was hockey talent better in the 1970s-1990s or 2000-2020?

[StumpyTown]

I think the easiest way to see how dominant Gretzky was in his era is to look at the percentages by which he outscored his closest rivals year in and year out.
No player in NHL history has ever dominated like that. That is why he is the Great One and the best ever. Would he score less points if he played more in the lower scoring era? Absolutely. But if you take the top scorer in each of those seasons and extrapolate out his points based on the percentage he outscored opposition in the years he did play his numbers would still be insane.

 

[DFC]

The example to bridge the gap between the high scoring 80s and now is Mario Lemieux.

A retired, 35 year-old, Lemieux came back to the league, in mid-season, after not playing for 3 years. He had lost all of his speed but still put up 76 points in 43 games...in 2000-01. He was on pace for 145 points. So despite being far far far from his prime, Lemieux scored at a pace that would put him 25 points better than Crosby's best season.

Crosby has been around for a while and it is clear that the "improved quality" of the league since he entered hasn't really affected his scoring in a major way.

To wrap this all up, Gretzky was better than Lemieux, pre-injury (Gary Suter 1991, thanks asshole!). Lemieux was better than Jagr. Jagr was more prolific than Crosby and Crosby still scores almost the same today as he did when he was younger. Therefore Gretzky would put up a billion points today.

Lemieux puts a lot of arguments to bed, IMO, because he destroyed multiple generations. Jagr, to a lesser extent, also destroys arguments that players of former generations couldn't hang today. Jagr hung played at a high level until he was like 124 years old. And Jagr wasn't even in Lemieux's tier.

Gretzky in today's game would be a different player than Gretzky of the 80s. He probably would have a different physique, very different gear, training habits, and on and on and on, all of which would add up to him being the best player of all time again. All of these improvements to the non-natural talent side of the game are things people had to do to catch up to Gretzky and make this an argument. If Gretzky had all of the same advantages, he would still destroy everything. Lemieux proves that.

 

[Aceboogie]

The top end talent in the 70s & 80s looked better in comparison to the average players. Because the average player was terrible. They could hardly skate and had close to no skill. Most times, their only redeemable trait was being willing to fight

Most depth/average players these days either are good at skating, have puck skills, or a mix of the two

 

[Fantomas]

I think the NHL has seen two great spurts in talent: a) in the early 1990s, with the added influx of Europeans and b) in 2005 and after, with the development of many talented players from several extremely deep drafts (2003 and onward).

I see early 00s - up to the lockout - as rather weak years and it's apparent why if you look closely at the lack of talent in NHL drafts in the mid-to-late 1990s. Those were historically terrible drafts that produced very few good players and no real superstars. These drafts helped extend the careers of many old NHLers.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Jagr even up until 2016.

You have to remember though, Jagr is an absolute freak of a work-horse. His workout routines are just insane. If you've never seen it, I highly recommend you check it out. It's no wonder he can play into the age that he is now.

 

[Aceboogie]

Natural born talent was probably the same.

Every hockey generation debate can be ended with this statement. Natural born talent is the same.

70s athlete would be just as good in todays game

Having had this debate many times over hundreds of posts with several deep-dives on the data, here’s my perspective:

“Hockey talent” at the NHL level consists of three major factors.
1. The total number of young hockey players — the number of “gifted” players is a function of raw population
2. Quality of training to unlock natural gifts — basically, the efficiency of the development system where they live
3. Access to the NHL pipeline — it does no good for a gifted and well trained player to peak in high school and then go work in a car dealership

In my opinion, the pro hockey talent level gained steadily from 1900 to 1980, with occasional random spikes and dips.

From 1980-2000, we saw a “golden era” because all three of the factors above were juiced:
1. Baby Boom created the largest generation in history
2. Canada and the USSR invested very heavily in sports training, and especially for hockey, and several other countries came online as world powers
3. The fall of the USSR made the NHL pipeline the most-wide-open it has ever been

Post-2000, each of these factors has receded:
1. Generations are much smaller
2. Public investment in rinks and leagues has dropped off, and the development system has become un-democratized (elite training is excellent, and inaccessible for most children)
3. The rise of viable KHL and Euro-league options has cut into the NHL talent pool. While gains in the USA have somewhat offset the impact, most “new market” hockey playing children are not actually in the NHL pipeline on a practical basis because there is no elite-level hockey infrastructure where they live.

Conclusion: the level of actual talent in the NHL rose steadily 1900-1980, peaked sharply 1980-2000, and fell off to its prior level 2000-2020. It is debatable whether it is has inclined or simply flatlined since about 2010.

Great post. My points of discussion:

-How much does the rise of KHL/Euro leagues impact talent in the NHL truely? Most Euro league players good enough for the NHL will jump to the NHL the first chance they get. Those leagues are keeping NHL caliber talent out of the NHL. Infact, they probably increase the talent in the NHL, because viable Euro leagues are breeding ground for young euros, which some will make the jump to the NHL. 98% of the leagues likely arent NHL caliber players

The KHL is a bit different as they probably have a fair number of high end players who could be in the NHL. But they make similar to more money in the KHL and get to play at home. However, we see alot of top KHLers coming over to the NHL to test it out and many stick around

-You mentioned it in a different way, but I would wonder what the pipeline for the NHL will look like in the next 20 years. There has been a recognition hockey has become accessible for many kids, and now there are programs in place to alleviate that (wont have much of an impact for years to come). But given the mass excodus of children int he US from youth football, I wonder if hockey can capture some of these kids (alot go into basketball). This could be an avenue for expanding the pipeline

 

[Minar]

You have to remember though, Jagr is an absolute freak of a work-horse. His workout routines are just insane. If you've never seen it, I highly recommend you check it out. It's no wonder he can play into the age that he is now.

I've seen it. And even despite workouts there is no way the jagr of 2016 was anywhere near what he was in the 90s and yet he could still play in today's nhl.

 

[Minar]

The top end talent in the 70s & 80s looked better in comparison to the average players. Because the average player was terrible. They could hardly skate and had close to no skill. Most times, their only redeemable trait was being willing to fight

Most depth/average players these days either are good at skating, have puck skills, or a mix of the two

Yew but all the players in the league played against those same 'goons' but none were in Gretzkys ball park 1980 to 87. He was above and beyond his peers.

 

[TheGuiminator]

I think we have more and better talents today. The average player today is light years better than than average player in the 80’s for instance.

The major difference back then is you had phenoms like Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, who were WAY ahead of their peers, to the point where it made the rest of the league look bad. Nowadays, You still can pinpoint who the best player is, but that player isn’t in a tier of his own and the gap isn’t that wide, because the talent pool is larger.

 

[kingsholygrail]

This clinches it for me.

Players before 2000 be like:

Dustin Brown in a nutshell.

 

[BoardsofCanada]

I just watched the 1980 All star game on sportsnet. The skating was glaringly inferior to today. The goaltending looked minor league and the d-men coughed up the puck numerous times; something that in today's game would get them run out of town.

Yes it was an all star game but they definitely played all star games differently back then. The players were really trying.

Anyway, I agree with the natural talent comment. If these 1980 guys had the same equipment, training etc. as today's players, they would still be top players.

 

[Bluto]

Gretzky is the most dominant player in their respective sport in history.
The fact that some people dont put him at number 1 is mind boggling.
Take MJ and combine him with Lebron and Wilt Chamberlain and thats what Gretzky was to hockey.
I think the fact that he only won 4 cups in his career and that edmonton won another one without him speaks to the parity of the game at the time.

 

[quackquackquack]

Yeah there's much more parity of talent nowadays. 70's and 80's had absolute plugs in the lineup that couldn't do much of anything.

 

[BlackFrancis]

I think the fact that he only won 4 cups in his career and that edmonton won another one without him speaks to the parity of the game at the time.

The only parity at the time revolved around who would have the 3-4 season dynasty next.

 

[Tawnos]

The average talent level is higher and the talent gap is smaller. Both of these really come from the bottom and the middle being raised up, not because of the top players.

Also worth mentioning that offensive talent isn’t the only kind there is, and defensive ability far surpasses what we saw in the 80s and early 90s. Defensive talent started to improve in the mid-90s which, combined with coaches finding ways to successfully leverage it, is what led to the dead puck era.

The argument about training and equipment doesn’t matter. We can all assume that when you take a player from one area and put him in another, that player will play under the same conditions. It’s these other 3 factors... average talent higher, talent gap smaller, and better defensive talent that make it difficult to say how Crosby or McDavid compare to Gretzky in ability.

 

[604]

Lemieux puts a lot of arguments to bed, IMO, because he destroyed multiple generations. Jagr, to a lesser extent, also destroys arguments that players of former generations couldn't hang today. Jagr hung played at a high level until he was like 124 years old. And Jagr wasn't even in Lemieux's tier.

