Better pair to build around: Matthews/Marner or Petterson/Hughes?

[Dache]

Then please stop responding to my posts, analysis, and explanations with unsubstantiated claims and misrepresentations

What are you talking about? Do you just say that to every single person that disagrees with you? I have not misrepresented a single thing. I’m asking you to stop filling entire threads with your page long replies about nonsense.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

That's literally what you've been saying and arguing this whole time. If you didn't believe this, you would have had no problem with me pointing out how production rates change the picture of the Leaf contracts considerably, and wouldn't have butt in with attacks and misleading and false claims when I answered the individual's question.

Something that you have never once proven at all, and even if true, is entirely irrelevant in situations like this.

It was not accurate at predicting contract value. It was actually wildly inaccurate.

This is a cherry picked tweet, that says nothing about the effectiveness or usefulness of production rates. All this person stated is that "we know that points are a very poor way to measure player value". Yet you endlessly cling to it. Except when you're doing your own player evaluations using horrible frankenstein metrics; then suddenly per 60 statistics are okay.

I am pretty confident that my methodolgy, tested accurately, would produce more accurate results, at the very least among the types of players and contracts we have been discussing this whole time. However, we run into two main problems.

1. I don't trust you to effectively test this methodology. Nobody should. You have extreme bias, and for a year, have not only endlessly attacked me and my work with zero evidence or justification, but twisted and manipulated both statistics and these specific graphs to fit your argument, not reality. You have given advanced statistics a horrible reputation around here, making everybody else's work harder.

2. It doesn't matter. Even if it was possible to test accurately using your graphs (it's not), and even if you did it completely accurately (you wouldn't), and even if you got slightly higher correlation with points, then it makes no difference. You would use it to declare that raw points are all that matters, and P/60 is invalid in all instances for the purposes of contract valuation. That is wrong. You would use it to declare that anybody who signs a contract outside of your narrow view of contract valuation to be wrong. That is wrong. Reality is, there are many things considered in contract valuation. Production is the main piece, but high correlation with points would mean that the conditions for points are relatively consistent to produce results in the sample you took of players getting contracts; it would not mean that other forms of production are not utilized when raw points are wildly ineffective at capturing offensive ability due to forces outside of their control.

As usual, you would be in control of what you do and do not show. If you got results that support my conclusion, you would choose to just never post them like you have in the past, and continue making the same false claims that you have been making for a year. If you got results that supported your conclusion, then you would misrepresent what those findings mean in relation to contract valuation and the usefulness of other factors or forms of production, like you are already doing with absolutely zero evidence at all.

No, they are not. They are useless. You are not adjusting for any factors like term, age, status, situations for production, or literally anything else. You put 1 year contracts for nothing depth 30 year olds, up against 7-year UFA superstar contracts, up against post-ELC bridges, over a few month sample of signings, using single year production. And then you put one graph that represents less than half of production up against one that represents way more information. It's so dishonest. You enter so many issues into the comparison by throwing it all up together on a graph, and while you may have nice clusters with unimportant contracts at the bottom, literally all of your graphs have shown a lack of close correlation at the top. Because as you get closer to the top, those players become more important, and they gain more leverage over situations where they are unfairly represented by one singular measure.

I have. Multiple times. I will even post it again for you:

It is not complicated. It is properly considering production rates. That's it.

You seem to have issue with the points/primary points/goals numbers created. That is merely a helpful visualization, combining ES and PP and putting everybody at equal TOI, using common TOI ratios. I have consistently offered to do this at different TOI ratios for people, and have when looking at more direct comparisons between two players.

Once again, you act like there is something being hidden from you. There isn't. Once again, you don't need to test my methodology specifically anyway. That suggests that this is not for your schoolwork, or for your personal understanding of contracts, but in actuality, just further fuel for your continued harassment of me, and misrepresentation of my work and contract negotiations.

This is false. I don't care what you do, and I am very confident in my methodology. You are clearly fabricating some scenario where you can claim that I am somehow preventing you from doing this work; likely because you've done it already and realize how my methodology correlates better with the players being discussed. This is an easy way to blame the lack of results on me, now that you have walked yourself into a corner.

So, you're admitting that you're going to harass me and lie about me and my work at every opportunity? Cool, I'm sure that the administrators will be interested in that.

I will likely respond with the fact that you have never once provided evidence to support points being the sole driver of contract value, despite your continued insistence that that is the only thing that needs to be considered, and all else can be ignored. You have never held it up to scrutiny. You have never done accurate measures or tests on it. Why not start there?

Does this look like a model for projecting contracts, along with evidence that this model is more predictive of contract value than raw points to anybody else? Cause I can not for the life of me seem to find that in this post.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I have not misrepresented a single thing.

While debatable, and while you did enter the discussion with hostility towards me and my work, you are right that in this instance, you were not close to the main culprit in misrepresenting me, so I apologize for lumping you in with others.

I’m asking you to stop filling entire threads with your page long replies about nonsense.

It is not nonsense. I will stop defending my analysis and character when people stop responding to my posts, analysis, and explanations with unsubstantiated claims and misrepresentations about me and my work. You should be directing your request to stop towards JTR.

 

[Holymakinaw]

Quinn and Petey are part of a young core that are far more mature than that of the frat boy mentality that resides in Leaf land. Let's be honest, the Leafs are a team of individuals who act like they are the cock of the walk who seem to care more about social media than being leaders in their communities.

LMAO.

Your guys are pure and good and the Leaf guys are flawed and selfish, huh?

Credibility...........zero.

 

[OB5]

Matthews and Marner in a vacuum are better players but Canucks duo has the positional advantage.

This is what this thread ultimately boils down to, but we’re going to see a 7 page flame war anyway.

Up to 16 now!

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Since they're pretty comparable based on talent and potential, I'm always gonna go with a center/defenseman combo over a center/winger combo.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I just find it amazing that apparently asking for evidence is a personal attack or harassment.

Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Asking for evidence is not a personal attack/harassment; making false statements about somebody, consistently harassing them in multiple threads, and making unsubstantiated claims about their work is.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Asking for evidence is not a personal attack/harassment; making false statements about somebody, consistently harassing them in multiple threads, and making unsubstantiated claims about their work is.

Blah blah blah, just post your model.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

60% to 40%. Time to shut this one down. People are arguing in circles now.

 

[Skolman]

LMAO.

Your guys are pure and good and the Leaf guys are flawed and selfish, huh?

Credibility...........zero.

Ironic...

 

[Hierso]

I don't have a horse in this race, but if i got to pick between Pettersson + Hughes or Matthews i would go the first option 10/10 times. Currently Pettersson would be a slight downgrade compared to Matthews but considering Pettersson comes with a free Hughes it makes it a no brainer for me. In all honestly, i don't think it's fair to compare players on ELC to players on contracts. I'd might pick the Vacnouver duo over the Toronto one if they come with more terms and better cap hit, time will tell.

I'll self quote on this one and give some more of my own insight (which could be wrong). When it comes down to this type of poll, it will in all honestly come down to two different aspects.

1) The cap hit. If you don't think that Matthews and Marner are true elite talents then you are lying. However, you are also lying if you say that you like the contract that they got. If Pettersson gets a deal more in line with Eichel then i'd probably would have to favour Pettersson over Matthews. Will Matthews be the better player? I think he will be but i also think that Pettersson is skilled enough to upstage him from time to time. It all comes down to the contract for me here, i'd rather take Pettersson over Matthews if he comes with a smaller cap hit and a longer term. As for Marner vs Hughes it's in all honestly imposible to predict it. Marner also has a mediocre contract (once again, if you say you are pleased with the contract you are lying) and if Hughes comes cheaper that would tip the deal for me.

2) Let's say that both Pettersson and Hughes demands a boatload and are willing to holdout. Then it would probably boil down to Marner vs Hughes, Matthews is probably going to be better than Pettersson but i don't think the tipping point is in that matchup but rather the Marner vs Hughes. Here is all boils down to a teams need. A team that has a solid 1LD would probably prefer Marner and a team that doesn't would probably prefer Hughes.

TL; DR
After the honeymoon (ELC) is over for Vancouver we can re-do this thread.

 

[Nucker101]

This thread will outlast covid

 

[Golden_Jet]

well The Toronto duo got overpaid in their RFA years, also overpaid for UFA, so give me the canucks duo.
Hoping they sign pietrangeko for 10 million, so they have 5 players making 50 million.

 

[Pyrophorus]

well The Toronto duo got overpaid in their RFA years, also overpaid for UFA, so give me the canucks duo.
Hoping they sign pietrangeko for 10 million, so they have 5 players making 50 million.

...and lift the Cup.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

...and lift the Cup.

...and then you turn off NHL 20 for the night.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

This was a very good poll when it began, with a 60/40 edge to Petterson and Hughes duo. With 2 rds of post season play completed. It is interesting to see how much more important a Fwd and Defenceman model is to a fwd and fwd model.

 

[maroon 6]

This was a very good poll when it began, with a 60/40 edge to Petterson and Hughes duo. With 2 rds of post season play completed. It is interesting to see how much more important a Fwd and Defenceman model is to a fwd and fwd model.

oh no you didn’t

 

[coo1beans]

Nice necro bump. I voted petey and hughes before... but i wasnt too sure. Now it's withoit question petey/hughes.

 

[JAK]

in the playoffs i'd take matthews & marner since they actually make it there

Hi.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

Three months later and nobody knows what Dekes model is.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Once you come to understand that there are other things that hockey players do when they are on the ice that aren’t just scoring points, you’ll see it’s not hard to reconcile Pettersson having a higher offensive impact. Until then, you’ll be stuck posting point rates, crying victim when other people suggest there’s more to hockey than point rates, and scratching your heads and making excuses when your team full of guys who have the best point rates keeps getting bounced in the first round.

Damn, I was almost right here but I should’ve said “play-in round.”

 

[Fatass]

Is this a fair comparison? Number one centre and number one D vs number one centre and first line winger. If we’re stricly discussing “building around” as the thread title says, then the centre and D (if they are elite) should always be the preferred choice.

 

[Thenameless]

Its not even remotely close. Matthews is going to rewrite the record books with goal scoring.

Leafs records, maybe. This guy ain't touching any of Gretzky's goals records for regular season, playoffs, or career.

 

[Tony Stacks]

Should be Matthews and Rielly vs EP and Hughes. Either way, Canucks duo easily

 

[wetcoast]

A top line C and potential 1 d > than a top line center and rw

Pretty much this but I'm not hue fan of Marner overall even though he is a great player and while Matthews is the best player of the 4 right now, EP40 is under rated.