View Single Post
11-15-2012, 12:05 PM
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
Where's the evidence that it's not?
So you make a statement of fact (the NHL talent pool is 5 times larger now) and then tell us we have to prove you wrong? That's not how proof works.

But I do think there is good reason to think that the Canadian talent pool hasn't changed much since the O6 (it's been provided in this thread multiple times already; feel free to disagree). And the influx of Europeans and Americans maybe doubled the talent pool, not even close to a factor of 5.

There are no numbers available to prove this but people in this section have been hiding behind that for far too long IMO. It's just so blatantly obvious that hockey has grown immensely as a sport since the O6.

You can't tell me with a straight face that Harvey faced the same amount of talent as Lidstrom did in order to be considered the best dman in the world during their respective reigns. It's simply not close.
Just because the talent pool may have doubled, doesn't mean the guys at the top are twice as good. Elite talent are outliers who are randomly distributed. More talent makes them more likely to appear, but doesn't make them better. And I think our list reflects that. Of the top 5, you have 2 guys appearing in the 30 years since Orr. And 2 guys appearing in all of hockey history before Orr (50 years since the start of the NHL, about 70 years since children started growing up playing competitive hockey)

Actually, it's not even worth my time to continue here... It's akin to debating with people about the colour of the sky.
Nobody is forcing you to post here.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote