Sorge Georos
Registered User
Just a bit curious here...
Competition is a valid factor to bring when discussing awards such as Norris, Hart, etc. (Although I'm not a fan of judging a player based on an award that seems to be ridiculed nearly every year)
However, it has now seemed to have evolved into evidence that Player A is better than Player B.
For instance if Niklas Lidstrom were compared to a random top defenseman one may say, "Niklas Lidstrom had weaker competition, therefore he's overrated." This is a concept that has been discussed to death.
But how does so called "weaker competition" prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Lidstrom isn't as good as the other defenseman? How do other players being bad detract from Lidstrom? On the opposite side, how does having supposedly better competition make a player automatically better than his future counterpart?
If Bobby Orr of 1970 was transported to Lidstrom's era, does playing against the likes of Stevens, Chara, Niedermayer, etc. somehow make him a lesser player?
The problem with the competition argument is that it leads to a conclusion that a top defenseman of the 1970s was automatically better than a top defenseman of the 1990s + 2000s simply by being older.
Personally, I prefer judging players on their individual play and on factors which they can control.
Competition is a valid factor to bring when discussing awards such as Norris, Hart, etc. (Although I'm not a fan of judging a player based on an award that seems to be ridiculed nearly every year)
However, it has now seemed to have evolved into evidence that Player A is better than Player B.
For instance if Niklas Lidstrom were compared to a random top defenseman one may say, "Niklas Lidstrom had weaker competition, therefore he's overrated." This is a concept that has been discussed to death.
But how does so called "weaker competition" prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Lidstrom isn't as good as the other defenseman? How do other players being bad detract from Lidstrom? On the opposite side, how does having supposedly better competition make a player automatically better than his future counterpart?
If Bobby Orr of 1970 was transported to Lidstrom's era, does playing against the likes of Stevens, Chara, Niedermayer, etc. somehow make him a lesser player?
The problem with the competition argument is that it leads to a conclusion that a top defenseman of the 1970s was automatically better than a top defenseman of the 1990s + 2000s simply by being older.
Personally, I prefer judging players on their individual play and on factors which they can control.