QoC is always interesting. Does a #1 line playing against a checking line face harder competition than one playing against another top line? If a #3 line is tasked with shutting down a top line, is their QoC higher that a #2 line playing against another #2 line. And who are you playing against? Last year, was any Leaf line harder to play against than the Isles' 4th line?
'Quality' is very subjective.
Technically QoT and QoC together should help paint some picture. Quality may be subjective but production is not. If the Line 1 is playing against Line 3 of the opposition
Line 1 puts up lots of point
Line 3 from opposition does not put up a lot of point
I would assume Line 1 QoT is much higher as line-mates are producing; and QoC for Line 3 from the opposition is much higher because Line 3 isn't matching Line 1 production.
Example:
Bergeron line against Tavares line
On Bergeron line you had three players (Bergeron, Marchand, Pastrnak) all putting up points versus Hyman-Tavares-Marner where the production really came from Tavares-Marner
at least for me
QoT for Bergeron line is much higher than QoT for Tavares line; this would imply that the QoC for Tavares line is much greater than QoC for Bergeron line in that match-up in that game.
Now when Bergeron line plays against other teams; how do those teams respond? With their top line or do they have a shut down line? If other teams respond by playing their top line then Bergeron line has a high QoC as they might have a high chance of getting scored on; but if Bergeron line plays oppositions' shut-down line then probability of Bergeron line getting scored on is much lower
Then you have other metrics like zone starts. zone time, corsi (i hate corsi btw); GF%; chances forced% etc... to really evaluate how the said line performed.
Hypothetical scenario:
Suppose Kadri line keeps on outchancing their match-up every game but don't produce as much does that mean Kadri line is productive? It would depend I guess to look at if Kadri line is giving up goals and not scoring goals.
Corsi and chances are stats that could shed light onsomethings but in the end goals matter. plus/minus is stat that is laughed at but really in the end the game is always decided by who scored the most goals or who gave up less goals.
So really, it is not just production but also not giving goals that matters. Bergeron line excels at scoring on others while not giving up goals themslves.
Now between Kadri and Kerfoot lines who is going to be a stronger net positive for their team success in the long run? We really have to wait for a while; at the moment the sample size isn't big enough to properly quantify it.
This is where foresight comes into play because after the end of the season we can lay a claim based on results but that is a hindsight is 20-20 scenario.
Given the trades that has happened both Sakic and Dubas have signaled some kind of foresight for their respective teams.
Sakic could have signed Kerfoot to the same deal that Leafs have signed him; but he chose to trade him for Kadri.
Is Sakic's foresight as a GM better? Is Dubas' foresight as a GM better? we will get an answer at the end of the season I assume but for now it looks like both teams have benefited from the trade at least based on the small sample size.
After we have had 82 game sample + post season sample we will have a better insight.
Given that Kerfoot's line is facing against oppositions' 3rd lines in the games we have seen where oppositions' third lines haven't scored as much I would say Kerfoot is facing a lighter QoC than Kadri.