Has the speed of today's game neutralize the full effectiveness of skill players?

[Canadiens1958]

Partial Answer

But in 2010 they are markedly faster, due to improvements in training and equipment. Defensive players generally get from point to point more quickly, and with more strategic purpose, than they did in 1985. That fraction of a second's difference is enormously important in terms of spatial perception and decision-making.

Basically what we have today is a game based on quick reactions and precision. Players are trained to the point that an awful lot of their play comes from pure muscle memory -- it's the only way to perform successfully at such a high speed. Aside from extremely top-shelf players like Crosby, it's plain to see that most NHL players are practically interchangeable when it comes to matters of execution (which leaves some people with the mistaken impression that the talent level is diluted compared to the past, when in fact they are easily better-trained athletes). Very few NHL coaches give their players the leeway to play creatively, and very few players have the sheer talent to justify it anyway. Therefore, the ability of one individual to manipulate the flow of an NHL game is minimal... though I grant that someone with Gretzky-like perception might be able to do it.

It's one thing to compare 4th liners to 4th liners, given that they aren't skill players in any era. But if you look at games from the 1970s and 1980s, it's pretty obvious that the true "skill players" had a considerably greater amount of time and space to improvise and be creative. And frankly, in some cases it didn't seem that they were really playing very strategically to begin with.

Another poster stated that the various benefits apply to the offence as well.Taking the discussion a step further the points you raise apply to football at all levels - NFL, CFL, NCAA, high school but offence in football has improved significantly while offence in hockey has lagged.Offensive strategy in football in the 1950's thru the 1970's was very primitive compared to today.

The major difference is that at all levels of football you have coaches that are offensive specialists from your co-ordinator on down to the lowest position coach. In hockey you do not have offensive specialists coaching. You do not have a power play coach, you do not have offensive position coaches yet you have goalie coaches, assistants in charge of the d-men and time devoted to the PK.The situation is worse at the pre NHL level.Net result offensive positioning and scoring is dropping.

Players. Every offensive starting player on an NFL roster has a clearly defined role designed to maximize offence plus you have situational players designed to optimize the offence further - 3rd down backs, short yardage players, red zone players, etc. Years ago in the NHL you would have rookies enter the league as PP specialists - Camille Henry, Yvan Cournoyer amongst others or the open ice specialists - Jason Dawe, Gilbert Dionne, Eric Daze who could find open ice and if played with a veteran center would get the puck with proper body position to score. The point is not comparing fourth liners to fourth liners rather years ago players would apprentice as fourth liners and go on to long or HHOF NHL careers. Today this is no longer an option.

Today on any NHL team beyond the top half of the roster you rarely have a player that is a part time offensive specialist. Mark Streit for a season plus with the Canadiens, Dustin Byfuglien with the Hawks who basically was a special assignment guy - crash the net, compress the other teams defensive and create open ice for the talented Hawks.

NHL coaches giving their players leeway to be creative. Somewhat like giving matches to four year olds. Four year olds tend to be destructive with matches as opposed to creative. On the other hand you do have coaches, especially during the last twenty years who have demonstrated time and again that they cannot teach anyone the proper way to use matches.

Watching Guy Boucher in Tampa this coming season will be interesting as he is one of the rare coaches who teaches a bit of offence.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The thing I don't get about this is that on the one hand we are saying that equipment and training and coaching is better now.. but that means the offensive players benefit as well as the defensive players.

It is easier to teach defense in general but when you start talking about the creative genius of Gretzky and Lemieux and Orr etc.. I feel pretty safe in saying if your defenders are trained to the point they are using muscle memory to react really quickly to a situation... those offensive type of players would learn that reaction very quickly and then exploit it.

I think Canadiens1958 summed it up well -- at the NHL level there has been a huge improvement in defensive strategy (goalie coaches, the trap, positional/angle theories, etc) and the offensive side of the game has basically been reactive in nature. The defense dictates the pace of the game, and it's up to the offensive players to find weaknesses and exploit them.

The NFL is an interesting comparison because football works (for the most part) in the opposite direction. In football, the offense has the strategic initiative and defense is more of a reactionary effort. Thus the offense dictates the pace of the game.

