What on earth do you mean don't bother with no PP? If you were predicting 50-55 points at 5v5 for Nylander (I.e with NO PP), that's fricken elite.
No it's not a better picture, because you're describing an inaccurate picture. Which is why I asked what you were rambling on about.
16-17: 6.69% (Normal but low), 16.04% PP (Slightly high - Same as Marner/Kadri/JVR PP 17-18 season)
17-18: 12.05% (Unsustainable, too high), 12.67% PP (Slightly low for him and Matthews - Even lower than Marner's 16-17 season)
18-19: 5.60% (Unsustainable, too low), 4.76% PP (Insanely low)
All 3 seasons he has had fantastic possession numbers, zone entries, high-danger chances, etc. 1st season was normal, 2nd season was balanced out to normal, 3rd season is a ****show in how unlucky he is.
3% is massive in terms of oish%, you do realize that right...
Also Matthews/Nylander always have similar possession numbers so I'm not sure what point you're trying to bring? And where do you see that Marner has the same luck as Matthews/Nylander? That's not true at all...
Again, refer to above. He had a high oish% last season. He did get more 'luckier' last year. But as I mentioned a bunch of times, the PP numbers were absurdly low for the entire Matthews/Nylander PP that year. So yes, it balanced out. Please refer to the above posts to help you out there.
Yes, you do realize when I say on-ice sh% I'm referring to not only his linemates, but HIS play as well right? For example when I defend Kadri, I refer to his low on-ice sh% even though he's a shooter/goal-scorer. When I talk about a low on-ice sh% with Kadri, it is obviously implied Kadri is missing the net or hitting posts like crazy. Like he has this season and everyone knows this.
Also I hope you know that 'luck' isn't actually 'luck'. It's a term used to refer to how different it is from the NORMAL. A high oish% is 'lucky' because it is uncommon and WILL return to the normal soon. A low oish% is 'unlucky' because it is common and WILL return to the normal soon.
The same explaination I've provided to you earlier is the SAME explanation used to explain the big rare slumps Crosby, Giroux, Voracek, Bergeron, Ovechkin, Marner, Kadri, etc have had in their careers. Yet somehow there's always someone like you trying to blame the stats. Every single damn year I have this same exact argument with someone. Then they turn quiet after the oish% rises to normal.
Of course I agree he wasn't in proper shape when he came back. But after the first 6 games, he was back to great play but unlucky oish%.
Let me ask you this. Do you honestly think that a player playing with Matthews/Kadri/Johnsson would get 2 points in 18ish games if he wasn't unlucky? Do you think Matthews/Kadri/Johnsson are garbage to not produce themselves in those 18 games with him on the ice? Is Nylander that garbage right now to prevent those guys from putting up points? The entire team is in a dry-spell right now and Nylander's caught along with it.
So again: Patience. Patience. Patience. If it were up to fans like you and media like Kypreos, Marner would have been traded last season and long-gone.
1.I said I wasn't using his PP stats as it is not relevant to the stats you are using to show he is effective this year 5vs5 but unlucky. No clue where you came up with the above stuff.
2. You say be patient, it will even out. So, how is using bigger previous sample sizes not accurate. You may be the first person I have ever heard of to say this years small sample size tells a better story than a players entire career. You are reaching huge.
3. I said he was always a good possession player etc. He also has typically had a below average s% for a high end player, which would say for all the "high danger chances" he is the one not converting. Hyman has had similar s% to Nylander.
4. I said 1-3% Oish% is not much over 17 games. Do you read or just react? It would be significant over a season or career obviously. Even using the high end of 3%, that of course you chose. That is 3 more goals on 100 shots as a unit. There is also no guarantee that Nylander is involved in the extra production. If you take Nylanders shot totals, Kadri's avg and Marleau's avg, that is 104 shots or 3 more goals in the 17 games. Other than Rielly, our D doesn't shoot alot. Let's say the D contribute to one more goal with the extra 3 % Oish% over the 17 games. Now let's be generous and say Nylander picked up a point on 1/2 those extra 4 goals. He now has 5 pts in 17 games. Happy now?
5. Funny, how the stats only balance in the ways you want them to over their season or careers. Other balancing figures are dismissed. Who knew.
6. I get the Oish% refers to him as well..when have you related the Oish% to him? Must have missed where you talked about his fault in that.
7. If it's not really "luck", why call it lucky or unlucky then? I know how PDO is calculated and totally understand how many say it will either regress or climb to the mean. There is no luck involved. It's called Luck so that it takes the onus of a player or players poor play or poor shooting.
8. You are also acting like it is a given that these stats always return to the mean. No, they don't.
9. He was not back to great play in 6 games. That is a ridiculous statement.
I never said Nylander was garbage nor have I said Matthews/Kadri/Marner are. I haven't said we need to trade Nylander or that his play wouldn't improve. Show me where I have said any of this. You can't. So maybe try reading what I have said and not get so defensive in order to defend your "stats evidence." I have actually stated the areas I thought where Willy has improved and said when he has had a good game despite no points. So please spare me the "people like me would have traded Marner" as I have not suggested to do so. At least get your fact straight before you call me out.
Let me ask you this.
In your belief, Nylander has been playing great since games 6 and the only thing that has held him back is bad luck (as you describe it)?
Here's the difference. "Hockey people" watch the games, can evaluate through their own experience a players play. They will look at the stats to see if they match the eye. If there is an anomaly, they will either re-watch or pay attention more in the future to that anomaly to see if it is accurate. They can see the subtleties of the games and stats are there to offer some insight. They also understand that the stats cannot tell the whole story. Stats need to be placed in context with actual on ice play analysis.
Then there are the "analytics" like you. They need some so-called "tangible evidence" to use to argue their own agendas. They watch the games and then turn to the stats to tell the story. If the stats can be cherry picked to push an agenda, they do it. If a player is not producing, they turn to stats to defend those they like or trash those they don't. They use stats and act like it is irrefutable evidence, even though many stats have been shown to be flawed over the years. I have yet to see an analytic type on this board offer up stats without an agenda. It is always to defend someone they like or trash someone they don't. I can't ever remember an analytic type showing "all" the stats to form a full picture, using the good and the bad.
And this is why you can't have a reasonable discussion about players with people like you.