C Quinton Byfield (2020, 2nd, LAK) part IV

[King'sPawn]

That is despite Lafreniere being in the NHL at a younger age (where it's naturally harder to score) and without the type of prime-time Line 1, PP1 usage at any point that Byfield gets now.

Lafreniere started playing in the NHL at 19 years, 3 months (due to COVID, the season didn't start until January).

Byfield turned 19 in August of 2021. Byfield started playing in the NHL regularly in January of 2022... he was 19 years, 5 months. Byfield's 10 months younger.

The other pissing contest stuff going on between you and other Kings fans is between you all, but saying he started playing at a much younger age is very misleading.

 

[SmytheKing]

I'm a wimp, and you can't even respond to me directly? Hilarious.

I've been very generous in responding to people getting offended at nothing. It has never been my aim to criticize Byfield, but since you've decided to be completely disrespectful and full-throated attack Lafreniere, we can get into this further, if you want.

Byfield has a whopping two more points at 5 on 5, while being on a PDO bender (both offensively and defensively) and playing on his team's first line. Lafreniere is only on his team's second line and is on the opposite of a PDO bender (both offensively and defensively).

Byfield has worse PP production, if you account for that Byfield has double the amount of PP time, and much better PP line-mates and situations. Byfield plays PP1. Lafreniere has never for more than a game or two in his career to fill-in played PP1.

And what's funny is that if you average out their career per 82 game point totals, they both are virtually at the same number:

Byfield: 36.9
Lafreniere: 36.0

You aren't getting into it further enough.

You mention that Byfield has "double" the amount of PP time and "worse" production. It's 78 minutes versus 38 minutes and 7 points versus 4 points. I haven't done basic arithmetic in a long time, but 7 points is almost double 4 points from what I recall.

Further, to you that minutes discrepancy seems like a lot, but curiously you don't mention that Laf has 120 more minutes of 5 on 5 playing time this year compared to Byfield who ONLY has two more points than him when you consider 5 on 5. Based on Laf's average of about 15-16 minutes a game of 5 on 5, he's played almost 8 more games than Byfield this year.

Doesn't that seem a little disingenuous to you? Can you not see why that sort of stuff makes people think you're trying to tear a guy down to prop another up?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

You aren't getting into it further enough.

You mention that Byfield has "double" the amount of PP time and "worse" production. It's 78 minutes versus 38 minutes and 7 points versus 4 points. I haven't done basic arithmetic in a long time, but 7 points is almost double 4 points from what I recall.

Further, to you that minutes discrepancy seems like a lot, but curiously you don't mention that Laf has 120 more minutes of 5 on 5 playing time this year compared to Byfield who ONLY has two more points than him when you consider 5 on 5. Based on Laf's average of about 15-16 minutes a game of 5 on 5, he's played almost 8 more games than Byfield this year.

Doesn't that seem a little disingenuous to you? Can you not see why that sort of stuff makes people think you're trying to tear a guy down to prop another up?

Do you expect like a full book response? I explained it rather in-depth, but sure, if you want to get further into the weeds, we can discuss this.

Byfield has double the amount of PP time, and less than half the amount of points. He also has better PP usage. Let's face it, he gets better PP line-mates and he is getting better starts. It's rational to suggest given this that he's producing worse on the PP.

I never said Byfield isn't producing better at 5 on 5. You are right he plays less in this situation, and has more points. I also wasn't the one that tried to take total points and use one to claim one is so much better than the other. While Byfield is playing less by a not insignificant amount and has more points, it's not like a huge gap we are speaking about. And the other important point that I mentioned earlier is that the Kings are a juggernaut 5 on 5. The Rangers are not. Relatively, Lafreniere has a better relative xGF% at 5 on 5, so I wouldn't say Byfield is dominating Lafreniere at 5 on 5, even if I agree I'd give him the 5 on 5 advantage.

And no, I don't think a rational conclusion is that I'm tearing Byfield down because I say he's been worse in some stats (better in others) and statistically is getting luckier. These aren't opinionated conclusions. These are stats with some basic logic thrown into it. I'm not the one saying one is so much better than the other, is using one as a prop to compliment the other, or is calling anyone a depth forward. I don't personally care who is better. Both are good. I didn't start this either or insult Byfield.

 

[SmytheKing]

Do you expect like a full book response? I explained it rather in-depth, but sure, if you want to get further into the weeds, we can discuss this.

Byfield has double the amount of PP time, and less than half the amount of points. He also has better PP usage. Let's face it, he gets better PP line-mates and he is getting better starts. It's rational to suggest given this that he's producing worse on the PP.

I never said Byfield isn't producing better at 5 on 5. You are right he plays less in this situation, and has more points. I also wasn't the one that tried to take total points and use one to claim one is so much better than the other. While Byfield is playing less by a not insignificant amount and has more points, it's not like a huge gap we are speaking about. And the other important point that I mentioned earlier is that the Kings are a juggernaut 5 on 5. The Rangers are not. Relatively, Lafreniere has a better relative xGF% at 5 on 5, so I wouldn't say Byfield is dominating Lafreniere at 5 on 5, even if I agree I'd give him the 5 on 5 advantage.

And no, I don't think a rational conclusion is that I'm tearing Byfield down because I say he's been worse in some stats (better in others) and statistically is getting luckier. These aren't opinionated conclusions. These are stats with some basic logic thrown into it. I'm not the one saying one is so much better than the other, is using one as a prop to compliment the other, or is calling anyone a depth forward. I don't personally care who is better. Both are good. I didn't start this either or insult Byfield.

I'm unclear on the bolded. Byfield has 7 PP points this year. Laf has 4.

If you think playing nearly 8 more games in the first 40 than someone else isn't a "huge gap" when you're talking about total points...I guess we'll just have to disagree. If a guy played 82 games and had 100 points, would you not think that is less impressive than a guy who played 66 games (what those minutes would extrapolate out to over a full season) and had the same amount of points?

To the last paragraph, I think that when you omit and (sort of) cherry pick certain numbers and stats, it gives the appearance of being dishonest. Maybe subconsciously or unintentionally, but it reads that way.

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

I'm unclear on the bolded. Byfield has 7 PP points this year. Laf has 4.

If you think playing nearly 8 more games in the first 40 than someone else isn't a "huge gap" when you're talking about total points...I guess we'll just have to disagree. If a guy played 82 games and had 100 points, would you not think that is less impressive than a guy who played 66 games (what those minutes would extrapolate out to over a full season) and had the same amount of points?

To the last paragraph, I think that when you omit and (sort of) cherry pick certain numbers and stats, it gives the appearance of being dishonest. Maybe subconsciously or unintentionally, but it reads that way.

Also funny for him to talk about Byfield’s stats being in part luck-driven when Laf’s PP production is riding on an insane shooting percentage (particularly when Byfield is generating way better scoring chances on the PP than Laf). Looks to me like their P/60 on the PP is fairly even while Byfield is crushing him at even strength.

 

[King'sPawn]

Also funny for him to talk about Byfield’s stats being in part luck-driven when Laf’s PP production is riding on an insane shooting percentage (particularly when Byfield is generating way better scoring chances on the PP than Laf). Looks to me like their P/60 on the PP is fairly even while Byfield is crushing him at even strength.

View attachment 790583View attachment 790584

Still trying to get a handle on the analytics sites - could you specify which one you get this from?

And I'm sorry, I'll probably ask you at least 24 more times before I might get it

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

Still trying to get a handle on the analytics sites - could you specify which one you get this from?

And I'm sorry, I'll probably ask you at least 24 more times before I might get it

No problem, this is the source for that comparison: Natural Stat Trick

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I'm unclear on the bolded. Byfield has 7 PP points this year. Laf has 4.

To clarify, I phrased that the inverse of what I meant. We were talking about the same totals.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Also funny for him to talk about Byfield’s stats being in part luck-driven when Laf’s PP production is riding on an insane shooting percentage (particularly when Byfield is generating way better scoring chances on the PP than Laf). Looks to me like their P/60 on the PP is fairly even while Byfield is crushing him at even strength.

View attachment 790583View attachment 790584

So it's okay if your player has the unsustainable luck in areas, but not if others do? I personally did not say Lafreniere doesn't have unsustainable PP numbers. Maybe he does. The player that apparently you can't bring up the character of their underlying numbers without insulting them is Byfield. Say that about Lafreniere if you want. It might be true. Doesn't mean he's not been more efficient on the PP, but just like Byfield at 5 on 5 (notice you changed the topic around to try to help Byfield), Lafreniere has been more efficient on the PP. That's especially so when you consider who is Byfield playing with on the PP compared to Lafreniere. Also, compare the fact that Byfield starts in the O-zone a lot/most shifts, while Lafreniere starts with 25 seconds left after the puck was cleared into his own zone and when a new set of players are entering the ice.

But again, I didn't claim Lafreniere is better. I don't care who is better. He was being used as a prop to praise Byfield when the facts really just don't support these conclusions that Lafreniere is a bum and Byfield is a star. Their numbers are fairly even career-wise and this season. Sure, one might be better than the other. Kings fans will take Byfield, and Rangers fans will take Lafreniere. I'm not saying you have to call it a tie, but don't act like Lafreniere is so far beneath Byfield. The facts don't support it. I wouldn't claim the opposite. You named 16 categories at even strength having better numbers would be considered a good thing, and it's literally 8-8. I'm willing to say Byfield deserves the advantage for more points in this situation, but how could you possibly look at these numbers and not see them as close with some advantages towards each? It's being a homer to not.

 

[Frolov 6'3]

QB has made HUGE strides.

Now, if LAF could somehow do the same instead of going into his pointless ruts.

I blame you.

 

[ORRFForever]

I blame you.

LOL. You're right. My bad.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

But again, I didn't claim Lafreniere is better. I don't care who is better. He was being used as a prop to praise Byfield when the facts really just don't support these conclusions that Lafreniere is a bum and Byfield is a star. Their numbers are fairly even career-wise and this season. Sure, one might be better than the other. Kings fans will take Byfield, and Rangers fans will take Lafreniere. I'm not saying you have to call it a tie, but don't act like Lafreniere is so far beneath Byfield. The facts don't support it. I wouldn't claim the opposite. You named 16 categories at even strength having better numbers would be considered a good thing, and it's literally 8-8. I'm willing to say Byfield deserves the advantage for more points in this situation, but how could you possibly look at these numbers and not see them as close with some advantages towards each? It's being a homer to not.

Okay. This is the dishonest shit we're talking about.

Byfield having a large gap in total points per 60 is not built equal to Laf having a marginal higher shots for per 60. And rush attempts, etc? Those are stylistic matters, not output matters. And doubling down by calling disagreements homers--yeah that's great form, and poor self-awareness.

Gonna leave it at that because you've proven to not be worth engaging with in good faith in this thread.

But hey, at least it helps dispel the Byfield 'only scores off the rush' pre-draft reports, so I guess we can thank you for that!

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Okay. This is the dishonest shit we're talking about.

Byfield having a large gap in total points per 60 is not built equal to Laf having a marginal higher shots for per 60. And rush attempts, etc? Those are stylistic matters, not output matters. And doubling down by calling disagreements homers--yeah that's great form, and poor self-awareness.

Gonna leave it at that because you've proven to not be worth engaging with in good faith in this thread.

But hey, at least it helps dispel the Byfield 'only scores off the rush' pre-draft reports, so I guess we can thank you for that!

So you want to change the literal situation we are discussing because Byfield fares a little better and then call me dishonest? This started as a 5 on 5 discussion. I went along with a discussion of even strength, but please acknowledge that Byfield's points and points per 60 went up because Kings fans decided to change it to a situation where he fares a little better in that regard.

 

[Reddawg]

This thread had such a glorious opportunity to be about nine pages long.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

Byfield is elite

 

[Altimus]

so hes still just a prospect? Interesting.

 

[Ghetty Green]

so hes still just a prospect? Interesting.

