NHL "eras"

[BraveCanadian]

Around here the word "era" is thrown around quite regularly as support or a tear down of a player.

I'm just trying to stir up some thoughts here so there will be as many questions as points in this post. I'm trying to get some responses to get a better handle on this issue because it has been in the back of my mind a while.

I've been in discussions where "era" has been brought up as a supposedly obvious fact when the players best seasons or even the large majority of their careers overlap. Do we really think the game changed a great deal fundamentally between 96 and 98, for example? Average scoring says it did but did it really? I know that watching it during that time I didn't notice a lot of difference visually. The numbers were down for some reason but I think the answer is more complicated than scoring was "harder" than it was in 96.

Were the early 80s a correction too far towards offense in comparison to pre-expansion and the mid to late 90s an over correction towards defense?

It has been bugging me for a little while and I just want to try and get some extra brain power behind trying to figure it out.

I see the argument both ways: when average scoring in the league is up, there are more goals being scored on average so in theory it is easier to score.

The problem that I have with that argument is that while it may be true on average, what about the players/teams that are markedly above or below average? Why should the average used in comparison apply the same to a player of the 84 Devils as it does to the 84 Oilers? Or the 71 Bruins vs. the 84 Devils in a comparison across time? A simple and much more correct solution might be a weighted average that compares how ones team did in comparison to the league average, for example. However, that still makes for a very difficult time comparing across seasons because of expansion, rule changes, the relative talent available etc.

For example, I've been in some long winded discussions lately regarding the 70s vs. the 80s and the relative talent levels during those times. On a simplistic goal differential basis, the good 70s teams were better than the good 80s teams and at the same time the bad 70s teams were worse than the bad 80s ones (on average). How does this affect how we look at the great 70s teams and players vs. the players in the 80s who were supposedly inflated due to scoring? So many questions..

In a case like 96 being an average scoring of 6.29 goals per game and 98 being an average of 5.28 goals per game. I would make the assumption that the league included by and large the same players. How can it be that much easer or harder to score with the same talent? Are we really claiming that coaching and team systems got that much better in 2 years? Or was it simple a case of the league not enforcing the rules and allowing the wrestling matches of the clutch and grab go on?

Assuming that we can even come up with a reasonable way of doing so, how do we quantify this effect in a way that is fair for players on teams on the extremes in same season and across time?

I know this was a ramble but I'm curious to hear people's thoughts.

Click to read more...

 

[tarheelhockey]

In a case like 96 being an average scoring of 6.29 goals per game and 98 being an average of 5.28 goals per game. I would make the assumption that the league included by and large the same players. How can it be that much easer or harder to score with the same talent? Are we really claiming that coaching and team systems got that much better in 2 years? Or was it simple a case of the league not enforcing the rules and allowing the wrestling matches of the clutch and grab go on?

The bolded part is the correct explanation. I can barely stand to watch games from that period anymore because I spend the whole time outraged at things I'm now conditioned to think of as penalties (like growing up with HS basketball and then watching an NBA game).

It wasn't so much that scoring was harder, as defense got a lot easier. By 98 we were at a point that defensemen could pretty much just tie up any player except the puck carrier, who had to bully toward the net and hope for a rebound.

The other big factor was the passing away of stand-up goalies. Guys like Moog and Hextall retired around then, and were replaced by hulking butterfliers.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The fact that scoring pummetes after 1996 can be summarized in two words: Florida Panthers. The second year expansion team reached the finals with very little offensive talent, using a conservative form of the neutral zone trap.

When nj won the cup in 95, they had a fair bit of offense still, but Florida showed that any team could keep it close using a defensive system.

This was the era when unrestricted free agency allowed the rich teams to buy up all the most expensive players - all the best offensive talent, so the majority of teams adopted the nj / Florida style.

I think similar copycat effects have been at the root of trends in scorin and they are often rapid. The success of Tommy ivan's wings in the 50s led to a pretty big increase in leaguewide scoring.

I wasn't around in the late 70s, but I think that defensemen who grew up watching Bobby Orr and coaches influenced by the European possession game combined with the Gretzky influence to lead to teams playing much more offensively.

 

[overg]

I can't speak to anything earlier than 1990, but I can offer my observation to this question

Are we really claiming that coaching and team systems got that much better in 2 years? Or was it simple a case of the league not enforcing the rules and allowing the wrestling matches of the clutch and grab go on?

