I don't believe in the "expansion will dilute the talent pool" argument

[Silky Johnson]

Just a basic normalized distribution tells you that if you increase the population size, you will be diluting of the mean because we are not adding top talent on the other end. If they were there to add, they would already be in the league. Not like there are 20 1Cs over in Europe or the KHL that can't get an NHL deal. Instead, you're adding several AHL/AAAA players. So yeah, overall weaker. I do not agree with your premise.

Not realy. Provided that the player pool increases proportionally you will not be diluting the mean.

This obviously ebbs and flows as you add teams.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

Maybe back in 1967-1968 when the talent pool had all Canadians.

Back then, you had no Russians, no Swedes, no Finns, and no Americans in the talent pool.

I don't think expansion will dilute the talent pool this time around.

The talent pool is getting deeper. You have more talented Americans dominating the rosters.

You have the European talent base getting stronger. Canadians talent pool is dwindling because lack of interest.

So when the NHL expands in a couple of years, the talent pool, already discussed, will get stronger, not weaker.

There probably will be talent dilution in the short term, but in the long-term kids will see that there is a better chance of them making millions playing a game and the talent pool will grow. This is what "growing the game" is all about.

Not that the average "cheer when puck goes in, boo when penalty called" fan cares, even if they recognized the dilution (which is doubtful). Dilution is a thing for the maybe 1% of the fans who are hardcore or purists or fantasy leaguers, not the average fans.

 

[colchar]

Maybe back in 1967-1968 when the talent pool had all Canadians.

Back then, you had no Russians, no Swedes, no Finns, and no Americans in the talent pool.

I don't think expansion will dilute the talent pool this time around.

The talent pool is getting deeper. You have more talented Americans dominating the rosters.

You have the European talent base getting stronger. Canadians talent pool is dwindling because lack of interest.

So when the NHL expands in a couple of years, the talent pool, already discussed, will get stronger, not weaker.

 

[pelderhostiga]

I personally don't want to believe in the "expansion will dilute the talent pool" argument either...

...but it's impossible to argue against the numbers. By far the biggest jumps in league-wide average scoring have come in those seasons when there has been a new expansion team in the league. There have been other changes as well, but the only constant factor driving goals up has been the addition of more teams, which probably tells you all you need to know about the dilution of the talent pool.

 

[bleedgreen]

I feel like the pool is already diluted. It’s not awful, it’s still generally good hockey but I don’t feel like there’s a single full team of guys currently being underutilized out there, let alone two. Also maybe the goalies are just going through a tough stretch but I’m not convinced there’s a good starting goalie for every team right now.

 

[Lunatik]

I mean by definition it will dilute talent... you add 46 new roster spots and that's 46 guys that weren't good enough before. That's just basic logic.

That said, I do think that the dilution is massively overblown and I believe the league is more talented than it has ever been.

Since I started watching hockey in the mid 80s, the amount of Canadians in the NHL (as regulars) has actually decreased (not percentage, actual number of players), while other top hockey nations have seen the number of players in the NHL consistently rise, or at least stay stagnant, including the US who has seen an absolute explosion of talent. At the very least the new players in the league wouldn't be worse than some of the regulars in the 1980s.

Looking at a 5-year window (min 100 games played and I skipped goalies)...

Canada	402 [78.4%]	321 [43.0%]	-79 [-35.4%]
Czechia	7 [1.4%]	9 [1.2%]	+2 [-0.2%]
Finland	11 [2.1%]	30 [4.0%]	+19 [+1.9%]
Germany	1 [0.2%]	6 [0.8%]	+5 [+0.6%]
Russia	0	37 [5.0%]	+37 [+5.0%]
Slovakia	4 [0.8%]	7 [0.9%]	+3 [+0.1%]
Sweden	25 [4.9%]	74 [9.9%]	+49 [+5.0%]
Switzerland	1 [0.2%]	18 [2.4%]	+17 [+2.2%]
United States	55 [10.7%]	231 [30.9%]	+176 [+20.2%]
Everyone Else	7 [1.4%]	14 [1.8%]	+7 [0.4%]
TOTAL	513	747	+234

Literally almost every added regular could be chalked up to Russians coming over and US hockey growth.

 

[byrath]

I think that the problem with dilution is that a smaller and smaller percentage of fans have star players on their team. The bottom of the lineup is not a problem, every team has half a dozen players in the A that can fill that role adequately. Keep expanding and there will be more games like Islanders vs Kraken or whatever.

 

[DingerMcSlapshot]

Talent Pool already depleted bad.

 

[ijuka]

I feel like the pool is already diluted. It’s not awful, it’s still generally good hockey but I don’t feel like there’s a single full team of guys currently being underutilized out there, let alone two. Also maybe the goalies are just going through a tough stretch but I’m not convinced there’s a good starting goalie for every team right now.

Even now, there aren't enough players to make full NHL teams. Most teams have like, half NHL players and half AHL filler. The gap between the best and the worst players in the league is massive. This is all due to dilution of the talent pool.

 

[johan f]

There was a higher percent profile/known players in league when fewer teams. Then one can debate if it is all on increased number of teams or that modern hockey more bland, more system oriented. Most players in Kraken are "who?" but they win more games than new teams did in past.

 

[BraveCanadian]

The talent pool is always playing catch up. It's taken 25 plus years to develop what USA Hockey is today. It's going to take more effort to grow the came to even attempt to keep up. Making the game accessible and FAR more affordable is vital.

Unfortunate that the exact opposite has been happening for a long time now.

Put me in the column that doesn’t believe the mythical talent pool is always expanding argument.

 

[Voight]

Nobody can come up with a valid response so they just post memes from 15 years ago.

Whats your argument then?

 

[Reality Czech]

Technically it will, but not the level people claim. There are a lot of really good hockey players in the world. The NHL will be at 36 soon and likely International in our lifetimes. Embrace it.

No thanks.

I understand the appeal of expanding to new markets but with 36 teams most fans will be lucky to see their team win more than 1 championship in their lifetime. That's ultimately what all fans want but the more teams you have, the fewer contenders you have. How many fans will stay interested in teams that don't come close to a championship for decades?

They should do a second tier league like European football and let more small/mid sized markets have teams with relegation and all that. It will never happen but I'd rather see that than a 36+ team NHL.

 

[Number8]

Maybe back in 1967-1968 when the talent pool had all Canadians.

Back then, you had no Russians, no Swedes, no Finns, and no Americans in the talent pool.

I don't think expansion will dilute the talent pool this time around.

The talent pool is getting deeper. You have more talented Americans dominating the rosters.

You have the European talent base getting stronger. Canadians talent pool is dwindling because lack of interest.

So when the NHL expands in a couple of years, the talent pool, already discussed, will get stronger, not weaker.

Are you suggesting that there are already a minimum of 80 players who are of equal or better NHL talent the 640 odd that would dress on a given night if every team in the NHL played on the same day?

If you pick the top 10 of anything in the world, adding 12% has no impact. Instead of top 10 - it's top 11 or 12.

But adding 12% to a list of top 640? Come on. It's not like all of a sudden countries and youth programs are going to drastically increase rinks, teams, and funding because the NHL is adding 80 jobs. And regardless of what you think there aren't already a bunch of NHL must adds waiting patiently for a job slot to open up.

Common sense says you are wrong.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

teams already struggle to find useful bottom 6 and bottom pair guys, more teams will just make it even worse.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

How many fans will stay interested in teams that don't come close to a championship for decades?

The most valuable sports franchise in the world is the Dallas Cowboys who haven't seriously sniffed a championship since the 1990s. And look at how long the Boston Red Sox went without winning the World Series, but they still packed the stadium in the meantime.

IMHO, this is one of the weakest arguments against expansion.

 

[SEALBound]

Not realy. Provided that the player pool increases proportionally you will not be diluting the mean.

This obviously ebbs and flows as you add teams.

It doesn't increase proportionally though, that's the thing. Go look at point distribution in any given draft year - it will tell you that's not the case. You had a handful of quality players. Of the 224 draftees, we're talking 4-5 top end guys in a good draft and then 100+ whatevers.

The one thing I will suggest to counter my argument is that, with a wider pool of players it does offer "more" opportunity for some players to get the ice time they need to develop into a better player than they otherwise might. If there were only 20 teams, there's a ton of late bloomers that would just never get the chance unless they late bloom in the AHL and work their way up.

 

[Silky Johnson]

It doesn't increase proportionally though, that's the thing. Go look at point distribution in any given draft year - it will tell you that's not the case. You had a handful of quality players. Of the 224 draftees, we're talking 4-5 top end guys in a good draft and then 100+ whatevers.

The one thing I will suggest to counter my argument is that, with a wider pool of players it does offer "more" opportunity for some players to get the ice time they need to develop into a better player than they otherwise might. If there were only 20 teams, there's a ton of late bloomers that would just never get the chance unless they late bloom in the AHL and work their way up.

I think it does increase proportionally. It's just relative and difficult to see or assess on an individual basis.

We are however talking about relatively small numbers so you are going to have lots of outliers, but over time it will revert to mean.

I think your point on late bloomers has merit.

 

[WarriorofTime]

It doesn't increase proportionally though, that's the thing. Go look at point distribution in any given draft year - it will tell you that's not the case. You had a handful of quality players. Of the 224 draftees, we're talking 4-5 top end guys in a good draft and then 100+ whatevers.

The one thing I will suggest to counter my argument is that, with a wider pool of players it does offer "more" opportunity for some players to get the ice time they need to develop into a better player than they otherwise might. If there were only 20 teams, there's a ton of late bloomers that would just never get the chance unless they late bloom in the AHL and work their way up.

Yes, if there are only 6 teams and someone like Kucherov (58th overall pick) is the equivalent of a 10th round pick, it's possible they just quit hockey before their age 21 breakout due to lack of opportunity.

 

[Reality Czech]

The most valuable sports franchise in the world is the Dallas Cowboys who haven't seriously sniffed a championship since the 1990s. And look at how long the Boston Red Sox went without winning the World Series, but they still packed the stadium in the meantime.

IMHO, this is one of the weakest arguments against expansion.

Congrats on picking the 2 biggest exceptions. Most teams don't have anywhere near the reach and fan support of those two franchises.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Congrats on picking the 2 biggest exceptions. Most teams don't have anywhere near the reach and fan support of those two franchises.

Especially with hockey in the U.S. (25/32 franchises). Casual sport fans lose interest pretty quickly amongst the general sport zeitgeist and will stop showing up/tuning in if they don't think there's a real pathway to the championship. I get that in Canada the NHL has a place more akin to the NFL in the U.S. but there aren't a lot of large (and rich) Canadian markets alone to sustain where the NHL would love to be financially.

 

[qcal1427]

The salary cap helps maintain parity. And I think what we would be seeing is merely "middle class growth". It doesn't seem like there's any impact because we see more of the 68% which re-establishes expectations and perspectives.

To put it another way, I believe that if you cut the number of teams in half, you would see a sharp increase in the overall quality of play but because the level of play would have risen for all 16 of the teams, it wouldn't be as noticeable. Like 4 Nations is a good example - 4 powerhouse teams and the games were certainly high quality, but because every team was more or less an all-star caliber team, the differences in abilities were not THAT apparent because it didn't exist.

A Porsche vs a Ferrari in a race would look different than a Porsche vs a Camry.

Yep. Every existing team losing their 8th best forward or 4th best defenseman does not change the quality on a per-team basis that much at all

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

I mean... This is kind of an undeniable fact.

If you have two teams, the players are gonna be Ungodly. If you have 200, you're gonna have some "Bums". (Who are still better than 99.9% of the world)

To say it doesn't dilute the pool is ignorant... It doesn't mean it's a good argument against expansion, but adding 46 roster spots means 46 players who weren't good enough for the NHL before are now in the NHL. That's dilution.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I'm really confused by the premise and discussion here, since "spreading the same talent pool across additional teams" is the very definition of dilution.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Going from 6 to 12 teams = extreme dilution
Going from 12 to 18 teams = great dilution
Going from 18 to 24 teams = impactful dilution
Going from 24 to 30 teams = moderate dilution

Goimg from 30 to 32 is really nothing to write home about. Evenmore so going from 32 to 34. As long as it's spanned over a long period (5 to 10 years).