Longevity

[Scott1980]

I was reading one of my favourite hockey books and it mentioned about guys like Lafleur, Bossy, Trottier and even Gretzky ending up, "Dead on their skates at 32" We can add Bobby and Mario to that list as well.

The point it made was how a lot of the greats in recent years (the book was from the the 90s) were having their prime time cut short by long seasons (remember, they were playing May! And then CC on top of that!)

Having said that, can any of us see this happening to Sid, Alex and Evgeni and the Sedins? (Add any other names if you think I've missed THEM) They are all going to be THERE in 2014, and I'm not just talking about playoffs.

None of these guys seem injury prone, yet (Although, I'm sure I'm going to hear about Sid, Jan 2008). But do you think, assuming they continue to have the long playoff success as before (Hey, the Caps this year WILL), can their bodies survive the test of time?

Click to read more...

 

[Hardyvan123]

Players take better care of their bodies and train better today than they have in the past and guys like Lidstrom are aging well but it is a very interesting question.

I think that most of the top guys will age well ie. into their latter 30's but as soon as the speed slips a little then the decline will be fast.

 

[Trottier]

I was reading one of my favourite hockey books and it mentioned about guys like Lafleur, Bossy, Trottier and even Gretzky ending up, "Dead on their skates at 32" We can add Bobby and Mario to that list as well.

Factual verification for the author of the book which you cite:

If one judges a player exclusively by fantasy stats, yes Trottier was "dead on his skates" by 32. But thankfully, that's not reality. Trottier in his mid-30s was a key player as a third-line center on the Pens multi-Cup winners.

Gretzky, post-32 had offense production that a majority of NHLers, then and now, would die for. Sure, compared to his previous decade of hockey it was ordinary...but he had arguably the best (most dominant) 12 year run of any athlete in any sport ever through his 20s.

Mario, Bobby Orr and Bossy were injured. Had nothing to do with age. Likewise, Mario, at age 38, had a 2000-01 season to remember, after a three year hiatus. If he was dead on his skates, then the entire league was mummified.

These are not my opinions. These are basic hockey facts that are chronicled.

Not directed at you at all, Scott, but the author's premise (at least the examples provided) leaves much open to challenge.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Many things have changed since the era of the 70's where players seemed to be 'dead on their skates at 32.' I'd rather say out of their prime because as Trottier points out, Trottier was still a valuable contributor after 32. Today, players stay in shape all year round, diet and medicine is much better. My guess is that alcohol and smoking aren't nearly as prevalent today as they once were. However, have they been replaced by other vices like pot and other hard drugs? I don't know. Lafleur's story is interesting because there were many factors contributing to his demise. I still think he could have been a contributor on the Habs and maybe won a sixth SC in 86. Would Orr have continued his dominance had medicine been as good in the 70's as it is now? Maybe, but a large part of his game was based on speed. Lemieux could play any kind of game and dominate. Bossy's touch around the net could have kept him going for a long time had he been complimented with decent players. Another thing that rarely gets mentioned is the significance of a fresh start somewhere else. It can breathe new life into a player and prolong his career a little. Especially if he goes to a contender - see Trottier, Modano, Robitaille, etc...

 

[Cake or Death]

I generally don't even try to compare different eras. From a scientific angle, diet, conditioning, performance enhancing drugs, medical and exercise technologies, these things are all vastly improved from what they were a few decades ago.

 

[Sens Rule]

Many things have changed since the era of the 70's where players seemed to be 'dead on their skates at 32.' I'd rather say out of their prime because as Trottier points out, Trottier was still a valuable contributor after 32. Today, players stay in shape all year round, diet and medicine is much better. My guess is that alcohol and smoking aren't nearly as prevalent today as they once were. However, have they been replaced by other vices like pot and other hard drugs? I don't know. Lafleur's story is interesting because there were many factors contributing to his demise. I still think he could have been a contributor on the Habs and maybe won a sixth SC in 86. Would Orr have continued his dominance had medicine been as good in the 70's as it is now? Maybe, but a large part of his game was based on speed. Lemieux could play any kind of game and dominate. Bossy's touch around the net could have kept him going for a long time had he been complimented with decent players. Another thing that rarely gets mentioned is the significance of a fresh start somewhere else. It can breathe new life into a player and prolong his career a little. Especially if he goes to a contender - see Trottier, Modano, Robitaille, etc...

But is it really training or just plain genetics? Howe, Beliveau, Mahovolich, Harvey, Henri Richard among many others played at a very high level after 32 and into their later 30's. Today a lot of good players do really tail off after their early 30's, while others maintain their play. Training is clearly a part of it but is it really straight up genetics or circumstances like not getting one or a couple of bad injuries. Also the plain incentive of making a truckload of money is there. If Denis Potvin could make $6 or 7 million dollars a season does he hang up his skates when he did?

Brett Hull was not into training and was still very effective well past 32 until he was almost 40 against almost an entire league that was in far better shape than he was.

 

[canucks4ever]

Gretzky had excellent longevity, although not on the same level as howe and bourque. Those two were just longevity superfreaks.

 

[Big Phil]

I generally don't even try to compare different eras. From a scientific angle, diet, conditioning, performance enhancing drugs, medical and exercise technologies, these things are all vastly improved from what they were a few decades ago.

People think it is impossible to compare eras. I state that it is relatively simple to compare eras. All you do is compare how a player performed vs his peers during his career. Did he dominate? Did he lead the NHL in anything? Did he win? That stuff is timeless and never changes over time. We wouldn't consider Crosby the best in the world if he was constantly getting outscored by Marian Hossa would we?

Some things change in hockey but so what? If we are to assume that the common player has gotten better through improved training, diet, nutrition, weight lifting etc. then why is it we always assume that the greats of the original 6 wouldn't follow suit? Somehow we get the impression that if Howe was playing today then the version of Howe born in 1928 is implanted in 2010 while the truth is if he were playing today he would be born in 1985 and have the same advantages of the modern athlete throughout his whole childhood/career. Plus he'd have the same skill set, probably would have learned a lot more. In the end Howe would be no worse than Crosby in today's NHL, many seasons I think he would be clearly better.

A side note, Maurice Richard worked in a factory all the while playing hockey with Montreal. How much easier would it be for him to not have to slave at a blue collar job all day and then play a high level of hockey? Much easier

 

[Big Phil]

Yes it is only natural for an athlete to tail off after 32 years old. They all did. When you are playing in a league where the average age is 25 you just don't have the young man's legs anymore. It'll catch up with you, other players replace you.

But the all-time greats still did very well for the most part. Gretzky won an Art Ross after 32, Jagr nearly won another. Howe won an Art Ross and a Hart. Beliveau captained 5 Cups and won a Conn Smythe. Richard played well after that age, Sakic aged well and Harvey was in his prime at 32. Look at Lidstrom, like a fine wine.

But for the most part guys dominate the best in their 20s. Howe won a couple of Art Ross trophies in his 30s but was not as dominant as he was in his 20s when he won 4 in a row. Ditto for Gretzky.

In fact I have an uneducated friend who claims "Gretzky did crap in his 30s". Well I am sorry. I guess the 8 straight Harts plus another one, 7 straight scoring titles, 4 Cups, three Canada Cup appearances and a short summer every year in the '80s might have slowed him down. Yet he still led the NHL in points in the 1990s. Go figure!

 

[Trottier]

Yes it is only natural for an athlete to tail off after 32 years old. They all did.

....But the all-time greats still did very well for the most part.

Just to be clear, I agree entirely with your point. My previous post was not intended to suggest that players do not slow down into their 30s. They do.

The description used, however - "Dead on their skates at 32" - was wrong, to be kind.

Some things change in hockey but so what?

Good question...and one I've been seeking an answer to for some time...without any luck.

Not to get too deep, but my own opinion is that it has more to do with human psychology than anything else. Especially in the age of the internet, the "now," the right now, is the only thing that exists or matters to some. Thus, de facto, Alexander Ovechkin is "greater" than any player from the past...and based on a hat trick last night and one superb season, Steven Stamkos may be "greater" than Ovechkin, according to the main board.

As author Nick Carr suggests, “There seems to be a redefinition of our idea of intelligence itself that is emerging. The emphasis is on how quickly you can find information, rather than what you do with it, how deeply you think about it, and how you weave it into the knowledge you already have.”

Thus, you are often left with simplistic mantras like "all players suck in the '70s" and other lazy cliches. (Obviously, this does not apply to all, and there are great contributors who bring forth detached, objective comparisons of eras based on in-depth statistical analysis and personal observation.)

 

[Big Phil]

Just to be clear, I agree entirely with your point. My previous post was not intended to suggest that players do not slow down into their 30s. They do.

The description used, however - "Dead on their skates at 32" - was wrong, to be kind.

Of course. Even a guy like Trottier adjusted to his surrondings when he realized he wasn't an elite scorer anymore. People forget the amount of hockey these guys (espeically dynasty guys) actually play and the sacrifices on their bodies.

Not to get too deep, but my own opinion is that it has more to do with human psychology than anything else. Especially in the age of the internet, the "now," the right now, is the only thing that exists or matters to some. Thus, de facto, Alexander Ovechkin is "greater" than any player from the past...and based on a hat trick last night and one superb season, Steven Stamkos may be "greater" than Ovechkin, according to the main board.

As author Nick Carr suggests, “There seems to be a redefinition of our idea of intelligence itself that is emerging. The emphasis is on how quickly you can find information, rather than what you do with it, how deeply you think about it, and how you weave it into the knowledge you already have.”

Thus, you are often left with simplistic mantras like "all players suck in the '70s" and other lazy cliches. (Obviously, this does not apply to all, and there are great contributors who bring forth detached, objective comparisons of eras based on in-depth statistical analysis and personal observation.)

I agree completely. I have almost given up on trying to tell lazy people how we as humans are just so naturall inclined to better people from the past. This is why Jesse Owens does not hold the world record in track anymore.

The best way to stump a person like this is to ask them this question: In 30 years what would be your reaction if some person claims Crosby and Ovechkin wouldn't make it in today's game?

"Well that's impossible because hockey is the best it has ever been right now!"

In other words, my mind can't think that far ahead and it's too much work. I try to explain that in 1950 hockey was the fastest they had ever seen it then too. By 2040 we'll see some changes too. But here is my thought, an all-time great would adjust to their surroundings and why not, this would be all they were used to.

And it goes both ways. How about the adjustment Patrick Roy would make if he plays in the 1950s? He has smaller pads. He has no mask. He gets pucks flying in his face. Would he adjust? I think so, because he had talent and smarts. That last sentence is timeless. If you have that you will be fine

 

[Cake or Death]

People think it is impossible to compare eras. I state that it is relatively simple to compare eras. All you do is compare how a player performed vs his peers during his career. Did he dominate? Did he lead the NHL in anything? Did he win? That stuff is timeless and never changes over time. We wouldn't consider Crosby the best in the world if he was constantly getting outscored by Marian Hossa would we?

Some things change in hockey but so what? If we are to assume that the common player has gotten better through improved training, diet, nutrition, weight lifting etc. then why is it we always assume that the greats of the original 6 wouldn't follow suit? Somehow we get the impression that if Howe was playing today then the version of Howe born in 1928 is implanted in 2010 while the truth is if he were playing today he would be born in 1985 and have the same advantages of the modern athlete throughout his whole childhood/career. Plus he'd have the same skill set, probably would have learned a lot more. In the end Howe would be no worse than Crosby in today's NHL, many seasons I think he would be clearly better.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. In the four decades I've played and watched hockey, something as rudimentary as comparing players to their contemporaries never occurred to me. Clearly, if you placed Gretzky in any era, with the tools of that era, he'd be great. Unfortunately, your response to my post has nothing to do with my post or the topic of the thread.

The OP was speaking to and comparing longevity. My post was directed at that by saying, "I generally don't even try to compare different eras," and then explaining why. I am not going to entertain generally comparing players from different eras in this thread, as the the title of the thread is "longevity" and the original post is asking about longevity from different eras. With respect to that, it's a waste to compare modern athletes' longevity to athletes of decades ago. The sheer rampant use of performance enhancing drugs in sport right now renders that comparison pointless.

You can commonly and easily find them in any major gym and note that they are easily accessible to kids (a recent 4 year study noting that 2% of male athletes between the ages of 10 and 14 have used illegal steroids). For me, this kind of renders longevity comparisons useless. And for anyone thinking they aren't being used on a somewhat wide level in the NHL, you're delusional. Anyone here who has been connected to sports at a high level can look at some NHL players and tell some of are using by nothing more than looking at their face.

I'm not knocking any modern players, this is part of modern sports. But I am also not going to compare a guy in the past, whose body begins to tail off like it should when he hits his 30s, to a bunch of guys who seem to defy science by playing at a very high level well into their late 30s. It's apples and oranges and a waste to compare.

 

[Big Phil]

Okay well to answer the OP's initial concern, yes I think today's players will slow down too. A 33 year old Crosby won't have the same speed as he is 23 years old today. He'll still be fast and I don't doubt he'll even pot 100 points then, but you might start seeing the shift in the NHL with new players. Even Gretzky by that age was losing his grip at being the best in the game. It slipped away but he was still very good.

Despite the belief that "40 is the new 30" (I hate that saying) the truth is until we can stunt the natural aging process of one person's body I am afraid the natural thing is for someone younger to always be fresher and in better shape

 

[Sens Rule]

Okay well to answer the OP's initial concern, yes I think today's players will slow down too. A 33 year old Crosby won't have the same speed as he is 23 years old today. He'll still be fast and I don't doubt he'll even pot 100 points then, but you might start seeing the shift in the NHL with new players. Even Gretzky by that age was losing his grip at being the best in the game. It slipped away but he was still very good.

Despite the belief that "40 is the new 30" (I hate that saying) the truth is until we can stunt the natural aging process of one person's body I am afraid the natural thing is for someone younger to always be fresher and in better shape

The players that beat father time are the ones that rely on their smarts as much as their physical ability. This is often defencemen. Some are actually better as they get older and/or as their physical gifts slightly decline their mental abilities have grown to compensate. See Alfredsson, Chelios, Lidstrom, MacInnis. All were debatedly at their peak post 30 years old. Better at say 33 or 34 than they were at 26 or 27. Others stay so close to their peaks it is really just a marginal decline post 32. Like Sakic, Howe, Bourque.

 

[Merya]

I value career alot, especially when that career is extended thru the will to rehabilitate.
Aside from the obvious Lemieux and Koivu, whose lives were at stake, not just hockey career. I have been amazed by what my favorite player, Teemu Selänne did on the lockout season. Total knee reconstruction leading to 40 and 48 goal seasons at late thirties, and even the pace he was last year. Thats a prime example of longevity to me, and shows true love for the game. (Anaheim 2005, 1 mill, 40 goals...gimme a better nonrookie contract)