None are denying any of this, all of this is accurate, but there’s two main issues with this.
1. Giving full credit to Crosby for the success of the HBK line. We can give Crosby context points, yet everyone on the second and third line had to step up, even if they’re playing weaker competition due to spreading out the talent. If it’s such a viable strategy, why didn’t the Penguins employ it in the regular season? You might win the President trophy, get home Ice and easier matchups. It’s because relying on a lower talent third line scoring while your first line is a negative is usually not a winning strategy. What you’re saying is Crosby had a better playoffs than the stats suggest because Phil Kessel drove his line well… not Crosby’s on ice ability?.
2. Implying that this could be replicated for the Oilers. That third line over preformed expectations so massively that it shouldn’t be used as a standard. McDavid was plus 15 last playoffs, are you willing to bet that the Oilers would be better had he been separated from Drai, given fourth line scrubs and was a -2 instead?. There is no guarantee that Hyman and say, Kane preform well enough on the third line to cover up the deficit.
By the way, McDavid was on ice for 2ga the entire Stanley cup finals… he’s deployed as an offensive weapon that concedes 2 goals against in 150 ish minutes of ice time?. Sounds like a bargain.
