The all encompassing "players of today vs players from the past" thread

[Hardyvan123]

You keep saying that, but look at the chronological distribution of the list:

Years with 8 centers on the list
1971, 1978-80, 1994

Years with 7 centers on the list
1942-47, 1969-70, 1972-77, 1981, 1984, 1988-93, 1995-99

Basically the entire 1990s is at the top of the pyramid, and the 2000s only a step behind with 6 per year for the most part despite incomplete careers. Consider that the pool of eligible candidates goes back to the 1890s, and that 8 of the 11 players on the current ballot played in the 1990s and/or 2000s.

Someone who thought the credit should be distributed evenly would criticize us for having an obvious modern bias.

It appears to me that you're coming from the position that virtually no players prior to the 1980s ought to be recognized, and that they certainly shouldn't appear toward the top of the list.

funny I had Jean at 2 and mikita top 5 so so much for excluding pre 80's guys eh?

the fact of the matter is that with much larger talent streams and at least 2 being able to compete with Canada since the early mid 70's and the explosion and closing of the gap in the 90's why would one expect an even distribution?

Burnaby Joe and the guys from Europe and states and even Sid (maritimes) basically came from areas that produced little to zero NHL talent, nevermind elite talent.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Your original post stated that only 61 times has a defenseman scored 50 or more points since 2000, I guess that was a typo.

So I'll assume you meant to say Turnbull and Stackhouse couldn't get 60 points today. This is more agreeable than saying they couldn't get 50, but still questionable.

In the case of Stackhouse, he topped out at 71 points in 1976. Scoring today is at 80% of what it was in that year, so the basic rough adjustment would give Stackhouse about 57 points. Turnbull had 79 points in his best year, same rough adjustment gives him about 65 points. Now I'm no fan of adjusted stats as I'm sure you know, but in this case specifically (good but not great players, not a 30 team league, but still an expanded league, similar GP) the adjustment seems pretty reasonable.

To say you "really doubt" they could score 60 is stretching things for Stackhouse (should be almost a 50/50 chance he would in his best year), and in the case of Turnbull you probably need to explain why he wouldn't.

I meant form 06 yes and 60 points.

the pint of the matter is that yes scoring is down but Dman scoring is down even more , due to how teams game plan and how their Dmen are deployed than when Stackhouse and Turnball played.

Orr is one of the greatest players of all time but there is a huge difference in the makeup and conditions in the NHL today and yes it would even affect a guy like Orr quite a bit IMO.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I don't think "compared to his peers" needs to be the root assumption. I think it's very useful in evaluating the quality of a player but I think one can still compare across eras based on quality.

My problem with your hypothetical is the final word. Making today the standard gives a major home ice advantage to today's players. The history of hockey is the history of technological advance and corresponding adaptation by players and teams. Hitting one player with a major technological shock while giving the other player everything they are used to seems unfair.

I propose this hypothetical. When comparing players of different eras, pick a point midway between their careers and imagine them competing in that era. Don't imagine Jean Beliveau at age 25 dumped straight into today's NHL and facing off against Sidney Crosby under today's technology. Imagine Beliveau at 25 and Crosby at 25 facing off...in 1984 with 1984 technology.

Of course in imagining such a hypothetical I would be guided by comparing their performance against their peers.

I like this perspective but frankly too often here the times in top 5 or 10 in scoring doesn't take into context the number of teams in the league and the amount of variance that it would mean.

how one ranks in Canadian scoring in any year helps solve part of the equation but it is largely dismissed even though earlier guys have an obvious advantage with less competition (in terms of pure numbers of top line guys and PP minutes available).

Too often the earlier guy has his place or standing and the modern guy needs to meet or beat the same number of all star teams, times in top 10 or 5 overall ect when it's pretty obvious the more recent guy is at a huge disadvantage there.

Case in point is how close Hooley did last round or Delvecchio compared to 2 guys with extremely higher peaks in Lindros and Malkin for example or heck even Dats.

Yet question marks on Hooley's consistency were brushed aside while one guy even went so far to call Dats playoff resume as fine, which really downplayed his large number of elite level playoff games.

 

[tarheelhockey]

the fact of the matter is that with much larger talent streams and at least 2 being able to compete with Canada since the early mid 70's and the explosion and closing of the gap in the 90's why would one expect an even distribution?

