I've been going through Judas Priest's 18 studio albums over the past week. It dawned on me that there are some parallels between evaluating this band, and evaluating hockey players.
1) Focusing too much on averages
Few rock/metal bands, at their peak, were as good as Judas Priest. If I had to rank bands by the strength of, say, their best two hours' worth of studio material, Priest would be near the top of the list. But they released a bunch of bad albums, both during and after their primes. If I were to calculate their per-album or per-song average, because they released so much crap, the rating wouldn't accurately reflect how good they are.
This is the obvious challenge in focusing too much on per-game statistics. Sure, Jaromir Jagr's career points-per-game average would have been higher if he retired after 2008 - just like Judas Priest's average per-song rating would have been higher if they retired after "Painkiller". But I don't think that a player, or a band, should be penalized for continuing to play hockey, or make music, even when their best days are behind them. Take the good that you can find (such as Jagr's 2016 campaign, or the dark opus "Cathedral Spires"), even if it's not as good as their very best efforts. It's certainly better than nothing.
Besides, nobody is forcing you to watch Jagr's Calgary highlights, and nobody's forcing you to listen to "Jugulator".
2) Variety
Listen to "Beyond the Realms of Death", "Turbo Lover", "Painkiller", "Run of the Mill", and "Breaking the Law". These are five outstanding songs that sound nothing alike (despite the fact that it's the same four key band members on each). That spans early prog metal, disco pop, thrash metal, bluesy rock, and mainstream hard rock. Granted, Judas Priest isn't going to perform an hour-long jazz instrumental, or a Chilean folk song, but that's still remarkable variety for a heavy metal band. I think their variety makes their catalogue more engaging, because there are more ways it can connect with you. Sometimes you're in the mood for aggressive hard rock, and you can put on "British Steel". Other times you're in the mood for a gorgeous ballad and you can play something from their first few albums. Or you might be in the mood for epic prog metal, and you can play "Nostradamus".
Similarly, I've always felt that players who have a more varied skillset are more valuable. I'm not saying that a player who's good defensively, wins faceoffs, and throws big hits while scoring 80 points is more valuable than another player who scores 80 points and does nothing else - that's obvious. What I mean is, if there's some objective way to measure players, even if two players have exactly the same level of contribution, I'd take the generalist over the specialist every time. My thinking is a player who has a more varied skillset is less likely to be shut down during the playoffs. (Players who are less varied are more predictable, and it's easier to stop an opponent who's predictable, compared to an equally good opponent who's unpredictable). I'm working on a study that appears to provide some statistical evidence for this - a work in progress though.
3) Evolution
I was going through their 18 albums in chronological order, starting with "Rocka Rolla" - the humble debut from 1974. Lots of ideas borrowed from Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and a bunch of other blues-influenced hard rock bands from that time. One thing that was noticeable is Downing and Tipton's guitar playing was competent, but underwhelming. It was a different time - two-handed tapping, at least in the context of rock music, had only been invented a couple of years earlier. Fast forward to 1990's "Painkiller", which featured, in addition to two-handed tapping, viciously fast sweep picking, tremolo picking, dive bombs, etc.
It's literally true that if you teleported Downing and/or Tipton from 1974 to 1990, they'd be forgettable guitar players (and would be utterly unable to play a song like "Painkiller"). It's also literally true that Jean Beliveau (let alone Howie Morenz) would struggle if they were teleported into the modern NHL. But the teleportation argument is dumb. Guitar players have improved over time due to the knowledge that their predecessors accumulated (and, to a lesser extent, improvements in the tools). The fact that Downing and Tipton were world-class guitar players sixteen years after their debut, having integrated sixteen years' worth of new techniques and ideas, is proof of that concept. Ray Bourque is the perfect example for hockey - he was a first-team all-star in the high-scoring aftermath of the WHA merger, and was a first-team all-star 21 years later in the heart of the Dead Puck Era, where half the talent pool was European. Professionals, in any field, when given the chance, learn and integrate new concepts into their toolbox.
Besides, let's not confuse pure technical skill with creativity. There are teenagers on YouTube now who can play Priest's catalogue more accurately and precisely than the band themselves. That's great, but can they write a song as good as "Victim of Changes"? Similarly, there are many players today who are bigger, stronger and faster than Gretzky. That's great, but can they think about the game the same way that he can? Tools are important, but don't underestimate the importance of the toolbox.
I'm not sure if this rant makes sense to anyone except me. Either way, I'm going to listen to "Heading Out on the Highway" and call it a night.
