Speculation: Mitch Marner Mega Thread Part 7 (Mod warning OP)

[Nervousbreakdown]

So if I am reading this correctly we have moved beyond the point where people who don't like/ watch the leaf want to be experts on Mitch marner and now they are on to shitting on our other players? Cool.

 

[CupsOverCash]

I see I've stumbled upon the Auston Matthews and Nate MacKinnon megathread.

Well if we want to change it up we can just insert another name in place of MacKinnon. Im sure results wouldnt change too much.

 

[Randy Randerson]

Mack was on a 43 goal/107 point pace. Matthews and Mack are not such extremes that one is a pure playmaker/pure goal scorer

Also a 50-50 guy versus a 40-70 guy, I believe the consensus on this board was that people will go with the 40-70.

These are not unfair conditions. If leaf fans are so confident he is at least on Mack's level, they should think he can exceed them, so matching it should not be a problem.

Matthews isn't a long way from the "pure goal scorer" end of the spectrum, and I disagree on where the preference would like between 50/50 and 43/64, especially within the context that Mack gets a minute more PP time per game than Matthews. Here's a little backup: Are GOALS worth more than ASSISTS?

so with that, if you would look at a 50/50 season with a minute less PP time per game for Matthews and not see that as on the same tier as a 43/64 pace from Mack, that's just you needing to feel like you have the better player rather than an objective evaluation

 

[tucker3434]

You think comparing 2 players on the total season they have had to this point is irrelevant?

Their first 3 seasons they each played 212 games.

Matthews scored 60 more goals. He could not play for 2 years and would still be tied with mackinnon in goals.

I’m pretty sure that’s relevant.

You aren’t taking MacKinnon to this point. You’re cutting him off at the knees for obvious reasons.

MacKinnon breaking out at 21 rather than 19 or 20 doesn’t mean anything, one way or another. It just is. And just because MacKinnon had a monster year at 21 doesn’t mean Matthews will too. Not everyone develops at the same rate.

 

[leaffaninvancouver]

Maybe until there's actually news we just don't open up a new Marner thread.

Well or in this case a media, pp 60, Mathhews, MacKinnon thread.

 

[Randy Randerson]

You aren’t taking MacKinnon to this point. You’re cutting him off at the knees for obvious reasons.

MacKinnon breaking out at 21 rather than 19 or 20 doesn’t mean anything, one way or another. It just is. And just because MacKinnon had a monster year at 21 doesn’t mean Matthews will too. Not everyone develops at the same rate.

MacKinnon was 22 in his breakout year, and most of the data we have points to that being a pretty typical start to the peak of a career: A New Look at Aging Curves for NHL Skaters (part 1)

Development isn't the same for everyone, but on average 21-23 is where you expect to see the highest results start. Assuming that Matthews has peaked is presumptuous, and it would be atypical where MacKinnon's development arc is more along the typical lines with a stark jump from his 21 to 22yo season rather than a smoother increase

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Numbers that definitely do not determine how smart hockey people see those players.

Points have a significantly stronger correlation with pay than 5V5 P/60.

Here is the data from all forwards with a cap hit above $1M who signed their contract between the end of 2017-2018 season and the start of 2018-2019. The point and points/60 values are from 2017-2018.

5V5 P/60 and Cap Hit:



Points and Cap Hit:



Now I'm really curious to see where you saw that P/60 is a bigger driving factor of contract value/cap hit than points, because that's completely wrong. The R^2 between points and cap hit is over 3 times as high as the R^2 between P/60 and cap hit. The R^2 between cap hit and points per game (which I used for the comparisons between Matthews, Stamkos, Staal, and Malkin) was 0.69 - slightly below the R^2 for points and cap hit, but still well over 3 times the R^2 between 5V5 P/60 and cap hit.

Bottom line - 5V5 P/60 is not a driving factor of cap hit to the same degree that points and points/game are.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

Matthews isn't a long way from the "pure goal scorer" end of the spectrum, and I disagree on where the preference would like between 50/50 and 43/64, especially within the context that Mack gets a minute more PP time per game than Matthews. Here's a little backup: Are GOALS worth more than ASSISTS?

so with that, if you would look at a 50/50 season with a minute less PP time per game for Matthews and not see that as on the same tier as a 43/64 pace from Mack, that's just you needing to feel like you have the better player rather than an objective evaluation

I just don't want built in excuses, because the 2nd best player in hockey don't need excuses. Otherwise, we have to account for scoring across the league going up and all sorts of other factors.

I could have just said Matthews need to come in at least 2nd for Lindsay and Hart, but I thought that'd be too unfair for him.

 

[Randy Randerson]

I just don't want built in excuses, because the 2nd best player in hockey don't need excuses. Otherwise, we have to account for scoring across the league going up and all sorts of other factors.

I could have just said Matthews need to come in at least 2nd for Lindsay and Hart, but I thought that'd be too unfair for him.

it seems like your butt is hurt over some thinking that Matthews is the 2nd best player in hockey, that's not my position. If you set too specific of criteria they're unlikely to be met, even if the real question of "did Matthews get to MacKinnon's level" is

 

[GirardSpinorama]

it seems like your butt is hurt over some thinking that Matthews is the 2nd best player in hockey, that's not my position. If you set too specific of criteria they're unlikely to be met, even if the real question of "did Matthews get to MacKinnon's level" is

If you don't set specific criteria (and its not unreasonable at all), this debate will never end. If no one on the leafs fan base is willing to take up on it, that says how much they feel about Matthews.

 

[Hunter368]

Guys, let’s get back on subject of the thread.

Marner thread

 

[Randy Randerson]

If you don't set specific criteria (and its not unreasonable at all), this debate will never end. If no one on the leafs fan base is willing to take up on it, that says how much they feel about Matthews.

do you really think these kinds of debates are going to end regardless? I mean you're in a thread that has nothing to do with Colorado or MacKinnon looking for them, so you can't honestly believe that you won't continue to find them.

I think that Matthews over the next 2 years will be a comparable player to what MacKinnon was in the last 2 (which are not the same two, it will be Matthews 4th&5th seasons vs. MacKinnon's 5th&6th, where Matthews was very old for his draft year and MacKinnon was very young for his because they're on opposite sides of the Sept 15th draft eligibility cutoff). If Matthews averages 45/45 per 82 with a minute less PP time per game (worth about 5 goals and 9pts at Matthews' per 60 rates) that certainly tiers in with MacKinnon's 42/61 per 82 average rate over the last 2 years, and I think he'll do that.

If you had concerns over me admitting that he didn't, I'm not trying to frame Matthews as on the same tier currently and there's lots of ways to analyze them that do frame them that way, so I think you can take me at my word

Edit: sorry mods, the warning went up while I was writing this one

 

[Pure Slaughter Value]

Unhappy Sidney wants to be considered the 2nd best center in hockey

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

I was not a fan TBH. His bad trades and the firing of Pat Quinn were rash decisions with no articulated plan that I can remember

Not saying I was a fan, just curious what the results would have been over that time frame had he been allowed to rebuild.

 

[heilongjetsfan]

Not to steal your thunder but boeser wasn't /isn't eligible for offersheets

My bad. Thx.

 

[Legion34]

You aren’t taking MacKinnon to this point. You’re cutting him off at the knees for obvious reasons.

MacKinnon breaking out at 21 rather than 19 or 20 doesn’t mean anything, one way or another. It just is. And just because MacKinnon had a monster year at 21 doesn’t mean Matthews will too. Not everyone develops at the same rate.

I’m comparing the only data we have to compare. The first 3 years

The 4th year Matthews will win too. No question.

Mackinnon had 39-41, 97-99 pt seasons

Matthews in his 3rd year was on what a 45 goal 88 pt pace.

Playing with rookies?

It’s not a stretch to say he can’t cover the gap. It’s not like Mack had a 60’g 130 pt season.

 

[heilongjetsfan]

Soooo this thread got to part 7 because of media? Who is posting in here? McKenzie?

You never know.

 

[tucker3434]

I’m comparing the only data we have to compare. The first 3 years

The 4th year Matthews will win too. No question.

Mackinnon had 39-41, 97-99 pt seasons

Matthews in his 3rd year was on what a 45 goal 88 pt pace.

Playing with rookies?

It’s not a stretch to say he can’t cover the gap. It’s not like Mack had a 60’g 130 pt season.

Mack did it in 74 games so a 107 point pace. A 20 point jump “no question” is homer to the max.

 

[scotian1]

Time to shit this thread down if it doesn't get back to its purpose.

 

[spiny norman]

Speculation: - Mitch Marner, the saga continues with Part 8 ...