Proposal: Leafs/Flyers

[bauer]

I stand corrected. Well 99% of us obviously don’t believe that.

But this entire thread is:

Flyers fans: “We get why Toronto wouldn’t do this, but we wouldn’t either.”

Leafs fans: “LOL you idiots the flyers would accept laughing at this deal, I can’t believe people are saying no it must be the fact you hate the leafs har har har”

Flyers fans: “no it’s just the trade doesn’t make sense, we need Provorov and the big upgrade from Nolan to Austin isn’t worth it for us...”

Leafs: “more examples of the anti-leaf bias on HF... I’ve been here for years and it’s always been this way...”

yep, that pretty much sums up the last 7 pages.

 

[Critical13]

Why would you trade a top pairing Dman for a 60 point forward ?

Why would you trade a 40g scoring #1C for a 40 point defenceman?

 

[Critical13]

No offense, but Matthews hasn't proven anything yet, so I don't know why he is "very rare." The guy hasn't even cracked 70 points in a season yet regardless of his injuries last season. Until he actually takes that next step, puts up 90+ points in a season and actually shows up in the playoffs, you can't consider him a generational talent, like most Leafs fan seem to think he already is.

As I said, the trade itself, hurts the Flyers. Hextall's two main pieces for his re-build are Provorov and Patrick. If the Flyers make that trade, yes they get Matthews, but then who is their #1 defenseman?

What a dumb post. I haven't seen Auston called a generational player since he was Calder eligible. 40g scoring 19 year olds are rare - that's not subjective opinion, that's fact. What he and Laine did their rookie seasons is not a normal thing for 19 year olds to do in this league.

If you want to play the "no context" game with Auston's injuries, then what about Provorov's 41 point high? His offensive game in a tier with Petry, C. Miller and Spurgeon. In my opinion, no true #1 is that weak offensively unless they are elite defensively - as in top 3 (Vlasic is an example). Even then, they are still a tier below guys like Doughty, Hedman and Karlsson.

That's a dumb, no context argument, that I don't believe, but it's about on par with your assessment of Matthews. PPG C's that score 40 goals while playing less PP time than their comparables are very rare. As are 40 point 19 year old D that can handle top QoC minutes.

 

[ER89]

Hey man shut up you totally would do this and run away laughing and giggling.. you just hate muh precious leafs so much that you won’t admit it

Now you guys know how the rest of the sane leaf fan base feels when we have mediocre dmen shoved down our throats for nylander.

 

[IvanProvorov]

Please stop. Of course Philly does this.

No Philly doesn’t actually lol. Provorov is the real deal. Patrick was great second half.

 

[FalcorMulch]

How many votes did Matthews get on any awards?

I'd say the likelihood of Provorov winning a Norris is better than Matthews winning the Hart or Art ross

Yes that is TRUE today. .

He's received Selke votes and was tied for 2nd in the Rocket race as a rookie (the award you conveniently forgot about while writing that reply).

 

[DoobieDubas]

The awful take? Read what I said again. I really don’t think you did. You picked one part you didn’t agree with and made a retort for it.

I clearly stated that Matthews doesn’t do much for the Flyers. We have Couturier as our 1C who is more complete defensively and produced very similarly to Matthews this past year. Now... this may be an unpopular opinion, but in some cases the MORE COMPLETE PLAYER ISNT THE BEST PLAYER. Couturier is a more complete/overall sound player than Matthews, but that doesn’t make him better. Matthews is clearly better. John Tavares is a more complete player than Ovechkin, but Ovechkin is a better player with a similar style of sniper. Argue all you want that tavares isn’t a sniper, he is- shooting metrics clearly indicate it, but it’s true. Same thing with the Jones Klingberg argument. Jones is a better complete player, but Klingberg is regarded as better.

I don’t really care about how important a position is. Cool. That has no relevance. Laine G/60 and A/60 (2.0 and 1.2) 16:29 TOI. Auston Matthews (1.8 and 1.5) 18:08 TOI.

Career numbers are marginally different from stated above... really no point in regressing the difference. If I had to guess I’d assume the difference of stated margin is within a 5% difference of each metric stated above.
**little sidenote- those 11 extra games based off of avg TOI and raw totals... it doesn’t have much of a difference since Matthews plays an average of 2 to 3 shifts more a game.

As per regressing equal TOI, Laine is the better player solely on a stats/metric view. Matthews is by far the more complete player yes. His IQ, Vision, Playmaking ability, and defense are better. Laines Offensive IQ and prowess are not matched though so far through the 2 years of their career.

Now... I guess I didn’t really explain well, but given that the Flyers have Couts, Patrick, G (if needed) as C... Matthews doesn’t do anything for us. Laine is better given that view. As a player, since I’ve really only seen people are argue stats, Laine is the better player and the better offensive player.

This argument goes to Ovi and Tavares too. Who would you rather have in the Ozone? Ovi should be your answer and so should Laine in the argument above. In the D and Neutral zone who would you rather have? Tavares and Matthews due to their defensive prowess. Since we’re so stat savvy and stat influenced, Laine is the better fit and player, yet the non complete.

Edit** my bad I meant to say Josi instead of Klingberg. I was reading an article too and I wrote his name instead of Josi.

Ive read like 2 of your long posts but this one i stopped.

If your literally just comparing laine to matthews with laine being superior you are completely lost.
Zach god damn hyman has like 1 even strength points less than laine. He is a power play beast. Matthews is a even strength beast who hasn't gotten the full star treatment of controlling most of the pp time. Will show stats in link below.

Couturier better than matthews to? "We have Couturier as our 1C who is more complete defensively and produced very similarly to Matthews this past year." LOL buddy gtfo out of here making your fan base look like Trumps who dont want to be wrong. Courier is 25 , has only one season about 40 points. Has only hit 30 goals once. Just google matthews first 2 years stats and then hit yourself in the head when you see as a rookie scored 40 goals, as a sophmeere is a PPG centre and a 0.5 GPG centre.

Your opinion is fine as its just your opinion but facts/stats dont back up your opinions so thats what they just are uneducated opinions without using stats to add weight to your opinion.

Links:
See even strength points Laine vs Hyman Patrik Laine Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

and

Zach Hyman Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[FalcorMulch]

The fact you think he’s worth Provorov and Patrick proves it.

You have an interesting definition of "proves it."

 

[Marshy]

Ok ok ... we'll throw in Carrick too.

 

[CapnZin]

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.

This will be my last retort.

QOC—> 97.53% corr. 50 - (CF* - [CF(CF*.5) - 50]
QOL —> 98% corr. FF|FF*/G/60

QOC|QOL/CF(obs) = 50 - (CF* - CF) - .5(CF* - 50) ~ TOI/GP/60|45|30:

(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

PPM/G|ES|PP:
Matthews:
{ [(61*.25) + 61] + [(37*.2) + 37)] + 34} * (.9 + PPM/G|ES|PP)} <QOC(T)> = 293.835
{ [(61*.25) + 61] + [(37*.2) + 37] + 34} * (.81 + PPM/G|ES|PP)} <QOC(L)> = 279.9165
Matthew TPPM/G|ES|PP = 573.75/1000
Laine:
{[(51*.25) + 51) + [(38*.2) + 38)] + 45} * (.85 + PPM/G|ES|PP)} <QOC(T)> = 285.5475
{[(51*.25) + 51) + [(38*.2) + 38)] + 45} * (.87 + PPM/G|ES|PP)} <QOC(L)> = 288.6345
Laine TPPM/G|ES|PP = 574.182/1000

Diff(P/60,CF,QOC/T):
Laine = +.432
Matthews= -.432

QOC: (432/1000)*.5–> 2.16 error when discussing effect of play. I literally said 2.2.

If you don’t understand this, but say your stats are what I’m saying, then we cannot continue, although I’m kinda done after this lol. While my math is going to check my earlier remarks; I stand by them. Laine is the more effective player offensively. He may not be the all around player, but like the Ovechkin argument I said earlier— his prowess in the Ozone is just too good.

My last standing notes:
- your stats are standardized... not equalized which is where that 2.16 came from.
- my regression is equalized and Laine is a +.432 in offensive stature as an all situation player.
- NZ play can be implicated in this by taking the derivative of PPM (dPPM/TPPM/G|ES|PP). That would cause the .432 to shift downwards of ~.301. Laine still being a very effective player in 2 zones.
- Dzone play would incorporate so much more math which isn’t fun right now lol. That +.432 when incorporating Dzon and NZ would change to a -.

Again... your stats, wherever you get them from, aren’t equalized in comparison.

 

[PatrikBerglund]

Nylander & Liljegren for Provorov.

 

[pmwlker]

This will be my last retort.

QOC—> 97.53% corr. 50 - (CF* - [CF(CF*.5) - 50]
QOL —> 98% corr. FF|FF*/G/60

QOC|QOL/CF(obs) = 50 - (CF* - CF) - .5(CF* - 50) ~ TOI/GP/60|45|30:

(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

PPM/G|ES|PP:
Matthews:
{ [(61*.25) + 61] + [(37*.2) + 37)] + 34} * (.9 + PPM/G|ES|PP)} <QOC(T)> = 293.835
{ [(61*.25) + 61] + [(37*.2) + 37] + 34} * (.81 + PPM/G|ES|PP)} <QOC(L)> = 279.9165
Matthew TPPM/G|ES|PP = 573.75/1000
Laine:
{[(51*.25) + 51) + [(38*.2) + 38)] + 45} * (.85 + PPM/G|ES|PP)} <QOC(T)> = 285.5475
{[(51*.25) + 51) + [(38*.2) + 38)] + 45} * (.87 + PPM/G|ES|PP)} <QOC(L)> = 288.6345
Laine TPPM/G|ES|PP = 574.182/1000

Diff(P/60,CF,QOC/T):
Laine = +.432
Matthews= -.432

QOC: (432/1000)*.5–> 2.16 error when discussing effect of play. I literally said 2.2.

If you don’t understand this, but say your stats are what I’m saying, then we cannot continue, although I’m kinda done after this lol. While my math is going to check my earlier remarks; I stand by them. Laine is the more effective player offensively. He may not be the all around player, but like the Ovechkin argument I said earlier— his prowess in the Ozone is just too good.

My last standing notes:
- your stats are standardized... not equalized which is where that 2.16 came from.
- my regression is equalized and Laine is a +.432 in offensive stature as an all situation player.
- NZ play can be implicated in this by taking the derivative of PPM (dPPM/TPPM/G|ES|PP). That would cause the .432 to shift downwards of ~.301. Laine still being a very effective player in 2 zones.
- Dzone play would incorporate so much more math which isn’t fun right now lol. That +.432 when incorporating Dzon and NZ would change to a -.

Again... your stats, wherever you get them from, aren’t equalized in comparison.

You outZeked Zeke. Well done.

 

[FalcorMulch]

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.

Dude, you may or may not know your statistics but you're not getting anywhere on here because your posts are semi-coherent ramblings. "ES is a 2.2E on QOC" is literally meaningless. There's no such thing called the 2 error rule. Although I have a hunch English is your second language so it's possible you learned these things with different names (I mean that completely respectfully).

If you're going to start throwing out formulas you need to back way up. Why do you think there's something wrong with simply normalizing for time on ice (i.e., P/60, G/60, etc.). What is the benefit of this complex statistical analysis you're trying to introduce? It seems to me like you're just overcomplicating things for no good reason. But maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

 

[pmwlker]

Nylander & Liljegren for Provorov.

Respectfully. No. Not a chance and I like Nylander and am very high on Liljegren. Provorov is too important to the future. If moved we begin the long search for our 1D all over again.

 

[CapnZin]

Dude, you may or may not know your statistics but you're not getting anywhere on here because your posts are semi-coherent ramblings. "ES is a 2.2E on QOC" is literally meaningless. There's no such thing called the 2 error rule. Although I have a hunch English is your second language so it's possible you learned these things with different names (I mean that completely respectfully).

If you're going to start throwing out formulas you need to back way up. Why do you think there's something wrong with simply normalizing for time on ice (i.e., P/60, G/60, etc.). What is the benefit of this complex statistical analysis you're trying to introduce? It seems to me like you're just overcomplicating things for no good reason. But maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

Sorry for the confusing stuff... those are variables. P/60 is points per 60 min. Stuff like that.

The 2 error rule was made by an American statistician.

To fans of the game like us... this doesn’t mean much and it shouldn’t because we don’t look into stuff like that. I work for funds on analytical/statistical projects. Hockey is my favorite sport so I look into it like that. You’re correct English is my second language, but my work require me to be fluent. I work in the USA.

What this stuff is famous for: have you ever seen the movie Money Ball w/ Brad Pitt? They did this. That’s how they built their team. They took stuff that no one looks at, built a team out of stats and misconceptions.

 

[BritainStix]

If you want to play the "no context" game with Auston's injuries, then what about Provorov's 41 point high? His offensive game in a tier with Petry, C. Miller and Spurgeon. In my opinion, no true #1 is that weak offensively unless they are elite defensively - as in top 3 (Vlasic is an example). Even then, they are still a tier below guys like Doughty, Hedman and Karlsson.

Pssst, Provorov was second in goals scored by a defenseman in the league. Oh yeah, and he did that while getting no Power Play time.........

 

[TS Quint]

Both fan bases hate this trade.....WE FOUND A WINNER!

 

[TS Quint]

Look up the list of players in the 25 years that have scored goals at the rate he does at that age and then tell me again that's he's not a rare talent. On top of being a complete center on top of it. It shouldn't take much typing to type out that list. And no I don't consider him generational at all, that tier is reserved for your Crosby's and McDavid's, but he's as close as you get to that tier without being in it.

Hahaha! Seriously? Mathews is very good but it's laughable to put him with McDavis and Crosby. Not.......Even....... close. He's below the next tier even of the Kopitar, Scheifele, Benn, Malkin, MacKinnon etc.

I get it, the potential is clearly there and he will most likely join that second tier as soon as this year. But he hasn't done it yet.

 

[TheKingPin]

of course they do. provorov hurts but matthews,giroux,couturier,voracek,konecny,and simmonds in the top 6?

that leap frogs them into the top 3 offenses

Let’s have all the offense and lose all of our first round games 7-6!

 

[Sempiternal]

I'd take Patrick and Provorov over Matthews without hesitation.

 

[zeke]

This will be my last retort.

QOC—> 97.53% corr. 50 - (CF* - [CF(CF*.5) - 50]
QOL —> 98% corr. FF|FF*/G/60

QOC|QOL/CF(obs) = 50 - (CF* - CF) - .5(CF* - 50) ~ TOI/GP/60|45|30:

(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

PPM/G|ES|PP:
Matthews:
{ [(61*.25) + 61] + [(37*.2) + 37)] + 34} * (.9 + PPM/G|ES|PP)} <QOC(T)> = 293.835
{ [(61*.25) + 61] + [(37*.2) + 37] + 34} * (.81 + PPM/G|ES|PP)} <QOC(L)> = 279.9165
Matthew TPPM/G|ES|PP = 573.75/1000
Laine:
{[(51*.25) + 51) + [(38*.2) + 38)] + 45} * (.85 + PPM/G|ES|PP)} <QOC(T)> = 285.5475
{[(51*.25) + 51) + [(38*.2) + 38)] + 45} * (.87 + PPM/G|ES|PP)} <QOC(L)> = 288.6345
Laine TPPM/G|ES|PP = 574.182/1000

Diff(P/60,CF,QOC/T):
Laine = +.432
Matthews= -.432

QOC: (432/1000)*.5–> 2.16 error when discussing effect of play. I literally said 2.2.

If you don’t understand this, but say your stats are what I’m saying, then we cannot continue, although I’m kinda done after this lol. While my math is going to check my earlier remarks; I stand by them. Laine is the more effective player offensively. He may not be the all around player, but like the Ovechkin argument I said earlier— his prowess in the Ozone is just too good.

My last standing notes:
- your stats are standardized... not equalized which is where that 2.16 came from.
- my regression is equalized and Laine is a +.432 in offensive stature as an all situation player.
- NZ play can be implicated in this by taking the derivative of PPM (dPPM/TPPM/G|ES|PP). That would cause the .432 to shift downwards of ~.301. Laine still being a very effective player in 2 zones.
- Dzone play would incorporate so much more math which isn’t fun right now lol. That +.432 when incorporating Dzon and NZ would change to a -.

Again... your stats, wherever you get them from, aren’t equalized in comparison.

oh hey, this is actually a post worth responding to. good work.

Unfortunately, formulas are only as good as their inputs, so we'll have to go through all of them and be clear on which ones you're using - because right now your inputs seem all over the place.

I'm working outside now but later this aft I will lay out all the inputs which show that not only is Matthews far more productive, but does it in much tougher usage - which will show that it's impossible for any formula to show anything different.

 

[sd1976]

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.

This after some guy stated the flyers have lots of guys as good as Matthews, and some even better?!? Lol

 

[MarkusKetterer]

Let’s have all the offense and lose all of our first round games 7-6!

If it's like that Pens-Flyers series from a few years ago where that was the score of every game, sign me up! That was entertaining as hell to watch. The fact that they played like they absolutely hated each other helped it be entertaining tho.

 

[Marshy]

Please don't lock this thread until Zeke brings out the heavy stat-tillery!

 

[CapnZin]

oh hey, this is actually a post worth responding to. good work.

Unfortunately, formulas are only as good as their inputs, so we'll have to go through all of them and be clear on which ones you're using - because right now your inputs seem all over the place.

I'm working outside now but later this aft I will lay out all the inputs which show that not only is Matthews far more productive, but does it in much tougher usage - which will show that it's impossible for any formula to show anything different.

I look forward to it... to help you out with the inputs:

Goals, Assists- Even Strength
Goals, Assists- Powerplay
The beta (T/C)- hockey analytica released a report showing that QOC/T is really only correlated to CF and FF.

Matthews ES goals divided up: (13 GWG, 20HDG, 41 Goals| 14 high Crit Assists, 34 Assists)
Laine: (13 GWG, 22HDG, 45 Goals | 16 high Crit Assists, 38 Assists)
Funny enough... PP goals are equal to 13 because all were either GWG or HDG and same thing with Laine... kinda crazy.
Matthews faced tougher competition in ES and easier competition on schedule and PP (.9- line, .81 team/special).

The Corsi indicator is an error when equalizing stats because it’s based on ice time... because parameters are changed. It works for most other variables, but CF and FF don’t really work that way.

The error is very simple. Regression ran at 95% Confidence interval. Couldn’t post a Standard deviation bell curve but Crit value * SD (of the production stats- 4.7% diff based on equal TOI) is equal to half of the error valuation. It was a rather high. Crit value.

So that last part is just a simplified formula.

I’ll let you have your way with it after. I’m using all of those equations by the way. They all factor in.

** Shoot sorry forgot to add this... the .25, .2–> they have equal GWG, ~high Crit Assists, and slightly different high danger % goals. Although this is somewhat typically frowned upon, to make the math easier...I just set all goals and assists equal to high priority points... you know clutch players are found to be better lol. Laine has higher Crit Assists and % high danger goals... but it’s marginal so I just set them equal.