if it's all about stats Jason Garrison is as good as Noah Hanifin.
It's not about goals. It's in possession numbers, shot suppression, goals scored with you or without you on the ice. Advanced stuff...which you clearly do not understand at all yet
if it's all about stats Jason Garrison is as good as Noah Hanifin.
It's not about goals. It's in possession numbers, shot suppression, goals scored with you or without you on the ice. Advanced stuff...which you clearly do not understand at all yet
It's not about goals. It's in possession numbers, shot suppression, goals scored with you or without you on the ice. Advanced stuff...which you clearly do not understand at all yet
their HERO charts are similar.
HERO Chart : Hanifan (21) - TOI : 4
HERO Chart : Garrison (20) - TOI : 5
then figure it out. don't just use ignorance as an excuse
but i'm not looking at all these stats. I'm not saying Garrison is as good as Hanifin, i'm just saying that he is if it's all about stats.
It can be if you are selective about stats, maybe.
What you need to do Rangers, to get a grasp of the stats argument, is get a base of understanding of many different stats, be able to compare them without using pre-conceived biases, and use all of those stats with an equal weighting during every comparison.
It is irrational to selectively choose stats and say "see! the stats say these players are equal", you need to consider all of the stats, let the data do the talking.