Maybe I’m out to lunch on this stuff, but I’m trying to provide you data that I feel shows my point and it feels as if all you’re trying to do is put me down; or hyperbolize my opinion on the matter.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to put you down.
When doing analysis on something you need as much and as complete data as possible. If you want your analysis to be as accurate as possible with the highest prediction power, you need to consider all of it. Attempting to analyze with missing/faulty data only provides bad analysis. People call it "garbage in- garbage out". If you feed bad data, you get bad results.
What you're asking of me is to ignore ALL of the good. Like totally just forget that when he is healthy he's an elite player. How would that exclusion of data provide good analysis and future prediction power? We want prediction power in this situation, because we're trying to evaluate future contributions or lack of. So we best consider everything, not just the lows.
I know enough about Laine, have seen vast majority of his NHL games, that I can't just take some of the lows and forget the highs. If your intention is to convince someone of something by cherry picking data then you should try it with someone who doesn't have a full picture of the career of said player.
I understand that is actually the reason why we clash on this. I've seen all of it, you've seen the CBJ part of it and especially the first season was a bad look for first impressions. I think you got really soured on him in the first season and then just never recovered from that once he started showing why he's worth that much. And because the seasons here have been interrupted so many times with injuries, he has not gotten that great stretch in yet where he's truly one of the best in the league, night in night out. That happens with him, even for months. It's not that he doesn't have that player in him, it's that he's been out a hell of a lot.
I don't ignore his injuries, but it is hockey and it happens. Statistically he's had more than his fair share of injuries, there's no real reason to think that they will continue to happen at the same rate. It's possible that they will, but there isn't any underlying reason like osteoporosis why he has snapped a few bones or been concussed. Maybe it's something that could be addressed in play style, he's gotten injured against the boards more but really they are just variance. Variance can go the other way, it's possible he plays 5 full seasons in a row from now on. Not likely, but possible.
Fully healthy, PP1 on left, top 6 minutes and he can be a 100 point player in a full season. He doesn't get paid like one, because he hasn't had too many full seasons in those conditions.
We only have 1 other player like that who has been able to play at that level (Gaudreau) and currently he's far from it while being healthy. So no, we don't have 3 lines of better options. We don't have any better options. Maybe you'd still prefer them, but "better" would need some quantifying. As far as production goes, they are not on Laine's level.
That's the player I have watched, so when you're telling me Texier needs to play above him in lineup, I have some questions about your methods of evaluation. When one is willing to throw out all the good, and analyze just with the bad data, it's not an honest evaluation. It's an attempt to justify a position that's been formed from feelings rather than from data. I see that stuff (lazy/faulty takes) on the main boards about Laine sometimes, just expect better from home base I guess.