Sporting News: Top 25 under 25 for 2019-20

Steve Kournianos

@thedraftanalyst
Steve, I think you should adjust your /60 rate stats. Points/GF/HDSC/anything don't scale linearly with TOI. If so, I'm pretty sure there was a season there where Laraque should've been getting first line minutes.

Thing is, I'm using goal-based metrics for an exclusive group -- 25 and under forwards with 900+ MINS at 5v5 was the cutoff (and 65+ games). Therefore, all non top-line players were eliminated for that upper tier, although there were a few examples of a gap in 5v5 TOI (Pastrnak vs Draisaitl) but they are peers so the /60 stats made more sense to me as would a Laraque vs Pastrnak. Only reason I included a shot-based metric like HDSC is because they are a better indicator of GF, and that's proven by how much lower goalie HDSV% at 5v5 is vs. LD or MD.

If I misunderstood your post, then I'm all ears.
 

Steve Kournianos

@thedraftanalyst
Laine has broken so many records and is not even in top25 :D after 3 plus 30 goals season lol

I like Laine a lot but he was a casualty of multiple dings -- poor 5v5 numbers compared to peers and the perception that he had a bad year -- even for a 30-goal scorer. Only 13 5v5 goals and 24 5v5 points didn't require a deep dive. He was hot garbage last year considering the hype and what was expected of him. Hats off for not only rebounding this year, but doing it after getting the contract. Of course, he's on a bridge deal and probably thinks he deserves AM dollars.
 

MrThomas

Registered User
Oct 31, 2017
1,561
1,205
Moscow
I like Laine a lot but he was a casualty of multiple dings -- poor 5v5 numbers compared to peers and the perception that he had a bad year -- even for a 30-goal scorer. Only 13 5v5 goals and 24 5v5 points didn't require a deep dive. He was hot garbage last year considering the hype and what was expected of him. Hats off for not only rebounding this year, but doing it after getting the contract. Of course, he's on a bridge deal and probably thinks he deserves AM dollars.

Okey true he had a bad year. But he was playing injured and with the video game addiction. He will probably get more than AM in 2 years. Now he is leading in points the nhl anyway.
 

Fourier

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
25,438
19,571
Waterloo Ontario
OK. So you're a math teacher with an analytics background. The problem is you've written multiple posts, and the best stats you used was a cherry-picked three-year period with the most basic numbers -- raw points and raw games played. Maybe you can dig into that PDF and come up with a better argument, maybe even convince me otherwise. I don't have a problem being wrong, but up to this point, I did the research -- faulty or not -- and the complainers on this thread have done zilch except create strawmen about where I ranked Dahlin in his draft year.

I re-read all your posts and now knowing what I know about you and your talents, I'm quite disappointed that you didn't provide something a lot better that Draisaitl's point totals the last three years.

And even if this ranking was complete garbage (whatever that means -- it's obviously a popular topic the last two days), you of all people should know crying "your methodology is faulty" should at a minimum require a counter-study specific to Player A, Player B, and the context you keep harping about.

Until then, nothing changes. I'm still going to do the same lists every year, and people will piss and moan and try to invalidate it.

***If you make a strong enough case for Draisaitl over any players 2-7, and even point out the errors in my list or methodology, I'll post it on the front page of my blog and tweet it out multiple times, without editorializing, if that's OK with you. You can use a nom de plume if you'd like. Just so that we're clear that I definitely don't hold my list to be an end-all, be-all and will be perfectly receptive to a strong counterargument, which I haven't seen in this entire thread.

If you reread my posts carefully you would see that I stated multiple times that I am fine with people, including you, ranking guys like Marner or Pastrnak over Draisaitl. None of my posts were attempts to prove otherwise. My comments were directed at the analysis that was being used to show this.

If I claim that McDavid is better than Nugent Hopkins and to back it up I state that since McDavid wears 97 and Nugent Hopkins wears 93 that this shows that McDavid is better than Nugent Hopkins because 97>93 I think we would both agree that the argument is bogus. Nonetheless the premise is correct so if you tell me that the argument is bogus there is no need for you to try and prove that Nugent Hopkins is better than McDavid to justify your claim that my argument was bogus.

Of course the above is an extreme case of misuses of numbers, but in fact I would argue that it is only mildly more egregious than trying to show that Marner>Draisaitl by using xGFrel which is why I responded to your specific post referencing this stat.

With respect to Marner and Draisaitl on the pk, I actually think there is an argument for claiming that Marner is as good or better on the pk than Draisaitl. I am an Oiler fan who happens to live in the heart of Leaf land. I've watched a ton of Marner over the years both in London and with the Leafs. The kid is supremely talented. And it would likely surprise many to know that he is one of the Leaf's goto guys on the pk. But your stats do not prove what you intended them to prove. At least not in isolation. The two pk's were very different. The Oilers pk was ridiculously passive last year and horribly ineffective, whereas the Leaf's pk was much more aggressive. One system was designed to let the opposition blast away and the other was designed to do the opposite. Comparing raw shot rates for players between those two different approaches as a means of determining who is better on the pk is clearly flawed. The stats you chose are also not very good at all in isolating an individual's actual contributions to the success or failure of the pk from that of his unit. This is compounded by the fact that by its very nature one year snapshots of pk stats are subject to significant small sample size effects. For example take a look at the variation in shot rates for Marner when playing with Hyman vs Brown. Or for Draisaitl when playing with Russel vs Larsson. Look at the difference in shot rates for Draisaitl when the Oilers went away from the Draisaitl/Rieder combo and went to the much more aggressive Draisaitl/McDavid combo. The bottom line here is that by its nature individual pk acumen is notorious hard to isolate with the type of stats one sees on sites like Natural Stat Trick especially if you choose to look only at one year. The stats you see on these sites can give you broad information about what happened on a team's pk over the course of the year but once you start to compare players across teams the comparisons become extremely tricky for the reason I mention above.

You failed to answer my simple questions on your use of /60 stats. If you do so I will respond to those answers in kind.

The McDavid effect is something I have addressed many time. And yes, sometimes using "advanced" stats. But you did not tell me if it can be quantified. Nor did you respond to my question about the "effect" and why Nugent Hopkins seems to be immune at ES.

Finally the reason I used basic stats in the posts you quoted was because for the arguments I was addressing they were probably the best stats to use. For example, in my response to your claim that if Draisailt regressed to being a 30/70 player he would no longer be considered elite my post was specifically to show that a player who averages 30 goals and 70 points is much more rare than most think. To do so I showed that over the previous 3 years only 13 players in the league had actually done so and that the list of those players included almost exclusively players that most would consider elite. Despite your claims, I did not "cherry pick" three years to make Draisaitl look better than Pastrnak,. There was no need to do so since comparing the two had nothing to do with what I was trying to show which was specifically that it is much rarer to find players who consistently produce at the 30/70 level than your post suggested. I typically use three years for these sorts of arguments because it is long enough to smooth out anomalies but not so long as to exclude most young players. Had I used 5 years the names would have changed slightly but the number of players who would have accomplished the task would have been almost identical. Again your response was to come back with a list of how many times these elite players had reached a particular level as some sort of evidence against Draisaitl. This was somehow suppose to be a counter to my argument showing Draisaitl > Pastrnak. But you ignored the fact that comparing Pastrnak and Draisaitl was not at all what I was doing. And after choosing to call me a cherry picker you chose 80 as a cutoff so Pastrnak would come out better in the comparison because by this measure an 80 and 81 points set of seasons would be better than a 77 and 105 set. Again ignoring the fact that I was not comparing the two but rather responding to a specific reference you had made to show that it was flawed. The fact that my simple stats did not give conclusive evidence to prove something I was never intending to prove does not make them less valid in establishing the claim I was trying to prove. That in a nutshell is the whole point of this long series of posts. If you want to chose numbers to "prove" a premise, pick the ones that actually do the job. This requires people to know what stats can and cannot tell you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: McRpro and zar

Steve Kournianos

@thedraftanalyst
If you reread my posts carefully you would see that I stated multiple times that I am fine with people, including you, ranking guys like Marner or Pastrnak over Draisaitl. None of my posts were attempts to prove otherwise. My comments were directed at the analysis that was being used to show this.

If I claim that McDavid is better than Nugent Hopkins and to back it up I state that since McDavid wears 97 and Nugent Hopkins wears 93 that this shows that McDavid is better than Nugent Hopkins because 97>93 I think we would both agree that the argument is bogus. Nonetheless the premise is correct so if you tell me that the argument is bogus there is no need for you to try and prove that Nugent Hopkins is better than McDavid to justify your claim that my argument was bogus.

Of course the above is an extreme case of misuses of numbers, but in fact I would argue that it is only mildly more egregious than trying to show that Marner>Draisaitl by using xGFrel which is why I responded to your specific post referencing this stat.

With respect to Marner and Draisaitl on the pk, I actually think there is an argument for claiming that Marner is as good or better on the pk than Draisaitl. I am an Oiler fan who happens to live in the heart of Leaf land. I've watched a ton of Marner over the years both in London and with the Leafs. The kid is supremely talented. And it would likely surprise many to know that he is one of the Leaf's goto guys on the pk. But your stats do not prove what you intended them to prove. At least not in isolation. The two pk's were very different. The Oilers pk was ridiculously passive last year and horribly ineffective, whereas the Leaf's pk was much more aggressive. One system was designed to let the opposition blast away and the other was designed to do the opposite. Comparing raw shot rates for players between those two different approaches as a means of determining who is better on the pk is clearly flawed. The stats you chose are also not very good at all in isolating an individual's actual contributions to the success or failure of the pk from that of his unit. This is compounded by the fact that by its very nature one year snapshots of pk stats are subject to significant small sample size effects. For example take a look at the variation in shot rates for Marner when playing with Hyman vs Brown. Or for Draisaitl when playing with Russel vs Larsson. Look at the difference in shot rates for Draisaitl when the Oilers went away from the Draisaitl/Rieder combo and went to the much more aggressive Draisaitl/McDavid combo. The bottom line here is that by its nature individual pk acumen is notorious hard to isolate with the type of stats one sees on sites like Natural Stat Trick especially if you choose to look only at one year. The stats you see on these sites can give you broad information about what happened on a team's pk over the course of the year but once you start to compare players across teams the comparisons become extremely tricky for the reason I mention above.

You failed to answer my simple questions on your use of /60 stats. If you do so I will respond to those answers in kind.

The McDavid effect is something I have addressed many time. And yes, sometimes using "advanced" stats. But you did not tell me if it can be quantified. Nor did you respond to my question about the "effect" and why Nugent Hopkins seems to be immune at ES.

Finally the reason I used basic stats in the posts you quoted was because for the arguments I was addressing they were probably the best stats to use. For example, in my response to your claim that if Draisailt regressed to being a 30/70 player he would no longer be considered elite my post was specifically to show that a player who averages 30 goals and 70 points is much more rare than most think. To do so I showed that over the previous 3 years only 13 players in the league had actually done so and that the list of those players included almost exclusively players that most would consider elite. Despite your claims, I did not "cherry pick" three years to make Draisaitl look better than Pastrnak,. There was no need to do so since comparing the two had nothing to do with what I was trying to show which was specifically that it is much rarer to find players who consistently produce at the 30/70 level than your post suggested. I typically use three years for these sorts of arguments because it is long enough to smooth out anomalies but not so long as to exclude most young players. Had I used 5 years the names would have changed slightly but the number of players who would have accomplished the task would have been almost identical. Again your response was to come back with a list of how many times these elite players had reached a particular level as some sort of evidence against Draisaitl. This was somehow suppose to be a counter to my argument showing Draisaitl > Pastrnak. But you ignored the fact that comparing Pastrnak and Draisaitl was not at all what I was doing. And after choosing to call me a cherry picker you chose 80 as a cutoff so Pastrnak would come out better in the comparison because by this measure an 80 and 81 points set of seasons would be better than a 77 and 105 set. Again ignoring the fact that I was not comparing the two but rather responding to a specific reference you had made to show that it was flawed. The fact that my simple stats did not give conclusive evidence to prove something I was never intending to prove does not make them less valid in establishing the claim I was trying to prove. That in a nutshell is the whole point of this long series of posts. If you want to chose numbers to "prove" a premise, pick the ones that actually do the job. This requires people to know what stats can and cannot tell you.

Several things:

1. It was a broad study. Duh. It’s on Sporting News for one, and it’s not behind a paywall. I have an audience, and my audience aren’t comprised of only analytics types. But this list, to my knowledge, is far more extensive than any mainstream list I’ve seen. ESPN just did one behind a pay wall using raw p/g and a shot-based metric like Corsi rel, which has been proven to be less effective at predicting team and individual success than any goal-based metric. Thankfully for me, the majority of my readers are not math teachers with 40 years experience who desired an extensive study where a “McDavid Effect” can be quantified way beyond the readily available goal-based rate or rel stats that may be too ambiguous for you, whereas the layperson (as seen on the twitter poll) can make their own decision based on the author’s (key word) specific criteria. I wonder if I ranked Draisaitl 2nd or 3rd if you’d make such a stink about my broad of flawed methodology. Then again, I’d have Bruins and Bolts fans swapping out with you, so it’s irrelevant. Such is the life of a mainstream writer.

2. You did the cherry-picking first by using that list, so I cherry-picked back, thus rendering it irrelevant. The obsession with the “one-year wonder” comment was a massive strawman, because I clarified that 50/100 is more unique than 30/80. Any rational person when given the multiple explanations I posted would clearly see that I was essentially re-wording the term “one-year wonder” to “50/100 may be an outlier until proven otherwise”. I mean, are you really going to die on that hill? That 30/80 and 50/100 are in the same ballpark? The way I see it, you’re a homer who was mad (the horror!) that the statement is even remotely reasonable.

3. Again, you keep telling me my stats suck without giving me alternatives. So for a second time, pretty please, provide me with your version of an acceptable study that can be translatable to all.

4. Sadly for Oilers fans, the league-wide perception is that Draisaitl is benefiting from McDavid. There were small outliers (i.e. games McDavid missed), but this general perception is likely to stick around because the combo works. Example? Messier and Gretzky, although when Messier played wing he wasn’t in Wayne’s line exclusively. It took Messier several years to elevate his stature from elite to legendary, specifically the ‘90 Cup and Harts in ‘90 and ‘92. Please don’t turn this into a strawman, as the point should stand — perception will change eventually, but it didn’t at press time.

5. List me 10 stats - goal- or shot-based — that you approve of.
 

Fourier

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
25,438
19,571
Waterloo Ontario
Several things:

1. It was a broad study. Duh. It’s on Sporting News for one, and it’s not behind a paywall. I have an audience, and my audience aren’t comprised of only analytics types. But this list, to my knowledge, is far more extensive than any mainstream list I’ve seen. ESPN just did one behind a pay wall using raw p/g and a shot-based metric like Corsi rel, which has been proven to be less effective at predicting team and individual success than any goal-based metric. Thankfully for me, the majority of my readers are not math teachers with 40 years experience who desired an extensive study where a “McDavid Effect” can be quantified way beyond the readily available goal-based rate or rel stats that may be too ambiguous for you, whereas the layperson (as seen on the twitter poll) can make their own decision based on the author’s (key word) specific criteria. I wonder if I ranked Draisaitl 2nd or 3rd if you’d make such a stink about my broad of flawed methodology. Then again, I’d have Bruins and Bolts fans swapping out with you, so it’s irrelevant. Such is the life of a mainstream writer .

I am not sure how many times I can say that I don't care that you ranked Draisaitl behind the likes of MacKinnon or Barkov or Matthews or Marner or Pastrnak or whom ever. This whole thing started when I responded to your claim that Draisaitl was at risk of being a one-year wonder, and your use of xGFrel to compare Draisiatl and Marner. I never asked you for some detailed analysis to back up your rankings. Your response in defense of your original statement was to suggest that people would be disappointed if Draisaitl had a 30/80 season. I then pointed out that I acknowledge that people might be disappointed by a 30/80 season but that in reality this was not a bad thing because few of the others on the list had exceeded that threshold. My question to you was simply why you singled out Draisaitl for the one-year wonder title since pretty much everyone on the list other than MacKinnon and McDavid were equally as susceptible to such a comment. Perhaps I should have simply left it at that but instead we ended up with me several posts later posting a list of all of the players who had averaged even 30 goals and 70 points to simply make the point that even this threshold was reserved almost exclusively for elite players.The point being that regression to this level by Draisaaitl or any of the others on the list would not in itself negate their previous accomplishments. It seems though that you did not like the fact that I used simple stats for my list instead of doing some detailed analysis. But this very much the main issue that you seem to be having trouble with. I used exactly the stats that addressed the point I was trying to make in the best possible way. The fact that they were straightforward is actually a positive. The key is that the stats I chose directly supported the assertion I was making.

2. You did the cherry-picking first by using that list, so I cherry-picked back, thus rendering it irrelevant. The obsession with the “one-year wonder” comment was a massive strawman, because I clarified that 50/100 is more unique than 30/80. Any rational person when given the multiple explanations I posted would clearly see that I was essentially re-wording the term “one-year wonder” to “50/100 may be an outlier until proven otherwise”. I mean, are you really going to die on that hill? That 30/80 and 50/100 are in the same ballpark? The way I see it, you’re a homer who was mad (the horror!) that the statement is even remotely reasonable.

I am most definitely a homer... Having followed the Oilers since 1972 the fact that I still do despite the last decade plus is pretty much evidence of this. But at no time was I mad about you slighting "my guy". I have explained the evolution of our conversation above. I clearly outlined why I objected to the term one-year wonder in the context of this list. I have also admitted that this part of the conversation probably went too far. But your use of the term "cherry-picked" is incorrect in this context. Cherry-picking refers to a careful choice of data to suppress evidence or to obfuscate. In this case, my assertion was that few players in the league average 30/70. To verify that statement the proper set of data is the actual list of players that do so, which is what I provided you with. You can argue that three years was not the right number but I explained why I chose it, including historical references. and also confirmed that had the number been 4 or 5 years the results would have been virtually identical. So that is exactly the opposite of cherry-picking. But a lot of the issue here is that you continued to mistakenly assume that I was trying to prove that Draisaitl > Pastrnak when I explicitly stated that this was not my goal. So part of the issue centering around the use of analytics is to actually understand what is being hypothesized.


3. Again, you keep telling me my stats suck without giving me alternatives. So for a second time, pretty please, provide me with your version of an acceptable study that can be translatable to all.

It is not up to me to develop a study to support your assertions. All I did is point out that your numbers did not prove what you say they did. For example, your stats concerning Marner on the pk were seriously flawed. But I also pointed out that the nature of the problem of comparing two players on the pk from two different teams over one year is inherently difficult to address statistically with the data we have access to. So your any purely statistical analysis I might do using the same data set is also very likely to be rather flawed. and as such would not really be all that helpful. The point being that part of being able to use numbers correctly is knowing when they won't answer your question.

4. Sadly for Oilers fans, the league-wide perception is that Draisaitl is benefiting from McDavid. There were small outliers (i.e. games McDavid missed), but this general perception is likely to stick around because the combo works. Example? Messier and Gretzky, although when Messier played wing he wasn’t in Wayne’s line exclusively. It took Messier several years to elevate his stature from elite to legendary, specifically the ‘90 Cup and Harts in ‘90 and ‘92. Please don’t turn this into a strawman, as the point should stand — perception will change eventually, but it didn’t at press time.

I am fully aware of the Draisatl/ Mcdaid issue. What most Oiler fans have a problem with is two-fold:

1) The perception that there are tow states in the NHL. a) Playing with McDavid and b) not playing with McDavid. Somehow Point playing with Kucherov and Stamkos as well as some very good defenseman is less of a lift than Draisaitl playing with McDavid for 60% of a season and then plugs for the rest.

2) That McDavid floats all boats equally. This is the XXX would hit 50/100 playing with McDavid as well. The problem with this is that there are actual counter examples to this. Nugent Hopkins for example had a higher individual point rate 5 vs5 over two years playing away from McDavid than he did with McDavid. And there are legitimate reasons why this is the case. Others have also struggled playing with McDavid. While Draisatl unquestionably benefits from playing with McDavid, statistically McDavid benefits equally as much from playing with him. And this is not true of any other player he has played with to date. Draisaitl and McDavid fit together remarkably well. The only pair that I have seen in Olier silks that I though were better was Gretky/Kurri, and I had season tickets through the whole glory years so I saw gretzky/Messier and Messier/Anderson.

I actually agree with you that part of the issue is that the duo works so well together. I also understand why people who are not so informed simply assume that this is McDavid floating Draisaitl's boat. But it really is a tribute to Draisiatl's exceptional skill that he can elevate a player of McDavid's stature as much as he does. It is actually quite special to watch, especially lie.

5. List me 10 stats - goal- or shot-based — that you approve of.

The issue here is that it is not the tool but rather matching the tool to the task. If I am to chose between a hammer and a chain saw it is useful to know if my task is to drive nails or cut down a tree.

In the end we have probably bored everyone else in this thread. You knwo my position and I know yours. Perhaps it is best that we leave it at that and simply agree to move on.
 

Tage2Tuch

Because TheJackAttack is in Black
May 10, 2004
9,048
2,658
CAN
Laine has broken so many records and is not even in top25 :D after 3 plus 30 goals season lol

Probably because in a full season last year he had 50 points and 20 assists while being on the ice his team did convincingly worse then when he was on.

You’re just looking at the good. Yeah he had that many goals but he always got credit as a lethal scorer, and always scores most of his goals with wheeler and Scheifele on the PP. now he’s with them at even strength. Also 18 of them came in one month, 8 against Jake Allen and Vancouver backup. He scored 5 goals in his last 57 games.

There are too many good young players to keep him after that season.

If he improves and stays improved he will be back there, there’s no question.
 

MrThomas

Registered User
Oct 31, 2017
1,561
1,205
Moscow
Probably because in a full season last year he had 50 points and 20 assists while being on the ice his team did convincingly worse then when he was on.

You’re just looking at the good. Yeah he had that many goals but he always got credit as a lethal scorer, and always scores most of his goals with wheeler and Scheifele on the PP. now he’s with them at even strength. Also 18 of them came in one month, 8 against Jake Allen and Vancouver backup. He scored 5 goals in his last 57 games.

There are too many good young players to keep him after that season.

If he improves and stays improved he will be back there, there’s no question.

He had a bad year last year because he was gaining muscles. Thats why he was really slow. Even the last 18goals november he wasn't good. Crazy right? Now the investment had done and he can be the top10 player in the league.
 

jepjepjoo

Registered User
Dec 31, 2002
4,726
2,033
Probably because in a full season last year he had 50 points and 20 assists while being on the ice his team did convincingly worse then when he was on.

You’re just looking at the good. Yeah he had that many goals but he always got credit as a lethal scorer, and always scores most of his goals with wheeler and Scheifele on the PP. now he’s with them at even strength. Also 18 of them came in one month, 8 against Jake Allen and Vancouver backup. He scored 5 goals in his last 57 games.

There are too many good young players to keep him after that season.

If he improves and stays improved he will be back there, there’s no question.

It's almost like a praise to Laine that you've re-emerged in threads/posts that mention Laine... You have a habit of putting down any player that threatens Eichels god status.

Once again Laine does NOT score most of his goals on the PP(atleast the third you've claimed this in as many days). 44 of his 113 goals have been scored on the PP.

Patrik "PP only" Laine has scored 35.5% of his points on the PP
Jack "God" Eichel has scored 36.1% of his points on the PP
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 9852174563

Steve Kournianos

@thedraftanalyst
I am not sure how many times I can say that I don't care that you ranked Draisaitl behind the likes of MacKinnon or Barkov or Matthews or Marner or Pastrnak or whom ever. This whole thing started when I responded to your claim that Draisaitl was at risk of being a one-year wonder, and your use of xGFrel to compare Draisiatl and Marner. I never asked you for some detailed analysis to back up your rankings. Your response in defense of your original statement was to suggest that people would be disappointed if Draisaitl had a 30/80 season. I then pointed out that I acknowledge that people might be disappointed by a 30/80 season but that in reality this was not a bad thing because few of the others on the list had exceeded that threshold. My question to you was simply why you singled out Draisaitl for the one-year wonder title since pretty much everyone on the list other than MacKinnon and McDavid were equally as susceptible to such a comment. Perhaps I should have simply left it at that but instead we ended up with me several posts later posting a list of all of the players who had averaged even 30 goals and 70 points to simply make the point that even this threshold was reserved almost exclusively for elite players.The point being that regression to this level by Draisaaitl or any of the others on the list would not in itself negate their previous accomplishments. It seems though that you did not like the fact that I used simple stats for my list instead of doing some detailed analysis. But this very much the main issue that you seem to be having trouble with. I used exactly the stats that addressed the point I was trying to make in the best possible way. The fact that they were straightforward is actually a positive. The key is that the stats I chose directly supported the assertion I was making.



I am most definitely a homer... Having followed the Oilers since 1972 the fact that I still do despite the last decade plus is pretty much evidence of this. But at no time was I mad about you slighting "my guy". I have explained the evolution of our conversation above. I clearly outlined why I objected to the term one-year wonder in the context of this list. I have also admitted that this part of the conversation probably went too far. But your use of the term "cherry-picked" is incorrect in this context. Cherry-picking refers to a careful choice of data to suppress evidence or to obfuscate. In this case, my assertion was that few players in the league average 30/70. To verify that statement the proper set of data is the actual list of players that do so, which is what I provided you with. You can argue that three years was not the right number but I explained why I chose it, including historical references. and also confirmed that had the number been 4 or 5 years the results would have been virtually identical. So that is exactly the opposite of cherry-picking. But a lot of the issue here is that you continued to mistakenly assume that I was trying to prove that Draisaitl > Pastrnak when I explicitly stated that this was not my goal. So part of the issue centering around the use of analytics is to actually understand what is being hypothesized.




It is not up to me to develop a study to support your assertions. All I did is point out that your numbers did not prove what you say they did. For example, your stats concerning Marner on the pk were seriously flawed. But I also pointed out that the nature of the problem of comparing two players on the pk from two different teams over one year is inherently difficult to address statistically with the data we have access to. So your any purely statistical analysis I might do using the same data set is also very likely to be rather flawed. and as such would not really be all that helpful. The point being that part of being able to use numbers correctly is knowing when they won't answer your question.



I am fully aware of the Draisatl/ Mcdaid issue. What most Oiler fans have a problem with is two-fold:

1) The perception that there are tow states in the NHL. a) Playing with McDavid and b) not playing with McDavid. Somehow Point playing with Kucherov and Stamkos as well as some very good defenseman is less of a lift than Draisaitl playing with McDavid for 60% of a season and then plugs for the rest.

2) That McDavid floats all boats equally. This is the XXX would hit 50/100 playing with McDavid as well. The problem with this is that there are actual counter examples to this. Nugent Hopkins for example had a higher individual point rate 5 vs5 over two years playing away from McDavid than he did with McDavid. And there are legitimate reasons why this is the case. Others have also struggled playing with McDavid. While Draisatl unquestionably benefits from playing with McDavid, statistically McDavid benefits equally as much from playing with him. And this is not true of any other player he has played with to date. Draisaitl and McDavid fit together remarkably well. The only pair that I have seen in Olier silks that I though were better was Gretky/Kurri, and I had season tickets through the whole glory years so I saw gretzky/Messier and Messier/Anderson.

I actually agree with you that part of the issue is that the duo works so well together. I also understand why people who are not so informed simply assume that this is McDavid floating Draisaitl's boat. But it really is a tribute to Draisiatl's exceptional skill that he can elevate a player of McDavid's stature as much as he does. It is actually quite special to watch, especially lie.



The issue here is that it is not the tool but rather matching the tool to the task. If I am to chose between a hammer and a chain saw it is useful to know if my task is to drive nails or cut down a tree.

In the end we have probably bored everyone else in this thread. You knwo my position and I know yours. Perhaps it is best that we leave it at that and simply agree to move on.

Agreed. It’s looking moot anyway because at the rate in 2019-20 Draisaitl is doing everything to change that perception.
 

Nosferatu

Registered User
Nov 10, 2016
334
152
So the NHL point leader isnt even on the list? Is a predicted list or based on last season?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->