Players of the 80's & earlier.. over rated?

[cupface52]

Everyone around here holds those players to extremely high standards, however, a lot of the worlds best talent, wasn't playing in the NHL. They were playing in their native European countries, with a couple Euro's playing in NA. Is it really fair to compare a players dominance of the 60's, to a players dominance to the 90's or 2000's, when they weren't even competing against the worlds best?

For example, looking at Thornton's '05-06 year, where he scores 125 points, the next two scorers are Jagr (123 points) and Ovechkin (106 points), neither who'd be playing in the 80's or earlier. All of a sudden Thornton's 2 point margin Art Ross is 22 points, which would make it one of the biggest landslide wins. Or looking at Crosby, he wins the Art Ross in '09, in '07, and would also have a top 3 finish as a rookie(As Alfredsson(very likely), JJ, Ovechkin aren't in the league). The only time he doesn't finnish in the top 3, is the year he gets injured (And he'd still end up in the top 20 scorers despite playing 30 games less)

Click to read more...

 

[MS]

There were very few players in Europe who were NHL-calibre during the bulk of the 1960s. Russian/Czech hockey only really started producing elite talents in the very late '60s and into the 1970s.

Russian players not being in the NHL during the 70s and 80s represents a major hole, absolutely.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Everyone around here holds those players to extremely high standards, however, a lot of the worlds best talent, wasn't playing in the NHL. They were playing in their native European countries, with a couple Euro's playing in NA. Is it really fair to compare a players dominance of the 60's, to a players dominance to the 90's or 2000's, when they weren't even competing against the worlds best?

For example, looking at Thornton's '05-06 year, where he scores 125 points, the next two scorers are Jagr (123 points) and Ovechkin (106 points), neither who'd be playing in the 80's or earlier. All of a sudden Thornton's 2 point margin Art Ross is 22 points, which would make it one of the biggest landslide wins. Or looking at Crosby, he wins the Art Ross in '09, in '07, and would also have a top 3 finish as a rookie(As Alfredsson(very likely), JJ, Ovechkin aren't in the league). The only time he doesn't finnish in the top 3, is the year he gets injured (And he'd still end up in the top 20 scorers despite playing 30 games less)

This is a complex question but here are a few general thoughts:

1. People around here do take the lack of competition into account when discussing players from the 1970s and 1980s, when there clearly were star-calibre players who were unable to compete in the NHL. This works both ways -- many people include non-NHL stars in their top 100 lists, and many people note that NHL players may have won fewer awards and/or finished lower in the scoring race had they faced off against European greats. Check out the discussions linked on Top 100 list for some examples.

2. Contrary to what some believe, Canadian amateur players (i.e. players who were clearly not good enough to play in the NHL) routinely dominated all other foreign countries up until the early 1950s. Even in the mid 1950s to early 1960s, Canadian amateurs were roughly on par with Soviet superstars, including Bobrov, Yakushev, and Firsov. Please see here for a long and fascinating discussion. The truth is that prior to probably the early 1960s, there were few if any European players who were good enough to play in the NHL. Thus, the (essentially) all-North American NHL had all of the world's NHL-calibre talent.

3. It's easy to make up hypotheticals (i.e. "Gordie Howe would have won fewer Hart/Ross trophies if Europeans started playing hockey in the 1930s"). That's literally true, but it's not meaningful. It's also true that Ovechkin, etc., would win fewer awards and finish lower in the scoring race if there were a significant number of Chinese and Indian hockey players today. But it's ridiculous to hold a lack of hypothetical competition against Ovechkin today, so we shouldn't use that argument against players from the Original Six era either.

4. In summary: essentially all of the world's hockey talent played in the NHL from about 1926 until the early 1960s. From the mid 1960s to early 1990s the talent pool was diluted (in the sense that there was a significant number of star-calibre players who couldn't play in the NHL), but I believe most regular posters here are aware of that & account for that to some degree. The talent pool increase in the early 1990s (some would argue even earlier) as more non-North American players joined the NHL.

 

[overpass]

This is a complex question but here are a few general thoughts:

1. People around here do take the lack of competition into account when discussing players from the 1970s and 1980s, when there clearly were star-calibre players who were unable to compete in the NHL. This works both ways -- many people include non-NHL stars in their top 100 lists, and many people note that NHL players may have won fewer awards and/or finished lower in the scoring race had they faced off against European greats. Check out the discussions linked on Top 100 list for some examples.

2. Contrary to what some believe, Canadian amateur players (i.e. players who were clearly not good enough to play in the NHL) routinely dominated all other foreign countries up until the early 1950s. Even in the mid 1950s to early 1960s, Canadian amateurs were roughly on par with Soviet superstars, including Bobrov, Yakushev, and Firsov. Please see here for a long and fascinating discussion. The truth is that prior to probably the early 1960s, there were few if any European players who were good enough to play in the NHL. Thus, the (essentially) all-North American NHL had all of the world's NHL-calibre talent.

3. It's easy to make up hypotheticals (i.e. "Gordie Howe would have won fewer Hart/Ross trophies if Europeans started playing hockey in the 1930s"). That's literally true, but it's not meaningful. It's also true that Ovechkin, etc., would win fewer awards and finish lower in the scoring race if there were a significant number of Chinese and Indian hockey players today. But it's ridiculous to hold a lack of hypothetical competition against Ovechkin today, so we shouldn't use that argument against players from the Original Six era either.

4. In summary: essentially all of the world's hockey talent played in the NHL from about 1926 until the early 1960s. From the mid 1960s to early 1990s the talent pool was diluted (in the sense that there was a significant number of star-calibre players who couldn't play in the NHL), but I believe most regular posters here are aware of that & account for that to some degree. The talent pool increase in the early 1990s (some would argue even earlier) as more non-North American players joined the NHL.

I agree that posters here generally consider whether the entire talent pool was playing in the NHL, but I think it's essential to consider the actual size of the worldwide talent pool. Today's players compete against the best from many countries. Ninety years ago, ninety percent of the players were from Quebec and Ontario (even most Western stars). It seems bizarre to consider those talent pools to be equal. In my opinion, accomplishments earned against a larger worldwide talent pool of NHL-level players are more significant.

 

[seventieslord]

There were very few players in Europe who were NHL-calibre during the bulk of the 1960s. Russian/Czech hockey only really started producing elite talents in the very late '60s and into the 1970s.

Russian players not being in the NHL during the 70s and 80s represents a major hole, absolutely.

This is the best way to put it in three sentences.

HO's post was also spot-on. Thanks guys.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Counterpoint

This is a complex question but here are a few general thoughts:

1. People around here do take the lack of competition into account when discussing players from the 1970s and 1980s, when there clearly were star-calibre players who were unable to compete in the NHL. This works both ways -- many people include non-NHL stars in their top 100 lists, and many people note that NHL players may have won fewer awards and/or finished lower in the scoring race had they faced off against European greats. Check out the discussions linked on Top 100 list for some examples.

2. Contrary to what some believe, Canadian amateur players (i.e. players who were clearly not good enough to play in the NHL) routinely dominated all other foreign countries up until the early 1950s. Even in the mid 1950s to early 1960s, Canadian amateurs were roughly on par with Soviet superstars, including Bobrov, Yakushev, and Firsov. Please see here for a long and fascinating discussion. The truth is that prior to probably the early 1960s, there were few if any European players who were good enough to play in the NHL. Thus, the (essentially) all-North American NHL had all of the world's NHL-calibre talent.

3. It's easy to make up hypotheticals (i.e. "Gordie Howe would have won fewer Hart/Ross trophies if Europeans started playing hockey in the 1930s"). That's literally true, but it's not meaningful. It's also true that Ovechkin, etc., would win fewer awards and finish lower in the scoring race if there were a significant number of Chinese and Indian hockey players today. But it's ridiculous to hold a lack of hypothetical competition against Ovechkin today, so we shouldn't use that argument against players from the Original Six era either.

4. In summary: essentially all of the world's hockey talent played in the NHL from about 1926 until the early 1960s. From the mid 1960s to early 1990s the talent pool was diluted (in the sense that there was a significant number of star-calibre players who couldn't play in the NHL), but I believe most regular posters here are aware of that & account for that to some degree. The talent pool increase in the early 1990s (some would argue even earlier) as more non-North American players joined the NHL.

The above position is based on a number of assumptions.

1.) That it is possible to accurately evaluate NHL and North American players from eras that pre date visual experiences or records.

2.) If it is possible to make the evaluations as outlined above then are these evaluations being done properly.

Will illustrate the above two points with an example using Ulf Sterner - an outstanding Swedish hockey player from the early 1960's who had a brief North American tryout with the NY Rangers and in their farm system:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/sternul01.html

Ask yourself the following questions. Did I know about Ulf Sterner?
Is there a way to compare minor league North American league performance to potential NHL performance?

Tumba Johansson, the great 1950's Swedish star played five QHL league games with the Quebec Aces during the 1957-58 season. 0G 4A. Small window but a glimpse regardless when compared to Connie Broden, a contemporary, who represented Canada at the world hockey championships, played in the QHL/QSHL where he was far from dominant and had enough of a trial with the powerhouse fifties Canadiens to be a small part of two Stanley Cup teams.

That Canadian Amateurs dominated the Europeans in competition prior to the mid 1960's is somewhat open to discussion. Johnny Mcreedy:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/m/mccrejo01.html

Played for Canada in 1940 in the world tournament. His seven game totals at the Worlds reflect 1PPG, not dominant in fact weaker than his amateur PPG results in Canada but stronger than his NHL efforts.

Similarly in the 1960 Winter Olympics the Canadian team included Bobby Rousseau and Cliff Pennington while the USA team included Tommy Williams and Jack McCartan. Rousseau and Pennington had scored over 50 goals in elite Canadian junior leagues while Pennington had a 102 pts in the EPHL an NHL feeder league. Their 1960 Olympic output, Pennington 5Games 0G 2 A, Rousseau 7 Games 5G 4 A. Hardly dominant. Tommy Williams in the 10 points in 7 games range while Jack McCartan got hot like Jim Craig led the USA to the gold medal. But Williams had an average NHL career
while like Craig, McCartan did not do well in the NHL and had a pedestrian minor league career. Point is that neither dominated nor did their lesser teammates.

This brings us to another assumption.

3.)Was all the best hockey talent in the world playing in the NHL prior to some arbitrary date? The simple answer is no.

Various Canadian amateurs from the 1920's and 1930's refused contracts because their professions or business opportunities paid better. Connie Broden retired before his prime to take a significant job offer at Molson's while others like Herb Carnegie were excluded or denied opportunities for a long time because positions were not available. Just a short list.

Which brings us to hypotheticals and their best friend, adjustments.
Used properly they may illustrate a point BUT they do not explain or justify. The only truth is that in any given season a player will lead the NHL in scoring or be voted the most valuable player. The first is measurable with tiebreaker mechanisms in place. The second is opinion based and flawed.

 

[Big Phil]

I wouldnt overrate them no. We on this board take competition into account. An above poster mentioned that the Euros didnt really get good until the late '60s. In other words, if an NHL all-star team in 1964 took on the Russian Olympic medal winning team the Russians would get clobbered. But 8 years later they improved and were dominant in the '70s and '80s. There were Swedes in the '70s and Finns in the '80s that were also stars as well (Salming, Kurri, Lindbergh) but there was a lack of Czechs and obviously no Russians.

That being said, as good as Krutov and Makarov were they wouldn't have beaten Gretzky or Lemieux for the Art Ross. The might have compared more to Bossy at that time, but Gretzky is still Gretzky in the '80s regardless. The proof is the Canada Cups. He led the tourny in scoring in '81, '84, '87 and '91. That's pretty heavy.

But the bottom line is this: regardless of era a player is judged by how he performed against his peers. Things have changed now though obviously, there is a bigger pool of talent the 2009 draft produced 102 Canadians, and 108 non-Canadians (55 US, 24 Swedes etc.). But you still can't penalize Gordie Howe just because there wasn't a Swede in 1955 that was good enough to make the NHL

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I tend to take a more simplistic look at it, because ironically the more factors you try to keep track of here the more assumptions, insinuations, and extrapolations get built in and the resultant "conclusion" is no more accurate/valid than anything else submitted here.

Simply put, we watched 2 of the 5 best players ever (Wayne, Mario) during the 80s, and we saw how everyone of that decade stacked up against them. The league may finally be open and accessible to all the top talent in the world now, and players on average nowadays might be a bit bigger, faster, and more fit... heck, maybe even more "well-rounded" players. But I haven't seen anyone come out of any country in recent years that did the superhuman things we got from Wayne and Mario on a regular basis. And having said that, I don't think the upper echelon of talent from any "modern" decade is discernably better/worse than any other.

So I reckon as long as you have the Wayne/Mario/Bourque reference level/benchmark for talent in the 80s, and until someone comes along that deserves a higher ranking than those 3, players from the 80s won't get too over rated by knowledgable fans of the game. Atleast in the upper talent levels. Heck, some players probably get under rated, if anything, because they never accumulated a lot of the major awards that Wayne, Mario, and Bourque had a stranglehold on for so long. On the flip side, I'd even say that Bourque in his prime inserted into today's game would destroy Lidstrom in Norris voting, and Ovechkin/Malkin/Crosby would be considered the Joe Sakics, Steve Yzermans, Ron Francises, etc of today's game compared to a Mario in his prime instead of the undisputed top 3 in the game.

As you get into the secondary scoring and role players, though, it's entirely possible.

 

[Fredrik_71]

Several good posts here. I agree that its impossible to compare different ages if out of context. But you can certainly look at players in context.

In my opinion NHL has never been as good or competitive as these days. The talent pool has never been as deep and the training has never been as good. The defensive part of he game is just outstanding these days and the "run and gun hockey" of the 80's just doesn't work anymore. And to mix it up a little I would like to add that if you put Ovechkin in the 70s and 80s, he would probable (if healthy) be considered one of the best ever today. That goes for a lot of todays players.

Another fact is if you take e.g. Bobby Hull that was huge for his days (5.10, 208lb), he would be pretty average in todays league considering size. Lots has changed!

//Cheers

 

[Cake or Death]

1979-80: Bourque and Messier enter the league

1995-96: 17 seasons later...
-- Bourque (age 36) 20 g - 62 a - 82 pts
-- Messier (age 35) 47 g - 52 a - 99 pts

Some players are just great ... in any era.

Over-rated or not, I could care less. Hockey in the 70s and 80s was simply damn fun to watch.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

3. It's easy to make up hypotheticals (i.e. "Gordie Howe would have won fewer Hart/Ross trophies if Europeans started playing hockey in the 1930s"). That's literally true, but it's not meaningful.

Uhm, the Czechs...

Seriously, I firmly believe that Malecek could have stepped into the NHL and been a regular player, if not 1st liner. Most European leagues and national teams were Canadian ex-pats and Malecek absolutely dominated them.

Drobny and Zabrodsky could also have contended for a roster spot, at the very least, Drobny could have during the war.

I think the effect of 1950 lock-up is immeasurable. IMO, Czechoslovakian hockey would have been equal to North American by the end of the 50's if not for that. But, I might be alone.

 

[TheSniper26]

I don't put a lot of stock into the European players having made much of a difference. Were their some European guys capable of being good NHL players? Sure. But that's about it. I don't think any of them were of the caliber to change the way the history of the sport during those times played out. Of course, it's a hypothetical and there's no way of definitively knowing that one way or the other. It's just my opinion on it.

The question of whether or not the players from the 80's and before are overrated really comes down to what the specific topic is. I mean if we're talking about from an actual pure skill standpoint, then yes, they are overrated to an extent. I hear people say things like, "Well, Gretzky and Orr, those guys could just do so many things out there that the guys today can't do". Well, that just simply isn't true. Players today are stronger, faster skaters, harder and more accurate shooters, better puck handlers, have access to better sports and medicine technology, play against better defense and goaltending, etc. Can a guy like Sidney Crosby do all the things Gretzky was capable of doing with a puck? Yes, and he can probably do them faster. So when I see people say things like the statement above, it comes off like somebody that is glorifying the game that was played during "their time" a little too much and yes, overrating it a bit.

Now, on the other hand, if we're talking about their standing in the history of the sport, then no, they're not overrated at all. The gap between Orr, Lemieux, Howe, Gretzky, etc, and the rest of the league during their respective eras was so much bigger than the gap between any two players of today. Too many factors make it impossible to compare the players of different eras. So the only measuring stick for greatness that we have is to see how these guys stacked up against their peers. People will see a goal by Bobby Orr and say "Oh well that would never go in today, goals were so easy to score back then". And in one sense they're right, it probably wouldn't go in today. But if it was so easy to do then, why didn't all the guys out there do it? Why didn't all the defensemen put up over 100 points and score over 40 goals as Orr did? Why didn't they all have more assists than anybody else had points like Gretzky did? Why didn't they all routinely deke their way through an entire team with a player on their back and score highlight reel goals as Lemieux did? Because those guys were just simply great, and nobody else was. They were playing a game that was ahead of their time. The top guys today are not.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not Alone

Uhm, the Czechs...

Seriously, I firmly believe that Malecek could have stepped into the NHL and been a regular player, if not 1st liner. Most European leagues and national teams were Canadian ex-pats and Malecek absolutely dominated them.

Drobny and Zabrodsky could also have contended for a roster spot, at the very least, Drobny could have during the war.

I think the effect of 1950 lock-up is immeasurable. IMO, Czechoslovakian hockey would have been equal to North American by the end of the 50's if not for that. But, I might be alone.

Far from alone, I agree as well. In fact the late George Gross would have supported your position.

Another overlooked factor is that today's game is based on the accumulated data bank of hockey tactics since roughly 1893. So what made a great player unique because it had never been seen before today is commonplace and defendable.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I think the league is at its most competitive and deep since the Original 6 --
The hockey playing world has increased by 5-fold, exactly as much as the teams have increased from that time (from 6 to 30). 70% of the NHL is still comprised of North Americans.