Is the current league another level above the 80s and 90s?

KingDeathMetal

Registered User
Jun 7, 2015
1,109
362
Long Island, NY
This point has already been made, but I'll emphasize: the 3rd and 4th liners in the 80s and most of the 3rd and 4th liners in the 90s would have a tough time breaking into today's NHL.

But make no mistake, the star power of that era, especially the 90s, was incredible. Arguably, 15 of the best 20-25 d-men of all time, all played in the league during the 90s and were mostly in their primes together. Two of the three best players of all-time (Wayne and Mario) were in their primes at once in the late 80s. The two best goaltenders to ever live IMO (Roy and Hasek) were also in their primes.

That's...unreal, when you think about it. I don't know if there was ever a collection of that many great players at one time in any sport, let alone hockey (maybe baseball in the 1950s?).

We already know what a player of that era would do in the modern era, because Jagr deep into his 40s was playing at a first-line level not too long ago. What would the Jagr of 1998 do? Let alone the Gretzky of 85, or the Mario of 93. So arguments like "Those guys would be 3rd liners today!" don't hold water.

Also: while it's true that the average talent level is much higher today, consider some of the advantages that yesterday's players would have if they stepped through a portal into today:

-No more clutch and grab BS
-Game is not nearly as physical, their talent could shine through much more easily
-Top line players don't play the type of minutes they used to, because there are more matchup options on the third and fourth lines
-Many of the top players were much larger, grittier players than today. There's nothing in the NHL today that's like a prime Lindros - a human freight train on skates with the speed and skill of a modern day star.

-Put today's pads on Roy, Hasek, Belfour, Cujo, Richter, Moog, Vernon, Fuhr, Beezer, Brodeur (already happened and he won two Vezinas). Those guys would have a field day.

With all that said, the league was in a golden era for talent in the late 80s and 90s (NHL was never as young on avg as that 80s period), and similarly, I think we're in another golden era right now. There wasn't a whole lot of ALL-TIME great talent drafted in the late 90s and 00s other than the handful of obvious ones, but right now there's probably more GREAT talent than at any time since the 90s. And you're seeing scoring way up from just 5 or 6 years ago.

It's a great time to be a fan.
 

Sky04

Registered User
Jan 8, 2009
28,958
17,899
This is hugely important. It cannot be overstated that the economic elitism of hockey has dramatically outstripped population growth* over the past 40 years. We are gradually pulling from a smaller and smaller pool of talent, which by the very sound logic already expressed upthread, means we are seeing less and less natural talent in the game.

* It also cannot be overstated that the non-immigrant population is shrinking, not growing, in most major hockey countries. And hockey has made only the most negligible inroads to immigrant communities. So effectively the recession of talent is doubled-down.

How has it outstripped population growth? Development leagues in NA have never been bigger and more refined, the "elitism" just makes the pool better developed earlier. There's more talent than ever and they're a lot better at a younger age than previous generations.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,982
137,355
Bojangles Parking Lot
How has it outstripped population growth?

Pretty simple -- the population of demographics who play hockey is shrinking, while the sport also becomes more economically exclusive. Burn the candle at both ends, and the results are inevitable as expressed upthread.

Development leagues in NA have never been bigger and more refined

More refined? Yes.

Bigger? No. We have gotten better at registering players, but there are fewer players than there were 30 years ago. Look at how many leagues have consolidated and folded in the heartland provinces and states.

"But other areas are growing to offset those losses". The problem is, the expansion zones are generally not connected to the NHL talent pipeline for any practical purpose. For all that growth in Texas or Florida or Carolina -- which is fantastic in its own right -- exactly where are those players ending up when they hit 18? Local universities which only offer club hockey if that? That's not the same thing as building an NHL talent pipeline.

the "elitism" just makes the pool better developed earlier. There's more talent than ever and they're a lot better at a younger age than previous generations.

It's true that a very very very small share of the player population is now getting the best hockey training ever offered.

The question is what that means for the talent pool as a whole. We are maximizing the results for the wealthiest 1% while cutting the rest out of the picture. Yes, it means that 1% becomes incredibly good at hockey at a young age. It also means that the talent pipeline bottlenecks at that same young age, knocking the vast majority of the talent out of the pool before it can even be evaluated properly.

This is a serious issue with the entire hockey development system. Organizations like Hockey Canada and USA Hockey are incentivized to act like it doesn't exist, because it undermines their leadership to admit that there's a problem. The NHL is incentivized to act like it doesn't exist, because it undermines the product they're selling. As people whose paycheck doesn't rely on pretending that things have never been better, we can acknowledge that there's an increasingly problematic demographic issue bubbling up through these draft classes.
 

Sky04

Registered User
Jan 8, 2009
28,958
17,899
Pretty simple -- the population of demographics who play hockey is shrinking, while the sport also becomes more economically exclusive. Burn the candle at both ends, and the results are inevitable as expressed upthread.



More refined? Yes.

Bigger? No. We have gotten better at registering players, but there are fewer players than there were 30 years ago. Look at how many leagues have consolidated and folded in the heartland provinces and states.

"But other areas are growing to offset those losses". The problem is, the expansion zones are generally not connected to the NHL talent pipeline for any practical purpose. For all that growth in Texas or Florida or Carolina -- which is fantastic in its own right -- exactly where are those players ending up when they hit 18? Local universities which only offer club hockey if that? That's not the same thing as building an NHL talent pipeline.



It's true that a very very very small share of the player population is now getting the best hockey training ever offered.

The question is what that means for the talent pool as a whole. We are maximizing the results for the wealthiest 1% while cutting the rest out of the picture. Yes, it means that 1% becomes incredibly good at hockey at a young age. It also means that the talent pipeline bottlenecks at that same young age, knocking the vast majority of the talent out of the pool before it can even be evaluated properly.

This is a serious issue with the entire hockey development system. Organizations like Hockey Canada and USA Hockey are incentivized to act like it doesn't exist, because it undermines their leadership to admit that there's a problem. The NHL is incentivized to act like it doesn't exist, because it undermines the product they're selling. As people whose paycheck doesn't rely on pretending that things have never been better, we can acknowledge that there's an increasingly problematic demographic issue bubbling up through these draft classes.

And how many players do you think make the NHL? When that 1% of high end talent from the available pool makes the NHL the talent level increases which each year, which is why the league is at its most skilled ever and will continue to progress that way.
 

TheOtherOne

Registered User
Jan 2, 2010
8,265
5,257
This point has already been made, but I'll emphasize: the 3rd and 4th liners in the 80s and most of the 3rd and 4th liners in the 90s would have a tough time breaking into today's NHL.

But make no mistake, the star power of that era, especially the 90s, was incredible. Arguably, 15 of the best 20-25 d-men of all time, all played in the league during the 90s and were mostly in their primes together. Two of the three best players of all-time (Wayne and Mario) were in their primes at once in the late 80s. The two best goaltenders to ever live IMO (Roy and Hasek) were also in their primes.

That's...unreal, when you think about it. I don't know if there was ever a collection of that many great players at one time in any sport, let alone hockey (maybe baseball in the 1950s?).

We already know what a player of that era would do in the modern era, because Jagr deep into his 40s was playing at a first-line level not too long ago. What would the Jagr of 1998 do? Let alone the Gretzky of 85, or the Mario of 93. So arguments like "Those guys would be 3rd liners today!" don't hold water.

Also: while it's true that the average talent level is much higher today, consider some of the advantages that yesterday's players would have if they stepped through a portal into today:

-No more clutch and grab BS
-Game is not nearly as physical, their talent could shine through much more easily
-Top line players don't play the type of minutes they used to, because there are more matchup options on the third and fourth lines
-Many of the top players were much larger, grittier players than today. There's nothing in the NHL today that's like a prime Lindros - a human freight train on skates with the speed and skill of a modern day star.

-Put today's pads on Roy, Hasek, Belfour, Cujo, Richter, Moog, Vernon, Fuhr, Beezer, Brodeur (already happened and he won two Vezinas). Those guys would have a field day.

With all that said, the league was in a golden era for talent in the late 80s and 90s (NHL was never as young on avg as that 80s period), and similarly, I think we're in another golden era right now. There wasn't a whole lot of ALL-TIME great talent drafted in the late 90s and 00s other than the handful of obvious ones, but right now there's probably more GREAT talent than at any time since the 90s. And you're seeing scoring way up from just 5 or 6 years ago.

It's a great time to be a fan.
They would all just be fat and lazy from video game addiction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GreeningOil

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,982
137,355
Bojangles Parking Lot
And how many players do you think make the NHL?

More than ever before, which also speaks to the watering-down of talent per team.

When Seattle starts up, there will be more than 30% more NHL jobs than there were in 1997. The number of hockey players fighting for those jobs has decreased during that timeframe. Simple logic tells you what happens to the level of competition when a labor pool shrinks at the same time that job opportunities expand by 30%.

When that 1% of high end talent from the available pool makes the NHL the talent level increases which each year, which is why the league is at its most skilled ever and will continue to progress that way.

This is a bit like talking about pilots.

The number of pilots in North America has dropped by about 50% since 1975. At the same time, technological advances have made today's pilot "more skilled" than ever. He can fly faster, higher, make tighter turns, etc. He is able to fly a machine that would baffle pilots of generations past. Of course, their machines would baffle him just as much, so it's a subjective decision to say he's a "better" pilot. But we can say he's more skilled.

If you were interested in developing the best pilots in the world, would it be of any comfort to you that today's pilot is "more skilled" than in 1975? Or would you be focused on the fact that there are only half as many of them, and that their skills are a reflection of technological advancement rather than an actual gain in talent or ability? What if this 50%-smaller elite tier were spread 30% thinner than before? Would you feel like your pilot pipeline was gaining ground, or losing ground?

The same thing is happening in hockey. There are dramatically more jobs for a dramatically smaller talent pool. Objectively, they are skating faster and shooting harder than ever before. But those are technological gains, the result of whippier sticks and next-generation skates, not the result of talent development. A generational loss of efficiency in the talent development pipeline is being disguised by technical gains -- gains driven by industrial materials and elite-of-the-elite-level coaching, not by actual increases in talent or ability. If your interest is in improving the pool of hockey players in the world, this is a serious problem.

Or to say it very simply: today's players might be more skilled than ever, but the player pool of 30 years ago would be even more skilled than today's players if circumstances were equal. The league is operating on a technical bubble that's disguising a recession in talent level.
 

ItWasJustified

Registered User
Jan 1, 2015
4,281
5,270
If we say "talent" is an inborn trait randomly distributed across a population, then "how much talent" is in a league will be dependent on how large a population a league has to draw from. The NHL today has a lot more men to draw from as potential hockey players, due to being able to attract talent from countries across the world, as well as the fact that the population of all these countries are way higher then the were a in 1920. Furthermore a larger fraction of this larger population actually has the opportunity to nurture that talent and play hockey professionally, with more men and boys having access to the sport so that inborn talent is more likely to be actually be utilized and result in a player then they would have had in 1920. Therefore the league should be much more talented then it was a century ago.
I didn't do a comparison between the talent level of the 1920s and today. I just said that the same % of people are born with different talents in every generation to shine a light over OP's absurd question about the difference in talent level between today and the 80s/90s.
Better access to more medicine and nutrition for a higher percentage of the population means that's very wrong.
That has nothing to do with talent.
Talent is something you develop by constantly practicing. Connor McDavid wasn’t born with a hockey stick
To a degree, yes. But you won't reach the NHL by not having an innate talent.
 

PaulD

Time for a new GM !
Feb 4, 2016
28,755
15,808
Dundas
Do you think it is a coincidence that the expansion era produced the 3 players with the biggest level of dominance over their peers in Mario, Gretz, and Orr?

I don't think it was a coincidence. You had players that shouldn't have been in the league because the NHL expanded so fast. Look what happens when you get today's stars against the other team's depth players. They feast. In the 80s and 90s you had a larger percentage of depth players that just weren't good. That allowed the best to dominate more.
The best players now and then feasted on thr bottom tier players.

Watch come play offs today. Coaches spend a lot of energy trying to hide the bottom pair. Because by comparison they basically suck when and get completely exposed at play off time.

Like Chris Draper pointed out quite clearly. The 02 Wings had a fourth line of Datzuik, Robitille Zetterberg. You will never see the likes of that again. Teams are more balanced today because of the cap sure. They are also more shallow in high level talent.The Caps makes spread those guys around the league.

The Stanley Cup champs of 02 (Wings)would have swept the Stanley Cup Champs of 06.(Canes) Out scoring them by a land slide.

Back in the day teams did feast on lousy teams ...... today we call those lousy teams the Sabres, Red Wings, Senators, Canucks, Devils, Flames, Jackets.

Great teams , mediocre teams , flat out lousy teams...............then and now. Nothing new about that.
 

Bank Shot

Registered User
Jan 18, 2006
11,343
6,855
The best players now and then feasted on thr bottom tier players.

Watch come play offs today. Coaches spend a lot of energy trying to hide the bottom pair. Because by comparison they basically suck when and get completely exposed at play off time.

Like Chris Draper pointed out quite clearly. The 02 Wings had a fourth line of Datzuik, Robitille Zetterberg. You will never see the likes of that again. Teams are more balanced today because of the cap sure. They are also more shallow in high level talent.The Caps makes spread those guys around the league.

The Stanley Cup champs of 02 (Wings)would have swept the Stanley Cup Champs of 06.(Canes) Out scoring them by a land slide.

Back in the day teams did feast on lousy teams ...... today we call those lousy teams the Sabres, Red Wings, Senators, Canucks, Devils, Flames, Jackets.

Great teams , mediocre teams , flat out lousy teams...............then and now. Nothing new about that.

Just look at 1992-93 for a good example. You had two new teams in the Sharks and Senators that finished with 24 points over an 84 game season.

24 points.

Do you think that is a coincidence that it the league's stars all had crazy career years after a three team expansion in 2 years?

Pierre Turgeon had 132 points.

There is a lot of evidence that the expansion era from 70s until early 90s had a huge impact on inflating the point totals of star players in that time period.
 

nowhereman

Registered User
Jan 24, 2010
9,231
7,567
Los Angeles
What exactly are these advances in nutrition that were achieved between 1985 and now?
Beer and cigarettes are no longer a staple of player's daily diets. Players still smoked in the dressing room at that time.

In all seriousness, it has less to do with nutritional science taking major leaps forward but, rather, players actually following these stricter regimes. I know a handful of guys who played in the late 70s/80s and they claim that they ate, smoked, snorted and drank like everyone else they knew (probably harder, since they had the money and means). These days, any player caught sneaking anything more than a cracker will get a scornful call from Gary Roberts.

To try and make an analogy, I sort of feel like the sport was a scrappy start-up, back in the day, but is now well past the honeymoon IPO stage, morphing into a corporate monster. Hockey is big business and the mentality has shifted along with it. Kids are being groomed from a young age like little machines, with athletes competing across the globe, and the humble charm of yesteryear is long gone.
 
Last edited:

Essenege

Registered User
Oct 5, 2019
919
896
world population 1920: 2 billion

2021: 8 billion


The lower end talent is most likely better at the least. "floor" is higher.

You’re analysis is too simple.

70’s & 80’s featured cohorts of people born during the baby boom....

Numbers were compiled somewhere in an History of hockey thread but there was over 600k+ registered minor hockey players in Canada at the end of the 60’s, beginning of the 70’s compared to 400-450k at the start of the 2000’s.

Even if you compute in the Scandinavian countries + Russia I don’t think the pool of hockey player is much larger today.

Add in the fact that there is a lot more team today...there’s a fair argument that the 80’s had more talented players in each team.
 

PaulD

Time for a new GM !
Feb 4, 2016
28,755
15,808
Dundas
Just look at 1992-93 for a good example. You had two new teams in the Sharks and Senators that finished with 24 points over an 84 game season.

24 points.

Do you think that is a coincidence that it the league's stars all had crazy career years after a three team expansion in 2 years?

Pierre Turgeon had 132 points.

There is a lot of evidence that the expansion era from 70s until early 90s had a huge impact on inflating the point totals of star players in that time period.
We can all cherry pick some numbers .
How many 6 point games did the leading scorer have in the year you are talking about.
McDavid has a couple this year. Feast.
Did any player have a six point period that year.
Zabenajev just had one last week. Feast.
Cherry pick numbers all you want.

There have been lousy teams and great teams and everything in between since hockey started.
Sabres just tied the record for most losses in a row. 18. ...set by the Pens in 2003. Feast.

Tonight - Lightening feasting on Jackets. 5 minutes into first period.... its 3-0.
 
Last edited:

objectiveposter

Registered User
Jan 29, 2011
2,110
3,042
in the 80s there were 21 teams.... now there are going to be 32 teams.
10 years from now there will be a thread about how ovechkin and lidstrom are overrated and cant hang in modern nhl.
the game is different. jagr said in the 90s/ early 2000s he spent more time training on his strength...but after rule changes in 2005 the game opened up and he had to change his training to focus more on speed. its all about adapting to the era you played in.... and its silly to think players from the past wouldnt adapt their games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelhockey

LilySmoov

Registered User
May 14, 2011
2,039
510
All-star level players will have the ability to do things like fire laser beams from their eyes or sporadically turn invisible!
This has already been achieved.

6LvfP99.gif
 

Bedards Dad

I was in the pool!!
Nov 3, 2011
13,716
8,272
Toronto
Do I think that Lemieux, Jagr, Gretzky, Sakic, Forsberg, Yzerman, Shanahan, Pronger, Niedermeyer, Iginla, Messier, Lindros, Bure, Lidstrom, Federov, Roy, Brodeur, Hasek, Selanne, Leetch, Bourque, etc wouldn’t be able to hang and excel in the current league? To suggest that is frankly pretty laughable since we saw overlap with many of these guys and many modern players.

In the early-mid 10s where the league was allowing tons of interference, I wouldn’t even have said the game on average was better.

Since the Pens back to back wins tilted the league in favor of speed and skill, I do think the average level has gone up. Everyone has to be a quality skater now.

It's not just about the top end talent, it's also about the level of the 3rd and 4th liners, who are well ahead of the 80s goons.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->