Hockey of the past vs today

[Midnight Judges]

Ok, so you acknowledge that it's only in specific pockets of the overall project that there are examples of older players being more prevalent than younger ones? Would we not expect some random variance in the composition of certain sub-samples within the overall sample?

I agree random variances are to be expected with a wide margin of error given the small sample sizes.

5 of the top 9 (55%) all from the 50s and 60s (not counting Bobby Orr in which case it would be 66.6%) is loud and clear though. There is a major problem.

In other words, 16.5% of the time period you referenced has 55-67% of the all time best? I find that to be unlikely. Even more so when taking into account the vast expansion of the talent pool since then.

I would also quibble that 120 years is not actually the sample, because I don't think players from 1890-1917 (ish) have any case what so ever for being on the level of today's players. You also ended it at players born in 1990 (age 29) but probably 1985 would be better. Guys like Nick Backstrom don't look like Hall of Famers but then when their careers are over you look back and the stats pile up. So for me I'd say it's more like 1900-1985, which would actually help the ratio of 50s and 60s players a lot (then it's merely 25% of the sample accounting for 55-67% of the best - still a bad ratio).

 

[Michael Farkas]

"Top 9" k...nice pigeon math.

We got, what, 48 or 50 guys up the board right now...21 of them, at a glance, spent the meat of their career playing in the league after 1980...? 28 since the big expansion. And 9 played the meat before 1950...

The game is clearly higher quality in 1963 than it is in 1983, so say what you will about the "vast expansion of the talent pool" from fledgling hockey nations, but it sure as hell didn't move the needle forward in any sort of linear or constant form...so just lopping off huge chunks of time without looking at nuance is foolhardy, that's just a narrative stoker...

Plus, a "historical" player list is less likely to feature players who are still active, so it's a pretty small window you want us to work in...and even so, it's still going "your" way because, again, we do account for eras when doing this...

Maybe we're just not as biased as you towards certain things, and that's fine...you have your hang-ups...we all do. But we can do a lot better math than "top 9" percentages...that's a joke...

How about this...100% of our #1 guy played in a fully integrated league with all kinds of talent pools, the deepest pools...the only thing he didn't have to deal with was Anze Kopitar, so, asterisk there...but still...100%!

 

[danincanada]

Surprise, surprise, it all comes back to Harvey/Lidstrom. At some point you might just have to accept that your opinion is the minority one. And it's not because the people who hold the majority opinion have some inherent bias, not because they have completely failed to consider differences in league strength/talent pool, and not because of some nostalgia factor. After weighing all available evidence, the majority conclude Harvey was simply a better hockey player than Lidstrom. Full stop. End of story. I disagree with lots of player rankings too. But you know what? My ranking isn't the "answer key". It's only my opinion. When I think that player X is better than player Y, and 90% of people disagree, I conclude that I simply have a minority opinion on the matter. I don't go around saying those 90% have some fundamental bias or have failed to properly evaluate the situation.

Bolded: Calling Ovechkin and Hull "mirror image players" is evidently where the disagreement lies. In the opinion of most people, Hull was better at every facet of the game besides goal scoring, which is the only category where these players are "mirror images". Like Lidstrom and Harvey, all the available evidence has been weighed, and almost everyone has agreed that as of this moment, Bobby Hull was simply a better hockey player than Ovechkin. You're free to disagree, as is everyone.

If such biases existed, they should be evident across the board. But of course, you can only find small little pockets of the list where older players are more prevalent than newer ones. Rather than accept that random variance in any sort of list-making endeavor is going to lead to certain eras being more represented than others in certain spots, you go screaming of bias, and cite the same old tired examples while completely ignoring the broader picture.

The "half the top 20 are from pre-baby boom Canada comment" is telling, and does not help the position you are trying to represent. In order to be appear on the list, a participant would need to be born between approximately 1870 (making them prime aged for the beginning of Stanley Cup hockey) and 1990 (players under 30 years old have understandably not had enough time to finish their careers and be appreciated in a historical sense, generational superstar McDavid notwithstanding). Baby boom is understood to be 1946 onward, which gives us an expectation that 37% of the sample (120 years) should have been born post-WWII if absolutely no consideration was given to era differences. Yet at no single point, be it top-1 to top 49, where we presently sit, is the percentage of post baby-boom birthdays ever as low as 37%. The top 9 (44%) is the lowest representation of post baby-boom birthdays, and almost every single sample thereafter it is 50% or higher. Both figures well above the 37% threshold. Your claims of bias in favour of pre-baby boom players is not supported by basic math.

You brought up Lidstrom/Harvey so I responded to it. What do you mean surprise surprise?? How was Harvey better when he trails in all-star nominations despite playing a little 6 team Canadian only league? On top of that Lidstrom has the edge in overall longevity, and offensive production - both raw and adjusted. That’s the problem, peer to peer it’s tight but Lidstrom’s era was a lake, if not an ocean, while Harvey’s was a pond.

As a group I constantly see you guys fail to mention how a 6 team league is far less likely to have guys who aren’t so elite have career seasons simply due to more opportunity and available ice-time. This was far less likely to happen in a small league. How many top pairing defenders and first line wingers were there in each era? There’s also no logical argument that a league with international talent is easier to dominate in this regard than one with really only domestic talent, yet where are those conversations?

It’s math you came up with to suit your purposes. How many pro leagues were there outside of Canada from 1870 to 1946 and what kind of elite players did those countries produce? This matters. Was Canada at its peak in terms of its talent pool over that span? Certainly not, hockey had to gain steam and infrastructure for it to grow just like anything else in life. The country had a low population and, more importantly, low birth rates. In 1870 we had roughly 3.6 million people! In terms of actual males playing hockey in the world, post 1946 surely blows pre-1946 out of the water. How can you fail to acknowledge this in your attempt at making a mathematical equation?

Hockey had an infancy in Canada and grew from that. It’s like someone claiming there were better airplanes in the first half of human aviation since the Wright brothers than the second half up to now. It’s crazy talk because aviation got better and better and it was more popular and more common in the second half. It’s not even worth debating but here we are.

My goal has never been to bash players from the past or disrespect what they did. Like Troubador mentioned earlier, it shouldn’t be treated as blasphemous to mention these types of topics. It’s just simple reasoning and the main group here are trying too hard to make it an unfair comparison in favour of the historical player. Many act like the main boards are out to lunch but some self-evaluation is needed here, too. Simple peer to peer comparisons stink and that’s why most of the top O6 players are being overrated, and others have noticed this as well.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You brought up Lidstrom/Harvey so I responded to it. What do you mean surprise surprise?? How was Harvey better when he trails in all-star nominations despite playing a little 6 team Canadian only league? On top of that Lidstrom has the edge in overall longevity, and offensive production - both raw and adjusted. That’s the problem, peer to peer it’s tight but Lidstrom’s era was a lake, if not an ocean, while Harvey’s was a pond.

As a group I constantly see you guys fail to mention how a 6 team league is far less likely to have guys who aren’t so elite have career seasons simply due to more opportunity and available ice-time. This was far less likely to happen in a small league. How many top pairing defenders and first line wingers were there in each era? There’s also no logical argument that a league with international talent is easier to dominate in this regard than one with really only domestic talent, yet where are those conversations?

It’s math you came up with to suit your purposes. How many pro leagues were there outside of Canada from 1870 to 1946 and what kind of elite players did those countries produce? This matters. Was Canada at its peak in terms of its talent pool over that span? Certainly not, hockey had to gain steam and infrastructure for it to grow just like anything else in life. The country had a low population and, more importantly, low birth rates. In 1870 we had roughly 3.6 million people! In terms of actual males playing hockey in the world, post 1946 surely blows pre-1946 out of the water. How can you fail to acknowledge this in your attempt at making a mathematical equation?

Hockey had an infancy in Canada and grew from that. It’s like someone claiming there were better airplanes in the first half of human aviation since the Wright brothers than the second half up to now. It’s crazy talk because aviation got better and better and it was more popular and more common in the second half. It’s not even worth debating but here we are.

My goal has never been to bash players from the past or disrespect what they did. Like Troubador mentioned earlier, it shouldn’t be treated as blasphemous to mention these types of topics. It’s just simple reasoning and the main group here are trying too hard to make it an unfair comparison in favour of the historical player. Many act like the main boards are out to lunch but some self-evaluation is needed here, too. Simple peer to peer comparisons stink and that’s why most of the top O6 players are being overrated, and others have noticed this as well.

Just looking for a wedge to re-open a lost debate.

 

[danincanada]

Just looking for a wedge to re-open a lost debate.

Only I wasn't the one who brought it up, and I feel very comfortable with my side of the debate. I don't have to dodge straight forward questions like some here do.

 

[streitz]

Only I wasn't the one who brought it up, and I feel very comfortable with my side of the debate. I don't have to dodge straight forward questions like some here do.

No one is dodging questions from you.

 

[danincanada]

No one is dodging questions from you.

See posts 381 and 393.

 

[billybudd]

Well, the "vast expansion of the talent pool" isn't a thing that was said to have occurred by 1983, is it? That doesn't seem to me like a good year to pick. I mean, the Soviet bloc wasn't opened up for almost another decade and the "Miracle" dividends wouldn't show up for about the same amount of time.

 

[overpass]

It’s like someone claiming there were better airplanes in the first half of human aviation since the Wright brothers than the second half up to now. It’s crazy talk because aviation got better and better and it was more popular and more common in the second half. It’s not even worth debating but here we are.

Pilots, not airplanes, would seem to be the relevant comparison.

Would you have a problem with, for example, Chuck Yeager rated as the best pilot of all time? Even though pilots of later generations flew better planes? I’m not expert on the history of aviation but I think Yeager or someone from his generation could be reasonably rated #1.

 

[BobbyAwe]

Slot is a fairly large area not a signature spot, which is a very limited area.

Also Esposito was not a blaster, no one talked about his shot. Esposito was a master of re-directs, quick release on rebounds( forehand and backhand) and passes from the boards, getting his shot on net before the goalie was set.

Having been watching some old full game vids lately, I was surprised to see Esposito actually DID try the slapshot from the blueline at times? I don't remember him ever doing that but I guess my memory suffers?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Having been watching some old full game vids lately, I was surprised to see Esposito actually DID try the slapshot from the blueline at times? I don't remember him ever doing that but I guess my memory suffers?

Why watching complete games beats hilites.

As the slapshot was growing in popularity in the sixties most players tried it with varying degrees of success and longevity.

 

[wetcoast]

See that's just it....nobody is suggesting McGee should be available alongside Forsberg. Both were low GP, playoff heroes within their era, so they are somewhat similar in that sense. And if he doesn't even come up for voting in the project, it will not be controversial; at least I don't suspect it would be. Probably won't be controversial if Bowie never comes up either. Yet apparently era differences/talent pool considerations are not taken into account? Really it seems more like "my favourite player from the 21st century is behind somebody from the 1950s and it's easier to accuse participants of systematic bias than to accept I have a minority opinion on the matter".

I think the era context probably comes more into play when one o.pares players from 06 and the era starting in the 90s with the largest influx of elite non traditional talent stream players.

Things like top 10 scoring and even VsX are hard to directly co.pare between the 2 era.

Also with the modern salary cap and the likelihood of lesser chances of dynasties it will reflect on the project which really is top heavy with multiple SC winners, something much more likely in a 6 team league than a 30ish team league.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well, the "vast expansion of the talent pool" isn't a thing that was said to have occurred by 1983, is it? That doesn't seem to me like a good year to pick. I mean, the Soviet bloc wasn't opened up for almost another decade and the "Miracle" dividends wouldn't show up for about the same amount of time.

So, before it was "why just focus on Russians"...now it's "just focus on Russians"...?

"Vast expansion of the talent pool" is an overstatement in and of itself...and by definition, doesn't seem to have occurred from a quality NHLer point of view. The stuff between a standard deviation on either side of the mean, sure you could certainly reason that...but that's not what the NHL is made up of...

Miracle dividends, as it were, clearly start to show up by 1983 and 1984. U.S. high schoolers were playing in the joke league years of the early to mid 1980's...but because it's outside the "six-team, all-Canadian" league or whatever, it gets a pass...recognize the ebb and flow as it relates to the quality of play...

 

[wetcoast]

Well, the "vast expansion of the talent pool" isn't a thing that was said to have occurred by 1983, is it? That doesn't seem to me like a good year to pick. I mean, the Soviet bloc wasn't opened up for almost another decade and the "Miracle" dividends wouldn't show up for about the same amount of time.

Expansion of the talent pool came with a trickle at first in the late 60's and early 70's and reached its peak, so far, in the 90s and has ebbed and flowed a it since then but it has never dropped any lower than it was in the early to mid 80s.

Anyone can see this by looking at post season awards voting and all star team voting records.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I agree random variances are to be expected with a wide margin of error given the small sample sizes.

5 of the top 9 (55%) all from the 50s and 60s (not counting Bobby Orr in which case it would be 66.6%) is loud and clear though. There is a major problem.

In other words, 16.5% of the time period you referenced has 55-67% of the all time best? I find that to be unlikely. Even more so when taking into account the vast expansion of the talent pool since then.

I would also quibble that 120 years is not actually the sample, because I don't think players from 1890-1917 (ish) have any case what so ever for being on the level of today's players. You also ended it at players born in 1990 (age 29) but probably 1985 would be better. Guys like Nick Backstrom don't look like Hall of Famers but then when their careers are over you look back and the stats pile up. So for me I'd say it's more like 1900-1985, which would actually help the ratio of 50s and 60s players a lot (then it's merely 25% of the sample accounting for 55-67% of the best - still a bad ratio).

Your first sentence contradicts the second. I mean, we could also say that 3 of the top 7 entered the league between 1979 and 1985. Imgine, 43% of the sample size entered the NHL within a 5% window of the time span, something must be terribly wrong! The reality is, all sorts of anomalies or perceived biases can be found if the sample size is tiny enough. A broader perspective is preferable, and when the project is looked from that broad perspective, suddenly the alleged biases are no longer detectable.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

You brought up Lidstrom/Harvey so I responded to it. What do you mean surprise surprise?? How was Harvey better when he trails in all-star nominations despite playing a little 6 team Canadian only league? On top of that Lidstrom has the edge in overall longevity, and offensive production - both raw and adjusted. That’s the problem, peer to peer it’s tight but Lidstrom’s era was a lake, if not an ocean, while Harvey’s was a pond.

It's almost like there's more to player evaluation than counting up all-star selections/awards, and stats....

As a group I constantly see you guys fail to mention how a 6 team league is far less likely to have guys who aren’t so elite have career seasons simply due to more opportunity and available ice-time. This was far less likely to happen in a small league. How many top pairing defenders and first line wingers were there in each era? There’s also no logical argument that a league with international talent is easier to dominate in this regard than one with really only domestic talent, yet where are those conversations?

Has it never occurred to you that stuff like this is often baked into the overall analysis of the players being examined? Or does every single post made about a player from before 1990,1970, whatever year you choose need to come with a disclaimer in big red type font? Stuff like leaderboard finishes in statistical categories is constantly provided part and parcel with necessary caveats. The topic of how to interpret and weight all-star teams and award finishes from certain eras has come up and been discussed at length in several of the voting threads in the current project. Either you're ignoring them, or you're choosing to attack the process because you disagree with its conclusions.

It’s math you came up with to suit your purposes. How many pro leagues were there outside of Canada from 1870 to 1946 and what kind of elite players did those countries produce? This matters. Was Canada at its peak in terms of its talent pool over that span? Certainly not, hockey had to gain steam and infrastructure for it to grow just like anything else in life. The country had a low population and, more importantly, low birth rates. In 1870 we had roughly 3.6 million people! In terms of actual males playing hockey in the world, post 1946 surely blows pre-1946 out of the water. How can you fail to acknowledge this in your attempt at making a mathematical equation?

Hockey had an infancy in Canada and grew from that. It’s like someone claiming there were better airplanes in the first half of human aviation since the Wright brothers than the second half up to now. It’s crazy talk because aviation got better and better and it was more popular and more common in the second half. It’s not even worth debating but here we are.

The "higher population=more elite hockey players" argument has had more holes poked in it than a strainer by this point. Lengthy, detailed discussion on the issue exists in the previous pages of this very thread, among many others. Once again, you disagreeing with the conclusions does not mean the discussion has not occurred.

My goal has never been to bash players from the past or disrespect what they did. Like Troubador mentioned earlier, it shouldn’t be treated as blasphemous to mention these types of topics. It’s just simple reasoning and the main group here are trying too hard to make it an unfair comparison in favour of the historical player. Many act like the main boards are out to lunch but some self-evaluation is needed here, too. Simple peer to peer comparisons stink and that’s why most of the top O6 players are being overrated, and others have noticed this as well.

Simple peer to peer comparisons stink...unless they conclude that the modern player was better, right? I mean, "more all-star teams for Lidstrom than Harvey" was your opening salvo up above. All-star/award selections are as peer-to-peer of a process as it can get.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I think the era context probably comes more into play when one o.pares players from 06 and the era starting in the 90s with the largest influx of elite non traditional talent stream players.

Things like top 10 scoring and even VsX are hard to directly co.pare between the 2 era.

Also with the modern salary cap and the likelihood of lesser chances of dynasties it will reflect on the project which really is top heavy with multiple SC winners, something much more likely in a 6 team league than a 30ish team league.

This is why I've always said that top 10 placements and VsX need to be the garnish of an argument, not the meat of it. Same with number of championships won. Which players who didn't win multiple Cups have been given the short end of the stick in your opinion? In the #5-9 vote, the player with the fewest Cups took the top spot. In the #10-14 vote, same thing. And the player with the most Cups ever was passed over in his first vote, and only grabbed the #5 spot in his second.

 

[wetcoast]

This is why I've always said that top 10 placements and VsX need to be the garnish of an argument, not the meat of it. Same with number of championships won. Which players who didn't win multiple Cups have been given the short end of the stick in your opinion? In the #5-9 vote, the player with the fewest Cups took the top spot. In the #10-14 vote, same thing. And the player with the most Cups ever was passed over in his first vote, and only grabbed the #5 spot in his second.

Off the top of my head I think Forsberg and Dionne are the top 2 players it for different reasons.

Forsberg isn't really that far off Sakic as a player and the gap from Lafleur to Dionne is too large. I think some current players are going to be hurt the most but then again it might be more that they are still playing.

At least one voter in the project has expressed somewhat bewilderingly comments about current players.

But who knows more information might become apparent when voting results come out.

 

[Zine]

Late 1960s, early 1970s Soviet youth hockey participation numbers in the Golden Puck tournament, 3-4million:

The Soviet Hockey Program

Plus adults playing league hockey.

2017-18 IIHF registration numbers:

Ice hockey players per country worldwide 2017/18 | Statistic

Russia had 110 624 registered players.

Major drop in the global hockey talent pool in the Soviet Union / Russia contribution alone.

Pertaining to the NHL, 1993-94 season saw a total of 64 skaters and 3 goalies from the former Soviet Union.

2018-19, combining the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation shows 35 skaters and 4 goalies playing in the NHL.

