Draisaitl vs. Matthews

Who will score more goals this season?


  • Total voters
    655
Status
Not open for further replies.

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
Hasn't necessarily shown that so far. Matthews averaged 18:33 per game last year and produced 1.07 points per game. Matthews is averaging over a minute more this season (19:40 per game) and is producing ... wait for it ... 1.07 points per game.

If increase in ice time per game results in more production, wouldn't that be showing this year with Matthews getting over a full minute more than he did last year? Wouldn't the bolded suggest that Matthews' production be higher this year due to him getting over a minute more ice time per game?
You've had it pointed out countless times how stupid it is to look at sample sizes this small, yet you continue to post this nonsense. And actually, you're wrong.

ES P/60 last year (15:57 ice time): 2.93
ES P/60 this year (16:13 ice time): 2.96

He has seen a tiny increase in ES ice time, and has seen a tiny increase in ES P/60.

What you're judging him on is PP production over a laughably useless sample size for a PP that has struggled for 2/3 of the season so far.

And I'm sure if the opposite were true, Matthews fans wouldn't be pointing out how his offense has increased with increased ice time, right? :laugh:
Matthews fans aren't the ones clinging desperately to the unsubstantiated myth that production decreases with increased ice time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dion TheFluff

Dache

Registered User
Feb 12, 2018
5,247
2,773
No, 15 games would still be a statistically insignificant sane size regardless of what happened leafs fans werent pretending Matthews was going to keep scoring 4 goals a game after his debut in 2016 ect.

they were saying he was as good as McDavid after his hot start last year. How many games was that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukeofjive

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,516
46,232
You've had it pointed out countless times how stupid it is to look at sample sizes this small, yet you continue to post this nonsense. And actually, you're wrong.

ES P/60 last year (15:57 ice time): 2.93
ES P/60 this year (16:13 ice time): 2.96

He has seen a tiny increase in ES ice time, and has seen a tiny increase in ES P/60.

What you're judging him on is PP production over a laughably useless sample size for a PP that has struggled for 2/3 of the season so far.

I'm judging him on his points per game. I realize that for you, nothing exists other than what you deem is the true measure of a player's production. But for 99% of the fans out there, points per game is a good comparison between players. And those are the folks I'm conversing with because you flat out refuse to see any statistical measurements as valid other than whatever ones you deem worthy, so there's very little reason to engage with you when everything that falls outside of the stats you deem worthy are just flat out dismissed.

In any case, it was just a funny observation that an increase of a minute in ice time isn't resulting in immediate dividends.

Matthews fans aren't the ones clinging desperately to the unsubstantiated myth that production decreases with increased ice time.

And neither do I. So either you created a strawman to argue against me, or you're posting irrelevant garbage to flesh out your "argument" as a response to something I didn't say.
 

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
I'm judging him on his points per game.
How convenient.

I realize that for you, nothing exists other than what you deem is the true measure of a player's production.
You've literally argued this very thing about P/60 multiple times. :eyeroll:

But for 99% of the fans out there, points per game is a good comparison between players.
No comparison is good when you intentionally ignore valuable information.

And those are the folks I'm conversing with
Do you mean your echo chamber of Leaf-bashing?

because you flat out refuse to see any statistical measurements as valid other than whatever ones you deem worthy, so there's very little reason to engage with you when everything that falls outside of the stats you deem worthy are just flat out dismissed.
That's literally what you're doing. :laugh:

In any case, it was just a funny observation that an increase of a minute in ice time isn't resulting in immediate dividends.
There is nothing funny about PP production fluctuating over a tiny insignificant sample. Increased ES TOI has actually resulted in an increased ES production rate, contrary to your constant repeated unsubstantiated claims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Namikaze Minato

ijuka

Registered User
May 14, 2016
22,157
14,648
Matthews fans aren't the ones clinging desperately to the unsubstantiated myth that production decreases with increased ice time.
Uh, production decreases? Not necessarily. But production per 60 likely will, and there's plenty of data to support that.

Btw, that's not how you reply to 1 person's 1 post. It's really annoying.
 

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
But production per 60 likely will, and there's plenty of data to support that.
This is incorrect. There is no data to support this.

What we are actually seeing is a slight increase in ES production rate with a slight increase in ES TOI.
 

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,516
46,232
How convenient.


You've literally argued this very thing about P/60 multiple times. :eyeroll:


No comparison is good when you intentionally ignore valuable information.

See? This is what I mean when it comes to discussing things with you. You break things up into little quotes like this and don't even present anything. You just add a snarky little remark in response to whatever is presented or said.

Do you mean your echo chamber of Leaf-bashing?

Nope. There's quite a few Leaf fans I enjoy engaging in because, even if they disagree, they acknowledge points that the other person makes while attempting to make their own points. You don't do that. With you, it's you're right, the other person is wrong.

There is nothing funny about PP production fluctuating over a tiny insignificant sample. Increased ES TOI has actually resulted in an increased ES production rate, contrary to your constant repeated unsubstantiated claims.

