Hockey of the past vs today

[danincanada]

Is it?

The quality of Russian hockey is generally agreed to have diminished since the fall of the Soviet Union.

The Czech Republic has fallen off a cliff in the last decade or so, almost getting relegated at World Jr events. This being to country that provided Hasek and Jagr in the past.

In Canada (and probably the US as well, though I'm less familiar with their situation) access to elite clubs and coaching is now restricted to the wealthy. There are numerous stories of great players who emerged from lower-class backgrounds in the past. But now if your parents don't have tens of thousands of dollars available to send you to private prep schools, you're severely handicapped in terms of ever becoming an elite prospect.

Specialization has also decreased the available talent pool. There used to be lots of crossover between sports. Elite baseball players (Wayne Gretzky was one) may choose to play hockey once they are of draft age. Now the decision is typically made much earlier. If you choose to pursue a baseball/football/basketball career when you're 12 years old, you've probably eliminated yourself from pursuing a hockey career.

Bolded only applies to a relatively short window. Considering the Soviets only started coming over in the early 90's and this board does cross era comparisons back to the early 1900's you really haven't addressed the point.

There were barely any Americans in the NHL for parts of the O6 and they only really started taking off after the Miracle on Ice so, again, you're ignoring what's really being argued. The Europeans had little impact until the 70's as well and it's only grown since.

It's not just about population but why wouldn't the baby boom in Canada have a huge impact on the talent pool in Canada when birth rates and population both skyrocketed then and hockey didn't exactly wane in popularity overall. Hockey is still king in Canada and so what if it's expensive, there are lots of wealthy families in Canada and the US who can and do support their kids. The US is developing more talent than ever and it only seems to be increasing. Either way, comparing today to the 90's is not what we're getting at. For me, it's comparing the modern era to pre-baby boom NHL that really points to how much the pool has increased and 2 to 4 times the amount of elite talent is probably on the low end. It's probably 5 times or more in my opinion. The sport has grown, deal with it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bolded only applies to a relatively short window. Considering the Soviets only started coming over in the early 90's and this board does cross era comparisons back to the early 1900's you really haven't addressed the point.

There were barely any Americans in the NHL for parts of the O6 and they only really started taking off after the Miracle on Ice so, again, you're ignoring what's really being argued. The Europeans had little impact until the 70's as well and it's only grown since.

It's not just about population but why wouldn't the baby boom in Canada have a huge impact on the talent pool in Canada when birth rates and population both skyrocketed then and hockey didn't exactly wane in popularity overall. Hockey is still king in Canada and so what if it's expensive, there are lots of wealthy families in Canada and the US who can and do support their kids. The US is developing more talent than ever and it only seems to be increasing. Either way, comparing today to the 90's is not what we're getting at. For me, it's comparing the modern era to pre-baby boom NHL that really points to how much the pool has increased and 2 to 4 times the amount of elite talent is probably on the low end. It's probably 5 times or more in my opinion. The sport has grown, deal with it.

Baby boom was not limited to Canada. So other factors were in play. Please name and discuss them.

 

[Sentinel]

Fine. Let's say only the equipment changed. The skates are lighter. The players skate faster. Doesn't it give them less time to think on the ice? Do you seriously not see that today's game is faster than it was in the 50s? Fine, maybe it's only because of the equipment and not because today's players train year round and they didn't back then (I think it's ridiculous, because, otherwise, why would they train year round if it didn't make them better). But doesn't it make time needed to make a decision on ice much, MUCH shorter? And, as such, doesn't it require players to make much, MUCH faster decisions while on ice?

That's what I mean by "smarter" players.

 

[overg]

Fine. Let's say only the equipment changed. The skates are lighter. The players skate faster. Doesn't it give them less time to think on the ice? Do you seriously not see that today's game is faster than it was in the 50s? Fine, maybe it's only because of the equipment and not because today's players train year round and they didn't back then (I think it's ridiculous, because, otherwise, why would they train year round if it didn't make them better). But doesn't it make time needed to make a decision on ice much, MUCH shorter? And, as such, doesn't it require players to make much, MUCH faster decisions while on ice?

That's what I mean by "smarter" players.

You're presuming the players of today can do the same thing as the players of yesteryear, only with less time. Scoring levels would indicate that's not true. As would watching the games. Does anyone in today's game use the back of the net like Gretzky did? Toy with defenses the way Lemieux did? Dominate all zones like Howe did? Even moving away from the Big 4 level players, is there any particular reason to believe that the average players of today would automatically be as creative as players of the past if given more time and space?

Every player in history has had a unique playing environment. Why would anyone presuppose that players of today are outperforming their environment more than players of the past? Or that today's players would be more adaptable to past conditions than past players would be to today's conditions?

 

[Sentinel]

You're presuming the players of today can do the same thing as the players of yesteryear, only with less time. Scoring levels would indicate that's not true. As would watching the games. Does anyone in today's game use the back of the net like Gretzky did? Toy with defenses the way Lemieux did? Dominate all zones like Howe did? Even moving away from the Big 4 level players, is there any particular reason to believe that the average players of today would automatically be as creative as players of the past if given more time and space?

Every player in history has had a unique playing environment. Why would anyone presuppose that players of today are outperforming their environment more than players of the past? Or that today's players would be more adaptable to past conditions than past players would be to today's conditions?

I am presuming today's players have to think faster than the players of old, because they have less time to make decisions.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Bolded only applies to a relatively short window. Considering the Soviets only started coming over in the early 90's and this board does cross era comparisons back to the early 1900's you really haven't addressed the point.

There were barely any Americans in the NHL for parts of the O6 and they only really started taking off after the Miracle on Ice so, again, you're ignoring what's really being argued. The Europeans had little impact until the 70's as well and it's only grown since.

It's not just about population but why wouldn't the baby boom in Canada have a huge impact on the talent pool in Canada when birth rates and population both skyrocketed then and hockey didn't exactly wane in popularity overall. Hockey is still king in Canada and so what if it's expensive, there are lots of wealthy families in Canada and the US who can and do support their kids. The US is developing more talent than ever and it only seems to be increasing. Either way, comparing today to the 90's is not what we're getting at. For me, it's comparing the modern era to pre-baby boom NHL that really points to how much the pool has increased and 2 to 4 times the amount of elite talent is probably on the low end. It's probably 5 times or more in my opinion. The sport has grown, deal with it.

What are you considering the modern era? Present time? Or recent decades as a whole?

I think we did see the effects of the baby boom generation in Canada, and I think this has been acknowledged on the list. Gretzky #1, Lemieux #4, Roy #7, Bourque #10...all players born in this baby boom within a few years of each other.

Present day, the situation is vastly different. Walter Gretzky was a regular working class man. He could never have afforded whatever the 1960s equivalent of $50,000 per year was to send young Wayne to private hockey academies. Fortunately for Connor McDavid, his family had the means to do so. So in the 1960s we have conditions where a generational talent could arise from modest circumstances. Perhaps 50% or more of the school aged boys in Canada had the means to become a Wayne Gretzky. In the 2010s we have conditions where perhaps only 0.1% of those boys could become a Connor McDavid. It would seem the talent pool is shrinking at an alarming rate, because the overall population certainly hasn't increased 500-fold.

 

[overg]

I am presuming today's players have to think faster than the players of old, because they have less time to make decisions.

That's one possibility. Another is they make fewer, simpler or more systematic decisions.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, the game is over-coached today (he says, as a coach), players have to do less thinking overall...especially in the area from around 2006 or 2008 to about 2014 or 2015 or so...the game was too fast for its own good and wasn't a strong product...we're just now starting to see more hyper-speed stars and impact players being able to play at the pace and adjust to the notion that it's easier to destroy than it is to create...

So many un-smart players were just out there to go once up, once back, 30 seconds and that's it...no shift management, no decisions really being made, no skill plays really being made...just skate as fast as you can at [good player X] and hope you can contain him long enough for him to just waste a limp wrist shot at the goalie who is already on his knees because he can be...

The game is really just starting to snap out of that because of the emphasis on skill in youth development over the last few years, the implementation of skills coaches helps in some instances (though, intrusive in other instances...that's for another time), how quickly players have adjusted to new fads in goaltending (RVH goalies especially), etc.

But faster game != smarter players. That's like the bigger population != more talent stuff...it sounds nice, but that's turning a blind eye to a lot more factors, nuance and context...

 

[wetcoast]

What are you considering the modern era? Present time? Or recent decades as a whole?

I think we did see the effects of the baby boom generation in Canada, and I think this has been acknowledged on the list. Gretzky #1, Lemieux #4, Roy #7, Bourque #10...all players born in this baby boom within a few years of each other.

Present day, the situation is vastly different. Walter Gretzky was a regular working class man. He could never have afforded whatever the 1960s equivalent of $50,000 per year was to send young Wayne to private hockey academies. Fortunately for Connor McDavid, his family had the means to do so. So in the 1960s we have conditions where a generational talent could arise from modest circumstances. Perhaps 50% or more of the school aged boys in Canada had the means to become a Wayne Gretzky. In the 2010s we have conditions where perhaps only 0.1% of those boys could become a Connor McDavid. It would seem the talent pool is shrinking at an alarming rate, because the overall population certainly hasn't increased 500-fold.

If you think that the talent pool is shrinking then you haven't followed prospects very much in the last 10 years.

There has been a real uptick in the number of high level skilled players being developed around the world, not just the traditional 5 Canadian provinces.

Just like we saw how inflated the plus/minus was of dominant players in the 70's when the NHL balance between the top and bottom teams was huge, we are seeing a leveling of the playing field as the defensive talent (and coaching and goaltending equipment, techniques) have really changed, we aren't going to see the huge gap in statistical results.

Also in a larger league there is going to be a higher chance of an anomaly from year to year, in terms of scoring.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

If you think that the talent pool is shrinking then you haven't followed prospects very much in the last 10 years.

There has been a real uptick in the number of high level skilled players being developed around the world, not just the traditional 5 Canadian provinces.

Just like we saw how inflated the plus/minus was of dominant players in the 70's when the NHL balance between the top and bottom teams was huge, we are seeing a leveling of the playing field as the defensive talent (and coaching and goaltending equipment, techniques) have really changed, we aren't going to see the huge gap in statistical results.

Also in a larger league there is going to be a higher chance of an anomaly from year to year, in terms of scoring.

Greater diversity of background does not necessarily equate to a greater overall talent pool. And while it is true that we are seeing more players from places like Switzerland, Denmark, Austria, etc., we are seeing less from traditional powers like Russia and Czech Republic.

And again, how do we deal with the fact that many elite Canadian (and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say American as well) players now come through private prep schools and elitist hockey academies that only a fraction of the population can afford?

I recall when Ryan Nugent-Hopkins was drafted, it was mentioned that he had to stop playing for a time in his youth because his parents just couldn't afford it. This was a #1 overall draft pick. How many other potential first round draft picks don't end up making it due to financial constraints, or even just time constraints? Producing an elite hockey player in Canada used to just require skill and the ability to afford skates and a stick. Affordable for the significant majority. Then it required the willingness to travel to out of town games/tournaments. So a bit more commitment, but nothing too crazy.

Now it requires upper-class level wealth just to begin with, the willingness to travel vast distances to international tournaments, and the willingness to drive crazy distances just for regular season games, at least in Alberta. Participation was vast enough in previous times that all the neighbourhoods of a city had their own teams. A road trip meant going to the other side of town. I grew up with kids who had regular weeknight games two hours down the highway. We were only maybe 12 or 14 years old. And that was 20 years ago nearly. Those types of conditions will drive many people away from the sport.

