Which single-season roster would be the greatest team with players in their primes?

[CpatainCanuck]

So, what you're arguing is that in 1951 (just an arbitrary O6 year) when Gordie Howe and Maurice Richard were the first and second team all-stars at RW, there was someone, somewhere, that was not in the NHL that would have taken Howe's first team all star away?

Or the C's from that year. Milt Schmidt and Ted Kennedy/Sid Abel? With Max Bentley banging on the door (the highest scoring C that year). There was a guy stuck in the minors who had a shot at those guys?

No, that's not really a point I care to argue against because in order for it to hold any water, there would have to have been another league out there with players that could challenge those guys.

I think it's safe to assume there was nobody in North America, right? The only guy who may have broken up the ASTs from that era would be Vsevelod Bobrov. IMO he wouldn't have been close, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there: Maybe, during that era, there was a year or two in which the LW ASTs would have looked a little different with more teams and all of the "best players in the world" in the NHL. But that's it.

The Soviets/Swedes were about a decade away from being at the same level as the NHLers, and the best NA players were all in the NHL. So how would the skaters ASTs have looked any different if there were 30 teams?

If the league suddenly ballooned to 100 teams right now, would Ovechkin not still be the top LW in the league?

You appear to be arguing that the number of teams in a league does not have any bearing on the value of allstar selections.

As you seem to say yourself, teams of an era can only be judged statistically relative to the other teams in the league at the time. To compare statistically, you have to compare a team's accomplishments with that of a hypothetical "average" team of that era.

A hypothetical average team from the original 6 era would have 10 allstar selections in 6 years, or 1.67 per year.

An average team from the current 30 team era would have 10 allstar selections in 30 years, or 0.33 per year.

With these averages, it is much more remarkable to have 12 sometime allstars on a team in 2002 than 14 in 1956.


Let's imagine a league 3 times smaller than the O6 league, made up of 2 teams. In this league, an average team will have 5 allstar selections every year. In a year containing players with careers spanning 30 years, it would not be at all surprising to have 14 sometime allstars on this team. In fact this would probably be the worst team in the league.

Imagine a league 3 times bigger than it is currently, of 90 teams. In this league the mean would be 1 allstar selection in 9 years. To have 12 sometime allstars on the team the same year would be unthinkable and domineering.


It is the same argument with Stanley Cups. Winning a cup now is a much bigger event for a city than in the O6 era because it is much harder to do so. Then, even an average team could expect to win the cup on average every 6 years.

Compare Detroit's recent success of 4 cups in 11 years. An average team could expect to win 1 cup in 30 years; so Detroit's accomplishment is (4/11)/(1/30) or 10.9 times more successful than an average team.

Montreal's most successful 11 year run in the O6 era was 7 cups between 55/56 and 65/66. (7/11)/(1/6) shows that the team was 3.82 times as successful as an average team.

The fact is no statistic can be transferred accurately between all eras. There are so many variables that have changed, some of which are very concrete (like the mathematical one I have argued) while others are very allusive. I don't pretend that this stat demonstrates that the 02 Red Wings were a better prime team than the 56 Canadiens, but I do have an issue with the stat being used as proof for the other view when in fact it supports the exact opposite.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

You appear to be arguing that the number of teams in a league does not have any bearing on the value of allstar selections.

As you seem to say yourself, teams of an era can only be judged statistically relative to the other teams in the league at the time. To compare statistically, you have to compare a team's accomplishments with that of a hypothetical "average" team of that era.

A hypothetical average team from the original 6 era would have 10 allstar selections in 6 years, or 1.67 per year.

An average team from the current 30 team era would have 10 allstar selections in 30 years, or 0.33 per year.

With these averages, it is much more remarkable to have 12 sometime allstars on a team in 2002 than 14 in 1956.


Let's imagine a league 3 times smaller than the O6 league, made up of 2 teams. In this league, an average team will have 5 allstar selections every year. In a year containing players with careers spanning 30 years, it would not be at all surprising to have 14 sometime allstars on this team. In fact this would probably be the worst team in the league.

Imagine a league 3 times bigger than it is currently, of 90 teams. In this league the mean would be 1 allstar selection in 9 years. To have 12 sometime allstars on the team the same year would be unthinkable and domineering.


It is the same argument with Stanley Cups. Winning a cup now is a much bigger event for a city than in the O6 era because it is much harder to do so. Then, even an average team could expect to win the cup on average every 6 years.

Compare Detroit's recent success of 4 cups in 11 years. An average team could expect to win 1 cup in 30 years; so Detroit's accomplishment is (4/11)/(1/30) or 10.9 times more successful than an average team.

Montreal's most successful 11 year run in the O6 era was 7 cups between 55/56 and 65/66. (7/11)/(1/6) shows that the team was 3.82 times as successful as an average team.

The fact is no statistic can be transferred accurately between all eras. There are so many variables that have changed, some of which are very concrete (like the mathematical one I have argued) while others are very allusive. I don't pretend that this stat demonstrates that the 02 Red Wings were a better prime team than the 56 Canadiens, but I do have an issue with the stat being used as proof for the other view when in fact it supports the exact opposite.

You're arguing a slightly different point here.

The value of an AST spot has changed with regards to how likely it is a team will have one, but not in terms of how hard it is for a player to achieve one (with occasional previously discussed exceptions).

That's why we will never see another team even close to as good as those 50's Hab teams in the current generation. It's impossible to accumulate that much talent on one team these days. An average team in the original six would steamroll an average team today because that original six team would still have at least a couple of Hall of Famers. The six team league meant talent was extremely concentrated.

So Montreal having 14 players that were all-stars at one point in their career may not be any more impressive/statistically anomalous than a team having say, four such players today, but what doesn't change is the fact that these players had to be the best in the world at their position whether it was 1950 or 2010. So assuming you equate being the best in the world in 1950 with being the best in 2010, the Montreal team would demolish the current team.

 

[CpatainCanuck]

You're arguing a slightly different point here.

The value of an AST spot has changed with regards to how likely it is a team will have one, but not in terms of how hard it is for a player to achieve one (with occasional previously discussed exceptions).

That's why we will never see another team even close to as good as those 50's Hab teams in the current generation. It's impossible to accumulate that much talent on one team these days. An average team in the original six would steamroll an average team today because that original six team would still have at least a couple of Hall of Famers. The six team league meant talent was extremely concentrated.

So Montreal having 14 players that were all-stars at one point in their career may not be any more impressive/statistically anomalous than a team having say, four such players today, but what doesn't change is the fact that these players had to be the best in the world at their position whether it was 1950 or 2010. So assuming you equate being the best in the world in 1950 with being the best in 2010, the Montreal team would demolish the current team.

Well of course that opens up many more topics. Certainly talent was more concentrated in a 6 team league; but there is also a much larger pool of players now. There is a ton of European talent in the league now, American development has exponentially improved, while Canada's population has doubled since 1955. Add to that the fact that much more emphasis is placed on training and conditioning on and off the ice, all starting at a younger age.

To this you will still reply "but the top talent then is still equal to the top talent now". Well, there are twice as many of these top-talent Canadian players now simply because the country is twice as big. And top end talent from Europe and the Soviet Union didn't exist in the nhl. There were probably athletes of the caliber of Ovechkin, Malkin, Sedin, Gaborik, Alfredsson, Zetterberg etc. then who never played hockey simply because it hadn't been seriously introduced into their countries, or players who couldn't play in the nhl due to political reasons.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Well of course that opens up many more topics. Certainly talent was more concentrated in a 6 team league; but there is also a much larger pool of players now. There is a ton of European talent in the league now, American development has exponentially improved, while Canada's population has doubled since 1955. Add to that the fact that much more emphasis is placed on training and conditioning on and off the ice, all starting at a younger age.

To this you will still reply "but the top talent then is still equal to the top talent now". Well, there are twice as many of these top-talent Canadian players now simply because the country is twice as big. And top end talent from Europe and the Soviet Union didn't exist in the nhl. There were probably athletes of the caliber of Ovechkin, Malkin, Sedin, Gaborik, Alfredsson, Zetterberg etc. then who never played hockey simply because it hadn't been seriously introduced into their countries, or players who couldn't play in the nhl due to political reasons.

It definitely does open a can of worms, and that's why there's no magic formula for era adjustment. Too many variables. It's not so much a problem when judging the best of the best. There's really no reason to think that Gordie Howe wouldn't be the dominant force in 2010 that he was in 1955, or that Crosby or Ovechkin wouldn't run roughshod in 1955 like they do today.

The next tier of players is where it becomes tricky. Mike Gartner is in the Hall of Fame, but I've seen legitimate well-reasoned arguments that he wouldn't even have made the NHL in the original six era.

 

[BobbyAwe]

"Bobby Orr could have replaced our Bob Turner on defence. Phil Esposito could have replaced our Phil Goyette at center. John Bucyk could have replaced our Andre Pronovost at left wing."[/I]
If they could accomplish all that in the spring of 1971 ... it's not hard to think that they were probably that much better in the late '50's.

I mentioned Johnson's remark because he was a member of the Hab's dynasty and also coach of that Bruin's team so his loyalty to either, in retrospect, would tend to be unbiased. Not so with Plante (although he did play 8 games with Boston near the end of his career which means nothing). The enormity of his bias is apparent when you consider how ridiculous the insinuation of his remark is. To imagine that Orr, Esposito and Bucyk would only fill the 6th defenseman and 3rd/4th line forwards spots on that Montreal club is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interpretation

I mentioned Johnson's remark because he was a member of the Hab's dynasty and also coach of that Bruin's team so his loyalty to either, in retrospect, would tend to be unbiased. Not so with Plante (although he did play 8 games with Boston near the end of his career which means nothing). The enormity of his bias is apparent when you consider how ridiculous the insinuation of his remark is. To imagine that Orr, Esposito and Bucyk would only fill the 6th defenseman and 3rd/4th line forwards spots on that Montreal club is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard.

Question of interpretation. Plante did not state that the players from the Bruins would fill those roles. Plante simply stated who they would replace on the team - simply the weakest d-man, center and LW. Specifically getting a Bobby Orr carried no obligation to drop Doug Harvey, simply drop the weakest regular defenseman. Likewise getting Phil Esposito does not imply dropping a Beliveau or a Henri Richard, simply drop the weakest regular center. Likewise Bucyk at LW. The resulting roles would shake out based on merit.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Are the dynasty era Edmonton Oilers disqualified from this?

I'd say their 1987 cup winning team would fit in well in a discussion like this.

that was my observation--there were a few season where the oilers dominated the league and it was not close

 

[jkrx]

Detroit had 8 all-star team players plus one who would be there in their prime, Larionov. I'd say thats pretty good.

...and saying Europeans were decades away from the same level as canadians? Wha?

 

[lextune]

I'd take the Edmonton team that swept the Isles over any of the Time Machine rosters in here.

There was no Edmonton team that swept the Isles.

 

[SidGenoMario]

For being such a crappy team, the 05-06 Pens would have had a pretty good looking prime team.

A dominant first line:
LW John LeClair (51 Goals, 97 Points)
C Mario Lemieux (85 Goals, 114 Assists, 199 Points)
RW Mark Recchi (53 Goals, 70 Assists, 123 Points)

A decent second line:

LW Ryan Malone (51 Points)
C Sidney Crosby (84 Assists, 120 Points)
RW Ziggy Palffy (48 Goals, 90 Points)

A couple of fairly high scoring defensemen in Gonchar, Whitney and the 03-04 team's leading scorer, Dick Tarnstrom.

With Fleury and Thibault in net.