Not surprised you want the thread shut down now. The fun has just begun

 

[JTeller97]

This might be a homer/hot take but, I really don't know if theres another player in the league under 23 that I'd rather build around. He's a legitimate unicorn who's just starting to scratch the surface on how good he could become. The closest comparison I can think of is Getzlaf (without the mean streak) but Q is 10X the skater getzy was, he's a true 1 of 1 imo.

 

[93LEAFS]

This might be a homer/hot take but, I really don't know if theres another player in the league under 23 that I'd rather build around. He's a legitimate unicorn who's just starting to scratch the surface on how good he could become. The closest comparison I can think of is Getzlaf (without the mean streak) but Q is 10X the skater getzy was, he's a true 1 of 1 imo.

Yeah, he's unique, but this is a massive hot take when Bedard has more points in 11 less games, is 3 years younger, and was more hyped as a prospect.

 

[MNRube]

This might be a homer/hot take but, I really don't know if theres another player in the league under 23 that I'd rather build around. He's a legitimate unicorn who's just starting to scratch the surface on how good he could become. The closest comparison I can think of is Getzlaf (without the mean streak) but Q is 10X the skater getzy was, he's a true 1 of 1 imo.

I’d take Hughes, Boldy, Bedard and Stutzle over him. Not sure who else. The other are too far ahead production wise to ignore IMO.

 

[kinghock]

Yeah, he's unique, but this is a massive hot take when Bedard has more points in 11 less games, is 3 years younger, and was more hyped as a prospect.

Bedard is offensive machine, but he is defensive liability.
Byfield has complete elite game.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Not surprised you want the thread shut down now. The fun has just begun

Literally one post. One. And 7 minutes for the response. Completely laughable at this point.

You could whisper "byfield" in the middle of the pacific ocean and one of these guys would drop off a helicopter to set you straight

 

[Frolov 6'3]

I’d take Hughes, Boldy, Bedard and Stutzle over him. Not sure who else. The other are too far ahead production wise to ignore IMO.

Boldy can be dropped on 5 april.

 

[93LEAFS]

Bedard is offensive machine, but he is defensive liability.
Byfield has complete elite game.

He's also 3 years younger, where age means a ton.

I wouldn't say Byfield has a complete elite game yet. he's one used primarily as a winger for Kopitar, so how he would transition to a full-time #1 match-up center is still a question mark, and his production is not elite yet. He's grown and made strides this year, but to say he's an all around elite player is a reach. Like, he's 84th in total points. He has a tantalizing skill set, but for someone primarily playing the wing, and being 3 years older, I don't think it's much of a discussion. And, the gap between him and Jack Hughes production wise is just too large to ignore.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

He's also 3 years younger, where age means a ton.

I wouldn't say Byfield has a complete elite game yet. he's one used primarily as a winger for Kopitar, so how he would transition to a full-time #1 match-up center is still a question mark, and his production is not elite yet. He's grown and made strides this year, but to say he's an all around elite player is a reach. Like, he's 84th in total points. He has a tantalizing skill set, but for someone primarily playing the wing, and being 3 years older, I don't think it's much of a discussion. And, the gap between him and Jack Hughes production wise is just too large to ignore.

I don't disagree with your overall point but I take issue with some of the premises

Byfield is carrying Kopitar around in his backpack right now, if he was to take faceoffs instead of line up at the circle there wouldn't be much difference. He's the one doing all the heavy defensive lifting at both ends. Don't shortchange him here.

Also, the 'total points' argument is what people have been saying Kopitar's whole career, too, there's a lot that Byfield brings that isn't captured well--yes he needs to enter a higher production territory but also in a year in which he started slow and started growing 'total points' would be a dishonest argument altogether if I didn't know you better.

Much like Kopitar though I can see an argument for taking Byfield over Hughes and others eventually if not right now--when the guy has an 'off night' he's still bringing a lot of forechecking and defense, his 'b' game is a high floor, non liability, keeping pressure down the ice. While i don't think it's really worth going down the roster of under 23 players and splitting hairs since it's going to be as much about preference/style as it is about qualifications, I don't think people are out to lunch to suggest the player 'type' QB is turning out to be is the kind they would prefer (although again as I agree with your conclusion--he's not quite there yet).