McDavid or Matthews

[sparxx87]

Correction flu. And It did severely affect McDavid's production and play. Anyone that cared to watch an Oilers game instead of making generalizations reading stats and charts would have known this.

It’s been acknowledged several times and many agree that he didn’t look like himself... However, the flu isn’t something that disqualifies you from playing... Matthews actually had an ailment that’s made him unable to play, and hasn’t looked like himself for a month now - but that’s an ‘excuse’ and ‘phantom injury’.. it’s actually funny to watch and pretty embarrassing for those taking part. It’s like you think everyone else is stupid? Like nobody can see the flip-flopping, the inconsistency, and picking and choosing when to apply certain logic?

 

[93LEAFS]

Last season McDavid played 44 games with over 21 min. of TOI. His PPG was 1.00

He played 38 games at under 21 min. of TOI and his PPG was 1.39.


TOI EFFICIENCY IS COMPLETE BS.

He played 20 minutes and 41 seconds in wins, and had a 1.49 points per game

He played 21 minutes and 45 seconds in loses and had a .86 points per game.

Explain to me how this isn't primarily driven by score effects.

Because by your conclusion, the more the McDavid plays the more likely the Oilers are to lose. I'd say that is likely, but far from the causation, it's just how coaches use their benches.

Do you think McDavid is more likely to be scoring more because he plays less, or because his team is winning? Which seems to reduce his ice-time.

 

[GMofOilers]

I do find it interesting how all of the sudden games missed due to injury is an excuse for leafs fans. I could acknowledge it except they were pretty silent admitting Laine would have led rookie scoring last year if not for injury

Yup Laine is a lot closer to Matthews tier then Matthews is to McDavid

 

[The Winter Soldier]

It’s been acknowledged several times and many agree that he didn’t look like himself... However, the flu isn’t something that disqualifies you from playing... Matthews actually had an ailment that’s made him unable to play, and hasn’t looked like himself for a month now - but that’s an ‘excuse’ and ‘phantom injury’.. it’s actually funny to watch and pretty embarrassing for those taking part. It’s like you think everyone else is stupid? Like nobody can see the flip-flopping, the inconsistency, and picking and choosing when to apply certain logic?

It is embarrassing I agree. Since many that are making this excuse now, were not so charitable last year when the Calder was affected by a concussion. Do you see the irony here?

 

[Legion34]

The current argument is ridiculous. Mcdavid is better until proven otherwise.

That said. Skimming the last couple of pages, it is just foolish. I mean come on... Matthews has said he suffered a minor injury in the second game of the season. He played through it, got twisted up in St Louis and then he took the games off. He got sick and played through it, just like Connor “Man Cold” McDavid.

Then Matthews obviously hurt himself again. The guy has played 1 healthy game this year. To ignore that is foolish.

Also. He doesn’t have a concussion or wouldn’t be travelling. People just make stuff up.

 

[sparxx87]

It is embarrassing I agree. Since many that are making this excuse now, were not so charitable last year when the Calder was affected by a concussion. Do you see the irony here?

If you know you’re embarrassing yourself, why don’t you stop? Your ‘bitter ex’ routine has grown old.

The voting results of the Calder didn’t indicate that it was even close - would 8 games missed or whatever it was, actually make a difference? ....or was Matthews the significantly better player regardless of a small difference in points?

Voting results don’t indicate that a concussion was the difference. If it was even close, the voting wouldn’t have been such a landslide.

 

[daver]

He played 20 minutes and 41 seconds in wins, and had a 1.49 points per game

He played 21 minutes and 45 seconds in loses and had a .86 points per game.

Explain to me how this isn't primarily driven by score effects.

Because by your conclusion, the more the McDavid plays the more likely the Oilers are to lose. I'd say that is likely, but far from the causation, it's just how coaches use their benches.

Do you think McDavid is more likely to be scoring more because he plays less, or because his team is winning? Which seems to reduce his ice-time.

This shows that simply giving a player more icetime doesn't automatically mean more points. The higher his TOI, the lower his PPG.

 

[Satire]

The current argument is ridiculous. Mcdavid is better until proven otherwise.

That said. Skimming the last couple of pages, it is just foolish. I mean come on... Matthews has said he suffered a minor injury in the second game of the season. He played through it, got twisted up in St Louis and then he took the games off. He got sick and played through it, just like Connor “Man Cold” McDavid.

Then Matthews obviously hurt himself again. The guy has played 1 healthy game this year. To ignore that is foolish.

Also. He doesn’t have a concussion or wouldn’t be travelling. People just make stuff up.

People will do anything to pump their guys tires including making the other guy look bad. Mathews has been playing through some injuries but we all know he's a great talent. Mcdavid has looked slow and sick since about game 5 of the start of the season and has looked a lot better in the last week. He's also taken a lot of practice time off.

They are both great players and while Mcdavid has the edge, Mathews is still an insane talent that you can build a team around. I would kill to have him on our team for sure. Edmonton needs a goal scorer something fierce.

 

[Satire]

This shows that simply giving a player more icetime doesn't automatically mean more points. The higher his TOI, the lower his PPG.

Context is everything with statistics which is why they can be skewed to represent other things. When trailing in a game players are going to get double shifted or more ice time to try tie it up. When leading, especially large leads, the defensive role players are going to get a lot more ice time. This will definitely skew statistics as will things like special teams etc.

 

[93LEAFS]

This shows that simply giving a player more icetime doesn't automatically mean more points. The higher his TOI, the lower his PPG.

By that logic, it shows the more McDavid plays the more likely they are to lose. Do you think your analysis on time of ice efficency holds up if you split it 4 ways instead of just TOI but with TOI and Wins/Losses. Because otherwise, it just looks primarily driven by score effects.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

If you know you’re embarrassing yourself, why don’t you stop? Your ‘bitter ex’ routine has grown old.

The voting results of the Calder didn’t indicate that it was even close - would 8 games missed or whatever it was, actually make a difference? ....or was Matthews the significantly better player regardless of a small difference in points?

Voting results don’t indicate that a concussion was the difference. If it was even close, the voting wouldn’t have been such a landslide.

You sound bitter and rattled. By not addressing my reply. Kind of hard being the kettle that called the teapot black. I guess arguments or in this case concussion excuses only suit you when they apply to players you are biased for.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

This shows that simply giving a player more icetime doesn't automatically mean more points. The higher his TOI, the lower his PPG.

Matthews could finish the year with 75 points in 75 games, assuming he keeps his pace. would you say more games don't automatically mean more points if that happens?

 

[sparxx87]

You sound bitter and rattled. By not addressing my reply. Kind of hard being the kettle that called the teapot black. I guess arguments or in this case concussion excuses only suit you when they apply to players you are biased for.

bitter? Coming from you? Don’t kill me.

I addresssed the Calder comment - the landslide voting results indicate that it wasn’t even close. 8 games wasn’t swaying those votes enough to change the end result. Your comparison isn’t a valid one.

I’m not going to answer for other people. I wasn’t one of those you’re referring to so you’ll have to take it up with those individuals. I was speaking to those who’ve flip flopped and change the rules in the very same thread - something you seemingly do a lot of.

 

[daver]

Matthews could finish the year with 75 points in 75 games, assuming he keeps his pace. would you say more games don't automatically mean more points if that happens?

By your reasoning, if he played 164 games this year would you expect him to stay at a PPG?

 

[The Winter Soldier]

bitter? Coming from you? Don’t kill me.

I addresssed the Calder comment - the landslide voting results indicate that it wasn’t even close. 8 games wasn’t swaying those votes enough to change the end result. Your comparison isn’t a valid one.

I’m not going to answer for other people. I wasn’t one of those you’re referring to so you’ll have to take it up with those individuals. I was speaking to those who’ve flip flopped and change the rules in the very same thread - something you seemingly do a lot of.

Yes, bitter. Do you see me shouting insults in my posts? 9 games, and how do you know since one player already had the better PPG average that missing 9 games would not matter. You are full of assumptions I see. I am just exposing your hypocrisy of mentioning one concussion as an excuse, and not allowing it as a factor for another situation. This using your own words is an inconsistent argument.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

By your reasoning, if he played 164 games this year would you expect him to stay at a PPG?

it's not my reasoning, it's a flaw in your reasoning. More time to play means more opportunity to get points, whether it's in the form of more ice time per game or more games played. I expect a player who has more time on ice to score more points, the same as I expect a player with more games played to score more points. Why don't you?

 

[Sojourn]

By that logic, it shows the more McDavid plays the more likely they are to lose. Do you think your analysis on time of ice efficency holds up if you split it 4 ways instead of just TOI but with TOI and Wins/Losses. Because otherwise, it just looks primarily driven by score effects.

Are you sure it doesn’t show that when Edmonton is losing their coach will try to get McDavid on the ice more?

There are a lot of different ways to look at some statistics, and some make more sense than others. Suggesting that playing McDavid more encourages losses? Doesn’t really make sense.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

Yes, bitter. Do you see me shouting insults in my posts? 9 games, and how do you know since one player already had the better PPG average that missing 9 games would not matter. You are full of assumptions I see.

because the scoring for the Calder goes by proficiency. If the voters thought Laine was more proficient, why would they not vote for him?

 

[93LEAFS]

Are you sure it doesn’t show that when Edmonton is losing their coach will try to get McDavid on the ice more?

That's my entire point. He seems to think that McDavid's higher efficiency is primarily due to getting fewer minutes, I am saying it is primarily score effects.

 

[Sojourn]

it's not my reasoning, it's a flaw in your reasoning. More time to play means more opportunity to get points, whether it's in the form of more ice time per game or more games played. I expect a player who has more time on ice to score more points, the same as I expect a player with more games played to score more points. Why don't you?

Because that’s an inaccurate statement. Or, rather, it isn’t wholly accurate. On the whole, you can expect someone who plays more, both games and ice time, to put up more points.

However, you would also expect the proportion of those points to be doled out differently. Players get fatigued. Playing more minutes means there are less favorable situations to take advantage of. There are a lot of variables here.

So yes, more ice time and more games should give you more points, but the efficiency at which you score those points will decrease.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

because the scoring for the Calder goes by proficiency. If the voters thought Laine was more proficient, why would they not vote for him?

Correction. Most proficient year. Only one player played the entire year last season. Thus making an excuse about concussion in this thread is particularly ironic when this was not accepted last year. Really looks hypocritical for one fanbase to cite this now given the circumstances.

 

[Sojourn]

That's my entire point. He seems to think that McDavid's higher efficiency is primarily due to getting fewer minutes, I am saying it is primarily score effects.

I think you’d need to provide more evidence about the primarily part. A contributing factor, yes, but the primary? I think you need to prove that point.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

Because that’s an inaccurate statement. Or, rather, it isn’t wholly accurate. On the whole, you can expect someone who plays more, both games and ice time, to put up more points.

However, you would also expect the proportion of those points to be doled out differently. Players get fatigued. Playing more minutes means there are less favorable situations to take advantage of. There are a lot of variables here.

So yes, more ice time and more games should give you more points, but the efficiency at which you score those points will decrease.

If you think a player can get fatigued with more ice time, can't you say they could also get fatigued with more games played? It's not about efficiency but raw totals that we're looking at anyway

 

[nabob]

It’s been acknowledged several times and many agree that he didn’t look like himself... However, the flu isn’t something that disqualifies you from playing... Matthews actually had an ailment that’s made him unable to play, and hasn’t looked like himself for a month now - but that’s an ‘excuse’ and ‘phantom injury’.. it’s actually funny to watch and pretty embarrassing for those taking part. It’s like you think everyone else is stupid? Like nobody can see the flip-flopping, the inconsistency, and picking and choosing when to apply certain logic?

So McDavid having the flu isn't any excuse, even though during that time he still produced at Matthews' career average isn't an excuse but assuming Matthews who only has 1 goal in his last 9 games was playing injured the whole time and using that as an excuse is perfectly acceptable. Maybe the fact is just that Matthews is a much more streaky player, who can be shut down by the opposition for long periods of time where as McDavid has been the most consistent point producer in the league since he entered the league.

 

[93LEAFS]

I think you’d need to provide more evidence about the primarily part. A contributing factor, yes, but the primary? I think you need to prove that point.

Look at these gaps.

Last season McDavid played 44 games with over 21 min. of TOI. His PPG was 1.00

He played 38 games at under 21 min. of TOI and his PPG was 1.39.

Then look at this.

He played 20 minutes and 41 seconds in wins, and had a 1.49 points per game

He played 21 minutes and 45 seconds in loses and had a .86 points per game.

Looking at those four sets of numbers, do you think the difference is primarily minutes driven, or driven by score effects?