View Single Post
05-12-2005, 04:23 PM
Registered User
Malefic74's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halfway between Nothing and Not Much Else
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,758
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
I understand where you are coming from and that is OK. We just disagree on the criteria.

When I originally began creating rankings, I specifically wanted to weed out the "longevity" guys because, in my opinion, they never excelled and dominated like a great player should. As well, the "longevity" guys like Gartner, Francis and to a large extent Messier, played in the most offensive era of all time. I feel that their places on the all time scoring lists are flawed because greats of other eras played a 30, 44, 50, 60 or 70 game schedule in a defensive era. They had no opportunty to move up the list because of "longevity". As well, I believe that dominance, greatness or stand out ability is what is required to be considered great. Being a top 20 scorer for 15 years is not greatness, IMO.

Again, nothing wrong with your point of view, I just don't share it.
I agree with the notion of higher standards and while I can see the effect that longevity has had on modern players are you discounting it in past players as well? Long careers are not simply a recent phenomenon. Gordie Howe played for 25 years. Jean Beliveau for 18. Henri Richard played for 20. Red Kelly played for 20.

Do you diminish these players as well for their longevity too?

I'm not attacking you here, I'm just curious as to how you treat longevity of past players versus longevity of modern ones.

As far as eras go you have mentioned that you attach less weight to numbers piled up in the offensive era of the mid-80s and early 90s. By that definition points accumulated in the last 7-8 years would should not suffer that distinction because the current era is definitely defensive. Again just curious as to how these variables fit in your system.

Malefic74 is offline