Hughes was a -3 last year, not a plus player so I have no idea where you're pulling that from. And just for context that put him squarely in the middle of the pack amongst his teammates in that category.
We literally just went over this last week. He was a + player 5v5. If you don't understand how +/- is calculated, that's on you.
We have a second year fourth liner who the coach has been lining up against top line players this season - he's a -3 which puts him in the top 10 players on this team within that category. I guess Mcleod's performance this year is just as "impressive" as Jack's using your logic? But this is another great example of shifting the goal posts - this is not at all the stat category anyone would be citing as evidence of how good Jack is prior to this year.
The only reason I use 5v5 plus/minus is because people like you hate shot stats. Hughes's shot stats were excellent last year. They're indicative of a player who is figuring out what to do against NHL opposition.
I can tell you exactly what Jack is right now. He's a guy who can produce at a 0.5 ppg clip on his natural talent. But his decision making and puck management is atrocious. He attempts to make passes and dekes that he's not talented enough to pull off against NHL caliber opponents. He gets knocked down too easily. Yes he might improve in these areas, but - and this is the point that someone like you just refuses to acknowledge - there's been no visible improvement in these areas from game 1 to now game 130. So when I say someone is not proving they are as good as they hype, it's not just about what they are doing today...it's about the progress they have or haven't made.
And this is ludicrous. Jack Hughes's rookie season, the Devils got 45% of the shots when Hughes was on the ice, and I would absolutely agree with a lot of these criticisms. He was not good enough and he was making some poor decisions consistently. He wasn't aware of his limitations.
Jack Hughes's second season, the Devils got 52.8% of the shots when he was on the ice. How can you not call that improvement? Now, that said, he has obviously regressed some so far this year, as he has returned to forcing some pucks, and he's also just not as good at the backcheck as he was last year either. His timing is off. The Devils results with him on the ice are back into the 40s. But there was progress made last season, and what I assume, again, is that when a player is 19, and reaches a certain plateau in performance, he will again make it there. The list of players who peaked at 19 is very short. The list of players who peaked later is much longer. If we see a season of this, I will be worried; I don't think we will, though.
In regards to Ty Smith...I haven't really ever claimed that he's not living up to the hype because 1) I don't think he was ever pumped up to the extent that other prospects were, and 2) He had a decent rookie campaign before shitting the bed this year. I haven't said anything about him other than echoing what most other people have said. The only reason he came up in this discussion is because you brought him into it, not me.
I am actually trying to diagnose the problems with this year's team instead of just shouting the same generalities, yes. Ty Smith's poor play is one of them, Jack Hughes's is another.
This is a contradictory and non-sensical statement. I'd only be always right about them if they never prove themselves. Is it not your insistence that the players in question will prove themselves, and thus at some point I will be wrong? Unlike certain people, I will happily acknowledge I was wrong if/when that happens, especially since it would likely mean that the team I root for will no longer be a giant pile of suck.
No, it isn't. You just sit back and have to be coached to give real opinions on anyone who hasn't played 300 games already. 'Is this player good? I don't know. He hasn't proven it.' 150 games later. 'Oh, okay, he is good. Now he proved it.' It's just non-falsifiable - you can't be wrong because you never gave an opinion in the first place other than 'players have to prove themselves to be good, and I won't offer an opinion either way until that happens.' All you suckers on the Hockey's Future website saying people might be good - what are you even doing here?'
We don't know, yet you insinuate it to be the case. Based on what exactly...because his stat line since the injury hasn't been good?
The point is that we don't know. It may or may not be the case.
OK...he's also been getting paired with an atrocious Ty Smith for a chunk of that time. And the team as a whole has absolutely stunk. But sure...the more convenient narrative (despite not being any more likely) is that it was the injury and by extension everyone else's shitty play must be because of injuries too. What's great about it for someone like you, is that you can find these kinds of things every single season. If the team/player is good for the year, it would be something you wouldn't even look at. But, if the team/player is bad, well, you've always got the ready made rationalization for the bad performance ready to go. This is basically the definition of finding excuses.
Yes, every year every good player gets hurt, or looks considerably worse than earlier iterations of themselves.
Do you ever stop to think why it is that top teams always seem to have these players that come out of nowhere to help the team through adversity like major injuries, or do you honestly think that these good teams are just perennially lucky? They have a great system in place, great leadership, a strong winning culture and work ethic, great coaching...these are things that will induce otherwise average players to step up when needed, even if just on a temporary basis. "The sum is greater than the individual parts". I know you don't believe in these things because they can't be measured on a pie chart or heat map, but the proof is in the pudding.
Except that it stops, have you ever noticed that? Have you noticed that top teams stop being top teams? Under this rationale, top teams would just stay on top forever because of their organizational structure, but nobody does - organizations ossify and start making poor decisions and start assuming they can just gin up Evan Rodrigues level improvements from players who aren't capable of that. So no, I don't think that the Penguins are perennially lucky, but that specifically, Evan Rodrigues performance is lucky, yes. Nobody expected this, and nobody does this consistently. Maybe the Panthers will start doing it consistently.
And let's not pretend that Evan Rodriguez is the only reason that treaded water during that time. The Penguins have been doing this for years. Have you ever looked up their records when both Crosby and Malkin are out of the lineup? As of 2016 they are 48-22-5 when both guys are injured. I don't have the exact record to add to that over the last five years, but we know it's certainly over .500. Essentially they have a better regular season winning percentage when those guys are out than when they are in. That big of a sample size cannot be attributed to luck or randomness.
What's their identity, though? Do they have one? Anyway, that is impressive, but is also a testament to the other players they've had, and I imagine that the size of it is luck, yes. You realize that if you don't attribute a 48-22-5 record without Crosby and Malkin as being somewhat lucky, that you are basically saying that Crosby and Malkin don't add anything to the team, right?
You forgot that this is a poorly constructed roster with too many one-dimensional forwards who aren't even all that great at that one dimension. And a prospect pool that has up to this date failed to produce more than one first line caliber producer.
Yeah, it isn't all there yet. They need some upgrades.
This is a copy/paste statement that never actually comes to pass going on several years now.
The biggest reason it doesn't is the awful goaltending, which is almost never mentioned by you or anyone else down on the team.
