no dude, that was a secondary quote to the original point. You cant just strip away original context because a later, supporting quote suits you better. The over arching point remains the same, and thus so does the argument. Hornqvist was not a top 5 player on either cup team. Because he was not, and there is no argument to be made that he was more important than those other players, he is not worth being considered a catalyst for either team to have won the cup. He was merely a good supporting player for those who were more important.
And just to flesh it out a little more, because you clearly need to have your hand held through it. This does not mean that he had zero or minimal importance, or that he was bad. He was just not THE guy, or the guy next to the guy. He was just a guy who did his job well.

Wrong. You ignore what he did for the team and why he was playing with crosby. You choose to ignore it. Not my fault. Theres more to the game than point totals. Theres a physical aspect to the game in the playoffs, which is part of the reason the leafs cant make it past round.... well we both know what round lmao

who said this was about points? all this talking up of Hornqvist as so important and you have yet to tell me out of the named players he was better than and more important than.
Can't be the incredible goaltending performances of MAF or Murray, or Malkin or Crosby that would be silly. Kessel maybe? nah, he put up two dominant performances including one where the Con Smythe was basically stolen from him to give to Crosby. Letang? nah, he carried that shambolic 2016 defence on his back pretty much by himself.

so please, enlighten me. If Hornqvist was such a catalyst, who was he better than?

I told you exactly why he was a catalyst and you ignored it lmao. He was incredible at his game and what he was asked to do, and thats why he was rewarded with his contract. Your mindset of what a catalyst is needs to change. You dont need to be a top 5 player on a team to be a catalyst

oh, so you're still doing that thing where you ignore the actual point and keep arguing a modified one that suits you better.
I keep saying top 5 player on the team because that was the point, and to further that point if you are not a top 5 player on the team you are not "a catalyst" on the team. Unless, by proxy, you want it to be argued that literally every player on that team was a catalyst and there for your own point is unmade in the process.

And where are you getting the fact of you need to be a top 5 player?

where are you getting that you dont need to be one?
If you arnt a top 5 player on your team during a win, then how can you be the one of the main reasons you won? There is only so much credit to go around and the further down the chain you are the less credit you get. The less credit you get, the less important you were to said championship win.

But why 5? How did you come up with that number?

because i knew you'd balk at 3, and i wanted to give Hornqvist as fair a shake as i could, because he's a good player. But he didnt make the cut, the fact is you can look at every cup winning team and most years there are 2 or 3 main guys that are the reason they won. Usually its the goaltending and their star because that's how hockey works.
where would you put the cut off? 7? 10? 15?

There isn't a number. Who is to say the penguins lose to cup against the predators if hornqvist isn't in front of the net to get the rebound and score? He is a catalyst because he was by far the best net front guy and the most physical player on the team. The skill guys get the points while hornqvist retrieved the puck and sat in front of the net.

who says the pens dont win the cup if Dumoulin doesnt score that one goal in 17?
See, that's the thing when you dont put a number on in, you allow the conversation to get silly about performances that woudnt have mattered without the best players actually doing what the best players do.
Crosby, Malkin MAF whatever would have done what they did without Hornqvist because that's what they do. if Hornqvist played the exact same way with lesser players he'd never have held the cup.
thats why he's not a catalyst. Role players are important, but they arnt centrepiece players.

better yet, here's a better way to look at it
Could the Pens have won either of those cups without Hornqvist? probably
Could they have won without the other guys? Probably not

Im not explaining it again. He was a huge part of the cups. When he was out of the lineup those years with injuries, the offense and physical play decreased. He was/is a big leader on the team. Was second on the team in goals in the first of the cup, and was outhitting everyone. He was a catalyst whether you want to believe it or not

1. I never approve of a NTC trade (in this case Hornquist) unless the poster provides a valid reason why such player would waive. Really think Horniquist leaves his Cup winning Pens for the Leafs?
Don't like the trade for the Leafs anyway. Two fading players with term for Marner.
2. Don't want Thornton and doubt if Thornton would come to play for so cheap unless it was a true contender
3. Robertson doesn't make the Leafs next season, maybe not even the season after
4. Sabres don't the trade unless they think Dermot has more upside than Jokiharja. Johnson and his 3.4m contract doesn't provide much trade value. Sabres can find other ways to spend 3.4m

Well, the Pens will enter rebuild soon so I assume Horny wants to go to a team in win now mode. I guess you’re right about Robertson, but Johnsson & Dermott are two pretty good pieces. BUF has an abundance of rhd, it should be enough to land Henri.