Mitch Marner or Johnny Gaudreau

[Regal]

Age matters. People made a huge ****ing fuss here because Laine was 7 months younger than Matthews.

4 years is a LOT in hockey. At the same age, Gaudreau is putting up 64 points. Marner will put up a minimum of 90 points?

Marner's same age season is better, but you can't really compare totals straight up given how much scoring has increased.

 

[Paradoc]

Marner. Younger and at the same level of skill as Gaudreau.

 

[Randy Randerson]

Marner's same age season is better, but you can't really compare totals straight up given how much scoring has increased.

You can adjust for that, would bump Gaudreau's numbers to the low 70's. Agree that it needs to be accounted for

 

[Paradoc]

LOL! If they switched teams, Toronto would become better and Calgary would regress so Jonny hockey

No, Toronto would be similar. Speaks to how much potential Marner has when he is four years younger and already at the same level of skill as Gaudreau. Just imagine how good he would be in his prime age...

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Look at the age difference between Marner and Gaudreau. When Gaudreau was putting up 60 points at the same age, Marner is pacing for 110+.

They are similar players right now but I'd definitely take Marner over Gaudreau. I wouldn't blame Calgary fans for taking Gaudreau.

This has to be one of the weakest arguments on HF and I see it trotted out in almost every poll.
Using that logic half the players in the NHL will turn out better than the Sedins because they were better in their rookie seasons.
Just a terrible argument that assumes every player develops at exactly the same rate.

 

[Randy Randerson]

This has to be one of the weakest arguments on HF and I see it trotted out in almost every poll.
Using that logic half the players in the NHL will turn out better than the Sedins because they were better in their rookie seasons.
Just a terrible argument that assumes every player develops at exactly the same rate.

In terms of predictive value, performance by age is about as good of a tool as we have. There is no crystal balls and there's outliers, but it's actually one of the strongest arguments for something that's difficult to predict. The way to try to discredit it is to cite the outliers and call them the norm, like you're doing here

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

over enough games a 10 percent OZS% adds up, and this is a large sample. The OZS% is also usually indicative of some other factors like balance of play on on-the-fly shifts, in this case it looks like the coaching staff is trying to keep Gaudreau on the ice for offensive shifts and less so with Monahan, which makes sense for the best player on the team

Tkachuk is a good player, but beyond that you can see that Monahan hasn't had much to work with when he's not on the ice with Gaudreau so thats going to be a contributing factor for sure

Actually when the two have been separated it's usually for the entire game, not really on a shift by shift basis, that's where the overwhelming majority of Monahan's ice time without Gaudreau have come from (the first ~40 games of 14-15, 10-15 games of 16-17 when Gaudreau was hurt, ~5-10 games last year when Monahan was struggling).

And of course he's not going to be playing with tons of talent without Gaudreau. Flames historically haven't had a ton of talent up front. He produces like a 3rd liner when playing with primarily 3rd liners. If he produced like a 3rd liner while playing with 1st liners he'd be Zach Hyman.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

In terms of predictive value, performance by age is about as good of a tool as we have. There is no crystal balls and there's outliers, but it's actually one of the strongest arguments for something that's difficult to predict. The way to try to discredit it is to cite the outliers and call them the norm, like you're doing here

It’s a terrible argument that assumes the player who is best as a rookie stays better.
We’re not just talking outliers there are lots of examples where players start out hot and others struggle.
It’s not meaningless but it’s pretty close to it when comparing players at much different ages.
In this case it’s a joke. Gaudreau is clearly a player who did not take a typical prospect path. If there was ever an outlier this guy is it.
The fact that you’re defending the use here speaks volumes.

 

[The List Of Jericho]

Or maybe Monahan and Lindholm are pretty decent players? Maybe a possibility?

As for the poll.... Leaf fans voted Marner > Gaudreau for the past 3 years... Surprise Surprise... the gap apparently is still big between them. At least we moved on from Nylander > Gaudreau.

Gap? Marner is winning this handily haha

 

[Randy Randerson]

Actually when the two have been separated it's usually for the entire game, not really on a shift by shift basis, that's where the overwhelming majority of Monahan's ice time without Gaudreau have come from (the first ~40 games of 14-15, 10-15 games of 16-17 when Gaudreau was hurt, ~5-10 games last year when Monahan was struggling).

And of course he's not going to be playing with tons of talent without Gaudreau. Flames historically haven't had a ton of talent up front. He produces like a 3rd liner when playing with primarily 3rd liners. If he produced like a 3rd liner while playing with 1st liners he'd be Zach Hyman.

The length of each separation doesn't determine the type of usage that each player gets when they're separated, that still appears to be Gaudreau getting the offensive minutes and Monahan getting balanced to slightly defensive usage when they're apart on aggregate

 

[authentic]

went Marner, I don't see the "$10+ minimum" contract with Kucherov just signing at $9.5M for 8 years where 7 of those are UFA years, so I don't see the cost gap that's being presented here

Marner is certainly a line driver, there's a lot of focus in here on Tavares as a linemate being a huge boost to Marner but I haven't seen the name Hyman mentioned at all who's easily the worst forward that either plays with regularly by a wide margin, the average quality of their linemates is quite close with an edge to Gaudreau:
Gaudreau - toi%QoT 31.83, CF%QoT 53.95, xGF%QoT 53.19
Marner - - toi%QoT 31.43, CF%QoT 49.4, xGF%QoT 48.36

Marner contributes a lot on both sides of the puck and has 4 more years of prime so I would look to build around that


so is this to say that you don't believe what Marner is doing is repeatable?

I would say he has more than 4 more years of prime. Look at Tavares, Giroux, Kane, Backstrom, etc., He's only 21 and should be just as good if not better in 6 or 7 years.

I think the two are extremely close for the time being, and probably will be for a while longer but I see whatever offensive edge Gaudreau has over Marner now closing quite quickly and I don't think Johnny can match his defensive game.

 

[Randy Randerson]

It’s a terrible argument that assumes the player who is best as a rookie stays better.
We’re not just talking outliers there are lots of examples where players start out hot and others struggle.
It’s not meaningless but it’s pretty close to it when comparing players at much different ages.
In this case it’s a joke. Gaudreau is clearly a player who did not take a typical prospect path. If there was ever an outlier this guy is it.
The fact that you’re defending the use here speaks volumes.

it's about as good of an argument as there is, in a world of only imperfect arguments. It does require a large enough sample size to iron out the anomalies, like gigantic shooting percentages (which is why we know that Elias Pettersson is unlikely to finish his rookie season with 40 goals and 80+pts, for example). It also becomes much less predictive as the age increases, becoming meaningless after about 21 years old

in this case it's worked, we can see that Marner has become what he projected to be as a rookie. In a direct comparison, Marner's been a better offensive player in the last year despite less opportunity to be that, and is a much better two way player. Right now, Marner is a better player than Gaudreau, so that doesn't take any projection. And that's not to take anything away from Gaudreau, they're both in the top handful of wingers in the league

I would say he has more than 4 more years of prime. Look at Tavares, Giroux, Kane, Backstrom, etc., He's only 21 and should be just as good if not better in 6 or 7 years.

I think the two are extremely close for the time being, and probably will be for a while longer but I see whatever offensive edge Gaudreau has over Marner now closing quite quickly and I don't think Johnny can match his defensive game.

I think you mistook my meaning - Marner has 4 more years of prime than Gaudreau does by virtue of being 4 years younger, assuming they both peak until the same age

 

[Regal]

Actually when the two have been separated it's usually for the entire game, not really on a shift by shift basis, that's where the overwhelming majority of Monahan's ice time without Gaudreau have come from (the first ~40 games of 14-15, 10-15 games of 16-17 when Gaudreau was hurt, ~5-10 games last year when Monahan was struggling).

