I think you established something really important in your post. That must be taken into consideration. The variables. When you are comparing offensive stats. You have to also consider linemates. Offensive zone starts. Minutes played. Cause lets say you remove Cody's third year, and the Sedins third year. I'm sure it doesn't look so great in Cody's favor.
It's great you can say Cody's PPG is higher, but then consider this. Cody is playing with Tomas Vanek and Jason Pominville in the new NHL. Henrik and Daniel played with Trent Klatt in the dead puck era. Clearly the circumstances are going to favor Cody.
You seem to have missed it, but it's not just in the offensive categories that Hodgson compares well to how the Sedins performed during their own first three years
But anyway, yes, let's consider linemates as an issue, and how it is that both Henrik and Daniel at least near always had each other (the twin factor) to rely on, while during his own first 3 seasons Hodgson spent roughly half his games shuffled around AV's makeshift lines and the other half producing with or without his regular linemates (ie: the short-handed goal which triggered this thread which was a solo effort, the three point night two games ago when Vanek was in the press box, etc., etc., etc., etc.).
Also, it is well known that the Sedins didn't go on the traditional development path that you would expect up and coming young stars to go on. As we have seen the players destined for greatness like the Sedins, usually breakout quite early in there careers. We know that wasn't the case with the Twins. Which brings me to this:
Sergei Samsonov, Mike Comrie, Martin Havlat, Raffi Torres, David Legwand.
These players (aswell there are more) were all drafted around the same time as the Twins, they have have better offensive stats in there first 3 years.
How many of them have Art Ross Trophies? How many of them have have Hart/Lindsey trophies? How many of them are captain of there team? How many of them are leading a franchise in scoring?
Huh? The fact that the Sedins broke into their stride slower than other selected players, or that they've since accomplished more than other selected players, is irrelevant to your claims (first that Henrik was "better than Hodgson in every regard", then that "the twins are better in every area") which precipitated the Sedins vs Hodgson comparisons.
I get it, Cody Hodgson has better early offensive numbers than the Sedins. Gotcha. But then you consider era and teammates/opportunity. I would say offensively, all things considered it is pretty even.
Character. The Sedins faced alot of adversity in there time here, but didn't quit, stayed and played through it all. Cody Hodgson faced some adversity with the back injury. Although the organization stood by him. And then he requested a trade. He gave up on the team because he didn't want to have to earn his opportunity. Unlike the Sedins. They did not. Seeing as now Henrik and Daniel are the leaders of our club, and possibly the nicest, more respectful players in the entire league. I think we can establish the character advantage to the twins.
Again, Hodgson doesn't only compare well to the Sedins offensively. But anyway, I'd entirely agree that all things considered - all the factors that make them different players in different circumstances - they're pretty even. And "pretty even" is far from either Henrik or Daniel being "better than [Hodgson] in every way".
You're relying on unsubstantiated theories about Hodgson's character. He was never known to have wanted out of Vancouver before the trade, nor did either him or his agent suggest it after the fact. There has never been any evidence to suggest Hodgson "gave up" on his team, or that he didn't "want to earn his opportunity".
Only when attempting to rationalize the trade after the fact, did Gillis say they (mgmt) decided (for Hodgson) that he "wanted out". Gillis was trashing the kid to rationalize having pulled the trade, implying character flaws. But by all accounts, Hodgson was shocked learned he'd been traded, and has been quoted afterward as only having positive and professional things to say of his former team.
Also, consider basic human nature for a second - if you give a primadonna precisely what he wants, essentially rewarding the behaviour, the brat normally becomes worse because he's been taught that he gets rewarded for poor behaviour. So if Hodgson was such a primadonna before the trade, shouldn't he have become more of a problemed player for the Sabres? But instead, there hasn't been even the hint of any negative in the kid's character since the trade, while his coaches and teammates speak in glowing terms about him.
Fact is, Hodgson had a good rep throughout his junior years and again now in Buffalo, leaving the only people claiming he's a character problem being the GM who was trying to rationalize having traded him away and some fans who bought into the story without questioning the bias of Gillis' comments.
And see the nightmare that is Cody Hodgson defensively (now that he isn't being sheltered) we can see it isn't pretty, despite putting up incredible numbers. This is even at the least, although I would feel more comfortable giving the advantage to the twins.
Hodgso a "nightmare" defensively? lol
That "nightmare" is a regular go-to guy on the PK, has produced short-handed points (best defense is always a good offense, right?), was a plus player during his first two seasons, has gradually returned to being a plus +/- player this year after a team-wide struggling start to the season, and has only put his team down a man for 26 penalty minutes.
Comparatively, by the same age the Sedins were not yet entrusted with regular PK duty, were moderately stronger as plus players (but then weren't facing the top lines/defense of other teams), produced less short-handed, and put their team down a man for 112 and 90 minutes respectively.
With all factors considered I could go with the comparison being a draw, or "even" as you say. But then to call Hodgson a defensive "nightmare" would equate to calling the Sedins defensive nightmares, and they just weren't.
Once Cody Hodgson wins an Art Ross and Hart Trophy, once he is a captain, once he becomes Buffalo's all time leading scorer, or atleast matches Henriks point total. Then we can talk about him being as good as the Sedins.
For my own part, I wasn't talking about Hodgson being as good as the Sedins. I've only pointed out that we can really only loosely compare them as 23 year olds in their 3rd season, and based on the objective factors available Hodgson is actually just as good as or better than the Sedins were at the same age and stage of development
That suggests Hodgson has at least the potential to do as well as either Sedin, but citing what the Sedins accomplished after their first 3 seasons to support the claim that they're better than Hodgson is apples compared to oranges.
But one year of sheltered hockey, and another half year of great offensive hockey with superb linemates while struggled elsewhere, isn't a large enough sample size since last year he was about the same as the twins points wise.
1) The numbers don't look at "one year of sheltered hockey and another half year of great offensive hockey", but at all of the data available for both Hodgson and the Sedins during their first 3 NHL seasons. The defense numbers, offense numbers, faceoffs, +/-, etc.
2) Sedins had each other + guys the likes of Bertuzzi, Linden, etc. Hodgson has had a long cast of characters as linemates throughout his first 3 seasons, including Vanek and Pominville most recently (guys who claim to have done well with and because of Hodgson, ie: not the kid merely riding their coattails), though not always (see Vanek in the press box while Hodgson is having a 3 pt night, or Hodgson's solo short-handed, Hodgson setting up Erhoff, etc, etc., etc.).
Once he proves for a large amount of time he can be this good offensively, aswell as defensively. Then we will start making comparisons. Although until he gains any hardware, or becomes a top 5 center in the league like Henrik was. I think comparisons are very pre-mature.
The comparisons have already started because Hodgson has been as good (or better in some respects) than the Sedins were during their first 3 seasons. You've taken the position that the Sedins are "better in every area", but that is either entirely untrue (if we compare all that there is to compare - the first 3 seasons of each player) or entirely unknown (we can't compare futures that haven't happened yet).
If we compare how these players each performed during their first 3 NHL season, Hodgson is better or at least "even", as you say. And also as you say, it is premature to compare Hodgson today against what the Sedins have accomplished over 13 seasons. So that pretty much means you concede the point that there's no basis for claiming the Sedins are "better in every area". You don't actually know the future