Mitch “Magic” Marner Thread

[Dekes For Days]

Rantanen now has a 1.25 PPG to 1.24 vs Marner, so the difference is completely negligible offensively.

Even ignoring the other things Marner brings, the difference between them is not negligible offensively, as you've been shown repeatedly. You're relying entirely on a single piece of information in a small sample that is misleading/incomplete, to make that claim.

 

[Stephen]

Even ignoring the other things Marner brings, the difference between them is not negligible offensively, as you've been shown repeatedly. You're relying entirely on a single piece of information in a small sample that is misleading/incomplete, to make that claim.

That's patently not true when we've looked at all manner of numbers such as goals, points totals, points per game averages going back three seasons when both broke out as star players, age, roles on their teams and the status of both the Leafs and Avalanche as contenders.

Watch some Colorado games, look at numbers without a Leaf bias and just accept the fact that it is a) possible that there are excellent players who are as good as Marner and b) some teams end up paying less for them c) even if you think the Leafs are doing everything right, it's possible that another team has done it a little better.

 

[Notsince67]

Rantanen now has a 1.25 PPG to 1.24 vs Marner, so the difference is completely negligible offensively. At a $1.5 million savings you could do whatever you want with it to build a deeper roster, or hell even try Rantanen on the PK. Point is, you can love the player, but the price tag is still a premium.

You see the bottom 4 teams in that division lately?

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Even ignoring the other things Marner brings, the difference between them is not negligible offensively, as you've been shown repeatedly. You're relying entirely on a single piece of information in a small sample that is misleading/incomplete, to make that claim.

You're right. Information most certainly is missing here.

Like, goal totals for example.

Rantanen: 27 goals. Pacing for 50/82.
Marner: 18 goals. Pacing for 29/82.

Funny how I just left the Matthews thread where some are arguing that Matthews having significantly more goals than McDavid makes up for pacing for FOURTY less points.

Yet here we have Rantanen having significantly more goals than Marner and pacing for the SAME amount of points...and now the goals just don't matter.

Get that? Matthews: 40 less points... but significantly more goals makes up the difference.

Rantanen: SAME amount of points... but significantly more goals aren't allowed to even be brought into the equation..

 

[Stephen]

You see the bottom 4 teams in that division lately?

No different than playing in a division with Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary and Montreal.

 

[Dekes For Days]

That's patently not true when we've looked at all manner of numbers such as goals, points totals, points per game averages going back three seasons when both broke out as star players, age, roles on their teams and the status of both the Leafs and Avalanche as contenders.

It very much is true. Yes, we've looked at those things. We've also looked at less misleading statistics for these players, like per-60, that show that Rantanen is heavily reliant on a significant advantage in PP time to achieve still lesser marks than Marner in your chosen statistics. They are similar producers on the PP, but Marner is better at ES. Marner also has better offensive generation, is less reliant on EN points, is better defensively, and unlike Rantanen, PKs.

Watch some Colorado games, look at numbers without a Leaf bias and just accept the fact that it is a) possible that there are excellent players who are as good as Marner and b) some teams end up paying less for them c) even if you think the Leafs are doing everything right, it's possible that another team has done it a little better.

I actually watch quite a few Colorado games, and unlike many, I do look at numbers without bias. That doesn't mean I will accept incorrect claims as fact, just because you desperately want something to be true.

a) There are excellent players as good as Marner. I have never said otherwise. Rantanen is not one of them.
b) Some teams end up paying less for players, relative to their value, usually as a result of differing levels of breakout prior to signing. Rantanen is not one of those players - his cap hit relative to quality was and has remained comparable with Marner.
c) Yes, it's true that teams can do things better, even if the Leafs do everything right. The Rantanen signing however was not better.

Perhaps it's time for you to accept the quality of Marner, and understand how lucky we are to have a player like him, instead of taking every opportunity to discredit him due to an incomplete understanding of contract valuation.

 

[Stephen]

You're right. Information most certainly is missing here.

Like, goal totals for example.

Rantanen: 27 goals. Pacing for 50/82.
Marner: 18 goals. Pacing for 29/82.

Funny how I just left the Matthews thread where some are arguing that Matthews having significantly more goals than McDavid makes up for pacing for FOURTY less points.

Yet here we have Rantanen having significantly more goals than Marner and pacing for the SAME amount of points...and now the goals just don't matter.

Get that? Matthews: 40 less points... but significantly more goals makes up the difference.

Rantanen: SAME amount of points... but significantly more goals aren't allowed to even be brought into the equation..

Rantanen is a wonderful player. If some Leafs fans want to call the Marner deal a home run, they need to also accept Rantanen and Colorado’s deal is also a home run, but probably more like a two run home run.

 

[Dekes For Days]

You're right. Information most certainly is missing here.
Like, goal totals for example.

Rantanen, as a goalscorer, obviously has more goals than Marner, who is a playmaker. That was never ignored. That just doesn't mean he's a better player or offensive producer.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Rantanen is a wonderful player. If some Leafs fans want to call the Marner deal a home run, they need to also accept Rantanen and Colorado’s deal is also a home run, but probably more like a two run home run.

I realize the leafs are doing very well and are true contenders this year. But aside from that, looking at just the leaf contracts vs comparables at the time of signing... it doesn't look very good for Dubas.

Regarding Marner... Aho and Rantanen were the comparables. Rantaen pacing for 20 more goals/82 and similar points. Rantanen cap hit almost 2 mil less per year. Clearly losing that one. Aho is a tie. Marner's been better, but he's paid *a lot* more so it seems about right.

McDavid was used as Matthews comparable for some reason. Matthews got very similar money (when term is included). Clearly a tier below.

Nylanders comparables were Pastrnak and Ehlers. Similar pay as Pastrnak, quite a bit more than Ehlers. Looks like we're clearly losing those comparisons.

Guess I kind of got away from Marner there at the end. I guess this would be better for the Dubas thread.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Rantanen, as a goalscorer, obviously has more goals than Marner, who is a playmaker. That was never ignored. That just doesn't mean he's a better player or offensive producer.

You see my argument here?

When Matthews is compared to playmakers, we all weigh goals more into the equation. When Marner is compared to goal scorers, we all weigh points[/i[ more into the equation. You don't see that as fan biases creeping in?

 

[IPS]

You're right. Information most certainly is missing here.

Like, goal totals for example.

Rantanen: 27 goals. Pacing for 50/82.
Marner: 18 goals. Pacing for 29/82.

Funny how I just left the Matthews thread where some are arguing that Matthews having significantly more goals than McDavid makes up for pacing for FOURTY less points.

Yet here we have Rantanen having significantly more goals than Marner and pacing for the SAME amount of points...and now the goals just don't matter.

Get that? Matthews: 40 less points... but significantly more goals makes up the difference.

Rantanen: SAME amount of points... but significantly more goals aren't allowed to even be brought into the equation..

Yes, just like the 1000 other times on this board. There is undoubtedly a blatant bias that makes people on this board twist numbers to make Leafs players better than they are.

Do you ever get bored of this or does this need to be rehashed in every single god damn thread?

 

[Stephen]

It very much is true. Yes, we've looked at those things. We've also looked at less misleading statistics for these players, like per-60, that show that Rantanen is heavily reliant on a significant advantage in PP time to achieve still lesser marks than Marner in your chosen statistics. They are similar producers on the PP, but Marner is better at ES. Marner also has better offensive generation, is less reliant on EN points, is better defensively, and unlike Rantanen, PKs.

I notice this trend of downplaying raw numbers and pumping up 5 on 5 production in the Matthew vs McDavid and Draisaitl debate as well and we need to put to bed the notion that feasting on the PP is somehow a less legitimate way of production.

I understand you might be trying to say, if the Leafs PP was consistently better or these Leafs guys played more on the PP their numbers would reach the level that the other players do, so there’s the idea of more potential.

I don’t value Marner’s role on the PK that much to be honest. I would prefer the money in the bank PP production and just leave a functional PK to the bottom six so we aren’t wasting an $11 million player to clog up shooting lanes and have a guy with less energy on the power play.

I actually watch quite a few Colorado games, and unlike many, I do look at numbers without bias. That doesn't mean I will accept incorrect claims as fact, just because you desperately want something to be true.

Honestly, I’m so sure how many Colorado games you would be watching when I try to reconcile the comment made about Rantanen feasting on special teams to pad his numbers. The kind of PP work they do is the kind of high skill Dubas hockey we all want to see the Leafs play all the time. That’s what high skill, possession hockey looks like executed with pace.

a) There are excellent players as good as Marner. I have never said otherwise. Rantanen is not one of them.
b) Some teams end up paying less for players, relative to their value, usually as a result of differing levels of breakout prior to signing. Rantanen is not one of those players - his cap hit relative to quality was and has remained comparable with Marner.
c) Yes, it's true that teams can do things better, even if the Leafs do everything right. The Rantanen signing however was not better.

Perhaps it's time for you to accept the quality of Marner, and understand how lucky we are to have a player like him, instead of taking every opportunity to discredit him due to an incomplete understanding of contract valuation.

Again, honestly, I don’t think you have a very good grasp of Mikko Rantanen and this just comes down to a contract dollar chest thump. The numbers are a wash. Digging deeper, it comes down to a typical downplaying of someone who has better PP production like the Matthews vs McDavid debate. Then there’s the flimsy argument about how Marner PK’s in lieu of relative PP dominance (as if Gretzky or Lemieux would have been better if they scored less PP points but killed penalties). And finally, you just don’t watch him play.

In terms of eye test, I don’t think anyone watching Rantanen on a semi regular basis would come away thinking “this guy sucks. He’s nothing special.” Draisaitl, I could see it. Not Rantanen.

 

[Dekes For Days]

looking at just the leaf contracts vs comparables at the time of signing... it doesn't look very good for Dubas.

Actually, it's looking just fine. The Leaf post-ELC contracts were consistent with their comparables at time of signing, and all have continued to improve beyond that level, and are massive parts of a very good team.

When Matthews is compared to playmakers, we all weigh goals more into the equation. When Marner is compared to goal scorers, we all weigh points[/i[ more into the equation.

I look at things in the exact same way, so no clue who you're talking about, but take that up with them - it has no relevance to our discussion. It's not just goals for Matthews when comparing to playmakers; it's his primary point production. Same for Marner.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Yes, just like the 1000 other times on this board. There is undoubtedly a blatant bias that makes people on this board twist numbers to make Leafs players better than they are.

Do you ever get bored of this or does this need to be rehashed in every single god damn thread?

Why are you more upset at me (the person pointing out the problem) than those that are actually committing the problem?

 

[Stephen]

I realize the leafs are doing very well and are true contenders this year. But aside from that, looking at just the leaf contracts vs comparables at the time of signing... it doesn't look very good for Dubas.

Regarding Marner... Aho and Rantanen were the comparables. Rantaen pacing for 20 more goals/82 and similar points. Rantanen cap hit almost 2 mil less per year. Clearly losing that one. Aho is a tie. Marner's been better, but he's paid *a lot* more so it seems about right.

McDavid was used as Matthews comparable for some reason. Matthews got very similar money (when term is included). Clearly a tier below.

Nylanders comparables were Pastrnak and Ehlers. Similar pay as Pastrnak, quite a bit more than Ehlers. Looks like we're clearly losing those comparisons.

Guess I kind of got away from Marner there at the end. I guess this would be better for the Dubas thread.

I don't think Marner's necessarily a home run deal. It's a premium contract for a premium player.

But just saying that even if we ignored the fact that Marner is required to produce massive offensive totals year after year, come up huge on the upcoming playoff runs and the Leafs are required to do cap gymnastics year after year to just make it work, and labeled it a home run, there are still teams with great, comparable players who got even better deals.

What I take exception to is going out of the way to diminish a player like Rantanen to essentially make 2019 Dubas look better.

 

[IPS]

Why are you more upset at me (the person pointing out the problem) than those that are actually committing the problem?

Because those that are actually committing the problem will never go away due to the fact that this is a fan board.

On a fan board this phenomena will never go anywhere because this is where one end of the bias spectrum thrives. The main board is where the other end of the bias spectrum thrives. There's no middle ground on HF and there never will be.

 

[Leafsfan74]

Marner has been far more responsible with the puck this year. He is also hustling back more than in years past. The entire teams focus on D should bode well for their postseason prospects.

If a player is going to improve their chances of winning a Cup, they have to be more complete. Contribute as you can but also help the team win when you don't have the puck. He and Matthews have both improved in this regard.

 

[DarkKnight]

It’s great to see Marner now getting defensive accolades. His emergence as perhaps our best PKer is one thing, but it’s his innate defensive awareness that is impressing me now. Marner is always the forward working his ass of to get back and cover the pinching D, his anticipation and recognition are the small things that don’t jump out necessarily. He’s also amazing at breaking up lanes, batting down pucks, moving people away without being physical. I bet there isn’t a coach in the league watching film who doesn’t come away thinking this kid has developed into a 200 foot force.

Anyways, back to beating dead contract horses to death, I’d rather enjoy the show...

 

[ACC1224]

Does Marner now go second overall in a re-draft?

 

[Dekes For Days]

I notice this trend of downplaying raw numbers and pumping up 5 on 5 production in the Matthew vs McDavid and Draisaitl debate as well and we need to put to bed the notion that feasting on the PP is somehow a less legitimate way of production.

Raw numbers can be misleading, especially when there is significant discrepancy in game state distribution, like there is in this comparison. It's not that PP production is less legitimate. It's that raw PP numbers are heavily reliant on PP time. Rantanen does not get more raw PP points because he is better on the PP. They are very comparable in that regard. Rantanen gets more raw PP points because he gets significantly more PP time. How he is actually performing while on the PP is much more relevant when discussing the offensive abilities of a player on the PP.

If all you care about are raw stats, why are you using the per-game rate statistic? Over the 3-year period we discussed, Marner has 223 raw points, and Rantanen has 183. Clearly Marner is better, right? You'd likely come back and say they played different amounts of games, and that opportunity difference must be accounted for. And I'd say exactly. Opportunity matters when discussing production.

I don’t value Marner’s role on the PK that much to be honest.

Well whether you do or not doesn't really matter. The fact is it has value, and it impacts contracts.

The kind of PP work they do is the kind of high skill Dubas hockey we all want to see the Leafs play all the time.

Over the 3-year sample you discussed, Toronto has a better PP% than Colorado. Toronto has also generated offensive opportunities and goals at a higher rate when Marner is on the ice, than Colorado has when Rantanen is on the ice. Your personal perception does not match what's actually happening, likely because the extent you watch both teams is so different, your emotional investment is so different, and you clearly have a pre-existing bias. There's also recency bias, as our PP just went through a rough stretch.

The numbers are a wash.

The numbers are not a wash, as has already been explained to you. You're just choosing numbers that represent them as closer than they are, while ignoring everything else, including why the numbers you're looking at, are what they are.

Digging deeper, it comes down to a typical downplaying of someone who has better PP production

Except he doesn't have better PP production. He has more PP time. There's a difference.

And finally, you just don’t watch him play.

I do watch him play - probably more than you. Don't assume things about other people that you have no clue about.

In terms of eye test, I don’t think anyone watching Rantanen on a semi regular basis would come away thinking “this guy sucks. He’s nothing special.”

I didn't say anything remotely close to that. I've consistently said that Rantanen is a very good player; just not on the level of Marner, and I've supported that extensively. Don't put words in other people's mouths. In fact, that statement you quoted is more similar to your inexplicable comments constantly downplaying and discrediting Marner.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Raw numbers can be misleading, especially when there is significant discrepancy in game state distribution, like there is in this comparison. It's not that PP production is less legitimate. It's that raw PP numbers are heavily reliant on PP time. Rantanen does not get more raw PP points because he is better on the PP. They are very comparable in that regard. Rantanen gets more raw PP points because he gets significantly more PP time. How he is actually performing while on the PP is much more relevant when discussing the offensive abilities of a player on the PP.

If all you care about are raw stats, why are you using the per-game rate statistic? Over the 3-year period we discussed, Marner has 223 raw points, and Rantanen has 183. Clearly Marner is better, right? You'd likely come back and say they played different amounts of games, and that opportunity difference must be accounted for. And I'd say exactly. Opportunity matters when discussing production.

Well whether you do or not doesn't really matter. The fact is it has value, and it impacts contracts.

Over the 3-year sample you discussed, Toronto has a better PP% than Colorado. Toronto has also generated offensive opportunities and goals at a higher rate when Marner is on the ice, than Colorado has when Rantanen is on the ice. Your personal perception does not match what's actually happening, likely because the extent you watch both teams is so different, your emotional investment is so different, and you clearly have a pre-existing bias. There's also recency bias, as our PP just went through a rough stretch.

The numbers are not a wash, as has already been explained to you. You're just choosing numbers that represent them as closer than they are, while ignoring everything else, including why the numbers you're looking at, are what they are.

Except he doesn't have better PP production. He has more PP time. There's a difference.

I do watch him play - probably more than you. Don't assume things about other people that you have no clue about.

I didn't say anything remotely close to that. I've consistently said that Rantanen is a very good player; just not on the level of Marner, and I've supported that extensively. Don't put words in other people's mouths. In fact, that statement you quoted is more similar to your inexplicable comments constantly downplaying and discrediting Marner.

Marner this year has 5.3 ppp/60. Rantanen 6.8. Once again, Rantanen better. Marner's p/60 is alittle better.. Rantenan's g/60 are significantly better. If those stats were reversed they'd be used as a "case closed, Marner is better" argument.

I remember when /60 stats were being used to rationalize leaf player lower production than comparables. I remember saying that if the comparables ever get better /60 stats, everyone will just move on to "other" stats to rationalize leaf players being better. I remember it all quite well...

 

[Stephen]

Raw numbers can be misleading, especially when there is significant discrepancy in game state distribution, like there is in this comparison. It's not that PP production is less legitimate. It's that raw PP numbers are heavily reliant on PP time. Rantanen does not get more raw PP points because he is better on the PP. They are very comparable in that regard. Rantanen gets more raw PP points because he gets significantly more PP time. How he is actually performing while on the PP is much more relevant when discussing the offensive abilities of a player on the PP.

Rantanen's PP production is a function of being the trigger man on one of the strongest 5 man PP units out there. He parks on the right wing dot and cranks it like Auston Matthews while getting feeds from Makar from the umbrella or cross ice looks from Mackinnon. Nothing wrong with that and it's the exact same game plan we should be rolling out with our own PP.

As far as feasting on these numbers and, he has a 1.25 PPG average and 27 goals in 44 goals. So he's on pace for 50 goals and 102 points. You can be "mislead" but those numbers are so elite I'm not sure why you'd even need to diminish it.

If all you care about are raw stats, why are you using the per-game rate statistic? Over the 3-year period we discussed, Marner has 223 raw points, and Rantanen has 183. Clearly Marner is better, right? You'd likely come back and say they played different amounts of games, and that opportunity difference must be accounted for. And I'd say exactly. Opportunity matters when discussing production.

Well whether you do or not doesn't really matter. The fact is it has value, and it impacts contracts.

Oh really, opportunity matters? Whenever I see people arguing for Matthews case vs McDavid or Draisaitl I've never seen injury or lost time counted against Matthews but more like unfilled capacity due to injury time and less favorable utilization whether it was minutes played under Babcock or quantity of PP time under Keefe.

In any case, I doubt either Dubas or Sakic were factoring in future missed time due to injuries in the summer of 2019 when these contracts were signed.

Over the 3-year sample you discussed, Toronto has a better PP% than Colorado. Toronto has also generated offensive opportunities and goals at a higher rate when Marner is on the ice, than Colorado has when Rantanen is on the ice. Your personal perception does not match what's actually happening, likely because the extent you watch both teams is so different, your emotional investment is so different, and you clearly have a pre-existing bias. There's also recency bias, as our PP just went through a rough stretch.

You would have to know a little something about Colorado's development path to understand the differences. Which is namely Cale Makar becoming a PPG defenseman in the past two years and vaulting the Avalanche into contender status between 2018-19 and now.

The numbers are not a wash, as has already been explained to you. You're just choosing numbers that represent them as closer than they are, while ignoring everything else, including why the numbers you're looking at, are what they are.

Except he doesn't have better PP production. He has more PP time. There's a difference.

No, Rantanen has better PP production than Marner. Production is measured in actual points.

2018-19 to 2020-21:

Rantanen 68 PPP in 160 games.
Marner 59 PPP in 191 games.

What you're probably trying to describe here PPP/60 which is 6.35 for Marner and 6.43 for Rantanen at the moment as of May 1, 2021. It's such a negligible difference that will change after each powerplay but to try to use these numbers without presenting them...

I do watch him play - probably more than you. Don't assume things about other people that you have no clue about.

I didn't say anything remotely close to that. I've consistently said that Rantanen is a very good player; just not on the level of Marner, and I've supported that extensively. Don't put words in other people's mouths. In fact, that statement you quoted is more similar to your inexplicable comments constantly downplaying and discrediting Marner.

No, I don't think you watch him play at all actually the more we discuss this. In terms of roles and responsibilities, sniper vs playmaker, trigger man on the power play vs primary puck carrier, shot, size of player, sheer athletic style like long smooth skating, reach vs elusive creativity and soft touches with the puck, Mikko Rantanen and Mitch Marner don't have a lot of overlap. So for someone to look at those players and say, "Marner is head and shoulders better" wouldn't make sense. If anything, he's closer to an Auston Matthews in terms of play style and primary role.

You're trying so hard to say there's a $1.5 million difference between these guys. It's just not there.

 

[Dekes For Days]

there are still teams with great, comparable players who got even better deals.

This should be obvious, but players improving after they sign (including at ages that Marner hasn't even hit yet) doesn't mean they were better deals at the time.

What I take exception to is going out of the way to diminish a player like Rantanen to essentially make 2019 Dubas look better.

Evaluating a player properly and with necessary context is not "diminishing" Rantanen, and the only reason Rantanen keeps getting brought up is because a select few individuals can't get over Marner's contract, 2 years later. This has nothing to do with Dubas.

Rantanen's PP production is a function of being the trigger man on one of the strongest 5 man PP units out there.

Rantanen is a good player on the PP. Just like Marner. The discrepancy in their raw PP production over the past 3 years is entirely a function of their discrepancy in PP time, not a discrepancy in offensive ability.

So he's on pace for 50 goals and 102 points. You can be "mislead" but those numbers are so elite I'm not sure why you'd even need to diminish it.

Nobody said his numbers aren't elite, and nobody is diminishing anything. Just because raw numbers are elite, that doesn't change the need to look at them in the proper context. Both of the players we are comparing are elite. Marner has just proven to be better over a significant sample.

Oh really, opportunity matters? Whenever I see people arguing for Matthews case vs McDavid or Draisaitl I've never seen injury or lost time counted against Matthews

You seem to have missed the point. Of course we don't ignore the games played discrepancies when evaluating the offensive ability of a player. Similarly, of course we don't ignore TOI and game state discrepancies when evaluating the offensive ability of a player.

I am being consistent in considering opportunity. You are selectively choosing to apply opportunity context, only in the specific way it helps your narrative.

In any case, I doubt either Dubas or Sakic were factoring in future missed time due to injuries in the summer of 2019 when these contracts were signed.

No, but their true production levels in each game state at time of signing certainly would be important to their contract valuations, which is why they align extremely well, both with each other and with recent and historical comparables, when that is accounted for.

You would have to know a little something about Colorado's development path to understand the differences. Which is namely Cale Makar becoming a PPG defenseman in the past two years and vaulting the Avalanche into contender status between 2018-19 and now.

What does this have to do with anything? You were talking up Colorado's PP, when Toronto has had a better PP over the 3-year period we discussed. You were talking up Rantanen on the PP, when over that time, Toronto has generated more goals and more chances on the PP when Marner has been on the ice, than Colorado has when Rantanen has been on the ice.

No, Rantanen has better PP production than Marner. Production is measured in actual points.

No, he does not. They are essentially equal since 2018-2019. Production is measured in many different ways, and raw totals is a highly misleading way for the PP.

What you're probably trying to describe here PPP/60 which is 6.35 for Marner and 6.43 for Rantanen at the moment as of May 1, 2021. It's such a negligible difference that will change after each powerplay but to try to use these numbers without presenting them...

Yes, it's a negligible difference. That's the point. Marner and Rantanen are similar PP producers. At the same time, Marner is a better ES producer, and a PKer. I have presented those statistics to you countless times, only for you to ignore and dismiss them.

No, I don't think you watch him play at all actually the more we discuss this.

Again, don't assume things about other people that you have no clue about. I watch him plenty.

In terms of roles and responsibilities, sniper vs playmaker, trigger man on the power play vs primary puck carrier, shot, size of player, sheer athletic style like long smooth skating, reach vs elusive creativity and soft touches with the puck, Mikko Rantanen and Mitch Marner don't have a lot of overlap.

You're literally the one that identified and brought him up as comparable.

So for someone to look at those players and say, "Marner is head and shoulders better" wouldn't make sense.

Somebody doesn't have to be a carbon copy of a player in style or size to be better than them. That's illogical. Are you also saying that we can't say McDavid is better?

You're trying so hard to say there's a $1.5 million difference between these guys. It's just not there.

Actually, I'm trying to just enjoy one of the best players we will ever see in a Leaf uniform. You're the one that can't let the contract go. You're the one trying to downplay and discredit our player. You're the one trying to claim that a pretty clear and evident gap between him and another player doesn't exist, when it does.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Marner this year has 5.3 ppp/60. Rantanen 6.8.

Yes, Rantanen is having a career best sample, and Marner is having a career worst sample on the PP, at least after that rough stretch we only just came out of. The discussion was about the past 3 years, over which time they are very similar in terms of PP point production.

I remember saying that if the comparables ever get better /60 stats, everyone will just move on to "other" stats to rationalize leaf players being better.

Not really sure what you're talking about. I'm still using the same statistics.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Yes, Rantanen is having a career best sample, and Marner is having a career worst sample on the PP, at least after that rough stretch we only just came out of. The discussion was about the past 3 years, over which time they are very similar in terms of PP point production.

Not really sure what you're talking about. I'm still using the same statistics.

So THIS year, based on /60 stats (the be all end all pre-contracts), you concede Rantanen is doing better than Marner?