The Misunderstood O6 era

[Canadiens1958]

The O6 era is constantly misunderstood by a group of posters who clearly did not see or experience hockey from that era, nor do they understand the nuances and complexities.

These posters reduce everything to a counting exercise at the expense of accurate and fruitful analysis, exemplified by their mantra easier to win, Cups, Ross, Hart, etc......insert your choice of accolades.

In the NHL there are two major transition periods. 1945 agreement with the CAHA that ushered in the sponsorship era and 1983 which saw the last of the sponsorship players leave the NHL being replaced by Amateur draft existing since 1963 and its derivatives. Significant and important changes resulted each time, impacting team structures and player development.

Specifically. Prior to 1945, no NHL team won more than two Stanley Cups in a row.From the fall of 1945 thru the spring of 1983, five teams won three to five consecutive Stanley Cups, even though the NHL grew from six to twenty-one teams. From the fall of 1983 to date no NHL team has won more than two consecutive Stanley Cups. League grew from twenty-one to thirty-one teams.

Click to read more...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

intriguing. can you please explain the causal relationships btw those changes and the rarity/non-rarity of repeat champions that ensued?

 

[Canadiens1958]

intriguing. can you please explain the causal relationships btw those changes and the rarity/non-rarity of repeat champions that ensued?

Young hockey players entered the NHL team's sponsorship structure as young as 14 years old (Bobby Orr) learning the team system until reaching the NHL. They went thru the various stages learning the various responsibilities on that team.

This reduced significantly the time required at the NHL level to teach the team's system to newcomers. Older juniors went to the NHL training camp, Montreal and Toronto operated junior teams and farm clubs at their home rink or within short proximity. Five game amateur tryouts in the NHL were common.Future players could see the NHLers practice, learn the nuances of the rink and boards as well as futre teammates.

Time was spent perfecting the necessary skills instead of acquiring them.

This produced mature teams that were better prepared to win or excel. Likewise better overall players.

Teams could call-up players with the necessary skill sets as injury replacements. Make trades for players that fit. Prime example Red Kelly trade to Toronto.Kelly had played in the Leafs junior system before joining Toronto.

 

[daver]

Young hockey players entered the NHL team's sponsorship structure as young as 14 years old (Bobby Orr) learning the team system until reaching the NHL. They went thru the various stages learning the various responsibilities on that team.

This reduced significantly the time required at the NHL level to teach the team's system to newcomers. Older juniors went to the NHL training camp, Montreal and Toronto operated junior teams and farm clubs at their home rink or within short proximity. Five game amateur tryouts in the NHL were common.Future players could see the NHLers practice, learn the nuances of the rink and boards as well as futre teammates.

Time was spent perfecting the necessary skills instead of acquiring them.

This produced mature teams that were better prepared to win or excel. Likewise better overall players.

Teams could call-up players with the necessary skill sets as injury replacements. Make trades for players that fit. Prime example Red Kelly trade to Toronto.Kelly had played in the Leafs junior system before joining Toronto.

What does this have to do with the statistical reality that it was easier to win in a six team league vs. a 30 team? I.e. if the sponsorship structure was still in place for today's 31 teams, are saying there would be less teams winning more Cups?

I don't think that you can reasonably challenge a Hart or Ross from the O6 simply because of the lower amount of teams but it is certainly reasonable to question the strength of 3rd, 5th or 10th placings in a strict statistical sense.

 

[daver]

Are there other possible explanations for the change in repeat champs starting in the late 40's? Could it be argued that that between the teams joining and dropping out and WWII, the league didn't reach a mature and stable stage where repeats and dynasties could actually occur?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Young hockey players entered the NHL team's sponsorship structure as young as 14 years old (Bobby Orr) learning the team system until reaching the NHL. They went thru the various stages learning the various responsibilities on that team.

This reduced significantly the time required at the NHL level to teach the team's system to newcomers. Older juniors went to the NHL training camp, Montreal and Toronto operated junior teams and farm clubs at their home rink or within short proximity. Five game amateur tryouts in the NHL were common.Future players could see the NHLers practice, learn the nuances of the rink and boards as well as futre teammates.

Time was spent perfecting the necessary skills instead of acquiring them.

This produced mature teams that were better prepared to win or excel. Likewise better overall players.

Teams could call-up players with the necessary skill sets as injury replacements. Make trades for players that fit. Prime example Red Kelly trade to Toronto.Kelly had played in the Leafs junior system before joining Toronto.

thanks for that—very helpful. to what extent, if any, do you think a strong farm system (like for example montreal’s in the 80s/early 90s) can partially replicate the results you mention from the O6?

you don’t get the kids from age 14, obviously, but in a strong system you do see some continuity where the base of a habs team can turn over almost completely between 1989 and 1993 but the infusion of young guys mostly hit the ground running. as opposed to, say, the st louis blues of the same era.

 

[tony d]

Was a good era for hockey for sure. Some great talent spread throughout those 6 teams. Great names like Howe, Richard, Harvey, Mikita, Hull. Wish I had been alive for that era.

 

[Canadiens1958]

NHL in flux position is reflected by both the formative years / post consolidation era including the the original salary cap and the post 1983 era with labour unrest and the return of salary cap since 2005. Regardless of league size,ranging from three to thirty-one, no team won more than two consecutive SCs. Likewise the NHL game day roster size question never factored into the SC result. Regular season placement does not matter. First or last qualifier, makes no difference.

This is also a very quaint oversight or blindspot exhibited by the NHL league size proponents. They recognize the number of teams in the NHL but totally ignore the game day roster size variances and derivatives over the years.


Any NHL award that is voted upon is meaningless from the standpoint that the choice,regardless of league size reduces to a low one digit number every season. True whether generated by teams ranging from low single digits to mid-range two digit pool of teams.

The counting NHL awards, Ross, original Vezina, Rocket reflect TOI and deployment. Trying to distinguish between placings each season is about as useful as evaluating the wetness of the 3rd, 5th, 10th raindrop in every storm.

 

[Canadiens1958]

thanks for that—very helpful. to what extent, if any, do you think a strong farm system (like for example montreal’s in the 80s/early 90s) can partially replicate the results you mention from the O6?

you don’t get the kids from age 14, obviously, but in a strong system you do see some continuity where the base of a habs team can turn over almost completely between 1989 and 1993 but the infusion of young guys mostly hit the ground running. as opposed to, say, the st louis blues of the same era.

Not only the young players but coaches and management as well. Bowman and Pollock learned the craft from the ground up.

Issue reduces to the question of players playing together.Modern NHL teams easily churn 1/3 of the roster from season to season. As a result,regardless of size team rosters are poorly structured with no long term vision evident.

 

[MadLuke]

I imagine the more power/choice an organisation has on is team, the more the difference between organisation can show up.

It does seem quite trivial that in a league that reward team that finish last with a first round pick and hurt the best team by giving them the worst pick that it will be harder to sustain success, I am not sure I got the link between being more frequent for team to win cups in a row and the statement about being hard to win the cup or not.

Seem that it goes into the sense that for the player in a good team, that for the good organisation the chance to win a lot of cup was indeed higher.

 

[daver]

Not only the young players but coaches and management as well. Bowman and Pollock learned the craft from the ground up.

Issue reduces to the question of players playing together.Modern NHL teams easily churn 1/3 of the roster from season to season. As a result,regardless of size team rosters are poorly structured with no long term vision evident.

Still not getting how this establishes that the best teams from any era should not be reasonably measured against teams from their own era rather than against teams from other eras regardless of league dynamics.

The Pens, Hawks, and Wings should be viewed as the best teams in the past 25 years or so. That none of them can claim to be a "dynasty" when compared to the best teams in the 50 year period before that is irrelevant. This should not take away from giving the key players on those teams reasonable recognition for getting their teams to the Cup.

That the best regular season performing players have also been generally the best playoff performing players should confirm that we should give regular season performances appropriate weighting in ratings.

It is also worth noting that their is an obvious correlation between the best regular season performing teams and Cup winning/Cup finalist teams since 2005. The idea that the regular season is irrelevant rings rather hallow. There is also a correlation between the best regular season teams having the best regular season performing players.

The only thing we can say for absolute certainty is that we have no idea how any individual team player would perform in another era. Or that any individual team could exist in any other era. The other thing we can say is that with certainty is that it is statistically harder for teams to win consecutive Cups in the 30 team regardless of league dynamics.

A player like Crosby, who has established himself as the best playoff performer of his era on a team that has been the most successful of his era, should not be held behind a player like Beliveau because Beliveau won more Cups. If Crosby's regular season resume clearly surpasses Beliveau's, that should be sufficient.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I imagine the more power/choice an organisation has on is team, the more the difference between organisation can show up.

It does seem quite trivial that in a league that reward team that finish last with a first round pick and hurt the best team by giving them the worst pick that it will be harder to sustain success, I am not sure I got the link between being more frequent for team to win cups in a row and the statement about being hard to win the cup or not.

Seem that it goes into the sense that for the player in a good team, that for the good organisation the chance to win a lot of cup was indeed higher.

Drafts are about marketing and sustaining interest not developing or distributing talent.

NHL was a 21 team league from 1979-80 thru 1991-92. First 4 seasons the Islanders won 4 consecutive SCs. Next 9 seasons no team won more than 2 consecutive SCs in a row. Edmonton twice in 1984 & 1985 plus 1987 & 1988, plus Pittsburgh in 1991 and 1992. Yet the odds of winning or repeating as SC champions did not change. So there are other factors at play.

Even in the larger NFL, 32 teams, the New England Patriots have dominated the last 19 season, 9 Super Bowl appearances - 6 victories, than teams have dominated smaller leagues in other eras.

 

[daver]

NHL was a 21 team league from 1979-80 thru 1991-92. Firpst 4 seasons the Islanders won 4 consecutive SCs. Next 9 seasons no team won more than 2 consecutive SCs in a row. Edmonton twice in 1984 & 1985 plus 1987 & 1988, plus Pittsburgh in 1991 and 1992. Yet the odds of winning or repeating as SC champions did not change. So there are other factors at play.

Your whole premise is based on a freak goal by Steve Smith. Noone reasonably looks at the Oilers four Cups in five years as a sign that is was now becoming harder to win consecutive Cups. If not for that goal, it could have been up to ten seasons out of twelve (76/77 to 87/88) that there was a repeat champion, the most impressive stretch in league history.

After 91/92, there would seem to be a natural decrease in consecutive winners/Cup finalists as the league expanded in size and two of the league's greatest talents had less influence.

Again, if you are trying to position the O6 Cup winners as being superior to Cup winners after expansion, it doesn't seem to be in line with the logic that 5 to 6 times the amount of teams = less repeat winners.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Still not getting how this establishes that the best teams from any era should not be reasonably measured against teams from their own era rather than against teams from other eras regardless of league dynamics.

The Pens, Hawks, and Wings should be viewed as the best teams in the past 25 years or so. That none of them can claim to be a "dynasty" when compared to the best teams in the 50 year period before that is irrelevant. This should not take away from giving the key players on those teams reasonable recognition for getting their teams to the Cup.

That the best regular season performing players have also been generally the best playoff performing players should confirm that we should give regular season performances appropriate weighting in ratings.

It is also worth noting that their is an obvious correlation between the best regular season performing teams and Cup winning/Cup finalist teams since 2005. The idea that the regular season is irrelevant rings rather hallow. There is also a correlation between the best regular season teams having the best regular season performing players.

The only thing we can say for absolute certainty is that we have no idea how any individual team player would perform in another era. Or that any individual team could exist in any other era. The other thing we can say is that with certainty is that it is statistically harder for teams to win consecutive Cups in the 30 team regardless of league dynamics.

A player like Crosby, who has established himself as the best playoff performer of his era on a team that has been the most successful of his era, should not be held behind a player like Beliveau because Beliveau won more Cups. If Crosby's regular season resume clearly surpasses Beliveau's, that should be sufficient.

Simply, league size is the worst and laziest possible measuring stick. This is evident in all sports. Plenty of examples.

Games and seasons have to be played not theorized. Tactics, aging and injuries are constants in sports. Tactics, aging and injuries are irrelevent when flipping fair coins. In fact tactics would produce an "unfair" coin flip.

O6 era featured a balanced schedule. Previously to and after the O6 era, NHL scheduling was unbalanced. NFL RS and playoff scheduling has various biased elements, from weighed RS scheduling based on the standings from,to playoff byes. So the regular season format does not matter.

If .....means insufficient without leaving certain measures out of the process.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Your whole premise is based on a freak goal by Steve Smith. Noone reasonably looks at the Oilers four Cups in five years as a sign that is was now becoming harder to win consecutive Cups. If not for that goal, it could have been up to ten seasons out of twelve (76/77 to 87/88) that there was a repeat champion, the most impressive stretch in league history.

After 91/92, there would seem to be a natural decrease in consecutive winners/Cup finalists as the league expanded in size and two of the league's greatest talents had less influence.

Again, if you are trying to position the O6 Cup winners as being superior to Cup winners after expansion, it doesn't seem to be in line with the logic that 5 to 6 times the amount of teams = less repeat winners.

Again if, assuming that the Oilers would have scored later. All we know is that they did not.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, for a guy who continues to incorrectly use the terms "statistical certainty" and "fact" by re-stating the same tired memes that seem to wink at the notion that winning (anything) in sport is a fair-chance lottery...it's hard to imagine a scenario where he could so quickly and abruptly assign a championship to a team who was tied in game 7 of the conference final...they weren't ahead in the game or the series at the time of that goal, nor were they even in the Final...

In essence, "facts" are the things I believe in...

 

[daver]

Yeah, for a guy who continues to incorrectly use the terms "statistical certainty" and "fact" by re-stating the same tired memes that seem to wink at the notion that winning (anything) in sport is a fair-chance lottery...it's hard to imagine a scenario where he could so quickly and abruptly assign a championship to a team who was tied in game 7 of the conference final...they weren't ahead in the game or the series at the time of that goal, nor were they even in the Final...

In essence, "facts" are the things I believe in...

That's quite the hill you are choosing to die on.


So instead of 10 years out of twelve of repeat champions, we have 9 out of 12. Hardly an indicator that there was a fundamental change to the league dynamics. Noone reasonably looks at a six team league vs. a 30 team league and expects the same level team dominance. Noone reasonably looks at all league expansion from 1967 onwards as the continuing watering down of talent from the O6 era.

Do you honestly believe that if there were only six teams in the NHL right now they would not be significantly superior to the O6 teams? Canadians make up half the players currently; that alone indicates an influx of talent that wasn't there before.

 

[daver]

Simply, league size is the worst and laziest possible measuring stick.

Measurement of what? The relative strength of a Cup winner?

We have zero idea how any Cup winner would do in any other era. To blindly insist that O6 Cup winners are generally superior to all others based on multiple wins, is, again, a statistically disingenuous argument.

The NBA and NFL can be more influenced by individual players i.e Lebron, Brady but if you want to go down the route of claiming that a player like Beliveau's deserves praise for winning 11 Cups and this is an accurate representative of his value and individual contribution to those Cups, how do you explain the Habs win in 58/59 where he only played 3 games? You could have removed him altogether and the Habs still would have won.

Can you say the same about Wayne, or Mario or Crosby?

 

[daver]

O6 era featured a balanced schedule. Previously to and after the O6 era, NHL scheduling was unbalanced. NFL RS and playoff scheduling has various biased elements, from weighed RS scheduling based on the standings from,to playoff byes. So the regular season format does not matter.

Really? 60% of the games for the top three teams were against far worse defensive teams relative to the worse defensive teams in today's league and I am certain that the best team today would play a lower % than 60%.

All you are doing is pushing a narrative that will make posters neutral on this subject, like myself, more likely to favour modern players over O6 ones.

 

[Canadiens1958]

That's quite the hill you are choosing to die on.


So https://hfboards.mandatory.com/members/canadiens1958.63428/instead of 10 years out of twelve of repeat champions, we have 9 out of 12. Hardly an indicator that there was a fundamental change to the league dynamics. Noone reasonably looks at a six team league vs. a 30 team league and expects the same level team dominance. Noone reasonably looks at all league expansion from 1967 onwards as the continuing watering down of talent from the O6 era.

Do you honestly believe that if there were only six teams in the NHL right now they would not be significantly superior to the O6 teams? Canadians make up half the players currently; that alone indicates an influx of talent that wasn't there before.

We are not looking at the watering down of talent but the distribution of talent. Like money, talent gravitates. Give every person the same amount of money and regardless of the size of the population, within a year inequalities in the money each person has will appear due to money management skills.

If....worst foundation for a point. If pigs could fly? They cannot, regardless of provenance.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Really? 60% of the games for the top three teams were against far worse defensive teams relative to the worse defensive teams in today's league and I am certain that the best team today would play a lower % than 60%.

All you are doing is pushing a narrative that will make posters neutral on this subject, like myself, more likely to favour modern players over O6 ones.

Top teams by definition always play a strong majority of far worse teams be it defensively, offensively, management or what ever criteria you choose. True regardless of era, league size or any metric.

One of the truisms of life is that the elite in any profession, skill or activity, prevails disproportionately.

 

[doug hamilton]

All in all a very interesting discussion. Taking the two dates that Canadiens1958 has used in the opening entry I wonder if there isn't a important consideration of the question of the maturation of the NHL as a professional league over time. Certainly in the post-war period there is plenty of evidence that there was a real inequality of condition for the six teams. As I understand it, it was an open secret that the Red Wings ownership owned the Chicago franchise through a numbered company, as well Madison Square Garden which owned the Rangers and also held the mortgage on the Boston Garden. It was a time when NHL was said to mean "Norris House League". It's not surprising that the successful teams in the post-war period are Detroit, Montreal and Toronto. By the late 50's that starts to break down when Jim Norris starts to run the Blackhawks in a serious fashion building up their organization and signing great talents like Bobby Hull & Stan Mikita. The Bruins and Rangers started to take building their systems seriously as well.

When the league decided to expand they had to make a decision about sponsorship and territorial rights. With Canada at that time the major producer of talent what prospective owner would join a league where the access to that talent was strictly limited. The fact that the transition to a true amateur draft took several years is a testament to the power of the Leafs and Canadiens.

At the same time, the management of both the established and expansion teams was generally in the hands of men who came from backgrounds of playing the game or being closely attached to it. They may have known how the game was played or how to judge talent but they were, in the main, not people who knew about how to build organizations for the future, what marketing was, how to work a balance sheet and a number of other things that they had responsibility for. Many teams struggling to put a better product on the ice right now were susceptible to offers of aging name players for draft choices. They were also generally slow to respond to the arrival of the WHA which increased the scarcity of talent.

By the early 1980's the management of NHL teams had undergone a revolution in terms of size, structure and mindset. The ownership of teams had also changed. Though there were still a few individual figureheads or family ownership groups left, in the main teams were increasingly owned by corporate entities and run on a business footing. By then it was clear that selling the future for today was a generally bad idea. Also, after the Canada-Russia series in the 1970's and the success of the WHA's Winnipeg Jets with signing Swedish players there was also an aggressive move into new areas of talent that had been previous discounted by hockey managers as 'second-rate'. The influx of those players increased after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in general.

I think that NHL teams are better run today (though as a Senators fan I believe there may be exceptions) and that the access to talent is perhaps the most equitable it has ever been. The presence of free agency as well as a salary cap are important considerations in the question of creating a dynasty like the Candiens, Leafs, Islanders and Oilers of yesterday. Overall I'd say that the game is different, not better, than what I remember of the Original 6, but still a great game.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Top teams by definition always play a strong majority of far worse teams be it defensively, offensively, management or what ever criteria you choose. True regardless of era, league size or any metric.

One of the truisms of life is that the elite in any profession, skill or activity, prevails disproportionately.

That's almost like saying that it's far brighter during the day than at night, but sometimes the obvious needs to be stated.

 

[daver]

Top teams by definition always play a strong majority of far worse teams be it defensively, offensively, management or what ever criteria you choose. True regardless of era, league size or any metric.

One of the truisms of life is that the elite in any profession, skill or activity, prevails disproportionately.

Top teams in the current era are be playing 52% of their games against below average teams, not 60%. This is a statistical truism.

 

[Eisen]

Measurement of what? The relative strength of a Cup winner?

We have zero idea how any Cup winner would do in any other era. To blindly insist that O6 Cup winners are generally superior to all others based on multiple wins, is, again, a statistically disingenuous argument.

The NBA and NFL can be more influenced by individual players i.e Lebron, Brady but if you want to go down the route of claiming that a player like Beliveau's deserves praise for winning 11 Cups and this is an accurate representative of his value and individual contribution to those Cups, how do you explain the Habs win in 58/59 where he only played 3 games? You could have removed him altogether and the Habs still would have won.

Can you say the same about Wayne, or Mario or Crosby?

Tiny nitpick off topic. Beliveau won 10.