Auston Matthews Scoring Peak (full season)

[Zamknij kurwa ryj]

Matthews is something the NHL has not seen in the past 25 years. Safe bet.

Ovechkin and his actual accomplishments (not Matthews' imaginary ones) shits all over Matthews. So yes. Yes we have.

 

[The Moose is Loose]

Paces always fall over an 82 game season. 60 is unbelievably hard, only done twice since the the trophy’s inception in 1998.

One of those times was peak stamkos (and he barely hit that mark getting 60 exactly)
The other is a generational goal scorer having a career year (and dedicating every ounce of effort to goal scoring, not a great defensive year for Ovi)

People are seriously underestimating how hard it is to hit 60. Hell over the past 9 seasons Ovi and Draisaitl are the only 2 players to even hit 50.

over 64% of people voted for 60, which is definitely a mark I’d bet against if anyone wants to take me up on that.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Wrong - Rates from his game states after 44 games are being extrapolated to 82 games to surmise which is "more difficult", were Matthews to hit 65 goals. This assumes some linearity, otherwise how else is Matthews going to hit 65 goals?

We're talking about a hypothetical scenario here, where Matthews scores 65 goals in the current scoring environment and his current game state distribution. Nothing was extrapolated. Rates were not used. And for the record, Matthews has 62 goals in his last 82 games.

But since your entire post is based around rates, I guess I'll address your comments even though it has nothing to do with anything being discussed...

Quite honestly, every time I see a discussion with you I feel like I need to unpack a bunch of obtuse statements, to the point where I think you just try to willfully cloud the subject. Seems dishonest to me.

There was nothing "obtuse" or "dishonest", and nothing was "clouded". You just seemingly did not understand the conversation. People are so quick to attack per-60 with ridiculous arguments when they see my name that they don't even read the discussion apparently.

1. I excluded players under 200 minutes

But you're looking at single shortened seasons, so that's way too high of a cutoff. Really all you're doing is eliminating a ton of players for no reason...

I was trying to demonstrate that only an extreme few players are able sustain >4.00/60 on the PP above 200 and 300 minutes, unless they have grotesque S%, which almost always subside as minutes pile up

While it's true that smaller samples can lead to more variability due to things like SH%, Matthews is one of the few players that is able to sustain rates like that. There are no indications of unsustainability in his metrics. His rate over the past 543 PP minutes is 3.76 G/60, FYI, with a sustainable SH%.

2 & 4. Lmao 2 years ago when he was getting 1 minute less per game.

I mean, if anything, that shows that the rates aren't affected by his PP TOI/GP.

Then it jumped up to current levels last year and his /60 dropped which according to you is due to career low s%.

His G/60 specifically dropped, as his PP SH% hit career low levels, and his assists increased. He actually shot more on the PP relative to his TOI than he had the year prior, which doesn't really mesh with your whole narrative. There is some variation in any stat. You're connecting dots that don't exist.

In that case you should concede that the only reason the rates are as high now is because career high S%, yes? Last years S% was closer to his average PP S% than this year is

I mean, better SH% leads to more goals, all else equal, but as already explained, Matthews has maintained a very high rate for a while now, with a fully sustainable SH%. His PP SH% this year is very similar to two years ago and he's moving into his prime. Not really sure what you were expecting, but what's happening is pretty much exactly what you should have been expecting.

3. Because it's a rate based statistic. It's goals/time, so there is always a TOI impact.

The time is the same. To attribute any changes to TOI impacts is illogical and baseless.

Unless your Connor McDavid, rates generally regress toward the mean, so as TOI goes up, rates go down.

Rates moving towards the mean =/= rates going down. They could go up, down, or stay the same. It's dependent on the underlying metrics you're seeing. You can't just randomly conclude that rates will go down. In this instance, the underlying metrics are sustainable.

You've established that PP scoring environments don't change much year over year

I didn't say that. I said that the discrepancy between league scoring at ES and on the PP hasn't changed all that much.

which makes Stamkos a good example. This year he has 4.43/60 on the PP, in 136 minutes on a hilariously inflated S%. So is this the year he's going to see the best PP production of his career, or is that S% going to regress as his TOI increases like every other year and he ends up in his career 2.69-3.80 range?

As he plays more on the PP, Stamkos' SH% will likely decrease, as he's currently at a very high 26.3%, his previous career best is quite a bit lower, and he's 31. I'm not sure what you think this has to do with Matthews, who is entering his prime and is at a much more reasonable and sustainable SH%, that he's come close to before.

5. Based on what you said in point 5, the discussion seems to be dumbed down to taking Matthews scoring at ES x 82 games to derive 44 goals, added to 19 (in 82) on the PP for a total of 63. However, this is more impressive because he plays 3 minutes less of PP time, and only 1 minute more of ES?

No, that's not what was done or said. The discussion was about how league scoring environments differed between the two. League ES and PP scoring has increased slightly since Ovechkin's 65 goal season, but such a high percentage of Ovechkin's ice time was on the PP (where league scoring is higher) relative to Matthews, so the increase across eras was offset by Ovechkin spending more time in a higher scoring environment within his own era. As a result, the difficulty of scoring that Ovechkin experienced within that season was less than Matthews would in this hypothetical scenario.

It's always about usage and distribution with Matthews

Because this forum has a massive overreliance on raw totals, but at the same time, there is usually no consideration given to the factors that influence raw totals. So when somebody comes along that hasn't been spoon-fed every advantage imaginable like most players of his caliber, some refuse to accept the basic facts.

I remember the bolded discussions. Clearly if Matthews got the same minutes McDavid did, his raw production would equal McDavid's.

Oops.

That's actually not what was said, and intentionally ignores the trajectory that those players took since they were more similar than people wanted to admit, years ago. McDavid's rates have been higher for a while now. The funny thing is that you love to pop in and mock these discussions (while bringing nothing of actual value), but pretty much everything I have said has and continues to come true. So I guess oops for you, indeed.

 

[Buck Naked]

so during a “normal” season they’d play more inferior talent, you think that would cap him at 60? Interesting.

unless of course you think playing Ottawa 7 times is equal to Ottawa, Buffalo, New Jersey, Detroit, among other terrible teams that’d play more of.

Yeah, because Ottawa is the only shitty team in the North. You know he will also face a lot better teams when he gets to travel to the U.S. too, right? Boston, Tampa, Florida, Carolina.. 60 is absolutely his peak, he's not a better goalscorer than peak Ovie.

 

[Connor McConnor]

If Marner stays on his wing feeding him gifts the kid can hit 60 for sure. Would love to see him drive his own line though, seems like he had a hard time getting past 70 points when Babcock and Keefer thought he was good enough to do that. Also find it strange that he’s so bad on the power play. Leaf homers saying he is even close to ovi makes me want to throw up

 

[kmart]

cant draw any conclusions from this covid season, i cant see him hitting well above 50 in a normal season

 

[Eternal Leaf]

If Marner stays on his wing feeding him gifts the kid can hit 60 for sure. Would love to see him drive his own line though, seems like he had a hard time getting past 70 points when Babcock and Keefer thought he was good enough to do that. Also find it strange that he’s so bad on the power play. Leaf homers saying he is even close to ovi makes me want to throw up

It's going to be okay, let it all out.

 

[SkinsFan09]

When Matthews actually hits 65, and it happens in a season that is a lot closer to normal than this one has been, then we can have a conversation about who had it easier.

BTW though, OV did not have a linemate who was Top 5 in scoring and Top 3 in assists. That easily trumps any TOI argument you want to throw around.

Ovechkin outscored the rest of his team in 2007-08 by 43 points and 39 goals. His rookie year he outscored the team by 49 points and 23 goals. There is no "defensive play" or TOI debate to close that gap.

 

[Garthinater]

Paces always fall over an 82 game season. 60 is unbelievably hard, only done twice since the the trophy’s inception in 1998.

One of those times was peak stamkos (and he barely hit that mark getting 60 exactly)
The other is a generational goal scorer having a career year (and dedicating every ounce of effort to goal scoring, not a great defensive year for Ovi)

People are seriously underestimating how hard it is to hit 60. Hell over the past 9 seasons Ovi and Draisaitl are the only 2 players to even hit 50.

over 64% of people voted for 60, which is definitely a mark I’d bet against if anyone wants to take me up on that.

Good post.

Ovy had his 2 highest goal seasons during his 3rd and 4th seasons.

This is matthews 5th season.

It is possible this is already matthews' peak so I doubt he gets over 55 unless everything goes perfectly. Add on that he seems to get injured fairly frequently.


I'd say 55 tops.

 

[Garthinater]

5v5 primary assists/60 among the 46 centermen with at least 600 minutes played in the NHL this year ranking:

1. McDavid (tie)
1. MacKinnon (tie)
3. Danault
4. Marchessault
5. Draisaitl
6. Kopitar
7. Barkov
8. Matthews
9. Gourde
10. Zibanejad

Other notables:

12. Backstrom
14. Tavares
15. Crosby
16. Giroux
17. Scheifle
18. Barzal


Wow. For not seeing the ice well and being one of the main triggermen in the NHL, he sure seems to somehow pile up primary assists....
Run along now....

Back to the poll question, 60-65 is probably the answer. He's in his prime now and finally being played proper minutes after Babcock was released and it all depends on staying healthy.

Rofl imagine typing this out and thinking you are actually making a point.

There is a lot more to being a good playmaker than 5v5 primary assists. But I'm sure you already knew that.

 

[Zybalto]

Rofl imagine typing this out and thinking you are actually making a point.

There is a lot more to being a good playmaker than 5v5 primary assists. But I'm sure you already knew that.

Just watching him play you can see he's a good playmaker though. I just posted his primary assist rate to show that, despite his role as a triggerman, he has the vision and IQ to also be a setup man as well.

My post was in response to someone suggesting this wasn't the case. Just in case they havnt been able to watch him play, I just threw that stat out to show him what he's been missing.

Matthews is a pretty good playmaker. That shouldn't be a controversial statement.

 

[ricky0034]

65 goals is a safe bet. Matthews is just a freak goal scorer! I mean the kid scored 40 goals in the NHL at 18 years old in his rookie season! Who does that!

If he did not play for Toronto (with all the haters) he would easily be voted the 2nd best player in the NHL. No contest.

it's especially impressive that he managed to score 40 goals in the NHL at 18 years old when he turned 19 before his rookie season started

 

[Golden_Jet]

65 goals is a safe bet. Matthews is just a freak goal scorer! I mean the kid scored 40 goals in the NHL at 18 years old in his rookie season! Who does that!

He was 19, but I’m sure you knew that.

 

[Buck Naked]

Just watching him play you can see he's a good playmaker though. I just posted his primary assist rate to show that, despite his role as a triggerman, he has the vision and IQ to also be a setup man as well.

My post was in response to someone suggesting this wasn't the case. Just in case they havnt been able to watch him play, I just threw that stat out to show him what he's been missing.

Matthews is a pretty good playmaker. That shouldn't be a controversial statement.

I wonder how many of those primary assists are just other players scoring on a rebound from one of Matthews' shots?

Anyway. I guess Danault is a better playmaker than Matthews.

 

[ricky0034]

For example, in 2007-2008, the league average rate of scoring on the PP was 2.73 times higher than the rate of scoring at ES. Clearly illogical to ignore the impacts of that in a discussion like this.

meanwhile in the real world he still managed to put up 43 even strength goals that year which is almost identical to Matthew's even strength pace this year despite Matthews 1: playing in a higher scoring environment 2: playing a minute and a half more even strength ice time per game 3: having significantly more help from his teammates(Ovechkin had 75 even strength points that year to second place on his teams 44 while Matthews has 45 to Marner's 44 currently)

 

[authentic]

We're talking about a hypothetical scenario here, where Matthews scores 65 goals in the current scoring environment and his current game state distribution. Nothing was extrapolated. Rates were not used. And for the record, Matthews has 62 goals in his last 82 games.

But since your entire post is based around rates, I guess I'll address your comments even though it has nothing to do with anything being discussed...

There was nothing "obtuse" or "dishonest", and nothing was "clouded". You just seemingly did not understand the conversation. People are so quick to attack per-60 with ridiculous arguments when they see my name that they don't even read the discussion apparently.

But you're looking at single shortened seasons, so that's way too high of a cutoff. Really all you're doing is eliminating a ton of players for no reason...

While it's true that smaller samples can lead to more variability due to things like SH%, Matthews is one of the few players that is able to sustain rates like that. There are no indications of unsustainability in his metrics. His rate over the past 543 PP minutes is 3.76 G/60, FYI, with a sustainable SH%.

I mean, if anything, that shows that the rates aren't affected by his PP TOI/GP.

His G/60 specifically dropped, as his PP SH% hit career low levels, and his assists increased. He actually shot more on the PP relative to his TOI than he had the year prior, which doesn't really mesh with your whole narrative. There is some variation in any stat. You're connecting dots that don't exist.

I mean, better SH% leads to more goals, all else equal, but as already explained, Matthews has maintained a very high rate for a while now, with a fully sustainable SH%. His PP SH% this year is very similar to two years ago and he's moving into his prime. Not really sure what you were expecting, but what's happening is pretty much exactly what you should have been expecting.

The time is the same. To attribute any changes to TOI impacts is illogical and baseless.

Rates moving towards the mean =/= rates going down. They could go up, down, or stay the same. It's dependent on the underlying metrics you're seeing. You can't just randomly conclude that rates will go down. In this instance, the underlying metrics are sustainable.

I didn't say that. I said that the discrepancy between league scoring at ES and on the PP hasn't changed all that much.

As he plays more on the PP, Stamkos' SH% will likely decrease, as he's currently at a very high 26.3%, his previous career best is quite a bit lower, and he's 31. I'm not sure what you think this has to do with Matthews, who is entering his prime and is at a much more reasonable and sustainable SH%, that he's come close to before.

No, that's not what was done or said. The discussion was about how league scoring environments differed between the two. League ES and PP scoring has increased slightly since Ovechkin's 65 goal season, but such a high percentage of Ovechkin's ice time was on the PP (where league scoring is higher) relative to Matthews, so the increase across eras was offset by Ovechkin spending more time in a higher scoring environment within his own era. As a result, the difficulty of scoring that Ovechkin experienced within that season was less than Matthews would in this hypothetical scenario.

Because this forum has a massive overreliance on raw totals, but at the same time, there is usually no consideration given to the factors that influence raw totals. So when somebody comes along that hasn't been spoon-fed every advantage imaginable like most players of his caliber, some refuse to accept the basic facts.

That's actually not what was said, and intentionally ignores the trajectory that those players took since they were more similar than people wanted to admit, years ago. McDavid's rates have been higher for a while now. The funny thing is that you love to pop in and mock these discussions (while bringing nothing of actual value), but pretty much everything I have said has and continues to come true. So I guess oops for you, indeed.

This is just a merry go round of you thoroughly dismantling every single one of their arguments while they argue against things you never said or collectively agree with false counterpoints. Too funny.

 

[authentic]

cant draw any conclusions from this covid season, i cant see him hitting well above 50 in a normal season

Really? He had 47 in 70 games last season which is a 55 goal pace, and that included 20+ games with Babcock. Since Keefe took over he's scoring at over a 60 goal pace for close to 100 games now, and that includes a large chunk of this season playing with a wrist injury. Is there any good reason you can't see it?

 

[authentic]

Rofl imagine typing this out and thinking you are actually making a point.

There is a lot more to being a good playmaker than 5v5 primary assists. But I'm sure you already knew that.

You don't think 5v5 primary assists are the biggest aspect of playmaking? 80% of the game is played 5v5 and a primary assist is clearly more valuable than a secondary assist. On top of being hands down the best goal scorer that definitely says a lot about his playmaking ability.

 

[AvroArrow]

If Marner stays on his wing feeding him gifts the kid can hit 60 for sure. Would love to see him drive his own line though, seems like he had a hard time getting past 70 points when Babcock and Keefer thought he was good enough to do that. Also find it strange that he’s so bad on the power play. Leaf homers saying he is even close to ovi makes me want to throw up

You forgot to add at the end

 

[Amadeus]

55-60 can be easily expected health permitting over a 82 game schedule.

The crazy thing is that if our PP was half decent in the March stretch and right now, he would have had even more than he has now.

 

[McVespa99]

47

 

[Rhaegar Targaryen]

55-60 can be easily expected health permitting over a 82 game schedule.

The crazy thing is that if our PP was half decent in the March stretch and right now, he would have had even more than he has now.

And if the PP wasn’t playing at an unsustainable 40% in the first month of the season, Matthews probably has less.

All in all, the PP ranks like 10th.

 

[Yackiberg8]

Is 30 goals the answer you wanted to choose?

I doubt Matthews even hits 25 in his career.

 

[CatchyTune]

If Marner stays on his wing feeding him gifts the kid can hit 60 for sure. Would love to see him drive his own line though, seems like he had a hard time getting past 70 points when Babcock and Keefer thought he was good enough to do that. Also find it strange that he’s so bad on the power play. Leaf homers saying he is even close to ovi makes me want to throw up

funny you say, i'd like to see a certain German guy do that

 

[Dekes For Days]

meanwhile in the real world he still managed to put up 43 even strength goals that year which is almost identical to Matthew's even strength pace this year

I'm not really sure what your point is. Never said he wasn't a great goal-scorer, and never said that wasn't an amazing year for him. It's just not some unmatchable mark, and there are factors that helped Ovechkin set that mark, that can't be ignored to suit a narrative.

If people want to believe that particular year would be more impressive due to linemates, that's one thing, but that doesn't excuse people making false claims about the scoring environment that Ovechkin dealt with, to prop him up.