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

[Video Nasty]

The stand up goalie didn't play stand up because he thought it was cool. He did because the equipment was heavy and his knees would have been mush by the end of the 3rd because there was no cushion for them. They would have gladly adopted a different style earlier had it been possible.

Well stated.

It drives me crazy when people imply or think that goalies of the past played stand up because they were not intelligent to do otherwise.

 

[Eisen]

Well stated.

It drives me crazy when people imply or think that goalies of the past played stand up because they were not intelligent to do otherwise.

Yup, goalies were experiencing with the butterfly since the 50s but used it sparingly.

 

[BTP]

Of course it is, you're delusional if you think otherwise.

Guys are 1000% more fit, more disciplined, faster, stronger, better hockey IQ.

Just look at the goalie position. How can you say that hasnt evolved? lmao.

 

[Eisen]

When discussing goaltending, it needs to be reiterated that modern technique is objectively superior AND that these techniques are physically impossible to sustain with 80s-style equipment. Guys like Bishop and Vasilevskiy would be on IR after their first game in Billy Smith’s pads, and their adjustment to that equipment would negate the advantages of being so tall.

I'd like to see a goalie play profly in 80s equipment. Then again, maybe not. I'm not sadistic.

 

[Eisen]

What exactly are these advances in nutrition that were achieved between 1985 and now?

None. Today's athlete might listen better. I doubt it makes a lot of difference, though. Athletes need calories. You take a lok at the dietplan of an athlete, like Phelps for instance, and it's not health food. It's a lot of calories.

 

[Refuse]

No. Talent is something you're born with, and there are not more talented players born today than it was in the 1920s.

Talent is something you nurture and hone to perfection. More people today have that opportunity compared to the 1920's.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Talent is something you nurture and hone to perfection. More people today have that opportunity compared to the 1920's.

Not sure that's entirely true. Honing hockey skills to the professional level is more economically exclusive right now than it has been since around the 1910s. We have gone the full circuit from the days when it was a literal country-club sport (that's what the AAA means in Montreal AAA) through a century of blue-collar participation at all levels, all the way back to being a largely elitist sport again.

 

[Sinistril]

Yes.

 

[Canadian Finn]

Of course it is, you're delusional if you think otherwise.

Guys are 1000% more fit, more disciplined, faster, stronger, better hockey IQ.

Just look at the goalie position. How can you say that hasnt evolved? lmao.

Im gonna take a stab in the dark and suggest you didn't read this thread...

 

[KingDeathMetal]

There were a TON of guys training like elite fitness athletes in the 80s and 90s. I dare you to find me one player of ANY era who trained as hard as either Chelios or Brind'amour. Mark Messier and Mike Richter were famous for their fitness levels.

People have to remember, the change in fitness regimens for athletes didn't begin in the 2000s, it began in the 1980s. Gyms went from being musty old barbell clubs that only obsessive niche bodybuilders trained at, to being franchise-owned state of the art facilities on every corner. Supplement stores were everywhere, fitness infomercials became television staples, and the rise of brands like Nike, Reebok, Adidas, etc. plus sponsorships influenced athletes to prioritize their bodies and achieve a fit "look". Many athletes traded in party drugs for steroids. Action stars like Arnold and Stallone replaced the chubby gunslinging schlubs of 70s action films.

The fitness revolution was already 30 years in the oven by the time modern players hit the pros. The only real training advantage today's players have is the prevalence of specialized coaches - goalie gurus and whatnot - that teams didn't utilize back in the day. But to act like there was a big fitness difference is RIDIC. Sure, the players liked to party. Don't be fooled - they still drink beer and do coke AND I AIN'T TALKIN' BOUT THE COLA.
​

 

[David Bruce Banner]

On what playing field are all the players playing?

Equipment, training, strategy and rules mean a lot.

 

[sr edler]

You seem to be conflating the statement "drawing talent from across the world" with something more akin to "drawing talent from the entire world". Of course hockey doesn't deeply penetrate the culture of nation on earth the way a sport like soccer does, but the fact remains that there are currently players in the NHL from 18 countries. It may be a niche sport in a lot of these countries (eg. in Australia where Nathan Walker is from), but there is at least some footprint that leads to some people from that country being exposed to the sport (Australia even has a hockey league of its own) and having the opportunity to learn to play the sport (and modern travel also makes it possible for these people to have access to high-end training in junior systems like the CHL and its feeder leagues). In 1920 for comparison, the NHL had players from merely 3 nationalities: Canada the UK and the US and of that, over 90% were Canadian. Hockey will always remain a niche sport in any country where there isn't freezing weather in winter, just due to the fact that the environment makes it way more likely that people there looking to try a new sport will go out in the warm weather and play another sport instead of seeking out the nearest ice rink (which may not be close), but despite this, it would be a mistake to underestimate how much further Ice hockey's global reach has expanded in the past century. Now if you want to compare hockey's footprint in 2020 with hockey's footprint in 1980 or 1990 then that is a different discussion. However I specifically say 1920 in the post you are responding to.

Semantics aside, one fringy NHL player from Australia who played juniors in Europe doesn't make ice hockey a global sport. Fact still remains that:

Asia, population: 4,5 billion | NHL players from Asia: 0
Africa, population: 1,2 billion | NHL players from Africa: 0
South America, population: 422 million | NHL players from South America: 0

So there you have 75% of the world population (6,1 out of 8 billion) on three major continents producing the whopping number of zero NHL players.

Yeah, I know they play hockey in Korea and Japan, and that's great, but I'm not entirely sure how it makes the NHL in 2020–21 a better league than NHL in 1995–96? I'm dying of curiosity here.

When the Iron Curtain fell and all the Soviet and Czech players could play in the NHL (Hasek, Jagr, Mogilny, Fedorov, Bure, et cetera) in the 90s, of course that made the league better (the league, not necessarily the sport, at least not to the same degree) to a certain degree. But that's because the Soviets and the Czechs already were very, very good. They didn't magically turn great overnight just because they were given the opportunity to play in the NHL. They already were serious and proven top notch hockey nations. There you have something tangible you can point at, regarding top competition and influx. Korea, Japan and Israel in hockey isn't top competition and they aren't producing any NHL players in 2020–21.

 

[MakeTheGoalsLarger]

The stand up goalie didn't play stand up because he thought it was cool. He did because the equipment was heavy and his knees would have been mush by the end of the 3rd because there was no cushion for them. They would have gladly adopted a different style earlier had it been possible.

The NHL screwed the game by allowing those pads. People think the size is the problem, but it's how those pads are made: they allow a lazy drop on your knees style which isn't fun to watch yet is very effective. The pads are supposed to provide protection from pucks , not protection from intentionally dropping on your knees.

They NHL also screwed the game by allowing hockey sticks which operate like catapults.



On topic, yeah of course the overall skill level is better. People learn from their predecessors. Especially with Youtube and other internet stuff.

 

[SotasicA]

I think today's league is a level or two below the NHL in the 80's/90's.

 

[Tawnos]

There’s far more talent in the league now, but it’s not the top offensive players. There’s more depth. There are also more quality defensively players (forward and defense) than there was back then. Part of that is talent and part of it is coaching. This is the reason why more talent doesn’t equate to more goals and some would say an inferior product.

The league is pulling from the widest pool of talent in its history because more people play hockey than ever. It doesn’t matter if these people are a larger or smaller percentage of the population. All that matters is that there are more of them than before. This is partially the result of expansion. I’ve always thought it takes a generation to start seeing the fruits of expansion in terms of leaguewide talent. Well, it’s now 30 years since the 90s expansions and relocations began.

All the stuff about diet and fitness are beside the point.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The NHL screwed the game by allowing those pads. People think the size is the problem, but it's how those pads are made: they allow a lazy drop on your knees style which isn't fun to watch yet is very effective. The pads are supposed to provide protection from pucks , not protection from intentionally dropping on your knees.

They NHL also screwed the game by allowing hockey sticks which operate like catapults.

The problem is, how do you say no to safety equipment? The league’s between a rock and a hard place when it comes to goalie gear. Realistically they can’t tell goalies to deliberately be injured for entertainment value. Ken Dryden had some good ideas about eliminating certain aspects of pad movement, but that’s really marginal compared to getting rid of thigh rises and landing gear.

Totally agree about sticks... in 20/20 hindsight, they’d have been better off taking the MLB route and ruling that sticks can only be made of natural wood... but then the shooters are losing an arms race against the goalies with their profly pads.

The league is pulling from the widest pool of talent in its history because more people play hockey than ever. It doesn’t matter if these people are a larger or smaller percentage of the population. All that matters is that there are more of them than before.

This just isn’t true. To the extent that hockey has expanded into new regions, it has regressed in others, and those new regions are not actually sources of prospective talent for the NHL. The

In North America the junior-aged development infrastructure simply doesn’t exist south of maybe PA/OH, and even in the traditional heartlands access to quality development has become much, much more exclusive than ever before. That’s a net loss in the pool of prospects. In Europe, gains in places like Switzerland and Denmark have been offset by the regression of the former Czechoslovakia. And I’ve never heard anyone dare to suggest that Russia’s hockey development infrastructure is today what it was in 1980.

 

[Tawnos]

This just isn’t true. To the extent that hockey has expanded into new regions, it has regressed in others, and those new regions are not actually sources of prospective talent for the NHL. The

In North America the junior-aged development infrastructure simply doesn’t exist south of maybe PA/OH, and even in the traditional heartlands access to quality development has become much, much more exclusive than ever before. That’s a net loss in the pool of prospects. In Europe, gains in places like Switzerland and Denmark have been offset by the regression of the former Czechoslovakia. And I’ve never heard anyone dare to suggest that Russia’s hockey development infrastructure is today what it was in 1980.

Eh, it's going to take a lot of convincing to get me to agree that development infrastructure is the most important, or even a marginally important, piece of this story. The more people that play hockey in more place at a young age, the wider of a talent pool you're going to have. Auston Matthews didn't need a robust local development infrastructure in Arizona to be recruited by the USNTDP. Ryan Johnson didn't need a robust local development infrastructure in southern California to be recruited by a USHL team. Cross Hanas didn't need a robust local development infrastructure in Texas to be recruited by a WHL team. For kids that are talented enough to potentially make the NHL, there are going to be routes to get them the quality of development they need. Obviously, not every family is going to want to take those routes, but they're going to exist.

Hockey participation in the US has grown more in the last 20 years than the entire IIHF registered populations in a lot of those European countries. That alone is going to grow the talent pool.

Regarding Russia, it's a little hard to tell where things stand. I'm not going to try to claim it's better than it was in 1980, but I will say that the number of Russians coming over to the NHL has gone down because of the very existence of the KHL. It's hard to compare where things stand with their talent pool. However, in my opinion, the viability of the KHL as the second best league in the world proves that the talent pool is wider than its ever been.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Eh, it's going to take a lot of convincing to get me to agree that development infrastructure is the most important, or even a marginally important, piece of this story.

That’s just a baffling stance to me. Development infrastructure is THE piece of the puzzle that matters most. Ice time is the single greatest determinant of a player’s development. Coaching. High levels of competition. Actually being scouted at some point. Without those pieces in place, all the athletic talent in the world, all the fan interest, it gets us nowhere. Player development is what converts the raw material into something useful. At least for now, the development infrastructure in the American South is inferior to what it was in Alberta in 1930.

Having lots of players with no development infrastructure is like having a cart full of groceries with no kitchen. You’ll get by, but the results won’t be what they could be.

Auston Matthews didn't need a robust local development infrastructure in Arizona to be recruited by the USNTDP. Ryan Johnson didn't need a robust local development infrastructure in southern California to be recruited by a USHL team. Cross Hanas didn't need a robust local development infrastructure in Texas to be recruited by a WHL team. For kids that are talented enough to potentially make the NHL, there are going to be routes to get them the quality of development they need. Obviously, not every family is going to want to take those routes, but they're going to exist.

Look more closely at those players’ stories. Auston Matthews is the case study in how southern expansion pays off with a lottery-level talent. What did it take for that to happen? He routinely flew not just cross-country but to Ukraine as a kid to play in youth tournaments, which is how he got the exposure to be considered a top NHL prospect. That kind of financial investment in a kid’s sports path is a total pipe dream for a working class family. It’s great that he made it, but imagine how many families are shut out of the pipeline by simply even having the realistic option to do that.

Hockey participation in the US has grown more in the last 20 years than the entire IIHF registered populations in a lot of those European countries. That alone is going to grow the talent pool.

And the vast majority of that growth is not actually inside the NHL’s talent pipeline. That’s the fundamental issue with using registration (an administrative improvement) as a substitute for actual pipeline development.

Regarding Russia, it's a little hard to tell where things stand. I'm not going to try to claim it's better than it was in 1980, but I will say that the number of Russians coming over to the NHL has gone down because of the very existence of the KHL. It's hard to compare where things stand with their talent pool. However, in my opinion, the viability of the KHL as the second best league in the world proves that the talent pool is wider than its ever been.

Yeah, I didn’t want to get into this part because it’s a moving target year-by-year and gets really granular. But broadly speaking, I think it’s fair to say that Russian pro hockey was practically off-line from around 1992 to 2005 or so. Since then, Europe as a whole has been getting stronger to the point that we see very legit NHL’ers like Radulov and Dadonov simply walk away and play elsewhere, and lesser prospects opt for Sweden or Finland rather than the NA development leagues. This is hard to track but broadly, the NHL is seeing more talent leech out to Europe than in say 1995 or 2000.

 

[Tawnos]

That’s just a baffling stance to me. Development infrastructure is THE piece of the puzzle that matters most. Ice time is the single greatest determinant of a player’s development. Coaching. High levels of competition. Actually being scouted at some point. Without those pieces in place, all the athletic talent in the world, all the fan interest, it gets us nowhere. Player development is what converts the raw material into something useful. At least for now, the development infrastructure in the American South is inferior to what it was in Alberta in 1930.

Having lots of players with no development infrastructure is like having a cart full of groceries with no kitchen. You’ll get by, but the results won’t be what they could be.




Look more closely at those players’ stories. Auston Matthews is the case study in how southern expansion pays off with a lottery-level talent. What did it take for that to happen? He routinely flew not just cross-country but to Ukraine as a kid to play in youth tournaments, which is how he got the exposure to be considered a top NHL prospect. That kind of financial investment in a kid’s sports path is a total pipe dream for a working class family. It’s great that he made it, but imagine how many families are shut out of the pipeline by simply even having the realistic option to do that.



And the vast majority of that growth is not actually inside the NHL’s talent pipeline. That’s the fundamental issue with using registration (an administrative improvement) as a substitute for actual pipeline development.



Yeah, I didn’t want to get into this part because it’s a moving target year-by-year and gets really granular. But broadly speaking, I think it’s fair to say that Russian pro hockey was practically off-line from around 1992 to 2005 or so. Since then, Europe as a whole has been getting stronger to the point that we see very legit NHL’ers like Radulov and Dadonov simply walk away and play elsewhere, and lesser prospects opt for Sweden or Finland rather than the NA development leagues. This is hard to track but broadly, the NHL is seeing more talent leech out to Europe than in say 1995 or 2000.

It doesn't matter at all what things could be. Development infrastructure can only take advantage of the existing talent pool, so how much good development infrastructure there is doesn't really factor into the equation here. That's an "all things being equal" piece of criteria. If you take a talent pool of 500,000 people and fill it into the existing development infrastructure, you're going to generate more quality players than if the talent pool was 400,000 people going into the same infrastructure. My point is that, in this scenario, we're in the 500,000 spot and not the 400,000 spot.

You're talking about ways it could improve and I don't disagree with any of it, but I would point out that even with the challenges you've mentioned, it's still better in the US today than it was 20 years ago. The USNTDP is better than it's ever been. The USHL is a more viable path for 16+ pre-college players than it's ever been. These things certainly have not gone backwards.

Btw, I looked more closely at the numbers, and since 05-06 the number of boys under 18 registered in USA has increased by 22,000. 8.5%. Not an increase more than IIHF registration in some European countries. I only went back to 05-06 because that's when USA Hockey changed it's age groups.

 

[Iapyi]

It's just Ferraro trying to fill dead-air with a hot take.

Not only has the same play been attempted many times, but guys actually score on it.

Ferraro is atrocious at his job. He rattles on so much he actually overlaps himself with his useless blather.

 

[Mordoch]

I think today's league is a level or two below the NHL in the 80's/90's.

It should be emphasized again this claim is pretty crazy if you are talking about the 1980s and overall talent.

Unless someone can show what I have found on this is wrong, contrary to some claims in this thread the the amount of European talent was very limited comparatively during the 1980s.

If we were all sitting in a living room in 1970 and someone asked the question, “How many Europeans have played in the NHL?” The answer would be very easy: two. Ulf Sterner and Jaroslav Jiřík. They were the only European-trained hockey players to make it to the NHL by the start of that decade. And although Sterner and Jiřík were great players in Europe, they had marginal impact as NHLers.

By January 1, 1980, that number was almost 50. By 1990, it had doubled to about 100. But by the turn of the century, more than 500 Europeans had gone on to play in the NHL.

The rise of Europeans in the NHL

In other words only about 50 new European players joined the NHL during the entire 1980s, while 400 more European players had played in the NHL by 2000 which is a very dramatic difference. The numbers have gone up since then, and while there were more teams and effective NHL "slots" starting with the 1998 expansion than earlier, you still have Europeans being an even greater factor in the NHL talent pool today.

Basically during the 1980s European players were still very much the exception with mostly a few players perceived as being exceptionally talented enough for NHL teams to pursue them. The "old boys" network basically making the decisions for the NHL assumed most European players were "too soft" and would not be able to make the transition to the NHL playing style. This shift considerably in the 1990s along with the influx of former Soviet talent becoming available and eventually pursued. (Although looking over the details the shift took a portion of the 1990s, so the earlier years you still did not have the effective available talent pool being used that you did later on.)

There was a big difference between the 1990s and the 1980s, and you are really missing most of the basics of the realities of the talent pools from both eras if you fail to recognize this.

 

[MakeTheGoalsLarger]

The problem is, how do you say no to safety equipment? The league’s between a rock and a hard place when it comes to goalie gear. Realistically they can’t tell goalies to deliberately be injured for entertainment value. Ken Dryden had some good ideas about eliminating certain aspects of pad movement, but that’s really marginal compared to getting rid of thigh rises and landing gear.

landing gear is the problem. without it I'm not sure high rises even exist.

Totally agree about sticks... in 20/20 hindsight, they’d have been better off taking the MLB route and ruling that sticks can only be made of natural wood... but then the shooters are losing an arms race against the goalies with their profly pads.

I hesitated talking about baseball and ultimately chose not to, but yeah I had the same point in mind about the baseball bats.

Sometimes the excuse I hear from goalies justify their equipment is that they need more protection because shots are harder today.Forbidding both landing gear and composite sticks would make the game better , but of course it will never happen.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

LOL. It's recency bias to sell the sport. I mean Jesus fornicating Christ...

Good god that goaltending

 

[Machinehead]

Most professional mediums improve or evolve over time.

6'10"+ basketball players move like normal guys now. Like half of the 5-star wrestling matches are in the last decade. When Jimi Hendrix was playing guitar, many of the modern techniques hadn't even been invented yet.

You have to look at how guys compared to their peers and how they innovated.

That's why I think Orr might have a case for #2 all-time. He scored 64 points his third year, followed by 100+ for six consecutive seasons. Before that, the record was 59, a mark that gets hit casually today. He basically invented offensive defensemen but it also peaked with him.

 

[ItWasJustified]

Good god that goaltending

90's vs modern goalie equipment: