Discussion in 'Toronto Maple Leafs' started by DarkKnight, Feb 18, 2021.
Do you know what the word significantly means?
No, that's not how it has ever worked. What you're probably misremembering is comparisons involving Matthews having vastly higher goal totals AND higher primary point production, when they were compared to somebody who was worse at everything other than the rate at which they accumulated secondary assists. That is not the situation here, where Marner has better point and primary point production than the goal-scorer.
And even in those situations, the goals were not emphasized and given the enormous weight you are in this comparison, even when discussing one of if not the best goal scorer seen in decades. In those situations, proper, significant sample sizes were also used, and not the partial shortened season you are using here to make incorrect claims.
By your logic, Matthews would be the best player in the league. Do you believe this to be true?
If you're looking at all-situations per-60, that's skewing Rantanen a lot higher, as his distribution of game states is much more heavily skewed towards the PP, and he doesn't have PK time impacting his number, like Marner. That's why it's always been emphasized as important to look at game states separately.
Marner is better, according to per-60 this year, and even more-so over a more significant sample. Over a significant sample, Marner has shown to be equal to or better in everything except PP goalscoring.
You're really trapping yourself in a corner with this one.
As has already been explained to you multiple times, that's just flat-out not true.
Problem is, there's lots of evidence to support the facts I laid out, and pretty much no evidence to support your baseless claim, as was discussed in the other conversation.
I’d say Matthews is having a significantly better season than Kane, even though they have the same amount of points. Goals clearly matter. Same applies to Rantanen/Marner this year.
There is another thing in those numbers. Even strength defensive wins above replacement. Picked this up from the Hab forum
Who would we have a better chance of beating first round?
Could you provide a quick explanation of what that means?
I can't even blame it on running into hot goaltending because two goalies had three shutout streaks of over 60 minutes -chronologically 84, 102 & 60 minutes- against us in a five game series. A 50 million dollar offense cannot get repeatedly shutout by 2 million dollar goaltending without shouldering significant blame.
Marner has stronger skills in some aspects of the game. Rantanen has stronger skills in some aspects of the game. All of those skills contribute to points and goals. It doesn't matter how. The result (this year) is a very very close OVERALL p/60. But Rantanen has a significantly higher OVERALL g/60. So he's been significantly better this year.
I'm consistent with this. Panarin has an almost identical p/60 this year as Matthews. But Matthews is having the significantly better season due to the massive goal difference. I'm applying the precise same logic of that to Rantanen/Marner. Would YOU say that Rantanen has been as good as Matthews this year?
And yes, it WAS these p/60 numbers that were all the rage when the contracts were being handed out. And I was there clear as day saying that if the leafs p/60 numbers ever become aligned with comparables, the p/60 argument would be abandoned. And that's precisely what's happened.
So I'm being consistent. I'm not being "anti-leaf". My precise same logic states Matthews is better this year than Panarin. But it really does feel that you change the metrics based on which leaf player we're talking about.
I don't believe your arguments on this one make any sense. Let's just leave it at that.
Pretty convoluted detailed explanation but effectively it is a scalar metric base lined against a replacement level player that evaluates expected goals against vs goals against as a contribute to wins for individual players.
Really a fancy way of measuring defensive impact of wins.
Really a Coles notes version but more details here
That’s really interesting, haven’t seen that metric before. I also like the comment about how we don’t appreciate him.
People around the league get Marner.
Beat that dead horse, dead, dead, dead, then again, dead I say, dead.
I mean, we're comparing their stats from THIS year. What does 2019 have to do with THIS year?
You’ve been on the same thing since the contract was signed, Jesus man we get it.
Yep. Rantanen is better at goalscoring. Marner is better at pretty much everything else.
No, you're just using that stat incorrectly. And it's been explained to you why multiple times, so it would appear to be intentional at this point.
Except you're literally not. Even aside from you completely flip-flopping from the stances and statistics and methodology (if we can even call it that) that you used for years to discredit Leaf players, now that they show Leaf players in a better light, you're also inconsistent with the per-60 statistics you've switched to, even in the incorrect way you are using them.
Is Matthews the best player in the world, and better than McDavid? Because by your faulty logic, he would be. Worse point and primary point production, but more goals, which apparently according to you is all that matters.
Of course not. Why would I?
Per-60 metrics were considered when the contracts were discussed, but not in the way you are now utilizing them. I'm not sure where you got the idea that per-60 metrics were abandoned, when we're literally here talking about per-60 metrics, that I am still using. The problem isn't per-60 metrics. The problem is that you're using them wrong, in ways they were never used before, to suggest the opposite of the truth.
And what I was always told was that the superior /60 numbers of leaf players were better than their comparables. Thus, the leafs players were better.
This year, Rantanen has overall better /60 numbers. And now they just don't matter...
They still matter, all the same. Rantanen is just not better, according to per-60 metrics, whether we look at this year, or the bigger, more representative sample that has always been used previously. You are using the stat incorrectly to come to this incorrect conclusion. I have tried to help you understand your mistakes here, and where you are deviating from past discussions involving this statistic, but you have shown no willingness to listen and understand - only to misrepresent.
Marner has better es p/60. Rantanen has MUCH higher es g/60, ppp/60, ppg/60. He's pacing for the same amount of points but significantly more goals. Rantanen is better this year. The end.
I always contended that Matthews contract was market value because there was a goal scorers premium built in. I still believe it. Not sure about all the other debate here but goal scoring has a premium for me too.
I think Matthews .81 goals per game rivals what McDavid is doing with points. Nothing is cut and dried just by looking at stats nonetheless. Rantanen is very important to his team too. Great players the both
Agree on most accounts.
If Matthews goals per game rivals McDavid's SIGNIFICANT point advantage, wouldn't Rantanen be WAY ahead of Marner being that there's a similar goal differential but pacing for the same points?
Kind of but I don’t see the debate ending on it or a definitive cut off line. There is no doubt about the value each player brings to their team for me personally.
not sure what you're talking about.
Matthews ES 3.33 p/60, 2.96 p1/60 ---- PP 5.35 p/60, 4.11 p1/60
MacKinnon ES 2.92 p/60, 2.40 p1/60 - PP 7.97 p/60, 4.78 p1/60
Marner ES 3.13 p/60, 2.49 p1/60 ---- PP 5.49 p/60, 4.31 p1/60
Rantanen ES 2.69 p/60, 2.08 p1/60 -- PP 6.71 p/60, 4.47 p1/60
Last 2 years
Matthews ES 2.75 p/60, 2.45 p1/60 ---- PP 6.07 p/60, 4.59 p1/60
MacKinnon ES 2.94 p/60, 2.44 p1/60 -- PP 7.00 p/60, 4.38 p1/60
Marner ES 2.73 p/60, 2.15 p1/60 ---- PP 6.53 p/60, 4.41 p1/60
Rantanen ES 2.42p/60, 1.91p1/60 --- PP 6.27 p/60, 4.61 p1/60
Matthews ES 2.93 p/60, 2.58 p1/60 --- PP 6.28 p/60, 4.46 p1/60
MacKinnon ES 3.01 p/60, 2.51 p1/50 -- PP 7.24 p/60, 4.50 p1/60
Marner ES 3.01 p/60, 2.29 p1/60 ------ PP 6.44 p/60, 4.57 p1/60
Rantanen ES 2.70 p/60, 2.16 p1/60 ---- PP 6.24 p/60, 4.63 p1/60
Your statement is incorrect and misleading in multiple ways. According to per-60 metrics, looking at goal scoring, primary point production, and point production...
This year, Marner has been better at ES (which makes up the large majority of ice time) and the PK.
This year, Ratnanen has been better on the PP.
Advantage this year: Marner
Over a bigger, more representative sample (like was always used in previous per-60 discussions) than this partial shortened season...
Marner has been better at ES, on the PP, and on the PK.
Rantanen has been better at none of the game states, though has shown better PP goal-scoring specifically.
Advantage over a representative sample: Marner
Considering both of these things, it's beyond obvious to conclude that Marner is the better player. Even in the unlikely occurrence that Rantanen does push ahead of Marner at some future point in time, that would have absolutely zero relevance to their contract valuation years ago anyway.
What cite do you use? Hockey-refernce has very different numbers. Panarin's es p/60 is higher than Matthews across the board. Is he having a better season than Matthews? Or should goals come into the equation?
Your words were "Rantanen has pulled ahead significantly this year." Nice backpedal.
Also - Marner has 12 more even strength points, and plays over a minute less on the power play per night than Rantanen. Rantanen only has 2 more even strength goals than Marner. Not to mention Marner kills penalties, whereas Rantanen doesn't. He's a more dynamic and effective player in basically all situations than Rantanen. In my view, Marner's the more valuable player pretty easily.
I was responding only to your p/60 post. I use a number of sites - i prefer evolving-hockey but naturalstattrick is nice and easy to use too,
If I did say that, I meant /60 stats in general. Not just p/60.
Separate names with a comma.