Your Wildly Outrageous (History of) Hockey Opinions...

[VanIslander]

Better contemporary players (not careers), as some have noted but not stuck:

1. Moose Watson > Hooley Smith
(Both Olympic mates, one refused to turn pro)

2. Nighbor > Morenz
(When Morenz received a trophy, he identified the one he thought should have got it)

3. Herbie Lewis > Marty Barry
(the captain, the fastest NHLer and highest paid is somehow 2nd fiddle in modern eyes to the center who came to town)

4. Gus Bodnar > Bill Mosienko
(the center who had the fastest three assists in NHL history, winning the faceoffs and passing to Bill; you dunno Gus cuz Bill was inducted but the Calder trophy winning center who led the NHL in playoff GWGs on way to a Stanley Cup victory before his trade to Chicago is forgotten)

And that is just my wild off-the-top-of-my-head takes of the NHL to mid-last century. Prior and subsequent 100% believed wild takes i'll post another time. G'day.

EDIT: Dick Irvin > George Hay
(Both HHOFers but one played less in the NHL after the Western leagues, so is dinged)

 

[Michael Farkas]

They get credit because they stole top players. They don't have to be great top to bottom to deny the NHL a significant number of good players.

Furthermore, the 21 team NHL was a thing for 12 years before further expansion. The 12 team NHL kept growing.



We're comparing the 68-79 expansion to the 79-80 expansion.

Top 20 Point Scorers from outside the NHL, 1968
20. Eddie Joyal, 57 Points

Top 20 Point scorers from WHA, 1980
1. Wayne Gretzky, 137
5. Mike Rogers, 105
8. Blaine Stoughton, 100
10. Blair MacDonald, 94
12. Kent Nilsson, 93
18. Real Cloutier, 89

And thanks to Mike Liut, a WHA player also led the NHL in wins.



The NHL of the 1970s was of exceptionally poor quality.

It looks like exactly 4 WHA teams could enter the NHL and finish ahead of the Colorado Rockies (Jets only on a wins tiebreaker). And that's with the NHL claiming a fair amount of NHL talent, including good goaltenders who had solid careers like Pat Riggin, Richard Brodeur, and Mike Liut.

The 48 point '79 Blues might also have been worse than some WHA teams, if they continued with their club average .865 save percentage. However, the 1980 Blues were able to pick up Mike Liut from the WHA, who posted an .895, while 1979 holdover Ed Staniowski continued the tradition of awful 70s goaltending by posting an .861 for the same team. The 34-34-12 Blues went 32-23-9 with WHA goaltending, and 2-11-3 with 1970s NHL goaltending.

Also, the post 1967-68 expansion era saw the old stars dominate the NHL and post new records. In 1972, Bobby Clarke ties for 10th place in points. Clarke is the only player from a non-O6 team. Aside from Clarke, Bobby Orr is the only other player under 28.

By 1984, 10th-place Rick Middleton at age 30, is the only guy 28 years old or over. New blood is outcompeting the old guard, instead of the old guard coasting to success.

6 of the Top 7 scorers are new because they're 23 or under or they're Peter Stastny.

14 of the top 18 scorers weren't NHLers in 1978-79.

8 of the top 13 scorers are on WHA teams.

Ok, digging in on this, I'm not positive that I understand all of it to be honest.

I don't get the Eddie Joyal reference. I've already pre-dealt with the WHA top 20 scorers, it definitely has the reverse effect than I think you want here. I mean, we're talking top 20 scorers. That's elite. Most of the guys couldn't do anything in the NHL and then more couldn't hang more than a couple years after the league started to sure itself up. I detailed each one of them. But maybe I'm not getting your angle, which is possible...

- Re: The '68 Expansion vs. the '80 absorption and old players sticking around.

Yeah, that happened in an uncommon way with '80 also. Except, it was shown that the mini-generation after them (your Stoughtons and Rogers's'ss'sss') couldn't hang in the same way...in a mathematically unlikely way: Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3 (Secret of the Ooze)

You also highlight how important the sponsorship era and its accompanying development is to creating sustainable and adaptable NHL talent...instead of empty, one-way talents that were taking advantage of bad league conditions. The stars of the 60's had that. The guys that were jumping into the pro ranks at 18, generally didn't...

But...if all that is to say "there's only 4 NHL caliber teams' worth of guys in a 12, 13, 14-team WHA", I wouldn't call that unreasonable. We won't know if it's right or not until we roll up our sleeves...but that seems fine.

So, if I'm interpreting that correctly...we collectively don't need to do the "can you BELIEVE it 32 teams?!?!" thing any more, right? In the same way that no one said "54 TEAMS!" when the KHL formed and started swiping players in ~2010...

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I get its Gordie Howe, the man was a machine, but him putting up .5 PPG at age 51 in 1980 is the most damning evidence against the post WHA absorption era as the worst era.

The 1970s Bruins with competent management win at least 4-5 Cups instead of the 2 they did.

With competent management they dont:

- Give away both Parent and Dryden (Parent they had no choice it was an expansion pick)
- Dont trade Boldirev
- Dont trade Reggie Leach
- Dont trade Rick MacLeish

 

[Michael Farkas]

...and a player that still could have been playing junior broke the assists and points record.
...and one team won all the Stanley Cups.
...and a Minnesota high school d-man would be a point per game player at 18.
...and soon a Mass. high school goalie would win a Vezina at age 18.

Which isn't to excuse the mid-70's at all...

 

[jigglysquishy]

EDIT: Dick Irvin > George Hay
(Both HHOFers but one played less in the NHL after the Western leagues, so is dinged)

Taking a microcosm in this. I'm going through the 1921-22 WCHL season in detail.

In the regular season, George Hay is just a straight up better player. Better offensively, better defensively, and the clear cut leader of the Regina Capitals. He legitimized the team and was the prize the owner wanted going into the season. Irvin comes later and is strong offensively, but gets zero praise defensively.


But in the playoffs Hay's offense dries up completely. 0 points in the 6 games against Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver. Irvin has 4 of Regina's 7 goals.

But there's evidence Hay carried the defensive load entirely in the playoffs. He is repeatedly noted for his stick checking and back checking and ability to break up plays.

All in all, Hay is the better player this season. But I do think it's important to note that in the very tough games he lost his ability to score but kept up his defensive abilities.

 

[JianYang]

I love him but Marc-Andre Fleury is a massively overrated goaltender. He’ll get into the HOF though.

That is probably not as an outrageous take as you might think.

 

[LightningStorm]

Didn’t see either team in real time, but when examining them in retrospect, I think the 80’s Isles were better than the late 70’s Habs of the teams who won 4 in a row back to back to each other. I’ve found that saying the Isles were better than the Oilers is common, but hardly anyone thinks they were better than the Habs.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Didn’t see either team in real time, but when examining them in retrospect, I think the 80’s Isles were better than the late 70’s Habs of the teams who won 4 in a row back to back to each other. I’ve found that saying the Isles were better than the Oilers is common, but hardly anyone thinks they were better than the Habs.

The only advantage the isles have over the habs is Trottier being better than Lemaire(who was obviously still excellent, and underrated). Everywhere else top to bottom the habs were better and deeper.

 

[MadLuke]

Didn’t see either team in real time, but when examining them in retrospect, I think the 80’s Isles were better than the late 70’s Habs of the teams who won 4 in a row back to back to each other. I’ve found that saying the Isles were better than the Oilers is common, but hardly anyone thinks they were better than the Habs.

Would like the reasoning about that one, the Isles won 19 series in a row so obviously not a bad candidate....

They match top end talents, head coach, goaltender very well obviously but the Houle-Lambert-Tremblay-Jarvis-Gainey forward debt chart...

I am wrong if I feel that Montreal had to deal with the bruins-Flyers-Islanders to do it, while the Islanders had to deal with lesser-older Canadians-Flyers-Bruins version ?

 

[McGarnagle]

Would like the reasoning about that one, the Isles won 19 series in a row so obviously not a bad candidate....

They match top end talents, head coach, goaltender very well obviously but the Houle-Lambert-Tremblay-Jarvis-Gainey forward debt chart...

I am wrong if I feel that Montreal had to deal with the bruins-Flyers-Islanders to do it, while the Islanders had to deal with lesser-older Canadians-Flyers-Bruins version ?

A cup is a cup in the end, and with whoever you match up against, the wins count the same.

That said, in the 4 Habs cups, only the last final against the Rangers was a soft opponent (and they still had to get through the Bruins to get there). Of the 5 Oiler cups, I wouldn't say they had an easy opponent in any of them (the 88 Bruins are probably the softest of the five but still had good depth and a really strong defense anchored by Bourque and Kluzak in his one healthy playoff run).

The Islanders meanwhile got two cups against Minnesota and Vancouver. In 81 they played three teams with 74 or fewer points in the playoffs and 87-point Minnesota in the final. In 82 they played a 92-point Ranger team in the second round and some less talented teams the other three rounds.

I don't want to discredit them. It's not their fault if other top seeds lost on the way to meeting them, and all they could do is beat who's in front of them. They were really good and may have still beat anyone those years, but part of me questions the whole 11-straight series wins thing since they played so many tomato cans in the middle. And to be truthful, in 1980 and 1983 they beat three great teams along the way each year, so they were capable.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

Taking a microcosm in this. I'm going through the 1921-22 WCHL season in detail.

In the regular season, George Hay is just a straight up better player. Better offensively, better defensively, and the clear cut leader of the Regina Capitals. He legitimized the team and was the prize the owner wanted going into the season. Irvin comes later and is strong offensively, but gets zero praise defensively.


But in the playoffs Hay's offense dries up completely. 0 points in the 6 games against Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver. Irvin has 4 of Regina's 7 goals.

But there's evidence Hay carried the defensive load entirely in the playoffs. He is repeatedly noted for his stick checking and back checking and ability to break up plays.

All in all, Hay is the better player this season. But I do think it's important to note that in the very tough games he lost his ability to score but kept up his defensive abilities.

Irvin's winning goal in the second game versus Edmonton wound up being credited to Hay the next day.

From my reading, Irvin was considered the better player between the two at the beginning of the season, but by the end of the season, Hay had edged ahead. But this was Irvin's last full season of his physical prime, and Hay's first elite season. So despite spending a lot of time together, I found their primes did not really coincide apart from 1922.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Irvin's winning goal in the second game versus Edmonton wound up being credited to Hay the next day.

From my reading, Irvin was considered the better player between the two at the beginning of the season, but by the end of the season, Hay had edged ahead. But this was Irvin's last full season of his physical prime, and Hay's first elite season. So despite spending a lot of time together, I found their primes did not really coincide apart from 1922.

I would love to read any notes you have on the Capitals.

 

[Staniowski]

Didn’t see either team in real time, but when examining them in retrospect, I think the 80’s Isles were better than the late 70’s Habs of the teams who won 4 in a row back to back to each other. I’ve found that saying the Isles were better than the Oilers is common, but hardly anyone thinks they were better than the Habs.

I think it depends on wat you mean - are you comparing the "average" of the four teams? The two dynasties are eight different teams.

The two strongest Habs teams were the middle two, '77 and '78. They were in decline by '79, and '76 was before Robinson made a significant jump in his play.

I think the Islanders were strongest in their 4th year, '83.

Probably the '83 Oilers (who lost in the Finals) would've beaten the '79 Habs.

But I think there would've been mixed results depending on the year.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Probably the '83 Oilers (who lost in the Finals) would've beaten the '79 Habs.

Habs in 4, Oilers way too green.

Strongest Islanders team was easily 82. Followed by 81, 80, 83, 84. My opinion of course.

 

[TANK200]

Mine is that Red Kelly was the second best defenseman of all time.

 

[Professor What]

Mine is that Red Kelly was the second best defenseman of all time.

I'd love to hear the calculations behind that.

 

[Nogatco Rd]

Yes specially in a sport like hockey

1) seem harder than some other sport for referee to impact games:

I would argue that the disparity in home field advantage in the NFL and NBA has more to do with the degree to which crowd noise can negatively affect the visiting team, rather than “refs favor the home team more” in those sports

 

[The Panther]

Mine is that Red Kelly was the second best defenseman of all time.

Who was the best?

 

[MadLuke]

I would argue that the disparity in home field advantage in the NFL and NBA has more to do with the degree to which crowd noise can negatively affect the visiting team, rather than “refs favor the home team more” in those sports

Can the NBA crowd time their noise to hurt communication of one team more than the others ? Does not seem to affect free throw percentage... In football yes, noise obviously can be a big factor.

 

[TANK200]

Who was the best?

Bobby Orr by a mile... nothing wildly outrageous about my top pick.

 

[TANK200]

I'd love to hear the calculations behind that.

Ultimately, it largely comes down to offensive numbers relative to his peers. He was by far the best offensive defenseman of his era and perhaps the third best of all time after Bobby Orr and Paul Coffey. Doug Harvey is often considered the best defensive defenseman of all time, but from all accounts that I have seen, Red Kelly was also considered very good defensively.

Below is a chart showing primary points per game by year relative to the sixth place finisher in the league for this category (sort of a modified VsX type comparison). In Red Kelly's case, I only included his years in Detroit, where he played as a defenseman. I understand that Kelly was occasionally deployed in a forward role (parts of certain seasons, or specific playoff runs), but he predominantly played as a defenseman in Detroit. Ultimately, Kelly's offensive production rate was WAY higher (by about 40% in his prime years) than the other top offensive defensemen of his era. This is a large gap for Harvey to make up defensively against another very good defensive player.

