Salary Cap: Marner contract discussion XVI (continued)

[CDN24]

No, the advanced stats hated those guys. Which is why they are gone.

People liked them because "20gls" and "gudpro grit".


5v5 adj xGF%

1. Nylander 56.8
2. Hyman 55.1
3. Tavares 53.8
4. Matthews 53.4
5. Ozhiganov 53.0
6. Gardiner 52.9
7. Dermott 52.4
8. Marner 52.3
9. Muzzin 51.9
10. Kapanen 51.6
11. Rielly 51.2
12. Johnsson 51.1
13. Zaitsev 51.0
14. Kadri 50.8
15. Ennis 50.8
16. Hainsey 50.2
17. Gauthier 48.9
18. Lindholm 48.1
19. Marleau 47.9
20. Brown 46.9

As you can see, Dubas has literally dumped pretty much the worst 1/3 of last year's roster.

Goat is the only awful one still here, but I'm guessing it's not for long even though he costs nothing.

Gardiner is obviously the one key loss that dubey would rather have kept. Ozzy ranked well too but that came against such weak qoc that it probably didn t mean too much.

Forget expected GF%, if we want to talk results what are the real ones GF%. And what about guys he acquired to replace these non-stat darlings Speezza 5-5 GF % 49.10%, Kerfoot 46.38%

Here are some of the the Leafs actual GF% last year

Gardiner 61.46%
Johnsson 61.18%
Marner 59.85%
Tavares 59.71%
Lindholm 57.50%
Hainsey 56.39%
Kadri 52.86%

Matthews 48.76%

May have got rid of some of the better performers in their role

 

[IPS]

Late first is the question. This team was 2 points away from missing the playoffs last year with a full roster and few injuries. Are they better this year?

We played .500 hockey for the 2nd half of last year, which coincided with the signing of Matthews' and Nylander's contracts.

The Muskoka 5 mentality as thewave puts it, something you just can't put into numbers or stats.

 

[CDN24]

There probably is a right answer, actually.



This is all false.

Matthews has faced tougher qoc than Marner so far I their careers, and it was MUCH tougher the first two years, while Marner faced tougher comp for the first time last year.

All False, that's one mans opinion. Who did Boston match Bergeron up against?
Who's talking about Marner, I compared him to Tavares centre to centre.

 

[IPS]

Players making Matthews money NEED to be putting up 100 point seasons, or it's a complete waste. It's either the coach wasting TALENT or the gm wasting MONEY. I don't care which it is. But FIX it.

And that's what pisses me off the most. As you articulated in an earlier post: what the f*** is the point of paying our main guys like they're 100+ point scorers yet stick with a coach who artificially limits their TOI and offensive usage?

Shouldn't our GM atleast want to see if the guys he paid insane dollars to are actually capable of producing numbers that reflect the insane dollars they got paid?

All year long I heard about how their TOI is being limited to "save them for the playoffs" only to see the exact same TOI deployment get used in the playoffs en route to yet another game 7 loss. What f***ing good is this conservative usage if we're not even getting past round 1?

 

[PromisedLand]

Am amazed at the Marner crap fest.

In the grand scheme of things Marner is probably the most important Leaf (one can argue Matthews but UFA in 5 years so...)

I expect JT to slow down in a couple years, I don't expect JT to produce at an elite level in his contract years from yr4 to yr7 (a declining trend is most likely)

Given the roster make up and the on ice duties of Mitch (PP, PK, match-ups) he is probably the most important player Leafs need to sign (of course at a reasonable cap hit).

Unless it is four first rounders; there is no reason at all for the Leafs to not keep Mitch.

Dubas effed it up with Matthews contract so I don't blame Mitch if he looking for a solid deal. (note: don't agree with Ferris' media tactics though)

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

Forget expected GF%, if we want to talk results what are the real ones GF%. And what about guys he acquired to replace these non-stat darlings Speezza 5-5 GF % 49.10%, Kerfoot 46.38%

Here are some of the the Leafs actual GF% last year

Gardiner 61.46%
Johnsson 61.18%
Marner 59.85%
Tavares 59.71%
Lindholm 57.50%
Hainsey 56.39%
Kadri 52.86%

Matthews 48.76%

May have got rid of some of the better performers in their role

Crazy that we never realized that Lindholm was better than Matthews

Gf% is good in terms of winning games, but pretty awful in terms of evaluating players

 

[ajp4to]

All False, that's one mans opinion. Who did Boston match Bergeron up against?
Who's talking about Marner, I compared him to Tavares centre to centre.

And maybe a team will pay him like that franchise center, with an 11, 12, or 13 million offer sheet. I don't think any other team is stupid enough to do it, but maybe Dubas will give to him...

 

[CDN24]

Crazy that we never realized that Lindholm was better than Matthews

Gf% is good in terms of winning games, but pretty awful in terms of evaluating players

It cannot be used to compare a 1st line player to a third/fourth line player, but it is very useful in evaluating them in how they did in their role. Lindholm was fine in his usage, he was better than the guys he was playing against. Matthews at 5-5 was not quite as good as the guys he was playing against.

A guy like Spezza used primarily in a bottom 6 role was worse than who he was playing against while playing on a playoff team, that tells me we should not expect any miracles from him.

 

[ULF_55]

Am amazed at the Marner crap fest.

In the grand scheme of things Marner is probably the most important Leaf (one can argue Matthews but UFA in 5 years so...)

I expect JT to slow down in a couple years, I don't expect JT to produce at an elite level in his contract years from yr4 to yr7 (a declining trend is most likely)

Given the roster make up and the on ice duties of Mitch (PP, PK, match-ups) he is probably the most important player Leafs need to sign (of course at a reasonable cap hit).

Unless it is four first rounders; there is no reason at all for the Leafs to not keep Mitch.

Dubas effed it up with Matthews contract so I don't blame Mitch if he looking for a solid deal. (note: don't agree with Ferris' media tactics though)

No doubt the Marner asset is a key asset.

Signed or used to improve the overall structure of the team is critical.

I don't think Marner, Matthews, Tavares, Rielly ... guarantees anything.

Blues didn't do it with superstars, they didn't it with good goaltender and good defense. Pittsburgh and Capitals did it with a couple stars and depth. Tampa hasn't done it with Stamkos, Kucherov, Hedman ...

Getting value for the 4th. overall pick in 2015 is all the fans of the team should demand.

 

[Gary Nylund]

To deny luck is akin to denial of reality Gary.

To deny luck is akin to denial of reality Gary.

Deny luck? What does that even mean? Are you referring to the existence of luck? Something else perhaps?

Do try to express your thoughts in a more coherent fashion. As it is, understanding some of your posts is a matter of well, luck.

Luck exists of course. But to suggest as you did that some players are "seriously lucky" seems to imply that they're more lucky than others. You also said pay based on results so basically you're saying that we should identify who the luckiest players are and pay them.

Put down the pipe for a bit, now sure what else to say here.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

It cannot be used to compare a 1st line player to a third/fourth line player, but it is very useful in evaluating them in how they did in their role. Lindholm was fine in his usage, he was better than the guys he was playing against. Matthews at 5-5 was not quite as good as the guys he was playing against.

A guy like Spezza used primarily in a bottom 6 role was worse than who he was playing against while playing on a playoff team, that tells me we should not expect any miracles from him.

to me, better means they outplayed their counterparts. not got outplayed and then bailed out by goaltending/shooting luck

 

[IPS]

He is right though and we haven't even touched on it becoming easier to score for Sharp shooters with the equipment shrinks for tenders the past couple seasons. Nobody wants to touch that one because it diminishes Matthews production value vs. McDavids 100pt contract year.

And we are paying out the ass for it too!

Look at the god damn scoring picture this year, EVERYBODY is having career years. Johnathon Toews had his first ever PPG year but it was only good enough for 27th in league scoring. You got a guy like Zibanejad with his previous career high 51 points putting up 30 goals and 74 points out of nowhere. The league hasn't had a 120 point scorer on how long and then all of a sudden we got 2, hell Kucherov almost got 130 FFS (I count McDavid cause he no doubt woulda got there without the missed games).

Drastic increase in scoring, everybody and their dog is putting up numbers in a tier above what they produced before, and now all of a sudden we need to pay Mitch Marner mega dollars for his career year PLUS we provided him with a franchise center who made a career out of elevating winger's production.

Craziness.

 

[TheDoldrums]

It cannot be used to compare a 1st line player to a third/fourth line player, but it is very useful in evaluating them in how they did in their role. Lindholm was fine in his usage, he was better than the guys he was playing against. Matthews at 5-5 was not quite as good as the guys he was playing against.

Matthews was "not quite as good" because the Leafs goalies put up a .901 5v5 SV% when he was on the ice. That's horrible, far worse than anyone else. Next closest regular was Dermott at .913.

Lindholm got a .943 SV% when he was on the ice, so yeah his goal differential was pretty good. These are the ways luck can play with our perceptions of a player. Lindholm loses a faceoff, it goes back to the point and Freddy makes a save. Matthews loses a faceoff, it goes back to the point and Freddy allows a goal. The different results of these situations does not mean Lindholm is a defensive stalwart and Matthews can't stop anyone from scoring.

 

[Ziggdiezan]

This is a bit out of date now as Manny has combined and refined these adjustments now but this is the base from which he started: Adjustments Explained | Corsica

And note that Corsica eliminates empty net situations completely from its numbers, so hainsey doesn't get hurt by being out there when the other team pulls theirs and Rielly doesn't benefit from being out there when we pull ours.

Ya I have taken a look through that before and it is interesting for sure but I had hoped they would have shown more math.

Also hopefully he is using more recent data as there has been a lot of rule changes since 2007-2014.

 

[Mr Hockey]

Top 5 xGF% at 5-vs-5 last season

1. 54.64 ~ Marincin
2. 54.13 ~ Muzzin
3. 54.11 ~ Willie
4. 53.77~ Hyman
5. 53.36~ Tavares

 

[ajp4to]

They weren't 2pts from missing the playoffs, and they had plenty of injuries.

They did, however, have the 7th most points, the 4th most regulation wins, and the 4th best goal differential, and yes, they've improved significantly this off-season.

They made the playoffs the second last game of the season, Montreal played their AHL team against the leafs for draft lottery purposes. All those points were accumulated early in the season, the last half was a disaster.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

You are free to argue that you would prefer GM that makes $50m decisions based on a simple ranking of a century old stat with no context, sure.

What I’m the world?

Which scorer helped their team more? The 70 point scorer? Or the 120 point scorer?

It’s not “obsolete” to claim that actual REAL points matter. THEY’RE the ones that go on the score board and determine wins from losses.

 

[CDN24]

Matthews was "not quite as good" because the Leafs goalies put up a .901 SV% 5v5 when he was on the ice. That's horrible, far worse than anyone else. Next closest regular was Dermott at .913.

Lindholm got a .943 SV% when he was on the ice, so yeah his goal differential was pretty good. These are the ways luck can play with our perceptions of a player. Lindholm loses a faceoff, it goes back to the point and Freddy makes a save. Matthews loses a faceoff, it goes back to the point and Freddy allows a goal. The different results of these situations does not mean Lindholm is a defensive stalwart and Matthews can't stop anyone from scoring.

The question is, is that goalie save percentage all luck? or his there something else happenning? Is it just random chance or is maybe the player partially at fault when his goalie is a full .012 worse when he is on the ice? Is it possibly AM who is cheating offensively or not as committed to D as his teammates? I have a hard time attributing that to all luck. That said, Matthews was one of the best in 2017-18 and over 50% in 16-17.

 

[supsens]

Matthews was "not quite as good" because the Leafs goalies put up a .901 5v5 SV% when he was on the ice. That's horrible, far worse than anyone else. Next closest regular was Dermott at .913.

Lindholm got a .943 SV% when he was on the ice, so yeah his goal differential was pretty good. These are the ways luck can play with our perceptions of a player. Lindholm loses a faceoff, it goes back to the point and Freddy makes a save. Matthews loses a faceoff, it goes back to the point and Freddy allows a goal. The different results of these situations does not mean Lindholm is a defensive stalwart and Matthews can't stop anyone from scoring.

Could be the goalies fault, could be luck, could be bad choices and blown coverage leaves your goalie alone and burned.

 

[Sypher04]

Well there you have it, if only they had Rosen/Borgman they may have done what?!? Not make the playoffs? Made the playoffs by an extra point? Oh, and they did have both in the playoffs, why didn't they play?

If you cannot see why a team with questionable defensive depth having Gardiner, Dermott, Rosen and Borgman all injured at the same time is a significant problem then I'm afraid no one can help you.

 

[zeke]

Remarkable. We have the 2 of the 3 best players on that list and Nylander performs at a similar level to Draisaitl and Aho and we still can't get past the Boston Bruins in the playoffs.

why is that remarkable? Boston is an elite team just like us.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

And that's what pisses me off the most. As you articulated in an earlier post: what the **** is the point of paying our main guys like they're 100+ point scorers yet stick with a coach who artificially limits their TOI and offensive usage?

Shouldn't our GM atleast want to see if the guys he paid insane dollars to are actually capable of producing numbers that reflect the insane dollars they got paid?

All year long I heard about how their TOI is being limited to "save them for the playoffs" only to see the exact same TOI deployment get used in the playoffs en route to yet another game 7 loss. What ****ing good is this conservative usage if we're not even getting past round 1?

Here's another thing that bothers me about @zeke 's post.

Matthews starts each season like an absolute machine... but then as the season progresses, his numbers come back down to earth. The more games he plays, the more back to earth his stats become. The 35 games Matthews missed would NOT have been at the same pace. They would have lowered his overall stats. It's unfair to compare them to a player who's kept their pace for the entire season.

Let's also add that there should be a monetary value for being able to stay healthy.

That's why I actually think it's not outlandish that Marner and Matthews should make similar money overall. But that similar money is more like 9-9.5x5, not 11.6x5

Matthews was paid like a generational elite 110 point player... I guess based on the idea that he will hopefully become that? But the leafs simply can't pay every star player under the hopes they up their game to being generational. No other teams do that.

 

[TheDoldrums]

Could be the goalies fault, could be luck, could be bad choices and blown coverage leaves your goalie alone and burned.

It's mostly luck. Matthews was our worst forward last year, our best the year before. Brown was our best forward last year, our worst the year before. There is not much evidence players can significantly impact their goalies SV% over a big sample. These fluctuations are mostly noise. If you focus on who is creating and preventing shot attempts/scoring chances/high danger scoring chances, it's a better bet in the long run than acquiring players who were on the ice when their goalies stopped a lot of pucks.

 

[Sypher04]

Matthews was injured 10 games into the season last year. One might conclude his injury had a little something to do with things.
I don't know there's enough of a healthy look for you conclude that Matthews would have slowed to anywhere near the degree he did in either the 2nd or 3rd year without the injuries he dealt with.
Let's just hope this year he can play 82.

 

[zeke]

Forget expected GF%,

you can forget it if you want.

Dubas and I won't though.