Your thoughts: Auston Matthews' performance at WCH

[slozo]

You have nobody to be frustrated with other then yourself. You clearly missed the entire point of this thread based on this statement. Ill put it to you this way then since your struggling so much,

Lets say a 12 year old genius is advanced to the 12th grade and he is then taking an exam in grade 12 level algebra. Should this young genius be graded differently on his exam then the others in his class because he is younger and spent way less days in school?

Its clearly a remarkable thing that he was advanced this far and he deserves all the credit in the world, but when it comes to his testing or execution he is on a level playing field with all the others.

I can not really explain it anymore then that, I am not even trying to be an ass to you, I actually agree with you when you say Matthews should be praised for doing it without any NHL experience. All I have been saying this entire time is that when it comes to grading a players level of play on a given night or tournament then this really has no bearing.

And I am saying it's the entire point.
And whether the original publisher of this thread realises that or not is moot.

It's simply a fact: a kid genius, as in your example, will very correctly be seen as a SUPERIOR intellect than the normally aged kids in grade 12, even if they only have the 3rd or 4th best mark in the entire grade (and not far off from those other 2 or 3). That kid genius, when looked at from the sidelines, will be lauded as the A+ talent and future intellectual performer ... and they won't be judged in a "linear fashion" with their much older and more experienced supposed peers.

It's you who doesn't get it ... as you think you're the one that needs to explain. Anyway, I said I would stop, but I couldn't help myself as your example was so perfectly ironic.

 

[91Stammer*]

Man people can't accept that Matthews is great. The move McDavid pulled on Datsyuk was nothing but a lesson Matthews taught him against Finland. And even McDavid dropped his jaw when he pulled that move on Hedman and got a goal afterwards. McDavid was pretty much a black hole without Matthews but you can't say the same for Matthews as he was great with RNH-MacKinnon and Scheifele-Saad.

Wouldn't kill anyone to give credit where credit is due.

 

[Warden of the North]

A+

Theres nothing more I could have expected from him. He was a key cog in a team of his peers.

 

[Ropesman]

And I am saying it's the entire point.
And whether the original publisher of this thread realises that or not is moot.

It's simply a fact: a kid genius, as in your example, will very correctly be seen as a SUPERIOR intellect than the normally aged kids in grade 12, even if they only have the 3rd or 4th best mark in the entire grade (and not far off from those other 2 or 3). That kid genius, when looked at from the sidelines, will be lauded as the A+ talent and future intellectual performer ... and they won't be judged in a "linear fashion" with their much older and more experienced supposed peers.

It's you who doesn't get it ... as you think you're the one that needs to explain. Anyway, I said I would stop, but I couldn't help myself as your example was so perfectly ironic.

You probably should stop you really are making a fool out of yourself.

It does not matter what way the kid would be 'looked at from the sidelines' in anyway shape or form he would still score the same thing on the test regardless. The fact that he will clearly pan out to be the superior intellectual performer means nothing when it comes to what he scored on the test he just took. Which is exactly what this entire thread is based upon, Matthews play over the past 6 games at this tournament, nothing more nothing less. It is moot that you believe otherwise actually, because you are wrong.

I have already stated what 3 times that I agree that Matthews deserves credit for doing it without playing in the NHL. This in no way changes how he executed during the actual game. What is so hard about all that for you to understand "brah".

There is absolutely nothing ironic about my example at all, I have laid this out to you in literally a grade school level and you still cannot comprehend.

 

[BlueBaron]

And I am saying it's the entire point.
And whether the original publisher of this thread realises that or not is moot.

It's simply a fact: a kid genius, as in your example, will very correctly be seen as a SUPERIOR intellect than the normally aged kids in grade 12, even if they only have the 3rd or 4th best mark in the entire grade (and not far off from those other 2 or 3). That kid genius, when looked at from the sidelines, will be lauded as the A+ talent and future intellectual performer ... and they won't be judged in a "linear fashion" with their much older and more experienced supposed peers.

It's you who doesn't get it ... as you think you're the one that needs to explain. Anyway, I said I would stop, but I couldn't help myself as your example was so perfectly ironic.

Pretty sure we were asked to grade his performance and not his potential or how ahead he is of others his age. Yes those are all glorious things but your own example is flawed. I have never seen anyone get a higher grade on exam because they were special or smarter than everyone else, the grades are based on their test scores and the actual work they do.

I gave him an A because he was one of the best players in the tournament but he did not dominate the tournament and so I did not give the A+. I still love him and would not trade him for many players but at this moment he is not one of the best players in the NHL just as he was not in the World Cup, I absolutely believe he will be, and probably soon, but right now he will need to be content with just being one of the top young talents in the game and probably the best forward on the Leafs.

It is a bit strange you are so defensive about something so unimportant.

 

[taurine330]

Couldn't have gone any better. He was promoted several times in the line-up.

 

[ForSpareParts*]

Man people can't accept that Matthews is great. The move McDavid pulled on Datsyuk was nothing but a lesson Matthews taught him against Finland. And even McDavid dropped his jaw when he pulled that move on Hedman and got a goal afterwards. McDavid was pretty much a black hole without Matthews but you can't say the same for Matthews as he was great with RNH-MacKinnon and Scheifele-Saad.

Wouldn't kill anyone to give credit where credit is due.

Awesome post.

The WCH board (at the time) seemed to willfully ignore Matthews and give all the credit to McDavid. The guy couldn't finish until Matthews came on his wing.

McDavid is a pretty good player, but Matthews is special.

I think Matthews carries a stigma to hockey fans: 1. He's a Leaf, and 2. He's American. Both of these things he carries. If you thought the hate for all things Toronto was unwarranted, then wait until you see the nonsensical hatred for all things American come out.

Matthews is amazing and a stand out number 1 draft pick.

Our rivals are scared now.

 

[BayStreetBully]

You probably should stop you really are making a fool out of yourself.

It does not matter what way the kid would be 'looked at from the sidelines' in anyway shape or form he would still score the same thing on the test regardless. The fact that he will clearly pan out to be the superior intellectual performer means nothing when it comes to what he scored on the test he just took. Which is exactly what this entire thread is based upon, Matthews play over the past 6 games at this tournament, nothing more nothing less. It is moot that you believe otherwise actually, because you are wrong.

I have already stated what 3 times that I agree that Matthews deserves credit for doing it without playing in the NHL. This in no way changes how he executed during the actual game. What is so hard about all that for you to understand "brah".

There is absolutely nothing ironic about my example at all, I have laid this out to you in literally a grade school level and you still cannot comprehend.

Hockey isn't a math test. Math doesn't care about the potential of a test taker. Hockey does.

Would you give Auston Matthews and Sidney Crosby the same grade if they both score 60 points this year?

 

[Nithoniniel]

Hockey isn't a math test. Math doesn't care about the potential of a test taker. Hockey does.

Would you give Auston Matthews and Sidney Crosby the same grade if they both score 60 points this year?

I would. But then again, I believe that any grading should be done as clear from other factors as possible.

But I see your point. Expectations are a much larger part of evaluation in hockey than in a math test.

 

[Harambae]

yeah i was beyond impressed with him at wch. Close to A+ if he isnt. Him and mcdavid were probably the most eye worthy at the tourney

 

[Harambae]

A+

13th forward to McDavid's wingman in the span of a few games. Never played a game in the NHL yet. Most of his teammates have at least a couple seasons under their belt. A guy like RNH has 5 years in the league. Matthews looked great in every regard.

he was better than rnh no doubt

 

[Ropesman]

Hockey isn't a math test. Math doesn't care about the potential of a test taker. Hockey does.

Would you give Auston Matthews and Sidney Crosby the same grade if they both score 60 points this year?

I wasn't trying to compare hockey to math as a life long player I know its nothing close to a math test, I was giving the poster who was debating with me an analogy to try and make my point clear. Which is that when grading somebodies performance during an evaluation period in anything, past or future circumstances should not be taken into account.

To give both players a grade would entail so much more then just points. If Crosby had the better play in more categories then yes I would give him a higher grade that is the point. If all you are grading is how they played in a certain amount of time then potential, age, and experience really do not factor at all.

To be clear I am not taking away from what Matthews did at this tournament at all, I totally agree it was exceptional and something special. My only point is the OP asked to rate his play at the world cup, that's it. He didn't ask for his future potential or how he stacked up against his peers. So in that situation you grade the player on his play only, regardless of any other factors.

As I said before once a player is on a team it doesn't matter how you got there, everyone is equal until each player's level of play separates them. How many games of experience or potential hold no weight when you are grading how a player executed during a game. Nothing holds weight except how the player executed.

None of what I am saying has anything to do with examining which player is actually the better player overall or who will be the better player. An evaluation period should never take past or future circumstances into account.

 

[BayStreetBully]

I wasn't trying to compare hockey to math as a life long player I know its nothing close to a math test, I was giving the poster who was debating with me an analogy to try and make my point clear. Which is that when grading somebodies performance during an evaluation period in anything, past or future circumstances should not be taken into account.

To give both players a grade would entail so much more then just points. If Crosby had the better play in more categories then yes I would give him a higher grade that is the point. If all you are grading is how they played in a certain amount of time then potential, age, and experience really do not factor at all.

To be clear I am not taking away from what Matthews did at this tournament at all, I totally agree it was exceptional and something special. My only point is the OP asked to rate his play at the world cup, that's it. He didn't ask for his future potential or how he stacked up against his peers. So in that situation you grade the player on his play only, regardless of any other factors.

As I said before once a player is on a team it doesn't matter how you got there, everyone is equal until each player's level of play separates them. How many games of experience or potential hold no weight when you are grading how a player executed during a game. Nothing holds weight except how the player executed.

None of what I am saying has anything to do with examining which player is actually the better player overall or who will be the better player. An evaluation period should never take past or future circumstances into account.

I understand where you're coming from. There are two interpretations of thought. Hence the substantial number of votes for both A+ and A.

Grading aside, I think everyone agrees that he was phenomenal for his age/experience, and at the same time didn't light the tournament on fire like perhaps Crosby is doing- but wouldn't have been expected to do anyway. In fact, it would have been more likely that Matthews go scoreless and act as the team's 13th forward.

 

[Dough72]

McDavid is a pretty good player, but Matthews is special.

I think McDavid is still more impressive skill-wise. I think he does the high-speed stuff noticeably better, but even the slower stuff, which I think is Matthews comfort zone and where he shines, looks more impressive to me. Like those little shovel-passes to himself when he's at cruising speed, just out of the defencemans reach, are lemieux-like

matthews might have better vision, or hockey-iq, or something. I guess. But I'd be surprised if he ends up the more valuable player.

 

[Purity*]

McDavid vs Matthews is much closer than anybody on the main board would ever be willing to admit.

The trait that sets McDavid ahead is his ability to make plays at break-neck speed. Nobody else in the league has this ability.

As far as Matthews vs Eichel goes, Matthews might even be better than Eichel right now.

 

[Ropesman]

I understand where you're coming from. There are two interpretations of thought. Hence the substantial number of votes for both A+ and A.

Grading aside, I think everyone agrees that he was phenomenal for his age/experience, and at the same time didn't light the tournament on fire like perhaps Crosby is doing- but wouldn't have been expected to do anyway. In fact, it would have been more likely that Matthews go scoreless and act as the team's 13th forward.

No doubt about it, going into this tournament it was awesome just to see him on the team. I had hoped he would find a way to play his way up to maybe the 3rd line and have a good showing but man oh man, no way I ever for a minute thought he would perform at that level. Not this early in his career anyways. I have been trying to temper my expectations with Matthews just to give him as much room or time as he needs to become the player he should be, but he is making it hard lol.

 

[Gabriel426]

Remember the Sid Vs Ovie thing. I can see McDavid Vs Matthews now. Difference is McDavid is more flashily while Matthews is just solid all around.

 

[TheBigThree]

Definitely A+. I really don't understand the naysayers. Can someone really come on here and tell me they weren't impressed with his performance? Personally I knew he was good but WHC actually shocked me how good he is for a 19 year old rookie that hasn't played one game in the NHL. Remember these were the best players in the world he was facing.

 

[AvroArrow]

Nice to see the great one give him some props, but Matthews was FAR better than what i had hoped for. I really didn't know he was that damn good until the WC.

 

[Beaninfritz]

He gets an A from me. An A+ would be top player of the tournament, which currently is Crosby. But an A+ by that standard is hyper-unrealistic for him.

The fact he hasn't played a game in the NHL yet, and he's pulling plays like that... just... WOW. I can't believe we drafted someone of that caliber.

I am looking forward to this season for sure.

 

[Morbo]

You can't give him less than the highest grade. He turned 19 during the event and showed he was right there with the elite despite his lack of NHL experience.

 

[Willchel Marlynder]

You probably should stop you really are making a fool out of yourself.

It does not matter what way the kid would be 'looked at from the sidelines' in anyway shape or form he would still score the same thing on the test regardless. The fact that he will clearly pan out to be the superior intellectual performer means nothing when it comes to what he scored on the test he just took. Which is exactly what this entire thread is based upon, Matthews play over the past 6 games at this tournament, nothing more nothing less. It is moot that you believe otherwise actually, because you are wrong.

I have already stated what 3 times that I agree that Matthews deserves credit for doing it without playing in the NHL. This in no way changes how he executed during the actual game. What is so hard about all that for you to understand "brah".

There is absolutely nothing ironic about my example at all, I have laid this out to you in literally a grade school level and you still cannot comprehend.

Agree 100% which is why I gave Matthews an A. He came in and did more than what I expected, but when it comes to an A+ I think McDavid and Crosby get those ratings. Still absolutely crazy that Matthews can come in and be one of the top guys in the tourney at 19 and no NHL experience.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Matthews showed he was more than competitive on a top tier tournament, McDavid showed that he will make a claim of being one of the absolutely best sooner rather than later. Really don't agree with the sentiments that start to put those two together.

 

[johnny_rudeboy]

When you put together a team of the very best U-23 players from North America and he as one of the youngest shine as one of the brightest against the best players in the NHL you can not give him anything else then A or A+. He lived up to every expectation and more. So pleased we have him. It was all worth it.

 

[Daisy Jane]

I think honestly the Mc vs Matt debates should wait until they are both in the league for at least 4-5 years, because I do think McDavid needs to learn how to harness his speed to the NHL game for a bit like I heard an analyst say it and forgive me for butchering it up, but basically, McDavid is great now because he's McDavid, he has amazing speed, and can do all these things but at the same time he's like TOO fast for the game so there's that learning curve to do what he wants to do vs. Men and utalize that speed. once he figures it out (which could easily be this season), then he can use that as a weapon (and not get himself hurt like that Flyers hit).

Matthews needs to evolve his game in the NHL too and realise/decide what he wants to be. that all takes time.