Oh I understand you. I said he might just settle in as a ppg player, I never said he was one. You are the one who felt the need to make the irrelevant contribution. I was talking about the future, not the past, not the present. Why you feel the need to explain these things when you are the one not following is amusing but very unneeded.
I will simplify...
"May just settle in as a point a player 40 goal centre" does not mean "is a point a game player."
This is what you said:
"
His goal scoring numbers are pretty special but hey, maybe he has piqued and will just always be a point a game 40 goal guy. I'm not calling him generational so I have no desire to argue with you about it."
Now follow this logic...
1. You wrote "maybe he has piqued" (I assume that you meant "peaked", because "piqued" truly doesn't make sense in this phrase. Also, if one uses "peaked", the rest of the phrase makes perfect sense).
2. If one has peaked, that means that he reached the absolute highest point he can in whatever thing he peaked (in this case, ppg + goals production). Literally, a peak is the summit of something, there's nothing above it but air.
3. You then proceeded to describe what that
already achieved (HAS piqued) "peak" (= absolute highest point) was: "and will just always be a point a game 40 goals guy".
4. If he will be a "point a game 40 goals guy" from now on, then he couldn't possibly have peaked in that 40 goals season (which is the performance that you are using to say that maybe he has peaked), because in that 40 goals season he was at 0.84 ppg, not 1.00 ppg. Having a full season or thereabouts at ppg, would be a higher points totals than the 69 points season he had in 16-17.
So... Saying that if he has already peaked, he would just stay a ppg, 40 goals player is factually WRONG.
If he already peaked, he is at maximum best a 0.84 ppg player... not a 1.00 ppg player...
So the point is valid and perfectly stands: if you want to say that if Matthews peaked, he would remain a ppg player, wait until Matthews actually puts up a season where he is ppg. Then such a statement would be correct and factual. Which is what I have been repeating over and over. It is not rocket science, is it?
PS: for your phrase to be correct, you should have said something like "maybe he will peak, and then remain, at 40 goals / ppg". Not "has peaked". He hasn't peaked anywhere near ppg just yet.