Player Discussion Mitch Marner, Continued

[666]

We both know your claims are beyond ridiculous, which is why you won't answer.

All your questions have been answered but you don't realise it.

For example, McDavid had zero points in the last two games of the finals and simply did not get it done when it counted the most. But would I use a 2 games sample to somehow prove he sucks? Drai had 3 points in the entire finals and was a minus player. Does he suck?

You should now understand the things that you needed to understand. If you don't then review our conversation in the last few days. It's all there. I've answered every reasonable question and so have you.

We truly are done as long as you stop repeating yourself.

 

[666]

By this logic than, when they score a couple of empty netters or get a second assist while they leave the ice, we shouldn’t praise them either.

The last week has been a great example of why small sample sizes are useless.

 

[Gary Nylund]

All your questions have been answered but you don't realise it.

For example, McDavid had zero points in the last two games of the finals and simply did not get it done when it counted the most. But would I use a 2 games sample to somehow prove he sucks? Drai had 3 points in the entire finals and was a minus player. Does he suck?

You should now understand the things that you needed to understand. If you don't then review our conversation in the last few days. It's all there. I've answered everything and so have you.

We truly are done as long as you stop repeating yourself.

Do you think if you just keep repeating this lie, someone's going to believe you? Copy/paste, here we go. You have not explained how blaming "coaching both sides" is to blame for Marner going from a ~100 point player to a ~40 point player after 86 games. If we're done that's fine but, it's because you can't explain this nonsense. What's next, blaming Marner's cat?

Coaching, sure thing.

Why do other top players keep scoring in the playoffs? Why would coaching not be a factor with guys like Rantanen, Draisaitl, Kucherov and so on? Are opposing coaches fine with those guys scoring against their teams but not Marner, what's the reasoning here? And coaching "both sides", WTF? Why would Keefe tell Marner to stop producing offence after 86 games. No offence but you're not making any sense here.

 

[666]

Do you think if you just keep repeating this lie, someone's going to believe you? Copy/paste, here we go. You have not explained how blaming "coaching both sides" is to blame for Marner going from a ~100 point player to a ~40 point player after 86 games.

Coaching, sure thing.

Why do other top players keep scoring in the playoffs? Why would coaching not be a factor with guys like Rantanen, Draisaitl, Kucherov and so on? Are opposing coaches fine with those guys scoring against their teams but not Marner, what's the reasoning here? And coaching "both sides", WTF? Why would Keefe tell Marner to stop producing offence after 86 games. No offence but you're not making any sense here.

I just mentioned Drai. You don't listen / read properly.

You should now understand the things that you needed to understand. If you don't then review our conversation in the last few days. It's all there. I've answered everything reasonable and so have you.

All I've got left is repeating myself and that's not cool.

 

[Dekes For Days]

By this logic than, when they score a couple of empty netters or get a second assist while they leave the ice, we shouldn’t praise them either.

Getting an assist as you step off the ice isn't the same. It's actually the opposite. That means you and your line created the goal, and you're actually getting less credit than you earned. The equivalent would be stepping on the ice as your team scores and getting a plus, and I don't see many people praise that. And yes, praising empty net points is silly, though that's also not an equivalent. The equivalent would be getting praised for standing on the ice as your teammate steals the puck and puts it in an empty net.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I just mentioned Drai. You don't listen / read properly.

You should now understand the things that you needed to understand. If you don't then review our conversation in the last few days. It's all there. I've answered everything reasonable and so have you.

All I've got left is repeating myself and that's not cool.

That's not answer. I'd say nice try but it's not even that.

 

[666]

That's not answer. I'd say nice try but it's not even that.

That works for me.

 

[Gary Nylund]

That works for me.

That's like someone asking you what's 2+2, and your answer is "rhubarb". But if that's all you got, that's fine. Good talk.

 

[666]

That's like someone asking you what's 2+2, and your answer is "rhubarb". But if that's all you got, that's fine. Good talk.

It sounds like you're not satisfied so one last post to tidy up.

I'm here to talk about Marner and correct misinformation and help people understand misinformation (particularly stats based) like you and that stats guy do.

You've been corrected.

If you don't understand coaching, or can't reason through it, and let's face it, it's pretty clear that you've never coached, go read a book but that's not why I'm here.

It's also interesting that you just ignored the McDavid and Drai stuff. It's kinda like you don't read everything. Oh well, I'm used to it from you.

You may now have the final final word and this time I won't distract you by responding.

 

[Gary Nylund]

It sounds like you're not satisfied so one last post to tidy up.

I'm here to talk about Marner and correct misinformation and help people understand misinformation (particularly stats based) like you and that stats guy do.

You've been corrected.

If you don't understand coaching, or can't reason through it, and let's face it, it's pretty clear that you've never coached, go read a book but that's not why I'm here.

It's also interesting that you just ignored the McDavid and Drai stuff. It's kinda like you don't read everything. Oh well, I'm used to it from you.

You may now have the final final word and this time I won't distract you by responding.

Do you think if you just keep repeating this lie, someone's going to believe you? Copy/paste, here we go. You have not explained how blaming "coaching both sides" is to blame for Marner going from a ~100 point player to a ~40 point player after 86 games. If we're done that's fine but, it's because you can't explain this nonsense. What's next, blaming Marner's cat?

Coaching, sure thing.

Why do other top players keep scoring in the playoffs? Why would coaching not be a factor with guys like Rantanen, Draisaitl, Kucherov and so on? Are opposing coaches fine with those guys scoring against their teams but not Marner, what's the reasoning here? And coaching "both sides", WTF? Why would Keefe tell Marner to stop producing offence after 86 games. No offence but you're not making any sense here.

 

[Maple Leaf]

I heard mitch marner was the one who hacked the forum

 

[666]

I heard mitch marner was the one who hacked the forum

According to this thread it's much more likely to have been his father.

 

[francis246]

By this logic than, when they score a couple of empty netters or get a second assist while they leave the ice, we shouldn’t praise them either.

Epitome of an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[francis246]

Getting an assist as you step off the ice isn't the same. It's actually the opposite. That means you and your line created the goal, and you're actually getting less credit than you earned. The equivalent would be stepping on the ice as your team scores and getting a plus, and I don't see many people praise that. And yes, praising empty net points is silly, though that's also not an equivalent. The equivalent would be getting praised for standing on the ice as your teammate steals the puck and puts it in an empty net.

Perfectly explained. That fact you even had to explain this is crazy!

 

[Its not your fault]

Tavares was never going anywhere but Toronto. Never put up 100 points but was going to be overpaid because he was a UFA. Looking back, and you can look it up, I said $10m max or go elsewhere.

Look it up San Jose put 13 on the million. That's a fact and guess what? He probably wouldn't be going through all this tax evasion process that a lot of the other leaf players are now getting pulled into with their bonuses.

 

[GoonieFace]

Epitome of an apples to oranges comparison.

They hand out second assists like candy in the NHL. Doesn’t always mean it was a great contribution to a goal. I’m just saying the lengths people go to minimize the awful
game M and M had is hilarious. They would be quick to blame Reaves for being on the ice for a goal against no matter if he was directly involved in the play or not.

 

[francis246]

They hand out second assists like candy in the NHL. Doesn’t always mean it was a great contribution to a goal. I’m just saying the lengths people go to minimize the awful
game M and M had is hilarious. They would be quick to blame Reaves for being on the ice for a goal against no matter if he was directly involved in the play or not.

I agree with what you’re saying but I think that’s a separate issue than what you were originally quoting! It wasn’t the same thing to be compared

 

[Dekes For Days]

I’m just saying the lengths people go to minimize the awful game M and M had is hilarious.

Seems like everybody agrees that it wasn't a great game for them. There are just some trying to greatly exaggerate how bad it was by pointing at +/- without context. Looking at what actually happened doesn't seem like going to great lengths.

 

[GoonieFace]

I agree with what you’re saying but I think that’s a separate issue than what you were originally quoting! It wasn’t the same thing to be compared

Well, there is a poster here that breaks down goals and how much a certain player actually attributed to that goal, and is generally laughed at. So when I see someone try to absolve them from goals against I just wonder if there will be a similar reaction. Not saying either is right or wrong, just pointing it out

 

[ULF_55]

Everyone knows plus/minus is a questionable stat.

In a situation like -17, indicates some bad luck along with bad play. They don't get scored on if they are in control of the puck, but getting a minus like the other night when Robertson left the ice with a Flyer (?) in front heading into the Leafs zone, leaving Nylander chasing and then "earning" this minus is an example of a "unearned" minus. The top line has both earned and unearned minuses.

But in a loss, it's just kind of amusing. Something to laugh about. Like you can laugh about getting a +6 in a game. Historic can refer to good and bad.

As for assists, some are well earned some are gifts. Additionally, great plays that might cause a goal might earn nothing. Normally, you do earn an assist when someone scores a goal if you are within 2 touches.

Other than laugh about it, the +6 and -6 are just good for discussion of the moment not evaluation of the player.

OT ...

Anyway, Belak had it right, 2 points for scoring a goal, 1 point for earning an assist. We can include empty netters in that.

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Brodeur leads goals with 2 goals scored (45 assists).
Barrasso leads points with 0 goals scored, but 48 assists earned.

Belak Points:
Brodeur leads with 49 points.
Barrasso second with 48 points.

 

[Hellcat]

Coaching, sure thing.

Why do other top players keep scoring in the playoffs? Why would coaching not be a factor with guys like Rantanen, Draisaitl, Kucherov and so on? Are opposing coaches fine with those guys scoring against their teams but not Marner, what's the reasoning here? And coaching "both sides", WTF? Why would Keefe tell Marner to stop producing offence after 86 games. No offence but you're not making any sense here.

Home ice advantage, lesser opponents, coaching lots could explain the difference. Opponents could explain the difference, I think the Leafs have faced 4 (TB(x2), FL, Mtl) of the SC finalists in the last 9 years? you could argue the Leafs have faced more difficult opponents earlier in their playoffs than the players you mentioned.

To your question about Keefe telling Marner to stop producing, I know it was tongue in cheek but when Keefe was asked during the playoffs about line matching, Keefe said something to the extent, we dont line match, the other team needs to line match us. Keefe didn't believe strategically or see the value in getting his best players favourable match ups.

 

[Gabriel426]

Quite surprised that nobody came out and said MM had a solid game and some moments despite getting -6, lol.

It is just one game, move on. On the same token when MM had +6 in a game, it is also just one game.

Not trying to play down MM but just really tired of discussion on an extremely micro level.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Well, there is a poster here that breaks down goals and how much a certain player actually attributed to that goal, and is generally laughed at. So when I see someone try to absolve them from goals against I just wonder if there will be a similar reaction.

Arbitrarily dismissing every point Marner gets is quite a bit different than noting the situational context of a player's minuses in a game.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Home ice advantage, lesser opponents, coaching lots could explain the difference. Opponents could explain the difference, I think the Leafs have faced 4 (TB(x2), FL, Mtl) of the SC finalists in the last 9 years? you could argue the Leafs have faced more difficult opponents earlier in their playoffs than the players you mentioned.

To your question about Keefe telling Marner to stop producing, I know it was tongue in cheek but when Keefe was asked during the playoffs about line matching, Keefe said something to the extent, we dont line match, the other team needs to line match us. Keefe didn't believe strategically or see the value in getting his best players favourable match ups.

Regardless of the opponents, he's been able to produce offence for 4 games, then he goes cold.

Re. line matching, there are different schools of thought on this one. I remember when Babcock said the same thing - looking forward to the day when we'd be an elite team and we wouldn't have to worry about matching up, we could just roll our lines out there and it's our opponents who would be the ones trying to figure out how to stop us. I kind of like that attitude actually, and when you have two top talents like M&M who are both in the top 5 or top 10 in cap hit depending on what year it was, I'd expect them to be able to outplay pretty much anyone. Like I remember Bergeron just killed us, he didn't need matchups, his line would take on anyone and win their matchup. If M&M can't produce unless they have favorable matchups, then they don't deserve their cap hits.

That's kind of where we're at actually. 1-8 in playoff series and one of the main reasons (and I'd say the #1 main reason) is that M&M&JT haven't earned their pay in the playoffs. JMHO.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Quite surprised that nobody came out and said MM had a solid game and some moments despite getting -6, lol.

Spinning last night as a good game for anyone - and especially Matthews - Marner - Knies - would be really tough.. just like trying to convince people that Nylander is a playoff warrior.