Will Marleau get into Hall of Fame?

[mouser]

a 107 point season good for 15th in scoring.

I wonder if the higher scoring early 90s had anything to do with those point totals.....

marleau >> roenick.

And another 107 point season the following year that was good for 5th in scoring.

Roenick:
- 2x top 10 in goals
- 2x top 10 in points

Marleau:
- 2x top 10 in goals
- zero top 10 in points

 

[Hockey Outsider]

from 08/09 to 10/11 marleau was 2nd in goals to only ovechkin. and finished top 10 in selke in 2 of those years.

Good accomplishment, but Marleau was only tied for 14th in scoring overall during that span. He only led his team in scoring one of those years (by three points).

During Roenick's peak, he was 6th league-wide in scoring. He was a far bigger catalyst, leading his team in scoring by 29, 34 and 37 points over three consecutive seasons.

Roenick peaked at 5th in Hart voting (3rd among forwards). Marleau has never gotten more than a few scattered votes throughout his entire career.

I understand the reasons why someone would argue for Marleau being in the Hall of Fame. But don't tell me that he was comparable at his peak to Jeremy Roenick - that's simply false.

 

[Dustin]

Not sure why we are using Roenick missing the HHoF as a measuring stick for Marleau. Roenick was certainly the better player but the Hall at times has shown that there is context to a career beyond points. In a lot of cases it is the determining reason of why a player makes it or not. I'm not saying Marleau has any context to be in it that Roenick has a lot to be excluded just that the Hall can be weird with their picks at times.

If I had to look at anything beyond points it would be his longevity to the San Jose Sharks. They are a California based expansion team that have had no player playing more than 200 games for their franchise reach the Hall. Jumbo is a lock and it wouldn't surprise me if Marleau goes too.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Roenick's age 26 season through his season where he turned 33...189 goals, 288 assists in 538 games...Marleau in that 26-32 age range...234 goals, 269 assists in 559 games. Seven seasons for each of them. Pretty comparable and marginally in favor of Marleau. And no, actually...when you adjust for era, Roenick doesn't actually come out better. Marleau does. You can use hockeyreference as a way to cite that.



It's not really nonsense. You simply don't understand it. You can make adjustments for total points from various people in different eras but you can't definitively say one way or the other if someone not from an era is dropped into a different one succeeds or doesn't. Those are two different conversations to have. Roenick and Marleau were roughly equal in their relative success in their respective eras.

So your going to use two of Marleaus best seasons against Roenicks worst? How does that make sense? There is a reason why I had 29 as the cut off, but you decided to move the goalposts because of obvious reasons...
From 29-32
Roenick: 293 points in 308 games(.95 PPG)
Marleau: 291 points in 322 games(.90 PPG)

Add the fact that Roenick was playing on a lesser team and in a lower scoring era overall, this “marginal” nod to Marleau becomes pretty much nonexistent. Now why is 29 the cut off? They both performed similar, and if anything it would benefit Marleau because that was still his prime, yet Roenick clearly was more productive, even after not being his old self.

I did use Hockey reference...
Roenick
1992: 103 points-91 points(7th)
1994: 107 points-97 points(6th)

Where are Marleaus??? I wonder....

 

[TOGuy14]

I will be happy for the day when people stop justifying players getting into the HOF by referencing bad players.

We should be aiming upwards not down.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

So your going to use two of Marleaus best seasons against Roenicks worst? How does that make sense? There is a reason why I had 29 as the cut off, but you decided to move the goalposts because of obvious reasons...
From 29-32
Roenick: 293 points in 308 games(.95 PPG)
Marleau: 291 points in 322 games(.90 PPG)

Add the fact that Roenick was playing on a lesser team and in a lower scoring era overall, this “marginal” nod to Marleau becomes pretty much nonexistent. Now why is 29 the cut off? They both performed similar, and if anything it would benefit Marleau because that was still his prime, yet Roenick clearly was more productive, even after not being his old self.

I did use Hockey reference...
Roenick
1992: 103 points-91 points(7th)
1994: 107 points-97 points(6th)

Where are Marleaus??? I wonder....

What are you talking about? I used a seven year stretch.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Great is the key word used. The guy played for twenty years, how many people should be in the hall of fame? 4?
Longevity and total production count a ton towards the hall, as they should. When people use a lame excuse like, he shouldn’t belong he only got all those points because he played so long.
It’s hard to keep a job in the NHL for extended periods.


The hall is a museum, invented before the internet. When people had no access to, records, points, players, old vids, nothing.
I think you are missing the entire reason for th HOF if you think only trophy winners get in.
Norris finish? What random people vote on/for? Rightttt
From 1981 until 2001 three people won almost every award for forwards. Does that mean only Gretz, Mario and jags should be in?

Third highest scoring American born player, fourth highest scoring d man. That means in over 100 years three guys managed to show up on NHL score sheets more then this guy. He more then belongs.. he is what they built the hall for

But is it better to have longevity without being at a high level of play for a majority of that time? Or to just have longevity with a handful of solid seasons?

That’s his biggest setback, yes he played for 20 years, but more than half of that time, he didn’t do anything significant nor did he accomplish much. It’s that weird grey area that people refuse to see, it’s like a player can be a really good player, have longevity, have good numbers overall, and still not be a HOFer, there are still players out their like that. Why is Marleau suddenly an exception?

 

[GreatGonzo]

What are you talking about? I used a seven year stretch.

Ya that consisted of Marleaus 2 best seasons....your using the cut off whenever Marleau starts hitting his prime, while Roenick is exiting it. Don’t be that guy.

You can’t use Marleaus best seasons and prime against a time where Roenick was past it. Why don’t we use the first 7 years of their careers instead? I wonder...
Roenick: ‘90-‘96
504-258-320-578-1.14 PPG
Points: 14th
Goals: 12th
Assists: 22nd

Marleau: ‘98-‘04
558-153-174-327-0.58 PPG
Points: 118th
Goals: 48th
Assists: 82nd

Roenick had So 251 points in 54 more games....your telling me that given the era and adjusting their production, Marleau could be on that level and have he talent/ability to make up for that rather large difference? Right...the era isn’t THAT different believe it or not.

Next 7 years....
Roenick: ‘97-‘03
538-189-288-477-0.88 PPG
Points: 15th
Goals: 24th
Assists: 16th

Marleau: ‘06-‘12-0.89
559-234-269-503
Points: 12th
Goals: 6th
Assists: 31st

Ya of course your going to pick that time frame.

How about we be sticklers and use the time fram when both were in the league?
Roenick: 767-217-334-551-0.71 PPG
Marleau: 871-276-334-610-0.70 PPG

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Ya that consisted of Marleaus 2 best seasons....your using the cut off whenever Marleau starts hitting his prime, while Roenick is exiting it. Don’t be that guy.

You can’t use Marleaus best seasons and prime against a time where Roenick was past it. Why don’t we use the first 7 years of their careers instead? I wonder...
Roenick: ‘90-‘96
504-258-320-578-1.14 PPG
Points: 14th
Goals: 12th
Assists: 22nd

Marleau: ‘98-‘04
558-153-174-327-0.58 PPG
Points: 118th
Goals: 48th
Assists: 82nd

Roenick had So 251 points in 54 more games....your telling me that given the era and adjusting their production, Marleau could be on that level and have he talent/ability to make up for that rather large difference? Right...the era isn’t THAT different believe it or not.

Next 7 years....
Roenick: ‘97-‘03
538-189-288-477-0.88 PPG
Points: 15th
Goals: 24th
Assists: 16th

Marleau: ‘06-‘12-0.89
559-234-269-503
Points: 12th
Goals: 6th
Assists: 31st

Ya of course your going to pick that time frame.

Not really. The point was to show that in similar eras at similar ages that yielded similar results someone like Marleau who compares to Roenick when they're the same age in that time frame possibly could have gone into the high offensive era and put up similar results. My comparison was literally age-based from 26 to 32 with what is as close as you're going to get in era differences. If you want to continue to be intellectually dishonest about what happened in Roenick's first five years, that's on you. I can't help you with that but the facts remain that that era was more highly offensive than anything Marleau ever played in. If you want to try and argue that it's not that different, you're going to have to actually prove that claim to be true because the goal outputs by the league disagree with you greatly. Your first seven years argument is an exercise of ignorance because of that. Marleau's first seven years is dead puck era. Five of Roenick's are during an era of about 25 years that had the highest output of offensive hockey not seen for almost thirty years prior to it starting and never replicated since. I simply don't understand the level of ridiculous mental gymnastics you have to pull to dismiss that entirely like you do.

 

[Seanaconda]

He probably will. 3 nhlers plus a random player a year? He has a pretty good chance of eventually making it just cuz he played forever.


Not that many guys that are surefire hallers and two will be gone before he is eligible with jagr and iginla maybe retiring and probably the sedins will be done before him too. Hossas contract will be done before his too.

Most of the other sure hhofs have contracts that wont end till after his is done.

Maybe if they give out free buyouts there will be a bigger group but idk. Depending on how long jumbo plays they may do them together but jumbo is first ballot

 

[Seanaconda]

Pretty much just depends on when people retire. If he happens to retire at the same time as a bunch of better players he could be forgotten but who knows.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Not really. The point was to show that in similar eras at similar ages that yielded similar results someone like Marleau who compares to Roenick when they're the same age in that time frame possibly could have gone into the high offensive era and put up similar results. My comparison was literally age-based from 26 to 32 with what is as close as you're going to get in era differences. If you want to continue to be intellectually dishonest about what happened in Roenick's first five years, that's on you. I can't help you with that but the facts remain that that era was more highly offensive than anything Marleau ever played in. If you want to try and argue that it's not that different, you're going to have to actually prove that claim to be true because the goal outputs by the league disagree with you greatly. Your first seven years argument is an exercise of ignorance because of that. Marleau's first seven years is dead puck era. Five of Roenick's are during an era of about 25 years that had the highest output of offensive hockey not seen for almost thirty years prior to it starting and never replicated since. I simply don't understand the level of ridiculous mental gymnastics you have to pull to dismiss that entirely like you do.

Your problem is your totally over exaggerating the difference in scoring between the time they played. The gaps between their primes/peaks offensively aren’t because of the era. Roenick had 25-30 more points than Marleaus best seasons, Marleau couldn’t touch that production in any era. Why? Because his best seasons, he finished 19th and 14tg in scoring....you honestly believe a player who finished 19th in scoring a season after the lock out is going to suddenly finish 5th?

Marleau played 7 years in the same era, same scoring environment, with the same advantages and disadvantages as Roenick, while Roenick significantly out produced him. You can not pick and move goalposts all you would like, it doesn’t change anything.

I never said it wasn’t different, I said the difference isn’t a great as you like to try to prove, not even close.

No, what’s ignorant is comparing both of them by using Marleaus best years and Not Roenicks because it’s far to obvious and you cry “more scoring though!” If your going to use the high scoring era argument against Roenick, use the post lockout for Marleau.

Marleau and Roenick both played in the DPE, and Roenick our produced him significantly. Not just that, but yes let’s ignore the fact that Marleau saw more production after scoring opening up and with more PP time, plus this guy named Thornton.....you ignore that yet continue to use Roenicks era against him? That’s ridiculous, be consistent and just use the time frame where Roenick is exiting his peak, while Marleau is cooling off from the higher scoring years(‘99-‘02 and ‘09-‘12) both excludes their biggest years, the age gap is spot on, and it ends where both are exiting their prime.

You have to dissect and literally manipulate to make a better argument for Marleau, doesn’t that tell you something?

 

[supsens]

But is it better to have longevity without being at a high level of play for a majority of that time? Or to just have longevity with a handful of solid seasons?

That’s his biggest setback, yes he played for 20 years, but more than half of that time, he didn’t do anything significant nor did he accomplish much. It’s that weird grey area that people refuse to see, it’s like a player can be a really good player, have longevity, have good numbers overall, and still not be a HOFer, there are still players out their like that. Why is Marleau suddenly an exception?

I was saying Housley, Marleau I have no idea, if he finishes fourth overal in points for his position, sure why not

 

[MartyOwns]

you can't definitively say one way or the other if someone not from an era is dropped into a different one succeeds or doesn't.

again...no shit. you're quite good at re-phrasing the things i've said to make them seem like your own

Roenick and Marleau were roughly equal in their relative success in their respective eras.

this is just not true unless you never saw roenick live in his prime. if you weren't born yet, i don't hold that against you, but don't make ignorant false statements about it

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

again...no ****. you're quite good at re-phrasing the things i've said to make them seem like your own



this is just not true unless you never saw roenick live in his prime. if you weren't born yet, i don't hold that against you, but don't make ignorant false statements about it

on top of it all, he wants to play the "but lower scoring era" card...fine

What do Roenick's numbers look like if he gets to play 10 years with a prime Joe Thornton?

 

[MartyOwns]

on top of it all, he wants to play the "but lower scoring era" card...fine

What do Roenick's numbers look like if he gets to play 10 years with a prime Joe Thornton?

hey hey now, roenick played with steve thomas in chicago if memory serves. that's right- THE steve thomas

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Your problem is your totally over exaggerating the difference in scoring between the time they played. The gaps between their primes/peaks offensively aren’t because of the era. Roenick had 25-30 more points than Marleaus best seasons, Marleau couldn’t touch that production in any era. Why? Because his best seasons, he finished 19th and 14tg in scoring....you honestly believe a player who finished 19th in scoring a season after the lock out is going to suddenly finish 5th?

Marleau played 7 years in the same era, same scoring environment, with the same advantages and disadvantages as Roenick, while Roenick significantly out produced him. You can not pick and move goalposts all you would like, it doesn’t change anything.

I never said it wasn’t different, I said the difference isn’t a great as you like to try to prove, not even close.

No, what’s ignorant is comparing both of them by using Marleaus best years and Not Roenicks because it’s far to obvious and you cry “more scoring though!” If your going to use the high scoring era argument against Roenick, use the post lockout for Marleau.

Marleau and Roenick both played in the DPE, and Roenick our produced him significantly. Not just that, but yes let’s ignore the fact that Marleau saw more production after scoring opening up and with more PP time, plus this guy named Thornton.....you ignore that yet continue to use Roenicks era against him? That’s ridiculous, be consistent and just use the time frame where Roenick is exiting his peak, while Marleau is cooling off from the higher scoring years(‘99-‘02 and ‘09-‘12) both excludes their biggest years, the age gap is spot on, and it ends where both are exiting their prime.

You have to dissect and literally manipulate to make a better argument for Marleau, doesn’t that tell you something?

Except placement among peers is a non-sequitur when it comes to points adjusting for era. The reason why the gap is not exaggerated is because goaltending during those years that Roenick flourished was terrible. League-wide goaltending save percentage was not even 90% whereas the lowest save percentage in Marleau's career was 90.6% and would get as high as 91.5%. That is a significant difference. When you try to compare same era and same scoring environment, you're ignoring that one in the DPE is 18-25 while the other is 27-34. That is not a rational comparison to make by any stretch of the imagination. Again, I'm not using Marleau's best years as the basis for the comparison. That's just how you want to try and slant the conversation in an attempt to smear it and dismiss it. My comparison was equal age in a roughly equal environment for a seven year stretch. You're trying to compare a prime player like Roenick against a rookie, 2nd, and so on kid by comparison. That's incredibly disingenuous on your part to even try and pass that off as a fair comparison. It's a joke is what it is. My argument is consistent and fair.

again...no ****. you're quite good at re-phrasing the things i've said to make them seem like your own



this is just not true unless you never saw roenick live in his prime. if you weren't born yet, i don't hold that against you, but don't make ignorant false statements about it

It's more like you probably haven't watched Marleau at all to justify this statement. I have seen them both play. It's quite obvious that Roenick benefited early from goaltending that sucked by a wide margin compared to his later career and the entirety of Marleau's career. Roenick without that time in the late stages of the offensive era would have been lucky to crack 450 goals for his career.

on top of it all, he wants to play the "but lower scoring era" card...fine

What do Roenick's numbers look like if he gets to play 10 years with a prime Joe Thornton?

And what if Marleau got to play against sub-90% goaltending like Roenick did early in his career? Marleau likely would've done the same thing Roenick did and Thornton probably would've approached 150 points. I mean, if people want to ignore the fact that goaltending sucked during Roenick's best years then that's on you. It's a joke to believe that there isn't a big difference in offensive output when one era has about 89% save percentage goaltending and the other is 91%. That difference over an entire season is huge.

 

[Zybalto]

If his longevity and numbers hold up till the end of his current contract, it might be enough to put him in. All time leader in games played and around 21st in all time goals might be too hard for some voters to pass up. Hes also a good defender, a leader and a gentlemanly player which helps his cause.

Not sure if its already been posted but the "adjusted for era" over at hockey reference shows exactly how good a goal scorer he has been:

NHL & WHA Career Leaders and Records for Adjusted Goals | Hockey-Reference.com

Lets just see if his old body holds up another couple years.

 

[psycat]

I will be happy for the day when people stop justifying players getting into the HOF by referencing bad players.

We should be aiming upwards not down.

I will be happy the day people stop using such hyperbole and misleading terms to describe good to great players competing in the absolute world elite.

That said I agree with your second statement.

 

[MartyOwns]

It's more like you probably haven't watched Marleau at all to justify this statement. I have seen them both play.

i have no issues admitting i see marleau play twice a year (well, more now that he's with the leafs).

It's quite obvious that Roenick benefited early from goaltending that sucked by a wide margin compared to his later career and the entirety of Marleau's career. Roenick without that time in the late stages of the offensive era would have been lucky to crack 450 goals for his career.

i'm running out of ways to say this, but i'll try again. forget. trying. to. judge. roenick. in. marleau's. time. and. marleau. in. roenick's. time. it is completely subjective and should not be part of this conversation.

to level the playing field, you must look at how roenick performed among players in his time, and how marleau performed against players in his time. do you understand? so, how did roenick stack up against the best in his era (messier, hull, whoever)? how did marleau stack up against the best players in his era (crosby, ovi, kane, whoever)? now, i haven't researched that at all, and i'm not going to because i don't give a shit about marleau, but feel free to take a gander yourself.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

i have no issues admitting i see marleau play twice a year (well, more now that he's with the leafs).



i'm running out of ways to say this, but i'll try again. forget. trying. to. judge. roenick. in. marleau's. time. and. marleau. in. roenick's. time. it is completely subjective and should not be part of this conversation.

to level the playing field, you must look at how roenick performed among players in his time, and how marleau performed against players in his time. do you understand? so, how did roenick stack up against the best in his era (messier, hull, whoever)? how did marleau stack up against the best players in his era (crosby, ovi, kane, whoever)? now, i haven't researched that at all, and i'm not going to because i don't give a **** about marleau, but feel free to take a gander yourself.

Except that isn't how you level the playing field at all.

 

[trentmccleary]

No, he probably shouldn't be inducted into the HHOF.

My first quick test is draft year +/- 2 years to get a sample of 5 years of players. Roughly 1.5 forwards per year will be inducted for approximately 7 inductees.

Around Marleau's cohort, these players should be:
Thornton, Iginla, Hossa, H.Sedin, D.Sedin, Datsyuk, Zetterberg
Then we're left with guys like these below the HHOF level:
B.Richards, Lecavalier... Marleau... Doan, Tanguay

He's in his 20th season
7 seasons were under a 50 point pace
6 more were under a 60 point pace
7 seasons above a 60 point pace

That's pretty similar to Shane Doan, with a few slightly higher peaks.

Then it'll cross my mind... why would Marleau be inducted and not Alexei Kovalev? What actually separated them as players enough to make such a difference?

 

[GreatGonzo]

I was saying Housley, Marleau I have no idea, if he finishes fourth overal in points for his position, sure why not

Housley was a lousy induction, but yes he still had more to him in terms of worthiness.

Except that isn't how you level the playing field at all.

But using one players prime/peak while not using for the same standards for the other player is leveling the playing field? That’s exactly what I did. I used a time frame where scoring was similar, not using their peaks, all while stopping before their production dipped significantly. Pretty simple, your the one making it more difficult

The ages 29-32 are perfect. If your going to use Marleau from 26-28, Marleau is at 212 points on 237 games(.89). Roenick is at 192 points in 217 games(.88). From ages 26-32, Roenick is at 485 points in 525 games(.92). Marleau is at 503 points in 559 games(.89)....difference is that’s Marleaus prime/peak, where as Roenick wasn’t, yet he put produced Marleau. What’s even about that?

Want to stretch it further? Ages 26-34
Marleau: 604 points in 689 games-0.87
Roenick: 591 points in 666 games-0.88

So either way you spin it, Roenick still comes out ahead. Roenick not only had a better peak/prime, he did better than Marleau during his own peak/prime.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

But using one players prime/peak while not using for the same standards for the other player is leveling the playing field? That’s exactly what I did. I used a time frame where scoring was similar, not using their peaks, all while stopping before their production dipped significantly. Pretty simple, your the one making it more difficult

The ages 29-32 are perfect. If your going to use Marleau from 26-28, Marleau is at 212 points on 237 games(.89). Roenick is at 192 points in 217 games(.88). From ages 26-32, Roenick is at 485 points in 525 games(.92). Marleau is at 503 points in 559 games(.89)....difference is that’s Marleaus prime/peak, where as Roenick wasn’t, yet he put produced Marleau. What’s even about that?

Want to stretch it further? Ages 26-34
Marleau: 604 points in 689 games-0.87
Roenick: 591 points in 666 games-0.88

So either way you spin it, Roenick still comes out ahead. Roenick not only had a better peak/prime, he did better than Marleau during his own peak/prime.

Again, I'm using a lengthy age equal range of time that is more often than not a player's best years. Your comparisons have either been three year stretches which is just eye-rolling inducing for how ridiculous that is or comparing Roenick's DPE stats to Marleau's DPE stats when you know Roenick is vastly advantaged in that situation just based on experience much less physically comparing a 26 or 27 year old to an 18 year old. But I can see the sneaky little trick you're trying to pull here. You're including Roenick's 1995-96 season when he was 25 and the last offensive season for the NHL of its kind. An environment that hasn't been replicated since that time. So no, Roenick doesn't come out ahead because you're still using intellectually dishonest and disingenuous pieces of evidence to slant it that way. My comparison was the fairest thing you're going to get comparing these two. When you actually do an honest adjustment for eras, Marleau comes out ahead of Roenick slightly by about 20 points over their careers. Certainly, that difference is because Marleau was simply more durable than Roenick but that's part of the equation whether people like it or not. But I'm done with this with you because you're completely dishonest about your arguments and this isn't the first go-around with this stuff with you.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Again, I'm using a lengthy age equal range of time that is more often than not a player's best years. Your comparisons have either been three year stretches which is just eye-rolling inducing for how ridiculous that is or comparing Roenick's DPE stats to Marleau's DPE stats when you know Roenick is vastly advantaged in that situation just based on experience much less physically comparing a 26 or 27 year old to an 18 year old. But I can see the sneaky little trick you're trying to pull here. You're including Roenick's 1995-96 season when he was 25 and the last offensive season for the NHL of its kind. An environment that hasn't been replicated since that time. So no, Roenick doesn't come out ahead because you're still using intellectually dishonest and disingenuous pieces of evidence to slant it that way. My comparison was the fairest thing you're going to get comparing these two. When you actually do an honest adjustment for eras, Marleau comes out ahead of Roenick slightly by about 20 points over their careers. Certainly, that difference is because Marleau was simply more durable than Roenick but that's part of the equation whether people like it or not. But I'm done with this with you because you're completely dishonest about your arguments and this isn't the first go-around with this stuff with you.

I’m not the one who is constantly changing the criteria. We can’t use Roenicks peak/prime because for you it’s a losing argument for you, so you hide behind the “higher scoring” argument. We can’t use the time frame I suggested because you don’t like how it doesn’t fit your agenda.

Why can’t we use both of their productions in the DPE Zane compare them? Your whole logic was that Marleau was in the DPE where as Roenick was in a higher scoring era, yet Roenick our produced Marleau in the DPE as well. You didn’t like that, and now we can no longer use that info. You then create alternative reasonings as to why we can’t use it, such as “experience” and “physical stature.” Hilarious.

Fair? There is nothing fair about using one players peak/prime and not the others. I don’t understand what’s fair about that. I think it’s more your losing ground and have to constantly change the argument.

Marleau has also played 130 more games than Roenick, yet is trailing by 134 points. Of course your going to stick with the adjusted stats, they benefit your argument than the actual raw statistics.

I actually never included Roenicks ‘96 season.....
‘98-‘04:
Roenick: 455 points in 528 games-0.86
Marleau: 327 points in 558 games-0.58

Pretty big difference, wouldn’t you say? Care to find more excuses?

Let’s try this one.....
‘97-‘04(ages 27-34)
Roenick: 524 points in 600 games-0.87
‘07-‘14(ages 27-34)
Marleau: 518 points in 610 games-0.85

So I took out the ‘06 and ‘96 due to significantly higher scoring. I used the same age comparison, the scoring is very similar.....well will you look at that, Roenick still comes out ahead. Weird.

What’s more interesting is I’m usinf Marleaus peak/prime years, and Roenick still our produces him. What’s even more interesting is that Marleau was on a SC contending team, playing a majority of that time on Thornton’s wing....yet Roenick STILL out produced him.

Dishonest? No im literally just posting raw statistics. And you can’t handle not being right. I’m sure you will find something to complain about so I’ll just wait....