View Single Post
11-16-2012, 01:10 PM
Just a Fool
Rhiessan71's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,505
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
And what's the difference between eras?

If you have no winters/rinks in region, then you have no kids playing hockey. Of course there won't be elite hockey players from Zimbabwe. No matter if we talk about the 50s or 90s.

Yes, I agree that athletes are more likely to have kids who will be athletes themselves. But I don't see how this affects talent distribution between the eras.

IMHO, it's all pretty damn random. And assuming normal distribution, bigger population should produce more top talent in absolute terms. In relative terms it should be roughly the same number.

Someone explain why in the 50s you have 10 000 kids and 5 of them are geniuses. While in the 90s you have 50 000 kids, but still only 5 of them are geniuses. This could and sometimes does happen, but odds are against it. And we are dealing with pretty big numbers (population) in hockey, so numbers should play out more or less according to normal distribution. At least more often than not.

I'm not here to beat down the old-timers. But I see that quite often modern players get the short stick in those discussions. Look at how often are Lidstrom, Broduer, Niedermayer beaten down by some. Especially against the guys from the O6 era.

But in reality, if you create similar environment for Broduer or Niedermayer they look pretty damn dominant. Make their competition all-Canadian and see how much "better" they are. We are just adjusting talent pool to roughly what it were in the 50s. You tell me it's not harder to stand out, right now with all that extra talent. It sure was for Broduer and Niedermayer.
How are Lidstrom and Brodeur consistently ranked among the top 5-6 at their position ever being beaten down?
What about Niedermayer, how does he rank against guys he played against like Bourque, like Coffey, like MacInnis, like his own teammate, Stevens, like Pronger?
I only used Canadians there btw and Scott is already getting smoked. I didn't even have to mention Fetisov, Chelios, Leetch, or Lidstrom.
Are you going to make a case that Scott would have stood out like Orr or Park or Robinson or Potvin if he played in the 70's/80's? Or personally, I wouldn't even take Scott over Salming but that's just me.

Seriously what part of Niedermayer's game stood out to the levels you're talking about?
His defense? I don't think he was better than Lidstrom or Stevens or Bourque or Chelios or even Pronger.
Offense? He wasn't even on Lidstrom's level and Lidstrom's level wasn't even very high.
He was a great skater but so was Gartner, so is Bouwmeester.

Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-16-2012 at 01:16 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote