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

[LaP]

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.

So you don't believe in facts?

It's a fact, a mathematical fact, that adding teams will dilute the talent pool. Will it dilute it too much that remains to be seen I'd be very cautious if i was the NHL before adding teams.

 

[TruePowerSlave]

So you don't believe in facts?

It's a fact, a mathematical fact, that adding teams will dilute the talent pool. Will it dilute it too much that remains to be seen I'd be very cautious if i was the NHL before adding teams.

The NHL will get more money out of expansions. They can't wait to add teams, don't expect it to stop anytime soon. All business.

 

[LaP]

The NHL will get more money out of expansions. They can't wait to add teams, don't expect it to stop anytime soon. All business.

Can't wait to watch the Grennland Glaciers.

 

[TruePowerSlave]

Can't wait to watch the Grennland Glaciers.

At least the name sounds a million times better than Utah Hockey Club.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

I wasn’t aware it was an argument to say that adding more players who currently aren’t deemed good enough for the league by 32 teams would dilute the talent pool.

What does the other side of that even sound like? It has to ignore math, facts, common sense…

All you have to do is change the definition of dilution to "people who feel like they belong in the NHL" and it makes total sense!

 

[Super Hans]

the only thing expansion is diluting is the chances of franchises run by clueless jabronis winning another cup, sorry if that includes you original 6 guys

 

[Habssince89]

Maybe its not so much a "talent" pool being diluted and its an "experience" pool. Expansion leads to many players having to play out of their depth or exposed before they're ready. Some players might get their chance and make the most of it, but many others (especially some mid-prospects) will have their development stunted because they are coming into the league on a weak team without the insulation needed. It can go either way depending on the team/player, but I think the talent is there, its just that more expansion may lead to a few seasons of teams struggling until their rosters balance out.

 

[M88K]

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.

If you have 100 positions. You get the 100 best people.
If you add another 40 positions. You don't get to fill those 40 positions from the best 100 people. You already have them. So now you're taking the best 40 from what remains.
You're saying that those 40 people are just as good as the previously hired 100?
Because the only way the talent pool doesn't get deluded is if they are.
That said, adding 46 more NHL players isn't going to hurt the quality of the product, because it's going to allow guys like McDavid, Kucherov, Mackinnon, etc to look even better, put up better numbers and ultimately cause higher scoring games, which is going to help with casuals.

 

[Mrb1p]

I mean weve seen it happen every time theres an expansion, top talent just somehow gets a massive jump in production. Goaltenders are barely holding a .900, top players are reachiny 140 points yearly.

 

[BoltSTH]

I would prefer they followed they English FA model, and have 20 team Premier and 20 1st division team (add the 8 best AHL teams) split across East and West, with the worst in the West and East being relegated, and the best of the 1st division promoted. It would stop tanking, and make end of season games for the bottom teams more competitive. Make the draft reverse order 1st division, then reverse Premier.

 

[FlyguyOX]

See, I think it will. If you add two teams, you add roughly 40-50 players to the league.

The majority of that, say 35-40, will merely be your higher-end AHL talent that couldn't stick with an NHL roster. And the others will be the over-the-hill vets that no ones wants but will get signed to plug a hole. You might get a few randos from European leagues but I imagine no more or less than usual.

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.

You're completely leaving out AHL prospects that are overcooked.

 

[LuckyDay]

As expansion has increased the talent pool has increased as more players in NA, Europe and probably eventually Asia see hockey as a viable career option.

 

[SEALBound]

You're completely leaving out AHL prospects that are overcooked.

In a later post, I did account for that saying that it was a decent counterargument to what I said. The draft too. I said that having 60 additional slots in the league may give another young player the time he needs to develop that he otherwise might not have got. Still though, in doing so, the mean still diminished because for every overcooked AHL player, you're likely not adding players above the mean at the same rate.

 

[T REX]

Any expansion talk has to include an arena - no one is getting public funds again for a "new" arena.

No county or province or municipality is going to give pub funds for billionaires.

I'll wager any amount. No American city/county is going to agree to fund an arena.

So, it better be already built. Otherwise, all this talk is just talk. Tampa Bay Rays will be elsewhere next year.

The Bucs won't get funding for a new stadium here...neither will teh lightning. Welcome to the new reality in sports.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

Any expansion talk has to include an arena - no one is getting public funds again for a "new" arena.

No county or province or municipality is going to give pub funds for billionaires.

I'll wager any amount. No American city/county is going to agree to fund an arena.

So, it better be already built. Otherwise, all this talk is just talk. Tampa Bay Rays will be elsewhere next year.

The Bucs won't get funding for a new stadium here...neither will teh lightning. Welcome to the new reality in sports.

Well, the cities will give *some* money if they think they can make it up somehow. With surprisingly little public push-back, Vegas just committed $380 million to the OaklandVegas Athletics to build a $1.75 billion stadium, though subject to a lot of "you put your money in first" contingencies since there is considerable skepticism that Fisher will come through with the bucks. [Although, with a recession apparently coming on, I do expect public funds to dry up for a while generally.]

A's clear last big hurdles for $1.75B Vegas stadium

The Las Vegas Stadium Authority approved lease, non-relocation and development documents Thursday to clear the last major hurdles for the Athletics to construct a $1.75 billion stadium.

www.espn.com

 

[x Tame Impala]

For the life of me I can’t understand how fans can’t wrap their heads around the fact that adding 4 more teams, really 6 more teams since Vegas and Seattle were brought in, stretches the league out too much. There aren’t enough top 4 dmen, top 6 forwards, or starter-caliber goalies out there to fill out a 31+ team league.

We’re going to be watching a bunch of AHL tweeter types play boring hockey without the skill. The top players will feast on this new shitty league. McDavid will probably still be putting up 150 point seasons 3-4 years from now when these teams are added.

I think it stinks and I can’t believe people think otherwise.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

For the life of me I can’t understand how fans can’t wrap their heads around the fact that adding 4 more teams, really 6 more teams since Vegas and Seattle were brought in, stretches the league out too much. There aren’t enough top 4 dmen, top 6 forwards, or starter-caliber goalies out there to fill out a 31+ team league.

We’re going to be watching a bunch of AHL tweeter types play boring hockey without the skill. The top players will feast on this new shitty league. McDavid will probably still be putting up 150 point seasons 3-4 years from now when these teams are added.

I think it stinks and I can’t believe people think otherwise.

But why should the owners care, at least until a sufficient number of fans start voting with their feet?

Maybe 1% of fans even understand that there is dilution going on. The *average fan* does not and probably wouldn't care if they did. And the owners couldn't care less about what the 1% of hardcore fans think about anything, other than perhaps the price-points of jersey sales.

 

[Orfieus]

Why is this a bad thing?

 

[JianYang]

Talent dilution was a big talking point in the late 90s expansion. It turns out the main issue back then probably had more to do with things like the way the game was officiated.

I haven't heard many people beating that dilution drum for many years now.

 

[Golden_Jet]

But why should the owners care, at least until a sufficient number of fans start voting with their feet?

Maybe 1% of fans even understand that there is dilution going on. The *average fan* does not and probably wouldn't care if they did. And the owners couldn't care less about what the 1% of hardcore fans think about anything, other than perhaps the price-points of jersey sales.

lol @1%, fans aren’t that stupid,

 

[JianYang]

lol @1%, fans aren’t that stupid,

Its not about being stupid. Most spectators are not following the teams on a daily basis.

Its like when a team comes into town on a 3rd game in 4 nights. Nobody in the crowd cares and most dont even know about the fact that the team is probably not bringing their best quality product.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Its not about being stupid. Most spectators are not following the teams on a daily basis.

Its like when a team comes into town on a 3rd game in 4 nights. Nobody in the crowd cares and most dont even know about the fact that the team is probably not bringing their best quality product.

lol that has nothing to do with expansion being diluted and the 1%, but ok.

 

[JianYang]

lol that has nothing to do with expansion being diluted , but ok.

You may disagree with me but i think the main effect of a diuted talent pool is the quality of the product on a game to game basis, and that is what the comparison is based upon.

 

[RandV]

This is something that's hard to quantify. If the talent pool increases, talent level over saturates compared to prior years, and you can expand while maintaining the same level of talent as maybe 5-10 years ago. Like the original 6 era wasn't playing top tier modern best on best hockey, it would be more something like if you took current NHL took only one division as it currently is and that's your league.

That said, we're going into a summer where a lot of teams are going to have pretty big holes and plenty of cap space but no talent available to fill it. I mean how many teams this summer are going to want/can afford a top tier talent, and there's basically only Marner and to a lesser extent Ehlers/Bennett available? That's a sign you've gone to far the other way. Again this is very hard to quantify, but I feel like the correct number of teams to have a good saturation of talent right now is about 30.

 

[GrandmaCookie]

The problem is that there isn't enough separation between the good, the mediocre and bad teams in this league. That's what makes it boring.

What? Isn’t it the opposite, parity makes the game better.