Hockey of the past vs today

[streitz]

A single video clip? I take back my argument, yours is clearly superior.

I mean it's a video clip of the most pathetic defensive effort I've ever seen. By a 'norris candidate' none the less. In the 50's that would have been enough to get you put in the minors. There's plenty of other clips of this guy being junk on defense on youtube.

 

[authentic]

Most of those guys are mediocre at best.


Sanderson? Geoff Sanderson???? What did that guy have like 1 40 goal season on a junk team then turned into an expansion draft guy?
Amonte? Kozlov? Kamensky? Ozolinsh????(lol) Owen 40 points NOLAN???


I guess if you consider 60 point players 'elite offensive talent' then your needs should be satisfied. I grew up watching Gretzky, Lemieux, Hawerchuk, Dionne, Savard among many others. I'm assuming by your posts you watched hockey in the 70's and 80's aswell. Should have higher standards.

Other than Lemieux and Gretzky 90s overall talent blows the 80s out of the water, you can't be serious.

Sakic
Forsberg
Jagr
Lindros
Selanne
Kariya
Niedermayer
Lidstrom
Fedorov
Bure
Oates
Modano
Sundin
Kovalev
Mogilny
Lafontaine
Gilmour
Hull
Palffy
Fleury
Neely
Brodeur
Hasek

A few of those players overlapped but had the better part of their careers in the 90s. I think you are confusing overall talent with scoring dropping which had nothing to do with the talent level.

The 80s had hardly any Europeans and no Russian players, it's naive to think there was more talent then.

 

[The Panther]

I disagree with this, aside from the talent being thinned out throughout the league because of expansion there was a shortage of top end talent coming into the league, especially at forward throughout the 90's.

I agree that there was starting to be a shortage of (Canadian) high-end offensive talent towards the late-90s, but that's not relevant to my point. I'm talking about talent that was already in the League by the late 1990s. In other words, the players who entered the NHL from the late 80s to the mid-90s. The main stars and leading players of c.1995 to 1999. In my opinion, there was a wealth of talent in the League at that time... and yet, it all led to the Dead-puck era.

 

[streitz]

Other than Lemieux and Gretzky 90s overall talent blows the 80s out of the water, you can't be serious.

Sakic
Forsberg
Jagr
Lindros
Selanne
Kariya
Niedermayer
Lidstrom
Fedorov
Bure
Oates
Modano
Sundin
Kovalev
Mogilny
Lafontaine
Gilmour
Hull
Palffy
Fleury
Neely
Brodeur
Hasek

A few of those players overlapped but had the better part of their careers in the 90s. I think you are confusing overall talent with scoring dropping which had nothing to do with the talent level.

The 80s had hardly any Europeans and no Russian players in the 80s, it's naive to think there was more talent then.

For starters this was discussing specifically late 90's talent and more then half your list is what I'd consider late 80's, early 90's talent.


Secondly I don't care if the talent comes from Europe or Canada, I care about talent levels period. I hate to break it to you but none of your precious Russians or other Euros were as fun to watch as Denis Savard.


Also obligatory

My favorite 80's Swede

 

[Canadiens1958]

Again, that has literally nothing to do with the amount of people available in those streams.

The easiest example of this is a top-flight player like Kopitar coming from Slovenia. He would be in on some of those top whatever lists you are relying on, but he is literally the only player from his country in the NHL.

Another would be players like Ovechkin and Malkin who come from a country whose contribution to the NHL is down significantly from its peak.

As has been pointed out to people on your side of the argument 1000000000000000 times, there are many reasons why the talent pool available for the NHL fluctuates up and down within each country and overall. It has been documented many, many times here and shown to be much more nuanced than your "today's players are the best" crowd arguments which rely on "common sense".

Nice post.

The "common sense" position is extremely sexist and elitist.Male only, elite players.

Canada and the USA are the only countries that significantly fund women's hockey and intro / participation single letter hockey. The medals are nice but the real payback is the development of quality coaches coming from these groups.

BTW, Verdun a Montreal community had a mothers coached league back in the 50s/60s.

Kopitar, throw in Lars Eller. Are Slovenia and Denmark hockey producing nations or just burps where coaching fathers produced elite hockey playing sons?

In other words, can the two countries be counted on to produce goalies, LDs and RDs, depth forwards. No evidence of this to date.

Top 20 scorers, Malkin, Ovechkin, etc. Tends to happen by default, end of season counting exercise. Produce goalies, LDs and RDs, depth forwards to make complete,well-rounded contributions.

 

[danincanada]

Again, that has literally nothing to do with the amount of people available in those streams.

The easiest example of this is a top-flight player like Kopitar coming from Slovenia. He would be in on some of those top whatever lists you are relying on, but he is literally the only player from his country in the NHL.

Another would be players like Ovechkin and Malkin who come from a country whose contribution to the NHL is down significantly from its peak.

As has been pointed out to people on your side of the argument 1000000000000000 times, there are many reasons why the talent pool available for the NHL fluctuates up and down within each country and overall. It has been documented many, many times here and shown to be much more nuanced than your "today's players are the best" crowd arguments which rely on "common sense".

Please answer these two simple questions so I can figure out your position since you always seem to claim it’s too complicated or nuanced to delve deeper.

Let’s look at the 1961-62 season in the NHL. The NHL saw 147 players that season with one American who played 27 games (Tom Williams). That was it and the rest were Canadian apart from Jack Evans who was born in Wales but raised in Canada. In your opinion, did the Canadian provinces that fed the league at the time:

• produce as more, as much, or less elite level talent than the whole hockey world does today?
• have more, as much, or less people in it’s talent pool than the whole hockey world does today?

I picked today but go ahead and pick any season back to the 1980 or the late 70’s and you should come up with the same “common sense” answers I did.

I don’t see anyone here ever claiming we have had a slight increase in the talent pool each year since 1890. It’s not perfectly linear of course, but we have all watched the sport grow over time, and the NHL adding other streams of talent is a big deal. It has fluctuated in Canada but we haven’t seen it fall right off the map at anytime and it grew from nothing at one point to where the infrastructure was there. This didn’t always exist and the amount of arenas, coaches, equipment has all grown over time as well. It very much is common sense that the talent pool has grown in hockey over time.

 

[danincanada]

Talent and entertainment go hand in hand, cannot be separated. What drove hockey from 1875 onwards was that fans would actually pay to see games. This has continued to this day.

O6 era and into the 1990,s teams always had roster holes but these were fillable whether the 1963 Bruins looking for a goalie - they found won, Canadiens replacing Ken Dryden with a threesome, winning a Vezina, etc The talent was out there.

Today certain talent is simply not available - goalies, RDs or LDs, most teams are short one or the other, etc.

Bolded makes it sound like some teams are playing with 6 players on the ice and no goalie but that's not the case. There are 30+ teams now so of course there aren't elite level players available at every turn. The definition of elite would make that impossible no matter what the size of the league.

With regards to RD/LD, teams will usually take the better player and shuffle guys around even if it is more difficult for some to play their off side.

 

[Theokritos]

The "common sense" position is extremely sexist and elitist.Male only, elite players.

Since women contribute zero NHL calibre players to world hockey, I'm not sure how they're relevant to a top 100 players of all times thread.

 

[danincanada]

Nice post.

The "common sense" position is extremely sexist and elitist.Male only, elite players.

Canada and the USA are the only countries that significantly fund women's hockey and intro / participation single letter hockey. The medals are nice but the real payback is the development of quality coaches coming from these groups.

BTW, Verdun a Montreal community had a mothers coached league back in the 50s/60s.

Kopitar, throw in Lars Eller. Are Slovenia and Denmark hockey producing nations or just burps where coaching fathers produced elite hockey playing sons?

In other words, can the two countries be counted on to produce goalies, LDs and RDs, depth forwards. No evidence of this to date.

Top 20 scorers, Malkin, Ovechkin, etc. Tends to happen by default, end of season counting exercise. Produce goalies, LDs and RDs, depth forwards to make complete,well-rounded contributions.

As hockey fans having a Kopitar or even Eller in the NHL is a good thing even if their countries aren't producing several top end players. 1 is still more than 0, and in this case 1 is today while 0 is the O6 or other eras with little to no talent from other nations.

Kucherov is leading the league in scoring right now by default, just a counting exercise? That tells me all I need to know about your opinions.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Since women contribute zero NHL calibre players to world hockey, I'm not sure how they're relevant to a top 100 players of all times thread.

Not a top 100 thread. Question of a complete hockey program offered to the population of a country.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bolded makes it sound like some teams are playing with 6 players on the ice and no goalie but that's not the case. There are 30+ teams now so of course there aren't elite level players available at every turn. The definition of elite would make that impossible no matter what the size of the league.

With regards to RD/LD, teams will usually take the better player and shuffle guys around even if it is more difficult for some to play their off side.

But this was always the case in the O6 era, so effectively you made the point that regardless of protestations, things have not changed in terms of an International talent pool actually accommodating team needs better than a National talent pool.

 

[Michael Farkas]

As hockey fans having a Kopitar or even Eller in the NHL is a good thing even if their countries aren't producing several top end players. 1 is still more than 0, and in this case 1 is today while 0 is the O6 or other eras with little to no talent from other nations.

If the 1 vs 0 thing is gonna help your cause, will it also hurt it...? Doru Tureanu for instance...

Why paint yourself into this corner over such small (no) potatoes...

 

[Canadiens1958]

As hockey fans having a Kopitar or even Eller in the NHL is a good thing even if their countries aren't producing several top end players. 1 is still more than 0, and in this case 1 is today while 0 is the O6 or other eras with little to no talent from other nations.

Kucherov is leading the league in scoring right now by default, just a counting exercise? That tells me all I need to know about your opinions.

Big difference between 1 tending to multiples and to 0. Both Slovenia and Denmark have not produced any players of note since/lately.

Kucherov. Yes, leading at a moment in time, played his junior in the Q - Quebec and Rouyn - Noranda. That Canadian coaching does not seem to hurt.

Meanwhile,McDavid has won the last two scoring titles.

 

[Theokritos]

Not a top 100 thread. Question of a complete hockey program offered to the population of a country.

Okay, but the complete population is not what most people refer to here when they're debating the talent pool. They're debating the talent pool feeding the NHL.

 

[Canadiens1958]

If the 1 vs 0 thing is gonna help your cause, will it also hurt it...? Doru Tureanu for instance...

Why paint yourself into this corner over such small (no) potatoes...

So a corner may be claimed.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Okay, but the complete population is not what most people refer to here when they're debating the talent pool. They're debating the talent pool feeding the NHL.

Maybe they should to fully appreciate the depth and scope of the debate.

In Quebec thru Pee Wee you have girls only teams playing and doing well in elite leagues for boys.

Midget AAA - College Esther Blondin has Eve Gascon, as one of the regular goalies.

Ève Gascon, première dame du hockey midget AAA québécois

Point being that the contrary position requires narrow and imprecise views that do not represent how hockey is taught in all parts of the world.

 

[danincanada]

If the 1 vs 0 thing is gonna help your cause, will it also hurt it...? Doru Tureanu for instance...

Why paint yourself into this corner over such small (no) potatoes...

How is that painting myself into a corner? Maybe if Turneanu came over and had a career like Kopitar has had but he didn't. That's part of my whole argument. The NHL was literally only Canadian for stretches of eras and therefore it lacked the talent streams that came later.

In your opinion, did the NHL have more or less talent with the Soviets coming over in the early 90's? Or did they just displace awesome talent that would have already come from Canada? The answer is quite obvious. This applies to Kopitar as well. It's a good thing that Slovenia produced an elite centre.

 

[Canadiens1958]

How is that painting myself into a corner? Maybe if Turneanu came over and had a career like Kopitar has had but he didn't. That's part of my whole argument. The NHL was literally only Canadian for stretches of eras and therefore it lacked the talent streams that came later.

In your opinion, did the NHL have more or less talent with the Soviets coming over in the early 90's? Or did they just displace awesome talent that would have already come from Canada? The answer is quite obvious. This applies to Kopitar as well. It's a good thing that Slovenia produced an elite centre.

Details:

Doru Tureanu

Speculative foundation leading to a false conclusion.

As for the 1990s Soviets, Today Russian participation is less and the difference is not noticed or protested.

 

[Michael Farkas]

In your opinion, did the NHL have more or less talent with the Soviets coming over in the early 90's?

More or less compared to what/when?

Romania and Russia no longer produce as much NHL caliber talent anymore...but their populations are larger than they were...so...

It's intentionally obtuse, but it's just matching the mindset...

 

[danincanada]

More or less compared to what/when?

Romania and Russia no longer produce as much NHL caliber talent anymore...but their populations are larger than they were...so...

It's intentionally obtuse, but it's just matching the mindset...

Obviously compared to before the Soviets started playing in the NHL.

You're trying too hard to avoid my point. It's very telling.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Me? Don't come after me...according to you, I'm "one of the few" who actually challenges eras and the ebb and flow of how things went...you keep getting publicly pants'd bringing up the same low-rent points every few weeks expecting a different result...it's weird and it seems to elicit diminishing returns to boot...

I'll have a conversation with anyone, but don't come at me with your joke ass nonsense though...save that for someone who wants to slap box you...

 

[danincanada]

Details:

Doru Tureanu

Speculative foundation leading to a false conclusion.

As for the 1990s Soviets, Today Russian participation is less and the difference is not noticed or protested.

Yup, he didn't play in the NHL and was therefore not part of the talent pool feeding it.

Both the early 90's and today has star Russian/Soviets in the NHL. They've impacted the league greatly, winning awards and helping teams have great seasons and win championships. Prior to the wall coming down they were not part of the talent pool feeding the NHL. You don't understand my view if you don't realize this is a point in my favour, whether we are talking about the early 90's or any year since.

 

[danincanada]

Me? Don't come after me...according to you, I'm "one of the few" who actually challenges eras and the ebb and flow of how things went...you keep getting publicly pants'd bringing up the same low-rent points every few weeks expecting a different result...it's weird and it seems to elicit diminishing returns to boot...

I'll have a conversation with anyone, but don't come at me with your joke ass nonsense though...save that for someone who wants to slap box you...

I'm not coming after you, simply replying to your posts. If you agree with me then just agree. If not, please clearly state your opinion either way.

 

[Michael Farkas]

You did. In no uncertain terms either.

It's not binary, get out of binary. Kopitar/Slovenia 0 to 1. Lars Eller 0 to 1. Agree vs. Disagree 0 or 1. Start there...be open to the ideas that are presented, like all the ones that were presented the last hundred times this has been brought up by you...

 

[danincanada]

You did. In no uncertain terms either.

It's not binary, get out of binary. Kopitar/Slovenia 0 to 1. Lars Eller 0 to 1. Agree vs. Disagree 0 or 1. Start there...be open to the ideas that are presented, like all the ones that were presented the last hundred times this has been brought up by you...

More talent streams is a good thing for the NHL and adds to the streams that are already present. The apparent resistance to this is the problem. Pretending that what amounted to a domestic league (the O6 was primarily all Canadian talent and not even all of Canada was producing) should be given full value versus an international NHL is a problem when comparing across eras.

Do you actually disagree with me here or are you just looking at who is posting?