Auston Matthews Discussion Thread

[zeke]

I think we can agree that if Matthews played 60 minutes a game, his /60 stats would go WAY down due to him being dead tired for most of the game. On the other extreme, if he played just 1 minute a game his /60 stats would go down because he'd never be warmed up and loose. So, indisputably, the amount of ice time a player gets a game will affect their /60 stats.

The question then becomes, what is the precise sweet spot? It's fair to suggest that someone playing 17 minutes a game would be able to put more hustle in every shift than someone playing 23 minutes a game.

So that's what the argument has been.

Matthews has simply elevated his game this year That's it. Kudos to him. In past years (whether it was battling through injuries, motivational problems, not liking the coach, etc.), Matthews would often take shifts off. Sometimes even games.

That hasn't happened this season. He's a beast each and every shift. I sincerely hope he keeps it up.

I will agree with you that, on a small 18 game sample size so far this year, he's been McDavid tier.

The problem in this case is that the entire argument rests on the idea that matthews and marner were physically incapable of playing the same amount of minutes as other superstar players for some reason. That somehow we had drafted two guys with specific stamina issues or something.

That never made a lick of sense.

And it's not just 18 games vs mcDavid - he has been more productive at even strength ever since Keefe took over 66gms ago, and McDavid has needed a ~30% advantage in PP time to outproduce matthews on the PP.

Since Keefe became coach (66gms):

Matthews: EV 0.55gpg, 0.85ppg --- PP 3:07toi, 0.23gpg, 0.42ppg
McDavid: EV 0.36gpg, 0.84ppg ---- PP 4:17toi, 0.15gpg, 0.66ppg

 

[RealisticLeaf55]

Matthews is absurdly talented. Love going on other boards and listening to them hate a player they don't have.

Outside of a short list of teams, most teams have at best, a William Nylander as their best player.

Ottawa and Montreal are so far in our back mirror its hilarious, and its because of Matthews and Marner.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I think we can agree that if Matthews played 60 minutes a game, his /60 stats would go WAY down due to him being dead tired for most of the game. On the other extreme, if he played just 1 minute a game his /60 stats would go down because he'd never be warmed up and loose. So, indisputably, the amount of ice time a player gets a game will affect their /60 stats.

I think we can agree that if Matthews played 60 minutes a game, his raw stats would go WAY up. On the other extreme, if he played just 1 minute a game, his raw stats would go WAY down. So indisputably, the amount of ice time a player gets a game will affect their raw stats.

The question then becomes, what is the precise sweet spot?

The question then becomes, is per-60 a better measure when discussing these similar players? Raw PP points and PP time have been proven to have incredibly high correlation, so it's undeniable that per-60 is better at evaluating PP production proficiency. Raw points illogically assumes the value of any time discrepancy to be zero.

It's fair to suggest that someone playing 17 minutes a game would be able to put more hustle in every shift than someone playing 23 minutes a game.

I mean, that's not necessarily true, when we're talking about some of the most elite athletes in the world. Also, for the record, 6 minutes is well beyond the discrepancy seen in Matthews' comparisons.

Historical comparisons usually had a difference of maybe 2-3 minutes at most, and more recent comparisons tended to be around 0-2 minutes difference overall, and that difference was usually entirely on the PP; the least fatiguing game state. In some comparisons, Matthews wasn't even playing less overall; he was just playing a higher percentage of the more fatiguing and less productive game state.

 

[TML1967]

So 18 goals in 18 games. Missed 1 game. 37 games left.

Over 56 games..
34.15 goals = 50 goal pace.
40.97 = 60 goal pace.

A 50 goal pace season now seems almost like it would be disappointing. The 60 goal pace after the puck luck he has had so far still seems like a really hard thing to pull off.

I think he ends up with 37ish which is around a 54-55 goal pace.

 

[Cecithepylon]

Matthews is on a mission this year. I think the playoff losses got to his head and made him train way harder. That and better usage. Ever since he got the moustache I felt he was entering his “mamba form”. He’s not the kid who scored 4 goals in his first game, he’s way better.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

The problem in this case is that the entire argument rests on the idea that matthews and marner were physically incapable of playing the same amount of minutes as other superstar players for some reason. That somehow we had drafted two guys with specific stamina issues or something.

That never made a lick of sense.

And it's not just 18 games vs mcDavid - he has been more productive at even strength ever since Keefe took over 66gms ago, and McDavid has needed a ~30% advantage in PP time to outproduce matthews on the PP.

Since Keefe became coach (66gms):

Matthews: EV 0.55gpg, 0.85ppg --- PP 3:07toi, 0.23gpg, 0.42ppg
McDavid: EV 0.36gpg, 0.84ppg ---- PP 4:17toi, 0.15gpg, 0.66ppg

The argument would be that Matthews overall points would go up with 22 minutes of ice time, while at the same time his p/60 would drop. Like McDavid who had much more points, but lower p/60. We were debating p/60 here.

We haven't seen that this year. My take is he's a year improved/matured, and (so far this early season) he's been a game changer pretty much each and every shift he takes. Previous seasons, he'd disappear sometimes.

 

[zeke]

So 18 goals in 18 games. Missed 1 game. 37 games left.

Over 56 games..
34.15 goals = 50 goal pace.
40.97 = 60 goal pace.

A 50 goal pace season now seems almost like it would be disappointing. The 60 goal pace after the puck luck he has had so far still seems like a really hard thing to pull off.

I think he ends up with 37ish which is around a 54-55 goal pace.

For the record, Matthews has been at a 64gl pace since Keefe took over 66gms ago.

A 50gl pace would be a huge drop for Matthews. Heck, Matthews is just a tick under a 50gl pace for his entire CAREER so far (48.1 to be precise), even with the vast majority of that being under Babcock's TOI tyranny.

 

[zeke]

The argument would be that Matthews overall points would go up with 22 minutes of ice time, while at the same time his p/60 would drop. Like McDavid who had much more points, but lower p/60. We were debating p/60 here.

We haven't seen that this year. My take is he's a year improved/matured, and (so far this early season) he's been a game changer pretty much each and every shift he takes. Previous seasons, he'd disappear sometimes.

The argument had evidence to consider - and that evidence never supported the idea that an increase of a few minutes would cause p60 to drop significantly.

That was always just a made up, baseless fiction.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

The argument had evidence to consider - and that evidence never supported the idea that an increase of a few minutes would cause p60 to drop significantly.

That was always just a made up, baseless fiction.

It's simply a fact that, at some point, more minutes would cause p/60 to drop. It's indisputable.

If Matthews was playing 50 minutes a game, you're saying his p/60 wouldn't drop?

What neither of us know is where that precise "sweet spot" is.

 

[Dekes For Days]

It's simply a fact that, at some point, more minutes would cause p/60 to drop.

Not within the time discrepancies that were being discussed. No evidence supported the assumption of a drop in Matthews' per-60 metrics if given the same ice time that other stars got.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Not within the time discrepancies that were being discussed. No evidence supported the assumption of a drop in Matthews' per-60 metrics if given the same ice time that other stars got.

There's no evidence either way.

But it's a literal fact that tired players will be less efficient. None of us know where that precise line is.

Regardless, I'd much rather play Matthews 22 minutes per night, even if it did lower his p/60 (which I think it undoubtedly would).

 

[TML1967]

For the record, Matthews has been at a 64gl pace since Keefe took over 66gms ago.

A 50gl pace would be a huge drop for Matthews. Heck, Matthews is just a tick under a 50gl pace for his entire CAREER so far (48.1 to be precise), even with the vast majority of that being under Babcock's TOI tyranny.

I dont disagree, AM has been on a insane streak over the last year or so. BUT
If Matthews scored at his career 48.1 pace, he ends this season with 39.7 (lets call is 40) in 56 games, which is 3 higher than I suggested.

I am assuming that he will at some point go through a dry spell / the team will have a few bad games / teams will start over focusing on him (even if it means other guys burning them hard) or Marner goes through a dry spell.

For context, here are the leading goal scorers over the last 5 full NHL seasons.
18-19 - 51 goals wins it
17-18 - 49 goals wins it
16-17 - 44 goals wins it
15-16 - 50 goals wins it
14-15 - 53 goals wins it

Can he hit/beat those paces? 100%, he has the skill, good line mates and a coach who plays him a ton. Am I betting he hits 40 this year (59.6 pace)? I would take the under

 

[zeke]

It's simply a fact that, at some point, more minutes would cause p/60 to drop. It's indisputable.

If Matthews was playing 50 minutes a game, you're saying his p/60 wouldn't drop?

What neither of us know is where that precise "sweet spot" is.

We know that Matthews (and marner) were getting significantly less than the other superstars in the league - and we know it wasn't because they were less productive per minute.

So the entire theory rested on the argument that Matthews and Marned were for some reason physically inferior to the other superstars in the league, without any evidence to back it up. That somehow the leafs had fluked out and picked two kids that were absolutely super elite producers but both coincidentally were specifically poor stamina wise.

Meanwhile, we had a much more obvious answer - a coach that throughout his career had always limited his top players minutes for no particular reason.

 

[zeke]

I dont disagree, AM has been on a insane streak over the last year or so. BUT
If Matthews scored at his career 48.1 pace, he ends this season with 39.7 (lets call is 40) in 56 games, which is 3 higher than I suggested.

I am assuming that he will at some point go through a dry spell / the team will have a few bad games / teams will start over focusing on him (even if it means other guys burning them hard) or Marner goes through a dry spell.

For context, here are the leading goal scorers over the last 5 full NHL seasons.
18-19 - 51 goals wins it
17-18 - 49 goals wins it
16-17 - 44 goals wins it
15-16 - 50 goals wins it
14-15 - 53 goals wins it

Can he hit/beat those paces? 100%, he has the skill, good line mates and a coach who plays him a ton. Am I betting he hits 40 this year (59.6 pace)? I would take the under

Crazy thing is that Auston already went through a cold streak this year- only 1gl in his first 4gms and even that goal was an ugly fluke.

 

[zeke]

There's no evidence either way.

But it's a literal fact that tired players will be less efficient. None of us know where that precise line is.

Regardless, I'd much rather play Matthews 22 minutes per night, even if it did lower his p/60 (which I think it undoubtedly would).

There was plenty of evidence, actually.

I personally presented all sorts of factual evidence that on average topline players saw their p60s increase with more ice time, not decrease. Well enough evidence to show that assuming a decline in p60 due to a few more minutes of ice time was completely baseless.

 

[Golden_Jet]

There's no evidence either way.

But it's a literal fact that tired players will be less efficient. None of us know where that precise line is.

Regardless, I'd much rather play Matthews 22 minutes per night, even if it did lower his p/60 (which I think it undoubtedly would).

Ya it would definitely be bell curved, just like you said hard to determine the sweet spot.

 

[authentic]

So 18 goals in 18 games. Missed 1 game. 37 games left.

Over 56 games..
34.15 goals = 50 goal pace.
40.97 = 60 goal pace.

A 50 goal pace season now seems almost like it would be disappointing. The 60 goal pace after the puck luck he has had so far still seems like a really hard thing to pull off.

I think he ends up with 37ish which is around a 54-55 goal pace.

He had 40 goals after his first 56 games last season.

 

[Dekes For Days]

There's no evidence either way.

That's actually not true. On average, there has been no negative impact on per-60 metrics when superstars have gotten more ice time. For the PP specifically, which has basically been the entire argument surrounding Matthews, raw PP points and PP time have been proven to have insanely high correlation, with Matthews' individual correlation surpassing even that.

Many people liked to parrot baseless claims about impacts on per-60 metrics, yet no evidence has ever supported the assumption of a drop in Matthews' per-60 metrics if given the same ice time that other stars got.

Regardless of what you wish to believe about per-60 metrics, the simple fact is that it was always undeniably way more accurate than raw points for these comparisons, even if we made a ton of assumptions against per-60 that had zero factual basis.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

But that's a qoc argument, not an ice time argument.

100%. I’m just saying that those that think there is evidence to support that more ice time = less g/60 have only shown analysis that don’t control for qoc. Those who are just trying to slag another team’s player are happy to accept it.

 

[weems]

Crazy thing is that Auston already went through a cold streak this year- only 1gl in his first 4gms and even that goal was an ugly fluke.

He was one of the players that was outspoken about the pucks they were using early on (had tracking device in them apparently).

As soon as they went back to the old pucks he went back to scoring all the time.

 

[Strangle]

I think we can agree that if Matthews played 60 minutes a game, his raw stats would go WAY up. On the other extreme, if he played just 1 minute a game, his raw stats would go WAY down. So indisputably, the amount of ice time a player gets a game will affect their raw stats.

The question then becomes, is per-60 a better measure when discussing these similar players? Raw PP points and PP time have been proven to have incredibly high correlation, so it's undeniable that per-60 is better at evaluating PP production proficiency. Raw points illogically assumes the value of any time discrepancy to be zero.

I mean, that's not necessarily true, when we're talking about some of the most elite athletes in the world. Also, for the record, 6 minutes is well beyond the discrepancy seen in Matthews' comparisons.

Historical comparisons usually had a difference of maybe 2-3 minutes at most, and more recent comparisons tended to be around 0-2 minutes difference overall, and that difference was usually entirely on the PP; the least fatiguing game state. In some comparisons, Matthews wasn't even playing less overall; he was just playing a higher percentage of the more fatiguing and less productive game state.

No one should put too much thought into projections or phantom points or goals.

Raw stats are true. A player’s stats are black and white, you can try to find undervalued or overvalued players using p/60 or other stats that change around peoples true point and goal totals, but using it for every player is really silly. More ice time is more chances to score, but we shouldn’t be pro-rating players to buckle and time a few point each way to bring players closer to each other. Especially when we are talking about players like Matthew’s and McDavid.

 

[zeke]

No one should put too much thought into projections or phantom points or goals.

Raw stats are true. A player’s stats are black and white, you can try to find undervalued or overvalued players using p/60 or other stats that change around peoples true point and goal totals, but using it for every player is really silly. More ice time is more chances to score, but we shouldn’t be pro-rating players to buckle and time a few point each way to bring players closer to each other. Especially when we are talking about players like Matthew’s and McDavid.

False.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Raw stats are true.

Rate stats are also true, and they provide a more complete and accurate picture.

 

[Mats13]

The Oilers post game talk is about Matthews lmao

Literally the title has him in it

There’s living rent free in someone’s head and then there’s this

 

[Throw More Waffles]

My take...

REAL goals/assists lead to REAL wins. And as we've seen the past few years, hypothetical goals/assists lead to (lol) hypothetical wins.

If our star players aren't putting up as many REAL goals/assists as their comparables, then it's for 1 of 2 reasons (or a combination of both).

1. They aren't as good as their "comparables", and Dubas overpaid them.

2. Our star players aren't being used properly, and Dubas is at fault for the management team he put together.

That's it. If our star players have REAL goals/assists that are far below their comparables, no matter how you slice it, it's Dubas fault.

This year so far, Matthews and Marner are among league leaders in REAL goals/assists... and (lo and behold) the team is actually elite now. Imagine that. Almost as though meaningless fake projected goals/assists didn't mean diddly squat.