Who Is A Better at Hockey: Victor Olofsson or Samson Reinhart?

[LGR4GM]

@Taro T I do want to give what you are saying a separate response. You have 2 parts to your side and that is at what amount points would it have not been worth shutting VO down based on injury, so if he would have had 20 or only 10 where do I draw the line. The other is development and where we factor that in. 

I think for myself 15 points is the number and it is what we saw happen. VO was probably 15 points below where he should have been. That is at the threshold I would have kept him playing because of the development. 20, I would have pulled him and let him rehab for a few weeks. That said I don't know enough about the wrist injury, maybe rest would not have mattered at all. I think of that line from Miracle where Herb asks if he can injure it further if he plays. 

I honestly hope that answer what you are asking and I really am not angry or trying to be a dick. It is hard to argue 3 separate ideas between a few different posters at once. 

[dudacek]

It's too bad this thread went the way it has, because there's a decent discussion  to be had here on two levels:

• One is how the hockey sense a healthy Victor has shown this season is reminiscent of Sam's and big leap from what we've observed in his game before. He has made some of the sweetest passes we've seen this year. He still needs good linemates to maximize his game, but it's become more of a two-way street.
• Another is how a healthy Victor has produced: 18/14/32 in 33 games in October, March and April. That raises the question of how productive he can be over a full year. A developed Sam Reinhart was essentially a 65-point per 82 games player for the Sabres. Based on recent numbers, wondering if Victor can better that is not a silly exercise.

Forget "who's better." Make it about "what level can Victor reach?"

[Taro T]

41 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I have provided those statements and it is an argument. If Olofsson dropped 30points because his injury prevented him from being effective, I would have shut him down. You are now arguing semantics and other details. You brought in development, you brought in what if it was only 20 points. That wasn't the original question or conversation and this place LOVES to do whataboutism, in fact it thrives on it and that's fine because that is how we expand threads and move on. I am however containing my response to only the original idea that VO without injury scores another 30, I think that unlikely and if it were true that means his injury was more significant. 

The problem is this place thinks "argument" means animosity as opposed to the more academic rhetoric of it all. I don't think Bob is dumb or bad or I should be angry with him. I think he posted something I disagree with and I think we should go back and forth on it until we've explored that topic fully. You and most on this board want to treat it like a wgr call in option where you say what you want and then expect very little response and if you get more it is "not in good faith" or as nfreeman loves to do when I question him in anyway shape or form accuse me of "temper tantrums" and call any counter argument gibberish. (He does this because it is a tactic to discredit the argument against his posts and because he doesn't like me. It is why we rarely interact anymore, he does not argue in good faith). I always attempt to debate in good faith although I fail sometimes. You seem to assume I am upset in replies, usually I am bemused but maybe I should play up the other persona more. The arguments here are an exercise is debating points on the team, I personally wish some of the old posters would come back and argue their side more. Blue and Hoss were always good at it. I think Bob has made some good points and I like his optimism, I simply disagree with it. 

Good points from Bob include the linemates VO had, the injury (which we are debating), and VO's growth this year. 

 

Thank you for that.

Will take exception though to the characterization that yours truly wants to treat this as a GR call in show.  Absolutely not.  There is no nuance to that format and there & no learning.  It is truly boring after a few minutes.

Your use of the term debate is fine.  But IMHO that is still defining things too adversarially as it presumes, especially when looked at in the competitive sense, the positions are diametrically opposed, but they rarely are here.  (Though there are definitely some that it fits the discussion to a Tee.  😉 )  We all want the same thing in the end, but with different ideas as to what path is the best route to get there.  And some of what has worked this year under Granato has yours truly significantly questioning my own beliefs/ expectations.  Want to see it work when the team actually wants/tries to win & at a pace above (& above by more than a max of 6 points more than) expected to figure out what those refinements should actually be; but you get the just of the point.  😉

You say the discussion about Olofsson is a semantics argument, but it is more than that.  MHO.  YMMV.

Olofsson's defensive play improved this season, again IMHO.  Considering this was a "development" year and also that the players brought in to supplement the team were less effective than he was and apparently there was no substantial fear of doing further harm to the wrist, saw no reason whatsoever to shut him down.  From what has been stated in public, it doesn't appear that shutting him down would've caused the injury to heal any faster either, which would've been a reason to shut him down.   And, there's no way of knowing what he'd've scored w/ staying healthy, so what you're calling "whataboutism" is simply trying to understand why you'd've shut him down.  Not every question posed is a "gotcha" trap.  😉

 

Edited April 22, 2022 by Taro T
Adjusted the location of a ")".

[Doohickie]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

2 hours ago, bob_sauve28 said:

He was hurt for a long stretch. 

If he was that hurt he shouldn't have been playing. He's streaky and probably will remain that way. I think declaring he would have another 30pts if not over that is unlikely regardless of injury. Olofsson has never been close to 60 points let alone 80 and while I think 60 is a reasonable ceiling, 80 seems above his abilities unless it is some type of 1 year fluke type of thing. 

This is the crux of the argument:  Is the *real* VO the one from this season early and late, or does he (and will he continue to) disappear for long stretches of the season?  Consider these stats:

So when you look at it that way, in his prime, non-injured periods this year, he's been twice as good as he's been overall in terms of production as expressed by xGF (assume points, which this discussion has been using to measure production, roughly follow).

So one of these conditions is true:

• This year's sample through October and since the All-Star break is indicative of the "real" VO and assuming he stays healthy is what we can expect going forward.
• His period of low production after the injury was part of his streaky nature and his production this year is typical of what to expect going forward.
• He is injury-prone, Samson isn't, so one must take that into account when gauging VO.  Samson's best ability is availability, which sets him above the oft-injured VO.
• All three of these are true to some extent:  He can be streaky, injuries will continue to affect his availability, but when he's on, he's gold.