Hockey of the past vs today

[Troubadour]

How exactly does this relate to hockey players coming to the NHL though?

I'm sure there was an Avocado farm near where Matthews lived but it had probably zero affect on his development as an elite NHL prospect.

He probably meant something like "less garden and farm work, lesser physical fitness, thus worse hockey players".

While farm work is definitely better for overall fitness than sitting on one's butt and watching the tube all day, a complex workout routine designed with hockey in mind beats farm work and manual/physical labor 11 times out of 10.

Too much Rocky IV watching done on some people's part.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Do you believe that you could retain your relative aptitude in your field of working if the salaries increased a ten or a hundredfold and would it be as easy?

Practical sense dictates that increased salaries = increased competition.

In terms of the talent in the "field" (that is, the NHL) do you feel the need to compensate for the potential growing talent pool against the exponential growth of jobs that needed to be filled first?

Meaning, they didn't open up more roster spots because there was so much talent lying around that they needed more teams...they added a ton more teams and then sat around and waited for the talent to attempt to catch up...

There is marked decline in play if you look at a game in 1963 vs 1983...1983 is worse quality.

The talent pool is relative and it doesn't just expand, linearly or otherwise, in a positive direction. There is ebb and flow, as there is in all aspects of sport...

That said, do I believe the league average forward in 2019 is better than the league average forward in 1969 or 1979...? Yes, yes I do. Is he better in every possible way? No. Some skills have come into vogue and out...

Note: my question(s) at the beginning of the post are not intended to be "gotcha" questions...merely conversational...

 

[talitintti]

Players today can be, and are, better, but that doesn't necessiate that it's harder to become succesful. It's easier to be better today.

 

[Johnny Engine]

He probably meant something like "less garden and farm work, lesser physical fitness, thus worse hockey players".

While farm work is definitely better for overall fitness than sitting on one's butt and watching the tube all day, a complex workout routine designed with hockey in mind beats farm work and manual/physical labor 11 times out of 10.

Too much Rocky IV watching done on some people's part.

I guarantee C58 didn't mean that, but the issue with such a simple dichotomy - specialized workouts vs. throwin' hay - is that it assumes that you're working with the same group of people and training them differently. Requiring specialized training to move up selects for a rich and white collar population. Which is not inherently worse, just different, but has a negative effect on the size of the overall talent pool in a way that's far more difficult to measure than simply telling us a list of countries where people play hockey, the population of Canada, or even overall minor hockey registrations.
This is closer to what he means, though I can't speak for the nuances of his arguments. Does the global growth of the game outstrip class pressures in minor hockey? Maybe, but you're doing yourself no favours by making snarky quips about Rocky.

 

[Troubadour]

I guarantee C58 didn't mean that, but the issue with such a simple dichotomy - specialized workouts vs. throwin' hay - is that it assumes that you're working with the same group of people and training them differently. Requiring specialized training to move up selects for a rich and white collar population. Which is not inherently worse, just different, but has a negative effect on the size of the......

Specialized workout routines, agility drills and hockey skill drills designed with hockey in mind are just about as inaccessible to the working class as YouTube is.

While less-wealthy-background kids are less likely to get to play the game at the organized level, the fact the hockey training science has gone a loooong way since the throwing haystacks days should get us back on the track towards realization that even a soft, spoiled, pampered and cuddled high-society brat of a hockey player whose rich daddy got him a bunch of figureskater coaches to work on his skating alone smokes pros from the sixties, their hard and admirable construction work notwithstanding.

I like horses much more than cars, but I would never argue they're faster or better to move from place A to place B. You can, however, imagine a very niche scenario in which horse still beats a car. Like mountain logging. I don't doubt that a player from 40 years ago was much tougher than players of today. A better hockey player?

I can't help but feel snarky again.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Accessibility and application...and the abilities therein, are very much worth considering...

I can watch all the cooking shows I want, but without a food processor (I don't know what that is in real life, so don't bother correcting me if it's superfluous haha) how can I readily apply it? Continue with the discipline necessary to continue to use it? Etc.

Poor application, too, can be just as useless as not doing it in the first place...in some cases, worse...

 

[Troubadour]

Accessibility and application...and the abilities therein, are very much worth considering...

I can watch all the cooking shows I want, but without a food processor (I don't know what that is in real life, so don't bother correcting me if it's superfluous haha) how can I readily apply it? Continue with the discipline necessary to continue to use it? Etc.

Poor application, too, can be just as useless as not doing it in the first place...in some cases, worse...

Of course, Mike, of course. But let's say I'm a poor and lonely kid on a hot summer day, eager to learn and improve, no friends, no family support. Would you agree I'm better off today than in the seventies, at least as far as information and tips go? And that I can -- at a similar talent level -- progress much faster if I try?

I thinks lot of this has to do with the fact that when the kids say "today's players are waaay better than guys of yesteryear", they mean it as an insult.

In fact, it is a compliment. They wouldn't be better today without those guys then. They would not have anyone to learn from, nothing to improve on. Even though it is often uttered in blasphemous manner, it hides a compliment. If there is no-one to build upon what you do, what are you doing it for? If what you did can be bettered and topped and learned from, you have succeeded.

The today's players all having harp player hands consist of the brilliance past. They're a compliment.

I also hate hearing "terrible goalies of the eighties". Those were the best men in their field, in the whole bloody world. But the offensive connotation aside, I see that the goalies of today actually are better versed in their art and more competent and harder to score on. And again, it's a good thing. It's just that the young folks don't realize that today's guys learned from those men who were in fact brilliant.

The problem is young folks belittling the old folks as "terrible" and "incompetent" and old folks taking it way too seriously and from the harshest angle. The old should know better, the kids of the day have their own run into disrespectful ignorance ahead of them still. These guys will be topped as well, and it's a good thing. It's about hockey, really, not generations or men.

Sorry for the diatribe, but I have been carrying this around a while.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Players today can be, and are, better, but that doesn't necessiate that it's harder to become succesful. It's easier to be better today.

Regardless of how you define the talent pool this is demonstratably false.

Illustrating with the NHL.

Upwards of 20 teams need goaltending. Mainly 1, some like St.Louis, Chicago, Philly, two.

About the same number need a RD or LD starter. Trading does not reduce the need just shifts it around. So teams play juniors or minor leaguers.

Nearly all teams have positional specific needs amongst 3rd and 4th line forwards. Trading does not solve the issue so they rely on minor leaguers.

All these minor leaguers in the NHL are not there because they are better then generations ago, rather they are there out of necessity to fill rosters.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Of course, Mike, of course. But let's say I'm a poor and lonely kid on a hot summer day, eager to learn and improve, no friends, no family support. Would you agree I'm better off today than in the seventies, at least as far as information and tips go? And that I can -- at a similar talent level -- progress much faster if I try?

Information and tips? That's certainly more technology and information available easier today. The application of that information seems harder...gym time, ice time, the dissolution of kids being able to just go out and play on frozen ponds and the like, the ability to join in other sports (which is highly effective) at no- or low-cost seems much more limited. And that's the point...I can't read my way to being a better skater...I need an opportunity to apply it...so the progression ability isn't there as readily in the scenario you posed, no. But the...hmmm...floor (if you will) of base knowledge is probably higher because of the ease of access to information, but again, this is thwarted and undermined by less ability to apply it...this goes for coaching as well, seen at the youth levels...that's why Canada keeps trotting out donkey after donkey at the World Junior Championships for instance...Malcolm Subban ...how embarrassing... (no disrespect to Canada, but just stating that is not as easy as being able to watch YT videos)..

 

[wetcoast]

In terms of the talent in the "field" (that is, the NHL) do you feel the need to compensate for the potential growing talent pool against the exponential growth of jobs that needed to be filled first?

Meaning, they didn't open up more roster spots because there was so much talent lying around that they needed more teams...they added a ton more teams and then sat around and waited for the talent to attempt to catch up...

There is marked decline in play if you look at a game in 1963 vs 1983...1983 is worse quality.

The talent pool is relative and it doesn't just expand, linearly or otherwise, in a positive direction. There is ebb and flow, as there is in all aspects of sport...

That said, do I believe the league average forward in 2019 is better than the league average forward in 1969 or 1979...? Yes, yes I do. Is he better in every possible way? No. Some skills have come into vogue and out...

Note: my question(s) at the beginning of the post are not intended to be "gotcha" questions...merely conversational...

To the part in bold how do you come to this conclusion?

1983 is still early in the influx on non traditional talents streams into the NHL (basically the 5 Canadian provinces that supplied well over 95% of all NHL talent before expansion and the trickle of players in the 70's that lead to larger amounts later on).

But in 1983 you have the 2,6,9,10,11 and 15th top point getters coming from non traditional feeder streams.

Both the Norris and runner up were americans that year as well.

the 2 SC finalists both had a heavy influx of players from non traditional talent stream as well.

 

[wetcoast]

Regardless of how you define the talent pool this is demonstratably false.

Illustrating with the NHL.

Upwards of 20 teams need goaltending. Mainly 1, some like St.Louis, Chicago, Philly, two.

About the same number need a RD or LD starter. Trading does not reduce the need just shifts it around. So teams play juniors or minor leaguers.

Nearly all teams have positional specific needs amongst 3rd and 4th line forwards. Trading does not solve the issue so they rely on minor leaguers.

All these minor leaguers in the NHL are not there because they are better then generations ago, rather they are there out of necessity to fill rosters.

Well one can go to virtually any season in NHL history and find teams with similar issues and needs.

I'll go to 1963 since Mike brought it up.

1962-63 Boston Bruins Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Boston could score goals pretty well but couldn't keep them out of their own net.

Surely they were also looking for 2 goalies.

As for Dmen Boston was a desert that the oasis named Orr made flourish when he arrived later in the 60's.

Even before the year that Orr won his first Norris a 34 year old Harry Howell won, despite receiving not a single vote the year before and only showing up 2 times before in such voting.

A 5th place finish at age 31 and a 9th at age 32.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1963= one goalie days. Ed Johnston lasted 10 seasons. Another reason not to bother as you obviously do not know the nuances sufficiently to contribute.

Qualifying votes are not a requisite.

 

[streitz]

I'm genuinely curious as to how people think the talent pool is 'growing'.

Population is growing but Canada is rapidly becoming a soccer country. When I was a kid in Winnipeg I could count the kids who didn't play hockey on 2 hands. Even the less well off kids played house ect.

Now that my kids are playing, very few kids in their classes play sports. Most sit around and play video games all day. Now here in Quebec even at higher levels they don't have contact until Bantam age.

Going to free skates I see much more girls(I don't have an issue with this btw I'm just making an observation that more boys used to attend free skates) in figure skates then boys period.

 

[wetcoast]

1963= one goalie days. Ed Johnston lasted 10 seasons. Another reason not to bother as you obviously do not know the nuances sufficiently to contribute.

Qualifying votes are not a requisite.

I'm sure Carter Hart might last 10 seasons as well.

As for not understanding the 1 goalie thing, there were actually 10 goalies that played double digit games in 62-63.

But sure most teams tried to have a #1 goalie, kind of just like now.

Of course travel is greater now and the schedule does have 12 more games as well, so naturally we aren't going to see goalies play that high of a % of games as often.

Ed Johnston BTW played in 50 of the 70 games I pointed out at random then played all 70 the next year and then his highest total was 47 after that.

So maybe you can skip the nuances part it's not only not accurate it's not helping your position or statement here.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I'm genuinely curious as to how people think the talent pool is 'growing'.

Population is growing but Canada is rapidly becoming a soccer country. When I was a kid in Winnipeg I could count the kids who didn't play hockey on 2 hands. Even the less well off kids played house ect.

Now that my kids are playing, very few kids in their classes play sports. Most sit around and play video games all day. Now here in Quebec even at higher levels they don't have contact until Bantam age.

Going to free skates I see much more girls(I don't have an issue with this btw I'm just making an observation that more boys used to attend free skates) in figure skates then boys period.

Short answer is the talent pool is not growing but the youngsters so inclined can play hockey year round. True throughout the hockey world.

Eventually some become passable to elite.

 

[wetcoast]

It might not be growing by leaps and bounds from year to year but in the NHL there has been a real difference of talent from different pools if you look at the years 1972, 1982, 1992 and 2019.

The facts are crystal clear.

Just looking at the draft prospects for the 2019 draft we have 11-13 Canadians listed in the top 31 depending on the scouting service.

The Calder race this year has 2 Swedes and a Finn in the top 3.

In fact the top 9 rookie scorers are non Canadians.

Far cry from 1978 NHL.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Overlooking the advantage elite European juniors have playing in adult domestic leagues from the age of 16.

Another reason why the Calder is a minor award.

 

[wetcoast]

Overlooking the advantage elite European juniors have playing in adult domestic leagues from the age of 16.

Another reason why the Calder is a minor award.

The 2nd and 4th top rookie scorers are American.

None of that changes the fact that the NHL prospect talent pool is vastly different in 2018 compared to 1978 though right?

 

[Michael Farkas]

To the part in bold how do you come to this conclusion?

1983 is still early in the influx on non traditional talents streams into the NHL (basically the 5 Canadian provinces that supplied well over 95% of all NHL talent before expansion and the trickle of players in the 70's that lead to larger amounts later on).

But in 1983 you have the 2,6,9,10,11 and 15th top point getters coming from non traditional feeder streams.

Both the Norris and runner up were americans that year as well.

the 2 SC finalists both had a heavy influx of players from non traditional talent stream as well.

Quality of play.

 

[wetcoast]

Quality of play.

Okay that's hard to argue as it's extremely subjective and most of my viewing is post early 1970's apart from some stuff on here.

 

[Michael Farkas]

There is no meaningful part of the process that isn't subjective...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Quality of play.

Exactly, early 1980's certain US high school June draftees jumped directly to the NHL in October. Barasso, Housley, Carpenter, a few others.

 

[streitz]

It might not be growing by leaps and bounds from year to year but in the NHL there has been a real difference of talent from different pools if you look at the years 1972, 1982, 1992 and 2019.

The facts are crystal clear.

Just looking at the draft prospects for the 2019 draft we have 11-13 Canadians listed in the top 31 depending on the scouting service.

The Calder race this year has 2 Swedes and a Finn in the top 3.

In fact the top 9 rookie scorers are non Canadians.

Far cry from 1978 NHL.

What does any of that have to do with the league being less entertaining today?


The NHL could be 100% American and European which many of you are obsessed with. If every team runs the trap it will still be crap.

 

[wetcoast]

What does any of that have to do with the league being less entertaining today?


The NHL could be 100% American and European which many of you are obsessed with. If every team runs the trap it will still be crap.

In post 263 you asked how is the talent pool growing, didn't see any mention of the entertainment value of the game which is an entirely different question.

I'm genuinely curious as to how people think the talent pool is 'growing'.

Population is growing but Canada is rapidly becoming a soccer country. When I was a kid in Winnipeg I could count the kids who didn't play hockey on 2 hands. Even the less well off kids played house ect.

Now that my kids are playing, very few kids in their classes play sports. Most sit around and play video games all day. Now here in Quebec even at higher levels they don't have contact until Bantam age.

Going to free skates I see much more girls(I don't have an issue with this btw I'm just making an observation that more boys used to attend free skates) in figure skates then boys period.

The style of play or entertainment value and the differences in the talent pool over time are 2 entirely different questions

 

[streitz]

In post 263 you asked how is the talent pool growing, didn't see any mention of the entertainment value of the game which is an entirely different question.



The style of play or entertainment value and the differences in the talent pool over time are 2 entirely different questions

So you don't have an answer?


The talent pool is at it's lowest point today. Bringing in soft useless third liners from Europe doesn't mean the talent pool is bigger. Nearly every team in the league with a few exceptions(penguins ect) having 3 or 4 lines of useless forwards who handle the puck like a grenade but 'skate well and play good d' doesn't make the talent pool bigger.