Proposal: Minnesota-Ottawa

[ThatGuy22]

Sorry, not sure where to get reliable powerplay possession metrics. You're right though. Zucker never received more than a minute of powerplay time per game prior to 2017-18, but saw 2:11 minutes last year. No coincidence that he got 16 PPP in 2017-18 compared to just 1 PPP in 2016-17. For comparison, Stone received ~3:05 minutes in each of the previous two years (and scored 25 total PPP during that time).

It should be noted, however, that Ottawa has posted a dreadful 16.8% PP% in the last two years, while Minnesota has scored at a respectable 20.7% clip. Part of the variance in PPP production is always attributable to team/coaching dynamics.

At the end of the day, Stone has performed much better. Better deployment is certainly part of the story, but Zucker still has a lot to prove. Better deployment does not necessarily equate to better production, so the whole "Zucker would have done just as well if he had better deployment" argument doesn't hold well.

Zucker just broke 50 points for the first time at 26, which is statistically past his prime. That was obviously factored into the deal he just signed.

There's definitely a gap between these two players, and it's not particularly close.

Based on what?

The difference betweeen Zucker/Stone's scoring rates is 100% based on The additional 200 minutes of Powerplay time Stone has, and that those are higher scoring rate situations. Causing the overall rate if you combine the minutes to be higher.

At even strength the last tw0 years.

Zucker
2.23 P/60
1.8 P1/60
1.03 G/60
.77 A1/60
.42 A2/60

Stone
2.29 P/60
1.63 P1/60
.89 G/60
.76 A1/60
.64 A2/60

So at Even strength, with Zucker getting tougher usage but with better linemates Their production is extremely similiar. Stone gets a few more 2nd assists, zucker scores many more goals. I personally know which one i'd prefer.

Than you can look at PP

Zucker in 197 TOI

5.17 P/60
3.65 P1/60
2,43 G/60
2.74 A/60
1.22 A1/60
1.52 A2/60

Stone in 390 TOI
3.68 P/60
2.92 P1/60
1.07 G/60
2.61 A/60
1.84 A1/60
.77 A2/60

Zucker's numbers in limited PP time are clearly better.

That certainly doesn't look like a much better performance to me.

 

[Goose312]

MARK STONE (last two seasons):

1.24 goals/60
2.18 assists/60
15.8% shooting
6.9 CF% relative
100.5 PDO
53.5 oZS%

JASON ZUCKER (last two seasons):

1.44 goals/60
1.46 assists/60
14.0% shooting
2.5 CF% relative
102.6 PDO
42.9 oZS%

Zucker pulls ahead in goal scoring, but Stone still has a sizable lead in overall point production.

Possession number change only by a small degree because I've used either GP or TOI to estimate the two-season averages. Technically, units of time have no impact on these possession rates.

I'm speculating, but I assume you've only asked for rates per season specifically for Zucker's benefit (since he's only missed three games in the last two seasons, to Stone's 35).

Where are you getting your numbers? Because every site I check has fairly similar production numbers to each other which aren't close to what you have. If we look at any game state from Corsica, thereby not discounting that Zucker didn't get powerplay time in 16-17, the numbers are below:

Stone:
1.00 G/60
1.69 A/60
2.69 P/60

Zucker:
1.27 G/60
1.29 A/60
2.56 P/60

So Stone's numbers are inflated 27% in your evaluation vs. what Corsica has, and Zucker's are inflated 13%? A difference of 0.13 over the span of a full season for a player averaging 19:30 a night is 3.5 points.

If we look at only 5v5, thereby discounting the nearly 200 powerplay minute difference, the gap closes even more.

Stone:
0.89 G/60
1.40 A/60
2.29 P/60

Zucker:
1.05 G/60
1.16 A/60
2.21 P/60

Pretty small difference, 2 points for a 19:30 a night forward, and the guy slightly behind on points is also the better goal scorer. Of the 179 forwards who played 1800+ minutes at 5v5 over the last two seasons, the zone starts for Stone are about average, 82/179 in terms of ease. Zucker came in at 160/179 for offensive starts, but still produced about the same.

But I also recognize that the team situations for the two was different. In fact I think it's enough of a difference that I do think Stone is probably the better player. But it's by no means outrageous to say the gap is small.

 

[ThatGuy22]

Where are you getting your numbers? Because every site I check has fairly similar production numbers to each other which aren't close to what you have. If we look at any game state from Corsica, thereby not discounting that Zucker didn't get powerplay time in 16-17, the numbers are below:

Stone:
1.00 G/60
1.69 A/60
2.69 P/60

Zucker:
1.27 G/60
1.29 A/60
2.56 P/60

So Stone's numbers are inflated 27% in your evaluation vs. what Corsica has, and Zucker's are inflated 13%? A difference of 0.13 over the span of a full season for a player averaging 19:30 a night is 3.5 points.

If we look at only 5v5, thereby discounting the nearly 200 powerplay minute difference, the gap closes even more.

Stone:
0.89 G/60
1.40 A/60
2.29 P/60

Zucker:
1.05 G/60
1.16 A/60
2.21 P/60

Pretty small difference, 2 points for a 19:30 a night forward, and the guy slightly behind on points is also the better goal scorer. Of the 179 forwards who played 1800+ minutes at 5v5 over the last two seasons, the zone starts for Stone are about average, 82/179 in terms of ease. Zucker came in at 160/179 for offensive starts, but still produced about the same.

But I also recognize that the team situations for the two was different. In fact I think it's enough of a difference that I do think Stone is probably the better player. But it's by no means outrageous to say the gap is small.

Most stats sites will exclude empty net situation points from their even strength numbers.

NHL.com does not exclude them, so I suspect thats where he got them and Stone had a few more EN situation points.

 

[Goose312]

Most stats sites will exclude empty net situation points from their even strength numbers.

NHL.com does not exclude them, so I suspect thats where he got them and Stone had a few more EN situation points.

Even NHL.com has Stone at 1.00 G/60 and 1.76 A/60. Which also by checking I noticed as well that Zucker draws 50% more penalties. But also takes nearly double the penalties.

 

[2Pair]

Geez, the Ottawa boys sure got quiet pretty quickly.

 

[KnuckChuckinTkachuk]

Geez, the Ottawa boys sure got quiet pretty quickly.

Lol, no, I think we always knew and the stats showed that Stone is the better player and will continue to be. And that wasn't even considering the defensive side of things. Plus I've already brought up a new coaching staff and Zuckers better linemates which easily can be attributed to his increased production over the last 2 years whereas Stones stats are pretty consistent throughout his entire career. So not much else to discuss really, Zucker in a package does not get you a Stone quality player, unless the add to the package holds more value than Zucker himself, its not that hard to understand lol Ottawa wants no part of any of this.

 

[SensFactor]

Stone is the future captain of the Sens and the sens brass love him. Hes not being traded unless you willing to overpay.

 

[AKL]

Stone is the future captain of the Sens and the sens brass love him. Hes not being traded unless you willing to overpay.

Sens management may love him, but it’s probably best to wait until you’re sure he’s actually going to be there past next year before making statements like this.

 

[rynryn]

we get this in the D vs D arguments all the time too. how much does zone start affect play generally. I mean there's quite a bit of difference there considering the point totals are close and goals are lopsided. Is it because Koivu is a superior two way forward (relative Stone) and Zucker benefits from that or is Zucker himself also a great two way forward like Stone?

edit: clarification--not picking fights. I realize our D is superior and that has a lot to do with things, but that line (Koivu esp.) gets pretty poo-pooed generally considering they take heavy defensive zone starts and still put up the points. Zucker used to be pretty one dimensional but of late he's really quite capable in a two-way capacity as well if people are stuck on using that as a selling point for Stone.

 

[SensFactor]

Sens management may love him, but it’s probably best to wait until you’re sure he’s actually going to be there past next year before making statements like this.

Let's bet that he signs long term in Ottawa. Im that confident. Are you?

 

[Crosside]

Why not a trade like this Stone + Ceci vs Zucker + Dumba

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Why not a trade like this Stone + Ceci vs Zucker + Dumba

Because Ceci isn't good.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Let's bet that he signs long term in Ottawa. Im that confident. Are you?

I'm pretty confident that he won't. Not going to bet though.

Just curious, and I promise this isn't intended as a shot at Ottawa, but with all that's going on right now, what's the sales pitch to Mark Stone to get him to sign long-term? The only one that I can think of is that your owner opens the wallet wide open, but Melnyk's reputation does precede him.

 

[Bazeek]

I'm pretty confident that he won't. Not going to bet though.

Just curious, and I promise this isn't intended as a shot at Ottawa, but with all that's going on right now, what's the sales pitch to Mark Stone to get him to sign long-term? The only one that I can think of is that your owner opens the wallet wide open, but Melnyk's reputation does precede him.

I'd lean toward him leaving as well, but devil's advocate: he does have a history of injury problems and has an incredible amount of leverage over Ottawa right now. If he's concerned about his future health, cashing in big right now with a long term contract for big money might be his safest move.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I'd lean toward him leaving as well, but devil's advocate: he does have a history of injury problems and has an incredible amount of leverage over Ottawa right now. If he's concerned about his future health, cashing in big right now with a long term contract for big money might be his safest move.

Yeah, it'd be a risk, but the odds of a career-ender is pretty slim, even for guys that have injury troubles. Stone could play 20 games this season and I'd bet that more than 1 team would be lining up to give him what Ottawa is probably currently offering.

 

[Bazeek]

Yeah, it'd be a risk, but the odds of a career-ender is pretty slim, even for guys that have injury troubles. Stone could play 20 games this season and I'd bet that more than 1 team would be lining up to give him what Ottawa is probably currently offering.

I'm inclined to agree, really. When you think about it, missing as many games as he did last season may have been a low point for him in that respect.