Toronto has scored 11PPGs since Marner injury

[Dekes For Days]

Doesn't the fact were including Theo Fleury and pre salary cap Daniel Sedin to validate/excuse the 0 PPG, show exactly how rare it is?

Well, nobody argued that it wasn't rare. It's just not the unprecedented disaster that some people like to represent it as. For the record, some of those were recent, and that wasn't the whole list. That's just a handful of notable names that I plucked off the list, to show that it can even happen to really good players and PP players.

Also looks, after a quick glance, that a lot of these guys were 1 PPG in a year, then bounced back

Well, isn't that kind of the point? They bounce back, and the numbers tend to normalize over the longer-term. So let's not make knee-jerk reactions because of a cold streak in one aspect of play while ignoring the majority of their impact and everything else they bring.

while we know Marner is around 100+ Games without a PPG. Likely more if you include playoffs.

It's less than 100 games if we're not already including playoffs. And many of these streaks for other players would have stretched beyond that individual season too. It's not like they scored a PP goal at game 82 of the previous season and game 1 of the next season. It's just not all that simple to search for stretches that extend within partial seasons.

Similarly, if we were to look at Marner in the future, we wouldn't easily identify a 90-something game stretch. Marner scored a well-above-average-for-him 6 goals in 40 games prior to this stretch, so 2019-2020 wouldn't be looked back at as some PP goal-scoring failure. He'll probably score some PP goals this year at some point as well, and so it's unlikely 2021-2022 will be looked back on as some PP goal-scoring failure either. So by seasonal standards, we'd likely just look back and see the 54 game season outlier where the team's PP struggled as a whole for a significant portion.

Then there's another huge chunk that we simply need to consider Marner a level above.

Is Marner a better player overall than many of these other players? Yes. Is Marner a better PP goal scorer than many of these other players? No, so why would he be held to a different standard when it comes to specifically PP goal scoring? In fact, it took a greater deviation from their average for many of these other players to hit these kind of stretches.

 

[Dekes For Days]

The numbers I have used have been complete full sample numbers.

No they haven't. You've picked out specific samples that you want, picked out certain types of production, picked out specific types of PPs, dismissed metrics, etc. You're not looking at the complete picture. And that's not even counting the numbers you've flat-out gotten wrong.

And now you're feigning outrage because among other rankings, I included a clearly labelled ranking that uses a sample to show how the numbers have been affected by the hot streak over the past couple weeks, in order to specifically address your claims about the unit when they're together, and the amount of emphasis that you're putting on the hot streak.

Marner has benefitted from many similar hot streaks during the samples where he played.

Well yeah, but so did the others. Not really the same circumstance.

Assuming you agree - then why would we want to give the MOST touches on the PP to a guy who hasn't scored a PP goal in 109gms and has the lowest primary point production on the unit by a good margin? Why would that guy be the one getting the most puck?

I mean, it's pretty simple, and I've already explained it multiple times now. Ideally, they're all moving around and getting some touches, but you want your best playmaker touching the puck more than your goal-scorers so that they can... (the suspense!)... make plays. You want your best passer to have the puck so they can open up space and distribute the puck. You want your best goal-scorers to have an opportunity to move around, get behind defenses and open, instead of having the entire PK and goalie staring at and smothering them.

Look i get it that a bunch of posters here are letting anti-Marner hate cloud their judgement and pretending he's hurting the team out there and it's dumb and annoying. I agree with you that their arguments are dumb and annoying.

But I still think there us a very real argument here that Mitch has too big a role on the PP given the other elite options on the unit, all of whom are legit snipers and a threat to score from anywhere the moment they get a bit of space. And I think there's a chance Mitch could benefit greatly from lowering his touches, getting in closer to the net, and benefitting from the room created by the others handling the puck a bit more.

Probably should have stuck with this as your original response, and we likely wouldn't have had this big, long discussion.

 

[Dreakmur]

I mean, it's pretty simple, and I've already explained it multiple times now. Ideally, they're all moving around and getting some touches, but you want your best playmaker touching the puck more than your goal-scorers so that they can... (the suspense!)... make plays. You want your best passer to have the puck so they can open up space and distribute the puck. You want your best goal-scorers to have an opportunity to move around, get behind defenses and open, instead of having the entire PK and goalie staring at and smothering them.

The problem is Marner’s ego. He wants to be a goal scorer, so he doesn’t make good plays on the PP.

 

[Dekes For Days]

The problem is Marner’s ego. He wants to be a goal scorer, so he doesn’t make good plays on the PP.

Lol. That's just flat-out not true. I can only assume you're joking?

 

[Dreakmur]

Lol. That's just flat-out not true. I can only assume you're joking?

It’s flat out what happens when you watch the game instead of read bar graphs.

 

[Dekes For Days]

It’s flat out what happens when you watch the game instead of read bar graphs.

Bar graphs...? I've watched every game, and your claim is hilariously incorrect.

 

[Dreakmur]

Bar graphs...? I've watched every game, and your claim is hilariously incorrect.

Just coincidence that the PP works better without him….

 

[Dekes For Days]

Just coincidence that the PP works better without him….

It doesn't, and that's a different argument than the claim in your previous post anyway.

 

[Gallagbi]

Well, isn't that kind of the point? They bounce back, and the numbers tend to normalize over the longer-term. So let's not make knee-jerk reactions because of a cold streak in one aspect of play while ignoring the majority of their impact and everything else they bring.

...but we havent seen that bounce back. He had a cold streak pre Covid to end the year. Continued it over a shortened season, then started this season cold again.

It's less than 100 games if we're not already including playoffs. And many of these streaks for other players would have stretched beyond that individual season too. It's not like they scored a PP goal at game 82 of the previous season and game 1 of the next season. It's just not all that simple to search for stretches that extend within partial seasons.

I've got it over the final 20 games of 2020 and both 2021 seasons. Some of that's off the top of my head, so give me a little leeway. You can check math but I'm sure we're approaching 100 games.

While I do acknowledge and agree the others wouldn't have scored a PPG at 82/1, many on your list didn't go a full season without a PPG because you increased the limits to 1 PPG (which MitCh hasn't scored.)

Is Marner a better player overall than many of these other players? Yes. Is Marner a better PP goal scorer than many of these other players? No, so why would he be held to a different standard when it comes to specifically PP goal scoring? In fact, it took a greater deviation from their average for many of these other players to hit these kind of stretches.

Honestly if we don't consider him a more potent scorer than 7 goal Joe Thornton there's a problem. Getzlaf also had me pausing personally as well off the top of my head.

Now to be clear, I wouldn't yank him off the top unit. It'd screw up the lines too much IMO and he can play a productive role on it. I would decrease his amount of touches and likely keep Nylander up top with Matthews while also having Marner gain the zone less often.

 

[Dekes For Days]

...but we havent seen that bounce back.

Well, yeah, because unlike all of the others, we're talking about it while it's still active. Why is the expectation that we won't see that bounce back like everybody else? And why should we ignore everything else he brings in the meantime?

Continued it over a full season

A full shortened season, to be clear.

I while I do acknowledge and agree the others wouldn't have scored a PPG at 82/1, many on your list didn't go a full season without a PPG because you increased the limits to 1 PPG (which Mitxh hasn't scored.

There were some 0 PPG seasons, and what is the meaningful difference between 0 and 1 PP goals anyway? This is about showing how PP goal-scoring can significantly dry up over stretches, even for some really good players - not about perfectly replicating Marner's exact experience.

Honestly if we don't consider him a more potent scorer than 7 goal Joe Thornton there's a problem.

He's a more potent scorer and producer than that, and a better player, but again, we're talking about exclusively PP goal-scoring, which is not a significant part of the overall value that he brings. So why is he being held to a different PP goal-scoring standard in a discussion about PP goal-scoring because of things that aren't PP goal-scoring? As I noted, many on the list required a greater deviation from their average to have a stretch like that.

 

[zeke]

No they haven't. You've picked out specific samples that you want, picked out certain types of production, picked out specific types of PPs, dismissed metrics, etc. You're not looking at the complete picture. And that's not even counting the numbers you've flat-out gotten wrong.

You really have to stop lying. You're better than this.

I have broken down total PP and 5v4 numbers and primary numbers for all the players, and the team numbers with and without Marner. There is literally nothing cherry picked.

You, on the other hand, literally threw out numbers that went against your argument. That is the definition of cherry picking.

And now you're feigning outrage because among other rankings, I included a clearly labelled ranking that uses a sample to show how the numbers have been affected by the hot streak over the past couple weeks, in order to specifically address your claims about the unit when they're together, and the amount of emphasis that you're putting on the hot streak.

There's no outrage, feigned or otherwise. It's just funny that you literally threw away numbers that went against your argument WHILE you were accusing others of cherry picking.

Well yeah, but so did the others. Not really the same circumstance.

All the players have spent time on and off the top PP. They've all experienced hot and cold streaks. None of that is an excuse to throw out samples you don't like.

Especially when, as shown, even when we look just at xgf the PP has remained elite both times Mitch has been injured.

I mean, it's pretty simple, and I've already explained it multiple times now. Ideally, they're all moving around and getting some touches, but you want your best playmaker touching the puck more than your goal-scorers so that they can... (the suspense!)... make plays. You want your best passer to have the puck so they can open up space and distribute the puck. You want your best goal-scorers to have an opportunity to move around, get behind defenses and open, instead of having the entire PK and goalie staring at and smothering them.

Just stating that he is the "best playmaker" doesn't really mean anything tho.

And even if he is the "best playmaker", that doesn't actually mean that he should get the most touches anyways. It's an easy argument to make that the guys with the more versatile combination of shot and pass threats should get more touches than a guy that is solely a pass threat.

Probably should have stuck with this as your original response, and we likely wouldn't have had this big, long discussion.

You should probably re-read my original response and your response to it.

 

[zeke]

I've got it over the final 20 games of 2020 and both 2021 seasons. Some of that's off the top of my head, so give me a little leeway. You can check math but I'm sure we're approaching 100 games.

97 regular season games plus 12 playoffs games. 109gms total.

 

[Gallagbi]

Well, yeah, because unlike all of the others, we're talking about it while it's still active. Why is the expectation that we won't see that bounce back like everybody else? And why should we ignore everything else he brings in the meantime?

I think the big concern is that it is still ongoing around the 100 game mark. I don't think I am ignoring everything else he brings either.

A full shortened season, to be clear.

There were some 0 PPG seasons, and what is the meaningful difference between 0 and 1 PP goals anyway? This is about showing how PP goal-scoring can significantly dry up over stretches, even for some really good players - not about perfectly replicating Marner's exact experience.

But these dry ups don't seem common or arguably applicable to Marner in a lot of the cases. Surely you can see why 0 PPG over 97 (or 109 games including playoffs) is a concern and frustrating.

He's a more potent scorer and producer than that, and a better player, but again, we're talking about exclusively PP goal-scoring, which is not a significant part of the overall value that he brings. So why is he being held to a different PP goal-scoring standard in a discussion about PP goal-scoring because of things that aren't PP goal-scoring? As I noted, many on the list required a greater deviation from their average to have a stretch like that.

He's not being held to a different standard. He's being questioned for a 100 game PPG drought while getting heavy PP time. You've actually gone back to a different Era of hockey and even increased the sample of scoring to change the standard.

Maybe this will shift the discussion - do you think it's concerning that a player who was scoring around 6 PPG in a full season has now gone 110 games (playoffs included) without a PPG? Would you not consider this an abnormally long dry spell?

 

[zeke]

Let me just break down the full 5v4 PP numbers over the last 3yrs again:

Note that this is still a kind sample to Mitch as his play has steadily declined over this sample.


Evolving-hockey.com:

(Forwards with 100+ min)

Matthews 434.85, 27 gl, 9a1, 8a2, 36 p1, 44 p
Marner 396.68, 3 gl, 19 a1, 16 a2, 21 p1, 38 p
Tavares 385.85, 16 gl, 14 a1, 8 p2, 30 p1, 38 p
Nylander 376.29, 17 gl, 11 a1, 10 p2, 28 p1, 38 p
Spezza 178.12, 6 gl, 10 a1, 3 a2, 16 p1, 19 p
Hyman 114.46, 6 gl, 0 a1, 4 a2, 6 p1, 10 p
Kerfoot 118.00, 1 gl, 0 a1, 4 a2, 1 p1, 5 p

P/60

1. Spezza 6.40
2. Matthews 6.07
3. Nylander 6.06
4. Tavarws 5.91
5. Marner 5.75
6. Hyman 5.14
7. Kerfoot 2.54

P1/60

1. Spezza 5.39
2. Matthews 4.97
3. Tavares 4.67
4. Nylander 4.47
5. Marner 3.33
6. Hyman 3.09
7. Kerfoot 2.54

GF/60

1. Tavares 10.32 (16.28 oish%)
2. Nylander 9.49 (15.21 oish%)
3. Marner 8.98 (14.33 oish%)
4. Matthews 8.97 (14.64 oish%)
5. Spezza 7.17 (12.45 oish%)
6. Hyman 6.73 (13.82 oish%)
7. Kerfoot 6.67 (13.48 oish%)

Xgf/60

1. Tavares 8.60
2. Nylander 8.51
3. Marner 8.38
4. Matthews 8.10
5. Spezza 7.34
6. Hyman 7.24
7. Kerfoot 6.20


Naturalstattrick.com:

(Forwards with 100+ min)

Matthews 438:40, 27 gl, 9 a1, 8 a2, 36 p1, 44 p
Marner 398:48, 3 gl, 19 a1, 16 a2, 22 p1, 38 p
Tavares 385:51, 16 gl, 13 a1, 8 a2, 29 p1, 37 p
Nylander 378:46, 16 gl, 11 a1, 10 a2, 27 p1, 37 p
Spezza 178:30, 6 gl, 10 a1, 2 a2, 16 p1, 18 p
Hyman 115:46, 6 gl, 0 a1, 4 a2, 6 p1, 10p
Kerfoot 118:13, 1gl, 0 a1, 4 a2, 1 p1, 5 p

P/60

1. Spezza 6.05
2. Matthews 6.02
3. Nylander 5.86
4. Tavares 5.75
5. Marner 5.72
6. Hyman 5.18
7. Kerfoot 2.54

P1/60

1. Spezza 5.38
2. Matthews 4.93
3. Tavares 4.51
4. Nylander 4.28
5. Marner 3.31
6. Hyman 3.11
7. Kerfoot 0.51

GF/60

1. Tavares 10.11 (16.33 oish%)
2. Nylander 9.19 (15.22 oish%)
3. Matthews 8.75 (14.75 oish%)
4. Marner 8.73 (14.25 oish%)
5. Spezza 7.06 (12.50 oish%)
6. Kerfoot 6.60 (13.27 oish%)
7. Hyman 6.22 (13.04 oish%)

Xgf/60

1. Tavares 7.93
2. Marner 7.87
3. Nylander 7.76
4. Matthews 7.55
5. Spezza 6.90
6. Hyman 6.38
7. Kerfoot 6.10

 

[Dekes For Days]

You really have to stop lying.

I haven't lied about a single thing.

There is literally nothing cherry picked.

Then I'm not sure what term you use for picking out and emphasizing specific stretches and samples, types of PPs, types of production, etc. in order to make your arguments, on top of posting incorrect data, making unsupported claims, and flip-flopping on or dismissing metrics.

You, on the other hand, literally threw out numbers that went against your argument.

I didn't throw out anything. I posted both the entirety of the sample and the sample up to Marner's injury, and that additional ranking was included to specifically address the arguments you had been making, not my own.

And even if he is the "best playmaker", that doesn't actually mean that he should get the most touches anyways.

Of course that's what it means. I'm not sure how one could argue otherwise. You asked for an explanation for why this is, I provided a pretty obvious one that is basically just common sense, and your response is essentially just "nah" with no justification.

 

[zeke]

If we look at just this year and last year:

P/60

1. Nylander 7.56
2. Spezza 6.47
3. Matthews 6.36
4. Tavares 5.71
5. Marner 4.88

P1/60

1. Spezza 5.93
2. Matthews 5.30
3. Nylander 4.72
4. Tavares 4.57
5. Marner 2.98

GF/60

1. Nylander 11.22 (15.39 oish%)
2. Tavares 10.71 (15.73 oish%)
3. Matthews 9.33 (14.21 oish%)
4. Marner 8.89 (13.06 oish%)
5. Spezza 7.59 (12.53 oish%

Xgf/60

1. Nylander 10.57
2. Tavares 9.56
3. Marner 9.42
4. Matthews 8.92
5. Spezza 8.14

 

[Dreakmur]

It doesn't, and that's a different argument than the claim in your previous post anyway.

The cause and the effect are not different arguments.

 

[zeke]

I haven't lied about a single thing.

Your claim that I cherry picked data js a blatant lie.

Then I'm not sure what term you use for picking out and emphasizing specific stretches and samples, types of PPs, types of production, etc. in order to make your arguments, on top of posting incorrect data, making unsupported claims, and flip-flopping on or dismissing metrics.

I'm not sure why you think subtracting 2-man advantages is cherry picking, rather than making the comparison more accurate.

I'm not sure why you think looking at the entire sample of how the PP has performed when Mitch has been out of the lineup is cherry picking.

And the other things you mention here are both untrue and wouldn't be cherry picking anyways.

I didn't throw out anything. I posted both the entirety of the sample and the sample up to Marner's injury,

These two sentences are a contradiction.

and that additional ranking was included to specifically address the arguments you had been making, not my own.

Why would you reply to any argument by throwing out a crucial sample?

Of course that's what it means. I'm not sure how one could argue otherwise. You asked for an explanation for why this is, I provided a pretty obvious one that is basically just common sense, and your response is essentially just "nah" with no justification.

It's quite obvious that you would want to get the most touches to the guy with the best combination of shot and pass threats, not the one with the single threat.

You're arguing yourself into silly dead ends now.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I think the big concern is that it is still ongoing around the 100 game mark.

But we just established how these things bounce back and normalize over time. Why is Marner expected to be an exception? What exactly is the belief here - that Marner's shot somehow got worse, and in some way that only affects him on the PP?

But these dry ups don't seem common or arguably applicable to Marner in a lot of the cases.

They're not common, but these type of things do happen. I'm unclear why you believe these other examples of similar things happening are not applicable to Marner.

He's not being held to a different standard.

But he is if comparable PP goal-scoring situations are being dismissed because of things unrelated to the PP goal-scoring proficiency of the players.

You've actually gone back to a different Era of hockey and even increased the sample of scoring to change the standard.

As I noted, the list included players throughout the entire time-frame, including recent years, and included instances of 0 PP goals. But again, what meaningful difference does 1 PP goal over a stretch like this make?

Maybe this will shift the discussion - do you think it's concerning that a player who was scoring around 6 PPG in a full season has now gone 110 games (playoffs included) without a PPG? Would you not consider this an abnormally long dry spell?

It's a fairly long dry spell, but I think freaking out about a streak is distracting from any real discussion, and the issue is that people are using the streak to misrepresent and downplay Marner's overall PP contributions, and make knee-jerk suggestions that are likely to make things worse in the long run.

 

[Dekes For Days]

The cause and the effect are not different arguments.

Except your claim about the cause of an effect that isn't even true is both laughable and unsupported.

 

[Dreakmur]

Except your claim about the cause of an effect that isn't even true is both laughable and unsupported.

Did you get that from a pie chart?

 

[Dekes For Days]

Your claim that I cherry picked data js a blatant lie.

It's very clearly not. Everything I said was true, and it's all there for people to see for themselves.

These two sentences are a contradiction.

Not sure why you believe including both samples in order to specifically address an argument you made is throwing anything out. The split assisted in highlighting how the past couple weeks have impacted the numbers.

It's quite obvious that you would want to get the most touches to the guy with the best combination of shot and pass threats, not the one with the single threat.

This is not a simple shot/pass vs. pass equation; there are varying levels of proficiency in these for each of these players. If you're unwilling to acknowledge something as basic as wanting your playmaker getting more touches than your goal-scorers on a PP, then I'm not sure where we go from here.

 

[Gallagbi]

But we just established how these things bounce back and normalize over time. Why is Marner expected to be an exception? What exactly is the belief here - that Marner's shot somehow got worse, and in some way that only affects him on the PP?

Belief is marners lack of scoring is a concern and that he's looking more lost than normal on the PP over the past 2.5 seasons, which has included a horrific, and rare, scoring slump.

They're not common, but these type of things do happen. I'm unclear why you believe these other examples of similar things happening are not applicable to Marner.

Because the similarities are questionable to the point where you went back to pre cap and included players who scored goals in a Marner being shutout conversation.

But he is if comparable PP goal-scoring situations are being dismissed because of things unrelated to the PP goal-scoring proficiency of the players.

I'd say he's his own best comparable and we clearly see he's in a dramatic slump. Some of the comparables don't really support a slump of this duration given his abilities.

As I noted, the list included players throughout the entire time-frame, including recent years, and included instances of 0 PP goals. But again, what meaningful difference does 1 PP goal over a stretch like this make?

It breaks up a slump. Almost a 100 game slump for Marner.

It's a fairly long dry spell, but I think freaking out about a streak is distracting from any real discussion, and the issue is that people are using the streak to misrepresent and downplay Marner's overall PP contributions, and make knee-jerk suggestions that are likely to make things worse in the long run.

I'd say there is an issue with how much he's handling the puck on our PP and the spots he's in. Given our recent success, and general ability to produce without him QB'ing the PP, it seems logical to shift his role to someone else where he can be productive and less of a focal point.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Because the similarities are questionable to the point where you went back to pre cap and included players who scored goals in a Marner being shutout conversation.

The similarities are not questionable. Most of the examples were post-cap (not sure why that matters anyway?), and goals had a discrepancy ranging from 0 to a maximum of 1. I think you're greatly exaggerating the differences here.

Some of the comparables don't really support a slump of this duration given his abilities.

When you say "given his abilities", what exactly do you mean? Because if it's anything other than his PP goal-scoring abilities, it has no relevance to a discussion about PP goal-scoring. I wouldn't say that Marner's PP goal-scoring abilities are inconsistent with the players referenced. Many were actually superior PP goal-scorers.

It breaks up a slump.

But what relevance does that actually have? Do you think one goal in the middle somewhere there meaningfully changes the discussion?

 

[Golden_Jet]

Move Spezza to PP1 and Marner to PP2.
Spezza has a great shot and is a filthy passer.