Hockey of the past vs today

[Midnight Judges]

Just so that I understand your point of view - you're suggesting that the reason people don't quantify changes in talent pool size from era to era is because people wish to obfuscate?

And if that's the case, clearly you don't want to obfuscate - why not provide a quantification?

I might attempt to do that at some point.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I might attempt to do that at some point.

Looking forward to it (and admittedly, it is significantly harder to put forth an analysis than to peer review it, so kudos to you for undertaking this).

 

[daver]

Can I ask to what end is this being discussed? Does it have any relevance in discussing players from different eras of hockey?

 

[57special]

In "absolute terms" Ovechkin would obliterate Hull. Even with the old equipment, the best players are faster, stronger, smarter, etc. than the best players 50 years ago (in a "time machine" scenario).

Bobby Hull was very fast(often considered the fastest straight line skater in the mid 60's), and had a GREAT shot. I have no doubt that he would've been just as fast as Ovi, if not faster, and would have just as good of a shot.
He was also immensely strong. Hull was a physical freak back in his day, like Howe was in his, Messier in his era, and Lindros in his.

With modern equipment, nutrition, and training, I think Hull would fare very well against Ovi.

I get your point, though. Most players of today are superior athletes. Guys like the ones mentioned above are exceptions to the rule.

 

[57special]

The goalies didn't as much as the d-men, thanks to Bobby Orr.

Agreed, but if you go way back to the days of guys like King Clancy, and look at some really old footage (i.e. 20's) you'll see that back then some Dmen rushed the puck like Orr, and weren't as locked into defensive roles as they were later in the 40's, 50's, and 60's(maybe even 30's).

So maybe what Orr was doing wasn't unique, just unique in his time.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I might attempt to do that at some point.

So in other words, you have not completed the requisite analysis that you are demanding from the project participants. I don't want to come across as a jerk here, but how can you boldly declare that certain eras are over/under represented on the list based on talent pool considerations if you admit that you yourself have not done an analysis that you deem necessary to create such a list in the first place?

Nonetheless, I do look forward to hearing about your findings. We can never have too much information, so best of luck in your research.

 

[Midnight Judges]

So in other words, you have not completed the requisite analysis that you are demanding from the project participants.

I think it is made necessary by the project.

 

[wetcoast]

Still reduces to how much hockey each member of the talent pool - regardless of definition, actually plays each formative year.

Big difference in the end product if youth players get 90-95 days of winter ice time to play hockey and upwards of 365 days of ice time.

The smaller pool of youth players, playing an intensive schedule of upwards of 365 days will produce better results than a larger, casual pool playing 90-95 days of hockey.

That sounds like an arguement that better players or talent is being produced today, right?

The USA U17 and U18 teams are but just one example of this.

 

[wetcoast]

Can I ask to what end is this being discussed? Does it have any relevance in discussing players from different eras of hockey?

The concept is really a simple one.

If player A plays in a league from only one country and at some other time other elite players from other countries play in the same league with player B it needs to be taken into context.

Or to put it in really simple terms, its easier to win a SC, or anything in a league with 6 teams than with 30.

It's not an exact ratio, as there are alot of things at play but it's a really simple concept that gets alot of pushback, for a variety of reasons, some of which aren't allowed to be discussed frankly which is a real shame as top players projects could be alot more relevant and constructive if all factors where considered equally and fairly.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Posters should read the Wayne Scanlan article about the lack of athleticism shown by modern youth hockey players. A quality that negates ice time advantages.

Also posters should not use different metrics in different threads.

Specifically arguing that O6 was strictly a Canadian league while giving players full credit for results in domestic European leagues such as the Soviet and Czech which were after all strictly Soviet or Czech leagues.

 

[wetcoast]

Posters should read the Wayne Scanlan article about the lack of athleticism shown by modern youth hockey players. A quality that negates ice time advantages.

Also posters should not use different metrics in different threads.

Specifically arguing that O6 was strictly a Canadian league while giving players full credit for results in domestic European leagues such as the Soviet and Czech which were after all strictly Soviet or Czech leagues.

Well when discussing the best players of all time one does need to look at players who were prevented from playing in the NHL right?

The Wayne Scanlan article is interesting but not sure what is has to do with this topic.

 

[daver]

The concept is really a simple one.

If player A plays in a league from only one country and at some other time other elite players from other countries play in the same league with player B it needs to be taken into context.

Or to put it in really simple terms, its easier to win a SC, or anything in a league with 6 teams than with 30.

It's not an exact ratio, as there are alot of things at play but it's a really simple concept that gets alot of pushback, for a variety of reasons, some of which aren't allowed to be discussed frankly which is a real shame as top players projects could be alot more relevant and constructive if all factors where considered equally and fairly.

If the context is giving Player A the edge over Player B due to era differences despite similar resumes then that is reasonable discussion IMO. If the concept is Player A would have been better or worse if they played in Player's B era then that gets into the area of unreasonable speculation IMO. Being the best of your era should hold the most weight in a player comparison with appropriate context.

There are certainly statistical realities that should be acknowledged. Comparing Top 5 - 10 scoring finishes from different sized leagues is statistically questionable. Being a Top 5 - 10 scorer in a six team league is statistically less impressive than being Top 5 - 10 in the current league.

This applies to comparing the # of Cups won. Again, being the best of your era should hold the most weight.

Generally, I think great talent shines in any era. A presumption that each successive era is better than the previous would eventually push the Big 4 out of the Top 10 then the Top 20 or even 100.

 

[sr edler]

Or to put it in really simple terms, its easier to win a SC, or anything in a league with 6 teams than with 30.

Bobby Hull and the Blackhawks only won 1. Orr's Bruins only 2. If it was so easy for Chicago and Boston to win Cups left and right, then why did they win so few?

Between 2009–2017, a nine year stretch, 4 different teams won the Cup (CHI 3, PIT 3, LAK 2, BOS 1).

Between 1995–2003, a nine year stretch, 4 different teams won the Cup (DET 3, NJD 3, COL 2, DAL 1)

And both Boston and Dallas, the teams with a single Cup among those groups, also made another finals appearances during the respective timeframes. I think you're fooling yourself if you believe 30 (or 31 now) teams are plausible challengers for the Stanley Cup any given year. 30 (or 31) teams aren't. Cinderella runs always seems to end in the finals, for some reason (VAN 94, North Stars 91, FLA 96, CGY 04, CAR 02, EDM 06, etc.)

If we go further back in time, we have Pittsburgh back-to-back titles in the early 90s (with Boston making two finals between 1988 and 1990) and then in the 80s two dynasties (NYI and EDM) and three challenging teams (PHI, CGY, MTL) either making the finals (Flyers thrice) or winning a Cup (Calgary/Montreal). So what it seems to boil down to each season, pretty much in any given era (say a 10 year period), is 6 or so plausible winners but only 3 or 4 teams really making it.

Tell Aleksandr Barkov it's easier to win a Cup in a league with 30–31 teams. Or Joe Thornton. Or Iginla. Or the Sedins. Or Lindros. Or Bure. Or Lafontaine. Or Sundin. Or Turgeon. Or Roenick.

It's not a given conclusion that the width of elite talent expands just because the number of teams do so. And even if it does, some teams will be more stacked than others.

 

[daver]

Bobby Hull and the Blackhawks only won 1. Orr's Bruins only 2. If it was so easy for Chicago and Boston to win Cups left and right, then why did they win so few?

Between 2009–2017, a nine year stretch, 4 different teams won the Cup (CHI 3, PIT 3, LAK 2, BOS 1).

Between 1995–2003, a nine year stretch, 4 different teams won the Cup (DET 3, NJD 3, COL 2, DAL 1)

And both Boston and Dallas, the teams with a single Cup among those groups, also made another finals appearances during the respective timeframes. I think you're fooling yourself if you believe 30 (or 31 now) teams are plausible challengers for the Stanley Cup any given year. 30 (or 31) teams aren't. Cinderella runs always seems to end in the finals, for some reason (VAN 94, North Stars 91, FLA 96, CGY 04, CAR 02, EDM 06, etc.)

If we go further back in time, we have Pittsburgh back-to-back titles in the early 90s (with Boston making two finals between 1988 and 1990) and then in the 80s two dynasties (NYI and EDM) and three challenging teams (PHI, CGY, MTL) either making the finals (Flyers thrice) or winning a Cup (Calgary/Montreal). So what it seems to boil down to each season, pretty much in any given era (say a 10 year period), is 6 or so plausible winners but only 3 or 4 teams really making it.

Tell Aleksandr Barkov it's easier to win a Cup in a league with 30–31 teams. Or Joe Thornton. Or Iginla. Or the Sedins. Or Lindros. Or Bure. Or Lafontaine. Or Sundin. Or Turgeon. Or Roenick.

It's not a given conclusion that the width of elite talent expands just because the number of teams do so. And even if it does, some teams will be more stacked than others.

Statistically speaking, it should be inarguble that winning in a six team league is easier than winning in a 30 team league, all things being equal.

But this has nothing to do with the topic of whether the current league is better or worse than before and I really don't see that players are elevated or lowered in the rankings based on an unreasonable assessment of team success. Hull and Beliveau are a perfect example of this.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

we talk about major changes to the game a lot, or at least certain posters do. forward pass back in the day, taking out the red line after the lockout, the end of 2 minutes-no-matter-what powerplays, technological advancement in equipment, stay puft goalie pads, endless harping about increases to the talent pool, etc etc etc.

but here's something i don't ever remember being mentioned that i just read in a kid's book during bedtime: in 1940 the league introduced resurfacing of the ice (read: zamboniing) between periods. can you imagine how much that changed the speed of the game?

 

[The Panther]

but here's something i don't ever remember being mentioned that i just read in a kid's book during bedtime: in 1940 the league introduced resurfacing of the ice (read: zamboniing) between periods. can you imagine how much that changed the speed of the game?

I got the impression that a lot of players of the 1920s/30s seemed to think 1940s'-era hockey was disorganized, messy, and unstructured. I wonder if the speed really increased around the onset of the "original six" era, and if the zamboniing was part of that. So many mysteries of the past, and so few left who remember those times clearly and objectively.

 

[BobbyAwe]

I got the impression that a lot of players of the 1920s/30s seemed to think 1940s'-era hockey was disorganized, messy, and unstructured. I wonder if the speed really increased around the onset of the "original six" era, and if the zamboniing was part of that. So many mysteries of the past, and so few left who remember those times clearly and objectively.

I think the speed and the talent in general increased in every decade as the population of Canada increased and hockey became more popular. More people going out for hockey, expanding farm systems, means more good players. Also the forward pass over the blue line (allowed in 1943/44) may have been objected to by many older or retired players? The former game may have seemed simpler in that the skating/passing options were more restricted?

 

[BobbyAwe]

we talk about major changes to the game a lot, or at least certain posters do. forward pass back in the day, taking out the red line after the lockout, the end of 2 minutes-no-matter-what powerplays, technological advancement in equipment, stay puft goalie pads, endless harping about increases to the talent pool, etc etc etc.

but here's something i don't ever remember being mentioned that i just read in a kid's book during bedtime: in 1940 the league introduced resurfacing of the ice (read: zamboniing) between periods. can you imagine how much that changed the speed of the game?

I'm not sure the Zamboni makes that much difference for the ice surface except that it's EASIER than sending out a bunch of guys to manually scrape the ice between periods? I'm sure someone else here has more knowledge about it though?

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

I got the impression that a lot of players of the 1920s/30s seemed to think 1940s'-era hockey was disorganized, messy, and unstructured. I wonder if the speed really increased around the onset of the "original six" era, and if the zamboniing was part of that. So many mysteries of the past, and so few left who remember those times clearly and objectively.

Re, hockey in the 40s and earlier, have you read The Game by Ken Dryden? Most of his book is about the 70s Canadiens, but near the end of the book he does a sweeping discussion of the history of hockey from a skills and strategies standpoint. It may not be a definitive answer, but it touches very close to what youre asking about.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I'm not sure the Zamboni makes that much difference for the ice surface except that it's EASIER than sending out a bunch of guys to manually scrape the ice between periods? I'm sure someone else here has more knowledge about it though?

the zamboni wasn’t invented until a few years after the league instituted ice resurfacing between periods. the innovation was the between period resurfacing. before you just had soft and scratchy ice by the third period.

 

[The Panther]

Re, hockey in the 40s and earlier, have you read The Game by Ken Dryden? Most of his book is about the 70s Canadiens, but near the end of the book he does a sweeping discussion of the history of hockey from a skills and strategies standpoint. It may not be a definitive answer, but it touches very close to what youre asking about.

Thanks, I'll check that out! (I read that book when I was about 11, so can't recall too well.)

 

[Merya]

Most superstars of yesteryears would find the competition much closer, but they would still probably be somewhat better. Orr would still be a superstar, but nowhere near winning the points race as a D. Lemieux would be mediocre 2nd liner bcs he was so lazy. Gretzky would have 100 assists with his better developed but still scrawny physique. Gordie Howe would have 60 point seasons despite being suspended for half of the season.
Hasek would still be the best goalie in the league, bcs wtf...

ps. dont take this too seriously, be happy don't worry.