Discussion in 'National Hockey League Talk' started by Cousin Eddie, Apr 6, 2021.
McDavid tends to defer the C role to Draisaitl when on the ice together.
About 25 % on EV.
Νever thought of it that way, even though its in my post, staring at us.
Edit: Dont know how much time each defers to each other when they are on the same line.
So all coaches are robots and think the same in your opinion?
You're operating under the faulty notion of linearity.
That's always been the problem when discussing Drai. Only one of the two can be considered the C.
I guess Bergeron has fallen out of top 10, losing a step?
Actually, I am operating under the notion that P/60 is meaningless when discussing the best forwards in the game. I was showing the irony of how the "Matthews' P/60 argument" is now against him being a Top 5 C.
Goals scored/60 from 2017-end of last year:
1. Ovi: 1.87
2. Matthews: 1.84
3. Pasta: 1.8
4. Bergeron: 1.56
5. Stamkos: 1.51
6. Kucherov: 1.5
7. Laine: 1.5
8. JVR: 1.5
9. Tavares: 1.49
10. MacKinnon: 1.45
I might have to slot him in at number 5. Talk about goal scoring flying under the radar.
He's number 7 on the list so...no?
Perhaps Oiler fans can confirm, when on the same time together, they seem to be a hybrid C/W. Drai takes the faceoffs and, at ES, they share the C defensive duties (whoever is first back into the zone goes deep while the other stays high).
.....paywall, my mistake.
Pretty sure that # of goals scored actually scored (17th best), and GPG (8th best), to say nothing of him the 3rd best offensive player on his line, doesn't mean he flying under radar.
That being said, Top Tennish seems right.
Drai is one hell of a hockey player, but he'll always be sheltered as long as McDavid is there. The top D and top shutdown O get matched up on McDavid. Drai gets the leftovers, or he plays with McDavid.
Until he is the #1 C on a team, there will always be a bit of a question mark about how good he really is.
I REALLY like the part some people put Marner over Patrice F’in Bergeron
/60 is the most accurate description of effectiveness on the ice. It just is. Goals/GP is OK I guess if its all you have to work with but why not use the more effective tool? You can have players playing the same role and yet one player getting 5 minutes a game more icetime due to coaching style/lack of depth, etc. I'm interested in how effective a player is with the minutes he has on the ice.
Even more impressive about Bergeron is the fact that number includes 330 minutes he spent on the ice as an effective PKer makes it even more impressive. I dont think many of the other players near the top got that sort of usage.
The big knock against Bergeron would be the high level of quality of linemates I guess but there are more than a few guys here with elite linemates.
I'm shocked to see in the marner thread that certain leaf fans completely disregard goals only to then use goals as the Trump card in conversations regarding matthews.
TOI is dictated by who can carry more minutes effectively or of your team is always playing catch up. To treat it as a predictor that "Player A would score more if only they got more time" is really a faulty way of looking at things.
At best, /60 could be a way to differentiate players who have similar /game production but it should not move players up to the level of a player who produces more.
Are you trying to say that a player in conversation for top-5 in the league is going to be limited in ice time? Or playing on a 2nd power play (or not at all)?
Because if you are trotting them out there as often as you can (and you would be if they are anywhere near top-5 in the league)... then scoring "rate" stats don't really matter. If anything, the one-dimensional forwards who don't play in defensive situations would be advantaged, whereas all of these guys would generally be playing in any situation.
So McDavid doesn't belong on this list?
Just taking the local example here, there were posters screaming their heads off for Babcock to give Matthews more ice time and when Keefe did so, his numbers went up with almost the exact same /60 production numbers (slighter more goals/60 and slightly less points/60)
2018-Keefe become coach:
Goals 49 (1.78/60)
Points 100 (3.49/60)
Under Keefe (with 3 more minutes TOI a game):
Goals: 60 (1.99/60)
Points: 99 (3.29/60)
The big difference here? 3 more minutes a game to get him more in line with other 1st line centers out there instead of playing the 3rd and 4th lines more often (as Babcock would tend to do).
I'm not sure how "/game played" stats would be able to track him obviously getting underplayed before Keefe got in as coach.
There are various other examples but I think you should get the point.
No sense throwing out raw numbers when scoring levels have increased over the past four seasons.
Among Centers, he was 2nd in P/60 from 17/18 to 18/19, he is 12th since. Meanwhile his PPG went from 10th best to 4th best.
This indicates that /60 is not the most accurate measure.
IamBobo is Kyle Dubas’ burner account.
That is so not attached to reality.
100% ... the only thing I would add is that this list was voted on before the season started. I would say this is a VERY good list pre-season. I think the arguments are coming from performances this year.
Has Matthews done enough to pass MacK this year? Possibly? Hard to say, I think those two are in a dead heat right now for second best center wither Drai in a tier unto himself in 4th. 5th-10th can be argued ad-nauseum but I think Cosby has had a great year and moves up a touch and Eichel maybe drops out of the top10.
Separate names with a comma.