View Single Post
Old
12-28-2013, 02:45 AM
  #44
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
No it didn't get debunked people are so full of opinions that they ignore the numbers.

heck even in a recent post in this section, someone pointed out all of the non top 6 forwards in the NHL that weren't Canadian.

In a nutshell the major points are

1) NHL doubled # of team in expansion then increased again in 70, 72 and a bit more in the 70's and the WHA was around in the 70's as well diluting the basically all Canadian Talent pool over many more teams.

And? What's this in reference to? How we rank Bobby Orr? Tell me.

2) Americans started trickling into the NHL during the 70's, along with some small increases in players from Europe and the full integration, ie pretty much consistent 40% of NHL elite players (top 20 scoring ect) being non Canadian takes place in the 90's



3) throw in provinces like BC and the maritime producing higher amounts, both in % and real terms, of top level talent, ie NHL types after 06 times we pretty much ahve an evovling landscape.

4) something I have thought about but have no real numbers or indication of impact is the impact of both WW wars on the Canadian talent base. It's pretty inconceivable that the talent base wasn't altered by those 2 wars and the huge amount of canadian teenagers who died in them.
What about the 90's? 9 teams added in 9 years. Who filled those 250ish rosters spots exactly when all the Worlds top talent was already in the NHL by the end of 1992?
As I have said many times before, those spots were filled with mostly 3rd and 4th liners with a few viewed as deficient in some way, 2nd liners.
Like are you honestly going to try and say that the League was stronger in a talent spread 30 team League in 2001 than it was in a tightly talent packed 22 team League in 1992? Good luck with that!

And what's your point anyway? If the League was so diluted in the 70's then why weren't there more players dominating like Orr did? Are you saying we should take away from the stars in the 70's? And, if so, shouldn't we also carry this over to Jagr in the 90's then as well for the very same reasons?


Quote:
My response this thread was that the posters concerns or questions were legitmate.

Not sure how the wingers will fare but in the Dman project many non NHL non Canadian fared better than more recent integrated guys, like Zubov, Gonchar, basically that whole group which was compared to the whole integrated group, rather than the constant Canadian standard.

Why the Canadian standard one might ask?

Well Canada has been the leading Hockey nation basically forever and every significant Canadian talent has almost always played in the NHL, except for a brief time in the 70's with the WHA and some of the early years.

Everyone seems really comfortable using top 10 finishes ect... over time when it's how each and every player compares to the Canadian standard, which is constant and makes for a more accurate comparison.

Surely when comparing any two groups, the common denominator is the standard both groups should be judged by right?

Using top 10 finishes and stuff like all star voting for both groups using all the players in the NHL simply makes for a much higher standard and inherent bias against the more modern players, it's quite simple.
Well first off, the NHL has been around for well over 100 years now and it's only been in about the last 30-40ish years now that countries have been producing players at or near Canada's level. So any list of the Greatest ever is quite obviously going to be mostly Canadian. 60-70ish years out of 100+ is a lot to overcome last I checked.

Second, what other standard do we have exactly? Are you going to try and tell me that the Russian Leagues of the 70's and 80's should be viewed with anything close to the weight that the NHL is viewed at during that same time? A Russian League that played about half as many games a season with a 1/4 of the travel, a League where the talent level dropped off dramatically after the top 2 or 3 teams in it?

A League where it's number one scorer by a large margin in '89 (54-41), comes to the NHL the very next year and can't even crack the top-25 in scoring, finishing behind Mike Gartner for pete's sake.

How exactly do you want us to judge all this? Does the "Canadian standard" not seem to be by far the highest of them?
By all means though, explain to us all how it isn't.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote