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

[CartographerNo611]

I think there is too much straight line speed in today’s game. Makes it dizzying to watch on TV when it’s non stop up and down. Everyone plays the same, you have to really pay attention to nuance quirks to differentiate a 2nd liner with a 4th liner. You could always tell a difference between talent back in the day which was nice.

Defense is better today yes but loads more boring to watch if they ain’t flashy when carrying the puck. Poke checks and sound positioning aren’t as exciting to watch as removing the body from the puck while risking an odd man rush due to a defensive mistake.

The team mentality is really lacking for a more individualistic style of play. Used to be you would see star plays coasting through some nights while the bottom lines were giving it their all every shift. Now days you can tell when 4th liners are taking night offs and all teams have nights where multiple lines are going through the motions.

The goalie debate is really biased to modern goalies on hfboards atleast. Goalies of yesterday had to play stand up due to chest protectors barely reducing the pain from getting peppered with pucks. Legs had the most protection. The goalies are more “skilled” today is some truth with a lot of BS. People are comparing a style that relied heavily on twitch reflex and a style built around better equipment that’s makes it easier to use your full body to stop a puck.

Any era has its drawbacks its up to personal taste in which style of hockey you prefer. I prefer early 90s hockey which was pretty balanced until the super defensive WWE wrestling of the mid to late 90s.

 

[authentic]

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.

Underrated post. Also why I believe Lemieux at his peak > Gretzky.

 

[authentic]

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.

If anything it speaks to the disparity and how stacked Edmonton was. A team doesn't win 5 cups in 7 years in a league with great parity.

 

[authentic]

AST of 2020 would obliterate the one from 1980.

Double digits.

Even if they switched goalies.

 

[authentic]

Don't agree at all. Soccer, which is my main sport, they were literally walking around in some instances as late as the early 90's. Soccer has evolved insanely much in terms of pace and speed. Watch a game from 1950's Montreal Canadiens and a game from today, and I guarantee you that the difference between a high level game of soccer from then and today is much bigger.

What's interesting about hockey is that it has been much more up and down in its development, I think soccer has had a steady upward evolution through its history while hockey was a joke for a bit in the late 70's/early 80's. Soccer was more steadily upwards.

This is entirely true. I've watched games from 1959 and the pace was much quicker and defensive structure was more similar to todays game than 70/80s hockey. It's no wonder that by far the 3 most dominant players were in the 70s/80s time period.

 

[authentic]

My understanding is he got into fitness late to. I remember a reporter once saying he did not look like an athlete with no shirt on.

Not sure about that one. This is Jagr in 1994.

 

[DJJones]

Jagr always makes this an interesting conversation since he's recognized as being a great modern player while still playing with the last generation.

Jagr was fantastic in his prime and I haven't heard much arguments saying he'd be a top 3 to 5 player today. Guy was an animal. With that being said Wayne and Mario were better than him at the start of his career.

 

[newfy]

Jagr always makes this an interesting conversation since he's recognized as being a great modern player while still playing with the last generation.

Jagr was fantastic in his prime and I haven't heard much arguments saying he'd be a top 3 to 5 player today. Guy was an animal. With that being said Wayne and Mario were better than him at the start of his career.

Theres plenty of examples of guys that crossed over generations and show that those 90s players were better. Jagr is an obvious one. Gretzky and Lemieux still blew him out of the water whe he was in his prime and they were past theirs. Lidstrom is another one. Winning Norrises against guys like Doughty, Karlsson, Weber etc. Both of these guys were doing it at like 40 years old still too. Theres a long list of these 90s stars outperforming a lot of the games best in the mid 2000s when they were well past their primes.

 

[JD1]

Theres plenty of examples of guys that crossed over generations and show that those 90s players were better. Jagr is an obvious one. Gretzky and Lemieux still blew him out of the water whe he was in his prime and they were past theirs. Lidstrom is another one. Winning Norrises against guys like Doughty, Karlsson, Weber etc. Both of these guys were doing it at like 40 years old still too. Theres a long list of these 90s stars outperforming a lot of the games best in the mid 2000s when they were well past their primes.

Lidstrom won his last Norris in 08. Doughty was a rookie in 08 09 and Karlsson in 09 10.

So there goes that theory i guess

 

[BlueBaron]

Not sure about that one. This is Jagr in 1994.

I guess we'd need to look at every year after his draft to that one to see if it was a change or if he'd always been that way. I may be mistaken of course, things that happened 25+ years ago aren't always perfectly remembered.

 

[Sentinel]

Sometimes the exception proves the rule though right?

You are talking about the current worst team in the NHL by far against a dynasty with no salary cap restrictions that had 9 HHOF players on it.

Fine. Take Colorado's 4th line: Podein-Yelle-Eric Messier. Or Dallas's 4th line IIRC: Skrudland-Keane-Verbeek. Not many 4th lines in today's league that can match those. NJ's 4th line with Brylin and Pandolfo was pretty good too.

 

[Sentinel]

Lidstrom won his last Norris in 08. Doughty was a rookie in 08 09 and Karlsson in 09 10.

So there goes that theory i guess

Lidstrom won his last Norris in 2011. Prime Doughty, prime Keith, prime Weber, prime Chara. So the theory is solid.

 

[JD1]

Lidstrom won his last Norris in 2011. Prime Doughty, prime Keith, prime Weber, prime Chara. So the theory is solid.

You're right. My bad thought it was 08

 

[wetcoast]

You're right. My bad thought it was 08

The thing is that you should be right Lidstrom probably shouldn't have won the Norris in 10-11 but he should have won in 97-98.

 

[Tawnos]

70s: Esposito, Clarke, Hull, Mikita, Lafleur, Trottier, Kharlamov, Petrov, Mikhailov, Maltsev, Yakushev.
80s: Gretzky, Lemieux, Bossy, Kurri, Messier, Yzerman, Stasny, Dionne, Makarov, Krutov.
90s: Fedorov, Bure, Jagr, Sakic, Forsberg, Lindros, Kariya, Selanne, Hull Jr., Modano.

Which post-lockout players, outside of the Big Three + McDavid, can measure up to these stars? Thornton? He is an analog of Oates. Bergeron? He is an analog of Gainey and Lehtinen. Datsyuk? OK, yes. Stamkos? Kucherov? Draisaitl?

Many of you simply don't remember how phenomenal those star forwards were. They put the fear of god into their opponents. People always knew when they were on ice and always expected a goal.

And I'm not even mentioning defense and goalies. Hasek alone was better than anybody post-lockout. The only two players who won two Vezinas were Thomas and Bobrovsky. He won THREE TIMES as many, with two Harts to boot, and with far inferior equipment. They are not sniffing the HHOF, and he can be practically issued a throne there.

Mostly, I'm of the opinion that the real talent difference comes from your 2nd-4th lines and 2nd-3rd pair D.... and I can't speak to the 70s and 80s players since I didn't see many of those guys in their primes. However, if your 90s list is any indication, I have reason to doubt. All 10 were great players. Absolutely phenomenal. But there are a lot of stars from the post-lockout era that I'd say were or are just as good. Patrick Kane for example. Marty St Louis for another. The last few years, at least, Nate MacKinnon in addition to Kucherov and Draisaitl. And yeah, Stamkos. Hell, I'd rate Spezza and Getzlaf as being just as good as Modano. The main real difference between them is that Modano's prime lasted for more than a decade while the other guys were 7-10 years. That means Modano had a better career, but doesn't mean he was a more talented player. Tavares is an equivalent player too. And yes, I watched plenty of Modano.

I could say dismissive things about what I know about some of your lists anyway. Trottier is basically a Ron Francis analog.

 

[authentic]

Theres plenty of examples of guys that crossed over generations and show that those 90s players were better. Jagr is an obvious one. Gretzky and Lemieux still blew him out of the water whe he was in his prime and they were past theirs. Lidstrom is another one. Winning Norrises against guys like Doughty, Karlsson, Weber etc. Both of these guys were doing it at like 40 years old still too. Theres a long list of these 90s stars outperforming a lot of the games best in the mid 2000s when they were well past their primes.

Gretzky did not blow Jagr out of the water past his prime while Jagr was in his. Jagr was pretty clearly a vastly better hockey player from 1994-95 and on, exactly when Jagr's prime began.

 

[Mbraunm]

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.

Extremely well thought out post and I completely agree.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

Just watch highlights from older games. Barely any coverage. If you couldn't clutch and grab, the scoring rate would be way higher.

 

[Sentinel]

I could say dismissive things about what I know about some of your lists anyway. Trottier is basically a Ron Francis analog.

This is so wrong I wouldn't know when to start. They were both terrific two-way players, but this is where the similarities end. Trottier was a superb physical specimen and a #1 center on a dynasty. A Hart and an Art Ross winner. Four 40 goal seasons + 50 goal season. Nobody would ever mistake him for a 3X Lady Bing winner who never scored more than 30 goals in a season Ron Francis.

MSL is a good example of a carryover from the DPE who dominated this "new and improved post-lockout NHL."

 

[Sentinel]

I could say dismissive things about what I know about some of your lists anyway. Trottier is basically a Ron Francis analog.

This is so wrong I don't know where to start. They were both terrific two-way players, but this is where the similarities end. Trottier was a superb physical specimen and a #1 center on a dynasty. A Hart and an Art Ross winner. Four 40 goal seasons + 50 goal season. Nobody would ever mistake him for a 3X Lady Bing winner who never scored more than 30 goals in a season Ron Francis.

 

[newfy]

Lidstrom won his last Norris in 08. Doughty was a rookie in 08 09 and Karlsson in 09 10.

So there goes that theory i guess

10-11 was his last Norris. Against prime Weber, Letang, Keith, Karlsosn in the league, Doughty hitting his prime etc. He was 41 and his prime was the late 90s and early 2000s

Gretzky did not blow Jagr out of the water past his prime while Jagr was in his. Jagr was pretty clearly a vastly better hockey player from 1994-95 and on, exactly when Jagr's prime began.

Yeah blowing out of the water at that point was definitely exaggeration but Gretzky had some very comparable years to Jagr while Gretzkys back was bad and he was pretty old. Espedially when you take team quality into account. In 93-94 Gretzky had 130 points to Jagrs 99, but yes I guess I should've said more Jagrs earlier career/early prime. Once Jagr hit his stride Gretzky was on his way out and his back was mangled. He still had a couple years fairly comparable though depsite the difference in age and everything

 

[Tawnos]

This is so wrong I wouldn't know when to start. They were both terrific two-way players, but this is where the similarities end. Trottier was a superb physical specimen and a #1 center on a dynasty. A Hart and an Art Ross winner. Four 40 goal seasons + 50 goal season. Nobody would ever mistake him for a 3X Lady Bing winner who never scored more than 30 goals in a season Ron Francis.

MSL is a good example of a carryover from the DPE who dominated this "new and improved post-lockout NHL."

The bolded was literally my point.

 

[Tawnos]

10-11 was his last Norris. Against prime Weber, Letang, Keith, Karlsosn in the league, Doughty hitting his prime etc. He was 41 and his prime was the late 90s and early 2000s

I could be mistaken, but I thought the consensus on Lidstrom's last Norris was that none of the top d-men in the league stood out from each other, so they gave the Norris to Lidstrom almost as a lifetime achievement trophy. Granted, he was also 2nd among D in scoring that year.

And of course, even if that was the case, he still won one at 37.

 

[DingDongCharlie]

Underrated post. Also why I believe Lemieux at his peak > Gretzky.

Lemieux was the best combination of talent and size ever. It’s too bad his career was impacted by injuries. Gretzky was the smartest player ever. I’d say they are neck and neck at peak but I might be biased. It’s certainly debatable.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Comparing Brian Trottier to Ron Francis? My good man...