So wait, now you're arguing that this early season sample size DOES matter? Didn't you "like" someone's post on the previous page who said it's way too small a sample size? Now you're trying to say I'm "wrong" because Matthews' numbers have gone up this year with increased ice time?
 

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
You break things up into little quotes like this and don't even present anything.
How dare I quote things and then post my own relevant commentary or information! What is this, a message board or something??? :eek:

There's quite a few Leaf fans I enjoy engaging in because, even if they disagree, they acknowledge points that the other person makes while attempting to make their own points.
You enjoy engaging with them (usually not actual Leaf fans) because they have the same lack of information that makes them agree with your incorrect points.

With you, it's you're right, the other person is wrong.
It may seem that way because I spend a lot of time correcting blatantly false things.

So wait, now you're arguing that this early season sample size DOES matter?
No, the sample size is horrible. I've already stated that multiple times. That doesn't mean you can go on to state incorrect conclusions from that sample size and then have a fit when you're corrected.
 

Tad Mikowsky

Only Droods
Sponsor
Jun 30, 2008
20,857
21,557
Edmonton
How dare I quote things and then post my own relevant commentary or information! What is this, a message board or something??? :eek:


You enjoy engaging with them (usually not actual Leaf fans) because they have the same lack of information that makes them agree with your incorrect points.


It may seem that way because I spend a lot of time correcting blatantly false things.


No, the sample size is horrible. I've already stated that multiple times. That doesn't mean you can go on to state incorrect conclusions from that sample size and then have a fit when you're corrected.

Blatantly correcting lies. Okay bud.

Keep posting that one YouTube clip of Matthews in his rookie year to prove he’s a good playmaker. Or cherry pick one set of given stats. Whatever helps you rest at night.
 

ijuka

Registered User
May 14, 2016
22,157
14,648
This is incorrect. There is no data to support this.

What we are actually seeing is a slight increase in ES production rate with a slight increase in ES TOI.
Uh, sorry but in Auston Matthews's case that falls within variance. I wasn't talking about a 1 player sample size.
 

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
Keep posting that one YouTube clip of Matthews in his rookie year to prove he’s a good playmaker.
Why are you so triggered by me posting a clip that was requested by another poster?

Or cherry pick one set of given stats.
I'm not cherry picking anything. Quite the opposite. I am speaking up against cherry picking and manipulation of statistics.
 

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
You've had it pointed out countless times how stupid it is to look at sample sizes this small, yet you continue to post this nonsense. And actually, you're wrong.

ES P/60 last year (15:57 ice time): 2.93
ES P/60 this year (16:13 ice time): 2.96

He has seen a tiny increase in ES ice time, and has seen a tiny increase in ES P/60.

What you're judging him on is PP production over a laughably useless sample size for a PP that has struggled for 2/3 of the season so far.


Matthews fans aren't the ones clinging desperately to the unsubstantiated myth that production decreases with increased ice time.

You just made a total straw man argument. That poster was referring to production as a whole and not just ES production, and he was not wrong at all.

2019-2020:

PPTOI/GP: 3:26, PPP/60: 4.65

2018-2019:

PPTOI/GP: 2:34, PPP/60: 6.86

On the PP, he’s seen a notable increase in minutes, and a notable decrease in production rate.

To be clear here, cause I know you’re about to try and misrepresent me, I don’t think this sample is large enough to draw any meaningful conclusions from, but your post is the definition of creating a straw man argument and then cherry picking something that fits your narrative.

I'm not cherry picking anything. Quite the opposite. I am speaking up against cherry picking and manipulation of statistics.

:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

Hang on, let me catch my breath here...

:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Last edited:

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
That poster was referring to production as a whole and not just ES production, and he was not wrong at all.
The poster was wrong. He attributed it to time differences despite zero evidence of that.

I already pointed out the PP differences, and identified that he was "judging him on his PP production over a laughably useless sample size for a PP that has struggled for 2/3 of the season so far". The ES split completely countered the argument they were making, and was significantly bigger than the PP sample.

I don’t think this sample is large enough to draw any meaningful conclusions from
Yet there you go again, drawing conclusions and supporting people who do so.
 

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
This is blatantly false
It's not false at all.

I know you're trying to make a point by doing this in every thread because I say this sometimes after explaining and proving things with evidence countless times, but thought I'd give you a heads up that you doing it out of spite after taking no position and explaining nothing and contributing nothing to the conversation just makes you look bad. But you do you, lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Namikaze Minato

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,516
46,232
How dare I quote things and then post my own relevant commentary or information! What is this, a message board or something??? :eek:

How exactly are comments like this ...

How convenient.

You've literally argued this very thing about P/60 multiple times. :eyeroll:


No comparison is good when you intentionally ignore valuable information.

... relevant commentary or information you're presenting?

None of those actually refuted anything I said. You call saying "how convenient" in response to my posting about using points per game as adding your own relevant commentary or information?

If someone posts "Player X is better than Player Y because of their point totals", responding with "untrue" or "if one ignores context" isn't adding anything other than snark. It's not refuting a thing. And that's essentially what you did above, and what you do often in discussions when someone presents statistics that don't fit *your* idea of what is relevant.

You enjoy engaging with them (usually not actual Leaf fans) because they have the same lack of information that makes them agree with your incorrect points.

You should tell people like @CantLoseWithMatthews and @King Mapes and @Ryan Michaels and a host of others that they aren't actual Leaf fans and that they "lack information" since those were the type of Leaf fans I was alluding to about enjoying engaging with, even if we disagree on a topic.

It may seem that way because I spend a lot of time correcting blatantly false things.

You seem to have a tough time differentiating between "false things" and "things that you disagree with". This goes back to my previous comment where you think any point someone else makes is automatically wrong or "false" while everything you post is correct.

No, the sample size is horrible. I've already stated that multiple times. That doesn't mean you can go on to state incorrect conclusions from that sample size and then have a fit when you're corrected.

Or you could have simply said "too small a sample size" if you think it's too small a sample size. The fact you decided to actually post your numbers to argue I was wrong shows you think the data in the sample size is suggestive of some kind of conclusion, otherwise you wouldn't have even bothered looking it up.
 

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
None of those actually refuted anything I said.
I identified your selective use of stats, I identified your position on the matter in previous arguments, and I identified your intentional ignoring of valuable information. All were relevant to the topic and the post I was responding to.

If someone posts "Player X is better than Player Y because of their point totals", responding with "untrue" or "if one ignores context" isn't adding anything other than snark.
Actually, I responded with information breaking down your claim and proving you wrong. When you decided to throw a fit over that, we have had these follow-up conversations, where you are now throwing a fit over the follow-up conversations.

You seem to have a tough time differentiating between "false things" and "things that you disagree with".
Everybody talks about their opinions on here as if they are fact, even when it's just things they disagree with. The difference is I provide extensive evidence.

Or you could have simply said "too small a sample size" if you think it's too small a sample size.
I did say it was too small of a sample size, multiple times.

Here's an idea! Don't post things that you know are incorrect or based on faulty logic or small sample sizes, and you won't get called out.

The fact you decided to actually post your numbers to argue I was wrong shows you think the data in the sample size is suggestive of some kind of conclusion, otherwise you wouldn't have even bothered looking it up.
That does not suggest that at all. The sample is irrelevant. However, if we are going to post stats and make claims based on it like you did, let's post the truth.
 

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
I identified your selective use of stats, I identified your position on the matter in previous arguments, and I identified your intentional ignoring of valuable information. All were relevant to the topic and the post I was responding to.


Actually, I responded with information breaking down your claim and proving you wrong. When you decided to throw a fit over that, we have had these follow-up conversations, where you are now throwing a fit over the follow-up conversations.


Everybody talks about their opinions on here as if they are fact, even when it's just things they disagree with. The difference is I provide extensive evidence.


I did say it was too small of a sample size, multiple times.

Here's an idea! Don't post things that you know are incorrect or based on faulty logic or small sample sizes, and you won't get called out.


That does not suggest that at all. The sample is irrelevant. However, if we are going to post stats and make claims based on it like you did, let's post the truth.

There was nothing faulty or incorrect about what he said at all. He has seen an insignificant rise in ESP/60 to go along with an insignificant rise in ESTOI/GP, but more importantly, he has seen a significant drop in PPP/60 to go along with a significant rise in PPPTOI/GP. The result is a stagnation in P/GP despite an increase in TOI/GP.

That poster never specified ES or PP minutes. You created a straw man argument that addressed only one of those things and then cherry picked the piece of information that you didn’t want to post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: theblackadder

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,516
46,232
I identified your selective use of stats, I identified your position on the matter in previous arguments, and I identified your intentional ignoring of valuable information. All were relevant to the topic and the post I was responding to.

Here's an idea! Don't post things that you know are incorrect or based on faulty logic or small sample sizes, and you won't get called out.

Here's an idea! How about respond to the stat I mentioned, instead of inserting the stat you believe should be measured?

I was talking about points per game because "production" includes all game states, not just what a player produces at even strength. Not ES per game, not ES/60, not 5on5/60, nor any other stat. The fact you want to focus on ES/60 or whatever stat you decide is relevant and call the stat I was referencing "false information" just shows what I've been saying for multiple posts now -- you blatantly ignore any stat that you don't want to see used and act like your stats are the be-all, end-all. And anyone who dares reference a stat you don't deem worthy is posting "false information".

But I'm done with this conversation and interacting with you because it's not even a discussion. It's essentially you calling someone out and accusing them of false information because you believe every discussion should be about the stats that YOU think are relevant, even if the stats that person posts (in this case, me posting about points per game) are, in fact, true and not false.
 

DFF

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
22,275
6,525
Without mcdavid, drai would be a 30 goals/60 pts guy...if that
Dude can't even drive his own line properly
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->