Should all time rankings adjust for the difficulty of non-american players in the NHL?

[flipp]

When ranking the greatest hockey players of all time, we may overlook the unique challenges faced by those not from North America. A possibility is that these players deserve higher rankings due to the additional obstacles they've overcome.

Historically, non-North American players had to adapt to a different style of play on smaller rinks with more physical contact. They also grapple with language barriers, have to leave behind their families and support systems at a young age, They must also prove themselves in unfamiliar systems with less margin for error, often having fewer opportunities to showcase their skills compared to their North American counterparts.

These factors would of course not affect rankings of NHL performance but could potentially affect rankings of the best hockey players of all time. In the latter all-time rankings, NHL performance acts as a crucial input, but other factors should also be considered. I am not sure how much it should affect rankings, but at least to some extent. For instance, in a group of players with roughly equal performance in the NHL, the non-American would be ranked higher. A concrete example would be Forsberg and Malkin ranking higher than Sakic and Yzerman.

Do you agree?

Click to read more...

 

[Albatros]

Meh, there was a lot of discrimination back in the day, but Forsberg and Malkin didn't really suffer of it anymore. Not decisively anyway.

 

[VanIslander]

Extra obstacles overcome?

How about just performance on the ice regardless where one came from and whatever happened prior to game time.

 

[Plural]

No,

We don't do the same for other sports either. Impossible to account for. Also, Forsberg came from Sweden in the mid-90's. How is that a disadvantage? Probably spoke better English than some of his North-American counterparts.

 

[MadLuke]

There the obvious pre/early Berlin wall fall cannot hurt a player to take some time to arrive to the nhl (or get a regular spot like Hasek), but otherwise it can be hard and they will be surrounded by the Stastny-Lidstrom-Forsberg-alfredsson-Fedorov-Pavel Bure-Selanne that exploded as a rookie with no problems, let alone the post 2000 (Nabokov-Ovechkin-Malki-Landeskog-Kaprizov).

I think pre-1990 at least I think we all do in some way, for the soviet lived-trained transfering at a certain age that had issue in North America (personnal, ice or both)

 

[MXD]

My first reaction was : "No, absolutely not, at last for modern players". There's litterally no reason to give extra credit to someone like Gabriel Landeskog just because he's born in Sweden, when his game was pretty much genetically tailor-made for NA hockey.

My second reaction was : "... Yeah, if an European players has issues adjusting at first but adapts really well afterward, the first season can be disregarded, and I won't considering that player inconsistent or something". Yeah, he didn't adapt as quick as another one, but he did adapt in the end.

I think we can figure out whom to credit for what. Also, if credit is to be given for language barriers, let's go all the way.

 

[MadLuke]

Post 1990, a player from Sept-Îles that did his junior in Baie-Comeau, with little English being drafted to go play in Los Angeles/NewYork, would it be significant lesser change to adapt than a Swede-Finnish player ?

And the plane travel home could easily be more expensive-complicated. They get nice team trying to prepare them, but we often talk about people with a challenging really quick transition from kids-to millionaires professional step function without any natural ramp even if they are americans, in a way it is even more common for high level euro prospect to have played professional adult sport before the nhl at least.

I think in general we are gracious to player that took time to adapt regardless of where they come from if they figure it out and work throught it, yes Lafleur not taking 3 years to become a big impact player would be more highly ranked, but that not something we tend to pile on when talking about them. And if he would have been great from 73 to 78 instead his legacy would have been pretty much the same.

If anything we value more people with a great 26-32 prime than the 19-25 that flamed away quickly, finding more normal early struggle than early retirement.

 

[MXD]

Post 1990, a player from Sept-iles that did his junior in Baie-Comean, with little English being drafted to go play in Los Angeles/NewYork, would it be significant lesser change to adapt than a Swede-Finnish player ?

.

Well, rink size would still remain.

 

[Sentinel]

Only pre-1990 Soviets, Czech, and Slovaks.

 

[The Panther]

The early European NHLers deserve more credit than they get, yes... but the correct credit is for being pioneers.

However they don't deserve to be ranked higher. For better or worse, they have to be ranked entirely on performance in the NHL.

Otherwise we start going down a slippery slope, where Bobby Hull is ranked lower because he may have hit his wife, etc.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

The early European NHLers deserve more credit than they get, yes... but the correct credit is for being pioneers.

However they don't deserve to be ranked higher. For better or worse, they have to be ranked entirely on performance in the NHL.

Then what do we do about HoFers Makarov, Fetisov, Larionov and Nedomansky?

Otherwise we start going down a slippery slope, where Bobby Hull is ranked lower because he may have hit his wife, etc.

Agreed on ranking players based on hockey careers, but oh lord, the “may have” and “wife” in singularis.

 

[TANK200]

No, there should be no correction for anything that is not performance on the ice. And for your example, Malkin should rank ahead of Sakic and Yzerman regardless of any correction for being European.

 

[Stephen]

We are also not privy to whatever socioeconomic, cultural, personal challenges and hardships Canadian and American players may have encountered in their personal lives that may have impacted them on the ice... it's not really appropriate to pretend we know how coming to North America impacted these athletes either. It's about what happened on the ice.

 

[Staniowski]

There shouldn't be some kind of automatic adjustment, certainly, but the important point is that EVERYTHING should be considered when evaluating a player, or when ranking players.

Since rankings generally do a very bad job of this, rankings shouldn't ever be taken seriously. They - obviously- provide little information.

There are always differences in hockey that's being played, and these differences affect players in unique ways.

Adaptability is important, but questions surrounding the differences need to be asked.

I've mentioned before that the NHL was more Canadian-centric in the 1970s and 1980s, and less hospitable to Europeans (generally). And, obviously, the league in much more hospitable to Europeans today, after the fusion of Canadian and European styles. So, questions should be asked about these changes, and certain players who've played in different eras.

Would Hakan Loob be a bigger star in today's NHL,

Would the Green Unit be weaker if Larionov was replaced with Messier or Yzerman?

Why were Sundin and Koivu somewhat bigger stars on Team Sweden and Team Finland, respectively?

Would Kucherov have been as successful in the NHL if he joined the league in 1978?

 

[FerrisRox]

When ranking the greatest hockey players of all time, we may overlook the unique challenges faced by those not from North America. A possibility is that these players deserve higher rankings due to the additional obstacles they've overcome.

Historically, non-North American players had to adapt to a different style of play on smaller rinks with more physical contact. They also grapple with language barriers, have to leave behind their families and support systems at a young age, They must also prove themselves in unfamiliar systems with less margin for error, often having fewer opportunities to showcase their skills compared to their North American counterparts.

These factors would of course not affect rankings of NHL performance but could potentially affect rankings of the best hockey players of all time. In the latter all-time rankings, NHL performance acts as a crucial input, but other factors should also be considered. I am not sure how much it should affect rankings, but at least to some extent. For instance, in a group of players with roughly equal performance in the NHL, the non-American would be ranked higher. A concrete example would be Forsberg and Malkin ranking higher than Sakic and Yzerman.

Do you agree?

No, I most certainly do not agree, at all.

 

[The Panther]

There shouldn't be some kind of automatic adjustment, certainly, but the important point is that EVERYTHING should be considered when evaluating a player, or when ranking players.

But what do you mean by "EVERYTHING"? Do you consider the physical size of two players, and rank the smaller one higher because he achieved the same but was smaller? Do you consider how much parental support two players got and rank the one with less parental support higher because he achieved more? Do you consider who had more fiber in their diet while both played for Mike Keenan and thus suffered daily constipation?

If you mean "EVERYTHING" they did on the ice, then I guess I agree, although that's still going to be subjective of course. Different fans think different things are more important.

 

[WarriorofTime]

It was tough for the guys who came mid-career from the eastern bloc, no question about it. Not so tough for rookie coming in now.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

if we’re talking about cultural adjustment, there are so many variables here

for ex, bure and ovechkin were from moscow and had parents who were olympians, whereas mogilny and malkin came from much different environments

and who has it easier, a guy from stockholm or a guy like jonathan cheechoo, who grew up on reserve in northern ontario?