Estimating the size of the NHL's talent pool (1950-2023)

[Hockey Outsider]

There have been hundreds (and probably thousands) of posts on HOH that discuss the size of the NHL's talent pool. The data that's needed to determine the talent pool (youths actively involved in organized hockey) has never been maintained with any rigour or consistency, across countries and decades. As a result, people have had very different opinions on the topic. Some have argued that the NHL was at its pinnacle during the Original Six era (where only the ~100 best players in the world made the league). Others have argued that the fifties and sixties had a shallow talent pool, because nearly all of the players came from a single, relatively small country.

@jigglysquishy recently came up with an interesting approach. His starting point was to estimate the Canadian talent pool. (This appears to be a good starting point because, throughout NHL history, Canada has produced by far the most players). We can estimate Canada's talent pool by looking at males from ages 20-34 (the age range for the majority of NHL players). It's great that life expectancies are longer nowadays, but it doesn't impact the NHL talent pool if we have more men living into their seventies, eighties, and beyond. We would then estimate the global talent pool by assuming that the ratio of Canadian NHL players to non-Canadian NHL players approximates the global ratio. In other words, if 80% of all NHL players are Canadian, Canada has probably produced 80% of the world's NHL-calibre players. Both of these concepts make sense, but I'll take a deeper dive into each.

Based on this approach, my conclusion is the NHL was at its highest quality (on a per roster spot basis) during the late Original Six era. It reached its nadir during the 1970's and Dead Puck Era. The current NHL talent pool (as of 2023) is rapidly approaching the quality of the Original Six era.

Click to read more...

 

[Hockey Outsider]

ASSUMPTION 1: the size of the Canadian talent pool

The first critical assumption is that the number of Canadian males, age 20-34, is a good estimate of the Canadian talent pool. I'll offer the following comments:

The reason the age categories are 20-34 is because that's how the Canadian census publishes ages (ie 20-24, 25-29, etc). Ideally the data could be more precise (ages 18-36 would be my preference). But I don't see this as an issue since the age categories are consistent, year after year. I've underestimated the talent pool in 1950 (by excluding men ages 18, 19, 35 and 36) - but I've done the same thing for 2022, and every year in between.

More importantly, this approach assumes that the same percentage of men (from these age categories) represents the Canadian hockey talent pool. On the one hand, the financial incentives to play in the NHL are much larger today, compared to 70 years ago. Even adjusting for inflation, stars from the Original Six era were paid substantially less money than today's players. (Most stars in the 1950's earned less money than today's NHL minimum wage, adjusting for inflation). This suggests the talent pool would be larger today, because there's more of a financial incentive to make the NHL (so a larger percentage of Canadian males from these age categories would try to enter the league).

On the other hand, the cost of playing organized hockey at the junior levels is far higher than it used to be. Canada's public hockey infrastructure has been deteriorating for decades. Although there have never before been so many specialized programs for young hockey prodigies, the costs are astronomical. This reduces the talent pool, since children and teenagers who aren't from at least an upper middle class background are priced out of the sport. (Of the "big five" North American sports - baseball, basketball, football, hockey and soccer - hockey is by far the most expensive. See this 2019 ESPN article as an example).

Additionally, there are far more options for recreation nowadays. In the 1950's, children and teenagers didn't have access to smartphones, laptops or gaming systems. The 1950's were the first decade where most Canadian households had a TV, but it was rare for a family to have more than one television (it would have been black and white, and only had a small number of channels). I would speculate that a lower percentage of Canadians play hockey today simply because there are vastly more entertainment options. Furthermore, obesity rates in Canada have been rising since the 1970's (I can't find older data). According to the WHO, less than 10% of Canadian adults were obese in the mid 1970's, but it's now over 30% (SOURCE). I haven't adjusted these calculations to take into account the fact that an increasingly large percentage of the population isn't fit enough to qualify for the NHL.

Lastly, we need to consider immigration. (I want to tread carefully here, as this topic gets political. For the record, I'm married to a woman who immigrated to Canada from Asia, and am not opposed to immigration. But this topic needs to be considered if we're going to have an honest discussion about the talent pool). An increasingly large percentage of Canada's population consists of immigrants, especially from China, India, and other Asian countries. According to Statistics Canada (SOURCE), "visible minorities" comprised less than 5% of the population in 1981. That number more than quadrupled to 22.3% in 2016 (and was projected to exceed 25.4% in 2021). There have been very few Canadian hockey players of Asian descent at the NHL level (my anecdotal experience suggests that Asian immigrants are drawn more towards baseball, soccer, and increasingly to basketball). There were 485 Canadians who played in the NHL during the 2022 season (per quanthockey.com), and I can't even find a dozen who are of Asian descent. Thus, even though my data measures NHL-age Canadian males, it very likely overestimates the size of the current talent pool, because a much larger percentage of the population is of Asian descent, and for various reasons, Asian-Canadians rarely play in the NHL. (I'll say it again because I want to be very clear on this point - nothing in this paragraph should be misinterpreted to suggest I'm against immigration).

Taking all of these factors into account, I likely overestimated the size of the modern talent pool - perhaps significantly so. However, I'll leave the data as is (though if someone can suggest a reasonable way to adjust for any of the factors listed here, let me know).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

ASSUMPTION 2: the size of the global talent pool relative to Canada's

The second critical assumption is I've estimated that the percentage of NHLers who are Canadian serves as a proxy for Canada's role in global talent pool. In other words, if half of NHL players are Canadian, that was because Canada produced half of the global talent pool.

This assumption is difficult to validate, but I'll explain my approach. The concern is other countries might produce a larger share of the global talent pool, but only the best (say) Slovakians will make the NHL, because it's more difficult for scouts to identify top talent outside of Canada. In other words - in a given year, Slovakia may have only produced 5% of the NHL's players, but they might have produced (say) 10% of the global talent pool, and the shortfall exists because it's harder for a Slovakian player to get drafted.

To test this, I've looked at a sample of fifteen years (every five seasons starting with 1951). I've compared Canada's percentage of all NHL players, to the percentage of the top 25 scorers. If (hypothetically) Canada produced 80% of NHL players, but only 50% of the top 25 scorers, that suggests that Canada's proportion of the talent pool is overstated (because it's easier to fill out the league's depth spots with someone from Sudbury rather than Slovakia). Here's what the data shows:

Season	Population	Top 25	Difference
1951​	95.1%​	85.2%​	9.9%​
1956​	98.6%​	100.0%​	-1.4%​
1961​	96.8%​	100.0%​	-3.2%​
1966​	97.3%​	100.0%​	-2.7%​
1971​	96.1%​	82.1%​	14.0%​
1976​	90.6%​	100.0%​	-9.4%​
1981​	81.9%​	85.2%​	-3.3%​
1986​	76.0%​	80.0%​	-4.0%​
1991​	73.9%​	72.0%​	1.9%​
1996​	62.3%​	50.0%​	12.3%​
2001​	54.8%​	24.0%​	30.8%​
2006​	53.4%​	50.0%​	3.4%​
2011​	52.8%​	56.0%​	-3.2%​
2016​	49.0%​	40.7%​	8.3%​
2021​	42.7%​	39.3%​	3.4%​
AVERAGE​	74.8%​	71.0%​	3.8%​

Overall, there's a 0.93 correlation between the two sets of data (which is very high, and means that, generally speaking, they move together). Across these 15 seasons, an average of 74.8% of all NHL players were Canadian, compared to 71.0% of the top 25 scorers. This means there's probably some truth to the notion that the NHL's depth players are more likely to be Canadian, but the skew appears to be small. (Most of the shortfall is due to 2001 - when it looks a lot of top Canadian players missed time).

This should only be considered a rough approximation. "Top 25 scorers" is only a crude measurement of the NHL's best players, but it seems to be a decent starting point. Therefore we can proceed on the assumption that the ratio of Canadian to non-Canadian NHL players is probably a good ballpark estimate of the global talent pool. (All of this data is taken from quanthockey.com).

 

[jigglysquishy]

I've been wanting to run the full numbers but keep getting caught busy with other stuff so thanks for doing this.

There were two holes I always got stumped on. The lack of diversity in incoming players and the differing levels of popularity in Canada.

The NHL actually tracked the non white population fairly well into the early 00s and kind of into 2010. Fuhr and Iginla and Brashear came into the league representing birth years with very few black people born in Canada. Late 80s/early 90s births are still vast majority white, yet guys like Kadri and Subban came in. But the non white Canadian NHL population has been largely flat the last 10 years despite 2004 births being much less white than 1994 births. Why is Canadian hockey less welcoming to immigrant communities now than 30 years ago? I don't know.

This tracks too for white immigrants. Names like Esposito, Mikita, Sakic, Yzerman were nowhere to be found in the 20s through 50s. The hockey world did a good job of bringing in kids of (white) immigrants. But the Russians and Poles and Brits and Croats and Portuguese that immigrated in 2001 also did not have kids play hockey.

I would also argue that hockey is less popular amongst hockey demographics now. Football, basketball, and soccer have exploded in popularity. Video games and arts are more accessible to more people. The kid who would have been dedicated to hockey in 1975 plays tennis or CoD today.

I think the numbers work very well from WW I to 1995, when the baseline Canadian assumptions are flatish.

Thank you for doing this.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

RAW DATA

Here's the raw data. I'm posting everything in the interest of full transparency:

Year	Early 20's	Late 20's	Early 30's	% CDN	Talent Pool	Teams	Roster	Spots	Per spot
1950​	551,000​	549,400​	512,100​	94.5%​	1,706,349	6​	17​	102​	16,729
1951​	537,500​	552,800​	512,600​	95.1%​	1,685,489	6​	17​	102​	16,524
1952​	546,600​	569,800​	530,400​	93.5%​	1,761,283	6​	17​	102​	17,267
1953​	552,700​	582,200​	545,600​	95.5%​	1,759,686	6​	17​	102​	17,252
1954​	559,200​	593,200​	565,600​	97.3%​	1,765,673	6​	17​	102​	17,311
1955​	563,000​	599,800​	584,900​	98.1%​	1,781,549	6​	17​	102​	17,466
1956​	567,200​	605,800​	602,500​	98.6%​	1,800,710	6​	17​	102​	17,654
1957​	580,700​	619,400​	620,300​	98.6%​	1,846,247	6​	17​	102​	18,100
1958​	587,100​	623,900​	631,000​	96.8%​	1,902,893	6​	17​	102​	18,656
1959​	587,300​	623,200​	639,700​	98.6%​	1,876,471	6​	17​	102​	18,397
1960​	587,700​	619,800​	643,000​	98.0%​	1,888,265	6​	17​	102​	18,512
1961​	587,100​	613,900​	644,400​	96.8%​	1,906,405	6​	18​	108​	17,652
1962​	604,200​	605,000​	640,400​	98.7%​	1,873,961	6​	18​	108​	17,351
1963​	628,700​	597,100​	634,800​	98.0%​	1,898,571	6​	18​	108​	17,579
1964​	658,700​	596,100​	631,000​	98.2%​	1,920,367	6​	18​	108​	17,781
1965​	690,000​	602,500​	629,200​	97.0%​	1,981,134	6​	18​	108​	18,344
1966​	727,100​	619,500​	630,500​	97.3%​	2,031,963	6​	18​	108​	18,814
1967​	779,600​	646,300​	632,700​	97.7%​	2,107,062	6​	18​	108​	19,510
1968​	830,200​	678,600​	634,100​	96.6%​	2,218,323	12​	18​	216​	10,270
1969​	874,500​	715,600​	637,400​	96.6%​	2,305,901	12​	18​	216​	10,675
1970​	911,900​	758,300​	645,900​	96.0%​	2,412,604	12​	18​	216​	11,169
1971​	991,602​	838,454​	685,790​	96.1%​	2,617,946	14​	18​	252​	10,389
1972​	1,002,087​	885,832​	713,542​	95.0%​	2,738,380	14​	19​	266​	10,295
1973​	1,024,047​	929,628​	744,904​	94.5%​	2,855,639	16​	19​	304​	9,394
1974​	1,062,655​	969,278​	784,887​	91.3%​	3,085,235	16​	19​	304​	10,149
1975​	1,103,548​	1,012,834​	820,349​	90.6%​	3,241,425	18​	19​	342​	9,478
1976​	1,133,641​	1,045,701​	857,096​	90.6%​	3,351,477	18​	19​	342​	9,800
1977​	1,157,155​	1,051,696​	913,390​	89.4%​	3,492,440	18​	19​	342​	10,212
1978​	1,177,760​	1,061,619​	951,942​	87.5%​	3,647,224	18​	19​	342​	10,664
1979​	1,196,939​	1,078,859​	984,319​	85.1%​	3,830,925	17​	19​	323​	11,860
1980​	1,223,225​	1,106,042​	1,021,012​	83.6%​	4,007,511	21​	19​	399​	10,044
1981​	1,249,840​	1,129,177​	1,049,461​	81.9%​	4,186,176	21​	19​	399​	10,492
1982​	1,261,167​	1,163,787​	1,053,909​	80.6%​	4,316,207	21​	19​	399​	10,818
1983​	1,271,871​	1,192,474​	1,064,474​	80.7%​	4,372,762	21​	20​	420​	10,411
1984​	1,280,364​	1,212,520​	1,085,458​	78.8%​	4,541,043	21​	20​	420​	10,812
1985​	1,275,621​	1,229,387​	1,113,106​	75.7%​	4,779,543	21​	20​	420​	11,380
1986​	1,249,187​	1,252,899​	1,141,237​	76.0%​	4,793,846	21​	20​	420​	11,414
1987​	1,208,448​	1,275,246​	1,179,327​	76.3%​	4,800,814	21​	20​	420​	11,431
1988​	1,151,677​	1,291,289​	1,211,771​	76.9%​	4,752,584	21​	20​	420​	11,316
1989​	1,110,742​	1,312,219​	1,248,250​	75.6%​	4,856,099	21​	20​	420​	11,562
1990​	1,077,716​	1,306,343​	1,271,918​	74.2%​	4,927,193	21​	20​	420​	11,731
1991​	1,061,978​	1,272,329​	1,301,807​	73.9%​	4,920,317	21​	20​	420​	11,715
1992​	1,051,986​	1,230,926​	1,310,907​	70.6%​	5,090,395	22​	20​	440​	11,569
1993​	1,041,399​	1,182,339​	1,322,893​	66.6%​	5,325,272	24​	20​	480​	11,094
1994​	1,030,001​	1,136,797​	1,331,842​	65.3%​	5,357,795	26​	20​	520​	10,303
1995​	1,021,422​	1,101,624​	1,327,016​	62.9%​	5,484,995	26​	20​	520​	10,548
1996​	1,017,687​	1,085,556​	1,298,177​	62.3%​	5,459,743	26​	20​	520​	10,500
1997​	1,023,408​	1,076,689​	1,263,973​	62.1%​	5,417,182	26​	20​	520​	10,418
1998​	1,027,574​	1,064,174​	1,211,050​	61.3%​	5,387,925	26​	20​	520​	10,361
1999​	1,042,649​	1,054,528​	1,165,817​	61.0%​	5,349,170	27​	20​	540​	9,906
2000​	1,058,812​	1,050,780​	1,136,367​	57.1%​	5,684,692	28​	20​	560​	10,151
2001​	1,078,970​	1,052,680​	1,130,642​	54.8%​	5,953,088	30​	20​	600​	9,922
2002​	1,094,908​	1,057,727​	1,127,602​	53.6%​	6,119,845	30​	20​	600​	10,200
2003​	1,113,265​	1,062,820​	1,119,906​	54.7%​	6,025,578	30​	20​	600​	10,043
2004​	1,129,998​	1,073,774​	1,108,478​	54.3%​	6,099,908	30​	20​	600​	10,167
2006​	1,152,981​	1,099,354​	1,092,313​	53.4%​	6,263,386	30​	20​	600​	10,439
2007​	1,155,932​	1,118,900​	1,094,111​	51.9%​	6,491,220	30​	20​	600​	10,819
2008​	1,154,716​	1,143,370​	1,103,818​	51.2%​	6,644,344	30​	20​	600​	11,074
2009​	1,163,650​	1,168,019​	1,121,021​	51.6%​	6,691,260	30​	20​	600​	11,152
2010​	1,178,481​	1,184,964​	1,138,881​	53.5%​	6,546,404	30​	20​	600​	10,911
2011​	1,193,322​	1,188,376​	1,159,976​	52.8%​	6,707,716	30​	20​	600​	11,180
2012​	1,220,026​	1,199,716​	1,179,945​	53.4%​	6,740,987	30​	20​	600​	11,235
2013​	1,241,717​	1,209,043​	1,202,017​	52.8%​	6,918,138	30​	20​	600​	11,530
2014​	1,252,785​	1,225,550​	1,222,168​	52.2%​	7,089,086	30​	20​	600​	11,815
2015​	1,244,697​	1,239,356​	1,230,618​	50.8%​	7,312,344	30​	20​	600​	12,187
2016​	1,242,113​	1,264,270​	1,249,488​	49.0%​	7,665,043	30​	20​	600​	12,775
2017​	1,250,319​	1,290,055​	1,266,458​	45.9%​	8,293,752	30​	20​	600​	13,823
2018​	1,270,494​	1,325,044​	1,289,327​	45.1%​	8,613,891	31​	20​	620​	13,893
2019​	1,292,734​	1,353,906​	1,319,340​	43.5%​	9,117,195	31​	20​	620​	14,705
2020​	1,294,369​	1,364,757​	1,349,847​	42.6%​	9,410,735	31​	20​	620​	15,179
2021​	1,278,115​	1,365,342​	1,369,186​	42.7%​	9,397,290	31​	20​	620​	15,157
2022​	1,313,100​	1,403,901​	1,417,447​	43.2%​	9,570,481	32​	20​	640​	14,954

