Pasta isn't that good. Sure he has 11 points in 4 games, but Plekanec shut him down in game 3. That's all that matters. Am I doing this right?
Yeah, downplaying Pastrnak is weird to say the least. Plekanec is an interesting case to defend, too.
He's been top 3 in forward ice time 5 on 5 for the last 3 years. Top 2 for centers. He usually gets quite a bit more time than the next or second next center, as well, so it's not like the team has been running 4 lines.
The last two years, he's been one of the worst 5 on 5 point producers in the league. We're talking almost 4th line p/60. You look at his linemates and save Hudon they produce more than he does. Not only that, but his p1/60 is brutal, absolutely brutal. He's basically a black hole offensively.
And skimming through the rest of the numbers, he's basically what most people see: a net - 0 impact. That means, you put him on the ice and over a season, nothing happens. Basically, you have almost 15 minutes of hockey where your team does nothing. Which is ok if you're a 4th liner, that's what's expected of you. But Plekanec's case, since he's usually paired with decent enough wingers and gets significant ice time, he basically nulifies what you should be doing in hockey: scoring more than the other team.
I've been trying to make him elaborate his case for him
not being, at best, a third liner, but I've been met with one liners.