Henrik is better than Cody in every regard. Defensively, Faceoffs, Offensively, Character, Strength, Toughness. I get Cody is a good young player, but please lets not make comparisons to the leading scorer in Canucks history.
I'm gunna wait till I see more of this before I even think abotu comparing him to the Twins. Cause right now the Twins are better in every area.
I replied to your first claim that Henrik was better than Hodgson in "every regard", but you shrugged off the hard numbers which proved your position to be flawed and now are claiming "right now the Twins are better in every area".
It's already been demonstrated that Hodgson at 23 was better than or equal to Henrik in "every regard", so do you mean to change that to Hodgon compared to EITHER Henrik or Daniel, or to Hodgson as 1 man compared to 1 set of twins?
Do you mean "right now" as in what each have accomplished in their careers as of "today", so like comparing a 23 year old with 123 games behind him versus 2x 33 year old seasoned vets approaching 1000 games each?
Or do you just mean "right now" as in this present season, so like comparing Hodgson's 28 points vs Henrik's 28 points and Daniel's 27 points? Or Hodgson's 12 goals to Henrik's 8 and Daniel's 9?
Look, like I said before (when talking about comparing Henrik and Hodgson as 23 year old players), it is very difficult to objectively compare these guys because are simply too many variables at play to make the call either way. There are 10-something years between them. The game is different, they had different learning curves and situations and opportunities. They are different players on different teams in different eras with different backgrounds.
But, so long as you persist with claiming that x player is better than y player, you're begging for objective comparisons so let us at least make as rational a comparison as possible... It would be apples and oranges to try comparing Hodgson (1 player) versus both Sedins (2 players), so let's just look at Hodgson versus either Sedin. And it would be equally loopy to compare Hodgson at 23 to either Sedin as 33 year old vets, so let's just look at what each of these players produced at roughly the same age and time in their careers...
Hodgson @ 23 vs Henrik @ 23 or Daniel @ 23, by the numbers only -Hodgson:
3 seasons, 123 games played (a 3rd of which have been against top lines/defense on a team without any secondary scoring)
- +3 over three years (only time a negative was during the post-trade stretch)
- averaged 0.58 points per game
- 17 points over 251 power play minutes, good for 0.068 points per minute
- put his team down a man for 26 penalty minutes
- averaging 1:43 mins/game on the PK
- 2 short-handed points
- in his 3rd year, already has a team leading 23 points in only 31 games
- faceoffs taken = 1326, won = 612, lost = 714, percentage = 46.15%Henrik:
3 seasons, 242 games played (predominantly against secondary lines/defense and with the twin advantage)
- +16 over three years
- averaged 0.45 points per game
- 37 points over 626 power play minutes, good for 0.059 points per minute
- put his team down a man for 112 penalty minutes
- at the most averaged only 0:53 mins/game on the PK
- 1 short-handed point
- in his 3rd year, had 19 even strength points over 78 games
- faceoffs taken = 2800, won = 1302, lost = 1498, percentage = 46.50%Daniel:
3 seasons, 233 games played (predominantly against secondary lines/defense and with the twin advantage)
- +5 over three seasons
- averaged 0.42 points per game
- 30 points over 543 power play minutes, good for 0.056 points per minute
- put his team down a man for 90 penalty minutes
- at the most averaged only 0:35 mins/game on the PK
- 1 short-handed point
- in his third year, had 23 even strength points over 79 games
To break it down for you another way -
[+/-] Henrik (+16) > Daniel (+5) > Hodgson
[total pts / game] Hodgson
(0.57) > Henrik (0.45) > Daniel (0.42)
[pp pts / pp min] Hodgson
(0.068) > Henrik (0.059) > Daniel (0.056)
[penalty minutes] Hodgson
(26) > Daniel (90) > Henrik (112)
[highest avg pk mins per game] Hodgson
(1:43) > Henrik (0:53) > Daniel (0:35)
[short-handed points] Hodgson
(2) > Daniel (1) > Henrik (0)
[3rd year even strength points] Hodgson
(23 in 32 games) > Daniel (23 in 79 games) > Henrik (19 in 78 games)
[faceoff percentage] Henrik (46.50%) > Hodgson
Evidentally you didn't like how Hodgson's raw numbers show he's the better player than Henrik was at the same age, but throwing out Daniel's name didn't do anything to strengthen your argument that Hodgson is worse than the Sedins in "every area". Clearly, he's actually been better in most respects than either Henrik or Daniel were at the same age.
In an earlier post you raised other, far more subjective, factors as ways in which Henrik was better than Hodgson at the same age. Factors such as "character", "toughness" and "strength". I appreciate that you think highly of the Sedins in this ways (as do I, btw), but these characteristics are highly subjective and can readily be argued either way -Sedins often bashed by Canuck fans as "sisters", Hodgson bashed by disgruntled funs after the trade as a "primadonna"(Sedins never behaved girlie, obviously, just as Hodgson has never behaved as a primdonna. In both cases, the name-calling has come from "toughie" fans who bash struggling players as a matter of habit and are readily willing to jump on something only implied to the media as being factual.)Sedins took their ice-time frustration to the media, Hodgson didn't(Those who were around during Linden's last season, you'll recall the Sedins being quoted in the paper as pointing out that they weren't getting as much ice-time as other teams' top lines and were in better shape, etc. Comparably, Hodgson's agent suggested after the trade that there had been internal discussions on the topic - it was Gillis who took the topic public when bashing Hodgson after the fact)Sedins were (still are) called "soft and slow", Hodgson was (still is) called "soft and slow"(None of these three guys are known for end-to-end rushes, but they all adjusted to the NHL pace over time to become at the very least average in speed, and all are known for their knack of having great hands and a knack for protecting the puck. Just while the Sedins were more easily knocked off plays in their first seasons but became that much stronger as they developed, it's only reasonable to expect Hodgson's development won't stop at 123 games.)
Sedins claimed by team insiders to be great guys with lots of potential, Hodgson claimed by team insiders to be a great guy with lots of potential. Sedins tooted as future leaders of their team, Hodgson tooted as future leader of his team. Sedins I don't recall what their leadership and trophy accomplishments were before NHL, Hodgson was his team's captain and came with pre-NHL awards.(I'm thinking of comments by Linden and Naslund back in the day about the Sedins, and how much the same was said of Hodgson before the trade, and more recently again by his current teammates who have been quoted as speaking very highly of the kid.)
All, again, it's difficult to adequately compare these players given all the factors at play, but they are pretty much in the same ballpark for sure - so it's not crazy to look at Hodgson's production so far and imagine that he may one day develop much along the lines the Sedins did.