Looks like a shrinking talent pool, but one with 365 days of training still produces NHL players in lesser numbers.

Sorry for the delay. Data had to be tracked thru the migration.

There's no way 3-4 million kids participated in the Golden Puck at any one time in the late 60’s/early 70s considering the event was limited to 1 age group (14-15) at that time. It's my guess this figure represents overall participants throughout the years.

Either way, to participate in the GP, a player could not be enrolled in a hockey school. Any direct comparison of this demographic to the current definition of ‘registered player’ is immaterial; especially considering there are more teams and hockey schools in Russia today than there were in the Soviet Union.

That said, the overall hockey playing population (kids playing pond hockey, etc) that these schools draw from today is nowhere near what it was in Soviet times.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Love the false methodology of looking at AST and awards for ethnic diversity.

No relation to talent unless the posters claiming this means something can show that ASTs and awards influence future NHL Entry Drafts. They do not.

Finally introducing Marcel Dionne underlines this point. Dionne has a grand total of 4, 1st or 2nd ASTs.

Marcel Dionne Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Players, Canadian, with four or more ASTS have not or will not be considered.

 

[Canadiens1958]

There's no way 3-4 million kids participated in the Golden Puck at any one time in the late 60’s/early 70s considering the event was limited to 1 age group (14-15) at that time. It's my guess this figure represents overall participants throughout the years.

Either way, to participate in the GP, a player could not be enrolled in a hockey school. Any direct comparison of this demographic to the current definition of ‘registered player’ is immaterial; especially considering there are more teams and hockey schools in Russia today than there were in the Soviet Union.

That said, the overall hockey playing population (kids playing pond hockey, etc) that these schools draw from today is nowhere near what it was in Soviet times.

Fails to explain how 1960 born Igor Larionov participated. Ages and dates do not compute.

Also do not see any links to participation information data.

The data could be interpreted as all the players from feeder ages/level to 14 and 15.

Regardless over 10 hockey seasons using your assertion, yields 3-400,000 14-15 year olds per season. Soviet Union would have 5 or 6 younger levels with greater participation and two older levels with less. Still yields the numbers in question when multiplied out and added.

 

[danincanada]

It's almost like there's more to player evaluation than counting up all-star selections/awards, and stats....

Has it never occurred to you that stuff like this is often baked into the overall analysis of the players being examined? Or does every single post made about a player from before 1990,1970, whatever year you choose need to come with a disclaimer in big red type font? Stuff like leaderboard finishes in statistical categories is constantly provided part and parcel with necessary caveats. The topic of how to interpret and weight all-star teams and award finishes from certain eras has come up and been discussed at length in several of the voting threads in the current project. Either you're ignoring them, or you're choosing to attack the process because you disagree with its conclusions.

The "higher population=more elite hockey players" argument has had more holes poked in it than a strainer by this point. Lengthy, detailed discussion on the issue exists in the previous pages of this very thread, among many others. Once again, you disagreeing with the conclusions does not mean the discussion has not occurred.

Simple peer to peer comparisons stink...unless they conclude that the modern player was better, right? I mean, "more all-star teams for Lidstrom than Harvey" was your opening salvo up above. All-star/award selections are as peer-to-peer of a process as it can get.

Kyle, these are some hidden conversations that are taking place in the project then. Stop pretending you guys are talking about how the O6 and earlier were very much lacking non-Canadians and stop pretending you’ve been discussing that maybe, just maybe, Canada didn’t have a very deep talent pool in the first half of the 20th century. No one brings it up, it’s not discussed, and it’s not quietly already been calculated into everyone’s mind. It’s still very much a peer to peer comparison in many, if not most cases. I can read along too and for the most part you guys don’t want to extend over to talking about this aspect for whatever reason.

I spoke about all-star nominations because it often is a good way to compare players career accomplishments on a personal level. The fact that Lidstrom, or another modern player, out duels someone who played in what amounted to a domestic league is a big deal. If you accept the fact that the player in the larger and international league had far more peers to beat out for those accolades. Of course, it’s not the only aspect that should be looked at but the Lidstrom/Harvey comparison is gold because they had very similar accomplishments overall and had similar careers and situations. Overall the benefit of a doubt is going to the O6 guy and that doesn’t really make any sense for the reasons I’ve already repeated over and over again.

Don’t dumb this down. You were the one acting like using years was a great math equation but if you split it at 1946 and work back each way the 1990 births (or whenever) and 1870 are dueling at the end, we are taking about all the international kids in 1990 that would play hockey versus what, the kids from 1870 Canada that had 3.6 million people? My point was, so you really think this math works the way you want it to?

 

[billybudd]

So, before it was "why just focus on Russians"...now it's "just focus on Russians"...?

"Vast expansion of the talent pool" is an overstatement in and of itself...and by definition, doesn't seem to have occurred from a quality NHLer point of view. The stuff between a standard deviation on either side of the mean, sure you could certainly reason that...but that's not what the NHL is made up of...

I'm not saying to "just focus on the Russians." But the Russians happened to come in large numbers at the same time the Europeans, in general, started to come in large numbers and Americans started making their mark beyond a stray oddball star (or, more often, college plugger) here or there. In 1983, the league was, what 90% Canadian? 95%? Wait another ten or fifteen years and I'll bet it dropped to about 70% or lower.

I'm not even weighing in on the core question of the topic--just the strangeness of the year you chose to represent an expanded talent pool. Why would 1983 be considered to have such a thing?

Miracle dividends, as it were, clearly start to show up by 1983 and 1984. U.S. high schoolers were playing in the joke league years of the early to mid 1980's...but because it's outside the "six-team, all-Canadian" league or whatever, it gets a pass...recognize the ebb and flow as it relates to the quality of play...

The Miracle dividend didn't pay off until 1996. You can't embark on mass national rink building projects and produce a large crop of professional athletes in a sport where there used to be few in the span of 3 years. That Finnish goaltending project took, what, a decade to start paying off? Longer?

And if there is a pro sport where large numbers of athletes can go from "never having heard of it" to "pro" in 3 years, it's certainly not hockey. Esports, maybe.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Respectfully, most of that isn't right. And we just went over all those points with actual information last week or two weeks ago whenever it was...the years were semi-random but extremely appropriate even beyond the faux parallelism...we don't have to go and backtrack over this do we...?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Kyle, these are some hidden conversations that are taking place in the project then. Stop pretending you guys are talking about how the O6 and earlier were very much lacking non-Canadians and stop pretending you’ve been discussing that maybe, just maybe, Canada didn’t have a very deep talent pool in the first half of the 20th century. No one brings it up, it’s not discussed, and it’s not quietly already been calculated into everyone’s mind. It’s still very much a peer to peer comparison in many, if not most cases. I can read along too and for the most part you guys don’t want to extend over to talking about this aspect for whatever reason.

I spoke about all-star nominations because it often is a good way to compare players career accomplishments on a personal level. The fact that Lidstrom, or another modern player, out duels someone who played in what amounted to a domestic league is a big deal. If you accept the fact that the player in the larger and international league had far more peers to beat out for those accolades. Of course, it’s not the only aspect that should be looked at but the Lidstrom/Harvey comparison is gold because they had very similar accomplishments overall and had similar careers and situations. Overall the benefit of a doubt is going to the O6 guy and that doesn’t really make any sense for the reasons I’ve already repeated over and over again.

Don’t dumb this down. You were the one acting like using years was a great math equation but if you split it at 1946 and work back each way the 1990 births (or whenever) and 1870 are dueling at the end, we are taking about all the international kids in 1990 that would play hockey versus what, the kids from 1870 Canada that had 3.6 million people? My point was, so you really think this math works the way you want it to?

Actually previous projects in the preliminary phase featured discussions about the suitability of the great early Soviet, Swedish and Czech players stretching back to pre WWII days.