It's reasonable to say that thus far, he's having a better partial season on the PP specifically, but that's not really what was being discussed.
Mitch “Magic” Marner Thread
- Thread starter DarkKnight
- Start date
- Status
Throw More Waffles
Unprecedented Dramatic Overpayments
- Oct 9, 2015
- 12,892
- 9,750
Imagine Matthews and a comparable. If he had a very similar p/60, a significantly better ppp/60, and an OUTRAGEOUSLY higher g/60... well.... you'd just conclude he's having a better season than the comparable. The end. There would be no weird nitpicking.
Rantanen is having a significantly better season than Marner for 1.6 mil less aav.
ToneDog
56 years and counting. #FireTheShanaClan!
As far as I know, a PP goal/assist counts the same as any other goal/assist. Truth is the way our #1 PP unit has been lately, our fab 5 can spend hours with the man advantage and would not have much to show for it. Ranta/McK and McD/Drai are more efficient than Marner/Matty and it should not be used against them when compared to a Leaf.
Except he's not. You just focused in on specifically the one game state that Rantanen was having a better season in (with very convenient timing), and ignored everything else that he was worse at, and the fact that over a more significant sample, they've been equal producers on the PP.
DarkKnight
Professional Amateur
- Jan 17, 2017
- 32,101
- 49,388
The truth is, apart from McJesus and perhaps Matthews, NOBODY is having a “significantly better” season than Mitch. Sweet lord what do people want from the guy. Pure garbage.
Throw More Waffles
Unprecedented Dramatic Overpayments
- Oct 9, 2015
- 12,892
- 9,750
When the leafs production was lower than all of their comparables, it was the leafs players superior/60 stats that were used to rationalize it. I always said "Well... if the comparables ever have better /60 stats, you'll all just move no to something else to say the leafs are still better." Looks like I was right.
Well... now Rantanen is pacing for the SAME points/82 and considerably more goals. And now, this time, his /60 stats are BETTER. very close with points. Much better on the pp. And WAY better on goals.
Rantanen has been a significantly better player than Marner this year. For 1.6 mil less aav.
Is it a one off year where Rantanen is considerably better than Marner? Or has he "taken the next step" more than Marner has? Time will tell I suppose.
Not sure how you're coming to that conclusion. Again, I'm using the exact same statistics, and those statistics do not say Rantanen is better, except in that one particular game state in specifically this partial season, conveniently right after a long PP drought for the Leafs. Marner has been better at ES and on the PK, and you're ignoring that, just like you're ignoring a more representative sample for these players.
Throw More Waffles
Unprecedented Dramatic Overpayments
- Oct 9, 2015
- 12,892
- 9,750
I'm using nhl.com
You can of course see their p/60, g/60, ppp/60, ppg/60.
Rantanen is significantly better this year on ALL of them, other than slightly lower in p/60.
More fun?
Career playoff /60 stats.
| Rantanen | Marner | |
| p/60 | 2.61 | 1.25 |
| g/60 | 0.99 | 0.63 |
| ppp/60 | 5.03 | 7.97 |
| ppg/60 | 1.55 | 0 (lol) |
Rantanen is SIGNIFICANTLY better in all but ppp/60. And Marner doesn't have a single playoff power-play goal. And it's FAR more embarrassing if you look at just the past 2 years of playoffs (post elc).
I'm sorry... but other than Marner being better out of the gate as a teenager, Rantanen has simply developed into currently being a better player. Especially when it matters most. And it's not even really close.
Last edited:
That is not true. This year, in the 3 game states...
Marner is better in ES P/60 and ES P1/60.
Rantanen is better in PP P/60 and PP P1/60.
Marner PKs, while Rantanen does not.
And as we expand the sample, Marner has shown to be better than or equal to Rantanen in pretty much everything, other than PP goal-scoring.
Throw More Waffles
Unprecedented Dramatic Overpayments
- Oct 9, 2015
- 12,892
- 9,750
Do you leave g/60 stats out of the equation when comparing matthews to other players?
And no comment on the playoffs?
Depends what the comparison is. You're comparing a goal-scorer to a playmaker, and that's why I included primary point production.
My comment is that you gave no consideration for impacting factors, from age to the quality of opponent (especially defensively) that each faced in those small samples, so your numbers are very misleading.
Captain14
Registered User
I really think Brooks should get a playoff start, love his energy. Gally would be my pick to sit but it depends how quickly Nash can get up to speed with our system.
Throw More Waffles
Unprecedented Dramatic Overpayments
- Oct 9, 2015
- 12,892
- 9,750
Things Marner is better at this year:
es p/60
Things Rantanen is better at this year:
es g/60
ppp/60
ppg/60
What does it all add up to?
A very very close overall p/60.
And an outrageous commanding lead for Rantanen on overall g/60.
Advantage Rantanen. Significant advantage Rantanen.
He's currently a better player.
And I absolutely LOVE that Rantanen being DRAMATICALLY better than Marner in the playoffs isn't allowed to count because they played "different teams". As I've shown, he hasn't been slightly better. It's more like comparing a 2nd liner to McDavid.
And then you say they played teams easier to score against.... just like to point out that Columbus and Coyotes were TIED in total goals against last season. Rantanen still found a way to score....
Last edited:
I already outlined this above:
And as explained above, as we expand the sample, Marner has shown to be better than or equal to Rantanen in pretty much everything, other than PP goal-scoring.
Opponents are a heavily impacting factor in the playoffs. Overall, Marner has faced significantly better teams, significantly better defenses, and significantly better goaltending, at a younger average age. The sample is also so small, and you're giving no consideration to the sustainability of that result, while trying to weight it over the considerably bigger and more equal sample we have for these players.
Difference is, Columbus got that result by being the best defensive team in the league, and Arizona got that result by being a below average defensive team that got carried by goaltending. And then in the playoffs, Columbus got a record-setting performance from their goaltending to add on to their league-best defense, while Arizona's goaltending fell off a cliff. So no, not really the same thing.
Throw More Waffles
Unprecedented Dramatic Overpayments
- Oct 9, 2015
- 12,892
- 9,750
The only thing Marner was better at was 5v5 p/60. Rantanen is MUCH higher in 5v5 g/60, ppp/60, and ppg/60.
The end result is them being very close in OVERALL p/60, but Rantanen being MUCH higher in overall g/60.
I'm comparing a goal scorer to a playmaker. Why would we not include BOTH goals and points? That's what we do with Matthews.
If leaf players had FAR better stats and p/60 stats in the playoffs, there's NO WAY IN HELL you'd be arguing that we can't look at playoff stats. No chance in hell.
What this has shown me overall is that Rantanen steps up in big games far more than Marner.
So, in other words, Rantanen didn't allow BETTER goaltending stop him? He and his teammates scored on them and made them look bad?
You say Columbus's goaltending was great. I say our players (like Marner) had shit finish. You say Arizona's goaltending fell off a cliff. I say the av's players had fantastic finish. I wish our star players could have great finish in the playoffs...
That is not true. You're ignoring primary point production, and putting an emphasis on goals, while comparing a goal scorer and playmaker. You're also ignoring entire relevant game states for these players, because they are in favour of Marner. You're also exaggerating the difference on the PP, while downplaying the discrepancy in a game state that makes up the majority of ice time. You're also ignoring the bigger sample, where Marner has shown to be equal to or better in everything except PP goal scoring.
I am consistent in how I apply methodology. Comparing and emphasizing small sample playoff production in the way you are, with zero consideration for impacting factors or the sustainability of results, is highly misleading, and it has nothing to do with which teams are involved.
That's not really supported by anything.
In case you somehow haven't noticed, goaltending is way more variable than anything else. Goaltenders play better or worse, all on their own. You literally contradict your own statement, because if his teammates are scoring on them as well, it's clearly not attributable to Rantanen.
Columbus' goaltending was great. That's not a debatable thing.
Beyonder91
RASMUS
Craig Button
The C is for Coward - Brad Marchand 2024
Arizona's goaltending was great in the regular season but just conveniently happened to cool off when they faced Colorado.
CBJ's goaltending was shaky in the regular season, was great against Toronto but happened to conveniently cool off when they lost to Tampa in 5 games.
All not up for debate whatsoever.
Did it cool off much against TB? Felt like TB scored at a similar pace until that outbreak in the final game
That's what the good teams do man. They run into a hot goalie and they figure them out.
The goaltending phenom that the Knights ran into was absurd, far worse than what we were up against. They figured it out and won the series.
You seem to be forgetting a certain 5 month break. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody that goaltending is highly variable. We see goalies constantly rise and fall from season to season or even stretch to stretch, even when playing a wide variety of teams. One would think a Leaf fan especially would understand this. For the record, we're talking about the difference between 0.952 and 0.881 goaltending. Toronto and Colorado had nearly identical goal-scoring and SH% during the regular season.
Your argument is also inherently flawed, because this discussion was about Rantanen. How is Colorado supposedly just deciding to suddenly and collectively shoot better attributable to specifically Rantanen's offensive ability regardless?
1. Columbus got pretty good goaltending in the regular season as well; they just didn't get carried, like Arizona.
2. Columbus literally set a playoff goaltending record in the game following our series...
3. That "5 game" series was actually quite close, and was Tampa's worst series offensively.
Not nearly as much as people seem to think.
That goaltending performance was by Demko. Demko started 3 games in that series. Vegas lost 2 out of the 3.
Did they figure it out though if they scored at a similar pace to the Leafs over their first 4 games? And was it figuring things out or just waiting for the bubble to burst?
Let's break it down a little differently, if someone wants to do a deeper dive in actual minutes played- I'd love to know more
Series were different lengths, but Toronto and CBJ played about 16.5 periods and Toronto scored 9 goals (excl ENG). First 4 games for TB took 15.5 periods, TB scored 9.
Did they solve the CBJ goaltending to get a 3-1 series lead by scoring the same? For those curious Fred was beat 10 times over those periods, Vas 8.
Last edited:
- Status
