HOH Top 60 Centers of All Time

[bobholly39]

i'm not sure i see crosby over mikita yet.

there is a playoff discrepancy, but it doesn't look enormous to me. mikita has a cup and four other finals, generally acquitted himself very well in the playoffs and finishing just a hair under a career point/game even though he played until he was 37. crosby has, obviously, the three cups and one other finals. fwiw, each only led the playoffs in scoring once, and both in years they lost.

for regular season achievement counting:

mikita: 2 harts
crosby: 2 harts

mikita: 3 hart top 2s
crosby: 4 hart top 2s

mikita: 3 hart top 3s
crosby: 5 hart top 3s

mikita: 5 hart top 5s
crosby: 6 hart top 5s

mikita: 4 art rosses
crosby: 2 art rosses

mikita: 5 top 2s
crosby: 4 top 2s

mikita: 8 top 3s
crosby: 8 top 3s

(neither of them have any 4th or 5th place scoring finishes)

mikita: 4 league leads in points/game
crosby: 5 league leads in points/game

mikita: 5 top 2s in points/game
crosby: 7 top 2s in points/game

mikita: 9 top 3s in points/game
crosby: 9 top 3s in points/game

mikita: 10 top 5s in points/game
crosby: 10 top 5s in points/game

mikita: 6 first team all-stars
crosby: 4 first team all-stars

mikita: 8 postseason all-stars
crosby: 7 postseason all-stars

so it feels like crosby has basically caught up to mikita's counting accomplishments, but not definitively passed them (yet, obviously).

but mikita played more than 500 games. at this point, i can't overlook that.

i also can't overlook a nine year peak where mikita played the 4th most games, scored the most points, had the highest points/game, 2nd most goals, most assists, won two harts and four art rosses, finished top three in scoring every year but one (when he finished 4th behind espo, howe, and hull), and had six first team all-stars and two second team all-stars.

and, back to those "other" 500 games he still has over crosby, if you take out mikita's nine season prime, he still has 761 games, 244 goals, 449 assists, 693 points. to put that points total in perspective, mikita retired in 1980. on the day he played his last game, those 693 points would have been good for 39th all-time. to put that games played total in perspective, to date crosby has played 864 games.

so i guess i just don't see crosby's edge in playoff performance quite overtaking mikita's 6-7 extra seasons yet.

Not going to get into a whole Crosby vs Mikita debate, but I do want to address some of the elements you're listing.

When comparing 06 players to modern players - ie Crosby vs Mikita - i think it's not fair to take certain items at face value, such as:

top 5 rankings (points, harts, etc)
First/2nd team all stars

Put it this way. Going into.....let's randomly pick 1963 - where Mikita finished 3rd in points, 2nd in hart and 1st AS. And let's compare it to 2016-2017.

How many players going into 1963 would you say had a legitimate chance at the hart trophy, art ross trophy, and 1st team all star (C position)?
Going into 2016-2017 - same questions. I'll admit i'm more familiar with 2017 than 1963 - but I can probably list 20 legitimate hart candidates for that season, at least 10 (or 15) candidates for 1st team AS at center, and at least 20 players for top of scoring race. I'm sure it's quite a bit less in 1963.

There's simply a ton more competition in 2016-2017 for all these awards than there was in 1963.

I'm not exactly sure how to mathematically "adjust" for that across eras in the most fair way - but I do know that 6 top 5 harts for Crosby in this era vs 5 top harts for Mikita in his era shouldn't be looked at as exactly a 6-5 edge, and more context should be applied. ie - if instead of 6-5 Crosby it was tied 5-5, edge would still comfortably go to Crosby because of era.

 

[daver]

i totally agree that crosby is the better playoff performer. but like i said, i don't think it's astronomical, and i think the figures you posted corroborate that. their contributions to finals runs are pretty even, small edge to crosby. where crosby climbs way ahead is in his non-finals runs. but as we saw just a couple of months ago, being able to destroy an inferior team in the first round isn't a luxury mikita had for half of his prime, given that half of mikita's playoff prime was during the two-round era (and, as you note, he has the highest scoring two-round playoff run of all time).

not to say that we can discount what crosby did (i.e., destroy ottawa in the first round in 2010, the islanders in 2013, philly a few months ago), or that we can project that mikita would have definitively done the same, but i think it does somewhat mitigate the difference.

I think their respective PPGs, relative to their peers, best reflects their playoff legacies. Not sure what is so unique about Crosby's era that the opportunity to "destroy" opponents was only available to him and not Mikita. It should not be surprising that the clear best per game producer of his era has a few of those on his resume. The strength of their opponents over 12-13 years should even out unless there was some anomaly. Both the Pens and Hawks were the top, or 2nd best performing team in the regular season over that their respective playoff primes.

If one wants to look at non-finals runs closer then one should look at Cup winning runs of which Crosby has three, all of which are arguably better than Mikita's one run.

I would give Crosby a decisive edge in playoff legacies much more than the edge you want to give Mikita over Crosby in regular season legacies.

 

[daver]

Not going to get into a whole Crosby vs Mikita debate, but I do want to address some of the elements you're listing.

When comparing 06 players to modern players - ie Crosby vs Mikita - i think it's not fair to take certain items at face value, such as:

top 5 rankings (points, harts, etc)
First/2nd team all stars

Put it this way. Going into.....let's randomly pick 1963 - where Mikita finished 3rd in points, 2nd in hart and 1st AS. And let's compare it to 2016-2017.

How many players going into 1963 would you say had a legitimate chance at the hart trophy, art ross trophy, and 1st team all star (C position)?
Going into 2016-2017 - same questions. I'll admit i'm more familiar with 2017 than 1963 - but I can probably list 20 legitimate hart candidates for that season, at least 10 (or 15) candidates for 1st team AS at center, and at least 20 players for top of scoring race. I'm sure it's quite a bit less in 1963.

There's simply a ton more competition in 2016-2017 for all these awards than there was in 1963.

I'm not exactly sure how to mathematically "adjust" for that across eras in the most fair way - but I do know that 6 top 5 harts for Crosby in this era vs 5 top harts for Mikita in his era shouldn't be looked at as exactly a 6-5 edge, and more context should be applied. ie - if instead of 6-5 Crosby it was tied 5-5, edge would still comfortably go to Crosby because of era.

I think the starting point for this type of discussion is to not question an Art Ross win and/or a Hart win regardless of era unless something went completely awry in Hart voting. I don't think either Crosby or Mikita had years where Hart voting didn't generally reflect the strength of their season.

Other than a #1 finish in the Art Ross, and moreso as you move out of the Top 3 or so, the mathematical unfairness of comparing results from a six to twelve team league to a thirty team league needs consideration.

I don't think giving the edge to a current player vs. an O6 player when Top 3 or Top 5 or Top 10 scoring finishes are the same is unreasonable. It would get a sketchy if we gave Crosby credit for a "Top 5 O6 finish" this past year where he finished 10th.

I think the look at their respective PPGs vs. their peers over their primes confirms that Crosby's Top 3 Art Ross finishes were more impressive than Mikita's Top 3 Art Ross finishes.

 

[K Fleur]

i totally forgot about mikita until i was looking at this thread and thinking about whether crosby had passed morenz and was like, wait a minute has he even passed mikita?

it's not like i have a running top 20 list written on my hand that i update every thursday at midnight.

I would never expect anyone to do something like this. Though it may be helpful for you when compiling a ranking of players.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I think the starting point for this type of discussion is to not question an Art Ross win and/or a Hart win regardless of era unless something went completely awry in Hart voting. I don't think either Crosby or Mikita had years where Hart voting didn't generally reflect the strength of their season.

Other than a #1 finish in the Art Ross, and moreso as you move out of the Top 3 or so, the mathematical unfairness of comparing results from a six to twelve team league to a thirty team league needs consideration.

I don't think giving the edge to a current player vs. an O6 player when Top 3 or Top 5 or Top 10 scoring finishes are the same is unreasonable. It would get a sketchy if we gave Crosby credit for a "Top 5 O6 finish" this past year where he finished 10th.

I think the look at their respective PPGs vs. their peers over their primes confirms that Crosby's Top 3 Art Ross finishes were more impressive than Mikita's Top 3 Art Ross finishes.

Suggest reading the following by Bill James,that looks at the fallacy of the population argument and allits variations an incarnations:

Shakespeare and Verlander | Articles | Bill James Online

Giving the edge to a current player is unreasonable just as giving an edge for any attribute from a larger population size is unreasonable.

NHL hockey is reflected in the original expansion season 1967-68 from 6 - 12 teams or the addition of Las Vegas this past season.No impact on Art Ross or Hart results.

As for population in general,world is still waiting for first Chinese National to play in the NHL even though the Chinese are very successful in short-track speed skating, producing champions, likewise other ice skating disciplines.

 

[daver]

Suggest reading the following by Bill James,that looks at the fallacy of the population argument and allits variations an incarnations:

Shakespeare and Verlander | Articles | Bill James Online

Giving the edge to a current player is unreasonable just as giving an edge for any attribute from a larger population size is unreasonable.

NHL hockey is reflected in the original expansion season 1967-68 from 6 - 12 teams or the addition of Las Vegas this past season.No impact on Art Ross or Hart results.

As for population in general,world is still waiting for first Chinese National to play in the NHL even though the Chinese are very successful in short-track speed skating, producing champions, likewise other ice skating disciplines.

I am talking mathematics not population.

A top ten performance among 180 players < A top ten performance among 600 players. It's statistically dishonest to treat them the same.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I am talking mathematics not population.

A top ten performance among 180 players < A top ten performance among 600 players. It's statistically dishonest to treat them the same.

Sample space size makes it one and the same. Sample space is a population or sub population.

Assuming all 180 or 600 have an equally fair chance of success is a disservice.

 

[bobholly39]

Sample space size makes it one and the same. Sample space is a population or sub population.

Assuming all 180 or 600 have an equally fair chance of success is a disservice.

I brought up first team all star selections too.

For centers. In 2018-2019 - there will be 31 #1 centers in the league (of course some teams have 2, some have 0 - but you get what i mean, approx 31).

In the 06 era - there were 6 (again, give or take a few).

It's just harder in today's NHL due to more competition. And among centers especially - as there are legitimately 15-20 centers in any given year who could challenge for a spot as top 2C. Can't imagine there were nearly as many back in the 06 era.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I brought up first team all star selections too.

For centers. In 2018-2019 - there will be 31 #1 centers in the league (of course some teams have 2, some have 0 - but you get what i mean, approx 31).

In the 06 era - there were 6 (again, give or take a few).

It's just harder in today's NHL due to more competition. And among centers especially - as there are legitimately 15-20 centers in any given year who could challenge for a spot as top 2C. Can't imagine there were nearly as many back in the 06 era.

Why waste your time imagining when you can verify the question:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/103881285/

So O6 era, all 6 starting goalies received AST votes, as did solid majorities of regulars at all skater positions. Not happening today. Apply to three seasons each side and see how deep the competition really was.

 

[danincanada]

I brought up first team all star selections too.

For centers. In 2018-2019 - there will be 31 #1 centers in the league (of course some teams have 2, some have 0 - but you get what i mean, approx 31).

In the 06 era - there were 6 (again, give or take a few).

It's just harder in today's NHL due to more competition. And among centers especially - as there are legitimately 15-20 centers in any given year who could challenge for a spot as top 2C. Can't imagine there were nearly as many back in the 06 era.

The great Bill James once said:

When baseball leagues expand, that simply creates a need for more talent, which creates more opportunity, which leads—in a society like ours, which is brilliant at developing athletic ability—leads in very quick order to the development of more players.

Bill James agrees with you and so do I.

More opportunity in itself creates more competition for accolades like all-star nominations. If a league only has 6 teams and ice-time for 12 first pairing defensemen then that's likely your pool to pick from for AS nominations. If a league has 31 teams and 62 first pairing defensemen then it's a much larger pool of possible candidates and there are so many more opportunities for guys to have career years than the small group in the 6 team league because ice-time is available to flourish.

Of course we're talking about the NHL so then we also must attempt to factor in the NHL only really having Canadian talent during most of the O6. Now the Canadian talent is competing with the rest of the hockey world. Huge difference of course.

 

[ResilientBeast]

The great Bill James once said:



Bill James agrees with you and so do I.

More opportunity in itself creates more competition for accolades like all-star nominations. If a league only has 6 teams and ice-time for 12 first pairing defensemen then that's likely your pool to pick from for AS nominations. If a league has 31 teams and 62 first pairing defensemen then it's a much larger pool of possible candidates and there are so many more opportunities for guys to have career years than the small group in the 6 team league because ice-time is available to flourish.

Of course we're talking about the NHL so then we also must attempt to factor in the NHL only really having Canadian talent during most of the O6. Now the Canadian talent is competing with the rest of the hockey world. Huge difference of course.

I think that assumption is wrong. Just because there are more top pairing candidates doesn't mean there are more players at the top level of their position necessarily.

 

[Laineux]

I think that assumption is wrong. Just because there are more top pairing candidates doesn't mean there are more players at the top level of their position necessarily.

Example from this season. If NHL was 6 teams, Nathan MacKinnon doesn't have a 1C or 2C spot and doesn't end up having a top 3 season in the league. Players with inferior talent will always have career years which increases the level of competition.

 

[danincanada]

I think that assumption is wrong. Just because there are more top pairing candidates doesn't mean there are more players at the top level of their position necessarily.

You’re right, it’s not an absolute, it’s just far far more likely that the best 50 defenseman in the world (NHL) will all get an opportunity and enough ice-time in the larger league to actually compete for an AS nomination in the larger league. In the smaller league they won’t all get the ice-time and some may not flourish like they would if given more opportunity.

But logically, why would the league with less of a demand for teams (the sport is less popular) have access to more great players than the league with more of a demand for teams (the sport is more popular)? The opposite is, again, far more likely.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The great Bill James once said:



Bill James agrees with you and so do I.

More opportunity in itself creates more competition for accolades like all-star nominations. If a league only has 6 teams and ice-time for 12 first pairing defensemen then that's likely your pool to pick from for AS nominations. If a league has 31 teams and 62 first pairing defensemen then it's a much larger pool of possible candidates and there are so many more opportunities for guys to have career years than the small group in the 6 team league because ice-time is available to flourish.

Of course we're talking about the NHL so then we also must attempt to factor in the NHL only really having Canadian talent during most of the O6. Now the Canadian talent is competing with the rest of the hockey world. Huge difference of course.

You are misrepresenting Bill James. The following clearly explains his sample size(population) and provenance arguments:

Shakespeare and Verlander | Articles | Bill James Online

First, misrepresentation. O6 era had 1st team AST members and even Norris winners from defencemen who were second pairing players. Tom Johnson, Carl Brewer, a few others.

More demand does not mean more talented. Also career years are rarely AST or award worthy.They just happen to be the best season of a player's career.

Provenance is never a factor. Counter example would be lottery tickets in a fair lottery.Would the odds of winning become easier for the 6 / 49 if only Canadians bought tickets as opposed to an international population?

 

[danincanada]

Example from this season. If NHL was 6 teams, Nathan MacKinnon doesn't have a 1C or 2C spot and doesn't end up having a top 3 season in the league. Players with inferior talent will always have career years which increases the level of competition.

Inferior talent? If MacKinnon keeps playing like that he's going to have one heck of a career. He's so fast it looks like someone used a sling shot to shoot him up the ice and he was pure clutch (12 GWG). I agree he may not have got the ice-time to explode like that in a 6 team league because going into last season where would anyone slot him in the league in terms of centres? Not top 6 and probably not top 12 or even 18, which agrees with your point again. One could say scouts and coaches would notice his growth as a player and he'd get opportunities this past season if it were a 6 team league. Obviously it would be less likely because there are less spots to take.

 

[Laineux]

Inferior talent? If MacKinnon keeps playing like that he's going to have one heck of a career. He's so fast it looks like someone used a sling shot to shoot him up the ice and he was pure clutch (12 GWG). I agree he may not have got the ice-time to explode like that in a 6 team league because going into last season where would anyone slot him in the league in terms of centres? Not top 6 and probably not top 12 or even 18, which agrees with your point again. One could say scouts and coaches would notice his growth as a player and he'd get opportunities this past season if it were a 6 team league. Obviously it would be less likely because there are less spots to take.

I'd say that MacKinnon or Henrik Sedin are quite clearly inferior in talent to Sidney Crosby. But in a 6 team league, it's completely feasible to think that they'd never get the chance to be #1 centers in the league.

Sheer puck luck can make players have seasons above their talent level - Henrik Sedin in 2010 and Patrick Kane in 2016 are examples of this, and MacKinnon's season seems to have similarly unsustainable underlying metrics behind it.

 

[danincanada]

You are misrepresenting Bill James. The following clearly explains his sample size(population) and provenance arguments:

Shakespeare and Verlander | Articles | Bill James Online

First, misrepresentation. O6 era had 1st team AST members and even Norris winners from defencemen who were second pairing players. Tom Johnson, Carl Brewer, a few others.

