View Single Post
01-31-2011, 10:17 AM
bad chi
arrbez's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,170
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
Personally, I think he has the right idea, just the wrong method. I think alot of guys with great career numbers were actually complilers and were never truly elite at any point in their careers. I think ranking guys on their 8 to 10 best seasons, rather than 1st 10 seasons would remove the compilers from the equation and you would see who the truly elite players were over the course of NHL history. This way you don't remove the late bloomers, especially goalies and d-men who tend to take longer to develop than forwards.
Yeah, no doubt. My issue is just with the arbitrary decision to use a player's first 10 seasons. At least starting with their first big season (Messier's 1982 instead of his 1980, for instance) would put guys on an even playing field no matter what age they entered the league.

Using their 8 or 10 best is definitely a better method. At the same time, that punishes guys who might have 12 or 13 elite-level seasons. The difference between Ray Bourque and Denis Potvin is that Bourque did it for twice as long. If you look at just the best 8, I think that really hurts Bourque, and might even put Potvin ahead.

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote