Your thoughts: Auston Matthews' performance at WCH

[ForSpareParts*]

Your throwing so many variables into a pretty linear situation. Doesn't matter how many previous games he had played in the NHL or anyone else on the team for that matter. Your grading the player based on how he performed at the tournament, that's the title of the thread actually.

Him having no prior NHL expirience is clearly impressive but that does not change how he executed during the game. The OP asked for a grade on his play during the World Cup, not to grade his play at the World Cup compared to others further along in development.

His play was very impressive and showed the world he's the real deal, but let's not kid ourselves Mcdavid did contribute to his success in a large way. To give an A+ is to say he was or nearly was perfect. I don't believe that was the case. Whether it be lost puck battles along the boards and down low or turnovers he did make some mistakes. That being said they were few and far between but none the less they happened, thus the A grade.

I really don't understand how some of you are so upset by some of us not giving away a full grade. The difference between and A grade and A+ is not so large as to cause an uproar.

Good post. Especially the last paragraph.

 

[Erndog]

To go from 13th forward to playing on the top line....ya full marks for sure. A+

Overheard yesterday:


"Everyone says Matthews got better and better since the tournament started. Well that means he sucked at the beginning... so why was he there?"


It pains me to hear people talk about hockey sometimes.

 

[Macallan18]

Did he take faceoffs? How much and many? How did them go?

can't recall him taking one. But who cares? Extremely overrated issue.

 

[Lion15]

Overheard yesterday:


"Everyone says Matthews got better and better since the tournament started. Well that means he sucked at the beginning... so why was he there?"


It pains me to hear people talk about hockey sometimes.

LOL liquor logic?!

 

[pgk]

This gets me every time

 

[7even]

Overheard yesterday:


"Everyone says Matthews got better and better since the tournament started. Well that means he sucked at the beginning... so why was he there?"


It pains me to hear people talk about hockey sometimes.

That's actually pretty funny

 

[slozo]

Your throwing so many variables into a pretty linear situation. Doesn't matter how many previous games he had played in the NHL or anyone else on the team for that matter. Your grading the player based on how he performed at the tournament, that's the title of the thread actually.

Him having no prior NHL expirience is clearly impressive but that does not change how he executed during the game. The OP asked for a grade on his play during the World Cup, not to grade his play at the World Cup compared to others further along in development.

His play was very impressive and showed the world he's the real deal, but let's not kid ourselves Mcdavid did contribute to his success in a large way. To give an A+ is to say he was or nearly was perfect. I don't believe that was the case. Whether it be lost puck battles along the boards and down low or turnovers he did make some mistakes. That being said they were few and far between but none the less they happened, thus the A grade.

I really don't understand how some of you are so upset by some of us not giving away a full grade. The difference between and A grade and A+ is not so large as to cause an uproar.

What variables did I throw into a . . . linear situation? Linear?

No playing situation is linear for a hockey player. There are tonnes of mitigating factors, for any evaluation. Linemates, team strength, team structure systems employed, gelling with line mates, health/injuries, etc. That makes it pretty offing FAR from linear.

But I threw in no extra variables - I am simply evaluating Matthews as asked. And I don't believe anyone with half a brain evaluates rookies with 0 NHL games the same way they evaluate a sophomore, or seasoned player in their third or fourth year.

Grading HIS play, means exactly that - not comparing it to others, especially so considering the fact that he was the only player on his own team with no NHL experience, and there being nearly zero players on any team who had not played in the NHL or KHL. So yes, I absolutely stuck to HIS evaluation only, something which I don't think many of you have done.

And I stated that anything LESS THAN an A was ridiculous. And my comment is not "an uproar" - it's me being perplexed at fans who I don't think realize that you can't grade a player and expect that the only way one can get an A+ is to perform at a once-in-recorded-history pace of play and scoring.

Also,
You're = you are

 

[Menzinger]

He showed he's absolutely ready to be an impact NHaler in his first NHL season.

At times he did look a bit jittery with the puck in the offensive zone - needs to just calm down and place his shot, but that became less of an issue as the tournament went one.

His puck control skills are out of this world

 

[Ropesman]

What variables did I throw into a . . . linear situation? Linear?

No playing situation is linear for a hockey player. There are tonnes of mitigating factors, for any evaluation. Linemates, team strength, team structure systems employed, gelling with line mates, health/injuries, etc. That makes it pretty offing FAR from linear.

But I threw in no extra variables - I am simply evaluating Matthews as asked. And I don't believe anyone with half a brain evaluates rookies with 0 NHL games the same way they evaluate a sophomore, or seasoned player in their third or fourth year.

Grading HIS play, means exactly that - not comparing it to others, especially so considering the fact that he was the only player on his own team with no NHL experience, and there being nearly zero players on any team who had not played in the NHL or KHL. So yes, I absolutely stuck to HIS evaluation only, something which I don't think many of you have done.

And I stated that anything LESS THAN an A was ridiculous. And my comment is not "an uproar" - it's me being perplexed at fans who I don't think realize that you can't grade a player and expect that the only way one can get an A+ is to perform at a once-in-recorded-history pace of play and scoring.

Also,
You're = you are

Who said playing hockey was linear? I said this situation is, we were asked to evaluate his play in the tournament, that's it that's all.

Variables like saying we should consider how many games he has played in the NHL compared to others which makes no sense. The thread asked to grade his play in the tournament.....and that is all. Nobody is saying its not impressive that he did play at that level with no NHL experience, just that it is irrelevant in this specific thread. Don't understand why that's so hard of a point for you to grasp.

Do you expect Babcock to handicap his evaluations of players during the season based on how many games they have all played? I would hope not because the fact is once your on the team your on the team doesn't matter where you all came from or how many games you played. The player with the higher level of play will win out every time no matter their past amount of games played.

Seems like you just have a beef with an A+ being considered perfection. If an A+ isn't considered perfection what then does a person who does execute a task to perfection receive for a grade? The same grade that someone who did the same thing but not as good?

As for the bolded, you realize you did exactly what you just said shouldn't be done. You said not to compare his play to others then immediately compared his amount of games played to the others on his team.

And really you decided to go all grammar police on me? Didn't realize this was such a formal setting, my bad. lol wow

 

[slozo]

Who said playing hockey was linear? I said this situation is, we were asked to evaluate his play in the tournament, that's it that's all.

Variables like saying we should consider how many games he has played in the NHL compared to others which makes no sense. The thread asked to grade his play in the tournament.....and that is all. Nobody is saying its not impressive that he did play at that level with no NHL experience, just that it is irrelevant in this specific thread. Don't understand why that's so hard of a point for you to grasp.

Do you expect Babcock to handicap his evaluations of players during the season based on how many games they have all played? I would hope not because the fact is once your on the team your on the team doesn't matter where you all came from or how many games you played. The player with the higher level of play will win out every time no matter their past amount of games played.

Seems like you just have a beef with an A+ being considered perfection. If an A+ isn't considered perfection what then does a person who does execute a task to perfection receive for a grade? The same grade that someone who did the same thing but not as good?

As for the bolded, you realize you did exactly what you just said shouldn't be done. You said not to compare his play to others then immediately compared his amount of games played to the others on his team.

And really you decided to go all grammar police on me? Didn't realize this was such a formal setting, my bad. lol wow

My God you don't get it. And it's clear you'll just continue throwing out ridiculous strawman arguments so it's pointless for me to respond.

If grading Matthews as a rookie is incomprehensible to you, you have bigger issues.

 

[MapleLeafs9]

My God you don't get it. And it's clear you'll just continue throwing out ridiculous strawman arguments so it's pointless for me to respond.

If grading Matthews as a rookie is incomprehensible to you, you have bigger issues.

I don't know why you're so angry lol, just grade his play. That's all I asked for dude

 

[Ropesman]

My God you don't get it. And it's clear you'll just continue throwing out ridiculous strawman arguments so it's pointless for me to respond.

If grading Matthews as a rookie is incomprehensible to you, you have bigger issues.

Pretty clear to all who has the issue here bud, here is a hint, its not me!

Nobody said you analysis was wrong, the only thing that was said was that it was not what this specific thread was asking for. No need to get in a huff and puff.

 

[Ropesman]

Not sure you actually understand what a strawman argument is if you think it applies here.

