Your Wildly Outrageous (History of) Hockey Opinions...

[The Panther]

I guess while we're in a weird thread...and I think I'm a big "quality of league".......guy...here.

How do folks keep getting away with full freight on the whole "pro teams" argument when talking about the WHA?

"There used to one half of one team and then the WHA came along and there was 76 zillion pro teams!!!"

But like...why does that glorified minor league get the full freight of "pro team" as if they were NHL caliber teams?

The top scorers in the WHA generally couldn't hack it in the NHL. The teams came over and finished generally last.



And I'm not saying the WHA didn't have any talent and everyone was bad. They flashed some cash and grabbed some guys...but how many legit NHL teams could you have formed out of that league?

Here's the roster to the 1977 WHA All-Star game: WHA Game Summary

Is that the two legit NHL teams that you could make? I don't know...it's a bigger ask than I have time for right now and too many people that claim full freight for WHA "pro teams x100!" argument have also admitted to not watching it...so we may not get an answer to this any time soon...but do we have to keep accepting that trope at face value these days?

No one is arguing that the WHA was equivalent to the NHL -- that's neither here nor there.

The point is that the existence of the WHA -- which was a major pro League that paid many of its players better than the NHL did -- sucked NHL talent out of the NHL and watered-down ALL the pro teams, including the NHL teams, many of which lost players to the WHA.

When the 'merger' happened in 1979, it's not like every WHA player went into a rabbit-hole in the IHL. Many of them joined NHL clubs and many of them did very well. This means that many regular-duty NHL players of the late-1970s were now out of their job. Which, again, means the League was more watered-down in the mid-1970s.

 

[Michael Farkas]

No one is arguing that the WHA was equivalent to the NHL -- that's neither here nor there.

The point is that the existence of the WHA -- which was a major pro League that paid many of its players better than the NHL did -- sucked NHL talent out of the NHL and watered-down ALL the pro teams, including the NHL teams, many of which lost players to the WHA.

When the 'merger' happened in 1979, it's not like every WHA player went into a rabbit-hole in the IHL. Many of them joined NHL clubs and many of them did very well. This means that many regular-duty NHL players of the late-1970s were now out of their job. Which, again, means the League was more watered-down in the mid-1970s.

Yeah, I covered all that - not only in this thread, but most other threads where this keeps getting repeated. And to be clear, I'm not here to defend 1976 NHL either. It's only marginally better than 1981 NHL as far as I can see right now.

The whole rabbit hole/IHL/WHA success paragraph is poorly researched or poorly communicated.

 

[Gorskyontario]

There were 32 pro-teams in 1975,

There were more good teams in the mid 70s, than the early 80s. You could say the 70s had way less balance, since you had teams like the 8-15 win capitals and 20 win Rockies.

My comment about Gretzky, and the entire Oilers for that matter is simple. My opinion, watching Gretzky plenty of times during his career, he was at his peak during the 86-87 and 87-88 seasons(my opinion). Yet in those seasons he scored 183 and paced for 186 points. Logically, scoring 92 goals as a 20 year old says more about the quality of the league then some people would like to admit.


@Michael Farkas, the Jets, Whalers, Nordiques, Aeros, to a lesser extent oilers were all easily nhl caliber. You are simply trying too hard to seem relevant, given you have admitted you have zero experience watching WHA games.

Winnipeg Jets 1977-78 roster and scoring statistics at hockeydb.com

The roster, scoring and goaltender statistics for the 1977-78 Winnipeg Jets playing in the WHA.

www.hockeydb.com

Someone will point out bad defense or lack of depth, but that team lights up any nhl team except the Habs and maybe the Bruins in the mid 70s.

1977-78 National Hockey League [NHL] standings at hockeydb.com

The standings of the teams in the National Hockey League for the 1977-78 season

www.hockeydb.com

Pick a roster, tell me the 77-78 penguins, red wings or black hawks aren't worse than the majority of WHA teams. With a straight face.

 

[Michael Farkas]

given you have admitted you have zero experience watching WHA games.

Have I? I watched two this week alone haha - I think you have me confused with someone else...

 

[Gorskyontario]

Have I? I watched two this week alone haha - I think you have me confused with someone else...

I though I remembered you saying you barely watched any, which isn't surprising since they are hard to find. I'm not going to pretend to be the biggest expert on the WHA, I saw a fair amount of games the last few seasons(when the WHA was higher quality), and I've seen the odd game online.


It's important to remember the WHA had a winning record against the NHL, for good reason.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I read this years ago, but I recall it being a good read on the WHA and its history.

Amazon.com

As a rebel league, it was... uneven. Best not to think in rigid terms as far as a clear hierarchy regarding the pro hockey landscape.

 

[sr edler]

because how can I rank Eddie Shore against Leon Draisaitl or whoever?

If you want to pull a trivia card on someone sometime, both Eddie Shore and Chris Pronger played a lone year of pro hockey in Edmonton, but only one of them being dubbed The Edmonton Express.

 

[The Panther]

My comment about Gretzky, and the entire Oilers for that matter is simple. My opinion, watching Gretzky plenty of times during his career, he was at his peak during the 86-87 and 87-88 seasons(my opinion). Yet in those seasons he scored 183 and paced for 186 points. Logically, scoring 92 goals as a 20 year old says more about the quality of the league then some people would like to admit.

Okay, I sort of get what you're saying now.

But I don't see how Gretzky scoring 185 points in 1987/1988 instead of 205 in 1982-1984 is a valid argument that the early 80s sucked. There are just too many factors that come into play.

I mean, in 1986-87, Gretzky paced for 185 points. But actually, through 70 games that year, he was pacing for 197 points. (He basically phoned-in the last five or six games, resting up for the playoffs.) Compare to 1982-83, when he scored 196 total points. In other words, through 70 games he was scoring at a higher pace in 1987 than in 1983, and in a notably lower-scoring season overall, and on a club that scored 52 fewer goals than in 1983.

So (through 70 GP, mind), Gretzky was clearly a better offensive player in 1987 than in 1983. Likewise, he scored at a notably higher rate in 1988 than in 1980 or 1981.

Also, the highest-scoring non-Gretzky seasons in the 1980s were not disproportionately in the early-80s:
199 -- Lemieux 1989
168 -- Lemieux 1988
155 -- Yzerman 1989
150 -- Nicholls 1989
147 -- Bossy 1982
141 -- Lemieux 1986
139 -- Stastny 1982
138 -- Coffey 1986
137 -- Dionne 1980
136 -- Maruk 1982
135 -- Dionne 1981
135 -- Kurri 1985
131 -- Nilsson 1981
131 -- Savard 1988
130 -- Hawerchuk 1985

Even if we waive Mario, we've still got the top-two highest scoring seasons in 1989 and about half of the top ones not in the early-80s.

Don't get me wrong: I totally agree with you that the early-1980s was "weaker" in overall quality of play / strength of competition than the late-1980s. What I'm objecting to is using Gretzky's non-200 point seasons as an example of this.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I though I remembered you saying you barely watched any, which isn't surprising since they are hard to find. I'm not going to pretend to be the biggest expert on the WHA, I saw a fair amount of games the last few seasons(when the WHA was higher quality), and I've seen the odd game online.


It's important to remember the WHA had a winning record against the NHL, for good reason.

Nah, my whole deal is that I watch things and make an opinion on them...I don't see another completely valid way, in fact.

I think you were mistaking me for you in this case haha

I am not speaking from direct experience as I am too young to have watched it regularly or with any deep understanding. My uncle did play in the WHA briefly however.

It's important to remember that in the same way that it's important to remember what a good preseason scorer Brandon Bochenski was...

Unless, of course, we're going to flip from "well, they weren't quite NHL teams..." to "they beat the NHL teams in exhibition matches, so therefore they are better or equal" - let's just pick a lane here, eh?

No matter what this is going to be tough without evaluating the players themselves to see who belonged and who didn't...that'd be an interesting project unto itself. Just breaking up the 1970's into a divide-and-conquer situation, it would tell us everything we need to know about the WHA/NHL relationship, it would provide some context on the Orr/Lafleur dominance, it would tell us whether the 1970's Habs are all in the HOF because they were the 1970's Habs or because they were great players, etc. etc.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Perhaps my most controversial opinion.

We should move to 6 pm local starts instead of 7 pm local starts.

Getting home after 10 pm just isn't feasible for working people and is downright impossible for children.

 

[JackSlater]

Nah, my whole deal is that I watch things and make an opinion on them...I don't see another completely valid way, in fact.

To take from this lead, an unpopular opinion I have is that without actually watching games, full games, of a player you can't legitimately be that confident discussing them. There is a sizable contingent that likes to look at award voting and top ten scoring finishes and leave it at that but a whole lot is missed. To an even greater degree, not living through a player's career can leave a hole in knowledge that I'm not sure can be bridged. I think this explains various things that looking at awards/scoring finishes causes people to miss.

Perhaps my most controversial opinion.

We should move to 6 pm local starts instead of 7 pm local starts.

Getting home after 10 pm just isn't feasible for working people and is downright impossible for children.

As someone who followed a Western conference team for a long time while in the Atlantic time zone, that is a very popular opinion to me. Getting things started at 11pm sucks.

 

[Midnight Judges]

It's just a coincidence those splits perfectly line up to with and without Orr and Espo?

I love Bucyk but his stats explosion is more from feeding from the Orr-Espo buffet than because of expansion

Bucyk's stats in 75-76 (when Orr and Esposito barely played for Boston at all) were basically identical to 74-75 (when Orr and Esposito played a ton). Actually they were a bit better in '76.

 

[norrisnick]

Perhaps my most controversial opinion.

We should move to 6 pm local starts instead of 7 pm local starts.

Getting home after 10 pm just isn't feasible for working people and is downright impossible for children.

Doesn't that just shift the problem to the front end? Good luck getting to a game by 6. Especially if you have kids.

Probably more indicative that going to games isn't really viable at all anymore for the working class and/or families...

 

[Michael Farkas]

Bucyk's stats in 75-76 (when Orr and Esposito barely played for Boston at all) were basically identical to 74-75 (when Orr and Esposito played a ton). Actually they were a bit better in '76.

Interestingly enough...

In 1975 with Orr and Esposito - the Bruins were a 94 point team and were eliminated in the prelims by a .500 Blackhawks team.

In 1976, without Orr and Esposito - the Bruins were a 113 (!) point team and made it to the Stanley Cup Semi-Final.

I'm not totally prepared to call Don Cherry a genius today, so I'm going to have to resort to...hockey is weird.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Doesn't that just shift the problem to the front end? Good luck getting to a game by 6. Especially if you have kids.

Probably more indicative that going to games isn't really viable at all anymore for the working class and/or families...

A 6 start is dependent on where you live and how you commute. I can get home, be fed, pick up my kid, and be seated at my local rink for 5 30 no problem. 5 15 if I'm hyper organized. If you're in a far flung suburb in a megacity you aren't making 7 either.

But it does wonders for TV. Half the season eastern games start at 5 here. It's perfect. Games finish while my kid is still awake.

 

[Michael Farkas]

When I travel, I'm very jealous of Central time folks...even slightly jealous of Mountain time people...

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

A 6 start is dependent on where you live and how you commute. I can get home, be fed, pick up my kid, and be seated at my local rink for 5 30 no problem. 5 15 if I'm hyper organized. If you're in a far flung suburb in a megacity you aren't making 7 either.

But it does wonders for TV. Half the season eastern games start at 5 here. It's perfect. Games finish while my kid is still awake.

All of which is completely irrelevant to the start of NHL games. Arenas are in cities, it takes time to get there. 7pm is the earliest you can start on a weekday and have most fans be able to get there in time for the puck drop. It isnt the same as running down the street to your local rink

 

[Albatros]

No one is arguing that the WHA was equivalent to the NHL

One could make the argument though, for example based on the 73 games that were played between WHA and NHL teams. The WHA won 35, the NHL 30, while 8 were tied. Of course, one could also point out that these often took place between top WHA teams and NHL sides that weren't exactly their equivalents, but nevertheless.

 

[filinski77]

Adjusting Statistics. I have trouble logically reconciling that concept. Why do we do it? What is the logical and rational explanation as to why we should and how it should be done?

Using a recent example to make my point...

Kucherov just scored 144 points.
Malkin in 2012 scored 109 points, in what is a season very highly valued by most. Many might even argue it's a better season than Kucherov's.

Unless someone can rationally and logically convince me why it was more difficult and therefore more impressive for Malkin to score 109 points in 2012 than Kucherov score 144 points in 2024 - I think adjusting stats is stupid. People generally default to "everyone scored more points in 2024, so of course it was easier" - but that's not an explanation, just an observation.

Malkin had games where he scored 1 point. Or two. Or Three. Or Four. etc
Kucherov had games where he scored 1 point. or Two. or Three. Or Four. etc.
So all those game outcomes were possible in either year - Kucherov just managed to do it more often and more consistently, and ended up with a higher total. ie - better season.

I've never heard a convincing argument as to why we should adjust statistics. Especially in years that are close together like 2024 and 2012 (it's easier to rationalize 2024 vs 1982, completely different era).

And to clarify - I'm not saying I look exclusively at raw statistics when judging at player - I've been convinced that I *should* adjust, but I have trouble understanding the why, and without understanding the why I'm convinced we're not doing it right. We're too caught up in the fallacy that "well - all 20 top scorers scored at 1.2x rate in year X vs year Y, so we should adjust by a factor of 1.2" - why? Maybe those top 20 scorers just had a better year.

I think it's silly to act like we have not had changes in the league over the last 10+ years:
1) Goalie pads have changed pretty significantly
2) 2 new teams which dilute the talent of the league
3) Changes in how penalties are called and how free the game is for skilled players to go on without slashes and hacks etc.
4) Teams are offense-focused and you see a lot more small/mobile offensive-minded D, and less large/big defensive minded D
5) Harder to quantify, but coaching systems and defensive structures have changed
6) More standard/average goalies and a lot less bonafide #1 goalies


End of day - I don't think anyone is using adjusted stats to clear a massive gap between 144 and 109, but it's also clear that the gap is a lot smaller than what the raw stats in this scenario say.

 

[WarriorofTime]

6:30 is not unreasonable, but 7:30 was the norm for weekday games just looking through my tix for this most recent season. 7:30 does make it pretty easy to wrap up work, eat dinner and get to the stadium without feeling like I'm rushing anything. Playoffs are more dictated by TV than regular season which are more dictated by attendance. There are so many weekend games during season (and special Family-related promos) that I think it's not unreasonable to just expect kids to not come to Weeknight games, other than maybe 1-2 a year.

 

[overpass]

I guess while we're in a weird thread...and I think I'm a big "quality of league".......guy...here.

How do folks keep getting away with full freight on the whole "pro teams" argument when talking about the WHA?

"There used to one half of one team and then the WHA came along and there was 76 zillion pro teams!!!"

But like...why does that glorified minor league get the full freight of "pro team" as if they were NHL caliber teams?

The top scorers in the WHA generally couldn't hack it in the NHL. The teams came over and finished generally last.



And I'm not saying the WHA didn't have any talent and everyone was bad. They flashed some cash and grabbed some guys...but how many legit NHL teams could you have formed out of that league?

Here's the roster to the 1977 WHA All-Star game: WHA Game Summary

Is that the two legit NHL teams that you could make? I don't know...it's a bigger ask than I have time for right now and too many people that claim full freight for WHA "pro teams x100!" argument have also admitted to not watching it...so we may not get an answer to this any time soon...but do we have to keep accepting that trope at face value these days?

In the 1991 Stanley Cup finals between Pittsburgh and Minnesota, Harry Neale said it was the worst final he had ever seen for the quality of defencemen. In fact, he said, the Minnesota Fighting Saints team he coached in the WHA had a better defence corps than either team.

And after looking at the rosters, maybe he's right? There were some pretty shaky depth defencemen on both 1991 teams. The Fighting Saints teams he coached in 73-74 and 74-75 had four solid defencemen with NHL experience. I haven't watched a single Fighting Saints game so I can't give an opinion, but Neale would certainly be qualified to say.

Pittsburgh - Paul Coffey (injured, PP only), Larry Murphy, Ulf Samuelsson, Gordie Roberts, Paul Stanton, Peter Taglianetti, Jim Paek

North Stars - Mark Tinordi, Shawn Chambers, Jim Johnson, Chris Dahlquist, Neil Wilkinson, Brian Glynn

Neale's Fighting Saints - Mike McMahon, John Arbour, Rick Smith, Terry Ball. All former NHLers. Plus bottom pairing D Dick Paradise and Ron Busniak who didn't really do anything outside the WHA.

 

[WarriorofTime]

When I travel, I'm very jealous of Central time folks...even slightly jealous of Mountain time people...

I think Central is probably best with the Playoff Schedule and the full back to back. Tonight the Rangers/Canes game is at 6 local time, and the Oilers/Canucks is at 9, of course those are not the actual start times which is a whole different thing and Oilers/Canucks will probably actually drop at like 9:20. It's still too late to stay up most of the time though, unless it's like a Game 7. For East Coast people though, it's like lol. They'd have to stay up until 1 am on a Thursday to finish that game which isn't practical. Maybe Mountain is better, you'll probably miss first period of the east coast game but I suppose that's more ideal than missing the end.

 

[jigglysquishy]

6:30 is not unreasonable, but 7:30 was the norm for weekday games just looking through my tix for this most recent season. 7:30 does make it pretty easy to wrap up work, eat dinner and get to the stadium without feeling like I'm rushing anything. Playoffs are more dictated by TV than regular season which are more dictated by attendance. There are so many weekend games during season (and special Family-related promos) that I think it's not unreasonable to just expect kids to not come to Weeknight games, other than maybe 1-2 a year.

This is really market dependent.

Jets had 4 afternoon home games all year.

But 6:30 is a nice middle ground. But actually start the games on time.

A 7:00 start doesn't have puck drop until 7:10 or 7:15. Which is the game ending close to 10:00.

Kids start school at 8:00 am. It's just not reasonable to have them out until 10:00 pm the night before. Most parents won't even let their kid stay until that late to watch it on TV.

 

[Michael Farkas]

In the 1991 Stanley Cup finals between Pittsburgh and Minnesota, Harry Neale said it was the worst final he had ever seen for the quality of defencemen.

That North Stars defense was so bad that two players are immortalized for a minus they took one night haha

 

[Gorskyontario]

@Michael Farkas @The Panther

I should clarify, and this may be my fault for being hyperbolic. My point wasn't to completely trash the early 80s, but to point out the mid/late 70s weren't weaker than the early 80s.

I would say the 70s were more unbalanced, obviously there were lots of terrible teams in both leagues and too many teams. However the quality of hockey between the top teams was superior to the early 80s, in my opinion.

Also to @Michael Farkas, the tidbit about my uncle is completely irrelevant. My agenda comes from growing up in Winnipeg and watching the Jets. I explained this to you already and not sure why you are trying to use it against me like a broken record. My uncle was a brief career minor leaguer, not good enough for the WHA even. I only brought it up because he had some interesting insight into the league and pro hockey in general.