Who will score more points in the next 5 years? Matthews vs Marner vs Eichel vs EP vs Pastrnak

[All Mod Cons]

It's absolutely criminal, yet not at all surprising, just how underrated Matthews is.

He'll go through his whole career breaking records, being a 2nd line player in some people's minds.

He'll end up the most underrated 500+ goalscorer in NHL history. Compared to the likes of Aho, Barzal and Pettersson.

 

[danpantz]

The extent of the difference of those stats is relevant when there are other considerations for the question being asked. You're attempting to claim that your misuse of stats was okay because you personally came to the same conclusion either way. That's ridiculous.

This is such a classic response by you. You have no counter argument. You see the stats. What other conclusions can you arrive at by looking at them?

 

[Sweetpotato]

Eichel>Marner/Pasta>Matthews>EP

In terms of raw point totals, don't get your panties in a bunch.

 

[Dekes For Days]

You see the stats. What other conclusions can you arrive at by looking at them?

When answering the question "who will score more points in the next 5 years", which is what this thread is about, there is more to consider than just the recent statistics of those players, who have put up those statistics at different stages of development, and with varying levels of opportunity. When you misrepresent their statistics like you originally did, one might come to the conclusion that the gap is too large to overcome, but when utilizing statistics properly, the gap is much smaller, and one might come to a different conclusion.

The extent is debatable, but with Pastrnak being the oldest player on the list, one could argue that he has the least potential for growth. One could also argue that of these five, Pastrnak is likely looking at the smallest increase in opportunity over the next 5 years relative to the previous two.

 

[danpantz]

When answering the question "who will score more points in the next 5 years", which is what this thread is about, there is more to consider than just the recent statistics of those players, who have put up those statistics at different stages of development, and with varying levels of opportunity. When you misrepresent their statistics like you originally did, one might come to the conclusion that the gap is too large to overcome, but when utilizing statistics properly, the gap is much smaller, and one might come to a different conclusion.

The extent is debatable, but with Pastrnak being the oldest player on the list, one could argue that he has the least potential for growth. One could also argue that of these five, Pastrnak is likely looking at the smallest increase in opportunity over the next 5 years relative to the previous two.

David Pastrnak is a year older than Marner. You're acting like the dude is 28, he's 24.

But literally none of what you posted can be backed up by stats, which was the argument when you are trying to dismiss the stats that I posted. You're argument is that Pasta won't get better but Marner will. And you keep saying I misrepresented their statistics but have literally posted nothing to counter my argument.

 

[McVespa99]

It's absolutely criminal, yet not at all surprising, just how underrated Matthews is.

He'll go through his whole career breaking records, being a 2nd line player in some people's minds.

He'll end up the most underrated 500+ goalscorer in NHL history. Compared to the likes of Aho, Barzal and Pettersson.

Which records are you expecting him to break?

 

[All Mod Cons]

Which records are you expecting him to break?

Shittest player in the NHL? Who stupidly got picked instead of Laine (f***ing remember that?), biggest nostrils, most overrated player?most overpaid player? etc.

You know, the HF way.

 

[danpantz]

Shittest player in the NHL? Who stupidly got picked instead of Laine (f***ing remember that?), biggest nostrils, most overrated player?most overpaid player? etc.

You know, the HF way.

Player with most likely to Rob a train in the wild west with that 'Stache

 

[McVespa99]

Shittest player in the NHL? Who stupidly got picked instead of Laine (f***ing remember that?), biggest nostrils, most overrated player?most overpaid player? etc.

You know, the HF way.

Soooo. You dont have an answer then? He is a great player. I just cant think of any records he might break

 

[Dekes For Days]

David Pastrnak is a year older than Marner. You're acting like the dude is 28, he's 24.

He was drafted in 2014. That's one year earlier than Eichel/Marner, two years earlier than Matthews, and three years earlier than Pettersson. That's relevant for this question.

You're argument is that Pasta won't get better but Marner will. And you keep saying I misrepresented their statistics but have literally posted nothing to counter my argument.

That is not my argument at all. All will likely improve over the next 5 years and all will likely increase in at least some form of opportunity, but of these five players, Pastrnak is likely to have least room for growth individually, and Pastrnak is likely to have least room to increase in overall opportunity relative to what they received over the previous couple of years. When discussing this thread question and how their recent statistics fit in, that is relevant.

But actually, my original argument was simply that you misused statistics in a misleading way, and you shouldn't do that. You represented ES, PP, and PK as equally conducive to production. I'm not sure how you're still attempting to argue that that was anything but wrong. You can't just declare it doesn't matter because you came to the same conclusion both ways. The gap in those statistics is relevant, and that gap was heavily changed by your misuse.

 

[danpantz]

He was drafted in 2014. That's one year earlier than Eichel/Marner, two years earlier than Matthews, and three years earlier than Pettersson. That's relevant for this question.

That is not my argument at all. All will likely improve over the next 5 years and all will likely increase in at least some form of opportunity, but of these five players, Pastrnak is likely to have least room for growth individually, and Pastrnak is likely to have least room to increase in overall opportunity relative to what they received over the previous couple of years. When discussing this thread question and how their recent statistics fit in, that is relevant.

