View Single Post
07-11-2012, 10:11 AM
Don't waste my time
VanIslander's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 24,827
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
I had a similar question but much more extreme...Pelle Lindbergh. Really just one season as a starter and it was adjudged to be the best at his position. And anecdotally, most Flyers fans I ask from that era (and some non-Flyers fans as well) suggest that even in the face of Hextall's losing effort Conn Smythe in '87 that if the Flyers had Lindbergh they would have won. While that may be favorable lore, how does a player like Lindbergh fair in a situation like this...? He was never bad...
Career length, like career peak and consistency, are among the many factors one weighs. OF COURSE the shortness of his career counts against him. He is better as a backup than a starter unless one has one hellavu decent backup to cover for him. A starting goalie who had a decent but not great long career is a reliable starter; a starter who had a very short career is unreliable, might be great, might not even play long!

In a hypothetical all-time context, ALL the strengths and weaknesses of a player are under consideration. There is no short cut formula. One cannot ignore career length to determine greatness. His career was short. Would he have gone on to havea solid long career of greatness or fade out like many young goalies who have a great year or two do? We simply don't know. It's a question mark, a knock against him. So the height of his peak has to be weighed against the length of his career, among other factors.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote