View Single Post
08-16-2011, 11:12 AM
Registered User
vecens24's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
I don't think it was clearly inferior to the AHL. I believe they were considered roughly equal, but they fulfilled different roles. Seventieslord pointed out that more NHLers went through the NHL, and used that fact to infer that the AHL was better. Of course more NHLers went through the AHL, it had much closer ties to the NHL. The WHL was much more independent. It's not reflective of the quality of the leagues but of the circumstances.
Wouldn't you think the best players though (for the most part) would want to play for a chance to get into the best league in the world though? Therefore wouldn't you try to go through the AHL to get to that league since it had the circumstance of being the league you had to go through? You would know more about it than I would so I'm more in the dark here and trying to understand the thought process of why I should consider them equal.

Fielder played one AHL year before going to the WHL. In the AHL he went 22-61-83 in 62 games, leading the league in assists. The next season in the WHL he went 24-64-88 in 68 games, leading the league in assists. That speaks to the similarity of the leagues.

Another of my players, Hugh Currie, played in both the AHL and WHL in his career in the same era. He scored better in the AHL than the WHL.
Okay he had roughly the same output. Sounds good to me.

He's not playing against extremely high-level players here. The best 1,000 players aren't here. Isn't that quite similar to the situation he actually played under, where the very best players played in an insular 6-team NHL?
Sure he's not playing against an "extrmeely" high level. But it certainly as a whole is a higher level than he has ever played against in his professional life couldn't you agree?

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote