Hockey of the past vs today

[Thenameless]

And hockey still hasn't seen the major influx of talent that the three other major North American team sports have.

 

[wetcoast]

And hockey still hasn't seen the major influx of talent that the three other major North American team sports have.

I can see that for baseball especially with segregration and the NBA which has become a global sport but the NFL?

 

[sr edler]

and the NBA which has become a global sport but the NFL?

NBA is a league and not a sport and basketball is a secondary (or worse) sport on most other continents, no? The only European country where basketball is the #1 sport as far as I know is Lithuania, a tiny country. In South America soccer/football is king. People in Asia or Africa really plays a lot of basketball?

 

[wetcoast]

NBA is a league and not a sport and basketball is a secondary (or worse) sport on most other continents, no? The only European country where basketball is the #1 sport as far as I know is Lithuania, a tiny country. In South America soccer/football is king. People in Asia or Africa really plays a lot of basketball?

Okay so my post did sound a bit like the NBA kool aid they are marketing.

That being said the NBA probably has had more nationalities play at an elite level in the NBA than the NHL has.

Unless one really wants to count Rod Langway as Twainese.

 

[Sentinel]

And hockey still hasn't seen the major influx of talent that the three other major North American team sports have.

What??

 

[Thenameless]

What??

It gets ugly. One of those subjects that can get really touchy.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Am I crazy or does the fact that not every era is equal not come up in every thread of this project multiple times? I know I have brought it up a ton and even laid out math about how I distrust the early 1980s and then ranted about the late 1940s...

You're making it seem like we sit there and think the 9th best player in 1900 is the same as the 9th best player in 2000...I legitimately haven't seen one person do that...and it gets discussed in literally every thread.

You keep busting in in a blaze of lights and sour grapes making it seem like you're making some unique, completely unheard of and foreign point...but yet I feel like, as a whole, we're well aware, if not way ahead of it...

Even the strongest opponent of your piss-into-a-strong-headwind cause is C1958, and he's gone on record multiple times about the weakness of WWI era hockey and the league after the sponsorship era died out by attrition...

You're jumping out the closed window when you could just walk through the open door...they accomplish the same thing, but your way is a big mess and very annoying to deal with...

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Am I crazy or does the fact that not every era is equal not come up in every thread of this project multiple times? I know I have brought it up a ton and even laid out math about how I distrust the early 1980s and then ranted about the late 1940s...

You're making it seem like we sit there and think the 9th best player in 1900 is the same as the 9th best player in 2000...I legitimately haven't seen one person do that...and it gets discussed in literally every thread.

You keep busting in in a blaze of lights and sour grapes making it seem like you're making some unique, completely unheard of and foreign point...but yet I feel like, as a whole, we're well aware, if not way ahead of it...

Even the strongest opponent of your piss-into-a-strong-headwind cause is C1958, and he's gone on record multiple times about the weakness of WWI era hockey and the league after the sponsorship era died out by attrition...

You're jumping out the closed window when you could just walk through the open door...they accomplish the same thing, but your way is a big mess and very annoying to deal with...

Well said. I was going to write a similar response, but you beat me to it (and did a better job than I would have). It's obvious that we (the voters) are taking era into account. Someone might think we're not taking it into account enough, but to say we're not doing it at all is simply false.

 

[danincanada]

Am I crazy or does the fact that not every era is equal not come up in every thread of this project multiple times? I know I have brought it up a ton and even laid out math about how I distrust the early 1980s and then ranted about the late 1940s...

You're making it seem like we sit there and think the 9th best player in 1900 is the same as the 9th best player in 2000...I legitimately haven't seen one person do that...and it gets discussed in literally every thread.

You keep busting in in a blaze of lights and sour grapes making it seem like you're making some unique, completely unheard of and foreign point...but yet I feel like, as a whole, we're well aware, if not way ahead of it...

Even the strongest opponent of your piss-into-a-strong-headwind cause is C1958, and he's gone on record multiple times about the weakness of WWI era hockey and the league after the sponsorship era died out by attrition...

You're jumping out the closed window when you could just walk through the open door...they accomplish the same thing, but your way is a big mess and very annoying to deal with...

You brought it up regarding the early 80’s and, if you recall, I lauded it because it’s so rare that someone dares to actually voice that type of opinion, unless it’s about the modern era since it’s fine to say modern players (say post 2000) are just fast skating robots for the most part. Other than that, the discussion is completely lacking apart from the War years. Where are you seeing all these other discussions?

Some of the better posters are building it into their own rankings of course, but it should be a far more prominent part of the discussion. I don’t see it and you pretending it is taking place all the time won’t help the discussion open up.

As an aside, how are you rating those players you can’t watch? You don’t have footage of Frank Nighbor on VHS so I’m honestly interested to know. Frankly, isn’t it odd to use one way of assessing and ranking certain eras but only hearsay for others?

 

[Thenameless]

As an aside, how are you rating those players you can’t watch? You don’t have footage of Frank Nighbor on VHS so I’m honestly interested to know. Frankly, isn’t it odd to use one way of assessing and ranking certain eras but only hearsay for others?

It's not odd if it's all you can do (compare different ways). It would be odd not to use footage, for instance, if it was available. For sure, it's not an easy exercise, and I think it's why you'll see more variance in "unwatched" players.

 

[Michael Farkas]

If I'm being honest, I think you're viewing the forum with the eyes of your cold, cold heart as opposed to being open to the ideas being presented and the discussion being had. This is what happens with one-track posters often...you have a clear and distinct track...anti-old, pro-Detroit. That's your whole game. And, naturally, people are against that...in fact, I might even say that people hate that. As such, there's push back...because people naturally focus more on negatives cast in front of them than positives surrounding them because many expect "positive" to be the expected result of all of their encounters, you have it in your head that most people here aren't entertaining the idea that every decade wasn't created equally.

Yet, no player that played before WWII is in the top-10. And only, what, three of the top-30 were in their prime before 1950...it doesn't actually sound like your opinion is to completely erase the history before [insert variable floating year depending on the day] but you do intend to squash it to some degree...fine. Eight of the top 16 played in or after the 1990s...if we had it at 8 of the top 16 played before the NHL was formed, ok, you'd have a pretty strong point on that ax you grind...but it's just not happening like that.

And if your opinion is that we should dismiss everything from before Nicklas Lidstrom was "allowed" over or whatever...frankly, you can go suck a lemon on that one...because there's no way we have any interest in that (he says, speaking for strangers), you're wasting your time...

We have tape going back to the 1930's...that covers a lot of ground. I don't sit here in my chair and rock back and forth going, "but Nighbor! I never saw Nighbor!" It sucks. But you can only play the hand you're dealt. And those players could only play in the time they played. If you're really interested in this kind of stuff (which I am) and have a good grasp of the game (which I've been told I do...though, that's a matter for the courts) you can reverse engineer some stuff in conjunction with what you know and what you read and figure it out to a reasonable degree...to think that I (or hopefully anyone) uses just one way to assess players is rather disingenuous...

Detectives don't watch every murder on closed circuit television...they take the clues, their experience and they piece it together reasonably...whether the perp opened the door with his left hand or his right hand isn't really relevant and it doesn't detract from the overall scope of this...

Similarly, when you go back and watch the game through its progression (or better yet for me, I watch it backwards through time...ending in 1930, not starting there), and compare the readings of the players you can see with the game and its quality and see how/when it jumps in quality or declines or what the trends are in how the game is played, you can fill in the gaps pretty reasonably in my opinion...it takes some effort, you have to want to, but it can be done...

I just don't know where you want these players to come from...you don't like the O6 era, so that's (for this discussion) everything up to 1970 really...you're on my side about the early to mid 1980's being a dump...so we got like 1972-1978 (where the WHA was a dilution) and 1987 to 2005 or whatever, the dates are for effect...I mean, there's not gonna be a ton of active guys here, so it's not even reasonable to say 2012 or whatever...and then like I said, 8 of 16 played in or after the 1990's...this is a tight window you got us in here...

I just don't know what you're trying to accomplish that isn't already being done by the large majority of this group. There's a much bigger problem with whining homers than there is with not adjusting for era, I feel like we do that plenty and it's reflected in the discussion and the output...

 

[Kyle McMahon]

If I'm being honest, I think you're viewing the forum with the eyes of your cold, cold heart as opposed to being open to the ideas being presented and the discussion being had. This is what happens with one-track posters often...you have a clear and distinct track...anti-old, pro-Detroit. That's your whole game. And, naturally, people are against that...in fact, I might even say that people hate that. As such, there's push back...because people naturally focus more on negatives cast in front of them than positives surrounding them because many expect "positive" to be the expected result of all of their encounters, you have it in your head that most people here aren't entertaining the idea that every decade wasn't created equally.

Yet, no player that played before WWII is in the top-10. And only, what, three of the top-30 were in their prime before 1950...it doesn't actually sound like your opinion is to completely erase the history before [insert variable floating year depending on the day] but you do intend to squash it to some degree...fine. Eight of the top 16 played in or after the 1990s...if we had it at 8 of the top 16 played before the NHL was formed, ok, you'd have a pretty strong point on that ax you grind...but it's just not happening like that.

And if your opinion is that we should dismiss everything from before Nicklas Lidstrom was "allowed" over or whatever...frankly, you can go suck a lemon on that one...because there's no way we have any interest in that (he says, speaking for strangers), you're wasting your time...

We have tape going back to the 1930's...that covers a lot of ground. I don't sit here in my chair and rock back and forth going, "but Nighbor! I never saw Nighbor!" It sucks. But you can only play the hand you're dealt. And those players could only play in the time they played. If you're really interested in this kind of stuff (which I am) and have a good grasp of the game (which I've been told I do...though, that's a matter for the courts) you can reverse engineer some stuff in conjunction with what you know and what you read and figure it out to a reasonable degree...to think that I (or hopefully anyone) uses just one way to assess players is rather disingenuous...

Detectives don't watch every murder on closed circuit television...they take the clues, their experience and they piece it together reasonably...whether the perp opened the door with his left hand or his right hand isn't really relevant and it doesn't detract from the overall scope of this...

Similarly, when you go back and watch the game through its progression (or better yet for me, I watch it backwards through time...ending in 1930, not starting there), and compare the readings of the players you can see with the game and its quality and see how/when it jumps in quality or declines or what the trends are in how the game is played, you can fill in the gaps pretty reasonably in my opinion...it takes some effort, you have to want to, but it can be done...

I just don't know where you want these players to come from...you don't like the O6 era, so that's (for this discussion) everything up to 1970 really...you're on my side about the early to mid 1980's being a dump...so we got like 1972-1978 (where the WHA was a dilution) and 1987 to 2005 or whatever, the dates are for effect...I mean, there's not gonna be a ton of active guys here, so it's not even reasonable to say 2012 or whatever...and then like I said, 8 of 16 played in or after the 1990's...this is a tight window you got us in here...

I just don't know what you're trying to accomplish that isn't already being done by the large majority of this group. There's a much bigger problem with whining homers than there is with not adjusting for era, I feel like we do that plenty and it's reflected in the discussion and the output...

Very thorough observations Mike, and observations that have been repeated for years on end in response to @danincanada.

I think it basically boils down to this particular user steadfastly believing that Nik Lidstrom is better than Doug Harvey, and any all-time list that doesn't reflect this belief is anti-modern, pro-old guys, no era differences taken into account, and on and on.

 

[Sentinel]

I think it basically boils down to this particular user steadfastly believing that Nik Lidstrom is better than Doug Harvey, and any all-time list that doesn't reflect this belief is anti-modern, pro-old guys, no era differences taken into account, and on and on.

Well, Lidstrom does have a case against Harvey, and for all the shit that Nick gets for his "lack of competition," Harvey's competition (besides Kelly) is not that impressive either. Harvey is very overrated around these parts.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Well, Lidstrom does have a case against Harvey, and for all the **** that Nick gets for his "lack of competition," Harvey's competition (besides Kelly) is not that impressive either. Harvey is very overrated around these parts.

Perfectly fine to have this opinion, but it's something else entirely to just show up in this section at random intervals for years on end to accuse everyone who doesn't share the same opinion of holding some fundamental anti-modern/pro-Original Six bias.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Well, Lidstrom does have a case against Harvey, and for all the **** that Nick gets for his "lack of competition," Harvey's competition (besides Kelly) is not that impressive either. Harvey is very overrated around these parts.

Kelly is truly elite competition at D, though. But I do think he got way too much mileague out of being a #2C for Toronto. Yeah, I get that Blake thought he was the ideal counter-part to Beliveau but...that doesn't mean I think Steve Kasper is some kind of great.

 

[Michael Farkas]

See, I'm an oddball...because I think Harvey was unreal...like, that's the defenseman the mold was made out of...when you watch him, he was so far ahead, it's insane...no one was doing that stuff and I don't say that because a newspaper said that but because I watched those players and no one could do what Harvey was doing...everyone based it on him, not Shore, not these other guys...Harvey. I had Harvey at #7 overall.

All that said, I had Lidstrom at #9 overall...and if I had to do it again, he wouldn't stray far from there either...

The level of competition in terms of award voting only really matters if that's your sole basis for things (which is gross)...I don't care if Lidstrom won seven Norrises, I don't care if he won ten. I don't care if Orr's career overlapped with Lidstrom's and he won zero. I find Lidstrom to be a talent, therefore I don't need to be spoonfed circumstantial things like the Penguins beat writer giving Brooks Orpik a first place vote and costing Lidstrom a spot...



(One day someone is going to do a search for "Orpik" and a thread called "Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time" is going to pop up and they're going to spill piping hot gravy all over themselves...)

 

[Canadiens1958]

Pre video days. You learn about the reliable reporters and authors.

Grew-up reading Elmer Ferguson who pre-dated the NHL, Dink Carroll. Both were working reporters into the seventies.

Question of using their opinions about early hockey and players as a base.

 

[wetcoast]

You are assuming elite has always been restricted to the NHL.

Post consolidation is has for the most part from late 20's until the late 60's early 70's

Also why are you defining Canadians by province while neglecting to define Americans by state and Euros by city or region? Other than illustrating sloppy methods your distinction serves no purpose.

We can do the same for different states in the US as well, the same patter emerges, nothing to very little in terms of developing NHL talent and then in the late 70's they start to produce very good to elite NHL players.

Also for the provinces, specifically the Atlantic ones and BC, they produced extremely little in terms of HNL quality players and then within the space of a little over 20 years 5 HHOF worthy players.

Tthey did not displace the existing talent pipelines but added to it obviously.

Obviously that was a drastic change.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Thank you Theo.

 

[Killion]

Pre video days. You learn about the reliable reporters and authors.

Grew-up reading Elmer Ferguson who pre-dated the NHL, Dink Carroll. Both were working reporters into the seventies.

Question of using their opinions about early hockey and players as a base.

Also a question of using hockey players opinions about each other, facing them, cutting through the crap, dealing with egos, so called legends on the ice face-face up close & personal. It means being combative, possessing grit, attitude individually... as in dig deep, yourself. YOUR. SELF No ones going to help, coddle or protect you. No one. Deal with it.

 

[streitz]

I loved hockey from the early 80's till around 94/95.

Tolerated it from 95-04, was watchable but much less interesting.

Complete crap since 2005, bye.

 

[Big Phil]

Bobby Hull is a bizarre choice to use when talking about players of yesteryear not being as "strong". The guy was built like a greek God. I take him as the better overall player and still the best LWer of all-time over Ovechkin, is this still not the norm or am I off on this one? Hull was a bit better all around and I thought used his tools offensively a bit more. Ovechkin had 5 straight years where he never passed 28 assists and I don't know if he does it this year either.

 

[Big Phil]

I have said this before, but as a whole in our society we are weaker than before. The average man is significantly weaker than someone from, say the 1930s. Much of it has to do with the manual labour jobs that existed then that don't today. My brother in law always says that he has "keyboard wrists" compared to my arms. It is because he works at a desk all day. Most men didn't in the 1930s. Even a study recently showed that men in the 1980s at the same age had a stronger grip than men today. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-were-researchers-say/?utm_term=.5a0c93a93828

It is likely only going to go downhill from here since everyone's cell phone can practically drive a car for them nowadays. However, what about athletes? Obviously the training is better so does that mean they are stronger? I think on average they are stronger and faster to an extent if only because they've taken advantage of the training, where as the average person today is not in better shape than 40-50 years ago, they are in much worse shape.

But it isn't as if the players weren't in shape back then either. Think back to the original 6 days, Rocket Richard was working in a factory in the 1940s during the day. Phil Esposito says he worked every summer back home until he was 30. Plus look at the shirtless pictures of Howe and Hull, pretty jacked up players. I don't think you could afford to be out of shape in the original 6 either. Even stuff like Conn Smythe's military-style training camps come to mind as something that would be hard. Hull worked on a farm in his youth, I don't see how that is easier than modern day training either.

I don't know, if there is a difference in strength with the modern athletes than it is minimal.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Bobby Hull is a bizarre choice to use when talking about players of yesteryear not being as "strong". The guy was built like a greek God. I take him as the better overall player and still the best LWer of all-time over Ovechkin, is this still not the norm or am I off on this one? Hull was a bit better all around and I thought used his tools offensively a bit more. Ovechkin had 5 straight years where he never passed 28 assists and I don't know if he does it this year either.

Yeah, that really is a bizarre choice when you consider prime Hull looked to be in much better shape than Ovechkin was a couple of years ago.. and how frightening it is to think of Hull with lightweight equipment, better skates (can you imagine him fly!?) and his shot with a composite stick..

This idea that today's players are bionic superheroes really has to stop. It is embarrassing. People haven't changed much at all over the timespan of hockey. Items outside player influence are the biggest changes: equipment, ice surfaces, skates, sport specific training (although the jury is kind of out on how much this hurts/helps vs. multi sports) nutrition, and medical advances.

It has also been shown 1000 times on the board here that the idea of this ever expanding ever better talent pool worldwide is on pretty shaky ground. The reasons for that are ignored each and every time which is why most of the proponents of it are now being ignored by me.

 

[Big Phil]

Yeah, that really is a bizarre choice when you consider prime Hull looked to be in much better shape than Ovechkin was a couple of years ago.. and how frightening it is to think of Hull with lightweight equipment, better skates (can you imagine him fly!?) and his shot with a composite stick..

This idea that today's players are bionic superheroes really has to stop. It is embarrassing. People haven't changed much at all over the timespan of hockey. Items outside player influence are the biggest changes: equipment, ice surfaces, skates, sport specific training (although the jury is kind of out on how much this hurts/helps vs. multi sports) nutrition, and medical advances.

It has also been shown 1000 times on the board here that the idea of this ever expanding ever better talent pool worldwide is on pretty shaky ground. The reasons for that are ignored each and every time which is why most of the proponents of it are now being ignored by me.

Is there something specific you mean by this last paragraph? For me I would say that the last couple of seasons seems to be starting to trend towards more high octane hockey that we used to love back in the day. Teams like Tampa, Toronto and even Winnipeg and of course the last three seasons of Cup winners have shown that teams that score a lot can and will win. 10 years ago that wasn't happening. Or 20. So I think we are on the right track there, and there is a ton of young talent in the NHL. I think more than ever now the skill is on showcase because I am seeing coaches loosening up the chains on things a lot more, which is good. I just wish we saw more hatred and passion again, then it would be perfect.

But do you feel that if everyone is so much better that we ought to be seeing a higher quality of hockey today, because I can see that