Vancouver Canucks: How Mitch Marner’s deal affects Brock Boeser

Boeser vs. Marner

Boeser, like Marner, has been in the NHL for three separate seasons. To be fair, the former only played nine games at the tail-end of the 2016-17 season, while the latter played 77. That being said, let’s just look at the last two seasons. Boeser played just 62 and 69 games, respectively.

This means he has missed 33 games over a two-season span. Marner hasn’t missed a single game in that same span. Right off the bat, durability is a legitimate problem for him and is a focal point for the Canucks when trying to talk him down.

Boeser has put up 55 and 56 points, respectively, in that span. Marner, on the other hand, scored 69 and 94, respectively. But again, he has missed quite a bit of time, so it’s best to look at his point per game numbers compared to Marner, to get a more fair assessment of their comparison.

In that metric, he tallied points per game rates of 0.89 and 0.81, respectively. Marner’s put up points per game rates of 0.84 and 1.15, respectively. This is good news for the Boeser camp, as they could argue that while Marner’s production exploded when playing alongside Tavares, Boeser is carrying the load of his linemates and producing consistent rates of over 0.8 points per game.

They can argue that if Boeser, if he played in a full season, could put up around 70 points consistently. While that may not sound like much, they don’t necessarily have a player who can do that except for maybe Elias Pettersson. Those are borderline elite numbers and if Miller can be as good as he was with Tampa, those PPG numbers could rise to give Boeser an 82 point season (if healthy).

Defensively, Boeser is responsible. In his career, counting the nine games in 2016-17, he has recorded just 48 hits to Marner’s 101. He has blocked just 46 shots to Marner’s 107. While his numbers aren’t bad, considering the time he has missed, Marner still trumps him in those metrics.

Not to mention, Boeser’s Corsi For percentage (CF%) and Fenwick For percentage (FF%) are going to look worse than they would be because of Vancouver not exactly being a good team. So Boeser’s career CF% of 50.3 and FF% of 49.9 are impressive.

Imagine if he was on a team like Toronto instead, because he would probably be closer to 53% in both categories. Which brings me to Marner’s 51.8 CF% and 50 FF%. If he were on Vancouver, both numbers could be below 50%. That’s another win for Boeser in the negotiating process.

We’ve talked about what Marner and Boeser have done offensively and defensively, based on metrics. I’ve noted, without hardcore evidence, that Boeser has a disadvantage because of the team he plays for. Yes, it’s obvious based on last season that the Leafs are the superior team over Vancouver, but it runs far deeper than just that.

PDO, for those that are unfamiliar, ultimately quantifies luck. If a player has a PDO under 1.00, then that player is unlucky. If their PDO is exactly 1.00, then they have no good or bad luck at all, it’s just average. If their PDO is over 1.00, that player ultimately had luck on their side. Marner has recorded PDOs of 100.4 and 103.2 over the last two seasons, respectively. Meanwhile, Boeser has posted 99.8 and 99.6 PDOs, respectively.

That means that Boeser was slightly hit with bad luck due to playing on the inferior team. It also means that his statistics can be improved upon as his team gets stronger and he gets luckier. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Marner has been very lucky.

This means that his statistics are harder to maintain, meaning there’s a very good chance he doesn’t consistently hit the 90 point mark in a season for the remainder of his career. Yet again, a win for the Boeser camp.

Is Marner a better player? Absolutely, no contest. He is much more durable and has been more explosively effective offensively and defensively. This wasn’t a question of who the better player is, however.

Marner set the market for the remaining RFAs, which Boeser is. For Marner to get $10.893 million per season for 6 seasons is a mega-deal (and an overpayment), thus resulting in the inflation of the market. Boeser, who I initially stated to project around $7 million, could easily get over $7.5 million.

The benchmark set by Marner will really push the Canucks to the brink. Will they be able to make the corresponding moves in order to bring Boeser back, or will they look to move Boeser for another piece already locked in for a more affordable cost? Only time will tell this story.