View Single Post
07-26-2010, 01:39 AM
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,785
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Yes of course they would but each team plays 60 minutes in every game in a season and with more teams there is a greater chance for player A from one of 6 teams to win than player B from 30 teams to win.

This is especially true when comparing the 6 team league from past days to today 30 team league.
Why is true? You've been asked this repeatedly and have yet to come up with a satisfactory answer. If the best players are highly likely to be in the league no matter what, why does it matter how many teams they are spread out among? How does bringing in 24 teams worth of players who weren't good enough to make a 6 team league make it harder for the best players (who were already in the 6 team league) to win awards?

You answered the question up above in that if every team has one scoring line and one number 1 power play then in a 6 team league that would be about 18 forwards getting the prime time as opposed to 90 in a 30 team league.
Yes, but you're acting like NHL coaches are stupid. If a guy is good enough to be the best in the league at his position, don't you think his coach would quickly realize this and give him prime minutes?

Honestly, you are describing a Henri Richard situation, where he barely got any PP time. But that was the most stacked team of all-time and such a unique situation. And I think history recognizes how great Henri Richard was.

I'm sure a math guy could put up a formula but to me it's pretty simple, we have to take 1st, 2nd team all stars and top 10 in scoring and awards ect from different times, let's say a 6 team league or even 10-12 teams compared to 30 and treat them differently because they are different.

It is more likely that a guy from one of the other 29 teams could win the scoring title as happened this year with Hank Sedin.
So you really believe that Hank Sedin wouldn't have been in the league if there were only 6 teams?

There is simply more competition, in sheer numbers, for all awards in the NHL in a modern 30 team league than there was in a 6 team league period.
Again, I agree that there is a small chance that a player who wouldn't be in a 6 team league might emerge to win an award. But it's highly unlikely and not anything close to a 30-6 ratio.

There's a historical way of looking at this actually: The NHL doubled in size in 1967. If your theory is correct, it should have been twice as hard to win awards after the expansion, as it was before. Did any players suddenly become threats to win awards who might not have been regulars in the league before? Well, Al Arbour was 5th in Norris voting after being a journeyman (basically stuck behind the most stacked D ever of the 60s Leafs). Dennis Hextall finished 7th in Hart voting one year and thought he might not have gotten a chance without expansion. I can't think of anyone who actually came close to winning an award, though.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote