Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
If you had read what I said, he was playing well for a while, prior to Lucic on the line, as opposed to early in the season.
First 17 games, 9 points.
Next 12 games, 10 points, and was playing much better.
First game with Lucic, 3 points against SJS
Since then, 10 points in 14 games.
So yeah, it is more than close. Trying to suggest that he has been better with Lucic than he was for the 12 games prior to Lucic is just not accurate.
|
…and did you read when I said he had 7 five on five points in 29 games? How does this number not resonate? Do you even realize how bad that it is? That’s why it’s not close. At the time, his 0.24 rate was good for 13th place on the team with 4th liners like Ritchie and Lewis placing ahead of him.
That means Huberdeau was producing at a 4th line level while playing 1st line minutes. That’s no damn good and it was painfully clear that Darryl need to make a big change especially since they had just been booed off the ice after their loss to the Blues.
Secondly, I can’t even wrap my head around the strange way you’ve dissected these games. It’s like you just randomly grouped together segment of games that would further your narrative without taking into consideration who he was playing with and the types of points he was garnering as Strange Brew alluded to.
If you’re going to exclude the game where Huberdeau had 3 points just because it doesn’t help drive your point. Then why don’t I just cherry pick the games where they didn’t score to help make my numbers look better too? Ultimately, If this is about Lucic vs not with Lucic, then it’s all the games with him vs without him and 5 on 5 production. Counting his powerplay points doesn’t make sense in an honest straight line mate to line mate comparison. I know people hate the idea of Lucic on the top line with Huberdeau, but they’ve been mutually beneficial to each other.