View Single Post
11-14-2012, 08:26 PM
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,811
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.
I am not sure I trust research from the 50s and 60s done for other purposes, to evaluate hockey where updated research has said the opposite and the current facts don't support it.

Even if you did find this research about goalies at 31, and even if it is true, that is not 27, and that still doesn't mean they drop off a cliff. And what happened to only talking about forwards?

All of this is irrelevant anyway, because GMs have always paid for past performance. The only thing this data would mean if it was true, is that there is more reason to implement stricter contract rules, because players will not fulfill the long term contracts they sign.

Whydidijoin* is offline   Reply With Quote