Why are you looking at McDavid's D+1-4 and comparing it to Matthews' D+0-3, especially when that's not either's pre-signing period? What McDavid did between 2016-2019 is irrelevant. What matters is what both players did during their respective pre-signing periods, and I have provided that for you, and even adjusted it based on league average scoring rates, at your request. Nothing changes the fact that Matthews was comparable to McDavid at time of signing.
Yes, he was, as I showed. He was the better primary point producer at both ES and PP, regardless of whether or not we adjust for league scoring rates. He was also trending as a generational goal scorer, and still is.
No, the adjustments I made were not a "gross understatement" of the reality. They are way, way more accurate than looking at numbers of players above some arbitrary threshold, which is literally useless.
The reality is, the difference from the things you said we needed to account for like equipment changes, were the same impact for everybody, but that impact was minimal; way less than people around here seem to think. League scoring rates didn't actually change all that much. As explained, more players in the top-end bracket is not a result of league scoring changes; they are a result of a mix of internal factors, such as an influx of talent, and evolving coaching behaviours, like line composition and increased TOI for stars (which is why it's so apparent in top-end raw points).
You're basically asking current stars to be paid less because current stars are taking on more responsibility than past stars. That's so backwards I don't even know what to say...
If that was true, he'd be getting more primary points, not less primary and more secondary... They had very comparable on-ice GF/60 at both ES and PP, especially when we consider that Matthews had to deal with split PP units for 80% of his pre-signing sample.
Highly debatable. Most studies on the "value" of a secondary assist place it somewhere around 5 times less valuable than a goal/primary assist, and they're not nearly as repeatable.
Nobody said primary points are everything. That's why I'm saying Matthews was comparable to McDavid at that point in time, not Matthews was way better than McDavid. But they are also not nothing. They are part of the picture, just like points.
As for Crosby and Perry, Perry was quite good back then at ES. He also played with Getzlaf, who placed just ahead of him in ES P/60, which boosted both of their ES totals relative to Crosby, who didn't play with anybody like that. Crosby was also just coming off his years of major injury/concussion problems, and had barely played in the previous 2 seasons. Crosby was also better on the PP, which again, you keep leaving out...
PP Primary points/60, 2012-2015
Crosby: 4.08
Perry: 2.62
Overall, Crosby was still the better point and primary point producer during those years.
Secondary assists - new study
One of the main points of the the p/60 and primary points stat is to determine the contribution and future production of certain players. The model that includes the both SA and primary was a FAR better at predicting a team's actual goals performance than primary points alone so I call BS on your devaluing of the SA. Note that a difference between a a R2 of .75 and .8 is a whopping 10% standard deviation and here we got a .72 and .82 R2 difference in favour of total points. The statistician Henseler, J., Ringle, C., and Sinkovics, R proposed that as a rule of thumb .75 should be the minimum amount for a "substantial" correlation, in other words point totals is a vastly superior tool to used than primary points alone when evaluating player contributions and future productions and using primary points alone doesn't even net (or barely meets depending on who you ask) a "substantial correlation."
Speaking of future production, have you ever stopped and think how awful your cherry picked p/60 stat at predicting actual future results? The fact that simply evalauting each players p/60 relative to their respective season has proven to be a much, much better indicator and predictor compare to you cherry picking 2 different time periods in order to make AM look better just proves how faulty your stat really is.
Anyway I think this discussion has run its course, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
This is actually more true than the average fan realizes.
I wish I kept the article for reference but a pro tax guy did a full summary of salaries.
Stuff we would not know like players have to pay taxes for games played out of home state/country and taxes if they live away from team state etc etc etc.
Now it is still better to have that except he also laid out the advantages for teams like the Leafs who can pay huge bonuses so the players get the majority of their big pay much faster so they can put in things that protect the cash and get good interest and future gains.
In the end when adding everything up he said players are better off with the huge up front bonus payouts.
So the edge that upsets so many with tax haven states is not as big a factor as some believe it to be and very possibly our ability to pay out big up front money could actually be better.
It still does depend on your "home" team though.......Florida teams for example save A LOT on tax for those 41 home games. A player no matter what team they are on, still have to play income tax in the states/provinces they play in for road games.
I work with a guy who's nephew played in the NHL recently (and then in Europe) and we were talking about the one day. The tax imbalance, especially for the high salary players, does play a factor - it's a lot of money! Depending on the player, you'd think a good chance at winning a cup would be the main factor. I think one advantage a team like the Leafs has though too is the local/regional and even national promotional opportunities - especially if they were to win the cup nowadays. The Leafs tried to sweeten the deal for Stamkos with promotional stuff I believe (Canadian Tire was one?), that is an aside to their player contract.
Why are you looking at McDavid's D+1-4 and comparing it to Matthews' D+0-3, especially when that's not either's pre-signing period? What McDavid did between 2016-2019 is irrelevant. What matters is what both players did during their respective pre-signing periods, and I have provided that for you, and even adjusted it based on league average scoring rates, at your request. Nothing changes the fact that Matthews was comparable to McDavid at time of signing.
Yes, he was, as I showed. He was the better primary point producer at both ES and PP, regardless of whether or not we adjust for league scoring rates. He was also trending as a generational goal scorer, and still is.
No, the adjustments I made were not a "gross understatement" of the reality. They are way, way more accurate than looking at numbers of players above some arbitrary threshold, which is literally useless.
The reality is, the difference from the things you said we needed to account for like equipment changes, were the same impact for everybody, but that impact was minimal; way less than people around here seem to think. League scoring rates didn't actually change all that much. As explained, more players in the top-end bracket is not a result of league scoring changes; they are a result of a mix of internal factors, such as an influx of talent, and evolving coaching behaviours, like line composition and increased TOI for stars (which is why it's so apparent in top-end raw points).
You're basically asking current stars to be paid less because current stars are taking on more responsibility than past stars. That's so backwards I don't even know what to say...
If that was true, he'd be getting more primary points, not less primary and more secondary... They had very comparable on-ice GF/60 at both ES and PP, especially when we consider that Matthews had to deal with split PP units for 80% of his pre-signing sample.
Highly debatable. Most studies on the "value" of a secondary assist place it somewhere around 5 times less valuable than a goal/primary assist, and they're not nearly as repeatable.
Nobody said primary points are everything. That's why I'm saying Matthews was comparable to McDavid at that point in time, not Matthews was way better than McDavid. But they are also not nothing. They are part of the picture, just like points.
As for Crosby and Perry, Perry was quite good back then at ES. He also played with Getzlaf, who placed just ahead of him in ES P/60, which boosted both of their ES totals relative to Crosby, who didn't play with anybody like that. Crosby was also just coming off his years of major injury/concussion problems, and had barely played in the previous 2 seasons. Crosby was also better on the PP, which again, you keep leaving out...
PP Primary points/60, 2012-2015
Crosby: 4.08
Perry: 2.62
Overall, Crosby was still the better point and primary point producer during those years.
Preface this by saying McDavid is the superior player......but there is a considerable gap between Matthews and McDavid defensively. McDavid is statistically one of the worst forwards in the nhl defensively. Matthews wasn’t great either up til this season, where he had significant defensive impacts. That matters.
That doesn't say that secondary assists are as valuable as goals and primary assists. It just theorizes that there is some informational value in secondary assists. I have consistently looked at both anyway, which is especially crucial when you're comparing a playmaker and a goal-scorer.
Also good to keep in mind that if you are of the belief that all that matters is points, that's also simultaneously a recognition that McDavid has one of the best contracts in the entire cap era at time of signing (after dropping a whole cap hit percentage off his negotiated amount by choice).
The point of production stats, regardless of form, is to most accurately describe the offensive ability/impact of players, and that tends to project outward in fairly consistent ways moving forward. Per 60 stats are the most accurate representation of offensive ability, because it accounts for critical context that heavily skews raw production.
