Hockey of the past vs today

[Canadiens1958]

Must read from a summary about the first half of the 2019 Top 100 Project with comparisons to the 2008 version.

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

Trust this sets the record straight.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

Well being gay in Moscow or London in 1961 was a pretty obvious choice for Nureyev and Baryshnikov was only 5'5" which limited his roles in Russia.

Not that ballet is pertinent to the discussion on hand.

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?

Well this is the HOH section and we are discussing the sport of hockey not arts, which is a lot more subjective to start with.

Once again it would be more beneficial to look at the reality of the NHL being the best league in the world for basically the last 100 years and thus being the standard or baseline and the changes in talent streams starting pretty much with the trickle in the 1970's and the full blown model early 90's to present day NHL.

Since this thread was devised specifically for that purpose perhaps ask a moderator to create a ballet thread (or do it yourself) if you are interested in such a discussion?

 

[Theokritos]

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

Technically you always have the choice, like if someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to hand him your money, you can of course choose to say no at the risk of being killed. At the same time, every human being clearly understands by default that staying alive is so fundamentally more important than keeping one's wallet that for all human intents and purposes you actually don't have a choice.

To a lesser degree but likewise enough, the "choice" to leave your home country illegaly, to give up the chance to return there (or face criminal punishment if you do), to say goodbye to your family and friends forever and, worse, put them at the risk of persecution at the hands of a totalitarian regime - that "choice" is, understandably enough, not widely considered a viable option. Most people would consider it a mockery to claim someone in that situation had the "choice".

But regardless of the choice issue, there is something else to be put on the record here - not for the first time, but it remains true:

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.

Why they weren't part of the talent pool is an interesting question, but not one that changes anything about the simple and obvious observation that they weren't part of the talent pool feeding the NHL. That doesn't mean the NHL is to blame. It also doesn't mean the players are to blame. But what it does indeed mean is that - as far as other countries are concerned - the talent pool feeding the NHL was certainly smaller in 1960 than in 2000.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Technically you always have the choice, like if someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to hand him your money, you can of course choose to say no at the risk of being killed. At the same time, every human being clearly understands by default that staying alive is so fundamentally more important than keeping one's wallet that for all human intents and purposes you actually don't have a choice.

To a lesser degree but likewise enough, the "choice" to leave your home country illegaly, to give up the chance to return there (or face criminal punishment if you do), to say goodbye to your family and friends forever and, worse, put them at the risk of persecution at the hands of a totalitarian regime - that "choice" is, understandably enough, not widely considered a viable option. Most people would consider it a mockery to claim someone in that situation had the "choice".

But regardless of the choice issue, there is something else to be put on the record here - not for the first time, but it remains true:



Why they weren't part of the talent pool is an interesting question, but not one that changes anything about the simple and obvious observation that they weren't part of the talent pool feeding the NHL. That doesn't mean the NHL is to blame. It also doesn't mean the players are to blame. But what it does indeed mean is that - as far as other countries are concerned - the talent pool feeding the NHL was certainly smaller in 1960 than in 2000.

Rather interesting argument.

WWII, many post war DPs(displaced persons), from the Soviet Bloc were faced with a similar choice. Repatriation or the uncertainty of the free world.

Millions chose the uncertainty of the free world. Becoming contributing parts of the labour pool in various countries. Are the individual countries, private companies in these countries to blame? Obviously not. Just global economic forces at work. Same time because of wartime interruptions and the baby boom, Canada had to turn to Britain and other English speaking countries to hire grade and high school teachers.

So we are back at two key points that you fail to answer.

First the origins of this special status that you confer on European hockey players that entertainers, educators, labourers do not get as "influential entities". What makes hockey players special? Certainly English speaking countries contracting teachers to Canada never claim special or "influential" status for such educators.

Since at least 1947 the Soviet Union and other European countries had National basketball teams.Players could not play in the NBA but no one claims that such players were deprived opportunities. Strangly only hockeyhears such claims.

1960 talent pool was certainly smaller? Based on what? Your say so?

2000 or present day Russian hockey talent pool is much smaller than 1970.I'll generously drop a 0 and the Russian talent pool today is at best 1/3 what it was in 1970.Your numbers regardless do not work.

 

[Theokritos]

First the origins of this special status that you confer on European hockey players that entertainers, educators, labourers do not get as "influential entities". What makes hockey players special? Certainly English speaking countries contracting teachers to Canada never claim special or "influential" status for such educators.

I can't follow you here. Which specific players am I confering a special status on? And which special status?

Since at least 1947 the Soviet Union and other European countries had National basketball teams.Players could not play in the NBA but no one claims that such players were deprived opportunities. Strangly only hockeyhears such claims.

No, the same argument also applies to basketball.

1960 talent pool was certainly smaller? Based on what? Your say so?

I said as far as other countries are concerned. In 1960 the talent pool feeding the NHL consisted of Canadians. In 2000 it consists of Canadians plus Americans, Swedes, Fins, Russians, Czechs and so on.

2000 or present day Russian hockey talent pool is much smaller than 1970.I'll generously drop a 0 and the Russian talent pool today is at best 1/3 what it was in 1970.

That is irrelevant because I'm not referring to the global talent pool per se but the talent pool feeding the NHL. Up until 1989 the Russian talent pool accounted for zero NHL players (never mind Viktor Nechayev), so even if the Russian talent pool as of 1970 was 30 times what it is now (which BTW I don't actually believe for a second), the Russian talent pool feeding the NHL is inevitably much larger today than back when it literally didn't exist.

 

[wetcoast]

I said as far as other countries are concerned. In 1960 the talent pool feeding the NHL consisted of Canadians. In 2000 it consists of Canadians plus Americans, Swedes, Fins, Russians, Czechs and so on.

This is the obvious elephant in the room that is being danced around by some still sadly.

That is irrelevant because I'm not referring to the global talent pool per se but the talent pool feeding the NHL. Up until 1989 the Russian talent pool accounted for zero NHL players (never mind Viktor Nechayev), so even if the Russian talent pool as of 1970 was 30 times what it is now (which BTW I don't actually believe for a second), the Russian talent pool feeding the NHL is inevitably much larger today then back when it literally didn't exist.

Another obvious elephant in the room and it applies to more than just Russia.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I can't follow you here. Which specific players am I confering a special status on? And which special status?



No, the same argument also applies to basketball.



I said as far as other countries are concerned. In 1960 the talent pool feeding the NHL consisted of Canadians. In 2000 it consists of Canadians plus Americans, Swedes, Fins, Russians, Czechs and so on.



That is irrelevant because I'm not referring to the global talent pool per se but the talent pool feeding the NHL. Up until 1989 the Russian talent pool accounted for zero NHL players (never mind Viktor Nechayev), so even if the Russian talent pool as of 1970 was 30 times what it is now (which BTW I don't actually believe for a second), the Russian talent pool feeding the NHL is inevitably much larger today then back when it literally didn't exist.

The European players allegedly deprived of an NHL opportunity prior to(insert your arbitrary date). Re-quoting:

First the origins of this special status that you confer on European hockey players that entertainers, educators, labourers do not get as "influential entities". What makes hockey players special? Certainly English speaking countries contracting teachers to Canada never claim special or "influential" status for such educators.

Simply what unique "influential" quality would a Soviet center offer that Stan Mikita did not?

Nails hammered by immigrant workers do the same job that those hammered by Canadian workers.

Never saw or heard such this argument for the NBA. Please document.

Ali never fought a Soviet as a pro. Does this factoid lessen his achievements?

Global talent pool feeding the NHL? Why does the feeder pool have to be global now as opposed to sufficient?

Document your claims about the Russian talent pool.

 

[Theokritos]

The European players allegedly deprived of an NHL opportunity prior to(insert your arbitrary date).

If you truly believe 1989 is an arbitrary date in the context of Russians playing in the NHL and that Soviet players were only allegedly deprived of an NHL opportunity, then there is little left to say other that you and I have very different notions of the terms in question. To me (and, judging by my personal exposure to the English speaking resp. writing world, to many others) "arbitrary" and "choice" mean different things than they mean for you.

Simply what unique "influential" quality would a Soviet center offer that Stan Mikita did not?

That's not the point. Mikita would have had a harder time standing out among his peers if there were more big fish like him in his pond. That's why the talent pool question matters. Now the provenience of the fish per se doesn't matter, they can be Canadian or Russian or Chinese - BUT the fact that by 2000 AD there were big fish from Russia, Sweden, Finland, Czechia etc swimming around in the NHL pond alongside the Canadian fish makes it very evident that the pond had changed. Would Mikita still stand out as much? Unlike a star foward of the present time like Sidney Crosby he "only" had Canadian competitors and not also an Ovechkin and a Malkin and a Sedin (or two) and a Kane to challenge him for individual honors.

Never saw or heard such this argument for the NBA. Please document.

I don't really care for basketball, but the principle lined out above (big fish in a changing pond) applies to every sport.

Global talent pool feeding the NHL? Why does the feeder pool have to be global now as opposed to sufficient?

We can call it global or transnational or whatever. The point is that more countries contributed to the NHL pool in 2000 than in 1960.

Document your claims about the Russian talent pool.

That's easy:
Prior to 1989 there were zero Russians in the NHL. Afterwards there were plenty.
The end.

 

[Canadiens1958]

If you truly believe 1989 is an arbitrary date in the context of Russians playing in the NHL and that Soviet players were only allegedly deprived of an NHL opportunity, then there is little left to say other that you and I have very different notions of the terms in question. To me (and, judging by my personal exposure to the English speaking resp. writing world, to many others) "arbitrary" and "choice" mean different things than they mean for you.



That's not the point. Mikita would have had a harder time standing out among his peers if there were more big fish like him in his pond. That's why the talent pool question matters. Now the provenience of the fish per se doesn't matter, they can be Canadian or Russian or Chinese - BUT the fact that by 2000 AD there were big fish from Russia, Sweden, Finland, Czechia etc swimming around in the NHL pond alongside the Canadian fish makes it very evident that the pond had changed. Would Mikita still stand out as much? Unlike a star foward of the present time like Sidney Crosby he "only" had Canadian competitors and not also an Ovechkin and a Malkin and a Sedin (or two) and a Kane to challenge him for individual honors.



I don't really care for basketball, but the principle lined out above (big fish in a changing pond) applies to every sport.



We can call it global or transnational or whatever. The point is that more countries contributed to the NHL pool in 2000 than in 1960.



That's easy:
Prior to 1989 there were zero Russians in the NHL. Afterwards there were plenty.
The end.

Summary, you do not have any proof of similar views in any other team or individual sport.

Every pond has a saturation point, ratio of big fish or just fish to water. With or without Soviets or Europeans all NHL players regardless of the arbitrary year you choose were the big fish at some level on the road to the NHL. Situation today is that hockey has a bigger pond then ever but simply lacks players(fish) for certain roles and positions.

 

[Midnight Judges]

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.

Settled would be if the group arrived at a logical and supported conclusion and built a consensus around it.

Instead you've swept it under the rug without a meeting of the minds, and moved on to debates that are necessarily dependent on the size of the talent pool. You've skipped an essential step.

The relative size of the talent pool is not a matter of opinion, nor is it remotely beyond our means to estimate within reasonable margins of error. It isn't something where one guy is entitled to believe one thing, and another guy is entitled to believe something entirely different.

The ONLY way for cross generational comparisons to have validity is if you and others are able to have a supportable answer to the question I posed to you. As it stands, I'd be surprised if the participants of the project were within 100% of each other on the facts.

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.

My logic is sound, and obvious. I think you can imagine the significant variations in player evaluations that would inevitably result from misunderstanding the size of the talent pool. If not, perhaps we should walk through some scenarios.

If I wasn't pointing out these flaws, someone else inevitably would. There is no act here and I'd appreciate it if you understood that my motive is to come to the correct conclusions - conclusions that are respectful to old time hockey and equally as respectful to the players of today.

 

[Zine]

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

Please provide a link validating your claim.

Furthermore, the FHR data corresponds to the demographics of the Soviet Union considering roughly 1 million males were born a year in Russia between 1950-1980.
If the Golden Puck encompassed 3-4million players/year, roughly 50% of the eligible Russian male population would have needed to participate; ; which is obviously absurd.
Of course, the same demographic for the other hockey playing Soviet republics must be included, but a monumental shift in the percentage is unlikely considering the sport was played in only a handful of these lesser populated republics (Ukr, Latv, Bel, etc.).

And from a personal experience, growing up in the 1980s, in my hometown none of us kids had any inclination some larger tournament existed beyond our immediate courtyard.

 

[Zine]

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.

I have no clue who Paul Harder is,; but from personal experience, way more kids were exposed to the game back in the day, even though more ‘registered’ players exist now.
Growing up the 1980s I remember tons of us kids playing hockey on makeshift rinks with crappy skates. Today hockey is basically dead in my hometown. Kids would rather play the video games.
Imo, the game at the grassroots level, was lost to an entire generation of kids in the 1990s.

The game has always existed in the populaces psyche, and in recent years there's been mega revival efforts in many areas (why hockey today is exceedingly regional), but much like Canada or wherever, participation and organization is very professional and expensive for parents.

For instance, the Golden Puck nowadays is geared more toward promoting the game ('hockey is for everyone') compared to back in the day when it was all about discovering the 'next great talent' if/when some municipal representative jackass spotted you on the pond and invited you to be part of a team.

Приснилось

 

[Canadiens1958]

Please provide a link validating your claim.

Furthermore, the FHR data corresponds to the demographics of the Soviet Union considering roughly 1 million males were born a year in Russia between 1950-1980.
If the Golden Puck encompassed 3-4million players/year, roughly 50% of the eligible Russian male population would have needed to participate; ; which is obviously absurd.
Of course, the same demographic for the other hockey playing Soviet republics must be included, but a monumental shift in the percentage is unlikely considering the sport was played in only a handful of these lesser populated republics (Ukr, Latv, Bel, etc.).

And from a personal experience, growing up in the 1980s, in my hometown none of us kids had any inclination some larger tournament existed beyond our immediate courtyard.

The Paul Harder thesis, a recognized work by an accredited academic has been cited.

The percentages that you find absurd are in line with Canadian ratios for cities in Canada at the same time.

Ironically one of your supporters uses the lack of total provincial participation in the NHL feeder stream in an opposite fashion to your use of the Soviet republics lack of participation.

BTW, just had a look at the photos included in the link you provided. 1959 and 1976 especially. Better facilities than in Montreal.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Settled would be if the group arrived at a logical and supported conclusion and built a consensus around it.

Instead you've swept it under the rug without a meeting of the minds, and moved on to debates that are necessarily dependent on the size of the talent pool. You've skipped an essential step.

The relative size of the talent pool is not a matter of opinion, nor is it remotely beyond our means to estimate within reasonable margins of error. It isn't something where one guy is entitled to believe one thing, and another guy is entitled to believe something entirely different.

The ONLY way for cross generational comparisons to have validity is if you and others are able to have a supportable answer to the question I posed to you. As it stands, I'd be surprised if the participants of the project were within 100% of each other on the facts.



My logic is sound, and obvious. I think you can imagine the significant variations in player evaluations that would inevitably result from misunderstanding the size of the talent pool. If not, perhaps we should walk through some scenarios.

If I wasn't pointing out these flaws, someone else inevitably would. There is no act here and I'd appreciate it if you understood that my motive is to come to the correct conclusions - conclusions that are respectful to old time hockey and equally as respectful to the players of today.

So what exactly were you expecting from the participants, some sort of agreed upon formula that states something like "players from 1910 are to have their accomplishments reduced by 50%, players from 1960 are to have their accomplishments reduced 20%, etc."? That's pretty much what it sounds like. Because as has been pointed out repeatedly, discussions of varying degrees of formality concerning talent pool size/strength have been taking place on this message board since I joined it in 2006, and presumably before that.

The relative size of the talent pool may not be a matter of opinion, per se. I mean, obviously there is some sort of absolute number that could be attached to it, though there is certainly disagreement on what that number is.

What IS a matter of opinion is how somebody chooses to proceed with the data.

Some people are of the opinion that greater diversity in country of origin has created conditions more likely to produce a higher number of great players.

Some people are of the opinion that a more numerous raw population of theoretical participants will necessarily produce a higher number of great players.

Some people are of the opinion that a larger talent pool automatically equates to a better talent pool.

Some people are of the opinion that accomplishments achieved in an era with a smaller talent pool are worth less than similar ones from an era with a larger talent pool.

The root of this issue is that a small number of people have been rather insistent that the above points are matters of fact rather than matters of opinion, and they seemingly will not rest until everyone else has been converted to their viewpoint.

 

[Zine]

The Paul Harder thesis, a recognized work by an accredited academic has been cited.

The percentages that you find absurd are in line with Canadian ratios for cities in Canada at the same time.

Ironically one of your supporters uses the lack of total provincial participation in the NHL feeder stream in an opposite fashion to your use of the Soviet republics lack of participation.

BTW, just had a look at the photos included in the link you provided. 1959 and 1976 especially. Better facilities than in Montreal.

