Determining how strong NHL was historically?

[plusandminus]

Question:

Are we putting these players 'as is' into a 1976 NHL; or are we assuming a North American familiarization/integration had already taken place?

Good question. I'm tempted to take the easy way and just assuming they would adapt pretty well to their new living and playing circumstances. That may not - as I think Canadiens1958 points out - be the way it would have been. But I think my main focus would be just "hockey skill". So let's assume - for simplicity - they would adapt as well as today's Europeans do (=relatively good and fast).

Oh, how many things to consider...

 

[Zine]

Good question. I'm tempted to take the easy way and just assuming they would adapt pretty well to their new living and playing circumstances. That may not - as I think Canadiens1958 points out - be the way it would have been. But I think my main focus would be just "hockey skill". So let's assume - for simplicity - they would adapt as well as today's Europeans do (=relatively good and fast).

Oh, how many things to consider...

Correct.

This is an extremely hypothetical study; it's basically impossible to predict if a player could adapt (given adequate transition time) or not. Truth is, some would have been able to; some wouldn't. Considering as such, I think using relative skill-level is a good barometer for measurement.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Other Measures

Correct.

This is an extremely hypothetical study; it's basically impossible to predict if a player could adapt (given adequate transition time) or not. Truth is, some would have been able to; some wouldn't. Considering as such, I think using relative skill-level is a good barometer for measurement.

Other measures could be the ease and speed with which the player adapted to playing on the respective National team, their age - how much longer they continued at the National team level, their position.

Relative-skill level is a good barometer. NHL Entry Draft uses this measure with various projections and certain assumptions but the NHL Entry Draft is far from perfect in this regard.

 

[Killion]

So let's assume - for simplicity - they would adapt as well as today's Europeans do (=relatively good and fast). Oh, how many things to consider...

Thats difficult to do as well. The tumultuous times the players lived through in the old Soviet system, through Glasnost & the fall of the Iron Curtain etc, makes it very difficult to ascertain how so & so or player 'X' would have adapted to an entirely different set of socio-economic, conditioning, style of play, number of games, travel......... just so many variables.

Relative-skill level is a good barometer. NHL Entry Draft uses this measure with various projections and certain assumptions but the NHL Entry Draft is far from perfect in this regard.

Certainly the skill sets would be similar, but mindset, the way the player thinks?.... thats a tough one.

(btw; your PM box is full. )

 

[Canadiens1958]

Alternative Approach

Thats difficult to do as well. The tumultuous times the players lived through in the old Soviet system, through Glasnost & the fall of the Iron Curtain etc, makes it very difficult to ascertain how so & so or player 'X' would have adapted to an entirely different set of socio-economic, conditioning, style of play, number of games, travel......... just so many variables.



Certainly the skill sets would be similar, but mindset, the way the player thinks?.... thats a tough one.

Alternative approach would be to track how the1976,1981,1984, 1987 Canada Cup European players did as they entered the NHL, their progression and career length.

Another key element would be team circumstances. Borje Salming had ideal circumstances starting in Toronto with Red Kelly as coach. Kelly had a very similar skill set as a player and understood very well how to integrate and develop Salming's game with the Leafs.

On the other hand Slava Fetisov in New Jersey with Schoenfeld and Cunniff did not land in an ideal situation.

 

[plusandminus]

just so many variables.

(btw; your PM box is full. )

Are you sure? It says 18 messages stored, 100 allowed. *confused* ...Edit, aha, not my inbox.

Yes, many variables... But just getting a better overall picture/understanding would be welcome.

 

[Killion]

Yes, many variables... But just getting a better overall picture/understanding would be welcome.

Well, Canadiens1958 refers to Borje' Salming. Perhaps you'll find some recipes in his new book, "Grilling with Salming" that'll help in providing a criteria & formula for a happy outcome?.

"One thing I learned on the ice, he who dares wins. Barbecues the same".
BS

 

[plusandminus]

Here one can see when players from different countries started in the NHL.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/friv/birthplaces.cgi?country=SU&province=&state=
Just click on the "From" column.

It seems to me, at first glance, that the first young Russians adapted well.
1990: Mogilny (Larionov, Fetisov, Makarov not so young, but did well)
1991: Fedorov
1992: Kamensky, Bure, Konstantdinov, Kozlov, Irbe
1993: Zubov, Kovalev, Kasparaitis, Zhitnik, Zhamnov, Malakhov

The Czechs seem to have done well too.

How bad that for USA and Canada one can only search per state/province. ?

 

[plusandminus]

Here's a link about NHL teams playing European teams.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_games_played_by_NHL_teams
It seems both USSR and Czech team did well.

 

[begbeee]

1976 (except for Canada and USA players outside NHL)

After looking at the stats from the Canada Cups, along with other things (including useful links provided in this thread), I think the following might be somewhat true for 1976.

Rank | Team | Pla in NHL | Comments
1 | Canada | 423 |
2 | Czechs | 1 | Seemed not far from Canada
3 | Sweden | 3 | In the years to come, more and more Swedes went over to play in the NHL - often succesfully (e.g. Islanders).
4 | USSR | 0 | Didn't have their best team, due to some internal conflicts among the leading staff. Missing Charlamov, Petrov, Michailov(?) (please add)
5 | USA | 35 | A bit below the above four teams. 35 NHL:ers equals about 2 teams. I guess the best half went to play in the CC. ?
6 | Finland | 1 | Featured a team of non-NHL:ers, finishing last. They lost 3-6 (23-24 in shots) vs USA, but had managed to win over Sweden (usually their prime goal of tournaments).

NHL consisted of 18 teams. In 1/18:s, I suppose player distibution was somewhat like:

Country | Share | Comment
Canada | 16.5 |
USA | 1 |
Rest | 0.5 | Including star Borje Salming. More stars?

How could we expand the NHL without decreasing its skill level?
What could be inserted regarding the non-NHL:ers?

Country | NHL teams | Comment
USSR | 3-4 ? | Easily players filling two NHL teams. If splitting the players 50/50 reagarding skill onto these two teams, I suppose both teams would be competitive and each having players belong to the absolute top of best NHL players. Perhaps 1-2 some more players too? Another way of looking at it would be to say 3-4 USSR league teams could compete at least fairly well in the NHL.
Czech | 2-3 ? | Easily filling one NHL team. Perhaps even two?
Sweden | 1 | Probably filling one NHL team.
Finland, Germany... | <0.5? | Some players here and there.

We could, without decreasing the overall standard, thus add more teams to the NHL:
2 good Russian, 1 very good Czech, 1 Swedish, 3-4 with more Czechs, Finns, Germans and more Russians. Total 7-8 teams
We thus have say an 18+7(8) = 25(26) teams league, with the same standard as the 18 team NHL.

How many would have made it into a 18 team NHL featuring best players in the World?
Probably 2-3 full teams of Russians, 2 full teams of Czechs, 1.5 team of Scandinavians and Germans. Total 6 teams, meaning that same amount of North Americans would have to leave the NHL.
Left we have like:

Country | Top-10 | top 100 | upper half (not %) | roster spot (not %) | Examples
Canada in NHL | 4-6 | 53 | many | many
USA in NHL | 0(?) | 2? | 8(?) | 20(?) |
Rest in NHL | 0(?) | 3? | 5(?) | 10(?) | Salming et al
USSR outside NHL | 2-3 | 18 | 50 | 70 | Vasiliev, Maltsev, Zhluktov, Bilyaletdinov, + missing stars (Charlamov, Petrov, Michailov?), plus others
Czech outside NHL| 2 | 13 | 40 | 60 | Novy, Hlinka, Martinec, Stastny brothers, Holecec, Dzurilla
Rest outside NHL | 0-1 | 11 | 30 | 40 | Islander Swedes, Mats Waltin
Canada outside NHL | ? | ? | ? | ? | Help
USA outside NHL| ? | ? | ? | ? | Help

Am I too kind (or unkind) regarding some country?

Basically then (showing number of new players):

Year | Top 10 | Top 100 | Top half | Roster
1976 | 3-5 | 40-45 | 35-45%? | 35-45%?

As can be seen, I assume that the depth of Canada/North America is greater than the depth in Europe. Perhaps wrong?

Stastny brothers and Dzurilla and some others were Slovaks. Please, if you refer to Czechs, dont mention them. If you want to mention them and you want to build a correct argument, refer to Czechoslovakia, what should and is correct. Maybe it seems like minor mistake to you, but dont act like ignorant (I am sure you´re not) and respect it. Thanks.

 

[plusandminus]

Stastny brothers and Dzurilla and some others were Slovaks. Please, if you refer to Czechs, dont mention them. If you want to mention them and you want to build a correct argument, refer to Czechoslovakia, what should and is correct. Maybe it seems like minor mistake to you, but dont act like ignorant (I am sure you´re not) and respect it. Thanks.

I know they were Slovaks, and I do think highly of Slovakia in regard to hockey contributions. I was talking about Czechoslovakia and mean Czechoslovakians. I thought "Czecks" could be used as a Czechoslovakians as well as for people from Czech Republic. In the case you quote, "Czech" was short for "Czechoslovakia". Czechoslovakians is such a long and relatively complicated word to write. Do you know of any other synynoms for Czechoslovakians? Anyway, no harm meant. I'll try to remember to write Czechoslovakians when talking about Czechoslovakians. But if someone has a shorter and easier word for their nationality (the Czechoslovakians) you are welcome to name it, so I can use that instead of the longer version (Czechoslovakians).

I might add that I sometimes may - out of old habit - write Russians when I mean people from USSR... hmm... whatever they are called. USSRs? Maybe CSSRs is a better word than Czechs?
Edit: have changed now.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I think the quality of the league has improved substantially over time. Since WWII, the big exception to that is from the first expansion until the late 70's. That was a time when there was so much less parity and talent was diluted, especially on the lesser teams. If you are looking at the average (median?) player, the highest quality periods would be the late 50's and esp. early 60's, as well as from the merge with the WHA until present. The lower quality periods would be the 40's and somewhat the early 50's, and from the first expansion until the WHA merger.

 

[seventieslord]

I know they were Slovaks, and I do think highly of Slovakia in regard to hockey contributions. I was talking about Czechoslovakia and mean Czechoslovakians. I thought "Czecks" could be used as a Czechoslovakians as well as for people from Czech Republic. In the case you quote, "Czech" was short for "Czechoslovakia". Czechoslovakians is such a long and relatively complicated word to write. Do you know of any other synynoms for Czechoslovakians? Anyway, no harm meant. I'll try to remember to write Czechoslovakians when talking about Czechoslovakians. But if someone has a shorter and easier word for their nationality (the Czechoslovakians) you are welcome to name it, so I can use that instead of the longer version (Czechoslovakians).

I might add that I sometimes may - out of old habit - write Russians when I mean people from USSR... hmm... whatever they are called. USSRs? Maybe CSSRs is a better word than Czechs?
Edit: have changed now.

I had almost this exact same conversation with MadArcand a couple of years back. Czechoslovakians and their derivatives definitely don't like the term "Czechs".

 

[Canadiens1958]

Soviets

I know they were Slovaks, and I do think highly of Slovakia in regard to hockey contributions. I was talking about Czechoslovakia and mean Czechoslovakians. I thought "Czecks" could be used as a Czechoslovakians as well as for people from Czech Republic. In the case you quote, "Czech" was short for "Czechoslovakia". Czechoslovakians is such a long and relatively complicated word to write. Do you know of any other synynoms for Czechoslovakians? Anyway, no harm meant. I'll try to remember to write Czechoslovakians when talking about Czechoslovakians. But if someone has a shorter and easier word for their nationality (the Czechoslovakians) you are welcome to name it, so I can use that instead of the longer version (Czechoslovakians).

I might add that I sometimes may - out of old habit - write Russians when I mean people from USSR... hmm... whatever they are called. USSRs? Maybe CSSRs is a better word than Czechs?
Edit: have changed now.

Soviets was the correct expression for people from the USSR.

 

[Theokritos]

Czechoslovakians and their derivatives definitely don't like the term "Czechs".

It depends. The Czechs actually like the term "Czechs", but Slovaks (it actually is Slovaks and not Slovakians) not so much.

I'm aware that there's no harm intended, but calling Latvians (like Helmuts Balderis) Russians or Slovaks (like Peter Šťastný) Czechs is like calling people from Scotland or Wales English. European national sensitivies...

 

[begbeee]

I know they were Slovaks, and I do think highly of Slovakia in regard to hockey contributions. I was talking about Czechoslovakia and mean Czechoslovakians. I thought "Czecks" could be used as a Czechoslovakians as well as for people from Czech Republic. In the case you quote, "Czech" was short for "Czechoslovakia". Czechoslovakians is such a long and relatively complicated word to write. Do you know of any other synynoms for Czechoslovakians? Anyway, no harm meant. I'll try to remember to write Czechoslovakians when talking about Czechoslovakians. But if someone has a shorter and easier word for their nationality (the Czechoslovakians) you are welcome to name it, so I can use that instead of the longer version (Czechoslovakians).

I might add that I sometimes may - out of old habit - write Russians when I mean people from USSR... hmm... whatever they are called. USSRs? Maybe CSSRs is a better word than Czechs?
Edit: have changed now.

Thanks. It´s hard to find shorter name and I think it doesnt exist. Calling it CSSR (Czecho-Slovak-Socialistic-Republic) is not always correct. I.e. during OG in Albertville national team was called CSFR (Czecho-Slovak Federative Republic) etc. I believe czechoslovaks is only correct term.

It depends. The Czechs actually like the term "Czechs", but Slovaks (it actually is Slovaks and not Slovakians) not so much.

I'm aware that there's no harm intended, but calling Latvians (like Helmuts Balderis) Russians or Slovaks (like Peter Å ťastný) Czechs is like calling people from Scotland or Wales English. European national sensitivies...

Agree. And yes, it´s a kind of sensitivity. It´s like taking away something from our country, something that we are proud of. It´s not like players like Stastnys, Dzurilla, Golonka, Lukac etc. were minor parts of national teams.

And it´s not like players didnt care about that...