Elias Pettersson Milestone Thread

[koyvoo]

Pettersson is what Barzal was last year.

Except that Barzal was sheltered from the opposition’s best defenders giving their focus to Tavares. He didn’t play vs teams top shutdown units. Pettersson is the opposition’s primary focus to defend.

 

[CP4]

Pettersson is what Barzal was last year.

A fantastic rookie and player? Also Pettersson isn't as sheltered as Barzal was with a superstar center.

 

[mc1laren]

I said

If he was to shoot 16.6% instead of 26.6% and keep 25 goals thatd mean he shot more than he has - if he was shooting more than he has that usually means he's shooting from a position of some level of chance to score, which means he is passing up on the equivalent chances to pass that he's now taken to shoot (to make up the 10% difference).

So yes, he'd have however many assists less that comes out to if he was shooting 16.6% as it would suggest he chose to shoot instead of pass x amount of times (his extra shots)

lol that's a reach. There's nothing to support an outcome like that.

You're equating a drop in shooting percentage to a decrease in assists. How did you even establish that link without any hard evidence that that is a likely outcome without any historical evidence? Seems like you just pulled that out of thin air.

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

lol that's a reach. There's nothing to support an outcome like that.

You're equating a drop in shooting percentage to a decrease in assists. How did you even establish that link without any hard evidence that that is a likely outcome without any historical evidence? Seems like you just pulled that out of thin air.

If you don't understand it I wont bother explaining it further.

Two paragraphs is enough for an extremely simple concept - but I dont think you actually read it through if you're making comments like 'youre equating a drop in shooting percentage to a decrease in assists'.

 

[Buresflyingelbow]

Pettersson is not what Barzal was last year as he has no shelter and was not a Centre last year on North American ice.

Great player but not even close to the player Petty is. If you include defence into the fold there is zero comparison between the two besides points per game

 

[mc1laren]

If you don't understand it I wont bother explaining it further.

Two paragraphs is enough for an extremely simple concept - but I dont think you actually read it through if you're making comments like 'youre equating a drop in shooting percentage to a decrease in assists'.

I absolutely read what you wrote.

You are basically saying that Pettersson's opportunities are limited. He only has x amount of opportunities. If he is shooting more, he is passing less or his opportunities to pass decrease. So, hypothetically, if Pettersson has 100 opportunities and is currently taking 50 shots and 50 passes, then next year when he takes more shots he will be passing less and in turn will produce less assists. So you're saying he will take 75 shots and will pass only 25 times, hypothetically of course. That is what youre saying, right? Does this make sense to you? Respectfully asking of course.

That's not how hockey works. Let me know if I should further clarify but I believe I broke it down sufficiently for you to now see how farfetched and baseless your argument is. Just because a player shoots more does not mean he passes less. I am highly doubtful you or any other person would be able to prove that there exists a causal relationship between shooting percentage and assists when assuming a player shooting more will all of a sudden produce less assists.

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

I absolutely read what you wrote.

You are basically saying that Pettersson's opportunities are limited. He only has x amount of opportunities. If he is shooting more, he is passing less or his opportunities to pass decrease. So, hypothetically, if Pettersson has 100 opportunities and is currently taking 50 shots and 50 passes, then next year when he takes more shots he will be passing less and in turn will produce less assists. So you're saying he will take 75 shots and will pass only 25 times, hypothetically of course. That is what youre saying, right? Does this make sense to you? Respectfully asking of course.

That's not how hockey works. Let me know if I should further clarify but I believe I broke it down sufficiently for you to now see how farfetched and baseless your argument is. Just because a player shoots more does not mean he passes less. I am highly doubtful you or any other person would be able to prove that there exists a causal relationship between shooting percentage and assists when assuming a player shooting more will all of a sudden produce less assists.

You aren't understanding the context of the post you originally quoted.

The discussion revolved around if you were to look at Pettersson's shooting% at the time of the post, 26.6%, which was 25 on 94. Take that and then lets add enough shots for the percentage to be 16.6% but keep his 25 goals, totalling around 150. So he would have 25 on around 151 for 16.6%. By taking the hypothetical shooting% of 16.6% while keeping the ability to score 25, this would mean he would be passing the puck less as he would have been shooting more. So it most certainly would have lowered his CURRENT assist totals.

Now, furthermore I stated that his skillset and young age will be the contributing factors to what NEGATEs this affect if he becomes more of a volume shooter vs a selective shooter. However the affects of becoming a volume shooter would take 2-3 seasons likely before the volume normalizes back to his ability to reach peak assist totals.By shooting it (151-94) 57 more times he literally would have had to have passed up more passing oppourtunities. There is a maximum amount of oppourtunities generated a game, and shooting more (75-100% more) affects this.

The entire premise of the argument was for those saying 'Pettersson will just shoot more, duh', and my point was sure he can do that but it comes at consequences and it is a matter of his development and skillset to make up for the deficiencies shooting more will bring about. If folks seriously think a player can simply raise their shooting volume by around 75-100% and maintain their assist totals without any valley in the statline - they dont have much of an understanding of how it works.

I imagine Pettersson remains a selective shooter and goes for around 16-18% career, if he proves to be like this past his rookie year.

 

[Ace of Hades]

Pettersson is what Barzal was last year.

Except Pettersson is playing better than Barzal was last season.

 

[alicia]

Y’all still arguing about sh% ???

 

[SteelerNation]

You aren't understanding the context of the post you originally quoted.

The discussion revolved around if you were to look at Pettersson's shooting% at the time of the post, 26.6%, which was 25 on 94. Take that and then lets add enough shots for the percentage to be 16.6% but keep his 25 goals, totalling around 150. So he would have 25 on around 151 for 16.6%. By taking the hypothetical shooting% of 16.6% while keeping the ability to score 25, this would mean he would be passing the puck less as he would have been shooting more. So it most certainly would have lowered his CURRENT assist totals.

Now, furthermore I stated that his skillset and young age will be the contributing factors to what NEGATEs this affect if he becomes more of a volume shooter vs a selective shooter. However the affects of becoming a volume shooter would take 2-3 seasons likely before the volume normalizes back to his ability to reach peak assist totals.By shooting it (151-94) 57 more times he literally would have had to have passed up more passing oppourtunities. There is a maximum amount of oppourtunities generated a game, and shooting more (75-100% more) affects this.

The entire premise of the argument was for those saying 'Pettersson will just shoot more, duh', and my point was sure he can do that but it comes at consequences and it is a matter of his development and skillset to make up for the deficiencies shooting more will bring about. If folks seriously think a player can simply raise their shooting volume by around 75-100% and maintain their assist totals without any valley in the statline - they dont have much of an understanding of how it works.

I imagine Pettersson remains a selective shooter and goes for around 16-18% career, if he proves to be like this past his rookie year.

So you literally got told by a smarter poster and then wasted your time making this confusing post that lacks any sort of logic. Gotcha.
Shooting percentage honks are too much on here. If you want to sound smarter than people then start watching baseball that has actual proven analytics rather than wasting time everyday arguing against shooting percentage on a message board. Shooting percentage obviously plays a very small roll in the bigger scheme of analytics but it has gotten to some posters head

 

[mc1laren]

You aren't understanding the context of the post you originally quoted.

The discussion revolved around if you were to look at Pettersson's shooting% at the time of the post, 26.6%, which was 25 on 94. Take that and then lets add enough shots for the percentage to be 16.6% but keep his 25 goals, totalling around 150. So he would have 25 on around 151 for 16.6%. By taking the hypothetical shooting% of 16.6% while keeping the ability to score 25, this would mean he would be passing the puck less as he would have been shooting more. So it most certainly would have lowered his CURRENT assist totals.

Now, furthermore I stated that his skillset and young age will be the contributing factors to what NEGATEs this affect if he becomes more of a volume shooter vs a selective shooter. However the affects of becoming a volume shooter would take 2-3 seasons likely before the volume normalizes back to his ability to reach peak assist totals.By shooting it (151-94) 57 more times he literally would have had to have passed up more passing oppourtunities. There is a maximum amount of oppourtunities generated a game, and shooting more (75-100% more) affects this.

The entire premise of the argument was for those saying 'Pettersson will just shoot more, duh', and my point was sure he can do that but it comes at consequences and it is a matter of his development and skillset to make up for the deficiencies shooting more will bring about. If folks seriously think a player can simply raise their shooting volume by around 75-100% and maintain their assist totals without any valley in the statline - they dont have much of an understanding of how it works.

I imagine Pettersson remains a selective shooter and goes for around 16-18% career, if he proves to be like this past his rookie year.

That really clears things up for me in understanding your perspective. I would argue that there is no historical data that would support this theory. At this time, this idea is simply a theory without any evidential support. Whilst I respect that common sense element of shooting more, passing less, I just don't see this happening with Pettersson.

If we accept your theory to be true based on the assumptions you have posited, it would claim that Elias Pettersson would be the only player who shot more but produced lower point totals. Remember this is based on some peoples perspective that he shooting percentage is an anomaly and therefore he will generate more shots but not score as many goals and at the same time get less assists. If that were to happen and his shooting percentage is "corrected" to the mean, then EP is likely looking at a less successful season statistically next year as compared to this year. This would suggest he is not as talented as he is has shown to be. Its at this point, where your argument loses credibility. There is no way based on his play this year, that he will be an inferior player next year regardless of which direction his shooting % trends.

I am confident, next year he will have more shots, more goals, and more assists than this year.

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

So you literally got told by a smarter poster and then wasted your time making this confusing post that lacks any sort of logic. Gotcha.
Shooting percentage honks are too much on here. If you want to sound smarter than people then start watching baseball that has actual proven analytics rather than wasting time everyday arguing against shooting percentage on a message board. Shooting percentage obviously plays a very small roll in the bigger scheme of analytics but it has gotten to some posters head

I hope it made you feel better posting this

Doesnt change the fact that everything Ive stated is true

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

That really clears things up for me in understanding your perspective. I would argue that there is no historical data that would support this theory. At this time, this idea is simply a theory without any evidential support. Whilst I respect that common sense element of shooting more, passing less, I just don't see this happening with Pettersson.

If we accept your theory to be true based on the assumptions you have posited, it would claim that Elias Pettersson would be the only player who shot more but produced lower point totals. Remember this is based on some peoples perspective that he shooting percentage is an anomaly and therefore he will generate more shots but not score as many goals and at the same time get less assists. If that were to happen and his shooting percentage is "corrected" to the mean, then EP is likely looking at a less successful season statistically next year as compared to this year. This would suggest he is not as talented as he is has shown to be. Its at this point, where your argument loses credibility. There is no way based on his play this year, that he will be an inferior player next year regardless of which direction his shooting % trends.

I am confident, next year he will have more shots, more goals, and more assists than this year.

Except its not just a theory, its a statistical truth

But ill end this here - i havent gotten back a single response from any poster providing any sort of statistical backup to their counter claims

 

[Elias GOATtersson]

Except its not just a theory, its a statistical truth

But ill end this here - i havent gotten back a single response from any poster providing any sort of statistical backup to their counter claims

50 points in 45 games

 

[CpatainCanuck]

 

[Gobben]

You aren't understanding the context of the post you originally quoted.

The discussion revolved around if you were to look at Pettersson's shooting% at the time of the post, 26.6%, which was 25 on 94. Take that and then lets add enough shots for the percentage to be 16.6% but keep his 25 goals, totalling around 150. So he would have 25 on around 151 for 16.6%. By taking the hypothetical shooting% of 16.6% while keeping the ability to score 25, this would mean he would be passing the puck less as he would have been shooting more. So it most certainly would have lowered his CURRENT assist totals.

Now, furthermore I stated that his skillset and young age will be the contributing factors to what NEGATEs this affect if he becomes more of a volume shooter vs a selective shooter. However the affects of becoming a volume shooter would take 2-3 seasons likely before the volume normalizes back to his ability to reach peak assist totals.By shooting it (151-94) 57 more times he literally would have had to have passed up more passing oppourtunities. There is a maximum amount of oppourtunities generated a game, and shooting more (75-100% more) affects this.

The entire premise of the argument was for those saying 'Pettersson will just shoot more, duh', and my point was sure he can do that but it comes at consequences and it is a matter of his development and skillset to make up for the deficiencies shooting more will bring about. If folks seriously think a player can simply raise their shooting volume by around 75-100% and maintain their assist totals without any valley in the statline - they dont have much of an understanding of how it works.

I imagine Pettersson remains a selective shooter and goes for around 16-18% career, if he proves to be like this past his rookie year.

This is under the premise that a player is already at a "maximum amount of opportunities". As such it is a thing that will first have to be proved, or the resulting theory has no basis in reality.

Another simple theory is that increased shooting can lead to an increased number of assists, both as a result of the shot, and indicrectly, because it might make the other team more uncertain as what a player will do, which might open up passing lanes.

I am not the man to figure out the statistics behind, shots, goals, assists and sh%, all I can do is to mention that there are individual examples of players increasing most all of those stats. Look at Daniel Alfredsson 2005-2006 for example: career high number of shots, goals, assists and the next highest sh% number. So, there are at least doubts about whether your theory is correct.

The example implies that things are not so simple, and that there are many factors to ponder.

 

[CherryToke]

Unsustainable toedrag%

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

This is under the premise that a player is already at a "maximum amount of opportunities". As such it is a thing that will first have to be proved, or the resulting theory has no basis in reality.

Another simple theory is that increased shooting can lead to an increased number of assists, both as a result of the shot, and indicrectly, because it might make the other team more uncertain as what a player will do, which might open up passing lanes.

I am not the man to figure out the statistics behind, shots, goals, assists and sh%, all I can do is to mention that there are individual examples of players increasing most all of those stats. Look at Daniel Alfredsson 2005-2006 for example: career high number of shots, goals, assists and the next highest sh% number. So, there are at least doubts about whether your theory is correct.

The example implies that things are not so simple, and that there are many factors to ponder.

Again, as stated multiple times, my theory is based around the next 2-3 seasons until his increase in volume normalizes (if it even increases as it was a counter argument to him raising his shot totals). Players dont simply increase shots out of the blue by 75-100% while also totalling more assists UNLESS their development warranted it.

The development side is what will dictate Petterssons future success in terms of his shooting%. Will he shoot more? Will he continue to be selective and simply score less goals? Will he do it all like some generational alien?

There are examples like yours of Alfredsson for a single season, however its so extremely rare if not impossible for a player to do so over their career.

How I see it is this: if Petterson went for volume (which he may not), his goal totals or assist totals either drop for 1-2-3 seasons until he normalizes his shot totals, then his development will make up for the lost ground in terms of those extra points (IF he is as good as this season is for him).

Theres about a 0% chance a player goes from around 150 total shots to 300+ and maintains their goal and assist pace totals in one single season - especially a 20 year old.

 

[Ainec]

hit the crossbar, too bad that doesn't count as a shot on goal

 

[CP4]

hit the crossbar, too bad that doesn't count as a shot on goal

Damn. I was holding my breath on that one, thought his shot % might go down.

 

[Slimmy]

I dont really buy him being a playmaker first and foremost. If anything he is much more 50-50. I think his stats also bear this out nicely.

He is a playmaker first and foremost. Any one who has followed him from SHL to NHL knows this.

 

[mulletmanofusa]

Latest milestone: Elias Pettersson is the player who has played the most amount of games with the name Elias Pettersson.

 

[Hybbe]

Latest milestone: Elias Pettersson is the player who has played the most amount of games with the name Elias Pettersson.

To put this into perspective:

Crosby, McDavid, Ovechkin and Malkin all had 0, yes, ZERO, games in their respective rookie seasons.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

So great to have a young Datsyuk type of player tearing up the league.

It's really amazing how much the league has changed over such a short period of time. Had Petterson made his debut 10 years ago I'm not sure he'd be having this type of success as a 19 year old center.

But the game has become so incredibly fast, and not just fast in terms of skating, but fast in terms of decision-making, which really benefits players like Petterson.

Still, I was expecting him to fight through a bit of an adjustment period based on Vancouver's mediocre supporting cast, his modest frame, and his previous performances on small ice. I always thought he'd be a very good player in time, but my expectation was 40-50 points would be a very good rookie season. So thank you Elias for making me look like an idiot.

 

[PG Canuck]

He does it again