View Single Post
11-14-2012, 06:51 PM
Fugu's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 36,765
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
I did work on playoff performance. It did not go far back into the 90s, late 90s and later. The top performers at forward were very predominantly pre-27 and cup winners only. I am old, over 60. Some of the research to which I am referring was done as far back as the 50s and 60s. The reaction time stuff is from pinball type setups (eye/hand and eye/foot) that was related to measuring braking times/reaction in vehicles (I was one of many test subjects). It also studied the effect of alcohol on those times. I got it while studying psychology. It is not stuff that I grabbed off the internet.

I am aware of the background for what you present. It is stuff that is considered axiomatic from some GMs. I don't know all of the background, but the axioms spurred some of my own investigation which was in part aimed at the age composition of winning teams.

Another small piece for you is that there is a Finnish medical study stating that there is medical evidence for almost universal deterioration of groin and hip at age 31 for professional goalies. Tim Thomas is very much an outlier. I did check for the generational goalies and did find decline at that age despite their continuing play, Roy, Brodeur, etc.

Thank you for this data. I had not seen it. It is very supportive of my point.

Wondering what your opinion is on where the league is aiming the additional restraints with the contracting rights issues? If you consider the average career length (and thus length of service) for the mean/median typical NHL'er, the restraints wouldn't really change much for them versus the last CBA-- or am I off on that calculation. I don't recall the mean and median NHL career lengths.

It seems to be aimed at the cream of the crop, getting rid of the timeframe that allows a bridging to the UFA years.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote