View Single Post
01-30-2011, 10:21 PM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Originally Posted by
Now I rank players based on how they performed in thier first 10 seasons, rather than basing it on career arguments.
I can see the argument that you'd want to rank players based on their
ten years - why does it matter if they were early or late in their career?
For example, if you look at Jagr's
ten years, you're focusing on back-to-back seasons as a teenager, scoring less than 70 points; you're excluding his fifth Art Ross trophy, and his resurgence in New York (2nd place for Hart and Art Ross).
Steve Yzerman is a great example. At the end of his 10th year, he was considered (at best) a player with an incomplete playoff resume and (at worst) a choker who was disappointing in the playoffs. You'd be ignoring his incredible playoff reputation (almost solely based on the last 12 years of his career), not to mention his transformation from an (at best) average defensive player to a Selke winner.
If you stop at ten years, Ron Francis isn't even close to a Hall of Famer. Francis, through ten years, never placed in the top ten in scoring and wasn't regarding as a good defensive player.
Again, if you stop at ten years, we'd remember Teemu Selanne as a player who faded away and was mediocre in San Jose, as opposed to the player who was revitalized post-lockout and who finally earned a Stanley Cup.
Alex Delvecchio was a top ten scorer 11 times; but eight of those seasons came after the end of his tenth year.
Johnny Bucyk is a two-time all-star with six years as a top ten scorer. Both all-star berths, and four of those elite scoring seasons, came after the end of his 10th year.
A method that ignores all these accomplishes simply because they occurred after an arbitrary number of seasons doesn't make sense. If you focused on a player's
ten seasons, I wouldn't agree with it fully, but it would be a lot more meaningful.
View Public Profile
Hockey Outsider's albums
Find More Posts by Hockey Outsider