So I just looked up Harder's thesis. Citing some random college student's term paper is insufficient; especially considering much of his information is un-cited and generalized, particularly as it pertains to the Golden Puck. Not at all comparable to the FHR's official statistics.

Again, please provide a link validating your claim. Furthermore, would you have documentation verifying your claim that, say, 40% of all Canadian kids were participating in organized hockey tournaments?

 

[Canadiens1958]

So what exactly were you expecting from the participants, some sort of agreed upon formula that states something like "players from 1910 are to have their accomplishments reduced by 50%, players from 1960 are to have their accomplishments reduced 20%, etc."? That's pretty much what it sounds like. Because as has been pointed out repeatedly, discussions of varying degrees of formality concerning talent pool size/strength have been taking place on this message board since I joined it in 2006, and presumably before that.

The relative size of the talent pool may not be a matter of opinion, per se. I mean, obviously there is some sort of absolute number that could be attached to it, though there is certainly disagreement on what that number is.

What IS a matter of opinion is how somebody chooses to proceed with the data.

Some people are of the opinion that greater diversity in country of origin has created conditions more likely to produce a higher number of great players.

Some people are of the opinion that a more numerous raw population of theoretical participants will necessarily produce a higher number of great players.

Some people are of the opinion that a larger talent pool automatically equates to a better talent pool.

Some people are of the opinion that accomplishments achieved in an era with a smaller talent pool are worth less than similar ones from an era with a larger talent pool.

The root of this issue is that a small number of people have been rather insistent that the above points are matters of fact rather than matters of opinion, and they seemingly will not rest until everyone else has been converted to their viewpoint.

Still reduces to how much hockey each member of the talent pool - regardless of definition, actually plays each formative year.

Big difference in the end product if youth players get 90-95 days of winter ice time to play hockey and upwards of 365 days of ice time.

The smaller pool of youth players, playing an intensive schedule of upwards of 365 days will produce better results than a larger, casual pool playing 90-95 days of hockey.

 

[Canadiens1958]

So I just looked up Harder's thesis. Citing some random college student's term paper is insufficient; especially considering much of his information is un-cited and generalized, particularly as it pertains to the Golden Puck. Not at all comparable to the FHR's official statistics.

Again, please provide a link validating your claim. Furthermore, would you have documentation verifying your claim that, say, 40% of all Canadian kids were participating in organized hockey tournaments?

Paul Harder's effort is a thesis not a term paper. A thesis is subject to strict conditions and controls

The key pages to this discussion run from page 79 to 95.

Interestingly 1970 Soviet Union hockey stick production is cited at 3,709,000, yet shortages are claimed. Counter-balance to participation and registration numbers.

The youth participation numbers for hockey are cited as 500,000 registered in organized situations and 3-4 million non-organized participants. Contrasted with 2,000,000 youth hockey participants in Canada. An accurate estimate. Breaks down to roughly 50%. Reasonable given that in various Quebec Catholic male grade schools during the winter, ice hockey was part of gym, requiring participation unless medically exempt.

 

[danincanada]

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?

You’re right of course, ‘67 isn’t the half way point but I never claimed it was. Not for what we are talking about anyways. Those years (late 60s to early 70s) saw a large change in hockey and the NHL. The baby booms kids started to come of age, the Soviets started to really flex their muscle, and the Swedes were about to show what they could do in the NHL, which was eventually followed by other nations. We never really looked back from there and even if the number of years is smaller than 1870 to 1946 (your example) in birth years the number of hockey players is inevitably much larger per year, and more overall. That’s why I don’t agree with the distribution in the project. Especially with pre-1946 born players taking up half of the top 20 all-time. It’s not realistic.

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.

Okay, I have to ask then. Why would Harvey be ranked higher then? Team success? Nothing he did on a personal level was greater. In terms of offensive numbers Lidstrom beats him handily in every way and had a longer career overall (20 seasons to 17).

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.

That’s not really what I was saying. It goes back to your point of looking back to the 1870 birth year and doing your “math”. I thought this point was already understood

 

[Canadiens1958]

You’re right of course, ‘67 isn’t the half way point but I never claimed it was. Not for what we are talking about anyways. Those years (late 60s to early 70s) saw a large change in hockey and the NHL. The baby booms kids started to come of age, the Soviets started to really flex their muscle, and the Swedes were about to show what they could do in the NHL, which was eventually followed by other nations. We never really looked back from there and even if the number of years is smaller than 1870 to 1946 (your example) in birth years the number of hockey players is inevitably much larger per year, and more overall. That’s why I don’t agree with the distribution in the project. Especially with pre-1946 born players taking up half of the top 20 all-time. It’s not realistic.



Okay, I have to ask then. Why would Harvey be ranked higher then? Team success? Nothing he did on a personal level was greater. In terms of offensive numbers Lidstrom beats him handily in every way and had a longer career overall (20 seasons to 17).



That’s not really what I was saying. It goes back to your point of looking back to the 1870 birth year and doing your “math”. I thought this point was already understood

Okay, you disagree.

Which leaves the key question unanswered. In your opinion, what should the distribution be?

 

[Midnight Judges]

So what exactly were you expecting from the participants, some sort of agreed upon formula that states something like "players from 1910 are to have their accomplishments reduced by 50%, players from 1960 are to have their accomplishments reduced 20%, etc."? That's pretty much what it sounds like.

No, I don't think it could be that simple.

First, just come to a supportable estimate on the size of the talent pool.

How that impacts players would be on an individual basis, and that is when the subjectivity comes in.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

You’re right of course, ‘67 isn’t the half way point but I never claimed it was. Not for what we are talking about anyways. Those years (late 60s to early 70s) saw a large change in hockey and the NHL. The baby booms kids started to come of age, the Soviets started to really flex their muscle, and the Swedes were about to show what they could do in the NHL, which was eventually followed by other nations. We never really looked back from there and even if the number of years is smaller than 1870 to 1946 (your example) in birth years the number of hockey players is inevitably much larger per year, and more overall. That’s why I don’t agree with the distribution in the project. Especially with pre-1946 born players taking up half of the top 20 all-time. It’s not realistic.

Well, what is the magic formula then? What is the permissible number of pre-1946 birth players that we can include?

Okay, I have to ask then. Why would Harvey be ranked higher then? Team success? Nothing he did on a personal level was greater. In terms of offensive numbers Lidstrom beats him handily in every way and had a longer career overall (20 seasons to 17).

Harvey controlled the flow of a hockey game in a manner that only Bobby Orr exceeded. In my opinion, of course.

That’s not really what I was saying. It goes back to your point of looking back to the 1870 birth year and doing your “math”. I thought this point was already understood

Which approximate birth year do you feel is an appropriate starting point for the sample size? Are players born before a certain year simply disqualified from consideration?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

No, I don't think it could be that simple.

First, just come to a supportable estimate on the size of the talent pool.

How that impacts players would be on an individual basis, and that is when the subjectivity comes in.

Talent pool size estimates have been discussed for years, with a great deal of supporting evidence, be it registrations, number of indoor arenas, equipment sales data, the role of schools and churches in providing necessary infrastructure, the role of central governments in various countries, population/demographic data, plain old anecdotal evidence, and various other talking points. As you can see in this thread, significant disagreement exists on how all these factors blend together and how much importance or relevance they have to the big picture.

Trying to attach a specific real number to the size of the talent pool in Year X,Y, or Z, while theoretically possible, is not realistic in practice. Broader estimates (ex. the global talent pool was "larger and deeper" in 1990 than it was in 1905) are about as specific as we can get without dissenting views becoming prevalent. Developing a consensus that supports specific size estimates is simply not possible at this point. Some people believe that everyone who owns a pair of skates is part of the talent pool, some believe that only people playing organized hockey are part of the talent pool, and others believe that only people playing organized hockey at an elite level are part of the talent pool. The subjectivity comes in much further upstream than you suppose.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Trying to attach a specific real number to the size of the talent pool in Year X,Y, or Z, while theoretically possible, is not realistic in practice. Broader estimates (ex. the global talent pool was "larger and deeper" in 1990 than it was in 1905) are about as specific as we can get without dissenting views becoming prevalent.

Exactly right, and that is by design from those who wish to obfuscate.

You seem like a logical dude, and on that basis I think you know we could be reasonably and confidently more precise than that.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Exactly right, and that is by design from those who wish to obfuscate.

Just so that I understand your point of view - you're suggesting that the reason people don't quantify changes in talent pool size from era to era is because people wish to obfuscate?

And if that's the case, clearly you don't want to obfuscate - why not provide a quantification?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Exactly right, and that is by design from those who wish to obfuscate.

You seem like a logical dude, and on that basis I think you know we could be reasonably and confidently more precise than that.

If you're so sure about that, lead the way. Present your numbers for all of us to see.