Why is that question relevant? Our list results don't show an equal distribution.

You seem to have overlooked the placement of Russell Bowie, which can only be rationalized by giving different weight to different eras (and there was zero outrage when he didn't show up as a top-5 candidate, so clearly the conversation is taking era-weight as a given).

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I meant form 06 yes and 60 points.

the pint of the matter is that yes scoring is down but Dman scoring is down even more , due to how teams game plan and how their Dmen are deployed than when Stackhouse and Turnball played.

Orr is one of the greatest players of all time but there is a huge difference in the makeup and conditions in the NHL today and yes it would even affect a guy like Orr quite a bit IMO.

This doesn't pass the smell test. At all.

Over the course of Orr's career (I'll use 1967-1975), we saw the following defenseman scoring: (Orr himself is excluded from the numbers.)

80+ points: 1 season
70+ points: 5 seasons (4 different players)
60+ points: 10 seasons (9 different players)
50+ points: 26 seasons (16 different players)

From 2006-2013 (since you meant from 2006 apparently):

80+ points: 1 season
70+ points: 6 seasons (4 different players)
60+ points: 23 seasons (16 different players)
50+ points: 74 seasons (36 different players)

Looks like high-end offensive seasons (over 70 points) are pretty much equally likely now as they were during Orr's career. Very good offensive seasons (50-70 points) are much more common. This isn't unexpected, because 30 teams means 30 powerplay QB positions available, and the PP is where most defensemen rack up points.

So when you factor in expansion of league size, it would appear to me that defenseman scoring is pretty much the same level.

You'll have to elborate on coaches supposedly game planning around certain defensemen to a greater degree today than in the past. As far as I know Orr and Coffey were really the only defensemen where specific game plans were developed to try and curtail their offense. Everyone else falls under the more basic "dump it into his corner/don't dump it into his corner/forecheck him aggressively/cover him on the point/don't let him shoot" type of stuff.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I like this perspective but frankly too often here the times in top 5 or 10 in scoring doesn't take into context the number of teams in the league and the amount of variance that it would mean.

how one ranks in Canadian scoring in any year helps solve part of the equation but it is largely dismissed even though earlier guys have an obvious advantage with less competition (in terms of pure numbers of top line guys and PP minutes available).

Too often the earlier guy has his place or standing and the modern guy needs to meet or beat the same number of all star teams, times in top 10 or 5 overall ect when it's pretty obvious the more recent guy is at a huge disadvantage there.

Case in point is how close Hooley did last round or Delvecchio compared to 2 guys with extremely higher peaks in Lindros and Malkin for example or heck even Dats.

Yet question marks on Hooley's consistency were brushed aside while one guy even went so far to call Dats playoff resume as fine, which really downplayed his large number of elite level playoff games.

Yet Lindros was elected to the list, while Hooley was not. Lindros' superior peak was obviously preferred to Hooley's superior longevity. I'm not sure what your point is here.

One guy went as far as to call Hooley "a passenger" on his teams, despite his multiple high Hart Trophy finishes, while Datsyuk's historically awful first 43 career playoff games were seemingly brushed aside.

Russell Bowie had a higher peak than anybody available for voting, yet did not come close to being elected.

Once again you're either looking for something that isn't there (a bias in favour of older players, which there clearly isn't), or you feel the modern bias should be strong to the point that no older player should ever be ranked ahead of a more recent one if there is even one shred of an argument that can be made against it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You keep saying that, but look at the chronological distribution of the list:

Years with 8 centers on the list
1971, 1978-80, 1994

Years with 7 centers on the list
1942-47, 1969-70, 1972-77, 1981, 1984, 1988-93, 1995-99

Basically the entire 1990s is at the top of the pyramid, and the 2000s only a step behind with 6 per year for the most part despite incomplete careers. Consider that the pool of eligible candidates goes back to the 1890s, and that 8 of the 11 players on the current ballot played in the 1990s and/or 2000s.

Someone who thought the credit should be distributed evenly would criticize us for having an obvious modern bias.

It appears to me that you're coming from the position that virtually no players prior to the 1980s ought to be recognized, and that they certainly shouldn't appear toward the top of the list.

You just figured this one out?

 

[Hardyvan123]

This doesn't pass the smell test. At all.

Over the course of Orr's career (I'll use 1967-1975), we saw the following defenseman scoring: (Orr himself is excluded from the numbers.)

