Sedins.

[tomf]

Also if we are talking talent pools:

There were 97 players in 1967 that have played at least half of the season (35 games). The talent pool was basically Canada population (20 mil at that time if wikipedia is correct ).

There were 579 players in 2010 with half of season played (41 games). Now when estimating talent pool it gets tricky:
CAN: 34 mil
USA: 30 mil (308 mil and let's say that every 10th american is aware that there is that cool sport called hockey)
SWE: 8 mil
FIN: 5 mil
CZE: 10 mil
SVK: 5 mil
RUS: 28 mil (143 mil, be a little pesimistic and say that access is quite bad and all of that = 20%)

That's 120 mil and I wasn't counting Ukraine, Belarus and other countries in that pool. I am aware that it's not that simple but I think it is a good rough estimate.

 

[tomf]

Absolutely, but that would work out more in the Richards favor. Neither of the Sedins have "intangibles" comparable to Maurice's playoff clutch reputation or Henri's Selke-quality defence.

I fully agree, that's why I mentioned it

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Based on idea that being 5th in 100 player league or 25th in 500 player league are equivalent finishes (you are in the same percentil). Again, assumed that league in both cases is of equal quality. And it's also assuming similar distribution in player skill in both leagues. It is not guaranteed finish but very probable, that why it is expected finish had the league contracted (and mantained the same quality, so you can't simply take 1/6 of best players in league in contraction).

Sedins finishes:

1,4 (expected in 2011), 1,12 (2010),14,15 (2009),24,27 (2008),....

would then result in

1/6 = 1, 4/6 = 1, 1/6 = 1, 12/6 = 2 and so on

This would make sense if 100% of the hockey players in the world played in the NHL. Since that is ridiculous, so is this model.

 

[tomf]

This would make sense if 100% of the hockey players in the world played in the NHL. Since that is ridiculous, so is this model.

That was not the case in 1967 either ...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Also if we are talking talent pools:

There were 97 players in 1967 that have played at least half of the season (35 games). The talent pool was basically Canada population (20 mil at that time if wikipedia is correct ).

There were 579 players in 2010 with half of season played (41 games). Now when estimating talent pool it gets tricky:
CAN: 34 mil
USA: 30 mil (308 mil and let's say that every 10th american is aware that there is that cool sport called hockey)
SWE: 8 mil
FIN: 5 mil
CZE: 10 mil
SVK: 5 mil
RUS: 28 mil (143 mil, be a little pesimistic and say that access is quite bad and all of that = 20%)

That's 120 mil and I wasn't counting Ukraine, Belarus and other countries in that pool. I am aware that it's not that simple but I think it is a good rough estimate.

55% of NHLers still come from Canada.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That was not the case in 1967 either ...

Of course not...

 

[JackSlater]

I am quite aware that it's a very simple and flawed model. It was given as an example to why you can't simply use say top 10 finishes without context because that's as poor model as mine.

Clearly the top 10 finishes need context, and I assume that anyone here is able to provide that context. The gap is so massive however that I don't think there needs to be very much fiddling with the numbers.

And two tough questions for you. Do you think that considering all factors the league quality now (in 2011) is lower than in 67? And if yes, by how much (just rough estimate)?

What do you mean by league quality? Quality of the average player? Quality of the elite players? Quality of the teams?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

By the way, I used to think you could scale the talent pool by looking at the increase in Canadian population combined with % of the league from canada. But then it was pointed out to me that most of the increase come from immigration and aging, and only men 18-35 or 40 who grew up surrounded by hockey culture are really comparable.

Anyway, I think the euro influence basically doubled the talent pool.

 

[tomf]

What do you mean by league quality? Quality of the average player? Quality of the elite players? Quality of the teams?

Maybe better term would be quality of competition (both teams and players to play against).

 

[jcbio11]

55% of NHLers still come from Canada.

This number itself doesn't really say a lot about Canada's talent pool. Most of third and fourth liners are Canadian, because, well, let's face it, 3rd and 4th liners are somewhat interchangeable (when compared to top liners) and given that most of the management is Canadian (or NA), they are going to be a bit more likely to put their countrymen in.

Plus add the fact that Europeans might want to stay in Europe slash closer to home (comparable money to be made plus lower competition means they're more likely to be stars instead of plugs) and obviously Canadians (and Americans) are going to be found in North America, where NHL is played.

