Auston Matthews Scoring Peak (full season)

[Subway Schenn]

I doubt Matthews even hits 25 in his career.

One-trick pony.

If/when Marner is taken off his line, he won't sniff 40 again!

Only going to win the 'Rocket' this year because of the division he's in and a hot start/lots of PP time in a shortened season.

2nd liner on most teams in the league.

 

[Zybalto]

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.

Maybe some are on Matthews 15 recorded rebounds this year.....maybe some of McDavids are on his 14 recorded rebounds....

...but I wouldnt put much stock in using those numbers to disparage either of them. Looks like just another attempt to desperately explain away anything positive about Matthews possible.

One of us is arguing in bad faith here though and if you can't just admit that Matthews is a good playmaker (which he is) where can we go from here?


Oh, and Danault is a good little playmaker and top end defensive player. 5v5, he's actually 8th in the league for assists by a center and 4th in the league for overall assists/60 from a center this year. Why the backhanded slap at him?

 

[Zamknij kurwa ryj]

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

The inferiority complex at work here. Why are Leafs fans inserting Draisaitl into this thread now?

But since you did, it should be noted that Draisaitl's proven he's capable of driving his own line. He's also produced at a rate that Matthews never has come close to approaching.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

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.

That is exactly what was said. You're only altering the narrative now because the idea that "more ice time" was the only thing keeping Matthews from putting up the same point totals as McDavid is wrong.

It's also funny that you think my comment was directed solely at you. There are other Leaf fans who've made outlandish statements as well. Sounds like a guilty conscience to me.

As for the bolded, for someone who constantly cries about people taking personal shots at you, you certainly like to toss out insults every single time you get the chance. You've cried about reporting posts multiple times, yet you consistently say shit like the bolded.

 

[CatchyTune]

The inferiority complex at work here. Why are Leafs fans inserting Draisaitl into this thread now?

But since you did, it should be noted that Draisaitl's proven he's capable of driving his own line. He's also produced at a rate that Matthews never has come close to approaching.

yeah my post was the problem.

i'd like to see him produce away from Connor

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

60 is possible, but it requires everything to go right. Could that happen once in his career? Yes, but it's not a give.

 

[Dekes For Days]

That is exactly what was said.

If you're referencing me, which is what it appears, that's not what was said. The only remotely similar discussion was a discussion about their respective levels of production (not just "points") years ago, at time of signing their post-ELC contracts, but even then, the argument was never that Matthews would match McDavid's overall points. It was more about his goal and primary point production in comparison. Also, McDavid still gets more PP time, so your statement doesn't even make sense.

The claims that have actually been made through the utilization of more accurate and detailed metrics and tools like per-60 have overwhelmingly proven to be correct.

It's also funny that you think my comment was directed solely at you.

You made the comment when replying to somebody that was in a discussion with me, and you have a history of popping into discussions I'm in to make false claims about me, the statistics I use, and our past conversations, so of course it seemed like you were talking about me. Who exactly are you talking about? Because it seems like you're just creating strawmen again.

you certainly like to toss out insults every single time you get the chance.

I did not insult you. Your comment very literally did not add anything to the discussion that was being had, and even worse, it claimed something that was untrue - which has now distracted from the discussion.

 

[82Ninety42011]

He's capable of 70 sure but If I'm betting on it no I don't see it happening. Health will always be his Achilles heel and being a bigger guy he's only gonna get slower in a few years. If he's doing it he needs to do it soon.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

If you're referencing me, which is what it appears, that's not what was said. The only remotely similar discussion was a discussion about their respective levels of production (not just "points") years ago, at time of signing their post-ELC contracts, but even then, the argument was never that Matthews would match McDavid's overall points. It was more about his goal and primary point production in comparison. Also, McDavid still gets more PP time, so your statement doesn't even make sense.

The claims that have actually been made through the utilization of more accurate and detailed metrics and tools like per-60 have overwhelmingly proven to be correct.

You made the comment when replying to somebody that was in a discussion with me, and you have a history of popping into discussions I'm in to make false claims about me, the statistics I use, and our past conversations, so of course it seemed like you were talking about me. Who exactly are you talking about? Because it seems like you're just creating strawmen again.

Please quote the part of my original post where I mentioned you by name.

You're not the only Leaf fan I've had discussions about these things with. So when I responded to that poster, I was responding to his specific comment on time on ice and production from my previous discussions. You believing every response is directed at you is your issue, not mine.

I did not insult you. Your comment very literally did not add anything to the discussion that was being had, and even worse, it claimed something that was untrue - which has now distracted from the discussion.

Really? So telling someone they bring nothing of value to discussions (plural, since you said I do it constantly in these discussions) doesn't exactly sound like a compliment.

My comment was in fact on topic since it was about the topic of how well per 60 production translates to more raw production depending on ice time.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Slightly off topic but it’s a shame how the pandemic has interrupted career seasons for so many players. It’s like the lockout seasons although obviously a pandemic is a much bigger issue from a human perspective.
Would have been amazing as a hockey fan to see Matthews and McDavid get a full 82 game season and see what they could have accomplished. And it looks like the same thing next year.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Please quote the part of my original post where I mentioned you by name.

I never said you mentioned me by name. I explained some of the countless reasons why one would reasonably assume your false statements were about me, given the discussion you decided to pop into, and your history. Also, I'm not sure why you'd falsely accuse somebody of "altering a narrative" you admit they never had in the first place.

Regardless, I've never seen that argument being made from anybody, and it's weird that you refuse to identify the supposed source. One would not come to your claimed conclusion using per-60, so using whatever you're talking about against per-60 is illogical, especially considering that this "matching" of ice time hasn't even happened, and actual arguments that were made and substantiated while utilizing tools like per-60 have consistently proven true.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I never said you mentioned me by name. I explained some of the countless reasons why one would reasonably assume your false statements were about me, given the discussion you decided to pop into, and your history. Also, I'm not sure why you'd falsely accuse somebody of "altering a narrative" you admit they never had in the first place.

If different Penguins fan says "Sidney Crosby is the best player because he's won 3 Cups" and then someone questions the validity of that statement, I would still be guilty of "altering the narrative" if I then say "that was never said. What was said is Crosby produces well in the playoffs", even though I wasn't the one who made the original comment.

Regardless, I've never seen that argument being made from anybody, and it's weird that you refuse to identify the supposed source. One would not come to your claimed conclusion using per-60, so using whatever you're talking about against per-60 is illogical, especially considering that this "matching" of ice time hasn't even happened, and actual arguments that were made and substantiated while utilizing tools like per-60 have consistently proven true.

What's weird is that other people seem to agree with me, hence them "liking" my response, and yet you think it's never been said because you've apparently never seen it. So either I'm a really charming guy and people just like me for me, or it's been argued before and I'm not the only one that saw it. Take your pick which it is.

 

[Dekes For Days]

If different Penguins fan says "Sidney Crosby is the best player because he's won 3 Cups" and then someone questions the validity of that statement, I would still be guilty of "altering the narrative" if I then say "that was never said. What was said is Crosby produces well in the playoffs", even though I wasn't the one who made the original comment.

Given your track record when describing other people's arguments, the fact that you refuse to provide any evidence of this supposed claim being made, and the fact that the claim as you've described it is illogical, there are valid reasons to question your interpretation, especially when you are attempting to use it against valuable statistics you dislike, that never supported what you claim.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

Given your track record when describing other people's arguments, the fact that you refuse to provide any evidence of this supposed claim being made, and the fact that the claim as you've described it is illogical, there are valid reasons to question your interpretation, especially when you are attempting to use it against valuable statistics you dislike, that never supported what you claim.

You’re the last person on this board to be calling this out. You’ve described yourself to the T.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Given your track record when describing other people's arguments, the fact that you refuse to provide any evidence of this supposed claim being made, and the fact that the claim as you've described it is illogical, there are valid reasons to question your interpretation, especially when you are attempting to use it against valuable statistics you dislike, that never supported what you claim.

Prove it didn't happen.

 

[Dekes For Days]

You’re the last person on this board to be calling this out. You’ve described yourself to the T.

I didn't bring up anybody else's argument and then refuse to provide evidence of it. I didn't try and discredit valuable statistics based on things they don't even say. Not sure what you're even talking about.

Prove it didn't happen.

So... just so everybody is clear here... you came in and claimed that something was said, repeatedly refused to provide any evidence of it being said, and now you're demanding that I somehow prove that nobody has said it...

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

I didn't bring up anybody else's argument and then refuse to provide evidence of it. I didn't try and discredit valuable statistics based on things they don't even say. Not sure what you're even talking about.

So... just so everybody is clear here... you came in and claimed that something was said, repeatedly refused to provide any evidence of it being said, and now you're demanding that I prove that nobody has said it...

Instead of deking for days answer the question.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

You’re the last person on this board to be calling this out. You’ve described yourself to the T.

Even though the poster you’re responding to is on my ignore list, I have no trouble guessing who it is. Just by the ‘context’.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Instead of deking for days answer the question.

I have addressed everything in this discussion. If you had actually read it, you would know that there wasn't even a question to answer. If you're looking for somebody to answer something, perhaps ask Sid why he refuses to provide evidence of his claim. Or we could just get back to the thread topic, instead of senselessly trying to attack per-60 metrics (that weren't even being used), based on things that per-60 metrics never even said.

 

[Spirit of 67]

At this point, it seems ridiculous to suggest he doesn't have a 60 goal season in him.
How much more? Not sure.
I voted 60 but I think he will have multiple seasons between 55 and 65.

 

[BlueBaron]

Auston Pace Matthews

It's so sweet that you would use that lame disparaging comment the year he has basically already won the Rocket.

oh on pace boy won the Rocket...maybe pace indicates something after all? boy do those pace comment guys really look in denial now.

Thanks for playing.

I voted 60 but I try to be conservative.

 

[Madap]

If the powerplay operates at the level it should for a full season, I don't see why he can't get 65 goals.

I looked at Ovi's 65 goal season and he scored at just over 1/3 of his goals on the PP. I think Matthews will have to get a little bit closer to that rate, although he's not that far off as it is.

As an aside, I also looked at Stamkos' 60 goal season - only 1/5 of his goals came on the powerplay. He had 48 ES goals. Insane.

 

[authentic]

If the powerplay operates at the level it should for a full season, I don't see why he can't get 65 goals.

I looked at Ovi's 65 goal season and he scored at just over 1/3 of his goals on the PP. I think Matthews will have to get a little bit closer to that rate, although he's not that far off as it is.

As an aside, I also looked at Stamkos' 60 goal season - only 1/5 of his goals came on the powerplay. He had 48 ES goals. Insane.

That season is underrated compared to Ovechkin's 65 goal season. It was in a slightly lower scoring year as well as more ES goals. Also Ovechkin had 5 empty netters, but I'm not sure how many Stamkos had.

 

[Madap]

That season is underrated compared to Ovechkin's 65 goal season. It was in a slightly lower scoring year as well as more ES goals. Also Ovechkin had 5 empty netters, but I'm not sure how many Stamkos had.

Looks like he had 2 that year. Yeah in terms of just goal scoring they are pretty similar seasons and Stamkos probably should get more recognition.

But Ovechkin also had more assists than Stamkos as well, while having a worse supporting cast. I'm sure that's part of the reason why that season is regarded so highly (and deservedly so).

 

[WilyStyless03SHYla]

I say 70 LOL. its scary to think about