The all encompassing "players of today vs players from the past" thread

[Kyle McMahon]

I said it could be a large or small group. How is that a very constant number? As you can already tell I believe there are more actual elite players at each position now than during the O6 if we are comparing the two eras. That's because it's not just Canadians plus Brimsek anymore and it's clear hockey grew in Canada since then as well.

So in other words, it is completely arbitrary as to who qualifies as elite, yet somehow we can be certain that more of them exist now than in the past.

What is your verifiable hypothesis? You must have one if you've compared across eras.

I've limited the evidence I use in making evaluations to hard data and factual contemporary accounts and available information. There is no hypothesizing necessary, as I have refrained from passing off imagined scenarios as key evidence in supporting my side of the debate.

And who said anything about it being perfectly linear? Eventually if the talent pool and sources of elite talent are multiple times larger don't you think that will inevitably produce more elite talent? I wouldn't want to argue that it remains the same because odds are I'd be very wrong in reality.

I wouldn't want to argue that it remains the same either. Nor would I want to argue that bigger talent pools inevitably produce more elite talent, given the laundry-list of cases where they haven't.

You are right, there is a lack of consistency. Posters here who think the way you do dug their feet in for certain eras and players for their own personal reasons.

No argument there. Post-consolidation players have time and again been given the benefit of the doubt over pre-consolidation counterparts. The modern bias seems to be even more pronounced in the post-WHA merger era. Various reasons have been presented to explain this imbalance, many of them well-reasoned and backed up with factual evidence. Occasionally, the existing bias is dismissed as not being strong enough and hypotheticals are introduced in an effort to further amplify it.

 

[Hardyvan123]

So where do we establish the baseline of who is allowed to be included as standard competition is who should be omitted? Most of Frank McGee's competition emerged from the cities of Montreal or Ottawa. Should all subsequent players have all non-Montreal/Ottawa produced players ignored for comparison purposes? Gretzky still has Lemieux included as a rival under these conditions...but Lemieux does not have to worry about Gretzky.

I have already stated the problems associated with pre NHL times and even a short while before the western professional league merged with the NHL for practically all of the elite Canadian talent.

So post late 1920's we have a clear template and there is no need for the Gretzky example here as the best Canadian standard has been constant since the late 1920's.

1926-27 onwards to be exact.

Next, we have the problem of players from the non-traditional talent streams having their own countrymen omitted. The Sedins get to enjoy the other brother being absent as accepted competition, while also enjoying the benefits of that brother contributing to their success. A nice bonus for both of them.

The 1926-27 post Canadian standard is constant still in 15-16 so the Henrik Daniel thing is a linemate thing much like Reggie Leach/ Bobby Clarke, Stamkos/MSL ect..

 

[danincanada]

So in other words, it is completely arbitrary as to who qualifies as elite, yet somehow we can be certain that more of them exist now than in the past.

One could easily make a personal list for the current "elite" players. That wouldn't be arbitrary if you follow the current league closely. Comparing across eras is complete guesswork, especially considering how many non-Canadian star players there are now, so it is rather arbitrary for anyone.

I've limited the evidence I use in making evaluations to hard data and factual contemporary accounts and available information. There is no hypothesizing necessary, as I have refrained from passing off imagined scenarios as key evidence in supporting my side of the debate.

I wouldn't want to argue that it remains the same either. Nor would I want to argue that bigger talent pools inevitably produce more elite talent, given the laundry-list of cases where they haven't.

You evaluate across eras and compare those players with hard data and factual accounts? If that's what you mean then it's impossible since players from different eras never set foot on the ice at the same time. If you've hypothesized that the amount of truly elite players is equal across eras then you've still hypothesized, right?

Knowing what we know would do you side on the amount of elite players remaining constant from the O6 or increasing? You surely must go to one side of the fence with this question.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Elite Players

One could easily make a personal list for the current "elite" players. That wouldn't be arbitrary if you follow the current league closely. Comparing across eras is complete guesswork, especially considering how many non-Canadian star players there are now, so it is rather arbitrary for anyone.



You evaluate across eras and compare those players with hard data and factual accounts? If that's what you mean then it's impossible since players from different eras never set foot on the ice at the same time. If you've hypothesized that the amount of truly elite players is equal across eras then you've still hypothesized, right?

Knowing what we know would do you side on the amount of elite players remaining constant from the O6 or increasing? You surely must go to one side of the fence with this question.

The you should be able to easily produce such a list. We are waiting. The posters whose views you critique manage to come-up with All Time positional lists and combined lists.

Complete guesswork. Other sports managed to venture across eras without discussing the provenance and composition, size of the talent pool. Boxing even goes back from today to the last quarter of the 19th century, with interesting "pound for pound" comparables. Yet rarely did boxers step into the ring against each other. Even contemporaries were separated by weight. Does skating on ice make such comparables impossible.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I haven't read through all of this long thread, so I'm not sure if someone brought this up before.

Some people argue that an accomplishment in, say, the Original Six era is inherently less valuable than it is today because there were fewer teams. My response (and I think the response of most people posting here) is that the best players were in the NHL already, and if the league doubled overnight, yesterday's best players would still be the best - only depth players would have been added.

Looking at the 1966-67 and 1967-68 seasons provides a natural experiment. The league doubled in size over the summer, and the talent pool doubled. If the argument that a larger league inherently has more talent is true, we'd expect the 1967 leaderboard to be decimated.

In reality, the opposite happened. Seven players were in the top ten in scoring both years (Mikita, Hull, Ullman, Howe, Wharram, Esposito, Delvecchio). Two more players dropped from the bottom half of the top ten in 1967 to a tie for 13th place in 1968 (Rousseau, Goyette). The only played who dropped out of the top fifteen was Doug Mohns.

The only new players in the top ten in 1968 were Johnny Bucyk (14th in 1967), Rod Gilbert (17th place) and Jean Ratelle (who had a horrible, injury-shortened season the year before). Those are all explainable by injury or minor, natural variations. None of the new players who debuted in 1968 challenge any of that era's star players.

This appears to be a strong argument - based on evidence, not theory - that the league's best players were already in the NHL and that a sudden increase in the size of the league wouldn't seriously challenge the determination as to who's the best player.

 

[Rhiessan71]

@Hardy and Dan
Without going on a point by point basis, I'm going to try and sum the argument up real quick here.
Basically the argument is that players accomplishments today should be viewed with greater value because of the competition they face. That it is both more numerous and of higher quality.
That, for example, a player like Lidstrom should have his accomplishments viewed with greater value than Harvey's?

This is the argument in a nutshell correct?

I mean the last couple of pages have basically been debate over just how many Elite players are really in the League at any given time and the fight has been over what value the above argument should receive in the overall evaluation of a player.
I think the only real big issue that everyone is having with you two specifically is that you both seem to want it to be the ONLY weight used in a players evaluation.
The fact that these O6 players played best on very best upwards of 6-7 times more often than players do today seems to get ignored for its' value over and over by you two.
As does peer to peer observations and comparisons between players that played multiple era's.


BY FAR though, the biggest problem a lot of people have with the competition argument being presented by you Hardy and you Dan is that it only seems to apply when it suits your agenda.
Because quite simply, by your own argument about quantity and quality of competition and the weight you assign it, there is no way in hell that you two should have Lidstrom ranked ahead of Bourque.
I mean that IS one of the bigger points in Bourque's favour between the two yet you both have no issue with lessening the value of it greatly in that debate.


Oh and Hardy...the term "Canadian Standard" is not a real term. It's something you made up a while back that you liked the sound of and have been trucking it out like it's an accepted real technical term ever since.
It's not and it means absolutely nothing!

 

[Theokritos]

Two way street to your argument.

Thirty years earlier would the likes of Forsberg, Jagr, Selanne, Bure and so on have received permission to play in the NHL from their home country? Would they have accepted inferior pay to do so? Would they have been willing to fill third line roles like future NHL greats - Mikita, Hull, Henri Richard, Phil Esposito and many others did?

Nicklas Lidstrom is a very good example. Six NHL seasons before his first NHL honour, longer before his first Norris. Thirty years earlier would European or even American players have waited so long to cash in given other opportunities that paid much more than NHL hockey did? Even some Canadians were not willing to wait. Harry Howell played fifteen NHL seasons before award and honour recognition. Ron Howell, his younger brother and a better hockey player, all around athlete;

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/howelro01.html

chose to combine a CFL and business career for financial reasons.

All of this only serves to explain why there was less competition thirty years earlier, it doesn't change anything about the fact that there was less competition respectively that there is more competition now.

Doubling does not equate to better or doubling the skill level.Agreed. But your point is that multiplying the diversity or provenance from a Canadian centric league O6 with a smathering of Americans to a league with representation from virtually all hockey playing nations in Europe equates to more competition. More competition does not necessarily equate to better competition or competition that is harder to play against.

Adding non-Canadian guys like Lidström and Karlsson to the league definitely makes it harder for the top Canadian defencemen to win awards.

How can it be that in the Modern NHL,there is more or harder competition for Canadian born players for NHL awards and honours but easier competition in the same league for Canadian born 18-20 year olds?

Not sure, but how does it change anything about the fact that any given Canadian top player now also has to compete with non-Canadian top players in addition to the other Canadian top players if he wants to win an individual award?

 

[Theokritos]

Some people argue that an accomplishment in, say, the Original Six era is inherently less valuable than it is today because there were fewer teams. My response (and I think the response of most people posting here) is that the best players were in the NHL already, and if the league doubled overnight, yesterday's best players would still be the best - only depth players would have been added.

Looking at the 1966-67 and 1967-68 seasons provides a natural experiment. The league doubled in size over the summer, and the talent pool doubled. If the argument that a larger league inherently has more talent is true, we'd expect the 1967 leaderboard to be decimated.

In reality, the opposite happened. Seven players were in the top ten in scoring both years (Mikita, Hull, Ullman, Howe, Wharram, Esposito, Delvecchio). Two more players dropped from the bottom half of the top ten in 1967 to a tie for 13th place in 1968 (Rousseau, Goyette). The only played who dropped out of the top fifteen was Doug Mohns.

The only new players in the top ten in 1968 were Johnny Bucyk (14th in 1967), Rod Gilbert (17th place) and Jean Ratelle (who had a horrible, injury-shortened season the year before). Those are all explainable by injury or minor, natural variations. None of the new players who debuted in 1968 challenge any of that era's star players.

This appears to be a strong argument - based on evidence, not theory - that the league's best players were already in the NHL and that a sudden increase in the size of the league wouldn't seriously challenge the determination as to who's the best player.

The argument is not so much that there were players outside of the NHL who would have been challenging for glory if they played in the league instead. Obviously from the 1970s on this too becomes a concern (with the WHA on one hand and the Soviet and Czechoslovak players on the other), but it's still not the main point. It's rather that (for example) a player from the 1990s/2000s is punished for having to compete with more serious contenders (as highlighted by the fact that in addition to the Canadian players, American and European ones are also in the mix for top scoring finishes and awards in that area) if we take his record at face value. Compare the AS voting records of someone like Theoren Fleury or Mark Recchi under historic conditions (with Jágr, Selänne, Bure, Pálffy etc competing at RW) with what it would have been under O6 conditions (no Europeans or Americans to compete with). The Europeans and Americans make the difference between several first/second All-star team nods and an 8th place in voting in some years.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Facts

All of this only serves to explain why there was less competition thirty years earlier, it doesn't change anything about the fact that there was less competition respectively that there is more competition now.



Adding non-Canadian guys like Lidström and Karlsson to the league definitely makes it harder for the top Canadian defencemen to win awards.



Not sure, but how does it change anything about the fact that any given Canadian top player now also has to compete with non-Canadian top players in addition to the other Canadian top players if he wants to win an individual award?

Could you support your alleged facts with evidence, other than proclamations?

You have a major problem with your "facts" since it has been shown that it is easier, for Canadian 18-19 year olds to play in the NHL today than it was in the seven seasons leading up to Bobby Orr's 1966-1967 debut as an 18 year old.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=games_played

Teenagers in the last seven seasons of the O6 era mainly played five or fewer games on an try-out or emergency basis.

Today teenage Canadian players are regulars, in some cases challenging for awards and honours while outperforming mature NHLers. Yet the same league that is much easier for teenagers to play in is much harder for for mature Canadian adult hockey players to play in. Where is this on/off degree of difficulty switch?

Last season Aaron Ekblad played in the NHL as an 18 year old, winning the Calder and getting AST and Norris votes. This year as a 19 year old he is one of the elite defencemen in the league.

Aaron Ekblad is a Canadian. Is the competition somehow easier for him than it is for an older Canadian like Shea Weber. Both are RHS defencemen, Both are Canadian.

If a player wants to win an individual trophy? Can you show where winning an individual trophy has ever been a prime objective of a player on a hockey team entering a season? Players simply want to win the Stanley Cup by being the best that they can be at their position.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Losing is Losing

The argument is not so much that there were players outside of the NHL who would have been challenging for glory if they played in the league instead. Obviously from the 1970s on this too becomes a concern (with the WHA on one hand and the Soviet and Czechoslovak players on the other), but it's still not the main point. It's rather that (for example) a player from the 1990s/2000s is punished for having to compete with more serious contenders (as highlighted by the fact that in addition to the Canadian players, American and European ones are also in the mix for top scoring finishes and awards in that area) if we take his record at face value. Compare the AS voting records of someone like Theoren Fleury or Mark Recchi under historic conditions (with Jágr, Selänne, Bure, Pálffy etc competing at RW) with what it would have been under O6 conditions (no Europeans or Americans to compete with). The Europeans and Americans make the difference between several first/second All-star team nods and an 8th place in voting in some years.

Losing is losing. Does not matter to who Fleury or Recchi lost.Plenty of Canadian RW that were contemporaries could have outplayed the two players mentioned. Brett Hull, Mike Gartner, Jarome iginla, Martin St.Louis, Rick Tocchet, Steve Larmer, Shane Doan.

No different than George Armstrong at RW behind Gordie Howe, Maurice Richard, Bernie Geoffrion, Andy Bathgate in the O6 era. Armstrong was recognized properly with HHOF honours.

Erudite analysts can distinguish situations like Brad Park behind Bobby Orr for Norris voting and similar situations.

The alternative question is that whether the winning of certain awards and honours is definitive or is it just incidental to the playing of the regular season.

The parallel team result question - many posts ago I showed that teams winning three Stanley cups within six season stretches, is more common(hence easier) post the 1967 NHL expansion - 6 such sequences vs 5 such sequences pre 1967 NHL expansion back to the 1917 season

The two era comparables go hand in hand, players to players yet the team to team one which is more reflective of elite talent has been ignored.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I have already stated the problems associated with pre NHL times and even a short while before the western professional league merged with the NHL for practically all of the elite Canadian talent.

So because pre-NHL times are problematic towards your "Canadian Standard" formula, it's easiest to just shuffle them under the rug and pay little attention to the first few decades of the game's history. At least until somebody wants to undertake the challenge of comparing a pre-NHL player to a modern one, at which point we are reminded that, in spite of acknowledged but unreconciled "problems" with such a comparison, the modern player was of course the better player due to superior competition of his era.

The 1926-27 post Canadian standard is constant still in 15-16 so the Henrik Daniel thing is a linemate thing much like Reggie Leach/ Bobby Clarke, Stamkos/MSL ect..

No, it would not be the same. As I understand your "Canadian Standard" formula, Henrik and Daniel would only have their accomplishments stacked up against Canadian players. They are both Swedish, so when examining one brother, the other is omitted from the comparison. Yet of course still gets the benefit of having the brother as their linemate which surely helped contribute to their success.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

One could easily make a personal list for the current "elite" players. That wouldn't be arbitrary if you follow the current league closely. Comparing across eras is complete guesswork, especially considering how many non-Canadian star players there are now, so it is rather arbitrary for anyone.

So it's complete guesswork to compare across eras, yet you are absolutely certain that the number of elite players today compares favorably to the number of elite players during the Original Six era.

You evaluate across eras and compare those players with hard data and factual accounts? If that's what you mean then it's impossible since players from different eras never set foot on the ice at the same time. If you've hypothesized that the amount of truly elite players is equal across eras then you've still hypothesized, right?

A quick look at scoring data, which is available right back into the late 19th century, can at least serve as a starting point. Further digging, which typically includes contemporary analysis of games, players, seasons, etc. takes it a step further. These would qualify as hard data and factual accounts. I'm not sure why comparing the research compiled on one player to that of another would be termed "impossible".

Knowing what we know would do you side on the amount of elite players remaining constant from the O6 or increasing? You surely must go to one side of the fence with this question.

Well since the definition of an "elite player" has been left completely open-ended, it would be easy for somebody to argue for either scenario depending on what's convenient for them at the time, now wouldn't it?

I guess I'd start by evaluating individual positions. I would say that no position has remained at constant strength from the Original Six era up until now. All have featured peaks and valleys in terms of the top end talent level. And of course, there were fluctuations within the Original Six era itself - 25 years covers multiple generations of players. If somebody compared the crop of defensemen in 1965 to the crop in 1991, they would probably conclude an increase in talent. But if they compared 1955 to 2008, they may suspect a decrease. Similar situations exist for every position.

 

[Hardyvan123]

@Hardy and Dan
Without going on a point by point basis, I'm going to try and sum the argument up real quick here.
Basically the argument is that players accomplishments today should be viewed with greater value because of the competition they face. That it is both more numerous and of higher quality.
That, for example, a player like Lidstrom should have his accomplishments viewed with greater value than Harvey's?

This is the argument in a nutshell correct?

I'll speak for myself and no it isn't.

My argument is that the peer to peer competition needs context and there is a standard in place since the 1926-27 season that provides that contest.

To compare one player against a different set of peers makes for a lousy conclusion and "punishes" one set of players and not another set plain and simple.

I mean the last couple of pages have basically been debate over just how many Elite players are really in the League at any given time and the fight has been over what value the above argument should receive in the overall evaluation of a player.
I think the only real big issue that everyone is having with you two specifically is that you both seem to want it to be the ONLY weight used in a players evaluation.
The fact that these O6 players played best on very best upwards of 6-7 times more often than players do today seems to get ignored for its' value over and over by you two.
As does peer to peer observations and comparisons between players that played multiple era's.

Once again you are misquoting me as I have always been a strong supporter of looking at every player comp in as many different ways as possible, peer to peer comparison is only one such metric.

BY FAR though, the biggest problem a lot of people have with the competition argument being presented by you Hardy and you Dan is that it only seems to apply when it suits your agenda.
Because quite simply, by your own argument about quantity and quality of competition and the weight you assign it, there is no way in hell that you two should have Lidstrom ranked ahead of Bourque.
I mean that IS one of the bigger points in Bourque's favour between the two yet you both have no issue with lessening the value of it greatly in that debate.

Once again you believe this because you believe the previous quote above which is wrong.

I don't look at just one metric, if one looked at just one metric, say post season all star selections then Bourque should be the #1 Dman of all time right?

the thing is that playoffs, defensive play, Norris finishes well pretty much everything comes into play.

And it's not like I had Lidstrom #1 and Bourque # 10 or something there is very little separating the top 3 or 4 Dmen of all time IMO, they all have slightly different resumes.

Oh and Hardy...the term "Canadian Standard" is not a real term. It's something you made up a while back that you liked the sound of and have been trucking it out like it's an accepted real technical term ever since.
It's not and it means absolutely nothing!

No sadly it's not accepted here the archaic and unfair peer versus peer comparison is canon here and I'm merely pointing out why it's unfair and incorrect to use when one doesn't take into account context of the NHL from different time periods.

The Canadian standard does indeed mean something as it's a constant control group and the fact that there is push back to it means something as well.

I'm sure readers can figure out what that is as it's pretty obvious.

 

[Hardyvan123]

So because pre-NHL times are problematic towards your "Canadian Standard" formula, it's easiest to just shuffle them under the rug and pay little attention to the first few decades of the game's history. At least until somebody wants to undertake the challenge of comparing a pre-NHL player to a modern one, at which point we are reminded that, in spite of acknowledged but unreconciled "problems" with such a comparison, the modern player was of course the better player due to superior competition of his era.

Well the fact of the matter is that the conditions were much different in 1895, 1905 and 1927 in North American hockey and much of the information we would need to fairly compare different players at different times in pre fully consolidated NHL is either lost or wasn't there in the first place.

Hockey was still in it's infancy and was largely a club amateur sport until the 1910's when it became more organized and professional but still with competing leagues and major instability to fairly compare one player to a player in another league.

frankly the situation was alot like the lockout in 12-13 where NHL players dispersed in several different leagues in Europe.

It's really hard to gauge just how good Malkin was in his native Russia compared to other NHLers' in Sweden, Finland, Switzerland ect...

I think for onlookers that they should be aware of the great challenges in accurately comparing a player from pre 1926-27 to later times and also be wary if anyone has definitive opinions in comparisons between players from such a limited information and analysis time compared to alter on when there is at least some sort of consistent standard or baseline to work with.

For example, it'e entirely possible that Frank McGee was a "better" player than Steve Stamkos but all of the evidence and information we have says that's it's almost impossible to be true.

It's not that it's problematic and that I don't like the results, we simply don't have any accurate way to apply the Canadian standard for that time period.

Ideally we would compare those players among themselves and with less conclusiveness than for players with more information and support in making any such comparisons and analysis IMO.

No, it would not be the same. As I understand your "Canadian Standard" formula, Henrik and Daniel would only have their accomplishments stacked up against Canadian players. They are both Swedish, so when examining one brother, the other is omitted from the comparison. Yet of course still gets the benefit of having the brother as their linemate which surely helped contribute to their success.

Line mates is an entirely different issue and it's about as relevant as the sets of HHOF brothers having any advantage in an all Canadian league.

It's really a separate issue IMO.

But I do happen to think that the Sedins twins are greater than the sum of their parts, much like the green unit was but like I stated above it's an entirely different issue.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I'll speak for myself and no it isn't.

My argument is that the peer to peer competition needs context and there is a standard in place since the 1926-27 season that provides that contest.

To compare one player against a different set of peers makes for a lousy conclusion and "punishes" one set of players and not another set plain and simple.



Once again you are misquoting me as I have always been a strong supporter of looking at every player comp in as many different ways as possible, peer to peer comparison is only one such metric.





Once again you believe this because you believe the previous quote above which is wrong.

I don't look at just one metric, if one looked at just one metric, say post season all star selections then Bourque should be the #1 Dman of all time right?

the thing is that playoffs, defensive play, Norris finishes well pretty much everything comes into play.

And it's not like I had Lidstrom #1 and Bourque # 10 or something there is very little separating the top 3 or 4 Dmen of all time IMO, they all have slightly different resumes.

To be fair, I prolly shouldn't have lumped you in with Dan.
As much as I disagree with a lot of your arguments and theories due to being flawed at their premise and as much as I feel the weights you assign to things more often than not lack consistency or reason, you're still miles from Dan's extremism.
Unlike Dan, you do at least try to assign weight to other factors instead of outright ignoring them.

No sadly it's not accepted here the archaic and unfair peer versus peer comparison is canon here and I'm merely pointing out why it's unfair and incorrect to use when one doesn't take into account context of the NHL from different time periods.

Except it's about more than just what country one was born in so therefore blanketing everything as the so called Canadian Standard is simply a flawed premise.

The Canadian standard does indeed mean something as it's a constant control group and the fact that there is push back to it means something as well.

Not it's not and no it doesn't.
You tried to present your "Canadian Standard" a while back. When all was said and done your theory had so many holes, it looked like swiss cheese and there were more questions than answers.
If by push back you mean that most people don't take it seriously, ignore it or flat out find it completely uncredible...I guess in some warped, myopic way of looking at it, one could possibly consider that push back heh

I'm sure readers can figure out what that is as it's pretty obvious.

Don't worry Hardy, long time posters know exactly what's obvious about it

 

[Hardyvan123]

To be fair, I prolly shouldn't have lumped you in with Dan.
As much as I disagree with a lot of your arguments and theories due to being flawed at their premise and as much as I feel the weights you assign to things more often than not lack consistency or reason, you're still miles from Dan's extremism.
Unlike Dan, you do at least try to assign weight to other factors instead of outright ignoring them.



Except it's about more than just what country one was born in so therefore blanketing everything as the so called Canadian Standard is simply a flawed premise.



Not it's not and no it doesn't.
You tried to present your "Canadian Standard" a while back. When all was said and done your theory had so many holes, it looked like swiss cheese and there were more questions than answers.
If by push back you mean that most people don't take it seriously, ignore it or flat out find it completely uncredible...I guess in some warped, myopic way of looking at it, one could possibly consider that push back heh



Don't worry Hardy, long time posters know exactly what's obvious about it

No the Canadian standard is a pretty fair and accurate baseline in that the best Canadian players have been in the NHL since 1926-27 but of course since the 70's (and especially in the late 80, early 90's and beyond elite talent has come from BC.

Comparing one group strictly among only select Canadians and the other group among not only the original group but all the new talent streams as well is simply unfair and an inaccurate way to judge players.

At least a Canadian Standard would be a constant and consistent baseline to start and work with and much more valuable and fair to players across the board than the current peer to peer (regardless of the makeup of the NHL cannon).

It's very easy to see that some people are opposed to this more because it doesn't fit their own conclusions than any problem with the standard (especially compared to the current one).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This one is over 1000 posts

Continue here:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=115071899