Peak or longevity?

[marty 4 hart*]

This is probably an impossible question to answer. But if you have to choose. What is most impotrant when deciding a players greatness. Prime/peake or longevity?

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I look first at sustained peak, which means more than just a season or two. And yes, it also means more than just parts of seasons (sorry Lindros and Forsberg).

I rate guys like Francis and Delvecchio lower than most because they were never gamebreaking talents.

But longevity is also important, at least while that player is maintaining a high level.

Examples:
For me, Brodeur's longevity at this point is enough to push him over Sawchuk in value, even though Sawchuk had the better peak.

Lidstrom might be slightly behind Potvin in peak value, but he's so far ahead in maintaining his standard of play, I rank him over Potvin without a second thought.

But Messier playing 6 more seasons and accumulating stats after he ceased being a star player adds nothing to his value.

 

[Big Phil]

If you had to pick one, probably prime/peak value. Guy Lafleur is always going to be rated ahead of Ron Francis and he should be. But Francis had the longevity (not at the Lafleur level greatness of course) that is shared by very few players. Francis retired at the right time, he was not himself in 2004 anymore but I still wouldn't consider him to be a guy who hung around too long either since only two years earlier he led a weak team into the Cup final.

That being said as long as a player has a long enough prime like say 5-6 years and not like Naslund's 3 years and disappearing act, then they will likely always be more highly regarded than a player who was very good for a long, long time.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Longevity

Longevity especially if the player can sustain a level of performance that does not drop more than 1/3 below peak.

Also if you are looking at peak the number of games played each season have to be viewed as a very key factor.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Case by case basis.