Why is Auston Matthews considered a top 10 player?

[GoJetsGo55]

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.

To be fair, Nylander only has him by 2 ES points this year while Ehlers was 17 ES points ahead last year.

 

[lomiller1]

That wasn't the point I was making. But nice strawman.
I pointed that out to an extremely biased poster.

IMO all you did was confirm that "biased poster" has a valid argument. He suggested that Leaf fans are not consistent and will move the goalposts and/or argue the opposite side of the coin as it suites them.
In your response you did exactly this, ignoring Nylanders elevated all situations oiSH%, trying to present it as "low" because it was low in one situation. You then ignore that his oiSH% in that exact situation is highly elevated this year when talk about his scoring 5v5.

Their situations have almost perfectly flipped.

And your argument flipped along with it, which is exactly what he/she was criticizing.

I'd also say, 16.6% on a PP over a given season isn't insanely high.

It’s 4 full points higher than league average. The "low" oiSH% at 5v5 you talked about is ~1.5 points below league average.

 

[BlueBaron]

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?

Are we not also near the bottom in total power plays?

 

[93LEAFS]

IMO all you did was confirm that "biased poster" has a valid argument. He suggested that Leaf fans are not consistent and will move the goalposts and/or argue the opposite side of the coin as it suites them.
In your response you did exactly this, ignoring Nylanders elevated all situations oiSH%, trying to present it as "low" because it was low in one situation. You then ignore that his oiSH% in that exact situation is highly elevated this year when talk about his scoring 5v5. Where did I make any argument for Nylander in this thread?

And your argument flipped along with it, which is exactly what he/she was criticizing.

It’s 4 full points higher than league average. The "low" oiSH% at 5v5 you talked about is ~1.5 points below league average.

Again, I made no argument. I simply pointed to the fact Nylander now has better 5v5 points, which was his primary point last year. I pointed to Matthews 5v5 numbers over the past 2 seasons, which are around league average for a #1 center in the NHL (9%).

If you follow stats (which I assume you do). A 1.5% difference at 5v5 makes a bigger difference on total points than an inflated PP totals, due to the amount of time and shots taken at each. Nylander's numbers probably balanced out roughtly. He was 4% above on 183 shots taken, and was 1.5% below average on 578 of shots taken. The difference is, his team should have scored 8.67 more goals when he was on the ice at 5v5, and scored 7.32 goals less on the PP. For Ehlers, the difference is 12.29 extra goals at 5v5 and is 5.34 fewer on the PP. If we are using the measures of 12.1% oish% on the PP, and 8.2% at 5v5.

 

[93LEAFS]

Are we not also near the bottom in total power plays?

In that time frame, we are 23rd in total PP opportunities.

 

[Psych0dad]

What's wrong with Blake wheeler lol.

Not a whole lot. Jack of all trades, master of none. Maybe a slightly unimaginative hockey mind and mediocre shot if you have to look for minor flaws.

 

[FerrisRox]

Why is Auston Matthews considered a top-ten, even top-five player already?

He's not.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

You have a great point. I think that Bergeron playing the entire 16-17 season with a sports hernia and also missing games this year with another injury had a severe impact on his points production.

Over the past 11 seasons he has a .73 Pts/GP. He was at .67 last year and .78 this year. He is what he is for production.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Over the past 11 seasons he has a .73 Pts/GP. He was at .67 last year and .78 this year. He is what he is for production.

So playing an entire season with a sports hernia (gotten while playing on the TOP LINE of team Canada at the World Cup of Hockey in September...) doesn’t impact one’s performance?
Do you think that it’s a coincidence that he had 10 points in 33 games till the Christmas break and in the second half of the season he got 43 points in 46 games?

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

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.

Except the further away you get from primary, the more you get into subjective points. Points often get awarded that are not actually points if you follow the rules.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

So playing an entire season with a sports hernia (gotten while playing on the TOP LINE of team Canada at the World Cup of Hockey in September...) doesn’t impact one’s performance?
Do you think that it’s a coincidence that he had 10 points in 33 games till the Christmas break and in the second half of the season he got 43 points in 46 games?

I think the fact he remains so close to his 11 year average tells me he is what he is and you are trying to make it seem like he is normally a more productive player when the numbers say otherwise.

 

[Mr Hockey]

 

[Kamiccolo]

But he's only average at best defensively. He is also at the top for PPG of those players. He is a premier two way C who's ceiling is a Selke and Rocket contender while in the frame of Lindros. So lucky to have him.

 

[BruinLVGA]

I think the fact he remains so close to his 11 year average tells me he is what he is and you are trying to make it seem like he is normally a more productive player when the numbers say otherwise.

Do you think that it’s impossible for a player to vary from his usual average, at all. Marchand until 14-15 had a high of 55 points and had never been above 30 goals. He is now a 35-40 goals and a ppg player. He also happens to play with... Bergeron.

 

[93LEAFS]

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.

I would think 82 to 100 PP minutes would make a fairly sizable difference considerign that would be a about a 1/4 to a 1/3 of a players overall powerplay time.

Do you think Giroux should go down as the better player than Bergeron. The gap in there PPG over their career is quite sizable, and most of it is driven by PP production and Secondary assists. I mean, Giroux has 75 fewer points in 237 fewer games. It is primarily driven by pp time and secondary assists.

I think in an era where so much information that wasn't previously available now is (ice-time based stats, possession, etc) it is stupid to think total points or ppg is the absolute trump card.

 

[member 262271]

He's a special player - so glad he's a leaf. I'm not sure what lists the OP is looking at but I would suggest to just stop. Besides, people's top tens are going to include biases - or who has the most points.

 

[Cleatus]

He may not quite be a top 10 player yet, but I’m having a hard time thinking of 10 players in the league I’d rather have on the Leafs right now...

In fact, I can’t think of any I’d rather have, and even though he doesn’t get nearly as many assists as a player like McDavid, he’s a better goal scorer and brings a style of play I feel is suited perfectly for playoff hockey.

 

[BruinLVGA]

I would think 82 to 100 PP minutes would make a fairly sizable difference considerign that would be a about a 1/4 to a 1/3 of a players overall powerplay time.

Do you think Giroux should go down as the better player than Bergeron. The gap in there PPG over their career is quite sizable, and most of it is driven by PP production and Secondary assists. I mean, Giroux has 75 fewer points in 237 fewer games. It is primarily driven by pp time and secondary assists.

I think in an era where so much information that wasn't previously available now is (ice-time based stats, possession, etc) it is stupid to think total points or ppg is the absolute trump card.

To be frank, Bergeron’s case is a very niche situation to compare against other players.
As a two way forward, he is generational. He will probably end his career with 6 or 7 Selke trophies. It’s not much fair to ask your Giroux/points question about him. You ought to ask the same question, but Giroux vs a two way forward with similar production to Bergeron, but not the absolute peak of this generation (if not maybe ever) in two way play.
If Bergeron was just a top 5-8 Selke guy instead of the three headed, two-way forward monster he is, and you’d ask me this question, I would pick Giroux.

You can and should look at all aspects, but at the end of the day for me, for a forward (and not someone who’s the absolute peak in one certain specialty for a generation or even all time, either), points production is still #1. Not all there is, but the clear #1 of stats.

 

[93LEAFS]

To be frank, Bergeron’s case is a very niche situation to compare against other players.
As a two way forward, he is generational. He will probably end his career with 6 or 7 Selke trophies. It’s not much fair to ask your Giroux/points question about him. You ought to ask the same question, but Giroux vs a two way forward with similar production to Bergeron, but not the absolute peak of this generation (if not maybe ever) in two way play.
If Bergeron was just a top 5-8 Selke guy instead of the three headed, two-way forward monster he is, and you’d ask me this question, I would pick Giroux.

You can and should look at all aspects, but at the end of the day for me, for a forward (and not someone who’s the absolute peak in one certain specialty for a generation or even all time, either), points production is still #1. Not all there is, but the clear #1 of stats.

Except you point to the Selke voting for Bergeron, which is voted for by the Pro-Hockey Writers Association. Using awards as a proxy. For two of those Selkes Giroux finished above Bergeron in Hart voting (2011-12 and 2013-14), who is voted on by the same association. I'd say putting more than 50% of weight on total points or PPG is absolutely ridiculous when evaluating players.

How are Giroux and Bergeron's production close? Giroux has 621 points to Bergeron's 514 since 2007-08. They are only close if you look at primary points. The gap between them is created by secondary assists, ice-time, and PP production.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Except you point to the Selke voting for Bergeron, which is voted for by the Pro-Hockey Association. Using awards as a proxy. For two of those Selkes Giroux finished above Bergeron in Hart voting (2011-12 and 2013-14). I'd say putting more than 50% of weight on total points is absolutely ridiculous when evaluating players.

How are Giroux and Bergeron's production close? Giroux has 621 points to Bergeron's 514 since 2007-08. They are only close if you look at primary points. The gap between them is created by secondary assists, ice-time, and PP production.

Please. It’s not only the 4 Selke. You are an advanced stats geek, you dont need me to tell you how dominating of a two way forward Bergeron was/is, do you?

I don’t follow you about that “more than 50% of weight...”. Could you clarify what you mean? I kinda lost you there.

I have not said that Giroux and Bergeron production is close. I said that if you want to ask your “Giroux vs Bergeron” question, you ought to substitute Bergeron with another strong two way forward with a similar production to BERGERON’S.

I tried to explain to you that that’s because Bergeron is a GENERATIONAL two way forward, possibly even the best of all times, and therefore it makes him such a niche example of a player to ask that question of yours. Meaning... how exceptional he is in what he does vs his peers <- that in my opinion makes him rise above the purely points production argument. He is just THAT special.

Now... If Bergeron was just a top 5-8 two way forward, then I would pick Giroux over him. Being Mr Selke / generational (or all time best) two way forward makes him overcome the lesser production in comparison to Giroux.

 

[authentic]

Toronto media doing Toronto media things. He will be a top ten player. Putting him there now is premature.

Any other examples of a Leafs player they severely overrated?

 

[besser]

LOL, have to dig to find something to make AM a top 5 player eh?

 

[leaffaninvancouver]

Please. It’s not only the 4 Selke. You are an advanced stats geek, you dont need me to tell you how dominating of a two way forward Bergeron was/is, do you?

I don’t follow you about that “more than 50% of weight...”. Could you clarify what you mean? I kinda lost you there.

I have not said that Giroux and Bergeron production is close. I said that if you want to ask your “Giroux vs Bergeron” question, you ought to substitute Bergeron with another strong two way forward with a similar production to BERGERON’S.

I tried to explain to you that that’s because Bergeron is a GENERATIONAL two way forward, possibly even the best of all times, and therefore it makes him such a niche example of a player to ask that question of yours. Meaning... how exceptional he is in what he does vs his peers p>

Now... If Bergeron was just a top 5-8 two way forward, then I would pick Giroux over him. Being Mr Selke / generational (or all time best) two way forward makes him overcome the lesser production in comparison to Giroux.

So why do points only matter when it comes to Matthews? He's a great player without the puck.

 

[besser]

Any other examples of a Leafs player they severely overrated?

Hmmm, can't think of any... cause Marner has been penciled in for 80-100 points this year, Matthews will get 50+ goals, Nylander is a lock for 85-90 points, Kapanen will get 60 points at least and Liljegren is the future top pairing D man of the Maple Leafs for the next 10 years starting next season, he's going to make anyone regret not taking him sooner in the draft

 

[BruinLVGA]

So why do points only matter when it comes to Matthews? He's a great player without the puck.

Because he isn’t remotely close to being generational and/or all time best. Bergeron is there or nearly there as far as two way forwards are concerned.

PS: and it’s not “only Matthews”. Replace him with any forward who isn't generational or close to it and that’s the same treatment.