlook on things in a very insulting, and quite frankly immature, manner, which ruins what could have been a great debate.

I might give you an answer later though.

Edit:

So. Let's start with shots on goal. Personal shot accuracy doesn't really capture a quality aspect of the offensive possession, as you are dealing with just a sub-part. Furthermore, when people have looked at D-men in general and their ability to affect on-ice shooting percentage, they have found that it's negligible. Over time, D-men mostly impact the offensive part of the game by pushing the play and creating a quantity of chances. There will always be variations, especially with players with small sample sizes.

It's pretty much the same with on-ice sv%. D-men as a group are all over the place in this regard, and with an increasing sample size the differences shrink and fade. When I looked over this myself I found that in any given year, a teams best D-men defensively might be the worst in on-ice sv%, while a guy like Mark Fraser might very well lead the league.

Possession in itself is certainly not the whole, but it's not worthless either. Best way to defend is by not spending time in your own zone, and that's what possession even in its rawest form can provide.

Context is important, but there has been a lot of effort put to measure the impact on contextual factors. What they have found is that the base performance is by far the most important thing, with contextual factors having a smaller influence.

But yeah, things can look very different with contextual changes. If we threw Gardiner on the right side and put him in Rielly's role, who knows how he'd perform? All we know is that in general, moves like that will not result in completely different results. I think the best way to approach any given individual situation is to measure how well they perform in the role they are given. Rielly is a terrific young guy put in an often tough role and is keeping his head over the water, and is improving all the time. Gardiner is put in a more measured role tailored to his strengths, and he is thriving.

As for a discussion on individual strengths in different abilities and skills, that's a whole 'nother thing. I don't agree that Rielly has better gap control for example, but he is for sure better along the board.

I don't know Rob Vollman, so I'd rather keep the discussion between us, if that's ok with you.

Geez, you would almost think he is suggesting that you use the eye test as well and that roles and how they are used matter when evaluating a player. Who knew?

I don't know anyone who would disagree with that. My issue with people that bring up opposition, zone starts and so on is that they want to point out these factors and then assign them a completely arbitrary impact.

We all know Rielly plays the tougher role. Trying to measure how much effect this has is crucial, otherwise you are simply guessing.