In reality perhaps we're approaching this conversation backwards. It's not so much that Gretzky or Lemieux would be lesser players in this era. It's really that Ovechkin and Crosby could have looked a lot better in another era.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I meant just the bolded part. Forsberg go olympic gold, the cup, calder and 3 supremem playoffs during his first 3 years in the NHL.

I kinda figured that after I posted but he was a little bit older.

Forsberg is one of my favorite players all time and it makes me wonder how he would have been considered with soem of the greats if he had stayed healthy.

Like I said before I would take him over Bobby Clarke, who I like a lot as well but was kinda lucky to get his 3 MVP's (which seems to elevate his status in a lot of peoples' minds)

 

[Hardyvan123]

Let's look at the skill level of the bottom half of the NHL players since the O6 era, working backwards from today.

The bottom half of each team today is comprised of players that bring two constants to every game - speed and size.Other skills or attributes are variables - passing, scoring, defense. The bottom half players will account for 15-20 minutes total of each game, a time when they basically play against each other and scoring is reduced. The prime attribute that the bottom half players have is not icing the puck since on the ensuing face-off in their zone they HAVE to play against the top line from the other team.

Looking at the 7 - 12 forwards on the teams is interesting.
Some of them bring an extra dimension. Prime example being Dustin Byfuglien who will crash the net at every opportunity while being able to play a bit of defense in a pinch. But the coach has to pick and choose when a player like Byfuglien plays with a Kane and Toews. During the playoffs he will create open ice for Toews and Kane and the rest of the team BUT he cannot play at the same level for a complete season and as evidenced once his salary gets too high he gets moved.The 7-12 forwards on the Hawks this season generated app 150 points.

Conversely 20 - 40 years ago the bottom 7-12 forwards on a team were players who brought skills beyond speed and size to the game. The game did not feature 15-20 minutes of limited scoring because the players lacked the skill to score. Looking at the repeat SC winners - Montreal, Philadelphia, NY Islanders, Edmonton, Pittsburgh you will see that the 7-12 forwards would contribute easily 200 - 275 scoring points during the season.

I think that the comparison of strictly points from 7-12 forwards isn't fair for a couple of reasons.

1) Adjusted points is needed to compare different eras, in some eras goalscoring was up greatly compared to recent times and one can argue that while great players like Lemieux, Orr and Gretzky are responsible for increased scoring in their times, which I would agree with to a point, there is no way that 4th line guys where.

2) This point has been bouncing around in my head for a bit, I can't remember in the old days (70's and 80's) the emphasis on preventing goals like it is today.

We even call 4th line guys "energy lines" and 3rd liners are defensive shut down guys today.

we can this as in todays game the 3rd and 4th line of teams are "filled out" with "guys who won"t hurt the team", while more skilled offensive players get sent down to work on "being a more complete player".

Too many players go out there not to score goals 1st, like they have in the past, but rather to not be scored on and avoid riding the bench for a bad giveaway ect..

Also the talent pool is much greater with more players coming from Europe and new hockey markets like California and other states that had very little of any hockey going on in the 70's and before.

the totality of the speed of the game, rising tide of overall talent and skill along with coaching, training and other areas all have made the chance for anyone, even superstars like Crosby to stand out as much as Gretzky did in the past, much less likely.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Coaching and Development

I think that the comparison of strictly points from 7-12 forwards isn't fair for a couple of reasons.

1) Adjusted points is needed to compare different eras, in some eras goalscoring was up greatly compared to recent times and one can argue that while great players like Lemieux, Orr and Gretzky are responsible for increased scoring in their times, which I would agree with to a point, there is no way that 4th line guys where.

2) This point has been bouncing around in my head for a bit, I can't remember in the old days (70's and 80's) the emphasis on preventing goals like it is today.

We even call 4th line guys "energy lines" and 3rd liners are defensive shut down guys today.

we can this as in todays game the 3rd and 4th line of teams are "filled out" with "guys who won"t hurt the team", while more skilled offensive players get sent down to work on "being a more complete player".

Too many players go out there not to score goals 1st, like they have in the past, but rather to not be scored on and avoid riding the bench for a bad giveaway ect..

Also the talent pool is much greater with more players coming from Europe and new hockey markets like California and other states that had very little of any hockey going on in the 70's and before.

the totality of the speed of the game, rising tide of overall talent and skill along with coaching, training and other areas all have made the chance for anyone, even superstars like Crosby to stand out as much as Gretzky did in the past, much less likely.

Issue is coaching and development. Bobby Orr was the last superstar from the pre Entry Draft era, or the NHL Sponsorship of Junior Teams era.

The junior teams once they fell into the hands of independent owners saw their financial success linked to getting their players drafted by the NHL and providing an entertaining product. Junior skaters would get drafted as long as they could produce offensively.So the NHL from the early 1970's thru the 1980's had plenty of 1-4th line players who were smallish,fast, average defensively but could generate offense in varying degrees - Dennis Maruk, Bobby Lalonde, Mike Rogers, Pat Verbeek, amongst many or bigger players that were slower but could generate offense - Blaine Stoughton, Tim Kerr, Errol Thompson,amongst others or fighters - Dave Schultz, Tiger Williams, Bob Kelly,Dave Semenko, Al Secord - check their junior scoring records, who could score.

Junior hockey started to change in the late 1970's when the old guard of junior coaches, mainly former NHL or long term minor leaguers who could coach all facets of hockey were phased out and replaced by the new guard - younger, some as dual coach/gm who saw coaching as a career and lacked the job security that the old guard had in junior. Previously a junior team was a blend of 16-20 year olds, the 18-20 year olds determined how competitive a junior team was while the 16-17 year olds were the future of the team to be developed.

The new junior coaches, concerned about job security were not interested in developing talent for the next coach so they focused on winning with 18-20 year olds - prime example being Michel Bergeron trading a 16 year old Raymond Bourque for two slugs who were marginal contributors in Trois Rivieres reaching the Memorial Cup but the Memorial Cup exposure helped Bergeron land an NHL job.

The entertainment factor in junior changed the type of player that was brought in. By the late 1970's you had the career junior goon. Previously in junior players who fought could play an acceptable level of hockey - see list above.Now you had goons who would do their thing against the other teams goons every few games for a few minutes. The lost roster spots reduced talent development.

When certain of these coaches made the NHL it was a fiasco - Bill Laforge being the prime example. The main point is that in junior and the NHL too often the focus shifted from coaching complete hockey where defense leads to offence to simply coaching anti-hockey.

 

[Scottrocks58*]

If you want skill players to shine you need to use a European sheet. The extra room neutralizes a lot of defensive tactics that are now used to tie up the puck and the skill players.

 

[jkrx]

If you want skill players to shine you need to use a European sheet. The extra room neutralizes a lot of defensive tactics that are now used to tie up the puck and the skill players.

There is a lot of defensive play in europe. Bigger surface also means its takes you longer to get somewhere. It's easier to slow down the play and benefits defensive teams with agile defensemen (and forwards). They score more than the double amount of goals in NHL compared to SEL for example (playing 27 more games). In KHL there is a extremly tight defensive style.

 

[Rhiessan71]

1) Adjusted points is needed to compare different eras, in some eras goalscoring was up greatly compared to recent times and one can argue that while great players like Lemieux, Orr and Gretzky are responsible for increased scoring in their times, which I would agree with to a point, there is no way that 4th line guys where.

I always wonder how people can separate Gretzky and Orr by an "era" when the reality is Wayne played his first NHL game only 5 years after Orr played his last full season and he was putting up the last of his 200 points seasons only a mere 11 years after.

2) This point has been bouncing around in my head for a bit, I can't remember in the old days (70's and 80's) the emphasis on preventing goals like it is today.

It wasn't, at least not throughout the league. Only a handful of teams even had actual "systems".
The mid-late 70's Habs under Bowman were one of those handful, being one of the first teams to employ the "trap" at an NHL level.

We even call 4th line guys "energy lines" and 3rd liners are defensive shut down guys today.

we can this as in todays game the 3rd and 4th line of teams are "filled out" with "guys who won"t hurt the team", while more skilled offensive players get sent down to work on "being a more complete player".

Too many players go out there not to score goals 1st, like they have in the past, but rather to not be scored on and avoid riding the bench for a bad giveaway ect..

You didn't have "energy lines" back in the 70's and 80's. You had your checking line/3rd line who's job was to shut down and shadow the other teams best line and players. They rarely if ever went power on power back then. Guys like Gainey, Carbo, Tikkanen ect ect.
You then had your "tough guys" or 4th line.

Also the talent pool is much greater with more players coming from Europe and new hockey markets like California and other states that had very little of any hockey going on in the 70's and before.

the totality of the speed of the game, rising tide of overall talent and skill along with coaching, training and other areas all have made the chance for anyone, even superstars like Crosby to stand out as much as Gretzky did in the past, much less likely.

Crosby doesn't stand out as well as Gretzky or Mario did for one very simple reason...he's not in their class or even that close.
Crosby isn't even in Yzerman's, Jagr's or Sakic's class yet to be honest.
Gretzky and Mario dictated the play and it didn't matter how fast the players they went up against were, you still rarely could catch them, stop them or take the puck away from them.
Hell, Wayne wasn't even very fast, far from it actually. Didn't matter though as his vision and deceptiveness was almost super human.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Crosby doesn't stand out as well as Gretzky or Mario did for one very simple reason...he's not in their class or even that close.
Crosby isn't even in Yzerman's, Jagr's or Sakic's class yet to be honest.
Gretzky and Mario dictated the play and it didn't matter how fast the players they went up against were, you still rarely could catch them, stop them or take the puck away from them.
Hell, Wayne wasn't even very fast, far from it actually. Didn't matter though as his vision and deceptiveness was almost super human.

I agree 100% and that is what I have been trying to convince people of earlier in the thread.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Too many Slugs Playing Today

I agree 100% and that is what I have been trying to convince people of earlier in the thread.

1979-80 season when Wayne Gretzky entered the league, the list of players with 10 or fewer points:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

1984-85 season when Mario Lemieux started -
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

2005-06 season when Sidney Crosby started -
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Most of the players who scored 10 or fewer points during the 1979-80 season played less than half the season. Those that played 60 or more games tended to the stay at home d-man profile Barry Melrose, Dave Shand.

By 2005-06 you have full season regulars, 60 or more games, that are basically non - productive, non-skill forwards who manage to skate with a bit of speed.

As long as you have the non-skill players cluttering the ice and reducing minutes for the skill players, the offensive numbers will stay low.

 

[Ziostilon]

As long as you have the non-skill players cluttering the ice and reducing minutes for the skill players, the offensive numbers will stay low.

i think successful teams are changing this trend now. they're not just plugs, but they can actually put up points for you.
But the point is, can your #1 line really play that many more minutes. shift time is so much shorter now, so you have to play your non-skill players. Usually these guys don't play as much when the 3rd period comes around.

and as i stated previously, the salary cap has quite a bit to do with the amount of non-skill players on teams nowadays. Young talent is beginning to invade this league like it hasn't for some time. However, some teams just don't have the capspace. Look at how long it took Bobby Ryan to get into the Ducks active roster

I agree 100% and that is what I have been trying to convince people of earlier in the thread.

and we've been saying. its much harder to use those "super human" qualities when everyone around you is playing at a much higher pace. you cannot use your vision to anticipate certain plays to the extent of yester-years. you can only be so deceptive, until the assistant coach spends 10 hours breaking down your game film and figuring it out.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

I think a number of different factors come into play. As one poster stated, this is a high intensity game. Shifts around 30-40 seconds have proven to be more effective. As a result, players in junior train high intensity situations. The game has evolved into thousands of split decisions. Niedermayer and Datsyuk are the last two players I have seen who can slow the play down and make educated precise decisions. Players simply aren't tought how to breakdown the defense anymore. I feel they rely, as someone mentioned, on muscle memory.

I have found over the years of following prospects that every year there are less and less players with a natural ability to see the game, hockey sense per say. The USA are producing big fast skating robots almost. Canada went into a stretch where they produced a lot of similar players. Even Russia lost it's Soviet way of playing the game.

Hockey is more about high intensity then passing today, and its a shame.