Where do you place Ovechkin on your personal list of the greatest players of all time?

[Midnight Judges]

peak Crosby >/= Ovechkin

Ovechkin has 3 seasons that are better than Crosby's best season.

Your assertion here is pure history revision.

Peak Ovechkin > peak Crosby

There is not a debate to be had over that, although for sure the Pens fans in this thread will once again reveal themselves as willing to revise history - just as they did recently when they claimed Crosby's rookie season was better than Ovechkin's despite Ovechkin out-scoring and out-goaling Crosby while also getting more Hart votes, winning the Calder over Crosby, and being chosen by the players as better than Crosby for the Pearson.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Other than blindly applying a talent pool argument, I don't see how you can argue that the best players from the past wouldn't potentially have the same level of relative domination in any other era; it doesn't pass the statistical smell test.

That isn't really the assertion here, and your logic is poor anyway - in addition to your blatant history revisions as highlighted above.

The talent pool argument isn't to say for certain what happens at the very top. The sample of top 1 or 2 or 3 players at any given moment is so small that there can be no certainty there. If anyone here thinks talent pool arguments apply with certainty down to each individual, then the point has sailed right over your head.

Some members of this forum are are struggling with this point. Small samples are volatile. The top 10 players in any given season are quite volatile. You can't count on that being equivalent or consistent. One season might have 2 or 3 players with better seasons than anyone in the very next season. <----That is not outlandish and it almost certainly has happened despite the talent pools for those two seasons being nearly identical.

What the talent pool does show is that a deeper field likely results in more individual peak seasons and more depth. So a top 5 Hart finish in 1952 is likely (but not certainly) not the same as a top 5 Hart finish in 2013.

 

[Michael Farkas]

That’s fair. But do you really think there weren’t way more people playing hockey in the 2010’s than in the 1950’s? That would be pretty sad for the game if true.

I think either way, there should be assessment of size of the talent pool. There has to be better information out there…

I don't care if more people were playing hockey in the 2010's vs the 1950's. If there are 10 million folks playing hockey in 2010 and only 100,000 playing in 1960, it doesn't matter because we're talking about what the best 100 were all about in 1960. Or ~600 in 2010. It's a super small percentage that doesn't abide by normal distribution.

One way that you can perhaps work to do it in a more faux statistical method is when I was - as far as I know/saw - an early introducer that the early 80's were weaker than we gave it credit for. I took a pretty simple approach based on what I saw: Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3 (Secret of the Ooze)

Someone smarter than me could possibly expound upon it. Perhaps not.

Another way would be to evaluate the bottom tier of players in the league and the middle tier of players in the league, instead of just focusing on the elite players. Because elite players are, generally, elite players. You watch Jean Beliveau, you watch Mario, they both knock your socks off. And if you don't see what guys they're embarrassing out there, it might be hard to figure out just how good they are. So...ignore them.

Who is playing against them? Who is being hidden from them?

Now, of course, you have to understand league and roster structure. Often times, with just four d-men, teams would stack their pairs like this...

1-4
2-3

Really good example is Doug Harvey being paired with Al Langlois. I think Langlois is terrible. But he got minutes up with Harvey. So it's not enough to just look at ice time estimates and what not and make inferences. Again, there's no "easy" button to this. It's going to take work, but it's a wholly worthwhile endeavor.

And you can make inferences in a lot of places. I like Ralph Backstrom a fair bit, never a top line guy, but he could play. Consistently a 20 and 40 man in the 60's. At age 36, he jumps to the WHA and racks up a couple of 80 point seasons at an age when the vast majority of pro hockey players are retired. Pretty suspicious stuff that requires a deeper look. But you have to know about Backstrom, you have know about his role in a dynasty. Was he being held back? Would he have played on, say, Chicago? The nice thing about the O6 seasons is that you watch one game and you're seeing a third of the league - so you can get there pretty quick haha

 

[Victorias]

I don't care if more people were playing hockey in the 2010's vs the 1950's. If there are 10 million folks playing hockey in 2010 and only 100,000 playing in 1960, it doesn't matter because we're talking about what the best 100 were all about in 1960. Or ~600 in 2010. It's a super small percentage that doesn't abide by normal distribution.

I think you should care. If you have 100k, the top .01% of players is 10. If you have 10M the top .01% is 1000. It is much easier for a world class player to stand out when there are 10 players at or near his level than 1000.

Therefore, a larger talent pool creates more competition at the very top, not just on average or at the fringes. And it allows for more players who are not necessarily as talented to have outlier type seasons.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I think you should care. If you have 100k, the top .01% of players is 10. If you have 10M the top .01% is 1000. It is much easier for a world class player to stand out when there are 10 players at or near his level than 1000.

Therefore, a larger talent pool creates more competition at the very top, not just on average or at the fringes. And it allows for more players who are not necessarily as talented to have outlier type seasons.

I've read about math before, I'm quite familiar haha

If in 1965, the top 100 players are absolute killers, then it doesn't matter what player #98,536 is doing. It's such a small amount that it takes to make a great league.

Look at the NFL. 400 trillion children in America (maybe Canada, I don't know) grow up in their backyards throwing the game winning pass in the Super Bowl - Montana to Clark style - every day after school. When is the last time there was more than 10 watchable quarterbacks in the NFL at any one time? Population was never higher. There's even a minor pro league now masquerading under the name "NCAA". High school games are on ESPN sometimes. Football is king.

The 10th rated passer last year was Andy Dalton.

We fell all over ourselves when it was Manning/Brady/Brees/Rodgers/Luck/Russ/Ben/Rivers all at the same time. It was like 8 guys, 10 guys...that was wild times! A decade ago.

I might be slightly exaggerating, but about 400 trillion children grow up wanting to be quarterbacks...we can't get more than eight or ten at a time that are worth a damn...I don't even care what the 24th best guy does, much less than 240,000th...

 

[sr edler]

There aren’t any.. notice that nothing other than hand waving and “common sense” is ever provided as evidence.

It's because we can't distinguish between facts and hard facts.

 

[Victorias]

I've read about math before, I'm quite familiar haha

If in 1965, the top 100 players are absolute killers, then it doesn't matter what player #98,536 is doing. It's such a small amount that it takes to make a great league.

Look at the NFL. 400 trillion children in America (maybe Canada, I don't know) grow up in their backyards throwing the game winning pass in the Super Bowl - Montana to Clark style - every day after school. When is the last time there was more than 10 watchable quarterbacks in the NFL at any one time? Population was never higher. There's even a minor pro league now masquerading under the name "NCAA". High school games are on ESPN sometimes. Football is king.

The 10th rated passer last year was Andy Dalton.

We fell all over ourselves when it was Manning/Brady/Brees/Rodgers/Luck/Russ/Ben/Rivers all at the same time. It was like 8 guys, 10 guys...that was wild times! A decade ago.

I might be slightly exaggerating, but about 400 trillion children grow up wanting to be quarterbacks...we can't get more than eight or ten at a time that are worth a damn...I don't even care what the 24th best guy does, much less than 240,000th...

I would say the current group of top QB’s is quite a bit better than those in the past; we’re just more critical of them today because our expectations are higher. Even if you disagree, there will always be ebs and flows in the talent at a specific position in a specific sport, like Canadian goalies right now. But that’s a carefully chosen and therefore unrepresentative example.

This an inescapable truth for me: if you go to a combine with 100 players it is significantly easier to be selected among the best than if there are 1000 players. Showing you are better than 90+ guys is way easier than showing you are better than 990+. Same with job applications or anything else in which you are competing with others. This is not some hypothetical or anecdote or carefully chosen example. It’s just reality.

 

[daver]

This an inescapable truth for me: if you go to a combine with 100 players it is significantly easier to be selected among the best than if there are 1000 players. Showing you are better than 90+ guys is way easier than showing you are better than 990+. Same with job applications or anything else in which you are competing with others. This is not some hypothetical or anecdote or carefully chosen example. It’s just reality.

Not if you are the best player. Then it is the exact same level of difficulty. Seems like you are presuming that the best player from a bigger talent > best player from a smaller talent pool.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I would say the current group of top QB’s is quite a bit better than those in the past; we’re just more critical of them today because our expectations are higher. Even if you disagree, there will always be ebs and flows in the talent at a specific position in a specific sport, like Canadian goalies right now. But that’s a carefully chosen and therefore unrepresentative example.

This an inescapable truth for me: if you go to a combine with 100 players it is significantly easier to be selected among the best than if there are 1000 players. Showing you are better than 90+ guys is way easier than showing you are better than 990+. Same with job applications or anything else in which you are competing with others. This is not some hypothetical or anecdote or carefully chosen example. It’s just reality.

I don't know what is meant by "current group" vs "the past", so I won't comment.

Canadian goalies is a really good example. And there's a very specific reason why it's like that now. And there's a very specific reason why Russians are in right now at goalie. It's not purely random.

You can't escape it, but that doesn't make it a truth. If you've worked in hockey, this is obvious. Select camps, elite showcase tournaments, etc. It's all designed to limit the numbers to just the top end because no one cares what player 1000 is doing. By your logic, when lady participation is in the participation/population numbers, that would improve the NHL product...somehow.

Look, I'm not trying to change your mind. You're stuck on the math of it, it's not invalid. But that's just not how talent is distributed. It clusters randomly. There's greater opportunity randomly (fall of the Soviet Union -> Russians flood the NHL; etc.) and because we're dealing with such small numbers, taking the firehose math approach will just drown everyone. It's the lowest common denominator. You're trying to determine a qualitative factor with purely a blind, vaguely estimated quantitative factor. It's not even like the math is "right"...the math is a guess and then it's being applied in a guesswork fashion. Whether you watch the games like me or multiply by 0.01 on a random number, there's no real science behind either method.

 

[Victorias]

Not if you are the best player. Then it is the exact same level of difficulty.

It’s not. As the number of participants or applicants increases, it will be harder for any one to be chosen as the best. Look at soccer: Messi is the most talented player in history by miles but for years there was debate about whether he or Ronaldo was better. The talent pool there is so ridiculously big that even a once in a lifetime talent may not be considered the best in the world at times during his prime. If hockey had a talent pool like that, there would 100 McDavids.

I don't know what is meant by "current group" vs "the past", so I won't comment.

Canadian goalies is a really good example. And there's a very specific reason why it's like that now. And there's a very specific reason why Russians are in right now at goalie. It's not purely random.

You can't escape it, but that doesn't make it a truth. If you've worked in hockey, this is obvious. Select camps, elite showcase tournaments, etc. It's all designed to limit the numbers to just the top end because no one cares what player 1000 is doing. By your logic, when lady participation is in the participation/population numbers, that would improve the NHL product...somehow.

Look, I'm not trying to change your mind. You're stuck on the math of it, it's not invalid. But that's just not how talent is distributed. It clusters randomly. There's greater opportunity randomly (fall of the Soviet Union -> Russians flood the NHL; etc.) and because we're dealing with such small numbers, taking the firehose math approach will just drown everyone. It's the lowest common denominator. You're trying to determine a qualitative factor with purely a blind, vaguely estimated quantitative factor. It's not even like the math is "right"...the math is a guess and then it's being applied in a guesswork fashion. Whether you watch the games like me or multiply by 0.01 on a random number, there's no real science behind either method.

C’mon man. There’s a huge difference between the current pool growing than adding a completely separate pool - with different genetic capacity- to the existing one. So, everyone who starts playing after the first 1000 guys or something is essentially not a viable player? That’s just stupid.

I’ve participated in combines. The more players there are, the harder it is to stand out. When there are too many guys, players are cut arbitrarily or no one is selected because no one can show they do everything better than everyone. Even if you want to call that a failure of evaluation at some point it becomes too difficult to discern between guys. Which is what happens in modern sports but not in the past.

 

[daver]

It’s not. As the number of participants or applicants increases, it will be harder for any one to be chosen as the best. Look at soccer: Messi is the most talented player in history by miles but for years there was debate about whether he or Ronaldo was better. The talent pool there is so ridiculously big that even a once in a lifetime talent may not be considered the best in the world at times during his prime. If hockey had a talent pool like that, there would 100 McDavids.

I will respond to this when I have more time but I wanted to thank you for clearly wanting to engage in a meaningful discussion by not resorting to hyperbolic claims.

 

[Victorias]

I will respond to this when I have more time but I wanted to thank you for clearly wanting to engage in a meaningful discussion by not resorting to hyperbolic claims.

there’s nothing hyperbolic about what I said. But don’t waste your time - I’m not going to respond any further

 

[Overrated]

I think you should care. If you have 100k, the top .01% of players is 10. If you have 10M the top .01% is 1000. It is much easier for a world class player to stand out when there are 10 players at or near his level than 1000.

Therefore, a larger talent pool creates more competition at the very top, not just on average or at the fringes. And it allows for more players who are not necessarily as talented to have outlier type seasons.

The correlation the between talent pool depth and the youth participation can't be 1:1 though. Let's imagine you live in the 1920s. A lot fewer kids have access to organized hockey but most kids have likely played hockey at least a few times on ponds etc. The best player in any given pond game was much more likely to seek a team than the worst whereas in the 1960s for example all kids would likely be on some sort of a team. So a 100k talent pool wasn't necessarily 10 times weaker in the amount of star players than a 1 million talent pool. So even though I agree that the size of the talent pool does matter it doesn't correlate 1:1 with youth participation within organized hockey.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

It’s not. As the number of participants or applicants increases, it will be harder for any one to be chosen as the best. Look at soccer: Messi is the most talented player in history by miles but for years there was debate about whether he or Ronaldo was better. The talent pool there is so ridiculously big that even a once in a lifetime talent may not be considered the best in the world at times during his prime. If hockey had a talent pool like that, there would 100 McDavids.

C’mon man. There’s a huge difference between the current pool growing than adding a completely separate pool - with different genetic capacity- to the existing one. So, everyone who starts playing after the first 1000 guys or something is essentially not a viable player? That’s just stupid.

I’ve participated in combines. The more players there are, the harder it is to stand out. When there are too many guys, players are cut arbitrarily or no one is selected because no one can show they do everything better than everyone. Even if you want to call that a failure of evaluation at some point it becomes too difficult to discern between guys. Which is what happens in modern sports but not in the past.

You're making the false assumption that talent level is uniformly and consistently distributed, thus more people = more top end talent. It isn't

Increasing the talent pool by and large does nothing more except increase the number of average and below average players in the league. The elite talent in quality and # is not affected by this as the best of the best will be in the league no matter what.

Despite the greater # of teams and talent sources, the current elite players are no better than other eras (post war anyways, pre war is a different animal).

McDavid/Makar/Crosby/Ovechkin/Malkin
Gretzky/Lemieux/Bourque/Coffey/Messier/Roy/Hasek
Orr/Esposito/Potvin/Lafleur/Dryden/Mikita
Howe/Harvey/Sawchuk/Plante/Beliveau/Hull

 

[Michael Farkas]

C’mon man. There’s a huge difference between the current pool growing than adding a completely separate pool - with different genetic capacity- to the existing one. So, everyone who starts playing after the first 1000 guys or something is essentially not a viable player? That’s just stupid.

I’ve participated in combines. The more players there are, the harder it is to stand out. When there are too many guys, players are cut arbitrarily or no one is selected because no one can show they do everything better than everyone. Even if you want to call that a failure of evaluation at some point it becomes too difficult to discern between guys. Which is what happens in modern sports but not in the past.

This is your math. By adding to the talent pool total, in any way, because you don't know the numbers. It's just guesses. No one knows if there's 40 million AAA players out of 41 million. Is it 20 million D-1 caliber players out of 5 billion? Are there only 400 NHL caliber players out of X million? But if the numbers were blind, right? Which they are. And you didn't know how they calculated participation numbers. And suddenly in 2023, the numbers goes up 20%. 20% higher TOTAL. That affects your "let's multiply by 0.01 and make a deduction" method. Therefore, you'd say that the talent pool was never larger and therefore the NHL talent was...[whatever].

How many NHL caliber players are out there? Let's say right now it's a perfect fit. Every NHL caliber plays and every one that isn't doesn't. It's 100%. In 1965, that coverage is 115% (let's say). So, there are 15% more NHL caliber players than there are NHL roster spots. In 1981, the coverage is 63%. So, 37% of the NHL is NOT NHL caliber. That's more indicative (probably) of what we're working with in the only. league. we're. talking. about. than what a bunch of minor midget players are doing. Or Norwegian League players are doing.

"with different genetic capacity" - well, that would imply that the very best women's player is worse than the very worst men's player in some respects. But that's not true. So, that means we should be rightfully dismissing all of the players that are not relevant to the NHL talent pool. For some reason, you're not only intent on including a zillion irrelevant players but having them make an impact on the interpretation of games that already happened.

 

[Midnight Judges]

You're making the false assumption that talent level is uniformly and consistently distributed...

Nobody is assuming that. However, you are making an enormous assumption here:

Increasing the talent pool by and large does nothing more except increase the number of average and below average players in the league.

 

[daver]

The talent pool argument (i.e. it is more difficult to stand out today than in the past) is easily dismissed as many sports has had easily identified GOATs currently or recently.

It simply is not reasonable to presume the best of today are better than the best of the past. IMO, it is a discussion that needs it's own thread as all it does it derail threads.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Despite the greater # of teams and talent sources, the current elite players are no better than other eras (post war anyways, pre war is a different animal).

McDavid/Makar/Crosby/Ovechkin/Malkin
Gretzky/Lemieux/Bourque/Coffey/Messier/Roy/Hasek
Orr/Esposito/Potvin/Lafleur/Dryden/Mikita
Howe/Harvey/Sawchuk/Plante/Beliveau/Hull

There really is no way for you to back this up. Your comparison of peer groups is almost completely relative to themselves. Your logic is firmly circular.

 

[Deas]

I think you should care. If you have 100k, the top .01% of players is 10. If you have 10M the top .01% is 1000. It is much easier for a world class player to stand out when there are 10 players at or near his level than 1000.

Therefore, a larger talent pool creates more competition at the very top, not just on average or at the fringes. And it allows for more players who are not necessarily as talented to have outlier type seasons.

This is a good and relevant point. Interesting though how the dominance over peers by 66 and especially 99 came relatively late in the NHL’s history after most of the expansion. When Gretzky scored 215 in 85/86 624 players was registered with at least 1 game played. In 22/23 that number was 974. A big increase of course at around 50% but the main part of the expansion was done by 1979 already when the league reached 21 teams. While the worst players are better now than the worst players in the 80’s the scoring dominance of the big two is not explained by significantly less competition volume wise.

By the way what do you think of the spin that less teams could actually increase level of competition? In a Howe vs Lemieux discussion I took part in years ago a very good poster claimed Howe faced all the best players all the time while Lemieux could feast on more poor teams and weak fourth lines etc. Diluted talent due to expansion rather than the opposite. I lean more towards your opinion but could that spin make sense?

 

[MadLuke]

Your comparison of peer groups is almost completely relative to themselves.

Almost but not quite
Howe first year he was a finalist for the Hart (51):
�

Place	Player	Age	Tm	Pos	Votes	Vote%	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	G	A	PTS	+/-	W	L	T/O	GAA	SV%	OPS	DPS	GPS	PS
Scoring	Goalie Stats	Point Shares
1	Milt Schmidt	32	BOS	C	40	74.07	10	4	2			22	39	61							6.2	0.8	0.0	7.0
2	Maurice Richard	29	MTL	RW	28	51.85	5	4	5			42	24	66							8.6	1.0	0.0	9.6
3	Red Kelly	23	DET	D	11	20.37	1	2	4			17	37	54							6.3	5.8	0.0	12.1
3	Gordie Howe	22	DET	RW	11	20.37	0	5	1			43	43	86							10.6	1.5	0.0	12.1
5	Ted Kennedy	25	TOR	C	8	14.81	0	2	4			18	43	61							5.4	1.4	0.0	6.7

last time he was a finalist (66):
�

Place	Player	Age	Tm	Pos	Votes	Vote%	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	G	A	PTS	+/-	W	L	T/O	GAA	SV%	OPS	DPS	GPS	PS
	Scoring	Goalie Stats	Point Shares
1	Bobby Hull	27	CBH	LW	145	55.13	79	66				54	43	97	19						10.6	1.2	0.0	11.8
2	Jean Béliveau	34	MTL	C	59	22.43	3	56				29	48	77	10						6.4	1.2	0.0	7.7
3	Gordie Howe	37	DET	RW	24	9.13	13	11				29	46	75	19						6.0	1.1	0.0	7.1
4	Glenn Hall	34	CBH	G	21	7.98	21	0				0	2	2		34	22	8	2.63	.916	0.0	0.0	12.6	12.6
5	Norm Ullman	30	DET	C	14	5.32	14	0				31	41	72	2						5.9	1.1	0.0	7.1

That was a completely, 100% different tier group, his 66 competition played in total 2 games in 50-51, when he finished tie for 6 in 70 it was against the Orr-Espositos-Park an different peer groups again.

Howe is obviously an extreme example of this, but the Hasek-Roy-Gretzky-Bourque-Messier-Beliveau played long enough to face different peers groups and the younger peer groups they faced in their second half of their career would go on to face an entirely different group later on.

To take one if not the most extreme example of longevity Ovechkin won Rockets:

Goals

1.	Alex Ovechkin • WSH	65
2.	Ilya Kovalchuk • ATL	52
3.	Jarome Iginla* • CGY	50
4.	Evgeni Malkin • PIT	47
5.	Brad Boyes • STL	43
	Henrik Zetterberg • DET	43

Goals

1.	Alex Ovechkin • WSH	32
2.	Steven Stamkos • TBL	29
3.	John Tavares • NYI	28
4.	Jeff Carter • LAK	26
5.	Patrick Kane • CHI	23
	Jiří Tlustý • CAR	23
	Jonathan Toews • CHI	23

Goals

1.	Alex Ovechkin • WSH	48
	David Pastrňák • BOS	48
3.	Auston Matthews • TOR	47
4.	Leon Draisaitl • EDM	43
5.	Mika Zibanejad • NYR	41

Thats at least 3 100% different group of peers he competed with for the Rockets, the Iginla-Kovy, the Stamkos-Tavares the Pastranak-Matthews.

Far from perfect, if everyone of Lafleur generation had a injury-second half career like him we could underrate them a lot, but if it can give some idea, played primes being often 5-7 years, elite HOF will have faced 2-3 different one during their career, Gretzky 1981 NHL and 1991 NHL was completely different.

81 art ross:
Points

1.	Wayne Gretzky* • EDM	137
	Marcel Dionne* • LAK	137
3.	Guy Lafleur* • MTL	125
4.	Gilbert Perreault* • BUF	106
5.	Mike Rogers • HAR	105
6.	Bryan Trottier* • NYI	104

91 Art Ross:

1.	Wayne Gretzky* • LAK	163
2.	Brett Hull* • STL	131
3.	Adam Oates* • STL	115
4.	Mark Recchi* • PIT	113
5.	John Cullen • 2TM	110
6.	Joe Sakic* • QUE	109

And has the continuation example, the 94 Art Ross he almost kept up with Jagr at even strength, that post Suter well post 30 Gretzky, Jagr at the same age than Gretzky in 94 was perfectly able to keep up with everyone of the post 04 lock-out era. The NHL changed a lot in between.

There is a lot of circular affairs, the notion of being a nhler being used being purely relative to the high end talent available and the number of roster spot, if 250 millions more young people around the world were interested and playing seriously at it like soccer with a worldwide incredible system to identify and mentor them (from Brazil Favela to almost everywhere) and it stayed a statuo quo of the NHL being the biggest league getting almost all the best player, the notion of what level is a nhler could be widely different sure.

Crosby first art ross and second art ross, can feel like the same league but it was 2 different one in term of competition for the Ross, almost completely.

No player in The top 10 in 2006-2007 was in the Top of 2013-2014 outside Crosby, Ovechkin was the only one close (13 and 10), the 2007 league was the Thornton-Lecavalier, pizza line, Sakic-Jagr, Savard-Briere, St.Louis, Selanne-Iginla, Datsyuk, virtually none of them were still Art Ross relevant in 2014 (Getzlaf-Giroux-Seguin-Perry-Hall-Kessel) and none of those were Art Ross relevant when he finished 5th in scoring in 2019, we see him play against a almost completely new and different group of elite peer group again.

 

[Weztex]

[...]

UK's population is up some 40% since that time and they haven't produced a god damn thing after 1978 except for Radiohead and, for a moment, Amy Winehouse...why is this? Isn't there more talent? Shouldn't they, ya know, not suck...?

[...]

I'm just here to express how triggered I am by this affirmation.

So make this post valid to the official discussion I'll say between 10th and 12th.

(The Smiths, The Cure, Joy Division, New Order, Kate Bush, The Jam, The Specials, The Stone Roses, Pet Shop Boys, Iron Maiden, XTC, Depeche Mode, Simple Minds, Cocteau Twins, The Pogues, Tears for Fears, The Jesus and Mary Chain, Massive Attack, Blur, Oasis, Suede, Manic Street Preachers, PJ Harvey, Pulp, Supergrass, The Chemical Brothers, Portishead, Primal Scream, Aphex Twin, Stereophonics, Belle and Sebastian, The Prodigy, Fatboy Slim, M.I.A., Arctic Monkeys, The Streets, Franz Ferdinand, The Libertines, Gorillaz, Bloc Party, Disclosure, FKA twigs, James Blake, Alt-J, Florence + the Machine, Michael Kiwanuka...)

 

[K Fleur]

I'm just here to express how triggered I am by this affirmation.

So make this post valid to the official discussion I'll say between 10th and 12th.

(The Smiths, The Cure, Joy Division, New Order, Kate Bush, The Jam, The Specials, The Stone Roses, Pet Shop Boys, Iron Maiden, XTC, Depeche Mode, Simple Minds, Cocteau Twins, The Pogues, Tears for Fears, The Jesus and Mary Chain, Massive Attack, Blur, Oasis, Suede, Manic Street Preachers, PJ Harvey, Pulp, Supergrass, The Chemical Brothers, Portishead, Primal Scream, Aphex Twin, Stereophonics, Belle and Sebastian, The Prodigy, Fatboy Slim, M.I.A., Arctic Monkeys, The Streets, Franz Ferdinand, The Libertines, Gorillaz, Bloc Party, Disclosure, FKA twigs, James Blake, Alt-J, Florence + the Machine, Michael Kiwanuka...)

And if you’re into EDM Fred again.. is f***ing awesome.

 

[Midnight Judges]

There are boat loads of great musicians you've never heard of BTW.

 

[wetcoast]

I think there was some great defenders in the early 2010s, but as a whole, yes, I think it was lower quality of play than 2005-2010 and 2016-now.

Just look at the 2008-2014 drafts. 7 draft years. All players who would have started playing hockey in the DPE, but had their junior careers post red line removal.

Who is a HHOF level forward?
2008 - Stamkos
2009 - No one. Tavares and O'Reilly get closest
2010 - No one. Hall and Seguin get closest.
2011 - Kucherov. Gaudreau and Huberdeau are outside
2012 - No one.
2013 - Mackinnon. Maybe Barkov
2014 - Draisaitl. Maybe Pastrnak

Then we get a stacked year of forwards in 2015

In those 7 draft years only 3 HHOF forward locks.

And in the 2011-2016 time period you get major injuries to Crosby, Stamkos, and Malkin. A slowdown from Ovechkin. And slow starts to Kucherov and MacKinnon.

Is all this really a reflection of the quality of players or just some league dynamics or just plain randomness...who can tell?

 

[daver]

Is all this really a reflection of the quality of players or just some league dynamics or just plain randomness...who can tell?

You clearly aren't acknowledging the elephant in the room, the Finnish frisbee golf craze of 2003. It's affects on the NHL will be felt for decades to come.