My answer is, both. In the '95 and '96 Cup finals, the Devils and Panthers showed good teams and bad teams (respectively) how effective strong team defense could be. The Devils obliterated the more talented Red Wings. And the Panthers, a still very young expansion team, made it to the Cup finals. So after those two years you had good teams like Detroit, Dallas, New Jersey, and Colorado all playing very strong two way games. And you had every scrub team in the league playing the trap. So I *do* think coaching and team systems got that much better. Almost every team in the league was playing the trap, or at the very least suddenly placing way more emphasis on defensive play.

At the same time that was happening, clutch and grab became an infectious disease. With every skater on the ice suddenly being asked to play defense, the "line" of what was legal or legal got pushed further and further into "everything goes." Players started hooking, holding, and interfering on every shift. The officials were put in a tough spot, because they literally would have been calling a penalty every shift of the game if they started calling that stuff. But every time they buried the whistle they just encouraged more hooking, holding and interference.

The NHL made several attempts to actually get the refs to call everything, but the first couple "zero tolerance" efforts failed after just a couple of months of trying. It was only after the last lockout where the NHL put its foot down and ordered the refs to call everything from game 1 of the regular season until the final game of the playoffs.

So scoring remains lower today than it was in the 80's and early 90's because team defense is still considered critical (well, except for by the Capitals), but it's increased over the dead puck era due to the crackdown on the clutch and grab.

 

[greatgazoo]

My eras:

Post Lockout (2005-present)
Trap Era (1995-lockout)
Post Expansion (1967-94)
Original 6 (1942-Expansion)
Forward Pass Era (1929-42)
Pre-evolution Era (prior to the forward pass, icing & off-side rules, etc)

 

[seventieslord]

How can it be that much easer or harder to score with the same talent? Are we really claiming that coaching and team systems got that much better in 2 years?

Absolutely. Not necessarily better, but different at least.

 

[VanIslander]

The fact that scoring pummetes after 1996 can be summarized in two words: Florida Panthers. The second year expansion team reached the finals with very little offensive talent, using a conservative form of the neutral zone trap.

When nj won the cup in 95, they had a fair bit of offense still, but Florida showed that any team could keep it close using a defensive system.

No. When the Devils dominantly swept the Red Wings in the Stanley Cup Final I distinctly recall a sports announcer saying that this changes everything, that the Devils have shown a new way to win, a defensive-minded system that was sure to be emulated. It really was a momentous time. The Panthers then copied it. At most one could sat the Panthers took it farther, more extreme. But have no doubt, the Devils played hockey very differently and the hockey world took notice.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No. When the Devils dominantly swept the Red Wings in the Stanley Cup Final I distinctly recall a sports announcer saying that this changes everything, that the Devils have shown a new way to win, a defensive-minded system that was sure to be emulated. It really was a momentous time. The Panthers then copied it. At most one could sat the Panthers took it farther, more extreme. But have no doubt, the Devils played hockey very differently and the hockey world took notice.

yes, the devils were the first modern team to use such a conservative version of the trap. But leaguewide scoring actually went up in 95-96. The panthers definitely copied the devils. Buy it wasn't until 96-97 that you had a large majority of teams playing defense first and virtually every team trap with the lead.

 

[canucks4ever]

In my opinion the 1997-98 season was the real start of the deadpuck era. In 1997, 6 players were on pace to score over 1.30 ppg. That is still alot.

 

[jkrx]

in the 50s the league GPG was around 5.00-5.50 ('59 - 5.80), '97 was 5.80 so they still scored but people had just experienced the 80-96 when remarkable offensive numbers and plays were made. The dead puck era just showed the ugly side of hockey where big was prefered to talented.

 

[Dissonance]

No. When the Devils dominantly swept the Red Wings in the Stanley Cup Final I distinctly recall a sports announcer saying that this changes everything, that the Devils have shown a new way to win, a defensive-minded system that was sure to be emulated. It really was a momentous time. The Panthers then copied it. At most one could sat the Panthers took it farther, more extreme. But have no doubt, the Devils played hockey very differently and the hockey world took notice.

I'd say the shift was more gradual than that. The NHL had been fretting about the rise in obstruction as far back as the late '80s. Prior to the 1992-93 season there was a big move to crack down on clutching and grabbing. That's partly why the season was so high-scoring. During the preseason that year, something like double the usual number of penalties were called and players paid attention. There was an article from the time where Rod Langway was *****ing about the crackdown and saying he basically didn't know how to play defense anymore in this new era.

But then the refs let up for the '93 playoffs and the Canadiens showed that you could win championships with smothering defense. The next season was even more obstruction-heavy, and things got particularly bad in the lockout-shortened year, even before the Devils won the Cup--the league had to declare yet another big crackdown at the start of the playoffs, although it didn't last long. But GMs like Cliff Fletcher and Glen Sather were complaining about clutching and grabbing all year.

The 1995-96 season started with yet another half-hearted crackdown, but that was still an obstruction-heavy year that happened to feature a few absurdly talented, high-scoring teams like the Avs and Pens (overall scoring was even lower than in the 1994 season). Most other teams were shifting to defense first. Even before the Devils and Panthers trapped their way to the finals, the league was moving pretty naturally toward a lower-scoring, clutch-and-grab era. Obstruction, better defensive systems, talent dilution thanks to expansion, goalie-pad inflation. They just all reached a climax in the late '90s. I wouldn't say it was any one big event.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I tend to agree that there are several factors at play when scoring goes up as well as when scoring goes down.

That is why I have really pushed back on the notion of using average scoring as the be all and end all method to compare players (adjusted stats).

There are so many factors to consider even within a few years (like the 90s) let alone across decades.

 

[seventieslord]

I tend to agree that there are several factors at play when scoring goes up as well as when scoring goes down.

That is why I have really pushed back on the notion of using average scoring as the be all and end all method to compare players (adjusted stats).

There are so many factors to consider even within a few years (like the 90s) let alone across decades.

It doesn't even really matter why scoring goes down. It matters that it does. If scoring goes down by 20%, and there are just as many wins up for grabs in a season, then a goal just became 20% more valuable. It's simple supply and demand.

 

[BostonAJ]

It doesn't even really matter why scoring goes down. It matters that it does. If scoring goes down by 20%, and there are just as many wins up for grabs in a season, then a goal just became 20% more valuable. It's simple supply and demand.

I think it matters in the sense of context. Fans often ask how Gretzky would fare in another era. His and Mike Bossy's styles were perfect for the early-mid 80s, Chris Pronger and Derian Hatcher were great for the clutch and grab era, Ovechkin seems designed for today's era (super high-speed, less hooking and grabbing). Jason Allison was a star player in the NHL until the league made skating a requirement again. It also might not have been a coincidence that we saw all those power forwards come into prominence during the early 90s.

Perhaps league style (coaching, rules) significantly influences the types of stars during any era. Perhaps even year to year. Is it possible that that some players are very fortunate to have the right birth year, and some are not?

 

[MS]

My eras:

Post Lockout (2005-present)
Trap Era (1995-lockout)
Post Expansion (1967-94)
Original 6 (1942-Expansion)
Forward Pass Era (1929-42)
Pre-evolution Era (prior to the forward pass, icing & off-side rules, etc)

I'm pretty close to you on that :

1930-1942 - forward pass era. First era of the sport in it's modern form.

1942-1945 - WW2 era of extreme disparity in talent.

1945-1967 - Original 6 era.

1967-1972 - Pseudo-Original 6 era ... era of growth and expansion where scoring increased significantly but the Original 6 teams, playing in their own conference, still dominated. Odd period as it was basically the O6 in one conference and a glorified AHL in the other.

1972-1979 - Garbage era. WHA, over-expansion, goon hockey, an incredible lack of parity, brutal goalies, and the worst on-ice product the NHL has ever produced. And Bobby Orr and Guy Lafleur skating around everyone like pylons. The inevitable result of going from 6 top-level teams to 30 in 5 years.

1979-1994 - offensive era. High-scoring, free flowing, hockey. Integration of Europeans, domination of Gretzky, development of the goaltending position. Development of short shifts and a massive improvement in the overall quality/pace of the sport.

1994-2004 - Dead Puck Era. Trap hockey, focus on size, systems, defensive play. Lowest-scoring era in 5 decades. Salaries and free agency begin to dominate the sport after never being a concern before.

2005-present - Post-Lockout Era. Scoring back up, introduction of shootouts, introduction of salary cap.

_________

And of course, as people above are arguing, these things never happen overnight and some things cross eras, but for me those would be the obvious groupings.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm pretty close to you on that :

1930-1942 - forward pass era. First era of the sport in it's modern form.

1942-1945 - WW2 era of extreme disparity in talent.

1945-1967 - Original 6 era.

1967-1972 - Pseudo-Original 6 era ... era of growth and expansion where scoring increased significantly but the Original 6 teams, playing in their own conference, still dominated. Odd period as it was basically the O6 in one conference and a glorified AHL in the other.

1972-1979 - Garbage era. WHA, over-expansion, goon hockey, an incredible lack of parity, brutal goalies, and the worst on-ice product the NHL has ever produced. And Bobby Orr and Guy Lafleur skating around everyone like pylons. The inevitable result of going from 6 top-level teams to 30 in 5 years.

1979-1994 - offensive era. High-scoring, free flowing, hockey. Integration of Europeans, domination of Gretzky, development of the goaltending position. Development of short shifts and a massive improvement in the overall quality/pace of the sport.

1994-2004 - Dead Puck Era. Trap hockey, focus on size, systems, defensive play. Lowest-scoring era in 5 decades. Salaries and free agency begin to dominate the sport after never being a concern before.

2005-present - Post-Lockout Era. Scoring back up, introduction of shootouts, introduction of salary cap.

_________

And of course, as people above are arguing, these things never happen overnight and some things cross eras, but for me those would be the obvious groupings.

I agree with your era distinctions, though I would personally divide the Original 6 era into two sub-eras, probably somewhere in the early to mid 50s, to represent the talent pool getting back up to snuff after the war. IMO, there is a huge difference between the depth between the late 40s and early 60s.

Small nitpick - I do think the real dead puck era started in 96-97 - the early-mid 90s were sort of a transition period. But then, you can also just call it "the era between the lockouts," which was mostly dead puck and tended to have the same players and teams dominating the league.

 

[Zil]

The 1995-96 season started with yet another half-hearted crackdown, but that was still an obstruction-heavy year that just happened to feature a small handful of absurdly talented, high-scoring teams like the Avs and Pens (overall scoring was even lower than in the 1994 season). Most other teams were shifting to defense first. Even before the Devils and Panthers made it to the finals, the league was moving pretty naturally toward a lower-scoring, clutch-and-grab era. Obstruction, better defensive systems, talent dilution thanks to expansion, goalie-pad inflation. They just all reached a climax in the late '90s. I wouldn't say it was any one big event.

I'm inclined to think something tipped scoring upward, league-wide in 95-96. Just look at the Rangers. Messier had 99 points and Leetch had 85 points. Those are the highest totals either guy had put up since 91-92 and that 96 team was not really a cup contender. Verbeek put up 82 points in only 69 games, which was the best ppg rate he had in his entire career.

 

[MS]

I agree with your era distinctions, though I would personally divide the Original 6 era into two sub-eras, probably somewhere in the early to mid 50s, to represent the talent pool getting back up to snuff after the war. IMO, there is a huge difference between the depth between the late 40s and early 60s.

Small nitpick - I do think the real dead puck era started in 96-97 - the early-mid 90s were sort of a transition period. But then, you can also just call it "the era between the lockouts," which was mostly dead puck and tended to have the same players and teams dominating the league.

In terms of scoring, yeah, the drop really hit in 1997. But NJ in 1995 and Florida in 1996 really set the stage by winning with a trapping style.

But to me the Dead Puck Era was more than just a drop in stats. It was just a crappy era for fans. Massive rises in salaries and ticket prices. Unrestricted free agency and holdouts. Canadian teams in trouble. Over-expansion to the sunbelt. And of course, low-scoring, boring games. And those issues fill that full period.

As for the O6 era, yeah there's a difference in play between the late '40s and the 1960s. I'd probably break it somewhere around 1951 or 1952, when most of the stars of the next 15 years (Howe, Beliveau, Bathgate, Harvey, Horton, Plante, Kelly, etc.) really started to hit their stride.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I'm inclined to think something tipped scoring upward, league-wide in 95-96. Just look at the Rangers. Messier had 99 points and Leetch had 85 points. Those are the highest totals either guy had put up since 91-92 and that 96 team was not really a cup contender. Verbeek put up 82 points in only 69 games, which was the best ppg rate he had in his entire career.

You are correct, there was an increase in power plays from the '95 to '96 season. The '96 level was about the same as in '92 and slightly less than the average from '92 to '94. However, power plays declined substantially in '97 and stayed at levels closer to the early-mid '80s than those of the late '80s and early '90s, until a brief resurgence for a season or two after the most recent lockout.

 

[BraveCanadian]

It doesn't even really matter why scoring goes down. It matters that it does. If scoring goes down by 20%, and there are just as many wins up for grabs in a season, then a goal just became 20% more valuable. It's simple supply and demand.

I disagree, especially when comparing teams/players from extremely good or bad teams.

I really don't see how it can be defended that the 84 Devils had the same "easy" scoring as the 84 Oilers. It is not simple. It is relative to team strength and competition strength. At least in my opinion.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I'm pretty close to you on that :

1930-1942 - forward pass era. First era of the sport in it's modern form.

1942-1945 - WW2 era of extreme disparity in talent.

1945-1967 - Original 6 era.

1967-1972 - Pseudo-Original 6 era ... era of growth and expansion where scoring increased significantly but the Original 6 teams, playing in their own conference, still dominated. Odd period as it was basically the O6 in one conference and a glorified AHL in the other.

1972-1979 - Garbage era. WHA, over-expansion, goon hockey, an incredible lack of parity, brutal goalies, and the worst on-ice product the NHL has ever produced. And Bobby Orr and Guy Lafleur skating around everyone like pylons. The inevitable result of going from 6 top-level teams to 30 in 5 years.

1979-1994 - offensive era. High-scoring, free flowing, hockey. Integration of Europeans, domination of Gretzky, development of the goaltending position. Development of short shifts and a massive improvement in the overall quality/pace of the sport.

1994-2004 - Dead Puck Era. Trap hockey, focus on size, systems, defensive play. Lowest-scoring era in 5 decades. Salaries and free agency begin to dominate the sport after never being a concern before.

2005-present - Post-Lockout Era. Scoring back up, introduction of shootouts, introduction of salary cap.

_________

And of course, as people above are arguing, these things never happen overnight and some things cross eras, but for me those would be the obvious groupings.

I mostly agree with these as the interesting breaks to look at the different "eras" but there is a lot of variation even within these breaks.

Also we say scoring is back up now and it is in comparison to the late 90s but no where near other periods of time in NHL history.

I'm kind of curious how we can even begin to compare teams and players across these times.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Red Line

My eras:

Post Lockout (2005-present)
Trap Era (1995-lockout)
Post Expansion (1967-94)
Original 6 (1942-Expansion)
Forward Pass Era (1929-42)
Pre-evolution Era (prior to the forward pass, icing & off-side rules, etc)

You have to adjust somewhat. You have to account for the Red Line being introduced at the start of the 1943-44 season - introduced the transition game and the modern defenseman, arrival of Kelly Harvey, Gadsby within five seasons with others following. Also the introduction of the "breakaway" winger.

One day people will finally appreciate how the Red Line changed the game.

What you refer to as the trap era should be expanded to include the left wing lock,goalie equipment and various European influences.

 

[seventieslord]

I think it matters in the sense of context. Fans often ask how Gretzky would fare in another era. His and Mike Bossy's styles were perfect for the early-mid 80s, Chris Pronger and Derian Hatcher were great for the clutch and grab era, Ovechkin seems designed for today's era (super high-speed, less hooking and grabbing). Jason Allison was a star player in the NHL until the league made skating a requirement again. It also might not have been a coincidence that we saw all those power forwards come into prominence during the early 90s.

Perhaps league style (coaching, rules) significantly influences the types of stars during any era. Perhaps even year to year. Is it possible that that some players are very fortunate to have the right birth year, and some are not?

Yes, it's possible. But the very best will find a way to adapt.

 

[seventieslord]

I disagree, especially when comparing teams/players from extremely good or bad teams.

I really don't see how it can be defended that the 84 Devils had the same "easy" scoring as the 84 Oilers. It is not simple. It is relative to team strength and competition strength. At least in my opinion.

Doesn't matter if you disagree, it's a fact, simple supply and demand.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think it matters in the sense of context. Fans often ask how Gretzky would fare in another era. His and Mike Bossy's styles were perfect for the early-mid 80s, Chris Pronger and Derian Hatcher were great for the clutch and grab era, Ovechkin seems designed for today's era (super high-speed, less hooking and grabbing). Jason Allison was a star player in the NHL until the league made skating a requirement again. It also might not have been a coincidence that we saw all those power forwards come into prominence during the early 90s.

Perhaps league style (coaching, rules) significantly influences the types of stars during any era. Perhaps even year to year. Is it possible that that some players are very fortunate to have the right birth year, and some are not?

Its pretty obvious just from the examples that you have brought up that in some cases a players style of play or physical attributes enhance his performance under certain league conditions.

I do think that the greatest players would still be great in any era but there is a caveat to that as well. For example a Gretzky would be a fantastic scorer in any era in my opinion.

Would he score 200 points playing now or in the 60s? No. So again even those that have the ability to excel under any condition would still be affected.