HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

The all encompassing "players of today vs players from the past" thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-09-2012, 11:13 PM
  #251
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
If that's truly your position on the subject, then how come every time someone brings up numerous generation to generation players like Jagr, Lidstrom and Bourque. Why do you attempt to dismiss those arguments so handily.
Those three players alone bridge the gap for the last 30+ years and should easily be the most accurate and most acceptable measuring stick used.
Generational players are the outliers they do not define what is going on to the league talent as a whole. If you think that 3 players can bridge the gap and give us understanding of what is going on in the league as a whole then I'm at a total loss.

The game has never changed then since it has always been bridged by the generational players and even you would have to agree that it has changed

Also offensive talent is often displayed more in forwards than in Dmen whose role has shifted dramatically in the last 20-30 years.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 11:18 PM
  #252
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Are the two mutually exclusive? I'll add more later down.
No, they're. But in the specific case we're discussing, an expanded pool of possible players certainly makes more talented players available, but does not necessarily make more-talented players. Having more of them does not mean the top 1% are any more talented than they used to be. It's just that the top 1% might be 100 players instead of 50.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Some people just refuse to actually believe what they see when watching gamefilm. R71 is especially guilty of this as he already knows the answer before the question is even asked.
Stick to the arguments and avoid the personal stuff, and discussions will generally be more productive.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 11:24 PM
  #253
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
So what you're saying is that any credible example or argument against your way of thinking should simply be written off as an exception to the rule.
To test any theory more than singular examples give more credibility to the results.

We are talking about league talent and players not isolated cases or did the thread change?


Quote:
Or in the case of Gretzky and Lemieux type players, should be written off as outliers and shouldn't count. Even though when discussing something like Adjusted Stats, suddenly, they are treated like everyone else.
Pretty sure I'm still waiting on my Denis Maruk and Blaine Stoughton question from when I 1st encountered you.

you never did acknowledged that you actually understand what adjusted stats do so unless you understand what they do it's easy to dismiss them I guess.

Quote:
Yep, sounds like more making it as you go kinda stuff but hey that's just how I see it.


For a guy that likes robots so much, you sure like to ignore logic
Okay so now i like robots, which isn't very flattering or respectful to modern days players but that's on you not me. Before it was me being a young punk, even after I stated my age.

Pretty sure we all make it as we go....except for you of course as it must be quite the burden to have all of this knowledge that everyone else is lacking.

BTW now that Lidstrom is gone who is the bridge?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 11:29 PM
  #254
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
No, they're. But in the specific case we're discussing, an expanded pool of possible players certainly makes more talented players available, but does not necessarily make more-talented players. Having more of them does not mean the top 1% are any more talented than they used to be. It's just that the top 1% might be 100 players instead of 50.
This is all true but we are now seeing players developed from more specialized elite programs, in the style and tradition of Soviet hockey which was the 1st wave, in the BWC, Detroit elite teams (and the US in general) and heck even more skilled players from the Maritimes and countries like Switzerland.


Quote:
Stick to the arguments and avoid the personal stuff, and discussions will generally be more productive.
Generally I agree but I can be a bit of a wise guy and R71 enjoys the banter too I suspect.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 11:31 PM
  #255
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
This is all true but we are now seeing players developed from more specialized elite programs, in the style and tradition of Soviet hockey which was the 1st wave, in the BWC, Detroit elite teams (and the US in general) and heck even more skilled players from the Maritimes and countries like Switzerland.
Talented or skilled? The training's surely better but are the inherent abilities any different?

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 11:52 PM
  #256
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Generational players are the outliers they do not define what is going on to the league talent as a whole. If you think that 3 players can bridge the gap and give us understanding of what is going on in the league as a whole then I'm at a total loss.
Do you seriously not realise that what you just said here is exactly the same reason why and the exact same argument I have used at length as to why Adjusted Stats are not accurate in regards to the Gretzky's and Lemieux's???

You can't have it both ways! You can't chose to include them among the average with adjusted stats and then not include them in this argument.
They are either outliers for both or for neither period!

Quote:
The game has never changed then since it has always been bridged by the generational players and even you would have to agree that it has changed
Of course it has changed but any player that has managed to remain in the league for more than a decade and been successful doing it has adjusted to any changes made.
If you took a 25 year old Bourque right out of the 80's and dropped him into today's league, he would look horrible at first. Then he would adjust and he would still end up being one of, if not the best D-man in the league by years end. I guarantee that!


Quote:
Also offensive talent is often displayed more in forwards than in Dmen whose role has shifted dramatically in the last 20-30 years.
In your opinion.
In my opinion, there simply hasn't been a D-man capable of taking up the offensive mantle that Bourque, Leetch and MacInnis left.
That is until Karlsson came along.
The more Karlsson produces the closer my opinion gets to fact.

Quote:
Pretty sure I'm still waiting on my Denis Maruk and Blaine Stoughton question from when I 1st encountered you.
Yeah cause you can't see the difference between outliers and one hit wonders that had career years.
Seriously, one of the silliest points ever.

Quote:
you never did acknowledged that you actually understand what adjusted stats do so unless you understand what they do it's easy to dismiss them I guess.
Please don't start this again.
Even the most casual reader of our arguments on this subject knows quite soundly which of us actually understands what adjusted stats are and it's not you I'm afraid.
The first thing I quoted in this very post shows that in spades.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 08-10-2012 at 12:01 AM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 12:00 AM
  #257
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Similarly, how a modern player would play 100 years ago is irrelevant. It's an unfair question to ask, not least because it involves making all kinds of assumptions, since it deals with hypotheticals instead of reality. And notably, it's only ever asked of historical players, and not of modern ones.
This isn't true. Frequently people postulate what it would be like to transplant modern players into games from back in the day. Across all sports.


Quote:
I say again: why is today's version of hockey the standard against players of all eras should be compared? Why shouldn't we instead use 1950s hockey? Or 1910s?
People rightly or wrongly make assumptions that, in general, the evolution of support progresses upwards. New tactics, skills, and so forth are introduced to counter existing methods, and this cycle repeats itself.

People don't use straight bladed sticks anymore, because they learned that curved ones were more efficient at achieving their goals. People see Bobby Orr and emulate their game after him. People see Gretzky and emulate him. They see Mario and emulate him. Likewise, people create defenses to counter these people and general knowledge of the game grows.

Because of this, the general state of the athletes playing the game today, and the game itself, is considered to be the sum of the prior evolution.


In many ways I would agree, though I don't think it's as simple as that (as a basketball fan, I find basketball games very dull and boring because the evolution of the game had people emulating Michael Jordan, so every player needs the ball in their hands and they aren't nearly as good playing away from the ball that I feel previous generations were).

alanschu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 12:17 AM
  #258
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post
This isn't true. Frequently people postulate what it would be like to transplant modern players into games from back in the day. Across all sports.
Just speaking from my experience, for example points made in this thread. That older players wouldn't be able to play in today's game, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post
Because of this, the general state of the athletes playing the game today, and the game itself, is considered to be the sum of the prior evolution.
But we're not talking about the game itself. We're talking about evaluating individual players in history.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 12:19 AM
  #259
Noob616
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,397
vCash: 500
I do believe for sure that the average joe in the NHL is "better" today because of training and coaching, I don't think there's many who would dispute that. However, to say that Gretzky would barely be a 100pt player in today's NHL is absurd. Gretzky and Lemieux are IMO the #1-2 offensive talents of all time. They'd be dominant in any league. No, neither player would put up 200+ points today with systems and defense being better, but the key thing is that they'd be far above everyone else.

I think if you dropped Crosby, Stamkos, or OV into the 80's, they'd excel too and be stars, but they wouldn't be Lemieux or Gretzky. If you dropped Gretzky and Lemieux into today's NHL, they'd probably go 1-2 in scoring by a fairly large margin. The way I see it is that Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr are generational talents that have been unequaled. Just because Gretzky and Lemieux would likely outscore Crosby and Ovechkin doesn't mean that Crosby wouldn't be a good player in the 80's. I see Gretzky, Orr, and Lemieux as a step above the rest, all three are truly special talents and would be the best no matter the era.

Of course, I'm assuming that all the players would have similar levels of conditioning. To drop Crosby or Stamkos in the current shape they're in into the 80's NHL, they'd probably be at Gretzky and Lemieux's heels for points. If you brought Lemieux or Gretzky into the 2012 NHL with the conditioning they had back then, they'd probably still be 1-2 in scoring but it'd be much closer. To me, I liken Crosby and Ovechkin to being more at the Forsberg/Sakic talent level. Fantastic all-star players, but not quite at the absolutely mental level of Gretzky and (to a slightly lesser extent) Lemieux.

I think the important thing is to accept that there just hasn't been anyone as good as Gretzky or Lemieux since they retired. Crosby, OV, and Stamkos just aren't at the talent level that Gretzky and Lemieux are. That doesn't mean Crosby and OV suck and that the NHLers were way better 20-30 years ago, it just means that those two players were above and beyond. I think ultimately the best of the best will excel in any environment.

I don't think it's really fair to say that Max Pacioretty could go back to the 50's with the equipment and conditioning today and be dominant. Of course he could, but that comparison doesn't make sense. It's like saying that if the US military of today went back and fought in the Korean War with F-22's, aircraft carriers, and M1 Abrams tanks they would dominate. It's just a silly hypothetical thought exercise. If Max Pacioretty were born in the 60's and played in the 80's, he'd probably be a 1st/2nd line scoring forward and would put up solid numbers. If the 2011-12 Max Pacioretty time warped back into the 80's with his modern equipment, he'd probably outscore anyone not named Gretzky or Lemieux. But that really doesn't mean anything.

Noob616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 12:27 AM
  #260
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Talented or skilled? The training's surely better but are the inherent abilities any different?
Pretty sure we can't compare inherent abilities from different eras but we can compare how many players are making the NHL.

Here is what we can measure though.

In more recent time BC has had a large increase in NHL players even as the % of Canadian players has gone done. This increase is larger than expected even when we take into account the increased Number of teams.

I have a post on it on another thread and will do more research into it later on but there is no doubt that there are more quality feeder systems into the NHL than ever before and it almost certainly has an impact of making the talent level of the league better IMO.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 12:41 AM
  #261
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
But we're not talking about the game itself. We're talking about evaluating individual players in history.

That's still your answer. People see the game with its evolution, and the game is made up of the players playing it.

Hence, today's version of player becomes the "standard" (rightly or wrongly) because the association becomes that "they're the best so far."

It probably doesn't hurt that the players of today have more easily referenced body of work (and this will always be the case, if for no other reason than their games are played more recently and easier to remember - never mind technological improvements).

alanschu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 12:57 AM
  #262
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I have a post on it on another thread and will do more research into it later on but there is no doubt that there are more quality feeder systems into the NHL than ever before and it almost certainly has an impact of making the talent level of the league better IMO.
Talent level or skill level? Sorry to keep harping on it, but it's really the whole point in this line of discussion. Players are certainly better trained, but that's not a point against historic players because if they played today, they would also have access to that training.

Only things that cannot be explained by differing levels of training, equipment, strategies etc. should be considered when comparing players from different times. Modern players have better sticks. So what? If an older player was playing today, he'd use a modern stick. Modern players have advanced training techniques. Again, so what? If he were playing today he'd have access to that too.

This is the modern player bias. Holding things against historic players which they had no control over. Today's players are better, but can you demonstrate that's because of anything other than improved conditioning, equipment and training? That a historical player would not be just as good playing today, relatively speaking, because all these things would be available to him?

(Note that this is different than the O6 bias. That's a separate issue.)

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 01:02 AM
  #263
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post
That's still your answer. People see the game with its evolution, and the game is made up of the players playing it.

Hence, today's version of player becomes the "standard" (rightly or wrongly) because the association becomes that "they're the best so far."
Of course, evolution depends on environment. A "more-evolved" creature is better at surviving in its particular environment; it's not simply better.

You can look at hockey the same way. Hockey changes based on its environment. The latest version is not necessarily the "best", but perhaps just the most appropriate for its time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post
It probably doesn't hurt that the players of today have more easily referenced body of work (and this will always be the case, if for no other reason than their games are played more recently and easier to remember - never mind technological improvements).
Familiarity and ease of obtaining information are certainly valid reasons to use, if you must do this. Just realize that that doesn't mean it's necessarily a better game now. It could simply be a different one.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 01:22 AM
  #264
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iain fyffe View Post
talent level or skill level? Sorry to keep harping on it, but it's really the whole point in this line of discussion. Players are certainly better trained, but that's not a point against historic players because if they played today, they would also have access to that training.

Only things that cannot be explained by differing levels of training, equipment, strategies etc. Should be considered when comparing players from different times. Modern players have better sticks. So what? If an older player was playing today, he'd use a modern stick. Modern players have advanced training techniques. Again, so what? If he were playing today he'd have access to that too.

This is the modern player bias. Holding things against historic players which they had no control over. Today's players are better, but can you demonstrate that's because of anything other than improved conditioning, equipment and training? That a historical player would not be just as good playing today, relatively speaking, because all these things would be available to him?

(note that this is different than the o6 bias. That's a separate issue.)
QFT!

This is the entire point many make around here and have yet to see anything resembling a valid counter to it. Usually it's just ignored and skipped over.
Watch, it'll happen again.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 02:04 PM
  #265
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Talent level or skill level? Sorry to keep harping on it, but it's really the whole point in this line of discussion. Players are certainly better trained, but that's not a point against historic players because if they played today, they would also have access to that training.

Only things that cannot be explained by differing levels of training, equipment, strategies etc. should be considered when comparing players from different times. Modern players have better sticks. So what? If an older player was playing today, he'd use a modern stick. Modern players have advanced training techniques. Again, so what? If he were playing today he'd have access to that too.

This is the modern player bias. Holding things against historic players which they had no control over. Today's players are better, but can you demonstrate that's because of anything other than improved conditioning, equipment and training? That a historical player would not be just as good playing today, relatively speaking, because all these things would be available to him?

(Note that this is different than the O6 bias. That's a separate issue.)
I agree with all of this. That is the modern player bias in a nutshell and it should make sense to everyone.

At the other end is the bias against modern players when people act as if the talent pool hasn't grown substantially over time. They pretend as if being the best player in the 30's, 50's, or 70's meant those players rose to the top over the same talent pool as we have today. It's simply not the case. Hockey participation has grown a lot, whether it's due to increased popularity, increases in population that resulted in more participation, or branching out to other countries or regions. Generally, all of these have occurred and will hopefully continue to happen for the sake of the sport we all love.

If we have, say, 5 times the amount of people playing the game now, logic and reasoning would say we have more "pure talent" striving to be the best even after you take away everything else (training, equipment, strategies, etc.). It's by no means a given that the best player in 2012 has more "pure talent" than the best player in 1940, and it really is impossible to scientifically compare the two players, but that player from the 40's better have completely dominated his peers (a la Orr) if someone want to provide a reasonable argument IMO. Even then we are just guessing at how their "pure talent" would stack up against the sheer numbers of today.

The player in the 40's wasn't competing with as many humans to have the most "pure talent" and therefore, from what we do know about human potential, with more sheer numbers not only would more people challenge that person for top spot but the next guy would probably close the gap and # 1 would seem less dominant. That's how I see it and I haven't seen any convincing arguments that have changed my mind. If someone has a counter for this logic then please present it. I'm all ears.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 02:27 PM
  #266
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
But I'm not seeing the best and most competitive players.
What I'm seeing is the best and most competitive faster robots dumping and chasing then cycling the puck in the corners for 60 minutes.
Quite the exaggeration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Either way, the speed of the game IS culling out talented players. Not to mention the salary cap on top of that.
How many teams can afford to have talented players on their bottom lines now? They can't. What happens is they end up taking the cheapest, fastest players to round out their rosters and play defense, not the most talented ones.
Other than some players choosing the KHL for the money, where are these more talented players playing instead of taking less money to be in the NHL? If teams can't afford to have more talented players in their lineup then there must be another option for those players. The most effective players are generally in the NHL. Owners and GMs generally want to win so they will do whatever it takes to improve their teams and it's not like every team is up against the cap.

You would rather see a less effective player take that spot for the sake of entertainment. I understand that because this is entertainment to us but the sport is about winning so the most competitive and effective (best) players will typically get the roster spots.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
The game is too fast and players are trained to make the simplest and safest play possible at all times.
They are trying to limit their mistakes because they are trying to win. If you want to see more mistakes then go watch minor hockey instead. More mistakes, less talent and efficiency. I'd rather see the highest level of hockey...the NHL. You are exaggerating again, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I wish it was still the 80's or even better, the early 90's. God that was fun hockey to watch. Not the over-paced robots we see play today.

