The all encompassing "players of today vs players from the past" thread

[overpass]

One thing I was pondering regarding the fluctuating NHL talent pool is that is once seemed a regular thing for brothers to both be in the NHL at an elite level, but that seems to have ceased at some point. I guess the Espositos would be the last of that breed? I guess the Sedin twins are the only modern comparison?

brothers in the HHOF:

lester (1883) and frank patrick (1885) *** but frank as a builder
george (1896) and frank boucher (1901)
bill (1896) and bun cook (1903)
lionel (1901), charlie (1989), and roy conacher (1916)
doug (1916) and max bentley (1920)
rocket (1921) and henri richard (1936)
phil (1942) and tony esposito (1943)

I would expect brothers in the NHL used to be more common because Canadian families used to be larger. Take the names vadim listed above.

Lester and Frank Patrick were the 2 oldest of 8 Patrick children.

George and Frank were 2 of 6 Boucher brothers.

Bill and Fred Cook were from a "large family", according to Frank Boucher, and had another brother Bud who played in the NHL.

Lionel, Charlie, and Roy were from a family of 10 children.

Doug and Max were among the 6 Bentley boys and 13 Bentley children, all of whom played hockey.

Maurice and Henri came from a family of 8 children.

Today many young Canadian hockey players don't have any brothers. And how many North American families today could afford to have more than one son play hockey at a high level?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Three different players winning every scoring title for an incredible 22 year stretch would certainly indicate this... If only that had occurred during the Original Six era. But it actually occurred in an era where 21-30 teams were league members.

True enough but aren't Gretzky, Mario and Jagr simply exceptional all time talents as well...freaks outliers.

This Century has had 14 different winners in 15 years already.

 

[Hardyvan123]

So it is the increasing numbers that matter not the provenance. If you were to add the same number of quality new Japanese sumo wrestlers it would be equally difficult for one to dominate. But has this ever happened? Has Japanesse Sumo Wrestling undergone an expansion?

1967 NHL underwent an expansion doubling the number of participating players but not changing the provenance of the players. Did individual dominance of scoring, awards , AST honours, change in proportion to the size of the league and the number of players? Bobby Hull still led the NHL in goals, Mikita led the NHL in points, non NHL player from 1966-67 came close to challenging either.

The filler players - the bottom 120 had no influence, even though they played Hull and Mikita actually scored less in a few more games than they had against the top 120 the previous season.

No you are right we can't see any patterns of scoring going up after expansion...anywhere

Here are some annoying stats that get in the way of that idea....

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/points_top_10.html

 

[Hardyvan123]

I would expect brothers in the NHL used to be more common because Canadian families used to be larger. Take the names vadim listed above.

Lester and Frank Patrick were the 2 oldest of 8 Patrick children.

George and Frank were 2 of 6 Boucher brothers.

Bill and Fred Cook were from a "large family", according to Frank Boucher, and had another brother Bud who played in the NHL.

Lionel, Charlie, and Roy were from a family of 10 children.

Doug and Max were among the 6 Bentley boys and 13 Bentley children, all of whom played hockey.

Maurice and Henri came from a family of 8 children.

Today many young Canadian hockey players don't have any brothers. And how many North American families today could afford to have more than one son play hockey at a high level?

There is the larger family thing of course but all of those players are born before the baby boom as well.

And with a larger NHL with more spots available it still seems really odd that almost all the top sets of brothers are born pre WWII.

But it's maybe just a statistical curiosity.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Impossible

True enough but aren't Gretzky, Mario and Jagr simply exceptional all time talents as well...freaks outliers.

This Century has had 14 different winners in 15 years already.

Impossible. Correct data may be mined here:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/ross.html



Last 15 Art Ross Trophy winners.

Jagr, St.Louis, Crosby, Malkin 2 times each = 8 seasons. Iginla,Forsberg,Thornton, Ovechkin, H.Sedin, D.Sedin,Benn, seven players, once each = 8

11 different players winning in 15 seasons.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

This is something that does come into play, for instance Hawerchuck's playoff resume in the 80's against the 2 juggernaut Alberta teams and the video game numbers both Alberta teams scored at through the 80's.

Unfortunately this unbalanced schedule and opponents only seems to come up against the more recent guys that we have information about.

Alot of that specific type of information just isn't available for earlier times and definitely not for pre NHL times.

I'm not sure I follow. The league schedules are readily available right back to the beginnings of the sport. But until the introduction of the division-heavy schedule and playoff format in 1981-82, the schedule was usually balanced or close to it, and seemingly shouldn't be a major point of examination. I say "seemingly" to allow for situations where a team might have played an inordinate number of games against a certain opponent while they had a rash of key injuries for example, but this would be a rare occurrence one would think.

In the top 60 centers project this lack of attention to information was really evident in the round here both Stamkos and McGee became available.

Stamkos of course was held to the higher standard having to compete against 3 elite Russians in points finishes in Ovechkin, Malkin and Dats in different years.

Being the best Canadian goal scorer over a longer period of time than McGee simply wasn't enough for some voters.

Too bad that Stamkos couldn't load up on scoring after the Russians spent a month at sea on a freighter coming to a rested Stamkos and company eh?

McGees biggest claim to fame is that 14 goal effort against Dawson city after they traveled across the country in 1905 to play the Ottawa silver 7.

Richard's 50 in 50, despite the fact that he never hit 50 again despite 60 and 70 game schedules is glossed over.

that's not his only claim to fame to be sure but against his signature playoff is also war year enhanced.

in the same 50 in 50 season Richard has his all time best playoff line of 9-12-5-17.

The next season in another WWII year he has a 6-6-2-8 line.

to be sure he would be considered a great playoff sniper even without those 2 years but it's a pretty obvious example be wasn't brought up.

In stead all too often popular canon is just presented and then not scrutinized very much.

Context does matter and it should be examined as much as possible IMO.

What does any of this have to do with unbalanced schedules? This is a completely different discussion. I mean I guess you can rail against the Stanley Cup trustees for accepting Dawson City's challenge, but this was hardly the only great showing of McGee's career. I'm sure Stamkos has peppered some bottom-dwellers over the years too.

While I wasn't present in the wingers for project for Richard discussion, I find it impossible that war-depleted conditions weren't brought up. Most people in this section do not consider his 50/50 season to be his greatest accomplishment. This isn't the TSN panel debating things with tidbits pulled from the back of hockey cards.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

True enough but aren't Gretzky, Mario and Jagr simply exceptional all time talents as well...freaks outliers.

This Century has had 14 different winners in 15 years already.

Wouldn't we expect outliers to more easily emerge in a smaller league if it was actually easier to win scoring titles under those conditions? The situation we've seen over the last 15 years has precedent. From the inception of the league up until Howe in the 50's, the scoring title was seldom property of any one player for more than a season. The 12+ team era is when we started to see the same players monopolizing the Art Ross. Espo, Lafleur, Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr...5 guys basically owned the award for over 30 years. We're supposed to accept that an expanding league size made it harder to win awards, in spite of this huge wave of evidence to the contrary?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Impossible. Correct data may be mined here:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/ross.html



Last 15 Art Ross Trophy winners.

Jagr, St.Louis, Crosby, Malkin 2 times each = 8 seasons. Iginla,Forsberg,Thornton, Ovechkin, H.Sedin, D.Sedin,Benn, seven players, once each = 8

11 different players winning in 15 seasons.

My bad I can't count in my head (pencil and paper would be much better) and I was looking at post Jagr which was part of the 22 year streak I was responding to and was giving Kane the Art Ross for this year

So post Jagr that would make it 11 different players in 14 years.

The whole variance factor is probably more obvious if one looks at the top% of scorers year in year out over time.

Like it has been brought up time again 18 first line spots in a 6 team league there is less chance of variance than in a 180 first line players in a 30 team league.

It's not really a difficult concept to follow.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Wouldn't we expect outliers to more easily emerge in a smaller league if it was actually easier to win scoring titles under those conditions? The situation we've seen over the last 15 years has precedent. From the inception of the league up until Howe in the 50's, the scoring title was seldom property of any one player for more than a season. The 12+ team era is when we started to see the same players monopolizing the Art Ross. Espo, Lafleur, Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr...5 guys basically owned the award for over 30 years. We're supposed to accept that an expanding league size made it harder to win awards, in spite of this huge wave of evidence to the contrary?

I think it would be better to look at larger numbers, ie a % of top line players to see how common variance is rather than just Art Ross winners to draw any conclusions.

But like in the other thread with HHOF brothers the closeness of Gretzky, Mario and Jagr (and probably Crosby if not for injuries) does make one ask questions.


Some of those questions are perhaps their team conditions make it possible to dominate as well as a combined question of maybe these guys were really just that good as outliers.

I'm not going to include Esposito in here in that he is a product of Orr and the 3 players who dominate 22 years in a row in Art Ross wins all showed that they created their own destinies.

Also this is just one award, the Art Ross to get a better fix on things we would need to look at other trophies as well which becomes admittedly a problem as most of them are subjective.

Good questions to ask though.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Simply Wrong

My bad I can't count in my head (pencil and paper would be much better) and I was looking at post Jagr which was part of the 22 year streak I was responding to and was giving Kane the Art Ross for this year

So post Jagr that would make it 11 different players in 14 years.

The whole variance factor is probably more obvious if one looks at the top% of scorers year in year out over time.

Like it has been brought up time again 18 first line spots in a 6 team league there is less chance of variance than in a 180 first line players in a 30 team league.

It's not really a difficult concept to follow.

Except your concept is simply wrong regardless of how you try to justify the counting errors.

As shown here:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=114963995&postcount=921

During the first fifty NHL seasons in a league that always had fewer than 12 teams, there were 30 different players who were recognized as scoring champions during the 50 distinct regular seasons.

Since the 1967 expansion, the NHL has always had a minimum of 12 teams, almost 15 seasons of 30 teams. In the 47 completed distinct NHL regular seasons since the 1967 expansion, only 19 different players have won the the scoring championship during the regular season.

The difference is striking. 30 different scoring champions over 50 seasons vs 19 different scoring champions over 47 seasons. It was/is much easier for a scoring champion to repeat post 1967 in a much larger league, with more players participating, than it was to repeat in a smaller compact league with fewer teams and smaller game rosters.

Your claim of concept does not pass the test of real data and facts.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Exactly

I think it would be better to look at larger numbers, ie a % of top line players to see how common variance is rather than just Art Ross winners to draw any conclusions.

But like in the other thread with HHOF brothers the closeness of Gretzky, Mario and Jagr (and probably Crosby if not for injuries) does make one ask questions.


Some of those questions are perhaps their team conditions make it possible to dominate as well as a combined question of maybe these guys were really just that good as outliers.

I'm not going to include Esposito in here in that he is a product of Orr and the 3 players who dominate 22 years in a row in Art Ross wins all showed that they created their own destinies.

Also this is just one award, the Art Ross to get a better fix on things we would need to look at other trophies as well which becomes admittedly a problem as most of them are subjective.

Good questions to ask though.

Again, factually wrong. Gretzky does not get credit for 1980. Marcel Dionne was the scoring leader. So three players dominated for 21 years.

In an era of unbalanced schedules with little head to head games amongst top players the top players had free range.

In the O6 era no one had free range. Teams faced each other 14 teams during the regular season. Concentrated effort with dedicated checkers on each team for the oppositions top scorers. Bobby Hull would be scheduled for 14 games against the Canadiens with the Henri Richard and Claude Provost/later Rejean Houle, combo dedicated to reducing his efficiency. Does not happen today. Ovechkin does not have 14 tough games against a specific combination dedicated to limiting his efficiency.

 

[jigglysquishy]

He was tied for the Art Ross and won the Hart. Gretzky 100% deserves credit for 1980.

 

[danincanada]

No the odds of picking the exact 7 numbers out of the numbers 1 to 49 is constant for every draw regardless of how many tickets are sold or where they are sold. Very basic calculation that never changes and is not influenced in any fashion by the number of tickets sold, to whom or where.

I'll add to this as well since even your analogies don't make sense. The odds of winning and getting all 7 numbers is 1 in 28,633,528. With more tickets sold the odds of there being a winning ticket or multiple winning tickets increases. That's why selling tickets internationally on top of Canada would increase the odds of winning tickets.

Not that that actually has anything to do with what we're discussing because, again, we've witnessed the NHL go from being a Canadian domestic league (composition wise) to a league with elite non-Canadians who won awards and AS nominations. That's proof of what I'm stating. What's your proof that adding non-Canadians doesn't matter? I'm waiting for some for proof, or at least reasoning for the contrary.

As for reality and league size read what I just posted above.

I read your response to sleep easy and it did not address my posts or question or question above. Better to skip over that than try to tackle it head on?

 

[danincanada]

More supposed competition either at the team or individual level does not make it harder to excel at the elite level. The extra competition is just filler, back ground noise that does not impact on the final result at the top.

More elite players in the league does make to harder to excel at the elite level though. The elite Americans and Europeans in the league now are not just filler. Kane will win the Art Ross and Hart this season and Karlsson may win the Norris.

It's not just a Canadian league anymore and that impact is undeniable.

 

[The Panther]

I don't get all this fuss over players of today vs. players of the past. To me, it's very simple: players are as great as their level of dominance against their own peers/competition.

I couldn't care less how international the player pool is, how many teams there are, etc. When the NHL players were 99% Canadians (and 80% of them from Ontario & Quebec), it was just as difficult to dominate peers as it is today. And 50 years from now, when the NHL will probably be dominated by East Asians, it will just as difficult to dominate peers as it is today.

When there were only 6 teams, there were only 100-odd NHL jobs. Just because players were from a geographically limited area doesn't mean it was "easier" to make the League. Today, there are more than 600 full-time NHL jobs, and yet the majority are still Canadians. So, if there are 300 Canadian NHL players today (give or take) and there were 100 in 1966, how is it a harder league today?

You can't apply contemporary standards to past situations and form relative evaluations based on speculation of what might have been. I mean, you can do that, but to do so is to disrespect the history of the game, which means you're probably on the wrong forum if that's your point.

To draw a baseball analogy: When Lou Gehrig played in all those consecutive games and hit all those RBIs, there were no non-whites in MLB. Likewise Babe Ruth's entire career. And DiMaggio's. Would those guys have been as dominant if Satchel Page and other great non-whites had been pitching against them? I have no idea and I really don't care. It's speculation to go there, and I prefer what actually happened to revisionist speculation.

It's unfair to apply standards that didn't exist in the past to players of the past. It's not the players' fault that certain countries weren't represented in their League. We have no idea how elite players would have responded to new conditions, and we shouldn't make assumptions. We see time and time again throughout NHL history where the goal-posts changed due to various factors, and the result was that the elite players were still the elite players.


I can see the argument against cutting off a certain point in the past for comparative purposes (if we must compare different eras, which we generally shouldn't), such as the start of the so-called original 6 or whatever... it's reasonable to say that the first few years of the 1920s are not contextually comparable to the NHL that followed when the rules were still being established, etc. Likewise, I think it's wise of fans to limit their comparative opinions to players they've actually watched play.

But that's as far as it goes, for me, anyway. Every era is relevant; each player can only be judged against their actual peers.

 

[danincanada]

I don't get all this fuss over players of today vs. players of the past. To me, it's very simple: players are as great as their level of dominance against their own peers/competition.

I couldn't care less how international the player pool is, how many teams there are, etc. When the NHL players were 99% Canadians (and 80% of them from Ontario & Quebec), it was just as difficult to dominate peers as it is today. And 50 years from now, when the NHL will probably be dominated by East Asians, it will just as difficult to dominate peers as it is today.

When there were only 6 teams, there were only 100-odd NHL jobs. Just because players were from a geographically limited area doesn't mean it was "easier" to make the League. Today, there are more than 600 full-time NHL jobs, and yet the majority are still Canadians. So, if there are 300 Canadian NHL players today (give or take) and there were 100 in 1966, how is it a harder league today?

You can't apply contemporary standards to past situations and form relative evaluations based on speculation of what might have been. I mean, you can do that, but to do so is to disrespect the history of the game, which means you're probably on the wrong forum if that's your point.

To draw a baseball analogy: When Lou Gehrig played in all those consecutive games and hit all those RBIs, there were no non-whites in MLB. Likewise Babe Ruth's entire career. And DiMaggio's. Would those guys have been as dominant if Satchel Page and other great non-whites had been pitching against them? I have no idea and I really don't care. It's speculation to go there, and I prefer what actually happened to revisionist speculation.

It's unfair to apply standards that didn't exist in the past to players of the past. It's not the players' fault that certain countries weren't represented in their League. We have no idea how elite players would have responded to new conditions, and we shouldn't make assumptions. We see time and time again throughout NHL history where the goal-posts changed due to various factors, and the result was that the elite players were still the elite players.


I can see the argument against cutting off a certain point in the past for comparative purposes (if we must compare different eras, which we generally shouldn't), such as the start of the so-called original 6 or whatever... it's reasonable to say that the first few years of the 1920s are not contextually comparable to the NHL that followed when the rules were still being established, etc. Likewise, I think it's wise of fans to limit their comparative opinions to players they've actually watched play.

But that's as far as it goes, for me, anyway. Every era is relevant; each player can only be judged against their actual peers.

Unfortunately it seems that a lot of posters agree with you and want to practice this type of willful ignorance towards how the NHL has changed over time. Why bother comparing across eras at all if one is going to leave out this context? At least you're admitting how you think, I'll give you that.

Bolded seems to be factual incorrect. If we removed all the Americans and Europeans from the league now and shrunk it back down to 6 teams, would Doughty have a tougher or easier time to win the Norris and/or get an AS nomination? Karlsson is playing in Sweden along with all of the other European and American defenders.

 

[The Panther]

Unfortunately it seems that a lot of posters agree with you and want to practice this type of willful ignorance towards how the NHL has changed over time. Why bother comparing across eras at all if one is going to leave out this context? At least you're admitting how you think, I'll give you that.

Bolded seems to be factual incorrect. If we removed all the Americans and Europeans from the league now and shrunk it back down to 6 teams, would Doughty have a tougher or easier time to win the Norris and/or get an AS nomination? Karlsson is playing in Sweden along with all of the other European and American defenders.

The problem with your "factual" analysis is that it's entirely based on guesswork. Remove the "if"s from your argument and you've got nothing. Here's the thing, though -- what happened in the past actually happened. It's not "if".

You make my point for me that the NHL is always changing. Here's a question: at what point now or in the future -- in the ever-changing NHL -- are you going to draw a line in the sand and say, "Henceforth, all things that happen are comparable! And previously they were not!" Let me guess: you want to draw that line NOW. But why not in 2005? 1994? 1980? 1960? Or, more to the point: why not in 2040? 2080? Logically, the League is going to expand in some way or fashion, to more players, more teams, more countries represented, right? So therefore, today's standards are going to be garbage compared to 2050, right? If not, then why not?

I say 'bollocks' to all that speculative nonsense. History matters, and the context of the past matters to that period of the past only. The context of today matters to today only.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Data

I'll add to this as well since even your analogies don't make sense. The odds of winning and getting all 7 numbers is 1 in 28,633,528. With more tickets sold the odds of there being a winning ticket or multiple winning tickets increases. That's why selling tickets internationally on top of Canada would increase the odds of winning tickets.

Not that that actually has anything to do with what we're discussing because, again, we've witnessed the NHL go from being a Canadian domestic league (composition wise) to a league with elite non-Canadians who won awards and AS nominations. That's proof of what I'm stating. What's your proof that adding non-Canadians doesn't matter? I'm waiting for some for proof, or at least reasoning for the contrary.



I read your response to sleep easy and it did not address my posts or question or question above. Better to skip over that than try to tackle it head on?

Actually the odds of getting all 7 numbers from the numbers 1 to 49 is (7x6x5x4x3x2x1)/(49x48x47x46x45x44x43) which is 1 chance in 85,900,584. Playing the Lotto Max means spending $5.00 for three combinations of seven numbers, one combination that the buyer may choose, the other two, machine generated. So three chances are bought, tripling the odds of winning so divide 85,900,584 by 3, yielding 28,633,528. Selling more tickets regardless of where or how, would increase the chances of having a winner. Specifically doubling the number of Canadian participants would have the same effect as selling an equal number of tickets outside of Canada. Also doubling the number of chances sold per ticket to 6 would have the similar effect. All three scenarios would see roughly the same number of distinct seven number combinations in circulation once multiples of the same combination are factored out.

Previously I have responded to the adding non Canadians to the NHL pool of participating players by looking at the actual results as opposed to the theoretical possibilities that you introduce all the time. After all, hockey is about actual on ice results. Teams and players have to play the games that generate the results.

The actual results, as posted upthread, since the start of the NHL with the 1917-18 season thru the end of the 2014-15 season, show that in a compact NHL, less than 12 teams during the first 50 seasons, 30 different players led the league in scoring.30 scoring leaders in 50 regular NHL seasons. Regular season schedules were balanced or nearly balanced.

Post 1967 expansion the NHL grew to 12 teams finally reaching its present level with 30 teams. If the growth in teams and the provenance of players mattered, making it more difficult to win the scoring schampionship for each skater then the results should confirm your theoretical model. The results do not confirm your model or claims. Specifically in the 47 NHL seasons, post 1967 NHL expansion 19 different players have won the 47 regular season scoring championships that have been determined. The three missing season will not change the impact of the results. Factual data that is objective does not support your stance. 19 winners vs 30. Fewer winners post 1967 NHL expansion.

Applying your mathematical model fails to take into account that results may be gamed similarly to a lottery being gamed.

It was possible to game lotteries by buying all the combinations once the the top prize exceded the cost of buying all the possible combinations.The sum of secondary smaller prizes would be extra money. Only obstacle was the time required to manually fill in the tickets,have enough cash on hand, have enough trustworthy people stand in line to process them.Also there was the risk that another party might do the same thing. The chances of winning were not dispersed amongst many but concentrated to the one or perhaps a second party trying the same gambit. The regular one/few ticket player saw their chances or return reduced tremendously, at least by half.

Technology changed this so safeguards were introduced to protect the integrity of the loteries.

Bringing this back to the NHL. Post 1967 NHL expansion, powerhouse offensive teams with enough offensive money were in a position to facilitate their players winning scoring championships against weaker teams especially with an unbalanced schedule. This is one of the reasons you have so few different scoring champions since the 1967 NHL expansion.

The simple fact that non Canadiens won awards or honours or contributed to teams winning team championships does not change the fact that in a 12 to 30 team league its is actually easier to do so because of the unbalanced scheduling and the significantly reduced opportunities for direct confrontation head to head amongst elite players.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Except your concept is simply wrong regardless of how you try to justify the counting errors.

As shown here:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=114963995&postcount=921

During the first fifty NHL seasons in a league that always had fewer than 12 teams, there were 30 different players who were recognized as scoring champions during the 50 distinct regular seasons.

Since the 1967 expansion, the NHL has always had a minimum of 12 teams, almost 15 seasons of 30 teams. In the 47 completed distinct NHL regular seasons since the 1967 expansion, only 19 different players have won the the scoring championship during the regular season.

The difference is striking. 30 different scoring champions over 50 seasons vs 19 different scoring champions over 47 seasons. It was/is much easier for a scoring champion to repeat post 1967 in a much larger league, with more players participating, than it was to repeat in a smaller compact league with fewer teams and smaller game rosters.

Your claim of concept does not pass the test of real data and facts.

It's simple math, take a lottery of balls where everything is equal, more balls the less likely it is for the same ball to be drawn time after time, or 22 balls from 3 different guys consecutively.

Anyone here in a lottery would take a chance out 1 out of 120 (or 1 out of 18 top line players) than 1 out of 400 or 600 player (1 out of 180 top line player) right?

If not please contact me with cash and we will run a experiment that I will win very quickly and 100% as I'm like a Casino in Vegas when I win it will be math.

You will "win" but like most gamblers you will actually lose.

So the answer lies somewhere else and one of the answers is that those 3 balls were simply much better than the other ones.

If we draw more balls, say 10 balls each year then we would have more evidence of any patterns (of waht to expect)

I'm not a statistician but the concept of variance and likelihood of it is extremely simple and straightforward.

Unfortunately it seems that the argument here is that Gretzky, Mario and Jagr aren't outliers and that somehow their Art Ross victories are the result of playing in an easier not harder league?

That conclusion just doesn't make any sense given the rest of the data we know, more teams, eye test on how talented they were ect...

Part of that problem is that some people start with the conclusion first then try to find any type of supporting argument to hold up that argument Malkin=E Stall=Ribeiro is just such one recent example.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I think it would be better to look at larger numbers, ie a % of top line players to see how common variance is rather than just Art Ross winners to draw any conclusions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall you being a long-time proponent of the "greater variance/more fluke performances/more difficult for top players to stand out" theory as it applies to the modern NHL. After all this time, have you not ever actually run the numbers to help advance/quash this theory?

 

[Hardyvan123]

The problem with your "factual" analysis is that it's entirely based on guesswork. Remove the "if"s from your argument and you've got nothing. Here's the thing, though -- what happened in the past actually happened. It's not "if".

You make my point for me that the NHL is always changing. Here's a question: at what point now or in the future -- in the ever-changing NHL -- are you going to draw a line in the sand and say, "Henceforth, all things that happen are comparable! And previously they were not!" Let me guess: you want to draw that line NOW. But why not in 2005? 1994? 1980? 1960? Or, more to the point: why not in 2040? 2080? Logically, the League is going to expand in some way or fashion, to more players, more teams, more countries represented, right? So therefore, today's standards are going to be garbage compared to 2050, right? If not, then why not?

I say 'bollocks' to all that speculative nonsense. History matters, and the context of the past matters to that period of the past only. The context of today matters to today only.

It's not based on guesswork the best players from the traditional talent pool is still there 100% so that any player across anytime period can be measured against the traditional Canadian talent pool.

People say that you don't want to punish past players then they turn around and say something like elite players are always elite players (and then punish a plyer with more than just the original control group but yet another one on top)...when it's obvious there are not only differences but there is a way to fairly account for some of those differences (number of teams is another story).

If there is a comparison between player A and player B, the control group being prepared should be as similar as possible to get more accurate results.

For example I have 3 large dogs, a Chihuahua (that's 50% larger than the rest of his group), a Jack Russel Terrier that is 25% larger than the rest of his breed) and a Mastiff that is 10% larger than it's breed).

Using your criteria the chihuahua is the largest dog.

Yup that makes sense.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall you being a long-time proponent of the "greater variance/more fluke performances/more difficult for top players to stand out" theory as it applies to the modern NHL. After all this time, have you not ever actually run the numbers to help advance/quash this theory?

It's simple math I will take the lottery where I have a 1 in 18 chance (representing top line players in a 6 team league) and you can have the one where you have a 1 in 180 chance(representing all of the top line players in a 30 team league) since they are the same and equal.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

It's not based on guesswork the best players from the traditional talent pool is still there 100% so that any player across anytime period can be measured against the traditional Canadian talent pool.

People say that you don't want to punish past players then they turn around and say something like elite players are alwasy elite players...when it's obvious there are not only differences but there is a way to fairly account for some of those differences (number of teams is another story).

If there is a comparison between player A and player B, the control group being prepared should be as similar as possible to get more accurate results.

For example I have 3 large dogs, a Chihuahua (that's 50% larger than the rest of his group), a Jack Russel Terrier that is 25% larger than the rest of his breed) and a Mastiff that is 10% larger than it's breed).

Using your criteria the chihuahua is the largest dog.

Yup that makes sense.

This notion has been refuted time and again, yet every time this discussion comes up it's one of the first cards that gets played, and is always conveniently framed as a simple "common sense" argument in order to shift the burden of proof away from those making the claim.

 

[Hardyvan123]

This notion has been refuted time and again, yet every time this discussion comes up it's one of the first cards that gets played, and is always conveniently framed as a simple "common sense" argument in order to shift the burden of proof away from those making the claim.

It hasn't been refuted it's been refused plain and simple.

No idea on why it would be since there has always been a traditional Canadian talent pool to compare each and every player in the NHL after the fall of the Western Professional league in the late 20's.

Why should a player from Ontario in 1950 be judged against other players from Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta almost exclusively only and the guy from 2015 has to be judged against all players from the original group and then some.

It's a very weak and non existent argument to say that both players are being judged equally and compared equally plain and simple.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

It's simple math I will take the lottery where I have a 1 in 18 chance (representing top line players in a 6 team league) and you can have the one where you have a 1 in 180 chance(representing all of the top line players in a 30 team league) since they are the same and equal.

Just for your information, 1 in 90 would be your "lottery odds" in a 30-team league, not 1 in 180.

So we have now come back to the scoring race being equated to a random lottery where all 90 first line players have exactly the same chance of winning the Art Ross? If this is indeed the case, the data should show that it's exceptionally rare for the same player to make multiple appearances on the top-10 leaderboard within a period of several years. We could reasonably expect 27 different names to occupy the 30 top-10 slots in any and all given three-year samples since the NHL expanded to 30 teams. Feel free to present this data to back up your lottery hypothesis. It is readily available from many different sources, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be presented as supporting evidence.