If Gretzky started playing in todays NHL

[seventieslord]

My point is that its a lot easier for Ovechkin to win trophies than it was for anyone before him due to the inferior competition. This is evidenced by the variety of Art Ross winners after Jagr.

Really? Seems to me it's harder for Ovechkin to win trophies when the next group of players beyond him and Crosby is so tightly packed that it makes it possible for a guy like Hank Sedin to play over his head for one season, enough to steal a trophy or two.

Exactly. So as you agree that there was ample NHL talent awaiting a chance to play, you can't say that players racked up numbers solely due to expansion.

Try to keep up. They didn't rack up numbers due to the 1967 expansion. the talent pool had been growing for 25 years and the number of NHL jobs hadn't - there were more than enough players to backfill those spots with little effect on overall competition level. It was the subsequent overexpansion of the NHL, plus the WHA, that caused there to be (about) 30 teams' worth of top-level jobs, a 5X increase from just a decade before. The NHL could handle the initial expansion, but not the rest.

This is also confirmed in the essay that Hockey Outsider posted by Ian Fyffe, another respected stats guy, and is discussed extensively in The Hockey Compendium.

I still think the bottom rung of the 80s are better and that watching the two on television is highly deceptive in a manner that favors the modern player.

Why is it deceptive?

Of course not. Defensemen are idolized too but there are many reasons a player chooses either position. In fact, as there are more jobs to be had as a forward, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that more players might go that route. The point is, there is nothing to say that for every elite forward, and elite defensemen shows up. There can differences.

I talked about this in another thread just this morning. There can be variances, but only at the top levels (smaller sample of players), they won't be major (i.e. if talent pool logic dictates that there should be 100% more good forwards, defensemen, and goalies, it's highly unlikely that the actual turnouts are 50%, 150%, and 250%, it is much more likely to be proportional) and they should never be a significant indicator for league scoring levels.

Two things. Remember that the pre-90 players were pulling them off with far inferior tools.

The pre-90 players were also pulling them off against players with far inferior tools, so equipment is a wash and really doesn't need to be discussed.

League dynamics are useless. We are talking about a feeder league that is different in almost every way from the NHL. Comparing scoring outfit in a league where lifelong amateurs compete with future pros to a league of nothing but pros is flawed entirely.

Of course it is. You have lifelong amateurs competing against future pros. The lesser players are filtered out by the time they reach the NHL.

OK, we are dropping this. I can see the point is getting across to others, but not to you. I'm sorry I couldn't make this more clear. But it's just not worth the hassle anymore.

Agreed. Scoring being lower though does not automatically equal the bottom rung players being better. There is an equal possibility that the higher rung players were simly superior in higher scoring eras than they are now.

In a vaccuum, if we are just talking theoretically, yes. But history doesn't support that theory.

I agreed with all of this. I have since the get go. That is not where our disagreement lies as higher scoring in junior has no direct correlation with scoring in the various eras of the NHL.

And the extent of your data is related to junior hockey, which has no relevance. The only relevant data relating to junior hockey is that of individual players. Those players are the debate after all.

There's no correlation between junior and the NHL, you can forget that junior players even make the NHL, the point always has been that there's a larger spread there from top to bottom, and scoring is higher as a result. Your local adult safe league would see the same thing happen, just to a much larger extent. We're done this part now.

You are going nowhere with this. In fact, you are going away from where you should be going. Shrinking the league has nothing at all to do with your claim that the worst players were worse than they are now before 1990.

That's not the basis of my claim, really. I don't care about that too much. What I do care about is getting the point across that scoring levels are a function of league competition level. My point was true though, scoring would drop if we shrunk the league.

The league was smaller pre-1990, correct? There were no Travis Moens in the lineup yet scoring was higher. The talent gap was wider not due to the bottom rung players being worse than they are now but due to the higher end players being better than they are now.

The league was smaller and so was the talent pool - significantly, I might add, since Europeans mostly stayed home. There were Travis Moen equivalents... except they were even worse.

 

[Section337]

I think conditioning and equipment have made a large step forward since the time that Gretzky developed his skills, in comparison to today's youth. However, I also wonder if Gretzky could have become Gretzky with today's organization of hockey, both from a coaching and league play standpoint? I always feel that he evolved his game into what it became, I don't know if the same evolution is now possible.

 

[Soundwave]

Better question -- would hockey even be what it is today without Gretzky? No doubt he changed the sport.

Michael Jordan for example I think dramatically altered what NBA basketball is like as many players mimicked him and patterned their games after his (see: Kobe Bryant), certainly the same can be said of Gretzky.

 

[pirate94]

I think conditioning and equipment have made a large step forward since the time that Gretzky developed his skills, in comparison to today's youth. However, I also wonder if Gretzky could have become Gretzky with today's organization of hockey, both from a coaching and league play standpoint? I always feel that he evolved his game into what it became, I don't know if the same evolution is now possible.

Gretzky would have been Gretzky regardless of when he started. He would just be a better Gretzky in todays standards growing up in the same era that Crosby grew up in.

 

[CarlWinslow]

Really? Seems to me it's harder for Ovechkin to win trophies when the next group of players beyond him and Crosby is so tightly packed that it makes it possible for a guy like Hank Sedin to play over his head for one season, enough to steal a trophy or two.

It's more tightly packed because there is no Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe etc. to win them all. There is nobody now that stands so far above his peers like there has been in the past.

Try to keep up. They didn't rack up numbers due to the 1967 expansion. the talent pool had been growing for 25 years and the number of NHL jobs hadn't - there were more than enough players to backfill those spots with little effect on overall competition level. It was the subsequent overexpansion of the NHL, plus the WHA, that caused there to be (about) 30 teams' worth of top-level jobs, a 5X increase from just a decade before. The NHL could handle the initial expansion, but not the rest.

Except for that expansion occurred slooowly over the course of the seventies until the end of the decade when there were four teams added from the WHA. Even by then there had been a whole decade of slow growth time for the talent pool to catch up. Considering that there were 21 teams in 79-80 (NOT 30) and no further expansion until the 90s, the amount of really bad players coming in wouldn't be significant enough to affect anyone's numbers that much.

In fact, since 1990, 9 teams and almost 200 jobs have been added. Between 1970 and 1980, only 7 new teams were added. So explain to me why the players from the 80s ate up bad players due to expansion when modern players haven't despite more teams being added in the preceding decade?

This is also confirmed in the essay that Hockey Outsider posted by Ian Fyffe, another respected stats guy, and is discussed extensively in The Hockey Compendium.

OK.

Why is it deceptive?

It's deceptive because the players in the 80s like toothpicks compared to modern players.

I talked about this in another thread just this morning. There can be variances, but only at the top levels (smaller sample of players), they won't be major (i.e. if talent pool logic dictates that there should be 100% more good forwards, defensemen, and goalies, it's highly unlikely that the actual turnouts are 50%, 150%, and 250%, it is much more likely to be proportional) and they should never be a significant indicator for league scoring levels.

Yeah but we aren't talking about a huge percentage of difference. We are talking about, particularly in the 80s, 20 or so supremely talented forwards. Other than them, the talent pool is probably consistent and prior to the 80s, that number of 20 drops. So its not like there is a massive variance, its simply that a handful of great forwards came to be in the 1980s. You also have to consider that there is a greater number of forwards and thereby logically a higher probability of a great one.

The pre-90 players were also pulling them off against players with far inferior tools, so equipment is a wash and really doesn't need to be discussed.

Agreed. Doesn't that say something though? If they can dominate their peers to such an extent and yet remain on a level playing field with them, what apart from their talent can result in higher scoring? These guys were all playing with the same tools.

OK, we are dropping this. I can see the point is getting across to others, but not to you. I'm sorry I couldn't make this more clear. But it's just not worth the hassle anymore.

Good. Scoring levels at the junior level are unrelated to the NHL. Feasting on crappy players is common there whereas it is not in the NHL.

In a vaccuum, if we are just talking theoretically, yes. But history doesn't support that theory.

It doesn't support your either. History can only conclusively give us raw data. Raw data is not enough to explain the reasoning behind it. We already know scoring peaked in certain eras. That was never up for debate. The why is.

There's no correlation between junior and the NHL, you can forget that junior players even make the NHL, the point always has been that there's a larger spread there from top to bottom, and scoring is higher as a result. Your local adult safe league would see the same thing happen, just to a much larger extent. We're done this part now.

Of course it would. And the NHL sees less scoring as the bad junior players get weeded out. The same thing happened in the past.

That's not the basis of my claim, really. I don't care about that too much. What I do care about is getting the point across that scoring levels are a function of league competition level. My point was true though, scoring would drop if we shrunk the league.

Of course it would. Competition level though can change for two reasons, not one. Of course, it could be that the worst players get better, thus resulting in lower scoring as you claim. Or, it could be that the talent of the best players decreases. That would have the exact same effect. In either case, shrinking the league still takes out even more of the lower end guys and the same thing happens.

The league was smaller and so was the talent pool - significantly, I might add, since Europeans mostly stayed home. There were Travis Moen equivalents... except they were even worse.

And how many Euros were there that could have made the NHL and made any significant difference on numbers. The entire KLM line made it and were merely average players. That was the best another hockey power had. The fact is, you don't know how many of these Euros there were. You can speculate and throw out statements as you have but you don't actually know.

 

[seventieslord]

Except for that expansion occurred slooowly over the course of the seventies until the end of the decade when there were four teams added from the WHA. Even by then there had been a whole decade of slow growth time for the talent pool to catch up. Considering that there were 21 teams in 79-80 (NOT 30) and no further expansion until the 90s, the amount of really bad players coming in wouldn't be significant enough to affect anyone's numbers that much.

