Who would still be a star?

[Big Phil]

And in those early years the original 6 had an easy go of it as the expansion teams were really hampered for several years.

The competition, aside form Orr is also extremely weak in those 2 years.

But you can say the same thing for Lidstrom in a few of his Norris Trophy winning years. 2011 for example is the weakest I had ever seen it in terms of his competition for the Norris. It doesn't mean Lidstrom wasn't a great defenseman, because he was, but just because Pierre Pilote didn't have to deal with Orr while he was winning Norrises doesn't mean he wasn't great either. Keep in mind, Horton played for 24 seasons. In fact, he was still playing rather effectively in a Chelios-esque way when he got killed in the car accident in 1974. Someone mentioned already that his all-star nods stretch quite a ways. The first one in 1954 in a 6 team league, the last one in 1969 when Orr was clearly the best by then. Not sure how much more proof a person needs when we can see it clear as day that there WERE players who excelled in different eras because their career was so long. So if that doesn't prove that the stars of yesteryear would be great today, then I don't know.

That's not why his name came up originally. He supposedly could play any style of game, which is probably true, but so can a lot of current players and it doesn't necessarily make them elite.

Sure, but you mentioned Kevin Bieksa. Look, nothing against him but he can't control the pace of the game. Horton could. He did things better than Bieksa on all levels. Horton is a player you would call "great".

There's nothing to be confused about here. Yes, the O6 was a condensed league due to having so few teams. Let's not pretend it had a huge talent pool to pick from though. A player like Horton was born near the start of the Great Depression and grew up during WW2. For the most part his peers/competition were born before the baby boom as well. The population of Canada was low during that era and so were birthrates, with hockey participation inevitably following suit.

It was basically only Canadians playing as well, of course. Very few Americans, no Europeans, Russians, etc. I know some around these parts like to act like the O6 teams were full of "all-stars" but in reality they were made from a very shallow talent pool so having only 6 teams made a lot of sense. It's not pure coincidence that NHL expansion took place when those baby boomers were coming of age in the late 60's. Expansion of the NHL was at least partially motivated by supply and demand, in terms of markets, fans, and available talent.

The population of Canada was down, but then again the NHL was 20% the size it is today. In my opinion, the NHL has expanded very parallel to how the level of talent rose in hockey. But as we saw, Horton had no issues playing in a 6 or a 12 team league. Why would he have problems in a 30 team league?

I mean, look at the stars even back then who made a seamless transition from the original 6 to the 12+ teams. Beliveau and Howe were still great and they were old. It didn't affect Mikita or Hull one bit. Or Glenn Hall, or Plante. Jean Ratelle got better when the league expanded and for whatever reason he gets criticized for it, it's kind of the opposite of what you are doing. Cheevers became a star around the same time too so I can't say he was a star in the original 6. J-C Tremblay is another example. Possibly Phil Esposito. Johnny Bucyk. Frank Mahovlich. Man, the list goes on. You've got proof right in front of you and you still aren't sure?

I really don't know what to say. Gretzky blows the competition away in the 1980s. In the 1990s he still leads the entire decade in points in a decade where people knew he wasn't the same player anymore (obviously) and there are still hoards of people that think he wouldn't be the same player in the NHL today. Despite the fact that his last great season was 16 years ago and he was outpointing other HHOFers in their prime while he was old. Throw in guys like Bourque, Coffey, Lemieux, Messier, etc. These guys fared well in different decades didn't they? Patrick Roy? Joe Sakic? The list goes on.

Isn't this enough proof for you?

 

[Knave]

The population of Canada was down, but then again the NHL was 20% the size it is today. In my opinion, the NHL has expanded very parallel to how the level of talent rose in hockey. But as we saw, Horton had no issues playing in a 6 or a 12 team league. Why would he have problems in a 30 team league?

I mean, look at the stars even back then who made a seamless transition from the original 6 to the 12+ teams. Beliveau and Howe were still great and they were old. It didn't affect Mikita or Hull one bit. Or Glenn Hall, or Plante. Jean Ratelle got better when the league expanded and for whatever reason he gets criticized for it, it's kind of the opposite of what you are doing. Cheevers became a star around the same time too so I can't say he was a star in the original 6. J-C Tremblay is another example. Possibly Phil Esposito. Johnny Bucyk. Frank Mahovlich. Man, the list goes on. You've got proof right in front of you and you still aren't sure?

I really don't know what to say. Gretzky blows the competition away in the 1980s. In the 1990s he still leads the entire decade in points in a decade where people knew he wasn't the same player anymore (obviously) and there are still hoards of people that think he wouldn't be the same player in the NHL today. Despite the fact that his last great season was 16 years ago and he was outpointing other HHOFers in their prime while he was old. Throw in guys like Bourque, Coffey, Lemieux, Messier, etc. These guys fared well in different decades didn't they? Patrick Roy? Joe Sakic? The list goes on.

Isn't this enough proof for you?

Because in a 6 team league - it's easier to be the best of a maximum of 138 players - and when you're one of the more talented ones... that number drops dramatically. Doubling the size of the league doesn't change much unless the league was seriously undersized at the time - and I don't think it was. There was many many years of catch-up in this league and the gap wasn't seriously closed until the 90s.



And now at the end of your post we see guys like Sakic, Roy, Lemieux, Messier. Want to know why they won and did so well? It was partially their own talent but it was more their owners willingness to spend more than most others.

Here's an example - the 2002 Detroit Red Wings won the cup with a payroll of $66 million. Remember this is 12 years ago, not accounting for inflation. Imagine how much $66M is in today's dollars.
The average payroll in 2002? $38 million. How about my Senators? What were they spending in 2002? $27 million. So when Detroit won the cup - they were paying players $39 million more than Ottawa.
A more extreme example: Detroit's payroll was $47 million higher than the Predators.

Teams like Ottawa, Nashville, NY Islanders, Edmonton, Calgary and even Vancouver weren't spending big.
Colorado, Detroit, Toronto, NY Rangers - hell even Dallas was up there in payroll.
Now payroll didn't guarantee a cup but it certainly helps.
The NJD went from $43M-$56M in an offseason and they won the cup.

The success of these players - particularly in points, individual accolades and Stanley Cups can partially be explained by the willingness of an owner to spend. When you have stars surrounded by other stars - it helps.
The Pizza line in Ottawa is the perfect example. Put 3 stars together and they put up amazing numbers. None of those 3 has put up anything close since.

So yes, I'm doubting Sakic's resume would be quite as amazing in a salary cap NHL because of the salary cap. I'd also doubt his ability to put up such an amazing resume in an NHL with less time and space (even when given all the advantages a modern player got growing up).

It's like football - look at old footage, how sloppy it was and how much time and space there was to run the ball in particular. That almost never happens today - the yard gains are much lower per touch on the ball.

Horton, Gretzky, even Orr would suffer in the new NHL due to this lack of time, space which is due to the speed and pace of the game. And that's even when you give them the opportunity to grow up in the modern world.

Would they be bad players? No. But I am never going to change my view on this - their numbers would go down and their chests of awards would go down. Would they still be all time greats? Maybe, probably but this idea they'd be special to the level they were in their times is wrong.

Edit: And before I get posts about Sakic's numbers in his years post lockout - lets take a step back and remember the 2 years following the lockout had incredibly high scoring that has since dropped off. For 2 straight years 7 players had scored 100+. Hell, Briere got 96 in 07.

 

[Big Phil]

Because in a 6 team league - it's easier to be the best of a maximum of 138 players - and when you're one of the more talented ones... that number drops dramatically. Doubling the size of the league doesn't change much unless the league was seriously undersized at the time - and I don't think it was. There was many many years of catch-up in this league and the gap wasn't seriously closed until the 90s.



And now at the end of your post we see guys like Sakic, Roy, Lemieux, Messier. Want to know why they won and did so well? It was partially their own talent but it was more their owners willingness to spend more than most others.

Here's an example - the 2002 Detroit Red Wings won the cup with a payroll of $66 million. Remember this is 12 years ago, not accounting for inflation. Imagine how much $66M is in today's dollars.
The average payroll in 2002? $38 million. How about my Senators? What were they spending in 2002? $27 million. So when Detroit won the cup - they were paying players $39 million more than Ottawa.
A more extreme example: Detroit's payroll was $47 million higher than the Predators.

Teams like Ottawa, Nashville, NY Islanders, Edmonton, Calgary and even Vancouver weren't spending big.
Colorado, Detroit, Toronto, NY Rangers - hell even Dallas was up there in payroll.
Now payroll didn't guarantee a cup but it certainly helps.
The NJD went from $43M-$56M in an offseason and they won the cup.

The success of these players - particularly in points, individual accolades and Stanley Cups can partially be explained by the willingness of an owner to spend. When you have stars surrounded by other stars - it helps.
The Pizza line in Ottawa is the perfect example. Put 3 stars together and they put up amazing numbers. None of those 3 has put up anything close since.

So yes, I'm doubting Sakic's resume would be quite as amazing in a salary cap NHL because of the salary cap. I'd also doubt his ability to put up such an amazing resume in an NHL with less time and space (even when given all the advantages a modern player got growing up).

