Whose 894 will be better?

[MadLuke]

But if someone thinks adjusted stats are misleading (more so than raw stats), then I’m not real sure what the rational basis would be.

A bit like save percentage being worst than point or plus-minus, people overrating how good they are. On an history forum no one take points scored in 1987 vs 1952 or 2002 at raw value.

Better but more dangerous

 

[The Panther]

To my way of thinking, Stastny is nowhere near the Ovechkin/Crosby ballpark.

"Nowhere near" seems too strong. What Ovechkin and Crosby clearly have over Stastny is that they started NHL at younger ages and they both have had terrific longevity. Peak-wise, the three are not tremendously different. If we remove Gretzky from the equation (but keep Mario):
Scoring finishes:
1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5
1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 7, 8
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5

So, which is which? Stastny is the last one, but clearly if he had started in the NHL at 18 instead of 24 we'd probably be adding on a couple more top-five finishes (and a couple of those finishes would be higher if we also removed Lemieux).

Crosby and Ovechkin deservedly rank higher, but Stastny, in a non-Gretzky world, might today be remembered as the top NHL player of the whole 1980s' decade.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Crosby and Ovechkin deservedly rank higher, but Stastny, in a non-Gretzky world, might today be remembered as the top NHL player of the whole 1980s' decade.

Then take it up with the forum regulars - who rated between 13 and 17 players born within 11 years of Stastny ahead of Stastny - as to why they massively underrated a Czech player.

But you didn't, did you?