Now of course it's a bit more complicated with the bottom liners than that, most teams have checking lines (i.e. bums whose job is not to score, but disrupt the flow of the other team's game), but there are some teams like Detroit, who have 4 scoring lines (especially true in the past, true only to a certain extent now). Overall you can still say that the percentage of NHLers from Canada doesn't tell us a lot.

To get a better idea, you'd need to check the percentage of top tier players (however you define it). The percentage of the non top tier players will be even more overwhelmingly Canadian, but no way 55 percent of top tier players in NHL are Canadian.

 

[jcbio11]

Also, where do the Stastnys fit into all this? I don't know much about them so I won't even try.

Not close I believe. Peter was a superstar, he dragged the before him pathetic Quebec to respectability. He ran into the freak of nature by the name Gretzky, hence not many awards, but still was a god. He bum rushed the NHL in the time when it wasn't easy for Europeans to dominate.

Anton has nice career numbers, but that was because he played in the high flying 80s.

Same can be said for Marian.

Both nowhere near as dominant as Peter.

What's perhaps intriguing is how much of a mind game hockey (or any sport for that matter) is. I remember Peter mentioning in his book that either Marian or Anton was actually much more gifted than him, but Peter was the better player. Competed like crazy. Much like Gretzky, who was on another planet with his ability to compete. Peter mentions how they did some crazy physical tests during the preparation for the Canada cup and only him and Gretzky were actually able to finish them.

 

[jcbio11]

Also if we are talking talent pools:

There were 97 players in 1967 that have played at least half of the season (35 games). The talent pool was basically Canada population (20 mil at that time if wikipedia is correct ).

There were 579 players in 2010 with half of season played (41 games). Now when estimating talent pool it gets tricky:
CAN: 34 mil
USA: 30 mil (308 mil and let's say that every 10th american is aware that there is that cool sport called hockey)
SWE: 8 mil
FIN: 5 mil
CZE: 10 mil
SVK: 5 mil
RUS: 28 mil (143 mil, be a little pesimistic and say that access is quite bad and all of that = 20%)

That's 120 mil and I wasn't counting Ukraine, Belarus and other countries in that pool. I am aware that it's not that simple but I think it is a good rough estimate.

If you're gonna go with total population, why count only 28 mil for Russia. Not much sense in that. Even with a rough estimate, you have to be somewhat consistent.

Still much better to go with registered players per country. It's still a rough estimate, because there are still more factors at play, but should be more accurate.

 

[tomf]

If you're gonna go with total population, why count only 28 mil for Russia. Not much sense in that. Even with a rough estimate, you have to be somewhat consistent.

Still much better to go with registered players per country. It's still a rough estimate, because there are still more factors at play, but should be more accurate.

Combination of reasons but mostly access to hockey (rinks, money, ...). I could have used the same argument for Slovakia and Czech republic I guess.

 

[reckoning]

To get a better idea, you'd need to check the percentage of top tier players (however you define it). The percentage of the non top tier players will be even more overwhelmingly Canadian, but no way 55 percent of top tier players in NHL are Canadian.

The top NHL scorers since the lockout: http://hkref.com/tiny/UD8aG

By my count Canadians account for 5 of the top 10, 15 of the 25, and 27 of the top 50. Now that's just one quick stat, but 55% doesn't appear to be out of line.

 

[JackSlater]

Maybe better term would be quality of competition (both teams and players to play against).

In terms of team quality, I would say that the average team in 1967 was better than the average team today. The talent pool had not quitupled. In terms of the average player, once again I would say that the average NHL player is a bit worse for the same reason. Both of these are not important when we're comparing players today to players from the past though. I would say that there are more elite players today unquestionably, and the absolute best players are likely better on average.

 

[overpass]

This number itself doesn't really say a lot about Canada's talent pool. Most of third and fourth liners are Canadian, because, well, let's face it, 3rd and 4th liners are somewhat interchangeable (when compared to top liners) and given that most of the management is Canadian (or NA), they are going to be a bit more likely to put their countrymen in.

Plus add the fact that Europeans might want to stay in Europe slash closer to home (comparable money to be made plus lower competition means they're more likely to be stars instead of plugs) and obviously Canadians (and Americans) are going to be found in North America, where NHL is played.

Now of course it's a bit more complicated with the bottom liners than that, most teams have checking lines (i.e. bums whose job is not to score, but disrupt the flow of the other team's game), but there are some teams like Detroit, who have 4 scoring lines (especially true in the past, true only to a certain extent now). Overall you can still say that the percentage of NHLers from Canada doesn't tell us a lot.

To get a better idea, you'd need to check the percentage of top tier players (however you define it). The percentage of the non top tier players will be even more overwhelmingly Canadian, but no way 55 percent of top tier players in NHL are Canadian.

Agreed, marginal players are more likely to be Canadian.

I ran these numbers a month ago, and I imagine they are similar now.

Of the top 250 NHL forwards by minutes played per game (no minimum GP) in 2010-11: 124/250 are Canadian-born, or 49.6%

Of the top 150 NHL defencemen by minutes played per game (no minimum GP) in 2010-11: 70/150 are Canadian-born, or 46.7%

Of the top 30 goaltenders by total minutes played in 2010-11: 10/30 are Canadian-born, or 33.3%.

This isn't the top talent, but it cuts out the marginal players, at least. The Canadian % of the talent pool is 50% at most.

 

[AmazingNuck]

okay, I'm starting to think The Richard's should be clear cut number one... I really know nothing about Henri Richard other than my late grandfather telling me about how he was the "pocket rocket" when I was a little kid.

I've never heard of the Bentley's before, but I looked them up, and they put up some pretty impressive numbers. Max won the Art Ross twice and Hart once and three cups, and Doug won the Art Ross once.

Sedin's are almost there though! and if they go on to win a cup together, which only the Richards have done, I don't see why they wouldn't be comparable to the Richard's, Bentley's, or Hull's.

Especially when the Sedins have been the two best players on the Canucks for the last 4-5 seasons. So maybe they aren't top 2, yet, but they definitely could be considered #2 or even surpass the Richards if they continue to play so well for another 4-5 seasons.

The Sedins have only been the best two players for this season and the last. They were outranked by Luongo.

 

[mrhockey193195]

I haven't read the whole thread, but just a question to those who are more knowledgeable than me. Where would Bill and Bun Cook rank amongst the all time brother combos?

 

[FrozenJagrt]

The Sedins are closer to The Russian Rocket and his brother than The Rocket and The Pocket Rocket. These guys are well on their way to being the most overrated players in the league. Suggesting they're a greater pairing than the Conachers is blasphemy, but saying they're better than the Richard brothers? Good gravy.

 

[Weztex]

Maybe better term would be quality of competition (both teams and players to play against).

I've been working on this for a while. I'll post my results shortly if I can figure out how to post a table in here.

In terms of team quality, I would say that the average team in 1967 was better than the average team today. The talent pool had not quitupled. In terms of the average player, once again I would say that the average NHL player is a bit worse for the same reason. Both of these are not important when we're comparing players today to players from the past though. I would say that there are more elite players today unquestionably, and the absolute best players are likely better on average.

I end up with similar results. By my calculations, the level of competition in 1966-67 was about half of was it was last season (49,6%). So the number of quality players doubled in the last 44 years. Still, dividing that level of competition by the number of teams, it seems that the average team in 1967 was roughly 2,48 times better than the current average team. Which means than for each players you competed against in 1967, you competed with two of them in 2009-10. Thing is they are twice as much...divided in 5 times the teams.

 

[Moridin]

Does it really matter if they are the 3rd or 7th best ranked "brother pair"..

I don't even like the Canucks nor their style of play, but I still think that they deserve respect for being the only pair of brothers to both win the same major trophy.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Does it really matter if they are the 3rd or 7th best ranked "brother pair"..

I don't even like the Canucks nor their style of play, but I still think that they deserve respect for being the only pair of brothers to both win the same major trophy.

Bentleys both won the Art Ross.

And Daniel hasn't won the Hart yet...

 

[pappyline]

Bentleys both won the Art Ross.

And Daniel hasn't won the Hart yet...

Charlie & Roy Conacher also won the AR but no Harts.

 

[JackSlater]

Does it really matter if they are the 3rd or 7th best ranked "brother pair"..

I don't even like the Canucks nor their style of play, but I still think that they deserve respect for being the only pair of brothers to both win the same major trophy.

Most people respect them here as far as I can tell. You do not have to be as good as the Richards to be respected, or nearly no one in hockey would be.

 

[bigbadbruins1]

Esposito brothers... I mean, c'mon what other brothers could score and stop (literally) goals?