BroadwayJay*
Guest
Well I don't see where anyone is denying that there are 90 players playing on the first line in the NHL. If anyone is making an argument about someone not being a 1st line player, then clearly they must be doing so not in the literal sense. And you are correct, implicitly he is suggesting that Bailey shouldn't be playing on the first line. In the same vain, someone calling Malkin a 1st line center is implying that Malkin would be playing on a 1st line if he was on another team. The fact of the matter is that enough posters talk about "top paring Dmen" and "1st line centers" in the sense of skill tiers that a statement like "Bailey is not a first line wing" makes sense in that I understand what he is suggesting. If you are truly suggesting that he is claiming there aren't 90 players in the league playing on a first line then I think you are being ignorant for the sake of argument.
I don't know what he is suggesting.
He is saying there are 60 first liners in the NHL and another 60 second liners.
That's absurd. There are 180 people qualified for the job. It is the 180 best forwards.
Any other definition is just ridiculous. Any definition that only he can define is even more so.
This isn't complicated. If you feel Bailey is in the top 180 forwards in the league, which could be debatable I suppose, than you must accept he is second line caliber.
To call him third liner means he is in the bottom half of forwards in the NHL. His scoring totals make hat argument insane but folks are free to make it.
What you can't do is redefine first liners to some subjective personal definition. You can do it, but at the cost of your own credibility. the issue is that he has to do it to make an argument that Bailey is a third liner. That's why he is doing it. It is ends first analysis. Working backward from your desired outcome to divine a formula that reaches the outcome you desire. I simply cannot respect that type of thing. No one should. It is exactly like intelligent design.