And of course he's not going to be playing with tons of talent without Gaudreau. Flames historically haven't had a ton of talent up front. He produces like a 3rd liner when playing with primarily 3rd liners. If he produced like a 3rd liner while playing with 1st liners he'd be Zach Hyman.

If we're looking at linemates though we need to look at how their games work with each other, not just how they play apart. Monahan isn't great at driving his own offense but is one of the best finishers in the game from around the net, so of course his production is going to be a lot better with an elite playmaker like Gaudreau, but someone like Gaudreau doesn't need a play driver on his line, and so a finisher like Monahan is a great fit. With Tavares, he can create a lot more on his own than Monahan, but on a line with Marner, he plays a similar role to Monahan, and like Monahan, is an excellent finisher around the net. I don't think the fact that Tavares is better individually than Monahan means he ends up helping Marner's production any more than Monahan would, nor do I think Gaudreau would inflate Tavares's totals any. You could argue playing with Tavares might create more chances for Gaudreau to score than playing with Monahan, but I think that's negated by Lindholm being much better than Hyman

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

The length of each separation doesn't determine the type of usage that each player gets when they're separated, that still appears to be Gaudreau getting the offensive minutes and Monahan getting balanced to slightly defensive usage when they're apart on aggregate

Ok I thought you were saying something along the lines of them being split up situationally. He's deployed more like a 3rd liner without Gaudreau. So when deployed like a 3rd liner without 1st line players he produces at the rate of a 3rd liner.

That sentence would describe most 3rd liners.

 

[Randy Randerson]

Ok I thought you were saying something along the lines of them being split up situationally. He's deployed more like a 3rd liner without Gaudreau. So when deployed like a 3rd liner without 1st line players he produces at the rate of a 3rd liner.

That sentence would describe most 3rd liners.

I would agree that Monahan isn't an offensive conduit type player stylistically, he's a home-plate area finisher that needs to get the puck where he can do something with it. But, that same thing is true of Tavares who's a better version of the same thing

I do think that Monahan would produce at normal top 6 rates with normal top 6 linemates, that's just been lacking in Calgary

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

It’s a terrible argument that assumes the player who is best as a rookie stays better.
We’re not just talking outliers there are lots of examples where players start out hot and others struggle.
It’s not meaningless but it’s pretty close to it when comparing players at much different ages.
In this case it’s a joke. Gaudreau is clearly a player who did not take a typical prospect path. If there was ever an outlier this guy is it.
The fact that you’re defending the use here speaks volumes.

If you picked stocks using your methodology on player development I can pretty much guarantee you'd be poor. You might hit the occasional home run but you'd have far more strikeouts.

 

[authentic]

it's about as good of an argument as there is, in a world of only imperfect arguments. It does require a large enough sample size to iron out the anomalies, like gigantic shooting percentages (which is why we know that Elias Pettersson is unlikely to finish his rookie season with 40 goals and 80+pts, for example). It also becomes much less predictive as the age increases, becoming meaningless after about 21 years old

in this case it's worked, we can see that Marner has become what he projected to be as a rookie. In a direct comparison, Marner's been a better offensive player in the last year despite less opportunity to be that, and is a much better two way player. Right now, Marner is a better player than Gaudreau, so that doesn't take any projection. And that's not to take anything away from Gaudreau, they're both in the top handful of wingers in the league


I think you mistook my meaning - Marner has 4 more years of prime than Gaudreau does by virtue of being 4 years younger, assuming they both peak until the same age

Right you are, my bad.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

If we're looking at linemates though we need to look at how their games work with each other, not just how they play apart. Monahan isn't great at driving his own offense but is one of the best finishers in the game from around the net, so of course his production is going to be a lot better with an elite playmaker like Gaudreau, but someone like Gaudreau doesn't need a play driver on his line, and so a finisher like Monahan is a great fit. With Tavares, he can create a lot more on his own than Monahan, but on a line with Marner, he plays a similar role to Monahan, and like Monahan, is an excellent finisher around the net. I don't think the fact that Tavares is better individually than Monahan means he ends up helping Marner's production any more than Monahan would, nor do I think Gaudreau would inflate Tavares's totals any. You could argue playing with Tavares might create more chances for Gaudreau to score than playing with Monahan, but I think that's negated by Lindholm being much better than Hyman

Well said, though I think the amount Tavares can create on his own is notable. Lindholm is more of a trigger man than a driver, very similar to Ferland.

To give you an idea - Gaudreau's 5v5 p/60 is actually down this year is last year when he had Ferland instead of Lindholm and had to play with a broken Monahan down the stretch (injured Monahan is borderline useless FYI).

 

[WetcoastOrca]

If you picked stocks using your methodology on player development I can pretty much guarantee you'd be poor. You might hit the occasional home run but you'd have far more strikeouts.

Stocks and player development are not even comparable.
I’m guessing you’re not a very successful investor.


I’d suggest reading the Intelligent Investor by Graham. Warren Buffett refers to it as the bible of investing.

 

[Regal]

it's about as good of an argument as there is, in a world of only imperfect arguments. It does require a large enough sample size to iron out the anomalies, like gigantic shooting percentages (which is why we know that Elias Pettersson is unlikely to finish his rookie season with 40 goals and 80+pts, for example). It also becomes much less predictive as the age increases, becoming meaningless after about 21 years old

in this case it's worked, we can see that Marner has become what he projected to be as a rookie. In a direct comparison, Marner's been a better offensive player in the last year despite less opportunity to be that, and is a much better two way player. Right now, Marner is a better player than Gaudreau, so that doesn't take any projection. And that's not to take anything away from Gaudreau, they're both in the top handful of wingers in the league


I think you mistook my meaning - Marner has 4 more years of prime than Gaudreau does by virtue of being 4 years younger, assuming they both peak until the same age

I would say it's only part of the consideration, not something to base an argument on. It's one thing when the younger player is projected to be much better, it's another when the established player is already roughly as good as the younger player is projected to be. This is the same argument that led to Finnish/Jets fans hilariously claiming Laine was going to be better than Ovechkin, despite having nowhere near the skating ability or overall offensive skillset. Evaluating skillsets is just as important, and I don't see Marner taking it to another level than where he's at now (which is similar to Gaudreau and could go either way) unless he somehow develops a killer shot. I would say being better earlier likely means a better career, as it would suggest a longer prime, but I think most signs point to them being comparable players through their primes

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I would agree that Monahan isn't an offensive conduit type player stylistically, he's a home-plate area finisher that needs to get the puck where he can do something with it. But, that same thing is true of Tavares who's a better version of the same thing

I do think that Monahan would produce at normal top 6 rates with normal top 6 linemates, that's just been lacking in Calgary

I see Monahan as a 2C. Extremely one dimensional but he's excellent in that dimension. He really can't do much on his own. Meanwhile Tavares can very much create on his own - and has actually been known to make 3rd liners look like first liners.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Stocks and player development are not even comparable.
I’m guessing you’re not a very successful investor.


I’d suggest reading the Intelligent Investor by Graham. Warren Buffett refers to it as the bible of investing.

Yes Buffett, a guy who watches patterns and takes advantage of them.

My guess is you hang your hat on ignoring the notion of "that which goes up must continue to go up" being incorrect, which obviously it doesn't continue infinitely (nor has anyone said it does). Of course there are also principles like "those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it" and "never look for crazy profits, but focus on safe and steady returns". Marner doesn't have to improve one iota for his returns from 21 - 25 to yield more than Gaudreau.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

it's about as good of an argument as there is, in a world of only imperfect arguments. It does require a large enough sample size to iron out the anomalies, like gigantic shooting percentages (which is why we know that Elias Pettersson is unlikely to finish his rookie season with 40 goals and 80+pts, for example). It also becomes much less predictive as the age increases, becoming meaningless after about 21 years old

in this case it's worked, we can see that Marner has become what he projected to be as a rookie. In a direct comparison, Marner's been a better offensive player in the last year despite less opportunity to be that, and is a much better two way player. Right now, Marner is a better player than Gaudreau, so that doesn't take any projection. And that's not to take anything away from Gaudreau, they're both in the top handful of wingers in the league


I think you mistook my meaning - Marner has 4 more years of prime than Gaudreau does by virtue of being 4 years younger, assuming they both peak until the same age

Sorry. It’s a terrible argument when comparing players to Gaudreau who didn’t take typical career development paths.
It’s predictive value is close to zero.
It’s like people who misuse cherry picked stats around here to compare players.
It just goes to show how far some people will go to support their choice of their home teams player.
You can make a good argument for Marner but this isn’t it. Two equal players but one is younger.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Sorry. It’s a terrible argument when comparing players to Gaudreau who didn’t take typical career development paths.
It’s predictive value is close to zero.
It’s like people who misuse cherry picked stats around here to compare players.
It just goes to show how far some people will go to support their choice of their home teams player.
You can make a good argument for Marner but this isn’t it. Two equal players but one is younger.

Equal perhaps offensively.

 

[Randy Randerson]

Sorry. It’s a terrible argument when comparing players to Gaudreau who didn’t take typical career development paths.
It’s predictive value is close to zero.
It’s like people who misuse cherry picked stats around here to compare players.
It just goes to show how far some people will go to support their choice of their home teams player.
You can make a good argument for Marner but this isn’t it. Two equal players but one is younger.

The prediction in this case wasn't for what Gaudreau would become, it was for what Marner would become in relation to what Gaudreau was at the time of Marner's rookie season, and what Gaudreau really hasn't improved greatly from (it's a pretty good plateau, don't get me wrong). The predictive value in this case ended up being extremely high being that Marner (literally by your own admission in this post) has become a Gaudreau level player

Now, there's lots of evidence that Marner is the better player at this point in time including offensively, being that he's produced at a near identical rate with less opportunity and slightly inferior linemates while being a much superior two way player, but I wouldn't put them on different tiers either

I see Monahan as a 2C. Extremely one dimensional but he's excellent in that dimension. He really can't do much on his own. Meanwhile Tavares can very much create on his own - and has actually been known to make 3rd liners look like first liners.

I think he's a back end 1C in the context of where he ranks on the list of NHL centers, a #20-30 overall. And the Tavares comparison was a stylistic one, Tavares is better at everything but his best talent is the same as Monahan's best talent - finishing from within 20 feet

I would say it's only part of the consideration, not something to base an argument on. It's one thing when the younger player is projected to be much better, it's another when the established player is already roughly as good as the younger player is projected to be. This is the same argument that led to Finnish/Jets fans hilariously claiming Laine was going to be better than Ovechkin, despite having nowhere near the skating ability or overall offensive skillset. Evaluating skillsets is just as important, and I don't see Marner taking it to another level than where he's at now (which is similar to Gaudreau and could go either way) unless he somehow develops a killer shot. I would say being better earlier likely means a better career, as it would suggest a longer prime, but I think most signs point to them being comparable players through their primes

there's a risk vs reward if you were talking trade value for sure and I'd agree that its not a single factor consideration. The projection isn't from where Marner is now, it was from where Marner was as a rookie, and all signs pointed to the Gaudreau tier which has come true. I could see some improvement but I also wouldn't be surprised for him to stay around where he is either as a 85-100pt regular

When the Jets fans did that with Laine, they also conveniently overlooked his mid-high 20's shooting %, it's the same as what's happening with Pettersson right now. That stuff catches up and the luck evapourates, sometimes quickly like it did with Laine