It's not cherry picked, and it's not bad at predicting future results. It's actually better than raw production, because it naturally accounts for external factors, that alter raw production for reasons entirely unrelated to the player.
I have not cherry picked time periods. I have consistently used the same time period for everybody. Their pre-signing sample. That's the entire sample we have, and only sample that matters in a discussion about post-ELC contracts.
Even if we break it down to season by season:
D+1:
ES P/60
McDavid: 3.00 Matthews: 2.32
ES P1/60
Matthews: 2.13
McDavid: 2.12
ES G/60
Matthews: 1.55
McDavid: 1.15
PP P/60
McDavid: 6.28 Matthews: 6.22
PP P1/60
Matthews: 4.74
McDavid: 3.59
PP G/60
Matthews: 2.37
McDavid: 1.35
McDavid was better in ES Points/60 and PP Points/60. Matthews was better in ES Primary Points/60, ES Goals/60, PP Primary Points/60, and PP Goals/60.
D+2
ES P/60
Matthews: 2.97
McDavid: 2.96
ES P1/60
Matthews: 2.61
McDavid: 2.41
ES G/60
Matthews: 1.70
McDavid: 1.06
PP P/60
McDavid: 6.50 Matthews: 5.86
PP P1/60
Matthews: 3.61
McDavid: 3.61
PP G/60
Matthews: 2.25
McDavid: 0.72
McDavid was better in PP Points/60. They tied in PP Primary points/60.
Matthews was better in ES Points/60, ES Primary Points/60, ES Goals/60, and PP Goals/60.
And then we had a bit more information for Matthews than they did for McDavid, from the first half of his D+3 season. Even though this progression was unknown information in McDavid's case, let's take a look at this comparison. I don't think people truly grasp the trajectory that Matthews was on compared to McDavid...
October of D+3 season to February 5th of D+3 season:
ES P/60
Matthews: 3.40
McDavid: 3.10
ES P1/60
Matthews: 2.60
McDavid: 2.27
ES G/60
Matthews: 1.50
McDavid: 1.17
PP P/60
Matthews: 7.78
McDavid: 5.04
PP P1/60
Matthews: 7.78
McDavid: 2.32
PP G/60
Matthews: 5.19
McDavid: 1.55
Matthews was significantly better in everything during his D+3 season at the point that Matthews signed.
The problem, is, people look at information that was not available at time of signing, and make conclusions about the signing. Or look at raw points, and make assumptions about how both have developed.
If we are a GM/agent looking to sign Matthews on February 5th, 2019, we see that McDavid had stayed at pretty much the same level for most of his time in the league up to the same point (D+1 to February 5th in D+3 season). Matthews, on the other hand, had seen significant upwards trajectory to that point, and at the same point in his D+3 season, surpassed where McDavid had been at.McDavid had only improved from that point on, and you couldn't let Matthews get to RFA status anyway, so the risk of waiting was massive.
The signing was fair and logical based on what Matthews had shown at time of signing, relative to McDavid and pretty much every single cap comparable in existence.
Unfortunately, Matthews did not take the same immediate trajectory as most before him. The two rookies he had been carrying struggled in the second half of the season, and the line's OISH% plummeted. Matthews himself had trouble converting (if I remember correctly, hitting a ton of posts), and went through the worst ES SH% and OISH% stretch of his career. And then this year was a mess all around, with a disastrous start, changing coaches, changing systems, horribly deflating goaltending, ever-changing linemates, at times playing with the likes of players like Aberg... and then playing through an injured wrist himself for weeks, on top of having a bigger focus defensively.
Doing what he did at that young age, in a pretty sustainable way... I don't think people really understand the potential that Matthews has through his prime. Given reasonable linemates and PP time, he's a threat for every award there is, as well as historical records. He had a good playoffs, and D+5 is often a season where stars see a big advancement in development, so keep an eye on him this year...
