Adjusted stats - how valuable?
View Single Post
11-07-2012, 06:39 PM
Just a Fool
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Originally Posted by
Czech Your Math
The competition for rankings and awards is dependent primarily on the total NHL talent pool (in particular the top end of that pool), not the average amount of talent per team. If you condensed today's NHL to 6 teams, it wouldn't change the competition for rankings and awards much. However, those players who were good enough to "make the cut" (and these are the types we usually discuss) would have a much greater chance at winning a Cup each season. Either way, there's a much larger NHL talent pool over the past 2-3 decades than there was in Howe/Richard's O6 days.
But having a talent pool 2-3 times the size doesn't mean there are going to be 2-3 times as many Howe/Richards in the league either.
It only means there's a better CHANCE we could.
Just like today. I have no issue with the statement that the NHL has a bigger talent base and that the average player today is more talented than the average player 25 years ago.
That still doesn't mean the most talented players today are better than the most talented players from then.
It just means there's a better chance of there being another Gretzky or Lemieux, or that there will be a lot more players equal to Yzerman or Sakic but that obviously hasn't happened yet so it's not about the %'s or size of the pool.
Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-07-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Rhiessan71