I have no problem with Stone, but lol why are we comparing Kreider with him? Or Duchene?
They are more or less — totally — different players. Stone is a finisher who’s game is all about being the guy that his two linemates put in a position to score. Good shot and goes to the net well. Definitely a pretty average hockey player overall. Hart Trophy? Lol
Kreider is a complimentary winger, drives up and down his side of the ice, tough to contain for Ds. OK infront of the net. Good around the boards and definitely OK with the puck. Covers a lot of ice with his engine.
Stone can’t play the role Kreider can and Kreider can’t play the role Stone can. Stone would be an awful fit with a center like Tavares. Eichel. And so forth. Guys who plays their best when they have wingers that can get the puck to them, not vice versa. Kreider would be very good with those two. Stone can be the shooter for his team, the one all players turns to get the puck too. Imagine Kreider in that role? Have anyone ever seen Kreider one time a slapper?
This is the problem I have with metrics. The ‘Let’s compare Duchene, Stone and Kreiders value as rentals by looking at shoot maps from all three’. You know what, it kinda depends on what your team needs.
Like let’s look at our 2014 team.
Scenario 1: Who would you take of the above 3 on our Cup finals team? Of course we could have used Stone, but without Kreider we don’t have that line that could get the toughest minutes there is and still come out of it corsi positive in Kreider-Step-Nash. You could — definitely — argue that Kreider was more valuable for us than Stone and Duchene would have been.
Scenario 2: Brassard breaks a leg 1 week before the deadline in 14. Who do you take Kreider, Duchene or Stone?
Scenario 3: Laine breaks a leg the coming days. Winnipeg can get either Stone, Kreider or Duchene. Hm wonder who they totally would zero in on.
Metrics can be great but the context matters helluva lot too.