Hockey of the past vs today

[Canadiens1958]

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?




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.

Actually Soviet hockey players / teams of influence started coming to Canada to play against Canadians in 1957. In Europe Canadian teams played against the Soviets starting in 1954.

Large numbers?

67 former Soviet players appeared in NHL games in 1993-94.

Two Soviet teams roughly 60 players toured in 1975-76. Given that influence happens playing either with or against, anywhere,your point does not hold.

 

[Zine]

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.

Not buying it. 3-4 million doesn't correlate with Golden Puck national participation rates provided by the Russian Ice Hockey Federation:
*1st year of the tournament (1964) - 54 participating teams
*The tournament's heyday of 1970s/1980s - 400 participating teams/yr
*2017’s tournament - 600 participating teams (11,000 athletes)
More from the FHR:
"Some of the tens or even hundreds of thousands of kids who participated in the Golden Puck went on to grow into champions of the country, world, and olympic champions".
Золотой шайбе - 47!
Более 600 команд сыграли в хоккейном турнире «Золотая шайба»


BTW, Larionov was able to participate because in 1972 the tourney expanded to include 11–13yo; and in 1975 the games were reformatted to include 3 age groups (10–12, 13–14, 15–16 years).

 

[billybudd]

Actually Soviet hockey players / teams of influence started coming to Canada to play against Canadians in 1957. In Europe Canadian teams played against the Soviets starting in 1954.

Large numbers?

67 former Soviet players appeared in NHL games in 1993-94.

Two Soviet teams roughly 60 players toured in 1975-76. Given that influence happens playing either with or against, anywhere,your point does not hold.

To play against, but the question was whether an "expanded talent pool" could be said to exist in the 1983 NHL. Russian hockey and its relationship to Canadian hockey is certainly an interesting topic, but it wouldn't have much impact on NHL talent depth in 1983.

 

[Theokritos]

Not buying it. 3-4 million doesn't correlate with Golden Puck national participation rates provided by the Russian Ice Hockey Federation:
*1st year of the tournament (1964) - 54 participating teams
*The tournament's heyday of 1970s/1980s - 400 participating teams/yr
*2017’s tournament - 600 participating teams (11,000 athletes)
More from the FHR:
"Some of the tens or even hundreds of thousands of kids who participated in the Golden Puck went on to grow into champions of the country, world, and olympic champions".
Золотой шайбе - 47!
Более 600 команд сыграли в хоккейном турнире «Золотая шайба»


BTW, Larionov was able to participate because in 1972 the tourney expanded to include 11–13yo; and in 1975 the games were reformatted to include 3 age groups (10–12, 13–14, 15–16 years).

Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[Theokritos]

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.

Two questions: Is there an obvious answer to the question why the overall hockey playing population has declined? If what Paul Harder wrote isn't entirely wrong, then the Soviet hockey federation with its limited resources was pretty good at encouraging and channeling "semi-organized hockey" with makeshift rinks etc. Is that still the case or is the situation similar to Canada where everything is more organized and professional than it used to be, but on the flipside ice-time is more restricted.

Second question: How was the situation after the dissolution of the USSR, from the early 1990s on into the first decade of the 21st century? While funding in the USSR was often problematic, the situation is often said to have turned even worse afterwards and before new money started to flow and create what you have today.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

There is nothing false with showing elite talent showing up well in post season all star awards and voting. It actually is objective and shows a change, unlike subjective opinions that we all have.

Drafts are a separate issue and also show an increasing trend to non traditional streams post 1970's as well, why try to confuse the clear subject here?

You really can't argue the facts presented other than creating noise and confusion?

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.

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.

The Dionne reference was in response to the above quote, that was pretty clear, it had nothing to do with different talent streams.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

The fact of the matter is that there was basically a single talent stream supplying the NHL before the mid 70s, basically 5 Canadian provinces, and this has changed dramatically since the mid 70s in the NHL.

No need to speculate on how early Russians and Czechs might have done in the NHL.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not buying it. 3-4 million doesn't correlate with Golden Puck national participation rates provided by the Russian Ice Hockey Federation:
*1st year of the tournament (1964) - 54 participating teams
*The tournament's heyday of 1970s/1980s - 400 participating teams/yr
*2017’s tournament - 600 participating teams (11,000 athletes)
More from the FHR:
"Some of the tens or even hundreds of thousands of kids who participated in the Golden Puck went on to grow into champions of the country, world, and olympic champions".
Золотой шайбе - 47!
Более 600 команд сыграли в хоккейном турнире «Золотая шайба»


BTW, Larionov was able to participate because in 1972 the tourney expanded to include 11–13yo; and in 1975 the games were reformatted to include 3 age groups (10–12, 13–14, 15–16 years).

Not so fast.

You are citing the numbers from the finals only and ignoring the participation numbers from the start of the elimination playdowns thru the finals of the Golden Puck. Huge difference.

Soviet Union was comprised of 15 republics. Golden Puck participation was a competition of city champions.
Very similar to the provincials in Quebec.

Eligibility was determined by a Public School / Private School or community non-profit organization entering teams for various age groups in city sponsored(ice time) leagues.

These were referred to as select teams(15 players) and required an internal feeder system within the organization of an age specific house league of 120 - 144 players. City leagues had 6-8 teams per. Montreal had 8 zones with 6 to 10 districts per.

Since all youngsters playing were eligible, looking strictly at the City Finals participants lowers the numbers significantly.

The Paul Harder numbers reflect participation very well

 

[Kyle McMahon]

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.

The O-6 and earlier lacking non-Canadians is basic established fact. 100% of the participants are fully aware of this, I can assure you. Perhaps Canada didn't have a very deep talent pool in the first half of the 20th century...afterall, only 11 out of 49 players on the list made significant contributions in pro hockey prior to 1950.

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.

Placing high emphasis on trophy/award counting is your prerogative; not everyone places so much emphasis on it. I personally couldn't even tell you how many ASTs or Norris Trophies either player has without looking it up. They both have a lot. I can't speak for everyone, but awards had nothing to do with how I ranked the two players in question.

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?

Just using the numbers to try and find evidence of the bias you allege exists.

 

[Midnight Judges]

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 actually worse than that. Discussing the size of the talent pools was explicitly discouraged and ridiculed in the very first post, from the outset of the project:

• Any attempts to derail a discussion thread with disrespect to old-time hockey will be met with frontier justice
• We encourage interpositional discussion (forward vs. defenseman vs. goaltender) as opposed to the safer and somewhat redundant intrapositional debates. Overemphasizing a tired single-position argument like, I don’t know, Harvey/Lidstrom, will only be briefly tolerated before one is asked to move on to a less tedious comparison.
• Take a drink when someone mentions the number of hockey registrations in a given era

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread (Revenge of Michael Myers)

Not only was it not discussed in proper detail, it was deliberately suppressed.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Suggest looking-up the definition of "derailed".

 

[Kyle McMahon]

It's actually worse than that. Discussing the size of the talent pools was explicitly discouraged and ridiculed in the very first post, from the outset of the project:



Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread (Revenge of Michael Myers)

Not only was it not discussed in proper detail, it was deliberately suppressed.

Maybe after 10+ years of vigorous discussion in these parts, it is a settled debate in the eyes of all but a few posters who only ever appear here with one talking point in mind?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

It's actually worse than that. Discussing the size of the talent pools was explicitly discouraged and ridiculed in the very first post, from the outset of the project:

Not only was it not discussed in proper detail, it was deliberately suppressed.

We've dedicated one thread to the topic (this thread), for the reason that otherwise, every single thread on the boards becomes polluted...well, just like this thread.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Slow your roll. We've dedicated one thread to the topic (this thread), for the reason that otherwise, every single thread on the boards becomes polluted...well, just like this thread.

If you and others view analyzing the relative sizes of talent pools as "pollution," then I rest my case.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Maybe after 10+ years of vigorous discussion in these parts, it is a settled debate in the eyes of all but a few posters who only ever appear here with one talking point in mind?

If it was settled, what was the result? Precisely what is the relative size of the talent pool in 1910 vs 1920 vs 1930 vs 1940 vs 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2019, etc?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

If you and others view analyzing the relative sizes of talent pools as "pollution," then I rest my case.

Feel free to actually rest your case, instead of just talking about it.

As far as pollution, when the same person brings this up in every single history thread, it's akin to repeatedly interrupting. If you don't like the term "pollution", then you haven't researched the history here. It's accurate.

You're free to talk about the item in this thread alone. This rule is not open for discussion.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

If it was settled, what was the result? Precisely what is the relative size of the talent pool in 1910 vs 1920 vs 1930 vs 1940 vs 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2019, etc?

Settled in terms of how each individual participant wishes to proceed with the information presented over the years. The idea that the size of the talent pool has changed over time is not a new one, and has been discussed over and over in this section of the board. You and one or two others disagreeing with the conclusions reached by the majority is perfectly fine. But showing up periodically with the sole intent of telling said majority that their conclusions on any matter involving comparisons between players from different eras are invalid due to their disagreement with your minority opinion on the talent pool matter, is an act that wore thin a long time ago.

 

[danincanada]

The fact of the matter is that there was basically a single talent stream supplying the NHL before the mid 70s, basically 5 Canadian provinces, and this has changed dramatically since the mid 70s in the NHL.

No need to speculate on how early Russians and Czechs might have done in the NHL.

Exactly, and I’ve run out of fingers counting how many times that approach has been taken as a pretend rebuttal. We all know that up until the wall came down the Soviets (even the Czech’s had to defect) weren’t in the NHL so they couldn’t compete on that stage.

This other debate going on before about Paul Harder’s paper is just another red herring. The Soviets started to focus on hockey instead of bandy in 1946. Therefore the fruits of that program wouldn’t have impacted the NHL until late O6 seasons at best, but more likely after the O6, even if they could come over and play in the NHL.

 

[danincanada]

The O-6 and earlier lacking non-Canadians is basic established fact. 100% of the participants are fully aware of this, I can assure you. Perhaps Canada didn't have a very deep talent pool in the first half of the 20th century...afterall, only 11 out of 49 players on the list made significant contributions in pro hockey prior to 1950.

You’re kind of moving the goalposts here from my original stance. We were talking about birth years and 1946, which is what I meant when I said first half of the 20th century. The O6 ended in spring of ‘67 so it’s actually half of the top 10 and half of the top 20 from before that time, if you include Hull who played his first 10 seasons by then. Then there was expansion, which coincided with the baby boom kids lead by Orr, then the pool that actually fed the NHL started to expand outside of Canada as well. Like I said originally, half is far too much.

Placing high emphasis on trophy/award counting is your prerogative; not everyone places so much emphasis on it. I personally couldn't even tell you how many ASTs or Norris Trophies either player has without looking it up. They both have a lot. I can't speak for everyone, but awards had nothing to do with how I ranked the two players in question.

It’s not an award or trophy per se, it’s an accolade where voters believe the player was one of the top 4, in this case, at his position that season. Why would you not place a high emphasis on this?

Just using the numbers to try and find evidence of the bias you allege exists.

The way I’m displaying it absolutely makes more sense than what you attempted by pretending each year back to 1870 is somehow equal.

 

[danincanada]

If it was settled, what was the result? Precisely what is the relative size of the talent pool in 1910 vs 1920 vs 1930 vs 1940 vs 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2019, etc?

Exactly, and they are falling over one another trying to explain their side, too. There’s a claim these discussions are happening often in the project, some won’t answer straightforward questions and won’t even acknowledge it’s a thing, and then someone claims it’s fine because each year is equal and that’s represented fairly in the project, which is just a weird claim considering “everyone already knows” how the talent pool changed and so on.

The only thing that is clear is they really don’t want to talk about this, which is really strange considering the project they are doing. To me it will always be half-baked until everyone is at least open to talking about it. It will be like anything else and posters will have different takes and opinions but at least that will be somewhat transparent and they can really attempt to factor in how much or how little the talent pool has impacted individual players over time.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Exactly, and I’ve run out of fingers counting how many times that approach has been taken as a pretend rebuttal. We all know that up until the wall came down the Soviets (even the Czech’s had to defect) weren’t in the NHL so they couldn’t compete on that stage.

This other debate going on before about Paul Harder’s paper is just another red herring. The Soviets started to focus on hockey instead of bandy in 1946. Therefore the fruits of that program wouldn’t have impacted the NHL until late O6 seasons at best, but more likely after the O6, even if they could come over and play in the NHL.

Jaroslav Jirik did not defect.

Jaroslav Jirik Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Issue with Czechs and Soviets was giving - up a lucrative amateur situation, losing money to play in the NHL. Or choosing the Pro Tennis tour over the NHL.

1957 SvenTumba - Sweden had a successful training camp with Boston and pro try-out with Quebec in the QHL but was earning more in Sweden. Ulf Sterner had two seasons in the minors, mid 1960s with the Rangers including an NHL call-up but returned to Sweden when local teams offered more.

Soviet factory hockey teams toured Germany, playing German factory teams in the early 1930s.

 

[wetcoast]

Jaroslav Jirik did not defect.

Jaroslav Jirik Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Issue with Czechs and Soviets was giving - up a lucrative amateur situation, losing money to play in the NHL. Or choosing the Pro Tennis tour over the NHL.

1957 SvenTumba - Sweden had a successful training camp with Boston and pro try-out with Quebec in the QHL but was earning more in Sweden. Ulf Sterner had two seasons in the minors, mid 1960s with the Rangers including an NHL call-up but returned to Sweden when local teams offered more.

Soviet factory hockey teams toured Germany, playing German factory teams in the early 1930s.

I guess this post will be relevant, when and if Firsov comes up, as Jirik's career overlaps Firsov's?

None of the 3 players listed above give any indication that they would have been elite or even very good NHL players from their time in North America?

Rather than speculate on how some early Europeans might have done in the NHL, why not address the real issue and fact of other talents streams actually having impact?

I mean we can speculate all we want on how Doru Tureanu might have affected other 70's NHLers had he played in the NHL but instead why don't we account for Forsberg , for instance, competing with multiple non traditional talent stream players during his time in the NHL?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

You’re kind of moving the goalposts here from my original stance. We were talking about birth years and 1946, which is what I meant when I said first half of the 20th century. The O6 ended in spring of ‘67 so it’s actually half of the top 10 and half of the top 20 from before that time, if you include Hull who played his first 10 seasons by then. Then there was expansion, which coincided with the baby boom kids lead by Orr, then the pool that actually fed the NHL started to expand outside of Canada as well. Like I said originally, half is far too much.

Treating the 1967 expansion as a halfway point is not accurate. It may be the halfway point of NHL history right now, but it's well beyond the halfway point of hockey history. 74 seasons of Stanley Cup play comprise the period up to the 1967 expansion; 51 seasons since. Yet the distribution of players is in fact 50/50 pre/post-67 as you point out, and that's with Hull included as a pre-67 player (even though he played more seasons post-67). And of course if you look at the entire list (and why wouldn't you?) it's 28/49 as post-expansion players (Esposito counted as post, Hull and Mikita counted as pre). If every year was being treated equal as you allege, why does the smaller span of time have significantly more representation?

It’s not an award or trophy per se, it’s an accolade where voters believe the player was one of the top 4, in this case, at his position that season. Why would you not place a high emphasis on this?

Awards are an easy shorthand to let us know Harvey and Lidstrom are certainly better than players with few or none. When both players in question have enough awards to fill that trailer Marty Brodeur pulls around in Enterprise commercials, it's time to dig deeper. Some people may think 7 Norris wins versus 6, or 12 all-star teams versus 10 makes a difference and proceed accordingly. I myself don't differentiate once it reaches those sorts of levels.

The way I’m displaying it absolutely makes more sense than what you attempted by pretending each year back to 1870 is somehow equal.

I suggest reading more carefully. Nobody is pretending 19th century years are equal to all the other years, and you have found no evidence of such that I have seen. Tom Paton's goaltending and Haviland Routh's scoring exploits should be talking points if this were the case. I'll go out on a limb here and declare that neither player appeared on a single participant's top 120 list.

 

[Theokritos]

Issue with Czechs and Soviets was giving - up a lucrative amateur situation, losing money to play in the NHL. Or choosing the Pro Tennis tour over the NHL.

This is true for the Swedes, but not for Czechoslovaks and Soviets. The only Czechoslovaks allowed to leave were seasoned veterans, everyone would have had to defect. The Soviets didn't let anyone go to the NHL prior to 1989, then they adoped the Czechoslovak approach, which still meant younger players had to defect.

1957 SvenTumba - Sweden had a successful training camp with Boston and pro try-out with Quebec in the QHL but was earning more in Sweden. Ulf Sterner had two seasons in the minors, mid 1960s with the Rangers including an NHL call-up but returned to Sweden when local teams offered more.

That's a good explanation as to why players from certain countries weren't part of the talent pool feeding the NHL. But it doesn't change anything about the fact THAT they weren't part of the talent pool feeding the NHL.

Soviet factory hockey teams toured Germany, playing German factory teams in the early 1930s.

It's only a sidenote here, but it was a bit different: on one occasion in the 1930s, a German factory team paid a visit to the USSR and demonstrated Canadian hockey to the Russians. Their hosts themselves did indeed stick to bandy until the end of WW2. The Russuans, that is. Canadian hockey was already played in Estonia and Latvia though.

 

[Canadiens1958]

This is true for the Swedes, but not for Czechoslovaks and Soviets. The only Czechoslovaks allowed to leave were seasoned veterans, everyone would have had to defect. The Soviets didn't let anyone go to the NHL prior to 1989, then they adoped the Czechoslovak approach, which still meant younger players had to defect.



That's a good explanation as to why players from certain countries weren't part of the talent pool feeding the NHL. But it doesn't change anything about the fact THAT they weren't part of the talent pool feeding the NHL.



It's only a sidenote here, but it was a bit different: on one occasion in the 1930s, a German factory team paid a visit to the USSR and demonstrated Canadian hockey to the Russians. Their hosts themselves did indeed stick to bandy until the end of WW2. The Russuans, that is. Canadian hockey was already played in Estonia and Latvia though.

Regardless such players, described as Group B below, made the choice not to play in the NHL.

Cannot argue that Group A was not allowed until they were post prime and Group B was not compensated sufficiently so the two groups were not part of the NHL feeder talent pool.

They made the choice not to be part of the talent pool.

Also the Soviets were better compensated than the Group B players so there no motivation to defect unlike Rudolf Nureyev(1961) and Mikhail Baryshnikov(1974), two premier ballet dancers who did defect. Both were in a delicate position but also more important than mere hockey players politically and compensated much better in the Soviet Union and anywhere in the world.

Ironically "this talent pool influence" position seems limited to ice hockey.
No one claims a similar phenomena in the ballet niche of arts and entertainment, in academic, literary etc,circles. Why is that?