Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 13212223
Results 221 to 224 of 224

Thread: Two top 6 forwards

  1. #221
    All Star
    salami's Avatar
    Karma: 3344572
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    5,843
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    771 Post(s)

    Default

    Pride? I have some somewhere...yeah, I'm in.

  2. #222
    1st Scoring Line
    Bollocks's Avatar
    Karma: 1712512
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,437
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    665 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jt View Post
    I'm not so sure about that. Byfield is 7 months younger than Stutzle and pretty much the entire hockey world believed Stutzle was at least a year closer to being an NHLer, and although I haven't looked it up recently, I'd bet they think 2020-21 Stutzle was more NHL ready than 2021-22 Byfield. I'd bet that in their 3rd seasons Stutzle (2022-23) is a valuable NHLer and Byfield (2023-24) is not. But in their 4th seasons, Byfield is the more valuable NHLer. And he'll be valuable for longer.

    Age isn't the only factor but it's not nothing.
    I'm 93,7% sure that's because Stutzle played (and really well at that) against pros in Germany, not because of age.

    I mean...7 months are 2-3 semi-severe injuries that are not in any way, shape or form a long-term concern. A 7 month older player could've missed 7 months more due to such injuries than his younger comparison. If they had identical career paths otherwise, this would negate his "advantage" of being older and he'd actually be a "lesser option" (from this standpoint alone, in a vacuum, not considering talent and on ice performance).

    Then there's the age at which someone started playing hockey, too. What if someone is 1 year older, but started playing 3 years later than his comparison? He has less hockey under his belt in his career. Then again, you could argue he improved quicker...

    There are so many factors...so, age difference in itself IMO isn't all that relevant. If it's almost 1 year difference and that also results in 1 year less of CHL experience, for example, that's a different story then.

    It also doesn't necessarily matter when it comes to physical maturity, as Byfield vs. Stutzle comparison clearly shows - genetics are considerably more important.

    I don't know...maybe there's another viewpoint that I'm missing here, but if you only look at age I think it's clearly not a telling factor unless it leads to other (much more significant) differences like # of years among pros/CHL/NCAA competition and the number of games played in that competition...
    Last edited by Bollocks; August 11th, 2021 at 11:17 PM.

  3. #223
    I was in the pool!!
    santiclaws's Avatar
    Karma: 20245656
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    17,499
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    3846 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bollocks View Post
    I'm 93,7% sure that's because Stutzle played (and really well at that) against pros in Germany, not because of age.

    I mean...7 months are 2-3 semi-severe injuries that are not in any way, shape or form a long-term concern. A 7 month older player could've missed 7 months more due to such injuries than his younger comparison. If they had identical career paths otherwise, this would negate his "advantage" of being older and he'd actually be a "lesser option" (from this standpoint alone, in a vacuum, not considering talent and on ice performance).

    Then there's the age at which someone started playing hockey, too. What if someone is 1 year older, but started playing 3 years later than his comparison? He has less hockey under his belt in his career. Then again, you could argue he improved quicker...

    There are so many factors...so, age difference in itself IMO isn't all that relevant. If it's almost 1 year difference and that also results in 1 year less of CHL experience, for example, that's a different story then.

    It also doesn't necessarily matter when it comes to physical maturity, as Byfield vs. Stutzle comparison clearly shows - genetics are considerably more important.

    I don't know...maybe there's another viewpoint that I'm missing here, but if you only look at age I think it's clearly not a telling factor unless it leads to other (much more significant) differences like # of years among pros/CHL/NCAA competition and the number of games played in that competition...

    A lot of the fuss about the age difference is about their current ages. A kid can develop a lot in a short period of time as a teenager, so strides in strength and skill between ages 17 and 18 or between 18 and 19 can be dramatic. That said, you're right, it's hardly the whole story.

  4. #224
    Bartender on Dry Island
    jt's Avatar
    Karma: 3074587
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    17,683
    Images
    1
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1771 Post(s)

    Default

    I'm not saying age is the one and only important factor. It's beyond clear that it isn't. But it isn't a non-factor.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •