I’m not saying Gretzky or Lemieux stink or wouldn’t win trophies in present day. But we are talking about McDavid, he is winning trophies in present day as well. Many in fact. This is more about notions of “unbeatable” and what that means. It’s odd to put Lemieux in an “unbeatable” category when he only ended with one more Art Ross than McDavid has now. Sure injuries are a big reason but injuries are a monster part as well of what makes someone “beatable” or not.
No offense, but I find 'trophy counting' to be the laziest approach to player evaluation, as it oversimplifies the intricate dynamics underlying the process. Those who adhere to the
trophy count paradigm are essentially suggesting that a player's worth can largely be determined by the number of trophies they've accumulated. At its base, it suggests, for example, that we should view a player who has 4 major trophies as being greater than another who has only 3. This argument can easily be proven false - Sergei Fedorov has 4 major trophies, while players like Joe Sakic and Marcel Dionne have only 3. Should we not then conclude that Fedorov is superior to Sakic and Dionne? Yet I'm unaware of anyone who actually holds such views. Even more substantially, Phil Esposito won 9 trophies, but in actuality when counting goal-scoring titles, his trophy count is a whopping 15! Which is substantially more than Crosby who has won 11. Shouldn't we rank him as being a greater player than Crosby? Obviously the answer to that is no.
Trophy counts fail to account for the myriad contextual variables needed to make accurate comparisons between players. It overlooks absolutely essential considerations such as;
- the competitive landscape
- consideration for injuries
- the significance of longevity
Trophy counts by their nature presume that the level of competition remains equal across all seasons and all eras, which of course is an erroneous conclusion. The evolution of the sport, changes in rules, shifts in demographics and the overall league-wide talent level, all contribute to variations in competitiveness over individual seasons and eras. It's essential to acknowledge these contextual differences and understand that achievements in one season does not directly translate to another. I'm sure you're aware of all the above, but by continuing to place excessive value on simple trophy counts you are failing to make the required considerations.
While injuries can undoubtedly impact a player's overall legacy by interrupting their career trajectory and diminishing their accumulated raw totals, they do not erase a player's capabilities - And that is how I personally rank players. Injuries are an unfortunate part of sports, and even the greatest athletes can fall victim to them. However, it's crucial to recognize that a player's skill, talent, and impact on the game extend beyond their injury record. Therefore, while injuries may affect a player's career arc, they should not be used to discount their abilities, which is precisely what
you are doing.
Longevity and the lack of trophy counting's recognition of it speaks for itself.
So while trophies can indeed serve as tangible markers of success, relying primarily on it yields an incomplete and misleading assessment of a player's true prowess. This methodology often disregards the intrinsic quality and depth of a player's accomplishments in individual seasons. And does not paint a complete picture of a player's true capabilities. It's essential to consider the quality, impact, and deeper context behind achievements rather than just the quantity of trophies collected.
