This is also very nice appeal to authority. Keep going.
So, that isn't really very much of an appeal to authority. Citing a single credible expert is definitely an appeal to authority. Citing even just a few credible experts is an appeal to authority. But the more experts you cite, the greater the weight the argument holds and the less of a logical fallacy it is. So much so to the point where it nearly disappears. We're still talking about a probabilistic argument, granted, so it's not 100%. Simply because this is all really a matter of opinion. I just want you to be aware of how on the fringe your opinion really is.
Moreover, in arguments about players I have almost never seen someone not appeal to authority. Like, how do you argue without doing that? Tawnos is appealing to a certain authority in professional player, coach, and management opinion throughout decades of the sport's existence. Machinehead is often appealing to a different authority (even more explicitly) in particular data and stats.
(TBH I lost where/what the argument is specifically about bc as usual most of the talk is trying to invalidate the other person's 'logic' or 'reasoning.' It's exhausting bc that whole effort produces nothing at all: we come to find out that in 2018 human being still haven't established a method of absolute truth and still have no access to any actual objectivity. An interesting topic of thought, but what about the game of hockey??)