View Single Post
11-14-2012, 09:38 PM
Registered User
SJeasy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Whydidijoin View Post
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.
Your loss.

I am trying to give you the benefit of info that I have acquired over time and through some research of my own. I even give points which support your conclusions rather than present a one-sided argument.

The one area where we part ways is that I incorporate a team performance metric into my analysis. I do not strictly go off points. And the team performance metric takes a very different slant.

A reminder on my stance, I would be all for a direct pay for performance system over the Rube Goldberg design that is pro-sports. Pro-sports compensation has become more and more about perception rather than performance as the years go by.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote