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
08-10-2012, 05:49 PM
  #276
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post
Why did the Caps institute a stronger adherence to system play?
Some are trend-setters and some are trend-followers. Need I say more?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Ill just quote two posts that were consecutive in another thread that answered this question well.
That's a nice post by Big Phil.

I have to agree with him. I think it's particularly telling in the series with the Rangers. They're playing the top seed in the second round, and two of the other top contenders (Pens, Bruins) have already been eliminated. No time to hold back, especially once it's tied going back to DC with a chance to take home ice advantage. What happens? They generally play Ovechkin less than 1/3 of the game. His % of ice time actually goes down from the regular season (perhaps due to fewer PPs in playoffs, but still). Does anyone think Gretzky or Lemieux at their peak/prime are playing less than 1/3 of the team's minutes in a crucial playoff series? If they did, I would guess it was rare and would surprise me.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 06:03 PM
  #277
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Some are trend-setters and some are trend-followers. Need I say more?
Actually yeah.

Washington made the adjustment because other teams were having success with systems play then?

I know Washington didn't win with the "more wide open" system, so adjustments were made. Maybe they were the wrong adjustments.

Maybe the sample size was too small? Was it mostly just random chance that Washington didn't win the year they were more offensive?

alanschu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 06:20 PM
  #278
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post

Maybe the sample size was too small? Was it mostly just random chance that Washington didn't win the year they were more offensive?
I believe his name was Halak actually and he then went on to do the exact same thing to Crosby and Malkin as well.
What system either team was playing didn't make a difference. They just couldn't beat Halak.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 06:23 PM
  #279
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post
Actually yeah.

Washington made the adjustment because other teams were having success with systems play then?

I know Washington didn't win with the "more wide open" system, so adjustments were made. Maybe they were the wrong adjustments.

Maybe the sample size was too small? Was it mostly just random chance that Washington didn't win the year they were more offensive?
Generally, some organizations are trailblazers and some aren't. Some set trends, some follow trends or muddle along. I won't say any more than history speaks for itself.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 06:25 PM
  #280
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I believe his name was Halak actually and he then went on to do the exact same thing to Crosby and Malkin as well.
I guess the big thing is, what year precisely were the shackles put on Ovechkin and the Capitals?

alanschu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 06:31 PM
  #281
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Generally, some organizations are trailblazers and some aren't. Some set trends, some follow trends or muddle along. I won't say any more than history speaks for itself.
I understand that. I've seen it in both hockey and basketball (and for basketball specifically, to great detriment to the sport IMO).

Obviously you're of the opinion that Washington is a follower not a trend setter. But I find you aren't actually saying very much with your posts.

Washington wasn't successful with the wide open offense. They changed their scheme. Do you feel that was a mistake and that the defeats Washington suffered were more due to random variation and that ultimately success would have been obtained without changes to their system? There often is a reason why trend setters are able to set trends and why others emulate them.


I asked why Washington changed, and all you've said are "some are trend setters and some are followers." It'd have been clearer if you elaborated on how that applied to my question regarding Washington's change.

alanschu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 06:49 PM
  #282
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post
I guess the big thing is, what year precisely were the shackles put on Ovechkin and the Capitals?
Quite obviously sometime during the following season.
318GF to 224GF
233GA to 197GA
121 points to 107 points

I definitely think they overreacted to facing a hot goalie in Halak.
I mean if Halak and the Habs had of gotten smoked by the Pens right after then that would of been different but they didn't.
The team that did finally take out the Habs wasn't a defense first team either. It was a left wing locking, hard forechecking Flyers team.
How the Caps upper management came to the conclusion that restraining OV and playing completely defense first hockey was the way to go...I have no clue.

They got cold feet and caved to the popular opinion that scoring goals and playing a more wide open style doesn't win in today's game.
Guess what...they said the exact same thing about the early 80's Oilers and the early 90's Pens too and what happened there

No offense to Scotty Bowman but look what happened to the '93 Pens when he tried to change the way they had won their last 2 Cups. Making that team play more conservatively was a big mistake.
If you have the offense to overpower the other team, then do so. Don't play "their" game, play "your" game.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 08-10-2012 at 06:58 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 06:51 PM
  #283
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post
Obviously you're of the opinion that Washington is a follower not a trend setter. But I find you aren't actually saying very much with your posts.

