Player Discussion Artturi Lehkonen

[The Great Weal]

he should be this year, hard not to think he won't get 6 or more pts over 22 games.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if he didn't score 7(it's 30 PLUS points) points in 22 games

 

[26Mats]

Lehkonen is definitely not a 30 points+ player.

He's on pace for 33 points, but he's slowing down so he may not reach it. Then again he may heat up. He's a hot and cold player on the score sheet - but always constant in his 200 foot game.

 

[montreal]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if he didn't score 7(it's 30 PLUS points) points in 22 games

he's got 5 in his last 22, which would put him at 29, so if he gets 1 more of that he's at least hit 30.

 

[The Great Weal]

he's got 5 in his last 22, which would put him at 29, so if he gets 1 more of that he's at least hit 30.

So you can't call him a 30 plus point player when he has yet to hit 30.

 

[montreal]

So you can't call him a 30 plus point player when he has yet to hit 30.

if not this year then next, he's clearly been very close, would like to see him at RW the rest of the year.

 

[Mrb1p]

So you can't call him a 30 plus point player when he has yet to hit 30.

Youre trying way to hard at this point

 

[The Great Weal]

Youre trying way to hard at this point

Well I am right...

 

[Mrb1p]

Well I am right...

Calling a guy with 28 pts in 73 and 24 in 59 a 30 point player is pretty much a 28 pts guy is pretty much asinine.

 

[The Great Weal]

Calling a guy with 28 pts in 73 and 24 in 59 a 30 point player is pretty much a 28 pts guy is pretty much asinine.

But you said 30+ when he has yet to score 30.

 

[Mrb1p]

But you said 30+ when he has yet to score 30.

Mainly because hes been on pace twice in his three year career....

 

[The Great Weal]

Mainly because hes been on pace twice in his three year career....

He was on pace for a 60 point season at the start of the year and is on pace for 33 now. Forgive me for valuing ACTUAL production over "on pace for".

 

[Mrb1p]

He was on pace for a 60 point season at the start of the year and is on pace for 33 now. Forgive me for valuing ACTUAL production over "on pace for".

Jesus christ. By this logic Crosby is comparable to Marcel Dionne.

 

[Tyson]

Who will score first- Mete or Lehkonen?

 

[The Great Weal]

Jesus christ. By this logic Crosby is comparable to Marcel Dionne.

I don't get this comparison at all. I'm literally just saying Lehkonen isn't a 30+ point player because he hasn't done that yet. It's nothing crazy. I don't know why you are even arguing this, he hasn't scored 30+ points yet.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

Mainly because hes been on pace twice in his three year career....

To be fair, he is correct. Being on pace for anything doesn't matter.

Phil Kessel had 36 goals in 70 games with Boston, then had something like 10 in 12 games in the playoffs. Bruins fans called him a 40 goal scorer, but he never hit it, despite being on pace for it. He never hit 40 goals and likely never will.

Even then, you would want the player to hit the target more than once.

 

[Mrb1p]

To be fair, he is correct. Being on pace for anything doesn't matter.

Phil Kessel had 36 goals in 70 games with Boston, then had something like 10 in 12 games in the playoffs. Bruins fans called him a 40 goal scorer, but he never hit it, despite being on pace for it. He never hit 40 goals and likely never will.

Even then, you would want the player to hit the target more than once.

Producing at that rate for an extended period of time means your value is of that production. An arbitrary treshold of games doesnt change that.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

Producing at that rate for an extended period of time means your value is of that production. An arbitrary treshold of games doesnt change that.

Yes it does. If you've never actually attained the threshold one is suggesting, then you're not that.

In my example, Phil Kessel went on to play all 82 games and never reached 40, while being close at 37 twice.

If you don't actually hit that level, you can't say a player's production is that.

 

[Mrb1p]

Yes it does. If you've never actually attained the threshold one is suggesting, then you're not that.

In my example, Phil Kessel went on to play all 82 games and never reached 40, while being close at 37 twice.

If you don't actually hit that level, you can't say a player's production is that.

He wasn't on pace, there's the difference.

But if you pace for 100 points in X games, your value is that of a 100 points player in these games.

Would you say Kucherov is not a 100 points player because of a stupid point ? No ? Right. (Provided last year never happened.)

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

He wasn't on pace, there's the difference.

But if you pace for 100 points in X games, your value is that of a 100 points player in these games.

Would you say Kucherov is not a 100 points player because of a stupid point ? No ? Right. (Provided last year never happened.)

While extremely unlikely he goes pointless the rest of the season, or gets hurt next game without getting a point, he will become a player who's a 100 point player, as he'll have done it twice in his career and relatively close together, well, back-to-back.

Lehkonen needs 6 points, which is suspect that he'll get. If he does, then you could say he's a 30 point player. He actually achieved it.

Me and only me, I stay away from those labels unless the player actually does it more than once, otherwise you could have said we had a 40 goal scorer in Brian Gionta and let him go for nothing.

There's nothing stopping him from becoming a 40 point player, but I just say you can't call someone and say they are a ___ point player if they've never hit that level in their career, even if they were on pace to do so in a few seasons.

 

[Mrb1p]

While extremely unlikely he goes pointless the rest of the season, or gets hurt next game without getting a point, he will become a player who's a 100 point player, as he'll have done it twice in his career and relatively close together, well, back-to-back.

Lehkonen needs 6 points, which is suspect that he'll get. If he does, then you could say he's a 30 point player. He actually achieved it.

Me and only me, I stay away from those labels unless the player actually does it more than once, otherwise you could have said we had a 40 goal scorer in Brian Gionta and let him go for nothing.

There's nothing stopping him from becoming a 40 point player, but I just say you can't call someone and say they are a ___ point player if they've never hit that level in their career, even if they were on pace to do so in a few seasons.

It's stupid because the value of the player is that of his projected production, a player that produces 60 in 82 and a player that produces 44 in 60 games have the exact same value for the 60 games.

At some point, you're just debating over semantic and not actual production or on-ice value.

 

[le_sean]

On the cusp of just wanting whatever for him. A reclamation project of his age.

 

[The Great Weal]

At the very least Armia scores on empty nets

 

[admiralcadillac]

He's got no confidence but he's a good player, stinks

 

[HabsWhiteKnightLOL]

trade him idc at this point

 

[A Loyal Dog]

Who will score first- Mete or Lehkonen?

Mete. At least he's not a meat head like Lehkonen.