Mitch Marner discussion

[therealkoho]

When JT was not producing as he should, Keefe didn't give him more minutes, he gave him Marner.

Matthews was struggling, not hitting the net, not into the play, kinda hanging on the fringe. Did Keefe give him more minutes? Anybody? That's right he gave him Marner! Result, Matthews is in conversation for the Hart.

I've been a bad boy, I got myself threadbanned for an adultish quip about a harmonica, or as some of you know it, a mouth organ, or even a harp. I had no idea that there were that many children on this site that could be corrupted by such a thing, yes that's right this site that's part of the internet where adult content rules. I sincerely apologize to all those whom may have been appalled, shocked, taken aback and/or permanently scarred.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I think xGF% has proven to be incredibly useful but you may have a point on small sample sizes of course.

Top 5v5 forwards for xGF% ranked over the last two playoffs (min 200 minutes played and 13+ minutes a game, 64 forwards total):
1. Marner
2. Karlsson
3. Tuch
4. Matthews
5. Landeskog
6. Bergeron
7. Palat
8. Kucherov
9. Lee
10. Point
11. Marchand
12. Patches
14. Pasta
15. MacKinnon

Top 5v5 forwards for xGF% REL (to filter out team bias) from the same list.
1. Voracek
2. Marner
3. Bergeron
4. Lee
5. Gallagher
6. Landeskog
7. Palat
8. Barzal
9. Kucherov
10. Pasta
11. PLD
12. Matthews
14. Pavelski
15. Marchand

Taking into account Marner played the 4th most TOI and the at the highest level QoC, his numbers are staggeringly elite. Just no finish on the offensive end for him (the goalie thing I was talking about). Defensively just a wall and probably the best defensive winger in the playoffs. Note that all of the players surrounding him are considered to have have good playoffs (but certainly got both more puck luck and easier goalies to beat)

Notable players xGF% says were pretty bad in the playoffs the last two years:

Seguin
Foligno
Kadri
Kuraly
Reaves

It remains why I am so hopefull going forward and also why I think he has gotten a bit of a raw deal.

And I've told you several times that I consider that stat to be pretty much useless for player evaluation. That being the case, what's the point of throwing more of same at me?

 

[Gary Nylund]

I've been a bad boy, I got myself threadbanned for an adultish quip about a harmonica, or as some of you know it, a mouth organ, or even a harp. I had no idea that there were that many children on this site that could be corrupted by such a thing, yes that's right this site that's part of the internet where adult content rules. I sincerely apologize to all those whom may have been appalled, shocked, taken aback and/or permanently scarred.

OMG, did you just use the word harp?

 

[Notsince67]

When JT was not producing as he should, Keefe didn't give him more minutes, he gave him Marner.

Matthews was struggling, not hitting the net, not into the play, kinda hanging on the fringe. Did Keefe give him more minutes? Anybody? That's right he gave him Marner! Result, Matthews is in conversation for the Hart.

I've been a bad boy, I got myself threadbanned for an adultish quip about a harmonica, or as some of you know it, a mouth organ, or even a harp. I had no idea that there were that many children on this site that could be corrupted by such a thing, yes that's right this site that's part of the internet where adult content rules. I sincerely apologize to all those whom may have been appalled, shocked, taken aback and/or permanently scarred.

Lol. Wished I saw it. Sounded like a hummer

 

[Dekes For Days]

And I've told you several times that I consider that stat to be pretty much useless for player evaluation. That being the case, what's the point of throwing more of same at me?

There's always the chance that you could realize you were wrong about the stat.

 

[Notsince67]

There's always the chance that you could realize you were wrong about the stat.

you can lead a horse to water....

 

[Zybalto]

And I've told you several times that I consider that stat to be pretty much useless for player evaluation. That being the case, what's the point of throwing more of same at me?

Im just saying theres an absolute correlation with performance and your placing on those lists. With a smaller sample there is less certainty of course but your absolute dismissal of xGF% for individual player evaluation is pretty short-sighted. How can you say it's absolutely relevant for team stats but not when trying to isolate the individuals on the team using those stats (taking into account QoC, QoT, and usage) making sure to factor in REL stats as well. I also believe in taking shooting % into account (and this is more where a disagreement can take place)?

Over the last 3 years in the regular season, its not surprising that, just looking at centers for example, the names, Bergeron, Matthews, MacKinnon, McDavid, etc. are all sitting at the top using these stats. While not perfect, they really do seem to isolate the best play drivers in the game (unless we are witnessing the greatest coincidence in the stats world at the moment).

 

[zeke]

Over the last 3 years in the regular season, its not surprising that, just looking at centers for example, the names, Bergeron, Matthews, MacKinnon, McDavid, etc. are all sitting at the top using these stats. While not perfect, they really do seem to isolate the best play drivers in the game (unless we are witnessing the greatest coincidence in the stats world at the moment).

The best part is that xGF clearly sees the value in a player like Bergeron that the traditional stats miss but their eye test also knows is there - and still these people will cry that analytics are useless while sticking with plain points as more valuable.

 

[Antropovsky]

The best part is that xGF clearly sees the value in a player like Bergeron that the traditional stats miss but their eye test also knows is there - and still these people will cry that analytics are useless while sticking with plain points as more valuable.

Im just saying theres an absolute correlation with performance and your placing on those lists. With a smaller sample there is less certainty of course but your absolute dismissal of xGF% for individual player evaluation is pretty short-sighted. How can you say it's absolutely relevant for team stats but not when trying to isolate the individuals on the team using those stats (taking into account QoC, QoT, and usage) making sure to factor in REL stats as well. I also believe in taking shooting % into account (and this is more where a disagreement can take place)?

Over the last 3 years in the regular season, its not surprising that, just looking at centers for example, the names, Bergeron, Matthews, MacKinnon, McDavid, etc. are all sitting at the top using these stats. While not perfect, they really do seem to isolate the best play drivers in the game (unless we are witnessing the greatest coincidence in the stats world at the moment).

@zeke, @Zybalto What are your thoughts on scoring chance creation for teammates that Berkshire discussed? Mcdavid, Crosby and Matthews were at the top in this category in 2019 and it seems to isolate the best play drivers players.. Tavares was 12th, Nylander was 22nd and Marner was 26th.

 

[Dekes For Days]

But... but... but what about his cherry picked, single-season placement in an arbitrary, highly questionable, single game state stat that I don't understand, that's secret so there's no way to confirm or verify the validity of, that I heard this other anti-Marner, Habs fan media personality who doesn't know what he's talking about mention 3 years ago on a radio show!?!?!?

 

[Notsince67]

But... but... but what about his cherry picked, single-season placement in an arbitrary, highly questionable, single game state stat that I don't understand, that's secret so there's no way to confirm or verify the validity of, that I heard this other anti-Marner, Habs fan media personality who doesn't know what he's talking about mention 3 years ago on a radio show!?!?!?

Pretty soon we are going to get Ekland rumors around here again too

 

[nsleaf]

When JT was not producing as he should, Keefe didn't give him more minutes, he gave him Marner.

Matthews was struggling, not hitting the net, not into the play, kinda hanging on the fringe. Did Keefe give him more minutes? Anybody? That's right he gave him Marner! Result, Matthews is in conversation for the Hart.

I've been a bad boy, I got myself threadbanned for an adultish quip about a harmonica, or as some of you know it, a mouth organ, or even a harp. I had no idea that there were that many children on this site that could be corrupted by such a thing, yes that's right this site that's part of the internet where adult content rules. I sincerely apologize to all those whom may have been appalled, shocked, taken aback and/or permanently scarred.

I saw the "quip". Pretty sure at least half the population would not of found it funny.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Im just saying theres an absolute correlation with performance and your placing on those lists. With a smaller sample there is less certainty of course but your absolute dismissal of xGF% for individual player evaluation is pretty short-sighted. How can you say it's absolutely relevant for team stats but not when trying to isolate the individuals on the team using those stats (taking into account QoC, QoT, and usage) making sure to factor in REL stats as well. I also believe in taking shooting % into account (and this is more where a disagreement can take place)?

Over the last 3 years in the regular season, its not surprising that, just looking at centers for example, the names, Bergeron, Matthews, MacKinnon, McDavid, etc. are all sitting at the top using these stats. While not perfect, they really do seem to isolate the best play drivers in the game (unless we are witnessing the greatest coincidence in the stats world at the moment).

Like I already told you, I saw a pretty convincing analysis on the subject. Maybe over 82 games they have some value but for a playoff series or two, no.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Like I already told you, I saw a pretty convincing analysis on the subject.

It's interesting that you're unwilling to share this "convincing analysis" that led you to arbitrarily dismiss valuable and proven data. Was it really convincing, or just what you wanted to hear?

 

[Antropovsky]

But... but... but what about his cherry picked, single-season placement in an arbitrary, highly questionable, single game state stat that I don't understand, that's secret so there's no way to confirm or verify the validity of, that I heard this other anti-Marner, Habs fan media personality who doesn't know what he's talking about mention 3 years ago on a radio show!?!?!?

the irony - just a couple posts above yours:

The best part is that xGF clearly sees the value in a player like Bergeron that the traditional stats miss but their eye test also knows is there - and still these people will cry that analytics are useless while sticking with plain points as more valuable.

 

[Dekes For Days]

the irony - just a couple posts above yours:

I'm not sure what you find ironic. Analytics are valuable when used properly, and I never said otherwise, or "stuck with plain points as more valuable". However, an anti-Marner Habs fan, who has shown himself to be pretty clueless, cherry picking a few placements in an arbitrary, secret, single-season, single game state sub-stat that nobody can verify 3 years ago on a radio show is not the argument you seem to think it is.

Why don't you post the rest of the list? Why don't you post more years? Why don't you tell us how this stat was formulated?

*crickets*

Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[Antropovsky]

I'm not sure what you find ironic. Analytics are valuable when used properly, and I never said otherwise, or "stuck with plain points as more valuable". However, an anti-Marner Habs fan, who has shown himself to be pretty clueless, cherry picking a few placements in an arbitrary, secret, single-season, single game state sub-stat that nobody can verify 3 years ago on a radio show is not the argument you seem to think it is.

Why don't you post the rest of the list? Why don't you post more years? Why don't you tell us how this stat was formulated?

*crickets*

Yeah, that's what I thought.

.... are you capable of explaining why the goal creation stat is useless?

not sure people take your posts with more than a grain of salt after you tried to say bonuses were essentially meaningless to Aho and Marner contract negotiations. But im still willing to give you a shot. Although i do like your overuse of the word arbitrary, it definititely has a "i know what im talking about feel about it". Would be great if it were accompanied with supportive evidence to convince readers why you are right and they are wrong instead of teenager "OMG montreal fan opinions dont matter OMG"..... Berkshires stats praised Matthews, Tavares and Nylander so im unsure how you think that angle even fits anyways.

it might be a good idea though for you to stand back and let @Zybalto and @zeke take care of this though. They have been helpful with their evidence to support their arguments... certainly better than the OMG habs fan stats and lol Aho and Marner dont care about Bonuses stuff you contribute.

 

[Dekes For Days]

.... are you capable of explaining why the goal creation stat is useless?

Are you capable of explaining why this sub-stat you're holding up above all others is so critically important? Can you explain how it's formulated? What goes into it? Maybe more importantly, what doesn't go into it? What game states it covers? Who else is on the list? How the list looks in other years? How relevant its shown to be? Where it draws its data from? Whether it's in absolute or rate form? Where we can find this stat to peer review? Literally anything about it other than the cherry picked placements of a few players years ago, as stated on a radio show years ago by an anti-Marner Habs fan?

Considering the fact that you've brought this stat up ad nauseum and provided nothing else about it, I'm guessing no. Considering the fact that you're now incorrectly labelling the very stat you brought up, and can't even keep the name straight, I'm guessing no.

not sure people take your posts with more than a grain of salt after you tried to say bonuses were essentially meaningless to Aho and Marner contract negotiations.

What I actually explained was how the impact of bonuses tends to be wildly exaggerated, and that bonuses are utilized to offset tax disadvantages, and do not historically impact cap hits in any significant way. Please stop misrepresenting past discussions to deflect away from current conversations. Also, the irony of suggesting other people be taken with a grain of salt, and then holding up Berkshire of all people.

 

[Antropovsky]

Are you capable of explaining why this sub-stat you're holding up above all others is so critically important? Can you explain how it's formulated? What goes into it? Maybe more importantly, what doesn't go into it? What game states it covers? Who else is on the list? How the list looks in other years? How relevant its shown to be? Where it draws its data from? Whether it's in absolute or rate form? Where we can find this stat to peer review? Literally anything about it other than the cherry picked placements of a few players years ago, as stated on a radio show years ago by an anti-Marner Habs fan?

Considering the fact that you've brought this stat up ad nauseum and provided nothing else about it, I'm guessing no. Considering the fact that you're now incorrectly labelling the very stat you brought up, and can't even keep the name straight, I'm guessing no.

What I actually explained was how the impact of bonuses tends to be wildly exaggerated, and that bonuses are utilized to offset tax disadvantages, and do not historically impact cap hits in any significant way. Please stop misrepresenting past discussions to deflect away from current conversations. Also, the irony of suggesting other people be taken with a grain of salt, and then holding up Berkshire of all people.

Haha this is the circle of your posts.. sling insults but never any good info to support your opinions. The only time we got you to try to support your opinion you failed miserably. I will get your posts when i have time and gladly show your silly bonuses posts.

I never said i was an expert in analytics so it doesnt matter that i am not writing it correctly. Ive presented someone elses work who was on an NHL radio channel with his info. If someone wants to prove it as incorrect, but not act like a 10 year old and say OMG a HAbs fans analytics!! I am all ears.

Again i will wait for @Zybalto or @zeke to respond to Berkshires analytics because your OMG montreal fan analytics is childish behavior.

 

[Zybalto]

Like I already told you, I saw a pretty convincing analysis on the subject. Maybe over 82 games they have some value but for a playoff series or two, no.

I find xGF% still helps in smaller sample sizes and certainly showcases the more complete players out there. Ultimately, shooting% and save % are going to decide if the one ice play translates to success though. Seeing Eriksson Ek go down for the Wild the other day is going to be as damaging as Kaprisov going down IMO but not many people are going to understand the impact until the Wild look noticeably weaker. (much like we look without Marner)

I mean, We can all still rip on Matthews/Marner for their lack of finish but they were absolute defensive studs and outplayed everyone put in front of them.

Lets just hope it translates into getting more bounces (and less posts) this year.

 

[DarkKnight]

Haha this is the circle of your posts.

Says a guy who's argued the same points a billion times for years. I mean...