Hansen produced at a 2nd line rate last season despite 3rd line minutes and no PP time. New argument, please, since this one doesn't hold up to evidence.
This season he's not just producing at a 2nd line rate, he's producing a Top 50 rate at ES (that's 1st line numbers). There's no evidence this is simply a product of a hot streak either. Even if we include PP production, he's up there with guys like Iginla, Gaborik, Callahan, Selanne, Saad, Turris, Franzen, Clarkson, Eriksson, Pavelski, Richards, etc.
So much emphasis on how players look around here. Same goes for Garrison. This isn't a prospect you're evaluating, it's a real player getting real results. He's missing on chances but he's also creating a ton of chances that he does convert on or setup for his teammates to convert on.
In general, Jannik Hansen is really no more stone-hands than any other player on our roster. His shooting percentage is right around 10 which is pretty average, even if it means he's not a sniper. The difference between him and a 1st line guy like Parise is the amount of chances created by them, not the amount of chances converted.
Last year, Hansen put up less than 40pts. And that's
with playing time alongside the Sedins (where there is a fairly well established trend of point production). If that's what we're striving for as a '2nd liner', the bad guys have won.
As for this year? Yes, he's produced at a 'pace' that would make him a top-6 forward. But we're talking half...of a half of a season.
And i know you and others have mentioned this before...production on a weak team doesn't always equate to production on a strong/deep team. What exactly do you think this Canucks forward corps has been so far this year, up to the point we added a legitimate center in Roy and got Kesler back? Hansen took a great opportunity on a (temporarily) weak team and ran with it. He hit one of his hot streaks at just the right time and his stats reflect that. If you project that out...he's what, a ~45pt player? And we've all acknowledged he's having a great breakout year. If that's his high point...he's still just a fringe top-6 player.
Take a look at LA last year winning the Cup. They have underperforming players, yes...guys like Richards and Penner were performing at a level way below what they've shown themselves capable of. Those are Cup winning 2nd liners. They're 60pt players, even if they don't show it every year.
This isn't 'The Sims: hockey edition'. Unrealized capacity to score means something...and i'd like to hear evidence that the Kings' top-6 guys are trumped by Jannik Hansen's production this year.
Should i break it down?
1.Kopitar: 70-80pt range consistently.
2.Brown: 50pt range consistently, and often close to 60pt.
3.Richards: 60pt range most years, and actually hit 80pts. I will eat a shoe if Hansen hits 80pts no matter what line or system he plays in.
4.Williams: 50-60pt range consistently when healthy, with a record of exceeding that in earlier years.
5.Carter: 50-80pt range. Wide variance there as he's not much of a passer...but in that context...nearly a 50g scorer. Let me know when Hansen scores half that many.
6.Penner: had an abysmal year with the Kings and a poor fit much of the time...but a player with a recorded ability to be a 60pt+ 30g+ scorer.
and For the bonus round...
7.Gagne: a player who, despite constant injuries, put up similar or better points than Hansen, in typically a lot fewer games. This was a
reserve forward for the Kings.
My point? Winning the cup isn't about having guys who can eek out 'average' top-6 production. It's about having guys who can exceed that. And in the context of a team with intentions on winning the Stanley Cup...Hansen is not a 'legitimate top-6 forward'. He's an epic 3rd liner.
And i don't know why some people are dead set on claiming he's more than that.