Panarin or Matthews for the next 2 years

[Sidney the Kidney]

Yeah that's just foolish.

Patrick Kane is more valuable than any center you give him, Toews included.

The forward that does the transition work is usually a center, that's why they're often considered more important than wingers. But in this case Panarin does all the transition work for his team, and is one of the best transition players in the league, while Matthews is F3 and doesn't carry the puck as much as Marner or Nylander do.

It's not just the "transition work" that generally makes centers more important/valuable, it's also where each position is expected to play in the defensive zone. Very rarely is it the winger on the line that supports the two defensemen down low along the boards or around the net. They're usually hanging around up high near the top of the faceoff circles taking away the point men.

That should factor in any sort of player valuations because transition doesn't even begin if you're hemmed deep in your zone because the center can't adequately defend and get the puck up to the winger or support the D to get transition going the other way.

 

[HugeInTheShire]

Panarin isn't a 1st line winger. He is a franchise forward and one of the most dynamic players in the world who can create and drive the play regardless of who he plays with.

Saying he is a 1st line winger is diminishing what he actually is.

There are few wingers you can build your forward core around and Panarin is one of them.

Saying he is a 1st line center is diminishing what he actually is.

There are few centers you can build your forward core around and Matthews is one of them

I fixed it for ya

I am in no way attempting to diminish what Panarin is, he's an older winger (he is 6 years older than Matthews) and is one of the best wingers in the game.
You are also severely underrating Matthews if you think he's not one of the best centers in the league.

 

[Namikaze Minato]

Panarin isn't a 1st line winger. He is a franchise forward and one of the most dynamic players in the world who can create and drive the play regardless of who he plays with.

Saying he is a 1st line winger is diminishing what he actually is.

There are few wingers you can build your forward core around and Panarin is one of them.

But cant you say the exact same about Matthews being a franchise forward, a franchise center? It said 1c vs 1w but it could easily be 1 Franchise C vs 1 Franchise W.

 

[Gurglesons]

I think it is Matthews given the fact their production is fairly close and he's playing center, is younger and scores goals better than anyone else.

 

[majormajor]

But cant you say the exact same about Matthews being a franchise forward, a franchise center? It said 1c vs 1w but it could easily be 1 Franchise C vs 1 Franchise W.

The point is that neither player is defined by or limited by their position. Look at what they do for their teams, and stop talking about positional archetypes. These guys are better than archetypes.

 

[Fataldogg]

Saying he is a 1st line center is diminishing what he actually is.

There are few centers you can build your forward core around and Matthews is one of them

I fixed it for ya

I am in no way attempting to diminish what Panarin is, he's an older winger (he is 6 years older than Matthews) and is one of the best wingers in the game.
You are also severely underrating Matthews if you think he's not one of the best centers in the league.

That is false. There are at least a dozen centers you can build a core around. Perhaps more.

McDavid
MacKinnon
Matthews
Crosby
Barkov
Point
Eichel
Bergeron
Draisaitl
Petterson
Barzal
Aho
Scheifle

Saying there are only a few centers you can build your core around is a hyperbole. In reality there are many more, and I think you knew that when you wrote the post.

Matthews is great. He is a top-5 center in the NHL in my opinion.

But I don't think he is as good as either Panarin or Kucherov, whom I view as possibly the only two wingers you can legitimately build a team around.

 

[HugeInTheShire]

That is false. There are at least a dozen centers you can build a core around. Perhaps more.

McDavid
MacKinnon
Matthews
Crosby
Barkov
Point
Eichel
Bergeron
Draisaitl
Petterson
Barzal
Aho
Scheifle

Saying there are only a few centers you can build your core around is a hyperbole. In reality there are many more, and I think you knew that when you wrote the post.

Matthews is great. He is a top-5 center in the NHL in my opinion.

But I don't think he is as good as either Panarin or Kucherov, whom I view as possibly the only two wingers you can legitimately build a team around.

You can slice however you choose, I'll take a top 5 center over a top 3 Winger any day of the week

I like Panarin more than I like Mattews but center is far more important than wing, always has been, always will be

 

[TGWL]

"sucks"

He was going for Hyman. He just missed. :-P

 

[TGWL]

For the Avs I'll take Matthews even though I think Panarin is the slightly better player. We need upgrade on 2C position, we would have ridiculous center combo of MacK - Matthews.

I'm sure Panarin can turn Newhook into a 65 point player in his rookie season. In any situation, both players would be fun to watch on the Avs.

 

[majormajor]

You can slice however you choose, I'll take a top 5 center over a top 3 Winger any day of the week

I like Panarin more than I like Mattews but center is far more important than wing, always has been, always will be

I'm starting to get the idea that people still talking about abstract positional archetypes just don't know enough about these actual two players to make a real comparison. You have two of the greatest players of our age being compared and people are talking about which forward position they play. That's most likely just ignorance talking.

There's a reason why Panarin has gotten such insane two-way results despite playing with much lesser centers his whole career (ancient Anisimov, raw rookie Dubois, Strome). And that's because he is perhaps the best transition player in the NHL. He does what the archetypal center does and gets the puck from his end into the offensive zone and distributes the puck. Matthews doesn't do what the archetypal center does for his line, he's an F3 most of the time. If you watch the Leafs you'll see Marner carry the puck through the neutral zone, curl up and hit Matthews trailing the play for a shot attempt. The work of safely getting the puck from one end to the other is huge.

There's also the matter of the center playing down low in their own zone, an important job to be sure. But there's no sign of Matthews currently being Selke caliber at this, though he has some good defensive attributes and might put it all together at some point. So I don't see a big difference there.

What ought to be really telling here is that Artemi Panarin's lines gets similar results to Auston Matthews' lines. If Matthews is more important than Panarin and offers more value because of his position then how is Panarin-Strome-Blackwell getting the same results (72-73% of the goals, outscoring opponents almost 3-1) as Hyman-Matthews-Marner? Panarin-Strome-Fast also outscored opponents 28-12 last year. If Panarin isn't a top 5 player in the league then there is one huge f***ing mystery going on here.

 

[Gurglesons]

That is false. There are at least a dozen centers you can build a core around. Perhaps more.

McDavid
MacKinnon
Matthews
Crosby
Barkov
Point
Eichel
Bergeron
Draisaitl
Petterson
Barzal
Aho
Scheifle

Saying there are only a few centers you can build your core around is a hyperbole. In reality there are many more, and I think you knew that when you wrote the post.

Matthews is great. He is a top-5 center in the NHL in my opinion.

But I don't think he is as good as either Panarin or Kucherov, whom I view as possibly the only two wingers you can legitimately build a team around.

Are the Leafs not built around Matthews? Have they not been better than the Rangers or Blue Jackets that were built around Panarin?

Sure, Panarin's Blue Jackets won a round against Tampa, but that team was way deeper than Matthews' Leafs have ever been.

 

[HugeInTheShire]

I'm starting to get the idea that people still talking about abstract positional archetypes just don't know enough about these actual two players to make a real comparison. You have two of the greatest players of our age being compared and people are talking about which forward position they play. That's most likely just ignorance talking.

There's a reason why Panarin has gotten such insane two-way results despite playing with much lesser centers his whole career (ancient Anisimov, raw rookie Dubois, Strome). And that's because he is perhaps the best transition player in the NHL. He does what the archetypal center does and gets the puck from his end into the offensive zone and distributes the puck. Matthews doesn't do what the archetypal center does for his line, he's an F3 most of the time. If you watch the Leafs you'll see Marner carry the puck through the neutral zone, curl up and hit Matthews trailing the play for a shot attempt. The work of safely getting the puck from one end to the other is huge.

There's also the matter of the center playing down low in their own zone, an important job to be sure. But there's no sign of Matthews currently being Selke caliber at this, though he has some good defensive attributes and might put it all together at some point. So I don't see a big difference there.

What ought to be really telling here is that Artemi Panarin's lines gets similar results to Auston Matthews' lines. If Matthews is more important than Panarin and offers more value because of his position then how is Panarin-Strome-Blackwell getting the same results (72-73% of the goals, outscoring opponents almost 3-1) as Hyman-Matthews-Marner? Panarin-Strome-Fast also outscored opponents 28-12 last year. If Panarin isn't a top 5 player in the league then there is one huge f***ing mystery going on here.

I get it you like Panarin, no need to write a novel about it. I’ve been watching hockey for 40 years, and watch a lot of both of these players. I’ll take Matthews, feel free to disagree but no matter how much you write, you’re not changing my mind

 

[Fataldogg]

I'm starting to get the idea that people still talking about abstract positional archetypes just don't know enough about these actual two players to make a real comparison. You have two of the greatest players of our age being compared and people are talking about which forward position they play. That's most likely just ignorance talking.

There's a reason why Panarin has gotten such insane two-way results despite playing with much lesser centers his whole career (ancient Anisimov, raw rookie Dubois, Strome). And that's because he is perhaps the best transition player in the NHL. He does what the archetypal center does and gets the puck from his end into the offensive zone and distributes the puck. Matthews doesn't do what the archetypal center does for his line, he's an F3 most of the time. If you watch the Leafs you'll see Marner carry the puck through the neutral zone, curl up and hit Matthews trailing the play for a shot attempt. The work of safely getting the puck from one end to the other is huge.

There's also the matter of the center playing down low in their own zone, an important job to be sure. But there's no sign of Matthews currently being Selke caliber at this, though he has some good defensive attributes and might put it all together at some point. So I don't see a big difference there.

What ought to be really telling here is that Artemi Panarin's lines gets similar results to Auston Matthews' lines. If Matthews is more important than Panarin and offers more value because of his position then how is Panarin-Strome-Blackwell getting the same results (72-73% of the goals, outscoring opponents almost 3-1) as Hyman-Matthews-Marner? Panarin-Strome-Fast also outscored opponents 28-12 last year. If Panarin isn't a top 5 player in the league then there is one huge f***ing mystery going on here.

Excellent post.

 

[majormajor]

I get it you like Panarin, no need to write a novel about it. I’ve been watching hockey for 40 years, and watch a lot of both of these players. I’ll take Matthews, feel free to disagree but no matter how much you write, you’re not changing my mind

Explain to me how Panarin's lines are getting those results.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

Explain to me how Panarin's lines are getting those results.

Explain how Ennis-Khaira-Archibald has a better goal differential as a line than Marchand-Bergeron-Pastrnak and Landeskog-MacKinnon-Rantanen. It's not the meaningful stat you think it is

 

[majormajor]

Explain how Ennis-Khaira-Archibald has a better goal differential as a line than Marchand-Bergeron-Pastrnak and Landeskog-MacKinnon-Rantanen. It's not the meaningful stat you think it is

Random variation in very small samples. They had an xG% of 38%, it's not a good line.

Got any more super easy questions for me?

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

Random variation in very small samples. They had an xG% of 38%, it's not a good line.

Got any more super easy questions for me?

Why doesn't that apply to the Panarin-Strome-Blackwell line playing under 200 minutes together and having a far lower xGF% than the Matthews line? It wasn't meant to be a hard question

 

[majormajor]

Why doesn't that apply to the Panarin-Strome-Blackwell line playing under 200 minutes together and having a far lower xGF% than the Matthews line? It wasn't meant to be a hard question

If Panarin is pulling 60% plus GF% over the span of years then I don't need to look at his xGs. Elite player's goal results are supposed to top their xGs, for guys like Khaira it doesn't work that way.

If you want a larger sample, last year Panarin had the same linemates for almost the whole season, Strome and Fast. They outscored opponents 28-12. Explain to me how he is getting those results.

 

[HugeInTheShire]

Explain to me how Panarin's lines are getting those results.

I don’t care, it’s a stupid poll. Will it make you feel better if I change my vote to Panarin?

 

[Iapyi]

Totally agree, depends on team needs and chemistry. Both can bring you game changing talent with elite vision and ridiculous hands but in different ways at different positions. The money is essentially a wash and as long as both are healthy for a full season the output should be similar (Albeit Matthews more goals, Panarin more assists).

As a leafs fan its Matthews because we have Marner and a number 2 center of Nylander (whos totally unproven there) or Kerfoot would be a major blow to our offence.

Yeah but Nylander is not a centre and doubt he ever will be.

 

[Varan]

I don’t care, it’s a stupid poll. Will it make you feel better if I change my vote to Panarin?

speak for yourself

 

[Namikaze Minato]

Yeah but Nylander is not a centre and doubt he ever will be.

Right, so you agree it would become a problem then to have Panarin over Matthews on the leafs because of that new hole it would create.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Yeah that's just foolish.

Patrick Kane is more valuable than any center you give him, Toews included.

The forward that does the transition work is usually a center, that's why they're often considered more important than wingers. But in this case Panarin does all the transition work for his team, and is one of the best transition players in the league, while Matthews is F3 and doesn't carry the puck as much as Marner or Nylander do.

Despite the popular HFBoards' Narrative, Matthews is actually damn good in his own zone as the F1, supporting his defensemen down low and fishing pucks off the boards and turning the play the other way. Not saying he'll ever win a Selke trophy, but he's definitely a plus defensive player.

And I'm not sure if it was just the North Division but he was transporting and carrying the puck through the neutral zone much more frequently. He did say he lost weight, he looked a little faster last year.

And yes, Centers are more valuable than wingers, that's pretty much a fact. It's harder to produce and thrive at that position. You can much easily find wingers to play with a good center, than the reverse.

Matthews is one of a handful of guys I'd trade Panarin for as a Ranger fan.

 

[majormajor]

Despite the popular HFBoards' Narrative, Matthews is actually damn good in his own zone as the F1, supporting his defensemen down low and fishing pucks off the boards and turning the play the other way. Not saying he'll ever win a Selke trophy, but he's definitely a plus defensive player.

And I'm not sure if it was just the North Division but he was transporting and carrying the puck through the neutral zone much more frequently. He did say he lost weight, he looked a little faster last year.

And yes, Centers are more valuable than wingers, that's pretty much a fact. It's harder to produce and thrive at that position. You can much easily find wingers to play with a good center, than the reverse.

Matthews is one of a handful of guys I'd trade Panarin for as a Ranger fan.

Matthews is shaping up to be a good defensive center, but his results taken all together aren't better than Panarin's.

More specifically, Hyman-Matthews-Marner, all together, with a much more talented set of linemates and what you are telling me is the better player at the more important position, is not getting better results than Panarin-Strome-Fast/Blackwell. Who deserves credit for that?

Yes there is in theory the fact that centers are more valuable and that you can more often easily find wingers to play with a good center than the reverse.

But we have here in reality the fact that you can play any lesser center with Panarin and it is actually Matthews that has always had the help of an elite winger.

This is that reverse that you are talking about!

 

[majormajor]

Right, so you agree it would become a problem then to have Panarin over Matthews on the leafs because of that new hole it would create.

Panarin on the Leafs makes Kerfoot into a viable top six center. Or Nylander into an 90 pt guy. That or fixes any other reclamation project you want to put at center. Position doesn't matter when you have a top 5 player in the league who does most of what an archetypal center does.