View Single Post
02-09-2012, 11:22 AM
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,634
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
It raises an interesting point about the whole "compartmentalization" thing we do when we break players' careers down into seasons. I always thought Iginla was close to a top-120 player and Alfie down in the 200s, then it was pointed out to me how their overall production has been practically identical over that time. For that to happen, it would mean Iginla peaked higher but Alfie was better in his off-peak years. Does either player really deserve that much more credit for either? Isn't the larger sample size supposed to be the most telling?
Are we really back to valuing these players based on their career points per game averages, without caring at all about how high they peaked? That method was considered obsolete when I first started posting in the History section and I'm surprised you want to go back to it.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline