You're giving him more credit than he's earned, while withholding the credit Marner earned.
Actually, I’m just giving Rantanen the recognition he deserves based on his consistent performance, especially when it matters most in the playoffs. It’s not about inflating his value, it’s about acknowledging the full scope of his impact his size, scoring ability, and two-way game, which is better than Marner's.
Rantanen is a great player, but Marner is superior offensively and defensively in every game state.
While Marner certainly brings a lot to the table offensively and defensively, saying he's superior in
every game state ignores Rantanen’s undeniable impact. Rantanen's offensive game, especially his goal-scoring ability, is elite, and his playmaking is just as dangerous. He can take over games, especially in tight situations or during high-stakes moments, which is something Marner hasn’t consistently done to the same extent.
I haven't ignored any context. I'm the one pointing it out. Saying that it "speaks for itself" is just a fancy way of saying you're ignoring the context,
Saying something ‘speaks for itself’ means the results are clear. Rantanen’s impact is evident without needing to twist the narrative. You claim to be pointing out context, but in reality, you're selectively framing it to fit your argument.
The context you’re ignoring? Rantanen’s goal-scoring dominance, his ability to elevate in the playoffs, and his physical presence, which adds another dimension to his game that Marner simply doesn’t have. Context isn’t just about raw numbers—it’s about how a player’s skill set translates to winning hockey. And in that regard, Rantanen has proven himself just as much, if not more, than Marner."
Yes I agree you've provided nothing to back up your claim.