What's The Deepest And Most Competitive Period In NHL History?

GlitchMarner

Typical malevolent, devious & vile Maple Leafs fan
Jul 21, 2017
9,712
6,432
Brampton, ON
I'd go with the late 80s or early 90s to about the middle of the dead puck era (2001 or so). I think the talent pool thinned out considerably in the early 2000s, and while talent was injected after the 2004 lockout, I don't think the overall talent pool has quite returned to what was around circa 1996.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Quality and depth of hockey has always been defined by goaltending and defencemen. So roughly 1955 to 1975, with 4 to 8 HHOF quality goalies in the NHL each season.

Goaltending never fully bounced back from the universal introduction of the two-goalie system at the start of the 1964-65 season. Effectively, throughout hockey, the goalie requirements from Intro thru pro almost doubled yet the ability to teach and develop goaltenders stagnated as managing the two goalie system challenged most coaches. To develop goalies have to play, yet playing time for goalies was roughly halved.

Coincidently, the two best goalies of the last 50 years are both 1965 births - Roy and Hasek who developed well after the transition from 1 to 2 goalies. Solid goalie cluster during their career that quickly faded.

Last twenty seasons, how many HHOF quality goalies have entered the NHL? Maybe six.

Defencemen, you see the same pattern. The 1955 to 1975 group was headed by generational talents Doug Harvey and Bobby
Orr, with an excellent supporting cast led by Brad Park, Red Kelly, app. 20 others.

Since 1975 you had Bourque and Lidstrom bottom half generational talents - neither was the skater or chessmaster that Harvey and Orr were, and solid supporting cast types.

Last 10 years the quality of defencemen is interesting. Erik Karlsson is the most promising but the toolbox still needs work. Rest are part of a solid supporting cast that is growing but too often relies on handedness to be effective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BuckyDornster

feffan

Registered User
Sep 9, 2010
1,949
146
Malmö
To me it´s the early/mid 90´s, where the baby boomers where still around and many still in their primes with a whole new great generation in there competing and learning from the best of the best of the "old" generation. To me the deepest and most competetive era of all time in almost every position with as top 20 at every position goes at the time. That great eras decline started around the millenia change and it was over before Tamp won it´s Cup.

That 90´s generations top level talent then seemed to be one of the most injury riddled ever, with basically just Jagr and Lidstrom getting to play without major career altering injuries. Lindros, Forsberg, Bure, Kariya, Naslund, Selänne, Roenick and so on all got to few years where they could play to their talent level. Mostly because of the brutality of that era.

That alone according to me then diluted the leauge to the lowest level since the expansion era. I do think the leauge first the last few season is catching up, with the great talents that entered the leauge after the 2005 lockout still playing at top level and with the emergence of McDavids generation. I think this era (starting a few years back...) will be very high tought about depth wise. Even if the greatest teams of the 10´s where the Chicago teams that came a little earlier than the talent peak.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Early 90's hit a mark the league hadn't reached before because suddenly most of the Soviet systems elite players came over. It was a very unique situation. I also agree that it was the baby boomers and the following generation mixing together as the vets and young guys, which both had nice pools of players. In terms of elite players that was impressive. I'm not so sure we aren't currently just as high though.

Right now the league is ultra-competitive. The athletes train harder than ever, start younger, there is so much money on the line, and so many nations are producing great young players. Add the cap to that and it creates a lot of parody so teams and players have difficulty separating themselves from the pack. I think we are at the peak currently and it's only going up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brachyrynchos

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Early 90's hit a mark the league hadn't reached before because suddenly most of the Soviet systems elite players came over. It was a very unique situation. I also agree that it was the baby boomers and the following generation mixing together as the vets and young guys, which both had nice pools of players. In terms of elite players that was impressive. I'm not so sure we aren't currently just as high though.

Right now the league is ultra-competitive. The athletes train harder than ever, start younger, there is so much money on the line, and so many nations are producing great young players. Add the cap to that and it creates a lot of parody so teams and players have difficulty separating themselves from the pack. I think we are at the peak currently and it's only going up.

Elite Soviet goalies between 1990 and 1995:

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

Not one with a winning NHL record between 1990 and 1995.

You are correct that there is a lot of parody in the league presently. Players trying to imitate NHLers. Parity is another matter.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
Add the cap to that and it creates a lot of parody...
Parity. (unless you were being tongue-in-cheek and taking a swipe at the current NHL, which is fine with me!)

I have no idea which era was "most competitive"! Obviously, there's no way to measure it or form a legit conclusion. I have a feeling it was probably the mid-50s or something, when there were only 95 available jobs and the coach/owner could easily banish anybody to the minors -- forever -- with impunity, on a whim.

But I do think the early/mid-1990s was the most entertaining era. This was a unique period when there were two generations of superstar-players (Gretzky/Bourque generation and Bure/Fedorov generation) going at high-levels simultaneously, games were still largely determined by players' effort and creativity (not coaching and systems), and not too many teams to keep track of everyone (and consequently, more star players on each team).

All gone now.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Elite Soviet goalies between 1990 and 1995:

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

Not one with a winning NHL record between 1990 and 1995.

You are correct that there is a lot of parody in the league presently. Players trying to imitate NHLers. Parity is another matter.

Focus on goaltending but I seem to remember a lot of elite skaters coming over, too. Irbe and Kabibulin had very nice careers anyways.

Definitely a parody. Those kids today aren’t cyborgs made of tungsten steel like the good old days, that’s for sure.
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,041
12,661
For overall player pool it is probably the 90s when you had Canada plus an infusion of elite Russians, Sweden/USA/Finland now capable of producing elite players and the Czechs and Slovaks still producing high end players in good quantities. This is also largely before money became the huge impediment that it is today, so the percentage of participants in Canada was surely higher than in the generation that followed.

If just looking at NHL team depth and quality and considering the number of teams then it's probably the late original six era.
 

mrhockey193195

Registered User
Nov 14, 2006
6,507
1,994
Denver, CO
Parity. (unless you were being tongue-in-cheek and taking a swipe at the current NHL, which is fine with me!)

I have no idea which era was "most competitive"! Obviously, there's no way to measure it or form a legit conclusion. I have a feeling it was probably the mid-50s or something, when there were only 95 available jobs and the coach/owner could easily banish anybody to the minors -- forever -- with impunity, on a whim.

But I do think the early/mid-1990s was the most entertaining era. This was a unique period when there were two generations of superstar-players (Gretzky/Bourque generation and Bure/Fedorov generation) going at high-levels simultaneously, games were still largely determined by players' effort and creativity (not coaching and systems), and not too many teams to keep track of everyone (and consequently, more star players on each team).

All gone now.
I really thought we were in for a similar era of hockey coming out of the lockout. You had the older generation of HOFers still dominating (Sakic, Forsberg, Jagr, Selanne, Sundin, Lidstrom, etc.) and a new group coming in with incredible talent and, in some cases, incredible personality (Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Lundqvist, Spezza, Kovalchuk, etc.). The league seemed to be going in the right direction. For some reason, it never materialized the way I expected, and things got neutered down right around 2009 or 10.
 

Bustedprospect

Registered User
Mar 10, 2006
449
119
Early to mid 90s. You can see on the All-Rookie teams from say 95-96 that the league fizzled out with talent. The game changed forever with defensive systems and is more of a team-game today.
 

TheAngryHank

Expert
May 28, 2008
18,009
6,666
To me it´s the early/mid 90´s, where the baby boomers where still around and many still in their primes with a whole new great generation in there competing and learning from the best of the best of the "old" generation. To me the deepest and most competetive era of all time in almost every position with as top 20 at every position goes at the time. That great eras decline started around the millenia change and it was over before Tamp won it´s Cup.

That 90´s generations top level talent then seemed to be one of the most injury riddled ever, with basically just Jagr and Lidstrom getting to play without major career altering injuries. Lindros, Forsberg, Bure, Kariya, Naslund, Selänne, Roenick and so on all got to few years where they could play to their talent level. Mostly because of the brutality of that era.