The first column ("Year") lists the seasons. The next three categories ("Early 20's", "Late 20's" and "Early 30's") shows Canadian males in those three aging categories. All data is taken from Statistics Canada (links below). The "% CDN" category shows the percentage of NHL players who are Canadian. This data is taken from quanthockey.com.

"Talent Pool" equals the number of Canadian males in these age ranges, divided by the percentage of NHL players who are Canadian. For example, in 1950, there were 1.61M Canadians males age 20-34, and the NHL was 94.5% Canadian, so the global talent pool is estimated to be 1.71M (1.61M / 0.945).

The last four columns determine the competition for each roster spot. The number of teams is self-evident. I've assumed the standard roster consists of 17 players (including goalies) as of 1950, and gradually increases to 20 in 1983. "Per spot" calculates the estimated global talent pool, divided by the number of roster spots (the higher the number, the more competitive).

Data sources

Demographic data for 1971-2022 comes from Statistics Canada - LINK

Demographic data for 1950-1970 comes from another table from Statistics Canada - LINK. (Note - if anyone ever tries to recalculate my work, you'll notice that this table also goes up to 1971, and the numbers are off by about 2% compared to the previous Statistics Canada link. I'm not sure why there's a discrepancy, but 2% should be considered immaterial for this type of high-level analysis).

All "percentage Canadian" data comes from quanthockey.com

 

[Hockey Outsider]

TALENT POOL BY YEAR

Based on this approach, the global talent pool was estimated to be approximately 1.71M in 1950, and 9.57M today. This equates to an average growth rate of 2.5% per year. It shouldn't surprise anybody that the global talent pool is substantially larger today than it was 70+ years ago. Using this approach, today's talent pool is about 5.6 times larger than it was in 1950. However, for the reasons I went into previously, I think the assumptions are somewhat generous in estimating the modern talent pool (so the actual increase is probably somewhat less than that - but it's hard to say to what extent).

During the 1980's, I've estimated the global talent pool to be approximately 4.5M people (on average). This suggests that Gretzky dominated a talent pool slightly under one-half the size of today's.

Based on this approach, the global talent pool reached 2M people in 1966; 3M in 1974; 4M in 1980; 5M in 1992; 6M in 2002; 7M in 2014; 8M in 2017; and 9M in 2019.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

COMPETITION FOR ROSTER SPOTS BY YEAR

The global talent pool is much larger today than it was 70 years ago. But there are far more roster spots in the NHL (mostly because there are more teams, but also because each team has a larger roster, on average).

Based on this approach, it was never more competitive to make the NHL than during the last decade of the Original Six era. During 1967, the last season before expansion, it's estimated that each member of the global talent pool only had a 1 in nearly 20,000 chance of earning a spot in the NHL. It's true that Canada supplied virtually all of the league's talent, but there were only 108 spots (relative to an estimated talent pool of 2.1M). Today's talent pool is more than four times larger, but there are more than 640 roster spots. (Still, based on this approach, the league is more competitive today than it was at any point subsequent to expansion).

The least competitive seasons, based on this metric, were the mid-1970's (where there was rampant expansion and a huge imbalance in the quality of teams), and parts of the Dead Puck Era. These findings, I think, shouldn't be surprising to anybody who has studied hockey history.

Note that I haven't taken into account rival leagues. So the mid/late 1970's would be even weaker, thanks to the rival WHA. Nor have I taken the emergence of the KHL into account. (Believe it or not, there were fewer Russians in the NHL in 2022 compared to 1995 - and I suspect the rise of the KHL explains at least part of that).

Based on this metric, of the Big Four, Gordie Howe played in the most competitive league. There was no meaningful difference between the level of competition faced by Gretzky and Lemieux; and Orr played against the weakest competition.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Another one of the math problems I ran into. The Cold War. By using the NHL as the measuring tape it ignores everyone who is ineligible to play. Gretzky wasn't competing against Makarov for Art Rosses, but Makarov was still part of the global talent pool.

