Who would still be a star?

[Hardyvan123]

Except when it mattered. In playoffs.

Mikita actually has a really good playoff resume he just happened to play with a team that wasn't great overall, in terms of winning it all.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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.

hockey players say lots of things, here is one example.

Paul Reinhart, a really skilled Dman who grew up playing against Wayne for most of his youth commented on the radio about the Vancouver Canucks summer camp with the prospects 2 or 3 years ago how the pace of the workouts and scrimmage pace was faster than when he had played.

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.

guy's peak was from 75-80 then he dipped in an injured 81 season and was never the same Guy afterwards, although he did play until he was 39 so I have no idea on how much smoking hurt his play, if it did at all.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

hockey players say lots of things, here is one example.

Paul Reinhart, a really skilled Dman who grew up playing against Wayne for most of his youth commented on the radio about the Vancouver Canucks summer camp with the prospects 2 or 3 years ago how the pace of the workouts and scrimmage pace was faster than when he had played.



guy's peak was from 75-80 then he dipped in an injured 81 season and was never the same Guy afterwards, although he did play until he was 39 so I have no idea on how much smoking hurt his play, if it did at all.

You know who else smoked cigarettes during games? Young Mario Lemieux.

 

[Hardyvan123]

You know who else smoked cigarettes during games? Young Mario Lemieux.

Do you mean that literally?

Never saw him with a smoke on the bench or ice myself.

Did quitting make him a better player?

The whole smoking and partying thing is really overblown, Tubby Tuke makes some really great points on this in his posts.

 

[BraveCanadian]

You know who else smoked cigarettes during games? Young Mario Lemieux.

Yes but he was terrible in comparison with today's highly trained, super skilled athletes.

But I do love club sandwiches so Lemieux is ok in my books.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Do you mean that literally?

Never saw him with a smoke on the bench or ice myself.

Did quitting make him a better player?

The whole smoking and partying thing is really overblown, Tubby Tuke makes some really great points on this in his posts.

I tried to find a reference to Lemieux smoking between periods, but couldn't find one. Didn't look too hard though. Did find that some ancient guy named Jaromir Jagr used to smoke (which I wasn't aware of).

 

[BenchBrawl]

About Guy Lafleur , I have read in one of his many french biographies that the doctor who checked him at the beginning of his career said he never saw someone (healthy at least) with a slower heartbeat than Lafleur.He was a freak of nature.If he was in his mid-20s he would be the top scorer in today's NHL.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

^ not a reference to mario smoking between periods, but he certainly did smoke until it became life/death.

Pittsburgh Penguins great Mario Lemieux smoked well into his brilliant career, but finally gave it up, perhaps due to his scary bout with Hodgkin's Disease.

http://www.si.com/nhl/2012/02/29/players-smokingcigarettesnhlhockey

other interesting anecdotes from that article:

Keenan tried to get Savard to stop, and did for a while. "But his play went way down. He was going through withdrawal. He went back on them," the ex-coach says.

Darren Pang, a goalie for the Blackhawks in the 1980s, recalls driving to practice one day with Savard, who filled the car with a tobacco cloud. "When the ride was over, about a half hour later, I thought I was going to die," says Pang.

Mike Bossy, the Hall of Fame sniper who helped the New York Islanders win four straight Stanley Cups, smoked while answering postgame questions from reporters, as E.M. Swift's Sports Illustrated story from May 1983 documents.

"I remember my first NHL exhibition game as an assistant with Philly (in 1990)," says Ken Hitchcock, who now coaches the St. Louis Blues. "We were in Washington, and I went to give the lineup to the referees and you had to walk by the Washington dressing room. And Al Iafrate was lighting up with a blowtorch for bending sticks. Coming from junior hockey, I found that rather unique."

"He'd smoke in the (hotel) room, but always in the bathroom," says former Colorado Avalanche great Joe Sakic, who shared hotel quarters with Lafleur on the road when the two were teammates on the Quebec Nordiques during the final two seasons (1989-91) of The Flower's career. "I told him he didn't have to do that. I mean, I was in awe of him. He could have done whatever he wanted. But he always insisted."

 

[BraveCanadian]

About Guy Lafleur , I have read in one of his many french biographies that the doctor who checked him at the beginning of his career said he never saw someone (healthy at least) with a slower heartbeat than Lafleur.He was a freak of nature.If he was in his mid-20s he would be the top scorer in today's NHL.

I read that somewhere as well.. I'm not sure if it was the same reference but it had more to do with his recovery ability.

Lafleur apparently recovered very very quickly after exertion. Gretzky was notable for that too.

 

[billybudd]

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

4 examples in 25 years qualifies as "a very few" as well.

And I'm not sure why Gretzky's name would come up. He is considerably taller and rangier than Fleury and Martin St Louis. If he bulked up a bit, he had enough height and reach that he'd very probably be very effective. That falls under "modern training," which we're assuming these older players would take advantage of.

Being a 5'7 guy who succeeded against other 5'7 guys does not.

 

[Pominville Knows]

4 examples in 25 years qualifies as "a very few" as well.

And I'm not sure why Gretzky's name would come up. He is considerably taller and rangier than Fleury and Martin St Louis. If he bulked up a bit, he had enough height and reach that he'd very probably be very effective. That falls under "modern training," which we're assuming these older players would take advantage of.

Being a 5'7 guy who succeeded against other 5'7 guys does not.

The fact that there are quite a few behemoths being able to play the game today is probably to a high degree due to better conditions, concerning mostly Zdeno Chara but also many other 6'5"+ players. At the same time obviously smaller players have also been able to handle those giants better due to the same better conditions.
But the lesser nutrition, training and even things like less if any vacinations, smoking and poor housing conditions in the past is a direct variable why players were smaller on average back in the days. They would be taller and heavier with todays conditions, more so the further back in history we go get them from. Make no mistake about it, we as a people have become larger the more modern we have become. Guys like Chara would have been a couple of inches shorter in the past, at that size possibly suffering from health problems becouse of it as well.
Gretzky is a player that could have the weight of Sidney Crosby today.

 

[kmad]

A lot of players who rely on intimidation or on clutching and grabbing would be far less effective.

I'd have to think Bobby Clarke, Mark Messier and a bunch of other similar players would be considered talented but ultimately liabilities due to their constant march to the penalty box.

I know Ray Bourque loved hooking and holding - I wonder if he'd be as effective these days.

There were a few pre-modern defensemen who made their bread and butter hooking and holding. Ching Johnson comes to mind. He built a Hall of Fame career out of it.

 

[danincanada]

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?

I'm not really a fan of Bieksa's game and I was attempting to display two ends of the spectrum...one where Horton would be viewed as just as elite today as he was when he played, and the other where he is viewed as a fairly average NHLer if he played today.

My point with Bieksa was that he can play different styles and if he was in a weaker league we'd have to use the "eye test". He may appear as an incredibly dominant two-way physical defender in a lesser league but in the current NHL it's arguable that he's even top 50. Horton may very well fall in a similar category if he played today.

You can't use Norris finishes for Horton and Bieksa and act like they're equal because from what we know they are clearly not. Horton played in what amounts to an all-Canadian league and he was born in 1930 so his peers/competition also came from that time when hockey in Canada still had lots of room to grow. It's simply not fair to Bieksa or any current NHLer to hold them to that standard cause so much has changed and the talent pool has grown so much.

 

[Pominville Knows]

You can't use Norris finishes for Horton and Bieksa and act like they're equal because from what we know they are clearly not. Horton played in what amounts to an all-Canadian league and he was born in 1930 so his peers/competition also came from that time when hockey in Canada still had lots of room to grow. It's simply not fair to Bieksa or any current NHLer to hold them to that standard cause so much has changed and the talent pool has grown so much.

Just so i'm with you here: How many outdoor rinks was there in Canada in 1940?

And how much more common was there for kids to play on the pond as compared to say 1990?

What other means of honing your hockey skills back in the days am i missing here?

 

[danincanada]

Just so i'm with you here: How many outdoor rinks was there in Canada in 1940?

And how much more common was there for kids to play on the pond as compared to say 1990?

What other means of honing your hockey skills back in the days am i missing here?

We still have outdoor rinks and frozen ponds here. In fact, in Toronto we have lots of outdoor rinks and some have refrigeration systems so they are not entirely dependent on the weather. They still exist and kids still play on them.

Did Horton or his peers play year round? No, because there were no frozen ponds in the warmer months and no year round indoor rinks. Kids today can, and often do, play year round. My nephew has try-outs in the summer when ice-time is still abundent. I play hockey year round now, something I didn't do as a kid.

It's an old argument that gets trotted out but it doesn't really work.

 

[Knave]

The fact that there are quite a few behemoths being able to play the game today is probably to a high degree due to better conditions, concerning mostly Zdeno Chara but also many other 6'5"+ players. At the same time obviously smaller players have also been able to handle those giants better due to the same better conditions.
But the lesser nutrition, training and even things like less if any vacinations, smoking and poor housing conditions in the past is a direct variable why players were smaller on average back in the days. They would be taller and heavier with todays conditions, more so the further back in history we go get them from. Make no mistake about it, we as a people have become larger the more modern we have become. Guys like Chara would have been a couple of inches shorter in the past, at that size possibly suffering from health problems becouse of it as well.
Gretzky is a player that could have the weight of Sidney Crosby today.

The average NHL height skews taller players than the average height of a young man today.

I haven't looked enough into past eras to get average heights or even heights of star players but I would point out that the smaller players of the past would grow - but they wouldn't grow to the 6'1-6'2 average of the modern NHL. They'd grow to average male heights of 5'10-5'11. And that's if they met the average heights for their time.

For every Crosby/Kane (who are at the top end of the spectrum of average height) - there is Malkin, Ovechkin, Kopitar, Getzlaf who are all 6'3+. The St. Louis height for star players of the NHL is increasingly rare.

 

[Killion]

I tried to find a reference to Lemieux smoking between periods, but couldn't find one. Didn't look too hard though. Did find that some ancient guy named Jaromir Jagr used to smoke (which I wasn't aware of).

Oh sure. Anyone who smokes & plays, they very likely wouldve snuck into the washroom or wherever in-between periods, lit up. Stories going back ages on that one. Leafs in the 50's & 60's. Sawchuk etc. Into the 70's & 80's. Over the past decade and a bit bizarrely replaced with chewing tobacco, some guys starting in Bantam & Midget elite, into Junior, the Pro's. So much so that its become a bit of a problem in many circles. Kids getting hooked on that at 14/15/16 years of age.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Ah ****, my mind is preoccupied with too many things to be able to do this correctly, cant get my mind around it. Someone could take the torch if they want after this post.

I haven't looked enough into past eras to get average heights or even heights of star players but I would point out that the smaller players of the past would grow - but they wouldn't grow to the 6'1-6'2 average of the modern NHL. They'd grow to average male heights of 5'10-5'11. And that's if they met the average heights for their time.

How are you sure about that? How do you know that past NHL players was not bigger on average than the average man back then just as they are now? One could guess that more healthy individuals was more likely to make the NHL then as they are today, and to be sure people had more ailments from all kinds of things back then, a good guess that they were shorter than the NHL players.

But okey, lets say your guess is correct. Lets turn the tables here, lets create a new thread: "How many of todays 6'1-6'2 players would have been NHL-players during the Original-6?" If they would have been too big for that times conditions? If they would have to try to get into a league consisting of SIX teams, all bolstered with Canadas best?

How many of todays players would be able to do that?

Is the tougher league in terms of talent back then a good indication that they could have made todays NHL?

 

[Knave]

Ah ****, my mind is preoccupied with too many things to be able to do this correctly, cant get my mind around it. Someone could take the torch if they want after this post.


How are you sure about that? How do you know that past NHL players was not bigger on average than the average man back then just as they are now? One could guess that more healthy individuals was more likely to make the NHL then as they are today, and to be sure people had more ailments from all kinds of things back then, a good guess that they were shorter than the NHL players.

But okey, lets say your guess is correct. Lets turn the tables here, lets create a new thread: "How many of todays 6'1-6'2 players would have been NHL-players during the Original-6?" If they would have been too big for that times conditions? If they would have to try to get into a league consisting of SIX teams, all bolstered with Canadas best?

How many of todays players would be able to do that?

Is the tougher league in terms of talent back then a good indication that they could have made todays NHL?

On phone but basic argument is this:

From year 0 of NHL to today, height and weight have gone from not very important to important.

In other words the further back in time you go - the more important talent becomes and the less important height, weight and trained fitness become.

 

[iamthewalrus]

Another question could be who could still be playing today, even at their age.

I don't know why, but I can't get it out of my head that Leetch, if he were in the right shape, would still be able to hold his own even at age 46. Obviously less minutes and a lower line.

Lindros if he wasn't injured.


It'd be cool to see a retired player try one more time to see what they could do, even if just for a game.


Sidenote, it always amazes me that Bobby Orr retired at 30. Just imagine... One of the greatest losses the NHL has ever seen

 

[Thenameless]

A lot of players who rely on intimidation or on clutching and grabbing would be far less effective.

I'd have to think Bobby Clarke, Mark Messier and a bunch of other similar players would be considered talented but ultimately liabilities due to their constant march to the penalty box.

I know Ray Bourque loved hooking and holding - I wonder if he'd be as effective these days.

There were a few pre-modern defensemen who made their bread and butter hooking and holding. Ching Johnson comes to mind. He built a Hall of Fame career out of it.

This really all depends on how you look at it. If they grew up in this era, then they'd know how to play in this era (don't clutch and grab). If we're time traveling them to this era, it might be a problem for a little while, but these were such good players that they'd adjust their games soon enough.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

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

Danny Briere, Claude Giroux, Cliff Ronning, Derek Roy, Matt Read, Brad Marchand, Andy Miele, John Gaudreau, Brian Gibbons, Brian Gionta, Pelle Lindberg, Brian Little, Hakan Loob, David Deharnais, Patrick Dwyer...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

A lot of players who rely on intimidation or on clutching and grabbing would be far less effective.

I'd have to think Bobby Clarke, Mark Messier and a bunch of other similar players would be considered talented but ultimately liabilities due to their constant march to the penalty box.

I know Ray Bourque loved hooking and holding - I wonder if he'd be as effective these days.

There were a few pre-modern defensemen who made their bread and butter hooking and holding. Ching Johnson comes to mind. He built a Hall of Fame career out of it.

On the other hand, Nicklas Lidstrom was the guy singled out in a video coming out of the 2005 lockout of a guy who routinely engaged in interference that would no longer be allowed. He adapted just fine. I think smart players like Lidstrom and Bourque would have the easiest time adapting.

I mean, would guys like Clarke and Messier act the way they did in the modern game? Intimidation is still effective in the modern NHL (2007 Ducks, 2011 Bruins, to a lesser extent both Kings championship teams), you just have to be more subtle about it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

On phone but basic argument is this:

From year 0 of NHL to today, height and weight have gone from not very important to important.

In other words the further back in time you go - the more important talent becomes and the less important height, weight and trained fitness become.

This is not true - height and weight were always important. It's just that the average human was smaller back then due to nutritional standards.

 

[billybudd]

The fact that there are quite a few behemoths being able to play the game today is probably to a high degree due to better conditions, concerning mostly Zdeno Chara but also many other 6'5"+ players. At the same time obviously smaller players have also been able to handle those giants better due to the same better conditions.

Nah. Just looking at the raw height and weight numbers, that's simply not the case. The higher average size pushes out probably 9 out of every 10 small players that otherwise has the chops.

A smaller player has an uphill battle when it comes to everything from durability to reach to wall battles, even to velocity on his shot. With composite sticks, bigger players have an easier time getting more jump on their shots, on average, than smaller players. It's not an accident that the two guys that dominate the hardest shot competition are mutants.

40 years ago, a guy like Brett Sterling, 5'7, but with softer hands than most top 6 forwards and excellent, excellent hockey sense would never have washed out. He got, I think, 20 games before all 30 clubs decided he couldn't hack it. European leagues are littered with guys like him.

But the lesser nutrition, training and even things like less if any vacinations, smoking and poor housing conditions in the past is a direct variable why players were smaller on average back in the days. They would be taller and heavier with todays conditions, more so the further back in history we go get them from. Make no mistake about it, we as a people have become larger the more modern we have become. Guys like Chara would have been a couple of inches shorter in the past, at that size possibly suffering from health problems becouse of it as well.
Gretzky is a player that could have the weight of Sidney Crosby today.

You might be right that Chara would have broken down trying to play in the 70s. In fact, you're probably right.

But I'm just not buying the idea that the reason 5'7 guys weren't 6'1 was because they were smoking cigarettes on the same day Kevin Bieksa would have been getting a smallpox vaccine.

It's far more probable, to me, that after seeing how effective monsters like Beliveau and, to a lesser extent (in terms of size, not quality of play), Howe, could be, in part, due to size advantages, it just started becoming more apparent at the developmental level that size mattered and it mattered a lot. Larger kids began to be favored, recruited and pushed. Many of those who made pro were effective and it just snowballed until today's NHL is full of guys who dwarf past players.

Like, Brandon Sutter, at 6'3, would have been a giant in the 60s. He's considered undersized now.