Bourque and the Chris Simon Factor

It’s been approximately a week since word cyber-leaked about Rene Bourque’s contract extension and 48 hours since the Flames officially announced the six-year deal that would theoretically keep the winger in Calgary colours through the 2015-16 season.

There are a couple of major themes that have emerged in fan/media reaction to the contract:

There was pushback from Bourque supporters on the second point, with the counter-argument being Bourque has been more unlucky than fragile over the years, but you get the general idea.

But somewhat lost in the debate about Bourque’s durability is the larger issue of the relative wisdom of issuing a six-year tack-on to a 28-year-old forward, regardless of who that 28-year-old forward might be.

Just for the heck of it, here’s a look at the point production rates for players from age 29 to 34 (which will be Bourque’s age range over the life of the contract).

Included are forwards who were 28 or turned 28 during a season in which they scored on a pace for 53-to-73 points (Bourque’s 2009-10 scoring rate projects to 63 points over an 82-game season). The players are plucked from the period from 1999-2000 to 2003-04, with the end range determined by the fact that six years (albeit only five seasons because of the lockout) have since passed.

A couple of caveats about the chart. Firstly, the post-28 trending could be just as relevant for players scoring above or below the designated 53-73 point range. That just seemed to be the most likely place to find at least a few players approximating Bourque’s ability.

Secondly, a few players are out of place on this list because their 27-28-year-old season happened to be abnormally high or low compared to anything they produced before or after.

Thirdly, not all of the players who were out of the NHL before the end of the six-year period played their way out of the league. Some left voluntarily to chase big money in the Russian KHL.

Lastly, and while the point may seem obvious, point production isn’t the only measure of a hockey player. Roles change and a decrease in scoring by itself isn’t necessarily proof of decline.

All that said, here’s what the yearly point-per-game numbers show (LO indicates lockout season):

Once you get past the oh-I-had-forgotten-about-him factor (Mariusz Czerkawski) and did-that-guy-really-score-more-than-50-points-in-the-NHL double-take (Nils Ekman), here’s a breakdown of the numbers. For the purposes of this exercise, a Poor Season is considered as one in which the player played fewer than 60 games or produced at less than half his 27-28 point rate (and obviously anyone who was completely out of the NHL). Remember that these players played a maximum of five NHL seasons during the six-year span because of the lockout.

Make of that what you will.

By the way, in checking individual player stats, one is reminded of the curious case of Mike Knuble, a classic late bloomer if there ever was one. His age 28 season was 2000-01, when the winger played a full season for Boston but managed just seven goals and 20 points.

In fact, before age 30, Knuble had played five plus-seasons in the NHL and produced a grand total of 50 goals. As a 30-something, he’s played six-plus seasons and scored 188 goals.