WHA and KHL Similarities and Influences

[Canadiens1958]

It is accepted by most that the arrival of the WHA on the hockey scene in 1972 had an impact on the NHL in terms of talent levels.

This leads to a rather obvious question. What about the impact of the KHL which arrived on the hockey scene post lock-out in 2008? The lost NHL season - 2004-05, saw NHL players, including North American born players,play in various European leagues including Russia.This gave the European hockey community an excellent template re the demand, capabilities and potential for a league competing with the NHL. By 2008 the KHL based in Russia was a reality,featuring 24 teams.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/280.html

Let's start the discussion with some numbers that focus on three European hockey playing nations.For the sake of brevity, Russia will be used throughout.

PLAYERS IN THE NHL/SKATERS
(1992-93/2003-04/2010-11)
RUSSIA: respectively 49/72/34
SWEDEN: respectively 22/49/41
FINLAND: respectively 10/31/21

Goalies will be looked at later as will other countries. The trend to an increased European presence in the NHL between 1992-93 and 2003-04 was not sustained post lock-out and is decreasing creating an impact that produces a talent lag at the bottom 1/2 to 1/3 for all the 30 NHL teams.

Click to read more...

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

It might also be useful to look at percentage of total NHL skaters since league size was not the same in all 3 of those years.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

The trend to an increased European presence in the NHL between 1992-93 and 2003-04 was not sustained post lock-out and is decreasing creating an impact that produces a talent lag at the bottom 1/2 to 1/3 for all the 30 NHL teams.

Is there any way to tell how many of the European players are Top 6 forwards/Top 4 Defensemen compared to Bottom 6/Bottom Pair?

It would make sense to me that the top players are still coming to the NHL, but the lower line/pair players are playing in the KHL instead.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Team Dependent

Is there any way to tell how many of the European players are Top 6 forwards/Top 4 Defensemen compared to Bottom 6/Bottom Pair?

It would make sense to me that the top players are still coming to the NHL, but the lower line/pair players are playing in the KHL instead.

Team dependent question within a league wide talent issue. Example a Roman Hamrlik. depending on the team could be viewed as a potential top pairing dman if Toronto feels he can regain the synergy he had with Phaneuf in Calgary, top four as he was in Montreal or bottom pairing on a team like Philly with depth on the defense. Yet his actual talent does not change just the role and results based on circumstances.

 

[begbeee]

Team dependent question within a league wide talent issue. Example a Roman Hamrlik. depending on the team could be viewed as a potential top pairing dman if Toronto feels he can regain the synergy he had with Phaneuf in Calgary, top four as he was in Montreal or bottom pairing on a team like Philly with depth on the defense. Yet his actual talent does not change just the role and results based on circumstances.

Yeah, that gave players like Hamrlik possibility to leave NHL and play in KHL, where they can play a bigger role on a team with same or (this is important!) even better salary.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Well, at the same time there's been a considerable increase of Americans in the league. Could it be that Americans are increasingly squeezing Europeans out of NHL jobs rather than this being the result of the KHL throwing a lot of money at some European starlets? The European route for disgruntled stars and guys who want to make some good money before retirement has existed for a while after all and though the Russian oligarchs now pay better than previously, one can think of previous examples of quite solid ex-NHLers going to Switzerland etc.

It would make sense for a NHL team to go with an American over a European. Less of a concern about adaptability and cultural compatibility, easier to watch and steer their development.

 

[Reds4Life]

KHL has a limit - 5 foreign (as in, non-Russian) players per team. Something to consider.


KHL is not meant to compete with the NHL. It can't. If they get 8000 people to the arena, it's a huge success. Only a few KHL teams can get that "high". And the tickets are sold for peanuts. KHL is kind of a political tool IMHO..to make Russians feel better about themselves and their hockey. Also, majority of Russian hockey players prefer to stay in Russia (for various reasons), except for the very elite players, obviously.

So I think that comparing WHA and KHL is not really relevant.

 

[Hanji]

Like already stated, the geographic shift in the world talent pool must be factored into the equation. The United States is producing NHLrs at an exponentially larger rate. Likewise, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are failing to produce talent on the scale it used to.
And, as previously stated, the KHL has a limit on imports.

 

[Mathradio]

The KHL didn't water down the NHL product that much.

 

[finchster]

KHL has a limit - 5 foreign (as in, non-Russian) players per team. Something to consider.


KHL is not meant to compete with the NHL. It can't. If they get 8000 people to the arena, it's a huge success. Only a few KHL teams can get that "high". And the tickets are sold for peanuts. KHL is kind of a political tool IMHO..to make Russians feel better about themselves and their hockey. Also, majority of Russian hockey players prefer to stay in Russia (for various reasons), except for the very elite players, obviously.

So I think that comparing WHA and KHL is not really relevant.

But the whole point is to compare the loss of talent from the NHL. For example a team like Ufa in my opinion would be competitive in the NHL, maybe not a playoff team but certainly not the worst team. They have plenty of former NHL players and maybe a few players who could have played in the NHL.

 

[Canadiens1958]

USA Talent Pool

Like already stated, the geographic shift in the world talent pool must be factored into the equation. The United States is producing NHLrs at an exponentially larger rate. Likewise, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are failing to produce talent on the scale it used to.
And, as previously stated, the KHL has a limit on imports.

The geographic shift will be looked at later.

Figures for USA Skaters in the NHL follow for the same time frame:

USA SKATERS
(1992-93/2003-04/2010/11) yields (131/147/170)

Not even a whole number exponent greater than or equal to 2.

 

[Reds4Life]

But the whole point is to compare the loss of talent from the NHL. For example a team like Ufa in my opinion would be competitive in the NHL, maybe not a playoff team but certainly not the worst team. They have plenty of former NHL players and maybe a few players who could have played in the NHL.

Not a chance. Except for handful of players (Radulov is likely the best and he's not even that good). IMHO KHL gets only players that can't get used to the NA culture (Radulov), old veterans (Yashin) and a ton of average Russian hockey players. I would say they are insignificant talent thieves.

 

[Zine]

Not a chance. Except for handful of players (Radulov is likely the best and he's not even that good). IMHO KHL gets only players that can't get used to the NA culture (Radulov), old veterans (Yashin) and a ton of average Russian hockey players. I would say they are insignificant talent thieves.

To be fair, if the 05-06 Capitals could win 29 games, there's no reason a team like Ufa or SKA couldn't.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000492006.html


In fact, Capitals top 3 d-men from that year all eventually played in KHL....and as a group weren't anything overly special.

 

[yunost]

KHL is not meant to compete with the NHL. It can't. If they get 8000 people to the arena, it's a huge success. Only a few KHL teams can get that "high". And the tickets are sold for peanuts. KHL is kind of a political tool IMHO..to make Russians feel better about themselves and their hockey. Also, majority of Russian hockey players prefer to stay in Russia (for various reasons), except for the very elite players, obviously.

Major misconception.
It is clear to all KHL executives that the arenas are smaller, and due to the lower family income in Russia it is unwise to implement a ticket sales for revenue stratergy like NHL. The KHL's aim is to popularize hockey and market it in a way where they can make profit from TV contracts.
Think about it population of Russia is 140million. Included in the KHL are Latvia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and now Slovakia!! Thats a big population for exposure and TV coverage. With the expansion to Slovakia, not only will the KHL retain many Slovak and Czech prospects, but also be directly in the European market. In turn making the KHL even more desirable in those regions(as opposed to going to North America, where you might get payed less!)
Many of you probably havent heard, but the KHL is taking serious measures to have a team in Milan, Italy. There you go, thats another market of 60million+ two times the population of Canada.

That being said, attendance in arenas are in fact up, with many arenas being quite decent.
Off the top of my head, Dynamo Minsk has a 15 000 seat arena that gets sold out quite alot. Thats more than Atlanta. St Petersburg has a 12 000 seater and Dynamo Moscow has games in a 14 000 arena. After those, there are many teams that regularly sell out about 10 000 seat arenas- Riga, Ufa, Omsk, etc.
Amur is a team with 100% attendance every year whats impressive is that they havent made the playoffs in the past 3 years. Their arena of 7 100 could easily be made much larger. Undersized arenas are one issue.
At the same time, it is true that some teams have miserable arenas and attendance <6000, and even <3000 when they perform bad.

I wouldnt see the KHL as a direct threat to the NHL, but it will give the NHL a run for its money. Indeed why should a player play on a 4th line in the NHL when he can play 2-3rd on some teams and get paid MORE!!!! Logically speaking that doesnt make sense.

NHL needs to forget that they are the absolute option and that players will sacrifice game time and money just to play in it. Thats like getting payed less to be worth less on a team. I know that due to the deep cultural integration the NHL has with many people, it will go on to a certain extent, but there will be a certain point where people will be seriously considering the option.

also keep in mind that contracts in the KHL are VERY enticing. for example:

Line: 4th line NHL
Contract: $3 Million, 40% tax NA, 1.8 million
Games: 82

or under the exact same conditions

Line: 2th line KHL
Contract: $3 Million, 12% tax Russia, 2.64 million
Games: 56


Think about it logically, the same player can be better off in the KHL with the same salary, but in many cases they pay more. Sure you might live in St. Petersburg or Kazan instead of St. Louis or Columbus, but at the end of the day its worth putting some thought into.

 

[Zine]

Line: 4th line NHL
Contract: $3 Million, 40% tax NA, 1.8 million
Games: 82

or under the exact same conditions

Line: 2th line KHL
Contract: $3 Million, 12% tax Russia, 2.64 million
Games: 56 .

If I'm not mistaken, (because of flat tax) aren't KHL contracts negotiated in terms of net income?

If so:
NHL - 3 million contract = 1.8 million take home
KHL - 3 million contract = 3 million take home

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Yet his actual talent does not change just the role and results based on circumstances.

Sure, but I think the point is: are the players in the KHL that might otherwise be in the NHL top-line players, or relatively replaceable ones?

The WHA made a splash by signing Bobby Hull and others away from the NHL. Simply counting the number of players by nationality can be deceptive without considering the quality of the players.

 

[Reds4Life]

Major misconception.
It is clear to all KHL executives that the arenas are smaller, and due to the lower family income in Russia it is unwise to implement a ticket sales for revenue stratergy like NHL. The KHL's aim is to popularize hockey and market it in a way where they can make profit from TV contracts.
Think about it population of Russia is 140million. Included in the KHL are Latvia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and now Slovakia!! Thats a big population for exposure and TV coverage. With the expansion to Slovakia, not only will the KHL retain many Slovak and Czech prospects, but also be directly in the European market. In turn making the KHL even more desirable in those regions(as opposed to going to North America, where you might get payed less!)
Many of you probably havent heard, but the KHL is taking serious measures to have a team in Milan, Italy. There you go, thats another market of 60million+ two times the population of Canada.

No idea about Milan considering joining KHL*, but the interest in KHL is rather small, at least in the Czech Republic. I don't imagine Slovakia is any different in this regard. In any case, KHL heavily relies on support from rich Russian oligarchs. TV contracts are fairly insignificant when it comes to funding KHL IMHO.

*Hockey is not exactly popular in Italy, anyway. So saying that it would mean additional market of 60+ million is very wrong.

That being said, attendance in arenas are in fact up, with many arenas being quite decent.
Off the top of my head, Dynamo Minsk has a 15 000 seat arena that gets sold out quite alot. Thats more than Atlanta. St Petersburg has a 12 000 seater and Dynamo Moscow has games in a 14 000 arena. After those, there are many teams that regularly sell out about 10 000 seat arenas- Riga, Ufa, Omsk, etc.
Amur is a team with 100% attendance every year whats impressive is that they havent made the playoffs in the past 3 years. Their arena of 7 100 could easily be made much larger. Undersized arenas are one issue.
At the same time, it is true that some teams have miserable arenas and attendance <6000, and even <3000 when they perform bad.

Sure, some teams do well when it comes to attendance, but most teams are doing poorly in that departement.

I wouldnt see the KHL as a direct threat to the NHL, but it will give the NHL a run for its money. Indeed why should a player play on a 4th line in the NHL when he can play 2-3rd on some teams and get paid MORE!!!! Logically speaking that doesnt make sense.

NHL needs to forget that they are the absolute option and that players will sacrifice game time and money just to play in it. Thats like getting payed less to be worth less on a team. I know that due to the deep cultural integration the NHL has with many people, it will go on to a certain extent, but there will be a certain point where people will be seriously considering the option.

I disagree. The top players will always want to compete against the very best. But KHL might become more desirable for average players, especially from Europe.

also keep in mind that contracts in the KHL are VERY enticing. for example:

Line: 4th line NHL
Contract: $3 Million, 40% tax NA, 1.8 million
Games: 82

or under the exact same conditions

Line: 2th line KHL
Contract: $3 Million, 12% tax Russia, 2.64 million
Games: 56


Think about it logically, the same player can be better off in the KHL with the same salary, but in many cases they pay more. Sure you might live in St. Petersburg or Kazan instead of St. Louis or Columbus, but at the end of the day its worth putting some thought into.

Yeah, but on the other hand..living in Russia is very different from US or Canada. Sure, you get to stay in a nice hotels, but the change (customs, food, people..) is significant and not everyone can handle it.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Not a chance. Except for handful of players (Radulov is likely the best and he's not even that good). IMHO KHL gets only players that can't get used to the NA culture (Radulov), old veterans (Yashin) and a ton of average Russian hockey players. I would say they are insignificant talent thieves.

The Olympics actually kinda illustrated how poorly the average KHL player will do against the best of the world.

 

[Reds4Life]

The Olympics actually kinda illustrated how poorly the average KHL player will do against the best of the world.

Average KHL player would never make Team Russia for the Olympic Tournament. Zaripov, Zinoviev and Morozov are elite KHL players.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Average KHL player would never make Team Russia for the Olympic Tournament. Zaripov, Zinoviev and Morozov are elite KHL players.

Yeah, you're right. The KHL guys just looked really out of their depth.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Thank You

Major misconception.
It is clear to all KHL executives that the arenas are smaller, and due to the lower family income in Russia it is unwise to implement a ticket sales for revenue stratergy like NHL. The KHL's aim is to popularize hockey and market it in a way where they can make profit from TV contracts.
Think about it population of Russia is 140million. Included in the KHL are Latvia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and now Slovakia!! Thats a big population for exposure and TV coverage. With the expansion to Slovakia, not only will the KHL retain many Slovak and Czech prospects, but also be directly in the European market. In turn making the KHL even more desirable in those regions(as opposed to going to North America, where you might get payed less!)
Many of you probably havent heard, but the KHL is taking serious measures to have a team in Milan, Italy. There you go, thats another market of 60million+ two times the population of Canada.

That being said, attendance in arenas are in fact up, with many arenas being quite decent.
Off the top of my head, Dynamo Minsk has a 15 000 seat arena that gets sold out quite alot. Thats more than Atlanta. St Petersburg has a 12 000 seater and Dynamo Moscow has games in a 14 000 arena. After those, there are many teams that regularly sell out about 10 000 seat arenas- Riga, Ufa, Omsk, etc.
Amur is a team with 100% attendance every year whats impressive is that they havent made the playoffs in the past 3 years. Their arena of 7 100 could easily be made much larger. Undersized arenas are one issue.
At the same time, it is true that some teams have miserable arenas and attendance <6000, and even <3000 when they perform bad.

I wouldnt see the KHL as a direct threat to the NHL, but it will give the NHL a run for its money. Indeed why should a player play on a 4th line in the NHL when he can play 2-3rd on some teams and get paid MORE!!!! Logically speaking that doesnt make sense.

NHL needs to forget that they are the absolute option and that players will sacrifice game time and money just to play in it. Thats like getting payed less to be worth less on a team. I know that due to the deep cultural integration the NHL has with many people, it will go on to a certain extent, but there will be a certain point where people will be seriously considering the option.

also keep in mind that contracts in the KHL are VERY enticing. for example:

Line: 4th line NHL
Contract: $3 Million, 40% tax NA, 1.8 million
Games: 82

or under the exact same conditions

Line: 2th line KHL
Contract: $3 Million, 12% tax Russia, 2.64 million
Games: 56


Think about it logically, the same player can be better off in the KHL with the same salary, but in many cases they pay more. Sure you might live in St. Petersburg or Kazan instead of St. Louis or Columbus, but at the end of the day its worth putting some thought into.

Thank you you for a very informative post.

Your cost/benefit analysis is a modern day version of the thinking in Canada during the O6 era going back to the start of the NHL. Players would choose to play semi-pro and minor pro instead of taking their chances in the high minors in the USA. The various Quebec leagues and the EPHL were the leagues of choice for such players.

 

[Canadiens1958]

National Team

Average KHL player would never make Team Russia for the Olympic Tournament. Zaripov, Zinoviev and Morozov are elite KHL players.

But only a small percentage of players ever get National Olympic Team consideration. When the NHL featured over 70 Russian skaters the majority were not Olympic Team quality. True for other nationalities as well. The 150 American does not worry about being good enough for the US Olympic Team. He is just concerned with finding a job in the NHL from amongst 600-700 available.

 

[Zine]

Yeah, you're right. The KHL guys just looked really out of their depth.

Who exactly looked out of their depth? I wouldn't make judgements based on 1 game (vs Canada presumably) because all of team Russia looked like trash. As a whole, Zaripov-Zinoviev-Morozov was Russia's most consistent line until Zino's injury.

Don't forget about Slovakia either. Slovakia had just as many KHLers as Russia....and they defeated NHL heavy Sweden and came within 1/2 inch of sending Canada to overtime.

 

[plusandminus]

It is accepted by most that the arrival of the WHA on the hockey scene in 1972 had an impact on the NHL in terms of talent levels.

This leads to a rather obvious question. What about the impact of the KHL which arrived on the hockey scene post lock-out in 2008? The lost NHL season - 2004-05, saw NHL players, including North American born players,play in various European leagues including Russia.This gave the European hockey community an excellent template re the demand, capabilities and potential for a league competing with the NHL. By 2008 the KHL based in Russia was a reality,featuring 24 teams.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/280.html

Let's start the discussion with some numbers that focus on three European hockey playing nations.For the sake of brevity, Russia will be used throughout.

PLAYERS IN THE NHL/SKATERS
(1992-93/2003-04/2010-11)
RUSSIA: respectively 49/72/34
SWEDEN: respectively 22/49/41
FINLAND: respectively 10/31/21

Goalies will be looked at later as will other countries. The trend to an increased European presence in the NHL between 1992-93 and 2003-04 was not sustained post lock-out and is decreasing creating an impact that produces a talent lag at the bottom 1/2 to 1/3 for all the 30 NHL teams.

I think it's a bit hard to discuss from the figures/stats you provide here.
Also, let's not forget other countries. What about Kopitar? Ehrhoff? Nielsen? Hansen? Seidenberg? Grabner? Vanek? They are a few examples of players from nations who recently have seen an increase of good NHL players.



Regarding KHL, here's how I think it is...

Russians
The top players (Datsyuk, Ovetchkin, Malkin, Kowalchuk, Gonchar, Semin...) has chosen to play in the NHL. Thus, the top elite level of NHL is basically as good as before KHL. What is different, is that many players a step or two below, choose to be stars in KHL rather than average or border players in the NHL. KHL guys like Morozov, Afinogenov and others probably would do well in the NHL today, thus increasing the overall level, but the absolute top level would probably be rather unaffected.
According to www.nhl.com :
1997/98 saw 48 Russians, of which 35 played at least 42 games. Best scorers: 90, 72, 66, 57, 53, 52, 49, 47, 47, 46
2003/04 saw 60 Russians, of which 40 played at least 42 games. Best scorers: 87, 68, 65, 58, 52, 52, 51, 50, 48, 45
2010/11 saw 27 Russians, of which 16 played at least 42 games. Best scorers: 85, 60, 59, 57, 54, 44, 40, 37, 34, 27
Malkin had 37 pts in 43 games this year, in case you want to consider his injury.

Swedes
Not a factor. Swedes prefer NHL, or even lower North American league. Swedes in the KHL are guys who wouldn't be NHL stars, but rather border players (including some veterans).

Finish players
Don't really know. Would guess that due to some factors (Finland neighburing Russia, Sweden perhaps being more similar to North America than Finland was/is, etc.), more Finnish players would go to Russia. But I really don't know


Regarding talent, here's my view (wrong or not)...

Before the late 80s, NHL consisted of best North Americans, best Swedes, some Fins, and some of the best Czechs/Slovaks.
Then the Russians, and perhaps more Czechs/Slovaks came along. But, the NHL also expanded. On a broad level, I would suspect NHL to be about the same as before. On a top level, it became better.

Today, the top level is about the same as when the Russians first started playing in the NHL. The overall level may have increased, due to the higher standard in hockey education in Europe (again look at the names I mentioned at the beginning).
KHL, overall, I would think is not bad for the NHL. Rather, it may produce more good players than before KHL. The sort of "2000nd" best hockey player today, is probably better than the "2000nd" best player 10 or 20 years ago.

So, compared to when NHL had say 21 teams, I would say that even though it today have 30 teams, the quality of the "worst" players is (I guess) higher now than then.

The elite level is as good today as before KHL, and better than when before Russians entered the NHL in the late 80s.


Looking at international hockey, KHL has resulted in higher quality of tournaments, as some good players (especially Russians) are available for "European hockey league" and World Championships. Since it is that way, it would be logical to conclude that a similar decrase can be seen in the NHL. But as I said, it is shown basically among the average and border NHL players.

But while we see less Russians in the NHL, their spots are perhaps being fairly well filled by guys from other countries, including Germany, Austria, Denmark and others.

I assume the main question to ponder about, is how an increase/decrease of the average to border players affects NHL. Would top players score less points if they were to play against better average to border players? Well, they would play WITH more of those guys to, so maybe it would partly even itself out?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Figures

I think it's a bit hard to discuss from the figures/stats you provide here.
Also, let's not forget other countries. What about Kopitar? Ehrhoff? Nielsen? Hansen? Seidenberg? Grabner? Vanek? They are a few examples of players from nations who recently have seen an increase of good NHL players.



Regarding KHL, here's how I think it is...

Russians
The top players (Datsyuk, Ovetchkin, Malkin, Kowalchuk, Gonchar, Semin...) has chosen to play in the NHL. Thus, the top elite level of NHL is basically as good as before KHL. What is different, is that many players a step or two below, choose to be stars in KHL rather than average or border players in the NHL. KHL guys like Morozov, Afinogenov and others probably would do well in the NHL today, thus increasing the overall level, but the absolute top level would probably be rather unaffected.
According to www.nhl.com :
1997/98 saw 48 Russians, of which 35 played at least 42 games. Best scorers: 90, 72, 66, 57, 53, 52, 49, 47, 47, 46
2003/04 saw 60 Russians, of which 40 played at least 42 games. Best scorers: 87, 68, 65, 58, 52, 52, 51, 50, 48, 45
2010/11 saw 27 Russians, of which 16 played at least 42 games. Best scorers: 85, 60, 59, 57, 54, 44, 40, 37, 34, 27
Malkin had 37 pts in 43 games this year, in case you want to consider his injury.

Swedes
Not a factor. Swedes prefer NHL, or even lower North American league. Swedes in the KHL are guys who wouldn't be NHL stars, but rather border players (including some veterans).

Finish players
Don't really know. Would guess that due to some factors (Finland neighburing Russia, Sweden perhaps being more similar to North America than Finland was/is, etc.), more Finnish players would go to Russia. But I really don't know


Regarding talent, here's my view (wrong or not)...

Before the late 80s, NHL consisted of best North Americans, best Swedes, some Fins, and some of the best Czechs/Slovaks.
Then the Russians, and perhaps more Czechs/Slovaks came along. But, the NHL also expanded. On a broad level, I would suspect NHL to be about the same as before. On a top level, it became better.

Today, the top level is about the same as when the Russians first started playing in the NHL. The overall level may have increased, due to the higher standard in hockey education in Europe (again look at the names I mentioned at the beginning).
KHL, overall, I would think is not bad for the NHL. Rather, it may produce more good players than before KHL. The sort of "2000nd" best hockey player today, is probably better than the "2000nd" best player 10 or 20 years ago.

So, compared to when NHL had say 21 teams, I would say that even though it today have 30 teams, the quality of the "worst" players is (I guess) higher now than then.

The elite level is as good today as before KHL, and better than when before Russians entered the NHL in the late 80s.


Looking at international hockey, KHL has resulted in higher quality of tournaments, as some good players (especially Russians) are available for "European hockey league" and World Championships. Since it is that way, it would be logical to conclude that a similar decrase can be seen in the NHL. But as I said, it is shown basically among the average and border NHL players.

But while we see less Russians in the NHL, their spots are perhaps being fairly well filled by guys from other countries, including Germany, Austria, Denmark and others.

I assume the main question to ponder about, is how an increase/decrease of the average to border players affects NHL. Would top players score less points if they were to play against better average to border players? Well, they would play WITH more of those guys to, so maybe it would partly even itself out?

Figures that were provided were intended to start the thread. To this extent the objective was achieved. As always posters are more than welcome to provide valid and supported additional information.

Hockey, being a team sport, the real issue is how NHL team composition and performance is affected. Whenever talent is removed and replaced with inferior talent that is asked to play at a higher level the overall product or game suffers. Specifically regardless of the era, nationality, team or player, asking a third line player in the NHL to fill the role of a second or first line player impacts on the overall product.