daver
Registered User
Draisatl really shouldn't be included, since 70% of his time is with McDavid.
That means 70% of the time, he's not playing C.
McDavid tends to defer the C role to Draisaitl when on the ice together.
Draisatl really shouldn't be included, since 70% of his time is with McDavid.
That means 70% of the time, he's not playing C.
Draisatl really shouldn't be included, since 70% of his time is with McDavid.
That means 70% of the time, he's not playing C.
Draisatl really shouldn't be included, since 70% of his time is with McDavid.
That means 70% of the time, he's not playing C.
So all coaches are robots and think the same in your opinion?At this top end I disagree on P/60.
Every coach is going to play a top 5 center every chance they can unless they:
1) aren’t suited to all situations play, in which case re-evaluate their top 5 status, or
2) don’t have the conditioning, in which case re-evaluate again.
These guys are all played in all situations thus I disregard P/60.... show me absolutes.
the only time you should look at rates among comparing the ELITE is PPGF/60 and PKGA/60 since in both cases a positive outcome influences TOI (eg if you can score in 25 seconds of a PP credit to you... if you can elapse the full shift of your PK credit to you)
After that, TOI is a function of the coaches decision and so the denominator gets larger for all of these guys based on a desire to have them out there as much as possible.
Νever thought of it that way, even though its in my post, staring at us.
Edit: Dont know how much time each defers to each other when they are on the same line.
You're operating under the faulty notion of linearity.
I guess Bergeron has fallen out of top 10, losing a step?
He's number 7 on the list so...no?I guess Bergeron has fallen out of top 10, losing a step?
That's always been the problem when discussing Drai. Only one of the two can be considered the C.
Goals scored/60 from 2017-end of last year:
1. Ovi: 1.87
2. Matthews: 1.84
3. Pasta: 1.8
4. Bergeron: 1.56
5. Stamkos: 1.51
6. Kucherov: 1.5
7. Laine: 1.5
8. JVR: 1.5
9. Tavares: 1.49
10. MacKinnon: 1.45
I might have to slot him in at number 5. Talk about goal scoring flying under the radar.
I agree with what you're saying here but he did play alot of centre last season and the line was very good sans McDavid.
I REALLY like the part some people put Marner over Patrice F’in BergeronI really liked the part where they ranked Matthews ahead of Draisaitl
NHL Stats
Pretty sure that # of goals scored actually scored (17th best), and GPG (8th best), to say nothing of him the 3rd best offensive player on his line, doesn't mean he flying under radar.
That being said, Top Tennish seems right.
/60 is the most accurate description of effectiveness on the ice. It just is. Goals/GP is OK I guess if its all you have to work with but why not use the more effective tool? You can have players playing the same role and yet one player getting 5 minutes a game more icetime due to coaching style/lack of depth, etc. I'm interested in how effective a player is with the minutes he has on the ice.
So all coaches are robots and think the same in your opinion?
Draisatl really shouldn't be included, since 70% of his time is with McDavid.
That means 70% of the time, he's not playing C.
McDavid tends to defer the C role to Draisaitl when on the ice together.
TOI is dictated by who can carry more minutes effectively or of your team is always playing catch up. To treat it as a predictor that "Player A would score more if only they got more time" is really a faulty way of looking at things.
At best, /60 could be a way to differentiate players who have similar /game production but it should not move players up to the level of a player who produces more.
Just taking the local example here, there were posters screaming their heads off for Babcock to give Matthews more ice time and when Keefe did so, his numbers went up with almost the exact same /60 production numbers (slighter more goals/60 and slightly less points/60)
2018-Keefe become coach:
GP: 91
Goals 49 (1.78/60)
Points 100 (3.49/60)
Under Keefe (with 3 more minutes TOI a game):
GP: 83
Goals: 60 (1.99/60)
Points: 99 (3.29/60)
The big difference here? 3 more minutes a game to get him more in line with other 1st line centers out there instead of playing the 3rd and 4th lines more often (as Babcock would tend to do).
I'm not sure how "/game played" stats would be able to track him obviously getting underplayed before Keefe got in as coach.
There are various other examples but I think you should get the point.
Should be:
1. Mcdavid
2. Matthews
3. Mackinnon
4. Crosby
5. Marner
6. Draisatl
7. Tavares
8. Barkov
9 . Point
10. Hyman
Honestly, what case does Barkov have for being in the top-5?
I'm starting to think Barkov is just becoming super overrated at this point. I genuinely don't see what he offers that should warrant him being in the top-5 on the same level as Matthews, Draisaitl and MacKinnon. Frankly I think it's pretty questionable to rank Barkov over Bergeron, seeing how Bergeron is just as productive and actually has defensive awards that Barkov doesn't have.
I'd have my top-5 be McDavid, MacKinnon, Draisaitl, Crosby and Matthews in that order. I don't see what Barkov offers to break into that top-5 group.
It’s funny when fans say the list is wrong and players should be placed differently. This is a list by the frickin players and league officials, it doesn’t get any more accurate than that.
You might differ on selections but if you put your opinion over this list you’re simply a delusional narcissist; your opinion isn’t greater here.