In fact, since 1990, 9 teams and almost 200 jobs have been added. Between 1970 and 1980, only 7 new teams were added. So explain to me why the players from the 80s ate up bad players due to expansion when modern players haven't despite more teams being added in the preceding decade?

I'm surprised, after I mentioned the WHA, that you would make such a mistake. I said "about" 30 because I didn't want to go look up the exact number. But now that I have - as of the 1977 season, there were exactly 30 teams between the NHL and WHA. Speaking strictly in NHL terms, from 12 to 18 teams in just 5 years (1970-1975) is huge, that's a 50% increase from a level that was barely good enough (from the 1967 expansion we agreed filled the league comfortably) - that alone would have watered down the league beyond what it should have, BUT, you add in 12 WHA teams to bring the total to 30, and then you have some real trouble. Not every WHA player was NHL-caliber, but every team had, in my estimation, about a half dozen players each, who could have knocked the bottom 70 players off of NHL rosters.

So to answer your misguided question, the 150% increase in pro hockey jobs during the 70s (or, 400% increase since 1967) did not come close to being matched by the talent pool increases being made over that decade-long period. The 42% increase in pro hockey jobs in the past 20 years has been adequately backfilled by capable players.

You can understand that 42% in 20 years is possible, but 400% in 10 years is not - right?

It's deceptive because the players in the 80s like toothpicks compared to modern players.

So you're telling me I'm likely to watch these players, and then dismiss their abilities because they "look like toothpicks"?

Yeah but we aren't talking about a huge percentage of difference. We are talking about, particularly in the 80s, 20 or so supremely talented forwards. Other than them, the talent pool is probably consistent and prior to the 80s, that number of 20 drops. So its not like there is a massive variance, its simply that a handful of great forwards came to be in the 1980s. You also have to consider that there is a greater number of forwards and thereby logically a higher probability of a great one.

No, you have it backwards. Statistically, a higher number of forwards means less likelihood of variance. 1-2 more or less great goalies than expected being around at any time, means a much greater percentage difference than 1-2 more forwards than expected can ever make.

I'm still not convinced that, aside from the two obvious, the 1980s were a golden age for forwards. There is no denying that people still get influenced by all the guys with 1200 career points that came from that time.

Agreed. Doesn't that say something though? If they can dominate their peers to such an extent and yet remain on a level playing field with them, what apart from their talent can result in higher scoring?

Lower competition level, like I said.

Good. Scoring levels at the junior level are unrelated to the NHL. Feasting on crappy players is common there whereas it is not in the NHL.

except in the 70s and 80s.

It doesn't support your either. History can only conclusively give us raw data. Raw data is not enough to explain the reasoning behind it. We already know scoring peaked in certain eras. That was never up for debate. The why is.

It should be no more up for debate than climate change or evolution.

Of course it would. Competition level though can change for two reasons, not one. Of course, it could be that the worst players get better, thus resulting in lower scoring as you claim.

I don't think you were ready to admit this in the last two days, so good work.

Or, it could be that the talent of the best players decreases. That would have the exact same effect.

Yes, that is possible in theory. And it probably would cause a decrease in scoring. BUT to suggest it, is highly counterintuitive. Everything else has gotten better in the last 20, 30, 40 years. Why would forward quality plateau in the 80s and then spiral down in the next 20-30 years? Logically it should be as high as before, or better.

And how many Euros were there that could have made the NHL and made any significant difference on numbers. The entire KLM line made it and were merely average players. That was the best another hockey power had. The fact is, you don't know how many of these Euros there were. You can speculate and throw out statements as you have but you don't actually know.

omg....

"3, 2, 1..... 1, 2, 3..... what the heck is bothering me?"

I can't believe what I'm hearing. The KLM line were average players? Krutov sucked, yes, there is a lot of speculation as to why. Makarov was one of the highest-scoring players in his age group, scoring at a Gartner/Mullen level. he was NOT average. Larionov lasted until age 41 in the NHL and contributed to three cups. His even strength scoring was actually just about as strong as Ron Francis' at the same age. He was NOT average.

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. To start, let me just say I pretty much agree with conventional wisdom that says that throughout the 80s, the very best non-Russians were in the NHL. And they were generally very good NHL players too. So I don't think there were a ton of "stars" waiting in the wings. But they were certainly not the only international guys who could have played in the NHL. Probably another good 50-100 could have come in and pushed the botton 50-100 out of the NHL. Know how I know that? because around 1993, that's exactly what started to happen. In a decade, 45% of the NHL was european. If proportionally 45% of the best hockey players were European by about 2003 (it was likely more, as still a lot chose not to come over just to be role players) then what percentage was european around 1985? I'd assume less, but how much, really? No one just flicked a switch around 1993 and made nearly half the best players in the world european.

And this is the biggest reason that we have been able to backfill those new NHL spots (about 30% of today's NHL) without seeing a decline in quality of play. All the euros that could have been coming over all along, finally did.

If 30% of today's NHL is new roster spots created by 1991-2000 expansion, and 40% of today's NHL is European, then it sounds like there are still fewer canadians overall than there would have been in 1990. So even if the caliber of the replacement Level Canadian NHL player hadn't changed at all, logically speaking, today's RLCNHLP would be better than his 1990 counterpart just because he's now about the 330th-best Canadian instead of the 400th-best. But who would really argue that players have gotten worse? Even you don't seem to want to go further than say it's about the same.

Conditions have not regressed so that the 330th-best canadian player today is worse than the 400th-best in 1990. The opposite has likely happened. And of course, since the 45-50% of players in the NHL who are not Canadian are there on merit and not to satisfy nationality quotas, they are all at least as good as that 330th-best Canadian too.

*assumptions made: In 1990 there were 21 teams so about 420 full-time NHL jobs, league was 95% canadian, so about 400 canadians were there. Today, there are 30 teams so about 600 full-time NHL jobs, league is about 55% canadian, so about 330 Canadians now. I don't know the exact numbers, these were intuitive guesses, if someone has real figures, feel free to correct me, I don't anticipate that they change the point I was making, but perhaps they do.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Iain Fyffe wrote an interesting article about this: link

Basically, the data shows that the NHL becomes higher scoring as the talent pool decreases (as there are more weak players to exploit). This only works up to a point though (scoring dropped in the 1990's as the league became diluted by expanding so quickly, there just wasn't enough hockey talent left to fill the scoring lines on the ever-growing number of teams).

When a league expands quickly then yes the diluted talent can have an affect (usually higher scoring can be expected) but there were other things going on like changes in equipment and coaching and system styles as well.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Let me ask you this. If you take oh hmmm, Howie Morenz, and drop him into a game tomorrow night as he was during his day, will he be able to compete? The answer is no. Not because he isn't a great player or because he has less talent than any star today, but because his antique equipment is too much of a handicap.



I disagree. In the original 6 era, there were 6 goalies who started. There are now 30. Has goaltending talent expanded enough to produce 5 times as many starting goalies that play at an elite level? No.



Again, the things they do today weren't invented by the current players and coaches. You don't think a Scotty Bowman considered a lot of these things back in the 80s when he was trying to stop a guy like Bossy? Of course he did, but he either thought they would fail or they failed in practice because the man was too good.



You are right. There is less of a gap because the stars aren't as good. That is where we disagree. You think the lesser players are better now.



I'll take the 80s group 10 times out of 10.



I was simply making a general comment regarding the watering down of the talent pool due to increases in available jobs. I was acknowledging that Sweden produces more NHL talent but it is not enough to offset the jobs.



It certainly varies on a yearly basis. The low end talent is more consistent than the high end.



Those examples don't work though. They don't actually counter-act my point at all. The best junior players move up to the NHL, right? OK. Now when they do, their scoring numbers drop, right? OK. Now why do they drop? Well obviously because the crappy players get weeded out as players improve and come in from other sources.

Look at Mike Bossy for example. He played in the Q and when he got to the NHL, after a lesser rookie year he managed to score fairly consistently close to the level he did in junior. The worst players in junior still went and got normal jobs back then, only the best made it to the NHL especially with less teams. Bossy was able to score at a similar level though because he is that much better.

Players now are not as good and as such are not as much better than the low end guys so their scoring drops more dramatically.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your cherry picked argument.

Bossy scored at a much higher rate in the juniors in Jr 1.175 GPG and in the NHL it was 0.76.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

*assumptions made: In 1990 there were 21 teams so about 420 full-time NHL jobs, league was 95% canadian, so about 400 canadians were there. Today, there are 30 teams so about 600 full-time NHL jobs, league is about 55% canadian, so about 330 Canadians now. I don't know the exact numbers, these were intuitive guesses, if someone has real figures, feel free to correct me, I don't anticipate that they change the point I was making, but perhaps they do.[/size]

Here they are:
http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=25899606&postcount=6

SEASON
All
Canada
% Canada
USA
% USA
Euro
% Euro
1917-18 45 42 93.33% 3 6.67% 0 0.00%
1924-25 83 79 95.18% 4 4.82% 0 0.00%
1925-26 107 100 93.46% 7 6.54% 0 0.00%
1926-27 150 146 97.33% 4 2.67% 0 0.00%
1930-31 183 172 93.99% 11 6.01% 0 0.00%
1966-67 179 176 98.32% 3 1.68% 0 0.00%
1967-68 326 320 98.16% 6 1.84% 0 0.00%
1968-69 329 323 98.18% 6 1.82% 0 0.00%
1969-70 326 316 96.93% 8 2.45% 2 0.61%
1970-71 388 377 97.16% 10 2.58% 1 0.26%
1971-72 382 364 95.29% 17 4.45% 1 0.26%
1972-73 405 384 94.81% 19 4.69% 2 0.49%
1973-74 439 409 93.17% 25 5.69% 5 1.14%
1974-75 503 464 92.25% 35 6.96% 4 0.80%
1975-76 493 455 92.29% 35 7.10% 3 0.61%
1976-77 506 460 90.91% 40 7.91% 6 1.19%
1977-78 511 458 89.63% 41 8.02% 12 2.35%
1978-79 502 436 86.85% 49 9.76% 17 3.39%
1979-80 656 559 85.21% 71 10.82% 26 3.96%
1980-81 641 534 83.31% 75 11.70% 32 4.99%
1981-82 686 563 82.07% 75 10.93% 48 7.00%
1982-83 678 560 82.60% 67 9.88% 51 7.52%
1983-84 693 560 80.81% 86 12.41% 47 6.78%
1984-85 675 524 77.63% 93 13.78% 58 8.59%
1985-86 693 539 77.78% 99 14.29% 55 7.94%
1986-87 688 535 77.76% 101 14.68% 52 7.56%
1987-88 746 581 77.88% 115 15.42% 50 6.70%
1988-89 734 560 76.29% 113 15.40% 61 8.31%
1989-90 730 543 74.38% 121 16.58% 66 9.04%
1990-91 743 549 73.89% 127 17.09% 67 9.02%
1991-92 788 561 71.19% 146 18.53% 81 10.28%
1992-93 789 529 67.05% 143 18.12% 117 14.83%
1993-94 872 574 65.83% 154 17.66% 144 16.51%
1994-95 808 512 63.37% 149 18.44% 147 18.19%
1995-96 857 539 62.89% 154 17.97% 164 19.14%
1996-97 849 533 62.78% 145 17.08% 171 20.14%
1997-98 836 518 61.96% 140 16.75% 178 21.29%
1998-99 902 555 61.53% 148 16.41% 199 22.06%
1999-00 923 535 57.96% 149 16.14% 239 25.89%
2000-01 975 543 55.69% 149 15.28% 283 29.03%
2001-02 966 524 54.24% 150 15.53% 292 30.23%
2002-03 979 544 55.57% 142 14.50% 293 29.93%
2003-04 1012 555 54.84% 161 15.91% 296 29.25%
2005-06 963 518 53.79% 182 18.90% 263 27.31%
2006-07 942 499 53.15% 182 19.58% 261 27.71%

In 1990, the league was 74% Canadian. It hasn't been 95% since 1972. The most Europeans ever is 30% in 2001-02, never has been 45% let alone 40%

 

[Big Phil]

Gretzky would be the best player in the NHL if he were playing now.

Sorry, but you just can't teach hockey sense and he wouldn't lose any of this. Am I the only one that chuckles a bit when wondering how a prime Gretzky would eat up the no red line rule?

I know there are a lot of posters on here that aren't very old. Unfortunately the people that actually saw Gretzky in his prime will dwindle by the year. But in 1979 he was too skinny and slow to play in the NHL. Bobby Clarke openly said he wouldn't "last" in the NHL. The skinny kid won the MVP his rookie year.

Then he scored over 200 points. Then 50 goals in 39 games, then 92 goals. The critics then said "Sure he can score, but can he win"? Then in 1984 he won. "But can he do it again?" He did it again. Then they choked in 1986 and the critics started the whole drug abuse thing in Edmonton with some Oilers players.

"I guess he won't be able to lead a team to dynasty status eh?"

Then he won two more Cups. In between he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was the best player in the world during the 1987 Canada Cup.

Then he got traded. "Well, he won't do as well in L.A. As a King he won another Hart and three more scoring titles not to mention taking a team on his back to the Cup final.

The more things change the more they stay the same eh? No one wanted to admit that he was as great as he was then, and many people believe he wouldn't be anything special today. In 30 years we have learned NOTHING!

 

[seventieslord]

Here they are:
http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=25899606&postcount=6

SEASON
All
Canada
% Canada
USA
% USA
Euro
% Euro
1917-18 45 42 93.33% 3 6.67% 0 0.00%
1924-25 83 79 95.18% 4 4.82% 0 0.00%
1925-26 107 100 93.46% 7 6.54% 0 0.00%
1926-27 150 146 97.33% 4 2.67% 0 0.00%
1930-31 183 172 93.99% 11 6.01% 0 0.00%
1966-67 179 176 98.32% 3 1.68% 0 0.00%
1967-68 326 320 98.16% 6 1.84% 0 0.00%
1968-69 329 323 98.18% 6 1.82% 0 0.00%
1969-70 326 316 96.93% 8 2.45% 2 0.61%
1970-71 388 377 97.16% 10 2.58% 1 0.26%
1971-72 382 364 95.29% 17 4.45% 1 0.26%
1972-73 405 384 94.81% 19 4.69% 2 0.49%
1973-74 439 409 93.17% 25 5.69% 5 1.14%
1974-75 503 464 92.25% 35 6.96% 4 0.80%
1975-76 493 455 92.29% 35 7.10% 3 0.61%
1976-77 506 460 90.91% 40 7.91% 6 1.19%
1977-78 511 458 89.63% 41 8.02% 12 2.35%
1978-79 502 436 86.85% 49 9.76% 17 3.39%
1979-80 656 559 85.21% 71 10.82% 26 3.96%
1980-81 641 534 83.31% 75 11.70% 32 4.99%
1981-82 686 563 82.07% 75 10.93% 48 7.00%
1982-83 678 560 82.60% 67 9.88% 51 7.52%
1983-84 693 560 80.81% 86 12.41% 47 6.78%
1984-85 675 524 77.63% 93 13.78% 58 8.59%
1985-86 693 539 77.78% 99 14.29% 55 7.94%
1986-87 688 535 77.76% 101 14.68% 52 7.56%
1987-88 746 581 77.88% 115 15.42% 50 6.70%
1988-89 734 560 76.29% 113 15.40% 61 8.31%
1989-90 730 543 74.38% 121 16.58% 66 9.04%
1990-91 743 549 73.89% 127 17.09% 67 9.02%
1991-92 788 561 71.19% 146 18.53% 81 10.28%
1992-93 789 529 67.05% 143 18.12% 117 14.83%
1993-94 872 574 65.83% 154 17.66% 144 16.51%
1994-95 808 512 63.37% 149 18.44% 147 18.19%
1995-96 857 539 62.89% 154 17.97% 164 19.14%
1996-97 849 533 62.78% 145 17.08% 171 20.14%
1997-98 836 518 61.96% 140 16.75% 178 21.29%
1998-99 902 555 61.53% 148 16.41% 199 22.06%
1999-00 923 535 57.96% 149 16.14% 239 25.89%
2000-01 975 543 55.69% 149 15.28% 283 29.03%
2001-02 966 524 54.24% 150 15.53% 292 30.23%
2002-03 979 544 55.57% 142 14.50% 293 29.93%
2003-04 1012 555 54.84% 161 15.91% 296 29.25%
2005-06 963 518 53.79% 182 18.90% 263 27.31%
2006-07 942 499 53.15% 182 19.58% 261 27.71%

In 1990, the league was 74% Canadian. It hasn't been 95% since 1972. The most Europeans ever is 30% in 2001-02, never has been 45% let alone 40%

Thank you. Totally wasn't thinking about the USA. The league was 9% European by 1990, I thought it would be closer to 5. Also, I was speaking in terms of full-time players and yours appear to be for players who played a game at all. Which is fine. I'll use that. So let me revamp what I said:

1990: League is predominantly Canadian: 543, to be exact. 2007: Just 499 players in the league are Canadian. So there are fewer jobs for Canadian hockey players in the NHL despite about 40% more jobs in total.

No one can really say that 499th-best canadian player in 2007 is worse than, or even equal to, that 543rd-best canadian player in 1990, can they? It's completely counterintuitive and ignores the gradual increase in talent pool size that has been happening throughout history.

Therefore, replacement level players are better than they were in 1990. (how many more europeans could come over and be better role players than some north americans but choose not to? perhaps another 30?) Point still stands. If you disagree, then you must think Canadian hockey has regressed considerably in 20 years.

Of course it wouldn't be the end of the world for someone to concede this point. They could agree with it, and still say that the elite superstars aren't as good. The problem with that is, if replacement level, average, and good players are all proportionally better than 20 years ago, why wouldn't the stars also be?

 

[vulture77]

Players have improved, but the best of the best are still the freaks they were in the 80's. Kurri, Bossy, Trottier, Stasny would still get 100+ points and contest for the Art Ross or Richard today. The players they played against were all in their 20's, today the players do not smoke and live healthier, but in the 80's they were all young bucks.

If Gretzky could score 92 goals in a year and beating the premier goalscorer Mike Bossy every year they played together, he would always be a threat to win Richard today. It would be around 50-70 goals.

Since he won the assist race in the late 90's against players such as Forsberg, he would run away with this stat in his prime.

So it would be about 60 goals, 100+ assists.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Gretzky would be the best player in the NHL if he were playing now.

Sorry, but you just can't teach hockey sense and he wouldn't lose any of this. Am I the only one that chuckles a bit when wondering how a prime Gretzky would eat up the no red line rule?

I know there are a lot of posters on here that aren't very old. Unfortunately the people that actually saw Gretzky in his prime will dwindle by the year. But in 1979 he was too skinny and slow to play in the NHL. Bobby Clarke openly said he wouldn't "last" in the NHL. The skinny kid won the MVP his rookie year.

Then he scored over 200 points. Then 50 goals in 39 games, then 92 goals. The critics then said "Sure he can score, but can he win"? Then in 1984 he won. "But can he do it again?" He did it again. Then they choked in 1986 and the critics started the whole drug abuse thing in Edmonton with some Oilers players.

"I guess he won't be able to lead a team to dynasty status eh?"

Then he won two more Cups. In between he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was the best player in the world during the 1987 Canada Cup.

Then he got traded. "Well, he won't do as well in L.A. As a King he won another Hart and three more scoring titles not to mention taking a team on his back to the Cup final.

The more things change the more they stay the same eh? No one wanted to admit that he was as great as he was then, and many people believe he wouldn't be anything special today. In 30 years we have learned NOTHING!

Greatky was truly amazing in his day and he aged very well as a playmaker as well and while he might have been the top point producer in the game today, would eh be the best player year in year out with the increased demand that forwards play defense as well?

I'm not a young guy and saw Wayne through out his entire career and Crosby reminds me of Wayne is his desire to win and compete level and while perhaps his vision and skill might be a notch below Wayne's his other attributes and defensive play might make him a more valuable player in the league.

In other words a 160 point Wayne (if he even reached that peak today and I'm not sure it's an absolute that he would) might not be considered a better overall player than a 132 point Crosby (his pace this year before he was injured).

Although given the pattern of modern day voting for the Hart it usually goes to the highest scorer so maybe he would get quite a few Harts as well.

As for your last comment the belief that he would not dominate as much is a far cry from saying that he would be nothing special, not sure anyone is saying that either but maybe I missed that but even so it would be a minority view in the history section don't you think?.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Players have improved, but the best of the best are still the freaks they were in the 80's. Kurri, Bossy, Trottier, Stasny would still get 100+ points and contest for the Art Ross or Richard today. The players they played against were all in their 20's, today the players do not smoke and live healthier, but in the 80's they were all young bucks.

If Gretzky could score 92 goals in a year and beating the premier goalscorer Mike Bossy every year they played together, he would always be a threat to win Richard today. It would be around 50-70 goals.

Since he won the assist race in the late 90's against players such as Forsberg, he would run away with this stat in his prime.

So it would be about 60 goals, 100+ assists.

One thing to consider ehre in the goal scoring department is that exactly 20 players have scored more than 50 goals in any season in the last decade 00-10 while 84 scored more than 50 goals in the 80-90 decade were Gretzky dominated.

sure Wayne and Bossy are in there with some seasons but so are guys like Wayne Babych, Charlie Simmer, Danny Gare and some others that were good players but would be in tough to ever reach 40 goals in todays game IMO.

It is quite simply quite a bit harder to score goals today in the NHL than it was in the early 80's and even Wayne had quite a drop off in goal scoring outside of his incredible 4 year peak from 82-85 when he was 21-25 years old.

It might be that Wayne even in his peak today might be hard pressed to score 60 goals very often and might only be a 35-45 goal guy.

I think that the one part of his game that would be affected the least and would be the most adaptable would be his vision and passing game.

But with so many fewer goals being scored by some great players today his max there might be in the 100-110 range depending on the players he played with.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

If the main reason scoring increased in the early 80s because the league became watered down, why was scoring not higher during the WHA years? Scoring went from 7.00 in 78-79 to 8.03 in 81-82 at a time when the number of Canadian players went from 436 to 563. It went from 6.13 in 1971-72 to 6.85 in 74-75. Canadian players went from 364 to 464-but you have to consider the fact that 25% of NHL players that played more than 39 games in the 71-72 season had moved on to the WHA by 1974-75 (that figure doesn't include players going to the WHA and retiring before 74-75). It was like expanding from 11 to 18 teams in the space of 3 years. Plus you have to consider new players starting their careers in the WHA in that era that the NHL didn't have access to.

 

[jkrx]

And how many Euros were there that could have made the NHL and made any significant difference on numbers. The entire KLM line made it and were merely average players. That was the best another hockey power had. The fact is, you don't know how many of these Euros there were. You can speculate and throw out statements as you have but you don't actually know.

Good job giving the people who says there is a strong canadian bias even more ammunition for their turrets. If you think the KLM line were average you obviously havent watched hockey. What will you tell us next? That Svedberg were so bad that Detroit didn't offer him a contract?

 

[seventieslord]

If the main reason scoring increased in the early 80s because the league became watered down, why was scoring not higher during the WHA years? Scoring went from 7.00 in 78-79 to 8.03 in 81-82 at a time when the number of Canadian players went from 436 to 563. It went from 6.13 in 1971-72 to 6.85 in 74-75. Canadian players went from 364 to 464-but you have to consider the fact that 25% of NHL players that played more than 39 games in the 71-72 season had moved on to the WHA by 1974-75 (that figure doesn't include players going to the WHA and retiring before 74-75). It was like expanding from 11 to 18 teams in the space of 3 years. Plus you have to consider new players starting their careers in the WHA in that era that the NHL didn't have access to.

I agree that the league was likely more watered down in the 1970s, yet scoring was higher in the 80s. There are a few possibilities:

- Ian Fyffe's article discusses that lower competition level creates higher scoring... but only to a point. If that is true, then there is no time of greater watering down than the late 1970s, and you'd expect this to happen.
- It is just statistical variation, as the differences in the value of the league's worst canadian player wouldn't be expected to be that different.
- The league's wide imbalance from team to team makes this an anomalic era in which this model starts to break down. There was a handful of strong teams and a bunch of mediocre to bad ones. Not sure how much merit that has, but it's a possibility.
- It is just an exception to something that otherwise appears to be a rule.

If someone has the stats for how many WHA players from 78-79 became full-time NHLers the next year, then from that we can truly discern how many WHA players in the few previous years could have been NHL players. My rough guess was about 60-70. From that we could say, "in 1979 there were 436 candians in the NHL but that 436th-best in the NHL was actually the 480th-best canadian overall because 44 better canadians were in the WHA" or something like that. This would help give us a better idea of what really happened to the competition level in the 1979 expansion. Intuitively, I think it should have actually gotten a bit better, but looking at it again, if the league added four more teams and the WHA didn't give four full teams worth of players to fill those spots, then it got worse. It's worth a closer look.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Why does every thread about older players accomplishments have to come to rely on the "Watered down League" argument.

It doesn't matter, even if it's conceded that the league was indeed watered down, how in the holy hell does that detract from Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr in any way?
All "winning" that argument gets you is a reason why scoring is down now and how it might not be possible to break the 200 point mark today and those aren't points people are arguing against in the first place.
So what's the point?
It certainly does nothing what so ever to take away from the utter dominance of Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr.

There were plenty of other star and super star players playing under the exact same conditions at the exact same time and couldn't hold a jock strap to the three of them.

Yes it's harder to stand out today but is it harder than say....winning the scoring race by 60-80 points or say....a D-man winning 2 Art Ross....I think not!

 

[seventieslord]

Why does every thread about older players accomplishments have to come to rely on the "Watered down League" argument.

It doesn't matter, even if it's conceded that the league was indeed watered down, how in the holy hell does that detract from Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr in any way?
All "winning" that argument gets you is a reason why scoring is down now and how it might not be possible to break the 200 point mark today and those aren't points people are arguing against in the first place.
So what's the point?
It certainly does nothing what so ever to take away from the utter dominance of Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr.

There were plenty of other star and super star players playing under the exact same conditions at the exact same time and couldn't hold a jock strap to the three of them.

Yes it's harder to stand out today but is it harder than say....winning the scoring race by 60-80 points or say....a D-man winning 2 Art Ross....I think not!

We're really arguing about the quality of replacement level players at this point. I'm not trying to diminish anyone's accomplishments due to league quality, and I don't think my counterparts are, either.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I'm still holding on to my initial guess of 110 pts out of Orr. He's not going to beat The high scorers of the era at their best, just like he didn't beat Esposito and LaFleur in the 70s, but he is going to be right up there for the Art Ross when Malkin/Sedin/Stamkos/ injured Crosby/Ovechkin are duking it out.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I'm still holding on to my initial guess of 110 pts out of Orr. He's not going to beat The high scorers of the era at their best, just like he didn't beat Esposito and LaFleur in the 70s, but he is going to be right up there for the Art Ross when Malkin/Sedin/Stamkos/ injured Crosby/Ovechkin are duking it out.

Ummm....Orr DID beat LaFleur completely and beat Espo twice, hence the two Art Ross.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Ummm....Orr DID beat LaFleur completely and beat Espo twice, hence the two Art Ross.

He didn't beat them in their best seasons, is what I meant.

 

[jkrx]

He didn't beat them in their best seasons, is what I meant.

Gretzky didnt beat Mario in Marios "best" season either....

 

[Rhiessan71]

He didn't beat them in their best seasons, is what I meant.

LaFleur's best season was 136 points, Orr's best was 139.

Either way, your point was a bad one and rather inaccurate.

 

[Gobo]

Gretzky would be the best player in the NHL if he were playing now.

Sorry, but you just can't teach hockey sense and he wouldn't lose any of this. Am I the only one that chuckles a bit when wondering how a prime Gretzky would eat up the no red line rule?

I know there are a lot of posters on here that aren't very old. Unfortunately the people that actually saw Gretzky in his prime will dwindle by the year. But in 1979 he was too skinny and slow to play in the NHL. Bobby Clarke openly said he wouldn't "last" in the NHL. The skinny kid won the MVP his rookie year.

Then he scored over 200 points. Then 50 goals in 39 games, then 92 goals. The critics then said "Sure he can score, but can he win"? Then in 1984 he won. "But can he do it again?" He did it again. Then they choked in 1986 and the critics started the whole drug abuse thing in Edmonton with some Oilers players.

"I guess he won't be able to lead a team to dynasty status eh?"

Then he won two more Cups. In between he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was the best player in the world during the 1987 Canada Cup.

Then he got traded. "Well, he won't do as well in L.A. As a King he won another Hart and three more scoring titles not to mention taking a team on his back to the Cup final.

The more things change the more they stay the same eh? No one wanted to admit that he was as great as he was then, and many people believe he wouldn't be anything special today. In 30 years we have learned NOTHING!

Eff the haters?