HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009)
View Single Post
11-06-2012, 09:22 AM
Join Date: Apr 2010
Originally Posted by
I don't think you're being silly because I think you understand that what you're calling "debatable" is only debatable in the sense that someone could take an extreme, blinders-on position that peak performance is literally the only thing that matters. And you don't seem to buy that. Neither does anyone else here as far as I can tell.
If you can find such a person, I'd be interested to know their opinion on Jim Carey
If we substract flukes (like Carey who has what, two good regular seasons coupled with two bad playoffs?) then the notion that peak trumps longevity seems just as reasonable to me as the contrary idea. Fetisov was world class from 1978-1989 and Bourque from 1980-2002, both are established all-time greats, not flukes.
Who was better? If Fetisov was better at his best than Bourque was at his best, then I'm fine with ranking Fetisov higher. So yes, I am silly in your eyes. Ranking Bourque higher due to his 10 additional years of excellence is also fine with me. I don't think one scale is better than the other, both are legit.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Theokritos