stl76
No. 5 in your programs, No. 1 in your hearts
- Jul 2, 2015
- 9,112
- 8,432
Pretty picture, but if that's your main argument then consider me unconvinced. It doesn't even have raw totals, just "percents." Dermott was NOT much more productive, this graph does not change either players' point totals. Dunn achieved more in a sample size 2x larger than Dermott's. Text book case of using stats poorly. If you cannot see that Dermott's blue lines are clearly effected by a small sample and extremely sheltered minutes, then I don't know what to tell you.View attachment 137115
uh no. Dermott was much more productive, better possession, better penalty differential, better gf%, and better xgf%. Both were very sheltered and had the same TOI, although Dermott had tougher zone starts and inferior linemates and Dunn had slightly tougher QoC
Dermott played 37 EXTREMELY sheltered games on one of the highest scoring teams in the league and put up good offensive metrics. Lol @ "Dunn had slightly tougher QoC." For as much as some leafs fans pump their own players tires based on QoC, it's humorous to me that now it doesn't seem to matter so much. And yeah Dunn had better QoT, he had to actually play up tough minutes up the line up! Tougher zone starts against 4th liners is not exactly a feather in Dermott's cap IMO. Their penalty differential is pretty inconsequential here (at 5v5 Dunn took 7 and Dermott took 3...Dunn also played twice as many minutes).