Not sure exactly what that means, but when you're the highest scorer on the team, you certainly have way more leeway than someone who gets 25 points a year as far as appraising their performance.
This is such bullshit. Sorry brother, but it’s the truth.
Should Pastrnak get more leeway than Bergeron or McAvoy just because points give people a stiffy? Is Shayne Gostisbehre and his 51 points better and more valuable than Colton Parayko and his 32 points?
More over, if you’re appraising their performance, you’re doing so relative to what you expected from them. If I’m grading Jesper Fast I’m not giving him a D for not reaching 90 points. He can score 30+ points and get an A for what he does relative to what role he plays relative to how much he’s paid to play it. At the same time, a player can make a ton of money, score a ton of points, and also make a ton of bad plays and be given a B or B+.
Panarin had a lot of points. He still had a B season. He picked up 38% of his points on the PP, gave the puck away a ton, wouldn’t shoot and overall didn’t have as large of a positive impact on the games as he has in most years of his career. The only way to refute that is to say “but points!” and you can do that until you’re blue in the face, but I will vehemently disagree with any way that you spin in.
