Proposal: Mitch Marner for Seth Jones

[Atomos2]

I said he likely would. Learn how to read. Like I said, if Babcock thought it would help the team to play him more, he would. He's not that good.

Not that good. Just a franchise centre at 20 that every team would give up a f***ing lot to get and transformed the leafs team into a perennially playoff team. Not that good. Beautiful description

 

[Gary Nylund]

Oh it's not now because you got owned trying to chirp me?

Bye bye. Have a nice life.

Asks for neutral fans to chime in on Matthews versus Jones, hears an answer he doesn’t like, ****s on said neutral poster who has their opinion (that he asked for).. all in a thread that isn’t even about Matthews.

I wasn't the one who introduced Matthews to this thread, I only questioned him being ranked 17th among centres. Sorry if that bothers you. As far as neutral poster goes, I've been participating in an interesting and respectful discussion with said poster, you should try it sometime.

For the 3rd time, why is this not locked?

Don't you have anything better to do with your time than points in threads asking for them to be locked? 3 times, really? If you're not having any luck getting this thread closed, perhaps you should spend your energy elsewhere, I'm sure you can find some other threads not up to your standards.

[Also, again, as a neutral fan, like you asked for, Jones and Matthews are far far closer in value than Jones and Marner (whether you want to hear it or not).]

Oh look, an opinion. But you said this thread should be locked, what are you doing offering an opinion in a thread you want locked?

I have no problem hearing opinions, including yours. I see where you're coming from and disagree but that's fine. That's the cool thing about this forum, you can discuss things with people you disagree with and sometimes you learn something. Cheers!

 

[Notsince67]

QoC is hard to quanitfy. It has low st.dev among all players; however, the models take QoC into accout. I seriously like this back and forth, good stuff. Most people just get angry at stats

this post has such bad grammer lmao

Don't really need to see the quant to understand that this is true. Assuming 16min/game minimum for each line, It is really difficult to keep the top pairing there for 32 whole minutes

 

[6 Karlsson 5]

Don't really need to see the quant to understand that this is true. Assuming 16min/game minimum for each line, It is really difficult to keep the top pairing there for 32 whole minutes

Yes, but one line won't exclusively play against the one d pairing, and there is forwards you need to take into acount, and sometimes the difference between a 1st and 2nd pair is nothing.
So yes, you do need to quantify it

 

[wahsnairb]

Bye bye. Have a nice life.



I wasn't the one who introduced Matthews to this thread, I only questioned him being ranked 17th among centres. Sorry if that bothers you. As far as neutral poster goes, I've been participating in an interesting and respectful discussion with said poster, you should try it sometime.



Don't you have anything better to do with your time than points in threads asking for them to be locked? 3 times, really? If you're not having any luck getting this thread closed, perhaps you should spend your energy elsewhere, I'm sure you can find some other threads not up to your standards.



Oh look, an opinion. But you said this thread should be locked, what are you doing offering an opinion in a thread you want locked?

I have no problem hearing opinions, including yours. I see where you're coming from and disagree but that's fine. That's the cool thing about this forum, you can discuss things with people you disagree with and sometimes you learn something. Cheers!

A discussion generally progresses or dies. This is sadly doing neither.

Don’t you have anything better to do than say the same thing and read the same things repeatedly?

Has to be frustrating being so slow that you have to read the same redundant points over and over before you understand or accept them. That MUST be why you continue to make the same boring points yourself. Or you have the memory of a goldfish which would be equally frustrating, I’m sure.

You are right, though. There are better things than coming back in here to read this nonsense. That is/was a poor choice by me (and others) who have realized just how poorly these “discussions” have gone.

 

[BK201]

I think values there depending on team needs.

 

[Notsince67]

All my numbers and analysis is reg. season. Of course, that is flaw, but i'm lazy haha.
In small samples, QoC is important. No one is going to say playing against the bruins top line isn't going to hurt the opposition's numbers. In fact, it is very probable that it will happen; however, over 3-4 reg seasons, you play against a whole bunch of players, and players bunch up at the mean ( in terms of QoC). This is because hockey is a game of flow, lots of changes on the fly, unable to make changes because you iced the puck, hemmed in the zone while the other team gets to change etc.
Basically, i have not seen any data to suggest AM will see some kinda number change because of lower QoC. I think you are over estimating how much easier match ups AM will get over the course of 82 games, and i think those games are better representation of player than the PO's, but both should be included.

I think you are right and wrong. I don't see much changing in reg season (due to QoC), but i could see a difference in PO's

You made me look it up. Center rankings for QoC
Tavares 6 and Matthews is 14.
I suspect Kadri is up there because he is the shut down center and the high QoC is attributed to the forwards. Too bad there isn't a metric that specifies QoC for dmen vs forwards
BTW...this doesn't bode well for Barzal
1. Anze Kopitar
2. Jonathan Toews
3. Mikko Koivu
4. Patrice Bergeron
5. Connor McDavid
6. John Tavares
7. Mark Scheifele
8. Ryan Kesler
9. Alex Iafallo
10. Nathan MacKinnon
11. Claude Giroux
12. Sean Couturier
13. Sidney Crosby
14. Auston Matthews
15. Tyler Seguin
16. Aleksander Barkov
17. Nicklas Backstrom
18. Nazem Kadri

 

[6 Karlsson 5]

You made me look it up. Center rankings for QoC
Tavares 6 and Matthews is 14.
I suspect Kadri is up there because he is the shut down center and the high QoC is attributed to the forwards. Too bad there isn't a metric that specifies QoC fo dmen vs forwards
BTW...this doesn't bode well for Barzal
1. Anze Kopitar
2. Jonathan Toews
3. Mikko Koivu
4. Patrice Bergeron
5. Connor McDavid
6. John Tavares
7. Mark Scheifele
8. Ryan Kesler
9. Alex Iafallo
10. Nathan MacKinnon
11. Claude Giroux
12. Sean Couturier
13. Sidney Crosby
14. Auston Matthews
15. Tyler Seguin
16. Aleksander Barkov
17. Nicklas Backstrom
18. Nazem Kadri

Oh god, you did read my posts, and you still don't understand

 

[NoName]

Feces is brown because it consists of dead red blood cells and bile.

A **** argument is still going to be **** even if it is fact based.

Yes, fact based arguments are bad, logic and reason are bad. Swear more, that is the way to be convincing.

 

[NoName]

What stats and data? he didn't outproduce any of them. He has never had a seeason where he reached the marks they have. P/gp over a partial season isn't outproducing them, even if he did have a slightly higher ppg than a couple of them.

Here you go. Happy reading!

This below was recently posted in another thread, something to consider for the person who has 16 centres ranked ahead of Matthews. I doubt there is a good argument for ranking 16 guys ahead of Matthews but if there is, I look forward to seeing the supporting evidence.

Matthews second year:
5v5 G/60 - 1.68 (1st in the NHL - 22% higher than second place Karlsson. Matthews was also 1st in his rookie season) (Tavares was at 0.93 last year. His best year was the shortened 2012/13 season when he was 1.32)


5v5 Pts/60 - 2.91 (3rd in the NHL behind McDavid and MacKinnon. 31st in his rookie season.) (Tavares was 2.02 last year. His best year was 2.38 in 2013/14)

5v5 Primary Pts/60 2.58 (1st in the NHL by a pretty healthy margin. 7th in his rookie season) (Tavares was 1.61 last year. His best year was 2.09 in 2015/16)

The last time a player had a 5v5 G/60 higher than Matthews in 2017/18 was Nash in 2014/15. Stamkos did in 2011/12. Ovechkin has not.

The last time a player had a 5v5 Primary Pts/60 higher than Matthews in 2017/18 was Perry in 2013/14. Crosby exceeded it (often by a wide margin) several years before that. Malkin did once. Patrick Kane has never come close.

Career 5v5 Primary Pts/60 Crosby has 2.25, Matthews 2.24, McDavid 2.22, Malkin 2.11. Barzal is at 2.04 Others are far behind (Kucherov: 1.83, Tavares 1.70, Drai: 1.53, Eichel: 1.39)

Career 5v5 G/60: Matthews 1.61; Laine 1.24; Boeser 1.22, Stamkos 1.19; Ovechkin 1.19; Nash 1.16 (Tavares 0.93) (The gap between number 2 and number 6 is very close. The gap between Matthews and the 2nd place player is bonkers)

What Matthews has done is pretty special. He hasn't had the luxury of getting to load up on points by playing 75% of the PP time on a top heavy unit. Kucherov, Drai, Eichel, Tavares etc. Despite all of them being older, none of them have been able to do what Matthews has been able to do.

So now we have all the advanced stats, as well as the traditional stats backing up the media insiders polls and the NHL player's survey I previously listed that all list Matthews as a top centre and one of the single most valuable players in the NHL, far ahead of Jones. Blue Jacket's fans do you have any hard data evidence to present supporting your case that Jones is worth similar or greater value than Matthews? Because right now the facts seem pretty conclusive.
All of this pretty much definitively shows why the Leafs would never consider trading Matthews 1 for 1 with Jones.

Also, some more Stats to add: Matthews is tied for 12th last season (with now fellow Leaf John Tavares) in points per game among centres with 1.02.

The one thing he was way below league average his rookie season was faceoffs. Last season he was 54.5%

Oh and here are his advanced stats: Auston Matthews Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Over past two season, overall NHL rank:
goals created per game: 9th
even strength goals: 1st, 5th
adjusted goals: 2nd
goals per game: 5th, 2nd
goals created: 8th
adjusted goals created: 8th
offensive point-shares: 9th

So yes, to reiterate, the stats as well as player and media opinions all back up that Matthews is near or at a top-10 level of centre right now and in the future will definitely keep climbing up the ranks.

Funny how, according to the NHL..........and what do they know, right?............Matthews is #4 in the "top-20 Centres in the league".

#NHLTopPlayers: Top 20 Centers

That is funny, because it isn’t an opinion that pundits or players seem to share:

NHL players see Leafs’ Auston Matthews as one to build around | The Star

NHLPA Player Poll: McDavid’s fastest, Crosby’s best, Kucherov's still underrated and Gretzky’s the GOAT

Jones doesn’t even make the list. Matthews is number three behind McDavid and Crosby. This can’t just be hand-waived as “Toronto bias”, this is from the players themselves. Matthews has substantially more value then Jones, at least to people who understand hockey best.

Here is another one done by ESPN writers: Which young player would you build a team around?

Feel free to respond when you gather actual evidence to back your claims and refute the data and sources that myself and others have posted here. There really isn't all that much I can work with when you just refute my claims with one line accusations of lying. That isn't an argument.

 

[Colt55]

JVR scored 36 and I meant to say overall points leader at the end

yeah i didnt realize he hit 36 goals.

 

[Gary Nylund]

A discussion generally progresses or dies. This is sadly doing neither.

Don’t you have anything better to do than say the same thing and read the same things repeatedly?

Has to be frustrating being so slow that you have to read the same redundant points over and over before you understand or accept them. That MUST be why you continue to make the same boring points yourself. Or you have the memory of a goldfish which would be equally frustrating, I’m sure.

You are right, though. There are better things than coming back in here to read this nonsense. That is/was a poor choice by me (and others) who have realized just how poorly these “discussions” have gone.

So you've spent quite a bit of time ITT, you've read a lot of the posts ITT, you've responded to a number of posts ITT, you're so angry that you've resorted to personal attacks ITT and you're whining about this thread not being closed.

#getalife

 

[Garbageyuk]

Here you go. Happy reading!






Feel free to respond when you gather actual evidence to back your claims and refute the data and sources that myself and others have posted here. There really isn't all that much I can work with when you just refute my claims with one line accusations of lying. That isn't an argument.

There are other considerations here other than point production. This debate is about wether or not he is a top-10 overall center. Like I said earlier, you can take pretty much any player in the entire league and pidgeonhole them into a contrived 'top-10' within a specific context. It doesn't mean much. Matthews is barely 'top-10' in terms of point production only; he is not currently one of the 10 or even 15 best overall centers. The minutes argument actually works against him more than it helps in this debate. This is not about value or potential; it's about who the best centers are, and Matthews is not in the top-15.

 

[Garbageyuk]

Not that good. Just a franchise centre at 20 that every team would give up a ****ing lot to get and transformed the leafs team into a perennially playoff team. Not that good. Beautiful description

Someone's feelings are hurt

 

[Viqsi]

Yes, fact based arguments are bad, logic and reason are bad. Swear more, that is the way to be convincing.

Folks have been repeatedly dismissing facts coming from any fanbase other than the Leafs in this thread, so quite frankly there's nothing left. It's y'all's thread now; we're just along for the ride.

 

[wahsnairb]

Yes, fact based arguments are bad, logic and reason are bad. Swear more, that is the way to be convincing.

There were not enough swear words to convince me one way or another that swear words are convincing.. sorry.

You also used the word “and” which I believe applies because we are supposed to be discussing the relative value of multiple players. So thank you for keeping this on topic.

I would like to throw out that I too think Marner is awesome and fun to watch since that’s the only thing people want to hear in here.

 

[Romang67]

After some extensive research, I've found than neither Mitch Marner, nor Seth Jones is actually Auston Matthews in disguise, so I'm going to close this.