80+ points: 1 season
70+ points: 5 seasons (4 different players)
60+ points: 10 seasons (9 different players)
50+ points: 26 seasons (16 different players)

Except 67,68,69 were still very much like the 06 era with lower socring, even including Orr those 3 seasons had a breakdown like this

60+ points 2 guys Orr and Doug Mohns who I believe was actually playing forward
50+ points 4 seasons total, including the above mentioned Doug Mohns

Now do the 8 seasons from 70-78 (with Orr taken out as well)

90+ 2 times (1 player Potvin)
80+ 5 seasons (3 guys)
70+ 17 seasons (12 guys including Turnball, Stackhouse and Jean Potvin each 1)
60+ 29 seasons (17 guys)
50+ 56 seasons

Now when you factor in the below list 06-13 is in a 30 team league and the above list is in a 14-18 team league and we can start to see quite big differences to go along with an 80 game max in the earlier set with an 82 game one in the 06-13 list.

From 2006-2013 (since you meant from 2006 apparently):

80+ points: 1 season
70+ points: 6 seasons (4 different players)
60+ points: 23 seasons (16 different players)
50+ points: 74 seasons (36 different players)

Looks like high-end offensive seasons (over 70 points) are pretty much equally likely now as they were during Orr's career. Very good offensive seasons (50-70 points) are much more common. This isn't unexpected, because 30 teams means 30 powerplay QB positions available, and the PP is where most defensemen rack up points.

Except that they is a clear difference between 69 and before and 70-mid 90's when scoring really went down overall and among Dmen even more so

So when you factor in expansion of league size, it would appear to me that defenseman scoring is pretty much the same level.

Sure but once again only if one uses the 3 seasons in 67,68,69 which are much more like 06 era than the 70's would be.

You'll have to elborate on coaches supposedly game planning around certain defensemen to a greater degree today than in the past. As far as I know Orr and Coffey were really the only defensemen where specific game plans were developed to try and curtail their offense. Everyone else falls under the more basic "dump it into his corner/don't dump it into his corner/forecheck him aggressively/cover him on the point/don't let him shoot" type of stuff.

It's not gameplanning around certain Dmen per say, it is simply much more difficult to score goals today in the NHL than it was back in the 70's at every level NHL, minor pro, junior ect...

It has been a huge shift and the one important for this specific thread is that Dmen no longer had the green light like they did in the past, especially the 70's and 80's so yes even Orr would be affected.

the game has changed form let's outscore the opposition to let's win 2-1 (not in every game of course but in a general sense this does characterize the changes in the game overall)

 

[Hardyvan123]

Yet Lindros was elected to the list, while Hooley was not. Lindros' superior peak was obviously preferred to Hooley's superior longevity. I'm not sure what your point is here.

Hooley did indeed have the best longevity in the last round, along with 2 other guys Igor and Alex but Lindros was an elite top notch , in the mix for top 5 forwards in pretty much every game he played in for a stretch of 7 seasons, aside from then injuries (which is an era thing as well to some degree but being ignored as well).

The fact that the 2 guys were even in the same round is my point with those 2 guys.

One guy went as far as to call Hooley "a passenger" on his teams, despite his multiple high Hart Trophy finishes, while Datsyuk's historically awful first 43 career playoff games were seemingly brushed aside.

Okay i'm guilty, I called him a "passenger" which wasn't the best choice of words but he was a secondary guy on his teams for virtually 95% of his career. Some distinction needs to made for guys who are the absolute focus of their teams compared to secondary guys right? Or at the very least it's a point that needs to be considered right?

Yes Dats wasn't very good for the start of his playoffs, less than 11 MPG for 21 games in his first seasons is a large part of that reason.

Yes we should consider that is part of his career but we also need to note that he is one of the best centers in the playoffs from 06-13 and heck there is even a case that he is the best one overall as well right? Hooley was never elite in any playoffs and his Hart voting is very erratic and spread out, doesn't that raise some questions on how valuable he was overall considering the separation in years from the Hart rankings and his relative health overs wise?

Russell Bowie had a higher peak than anybody available for voting, yet did not come close to being elected.

Yes he does and I'm the 1st to say that the context fro era is highly problematic with the majority of hockey in the recognized sense was being played in exactly 2 cities at the time. Bowie is extremely hard to judge with guys playing even 30 years later never mind 60-90 years.

Once again you're either looking for something that isn't there (a bias in favour of older players, which there clearly isn't), or you feel the modern bias should be strong to the point that no older player should ever be ranked ahead of a more recent one if there is even one shred of an argument that can be made against it.

Certainly at the start of each thread there is a top 5-10 scoring totals and all star team selections, isn't it fair to say that it's harder to gain such recognition in a 30 team league than a 6-10 team one?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Was it really easier to score and produce points in Era‘s when they used 10lb pieces of lumber, when they used sticks without curves, when the Slapshot wasn‘t even a tool to use or when second assists weren‘t counted?

Harder to score goals and get points today you say?
PROVE IT!!!

 

[seventieslord]

Hooley did indeed have the best longevity in the last round, along with 2 other guys Igor and Alex but Lindros was an elite top notch , in the mix for top 5 forwards in pretty much every game he played in for a stretch of 7 seasons, aside from then injuries (which is an era thing as well to some degree but being ignored as well).

The fact that the 2 guys were even in the same round is my point with those 2 guys.



Okay i'm guilty, I called him a "passenger" which wasn't the best choice of words but he was a secondary guy on his teams for virtually 95% of his career. Some distinction needs to made for guys who are the absolute focus of their teams compared to secondary guys right? Or at the very least it's a point that needs to be considered right?

Yes Dats wasn't very good for the start of his playoffs, less than 11 MPG for 21 games in his first seasons is a large part of that reason.

Yes we should consider that is part of his career but we also need to note that he is one of the best centers in the playoffs from 06-13 and heck there is even a case that he is the best one overall as well right? Hooley was never elite in any playoffs and his Hart voting is very erratic and spread out, doesn't that raise some questions on how valuable he was overall considering the separation in years from the Hart rankings and his relative health overs wise?



Yes he does and I'm the 1st to say that the context fro era is highly problematic with the majority of hockey in the recognized sense was being played in exactly 2 cities at the time. Bowie is extremely hard to judge with guys playing even 30 years later never mind 60-90 years.



Certainly at the start of each thread there is a top 5-10 scoring totals and all star team selections, isn't it fair to say that it's harder to gain such recognition in a 30 team league than a 6-10 team one?

What do you mean about his Hart voting being sporadic and spread out? He has the second best Hart record of anyone remaining! So this criticism you attempt to apply to him can be applied to all these other candidates and everyone else who will come up too. So what's your point? He's mediocre because he wasn't top 5 every season?

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Some interesting data from the By the Numbers forum on shots on goal averages over the years. I had mentioned in a post that it appeared that SOG have increased since the 04-05 lockout. BM67 dug this up:

Shots per/60 per team including ENG from compiled SOG/SV% numbers.

1952-53 28.40
1953-54 29.55
1954-55 29.52
1955-56 30.01
1956-57 29.87
1957-58 31.05
1958-59 30.39
1959-60 31.51
1960-61 32.28
1961-62 31.68
1962-63 32.00
1963-64 32.85
1964-65 31.23
1965-66 29.28
1966-67 31.86
1967-68 30.39
1968-69 32.14
1969-70 32.66
1970-71 31.88
1971-72 30.98
1972-73 31.10
1973-74 30.31
1974-75 30.80
1975-76 30.60
1976-77 30.02
1977-78 29.29
1978-79 29.39
1979-80 29.39
1980-81 30.51
1981-82 31.11
1982-83 30.56
1983-84 30.27
1984-85 30.20
1985-86 30.73
1986-87 29.64
1987-88 30.08
1988-89 30.01
1989-90 29.89
1990-91 29.41
1991-92 30.10
1992-93 30.66
1993-94 30.00
1994-95 28.99
1995-96 29.87
1996-97 29.39
1997-98 26.93
1998-99 27.47
1999-00 27.57
2000-01 27.33
2001-02 27.20
2002-03 27.91
2003-04 27.59

My H/R split data shows a range of 28.73 to 30.01 SOG/60 without ENG included since 03-04. Here

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Except 67,68,69 were still very much like the 06 era with lower socring, even including Orr those 3 seasons had a breakdown like this

60+ points 2 guys Orr and Doug Mohns who I believe was actually playing forward
50+ points 4 seasons total, including the above mentioned Doug Mohns

Now do the 8 seasons from 70-78 (with Orr taken out as well)

90+ 2 times (1 player Potvin)
80+ 5 seasons (3 guys)
70+ 17 seasons (12 guys including Turnball, Stackhouse and Jean Potvin each 1)
60+ 29 seasons (17 guys)
50+ 56 seasons

Now when you factor in the below list 06-13 is in a 30 team league and the above list is in a 14-18 team league and we can start to see quite big differences to go along with an 80 game max in the earlier set with an 82 game one in the 06-13 list.






Except that they is a clear difference between 69 and before and 70-mid 90's when scoring really went down overall and among Dmen even more so



Sure but once again only if one uses the 3 seasons in 67,68,69 which are much more like 06 era than the 70's would be.



It's not gameplanning around certain Dmen per say, it is simply much more difficult to score goals today in the NHL than it was back in the 70's at every level NHL, minor pro, junior ect...

It has been a huge shift and the one important for this specific thread is that Dmen no longer had the green light like they did in the past, especially the 70's and 80's so yes even Orr would be affected.

the game has changed form let's outscore the opposition to let's win 2-1 (not in every game of course but in a general sense this does characterize the changes in the game overall)

You're really bending over backwards here in some attempt to prove that defensemen score much less today than in Orr's era. Maybe they score a little less, I don't care to do the detailed legwork to find out right now, but a rough examination I did above doesn't seem to indicate a significant change beyond that which is simply the product of lower overall scoring.

Those new numbers you posted covering 70-78 look very much in line with the 2006-13 numbers if you compare each point bracket from the 70's with that same bracket minus 10 points from the current era. Those extra 10 points roughly account for the change in league scoring levels. As well, 70-78 covers nine seasons, 06-13 only covers seven, since 2013 was a 48-game schedule and doesn't contribute to the numbers.

I'm not buying the "defensemen had the green light" argument either. Orr and Coffey are the only defensemen that scored significant amounts of points by acting as a forward and being a catalyst for their team's offense. There aren't a bunch of Bobby Orr's out there today being shackled by defensive minded coaches. Even other prolific point-producing defensemen like Bourque, MacInnis, Lidstrom didn't generate all those points due to thinking offense over defense. They got them by moving pucks to forwards efficiently and blasting tons of shots from the point.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

You're really bending over backwards here in some attempt to prove that defensemen score much less today than in Orr's era. Maybe they score a little less, I don't care to do the detailed legwork to find out right now, but a rough examination I did above doesn't seem to indicate a significant change beyond that which is simply the product of lower overall scoring.

Those new numbers you posted covering 70-78 look very much in line with the 2006-13 numbers if you compare each point bracket from the 70's with that same bracket minus 10 points from the current era. Those extra 10 points roughly account for the change in league scoring levels. As well, 70-78 covers nine seasons, 06-13 only covers seven, since 2013 was a 48-game schedule and doesn't contribute to the numbers.

I'm not buying the "defensemen had the green light" argument either. Orr and Coffey are the only defensemen that scored significant amounts of points by acting as a forward and being a catalyst for their team's offense. There aren't a bunch of Bobby Orr's out there today being shackled by defensive minded coaches. Even other prolific point-producing defensemen like Bourque, MacInnis, Lidstrom didn't generate all those points due to thinking offense over defense. They got them by moving pucks to forwards efficiently and blasting tons of shots from the point.

Here's the thing. Scoring for defensemen and bottom-six forwards has dropped to a greater degree than scoring has dropped in general. Scoring for top-six forwards has dropped a lesser degree than scoring has dropped in general. The problem is some people will hypocritically use that fact to boost up DPE defensemen while conveniently ignoring that fact when boosting up DPE fowards.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Hooley did indeed have the best longevity in the last round, along with 2 other guys Igor and Alex but Lindros was an elite top notch , in the mix for top 5 forwards in pretty much every game he played in for a stretch of 7 seasons, aside from then injuries (which is an era thing as well to some degree but being ignored as well).

The fact that the 2 guys were even in the same round is my point with those 2 guys.

Looks like you prefer peak performance over longevity...I'll be curious as to where you placed Russell Bowie when the voting results are publicized at the end of the project.

Okay i'm guilty, I called him a "passenger" which wasn't the best choice of words but he was a secondary guy on his teams for virtually 95% of his career. Some distinction needs to made for guys who are the absolute focus of their teams compared to secondary guys right? Or at the very least it's a point that needs to be considered right?

Well sure, everyone has their own preferences. But wouldn't you agree it is much easier to be the absolute focus of your team in a 30-team era than a 6-10 team era?

Russell Bowie was certainly the focus of his team, every season of his career no doubt. He was often the focus of his entire league. So again, I will be very curious as to how you voted for him. He seems to fulfill two criteria that you deem very important.

Yes Dats wasn't very good for the start of his playoffs, less than 11 MPG for 21 games in his first seasons is a large part of that reason.

So what was the problem in 2003, 2004, and 2006 when Datsyuk's performances were nothing short of abominable? His decent showing on the "Two kids and an old goat" line in 2002 was actually the highlight of his playoff career for quite a while.

Yes we should consider that is part of his career but we also need to note that he is one of the best centers in the playoffs from 06-13 and heck there is even a case that he is the best one overall as well right?

I don't think he has a case for that at all. He had one great playoff run in 2008 and has a couple other pretty good ones. Four of his eight playoff appearances from 06-13 would be deemed disappointments.

Hooley was never elite in any playoffs and his Hart voting is very erratic and spread out, doesn't that raise some questions on how valuable he was overall considering the separation in years from the Hart rankings and his relative health overs wise?

Be that as it may, his Hart voting eclipses that of Datsyuk so I'm not sure why you'd bring that up as a point in Datsyuk's favour. Wait, wait, let me guess...it was really easy for Hooley to rack up Hart votes in that weak all-Canadian league and pretty much impossible that Datsyuk could get any in a 30-team league, right?

But in any case, neither Hooley nor Datsyuk was added to the list...arguments for or against them should probably be made in the voting thread as opposed to in here.

Yes he does and I'm the 1st to say that the context fro era is highly problematic with the majority of hockey in the recognized sense was being played in exactly 2 cities at the time. Bowie is extremely hard to judge with guys playing even 30 years later never mind 60-90 years.

In my experiences on here "hard to judge" and "problematic due to era" almost invariably mean lowered rankings for any pre-consolidation player, and Bowie is proving to be no exception. Thus I find the constant cries of "old-timer bias!" that have been heard in here for years to be at best puzzling, and at worst entirely unfounded.

Certainly at the start of each thread there is a top 5-10 scoring totals and all star team selections, isn't it fair to say that it's harder to gain such recognition in a 30 team league than a 6-10 team one?

Unless we're talking goaltenders, I would say no, it is not harder if you want my honest opinion. At least not to any significant degree. But nobody is basing votes entirely off of all-star selections or scoring placements anyway. I am not even a voter, so my opinion is moot as it pertains to the project. Adam Oates eclipsed Gilbert Perreault and Hooley Smith in the last round despite an inferior all-star selection record, so obviously others are bright enough to realize that the value of an AST selection is circumstantial in any given year, and it is but one of numerous considerations that are made when formulating a vote.

 

[Brooklanders*]

You're really bending over backwards here in some attempt to prove that defensemen score much less today than in Orr's era. Maybe they score a little less, I don't care to do the detailed legwork to find out right now, but a rough examination I did above doesn't seem to indicate a significant schange beyond that which is simply the product of lower overall scoring.

Those new numbers you posted covering 70-78 look very much in line with the 2006-13 numbers if you compare each point bracket from the 70's with that same bracket minus 10 points from the current era. Those extra 10 points roughly account for the change in league scoring levels. As well, 70-78 covers nine seasons, 06-13 only covers seven, since 2013 was a 48-game schedule and doesn't contribute to the numbers.

I'm not buying the "defensemen had the green light" argument either. Orr and Coffey are the only defensemen that scored significant amounts of points by acting as a forward and being a catalyst for their team's offense. There aren't a bunch of Bobby Orr's out there today being shackled by defensive minded coaches. Even other prolific point-producing defensemen like Bourque, MacInnis, Lidstrom didn't generate all those points due to thinking offense over defense. They got them by moving pucks to forwards efficiently and blasting tons of shots from the point.

Today's defenseman couldn't hold a candle to the likes of Bourque, Leetch, Coffey, Murphy, Potvin, Housley, pronger, MacInnis, and of course guys like Or.
The skill level for today's dmen dont shine as bright

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Here's the thing. Scoring for defensemen and bottom-six forwards has dropped to a greater degree than scoring has dropped in general. Scoring for top-six forwards has dropped a lesser degree than scoring has dropped in general. The problem is some people will hypocritically use that fact to boost up DPE defensemen while conveniently ignoring that fact when boosting up DPE fowards.

What are the comparison points? Are we comparing the level of scoring now to the level during Orr's career? I know that scoring of bottom six forwards has dropped considerably as compared to the 80's and early 90's (I think I was actually the first one on this board to point that out several years ago, if I may toot my own horn for a moment).

Has scoring among top-end defensemen dropped off at a greater rate than overall scoring has compared to when Orr was active though? As best I can tell, it hasn't. At least not to a noticeable degree. The late 70's featured higher point totals among the elite tier than we see now, even after scoring difference is accounted for. But Orr's last productive season was 1975. He was basically the only defenseman consistently cracking 60 points throughout his prime years. So the idea that defenseman scoring was inflated during his dominant period is entirely false. It was at a level similar to today, if not lower in fact.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

What are the comparison points? Are we comparing the level of scoring now to the level during Orr's career? I know that scoring of bottom six forwards has dropped considerably as compared to the 80's and early 90's (I think I was actually the first one on this board to point that out several years ago, if I may toot my own horn for a moment).

Has scoring among top-end defensemen dropped off at a greater rate than overall scoring has compared to when Orr was active though? As best I can tell, it hasn't. At least not to a noticeable degree. The late 70's featured higher point totals among the elite tier than we see now, even after scoring difference is accounted for. But Orr's last productive season was 1975. He was basically the only defenseman consistently cracking 60 points throughout his prime years. So the idea that defenseman scoring was inflated during his dominant period is entirely false. It was at a level similar to today, if not lower in fact.

My own look-see was comparing the '80s to the DPE. The early '70s I can't speak for but I'd love to see someone do a study breaking it down for comparison. I know far more about hockey in the '80s than I do the '70s so I'm always looking to learn more.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Marchand GOTY

Last few days the following Brad Marchand goal has made the various hockey or sport channel hilite reels. Some even claim it is the GOTY so far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPhK82-FsmQ

What did it take in terms of skill to score the goal. Very little. Boston is playing shorthanded, Marchand gets a break yet the Kings have the manpower advantage in their zone.

Things simply fall apart. Doughty an alleged Norris Candidate does not have the required dexterity to hold the stick, further complicating issues by trying to pick-up the stick instead of playing the puck carrier. Three Kings skaters basically Watch hoping one of their teammates takes Marchand.

So where is the hockey sense or hockey IQ required to play. Doughty made two mistakes that a pre teen d-man would not make and three of his teammates avoided responsibility to step-up and play a rather stationary puckhandler.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Last few days the following Brad Marchand goal has made the various hockey or sport channel hilite reels. Some even claim it is the GOTY so far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPhK82-FsmQ

What did it take in terms of skill to score the goal. Very little. Boston is playing shorthanded, Marchand gets a break yet the Kings have the manpower advantage in their zone.

Things simply fall apart. Doughty an alleged Norris Candidate does not have the required dexterity to hold the stick, further complicating issues by trying to pick-up the stick instead of playing the puck carrier. Three Kings skaters basically Watch hoping one of their teammates takes Marchand.

So where is the hockey sense or hockey IQ required to play. Doughty made two mistakes that a pre teen d-man would not make and three of his teammates avoided responsibility to step-up and play a rather stationary puckhandler.

I have to agree, not that special. Looks great but all those Kings just standing around was pitiful.

You wanna see a goal where hockey sense and instinct made it happen, watch Karlsson's goal against the Habs from last week.

4:10 mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i4_iVaS2_I

So simple, makes it look so easy. A little forced pause so the high man and everyone else for that matter, doesn't think he's going any where and then takes off. Timing and instinct, you can't teach that.

 

[tinyzombies]

What about comparing guys of early eras to even earlier eras?

Was Dickie Moore better than Toe Blake?

Was Jack Laviolette better than Art Ross, Lester Patrick, Moose Johnson, Sprague Cleghorn, Sylvio Mantha, Butch Bouchard?

Was Gump Worsley better in his own era compared to Luongo now?

