ATD Chat Thread XX

[tinyzombies]

I prefer early bloomers to late bloomers in general, but paces like "4th fastest to 1000 pts" are useless given the era variations.

Can you not adjust pace numbers as well? If someone produced at an elite pace and then was injured, the pace should weighed more heavily.

 

[Johnny Engine]

That'd just amount to adjusted goals per game, or per game VsX which, for those who put a big value on durability, is pretty well considered I think.
So it really comes down to whether you think we should value early bloomers more than late bloomers.

 

[tinyzombies]

That'd just amount to adjusted goals per game, or per game VsX which, for those who put a big value on durability, is pretty well considered I think.
So it really comes down to whether you think we should value early bloomers more than late bloomers.

Then you are no longer placing value on the best players, but on the best careers. If that was all that mattered, most of the players in the Hall of Fame would have to be removed. Especially the early year players who hardly played any games. And there is no adjustment for players based on salary either. To me that is strange. We expect them to play hard for pennies and then take a job in the offseason compared to those that were later able to make a living at it? Morenz certainly let up after they won those two Cups, he was partying and getting out of shape, but also had injuries. But we still give him his props. The rankings are relative, they are not just based on longevity, there are many other factors.

 

[BenchBrawl]

At this point I don't even care about who was the best player, I care about who was the most inspiring legend and/or respectable ambassador for society. I am getting old and wiser. Almost like an old mage on top of a mountain.

 

[Johnny Engine]

At this point I don't even care about who was the best player, I care about who was the most inspiring legend and/or respectable ambassador for society. I am getting old and wiser. Almost like an old mage on top of a mountain.

I hear ya there. I remember Killion was very adamant in that perspective - much more interested in the what and how of the old legends than the "how much".
I think the other important piece of that is to not go barging into "greatest ever" discussions for the purpose of plugging your ears and yelling that the people there are thinking about hockey history the wrong way. Nobody needs that - and I'm not saying you do that, but I AM saying there are a few users here who DO behave that way, haha.