We have always disagreed about him, so no need to rehash that tired old argument. I don't think I am selling Anze short one bit, I honestly believe that the things he is so good at are the kinds of things that hockey nerds like us see at a younger age before the fairer weather fans do, and we put more weight on them because it makes feel validated for seeing them.
I would counter the games missed argument by noting that the players in mention all, to a man, play a much, much more intense brand of hockey so naturally they endured more physical wear and tear. Kopitar plays huge minutes, but they are controlled and measured, not constantly trying to push the pace of attack the net on the bulk of his shifts.
I have oftened wondered, and this is a discussion I think we will be having about Turcotte in a few seasons, why folks value stability over a long career more than a flame that burns hotter and brighter over a shorter period. I don't think one is especially more valuable than the other because it takes more than one type to make a successful team. Mike Richards gave everything he had to maximize his size and skill and burned out fast, but he is still the best pure winner I have ever seen in any sport. And now he is the butt of jokes.