Washington wasn't successful with the wide open offense. They changed their scheme. Do you feel that was a mistake and that the defeats Washington suffered were more due to random variation and that ultimately success would have been obtained without changes to their system? There often is a reason why trend setters are able to set trends and why others emulate them.

I asked why Washington changed, and all you've said are "some are trend setters and some are followers." It'd have been clearer if you elaborated on how that applied to my question regarding Washington's change.
I think you should play to your best players' strengths, at least while they're on the ice. You don't dump and chase with Gretzky. You don't play run and gun with a bunch of scrubs without skill. You play your best players as much as possible, hopefully in as favorable a context as possible. Grinders are a dime a dozen compared to a talent like Ovechkin.

Where I probably disagree with others is that I don't see it as absolutely necessary for a team to have one style and identity. Each line has strengths and weaknesses, some more than others. Why not let Ovechkin play his game and if they want to pursue a different path with other lines, go ahead and do that. The other lines don't necessarily need to run and gun for the team to be successful. In fact, if they can just hold their own and bide time until their best players can get back on the ice, the team should be successful.

Goalies are a tougher decision. Some teams seem to play a system beneficial to their goalie, since he is a big strength. Others may want to run and gun, since if scoring chances increase for both sides, it should be to the advantage of the team with a better goalie (but also the one with more skilled players).

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 07:14 PM
  #284
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,338
vCash: 500
Additional Factors

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Quite obviously sometime during the following season.
318GF to 224GF
233GA to 197GA
121 points to 107 points

I definitely think they overreacted to facing a hot goalie in Halak.
I mean if Halak and the Habs had of gotten smoked by the Pens right after then that would of been different but they didn't.
The team that did finally take out the Habs wasn't a defense first team either. It was a left wing locking, hard forechecking Flyers team.
How the Caps upper management came to the conclusion that restraining OV and playing completely defense first hockey was the way to go...I have no clue.

They got cold feet and caved to the popular opinion that scoring goals and playing a more wide open style doesn't win in today's game.
Guess what...they said the exact same thing about the early 80's Oilers and the early 90's Pens too and what happened there

No offense to Scotty Bowman but look what happened to the '93 Pens when he tried to change the way they had won their last 2 Cups. Making that team play more conservatively was a big mistake.
If you have the offense to overpower the other team, then do so. Don't play "their" game, play "your" game.
Consider the following additional factors. Offensively the Flyers crashed the crease/slot against Halak. Did the Capitals have the necessary elements to replicate this style?

The Flyers had three lines led by three centers that could generate offense from in close. Did the Capitals have three centers of similar quality?

The Flyers played the LW lock. How would the LW lock work for the Capitals? Would Ovechkin buy in and would the roster have the necessary elements to make it work?

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 07:43 PM
  #285
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 Rhiessan71 View Post
Quite obviously sometime during the following season.
318GF to 224GF
233GA to 197GA
121 points to 107 points

I definitely think they overreacted to facing a hot goalie in Halak.
I mean if Halak and the Habs had of gotten smoked by the Pens right after then that would of been different but they didn't.
The team that did finally take out the Habs wasn't a defense first team either. It was a left wing locking, hard forechecking Flyers team.
How the Caps upper management came to the conclusion that restraining OV and playing completely defense first hockey was the way to go...I have no clue.

They got cold feet and caved to the popular opinion that scoring goals and playing a more wide open style doesn't win in today's game.
Guess what...they said the exact same thing about the early 80's Oilers and the early 90's Pens too and what happened there

No offense to Scotty Bowman but look what happened to the '93 Pens when he tried to change the way they had won their last 2 Cups. Making that team play more conservatively was a big mistake.
If you have the offense to overpower the other team, then do so. Don't play "their" game, play "your" game.
I still consider the left wing lock a defensive system first. It is just more offensive than a lot of systems you see today.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 08:51 PM
  #286
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
I still consider the left wing lock a defensive system first. It is just more offensive than a lot of systems you see today.
True but the LWL is an active pressure neutral zone system almost solely designed to cause turnovers in the N-zone, not a passive, wait and see system that is designed to make the opposition dump the puck.
If OV is going to "buy" into any system, it's going to be one that he gets to still be active.

Not that he didn't "buy" into the trap that Hunter had him playing but tell me he didn't look like a guy ready to burst at the seams from holding back so much?

Too many coaches today are so set into imposing their system no matter what and I'm not just talking about the NHL level either.
What happened to coaching to your teams' strengths?
For a guy like OV IMO, you reign him in enough that he's not a defensive liability but you don't tie a 100lb sled to him and then wonder why he's not producing like he used to.

Seriously, does anyone actually believe that Karlsson wins the Norris if Hitchcock was his coach...not a chance in hell folks!

At least I understand it happening more in the NHL and AHL but for this to be happening in Junior and especially below...that's a travesty to me.
That's where these players should be allowed to test their limits and go for it.
Being prepared for the NHL is one thing but driving a 13 year old's offensive instincts into the ground...that's just ridiculous to me.

Back in my day you were taught how to be defensively responsible. Now you are taught to be defensive period and that's wrong to me, that's not hockey, that's watching paint dry.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 09:17 PM
  #287
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,935
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.)
Of course I can't prove it except in one sense. I wasn't around to watch hockey at the turn of the century but I will speak from my own experience of viewing hockey.

I can see with my own eyes that hockey players are better and more skilled in each decade from the 70's, 80's ect until today.

I'm talking about the level of play and ability of all players to think and react at an increasing higher level of play with increased pressure.

Now some of that probably is from increased training and better coaching and development but alot of it is from increased levels of competition IMO and the influx of new talent streams from Europe, the US and more players from lesser producing areas of Canada.

It's not a given that all or even most of the players or even the stars at the turn of the Century would be stars today. There is simply too large of a gap in time to make any good assessment on that point. the problem of judging players against their respective peers 50-100 years apart assumes that somehow it's an equal judgment when it's not.

For all intensive purposes we might as well judge players in junior and say that they are the same players who dominate their peers there are going to do the same in the NHL and we know this is not always the case. Things change over time and not just the equipment and training. The current methods of making all time lists in this the history section is biased in favour of those who ahve coem before and this should be recognized.

But as long as we assume that the only thing separating past talent and current talent is training and equipment ect and not skill then that bias will continue here.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 09:52 PM
  #288
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
How the Caps upper management came to the conclusion that restraining OV and playing completely defense first hockey was the way to go...I have no clue.
... noted that as well. Coaching turnover, McPhee clinging to his job by a thread mebbe. Unwilling & unable to find complimentary players for Ovechkin. A gamble they werent willing to make or take. Shame really, because the guys obviously struggled. I mean, here you have an absolute thoroughbred & he's tied to a dray wagon in terms of systematic play. Its painful to watch. And its not just Ovechkin. I really feel sorry for a lot of them, the guys with pure hockey skill & savvy, a real joie de vivre & artistic element to their games seen only in flashes. Sad really.


Last edited by Killion: 08-10-2012 at 09:59 PM. Reason: typo
Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 10:42 PM
  #289
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Of course I can't prove it except in one sense. I wasn't around to watch hockey at the turn of the century but I will speak from my own experience of viewing hockey.

I can see with my own eyes that hockey players are better and more skilled in each decade from the 70's, 80's ect until today.

I'm talking about the level of play and ability of all players to think and react at an increasing higher level of play with increased pressure.

Now some of that probably is from increased training and better coaching and development but alot of it is from increased levels of competition IMO and the influx of new talent streams from Europe, the US and more players from lesser producing areas of Canada.

It's not a given that all or even most of the players or even the stars at the turn of the Century would be stars today. There is simply too large of a gap in time to make any good assessment on that point. the problem of judging players against their respective peers 50-100 years apart assumes that somehow it's an equal judgment when it's not.

For all intensive purposes we might as well judge players in junior and say that they are the same players who dominate their peers there are going to do the same in the NHL and we know this is not always the case. Things change over time and not just the equipment and training. The current methods of making all time lists in this the history section is biased in favour of those who ahve coem before and this should be recognized.

But as long as we assume that the only thing separating past talent and current talent is training and equipment ect and not skill then that bias will continue here.
Again, if what you're saying is true then under that theory there should be no way guys like Bourque, Lidstrom, even Gartner, Messier, Sakic, Yzerman or Chelios are able to produce like they did or stay at or near the top of their respective positions for literally decades.
Or that Jagr at 42 years old can still dominate games from time to time and produce 50-60 points.

This absolutely shows that it's not about how much training or coaching a player has, it's about how inherently talented and instinctual that players are in the first place.
Not nce in the last 32 years have Bourque and Lidstrom looked out of place or not been able to handle the evolution of the game. That's a fact and one your "theories" have no credible answer for.

Every player I just mentioned should of been out of date dinosaurs after 10-15 years according to your "theory", and that simply has not been the case, not even close!

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 11:14 PM
  #290
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
This absolutely shows that it's not about how much training or coaching a player has, it's about how inherently talented and instinctual that players are in the first place.
... this is an excellent point. What we've seen over the last 40yrs, since the 72 Summit Series & the angst that that created along with a few other losses in the intervening years is nothing short of an insidious form of Behavioural Modification & compliance to systematic play (or you dont play at all) within the amateur ranks across Canada & the US. This philosophy is not nearly as pronounced in Europe. Players are allowed to "explore, free-lance". Here, it has become verboten....

... of course, my own theory is that its a long running Commie Plot conceived by none other than Anatoli Tarasov & perpetuated by the likes of Medvedev & Vladimir Putin, the Czech's, Swedes & Finns over the intervening decades in order to gain supremacy. A transverse plot of epic proportions that began with the fluoridation of our water supplies in nineteen hundred & forty seven & the introduction of microbiotics ranging from Lithium to Lysergic Acid Diethylamides'.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 12:24 AM
  #291
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 danincanada View Post
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.
This is true. My position is that while a specific historical player should be given just as much chance as any modern player to be ranked at spot X, when you do a list of the 100 best players, there should be a higher proportion of modern players on the list as a whole, since the modern talent pool is larger.

Each individual player evaluated against his peers, but more modern players will be rated because there are more players now of a particular talent level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I can see with my own eyes that hockey players are better and more skilled in each decade from the 70's, 80's ect until today.

I'm talking about the level of play and ability of all players to think and react at an increasing higher level of play with increased pressure.

Now some of that probably is from increased training and better coaching and development but alot of it is from increased levels of competition IMO and the influx of new talent streams from Europe, the US and more players from lesser producing areas of Canada.
Skilled or talented, skilled or talented. More players of a particular talent level does not mean that the maximum talent level has increased. A wider talent pool does not mean a talent pool that reached new heights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
For all intensive purposes we might as well judge players in junior and say that they are the same players who dominate their peers there are going to do the same in the NHL and we know this is not always the case. Things change over time and not just the equipment and training. The current methods of making all time lists in this the history section is biased in favour of those who ahve coem before and this should be recognized.
Intents and purposes. The data seems to suggest that there is a bias towards O6 players, but a bias against pre-WW2 players. So that's not a systematic bias towards historic players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
But as long as we assume that the only thing separating past talent and current talent is training and equipment ect and not skill then that bias will continue here.
You're confusing talent and skill in that sentence I think. And we should certainly assume that until we have some solid reason not to. Prove that there's something more than training and equipment and we'll have that reason.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 12:59 AM
  #292
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
The data seems to suggest that there is a bias towards O6 players, but a bias against pre-WW2 players. So that's not a systematic bias towards historic players.... You're confusing talent and skill in that sentence I think. And we should certainly assume that until we have some solid reason not to. Prove that there's something more than training and equipment and we'll have that reason.
... yes, a bias in terms of elevating players from the Golden Era to Mount Olympus for reasons that you youngsters cant understand or accept. Pre-WW2 the game was an entirely different animal. Ultra Violence at the Milk Bar. Intimidation, brutality. Very little art, beauty, Pink Floyd. Neanderthals. From the wasteland dustbowls of the prairies & hardscrabble mining towns of the 30's a new and immortal brand of hockey player born. Damn shame you & others were not around to see it in all its glory Mr.Fyffe... Id also like to know if you actually played the game yourself in New Brunswick or elsewhere at any meaningful level btw.

As for the second part in up-braiding young Hardy, semantics. What is the difference between "talent & skill"?. Are you referring to the innate "talent" of a Richard, Delvecchio, Howe, Pappin, Makita, Hull, Esposito, Bossy, Gretzky, Yzerman, Jagr, Lemieux etcetera or are you referring to the "skill" one must acquire in order to excel in any given sport or really any field of endeavour no matter what that might be? There are "naturals" and then there are those who by sheer force of determination, will & education achieve their goals. Jim Rutherford for example. About 5 foot nothing from a Jr. B club second rate background & economic hardships. These questions you raise cannot be quantified. The answers lie with those who were there, those who lived & experienced it. No flinching, no surrender.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 01:19 AM
  #293
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 Killion View Post
... yes, a bias in terms of elevating players from the Golden Era to Mount Olympus for reasons that you youngsters cant understand or accept.
Understand? Yes. Accept as valid? No.

It is good to see you admit that players from this era are often deified, rather than evaluated rationally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Pre-WW2 the game was an entirely different animal. Ultra Violence at the Milk Bar. Intimidation, brutality. Very little art, beauty, Pink Floyd. Neanderthals.
Utter ********. Fred Taylor, Howie Morenz, Frank Nighbor, Dan Bain, Frank McGee, Russell Bowie, Mike Grant, Joe Malone, Harry Trihey, Mickey MacKay, etc, etc. All of them artists on the ice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
From the wasteland dustbowls of the prairies & hardscrabble mining towns of the 30's a new and immortal brand of hockey player born. Damn shame you & others were not around to see it in all its glory Mr.Fyffe... Id also like to know if you actually played the game yourself in New Brunswick or elsewhere at any meaningful level btw.
And I'd like to know how many hours you've put in studying the history of the game. But that's not really relevant to anything you say. What you say stands or falls on its own merits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
As for the second part in up-braiding young Hardy, semantics. What is the difference between "talent & skill"?.
The difference is a player's innate talent, upon which skill and training are built to create a hockey player. It's terribly relevant because the claim has been made that modern players are not just better because they have better training and better equipment, but because they represent a higher level of talent, so that they are better than a historic player could be, even if he had modern circumstances.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 02:28 AM
  #294
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
It's terribly relevant because the claim has been made that modern players are not just better because they have better training and better equipment, but because they represent a higher level of talent, so that they are better than a historic player could be, even if he had modern circumstances.
... first of all Iain, Im going to ignore the first part of your response to my post as being irrelevant & indulgent. But g'head, eat your chocolates. As for the 2nd part, much to my own & many others disappointments over the years, your own & earlier generations of Canadian hockey players apparently were born with Reginas' instead of a Silver Set. Between the Diving, "Just Been Shot By a Sniper" and all the rest of the hystrionics' Im not sure what Ive been watching since about nineteen hundred & seventy eight. Im watching brain dead morons on a Saturday night?. Ahh, dont think so. A classic movie perhaps. Bonanza from the boxed set. The Avengers. But hockey?. See ya. Your Cybernauts are not turning anyones crank. The games been hijacked.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 02:43 AM
  #295
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 Killion View Post
... first of all Iain, Im going to ignore the first part of your response to my post as being irrelevant & indulgent. But g'head, eat your chocolates. As for the 2nd part, much to my own & many others disappointments over the years, your own & earlier generations of Canadian hockey players apparently were born with Reginas' instead of a Silver Set. Between the Diving, "Just Been Shot By a Sniper" and all the rest of the hystrionics' Im not sure what Ive been watching since about nineteen hundred & seventy eight. Im watching brain dead morons on a Saturday night?. Ahh, dont think so. A classic movie perhaps. Bonanza from the boxed set. The Avengers. But hockey?. See ya. Your Cybernauts are not turning anyones crank. The games been hijacked.
I'm having terrible difficulty parsing this post. Are you saying that the game today isn't as good as when you were younger? That's a popular opinion, regardless of your date of birth. But it's an odd response to me specifically, since my particular interest is hockey before 1927 or so, and have been writing paragraphs upon paragraphs in this thread about why players from history deserve more respect than they often get.


Last edited by The Nemesis: 08-11-2012 at 10:39 PM.
Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 03:46 AM
  #296
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
I'm having terrible difficulty parsing this post. Are you saying that the game today isn't as good as when you were younger? That's a popular opinion, regardless of your date of birth. But it's an odd response to me specifically, since my particular interest is hockey before 1927 or so, and have been writing paragraphs upon paragraphs in this thread about why players from history deserve more respect than they often get.


I don't think pre-WW2 is too under-represented on this forum. It's the last two decades that are IMO.

There's nothing that says the best hockey player ever couldn't have been from 100 years ago or during the ice age. It's just much less probable, given smaller population in Canada and the player pool being restricted to basically Canadians for the most part.

All this talk about talent and skill... I'm not sure how much it matters as far as the probabilities are concerned. I'm searching for the best analogy, but will use what I can think of for now:

Players, like students, are often graded on a curve, i.e. how they perfromed vs. other players/students. Maybe the class was mostly the same size from the early 20th century until expansion in the late 60s, but the pool of students to choose from got a lot bigger. Since only the best students made it, the students in the later years tended to be a lot better on average (or the median) than the previous generations in absolute terms. At least they probably were, with a large degree of confidence. That doesn't mean the best student in the mid-60s was better than the best student in the 1920s, but again it's much more probable. As you increase the sample size, the confidence level increases substantially. The top 5 students in the 1960s were even more probable to be better than the top 5 students in the 1920s, etc, whether they had natural smarts or studied harder or both to be near the top of the class. I'm not sure how to separate the two, but the effect should be similar. As time progressed, the class size got even bigger. Adding a bunch of C students doesn't dramatically increase the odds of the best student being better, although you never know when one of those C students might turn into an A student or at least score very highly on a test from time to time. We do know that if those students weren't in the class, they wouldn't have a chance of making the honor roll, and slim is still larger than none. Eventually, some of the better students from other countries enroll and the class expands a bit further. Now it's really difficult for what would have been the best students in previous generations to shine as brightly as their predecessors. It doesn't mean they can't, but it's much more difficult. However, since the Canadian students are still being pulled from a much larger pool of students than in the 1920s, the fixed number of top students should still be better than that same number in much earlier years. Again, the smaller the sample size, the less certain that is, but it's always more probable.


Last edited by The Nemesis: 08-11-2012 at 10:38 PM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 07:39 AM
  #297
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,338
vCash: 500
Nature / Nurture Debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Utter ********. Fred Taylor, Howie Morenz, Frank Nighbor, Dan Bain, Frank McGee, Russell Bowie, Mike Grant, Joe Malone, Harry Trihey, Mickey MacKay, etc, etc. All of them artists on the ice.


The difference is a player's innate talent
, upon which skill and training are built to create a hockey player. It's terribly relevant because the claim has been made that modern players are not just better because they have better training and better equipment, but because they represent a higher level of talent, so that they are better than a historic player could be, even if he had modern circumstances.
Innate talent - the old nature / nurture debate.

Should apply to all athletic, academic, artistic endeavors.

Question that is left unanswered is whether people are naturally predisposed to compete in sports, to use numbers, to create works of art, etc or are these activities learned or imitated?

Athletics, academics, the arts are relatively new activities that evolved well into the history of mankind.

From the players listed above, Dan Bain was born in 1874,Tom Paton was born in 1854, pre 1875 and before hockey was part of the athletic landscape. Effectively all pre 1890 hockey players share the characteristic of their birth pre dating hockey. So their hockey skills and talents appear to be learned or adapted from similar athletic skills given the benefit of having the leisure time and inclination to learn the new sport on the scene.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 12:13 PM
  #298
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
This is true. My position is that while a specific historical player should be given just as much chance as any modern player to be ranked at spot X, when you do a list of the 100 best players, there should be a higher proportion of modern players on the list as a whole, since the modern talent pool is larger.

Each individual player evaluated against his peers, but more modern players will be rated because there are more players now of a particular talent level.

You seem to think that modern players are getting the shaft.
I don't see it that way.
When ranking older players, everything they have done and accomplished is all there and everyone they competed against has the same info available. We also have what the players after them have done.

With the current players, we just don't know exactly how they will end up right now. Look at OV and Sid, 2-3 years ago they were on everyone's radar getting compared to and beginning to get ranked with and even above the likes of Yzerman and Sakic. Some morons were even talking about Sid in the same breath as Jagr, sometimes even with Gretz and Lemieux. For a lot of people, it was silly at the time and now, for pretty much everyone, it just looks absolutely idiotic.
Now, we just don't know. OV is being heavily restrained in Wash and Sid is trying to recover from major injuries.

If there's a bias that needs to be overcome it's watching these players in the now while they are in their prime and not overvaluing them. Especially when the freshest memories of some of the players you want to rank them against are from their twilight/past their prime seasons.
I think older guys like myself have seen it before and know not to count your chickens before they're hatched.

Take Lidstrom for example. Here's a great player that just retired, his legacy can now be written so to speak because now we get to see what the players that come after him can do.
Some seem to think that what he has done so far solely defines him and that is part of it but how the players that come after him do will also be part of that.
I don't think the defensive side of his legacy will be diminished at all but the offensive side is already starting to take a hit with Karlsson.
Most feel that Lidstrom has been the top offensive d-man for the better part of the last decade but with Karlsson doing what we haven't seen since Bourque and Leetch retired and Coffey before that, it's starting to look like that Lidstrom may have just been the best of a weak offensive bunch over this time.
Again though, I also have to not fall into the same trap. Karlsson has a long way to go and has to keep up what he did last year for this to be a valid hypothesis/criticism of Lidstrom's offense.

It's about perspective and it's a perspective you simply can't have until near or after the end of their career's.
So you'll have to excuse me if I wait another 10-15 years before truly ranking the likes of Crosby, OV and Stamkos.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 01:10 PM
  #299
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 Czech Your Math View Post
I don't think pre-WW2 is too under-represented on this forum. It's the last two decades that are IMO.
There's at least some reason to hesitate rating active players - their careers aren't yet complete. But while I somewhat agree with your second point, I cannot agree with your first at all. The further back you go, the less respect players get. Players from the 1920s and 1930s are well-represented I'm sure. But there's a whole lot of hockey history before 1920.

I believe the O6 era is overrepresented. The "extra" O6 players are taking spots that should go to players from other eras. I would suggest that many of these spots "belong" to pre-WW2 players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
You seem to think that modern players are getting the shaft.
Where did you get that from? I've been arguing that historical players are often held to an unfair standard, that the "they couldn't play today" argument is never applied in reverse to modern players.


Last edited by The Nemesis: 08-11-2012 at 10:37 PM.
Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 01:29 PM
  #300
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
From the players listed above, Dan Bain was born in 1874,Tom Paton was born in 1854, pre 1875 and before hockey was part of the athletic landscape. Effectively all pre 1890 hockey players share the characteristic of their birth pre dating hockey. So their hockey skills and talents appear to be learned or adapted from similar athletic skills given the benefit of having the leisure time and inclination to learn the new sport on the scene.
... now, correct me if Im wrong, but its my understanding that hockey in its infancy in Montreal & Halifax was generally played by "Young Gentlemen", undergraduates & graduate students attending McGill; on the east coast, again, amongst university types and amongst both officers & enlisted men stationed out there from the UK.

The hockey skills were derived from previous experiences guys like Bain & others had had having played rugby, banty or lacrosse, the rules indeed framed & based upon those sporting activities. Initially, the organized version of the game was an elitist pursuit, however, it grew in popularity quickly, being an inexpensive past time in a country where climate was conducive to its enjoyment by the masses.

By the turn of century, gone were the days of the Gentleman Jim type players, not entirely of course, but toughness, intimidation tactics had absolutely by that time become an established repartee' and part of the game itself. Many if not all of the players were 2 or 3, 4 or 5 sport participants, most notably football, rugby, boxing & lacrosse, the latter of course containing elements of stickwork, checking & hitting that bordered on the homicidal. By the time the pro-leagues were formed, the barnstormers, full-on mayhem was the name of game. Yes it still retained some of its finishing school type players, artiste's, but by & large, you'd now be facing hardscrabble tough as nails miners, lumberjacks, farm boys & other salt of the earth types who would run you right through the boards if you tried any Little Lord Byron nonsense with your patent leather skates & slick as **** haircut held in place with far too much pomade? Dead Duck.

Least ways, thats my take on it C58.
Thats my story and Im stickin to it.


Last edited by The Nemesis: 08-11-2012 at 10:37 PM.
Killion 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 06:35 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.