Proposal: Leafs/Flyers

Status
Not open for further replies.

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
Why haven’t mods locked this stupid thread yet? It’s just a pissing contest now.

Both teams decline. Let’s lock this and move on.

no. one team declines, laughing. one team accepts, laughing.
 

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
Stats are regressed per game. The more specific metric based stats are regressed on ice time (TOI) . The error of a regression when comparing stats for both players, when ice time isn’t equal, is high. That means the argument is not exactly valid.

If you regress for equal TOI or a /60, /45, /30 basis, you can 0 out the error based on the difference for TOI. Based on equal TOI, Laine is the better player because he does more on the ice.

Does that make more sense? Sorry if it makes you more confused or isn’t well thought out.

To simplify I’ll give it an example. Raw stats (goals/assists/PIM/hits/blocks) are only a good argument for a 5-10% difference in player TOI/G |TOI/GP | GP/60. So if Matthews plays 82 games at 20min a game and Laine plays 80 games at 19:50... the error favors Matthews, but not by much. So the argument for raw stats like Goals and Assists are a valid argument.**In this example, Matthews plays approximately 120/140 some more minutes in the season. That means he has that much more time for goals, assists, takeaways, blocks etc. that’s why the argument isn’t valid for a lot of TOI difference for a raw stat argument.**

Total TOI/60/GP is your base. It’s like addition with fractions. Make sure your denominator (or base- the TOI/60/GP) are he same or for the case of hockey, within an acceptable margin (5-10% for each player).

You know what mean? Sorry, again, if I confused you. If you make the G/60 A/60 and stuff like that equal to the TOI/GP/60... Laine is better, than Matthews, in more facets of the game that you think.

heh. you sure sound like you know what you're talking about and aren't just spouting out a bunch of nonsense you don't understand.

Matthews: 144gms, ES 15:30 (A- qoc), 2.49p60, 2.34p160, 51.3cf% (+0.7), 52.6xgf% (+2.2) / PP 2:19, 6.29p60, 4.49p160 / PK 0:01
Laine: 155gms, ES 14:16 (B qoc), 2.18p60, 1.76p160, 48.8cf% (-2.8), 47.6xgf% (-5.9) / PP 2:53, 5.62p60, 4.66p160 / PK 0:01

Those stats there account for every factor you just mentioned.

And it's an absolute wipe out. These aren't comparable players.
 

pmwlker

Registered User
Apr 13, 2018
662
424
He's worth much more than that, obviously.

No team in the league would trade a 21 year old 1D and a 19 year old 1/2C for Matthews. Keep dreaming. Your evaluation of his value is flawed especially as it pertains to Philly.
 

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
No team in the league would trade a 21 year old 1D and a 19 year old 1/2C for Matthews. Keep dreaming. Your evaluation of his value is flawed especially as it pertains to Philly.

Lmao.

Every single team falls over themselves to trade that for Matthews, and giggles uncontrollably while doing it.
 

CapnZin

Registered User
Jul 20, 2017
4,665
6,204
Sweden
heh. you sure sound like you know what you're talking about and aren't just spouting out a bunch of nonsense you don't understand.

Matthews: 144gms, ES 15:30 (A- qoc), 2.49p60, 2.34p160, 51.3cf% (+0.7), 52.6xgf% (+2.2) / PP 2:19, 6.29p60, 4.49p160 / PK 0:01
Laine: 155gms, ES 14:16 (B qoc), 2.18p60, 1.76p160, 48.8cf% (-2.8), 47.6xgf% (-5.9) / PP 2:53, 5.62p60, 4.66p160 / PK 0:01

Those stats there account for every factor you just mentioned.

And it's an absolute wipe out. These aren't comparable players.
Hockey reference is a cool site. Good for stats and metrics, however, please don’t say that I am wrong when you contradict yourself in your argument... please.

ES is a 2.2E on QOC... if you want me to do the math in another post I will. It’s not pretty, but 2+ E means any argument using stats is automatically invalid. Look up the 2 Error rule for stats.

The only stat you put up which was standardized was the P/60. Sorry buddy, that not standardized for TOI/60. It takes ATOI/60. It’s not equalized, it’s standardized.
Gf%, CF% and the relative arguments for CF and fenwick is and error in and of itselft. They do mean something, but you will see correlation differences in QOC and QOL for each metric.

Copy and pasting stuff form Hockey reference doesn’t prove your argument. Just shows you don’t really know what you’re talkig about. Those stats are respective to their players, not equalized.

Like I said... TOI/GP/60 needs to be the denominator or equal. If the difference isn’t marginal (5-10%)... the error in output is more than 2 for the regression.

Corsi/60, FF/60–> their relative arguments are, at that point, standardized. To compare them, you need to have

(FF/TOI/GP/60~FF*/ATOI/GP/60)as you ES argument.

Your PP argument is the exact same. So...
(FF/TOI/GP/60~FF*/ATOI/GP/60)ES
{(FF/TOI/GP/60~FF*/ATOI/GP/60)PP}
(CF/TOI/GP/60~CF*/ATOI/GP/60)ES
(CF/TOI/GP/60~CF*/ATOI/GP/60)PP
- this mathematical derivation is a matrix—> that’s what the curly brackets are for.
- the * means a relative argument.

Then you do the same for Matthews and that gives you the CF and the relCF argument on an equalized platform.

What you posted is not really what I posted about and doesn’t really account for anything I said.
 

pmwlker

Registered User
Apr 13, 2018
662
424
Lmao.

Every single team falls over themselves to trade that for Matthews, and giggles uncontrollably while doing it.

That’s your opinion. We all have them. Most of them are shit. Good day.
 

mdm815

Registered User
Dec 22, 2005
1,261
799
pa
This pretty much sums up the leafs image on this board. Neither team would do this deal, and while Flyers fans acknowledge that Matthews is a great player, Leafs fans knock on the other side of the deal. This is why the board at large doesn’t like most leafs fans, and i feel bad for the decent TML fans on here who are lumped into the same category because of them.
 

pmwlker

Registered User
Apr 13, 2018
662
424
Austin Matthews although a great young player has reached the status of being the most OVERVALUED player in the league clearly. Patrick and Provorov for Matthews.......need I say more. This thread is a tire fire. Thanks to the OP for starting an unnecessary pissing contest. I can’t help but feel that was his intent. Perhaps the mods can close this before it becomes more uncivilized
 

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
Hockey reference is a cool site. Good for stats and metrics, however, please don’t say that I am wrong when you contradict yourself in your argument... please.

ES is a 2.2E on QOC... if you want me to do the math in another post I will. It’s not pretty, but 2+ E means any argument using stats is automatically invalid. Look up the 2 Error rule for stats.

The only stat you put up which was standardized was the P/60. Sorry buddy, that not standardized for TOI/60. It takes ATOI/60. It’s not equalized, it’s standardized.
Gf%, CF% and the relative arguments for CF and fenwick is and error in and of itselft. They do mean something, but you will see correlation differences in QOC and QOL for each metric.

Copy and pasting stuff form Hockey reference doesn’t prove your argument. Just shows you don’t really know what you’re talkig about. Those stats are respective to their players, not equalized.

Like I said... TOI/GP/60 needs to be the denominator or equal. If the difference isn’t marginal (5-10%)... the error in output is more than 2 for the regression.

Corsi/60, FF/60–> their relative arguments are, at that point, standardized. To compare them, you need to have

(FF/TOI/GP/60~FF*/ATOI/GP/60)as you ES argument.

Your PP argument is the exact same. So...
(FF/TOI/GP/60~FF*/ATOI/GP/60)ES
{(FF/TOI/GP/60~FF*/ATOI/GP/60)PP}
(CF/TOI/GP/60~CF*/ATOI/GP/60)ES
(CF/TOI/GP/60~CF*/ATOI/GP/60)PP
- this mathematical derivation is a matrix—> that’s what the curly brackets are for.
- the * means a relative argument.

Then you do the same for Matthews and that gives you the CF and the relCF argument on an equalized platform.

What you posted is not really what I posted about and doesn’t really account for anything I said.

yes, my numbers accounted for everything you asked for - ice time, games played - and added in quality of competition on top of that.

unlike what you claimed, Matthews' offensive numbers look even MORE impressive when we account for ice time. So you're obviously wrong from the get go.

And the advantage only grows with every layer of context we add - possession, competition, primary scoring.

It's an absolute wipeout, and goes against everything you are arguing - because the truth is the opposite of what you claimed - in fact it's only the most superficial numbers that can even put Laine and Matthews in the same conversation....but when we add all the context you say we have to add in, we do end up seeing the huge advantage that Matthews has over Laine.

and none of the numbers are from hockey reference.
 

pmwlker

Registered User
Apr 13, 2018
662
424
This pretty much sums up the leafs image on this board. Neither team would do this deal, and while Flyers fans acknowledge that Matthews is a great player, Leafs fans knock on the other side of the deal. This is why the board at large doesn’t like most leafs fans, and i feel bad for the decent TML fans on here who are lumped into the same category because of them.

Agreed. There’s about 15 of them that make conversation unbearable. It’s a shame and reflects negatively on the fan base as a hole.
 

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
This pretty much sums up the leafs image on this board. Neither team would do this deal, and while Flyers fans acknowledge that Matthews is a great player, Leafs fans knock on the other side of the deal. This is why the board at large doesn’t like most leafs fans, and i feel bad for the decent TML fans on here who are lumped into the same category because of them.

You are correct this sums up hfboards.

The flyers would jump at this deal, obviously, yet hfboards hates the leafs so much that they pretend they wouldn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dirty stanchion

Morbo

The Annihilator
Jan 14, 2003
27,100
5,734
Toronto
I think they will be. G is finally back, Couts is breaking out (fingers crossed itnisnt a fluke).

You think they will be?? yeah no kidding.

They should be the top team in hockey if Auston Matthews wouldn’t do anything for their lineup. Easily.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->