The stats are accurate. I think you mean only when the stats agree with your pre-determined position.
2022 Line Combinations
- Thread starter Byron Bitz
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Fogelhund
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2007
- 24,365
- 29,496
While I disagree with your premise, I'm happy to entertain the stats that you'd prefer to utilize. So please show these other stats, that you'd prefer. Thanks.
There really aren't any. That's the whole point. You can use stats to sell anything you want. You can overvalue them. You can undersell them.
You can make stats up because you want to seem progressive and edgy.
You can make stats up to imply you can pre-determine stats before they are stats.
You can do whatever you wish with stats.
And that's all your prerogative.
However, at the end of the day, what happens is what happens. And that's what your eyes and brains see.
Sure, you get your homers that refuse to believe what they see, and that there must be a reason something bad happened to their team, but you ignore them.
At the end of the day, all it comes down to, is what you're seeing and what your brain calculates, is that important or not.
And people who know, know. And those that don't, don't.
GF/60 vs GA/60 playing with eachother is disappointing.. i think it is negative differential by a couple from the past 3 years
Fogelhund
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2007
- 24,365
- 29,496
The thing is, you look at all the stats, and compare them to our options, and compare what happens with different line combinations... xGF takes out some of the goalie component, and with some of these smaller data points, you'd want to see whose fault it was for the goals against... was it the forwards, or did the D screw it up, or was it a bad goal? When you compare GF/60 vs GA/60 as per below, Kerf/Tavares/Nylander have basically broken even the last few years, even though that isn't what you'd expect, nor is it reflective in the Shots for/Shots against.
But if you open up the data across the board, what you see... you can switch out the variables.. swap Marner in, and have Kerf/Tavares/Marner and the results aren't any better... you swap in Matthews, and it's Kerft/Matthews/Nylander and the results aren't any better.... and then you look and realize that maybe it's Kerf that's the problem... not Tavares/Nylander...
The data of every kind says, DON"T split up Bunting/Matthews/Marner... that is a certainty. Engvall/Kerfoot/Nylander was a disaster... I think it's Kerfoot and Nylander that don't work, more than anything else.
I'd go so far as to suggest, Kerfoot doesn't fit very well anywhere... Kampf and Engvall are effective together though.
| Year | Line | Minutes | Games | Goals % | Goals For | Goals Against | Goals For | Goals Against | |||
| per 60 | per 60 | ||||||||||
| 2021/22 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Kerfoot-Tavares-Nylander | F | 399.9 | 53 | 50% | 23 | 23 | 3.45 | 3.45 | |
| 2021/22 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Bunting-Tavares-Nylander | F | 36.2 | 26 | 20% | 1 | 4 | 1.66 | 6.64 | |
| 2021/22 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Robertson-Tavares-Nylander | F | 32.2 | 6 | 33.30% | 1 | 2 | 1.86 | 3.72 | |
| 2020/21 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Hyman-Tavares-Nylander | F | 42.8 | 22 | 100% | 1 | 0 | 1.4 | 0 | |
| 2020/21 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Galchenyuk-Tavares-Nylander | F | 168.7 | 18 | 61.10% | 11 | 7 | 3.91 | 2.49 | |
| 2020/21 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Kerfoot-Tavares-Nylander | F | 93.8 | 16 | 60% | 3 | 2 | 1.92 | 1.28 | |
| 2020/21 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Vesey-Tavares-Nylander | F | 42.7 | 10 | 50% | 2 | 2 | 2.81 | 2.81 | |
| 2019/20 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Kerfoot-Tavares-Nylander | F | 195.1 | 20 | 50% | 10 | 10 | 3.08 | 3.08 | |
| Rank | Line | Type | Minutes | Games | Shot Attempts For % (Corsi) | Shot Attempts For | Shot Attempts Against | Shot Attempts For | Shot Attempts Against | ||
| Per 60 Minutes | Per 60 Minutes | Difference | |||||||||
| 2019/20 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Hyman-Matthews-Marner | F | 376.3 | 33 | 52% | 395 | 361 | 62.98 | 57.56 | 5.42 |
| 2019/20 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Kerfoot-Tavares-Nylander | F | 195.1 | 20 | 53.50% | 191 | 166 | 58.74 | 51.05 | 7.69 |
| 2019/20 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Hyman-Tavares-Marner | F | 98.1 | 20 | 51.30% | 99 | 94 | 60.58 | 57.52 | 3.06 |
| 2019/20 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Hyman-Tavares-Kerfoot | F | 43.2 | 12 | 50% | 40 | 40 | 55.53 | 55.53 | 0 |
| 2020/21 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Hyman-Matthews-Marner | F | 291.6 | 35 | 52% | 271 | 247 | 55.77 | 50.83 | 4.94 |
| 2020/21 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Thornton-Matthews-Marner | F | 211.9 | 27 | 60.50% | 213 | 139 | 60.32 | 39.36 | 20.96 |
| 2020/21 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Hyman-Tavares-Nylander | F | 42.8 | 22 | 49% | 44 | 45 | 61.68 | 63.08 | -1.4 |
| 2020/21 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Galchenyuk-Tavares-Nylander | F | 168.7 | 18 | 49% | 152 | 159 | 54.07 | 56.56 | -2.49 |
| 2020/21 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Kerfoot-Tavares-Nylander | F | 93.8 | 16 | 58% | 94 | 67 | 60.12 | 42.85 | 17.27 |
| 2020/21 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Vesey-Tavares-Nylander | F | 42.7 | 10 | 61.30% | 49 | 31 | 68.93 | 43.61 | 25.32 |
| 2021/22 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Kerfoot-Tavares-Nylander | F | 399.9 | 53 | 52% | 418 | 385 | 62.72 | 57.76 | 4.96 |
| 2021/22 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Bunting-Matthews-Marner | F | 554.7 | 51 | 62% | 672 | 420 | 72.69 | 45.43 | 27.26 |
| 2021/22 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Bunting-Matthews-Nylander | F | 127.7 | 37 | 56.90% | 161 | 122 | 75.68 | 57.34 | 18.34 |
| 2021/22 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Bunting-Tavares-Nylander | F | 36.2 | 26 | 53.90% | 41 | 35 | 68.05 | 58.09 | 9.96 |
| 2021/22 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Kerfoot-Tavares-Marner | F | 86.3 | 21 | 50.30% | 91 | 90 | 63.28 | 62.58 | 0.7 |
| 2021/22 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Bunting-Tavares-Marner | F | 40.9 | 20 | 57% | 53 | 40 | 77.85 | 58.75 | 19.1 |
| 2021/22 | Toronto Maple Leafs | Engvall-Kerfoot-Nylander | F | 34.1 | 11 | 44% | 33 | 42 | 58.12 | 73.97 | -15.85 |
|
yes - this is all fine but there is a trend (just from memory at looking before) that tavares plus two third liners (so to speak) put up better numbers than tavares/nylander and someone else. save percentage also trends upwards when tavares has two more two-way focused wingers with him while the XGF% reamins positive.
from memory as well - save percentage is worse with a tavares combination that includes nylander. XGF% goes up of course, but the backend hurts. XGF can take out goalie component sure, but do on ice save percentage trends with certain combinations of forwards on the ice not warrant conversation
this is all by memory of a few months ago, i could look it up all again
because tavares is a grinder at heart
when he is defending down low his game is strong at bringing the puck out from the end and distributing or funneling up the wall - and wingers with better abilities/concentration in their own end compliment him better for quick/fast support.
Fogelhund
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2007
- 24,365
- 29,496
The challenge being, Tavares and two thirds lines is a total of 99 minutes last year, 27 the year before.
Kerfoot-Tavares-Mikheyev scored 5 had 1 against last year.
3.02 xGF/60 | 1.81 x GA/60 |
37 Minutes with Hyman and Mikheyev the year before with decent results.
2019-20 Hyman Tavares Kapanen were completely caved. Hyman Tavares Kerfoot wasn't good either.
Looking at Nylander... Engvall Kampf Nylander wasn't bad. (21/22)
Engvall Kerfoot Nylander was (21/22)
No data for Nylander otherwise having a different C than Tavares/Matty
Back to... put Kerfoot with anyone, and it drops the line....
I can see an argument for trying Engvall Kampf Nylander more, and Tavares with Jarnkrok/Robertson/Steeves/NAK/Anderson combination.
I don't hate Kerfoot... but every combo with Kerfoot looks bad, except that Kerf-Tavares-Mik combo... which was limited minutes...
Fogelhund
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2007
- 24,365
- 29,496
To what?
However, at the end of the day, what happens is what happens. And that's what your eyes and brains see.
Sure, you get your homers that refuse to believe what they see, and that there must be a reason something bad happened to their team, but you ignore them.
At the end of the day, all it comes down to, is what you're seeing and what your brain calculates, is that important or not.
And people who know, know. And those that don't, don't.
I mean you've said that you are the all knowing, that Stats don't matter. What point is there in having a discussion with someone who states, I see what I see, and I am the expert, and the rest of the people clearly don't.
I mean, you've provided nothing to discuss, expect perhaps the validity of your self-proclaimed expertise eye test. I don't know you, except for an internet persona, who is happy to tell everyone how great they are.
So.......
So we can agree your x/60 is useless and a waste of everyone's time? Please stop wasting people's time? And being offensive to everyone's background and understanding of the game? Your fart stinks and there's no way on God's green earth you're better than anyone here?
Deal.
Just let us be and stop trying to police everything with kb, Dekes, Zekes and the rest of you.
Cheers.
Fogelhund
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2007
- 24,365
- 29,496
So you "believe in stats 100%", but then refuse to bring any yourself and dismiss the valuable ones brought to you when they don't agree with your pre-determined position? Hmm...
The "eye test" is heavily flawed and subject to significant biases, especially for a casual observer, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
Fogelhund
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2007
- 24,365
- 29,496
You may choose to look in the mirror on that statement.
Still no deal. Most people can have discussions, without declaring themselves as experts, and that stats don't matter, because they are superior.
Anyway, your original premise of Tavares and Nylander not working, is still false. Happy to discuss with others, meaningful options, and what might work better.
If your discussion on this boils down to, my eye test is superior to everyone else, and stats are meaningless, it's time to move on. I'm happy to have a conversation with someone who has the capability to discuss things on a deeper level.
Not to worry, I won't respond to you further.
My original premise was never Tavares/Nylander don't work together. That wasn't even me. But you would'ne give a f*** about details like that.You may choose to look in the mirror on that statement.
Still no deal. Most people can have discussions, without declaring themselves as experts, and that stats don't matter, because they are superior.
Anyway, your original premise of Tavares and Nylander not working, is still false. Happy to discuss with others, meaningful options, and what might work better.
If your discussion on this boils down to, my eye test is superior to everyone else, and stats are meaningless, it's time to move on. I'm happy to have a conversation with someone who has the capability to discuss things on a deeper level.
Not to worry, I won't respond to you further.
Not when the buzzdar goes off.
I was questioning the the way you police the boards on expected shit.
Technically, Fogelhund was discussing the Tavares/Nylander combo with another individual, and you were the one that tried to come in and police what Fogelhund could post, because for no reason, you disliked the valuable statistical evidence he was using. He even nicely encouraged you to bring your own statistics, and you refused, mocked statistics in general, spammed 3 responses to the same quote, called people homers, and proclaimed your eyes to be infallible...
Define working to be first with tavares and nylander.. what does working together mean?
Each of them produce ppg together and have good seasons? Their line having a strong goal differential with them at 18 million combined, and what does that goal difderential look like..
What does working together mean before griping at eachother
Each of them produce ppg together and have good seasons? Their line having a strong goal differential with them at 18 million combined, and what does that goal difderential look like..
What does working together mean before griping at eachother
Anyone get down to Ford rink and see who was skating with who past couple weeks in scrimmages??? i know Keefer was there watching .. that will tell you what Keefer has in mind to start pre season .. last summer he was saying he wanted a 3 line team for playoffs but bottom line it never occurred
Havoc
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2009
- 7,334
- 7,600
Nylander popping his 40th next season off a JT feed and they reminisce over your spread the offence lines.
Tufted Titmouse
13 Cups.
- Apr 5, 2022
- 6,222
- 8,322
LET'S GET f***ING HYPE Y'ALL!
New season, shed the old ghosts.
We are Cup Finals bound, bookmark that shit.
New season, shed the old ghosts.
We are Cup Finals bound, bookmark that shit.
Fogelhund
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2007
- 24,365
- 29,496
That’s a great question. I mean, it depends. Often they’ve been the matchup line, playing against the other teams top line. If you are playing the other teams top line, drawing at least even, while Matty’s line is well ahead is that good enough? Assuming the other lines are even or slightly ahead? Context is kind of important and while I know Tavares line was the matchup quite often, I don’t have stats to back that up. It really comes down to how we define what each line needs to achieve. Then you combine what is typically a net positive special teams to the equation….
personally i want more than break even for that investment. last year - lines that played minimum 350 minutes together - sorted by Goals % high to low. I would personally expect better results for a Tavares/Nylander moving forward - or find a combination that delivers it.
| Line | Type | Minutes | Games | Goals % | Goals For | Goals Aga | Goals For /60 | Goals Against /60 | |
| F | 430.8 | 46 | 83.30% | 25 | 5 | 3.48 | 0.7 | |
| Maroon-Bellemare-Perry | F | 586.7 | 70 | 73.50% | 25 | 9 | 2.56 | 0.92 | |
| Fast-Staal-Niederreiter | F | 534.4 | 56 | 72.30% | 34 | 13 | 3.82 | 1.46 | |
| Gaudreau-Lindholm-Tkachuk | F | 965.3 | 82 | 69.90% | 72 | 31 | 4.48 | 1.93 | |
| Hall-Haula-Pastrnak | F | 419.8 | 44 | 69.20% | 27 | 12 | 3.86 | 1.72 | |
| Bunting-Matthews-Marner | F | 554.7 | 51 | 66.30% | 61 | 31 | 6.6 | 3.35 | |
| Boldy-Gaudreau-Fiala | F | 445.3 | 45 | 65.40% | 34 | 18 | 4.58 | 2.43 | |
| Kaprizov-Hartman-Zuccarello | F | 638.7 | 65 | 64.90% | 48 | 26 | 4.51 | 2.44 | |
| Barabanov-Hertl-Meier | F | 413.2 | 42 | 64.10% | 25 | 14 | 3.63 | 2.03 | |
| Buchnevich-Thomas-Tarasenko | F | 369.4 | 39 | 63.50% | 33 | 19 | 5.36 | 3.09 | |
| Forsberg-Granlund-Duchene | F | 495.1 | 62 | 62.50% | 35 | 21 | 4.24 | 2.55 | |
| Ovechkin-Kuznetsov-Wilson | F | 474.7 | 63 | 62.20% | 28 | 17 | 3.54 | 2.15 | |
| Tkachuk-Norris-Batherson | F | 372.6 | 37 | 61.90% | 26 | 16 | 4.19 | 2.58 | |
| Saad-O'Reilly-Perron | F | 426.2 | 50 | 60% | 15 | 10 | 2.11 | 1.41 | |
| Robertson-Hintz-Pavelski | F | 791.1 | 72 | 59.30% | 51 | 35 | 3.87 | 2.65 | |
| Arvidsson-Danault-Moore | F | 472 | 43 | 57.10% | 28 | 21 | 3.56 | 2.67 | |
| Debrincat-Strome-Kane | F | 430.8 | 51 | 56.90% | 29 | 22 | 4.04 | 3.06 | |
| Guentzel-Crosby-Rust | F | 531.1 | 48 | 55.60% | 25 | 20 | 2.82 | 2.26 | |
| Jeannot-Sissons-Trenin | F | 635.5 | 68 | 51.30% | 20 | 19 | 1.89 | 1.79 | |
| Kerfoot-Tavares-Nylander | F | 399.9 | 53 | 50% | 23 | 23 | 3.45 | 3.45 | |
| Marchessault-Karlsson-Smith | F | 446 | 40 | 50% | 19 | 19 | 2.56 | 2.56 | |
| Iafallo-Kopitar-Kempe | F | 436.4 | 48 | 50% | 16 | 16 | 2.2 | 2.2 | |
| Skinner-Thompson-Tuch | F | 381.7 | 42 | 49.10% | 28 | 29 | 4.4 | 4.56 | |
| Raymond-Larkin-Bertuzzi | F | 456.7 | 54 | 46.20% | 18 | 21 | 2.36 | 2.76 | |
| Martin-Cizikas-Clutterbuck | F | 377.9 | 43 | 41.20% | 7 | 10 | 1.11 | 1.59 | |
| Raffl-Glendening-Faksa | F | 373.8 | 62 | 30.40% | 7 | 16 | 1.12 | 2.57 |
notDatsyuk
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2018
- 11,998
- 10,169
Those selected stats, which only show one side of the question, merely show that they are both good players, which wasn't the topic.
