Not Aho. Nor Granlund.
Total in the 2 games vs Canada, scoring chances attempted and generated, with double points for high quality chances:
Laine:
16
Aho:
5
Granlund:
6
And bonus:
Jokinen:
3
Closest to Laine:
Barkov:
11
It's cool and all if you can score a goal or two in a game. However, for consistent results, generating a lot of scoring chances is far more important. One is treading at an extremely shallow level if they only look at points. Maybe one should try actually analyzing the games.
Admittably, Granlund did generate only 2 scoring chance points less than Laine in the grand finals. However, he was worthless vs Canada in the groups while Laine generated or attempted 7 chances there(3 high quality). Yes, you will say that Laine was 0+0 and Granlund had an assist. However, that was his only generated chance. In the long run, do you pick the guy who will generate or attempt 7(+3) scoring chances in a match, or the guy who will generate or attempt only 1(+1, goals or assists are always high quality chances)?
These stats are also one of the reasons why I criticized Jokinen alot and still am rather doubtful. If you play with scoring chance-generation machines like Laine and Barkov, how do you generate nothing? It's a shame that they seem to now be lumped together.
Last edited:
