I'm not sure that you'll get what I'm saying. Seems like you don't. That theres a DIFFERENCE in excellence vs standard fare. Sure the Beatles, Led Zep, each put out a less successful album, but both put an entire catalog out of excellent albums and music. Should their music and body of work be treated identical to say Pat Travers or the Headpins?
Should they receive identical praise and criticism? That seems to be what you are suggesting is that all players are essentially up for same criticism no matter how excellent, or average they are.
The point is theres a distinction. Some are great, others are not.
I'm not sure how I could possibly come closer to the point than saying that some artists are pretty much beyond reproach, and have deserved that standing, while other plebes are just run of the mill and pretty open to criticism, and as it should be.
I don't critique greatness,
I have no licence to, I'm not worthy to. What kind of arrogance would I have to have to think I know better than the Beatles, Led Zep, Connor McDavid. They get every benefit of a doubt I can give.
Some players are worthy of trust. Game to game differentials in their play mean nothing to me. I know they will be great again.