Hell, I myself grew up in a family that was at worst comfortably in the middle class as far as household income. And even still, I couldn't play organized hockey until I was 11 years old. Regular house league hockey was too expensive for my parents to afford with three young children to raise. I had friends who didn't play because their parents were unable or unwilling to meet the time commitments or get up before dawn for 6am practices. So in theory I was part of this expanded talent pool spurred on by population growth in Canada compared to previous decades. But in reality I was not part of the talent pool. Or at least, not part of it until it was far too late to have more than a lottery ticket's chance of becoming a professional player.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Life got in the way but I'm not going to get into personal details. I've read along here and there but taking time to post takes more time than just reading along on my phone.

Hopefully all positive.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I am presuming today's players have to think faster than the players of old, because they have less time to make decisions.

This season TG/G is up to 6.23 from 5.94. Is this due to players thinking faster, goalies thinking slower or changes in goalie pad regulations?

 

[bobholly39]

This season TG/G is up to 6.23 from 5.94. Is this due to players thinking faster, goalies thinking slower or changes in goalie pad regulations?

I actually think A and B can have a lot to do with this year to year. Obviously rule changes and powerplay increase/decrease have big impacts on scoring and always have - but i think sometimes players just score more, or less.

On an individual level - if you look at the top 5-10 scorers from year to year, in the years where there's a big change in output, I find we are too quick to look for "rule change" to justify it. I don't think that's always the case, and certainly not to the level that some people think. Sometimes top scorers just have better years, sometimes they just tend to have bad years and others follow - and sometimes not always "adjusting" stats to every single criteria available is the more accurate reflection of performance.

I know this is a bit off-topic from the point you were making - but i still think it's true.

 

[Theokritos]

Do you seriously not see that today's game is faster than it was in the 50s? Fine, maybe it's only because of the equipment and not because today's players train year round and they didn't back then...

Playing 30 seconds shifts instead of 2 minutes shifts would probably be the biggest single factor.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I actually think A and B can have a lot to do with this year to year. Obviously rule changes and powerplay increase/decrease have big impacts on scoring and always have - but i think sometimes players just score more, or less.

On an individual level - if you look at the top 5-10 scorers from year to year, in the years where there's a big change in output, I find we are too quick to look for "rule change" to justify it. I don't think that's always the case, and certainly not to the level that some people think. Sometimes top scorers just have better years, sometimes they just tend to have bad years and others follow - and sometimes not always "adjusting" stats to every single criteria available is the more accurate reflection of performance.

I know this is a bit off-topic from the point you were making - but i still think it's true.

Identify your claims with documentation otherwise withdraw them.

 

[Midnight Judges]

And again, how do we deal with the fact that many elite Canadian (and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say American as well) players now come through private prep schools and elitist hockey academies that only a fraction of the population can afford?

I recall when Ryan Nugent-Hopkins was drafted, it was mentioned that he had to stop playing for a time in his youth because his parents just couldn't afford it. This was a #1 overall draft pick. How many other potential first round draft picks don't end up making it due to financial constraints, or even just time constraints? Producing an elite hockey player in Canada used to just require skill and the ability to afford skates and a stick. Affordable for the significant majority. Then it required the willingness to travel to out of town games/tournaments. So a bit more commitment, but nothing too crazy.

Now it requires upper-class level wealth just to begin with, the willingness to travel vast distances to international tournaments, and the willingness to drive crazy distances just for regular season games, at least in Alberta.

The fact that more players are spending the money to travel does not take away from the players that may be unable to.

You also seem to be making an argument that the population has gotten poorer, less capable, and less privileged over the past 50-60 years. That is the exact opposite of what has happened.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I had friends who didn't play because their parents were unable or unwilling to meet the time commitments or get up before dawn for 6am practices.

Why would that be any different in 2010 or 1960?

 

[DannyGallivan]

The fact that more players are spending the money to travel does not take away from the players that may be unable to.

You also seem to be making an argument that the population has gotten poorer, less capable, and less privileged over the past 50-60 years. That is the exact opposite of what has happened.

Hockey has gotten far more expensive. How many kids from poor families - or even middle class families - make it to the NHL anymore? In the early '70's and earlier, the NHL was filled with farm boys who wore second hand equipment as kids. Now, your family better be making a pretty penny for you to get a sniff at the NHL.

I think the real reason that you see so many second generation NHLers in the NHL has a lot less to do with genetics and a lot more to do with the fact that their dads are multi-millionaires who love hockey. I can't build an $80,000 indoor rink in my back yard for my kid (as I heard rumour that Rod Bind'amour recently did).

 

[Midnight Judges]

Hockey has gotten far more expensive. How many kids from poor families - or even middle class families - make it to the NHL anymore? In the early '70's and earlier, the NHL was filled with farm boys who wore second hand equipment as kids. Now, your family better be making a pretty penny for you to get a sniff at the NHL.

I think the real reason that you see so many second generation NHLers in the NHL has a lot less to do with genetics and a lot more to do with the fact that their dads are multi-millionaires who love hockey. I can't build an $80,000 indoor rink in my back yard for my kid (as I heard rumour that Rod Bind'amour recently did).

Is there compelling data on the price of skates, sticks, pads, leagues etc. that shows prices have far outpaced inflation to such an extent that the Canadian hockey playing population has been cut to less than a quarter in terms of raw numbers even as the population more than doubled?

In order to say the hockey pool is similar in size now to the revered 50's, that is the case that must be made.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Hockey has gotten far more expensive. How many kids from poor families - or even middle class families - make it to the NHL anymore? In the early '70's and earlier, the NHL was filled with farm boys who wore second hand equipment as kids. Now, your family better be making a pretty penny for you to get a sniff at the NHL.

Is there data on this?

 

[DannyGallivan]

Is there compelling data on the price of skates, sticks, pads, leagues etc. that shows prices have far outpaced inflation to such an extent that the Canadian hockey playing population has been cut in a quarter even as the population more than doubled?

In order to say the hockey pool is similar in size now to the revered 50's, that is the case that must be made.

Registration. Coaching. Tournament costs.

The great offside: How Canadian hockey is becoming a game strictly for the rich

Minor hockey costs add up; Canadians keep paying

Is the cost keeping kids out of minor hockey? Absolutely, players and parents say | CBC Sports

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Playing 30 seconds shifts instead of 2 minutes shifts would probably be the biggest single factor.

I mean.... it's so obvious, you don't need the word "probably" in here.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Registration. Coaching. Tournament costs.

What about them. I am asking for data. You provided four vague words.

And what difference does it make if someone is having high priced tournaments nowadays that didn't exist before? That doesn't take anything away from a player that doesn't participate relative to the players who existed before those tournaments.

What you need to show is that lower price options - like local leagues that existed before - have been wiped out - to the extent that the Canadian hockey playing population has been reduced to less than a quarter in terms of raw numbers even as the population more than doubled.

And yes, that's a high bar - commensurate with the mind boggingly stupid assertion that population 16M Canada had just as much talent as 36M Canada + portions of the USA + Russia + Sweden + Finland + Austria etc.

 

[DannyGallivan]

What about them. I am asking for data. You provided four vague words.

And what difference does it make if someone is having high priced tournaments nowadays that didn't exist before? That doesn't take anything away from a player that doesn't participate relative to the players who existed before those tournaments.

What you need to show is that lower price options - like local leagues that existed before - have been wiped out.

I' m at work and don't have a lot of time to research this out of the ying-yang. I've edited my post to include links to three articles, and I would love to find the raw data or a handy graph for ya. Maybe later.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Registration. Coaching. Tournament costs.

The great offside: How Canadian hockey is becoming a game strictly for the rich

Minor hockey costs add up; Canadians keep paying

Is the cost keeping kids out of minor hockey? Absolutely, players and parents say | CBC Sports

They keep citing ice time increasing in price - which means they are either tearing down facilities faster than they are building them (unlikely) or the demand for ice time is increasing (which likely means the number of players is increasing).

Otherwise, hockey has always been an expensive sport. How could it not be?