As a side discussion, choosing the sixth place finisher as a reference point is somewhat arbitrary but corresponds to the six-team league. I chose to consider primary points per game instead of points per game because I think it better reflects offensive contribution. This is a whole separate discussion, but awarding up to two assists per goal and assigning the G, A1 and A2 equal values is completely arbitrary and unintuitive, not to say that the A2 (or A3 for that matter) isn't important. Red Kelly's A1:A2 ratio is unusually high compared to the ~1:1 ratio that is typical for defensemen, so I adjusted his primary assists down to match that ratio.

Aside from statistics, Red Kelly was the top defenseman on a Detroit Red Wings team that finished 1st place in the league for seven consecutive seasons and won four Stanley Cups during that period, being both the top offensive and defensive team in that period. While Doug Harvey could perhaps boast better team accomplishments, Red Kelly is the most decorated non-Montreal Canadien player, so the gap is relatively small.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Not to say that Red Kelly at 2 is impossible. But the whole "primary points" thing being used for defensemen (and sometimes forward) in an era where d-men were primarily outlet passer to the center is interesting...and then it sounds like you found that Kelly's rates were abnormal (well, yeah...Detroit had some different tactics) and adjusted those...?

 

[Overrated]

...and a player that still could have been playing junior broke the assists and points record.
...and one team won all the Stanley Cups.
...and a Minnesota high school d-man would be a point per game player at 18.
...and soon a Mass. high school goalie would win a Vezina at age 18.

Which isn't to excuse the mid-70's at all...

But does it make sense really? The talent pool clearly increased since the mid 70s and quite heavily so while the number of teams increased by just three. Even in Canada youth hockey was still growing throughout the 70s. Then there is the USA which for the first time in history had a somewhat decent generation. Most of the top Swedish players were playing in the NHL by then. Some top end CSSR players joined the NHL too. The first Finnish stars appeared as well. It just doesn't seem to make any sense for the league to somehow go through a decrease in skill for no reason whatsoever.

 

[Voight]

I like lockouts and would like to see another one

they're interesting to follow and honestly I even view missed games as a positive as long as it doesn't go so far as cancelling an entire season because I think 82 games is too many

Found Bettmans burner account

 

[Michael Farkas]

But does it make sense really? The talent pool clearly increased

It makes as much as the whole nebulous "talent pool" claim. Now, I don't want that to sound dismissive of greater access to the NHL - it's not. But what matters is the talent itself. Not the source of it.

That's why I keep asking (conversationally, as I know the work needs to be done because no one has the answer right now) - "why do we insist on counting WHA teams along side NHL teams?"

We didn't count KHL teams in 2009. They were taking some quality pieces too. They had money.

But one reason why we didn't see a catastrophic downturn in game play from the last couple years of the O6 era to the first few years of expansion ("DOUBLED!!!") is because of the talent level and the development route. The Sponsorship Era - tangled web of intrigue and trickery as it is - proved to be a really useful path to get well-rounded, mature, developed players into the professional circuit.

As that started to get chipped away (not so much '63, but really '66 to '69), the effects started to show shortly thereafter that mini-generation, if you will. Of course, the number of teams continued to climb, fiddling with eligibility ages didn't help either...that's clear.

But the point is, just because some guys from other places came along and took open jobs doesn't mean that we were any better off. It doesn't mean we were worse off, certainly...which isn't the claim.

But if I told you, "hey, Australia has a bunch of players that want to play over here and your team has some open spots..."

What is your response going to be? "Great! Send them over...the talent pool just grew that much more!" ...? No, of course not. You're gonna tell those guys to take a walk, they aren't good enough...

When there were 3x more Russians in the NHL in 1999 (or whatever) than there are now...was it better? And now, it's worse? Of course not. Vladimir Chebaturkin did not improve the league. Pavel Bure did though.

And that's the point...what do you have that's actually making the league better? That's the measure. We're talking about, what, 50, 100, 200 people on the entire planet that matter for this discussion...the whole league (vs the population) is a statistical anomaly. Just attack it from the known quantity (the NHL and adjacent) instead of trying to attack it from a place of an impossible-to-define macro 'pool' angle...that's what I'm saying.

And if it turns out - after proper evaluation - that 1975 NHL was worse than 1981 NHL, then I'll wear a t-shirt that says that...that's not my feeling right now, but it could be...I just want to get it right. I don't care whose idea it is...