Puck Prospectus is on the cutting edge of the "Stats v. Eyes" debate, but I call BS on this one. I don't know what the methodology is to come up with the comparable players using VUKOTA (as in Mick?) but any list that tells me that Lafontaine, Trottier, Kariya and Goulet are comparable players to AO is seriously flawed. One (injury shortened) year by Bure? No Bossy? No Iginla? No Kovalchuk? No Lindros? I'd say all of those players are more comparable to the ones they found for AO. I think the opposite could be done with Crosby; I could name several comparable players that aren't showing up on that list. Further, PP uses this "comparable player" list to suggest that AO is a less unique player. Ridiculous. I'm not saying Crosby is a dime a dozen, but I think if you look at the stats adjusted goal scoring numbers for AO he is far more unique than VUKOTA gives him credit for; both historically and contemporarily. If the Pens lost Crosby there are far more elite Cs to fill that role than there are elite W's that can fill AO's role. Any stat-heads want to explain why the VUKOTA ranking shows up like this, or defend the accuracy of the conclusions?