| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 09:19:21
It has been said that through the history of the NHL the talent differential between the best and the worst players has varied greatly. It is assumed that the talent was at it's best in the original six as there were only so many roster positions to fill and that as the league grew and more roster positions opened up the talent levels went down. So while there were still stars, the gap separating them form the average or poor players was increasing. Now with the "new" NHL i have heard it said that parity is at an all time high. The gap between the best and worst is nowhere near as large as it had been.
My question is, do you believe this to be the case? If so, what era had the greatest disparity?
"If you're travelling in a vehicle at the speed of light and you turn your lights on, do they do anything?" - Steven Wright |
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 06:54:37
Gfunk I think the parity wasn't necessarily at a high the last four years between players, but between teams it was. Meaning that the gap between best and worst players was still as large as ever but the gap between teams was smaller because of the style of play. Hence all the different cup winners and finalists.
The cap that's in place now should create more competitive teams but without all the clutching and grabbing because of the crackdown. But you will always have teams that will be outstanding and teams that are horrible.
A random sampling of best and worst teams in league:
99-00
StLoius Blues 114 points, Detroit Red Wings 108 - Atlanta Thrashers 39, Tampa Bay Lightning 54.
83-84
Edmonton Oilers 119 points, Boston Bruins 104 points, - Pitt. Penguins 38, LA Kings 51.
06-07
Buffalo Sabres 113 points, Detroit Red Wings 113 points - Philadelphia Flyers 56 , Phoenix Coyotes 67.
"If you're traveling in a vehicle at the speed of light and you turn your lights on, do they do anything?" - Steven Wright |
| GFunk |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 20:57:58
Hey Wilus and Beans, thanks for the words of support.
I guess I didn't make this totally clear in my previous babble/ramble (bamble?). I think there was the most parity in the league in about the 5 years leading up to the strike. In that time there were 4 different Cup winners and 8 different finalists. There were also 4 different Presidents' Trophy winners. The Carolinas, Floridas and Anaheims were able to get to the finals because the gap between the top teams and the lesser teams was smaller due to the way they played. The parity that was present is exactly why TSNs Maggie the Monkey thing worked so well - it was basically 50/50 who'd win any night.
I think the clutch and grab style of play was mostly responsible for this parity. I made the points about number of players from other countries and training techniques to counter the inevitable "diluted-talent" argument. Though there are times in NHL history where it holds (post WHA), I just think the economics of the game at the lower-level more than countered it prior to the strike.
Having said that, there is still a lot of parity in the league today. That's why I'd say there are 6 teams left who can win the Stanley Cup (sorry NY and Van fans - though I may regret those words). But today's parity is more due to the salary cap as the game has opened up.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 18:50:34
I think many people have the idea that the League through the dead puck era shows that parity is at an all time high. I think it's a misconception on their part. All of the clutching, grabbing, defensive trap garbage made it appear that way because the stars just couldn't perform through that crap. Now that the game is opening up again it has become obvious that there are many weak players in the league. I believe there is as much disparity as there ever has been with the exception of the 80's. When the league expanded in 68 it was ready. It was not ready however to continue expanding through the latter part of the 70's and then merge with the WHL on top of the expansion in 79. This is why there was such a ballooning of goal scoring. As one of the guests put it earlier, there were highly skilled players and pylons.
It would be very interesting to see the stats of the difference in overall goal scoring across the league for some different eras to see if it would indicate the gap closing between the lesser players and the stars. I have to say i doubt it very much. I say that because all the training, nutritional improvements coaching systems don't a great hockey player make. The majority of talent in a star is in their head. That is where their gift is.
"If you're travelling in a vehicle at the speed of light and you turn your lights on, do they do anything?" - Steven Wright |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 18:28:50
I also agree with GFunk (great name by the way)
I think that the addition of the European players through the mid-late 80's was the factor that brought the talent pool back up. Then, the league expanded again in the mid 90's. Then the late 90's and early 00's was the style of play that made everything level.
Great point GFunk, you are the "Funking" Man!
Although, the second highest scorer from the 80's was Peter Stastny (a Czech) who started playing in 1980. Although, he did have to defect to play. He was the pioneer European Player. Kurri too. But they were the minority. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 18:22:08
Fantastic post Gfunk! And welcome.
"If you're travelling in a vehicle at the speed of light and you turn your lights on, do they do anything?" - Steven Wright |
| GFunk |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 18:13:19
I think parity in the league is a function of the talent the players have and how the game is played. With the clutching/trapping/interference/whatever that was so prevalent in the late 90s and up until the strike, the gap between the most skilled and the least skilled player was greatly reduced. The least skilled players had tools at their disposal the neutralize the most skilled players. Thats why 50 goal scorers and 100 point getters (that a word, I swear!) were so rare for a while.
Now, there are clearly hundreds more players in the league now than there were 40 years ago, but I will say this: Players today are far more skilled. We have players from many more countries now - there were NO Russians until the 80s, and seeing players from Sweden, Finland or the US near the top of the point lists was exceedingly rare (and for this purpose I will equate points with skill -it's not entirely valid, but it's objective at least). Sure, this year there were fewer, but the trend is for greater numbers of Europeans to be up there over the last 10-20 years. Also, within those countries, there are far more young people pursuing "The Dream" of making it to the Bigs. Players are bigger, stronger, faster and have spent many, many more hours at hockey camps, in the weight room and hopefully they still spend time on the ponds too.
That's why the "best-on-best" tourneys (World and Canada Cup, Olympics)that were dominated by Canada and the USSR for the first couple of years are now won by Sweden, the Czechs and the Americans too. More people are learning to play this game well than at any point in history.
So, yes, the Gretzkys, Orrs, Howes and Lemieuxs (and Crosbys?) who 'saw' the game better than everyone else and had enormous amounts of natural talent are still exceedingly rare - maybe 1 or 2 per generation. But the next tier today is far more skilled than that tier was 20 years ago, and the excess training they've done brings them closer to the top tier.
Wow, my first post was far too long. I'm gonna go cheer for the Sens. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 18:11:20
Willus, that is exactly what I am saying, and in turn makes a bigger gap between the good and the not so good. In the early 80's and the mid 90's, the good players looked great and the weak players helped them do that. Just look at the top 100 all time point getters. The majority of those player played a significant amount of time in the 80's and 90's. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 17:24:18
I think the greatest disparity was probably in the '80s, particularly the early '80s after the WHA teams, some with a few, lets face it, non-NHL calibre players, came into the league in the late '70s. In addition to some very borderline players, there were a number of pretty weak teams, one being our Toronto Maple Laughs of the early '80s. |
| Guest2049 |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 15:50:06
Greatest started in the last half of the 70's to mid 80's.
Highly highly skilled players and pylons. Just look at the average goals per game and that had a lot to do with people just being out skilled.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 15:39:05
Beans are you saying that in the early eighties and mid nineties the talent pool was watered down? I'm just trying to interpret what you're saying. Parity would mean the players are similar in talent and that there isn't a huge difference between best and worst.
"If you're travelling in a vehicle at the speed of light and you turn your lights on, do they do anything?" - Steven Wright |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 14:37:53
I think that the largest time of parity was the early 80's and the mid-90's. Around expansion. I think that when teams are added, it dilutes the talent pool as more players are needed to fill more teams. Players that would have not made the league the year before expansion are all of a sudden in the league. It takes about 5 years to get the league back healthy again.
Think of it this way. Take 4 teams away from the league right now. That would take the bottom 80 or so players out of the league. How deep would that talent pool be?? |
|
|
