NHL European Born and Bred Player of the Year
- Thread starter Psycho Papa Joe
- Start date
It seems to me that you hold jagr in a higher regard than hasek. I would give hasek the award in 1995 and 2001, in 2001 jagr relied too much on mario, and buffalo ended up with more points, despite no offense.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,120
- 12,789
The only outright change I would make would probably be Nilsson over Stastny in 1980-81. I would also put Forsberg alone over Naslund and Ovechkin over Sedin. In 2004 I could see any of Hossa, Alfredsson, Kovalchuk or Elias possibly being placed ahead of Naslund.
jcbio11
Registered User
Hasek was a hart finalist in 1995 and hart voting is forward bias anyways. Jagr only scores 96 points in 2001 without mario anyways, so no he wasnt better that year. If jagr has 4 more seasons as the best euro, then why is hasek ranked higher in the hoh top 100?
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
Good call on Hasek for 1995. I'm rethinking that one.
Lidstrom was my second choice for 2001, not Hasek, but point taken on the Lemieux effect. I might have to rethink that one, but I think it will be Lidstrom on my revised list if I make a change.
2004 should absolutely be Kovalchuk. Also believe Foppa should have it to himself in 2003. Guess you like Naslund a bunch 
Other than that good list.
Other than that good list.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
You're right about 1995. For some reason, I thought that was one of Hasek's "off" seasons.
I guess it could be Hasek/Jagr both, though I remember being more impressed by Jagr's season.
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
Forgot about Nilsson having his big year in 1981. I thought it was 1983.
2004 was difficult. Forsberg was far and away the most impressive Euro that year, but he only played 39 games.
Yeah my criteria is that if a goalie and forward have close seasons, i would give the edge to the goalie because he plays all 60 minutes and is more responsible for stealing games. In my opinion, 1999 and 2000 were the two years where the nhl became 'jagr's league'. Before that Hasek was more important to his team.
2004 is really a tough one, if kipper played a full season I would have given it to him. I wouldnt give it solely to naslund, kovalchuk and elias were just as good.
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,815
- 16,549
I really disgress for Kurri's pick in 86 -- I'd go with Mats Naslund instead. Playing with the Habs wasn't like playing with the Oilers in regards to offence, and playing with Bobby Smith wasn't like playing with Gretzky either.
Nevermind the fact that Kurri scored nearly 70 goals -- he was the 3rd best scorer on his team. While Naslund was 1st on his team by over 20 points. While 5 players managed that feat (outscoring closer teammate by +20 points, it is important to remember that...)
- One of those guys is Gretzky
- Another is Lemieux (over Mike Bullard...)
- Another is Michael Bossy (who did manage to outscore Brian Trottier by 20-something points)
- Another is Federko (over Mark Hunter...)
- Another is Hawerchuck (over Boschman)
Naslund outscored the last two of those guys. Yes, scoring close to 70 goals might be impressive, but in this case, I think we should look beyond the numbers.
Even if 86 might have been the best season from Kurri, if you'd give me the choice between the guy who played with the most offence-oriented team in the league, with two of the three most dynamic offensive players at this point (Gretz, Kurri), vs. the guy who outscored his teammates on a defense-oriented team in a defense-oriented conference, I'd take the later.
EDIT : I'm not sure I'd pick Stastny over Naslund, 'cause Stastny has a point as well, but I'd take Stastny over Kurri.
Nevermind the fact that Kurri scored nearly 70 goals -- he was the 3rd best scorer on his team. While Naslund was 1st on his team by over 20 points. While 5 players managed that feat (outscoring closer teammate by +20 points, it is important to remember that...)
- One of those guys is Gretzky
- Another is Lemieux (over Mike Bullard...)
- Another is Michael Bossy (who did manage to outscore Brian Trottier by 20-something points)
- Another is Federko (over Mark Hunter...)
- Another is Hawerchuck (over Boschman)
Naslund outscored the last two of those guys. Yes, scoring close to 70 goals might be impressive, but in this case, I think we should look beyond the numbers.
Even if 86 might have been the best season from Kurri, if you'd give me the choice between the guy who played with the most offence-oriented team in the league, with two of the three most dynamic offensive players at this point (Gretz, Kurri), vs. the guy who outscored his teammates on a defense-oriented team in a defense-oriented conference, I'd take the later.
EDIT : I'm not sure I'd pick Stastny over Naslund, 'cause Stastny has a point as well, but I'd take Stastny over Kurri.
revolverjgw
Registered User
It's not Kurri's fault his team was stacked. I think he could have put at least as many points as Naslund if they changed situations, as the go-to guy on a very good team with very good players like Robinson and Smith supporting him... and while playing a better defensive game to boot. Kurri was getting Selke votes in addition to all those goals.
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,815
- 16,549
It doesn't address the fact that Kurri was playing on a very offensive minded team and Naslund was playing for a somewhat defensive minded team.
And comparing Coffey and Gretz to Robinson (85-86...) to Smith is really far-fetched as far as offensive contribution is concerned.
I was basically answering to the OP that didn't seem to put much weight on the context of those numbers.
Last edited:
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
I think a better case could be made for Stastny that season.
I thought about Naslund and really wanted to pick him since he's one of my all-time favourite players, but I recall Naslund getting the bulk of his points in the 1st half of the season and then settling into what he always was, a PPGer in the 2nd half. Kurri and Stastny were much more consistent. In addition, the Habs were actually a good offensive team that season, finishing 6th in goals for and having 10 players with 19 or more goals. Jean Perron really tried to bring fire wagon hockey back to Montreal that year, but when it only produced an 87 pt season, he settled back to trap hockey in the Playoffs that Lemaire had preached to two previous seasons. The results speak for themselves.
Czech Your Math
I am lizard king
You act as if there is clear bias on his part.
I don't disagree that Hasek would be a deserved choice in 2001, but Jagr isn't a bad choice either. It may not have been one of the best seasons for either of them, despite the Ross for Jagr and Vezina for Hasek. Could justify giving it to Lidstrom or even Elias.
From '95 to 2001 they were the two best players in hockey, so it's really difficult to compare and decide between the two. The only time it's really a clear choice is when one of them has an off year (remember, an off year is Jagr still winning the Ross in '98 or Hasek still leading the NHL in save % in '96) or injury preventing one of them from reaching their maximum value (e.g. Jagr in '97 or Hasek in 2000).
Looking further at Hasek and Jagr from '95 to 2001:
'95: Jagr won Ross and was second in goals. He also was second in Hart (likely Pearson finalist also) and won Czech Golden Hockey Stick as best Czech player. Hasek led NHL in GAA, save % and shutouts. He won Vezina and was third in Hart (and possibly Pearson finalist also). Tough choice, but would give slight edge to Jagr, especially as Jagr had 10 goals and 15 points in 12 playoff games, while Hasek was 1-4 with a 3.49 GAA and .863 save % in playoffs.
'96: Jagr was second in NHL to Lemieux in points and goals (and was closer to Lemieux than rest of league), and led NHL in even strength goals and assists (and ES points by 19). He also set all-time NHL mark for points and assists by a RW in a season. He was one of the top playoff scorers with 11 goals and 23 points in 18 playoff games and again won the Czech GHS award. Hasek has by far the worst GAA of his career as a full-time NHL starter. This is a very clear edge to Jagr.
'97: Hasek led NHL in save % and won the Vezina, Hart and Pearson, and Czech GHS awards. Jagr missed 19 games to injury and so only finishes 6th in scoring and goals. If he had stayed healthy he would have won the Richard and given Lemieux a run for the Ross, making it a difficult choice, but as it was it's a clear edge to Hasek.
'98: Hasek led NHL in save % and shutouts and wins the Vezina, Hart, Pearson, and Czech GHS awards. Jagr wins the Ross and leads the NHL in assists, and was a Hart (and presumably Pearson) finalist. Despite this it's a significant edge to Hasek, especially as he shined in the '98 Olympics.
'99: Hasek led NHL in save % and has best GAA and save % of his career. He won the Vezina and was both a Hart and Pearson finalist. Jagr won the Ross by 20 points and led NHL in assists by 16 (playing mostly with Straka, Barnes, Miller and Hrdina). He led NHL in even stength goals and assists and ES points by 17. He won the Hart, Pearson and Czech GHS awards. This is perhaps Jagr's best season and one of Hasek's best as well, but have to give the edge to Jagr.
