How exactly are you providing “proper context” when the scope of your analysis focuses more and more narrowly on favorable 5 on 5 categories, isolates regular season from post season, completely ignores awards and championships won by others, contractual trends acrosss the league and doesn’t make any mention or reference to on ice play, behavioural traits common to hockey chat?
Not really sure what you're talking about. The scope of my analysis involves most accurately evaluating the quality of the players, the overall impact they provide, the way contract valuations are formed, the things that impact contracts and how, and then look at our players and contracts relative to the rest of the league to see how they compare, while considering any additional context and circumstances that may be relevant along the way.
I take a multi-year sample to cut down on statistical noise and look at a number of things - What game states do they play in? How much do they produce in those game states? How much do they play in those game states, why, and how does that impact their production? What are their linemates, and are they the secondary beneficiary of a bigger producer? What age is that production happening in? What ages are they signing through? Which kind of contract is it? What term is the contract? What defensive impact do they provide? What PKing or additional impacts do they provide? Etc., etc.
Unfortunately, some people have gotten it into their heads that raw points with zero context is all that matters for contracts. Nothing else. If somebody hits a certain peak total, they are suddenly X point player, and all X point players make exactly the same, no matter what. Never mind that that method, with its abundance of issues, doesn't correlate with contracts in the slightest. And then to determine how much these X point players should make, the most favourable contract by raw points is chosen to become the standard. If our player's raw points don't match them, then they are instantly
unprecedented dramatic overpayments and are deemed
unacceptable. If they do match them, then the sample is shrunk massively and we switch to playoff points, which is even more problematic than regular season points when taken without context. This is the ridiculous method and narrative that has permeated this board for years., and literally none of it is true, or how contracts work. It has led to a lot of people advocating for the team to take self-destructive pathways, and worse, it has led to a lot of people spreading false and slanderous claims about them not only as players, but as human beings. We call ourselves the best fanbase in the world and this is how we treat some of the best players that will ever put on the jersey? People calling them soft greedy pigs that don't try or care about winning. It's sickening, and quite frankly, really disruptive to productive discussion on this board.
Raw production has its uses as a fun thing for fans and in many cases, a good approximation of player offensive impact given a big enough sample size, but it is far from a perfect stat, and there are situations where it does not accurately reflect offensive impact and quality. Acknowledging that isn't the blasphemy you treat it as.
I'm not sure why you think 5v5 is "favourable" to our players, or why you think that's all that was focused on when my initial response to you literally included PP and PK as well.
I'm not sure why you think "contractual trends across the league" isn't being considered when we're literally comparing contracts across the league.
I'm not sure why you think there's no "mention or reference to on ice play" when that's... literally what all of this is. Their play on the ice. Like what?
I'm not sure what you even mean by "behavioural traits" or why you think that's relevant.
I haven't ignored awards and championships. You're just trying to award bonus points to INDIVIDUALS because of a TEAM accomplishment their TEAM had. While I'm sure you could go through the list of players that have signed in the cap era and pick out a handful that got overpaid after winning a cup, as they then meant more to a team in a business sense and the immediate winning concerns had been satisfied, but players don't get less money because their team hasn't won a cup, and when people point to X player that has a cup as a comparable, they are often pointing to individuals who did not receive any kind of cup compensation.
As for playoff production, there's really zero evidence that it impacts contracts. Teams experience such drastically different circumstances in the playoffs in such a small sample, that while we as fans may put massive importance on it, the value and information we can get from it especially when comparing across teams is so much more limited. And some players don't have playoff production to point to in the first place, because of their team. Playoff production requires massive amounts of context to have any representative value, but most people that point to it just default to more points = better playoff performer (unless Marner has more points than somebody - then nevermind), without actually considering what led to more points and whether that had more to do with individual or the opponent.
I've gone more into depth with contracts than probably everybody on this board, and I've been very open, and explained and substantiated everything along the way, so I'm not sure how you could think the scope of my analysis is "narrow", especially relative to what you and most of the rest of this board is doing.
We have some amazing players, whether you wish to acknowledge their quality or not, and they're going to be paid relative to their quality and impact, just like everybody before them. And they're going to deserve it, and barring some catastrophe, earn it. It can either be here to improve our team, or it will be somewhere else. Personally, I sure prefer helping my team, even if it's not the unrealistic, unprecedented super discount that we as fans dream of.
