Toronto has scored 11PPGs since Marner injury

[Gallagbi]

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

Yes, I think scoring goals impacts a discussion on goal scoring. Is the difference between 0 and 1 monumental? Nah, but I'm betting very few on that list have gone 97 regular season games, and 109 including playoffs, without a PPG. In fact we know that because the sample wouldn't have needed adjusting if a good amount were 0 goal scorer over a full season.

Given his abilities references his past PPG scoring. I wouldn't say precap Sedin was a good comparable, same with Thornton at his age. You voted argue Getzlaf isn't a similar scoring threat either. Both Thornton and Getzlaf had slumps right around their PPG dropping on a regular basis. Same with H. Sedin.

And yes, I'd sat those specific comparables who didn't go through 0 goal droughts near that 100 game mark isn't similar.

 

[thusk]

For me the problem is not having or not marner on pp1. I don't want to see marner at blue line, i think leafs will be more dangerous with nylander rielly and matthews at blue line, jt on the slot and marner close to the net/ behind for quick pass.

Nylander has a strong shot and can make you pay to give him too many space and it whats marner or rielly can't do

 

[Dekes For Days]

Yes, I think scoring goals impacts a discussion on goal scoring. Is the difference between 0 and 1 monumental? Nah, but I'm betting very few on that list have gone 97 regular season games, and 109 including playoffs, without a PPG. In fact we know that because the sample wouldn't have needed adjusting if a good amount were 0 goal scorer over a full season.

Given his abilities references his past PPG scoring. I wouldn't say precap Sedin was a good comparable, same with Thornton at his age. You voted argue Getzlaf isn't a similar scoring threat either.

Again, you're getting caught up on the specific streak and minor discrepancies that don't really make a difference. We're talking about a potential difference of 1 goal, at most, over a ~100 game stretch. Comparable does not mean exact copy in every possible way.

For the record, if we were having normal 82-game seasons, it's very possible we wouldn't have seen a 0 PP goal season for Marner either. Even when still including all of his injuries, the 2019-2020 season would have been 12 games longer, he would have ended with 6 PP goals, and we wouldn't yet be finished the next 82-game season.

This list was provided to show how dry spells happen with PP goals, even for really good players and PP players, and it does exactly that. Most of those players saw greater deviations from their average to hit even 1 PP goal over a stretch like that. You've repeatedly picked at a couple of the names, but I posted 14, and that was just some notable names taken from a much longer list.

To be clear, Marner has averaged 4.5 PP goals per 82 over his career. If we just take his first 4 seasons as a gauge for his PP goal-scoring abilities outside of this dry spell, it was around 5.75. Since you're referencing pre-cap, I assume you're talking about Daniel Sedin, so let's look at these 3 supposedly incomparable players that you've picked out of the bigger list and their PP goal average per 82 over both their careers and leading up to this stretch...

D Sedin, career: 8.66
D Sedin, preceding 3 seasons: 6.33

Thornton, career: 7.00
Thornton, preceding 3 seasons: 4.75

Getzlaf, career: 6.18
Getzlaf, preceding 3 seasons: 5.40

As we can see, no reason to think these players, or any of the many others, can't be comparables for this one specific aspect of play.

We'd all like to see Marner score some PP goals, but you don't need to be a big PP goal-scorer to be a valuable and effective PP player. Every indication is that he will bounce back like pretty much everybody else that has had something similar happen, but in the meantime, I'm not sure how people exaggerating the rarity of dry spells like this and ignoring the majority of what he brings to a PP is beneficial to any productive conversation.

 

[Dekes For Days]

i think leafs will be more dangerous with nylander rielly and matthews at blue line, jt on the slot and marner close to the net/ behind for quick pass.

I'd like to see this set-up tried out for a decent sample as well. I feel like we underutilize behind the net.

 

[zeke]

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

All you have done is continued to post the words "cherry pick" without showing a single example of it.

But you're right - everything is there for everyone to see for themselves.

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.

There is no reason to remove the "past couple weeks" - removing it because the PP is hot without marner is the definition of cherry picking to support your argument.

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.

A shot+pass evaluation is actually much more nuanced and complete than your extremely simple "best playmaker" claim. Weird that you would pretend otherwise.

 

[Golden_Jet]

All you have done is continued to post the words "cherry pick" without showing a single example of it.

But you're right - everything is there for everyone to see for themselves.



There is no reason to remove the "past couple weeks" - removing it because the PP is hot without marner is the definition of cherry picking to support your argument.




A shot+pass evaluation is actually much more nuanced and complete than your extremely simple "best playmaker" claim. Weird that you would pretend otherwise.

You’re right , but you’ll never win,
take Marner off, and put Spezza there, at least he brings a great shot and great passing to the table.

 

[zeke]

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

If we include 1-goal streaks then Marner has 1 pp goal in his last 119gms.


Over the past 3 seasons, the only forward that has been a full time member of a top PP unit that has a worse 5v4 PP g/60 than Marner is Jonathan Toews.

 

[RoadWarrior]

Marner is often slow to make decisions with the puck on the PP. Almost like he has too much time to work with.

They key to success is fast puck movement, net front presence and multiple dangerous shooters.

He should be used on the second unit only and work from the side boards.

 

[zeke]

You’re right , but you’ll never win,
take Marner off, and put Spezza there, at least he brings a great shot and great passing to the table.

I don't even think Marner has to come off. And ongterm he has to be on the top pp unit.

I just think he needs to change the way he thinks his role out there is. But if he needs to come off the unit for a bit in order to be willing to make some adjustments then maybe it could be a good thing, given our PP will likely be able to produce anyways.

 

[Dekes For Days]

All you have done is continued to post the words "cherry pick" without showing a single example of it.

I've shown multiple examples multiple times now. You've just dismissed it all and/or made excuses for it, and refuse to acknowledge that the things you're accusing others of, you're actually doing yourself. Except worse, because instead of, for example, daring to include both the full samples and an additional ranking using a clearly defined sample in order to specifically address an argument that was made and make a specific point, you're picking things out to draw broad conclusions about Marner and our PP.

There is no reason to remove the "past couple weeks"

Except there absolutely was a reason to look at that sample as well. You had repeatedly suggested that this wasn't about overemphasizing the past couple weeks, but this sample helps us see that it is about overemphasizing the past couple weeks - where everybody you included except Marner had a chance to benefit production-wise from a hot streak that was very clearly way more random chance and external factors than any significant change in how our PP performed.

Maybe what we're learning from this is that we have a unique abundance of great PP forwards, and that if we're going to stubbornly force the top unit to only get half of a PP anyway, we shouldn't be stacking all the time. But regardless of what we do, you're still going to want Marner to get a ton of touches, and this talk of singling out and demoting Marner because he sucks at the PP now and he's single-handedly destroying it is a bunch of garbage.

A shot+pass evaluation is actually much more nuanced and complete than your extremely simple "best playmaker" claim.

In case you missed it, I was the one suggesting a more nuanced evaluation of playmaking and goal-scoring proficiency on the PP, as opposed to your suggestion that it was a simple pass vs. pass/shot equation. Regardless, none of this changes the fact that you're always going to want your playmaker role on your PP getting more touches than your goal-scorers as a mere function of the role.

 

[zeke]

I've shown multiple examples multiple times now. You've just dismissed it all and/or made excuses for it, and refuse to acknowledge that the things you're accusing others of, you're actually doing yourself. Except worse, because instead of, for example, daring to include both the full samples and an additional ranking using a clearly defined sample in order to specifically address an argument that was made and make a specific point, you're picking things out to draw broad conclusions about Marner and our PP.

You tried to claim comparing only 5v4 data was cherry picking, when it clearly wasn't.

You tried to claim that using all samples without marner was cherry picking, when it wasn't.

Except there absolutely was a reason to look at that sample as well. You had repeatedly suggested that this wasn't about overemphasizing the past couple weeks, but this sample helps us see that it is about overemphasizing the past couple weeks - where everybody you included except Marner had a chance to benefit production-wise from a hot streak that was very clearly way more random chance and external factors than any significant change in how our PP performed.

Wait - you actually think there was no reason not to look at all the data? Is it possible you don't even realize what you're doing here? You can't just claim "hot/cold streak!" to throw out data to make your arguments look better. That's the definition of cherry picking.

Maybe what we're learning from this is that we have a unique abundance of great PP forwards, and that if we're going to stubbornly force the top unit to only get half of a PP anyway, we shouldn't be stacking all the time. But regardless of what we do, you're still going to want Marner to get a ton of touches, and this talk of singling out and demoting Marner because he sucks at the PP now and he's single-handedly destroying it is a bunch of garbage.

Yes we do have an abundance of elite players and no Marner doesn't suck.

In case you missed it, I was the one suggesting a more nuanced evaluation of playmaking and goal-scoring proficiency on the PP, as opposed to your suggestion that it was a simple pass vs. pass/shot equation. Regardless, none of this changes the fact that you're always going to want your playmaker role on your PP getting more touches than your goal-scorers as a mere function of the role.

I don't think you were suggesting that, as your concluding sentence here proves.

And I disagree, being the "best playmaker" (even if that is true) is not a good enough reason in itself to get the most touches on a PP. The PP would be better off if players that were both great shooters and playmakers touched the puck more than someone who is just a great playmaker. Your PP is better off with fewer distinct roles at all, to be honest - it's best when everyone is as interchangeable a threat as everyone else.

