Kale Hulls
Registered User
- May 15, 2013
- 3,620
- 2,452
What is old?
- Thread starter naruto
- Start date
Kind of what I was thinking. Defencemen, especially defensive oriented defencemen peak later. They are more reliant on positioning, knowing all of the ins and outs of the players in the league etc.
Bjornar Moxnes
Stem Rødt og Felix Unger Sörum
Considering the league treats contracts differently if you are 35+, that is the exact moment someone is considered 'old'.
It's all in the eye of the beholder, sure. But the NHL's eye says 35.
It's all in the eye of the beholder, sure. But the NHL's eye says 35.
Pookie
Wear a mask
- Oct 23, 2013
- 16,172
- 6,684
The general answer is about 27-29 based on peak performance data.
The more interesting question is when should you move a contract?
Logic would say sometime before 29-30 so that you aren't left holding the cap hit when skills decline and other teams are taking a gamble on how long that peak will go.
Downside?
That's exactly when fans have fallen in love with a player and we talk about 6-8 year deal nonsense.
Hard for a GM who wants to keep fans onside to make the prudent decision.
The more interesting question is when should you move a contract?
Logic would say sometime before 29-30 so that you aren't left holding the cap hit when skills decline and other teams are taking a gamble on how long that peak will go.
Downside?
That's exactly when fans have fallen in love with a player and we talk about 6-8 year deal nonsense.
Hard for a GM who wants to keep fans onside to make the prudent decision.
Lol weird. Those are possibly the two most common peak ages. I would guess you are younger than 26?
27 is peak physical prime, not to mention you have more experience than you did before.
35 is right on I'd say. That is the age where it starts to become impressive if you are still an elite player.
Lol. Did you even bother to have a look at the article posted? (Not by me and after my initial post).
But by all means. I am open to adjust my opinion if you can back it up with numbers. I based my opinion on my gut feeling and so far the only numbers in this thread backs it up.
VoluntaryDom
Formerly DominicBoltsFan / Ⓐ / ✞
The Panther
Registered User
Obviously various forwards have hit their peak anywhere from 19-20 (Jimmy Carson) to 30-31 (Martin St.Louis), but of course the average would be around 23-25. Defensemen and goalies, as noted, tend to peak a bit later, with lots of exceptions.
But I think, as someone said off the top, it's really more so the "mileage" that gets players, not the years. If you're a low-physical impact forward whose team misses the playoffs or gets bounced early every year, playing in a low-pressure small-city environment, and you're never considered the leader/go-to guy on your team by fans/teammates/media, you're much more likely to have a longer career with a later (or extended) peak than the guy who starts pro-hockey at 18 under huge pressure and has lots of long playoff runs all through his 20s, etc. The latter guy is bound to burn out earlier, or have more injuries as he ages, etc.
I think this is why, in earlier eras, we saw players like Guy Lafleur or Bryan Trottier suddenly decline rather precipitously. It wasn't that they had peaked earlier; it was just that they had a lot of mileage after all those playoff runs. Winning 4 straight Stanley Cups is like playing 1.5 more seasons in the same time period as someone who had less ice-time and whose team missed the playoffs each year. And that's not even getting into the increased pressure and psychological impact of being on a high-profile team.
However, there are always outliers who defy these general trends: Gordie Howe, Larry Robinson, Chelios, Jagr....
But I think, as someone said off the top, it's really more so the "mileage" that gets players, not the years. If you're a low-physical impact forward whose team misses the playoffs or gets bounced early every year, playing in a low-pressure small-city environment, and you're never considered the leader/go-to guy on your team by fans/teammates/media, you're much more likely to have a longer career with a later (or extended) peak than the guy who starts pro-hockey at 18 under huge pressure and has lots of long playoff runs all through his 20s, etc. The latter guy is bound to burn out earlier, or have more injuries as he ages, etc.
I think this is why, in earlier eras, we saw players like Guy Lafleur or Bryan Trottier suddenly decline rather precipitously. It wasn't that they had peaked earlier; it was just that they had a lot of mileage after all those playoff runs. Winning 4 straight Stanley Cups is like playing 1.5 more seasons in the same time period as someone who had less ice-time and whose team missed the playoffs each year. And that's not even getting into the increased pressure and psychological impact of being on a high-profile team.
However, there are always outliers who defy these general trends: Gordie Howe, Larry Robinson, Chelios, Jagr....
Channelcat
Unhinged user
Lots of guys have old bodies in their mid 20's, others are healthy at 40. I have no doubt that most NHL players could play until 40 if the drive was there and they were injury free.
WingsMJN2965
Registered User
- Oct 13, 2017
- 18,106
- 17,699
Machinehead
GoAwayTrouba
SovietWings
Registered User
Bjornar Moxnes
Stem Rødt og Felix Unger Sörum
Well some people consider crash and bang Dman defensive orientated, and those usually don't last that long lol.
