Hockey of the past vs today

[Michael Farkas]

There is an ebb and flow of talent based on circumstances, it's clear in the quality of the league. What you have always dodged is whether you actually watch these games...so I have no choice but to believe that you do not. Therefore, you're not judging the quality of the play, you're just waiting to complain about the fact that it's "All Canadian" without looking to see if maybe that is the best product.

I think the quality of the league increases from around 1986 or 87 for some time...the influx of Russians in the late 90's (~90ish in the league) did little to affect quality of the league it seems like...I'm not sure the game was any better in 1999 than it was 1989. I think it's good that the Russians, among others, are able to produce NHL talent...when they actually produce NHL talent. Considering how much "pride" you're taking in Slovenia being a hockey hot bed because of Anze Kopitar - who did a lot of hockey development in Sweden anyway, IIRC - what do you make of the notion that there's about a one-third the amount of Russians in the league now? Is the league worse now than it was in 1999?

In short, I think there's times that suck more, and there's times that suck less in terms of quality of play...I think having more talent available is better...but what you're tying talent to (a linear influx of countries and population growth) doesn't seem so much accurate as it does lazy and lacking of nuance and fundamental knowledge of the game, how players are developed, coaching, etc.

 

[streitz]

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...

Russia's population is shrinking rapidly. They peaked in the 1990's.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Is that Soviet Union aided, though?

 

[danincanada]

There is an ebb and flow of talent based on circumstances, it's clear in the quality of the league. What you have always dodged is whether you actually watch these games...so I have no choice but to believe that you do not. Therefore, you're not judging the quality of the play, you're just waiting to complain about the fact that it's "All Canadian" without looking to see if maybe that is the best product.

I think the quality of the league increases from around 1986 or 87 for some time...the influx of Russians in the late 90's (~90ish in the league) did little to affect quality of the league it seems like...I'm not sure the game was any better in 1999 than it was 1989. I think it's good that the Russians, among others, are able to produce NHL talent...when they actually produce NHL talent. Considering how much "pride" you're taking in Slovenia being a hockey hot bed because of Anze Kopitar - who did a lot of hockey development in Sweden anyway, IIRC - what do you make of the notion that there's about a one-third the amount of Russians in the league now? Is the league worse now than it was in 1999?

In short, I think there's times that suck more, and there's times that suck less in terms of quality of play...I think having more talent available is better...but what you're tying talent to (a linear influx of countries and population growth) doesn't seem so much accurate as it does lazy and lacking of nuance and fundamental knowledge of the game, how players are developed, coaching, etc.

I agree there is an ebb and flow of talent but back in the O6 there was really only an ebb and flow of Canada (pre baby-boom) minus the coasts so that was simply not a very large talent pool at the time when compared to the baby boom and later. I have watched many games and parts of games from all different eras. The thing that always strikes me with the O6 games is how poor the passing is. Part of that has to do with the sticks they used but it still doesn't excuse all of it. I've been a hockey fan all my life and still youtube old games. I'm not closed off to other eras, I just don't think this section is dealing with cross era comparisons with a realistic approach. How many times have you seen this on here:

Modern player career all-star nominations 1,1,2,5,6,7,8,9
O6 player career all-start nominations 1,1,2,3,5,6,8,8

O6 player must be better, he had better AS nominations, right? I question how were the leagues composed during those eras and what kind of competition did he face. Having 5 times the teams brings up more opportunity across the board for comparisons like this as well.

Is that what I was saying about Kopitar and Slovenia? How many times did I state that having him is better than not having him around? If you have to misrepresent what I'm stating...

I think the early 90's had a lot of great talent and agree with you that the early 80's seemed to lack that amount of overall talent. Russia still produces some elite players today. The US has picked up the slack in a big way not only with elite players but with great depth. That's why I don't think there's a huge difference between the early 90's and now. My beef isn't with the early 90's though, it's with what amounted to a Canadian domestic league that people want to give full value to.

It's not linear and not solely reliant on population or the number of countries. Never claimed this was the case but having more talent steams when the old ones haven't gone away points to it being a larger and better pool. Having a baby boom and/or more population in a country like Canada that still is hockey crazy does as well. Arguing against these ideas is a losing battle (they lost a long time ago) so don't join that side even you have some personal beef with me.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, I think you got a lot of strawman, woe-is-me stuff going on there...it not only distracts from your point, but it dilutes it a bunch too...if you really have solid ground to stand on, you don't need all the sizzle...just bring the steak. I'm not convinced you know how to take your claim to the next level and apply outside influences to it...as such, you throw it back on "us", as if we're completely blind...

In a 100-player league, or whatever number we want to pick, doesn't the quality of the talent matter that much more? Don't you have to be more discerning about what you put on the ice?

If I said, "hey pal, show me your best 1,000 hockey cards..." you'd just start throwing some **** at me fairly indiscriminately...but if I said, "hey, show me your best 75..." that's a completely different ask, right? That's more methodical. It doesn't matter there if you don't have anything from Topps because you're just focused on the cream of the crop, whatever brands/years/etc. that may be...

Similarly, I don't mind if the league was all-Canadian or all-Ukrainian or all-Martian for a time if the quality of play doesn't suffer. International hockey starts to elevate its game through the 1960's in my opinion...there's some strong players in Europe in that time too, but most of them felt it more prudent to remain at home than play in the NHL...which wasn't a totally full time job yet for everyone...

This is where talent evaluation comes into it too...you can't just automatically say "well, if you're third best in the league in 1964, it's worse than being third best in 2014" that's lazy. I'd take the 3rd best goalie in the league in 1960 over the third best goalie in 1983...or the second best...or the best...because I think goaltending stunk to high heaven in and around that time. This is the ebb and flow, in short. You're so giddy to knock the guy in the six-team league but if you had an eye for the game, you'd realize that third best guy in 1960 is way better than the best guy in the early 80's...because the quality of the game succumbed to the lack of talent that existed...talent that it seems you believe existed internationally or in America...

You seem quick to gloss over the explanation of why some other countries are sending less talent to the NHL...Finns 42 players last year, 43 ten years ago. Czechs 37 players last year, 59 ten years ago. There's about half as many Slovaks in the league now than there were ten years ago. Russia we already discussed their declining numbers in the NHL.

Yet, if you ask me, I'd say the game of the last three seasons or so, is about as good as I've seen it...there's skill up and down the lineups now, it's goaltending that's pretty weak right now probably (suck on that one, qpq), C1958 noted the lack of quality RD, that's fair too, a lot of guys get pressed into action that probably ought not to be pressed into action for handedness reasons...but the forward depth in the league today is pretty good, yet, declining numbers from four of the "Big 7" or whatever you want to term it...

So, yeah, it's nice that hockey can grow in more places, no question...but don't undercut every game that doesn't feature Anze Kopitar (don't you dare "lawyer" me on this one) because you think that diversity automatically equals better product. It can. Don't get me wrong, it absolutely can. But you haven't done anything to show that that's really been the case...you have tried to undercut the "All Canadian" league, hamhandedly and repetitively, and then turn around and go "oh, it's just because you have beef with me"...don't flatter yourself, it's just that you're not bringing anything interesting to the table...again...if I had beef with you, you could at least bring that to the table, but...

 

[danincanada]

Yeah, I think you got a lot of strawman, woe-is-me stuff going on there...it not only distracts from your point, but it dilutes it a bunch too...if you really have solid ground to stand on, you don't need all the sizzle...just bring the steak. I'm not convinced you know how to take your claim to the next level and apply outside influences to it...as such, you throw it back on "us", as if we're completely blind...

In a 100-player league, or whatever number we want to pick, doesn't the quality of the talent matter that much more? Don't you have to be more discerning about what you put on the ice?

If I said, "hey pal, show me your best 1,000 hockey cards..." you'd just start throwing some **** at me fairly indiscriminately...but if I said, "hey, show me your best 75..." that's a completely different ask, right? That's more methodical. It doesn't matter there if you don't have anything from Topps because you're just focused on the cream of the crop, whatever brands/years/etc. that may be...

Similarly, I don't mind if the league was all-Canadian or all-Ukrainian or all-Martian for a time if the quality of play doesn't suffer. International hockey starts to elevate its game through the 1960's in my opinion...there's some strong players in Europe in that time too, but most of them felt it more prudent to remain at home than play in the NHL...which wasn't a totally full time job yet for everyone...

This is where talent evaluation comes into it too...you can't just automatically say "well, if you're third best in the league in 1964, it's worse than being third best in 2014" that's lazy. I'd take the 3rd best goalie in the league in 1960 over the third best goalie in 1983...or the second best...or the best...because I think goaltending stunk to high heaven in and around that time. This is the ebb and flow, in short. You're so giddy to knock the guy in the six-team league but if you had an eye for the game, you'd realize that third best guy in 1960 is way better than the best guy in the early 80's...because the quality of the game succumbed to the lack of talent that existed...talent that it seems you believe existed internationally or in America...

You seem quick to gloss over the explanation of why some other countries are sending less talent to the NHL...Finns 42 players last year, 43 ten years ago. Czechs 37 players last year, 59 ten years ago. There's about half as many Slovaks in the league now than there were ten years ago. Russia we already discussed their declining numbers in the NHL.

Yet, if you ask me, I'd say the game of the last three seasons or so, is about as good as I've seen it...there's skill up and down the lineups now, it's goaltending that's pretty weak right now probably (suck on that one, qpq), C1958 noted the lack of quality RD, that's fair too, a lot of guys get pressed into action that probably ought not to be pressed into action for handedness reasons...but the forward depth in the league today is pretty good, yet, declining numbers from four of the "Big 7" or whatever you want to term it...

So, yeah, it's nice that hockey can grow in more places, no question...but don't undercut every game that doesn't feature Anze Kopitar (don't you dare "lawyer" me on this one) because you think that diversity automatically equals better product. It can. Don't get me wrong, it absolutely can. But you haven't done anything to show that that's really been the case...you have tried to undercut the "All Canadian" league, hamhandedly and repetitively, and then turn around and go "oh, it's just because you have beef with me"...don't flatter yourself, it's just that you're not bringing anything interesting to the table...again...if I had beef with you, you could at least bring that to the table, but...

I'm not glossing over the bolded. Finland is a hockey hot bed at the moment as is Sweden. They are producing some fantastic young talent and your scouting eyes must see that. I don't feel the need to delve deep into the eastern block not producing as much depth because the NHL had none of the talent those nations produced in the O6 or prior, and again, I feel the US is making up for it. You want to show your top 100 players but they only come from one nation (Canada)? Realistically, why wouldn't the whole hockey world of today have a better top 100 now than just Canada did back then? What is your reasoning other than using your eyes to scout two completely different compositions of players playing a very different game. I have news for you, your scouting eyes are very subjective, too. It's difficult enough to scout one league over the course of one season but you seem to be claiming you can scout across vastly different eras composed of entirely different players. It's highly unscientific because nothing is the same across the comparison other than the sport they are playing. It's like comparing the height of two people from pictures with nothing to reference in the background. Good luck with that.

I'll stick with common sense and hockey expanding with more and deeper talent pools makes it harder to stand out in the NHL. There are more people striving to be the best now than during the O6 and the incentives ($) are far greater as well. Hockey specific training just adds to it all. If farming made people better hockey players the experts of today would be sending everyone to the fields in the off season but that's not happening.

 

[Canadiens1958]

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.

So the various Canadian junior / senior teams / players facing Soviet National or Select teams in the fifties and sixties received no benefit on their journey to become NHL players.

Likewise the non-Canadian international teams playing Soviet teams. 1980 Gold Medal USA team received no benefit from their numerous games against the Soviets, neither did Herb Brooks. In the alternative are you claiming that these benefits started only when 1980 Soviets started making the NHL roughly a decade later?

 

[DannyGallivan]

In short, I think there's times that suck more, and there's times that suck less in terms of quality of play...I think having more talent available is better...but what you're tying talent to (a linear influx of countries and population growth) doesn't seem so much accurate as it does lazy and lacking of nuance and fundamental knowledge of the game, how players are developed, coaching, etc.

I think that that quality of players - other than a handful of "generational talent" are somewhat constant. What changes is style of play. That's why I tend to reject the notion that defensemen in the 60's were so much worse than the eras before and after. The 1960's was a era dominated by the notion that d-men did not and should not rush the puck... until a guy named Orr changed all that.

Then the Europeans... ah, the Europeans. The influx of Europeans coincided with more teams, not necessarily a higher percentage of talented players. Hockey in Europe was several decades behind Canadian hockey in development, so there is little reason to think that opening the NHL to Europeans in the 50's or 60's would have led to a "European invasion" of hockey talent. More like a trickle, most likely. It's not like today, where everybody has more or less 'caught up and hockey is truly an international sport.

