Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam B
If you change peak aging to later, it will mess with development. Guys will have better later careers likely, but will be much more slowly getting there. Even in real life do we rarely see players who are peaking at Age 30+. The simple fact is by Age 30 the vast majority of NHL Players are on their way out.
Now before someone before someone gets all antsy, you have to remember the average length of an NHL career is 5 years. Are there guys who play 20? Yes. Of course there is, but that's why we marvel at them, or impressed when a guy can carve out a career for significantly longer than expected (See: Matt Hendricks). But aside from the elite, very few players get better as they get older. That's why there's so much trepidation around giving older players longer contracts.
And it's not just in hockey, it's in Football, Baseball and everything else. The only example of a player getting better as they've gotten over 30 right now I can think of is Blake Wheeler. But for age 30+ guys, they just fall out. That's why Eric Fehr just signed in the Swiss league. It's why Pat Maroon isn't signed.
__________________________
As for changing it. I can't say for certain, but I don't believe it will retroactively help players get better. It will affect the new guys being generated though.
|
Thank you very much for your help and detailed response during the weekend, I appreciate it!
Regarding the aging attribute, most of the players have 15 (approximately) that's slow or fast? I mean just to know exactly how to work on the development of the new draftees.