View Single Post
10-17-2012, 03:17 PM
Registered User
BM67's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,634
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
ok, but we're not talking about compiling career totals, right?
Comparing how many points Francis put up in his 19 worst seasons vs Gilmour in his 19 best should go in Gilmour's favor shouldn't it? I discarded the 4 best years that distorted Francis' peak didn't I?

Let's get this straight.

That Francis got some extra points in his best years is important. OK.

That Gilmour put up up more points than Francis in his best years is important. OK.

That Francis put up more points than Gilmour, and a lot of them, in the rest of his career, 19 years, is not important. BS.

Francis put up 12.7% more adjusted points a season over a 15% longer career. That doesn't just get thrown away because it doesn't fit in his 5 year peak.

Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
This gives Gilmour an advantage he doesn’t need, and doesn’t address the most important thing – that Francis clearly and obviously scored a lot more points than he otherwise would have, by having a significantly better player for a linemate in his four best seasons.
Raising Gilmour's scores for his entire career, doesn't address a disadvantage in 4-5 years? Over compensates for it maybe, but it certainly addresses it. It raises Gilmour's average score by over 10%.

In a straight VS#2 comparison, Gilmour wins the 3 best, and then Francis sweeps the rest, and Gilmour has 5 years worse than Francis' lowest score.

I get that you value peak, but how does career value not matter in a comparison of career value?

BM67 is offline   Reply With Quote