Who is the 10th Best Centre?

[LeafsNation75]

years ago an avs fans posted a link in our thread to get duchene voted over hall in a poll. mods stepped in and advised that it was not allowed as it was not a fair distribution of the statistics and a revote was done in which hall won.

this isnt the first time this has happened, and it wont be the last

I honestly did not know about that, however for some reason that did not happen this time and it's not like there is a way to prevent it from happening.

 

[SotasicA]

There are nine 20 year olds better than Matthews?

I liked your post, but then quickly also realised "Top 10" just means "1-10, but not lower."

Matthews IS a top-10 20-year-old hockey player. Fact. Not ten same age players better than him.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

If that happens I have no problems voting for Matthews because take away that game the numbers still show Matthews has been the better player than Getzlaf this season.

Well you are the poster that said you are voting for Mathews every time until his name is no longer on the ballot once Crosby was off the table.

 

[LeafsNation75]

Well you are the poster that said you are voting for Mathews every time until his name is no longer on the ballot once Crosby was off the table.

At least I'm not shy about my bias.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

What are you waiting for?

Go start it up.

I have Matthews at #11 so really it would only be of mild interest to me. More fun than anything. But when Ducks fans find out about the call to vote on the Leafs board to stuff the ballots for Matthews. Maybe one of them will press the revolt/vote button.

 

[LeafsNation75]

I have Matthews at #11 so really it would only be of mild interest to me. More fun than anything. But when Ducks fans find out about the call to vote on the Leafs board to stuff the ballots for Matthews. Maybe one of them will press the revolt/vote button.

So is that why we have not seen the question asking who the 11th best centre is? I don't think people will change their votes.

 

[eternalbedhead]

So is that why we have not seen the question asking who the 11th best centre is? I don't think people will change their votes.

The poll ended this morning. Don't hold your breath.

 

[a mangy Meowth]

The poll ended this morning. Don't hold your breath.

And the results are illegitimate lol

 

[Lovedemfanboys]

This thread is weird. I appreciate all the passion but seriously guys, this is a poll on some hockey forum.. Some are celebrating like they just won Stanley Cup and the other want rematch??? After obvious ones, the whole ranking really comes down to personal preference.

 

[LeafsNation75]

And the results are illegitimate lol

Right or wrong there was no warning about posting a link to the question on another teams board.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

And the results are illegitimate lol

why? polls are open to everyone

 

[firstemperor]

I don't think having Matthews as the 10th best center is out landish at all. I had him at #11.

I just think the way in which he won this poll was a bit sad.

Honestly, I think he should have went earlier. I don't think you realize how many posters regularly vote against the Leafs in these polls. Anyways, moving on.

 

[SotasicA]

This thread is weird. I appreciate all the passion but seriously guys, this is a poll on some hockey forum.. Some are celebrating like they just won Stanley Cup and the other want rematch??? After obvious ones, the whole ranking really comes down to personal preference.

Especially when Matthews nor Getzlaf are the best players in the poll.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Oh I understand you. I said he might just settle in as a ppg player, I never said he was one. You are the one who felt the need to make the irrelevant contribution. I was talking about the future, not the past, not the present. Why you feel the need to explain these things when you are the one not following is amusing but very unneeded.

I will simplify...

"May just settle in as a point a player 40 goal centre" does not mean "is a point a game player."

This is what you said:
"His goal scoring numbers are pretty special but hey, maybe he has piqued and will just always be a point a game 40 goal guy. I'm not calling him generational so I have no desire to argue with you about it."

Now follow this logic...

1. You wrote "maybe he has piqued" (I assume that you meant "peaked", because "piqued" truly doesn't make sense in this phrase. Also, if one uses "peaked", the rest of the phrase makes perfect sense).

2. If one has peaked, that means that he reached the absolute highest point he can in whatever thing he peaked (in this case, ppg + goals production). Literally, a peak is the summit of something, there's nothing above it but air.

3. You then proceeded to describe what that already achieved (HAS piqued) "peak" (= absolute highest point) was: "and will just always be a point a game 40 goals guy".

4. If he will be a "point a game 40 goals guy" from now on, then he couldn't possibly have peaked in that 40 goals season (which is the performance that you are using to say that maybe he has peaked), because in that 40 goals season he was at 0.84 ppg, not 1.00 ppg. Having a full season or thereabouts at ppg, would be a higher points totals than the 69 points season he had in 16-17.

So... Saying that if he has already peaked, he would just stay a ppg, 40 goals player is factually WRONG.
If he already peaked, he is at maximum best a 0.84 ppg player... not a 1.00 ppg player...
So the point is valid and perfectly stands: if you want to say that if Matthews peaked, he would remain a ppg player, wait until Matthews actually puts up a season where he is ppg. Then such a statement would be correct and factual. Which is what I have been repeating over and over. It is not rocket science, is it?

PS: for your phrase to be correct, you should have said something like "maybe he will peak, and then remain, at 40 goals / ppg". Not "has peaked". He hasn't peaked anywhere near ppg just yet.

 

[BlueBaron]

This is what you said:
"His goal scoring numbers are pretty special but hey, maybe he has piqued and will just always be a point a game 40 goal guy. I'm not calling him generational so I have no desire to argue with you about it."

Now follow this logic...

1. You wrote "maybe he has piqued" (I assume that you meant "peaked", because "piqued" truly doesn't make sense in this phrase. Also, if one uses "peaked", the rest of the phrase makes perfect sense).

2. If one has peaked, that means that he reached the absolute highest point he can in whatever thing he peaked (in this case, ppg + goals production). Literally, a peak is the summit of something, there's nothing above it but air.

3. You then proceed to describe what that already achieved (HAS piqued) "peak" (= absolute highest point) was: "and will just always be a point a game 40 goals guy".

4. If he will be a "point a game 40 goals guy" from now on, then he couldn't possibly have peaked in that 40 goals season (which is the performance that you are using to say that maybe he has peaked), because in that 40 goals season he was at 0.84 ppg, not 1.00 ppg. Having a full season or thereabouts at ppg, would be a higher points totals than the 69 points season he had in 16-17.

So... Saying that if he has already peaked, he would just stay a ppg, 40 goals player is factually WRONG.
If he already peaked, he is at maximum best a 0.84 ppg player... not a 1.00 ppg player...
So the point is valid and perfectly stands: if you want to say that if Matthews peaked, he would remain a ppg player, wait until Matthews actually puts up a season where he is ppg. Then such a statement would be correct and factual. Which is what I have been repeating over and over. It is not rocket science, is it?

PS: for your phrase to be correct, you should have said something like "maybe he will peak, and then remain, at 40 goals / ppg". Not "has peaked".

OMG, so petty. I guess I was also saying he has 40 goals this year too right? You're better than this.

 

[BruinLVGA]

OMG, so petty. I guess I was also saying he has 40 goals this year too right? You're better than this.

"OMG so petty" = "yeah, you are right, my bad"... You are welcome.

I already explained to you what you were saying.
Maybe next time take a minute to review what you wrote and see if things check out.
After all, "Matthews & ppg player" doesn't have a ring of truth to it, right? Nor does "has peaked" = somehow mean that 0.84 ppg gets magically transformed into 1.00 ppg. Nice rounding up of numbers you were doing there, champ.

 

[BlueBaron]

"OMG so petty" = "yeah, you are right, my bad"... You are welcome.

I already explained to you what you were saying.
Maybe next time take a minute to review what you wrote and see if things check out.
After all, "Matthews & ppg player" doesn't have a ring of truth to it, right? Nor does "has peaked" = somehow mean that 0.84 ppg gets magically transformed into 1.00 ppg. Nice rounding up of numbers you were doing there, champ.

I doubt I will waste any more time with this kind of petty bullshit. You knew what I was trying to say and turned it into some sort of Federal case for god knows what reason. Congrats, you proved to me and everyone that Matthews is not a point a game player, had no idea. Tell all your friends.

 

[BruinLVGA]

I doubt I will waste any more time with this kind of petty bull****. You knew what I was trying to say and turned it into some sort of Federal case for god knows what reason. Congrats, you proved to me and everyone that Matthews is not a point a game player, had no idea. Tell all your friends.

All you needed to do was to be a stand up guy and admit that you tried to sell something for what it wasn't. It took forever to put you in front of the facts + for you to admit to them and even then, you still can't just own up to it.

In this thread, I made an honest mistake on something else and was corrected. I simply said "you're right, I was wrong, I took data from the wrong column. My bad". You on the other hand, kept trying to peddle your BS for ever. Man up next time.

 

[Quiet Jack]

So recently we had a thread about McDavid scoring 4 goals in a game locked because of Leafs fans. There was also a Draisaitl thread locked because of Leafs fans. And now, somehow, Matthews is the 10th best center in the league (must be because of his prolific point totals and loose puck retrievals) because of Leafs fans. Am I missing anything ?

 

[Maplebeasts]

Congratulations Leafs fans. After all your hard work you have managed to get your generational centre voted in at #10. Was it really worth skewing the results?

Was it really worth whining over? Grow up and get something better to do than complain on a forum.

 

[Maplebeasts]

Holy ****, how insecure can a fan base be?

About as insecure as you salty bunch whining about him winning a f***ing internet poll.

 

[SHANNYPLAN]

Wow, some of these comments are insane, wasn’t aware that these were taken so seriously or that they spread to other boards, guess my polls were a success

 

[Master P]

About as insecure as you salty bunch whining about him winning a ****ing internet poll.

Consider that nerve touched.

 

[a mangy Meowth]

Guys look, nobody cares about these polls, whenever they're brought up as proof, they are laughed at and aren't considered evidence of anything - and they shouldn't be. But it's not salty to call you guys on your bullshit vote brigading. The other centers (Getzlaf, Barkov, Seguin, Eichel) didn't get threads in their subforums rallying posters to vote for them. The Leafs DEMONSTRABLY did exactly that for Matthews.

Feel free to feel good and pat yourselves on the back for having the #10 voted center on HFBoards. Just know that you guys are the ones that voted him into that spot. I think you all are well aware of what happened in this poll and why Matthews won. And it wasn't because, as an aggregate, HFBoards posters from around the league thought he deserved the spot. He's close, and arguably could be the #10 center in reality. But the poll is questionable at best. That's all. By all means think whatever you want though.

 

[a mangy Meowth]

And I'm still waiting for that proof of anti-Leafs conspiracy guys. Several posters made strong claims and then nobody showed any evidence when asked. The offer still stands for you to argue your case though.