Was Gerry McNeil better than Ken Hodge?

How do you compare the challenge cup era guys: Hyland/Ernie Russell/Russell Bowie/Art Farrell - Scanlon/Drinkwater/J. Gardner to guys in the era after them?

 

[Hardyvan123]

What do you mean about his Hart voting being sporadic and spread out? He has the second best Hart record of anyone remaining! So this criticism you attempt to apply to him can be applied to all these other candidates and everyone else who will come up too. So what's your point? He's mediocre because he wasn't top 5 every season?

His Hart voting record is what it is read my latest posts on it and the one TDMM as well when for 25 and 26 the top level talent in the world, as it was then, was still sporadic.

25 he was 12th
26 tied for 4th
32 3rd
36 2nd

One needs to simply look at more than just the raw voting results and ask some questions with Hooley. sadly too many aren't and instead treat his 2,3,4,12th as comparable to voting today, or the recent past when there is more than just Canadians vying for awards voting.

the established or prevailing view in this section will work it's way out but another Hooley type of guy in a modern context, say like Toews will never have a chance at passing the unfair standard set with Hooley and overplaying the Hart voting IMO.

and that's before Hooley's bad, even for his era, playoff resume.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

His Hart voting record is what it is read my latest posts on it and the one TDMM as well when for 25 and 26 the top level talent in the world, as it was then, was still sporadic.

25 he was 12th
26 tied for 4th
32 3rd
36 2nd

One needs to simply look at more than just the raw voting results and ask some questions with Hooley. sadly too many aren't and instead treat his 2,3,4,12th as comparable to voting today, or the recent past when there is more than just Canadians vying for awards voting.

the established or prevailing view in this section will work it's way out but another Hooley type of guy in a modern context, say like Toews will never have a chance at passing the unfair standard set with Hooley and overplaying the Hart voting IMO.

and that's before Hooley's bad, even for his era, playoff resume.

You keep saying stuff like this, yet players with worse Hart voting records than Hooley have been placed on the list ahead of him. Obviously people ARE asking questions about Hooley, and ranking him as they see fit. You speak as though there is some steadfast formula based on award/AST voting and scoring placements that people are using to determine their rankings. It's just completely false. Hooley discussion was plentiful in the last voting thread, yet nobody's "asking questions"?

This looks like another of your attempts to drag a non-modern player through the mud. "Ask some questions with Hooley" is really just your polite/academic way of saying "Hooley's accomplishments should be largely dismissed due to his era".

 

[Hardyvan123]

You keep saying stuff like this, yet players with worse Hart voting records than Hooley have been placed on the list ahead of him. Obviously people ARE asking questions about Hooley, and ranking him as they see fit. You speak as though there is some steadfast formula based on award/AST voting and scoring placements that people are using to determine their rankings. It's just completely false. Hooley discussion was plentiful in the last voting thread, yet nobody's "asking questions"?

This looks like another of your attempts to drag a non-modern player through the mud. "Ask some questions with Hooley" is really just your polite/academic way of saying "Hooley's accomplishments should be largely dismissed due to his era".

couple of points here, yes some are asking questions about Hooley but in general there isn't enough discussion going on (both in terms of quantity and among all participants) IMO, maybe it's the time of year or something else who knows.

2nd point is that if we take away Hart voting, and yes i know it's hard to do for some as we saw with Bobby Clarke, and look objectively at Hooley (and Clarke previously) there are strong arguments as to why Clarke should have been lower and why Hooley has dropped to here and isn't in my top 4 this round, although top 8 is possible.

As for the 4 Russinas in this round I have them Dats/Malkin both are close then Igor/Petrov as we have some NHL background on Igor and the longevity thing as well.

Wondering how everyone else has the Russian 4.

 

[Killion]

couple of points here, yes some are asking questions about Hooley but in general there isn't enough discussion going on (both in terms of quantity and among all participants) IMO...

Have you done any research, reading on just what kind of a player Hooley Smith was?... often referred to as the "Original Power Forward". Innovator of the Sweep Check and old Hooley, well, lets just say he had one Hell of a temper on him. Beat up one guy so badly during a Play-Off game he wound up getting Suspended for the first month of the next season and was lucky he didnt get Suspended for the entire year. Played out his career in some ignominy with the NY Americans in the late 30's often playing Defence. Utility.