Unpopular opinions

[Overrated]

I'm sorry but this is complete fabrication.

The NHL was still headquartered in Canada until 1989. James Norris was the controlling interest for the Blackhawks, Red Wings, and Rangers until the early 50s. He was Canadian.

The league was exclusively Canadian from 1911 until 1927. And had majority Canadian controlling stake until 1952.

Outside owners themselves, team management was overwhelmingly Canadian. American desk staff didn't overtake Canadian desk until 1967.

The NFL and NBA weren't fully developed until the late 50s (MLB was obviously much older). It's ludicrous to say the NHL was historically modeled off them when it's an older league.

All four leagues have very different history until about 1960 when TV and expansion solidified a repeatable business model.

The NHL, in terms of the suits, remained Canadian until the 80s.

Sure, now it's overwhelmingly American. But it just wasn't in its formative years.

Hockey has a history of dynasties going back to Silver Seven Senators and 1890s Montreal AAA team. It is in no way an American importation or reflective of American culture.

Doesn't that corroborate most of what I've said though? I did mention that up until the 70s there was one superteam which had dominated for decades. As the Americanization of the sport started taking place eventually in the late 60s the French Canadian rule was gotten rid off. After the complete takeover by the Americans further attempts to enforce equality on the sport were enacted which resulted in the salary cap. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like people have an issue with it hence me pointing out that such thinking has likely been adopted by Canadians as well.

 

[MadLuke]

enforce equality on the sport were enacted which resulted in the salary cap. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like people have an issue with it hence me pointing out that such thinking has likely been adopted by Canadians as well.

How does this go into the direction of not liking the team part of sport and love of inequality, to explain why Canadians would have exaggerated USSR team cohesion as a reason they won ? It seem you point to things going to the complete opposite direction.

Just to start of the premise, Canadian lost because they were not a cohesive team excuse could very well be spinned as Canadian overrating team part of team sport.

Seem to me starting with a conclusion-point you want to make and trying to make what happened fit with it.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

Offense, defense, goaltending, and skating are all overrated

 

[Overrated]

How does this go into the direction of not liking the team part of sport and love of inequality, to explain why Canadians would have exaggerated USSR team cohesion as a reason they won ? It seem you point to things going to the complete opposite direction.

I merely juxtaposed the paradox within the US society which does frown upon equality within the realm of education and healthcare yet demands equality in team sports. I then concluded that it could be due to how individualistically team sports are perceived within the USA.

You might disagree but it's definitely not logically unsound as you're trying to make it.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Doesn't that corroborate most of what I've said though? I did mention that up until the 70s there was one superteam which had dominated for decades. As the Americanization of the sport started taking place eventually in the late 60s the French Canadian rule was gotten rid off. After the complete takeover by the Americans further attempts to enforce equality on the sport were enacted which resulted in the salary cap. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like people have an issue with it hence me pointing out that such thinking has likely been adopted by Canadians as well.

None of this is true.

The corporate domination of the sport was firmly Ontario Tory, not French Canadian.

The Habs may have been the most successful team, but it wasn't decades of domination.

The Ottawa Silver Sevens ruled in the 1900s and their best players were all from English Ontario.

The first Habs dynasty wasn't until the 50s. When the O6 ended the Habs were only up on the Leafs 14-13 in number of Cups.

All three of the Red Wings, Leafs, and Habs had a dynasty during the 50s or 60s.

 

[Neutrinos]

That question of a team of Pronger's-Lindroses vs Morenz-Harvey would require a bit more context, are they all born in 1900 or 1975 ? Playing 1930 hockey or 1995 hockey ?

I probably should've looked up Dempsey's weight class, but I was naming one of the few early boxers I know of . Feel free to substitute Jack Johnson if it helps, but the point remains

As for the era, it could be played in any era, and the equipment is up to whichever set the player chooses

There's a reason players no longer use wood sticks, and old-timey skates, and that's because they play better with the latest gear, so it should be assumed that Harvey and Morenz would opt for the latest tech

And it's a team of Harveys and Morenz as they were at their best vs a team of Prongers and Lindroses at their best

Which team are you putting your money on?

 

[Mike C]

Offense, defense, goaltending, and skating are all overrated

So it all boils down to coaching you say?

I probably should've looked up Dempsey's weight class, but I was naming one of the few early boxers I know of . Feel free to substitute Jack Johnson if it helps, but the point remains

As for the era, it could be played in any era, and the equipment is up to whichever set the player chooses

There's a reason players no longer use wood sticks, and old-timey skates, and that's because they play better with the latest gear, so it should be assumed that Harvey and Morenz would opt for the latest tech

And it's a team of Harveys and Morenz as they were at their best vs a team of Prongers and Lindroses at their best

Which team are you putting your money on?

The accurate test would be if the other 2 teams had equal ability and talent with the defense being the only variable

That said, I'll take Harvey and Morenz all day

 

[Gregor Samsa]

So it all boils down to coaching you say?

Coaching and the will to power

 

[jigglysquishy]

I merely juxtaposed the paradox within the US society which does frown upon equality within the realm of education and healthcare yet demands equality in team sports. I then concluded that it could be due to how individualistically team sports are perceived within the USA.

You might disagree but it's definitely not logically unsound as you're trying to make it.

The salary caps (MLB doesn't have one) came in for cost certainty, not parity.

The NBA is firmly in the era of superteams. The Lakers made 7 finals in the 00s.

Golden State made 6 of the last 9 finals.

The league is thriving in the superteam era. The soft cap hasn't impeded that.

There's no part of American culture that demands team parity.

 

[MadLuke]

how individualistically team sports are perceived within the USA.

Are they particularly ? NY Yankee player do not even have their name written on their uniform, some football player knows they will virtually never touch the ball all of their career.

Fans of individual players more than your local team's is particular new in the US and I would imagine exist for the Messi-Ronaldo around the world has well.

But why if team sports are perceived to be very individualistic would it explain the reflex to blame a lack of team cohesion-coaching instead of blaming the lost on the fact Canada had lesser individual player ? Would we not expect the other way around ?

Because having less cohesion felt has less insulting has an hockey system then lesser player ? Maybe, but there is a tension here and again we are talking among Canadians, not the USA.

 

[Mike C]

Coaching and the will to power

Fair assessment

 

[MadLuke]

Which team are you putting your money on?

They played junior hockey at the same time I imagine in that scenario ?, it is hard to pick, we never saw what a 12 Lindros forward team look like and how to handle it, I would not bet against them you face 4 oversized-powered Legion of Doom one after the other all night long, too much size for player able to skate and good hands, but it could be a disaster.

And I have never see Morenz play, making that impression-bet quite the pure guessing.

 

[Neutrinos]

Boxing is not a team sport. Fighters are in the same weight class. Same size gloves. Muck easier to compare boxers.

In hockey, who's era are we playing in? Because rules are different, equipment is different, officiating is diferent. Big (literally) size difference as back in the day players were much smaller. Not to mention there is absolutely no way to determine how the Lindros's play with other Lindros's. Or Pronger's with Pronger's.

And how does betting favorite fit into this? I'm not a gambler, let alone a odds maker.

Like I said, absurd.

Generally the team with the best players are the favorites, but that doesn't mean they're guaranteed to win

So, neither of us knows with any certainty which team would win, but we each have a belief on who we'd favour in that game


As for era, it could be played in any era, and the equipment is up to whichever set the player chooses

There's a reason players no longer use wood sticks, and old-timey skates, and that's because they play better with the latest gear, so it should be assumed that Harvey and Morenz would opt for the latest tech

And it's a team of Harveys and Morenz as they were at their best vs a team of Prongers and Lindroses at their best


This thought exercise requires some imagination, if you're not up for it, it's cool

 

[Overrated]

None of this is true.

The corporate domination of the sport was firmly Ontario Tory, not French Canadian.

I've never even spoken about whether NHL was English Canadian dominated or French Canadian dominated.

The Habs may have been the most successful team, but it wasn't decades of domination.

Well they made 31 finals from 1918 till 1979. I mean is it not fair to say that Montreal Canadiens could generally be considered a super team in that time frame despite not dominating every single year?

The Ottawa Silver Sevens ruled in the 1900s and their best players were all from English Ontario.

So?

The first Habs dynasty wasn't until the 50s. When the O6 ended the Habs were only up on the Leafs 14-13 in number of Cups.

All three of the Red Wings, Leafs, and Habs had a dynasty during the 50s or 60s.

There could easily be more than one superteam right?

There's no part of American culture that demands team parity.

The proof is right there when you google the draft and the salary cap. Why are we even arguing?

Draft:
The amateur draft was instituted by NHL President Clarence Campbell as a means of phasing out the sponsorship of amateur teams by the league's member clubs. The NHL wanted to create what Campbell called "a uniform opportunity for each team to acquire a star player".

Salary cap:
Like many professional sports leagues, the NHL has a salary cap to keep teams in larger markets (with more revenue) from signing all of the top players and extending their advantage over smaller-market franchises.

 

[MadLuke]

I still do not get the link between wanting parity among teams in a league and having a very individual-player centric view of the sport.

And then the link between the individual-player centric view of the sport and blaming team cohesion for their national team lost ?

In both case, it seems to be a bit unclear if not directly in opposition.

It seem to me like it was ideas one wanted to express and find a subject that kind of fitted with thematically to plug it in.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I've never even spoken about whether NHL was English Canadian dominated or French Canadian dominated.

As the Americanization of the sport started taking place eventually in the late 60s the French Canadian rule was gotten rid off.

Well they made 31 finals from 1918 till 1979. I mean is it not fair to say that Montreal Canadiens could generally be considered a super team in that time frame despite not dominating every single year?


Salary cap:
Like many professional sports leagues, the NHL has a salary cap to keep teams in larger markets (with more revenue) from signing all of the top players and extending their advantage over smaller-market franchises.

31 finals is a lot.

In the same time frame the Red Wings had 18. Leafs had 21. Bruins had 15.

The Habs didn't even become the historically number one team until the 60s.


It was hardly a league dominated by one superteam. It's very weird to portray that American culture is what got rid of the superteams. Especially as superteams still exist in the NBA.

The public facing of the salary cap will push parity, but it is absolutely about cost certainty. Nothing corporately in 2004 was about parity, but protecting against skyrocketing player costs.

 

[Voight]

Canada didn't build teams as strong as they could have in the 1990s. Part of it was a preference for the bigger, two-way winger/centre type (as you mentioned), but part of it was simply player availability. Apart from 1991, when Keenan infamously cut Yzerman, Sakic and several other noteworthy stars, how many players can we say were truly wrongfully omitted from Team Canada? Maybe Messier in 1998, maybe (maybe) Turgeon, Francis or Oates in 1998...? In hindsight we can say that some younger guys like Friesen or Marleau should have gotten a look in 1998 on the larger ice surface, but that's working around the edges of the team.

Team Canada in that era was likely always destined to be constructed as it was, given the draft pedigree and international experience that guys like Linden, Primeau, and Brind'Amour had (though truthfully, given the way he departed Detroit there is absolutely zero chance I would let Primeau anywhere near a Team Canada roster). Once guys like that make one roster, its hard to knock them off in future tournaments. We saw that again, to our detriment, in 2006 with guys like Doan, Draper and Smyth.

Marleau the (not overly impressive) rookie? Bit of a stretch there.

Not that egregious case but 2006 you have Crosby, Spezza, Staal not used.

In the 97 and 98 season the Canadian with the most points after Gretzky were Francis and Oates, Turgeon was 6th, Messier 10.

All of thoses were not no brainer should have been there, injury (Kariya-Sakic in 98, Niedermayer in 06) were probably bigger deals than manager choice.

Crosby being omitted I get - its very rare for Team Canada to select rookies for international tournaments, let alone the Olympics. They are big on "paying ones dues" in a way and I completely understand not picking a guy with what, 50 NHL games under his belt, regardless of how good or hyped he was.

 

[Voight]

The NHL should only allow wooden sticks (and shrink goalie equipment to equalize).

Youth hockey equipment doesn't have to be super expensive. But as long as NHLers use hyper engineered equipment so too will 9 year olds that want to be stars.

There will likely be safety improvements at the NHL level, but it will primarily help youth hockey.

In the same vane, the NHL should treat the drop in participation of youth hockey as mission number one to fix.



NHL roster sizes need to shrink. Lebron plays 75% of the game. Every fielder in the MLB plays 55% of the game. Everyone in the NFL plays 50% of the game.

Yet McDavid is only playing 35-38% of the game.

The game will slow down, but the average quality of play will improve. Who is buying a ticket to see Tanner Glass play?

To be fair thats because baseball has "dedicated" times for when players are on the field in position (similar to football). I.e its not like hockey or basketball where offence and defence go back and forth nonstop.

 

[Neutrinos]

They played junior hockey at the same time I imagine in that scenario ?, it is hard to pick, we never saw what a 12 Lindros forward team look like and how to handle it, I would not bet against them you face 4 oversized-powered Legion of Doom one after the other all night long, too much size for player able to skate and good hands, but it could be a disaster.

And I have never see Morenz play, making that impression-bet quite the pure guessing.

Yeah, we're speculating here

Which side would you put your money on?

 

[Voight]

Steve SHutt and Bill Barber are only HHOF'ers because of the teams they played on. I.e between the Flyers & Habs being two of the more popular franchises and winning cups in their era, that sealed their hall of fame cases.

Rene Robert for example arguably accomplished just as much individually (made more AST's than both of them) but has never made the HOF cut because Buffalo is a somewhat irrelevant team (I dont mean that in a. mean way, they just carry less weight than a lot of other teams) and they didn't have much success during his time there.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Crosby being omitted I get - its very rare for Team Canada to select rookies for international tournaments, let alone the Olympics. They are big on "paying ones dues" in a way and I completely understand not picking a guy with what, 50 NHL games under his belt, regardless of how good or hyped he was.

pre-rookie lindros in the last cc team is such an outlier in that regard

not only hadn’t paid any dues but in fact routinely refused to pay them

 

[Neutrinos]

I wouldn't be too sure about Pronger. Harvey was widely considered as the best defenseman ever before Orr emerged. I would always rank Lindros above Morenz though but that is because I really doubt the abilities of guys playing in the 1920s and 30s. The fact Morenz couldn't even dominate after 1932 and scored like 15 goals in his last 100 matches all of which were in his early mid thirties makes his case even weaker.

At one time, George Mikan was widely considered the best basketball player in the world, but that doesn't mean he was better than David Robinson

 

[Overrated]

At one time, George Mikan was widely considered the best basketball player in the world, but that doesn't mean he was better than David Robinson

But was he considered the best ever in his position? Also afaik basketball is a newer sport and was less competitive than hockey in the early 50s. It's not the most fair comparison.

 

[Michael Farkas]

That seems to be the pattern at the moment...

Then again, I staunchly believe that George Washington should have nuked the British...that would have made him a HOFer.

 

[daver]

How many times does it need to be pointed out that a time-machined Lindros in the '20s doesn't even play hockey, he makes a killing by short selling stock before the '29 crash and lives out his life on his Caribbean island surrounded by whiskey and women.

I would also question the locker room chemistry of a team made up of Lindros' and Prongers. it may be just a team of Lindros' by the halfway mark of the season.