More demand does not mean more talented. Also career years are rarely AST or award worthy.They just happen to be the best season of a player's career.

Provenance is never a factor. Counter example would be lottery tickets in a fair lottery.Would the odds of winning become easier for the 6 / 49 if only Canadians bought tickets as opposed to an international population?

Please quote something from Bill James that backs your point, any point. I don't see it. He mostly writes about more opportunity creating more athletes. He also basically says there's no need for another Shakespeare so there aren't any. The whole notion is silly anyways. There are so many other directions creative people can go in now. It would be like me asking if there were any great computer programmers back in Shakespeare's time and when the response is inevitably "no" I say "because people weren't smart enough to do that job back then". It's not about that, it's very much about supply and demand and where society is at overall. Yes, cycles happen and they aren't always for a reason either, but occurrences like the baby boom in Canada and adding whole new hockey nations to a league, impact things just as much as cycles, and often more.

Hockey is still very popular in Canada, maybe even more popular than ever overall. Now it's got large participation numbers in the US as well and we have Europe developing elite players consistently. What does Bill James have to say about that? Did allowing the African American players compete in MLB create more elite talent, did it stagnate it, or did it reduce it? Did having other baseball nations (Cuba, Japan, etc.) contribute elite talent create more talent, did it stagnate it, or did it reduce it? I don't know Bill James but from reading that one article he seems too reasonable to claim adding more equalled less.

6 teams with 6 defensemen is 36. 31 teams with 6 defensemen is 186. There's a lot more opportunity for the world's best defensemen to hone their skills against the best and be all they can be at their peaks. You say career years are rarely AST or award worthy? Do I really need to trot out a long list of players who were only nominated once, or even won hardware once, during a career year?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Inferior talent? If MacKinnon keeps playing like that he's going to have one heck of a career. He's so fast it looks like someone used a sling shot to shoot him up the ice and he was pure clutch (12 GWG). I agree he may not have got the ice-time to explode like that in a 6 team league because going into last season where would anyone slot him in the league in terms of centres? Not top 6 and probably not top 12 or even 18, which agrees with your point again. One could say scouts and coaches would notice his growth as a player and he'd get opportunities this past season if it were a 6 team league. Obviously it would be less likely because there are less spots to take.

O6, Henri Richard, Jacques Laperriere, Dave Keon, FrankMahovlich, Carl Brewer,Stan Mikita, Ed Litzenberger, Bobby Orr, Bobby Hull,entered the NHL directly out of junior in the O6 era and were AST members within one to four seasons,winning major awards -Norris, Ross.

Since 2005-06, Ovechkin,Malkin,Crosby,P.Kane, McDavid,Stamkos, Karlsson,Doughty,Pieterangelo,Phaneuf have done likewise in a similar time frame.

Compare.

 

[solidmotion]

one of the problems with evaluating crosby is that his trophies and his top scoring finishes don't actually line up with his real peak. of all the what-ifs, i'm not sure there's only like crosby, who was, in his injury-plagued years, not just at the same high level he was always at (like lemieux, lindros, etc.) but much higher. i think people's inclination—or at least mine—to rate crosby really high comes from his dominance in 10-11 and 12-13 (and 11-12 to a lesser extent), not from his hart years, which were somewhat weaker. similarly for the smythes, his playoffs from 08 to 10 were incredible, his smythe years less so. i don't know what point i'm trying to make. mostly hoping that he does enough in the next few years to settle his legacy, which to this point is a little strange to evaluate.

 

[daver]

I averaged the % of points the #5 scorer was behind the leading scorer in Mikita's and Crosby's primes:

In Mikita's prime, the #5 scorer was an average of 23% behind the leader, in Crosby's career, it's 16%.

I think a straight up comparison of Top 3 to 5 finishes needs context. It was easier to reach that level in Mikita's era.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I'd say that MacKinnon or Henrik Sedin are quite clearly inferior in talent to Sidney Crosby. But in a 6 team league, it's completely feasible to think that they'd never get the chance to be #1 centers in the league.

Sheer puck luck can make players have seasons above their talent level - Henrik Sedin in 2010 and Patrick Kane in 2016 are examples of this, and MacKinnon's season seems to have similarly unsustainable underlying metrics behind it.

a quick riposte from the six team era: good players of the mackinnon, sedin, kane range will get their chance.

on the habs, rocket richard, beliveau, geoffrion, dickie moore, henri richard, and even bobby rousseau all took a turn finishing top 2 in league scoring. so it’s not like that calibre of player going to be always buried. the guys that expansion “freed up” opportunities for are phil goyette at the high end and andre boudrias on the low end. those guys aren’t challenging bobby orr for hart trophies just because they became first liners.

 

[Canadiens1958]

one of the problems with evaluating crosby is that his trophies and his top scoring finishes don't actually line up with his real peak. of all the what-ifs, i'm not sure there's only like crosby, who was, in his injury-plagued years, not just at the same high level he was always at (like lemieux, lindros, etc.) but much higher. i think people's inclination—or at least mine—to rate crosby really high comes from his dominance in 10-11 and 12-13 (and 11-12 to a lesser extent), not from his hart years, which were somewhat weaker. similarly for the smythes, his playoffs from 08 to 10 were incredible, his smythe years less so. i don't know what point i'm trying to make. mostly hoping that he does enough in the next few years to settle his legacy, which to this point is a little strange to evaluate.

Why should the trophies and top scoring finishes line up with his peak?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Please quote something from Bill James that backs your point, any point. I don't see it. He mostly writes about more opportunity creating more athletes. He also basically says there's no need for another Shakespeare so there aren't any. The whole notion is silly anyways. There are so many other directions creative people can go in now. It would be like me asking if there were any great computer programmers back in Shakespeare's time and when the response is inevitably "no" I say "because people weren't smart enough to do that job back then". It's not about that, it's very much about supply and demand and where society is at overall. Yes, cycles happen and they aren't always for a reason either, but occurrences like the baby boom in Canada and adding whole new hockey nations to a league, impact things just as much as cycles, and often more.

Hockey is still very popular in Canada, maybe even more popular than ever overall. Now it's got large participation numbers in the US as well and we have Europe developing elite players consistently. What does Bill James have to say about that? Did allowing the African American players compete in MLB create more elite talent, did it stagnate it, or did it reduce it? Did having other baseball nations (Cuba, Japan, etc.) contribute elite talent create more talent, did it stagnate it, or did it reduce it? I don't know Bill James but from reading that one article he seems too reasonable to claim adding more equalled less.

6 teams with 6 defensemen is 36. 31 teams with 6 defensemen is 186. There's a lot more opportunity for the world's best defensemen to hone their skills against the best and be all they can be at their peaks. You say career years are rarely AST or award worthy? Do I really need to trot out a long list of players who were only nominated once, or even won hardware once, during a career year?

Stop after your first two sentences.

Basically Bill James is saying that demand and supply go hand in hand. The greater the demand, the greater the supply. However unlike your interpretation Bill James never says that the greater supply is a better supply. That is strictly your interpretation,that more supply sources create a better productor that fewer supply sources create weaker product.

 

[danincanada]

O6, Henri Richard, Jacques Laperriere, Dave Keon, FrankMahovlich, Carl Brewer,Stan Mikita, Ed Litzenberger, Bobby Orr, Bobby Hull,entered the NHL directly out of junior in the O6 era and were AST members within one to four seasons,winning major awards -Norris, Ross.

Since 2005-06, Ovechkin,Malkin,Crosby,P.Kane, McDavid,Stamkos, Karlsson,Doughty,Pieterangelo,Phaneuf have done likewise in a similar time frame.

Compare.

Wish I could see that matchup with my own eyes.

 

[danincanada]

Stop after your first two sentences.

Basically Bill James is saying that demand and supply go hand in hand. The greater the demand, the greater the supply. However unlike your interpretation Bill James never says that the greater supply is a better supply. That is strictly your interpretation,that more supply sources create a better productor that fewer supply sources create weaker product.

In the last portion he writes glowingly about how we've turned into a society that is amazing at creating elite athletes and he lists why and how this happened. Even stating the rest of society has to catch up to sports in his regard. He quite clearly talks about how we are still great at it as of 2010.

I would never encourage my children to be athletes—first, because my children are not athletes, and second, because there are so many people pushing to get to the top in sports that a hundred people are crushed for every one who breaks through. This is unfortunate. We are very good at producing athletes, and we are too good at producing athletes. Sometimes the cost is too high. We should do more to develop the next Shakespeare, and less to develop the next Justin Verlander.

So you think his believes we are amazing at developing a crushing number of top athletes but the product is weak? Again, please show me where you interpret this, or anything that agrees with your opinions, in that article.