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

[tarheelhockey]

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.

I wrote a huge reply to this which was wiped out by the server migration. Not wanting to re-write everything, here are the high points:

- The NHL was much less diluted in the 80s than in the 70s, and had far better competitive balance as a result. Still being at only 21 teams in 1989 was actually a pretty non-diluted league.

- Because of the above, dilution is not an explanation for Wayne/Mario numbers. Look at the next-best guy in a given year. W/M would finish 50% ahead of that guy. Which is unheard of in any era... they were just that much better than anybody else.

- There’s a false attribution of “shallow talent” in 1980s hockey because people view it through a modern lens. Structural differences in the game — shift length, line deployment, goons, specialists, equipment, tactics, training, etc — made for a visually different game than we have today. If you know what you’re looking at, a lot of weird 80s hockey stuff makes sense.

 

[newfy]

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.

People like to go with that narrative on here to say that that should've been the year that Weber won his but Weber didnt even finish with the second most first place votes, Chara did. It was a very tight year and wouldnt have been surprised if it went to any 3 of them but Lidstrom still outscored them both by 15-20 points or so. He also did that on the team with the least amount of help out of the three by far. Weber wasnt even the clear number one dman on his team with Suter playing basically the same minutes, Weber also got to play infront of Rinne and Chara infront of a legendary season by Thomas.

I also think a lot of people liked to say Lidstrom wasnt great defensively anymore but in reality he was still one of the top defensive dmen in the league, he was just being compared to his old self where he wasnt the same. He played tough QOC than Weber that year. At the end of the day that norris was ridiculously close but it wasnt some gift for Lidstrom or a lifetime achievement award, it was likely the most deserving season of the 3 but it was close.

 

[Tawnos]

- There’s a false attribution of “shallow talent” in 1980s hockey because people view it through a modern lens. Structural differences in the game — shift length, line deployment, goons, specialists, equipment, tactics, training, etc — made for a visually different game than we have today. If you know what you’re looking at, a lot of weird 80s hockey stuff makes sense.

I don't think there's any doubt that the style of goaltending and the style of defending by d-men that you saw in the 80s is not as effective as how those positions are played now. There's a reason the techniques evolved. Even so, I don't buy it as the whole of the argument. Essentially, even if they came up with modern techniques, tactics and training, I don't think that guys like Tom Laidlaw and Willie Huber (to pull two randos from the Rangers 85-86 roster) would be NHL defensemen today. Not that they were anything special then either, but today I think they'd be surpassed by better players. I do think James Patrick, Ron Greschner and Reijo Ruotsalainen would be NHLers today, possibly even good ones.

The talent needed to prevent goals was shallower in the 80s. It's part of a bunch of reasons for why scoring was up during that period of time. It's not the only reason, but it is one.

 

[Tawnos]

People like to go with that narrative on here to say that that should've been the year that Weber won his but Weber didnt even finish with the second most first place votes, Chara did. It was a very tight year and wouldnt have been surprised if it went to any 3 of them but Lidstrom still outscored them both by 15-20 points or so. He also did that on the team with the least amount of help out of the three by far. Weber wasnt even the clear number one dman on his team with Suter playing basically the same minutes, Weber also got to play infront of Rinne and Chara infront of a legendary season by Thomas.

I also think a lot of people liked to say Lidstrom wasnt great defensively anymore but in reality he was still one of the top defensive dmen in the league, he was just being compared to his old self where he wasnt the same. He played tough QOC than Weber that year. At the end of the day that norris was ridiculously close but it wasnt some gift for Lidstrom or a lifetime achievement award, it was likely the most deserving season of the 3 but it was close.

His season was something to marvel at to be sure. It's understandable to say "wow, this season is remarkable" while also saying "especially for his age." That latter one is what pushed him over the edge to the Norris, where maybe Lidstrom having the same season even 2 years earlier doesn't. And, in fact, it didn't... since he had around the same production 2 years earlier, but Chara won the Norris with less. It just means that the calculation in 10-11 wasn't purely about his play as a dman.

To be clear, I have no problem with it. I'm just saying if there are other factors at play, it's not a good example to be using to make the point it was being used to make.

 

[Passchendaele]

Before the late 80's, goalies just stood there or flopped around. Compared to today they look like street hockey goalies.

You have to understand that the gear they were using at the time did not allow them to play the same way it is done now.

 

[Weztex]

I don't think there's any doubt that the style of goaltending and the style of defending by d-men that you saw in the 80s is not as effective as how those positions are played now. There's a reason the techniques evolved. Even so, I don't buy it as the whole of the argument. Essentially, even if they came up with modern techniques, tactics and training, I don't think that guys like Tom Laidlaw and Willie Huber (to pull two randos from the Rangers 85-86 roster) would be NHL defensemen today. Not that they were anything special then either, but today I think they'd be surpassed by better players. I do think James Patrick, Ron Greschner and Reijo Ruotsalainen would be NHLers today, possibly even good ones.

The talent needed to prevent goals was shallower in the 80s. It's part of a bunch of reasons for why scoring was up during that period of time. It's not the only reason, but it is one.

That might be partially true. But the NHL back then wasn't flooded with Laidlaws and Hubers. Sure the gap between top and bottom defensemen was a lot greater than today. But while the bottom paring dmen wouldn't make the NHL today, players like Wayne and Mario were constantly matched against the Mark Howe, Larry Robinson, Rod Langway, Doug Wilson and Brad McCrimmon of this world. To me that makes their domination all the more impressive.

 

[95Tal]

I've watched hockey (with some time off here and there) since the late 80s, and honestly I don't see that teams are now stacked with super-skilled players over teams of the past. There are many, many uncreative low-percentage plays/wasted chances and horrible D-zone passes to be seen. Lots of players who are blazing fast north to south but don't put up the points (Hagelin).

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but aside from training and equipment advantages, players today also have to exert themselves for significantly shorter lengths of time, conferring the advantage of going all-out all the time if need be. It should always be taken into account when watching hockey of the past that players were sometimes out there a long time (and maybe hung over ). That changes how you expend energy; you have to pick and choose your moments more like in soccer. Looking at Gretzky, it's fairly easy to find long shifts of his. I just clicked randomly on the 50-in-39 game--he takes the opening face-off, is out there about 20 seconds until a whistle, stays on and is out there another minute before another whistle. One of Gretzky's greatest tools: endurance! Think of all the times he was double-shifted...

 

[Weztex]

You have to understand that the gear they were using at the time did not allow them to play the same way it is done now.

Yeah people have a hard time understanding that. As if goalies just figured it out in the early 90's after about 100 years of professional hockey. The level of hockey we watch is always a product of the technology/advancements available to the player. Not the other way round.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I don't think there's any doubt that the style of goaltending and the style of defending by d-men that you saw in the 80s is not as effective as how those positions are played now. There's a reason the techniques evolved. Even so, I don't buy it as the whole of the argument. Essentially, even if they came up with modern techniques, tactics and training, I don't think that guys like Tom Laidlaw and Willie Huber (to pull two randos from the Rangers 85-86 roster) would be NHL defensemen today. Not that they were anything special then either, but today I think they'd be surpassed by better players. I do think James Patrick, Ron Greschner and Reijo Ruotsalainen would be NHLers today, possibly even good ones.

The talent needed to prevent goals was shallower in the 80s. It's part of a bunch of reasons for why scoring was up during that period of time. It's not the only reason, but it is one.

I’d argue that if you had Tom Laidlaw skating 45 second shifts, in an environment where defenders don’t need to challenge shots from outside the faceoff dots, he would instantly become twice the defender that he was in 1986. Those are major structural changes to the game that have nothing to do with how good an athlete Tom Laidlaw is.

Modern skating techniques are superior to those of the 1980s, especially those concerning lateral movement. The question is, how many of those techniques are all but impossible to execute in a pair of Tacks? I’m not a pro skating instructor but I’d guess that there’s a reason these techniques weren’t developed until modern skates hit the market.

A lot of attention in this topic goes to modern fitness and nutrition. IMO when talking about professional athletes those factors make differences on the margins of performance. The core issue is you have a defenseman skating backwards on a pair of Tacks at the end of a 2-minute shift, waving a heavy wooden stick, knowing that his goalie will likely allow a goal on a slapshot from the wing. The tactics he chooses to employ in that situation will not and cannot resemble those used in 2020s hockey.

To be clear — I do think the current generation of players is on the whole more effective at playing the game than those in the 1980s. Much the same is true of goalies, who are clearly more effective now. However, I have a strong hunch that if we re-enacted a 1980s game with vintage coaching and equipment, everything being exactly the same except the individuals in uniform, we’d see a lot of the same goofy-looking antics on defense.

 

[Tawnos]

I’d argue that if you had Tom Laidlaw skating 45 second shifts, in an environment where defenders don’t need to challenge shots from outside the faceoff dots, he would instantly become twice the defender that he was in 1986. Those are major structural changes to the game that have nothing to do with how good an athlete Tom Laidlaw is.

Modern skating techniques are superior to those of the 1980s, especially those concerning lateral movement. The question is, how many of those techniques are all but impossible to execute in a pair of Tacks? I’m not a pro skating instructor but I’d guess that there’s a reason these techniques weren’t developed until modern skates hit the market.

A lot of attention in this topic goes to modern fitness and nutrition. IMO when talking about professional athletes those factors make differences on the margins of performance. The core issue is you have a defenseman skating backwards on a pair of Tacks at the end of a 2-minute shift, waving a heavy wooden stick, knowing that his goalie will likely allow a goal on a slapshot from the wing. The tactics he chooses to employe in that situation will not and cannot resemble those used in 2020s hockey.

To be clear — I do think the current generation of players is on the whole more effective at playing the game than those in the 1980s. Much the same is true of goalies, who are clearly more effective now. However, I have a strong hunch that if we re-enacted a 1980s game with vintage coaching and equipment, everything being exactly the same except the individuals in uniform, we’d see a lot of the same goofy-looking antics on defense.

I don't disagree with any of that. What I'm saying is that, even if Tom Laidlaw became a much better defender than he was in 1986 because of all the improvements, he still wouldn't be good enough to crack a roster today.

Unfortunately, there's absolutely no way to prove it... so it's really just my opinion.

 

[grentthealien]

Well right now I am watching the 1987 Canada cup for the first time and I have to say though game 1 I think the players on the ice both Soviet and Canadian can more than hold their own with today’s players. I’m impressed by how fluid and fast the players are. I was expecting the skating and pace to be more sluggish than today but thus far I hardly notice a difference.

That being said the CC was best on best only so I suppose most of the fastest and skilled players were on the ice. I could see an average 80s NHL game being more sluggish with enforcers and defensive D-men dispersed throughout the league. Especially games involving expansion teams.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Well right now I am watching the 1987 Canada cup for the first time and I have to say though game 1 I think the players on the ice both Soviet and Canadian can more than hold their own with today’s players. I’m impressed by how fluid and fast the players are. I was expecting the skating and pace to be more sluggish than today but thus far I hardly notice a difference.

That being said the CC was best on best only so I suppose most of the fastest and skilled players were on the ice. I could see an average 80s NHL game being more sluggish with enforcers and defensive D-men dispersed throughout the league. Especially games involving expansion teams.

There were no expansion teams in the 80s. The last time a completely new NHL franchise was awarded (not existing WHA teams being merged) was in 1974. Those teams were a decade old by the mid-80s.

To underscore this point — in 1978, the NHL had only 17 teams, making it over 50% smaller than MLB and NFL. Even the NBA had 5 more teams. The WHA merger expanded that pool somewhat, but also added high-end talent and still left the NHL the smallest of the major leagues. By 1989, a 21-team league was stupidly small.

But your point about enforcers is important. In the 1980s, teams routinely carried sub-NHL quality players for frankly marketing-gimmick purposes. Guys who skated 6 minutes and then got tossed from the game. Often, their 4th line linemates were specialists who primarily skated on special teams. Effectively teams were 3 lines plus a bullpen of specialists. Again, fundamental structural differences that impact what we see when we look at games and stat sheets from that era.

 

[grentthealien]

There were no expansion teams in the 80s. The last time a completely new NHL franchise was awarded (not existing WHA teams being merged) was in 1974. Those teams were a decade old by the mid-80s.

To underscore this point — in 1978, the NHL had only 17 teams, making it over 50% smaller than MLB and NFL. Even the NBA had 5 more teams. The WHA merger expanded that pool somewhat, but also added high-end talent and still left the NHL the smallest of the major leagues. By 1989, a 21-team league was stupidly small.

But your point about enforcers is important. In the 1980s, teams routinely carried sub-NHL quality players for frankly marketing-gimmick purposes. Guys who skated 6 minutes and then got tossed from the game. Often, their 4th line linemates were specialists who primarily skated on special teams. Effectively teams were 3 lines plus a bullpen of specialists. Again, fundamental structural differences that impact what we see when we look at games and stat sheets from that era.

Fair enough I’ll concede. Technically speaking I was counting the WHA teams but you’re right they merged they didn’t expand. They were also much stronger than the teams that entered the league in the 90s like the Sens and Lighting.

I guess in my mind I’m envisioning teams like the Colorado Rockies/ Early Devils & the horrible late 80s Early 90s Nordiques squads. I was also thinking of the Cleveland barons too, but they were a poor 70s team that was coupled with the bad Oakland Seals of the time.

I’m 23 so I haven’t watched much 80s hockey. I’m really enjoying the 87 Canada cup though. How would you describe the pace of play from an 80s game between two middling teams like say New Jersey and Hartford?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Fair enough I’ll concede. Technically speaking I was counting the WHA teams but you’re right they merged they didn’t expand. They were also much stronger than the teams that entered the league in the 90s like the Sens and Lighting.

I guess in my mind I’m envisioning teams like the Colorado Rockies/ Early Devils & the horrible late 80s Early 90s Nordiques squads. I was also thinking of the Cleveland barons too, but they were a poor 70s team that was coupled with the bad Oakland Seals of the time.

I’m 23 so I haven’t watched much 80s hockey. I’m really enjoying the 87 Canada cup though. How would you describe the pace of play from an 80s game between two middling teams like say New Jersey and Hartford?

The late 70s and early 80s were just a weird time for competitive balance. On one hand, the dilution issue had mostly gone away by 1980. You’re right, the WHA entries were better than expansion teams... they weren’t good teams but they belonged in the league.

But on the other hand, some of the organizations were just so incompetent it boggles the mind at times. My go-to example, other than goons, is Gary Laskoski. In 1983 he got most of the games in net for the Kings. In my opinion, he was the worst goalie in the history of the NHL. Not the worst starter, but the objectively worst goalie who wasn’t an EBUG. There is no reason he should ever have been on NHL ice, and his results bore that out, and yet somehow he played nearly 60 games in two seasons. I don’t know how to explain that other than breathtaking incompetence by management.

IMO, a typical game between two evenly matched but terrible 80s teams is actually pretty watchable. When long shots from the wings are threatening, it really opens up the game and makes mundane even-man rushes more exciting. Another nuance is that different divisions truly had their own personalities during that era... the Norris/Central was a lot more bruising than the high scoring Adams/Northeast. Each matchup has a sort of “flavor” according to whether it’s like-vs-like or a clash of two styles.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

2000-2020 by a country mile

 

[Anisimovs AK]

I get it, it's from the 90s but...

I dare you to play ANY 4th line from today's league against Detroit's 4th line (aka "The Grind Line") of McCarty-Draper-Maltby. I will laugh my butt off. Hell, I'd play them against McDavid! They contained Lindros, I think they would do OK against Skinny McD.

Oh, a fun fact: in 2006 Draper was selected over Crosby for the Olympic Games.

And that team finished 7th and was roundly criticized.

also, the grind line is an example of having players with decent skill that can still contribute in many areas as a 4th line as opposed to just having 3 Tie Domi esque goons

 

[Sentinel]

2000-2020 by a country mile

In the opposite direction.

70s-80s

Lemieux-Gretzky-Hull
Esposito-Trottier-Bossy
Mikhailov-Messier-Kharlamov
Yzerman-Clarke-Makarov
Lafleur

Orr-Potvin
Robinson-Coffey
Fetisov-Bourque

Tretiak
Dryden

vs.

2000-10s

Ovechkin-Crosby-Kane
Panarin-Malkin-Kucherov
Draisaitl-McDavid-Toews
Iginla-Datsyuk-Zetterberg
MacKinnon (or Thornton, or Forsberg, depending how far back you want to go)

Lidstrom-Keith
Doughty-Karlsson
Chara-Weber

Price
Lundquist

I'll take my chances with Team80-90. As in "9 times out of 10."

 

[JasonRoseEh]

In the opposite direction.

70s-80s

Lemieux-Gretzky-Hull
Esposito-Trottier-Bossy
Mikhailov-Petrov-Kharlamov
Yzerman-Clarke-Makarov
Lafleur

Orr-Potvin
Robinson-Coffey
Fetisov-Bourque

Tretiak
Dryden

vs.

2000-10s

Ovechkin-Crosby-Kane
Panarin-Malkin-Kucherov
Draisaitl-McDavid-Toews
Iginla-Datsyuk-Zetterberg
MacKinnon (or Thornton, or Forsberg, depending how far back you want to go)

Lidstrom-Keith
Doughty-Karlsson
Chara-Weber

Price
Lundquist

I'll take my chances with Team80-90. As in "9 times out of 10."

Good for you?

 

[Sentinel]

Good for you?

This is not even a question. The 70-80s team would hit the Millennials like a fist of an angry god. Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Hull, Esposito, and Makarov? Are you f***ing kidding me?

 

[Knave]

The league quadrupled in size and there were dozens of pylons to be exploited.

Whereas Ovechkin and Crosby have had to deal with people training their whole lives and only 1 additional team in their entire careers or ~3% increase in league size, not a 400% increase in league size.

So yes, even if the best players of the past grew up today with all the benefits that entails, they would not stand out next to the likes of Crosby or Ovechkin.

 

[Passchendaele]

The league quadrupled in size and there were dozens of pylons to be exploited.

Whereas Ovechkin and Crosby have had to deal with people training their whole lives and only 1 additional team in their entire careers or ~3% increase in league size, not a 400% increase in league size.

So yes, even if the best players of the past grew up today with all the benefits that entails, they would not stand out next to the likes of Crosby or Ovechkin.

Jagr at his best was at least as good (offensively) as anyone playing today. Including prime Crosby.

Lemieux was even better than Jagr, and it's not even debatable.

Prime Lemieux reaches around ~60 goals, ~90 assists and ~150 points in 2019-20.

 

[Beukeboom]

The 95-96 season is probably my fav of all time. The perfect mix of everything. High scoring, hits, fights, legends, rivalries, an international mix and so on

 

[newfy]

His season was something to marvel at to be sure. It's understandable to say "wow, this season is remarkable" while also saying "especially for his age." That latter one is what pushed him over the edge to the Norris, where maybe Lidstrom having the same season even 2 years earlier doesn't. And, in fact, it didn't... since he had around the same production 2 years earlier, but Chara won the Norris with less. It just means that the calculation in 10-11 wasn't purely about his play as a dman.

To be clear, I have no problem with it. I'm just saying if there are other factors at play, it's not a good example to be using to make the point it was being used to make.

Lidstrom had way more help in 08-09 and a 9 point production edge over Chara. 10-11 Lidstrom had less help and an 18 point lead. Lidstroms season didnt need any "for his age" to win that year

 

[Sentinel]

The league quadrupled in size and there were dozens of pylons to be exploited.

Whereas Ovechkin and Crosby have had to deal with people training their whole lives and only 1 additional team in their entire careers or ~3% increase in league size, not a 400% increase in league size.

So yes, even if the best players of the past grew up today with all the benefits that entails, they would not stand out next to the likes of Crosby or Ovechkin.

Read the lineups that I provided and repeat your words with a straight face.

Team Millennials would never have the puck, mostly because it would either be on Lemieux's or Orr's stick or in their net. And when Team Millennials would get the puck, they would not cross the red line; Potvin, Clarke and Messier would see to that.

 

[Knave]

Read the lineups that I provided and repeat your words with a straight face.

Team Millennials would never have the puck, mostly because it would either be on Lemieux's or Orr's stick or in their net. And when Team Millennials would get the puck, they would not cross the red line; Potvin, Clarke and Messier would see to that.

Team Millennial would sweep the series 4-0.