Stajan or Sjostrom

[Patty Ice]

Well excuse me but when a couple people begin talking about how he's a better offensive player than Stajan and that he's got natural scoring ability I think it's quite appropriate to look at numbers.

He has 15 goals in 100 AHL games. That's not very good. Do you have a better way of measuring goal scoring ability? If so I'd like to hear it.

He also has 7 goals in 57 NHL games. Nothing mind blowing but an encouraging number for a rookie whose game isn't all offense but rather all sound two-way game. I didn't label him as a goalscorer and I'd never would but I wouldn't be surprised if he begins to score more goals than Stajan either. Both guys strike me as dudes who don't, in particular, light the lamp but contribute offensively by setting up plays.

Well perhaps you should care.

Dan Tkaczuk and Dan Clearly lit up the AHL...so by your logic they should be good NHLers right? While its an indicator, AHL numbers are not a conclusive indicator of a player's NHL success. So far, Sjostrom has shown he can play and contribute in the NHL which is what an organization wants in the end.

Well yeah he's another guy that I think is overrated. I wouldn't call either of them "worthless" though. Never did.

Goc is certainly better than Sjostrom though.

I would say the same as Stajan as well among some people. These guys are cut from the same cloth. Their respective teams are happy if they get 45-50 points out of these guys while gettin "smart" hockey out of them.

No, an obvious talent would be able to score in the AHL. He's a questionable talent.

Secondly, I didn't jock (whatever that means) all over Stajan. I just don't understand why some people feel Sjostrom was a better offensive talent considering Stajan has outscored him in junior, the AHL and the NHL.

It's a pretty reasonable point if you ask me. Don't know why people woud take offense to it.

This is what I took offense in your post. You were dismissing Sjostrom's game to boost Stajan's. A career isn't made after two or three AHL/NHL seasons. If you prefer Stajan over Sjostrom...fine, it's totally understandable and justified. But it's not as clear cut as you try to make it. Numbers don't tell the whole story.

 

[Leaf Army]

I didn't label him as a goalscorer and I'd never would

Well I was responding to people who were lableing him a goalscorer. Perhaps you should take this up with them, not me.

but I wouldn't be surprised if he begins to score more goals than Stajan either. Both guys strike me as dudes who don't, in particular, light the lamp but contribute offensively by setting up plays.

Well I would be surprised if Sjostrom put up more points than Stajan considering Stajan has outscored him at every level so far. That was my original point.

If you'd like to point out why you think Sjostrom will start outscoring Stajan than go ahead.

Dan Tkaczuk and Dan Clearly lit up the AHL...so by your logic they should be good NHLers right?

That wasn't what I said at all.

I said an obvious talent would be able to put up numbers in the AHL. I clearly did not say anyone who puts up numbers in the AHL is gauranteed NHL success- which is what you're implying I said.

There aren't too many obvious talents who can't score in the AHL. But if you want to find me some feel free to.

So far, Sjostrom has shown he can play and contribute in the NHL which is what an organization wants in the end.

I never once said he couldn't contribute in the NHL.

But we're comparing him with Stajan aren't we? Isn't that the point of the thread? And Stajan has also contributed in the NHL so that's a wash.

But apparently when I do compare him with Stajan, I'm "biased" and "pathetic".

This is what I took offense in your post. You were dismissing Sjostrom's game to boost Stajan's.

All I did was show that Stajan has been the better offensive player at three separate levels of hockey so far.

If that means to you I was dismissing Sjostrom to boost Stajan then so be it.

The reason I said Sjostrom isn't very good is because I don't think he'll ever be a real effective offensive player.

 

[hbk]

Sjostrom projects to be a 20/20 guy with 30/30 potential who has the speed and skill set to play on any line.

Coyote fans are a bit dumbfounded by his lack of production at the AHL level. Part of the issue was his attitude that the AHL would be a bit easier road to travel after his positive experience in the NHL. Keep in mind that he has been saddled with two rookie coaches and a weak supporting cast in Utah/Springfield. His play at the NHL level was excellent and he will likely pencil in on the third line next season behind Doan and Hull (assuming they push Johnson to the left side) where he will play with Saprykin and one of Ricci, Rupp, Kolanos, or Taffe.