 

[Dekes For Days]

You tried to claim comparing only 5v4 data was cherry picking, when it clearly wasn't.
You tried to claim that using all samples without marner was cherry picking, when it wasn't.

Both picking out types of PPs and specific small samples are examples of cherry picking. Now, you may believe that you are justified in doing so, but that doesn't change what it is, and while there may be information we can obtain by doing so, drawing broad conclusions from this limited information, taken without context, is highly problematic.

Wait - you actually think there was no reason not to look at all the data?

You're using double negatives here, so it's a bit difficult to understand what you're trying to say, but nowhere did I suggest not looking at data. In fact, you're the one who is up in arms because I included additional data on top of all the other posted data, in order to address a specific argument where the sample used was relevant. This has been explained multiple times now - I'd appreciate if you'd stop the misrepresentations.

I don't think you were suggesting that

I quite literally was. From post #197:
"This is not a simple shot/pass vs. pass equation; there are varying levels of proficiency in these for each of these players."
As opposed to your ridiculously simplistic take of "great shooter and playmaker" vs. "just a great playmaker".

 

[keonsbitterness]

Marner is often slow to make decisions with the puck on the PP. Almost like he has too much time to work with.

They key to success is fast puck movement, net front presence and multiple dangerous shooters.

He should be used on the second unit only and work from the side boards.

Marner and Rielly both tend to be deliberate and they're both pass-first guys who aren't major shot threats. Makes defending our PP easier. I'd separate them. Rotate them between PP1 and PP2 if massaging egos is a concern (and it usually is).

 

[zeke]

Marner and Rielly both tend to be deliberate and they're both pass-first guys who aren't major shot threats. Makes defending our PP easier. I'd separate them. Rotate them between PP1 and PP2 if massaging egos is a concern (and it usually is).

Mo actually provides a nice contrast as a guy who also isn't much of a shot threat - what Mo does is move the puck quickly and makes sure it never sticks. He doesn't hold the puck indefinitely trying to fake out the defense from distance. Would be better if Mo was a big shot threat of course but he makes himself effective by keeping the puck moving and also being very good at holding and walking the line.

 

[zeke]

Both picking out types of PPs and specific small samples are examples of cherry picking. Now, you may believe that you are justified in doing so, but that doesn't change what it is, and while there may be information we can obtain by doing so, drawing broad conclusions from this limited information, taken without context, is highly problematic.

This has nothing to do with belief.

Comparing 5v4 to 5v4 is merely accurate, not cherry picking. 2 man advantages are as different from 1 man advantages as 1 man advantages are from even strength play. You insisting on including 2 man advantages when Marner gets all of those minutes only makes it seem like you have an agenda.

Similarly, looking at the entire sample of games that Mitch was out of the lineup is also not cherry picking. It is the entire sample we have with him off the top PP unit. This is important to a discussion of him on the PP. As for broad conclusions, I never drew any.

You're using double negatives here, so it's a bit difficult to understand what you're trying to say, but nowhere did I suggest not looking at data. In fact, you're the one who is up in arms because I included additional data on top of all the other posted data, in order to address a specific argument where the sample used was relevant. This has been explained multiple times now - I'd appreciate if you'd stop the misrepresentations.

You quite literally posted numbers that simply eliminated the most recent PP sample we have without Mitch, by calling it a "hot streak". This is blatant cherry picking that only misleads yourself.

I quite literally was. From post #197:
"This is not a simple shot/pass vs. pass equation; there are varying levels of proficiency in these for each of these players."
As opposed to your ridiculously simplistic take of "great shooter and playmaker" vs. "just a great playmaker".

Yes you claim you want more nuanced but keep repeating "best playmaker should get the most touches", undermining your own claim. And obviously an analysis which includes both shooting and playmaking skill is more nuanced than one that just looks at playmaking.


If you actually want a more nuanced discussion, then good....

IMO the most dangerous PPs are those in which every player is interchangeable and a threat from most anywhere. A PP where the puck is always moving and the players are always moving. A PP where the defense and goalie are always guessing.

IMO we have the personnel to do this better than most anyone, with three guys in Matthews Tavares Nylander who are both elite shooters and elite playmakers, and 2 more elite playmakers in Mo and Mitch.

IMO our PP gets bogged down and predictable too often - and much of that I think centers around the puck getting stuck in a spot where Mitch isn't much of a goal threat, which leaves the other guys stuck waiting in their spots and the defense and goalie expecting and ready for the pass.

The thing is we have so many options to try. IMO the guy that gets most underused out there is Willy, when he might be the best dual threat out there AND the best zone entry guy too. If we keep Willy up high in Mitch's usual spot then suddenly we have a shot threat from that zone, AND moving Mitch down into Willy's usually area makes Mitch a shot threat too (Kase has been making great use of this spot with Mitch out). This should open up the ice for everyone, including Mitch, and give him even more opportunity to use his great playmaking to create super duper chances.

IMO we not only need to try an adjustment in roles but also have to get through to Mitch that the PP doesn't run through him. That he can play off the puck on this high powered PP and that it can even make his own play more effective.

And yeah - we have another elite talent dual threat guy in Spezza that is still great on the PP - which gives us the luxury of seeing what the PP might look like with one of the guys taken off, too.

And yes we can point to Marner's xgf impact on the PP - but this can be more misleading on the PP than at even strength. Marner will improve his xgf impact on the PP relative to Matthews and Willy simply by NOT shooting the puck from up high - and Matthews and Willy will lower their xgf impact just by taking those shots even though they are more dangerous. Mitch will improve his xgf impact by passing the puck into Tavares in the slot, but his lack of shot threat allows the defense and goalie to anticipate the pass and leave Tavares with less time and space and the goalie with more time to react. So xgf alone isn't sufficient enough to evaluate PP effectiveness on its own (much different than its usefulness in EV situation) because a PP's effectiveness relies so much more on the slight difference between good chances and golden chances within concentrated ozone-only situations.

 

[Racer88]

After reading all these great posts about Marner and the PP it seems to me that Marner isn’t the worst thing on the PP but he is easily replaced on the PP.
That in itself isn’t total bad but I would expect better from an almost 11 million dollar player…….oh well at least he is good on the PK

 

[Dekes For Days]

This has nothing to do with belief.

It is about belief, because you continue to talk about some of the ways in which you cherry picked, but refuse to acknowledge any of it as such because you feel like you have excuses for it, even as you throw around accusations at others who are not only doing far less, but more importantly, who are doing it for a specific reason to address specific arguments and not taking the same kind of broad conclusions that you are from it.

Comparing 5v4 to 5v4 is merely accurate, not cherry picking.

Removing data points in multiple ways (types of PPs, types of production, etc.) over your chosen sample for something that already relies on so few data points is problematic, and you know this. Especially when most of the players being looked at receive similar time in the PP situations that are being removed, and production distribution is so variable and dependent on role on the PP.

Similarly, looking at the entire sample of games that Mitch was out of the lineup is also not cherry picking. It is the entire sample we have with him off the top PP unit. This is important to a discussion of him on the PP.

Drawing conclusions from tiny samples is similarly problematic, and you've been extremely hypocritical regarding this throughout our discussion.

If we're going to put stock in how the PP has performed with and without certain players in small samples, it should be noted that the combination of our core 4 forwards that has produced the highest GF/60 and xGF/60 over the past few years is the other three with Matthews removed.

And if we're looking honestly at this most recent sample where Marner has been out, we see that the production increase has come from unsustainable shooting percentages driven by external factors and chance, not a significant change in how our PP has set up or performed, or from these claimed "super duper chances" you've brought no evidence of.

You quite literally posted numbers that simply eliminated the most recent PP sample we have without Mitch

In addition to the numbers I posted over your chosen sample, I included additional numbers that looked at how the production was distributed throughout the majority of the sample, in order to address a specific point in response to a specific argument that you had made; not to make any declarations about Marner. I have explained this to you multiple times now. There should be no misunderstanding. Stop misrepresenting what was done.

It's especially baffling that you've taken such exception to my additional inclusion of a 132 game sample for a specific purpose, but don't see the issue with overemphasizing and drawing conclusions from specifically chosen results from a 6-game sample.

I mean, we're only using the sample we are in the first place because the bigger sample made Marner look too good - as if the skills he's used to be consistently elite on the PP over his career just vanished into thin air as he moved into his prime. You refuse to consider the actual reasons and context for the results you're seeing - instead simply defaulting to Marner being ineffective.

Yes you claim you want more nuanced but keep repeating "best playmaker should get the most touches", undermining your own claim.

It doesn't undermine anything. When discussing players, representing them as "great shooter and playmaker" vs. "just a great playmaker" is misleading. All players have certain levels of shooting and playmaking proficiency, and they cannot be boiled down to just "great" or "not great". This type of wording is done to discredit Marner, as you not only suggest that his shot is non-existent instead of just lesser, you also falsely suggest that his playmaking is equal.

As much as you like to pretend that PPs are just about getting in the zone and everybody blasting shots from any and everywhere, that's not how they actually work. While everybody should be open to doing anything depending on the in-game circumstances and how opposing PKs react, there are always players you want to primarily distribute the puck, and there are players that you want to primarily shoot the puck. Preferred initiating and finishing points, and placements and plays are set up around that to allow players to play to their biggest strengths and put them in the best situations to succeed. As a function of the initiating, distribution role on the PP, where you tend to want your best playmaker, they will get a significant number of touches.

IMO our PP gets bogged down and predictable too often - and much of that I think centers around the puck getting stuck in a spot where Mitch isn't much of a goal threat, which leaves the other guys stuck waiting in their spots and the defense and goalie expecting and ready for the pass.

The thing is we have so many options to try. IMO the guy that gets most underused out there is Willy, when he might be the best dual threat out there AND the best zone entry guy too. If we keep Willy up high in Mitch's usual spot then suddenly we have a shot threat from that zone, AND moving Mitch down into Willy's usually area makes Mitch a shot threat too (Kase has been making great use of this spot with Mitch out). This should open up the ice for everyone, including Mitch, and give him even more opportunity to use his great playmaking to create super duper chances.

IMO we not only need to try an adjustment in roles but also have to get through to Mitch that the PP doesn't run through him. That he can play off the puck on this high powered PP and that it can even make his own play more effective.

We're not even far off in the set-ups we'd like to try out (even though the idea that there's something wrong with our current set-up - other than the fact that we stack and then neuter their time - is wildly exaggerated). Unfortunately, your posts have started to drip with this anti-Marner propaganda, and instead of sticking to legitimate conversations of how to best utilize our players, you include these twisted descriptions of what's happening in these scenarios to single out and take digs at Marner for any perceived deficiency in the performance and set up of the PP. They have all had a contributing part in the stretches where the PP goes cold.

 

[DraftSchmaft]

It is about belief, because you continue to talk about some of the ways in which you cherry picked, but refuse to acknowledge any of it as such because you feel like you have excuses for it, even as you throw around accusations at others who are not only doing far less, but more importantly, who are doing it for a specific reason to address specific arguments and not taking the same kind of broad conclusions that you are from it.

Removing data points in multiple ways (types of PPs, types of production, etc.) over your chosen sample for something that already relies on so few data points is problematic, and you know this. Especially when most of the players being looked at receive similar time in the PP situations that are being removed, and production distribution is so dependent on role on the PP.

Drawing conclusions from tiny samples is similarly problematic, and you've been extremely hypocritical regarding this throughout our discussion.

If we're going to put stock in how the PP has performed with and without certain players in small samples, it should be noted that the combination of our core 4 forwards that has produced the highest GF/60 and xGF/60 over the past few years is the other three with Matthews removed.

And if we're looking honestly at this most recent sample where Marner has been out, we see that the production increase has come from unsustainable shooting percentages driven by external factors and chance, not a significant change in how our PP has set up or performed, or from these claimed "super duper chances" you've brought no evidence of.

In addition to the numbers I posted over your chosen sample, I included additional numbers that looked at how the production was distributed throughout the majority of the sample, in order to address a specific point in response to a specific argument that you had made; not to make any declarations about Marner. I have explained this to you multiple times now. There should be no misunderstanding. Stop misrepresenting what was done.

It's especially baffling that you've taken such exception to my additional inclusion of a 132 game sample for a specific purpose, but don't see the issue with overemphasizing and drawing conclusions from specifically chosen results from a 6-game sample.

I mean, we're only using the sample we are in the first place because the bigger sample made Marner look too good - as if the skills he's used to be consistently elite on the PP over his career just vanished into thin air as he moved into his prime. You refuse to consider the actual reasons and context for the results you're seeing - instead simply defaulting to Marner being ineffective.

It doesn't undermine anything. When discussing players, representing them as "great shooter and playmaker" vs. "just a great playmaker" is misleading. All players have certain levels of shooting and playmaking proficiency, and they cannot be boiled down to just "great" or "not great". This type of wording is done to discredit Marner, as you not only suggest that his shot is non-existent instead of just lesser, you also falsely suggest that his playmaking is equal.

As much as you like to pretend that PPs are just about getting in the zone and everybody blasting shots from any and everywhere, that's not how they actually work. While everybody should be open to doing anything depending on the in-game circumstances and how opposing PKs react, there are always players you want to primarily distribute the puck, and there are players that you want to primarily shoot the puck. Preferred initiating and finishing points, and placements and plays are set up around that to allow players to play to their biggest strengths and put them in the best situations to succeed. As a function of the initiating, distribution role on the PP, where you tend to want your best playmaker, they will get a significant number of touches.

We're not even far off in the set-ups we'd like to try out (even though the idea that there's something wrong with our current set-up - other than the fact that we stack and then neuter their time - is wildly exaggerated). Unfortunately, your posts have started to drip with this anti-Marner propaganda, and instead of sticking to legitimate conversations of how to best utilize our players, you include these twisted descriptions of what's happening in these scenarios to single out and take digs at Marner for any perceived deficiency in the performance and set up of the PP. They have all had a contributing part in the stretches where the PP goes cold.

This guy clearly slept through all the PP's over the last 1.5 years. Only explanation.

Time to call this debate quits. You've convinced 0 people and just wasting your time now.


Plus, I'll sacrifice Marners PP skills for his ascension to Bergeron level defence any day, so it's not even a big deal if he sucks on the PP now. Selke > PP specialist

 

[Dekes For Days]

This guy clearly slept through all the PP's over the last 1.5 years.

Nope. Seen every single one. Just prefer to talk about what has actually happened, instead of just arbitrarily blaming Marner for everything.

Plus, I'll sacrifice Marners PP skills for his ascension to Bergeron level defence any day, so it's not even a big deal if he sucks on the PP now.

Well luckily, we don't have to sacrifice anything - we have both a great PP player and great defensive player in Marner.

 

[zeke]

It is about belief, because you continue to talk about some of the ways in which you cherry picked, but refuse to acknowledge any of it as such because you feel like you have excuses for it, even as you throw around accusations at others who are not only doing far less, but more importantly, who are doing it for a specific reason to address specific arguments and not taking the same kind of broad conclusions that you are from it.

Removing data points in multiple ways (types of PPs, types of production, etc.) over your chosen sample for something that already relies on so few data points is problematic, and you know this. Especially when most of the players being looked at receive similar time in the PP situations that are being removed, and production distribution is so dependent on role on the PP.

Drawing conclusions from tiny samples is similarly problematic, and you've been extremely hypocritical regarding this throughout our discussion.

This is boring by now both to us and anyone else here.

I'll just reiterate this one last time:

1. you are the one that "threw around accusations", not me.
2. removing disparate 2-man advantage time from a PP comparison is not only not cherry picking, but essential to being accurate
3. the only one that removed data points is you.
4. i haven't drawn any conclusions about anything - just provided reasons why should try something different, and why we have plenty of leeway to try something different.

If we're going to put stock in how the PP has performed with and without certain players in small samples, it should be noted that the combination of our core 4 forwards that has produced the highest GF/60 and xGF/60 over the past few years is the other three with Matthews removed.

That would be one data point, with sample size issues. The sample size issues are so magnified when you try these splits that it's especially important to compare apples to apples here - i.e. look only at 5v4 time.

I assume you are using naturalstattrick so I will go check this data for myself.....

...and this is what I get:

5v4 PP, Last 3 seasons, all combinations with at least 3 of Matthews, Marner, Willy, Tavares, and Spezza, in order of TOI, min 5min:

(units without Mitch are bolded)

AM/MM/WN/JT: 202:49, 8.88gf/60, 7.66xgf/60
AM/MM/JT: 74:09, 9.71gf/60, 7.11xgf/60
AM/WN/JT: 38:43, 13.94gf/60, 8.49xgf/60
AM/MM/WN: 34:45, 3.45gf/60, 6.16xgf/60
WN/JT/JS: 25:16, 9.49gf/60, 7.72xgf/60
MM/WN/JT: 9:04, 19.85gf/60, 12.86gf/60
AM/WN/JT/JS: 8:57, 13.41gf/60, 11.72xgf/60
MM/WN/JT/JS: 8:37, 20.85gf/60, 15.67xgf/60

tbh I don't know what to take from <10 min sample sizes. normally when I look at even strength combos i like to see at least 100min.

you're rightt that those two small samples without Auston were very productive. But it's also true that the bigger samples without Mitch were very good too.

All in all I stick with my original point - this breakdown just leaves us with unnecessarily tiny samples.

And if we're looking honestly at this most recent sample where Marner has been out, we see that the production increase has come from unsustainable shooting percentages driven by external factors and chance, not a significant change in how our PP has set up or performed, or from these claimed "super duper chances" you've brought no evidence of.

In addition to the numbers I posted over your chosen sample, I included additional numbers that looked at how the production was distributed throughout the majority of the sample, in order to address a specific point in response to a specific argument that you had made; not to make any declarations about Marner. I have explained this to you multiple times now. There should be no misunderstanding. Stop misrepresenting what was done.

It's especially baffling that you've taken such exception to my additional inclusion of a 132 game sample for a specific purpose, but don't see the issue with overemphasizing and drawing conclusions from specifically chosen results from a 6-game sample.

I mean, we're only using the sample we are in the first place because the bigger sample made Marner look too good - as if the skills he's used to be consistently elite on the PP over his career just vanished into thin air as he moved into his prime. You refuse to consider the actual reasons and context for the results you're seeing - instead simply defaulting to Marner being ineffective.

