View Single Post
02-26-2013, 03:43 PM
Registered User
BraveCanadian's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,253
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
So the points that you “pay the price” for are somehow worth more on the scoreboard? Can you explain that one?
You know exactly what I mean.

When the game is on the line do you want Gilmour or do you want Turgeon?

Turgeon is the more purely talented of the two for sure. His production is probably better too.

I know which one I would pick and it isn't close.

The softness thing is really overblown for Turgeon, and for a lot of players. Value for toughness is already included in the point totals in a lot of cases. A guy like Neely made more room for himself on the ice, and his ability to go right through a defender certainly led to more points. But we look at his point totals and then give him bonuses for being tough and physical. Turgeon, on the other hand, if it was true that he could be taken off his game by cracking a loud fart within 10 feet of him, then he’d be expected to score fewer points when “off his game”, therefore his softness is mostly accounted for in his point totals already. But we look at his point totals and then downplay them because he was soft. Doesn’t seem right.
It is accounted for in Turgeon never going anywhere because when the intensity goes up, he took his game down a notch.

Much better when you get beyond the best 5 seasons. Turgeon was a much better producer than Roenick.
I'll have to remember that longevity actually *does* count when the obvious and expected attacks on Francis come up later.

I know one of the arguments you have used against him in the past is "who cares what he did past x years?"

I don’t have a problem seeing Hunter get selected before Turgeon in an ATD setting because he is potentially a very good 3rd liner and Turgeon an OK 2nd liner. But he was in no way better or more valuable.
I would never select Hunter for my team. And I think that Turgeon's talent is much more rare despite his flaws than a third liner. There are lots of third liners.

(maybe my Hunter bias is showing though)

Absolutely. A couple more of those seasons look off, too. We’re really going to call Lafontaine’s 148 points the standard for 1993?
I don't see why not, honestly.

On what basis wouldn't you call his season the standard?

It certainly isn't an outlier. Technically Lemieux's season isn't even an outlier in 1993.

Complaining at every opportunity about the ways other people evaluate players, on the other hand… not annoying at all!
Yeah sure, it is much worse exposing the fact that we seem to be hopelessly inconsistent in our evaluations than to continue contradicting ourselves at every turn.

Linemates don't matter one day. Stars get their points. The next comparison: lets take these guys out of our comparisons or discount them because they played with so and so.

This guy has a great record in [whatever] voting. The next comparison: Obviously these writers were completely wrong and we know better so those votes don't mean much to me.

His great longevity has to be recognized. The next comparison: compiler.


Maybe it isn't inconsistency so much as personal preferences but it really makes it difficult to decide on players when the criteria is all over the place.

It seems like outside of the no brainers it is as much force of personality on the part of the proponent as anything.

Since when? If someone asked me what’s the percentage difference between 150 and 165, I’d say “165 is exactly 10% greater than 150”.
I admit it. I laughed.

Last edited by BraveCanadian: 02-26-2013 at 03:52 PM.
BraveCanadian is offline