bpower
Registered User
- Aug 21, 2005
- 644
- 256
But he has. Look at the post right above yours.
Who would you say is having a better season this year. Matthews or Kane?
Do you know what the word significantly means?
But he has. Look at the post right above yours.
Who would you say is having a better season this year. Matthews or Kane?
No, that's not how it has ever worked. What you're probably misremembering is comparisons involving Matthews having vastly higher goal totals AND higher primary point production, when they were compared to somebody who was worse at everything other than the rate at which they accumulated secondary assists. That is not the situation here, where Marner has better point and primary point production than the goal-scorer.Yes, I'm comparing a goal scorer to a playmaker. How this happens with Matthews when compared to playmakers is "He has 12 more goals, so that makes up for the 20 less points.
If you're looking at all-situations per-60, that's skewing Rantanen a lot higher, as his distribution of game states is much more heavily skewed towards the PP, and he doesn't have PK time impacting his number, like Marner. That's why it's always been emphasized as important to look at game states separately.His overall p/60 is VERY close?
You're really trapping yourself in a corner with this one.The simple answer is that the small sample size of the playoffs can be part of the equation, but not the full story.
As has already been explained to you multiple times, that's just flat-out not true.The ONLY /60 stat where Marner is better this year is even strength points.
Problem is, there's lots of evidence to support the facts I laid out, and pretty much no evidence to support your baseless claim, as was discussed in the other conversation.And you say it's a "fact" that Columbus had great goaltending vs the leafs last summer. I say it's a "fact" that our outrageously expensive forwards had horrible finish.
I’d say Matthews is having a significantly better season than Kane, even though they have the same amount of points. Goals clearly matter. Same applies to Rantanen/Marner this year.Do you know what the word significantly means?
There is another thing in those numbers. Even strength defensive wins above replacement. Picked this up from the Hab forumMarner is on a 103 point pace.
53rd in the league for PP points, makes that number even more intriguing.
Could you provide a quick explanation of what that means?There is another thing in those numbers. Even strength defensive wins above replacement. Picked this up from the Hab forum
Who would we have a better chance of beating first round?
That's what the good teams do man. They run into a hot goalie and they figure them out.
The goaltending phenom that the Knights ran into was absurd, far worse than what we were up against. They figured it out and won the series.
Marner has stronger skills in some aspects of the game. Rantanen has stronger skills in some aspects of the game. All of those skills contribute to points and goals. It doesn't matter how. The result (this year) is a very very close OVERALL p/60. But Rantanen has a significantly higher OVERALL g/60. So he's been significantly better this year.No, that's not how it has ever worked. What you're probably misremembering is comparisons involving Matthews having vastly higher goal totals AND higher primary point production, when they were compared to somebody who was worse at everything other than the rate at which they accumulated secondary assists. That is not the situation here, where Marner has better point and primary point production than the goal-scorer.
And even in those situations, the goals were not emphasized and given the enormous weight you are in this comparison, even when discussing one of if not the best goal scorer seen in decades. In those situations, proper, significant sample sizes were also used, and not the partial shortened season you are using here to make incorrect claims.
By your logic, Matthews would be the best player in the league. Do you believe this to be true?
If you're looking at all-situations per-60, that's skewing Rantanen a lot higher, as his distribution of game states is much more heavily skewed towards the PP, and he doesn't have PK time impacting his number, like Marner. That's why it's always been emphasized as important to look at game states separately.
Marner is better, according to per-60 this year, and even more-so over a more significant sample. Over a significant sample, Marner has shown to be equal to or better in everything except PP goalscoring.
You're really trapping yourself in a corner with this one.
As has already been explained to you multiple times, that's just flat-out not true.
Problem is, there's lots of evidence to support the facts I laid out, and pretty much no evidence to support your baseless claim, as was discussed in the other conversation.
Pretty convoluted detailed explanation but effectively it is a scalar metric base lined against a replacement level player that evaluates expected goals against vs goals against as a contribute to wins for individual players.Could you provide a quick explanation of what that means?
That’s really interesting, haven’t seen that metric before. I also like the comment about how we don’t appreciate him.There is another thing in those numbers. Even strength defensive wins above replacement. Picked this up from the Hab forum
Who would we have a better chance of beating first round?
People around the league get Marner.Man, Marner's so good.
Still can't believe leafland treated him like absolute shit for daring to think he's just as good as Tavares and Moonman. Wish Bergevin would've pursued him instead of Aho at the time.
Said 2019....Let's just leave it at that.
I mean, we're comparing their stats from THIS year. What does 2019 have to do with THIS year?Said 2019....
Beat that dead horse, dead, dead, dead, then again, dead I say, dead.
You’ve been on the same thing since the contract was signed, Jesus man we get it.I mean, we're comparing their stats from THIS year. What does 2019 have to do with THIS year?
Yep. Rantanen is better at goalscoring. Marner is better at pretty much everything else.Marner has stronger skills in some aspects of the game. Rantanen has stronger skills in some aspects of the game.
No, you're just using that stat incorrectly. And it's been explained to you why multiple times, so it would appear to be intentional at this point.The result (this year) is a very very close OVERALL p/60.
Except you're literally not. Even aside from you completely flip-flopping from the stances and statistics and methodology (if we can even call it that) that you used for years to discredit Leaf players, now that they show Leaf players in a better light, you're also inconsistent with the per-60 statistics you've switched to, even in the incorrect way you are using them.I'm consistent with this.
Of course not. Why would I?Would YOU say that Rantanen has been as good as Matthews this year?
Per-60 metrics were considered when the contracts were discussed, but not in the way you are now utilizing them. I'm not sure where you got the idea that per-60 metrics were abandoned, when we're literally here talking about per-60 metrics, that I am still using. The problem isn't per-60 metrics. The problem is that you're using them wrong, in ways they were never used before, to suggest the opposite of the truth.And yes, it WAS these p/60 numbers that were all the rage when the contracts were being handed out. And I was there clear as day saying that if the leafs p/60 numbers ever become aligned with comparables, the p/60 argument would be abandoned. And that's precisely what's happened.
And what I was always told was that the superior /60 numbers of leaf players were better than their comparables. Thus, the leafs players were better.You’ve been on the same thing since the contract was signed, Jesus man we get it.
They still matter, all the same. Rantanen is just not better, according to per-60 metrics, whether we look at this year, or the bigger, more representative sample that has always been used previously. You are using the stat incorrectly to come to this incorrect conclusion. I have tried to help you understand your mistakes here, and where you are deviating from past discussions involving this statistic, but you have shown no willingness to listen and understand - only to misrepresent.This year, Rantanen has overall better /60 numbers. And now they just don't matter...
Marner has better es p/60. Rantanen has MUCH higher es g/60, ppp/60, ppg/60. He's pacing for the same amount of points but significantly more goals. Rantanen is better this year. The end.They still matter, all the same. Rantanen is just not better, according to per-60 metrics, whether we look at this year, or the bigger, more representative sample that has always been used previously. You are using the stat incorrectly to come to this incorrect conclusion. I have tried to help you understand your mistakes here, and where you are deviating from past discussions involving this statistic, but you have shown no willingness to listen and understand - only to misrepresent.
I always contended that Matthews contract was market value because there was a goal scorers premium built in. I still believe it. Not sure about all the other debate here but goal scoring has a premium for me too.Marner has stronger skills in some aspects of the game. Rantanen has stronger skills in some aspects of the game. All of those skills contribute to points and goals. It doesn't matter how. The result (this year) is a very very close OVERALL p/60. But Rantanen has a significantly higher OVERALL g/60. So he's been significantly better this year.
I'm consistent with this. Panarin has an almost identical p/60 this year as Matthews. But Matthews is having the significantly better season due to the massive goal difference. I'm applying the precise same logic of that to Rantanen/Marner. Would YOU say that Rantanen has been as good as Matthews this year?
And yes, it WAS these p/60 numbers that were all the rage when the contracts were being handed out. And I was there clear as day saying that if the leafs p/60 numbers ever become aligned with comparables, the p/60 argument would be abandoned. And that's precisely what's happened.
So I'm being consistent. I'm not being "anti-leaf". My precise same logic states Matthews is better this year than Panarin. But it really does feel that you change the metrics based on which leaf player we're talking about.
I don't believe your arguments on this one make any sense. Let's just leave it at that.
Agree on most accounts.I always contended that Matthews contract was market value because there was a goal scorers premium built in. I still believe it. Not sure about all the other debate here but goal scoring has a premium for me too.
I think Matthews .81 goals per game rivals what McDavid is doing with points. Nothing is cut and dried just by looking at stats nonetheless. Rantanen is very important to his team too. Great players the both
Kind of but I don’t see the debate ending on it or a definitive cut off line. There is no doubt about the value each player brings to their team for me personally.Agree on most accounts.
If Matthews goals per game rivals McDavid's SIGNIFICANT point advantage, wouldn't Rantanen be WAY ahead of Marner being that there's a similar goal differential but pacing for the same points?
And what I was always told was that the superior /60 numbers of leaf players were better than their comparables. Thus, the leafs players were better.
This year, Rantanen has overall better /60 numbers. And now they just don't matter...
Your statement is incorrect and misleading in multiple ways. According to per-60 metrics, looking at goal scoring, primary point production, and point production...Marner has better es p/60. Rantanen has MUCH higher es g/60, ppp/60, ppg/60. He's pacing for the same amount of points but significantly more goals.
not sure what you're talking about.
This year
Matthews ES 3.33 p/60, 2.96 p1/60 ---- PP 5.35 p/60, 4.11 p1/60
MacKinnon ES 2.92 p/60, 2.40 p1/60 - PP 7.97 p/60, 4.78 p1/60
Marner ES 3.13 p/60, 2.49 p1/60 ---- PP 5.49 p/60, 4.31 p1/60
Rantanen ES 2.69 p/60, 2.08 p1/60 -- PP 6.71 p/60, 4.47 p1/60
Last 2 years
Matthews ES 2.75 p/60, 2.45 p1/60 ---- PP 6.07 p/60, 4.59 p1/60
MacKinnon ES 2.94 p/60, 2.44 p1/60 -- PP 7.00 p/60, 4.38 p1/60
Marner ES 2.73 p/60, 2.15 p1/60 ---- PP 6.53 p/60, 4.41 p1/60
Rantanen ES 2.42p/60, 1.91p1/60 --- PP 6.27 p/60, 4.61 p1/60
Since Keefe
Matthews ES 2.93 p/60, 2.58 p1/60 --- PP 6.28 p/60, 4.46 p1/60
MacKinnon ES 3.01 p/60, 2.51 p1/50 -- PP 7.24 p/60, 4.50 p1/60
Marner ES 3.01 p/60, 2.29 p1/60 ------ PP 6.44 p/60, 4.57 p1/60
Rantanen ES 2.70 p/60, 2.16 p1/60 ---- PP 6.24 p/60, 4.63 p1/60
What?
Marner is pacing for 102 points, 28 goals.
Rantanen is pacing for 103 points, 51 goals.
How in the world are we arguing Marner is better this year? Even the /60 stats favor Rantanen overall.
Jesus Murphy...
I think the problem is people take "Rantanen is better this year" as "Marner trash and should be traded".
Marner's been incredible this year. Rantanen has just been even better.
What cite do you use? Hockey-refernce has very different numbers. Panarin's es p/60 is higher than Matthews across the board. Is he having a better season than Matthews? Or should goals come into the equation?
If I did say that, I meant /60 stats in general. Not just p/60.I was responding only to your p/60 post. I use a number of sites - i prefer evolving-hockey but naturalstattrick is nice and easy to use too,