no i dont.
the reason i mentioned st. louis is because by looking at the makeup of that team, it should be easy even for you to see that players can bring value to a team by providing more than just raw skill.
This is so basic... i dont know why im explaining it to you.
Here's another example. Lets compare two players from say the 1998/1999 season
Based on your mindset where skill is all that matters. you would prefer:
Cliff Ronning. 60 pts. lots of skill and little else in terms of intangibles
over a player like
Jere Lehtinen 52 points, Selke winner. Grit and suffocating two-way play. +29.
heres another example
Mike Peca. another Selke winner. 2001/2002 season. 25 goals. 60 pts. punishing open ice hitter with loads of grit, and the ability to get under his opponents skin. Some leadership qualities too.
..but based on your logic, you'd prefer a high skilled guy like Sergei Samsonov. 29 goals. 70 points. and nothing else other than that.
Last example: Naslund 03/04. 84 pts. vs Iginla 73 pts.
Theres more to a hockey player than his ability to put up points. If you dont see that by now then there is no point in conversing with you.
I think the premise of your post has merit, but the way in which you explain it does not. For example, Selke level players like Lehtinen and Peca affected shot differentials in a significant way. That means that they likely prevented more than 8 goals in goal differential for their respective teams. The net benefit far outweighed the singular advantage Ronning (how dare you question his intangibles
) or Samsonov would have provided.
It is the net advantage of the hitting, the grit, the leadership etc... that matters. It's not merely the existence of those traits. That's what I think your analysis is missing, and why I think people can readily, and rightly, question the value these secondary skill sets provide.
For Ferland, it didn't seem like a better option was available, so it's fine. For JT Miller, there was Nyquist...