Confirmed Signing with Link: [NYI] F Mathew Barzal signs extension with the Islanders (8 years, $9.15M AAV)

[Frolov 6'3]

When is Barzal gonna score 30 goals for over $9M a year.

Perhaps we should start with 25 first.

 

[NC 1972]

PPG isn't really a big deal anymore. Plus he's on pace for 50 points at ES, so it's not just the PP that needs to get on track.

Since #91 left.

 

[mm11]

People are mad I called a guy who hadn't hit over 62 points in 4 straight years a 60 point player. I don't even know what to say anymore. Dude's really stuck on a minor typo

lmfao my 1st post literally said "60 point player, hasn't hit more than 62 since his rookie year"

If you wanna get offended and have a victim complex over that then so be it I guess ? But it's a factual statement. What did you want me to do ? Call him a 80 point player when he failed to even hit 65 points in 4 straight seasons ? Should we measure players by 1 outlier season rather than a large sample ? Not sure what you guys are going on about, but I'm about done here

Thanks for the clarify. You are doing great.

 

[AvroArrow]

Thanks for the clarify. You are doing great.

Imagine not being able to understand why I called a guy who scored 62 or fewer points in 4 consecutive years, a 60 point player

Something new everyday on this site

 

[Foppberg]

Imagine not being able to understand why I called a guy who scored 62 or fewer points in 4 consecutive years, a 60 point player

Something new everyday on this site

No kidding ….

 

[mm11]

Imagine not being able to understand why I called a guy who scored 62 or fewer points in 4 consecutive years, a 60 point player

Something new everyday on this site

no reason to be confused, you are obviously really smart. Keep up the work. We're all pulling for you.

 

[AvroArrow]

no reason to be confused, you are obviously really smart. Keep up the work. We're all pulling for you.

Math can be hard

 

[LudwigVonKarlsson]

Wow, who could’ve predicted he would get back to a point per game?

If the PP can get back on track, he should finish around 90 points.

Good for him. Only took him 5 years in a season where there are 50 other PPG players in the league, including one of his team mates.

 

[Pure Slaughter Value]

Since #91 left.

Butch Goring retired decades ago.

 

[blinkman360]

Math can be hard

The irony here is you seem to be the only one struggling with math. "Math" requires some sort of problem solving, not just reading a number. Saying the # "60" isn't "math". Math would be "ok, he scored 60 points but only played 68 games...if we factor that out over a full 82 game season, his point totals go up to 70.58". See, that's math. Math requires some sort of work. Understand?

I will say though that your bad-faith-argument skills are top tier. Well done sir, you've got a real talent.

Now I shall carry on with my life, since this conversation is just so stupid....so dumb....so moronic.....that it has actually made my brain hurt.

 

[Homesick]

Math can be hard

What math did you actually do? You scanned over the basic stats and recognized a pattern.

 

[SI90]

Yeah and you’re not worried about Barzal when he plays your team even though he has 29 points in 24 games played against them. Seems like maybe you don’t watch or you’re just a subjective hater.
View attachment 591585

Updating after the the 4pts in 3 games against the rags this year.

Barzal now has 33pts in 27 games against them. But some rags fans aren’t worried about him when he plays them.

Mat Barzal Total Career Points Vs Every NHL Team | StatMuse

Mathew Barzal has 22 points versus the Capitals in his career.

www.statmuse.com

 

[miscs75]

Updating after the the 4pts in 3 games against the rags this year.

Barzal now has 33pts in 27 games against them. But some rags fans aren’t worried about him when he plays them.

Mat Barzal Total Career Points Vs Every NHL Team | StatMuse

Mathew Barzal has 22 points versus the Capitals in his career.

www.statmuse.com

He’s an overrated perimeter player who can’t produce according to some of them. Then again they also think Sorokin isn’t anywhere near the guy who wears headbands.

 

[AvroArrow]

The irony here is you seem to be the only one struggling with math. "Math" requires some sort of problem solving, not just reading a number. Saying the # "60" isn't "math". Math would be "ok, he scored 60 points but only played 68 games...if we factor that out over a full 82 game season, his point totals go up to 70.58". See, that's math. Math requires some sort of work. Understand?

I will say though that your bad-faith-argument skills are top tier. Well done sir, you've got a real talent.

Now I shall carry on with my life, since this conversation is just so stupid....so dumb....so moronic.....that it has actually made my brain hurt.

We had this discussion countless times in previous threads and the consensus was, on pace for doesn't mean shit. Unless a player hits it, he isn't labelled as it. E.G Matthews/Mackinnon, argued to death they are (were) not 100 point players because they never hit the mark (at that time), even though on pace for would suggest they may have a good chance to hit it. Likewise Barzal failed to hit more than 62 in over 4 years, on pace for doesn't stand.

I guess we can say William Nylander is 95 point player as well, he's never done it, but on pace for !

 

[summer tooth]

Seems high but if you look at contracts of other centerman recently signed like Robert Thomas and Josh Norris, it makes sense. He's got more star potential than those 2 imo.

 

[3074326]

Yes, therefore I called him a 60 point player ? Did you want me to call him a 90 point player ? I'm so confused ?



People seriously can't read stats anymore ? Lmao, dude hit 62 points or fewer in 4 consecutive years

Do you normally make arguments by removing all context? I’ll go ahead and just put you on ignore if so. No need to read posts from people who debate like children.

 

[Artemi Panarin]

Seems high but if you look at contracts of other centerman recently signed like Robert Thomas and Josh Norris, it makes sense. He's got more star potential than those 2 imo.

He's coming up on 26 so he needs to be entering his prime, not fighting to reach his potential.

 

[Nemesis Prime]

might be the worst contract in the league

 

[AvroArrow]

Do you normally make arguments by removing all context? I’ll go ahead and just put you on ignore if so. No need to read posts from people who debate like children.

He scored 62 or fewer points over a 4 year span

Even if we do the PPG average, it comes up to 66 points per 82 games played over those 4 years

In those 4 years since his rookie year he scored 226 points in 278 games, now because math can be hard, I'll say it again. Comes up to 66 points per 82 games played, so even without "removing context" my statement still stands and is 100 % factual.

OP bumped this thread quoting me, not sure why ? The statement I made was 100% factual, since his rookie year up to the point of my OP, the 4 year span, he averaged 66 points, therefore I called him a 60 point player.

Understand ?

 

[Canucks LB]

He was dominant against the Canucks, Such a good skater

 

[AvroArrow]

The irony here is you seem to be the only one struggling with math. "Math" requires some sort of problem solving, not just reading a number. Saying the # "60" isn't "math". Math would be "ok, he scored 60 points but only played 68 games...if we factor that out over a full 82 game season, his point totals go up to 70.58". See, that's math. Math requires some sort of work. Understand?

I will say though that your bad-faith-argument skills are top tier. Well done sir, you've got a real talent.

Now I shall carry on with my life, since this conversation is just so stupid....so dumb....so moronic.....that it has actually made my brain hurt.

In the 4 year span since his rookie year, he scored 226 points over 278 games, it comes up to 66 points per 82 games played.

And I'm struggling with math ? lol

Or shall we cherry pick small sample size stats and ignore large samples ?

And like I've said repeatedly, good for him that he's producing at a higher rate. As for you and everyone else in here desperately trying to dunk on me, try harder.

 

[Foppberg]

The irony here is you seem to be the only one struggling with math. "Math" requires some sort of problem solving, not just reading a number. Saying the # "60" isn't "math". Math would be "ok, he scored 60 points but only played 68 games...if we factor that out over a full 82 game season, his point totals go up to 70.58". See, that's math. Math requires some sort of work. Understand?

I will say though that your bad-faith-argument skills are top tier. Well done sir, you've got a real talent.

Now I shall carry on with my life, since this conversation is just so stupid....so dumb....so moronic.....that it has actually made my brain hurt.

Well.. you are on the main boards after all.

 

[Reddwit]

might be the worst contract in the league

Centers are in highest demand. Wings will pay out the nose for Larkin as well.

 

[Deen]

I honestly don't think his contract is all that bad as long as he avoids injuries for the majority of it. He's a PPG + player in his prime.

 

[AvroArrow]

Well.. you are on the main boards after all.

Since you also seemed to have missed it, figured I'd quote you

In the 4 years after his rookie season, prior to this season (when my OP was made) he scored 62 or fewer points per game.

Doing the math with points per game average, it came up to 66 points per 82 games played

I called him a 60 point player in my OP



Dudes in this thread: "Why did you call him a 60 point player ! You are wrong ! It's not just how many points he scored (62 or less), we should do the math because you have no critical thinking and problem solving skills ! One could clearly deduce he'd score at a higher rate !"

Me: *does the math* "Comes up to 66 points per 82 games played in that 4 year span"

Dudes in this thread: *crickets*