Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Mitch Marner, Yet Again

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
Zybalto said:
Over the same timeframe 5v5:

Marner with Matthews: GF%: 62.08
Marner with Tavares: GF%: 58.41
Click to expand...
so around the same with Matthews and Mackinnon but much better without. Marner seems less dependent on matthews vs rantanen was on mackinnon, I guess we will see at Dallas what he is.

Zybalto said:
Also, In the playoffs the last 3 years 5v5:

Marner with Matthews: GF%: 63.13
Marner without Matthews: GF%: 66.82
Matthews without Marner: GF%: 44.65
Click to expand...
Whilst that is good, I wonder what the raw totals of the GF and GA are. I think GF's are probably lower than they should be (for both guys).

From the eye test, marner and matthews give very little up (although sometimes the most critical ones), but they also put little in the net, so whilst it is a positive, and a decent one at that, they just aren't putting the puck in the back of the net together enough to win.

For example: during the Montreal series
Matthews and Marner had a GF% of 75% (3-1), with that one being the first goal against in game 7 off a bad turnover by marner and a terrible goal by campbell

so whilst as a statistic it looks great, but the raw totals show that whilst 1 goal aginast in 7 games is great, 3 goals for is not enough to win, even against the habs
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sundinisagod
DarkKnight said:
Man there goes some narratives.
Click to expand...

Maybe they would be meaningful if expected goals stats were not more or less garbage.

For the record, I’ve been consistent in my criticism of expected goals, not trying to dismiss Marner or deflect anything

I think slapping a percentage down like this in any argument, as positive or negative, is pretty useless as it never really considers any context that leads to the numbers.

This said, Marner being a playmaker first, I would expect his play with others to dip less than Matthews does with others as he had usually played more of a role of being the puck carrier and creating the offense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sundinisagod and LeafEgo
Sypher04 said:
Maybe they would be meaningful if expected goals stats were not more or less garbage.

For the record, I’ve been consistent in my criticism of expected goals, not trying to dismiss Marner or deflect anything

I think slapping a percentage down like this in any argument, as positive or negative, is pretty useless as it never really considers any context that leads to the numbers.
Click to expand...
Sure, but my eye test as always backed up idea Marner makes everyone better no matter which line. That supports it, which is also a main argument for splitting them up, Mitch can drive his own line. Some still cling to this idea he's "carried", but that has quieted somewhat as it looks even more ridiculous. Even wins/losses with each out shows a divergence, so it's interesting to me.
 
DarkKnight said:
Sure, but my eye test as always backed up idea Marner makes everyone better no matter which line. That supports it, which is also a main argument for splitting them up, Mitch can drive his own line. Some still cling to this idea he's "carried", but that has quieted somewhat as it looks even more ridiculous. Even wins/losses with each out shows a divergence, so it's interesting to me.
Click to expand...

Pure playmakers usually tend to have a more material impact on their linemates than goalscorers do I find

I agree he is not being carried. He’s an elite player in his own right and they both should absolutely be carrying their own lines. I actually think since they both lean sooo heavily towards their specialty it makes them too predictable (for lack of a better way of putting it) when together..
 
  • Like
Reactions: DragoGrizzly
Menzinger said:


If this is true, we see a much firmer ceiling placed on salary expectations for Marner. Likely have to adjust for state-provincial taxes gaps to an extent
Click to expand...

Far as I can tell Marner brings in 2M a year on endorsements, while JRob has no major endorsements over in Texas.

We'll see how Ranta is structured but frontloading is generally underappreciated.

I dunno how it all shakes out but even if the playoffs go well it could get contentious, I just don't see how 12 or more can be justified. And if the playoffs go badly it can only get ugly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Menzinger
ToneDog said:
He's gravy IMO. Proven playoff performer who hates to lose. Brad and Matthew will put Mitch in shambles.
Click to expand...
Yup. It’s true, You can even add Bennett and Barkov as well.

It’s funny because my dad actually asked me just now if I was running the Leafs and had the opportunity right now to make 1 final trade before the day is over.

34/16/88/91 for Matthew Tkachuk, Marchand, Bennett and Barkov.

I told him that I would castrate myself and throw that in as well to make the deal more fair. 😂😂😂🤣🤣😂🤣🤣
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sundinisagod and ToneDog
Hellcat said:
Any one with half a brain wouldn't say Marner's ask is ridiculous, when no one knows that his ask actually is.
Click to expand...
If you believe mirtle a deal would have been done if marner accepted the nylander deal plus a bit based on the new cap. Do the math and you can figure out how much he wants. If you believe Kypreis, it is 13.8.
 
Still speculation but I think the truth is starting to rise to the surface.

No typical positive soundbites from mgmt
Tre just tried to sign a second 11M+ RW
The ominous presser last summer
Tre testing a possible trade last summer
Ferris publicly shutting that down

The only other information we have is noise and opinions from pundits. Nothing valuable.

I dont think there was ever going to be a contract offered prior to the playoffs. If the playoffs go well (team and player), I'd expect hard negotiations to recalibrate internal pay.

It is notable however, unless they saw center upside in Ranta, they are amenable to two superstar RWs - at least a specific two anyways.
 
Aashir said:
so around the same with Matthews and Mackinnon but much better without. Marner seems less dependent on matthews vs rantanen was on mackinnon, I guess we will see at Dallas what he is.


Whilst that is good, I wonder what the raw totals of the GF and GA are. I think GF's are probably lower than they should be (for both guys).

From the eye test, marner and matthews give very little up (although sometimes the most critical ones), but they also put little in the net, so whilst it is a positive, and a decent one at that, they just aren't putting the puck in the back of the net together enough to win.

For example: during the Montreal series
Matthews and Marner had a GF% of 75% (3-1), with that one being the first goal against in game 7 off a bad turnover by marner and a terrible goal by campbell

so whilst as a statistic it looks great, but the raw totals show that whilst 1 goal aginast in 7 games is great, 3 goals for is not enough to win, even against the habs
Click to expand...

I hear you on the Habs series and even then the issues of support in the bottom 6 rear their ugly heads. The problems with goal scoring on the Leafs has largely been an issue with its dismal PP combined with brutal support down the lineup.

Here are some on-ice 5v5 playoff numbers over the last 3 playoffs:
Rantanen:
Goals for/60: 3.04
Goals against/60: 2.61

MacKinnon:
Goals for/60: 3.04
Goals against/60: 2.61

Makar:
Goals for/60: 3.32
Goals against/60: 2.68

Barkov:
Goals for/60: 2.84
Goals against/60: 1.79

Reinhart:
Goals for/60: 1.56
Goals against/60: 1.50

Ekblad:
Goals for/60: 2.35
Goals against/60: 1.98

Kucherov:
Goals for/60: 3.05
Goals against/60: 2.04

Point:
Goals for/60: 2.29
Goals against/60: 2.12

Hedman:
Goals for/60: 2.98
Goals against/60: 1.93

Rielly 5v5:
Goals for/60: 3.07
Goals against/60: 1.55

Marner 5v5:
Goals for/60: 3.08
Goals against/60: 1.72

Matthews 5v5:
Goals for/60: 2.81
Goals against/60: 2.06


5v5, these guys really dont look out of place and may even be the best trio 5v5. Notice Marner has the 3rd highest on-ice goals/60 on anyone on the list. The point totals everyone drones on about are absolutely a function of the PP which I really hope is set to the on position for the playoffs. A hot and cold one if there ever was one. Not sure how much blame you wanna case on Marner for that one. For the record, The PP with Marner on it scored at a pretty dismal 6.69 goals/60. PPs without Marner on them were at 3.06 goals/60. Yea, Leafs scored goals at a higher rate with Marner 5v5 the last 3 years than the almost 40 minutes of PP without him on it. God the PP was putrid.

Notice how I took those teams top 2 forwards + their best dman? How well did their supporting cast do?

The entire rest of the team without the top 3 Avs:
Goals for/60: 2.28
Goals against/60: 2.32

The entire rest of the team without the top 3 Cats:
Goals for/60: 2.24
Goals against/60: 2.62

The entire rest of the team without the top 3 Bolts:
Goals for/60: 1.89
Goals against/60: 2.53

The entire rest of the team without the top 3 Leafs:
Goals for/60: 1.57
Goals against/60: 3.14

While there is a dropoff from the top guys, no team has been more putrid than the Leafs by a longshot. It's been a tradition during the Matthews era. Kapanen, Engvall, Mikheyev, Johnsson, Kampf, etc. etc. These guys somehow earn huge raises after failing so hard too.

We can be hard on Marner with the lopsided games "games 5-7" stuff but at least he's a guy that came through in big games in the playoffs at various points. I really do think weak goaltending and a dismal supporting cast are waaaay bigger reasons we are where we are, and I dont think the cap is a big reason why. We just chose the wrong soldiers to go into battle with really. Tons of other successful teams targeted cheap key players that saved their butts in the playoffs in crucial moments. Ours got run over.

With Stolarz having similar numbers to Helle this year and a revamped bottom 6, things could definitely change for the better. Are Laughton, Stolarz, Tanev, Carlo, OEL, Lorentz and McMann (who got injured just before last playoffs) gonna move the needle for this team? I'm fine with the numbers from those 3 main guys (outside of the PP). Feels like AHLers could do better than the rest at 5v5 play than we have gotten the last 3 years. So, yea, I think the new guys will be better. How could they not?
 
Last edited:
mikeyz said:
Click to expand...


Sportsnet's Nick Kypreos revealed that the Leafs had the best offer on the table to acquire​

1741402821081.png


1741402859557.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Menzinger and arso40
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom