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.