We're going to find out in a year or two.
My money is on it being more of the latter than the former.
We're going to find out the same thing about another player pretty soon, too. I think there will be mixed opinions on that one.
Sorry but Shore is #2 and Bourque is #3.
They can battle for #4.
What do you have against Harvey?
Well, that's just an absurd way to look at things. In order for this to make sense you need to ignore how much hockey has grown worldwide and assume the NHL has been in a vacuum since the O6 other than this one point of yours (AST voting).
- O6 is comprised almost entirely of the best Canadians when the country has 21,000,000.
- Current Era is comprised of the best hockey players from all over the world including Canada with approximately 35,000,000.
I don't know how anyone can say what you're stating while knowing the above. It's not like people suddenly stopped knowing how to play hockey and the sport digressed either. In fact, hockey has evolved and the athletes are better than ever.
You are right; let me try to expand on it a bit.
It's true that if you assume the population goes up by about 67%, and the same percentage of people who play hockey stays constant, then being the 200th-best player is more impressive in a higher population than in a lower one.
I think the competition level of the league can often be represented by the gap that exists between the best players and the worst. If we just use Canada as an example, it can be illustrated roughly, and it does "jive" with what we've observed over the last 50 years.
1967: 120 players, practically all Canadian. Therefore the 120th-best Canadian player was what you needed to be, to get in the NHL. let's use your 21,000,000 figure for population since I am not trying to be precise and I assume you checked somewhere.
1970: 250 players, more or less all Canadian. Therefore, you could be the 250th-best Canadian player and be in the NHL. The population had increased in these years, but not anywhere close to the rate at which the number of spots had grown. therefore, the standard for making the NHL had gotten lower, and the league suffered.
1978: the height of the watering down of top-level hockey. 18 NHL teams and a dozen in the WHA. The NHL had room for 400 full-time players or so. Let's say 375 were Canadian. In addition to that, probably a good 100 of those were playing in the WHA. It's likely that the 475th-best Canadian player was able to make the NHL at this time. Population had increased, probably to 24M, obviously not anywhere near the 4X rate that the number of NHL jobs available for Canadians had increased. the NHL's competition level was at its worst since WW2.
1989: the exact numbers have been posted here before, so I'm being approximate. Let's say NHL was about 85% Canadian at this time. Population was about 27M. At this point, using the same math and logic as above, roughly the best 400 Canadians could make the NHL. So instead of having to be just the 475th-best of 22M, you had to be about the 400th-best of 27M. It was now about 35% more "impressive" to just make the NHL than it was a decade before.
fast forward to the present day. There are about 700 NHL players and it's about 55% Canadian, last I checked. There are now 35M Canadians. Again, only about 400 can make it, the same number as 20 years ago. It's now about 40% more "impressive" to get to the NHL than 20 years ago. Even though more teams has meant more jobs, there are many more people competing for them, not just in Canada, but all over the world.
let's go back to 1997 and see whether the standard for a replacement-level NHL player has gotten better or worse:
120/21M
400/35M
There are 67% more Canadians, but 3.3X as many of them can make the NHL. Therefore, it is safe to say that, (assuming percentages of people playing hockey and advancing to levels that feed the top leagues has been relatively constant, and that is a big if), just being in the NHL today is not as impressive a feat as it was 50 years ago. The gap between the best players and the worst in the NHL was probably at an all-time low in 1967, right before the big expansion.
If the NHL remains at 30 teams, and 55% Canadian, and the same caveat about hockey players in the country applies, Canada's population would have to get to 69M to match how tough it was to make the NHL in 1967.
