Now do one that takes into account top players. Most players that sharply decline in their 30's tend to be 3rd liners or worse. 1st liners start dipping into 2nd line numbers and 2nd liners slowly dip into the lower end of 2nd line production. This data is also 6 years old. Find us current proof to prove your point. I also can't think of a single player to "peak" at 22/23 and then start to decline. That's when most players break into the league.
You would have to use the top180 forwards in ice time for this to have any merits.Keep holding onto that myth
View attachment 607987
The cliff dive starts at 28.
Obviously not every player is the same, there's always exceptions to the rules. But those exceptions go both ways, for every player that holds on for a few extra years beyond 28 before regressing, another players cliff dive has them out of the league by 31.
EDIT: You dont even understand the concept of regression actually, upon reading your post more closely
Then please explain it, because your chart shows players start to decline at 24 years old. Also showing 1 analytical stat is not "evidence", unless you believe WAR to be the only one that matters. Everyone can bring a small sample size to prove their point. Here's one:I dont have it immediately, but that one is literally worse
A player that is a "4.0 WAR" will decrease more sharply then a player that is a "1.0 WAR" for example. This chart shows the overall average. You're flat out wrong and its hilarious(though unsurprising) to see you dispute evidence.
I actually think its more a simple matter of you not understanding regression. A 30+ player can still be a Top 100 player in the league, while also having regressed every year for 4-5 years straight. Both of those statements are allowed to be factually true.
Horvat can still be an effective player for 4-5 more years beyond this year, and also still regress each of those years. Again, both statements are allowed to be true.
There's nothing mythic about a 27 year old being a young man, lol. He's just as close to 25 as he is to 30. Good grief.
Horvat was 23 when he put up 27g34a and his next 3 season after were all better years with this now starting to be his best ever.Stamkos did not have his 2nd best season at 31 years old... It was his 5th best season. And if you account for projections in a lockout shortened season and an injury shortened season, it was actually his 7th best season.
If anything, Stamkos is a perfect example of literally what I am saying. 5 of his 7 best seasons happened before he turned 23 years old. 6 of his 7 before 28.
Since his 28 year old season, he's had 2 of his worst seasons of his career. Last year was a strong year and now so far this year he's tracking to have another well below average year.
Just like I said. Exceptions to the rules can happen. A player can buck the trends by a couple years, a player can have an "out of nowhere" good season despite being over 30. Those aren't the "normal" and teams are very well aware of the aging curve.
Funny enough Bo Horvat follows the trend as well:
Horvats best season came when he was 22 years old and he has pretty much stagnated every year since then. He's on pace to have his best season of his career this year... But you're running into the dangers of both a very small sample size(Not even 20% of a season yet) and the very real and well documented contract year boost.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Bo has the best year of his career this year, but teams will be extremely cautious about the fact its coming in a contract year and coming after 4 years of stagnated play.
EDIT: Those links are probably behind a paywall. So take my word for it, or dont.
....In the grand scheme of life, sure 27 is obviously quite young. In the NHL, 27 is not young.
I believe we are. We obviously view hockey differently. I view it as production showing a players value, and you only see it as advanced stats. Production wins hockey games, not advanced stats.
I think we are done here.
Both Pearson and the returning pieces are all, even combined, worth less to us then Schenn is.
Don’t mind us Canucks fans we’re stuck in 2018 with our budding “young core”
and please tell me which teams would trade a "young C" with 13 goals in 11 games with an ELC contract? Has there been any precedent? 27 is not old so I dont get your logic here? There would be literally no team trading superstar young Cs for what you would be looking for and Horvat is very close to that.
Players are not robots that work until 28 or 29 then their battery degrades and you have to replace them. There are some players that hit their prime at 31 and some that hit their peak at 23. This is not some kind of mathematic formula that you can just apply to all players. Its a very stupid take, as you assume everything is static and not dynamic. He could be like Jagr and play til he is 50 years old. You dont know that.
WAR in hockey is such a f***ed up stat. It's great for baseball, where's it's super easy to isolate a player from the rest of his teammates, but in hockey? Much more muddled. I hate how it's become the go to for peoples arguments.
So just so I'm clear then, being old begins at what age? 25 according to the graph you provided?Evidently
I like Horvat and want Colorado to trade for him and would even pay a hefty price, but calling him young is just flat out wrong. He's at the end of his prime, has probably 1-2 years left before regression begins. Just a question of how significant that regression is.
