NHL "eras"

[BraveCanadian]

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

You're entitled to your simplistic approach, but I think a nuanced one would be much more correct.

Even if scoring is down 20% as in your example, and supposedly a goal is therefore 20% more valuable (correct mathematically but kind of shaky on an actual situational basis).. that still doesn't mean that if you are comparing 1970 to 1990 that the average scoring level determines how difficult or how easy it was for a particular player to score in relation to his peers or in the comparison.

It also still doesn't mean that the average scoring level for the league determines how valuable or difficult a goal scored by a player of the 84 Devils is equal to one scored by a player on the 84 Oilers for example.

Or a more specific example:

Are you really going to try and tell me that it was as easy for Mike Bullard to hit 50 goals on the 84 Penguins who scored 254 goals (and had 16 wins on the season) as it was for Glenn Anderson to score 50 goals on the Oilers who scored 446? Are you really going to say that each of their goals was of the same average difficulty and value to their respective teams?

The point being that there is some wild variation between teams in some years and I don't think that the league average describes the conditions for all players as well as you may think.

 

[finchster]

The so called 'dead puck era' should only only apply to seasons between 1997-98 to the lockout imo. 94-95, 95-96 and 96-97 were as high scoring as the current game so I would exclude them from the so called 'dead puck era'.

 

[BraveCanadian]

The so called 'dead puck era' should only only apply to seasons between 1997-98 to the lockout imo. 94-95, 95-96 and 96-97 were as high scoring as the current game so I would exclude them from the so called 'dead puck era'.

Thats a good point.

Also 99-00 and 00-01 are not far off last year.

Really the dead puck was only a handful of seasons but I think in peoples minds it gets extended to be 94-95 to 03-04 when that would best be described by the clutch and grab style of play during that whole time.

 

[finchster]

Thats a good point.

Also 99-00 and 00-01 are not far off last year.

Really the dead puck was only a handful of seasons but I think in peoples minds it gets extended to be 94-95 to 03-04 when that would best be described by the clutch and grab style of play during that whole time.

It takes time for a new style to be implemented and many pointed out the origin of the 'dead puck era' was New Jersey winning the cup and Florida getting to the cup finals. After Florida got to the finals, goals per game dropped one goal per game in two seasons (95-96 6.29 gpg, 96-97 5.83gpg, 97-98 5.28gpg). 96-97 was more of a transition season as teams implemented this style of play and 97-98 is the true first season of the 'dead puck era'.

Another issue of era's is comparing the 'dead puck era' to post lockout hockey, like it is a different game all together. While the lockout provides a good break up of era's in there is only a 9% scoring difference between the two, and if you consider the first year after the lockout as a transition year (which I would) then there is only a 7% difference between the two.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I consider 95-04 an "era" because the same teams dominated (NJ, Detroit, Colorado, later Dallas) for the entire period between the lockouts. Also, many all-time greats had their primes coincide with the era between the lockouts - far more players had primes from 95-04 than "the 90s" or "the 00s."

True, the real dead puck era didn't start until a few years later, but it overlaps enough that I think the period between the lockouts can be considered its own era. Maybe with a few transitionary years towards the beginning.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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)

This is a good basic framework for "era's"and lets face it every year is a bit different and has its own dynamic.

The main point to keep in mind that each season is a bit different and when you go across time comparing different players the differences of the seasons need to be considered.

Each time period or era has dominant teams and weaker ones and it is quite conceivable and more likely that it is easier to dominate in an "easier" time period, season or era than a harder one.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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.

I agree here that the great ones would still find a way but not necessarily achieve the level of greatness that they achieved in their environment as we know them.

This applies to secondary tars as well like cam Neely for instance who was busy in the bars in Vancouver and the trade to Boston was perfect fro him.

Or what if Clark Gillies went to California Golden Seals 3rd in 74 and not the next pick to the Islanders where he was a perfect compliment to Bossy and Trottier.

Does anyone even think he had a 25% chance of having a HHOF career if he had gone to the Seals? time and place matters a lot to all but the exceptional players which are few and far in between.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Also can we call it what it really was, the Clutch and Grab era, the puck wasn't dead.

The dead ball era in baseball had to do with the doctoring of the ball, making it almost impossible to hit home runs, the puck in the NHL wasn't the reason for the decreased scoring in the 90's, style of play and clutch and grab was.

 

[finchster]

I consider 95-04 an "era" because the same teams dominated (NJ, Detroit, Colorado, later Dallas) for the entire period between the lockouts. Also, many all-time greats had their primes coincide with the era between the lockouts - far more players had primes from 95-04 than "the 90s" or "the 00s."

True, the real dead puck era didn't start until a few years later, but it overlaps enough that I think the period between the lockouts can be considered its own era. Maybe with a few transitionary years towards the beginning.

An era is defined however you want to, but I think it is important to be specific. I see many posters state something about X player who played in the 1990’s (take your pick, Bure, Selanne, Niedermayer Lidstrom etc) the general conception is their numbers were depressed because of the low scoring era which many believe was MOST of the 1990’s.

I think it is very important to be very specific as to what the so-called ‘dead puck era’ was and specifically point out the lower scoring seasons.

Hardyvan123, I also don’t like term “dead puck era†and it is probably a good idea to call it something else, problem is dead puck is more memorable than anything I can think of.

 

[BraveCanadian]

An era is defined however you want to, but I t.hink it is important to be specific. I see many posters state something about X player who played in the 1990’s (take your pick, Bure, Selanne, Niedermayer Lidstrom etc) the general conception is their numbers were depressed because of the low scoring era which many believe was MOST of the 1990’s.

Agreed this is one of my main quibbles with it. That sweeping argument many people make about certain times in the NHL without any context.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

95-96 and 05-06 are very comparable. Both years where they cracked down on clutching and grabbing, allowing for a lot more powerplays, hence the higher scoring. As mentioned, 96-97 was sort of a transition, on par scoring wise with every season since 05-06. Then of course 97-98, to 03-04, was the true 'dead puck era'.

I'm fairly sure even strength points were scored at a higher rate in 93-94 and 94-95 then in 95-96. Same with 96-97. I believe this had an effect on Lemieux to some extent, as his 93-94, and 96-97 years were not nearly as good as his 92-93, and 95-96. (For those who don't already know 92-93 was also so high scoring because of more powerplays, Teemu Selanne ring a bell?)

Same reason's why Gretzky did better in 93-94, 96-97, and 97-98, than he did in 92-93, and 95-96. Gretzky excelled more even strength.

 

[Dissonance]

I'm fairly sure even strength points were scored at a higher rate in 93-94 and 94-95 then in 95-96. Same with 96-97. I believe this had an effect on Lemieux to some extent, as his 93-94, and 96-97 years were not nearly as good as his 92-93, and 95-96. (For those who don't already know 92-93 was also so high scoring because of more powerplays, Teemu Selanne ring a bell?)

The shift in powerplays is an interesting topic. In the 1992-93 season, teams averaged 443 power-play opportunities over the course of a year. In '94 and '96, teams were still averaging about 410 power-play opportunities a season.

Then things drop dramatically. In 1996-97 teams got an average of 336 PP opportunities--more than two fewer per game--and it stayed below that average throughout the dead-puck era.

Then the lockout ends and in 2005-06 teams are getting an average of 480 PP opportunities—higher than that '93 season.

Of course, that doesn't explain all of the scoring drop. Power plays also seemed to get less effective during the dead-puck era. In '92-'93 teams were converting nearly 20% of their opportunities, whereas in '97-'98 it's down to 15%. Then, after the lockout, it's back up to 17%-19%.

----------

Interestingly, we're sort of regressing to the dead-puck era in terms of power-play chances. Last year, teams averaged 304 PP opportunities and scored an average of 56 power play goals over the course of the year. Compare that to '96-'97: 336 opportunities and 55 PP goals. And league-wide scoring in 2010 was actually lower than in '96-'97.

 

[BraveCanadian]

The shift in powerplays is an interesting topic. In the 1992-93 season, teams averaged 443 power-play opportunities over the course of a year. In '94 and '96, teams were still averaging about 410 power-play opportunities a season.

Then things drop dramatically. In 1996-97 teams got an average of 336 PP opportunities--more than two fewer per game--and it stayed below that average throughout the dead-puck era.

Then the lockout ends and in 2005-06 teams are getting an average of 480 PP opportunities—higher than that '93 season.

Of course, that doesn't explain all of the scoring drop. Power plays also seemed to get less effective during the dead-puck era. In '92-'93 teams were converting nearly 20% of their opportunities, whereas in '97-'98 it's down to 15%. Then, after the lockout, it's back up to 17%-19%.

----------

Interestingly, we're sort of regressing to the dead-puck era in terms of power-play chances. Last year, teams averaged 304 PP opportunities and scored an average of 56 power play goals over the course of the year. Compare that to '96-'97: 336 opportunities and 55 PP goals. And league-wide scoring in 2010 was actually lower than in '96-'97.

It might be interesting to see the levels of even strength scoring and powerplay scoring broken out over the seasons to reflect on how much of the changes in scoring can be attributed to powerplays and how much even strength.

As an assumption I would say that powerplay fluctuations will affect top 6 forwards scoring totals a lot more than bottom 6 just based on the PP minutes they get. Players like Mario who were powerplay superstars would also see their stats swing more in correlation to powerplay opportunities in theory.

Pretty interesting.

 

[Dissonance]

It might be interesting to see the levels of even strength scoring and powerplay scoring broken out over the seasons to reflect on how much of the changes in scoring can be attributed to powerplays and how much even strength.

As an assumption I would say that powerplay fluctuations will affect top 6 forwards scoring totals a lot more than bottom 6 just based on the PP minutes they get. Players like Mario who were powerplay superstars would also see their stats swing more in correlation to powerplay opportunities in theory.

Pretty interesting.

Yeah, as an example—in 1995-96 the Penguins got 420 power-play opportunities and scored a whopping 109 power play goals. The next season it plummeted to 339 opportunities (one fewer per game) and 74 PP goals.

And you can see the effect on Lemieux's production—his even-strength scoring stayed about the same both years, but he had 16 fewer PP goals in '97 (from 31 to 15) and 26 fewer PP assists (48 to 22), despite playing more games. That basically explains his 40-point drop in production.

Now, refs calling fewer penalties isn't the whole story—Pittsburgh's power play in '96 was one of the best of all-time (they might've set a record for PP goals that year, though I'm not sure), and it was unlikely they'd duplicate that in '97, especially with Jagr out for part of the year—but it's part of it.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Yeah, as an example—in 1995-96 the Penguins got 420 power-play opportunities and scored a whopping 109 power play goals. The next season it plummeted to 339 opportunities (one fewer per game) and 74 PP goals.

And you can see the effect on Lemieux's production—his even-strength scoring stayed about the same both years, but he had 16 fewer PP goals in '97 (from 31 to 15) and 26 fewer PP assists (48 to 22), despite playing more games. That basically explains his 40-point drop in production.

Now, refs calling fewer penalties isn't the whole story—Pittsburgh's power play in '96 was one of the best of all-time (they might've set a record for PP goals that year, though I'm not sure), and it was unlikely they'd duplicate that in '97, especially with Jagr out for part of the year—but it's part of it.

Yeah as usual there are a number of factors at work but that seems to be a large one in the swing of Lemieux's numbers between those seasons.

I wonder how many powerplay goals the Oilers and Flames had in the late 80s.. I remember the flames with mac and suter on the point and Nieuwendyk in front of the net as being pretty deadly.

I just checked and the Flames had 109 in 87-88 and 101 in 88-89.

Interestingly the Oilers were generally slightly below average for team powerplay goals in the mid-80s although their conversion % was quite good. I wonder why they weren't drawing more.

I know someone had mentioned before that opportunities often seem to be biased against the top tier teams. Pretty interesting to see some of these things.

 

[jkrx]

Pre-modernised hockey era
Evolutionary era (1925~ - 1935)
Downgrade/O6 era (1935 - ~1950)
Upgrade/O6 era (1950 - 1967)
Expansion era (1967 - 1979)
Offensive star era (1979 - 1995)
Dead puck era (1995 - 2005)
Present era (2005 - ?)

 

[nik jr]

Also can we call it what it really was, the Clutch and Grab era, the puck wasn't dead.

The dead ball era in baseball had to do with the doctoring of the ball, making it almost impossible to hit home runs, the puck in the NHL wasn't the reason for the decreased scoring in the 90's, style of play and clutch and grab was.

i agree that "dead puck era" is not the best phrase.

imo, the effects of obstruction are generally overstated. hooking and holding were very common before the later '90s. i think obstruction seemed less bad b/c it was not as effective when not used in combination with the defensive structure that became standard in the later '90s. most of the obstruction is gone, but scoring is now similar to the level before '05.

but another important part of lower scoring, imo, is improved goaltending. not only larger equipment, but also better technique and larger goalies and probably also more talented goalies.


i think present period should be called the "salary cap era."

