If Orr started playing in todays NHL

[Rhiessan71]

Pardon me? Sorry, Crosby and Ovechkin have had better first 5 seasons than Bossy, it shouldn't be much of a question. It just shouldn't be at all.

I'm sorry but I have to completely disagree here as I'm sure many others will as well.
The Calder, a Conn Smythe, 3 Cups, 305 goals in 387 games and 52 goals in 70 playoff games says different.

No I'd say he's one of the most open minded posters I've seen debate on these boards, he actually considers all factors in his judgement of all players. Seems like you are the closed minded one defending rather than seeking to find the truth.

If you say so but if his judgment of all players is as fair as you say then why are cross generational players that provide a measuring stick ignored so much?

Yes and during the times they stood out the league was also higher scoring, and not as deep with overall talent, especially defense and goaltending, the point you still seem not to be getting. You say if Gretzky gets 150-170 today like it's a sure thing. Based on the amount of talent and parity and degrees of seperation between players statistically in terms of percentages in today's NHL, and assuming Gretzky would adapt to all the changes and be just as good as he was in his time relative to the current day NHL, he still wouldn't get more than 150 points!

That's what I truly believe and I haven't heard any convincing arguments on how he would dominate the same way today other than, you weren't there to see him play and anyone who watched them knows they would dominate to the same degree today, possibly even more without the no two-line pass rule!

Yeah sorry I think video evidence and statistical evidence shows it's quite clear they wouldn't dominate to the same extent today.

My prediction of Gretzky scoring between 100-120 points today is also based on the fact that I don't think his style, his natural talent, would be able to be as much of a benefit to a prime Gretzky in today's game with the faster paced game and limited time and space. For the record I've seen over 40 Gretzky games from start to finish. I watch closely as well.

I think prime Lemieux would suit today's league better, so I think prime Lemieux could score anywhere between 130-150 points depending on the year. This is just opinion based on his style and physical skills. I still rate Gretzky higher all-time because he was better during the time they both played together.

However, if a player today can score over 140 points assuming everything remains relatively similar in terms of scoring in the NHL, on average and top players, then that player in my opinion is exhibiting the same level of dominance as Lemieux (if they can do it for a few seasons) and the same as Gretzky, if they can do it for multiple seasons in a row.

Unfortunately your argument is all theory and no evidence, the actual evidence is all on the other side.

The one player capable of this in the league right now is Sidney Crosby. If he can do something like this while being the best faceoff and shootout guy in the league, and continue with his defensive game, then he's the best player ever.

As you say but it's also more than possible that he is actually only a very, very good player and not a Great player.
Just because he's the best that the league can offer now doesn't mean he's automatically one of the very best ever.

 

[Killion]

As you say but it's also more than possible that he is actually only a very, very good player and not a Great player. Just because he's the best that the league can offer now doesn't mean he's automatically one of the very best ever.

Agree. I have yet to see the kind of telekinesis' displayed consistently by Orr, Lemieux & Gretzky in so much abundance matched by Crosby, nor really any close approximation thereof. Their have been flashes' of it, but not enough to forward his name in this debate thus far in his career IMO.

 

[overg]

I'm just curious. Has anyone ever tried to objectively compare Orr's speed with players of today. And by that I mean it's plain as day from watching clips that Orr was a lot faster than most of his competition. And to my eyes he sure as heck looks faster than all but the fastest skaters in today's game.

But this should be something we can actually measure. One could presumably clock Orr's speed going blue line to blue line, figure out his speed, and then do the same for someone like Mike Green. Seems like we ought to have enough clips of Orr to get his "average speed" when he was doing his thing and make a meaningful comparison to what players do today.

I recognize that changes in equipment, training, and medicine get left out of such comparisons. But if Orr was faster then than players are today, I think you'd have a hard time arguing that his game wouldn't translate very well given the benefits of the modern hockey world.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I'm sorry but I have to completely disagree here as I'm sure many others will as well.
The Calder, a Conn Smythe, 3 Cups, 305 goals in 387 games and 52 goals in 70 playoff games says different.

Raw goal totals and team awards.

If you say so but if his judgment of all players is as fair as you say then why are cross generational players that provide a measuring stick ignored so much?

From those conclusions we can agree that Lemieux would score more, we just disagree how much more.

Unfortunately your argument is all theory and no evidence, the actual evidence is all on the other side.

Where's your evidence?

As you say but it's also more than possible that he is actually only a very, very good player and not a Great player.
Just because he's the best that the league can offer now doesn't mean he's automatically one of the very best ever.

Oh I know, that's what I'm trying to find out through every bit of statistical analysis and actual games of all players in discussion I can get my hands on.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Raw goal totals and team awards.

Yeah, just raw goal totals, nothing at all
Also, the last I checked, the Calder and Conn Smythe were player awards, not team awards.
See, this is what pisses people off, the dismissing of players such as Bossy. I mean, you didn't just dismiss him, you made it sound like the guy was a freakin 3rd line 20 goal scorer.
Unacceptable bull*** imo, he is perhaps one of the greatest pure goal scorers in the history of the game for pete's sake.

From those conclusions we can agree that Lemieux would score more, we just disagree how much more.

But if you're willing to concede that Mario, based on player comparisons, would still be able to produce better than anyone else today. How can you then dismiss Gretzky doing the same when he was actually better than Lemieux despite not having his physical gifts.

Where's your evidence?

It's all through this thread and many others from generation gap player comparisons to raw totals to dominance level over peers to first hand observations.
All real and all things that actually happened, not just theories and speculation.

 

[JackSlater]

Yeah, just raw goal totals, nothing at all
Also, the last I checked, the Calder and Conn Smythe were player awards, not team awards.
See, this is what pisses people off, the dismissing of players such as Bossy. I mean, you didn't just dismiss him, you made it sound like the guy was a freakin 3rd line 20 goal scorer.
Unacceptable bull*** imo, he is perhaps one of the greatest pure goal scorers in the history of the game for pete's sake.

Come on. You're going too far to defend an older player against a current player. There is no shame in having a first five years worse than Crosby or Ovechkin, they are very likely top 10 all time over that period. That does not at all imply that bossy was a bad player or that he wasn't even great.

As far as comparing players goes raw goal totals are practically meaningless. The Calder is almost meaningless as well unless the players were in the same year. Bossy had a great first year but I doubt he wins the award over Crosby or Ovechkin if they all player together. Cups are also pointless considering the massive gap between Bossy's early teams and those of Crosby and Ovechkin. Bossy's Conn Smythe is very nice, but once again considering the teams that he played on it is not overly surprising that he has this over Crosby and Ovechkin. I would not put Bossy's playoff accomplishments much ahead of Crosby's at all, and on a per game basis Ovechkin is at least close. Anyway, there is no need to go over the top defending a retired great just because someone says that a current player is superior over a certain period, especially if it is justified.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Come on. You're going too far to defend an older player against a current player. There is no shame in having a first five years worse than Crosby or Ovechkin, they are very likely top 10 all time over that period. That does not at all imply that bossy was a bad player or that he wasn't even great.

I didn't get upset because he placed Sid and OV's first 5 years ahead of Bossy's. I have no problem with that, it's a valid opinion even if I disagree with it.
It's the "not even close" level that he did it with that pissed me off.
That IS ridiculous!

 

[TheStranger]

Probably a little late to this thread. The problem with these scenarios is you're thinking of dropping the same Orr into today's league instead of taking the same player and giving him all the better health, training, etc routines that players have today. If he was head and shoulders above the rest, would the extra training give him that much more than everyone else or would it bring the pack closer to him?

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Sorry you took that the way you did. Don't know how though.

 

[Dalton]

I'm just curious. Has anyone ever tried to objectively compare Orr's speed with players of today. And by that I mean it's plain as day from watching clips that Orr was a lot faster than most of his competition. And to my eyes he sure as heck looks faster than all but the fastest skaters in today's game.

But this should be something we can actually measure. One could presumably clock Orr's speed going blue line to blue line, figure out his speed, and then do the same for someone like Mike Green. Seems like we ought to have enough clips of Orr to get his "average speed" when he was doing his thing and make a meaningful comparison to what players do today.

I recognize that changes in equipment, training, and medicine get left out of such comparisons. But if Orr was faster then than players are today, I think you'd have a hard time arguing that his game wouldn't translate very well given the benefits of the modern hockey world.

If you watched these guys play it wasn't that they grabbed the puck at their own red line and raced to the other end. They finessed their way past players in their path. Remember there was a center line back then so it was somewhat more difficult to do then it would be today. Also defending players had more freedom to react as opposed to the systems of today also making it more difficult back then.

This intelligence is what defines these special players. Posters relying on stats and a relative handful of out of context you tube videos reveal their lack of understanding of this with every post.

But if they want to keep doing the same thing over and over again achieving the same results it's not my business.

 

[Killion]

If you watched these guys play it wasn't that they grabbed the puck at their own red line and raced to the other end. They finessed their way past players in their path. Remember there was a center line back then so it was somewhat more difficult to do then it would be today. Also defending players had more freedom to react as opposed to the systems of today also making it more difficult back then.

Certainly pre-72 & the revelations of the Soviets play in that year with their constant cycling & passing style which was anathema to the "play your lane" philosophy of Canada & the US. All truly brilliant players like Orr & Gretzky possess that intangible; the ability to see the entire ice surface & be where the pucks going. In Orr's case & in other cases that Ive encountered as a player myself about a hundred years ago this instinctive nature is honed on the open ice of backyard rinks, ponds, schoolyards. Undisciplined freedom. In Orrs case as a kid, the frozen mile's of Georgian Bay. Thinking outside of the boxes of regimentation & discipline. Frankly, I have a hard time conceptualizing Orr in todays game as its face has changed so dramatically since. An abstraction beyond resolution.

 

[Dalton]

I can see it. Orr getting his hands on the puck at every opportunity and working his way up ice, mocking systems designed to stop him and players doing their best until he scores himself, hands off to someone in position to score or just lobs a shot at the net for a team mate to tip in or score on the rebound.

Playing give and go with linemates never slowing down, being first back to defend because the guy just wanted the puck.

As I said in another thread, fans today, all fans can only hope to be so lucky as to see another Gretzky, Orr or Lemieux talent play in this league. For new fans only then can they possibly understand what it means to dominate. To truly be the best on player on the ice. every shift, every game, every situation.

 

[Merya]

Probably a little late to this thread. The problem with these scenarios is you're thinking of dropping the same Orr into today's league instead of taking the same player and giving him all the better health, training, etc routines that players have today. If he was head and shoulders above the rest, would the extra training give him that much more than everyone else or would it bring the pack closer to him?

I think everyone would be closer to Orr. Orr was an athletic beast compared to the average NHL player at the time. At least that's my impression. OTOH Orr could have twice as long career because of better medicine. He'd have had his knees fixed during the lockout and had a resurgence (back to prime or almost) like Selänne. So while I think he would be somewhat less dominant, and might not win every Norris out there, he would have a much more impressing career. (10-15 years top 3 in Norris Voting for sure)

 

[Hardyvan123]

The size of the goalie equipment doesn't enter into it for the best goal scorers. Besides this is just rehashing the absurd systemic bias argument that these super elites wouldn't benefit from their development occurring during the time of 'better equipment' yet everyone else would.

Consider this:

No NHL rules committee in their right mind would eliminate the red line or make changes to make it easier to score with guys like Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux in the game.

And this:

I'm pretty sure they made changes to the power play which were intended to cut down on Gretzky's incredible offensive abilities. He might have even scored more than he did otherwise. A lot more. This would have affected Lemieux as well.

Now remember or understand that their talent had as much maybe more to do with their hockey IQ and finesse than raw, pure, physical talent. I think you don't get this point because you've got to see it every weekend for a decade or so to really appreciate it. You only get to see a few highlights that survived. Some of which may even have been intended to show a mistake you can't make with these guys on the ice. Watch 300 or 400 complete games with one of these players over a season. For a decade. Then get back to me.

I'm sorry but the size of the net compared to the size of the goalie equipment does matter, a great deal in fact.

Take the old leather pads Dryden used to wear, you know those huge ones since he was 6'4", they would soak up moisture through the game, there is no way today's goalie's could be as affective in stopping the puck using that old equipment. To suggest that it doesn't affect every single player trying to scorejust doesn't make any sense at all, just look at what shooters see today compared back in the 70's and 80's.

And it's just not the goaltending that has changed in the last 40 years either the influx of players from Europe and the emergence of the United states a s feeder to the NHL has made the level of play more competitive and more difficult to score in for everyone.

I'm in my early 40's and watched and remember all of Wayne and Mario's career, Bobby's not as much so. I will be the 1st to agree that they were all extremely talented, the best in their time but really the players they were up against did make it easier for the 3 of them compared to the 21st century.

This fact does not diminish what they did and how great they were but it's a reality that none of them could dominate in the same way or even really close to it in 2010. The game has really changed that much.

The time and space factor and the overall skill level, at least in defensive terms is as much of a difference between the NHL and the top Jr leagues today. this also affected how each of these 3 dominated as well as their natural skill, abilities and compete levels.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I can see it. Orr getting his hands on the puck at every opportunity and working his way up ice, mocking systems designed to stop him and players doing their best until he scores himself, hands off to someone in position to score or just lobs a shot at the net for a team mate to tip in or score on the rebound.

Playing give and go with linemates never slowing down, being first back to defend because the guy just wanted the puck.

As I said in another thread, fans today, all fans can only hope to be so lucky as to see another Gretzky, Orr or Lemieux talent play in this league. For new fans only then can they possibly understand what it means to dominate. To truly be the best on player on the ice. every shift, every game, every situation.

I saw Orr play, not as much as Wayne or Mario though, and he was the best player in his time but it was not all about him being that great, the NHL he played in wasn't really all that great and in a lesser league it is easier to dominate.

I know that it's a difficult concept for many to grasp but the facts that the league was worse and that all 3 players were special talents are not mutually exclusive concepts, it's not a either or, it really can be both and probably is.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Come on. You're going too far to defend an older player against a current player. There is no shame in having a first five years worse than Crosby or Ovechkin, they are very likely top 10 all time over that period. That does not at all imply that bossy was a bad player or that he wasn't even great.

As far as comparing players goes raw goal totals are practically meaningless. The Calder is almost meaningless as well unless the players were in the same year. Bossy had a great first year but I doubt he wins the award over Crosby or Ovechkin if they all player together. Cups are also pointless considering the massive gap between Bossy's early teams and those of Crosby and Ovechkin. Bossy's Conn Smythe is very nice, but once again considering the teams that he played on it is not overly surprising that he has this over Crosby and Ovechkin. I would not put Bossy's playoff accomplishments much ahead of Crosby's at all, and on a per game basis Ovechkin is at least close. Anyway, there is no need to go over the top defending a retired great just because someone says that a current player is superior over a certain period, especially if it is justified.

Fully agree here and I was thinking about an earlier comment between green and Orr in terms of points that you brought up. Green's prorated 88 points in his best year was a perfect storm for him and it might have been his career year.

Green's 3 best seasosns average out to around 65-70 points, to say Orr's average would be around 15 points higher is reasosnable proposition to me. Not saying that it's an absolute but it's possible in the right situation. Put him in Forida and forget about it.

It's not a stretch to think that depending on the team situation Orr would be in the top 3 Dmen scoring most every year in the 2010 NHL and might even hit 90-95 points but it's not as certain as many would seem to believe in the history section.

Once again this is not a reflection on Orr per say but rather on the high degree of competition in the NHL today and the role of the Dman. Orr simply would not be able to transcend the game in the same way in 2010 compared to 1967 IMO.

 

[Killion]

I'm sorry but the size of the net compared to the size of the goalie equipment does matter, a great deal in fact.

You are quite correct. The evolution in the art & style of playing the position of goaltender combined with equipment changes in todays NHL is a far cry from yesteryear. Size matters, as goalies today are more concerned with "blocking" the puck as opposed to making the "save", a subtle distinction on paper yes; but a wide chasm in practice to those who have either played the position or to keen observers of the game..... Then theirs the evolution of the stick itself; his shot wasnt "heavy & wild" like Dennis Hull's, it was "fast & accurate" with little wind-up. Replace his Victoriaville CustomPro with a new generation laser wand & the mind reels. Killer. Skate technology. Medical science (knee's) & nutrition; his style of constant cycling & explosive speed was easily 25+yrs ahead of the leagues style in the 60's & 70's, from "lanes & channels" to "cycling & backpassing" that left us all amazed & out of breath when we witnessed it really for the first time at it highest levels with an entire team playing a "system" similar to Orrs' "individual" style in 72 with the Soviets. Never mind Orr playing for TeamCanada, I wanted to see how he'd fare playing for the Russkys' to see how he'd use like minded players, how he'd be used by them.

