Your Wildly Outrageous (History of) Hockey Opinions...

[DitchMarner]

What are some things you unironically believe that you know won't go over well with the majority of hockey fans?

I'm not talking about merely "hot takes" like Kessel deserved the Conn Smythe in 2016 but opinions that you're certain will draw the ire of other knowledgeable hockey fans and that you are willing to make arguments in favor of anyway...

Opinions like Orr isn't the best defenseman ever or Lemieux isn't a top four player of all-time or someone like Messier doesn't belong in the all-time top 25 (not my opinions - merely hypothetical examples).

Things you may be hesitant or even afraid to type up on this board...


Go on ahead.

Click to read more...

 

[DitchMarner]

I think that when people talk generally about how much hockey has improved, they sometimes don't realize that evolution does not always equal improvement in every conceivable way.

If someone was to make a "time machine" argument for a player from circa 2016 and say that a certain average first liner would have been a superstar in 1987, they may not consider that it's possible that the player isn't as creative as the best offensive players from that era or he doesn't quite have the vision to excel in a free-flowing system or style of play that some of the best offensive players who actually played in the 1980s had. While he is clearly superior in certain aspects (conditioning, athleticism, technical skills), he may be inferior in others, limiting or negating his overall advantage.

 

[rmartin65]

someone like Messier doesn't belong in the all-time top 25

He doesn’t, and that’s really not a hot take.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

What are some things you unironically believe that you know won't go over well with the majority of hockey fans?I'm not talking about merely "hot takes" like Kessel deserved the Conn Smythe in 2016 but opinions that you're certain will draw the ire of other knowledgeable hockey fans and that you are willing to make arguments in favor of anyway...Opinions like Orr isn't the best defenseman ever or Lemieux isn't a top four player of all-time or someone like Messier doesn't belong in the all-time top 25 (not my opinions - merely hypothetical examples).

Things you may be hesitant or even afraid to type up on this board...


Go on ahead.

I'll go with the one you mentioned.

 

[Dr Robot]

The refs are doing a fine job, maybe better at their jobs than ever. The fans have just gotten whinier and more entitled.

Peak Pronger was better than peak Lidstrom.

Luongos reputation as a goalie took a hit because of how sick everyone was of Vancouver fans pumping him. In the running for best goalie of his generation.

Price isn’t nearly a HoF goalie but had a few excellent years and massive Canadian fan backing.

Bettman is a very good commissioner who has done lots of good for the league. He has also done a lot of work to support Canadian hockey teams. I think there are still a few powerful big market owners that are stalling needed changes like actual revenue sharing from happening which will make the league take off again. At the end of the day he is still an employee of the owners.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The idea that Canada alone, with a population of 11 million people, during the Great Depression and coming out of WWII, produced significantly more high end hockey talent appearing in the NHL in the 1950s than the international community produced for the 2000s and 2010s NHL is ridiculous and indefensible.

 

[DitchMarner]

He doesn’t, and that’s really not a hot take.

Maybe I should have put not top 35...

I don't know if I've ever seen a media list that doesn't have him in the top 25. Of course, he is a media darling.

It seems to me he's usually listed in the top 25 on all-time lists in general. I see him as being in the same tier as Bobby Clarke and he's really only better than Trottier due to longevity.

Where would you place him roughly?

I'll go with the one you mentioned.

Out of curiosity, where would you put him?

 

[Midnight Judges]

Peak Pronger was better than peak Lidstrom.

I don’t think that’s outrageous. Pronger was obviously a huge impact player. Lidstrom’s all time ranking is based more on longevity and length of prime than peak play.

 

[norrisnick]

I don’t think that’s outrageous at all. Pronger was obviously a huge impact player. Lidstrom’s all time ranking is based more on longevity and length of prime than peak play.

A not insignificant portion of which being negative. I guess my hot take is that Lidstrom's peak is ridiculously underrated.

 

[The Panther]

While [1987 player] is clearly superior in certain aspects (conditioning, athleticism...

I'm not even sure this is true. Wasn't Dustin Byfuglien basically run off his team because he was too fat? Compare to his body to 1987 Mark Messier or Scott Stevens...

 

[The Panther]

The refs are doing a fine job, maybe better at their jobs than ever. The fans have just gotten whinier and more entitled.

Agree completely. I always laugh at post-Lock Out fans complaining about how incompetent the refs are. If you saw any 1980s' hockey (I saw the latter part) or early 1990s' hockey, you would really see some biased, impartial, often egotistical, nonsensical, and utterly incompetent refereeing on a daily basis, which was about 20 times worse than anything today.

Peak Pronger was better than peak Lidstrom.

Not sure about that, but it's possible. Pronger at his best was awesome and hugely impactful. But he also took a lot of penalties (esp. in the 90s), which Lidstrom didn't. If you factor in how many goals were scored on PP's against Pronger in the box vs. how many were scored with Lidstrom in the box, this will hugely favor Lidstrom. And it's very important to the outcome of games.

The thing with Lidstrom is, it's hard to evaluate his individual impact because he uniquely played on basically, stacked, deep, in-contention, well-coached teams for his entire career. So, if he'd played on the mid-90s' Whalers or the c.2010s' Flyers, would he have dominated more or less? I don't know.

Luongos reputation as a goalie took a hit because of how sick everyone was of Vancouver fans pumping him. In the running for best goalie of his generation.

I don't think most hockey fans listen to Vancouver fans, so no. If Luongo's rep took a hit (can't have been too bad, since he's in the Hall of Fame), it's probably because of his epically bad games in Boston in the 2011 Finals, which everybody in the hockey world watched.

Price isn’t nearly a HoF goalie but had a few excellent years and massive Canadian fan backing.

Nonsense.

Bettman is a very good commissioner who has done lots of good for the league. He has also done a lot of work to support Canadian hockey teams. I think there are still a few powerful big market owners that are stalling needed changes like actual revenue sharing from happening which will make the league take off again. At the end of the day he is still an employee of the owners.

I hate Bettman, so I disagree. I think he's an idiot. But, I do agree with you that he's just a tool of the owners. That is, we could back to 1992 or whenever, get rid of Bettman, and try the next 10 candidates, one-by-one, and all the same crap would have happened anyway.

 

[The Panther]

The idea that Canada alone, with a population of 11 million people, during the Great Depression and coming out of WWII, produced significantly more high end hockey talent appearing in the NHL in the 1950s than the international community produced for the 2000s and 2010s NHL is ridiculous and indefensible.

I think you have to factor in the important point that Canada in the 1930s and 1940s was a hockey-obsessed nation, far more than it is today on a per-capita basis (and today, it's still easily the world's most hockey-obsessed nation).

Bask in the period you mention, probably 90% of Canadian towns -- including small, farming towns -- had ice-rinks. Probably 90% of ALL Canadian kids, on farms, in towns, and in cities experienced skating and playing hockey at least once, if not dozens and dozens of times.

What percentage of kids in the non-Canada hockey countries of the 1930s and 1940s were exposed to hockey in terms of playing in actual games, on ice, and/or in rinks? Maybe 10%? Then, what percent of those kids lived in a hockey-obsessed culture, where all the kids at school worshipped hockey players as Gods and dreamed of being big-League players, to the exclusion of all other sports and most professions? Maybe 2%?

It seems to me quite likely that 90% of the potential hockey talent, during the 1930s and 1940s, in countries like Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Russia, etc., never actually touched a hockey stick or played any competitive hockey.

Thus, the fact that Canada produced the vast majority of talented adult players in the 1950s-1970s seems quite defensible.

 

[K Fleur]

I’m ready to put Cale Makar in my top 20 defenseman of all time.

 

[MadLuke]

The idea that Canada alone, with a population of 11 million people, during the Great Depression and coming out of WWII, produced significantly more high end hockey talent appearing in the NHL in the 1950s than the international community produced for the 2000s and 2010s NHL is ridiculous and indefensible.

Being fully agnostic on the claim one way or the other, I would defend that it is possible.

Look at soccer and the list of small nation that could beat the US or China over time.

There were 32 world strongest man winners, 9 of the 32 time the winner was from Iceland, a country with the population smaller than a medium city, not even a single podium for China-India-France-Spain-Italy-Japan-Brasil.

Lithuania is a powerhouse in that sport.

What the good athlete choose to do (with a circle do they grow up practicing and competing against very high level), can have a huge impact on the ouput.

In how many (all ?) the countries in the international community would have in most city soccer the number 1 sports and some other before hockey ?

To take an objective example, someone could say how can the small (3-5.5 millions over time) Norway be better a cross-country ski than the rest of the whole world together, during a large window of time ? They kind of were.

How many of those would been good nhler instead ? Probably some and they achieve to qualify for the FIFA world cup from time to time at the same time (like Sweden)

 

[Midnight Judges]

I think you have to factor in the important point that Canada in the 1930s and 1940s was a hockey-obsessed nation, far more than it is today on a per-capita basis (and today, it's still easily the world's most hockey-obsessed nation).

Bask in the period you mention, probably 90% of Canadian towns -- including small, farming towns -- had ice-rinks. Probably 90% of ALL Canadian kids, on farms, in towns, and in cities experienced skating and playing hockey at least once, if not dozens and dozens of times.

What percentage of kids in the non-Canada hockey countries of the 1930s and 1940s were exposed to hockey in terms of playing in actual games, on ice, and/or in rinks? Maybe 10%? Then, what percent of those kids lived in a hockey-obsessed culture, where all the kids at school worshipped hockey players as Gods and dreamed of being big-League players, to the exclusion of all other sports and most professions? Maybe 2%?

It seems to me quite likely that 90% of the potential hockey talent, during the 1930s and 1940s, in countries like Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Russia, etc., never actually touched a hockey stick or played any competitive hockey.

Thus, the fact that Canada produced the vast majority of talented adult players in the 1950s-1970s seems quite defensible.

I think you are missing the thrust of my point.

What I'm disputing is the assertion that 1924-1934 Canada was birthing WAAAAAY more hockey talent than 1983-1993 Canada+USA+Russia+Sweden+Finland+Czechia+Denmark+Slovakia+Switzerland+Germany etc. combined.

 

[Gorskyontario]

I think you are missing the thrust of my point.

What I'm disputing is the assertion that 1924-1934 Canada was birthing WAAAAAY more hockey talent than 1983-1993 Canada+USA+Russia+Sweden+Finland+Czechia+Denmark+Slovakia+Switzerland+Germany etc. combined.

I could see that being the case, most of those countries except Sweden aren't particularly impressive considering their size. The Czechs obviously had a few mega stars but they never had any depth.

 

[Vilica]

Some hot takes from looking at the top player lists -

• By the time McDavid finishes his age-30 season, I think the top of my list might be:
  1. Gretzky
  2. Howe
  3. Bourque
  4. McDavid
  5. Lemieux
  6. Orr
  
  
• I'm not as impressed with CSKA Moscow stars in the 80s, stats from a league where their average final score was 6-1 are hard to extrapolate to a more competitive league.
  
  
• Most goaltenders who played before 1940 on all-time lists should be replaced/swap places with goaltenders who played after the WHA merger.
  
  
• Ted Kennedy is definitely not a top 100 player, and possibly not in the top 125.
  
  
• The old players that got pushed out of the top 50 by modern players are going to get further pushed down by more modern players. The ones that retained their spots are not going to see as much downward pressure.
  

My other hot takes -

• Even full seasons are still tiny sample sizes, and overperformance or underperformance is just as likely to be randomness as it is to player intangibles in any of those samples.
  
  
• Scoring hasn't changed appreciably in 80 years, and a player-season is a player-season, no matter when it occurred. Team goals as a percentage of league average, and player goals and points as a percentage of team goals is quite variable season-to-season, but the range in which those numbers vary is unchanged from the beginning of the NHL to the current day.
  
  
• The reason why modern players are swamping older players is not because they're any better, or old players are worse, but because 32 teams adds up so fast. The number of player-seasons (be it forward, defense or goalie) between 1917-18 and 66-67 is roughly equivalent to the number of player-seasons since 2017-18. The original top player lists that were done in the 90s had so many less player-seasons in their samples. Pre-expansion player-seasons have gone from about 40% of the pool then to about 15% of the pool now.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

When evaluating Forsberg with the eye test, he drops more in my rankings than Esposito does.

 

[Matsun]

We will never see a top 5 level goaltender again because of the salary cap and teams figuring out that goalies shouldn't play 60 games.

Edit: Just realized this is a prediction and has nothing to do with history

 

[Felidae]

When evaluating Forsberg with the eye test, he drops more in my rankings than Esposito does.

Would you mind elaborating what specifically makes forsberg drop in your rankings?

Cause i feel like most would have the opposite conclusion. (would be ranked higher based on eyetest) So that makes me curious.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

I'm not even sure this is true. Wasn't Dustin Byfuglien basically run off his team because he was too fat? Compare to his body to 1987 Mark Messier or Scott Stevens...

I’ve never heard of Byfuglien being run off his team before, do you suggest that’s what’s behind his unexpected retirement or are you referring to an earlier situation?

Byfuglien as far as I recall was still pretty much his prime self and was a joy to watch during the Jets’ run to the conference finals a year prior to his retirement. I remember a highlight reel of him from that run, manhandling opposing players always with the same disinterested expression on his face. During some of the most important games of his career, he looked like a bouncer at just another gig at the club full of inebriated recent high school graduates, picking up kids by their collars and sending them home.

I don’t think he’s commented himself on terminating the contract when he did, as it blew people’s minds how someone could just leave that kind of money behind. He missed a chunk of games to injury in his last couple of seasons, but was nevertheless productive when on the ice. From what I’ve gathered from former teammates, he was just a different breed entirely. He had pretty much no interest in hockey whatsoever, barely even knew the names of top players on other teams. Those who’ve known him seem to figure he just didn’t care about the money left behind, and will thoroughly enjoy an early retirement spent going fishing as much as possible.

 

[bobholly39]

Adjusting Statistics. I have trouble logically reconciling that concept. Why do we do it? What is the logical and rational explanation as to why we should and how it should be done?

Using a recent example to make my point...

Kucherov just scored 144 points.
Malkin in 2012 scored 109 points, in what is a season very highly valued by most. Many might even argue it's a better season than Kucherov's.

Unless someone can rationally and logically convince me why it was more difficult and therefore more impressive for Malkin to score 109 points in 2012 than Kucherov score 144 points in 2024 - I think adjusting stats is stupid. People generally default to "everyone scored more points in 2024, so of course it was easier" - but that's not an explanation, just an observation.

Malkin had games where he scored 1 point. Or two. Or Three. Or Four. etc
Kucherov had games where he scored 1 point. or Two. or Three. Or Four. etc.
So all those game outcomes were possible in either year - Kucherov just managed to do it more often and more consistently, and ended up with a higher total. ie - better season.

I've never heard a convincing argument as to why we should adjust statistics. Especially in years that are close together like 2024 and 2012 (it's easier to rationalize 2024 vs 1982, completely different era).

And to clarify - I'm not saying I look exclusively at raw statistics when judging at player - I've been convinced that I *should* adjust, but I have trouble understanding the why, and without understanding the why I'm convinced we're not doing it right. We're too caught up in the fallacy that "well - all 20 top scorers scored at 1.2x rate in year X vs year Y, so we should adjust by a factor of 1.2" - why? Maybe those top 20 scorers just had a better year.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Adjusting Statistics. I have trouble logically reconciling that concept. Why do we do it? What is the logical and rational explanation as to why we should and how it should be done?

Using a recent example to make my point...

Kucherov just scored 144 points.
Malkin in 2012 scored 109 points, in what is a season very highly valued by most. Many might even argue it's a better season than Kucherov's.

Unless someone can rationally and logically convince me why it was more difficult and therefore more impressive for Malkin to score 109 points in 2012 than Kucherov score 144 points in 2024 - I think adjusting stats is stupid. People generally default to "everyone scored more points in 2024, so of course it was easier" - but that's not an explanation, just an observation.

Malkin had games where he scored 1 point. Or two. Or Three. Or Four. etc
Kucherov had games where he scored 1 point. or Two. or Three. Or Four. etc.
So all those game outcomes were possible in either year - Kucherov just managed to do it more often and more consistently, and ended up with a higher total. ie - better season.

I've never heard a convincing argument as to why we should adjust statistics. Especially in years that are close together like 2024 and 2012 (it's easier to rationalize 2024 vs 1982, completely different era).

And to clarify - I'm not saying I look exclusively at raw statistics when judging at player - I've been convinced that I *should* adjust, but I have trouble understanding the why, and without understanding the why I'm convinced we're not doing it right. We're too caught up in the fallacy that "well - all 20 top scorers scored at 1.2x rate in year X vs year Y, so we should adjust by a factor of 1.2" - why? Maybe those top 20 scorers just had a better year.

Agree 100%

To piggy back on it, the majority of the time the adjusting is done in a way to boost the player the poster is promoting. The better argument is comparing both players against the 2/5/10 scorers in that season.

on topic: players in 2024 are not inherently more skilled or athletic than those in 1924. The only difference is equipment and the changes in training

 

[JackSlater]

I agree with some of these, will probably highlight some later. I will get to one that I don't think I've ever seen before.

Lidstrom was better offensively than defensively.

 

[jigglysquishy]

The NHA record book should be fully absorbed into the NHL.

The NHL's insistence on ignoring the PCHA/WCHL/WHL and the WHA is ridiculous. I get it in the moment, but the WHL has been dead for 100 years. The players need their stats in the NHL's record book, even if included as a separate line item.

The Chicago Blackhawks and Detroit Red Wings weren't true expansion teams. That they wholesale bought and absorbed the Portland Rosebuds and Victoria Cougars is evidence that they were relocated teams when the WHL collapsed.

The NHL does a terrible job of promoting pre WW II history. The MLB boosts Babe Ruth. Jack Dempsey rightfully gets honoured by the boxing world. But guys like Howie Morenz, Frank Nighbor, Eddie Shore, and Bill Cook are completely ignored by the hockey world.

The next top project we do is going to see some huge risers from pre 1910. Russell Bowie in particular could make a case for a top 20 centre. The groundwork has been laid already but it will take time for people to come around to it.