Tribute Auston Matthews Discussion "the Beauty" Edition

[Petrus]

I agree with this and I think more people are starting to as well.

Nylander seems to be complementing Tavares very well. They seem to be clicking.

Matthews and Marner is just awesome.

Weird how Babcock never experimented with this for a longer period of time than a small number of shifts.

 

[DanM]

Weird how Babcock never experimented with this for a longer period of time than a small number of shifts.

Not that I would ever know why, but it seems he simply didn't want to. The more noise he heard about what a great move it would be, the more he rallied against it. It seemed that unless he came up with it, it was bullshit from people who were beneath his vision.

 

[34]

Weird how Babcock never experimented with this for a longer period of time than a small number of shifts.

Yeah, very strange. Babcock was just old school and refused to evolve.

Perhaps he is now watching from the sidelines, and realizes the mistakes that he did make.

 

[DanM]

Yeah, very strange. Babcock was just old school and refused to evolve.

Perhaps he is now watching from the sidelines, and realizes the mistakes that he did make.

Doubt it lol

He doesn't seem like a guy who thinks he is wrong often.

 

[Petrus]

Not that I would ever know why, but it seems he simply didn't want to. The more noise he heard about what a great move it would be, the more he rallied against it. It seemed that unless he came up with it, it was bull**** from people who were beneath his vision.

It’s quite perverse. All I can recall (more often than not) was Connor Brown being used by Babcock to spark the Matthews line.

 

[kb]

It’s quite perverse. All I can recall (more often than not) was Connor Brown being used by Babcock to spark the Matthews line.

Oh, don't get me wrong, for the price, I would prefer Brown to Kapanen. But Babcock was criminal with his chronic misuse of players. Pay $40 million to your top-4 forwards, and then roll four lines, and start your 4th line almost exclusively in the D zone.

 

[34]

Doubt it lol

He doesn't seem like a guy who thinks he is wrong often.

No kidding.

That is the reason he is out of a job now.

 

[Martin Skoula]

No kidding.

That is the reason he is out of a job now.

He's going to get hired, he can take a ragtag team of grinders leftover from your rebuild and make them kind of a bubble team, that's worth a lot of money to some owners.

 

[GBLeaf]

Credit to Austin Matthews.

He seems to be growing and thriving on the extra time, responsibility and expectation.

Long may it continue.

 

[Nithoniniel]

P/60 aren't the whole story, it's just a good way to check if the gap you're seeing really exists or is just a product of getting 2x the PP time.

P/60 or raw point totals come down to one thing. Do you think getting more minutes is a net negative or a net positive. If it's the latter, P/60 is the better stat. If it's the former, then raw points is. But that would also mean that no star should actually play much more than others, not even on the PP.

To me, the answer is quite obviously that it's a net positive. Even if you buy that playing 21 minutes instead of 18 means the player is worn down a bit, actually playing 3 minutes extra matters more in terms of putting up points. The opposite would be akin to saying that the Oilers are hurting their team by putting McDavid out there for a few extra shifts.

 

[kb]

P/60 or raw point totals come down to one thing. Do you think getting more minutes is a net negative or a net positive. If it's the latter, P/60 is the better stat. If it's the former, then raw points is. But that would also mean that no star should actually play much more than others, not even on the PP.

To me, the answer is quite obviously that it's a net positive. Even if you buy that playing 21 minutes instead of 18 means the player is worn down a bit, actually playing 3 minutes extra matters more in terms of putting up points. The opposite would be akin to saying that the Oilers are hurting their team by putting McDavid out there for a few extra shifts.

The bolded should be required reading for those that keep saying "Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerp, but points!"

Points are a direct function of ice time. No icetime = no points. You can't score from the bench.

 

[Mess]

P/60 or raw point totals come down to one thing. Do you think getting more minutes is a net negative or a net positive. If it's the latter, P/60 is the better stat. If it's the former, then raw points is. But that would also mean that no star should actually play much more than others, not even on the PP.

To me, the answer is quite obviously that it's a net positive. Even if you buy that playing 21 minutes instead of 18 means the player is worn down a bit, actually playing 3 minutes extra matters more in terms of putting up points. The opposite would be akin to saying that the Oilers are hurting their team by putting McDavid out there for a few extra shifts.

Return on investment.

When you pay someone among the highest in the league you also want that player to earn it and increased workload in an attempt to increase production which in turn creates a better return on investment potential.

The true test will come playoff time and how much is left in the tank after a long season, because the playoffs are a grind and if you're all spent simply getting in, then how much of a fight will you have left as increased TOI/g also increases injury risk and well as additional aches and pains over the course of a long season.

I think there can be a happy medium where game score and script dictates TOI\g usage better as in when behind you shorten the bench, and when ahead you lengthen it and spread the minutes out better to have sharper shifts throughout.

 

[Stamkos4life]

Good to see auston producing. Only 2 goals back of pasta for 1st. But sitting at 15 for ppg. Seems like it will be hard for him to move up that list without increasing his assists. On pace for 41 when mcdavid already has 41.

Let's hope he can keep rolling in the new year!

 

[Nithoniniel]

I think there can be a happy medium where game score and script dictates TOI\g usage better as in when behind you shorten the bench, and when ahead you lengthen it and spread the minutes out better to have sharper shifts throughout.

I mean, sure. I agree. That's not really what we were talking about though.

 

[authentic]

I never said it told the whole story, but it tells a lot more of the story than raw points, which is what most people point to to claim that their chosen player is better.

I added additional context, but all of the additional context just makes Matthews look even better. I'm not sure what part of the story you feel isn't being told.


The eye test often lies to us, especially when comparing between players we see all the time and have investment in to others that we don't, and they play very different styles, but yes, I see the dominance and insane ability to individually affect the game in Matthews. Honestly, people must be trying really hard to not see it. I'm sure Mackinnon getting a stacked line and basically double the PP time definitely helps your positive perception of him.

TBH, I've probably undersold Mackinnon; I didn't mean for this tier thing to get so out of hand. Mackinnon is an amazing player doing really well right now. It's not like there is a massive gap between them. Mackinnon in 17/18 and this year have been on a more similar level, but he was not last year, and that's a significant difference in the tiers. Players who consistently put up top of the top production (in ES P/60, ES P1/60, PP P/60, and PP P1/60) every year even when not in ideal situations (prime, great linemates, etc.) are so, so, so rare.

I would obviously hope you're right, but when I watch both (admittedly I watch Matthews a lot more) I usually come away thinking MacKinnon is a better player, and it's not just based on raw points either, it's their actual skillsets and offensive IQ where I can honestly say without much doubt MacKinnon is better based on observation alone, and he just happens to produce far more points on top of it. I think Matthews at his best is better defensively, but as an overall player I simply believe that regardless of their deployment on the ice, ice time, linemates etc, MacKinnon would outproduce him every time. Points per 60 are not linear to getting more ice time, although I agree that generally a player will score more with more time especially on the powerplay. I just don't see what offensive skills Matthews has over MacKinnon other than his wrist shot which MacKinnon is even not far behind in.

 

[authentic]

I think Matthews will have a better career for sure. Just looking at the first 3-4 years of their careers (matthews still in his 4th) the point totals are not at all close, and not to mention the usage is laughable when you look at how each player was and is utilized. You also look at games played (health) and Mack had some pretty average numbers until his 5th year.

Sure, Mack is a great player right now, and has a fantastic situation in Colorado, but let's see how Matthews does staying healthy and not having Babcock as a head coach.

I don't doubt his potential, even if I don't believe it's any better than Mackinnon's, but all I was really arguing is that as of now, or the past 3 seasons, Matthews is not better or even as good as MacKinnon. I try to be as unbiased as possible in how I view players and believe me when I say I wish Matthews would be the hands down 2nd best player in the world, I just don't believe he is yet or will be, but even if he's not I'm more than okay with a top 10 player in the world which I believe he is.

 

[DanM]

I don't doubt his potential, even if I don't believe it's any better than Mackinnon's, but all I was really arguing is that as of now, or the past 3 seasons, Matthews is not better or even as good as MacKinnon. I try to be as unbiased as possible in how I view players and believe me when I say I wish Matthews would be the hands down 2nd best player in the world, I just don't believe he is yet or will be, but even if he's not I'm more than okay with a top 10 player in the world which I believe he is.

That's fair and I respect your opinion, but think about this.

Remember when Mack was considered (bust is too strong a word lol) but underwhelming for a player of his hype, and he took it to a new level afterwards?

What if Matthews is at his floor? What if he to has a whole other level to reach, because that is what I see happening.

If he were to hit another gear like Mack, he in my books would be number 2 in the world after McDavid.

Matty is just a kid, and one who has had piss poor management from Babs, so I would like to see what full health, new coach, and player growth looks like with him before saying Mack is better.

 

[The Man with a Plan]

Doubt it lol

He doesn't seem like a guy who thinks he is wrong often.

The same can be said of a lot of posters here.

And ftr I am not meaning you.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I would obviously hope you're right, but when I watch both (admittedly I watch Matthews a lot more) I usually come away thinking MacKinnon is a better player, and it's not just based on raw points either, it's their actual skillsets and offensive IQ where I can honestly say without much doubt MacKinnon is better based on observation alone, and he just happens to produce far more points on top of it.

Mackinnon is fast and flashy, which tends to draw the eyes and stick in the minds more (Marner anyone?), and we tend to equate those attributes to offensive skill even though there is so much more to it.

He is also on a stacked line, and it is so, so, so much easier to win the eye-test battle when you have a line that can be so dominating that it covers the deficiencies that those players have, and the opponent has to usually skate the entire ice surface tired after you make a mistake. We are starting to see just how much a strong line can tilt the ice now that Matthews and Marner are together, and they don't even have a 3rd high-end player with them like Mackinnon. It's also so, so much easier to look favourably on aspects of his game that you would otherwise overlook or criticize, once he's already scored with his league-high PP time.

Points per 60 are not linear to getting more ice time, although I agree that generally a player will score more with more time especially on the powerplay.

I keep seeing people claim that "P/60 is not linear to getting more ice time". Thing is, nobody ever wants to provide evidence of this, because there is none. Obviously there is a point of diminishing returns, but all evidence points to that point being beyond the ranges of ice time we are discussing.

I did 3 experiments testing the relationship between average ice time and P/60. I can go into more details if you'd like, but in all 3 of the experiments, there was actually an INCREASE in P/60 as average TOI/GP increased. Even I did not expect that going in (especially when I pushed the experiment to the very highest TOI seasons in the cap era), and I expect there are external influences that affect this (which is why I maintain my stance of a neutral effect instead of going around claiming positive effects), but it only solidified the fact that P/60 doesn't see any statistically significant drop due to increases in TOI within the ranges that these star players play.

The fatigue argument never made much sense anyway, since the majority of ice time differences that significantly affect production between superstars is PP TOI/GP, which are incredibly easy minutes to play.

I just don't see what offensive skills Matthews has over MacKinnon other than his wrist shot which MacKinnon is even not far behind in.

He's bigger, stronger, has better puck possession, has better stickhandling skills, he goes to the high-impact areas of the ice more, he has a much better shot, and unlike Mackinnon, he has shown that he can produce without a stacked line. And he's only just scratching the surface of his prime.

 

[Wafflewhipper]

Weird how Babcock never experimented with this for a longer period of time than a small number of shifts.

He is just not very smart and a terrible tactician. He’s terrible and the team won in spite of him and because of talent. It never was Babcock unless it was anything bad then it was all him. Sorry if i missed something in bashing the dirtbag

 

[authentic]

Mackinnon is fast and flashy, which tends to draw the eyes and stick in the minds more (Marner anyone?), and we tend to equate those attributes to offensive skill even though there is so much more to it.

He is also on a stacked line, and it is so, so, so much easier to win the eye-test battle when you have a line that can be so dominating that it covers the deficiencies that those players have, and the opponent has to usually skate the entire ice surface tired after you make a mistake. We are starting to see just how much a strong line can tilt the ice now that Matthews and Marner are together, and they don't even have a 3rd high-end player with them like Mackinnon. It's also so, so much easier to look favourably on aspects of his game that you would otherwise overlook or criticize, once he's already scored with his league-high PP time.


I keep seeing people claim that "P/60 is not linear to getting more ice time". Thing is, nobody ever wants to provide evidence of this, because there is none. Obviously there is a point of diminishing returns, but all evidence points to that point being beyond the ranges of ice time we are discussing.

I did 3 experiments testing the relationship between average ice time and P/60. I can go into more details if you'd like, but in all 3 of the experiments, there was actually an INCREASE in P/60 as average TOI/GP increased. Even I did not expect that going in (especially when I pushed the experiment to the very highest TOI seasons in the cap era), and I expect there are external influences that affect this (which is why I maintain my stance of a neutral effect instead of going around claiming positive effects), but it only solidified the fact that P/60 doesn't see any statistically significant drop due to increases in TOI within the ranges that these star players play.

The fatigue argument never made much sense anyway, since the majority of ice time differences that significantly affect production between superstars is PP TOI/GP, which are incredibly easy minutes to play.


He's bigger, stronger, has better puck possession, has better stickhandling skills, he goes to the high-impact areas of the ice more, he has a much better shot, and unlike Mackinnon, he has shown that he can produce without a stacked line. And he's only just scratching the surface of his prime.

I understand the idea that some confuse more flash for more skill, but in the case of your Marner and Matthews example I don't even think Marner is a flashier player and certainly not a more physically skilled player, I think he's a smarter player though. Matthews being a better stickhandler than MacKinnon is highly debatable too, MacKinnon has faster hands and seems to have just as good puck control at top speed which is a higher top speed than Matthews. Matthews has better reach and toe drags, and both are great in tight spaces around the net. Also, I don't know what stacked line Colorado managed to put together while Rantanen was out of the lineup from October 21st - November 30th, but MacKinnon had 27 points in 16 games in that time frame according to the game logs.

To be clear though, I more or less agree with you on your time on ice point and have argued the same in favour of Datsyuk in the past compared to Crosby/Ovechkin in the late 2000s when he averaged 2 less powerplay minutes per game. However, I just don't believe Matthews is quite on the level of the top 2-5 offensive players or playmakers in the game in terms of overall passing ability and on ice vision based on what I see, although his goal scoring certainly makes up for a lot of that anyway.

 

[Stephen]

Interesting that once allowed to run free, Matthews and Marner look good together, and Nylander and Tavares look good together too. Under the Babcock game plan, it's like the two duos were programmed to play in a way that mixing and matching never looked good in the rare moments it was attempted.

 

[IPS]

He is just not very smart and a terrible tactician. He’s terrible and the team won in spite of him and because of talent. It never was Babcock unless it was anything bad then it was all him. Sorry if i missed something in bashing the dirtbag

He tried his damnedest to make this team something it wasn't and thank god he didn't succeed.

This team resembles the Penguins, not the Blues.


On another note, Matthews' effort level is finally back to where it was in his rookie year. Was awesome to see him relentlessly hunting those pucks down last night. This version of Matthews is legit one of the very best players in the league and absolutely worth his contract, just need him to continue like this.

 

[WTFMAN99]

Interesting that once allowed to run free, Matthews and Marner look good together, and Nylander and Tavares look good together too. Under the Babcock game plan, it's like the two duos were programmed to play in a way that mixing and matching never looked good in the rare moments it was attempted.

I don't know why it was never attempted more, the top 6 looked fantastic last night. I also thought Soup was perfect in the top 6 with his puck retrievals.

The bottom 6 kinda sucked along with all of the defense core. Pretty easy to see where the problem is with the group.

 

[kindalaidback]

matthews has played really fantastic hockey lately

am i the only one who has not been overly impressed with matthews and marner playing together?