Why is Auston Matthews considered a top 10 player?

[93LEAFS]

How come this argument is always used to support Matthews, but when I brought it up in the Nylander vs Ehlers debate it was always written off completely? Ehlers produced far more at 5v5 last year but Leafs fans insisted it didn’t matter and that all production should be looked at evenly? Funny how that changed now

Or are you ready to admit that Ehlers was far superior to Nylander last year, as the 5v5 numbers showed?

The reason it was ignored is that you used one season primarily as the example, and tried to say Nylander could only score on the PP. Nylander was never powerplay dependent in one year, and you ignored the fact Nylander was riding a ridiculously low oiSH% at 5v5, while Ehlers had one that looked unsustainable.

Funny how Nylander is outscoring Ehlers at 5v5 this year......

 

[GodEmperor]

Outside the top 15 in P/G.
Outside the top 50 in overall points (albeit a lot less games).
Doesn't include guys like Bergeron who will never be top of the league in points, but are likely first ballot HOF'ers and First team Olympians.
Doesn't include Dmen who are better.
Doesn't include goalies that are world class.

Matthews is an excellent young centre with the ceiling of being a top 5-10 player in the league over the next 4-5 years... at this time, he's firmly outside the top 25.

Missed 25% of the season.

Actually, nvm, that's obvious Leafs spin.

Carry on.

 

[GodEmperor]

How come this argument is always used to support Matthews, but when I brought it up in the Nylander vs Ehlers debate it was always written off completely? Ehlers produced far more at 5v5 last year but Leafs fans insisted it didn’t matter and that all production should be looked at evenly? Funny how that changed now

Or are you ready to admit that Ehlers was far superior to Nylander last year, as the 5v5 numbers showed?

I think they're close players, a tossup either way, not mad people prefer one over the other.

I think people responded that way to you because of your insane bias, Leafs obsession and Leafs bashing.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

He's on pace for right around 50 goals and 90 points but your right never again.

I mean ovechkin put up 50 goals and 109 points when he missed 10 games but Matthews misses 8 games and he may be lucky to hit 80?

He's on pace for 50 goals, yes. But he's on pace for around 85 points, and honestly it would be an anomaly for a 30+ year old player who hasn't broken a point-per-game scoring pace in three years.

As to your second point: I didn't realize that what Ovechkin did seven years ago had any bearing on who is the better player today.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Outside the top 15 in P/G.
Outside the top 50 in overall points (albeit a lot less games).
Doesn't include guys like Bergeron who will never be top of the league in points, but are likely first ballot HOF'ers and First team Olympians.
Doesn't include Dmen who are better.
Doesn't include goalies that are world class.

Matthews is an excellent young centre with the ceiling of being a top 5-10 player in the league over the next 4-5 years... at this time, he's firmly outside the top 25.

Exactly my thoughts, 100%.

 

[BruinLVGA]

He's 15th this year in points per games played (min 30 games), which can be couched a bit with the team's struggles and some injury issues. Last year he was 28th. So he's moving up that chart, at least.

But of course, being 2nd in the league in goals last year boosts it a bit, and this year he's still 12th overall in goals scored despite having maybe 25% fewer games played.

There are only 5 players who have more goals AND higher points per game (the top 5 goalscorers). And again that's with 30 games played vs 38-40 games for everyone else above him.

I'd say that's a pretty convincing argument, yes?

Why minimum 30 games? It cuts out Getzlaf - a player whose pedigree has been proved extensively - who is at 16 games & 20 points (=1.25 ppg) and Marchand who is at 29 games & 32 points (=1.10 ppg).

 

[93LEAFS]

Outside the top 15 in P/G.
Outside the top 50 in overall points (albeit a lot less games).
Doesn't include guys like Bergeron who will never be top of the league in points, but are likely first ballot HOF'ers and First team Olympians.
Doesn't include Dmen who are better.
Doesn't include goalies that are world class.

Matthews is an excellent young centre with the ceiling of being a top 5-10 player in the league over the next 4-5 years... at this time, he's firmly outside the top 25.

Lets look at the numbers since he entered the league and use 1000 minutes as the cut-off point for efficiency stats.

1st in Even Strength goals (and 5v5 goals)
5th in Primary Points at 5v5
10th in total points at 5v5
11th in P/60 at 5v5
4th in P1/60 at 5V5
1st in G/60 at 5v5
Tied for 4th in Goals
11th in Primary Points
23rd in Total points
10th in P/60
4th in P1/60
3rd in G/60

That doesn't look like someone firmly outside the top 25 to me.

 

[Foppberg]

He's not. He's an awesome player but playing in Toronto brings that bump in ranking. I forget where I read it but I remember reading a quote about the Toronto market which basically was "You're not as good as they say, and you're not as bad as they say." which seems pretty accurate.

 

[93LEAFS]

He's not. He's an awesome player but playing in Toronto brings that bump in ranking. I forget where I read it but I remember reading a quote about the Toronto market which basically was "You're not as good as they say, and you're not as bad as they say." which seems pretty accurate.

That is a quote that applies to all athletes, and didn't originate about the Toronto market. Its an off-shoot of a famous Lou Holtz quote.

 

[Foppberg]

That is a quote that applies to all athletes, and didn't originate about the Toronto market. Its an off-shoot of a famous Lou Holtz quote.

Fair enough, but it it does apply more so to big markets like Toronto than small ones like Arizona or Florida.

 

[93LEAFS]

Fair enough, but it it does apply more so to big markets like Toronto than small ones like Arizona or Florida.

Yeah, the original quote is this.

"You're never as good as everyone tells you when you win, and you're never as bad as everyone tells you when you win."

 

[g00n]

Why minimum 30 games? It cuts out Getzlaf - a player whose pedigree has been proved extensively - who is at 16 games & 20 points (=1.25 ppg) and Marchand who is at 29 games & 32 points (=1.10 ppg).

Because AM has played 30 games and you don't want to include guys who have a cup of coffee in the league (not that it matters when you change the stat filter). If you want to add those two other players it still doesn't really change anything. He drops to 17th which is so much worse than 15th, which goes from 1.03 to 1.05 or something.

He's also still top 6 in combined goals and goals/game.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Lets look at the numbers since he entered the league and use 1000 minutes as the cut-off point for efficiency stats.

1st in Even Strength goals (and 5v5 goals)
5th in Primary Points at 5v5
10th in total points at 5v5
11th in P/60 at 5v5
4th in P1/60 at 5V5
1st in G/60 at 5v5
Tied for 4th in Goals
11th in Primary Points
23rd in Total points
10th in P/60
4th in P1/60
3rd in G/60

That doesn't look like someone firmly outside the top 25 to me.

Boil down all this huge list of stuff and it becomes 3 things:
- 5vs5 performance stats
- performance per 60 minutes stats
- total points (the goals and primary points for me it’s just to make him look better. At the end of the day, a goal or a primary assist is worth the same as a secondary assist because at the end of the day they all lead to a goal for one’s team).

The problem is that the game isn’t exclusively played at 5vs5 and the fact that he gets his points playing on average 1-2 minutes less (18 minutes vs 19/20) than those who got more points in 16-17+17-18, doesn’t necessarily mean that he must be considered better than others.

Still, the best thing is total points and ppg. In that he is 25th & 22nd.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Because AM has played 30 games and you don't want to include guys who have a cup of coffee in the league (not that it matters when you change the stat filter). If you want to add those two other players it still doesn't really change anything. He drops to 17th which is so much worse than 15th, which goes from 1.03 to 1.05 or something.

He's also still top 6 in combined goals and goals/game.

I just thought that cutting out Getzlaf - not exactly an unknown “cup of coffee” guy - and Marchand for a whopping 1 game was not justifiable. That’s all.

 

[93LEAFS]

Boil down all this huge list of stuff and it becomes 3 things:
- 5vs5 performance stats
- performance per 60 minutes stats
- total points (the goals and primary points for me it’s just to make him look better. At the end of the day, a goal or a primary assist is worth the same as a secondary assist because at the end of the day they all lead to a goal for one’s team).

The problem is that the game isn’t exclusively played at 5vs5 and the fact that he gets his points playing on average 1-2 minutes less (18 minutes vs 19/20) than those who got more points in 16-17+17-18, doesn’t necessarily mean that he must be considered better than others.

Still, the best thing is total points and ppg. In that he is 25th & 22nd.

They really aren't. I'd expect the guys driving primary points are more valuable.

5v5 is simply more valuable that being able to produce on the powerplay. Matthews is also elite on the powerplay, but the way Babcock deploys his powerplay (which is 3rd best in that time frame) leads to fewer minutes than other superstars. Just looking at point totals and ppg is overly simplistic. P/60 is just as valid of an efficiency measure (when proper limits are put in place in regards to minimum minutes) than PPG.

You do realize if you compare Bergeron and Giroux primarily by point total measures over the past 4 years, the main difference between there production are the things Matthews doesn't grade out well in, which are secondary assists and pp totals.

 

[lomiller1]

The reason it was ignored is that you used one season primarily as the example, and tried to say Nylander could only score on the PP. Nylander was never powerplay dependent in one year, and you ignored the fact Nylander was riding a ridiculously low oiSH% at 5v5, while Ehlers had one that looked unsustainable.

Funny how Nylander is outscoring Ehlers at 5v5 this year......

LOL classic!

Last year Nylander has a ridiculously high on ice sh% on the powerplay but a low oish% at even strength. Ehelrs outscores him and all Leaf fans can say is "it’s his on ice sh%!!!"

This year Ehlers has more points once again but this time Ehlers has the low 5v5 oish%. Nylander has an unsustainably high 5v5 oish% but his Powerplay number has regressed as expected. Now the party line is "Mooore points even strength!!!" and 5v5 oish% apparently no longer matters.

 

[g00n]

I just thought that cutting out Getzlaf - not exactly an unknown “cup of coffee” guy - and Marchand for a whopping 1 game was not justifiable. That’s all.

It wasn't intentional, they just got filtered out via the NHL.com filter. Whatever. It doesn't change anything significantly.

 

[93LEAFS]

LOL classic!

Last year Nylander has a ridiculously high on ice sh% on the powerplay but a low oish% at even strength. Ehelrs outscores him and all Leaf fans can say is "it’s his on ice sh%!!!"

This year Ehlers has more points once again but this time Ehlers has the low 5v5 oish%. Nylander has an unsustainably high 5v5 oish% but his Powerplay number has regressed as expected. Now the party line is "Mooore points even strength!!!" and 5v5 oish% apparently no longer matters.

That wasn't the point I was making. But nice strawman.

I pointed that out to an extremely biased poster. Their situations have almost perfectly flipped.

Did I say Nylander was better anywhere in that post? I simply pointed out he has more 5v5 points this year, which was that posters primary argument in favor of Ehlers last year.

I'd also say, 16.6% on a PP over a given season isn't insanely high. It is above average. Insanely high would be over 18.5 or so.

 

[BruinLVGA]

They really aren't. I'd expect the guys driving primary points are more valuable.

5v5 is simply more valuable that being able to produce on the powerplay. Matthews is also elite on the powerplay, but the way Babcock deploys his powerplay (which is 3rd best in that time frame) leads to fewer minutes than other superstars. Just looking at point totals and ppg is overly simplistic. P/60 is just as valid of an efficiency measure (when proper limits are put in place in regards to minimum minutes) than PPG.

You do realize if you compare Bergeron and Giroux primarily by point total measures over the past 4 years, the main difference between there production are the things Matthews doesn't grade out well in, which are secondary assists and pp totals.

5vs5 points is more valuable than PP points, because they’re more difficult to get than PP points, sure. But 5vs5 points AND special teams points (PP & PK) >>> 5vs5 points OR PP points OR PK points, by themselves.

X/60 (where X could be points, goals, primary assists, etc etc) stats also doesn’t tell much of a story either in deciding who’s a top 5/10 player in the league, because one can’t absolutely expect that extending a player’s TOI by a few minutes would guarantee that the player would keep the same X/60. If that was the case, play any top player +20% of his current time, get +20% production, that’d be easy.

Total production is still king by far, IMO.

 

[BruinLVGA]

It wasn't intentional, they just got filtered out via the NHL.com filter. Whatever. It doesn't change anything significantly.

I am Swiss. Precision is in our blood...

 

[93LEAFS]

5vs5 points is more valuable than PP points, because they’re more difficult to get than PP points, sure. But 5vs5 points AND special teams points (PP & PK) >>> 5vs5 points OR PP points OR PK points, by themselves.

X/60 (where X could be points, goals, primary assists, etc etc) stats also doesn’t tell much of a story either in deciding who’s a top 5/10 player in the league, because one can’t absolutely expect that extending a player’s TOI by a few minutes would guarantee that the player would keep the same X/60. If that was the case, play any top player +20% of his current time, get +20% production, that’d be easy.

Total production is still king by far, IMO.

You can probably expect though that reducing a players minutes would guarantee less total points.

The efficiencies don't balance out. But, it is stupid to just look at one stat or efficiency measure. Which is why I produced a bunch. Including the totals and per minute.

Players get more PP minutes than Matthews is a large reason for the difference in total points (and secondary assists). Matthews is still the 14th most efficent player per 60 on the PP in total points and plays for a team that is the 3rd best PP team in the league. Why should I accept an argument that players who play on worse powerplays that aren't as efficient as him should be ranked above him on total points, just because they play more minutes on the PP than him when their teams are less effective at it?

 

[Oliewud]

everytime i watch matthews im blown away with his skill. he's atleast top 10.

 

[Dustin]

I think the main problem with assessing a top 10 player is that by the time you get to 10 there's a pretty fair argument for a lot of players.

I think 1 through 8 or so are pretty consistent. Most of the guys there are either players who have been dominant for many seasons and may not necessarily be this year or players like McDavid who won everything last year or a player like Kuch who is on his way perhaps to do the same this year.

Once you get past the usual suspects though it starts to get hard to evaluate young players especially if they play different positions and even more so if they have played a limited amount of games.

Matthews has been a pretty dominate player since entering the league. 2nd in the league in goals for his rookie season, Calder winner, numerous advanced stats such as 5v5 scoring and 1st goal of the game. He was having a decent year this year through the Leafs hard schedule before being injured as well. Certainly seems fair to me that there is an argument that the player who was second in goals scored last year to round out the top 10.

 

[BlueBaron]

LOL classic!

Last year Nylander has a ridiculously high on ice sh% on the powerplay but a low oish% at even strength. Ehelrs outscores him and all Leaf fans can say is "it’s his on ice sh%!!!"

This year Ehlers has more points once again but this time Ehlers has the low 5v5 oish%. Nylander has an unsustainably high 5v5 oish% but his Powerplay number has regressed as expected. Now the party line is "Mooore points even strength!!!" and 5v5 oish% apparently no longer matters.

Ehlers is having a better year this year. There you go. Now calm down. Ehlers is awesome, Leafs are shit etc etc.

 

[BruinLVGA]

You can probably expect though that reducing a players minutes would guarantee less total points.

The efficiencies don't balance out. But, it is stupid to just look at one stat or efficiency measure. Which is why I produced a bunch. Including the totals and per minute.

Players get more PP minutes than Matthews is a large reason for the difference in total points (and secondary assists). Matthews is still the 14th most efficent player per 60 on the PP in total points and plays for a team that is the 3rd best PP team in the league. Why should I accept an argument that players who play on worse powerplays that aren't as efficient as him should be ranked above him on total points, just because they play more minutes on the PP than him when their teams are less effective at it?

You know, when one talks about this level of players (top 20-30 in total points) I don’t think that 1-2 minutes more or less would make a HUGE difference in their output.
High points getters tend to have moments when everything goes well or dry spells and I doubt the difference a minute or two makes would be that big.
For example, Pastrnak in 16-17 had some 30 games where it felt like almost every shot was going in... then he went cold for 20 games where he couldnt buy a goal even with divine intervention. I don’t think that it would have changed much if a minute of TOI was added or cut in either situation.

I know you had a bunch of stats. I just said that many (five) were a variation of 5vs5 production, many (three) were about X/60 and that simply boils down to one thing for each (5vs5 and /60). It was like poutine with different toppings, but still poutine.

I see your point. Maybe it’s his coach holding him back with usage that could be better (for Auston’s personal stats), but at the end of the day, unless he does put up as many points as the others (via more PP usage, I would say), he will still be considered a little worse than those others, production wise. If he retires with say 1200 points and another contemporary player does it with 1400 because the latter got 2 minutes more a night including 45 seconds more of PP, you can rest assured that 1400 points guy will be probably ahead of Matthews in all standings. There won’t be a TOI or PP asterisk near any of them.