Makarov has the highest offensive peak of a non NHL player since the 1926 merger. That Gretzky greatly outscored him in international competition is a mark in his favour.

You touched on the KHL factor too. How many guys in the league could make the NHL? At least a dozen. Guys like prime Moyzakin, Radulov, or post Devils Kovalchuk were good enough to be top 25 scorers too.

 

[Overrated]

This is completely flawed as you can't really use the size of the population as a 1:1 (or anywhere close to that) proxy for hockey participation which is determined by the popularity and access to the game.

This is from the Fastest Game book:

But hockey was more than a popular entertainment. The sport also gained more participants after the war, as youth hockey programs swelled with baby boomers. Over 3.9 million children were born in Canada in the decade after the war. This rising demographic tide, along with changing ideas about child development, brought an expansion of organized activities for kids. Sundayschool enrollment at Protestant churches climbed by a third in the 1950s; membership in Brownies and Cubs doubled, to a quarter-million children.45 Minor hockey experienced similar growth. In 1958, over 150,000 “youngsters” across the country were playing in CAHA-affiliated leagues; by 1962, that number was more than 200,000. The Toronto Hockey League alone had more than 25,000 players, ages eight to eighteen.

During the 1960s, the league was more popular than ever. Teams set attendance records, and Hockey Night in Canada was at the top of the ratings. And participation continued to grow. By the end of the decade, more than a half-million boys were playing organized hockey in Canada.

Since many of you guys are Canadian and of older age you must have access to articles books and data which I just couldn't find with a simple google search.

The game didn't have the exact same popularity throughout the years. In fact pro sports period are a relatively new thing in our civilization. My grandparents born in the 40s in Czechoslovakia spent much of their childhood working the field for example. I am aware that Canada was much more developed but prior to people going out to live games and watching the game on TV en masse the game was not as big as it eventually became There is an opposite effect you mentioned yourself. Kids becoming less physical, more obese and less interested in sports as time goes. That is why my common sense tells me the sweet spot between these moving parts was among people born between the years 1960 and 1980. Given the fact the NHL became truly worldwide in the 1990s and the fact all big hockey countries managed to produce strong generations of players it's in my view the 90s which were truly the pinnacle of hockey.

Even if we had the exact numbers of participants it wouldn't match the depth of the talent pool 1:1. Let's imagine every Canadian child was forced to participate and the rate would grow tenfold. The talent pool wouldn't grow ten times as kids who posses any talent whatsoever naturally gravitate towards the sport on their own more often and the real talent pool would be in fact much shallower. The same way it's entirely possible that in the very early days of hockey the access to league hockey was so limited that only the most talented pond players would get to play meaning the real talent pool was much deeper. This effect is probably not accounting for much and only happens in the extremities.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Another one of the math problems I ran into. The Cold War. By using the NHL as the measuring tape it ignores everyone who is ineligible to play. Gretzky wasn't competing against Makarov for Art Rosses, but Makarov was still part of the global talent pool.

Makarov has the highest offensive peak of a non NHL player since the 1926 merger. That Gretzky greatly outscored him in international competition is a mark in his favour.

You touched on the KHL factor too. How many guys in the league could make the NHL? At least a dozen. Guys like prime Moyzakin, Radulov, or post Devils Kovalchuk were good enough to be top 25 scorers too.

It's tough to figure out how to deal with European players who weren't in the NHL for political reasons. Clearly, there were many Soviet players in the 1970's and 1980's who were good enough to play in the NHL. Thus, Canada's percentage of the global talent pool would be less than the 90%+ estimated for those years.

On the other hand, I'm not sure if it matters. Kharlamov would have been a perennial all-star throughout the 1970's, but since he never played in the NHL, he effectively wasn't part of the talent pool that Orr, Clarke and Lafleur faced. There could be 50 all-star calibre players in China right now, but if they're not playing in the NHL, it doesn't really affect the level of competition that McDavid, Kucherov and MacKinnon are facing.

 

[Theokritos]

Love the approach and the effort. Thanks a lot for the work!

On the other hand, I'm not sure if it matters. Kharlamov would have been a perennial all-star throughout the 1970's, but since he never played in the NHL, he effectively wasn't part of the talent pool that Orr, Clarke and Lafleur faced. There could be 50 all-star calibre players in China right now, but if they're not playing in the NHL, it doesn't really affect the level of competition that McDavid, Kucherov and MacKinnon are facing.

The thread title should be changed to "Estimating the size of the NHL's talent pool (1950-2023)". The first line in the opening post gives away that this is what it is about, but the title does not.

Edit: Done.

 

[JackSlater]

I like the work to put some rigor into the topic. It's a very complicated question though regarding even the situation in Canada and I'm not sure how to figure out key things like how many boys were actually playing hockey (surely a much lower percentage now than decades ago) and how many boys have access to the actual professional hockey development streams. Cost has become prohibitive for some. A look into the percentage of players who are sons of former players might give some idea, but an attempt to look at the economic backgrounds of players (compared to the Canadian average) would be rely on a lot of anecdotes. It seems clear that Canadian players today come from much wealthier backgrounds than did Canadian players of the past, even accounting for the significant increase in wealth for the average Canadian, but it would be very difficult to prove it.

The glance at immigration in Canada, which posters who drone on about talent pool being so much larger now often choose to ignore, is important and shouldn't require so many caveats as if it is a judgement on immigrant populations. There are many factors that a person can get into (sports culture and culture in general, economic factors, assimilation in Canada now compared to in the past, other sport alternatives and exposure to other sports) but it's fairly obvious that immigrants to Canada are less likely to get involved in hockey development streams than people whose families have been in Canada for generations. I don't know if this is a factor in other countries.

Moving beyond Canada it becomes even more difficult. I would be very interested in learning about what happened in Finland for example with regard to participation since in the last decade or so Finland has produced top players at a much better rate than it ever did before.

 

[Overrated]

I like the work to put some rigor into the topic. It's a very complicated question though regarding even the situation in Canada and I'm not sure how to figure out key things like how many boys were actually playing hockey (surely a much lower percentage now than decades ago) and how many boys have access to the actual professional hockey development streams. Cost has become prohibitive for some. A look into the percentage of players who are sons of former players might give some idea, but an attempt to look at the economic backgrounds of players (compared to the Canadian average) would be rely on a lot of anecdotes. It seems clear that Canadian players today come from much wealthier backgrounds than did Canadian players of the past, even accounting for the significant increase in wealth for the average Canadian, but it would be very difficult to prove it.

The glance at immigration in Canada, which posters who drone on about talent pool being so much larger now often choose to ignore, is important and shouldn't require so many caveats as if it is a judgement on immigrant populations. There are many factors that a person can get into (sports culture and culture in general, economic factors, assimilation in Canada now compared to in the past, other sport alternatives and exposure to other sports) but it's fairly obvious that immigrants to Canada are less likely to get involved in hockey development streams than people whose families have been in Canada for generations. I don't know if this is a factor in other countries.

Moving beyond Canada it becomes even more difficult. I would be very interested in learning about what happened in Finland for example with regard to participation since in the last decade or so Finland has produced top players at a much better rate than it ever did before.

If we're talking about the NHL it's enough to find out numbers of Canadians. Then we can estimate the size of the NHL talent pool by using the points scored % using the Canadian baseline of players. For example in 95/96 Canadians made up 62.3% of players but scored 55.9% of points. So whatever the Canadian talent pool was it made up 55.9% share of the overall NHL pool.

I also doubt it is impossible to find data regarding participation. Just by downloading one book on history of the game I was able to find some data. I am pretty sure there is more in especially the old books and magazines which would certainly estimate how many players played in their respective days. What I proved however (something I used to point out even before using common sense) that the popularity of the game exploded in the 50s/60s so you're not gonna have a deeper talent pool in 1951 not even on a per team basis then even in the 70s. Of course I agree the participation has somewhat decreased in Canada over the years.

 

[JackSlater]

If we're talking about the NHL it's enough to find out numbers of Canadians. Then we can estimate the size of the NHL talent pool by using the points scored % using the Canadian baseline of players. For example in 95/96 Canadians made up 62.3% of players but scored 55.9% of points. So whatever the Canadian talent pool was it made up 55.9% share of the overall NHL pool.

I also doubt it is impossible to find data regarding participation. Just by downloading one book on history of the game I was able to find some data. I am pretty sure there is more in especially the old books and magazines which would certainly estimate how many players played in their respective days. What I proved however (something I used to point out even before using common sense) that the popularity of the game exploded in the 50s/60s so you're not gonna have a deeper talent pool in 1951 not even on a per team basis then even in the 70s. Of course I agree the participation has somewhat decreased in Canada over the years.

You're not talking about what I'm talking about. We all know how to find the percentage of people from X country in the NHL at a time. I'm talking about the number of Canadian kids of suitable age who were in a legitimate development stream for the NHL.

I also remember your theory about the popularity of the game based on your own misunderstanding of the situation in Canada and a strange focus on television. You found a book that makes claims about registration in CAHA leagues. The talent stream for hockey was not always as organized as it is now and not all of the players, as they would be now, would be formally registered in that way.

This does bring about an interesting point however, as I really doubt that registration numbers in each country are handled the same way. It's been discussed a bit before but my understanding is that in Canada and USA they sign up everyone who touches the ice (using slight exaggeration) but not so everywhere else.

 

[jigglysquishy]

The talent stream for hockey was not always as organized as it is now and not all of the players, as they would be now, would be formally registered in that way.

This does bring about an interesting point however, as I really doubt that registration numbers in each country are handled the same way. It's been discussed a bit before but my understanding is that in Canada and USA they sign up everyone who touches the ice (using slight exaggeration) but not so everywhere else.

This is a really strong point. Prior to the creation of Hockey Canada there was no pressure to have things formalized.

Talented players didn't get into official leagues until 11 or 12, but had played in 1000 games before then. So the numbers for ~11-18 year olds are close to accurate, but not for below. For example, the league my dad played in in 60s small town Saskatchewan wasn't official or recorded online anywhere. But they had referees and schedules and players that turned pro.

Today, everything is counted. The 3 year old on the ice is paying Hockey Canada fees.

The record keeping of minor leagues pre 1970 should be treated with caution, as they are missing hundreds of thousands of kids who were playing competitive games.

 

[Overrated]

I also remember your theory about the popularity of the game based on your own misunderstanding of the situation in Canada and a strange focus on television.

I didn't know hockey existed prior to seeing my grandfather watching it on TV. I am pretty sure media played a major role in growing the sport. Since they also brought in a lot of money and turned athletes into celebrities pro sports became a real possible career option to a lot of boys. Also there must be some significance of having a father who either played or enjoyed hockey in terms of influencing the decision of a child to participate. Canadians born in let's say 1960 were more likely to have a hockey loving father than those born in 1920. I mean it would be silly to assume the popularity of the game was static and basically the same since 1880 and I don't think it would be an exaggeration to think the game has grown even several hundred fold since then.

You found a book that makes claims about registration in CAHA leagues. The talent stream for hockey was not always as organized as it is now and not all of the players, as they would be now, would be formally registered in that way.

I am aware of that. I wrote about how I do think that it's likely that in the early days of hockey only the best in the local pond even had the opportunity to join a team but once we get to let's say the 1950s wouldn't it be fair to assume most boys who wanted to play hockey actually joined a team?

This does bring about an interesting point however, as I really doubt that registration numbers in each country are handled the same way. It's been discussed a bit before but my understanding is that in Canada and USA they sign up everyone who touches the ice (using slight exaggeration) but not so everywhere else.

Afaik here in Czechia anyone who wants to participate in any kind of a match has to be a registered player. Unfortunately they didn't unregister players at all so the amount of hockey players was some ridiculous number like 100k until recently. I've just checked the IIHF website and it's at 34 thousand so it looks they fixed it.

 

[JackSlater]

I didn't know hockey existed prior to seeing my grandfather watching it on TV. I am pretty sure media played a major role in growing the sport. Since they also brought in a lot of money and turned athletes into celebrities pro sports became a real possible career option to a lot of boys. Also there must be some significance of having a father who either played or enjoyed hockey in terms of influencing the decision of a child to participate. Canadians born in let's say 1960 were more likely to have a hockey loving father than those born in 1920. I mean it would be silly to assume the popularity of the game was static and basically the same since 1880 and I don't think it would be an exaggeration to think the game has grown even several hundred fold since then.


I am aware of that. I wrote about how I do think that it's likely that in the early days of hockey only the best in the local pond even had the opportunity to join a team but once we get to let's say the 1950s wouldn't it be fair to assume most boys who wanted to play hockey actually joined a team?


Afaik here in Czechia anyone who wants to participate in any kind of a match has to be a registered player. Unfortunately they didn't unregister players at all so the amount of hockey players was some ridiculous number like 100k until recently. I've just checked the IIHF website and it's at 34 thousand so it looks they fixed it.

I agree that hockey became more popular, but it was already extremely popular in Canada before television existed. It was a significant spectator sport played across the country and covered extensively by the media of the time (newspapers and radio) well before television existed. As far as joining a team, I am saying that not everyone who joined a team would have been registered formally, or perhaps registered under the same agency. Registration data is valuable but it is not going to give us the whole picture because of limitations in how the data were collected and how many people it actually covered.

That's interesting regarding the Czechs. Having an idea of how each country counts players, now and historically, would be helpful.

 

[wetcoast]

I like the work to put some rigor into the topic. It's a very complicated question though regarding even the situation in Canada and I'm not sure how to figure out key things like how many boys were actually playing hockey (surely a much lower percentage now than decades ago) and how many boys have access to the actual professional hockey development streams. Cost has become prohibitive for some. A look into the percentage of players who are sons of former players might give some idea, but an attempt to look at the economic backgrounds of players (compared to the Canadian average) would be rely on a lot of anecdotes. It seems clear that Canadian players today come from much wealthier backgrounds than did Canadian players of the past, even accounting for the significant increase in wealth for the average Canadian, but it would be very difficult to prove it.

The glance at immigration in Canada, which posters who drone on about talent pool being so much larger now often choose to ignore, is important and shouldn't require so many caveats as if it is a judgement on immigrant populations. There are many factors that a person can get into (sports culture and culture in general, economic factors, assimilation in Canada now compared to in the past, other sport alternatives and exposure to other sports) but it's fairly obvious that immigrants to Canada are less likely to get involved in hockey development streams than people whose families have been in Canada for generations. I don't know if this is a factor in other countries.

Moving beyond Canada it becomes even more difficult. I would be very interested in learning about what happened in Finland for example with regard to participation since in the last decade or so Finland has produced top players at a much better rate than it ever did before.

Agree with alot here and I think there are so many different factors that really can't be measured to give a really accurate reading of the "size of the NHLs talent pool" over time with even the slightest degree of certainty.

One of the biggest things for me is opportunity to training at elite levels at key ages which seems to have changed drastically over time, at least in some parts of Canada.

For example I live in Vancouver which historically wasn't really part of the NHL's talent pool stream but with increased access to artificial ice and elite programs we currently might see top 3 picks coming from the "BC stream" in the next 3 years and pre expansion there was a real void of NHL caliber players from British Columbia.

At the end of the day it's going to be an extremely subjective argument that will be hard to unravel IMO.

Similarly if we look at the east Coast provinces if one made up an all time list of the best 20 players from them most would also come post expansion although I can't speak to the exact details of why that might be.

The WHL also has seen an influx of NHL caliber talents very recently from the Yukon which simply didn't exist before either.

Of course it's still an excellent avenue to pursue and discuss because that's what we do here.

 

[overpass]

I didn't know hockey existed prior to seeing my grandfather watching it on TV. I am pretty sure media played a major role in growing the sport. Since they also brought in a lot of money and turned athletes into celebrities pro sports became a real possible career option to a lot of boys. Also there must be some significance of having a father who either played or enjoyed hockey in terms of influencing the decision of a child to participate. Canadians born in let's say 1960 were more likely to have a hockey loving father than those born in 1920. I mean it would be silly to assume the popularity of the game was static and basically the same since 1880 and I don't think it would be an exaggeration to think the game has grown even several hundred fold since then.

The importance of fathers in influencing their child to participate in hockey has increased considerably over time. In Canada for the first part of the 20th century, children were able to participate in community activities without their parents needing to register and drive them. For example, the Boucher boys learned their hockey in the non-stop shinny games on the Ottawa river - no adult required. The Conachers developed their skills playing road hockey in the streets of Toronto - again, no adult required. The parents were needed mostly to purchase the equipment. Children could participate in community life on their own initiative without parental mediation.

When you say hockey participation has increased hundredfolds, what sport do you think young Canadians were playing in the frozen winters of 1900, if not hockey? I’m not aware of any serious competitor. British Empire culture at the time was very big on playing sports, and Anglo Canada was more British than the British in some ways. The idea that hockey in the beginning of the 20th century was rare or remote is just not supported at all by anything I know.

Sports of that era were about participation more than professionalism, but as professional hockey became more prominent, there was a large talent pool of skilled and experienced amateurs to draw from.

 

[overpass]

To follow up on my last post, it’s telling that the hockey families of 80-100 years ago were largely brothers, and more recently the father-son combo is more common. IMO it points to the huge increase in importance of parental investment rather than community participation.

 

[MadLuke]

and more recently the father-son combo is more common

It would be extremely hard (or at least I would not know how to start with), but the percentage of drafted and nhler that have nhler parents relative to the amount of age appropriate ex nhler around over time could be a clue.

How much it is about being trained starting at 3 with the best coaching and summer camp versus being the 1 in a 20,000 talents-drive-grit wise.

 

[Staniowski]

Another one of the math problems I ran into. The Cold War. By using the NHL as the measuring tape it ignores everyone who is ineligible to play. Gretzky wasn't competing against Makarov for Art Rosses, but Makarov was still part of the global talent pool.

Makarov has the highest offensive peak of a non NHL player since the 1926 merger. That Gretzky greatly outscored him in international competition is a mark in his favour.

You touched on the KHL factor too. How many guys in the league could make the NHL? At least a dozen. Guys like prime Moyzakin, Radulov, or post Devils Kovalchuk were good enough to be top 25 scorers too.

Gretzky outscored Makarov, but Makarov - overall - was a bit better than Gretzky in the 1980s Canada Cups ('81, '84, '87) combined. Gretzky was at his best in '87....Makarov was more consistently excellent, and better all-around.

 

[Staniowski]

The importance of fathers in influencing their child to participate in hockey has increased considerably over time. In Canada for the first part of the 20th century, children were able to participate in community activities without their parents needing to register and drive them. For example, the Boucher boys learned their hockey in the non-stop shinny games on the Ottawa river - no adult required. The Conachers developed their skills playing road hockey in the streets of Toronto - again, no adult required. The parents were needed mostly to purchase the equipment. Children could participate in community life on their own initiative without parental mediation.

When you say hockey participation has increased hundredfolds, what sport do you think young Canadians were playing in the frozen winters of 1900, if not hockey? I’m not aware of any serious competitor. British Empire culture at the time was very big on playing sports, and Anglo Canada was more British than the British in some ways. The idea that hockey in the beginning of the 20th century was rare or remote is just not supported at all by anything I know.

Sports of that era were about participation more than professionalism, but as professional hockey became more prominent, there was a large talent pool of skilled and experienced amateurs to draw from.

Your characterization of hockey in Canada in 1900 is not true. Either you don't have any knowledge of this, or you're not being honest.

There was hockey being played, and it was already an important part of Canadian culture....but it looked very different. Infrastructure and transportation were huge issues. There were few indoor rinks. Hockey was mostly an urban sport, and Canada was a lot more rural then. Most rural boys were almost completely cut off from any opportunity to play hockey, and many urban boys were too.

Hockey was also a lot less serious, and even most boys who did play, did so a lot less.

I've interviewed a lot of older people, including my father (who was born the same year as Henri Richard), and I have a pretty good sense of the hockey situation in multiple areas. People definitely played hockey, but often it was very informal and maybe just a couple times per year.

I once tallied my closest 200 male relatives going back 3 generations, and almost none of them had any opportunity to play any type of organized hockey. Mostly due to transportation.

The people you describe lived in Ottawa and Toronto....it was a necessity to live close to a rink....if you didn't, no hockey for you.

 

[Staniowski]

I shouldn't have to say this, but the whole premise of this thread is complete crap.

The total number of Canadian males (of a certain age) is not the talent pool of hockey players, any more than its the talent pool of people who ride bicycles or people who play checkers, or whatever.

It's a relatively insignificant part of the talent pool of hockey players. You have to start with the pool of people who are, you know, playing hockey.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Your characterization of hockey in Canada in 1900 is not true. Either you don't have any knowledge of this, or you're not being honest.

There was hockey being played, and it was already an important part of Canadian culture....but it looked very different. Infrastructure and transportation were huge issues. There were few indoor rinks. Hockey was mostly an urban sport, and Canada was a lot more rural then. Most rural boys were almost completely cut off from any opportunity to play hockey, and many urban boys were too.

Hockey was also a lot less serious, and even most boys who did play, did so a lot less.

The people you describe lived in Ottawa and Toronto....it was a necessity to live close to a rink....if you didn't, no hockey for you.

This is going to be very regional.

My great grandfather, who hated sports, knew how to skate from 1905. Not because he wanted to play hockey, but because they lived by a lake that was frozen 6 months a year. Skating was a practical skill. No surprise that my grandfather took to hockey easily in the 1920s.

In areas with milder weather, the need is nonexistent.