Was Lidstrom a generational talent?

[Hardyvan123]

Naw, I don't think it's a collective bias , just a single persons bias. After all, you are still the only poster I know of that actually tries to argue against the impact of the Suter hit heh.

As far as defensive play being some kind of factor here, need I remind you that OV has 3 Hart's and Malkin has 1 sooooo that pretty much throws that criteria out the window

Once again I posted the voting results for the Hart trophy for the 90's, did they get it wrong or what?

Or maybe you didn't understand my post, those are the actual voting results done by voters for the actual Hart trophy.

Wayne was pretty much absent from consideration after his Hart, until his "reputation" year.

Lindros and Mario and Forsberg all got injured too, we have to base the results on actual production here.

Are you bringing up the Suter hit as an excuse or what?

I happen to think that the writers had it pretty much write, for the most part, on the Hart voting in the 90's and they as a group didn't see Wayne as dominant.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Who would be a good modern equivalent to Gretzky from say, 1993-94 until his retirement? Martin St. Louis maybe? Gretzky was 2nd in points over that time period, whereas St. Louis is 4th from the 2004-05 lockout to today. Both won an Art Ross trophy, both have a nice playoff run and a few other appearances besides that, neither was much of a factor in MVP voting. St. Louis has the superior AST record but at a less competitive position.

He would probably be the best modern day comp, a guy who still puts up very decent, heck elite totals, but is never really in the discussion for the best player in the world.

Both guys are at the compared stages better fantasy players than real NHL players and there really is no shame in that at all, all guys fade.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Once again I posted the voting results for the Hart trophy for the 90's, did they get it wrong or what?

Or maybe you didn't understand my post, those are the actual voting results done by voters for the actual Hart trophy.

Wayne was pretty much absent from consideration after his Hart, until his "reputation" year.

Lindros and Mario and Forsberg all got injured too, we have to base the results on actual production here.

Are you bringing up the Suter hit as an excuse or what?

I happen to think that the writers had it pretty much write, for the most part, on the Hart voting in the 90's and they as a group didn't see Wayne as dominant.

Like I give **** what the writers thought, I mean we all know they're infallible and get everything right all the time heh

The point was that Gretzky was still a special player, still a first line center, an All-star and a guy that could still break a game wide open at any time.

What he wasn't was the 180+ player he was but he was still one of the very best offensive players in the whole damned League and that was amongst the best the WORLD had to offer after the Wall came down. (Which thankfully means your usual rhetoric about not facing the best of the best won't be used in this one )

So keep on calling him a second tier player because we all know how second tier players win multiple Art Ross' and have half a dozen top 4 scoring finishes in the space of a decade


Anywho, the original point was that there are NOT as many special top tier players now as they were in the early-mid 90's.
Your attempt at derailing that point by picking out a single player out of that rather large group has not succeeded.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I like the idea of putting players on a pyramid when determining all-time rankings (probably the one good idea Bill Simmonds ever had).

If we were to put defensemen on a pyramid, mine would look something like this:

Orr
Bourque - Harvey - Lidstrom - Shore
Potvin - Kelly - Fetisov - Robinson - Chelios

If we put all players on a pyramid, mine would look something like this:

Gretzky
Lemieux - Howe - Orr
Hull - Richard - Bourque - Beliveau - Morenz
Harvey - Mikita - Lidstrom - Shore - Kelly - Clarke - Potvin - Jagr - Shore

(goalies notwithstanding)

The order on each tier is irrelevant. It's possible to separate them from each other and put them in a straight ranking, but that doesn't seem entirely necessary when speaking to the question of which players were on a certain tier with one another.

Great post... It's just subjective as to what level you find "generational".

I view them all as "generational" but the Big 4 as a step above - "centennial" talents, if you may.

 

[danincanada]

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit...re_looks_bleak_for_canadian_minor_hockey.html

Thanks for the link. It's an "editorial opinion" piece by the "former president of the Canada Safety Council" so it is mostly a doom and gloom article about people not wanting to play hockey due to safety concerns.

However, let's say registration in Canada is down 200,000 from it's peak. When was the peak? If it was the late 80's or early 90's then those players are in the NHL now. Also, the US more than makes up for it because they've gone from about 200,000 in the early 90's to 500,000 now. All the numbers point to it generally growing over time, and we all should know and accept this, especially when going back even further in time.

These are the only statistics I can find and it appears to be back on the rise after going up and down for several years.

http://www.hockeycanada.ca/en-ca/Corporate/About/Basics/Registration.aspx

That is not at all the point.

The point is that free play where a player actually has fun and the opportunity to try new things out without getting chastised by a coach influences creativity.

I've been on the same ice as fairly high level 15 and 16 years old recently and most want to be the next Datsyuk or Kane and are insane stickhandlers. They are not robots and have plenty of creativity. This one kid did a 360 and put a pass right on my stick. My jaw dropped.

The real point is they, and NHLers, can't be too fancy in games because the player on the other team will strip the puck off of them and head the other way. So it's really due to the level being too high overall. I can use the same logic for any level of hockey. If I play at a C level I can dipsy doodle and have more time and space - I look pretty patient and creative with the puck. I move up to a B or A level and suddenly I have less time and space. I don't look as creative or skilled but I'm actually still the same player. There's a reason why the coaches stress what they do in the NHL, and a good portion of NHL coaches are former players from the high scoring 80's !!

I don't think athletes now are much different than they have been for quite some time. Human beings change very slowly over time.
The average players are marginally better. Sport specific training, better nutritional knowledge, and the fact that they get paid obscene amounts of money and don't have to keep a summer job gives that to them. They are still human beings.

Look at the average size of players 50 years ago compared to today. The change has been dramatic.

They are very fortunate that they can train all off-season and don't have to work but the insane amounts of money is also a huge incentive to strive to improve and be elite.

None of those things makes them pass like Wayne Gretzky, shoot like Mario Lemieux, or skate like Bobby Orr.

All that training and coaching you refer to instead of going out and playing shiny or ball hockey with your buddies does send you down a different development path though. At least in my opinion.

Those 3 would be elite in any era obviously, but in my opinion most NHLers of today can pass, shoot, and skate better than Orr's peers so it would make him look less impressive. Again, he simply wouldn't be able to skate circles around everyone and skate through the other team like he did. How good would he be today? No one really knows.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I've been on the same ice as fairly high level 15 and 16 years old recently and most want to be the next Datsyuk or Kane and are insane stickhandlers. They are not robots and have plenty of creativity. This one kid did a 360 and put a pass right on my stick. My jaw dropped.

The real point is they, and NHLers, can't be too fancy in games because the player on the other team will strip the puck off of them and head the other way. So it's really due to the level being too high overall. I can use the same logic for any level of hockey. If I play at a C level I can dipsy doodle and have more time and space - I look pretty patient and creative with the puck. I move up to a B or A level and suddenly I have less time and space. I don't look as creative or skilled but I'm actually still the same player. There's a reason why the coaches stress what they do in the NHL, and a good portion of NHL coaches are former players from the high scoring 80's !!

Look at the average size of players 50 years ago compared to today. The change has been dramatic.

They are very fortunate that they can train all off-season and don't have to work but the insane amounts of money is also a huge incentive to strive to improve and be elite.

You're not getting it.
It doesn't matter how fast, how big or if they can stick handle in a phone booth and shoot the puck through the boards. I'm talking about instinct and creativity.
You're talking about a bunch of Kovalev clones and wannabes, I'm talking about Gretzky, Yzerman and Larionov.

Gretzky used to beat people before he got within 10' of them. Subtle weight shift here, slight shoulder dip there, slow downs and speed ups. One half step in the wrong direction and suddenly a guy who looked like he had Gretzky all lined up is now reading the name on the back of his jersey.

Those 3 would be elite in any era obviously, but in my opinion most NHLers of today can pass, shoot, and skate better than Orr's peers so it would make him look less impressive. Again, he simply wouldn't be able to skate circles around everyone and skate through the other team like he did. How good would he be today? No one really knows.

If all you saw when you look at Orr was a guy that could skate really fast, then I'm afraid there's nothing to be done for you.
For one thing, Orr's ability to go laterally at high speed was astounding and would be just as unique today as it was then.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Thanks for the link. It's an "editorial opinion" piece by the "former president of the Canada Safety Council" so it is mostly a doom and gloom article about people not wanting to play hockey due to safety concerns.

However, let's say registration in Canada is down 200,000 from it's peak. When was the peak? If it was the late 80's or early 90's then those players are in the NHL now. Also, the US more than makes up for it because they've gone from about 200,000 in the early 90's to 500,000 now. All the numbers point to it generally growing over time, and we all should know and accept this, especially when going back even further in time.

These are the only statistics I can find and it appears to be back on the rise after going up and down for several years.

http://www.hockeycanada.ca/en-ca/Corporate/About/Basics/Registration.aspx

If we correlate registrations 1-1 with the ability of the people registered to make and succeed in the NHL, I would be more inclined to agree.

However the number of Canadian players in the league is still very high for a country that has dropped 200,000 registrations which implies that while the USA is helping to fill the gap it is obviously not 1-1.

Furthermore if I remember correctly the number of players in the NHL from a bunch of countries is actually down since the early 2000s. Those are the spots that have primarily been filled by Americans if I recall.

Frankly, the talent pool thing is very complicated and certainly it is not obvious that it is better now than 10 or possibly even 20 years ago, imo.

I've been on the same ice as fairly high level 15 and 16 years old recently and most want to be the next Datsyuk or Kane and are insane stickhandlers. They are not robots and have plenty of creativity. This one kid did a 360 and put a pass right on my stick. My jaw dropped.

Ok.

The real point is they, and NHLers, can't be too fancy in games because the player on the other team will strip the puck off of them and head the other way. So it's really due to the level being too high overall. I can use the same logic for any level of hockey. If I play at a C level I can dipsy doodle and have more time and space - I look pretty patient and creative with the puck. I move up to a B or A level and suddenly I have less time and space. I don't look as creative or skilled but I'm actually still the same player. There's a reason why the coaches stress what they do in the NHL, and a good portion of NHL coaches are former players from the high scoring 80's !!

Then how did they get to want to be like Datsyuk and Kane again?

And since when did the ability to dipsy doodle have anything to do with being an effective offensive hockey player?

How many scoring titles have Datsyuk and Kane won?

Look at the average size of players 50 years ago compared to today. The change has been dramatic.

Just because the NHL selects bigger players on average doesn't make them better hockey players.

Secondly, the average person in North America has gotten taller in the last 50 years due to better nutrition and healthcare.

The average American adult is a full inch taller than in 1960.

But way to give them credit twice for something they really had no direct influence over.

They are very fortunate that they can train all off-season and don't have to work but the insane amounts of money is also a huge incentive to strive to improve and be elite.

Ok. Thanks for reinforcing my point.

Those 3 would be elite in any era obviously, but in my opinion most NHLers of today can pass, shoot, and skate better than Orr's peers so it would make him look less impressive. Again, he simply wouldn't be able to skate circles around everyone and skate through the other team like he did. How good would he be today? No one really knows.

I do think that the average players are better skaters but the average players are still plugs. Maybe even moreso than in the past when they were still expected to chip in..

 

[thom]

Hockey membership is down not due to violence but costs.Football in Quebec has taken off the last 15-20 yrs with over 330 highschools playing the game.There are french players in nfl and cfl and its growing in a tremendous way.Single parents cannot afford the prices of hockey but in football the school pays a large portion.Many kids join the army at 18 yrs old are parents not worried but its life and people make choices.So again membership is down not because of violence but cost

 

[livewell68]

If we correlate registrations 1-1 with the ability of the people registered to make and succeed in the NHL, I would be more inclined to agree.

However the number of Canadian players in the league is still very high for a country that has dropped 200,000 registrations which implies that while the USA is helping to fill the gap it is obviously not 1-1.

Furthermore if I remember correctly the number of players in the NHL from a bunch of countries is actually down since the early 2000s. Those are the spots that have primarily been filled by Americans if I recall.

Frankly, the talent pool thing is very complicated and certainly it is not obvious that it is better now than 10 or possibly even 20 years ago, imo.




Ok.



Then how did they get to want to be like Datsyuk and Kane again?

And since when did the ability to dipsy doodle have anything to do with being an effective offensive hockey player?

How many scoring titles have Datsyuk and Kane won?




Just because the NHL selects bigger players on average doesn't make them better hockey players.

Secondly, the average person in North America has gotten taller in the last 50 years due to better nutrition and healthcare.

The average American adult is a full inch taller than in 1960.

But way to give them credit twice for something they really had no direct influence over.



Ok. Thanks for reinforcing my point.



I do think that the average players are better skaters but the average players are still plugs. Maybe even moreso than in the past when they were still expected to chip in..

Great post.

Damn I really miss the good old time hockey. I think the 90's was the last true great decade of hockey.

It will be a long time before we see a group of hockey players as great as Lemieux, Gretzky, Messier, Bourque, Neely, Roy, Hasek, Chelios, Leetch, Jagr, Forsberg, Coffey...

 

[Canadiens1958]

True

Hockey membership is down not due to violence but costs.Football in Quebec has taken off the last 15-20 yrs with over 330 highschools playing the game.There are french players in nfl and cfl and its growing in a tremendous way.Single parents cannot afford the prices of hockey but in football the school pays a large portion.Many kids join the army at 18 yrs old are parents not worried but its life and people make choices.So again membership is down not because of violence but cost

This is true but it is also true that in the last 10 years high schools in Quebec, especially the private sector are offering excellent hockey programs. Stanstead College produced a first round pick in 2012 - Mark Jankowski. The hockey side of the GMAA:

http://www.gmaa.ca/hockey.htm

The situation with hockey and football is that in the last 30-40 years it is no longer possible for a youngster to play both sports because the seasons overlap too much. Previously it was, so the numbers for both were higher due to youngsters playing both.

 

[danincanada]

If we correlate registrations 1-1 with the ability of the people registered to make and succeed in the NHL, I would be more inclined to agree.

However the number of Canadian players in the league is still very high for a country that has dropped 200,000 registrations which implies that while the USA is helping to fill the gap it is obviously not 1-1.

Furthermore if I remember correctly the number of players in the NHL from a bunch of countries is actually down since the early 2000s. Those are the spots that have primarily been filled by Americans if I recall.

Frankly, the talent pool thing is very complicated and certainly it is not obvious that it is better now than 10 or possibly even 20 years ago, imo.

No one claims it's 1-1, just that with a much larger talent pool, the odds are we will have more talent at all tiers...unless the players now are somehow inherently worse. The reasons people come up with for that (lack of outdoor ice, etc.) don't hold water because we know there is also more year round ice available and more facilities overall.

Time will tell with the US. Their hockey program has grown so much in the last 20 years so we will see the fruits of that in the coming years.

Then how did they get to want to be like Datsyuk and Kane again?

And since when did the ability to dipsy doodle have anything to do with being an effective offensive hockey player?

How many scoring titles have Datsyuk and Kane won?

It's not just about being fancy, and you know this, both Datsyuk and Kane have incredible vision and are very creative offensively. Datsyuk is even creative defensively, lol.

So scoring titles are the only judge of talent and creativity now? By the way, Kane just recently lead the West in scoring (usually the tighter conference) and won the Conn Smythe...you're a better poster than this.

Just because the NHL selects bigger players on average doesn't make them better hockey players.

Secondly, the average person in North America has gotten taller in the last 50 years due to better nutrition and healthcare.

The average American adult is a full inch taller than in 1960.

But way to give them credit twice for something they really had no direct influence over.

The NHL also selects bigger players because they are more readily available! Both due to the increase in size of the average person and a larger talent pool.

Hey, you were the one who claimed people don't change quickly over time and I showed that sometimes they can and do. It really doesn't matter if it's from better nutrition or hormones in our food, it's happening.

Ok. Thanks for reinforcing my point.

It went right over your head. If they don't blow their money, these athletes can be set for life financially from being a star for a few years. You don't think that is added incentive for striving to be elite??

I do think that the average players are better skaters but the average players are still plugs. Maybe even moreso than in the past when they were still expected to chip in..

It's easy to call them plugs when you don't have to play against them. Put them in a men's league and they could stick handle through everyone. Most had great junior careers but don't have elite enough talent too play an NHL top 6 role, it doesn't mean they are plugs or lack hockey skills, they are just don't quite have all-world skill or aren't given a chance because there's someone who's better.

 

[BraveCanadian]

No one claims it's 1-1, just that with a much larger talent pool, the odds are we will have more talent at all tiers...unless the players now are somehow inherently worse. The reasons people come up with for that (lack of outdoor ice, etc.) don't hold water because we know there is also more year round ice available and more facilities overall.

Those odds are true if everything else is equal. Which is not the case.

Time will tell with the US. Their hockey program has grown so much in the last 20 years so we will see the fruits of that in the coming years.

Shouldn't we be seeing it now?

The NHL also selects bigger players because they are more readily available! Both due to the increase in size of the average person and a larger talent pool.

Hey, you were the one who claimed people don't change quickly over time and I showed that sometimes they can and do. It really doesn't matter if it's from better nutrition or hormones in our food, it's happening.

People being an inch taller over 50 years due to nutritional and medical advances is not revolutionary. It isn't even evolutionary.

It went right over your head. If they don't blow their money, these athletes can be set for life financially from being a star for a few years. You don't think that is added incentive for striving to be elite??

And you don't think that some people are motivated by more than just money?

It's easy to call them plugs when you don't have to play against them. Put them in a men's league and they could stick handle through everyone. Most had great junior careers but don't have elite enough talent too play an NHL top 6 role, it doesn't mean they are plugs or lack hockey skills, they are just don't quite have all-world skill or aren't given a chance because there's someone who's better.

This was always the case.

Or did you think that bottom 6ers from yesteryear would come to the men's league and look bad? hahaha

 

[danincanada]

You're not getting it.
It doesn't matter how fast, how big or if they can stick handle in a phone booth and shoot the puck through the boards. I'm talking about instinct and creativity.
You're talking about a bunch of Kovalev clones and wannabes, I'm talking about Gretzky, Yzerman and Larionov.

Gretzky used to beat people before he got within 10' of them. Subtle weight shift here, slight shoulder dip there, slow downs and speed ups. One half step in the wrong direction and suddenly a guy who looked like he had Gretzky all lined up is now reading the name on the back of his jersey.

I certainly do get it, you're simply not giving current players enough credit. They play in a league with goalies that are overly equipped to stop pucks due to better equipment, coaching, and size. They also have to deal with fronting and shot blocking that was unheard of in the 80's, as well as more tactical coaching and better defending overall.

Do you not watch hockey now? Are you implying Kane and Datsyuk don't have great vision and lack instincts and creativity??

If all you saw when you look at Orr was a guy that could skate really fast, then I'm afraid there's nothing to be done for you.
For one thing, Orr's ability to go laterally at high speed was astounding and would be just as unique today as it was then.

I never said that. Orr did have a huge advantage over everyone else in terms of skating (speed and agility) when he played that he probably wouldn't have now. I bet even he would admit that.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Hockey Career

No one claims it's 1-1, just that with a much larger talent pool, the odds are we will have more talent at all tiers...unless the players now are somehow inherently worse. The reasons people come up with for that (lack of outdoor ice, etc.) don't hold water because we know there is also more year round ice available and more facilities overall.

All that you have shown is that a career playing hockey is now financially viable for a larger group of players and for a longer time.

Better facilities being available longer and in more places means that the resulting leagues and players generate greater revenues overall which generates salaries to sustain a quality of life that is better than available via the traditional work force.

Not a question of the players being inherently better or worse. Just simple supply and demand.

 

[danincanada]

Those odds are true if everything else is equal. Which is not the case.

Exactly, there are more facilities now and year round rinks. We should have even more elite talent now.

Shouldn't we be seeing it now?

We are and we will probably see more in the near future. US is well represented in the Olympics and it took OT for Canada to beat them in a hard fought game. More is probably on the way. Let's talk in 10 years and see who was right.

People being an inch taller over 50 years due to nutritional and medical advances is not revolutionary. It isn't even evolutionary.

Again, you said people don't change that much over time and they have. You should just concede here because it really doesn't matter why the change took place.

And you don't think that some people are motivated by more than just money.

Of course it's more than just money but that certainly helps. More great young athletes would pursue another sport if hockey didn't also have great financial benefits from being elite.

This was always the case.

Or did you think that bottom 6ers from yesteryear would come to the men's league and look bad? hahaha

You seem to think the fringe NHLers from yesteryear shouldn't be called plugs but todays should. I'm the one who should be laughing.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Exactly, there are more facilities now and year round rinks. We should have even more elite talent now.

Dude, the number of facilities/year round rinks is not keeping up with the falling number of Canada's ~3 million lakes that freeze enough to allow safe play. Not even close. And people's incomes aren't increasing to the point where the ratio of paid/free icetime isn't significant in determining access to the game over the general population.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Exactly, there are more facilities now and year round rinks. We should have even more elite talent now.

That is interesting because I was reading that in Hamilton they are reducing the ice time rates at city facilities because usage is down and enrollment is down in the associations.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4...es-cheaper-ice-time-for-youth-sports-leagues/

The use of city rinks has dropped more than 2,800 hours a year since 2008, especially at prime after-school or weekend times in lower city arenas such as Scott Park, Eastwood and Parkdale.

A new city report, which suggests increasing the subsidized ice time available to youth sports, blames empty ice sheets on the affordability factor along with dipping minor hockey registration.

So sorry, I'm not taking your opinion as fact.

As I showed earlier the situation in Hamilton is reflected in the Hockey Canada numbers dropping a huge amount as well.

The facts are the opposite of your opinion -- at least in Canada at present.

We are and we will probably see more in the near future. US is well represented in the Olympics and it took OT for Canada to beat them in a hard fought game. More is probably on the way. Let's talk in 10 years and see who was right.

And this one time the US beat the Soviets.. I think they called it a miracle or something.

Single elimination games don't prove anything.

Canada could probably ice multiple medal competitive Olympic teams.

That still doesn't mean that the talent pool for 30 NHL teams is better than in the past.

All that said it is clear that right now the USA better start producing a lot of top end talent or it will almost certainly be in decline.

Again, you said people don't change that much over time and they have. You should just concede here because it really doesn't matter why the change took place.

If you're trying to make the case that today's players are bigger by some conscious decision or work on their part.. you're wrong.

A baby born in 1960 and teleported to now would, on average, grow to be an inch taller.

This has nothing to do with them or their ability as a hockey player.

It certainly can't be cited as reason why players now are better than in 1960 for example. Relatively they are all the same in comparison to one another.

Of course it's more than just money but that certainly helps. More great young athletes would pursue another sport if hockey didn't also have great financial benefits from being elite.

I would put forth that most athletes are great before they are even thinking about getting paid at all.

Some of them do it because they actually enjoy the game, you know?

You seem to think the fringe NHLers from yesteryear shouldn't be called plugs but todays should. I'm the one who should be laughing.

Fringe NHLers today are destructive players almost without exception. Very few are creative at all. Or allowed to be.

Chip it out, dump and chase, cycle, go to the bench. Yawn.

In the past there were some real fringe goons for sure, but there were also third and fourth lines that had some talent and were expected to use it occasionally.

Anyways.. who cares about the fringe players..

 

[danincanada]

Dude, the number of facilities/year round rinks is not keeping up with the falling number of Canada's ~3 million lakes that freeze enough to allow safe play. Not even close. And people's incomes aren't increasing to the point where the ratio of paid/free icetime isn't significant in determining access to the game over the general population.

I live in the Toronto area and there are 51 outdoor rinks there, many of which are maintained. I used one of these nearly every week last winter.

http://www.toronto.ca/parks/skating/outdoor-rinks.htm

I've played pond hockey at times as well so don't pretend it's not possible anymore.

Like I said, hockey must be in a downward spiral according to you guys. Who would have thunk it considering the new talent we see each season and the revenues of the NHL. Hockey, the sport, is a much larger industry than it ever was in the past. That is not because no one is playing.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I live in the Toronto area and there are 51 outdoor rinks there, many of which are maintained. I used one of these nearly every week last winter.

http://www.toronto.ca/parks/skating/outdoor-rinks.htm

I've played pond hockey at times as well so don't pretend it's not possible anymore.

Like I said, hockey must be in a downward spiral according to you guys. Who would have thunk it considering the new talent we see each season and the revenues of the NHL. Hockey, the sport, is a much larger industry than it ever was in the past. That is not because no one is playing.

What part of not keeping up with falling numbers of lakes that safely freeze led you to conclude that I was suggesting it is impossible?? Fewer Canadians (as expressed by % of population, or perhaps some kind of regional distribution) are able to get an introduction to playing hockey without making the decision to get fully invested and join organized (sometimes prohibitively expensive) leagues requiring a full set of safety equipment of a minimum CSA approved standard.

As for your last paragraph, hockey is a bigger industry now because teams aren't just owned by wealthy fans/business men, they are also often sub-corporations under larger corporate umbrellas who also run the arena, concessions, etc. Making it "bigger" makes losses at the club level (as in the case of the Panthers, for example) easier to absorb and thus ideally easier to sustain (and doctor financial reports) from year to year. Has nothing to do with the number of people playing the game at the sub-pro level.

 

[danincanada]

That is interesting because I was reading that in Hamilton they are reducing the ice time rates at city facilities because usage is down and enrollment is down in the associations.

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/...es-cheaper-ice-time-for-youth-sports-leagues/

So sorry, I'm not taking your opinion as fact.

As I showed earlier the situation in Hamilton is reflected in the Hockey Canada numbers dropping a huge amount as well.

The facts are the opposite of your opinion -- at least in Canada at present.

The link doesn't work but it's okay, Hamilton does not necessarily reflect the whole country. It's a blue collar town... {mod}

My link showing there are 537,000 males registered in hockey right now is a better indiacator because that's right from Hockey Canada. Just go on ignoring that and keep searching for individual gloom and doom stories. On a side note Girls hockey has exploded - I guess it's cheaper and easier for them to play??

http://www.hockeycanada.ca/en-ca/Corporate/About/Basics/Registration.aspx

And this one time the US beat the Soviets.. I think they called it a miracle or something.

Single elimination games don't prove anything.

Canada could probably ice multiple medal competitive Olympic teams.

That still doesn't mean that the talent pool for 30 NHL teams is better than in the past.

All that said it is clear that right now the USA better start producing a lot of top end talent or it will almost certainly be in decline.

Come on, no one was really surprised it was Canada and the US in the finals. It could be any one of the 6 or so top hockey nations and people wouldn't be surprised. That's just another example of how much elite hockey has improved in countries other than Canada and Russia, which points to more elite talent !!

If you're trying to make the case that today's players are bigger by some conscious decision or work on their part.. you're wrong.

A baby born in 1960 and teleported to now would, on average, grow to be an inch taller.

This has nothing to do with them or their ability as a hockey player.

It certainly can't be cited as reason why players now are better than in 1960 for example. Relatively they are all the same in comparison to one another.

Give it up already and don't try putting words in my mouth, you were wrong. Sometimes humans can change a lot in just one or two generations. We've seen it happen and I provided an example you agree with.

 

[danincanada]

As for your last paragraph, hockey is a bigger industry now because teams aren't just owned by wealthy fans/business men, they are also often sub-corporations under larger corporate umbrellas who also run the arena, concessions, etc. Making it "bigger" makes losses at the club level (as in the case of the Panthers, for example) easier to absorb and thus ideally easier to sustain (and doctor financial reports) from year to year. Has nothing to do with the number of people playing the game at the sub-pro level.

I'm not just talking about the NHL, I'm talking about hockey (the sport) as an industry. There are stores dedicated to only hockey equipment now. There are more hockey equipment manufacturers now than ever. Hockey, the sport, has grown and you can't deny it.

More people are also being exposed to hockey in general now because it's easier to watch on TV and the internet and there are teams all over North America. That's one of the reasons there are over 500,000 people in the US playing registered hockey now. This is not news to you.

 

[BraveCanadian]

The link doesn't work but it's okay, Hamilton does not necessarily reflect the whole country. It's a blue collar town... {mod}

My link showing there are 537,000 males registered in hockey right now is a better indiacator because that's right from Hockey Canada.

Unfortunately the hockey canada website doesn't break out the numbers very much demographically.

According to a study they commissioned, most of the increase in registrations recently is in adult and women's leagues.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/shifting-ice-and-hockeys-tipping-point/article14324928

The two studies were commissioned by Hockey Canada, the sport’s national governing body. The Charlton report, which surveyed 1,865 hockey parents during the 2011-12 season, was just completed and meant for Hockey Canada use only. The data comes at a reader like the 1985 Edmonton Oilers, in waves. Some key points include:

National registration is up 17 per cent over the past decade, mostly because of an increase in adult leagues and girls’ hockey. Seventy-nine per cent of the parents interviewed said their child will play again next season, but 21 per cent were at risk of leaving the game. Among those who had left the game, 58 per cent would “probably or definitely not†resume playing.

According to Stats can the % of kids 5-14 who played hockey in Canada 1994 was 12%. Now it is 9-10.

On a side note Girls hockey has exploded - I guess it's cheaper and easier for them to play??

Let me know when they make the NHL.

Come on, no one was really surprised it was Canada and the US in the finals. It could be any one of the 6 or so top hockey nations and people wouldn't be surprised. That's just another example of how much elite hockey has improved in countries other than Canada and Russia, which points to more elite talent !!

Which is all well and good except that this is now a 30 team league with a KHL in addition.

Give it up already and don't try putting words in my mouth, you were wrong. Sometimes humans can change a lot in just one or two generations. We've seen it happen and I provided an example you agree with.

No, people simply do not evolve that quickly.

I'm not going to argue it any more -- It's science!

 

[Hardyvan123]

Those odds are true if everything else is equal. Which is not the case.

Shouldn't we be seeing it now?

2 points here, Canadians are not getting collectively any worse, the rest of the world is getting better and there is more excellent talent and probably elite talent as well.

Also we have been seeing the influx of great American players into the NHL in the last 30 years, just go back and look at the US talent pre 80's and see the huge growth there.

The influx on non Canadians into the NHL post 1980ish has simply been staggering, both in terms of quality and quantity.

 

[BraveCanadian]

2 points here, Canadians are not getting collectively any worse, the rest of the world is getting better and there is more excellent talent and probably elite talent as well.

Based on?

Also we have been seeing the influx of great American players into the NHL in the last 30 years, just go back and look at the US talent pre 80's and see the huge growth there.

The influx on non Canadians into the NHL post 1980ish has simply been staggering, both in terms of quality and quantity.

pre-80s is a very convenient cut off for making this argument.

Personally I think the pool peaked somewhere after the wall fell up until the early 2000s.

 

[danincanada]

Unfortunately the hockey canada website doesn't break out the numbers very much demographically.

According to a study they commissioned, most of the increase in registrations recently is in adult and women's leagues.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/shifting-ice-and-hockeys-tipping-point/article14324928

According to Stats can the % of kids 5-14 who played hockey in Canada 1994 was 12%. Now it is 9-10.

Hockey Canada separates males from females and those numbers appear to be for minor hockey up to the CHL.

Another article that mainly focuses on injuries? % of kids may be down but the actual number of kids is up. That's what really matters for the overall talent pool.

Let me know when they make the NHL.

I never said females would be in the NHL. Again, is it somehow cheaper and easier for girls to play minor hockey?

Which is all well and good except that this is now a 30 team league with a KHL in addition.

The KHL is just the Russian Elite (Superleague) League by another name. The RSL had 20 teams in '08 when it disbanded/rebranded, then the KHL had 4 more teams the following season. It will have 28 teams this season.

Besides, if the competition of an elite Russian league with the NHL matters so much to you, you must admit the NHL was a far lesser league before the elite Russians were able to join in the late 80's.

No, people simply do not evolve that quickly.

I'm not going to argue it any more -- It's science!

It doesn't matter if we accidently end up changing ourselves with hormones in our water and/or genetic engineering, or it's done "naturally" via nature, it still results in an evolutionary process. What else do you want to call it??

The main point is we have changed a lot recently, despite you claiming we haven't.