View Single Post
01-18-2013, 11:48 AM
Jaymond Flurrie
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Espoo, Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,240
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Shady Machine View Post
This is silly. We are talking about comparing the two best players in the game and the difference between the two is so small that things like "exciting to watch", "leadership", and "marketability" become the deciding factors. No one asked the question "who is the most fun to watch even if they suck at hockey relative to the rest of the league".
Well BlindWillyMcHurt wrote that And (fun) is really all it's about, right?

So I agree with you. For me "being fun to watch" tells nothing about the player's importance. Sure, it adds marketing value, which is why Rangers signed Avery, but given a chance between Malkin and Avery, no-one would take Avery because he is more fun to watch - other things are way more important.

Originally Posted by UnderratedBrooks44 View Post
How do you mean
You said Stamkos or Ovechkin doesn't have better season than Crosby, which I either misunderstood or then I totally disagree with.

edit. Here's the exact quote:
I can see AO, Stamkos, eventually Tavares, Sedin, etc. having certain years that were decidedly better than Malkin's. Not Crosby though.

Jaymond Flurrie is offline   Reply With Quote