View Single Post
Old
07-11-2012, 01:18 PM
  #111
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Both! That is, we don't know which version will show up if a player was inconsistent. In a seven game series one can assume a couple of games of peak play, a few games of mediocre play, from a player with such a career, or, at least it's a question mark which is factored into one's reflections. A team with too many question marks isn't likely going to instill confidence.
Right. Now keep in mind that if we're comparing Kaberle to someone else who had only about the same number of "good" seasons, then his steep dropoff might not come into play in that comparison. And typically we are forgiving about the very start and end of a player's career and want to judge them in their best period (might be 3 years, might be 10, really depends on the player). basically when it's appropriate, it's appropriate. That doesn't really add much to your answer.

Quote:
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...
Since we're looking at a microcosm of a player's career we will see a little bit of everything they did over the course of a season. I like to look at Steve Yzerman and Scott Stevens as examples here. They each had an offensive phase and a defensive phase. I like to think that over the course of an ATD season they each have the ability to "shapeshift" as needed by being very valuable offensively or defensively at one time, or, you could say they are splitting the difference in both regards, and you could say Yzerman is consistently performing like a "90 point, pretty good defensively" player. (it translates to the ATD differently of course, because in that context he is only about an average 1st line center so he may be a 70 point player over a full year, but I think you see my point). There is no right answer, but I think the above is a logical way to look at it.

Injury riddled careers translate to an injury-riddled season in the ATD. I honestly think it is as simple as looking at what percentage of games a player missed during their regular season and playoff primes. You can get credit for how good a player was when they were on the ice (as in, judge them on a per-game basis) but then you must concede they will miss x number of regular season games and maybe 1-3 games in a 7 game series in some extreme cases.

Shortened careers, whatever the reason, will lead to injuries and inconsistency over an ATD season, as VI alluded to. As it applies to a guy like Lindbergh I think it means that over the course of an MLD season he has the potential to be as good as any goalie in the league, but he sure isn't going to do it night in, night out, and you can't count on him to start 70 games without seeing a drop in his performance.

The above two philosophies are entirely my own, developed through the considering of well-stated cases by others over the years. You are free to develop your own philosophies and share them with us too, and continue to shape the collective mindset for the better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
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.
Yeah. And as far as Lindbergh goes, I look really at what happened on the ice and very little what-if. So if there was a goalie with his similar 2-3 year regular season and playoff peak, and then a severe dropoff (like, say, he was nothing more than an average to below-average starting goalie for another decade) - I say, "well, at least he was a starting goalie for another decade!" Maybe it's not much in terms of adding to the resume, but it does provide a Lipton Sidekicks to the meat on the plate, and it's sure better than being dead and not playing in the NHL, as cruel as that sounds.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote