I see that you disregarded my distinction between key and better.
The definition of key that I am using is as follows (from the Webster dictionary):
If you do not agree with this definition we cannot continue to disagree as we are disagreeing on the meaning of a word and not anything of substance. With that said I agree with pretty much everything in your post but the bolded. I disagree with this on some very simple numbers and concepts.
First, Gagner was the second leading scorer for the (C)oilers last year with 38 points. Conversely, Burrows was the fourth leading scorer for the Nucks last year with 24 point. Second, it is generally accepted that centers have more value, and impact on the game, than wingers.
From the two examples above I have drawn the conclusion that Gagner is more key (from the definition above) to the Oil than Burrows is to the Nucks.
Further to my point I think you are essentially agreeing with me when you say that the Nucks have won more games with Burrows out of the line up than the Oil have won with Gagner out of the line up. Wouldn't this imply that Gagner has a greater deciding factor on the games than Burrows does? (This of course cannot be proven as the Oilers could just continue to lose, and I expect them to, when Gagner does return.)
I think we do somewhat agree on some points. I know Gagner means a lot to that team, but see it being due to them being a weaker team, rather than Gagner being a more pivotal player. Centres do generally have a higher value than wingers, but Burrows brings far more to the table in my opinion and is more of a game breaking talent. He's also generally considered a top line winger, and thereby our 3rd most instrumental forward (Kesler could be argued, but has been a 2nd liner until Burrows' injury, and less effective than expected until recently).
I guess what I'm also thinking is that while he may mean more to HIS team than Burrows' means to ours. It's more due to the fact that his team is much weaker, and lacks the depth needed to fill in for his absence.
And my original point was more that his presence would likely not give the Oilers 5 more wins than the 3 they currently have. The reason they're losing is because they can't outscore their goaltending and defense.
In order to do that, they would have to be able to ice a lineup that could provide a consistent scoring threat for more than 20 minutes of the game (and that's assuming their entire top line is healthy).
1/3 of their forward lines belong in the AHL (some of them barely), their defense is scrambly, their goaltending shaky at best. On top of that, many of their scorers have not only neglected to fill Gagner's void, but have actually had trouble even filling their own shoes.
Even if Gagner was in the lineup, and somehow managed to stabilize their top 2 lines, I don't see them having any more than maybe 2 or 3 more wins at best (and that's giving him a ton of credit). 2-3 more wins, added to the basement team in the West is still well off the pace that the Canucks have set, and quite short of threatening the Canucks playoff position, as the poster insinuated.
Ps. I was arguing that Burrows is a more key player in general, as in the type of player that steps up for his team. The type of player everyone wants on the ice when a game is on the line.
I do however admit that Gagner is possibly more key to his team, which is what you were saying?
