How do you expect me to compare Bouchard and Heiskanen if you only give Heiskanen's numbers? And most of those are even aggregates whose predictive value has been obscured.
Here, let me try.
5on5 CA/60:
Bouchard: 48.33
Heiskanen: 51.20
5on5 xGA/60:
Bouchard: 2.39
Heiskanen: 2.06
Relative:
5on5 CA/60 relative:
Bouchard: -7.5
Heiskanen: -6.83
5on5 xGA/60 relative
Bouchard: -0.15
Heiskanen: -0.14
Oh, and these are regular season numbers. So this comparison heavily favors Heiskanen. If I was using playoff numbers instead, 5on5 CA/60 instead for example:
Bouchard: 48.07
Heiskanen: 62,01
And in case you cannot read these stats, of the 5 I gave, Bouchard is better in 4. And these are purely defensive stats.
And considering that I don't even need to prove that Bouchard is better than Heiskanen defensively(since that's not what I was arguing), it's looking pretty good. I only need to show that Heiskanen is not "infinitely better" defensively. Which I think I've accomplished.
(source naturalstattrick.com)
