You really don't understand the difference between the different eras do you.
No I actually do quite well. I have no issue evaluating the strength of the league year to year.
But your attempt to take away from a Bobby Orr because he might have played in some years that were weaker than some others does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to explain how he was able to out-perform other stars and superstars who played under the same conditions and in the exact same "weaker" league.
Not to mention how he was able to still be one of the very best in the world in '76 despite having nothing left in one knee and just a little more than that in the other.
At some point one simply has to conclude that Orr would have been one of the very best players ever in any era.
It's the same with Gretzky or Howe or Lemieux or Jagr or Bourque or Harvey or Lidstrom.
You keep taking issue with how many Canadian's are in the all-time lists but again, the league was ONLY Canadian's for close to 70% of it's existence so of course that's going to happen.
Like seriously, what's your problem?
What non-Canadian players aren't getting the respect you think they deserve? Jagr, Lidstrom, Kurri, Selanne, Forsberg ect ect have all been given ample respect.
As have many of the top Russians that didn't even play their primes in the NHL like Makarov, like Larionov, like Fetisov and players that never even played in the NHL like Kharlamov, like Tretiak.
So what's this really about? That you feel Crosby, who has only played about 75% of 8 seasons and counting so far, isn't getting the respect you feel he should have vs past players?
Cause it sure seems that way and that's just silly.
That you think it's harder to dominate today? That's a joke too. Lemeiux had no trouble making a mockery of the league at 37 despite age and health issues.
And Gretzky, DOUBLING the production of any average top line player, of all nationalities I might add, for more than a decade! You think that was easy to do? You think that was easier to do than what Crosby is doing now?
Bourque, Jagr, Selanne, Lidstrom, Chelios, Mark freakin Recchi for pete's sake all say your views are wrong.
Don't make me laugh.
No one is debating that the 06 guys had any serious competition for player talent.
But you on the other hand are pretending that it's the same pool when clearly it hasn't been for quite a while and expansion certainly didn't cover the difference in the early years, ie 70's when expansion occurred in a Canadian only league thus diluting the NHL by quite a bit, something that didn't begin to get covered until the later 80's.
Who the Frig is saying it's the same pool?
And if an increase in raw pool size doesn't remotely guarantee an equal increase in top, Elite players then seriously what the Frig does it matter???
You can't prove that there's more Elite players in the league now than there were in the 80's.
All you can prove is that there are more players period!
More players just means more players, not more talent. Possibility of more talent sure but that's IT!
Throughout history, you can pick any player you want and they will have played against other players from other era's and those players will have played against even more players from other era's.
We can compare Orr to Lafleur, Lafleur to Bossy, Bossy to Gretzky, Gretzky to Lemieux, Lemieux to Jagr on and on and we get the CONTEXT of those players and their era to era.
Not to mention best on best international tourny's dating back to the 70's.
The problem is not about us not finding the "proper context", it's about you either not being able to or wanting to find it.
It really is right in front of your face.
