Is Auston Matthews a "generational goal scorer"? A deep dive.

[Mats13]

Words like generational are annoying cuz everyone has a different definition.

Matthews is the best goal scorer to enter the league since Alex Ovechkin. That’s the best way to put it

 

[Nithoniniel]

In 2004 OV was not considered Generational, neither was Matthews. Would you trade OV for Sid in 2009? Or Matthews for McDavid now? The answer is no. It is not possible to be a Generational talent unless you are unanimously considered to be the best player in the NHL

There have been 5 Generational Talents at their draft year

LaFleur
Mario
Lindros
Sid
McDavid

Those are the only 5 names that should show up on discussion about Generational Talents.

A) It's about generational goal scoring, not overall ability.
B) There's no set definition for what generational actually means. Personally, I consider someone/something generational when you need to look beyond the present to find comparables, which is the case here.

Words like generational are annoying cuz everyone has a different definition.

Matthews is the best goal scorer to enter the league since Alex Ovechkin. That’s the best way to put it

I've said the same thing. Terms like that are more harmful than helpful just for the reason you mentioned.

 

[LeafsNation75]

Matthews is the best goal scorer to enter the league since Alex Ovechkin. That’s the best way to put it

Let me add some context to that statement. When Matthews scored 40 goals in his rookie season, that was the most goals by a rookie since Ovechkin had 52 goals in his rookie season of 2005-2006.

 

[TDK67]

Do you agree that injuries will hold back from a player's legacy? I don't think /60 stats are the only stat that should go into it. I also think it's way too early to say this given he's still in his early 20s.

The injury/legacy thing is super subjective. Probably depends on how many injuries and whether it really neuters career totals.

It is early to definitively title Matthews a "generational goal scorer" but I'm hoping the numbers at least demonstrate he really has no peer within the current generation of players. That said, 250+ games is a big enough sample to safely say "this is who he is" and right now that's the best goal scorer in the league.

Gaborik goal totals would have been much higher if he had a healthy career. But I'm stating the obvious here, Bossy would have had 800 goals if he didn't retire so early.

Was definitely impressed with Gaborik. Had no idea he was that prolific in his prime.

Excellent writeup. When you look at the names Matthews is grouped with for goalscoring in the first four years of his career, it's hard to argue that he's not scoring goals at a generational clip at least up until now. He's definitely not a generational player, but his goal scoring is 2nd to none in the league today and he's just entering his prime.

Thank you! And the bolded should definitely be the salient message of this study even if people disagree on the use of "generational".

Great job @TDK88. An interesting read. I don't think he's generational, but in terms of goal scoring it's a great argument to have. He's superb at scoring goals during the hardest competition (5v5).

Totally understand the hesitance to use "generational" for his goal scoring ability. At the very least his goal scoring career thus far looks peerless vs his generation of NHL talent.

Right now we're in the midst of finding out just how much better Matthews is than his peers in regards to goal scoring.

People don't realize how incredible it is that Matthews put up the numbers he did under Babcock - the offensive usage he got was completely disgraceful for a player of his caliber. He's finally getting premium usage for the first time in his career and he looks like he's set to blow the doors off.

I think a lot of folks suspected he would have higher numbers with more minutes but it was no guarantee and it was unfortunate we could never find out with Babcock. Seems like we should get a clearer answer to that with Keefe now...which is very exciting.

It's interesting that he shoots left. I mean, how many players in the league could score that right-circle one-timer last game vs the Jets. Usually all the heavy shot goal scorers are RHS. This -in addition to his toe drag- gives him two shots that basically only he has in his arsenal. He's only 22 and he had neither shot in his repertoire as a rookie. Pretty crazy that he can add elite skills like it's nothing.

I linked it in the post but I want to re-link it here: IcyData » Auston Matthews Stats

Look at his goal scoring map year by year. Nothing paints a clearer picture of Matthews continually adding & refining his goal scoring tools than that. I mean just the 19-20 map vs the 16-17 map tells that story.

He's worth every penny!

I was a tiny bit nervous about that when the contract was signed but this year (and doing this deep dive) really affirms he deserves that money.

Feels like he scores every game.

Definitely a bit of a hot streak right now but his underlying #s are pretty good. E.g. Pasta is way above his career shot% while Matthews is only slightly over his.

In 2004 OV was not considered Generational, neither was Matthews. Would you trade OV for Sid in 2009? Or Matthews for McDavid now? The answer is no. It is not possible to be a Generational talent unless you are unanimously considered to be the best player in the NHL

There have been 5 Generational Talents at their draft year

LaFleur
Mario
Lindros
Sid
McDavid

Those are the only 5 names that should show up on discussion about Generational Talents.

I think you're completely missing the point of the nearly 2000 words I wrote. Which is ok.

I'll just be clear that nowhere have I said he is a flat out "generational" player or that he should be anywhere near a list of Gretzky, Sid & McDavid.

I strictly examined goal scoring here and by that specific skill, Matthews is currently peerless (and it's not even close) among his age group. This level of separation in goal scoring between him and his contemporaries hasn't been seen since Ovi joined the league.

In that way, and that way alone, could we argue that Matthews is likely a "generational goal scorer".

 

[TDK67]

Words like generational are annoying cuz everyone has a different definition.

Matthews is the best goal scorer to enter the league since Alex Ovechkin. That’s the best way to put it

I'm cool with this. I also think there can/should be level-headed discussions around what "generational" means. Too often it seems to revert to fandom and rational thinking jumps out the window.

I'm personally looking at "generational" as "once every 10-15 years" or "peerless". Which is basically what we're seeing with Matthews' goal scoring.

 

[tmlms13]

I think you're completely missing the point of the nearly 2000 words I wrote. Which is ok.

I'll just be clear that nowhere have I said he is a flat out "generational" player or that he should be anywhere near a list of Gretzky, Sid & McDavid.

I strictly examined goal scoring here and by that specific skill, Matthews is currently peerless (and it's not even close) among his age group. This level of separation in goal scoring between him and his contemporaries hasn't been seen since Ovi joined the league.

In that way, and that way alone, could we argue that Matthews is likely a "generational goal scorer".

I don't think you should ever call someone a "Generational _____" You could call anyone a "Generational something" if you think hard enough...In hockey or in regular life.

Chara is a "Generational Tall Hockey Player" Bergeron is a "Generation Defensive Forward" Marchand is a "Generational Rat"

Matthews might be the best goal scorer in the NHL, that's a fine argument to have.

 

[34]

He's generational in knotting main board poster's panties.

HAHA! This post takes the cake! It is so funny how certain teams fans get so triggered!

 

[GreytWun]

No he’s not generational. not even close.

 

[TheBigFour]

No he’s not generational. not even close.

why is dead wing fan even here?

 

[TDK67]

I don't think you should ever call someone a "Generational _____" You could call anyone a "Generational something" if you think hard enough...In hockey or in regular life.

Chara is a "Generational Tall Hockey Player" Bergeron is a "Generation Defensive Forward" Marchand is a "Generational Rat"

Matthews might be the best goal scorer in the NHL, that's a fine argument to have.

First off, you could say "generational ____" for anything. Sure. But we're talking about goals. Not hits, puck retrievals, zone entries, slot passes, etc or any myriad of measurable skills. Which brings us to what I bolded in your comment.

One of those is not like the other...which points to either a very bad faith attempt at engaging with me or a whole lot of ignorance.

A "generational defensive forward" could not only (theoretically) be measured in a number of ways but it's a highly valued skill in a hockey player and is the kind of thing that will likely get Bergeron a lot of attention when it comes to "all-time/HOF" considerations. Putting height and "rat" behavior next to that is nothing short of absurd.

To pit all of that against something as easily understandable, identifiable and valuable as goals is uh...well like I said...a ton of bad faith or severe ignorance.

So let's transpose your disagreement here to a different sport, the NBA.

My theory: "Steph Curry is a 'generational 3-point shooter' because he is so far above and beyond his peers in 3-pt shooting."

Your rebuttal: "Only LeBron is 'generational' because being really good at 3-pointers is basically like being really fat or getting a lot of technicals."

The world: "3-pointers account for roughly 1/3 of an NBA team's points in any game and efficiency at 3 is often what makes or breaks a game between two teams. How the flying f@#$ is that remotely close to being fat or getting technicals?!?!"

Idk. I could just explain the value of goals in the NHL but seems like this is some kind of blind spot for you, so hopefully the NBA analogy illustrates how ridiculous you're being here.

 

[hamzarocks]

The insight put into this thread is quite incredible. TDK88 I was wondering where you had gone to. Remember you being one of the best posters on the main boards.

There is another poster who has a similarish style to yours in terms of posting (actually thought you had made a 2nd account but one that was giving more hostile/angry opinions). The difference b/w these you and the other poster who also loves to mention /60 stats and EV stars is you made your thread seem much more open to discussion and are okay with people questioning some points/phrasing you used. The work put into the thread shows time spent and your not looking to put others down in the discussion bit rather just providing points which you believe are strong evidence to support your theory in Matthews.

I dont know if Matthews is a generational scorer, and I would not have put 17-19 matthews as the best goal scorer in the league (injuries really hurt him as did his deployment) but he is looking truly amazing right now and is scoring in so many unique ways that it's hard to believe.

Him and Pasta are the two best goal scorers in the league I think matthews is slightly better as before playing with marner he didnt have a linemates comparable to Marchand. Hopefully matthews can keep his dominance up and keefe continues to trust his main guys(34, 16, 88, 91 for forwards).

 

[Menzinger]

Terms like "generstional" and "franchise" are ultimately subjective, but regardless of how one interprets them, Matthews is in the top 1% of the top 1% of goal scorers.

Im still amazed at the (relative) lack of acknowledgement or respect he gets. Personally, im thankful every day he wears a Leafs jersey

 

[tmlms13]

debate="TDK88, post: 168968863, member: 270245"]First off, you could say "generational ____" for anything. Sure. But we're talking about goals. Not hits, puck retrievals, zone entries, slot passes, etc or any myriad of measurable skills. Which brings us to what I bolded in your comment.

One of those is not like the other...which points to either a very bad faith attempt at engaging with me or a whole lot of ignorance.

A "generational defensive forward" could not only (theoretically) be measured in a number of ways but it's a highly valued skill in a hockey player and is the kind of thing that will likely get Bergeron a lot of attention when it comes to "all-time/HOF" considerations. Putting height and "rat" behavior next to that is nothing short of absurd.

To pit all of that against something as easily understandable, identifiable and valuable as goals is uh...well like I said...a ton of bad faith or severe ignorance.

So let's transpose your disagreement here to a different sport, the NBA.

My theory: "Steph Curry is a 'generational 3-point shooter' because he is so far above and beyond his peers in 3-pt shooting."

Your rebuttal: "Only LeBron is 'generational' because being really good at 3-pointers is basically like being really fat or getting a lot of technicals."

The world: "3-pointers account for roughly 1/3 of an NBA team's points in any game and efficiency at 3 is often what makes or breaks a game between two teams. How the flying f@#$ is that remotely close to being fat or getting technicals?!?!"

Idk. I could just explain the value of goals in the NHL but seems like this is some kind of blind spot for you, so hopefully the NBA analogy illustrates how ridiculous you're being here.[/QUOTE]

yes not all best at ___ are created equal.... I'm not going to argue that. However,

The first (and maybe only) criteria for a Generational Player is that there is not 1 person in the league you would trade straight up for. That is not true with Matthews in 2020 or OV in 2009

Other than that it is just ___ player is the best at ____ in the NHL. That is a fine debate to have.

Edit sorry epic quote fail lol

 

[Stephen]

You can tell he's a generational goal scorer by the way he is.

 

[LeafsNation75]

Im still amazed at the (relative) lack of acknowledgement or respect he gets. Personally, im thankful every day he wears a Leafs jersey

I think that's because on the main boards the non Leafs fans like to bring up that in his rookie season he only managed 69 points and his new career high in a season is 73 points. However they always fail to mention his 40 goals as a rookie and finishing tied for 2nd in that category.

 

[Papa Cherry]

I don't think you should ever call someone a "Generational _____" You could call anyone a "Generational something" if you think hard enough...In hockey or in regular life.

Chara is a "Generational Tall Hockey Player" Bergeron is a "Generation Defensive Forward" Marchand is a "Generational Rat"

Matthews might be the best goal scorer in the NHL, that's a fine argument to have.

Lmao @ generational rat. I'd say it's fair to identify someone as a generational goal scorer since scoring goals is the only way you can win games, and the most popular players are definately the goal scorers.

Just watching Matthews play you can see he's unique, a player like him hasn't come around in the NHL before, much like how we've never seen a player like McDavid before. It's nice to see the advanced stats back that up.

 

[57 Years No Cup]

Finally Auston seems to be bringing it every game. He's getting there.

 

[Dragao6]

Just let the boy play

These things are only discussed when the career is over

 

[Duffman955]

Right now he is the best goal scorer no questions about it.

He doesn't even need a setup man to do it.

 

[Dayjobdave]

In 2004 OV was not considered Generational, neither was Matthews. Would you trade OV for Sid in 2009? Or Matthews for McDavid now? The answer is no. It is not possible to be a Generational talent unless you are unanimously considered to be the best player in the NHL

There have been 5 Generational Talents at their draft year

LaFleur
Mario
Lindros
Sid
McDavid

Those are the only 5 names that should show up on discussion about Generational Talents.

I loved Lafleur but despite the great story about Sam Pollock manipulating to make that pick number 1, Dionne had a better career.

Love Auston but let him win a couple of Rockets then we can agree he’s a generational goal scorer.

 

[93LEAFS]

Generational doesn't apply to an individual skill-set or position. Either you have the ability to be the best player in the league for a substantial period of time or you don't. Until Matthews wins a couple scoring titles, this isn't even a serious discussion.

Great player, but two things. He wasn't the best prospect of the 2010's (it was McDavid), and he hasn't put himself in serious Hart Trophy discussion yet in his career. So, in my books he isn't generational. If he can win multiple Harts or Lindsay awards I'll change my tune, but that isn't even a realistic discussion at this point. He's an absolutely amazing player. Probably the most talented player I've seen put on a Leafs jersey, but he isn't generational. But, neither were guys like Yzerman or Sakic, and I think we would all be ecstatic if he has a career that mirrors those guys.

 

[TDK67]

debate="TDK88, post: 168968863, member: 270245"]First off, you could say "generational ____" for anything. Sure. But we're talking about goals. Not hits, puck retrievals, zone entries, slot passes, etc or any myriad of measurable skills. Which brings us to what I bolded in your comment.

One of those is not like the other...which points to either a very bad faith attempt at engaging with me or a whole lot of ignorance.

A "generational defensive forward" could not only (theoretically) be measured in a number of ways but it's a highly valued skill in a hockey player and is the kind of thing that will likely get Bergeron a lot of attention when it comes to "all-time/HOF" considerations. Putting height and "rat" behavior next to that is nothing short of absurd.

To pit all of that against something as easily understandable, identifiable and valuable as goals is uh...well like I said...a ton of bad faith or severe ignorance.

So let's transpose your disagreement here to a different sport, the NBA.

My theory: "Steph Curry is a 'generational 3-point shooter' because he is so far above and beyond his peers in 3-pt shooting."

Your rebuttal: "Only LeBron is 'generational' because being really good at 3-pointers is basically like being really fat or getting a lot of technicals."

The world: "3-pointers account for roughly 1/3 of an NBA team's points in any game and efficiency at 3 is often what makes or breaks a game between two teams. How the flying f@#$ is that remotely close to being fat or getting technicals?!?!"

Idk. I could just explain the value of goals in the NHL but seems like this is some kind of blind spot for you, so hopefully the NBA analogy illustrates how ridiculous you're being here.

yes not all best at ___ are created equal.... I'm not going to argue that. However,

The first (and maybe only) criteria for a Generational Player is that there is not 1 person in the league you would trade straight up for. That is not true with Matthews in 2020 or OV in 2009

Other than that it is just ___ player is the best at ____ in the NHL. That is a fine debate to have.

Edit sorry epic quote fail lol[/QUOTE]

That's certainly...an opinion. A very hypothetical and intangible way of evaluating talent but you're obviously welcome to that way of viewing players.

Feel free to reread my original piece. The thought exercise here is much more than Matthews simply being the best current goal scorer in the NHL. He's scoring at rates so much higher than his peers that you have to go back at least 12+ years (to Ovi) to find comparable domination (or even further back if we're looking at his per 60 rates).

Do or don't call it "generational" if you want, but at the end of the day we're talking about a literal once-in-a-generation level of play from Matthews in arguably the most important facet of the game--goal scoring.

 

[BrannigansLaw]

Great goal scorer, not generational. Ovechkin is generational. Matthews is not even close yet.

 

[TDK67]

The insight put into this thread is quite incredible. TDK88 I was wondering where you had gone to. Remember you being one of the best posters on the main boards.

There is another poster who has a similarish style to yours in terms of posting (actually thought you had made a 2nd account but one that was giving more hostile/angry opinions). The difference b/w these you and the other poster who also loves to mention /60 stats and EV stars is you made your thread seem much more open to discussion and are okay with people questioning some points/phrasing you used. The work put into the thread shows time spent and your not looking to put others down in the discussion bit rather just providing points which you believe are strong evidence to support your theory in Matthews.

I dont know if Matthews is a generational scorer, and I would not have put 17-19 matthews as the best goal scorer in the league (injuries really hurt him as did his deployment) but he is looking truly amazing right now and is scoring in so many unique ways that it's hard to believe.

Him and Pasta are the two best goal scorers in the league I think matthews is slightly better as before playing with marner he didnt have a linemates comparable to Marchand. Hopefully matthews can keep his dominance up and keefe continues to trust his main guys(34, 16, 88, 91 for forwards).

Some much too kind words, thank you Also, I definitely left HFB for a while b/c of life so no alt accounts from me lol.

I get the hesitation to give Matthews too much credit without any hardware or huge goal totals. From my POV 250+ games of Matthews vs his peers is more than a sufficient sample size to say "this is who Matthews is" and "this is who his peers are". And during those 250+ games Matthews is scoring at rates so much higher than his peers that we have to dig decades deep to find that kind of domination. That's why I'm personally leaning towards calling his goal scoring "generational".

 

[TDK67]

Great goal scorer, not generational. Ovechkin is generational. Matthews is not even close yet.

I'm guessing you didn't read any of the actual deep dive. Thanks for the contribution.