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

[shazariahl]

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.

I'm not trying to say that the league didn't become more competative over time, or that scoring didn't decrease. Of course it did. And the league today is probably the most competative that its ever been. I realize that makes it harder for people like Crosby to dominate. But that's not really my point - my point is that even under these conditions, Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr would STILL dominate, beyond what we've seen from Crosby. Gretzky did play against the Soviets a lot in international play, and was still the best in the world. He competed in 4 Canada Cup tourneys, and led the entire tournament in scoring all 4 times. That even includes 91 when he got crosschecked by Suter and missed a game (which obviously has a much bigger impact in a shortened tournament, than missing 1 game during an 80+ game season). Would he have won scoring races by 70+ points if he'd played against the Russian superstars all season long? Maybe, maybe not. But he proved over and over he was better than any of them, or anyone else in the world playing, NHL or otherwise.

What about today's game? Sure Gretzky wouldn't be scoring 200+ in today's NHL- but no one here thinks he would. I just disagree with how you are looking at stats. Gretzky puts up seasons of 180+, 160+, and 140+ (while injured and missing time - he was actually averaging 2.3 PPG the season mentioned earlier in the thread, which works out to like 183 pts or so again). To say he "dropped" off, or wasn't as good is strange to me. Sure 180 isn't 215. But NO ONE maintains their exact peak for 10 years. No one. That's why their peak is their peak.

But the fact is, aside from Gretzky, only Lemieux has even broken 160 points. So I don't see how, after 4 seasons of 200+ and several 180+ point seasons, you're saying he was not as dominant. Scoring more points than anyone in history except Lemieux is still pretty dominant. And he did it for multiple seasons. This isn't like Yzerman's 155 season, which is something of an aberation. Gretzky averaged 180 pts for a 10 year span of his career. Bossy only PLAYED 9 full seasons. Orr barely played 10 years. We're talking some of the greatest players ever, and their entire careers lasted as long as Gretzky's prime.

People tend to forget Gretzky played a ton of hockey. Not just regular seasons for 20 years, but deep playoff runs consistantly and international play as well. Crosby didn't go to the worlds last year because between 2 SCF runs with Pittsburgh, the Olympics, and 82 game NHL seasons, he just wanted a break. I don't blame him. But Gretzky did it for the first 15 years of his career, basically non-stop. He was a small guy, with a slight frame. He had a bad back. He developed arthritis in his shoulder. By 20 years he was worn out. Its stupid to say "well, he was only scoring 90ish points a year towards the end, so he'd only be good for that in today's NHL". The Gretzky we saw in 1998 and 1999 was still a great player despite all that - but he was like a 20 year old BMW convertable. Still awesome, but not the same as it was 20 years earlier.

 

[Unaffiliated]

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.

He wasn't washed up. I don't think anyone said he was washed up.


He was past his prime and definitely past his peak.

 

[Rhiessan71]

On another note, here's another thing to consider and prolly an even better way of looking at it with Gretzky with the adjusted craps.

Scoring in Gretzky's record year 85/86 7.94 goals per game
Scoring in Crosby's highest season to date 05/06 6.04 goals per game

A difference of 1.90 goals per game or an average of about 75 goals per team over the course of the season.

Considering that Gretzky accounted for 50.5% of his teams scoring that year, you could also assume he would of only dropped to 178 points from his 215.
A far cry from the 153 that adjusted craps yields for him that year.

Does this just simply make more sense to anyone else besides myself?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

apparently some people forget that this thread exists....

 

[lextune]

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.

This post is filled with basic logic and demonstrable fact and yet so many seem unable to grasp it.

I fear for the future.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.[/QUOTE]

Ray Bourque: First team all-star 1979-80

Ray Bourque: First team all-star 2000-01

 

[Infinite Vision*]

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.[/QUOTE]

Ray Bourque: First team all-star 1979-80

Ray Bourque: First team all-star 2000-01

Yep because we all know Ray Bourque and the league remained exactly the same during that time.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yep because we all know Ray Bourque and the league remained exactly the same during that time.

20 year old Ray Bourque couldn't hold 40 year old Ray Bourque's jock.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Yeah, no doubt.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

... I shudder to think what Wayne Gretzky in his prime would do in a league without the two-line pass.

Or quality defenders, better prepared and conditioned athletes, better goaltending and coaching, if someone was allowed to lay a finger on him.

You gotta take the good with the bad.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Or quality defenders, better prepared and conditioned athletes, better goaltending and coaching, if someone was allowed to lay a finger on him.

You gotta take the good with the bad.

Again, really? They tried laying a lot more than finger on Gretzky since he was what.. 10, 12? He had a long, long time to learn how to survive against bigger players. Like, his whole career.

Secondly, he'd be better prepared and conditioned too if he played today. No one in the history of hockey worked harder at being his best than Wayne Gretzky.

 

[lextune]

Or quality defenders, better prepared and conditioned athletes, better goaltending and coaching, if someone was allowed to lay a finger on him.

You gotta take the good with the bad.

...ahh that old chestnut of ignorance again huh? Man....



I usually just post a link to the thread: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=528494

But recently I came across a great highlight, it is subtle, but very telling.


When Gretzky first gets the puck at center ice, a Hawk comes charging right at him, if he (Gretz) was stupid, he would have tried to skate with the puck and been squashed. Instead he curls away, (lacrosse), almost immediately. Called shying away from contact by most coaches, and will usually get you benched unless you prove your worth in other areas, (like being the greatest offensive force in history...lol).

It was the sort of thing you saw from Wayne a dozen times a game, he is threatened with contact, so he shies away, and gets rid of the puck, if you continued on and hit him anyway, which was certainly tried, (more than once by my Bruins; sadly, with no success in the playoffs), you took yourself completely out of the play he just made....

...and that was the thing. When he "got rid of the puck" it was almost always with a purpose. He made a play.

Wayne didn't do a whole lot of dumping in his career.

 

[shazariahl]

Or quality defenders, better prepared and conditioned athletes, better goaltending and coaching, if someone was allowed to lay a finger on him.

You gotta take the good with the bad.

Are you saying Bourque, Lidstrom, MacInnis, Coffey, Stevens and Chelios weren't quality defenders?

 

[Up the Irons]

to fault Gretz because he 'played in a higher scoring, free-wheeling' era misses a very important point. Gretzky is the reason it was a higher scoring, free-wheeling era. He tore up the league, and the league copied.

Gretz was the perfect storm. His only comparison are the Beatles, the perfect group and the perfect time. Sure, Led Zep were far better musicians, the Stones lasted longer, Elton was as good if not a better writer then Lennon and McCartney, and of course, Michael Jackson had more talent in his gloved hand than the Fab 4 put together... but there is no question who were the greatest and most important and most impactful.

Adjusted stats to compare eras are meaningless.

It may change in time, but right now, 99 is just SO much more impactful , important and greater than 87 that the comparison is ridiculous.

 

[Up the Irons]

i have to address this notion of 'Lidstrom had no competion" business.

hmmm,.... Pronger, Neidermayer, Stevens, Blake, Leetch, Zubov, Hatcher, Chara... not exactly chop liver.

 

[Trottier]

to fault Gretz because he 'played in a higher scoring, free-wheeling' era misses a very important point. Gretzky is the reason it was a higher scoring, free-wheeling era. He tore up the league, and the league copied.

Gretz was the perfect storm. His only comparison are the Beatles, the perfect group and the perfect time. Sure, Led Zep were far better musicians, the Stones lasted longer, Elton was as good if not a better writer then Lennon and McCartney, and of course, Michael Jackson had more talent in his gloved hand than the Fab 4 put together... but there is no question who were the greatest and most important and most impactful.

Adjusted stats to compare eras are meaningless.

It may change in time, but right now, 99 is just SO much more impactful , important and greater than 87 that the comparison is ridiculous.

Interesting analogy. My brother is a long-time music producer/engineer (two time Grammy winner, of which I'm proud) and has worked with musicians across most every genre, from rock, to jazz, even The Three Tenors. He has told me that when the conversation comes around to the greatest musical influence, without exception, the answer is always The Beatles.

A century from now, their music will remain and be remembered where most (all?) others from our lifetime. I tend to think in hockey circles, it will be much the same with #99.

Icons endure.

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 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.

On very rare occasions, critical thought is found among the muck here. Such as these words ^^^.

So simple. So spot on. Context and perspective...instead of the lazy cliches and aged-based stereotypes.

(Yet, predictably, the usual suspects subsequently challenge it. Classic! )

 

[VMBM]

to fault Gretz because he 'played in a higher scoring, free-wheeling' era misses a very important point. Gretzky is the reason it was a higher scoring, free-wheeling era. He tore up the league, and the league copied.

Gretz was the perfect storm. His only comparison are the Beatles, the perfect group and the perfect time. Sure, Led Zep were far better musicians, the Stones lasted longer, Elton was as good if not a better writer then Lennon and McCartney, and of course, Michael Jackson had more talent in his gloved hand than the Fab 4 put together... but there is no question who were the greatest and most important and most impactful.

Adjusted stats to compare eras are meaningless.

It may change in time, but right now, 99 is just SO much more impactful , important and greater than 87 that the comparison is ridiculous.

Till the bolded part, I was sort of nodding along, but then...

Elton - or Elton and Bernie - might have a small case with either Lennon OR McCartney but not with Lennon AND McCartney. And this even though I know that L and M often wrote their stuff quite separately - especially in the Beatles' later years.

Okay, no one in the Beatles could dance like Michael Jackson , but c'mon, they created more memorable music and were far more prolific. And some of Jackson's biggest hits were actually written by Rod Temperton (Thriller, Rock With You). Jackson did 'rule the world' for a while in the '80s, but it's not enough.

And let's not forget that Paul McCartney is a multi-instrumentalist, although truly legendary only as a bass player.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Red Army Choir

Till the bolded part, I was sort of nodding along, but then...

Elton - or Elton and Bernie - might have a small case with either Lennon OR McCartney but not with Lennon AND McCartney. And this even though I know that L and M often wrote their stuff quite separately - especially in the Beatles' later years.

Okay, no one in the Beatles could dance like Michael Jackson , but c'mon, they created more memorable music and were far more prolific. And some of Jackson's biggest hits were actually written by Rod Temperton (Thriller, Rock With You). Jackson did 'rule the world' for a while in the '80s, but it's not enough.

And let's not forget that Paul McCartney is a multi-instrumentalist, although truly legendary only as a bass player.

Yet none could interpret a song like the Red Army Choir although the RAC were not known as song writers and were questionable dancers.

 

[seventieslord]

Till the bolded part, I was sort of nodding along, but then...

Elton - or Elton and Bernie - might have a small case with either Lennon OR McCartney but not with Lennon AND McCartney. And this even though I know that L and M often wrote their stuff quite separately - especially in the Beatles' later years.

Okay, no one in the Beatles could dance like Michael Jackson , but c'mon, they created more memorable music and were far more prolific. And some of Jackson's biggest hits were actually written by Rod Temperton (Thriller, Rock With You). Jackson did 'rule the world' for a while in the '80s, but it's not enough.

And let's not forget that Paul McCartney is a multi-instrumentalist, although truly legendary only as a bass player.

Totally agree. I was really surprised to see such hyperbole used regarding MJ, particularly in comparison to the Beatles.

 

[Up the Irons]

Totally agree. I was really surprised to see such hyperbole used regarding MJ, particularly in comparison to the Beatles.

boys, you're digressing. it was an example to describe Gretzky's greatness. Hyperbole? sure (though IMHO, and I'm not alone, I do think there has never been a total package talent like MJ). but the thread is not "who was the greatest rock/pop artist"

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

Here's one consideration I haven't heard: 99's detractors always say Gretzky wouldn't dominate today like he did then... well, would Crosby or OV or anyone else dominate like Gretzky did if they were transplanted to 1980? not a chance in h-ll.
They would both be exactly what they are now, only then. IOW, comparable to Lafleur, Messier, Jagr, Yzerman, Clarke.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

...ahh that old chestnut of ignorance again huh? Man....



I usually just post a link to the thread: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=528494

But recently I came across a great highlight, it is subtle, but very telling.


When Gretzky first gets the puck at center ice, a Hawk comes charging right at him, if he (Gretz) was stupid, he would have tried to skate with the puck and been squashed. Instead he curls away, (lacrosse), almost immediately. Called shying away from contact by most coaches, and will usually get you benched unless you prove your worth in other areas, (like being the greatest offensive force in history...lol).

It was the sort of thing you saw from Wayne a dozen times a game, he is threatened with contact, so he shies away, and gets rid of the puck, if you continued on and hit him anyway, which was certainly tried, (more than once by my Bruins; sadly, with no success in the playoffs), you took yourself completely out of the play he just made....

...and that was the thing. When he "got rid of the puck" it was almost always with a purpose. He made a play.

Wayne didn't do a whole lot of dumping in his career.

Great find.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

boys, you're digressing. it was an example to describe Gretzky's greatness. Hyperbole? sure (though IMHO, and I'm not alone, I do think there has never been a total package talent like MJ). but the thread is not "who was the greatest rock/pop artist"

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

Here's one consideration I haven't heard: 99's detractors always say Gretzky wouldn't dominate today like he did then... well, would Crosby or OV or anyone else dominate like Gretzky did if they were transplanted to 1980? not a chance in h-ll.
They would both be exactly what they are now, only then. IOW, comparable to Lafleur, Messier, Jagr, Yzerman, Clarke.

Yeah, uh... no.

See post #95 of the "this one gave me a laugh" thread.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Wow, really?

Once again, it's basic math. I'm so sure of it I don't care to explain it, you're smart enough to figure it out on your own.

The sky is blue. Prove it.

What is basic math?

The idea that it's 5 times easier to get individual awards with 1/5 the number of teams only works if the only hockey players in the world were in the same league.

That is obviously false.

 

[Derick*]

What is basic math?

The idea that it's 5 times easier to get individual awards with 1/5 the number of teams only works if the only hockey players in the world were in the same league.

That is obviously false.

Seriously.

If we decided to expand to 60 teams today would all those second liners that are now first liners magically become better because they're playing in a larger league?

If we decided to contract to 15 teams today would all those first liners that are now second liners magically become worse because they're playing in a smaller league?

When the league expands and contracts it doesn't do so by cloning all the players (and all the regions players come from) so that all the new teams have the same amount of talent. The talent becomes more divided among the teams. The total amount of competition for individual awards is unaffected.

The best players in the world play in the NHL. The ones who aren't in the league wouldn't be competing for trophies anyway. Gordie Howe would have been winning his Hart trophies regardless of whether Colby Armstrong was in the league.

There's other factors over time, yes, and if people want to adjust for development and the pool of players and Europe, that's another discussion, but to act like the number of teams specifically has a proportionate effect is obnoxiously ignorant. Only one player in the world gets that trophy regardless of the number of teams.

I can only assume anyone defending it is just doing so because they're embarrassed to have made the mistake in the first place or because they're the type of person to never accept it when they've been corrected.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

What is basic math?

The idea that it's 5 times easier to get individual awards with 1/5 the number of teams only works if the only hockey players in the world were in the same league.

That is obviously false.

That there's more people competing for scoring placements in a 30 team league drawing from a far larger population of talent from multiple countries than there is in a 6 team league compromised purely of players from Canada...

I'm not saying it's 5 times easier to do what they did, who really knows, it's actually just basic math though as crazy as that is for you to believe, lol... nothing personal on original 6 players.

You'll figure it out somewhere along the way if you care to.