Ovechkin just won his 9th Rocket. Does this change how you view him?

[Theokritos]

...and some are still doing peer to peer comparisons as if it’s apples to apples? Makes no sense.

If a fan of Soviet hockey came into this section and told everyone a Soviet great who only played in the RSL was better than an NHL great simply because he dominated his peers more at the time, how would that go over? Why is it okay to do it with the O6 guys? Cause of the NHL name? Cause they are Canadian? I don’t get it.

There's certainly something to be said for the talent pool and I particularly agree with the concept of removing non-Canadian players from the scoring race when comparing the scoring of players from different eras. But concerning your Soviet league analogy and your question at the end: peer to peer comparisons are done because we don't have the time machines to put Frank Nighbor on the same ice as Patrice Bergeron, so if (!) we want to do an all-time comparison or ranking, looking at how each player did relative to the best players in the world in his time is a tangible and arguably (yes, there are also counterarguments that can be made...) fair way to do it.

The peers relevant for the comparison are the best players in the world in their time – that's what makes the difference between the O6 NHL and the Soviet league.

 

[bobholly39]

100x is a big exaggeration but I agree with your point. One guy played his prime in what was essentially a 6 team all Canadian league, with that Canadian talent coming from pre-baby boom Canada with its small population and birth rate. The other guy played in a 30+ team NHL with all the nations we have now feeding the league.

...and some are still doing peer to peer comparisons as if it’s apples to apples? Makes no sense.

If a fan of Soviet hockey came into this section and told everyone a Soviet great who only played in the RSL was better than an NHL great simply because he dominated his peers more at the time, how would that go over? Why is it okay to do it with the O6 guys? Cause of the NHL name? Cause they are Canadian? I don’t get it.

Someone show me another example where a domestic league is valued just as much, and more by some, as an international league like it is now. Forget the NHL name, it’s two very different leagues. One has far more talent overall and more opportunities for guys to stand out because of all the rosters spots. The other has 6 teams with a top line each and is really only composed of Canadians.

If it’s close for a peer to peer comparison how could Hull possibly eek out the win here?

Weren't the best players in the world playing in the NHL in the 06 era? That's what counts. So a Ross is still a Ross. Maybe....an 8th place finish in the Ross in an 06 league is worth less than today, sure. Way more stars - so way more players able to compete for top 8 in ross today. Some seasons probably had weak ross competition and so you can count them less in some 06 years - but that's true even of today, such as 2015 when Benn one.

There are no martians playing hockey today. Does that mean players shouldn't get full credit? No - because all the best players are in the league today.

I don't even know the answer to this - but when Babe Ruth was seen as the best basebell in the world, wasn't the league mostly/all americans? Does that not count, because Russians weren't playing?
How about the NFL today. Isn't someone like Tom Brady (or whoever) the best player in the world - or does it not count because they play football in Brasil too, but no Brazilians are in the NFL?

Like...there's some serious logic gaps with the "but the league was only Canadian" argument.

As to your last point - I think Hull ~ OV very close at the NHL level - possibly slight edge to Hull, but close. It's the WHA years that are the differentiators as of today imo. WHA is not as competitive a league, but it still counts for something.

 

[NyQuil]

But concerning your Soviet league analogy and your question at the end: peer to peer comparisons are done because we don't have the time machines to put Frank Nighbor on the same ice as Patrice Bergeron, so if (!) we want to do an all-time comparison or ranking, looking at how each player did relative to the best players in the world in his time is a tangible and arguably (yes, there are also counterarguments that can be made...) fair way to do it.

We have posters in this very thread saying that Ovechkin's Rocket Richard seasons are among the worst.

What does that say about his peers?

Ultimately, a judgment on his career accomplishments is really dependent on whether you put a premium on the physical dimension of putting the puck in the net or not.

Does it matter how well-rounded he is, when scoring goals is ultimately more important than some of the other skills and abilities that players are called upon to contribute?

 

[NyQuil]

I don't even know the answer to this - but when Babe Ruth was seen as the best basebell in the world, wasn't the league mostly/all americans? Does that not count, because Russians weren't playing?

How about the NFL today. Isn't someone like Tom Brady (or whoever) the best player in the world - or does it not count because they play football in Brasil too, but no Brazilians are in the NFL?

These are terrible examples.

You don't even know if other countries were playing these sports at this time, while we all know that there were extremely talented hockey players playing across the pond at the same time.

A good corollary is the early World Cups of soccer, where Uruguay won the first one in 1930 when only 4 European teams showed up.

Today, people rightly acknowledge that the level of competition wasn't what it developed into later on.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Let’s make the best goal scorer of all time pass more

If post-peak Brett Hull was from 1993-2004 still getting 40 assists per season almost religiously, then we should at least be able to acknowledge that when it comes to accumulating goal-scoring figures, there is privilege in not being asked to do what is the expectation of the competition.

	GP	G	A	PTS
2006-2012	553	339	340	679
2013-2020	599	367	232	599

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Ovechkin didn’t get just two Rocket Richard Trophies in his first seven seasons, and then win seven in his next eight seasons because he’s a better goal-scorer now than he was before. He’s breaking eggs to make this omelette. And that’s something Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Mike Bossy, Bobby Hull, Phil Esposito, and others didn’t do to nearly the same extent.

Maybe it will become common again that players will settle into more specialized roles, but for at least the last six decades, it’s kinda unusual for the best offensive players to forgo playmaking that they’ve established they are capable of in order to just sock a few more dingers.

 

[quoipourquoi]

We have posters in this very thread saying that Ovechkin's Rocket Richard seasons are among the worst.

What does that say about his peers?

I said his recent seasons are among the worst from Rocket Richard winners since 1998-99 not because his peers are not good, but rather because practically all other Rocket Richard winners were more offensively rounded.

It is possible that in 2019-20, we’ve seen both one of the better seasons from a Rocket Richard winner and one of the worst.

 

[NyQuil]

I said his recent seasons are among the worst from Rocket Richard winners since 1998-99 not because his peers are not good, but rather because practically all other Rocket Richard winners were more offensively rounded.

It really does depend on what kind of value you place on the act of scoring the goal or not. Secondary assists are either important or not depending on what kind of point you want to make.

The question is whether you think the team is worse off with Ovechkin scoring lots of goals while notching fewer assists.

A lot of factors come into play - the team balance, who his linemates are, the coaching strategy, the PP approach.

I think it's a bit simplistic to just look at raw assist numbers and say, well, he's just not that good.

 

[wetcoast]

Not really. If anything, I’d say a 48:19 ratio to David Pastrnak’s 48:47 and Leon Draisaitl’s 43:67 emphasizes that looking at goals and assists in isolation of each other is problematic.

While I agree with this, it's becoming really hard to argue that Ovechkin isn't ahead of Hull as a goal scorer and probably as an overall player at this point.

 

[quoipourquoi]

It really does depend on what kind of value you place on the act of scoring the goal or not. Secondary assists are either important or not depending on what kind of point you want to make.

The question is whether you think the team is worse off with Ovechkin scoring lots of goals while notching fewer assists.

A lot of factors come into play - the team balance, who his linemates are, the coaching strategy, the PP approach.

I think it's a bit simplistic to just look at raw assist numbers and say, well, he's just not that good.

I totally agree that the team situation should dictate player utilization.

But I’m also not going to believe that a player who is in a situation that is optimized for goal-scoring production and only produces that same number of goals as another player who has more than triple the number of primary assists has had the same quality of season as that second player.

Especially when that first player is -12 on a team that is +27 on even-strength.

 

[wetcoast]

Hope the certain clowns in this thread read this. "OV didn't stay near the top scorers for as long as Hull". Yeah no shit, because he was competing against the world and 100x the player pool. The fact that his resume is so close to Hull in this age should push him ahead.

While the player pool has become larger, and even with elite players, it hasn't been at a 100X level so let's pump the brakes here a bit.

Even if he missed the Rocket by a goal or 2 this year it really doesn't change his legacy.

He is IMO the best goalscorer of all time and really has to be in EVERYONE's top 3 of all time or else that list needs some really heavy explaining.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

While I agree with this, it's becoming really hard to argue that Ovechkin isn't ahead of Hull as a goal scorer and probably as an overall player at this point.

Goal scorer, probably. Not as an overall player.

 

[GMR]

While I agree with this, it's becoming really hard to argue that Ovechkin isn't ahead of Hull as a goal scorer and probably as an overall player at this point.

Ahead of Hull as a goal scorer? You can certainly argue that. I won't disagree too much. Ahead as an overall player? I haven't seen a good argument yet. What else would you say he does better than Hull? Hit people? That itself makes him a better overall player? Hull was a better passer and better defensively. He was a much better all-around player than Ovechkin.

 

[The Panther]

I'll never understand the "the old days was a six-team, all-Canadian League so everything was easier than now!" argument.

Let's break this down:
-- It's generally harder to score (or succeed) against higher-level players than against average-level players. Agreed?
-- There are something like 400 Canadian NHL players today, right?
-- There were something like 110 Canadian NHL players in the early-1960s, right?

For the NHL of today to equate the "Canadian level of talent" of the 1943-1967 era, we'd have to get rid of all European and most American players, yes, but then we'd also have to get rid of the less elite 72% of today's Canadian players, who would no longer be good enough to play.

So, now, there'd be six NHL teams with all Canadian players, and we'd throw Ovechkin in there as the only European. Now, I ask you: If 72% of today's Canadian players wouldn't be good enough to make this League, would Ovechkin have an easier or a harder time scoring? It might be the same, but it certainly wouldn't be easier.

Ovechkin's PPG last season was 0.985 per game, so in this all-Canadian League (if his scoring levels stayed the same) he'd be around 9th in NHL scoring.

I ranked the 183 Canadian NHL forwards who played (min. 20 games) last season by PPG. There were 183 such. So, in this all-Canadian proposed League, 132 of these current NHL forwards wouldn't be good enough to play. These include players like Ryan Getzlaf, Zach Kassian, Jamie Benn, James Neal, Jake DeBrusk, Jeff Carter, Joe Thornton, etc. (Yes, I'm aware some of these guys bring things besides just scoring, but you get my point.) These kinds of players, in 2019-20, were comparatively all minor-Leaguers when Bobby Hull was young and hitting his prime.

A player like Tom Wilson (today a 1st liner on Ovechkin's team) would likely be a 4th-liner in an all-Canadian six-team NHL today. Guys like Josh Bailey and Jordan Eberle, if they made the cut, would be 4th-liners. So, Ovechkin would have higher-talented linemates to play with, but likely some of them would be goal-scorers and would take some of his PP-time away.

And obviously, the goes for defencemen, too. Ovechkin would be facing only the 30-or-so best Canadian defencemen in the NHL today. Basically, the bottom-two or three D-men on each NHL team now wouldn't be good enough to play.

It would not be easier to dominate this League.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I'll never understand the "the old days was a six-team, all-Canadian League so everything was easier than now!" argument.

Let's break this down:
-- It's generally harder to score (or succeed) against higher-level players than against average-level players. Agreed?
-- There are something like 400 Canadian NHL players today, right?
-- There were something like 110 Canadian NHL players in the early-1960s, right?

For the NHL of today to equate the "Canadian level of talent" of the 1943-1967 era, we'd have to get rid of all European and most American players, yes, but then we'd also have to get rid of the less elite 72% of today's Canadian players, who would no longer be good enough to play.

So, now, there'd be six NHL teams with all Canadian players...

You would be closer to correct if Canada's population stayed the same. But in reality it tripled. So you're off by roughly 300%.

 

[NyQuil]

I'll never understand the "the old days was a six-team, all-Canadian League so everything was easier than now!" argument.

Let's break this down:
-- It's generally harder to score (or succeed) against higher-level players than against average-level players. Agreed?
-- There are something like 400 Canadian NHL players today, right?
-- There were something like 110 Canadian NHL players in the early-1960s, right?

For the NHL of today to equate the "Canadian level of talent" of the 1943-1967 era, we'd have to get rid of all European and most American players, yes, but then we'd also have to get rid of the less elite 72% of today's Canadian players, who would no longer be good enough to play.

So, now, there'd be six NHL teams with all Canadian players, and we'd throw Ovechkin in there as the only European. Now, I ask you: If 72% of today's Canadian players wouldn't be good enough to make this League, would Ovechkin have an easier or a harder time scoring? It might be the same, but it certainly wouldn't be easier.

Ovechkin's PPG last season was 0.985 per game, so in this all-Canadian League (if his scoring levels stayed the same) he'd be around 9th in NHL scoring.

I ranked the 183 Canadian NHL forwards who played (min. 20 games) last season by PPG. There were 183 such. So, in this all-Canadian proposed League, 132 of these current NHL forwards wouldn't be good enough to play. These include players like Ryan Getzlaf, Zach Kassian, Jamie Benn, James Neal, Jake DeBrusk, Jeff Carter, Joe Thornton, etc. (Yes, I'm aware some of these guys bring things besides just scoring, but you get my point.) These kinds of players, in 2019-20, were comparatively all minor-Leaguers when Bobby Hull was young and hitting his prime.

A player like Tom Wilson (today a 1st liner on Ovechkin's team) would likely be a 4th-liner in an all-Canadian six-team NHL today. Guys like Josh Bailey and Jordan Eberle, if they made the cut, would be 4th-liners. So, Ovechkin would have higher-talented linemates to play with, but likely some of them would be goal-scorers and would take some of his PP-time away.

And obviously, the goes for defencemen, too. Ovechkin would be facing only the 30-or-so best Canadian defencemen in the NHL today. Basically, the bottom-two or three D-men on each NHL team now wouldn't be good enough to play.

It would not be easier to dominate this League.

Aren't you completely discounting the fact that, in terms of sheer numbers, there are many more kids playing hockey today meaning that those who actually make the NHL are a subset already?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Weren't the best players in the world playing in the NHL in the 06 era? That's what counts. So a Ross is still a Ross. Maybe....an 8th place finish in the Ross in an 06 league is worth less than today, sure. Way more stars - so way more players able to compete for top 8 in ross today. Some seasons probably had weak ross competition and so you can count them less in some 06 years - but that's true even of today, such as 2015 when Benn one.

There are no martians playing hockey today. Does that mean players shouldn't get full credit? No - because all the best players are in the league today.

I don't even know the answer to this - but when Babe Ruth was seen as the best basebell in the world, wasn't the league mostly/all americans? Does that not count, because Russians weren't playing?
How about the NFL today. Isn't someone like Tom Brady (or whoever) the best player in the world - or does it not count because they play football in Brasil too, but no Brazilians are in the NFL?

Like...there's some serious logic gaps with the "but the league was only Canadian" argument.

As to your last point - I think Hull ~ OV very close at the NHL level - possibly slight edge to Hull, but close. It's the WHA years that are the differentiators as of today imo. WHA is not as competitive a league, but it still counts for something.

Most baseball people still consider Ruth the greatest player ever.

Even though The Babe played when no black players were allowed in the game. So he was absolutely not playing against all the best players at that time.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Who are all these great Europeans we were missing in 1962...?

 

[BadgerBruce]

Threads like these bother me because they lack structural integrity and intellectual rigour.

When members of this board undertook the most recent Top 100 Players of All-Time project, the end result had 21 players ahead of Alexander Ovechkin.

Yet, this thread and so many others like it quickly focus on one player, #5 all-time Bobby Hull. The simplistic rationale seems to be that Hull and Ovechkin both played the wing and scored a lot of goals, so let’s just ignore the other 20 players ranked ahead of Ovechkin, focus on a single top-5 player, and build a case to supplant him.

No. A thousand times No.

In the most recent Top 100 project, Hull was evaluated against 3 defencemen (Orr, Harvey, Bourque), 1 goaltender (Roy), 3 centres (Beliveau, Gretzky, Lemieux) and 2 other wingers (Howe, Rocket) just in the FIRST round of debate.

Subsequent to this, he was compared to an additional defenceman (Shore), another goaltender (Hasek), and 2 more centres (Morenz, Crosby).

In other words, no steps were skipped. Interpositional discussion (goaltender vs winger vs defenceman vs centre) was extraordinarily tough but absolutely necessary slogging for the project participants, and the final list has integrity because an intellectually rigorous process was followed.

If some posters believe that Ovechkin should be more highly ranked, my suggestion is start with #21 Mark Messier and thoroughly make your case before then moving to #20 on the list. Don’t skip 16 players because it’s too much work.

 

[The Panther]

You would be closer to correct if Canada's population stayed the same. But in reality it tripled. So you're off by roughly 300%.

Aren't you completely discounting the fact that, in terms of sheer numbers, there are many more kids playing hockey today meaning that those who actually make the NHL are a subset already?

Canada's population is larger, yeah, but is the percentage of kids attempting hockey at an organized level higher or lower? I would guess it's way, way lower. Heck, the raw numbers probably aren't much different.

There are different ways we can look at this, and my method (above) is as flawed as any. I merely wish to point out that more teams and more countries represented don't necessarily mean higher competition. Now, if it were the same number of teams (six) and more countries represented, we could certainly conclude that competition is higher now.

As an example, consider the 1970s: more teams (NHL + WHA), more countries represented.... but weaker hockey than in Hull's youth.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Although there are some reasonable posters, the majority of the HoH is so ridiculously biased towards O6 and pre O6 players. I mean they put a guy like Frank Nighbor top 20 all time. Has anyone seen him play? No. His career ended in 1930, before anyone on here was even born. Just going off of random newspaper articles and stuff. Yeah some dude from 1900 playing 20 games a year that no one alive ever saw play, he's definitely above OV, Messier, etc because the newspaper said so.

The fact that Nighbor was ranked #20 rather shows an absence of bias toward the pre-O6 era. Talking about a guy who was arguably the best player in hockey over an entire generation. That's a Morenz, Howe, Gretzky tier of player. Nighbor was ranked #20 because of when he played, implicitly putting a higher value on more recent history.

Threads like these bother me because they lack structural integrity and intellectual rigour.

When members of this board undertook the most recent Top 100 Players of All-Time project, the end result had 21 players ahead of Alexander Ovechkin.

Yet, this thread and so many others like it quickly focus on one player, #5 all-time Bobby Hull. The simplistic rationale seems to be that Hull and Ovechkin both played the wing and scored a lot of goals, so let’s just ignore the other 20 players ranked ahead of Ovechkin, focus on a single top-5 player, and build a case to supplant him.

No. A thousand times No.

In the most recent Top 100 project, Hull was evaluated against 3 defencemen (Orr, Harvey, Bourque), 1 goaltender (Roy), 3 centres (Beliveau, Gretzky, Lemieux) and 2 other wingers (Howe, Rocket) just in the FIRST round of debate.

Subsequent to this, he was compared to an additional defenceman (Shore), another goaltender (Hasek), and 2 more centres (Morenz, Crosby).

In other words, no steps were skipped. Interpositional discussion (goaltender vs winger vs defenceman vs centre) was extraordinarily tough but absolutely necessary slogging for the project participants, and the final list has integrity because an intellectually rigorous process was followed.

If some posters believe that Ovechkin should be more highly ranked, my suggestion is start with #21 Mark Messier and thoroughly make your case before then moving to #20 on the list. Don’t skip 16 players because it’s too much work.

Is anyone actually arguing Ovechkin as a top-5 player? I think you're reading a bit too much into the Hull debate.

People are comparing him to Hull because it's an interesting comparison. If "intellectual rigor" is that important to you, you're more than welcome to lead the group in an Ovechkin vs. Hasek comparison.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Threads like these bother me because they lack structural integrity and intellectual rigour.

When members of this board undertook the most recent Top 100 Players of All-Time project, the end result had 21 players ahead of Alexander Ovechkin.

Yet, this thread and so many others like it quickly focus on one player, #5 all-time Bobby Hull. The simplistic rationale seems to be that Hull and Ovechkin both played the wing and scored a lot of goals, so let’s just ignore the other 20 players ranked ahead of Ovechkin, focus on a single top-5 player, and build a case to supplant him.

No. A thousand times No.

In the most recent Top 100 project, Hull was evaluated against 3 defencemen (Orr, Harvey, Bourque), 1 goaltender (Roy), 3 centres (Beliveau, Gretzky, Lemieux) and 2 other wingers (Howe, Rocket) just in the FIRST round of debate.

Subsequent to this, he was compared to an additional defenceman (Shore), another goaltender (Hasek), and 2 more centres (Morenz, Crosby).

In other words, no steps were skipped. Interpositional discussion (goaltender vs winger vs defenceman vs centre) was extraordinarily tough but absolutely necessary slogging for the project participants, and the final list has integrity because an intellectually rigorous process was followed.

If some posters believe that Ovechkin should be more highly ranked, my suggestion is start with #21 Mark Messier and thoroughly make your case before then moving to #20 on the list. Don’t skip 16 players because it’s too much work.

That is why one of the goals of the project was to stray away from obvious comparison points like winger vs. winger. The more we stick to a comparison that is run over and over and over again, the more it becomes ingrained that those two players should be right next to each other. I think we all know the groups (the big four, Lidstrom/Hasek/Jagr, Yzerman/Sakic, Forsberg/Malkin, Fetisov/Makarov, Kurri/Hull/Selanne, etc.).

Comparing Alex Ovechkin to Bobby Hull elevates Ovechkin by association, regardless of whether he loses that comparison or not. When it came down to a head-to-head, he didn’t do as well relative to guys like Nighbor or Messier as he may have done against others who would perhaps not highlight the same deficiencies.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

You would be closer to correct if Canada's population stayed the same. But in reality it tripled. So you're off by roughly 300%.

I agree that Canada's population is larger today than 50-60 years ago, but what we're really interested in is the number of adult males who play hockey and are potentially NHL-ready. There are three factors that suggest that, even if Canada's population is three times larger today, the talent pool growth is much smaller than that:

• One of the biggest reasons for the increase in Canada's population is due to longer lifetimes due to better medication, surgical techniques, etc. According to Stats Canada, the expected lifespan for a Canadian male born around 2010 is 79. A male born around 1940 would be around 63. It's great that Canadians are living longer, but when determining the Canadian hockey talent pool, it really doesn't matter whether someone lives to 63 or 79. Anybody beyond 4o or maybe 45 can be ignored.
• Another big reason for Canada's population growth is immigration. More than half of immigrants are from Asia (broadly defined to include China, India, and the Philippines - among many other countries). My experience (being married to a woman who immigrated from one of these countries) is the vast majority of them have zero interest in hockey. I realize I'm overgeneralizing, but if you have 300K immigrants coming to Canada (of which maybe 100K are teen/adult males), you don't actually have 100K people going into the hockey talent pool. (To be clear Only a small subset would be part of the talent pool. If I moved to India tomorrow, that doesn't make me part of their cricket talent pool (as it's a sport I have no interest in playing or watching).
  • (I want to be very clear that the previous paragraph is not anti-immigrant! After all, I'm married to one! It's just a factual observation that, in my experience, immigrants from different cultural backgrounds don't adopt hockey as much as native-born Canadians - if someone has info to the contrary, statistical or anecdotal, please share).
• Finally, hockey has become increasingly expensive (rising much faster than inflation). I also think that children (and adults) are, in general, heavier and less active than they were compared to a generation or two ago (maybe because there's so many cheap, high quality passive entertainment options available today). I'm sure that youth participation rates in hockey are down. I don't know if I've ever seen kids play street hockey on the streets in my area - my friends and I played all the time as kids. Yes I'm over-generalizing based on my own experiences but complains about the ever-rising cost of youth hockey are well documented - how many don't get into the system because it's too expensive?

So, your point is valid, but I think it's wrong to say that the hockey talent pool is three times bigger today just because Canada's total population is three times larger.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

The fact that Nighbor was ranked #20 rather shows an absence of bias toward the pre-O6 era. Talking about a guy who was arguably the best player in hockey over an entire generation. That's a Morenz, Howe, Gretzky tier of player. Nighbor was ranked #20 because of when he played, implicitly putting a higher value on more recent history.

I did a post-mortem on the project, looking at players by years of births (or maybe it was by career span). I don't have the link handy, but can search. (EDIT - link here - HOH Top 100 project - comparison to other lists)

Comparing our list to the two other major lists (the 1997 Hockey News ranked list, and the 2017 NHL centennial unranked list), our list featured the lowest percentage of Original Six players, and the highest percentage of recent/modern players.

The HOH list is a more modern, less O6-focused list than any other ranking that I'm aware of. Someone can let me know if there's any other list that has less of an O6 focus than ours.

 

[Theokritos]

I agree that Canada's population is larger today than 50-60 years ago, but what we're really interested in is the number of adult males who play hockey and are potentially NHL-ready. There are three factors that suggest that, even if Canada's population is three times larger today, the talent pool growth is much smaller than that:

• One of the biggest reasons for the increase in Canada's population is due to longer lifetimes due to better medication, surgical techniques, etc. According to Stats Canada, the expected lifespan for a Canadian male born around 2010 is 79. A male born around 1940 would be around 63. It's great that Canadians are living longer, but when determining the Canadian hockey talent pool, it really doesn't matter whether someone lives to 63 or 79. Anybody beyond 4o or maybe 45 can be ignored.

To add to this point, here are the numbers of births in Canada per decade (from an older thread with basically the same discussion):

1931-1941: 2,294,000
1941-1951: 3,186,000
1951-1961: 4,468,000
1961-1971: 4,105,000
1971-1981: 3,580,000
1981-1991: 3,805,000
1991-2001: 3,641,000

 

[Midnight Judges]

So, your point is valid, but I think it's wrong to say that the hockey talent pool is three times bigger today just because Canada's total population is three times larger.

This is a much bigger conversation (understatement) and should have it's own thread, but I agree the talent pool is almost certainly not 3x just because of Canada alone. But it's almost certainly 3x bigger (or significantly greater than that) when you factor in all the other countries.