Again, the players might be stronger, faster and better trained but they're not better actual players, just better robots.
Better teams, not better players.
I know you play hockey so you should realize that it is more difficult to play at a faster pace. You have to make quicker decisions and always be on your toes. It's much easier to play a slower game because you have more time and space.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 02:37 PM
  #267
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,335
vCash: 500
Pure Talent

Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
I agree with all of this. That is the modern player bias in a nutshell and it should make sense to everyone.

At the other end is the bias against modern players when people act as if the talent pool hasn't grown substantially over time. They pretend as if being the best player in the 30's, 50's, or 70's meant those players rose to the top over the same talent pool as we have today. It's simply not the case. Hockey participation has grown a lot, whether it's due to increased popularity, increases in population that resulted in more participation, or branching out to other countries or regions. Generally, all of these have occurred and will hopefully continue to happen for the sake of the sport we all love.
If we have, say, 5 times the amount of people playing the game now, logic and reasoning would say we have more "pure talent" striving to be the best even after you take away everything else (training, equipment, strategies, etc.). It's by no means a given that the best player in 2012 has more "pure talent" than the best player in 1940, and it really is impossible to scientifically compare the two players, but that player from the 40's better have completely dominated his peers (a la Orr) if someone want to provide a reasonable argument IMO. Even then we are just guessing at how their "pure talent" would stack up against the sheer numbers of today.

The player in the 40's wasn't competing with as many humans to have the most "pure talent" and therefore, from what we do know about human potential, with more sheer numbers not only would more people challenge that person for top spot but the next guy would probably close the gap and # 1 would seem less dominant. That's how I see it and I haven't seen any convincing arguments that have changed my mind. If someone has a counter for this logic then please present it. I'm all ears.
Today we have more "Pure Talent" in all academic fields since more people in more countries have access to higher education than was the case in the time of William Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, Charles Dickens, Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci or other great contributors. Plus there is the advantage of computer generated research in various field.

Typical high school student knows more about science, literature or the arts than each of the aforementioned but the high school students are not better writers, scientests, artists, etc.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 02:51 PM
  #268
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,842
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
Quite the exaggeration.... I know you play hockey so you should realize that it is more difficult to play at a faster pace. You have to make quicker decisions and always be on your toes. It's much easier to play a slower game because you have more time and space.
... ah, not so much. The players are over-coached on the whole. Their programmed what to think, how to react, where to go & what to do, all at warp speed. They stray from their punch cards, video-cam from on high picks it up, reamed out & or benched. Their not given any freedom, not allowed to be creative. Only a few, Datsyuk, Ovi etc are allowed to free-lance per se', but only then within the confines of dump, chase, cycle & bang. Stifling. Given their conditioning, strength & size, unbelievable skating & in most cases stickhandling skills etc, in my opinion, if they were given more free reign, the game would open up considerably, really be a treat to watch.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 04:46 PM
  #269
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Of course, evolution depends on environment. A "more-evolved" creature is better at surviving in its particular environment; it's not simply better.

You can look at hockey the same way. Hockey changes based on its environment. The latest version is not necessarily the "best", but perhaps just the most appropriate for its time.


Familiarity and ease of obtaining information are certainly valid reasons to use, if you must do this. Just realize that that doesn't mean it's necessarily a better game now. It could simply be a different one.
I'm not saying that the game actually IS better today.

alanschu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 04:49 PM
  #270
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
If letting players "off the leash" and allowing them to just be creative and improvise had better results, wouldn't some coach do that and watch his team win?

Or was the free flowing play taken away once people realized they had better success with stronger system play?

(I don't know the answer)

alanschu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 05:15 PM
  #271
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post
If letting players "off the leash" and allowing them to just be creative and improvise had better results, wouldn't some coach do that and watch his team win?

Or was the free flowing play taken away once people realized they had better success with stronger system play?

(I don't know the answer)
Ill just quote two posts that were consecutive in another thread that answered this question well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JetsFanForever View Post
My thought on this is that the players of yesteryear were allowed to be more creative and display their skills way more than they are now. This is what allows the game to revolve around the puck.

In the modern game, the players are taught to play systems and any deviation from the system seems to be frowned upon for most players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
True enough. We're even seeing this with Ovechkin. The biggest mistake any of the Caps coaches have made are handcuffing this guy because it handcuffs the entire team. Back in the day Lafleur did have to back check and do the little things too for Bowman's sake but he also was the first guy to ever screw up the power play at practice because being structured wasn't his style. A player like Lafleur, you let him win games on his talent alone. 4 Cups in a row coupled with a brilliant performance in Game 7 in 1979 shows you that this was the best medicine. With Ovechkin the Caps were one game away from the Cup final in 2009 just by letting him play his own style (yes the Canes were in the semis but the Caps beat them). They ran into a Pens team that could not only match them but better them in that category. Tough luck but I wouldn't have changed a thing with him, and in reality they didn't until they lost to Montreal in 2010. That was nuts too. The Caps outplayed Montreal to an extent I hadn't seen since Pittsburgh of NYI in 1993 and thanks to a little bad luck and a hot goalie they lost. I still wouldn't have changed a thing.

Glen Sather did not change a thing after 1982. He didn't change a thing after 1983. He knew his team would come through if he let them have their way. That is the mistake coaches are making today, not handing the game over to their top players. More often than not, they will win you the games.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 05:19 PM
  #272
tazzy19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noob616 View Post
I do believe for sure that the average joe in the NHL is "better" today because of training and coaching, I don't think there's many who would dispute that. However, to say that Gretzky would barely be a 100pt player in today's NHL is absurd. Gretzky and Lemieux are IMO the #1-2 offensive talents of all time. They'd be dominant in any league. No, neither player would put up 200+ points today with systems and defense being better, but the key thing is that they'd be far above everyone else.

I think if you dropped Crosby, Stamkos, or OV into the 80's, they'd excel too and be stars, but they wouldn't be Lemieux or Gretzky. If you dropped Gretzky and Lemieux into today's NHL, they'd probably go 1-2 in scoring by a fairly large margin. The way I see it is that Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr are generational talents that have been unequaled. Just because Gretzky and Lemieux would likely outscore Crosby and Ovechkin doesn't mean that Crosby wouldn't be a good player in the 80's. I see Gretzky, Orr, and Lemieux as a step above the rest, all three are truly special talents and would be the best no matter the era.

Of course, I'm assuming that all the players would have similar levels of conditioning. To drop Crosby or Stamkos in the current shape they're in into the 80's NHL, they'd probably be at Gretzky and Lemieux's heels for points. If you brought Lemieux or Gretzky into the 2012 NHL with the conditioning they had back then, they'd probably still be 1-2 in scoring but it'd be much closer. To me, I liken Crosby and Ovechkin to being more at the Forsberg/Sakic talent level. Fantastic all-star players, but not quite at the absolutely mental level of Gretzky and (to a slightly lesser extent) Lemieux.

I think the important thing is to accept that there just hasn't been anyone as good as Gretzky or Lemieux since they retired. Crosby, OV, and Stamkos just aren't at the talent level that Gretzky and Lemieux are. That doesn't mean Crosby and OV suck and that the NHLers were way better 20-30 years ago, it just means that those two players were above and beyond. I think ultimately the best of the best will excel in any environment.

I don't think it's really fair to say that Max Pacioretty could go back to the 50's with the equipment and conditioning today and be dominant. Of course he could, but that comparison doesn't make sense. It's like saying that if the US military of today went back and fought in the Korean War with F-22's, aircraft carriers, and M1 Abrams tanks they would dominate. It's just a silly hypothetical thought exercise. If Max Pacioretty were born in the 60's and played in the 80's, he'd probably be a 1st/2nd line scoring forward and would put up solid numbers. If the 2011-12 Max Pacioretty time warped back into the 80's with his modern equipment, he'd probably outscore anyone not named Gretzky or Lemieux. But that really doesn't mean anything.
Great post. Nice to see the truth broken down so well.

tazzy19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 05:32 PM
  #273
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
Quite the exaggeration.
My bad, I forgot about the 8-14 minutes a game where one team is on the PP. So 46-52 minutes of dumping, chasing and cycling then heh.


Quote:
Other than some players choosing the KHL for the money, where are these more talented players playing instead of taking less money to be in the NHL? If teams can't afford to have more talented players in their lineup then there must be another option for those players. The most effective players are generally in the NHL. Owners and GMs generally want to win so they will do whatever it takes to improve their teams and it's not like every team is up against the cap.

You would rather see a less effective player take that spot for the sake of entertainment. I understand that because this is entertainment to us but the sport is about winning so the most competitive and effective (best) players will typically get the roster spots.
You're obviously still not understanding that no team can afford to employ 20 goal scorer on their 3rd and 4th lines anymore.
Nor are you understanding that out of all the players with high talent and instincts, only a percentage of them will also be good enough skaters to make today's NHL.
When the game was slower, there was a larger talent base to pick from and players with pure talent got the first looks, not the ones that can skate the fastest.



Quote:
They are trying to limit their mistakes because they are trying to win. If you want to see more mistakes then go watch minor hockey instead. More mistakes, less talent and efficiency. I'd rather see the highest level of hockey...the NHL. You are exaggerating again, too.
Unfortunately your hypothesis is flawed right from the beginning. Teams are not trying to win today, they are trying not to lose.
Everything about today's game is about preventing goals at even strength and then waiting for mistakes or PP's to take offensive chances.
Numerous ex-players like Gretzky and Orr have spoken out on the state of game, more importantly, the direction in which kids are being coached from an early age today.
It's not to win, it's to not make mistakes.
The game is definitely faster now but better...not a chance.


Quote:
I know you play hockey so you should realize that it is more difficult to play at a faster pace. You have to make quicker decisions and always be on your toes. It's much easier to play a slower game because you have more time and space.
Why do you think the game has so much dumping, chasing and cycling? Because the game is TOO fast!
It's not easier to play a slower game because all that happens in a faster game is endless line changes and dumping of the puck.
THESE are the easiest things to do in hockey.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 05:34 PM
  #274
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Ill just quote two posts that were consecutive in another thread that answered this question well.
Why did the Caps institute a stronger adherence to system play?

alanschu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 05:48 PM
  #275
AD1066
Registered User
 
AD1066's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noob616 View Post
I do believe for sure that the average joe in the NHL is "better" today because of training and coaching, I don't think there's many who would dispute that. However, to say that Gretzky would barely be a 100pt player in today's NHL is absurd. Gretzky and Lemieux are IMO the #1-2 offensive talents of all time. They'd be dominant in any league. No, neither player would put up 200+ points today with systems and defense being better, but the key thing is that they'd be far above everyone else.

I think if you dropped Crosby, Stamkos, or OV into the 80's, they'd excel too and be stars, but they wouldn't be Lemieux or Gretzky. If you dropped Gretzky and Lemieux into today's NHL, they'd probably go 1-2 in scoring by a fairly large margin. The way I see it is that Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr are generational talents that have been unequaled. Just because Gretzky and Lemieux would likely outscore Crosby and Ovechkin doesn't mean that Crosby wouldn't be a good player in the 80's. I see Gretzky, Orr, and Lemieux as a step above the rest, all three are truly special talents and would be the best no matter the era.

Of course, I'm assuming that all the players would have similar levels of conditioning. To drop Crosby or Stamkos in the current shape they're in into the 80's NHL, they'd probably be at Gretzky and Lemieux's heels for points. If you brought Lemieux or Gretzky into the 2012 NHL with the conditioning they had back then, they'd probably still be 1-2 in scoring but it'd be much closer. To me, I liken Crosby and Ovechkin to being more at the Forsberg/Sakic talent level. Fantastic all-star players, but not quite at the absolutely mental level of Gretzky and (to a slightly lesser extent) Lemieux.

I think the important thing is to accept that there just hasn't been anyone as good as Gretzky or Lemieux since they retired. Crosby, OV, and Stamkos just aren't at the talent level that Gretzky and Lemieux are. That doesn't mean Crosby and OV suck and that the NHLers were way better 20-30 years ago, it just means that those two players were above and beyond. I think ultimately the best of the best will excel in any environment.

I don't think it's really fair to say that Max Pacioretty could go back to the 50's with the equipment and conditioning today and be dominant. Of course he could, but that comparison doesn't make sense. It's like saying that if the US military of today went back and fought in the Korean War with F-22's, aircraft carriers, and M1 Abrams tanks they would dominate. It's just a silly hypothetical thought exercise. If Max Pacioretty were born in the 60's and played in the 80's, he'd probably be a 1st/2nd line scoring forward and would put up solid numbers. If the 2011-12 Max Pacioretty time warped back into the 80's with his modern equipment, he'd probably outscore anyone not named Gretzky or Lemieux. But that really doesn't mean anything.
This is probably my favorite post on the subject. I'm going to save this one. Thank you.

AD1066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:31 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.