View Single Post
11-19-2012, 08:12 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,951
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I think it's fair to say that, whatever degree the talent pool has increased by, the number of players of qualities x, y, and z have increased proportionally. But that can't be applied to the geniuses and outlier players. There is no guarantee that if one generation produces one, that a generation three times the size will produce three.
You can refer to them as geniuses and outliers but really what they were is the best player at their position for an extended period of time. I agree there is no guarentee that a generation produces two Harvey's or two Lidstrom's based on a doubling of the talent pool but there is also no guarentee that it doesn't produce 3 or 4 either. The only proof we have either way is the eye test and that is extremely subjective. We don't know what a Shea Weber or Chara would do if they were brought up to play in the NHL of 1960.

Which of course leads us to the other top players after the genius/outlier, or what I simply refer to is the best player at that position for an extended period of time. You originally brought up Harvey's more dominant Norris voting record over Lidstrom's. You must be able to see that even if the talent pool only doubled between these two era's, which I believe is very generous towards 1960 era NHL, then there is more than likely more players who can challenge that top dog. What does Harvey's better Norris voting dominance really mean?? It just leaves me with more questions, not the certainly people around here pretend to portray.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote