Hockey of the past vs today

[danincanada]

Such discussions are not identified overtly but exist when the value of Hart trophies are discussed giving changing criteria and procedures over time. Comparables between one and two goalie system eras. Scheduling nuances and impacts.

The rule changes - forward passing, Red Line introduction, icing, etc.

1969 IIHF adopting basically NA/NHL rules to facilitate competition.

All there. Sorry you missed it.Part of the prelude which is ongoing to every project.

Are these really all directly related to what I harp on all the time, and what we are discussing now, which is growth of the talent pool feeding the NHL? What do rule changes, scheduling, etc. have to do with the obvious growth of the sport from its infancy to the modern era? It all meshes together like the universe but you seem to be avoiding my actual argument, like usual.

I’ll give credit where credit is due and you have a lot of knowledge of these topics. I just wouldn’t go to you for an unbiased view about the talent pool and how it’s changed over time or how that impacts the league.

 

[danincanada]

Yeah, even in vote 3 when we talked about players extending their careers in the crappy early 1980's hockey...the discussion about the War years with Richard and how weak that time was...notice how none of the "early" goalies are up yet despite having the best numbers of all time (Alec Connell, George Hainsworth best season ever statistically, etc.) because we understand era limitations...

Literally, the only person who isn't reading these discussions is you...probably because you're so busy talking about them not happening in an adjacent thread. Grab some pine, bud, take a couple shifts off...

“Yeah”?? Haha, would you agree with just about any paragraph he came up with no matter how far off base from what we are actually discussing? You disappoint me.

Then you name the two points I brought up weeks/months ago to you as the only examples I noticed? Remember? I appreciated your talk about the early 80’s looking weak and I complained that people were only talking about the War year’s as having a reduced talent pool. I really expected more from you.

Why are we in this thread again? Oh right, because talking about the talent pool is not really permitted in the project. You’re the one riding the pine here Farkas.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Are these really all directly related to what I harp on all the time, and what we are discussing now, which is growth of the talent pool feeding the NHL? What do rule changes, scheduling, etc. have to do with the obvious growth of the sport from its infancy to the modern era? It all meshes together like the universe but you seem to be avoiding my actual argument, like usual.

I’ll give credit where credit is due and you have a lot of knowledge of these topics. I just wouldn’t go to you for an unbiased view about the talent pool and how it’s changed over time or how that impacts the league.

Yes rule changes, scheduling,etc created a need for larger rosters growing from 9 to presently 23 in just under 100 years. A significant growth in talent pool requirements.

1969 IIHF adopting NHL rules allowed the necessary game experience for international players to become NHL game proficient.

 

[danincanada]

Yes rule changes, scheduling,etc created a need for larger rosters growing from 9 to presently 23 in just under 100 years. A significant growth in talent pool requirements.

1969 IIHF adopting NHL rules allowed the necessary game experience for international players to become NHL game proficient.

So you are now admitting the talent pool grew?

 

[Canadiens1958]

So you are now admitting the talent pool grew?

Talent requirements or openings grew, elevating non-NHL quality players to NHL lower levels. Talent pool did not grow.

 

[danincanada]

Talent requirements or openings grew, elevating non-NHL quality players to NHL lower levels. Talent pool did not grow.

Has it ever grown or fluctuated or is it the one constant the universe has seen? How far are you willing to go with this?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Has it ever grown or fluctuated or is it the one constant the universe has seen? How far are you willing to go with this?

Eligibility changed - amateurs could play against pros without losing amateur eligibility.

Also you are repeatedly conflating need and demand.

Presently the talent pool is insufficient to respond to needs for goalies, RDs and LDs plus depth forwards.

 

[danincanada]

Eligibility changed - amateurs could play against pros without losing amateur eligibility.

Also you are repeatedly conflating need and demand.

Presently the talent pool is insufficient to respond to needs for goalies, RDs and LDs plus depth forwards.

It was a simple question. Why are you afraid to answer with your opinion?

The talent pool being insufficient is up for debate and what does that actually mean? It all depends on what level of athlete you expect. Not every player can be elite by definition. There are more than 30 teams now so being “insufficient” for that is a lot different than needing to feed 6 teams, isn’t it?

You have gone on and on about Harvey playing his off side and I’ve been told how terrible his partners were at times here. Must have been insufficient for only 6 teams then, too, which would be much worse.

 

[Canadiens1958]

It was a simple question. Why are you afraid to answer with your opinion?

The talent pool being insufficient is up for debate and what does that actually mean? It all depends on what level of athlete you expect. Not every player can be elite by definition. There are more than 30 teams now so being “insufficient” for that is a lot different than needing to feed 6 teams, isn’t it?

You have gone on and on about Harvey playing his off side and I’ve been told how terrible his partners were at times here. Must have been insufficient for only 6 teams then, too, which would be much worse.

Expectation is an NHL level quality athlete.

Elite defencemen used to play both sides regularly. Not so today.

Expectation of a depth forward is more than 0G 5A assists like some former mid 1st round picks are producing.

Point is that the upcoming talent pool is driven by player skills not future team needs.

See that you have nothing else to say since you have drifted back to your tiresome original Doug Harvey bashing.

 

[Tweed]

Has it ever grown or fluctuated or is it the one constant the universe has seen? How far are you willing to go with this?

He'll go all the way.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Has it ever grown or fluctuated or is it the one constant the universe has seen? How far are you willing to go with this?

Obfuscation - it's not an accident.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Lazier is your investigation and reporting of this alleged phenomenon. I've not seen any meaningful discussion take place here where era is not accounted for. What I have seen is your yawn-inducing arguments and allegations, over and over again...

What I want is a specific series of posts where exactly what you're saying above happened. That a player(s) from "the first 70 or so years of the 1900's" (which is disingenuous in its own right because there's weaker hockey ahead of that time frame and stronger hockey behind, if proof can be produced, we'll need to evaluate that) is compared to a player(s) from the inverse of that time and nobody in that discussion mentioned era/quality of competition/etc.

You talk about it often enough and broadly enough that it must happen constantly, otherwise it wouldn't be worth your time to bring up in every post. Provide specific proof of this happening for evaluation.

Yeah, we've all been asking for this proof for years. Don't hold your breath on it appearing. Nobody has ever produced the discussions where Russell Bowie and Frank McGee were being compared favourably to Phil Esposito and Guy Lafleur, or Charlie Gardiner was getting the nod over Dominik Hasek. If era considerations were being ignored, stuff like this should exist.

Look at the current project. 8 of the top 16 players were active within the last 20 years. Only 3 of the top 32 are from the pre-WWII era. If there exists a bias, it sure as hell isn't in favour of the older guys.

It's the Harvey over Lidstrom thing. Trade them spots in the current project, and/or previous ones, and I'm convinced that almost all of the complaints originating from this particular member of the board go away.

 

[streitz]

The talent pool being insufficient is up for debate and what does that actually mean? It all depends on what level of athlete you expect. Not every player can be elite by definition. There are more than 30 teams now so being “insufficient” for that is a lot different than needing to feed 6 teams, isn’t it?

That's the point though. Ever since rapid expansion in the 90's and the advent of the trap in minor league/kid levels the league has gradually become filled with guys who are completely worthless at everything that isn't skating or sitting in shooting lanes.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Look at the current project. 8 of the top 16 players were active within the last 20 years. Only 3 of the top 32 are from the pre-WWII era. If there exists a bias, it sure as hell isn't in favour of the older guys.

The project concluded that the 5th or 6th best player from the 50s and 60s is superior to the best player from the 2000s and 2010s.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The project concluded that the 5th or 6th best player from the 50s and 60s is superior to the best player from the 2000s and 2010s.

As always, complaints of bias seem to be a one-way street. The project concluded the 7th or 8th best player of the 90s/00s is superior to the best player from the pre-consolidation era (a 35 year time span of Stanley Cup play), yet no complaints have been raised about that.

 

[Midnight Judges]

As always, complaints of bias seem to be a one-way street. The project concluded the 7th or 8th best player of the 90s/00s is superior to the best player from the pre-consolidation era (a 35 year time span of Stanley Cup play), yet no complaints have been raised about that.

You think amateur championships from an era where two cities in the entire world even had an organized amateur league and there were zero professional hockey players is comparable to the levels of competition today's players face.

We can agree to disagree on that point. Easily.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You think amateur championships from an era where two cities in the entire world even had an organized amateur league and there were zero professional hockey players is comparable to the levels of competition today's players face.

We can agree to disagree on that point. Easily.

Simply false. Eastern Canada featured a league representing five cities.

Sports in Canada into the early 20th century were amateur.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Simply false. Eastern Canada featured a league representing five cities.

Sports in Canada into the early 20th century were amateur.

Oh good you're still here. How about answering the question this time:

Has it [the hockey talent pool] ever grown or fluctuated?...

 

[danincanada]

Expectation is an NHL level quality athlete.

Elite defencemen used to play both sides regularly. Not so today.

Expectation of a depth forward is more than 0G 5A assists like some former mid 1st round picks are producing.

Point is that the upcoming talent pool is driven by player skills not future team needs.

See that you have nothing else to say since you have drifted back to your tiresome original Doug Harvey bashing.

As if “NHL level quality” has always been consistent and there is a standard for what an NHL player is throughout history. They basically train year round now with hockey specific training, can be on the ice year round, go over video and have large coaching staffs talking to them constantly through the season. But it seems like you are saying the NHL lacks the quality players they had in the past had who didn’t even work on their game year round and didn’t have all the benefits current players have. I guess players in the past were just inherently better for whatever reason.

On one hand you seem to be complaining that teams can’t find LHS and RHS defenseman and at the same time admitting in the O6 the elite guys played both sides? You’re not making any sense here. Why would they play their off side if there was another great option as a partner who could man their offside? After all, hockey coaching greats like Bowman and Babcock (Toe Blake as well?) all preferred the D to play their proper side if at all possible.

My post in no way bashed Doug Harvey, I just again pointed out how your points aren’t adding up with things you’ve stated in the past. There was nothing negative about Harvey there.

The smart teams now are still trying to play a certain style and develop a certain culture. Speed and puck possession are the flavor of the day and I personally like it because it’s a high level of play. Playing fast takes a lot more skill than playing a slow game. When it comes to drafting it often makes sense to draft the best player available though. Teams get burned at times taking either approach.

 

[streitz]

As if “NHL level quality” has always been consistent and there is a standard for what an NHL player is throughout history. They basically train year round now with hockey specific training, can be on the ice year round, go over video and have large coaching staffs talking to them constantly through the season. But it seems like you are saying the NHL lacks the quality players they had in the past had who didn’t even work on their game year round and didn’t have all the benefits current players have. I guess players in the past were just inherently better for whatever reason.

What does this have to do with talent pool?


All those video reviews and summer schools still can't help half these guys handle the puck properly.

 

[danincanada]

Yeah, we've all been asking for this proof for years. Don't hold your breath on it appearing. Nobody has ever produced the discussions where Russell Bowie and Frank McGee were being compared favourably to Phil Esposito and Guy Lafleur, or Charlie Gardiner was getting the nod over Dominik Hasek. If era considerations were being ignored, stuff like this should exist.

Look at the current project. 8 of the top 16 players were active within the last 20 years. Only 3 of the top 32 are from the pre-WWII era. If there exists a bias, it sure as hell isn't in favour of the older guys.

It's the Harvey over Lidstrom thing. Trade them spots in the current project, and/or previous ones, and I'm convinced that almost all of the complaints originating from this particular member of the board go away.

It's definitely easier to toss out an ad hominem than actually debate what I'm stating. Lidstrom/Harvey is simply a great example of how this section doesn't factor in how much deeper and broader the talent pool is now in their cross era comparisons. I'm a Red Wings fan and I've never tried to hide that but it also works for Ovechkin/Hull and will work even better the more Ovechkin plays. How a mirror image player that played in a larger league with far more streams of talent is rated below someone who played in what amounted to a domestic league is beyond me. Obviously Hull played in the WHA later but it's his O6 career that really gets counted.

Half of the top 10 are from pre baby-boom Canada as are half of the top 20. From what I recall you give a ton of credit into "trail blazers" so you have the right to your opinion. Abilities and performance are what I'm looking at and being the cream of the crop of a small Canadian talent base is simply not impressive as doing the same for an international talent base that's much larger, all else being equal. These projects simply don't have enough perspective and lack a broad view of what the NHL actually was during certain eras in terms of the talent pool. Peer to peer comparisons stink.

 

[danincanada]

What does this have to do with talent pool?

All those video reviews and summer schools still can't help half these guys handle the puck properly.

Please go play some shinny with a current NHLer in the summer and say this to him before you step on the ice. I don't think you understand the speed they are playing at if you think they can't handle the puck.

 

[streitz]

Please go play some shinny with a current NHLer in the summer and say this to him before you step on the ice. I don't think you understand the speed they are playing at if you think they can't handle the puck.

I could go play with AHL and ECHL guys and they'd make me look like shit. That's all irrelevant, players are judged by what they do compared to their peers.

Most guys in the NHL today don't have the coordination to handle the puck at high speeds like players in the past could, this is again mostly due to over expansion. If there were 30 teams and a salary cap in 1988 it would of been the same crap.

 

[Troubadour]

Most guys in the NHL today don't have the coordination to handle the puck at high speeds like players in the past could

You've said you don't watch the current NHL. It shows.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Oh good you're still here. How about answering the question this time:

Has it [the hockey talent pool] ever grown or fluctuated?...

Specifically it is not the size of the talent pool or provenance but the amount of developmental time that feeder players get.

Hockey at the developmental level has grown has gone from a 90 day activity well into the 1970s, to 210 days to a year round activity of 365 days now.

That there have been participation shifts by position is true. Prime example 1965-1967 when youth hockey followed the NHL example and introduced the two goalie system. So the number of young goalies roughly doubled but paradoxically this hurt goalie development since practice time and the number of games did not double, so goalie development suffered since each was getting roughly half the playing time. Between 1975 and 1984 only one HHOF quality goalie joined the NHL - Grant Fuhr. Others were rushed into adult leagues since the need for goalies had to be met.

Last 20 years, the growth of summer elite youth tournaments(not league play) has added game playing time for the minority, roughly 15-20% participating. But very little practice time compared to the regular 210 youth hockey season.

Youngsters emerge with elite offensive skills but lacking the overall skills to play RD and LD, depth forwards or goalie.

The youngsters playing in 210 day leagues are falling by the wayside, eliminated early from consideration for elite levels.