Edited May 12, 2021 at 12:26 p.m.. Reason: Had to add my guy Xqb15a into the mix
Quoting: coga16
Then he clearly is not qualified to make player evaluations if thats the case, or is trolling, Either or
Quoting: Lenny7
I honestly can't believe that this is a real conversation...go and look at any analytic available. There's none that have them anywhere close to each other. Like, you could use your (really bad) argument for any player in the league. Heck, you could run out and say "Sean Kuraly is basically Connor McDavid, except his shots don't go in."
Coga16 richard88 XQB15A-This guy thinks DeBrusk is comparable to Rantanen
Quoting: CD282
The opposite is true.
The opposite is true.
Quoting: Xqb15a
I mean Rantanen’s career assists average is higher than DeBrusk point total. Higher xGF, xGD, CF, point share basically better in every measurable possible. Bigger, stronger, better shooter, better passer, better everything except hair. Teams go into games worried about Rantanen and game plan for him. Other teams don’t worry about DeBrusk he is like what BOS 4th best winger. Rantanen is one of the 10 best wingers in the league.
I'm so glad I got all the boys on one thread!
Let's establish something first: How do we know a player is good?
When somebody tells me Rantanen is WAY better than DeBrusk, I get a feeling we have already decided who is good, and we're now reverse engineering ourselves to that position.
I don't do that. I look at a collection of data, and I close the gaps by watching and analyzing what's happening on the ice. this sheilds me from 1) being amazed by something that looks really cool and ignoring the bad parts that come with it, and 2) looking for mistakes in a players game, and assigning any blame to a particular player. Basically 1) confirmation bias, and 2) well, confirmation bias.
Does anyone here think points is a good measurement of player ability? Or is points / 60 better, cause it makes up for a variable we don't really care about in playing time? Well why then isn't +/- good, it should cover both ends of the ice?
We're getting closer. By using more advanced metrics than the most obvious discriptive ones, we get close to the truth. Points/60 is better than points, +/- is maybe more misleading than doing well, but we can use more sophisticated measures instead. What if we controlled for zone and situation usage? All of a sudden +/- is way more useful, cause it doesn't know a player playing all defensive minutes in bad situations. What if we actually use shots as a proxy for points - as there are more shots, meaning fewer statistical anomalities, then just add on shooting effects later? Assists lead to more teammate shots too, which we care as much about, and opposition shots are what we want to avoid, right? Oh, and don't think I missed you there, of course we care about and control for shot location - i.e. shot quality. And think of all offensively skilled forwards that hold on to the puck to the point where their opposition has a hard time creating offense? Can't see that in point totals, hard to notice when watching the game. We've got that down and quantified. Also, what if we could ignore coaching effects, like Tortorella voiding most offense in both directions? You guessed it, we can.
I'm making my judgements based on metrics that include all of these things. Whenever you say Rantanen is this amazing player - MacKinnon by default has to be less of an amazing player. There is only so much tangible "good", and if you say Rantanen is one of the best wingers in the game - well, that means MacKinnon is less impressive than some, like myself, would argue.
Now the cool thing about these numbers is that we get a really good picture of who's a good NHLer. And guess what? Almost all players you would assume are good are performing great by these standards.
McDavid? Absolutely insane. Kuraly? Not so much.
Aho hasn't driven the same offensive production this year as he did in 18/19. It's just not there. He's probably helped by Svechnikov sneakily being one of the best players in the league, and so is Dougie Hamilton - the guy Boston traded away for no reason (that one's for you, whoever claimed I'm biased in favor of the Bruins).
Now, I never said Rantanen wasn't better than DeBrusk, I said it was mostly due to shot effects. Now, those can be real. He's creating a lot of separation in value between himself and Jake by simply shooting better shots. And that's fair. But it's not the massive difference in skill you get when you're blinded by things like point totals. Maybe this is most hilariously shown by the players Colorado added recently, and how much better they are for it. They used to be a good team, now they're *the* standout team in the league. Toews is one of the best defensive defensemen in the league this year. Saad is creating so much offense, without necessarily scoring - which has been true his entire career, and anyone playing with him is greatly benefitting. Nichuskin is an absolute beast of a player, tilting the ice heavily in his teams favor, and you wouldn't know this if all you looked at was point totals. Colorado and their management are using more sophisticated statistical measures to stay at the top of the league. So should you in your hockey player analysis.