Don't sleep on Mark Stone. He will score 70 points at the minimum.

[gfhyde]

I think it would be much more interesting if he made a prediction about a guy not on Ottawa :P

[Nikerato]

Whoa I never would of guessed that Stone would be such a player of controversy lol.

Put me down for #TeamStone. He has the upside for ppg, and I don't see why that's such a stretch. We talk about younger kids like Ehlers as if they could hit ppg some day. We talk about Crosby as if he could hit 130 again, because that's his upside. It's the other variables that allow (or disallow) that upside to become realized, and those are the points of contention.

Stone has enough going for him that it's easy to see why he could hit that upside. Situation? Check: linemates, lots of TOI, 1st PP. Team? Check: middle-pack team that is trending up. Talent? Check. Eye-test? Check. Possession stats? Check. People also seem to forget that he started out playing 10min a night. I think he averaged like 13:30 in October playing 3rd line. I think he averaged something like 14min in November playing 3rd line. He was also playing 2nd PP for the first half. I forget when he was bumped to the 2nd line, and then the first line, and then the 1st PP; but it was definitely later in the season. Getting 1st PP, first line ice time for the whole season is going to help Stone avoid regression.

Stone has some things going against him that it becomes easy to see where the pessimism is coming from. Lack of pedigree. High IPP. High SH%.

So what's the correct view? "70pts to PPG" or "he-was-so-lucky-he-won't-even-hit-60?"

Like all things, it probably ends up somewhere in the middle. For me, that is somewhere around 65-70; and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see 60 or 75.

Regarding the cage match arguments, it is my belief that those articles only take it so far. I look at it as information that's worth looking further in to. I use them to help me identify trends and player perceptions, and more or less to help me gauge player value. That said, they are by no means the perfect predictors of player success, let alone good predictors of player success.

It has been stated before that those articles don't go into further depth in order to reach a larger audience. The obvious question there is how can a simplified analysis of players provide the most complete and accurate projection of a player's production or value? It can't.

The thing is though, there isn't a single set of statistical variables out there that can predict player success to 100% accuracy. If there was, then not only would that mean we could predict the future, but every single NHL club would be using the same tools and league parity would be exact; but we can't, and it's not.

Regarding the specific conclusion that no rookie aged 22 who has produced 60+ has had success later on is not a good argument. First off, it doesn't take into account other ages. Does each year seem to have it's own normalized set of data, or is the age of 22 simply part of the normalized curve for all players? Is the age range of 22-23 it's own normalized set of data, or is that age range simply a part of the normalized curve for age 19-23 players? This line of questioning can go on forever, and no one has crunched that data.

Second, it doesn't take into account ranges of production during those rookie seasons. Why is 60+ points the cutoff? I would bet that there are far more favourable examples for aged 22 rookies who score 30+. These are only two areas where this argument could be contested, and I can think of like 10 more major areas off the top of my head; and then all of this could be combined to create an inordinate amount of scenarios where that data could reduce the confidence level of that conclusion by enough that it would make it impossible to arrive at any sort of decision based on it.

TLDR:

1) It's possible that Stone produces at any of the predictions posted in this thread.
2) It seems likely he'll produce somewhere in the middle (between "lower than 60" and "guaranteed for 70" based on looking at various combinations of internal and external variables.
3) The cage match column is not the definitive answer for predicting player success or value.
4) No one has the definitive answer for predicting player success or value.

Based on that, I find it deliberately argumentative when people use absolute terms like 'for sure,' or 'never,' or 'guaranteed.' So make claims all you want and hope for wins or losses wherever, but at least have an open mind for the opposite.

[RizzeeDizzee]

Here's the list of rookies who scored 50-60 as a 22 year old (or older) rookie since 2000-01. All I can say is this doesn't help convince me Stone is for real:

Tyler Johnson
Jussi Jokinen
Ondrej Palat
Kris Versteeg
Trent Hunter
Michael Grabner
Marek Svatos

[RizzeeDizzee]

Regarding the cage match arguments, it is my belief that those articles only take it so far. I look at it as information that's worth looking further in to. I use them to help me identify trends and player perceptions, and more or less to help me gauge player value. That said, they are by no means the perfect predictors of player success, let alone good predictors of player success.

It has been stated before that those articles don't go into further depth in order to reach a larger audience. The obvious question there is how can a simplified analysis of players provide the most complete and accurate projection of a player's production or value? It can't.

The thing is though, there isn't a single set of statistical variables out there that can predict player success to 100% accuracy. If there was, then not only would that mean we could predict the future, but every single NHL club would be using the same tools and league parity would be exact; but we can't, and it's not.

Regarding the specific conclusion that no rookie aged 22 who has produced 60+ has had success later on is not a good argument. First off, it doesn't take into account other ages. Does each year seem to have it's own normalized set of data, or is the age of 22 simply part of the normalized curve for all players? Is the age range of 22-23 it's own normalized set of data, or is that age range simply a part of the normalized curve for age 19-23 players? This line of questioning can go on forever, and no one has crunched that data.

Second, it doesn't take into account ranges of production during those rookie seasons. Why is 60+ points the cutoff? I would bet that there are far more favourable examples for aged 22 rookies who score 30+. These are only two areas where this argument could be contested, and I can think of like 10 more major areas off the top of my head; and then all of this could be combined to create an inordinate amount of scenarios where that data could reduce the confidence level of that conclusion by enough that it would make it impossible to arrive at any sort of decision based on it.

At 2000 words per week, Cage Match is actually longer than Dobber would prefer. I too wish I could add even more, but the weekly frequency and desire to appeal to the greatest possible cross section of readers has landed us at where we are now.

The goal of cage match if to delve a bit deeper into two comparable players not just to assess which is better, but to determine how both stand with regard to their value vs. cost. It's not the be all say all about either player. Part of what's useful about the column is looking back on when the numbers were wrong, which is why I do a biggest misses column every year.

But I will say that having done the column for 2+ yeas now I'm more trusting of the numbers (and I'm not talking only about advanced metrics) over gut instincts than I used to be, and I think it's the way to go. And I'd say that if I stopped writing the column tomorrow.

[GinFizz]

^^^ Cage Match is one of my favorite reads.. keep up the good work.

[rataylor22]

FWIW, I think Stone is a 70 point player. I don't think he's as great as EV does (who basically considers Datysuk and Bergeron Mark Stone-lites), but I do think he is a very solid player. I'm just not sold on him being a 70 point player THIS YEAR.

Rizzee, just as a thought, you have to at least consider this possibility: 7 disparate seasons scattered across 15 years do not constitute a “trend.” They’re disconnected data points. To wit, one of those 7 post-50-60 point seasons campaigns was Tyler Johnson, who scored 72 the following year. It's just not a big enough sample size to confidently put any weight in it. If the hill you want to die on is that 7 data points, 6 of which support your claim, is beyond a doubt enough to call a "trend", you do you man, but the fact is that right from the start were looking at "outliers". It's highly unlikely that 8 (Stone being the 8th) players across 15 seasons that are already classified as outliers will then all fall into the same class of career arc.

[Big Ev]

Here's the list of rookies who scored 50-60 as a 22 year old (or older) rookie since 2000-01. All I can say is this doesn't help convince me Stone is for real:

Tyler Johnson
Jussi Jokinen
Ondrej Palat
Kris Versteeg
Trent Hunter
Michael Grabner
Marek Svatos

just go watch 10 sens games in a row and come back to me. That's all I ask.

[RizzeeDizzee]

FWIW, I think Stone is a 70 point player. I don't think he's as great as EV does (who basically considers Datysuk and Bergeron Mark Stone-lites), but I do think he is a very solid player. I'm just not sold on him being a 70 point player THIS YEAR.

Rizzee, just as a thought, you have to at least consider this possibility: 7 disparate seasons scattered across 15 years do not constitute a “trend.” They’re disconnected data points. To wit, one of those 7 post-50-60 point seasons campaigns was Tyler Johnson, who scored 72 the following year. It's just not a big enough sample size to confidently put any weight in it. If the hill you want to die on is that 7 data points, 6 of which support your claim, is beyond a doubt enough to call a "trend", you do you man, but the fact is that right from the start were looking at "outliers". It's highly unlikely that 8 (Stone being the 8th) players across 15 seasons that are already classified as outliers will then all fall into the same class of career arc.

I don't think I called it a trend. It shows what I feel are individual and collective factors weighing against Stone being a success in 2015-16 or beyond. For one, the fact that only ten 22+ year olds scored even 50 points as rookies is in and of itself a bad sign. Why? Here's another tidbit: since 2000-01 there were 834 forwards aged 22-25 who played 70+ games and a rookie. From that, just the ten I mentioned managed to score 50+ points and most saw their points fall in the next season and went on to be unremarkable players. To compare, there were 31 forwards in that same time frame who played 70+ games as a 21 year old rookie, and five of them (i.e., above 15%, compared to 1.2% of the 22 and older rookie forwards) scored 50+ points - Paul Stastny (78 points), Dany Heatley (67 points), Johnny Gaudreau (64 points ), Logan Couture (56 points), Adam Henrique (51 points). I think if you look at those five you can see how seemingly there is a big difference in sophomore year and career performance when posting 50+ as a rookie at age 21 versus at an older age.

- - - Updated - - -

just go watch 10 sens games in a row and come back to me. That's all I ask.

And you go back in a time machine and do the same with Jokinen, Versteeg, Hunter, Grabner, and Svatos. I'm sure they had their fair share of believers, including those wearing homer goggles. Just take Grabner for example - he was raved about as a rookie and sophomore. And now? And afterthought.

[Big Ev]

I see - so I'm supposed to judge Stone by his junior and AHL success? How reliable has that been in predicting NHL success? I know a lot of former "can't miss" talents with stellar pre-NHL credentials who, when the dust settled, missed.

When the player has also proven he can score at a high level in the NHL as a rookie then yeah you consider his junior and AHL stats too. Because they basically already predicted it. His tire history suggests he's an elite scorer at every level he's played at.

[Big Ev]

Stone is a FA in my one-year league along with the likes of Huberdeau, Galchenyuk and Scheifele. Eight-team, 9-forwards league and he's been available since our draft this past Monday.

Not professing that anyone in my league is a fortune-teller or a fantasy hockey god, but to me, Stone sitting as a FA in our league indicates that no one is sold on him surpassing or even reproducing his totals from last season. Being optimistic about a player is great, but considering the long line of guys who have regressed after their rookie season, I don't see anything convincing as to why Stone will increase his production from last year.

Did Turris suddenly become a top-five centreman in the league without anyone else knowing? Is Hoffman also slated to dramatically break out offensively? Only 16 players from last season scored 71+ points. Among those who hit 71-80 points were Johansen, Stamkos, Johnson, Foligno, Tarasenko, Giroux, H. Sedin, Hudler, D. Sedin, Seguin and Backstrom. I could see Foligno and Hudler missing from this group this season, but I don't see Stone joining it. At all.

stone was not given high ice time or opportunity until the sens had a new coach. So if you extrapolate those numbers under the new coach he would be almost a ppg player. But I am predicting less than that at 70.

and Karlsson only had 66 points or whatever the whole year, and he has upside for 80 himself. Turris has 65-70 upside.

hed be getting far more consideration if he wasn't a late round pick and if he didn't play in Ottawa. Ottawa is continually disrespected, overlooked, and under researched.

another point is stone will be on the first unit of 3 on 3 most likely.

all he has to do is get 6 more points than last season.

[Big Ev]

I don't think I called it a trend. It shows what I feel are individual and collective factors weighing against Stone being a success in 2015-16 or beyond. For one, the fact that only ten 22+ year olds scored even 50 points as rookies is in and of itself a bad sign. Why? Here's another tidbit: since 2000-01 there were 834 forwards aged 22-25 who played 70+ games and a rookie. From that, just the ten I mentioned managed to score 50+ points and most saw their points fall in the next season and went on to be unremarkable players. To compare, there were 31 forwards in that same time frame who played 70+ games as a 21 year old rookie, and five of them (i.e., above 15%, compared to 1.2% of the 22 and older rookie forwards) scored 50+ points - Paul Stastny (78 points), Dany Heatley (67 points), Johnny Gaudreau (64 points ), Logan Couture (56 points), Adam Henrique (51 points). I think if you look at those five you can see how seemingly there is a big difference in sophomore year and career performance when posting 50+ as a rookie at age 21 versus at an older age.

- - - Updated - - -



And you go back in a time machine and do the same with Jokinen, Versteeg, Hunter, Grabner, and Svatos. I'm sure they had their fair share of believers, including those wearing homer goggles. Just take Grabner for example - he was raved about as a rookie and sophomore. And now? And afterthought.

grabner has zero hockey sense, he just has a ton of breakaways and is fast, had a decent shit. He has no other elite tools. Stone is a complete player in every sense of the word and has the it factor that none of those guys had.

if you don't want to actually watch the games then there's nothing I can do. If you can't see it, you can't see it, and I can't teach you how to see it. I've seen it in stone for around 5 years now

history doesn't automatically predict the present and each player is a different case. Simple as that.

[The Comish]

Over the course of many years of watching way, way too much hockey, my gut feel on players has proven to be pretty accurate. Stone has "it". He's difference maker, a player, simple as that. That run he went on last year was an indication of just how good he can be...and it gave him added confidence that he could do that at the NHL level. Bold statement by Ev that Stone will score a minimum of 70 points, but if he doesn't get bit by the injury bug, I see Stone as a 70 point player this year. It will be fun to watch how it all plays out.

[The Comish]

grabner has zero hockey sense, he just has a ton of breakaways and is fast, had a decent shit. He has no other elite tools.

I felt the same way when I watched Cogliano and Paajarvi as junior-aged players. Speed to kill, but not enough talent to be big scorers at the next level.

[Big Ev]

Over the course of many years of watching way, way too much hockey, my gut feel on players has proven to be pretty accurate. Stone has "it". He's difference maker, a player, simple as that. That run he went on last year was an indication of just how good he can be...and it gave him added confidence that he could do that at the NHL level. Bold statement by Ev that Stone will score a minimum of 70 points, but if he doesn't get bit by the injury bug, I see Stone as a 70 point player this year. It will be fun to watch how it all plays out.

Agreed but i don't even think this is a gut call. This is a call based on hippie players history and the facts at hand. A gut cal would be predicting hammonds run last season based on nothing at all. He had no history.

[rataylor22]

I don't think I called it a trend. It shows what I feel are individual and collective factors weighing against Stone being a success in 2015-16 or beyond. For one, the fact that only ten 22+ year olds scored even 50 points as rookies is in and of itself a bad sign. Why? Here's another tidbit: since 2000-01 there were 834 forwards aged 22-25 who played 70+ games and a rookie. From that, just the ten I mentioned managed to score 50+ points and most saw their points fall in the next season and went on to be unremarkable players. To compare, there were 31 forwards in that same time frame who played 70+ games as a 21 year old rookie, and five of them (i.e., above 15%, compared to 1.2% of the 22 and older rookie forwards) scored 50+ points - Paul Stastny (78 points), Dany Heatley (67 points), Johnny Gaudreau (64 points ), Logan Couture (56 points), Adam Henrique (51 points). I think if you look at those five you can see how seemingly there is a big difference in sophomore year and career performance when posting 50+ as a rookie at age 21 versus at an older age.

- - - Updated - - -



And you go back in a time machine and do the same with Jokinen, Versteeg, Hunter, Grabner, and Svatos. I'm sure they had their fair share of believers, including those wearing homer goggles. Just take Grabner for example - he was raved about as a rookie and sophomore. And now? And afterthought.

Lol. Come on man. You can't say "I'm not calling it a trend", and then use those disconnected data points as the basis for your argument. If you're saying that Stone is most likely to preform similarly to those other players because of common traits (in this case, age) then you're saying it is a trend and he will follow that trend. You're using disconnected data outliers to predict the future performance of another disconnected data point. You're attempting to use a pattern to predict a continuation of a pattern, except there isn't enough established data for there to actually be a pattern.

I'm totally open to the idea that Stone isn't a 70 point player. I'm not a Sens homer. God nobody would accuse me of that. But if you want to make a valid, respectable, and convincing argument, use Stone's personal metrics. Shot rate, shooting percentage, etc. Or delve deeper and talk about his playmaking ability, quality of linemates, PP propensity, opportunity or lack there of, "talent" of his shot, his hands/speed/hockey IQ. If you want to just keep citing disconnected data points, that's not a good argument. It's weak and mainly baseless.