McDavid or Matthews

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

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.

"The Calder Memorial Trophy is an annual award given "to the player selected as the most proficient in his first year"
what are you talking about? Its criteria is the most proficient player quite clearly. It does not say that they have to play a full year

 

[nabob]

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.

McDavid also plays more PK minutes, which produce the lowest amount of scoring chances per minutes. For all the raving about Matthews defensive amazingness he sure doesn't play much in all situations. Most of his minutes are offensive opportunity minutes (yes I know he plays late in games with the other teams goalie pulled, that's the highest opportunity for getting points there is).

 

[karnige]

how do you know it severely affected McDavid's production without reading stats?

because you could clearly tell. he had no jump. he floated around a lot.

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?

I dont think anyone is really questioning matthews injury. hed be playing if he could. but there are players out there who missed games because of the flu. mcdavid has said he feels he has to play as he is so relied upon. he definitely should have rest even a few games. in the end it made things far worse and he couldn't shake it and had a relapse.

 

[sparxx87]

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.

please, tell me more?

I’m a realist. If you think a few points are all that separated the two, you’re even more dilusional than I thought. Look at the voting results - Nobody but you and a handful of homers thought it was close.

 

[Yasuo]

They are like 2 tiers apart, why is this a thing?

 

[PuckG]

They are like 2 tiers apart, why is this a thing?

It's not. Some Leaf fans just think it is.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

please, tell me more?

I’m a realist. If you think a few points are all that separated the two, you’re even more dilusional than I thought. Look at the voting results - Nobody but you and a handful of homers thought it was close.

No I don't think I will. Since this is not the point. But you just showed your bias and this is enough for me. Citing a concussion as an excuse are not equal for all players. Thanks for making this transparent on where you truly stand.

 

[sparxx87]

It's not. Some Leaf fans just think it is.

Actually, this thread had died down... Matthews has been hurt and hasn’t looked like himself for month now but unfortunately Oilers fans have nothing else to be excited about.

 

[Sojourn]

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?

I think you’re giving too much weight to the minute differential.

He’s pretty much a guy who plays 20+ minutes a game every night. Edmonton needs him to. The difference in ice time is less significant, to me, than the difference in production. When McDavid produces less, those stats suggest the Oilers lose more games. That’s what I take from those stats.

The actual ice time difference is pretty minimal. I would expect him to play a little more in games Edmonton is losing, as well as in games McDavid may not look quite as good. The reason for this is simple: Edmonton can’t afford McDavid not to be quite as good. The coach is probably more likely to get McDavid on the ice more than to cut back his ice time, because the Oilers need McDavid to get going. Even if it just isn’t his night. Or even if it isn’t the Oiler’s night.

But no, what I get from those statistics is that McDavid is enormously important to Edmonton’s success, and they go as he goes.

 

[nabob]

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?

You're talking the difference of one shift. Could be something as simple as injury status of other players, games where he is facing a tough matchup on the road and gets double shifted more on the road...lots of factors that can influence ice time by the amount of one shift. Maybe in games where they lost they had more PP time in games they won?

But in the end I really don't see how you going off on another tangent accomplishes anything.

 

[93LEAFS]

I think you’re giving too much weight to the minute differential.

He’s pretty much a guy who plays 20+ minutes a game every night. Edmonton needs him to. The difference in ice time is less significant, to me, than the difference in production. When McDavid produces less, those stats suggest the Oilers lose more games. That’s what I take from those stats.

The actual ice time difference is pretty minimal. I would expect him to play a little more in games Edmonton is losing, as well as in games McDavid may not look quite as good. The reason for this is simple: Edmonton can’t afford McDavid not to be quite as good. The coach is probably more likely to get McDavid on the ice more than to cut back his ice time, because the Oilers need McDavid to get going. Even if it just isn’t his night. Or even if it isn’t the Oiler’s night.

But no, what I get from those statistics is that McDavid is enormously important to Edmonton’s success, and they go as he goes.

The person used a 21 minute cut off. I was showing that the difference between those two games was primarily how players were being managed in wins and losses. Not that the more McDavid plays the more likely they are to lose. That is a symptom not the causation.

 

[Sojourn]

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

I absolutely would say that, but that’s also why McDavid’s season last year was impressive. He was remarkably consistent throughout the season, and actually heated up late in it. That says a lot about his ability to handle a full season. We didn’t get to see that in his rookie year because of his injury, so objectively I think there was a little bit of a question about whether he could maintain his pace over his rookie season.

That was a question he answered. It isn’t the case for every player. A lot of players start to slow down over a full season.

 

[sparxx87]

No I don't think I will. Since this is not the point. But you just showed your bias and this is enough for me. Citing a concussion as an excuse are not equal for all players. Thanks for making this transparent on where you truly stand.

When did I say concussions aren’t the same? Isn’t it fair to assume that Laine wouldn’t have returned to play if he was still concussed?

Nobody can confirm if Matthews is even concussed. It’s being treated as such, but nobody knows.... We do know he’s been dealing with back problems for some time now. We do know that hes looked ‘off’ to those who watch him every night.

 

[93LEAFS]

You're talking the difference of one shift. Could be something as simple as injury status of other players, games where he is facing a tough matchup on the road and gets double shifted more on the road...lots of factors that can influence ice time by the amount of one shift. Maybe in games where they lost they had more PP time in games they won?

But in the end I really don't see how you going off on another tangent accomplishes anything.

Except it was responding to a claim of efficiency where he pointed to fewer minutes. Using 21 minutes at the cut-off. At the same time, when you look at his average minutes in wins and losses and points per game they fall on both sides of that cut off. So you think he's more efficent when he plays less minutes by that big a margin, or do you think its likely that he scores more in Oilers wins, and therefore gets less shifts (by a shift, but that's the exact same cut off point that was used in the first case).

 

[Sojourn]

McDavid also plays more PK minutes, which produce the lowest amount of scoring chances per minutes. For all the raving about Matthews defensive amazingness he sure doesn't play much in all situations. Most of his minutes are offensive opportunity minutes (yes I know he plays late in games with the other teams goalie pulled, that's the highest opportunity for getting points there is).

That’s very true. We see the same thing with Getzlaf in Anaheim. He’s an all-situations kind of guy. When he’s healthy, and on his game, he’s pretty consistently a PPG+ player, and he’s that playing 20 minutes a game in all situations. He’s a beast.

I don’t give two f***s about his points per 60, because he plays in too many situations where he isn’t expected to score. The goal is to win, and that isn’t simply scoring goals.

 

[OilCanada92]

Matthews is scoring at a better pace while missing games this year than he did last year. Is it time to stop assuming that more games = more points?

It probably equals more points but it doesn't automatically mean the same pace.

Matthews had 8 goals and 14 points in the first 10 games. Had he been injured after that 10th game, you'd probably be arguing that he would have 21 goals and 36 points in 26 games instead of the 13 goals and 26 points that he actually has.

 

[PuckG]

Actually, this thread had died down... Matthews has been hurt and hasn’t looked like himself for month now but unfortunately Oilers fans have nothing else to be excited about.

Weird, McDavid hasn't looked like himself either, but he's still produced phenomenally.

Either way, McDavid is significantly better than Matthews.

 

[Fourier]

That’s very true. We see the same thing with Getzlaf in Anaheim. He’s an all-situations kind of guy. When he’s healthy, and on his game, he’s pretty consistently a PPG+ player, and he’s that playing 20 minutes a game in all situations. He’s a beast.

I don’t give two ****s about his points per 60, because he plays in too many situations where he isn’t expected to score. The goal is to win, and that isn’t simply scoring goals.

The assumption that scoring is a linear function of TOI always confused me. If it was true then one would simply play your best players 60 minutes per game. But I think most of us know that this is not really the best strategy.

 

[snag]

"The Calder Memorial Trophy is an annual award given "to the player selected as the most proficient in his first year"
what are you talking about? Its criteria is the most proficient player quite clearly. It does not say that they have to play a full year

That wasn't exactly what was being bandied about in justification for RNH losing the Calder to Landeskog...or McDavid to a 24 year old 9 year KHL pro

You mean to tell McDavid was not as "proficient" as Panarin?

 

[nabob]

Except it was responding to a claim of efficiency where he pointed to fewer minutes. Using 21 minutes at the cut-off. At the same time, when you look at his average minutes in wins and losses and points per game they fall on both sides of that cut off. So you think he's more efficent when he plays less minutes by that big a margin, or do you think its likely that he scores more in Oilers wins, and therefore gets less shifts (by a shift, but that's the exact same cut off point that was used in the first case).

You also should consider minutes played with the lead and minutes played while trailing, or tied. What about games where they trailed until late in the 3rd and then won it in OT? Or games where he wasn't feeling well and played less minutes but the team still won?

Point is that you need to watch the games instead of just reading numbers on a page and creating narratives that support your preconceived opinion.

 

[93LEAFS]

You also should consider minutes played with the lead and minutes played while trailing, or tied. What about games where they trailed until late in the 3rd and then won it in OT? Or games where he wasn't feeling well and played less minutes but the team still won?

Point is that you need to watch the games instead of just reading numbers on a page and creating narratives that support your preconceived opinion.

I do watch games. What I am saying should be obvious anyone who watches games. I just use numbers because they actually illustrate the point.

You are making a case around exceptions, rather than what likely happens. He plays less when they win because they rely on him less when they have a 2 goal lead, rather than relying on him more when they are 2 goals down. Anyone who watches would realize that is what is happening. From that, it also generally is tougher to score when you are trailing (not only is this shown by the eye-test but by score-effects).

Do you think McDavid is more efficient with a better PPG when they play him under 21 minutes a game because he is more rested despite it only being a minute. Or do you think he likely scores more in those games due to his team winning?

 

[nabob]

I do watch games. What I am saying should be obvious anyone who watches games. I just use numbers because they actually illustrate the point.

You are making a case around exceptions, rather than what likely happens. He plays less when they win because they rely on him less when they have a 2 goal lead, rather than relying on him more when they are 2 goals down. Anyone who watches would realize that is what is happening. From that, it also generally is tougher to score when you are trailing (not only is this shown by the eye-test but by score-effects).

Do you think McDavid is more efficient with a better PPG when they play him under 21 minutes a game because he is more rested despite it only being a minute. Or do you think he likely scores more in those games due to his team winning?

He doesn't score more because his team is winning, that's comment make absolutely zero sense and having one more minute of rest doesn't matter for a player of McDavid's freakish conditioning.


Im talking about things that happen in every single game that can cause the difference between 1 shift happening or not. You're talking like someone who has never watched a game at all, and think that the amount of PP minutes is static from one game to the next, that the health and how well other teammates are playing is static from game to game. Same thing applies to every single one of the narratives that you have tried to create.

I think the difference in 1 minute played has very little impact on P/60 for the best player in he world. I think you're so confused by what random points you're trying to make against McDavid that you've run out of straws. McDavid also has his ice time cut in games where they're losing as have little chance of winning, just like he does in games where they're winning by a safe margin. He also doesn't get his ice time reduced if they're winning by one or two goals which are the most common margins of victory, because he is relied on to play more at both ends of the ice (including PK) whereas Matthews isn't. So many factors you are ignoring because they don't support your narrative, which is very common for people who rely on stats to prove their points rather than those who use stats and actually watch the player play.

 

[snag]

I do watch games. What I am saying should be obvious anyone who watches games. I just use numbers because they actually illustrate the point.

You are making a case around exceptions, rather than what likely happens. He plays less when they win because they rely on him less when they have a 2 goal lead, rather than relying on him more when they are 2 goals down. Anyone who watches would realize that is what is happening. From that, it also generally is tougher to score when you are trailing (not only is this shown by the eye-test but by score-effects).

Do you think McDavid is more efficient with a better PPG when they play him under 21 minutes a game because he is more rested despite it only being a minute. Or do you think he likely scores more in those games due to his team winning?

That is the problem though with numbers....while you can pick and choose through a hundred manufactured stats to support any narrative under the sun, they don't paint the whole picture. That's why certain players from the NHL, for example, perceptively get snubbed in national team selections. While you can use the stats and say this guy should be on the team, it's nuts he is not on the team yada yada yada...there is more to the game than numbers.

 

[93LEAFS]

I think the difference in 1 minute played has very little impact on P/60 for the best player in he world. I think you're so confused by what random points you're trying to make against McDavid that you've run out of straws.

You do realize I was responding to someone who claimed that he was more efficient on a point per game basis due to fewer minutes right (using 21 minutes) as the cut off right? I pointed out it was score effects? Do you deny those being a contributing factor?

 

[93LEAFS]

That is the problem though with numbers....while you can pick and choose through a hundred manufactured stats to support any narrative under the sun, they don't paint the whole picture. That's why certain players from the NHL, for example, perceptively get snubbed in national team selections. While you can use the stats and say this guy should be on the team, it's nuts he is not on the team yada yada yada...there is more to the game than numbers.

That's pretty obvious. Which is why the big argument I got into on this thread was that judging players primarily by total points is absolutely ridiculous. Numbers are useful because they eliminate pre-conceived biases, but the need to be objectively looked at in totality.

 

[snag]

That's pretty obvious. Which is why the big argument I got into on this thread was that judging players primarily by total points is absolutely ridiculous. Numbers are useful because they eliminate pre-conceived biases, but the need to be objectively looked at in totality.

Sorry...just saw that statement and thought: oh god, one of those analytics guys