 

[Riddarn]

Although I am not too fond of swedes... Sjöström. He's a can't miss kind of prospect. If he won't score he'll still be valuable.

Am I going insane or did you just actually say something positive about a swedish hockey player?

This is too much.

 

[Gwyddbwyll]

You were dismissing Sjostrom's game to boost Stajan's. A career isn't made after two or three AHL/NHL seasons. If you prefer Stajan over Sjostrom...fine, it's totally understandable and justified. But it's not as clear cut as you try to make it. Numbers don't tell the whole story.

Actually its just one season and a bit in the AHL. He was called up after just 17 games and that would have been the last of it, but for the lockout.

Leaf Army - here are some fun numbers for you to play with. Sjostrom scored 9% of his team's goals. Stajan scored............. 9% of his team's goals! Do yourself a favor and dont judge players entirely on numbers.. especially on HF where the posters are too knowledgeable for that.

 

[mattihp]

Am I going insane or did you just actually say something positive about a swedish hockey player?

This is too much.

I've also said positive things about the Sedins. But swedes hate them so I guess that doesn't count.

Öhlund is also one of my top-10 favourite NHL players...

 

[Preds666]

Am I going insane or did you just actually say something positive about a swedish hockey player?

This is too much.

I have seen him praising Henrik Lundqvist as well, which was even more astounding IMO

As for Sjöström, I don't see him as a really offensive player. My prediction is that he'll develop into a fine role player (think PJ Axelsson), so I vote Stajan.

 

[mattihp]

I have seen him praising Henrik Lundqvist as well, which was even more astounding IMO

I must've missed that. I've never given anything else than an honest assasment of Henrik Lundqvist's skillset.

 

[Leaf Army]

Leaf Army - here are some fun numbers for you to play with. Sjostrom scored 9% of his team's goals. Stajan scored............. 9% of his team's goals! Do yourself a favor and dont judge players entirely on numbers.. especially on HF where the posters are too knowledgeable for that.

Isn't 9% a number as well?

Typical HF response. People hate when you bring up numbers. Until they find some they like and then they love numbers.

Numbers are just a means of measuring performance. We typically measure a players offense by the numbers they put up- nothing wrong with that.

Isn't it weird that the MVP of the NHL last year just happened to also have the best "numbers"? What a strange coincidence eh?

How do you judge a players offense?

 

[Gwyddbwyll]

Isn't 9% a number as well?

Errr yes well done for spotting that(!) I was showing you how you can use numbers to portray anything, especially when there's little difference between the players. You claim Stajan was better because he scored more goals. I pointed out Sjostrom played on the worst team with the least offense and that he was equally valuable to his team. Both of us have numbers to "prove it".

Typical HF response. People hate when you bring up numbers. Until they find some they like and then they love numbers.

Numbers are just a means of measuring performance. We typically measure a players offense by the numbers they put up- nothing wrong with that.

There's nothing wrong with it until you start judging only by numbers. This is hockey, not maths and you cannot quantify it with just a number and completely ignore accounts of people think of the players themselves and not just their numbers.

I judge players by watching them play, and if that isnt possible, only then do I turn to looking at their numbers. Have you ever watched Joey Juneau play? Then go look up his numbers - he once scored 100+ points in a season! That should tell you all you need to know about analysis by numbers.

 

[Riddarn]

I've also said positive things about the Sedins. But swedes hate them so I guess that doesn't count.

Öhlund is also one of my top-10 favourite NHL players...

Stop. My head is exploding

 

[Leaf Army]

You claim Stajan was better because he scored more goals.

I never said that. It was the opposite. People were saying that Sjostrom was better because he's a better goal scorer.

A couple other people were drooling over Sjostrom's natural scoring ability. They were talking about how he can pick up the puck at the redline, skate through the team and put it in the net.

I merely pointed out that all this "natural scoring ability" has equated into 15 goals in 100 AHL games.

Yet somehow that get's translated into me saying Stajan is better because he scores more goals.

I pointed out Sjostrom played on the worst team with the least offense and that he was equally valuable to his team. Both of us have numbers to "prove it".

Yes exactly. You proved it all right. Nevermind that Stajan had better junior, AHL and NHL stats, the one stat you provided trumps all.

Way to go- can't argue with that.

There's nothing wrong with it until you start judging only by numbers.

I never judged them only by numbers.

But people were talking about their offensive abilities. It only makes sense to bring up their offensive stats, right? Was I wrong to do that?

I don't see any other aspect of their game that sets Sjostrom apart from Stajan.

Have you ever watched Joey Juneau play? Then go look up his numbers - he once scored 100+ points in a season! That should tell you all you need to know about analysis by numbers.

What ridiculous logic.

You might be too young to remember, but when Joe Juneau scored 100 points he was widely considered to be one of the best young forwards in the game. Most people pegged him as a future superstar.

I don't recall one person saying, "Well yeah he scored 100 points, but if you watch him play he's not very good."

The reason Joe Juneau isn't very good now is because he scored 15 points in 70 games last year.

If he had scored 100 points last year, people would still be talking about how good he is.

 

[Gwyddbwyll]

I never judged them only by numbers.

That is how you are coming across. Check yourself. You continually rehash the same point about their numbers over and over, disregarding anything else that contradicts your point and failing to engage in any real discussion. It's hockey. Not maths. Deal with the fact people have different views to you. I havent seen you open minded enough to take on board a single point anyone else has made.

 

[Mess]

That is how you are coming across. Check yourself. You continually rehash the same point about their numbers over and over, disregarding anything else that contradicts your point and failing to engage in any real discussion. It's hockey. Not maths. Deal with the fact people have different views to you.

If someone makes a statement that a player is a good offensive player ..

What OTHER factors would you consider ?? .. His Height, Weight, Draft Position, 2-way play, Penalty Mins or PK ability, Character, skating, Age , his Team ..

How are any of these above factors useful to prove OFFENSIVE ability or support a statement that a player is OFFENSIVELY creative ??

 

[Leaf Army]

That is how you are coming across. Check yourself. You continually rehash the same point about their numbers over and over

Yeah because it's a good point.

disregarding anything else that contradicts your point and failing to engage in any real discussion. It's hockey. Not maths. Deal with the fact people have different views to you. I havent seen you open minded enough to take on board a single point anyone else has made.

Not true.

Someone said he had blazing speed. I didn't disagree. Someone else said he had a great attitude and could be a good role player in the future. Didn't disagree on that either.

The only thing I've questioned is people saying he's offensively superior to Stajan because based on past performance I don't any reason to say that.

When I questioned that, I was told that Sjostrom is a better goalscorer who can take the puck from the redline and score. Once again someone who supposedly has these abilities should be able to score more goals IMO.

And if you think that scouts don't put stock into actual offensive production you're only fooling yourself.

 

[Free Edler]

Sjostrom is definitely more of a 'tools' player than Stajan, his raw abilities are excellent, whether or not he ends up using all the tools in his toolbox is another question and another thread entirely.

He played on a rotten AHL team this year - just downright bad - and like most of the guys on that team, had a bad year.

Sjostrom is a flashy offensive player with more offensive potential (there's that word again) than Stajan, but Matt is a safer bet to have a long career in the show.

 

[caldercup0]

Sjostrom put up 38 points on a Utah team which tied for dead last in the AHL with 156 team goals. If you put him on a real team, he'll be a much better player. Stajan's already got that team, both with St. John's and Toronto. It's leaning toward Stajan being better, but if Sjostrom gets some decent linemates it'll be a close battle.

 

[rt]

If someone makes a statement that a player is a good offensive player ..

What OTHER factors would you consider ?? .. His Height, Weight, Draft Position, 2-way play, Penalty Mins or PK ability, Character, skating, Age , his Team ..

Absolutely.