View Single Post
10-28-2012, 10:30 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,183
vCash: 500
Statistical peak vs physical peak : Discuss

Having read through so many threads and topics both on here and in the general section has got me thinking about this:

For instance some want to argue that Ovechkin's career as an elite player is done because he's not scoring at a 50 goal clip anymore or 100 Pts clip.

Crosby's peak offensively has yet to be hit because he's so young.

I however think that a player can continue to improve physically, he can get stronger, smarter, improve on his passing and what not as he hits his mid to late 20's but this doesn't mean that he will continue to improve statistically.

Take some of the best hockey players to have played in the last 2 decades for instance;

Jagr hit 62 goals and 149 Pts at age 24 but this was not the best hockey we saw from him. Jagr was better for instance between 1997-2000 and even some would argue in 2005-06 compared to 1995-96.

Selanne scored 76 goals and 136 Pts when he was 23 but seemed to become a better player as he hit his prime.

Heck even Gretzky and Lemieux peaked statistically in their early 20's.

There are so many factors coming in to play here; scoring trends, league wide systems, health, competition...

My question is then, why is it that people point to Crosby as an example of someone that has yet to score the most in his career simply because he's in his mid 20's?

Last edited by livewell68: 10-28-2012 at 10:36 AM.
livewell68 is offline   Reply With Quote