Funny, because what I'm saying isn't even arguable you guys are just looking at it the wrong way. The first bolded part of your post demonstrates your ignorance on the subject.
The all encompassing "players of today vs players from the past" thread
- Thread starter TheDevilMadeMe
- Start date
- Status
Funny, because what I'm saying isn't even arguable you guys are just looking at it the wrong way. The first bolded part of your post demonstrates your ignorance on the subject.
We all know the talent pool has changed. The people you're condescending to have a long history of debate and study on this board where they discuss things like that that. No one has denied it. Everyone is aware of it, it comes up regularly, and by pretending that you'd suspect someone like TDMM wouldn't have "figured it out" you're only making a fool of yourself.
You cited league size as though the competition is five times as hard in a league five five times as big, as though the players on the new teams are clones of the originals. The talent pool does not increase proportionately with league size. Stan Mikita's 1968 Hart Trophy was no harder than his 1967 Hart Trophy even though there were twice as many teams.
You cited league size as a factor, were corrected, then started talking about the talent pool, which is a different factor and which no one has denied is a factor, like it's this new thing we've never heard of and you're blowing our minds with it. You are pretending you were arguing a different point than you really were, presumably to avoid admitting to yourself you were corrected.
That's not really the argument though. For the most part the best players will be the best players regardless, but there's more chance for freak seasons when more players are put in first line roles, and while I don't think the talent has increased as much as some believe, I think it's pretty clear there's more competition for the top 10. While you can peg guys like Crosby and Ovechkin and Stamkos as good bets to finish top 5, how many guys have a chance at a top 10 spot? There's probably about 25 players in the league that wouldn't be surprising if they finished top 10 in scoring.
I think rather than expanding to 60 teams, the better analogy is contracting to 15 teams. Now you have guys who are getting top line minutes with first liners relegated to second line duty, and a possible decrease in their numbers. Guys like Getzlaf, Kopitar, Staal are all star PPG centres around the same level and any of them could get hot and pull off a a top 10 season. However, say Getzlaf is put on the same team with Crosby, and perhaps he doesn't have that chance anymore. He's not worse than he is now, but scoring levels aren't always dependent on how good you are, but also situation and opportunity. (and even if you look at a guy like Malkin, he would probably be scoring more being the go to guy on a team that could afford better wingers)
Talent is a lot more fluid than you're making out. Malkin won the Art Ross on the second line because being that good let him get the ice time. Teams trade players they don't have roster room for if they're that good. The waiving system stops teams from hoarding talent in the AHL. Minor leagues have leagues below them where players compete to get into the minor league. Teams aren't just this static thing. If the Sharks and Ducks and Lightning never entered the league, they wouldn't be these AHL franchises where Thornton and Getzlaf and St. Louis and Stamkos wouldn't be competing for scoring titles. Those players would be on different NHL teams.
While more teams does make talent more fluid and probably makes improvements and late bloomers more likely, that's not the idea that starts debates like this. It's this idea that the number of teams as such increases your competition because there are more players officially in contention for the trophy by being in the NHL. In reality, all players are competing with all players in the world for the NHL spots that let them get those trophies.
The thing you're pretending we disagree with is what isn't even arguable. It's easy to convince yourself people are "just looking at it the wrong way" and what you're saying "isn't even arguable" when, after being corrected, you mentally change what you meant to another, related, but uncontroversial thing.
I never said that players like Thornton and Getzlaf and St. Louis would be in the minors, but that a lot of stars may not get the same opportunities playing second fiddle to bigger stars. Yes, things are fluid within a team, and if a player is deserving of more time he would get it, but I'm not really talking about Art Rosses and trophies. I think the very top spots would always be similar. But when you start looking at the 8th, 9th, 10th place scorers, there seems to be a lot more competition for those spots. Part of it is a talent increase, and part of it is opportunity created by more top line positions. A guy who might get an 8th place finish if he was playing on a top line and PP with great linemates on one team, might only be a 14th place finish on another team with a great first line and not much depth. I think there's so much that can go into point totals and there's so much fluctuation on a yearly basis that more teams are bound to affect it to some extent. It's certainly not 5 times harder though.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Watched a lot of hockey yesterday.
World Junior games were so much faster than the NHL games I was watching.
Wonder if those NHLers could compete with the juniors?
World Junior games were so much faster than the NHL games I was watching.
Wonder if those NHLers could compete with the juniors?
Reds4Life
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2007
- 3,975
- 333
Wonder if Mario Lemieux saying today's goalies and defenseman are much better mean anything?
Actually adding to the talent pool is just more icing on the cake of my unarguable point, it's not the main point here and I'm honestly curious as to where or when I was corrected about anything.
Let's say the talent didn't increase and everything just stayed the same, there's 90 players competing for top line minutes and powerplay time in a 30 team league, compared to 18 in a 6 team league.
A lot of what is said here in defense is, oh well that wouldn't change how good they were the best are always the best etc. etc., well, not in the literal sense would they be any better or worse, but it would change how you rank them, which is basically how good you think they are.
Unless the scoring finishes between those 18 skaters would have remained the same each year if we added 72 more players of equal talent, then you may have won this argument. Ultimately scoring finishes are a big part of how players get ranked here. Basically the fact of the matter is everyone besides Gretzky and Lemieux would be significantly effected by this.
Ben Grimm
👃Smells like teen spirit
- Dec 10, 2007
- 25,055
- 6,255
"all players today are better than any players in history" Posts
These posts are against board policy. Please click there > http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=140503
These posts are against board policy. Please click there > http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=140503
Taco MacArthur said:
overpass
Registered User
OK, fair enough, I guess you did post it there.
Still don't like the assumption that today is the gold standard for everything.
I don't know about today being the gold standard. For one I think it's impossible to fairly compare players across eras, especially when it's more than 20 years. Just too many factors and changes involved.
I think if anything the comparisons should be slanted towards todays players simply because there are more people playing the sport and it has evolved and advanced a lot. I find it being slanted the other way in this section, and I shouldn't be surprised cause it's the history section, but it's difficult to listen to when it seems like backwards logic much of the time.
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
Mostly because being a Great player requires talent and heart above all else.
If it was just about being the best stickhandler, having the hardest shot, being the strongest, biggest or the fastest then guys like Kovalev and Nilsson should of blew everyone out of the water.
Instead we have scrawny little runts like Wayne Gretzky and Dom Hasek that blow everyone away.
It's not what your body can do, it's what your mind can make your body do.
This is why guys like Bourque, Jagr and Lidstrom have been able to remain top dogs spanning multiple generations.
What's the next argument, that those guys don't count because they are special or outliers?
I mean who the frak are talking about here?
It's certainly not the difference between 3rd liners in the 80's and 3rd liners today.
Enough of this crap, take it to the thread it belongs in http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=849771
Last edited:
This argument is not just about being bigger, stronger and faster because a deeper talent pool would affect everything. With more people logic would say there will usually also be more available "talent". Even if you only upgraded the 3rd liners in the league then it would get slightly harder for the elite players to dominate.
I think you are equating "heart" to dedication here and todays players are probably more dedicated than ever before. Afterall, they are pretty much training for hockey year round now and if they don't you often notice it in their play. Ovechkin is a wonderfully gifted athlete but what the heck is going on with him now? Has he lost his god given talent or maybe he just isn't taking his conditioning, training and mental approach seriously enough now?
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
Of course and that's why no one is saying that Greztky could match his 200+ seasons.
And I'm still waiting for an explanation of how a skinny little runt like Gretzky fits into your evolution theories?
You also may want to actually read this thread from the beginning to see how your "theories" are doing
I also think OV is gifted player...physically. I have never found his mental game or his overall hockey sense on the same level though.
Crosby for example has the higher hockey intellect or IQ just like Gretzky's hockey IQ was above Crosby's.
Of course and that's why no one is saying that Greztky could match his 200+ seasons.
And I'm still waiting for an explanation of how a skinny little runt like Gretzky fits into your evolution theories?
You also may want to actually read this thread from the beginning to see how your "theories" are doing
How does Gretzky fit into my evolution theory? You are going to have to expand on what exactly you're looking for here. There are still players who are slight and don't look much like athletes such as Patrick Kane. I totally agree that hockey isn't just about being physically gifted and a lot of it is mental. In this "theory" the cream rises to the top of this larger talent pool so of course there is room for the guys with high hockey IQs and less physical gifts as well.
Gretzky is probably a good case actually. He didn't depend on physical abilities as much as some but I do think he was a great skater and had a great shot, especially in his earlier years. Age, injuries and wear were certainly factors but if you look at his career, his goal scoring ability and point totals dropped off a lot over the years. Was this just a case of his physical abilities diminishing or maybe, just maybe, did the hockey IQ of the average player increase as his career went on and they caught up to him a bit over time? How does he go from scoring 92 goals when he was 20 to only 25 goals when he was 35 and only 9 two years later? Obviously a lot of factors to consider. Goaltending, coaching systems, etc. improved. I think overall the league changed and improved a lot from the early 80's to '99 or now. Of course it did.
True, but he certainly had the hockey IQ to score goals and be an offensive force. I agree his hockey IQ wasn't his best asset.
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 10,725
- 6,225
I don't thing soo, individual will be with better training, alimentation, etc.. maybe yes.
But the genetic will not change much in 100 year's and natural selection is not choosing bigger and stronger men that much for a long time.
Dalton
Registered User
Change isn't always improvement. Sometimes it's just change. Adapting to one circumstance could leave one vulnerable to another unforeseen or otherwise. To think otherwise is to assume we are progressing to perfection and history shows that that is not likely true.
Gretzky's points and goals decreased as his age increased like all athletes performance decline over time. The Suter hit had a huge impact. Playing for variously talented teams makes a difference. I don't think the league had to do so much adapting to him as nature and events took their course.
Players with high physical stamina show us that talent is what's most important not era in and of itself. Examples abound starting with Howe and including performances from the Bourques, Lemieux's and Jagrs for example. But that takes away some of the fun in the debate if one were to assume or accept that like all mankind's endeavours, talent trumps.
Newton was a genius in any era and to argue he wouldn't be today is silly. The same is true of sports talent. I think it's best to compare achievements and their context than normalize. Or perhaps a true normalization factor hasn't been created. We need the equivalent of IQ in hockey. TQ or talent quotient. Normalizing stats doesn't do the job.
Honestly, after seeing threads by posters trying to use math to claim Crosby would outscore Gretzky, I think it's clear that this (the math) approach leads to absurdities. How about polling the fans, players and officials who watched the careers of these players. That would be a start.
MH ramblings or rant maybe.
Gretzky's points and goals decreased as his age increased like all athletes performance decline over time. The Suter hit had a huge impact. Playing for variously talented teams makes a difference. I don't think the league had to do so much adapting to him as nature and events took their course.
Players with high physical stamina show us that talent is what's most important not era in and of itself. Examples abound starting with Howe and including performances from the Bourques, Lemieux's and Jagrs for example. But that takes away some of the fun in the debate if one were to assume or accept that like all mankind's endeavours, talent trumps.
Newton was a genius in any era and to argue he wouldn't be today is silly. The same is true of sports talent. I think it's best to compare achievements and their context than normalize. Or perhaps a true normalization factor hasn't been created. We need the equivalent of IQ in hockey. TQ or talent quotient. Normalizing stats doesn't do the job.
Honestly, after seeing threads by posters trying to use math to claim Crosby would outscore Gretzky, I think it's clear that this (the math) approach leads to absurdities. How about polling the fans, players and officials who watched the careers of these players. That would be a start.
MH ramblings or rant maybe.
I am not going through whole discussion, but has someone tried to turn around the question?
What if modern player would be put in previous eras? Could we imagine they would perform the same with old equipment, medical help, penalty toleration etc.? Would be 1000+ games mark so common? Would H. Sedin with whole his hockey sense stand up the same against monsters like Shore or Seibert without helm and almost free pass for them from referee?
What if modern player would be put in previous eras? Could we imagine they would perform the same with old equipment, medical help, penalty toleration etc.? Would be 1000+ games mark so common? Would H. Sedin with whole his hockey sense stand up the same against monsters like Shore or Seibert without helm and almost free pass for them from referee?
Masao
Registered User
Stan Mikita and Bobby Hull would absolutely tear the game apart today.
I never got the cack about players today being better. There are guys who are super big and super strong and super fast, and they have no idea what they're doing on the ice and just skate in circles.
I never got the cack about players today being better. There are guys who are super big and super strong and super fast, and they have no idea what they're doing on the ice and just skate in circles.
seriously do you even watch the games?People that minimize todays talent and high competiton levels, like in the example above, are either being ignornat or nostaglic, not sure which is worse.
redbull
Boss
- Mar 24, 2008
- 12,593
- 654
People that minimize todays talent and high competiton levels, like in the example above, are either being ignornat or nostaglic, not sure which is worse.
I don't know, I kinda see his point. Mikita and Hull were slightly before my time but these were elite players. Aside from these two examples, today's game has some great athletes and some great hockey players - BUT, we have A LOT of players who simply aren't very talented.
The bottom six and #5-6 dmen on MOST teams are not good hockey players at all. They are bigger, faster, in better shape and they seem to play much harder on the forecheck and backcheck - but MANY of them have absolutely no skills.
Today, a player who's 6'4" 220lbs and can skate, is pretty much assured of an NHL job, regardless of ability. Seems that years ago, it was less about the biggest and fastest (players were generally smaller in stature) but players were much more talented. Also, talented players had to be tough or they simply couldn't play.
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
...and most importantly, affordable.
Teams simply can't afford to have talented players in their lower roster spots anymore.
Czech Your Math
I am lizard king
I think normalizing helps put achievement in context, because environments vary greatly. I have attempted to create a true normalization factor based on actual performance of top skaters from one year to the next. It would suggest that even after simply adjusting scoring stats, the post-WHA period ('80 to present) has been a lot tougher than before that time. The main exception would be the few years right before the O6 initially expanded (mid-60s).
I'm guessing the key word is "attempt", because I have not seen any math suggesting Crosby would even come close to Gretzky's peak/prime/career numbers. The median NHL player has been steadily getting better for decades, but the top end can vary. I think polls, voting for awards, etc. are one way of evaluating players, but probably shouldn't be the primary way, and certainly not the only way of doing so.
- Status
