Rants Mulliniks
Registered User
- Jun 22, 2008
- 23,174
- 6,221
So there’s been much debate about Matthews and how his goal scoring ability compares to other well known goal scorers. People like to get all twisted up in “pace” arguments, games played etc. They’ll argue things like “he is just now barely better than a 36 year old OV, nowhere close to OV when he was younger”. Recently he hit the 250 goal mark. A bit of a milestone in that it is about 1/3 of the way to the top of the heap (not exact but close).
At the moment, I am just going to do this versus OV but when I get a bit more time, I will do it versus folks like Stamkos and Kovalchuk (who he also been compared to). Without further ado, here’s the numbers on the road to 250.
Age at which they reached 250 goals: Matthews 24 vs OV 24. Interesting fact, both were born on the exact same day, September 17. This is kind of nice because it eliminates arguments people may have around age.
Verdict: No advantage.
Games Played: Matthews 397 vs OV 366. It took Matthews 8% more games played to get to 250.
Verdict: Advantage OV.
Total Time On Ice: Matthews 7705:17 vs OV 8095:43. It took OV 390:26 more minutes of playing time to hit 250 or 5% more. For the record 390:26 equates to an extra 20 GP vs Matthews (using Matthews average TOI over that period).
Verdict: Advantage Matthews.
Non-PP TOI and Non-PP Goals : I didn’t bother to break out any shorthanded time as both played so little. If anyone feels like it, fine, go ahead. Matthews played 6616:46 minutes and scored 189 goals versus OV playing 6001:57 and scoring 163 goals. This means that Matthews scored a goal every 2100.56 seconds he played versus OV scoring a goal every 2209.31 seconds he played.
Verdict: Advantage Matthews.
PP TOI and PP Goals: Matthews played 1088:31 minutes on the PP and scored 61 goals versus OV playing 2093:46 minutes on the PP and scoring 87 goals. This means that Matthews scored a PP goal for every 1070.67 seconds he played versus OV scoring a goal every 1443.98 seconds he played.
Verdict: Advantage Matthews.
Obviously, there’s all kinds of things people will look to throw into the mix such as linemates, goaltending, scoring eras etc. I think what is nice about presenting it this way is it eliminates all the moaning that was heard about “pace” and such. Literally nothing but raw numbers. Ultimately it looks like on the road to 250, we can pretty clearly say Matthews was more proficient across the board, no matter what the game state. What we can’t say is what would have happened with the extra time. Basically the only thing OV did better (in terms of goal scoring) was getting more ice time.
Now obviously, what is most impressive about OV is his ability to stay great for a long time as well as healthy. Jury is 100% out on this bit for Matthews. What we know is that to the age of 24, Matthews has been the more proficient scorer while OV has the better raw totals due to TOI. Here’s looking forward to seeing what the next 6 years brings! It will be interesting to see if Matthews gets a full year next year and maintains his production. If he does, he stands to make up a fair bit of the raw total difference as this was the year OV first “slumped”.
As mentioned, when I have a bit more time I will crunch the stats on others like Stamkos and Kovalchuk.
At the moment, I am just going to do this versus OV but when I get a bit more time, I will do it versus folks like Stamkos and Kovalchuk (who he also been compared to). Without further ado, here’s the numbers on the road to 250.
Age at which they reached 250 goals: Matthews 24 vs OV 24. Interesting fact, both were born on the exact same day, September 17. This is kind of nice because it eliminates arguments people may have around age.
Verdict: No advantage.
Games Played: Matthews 397 vs OV 366. It took Matthews 8% more games played to get to 250.
Verdict: Advantage OV.
Total Time On Ice: Matthews 7705:17 vs OV 8095:43. It took OV 390:26 more minutes of playing time to hit 250 or 5% more. For the record 390:26 equates to an extra 20 GP vs Matthews (using Matthews average TOI over that period).
Verdict: Advantage Matthews.
Non-PP TOI and Non-PP Goals : I didn’t bother to break out any shorthanded time as both played so little. If anyone feels like it, fine, go ahead. Matthews played 6616:46 minutes and scored 189 goals versus OV playing 6001:57 and scoring 163 goals. This means that Matthews scored a goal every 2100.56 seconds he played versus OV scoring a goal every 2209.31 seconds he played.
Verdict: Advantage Matthews.
PP TOI and PP Goals: Matthews played 1088:31 minutes on the PP and scored 61 goals versus OV playing 2093:46 minutes on the PP and scoring 87 goals. This means that Matthews scored a PP goal for every 1070.67 seconds he played versus OV scoring a goal every 1443.98 seconds he played.
Verdict: Advantage Matthews.
Obviously, there’s all kinds of things people will look to throw into the mix such as linemates, goaltending, scoring eras etc. I think what is nice about presenting it this way is it eliminates all the moaning that was heard about “pace” and such. Literally nothing but raw numbers. Ultimately it looks like on the road to 250, we can pretty clearly say Matthews was more proficient across the board, no matter what the game state. What we can’t say is what would have happened with the extra time. Basically the only thing OV did better (in terms of goal scoring) was getting more ice time.
Now obviously, what is most impressive about OV is his ability to stay great for a long time as well as healthy. Jury is 100% out on this bit for Matthews. What we know is that to the age of 24, Matthews has been the more proficient scorer while OV has the better raw totals due to TOI. Here’s looking forward to seeing what the next 6 years brings! It will be interesting to see if Matthews gets a full year next year and maintains his production. If he does, he stands to make up a fair bit of the raw total difference as this was the year OV first “slumped”.
As mentioned, when I have a bit more time I will crunch the stats on others like Stamkos and Kovalchuk.