Yet he has only managed 17 takeaways this season.
Does he even try to play the game for the puck?
He definitely resorts to bodying guys off pucks rather than stick lifts.
Yet he has only managed 17 takeaways this season.
Does he even try to play the game for the puck?
I dont think you'll see anyone argue that. Atleast the sens fanbase can admit when they have been futile. Or understand that Marner and Tkachuk while both very effective are very different stylistically and impact the game positively in different ways.I'd say the Sens under Melnyk's tenure the last little while were nothing to write home about either.
Except he is. At least everything with meaningful impact on a team winning.Marner isn't better in literally everything.
Physicality is one of many different attributes that a player can utilize to assist in their performance, but just like every other attribute, they do not get bonus points on top of what they accomplish with it.Are you actually trying to maintain that physical play has zero impact on a professional hockey game whatsoever?
He's below 50%... That's not a plus...Tkachuk is also a decent faceoff guy for a winger
Which stat exactly are you referring to? If you mean ixG, of course Tkachuk (a shooter) is going to be higher than Marner (a playmaker). That's not about being a better player. That's just about role. That was rarely discussed with Matthews, and really only to support the sustainability of his goal production within a relatively smaller sample, not to claim he's better than people. Tkachuk runs into an additional issue where he's consistently scored below his ixG. It's good that he can get good shots off, but through 5 years, he hasn't shown to be a very talented converter.In xG, a stat which Zeke and others put a huge premium on in Matthews' favour back in the day, Brady Tkachuk is 6th in the NHL, well ahead of Marner who is 120th in the NHL.
Elite PKing.What impacts outside of offensively and defensively does Marner bring?
Most things aren't black and white in this world, but word definitions are pretty black and white. You seem to be claiming that there's this magic in between word that you refuse to say.One thing for sure, for you it's black or white and there's nothing in between lol
What do you mean in between? If one player is better at everything, they are better. There is really no gray there.Again, same as above. Black or white, nothing in between.
No, it hasn't. The defensive gap is massive, and that hasn't changed. Tkachuk has closed a bit of the offensive gap, but still, in a career year, is pacing a significant amount behind Marner's worst pace in years.It has been demonstrated through facts that Tkachuk has closed most of the offensive gap AND defensive gap
PK has a meaningful impact on the outcomes of games. I haven't ignored anything that Tkachuk brings to the table. You're just trying to give him bonus points for certain attributes you like, instead of looking at what he actually does with it that helps the team win.Last thing is you insisting on the PK element while ignoring absolutely anything else that Tkachuk brings to the table.
Nothing there is twisting any words. You said something wasn't insignificant. Thus, it is significant. You also said that if Tkachuk doesn't keep up with Marner's production, then it's still Marner by a significant margin. Now that he hasn't kept up with Marner, you're trying to backstep and blame me for quoting your own words. You also repeatedly dismissed and diminished the defensive gap by defaulting to blaming coaching. You've talked about it like 10 times by now. You literally did it again in this very post I'm replying to. Own your words.Sure... just the "significant vs insignificant" thing, or the "just coaching"
Except it's not paying "33% more for a marginal additional overall impact/contribution". As you've been shown, it's paying 33% more for a significant offensive, defensive, and overall impact upgrade. I don't know why you're surprised that better players get paid more.So it's ok if you choose to pay a guy 33% more for a marginal additional overall impact/contribution
Hopefully.Ok so are we done here?
Except he is. At least everything with meaningful impact on a team winning.
Physicality is one of many different attributes that a player can utilize to assist in their performance, but just like every other attribute, they do not get bonus points on top of what they accomplish with it.
He's below 50%... That's not a plus...
Which stat exactly are you referring to? If you mean ixG, of course Tkachuk (a shooter) is going to be higher than Marner (a playmaker). That's not about being a better player. That's just about role. That was rarely discussed with Matthews, and really only to support the sustainability of his goal production within a relatively smaller sample, not to claim he's better than people. Tkachuk runs into an additional issue where he's consistently scored below his ixG. It's good that he can get good shots off, but through 5 years, he hasn't shown to be a very talented converter.
Elite PKing.
It's what you do with attributes that matters, not the fact that you have them.So, it's the end result that matters, not the actual execution of those attributes?
He literally loses more than he wins. That's not a plus.It's pretty good for a winger and better than quite a few centres.
You're trying to draw a false equivalency here.I see, so the only reason Marner has more assists than Tkachuk does is because of role.
That's illogical. You can only get one point per goal, and everybody is capable of picking up any kind of point.Of course he's going to have more points, because they give up to two assists for every goal
Team PK% =/= an individual skater's PK impact.Toronto is 16th in PK% in the NHL.
That's illogical. You can only get one point per goal, and everybody is capable of picking up any kind of point.
Dekes for Days said:Production is generated through the creation of goals. That is not role dependent. ixG is generated through taking shots. That is role dependent.
Yeah, pretty dumb to bring that up.I think most leaf fans I know cringed at the Clarkson signing
They have the same opportunity to pick up points. Marner is not getting more points because he's a playmaker getting multiple points per goal. He's getting more points because he's contributing to the creation of more goals. You're trying to draw a false equivalency with a stat that specifically measures one aspect of an individual's play (shooting) that is very role dependent. It's essentially arguing that he's better because he has more shots, which would be like if I said Marner was better because he has more passes.How is that illogical?
We're not talking about defenseman vs. forward - entirely different positions with contrasting purpose. We're talking about 2 forwards with the identical objective of getting the puck in the net.How is the creation of goals not role dependent? You're arguing that a defensive defenceman has an equal opportunity to create goals as a playmaking centre?
They have the same opportunity to pick up points. Marner is not getting more points because he's a playmaker getting multiple points per goal. He's getting more points because he's contributing to the creation of more goals. You're trying to draw a false equivalency with a stat that specifically measures one aspect of an individual's play (shooting) that is very role dependent. It's essentially arguing that he's better because he has more shots, which would be like if I said Marner was better because he has more passes.
Dekes for Days said:We're not talking about defenseman vs. forward - entirely different positions with contrasting purpose. We're talking about 2 forwards with the identical objective of getting the puck in the net.
You keep talking about assists, but nobody is comparing them on assists. We're comparing them offensively on overall point production. Both playstyles are represented and rewarded in that.Assists emphasize one aspect of an individual's play, namely puck possession and/or passing, while minimizing another aspect of an individual's play, namely getting open for shots and shooting.
Tkachuk could do the same. Also, sending a puck up-ice to generate an odd man rush sounds like a pretty important part of a goal.Marner can send a puck up the ice and two players can pass it back and forth to each other an unlimited amount of times and he will earn that assist.
No, it means he's better offensively, better defensively, and brings more impacts outside of that.It appears as if you think "Marner is better at literally everything" really just means "Marner is better at accumulating points."
You keep talking about assists, but nobody is comparing them on assists. We're comparing them offensively on overall point production. Both playstyles are represented and rewarded in that.
Dekes for Days said:Tkachuk could do the same. Also, sending a puck up-ice to generate an odd man rush sounds like a pretty important part of a goal.
Secondary assists are not worthless, and you seem to have no clue what they often look like. Marner has also consistently been one of the best primary point producers in the league.Their overall point production this season is the same, if you take secondary assists out of the equation.
Secondary assists are not worthless, and you seem to have no clue what they often look like.
Marner has also consistently been one of the best primary point producers in the league.
Goal generation was referenced because you essentially attempted to argue that Tkachuk was a better offensive player because he shoots more, even if that doesn't translate to goals. And then when it was shown how ridiculous and insanely biased that was towards Tkachuk, you started arbitrarily dismissing parts of production to make Tkachuk look better, dismissing the value of production altogether, and making unsupported claims about Tkachuk making more unrewarded plays resulting in goals, based on absolutely zero evidence at all.You're the one who brought up "goal creation" and I don't think all points are created equal
Agreed. Marner is clearly better. That should be the end of it then.I've never even said that Brady Tkachuk is clearly the superior player, because clearly he isn't.
Goal generation was referenced because you essentially attempted to argue that Tkachuk was a better offensive player because he shoots more, even if that doesn't translate to goals.
Even under the belief system that all points aren't created equal, there's really no way to end up with anything other than Marner as the superior offensive player.
Add that on to the fact that Marner is the superior defensive player and brings more impacts than Tkachuk outside of that, and there's really no argument.
Last season Toronto lead the NHL with 13 goals while on the PK and Marner scored 3 of them shorthanded.Aside from apparently elite PK (on a team with an average PK), what does Marner bring in terms of other impacts? You keep repeating this again and again, but show no work.
Last season Toronto lead the NHL with 13 goals while on the PK and Marner scored 3 of them shorthanded.
So far this season Marner has scored 2 goals shorthanded.
Among Marner's point that happened because of the power play, he's had 16 secondary assists.The vast majority of Marner's PP points are secondary assists, and the vast majority of his secondary assists are on the PP, owing to his role as a puck possessor.
Among Marner's point that happened because of the power play, he's had 16 secondary assists.
Except you only focused on his secondary assists, when he also has 6 goals scored on the power play.This is literally what I said earlier in the thread.
If your argument isn't that he's a better offensive player, then this whole discussion is irrelevant, and essentially boils down to you being upset that people aren't overrating aspects of Tkachuk's play that don't lead to actual value for his team. There are individual things that Tkachuk is probably better at than Marner, but I am discussing offensive impact, defensive impact, and additional impact, not every single possible skill. High ixG is great, but the objective is to create goals. High ixG isn't much benefit if you've shown to consistently underperform your ixG, because you don't have the shot or skills to make use of the positions and shot opportunities that you can get yourself into.I never said he was the better offensive player, I said that he has a stronger net presence than Marner, and this is what leads to his high xG numbers.
You are the one suggesting that the only way to assess a player is through production
Both of these are incorrect. When discussing specifically offensive impacts...you argued that goals and assists are completely independent of the role that a forward plays on the team.
It's funny, because you kind of just destroyed your whole primary point argument by acknowledging that Marner's secondary assists are mostly coming from a game state where there's less of a representative difference between point type.The vast majority of Marner's PP points are secondary assists, and the vast majority of his secondary assists are on the PP, owing to his role as a puck possessor.
Marner has an edge in production, as he always has, because Marner is a better offensive player.We discovered that Marner's edge in production this year is due to the fact that he has the puck a lot
Elite PKing. That's really the only other meaningful impact one can have that wouldn't fall under general offensive or defensive impact.what does Marner bring in terms of other impacts?
Except you only focused on his secondary assists, when he also has 6 goals scored on the power play.
NyQuil said:Marner has 6 PP goals and only 3 primary PP assists on the PP, compared with 16 of 22 total secondary assists.
Meanwhile, Tkachuk has 5 of 11 secondary assists on the PP, but 5 PP goals and 11 primary PP assists.
How many other players besides Marner would try this type of pass while on a breakaway and playing on the penalty kill.Elite PKing. That's really the only other meaningful impact one can have that wouldn't fall under general offensive or defensive impact.