It's actually a perfectly sound argument. When you change a variable, let alone multiple variables in any equation you are going to have different products. Fact.
If you want to do a comp that's more on the recreational/just for fun level (something like crosby vs ovi) then have at it though. Just don't pretend that it's an accurate one.
Without getting into it too much, this is exactly why NHL teams have scouts and watch the players. Yes stats can provide some insight but at the end of the day they don't nearly provide the whole picture that is needed to make an accurate comp.
I would agree with your assessment of Granlunds tape via "mildly decent goal totals, weak, loses puck battles constantly, low assist totals, mediocre defensively".
No one is arguing against that.
He's a developing player. Things will need to be improved. But if he's already got the scoring thing down, the rest can be taught. Usually it's the scoring part that never comes!
I would feel sorry for the guy if he ever read these. Everyone acts likes he's making 7 mil a season, has 0 goals, takes horvats icetime, and just banged your gf.
The argument is: he's cheap, young, can put the puck in the net, and he doesn't deserve to get ragged on like he does in these threads. If better players come along then he'll either get better or lose his spot, simple as that.
None of us have a crystal ball, so these making ridiculous comps with some loose association with the future (because that's what happened to player A, and they had the same stats) are foolhardy. They serve as little more than fuel for the constant bash train that continues to roll along.
Or maybe I'm wrong and Granlund will end up just like every other 24 yr old player in the modern era that ended with 17G, 12A, and 31pts after playing 66 games. Because style doesn't matter. I'm sure they've all developed into exact molds...