It's like football - look at old footage, how sloppy it was and how much time and space there was to run the ball in particular. That almost never happens today - the yard gains are much lower per touch on the ball.

Horton, Gretzky, even Orr would suffer in the new NHL due to this lack of time, space which is due to the speed and pace of the game. And that's even when you give them the opportunity to grow up in the modern world.

Would they be bad players? No. But I am never going to change my view on this - their numbers would go down and their chests of awards would go down. Would they still be all time greats? Maybe, probably but this idea they'd be special to the level they were in their times is wrong.

Edit: And before I get posts about Sakic's numbers in his years post lockout - lets take a step back and remember the 2 years following the lockout had incredibly high scoring that has since dropped off. For 2 straight years 7 players had scored 100+. Hell, Briere got 96 in 07.

I'm a little floored by the notion that you said "maybe" these players would be stars.

Okay, it seems to me there are some contradictions here. Doubling the NHL in size in 1967 wasn't a big deal? Scoring went up, the game changed a bit and yet there are tons, tons, of players I mentioned who did the same things in 1965 that they did in 1971. These are all great players and they stayed great despite the largest percentage of new teams and players added in NHL history. I'll give you another example. Marcel Dionne. A star in the 1970s and 1980s. Goes from a 14 to a 21 team league in his career and never stops scoring. It didn't hurt Denis Potvin. Larry Robinson is another good example. Lots of teams added during his career. The true greats it wouldn't hurt a single bit.

Let's go more modern. Bourque is selected to 19 all-star teams. In his first and last NHL seasons he is a first team all-star - 21 years apart. His Norris Trophies were a little more compressed, but Bourque was a perennial Norris contender for 20 years. Paul Coffey wins three Norris trophies and two of them 9 years apart in 1986 and 1995. Coffey is a star until 1996 when age catches up to him. Messier finishes 2nd in Hart voting in 1996 and we all know what he did in the 1980s. Even players like MacInnis had their great years spread out. Conn Smythe in 1989. Norris in 1999. First team all-star in 2003 - his last full NHL season. Were there changes to the game from 1989 to 2003? You bet, but the concept was the same as it has been for over 100 years. I'm tired of even bringing up Gretzky because it is like beating a dead horse if people don't listen to it but here we go. Gretzky had his first "lapping the NHL" season in 1980-'81. His last was 1990-'91. Ten years apart he puts the league on its ear and no one comes close to his dominance. Despite still being a great player up until his retirement.

With Gretzky we don't need to wonder if he could play in today's game, we SAW it! How do you lead the NHL in assists at 37 years old for the 16th time in your career? The game had changed since 1979 right? Yet he had more assists than Peter Forsberg in his prime and was tied with a prime Jagr. Think about that. And people think the stars wouldn't be the same today? Yikes.

Mario is another fine example. Dominates in the 1980s. Has cancer in 1993 and wins the scoring race with 60 games. Wins the scoring race after a year off in 1996 with 70 games. Retires after 1997 and another Art Ross. Comes back in 2000-'01 with nearly a goal a game in 43 games. Almost wins the Hart in 2001. Almost wins the scoring race in 2003. Is Canada's 2nd best player in the 1987 Canada Cup. Is Canada's 2nd best player in the 2002 Olympics and probably 2004 World Cup. His dominance crosses generations. He was on pace for 145 points in 2001.

You already said you will "never" change your mind on things. But let's look at Sakic again. You said 2007 was a higher scoring league than today. I think there were 5.8 GPG. So barely at all. Some stars had good years, that's all. So unless you think life was "easier" in the NHL in 2007 let's look at Sakic. 1990 102 points. His first big season. 1996 Conn Smythe, also had a 120 point year. 2001 Hart and another Smythe worthy Cup winning run. Had 121 points. First team all-star in 2001, 2002 and 2004. 100 points in 2007, good for the top 10 in points. He's 37 years old at this time. Just saying.

Martin St. Louis, Art Ross winner 9 years apart.

Steve Yzerman Pearson winner in 1989 with 155 points. Conn Smythe in 1998. Selke in 2000. Last Cup win in 2002 where he maybe should have won another Smythe. Was a fixture for Canada in the 2002 Olympics. Wasn't as much of a "star" from the mid 1990s onwards from an offensive standpoint but his acheivements went up. The guy's knees were shot after 2002 so unless you want to hold it against him that he was never capable of playing the same on his 37 year old body after surgery then so be it.

As it was said before, Tim Horton had his first and last all-star nod 15 years apart. Horton didn't need charity. He was recognized when the Norris was first invented all the way to Bobby Orr.

It is true, not every star dominated for more than a decade. Burn out likely contributed to Trottier. Bossy retired at 30. Even a guy like Hawerchuk lasted pretty long being a top scorer. 13 straight years of at least 80 points. I'm not really sure how long you want these guys to dominate across different eras of the NHL in order to see that it doesn't matter what year you put them in. Even guys like Pronger and Niedermayer and of course Lidstrom were just as good after the lockout.

Lastly, I'll ask you about Crosby. He's been the best player of the last 10 years. Scored 102 points as a rookie in 2006. He's played 9 years and just won his second Art Ross/Hart. Has the game changed since 2005? Not much but a tinker here and there. Can you see now that the truly all-time greats will just simply be good no matter what? Joe Thornton had 101 points in 2003 and nearly led the NHL in assists in 2014. Just saying.

 

[Hobnobs]

Because in a 6 team league - it's easier to be the best of a maximum of 138 players - and when you're one of the more talented ones... that number drops dramatically. Doubling the size of the league doesn't change much unless the league was seriously undersized at the time - and I don't think it was. There was many many years of catch-up in this league and the gap wasn't seriously closed until the 90s.



And now at the end of your post we see guys like Sakic, Roy, Lemieux, Messier. Want to know why they won and did so well? It was partially their own talent but it was more their owners willingness to spend more than most others.

Here's an example - the 2002 Detroit Red Wings won the cup with a payroll of $66 million. Remember this is 12 years ago, not accounting for inflation. Imagine how much $66M is in today's dollars.
The average payroll in 2002? $38 million. How about my Senators? What were they spending in 2002? $27 million. So when Detroit won the cup - they were paying players $39 million more than Ottawa.
A more extreme example: Detroit's payroll was $47 million higher than the Predators.

Teams like Ottawa, Nashville, NY Islanders, Edmonton, Calgary and even Vancouver weren't spending big.
Colorado, Detroit, Toronto, NY Rangers - hell even Dallas was up there in payroll.
Now payroll didn't guarantee a cup but it certainly helps.
The NJD went from $43M-$56M in an offseason and they won the cup.

The success of these players - particularly in points, individual accolades and Stanley Cups can partially be explained by the willingness of an owner to spend. When you have stars surrounded by other stars - it helps.
The Pizza line in Ottawa is the perfect example. Put 3 stars together and they put up amazing numbers. None of those 3 has put up anything close since.

So yes, I'm doubting Sakic's resume would be quite as amazing in a salary cap NHL because of the salary cap. I'd also doubt his ability to put up such an amazing resume in an NHL with less time and space (even when given all the advantages a modern player got growing up).

It's like football - look at old footage, how sloppy it was and how much time and space there was to run the ball in particular. That almost never happens today - the yard gains are much lower per touch on the ball.

Horton, Gretzky, even Orr would suffer in the new NHL due to this lack of time, space which is due to the speed and pace of the game. And that's even when you give them the opportunity to grow up in the modern world.

Would they be bad players? No. But I am never going to change my view on this - their numbers would go down and their chests of awards would go down. Would they still be all time greats? Maybe, probably but this idea they'd be special to the level they were in their times is wrong.

Edit: And before I get posts about Sakic's numbers in his years post lockout - lets take a step back and remember the 2 years following the lockout had incredibly high scoring that has since dropped off. For 2 straight years 7 players had scored 100+. Hell, Briere got 96 in 07.

Reduce current NHL to 6 or 12 teams. Is it still easier to be the best? I would say it would be harder if u look at it logically. A more compressed league means that u are constantly facing the very best the opposition can throw at u.

 

[Knave]

Reduce current NHL to 6 or 12 teams. Is it still easier to be the best? I would say it would be harder if u look at it logically. A more compressed league means that u are constantly facing the very best the opposition can throw at u.

That's not a logical way though. The pool of hockey players, kids playing hockey in 1960 is much much much much much much smaller than 2014.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That's not a logical way though. The pool of hockey players, kids playing hockey in 1960 is much much much much much much smaller than 2014.

Source, please.

 

[Knave]

Source, please.

Yeah, bye.

 

[danincanada]

Sure, but you mentioned Kevin Bieksa. Look, nothing against him but he can't control the pace of the game. Horton could. He did things better than Bieksa on all levels. Horton is a player you would call "great".

I already expanded on why I brought up Bieksa. He's a solid example of the level of player Horton could be today on the low end. On the other high end of the spectrum he could be exactly what he was when he played, which was an elite defenseman and multiple all-star. In reality he would probably sit somewhere in between.