But actually, my original argument was simply that you misused statistics in a misleading way, and you shouldn't do that. You represented ES, PP, and PK as equally conducive to production. I'm not sure how you're still attempting to argue that that was anything but wrong. You can't just declare it doesn't matter because you came to the same conclusion both ways. The gap in those statistics is relevant, and that gap was heavily changed by your misuse.

I used all situations, then you said to not include PK, I did and it still showed Pasta ahead in rates and counts. And again, You're acting like there is a huge gap in Age between Pasta and the other. he's 1.5 years older than Matthews, 1 year older than Marner, and 8 months older than Eichel. He was one of the youngest players in his draft class. He's 24 not 28.

What shows you that Pasta has less room to improve than the others? He receives 2 minutes less of 5v5 time per game than Matthews and Eichel, and 1 minute less than Marner over the last two seasons. And that includes some games before Keefe took over and started giving Marner and Matthews even more 5v5 ice time. He's got better scoring rates than all of them at 5v5, and trails Matthews by one point in 5v5 scoring in 290 less minutes of ice time.

He gets 30 seconds more PP time than Matthews and Marner, again including Babcock usage. He gets less PP time than Jack Eichel per game. He outscores all of them in rate and Count.

So despite playing less time at 5v5 than Matthews, Marner, and Eichel but still having better scoring rates and counts than everyone besides Matthews by one point in 290 less minutes, he has the least room for growth?

 

[Dekes For Days]

I used all situations

Which equated ES, PP, and PK time, which is wrong. It's not a matter of who is ahead; it's simply important to use statistics correctly. That was my argument, and I'm not sure why it's so hard to just admit you messed up and move on.

You're acting like there is a huge gap in Age between Pasta and the other.

I never said there was a huge gap; in fact, I even said the extent is debatable. It's bigger for some than for others. That doesn't change the fact that he's the oldest. At the ages we are discussing, that's relevant.

What shows you that Pasta has less room to improve than the others?

Pastrnak's recent statistics have been put up with arguably the highest linemate quality in the league, and his linemate quality is most likely of these five to decrease over the next five years, as his linemates are relatively old. He also gets a decent amount of PP time already, and while his ES time will likely increase, that doesn't have the same level of impact on raw production as PP time, as scoring is much less frequent. While less impactful towards production, he also doesn't PK, and as far as I know, is unlikely to start.

When looking at the levels of production for these five players over the past couple years, there are valid reasons to think that there is more potential for raw point growth for players other than Pastrnak. That doesn't mean that Pastrnak is a bad player or that he isn't going to improve individually.

 

[danpantz]

Which equated ES, PP, and PK time, which is wrong. It's not a matter of who is ahead; it's simply important to use statistics correctly. That was my argument, and I'm not sure why it's so hard to just admit you messed up and move on.

I never said there was a huge gap; in fact, I even said the extent is debatable. It's bigger for some than for others. That doesn't change the fact that he's the oldest. At the ages we are discussing, that's relevant.

Pastrnak's recent statistics have been put up with arguably the highest linemate quality in the league, and his linemate quality is most likely of these five to decrease over the next five years, as his linemates are relatively old. He also gets a decent amount of PP time already, and while his ES time will likely increase, that doesn't have the same level of impact on raw production as PP time, as scoring is much less frequent. While less impactful towards production, he also doesn't PK, and as far as I know, is unlikely to start.

When looking at the levels of production for these five players over the past couple years, there are valid reasons to think that there is more potential for raw point growth for players other than Pastrnak. That doesn't mean that Pastrnak is a bad player or that he isn't going to improve individually.

So you've got no response to the 5v5 production stats I provided? So that's why you removed them in your response.

If you want to say you think he won't lead this group in points over 5 years because you think Marchand and Bergeron will decline a lot you could just say that. I've provided stats for my argument, and you told me that they just lead to personal conclusions. Yet you're argument is something you can not quantify with stats, wouldn't that make it your personal conclusion as well?

 

[Dekes For Days]

So you've got no response to the 5v5 production stats I provided? So that's why you removed them in your response.

Response to what? Nobody is arguing his 5v5 stats. Nobody has ever been arguing his 5v5 stats. For like the 5th time, the entire argument was against your improper equating of ES, PP, and PK time, to create a highly misleading stat and comparison that essentially punished Marner for PKing. And actually, I did respond to the stats, but you seem to be ignoring all factors that can influence raw and rate production statistics; both recently for these players, as well as in the context of this thread looking forward.

If you want to say you think he won't lead this group in points over 5 years because you think Marchand and Bergeron will decline a lot you could just say that.

I mean, yeah, that is one significant factor, and I did state that.

I've provided stats for my argument, and you told me that they just lead to personal conclusions. Yet you're argument is something you can not quantify with stats, wouldn't that make it your personal conclusion as well?

This entire thread topic is opinion-based; I've never said differently. The only thing I said about conclusions is that you can't justify using statistics incorrectly by claiming it doesn't matter because you personally came to the same conclusion.