How would Orr fare in todays game?. Seeing as how he himself revolutionized the way defence & to a larger degree the game itself is played in the late 60's & early 70's, an almost impossible question to answer unless we consider similar though lesser players of his time, Brad Park for eg, and how their collective contributions through the decades could well have landed us in the same place regardless. "Rushing" defencemen was not something that was foreign, completely alien. Doug Harvey, Tim Horton early in his career, Carl Brewer & others were all known to venture deep, though usually to the chagrin & kninipshins of the guy standing behind the bench. So, assuming the game wouldve' wound up being played the way it is today absent Orr circa 66-79 & he came along today?. Id' bet dollars to donuts he'd re-invent the game yet again in some new & amazing ways AND be a runaway terror claiming every prize up for grabs.

 

[JackSlater]

I saw Orr play, not as much as Wayne or Mario though, and he was the best player in his time but it was not all about him being that great, the NHL he played in wasn't really all that great and in a lesser league it is easier to dominate.

I know that it's a difficult concept for many to grasp but the facts that the league was worse and that all 3 players were special talents are not mutually exclusive concepts, it's not a either or, it really can be both and probably is.

Mario Lemieux was a dominant player against a talent pool that is basically equal to the talent pool today. When Gretzky was old, had suffered an injury that clearly reduced his level of play, and was on a weak team, he was still able to finish third in scoring, against a talent pool essentially the equal of today. When it comes to those guys it is very understand that their dominance would not be as great as it was during their primes, but to suggest as you do that they would hardly dominate today is ridiculous, considering we've actually seen them play against a talent pool that is evuivalent to the talent pool today, even against many players who are still in the NHL.

Fully agree here and I was thinking about an earlier comment between green and Orr in terms of points that you brought up. Green's prorated 88 points in his best year was a perfect storm for him and it might have been his career year.

Green's 3 best seasosns average out to around 65-70 points, to say Orr's average would be around 15 points higher is reasosnable proposition to me. Not saying that it's an absolute but it's possible in the right situation. Put him in Forida and forget about it.

It's not a stretch to think that depending on the team situation Orr would be in the top 3 Dmen scoring most every year in the 2010 NHL and might even hit 90-95 points but it's not as certain as many would seem to believe in the history section.

Once again this is not a reflection on Orr per say but rather on the high degree of competition in the NHL today and the role of the Dman. Orr simply would not be able to transcend the game in the same way in 2010 compared to 1967 IMO.

Looking at Green's three best seasons is pretty biased since he only played four relatively healthy seasons prior to this year. It is still ridiculous to assert that Bobby Orr, a player who was ridiculously far ahead of every defenceman before him and was arguably the best offensive player in the world for roughly 6 years, could not outscore Mike Green by 15%, even during Green's best year. It implies that Green is basically a better offensive defenceman, by quite a bit, than anyone who preceeded Orr, and also those who closely followed him. No point persisting with this specific topic though since it seems that no progress is being made either way.

 

[kdb209]

(Regardless how the rest of this post comes across, I would still like to say that Ruth was one of the best hitters, the most productive power hitter of his era, and he still makes many other HOFers look merely average.)

Baseball's dead ball era ends when Ruth started hitting home runs. There are numerous factors beyond just ballparks:

...

- I should point out that decades earlier, players couldn't try for the fences since fly balls were easy outs in the days when fielders could catch them on one bounce and still record the out. So that's why they were coached to avoid fly balls.

By decades you mean almost 60 years.

Fair balls ceased to outs on a bounce in 1858, foul balls in 1883.

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/chronology/rules1.php

No one in Ruth's time (and the decades immediately before) ever played under those rules.

 

[Slapshooter]

No coach would allow Orr to play with same style he did, so he probably would not get any 100 point seasons.

On the other hand, Orr's excellent all around capabilities, toughness and mobility would ensure of him being a consant Norris winner and Hart candidate.

 

[Merya]

One thing that everyone seems to look over. Orr might not be a D man in modern NHL. He might be a absolute peak Fedorov style 2 way forward.
As controversial as it sounds, I'd rather have (prime) Lidström in modern day D than Orr, considering his style of play but giving benefits of modern training etc. As a coach I'd certainly put Orr in 1st line wing rather.

 

[Merya]

did make it easier for the 3 of them compared to the 21st century.

Doesn't apply to Gretzky tho. His hockeysense and practical clairvoyant vision transcends any era. Much more so than any other greats. Everything else could be better at modern standards, yet limited by more competent average player.
But the Great One would still outsmart everyone, because he plays in 3rd persion high view and with bullet time.
Seriously, I think Gretzky's vision is the one thing that wouldn't be affected by time, and the average player while better fit and better trained would still be as helpless as they were in the 80s.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Doesn't apply to Gretzky tho. His hockeysense and practical clairvoyant vision transcends any era. Much more so than any other greats. Everything else could be better at modern standards, yet limited by more competent average player.
But the Great One would still outsmart everyone, because he plays in 3rd persion high view and with bullet time.
Seriously, I think Gretzky's vision is the one thing that wouldn't be affected by time, and the average player while better fit and better trained would still be as helpless as they were in the 80s.

I agree and ahve said that i think Wayne would be affectd the least due motsly to his vision as Both Orr and Mario dsiplayed a significant physical and skill adavantage on their peers. greatzy has the best "it" factor, that undefineable ability to do more, slow down the game more and see teh paly before it ahppens than any other player that i ahve ever seen.

That being said I think it would even be hard for him to get over 150 points on any regular basis in a 2010 NHL. 130-140 seems more reasonable and likely given the difficulty his wingers would have in converting the chances Wayne provided them. also the extremely close checking and better ability and systems of defensive teams would cut into his total. The fact is that we will never really know for sure but I would lean closer to the 130, 140 mark than the 160,170 mark that some are suggesting.

The fact is that we have only seen 3 seasons of over 120 points in the post lockout era and to me it is in large part because of the difficulty in scoring not due to any lack of talent in the NHL today

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I agree and ahve said that i think Wayne would be affectd the least due motsly to his vision as Both Orr and Mario dsiplayed a significant physical and skill adavantage on their peers. greatzy has the best "it" factor, that undefineable ability to do more, slow down the game more and see teh paly before it ahppens than any other player that i ahve ever seen.

That being said I think it would even be hard for him to get over 150 points on any regular basis in a 2010 NHL. 130-140 seems more reasonable and likely given the difficulty his wingers would have in converting the chances Wayne provided them. also the extremely close checking and better ability and systems of defensive teams would cut into his total. The fact is that we will never really know for sure but I would lean closer to the 130, 140 mark than the 160,170 mark that some are suggesting.

The fact is that we have only seen 3 seasons of over 120 points in the post lockout era and to me it is in large part because of the difficulty in scoring not due to any lack of talent in the NHL today

To expand on that, 2 of them came in the 05-06 season where scoring was higher, and Crosby's came the year after, and half his points were on the powerplay.

Only three players have cracked 110 since the 07-08 season, and Ovechkin is the only one to do it twice.

Also to everyone who thinks Lemieux would take advantage of all these powerplays today, look at how many penalty minutes were called in Pittsburgh games in 2000-01 compared to any team last year. Just choose whatever year you want to see here from 97-98 and on.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/app

1573 penalty minutes were called in Pittsburgh games in 2000-01 the year of Lemieux's comeback, and the top team last year had 1357.

How many years did Lemieux's team get the most powerplay opportunities in the league? I know that's not the first because I've seen a list before that surprised me, and thought it was very likely that Pittsburgh recieved the most that year so I checked to see.

 

[Hardyvan123]

To add to the scoring issue here are the top 100 point seasons in the last 30 years.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

There are exactly 9 seasons from the last decade the best one being Joe Thorton's 06 season which came in 50th.

That's 9% were somewhere around 30% should be expected all things being equal.

Even when we take out Wayne and Mario's 22 seasons that's still only 9 out of 78 seasons in the top 100.

That means that 69 of the top 100 seasons took place before 01 and that's guys not name Wayne or Mario.

Do people really think that there was that much more talent in the NHL in the 80's and 90's compared to now?

The actual breakdown is 54 guys in the 80's, 37 in the 90's and 9 from the last decade.

The cutoff guy was Kevin Stevens with 111 points BTW.

Maybe the simple answer is to say that players were better back then but maybe it is simply harder to score today because there are a lot of players (seasons) on that list who would have an extremely difficult time scoring even 100 points today, heck even 90 for some of them, never mind getting near the same totals they achieved in their time.

There is no exact formula for these things but it seems very likely that even the past greats like Bobby, Wayne and Mario would be considerably less today than in their time. How much that would be exactly is pure conjecture though. Adjusted stats while useful to a degree but only give us a guess.