Finally, I'm a firm believer that talent and great athletes are constant. What has changed is equipment and sports science. Let Howie Morenz, Frank Nighbor, Eddie Shore or Frank Boucher grow up with the coaches and trainers that elite youth players enjoy, along with the knowledge of physical training and nutition, and the truly space-aged equipment, and you'll see those players in the running for the Hart Trophy in 2019.

 

[danincanada]

So the various Canadian junior / senior teams / players facing Soviet National or Select teams in the fifties and sixties received no benefit on their journey to become NHL players.

Likewise the non-Canadian international teams playing Soviet teams. 1980 Gold Medal USA team received no benefit from their numerous games against the Soviets, neither did Herb Brooks. In the alternative are you claiming that these benefits started only when 1980 Soviets started making the NHL roughly a decade later?

You're partially right and I didn't intend to word it the way I did. Players who didn't make the NHL were, or could be, part of the big picture. Meaning they could have influenced players that ended up making the NHL and were part of the whole talent pool per se.

My real point was, if they didn't make the NHL then they weren't part of the competition that is the NHL. Meaning they weren't vying for rosters spots, awards, helping teams win, etc. This is the difference between someone like Kopitar and someone like Tureanu.

 

[danincanada]

I think that that quality of players - other than a handful of "generational talent" are somewhat constant. What changes is style of play. That's why I tend to reject the notion that defensemen in the 60's were so much worse than the eras before and after. The 1960's was a era dominated by the notion that d-men did not and should not rush the puck... until a guy named Orr changed all that.

Then the Europeans... ah, the Europeans. The influx of Europeans coincided with more teams, not necessarily a higher percentage of talented players. Hockey in Europe was several decades behind Canadian hockey in development, so there is little reason to think that opening the NHL to Europeans in the 50's or 60's would have led to a "European invasion" of hockey talent. More like a trickle, most likely. It's not like today, where everybody has more or less 'caught up and hockey is truly an international sport.

Finally, I'm a firm believer that talent and great athletes are constant. What has changed is equipment and sports science. Let Howie Morenz, Frank Nighbor, Eddie Shore or Frank Boucher grow up with the coaches and trainers that elite youth players enjoy, along with the knowledge of physical training and nutition, and the truly space-aged equipment, and you'll see those players in the running for the Hart Trophy in 2019.

Let's do a hypothetical here and test this. Say Canada was wiped off the face of the earth and every Canadian suddenly died including every Canadian hockey player. Canada is now a barren wasteland and no one can live there centuries. Are the quality and talent of hockey players still constant after that and when compared to the past?

I know it's a silly hypothetical but hopefully it makes you realize something. Why I really want to know is, are you just looking through this with Canadian coloured glasses?

Canada is a huge part of the talent pool so it would clearly impact things a lot. The real point is we are no longer the only talent pool.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You're partially right and I didn't intend to word it the way I did. Players who didn't make the NHL were, or could be, part of the big picture. Meaning they could have influenced players that ended up making the NHL and were part of the whole talent pool per se.

My real point was, if they didn't make the NHL then they weren't part of the competition that is the NHL. Meaning they weren't vying for rosters spots, awards, helping teams win, etc. This is the difference between someone like Kopitar and someone like Tureanu.

So the actual reason or hockey talent does not matter.

Simple act of making the NHL.

Or Len Broderick contributed more to the NHL than Vladislav Tretiak.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Let's do a hypothetical here and test this. Say Canada was wiped off the face of the earth and every Canadian suddenly died including every Canadian hockey player. Canada is now a barren wasteland and no one can live there centuries. Are the quality and talent of hockey players still constant after that and when compared to the past?

I know it's a silly hypothetical but hopefully it makes you realize something. Why I really want to know is, are you just looking through this with Canadian coloured glasses?

Canada is a huge part of the talent pool so it would clearly impact things a lot. The real point is we are no longer the only talent pool.

That was addressed in my post.
What I did say was that Europe was behind Canada in hockey development so you can't necessarily assume that opening up the league to European players in the 50's and 60's would have had as much of an impact as it had in the past 30 years or so.
And to answer your hypothetical question, as strange a scenerio as it is... the quality and talent of hockey would take a nose dive. My original point kind of hinged on non-catastrophic events altering the world. I would also assume that if the United States got sucked into a vortex and spit out in pieces on the other side of the universe, that the talent level of basketball may take a hit as well.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I have news for you, your scouting eyes are very subjective, too

This isn't news. Do you feel your opinion is not subjective somehow? Of course my eyes on subjective, subjectivity is essential to the process. There is no hard and fast objective means to settle this.

That's why we're going through the motions on the top-100 project because if we could just sort by points there'd be nothing to discuss.

It's difficult enough to scout one league over the course of one season but you seem to be claiming you can scout across vastly different eras composed of entirely different players.

Yes. 100% foolproof? No, of course not. But I have a decent working knowledge of the game...it's not that hard to put together...

It's like comparing the height of two people from pictures with nothing to reference in the background.

It's not at all like that. We have thousands of games of reference that we can work back through 80+ years of history, or, the vast majority of NHL history...so your attempted analogy couldn't be more off.

If we only had yesterday's games and a five minute clip of one game from 1933...sure, you'd have a point. But we have thousands of games for reference...you have to have an understanding of the game and its evolution and you have to want to work at it...

 

[streitz]

Is that Soviet Union aided, though?

Russia Population (2019) - Worldometers

 

[danincanada]

So the actual reason or hockey talent does not matter.

Simple act of making the NHL.

Or Len Broderick contributed more to the NHL than Vladislav Tretiak.

If an elite player can’t be or isn’t in the NHL for whatever reason then they are not competing with those NHL players at the time. An example of this is the fact that Dryden didn’t have to compete with Tretiak for NHL awards, team success, etc. did that makes things easier or more difficult for Dryden. I think most would agree that probably made things easier for him.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Russia Population (2019) - Worldometers

So, yes. The population is effectively stagnant, but their NHL talent has been rapidly reducing...

 

[streitz]

So, yes. The population is effectively stagnant, but their NHL talent has been rapidly reducing...

5 million in 20 years projected to decrease another 10 million in the next 20 years. That coupled with the 2nd highest immigration rates in the world. That's not stagnant, that's rapid decline.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Projection is potential energy. Let me know when it's kinetic.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

Well panther the problem is calling it the "dead puck era" which is lazy and misinformed by many who copied the phrase from baseball where the baseball was actually dead.

It's much more accurate to call it the clutch and grab era along with a side dish of ballooning goalie equipment which made it harder to score.

 

[Canadiens1958]

If an elite player can’t be or isn’t in the NHL for whatever reason then they are not competing with those NHL players at the time. An example of this is the fact that Dryden didn’t have to compete with Tretiak for NHL awards, team success, etc. did that makes things easier or more difficult for Dryden. I think most would agree that probably made things easier for him.

Overlooking the nature of the competition, Eight game series vs 78 game NHL season.

One exhibition game with a rested team vs a tired team.

Tretiak is getting the benefit of assumptions immediately that Hasek struggled four seasons to overcome.

 

[authentic]

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

None of my prescious Russians and Europeans, eh? And you're literally telling me who was the most fun to watch as if that isn't completely subjective. He was an entertaining player for sure but I personally find quite a few more entertaining to watch. Also congratulations on your favourite 80s swede, there are several from the 90s and beyond much better.

 

[streitz]

None of my prescious Russians and Europeans, eh? And you're literally telling me who was the most fun to watch as if that isn't completely subjective. He was an entertaining player for sure but I personally find quite a few more entertaining to watch. Also congratulations on your favourite 80s swede, there are several from the 90s and beyond much better.

Yeah but none were tough like Steen was.



Owen 40 points Nolan was an elite talent though, so who knows.

 

[wetcoast]

Yeah but none were tough like Steen was.



Owen 40 points Nolan was an elite talent though, so who knows.

Gradin was better than Steen but I loved him in the home flying V uniforms.

And waht exactly is this Owen 40 points Nolan garbage?

Owen Nolan played 18 season in the NHL and averaged 49 points a season over those 18 seasons.

He also averaged just 67 games in each of those seasons.

 

[authentic]

Yeah but none were tough like Steen was.



Owen 40 points Nolan was an elite talent though, so who knows.

Yeah I never mentioned Nolan, he also scored 84 points in 2000 which would be the equivalent of 100+ in the 80s plus 70+ a few more times though, so I can't call it.

 

[streitz]

Yeah I never mentioned Nolan, he also scored 84 points in 2000 which would be the equivalent of 100+ in the 80s plus 70+ a few more times though, so I can't call it.

Uh looking back you're actually right. I guess I was so baffled by your inclusion of Neely as a late 90's talent I just assumed you meant Nolan.