Of course it is analogous. "Why didn't he sit if it was so bad" is one of the main counterpoints and the obvious answer is look at Mik.
My point was never about the actual medical staff or physical injury to Pettersson. My point was that if Pettersson had a significant injury, or one that was impacting his play, then I would have expected management to have very different public messaging, sort of like what we saw for Miller. Instead, they've essentially treated the injury as very minor and not used it as an excuse at all, and point to different reasons, like confidence, for Pettersson's struggles. This is what I meant about the team "protecting him", from a PR perspective, and not from a medical perspective.
"Why didn't coaching/mgmt do xyz thing if he's injured" and again the answer is look at how brutally wrong the handling of Mik was. Can't make any assumption of competent handling of player injuries by mgmt in any regard after Mik's botching.
Again, I am not talking about the medical side of things. I am talking about the PR side of things.
"The injury is just a 'nagging' one and his knee's fine".
You don't see the problem with that sentence? The inherent contradiction?
I was just paraphrasing what Pettersson said in his interview. You should watch the interview if you haven't already.
I know that you are heavily invested in the idea that he was not ever significantly injured but to everyone else, a nagging chronic knee injury is significant let alone to a pro athlete trying to be his very best at the sport.
I mean, this just isn't true. A nagging or chronic injury can be extremely minor, and not significant at all. I shouldn't even have to argue this but the fact that Pettersson himself doesn't even think the nagging injury is significant should be enough for you to totally abandon this line of thought. Again, during training camp Pettersson said his knee was fine and that he had no pain. That is not how anyone would describe a significant injury.
No he hasn't been consistent here. He scored a monstrous 50 ES points his first season. When he first got here he was carrying the second line and playing like a 9M player before Green's constant screwing with him finally got to him.
He followed up that 50 ES point season with a 34 ES point season and he looked poor while doing it. He wasn't a 5M player that year.
I don't really want to get sidetracked into a debate about Garland's consistency but Garland has scored 52, 46 and 47 points in Vancouver. But anyway, my point isn't that point production, whether total or even strength, won't change with deployment and linemates. I have never disputed this and I think the ansawer is pretty obvious. My point is that Garland has never looked, relatively speaking, anywhere as bad as Pettersson has looked during his slump even during his second year in Vancouver, and I think in that sense, he's actually been quite consistent. Again, almost all of the criticism surrounding him was a result of his cap hit during the flat cap era and not because people thought he was inherently "bad" or looked bad.
He only looks consistent if you're looking at hockey card stats. The weird opinions on Garland's first year here, and not just you but everywhere, even the guy himself, are so bizarre.
That's where I disagree. Again, I don't think, relatively speaking, Garland looked anywhere near as bad as Pettersson has looked.
And I think you made a similar hockey card stats point initially regarding Pettersson at the earlier part of his slump that people were just looking at hockey card stats implying that Pettersson was playing fine. That was obviously wrong, and people weren't actually doing that. People saw Pettersson was playing poorly and saw that the counting stats reflected that. Sorry if I am thinking of the wrong poster.
Secondary effects mean subsequent effects.
Sticking with the fire analogy, fire is a primary effect when you light a match. Smoke is a secondary effect.
Right, my bad.
What caused his slump last year? Not confidence.
You obviously have no idea and can't honestly think you are in a position to rule confidence, or other mental health issues, out.
Nagging injury that he trained around in summer and is still working around now isn't fine. I bet Henrik would have said he was fine too when he decided to chop his fingertip off rather than miss a few weeks waiting for the bone to heal. Pro hockey players are a different breed when it comes to how they view playing through injuries.
I don't disagree with you
generally on this point, but I think you are 100% wrong in these circumstances as Pettersson has literally said he has no pain in his knee and that his knee is fine. You are making this injury into something that isn't even consistent with Pettersson's own description of the injury. Its bizarre.