Toggle sidebar

Auston Matthews back to back hat tricks

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Randyne said:
It's close by raw stats, it's not comparable by adjusted stats: Ovechkin's first 7 seasons 33 goals and 126 points ahead of Matthews.


No, old Ovechkin was only 2 goals behind young Matthews, playing in the same scoring environment winning 3 Rockets. Young Ovechkin would tear apart this league.
Click to expand...

Why doesn’t your adjusted stats include 71 extra games played?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sundinisagod and authentic
He's a great player, no doubt. But Leafs staying true to form not giving him defense and goaltending, but signing a useless 36 yo goon for 3 years. Didn't learn from Semenko, I guess.
 
Strangle said:
Jesus Christ, man. I’m not parsing all of that to respond when all of it is just trying to make the same point.



This is all that really matters. And the stats will bear it out at the end of the day, and you’ll get a much clearer answer than you’re hoping for.

I can’t remember a time when 50 goal seasons or 60 goal seasons or 300 goals in under 500 games wasn’t historically special in the NHL. But you do you.
Click to expand...
"Jesus Christ, man. I’m not parsing all of that to respond when all of it is just trying to make the same point."
-> Aka you are unwilling to prove your assertion wrong. Answering those questions will either prove you completely wrong (which you don't seem to want to do), or they will make you look ridiculous, and we can start looking into discussing those responses.

"I can’t remember a time when 50 goal seasons or 60 goal seasons or 300 goals in under 500 games wasn’t historically special in the NHL. But you do you."
->You claimed that adjusting for era is nonsense, and I showed you a bunch of players that point and goal wise (in a raw perspective) had 60 goal seasons (or better), and way better point seasons. I personally think that Matthews peaked higher than most of the players that I listed, but based on your raw stat belief, you'd have to agree that he DIDN'T.

Anyways, if you're not willing to discuss in good faith (ie. back up the ridiculous claims you're making), I'll let you soak in your ignorance.
 
LesCanadiens said:
He's a great player, no doubt. But Leafs staying true to form not giving him defense and goaltending, but signing a useless 36 yo goon for 3 years. Didn't learn from Semenko, I guess.
Click to expand...
Because no team ever won anything with Semenko. Oh wait ...
 
Randyne said:
It's not 71. Shortened covid seasons were adjusted to 82 games.
Click to expand...

Adjusted goals have their issues though. In 07-08 for instance, there was 1 60 goal scorer, 3 50 goal scorers, and 10 40 goal scorers. 2 100 point players, 8 90 point players and 19 80 point players. In 16-17, there were no 50 or 60 goal scorers, only 3 40 goal scorers, only 1 100 point player who was also the only 90 point player, and 7 players over 80 points. And yet, both years have the exact same GPG at 2.72, so adjusted goals pretends they’re the same scoring environment, when clearly that’s not the case. So, despite finishing 2nd in goals in 16-17, 4 behind the leader, Matthews’s adjusted goals for that year would put him in a 3-way tie for 9th in adjusted goals in 07-08, 28 behind Ovechkin.
 
Last edited:
Gary Nylund said:
Because no team ever won anything with Semenko. Oh wait ...
Click to expand...
Serious? The point was clearly that they were both well over the hill by the time the Leafs obtained them. Plus, Edmonton could afford to have Semenko taking up a spot because their team was already set in every other facet.

That 1.3M for 3 years of a way over-the-hill Reeves instead of consolidating some cap space for much, MUCH needed D and/or goaltending, is plain dumb AF. If you think it was a good move, my condolences.
 
LesCanadiens said:
Serious? The point was clearly that they were both well over the hill by the time the Leafs obtained them. Plus, Edmonton could afford to have Semenko taking up a spot because their team was already set in every other facet.

That 1.3M for 3 years of a way over-the-hill Reeves instead of consolidating some cap space for much, MUCH needed D and/or goaltending, is plain dumb AF. If you think it was a good move, my condolences.
Click to expand...
Your point was far from clear and not sure how relevant it is comparing a player today to a player who played several decades ago. In any case, he looked pretty good last night.
 
AvroArrow said:
Didn't notice him at all, I genuinely thought he wasn't playing. Caufield and Suzuki looked really good, Slaf was pretty invisible.
Click to expand...

Suzuki looked good?? Man it was probably his worst game so far, the hell are you talking about. And CC was just alright. You didnt notice it because you didnt watch it. Dach line was the best by far it for MTL.
 
3ladesof5teel said:
Remember his contract was too much money. Reading his extension thread is going to be fuunnny
Click to expand...

Sure, if he continues to score three a game, it will look like a steal. But I guarantee most who had misgivings about it were thinking more what he does in the regular season and playoffs (or rather, not do) when it comes to assessing his new contract.
 
DaPhazz said:
Suzuki looked good?? Man it was probably his worst game so far, the hell are you talking about. And CC was just alright. You didnt notice it because you didnt watch it. Dach line was the best by far it for MTL.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure I watched the entire game and then the Canucks/Oilers game after that, lmao. You think I missed the season opener ? I've missed maybe 5 Leaf games in the past 10 years, I didn't notice Slaf because he was a non-impact player for almost the entire game. You noticed him because he was your recent #1 overall pick. Sorry if you're offended that I thought he actually didn't play because he was that invisible.
 
AvroArrow said:
Pretty sure I watched the entire game and then the Canucks/Oilers game after that, lmao. You think I missed the season opener ? I've missed maybe 5 Leaf games in the past 10 years, I didn't notice Slaf because he was a non-impact player for almost the entire game. You noticed him because he was your recent #1 overall pick. Sorry if you're offended that I thought he actually didn't play because he was that invisible.
Click to expand...

But you managed to notice Suzuki's GREAT game lol, that's where the money is.

Not offended at all by bs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom