Does Expansion Increase or Dilute the NHL's Talent Pool?

[x Tame Impala]

A common disagreement here on HF and with the ATL and Houston news this is more relevant than ever. Personally I think you only need to look at the ever-decreasing goalie SV% year by year as well as the scoring rates of the league's best players to see that expanding the league dilutes talent in the league.

I'm curious to see what people think it would increase the talent pool so make your case.

Click to read more...

 

[Three On Zero]

It does both, it dilutes the talent pool through transition with the new teams and then it slowly increases the talent pool. Goalie SV% is a terrible stat to use when the NHL has actively been trying ti increase scoring m.

 

[tmg]

Expansion itself doesn’t increase the talent pool, but that’s not really the question that needs to be asked. The question is whether the dilution of the league’s talent pool is more than offset and outpaced by the growth in talent worldwide. We went from 30 to 32 teams in the past decade … but since the nhl reached 30 teams over two decades ago, every year the strength and depth of the worldwide available talent pool has gotten better. So the average and bottom tier of the nhl player base of ~736 players in 2024, is stronger that that of ~690 player nhl base in 2004.

I’m a believer that the worldwide talent pool has outpaced expansion and will continue to do so. It’s not the expansion itself that has increased talent - it’s the passage of time.

Scoring and shooting percentage numbers aren’t good barometers of talent. More talent doesn’t equal more scoring. As more players get better they also get better at defense. Some of the least talent filled leagues have high scoring - because there’s a lack of defensive talent stopping the mediocre players from getting past them. Less talented players are more prone to mistakes, and mistakes lead to goals.

I’m abstaining from the vote because it’s a loaded question. Expansion on its own dilutes talent momentarily, and “dilutes” is obviously what the anti-expansion people want to see win this vote. But I don’t believe the talent over long periods of time dilutes as a result of expansion more than the young available talent pool growth strengthens it.

 

[ESH]

I don’t really know how you could argue it increases. It’s not like adding 2 more teams is going to generate more skilled players. Pretty much all of the best players in the world play in the NHL already. There’s definitely guys in other leagues who could play in the NHL, but I doubt any that would challenge for awards or anything like that.

Adding 2 teams just means that ~40 players currently fighting to break into the NHL will have spots now.

 

[CaliforniaBlues310]

I think it definitely dilutes the talent. Yes, new players come in each year, but just as many guys retire/don’t have it anymore to balance it out. Taking 2 more players from each team when depth around the league has become an issue…just doesn’t seem smart to me. They need to wait a bit to add more teams.

 

[Akrapovince]

There are a lot of players that will suddenly become more talented with increased minutes and opportunity.

It doesn’t increase talent per se, however it does give the ability for players to step into roles and flourish.

 

[pabst blue ribbon]

Talent dilution isn't inherently a bad thing for a sport where it's star forwards are on the bench for 2/3 of the game

 

[Bounces R Way]

The average player is much better than they ever have been before. Plenty of guys that played 100s of games in the 70s, 80s and 90s that could barely raise a puck and were just there to punch face. Personally think the talent pool of pro hockey players is deep enough to support another two teams and that there being more opportunity is a good thing.

I don't really understand the whole 'watered down' argument. There will be some terrible teams. There's always been terrible teams, hell even before expansion there were terrible teams.

 

[authentic]

I don’t really know how you could argue it increases. It’s not like adding 2 more teams is going to generate more skilled players. Pretty much all of the best players in the world play in the NHL already. There’s definitely guys in other leagues who could play in the NHL, but I doubt any that would challenge for awards or anything like that.

Adding 2 teams just means that ~40 players currently fighting to break into the NHL will have spots now.

Yep this is why scoring rises every time there’s expansion, it dilutes the talent pool.

 

[pabst blue ribbon]

Yep this is why scoring rises every time there’s expansion, it dilutes the talent pool.

Scoring rates barely changed at all during the time period of Atlanta/Nashville/Minnesota/Columbus expansion

 

[tmg]

The biggest factors in scoring rate changes are rules enforcement changes and goalie equipment changes.

 

[AKL]

Expansion unquestionably dilutes the talent each team has access to in the short term, but at the same time, the talent pool should be expanding because 1) population growth and 2) growing the game, so if done right, you shouldn't really see a worse final product.

If you were to add 10 new teams next season you'd see a worse product though, because you're expanding faster than the pool can replenish itself.

 

[MikeyMike01]

It dilutes the talent pool, which is a good thing for the league.

The superstars still exist. They don’t go away. What changes is the median talent level of third lines and second pairing defense and mid range goalies.

McDavid would score 200+ points in a 40 team league.

 

[Hisch13r]

I mean this isn’t an opinion thing. It’s literally just a fact it dilutes the talent pool.

 

[tmg]

I mean this isn’t an opinion this. It’s literally just a fact it dilutes the talent pool.

Indeed, which makes it seem all the more likely the OP phrased the question in bad faith. There really aren’t people saying ‘expansion strengthens the talent pool’ and posing the question this way was a straw man to get the OP’s lopsided and desired result.

The argument is, and always has been, does the natural growth and strengthening of the worldwide talent pool outpace the momentary dilution of occasional expansions? As in, over the long haul, does the average nhl team, average nhl player, actually become less talented decade over decade because of expansion? Or does it become more talented because the worldwide talent pool is increasing faster than expansion is diluting?

There ARE two sides to the talent dilution argument. This question, as worded, does not address that.