That alone according to me then diluted the leauge to the lowest level since the expansion era. I do think the leauge first the last few season is catching up, with the great talents that entered the leauge after the 2005 lockout still playing at top level and with the emergence of McDavids generation. I think this era (starting a few years back...) will be very high tought about depth wise. Even if the greatest teams of the 10´s where the Chicago teams that came a little earlier than the talent peak.
Fedorov was very durable.
 

feffan

Registered User
Sep 9, 2010
1,949
146
Malmö
Fedorov was very durable.

True. But even him had a few minor injuries and he didn´t play a full season after his fantastic 93/94. To me one of the best and most underrated PO players.

Mogilny is another one. He only played over 70 games in 6 of his 16 seasons. And that includes me counting his lock out season with Buffalo as a 70+, as he played 44/48. Have a wage memory that he had a quite serious leg injury in the end of his (and Lafontaines... what a duo...) incredible 92/93 season. Maybe the PO:s?
 

ForsbergForever

Registered User
May 19, 2004
3,319
2,023
I really thought we were in for a similar era of hockey coming out of the lockout. You had the older generation of HOFers still dominating (Sakic, Forsberg, Jagr, Selanne, Sundin, Lidstrom, etc.) and a new group coming in with incredible talent and, in some cases, incredible personality (Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Lundqvist, Spezza, Kovalchuk, etc.). The league seemed to be going in the right direction. For some reason, it never materialized the way I expected, and things got neutered down right around 2009 or 10.

That's because all the older players you listed turned 40 or were close to it by 2010. The top players of the 1990s-early 00s were all born between 1965-1974 while the talent of players born between 1975-1982 seriously inferior (with a few big exceptions obviously) for whatever reason. Thus there was a big gap in overall league depth as the 90s stars aged out and the newer 1985-1990+ born guys entered the league.
 

TheAngryHank

Expert
May 28, 2008
18,009
6,666
Fedorov was very durable.
Most of the Red Army guys were very durable ,I believe from early weight training.Made their bodys strong.
Bure the exception.
If Feds didn't play for Bowman the and Mario and Wayne weren't alive the term for Feds would be "Generational "
Even when Mario and Gretz played Feds was the scariest player alive,when he wanted to be.
 

GlitchMarner

Typical malevolent, devious & vile Maple Leafs fan
Jul 21, 2017
9,712
6,432
Brampton, ON
To me it´s the early/mid 90´s, where the baby boomers where still around and many still in their primes with a whole new great generation in there competing and learning from the best of the best of the "old" generation. To me the deepest and most competetive era of all time in almost every position with as top 20 at every position goes at the time. That great eras decline started around the millenia change and it was over before Tamp won it´s Cup.

That 90´s generations top level talent then seemed to be one of the most injury riddled ever, with basically just Jagr and Lidstrom getting to play without major career altering injuries. Lindros, Forsberg, Bure, Kariya, Naslund, Selänne, Roenick and so on all got to few years where they could play to their talent level. Mostly because of the brutality of that era.

That alone according to me then diluted the leauge to the lowest level since the expansion era. I do think the leauge first the last few season is catching up, with the great talents that entered the leauge after the 2005 lockout still playing at top level and with the emergence of McDavids generation. I think this era (starting a few years back...) will be very high tought about depth wise. Even if the greatest teams of the 10´s where the Chicago teams that came a little earlier than the talent peak.

To me it's the 90s.

Parity. (unless you were being tongue-in-cheek and taking a swipe at the current NHL, which is fine with me!)

I have no idea which era was "most competitive"! Obviously, there's no way to measure it or form a legit conclusion. I have a feeling it was probably the mid-50s or something, when there were only 95 available jobs and the coach/owner could easily banish anybody to the minors -- forever -- with impunity, on a whim.

But I do think the early/mid-1990s was the most entertaining era. This was a unique period when there were two generations of superstar-players (Gretzky/Bourque generation and Bure/Fedorov generation) going at high-levels simultaneously, games were still largely determined by players' effort and creativity (not coaching and systems), and not too many teams to keep track of everyone (and consequently, more star players on each team).

All gone now.

-100% the 90s. A 1990s All Star team would annihilate any other decades all star team.

For overall player pool it is probably the 90s when you had Canada plus an infusion of elite Russians, Sweden/USA/Finland now capable of producing elite players and the Czechs and Slovaks still producing high end players in good quantities. This is also largely before money became the huge impediment that it is today, so the percentage of participants in Canada was surely higher than in the generation that followed.

If just looking at NHL team depth and quality and considering the number of teams then it's probably the late original six era.

Early to mid 90's for sure.

Early to mid 90s. You can see on the All-Rookie teams from say 95-96 that the league fizzled out with talent. The game changed forever with defensive systems and is more of a team-game today.


The top 10 scorers of the 1995-1996 season:

1. Lemieux: 161 points
2. Jagr: 149 points
3. Sakic: 120 points
4. Francis: 119 points
5. Forsberg: 116 points
6. Lindros: 115 points
7. Kariya: 108 points
8. Selanne: 108 points
9. Mogilny: 107 points
10. Fedorov: 107 points


Each had over 105 points in a scoring environment of 6.28 goals per game, which isn't at the "video game" level of the 1980s and early 1990s. I doubt there's been as impressive a top 10 scoring list in terms of name power, scoring output relative to scoring environment and correlation to the the top 10 scorer's primes since the original six era as there was in that season. Fedorov and Mogilny both wouldn't hit the heights they hit in 1996 again and Lindros would have only more top 10 scoring finish in his career and Lemieux would retire after '97 and miss the '98, '99 and '00 seasons.


The rest of the top 50 in scoring that season features the names Gretzky, Messier, Yzerman, LaFontaine, Oates, Hull, Modano, Sundin, Turgeon, Gilmour, Bourque, Leetch, Coffey, Chelios, Recchi, Shanahan, Fleury, LeClair, Tkachuk, Palffy, Nolan, Damphousse and Brind'Amour.
 
Last edited:

Merya

Jokerit & Finland; anti-theist
Sep 23, 2008
2,279
418
Helsinki
Unless you have an argument for O6 era, I think it's a logical fact, that the most competitive era is right now. When has there been more great talent from more diverse base than recent years? The opening of the communist countries in early 90s might have been better, but the rise of American academies has also been very significant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Midnight Judges

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
11,845
6,289
Most of the Red Army guys were very durable ,I believe from early weight training.Made their bodys strong.
Bure the exception.

Both Bure's were trained very hard by their father Vladimir from quite a young age I think. Probably had some kind of degrading effect in the long term. Valeri retired at an even earlier age than Pavel.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Unless you have an argument for O6 era, I think it's a logical fact, that the most competitive era is right now. When has there been more great talent from more diverse base than recent years? The opening of the communist countries in early 90s might have been better, but the rise of American academies has also been very significant.


Suggest finding and understanding the difference between deepest - O6 era and widest -present day. Also population arguments are never logical facts just misdirected opinions clutching at the superficial. World population is much larger than during Shakespeare time but we are not awash in Shakespeare quality writers or playwrites today.

Specifically, modern goalies are very weak compared to O6 goalies.Presently there are maybe three future HHOFers, Luongo, Lundqvist, Price. No Americans, no Russians. None drafted in the last 10 years. O6 era you would have 3 to 6 future HHOF goalies playing in every post WWII season.

Defencemen nice wide selection today but they have to rely on handedness to shine in a short shift game. 1947-48 season saw two elite defencemen - Doug Harvey and Red Kelly make their NHL debut and this renewal continued thru Bobby Orr in 1966-67.

New talent. 1955-56 NHL Rookie Class featured Henri Richard, Norm Ullman, Glenn Hall, Dick Duff, John Bucyk, Pierre Pilote. Six future HHOFers. Produce an International class with such depth, positional variety and quality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kyle McMahon

Merya

Jokerit & Finland; anti-theist
Sep 23, 2008
2,279
418
Helsinki
My point exactly. It's arguably O6, if its not now or 90s right after the east got free. I think O6 has a good case. There were only 150 slots or so. So even if the talentpool was basically just Canada, it was hard to get in. Some of the best talent were exempt at the last years of O6, but they were only a dozen or two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kyle McMahon

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->