The War Years

[daver]

Has there ever been a deep dive into this? Two areas stick out as being relevant when looking at the affects of players leaving.

1. Richard's 50 in 50 is certainly in need of some context given that numerous notable goal scorers were not in the league at the time and league scoring took a notable jump when players left..

How much context though? The extreme, IMO, is to assume that the handful of players that were objectively better than Cain all have peak/close to peak goalscoring seasons and significantly change the strength of that season.. I think that you could reasonably expect one or two players to be above Cain if the league was running as normal. And you can reasonably expect that Richard doesn't reach 50 (nor Cain reach 32).

Do we seriously question Richard's dominance though?

2. When do the War Years end?

It seemed like most of the players were back in the league by the late 40's. Do the War Years extend past this? If so, is there any compelling evidence?

Click to read more...

 

[daver]

So a look at the Top Ten/Twenty scorers from seasons 1938/39 to 1958/59 reveals some interesting data.

Starting in 1938/39, I looked at:

- how many of the previous season's Top Ten scorers were either Top Ten again, Top Ten in PPG, or Top 20

- the average age of the Top Ten scorers

-how many of the Top 20 scorers were 24 years old and below (Young) and 30 years old and above (Old)

This is due to the avg. age of the Top Ten being around 27 years and with the majority of the Top 20 usually being between 24 and 30 years old.

From 1939 to 1942, the average age was 27.5 with an outlier season in 1940 (25.1). An average of 8 of the Top Ten scorers showed up again the next season as noted above.

There are about 4 Young players in the Top 20 and 2 Old players in the Top 20.

Starting in 1943, the War Years start and between 5 and 10 (in 43/44) Top Ten scoring threats each season are absent until 1947.

The average age stays the same while the number of Old players notably increases in '44 and '45 while Young players decrease.

By 1948, the absent players have mostly returned and returned to form.

1948 to 1953 sees a clear trend of more OLD players in the Top 10/20. War players like Schmidt and Conacher are still placing high in scoring. There is also a healthy number of Young players in the Top 10/20. The players in the 25 to 30 age group is weak.

Starting in 1953 to 1959, a notable decline in Old Players starts combined with a bit of an increase in Young players. The average age of the Top Ten is closer to 26 years old. It seems clear that the league has returned to the pre-War norm of the Top 10/20 being a majority between 25 and 30 with a slightly younger edge.


COMMENT

The OP mentions that that you could reasonably expect one or two players to be above Cain in 44/45 if the league was running as normal. And you can reasonably expect that Richard doesn't reach 50 (nor Cain reach 32). The data supports this.

This shouldn't take away very much of Richard's overall aura but if you want to bring the 50 in 50 aura down a bit, that seems reasonable,

Howe's peak is a bit trickier. Likely a normalization of the the early '50s sees more talent that could have entered the league from '42/42 to '47 with a couple of those players finishing in the Top Ten from '51 to '54. Maybe Howe's gap between him and 2nd/3rd place is decreased in one or two years or his domination over the Top 5/10 is lowered a bit but there has been some narrative around whether could have tuned up some more teams to increase his points. I believe he played his best against the better teams/defenses at the time.

Placing him on a tier with Beliveau and Hull doesn't seem reasonable.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The entire 1950s era gets overrated due to lore, nostalgia, childhood legends, etc. IMO.

Having 15 top 100 players from the Great Depression / WWII generation's decade but only 6 players from the Crosby / Ovechkin era decade despite the talent pool being 3 to 4 times larger is a glaring anomaly that should be reexamined by people in this forum.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great era of hockey where modern hockey was essentially born. IMO Gordie Howe is the second greatest player of all time. But a little rebalancing of perspectives is perhaps warranted.

It's not a coincidence that 50 in 50 happened for Richard when it did, and then never again aside from the extreme high scoring environment of the 12 years from 1980 to 1992. Environmental factors loom large, and the extent to which most hockey fans and the hockey media are able to disregard scoring environment continues to amaze me.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I wonder how much having 2 less HOF goalies to play against boosted it as well. 40% of Richard's games suddenly went from shooting on Brimsek/Broda to fill in guys

 

[MXD]

I wonder how much having 2 less HOF goalies to play against boosted it as well. 40% of Richard's games suddenly went from shooting on Brimsek/Broda to fill in guys

Maurice Richard played a grand total of four games against each these two netminders between the moment he joined the NHL and the moment they came back from the war. Nearly 50 % of his total production in 42-43 came playing against Frank Brimsek.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Maurice Richard played a grand total of four games against each these two netminders between the moment he joined the NHL and the moment they came back from the war. Nearly 50 % of his total production in 42-43 came playing against Frank Brimsek.

Yeah, and that "nearly 50%" amounts to 2 goals.

The year after his 50 in 50, Brimsek was back and Richard dropped from 10 goals in 10 games in 44-45 to 5 goals in 10 games in 45-46 against Boston. Similarly he dropped from 8 in 10 against Toronto to 4 in 10

 

[pnep]

Has there ever been a deep dive into this? Two areas stick out as being relevant when looking at the affects of players leaving.

1. Richard's 50 in 50 is certainly in need of some context given that numerous notable goal scorers were not in the league at the time and league scoring took a notable jump when players left..

How much context though? The extreme, IMO, is to assume that the handful of players that were objectively better than Cain all have peak/close to peak goalscoring seasons and significantly change the strength of that season.. I think that you could reasonably expect one or two players to be above Cain if the league was running as normal. And you can reasonably expect that Richard doesn't reach 50 (nor Cain reach 32).

Do we seriously question Richard's dominance though?

2. When do the War Years end?

It seemed like most of the players were back in the league by the late 40's. Do the War Years extend past this? If so, is there any compelling evidence?

Question: Talent level by years/era

I'm heavily working on a database that mathematicaly list every player that ever played in the NHL (kinda like pnep's HHOF monitor) and some observations got me confused. I've always defend the fact that there's no difference between a player finishing 1st in scoring in 1960 or in 2000, and...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[Michael Farkas]

I've never seen that before...I wonder if anything happens with best 2/best 3. I really need to finish learning python...

 

[pnep]

I've never seen that before...I wonder if anything happens with best 2/best 3. I really need to finish learning python...

Best 5 Seasons with Coefficients (1, 0.8, 0.6, 0.4, 0.2):

Season	SUM_BEST	SUM_Games	%
1917	21.07	30.14	42.30%
1918	14.09	26.83	39.39%
1919	21.51	36.33	53.18%
1920	20.12	36.33	51.07%
1921	18.87	38.38	45.22%
1922	17.07	36.50	46.76%
1923	20.03	38.21	52.43%
1924	36.37	60.03	60.58%
1925	44.81	76.69	58.42%
1926	54.80	110.91	49.41%
1927	54.97	110.05	49.95%
1928	47.74	112.14	42.57%
1929	59.56	127.84	46.59%
1930	59.13	135.14	43.76%
1931	39.96	112.38	35.56%
1932	51.87	128.48	40.37%
1933	55.60	131.06	42.43%
1934	54.33	131.29	41.38%
1935	42.35	116.73	36.28%
1936	42.57	118.35	35.97%
1937	45.74	118.42	38.63%
1938	36.75	106.52	34.50%
1939	45.42	102.04	44.51%
1940	49.25	101.77	48.39%
1941	49.38	101.96	48.43%
1942	42.47	83.84	50.66%
1943	51.02	79.64	64.07%
1944	53.36	83.62	63.81%
1945	34.04	88.94	38.28%
1946	35.60	93.43	38.11%
1947	39.65	93.40	42.46%
1948	43.65	95.12	45.89%
1949	44.69	99.36	44.98%
1950	44.39	100.33	44.24%
1951	37.68	94.17	40.01%
1952	38.15	95.80	39.83%
1953	37.42	98.10	38.14%
1954	38.68	97.60	39.63%
1955	36.56	98.23	37.22%
1956	35.43	97.96	36.17%
1957	36.60	98.64	37.11%
1958	34.02	100.70	33.78%
1959	35.54	102.49	34.68%
1960	33.64	102.01	32.97%
1961	29.29	98.93	29.61%
1962	28.53	99.91	28.56%
1963	27.11	100.31	27.03%
1964	24.91	101.36	24.58%
1965	25.38	100.91	25.15%
1966	20.55	101.50	20.25%
1967	87.56	198.11	44.20%
1968	79.44	199.28	39.86%
1969	77.47	200.79	38.58%
1970	106.66	248.13	42.99%
1971	101.35	243.88	41.56%
1972	133.03	276.63	48.09%
1973	117.08	279.08	41.95%
1974	146.11	314.91	46.40%
1975	146.54	315.88	46.39%
1976	156.61	319.73	48.98%
1977	149.31	320.40	46.60%
1978	128.53	303.86	42.30%
1979	176.63	377.23	46.82%
1980	162.21	377.94	42.92%
1981	155.53	378.25	41.12%
1982	179.22	398.08	45.02%
1983	158.20	398.45	39.70%
1984	154.20	399.04	38.64%
1985	145.57	399.59	36.43%
1986	142.64	400.44	35.62%
1987	136.34	400.51	34.04%
1988	135.98	400.40	33.96%
1989	138.44	400.84	34.54%
1990	137.95	401.49	34.36%
1991	142.05	419.99	33.82%
1992	159.18	457.38	34.80%
1993	191.24	496.18	38.54%
1994	166.70	496.42	33.58%
1995	150.00	496.12	30.24%
1996	155.51	496.07	31.35%
1997	154.97	496.28	31.23%
1998	169.97	514.87	33.01%
1999	195.27	534.07	36.56%
2000	246.24	572.11	36.84%
2001	266.37	572.23	36.24%
2002	281.78	571.85	34.86%
2003	329.50	571.91	36.39%
2005	362.51	572.17	35.76%

 

[Michael Farkas]

Very cool. I'll need to take a deeper dive on this. Based on my eye (and my tinkering), this is my latest approximation of league quality...it's not that far off of this graph in a lot of ways...(naturally, you have a couple of decades before my timeline where the amount of film really drops off, I have a couple decades after)...

This is a very, very rough draft that I hadn't planned on showing really...but given how relatively close they came out, I can't resist.

 

[MXD]

Yeah, and that "nearly 50%" amounts to 2 goals.

The year after his 50 in 50, Brimsek was back and Richard dropped from 10 goals in 10 games in 44-45 to 5 goals in 10 games in 45-46 against Boston. Similarly he dropped from 8 in 10 against Toronto to 4 in 10

The point was, Richard never really went from shooting against them to shooting against second or third or eighth stringers, because he didn't really play any meaningful hockey against them before the war.

 

[Overrated]

Very cool. I'll need to take a deeper dive on this. Based on my eye (and my tinkering), this is my latest approximation of league quality...it's not that far off of this graph in a lot of ways...(naturally, you have a couple of decades before my timeline where the amount of film really drops off, I have a couple decades after)...

This is a very, very rough draft that I hadn't planned on showing really...but given how relatively close they came out, I can't resist.

View attachment 808804

The NHL quality was higher in 1970 than in 1995?

 

[pnep]

The NHL quality was higher in 1970 than in 1995?

nope

High % "Best Seasons" --> Low quality of opposition...

 

[Overrated]

nope

High % "Best Seasons" --> Low quality of opposition...

Well Farkas seems to think based on his graph. Even 2010 seems to be weaker than 1970. Unbelievable!

 

[Michael Farkas]

What specifically have you not liked about your viewings of 1970? How do you find it different than, say, 1965?

 

[Overrated]

What specifically have you not liked about your viewings of 1970? How do you find it different than, say, 1965?

I can't answer your question because whenever I watch old games it's always the big games in the playoffs and not games of the newly added minor league filled teams.

What specifically would you say the minor league player filled expansion fresh league of 1970 was better at than the superstar filled worldwide league between the years 1990 and 2015? That would be a better question.

 

[MadLuke]

Question: Talent level by years/era

I'm heavily working on a database that mathematicaly list every player that ever played in the NHL (kinda like pnep's HHOF monitor) and some observations got me confused. I've always defend the fact that there's no difference between a player finishing 1st in scoring in 1960 or in 2000, and...

forums.hfboards.com

That can be a bit of a different question, league quality at large and quality of elite peer competition.

The obvious case being like when the league went from 6 to 12 teams all the sudden, quality of the league in term of the average player can have went down quite a bit without changing much in a certain way that outscoring the 5th or 10th best scorer mean less or more now. Different quality can change which style of players score more (a bit like nhl vs khl vs ahl will not exactly transfer 1:1 all the time)

 

[Michael Farkas]

I can't answer your question because whenever I watch old games it's always the big games in the playoffs and not games of the newly added minor league filled teams.

What specifically would you say the minor league player filled expansion fresh league of 1970 was better at than the superstar filled worldwide league between the years 1990 and 2015? That would be a better question.

Answering a question with a question is seldom a better way to go about this haha

The difference is is that the first expansion didn't really fill the league with minor league caliber players. The leagues below the NHL were brimming with talent, NHL talent. So...the transition was fairly smooth. That's part of the reason why you don't see scoring balloon up like you do in other expansions...the mid 70's, the WHA one, the early 90's...they came with ballooning because there was so much garbage dumped into the league that it couldn't readily process it.

The 1968 Stanley Cup Final...Montreal vs St. Louis.

You'd expect the team to destroy this, allegedly, "minor league filled" team...

It was four one goal games. Two of which went to overtime.

Diminished Montreal played Hartford in the prelim round in 1980...
6-1, 8-4, 4-3. Not particularly close.

Winnipeg and Quebec won 20 games.

Obviously, Team Gretzky competed because no one came close to him.

1981 - Winnipeg won 9 games, Hartford won 20. Quebec made the playoffs and lost in the prelims to Philadelphia (fair enough).

The further you get from the sponsorship era and proper development, the further you get from fundamentals...so you get one way players, incomplete players, as Petr Klima noted, players that can't skate.

As Ken Hodge, Stan Mikita, and others said...you get more money if you get points, and they (the young players in the early 80's) got points at any cost. So the game grew out of control in a lot of ways...and young players were forced into the league too early.

Look at the 80's, look at those young d-men that came in...no wonder they say it takes 200 games or to the age of 23 or three NHL seasons before they're ready...it's because they were coming in at 18 or 19 and doing whatever they want...coaching ranks were stretched too thin, the player pool was stretched too thin.

1967: One teenager in the NHL - it's Bobby ****** Orr.

The league "OMG doubles!!!2!" (which has no meaning in this case, but it's fun to say...that doubling was way less impactful on league quality than adding four WHA teams to the 17-team NHL, for instance)

Influx of unready, undeveloped players, right?

Nope.

1968: One teenager in the NHL: It's still Bobby Orr.
1969: None, because Bobby Orr isn't a teenager anymore.

##

Early 80s - Now we're at 15 teenagers, a slew of 40+ year olds, a 50 year old haha
Mid 80s: It gets worse.

Then it starts to catch up again.

But anyhow...you nitpicked how 1970 is about even with 1995 (it's a half a point difference, I'd say that easily falls within a MOE) and then answered a question with a question while providing no semblance of an answer in the midst...is that any more concerning than me being slightly alarmed that 1995 saw us go without a legit Gretzky and no Lemieux for the first time in a while? That year sucked haha

Or in 2010 where we had to deal with a minor leaguer winning two Vezinas on either side of it, a minor league goalie duel in the Final, a bunch of players falling all over the ice to try to keep pace with opponent rush offenses, etc. compared to 1970, which was still the shooting star of the peak of the O6 era and quality...?

That's just the way the game looks...

 

[Overrated]

Answering a question with a question is seldom a better way to go about this haha

The difference is is that the first expansion didn't really fill the league with minor league caliber players. The leagues below the NHL were brimming with talent, NHL talent. So...the transition was fairly smooth. That's part of the reason why you don't see scoring balloon up like you do in other expansions

You don't? We see a massive ballooning up for the top end talent. Howe gets his first 100 point season after 25 years as a pro at 41 year old. Before the expansion nobody had ever scored a 100! Two years later Esposito puts up 152 points. That is the greatest increase in the top end scoring the league has ever seen. If you're specifically talking about "Goals per Game" then that is meta dependent and refers to everyone scoring more. You should look at how the top end talent only and how it started scoring significantly more all of a sudden.

...the mid 70's, the WHA one, the early 90's...they came with ballooning because there was so much garbage dumped into the league that it couldn't readily process it.

The 1968 Stanley Cup Final...Montreal vs St. Louis.

You'd expect the team to destroy this, allegedly, "minor league filled" team...

All in all it was a 4 games won for Montreal and 0 games won for St. Louis. In the regular season Montreal was at +69 goal difference and St. Louis at -14. The only way they made it into the finals was due to St. Louis playing against other expansion teams until the very final. The next year it was another 4-0 for Montreal and then 4-0 for Boston. Then they changed the rules I wonder why...

But anyhow...you nitpicked how 1970 is about even with 1995 (it's a half a point difference, I'd say that easily falls within a MOE) and then answered a question with a question while providing no semblance of an answer in the midst...is that any more concerning than me being slightly alarmed that 1995 saw us go without a legit Gretzky and no Lemieux for the first time in a while? That year sucked haha

Or in 2010 where we had to deal with a minor leaguer winning two Vezinas on either side of it, a minor league goalie duel in the Final, a bunch of players falling all over the ice to try to keep pace with opponent rush offenses, etc. compared to 1970, which was still the shooting star of the peak of the O6 era and quality...?

That's just the way the game looks...

I didn't really answer with a question, I first answered that I can't answer based on me viewing and following those expansion teams because I've never spent my time watching a 1969 game between LA Kings and Minnesota. If I am watching a 1969 game it's because I wanna see Orr or Hull. At least I was fair and said straight up I can't answer that question. You didn't really answer my question though of how exactly, based on your video analysis and viewing have you come to the conclusion that the DPE was less skilled then the early 70s. All you did was answer with factoids and statistics.

 

[Michael Farkas]

You don't? We see a massive ballooning up for the top end talent. Howe gets his first 100 point season after 25 years as a pro at 41 year old. Before the expansion nobody had ever scored a 100! Two years later Esposito puts up 152 points. That is the greatest increase in the top end scoring the league has ever seen. If you're specifically talking about "Goals per Game" then that is meta dependent and refers to everyone scoring more. You should look at how the top end talent only and how it started scoring significantly more all of a sudden.

That's fair. I buy that. But talking about league quality requires a more comprehensive look. There are more players to track now as you creep into the current times. So, considering pnep's numbers for best seasons show that 1969 and 1999 are virtually identical, you'd say that these timeframes of overall league quality may well be similar after all?

Or would you rate 1993, for instance, as a particularly weak year in the NHL?

Re: Expansion Cups. You seemed to try really hard to disagree with me there for some reason, but basically ended up agreeing with me. So, nothing more to say there. I don't think anyone was under any misgivings as to how St. Louis made the Final. The Blues with Dickie Moore, Doug Harvey, Glenn Hall, Jacques Plante, With support from players that show how brimming with talent the sub-NHL was - Red Berenson wasn't given an opportunity in the O6 era generally, but turned into a semi-star in the NHL on merit...he wasn't a fly-by-night guy who had two years and left. He played effectively into his late 30s...made the '72 Summit Series team, etc.

Re: the last paragraph. You answered my question with a question and then stated, "that would be a better question" - driving home, with no uncertainty, that you were answering my question with a question haha - that's one of the more bizarre denials I've seen...

You believe it's "fair" that you said you "can't answer" the question...mocked my opinion on the subject openly, and then answered the question with a loaded question back to me? You consider that "fair"?

Why don't you just tell me an acceptable format that you'd accept my answer in...you don't want how I see the game, you don't want facts, and you don't want statistics...set me up with a template, and I'll fill in the blanks. You tell me. That's fair...*cough*

 

[Overrated]

That's fair. I buy that. But talking about league quality requires a more comprehensive look. There are more players to track now as you creep into the current times. So, considering pnep's numbers for best seasons show that 1969 and 1999 are virtually identical, you'd say that these timeframes of overall league quality may well be similar after all?

Or would you rate 1993, for instance, as a particularly weak year in the NHL?

Re: Expansion Cups. You seemed to try really hard to disagree with me there for some reason, but basically ended up agreeing with me. So, nothing more to say there. I don't think anyone was under any misgivings as to how St. Louis made the Final. The Blues with Dickie Moore, Doug Harvey, Glenn Hall, Jacques Plante, With support from players that show how brimming with talent the sub-NHL was - Red Berenson wasn't given an opportunity in the O6 era generally, but turned into a semi-star in the NHL on merit...he wasn't a fly-by-night guy who had two years and left. He played effectively into his late 30s...made the '72 Summit Series team, etc.

Re: the last paragraph. You answered my question with a question and then stated, "that would be a better question" - driving home, with no uncertainty, that you were answering my question with a question haha - that's one of the more bizarre denials I've seen...

You believe it's "fair" that you said you "can't answer" the question...mocked my opinion on the subject openly, and then answered the question with a loaded question back to me? You consider that "fair"?

Why don't you just tell me an acceptable format that you'd accept my answer in...you don't want how I see the game, you don't want facts, and you don't want statistics...set me up with a template, and I'll fill in the blanks. You tell me. That's fair...*cough*

The loaded question was indeed the exact same question you asked me just in reverse after admitting I was unable to answer it.

How old is the average kid playing hockey? 11? If you look at the registration numbers in 62 there were around 150 thousand Canadian youngsters playing.

Hockey Canada Registrations & The High Costs of Hockey

This is a for reference post. I started researching Hockey Canada registrations to try and determine how the feed of Canadian hockey players has been over time. I just don't have a lot of time to continue at the moment so I wanted to put this out there in case someone else wants to pursue or...

forums.hfboards.com

So that is about the talent pool entering the NHL in 69/70. In the 80s it was around 500k. That was the talent pool coming into the league in around the 1990. Plus the US, CSSR, USSR, Finland, Sweden which all produced great generations of players.

 

[seventieslord]

Could teenagers even play in the NHL until the 1979-80 season? Orr came from the sponsorship era so he did, 13 years prior, but then the entry draft was instituted and it was only eligible for 20+ year olds. In general I agree with the point you're making Mike, but I don't think looking at the number of teenagers in the league tells us anything other than that.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Oh no...not the "don't all of these decidedly not pro players effect the NHL?" nonsense again...

So you went from "it matters how much the superstars are outscoring the rest of the league" to pivoting to "look at how many six year olds were registered in one of these organizations" - I'm sorry, I can't go down this road again. It's pointless.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Could teenagers even play in the NHL until the 1979-80 season? Orr came from the sponsorship era so he did, 13 years prior, but then the entry draft was instituted and it was only eligible for 20+ year olds. In general I agree with the point you're making Mike, but I don't think looking at the number of teenagers in the league tells us anything other than that.

Yes, teenagers were eligible. With the exception of 1971-1974, 1977-1979 - it would be really difficult for a teenager to play. All other times in history, teenagers were eligible.

When the 20 year old draft rule was lifted briefly for the 1975 draft, immediately teenagers flooded in and took those spots...one would easily assume that they would have in, say, 1977 as well...

Generally, speaking, we see influxes of teenagers around weak times...War years, mid-70's, early and mid 80's...it's just one of the many puzzle pieces.

Now, like now now...the development structure is much different than most of the last 50 years. Players come in more ready. The "finishing" of development arcs is starting earlier...

 

[jigglysquishy]

I do think we're in one of the high points of league strength now, though I do think the 1991-1994 time period was still higher. I wonder if we're walking into a low point in the next 3-5 years, much like the 1991-1994 period was followed by a low period in 2000-2004 and the high 2005-2008 was followed by a low in 2014-16.

For the last three seasons it seems the consensus best five forwards have been McDavid and Kucherov/Draisaitl/MacKinnon/Matthews in some combination. You could honestly push that back five years to 2018-19 and get every Hart/Art Ross winner. As is, they represent the top 4 point scorers over the last three seasons, by far the 4 highest PPGs over the last three seasons, and Matthews' goal scoring. You have the 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 drafts represented. Which forward since then has shown the ability to join this group? Someone capable of being a top 5 forward for 3-5 year time period and a serious multiple-time Hart threat.

Hughes from 2019? Maybe Pettersson from 2018? No one from 2020 is even a career PPG. Stuzle's 90 points last year is the only >60 point season from that draft class. 2021 and 2022 look very light for top-end talent too. And then you get Bedard.

In 2028, are we looking at an NHL with weak top-end forwards much like we did in 2000-2004? We might end up with Hughes as the only Hart-calibre forward in the 2017-2022 draft window.