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.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Dilutes it in the immediate term and foreseeable future. In the very, very long run it might help expand it.

But even at that, the talent pool returns have been extremely negligible. In almost every case, there are more NHL players on the roster for that franchise than there are active players born and trained in that market. For example, there are 6 active players from Colorado and 50 players under contract to the Colorado Avalanche, for a net -44 dilution effect from the state of Colorado. California is -136, Florida is -89, Texas is -43.

It’s hard to even say when these places will be able to fill their own rosters with local talent. So we are talking about a LONG horizon before they cease diluting the talent pool.

 

[amnesiac]

dilutes the defence more than anything

obviously not a coincidence that scoring went up considerably in the 70s and 80s after the original expansion

and more recently:

GPG avg 2011-17 varied from 2.72-2.77
GPG avg 2017-18 after VGK = 2.97

GPG avg 2017-21 varied from 2.94-3.02
GPG avg after SEA = 3.14

 

[authentic]

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

I think this might be the exception, especially during a diluted period in NHL history for elite scorers where a lot of the top players in the game suffered from injury and defensive systems and butterfly goaltending really took hold on the game along with clutching and grabbing.

 

[Voight]

Diluets, with more teams that means more players who likely shouldn't be in the NHL will be.

 

[amnesiac]

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

what rules or goalie equipment changed a few years after the 67-68 expansion?

and when was the last time they reduced the equipment size?

serious questions

 

[tmg]

I would think it goes without saying that an expansion in which the league grows by literally 100% all at once is a little different from ones that are onesies and twosies adding to a league of 20+.

My argument all thread has been that the tiny incremental and temporary dilution with each modern expansion has been small. The league isn’t doubling in size overnight these days - at most the next expansion will be increasing the league talent pool by 6.25% in one year.

 

[the valiant effort]

Passage of time and population growth does not naturally brew a sufficiently sized talent pool of hockey players. The NHL is already overloaded with skaters and goalies unworthy of the minimum salary.

 

[Jared Dunn]

I mean everyone and their dog thought that Vegas was going to lose 83/82 games, feel like that clearly exhibited there's guys that could take on bigger roles but aren't being given them.

Small dilution to begin with but I agree that longterm it expands the pool of high quality players

Dilutes it in the immediate term and foreseeable future. In the very, very long run it might help expand it.

But even at that, the talent pool returns have been extremely negligible. In almost every case, there are more NHL players on the roster for that franchise than there are active players born and trained in that market. For example, there are 6 active players from Colorado and 50 players under contract to the Colorado Avalanche, for a net -44 dilution effect from the state of Colorado. California is -136, Florida is -89, Texas is -43.

It’s hard to even say when these places will be able to fill their own rosters with local talent. So we are talking about a LONG horizon before they cease diluting the talent pool.

But I don't think that's the only measurement, with expansion a team's worth of guys theoretically moves up to the NHL level, and same to the AHL, ECHL etc. Players being able to play at higher levels when they wouldn't have otherwise had the opportunity is bound to result in some or most of those players improving

 

[brentashton]

Dilutes the pool of elite/NHL level players in the short term. Players who wouldn’t make one of the 32 teams now can fill out rosters on 34 teams. They come from the AHL, Europe etc.. so short term dilution.

But long term it has the ability to be a catalyst to move young athletes into the sport, away from other typical paths of baseball, football, basketball, if the teams are in non traditional markets. But that takes generations to establish itself.,so in the short/medium term, the quality of NHL play becomes a little lower in my opinion.

All that said, I think it’s great for the game though and I hope the NHL does get to 36 teams. Thats seems to be the tipping point number.

 

[TheBeard]

Vegas fans are gonna act like the two year old when the parents bring him a new baby and give them all the attention.