 

[slozo]

I don't know why you're so angry lol, just grade his play. That's all I asked for dude

Yes yes, thanks for your input.

Frustration with posters who can't understand simple concepts isn't anger, dude. It's frustration, brah.

 

[MapleLeafs9]

Yes yes, thanks for your input.

Frustration with posters who can't understand simple concepts isn't anger, dude. It's frustration, brah.

lol

But yeah, I made this thread purely for thoughts on his play for the tournament, on the same even level as everyone else whether it's Crosby, McDavid, Karlsson, or Abdelkader. Not as a rookie who has never played an NHL game or if there was any other 18 year olds in his situation, which is why I gave him an A-.

 

[TLeafsFan]

A+ For sure given his age and stage of his development as a pro.

We have a very special player here.

 

[Ropesman]

I don't understand people's thinking sometimes.

Why would you compare Matthews' performance vs McDavid's? Is McDavid a rookie who has never played a single game in the NHL, because that's what we are rating here folks, Matthews' performance. His grade.

He is a rookie that has never played an NHL game,.. That's what we are rating. His performance as a rookie in an international All-Star event. He played on the top line, on a team of young all stars, against other team all stars. And he excelled. What are you people missing here!?!

You have nobody to be frustrated with other then yourself. You clearly missed the entire point of this thread based on this statement. Ill put it to you this way then since your struggling so much,

Lets say a 12 year old genius is advanced to the 12th grade and he is then taking an exam in grade 12 level algebra. Should this young genius be graded differently on his exam then the others in his class because he is younger and spent way less days in school?

Its clearly a remarkable thing that he was advanced this far and he deserves all the credit in the world, but when it comes to his testing or execution he is on a level playing field with all the others.

I can not really explain it anymore then that, I am not even trying to be an ass to you, I actually agree with you when you say Matthews should be praised for doing it without any NHL experience. All I have been saying this entire time is that when it comes to grading a players level of play on a given night or tournament then this really has no bearing.

 

[nsleaf]

The op asked for people's thoughts, that should include context. He was great for for young guy with no NHL experience. Some of you split hairs way too much.

 

[hockeyes]

The op asked for people's thoughts, that should include context. He was great for for young guy with no NHL experience. Some of you split hairs way too much.

He was pretty average for players born on September 17 1997, so maybe a B?

 

[tp71]

He was pretty average for players born on September 17 1997, so maybe a B?

Leaves room for improvement. That's very important.

 

[Pucker77]

The only thing that would have made his tournament better is if he had played so well that he forced McDavid to play wing.

Like many have said, it is impressive that it only took 2.5 games for Matthews to go from 13th forward to McDavid's linemate. The other part that was nice to see was Matthews' versatility, to go from being a center to wing is not easy in terms of keeping the same level of performance. Plus, it was cool seeing that he was willing to show his ability but still understand that it was McDavid's ship to run. He easily blended in and looked to just be one of the guys, opposed to trying to be THE GUY.

That willingness showed (at least to me) that he is completely focused on the team concept and will do whatever he is told if he believes it will help his team win.

The one thing I hope happens is that people realize that he will have nowhere near as much talent around him on the Leafs and as such, his point totals will probably take a hit. McDavid and Schiefele probably finish more opportunities than Komarov or Bozak would.

 

[ForSpareParts*]

Your thoughts: Auston Mahone's at WCH

[IMGhttp://musictour.eu/data//uploads/media/albums/846/4d79c32ff83962b7c39c8e90beaf07ad.jpg[/IMG]

 

[ForSpareParts*]

Your thoughts: Auston Mahone's at WCH

There we go.

 

[Plub]

My exact reasoning for this as well. People like Crosby and McDavid deserved an A+

Matthews was really great, but he wasn't on those 2's levels.

I don't think he was outplayed by McDavid at all. That line was very much give and take. In fact, McDavid wasn't doing too well until Matthews was put on his line.

 

[senor martinez]

can't recall him taking one. But who cares? Extremely overrated issue.

Not at all. A very underrated issue.

I was hoping for some information as if he is very good on them faceoffs or not. He will be playing center for us and it would be good to know of course. Faceoffs decide the winners and the losers.