You almost had me.. I almost considered Stone right behind Rantanen at 7.. but then you had to go and say he could be considered a top 5 winger League-wide. That's so far beyond nonsensical. As the league continues to get younger and faster, you're going to see the holes in Stone's game. Skating is paramount in the modern NHL. Stone is a pretty weak skater.
- Snowman X

The game wont get much faster from here on out. And Stone seems to be doing just fine as it is. For being considered a slower skater, he is already one of the best two-way players in the league. And probably the best takeaway player. Give the guy some credit.

Please elaborate on your point here- particularly your qualms with team-relative statistics.

The point of a team-relative GF comparison is to measure overall goal share impact compared to the rest of their team. There are a number of factors that ought to be considered in making a direct comparison (quality of linemates, defensive pairings, goalies and overall quality of team), but given the two players I picked, most of those factors are at least somewhat controlled for. Were I comparing Stone to Kucherov, then I could see your point.

Also, it's not like I only offered the GF% as the comparison. Included are a number of other statistics relevant to process and results that show Stone having a similarly huge impact.
- MaximumBone

You take a raw observation of a player evaluation metric, like goals for, and then you scale it with a bias factor that is different for the two players you are evaluating. Same argument applies for the team relative statistics. You are biasing each player’s raw metrics with completely different scalars and then comparing the resulting numbers afterwards. It’s not that the numbers are false or useless, it’s how they can be used (incorrectly) to create misleading narratives.

Also, counter to your doubling down on the similar teams footnote the truth is those factors you mentioned aren’t actually controlled for at all, statistically speaking. Just because the bias would be higher if you compared to Tampa doesn’t validate this approach to player comparison at all.

Patrick Kane, third in NHL scoring last year, 89 pts or more 3 out of last 4 years, 2nd 106+ pt year out of last 4

Can't crack Cordell's top 3 winger list in the WESTERN CONFERENCE

Cordell wins dunce of the week. Breaking Tanner's 238 week streak.

Rest easy Tanner, at least until Monday where you can reclaim your crown

Lauds Johnny Gaudreau's offensive abilities, gets to kane and knocks his defensive play. Just LOL, as if Gaudreau does ANYTHING defensively
- Stan_Bowman

Homer central

Max Domi

You take a raw observation of a player evaluation metric, like goals for, and then you scale it with a bias factor that is different for the two players you are evaluating. Same argument applies for the team relative statistics. You are biasing each player’s raw metrics with completely different scalars and then comparing the resulting numbers afterwards. It’s not that the numbers are false or useless, it’s how they can be used (incorrectly) to create misleading narratives.

Also, counter to your doubling down on the similar teams footnote the truth is those factors you mentioned aren’t actually controlled for at all, statistically speaking. Just because the bias would be higher if you compared to Tampa doesn’t validate this approach to player comparison at all.
- RonPielep

I'd like to stress that I said "at least somewhat controlled for", not completely controlled for.

The fact that they're biased using different scales is precisely the point, though. Compared to HIS team's results, Stone was a massive boon similar in scale to the boon that McDavid was compared to the rest of HIS team. Taking a raw statistic and applying the context of the team he played on and then independently factoring in the conditions in which he achieved those results (deployment, linemates, etc) is, in my estimation, the appropriate means of using such metrics.

For example, had either player achieved the results on a 3rd line where they played sheltered minutes, then that would invalidate a comparison of this sort. So to would comparing Kucherov's results as the gap between the teams is too big. I'm not keen on penalizing a player for being on a team full of guys that dominate their respective opposition.

However, in this case both Stone and McDavid saw similar deployment (excluding TOI where McDavid is quite the outlier) where they played top opposition, commonly played with one of their team's better players (Tkachuk and Draisaitl) and- iirc- didn't see any particularly huge proportion of time with any world-beating D pairing behind them.

Is your point an issue with team-relative stats as a whole or just my application of them in this case? Do you disagree that Stone should be included in the aforementioned conversation for top-5 wingers?

There's no Ottawa hate. I just can't really justify ranking him ahead of any of the names I listed.

-Kane has broken 100 points twice and is a career 1.039 points per game.

-Leon Draisaitl just put up 50 goals and 105 points for the worst team in hockey.

-Johnny Gaudreau has put up back to back seasons with over a point per game and came one point shy of breaking 100 points last season.

-Blake Wheeler is coming off of back to back 91 point seasons and might be one of the leagues most underrated players.

-Vlad Tarasenko hasn't had a season below 30 goals in the last half-decade.

-Mikko Rantanen has not had a season under 20 goals since entering the NHL, is coming off of back to back 80+ point seasons and had a shot at hitting 40 goals last year if he didn't miss time. This kid is just warming up.

-Filip Forsberg has not had a season in the NHL since entering full time where he has put up less than 25 goals. If not for injuries in the past 2 seasons, he would be a 4x consecutive 30 goal scorer.

-Logan Couture is a guy who, if injuries hadn't plagued him throughout his career, would have never posted less than 60 points in a season in the NHL since entering the league full time. He's so consistently good, it's sick.

-Jamie Benn had a down year last year, but before that, he was at or nearly at a point per game in his previous 8 seasons.

Mark Stone has only reached 30 goals once in his career (and he had to be dealt to Vegas to do it) and he is not a strong skater, or stick handler. He has a good shot, but not elite like some of the above-noted talent. I've never been a big fan.
- Snowman X

Stone outside top ten? That’s some solid Ottawa hate, my man. I can get behind that. Nice

I gave numbers showing how his team-relative impact on results is comparable to McDavid- who I think we can agree is at worst a top-2 PLAYER in the league. If that doesn't earn him some major points, I don't know what will. Skating has been gaining importance throughout his career and his best years have just so happened to come in conjunction with the transition to a faster and more offensive game. Evidence shows he's adapted brilliantly to the new, faster NHL despite his skating issues.

I said he can fairly be put in the conversation for top-5 in the league, not that he's there. There are about 15 players (7 or 8 per conference) you could "fairly" place in the conversation for top-5 winger in the league. How about I break down my list of top wingers and we can see the specifics on where you disagree?

1.) Kucherov (hard to argue with the raw numbers)
2.) Ovechkin (consistently scoring 50 goals gets you this high)
3.) Kane (tough to contest even if he plays softER minutes)
-------------------- Here is where it gets more ambiguous
Hall (elite player driver but health is an issue)
Marchand (key cog to a dominant line, but how much is the line?)
Gaudreau (high end offense, but isn't goal share pace-setting)
Rantanen (see Marchand)
Stone (elite two-way game, comparable results to McDavid; track record?)
Benn (elite two-way force, but there's some red flags)
Giroux (dominant since shift to the wing)
Wheeler (huge body, elite skating, great production, solid defense)
Marner (might be on the low end of this conversation now, getting closer)
Pastrnak (see Marchand)
Panarin (consistently dominant)
Draisaitl (if you include him, he does it all; but how much is McDavid?)

That's 12 names there alone that I think are within spitting distance of one another. I probably missed a couple, too! Each can have a case made for their inclusion among the best: for some their case is godly raw numbers, for others the case is their impact despite poor supporting casts and for other it's their contribution to a hyper-dominant line. Almost all have a valid argument that could place them among the top-5; it depends largely on your criteria.
- MaximumBone

Kane at 63.9 "o" zone starts Considered "softer minutes". While Kucherov comes in at 71.9 "o" zone starts on a stacked Lightning team, While putting up less goals is "hard to argue with the raw #'s" ??????

Kane at 63.9 "o" zone starts Considered "softer minutes". While Kucherov comes in at 71.9 "o" zone starts on a stacked Lightning team, While putting up less goals is "hard to argue with the raw #'s" ??????
- camfor

Top 3 isn't good enough? It's a small comment added to each player to explain why they are where they are, not a definitive explanation of everything about them. Zone starts aren't all there is to deployment, though.

And yes, you can't argue with consecutive 100 point seasons including an Art Ross winning 128 point season. And if you're so insistent on counting goals, Kane potted 105 total goals over the past 3 years while Kucherov potted 120.

Patrick Kane is the best winger in the Western Conference and the only guy on this list who is a top 5 winger overall in the NHL.

I'd like to stress that I said "at least somewhat controlled for", not completely controlled for.

The fact that they're biased using different scales is precisely the point, though. Compared to HIS team's results, Stone was a massive boon similar in scale to the boon that McDavid was compared to the rest of HIS team. Taking a raw statistic and applying the context of the team he played on and then independently factoring in the conditions in which he achieved those results (deployment, linemates, etc) is, in my estimation, the appropriate means of using such metrics.

For example, had either player achieved the results on a 3rd line where they played sheltered minutes, then that would invalidate a comparison of this sort. So to would comparing Kucherov's results as the gap between the teams is too big. I'm not keen on penalizing a player for being on a team full of guys that dominate their respective opposition.

However, in this case both Stone and McDavid saw similar deployment (excluding TOI where McDavid is quite the outlier) where they played top opposition, commonly played with one of their team's better players (Tkachuk and Draisaitl) and- iirc- didn't see any particularly huge proportion of time with any world-beating D pairing behind them.

Is your point an issue with team-relative stats as a whole or just my application of them in this case? Do you disagree that Stone should be included in the aforementioned conversation for top-5 wingers?
- MaximumBone

Sorry about the late reply, been at a conference all day/night. To answer your last questions I have a problem with comparing team relative stats across different teams as an isolated evaluation. I think they can help add context to the raw numbers in a complementary manner but they shouldn’t be the primary driving force. I also don’t disagree that Stone can be included in top 5 for western conference but I think top 5 in league is a bit of a stretch.

My main issue is with your assumption that comparing stats normalized to the Oilers is a level playing field for stats normalized relative to the Sens. Essentially what I would like people to consider is the denominator bias they are inducing to normalize players relative to their team without also normalizing their team differences relative to the entire league. Which is what we are trying to imply with these hand wavy notions of Oil approx Sens but Sens are radically different than Bolts. That doesn’t support this analysis, it only condemns it slightly less, which should not be the target nor should it be appraised.

Stone outside top ten? That’s some solid Ottawa hate, my man. I can get behind that. Nice
- AxlRose91

Again.. It's not Ottawa hate, I just can't justify ranking him above most or all of the guys I listed. I suppose you could make an argument that he deserves to be above Forsberg and Couture because of the amount of games those two have missed.. But for me, I'm just not sold on how amazing Mark Stone is. He's definitely not a top 5 winger in the West. That, I'm sure of.

Again.. It's not Ottawa hate, I just can't justify ranking him above most or all of the guys I listed. I suppose you could make an argument that he deserves to be above Forsberg and Couture because of the amount of games those two have missed.. But for me, I'm just not sold on how amazing Mark Stone is. He's definitely not a top 5 winger in the West. That, I'm sure of.
- Snowman X

considering the stats all point to him ABSOLUTELY being a top 5 winger in the west....then it's absolutely hate, or you have never seen him play.

Stone is one of the best all around players in the entire league. he's been right at, or above, PPG stats for the last 2 years while being arguably the best defensive forward in the entire league. if Stone played center instead of wing, he'd probably already have a couple of Selke's.

your opinion, which has no backing at all with any kind of stats, is VERY obviously drenched in bias and "Ottawa hate"

my favorite comment is you suggesting he had to be traded to Vegas to get 30 goals....completely ignoring the fact that he scored 28 goals in 59 games with Ottawa before the trade.....I'm sure he wouldn't have scored those last 2 goals in the 20 games remaining in the season.

if all you look at is point totals to determine who the best players are (which is CLEARLY what you're doing), then I guess that would also mean that Auston Matthews wouldn't even be a top 10 center in the east..........

considering the stats all point to him ABSOLUTELY being a top 5 winger in the west....then it's absolutely hate, or you have never seen him play.

Stone is one of the best all around players in the entire league. he's been right at, or above, PPG stats for the last 2 years while being arguably the best defensive forward in the entire league. if Stone played center instead of wing, he'd probably already have a couple of Selke's.

your opinion, which has no backing at all with any kind of stats, is VERY obviously drenched in bias and "Ottawa hate"

my favorite comment is you suggesting he had to be traded to Vegas to get 30 goals....completely ignoring the fact that he scored 28 goals in 59 games with Ottawa before the trade.....I'm sure he wouldn't have scored those last 2 goals in the 20 games remaining in the season.

if all you look at is point totals to determine who the best players are (which is CLEARLY what you're doing), then I guess that would also mean that Auston Matthews wouldn't even be a top 10 center in the east..........
- sensarmy_11

Coming from someone named "sensarmy" I'm sure there's no bias on your part either....

Coming from someone named "sensarmy" I'm sure there's no bias on your part either....
- Snowman X

bias? when basically everyone other than you are of the same opinion...... pretty sure your opinion is the one swayed by bias, not mine.

bias? when basically everyone other than you are of the same opinion...... pretty sure your opinion is the one swayed by bias, not mine.
- sensarmy_11

Mark Stone is a good player. Nobody's disputing that. I'm simply providing a list of players who are more productive than Mark Stone. I say he's a top 10-12 guy, and you're arguing that he's the best winger who ever lived. Calm your tits.

Mark Stone is a good player. Nobody's disputing that. I'm simply providing a list of players who are more productive than Mark Stone. I say he's a top 10-12 guy, and you're arguing that he's the best winger who ever lived. Calm your tits.
- Snowman X

actually, I said what everyone other than you said, that he's a top 5 winger in the western conference........you're simply looking at point totals and saying he's not.

so like I said in my original post......in your opinion, is Auston Matthews a top 5 center in the East, despite the fact that I can easily list 8-10 centers who out-produced him?

Crosby, stamkos, aho, Bergeron, zibanejad, point, coutourier, backstrom, barkov, Tavares, eichel, and Giroux.....all had more points than Matthews last year. I guess that means, according to your logic, that Matthews isn't even a top 10 center in the East

Couture has played C in every game I've seen him.

I also don't think the East Vs. West difference means all that much. It's not like the West is a harder conference; a different style? For sure. But not one I'd define as more difficult. Whether he's doing it in the higher flying Eastern conference or the tougher, grindier West, Stone is outscoring the opponents best players by a healthy margin. We'll have to wait and see if he can do the same through a whole year in Vegas.
- MaximumBone

Sorry I added the wrong player's name.

Feels like many writers on Hockeybuzz are so insuqure about there hockey knowledge that they always have to come up with out of the box startments that many times are just stupid.

Well atleast it starts a discussion...

Top 3 are:

1 Patrick Kane
2 Alex DeBrincat
3 Brandon Saad

actually, I said what everyone other than you said, that he's a top 5 winger in the western conference........you're simply looking at point totals and saying he's not.

so like I said in my original post......in your opinion, is Auston Matthews a top 5 center in the East, despite the fact that I can easily list 8-10 centers who out-produced him?

Crosby, stamkos, aho, Bergeron, zibanejad, point, coutourier, backstrom, barkov, Tavares, eichel, and Giroux.....all had more points than Matthews last year. I guess that means, according to your logic, that Matthews isn't even a top 10 center in the East
- sensarmy_11

You just ruined what little credibility you had. Many of those players didn't "out produce" Matthews, they just played more games.

You just ruined what little credibility you had. Many of those players didn't "out produce" Matthews, they just played more games.
- Snowman X

if you can't see that my post was completely tongue in cheek then you're dumber than I thought.

the point was that it's completely idiotic to simply say "he produced more so he's better".....and for the record, if you want to take out the guys who were close to Matthews in points, but played 10 or so more games, fine.....he's probably still maybe #10 in the East, and maybe top 20 in the league.....if all we do is use your dumb logic that states that the guy who produces more is automatically better.

if you can't see that my post was completely tongue in cheek then you're dumber than I thought.

the point was that it's completely idiotic to simply say "he produced more so he's better".....and for the record, if you want to take out the guys who were close to Matthews in points, but played 10 or so more games, fine.....he's probably still maybe #10 in the East, and maybe top 20 in the league.....if all we do is use your dumb logic that states that the guy who produces more is automatically better.
- sensarmy_11

It's becoming more apparent with every one of your comments that if you put you and I in a room together, I would definitely be the smartest guy in the room, lol.

I know I’m being a homer, but I can’t understand the disrespect of Tarasenko. The guy has the 3rd-most goals in the entire league over the past five seasons, and one of those seasons he was injured, and recovered from that injury around half of last season. He scored almost as many goals in the second half of the season as a lot of “top wingers” scored the entire season. And he’s probably got the best wrist shot in the world. Throw the guy a bone.