HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
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
03-18-2013, 04:07 PM
  #451
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Every era has its context.
I mean one could say (and some have) that Orr got to play against some weak teams in the early 70's but one must also take note that every other star and superstar in the League at the time were playing those exact same weaker teams and the FACT remains that Orr, A D-MAN, dominated those other star players.

Same with Gretzky. He wasn't in a vacuum in the 80's. Every other player was playing the same schedule and the same teams he played and he almost doubled most other star players points.
No one is going to make me believe that Bossy and Stastny aren't as good or better than any player in the top 5 today.

Even Jagr, while I have little doubt that he would have at least maintained his point totals during the DPE, I don't believe that he would have maintained close to as wide of a gap between him and the other stars in the league at the time if say, today's rules were in place.
Jagr was built for the DPE and the hooking and holding had a lot less effect on him than say Kariya or Selanne
.
Isn't this a bit of a double standard?

Jagr is an all-time great. Offensively, he is as close to untouchable as one can get outside of the big four. Isn't trying to bring down his dominance by looking at the era he played in similar to when Hardyvan does it to Gretzky or Lemieux.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 05:17 PM
  #452
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrNumber4 View Post
Isn't this a bit of a double standard?

Jagr is an all-time great. Offensively, he is as close to untouchable as one can get outside of the big four. Isn't trying to bring down his dominance by looking at the era he played in similar to when Hardyvan does it to Gretzky or Lemieux.
Naw, I still believe Jagr would have been clearly dominant over his peers back then.
I just think Jagr's production under today's rules wouldn't have risen by as much as a Kariya's or Selanne's would.

The DPE years were unique and came with some pretty extreme circumstances compared to other times.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 06:51 PM
  #453
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Whoa, what exactly are you saying here? "Hockey blood"? People from Europe have a genetic predisposition for hockey that people from Asia are missing? Seriously?
You are going to get all politically correct over something like that? You can't comprehend what having "hockey in your blood" means and why some countries have it more than others? Alright, we are Canadian here. Hockey is in our blood as a general rule. However, Cricket is a sport that is NOT in our culture. Go to Pakistan and it is, while hockey is not a popular sport. Unless I have been living under a rock and there is a World Junior team from India about to take over the tournament I can pretty safely say that in certain countries hockey is not popular. I'm not sure I can explain it much simpler.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 07:38 PM
  #454
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I mean one could say (and some have) that Orr got to play against some weak teams in the early 70's but one must also take note that every other star and superstar in the League at the time were playing those exact same weaker teams and the FACT remains that Orr, A D-MAN, dominated those other star players.

Same with Gretzky. He wasn't in a vacuum in the 80's. Every other player was playing the same schedule and the same teams he played and he almost doubled most other star players points.
Ok you're missing the point...

unknown33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 07:43 PM
  #455
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
Ok you're missing the point...
Which was? If the point is being missed perhaps explaining said point might be in order maybe?

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 07:59 PM
  #456
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Which was? If the point is being missed perhaps explaining said point might be in order maybe?
Strength of NHL due to other leagues/expansion/war and potential hockey population pool changes are two completely different things.

unknown33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 08:01 PM
  #457
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
Ok you're missing the point...
I have to agree with Saint here.
What point am I missing exactly?

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 08:08 PM
  #458
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
Strength of NHL due to other leagues/expansion/war and potential hockey population pool changes are two completely different things.
Who said they were the same?
I already said earlier that an increase in the pool size does not mean an equal increase in Elite players.

I also don't believe today's NHL is more talented than the NHL in the 80's for example. Faster for sure but not more talented.
Unlike the 80's, lack of speed will keep you out of the today's NHL.
A player could have the hands of a Kovalev, the size of Lucic, a shot like Hull and the vision of Gretzky but he couldn't make the NHL today if he can't keep up to Hal Gill.

Lack of foot speed didn't keep you out of the 80's NHL, ONLY lack of talent did.


Speed + Cap = Less overall talent level IMO

As far as I'm concerned, you can't beat the early 90's pre-full blown expansion for the strongest the league has ever been.
21-24 teams packed with the best players from EVERY nation.
I honestly don't see the talent per capita today being much different than the 21 team NHL in the 80's and both are slightly below the O6 50's and 60's.


AGAIN, it's not about what % of the best players are from what country, it's about what % of the best player's are playing in the NHL.
In the 50's and 60's that number was most definitely as close to 100% as you could get. Same in the early 90's.
And while you could definitely say that today's NHL is up close to 100% as well, they are spread out among a hell of a lot more teams.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 03-18-2013 at 08:21 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 08:11 PM
  #459
Hanji
Registered User
 
Hanji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
You are going to get all politically correct over something like that? You can't comprehend what having "hockey in your blood" means and why some countries have it more than others? Alright, we are Canadian here. Hockey is in our blood as a general rule. However, Cricket is a sport that is NOT in our culture. Go to Pakistan and it is, while hockey is not a popular sport. Unless I have been living under a rock and there is a World Junior team from India about to take over the tournament I can pretty safely say that in certain countries hockey is not popular. I'm not sure I can explain it much simpler.

But just like today's immigrants, the European immigrants of the 40 and 50s had no 'hockey blood' either.

Hanji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 08:12 PM
  #460
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
What point am I missing exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
Strength of NHL due to other leagues/expansion/war and potential hockey population pool changes are two completely different things.
Light to bold, two separate issues, but Im not so sure you missed them, didnt make the distinction between the two, in fact I read it as you did indeed separate them...

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 08:15 PM
  #461
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Exactly!
And I really don't see how this is so hard of a concept to comprehend.

@Hardy
Please for the love of god tell us all specifically which players are not getting a fair shake?
You keep saying it's not fair. I want to know to whom it's not fair?
Pretty much all of the top guys from the mid 90's onward, as both groups, Canadians and non Canadian had to play against each other.

The benefit of the doubt for the 70's guys in both groups in the top 60 D project compared to alter guys like Nieds and Zubov for example who weren't top 10 enough or Norris worthy often enough in an integrated league.

I'm hope full that in the top centers and wingers a more balanced approach will take place and we will learn form the top 60 D project.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 08:17 PM
  #462
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Good call on the thread, Devil.

My vote, not that anyone cares, is for everyone to really taboo the subject. We are all completely set on our sides. I log on and read the arguments, and they go absolutely nowhere - I don't think there is a point to it. I feel, for myself, as one of the 'new guys are better' believers, that it is/was best for me to piss off, as this is, after all, the History of Hockey section. Maybe HardyVan and myself need our own forum....

tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 08:19 PM
  #463
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I already said earlier that an increase in the pool size does not mean an equal increase in Elite players.
In anyone suggesting an equal increase in Elite talent?
A bigger pool should lead to higher average standard of players, not necessarly more skilled top-end talent.

unknown33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 08:23 PM
  #464
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Who said they were the same?
I already said earlier that an increase in the pool size does not mean an equal increase in Elite players.

I also don't believe today's NHL is more talented than the NHL in the 80's for example. Faster for sure but not more talented.
Unlike the 80's, lack of speed will keep you out of the today's NHL.
A player could have the hands of a Kovalev, the size of Lucic, a shot like Hull and the vision of Gretzky but he couldn't make the NHL today if he can't keep up to Hal Gill.

Lack of foot speed didn't keep you out of the 80's NHL, ONLY lack of talent did.


Speed + Cap = Less overall talent level IMO

As far as I'm concerned, you can't beat the early 90's pre-full blown expansion for the strongest the league has ever been.
21-24 teams packed with the best players from EVERY nation.
I honestly don't see the talent per capita today being much different than the 21 team NHL in the 80's and both are slightly below the O6 50's and 60's.
That doesn't make any sense at all with the increased number of all stars from all the European countries and the United states?

And Canada is still #1 in the world, something doesn't square with your circle like usual.

IMO too many people get lazy and look at raw stats and come to the wrong conclusion that the players today arent as good as they were in the 80's which doesn't work with the numbers at all.

21 teams in the NHL throughout the 90's, the extra 9 teams could be comprised of almost all players from the US and Europe now.

I don't ahve access to my post in the other thread since apparently I was trolling but perhaps one of the guys I was conversing with and didn't get banned could bring up my post on the composition of the NHL in 67, 71, 78, 88 and 98 .

The numbers are pretty clear.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 08:25 PM
  #465
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
A bigger pool should lead to higher average standard of players, not necessarly more skilled top-end talent.
NOT if expansion is keeping pace the with the growth of the talent pool.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 08:28 PM
  #466
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tombombadil View Post
Good call on the thread, Devil.

My vote, not that anyone cares, is for everyone to really taboo the subject. We are all completely set on our sides. I log on and read the arguments, and they go absolutely nowhere - I don't think there is a point to it. I feel, for myself, as one of the 'new guys are better' believers, that it is/was best for me to piss off, as this is, after all, the History of Hockey section. Maybe HardyVan and myself need our own forum....
I just think there is some happy medium ground between historical and treating all eras fairly.

But maybe my 1st impulse of treating pre WW2 guys in a separate category is a better way to go.

The current bias that has a guy like Henri Richard over Dionne, albeit by only 2 spots on the top 70 list really goes to show the tilted landscape.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 08:32 PM
  #467
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
NOT if expansion is keeping pace the with the growth of the talent pool.
21 teams in 1980 to 30 in 2013 isn't keeping pace with all of that extra talent.

One can just look at the number and quality of play in the 3 Canadian top Junior leagues and team.

Combined with actual Canadian NHL talent also going south to the NCAA when in the past it was only for an education and not a path to the NHL.

Throw in the talent and players from Europe and the US and it's almost impossible to say that expansion has kept up with the talent.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 08:36 PM
  #468
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
That doesn't make any sense at all with the increased number of all stars from all the European countries and the United states?

And Canada is still #1 in the world, something doesn't square with your circle like usual.

IMO too many people get lazy and look at raw stats and come to the wrong conclusion that the players today arent as good as they were in the 80's which doesn't work with the numbers at all.

21 teams in the NHL throughout the 90's, the extra 9 teams could be comprised of almost all players from the US and Europe now.

I don't ahve access to my post in the other thread since apparently I was trolling but perhaps one of the guys I was conversing with and didn't get banned could bring up my post on the composition of the NHL in 67, 71, 78, 88 and 98 .

The numbers are pretty clear.
No it's not!
Again, the Yanks were on the scene in the early 80's, the Finn's and the Swede's as well and even before the 80's. Salming anyone?
The ONLY groups left out prior to the 90's were the Russian's and the Czech's and they do NOT make up 9 teams!!!


ALSO, the last I checked, the best Russian's that weren't in the NHL in the 70's and 80's like Kharlamov, like Tretiak are ranked extremely favorably all-time.
And guys like Makarov, Larionov and Fetisov sure as hell don't get ranked as high as they do based on their time in the NHL.

So seriously, I would love to know where this bias comes into play exactly?

And seriously, Niedermayer and Zubov?
I didn't see Leetch or Lidstrom or Pronger have any problems standing out and they played at the same time as Nieds and Zubov did.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 03-18-2013 at 09:07 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 08:50 PM
  #469
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
That doesn't make any sense at all with the increased number of all stars from all the European countries and the United states?

And Canada is still #1 in the world, something doesn't square with your circle like usual.

IMO too many people get lazy and look at raw stats and come to the wrong conclusion that the players today arent as good as they were in the 80's which doesn't work with the numbers at all.

21 teams in the NHL throughout the 90's, the extra 9 teams could be comprised of almost all players from the US and Europe now.

I don't ahve access to my post in the other thread since apparently I was trolling but perhaps one of the guys I was conversing with and didn't get banned could bring up my post on the composition of the NHL in 67, 71, 78, 88 and 98 .

The numbers are pretty clear.
The numbers are clear alright, if those 9 teams were made up of players exclusively from the US and Europe they would be some of the worst 9 teams ever assembled. lol

habsfanatics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2013, 11:30 PM
  #470
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,398
vCash: 500
If you really wanted to do it properly, you should look at each player's statistics in the context of how far they were outliers from the mean.

If there are more players playing hockey today, that player has more "spots" to fall into a certain percentile. IE, the top 3 in 1980 being more like the top 5 in 2010....there is also the idea of doing it over the entire hockey population...

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 04:41 AM
  #471
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
NOT if expansion is keeping pace the with the growth of the talent pool.
This ceratinly wasn't the case for the 1967 expansion, the others seems quite unlikely.
Also this doesn't change that finishing in the Top20/30 in scoring is harder.


Last edited by unknown33: 03-19-2013 at 04:49 AM.
unknown33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 04:55 AM
  #472
daver
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 3,183
vCash: 500
Are we talking about putting raw numbers into context such as 200 points in 1985 is more like 160 points today or that dominant players from a "weaker" era would not be as dominant in a "stronger" era i.e. Gretzky would not win the scoring title by 50% in today's game.

If it is the latter, are there examples?

daver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 05:29 AM
  #473
Theokritos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
You are going to get all politically correct over something like that? You can't comprehend what having "hockey in your blood" means and why some countries have it more than others? Alright, we are Canadian here. Hockey is in our blood as a general rule. However, Cricket is a sport that is NOT in our culture. Go to Pakistan and it is, while hockey is not a popular sport. Unless I have been living under a rock and there is a World Junior team from India about to take over the tournament I can pretty safely say that in certain countries hockey is not popular. I'm not sure I can explain it much simpler.
So with blood you mean culture. I'm fine with that. Except that I don't think it's true. For Canada it is, obviously. But for many European countries that immigrants came from, not so much.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 08:03 AM
  #474
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
21 teams in 1980 to 30 in 2013 isn't keeping pace with all of that extra talent.

One can just look at the number and quality of play in the 3 Canadian top Junior leagues and team.

Combined with actual Canadian NHL talent also going south to the NCAA when in the past it was only for an education and not a path to the NHL.

Throw in the talent and players from Europe and the US and it's almost impossible to say that expansion has kept up with the talent.
The play is better everywhere.

Claude Lemieux called the AHL of the 80's a joke, and said it was a real league, playing real hockey, in his return to it 5 years ago.

- Gretzky was traded
-Sundin went first overall
-The Russians came

all three of these happened within a couple of years.

What it did: brought American money into the game. Allowed all Euros to play. Told Euros, and anyone anywhere, that they were being legitimately scouted by the NHL.

Add that up and you have a world of players, top level ATHLETES, each with a team of trainers/nutritionists, not just good ol' dad anymore, vying for a spot on one of 30 teams (less at the time) in a high-paying league.

When a big kid is an athletic standout in the States, he will be trying to get in the NFL, if his passions are relatively balanced. Put bigger paychecks into rugby, and the Americans will no longer be a laughing stock in rugby. It's as simple as that. You put those dollar signs out there, and every Swedish kid that wanted to be a soccer star, may also be looking at hockey.

I would suggest that it took 10 years for the new generation to fully emerge. I would further suggest that The Big Machine of Canadian Hockey has since improved its own machinations in response to the Euro threat of the late 90's. And they have done the same. Everyone is trying harder, on a personal to a global scale.

Now - we know that Usain Bolt has run 100 meters faster than Jesse Owens ever did. Way faster. Some sports are easy to compare because it is a static experiment measuring one athlete against one set of rules, in this case - 100 meters of track.

The guys on here aren't going to see the difference between running on a fixed measurement, and playing game with different rules and equipment against a totally changing class of competitors. Some guys are just going to see 200 points in a season, and call it a day. The 'NHL' name might be the problem, because it's easier to identify as the 'same league' which it isn't. The Sedins get an asterisk beside their seasons because they got to play 32 games a year against ******* competition - but the players o the Oil, Flames, Wild, and Avs are still many years ahead of the guys that the stars were picking on in the 70's and 80's, in terms of development, physical and otherwise.

Breakfast time.

tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 08:54 AM
  #475
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
The numbers are clear alright, if those 9 teams were made up of players exclusively from the US and Europe they would be some of the worst 9 teams ever assembled. lol
go have a look at all of the players from those locations post lockout just for fun and come back.

It's pretty obvious that you haven't looked.

Here are the goalies and Dmen just from Sweden for starters.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...y=games_goalie

Dmen



http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...y=games_played

Heck you could make 9 really decent teams, all playoff worthy from just Europe, and 9 more from the States.


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 03-19-2013 at 09:15 AM.
Hardyvan123 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 01:21 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.