BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,844
- 3,803
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.
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.
Last edited: