Who would still be a star?

[Big Phil]

sure some would but all of them?

not likely, we see how guys suddenly drop off or decline faster than expected then add in a 20-30 year gap and it's hard to say how elite the stars of the 70's and 80's would be today or vice versa.

Most of the "evidence" is the competition against peers in an ever expanding NHL with little or no influx of new talent, especially in the 70's.

No doubt some would be stars and even be elite but all of them?

Could go either way really.

Howe BTW is a poor example of your argument, the league expanded as he aged (of course he was in his late 30's and a physical freak) but his decline was evident before he retired then played in the WHA.

If he had done that from the mid 70's to early 2000's it would be another thing but it isn't

Hardy, Howe is a freak of nature of course, he isn't the norm by any means, but what about some other names out there. Let's throw some names out such as Tim Horton, Alex Delvecchio, Dave Keon, Stan Mikita, etc. Just random names of past stars. The bigger question to ask is what would these guys have to NOT do in order to be stars in today's game? Would they all of the sudden become incompetent defensively? Would they forget how to play the game? We look at a guy like Jonathan Toews in today's game. I think we can agree Mikita was a better player than him no? Toews is more like Keon in that mold.

Horton for example is one of the defensemen who could play any type of game. Would that dissipate all of the sudden? No, it wouldn't. The burden of proof pretty much lies on the people who don't think they'd be relatively the same.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Hardy, Howe is a freak of nature of course, he isn't the norm by any means, but what about some other names out there. Let's throw some names out such as Tim Horton, Alex Delvecchio, Dave Keon, Stan Mikita, etc. Just random names of past stars. The bigger question to ask is what would these guys have to NOT do in order to be stars in today's game? Would they all of the sudden become incompetent defensively? Would they forget how to play the game? We look at a guy like Jonathan Toews in today's game. I think we can agree Mikita was a better player than him no? Toews is more like Keon in that mold.

I have Mikita down as one of the top 5 centers of all time. that being said he was a small player even for his time so it's impossible to translate how well he would do or wouldn't do in todays NHL.

Keon and Towes are probably a good comp and Toews probably has done more in his NHL career to date than Keon did at the same time. Keon was one guy that people here love more than his numbers, despite some good evidence to the contrary.

For example a lot of people talk about the system in Toronto keeping his stats down when he was the top SOG player for the Leafs in most years we have the information for.

Horton same thing, never won a Norris, despite some questionable "elite" talent before Orr came along, would be considered a good Dman today but probably not elite.

Horton for example is one of the defensemen who could play any type of game. Would that dissipate all of the sudden? No, it wouldn't. The burden of proof pretty much lies on the people who don't think they'd be relatively the same.

I can anme you 30 dmen in the NHL that can play "any type of game" really well.

The difference isn't so much in Horton and those 30 guys but who they are playing against and the game play and flow of the 60's to the 70's

You have seen plenty of gamefilm from the past and you should know what your eyes tell you, there were some really weak players in the league and competition as well in the 60's and even more so as the league expanded in the 70's and 80's.

we have always had the example of stars at one level, be it junior or AHL that couldn't translate their game to the next higher level when there was less time and space and better competition.

How would it be any different for every "star" of the past?

Quite simply we don't know which ones would excel and to what level, to say otherwise doesn't stand the test if you look and think and bout it really hard.

We simply don't know, yet in the upcoming wingers project there will be tons of talk about how great non NHL Russians and Czechs were in the 70's and 80's when we really don't know how they would do and guys who did compete, and excel at the highest NHL level, guys like Bure, , Selanne,Bondra and Plaffy will be downgraded as their top 5, 10 , 20 goal scoring finishes will be against Canadians and their countrymen.

Meanwhile NHL "star wingers of the 60's and 70's will have their finishes compared against almost an exclusive Canadian filed.

There is a common standard, the Canadian one, yet most people ignore it as it upsets the prevailing train of thought in this section and instead of serious discussion there is more defending the status quo, even when it doesn't make alot of sense.

Prime example will be Keon from your above sample, most of his pedigree and status here is abased on 4 SC in a 6 team league, then people just underplay his post 67 playoff resume.

Overall his playoff resume is decent but hardly elite and justifiable to putting him in the top 40 centers of all time.

It's hard to tell how we will treat Towes here in the next top 60 project when he has retired, say in 2025 but we all know that he will be judged by the higher modern standard than Keon was.

Sundin is the perfect example, better Leaf and player jsut didn't get to play on stacked teams in a smaller league, thus somehow he drop close to 20 spots behind Keon on an all time centers list?

 

[saskganesh]

Perhaps. Sprague Cleghorn and Eddie Shore also couldn't play today. They'd be in jail or suspended more often than they'd dress for games.

Point.

I'd like to know how today's stars would fare with 70's training regimen (beer), old school equipment and a daily pack of smokes.

The longer shifts would mess them up too at first. Many would have to adjust their game, less speed and power.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Point.

I'd like to know how today's stars would fare with 70's training regimen (beer), old school equipment and a daily pack of smokes.

Well players do still drink a lot of beer right?

Also when did the mandatory pack of smokes per day testing stop for every player?

The longer shifts would mess them up too at first. Many would have to adjust their game, less speed and power.

Sure that's a point but an overstated one the game and players were simply slower then.

Not really sure this is a very strong point for your argument here, elite players today having adjustment problems to slower game play and more time and space and longer shifts? Highly unlikely.

Anyone who has every played hockey of any level or type understands how important time and space is and the less any player has of it the more difficult it is and the less likely to remain elite.

 

[Big Phil]

I have Mikita down as one of the top 5 centers of all time. that being said he was a small player even for his time so it's impossible to translate how well he would do or wouldn't do in todays NHL.

Martin St. Louis wins two Art Rosses and is the same height as Mikita with less of an overall game and you are wondering if Mikita wouldn't have been a star? That makes one of us I guess.

I can anme you 30 dmen in the NHL that can play "any type of game" really well.

The difference isn't so much in Horton and those 30 guys but who they are playing against and the game play and flow of the 60's to the 70's

Go for it. Who could control the game like Tim Horton could today. You say you can name 30. I might be able to name 5-6 and that's it.

You have seen plenty of gamefilm from the past and you should know what your eyes tell you, there were some really weak players in the league and competition as well in the 60's and even more so as the league expanded in the 70's and 80's.

we have always had the example of stars at one level, be it junior or AHL that couldn't translate their game to the next higher level when there was less time and space and better competition.

There were no patsies in the original 6 in the 1960s. No players union, the threat of banishment to the minors a real deal, etc. But I will say this, watch Horton play the game from an individual standpoint. He wasn't flashy, but did everything right. That goes from era to era. He wouldn't suffer brain damage all of the sudden.

Meanwhile NHL "star wingers of the 60's and 70's will have their finishes compared against almost an exclusive Canadian filed.

There is a common standard, the Canadian one, yet most people ignore it as it upsets the prevailing train of thought in this section and instead of serious discussion there is more defending the status quo, even when it doesn't make alot of sense.

This again? Come on. There are different eras that are weaker than some. Heck, we've just seen an era where there was less competition for the Norris than in the 1990s, 1980s and 1970s at the top end. It's picking up again now, but through much of the Lidstrom/Niedermayer era, it wasn't the best. It happens in all different eras and goes in cycles, including today.

Sundin is the perfect example, better Leaf and player jsut didn't get to play on stacked teams in a smaller league, thus somehow he drop close to 20 spots behind Keon on an all time centers list?

All I can say about that is this: Most people would pick Toews on their team over Stamkos. Despite a significant advantage in numbers for Stamkos. I'm not sure Sundin should be below Keon, but I do understand why Keon is rated higher than you would think. Same way Toews is.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Point.

I'd like to know how today's stars would fare with 70's training regimen (beer), old school equipment and a daily pack of smokes.

Let's not paint them all with the same brush, nor let this get outta hand. They were still professional athletes. Sure some liked to party, but Lafleur would run 10 miles a day after working on a dairy farm in the summers when he was a junior. I'm sure Orr kept himself in prime shape when he wasn't recovering from injuries. If he didn't, just imagine what he could have done. Many others had summer jobs even as NHLer's working construction. Bobby Hull worked on his dairy farm and if you've ever seen the picture of him pitchforking a bale of hay, you'd think he was full-time weightlifter. Howe and a similar physique. My guess would be that the classy Beliveau took very good care of his body and conditioning.

 

[Killion]

Let's not paint them all with the same brush, nor let this get outta hand.

... certainly some differences socially, however, not a chasm that would preclude a Lafleur or whomever that if born in 1980 or 85 or whatever... then growing up with more modern sensibilities that they wouldnt excel in the exact same fashion that they did despite abusing their bodies & minds the way they & so many others did in the 60's & 70's. Attitudes towards everything from conditioning & diet, to training, even sleep, light years beyond anything practiced back in the day.

 

[Hobnobs]

no the 200s isn't a magical era but the NHL expanded vastly towards the end of the 60's and early-mid 70's with no influx of new talent streams, quite different than the situation in the 2000's

Instead the 2000s offered us injured stars and big bad players playing top minutes for average to terrible teams. The influx of talent in the beginning of 2000s were prolly as deluted as the 70s. With some painfully awful draft years. An era where loads of players sub-par players got to play big minutes (aswell as good players ofc). Stop pretending that the 2000s had a higher standard when players like Poapst, Bombardir, Lilja, Lachance, Boumedienne and so on played 20+ mins per game and players like Bataglia, Orzagh, Asham, York, Leclerc were playing 1st line minutes....

 

[danincanada]

Hardy, Howe is a freak of nature of course, he isn't the norm by any means, but what about some other names out there. Let's throw some names out such as Tim Horton, Alex Delvecchio, Dave Keon, Stan Mikita, etc. Just random names of past stars. The bigger question to ask is what would these guys have to NOT do in order to be stars in today's game? Would they all of the sudden become incompetent defensively? Would they forget how to play the game? We look at a guy like Jonathan Toews in today's game. I think we can agree Mikita was a better player than him no? Toews is more like Keon in that mold.

Horton for example is one of the defensemen who could play any type of game. Would that dissipate all of the sudden? No, it wouldn't. The burden of proof pretty much lies on the people who don't think they'd be relatively the same.

How so?

You don't have any proof Tim Horton would be elite if he played today. Contrarily, someone else doesn't have any proof Horton would be a Kevin Bieksa-level player in todays NHL. Bieksa can "play any type of game" as well. He can provide offense, rush the puck, play a physical defensive style, etc. Neither side has any "proof" of anything when comparing players across such vastly different eras.

 

[Sentinel]

We look at a guy like Jonathan Toews in today's game. I think we can agree Mikita was a better player than him no?

Except when it mattered. In playoffs.

 

[Knave]

They'd compete but almost all of them would drop at least a few spots when we look at their rank on all time lists.

 

[Pominville Knows]

They'd compete but almost all of them would drop at least a few spots when we look at their rank on all time lists.

If you look in this subforums all-time lists sticky, where would for example Bobby Orr rank amongst defenders after this time-travel thing you are now presenting us with?

 

[Knave]

If you look in this subforums all-time lists sticky, where would for example Bobby Orr rank amongst defenders after this time-travel thing you are now presenting us with?

I don't know enough to accurately rate anyone.

There's 3 clear things that allowed Bobby Orr and others from earlier eras to be successful to the degree they were and why there will never be another Bobby Orr as an example:

1) Relative competition of peers. If you roll back in time - nutrition, exercise aren't anywhere near what they started becoming in the 80s, 90s and now in the 2000s. A naturally gifted (athletically and talent wise) person like Bobby Orr stands out much more against his competition than say Crosby or Doughty does today. Why? I believe in the theory of diminishing returns when it comes to athleticism in particular. In other words with players starting to really go to the gym, taking nutrition more seriously in the 80s, 90s and 00s - the peers of Crosby/Doughty gain a lot more from it than Crosby/Doughty. What's the saying in any team sport with some physicality (even soccer)? Give someone time and space and they will take advantage. The time and space Crosby/Doughty have when everyone is training their butts off to be fast, to learn how to close gaps and check, etc... isn't much. The time Bobby Orr had? Much greater.

And remember - I said diminishing returns. I think we're at a point where as long as the NHL doesn't suddenly allow genetic alterations, human growth hormone or something really weird - I think in highest sports leagues of the world... we're seeing an 'asymptote' in terms of performance because there's only so far you can push a human body.
So I would have no problem comparing Crosby to any future star with minimal adjustments.

2) I think this holds more for individual awards -> the smaller league that preceded the 1980s (I don't think expansion made the league harder to win in for many years). It's much easier to win an award in a smaller league. It's much easier to win Stanley Cups.

There's also something to be said for a no salary cap era where teams could essentially buy their way to a cup. A high payroll was not a guarantee of a cup but a high payroll was necessary to win a cup in almost all cases. I remember someone doing a write-up of the 90s->04 and they came back with only one team having won a cup with a payroll not in the top half of teams. Without having looked into it too much - I'd bet that one team was above league average if we pooled payroll and divided by # of teams. I know teams today have different payrolls but we're talking $50M vs. $20M for a higher team against a lower team and sometimes the differences were even more pronounced.

The implication here is talent (even if it was 'washed up' a bit) went to the teams willing to spend. This provided the talent with more opportunities to pick up awards.

Crosby/Doughty have to fit in a salary cap world. That makes me more impressed with the LAK management and with what Doughty, other key players have on their resumes. Same goes for Chicago.

3) Pool of talent/players to draw on. It kind of goes back to the expansion period but the growth in hockey cannot be denied. There's just more players to choose from. Not to say nobody played it before but I'm pretty sure hockey growth at a youth level has outstripped population growth. If you can choose from a hundreds of millions of Chinese kids and tens of millions of American kids - where do you think you'll find the smartest(?) is basically an extreme example of 'bigger talent pool'.

-----

With all that being said - I still think Bobby Orr would be an amazing defenceman today if given the benefit of growing up like Crosby, Doughty, etc...
It's also why I can't say to you "I think he would drop". Would he have won as many awards and been so dominant? I don't think so. Would he still be the best defenseman of all-time? It's very likely.

I just dislike how people underrated Crosby and others compared to the past. Things are much more difficult today - how much is a Conn Smythe in 2006-present worth compared to the 1980s? 70s? 60s? The same goes for any other award.

Sorry I don't have any answers or my own list to provide to you (kind of a dick move - I just criticize without presenting a list to take any criticism of it back). I just think there are issues with greatest lists. I don't have a major, major problem with Orr and the late 60s into the 70s but I have serious issues with anyone highly rate who ended their career before lets say... 1960.

Looking at the list of centerman - there are a lot ahead of Crosby who played and ended their careers before 1960 and that's where I'd question placements. Making the lists just seem terribly complex - there are so many changes that I think need to be taken into account to rate modern players more equitably.

I don't want to put him on the spot (TAnnala(sp?)) but I got interested in this originally from NHL Talk polls where there was a debate about Crosby all-time (it was actually Messi vs. Crosby but it got sidetracked) because people were arguing Messi was the greatest all-time of soccer. Someone brought up a list of players where Crosby fit better with - and then I decided to question the list with some of the reasons I listed above because of the number of players on that list who played in the 20s, 30s - and that's where TAnnala and I got into a short back and forth.

Anyways I'm just ranting a bit so I'll stop now. I probably haven't said everything I need to or structured this post well but I should just stop for my own sake. Feel free to rip it apart.

 

[Thenameless]

Or they wouldn't.

Simply a circle game with very little objective to drive any discussion.

There's still the odd player playing today that would have been around at the tail end of Gretzky's and Lemieux's career. Eras do overlap. I'm sure that all or most of these elder statesmen in today's game (Iginla, Brodeur, a recently retired Sakic or Lidstrom) would say that Orr, Lafleur, Gretzky, and Lemiieux would be just as dominant now. And as said above, maybe not the same numbers, but they would still perform head and shoulders above many of today's players.

When he took the rare penalty, Guy Lafleur, would light up a cigarette while in the penalty box. In today's NHL, even bad apples like Jeff Carter and Mike Richards lead much healthier lives. Lafleur's peak might have been that much higher, and his career that much longer if modern habits were instilled at a young age.

 

[Big Phil]

Except when it mattered. In playoffs.

I don't understand. Mikita had 150 points in 155 playoff games. Every year the Hawks went to the final in his career (1961, 1962, 1965, 1971, 1973) he produced a lot of points. He held the record for points in a playoff year (21) for 8 years until Esposito broke it in 1970. Mikita held this record when there were just two playoff rounds. It took for the league to expand to three playoff rounds before someone broke it. He was a fine playoff performer, just saying.

How so?

You don't have any proof Tim Horton would be elite if he played today. Contrarily, someone else doesn't have any proof Horton would be a Kevin Bieksa-level player in todays NHL. Bieksa can "play any type of game" as well. He can provide offense, rush the puck, play a physical defensive style, etc. Neither side has any "proof" of anything when comparing players across such vastly different eras.

Look, I like Bieksa. He's a solid defenseman. That being said he has finished 18th and 24th for the Norris in his career. This was Horton's finishes:

2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4

The 1960s had a bit of a lull for top end defensemen, but Pierre Pilote was dominating at that time and later in Horton's career it was Orr. So I think we have to give the donut mogul a bit more credit than Kevin Bieksa don't we? Horton was also the #1 d-man on a dynasty. Played over 20 years, aged very well. I think we can give him a little more credit can't we?

 

[Pominville Knows]

I just dislike how people underrated Crosby and others compared to the past. Things are much more difficult today - how much is a Conn Smythe in 2006-present worth compared to the 1980s? 70s? 60s? The same goes for any other award.

People here does not underrate Crosby. He has things to prove for sure, but he has the chance to climb very high on the all-time list, Sakic style, maybe even Jagr. He also still have time.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Everyone knows Lafleur smoked heavy, even in between periods, but in the penalty box? Do you have proof of this Thenameless?

 

[billybudd]

Almost all of them? The guys from the past were still born to play hockey, give them modern equipment and training and they would still be NHL caliber.

Not a chance. It was not uncommon for half a team to be between 5'7 and 5'9. No amount of "equipment" or "training" would normalize the disadvantages this would put them in in the modern era. A few of these smaller players would squeak through, but only a few.

Someone like Robinson would be a lock, however.

 

[Boxscore]

I take "better" to mean "more challenging"

The Panther is right - the game is not "better" today, far from it, but there is more of a competitive balance. This is due to advancement in technology, equipment, medicine, training, coaching schemes and the volume of talent playing the game. There are also more teams involved and the business side of the NHL has never been as influential.

Elite skill is elite skill and talent is talent and thus they both transcend eras. From a talent standpoint, Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux and Denis Savard would have been just as great today if not better, assuming coaches did not stifle their gifts and creativity.

Look at players like Jagr and Selanne who were still incredible talents in today's game well into their late-30s and 40s. Look at Lidstrom and Bourque. Look at Chelios who was still a viable contributor until he was almost 50.

Speaking as a fan who has watched the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s and current NHL earas, I can say with certainty the game is not "better" from a entertainment and enjoyable standpoint. Too many robotic players and 3rd and 4th line clones who lack personality have replaced fun-to-watch enforcers and offensive freelancers.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

Not a chance. It was not uncommon for half a team to be between 5'7 and 5'9. No amount of "equipment" or "training" would normalize the disadvantages this would put them in in the modern era. A few of these smaller players would squeak through, but only a few.

Someone like Robinson would be a lock, however.

I don't see Martin St. Louis, Patrick Kane, Theo Fleury, or Doug Gilmour having a problem.

 

[billybudd]

I don't see Martin St. Louis, Patrick Kane, Theo Fleury, or Doug Gilmour having a problem.

Not a chance. It was not uncommon for half a team to be between 5'7 and 5'9. No amount of "equipment" or "training" would normalize the disadvantages this would put them in in the modern era. A few of these smaller players would squeak through, but only a few.

Someone like Robinson would be a lock, however.

4 examples in 30 years qualifies as "a few."

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

4 examples in 30 years qualifies as "a few."

I thought you meant since the late 90s to now. If we go back 30 years, you can add way more including Gretzky.

 

[Knave]

The Panther is right - the game is not "better" today, far from it, but there is more of a competitive balance. This is due to advancement in technology, equipment, medicine, training, coaching schemes and the volume of talent playing the game. There are also more teams involved and the business side of the NHL has never been as influential.

Elite skill is elite skill and talent is talent and thus they both transcend eras. From a talent standpoint, Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux and Denis Savard would have been just as great today if not better, assuming coaches did not stifle their gifts and creativity.

Look at players like Jagr and Selanne who were still incredible talents in today's game well into their late-30s and 40s. Look at Lidstrom and Bourque. Look at Chelios who was still a viable contributor until he was almost 50.

Speaking as a fan who has watched the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s and current NHL earas, I can say with certainty the game is not "better" from a entertainment and enjoyable standpoint. Too many robotic players and 3rd and 4th line clones who lack personality have replaced fun-to-watch enforcers and offensive freelancers.

Better is completely subjective.

And yes there is more balance in the modern NHL which means it's harder to accumulate points and dominate the league.

So why would that make Orr, Gretzky and others better? It wouldn't.

I thought you meant since the late 90s to now. If we go back 30 years, you can add way more including Gretzky.

He's not <5'10

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

Better is completely subjective.

And yes there is more balance in the modern NHL which means it's harder to accumulate points and dominate the league.

So why would that make Orr, Gretzky and others better? It wouldn't.



He's not <5'10

Yeah you're right. But back in the early 80s he was officially listed as 5'11 and 175lbs. He probably was even less...

And the "better" part I'm assuming is due to the advances of technology, training, medicine?

 

[Knave]

Yeah you're right. But back in the early 80s he was officially listed as 5'11 and 175lbs. He probably was even less...

And the "better" part I'm assuming is due to the advances of technology, training, medicine?

Yeah I'm guessing it's the result of those advances that make it 'better'.

I think Peter Stastny meant the competition is on a much higher level and I'd agree with that. In other words - it's better in his eyes because he couldn't imagine playing at that speed, level despite being a great former player.

I don't really see how anyone can argue that. It's also why I don't think we'll see another Bobby Orr or Wayne Gretzky ever again. They were great players, no doubt but I do think they both benefited a bit from the overall lower 'balance' and competition in the NHL due to reasons you list above and a few other ones not listed. And because of this we may eventually see great players but I doubt they'll be lifted to Gretzky/Orr status even if they might deserve it.