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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
No

Isn't the NHL still the gold standard for elite players?

Canada wins best on best tournaments but so do other nations at times. This shows that Canada still produces great hockey players but so do other nations. How does that argue my point? Seems to back up what I'm saying more than anything.

No. The Gold Standard is so old economics.

Basically you are recognizing the changes in global politics and the economics of sport. Not the growth or decline of elite hockey players either regionally or worldwide. Nor are you showing that it is harder to win an NHL honour or award. All you are showing is that NHL honours and awards are now part of the hockey showcase. No one has ever disputed this.

Last two generations, it is possible for hockey players to play hockey in leagues all over the world without home country or any other political interference. By default they are eligible for awards and honours. Winning such awards and honours is to be expected.

Also the sport of ice hockey pays much better at the NHL level than it did in earlier eras, O6 etc. So certain non-Canadians and even Canadians forego other economic opportunities to play in the NHL because it pays better than anything else they can do.

A complete review of results past and present supports this view.

The following link to a thread about Imports in Canadian youth hockey supports this position as well.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2034841

Outside NA, youth hockey with few exceptions is running near empty. People with the ability to do so are sending their children to Canada and the USA for a better chance at hockey success.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
American Elite Players

My proof is that we've witnessed with our own eyes elite Americans and Europans in the NHL. They weren't there before so this added to the elite talent.

My other proof is the chronological hockey registration list of Canada that displays a huge growth during the baby boom with a fairly consistent stretch from the mid 70's until now.

Now what's your proof that the number of elite players in the NHL has remained about the same since its inception? Or what is your hypothesis exactly if you don't agree with mine?

1905 would be very difficult since we wouldn't even have film of such a player. I'm not really interested in comparing across such vastly different eras but if one did that 1905 guy better blow away his competition on a scale that's greater than anyone else who came after him. That's a starter. If he's merely equal in peer dominance to the 2010 then it's a non-starter.

Elite American born talent dates back to the start of the NHL.

Skaters:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

Goalies:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=games_goalie

Plus Hobey Baker who turned down pro offers from the NHA.

Players like Frank Brimsek, Cecil Dillon, Taffy Abel and others competed for and even won NHL awards and honours.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/d/dilloce01.html
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
My proof is that we've witnessed with our own eyes elite Americans and Europans in the NHL. They weren't there before so this added to the elite talent.

My other proof is the chronological hockey registration list of Canada that displays a huge growth during the baby boom with a fairly consistent stretch from the mid 70's until now.

Now what's your proof that the number of elite players in the NHL has remained about the same since its inception? Or what is your hypothesis exactly if you don't agree with mine?

Well, what qualifies a player as "elite"? Top-X finishers in the scoring race? Anyone who received a Hart or All-Star vote? This would have to be determined before any type of accurate number can be assigned.

But this would just bring us back to your argument that it was easier for a player to have top-X finishes or receive awards in bygone eras. So really we're just left with the "more participants/more diverse backgrounds=more elite players", which is a speculative and unverifiable hypothesis.

My hypothesis, if it can be called one, is that speculation, while interesting, has no place in a peer-to-peer ranking. Might there have been elite Swedish or Czech players that could have usurped Howie Morenz and Eddie Shore's places as the top players in 1930, had the game spread to those nations? It's possible. It's also entirely possible that no amount of added talent would have threatened their hold on the Hart Trophy; that they were simply that good. You can use Russell Bowie, or Gordie Howe, or Cyclone Taylor...same applies. Or Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux, who enjoyed a setting absent of great Japanese players that may one day rise to prominence. Why speculate? Evaluate what actually, really, tangibly, occurred.

1905 would be very difficult since we wouldn't even have film of such a player. I'm not really interested in comparing across such vastly different eras but if one did that 1905 guy better blow away his competition on a scale that's greater than anyone else who came after him. That's a starter. If he's merely equal in peer dominance to the 2010 then it's a non-starter.

You're not interested in comparing across vast eras, but you will offer comment on those who have decided to pursue this difficult undertaking. The old "we can't compare modern players to past ones....except I happen to know the modern ones are better" school of thought.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Elite American born talent dates back to the start of the NHL.

Skaters:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

Goalies:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=games_goalie

Plus Hobey Baker who turned down pro offers from the NHA.

Players like Frank Brimsek, Cecil Dillon, Taffy Abel and others competed for and even won NHL awards and honours.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/d/dilloce01.html

I'm confused. Are you with me trying to help prove my point or are you feigning that the amount of Americans was large and impactful? Brimsek tops the list but after that... The point is this list doesn't compare to the modern era in terms of impact of the Americans on the NHL. I already knew that and you already knew that so why go there?

I didn't reply to your last post about the lottery but I don't think I will. You took a lot of time explaining me how LottoMax works, which I already knew, and then pretended like that analogy worked against my argument, when it really doesn't. I don't have time to bother with these types of posts and I'm starting to think that's the whole point.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
No. The Gold Standard is so old economics.

Basically you are recognizing the changes in global politics and the economics of sport. Not the growth or decline of elite hockey players either regionally or worldwide. Nor are you showing that it is harder to win an NHL honour or award. All you are showing is that NHL honours and awards are now part of the hockey showcase. No one has ever disputed this.

Last two generations, it is possible for hockey players to play hockey in leagues all over the world without home country or any other political interference. By default they are eligible for awards and honours. Winning such awards and honours is to be expected.

Also the sport of ice hockey pays much better at the NHL level than it did in earlier eras, O6 etc. So certain non-Canadians and even Canadians forego other economic opportunities to play in the NHL because it pays better than anything else they can do.

A complete review of results past and present supports this view.

The following link to a thread about Imports in Canadian youth hockey supports this position as well.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2034841

Outside NA, youth hockey with few exceptions is running near empty. People with the ability to do so are sending their children to Canada and the USA for a better chance at hockey success.

So now you are trying to portray that the non-Canadian nations always had this amount of elite players, they just didn't play in the NHL? I'll have to remember that the next time you bring up Canadians going overseas back then to coach and improve a nation at hockey and how impactful it was.

For the last time, it doesn't even matter why there weren't elite non-Canadians in the NHL, the simple fact that they weren't there is proof enough that it impacted awards and honours in comparisons with the modern era where they are present. It means more elite players... unless you want to theorize that pre-baby boom Canada, which was going through two world wars and a depression, produced more elite players on it's own than the whole world does in the modern era.
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
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.

Spot on. Provenance only comes into play because the European influx into the NHL happens to demonstrate very clearly that the numbers of quality players has increased: earlier generations didn't have to compete for the Norris trophy with the Lidströms and Karlssons.

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 1967 expansion doubled the number of players, but no-one is claiming it doubled the number of players good enough to compete for awards and AS honours. The point is that if prime Bobby Hull played in the NHL 30 years later he would have faced more competition than in his day: in addition to the top Canadians, he also would have had to compete with the likes of Forsberg, Jágr, Selänne, Bure and so on.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Well, what qualifies a player as "elite"? Top-X finishers in the scoring race? Anyone who received a Hart or All-Star vote? This would have to be determined before any type of accurate number can be assigned.

But this would just bring us back to your argument that it was easier for a player to have top-X finishes or receive awards in bygone eras. So really we're just left with the "more participants/more diverse backgrounds=more elite players", which is a speculative and unverifiable hypothesis.

My hypothesis, if it can be called one, is that speculation, while interesting, has no place in a peer-to-peer ranking. Might there have been elite Swedish or Czech players that could have usurped Howie Morenz and Eddie Shore's places as the top players in 1930, had the game spread to those nations? It's possible. It's also entirely possible that no amount of added talent would have threatened their hold on the Hart Trophy; that they were simply that good. You can use Russell Bowie, or Gordie Howe, or Cyclone Taylor...same applies. Or Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux, who enjoyed a setting absent of great Japanese players that may one day rise to prominence. Why speculate? Evaluate what actually, really, tangibly, occurred.

Elite players are the small, or even larger group, of best players at each position. They don't necessarily have to be an actual AS IMO either. Kopitar is elite to me and he doesn't have a single AS nomination.

Bolded is actually common sense. Would you rather compete with the best at something in a small group or a large group if you want to finish near the top? This is the refuse/refute thing.

Go ahead and evaluate what actually happened but then when you compare it with another era that had a much larger stream of elite talent you can't just pretend the two situations are equal because they aren't.

You're not interested in comparing across vast eras, but you will offer comment on those who have decided to pursue this difficult undertaking. The old "we can't compare modern players to past ones....except I happen to know the modern ones are better" school of thought.

You can compare whoever you want, just try to be fair about it and don't pretend the NHL is some static league in terms of what's feeding it with players.

I never said modern players are flat out better than before (if given all the same advancements). They just generally have more competition at the top and that should be accounted for wherever their situation points to this. There's no need to put words in my mouth.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Americans

I'm confused. Are you with me trying to help prove my point or are you feigning that the amount of Americans was large and impactful? Brimsek tops the list but after that... The point is this list doesn't compare to the modern era in terms of impact of the Americans on the NHL. I already knew that and you already knew that so why go there?

I didn't reply to your last post about the lottery but I don't think I will. You took a lot of time explaining me how LottoMax works, which I already knew, and then pretended like that analogy worked against my argument, when it really doesn't. I don't have time to bother with these types of posts and I'm starting to think that's the whole point.

Your use of the American list or what derives from it or other analogies does not connect very well with your theories and what really happened.

Specifically, NHL official All_Star teams started with the 1930-31 season. First 20 editions thru the 1949-50 season saw Americans earn AST honours 12 times, lead by Frank Brimsek, a goalie with 8 honours. Last twenty NHL seasons no American player or goalie has had such an impact on NHL AST results. Likewise during the 1930-31 thru 1949-50 stretch Americans won three NHL trophies 2 Vezinas and a Calder and were regularly in the running for other trophies and AST honours. So the American influence in the NHL has been present since the start of the NHL. This information is readily available in various threads and stickies on the board. Use it.

Likewise internationally. List of Directorate Awards since inception:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IIHF_World_Championship_directorate_award_winners

Last twenty seasons, Canadian share of these awards offsets any non-Canadian influence on awards and honours in the NHL. Going back to the initial Directorate Awards it is clear that American goaltending was always a strength in the hockey world, just as it is clear that middle of the pack Canadians - Yanic Perreault, Jamie Macoun were appreciated.

Yet does anyone ever argue that today there is a greater Canadian influence on International Hockey? That it is harder for non-Canadian players to win awards and honours at the International level? No because the issue is a non-starter to begin. Arguing non-Canadian influence on the NHL or that the NHL until some recent "Modern" benchmark, relies on fuzzy, incomplete data/analysis, omissions and selectivity.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
European Hockey

So now you are trying to portray that the non-Canadian nations always had this amount of elite players, they just didn't play in the NHL? I'll have to remember that the next time you bring up Canadians going overseas back then to coach and improve a nation at hockey and how impactful it was.

For the last time, it doesn't even matter why there weren't elite non-Canadians in the NHL, the simple fact that they weren't there is proof enough that it impacted awards and honours in comparisons with the modern era where they are present. It means more elite players... unless you want to theorize that pre-baby boom Canada, which was going through two world wars and a depression, produced more elite players on it's own than the whole world does in the modern era.

Basic issue with European hockey was that until the late fifties/early 1960s, depending on the country, hockey was a spare time winter activity with little access to coaching. Scheduling was very limited.

Have yet to see you define "elite" in terms of hockey players. Olympic team participation and a feeder system to such participation may be a good start.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Two Way Street

Spot on. Provenance only comes into play because the European influx into the NHL happens to demonstrate very clearly that the numbers of quality players has increased: earlier generations didn't have to compete for the Norris trophy with the Lidströms and Karlssons.



The 1967 expansion doubled the number of players, but no-one is claiming it doubled the number of players good enough to compete for awards and AS honours. The point is that if prime Bobby Hull played in the NHL 30 years later he would have faced more competition than in his day: in addition to the top Canadians, he also would have had to compete with the likes of Forsberg, Jágr, Selänne, Bure and so on.

Two way street to your argument.

Thirty years earlier would the likes of Forsberg, Jagr, Selanne, Bure and so on have received permission to play in the NHL from their home country? Would they have accepted inferior pay to do so? Would they have been willing to fill third line roles like future NHL greats - Mikita, Hull, Henri Richard, Phil Esposito and many others did?

Nicklas Lidstrom is a very good example. Six NHL seasons before his first NHL honour, longer before his first Norris. Thirty years earlier would European or even American players have waited so long to cash in given other opportunities that paid much more than NHL hockey did? Even some Canadians were not willing to wait. Harry Howell played fifteen NHL seasons before award and honour recognition. Ron Howell, his younger brother and a better hockey player, all around athlete;

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/howelro01.html

chose to combine a CFL and business career for financial reasons.

Doubling does not equate to better or doubling the skill level.Agreed. But your point is that multiplying the diversity or provenance from a Canadian centric league O6 with a smathering of Americans to a league with representation from virtually all hockey playing nations in Europe equates to more competition. More competition does not necessarily equate to better competition or competition that is harder to play against. Will illustrate.

The history of the NHL has seen a number of underage players, still junior age <21,participate. Underagers regardless of provenace lack the physical maturity - man strength if you will and experience to compete with men. Many sports recognize this - NFL, pro boxing, etc.Limiting the study to forwards.

O6 NHL
Gordie Howe between the ages of 18 and 20 participated in the NHL but did not dominate:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/howego01.html

Bobby Hull ages 19 and 20, participated, did not dominate

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/hullbo01.html

Frank Mahovlich age 20 participated did not dominate:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/m/mahovfr01.html

Stan Mikita ages 18 - 20, participated, probably the best results as a 20 year old.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/m/mikitst01.html

Post 1967 expansion, underagers were initially excluded unless grandfathered - Bobby Orr.

Once allowed, 18-20 year old Canadiens put up dominating performance in the NHL that included full international representation.

Since 1967
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

2015-16
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

How can it be that in the Modern NHL,there is more or harder competition for Canadian born players for NHL awards and honours but easier competition in the same league for Canadian born 18-20 year olds? Competition does not come with an on/off switch activated by age.

Perhaps the suggestion that overall elite competition in the Modern NHL is lower/much lower than in the O6 era is accurate. Given the age factor which is universal and that newcomers, regardless of provenance and experience can dominate/contribute to their team or in the league at an age that previously - O6 era never happened.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Elite American born talent dates back to the start of the NHL.

Skaters:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

Goalies:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=games_goalie

Plus Hobey Baker who turned down pro offers from the NHA.

Players like Frank Brimsek, Cecil Dillon, Taffy Abel and others competed for and even won NHL awards and honours.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/d/dilloce01.html

Burch is as American as Steve Yzerman is a BC developed player, which means that he isn'y as both moved to Ontario at a very young age.

Dillon and Brimsek are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Taffy Abel wasn't even among the 142 Dmen named in the aggregate list of the all time top dmen list in the project here which really goes out of its way to be more than fair to players from the past.

Same to Hobey Baker not being listed as even one of the top 130 aggregate centers.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Well, what qualifies a player as "elite"? Top-X finishers in the scoring race? Anyone who received a Hart or All-Star vote? This would have to be determined before any type of accurate number can be assigned.

Well winning NHL Awards and post season all star berths is pretty elite right?

Being top 5 in voting for any such award would be considered elite reguardless of era.

Go back and look at those awards again, as it has been presented numerous times, and we can see the elite number of players from the non traditioanl Canadian talent stream change, first with Salming, then a trickle in the 80's and an onslaught post early 90's with many examples of players in the non traditional talent stream being elite.

It's alot more relevant that hockey registration numbers that include recreational players.

But this would just bring us back to your argument that it was easier for a player to have top-X finishes or receive awards in bygone eras. So really we're just left with the "more participants/more diverse backgrounds=more elite players", which is a speculative and unverifiable hypothesis.

It isn't specualtive it actually happened as listed above.

My hypothesis, if it can be called one, is that speculation, while interesting, has no place in a peer-to-peer ranking. Might there have been elite Swedish or Czech players that could have usurped Howie Morenz and Eddie Shore's places as the top players in 1930, had the game spread to those nations? It's possible. It's also entirely possible that no amount of added talent would have threatened their hold on the Hart Trophy; that they were simply that good. You can use Russell Bowie, or Gordie Howe, or Cyclone Taylor...same applies. Or Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux, who enjoyed a setting absent of great Japanese players that may one day rise to prominence. Why speculate? Evaluate what actually, really, tangibly, occurred.


No one is speculation as their is the common standard through out time.

The speculation card is a strawman in that you are trying to say that because one group didn't have that competition that we should just ignore the reality of what happened later on, you know actual events that impacted the NHL.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Interesting

Burch is as American as Steve Yzerman is a BC developed player, which means that he isn'y as both moved to Ontario at a very young age.

Dillon and Brimsek are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Taffy Abel wasn't even among the 142 Dmen named in the aggregate list of the all time top dmen list in the project here which really goes out of its way to be more than fair to players from the past.

Same to Hobey Baker not being listed as even one of the top 130 aggregate centers.

Taffy Abel
Not on the aggregate list of 142 neither is Ryan Suter nor are a fair number of other American defencemen:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

Taffy Abel received AST consideration, more often than Ryan Suter did at similar points into their NHL careers

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1912553

Yet Taffy Abel did not influence the difficulty of Canadians earning honours and awards but Ryan Suter and his group of American defencemen did.:shakehead

Development, home countries ignored certain Europeans - Zdeno Chara being the prime example - WHL. Other Young Europeans left their country in search of hockey development in Canada - Daniel Sprong and others:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2034841

Sorry cannot argue both sides of the provenance issue like you are doing with Yzerman and Burch, especially when Ontario born Brett Hull is viewed as BC developed while playing for the USA internationally.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Taffy Abel
Not on the aggregate list of 142 neither is Ryan Suter nor are a fair number of other American defencemen:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

Taffy Abel received AST consideration, more often than Ryan Suter did at similar points into their NHL careers

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1912553

Yet Taffy Abel did not influence the difficulty of Canadians earning honours and awards but Ryan Suter and his group of American defencemen did.:shakehead

Development, home countries ignored certain Europeans - Zdeno Chara being the prime example - WHL. Other Young Europeans left their country in search of hockey development in Canada - Daniel Sprong and others:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2034841

Sorry cannot argue both sides of the provenance issue like you are doing with Yzerman and Burch, especially when Ontario born Brett Hull is viewed as BC developed while playing for the USA internationally.

There is alot of distraction here in your post.

Taffy Abel wasn't an elite Dman...period.

Gary Suter was hardly the only non Canadian Dman in the NHL in the 80's and early 90's, guys like Rod Langway, Mark Howe, Brian Engblom, Chris Chelios, Brian Leetch, Phil Housley and even Al MaCInnis are the Dmen who had post season all star awards just in Gary Suter's era.

I'm also not arguing both sides of the provenance here, I'm pointing out that burch didn't come from the United states talent pool he was an Ontario hockey product and part of the traditional stream.

Brett Hull wasn't, nor were Cam Neely, Joe Sakic or Paul Kariya all produced in BC over a very short period of time.

Simply put either one actually takes the context and makeup of the NHL into consideration and gets a more fair and accurate reading of a player and the differences in 1929, 1956 or 2105 or one ignores it and then the results are weaker and more open to criticism plain and simple.

For the record Gary Suter has a much better voting record in post season all star than Taffy does against the same standard of traditional Canadian talent (even if we include his team mate Al MacInnis as traditional) and it's not even really clsoe.

Of course for Taffy post season all star team were only around for part of his career but it's extremely unlikely that changes anything.
 
Last edited:

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Your use of the American list or what derives from it or other analogies does not connect very well with your theories and what really happened.

Specifically, NHL official All_Star teams started with the 1930-31 season. First 20 editions thru the 1949-50 season saw Americans earn AST honours 12 times, lead by Frank Brimsek, a goalie with 8 honours. Last twenty NHL seasons no American player or goalie has had such an impact on NHL AST results. Likewise during the 1930-31 thru 1949-50 stretch Americans won three NHL trophies 2 Vezinas and a Calder and were regularly in the running for other trophies and AST honours. So the American influence in the NHL has been present since the start of the NHL. This information is readily available in various threads and stickies on the board. Use it.

Brimsek is the only real example you have, which makes him the exception to the rule and he didn't face elite European net minders either. You should really avoid bringing up goalies. We've had Americans in Miller, Thomas, and Quick recently plus an incredible amount of European goalies winning the Vezina and garnering AS nominations. The recent list speaks for itself:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/nhl_all_star.html#2010

There's no spin that can avoid reality. The amount, and impact, of Americans in the NHL during the O6 simply pales in comparison to what came afterwards. There was often only a handful of American players each season in this timeframe:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=58943

Likewise internationally. List of Directorate Awards since inception:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IIHF_World_Championship_directorate_award_winners

Last twenty seasons, Canadian share of these awards offsets any non-Canadian influence on awards and honours in the NHL. Going back to the initial Directorate Awards it is clear that American goaltending was always a strength in the hockey world, just as it is clear that middle of the pack Canadians - Yanic Perreault, Jamie Macoun were appreciated.

Yet does anyone ever argue that today there is a greater Canadian influence on International Hockey? That it is harder for non-Canadian players to win awards and honours at the International level? No because the issue is a non-starter to begin. Arguing non-Canadian influence on the NHL or that the NHL until some recent "Modern" benchmark, relies on fuzzy, incomplete data/analysis, omissions and selectivity.

You will have to point to how many of these early Europeans actually played in the NHL for this point to have any impact on this debate. If they were good enough to play in the NHL and be elite players that is besides the point.

Soviet stars like Kharlamov, Makarov, and Fetisov were no doubt good enough to be stars, and probably superstars, in the NHL in their primes but since they weren't in the league we realize the players they would have been competing with for accolades had an easier path to those accolades because they weren't present. Do you agree with this or not?
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Taffy Abel and Ryan Suter

There is alot of distraction here in your post.

Taffy Abel wasn't an elite Dman...period.

Gary Suter was hardly the only non Canadian Dman in the NHL in the 80's and early 90's, guys like Rod Langway, Mark Howe, Brian Engblom, Chris Chelios, Brian Leetch, Phil Housley and even Al MaCInnis are the Dmen who had post season all star awards just in Gary Suter's era.

I'm also not arguing both sides of the provenance here, I'm pointing out that burch didn't come from the United states talent pool he was an Ontario hockey product and part of the traditional stream.

Brett Hull wasn't, nor were Cam Neely, Joe Sakic or Paul Kariya all produced in BC over a very short period of time.

Simply put either one actually takes the context and makeup of the NHL into consideration and gets a more fair and accurate reading of a player and the differences in 1929, 1956 or 2105 or one ignores it and then the results are weaker and more open to criticism plain and simple.

For the record Gary Suter has a much better voting record in post season all star than Taffy does against the same standard of traditional Canadian talent (even if we include his team mate Al MacInnis as traditional) and it's not even really clsoe.

Of course for Taffy post season all star team were only around for part of his career but it's extremely unlikely that changes anything.

Taffy Abel's record speaks for itself:

http://www.hhof.com/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/SearchPlayer.jsp?player=11802

The comparable was with Ryan Suter, not Gary Suter. Gary Suter was on the aggregate list.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
Elite players are the small, or even larger group, of best players at each position. They don't necessarily have to be an actual AS IMO either. Kopitar is elite to me and he doesn't have a single AS nomination.

It would seem that this definition steers us toward a very constant number of elite players. There has always been a group of best players at each position.

Bolded is actually common sense. Would you rather compete with the best at something in a small group or a large group if you want to finish near the top? This is the refuse/refute thing.

If the bolded is a verifiable hypothesis, please present the actual data that confirms it. You have assumed in your example that talent is spread in an even and linear fashion through both the big group and the small group. This works fine in theory. But of course, real world conditions are never so perfectly accommodating. Would you rather attempt to become the best centerman among a large group of Americans at the moment, or the much smaller group of Slovenians? Lo and behold, the much smaller group has managed to provide the greatest obstacle, Anze Kopitar, towards another player emerging as the best. If circumstances dictated that no American players were permitted to play in the NHL during Kopitar's career, the conditions of your thought experiment would lead you to believe that there would have indeed been American centers superior to Kopitar if only they had the opportunity to play.

This is just one of numerous examples. See the comparatively small talent pool of the Czech Republic managing to produce not just one, but two players better than any produced by the much larger Canadian and Russian talent pools in the late 1990's.

Go ahead and evaluate what actually happened but then when you compare it with another era that had a much larger stream of elite talent you can't just pretend the two situations are equal because they aren't.

Yet we ought to pretend that larger talent pools produce greater numbers of elite players in a perfect linear manner, despite evidence to the contrary?

I never said modern players are flat out better than before (if given all the same advancements). They just generally have more competition at the top and that should be accounted for wherever their situation points to this. There's no need to put words in my mouth.

If this wasn't accounted for, this section of the board would seemingly be filled with raging debates pitting the likes of Russell Bowie and Mike Grant against Mario Lemieux and Denis Potvin. I don't recall such debates ever occurring here. It would appear that mental adjustments for quality of competition were made a long time ago.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Comparables

Brimsek is the only real example you have, which makes him the exception to the rule and he didn't face elite European net minders either. You should really avoid bringing up goalies. We've had Americans in Miller, Thomas, and Quick recently plus an incredible amount of European goalies winning the Vezina and garnering AS nominations. The recent list speaks for itself:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/nhl_all_star.html#2010

There's no spin that can avoid reality. The amount, and impact, of Americans in the NHL during the O6 simply pales in comparison to what came afterwards. There was often only a handful of American players each season in this timeframe:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=58943



You will have to point to how many of these early Europeans actually played in the NHL for this point to have any impact on this debate. If they were good enough to play in the NHL and be elite players that is besides the point.

Soviet stars like Kharlamov, Makarov, and Fetisov were no doubt good enough to be stars, and probably superstars, in the NHL in their primes but since they weren't in the league we realize the players they would have been competing with for accolades had an easier path to those accolades because they weren't present. Do you agree with this or not?

So any comparable that blatantly contradicts your view is to be avoided.

Post prime Makarov and Fetisov played in the NHL. Prime Kharlamov, Makarov, Fetisov played against NHL Canadiens in best on best recognized comptitions. Resulting extrapolations for Kharlamov, Makarov, Fetisov as comparables for to NHL players are considered.

Prime Carl Brewer played international hockey between NHL participations. Post prime NHL regulars - Sid Smith, Jacques Plante, Doug Harvey, Gump Worsley and others, Pre Prime NHL greats/regulars Frank Frederickson, Hooley Smith, Bill Cowley, Dunc Munro, Bert McCaffery, Bobby Rousseau, Red Berenson and others all played international hockey covering the period from 1920 to well into the seventies.Yet it is not possible in your model to extrapolate the talent levels of Europeans that these players faced.

You extrapolate to to reach the "no doubt" conclussion about three Soviets who never played in the NHL during their prime yet refuse such extrapolations for eras that are not convenient to your point of view.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
Well winning NHL Awards and post season all star berths is pretty elite right?

Being top 5 in voting for any such award would be considered elite reguardless of era.

Go back and look at those awards again, as it has been presented numerous times, and we can see the elite number of players from the non traditioanl Canadian talent stream change, first with Salming, then a trickle in the 80's and an onslaught post early 90's with many examples of players in the non traditional talent stream being elite.

It's alot more relevant that hockey registration numbers that include recreational players.

So this brings us back to the phantom player argument. Even though we know of no Finnish or Slovak winger that would have challenged Rocket Richard for goal scoring titles in his day, we must assume they would have existed in 1950, had the game began developing in those nations at an earlier date than it actually did.

Alright, let's say we do that. Now, do we also have to account for the fact that no Finnish or Slovak winger has challenged Alex Ovechkin during his recent string of goal scoring titles? If we're going to assume the existence of these phantom players when evaluating Richard, don't we also have to assume their existence right now and consider that Ovechkin benefited from their real-world absence in his domination of the league goal scoring race?

The speculation card is a strawman in that you are trying to say that because one group didn't have that competition that we should just ignore the reality of what happened later on, you know actual events that impacted the NHL.

I have chosen not to break down competition based on what country issued the competition's passport. Reality is evaluating what a player did among the competition that was provided to them in real life. The calculated introduction of phantom players into certain eras but not others in an attempt to validate a pre-conceived result is where the break from reality occurs and we enter into a realm of unbounded speculation.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver


2 things really stand out in the link you provided.

First Taffy was 18 years old when he played his first organized hockey game and yet still made the NHL.

Extremely doubtful that would happen today.

then in 1928 the NYR put in a goaltender who had never played that position before and still win the SC.

also extremely doubtful, like in the 99.999999999999 percentile that would be possible today.

Not sure what it means but it probably says something to the overall quality of the league back then, compared to today.


The comparable was with Ryan Suter, not Gary Suter. Gary Suter was on the aggregate list.

2 things really here as well.

at the time of the top 60 Dman project Suter was 25 and had just completed his 5th NHL season finishing 11th in Norris voting.

since then he has had a 2,4,8,9,15th (and probable top 10 finish again this year.

In the season he finished 11th such traditional talent stream Dmen were ahead of him

1st Duncan Keith from BC
4th Nicklas Lidstrom from Sweden
7th Shea Weber from BC again
8th Zedno Chara Czech
9th Christian Erhoff from Germany
10th Mark Streit from Switzerland
11th Ryan Suter
12th Brian Rafaski United states
13th Brent Seabrook British Columbia

yes that's 3 Dmen from British columbi in a single season for Suter (ar any other Dman that year to compete with) all the while during Clarence "Taffy" Abel has extactly 2 players from BC in the NHL during his entire career, a great goalie Tiny thompson and Ollie Reinikka who played 16 games and had doghnuts across his stat line.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/friv/birthplaces.cgi?country=CA&province=BC&state=

But yet you want to continue to argue that somehow we are supposed to judge both players exactly the same against their piers?

That's just an extremely weak position to take.
 
Last edited:

BobbyAwe

Registered User
Nov 21, 2006
3,442
883
South Carolina
There's only one "real world" way in which to compare the old timer's to today's players and that's to watch them. There are plenty of complete, or near complete games on youtube from the 1960's/1970's. I'm sure most here have seen many of them. I watch the games and take note of the skating, shooting, passing, and goaltending. There is still subjectivity in this, as they are only playing against each other of course, but to me, it does not appear, in general, that the players from those eras were as good as the modern players, even allowing the past players more training and conditioning. Though I do not believe the modern players have a huge edge in skill either. The greater problem for the players of the past would be the size difference. Though, if anything, they were probably tougher pound for pound, I think they would get crushed physically.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
So this brings us back to the phantom player argument. Even though we know of no Finnish or Slovak winger that would have challenged Rocket Richard for goal scoring titles in his day, we must assume they would have existed in 1950, had the game began developing in those nations at an earlier date than it actually did.

Alright, let's say we do that. Now, do we also have to account for the fact that no Finnish or Slovak winger has challenged Alex Ovechkin during his recent string of goal scoring titles? If we're going to assume the existence of these phantom players when evaluating Richard, don't we also have to assume their existence right now and consider that Ovechkin benefited from their real-world absence in his domination of the league goal scoring race?



I have chosen not to break down competition based on what country issued the competition's passport. Reality is evaluating what a player did among the competition that was provided to them in real life. The calculated introduction of phantom players into certain eras but not others in an attempt to validate a pre-conceived result is where the break from reality occurs and we enter into a realm of unbounded speculation.

You continue to bring up this phantom player strawman.

No one is asking you or anyone else to comapre Maurice Richard with any players from Finland or even outside of the traditional talent pool.

what is being asked and would make any conclusions in players comparisons fair and more "accurate", at least as a base starting pint is to not ask that a future players be judged not only against the talent pool that Richard is judged against but an additional one as well.

Judge both players fairly and equally as a starting point against the same consistent standard.

Why is it that you and others either can't or won;t judge players fairly against the same standard?

how is it fair that any player (take Steve Stamkos) be judged against all Canadians (that's how Richard, Frank McGee and pretty much every pre 1980 NHL forward is judged) and also judged against the likes of AO, Malkin, Kane, both Sedins, Backstrom ect..

the fact of the matter is that he is 9th in scoring during his time in the NHL.

it's also factual that only 2 Canadian players have scored more points than him over that time period.

you also asked this earlier


Well, what qualifies a player as "elite"? Top-X finishers in the scoring race? Anyone who received a Hart or All-Star vote? This would have to be determined before any type of accurate number can be assigned.

It's pretty clear that besides Stamkos there have been a fair number of elite NHLer's from the non traditional NHL talent stream during Stamkos time in the NHL.

I guess one could argue (very weakly I might add) that it wasn't a case of those other non Canadians being so good but that Canadian talent isn't as good as it used to be (Sound familiar?)

But yet without Stamkos Canada completely dominated the 14 Olympic Games.

This pier to pier being the same through out time just is a really weak platform to judge players from 2105 to 1954 for example.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
It would seem that this definition steers us toward a very constant number of elite players. There has always been a group of best players at each position.

I said it could be a large or small group. How is that a very constant number? As you can already tell I believe there are more actual elite players at each position now than during the O6 if we are comparing the two eras. That's because it's not just Canadians plus Brimsek anymore and it's clear hockey grew in Canada since then as well.

If the bolded is a verifiable hypothesis, please present the actual data that confirms it. You have assumed in your example that talent is spread in an even and linear fashion through both the big group and the small group. This works fine in theory. But of course, real world conditions are never so perfectly accommodating. Would you rather attempt to become the best centerman among a large group of Americans at the moment, or the much smaller group of Slovenians? Lo and behold, the much smaller group has managed to provide the greatest obstacle, Anze Kopitar, towards another player emerging as the best. If circumstances dictated that no American players were permitted to play in the NHL during Kopitar's career, the conditions of your thought experiment would lead you to believe that there would have indeed been American centers superior to Kopitar if only they had the opportunity to play.

This is just one of numerous examples. See the comparatively small talent pool of the Czech Republic managing to produce not just one, but two players better than any produced by the much larger Canadian and Russian talent pools in the late 1990's.

Yet we ought to pretend that larger talent pools produce greater numbers of elite players in a perfect linear manner, despite evidence to the contrary?

What is your verifiable hypothesis? You must have one if you've compared across eras.

And who said anything about it being perfectly linear? Eventually if the talent pool and sources of elite talent are multiple times larger don't you think that will inevitably produce more elite talent? I wouldn't want to argue that it remains the same because odds are I'd be very wrong in reality.

If this wasn't accounted for, this section of the board would seemingly be filled with raging debates pitting the likes of Russell Bowie and Mike Grant against Mario Lemieux and Denis Potvin. I don't recall such debates ever occurring here. It would appear that mental adjustments for quality of competition were made a long time ago.

You are right, there is a lack of consistency. Posters here who think the way you do dug their feet in for certain eras and players for their own personal reasons.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
So any comparable that blatantly contradicts your view is to be avoided.

Post prime Makarov and Fetisov played in the NHL. Prime Kharlamov, Makarov, Fetisov played against NHL Canadiens in best on best recognized comptitions. Resulting extrapolations for Kharlamov, Makarov, Fetisov as comparables for to NHL players are considered.

Prime Carl Brewer played international hockey between NHL participations. Post prime NHL regulars - Sid Smith, Jacques Plante, Doug Harvey, Gump Worsley and others, Pre Prime NHL greats/regulars Frank Frederickson, Hooley Smith, Bill Cowley, Dunc Munro, Bert McCaffery, Bobby Rousseau, Red Berenson and others all played international hockey covering the period from 1920 to well into the seventies.Yet it is not possible in your model to extrapolate the talent levels of Europeans that these players faced.

You extrapolate to to reach the "no doubt" conclussion about three Soviets who never played in the NHL during their prime yet refuse such extrapolations for eras that are not convenient to your point of view.

Brimsek contradicts me calling the O6 a Canadian domestic league, in terms of where players come from, and he was an elite goalie back then but the amount of Americans and their impact still pales in comparison to the modern era. My overall point stands.

You wisely ignored my post from earlier and it applies to those great Soviets and earlier European comparisons. I'm going to save a lot of time and just post it again.

Post 980:

For the last time, it doesn't even matter why there weren't elite non-Canadians in the NHL, the simple fact that they weren't there is proof enough that it impacted awards and honours in comparisons with the modern era where they are present. It means more elite players... unless you want to theorize that pre-baby boom Canada, which was going through two world wars and a depression, produced more elite players on it's own than the whole world does in the modern era.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
You continue to bring up this phantom player strawman.

No one is asking you or anyone else to comapre Maurice Richard with any players from Finland or even outside of the traditional talent pool.

what is being asked and would make any conclusions in players comparisons fair and more "accurate", at least as a base starting pint is to not ask that a future players be judged not only against the talent pool that Richard is judged against but an additional one as well.

Judge both players fairly and equally as a starting point against the same consistent standard.

Why is it that you and others either can't or won;t judge players fairly against the same standard?

how is it fair that any player (take Steve Stamkos) be judged against all Canadians (that's how Richard, Frank McGee and pretty much every pre 1980 NHL forward is judged) and also judged against the likes of AO, Malkin, Kane, both Sedins, Backstrom ect..

the fact of the matter is that he is 9th in scoring during his time in the NHL.

it's also factual that only 2 Canadian players have scored more points than him over that time period.

you also asked this earlier




It's pretty clear that besides Stamkos there have been a fair number of elite NHLer's from the non traditional NHL talent stream during Stamkos time in the NHL.

I guess one could argue (very weakly I might add) that it wasn't a case of those other non Canadians being so good but that Canadian talent isn't as good as it used to be (Sound familiar?)

But yet without Stamkos Canada completely dominated the 14 Olympic Games.

This pier to pier being the same through out time just is a really weak platform to judge players from 2105 to 1954 for example.

So where do we establish the baseline of who is allowed to be included as standard competition is who should be omitted? Most of Frank McGee's competition emerged from the cities of Montreal or Ottawa. Should all subsequent players have all non-Montreal/Ottawa produced players ignored for comparison purposes? Gretzky still has Lemieux included as a rival under these conditions...but Lemieux does not have to worry about Gretzky.

Next, we have the problem of players from the non-traditional talent streams having their own countrymen omitted. The Sedins get to enjoy the other brother being absent as accepted competition, while also enjoying the benefits of that brother contributing to their success. A nice bonus for both of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->