Anyone who has played hockey knows your ability to control the pace of the game and dominate depends on what level you're facing. You are solely using the eye test to proclaim Horton was superior to Bieksa. Unfortunately that is not an objective source since they played against completely different peers.

The population of Canada was down, but then again the NHL was 20% the size it is today. In my opinion, the NHL has expanded very parallel to how the level of talent rose in hockey. But as we saw, Horton had no issues playing in a 6 or a 12 team league. Why would he have problems in a 30 team league?

Of course it's not that amount of NHL teams that really matters here. The talent pool is what matters in my opinion and that didn't suddenly double when the numbers of NHL teams did.

Say the size of the NHL did parallel the talent pool, as you suggest, which seems fairly reasonable to me. Then the 06 had around 1/5 the talent pool we have today. Why wouldn't there be 5 times the amount of "great" (not generational) level players like Horton today? If there were then he'd probably be battling for position as a top 25 damn instead of top 5.

I mean, look at the stars even back then who made a seamless transition from the original 6 to the 12+ teams. Beliveau and Howe were still great and they were old. It didn't affect Mikita or Hull one bit. Or Glenn Hall, or Plante. Jean Ratelle got better when the league expanded and for whatever reason he gets criticized for it, it's kind of the opposite of what you are doing. Cheevers became a star around the same time too so I can't say he was a star in the original 6. J-C Tremblay is another example. Possibly Phil Esposito. Johnny Bucyk. Frank Mahovlich. Man, the list goes on. You've got proof right in front of you and you still aren't sure?

Again, this not my argument.

I really don't know what to say. Gretzky blows the competition away in the 1980s. In the 1990s he still leads the entire decade in points in a decade where people knew he wasn't the same player anymore (obviously) and there are still hoards of people that think he wouldn't be the same player in the NHL today. Despite the fact that his last great season was 16 years ago and he was outpointing other HHOFers in their prime while he was old. Throw in guys like Bourque, Coffey, Lemieux, Messier, etc. These guys fared well in different decades didn't they? Patrick Roy? Joe Sakic? The list goes on.

Isn't this enough proof for you?

The question isn't whether or not these elite players could cut it or be elite in a later era, the question is would they maintain the same level or would their dominance be reduced.

Gretzky is a great example. Everyone knows age slows any athlete down and injuries also have an impact. There was more going on with Gretzky than just that though. As you said, he went from blowing away the league in the 80's including a 92 goal season (68 adjusted) to being a 25 goal (26 adjusted) threat in his mid 30's. He wasn't in his early 40's or even late 30's, he was still near the prime of his career. He was often playing full seasons as well and didn't play a physical game so he was relatively healthy. Everyone knows his game was never based on just physical gifts, it was more mental so why would this go away in his mid 30's? There was more than age catching up with him, the other athletes improved over that time and it became far more difficult to score as well, making him less dominant. He would probably tell you this himself. He inspired a lot of kids and was huge in the growth of the sport so he should pat himself on the back.

In a nutshell, the growth of the sport of hockey included the infancy of the pro game in the early 1900's, the O6, the baby boom which helped bring expansion, then more expansion with the influx of Europeans, Americans, and finally Russians. Overall it has continued to slowly grow after that. My obvious stance is that with this growth it becomes more difficult to be elite and stand out. It applies for an great from the past to some degree.

 

[danincanada]

Source, please.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1519261

Just Canada of course. Doesn't include the even bigger growth of the sport in Europe and the US.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1519261

Just Canada of course. Doesn't include the even bigger growth of the sport in Europe and the US.

I knew as soon as you posted that you'd quite that link. Neglecting as always the older players who werent registered

 

[BraveCanadian]

I knew as soon as you posted that you'd quite that link. Neglecting as always the older players who werent registered

The best part is how they also ignore that there were 600,000 kids registered in the mid 70s before a steep decline to the 90s when supposedly hockey got good in their eyes.. there is a lot of information in that thread that people tend to pick and choose from..

 

[danincanada]

I knew as soon as you posted that you'd quite that link. Neglecting as always the older players who werent registered

What are you talking about? This is registered players in Canada, the ones who count and have a chance of making the pros.

If you have a source showing the talent hasn't changed since 1960 then by all means, share it.

 

[danincanada]

The best part is how they also ignore that there were 600,000 kids registered in the mid 70s before a steep decline to the 90s when supposedly hockey got good in their eyes.. there is a lot of information in that thread that people tend to pick and choose from..

Don't have to ignore it, the kids of the 70's would come of age later on and this is only Canada.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The best part is how they also ignore that there were 600,000 kids registered in the mid 70s before a steep decline to the 90s when supposedly hockey got good in their eyes.. there is a lot of information in that thread that people tend to pick and choose from..

Hehe right, something like a 30% decline between 1975 and 1992.

But the numbers more than tripled between 1965 and 1973!

 

[Big Phil]

That's not a logical way though. The pool of hockey players, kids playing hockey in 1960 is much much much much much much smaller than 2014.

And 6 teams in the NHL is a lot less than 30 isn't it? That's 20%. Right now if you eliminated 80% of the worst players in the NHL what would you have? You'd have the original 6. Crosby is still the best player in the world no doubt. The top line players are still the top line players. Best defenseman, etc. best goalies are all the same. The difference lies in the fact that a first liner on a non-playoff team is a 2nd or 3rd liner now.

The 6 starting goalies in the NHL would be: (Just guessing) Lundqvist, Quick, Crawford, Price, Rask, Fleury. Now that's a pretty good league isn't it?

I already expanded on why I brought up Bieksa. He's a solid example of the level of player Horton could be today on the low end. On the other high end of the spectrum he could be exactly what he was when he played, which was an elite defenseman and multiple all-star. In reality he would probably sit somewhere in between.

Why would he sit somewhere in between? What reasoning do you have that he wouldn't have been every bit as good as he was back then? Horton is a terrible example of a guy that you think couldn't adjust.

Anyone who has played hockey knows your ability to control the pace of the game and dominate depends on what level you're facing. You are solely using the eye test to proclaim Horton was superior to Bieksa. Unfortunately that is not an objective source since they played against completely different peers.

Horton did this against opponents he saw 14 times a year. You tell me if that's easier or harder.

Say the size of the NHL did parallel the talent pool, as you suggest, which seems fairly reasonable to me. Then the 06 had around 1/5 the talent pool we have today. Why wouldn't there be 5 times the amount of "great" (not generational) level players like Horton today? If there were then he'd probably be battling for position as a top 25 damn instead of top 5.

Because he was routinely in the top 4 in Norris voting in his career. The talent pool might grow approximately 5 times but all we've seen is just more depth players in NHL history. There still have been more elite players added just based on math, but the idea is that the best would still be the best. Horton is routinely thought of as a top 25 d-man of all-time and you think he'd be fighting for top 25 in the current NHL today with modern advantages?

Gretzky is a great example. Everyone knows age slows any athlete down and injuries also have an impact. There was more going on with Gretzky than just that though. As you said, he went from blowing away the league in the 80's including a 92 goal season (68 adjusted) to being a 25 goal (26 adjusted) threat in his mid 30's. He wasn't in his early 40's or even late 30's, he was still near the prime of his career. He was often playing full seasons as well and didn't play a physical game so he was relatively healthy. Everyone knows his game was never based on just physical gifts, it was more mental so why would this go away in his mid 30's? There was more than age catching up with him, the other athletes improved over that time and it became far more difficult to score as well, making him less dominant. He would probably tell you this himself. He inspired a lot of kids and was huge in the growth of the sport so he should pat himself on the back.

Just out of curiousity, exactly how many seasons of 200 points would be suffice for Gretzky in your mind? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to dominate your entire sport for a decade? Even then, that still doesn't "cut it" for you? Come on. Maybe Babe Ruth is the only athlete who has dominated vs. his peers for so long in over 100 years in SPORTS. Year after year Gretzky was doing this while winning Cups and Canada Cups. Then in the 1990s when his goal scoring dries up a bit (which happens historically to ever single player in NHL history, look it up) this is when you start complaining? Up until 30 years old he put up his last NHL season that dominated the NHL. Then Suter hit him and then the superhuman Gretzky wasn't quite the same. It was his back, this is common knowledge. But by the mid 1990s he had played 17 seasons of hockey and you think he was "close to his prime" at this time? Man, you should have seen the guy in his 20s in the mid 1980s. That was prime Gretzky. 1996 was not prime Gretzky and he still led the NHL in assists TWO times after this. What more did you want the man to do?

In a nutshell, the growth of the sport of hockey included the infancy of the pro game in the early 1900's, the O6, the baby boom which helped bring expansion, then more expansion with the influx of Europeans, Americans, and finally Russians. Overall it has continued to slowly grow after that. My obvious stance is that with this growth it becomes more difficult to be elite and stand out. It applies for an great from the past to some degree.

This isn't 1920 or anything either. This wasn't the early stages of hockey when they are still testing with dramatic rule changes. If you want to say "I'm not sure how Joe Malone would do today" then you have a pretty good case. There was no forward passing yet. The game was in its early stages, they were tinkering constantly. By the time Horton came along in the 1950s the game was pretty much what we see today. I mean seriously, watch a complete game from that time. Players did much of the same thing we see today. Just some more new tricks we've learned over the years, that's it. I am pretty sure the original 6 guys would have picked that stuff up if they were born in the 1980s though. These were the best players in the world then: Howe, Richard, Harvey, Beliveau, Kelly, Lindsay, Geoffrion, etc. Those are some pretty insane names. How does that not translate into today?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Tell me...is it harder to stand out and produce points in an Olympic style best on best tourney with only 6-10 teams where every forward is pretty much a first line player and every dman is pretty much a first pairing guy.

OR

In a 30 team League where those first line players and top pairing dmen play significant chunks of time vs lower pairing dmen and 3rd and 4th liners?


As an added note, as Hobnobs mentioned and others of us have mentioned many, many times...Horton played vs Howe, Richard and Hull a whopping 42 times a season and managed to still stand out. That's greatness no matter how you look at it folks.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Right, 2014 players would instantly adapt to any other time period, but older players wouldn't. At least you're consistently.

I never said that older players wouldn't or couldn't but other have indicated that they would easily adapt to current conditions and since you haven't disagreed why is it so hard to believe it for one group but not the other?

Don't you ever get tired of beating the same strawman?

What straw man are you talking about?

Modern guys are simply held to a different standard most of the time here in the history section any reading of most threads and the projects of best players at their positions will verify this.

Quite simply guys are often compared in top 5,10, 20 in scoring and/or voting results ect without taking into account the number of teams in the league, which increases likelihood of variance, and the influx of non Canadian players which makes a 1965, 1975, 1995, 2006 list vastly different in composition.

But yet many continue this archaic approach of the league and scoring finishes being virtually the same when using the "how he did against his peers " argument.

I know it's the history section but does it mean we have to give preferential treatment to those further back in history and not treat all players fairly and as objectively as possible in context?

 

[BraveCanadian]

Modern guys are simply held to a different standard most of the time here in the history section any reading of most threads and the projects of best players at their positions will verify this.

Nope.

I'd like to see you "verify" this because the best players projects have a lot of research put into them.

Didn't you even participate in some of them??

Just because you don't agree with the result when every player in the top wasn't a post 1990 player doesn't mean there is a bias against modern players. These are all time lists!

I can quibble about some of the rankings as well but as an observer of the best players list projects.. I appreciate all the work that goes into them.

Quite simply guys are often compared in top 5,10, 20 in scoring and/or voting results ect without taking into account the number of teams in the league, which increases likelihood of variance, and the influx of non Canadian players which makes a 1965, 1975, 1995, 2006 list vastly different in composition.

That would be why things like VsX get developed.

It has its own possible flaws that have to be taken into account.

The reality is that no system, especially on its own, is going to give you an accurate measure of a hockey player.

I don't think anyone here claims that to be the case, however, so I don't know what your problem is.. outside of the lists not being completely composed of modern players that is..

But yet many continue this archaic approach of the league and scoring finishes being virtually the same when using the "how he did against his peers " argument.

I know it's the history section but does it mean we have to give preferential treatment to those further back in history and not treat all players fairly and as objectively as possible in context?

No one that does the sort of research many of us around here do when we do the ATD and the best players projects ignores the context that you constantly imply matters so much..

Everyone agrees that the talent pool and caliber of the league change over time for various reasons. (War, demographics, competing leagues, more European and Soviet players arriving in the 80s/90s etc)

The issue is that you and some others simplify this into "current players are bionic superheroes that are better than ever" based on very shaky premises. The reasons have been pointed out to you (and the others) many times and they are simply ignored so I won't get into them again.

 

[The Panther]

Don't worry. These posters who think every player prior to the '05 Lockout sucked will get their comeuppance.

That will occur in about 2030 when younger poster on this Forum will be laughing at old clips of Crosby and Ovechkin, and arguing about how they'd never have made it in today's League and how slow they look compared to today. These younger posters will only have seen Crosby and Ovie play in their final seasons, in about 2026, and will most recently have seen Crosby score 6 goals and 22 assists (- 27) on the third line of a crappy Pens team that misses the playoffs perennially.


Honestly, I tire of these sci-fi thread topics about how players from the past would do today. Not only is it an absurd topic, it's insulting to the game's greatest athletes (it's also illogical by any reasonable measure -- Gordie Howe played in the 1940s and in 1979-80 against Gretzky; Gretzky dominated in 1990-91 in a league with Jagr; Jagr is a good scorer today).

Do fans of other sports do this? Do baseball fans endlessly speculate on how Honus Wagner and Ty Cobb would do against the Red Sox 2014 bullpen? Would Larry Bird suck today if he joined San Antonio?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Don't you ever get tired of beating the same strawman?

What straw man are you talking about?

this one

Modern guys are simply held to a different standard most of the time here in the history section any reading of most threads and the projects of best players at their positions will verify this.

Quite simply guys are often compared in top 5,10, 20 in scoring and/or voting results ect without taking into account the number of teams in the league, which increases likelihood of variance, and the influx of non Canadian players which makes a 1965, 1975, 1995, 2006 list vastly different in composition.

But yet many continue this archaic approach of the league and scoring finishes being virtually the same when using the "how he did against his peers " argument.

I know it's the history section but does it mean we have to give preferential treatment to those further back in history and not treat all players fairly and as objectively as possible in context?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Do fans of other sports do this? Do baseball fans endlessly speculate on how Honus Wagner and Ty Cobb would do against the Red Sox 2014 bullpen? Would Larry Bird suck today if he joined San Antonio?

yeah they do. kiddos will be kiddos.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Do fans of other sports do this? Do baseball fans endlessly speculate on how Honus Wagner and Ty Cobb would do against the Red Sox 2014 bullpen? Would Larry Bird suck today if he joined San Antonio?

Yeah, they do. Especially in boxing, but it goes down in all sports really.

 

[danincanada]

Hehe right, something like a 30% decline between 1975 and 1992.

But the numbers more than tripled between 1965 and 1973!

I could see why participation went up and down over the years after the baby boom and due to the cost of playing hockey.

In the US you had some pretty crazy growth spurts in hockey registration over the last 20 years. Why is it so hard to believe Canada didn't have something similar in the 60's? Consider that CBC started showing games on TV in 1952 and that coincided with the baby boom.

http://unitedstatesofhockey.com/201...rpasses-500000-registered-players-in-2010-11/

I remember a few years ago everyone wanted proof via registration statistics. Now we have them and you don't want to accept them as any kind of tangible evidence.

I just want to find out what the truth is. Don't you want the same?

 

[danincanada]

Don't worry. These posters who think every player prior to the '05 Lockout sucked will get their comeuppance.

That will occur in about 2030 when younger poster on this Forum will be laughing at old clips of Crosby and Ovechkin, and arguing about how they'd never have made it in today's League and how slow they look compared to today. These younger posters will only have seen Crosby and Ovie play in their final seasons, in about 2026, and will most recently have seen Crosby score 6 goals and 22 assists (- 27) on the third line of a crappy Pens team that misses the playoffs perennially.


Honestly, I tire of these sci-fi thread topics about how players from the past would do today. Not only is it an absurd topic, it's insulting to the game's greatest athletes (it's also illogical by any reasonable measure -- Gordie Howe played in the 1940s and in 1979-80 against Gretzky; Gretzky dominated in 1990-91 in a league with Jagr; Jagr is a good scorer today).

Do fans of other sports do this? Do baseball fans endlessly speculate on how Honus Wagner and Ty Cobb would do against the Red Sox 2014 bullpen? Would Larry Bird suck today if he joined San Antonio?

Is it really necessary to construct a strawman and completely exaggerate our points in order to build up your case?

If the talent pool in hockey grows multiple times in the future I will be consistent with my argument in that, all else being equal, it will be more difficult to stand out due to sheer numbers.

PS, I'm pretty sure I'm much older than you.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I could see why participation went up and down over the years after the baby boom and due to the cost of playing hockey.

In the US you had some pretty crazy growth spurts in hockey registration over the last 20 years. Why is it so hard to believe Canada didn't have something similar in the 60's? Consider that CBC started showing games on TV in 1952 and that coincided with the baby boom.

http://unitedstatesofhockey.com/201...rpasses-500000-registered-players-in-2010-11/

I remember a few years ago everyone wanted proof via registration statistics. Now we have them and you don't want to accept them as any kind of tangible evidence.

I just want to find out what the truth is. Don't you want the same?

It is much more complicated than the raw numbers.. especially in the US where there are still so few seamless programs to take a player from starting out all the way to the professional level.

If the talent pool in hockey grows multiple times in the future I will be consistent with my argument in that, all else being equal, it will be more difficult to stand out due to sheer numbers.

There are a lot of reasons to doubt that today's talent in the NHL is the zenith of all time. It could be true.. but it is hardly a slam dunk.