The Misunderstood O6 era

[Canadiens1958]

I've resigned myself to the conclusion that you'll never concede a point, preferring to repeatedly change topics instead. Once again, your inability to provide examples for the skaters or goaltenders will suffice.



I did not suggest Billy Smith as star. Again, stop misquoting me. I suggested Billy Smith could be considered as a star. If I stated there wasn't a single star goalie from the 1970s, playing during the 1980s, this is the first name you'd likely mention. I brought up his name, merely to eliminate him from the conversation.



This is simple conjecture. Throwing out GAA and SV% averages does not prove this point. That's a completely superficial argument. There's significantly more nuance than you understand or are willing to concede. It's impossible to engage in meaningful conversation on this topic because you continually start at conclusions, only to search for evidence supporting your preordained theories.

For the record, I do not believe the 1980s were a relatively deep time for goaltending.

No mulligan or waffling about raising Billy Smith. Simply dismissed your suggestion with examples and links.

Possible to consider Gretzky as a 1970s since he played the complete 1978-79 season in the WHA and is very to the point about goaltenders. Likewise Mike Luit with two WHA seasons. Since you previously included the WHA upthread in multiples of your posts and responses, it is fair game for me to enter the door opened by your invitation and explore the issue.

Forwards will be considered and questions answered in due time.

You do not believe the 1980s was a deep time for goaltending. Why not?

Are you waffling or withdrawing the assertion about Roy, Vanbiesbrouck and Barrasso made upthread?

The Misunderstood O6 era

 

[TheEye]

In 1974, there were still holdover players that were properly developed (relatively) from the sponsorship era. Not as many undeveloped, immature, or one-dimensional players to have to lean on...that player pool eroded and it allowed for all hell to break loose. Out of control scoring, teenagers making the league, crazy records, etc. stuff we hadn't seen since the War years of the 40s...

Both you and Canadiens1958 maintain a remarkable consistency in your viewpoints of the game. No offense intended, but I sometimes have to look left to prompt myself which poster I'm currently reading. It's great you're both so similarly aligned, right down to the talking points and, often, phrasing. You should enjoy a beer with each other and chat about hockey as I'm certain you'll get along most famously.

That said, I think you're both viewing the Sponsorship Era through a very Canadiens-centric lens. In doing so, it appears the sponsorship era was creating an extremely strong team dynamic. The reality is it was causing imbalance. Throughout the O6 era, each season consisted of three formidable teams and three weak teams. From 1942 to 1969, with exception to one season, only three unique teams won the Stanley Cup over a period of over a period of 28 years. Think about that for a second. Why do you feel this was happening? If the Sponsorship Era was an exceptional system, why would the other teams consistently suffer throughout the entire era? If the Sponsorship Era was inherently superior, certainly the expansion and heavily-drafted Philadelphia Flyers certainly wouldn't win the Stanley Cup by 1974.

I don't know if either of you has ever participated in this specific type of sports league but, if so, you'll understand my following example. If you've played in a league-type where players are undrafted, but protected, you'll notice the league is often very unbalanced. The reason this occurs is the team with the best structure and available finances are able to more easily attract the elite players. As a consequence, this team will continually attract the incoming elite players because these players want to play for the stronger team(s). Because these teams are impressive, they generate more revenue which allows them to continually facilitate the process. The system becomes self-perpetuating and unfair. In a nutshell, that's the Sponsorship Era. The inherent unfairness of the system is why the NHL Draft became a necessity. You can bet the sudden lack of choice didn't make the incoming players happy.

Most notably, I think the best parallel to be drawn between the Sponsorship and Draft Era is in regards to the Soviet Union. Team structure in the Soviet system was strikingly similar to the developmental program you are describing. On top of that, their training schedule was gruelling and remarkably advanced for its time. It's apparent the Soviets were Canada's equal in the 1972 Summit Series. If the Sponsorship-type development program was vastly superior, by the 1987 Canada Cup, the Soviet team should swing to dominance over Canada. That didn't occur, in spite of including their arguably most impressive roster ever.

 

[TheEye]

No mulligan or waffling about raising Billy Smith. Simply dismissed your suggestion with examples and links.

No, you did not. You avoided answering the question entirely and decided to digress into another subtopic. Again, I'll take your lack of examples for the goaltenders and players as conceding the point.

You do not believe the 1980s was a deep time for goaltending. Why not?

I just elaborated on this upthread. Did you bother to read the post? Once again:

Definitely, that's a completely reasonable point. Increasing the amount of goaltenders required for a roster is going to have an impact on teams.

Not only that, but the number of professional teams went from 6 to 32 by the 1974 season. That sustained an incredible impact on the availability of quality starting goaltenders for each roster. How could it not? The same applies to the skaters. I think we're burying our heads in the proverbial sand if we can't recognize the incredible dilution of entire rosters by this point. I hypothesize that begets a normalization process, probably requiring about 20-25 years to once again sustain proper balance for the league.

Are you waffling or withdrawing the assertion about Roy, Vanbiesbrouck and Barrasso made upthread?

No.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No, you did not. You avoided answering the question entirely and decided to digress into another subtopic. Again, I'll take your lack of examples for the goaltenders and players as conceding the point.



I just elaborated on this upthread. Did you bother to read the post? Once again:

Definitely, that's a completely reasonable point. Increasing the amount of goaltenders required for a roster is going to have an impact on teams.

Not only that, but the number of professional teams went from 6 to 32 by the 1974 season. That sustained an incredible impact on the availability of quality starting goaltenders for each roster. How could it not? The same applies to the skaters. I think we're burying our heads in the proverbial sand if we can't recognize the incredible dilution of entire rosters by this point. I hypothesize that begets a normalization process, probably requiring about 20-25 years to once again sustain proper balance for the league.



No.

Read it.

Your answer, as it is above, is far from complete, illustrates a lack of understanding of how the development of goaltending suffered.

Specifically, in 1965 youth goaltending, the future of goaltending, suffered a triple setback with the introduction of the two-goalie down to the lowest level which depending on the jurisdiction was Atom or Novice including house league,

On paper the change was simple, define a team as 12-15 skaters plus 2 goalies. You understood this part. You missed the following three points.

1.)Unlike the pros or even elite juniors, parents pay for their youngster to PLAY, NOT SIMPLY WATCH THE GAMES.
So playing time had to be split. A formula had to be found to do this fairly given human nature. Alternating games was not the answer since knowing when they would not play kids would come up with a cold resulting in the need for a third goalie. So young goalies played half games or two periods/one period splits. Regardless future goalies saw their minor hockey playing time reduced by app 50%.

2.)While skaters continued to develop skills and required stamina for their age, goalies lagged in stamina development. So the few that reached the NHL after 1975 thru 1985 shared the position - Edwards/Sauve in Buffalo, Sevigny/Wamsley in Montreal, Wregget/Bester in Toronto, Moog/Fuhr Edmonton, long list. They lacked the stamina to play 60+ games.

3.) Goalie practice time and methods were affected as well. Previously, until Pee Wee, organizations would half ice practice time with two teams, ending with a short scrimmage. The goalie worked. Two goalies resulted in half the practice time so coaches did not see if lessons and drills were retained immediately.

So on most levels, young goalies, entering the NHL were not NHL ready between 1975 and 1985.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Both you and Canadiens1958 maintain a remarkable consistency in your viewpoints of the game. No offense intended, but I sometimes have to look left to prompt myself which poster I'm currently reading. It's great you're both so similarly aligned, right down to the talking points and, often, phrasing. You should enjoy a beer with each other and chat about hockey as I'm certain you'll get along most famously.

That said, I think you're both viewing the Sponsorship Era through a very Canadiens-centric lens. In doing so, it appears the sponsorship era was creating an extremely strong team dynamic. The reality is it was causing imbalance. Throughout the O6 era, each season consisted of three formidable teams and three weak teams. From 1942 to 1969, with exception to one season, only three unique teams won the Stanley Cup over a period of over a period of 28 years. Think about that for a second. Why do you feel this was happening? If the Sponsorship Era was an exceptional system, why would the other teams consistently suffer throughout the entire era? If the Sponsorship Era was inherently superior, certainly the expansion and heavily-drafted Philadelphia Flyers certainly wouldn't win the Stanley Cup by 1974.

I don't know if either of you has ever participated in this specific type of sports league but, if so, you'll understand my following example. If you've played in a league-type where players are undrafted, but protected, you'll notice the league is often very unbalanced. The reason this occurs is the team with the best structure and available finances are able to more easily attract the elite players. As a consequence, this team will continually attract the incoming elite players because these players want to play for the stronger team(s). Because these teams are impressive, they generate more revenue which allows them to continually facilitate the process. The system becomes self-perpetuating and unfair. In a nutshell, that's the Sponsorship Era. The inherent unfairness of the system is why the NHL Draft became a necessity. You can bet the sudden lack of choice didn't make the incoming players happy.

Most notably, I think the best parallel to be drawn between the Sponsorship and Draft Era is in regards to the Soviet Union. Team structure in the Soviet system was strikingly similar to the developmental program you are describing. On top of that, their training schedule was gruelling and remarkably advanced for its time. It's apparent the Soviets were Canada's equal in the 1972 Summit Series. If the Sponsorship-type development program was vastly superior, by the 1987 Canada Cup, the Soviet team should swing to dominance over Canada. That didn't occur, in spite of including their arguably most impressive roster ever.

I do not drink beer - MF and myself relate to hockey differently and at various levels.

European club teams are the best examples of sponsorship in a democratic setting. Likewise the USNTGP program.

O6 era. You seem to ignore the James Norris effect, owner of the Red Wings,

James E. Norris - Wikipedia

Effectively in control of the four USA based teams with financial interests in Chicago, New York and Boston. this was explained in detail in threads before the migration. Hope the data survived.

Fortunately MF and myself participated in such leagues at various levels, Midget AAA in Quebec is one such league, teams limited to and sponsored by a defined region(hockey jurisdiction). No James Norris.

Thinking for a second does not work well. Research works much better.

James Norris and the family estate controlled league matters until the 1967 expansion, 4 votes to 2. Post expansion they were put an a minority position. They controlled St.Louis only. So they were a 5votes to 7 minority. Quickly they lost influence and spiraled down the standings.

Philadelphia like Las Vegas took advantage of the existing rot in the NHL teams. Easier to build starting with a clean page than a rotten foundation.

 

[TheEye]

Your answer, as it is above, is far from complete, illustrates a lack of understanding of how the development of goaltending suffered.

In point of fact, it appears you demonstrate an affinity for the two-goalie system when it suits your narrative. Underneath are a few of your quotes:

The two goalie system became part of the NHL in the mid 1960's by necessity and by rule. Injuries to goalies were increasing and an NHL caliber replacement was a must. The idea that one of the trainers could fill-in or a junior / semi pro goalie could play or finish a game detracted from the credibility of the league. Also some of the teams preferred to play two part time veteran goalies as opposed to having to make a choice or trying a youngster.

A sub issue would be the actual seventy game schedule. Definitely tougher on goalies than the previous sixty or fifty game schedule but when did certain teams start realizing that a quality back-up was a necessity? Johnny Bower after 1959-60 seemed to need a break or two every season as did Terry Sawchuk. Glenn Hall could have benefitted from the odd break also - the ego aspect of the consecutive game streak did impact come playoff time. Fatigue at times became a factor in Gump Worsley's play.

Ironically after Worsely was hurt app 8 games into the 1963-64 season he was replaced by Charlie Hodge. Starting with the 1964-65 season until the end of toe Blake's coaching career the Canadiens effectively had a two goalie system that produced 4 Stanley Cups in 5 season's, at times using three goalies. Toe Blake was very quick to adapt.

The value and use of the back-up. Before the lost season if a team could develop two good goalies and play them somewhere between a 50/50 and 70/30 split there then going with the hot hand come playoff time there would be an advantage.

In St. Louis Bowman went back to his days coaching the 1956-57 and 1957-58 Hull-Ottawa Junior Canadiens, a team that played in a Junior and Senior league at the same time. Had a two goalie system. Senior goalie was not junior eligible while the Junior goalie was not good enough to play Senior. So Bowman juggled the two. Learned the nuances, saw the advantages, applied the experience in St. Louis.

 

[Canadiens1958]

In point of fact, it appears you demonstrate an affinity for the two-goalie system when it suits your narrative. Underneath are a few of your quotes:

Au contraire.

Appreciate the difference between the history of the two-goalie system at the NHL and elite junior levels and developmental hockey.

You obviously missed or decide to ignore "Unlike the pros or even elite juniors, parents pay for their youngster to PLAY, NOT SIMPLY WATCH THE GAMES."

All citations provided refer to pros or elite junior situations.

 

[wetcoast]

When you are ready, willing and capable to discuss handedness you might find readers.

Handedness seems to be an obsession with some of your historical arguments, much like some believe a RHD is some sort of unicorn.

Would Gretzky and Orr have been even better players had they not been left handed?

I know historically nuns would slap students hands if they used their left hands but the actual impact of handedness in NHL history is complete conjecture isn't it?

Even with Faceoff wins, the difference between a great FO artist and a mere average one impacts the games at such a low rate compared to other factors that it's almost trivial.

 

[wetcoast]

1970s you still had carryover players from the O6 era, majority retired by 1980 replaced by weaker players.

Especially that skinny kid from Brantford Ontario.

The assertion that the 80's had "weaker players" than say the 06 era is 100% subjective and not really backed by any facts or information other than perhaps SC counting and top 10 finishes in a 6 team league, which presents obvious problems.

 

[wetcoast]

But we have GOATs showing up all the time in other sports so common sense would dictate that the cream of the crop arises at any time and we have no way of knowing how the best at any given time would perform in any other era.

hockey is a pretty unique sport so cross sport comparisons aren't very use full.

what sports or players are you talking about specifically BTW?

 

[daver]

hockey is a pretty unique sport so cross sport comparisons aren't very use full.

what sports or players are you talking about specifically BTW?

Tennis, basketball, sprinting, football.

There are no real signs that it is harder to stand out in a sport than before despite greater participation, global growth, better trainging etc...

 

[sr edler]

I know historically nuns would slap students hands if they used their left hands but the actual impact of handedness in NHL history is complete conjecture isn't it?

I think not only nuns. People were forced to write with the right (no pun intended) hand not terribly long ago even in polite society.

By the way, people are using the word conjecture a lot in this thread. Can we add it as a subtitle perhaps, C58?

The Misunderstood O6 era – It's all conjecture

 

[Canadiens1958]

Both you and Canadiens1958 maintain a remarkable consistency in your viewpoints of the game. No offense intended, but I sometimes have to look left to prompt myself which poster I'm currently reading. It's great you're both so similarly aligned, right down to the talking points and, often, phrasing. You should enjoy a beer with each other and chat about hockey as I'm certain you'll get along most famously.

That said, I think you're both viewing the Sponsorship Era through a very Canadiens-centric lens. In doing so, it appears the sponsorship era was creating an extremely strong team dynamic. The reality is it was causing imbalance. Throughout the O6 era, each season consisted of three formidable teams and three weak teams. From 1942 to 1969, with exception to one season, only three unique teams won the Stanley Cup over a period of over a period of 28 years. Think about that for a second. Why do you feel this was happening? If the Sponsorship Era was an exceptional system, why would the other teams consistently suffer throughout the entire era? If the Sponsorship Era was inherently superior, certainly the expansion and heavily-drafted Philadelphia Flyers certainly wouldn't win the Stanley Cup by 1974.

I don't know if either of you has ever participated in this specific type of sports league but, if so, you'll understand my following example. If you've played in a league-type where players are undrafted, but protected, you'll notice the league is often very unbalanced. The reason this occurs is the team with the best structure and available finances are able to more easily attract the elite players. As a consequence, this team will continually attract the incoming elite players because these players want to play for the stronger team(s). Because these teams are impressive, they generate more revenue which allows them to continually facilitate the process. The system becomes self-perpetuating and unfair. In a nutshell, that's the Sponsorship Era. The inherent unfairness of the system is why the NHL Draft became a necessity. You can bet the sudden lack of choice didn't make the incoming players happy.

Most notably, I think the best parallel to be drawn between the Sponsorship and Draft Era is in regards to the Soviet Union. Team structure in the Soviet system was strikingly similar to the developmental program you are describing. On top of that, their training schedule was gruelling and remarkably advanced for its time. It's apparent the Soviets were Canada's equal in the 1972 Summit Series. If the Sponsorship-type development program was vastly superior, by the 1987 Canada Cup, the Soviet team should swing to dominance over Canada. That didn't occur, in spite of including their arguably most impressive roster ever.

Continuing the James Norris saga and its impact on the O6 NHL.

James Norris and Arthur Wirtz had business priorities. Arenas and boxing. USA vs the Intrnational Boxing Club provides a fair amount of background and perspective:

International Boxing Club of New York - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._International_Boxing_Club_of_New_York,_Inc.

The NHL teams in New York, Chicago, Detroit and Boston were cheap filler dates around boxing, the circus and other events. Boxing was televised twice a week, NHL hockey not at all between 1949 and 1955.

Your perspective of the O6 era fails to consider the issues and consequences of the Norris/Wirtz control of the American NHL teams and venues.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I think not only nuns. People were forced to write with the right (no pun intended) hand not terribly long ago even in polite society.

By the way, people are using the word conjecture a lot in this thread. Can we add it as a subtitle perhaps, C58?

The Misunderstood O6 era – It's all conjecture

No, the word will slow disappear, James Norris, Arthur Wirtz and te key historical facts are not conjecture.

 

[TheEye]

You obviously missed or decide to ignore

That's quite an interesting tact to consider. I've been urging you to provide direct examples for aging goaltending/players stars from the 1970s who reversed their declines in the apparently weaker 1980s league. If true (it clearly isn't), you would have provided numerous examples. You have provided none.

I can't respond to every digression you post. You change topics and present false narratives so frequently that I can't devote my entire day attempting to address everything in perpetuity. I mean, how can I barely respond to something as nonsensical as this?

Alternating games was not the answer since knowing when they would not play kids would come up with a cold resulting in the need for a third goalie.

Simply not true, except for some unique example you may have experienced. How do you expect me to keep up with the constant narrative changes? There's a repeated divergence into new subtopics when you are incapable of countering my point(s) with relevant information.

In point of fact, we're directly accusing Norris, et al. for the Philadelphia Flyers winning the Stanley Cup in 1974. Even if this were accurate, it's irrelevant to the Canadiens' or Maple Leafs' inability beating that very same Flyers team. If the Sponsorship Era was so vastly superior, as you claim, that should have occurred.

Your perspective of the O6 era fails to consider the issues and consequences of the Norris/Wirtz control of the American NHL teams and venues.

Accordingly, you're presently informing me the O6 era was unbalanced due to Norris' and Wirtz's negative influences on the American franchises. A number of posters have posited this unbalance (including myself) and you've been vehemently opposed to the idea. At the present moment you appear to be supporting this notion.

The league was definitely unbalanced during the O6 era, and you've finally provided interesting evidence in support of this fact.

 

[daver]

Still not seeing any reason to believe that dominant players from the O6 would be any more dominant in any other eras which is what the OP seems to be pushing. The argument that it was considerably easier to win the Cup even moreso than a 6 team vs. 30 team league dynamic would indicate appears to be the biggest takeaway.

Higher scoring =/= an easier environment for the best player (s) to separate themselves from the pack. Any supposed advantage players like Wayne and Mario had in the regular season over their peers from the O6 were answered by their playoff performances against the league's best teams.

Look at the league in the past four years, scoring by the elite players has gone significantly up but it is still pretty much the same names at the top. The best players produce regardless.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Both you and Canadiens1958 maintain a remarkable consistency in your viewpoints of the game. No offense intended, but I sometimes have to look left to prompt myself which poster I'm currently reading. It's great you're both so similarly aligned, right down to the talking points and, often, phrasing. You should enjoy a beer with each other and chat about hockey as I'm certain you'll get along most famously.

Heh, I'm more of a tequila man myself but that Canadian beer is like moonshine, so why not. No offense taken, it's just nice to be talked to like a human instead of shouted at...

That said, I think you're both viewing the Sponsorship Era through a very Canadiens-centric lens. In doing so, it appears the sponsorship era was creating an extremely strong team dynamic. The reality is it was causing imbalance. Throughout the O6 era, each season consisted of three formidable teams and three weak teams. From 1942 to 1969, with exception to one season, only three unique teams won the Stanley Cup over a period of over a period of 28 years. Think about that for a second. Why do you feel this was happening? If the Sponsorship Era was an exceptional system, why would the other teams consistently suffer throughout the entire era? If the Sponsorship Era was inherently superior, certainly the expansion and heavily-drafted Philadelphia Flyers certainly wouldn't win the Stanley Cup by 1974.

Just for the record, I'm not a Montreal Canadiens fan. It's not relevant, but it may be worth saying anyhow. The sponsorship era is important to the development of players in this case, not so much the result. The result of O6 seasons/playoffs doesn't really matter to the quality of and how the league was played in 1974. Due to expansion drafts and the like, some of these sponsorship era players were dispersed anyhow or were mentored by such players. Jacques Plante -> Bernie Parent, to keep it central to the Flyers winning.

While Philadelphia won a couple (without having to play Montreal...), it doesn't outright dismiss the value of sponsorship-led development...that's a little bit of specious reasoning I think..."if the game is getting faster and more skilled...how come the Blues won this year?" Yeah, it's there and it happened...but if sports always predicted the exact expected result it wouldn't be watched. The Flyers were a blip on the radar in a decade owned by Montreal and Boston...

I don't know if either of you has ever participated in this specific type of sports league but, if so, you'll understand my following example. If you've played in a league-type where players are undrafted, but protected, you'll notice the league is often very unbalanced. The reason this occurs is the team with the best structure and available finances are able to more easily attract the elite players. As a consequence, this team will continually attract the incoming elite players because these players want to play for the stronger team(s). Because these teams are impressive, they generate more revenue which allows them to continually facilitate the process. The system becomes self-perpetuating and unfair. In a nutshell, that's the Sponsorship Era. The inherent unfairness of the system is why the NHL Draft became a necessity. You can bet the sudden lack of choice didn't make the incoming players happy.

Yeah, there's a lot of talk about fairness and balance here, and that's all well and good, but that's not what's on the table is it? We're talking about league quality and the things that effect that. I'm not gonna sit here and defend it as a means to parity...but the player development and what it produced - the individuals it produced - that's what's for dinner here. The turmoil of that time produced relative chaos, which we don't really come to fully realize until around 1980. The WHA was a minor league and it was infused into a professional league...it's like having a car drive into your living room and going "well, at least we have more storage space now..." when it's most certainly a negative...

Most notably, I think the best parallel to be drawn between the Sponsorship and Draft Era is in regards to the Soviet Union. Team structure in the Soviet system was strikingly similar to the developmental program you are describing. On top of that, their training schedule was gruelling and remarkably advanced for its time. It's apparent the Soviets were Canada's equal in the 1972 Summit Series. If the Sponsorship-type development program was vastly superior, by the 1987 Canada Cup, the Soviet team should swing to dominance over Canada. That didn't occur, in spite of including their arguably most impressive roster ever.

I'm not sure how or why we'd come to this conclusion actually...didn't you/we already prove the effectiveness of the sponsorship-led teams by pointing how successful Montreal was for forever?

I think it's worth noting that skaters and goaltenders really need to be separated for these purposes...I see them getting kind of all tangled up in proceeding conversation and there was a different track for goaltending at around the same time this all started to breakup...

Anywho, I'm legitimately not sure where we're at here...I think I'm going to need an NBA style game reset here...I think the game deteriorated as the 70's progressed and the early 80's were a complete cluster**** before beginning its recovery in the later parts of the 80's...that's evident in all the goofy **** that happened as it's almost a 1:1 match to the WWII years (and probably the WWI years, but I'm not quite as well-versed in that)...you think the game immediately got worse because the NHL added a few more teams in the early 70's and a minor league was created that sucked away some legitimately good talent for a short time? (I don't mean that to sound as dismissive as it reads...but I just can't produce the brain power to tidy it up, apologies) Is that kind of where we're at? And if so, is there a particular piece of the puzzle you want to tackle next? I've lost my order of operations and momentum here because of the unfair/unbalanced sponsorship stuff above...

 

[wetcoast]

Tennis, basketball, sprinting, football.

There are no real signs that it is harder to stand out in a sport than before despite greater participation, global growth, better trainging etc...

Both tennis and sprinting are individual sports and pretty hard and difficult to compare with a team sport like hockey.

Basketball is a sport where player can actually play up to 75% of the game in a 5 man sport, so again not really comparable.

football also separates offensive and defensive players unlike hockey in which players play both at a fraction of a second switch not in set plays.

 

[daver]

Both tennis and sprinting are individual sports and pretty hard and difficult to compare with a team sport like hockey.

Basketball is a sport where player can actually play up to 75% of the game in a 5 man sport, so again not really comparable.

football also separates offensive and defensive players unlike hockey in which players play both at a fraction of a second switch not in set plays.

I am not sure what this has to do with the idea that current athletes having a more difficult time separating themselves from their peers moreso than in the past given how advanced training is and how many more people are playing the sport.

That is the crux of the other poster's argument and there is no evidence to support this.

It would appear that a GOAT can appear at any time in any given sport; making a blanket presumption that whoever is the latest candidate for GOAT in any sport is automatically superior to previous GOATs is not reasonable IMO.

 

[daver]

Just for the record, I'm not a Montreal Canadiens fan. It's not relevant, but it may be worth saying anyhow. The sponsorship era is important to the development of players in this case, not so much the result. The result of O6 seasons/playoffs doesn't really matter to the quality of and how the league was played in 1974. Due to expansion drafts and the like, some of these sponsorship era players were dispersed anyhow or were mentored by such players. Jacques Plante -> Bernie Parent, to keep it central to the Flyers winning.

While Philadelphia won a couple (without having to play Montreal...), it doesn't outright dismiss the value of sponsorship-led development...that's a little bit of specious reasoning I think..."if the game is getting faster and more skilled...how come the Blues won this year?" Yeah, it's there and it happened...but if sports always predicted the exact expected result it wouldn't be watched. The Flyers were a blip on the radar in a decade owned by Montreal and Boston.....

If I understand the argument (perhaps not yours but C1958's), the 1976-79 Habs were the last vestige of the sponsorship era; the era that produced the highest quality of hockey/teams/players.

Starting in early 1980s, the players who were replacing the stars of the sponsorship era were of lesser quality thus the league was "weaker". This means Cup winning teams and individual accolades should be viewed in a lesser light than similar accomplishments from the sponsorship era.

 

[Canadiens1958]

If I understand the argument (perhaps not yours but C1958's), the 1976-79 Habs were the last vestige of the sponsorship era; the era that produced the highest quality of hockey/teams/players.

Starting in early 1980s, the players who were replacing the stars of the sponsorship era were of lesser quality thus the league was "weaker". This means Cup winning teams and individual accolades should be viewed in a lesser light than similar accomplishments from the sponsorship era.

Pretty close.

You view individual accolades as individual accomplishments.

1976-79 Canadiens,were the last dynasty team where individual accolades were a by-product of team play and success.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't think you're getting most of this based on the word usage in your responses. The concept of this is the easy part...

League quality is not linear or consistent.

We should be mindful, when comparing across eras, of this knowledge.

Otherwise, you end up trying to treat the 7th best player in 2019 the same as the 7th best player in 1981, 1944, or 1919...or whatever...

Those seem like easily digestible breadcrumbs to get us back on the rails here, let's start there...

 

[daver]

I don't think you're getting most of this based on the word usage in your responses. The concept of this is the easy part...

League quality is not linear or consistent.

We should be mindful, when comparing across eras, of this knowledge.

Otherwise, you end up trying to treat the 7th best player in 2019 the same as the 7th best player in 1981, 1944, or 1919...or whatever...

Those seem like easily digestible breadcrumbs to get us back on the rails here, let's start there...

Since I am a numbers person, I like to see any numbers posted with reasonable context. Whatever those may be, it is not the be all, end all of player evaluation but can add an element of argue-ability to a comparison.

I find arguments as to the # of HOF and all-star players someone faced to be highly subjective and highly questionable when we are comparing players from significantly different league sizes.

I am usually happy to let the #'s speak for themselves and not make assumptions about how a player would perform in any other era.

It looks like this is generally the view of the active members in the HOH section.

 

[Michael Farkas]

We're too philosophically different for me to even attempt to bring you around it sounds like...it would require a total rebuild based on how that's written. So, by all means, carry on...the only thing I ask is that you don't keep acting confused as to why people think that certain sections of history (War years, WHA years, etc.) are not quite as valuable as others...that doesn't mean everyone and everything in it doesn't count or that there's some magical multiplier that dictates how valuable it is...that's the part where hockey sense comes in and helps to make sense of it. I'm not really asking you to agree/disagree or even participate, but the "What's going on? Where am I?" shtick can be shelved at this point as I think you do understand what's being said conceptually...you're under no obligation to abide, of course, but it'd be a nice gesture...

 

[Canadiens1958]

We're too philosophically different for me to even attempt to bring you around it sounds like...it would require a total rebuild based on how that's written. So, by all means, carry on...the only thing I ask is that you don't keep acting confused as to why people think that certain sections of history (War years, WHA years, etc.) are not quite as valuable as others...that doesn't mean everyone and everything in it doesn't count or that there's some magical multiplier that dictates how valuable it is...that's the part where hockey sense comes in and helps to make sense of it. I'm not really asking you to agree/disagree or even participate, but the "What's going on? Where am I?" shtick can be shelved at this point as I think you do understand what's being said conceptually...you're under no obligation to abide, of course, but it'd be a nice gesture...

The Columbo approach had its 15 minutes of fame two generations ago.