Leafs @ Wild - Dec. 3rd, 8:00pm - TSN4. TSN 1050

[CarltonTheBear]

Like I said, if he doesn't step it up soon, yes, he begins to look like a big disappointment.  Not a full-on flop, but almost there.

You're basically saying if he shoots 3.2% for the rest of his career he's a flop. I guess I could agree with that, although it'll never happen.

I also think people remember Kadri's expectations at the time of the draft differently than I do. I don't remember anybody ever thinking that he was going to be a legit number 1 centre or anything like that.

 

[Kin]

Well, I think most fans care whether a #7 pick who was chosen for his offensive skills pans out or not.

Do most fans understand that teams are inherently limited in terms of which players were born in a certain time period and therefore are eligible to be drafted with that #7 pick? Because if essentially nobody drafted after Kadri would have been a success using the same parameters, what would be the criticism? That god didn't allow enough talented hockey players to be born in 1990-91? Why are unreasonable expectations a legitimate yardstick to use to measure a player's value?

 

[bustaheims]

The point of the analytics movement was to show that raw point totals don't really tell a complete picture due to the incredible amount of luck that determines whether a shot goes in or not. By all counts of controllable metrics (possession, primarily; face-offs), Kadri is doing very well. It's the uncontrollable side of the statsheet that is not as pretty. I'd start worrying only if Kadri wasn't generating chances.

Exactly. If he wasn't involved in the play, generating chances, putting the puck on net at a high rate, etc., then, yeah, I'd be very concerned about him. Thankfully, he is doing all those things, while also having improved his faceoff abilities, his defensive game, etc. Eventually, the pucks will start going in for him. He's not going to have a shooting percentage of 3.2 all season. The goal/point totals are disappointing, sure, but Kadri overall? Not at all.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Aside from the Leafs looking to trade Kadri, why would we care what he looks like as opposed to what his actual value is?

Well, I think most fans care whether a #7 pick who was chosen for his offensive skills pans out or not.

There are basically no players taken after him in the draft who are producing better offensively than him (possibly by PPG but not by a significant margin either way) thus far for their career. 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2009e.html

 

[ZBBM]

The point of the analytics movement was to show that raw point totals don't really tell a complete picture due to the incredible amount of luck that determines whether a shot goes in or not. By all counts of controllable metrics (possession, primarily; face-offs), Kadri is doing very well. It's the uncontrollable side of the statsheet that is not as pretty. I'd start worrying only if Kadri wasn't generating chances.

Exactly. If he wasn't involved in the play, generating chances, putting the puck on net at a high rate, etc., then, yeah, I'd be very concerned about him. Thankfully, he is doing all those things, while also having improved his faceoff abilities, his defensive game, etc. Eventually, the pucks will start going in for him. He's not going to have a shooting percentage of 3.2 all season. The goal/point totals are disappointing, sure, but Kadri overall? Not at all.

Wonderful, we are all agreed then -- like I said, if he starts putting them in, then he no longer starts to look like a big disappointment.  Until then?  Well, in the end all the analytics in the world don't feed the bulldog.

 

[ZBBM]

Aside from the Leafs looking to trade Kadri, why would we care what he looks like as opposed to what his actual value is?

Well, I think most fans care whether a #7 pick who was chosen for his offensive skills pans out or not.

There are basically no players taken after him in the draft who are producing better offensively than him (possibly by PPG but not by a significant margin either way) thus far for their career. 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2009e.html

A dubious claim (w/o looking at individual stats, what about O'Reilly?) but even if true it's irrelevant to whether Kadri is meeting expectations.

 

[Kin]

So we should care about what his value is superficially perceived to be because people who judge things on superficial levels will be disappointed.

Well, Frank, I hope that satisfied your desire for a Kadri-port.

 

[ZBBM]

So we should care about what his value is superficially perceived to be because people who judge things on superficial levels will be disappointed.

Well, Frank, I hope that satisfied your desire for a Kadri-port.

Scouts will be glad to know that you think what they do is superficial.  Oh wait, you don't really believe that ... you're just trolling.  Sorry to have fed you with this response.  Over and out.

 

[Frank E]

All (semi-) humorous points re Kadri well and good but he does need to start scoring or else he does begin to look floppish.

Only to people who judge players solely by their point totals. And I think even most of the casual fans have seen enough to not feel like he's a failure. It's not like he's been invisible out there.

Well, not solely, but man, he's getting 18 minutes a game, and is #1 in the forwards in that.

Obviously he's not a failure of a hockey player, but I think it's fair to say that we all had higher expectations for his production this season.  Granted, his FO% is much better, and his possession game is OK, but he's not generating enough offense even given those things that are supposed to lead to it.  He leads the team in offensive zone starts for crying out loud, and he's getting the 2nd most PP time amongst forwards (JVR leads).  I'm not sure Babcock could hand him much more opportunity to produce without it looking like he's spoon-feeding him.

I think if it was Bozak putting up those numbers, people would be up in arms wondering what the hell he was doing with that kind of ice time.

 

[ZBBM]

All (semi-) humorous points re Kadri well and good but he does need to start scoring or else he does begin to look floppish.

Only to people who judge players solely by their point totals. And I think even most of the casual fans have seen enough to not feel like he's a failure. It's not like he's been invisible out there.

Well, not solely, but man, he's getting 18 minutes a game, and is #1 in the forwards in that.

Obviously he's not a failure of a hockey player, but I think it's fair to say that we all had higher expectations for his production this season.  Granted, his FO% is much better, and his possession game is OK, but he's not generating enough offense even given those things that are supposed to lead to it.  He leads the team in offensive zone starts for crying out loud, and he's getting the 2nd most PP time amongst forwards (JVR leads).  I'm not sure Babcock could hand him much more opportunity to produce without it looking like he's spoon-feeding him.

I think if it was Bozak putting up those numbers, people would be up in arms wondering what the hell he was doing with that kind of ice time.

Right on the mark.

 

[Kin]

Scouts will be glad to know that you think what they do is superficial.  Oh wait, you don't really believe that ...

No, of course I don't because I didn't say anything like that, you twit. Do you think scouts only judge a player by his point totals? Do you think scouts only judge a player by where he was drafted? Do you think scouts saying that a player ranks as the 7th best player in his draft class means he compares with every other #7 pick in every other draft class?

And you accuse me of trolling. Look in the mirror once in a while.

 

[ZBBM]

Scouts will be glad to know that you think what they do is superficial.  Oh wait, you don't really believe that ...

No, of course I don't because I didn't say anything like that, you twit. Do you think scouts only judge a player by his point totals? Do you think scouts only judge a player by where he was drafted? Do you think scouts saying that a player ranks as the 7th best player in his draft class means he compares with every other #7 pick in every other draft class?

And you accuse me of trolling. Look in the mirror once in a while.

Now Nik, don't we let us allow our stormy but ultimately beautiful and lasting relationship degenerate into name calling.  Sorry if I struck a nerve with the "trolling" dig, but seriously, he's underperforming, like Frank said.  Apparently all you guys think he's not.  There you have it, another unresolvable hockey internet brawl.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

Like I said, if he doesn't step it up soon, yes, he begins to look like a big disappointment.  Not a full-on flop, but almost there.

You're basically saying if he shoots 3.2% for the rest of his career he's a flop. I guess I could agree with that, although it'll never happen.

I also think people remember Kadri's expectations at the time of the draft differently than I do. I don't remember anybody ever thinking that he was going to be a legit number 1 centre or anything like that.

Bryan Murray called... he'd like to have a word with you.

All joking aside, I sometimes wonder if Burke selected Kadri just to spite Murray, just because he wanted him. If that conversation doesn't take place, does Burke select someone different?

On a side note, I'm happy the Leafs selected Kadri just in looking at what Dallas did with the 8 pick. Assuming he sticks around, I think he's capable of solidifying the 2C position for quite a while.

 

[Kin]

Granted, his FO% is much better, and his possession game is OK, but he's not generating enough offense even given those things that are supposed to lead to it.

This is only if your definition of "generating offense" is solely limited to point totals.

I think if it was Bozak putting up those numbers, people would be up in arms wondering what the hell he was doing with that kind of ice time.

Again, the only way this is true is if "those numbers" exclusively means goals and assists.

 

[Kin]

I don't remember anybody ever thinking that he was going to be a legit number 1 centre or anything like that.

If a player is expected to be a legit #1 center, he's not going to last until the seventh pick regardless of the draft year.

 

[bustaheims]

All joking aside, I sometimes wonder if Burke selected Kadri just to spite Murray, just because he wanted him. If that conversation doesn't take place, does Burke select someone different?

Burke told Murray that he wanted Kadri before Murray revealed that was who he was hoping to trade up to pick.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Now Nik, don't we let us allow our stormy but ultimately beautiful and lasting relationship degenerate into name calling.  Sorry if I struck a nerve with the "trolling" dig, but seriously, he's underperforming, like Frank said.  Apparently all you guys think he's not.  There you have it, another unresolvable hockey internet brawl.

What all us guys are trying to say is that there's a difference between under-peforming and under-producing. I'll give you the 2nd one, that's obvious. But Kadri's been performing like the best forward on this team.

 

[Frank E]

Granted, his FO% is much better, and his possession game is OK, but he's not generating enough offense even given those things that are supposed to lead to it.

This is only if your definition of "generating offense" is solely limited to point totals.

I think if it was Bozak putting up those numbers, people would be up in arms wondering what the hell he was doing with that kind of ice time.

Again, the only way this is true is if "those numbers" exclusively means goals and assists.

Pretty sure in my post I specifically said "not solely".  But, the things that actually lead to winning the games are goals...most of the other statistics are used to predict things that will lead to an eventual goal for or against, or predict a positive/negative goal differential.  So we have conversations like, "he'll break out shortly", "this isn't sustainable".

I think my point is that Kadri is not generating the kind of offense even typical of a 2nd line centre thus far, and he's getting 1st line centre opportunities.

You're trying to move the posts here, so go ahead and tell me how effective Kadri has been this season?

 

[Frank E]

Now Nik, don't we let us allow our stormy but ultimately beautiful and lasting relationship degenerate into name calling.  Sorry if I struck a nerve with the "trolling" dig, but seriously, he's underperforming, like Frank said.  Apparently all you guys think he's not.  There you have it, another unresolvable hockey internet brawl.

What all us guys are trying to say is that there's a difference between under-peforming and under-producing. I'll give you the 2nd one, that's obvious. But Kadri's been performing like the best forward on this team.

That's a pretty trivial distinction C.  We're talking about the forward with the most amount of ice-time on the team.

 

[Kin]

I think my point is that Kadri is not generating the kind of offense even typical of a 2nd line centre thus far, and he's getting 1st line centre opportunities.

I don't know how to say this without repeating myself but, here goes, this interpretation is based on a reading of the game that says that a forward who makes an incredible play to gain the zone, an incredible deke to fake out a defender and then a great shot that rings off the post hasn't "generated offense" but a forward who has a puck hit him in the butt and go in the net has. So when people are saying that Kadri's been effective, they're saying the opposite.

What I said to you in my response initially, however, was that provided that Kadri is playing in a manner that will eventually lead to good results and that goals and asssists for the Leafs are ultimately counter-productive the lack of goals and assists doesn't bother me.