Gretzky in today's game would be a different player than Gretzky of the 80s. He probably would have a different physique, very different gear, training habits, and on and on and on, all of which would add up to him being the best player of all time again. All of these improvements to the non-natural talent side of the game are things people had to do to catch up to Gretzky and make this an argument. If Gretzky had all of the same advantages, he would still destroy everything. Lemieux proves that.

The thing is, Mario at 35, didn't have advanced training and conditioning. He was old, he was slow. He still scored at a 145 point pace. In 2000-01, if you watch Mario, he knew he couldn't skate, so he would slow the game down. Guys would just be forced to play at his pace because he was so good at making space for himself and protecting the puck.

Gretzky was better than Mario. He wouldn't need all the things that you mentioned, he would just force everyone else to adapt to how he played (until someone decided to cheap shot him).

 

[Minar]

What some here are saying is that the reason hockey is better today, better passing, defence, goaltending etc is because there is more talent today. Why would there be more talent? That part I dont understand. Did the hockey gods just neglect human kind in the 80s and not bless them with any talent? And in the last 20 yrs the gods decided to hand out all the talent? Doesnt make sense. The game is better today not because of more talent but because the game has developed and continues to develop. Players and coaches pic up where others left off and the players get better. Just like my son will be better than me because he learned everything I know and will build off that and learn more. There was just as much talent back then as today. The league was more primitive yes, as today's league will be compared to 30 yrs from now. 30 yrs from now people will say there wasn't much talent in today's game and they will be wrong then too. Gretzky stood out amongst the pack in a way that noone ever has and deserves full respect for accomplishing that. Era he played in doesnt diminished that.

 

[Daximus]

What your saying about Gretzky is exactly what they said about him when he came into the league in 1979. In fact they said he might not be able to cut it in the nhl at all. And he obliterated their expectations. From 1980 to 1988 if you take Gretzky out of the equation the competition was quite even just like today. And it's not like everyone in the 80s was breaking records. Only Gretzky. Gretzky was a outlier who was light years beyond his peers. Something we haven't seen from ovi, mcdavid, Crosby or anyone else since. If he played today he would still be an outlier with today's advantages in technology and training. It is hard for people today to understand Gretzky because there has never been the likes of him. (Lemieux came close but was limited by injurues.) Take Gretzky out if the equation from his first 8 yrs and you will see the league was quite even. Top scorers besides Gretzky usually got btw 100 and 140 pts. Not that much different than today.

And PS Gretzky didnt play in the nhl in the 70s except for 3 months his first year...

Really there were multiple 50+ goal scorers every single season from 2000-2020? Multiple 130+ point seasons in some years from 2000-2020? Not one single season from 2000-2020 makes the top 50 best single season points records all time. The best season during that time is Kucherov 18/19 season which ranks 53rd all time.

Gretzky was great but it's silly to say that scoring then wasn't easier because it so very obviously was.

 

[Kamaya Painters]

Incomparable. Hockey isn't like basketball or soccer where generations can simply be compared.

The sport has evolved tremendously between decades for the past 50 years. Between rule changes and equipment upgrades and training/coaching methodologies it's simply impossible. Hockey is also one of the most luck based sports so that throws another wrench into things.

If we're talking from a purely objective standpoint modern hockey players are much better than their historical counterparts, due in no small part to technological advancements that they're privy to

Football players ran around 5-6 km a game up until maybe 1975. The majority today run at least 10,5 km a game and the very top do 13 km a game. The amount of sprints have gone up immensely. The training and its methods have been revolutionized. The ball was a disaster back when Di Stefano, Puskás and Pelé dominated world football. The pitches were horrendous. The game was violent compared to today and shortened players careers. Not everyone could turn professional and had part-time jobs. Maradona didn't have the protection of Messi and Ronaldo.

You simply can't compare football in the 1950's, 1960's or 1970's to what it is today.

 

[NorthernBridge7]

Natural athletic talent is no different today than 1970-1990's, but due to equipment advancements, increased attention to nutrition & fitness, access to unlimited video/learning tools online, and the natural progressive evolution of sport, we are developing the most talented athletes today than we ever have.

 

[bobbyking]

howe belongs in the 50s

 

[Kreegz2]

Having had this debate many times over hundreds of posts with several deep-dives on the data, here’s my perspective:

“Hockey talent” at the NHL level consists of three major factors.
1. The total number of young hockey players — the number of “gifted” players is a function of raw population
2. Quality of training to unlock natural gifts — basically, the efficiency of the development system where they live
3. Access to the NHL pipeline — it does no good for a gifted and well trained player to peak in high school and then go work in a car dealership

In my opinion, the pro hockey talent level gained steadily from 1900 to 1980, with occasional random spikes and dips.

From 1980-2000, we saw a “golden era” because all three of the factors above were juiced:
1. Baby Boom created the largest generation in history
2. Canada and the USSR invested very heavily in sports training, and especially for hockey, and several other countries came online as world powers
3. The fall of the USSR made the NHL pipeline the most-wide-open it has ever been

Post-2000, each of these factors has receded:
1. Generations are much smaller
2. Public investment in rinks and leagues has dropped off, and the development system has become un-democratized (elite training is excellent, and inaccessible for most children)
3. The rise of viable KHL and Euro-league options has cut into the NHL talent pool. While gains in the USA have somewhat offset the impact, most “new market” hockey playing children are not actually in the NHL pipeline on a practical basis because there is no elite-level hockey infrastructure where they live.

Conclusion: the level of actual talent in the NHL rose steadily 1900-1980, peaked sharply 1980-2000, and fell off to its prior level 2000-2020. It is debatable whether it is has inclined or simply flatlined since about 2010.

A+ post and I agree with all of it, but I think one big factor that has not been addressed so far in the thread was the rapid expansion of the NHL and how it diluted the overall talent pool. Between 1967 and 1980, the NHL grew from 6 teams to 21 teams, a 350% increase, and it continued growing throughout the 80s and early 90s. This meant that many more players who would have never sniffed NHL ice in a 6 team league were now mainstays on many NHL teams which drastically increased the disparity in skill between the top end players like Gretzky and Lemieux and the rest of the league. They were so much better than most of their opposition that they were able to put up absolutely insane numbers. Imagine if Mcdavid played in a league in which 50% of its players were WHL, ECHL, or QMJHL caliber. That would be a similar environment to what Gretz and Mario encountered in the 80s. Not only were they generational talents to very definition of the word, but their generation also just happened to occur during this transitional period for the league in which they were able to exploit their talents to the maximum extent against vastly inferior opponents due to the ballooning size of the league.

In today's game, there is not nearly the amount of disparity between the very top players and the very bottom, which leaves the very top players a slimmer advantage to work with.

 

[PatrikBerglund]

AST of 2020 would obliterate the one from 1980.

Double digits.

 

[Tawnos]

What some here are saying is that the reason hockey is better today, better passing, defence, goaltending etc is because there is more talent today. Why would there be more talent? That part I dont understand. Did the hockey gods just neglect human kind in the 80s and not bless them with any talent? And in the last 20 yrs the gods decided to hand out all the talent? Doesnt make sense. The game is better today not because of more talent but because the game has developed and continues to develop. Players and coaches pic up where others left off and the players get better. Just like my son will be better than me because he learned everything I know and will build off that and learn more. There was just as much talent back then as today. The league was more primitive yes, as today's league will be compared to 30 yrs from now. 30 yrs from now people will say there wasn't much talent in today's game and they will be wrong then too. Gretzky stood out amongst the pack in a way that noone ever has and deserves full respect for accomplishing that. Era he played in doesnt diminished that.

You’re mistaking more talent for greater talent. A lot of people are. The league has more talent in it, but that phrase describes an overall level, not a peak.

 

[wetcoast]

I think the NHL has seen two great spurts in talent: a) in the early 1990s, with the added influx of Europeans and b) in 2005 and after, with the development of many talented players from several extremely deep drafts (2003 and onward).

I see early 00s - up to the lockout - as rather weak years and it's apparent why if you look closely at the lack of talent in NHL drafts in the mid-to-late 1990s. Those were historically terrible drafts that produced very few good players and no real superstars. These drafts helped extend the careers of many old NHLers.

I think that part of the reason scoring goes down in certain eras ( and somehow the argument is that there is less talent in the league) is that coaching and team philosophies and rules change to accommodate the prevailing thoughts and groupthink of any era.

The 80's were high scoring and wide open affairs as teams tried to emulate the Oilers and the clutch and grab era where New Jersey gained more success than their pure talent indicated what they should win.

The game is always changing and there are some many variables that it much the OP's question hard to quantify but in general there is clearly more "talent in the second era he refers to.