 

[jkrx]

i agree that "dead puck era" is not the best phrase.

imo, the effects of obstruction are generally overstated. hooking and holding were very common before the later '90s. i think obstruction seemed less bad b/c it was not as effective when not used in combination with the defensive structure that became standard in the later '90s. most of the obstruction is gone, but scoring is now similar to the level before '05.

but another important part of lower scoring, imo, is improved goaltending. not only larger equipment, but also better technique and larger goalies and probably also more talented goalies.


i think present period should be called the "salary cap era."

I think it descibes the era best. Dead puck era as in it wasn't about flashy moves with the puck anymore. It was more about body than any other era.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

i agree that "dead puck era" is not the best phrase.

imo, the effects of obstruction are generally overstated. hooking and holding were very common before the later '90s. i think obstruction seemed less bad b/c it was not as effective when not used in combination with the defensive structure that became standard in the later '90s. most of the obstruction is gone, but scoring is now similar to the level before '05.

but another important part of lower scoring, imo, is improved goaltending. not only larger equipment, but also better technique and larger goalies and probably also more talented goalies.

i think present period should be called the "salary cap era."

Agreed.

 

[BraveCanadian]

i agree that "dead puck era" is not the best phrase.

imo, the effects of obstruction are generally overstated. hooking and holding were very common before the later '90s. i think obstruction seemed less bad b/c it was not as effective when not used in combination with the defensive structure that became standard in the later '90s. most of the obstruction is gone, but scoring is now similar to the level before '05.

but another important part of lower scoring, imo, is improved goaltending. not only larger equipment, but also better technique and larger goalies and probably also more talented goalies.


i think present period should be called the "salary cap era."

Yes I think I pretty much agree with this... especially the goaltenders part. I don't think they are necessarily "better" but I do think that improved technique allows even the average goalie to stop more pucks (the butterfly with bigger equipment taking away the whole bottom of the net for example).

This would seem to make sense with the improving save percentages from the 80s through the 90s as more and more goalies copied Roy and even innovated on top of that.

 

[finchster]

Anyway I will throw my hat in the ring and label these periods as ‘eras’, anything marked with a star I consider not significant to be an era but important to point out.

Whenver-1904 Pre-Modern Hockey
*1875-1893 First organization of clubs, teams and leagues
*1893-1904 Stanley Cup is awarded for the first time, organized amateur hockey, “shamateurism” before professionals were accepted
1904-1917 Early Modern Hockey. Development of professional leagues and many modern rules, PCHA with many innovations (blue/red lines, numbers on sweaters, penalty shot, goalies could leave feet etc).
*1910 NHA drops the ‘rover position’ leaving 5 skaters and one goaltender on the ice
1917-1930 Establishment of the NHL.
*1926 WHL disbands leaving the NHL as the one dominate professional league
1930-1945 First Modern Era . Forward pass is allowed
*1942-1945 World War two, terrible hockey
1945-1967 Original Six era
*1945-1948 War recovery
*1950-1957, hockey’s lowest scoring era
1967-1972 NHL expansion
1972-1980 Goon hockey, WHA plays from 1972-1979, talent is diluted and teams place more importance on intimidation rather than skill
1980-1993 Offense oriented hockey, game speeds up, modern short shifts
1993-1998, Transition period. First lockout in 1994-95, Defense and trap oriented systems are being established an implanted
1998-2004 Low scoring era, epitomized by the trap, fewer penalties etc
2005-now Salary cap era. Establishment of salary cap, shootouts, more penalties being called

So in closing
Whenever-1904 Pre Modern Hockey
1904-1917 Early Modern Hockey
1917-1930 Establishing the NHL
1930-1945 First Modern Era
1945-1967 Original Six
1967-1972 Expansion
1972-1980 Goon Hockey
1980-1993 Offense Oriented Hockey
1993-1998 Transition to Defense
1998-2004 Low Scoring Hockey
2005-now Salary Cap Era.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

1945 - 1980

The Montreal Canadiens era. This is the era where the Canadiens used their French heritage to claim the hottest French prospects. Quebec was a hotbed for developing hockey players in this era. This unique draft rule was a major reason the Canadiens iced strong teams for numerous decades.

 

[Rhiessan71]

1945 - 1980

The Montreal Canadiens era. This is the era where the Canadiens used their French heritage to claim the hottest French prospects. Quebec was a hotbed for developing hockey players in this era. This unique draft rule was a major reason the Canadiens iced strong teams for numerous decades.

Try doing some research before posting such dribble, especially on the History board.

First off...the Entry Draft as we know it today wasn't even instituted until 1969.
Before that, players were sponsored and signed as early as 14 in the case of Orr. Players were not drafted, they were found, claimed and signed.
Before 1969, the Amateur Draft was just a collection of players that by the age of 17, had not been claimed yet, in other words, it was the left over garbage and even this draft wasn't instituted untill 1963.
1969 was also the last year that the Habs had this rule in place and got them Houle and Tardif. Again, this was the first year of the modern entry draft, the age was changed to 20 this year as well and most players were still already signed under the previous system.

 

[seventieslord]

Anyway I will throw my hat in the ring and label these periods as ‘eras’, anything marked with a star I consider not significant to be an era but important to point out.

Whenver-1904 Pre-Modern Hockey
*1875-1893 First organization of clubs, teams and leagues
*1893-1904 Stanley Cup is awarded for the first time, organized amateur hockey, “shamateurism†before professionals were accepted
1904-1917 Early Modern Hockey. Development of professional leagues and many modern rules, PCHA with many innovations (blue/red lines, numbers on sweaters, penalty shot, goalies could leave feet etc).
*1910 NHA drops the ‘rover position’ leaving 5 skaters and one goaltender on the ice
1917-1930 Establishment of the NHL.
*1926 WHL disbands leaving the NHL as the one dominate professional league
1930-1945 First Modern Era . Forward pass is allowed
*1942-1945 World War two, terrible hockey
1945-1967 Original Six era
*1945-1948 War recovery
*1950-1957, hockey’s lowest scoring era
1967-1972 NHL expansion
1972-1980 Goon hockey, WHA plays from 1972-1979, talent is diluted and teams place more importance on intimidation rather than skill
1980-1993 Offense oriented hockey, game speeds up, modern short shifts
1993-1998, Transition period. First lockout in 1994-95, Defense and trap oriented systems are being established an implanted
1998-2004 Low scoring era, epitomized by the trap, fewer penalties etc
2005-now Salary cap era. Establishment of salary cap, shootouts, more penalties being called

So in closing
Whenever-1904 Pre Modern Hockey
1904-1917 Early Modern Hockey
1917-1930 Establishing the NHL
1930-1945 First Modern Era
1945-1967 Original Six
1967-1972 Expansion
1972-1980 Goon Hockey
1980-1993 Offense Oriented Hockey
1993-1998 Transition to Defense
1998-2004 Low Scoring Hockey
2005-now Salary Cap Era.

not bad, except that 1926 was a much more critical point than 1930 or 1917. The NHL was no different from the NHA; it was just under a new name. 1930 was only memorable for the forward passing and offside rule. 1926, however, was the year the WCHL left, making the NHL the only top league in existence. So I'd call 1904-1926 one era, and 1927-1942 another era.

 

[finchster]

not bad, except that 1926 was a much more critical point than 1930 or 1917. The NHL was no different from the NHA; it was just under a new name. 1930 was only memorable for the forward passing and offside rule. 1926, however, was the year the WCHL left, making the NHL the only top league in existence. So I'd call 1904-1926 one era, and 1927-1942 another era.

Thanks for the feedback seventieslord. I stated earlier that era is dependent on however you want to describe it, but it could be a good mini project to get something on this board we can all sort of agree on.

As I noted in 1926 the WHL disbanded but had the game changed that much? 1926 would be critical for the professional game development but I don’t think you can describe hockey as “modern†until the rules are the basic frame work it is today. Before the forward pass hockey was a little more like Rugby, so I think the style of play overshadows the NHL professional aspect and gives a good transition to what I labeled as Early Modern Hockey to what I label as the First Modern Era.

Whenever-1904 Pre Modern Hockey
1904-1930 Early Modern Hockey
1930-1945 First Modern Era
Would this make more sense?