Brayden Point Or Mark Scheifele

[GlitchMarner]

Who is better?

Click to read more...

 

[VoluntaryDom]

Point easily

 

[Dache]

Point easily

I can understand someone picking Point, the easily part is what confuses me.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Scheifele due to draft pedigree and size.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Scheifele. But both are great players.
Lol at anyone saying one or the other ‘easily’. You might as well just admit you’ve only seen one of them play if that’s your opinion.

 

[Binister]

Chef takes the cake.

No pun intended btw.

 

[hockeeyyy]

Chef takes the cake.

No pun intended btw.

Own the damn pun, you dummy lol

I went with Point, but I can see why people love Scheifele. I prefer Point's two-way game. He's got enough offensive weapons around him that he can play the game he wants without sacrificing one or the other. I feel Scheifele is a good number one centre, but after him, it's a mixed bag of C depth.

 

[Voight]

Seems like every year Tampa has a player that becomes elite and starts appearing in the top 10 leaderboards.

 

[tony d]

Point's a great player but still is Scheifele for me.

 

[Zamuz]

Scheifele is still one of the most underrated players. You barely see/hear his name anywhere.

He put 14 goals in 17 games in the playoffs

 

[Romang67]

I can understand someone picking Point, the easily part is what confuses me.

Well, given who posted it, I'd guess that Point has a better CF%.

No? Maybe a better CF% Rel?

Significantly worse you say? Maybe Point has less PP points or goals.

No? Maybe Point has a more sustainable on-ice sh%.

No? Weird.

 

[VoluntaryDom]

Well, given who posted it, I'd guess that Point has a better CF%.

No? Maybe a better CF% Rel?

Significantly worse you say? Maybe Point has less PP points or goals.

No? Maybe Point has a more sustainable on-ice sh%.

No? Weird.

Point has a significantly higher primary scoring rate this year+last. Close to 30% higher. Factor in two way play and usage and yeah, I think it’s easy.

 

[Romang67]

Point has a significantly higher primary scoring rate this year+last. Close to 30% higher. Factor in two way play and usage and yeah, I think it’s easy.

Of course you do. Let's ignore that Point has a negative CF% Rel and averages 8 seconds of SH ice time per game. Those primary scoring rates are sure to continue looking like they do, as long as his on-ice sh% doesn't drop. I'm sure one or two players have kept up a ~12.5% over the course of an 82 game season since the lockout.

As always, a very dubious honor to see how shallow your analysis of the advanced statistics is.

 

[Boud]

Results are pretty lopsided

 

[Boud]

Double

 

[VoluntaryDom]

Of course you do. Let's ignore that Point has a negative CF% Rel and averages 8 seconds of SH ice time per game. Those primary scoring rates are sure to continue looking like they do, as long as his on-ice sh% doesn't drop. I'm sure one or two players have kept up a ~12.5% over the course of an 82 game season since the lockout.

As always, a very dubious honor to see how shallow your analysis of the advanced statistics is.

I was using this season+last as the sample size, not this year alone. Point PKed a lot last year but now that he’s the #1 center at 5v5 we don’t use him as much on the PK. Point is around 54.5% xgf% in that span against top comp with far lower qot than most first liners due to playing 17-18 on the second line in a matchup role.

 

[Romang67]

I was using this season+last as the sample size, not this year alone. Point PKed a lot last year but now that he’s the #1 center at 5v5 we don’t use him as much on the PK. Point is around 54.5% xgf% in that span against top comp with far lower qot than most first liners due to playing 17-18 on the second line in a matchup role.

You don't use him at all on the PK, I believe you're saying. Scheifele, meanwhile, is quite heavily used. Point also has a lower xGF% Rel than Scheifele has. But as it's not part of the two things your analysis is based on in this case, you're of course ignoring that.

I wouldn't even bother if not for the fact that your incredibly shallow analyses give so much ammunition to people who don't think advanced stats has any value. The fact that you're wrong time and time again about players (Rantanen come to mind immediately) doesn't seem to matter, as I can only assume that every player that show that your hypothesis might be wrong is disregarded as an outlier.

Simply put, you're missing a crucial portion of the scientific method. Someone who supposedly believes in statistics REALLY shouldn't be missing that. Someone who supposedly believes in statistics also really shouldn't limit the analysis to one or two variables while ignoring everything else.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Seems like every year Tampa has a player that becomes elite and starts appearing in the top 10 leaderboards.

Yet, they never win the cup. A bit odd.

 

[VoluntaryDom]

You don't use him at all on the PK, I believe you're saying. Scheifele, meanwhile, is quite heavily used. Point also has a lower xGF% Rel than Scheifele has. But as it's not part of the two things your analysis is based on in this case, you're of course ignoring that.

I wouldn't even bother if not for the fact that your incredibly shallow analyses give so much ammunition to people who don't think advanced stats has any value. The fact that you're wrong time and time again about players (Rantanen come to mind immediately) doesn't seem to matter, as I can only assume that every player that show that your hypothesis might be wrong is disregarded as an outlier.

Simply put, you're missing a crucial portion of the scientific method. Someone who supposedly believes in statistics REALLY shouldn't be missing that. Someone who supposedly believes in statistics also really shouldn't limit the analysis to one or two variables while ignoring everything else.

My dude stop using tiny samples

In this year’s tiny sample Scheifele is scoring at a good 2nd line rate (last I checked), is he now a 2nd liner? No. This year+last he has scored at a solid first line rate. Point has scored at a top 10 in the league rate.

 

[Ainec]

I voted Brayden Point because I want to be a honorary Tampa Bay fan when they win the cup

 

[olli]

My dude stop using tiny samples

In this year’s tiny sample Scheifele is scoring at a good 2nd line rate (last I checked), is he now a 2nd liner? No. This year+last he has scored at a solid first line rate. Point has scored at a top 10 in the league rate.

Since when is 15 goals and 31 points in 25 games is a 2nd line rate? When did you last check? 7 games into the season when he had 4 points?

 

[VoluntaryDom]

Since when is 15 goals and 31 points in 25 games is a 2nd line rate? When did you last check? 7 games into the season when he had 4 points?

I checked a week or two ago when he had 1.5 p1/60. Higher end 2nd line production, to maybe bordering on first line.

 

[Romang67]

My dude stop using tiny samples

In this year’s tiny sample Scheifele is scoring at a good 2nd line rate (last I checked), is he now a 2nd liner? No. This year+last he has scored at a solid first line rate. Point has scored at a top 10 in the league rate.

I'm using the same 2 season sample for Rel xGF% as you used for xGF%. -0.27 for Point, compared to 2.08 for Scheifele.

The fact that you think I used tiny samples indicates that you haven't actually looked into these variables at all, except for the two variables you arbitrarily decided matter for this analysis. Again, the fact that your analysis is so incredibly shallow and that you refuse to actually try to improve your methods is quite aggravating. It doesn't just hurt your reputation, which I'm perfectly fine with if you stubbornly refuse to improve, but it hurts the reputation of people using advanced statistics.

You can rest assured that I understand how small samples affect statistics. Data use is a key component in my everyday life, and will be for a very long time. I also understand how ignoring important variables can affect statistics. And how refusing to augment a poor model affects predictive power of that model. You either don't, or you refuse to acknowledge it because it might change what you now consider universal truths.

 

[VoluntaryDom]

I'm using the same 2 season sample for Rel xGF% as you used for xGF%. -0.27 for Point, compared to 2.08 for Scheifele.

The fact that you think I used tiny samples indicates that you haven't actually looked into these variables at all, except for the two variables you arbitrarily decided matter for this analysis. Again, the fact that your analysis is so incredibly shallow and that you refuse to actually try to improve your methods is quite aggravating. It doesn't just hurt your reputation, which I'm perfectly fine with if you stubbornly refuse to improve, but it hurts the reputation of people using advanced statistics.

You can rest assured that I understand how small samples affect statistics. Data use is a key component in my everyday life, and will be for a very long time. I also understand how ignoring important variables can affect statistics. And how refusing to augment a poor model affects predictive power of that model. You either don't, or you refuse to acknowledge it because it might change what you now consider universal truths.

Are you sure about that rel xGF stat? It wasn’t near that last I checked. Scheif was like +1.5 and Point was like +2 or something in that area. I’m not on my computer right now so can’t check. And again not sure it makes up the 30% scoring gap anyway. Last I checked Point is at over 2.2 p1/60, an elite rate, in that span. I quite often try to improve my analysis my dude.

 

[VoluntaryDom]

Just checked for you: please stop intentionally lying. (that or you accidentally looked at corsi). In the 2 season sample I have been using, Point has a +1.69 rel xGF% in this span, 54.52% xgf%, and 2.23 p1/60. Scheifele has brought his scoring up over the last couple weeks (havent been watching the Jets in that span so I'm assuming a hot streak which makes sense for a player as talented as him) to 1.87 p1/60, a higher end 1st line rate. He has a +2.08 rel xGF (so slightly better than Point in that area) but only a 52.97% xgf%. However the only players with a better primary scoring rate than Scheifele who have higher qot than him are MacKinnon (plays on one line team) and Dadonov (panthers overplay top-6).

 

[Romang67]

Are you sure about that rel xGF stat? It wasn’t near that last I checked. Scheif was like +1.5 and Point was like +2 or something in that area. I’m not on my computer right now so can’t check. And again not sure it makes up the 30% scoring gap anyway. Last I checked Point is at over 2.2 p1/60, an elite rate, in that span. I quite often try to improve my analysis my dude.

No, you don't, or at least not in any meaningful way. You're stubbornly ignoring variables that don't fit your model, instead of attempting to create models that adjust for these variables. You're looking at way too few variables, whether out of laziness or out of fear that you will fail to interpret your model. You complain about small sample sizes, but here refuse to acknowledge that Point has an unsustainable on-ice sh% which in itself is a very clear sign that you should be vary of looking at his production before it normalizes.

You have all the data in the world available to you, but refuse to use it.

Right now you're also clearly talking about something you have no idea about, as your numbers about Scheifele are laughably wrong.