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
03-24-2013, 01:43 AM
  #526
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I already went over both guys before and we don't know for sure, there is a spectrum of possibilities given their skill sets and careers.
You just said absolutely nothing at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Either way it was only brought up by R71 as a diversion.
This is a red herring.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2013, 04:52 AM
  #527
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
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.
I'm not sure if this is the question you alluded to or not, but if so, you're dreaming. The increased player pool from these countries doesn't come close to covering the 30% increase in teams and even if it did, the point is mostly irrelevant. Swedes were already in the NHL.

What does it matter that most of the nhlers were Canadians? They were mostly the best players in the world at the time.

Canada 53%
USA 23.2%
Swedes 6.9%
Other 4.3%
Finns 3.1%
Slovakia 1.4%

Last I checked, 9 teams equals 30% of the League.

Canadian's, Yanks, Swedes and Finn's make up 80% of the league or 24 teams.
Canadian's make up 16 teams on their own.

http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_Pla...ionalities.php



In 89/90
Can 74.3%
USA 16.6%
Swed 3%
Finn 2.2%
Czch 1.5%
Russ 1.2%
Other .8%
Slov .3%

stolen from (RH71)

The numbers here show that the increase in the talent pool isn't nearly enough to support the increase in teams. The talent is actually thinner from roster to roster today than it was in the late 80's. There simply isn't enough to cover 9 additional teams. You keep making this claim, but it's simply not even close to being true. It's ok to have an opinion but it should be somewhat factual.


It's like saying MJ wouldn't dominate the NBA today because of the influx in talent from Argentina, Lithuania and other countries that lacked representation in the NBA.

Gretzky was competitive with a prime Jagr when the influx of euros was at its peak and he was an old diminished player at Gretzky's standards, playing with a career threatening injury to boot. Sorry, but the evidence that you provide has been working against you.


Last edited by habsfanatics: 03-24-2013 at 05:02 AM.
habsfanatics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2013, 11:53 AM
  #528
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 habsfanatics View Post
I'm not sure if this is the question you alluded to or not, but if so, you're dreaming. The increased player pool from these countries doesn't come close to covering the 30% increase in teams and even if it did, the point is mostly irrelevant. Swedes were already in the NHL.

What does it matter that most of the nhlers were Canadians? They were mostly the best players in the world at the time.

Canada 53%
USA 23.2%
Swedes 6.9%
Other 4.3%
Finns 3.1%
Slovakia 1.4%

Last I checked, 9 teams equals 30% of the League.

Canadian's, Yanks, Swedes and Finn's make up 80% of the league or 24 teams.
Canadian's make up 16 teams on their own.

http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_Pla...ionalities.php



In 89/90
Can 74.3%
USA 16.6%
Swed 3%
Finn 2.2%
Czch 1.5%
Russ 1.2%
Other .8%
Slov .3%

stolen from (RH71)

The numbers here show that the increase in the talent pool isn't nearly enough to support the increase in teams. The talent is actually thinner from roster to roster today than it was in the late 80's. There simply isn't enough to cover 9 additional teams. You keep making this claim, but it's simply not even close to being true. It's ok to have an opinion but it should be somewhat factual.


It's like saying MJ wouldn't dominate the NBA today because of the influx in talent from Argentina, Lithuania and other countries that lacked representation in the NBA.

Gretzky was competitive with a prime Jagr when the influx of euros was at its peak and he was an old diminished player at Gretzky's standards, playing with a career threatening injury to boot. Sorry, but the evidence that you provide has been working against you.
Good post.
Just one correction, the League increase from 21 to 30 teams is actually 43% not 30%. 9 added to 21, not 9 of 30.
(Bigger number and adds more weight )

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2013, 03:06 PM
  #529
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Good post.
Just one correction, the League increase from 21 to 30 teams is actually 43% not 30%. 9 added to 21, not 9 of 30.
(Bigger number and adds more weight )
Don't know how I missed that. Now it's hardy's turn to come up with the 43% increase in talent pool. I think he'll be about 20% short.

habsfanatics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2013, 04:40 PM
  #530
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 habsfanatics View Post
Don't know how I missed that. Now it's hardy's turn to come up with the 43% increase in talent pool. I think he'll be about 20% short.
We did some loose figuring in another thread a ways back and the rough conclusion was that the influx of talent ran out around the 26 team mark.

I don't think anyone will argue with the statement that the League was never higher in talent per capita than it was from 89/90 till about 97/98, especially from 89/90-92/93.
Adding 4 more teams after that really took it down a few notches. Slowly been making some headway but I personally think that 28 teams today would get it a lot closer to those early 90's levels.

As far as waiting for Hardy's turn, you'll have to get in line and I've been waiting at the very front of that line for close to 2 years now


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 03-24-2013 at 04:54 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2013, 08:35 PM
  #531
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
We did some loose figuring in another thread a ways back and the rough conclusion was that the influx of talent ran out around the 26 team mark.

I don't think anyone will argue with the statement that the League was never higher in talent per capita than it was from 89/90 till about 97/98, especially from 89/90-92/93.
Adding 4 more teams after that really took it down a few notches. Slowly been making some headway but I personally think that 28 teams today would get it a lot closer to those early 90's levels.

As far as waiting for Hardy's turn, you'll have to get in line and I've been waiting at the very front of that line for close to 2 years now
I'm sure he'll post about how we don't understand bla bla bla and that we're simply attacking him.

There are more players who can skate, but the talent level isn't as deep per roster for a few reasons. There are too many teams and the salary cap being the main two, and there is no chance that the European influx closes the gap. Zero.

habsfanatics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 01:37 AM
  #532
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
See that's the problem by using the same method you were rating the top 10 Canadians year in year out for around 60 years or so.

The same metric top 10 Canadian existed after 1980 as well but they were increasingly supplemented by a parallel group, at least by the mid 90's, so in essence your method of grouping these 2 groups together, by only taking the top 10 in the NHL was a change in context with your method.

Even the "deserving talent" when allowed into the league in the 1st wave of expansion didn't hit the elite, ie top scoring right away.

The elite talent of the mid 90's from Europe pretty much did.

It's a circle you can't square red herrings or pink salmon aside.


Who exactly is not getting enough respect?

You keep saying over and over again that today's players should get their own sticky, so who are these players that are being disrespected???

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 01:41 AM
  #533
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,778
vCash: 593
For sure the average top-10 canadian of yesterday was not as good as one today. It's probably more fair to count top-20 finishes for todays players when comparing them to top-10 ones from pre 1990-1995 or so, even more in the seventies when not even swedes and finns had really started to take much place in the top. Or a simpler version might just be to remove all non canadian players from you season of choice.

Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 01:56 AM
  #534
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 Darth Yoda View Post
For sure the average top-10 canadian of yesterday was not as good as one today. It's probably more fair to count top-20 finishes for todays players when comparing them to top-10 ones from pre 1990-1995 or so.
That's not the point!

I mean I'm sure the top 10 in 1985 were better FOR 1985 than the top 10 in 1955 would be FOR 1985 too.
Players evolve, training evolves, equipment evolves, medical technology evolves, the game itself evolves.

You can only judge players based on the competition and circumstances they played under at the time they played under them.

You can no more punish an O6 guy for not having Euro competition available or even good enough to play against than you can say that today's players would literally get their ***** kicked by the O6 players.

Different times need different priorities filled in order to succeed.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 04-03-2013 at 02:07 AM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 02:00 AM
  #535
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
For sure the average top-10 canadian of yesterday was not as good as one today.
Do you mean top 10 NHL players or top 10 Canadians?

Quote:
It's probably more fair to count top-20 finishes for todays players when comparing them to top-10 ones from pre 1990-1995 or so, even more in the seventies when not even swedes and finns had really started to take much place in the top. Or a simpler version might just be to remove all non canadian players from you season of choice.
I basically agree with you. I think there is a good argument that a 10th place finish before 1990 is closer to a 20th place finish after 1995 than it is to a 10th place finish after 1995. But I think the guys at the very top are outliers who aren't determined by the size of the overall talent pool.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 02:05 AM
  #536
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,778
vCash: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Do you mean top 10 NHL players or top 10 Canadians?
First choice.

Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 02:06 AM
  #537
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 TheDevilMadeMe View Post
But I think the guys at the very top are outliers who aren't determined by the size of the overall talent pool.
Yes and here's the other thing...
We basically have the exact same names clearly above the rest in the top 3-5 every year while the rest of the pack fight it out over the remaining spots by literally a point or two.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 02:07 AM
  #538
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
First choice.
Yeah, I figured as much based on everything else you said.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-06-2013, 10:49 PM
  #539
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Do you mean top 10 NHL players or top 10 Canadians?



I basically agree with you. I think there is a good argument that a 10th place finish before 1990 is closer to a 20th place finish after 1995 than it is to a 10th place finish after 1995. But I think the guys at the very top are outliers who aren't determined by the size of the overall talent pool.
What exactly is the very top and outliers though. There seems to be some agreement on Wayne and Mario but after that it gets cloudy.

With scoring being so important when discussing forwards and our upcoming top forwards project some discussion and understanding of top 5,10,20 finishes needs to take place or else I could see lists getting thrown out and not getting the proper discussion or time of day they might deserve.

Certain time periods, like the immediate expansion of the west and eastern teams in 68 and post 95 really stand out as where some of the immediate previous standards changed quite quickly.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2013, 12:38 AM
  #540
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
I'm not sure if this is the question you alluded to or not, but if so, you're dreaming. The increased player pool from these countries doesn't come close to covering the 30% increase in teams and even if it did, the point is mostly irrelevant. Swedes were already in the NHL.

What does it matter that most of the nhlers were Canadians? They were mostly the best players in the world at the time.

Canada 53%
USA 23.2%
Swedes 6.9%
Other 4.3%
Finns 3.1%
Slovakia 1.4%

Last I checked, 9 teams equals 30% of the League.

Canadian's, Yanks, Swedes and Finn's make up 80% of the league or 24 teams.
Canadian's make up 16 teams on their own.

http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_Pla...ionalities.php



In 89/90
Can 74.3%
USA 16.6%
Swed 3%
Finn 2.2%
Czch 1.5%
Russ 1.2%
Other .8%
Slov .3%

stolen from (RH71)

The numbers here show that the increase in the talent pool isn't nearly enough to support the increase in teams. The talent is actually thinner from roster to roster today than it was in the late 80's. There simply isn't enough to cover 9 additional teams. You keep making this claim, but it's simply not even close to being true. It's ok to have an opinion but it should be somewhat factual.


It's like saying MJ wouldn't dominate the NBA today because of the influx in talent from Argentina, Lithuania and other countries that lacked representation in the NBA.

Gretzky was competitive with a prime Jagr when the influx of euros was at its peak and he was an old diminished player at Gretzky's standards, playing with a career threatening injury to boot. Sorry, but the evidence that you provide has been working against you.
Why are you using 90 as the starting point?

When looking at the changes one can look at both league composition and the top 10 or 20 in scoring over a long timeline as well to see the impacts of these differences.

I did a pretty detailed look at the top 10 in scoring from 80-12 and in the mid 90's until now there has been close to a 50-50 split of Canadians and non Canadians in the top 10 in scoring.

The basic premise has been that expansion and increased talent streams have not gone hand in hand.

In 90 we ended a decade of 21 teams and the league was different in 80 than it was in 90, most of the growth was from the United States.

One can cherry pick certain points in the timeline against certain other points to obscure the overall trend all they want but the overall trend is pretty obvious.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2013, 04:26 PM
  #541
deenrockit83
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Overlooking the fact that 5'11", Johan Blake gives Usain Bolt all the competition he can handle. So much for your body type /height point.

Point is that you are slanting the issue to your agenda. Better Olympic sprinter versus better Olympic track and field athlete produces a different result.

Again your hockey analogy falls apart. Limits on stick length have changed over the years to accommodate increases in height. So taller players do not have to play hunched over. Previously they did.

Again you focus on one skill and try to build a case. Quotes about a single skill shooting or skating do not cover the complete skill set required to play hockey. Find a quote where an old time hockey player admits that every element of the complete skill set today is better and you may have a point.
Its not about height you are correct but Jessie ran a 10.6 and Usian is around 9.5. The reality is these guys from the fifty's could not compete at an elite level. Jessie beat a couple of bums off the street though

deenrockit83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-07-2013, 04:30 PM
  #542
deenrockit83
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4
vCash: 500
from the time Gretzky entered the league and from the time Croby and Ovie entered the game, it had been 24 percent decrease in points. Based on the math Gretzky's 93 goals would be lie 71 in todays and his 215 points would be 163. But this is based purely on math and not skill, athleticism, or heart.

deenrockit83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2013, 12:39 PM
  #543
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
The part in bold often comes up, sometimes even in capital letters so it's easier to read, often as the "we can't punish the oldtimers..."


The point of the matter is that when groups of players are being compared with different sets of players and dynamics the context needs to be taken into account, the "we can't punish the oldtimers " line indicates a minimization if not outright dismissal of the context.
We can't! Not sure why this is so hard to comprehend?
What if my Japanese hypothetical comes true, what if the League institutes a major rule change?
According to you, then every player playing today would be diminished for it because they aren't playing against the Japanese today and aren't playing with the new rule changes.

Today's cars, especially today's super cars are awesome pieces of machinery and technology. That still doesn't diminish the fact that the '69 AC Cobra was one of the greatest cars ever built despite the fact that there is more competition and more companies building super cars today than there were in 1969.





Quote:
Their peaks and primes aren't, Fetisov was good enough to be the top Dman at the WC as early as 78 and Vasiliev and Suchy as well as other iron curtain Dmen weren't in the NHL at the time.



Quote:
Wow you should buy lottery tickets as I only thought of this post last night.
What part of I knew what you were thinking before you even thunk it did you not understand?
What's the old adage? One of us is playing Checkers while the other is playing Chess.

Quote:
The point of the matter isn't that I get the specific seasons down exactly right, as it's subjective and since they didn't play in an integrated NHL we don't know how they ( the guys in Europe versus the not so deep NHL Dman pool)) would have stacked up against each other



Okay then it's a young Fetisov and Kastatonov there affect is more in the 80's then. Vasliiev, Suchy, ect.. are the primary guys, at points in the 70's.

You seem to be hung up on dissecting the specific example instead of the overall principle here.
No, I'm just not hung up on YOUR principal, which I find is based on a flawed premise and partial facts.
If your principal can't even stand up to a single specific example, how in the world does it survive to the big picture level?


Quote:
Yes and Chelios, Leetch and Lidstrom and others not mentioned are all guys who pre 80's NHLers wouldn't have to compete against to any large degree, Salming aside. Those 3 guys are part of the quality of the new talent stream right? Thus making a harder set of peers to be judged against potentially?
Sure, potentially, but you're still trying to judge previous generations against something that's wasn't available to play against yet.
Hell, simply opening up more spots is going to increase the competition level.

Quote:
sure the placement is right to you with the metrics you use, and say that you account for but something is off. Nieds is the top scoring Canadian Dmen of his generation and if he had the benefit of earlier guys, ie. being judged against his Canadian peers, he would come out as the top teer of that group.
Except he still wouldn't be ranked any better because we do know how he stacked up against Bourque and MacInnis and Stevens ect ect. No one would be confused between them heh
As far as beig the highest scoring Canadian D-man of his generation, that's just a tad misleading. He only leads in RAW points because he played the most amount of games. Both Pronger and Blake hold higher PgP ratio's than Nieds does.


(BTW Hardy, there's a lot of posts and points still awaiting responses from you, over the last couple of pages of this thread)


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 04-09-2013 at 12:45 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2013, 12:23 AM
  #544
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
We can't! Not sure why this is so hard to comprehend?
What if my Japanese hypothetical comes true, what if the League institutes a major rule change?
According to you, then every player playing today would be diminished for it because they aren't playing against the Japanese today and aren't playing with the new rule changes.

Today's cars, especially today's super cars are awesome pieces of machinery and technology. That still doesn't diminish the fact that the '69 AC Cobra was one of the greatest cars ever built despite the fact that there is more competition and more companies building super cars today than there were in 1969.












What part of I knew what you were thinking before you even thunk it did you not understand?
What's the old adage? One of us is playing Checkers while the other is playing Chess.



No, I'm just not hung up on YOUR principal, which I find is based on a flawed premise and partial facts.
If your principal can't even stand up to a single specific example, how in the world does it survive to the big picture level?




Sure, potentially, but you're still trying to judge previous generations against something that's wasn't available to play against yet.
Hell, simply opening up more spots is going to increase the competition level.



Except he still wouldn't be ranked any better because we do know how he stacked up against Bourque and MacInnis and Stevens ect ect. No one would be confused between them heh
As far as beig the highest scoring Canadian D-man of his generation, that's just a tad misleading. He only leads in RAW points because he played the most amount of games. Both Pronger and Blake hold higher PgP ratio's than Nieds does.


(BTW Hardy, there's a lot of posts and points still awaiting responses from you, over the last couple of pages of this thread)
What points?

Responses based on your faulty conclusions no doubt right?

Maybe some people miss it but look at every page in the history section under the ehader were it says

"The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time."

I'm not interested in cars, it's hockey players we were talking about here I thought?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2013, 12:26 AM
  #545
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
What points?

Responses based on your faulty conclusions no doubt right?

Maybe some people miss it but look at every page in the history section under the ehader were it says

"The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time."

I'm not interested in cars, it's hockey players we were talking about here I thought?
Change implies "different" not "better".

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2013, 12:36 AM
  #546
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Change implies "different" not "better".
Point to me where I specifically use the word better?

The difference is that instead of one stream, Canadian, now there is a seceond equally as good, at least in the top 20 scoring logs and other areas of measurement, from the non Canadian countries that were pre 1980ish virtually non existent in the NHL.

The point of the matter that expansion also changes the dynamics of the NHL during the late 60's and beyond.

It seems that some are focusing on what they think I'm saying, maybe they are drawing their own conclusions from the data who knows, instead of actually reading what I'm actually saying.

I have no idea if hockey is "better" in 1974, 84 or 08, it's a subjective thing.

My focus has been drawing attention to context when evaluating players from different eras, heck even different teams within a similar NHL season.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2013, 01:04 AM
  #547
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
Point to me where I specifically use the word better?

The difference is that instead of one stream, Canadian, now there is a seceond equally as good, at least in the top 20 scoring logs and other areas of measurement, from the non Canadian countries that were pre 1980ish virtually non existent in the NHL.

The point of the matter that expansion also changes the dynamics of the NHL during the late 60's and beyond.

It seems that some are focusing on what they think I'm saying, maybe they are drawing their own conclusions from the data who knows, instead of actually reading what I'm actually saying.

I have no idea if hockey is "better" in 1974, 84 or 08, it's a subjective thing.

My focus has been drawing attention to context when evaluating players from different eras, heck even different teams within a similar NHL season.

So what do you want Hardy?

What "answer" are you looking for?

Exactly what players are getting shafted or handled unfairly in your opinion?
Be specific, name names, lets do this!

What does the new talent stream have to do with Gordie Howe's greatness?


(And you can ignore the car thing all you want but it's an extremely accurate parallel in almost every facet here.)

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2013, 07:15 AM
  #548
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
So what do you want Hardy?

What "answer" are you looking for?

Exactly what players are getting shafted or handled unfairly in your opinion?
Be specific, name names, lets do this!

What does the new talent stream have to do with Gordie Howe's greatness?


(And you can ignore the car thing all you want but it's an extremely accurate parallel in almost every facet here.)
I gave specific examples of Nieds, Zubov and the guys in the late 60's and 70's as the obvious ones. during the top 60 project Pilote and Gadsby also came up but given your analysis of Savard/Zubov it's doubt full that you are serious at looking at the differences in eras but rather have other interests at heart.

quite simply you say that you account for the differences in eras but your posts and reactions to any discussion on the more current players becoems an entire critique to knock them down.

Guys like zubov and Nieds had to contend with talent streams that earlier guys didn't and it doesn't look like it was accounted for.

Here is Nieds one more time for his career,

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

he is first in scoring among all Canadian defensemen over his time in the NHL, has both a Norris and a Conn Smythe.

Looking at his competition form the top 10 in total scoring over his time in the NHL he has the 2 guys ahead of him form Europe in Nik and Sergei and in total 11 of the top 20 point getters from the D position aren't Canadians.

Yet Gadsby (without a Norris and a pretty weak playoff resume) breezes into 21st place and Vaslieiv into 25th?

It's pure speculation on how Vasiliev would have done directly into the NHL during his playing days but man he gets the benefit of the doubt and Nieds even with more TOI than Stevens gets pegged not only as lesser than him but by quite a margin as well by the critics.

Also enough of this "there was no competition from Europe and the states during x players time so why punish him" mumbo gumbo when it's perfectly clear people are doing so to the modern player, just make it an even playing field when evaluating players or is that too much to ask?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2013, 08:10 AM
  #549
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 35,492
vCash: 500
It's absurd to delete all the European and American defensemen that Niedermayer competed against in his era when looking at his point totals when one considers that the highest-scoring forwards he played with during his entire career in New Jersey were:

1. Bobby Holik (CZE)
2. Patrik Elias (CZE)
3. Petr Sykora (CZE)
4. Scott Gomez (USA)

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2013, 09:33 AM
  #550
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Heck you could make 9 really decent teams, all playoff worthy from just Europe, and 9 more from the States.
I don't know about 9 from each. Maybe 9 from Europe and 5-6 from the States...

But we can always TEST THE HYPOTHESIS!(R)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Expansion and the increased talent pool was different at times and the early 70's with the WHA is probably the most diluted through time.
When the North American talent pool is large enough to support perhaps 10-12 teams and there are 32 teams (NHL+WHA) the talent level will be pretty diluted.

Quote:
We also have around 10 Dmen from the top 60 project "padding to their resume" during this time, both in the NHL and other places.
Like Bobby Orr?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Except the 9 team reference is from '92 till today when the League went from 21 to 30 teams.
Many Russian's were already in the League in '89 and the Yanks, Swedes and Finns were already well established long before '89.
Petr Klima is not Jaromir Jagr. After 1989, Europeans came over at a much higher rate, and younger and much higher level players were available.

Quote:
The ENTIRE KML UNIT was in the NHL in 89/90, not just the line, the entire UNIT!

So the 9 team reference you keep bringing up only really consists of the remaining Russian's and the Czech's.
Yep, guys like Jagr, Hasek, Fedorov, Bure, Mogilny, Zubov, Yashin, Zubov, Gonchar, Konstantinov, Nabokov, Straka, Kovalev, Kovalchuk, Ovechkin, S.Kozlov, V.Kozlov, Bobrovsky, Cechmanek. You know, nobodies who only played a few games then got scared by the big bad Canadians before jumping back over the pond.

Quote:
And you can NOT make up 9 teams with only the Czech's and 2/3's to 3/4's of the Russian's.
As I said earlier, we're going to test this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
As of today, about 8% of the NHL consists of Czech's (4.9%) and Russian's (3.3%).
Canada 53%
USA 23.2%
Swedes 6.9%
Other 4.3%
Finns 3.1%
Slovakia 1.4%

Last I checked, 9 teams equals 30% of the League.

Canadian's, Yanks, Swedes and Finn's make up 80% of the league or 24 teams.
Canadian's make up 16 teams on their own.
That leaves 14 teams; not far off from Hardy's estimate of 16. Before judging based on a player-by-player basis, we can estimate that 53% is Canadian (15.9 teams), 23.2% (6.96 teams) of the league is American and the rest (23.8%, or 7.14 teams) is Euro/other. So the "raw" numbers suggest closer to 7 and 7 than Hardy's 9 and 9.

http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_Pla...ionalities.php


In 89/90
Can 74.3%
USA 16.6%
Swed 3%
Finn 2.2%
Czch 1.5%
Russ 1.2%
Other .8%
Slov .3%[/QUOTE]

Now let's test the number of teams that existed in 89-90.
There were 74.3% Canadians (15.6 teams), 16.6% Americans (3.49 teams), and 9.1% Euro/other (1.91 teams). So with the addition of nine teams, the league has changed as follows:

Canadians: +0.3 teams
Americans: +3.47 teams
Euro/other: +5.23 teams

That's a pretty significant influence from both American and European players, just from the numbers of players. That doesn't even factor in the level of players; in the past 20 years we have been seeing more and more high-end American and European players. Of the four most dominant LWs during the 1990s, two were American. The most consistently dominant? American. Of the best RWs through the 90s, the top three were all European. Of the top ten centers, three were European and another was American. Most of the top defensemen in the late 90s were American or European.

Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
I'm not sure if this is the question you alluded to or not, but if so, you're dreaming. The increased player pool from these countries doesn't come close to covering the 30% increase in teams and even if it did, the point is mostly irrelevant. Swedes were already in the NHL.

What does it matter that most of the nhlers were Canadians? They were mostly the best players in the world at the time.

The numbers here show that the increase in the talent pool isn't nearly enough to support the increase in teams. The talent is actually thinner from roster to roster today than it was in the late 80's. There simply isn't enough to cover 9 additional teams.
This is completely inaccurate. The fact that the NHL has maintained a similar amount of Canadians is not proof that the talent is now diluted. In the 70s and 80s a majority of teams weren't able to ice more than two or three lines with what we would call "NHL level skill" today. The bottom line, perhaps even bottom two, would be guys who could barely skate and played only a few minutes a game to give stars a breather and maybe pound the stuffing out of someone on the other team. Almost no 70s/80s third/fourth line goons would be capable of playing in the NHL today on skill alone. The guys on the bottom lines now are what used to be considered a "good third liner" and sometimes showed up on a second line. Guys like Dave Barr; gritty, defensive checking players who have a bit of skill to their game.

It's also interesting to note that, based on the numbers I've provided above, that the increase in American/Euro/Other is just shy of nine teams' worth of players, and the NHL has added nine teams since 1990. Certainly implies an increase in talent quality.

Quote:
You keep making this claim, but it's simply not even close to being true. It's ok to have an opinion but it should be somewhat factual.

It's like saying MJ wouldn't dominate the NBA today because of the influx in talent from Argentina, Lithuania and other countries that lacked representation in the NBA.
No, it's more like saying that Mickey Mantle wouldn't be as dominant because of the addition of high-end talent from Japan and Latin America.

Quote:
Gretzky was competitive with a prime Jagr
When, exactly, during Jagr's prime was Gretzky competitive with him? Do you mean 1996-97 when Gretzky outscored Jagr by two points while playing 19 more games? You realize that Gretzky still finished behind Jagr in Hart voting, and both were second-team All-Stars that season, right?

That's the only POSSIBLE season during Jagr's prime you could mean. And Jagr was clearly the far better player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I gave specific examples of Nieds, Zubov and the guys in the late 60's and 70's as the obvious ones. during the top 60 project Pilote and Gadsby also came up but given your analysis of Savard/Zubov it's doubt full that you are serious at looking at the differences in eras but rather have other interests at heart.

quite simply you say that you account for the differences in eras but your posts and reactions to any discussion on the more current players becoems an entire critique to knock them down.

Guys like zubov and Nieds had to contend with talent streams that earlier guys didn't and it doesn't look like it was accounted for.

Here is Nieds one more time for his career,

he is first in scoring among all Canadian defensemen over his time in the NHL, has both a Norris and a Conn Smythe.
Neither of which he truly earned; both rightfully belong to Pronger.

Quote:
Looking at his competition form the top 10 in total scoring over his time in the NHL he has the 2 guys ahead of him form Europe in Nik and Sergei and in total 11 of the top 20 point getters from the D position aren't Canadians.

Yet Gadsby (without a Norris and a pretty weak playoff resume) breezes into 21st place and Vaslieiv into 25th?
Niedermayer spent his first ten years as a "good" defenseman, with one "excellent" season in 1997-98. His "prime" in the mid 2000s came on a team built with excellent defense, where he didn't need to shoulder as much of the load as a guy like Gadsby. Gadsby was a finalist several times and a first-teamer a few times as well as a second-teamer a few times. Marcel Dionne has a pretty weak playoff resume; how do you compare him to a guy like Doug Gilmour who has a decent playoff resume, but was significantly worse in the regular season?


Last edited by pdd: 06-02-2013 at 01:29 AM.
pdd 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 09:15 AM.

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.