BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,856
- 3,820
The all encompassing "players of today vs players from the past" thread
- Thread starter TheDevilMadeMe
- Start date
- Status
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
Actually...the point was completely lost on you.
I wasn't even referring to goals being harder to come by, I was referring to how the speed of the game and the salary cap does just as much to water down the overall talent in the league as limited rosters spots did in a 21 team league.
Once again, no one is saying that Gretz or Mario push 200+ points today, all that's being said is that both of them would still bury Crosby's point totals.
Also, Gretz and Mario played against the other teams best defensive D pairing on a regular basis as well as getting their own personal "shadow" so it's not like they just got to run around free wheeling as you're inferring.
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
I already expressly stated I was wrong about Sid not edging out Stevie after 5 years and I'm not going to get into the rest of the peak/career value stuff with you, especially if Adjusted craps is the main basis of your argument.
...and once again I say Crosby is still closer to the Yzerman's ect than to Gretz and Mario. He hasn't even caught Jagr yet in the majority of opinions for pete's sake.
Same ballpark my ass, he's not even on the same continent yet.
Oh and you most certainly stated that Crosby's skill set was on par with Gretzky's, even saying that you thought Gretzky would even agree with that ridiculous statement.
I think Devil answered this one pretty clearly already.
Actually a few people did mention that they would score just as well and at least one guy said that Mario would score even more with the limited checking (his view, not mine) in today's game.
Go back and watch some games from the early 80's and look at the time and space that Gretzky and Lemieux have comapred to todays players. time and space is esstentail to any player to use their skill in the NHL (or any league for that matter).
It is certainly debatable to how much more success either past superstar would have with the pace, speed and limited time and space in today's game over Crosby if they were in his place.
I was at the Vancouver St. Louis game last night and the time and space that any player had on the ice was defeintely alot less than players had in the 80's.
St. Louis was missing 3 of their top 6 players and thier 2nd and 3rd lines didn't lack for any talent, they skated and worked hard all night long. Guys didn't take shifts off like they did back in the day and everyone on the team is expected to help out on defense as well.
Edler did look a bit like a pylon though as Steen outworked him on the GWG.
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
Even if Stamkos doesn't "hang" with him and only finishes with 60 goals and 110-120 points, that's still better than anything Crosby did in his first 3 years, especially after I use your own adjusted craps and league scoring levels against you.
Therefore by your very own reasoning in your Crosby over Yzerman conclusion, would mean Stamkos is better than Crosby.
See what I did there, this is fun
I know that you don't like adjsuted stats and believe somehow that a goal is the same in 1982 than it is in 2011, not sure when you are going to face reality on that issue.
As for Wayne and Marios' wingers, they were alot better than Sid's in their big scoring years. Both those teams had some really good scorers and both teams played pretty offensive styles, can't remember either Wayne or Mario spending much time on defense.
Look Sid has a long way to go to match Wayne's or Mario's career but he is closer to Wayne than Stevie Y after 5 seasons IMO, but if you refuse to look at the difference in the abilty to score goals in Stevie Y's days to now then I can see why you are stuck on your opinion.
jkrx
Registered User
- Feb 4, 2010
- 4,337
- 21
What are you arguing for here? What does how "easy" or hard it was to score goals have to do with accomplishments and domination? It was harder to score in the 50s than now yet Howe won the point race by ~20 points.
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
Never said they were the same value and I don't take raw totals at value but neither do I take adjusted craps at value either especially when dealing with outliers like Wayne and Mario.
It's actually ridiculous to sit there and say Gretzky loses upwards of 60 points in a given year while other top 10 scorers from the exact same year only lose 10-15 points, it just doesn't make any sense.
Ummm...the wingers Devil mentioned were from Mario's 199 season...nuff said.
Dude...even using your adjusted craps at face value, Gretzky is still what, 200-250 points ahead of Crosby at the same point.
That's 40-50 points a season for pete's sake, give your head a shake son.
The total amount Crosby is ahead of the Yzerman's is pretty much what Gretzky is beating him by per season heh.
I've said a couple times now, I have no problem trying to find some middle ground with you but all you want to do is stick with extremes.
Last edited:
VMBM
And it didn't even bring me down
Yes, Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux etc. would still be dominating today. They had the sort of 'once in a blue moon' talent that you just can't teach. And they would have the same advantages as the modern players in terms of training, coaching, equipment and so forth. There are some great players in history who I'm not totally sure of, like Phil Esposito, but even he would be at least faster and stronger today because he'd have to be.
I've always looked at it as 'what if they had been born x years later' rather than 'what if they were moved from year x into today's game'. In the latter case, of course they would struggle. But it's a silly argument IMO.
I've always looked at it as 'what if they had been born x years later' rather than 'what if they were moved from year x into today's game'. In the latter case, of course they would struggle. But it's a silly argument IMO.
Pardon?
The raw scoring totals were lower yeah, but it wasn't harder to dominate then.
The NHL wasn't nearly as deep in the early 50's as it was even in the later 50's and 60's, some of the older guys here would probably attest to that. The NHL still lacked parity from the war compared to an average NHL season.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,342
- 13,109
Watching them play each other demonstrates quite clearly Chamberlain's domination of Russell. Even just looking at box scores will demonstrate which player was more dominant. It isn't close. Russell's teams dominated Chamberlain's teams. The championships demonstrate this. Chamberlain dominated Russell individually. Visual and statistical evidence demonstrate this.
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
Gretzky and Lemieux are not the same though, why should they be subject to the same percentage as the players far below them.
The 5th best scorer in the league only loses 5 goals and then you have the gall to say Lemieux and Gretzky would lose 20-30 goals...gimme a break dude.
That is just ridiculous.
Oh I forgot, Recchi, LeClair, Palffy, Sykora and Malone are all crap.
C'mon dude, Brown was a great junior player but his only top end seasons in the NHL were on Mario's wing and he couldn't hold down an NHL job only 4 years after that.
What are talking about, according to you and Hardy, every player in the league is superior today so if anything Crosby has had much better linemates.
All this from a guy that believes Forsberg would more than double his goal production and beat Mario in assists if he played in the 80's....not unreasonable at all
When all is said and done and you take away all the modern advancements in training, coaching and equipment you are left with talent and instinct and no one compares to Mario, Gretzky and Orr in those area's.
The end.
Like has been said a million times now, if your "theories" held any weight then there is no possible way that Mario should of been able to do what he did less than a decade ago and there is absolutely no chance in hell that Lidstrom should even still be in the league let alone still holding top 5 recognition.
Last edited:
With reference to the bolded part, below is a link to an article from early 1991 that remarks upon youth hockey registration in Canada falling during the eighties.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1118904/2/index.htm
Presumably the Canadian population grew during that time, so we can't assume a linear link between population growth and hockey players. I don't know how many sources are available on the number of registered hockey players down the years to shed more light on this matter.
lazerbullet
Registered User
I think that Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr and Howe would easily be better than current stars. Their natural ability (hockey sense and skill) was so high. Would they rip everyone to pieces? Yes, but those pieces would be a bit bigger nowadays. I can Gretzky scoring around 190 points and close to 80 goals in his best years. All this, if he is born in 1987, or so.
But other talented players like Bossy or Richard would not be able to put a very wide gap between them and the others, in current time and date. They were not simply that far above in natural ability.
But other talented players like Bossy or Richard would not be able to put a very wide gap between them and the others, in current time and date. They were not simply that far above in natural ability.
I don't really understand this arguement. Sure it was easier to score in the 80's. We all know that. But it was easier for EVERYONE to score in the 80's. The fact that Gretzky won 10 scoring titles and 9 Harts doesn't somehow lose its meaning just because it was easier to score back then, because he was playing under the same conditions as everyone else. If the Fuhr wore today's goal equipment, and the rest of the league wore the stuff from the 80's, then it would matter. But that's not what happened. Gretzky played in the same environment as his peers, and dominated far more than Crosby has, playing against his peers.
I don't really see how that point is even debatable. Crosby has 1 Art Ross, and 1 Hart, after 5 seasons. Gretzky had 4 Art Rosses, 5 Harts, and had even tied for the Art Ross his first season but lost it on goals. This is not to diminish Crosby's achievements, but to say he's in the same ballpark as Wayne is simply wrong. In the past 5 years that Crosby's been in the NHL, we've had 5 different people win the scoring title. NO ONE has come to clearly dominate their peers in the NHL today. Crosby and AO are elite in the sense that they are always among the best, but they aren't consistantly THE best year after year after year. Gretzky and Lemieux were, and by huge margins.
People can say what they want about conditioning, shorter shifts, etc, but there's no reason people like Gretzky or Lemieux wouldn't have adapted. Both played 30-40 second shifts in the Canada Cup finals, and look how well both played there. Furthermore, we've seen players like Roenick, Chelios, and Bourque all play from through the 80s/90s/2000s and manage to adapt to the changes just fine. Mario played in the 2000's and was still great. Gretzky played in the late 90's and was still top 5 in scoring, even as an older player with an arthritic shoulder and a herniated back.
Look at Jagr, as a great midpoint. Gretzky and Lemieux were both clearly better than Jagr. But after Mario's retirement, Jagr went on to win 5 scoring titles of his own. Jagr only overlapped with Crosby and AO for 2 seasons, his last 2 in the NHL. The 1st he outscored both, putting up 123 pts - a mark neither has yet to equal. His 2nd, he was outscored by Crosby, but still outscored AO. Now granted, both these players were young, and 2 seasons is a small sample size. But Jagr was also older, and clearly past his prime. Yet he outscored AO both years, and Crosby 1 of 2. He put up more points during the modern game, against these players, than either have in their careers. And despite all this, no one on earth including Jagr's mom thinks he was better than Gretzky or Lemieux. If today's superstars couldn't dominate an over the hill Jagr, how would they possibly dominate a prime Gretzky or Lemieux?
The "younger players are better" theory sounds great on paper. It fits what many want to think about the sport - that its somehow evolved to new heights never seen before, or the mentality that what's happening now is automatically "better" than what's happened in the past. But this theory falls apart in the face of the actual evidence of players who've played through three decades of hockey and can still compete, or dominance vs the players who overlapped their careers.
Last edited:
Fair enough to look into all factors. For instance, we know that Gretzky's goalscoring cut back after 4-on-4 penalties disappeared in 85.
On the other hand, if a player scores so prolifically that his notching 142 points in a season can prompt dark mutterings of "dropping off", perhaps its worth bearing in mind that even genius has a shelf life.
I think its an interesting approach to examine Gretzky's career and devote much time into asking why he stopped scoring 200 points in a season, given everyone else's scoring peaks at the same time show that his breaking the 200 barrier was astounding. Even a "dropping off" Gretzky was putting more than ten points between himself and everyone not called Lemieux. When offensive peak Yzerman grabbed 155, Gretzky got 168. When offensive peak Messier got 129, Gretzky got 142. His margin of victory in 1994 was ten points. If we assume the league was changing all throughout his career, he surmounted one new challenge after another.
WilliamRanford
Registered User
- Sep 24, 2008
- 176
- 0
After reading this thread, I think the best arguments have been ones centred around players who straddle eras (Jagr, Bourque, etc).
I figured the best thing to do would be to identify players who a) played more than one meaningful season in the 1980s, b) played throughout the dead-puck inter-lockout period, and c) played parts of at least two meaningful seasons after the most recent lockout.
I restricted my search to scoring forwards and defensemen who stayed in that role consistently throughout their careers -- defensive players sometimes have outlier seasons that they were used on the powerplay that skew the stability of their season-to-season numbers, and certain players (Chelios) saw their roles change considerably.
6 players fit my analysis: Brendan Shanahan, Scott Mellanby, Pierre Turgeon, Mathieu Schneider, Gary Roberts, and Joe Nieuwendyk. All of these players played between 6 and 9 seasons in the high flying pre-lockout era, 9 to 10 seasons in the dead puck era (roberts missed 96-97 with injury), and 2 to 5 seasons in the post-lockout era.
I created a matrix for each player, that shows their point per game average for all three eras (pre-lockout I, Dead-Puck Era, and post-lockout II), and also their adjusted point per game average that's normalized to 1987 (no specific reason for that year, I just picked one).
It gives you a sense of how these players performed in each era. The null hypothesis is that as the game changed out of the high-flying 80's/early 90s, players of a previous era would be outclassed by the faster/stronger/more talented players of a new era. Therefore, both their raw points per game and adjusted points per game should decrease noticeably with time, as they're outclassed by modern progeny.
The Results
Brendan Shanahan
Scoring Era P/G Adj P/G
Pre-Lockout I 0.93 0.97
Dead Puck Era 0.89 1.18
Post Lockout II 0.79 0.98
Scott Mellanby
Scoring Era P/G Adj P/G
Pre-Lockout I 0.58 0.60
Dead Puck Era 0.61 0.81
Post Lockout II 0.49 0.61
Pierre Turgeon
Scoring Era P/G Adj P/G
Pre-Lockout I 1.17 1.21
Dead Puck Era 0.95 1.25
Post Lockout II 0.67 0.80
Mathieu Schneider
Scoring Era P/G Adj P/G
Pre-Lockout I 0.54 0.58
Dead Puck Era 0.56 0.75
Post Lockout II 0.64 0.80
Gary Roberts
Scoring Era P/G Adj P/G
Pre-Lockout I 0.85 0.88
Dead Puck Era 0.71 0.96
Post Lockout II 0.53 0.66
Joe Nieuwendyk
Scoring Era P/G Adj P/G
Pre-Lockout I 1.07 1.10
Dead Puck Era 0.77 1.03
Post Lockout II 0.80 0.96
Analysis
In two out of 6 cases, raw dead puck points per game are higher than pre-lockout. In 5 out of 6 cases, adjusted dead puck points per game are higher than pre-lockout. In three out of 6 cases, their adjusted post-lockout points per game (in seasons no earlier than age 36) are higher than their barn-burning pre-lockout youths.
Using these 6 barometers, I think people should start accepting the fact that we generally over-value the present. Players who were good in the 80s were good in the 90s and were good in the 2000s ... their performance did not discernibly decrease at all. If the game evolved in that time, these players proved that they could evolve right along with it, and keep their level of play relatively consistent.
I figured the best thing to do would be to identify players who a) played more than one meaningful season in the 1980s, b) played throughout the dead-puck inter-lockout period, and c) played parts of at least two meaningful seasons after the most recent lockout.
I restricted my search to scoring forwards and defensemen who stayed in that role consistently throughout their careers -- defensive players sometimes have outlier seasons that they were used on the powerplay that skew the stability of their season-to-season numbers, and certain players (Chelios) saw their roles change considerably.
6 players fit my analysis: Brendan Shanahan, Scott Mellanby, Pierre Turgeon, Mathieu Schneider, Gary Roberts, and Joe Nieuwendyk. All of these players played between 6 and 9 seasons in the high flying pre-lockout era, 9 to 10 seasons in the dead puck era (roberts missed 96-97 with injury), and 2 to 5 seasons in the post-lockout era.
I created a matrix for each player, that shows their point per game average for all three eras (pre-lockout I, Dead-Puck Era, and post-lockout II), and also their adjusted point per game average that's normalized to 1987 (no specific reason for that year, I just picked one).
It gives you a sense of how these players performed in each era. The null hypothesis is that as the game changed out of the high-flying 80's/early 90s, players of a previous era would be outclassed by the faster/stronger/more talented players of a new era. Therefore, both their raw points per game and adjusted points per game should decrease noticeably with time, as they're outclassed by modern progeny.
The Results
Brendan Shanahan
Scoring Era P/G Adj P/G
Pre-Lockout I 0.93 0.97
Dead Puck Era 0.89 1.18
Post Lockout II 0.79 0.98
Scott Mellanby
Scoring Era P/G Adj P/G
Pre-Lockout I 0.58 0.60
Dead Puck Era 0.61 0.81
Post Lockout II 0.49 0.61
Pierre Turgeon
Scoring Era P/G Adj P/G
Pre-Lockout I 1.17 1.21
Dead Puck Era 0.95 1.25
Post Lockout II 0.67 0.80
Mathieu Schneider
Scoring Era P/G Adj P/G
Pre-Lockout I 0.54 0.58
Dead Puck Era 0.56 0.75
Post Lockout II 0.64 0.80
Gary Roberts
Scoring Era P/G Adj P/G
Pre-Lockout I 0.85 0.88
Dead Puck Era 0.71 0.96
Post Lockout II 0.53 0.66
Joe Nieuwendyk
Scoring Era P/G Adj P/G
Pre-Lockout I 1.07 1.10
Dead Puck Era 0.77 1.03
Post Lockout II 0.80 0.96
Analysis
In two out of 6 cases, raw dead puck points per game are higher than pre-lockout. In 5 out of 6 cases, adjusted dead puck points per game are higher than pre-lockout. In three out of 6 cases, their adjusted post-lockout points per game (in seasons no earlier than age 36) are higher than their barn-burning pre-lockout youths.
Using these 6 barometers, I think people should start accepting the fact that we generally over-value the present. Players who were good in the 80s were good in the 90s and were good in the 2000s ... their performance did not discernibly decrease at all. If the game evolved in that time, these players proved that they could evolve right along with it, and keep their level of play relatively consistent.
Lots of things going on here. First of all Jagr at 33 wasn't washed up when he outscored a 20 yr old AO and an 18 year old Crosby so to draw the line back to Lemieux that way is very flawed.
People are missing some points here as well. the best player, ie most skilled today is probably Crosby and he isn't playing in the same league or situation that either Wayne or Mario played in.
Mario and even more so Wayne were enver asked to play deefesne and played all out offesne and in their best seasosn played with some really decent scoring forawrds. Go look at the guys crosby is playign with. stall ahsn't played all year, who knows were Malkin's head is at.
Try to tell em that Wayne or Mario could do 20-50% better than what Crosby is doing with that set of forwards and the current state of the NHL today were everyone blocks shots and plays very intense defense and systems are much more at play than before.
Guys are still avoiding on how Mario peaked at age 23 with 199 points and Gretzky dipped after the age of 25.
Both were still great players and led the league in scoring after that as well but their dominance diminished. I think that maybe one of the reasons why is that the NHL changes from year to year and has been getting more competitive until the level of were it is now.
Something else I was thinking about today was the number of empty net points that Wayne got, it was a lot more than happens today and part of that is because the game has changed quite a bit since Wayne's last superhuman peak season in 87.
Also the concept of being able to dominate by the best of the best, Wayne, Mario, Sid is a lot easier in a weaker league than in a league were everyone plays harder, faster and smarter.
I'll leave with these comments, Doug McLean the former Columbus coach was being interviewed on the radio today and quoted Bill Guerin who Played against all 3 players and put Sid up there with the other 2 guys in terms of skill and talent. McLean concurred with this. Maybe at some point Sid will get his due with what he has done so far in his career.
Yeah but there is an interview on youtube where wilt says the celtics would have won fewer rings with him on the team instead of russell. He says he would have taken away the amount of shots that heinsohn and sam jones were taking and bill was the missing piece that they needed. How many rings did bob cousy win before bill arrived? ZERO.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,342
- 13,109
I've seen that interview, and also interviews where Wilt said that he would have won as many championships had the roles switched, and even one where Russell said that Wilt could have played his role better than he did. Hardly conclusive evidence. They became good friends later in life and were known to greatly praise each other. I even agree that Russell was a better fit for that team, just like Rodman was a better fit for the Bulls in the late 90s than someone like Olajuwon would have been. I don't know what Cousy has to do with anything in this context. There is no need to discuss Chamberlain and Russell anyway, since there is enough video for anyone to go watch them play head to head and watch Chamberlain dominate Russell.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,195
- 14,620
One of the reasons for this is that the league scoring levels decreased as these players aged. For example, Gretzky scored 97 points in 1997, which looks like a huge decrease in production compared to his 1986 peak of 215 points. If you adjust this it works out to something like 135 points. That's still a big drop, but a significant component of the perceived drop in Gretzky's peak is simply due to the fact that the league as a whole became lower-scoring as he aged.
In other words: his adjusted stats decreased over time, but at a much slower rate than the decrease in his unadjusted stats.
Also, the human body deteriorates with age. The fact that Gretzky scored less at 35 compared to 25 is not at all surprising -- all other things being equal, age alone would cause him to score less with age even if he played in leagues of the same quality. Not sure how old you are, but you will experience this yourself as you age and pass your physical peak.
I'm confused - you said that Gretzky was never asked to play defense. Then you say he scored a lot of empty net goals - typically players can only do this when they're on the ice to protect a lead late in a game. Which is it?
I'll take your last point 1st as I watched Wayne beat up my Canucks a ton in the early 80's.
Greztky was never asked to play defense, even when he was out late in the game the only thing he wass concerned about was scoring goals or getting points for the team. the Oiler motto, especially early on was to win game 7-5.
Also to your 1st point I understand that the league was moving to less goals scored per game and more competitive night in and night out, some over posters just don't want to admit these changes.
Mario "peaked" really early at age 23 in actual stats but was still a monster in his entire career, probably the most pure skilled guy to ever play the game IMO.
And yes I'm fully aware of how the body breaks down, I'm in my early 40's and do a semi manual job and still play ball hockey competitively once a week and recover the 6 days after wards.
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
Crosby has had good wingers in the past and it's pretty convenient to ignore the fact he has Makin there on every PP and late in games.
Is it really hard to realise that they slowed down after years of wear and tear.
It was very clear with Gretzky that he was never quite the same after Suter's crosscheck screwed up his back and Mario had this whole cancer thing
The league tightening up had an effect of course but that was not the main reason nor did it have the biggest effect.
Mario's comeback season in 00/01 shows without a doubt that his health was the only thing holding him back not the "evolution" of the league.
What's more, you still have no logical reason under your "theories" why generation spanning players like Jagr, Lidstrom and Nieuwendyk were still top players no matter the "era".
Sorry, your crap simply don't fly sir.
Is it really hard to realise that they slowed down after years of wear and tear.
It was very clear with Gretzky that he was never quite the same after Suter's crosscheck screwed up his back and Mario had this whole cancer thing
The league tightening up had an effect of course but that was not the main reason nor did it have the biggest effect.
Mario's comeback season in 00/01 shows without a doubt that his health was the only thing holding him back not the "evolution" of the league.
What's more, you still have no logical reason under your "theories" why generation spanning players like Jagr, Lidstrom and Nieuwendyk were still top players no matter the "era".
Sorry, your crap simply don't fly sir.
- Status