From their first game in their D+1 season, to February 5th of their D+3 season, when Matthews signed:
ES P/60
McDavid: 3.01 Matthews: 2.78
ES P1/60
Matthews: 2.40
McDavid: 2.30
ES G/60
Matthews: 1.59
McDavid: 1.11
PP P/60
Matthews: 6.45
McDavid: 6.02
PP P1/60
Matthews: 5.05
McDavid: 3.23
PP G/60
Matthews: 2.94
McDavid: 1.12
Overall, at the same points in their development...
McDavid had been better in ES Points/60. Matthews had been better in ES Primary Points/60, ES Goals/60, PP Points/60, PP Primary Points/60, and PP Goals/60.
Yes, it's a concept that's even used in arbitration, it is not a fact used in arbitration. One side presents what they think are fair comparisons, the other side presents what they think are fair comparisons.
You said comparables was an arbitrary concept. That's incorrect.
Who the comparables are is an opinion to some extent, but the facts are just the facts. If there are players that you believe are better comparables that you would like to present and substantiate, then I'm all ears. Until then, Matthews fits well within his comparables.
Right now, Matthews isn't at McDavid's level offensively, but at time of signing their respective post-ELC contracts, they were at a similar level and pretty comparable, as I've shown.
I mean, you can do a quick google search and there's a bunch that discuss the value of a secondary assist, but here's one that does a quick, simple-to-understand overview. I also have not excluded the secondary assist; I just also consider more on top of just points.
You said comparables was an arbitrary concept. That's incorrect.
Who the comparables are is an opinion to some extent, but the facts are just the facts. If there are players that you believe are better comparables that you would like to present and substantiate, then I'm all ears. Until then, Matthews fits well within his comparables.
I don't believe his external comparibles played a factor in his negotiation whatsoever.
I believe his agent told Dubas that AM should be the highest paid player on the team, and since JT was getting 11, he wanted more.
Dubas said sure how's 11.6 over 8? And AM's camp said $11.6 is good, but for 5. Dubas said 7. AM's agent said 5. Dubas said 6. AM's agent said I can get 12 X 5 from Arizona in July. Dubas said ok 5.
(and before you get all nitpicky, I'm paraphrasing. Cuz you know, I wasn't actually there to hear the exact wording )
I don't believe his external comparibles played a factor in his negotiation whatsoever.
I believe his agent told Dubas that AM should be the highest paid player on the team, and since JT was getting 11, he wanted more.
Dubas said sure how's 11.6 over 8? And AM's camp said $11.6 is good, but for 5. Dubas said 7. AM's agent said 5. Dubas said 6. AM's agent said I can get 12 X 5 from Arizona in July. Dubas said ok 5.
(and before you get all nitpicky, I'm paraphrasing. Cuz you know, I wasn't actually there to hear the exact wording )
I don't believe his external comparibles played a factor in his negotiation whatsoever.
I believe his agent told Dubas that AM should be the highest paid player on the team, and since JT was getting 11, he wanted more.
Dubas said sure how's 11.6 over 8? And AM's camp said $11.6 is good, but for 5. Dubas said 7. AM's agent said 5. Dubas said 6. AM's agent said I can get 12 X 5 from Arizona in July. Dubas said ok 5.
(and before you get all nitpicky, I'm paraphrasing. Cuz you know, I wasn't actually there to hear the exact wording )
I don't believe his external comparibles played a factor in his negotiation whatsoever. I believe his agent told Dubas that AM should be the highest paid player on the team, and since JT was getting 11, he wanted more. Dubas said sure how's 11.6 over 8? And AM's camp said $11.6 is good, but for 5. Dubas said 7. AM's agent said 5. Dubas said 6. AM's agent said I can get 12 X 5 from Arizona in July. Dubas said ok 5.
There is nothing that supports that version of events. That's a pretty ridiculous depiction of an NHL contract negotiation. Of course external comparables played a factor, as they always do. Much, much more of a factor than Tavares, who was a UFA and had no relevance to a post-ELC signing.
I mean, in the end, I guess it doesn't even really matter. The fact is, his contract fits within his actual comparables, so how or why you personally think he got to that number is pretty irrelevant.
I mean, in the end, I guess it doesn't even really matter. The fact is, his contract fits within his actual comparables has a cap hit of $11.634M for 5 years, so how or why you or I personally think he got to that number is pretty irrelevant.
He got paid more than McDavid when adjusted for term.
McDavid isn't a comparable.
He never has been, and never will be when you compare all their stats, talent, and contribution at basically any level they have ever played at.
Matthews chickened and/or sold out (depending on your perspective) of playing a contact junior hockey league and wanted to start getting paid in Switzerland ($1 million) rather than playing with the best competition the North American game had to offer which is the CHL.
Matthews will be paid more over the term of their prime years in the league and for Dubas to allow that to happen is absolutely indefensible.
But I can't wait to see what you attempt to come up with.
Matthews chickened and/or sold out (depending on your perspective) of playing a contact junior hockey league and wanted to start getting paid in Switzerland ($1 million) rather than playing with the best competition the North American game had to offer which is the CHL.
You have no idea what they will be paid over their prime years. Matthews fits well within his comparables over a 5 year term, the most common term for high-end players, and the 5-year term allowed us to keep everybody together.
I don't believe his external comparibles played a factor in his negotiation whatsoever.
I believe his agent told Dubas that AM should be the highest paid player on the team, and since JT was getting 11, he wanted more.
Dubas said sure how's 11.6 over 8? And AM's camp said $11.6 is good, but for 5. Dubas said 7. AM's agent said 5. Dubas said 6. AM's agent said I can get 12 X 5 from Arizona in July. Dubas said ok 5.
(and before you get all nitpicky, I'm paraphrasing. Cuz you know, I wasn't actually there to hear the exact wording )
I don't think it's far off, but I doubt Tavares contract played any role. Given Moldaver and Jackson are both part of the Orr group they likely lead with a salvo (paraphrased) of "f*** off with 12.5 x 8 as a benchmark to work down from. Connor had more money for less term on the table and every one knows it. Austen isn't inclined to play that game."
Then followed up with (again paraphrasing), "If we get to July 1 with the plan to solicit offers of 10.5 x 4 or 12.5 x 7 are you going to bet against us getting them? No? Ok let's talk."
I don't think it's far off, but I doubt Tavares contract played any role. Given Moldaver and Jackson are both part of the Orr group they likely lead with a salvo (paraphrased) of "f*** off with 12.5 x 8 as a benchmark to work down from. Connor had more money for less term on the table and every one knows it. Austen isn't inclined to play that game."
Then followed up with (again paraphrasing), "If we get to July 1 with the plan to solicit offers of 10.5 x 4 or 12.5 x 7 are you going to bet against us getting them? No? Ok let's talk."
I think we can agree that the logical first move from the Leafs would be to use McDavid as a benchmark. Maybe add a little cap inflation, then take a little off for not being McDavid, iron out the details, voila 12x8. Easy peasy.
Both Moldaver and Jackson (Matthews' and McDavid's agents) are part of the Orr group. They're not going to operate in silo's with the groups flagship clients. The credibility of having someone in the room from the McDavid negotiation saying "No, 12.5x8 isn't McDavid's worth, the Oilers would have given him 13.5 x 8 or 12 x 5 if he wanted it, but Connor is an odd duck" resets things and moves the high water mark. Once you establish that the contract McDavid signed doesn't reflect his market worth and that Matthews has no intention of following suit and signing below his market worth the discussion shifts from "comparables" to real market leverage and willingness to pay.
Then for Dubas and Shanny there's three questions.
Do you think they're bluffing? Given rumours of the unhappiness and rift with Babcock likely not.
If they're not bluffing, do you think other teams would be willing to pay that? Of course, the draft pick compensation is a song for a player of his ability"
If other teams will do it, are we best served by getting into a public game of brinksmanship with our franchise player and drive a wedge or should we start working to solidify the relationship and act preemptively
I think we can agree that the logical first move from the Leafs would be to use McDavid as a benchmark. Maybe add a little cap inflation, then take a little off for not being McDavid, iron out the details, voila 12x8. Easy peasy.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
