View Single Post
03-27-2013, 04:25 PM
Registered User
vecens24's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Oh, Savard definitely had the better peak, and he's the better player, but let's not pretend there's a huge offensive gap between him and Turgeon. Longevity as an offensive catalyst is something that helps Turgeon.

Definitely needs to be a discussion!

Conacher had his 5 great seasons where he led the league in goals. That's an amazing peak. It might be one of the best peaks among all wingers in the draft, but what else did he do? Pretty much nothing.

Iginla's 4 best seasons are 1st, 1st, 3rd, and 3rd in goals. Considering league size, competition, and line mates, I don't think it's a bit stretch to say that Iginla's best 4 seasons are close to Conacher's 4 best seasons. His 5th season isn't close to Conacher's. The fact that Iginla was able to remain an impact player for over twice as long as Conacher should hold some weight.
Yeah Conacher's peak is clearly better. But if we do next best seasons after both Iginla and Conacher's five best? Here are their numbers for VsX years above 60:

Iginla vsX: 107, 92, 87, 82, 81, 78, 74, 69, 67, 64, 63, 63

Conacher vsX: 121, 121, 100, 96, 95, 75, 65

So basically what we're talking about is a big peak advantage by these numbers for Conacher. Conacher's top 5 years add up to 533. Iginla's only add up to 449.

Conacher's number basically dwarfs Iginla's. There's no debating this in my mind. Charlie Conacher at his peak was a much better point producer than Iginla was. However Iginla's longevity makes up for it somewhat substantially. Iginla's has seven more years above the 60% threshold, whereas Conacher only has two.

Then there's another question that's floating out there: Why did Conacher only receive Hart consideration in two of these seasons? Conacher has a 2 and a 4 in Hart voting. If someone can answer that, it would be fantastic.

Iginla has received major consideration 4 times. He has a T1, 2, 3, 10 (plus a legitimate 12 and a 15, although given that there were fewer voters in Conacher's day, these two finishes should probably be ousted from this discussion. They mean something for Iginla's longevity, but not for his peak in my view).

This comparison is much closer than mark is willing to admit. I do think Conacher has a slight, but definitive advantage here. But given everything else that Iginla brings besides scoring, it really comes close to evening the playing field here.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote