Panarin vs Stone

[The Abusement Park]

Panarin is the better player imo. But Stone would be a way better fit on the Avs.

 

[Connor McConnor]

Panarin is better so him.

 

[wetcoast]

Stone for me, the difference in offence compared to the defensive and posession game he brings makes him the better player. He makes guys better around him in all ways and is elite in all scenarios. He loves to score and he brings an incredible work eithic to the game.

Agree 100% with this.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Bob Mckenzie said he would take Stone.

 

[bert]

Panarin is better so him.

Elaborate, the only part of his game that he has shown to be better at is scoring goals. Every single aspect of Stones game is superior otherwise. The difference in scoring is also very marginal. Stone also brings alot of leadership qualities to the game.

 

[Connor McConnor]

Elaborate, the only part of his game that he has shown to be better at is scoring goals. Every single aspect of Stones game is superior otherwise. The difference in scoring is also very marginal. Stone also brings alot of leadership qualities to the game.

I love Stone as a player and everything about him but to say he's only lacking in goal scoring compared to the Breadman would just be wrong. On a purely technical skills basis he is not nearly as good at: hands, vision, shot, passing or skating. Stone is a very complete player but he isn't exceptionally good at anything he's kind of just a 8/10 across the board. I would say the Breadman is a 9/10 across the board offensively and I don't think Stone's defensive game is as important as scoring goals when it comes to crunch time in the playoffs. Again, not trying to discredit Stone, I think he's a top 10 winger in the game, but Panarin has a proven track record and has been similarly carrying a pretty bad Jackets offense the past couple years until now we are seeing the breakout of PLD (coincidentally he was blessed to have been playing with a winger like Panarin for almost all of his early career to keep his confidence high).

Not a big difference for me and you could make the point towards leadership qualities and other intangibles that make this a healthy debate but in terms of pure hockey, I think Panarin is just better.

 

[Hint1k]

83 point player vs 69 point player. So "hard" to choose.

Panarin is clearly a better player. He is better in everything that can be measured - goals, assists, points and even freaking corsi (CF%) aka possession (55.1 vs 53).

Argument about "better defensively" is useless. Considering that Panarin has +65, while Stone has only +55. Stone simply cant compensate his lack of production with his defense to be at the same level as Panarin overall.

 

[bert]

83 point player vs 69 point player. So "hard" to choose.

Panarin is clearly a better player. He is better in everything that can be measured - goals, assists, points and even freaking corsi (CF%) aka possession (55.1 vs 53).

Argument about "better defensively" is useless. Considering that Panarin has +65, while Stone has only +55. Stone simply cant compensate his lack of production with his defense to be at the same level as Panarin overall.

This is such an innacurate post its incredible. Stone has 123 points over his last 117 games.

You are actually trying to argue that Panarin is as good defensively by plus minus? [Mod]

 

[bert]

I love Stone as a player and everything about him but to say he's only lacking in goal scoring compared to the Breadman would just be wrong. On a purely technical skills basis he is not nearly as good at: hands, vision, shot, passing or skating. Stone is a very complete player but he isn't exceptionally good at anything he's kind of just a 8/10 across the board. I would say the Breadman is a 9/10 across the board offensively and I don't think Stone's defensive game is as important as scoring goals when it comes to crunch time in the playoffs. Again, not trying to discredit Stone, I think he's a top 10 winger in the game, but Panarin has a proven track record and has been similarly carrying a pretty bad Jackets offense the past couple years until now we are seeing the breakout of PLD (coincidentally he was blessed to have been playing with a winger like Panarin for almost all of his early career to keep his confidence high).

Not a big difference for me and you could make the point towards leadership qualities and other intangibles that make this a healthy debate but in terms of pure hockey, I think Panarin is just better.

Breking down technical skills?... All i care about is production. Stones ability convert on turnovers makes him an elite scorer. Just look how he scored his points last night. His shot and release is also elite if you dont think so. Not sure what to tell you.

The concept that you are arguing linemates if anything is in Stones favor. He is producing over a ppg with two rookies this year. Meanwhile Macarthur, Turris, Zach Smith and Pageau all have had their career years with him. He produces with whoever he plays with it doesnt matter. Thats why adding him at the deadline makes him so much more valuable. He produces in all situations with whoever he plays with.

 

[Hint1k]

This is such an innacurate post its incredible. Stone has 123 points over his last 117 games.

You are actually trying to argue that Panarin is as good defensively by plus minus? [Mod]

My message is accurate and can be easily checked by anyone who familiar with basic math.
That makes your message a lie.

"Panarin is as good defensively by plus minus?"
Is a poorly hidden attempt to read-into something that is not there.

Now is my turn to read-into something.

"Stone has 123 points over his last 117 games"
Is this a good example of cherry picking or a bad example of cherry-picking?

 

[Monk]

Stone is getting underrated on offense while Panarin is getting underrated on defense, by some here, if you ask me. Panarin's offense isn't miles better than Stone's and Stone's defense isn't miles better than Panarin's. Can't go wrong with either - poll results support that conclusion.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

83 point player vs 69 point player. So "hard" to choose.

Panarin is clearly a better player. He is better in everything that can be measured - goals, assists, points and even freaking corsi (CF%) aka possession (55.1 vs 53).

Argument about "better defensively" is useless. Considering that Panarin has +65, while Stone has only +55. Stone simply cant compensate his lack of production with his defense to be at the same level as Panarin overall.

Wait, what? Is the usage of Corsi serious? Mark Stone’s team is dead last in Corsi, Panarin’s is above 50%. You can’t just compare raw Corsi among two players in different teams.

Stone is actually a better possession player than Panarin just going by the numbers.

 

[bert]

My message is accurate and can be easily checked by anyone who familiar with basic math.
That makes your message a lie.

"Panarin is as good defensively by plus minus?"
Is a poorly hidden attempt to read-into something that is not there.

Now is my turn to read-into something.

"Stone has 123 points over his last 117 games"
Is this a good example of cherry picking or a bad example of cherry-picking?

Cherry picking? Its his last two seasons.......

You said they were the same defensively based on plus minus lazy garbarge argument.

 

[Hint1k]

1)Wait, what? Is the usage of Corsi serious? Mark Stone’s team is dead last in Corsi, Panarin’s is above 50%. You can’t just compare raw Corsi among two players in different teams.

2) Stone is actually a better possession player than Panarin just going by the numbers.

1) Ok. For example, Cam Atkinson Corsi - 50%.
It looks like you are wrong.
And I can compare Corsi of two players.

2) Wait, what? The usage of words over numbers, seriously?

Then in this case I am the best player in the NHL. Why I am the best? Cause I said so.

 

[Hint1k]

1) Cherry picking? Its his last two seasons.......

2) You said they were the same defensively based on plus minus lazy garbarge argument.

1) two seasons instead of career numbers is a classic example of cherry picking.

My turn to cherry pick.
I choose 01.01.19 game where Panarin had 2 points and Stone had zero points.
A player with 2 ppg vs a player with zero ppg.
Based on this cherry picking Stone should play in AHL.

2) I did not say that. I made an assumption that Stone is much better defensively (which he is not). And took into account the fact that he is noticeably worse in scoring (which he is). In cases like this, there is a way to prove that "defense" can compensate "offense". By using is +/-. Unfortunately for Stone he does not have high enough + to compensate his lack of scoring. Even worse, his + is actually lower than Panarin's +. That brings us back to the assumption of him being noticeably better defensively. Which is proven to be incorrect. He still may be a bit better, but the difference is invisible to compare with the scoring difference. Which is very much visible. That means the argument "better defensively" is useless.

So instead of posting some lazy garbage comments you could have simply asked for additional explanation.

 

[JaegerDice]

I would HOPE Panarin's CF% is better than Stone, given he not only plays on a better team, but has a ZSR of 70+ while Stone is around the 50 mark.

That's nothing new for Panarin. It happened in Chicago too. Every coach has pretty much adopted a 'keep this guy as far away from his own net, as often as humanly possible' deployment model for Panarin. Which is fine. It maximizes his offensive output, while mitigating his weaknesses.

Stone has fewer weaknesses, so on a bad team, he's called on to perform all over the ice regardless of scenario.

All for a difference of roughly 6 ES per season or 8 All Sit points per season over a 3 season sample.

 

[bert]

1) two seasons instead of career numbers is a classic example of cherry picking.

My turn to cherry pick.
I choose 01.01.19 game where Panarin had 2 points and Stone had zero points.
A player with 2 ppg vs a player with zero ppg.
Based on this cherry picking Stone should play in AHL.

2) I did not say that. I made an assumption that Stone is much better defensively (which he is not). And took into account the fact that he is noticeably worse in scoring (which he is). In cases like this, there is a way to prove that "defense" can compensating "offense". By using is +/-. Unfortunately for Stone he does not have high enough + to compensate his lack of scoring. Even worse, his + is actually lower than Panarin's +. That brings us back to the assumption of him being noticeably better defensively. Which is proven to be incorrect. He still may be a bit better, but the difference is invisible to compare with the scoring difference. Which is very much visible. That means the argument "better defensively" is useless.

So instead of posting some lazy garbage comments you could have simply asked for additional explanation.

How are the last two seasons not the most relevant? When a player goes to arbritration which season do they use to base the value?..... Ill give you a hint its not the one from 4 seasons ago. You seem to think including seasons that Panarin played with Kane and Stone played with Zach Smith 4 years ago are more relevant than the last two is flat out hilarious.

Stone is vastly superior to Panarin defensively every single stat metric backs this up. If you would do a tiny bit of work and look into it there is plenty of evidence. Leading the NHL in steals the last 4 seasons is a pretty good stat but I guess you dont think this is relevant?....

If you actually think that +/- is how to deterimine a players defensive accumen then really just like I said before go home. Look at Justin Schultz if you think this metric has any relevance at all.

 

[Hint1k]

1)How are the last two seasons not the most relevant? When a player goes to arbritration which season do they use to base the value?..... Ill give you a hint its not the one from 4 seasons ago. You seem to think including seasons that Panarin played with Kane and Stone played with Zach Smith 4 years ago are more relevant than the last two is flat out hilarious.

2) Stone is vastly superior to Panarin defensively every single stat metric backs this up. If you would do a tiny bit of work and look into it there is plenty of evidence. Leading the NHL in steals the last 4 seasons is a pretty good stat but I guess you dont think this is relevant?....

3) If you actually think that +/- is how to deterimine a players defensive accumen then really just like I said before go home. Look at Justin Schultz if you think this metric has any relevance at all.

1) You seem to think that some games from 2 years ago (your cherry picking) are more relevant that a game that happened just less than 2 months ago (my cherry picking)? I'll give you a hint - 2 months ago is way more relevant than 2 years ago.

The question of this topiс is not "who has the best two years?". So you cant have any real argument to use only two last years stats in this thread.

2) Panarin is vastly superior to Stone defensively. Every single stat metric back this up.

See, anyone can write words like this without any evidence. Its quite simple.

3) Well, my 1st message was short enough. But my 2nd message was quite detailed. So your attempt to pretend that you still did not get it looks flat out hilarious.

 

[bert]

1) You seem to think that some games from 2 years ago (your cherry picking) are more relevant that a game that happened just less than 2 months ago (my cherry picking)? I'll give you a hint - 2 months ago is way more relevant than 2 years ago.

The question of this topis is not "who has the best two last seasons?". So you cant have any real argument to use only two last years stats in this thread.

2) Panarin is vastly superior to Stone defensively. Every single stat metric back this up.

See, anyone can write words like this without any evidence. Its quite simple.

3) Well, my 1st message was short enough. But my 2nd message was quite detailed. So your attempt to pretend that you still did not get it looks flat out hilarious.

Stone has scored 61 points in 58 games this season.

I specifically used evidence he has lead the nhl in steals for 4 straight seasons. Did you just choose to skip reading that? Or did you just choose to skip reading this post too?

Everyone knows that Stone is a superior defensive player [mod]

I would HOPE Panarin's CF% is better than Stone, given he not only plays on a better team, but has a ZSR of 70+ while Stone is around the 50 mark.

That's nothing new for Panarin. It happened in Chicago too. Every coach has pretty much adopted a 'keep this guy as far away from his own net, as often as humanly possible' deployment model for Panarin. Which is fine. It maximizes his offensive output, while mitigating his weaknesses.

Stone has fewer weaknesses, so on a bad team, he's called on to perform all over the ice regardless of scenario.

All for a difference of roughly 6 ES per season or 8 All Sit points per season over a 3 season sample.

 

[Hint1k]

1) Stone has scored 61 points in 58 games this season.

2) I specifically used evidence he has lead the nhl in steals for 4 straight seasons. Did you just choose to skip reading that? Or did you just choose to skip reading this post too?

Everyone knows that Stone is a superior defensive player [mod]

1) This includes some games than happened more than 2 months ago. My cherry picking is still more relevant. The question of this topic is still not "who has the best season?"

2) I specifically used the word "evidence" since you called my message (which was accurate, precise and supported by players career stats) inaccurate. So after this you have no choice but support your words with evidence. Until that, I consider all your words inaccurate.

3) For many centuries everyone knew that the Sun rotates around the Earth. Still was not the fact.

What you called "superior defensively" people actually call "more defensive responsibilities". Which is not the same as the actual ability of a player do defend.

And since we using "everyone knows":
Everyone knows that good players often have more offensive responsibilities.
While bad players often have more defensive responsibilities.

 

[VoluntaryDom]

both elite and underrated but i say stone

 

[George Clooney]

Tough one but panarin for me. Habs fan.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

1) Ok. For example, Cam Atkinson Corsi - 50%.
It looks like you are wrong.
And I can compare Corsi of two players.

2) Wait, what? The usage of words over numbers, seriously?

Then in this case I am the best player in the NHL. Why I am the best? Cause I said so.

What? Yes, you can compare Corsi of two players without any context, but it’s not a good idea if you’re looking to get an accurate measure of what kind of impact a player has on the game. You have to look at other factors.

For example, Mark Stone’s team has a 52.24% CF with him on the ice and a 41.46% CF with him off the ice. Meanwhile, Artemi Panarin’s team has a 54.89% CF with him on the ice and a 47.64% CF with him off the ice.

But, Panarin takes 77.47% of his faceoffs in the offensive zone and his team without him takes 41.08% of their faceoffs in the offensive zone. Stone, on the other hand, takes 48.6% of his shifts in the offensive zone, and his team without him takes 46.83% of their shifts in the offensive zone.

Basically, Stone’s team is absolutely horrible, and Panarin’s is mediocre. With Stone on the ice, Ottawa is notably above average, while Columbus is elite with Panarin in the ice. But, Panarin gets some really cushy offensive minutes, and his team without him takes the brunt of the harder defensive minutes when he isn’t out there. That heavily plays into the large difference in Corsi, which drops by 7.25% without him on the ice. Panarin definitely helps their Corsi, but not as much as that 7.25% jump says it does. Stone, on the other hand, takes the same type of deployment as his teammates do without him, and still makes their Corsi jump by 10.76%. That’s quite a bit more impressive.

For the record, I think Panarin is the better player as he is more dynamic offensively. But Stone is better if you’re looking at just their impacts on Corsi and those who actually understand Corsi and what it means will tell you that.

 

[Le Magnifique 66]

Both
Panarin would be option 1 though

 

[Agent Zub]

I love Stone as a player and everything about him but to say he's only lacking in goal scoring compared to the Breadman would just be wrong. On a purely technical skills basis he is not nearly as good at: hands, vision, shot, passing or skating. Stone is a very complete player but he isn't exceptionally good at anything he's kind of just a 8/10 across the board. I would say the Breadman is a 9/10 across the board offensively and I don't think Stone's defensive game is as important as scoring goals when it comes to crunch time in the playoffs. Again, not trying to discredit Stone, I think he's a top 10 winger in the game, but Panarin has a proven track record and has been similarly carrying a pretty bad Jackets offense the past couple years until now we are seeing the breakout of PLD (coincidentally he was blessed to have been playing with a winger like Panarin for almost all of his early career to keep his confidence high).

Not a big difference for me and you could make the point towards leadership qualities and other intangibles that make this a healthy debate but in terms of pure hockey, I think Panarin is just better.

This is a really bad take, Stones vision and passing are sublime. Stone thinks the game like few others which is why he is able to be so effective without the hands, feet or shot that other star players have.