2000: Both are injured this season. Hasek played only 35 games, although he he was still third in save % (less than .001 behind leader). Jagr missed 19 games, but won the Ross, Pearson and Czech GHS awards and was second in Hart (in one of closest votes ever). Hasek was still excellent when healthy, but it's a very clear edge to Jagr.
2001: Jagr won the Ross, led NHL in assists and was third in goals, while third in Hart. He led NHL in even strength goals and assists and ES points by 12. Lemieux's comeback obviously helped him, but remember he outscored Lemieux during the games they played together, so he wasn't just riding on his coattails. Hasek won the Vezina, this is a coin flip, but give slight edge to Jagr as he helped Pens come back from 3-2 deficit to defeat Buffalo in 7 games in playoffs.
BTW, in case you think there is bias for forwards or against goalies in the Czech Golden Hockey Stick Award, not only did Hasek win it in '97 and '98, but he also won it in '87, '89 and '90. Additionally, Turek won it in '94 and Vokoun won it in 2010. Jagr won it 9 times, so from '87 to 2010, Jagr won it 9 times, Hasek 5 times, other forwards 5 times, defensemen 3 times, and other goalies 2 times. Very balanced, especially considering what dominating forces Jagr and Hasek were during their careers.
Finally, summaries for each from '95 to 2001 (rankings 190 games or more):
Hasek
--------
193-40-60 (6th in wins), 2.21 GAA (2nd to Brodeur's 2.19), .927 save % (1st)
Playoffs: 33-26, 2.11 GAA, .931 save %
Jagr
-------
495 games, 314 goals (1st by 33), 446 assists (1st by 35), 760 points (1st by 145), +154 (2nd to LeClair's +161), .63 GPG (1st), .90 APG (1st), 1.54 PPG (1st by .19)
Playoffs (excluding 2001 ECF): 72 games, 43 goals, 51 assists, 94 points (1.31 PPG), +23
Last edited:
Hasek didn't win the golden hockey stick in 1994? He was the second best player in the league after fedorov. In 2002, he won the cup, lead the league in wins and set a record for shutouts in the finals, i think the golden hockey stick is biased. Also, hasek carried his team to the stanley cup finals, jagr never even made it to the 3rd round without mario. I would give playoff edge to hasek.
Also, in 1995 Hasek put up a 93% save percentage when the rest of the starting goalies ranged from 90.5 to 91.5%, that's a massive gap.
Last edited:
insomniac
High on Hockey
Czech Your Math
I am lizard king
There is usually some sort of bias. You probably found it in your example of Hasek not winning in '94. The award is at times biased in favor of those playing in Czech leagues versus the NHL. I think this is sometimes the case when an NHL player has won the award multiple times (Hasek already won it 4 times before '94). It again is the case in 2001, when Dopita won the award, despite great seasons from Jagr, Hasek and Elias.
Hasek certainly has a strong case in '95 and a shortened season makes it all the more difficult. You previously cited Buffalo having more points in 2001 than Pittsburgh (98 to 96!), yet in '95 the Pens have 10 more points than Buffalo. I don't believe it's much of a factor in either season, but it is interesting that without Lemieux, Wregget led the NHL in wins by 3 in '95. Lindros won the Hart, but in a full season I like Jagr's chances that year, especially given Lindros' perpetual injuries. Both were at or near the top in many categories, especially factoring in Jagr improving his teammates:
Hasek
---------
tied for 5th-8th in wins (6 behind Wregget)
first in GAA by .02
first in save % by .13
tied for first in shutouts
Jagr
------
Ross trophy
second in goals (2 behind Bondra)
tied for 7th in assists (linemate Francis first)
first in goals created
fifth in plus/minus (linemate Francis first)
second in even strength goals (1 behind Lindros)
tied for second in even stength assists (linemate Francis first)
second in even strength points (1 behind Lindros)
tied for second in game winning goals (1 behind Nolan)
Top Duos (teammates)
----------------------------
Points: Jagr/Francis 129, Lindros/Renberg 127, Zhamnov/Tkachuk 116
Goals: Jagr/Robitaille 55, Lindros/Renberg 55, Zhamnov/Selanne-Tkachuk 52
Assists: Francis/Jagr 86, Sakic/Forsberg 78, Coffey/Fedorov 74
Plus/Minus: Francis/Jagr +53, Leschyshyn/Nolan +51, Duchesne/Gilbert +51
Even Strength Goals: Lindros/LeClair 42, Jagr/Robitaille 39, Fleury/Nieuwendyk 36
Even Strength Assists: Jagr/Francis 53
Even Strength Points: Jagr/Francis 82, Lindros/LeClair 80-81?
Anyway, it's pretty clear that the Jagr/Francis line (and Francis was not even a top 5 threat in any category w/o Jagr) and the Legion of Doom line were the two dominating lines that season. If it was a full season, it's likely Jagr distances himself from Lindros, unless it's the only season of Lindros' career in which he plays more than 73 games. Hasek was the dominant goalie, with his main threats being Osgood, Carey, Thibault, Belfour, and Vanbiesbrouck. Some excellent goalies in the mix, but not really better than Lindros at his peak. Lindros' Flyers beat Hasek's Sabres in five games in '95. If you included Hasek's playoff stats, he was 20-18-7 with a 2.27 GAA and .924 save %. Still great numbers, but not nearly as dominating, so who knows what happens in a full season?
Either Hasek or Jagr would be a very deserved choice in '95 or 2001. So I believe it should go something like this:
'95: Jagr/Hasek
'96: Jagr
'97: Hasek
'98: Hasek
'99: Jagr
'00: Jagr
'01: Hasek/Jagr
The OP had Jagr 4.5, Hasek 2.5... you argue for Hasek 4.5, Jagr 2.5... I believe it's Jagr 4-5, Hasek 2-3. Since Jagr won 4 Czech GHS award to Hasek's 2 during those 7 years and Jagr finished higher in Hart voting 5/7 years, it's a bit of an uphill battle to argue that Hasek should dominate such a hypothetical award from '95-01.
Mantha Poodoo
Playoff Beard
- Jun 5, 2008
- 4,109
- 0
In addition to a couple nods of Hasek over Jagr, I'd give Lidstrom's 80 in 80 in 05-06 over Jagr. Jagr had an impressive season that year as well, but Lidstrom's overall performance that year is imo considerably farther removed from the nearest defensive performance than Jagr's from the nearest offensive performances in recent history. In the playoffs, they were both subpar in 1st round exits (though Lidstrom scored at the same rate as Jagr, which is a win for the d-man in my book).
I can go farther in depth on this one if you like.
Actually, just to throw some quick numbers out:
Lidstrom outscores his pro-rated opposition in 05-06 by 10%
Jagr is outscored by his pro-rated opposition in 05-06 by 2.43%
(The numbers are further in Lidstrom's favor without the pro-rating)
Lidstrom is outscored by his best pro-rated competition in seasons since by 1.25%
Jagr is outscored by his best pro-rated competition in seasons since by 1%.
(Again, the numbers are further in Lidstrom's favor without the pro-rating).
Taking teams into account has little effect one way or the other on the offensive numbers. I call this one a close but notable victory for Lidstrom, especially considering Jagr was beat that year in pure totals but Lidstrom wasn't then or since.
I shouldn't need to do a statistical defensive comparison of the two players (in any year, much less 05-06) because I'm fairly certain we can all agree that's unnecessary for obvious reasons.
The next factor that's possibly in Jagr's favor is his force/dominance. However, for every bit of a force Jagr was Lidstrom had a complete and utter ability to quietly and calmly control a game... and then some. Ultimately, I take the ability of a top 5 d-man to control a game over that of a top 10-15 winger, and that goes for 05-06 as well (not even Jagr's best year, while arguably Lidstrom's best).
The final bit is trophies. Lidstrom's Norris vs Jagr's Pearson. A wash, imo. Only one D-man has ever won the Pearson/Lindsay, some yayhoo named Orr, and only 3 non-forwards total. It's more or less a forward's award unless someone is so bizarrely dominant (such as in the case of Orr or Hasek, both the top all time players in their position) that it'd be a sin not to award it to them. It's even been awarded to forwards where, in retrospect, a different player in a different position was considered the best in the game by his peers (this goes for, among others, Lidstrom and Orr during their Norris runs. Does anyone want to make the argument Orr was the best player in the game for only 1 year of his career?)
I don't see how Jagr takes 05-06 over Lidstrom.
I can go farther in depth on this one if you like.
Actually, just to throw some quick numbers out:
Lidstrom outscores his pro-rated opposition in 05-06 by 10%
Jagr is outscored by his pro-rated opposition in 05-06 by 2.43%
(The numbers are further in Lidstrom's favor without the pro-rating)
Lidstrom is outscored by his best pro-rated competition in seasons since by 1.25%
Jagr is outscored by his best pro-rated competition in seasons since by 1%.
(Again, the numbers are further in Lidstrom's favor without the pro-rating).
Taking teams into account has little effect one way or the other on the offensive numbers. I call this one a close but notable victory for Lidstrom, especially considering Jagr was beat that year in pure totals but Lidstrom wasn't then or since.
I shouldn't need to do a statistical defensive comparison of the two players (in any year, much less 05-06) because I'm fairly certain we can all agree that's unnecessary for obvious reasons.
The next factor that's possibly in Jagr's favor is his force/dominance. However, for every bit of a force Jagr was Lidstrom had a complete and utter ability to quietly and calmly control a game... and then some. Ultimately, I take the ability of a top 5 d-man to control a game over that of a top 10-15 winger, and that goes for 05-06 as well (not even Jagr's best year, while arguably Lidstrom's best).
The final bit is trophies. Lidstrom's Norris vs Jagr's Pearson. A wash, imo. Only one D-man has ever won the Pearson/Lindsay, some yayhoo named Orr, and only 3 non-forwards total. It's more or less a forward's award unless someone is so bizarrely dominant (such as in the case of Orr or Hasek, both the top all time players in their position) that it'd be a sin not to award it to them. It's even been awarded to forwards where, in retrospect, a different player in a different position was considered the best in the game by his peers (this goes for, among others, Lidstrom and Orr during their Norris runs. Does anyone want to make the argument Orr was the best player in the game for only 1 year of his career?)
I don't see how Jagr takes 05-06 over Lidstrom.
Last edited:
Czech Your Math
I am lizard king
I wouldn't mind hearing your rationale for Lidstrom in 2006.
Here's my argument for Jagr over Lidstrom:
Lidstrom had 80 points and was +21 on a team that had 124 points and was roughly +60. For a defensemen to be 7th on his team and third among his team's defensemen in plus-minus, and for his team to have a roughly the same or better plus-minus/minute with him off the ice as on the ice does not exactly strike me as one of the most outstanding defensive performances in history. 80 points for a defensemen is excellent, but to do so while QBing a power play that can feature players such as Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Shanahan, Lang, Holmstrom, Schneider, Samuelsson, Yzerman and Franzen isn't exactly mind-blowing. Zubov had 71 points and was +22 for a much worse Dallas team, so while Lidstrom was a key piece of a great team, his performance does not seem so incredibly surprising or so far beyond his peers.
Jagr had 123 points that season, which has not been surpassed since. He led a team to the playoffs, and nearly a division title, that had undergone a fire sale the previous season and hadn't been to the playoffs in its seven previous seasons. This was a team that featured (albeit an outstanding) rookie goalie from overseas, whose second line center was a mid-30's Steve Rucchin, and whose top D pairing was Rozsival and Malik. Jagr was +34 on a team which was roughly... +34. He propelled rookie Prucha to a career year of 30 goals and fellow 33 y/o linemates Nylander to a career highs of 79 points and +31 (previous two seasons combined 74 points and +7) and Straka to 76 points and +17 (previous two seasons combined 72 points and -43). His +34 led all NHL forwards, even ahead of each of the Heatley-Spezza-Alfredsson line... who were backed by D-men like Chara, Redden, Meszaros, Phillips, Neil and Volchenkov with Hasek in goal. Besides being a dominating force at even strength, as usual, he also was second in NHL in power play goals, which was unusual for Jagr. Just for good measure, he set the Rangers season records for goals and points.
I am looking forward to hearing why Lidstrom was "considerably more" dominating than Jagr during that season.
Mantha Poodoo
Playoff Beard
- Jun 5, 2008
- 4,109
- 0
I posted some stuff above in regards to numbers. In regards to the extremely flawed stat that is +/-... well, I'm going to do nothing other than say: 1. Detroit's 05-06 goaltending, 2. Mathieu Schneider, and 3. Lidstrom being the one and only go to guy against any top line on that Wings' teams defense.
I'd be glad to give a more in depth analysis of defensive play if you care to use a stat that's actually relevant in any meaningful way to defense. I will acknowledge ahead of time defense is extremely difficult to break down statistically and is better done through play. However, even for a subpar defensive year by Lidstrom's standards, he still matches up better defensively against his peers than Jagr does against his peers. Actually, Lidstrom matches up well against anyone defensively while Jagr simply does not. Not a floater (when he's giving 100%), but far and away from a defensive stalwart. Combine this with the offensive comparison...
Jagr scored 123 points that season and was surpassed in that season by 125 points (Big Joe). He was approached in a considerably lower season by Crosby with 120 points in 3 less gp.
Lidstrom, meanwhile, outscored his opposition in 05-06 by 80 to 71 points. The closest since is 76. Not only does Lidstrom take a comparison to his peers in a matter of pure numbers (+10 and +4 differential vs -2 and +3 differential for Jagr) but this is further exaggerated by a matter of percentage.
Rather than propel his offense to career totals, Lidstrom damned near was the offense. He was only 7 points behind the highest scoring forward on his team and 21 points above the 2nd highest scoring d-man... for whom that was, by the way, a career year in points, 59 points for Schneider compared to his previous career high of 52 in a higher scoring era.
There's also the roughly 6 minutes extra TOI Lidstrom had per game. Not unusual for d-man, but then when you consider that Lidstrom was taking 5:11 PK TOI/G (on the lowest [or damn near it] penalized team in the league), compared to Jagr's whopping 20 seconds a game... well, Lidstrom puts up a more offensively dominant season as a d-man than Jagr does as a forward with almost no more ES/PP time (and the additional wear/tear of almost 5 minutes more average PK time).
Last edited:
Czech Your Math
I am lizard king
Jagr had one point in the playoffs, because after the first game, he played the remainder of the series with one arm, due to an injury which required major reconstructive shoulder surgery during the offseason. He had one point and nine shots in the first game of the series, and although he only ended up with one point and ten shots in the series, the only teammate to surpass EITHER total was Blair Betts, the fourth line center with two points.
The margins by which they outscored their competition are not significantly different (in the statistical sense). Needless to say (I hope), it is harder to outscore Thornton, Ovechkin, Crosby, and the Heatley-Spezza-Alfredsson line, etc. while playing with 33 y/o linemates who have never scored a point/game without you, than it is to outscore, Zubov, McCabe, Kaberle and Visnovsky while playing on a power play that features forwards like Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Shanahan, Lang, Holmstrom, Samuelsson, Franzen and Yzerman.
Your assertion is puzzling, by chance have you looked at the composition of those two teams?
Also, in the last 14 years, the only other season above Jagr's 123 points in 2006 was Thornton's 125 that year (which featured Jagr's concussion in the Olympics and a trade of Thornton to a team which had two more games remaining than his former team).
You didn't do a statistical defensive comparison, yet as I stated in my previous post, Jagr was a +34 on a team which was even (0) without him on the ice... while Lidstrom, who has more ice time, was +21 on a team that was +39 without him on the ice. One thing most would agree on is that Jagr was basically the reason his team was +34... while Lidstrom was not statistically better, and if anything somehwat less than average on his team, in terms of the advantage he imparted to his team at even strength.
I don't really believe Lidstrom's Obi-wan Kenobe impression is more valuable than Jagr's ability to control the puck for long periods, create myriad of scoring chances and have a substantially better plus-minus without another skater on his team that would lhave likely made Detroit's top two lines or D pairings that season.
While I understand your preference for a top 5 d-man over a top 10-15 winger, you may want to check your premises, because the majority of historians would probably consider Jagr one of the top 5 wingers and top 10-15 forwards of all-time, and many would consider him one of the top 10-15 skaters of all-time. Basically, to call Jagr a top 10-15 winger is like calling Hasek a top 10-15 goalie or Bourque (or Lidstrom) a top 10-15 defenseman.
I understand that there may be bias in awards, and don't find them the most objective way of evaluating players, but to equate a Norris with a Pearson is quite a stretch IMO.
It's almost hard to take your post seriously, but I replied seriously.
