The reason why the top scorers from the WHA are the ones that are chosen is because the WHA was a hollow league full of incomplete, one-way players primarily.
The AHL is a development league. The guys that can top the charts there might actually be AHL lifers. Quad-A players etc. So, there isn't an analogy to be made in that respect.
Right now, it's pretty fair to say that the AHL is the second best league in the world - or at least is heavily in the conversation. And even right now, there are guys near the top of their sheet - Rocco Grimaldi, T.J. Tynan, Chris Terry, etc. that just aren't NHLers.
The WHA was intending to challenge for the top league in the world...it responded with a Summit Series of its own, it invited Euro pro exhibitions, it tried to challenge for the Stanley Cup, etc.
That seems like a solid explanation of why the WHA had guys capable of playing on a top line, and why life was tough for E6 NHL teams.
In the meantime, Pete Mahovlich having an 11 point season in the AHL in 1967 won't register here...but he becomes a multi-time 100 point scorer in the NHL.
Well he did already have NHL experience over a couple of seasons, but yes, he turned out okay. Big M peaks at 117 in 1975, with 23 points in 10 games against the Scouts and Caps.
Despite a huge advantage for WHA teams coming into the league - because they kept a fair amount of their players...especially compared to teams starting from complete scratch. The WHA teams in 1980 had the same record as the "blitzed" 1968 expansion teams.
E6 vs. O6 40-86-16 (.340)
WHA4 vs. "established" NHL 66-134-40 (.358)
(established = removed WHA teams, plus expansion Col and Wsh).
We're removing expansion teams that are in their 6th season?
Here's another way of looking at how expansion teams fared:
Expansion Teams vs Original 6, Playoff W-L
1968: 0-4
1969: 0-4
1970: 0-4
1971: 2-8
1972: 0-8
1973: 4-12
Series Record: 0-10
Cumulative Record: 6-40
WHA Teams vs Original 17, Playoff W-L
1980: 0-6
1981: 7-7
1982: 10-15
1983: 9-8 (not counting Oilers sweeping Jets in 3)
1984: 15-4 (not counting Oilers sweeping Jets in 3)
1985: 23-13 (not counting Oilers sweeping Jets in 4)
Series Record: 19-11, (7-7, not counting Oilers)
Cumulative Record: 64-53 (32-32, not counting Oilers)
It's not just that the 60s/70s NHL didn't have enough talent on Day 1, they didn't have enough talent on Day 2,001.
Also, it's neither here nor there, but I have a theory I want to look into that the Seals and/or Kings might have been able to steal some early wins from east coast teams on back-to-backs who might have never been on a plane (or to California) before...
Edmonton is the same from '80 to '81, Quebec improves. But both Hartford and Winnipeg get even worse the next season.
Winnipeg being a .200 team is the big thing that hurts the WHA's collective record. However, it should be noted while they kept a "fair amount of their players," a big reason the mighty 78 Jets tanked by 1980 is that they were a top heavy scoring team that lead the WHA in goals with 4 100+ point scorers.
By 1980 2 of the 4 are in New York. Kent Nilsson, who managed to carry some lesser linemates in 1979 without the others, is in Atlanta. The 4th is Bobby Hull, who turned 40 and 1978 was his last full season.
They even lost Thommie Bergman during the 1978 season, because they had to sell his contract to the Red Wings for cash.
So heading into the NHL, they had a 35-year old Sjoberg.
The 77 Jets were built like the 96 Pens. Were Lemieux to effectively retire, Francis to go to the Flames, Jagr and Nedved to head to the Rangers, and Mironov to the Wings, what's left? Zubov (and the Jets' Zubov is 35, turning 36) and new number one scorer Morris Lukowich (probably akin to Smolinski).
It probably shouldn't be too shocking that they turned into a lottery-equivalent team.
Of course, the 1980s had talented players, so the Jets were able to be a good team (usually), despite playing in a challenging division the rest of the decade.
Let's say that the quality of the NHL today is a 10 out of 10. And let's say that in the condensed league of the mid 60's, it was a 9 out of 10.
Where do you roughly feel like 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, respectively, fall on that scale?
I'm just trying to figure out if we're really coming from that great of a distance apart...
It depends on where you look. I'd think 1985 would be high, 1980 would be lower, 1975 would be the nadir, and 1970 would balance out to be around 1980.
But I suppose I'll take a few random looks and see if I can get some numbers.