The History of 50 Goal Scorers After Age 26

by Quisp on Jul 17, 2010 12:50 PM PDT in Kovalchuk Comment 22 comments

Before you read this post, I want you to play the following thought experiment.

We've all heard the various hypothetical/rumored long-term deals bandied about for Ilya Kovalchuk, everything from a (now considered shortish) seven years to an unimaginable 15 years. It's generally assumed that any deal cap-friendly enough for the Kings (or Devils) would have to be in the 10 year (plus) range, front-loaded, to bring the cap hit down. Which means it's likely that whoever signs Kovalchuk will be getting him for 10 years or more. Which is -- um -- a long time.

Here's the thought experiment: You sign IK for 10 years at a $7MM cap hit. How many 50 goal, 40 goal and 30 goal seasons do you need to get out of him to make the deal worth it? Assume he's going to play all ten years. How many times does he have to hit each milestone?

Take your time. Get the number in your head and hold it there and don't change it. Ready?

Okay. Now, here are some charts. Actually, it's one chart, rendered in two different formats. The first is a series of screen captures (which you have to click on to get the high-res version), because I wanted you to see the color graphics which I couldn't embed in the second chart. The second chart is the same data as the first chart(s), but it's sortable.

What's in the charts?

The charts show every player in the history of the NHL to have scored 50 goals in a season at least once. It shows the player's output (goals only) for each season of his career, each season indicated by the age of the player in that season. So you can, for example, look down the first column to see who scored how many goals at age 18, etc.. The second row calculates the average number of goals for all the players in this group who were active at that particular age (e.g. at age 25, the average output -- for this elite group of once-or-future 50 goal scorers -- is 37 goals). The color charts use the following exciting color code:

red = 50+

orange = 40-49

yellow = 30-39

pale yellow with gray font = 20-29

gray with dark gray font = 10-19

white with gray font = 0-9

black = retired

pale green = lockout year

A few other notes about the color charts. (1) there is a mistake in the Gretzky row; specifically, I left his strike-shortened (94-95) season blank by accident. (2) Bobby Hull has a long row of blank gray boxes; these are his WHL years. (3) active players under 27 are at the bottom of the chart; active players older than 27 are mixed in with the rest of the old people.

The black vertical line divides the chart between ages 26 and 27, because Kovalchuk is 27 and what we're interested in is, how well players of his caliber (defined broadly to include everyone who has ever scored 50 goals in a season) do after this age.

The red horizontal line is my subjective line in the sand, above which the careers post-age-26 are acceptable for a long term $7MM deal, below which, less than acceptable. Your results may vary.

The first thing I invite you to do is to shrink down your page as much as possible, so you can see all the color charts on one screen. Don't worry about reading the data. Just look at the pattern of the colors, in relation to the vertical black line and the horizontal red one. Those of us feeling especially optimistic about signing IK at $10MM cap hit for 10 years, or whatever, ought to be somewhat alarmed to see that there really isn't that much red or orange to the right of the black line.

[remember to click on the colored charts to get the hi-res versions]

Let me make some other observations:

Look at the numbers for the Great One and Super Mario. If you knew how they were going to perform from age 27 on, what kind of contract would you offer them? Neither one of them had careers to speak of after five years (age 32). Look at the other names in their neighborhood. Messier, The Rocket, Bossy. You wouldn't want to be paying $10MM a year (or even $7MM a year) for the careers of any of these guys after the age of 32.
Who has the best numbers from age 32 on? The sortable list is best for this. Or you can use the color charts and look for clumps of red and/or orange on the right side of the chart.
But there aren't any. The best you can hope for is (Esposito, Mullen, Gartner, Bucyk, Selanne) a bunch of 30 goal seasons with a 40 goal season thrown in once or twice.
Before I ran these numbers, my vague notion was that the super big money for Kovy would be worth it if we got a couple of 50 goal seasons and maybe four or five 40 goal seasons out of him. And I thought I was being reasonable. How many players in the history of the league have been able to pull this off?
Esposito (five 50 goal seasons and two 40 goal seasons). Dionne (five 50 goal seaons and one 40 goal season). Bobby Hull (four 50 goal seasons and two 40 goal seasons). That's it. Three guys. Nobody in the last thirty years. But three of the biggest scorers in the history of the sport. They did it.
Gartner had a pretty good run of six 40 goal seasons. Mullen, too (one 50 and five 40s). Shanahan had four 40s and one of them was at age 37.
Bucyk scored 50 (for the first time!) at age 35. He's the oldest to do it. Shanahan and Bucyk both scored 40 at age 37. Selanne is the oldest player to have back-to-back 40 goal seasons (at age 35-36). Esposito had back to back 60 goal seasons at 31-32.
Just as an aside, look at Mike Bossy's numbers. Holy ****!
It occurred to me to look up how many players have tallied two 50 and four 40 goal seasons (or better) by age 27, as Kovalchuk has. Here they are:
Gretzky, Lemieux, Bossy, Robitaille, Yzerman, Bure, Kurri, Lafleur, Goulet, Ovechkin. There are two extremely pessimistic conclusions to draw from this comparison. (1) Six of these ten are the most spectacularly elite Hall of Fame players in NHL history; (2) none of them put up numbers to speak of after age 32. Ovechkin obviously hasn't had his chance yet. Three of these guys (at least) were limited by injuries (which is of course part of the problem; people get old). Lemieux, Robitaille and especially Yzerman became on-ice leaders with immeasurable value outside of goal-scoring. Maybe Kovalchuk is one of those guys. A hall-of-famer and a true leader. He hasn't demonstrated that yet. But neither did Yzerman, really.
With the sortable chart, it's fun to play with the columns to see which of these guys did the best (and worst at each age). Play around with it.
Also, check out the second row on the colored chart, which shows the average number of goals by this population at each age. Peak output is at 26-27, and declines from there, as you would expect.

AGE	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43

Esposito				3	23	27	21	35	49	43	76	66	55	68	61	35	34	38	42	34	7
Dionne			20	40	24	47	40	53	36	59	53	58	50	56	39	46	36	28	31	7
Gartner			36	48	35	38	40	50	35	41	48	33	45	49	40	45	34	12	35	32	12
Br. Hull					1	32	41	72	86	70	54	57	29	43	42	27	32	24	39	30	37	25
Mullen							25	17	41	40	44	47	40	51	36	17	42	33	38	16	8	7
Bobby Hull		13	18	39	31	50	31	43	39	54	52	44	58	38	44	50								6
Shanahan		7	22	30	29	33	51	52	20	44	47	28	31	41	31	37	30	25		40	29	23	6
Bondra					12	28	37	24	34	52	46	52	31	21	45	39	30	26		21	5
Bucyk			1	10	21	24	16	19	20	27	18	26	27	18	30	24	31	51	32	40	31	29	36	20	5
Selanne					76	25	22	40	51	52	47	33	33	29	28	16		40	48	12	27	27
Jagr	27	32	34	32	32	62	47	35	44	42	52	31	36	31		54	30	25
Ciccarelli			18	55	37	38	15	44	52	41	44	41	21	38	41	28	16	22	35	16	6
Pronovost						16	20	21	30	21	40	43	52	33	40	28	24	22	1
Middleton				22	24	20	25	38	40	44	51	49	47	30	14	31	13
Messier		12	23	50	48	37	23	35	37	37	33	45	12	35	25	26	14	47	36	22	13	17	24	7	18	18
M. Richard				5	32	50	27	45	28	20	43	42	27	28	37	38	38	33	15	17	19
Gretzky		51	55	92	71	87	73	52	62	40	54	40	41	31	16	38		23	25	23	9
Lemieux		43	48	54	70	85	45	19	44	69	17		69	50				35	6	28	1		7
Bossy				53	69	51	68	64	60	51	58	61	38
LeClair				2	8	19	19	26	51	50	51	43	40	7	25	18	23		22	2
Andreychuk		14	38	31	36	25	30	28	40	36	41	54	53	22	28	27	14	15	20	20	21	20	21		6
Iginla		21	13	28	29	31	52	35	41		35	39	50	35	32
Robitaille			45	53	46	52	45	44	63	44	23	23	24	16	39	36	37	30	11	22		15
Yzerman	39	30	14	31	50	65	62	51	45	58	24	12	36	22	24	29	35	18	13	2	18		14
Fedorov				31	32	34	56	20	39	30	6	26	27	32	31	36	31		12	18	11	11
Barber				30	34	34	50	20	41	34	40	43	45	27	22
Kurri			32	32	45	52	71	68	54	43	44	33	23	23	27	31	10	18	13	5
Sakic		23	39	48	29	48	28	19	51	22	27	41	28	54	26	26	33		32	36	13	2
Lafleur			29	28	21	53	56	56	60	52	50	27	27	27	30	2				18	12	12
Bure			34	60	60	20	6	23	51	13	58	59	34	19
Shutt			8	15	30	45	60	49	37	47	35	31	35	14	18
Stoughton			5	23	6				56	43	52	45	28
MacLeish				2	1	50	32	38	22	49	31	26	31	38	19	0	10
Tkachuk		3	28	41	22	50	52	40	36	22	35	38	31	33		15	27	27	25	13
Modano		29	28	33	33	50	12	36	35	21	34	38	33	34	28	14		27	22	21	15	14
Nicholls			14	28	41	46	36	33	32	70	39	25	20	13	19	22	19	12	6	0
Leach			2	13	23	22	45	61	32	24	34	50	34	26	15
Kehoe			8	33	18	32	29	30	29	27	30	55	33	29	18	0
Sheppard				38	22	4	24	36	32	52	30	37	29	18	25	10
Fleury			14	31	51	33	34	40	29	46	29	27	40	15	30	24	12
Hadfield				3	5	14	18	16	13	20	26	20	22	50	28	27	31	30
Mogilny			15	30	39	76	32	19	55	31	18	14	24	43	24	33	8	12
Simmer			8	1	2	0	21	56	56	15	29	44	34	36	29	11
Bellows	35	41	26	31	26	40	23	55	35	30	40	33	8	23	16	6	17
Trottier		32	30	46	47	42	31	50	34	40	28	37	23	30	17	13	9	11	4
Heatley				26	41	13		50	50	41	39	39
Kerr				22	21	11	54	54	58	58	3	48	24	10	7	0
Stevens					5	12	29	40	54	55	41	15	1	14	14	23	3	10	1
LaFontaine	13	19	30	38	47	45	54	41	46	53	5	12	40	2	23
Nieuwendyk			5	51	51	45	45	22	38	36	21	14	30	39	28	15	29	25	17	22		26	5
McDonald			14	17	37	46	47	43	40	35	40	66	33	19	28	14	10	11
Geoffrion		8	30	22	29	38	29	19	27	22	30	50	23	23	21	17	5
Hodge				6	10	25	45	25	43	16	37	50	23	25	21	2
Loob						30	37	31	18	50	27
Ogrodnick			8	35	28	41	42	55	38	23	22	13	43	31	17	6
Vaive		26	22	33	54	51	52	35	33	32	43	31	29	25	1
Martin			44	37	52	52	49	36	28	32	45	8	1
Turgeon	14	34	40	32	40	58	38	24	38	26	22	31	26	30	15	12	15		16	4
Anderson			30	38	48	54	42	54	35	38	16	34	24	24	22	21	12	6
Hawerchuk	45	40	37	53	46	47	44	41	26	31	23	16	35	5	17	12
Roenick		9	26	41	53	50	46	10	32	29	24	24	34	30	21	27	19		9	11	14	4
Recchi			1	30	40	43	53	40	16	28	34	32	16	28	27	22	20	26		28	24	14	23	18
Graves			7	9	7	26	36	52	17	22	33	23	38	23	10	17	9
Kariya			18	50	44	17	39	42	33	32	25	11		31	24	16	2	18
Hejduk					14	36	41	21	50	35	24	35	29	27	23
Neely	16	21	14	36	42	37	55	51	9	11	50	27	26
J. Richard			13	27	17	12	2	10	3	52	15	9
Grant				3	34	29	34	18	32	29	50	10	2	12
Goulet	28	22	32	42	57	56	55	53	49	48	26	20	27	22	23	16
Secord			16	23	13	44	54	4	15	40	29	15	6	14
Larouche		31	53	29	23	9	50	25	34	18	48	24	20	28	3
Roberts			5	13	22	39	22	53	38	41	2	22	20	14	23	29	21	5	28		14	20	3	4
Maruk			30	28	36	31	10	50	60	31	17	19	21	16	7	0
Richer		21	20	50	25	51	31	29	38	36	23	20	22	14	12	15	14
Gare			31	50	11	39	27	56	46	20	26	13	27	7	1
Simpson	11	26	56	35	29	30	24	24	8	4
Carson	37	55	49	21	21	34	37	11	9	1
Babych			27	26	54	19	16	13	20	17
Carpenter	32	32	28	53	27	9	19	16	25	8	25	11	10	5	5	4	9	2
Redmond			6	9	27	20	42	52	51	15	11
Leeman		4	5	9	21	30	32	51	17	9	15	4	2
Bullard		1	36	22	51	32	41	30	48	27	27	14
Chouinard			17	28	50	31	31	23	13	12
Ovechkin			52	46	65	56	50
Cheechoo					9	28		56	37	23	12	5
Lecavalier	13	25	23	20	33	32	35	52	40	29	24
Kovalchuk	29	38	41		52	42	52	43	41
Crosby	39	36	24	33	51
Stamkos	23	51

I'm not arguing against signing Kovalchuk. I like Kovalchuk. But when people decry the lack of "balls" of Kings management, and wonder why they don't just "man up" and sign the guy at $100MM/10 years, this is why. He won't be worth it in ten years. Or even five. But he will be more than worth it at the right price, with a contract that is not only affordable, but is a valuable tradable asset five years from now. Instead of an albatross.

2 recs | Comment 22 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

But you used math. Math isn’t relevant to Kovalchuk! Grossman says.

So if 27 is the peak, when do goal totals really start to fall off the cliff? 34-35?

In Dinglebarn We Trust

by Niesy on Jul 17, 2010 1:31 PM PDT reply actions

Yikes...

This is really sobering data. Looks like one of the factors that separate good from great players is continued high scoring into their early thirties. Where IK fits into this, we don’t know.

A lot of the players listed played on Cup winning teams. IT would be interesting to know how winning a championship fits into the age versus goals analysis.

by Steve S. on Jul 17, 2010 1:59 PM PDT reply actions

Wow, Great Chart

Should be an eye opener for many of your followers.

The chart is something I’ve known intuitively but have never seen quantified/verified. It server to reinforce my concerns about this or any long term “block buster” deal in the current cap era; In any form these are pay now or pay later propositions no matter how its structured.

I am inclined to feel a home grown stay the course plan, mixed with subtle trades and pickups is the path to developing a consistent competitor.

One thing about that chart….Dionne! Kovalchuk is no Dionne. I doubt Kovalchuk is worthy of taping Dionne’s sticks or setting Marcel’s golf tees.

I went to perhaps 30 games a year during the Dionne era and to say he was a great one is understatement. Imagine, 50 goals after age 27 while playing against men like Williams, Schultz, Plett, Howe, Clark, Robinson, McDonald, Sitler and others night after night.

I shake my head at all the defense talent Cook gave away to save money during that era. Cook could easily have had a cup contender.

by USHA#17 on Jul 17, 2010 2:01 PM PDT reply actions

Boy, that last paragraph resembles a tweet I made. No, we should not pay Kovalchuk $100 M over 10 years. But if paying the man during his prime gets us a Cuo, why not do it?

There’s no doubt your analysis is solid. And it’s almost a certainty that his production starts to fade in a few years but if this gets us a Cup, it’s worth it.

by Keith Korneluk on Jul 17, 2010 2:14 PM PDT reply actions

So this is what you've been working on!

Whenever there is an usually long delay between your posts, Quisp, I start to figure something large, analytical, and number heavy is coming.

Very interesting. My original guess was 2 seasons at 50+, 3 at 40+ and then 4-5 at 30+….anyone else?

by JZarris on Jul 17, 2010 2:16 PM PDT reply actions

I figured 3 @ 40+ 2 @ 35+ 2 @ 30+

by USHA#17 on Jul 17, 2010 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions

agreed — i wouldn’t expect to see him score >50 again

by Diomedes7 on Jul 17, 2010 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions

Agreed, pretty much

I don’t think he’ll top 50 again, either. My own personal guess is that he will total about 200 goals over the next 5 seasons — essentially, he’ll plateau at about 40 per — and then decline after that.

Which is why a heavily front-loaded contract is indeed best, if it is to run more than 6 years, and why the exact terms of the NTC/NMC will be important. The Kings will want the flexibility to trade or buy him out once his effectiveness declines.

by DougX on Jul 17, 2010 11:32 PM PDT up reply actions

This chart just goes to show why a front loaded contract is so appropriate. Pay the man his ten mil a year til he is 35, then taper down. Shoot, I would be okay with a ntc during the same period as well.

by Booby_McNipples on Jul 17, 2010 6:59 PM PDT via mobile reply actions

Philya Espochuk

Let’s hope our soon-to-be-sniper ages as gracefully as #77 in the spindrift and glitz of his new Angelic climate.

i'll show you my butt tattoo if you'll show me yours

by falmer on Jul 17, 2010 9:38 PM PDT reply actions

Er... #7

Whoops!

Which makes me wonder… Maybe if IK changed his number?

I mean, Simmonds could relinquish. But still, to step into the shadow of J.P. Kelly would be a tall order for even someone like Kovi.

i'll show you my butt tattoo if you'll show me yours

by falmer on Jul 17, 2010 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions

Interesting, but....

there are other variables at play other than age (though age is definitely a factor). For one thing, there have been trends in style of play that have caused league-wide fluctuations in scoring. ( a nice chart can be found here http://www.dropyourgloves.com/Stat/LeagueGoals.aspx). A player that may have scored at a high clip during the offensively-oriented 80’s and early 90’s could have seen a big drop in production as the league trended towards defence in the late 90’s, for example.
14 guys potted 50+ in 92-93, yet it took from 96 up to the lockout combined to equal that number. While it’s possible that this reflects differences in new talent and the effects of aging on veterans, it’s also possible that it largely reflects changes in style of play.

Perhaps first normalizing goals per season in relation to league-wide average goals per game (or some other league-wide indicator) would be telling. Not sure how much it would change it, but i think it might push the data to the right.

by -J on Jul 17, 2010 10:33 PM PDT reply actions

it's a slippery slope though.

is style of play a bigger factor than quality of linemates? what about overall player quality, expansion, changes in equipment, arrival of Europeans, etc etc? what about the fact that I’m not even looking at assists? or goals in relation to wins? or goals-to-cups?

the problem with the urge to “adjust” every stat is that instead of making it a better reflection of reality, the adjustment pollutes it with/by the prejudices of the person drawing up the stat. I think defense and coaching are really important, so I could adjust the numbers relative to each coach’s overall GPG avg. but that just shifts the burden to the user to decide with whether or not he/she agrees with the beliefs of the person who put the chart together. you would actually have to expend energy “de-adjusting” the numbers to get back to the pure number, which is how old was so-and-so when he scored x.

(and when you look only at that number — age — I think it’s pretty persuasive that, no matter what other variables are in play, no-one escapes the observed effect, no one keeps up their production…)

I prefer not to compound things. keep it clean, then we can all argue about who played with orr and who played in the 80s, or in the slow puck era, or whatever.

Wait till this year.

by Quisp on Jul 18, 2010 1:57 AM PDT up reply actions

One change that would be nice to know is the goals scored/per game played.

Yeah, I know that we don’t really want to be paying a player a ton of money to be injured because he is older, but some of those players may have still been more productive than the numbers suggest if for instance they scored only 20 goals but in 40 games instead of 80. I think its a better indicator on the impact they had when they played.

by GoKings09 on Jul 18, 2010 2:20 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm sure they all were more productive than their goal totals indicate

but if you correct for games played, and minutes played for that matter, you’re essentially conceding the point, which is that older players don’t play as many games or as many minutes as they did when they were younger. Which is a contributing factor to the drop off in their production.

When Kovalchuk is 35, and the Kings still have 7 years left on his deal, we’re not going to be able to trade that contract by telling people that he is still producing at his original pace if you correct for games and minutes played.

Wait till this year.

by Quisp on Jul 18, 2010 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions

Quisp tips us off to his real audience in his last paragraph

The problem is that those people are not susceptible to logic, facts or common sense; if they were, they wouldn’t believe that nonsense in the first place. They out me in mind of Homer Simpson trying to forbid Bart from jumping Springfield Gorge on his skateboard: “… and God help me, I even tried reasoning with you….”

I guess my version of that is that I am exasperated by people who declare that getting Kovalchuk is “essential,” and even that the Kings won’t be a playoff team without him. You just want to grab them by the collar and slap some sense back into them.

Getting Kovalchuk will be very helpful at the right price, but not essential. Even without him, the Kings should be a slightly better team next year, since the cap hit they don’t spend on him will go to bringing back (or replacing) Frolov and replacing O’Donnell. Swap in Bernier for Ersberg, figure on incremental improvements in Doughty, Kopitar, Simmonds and Johnson, and this will be a 100+ point team again.

So what do I think is the right price for Kovalchuk? I’m not worried about that right now because frankly, I think the right price for the Kings is whatever Lombardi says it is. I’m not entirely comfortable with the phrase “In Dean we trust,” but I do think that the precedents that he has set over the last several years suggest that he won’t get carried away and that he’d sooner cut off his own right arm than risk his ability to build an elite team that will contend for the next decade. I’m confident that he and Solomon have put a lot of time into gaming out scenarios for signing Kovalchuk and working around his contract in the years to come, and that he knows what he can afford to offer and what he can’t. The fact that negotiations have dragged on this long also suggests to me that Lombardi is sticking to his guns and won’t be budged, no matter what. Basically, I trust at this point that there is a 0% chance of him agreeing to a deal with Kovalchuk if he is concerned that it will hurt the Kings within the next 5 years.

by DougX on Jul 17, 2010 11:53 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Massive Effort on This Graph

Some posts are food for thought- this is a gluttonous feast worthy of a Roman Emperor.

Like I said with my post under “No Fro, Oh No,” it really comes down to dollars per goal, and beyond that, dollars per goals in differential. Kovi might get a 50 goal season, even twice or three times, but what will his plus/minus be?

And leadership on the level of Yzerman is rare, and for me is not likely enough in Kovalchuk’s case to even warrant quantifying in money terms. It seems more likely that he could have a negative effect, by not exhibiting the defensive commitment Murray has instilled in Kopi, and Frolov, etc.

A Prima Donaski cherry-picking and skating by his checks, with a massive percentage of team salary tied up in one player that would take one injury to really hurt the team, that has exhibited zero playoff competence. I would rather have 2 guys for 4.5 million, or three guys for 3 million.

But, to be fair and observe a positive element in the Kovi situation, here is what nobody else has really factored in, or else it has at least not gotten much attention. Ryan Smyth is not young. He makes a lot of money. His contract will end in 2012, after Doughty and Simmonds and Johnson have been resolved. So, if Lombardi can sign Kovi, and then give raises to Doughty and Simmonds and Johnson, he really only has one year where he is stretched to the point of needing to use min-salary fillers, because he will get 6.25 million of relief when Smyth’s contract expires.

Still, Kovi at 7.5 to 8.5 front loaded for ten years seems like the best-case scenario that could realistically happen, and that, for me, is too much for too long. That kind of money for 4-5 years, maybe. But a ten-year deal? The risks (Jason Allison) are just (Adam Deadmarsh) too high.

End Corporate Personhood.

by Player-X on Jul 18, 2010 7:34 AM PDT reply actions

Thanks Quisp. Some fascinating info that I had never wrapped my head around.

Wow, what amazed me…. and I mean Amazed me, was how you drew attention to Mike Bossy. Gadsooks. That guy was serious business. Then he retired (can’t remember why) w/o the falloff. Just incredible. Also, it’s so easy to forget how good some people were. When Marcel was playing I saw him often and thought he was a genius, then of course one forgets just How good he was.
It’s really thorough the work you do Quisp. I know you know that, but wanted to thank you. It really makes this whole thing far more interesting and DEFINITELY brings in the shades and nuances that most people don’t even bother with. Sign him and we’ll win 4 cups, don’t sign him and we’ll be lining up for the next lottery picks. That sort of thing which at times does make reading some of the comments a bit of a challenge.

by number 6 on Jul 18, 2010 9:32 AM PDT reply actions

In retrospect, now that Kovy has signed

this chart seems really telling. there’s just so much you can draw out from the info here. great job. And for what it’s worth, I just don’t see Kovy being the long-term leadership intangibles sort of guy that Yzerman was.

happy ninja is happy....and wants to share its new toy!

by puppetmasterp on Jul 19, 2010 2:01 PM PDT reply actions

Fantastic work

Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world

by J.P. on Jul 20, 2010 8:02 AM PDT reply actions

Howdy from SCH and Rec'd

This got linked over by us and I just wanted to say well done.

by Delta0ne1 on Jul 22, 2010 7:44 AM PDT reply actions

The goal leaders before Age 26 are awesome. Jimmy Carson. Dale Hawerchuk.

I think the key thing is that almost nobody in the history of the NHL is a true ironman. Eventually everybody breaks down, usually after 10 years of peak performance. Kovy has fewer miles on him because he hasn’t played in the playoffs, so maybe he can keep it up until he’s 31 or 32.

by Hawerchuk on Jul 24, 2010 8:18 AM PDT reply actions