According to Natural Stat Trick, when Mitch Marner and Auston Matthews are on the ice together in 5v5 play, their expected goals for percentage (xGF%) is 55.35%. However, Marner's xGF% drops to 46.37% when he plays without Matthews, indicating the opposition has a higher chance of scoring when hes out there with anyone but Matthews. In contrast, Matthews’ xGF% slightly improves to 55.43% without Marner. Indicating he remains dominant with anybody he plays, Marner doesn't move the needle upwards at all.
Before the Marner fans come out and say xGF% means nothing... doesnt matter what advanced stat I post, i get the same response from them. So i came with backup.
@Notsince67 this is also for you, considering you questioned my advanced stats accumen. Don't take it from me, take it from an expert.
Here is a recent interview, where Mike Kelly of sportslogiq indicates that he values xgf% because it is more indicative of play and eliminates the variable of goaltending.
Question: What do you value more? GF% or xGF% or both, and why?
@MikeKellyNHL: Both are important. I place more value on expected goal differential in terms of understanding how well a player, a line or a team is playing from a process standpoint. This tends to affect GF% more than vice-versa. Over long samples, GF% will paint a fairly accurate picture but small sample, xGF% more indicative of play. It also eliminates the massive variable that is goaltending at both ends of the ice.