You eliminated the most recent sample, and one of the only samples, of the PP without Marner simply because the numbers on it were too good. This is silly.

Doubly silly because the xgf in that sample is elite as well anyways.

And I never said Marner was ineffective.

It doesn't undermine anything. When discussing players, representing them as "great shooter and playmaker" vs. "just a great playmaker" is misleading. All players have certain levels of shooting and playmaking proficiency, and they cannot be boiled down to just "great" or "not great". This type of wording is done to discredit Marner, as you not only suggest that his shot is non-existent instead of just lesser, you also falsely suggest that his playmaking is equal.

I don't even know what to say - you complain about not being nuanced, and then keep repeating that "best playmaker should get the most touches", which is far more simplistic than anything I said.

As much as you like to pretend that PPs are just about getting in the zone and everybody blasting shots from any and everywhere, that's not how they actually work. While everybody should be open to doing anything depending on the in-game circumstances and how opposing PKs react, there are always players you want to primarily distribute the puck, and there are players that you want to primarily shoot the puck. Preferred initiating and finishing points, and placements and plays are set up around that to allow players to play to their biggest strengths and put them in the best situations to succeed. As a function of the initiating, distribution role on the PP, where you tend to want your best playmaker, they will get a significant number of touches.

The argument is that it is far better to have the puck in the hands of players who don't need to "primarily" be shooters or distributors, but are true dual threats. That any PP that leans too hard on these kinds of extreme roles is predicatble and not too effective.

In fact, a quick look at the best PPs in hockey over the past few years shows relatively few players that are heavily weighted towards one over the other.

We're not even far off in the set-ups we'd like to try out (even though the idea that there's something wrong with our current set-up - other than the fact that we stack and then neuter their time - is wildly exaggerated). Unfortunately, your posts have started to drip with this anti-Marner propaganda, and instead of sticking to legitimate conversations of how to best utilize our players, you include these twisted descriptions of what's happening in these scenarios to single out and take digs at Marner for any perceived deficiency in the performance and set up of the PP. They have all had a contributing part in the stretches where the PP goes cold.

You've been far too defensive right from the start, which has led directly to your stats-skewing.

The fact is we have 5 forwards with legit elite PP skill. Making an argument that Mitch Marner should be less of a primary focus of the PP is not even a significant criticism of Marner, let alone Anti-Marner Propaganda. It's not even an argument that he isn't super elite - which he is. Simply an argument that the PP might work better if we leaned a bit more on our other super-elite PP talent to make the PP less predictable.

 

[JT AM da real deal]

To da eye test da PP has looked much better with Mitch off of it .. keeps better shooters in shooting lanes in Willy and Matty and gives us a net front presence which are 2 most important pieces of a PP

 

[Antropovsky]

Marner is often slow to make decisions with the puck on the PP. Almost like he has too much time to work with.

They key to success is fast puck movement, net front presence and multiple dangerous shooters.

He should be used on the second unit only and work from the side boards.

I agree, when he gets the puck he acts kinda like a quarterback who is looking for a play to emerge and it often seems to allow the opposition to settle and get back into position.

 

[Dekes For Days]

2. removing disparate 2-man advantage time from a PP comparison is not only not cherry picking, but essential to being accurate

Putting aside the cherry-picking debate, it's not even disparate from most of the people being compared, because they're on the same 5 on 3 PP. You're pretending that no other type of PP matters, and removing data points from a stat that can't afford to lose them and still hold much representative value.

3. the only one that removed data points is you.

That's just completely untrue.

The core part of your argument centered around dismissing overall production and focusing in on primary production, in 5v4 situations exclusively, since 2019 and later 2020, to suggest that Marner was a problem on our PP and needed a diminished role. That's removing a bunch of data points, and that's without even getting into the fact that you also tried to dismiss xGF until you decided you wanted it for your argument.

And it's especially troublesome when you refuse to acknowledge the impact of role on production distribution on the PP, and the inherent variability of PP stats and distribution in general. A player can impact a PP in positive ways and still go through stretches where they accumulate less primary production results.

2015-2018, Edmonton Oilers, PP Primary Points/60

Lucic - 4.24
Draisaitl - 3.72
RNH - 3.44
McDavid - 3.25

Lucic is the one driving that PP, eh? Clearly McDavid is an issue and needs a diminished role, right?

2011-2015, Pittsburgh Penguins, PP Primary Points/60

Jokinen - 5.40
Malkin - 5.09
Neal - 4.88
Crosby - 4.03

Boy that Crosby - has such a lesser impact on the PP than Jokinen and Neal, right? Maybe stick him in a corner somewhere.

Heck, even Ovechkin, who isn't even a playmaker, can have this kind of thing happen to them!

2009-2011, Washington Capitals, PP Primary Points/60

Backstrom - 4.77
Semin - 4.08
Fleischmann - 3.70
Green - 3.32
Laich - 3.16
Ovechkin - 3.09

Even a defenseman's doing better than him! Maybe we should just consider that Laich should replace him?? I mean, not coming to any conclusions of course... just putting it out there... to maybe try something different.

It's a dangerous game to play with PP production for drawing any serious conclusions. You're missing value they're bringing that's just not being represented in primary production stats over that sample - which can be for a multitude of possible reasons; most of which don't involve them suddenly getting skill-amnesia every time they go on a PP.

All in all I stick with my original point - this breakdown just leaves us with unnecessarily tiny samples.

But that's been my original point - we shouldn't be drawing conclusions from tiny samples. You dismiss this stuff because it's so small, and then turn around and draw conclusions from a similar 6-game sample (with zero context) because "We gotta! It's all we have!! It's all because of the "super duper chances" now that Marner's gone!!!", even though we don't have to, and that's clearly untrue.

You eliminated the most recent sample, and one of the only samples, of the PP without Marner simply because the numbers on it were too good.

That is not true. It had nothing to do with "the numbers were too good". Both samples were posted, and the one you reference was included to highlight how the production looked through the majority of that sample with the core 4 being together, and address a specific argument you had made about the amount of emphasis being placed on the 6-game sample where Marner was injured.

I don't even know what to say - you complain about not being nuanced, and then keep repeating that "best playmaker should get the most touches", which is far more simplistic than anything I said.

They're different discussions. When discussing players' abilities, representing them as "great shooter and playmaker" vs. "just a great playmaker" is extremely simplistic and misleading. All players have certain levels of shooting and playmaking proficiency, and they cannot be boiled down to just "great" or "not great". This wording both falsely suggests that Marner's shot is non-existent instead of just lesser, and that his playmaking is equal to the others.

In fact, a quick look at the best PPs in hockey over the past few years shows relatively few players that are heavily weighted towards one over the other.

There's almost always a weight in one direction or the other. In Boston, you'd prefer Marchand distribute the puck and Pastrnak take shots. In Edmonton, you'd prefer to have McDavid distributing and Draisaitl shooting. In Washington, you'd prefer to have Backstrom distributing and Ovechkin shooting. In Tampa, you prefer Kucherov distributing and Stamkos shooting. Back in the day in San Jose, you preferred Thornton distributing and Cheechoo/Heatley shooting. In Vancouver, you'd want Henrik distributing and Daniel shooting. Etc.

I think you exaggerate the need to stack your unit with exact 50/50 split playmaker/goal-scorers. Sure, it would be nice to see some more PP goals out of Marner, but this idea that PKs and goalies just ignore his shot threat is complete nonsense. In fact, the fact that they don't is part of the reason for his current streak.

And I'm not sure how they "know what's coming", when even outside of the potential incoming shot, they have elite goal-scorers surrounding them on all 3 sides that could be passed to, never-mind the tip or shot-pass possibilities. There really isn't this sizable difference in how PKs defend Marner that people like to pretend. They can't afford to give him too much space, elite sniping ability or not.

You've been far too defensive right from the start, which has led directly to your stats-skewing.

You've been unnecessarily aggressive against Marner right from the start, which has led to you utilizing stats and arguing in a way very atypical of what I've previously seen from you. You've also made inaccurate and misleading claims about me, like suggesting that I have stat-skewed, when I have not - which tends to make people defensive.

The fact is we have 5 forwards with legit elite PP skill.

And nobody has argued against that. Or argued against riding out hot streaks. Or argued against mixing up set ups and plays. Or even argued against splitting our units if we're not going to properly utilize our stacked unit.

The only thing that has been argued against is using questionable methods to single out and blame Marner for any perceived deficiency in the PP, in an attempt to significantly diminish his utilization or remove him from the unit completely. He's an excellent PP player and has a lot to offer a PP.

 

[Racer88]

Nope. Seen every single one. Just prefer to talk about what has actually happened, instead of just arbitrarily blaming Marner for everything.

Well luckily, we don't have to sacrifice anything - we have both a great PP player and great defensive player in Marner.

If what you are claiming is true, that Marner has been just fine on the PP that makes his 100 game drought even worse

 

[Dekes For Days]

If what you are claiming is true, that Marner has been just fine on the PP that makes his 100 game drought even worse

Marner, like all players on the top unit, struggled during a ~40 game stretch in 2021, and the unit did not produce to its potential during that stretch for a number of reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that Marner is an excellent PP player and has a lot to offer a PP.