Barkov vs Matthews

[Sidney the Kidney]

I wonder when the day will be where the NHL decides that per60 will replace all actual production records.

"He didn't come close to beating Wayne Gretzky's 92 goals, but his per60 goals were higher than Gretzky's, so I guess that's one record broken".

 

[TheDoldrums]

I wonder when the day will be where the NHL decides that per60 will replace all actual production records.

"He didn't come close to beating Wayne Gretzky's 92 goals, but his per60 goals were higher than Gretzky's, so I guess that's one record broken".

Baseball gives out an award for the batting title every year based on the highest batting average, even though it's been proven that on-base percentage is more valuable. Deciding what stats matter based on which ones the league commemorates seems pretty foolish. Records are to uphold traditions, they're designed to stay constant. On the other hand statistical analysis should always be looking forward for better ways to capture value.

If you adjust for era, Brett Hull, Ovechkin and Mario all had goal scoring seasons more impressive than Gretzky's anyways.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Baseball gives out an award for the batting title every year based on the highest batting average, even though it's been proven that on-base percentage is more valuable. Deciding what stats matter based on which ones the league commemorates seems pretty foolish. Records are to uphold traditions, they're designed to stay constant. On the other hand statistical analysis should always be looking forward for better ways to capture value.

If you adjust for era, Brett Hull, Ovechkin and Mario all had goal scoring seasons more impressive than Gretzky's 92 anyways.

The problem with these per 60 stats is they don't account for what those extra minutes are. Like I said earlier in the thread, Barkov playing more minutes than Matthews will lower his per60 average because a lot of those minutes are the extra defensive zone shifts he gets.

I also think people who use per 60 stats do so because they currently favor their guy. If Matthews produces more actual points next year, but his per 60 numbers go down, I'm guessing Leaf fans will discard ever bringing up the stat again.

 

[TheDoldrums]

The problem with these per 60 stats is they don't account for what those extra minutes are. Like I said earlier in the thread, Barkov playing more minutes than Matthews will lower his per60 average because a lot of those minutes are the extra defensive zone shifts he gets.

I also think people who use per 60 stats do so because they currently favor their guy. If Matthews produces more actual points next year, but his per 60 numbers go down, I'm guessing Leaf fans will discard ever bringing up the stat again.

It's not really about Barkov though. He doesn't come out terribly per 60. It's just that Matthews has elite rates. There's no amount of usage that is going to put Barkov where Matthews is, right behind McDavid and MacKinnon. He's just not at that level of offensive talent.

Basically every advanced stat model and website uses per 60, so it's not going to go away despite any changes in Matthews performance. And every fanbase has hypocrites, this is how debates here work.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

I posted production. Projections are estimates for the future. I'm not saying he'll be better offensively in the future, I'm saying he's clearly better offensively right now based on his performance last season.

You posted per 60 projections. As others have already noted to you. When actual per season production stats are replaced per 60 stats as you have religiously used them here. Maybe the game will be decided by spreadsheet rather than in reality. But it is not so you may as well admit Barkov right now is better than Matthews.

As for the future, we will wait and see As both have the potential to be better than the other in any given snapshot in time.

 

[TheDoldrums]

You posted per 60 projections. As others have already noted to you. When actual per season production stats replace per 60 stats as you have religiously used them here. Maybe the game will be decided by spreadsheet rather than in realities.

Again, per 60 are not projections. Projections are taking in data and trying to predict future performance. A projection would be me saying Matthews will hit 90 points next season. The per 60 data is events that have already happened. They are descriptive, not necessarily predictive.

 

[tony d]

Close but Barkov. I find both to be slightly overrated though.

 

[Jimmy Firecracker]

Not really. HF board polls are often a snapshot at a given time. That was when he was top 5 in NHL scoring and looking like he was going to smash his career high in pts. In the 2nd half. He completely fell off in the 2nd half last season where a rookie Barzal passed him in pts. It is not peculiar for people that watched him play. Only for people like you perhaps that did not follow the Isles play last year.

True, that poll was a while ago, but not nearly as much time has passed since you implied that JT had 5 years left of productive hockey.

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/thre...d-warning-in-1.2507507/page-56#post-147366397

If JT gets a 7-8 year deal. Yes, he will be overpaid in the latter years of his contract. I have been consistent on this. The vast majority of good players wind down in their latter years. The real productive years I am looking at are before age 32 if we are discussing the cap hit.

Weird now that not even a month later you think he’s got only two years left at best. Curious as to what changed between June 26th and now.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

Again, per 60 are not projections. Projections are taking in data and trying to predict future performance. A projection would be me saying Matthews will hit 90 points next season. The per 60 data is events that have already happened. They are descriptive, not necessarily predictive.

Per 60 does not tell the story of usage, how many games samples, or if a player is injury prone. it is a cherry picked variable because you know in actual terms, Barkov has proven to he a 78 pt player while in your words not mine Barkov is the much better player defensively. So you have lost the argument as it pertains to this thread. This is not a thread asking who is going to be better? Maybe if you realize this, you will come to accept that Barkov is better at this point in time with what we know as in actual production over a NHL season.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

True, that poll was a while ago, but not nearly as much time has passed since you implied that JT had 5 years left of productive hockey.

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/thre...d-warning-in-1.2507507/page-56#post-147366397



Weird now that not even a month later you think he’s got only two years left at best. Curious as to what changed between June 26th and now.

I was told you were the poster that was liking posts posted months, maybe even years ago for multiple posters. Wrong thread for that reply. This is a Barkov is better than Matthews thread at this point in time of asking. This may or may not change in the future. But its best for you not derail this thread for others.

 

[Pi]

I think Matthews and Barkov are very comparable right now but he's 2 years younger and he absolutely destroys Barkov's first four seasons in the league in just two years in the league so I definitely think he's on a higher career trajectory than Barkov.

You have to feel bad for the Sens and Habs lol. The Atlantic is just littered with elite #1C's. Stamkos, Tavares, Matthews, Barkov, Bergeron, Eichel etc.

Funny how some people *cough* TWS *cough* who think age is a big deal when we're talking about 7 months does not believe it to be a difference right now.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

I think Matthews and Barkov are very comparable right now but he's 2 years younger and he absolutely destroys Barkov's first four seasons in the league in just two years in the league so I definitely think he's on a higher career trajectory than Barkov.

You have to feel bad for the Sens and Habs lol. The Atlantic is just littered with elite #1C's. Stamkos, Tavares, Matthews, Barkov, Bergeron, Eichel etc.

Funny how some people *cough* TWS *cough* who think age is a big deal when we're talking about 7 months does not believe it to be a difference right now.

The question is still right now. Not who is better at age 20. Nor is this a discussion on who is going to be better when fully developed? Not sure what is so hard in understanding the OP question for some is? Most of us got it right from the start.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

It's not really about Barkov though. He doesn't come out terribly per 60. It's just that Matthews has elite rates. There's no amount of usage that is going to put Barkov where Matthews is, right behind McDavid and MacKinnon. He's just not at that level of offensive talent.

Basically every advanced stat model and website uses per 60, so it's not going to go away despite any changes in Matthews performance. And every fanbase has hypocrites, this is how debates here work.

The problem with these per 60 stats is it's too prone to anomalies that actual production wouldn't have.

For instance, if one were to assume that the best ten forwards in hockey in 2016-17 were based on points (obviously a gross simplification, but just for this example), which method paints a more accurate picture?

Top 10 actual points at 5 on 5:
Connor McDavid - 63
Patrick Kane - 52
Mark Scheifele - 52
Sidney Crosby - 50
Henrik Zetterberg - 49
Artemi Panarin - 45
Brad Marchand - 44
Nick Backstrom - 44
Jason Zucker - 44
Nikolaj Ehlers - 44

Top 10 points per 60 at 5 on 5 (min 800 minutes played):
Conor Sheary - 3.02
Connor McDavid - 2.87
Evgeni Malkin - 2.82
Sidney Crosby - 2.68
Mark Scheifele - 2.55
Scott Hartnell - 2.42
Arvidsson - 2.42
Marchand - 2.39
Backstrom - 2.38
Pominville - 2.38

The bolded are guys who have absolutely no place in any sort of "top ten forwards" lists. The actual scoring list looks more representative of what you'd expect if you asked people to list their top ten forwards than the per 60 list.

That's my biggest issue with these per 60 stats. You have situations where someone like Conor Sheary has a fluke year in minimal minutes to skew the results, whereas that doesn't happen with actual production.

 

[TheDoldrums]

Per 60 does not tell the story of usage, how many games samples, or if a player is injury prone. it is a cherry picked variable because you know in actual terms, Barkov has proven to he a 78 pt player while in your words not mine Barkov is the much better player defensively. So you have lost the argument as it pertains to this thread. This is not a thread asking who is going to be better? Maybe if you realize this, you will come to accept that Barkov is better at this point in time with what we know as in actual production over a NHL season.

The chart I posted on the last page did take usage into account, you could see Matthews in the 51st percentile for D-zone starts while Barkov was in the 88th percentile. No question Barkov takes way more of them. It factored that in and still had Matthews ahead.

I'm really not interested in "what [you] know as in actual production." I think there are ways of measuring production beyond total points. Pretty sure you've argued the same in other threads, but I guess your persona in this one doesn't. I think Matthews is better offensively. You don't. Fine.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

The problem with these per 60 stats is it's too prone to anomalies that actual production wouldn't have.

For instance, if one were to assume that the best ten forwards in hockey in 2016-17 were based on points (obviously a gross simplification, but just for this example), which method paints a more accurate picture?

Top 10 actual points at 5 on 5:
Connor McDavid - 63
Patrick Kane - 52
Mark Scheifele - 52
Sidney Crosby - 50
Henrik Zetterberg - 49
Artemi Panarin - 45
Brad Marchand - 44
Nick Backstrom - 44
Jason Zucker - 44
Nikolaj Ehlers - 44

Top 10 points per 60 at 5 on 5 (min 800 minutes played):
Conor Sheary - 3.02
Connor McDavid - 2.87
Evgeni Malkin - 2.82
Sidney Crosby - 2.68
Mark Scheifele - 2.55
Scott Hartnell - 2.42
Arvidsson - 2.42
Marchand - 2.39
Backstrom - 2.38
Pominville - 2.38

The bolded are guys who have absolutely no place in any sort of "top ten forwards" lists. The actual scoring list looks more representative of what you'd expect if you asked people to list their top ten forwards than the per 60 list.

That's my biggest issue with these per 60 stats. You have situations where someone like Conor Sheary has a fluke year in minimal minutes to skew the results, whereas that doesn't happen with actual production.

The problem with these per 60 stats is it's too prone to anomalies that actual production wouldn't have.

For instance, if one were to assume that the best ten forwards in hockey in 2016-17 were based on points (obviously a gross simplification, but just for this example), which method paints a more accurate picture?

Top 10 actual points at 5 on 5:
Connor McDavid - 63
Patrick Kane - 52
Mark Scheifele - 52
Sidney Crosby - 50
Henrik Zetterberg - 49
Artemi Panarin - 45
Brad Marchand - 44
Nick Backstrom - 44
Jason Zucker - 44
Nikolaj Ehlers - 44

Top 10 points per 60 at 5 on 5 (min 800 minutes played):
Conor Sheary - 3.02
Connor McDavid - 2.87
Evgeni Malkin - 2.82
Sidney Crosby - 2.68
Mark Scheifele - 2.55
Scott Hartnell - 2.42
Arvidsson - 2.42
Marchand - 2.39
Backstrom - 2.38
Pominville - 2.38

The bolded are guys who have absolutely no place in any sort of "top ten forwards" lists. The actual scoring list looks more representative of what you'd expect if you asked people to list their top ten forwards than the per 60 list.

That's my biggest issue with these per 60 stats. You have situations where someone like Conor Sheary has a fluke year in minimal minutes to skew the results, whereas that doesn't happen with actual production.

Great post!
As I recall one year Jannik Hansen was in the top 5 points per 60 at 5vs5. And no one ever called him a top player.
The stat doesn’t appear to be very useful by itself. Actual points is a much better indicator.

 

[TheDoldrums]

The problem with these per 60 stats is it's too prone to anomalies that actual production wouldn't have.

For instance, if one were to assume that the best ten forwards in hockey in 2016-17 were based on points (obviously a gross simplification, but just for this example), which method paints a more accurate picture?

Top 10 actual points at 5 on 5:
Connor McDavid - 63
Patrick Kane - 52
Mark Scheifele - 52
Sidney Crosby - 50
Henrik Zetterberg - 49
Artemi Panarin - 45
Brad Marchand - 44
Nick Backstrom - 44
Jason Zucker - 44
Nikolaj Ehlers - 44

Top 10 points per 60 at 5 on 5 (min 800 minutes played):
Conor Sheary - 3.02
Connor McDavid - 2.87
Evgeni Malkin - 2.82
Sidney Crosby - 2.68
Mark Scheifele - 2.55
Scott Hartnell - 2.42
Arvidsson - 2.42
Marchand - 2.39
Backstrom - 2.38
Pominville - 2.38

The bolded are guys who have absolutely no place in any sort of "top ten forwards" lists. The actual scoring list looks more representative of what you'd expect if you asked people to list their top ten forwards than the per 60 list.

That's my biggest issue with these per 60 stats. You have situations where someone like Conor Sheary has a fluke year in minimal minutes to skew the results, whereas that doesn't happen with actual production.

Okay but Matthews is not playing minimal minutes like Conor Sheary. And he would be just as high on the actual points list if he hadn't missed 20 games. He had 45 5v5 points in only 62 games.

You're obviously going to see more outliers in a stat like this, that can be heavily influenced by usage. But it doesn't make it useless. When you see the top 10 this year being:

1. McDavid - 3.2
2. MacKinnon - 3
3. Matthews - 2.93
4. Barzal - 2.89
5. Kucherov - 2.85
6. Marchand - 2.83
7. Dadonov - 2.82
8. Giroux - 2.73
9. Stone - 2.68
10. Gourde - 2.66

it doesn't mean you have to believe Matthews had the third best offensive season. Because that alone is certainly not sufficient to make that determination. But maybe it makes you think that it was more impressive than his total points would indicate. You probably also think that damn, Gourde is sneaky good. And Barkov had a pretty good guy on his wing this year in Dadonov.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Okay but Matthews is not playing minimal minutes like Conor Sheary. And he would be just as high on the actual points list if he hadn't missed 20 games. You're obviously going to see more outliers in a stat like this, that can be heavily influenced by usage. But it doesn't make it useless. When you see the top 10 this year being:

1. McDavid - 3.2
2. MacKinnon - 3
3. Matthews - 2.93
4. Barzal - 2.89
5. Kucherov - 2.85
6. Marchand - 2.83
7. Dadonov - 2.82
8. Giroux - 2.73
9. Stone - 2.68
10. Gourde - 2.66

it doesn't mean you have to believe Matthews had the third best offensive season. But maybe it makes you think that it was more impressive than his total points would indicate. You probably also think that damn, Gourde is sneaky good. And Barkov had a pretty good guy on his wing this year in Dadonov.

I didn't say it's useless or that any stat (no matter what it is) should be outright ignored or discarded. I just don't think it's more useful than actual production because of its limitations (ie. actual production will never see Conor Sheary lead the entire league in it, yet per 60 did).

I also find it way too assumptive. "If so and so played those extra minutes, his points would increase accordingly". Not really. If Conor Sheary played 20 minutes a night instead of around 13, he wouldn't go from his 53 points to challenging McDavid last year for the Art Ross.

Again, I'm not saying Matthews isn't a good player. I'm actually quite high on him. But it's not because of his per 60 stats. It's because he has the potential to finish near the top of the league in *actual* production.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

Matthews. Kid is very underrated on these boards. While Barkov is HFBs new love child (the new Toews)

Both elite players though

Well, he's better than Couturier.

 

[pb1300]

the guy who is 2/2 in both 30+g and 60+ pts seasons over the guy who 0/5 in 30g and 1/5 in 60+

seriously though Barkov at the same age as matthews had 24g/60pts in 125 games
Matthews has 74g/132pts in 144 games. thats 50 more goals and 72 more pts...

The poll is who is better, not who has been better when entering the league. Barkov is the better all around player now. God forbid that a player might actually be better than your beloved Leafs player.

 

[Garthinater]

Hf is going to HF. It is kinda funny though. Answer is matthews

 

[pb1300]

You'd be fired on the spot if you did.

Barkov was better last season and might still be better for a season or two. But everyone is expecting Matthews to take that another step. And he will. After he does, he'll be a notch above the likes of Barkov.

Yeah, because Barkov has clearly peaked at 22, and cant take that "another step."

 

[HarryLime]

Barkov is very good but he is the new HF darling (well maybe not new anymore). It was OEL and ROR before him. They win almost every poll and are considered better than they really are. They all get massively overrated on this forum to the point where it becomes cringe. I think Barkov is better than both of them for what it's worth. I also admit Leafs fans on this board are cringe too.

As for the question, I would rather have Matthews but it's not really a stretch to say either as of right now. The reason Matthews should win is because of the pace he is on and what he's proved in 2 seasons. There is good reason to suggest his production will continue to rise. 40 goals as a rookie is something we don't see often. You can wave the advanced metrics around all you want tbh. Matthews is going to keep getting better and is a strong candidate to score 35-45 g per season, if healthy. Maybe more.

 

[TMLeafs17]

“It doesn’t matter what Barkov did at a comparable age, this poll is about RIGHT NOW ONLY”

Ah, never change HF. Gotta get your shots in any way you can.

By the way, the poll says who is better. Not who is better right now. Because I could say he meant who is better going forward. So silly.

 

[The Moose is Loose]

I voted Matthews, but its close

 

[Psych0dad]

Right now Barkov but in a couple of years Matthews will be better due to higher goal production. Barkov will always be better defensively and Matthews will be the better goalscorer.