Hockey Randomness

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Hockey Randomness

Postby shmenguin » Mon May 10, 2021 2:17 pm

Is that an argument in agreement of my stance or against my stance?
It means your list is better

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Hockey Randomness

Postby shmenguin » Mon May 10, 2021 2:23 pm

I have a related question.

Why weren’t hockey games all like 15-10 scores in the 80’s? How was it possible that any goalie had a sv % over .600?

This really doesn’t make any sense. It’s not like 99’s highlight reel only has some occasional play where a puck is placed along the ice and a goalie trips over himself and lets it in. The phenomenon is a fixture in 80’s videos.

Explain in a way that confirms all of my biases if you could.

King Colby
Posts: 17843
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:35 pm

Hockey Randomness

Postby King Colby » Mon May 10, 2021 2:25 pm

I just watched a YouTube clip of the pens beating Richter in OT back in 1992 where Ronny Francis scores from outside the blue line on a 1 on 2 against Richter which made me want to take him off the list

meow
Posts: 30448
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:53 am
Location: I have four degrees and am a moron. Don’t let that fool you

Hockey Randomness

Postby meow » Mon May 10, 2021 2:29 pm

Is that an argument in agreement of my stance or against my stance?
It means your list is better
F yes

MR25
Posts: 18472
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:58 pm
Location: Gamehendge

Hockey Randomness

Postby MR25 » Mon May 10, 2021 2:32 pm

Hate to break up the goalie talk, but it looks/sounds like the Sabres aren't allowing Eichel to get surgery to fix his neck, as was recommended via a 2nd opinion to the team docs:




shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Hockey Randomness

Postby shmenguin » Mon May 10, 2021 2:50 pm

Eichel seems like a guy that the Sabres would prefer to just let do whatever he wants, but has zero leadership ability or off-ice brains so they have to treat him like a little kid.

mikey
Posts: 42242
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:58 pm
Location: More of a before-rehab friend...
Contact:

Hockey Randomness

Postby mikey » Mon May 10, 2021 2:54 pm

Long ago, I could beat Nintendo Contra in one life. It exactly matches my video game abilities. Not everyone could do it. In fact, nobody I knew could. But I could.

I can’t play any video game these days because there’s more dedication, muscle training, thinking and all kinds of extra complexity.

I wouldn’t expect to be in the video game hall of fame because I could do something ridiculously basic compared to modern equivalents. Even though I could do that basic thing at an elite level.
You made the best of the situation you were in at the time. And everyone else was also subject to those same conditions. And that video game is still being played today, even if there might be a couple extra buttons.

It would have been much faster if George Washington used stealth bombers to wipe out the British instead of throwing rocks at them for 7 years...but he was working with a third of what Congress had promised...he doesn't lose points for that.

Back to video games, not all games are created equal. Same system, but Super Mario is something I could beat when I was 3 or 4...Gradius was only touchable if you did that cheat code for me, Paperboy got unreasonably hard because of how poor the controls and frame rate were when multiple obstacles were on the screen. Megaman had easier bosses (1950's and 1960's New York Rangers) and harder bosses (1950's and 60's Montreal Canadiens). So, just taking the best of the best at the time and going, "well, it was all easy" is an unwashed and stinky opinion...as if, say, Tim Thomas and Michael Leighton and Antti Niemi and Chris Osgood could have possibly even been in the league in 1963. As if Lemieux could have dunked on the last place team for an 8 point night whenever he felt like it in 1967 like he did to Ottawa and San Jose and Tampa Bay...

The notion that everything got linearly better all the time is untenable...

mikey
Posts: 42242
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:58 pm
Location: More of a before-rehab friend...
Contact:

Hockey Randomness

Postby mikey » Mon May 10, 2021 3:13 pm

I have a related question.

Why weren’t hockey games all like 15-10 scores in the 80’s? How was it possible that any goalie had a sv % over .600?

This really doesn’t make any sense. It’s not like 99’s highlight reel only has some occasional play where a puck is placed along the ice and a goalie trips over himself and lets it in. The phenomenon is a fixture in 80’s videos.

Explain in a way that confirms all of my biases if you could.
That's the old thing...folks watch highlights of nothing but goals and then comment on the goalies. Well, there's no saves in those videos, so, of course they look bad. If I made a highlight tape of Evgeni Malkin falling down and casually giving up shorthanded breakaways, we'd think, "no wonder he wasn't considered a top 100 of all time..."



And to your point about the 80's, I won't even take the low hanging fruit...I'll even choose a goalie below the top rung in the 80's, who played on ridiculously careless teams when it comes to defense, in Dan Bouchard...



Now, I'm not saying goaltending hasn't improved, I've said a number of times how long it took for goaltending to really come back into form after the 1965 rule change, and then it had to catch up to where offense had already gone...it's when goalies started to look back to Hall and Plante to find their games that goaltending returned in full force...

Right now, it's probably in a bit of a lull I'd say...there just hasn't been a lot of star goalies since the big sleep that can handle all of the puck movement and new shooting angles...maybe this wave of Russians led by Vasilevsky can save us...

nocera
Posts: 41731
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:47 am
Location: He/Him

Hockey Randomness

Postby nocera » Mon May 10, 2021 3:17 pm


nocera
Posts: 41731
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:47 am
Location: He/Him

Hockey Randomness

Postby nocera » Mon May 10, 2021 3:33 pm

This seems dumb.


meow
Posts: 30448
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:53 am
Location: I have four degrees and am a moron. Don’t let that fool you

Hockey Randomness

Postby meow » Mon May 10, 2021 3:33 pm

Why is that a stunner? Good for you, Jack.

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Hockey Randomness

Postby shmenguin » Mon May 10, 2021 3:38 pm

The notion that everything got linearly better all the time is untenable...
this kind of broad statement is untenable, i agree. but conceptually, if you have success in an immature system of any kind, then your success in a mature system is theoretical. it's similar the opposite direction, but not nearly to the same degree.

we are highly confident connor mcdavid could put up Gretzky numbers if he was teleported. we, however, lack sufficient evidence that Gretzky could score goals in today's NHL on pace with league leaders. in fact, his struggles adapting in the late 80's/early 90's show that as the system matured, he was no longer able to thrive in it - as far as goal scoring goes. i'm taking that narrow point and blasting it out in proportions you aren't comfortable with. i get it, so i'm not going to try to convince you. but in turn, i don't find your argument convincing and believe that from 1980-2021, things are generally better at broad scale.

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Hockey Randomness

Postby shmenguin » Mon May 10, 2021 3:44 pm

That's the old thing...folks watch highlights of nothing but goals and then comment on the goalies. Well, there's no saves in those videos, so, of course they look bad. If I made a highlight tape of Evgeni Malkin falling down and casually giving up shorthanded breakaways, we'd think, "no wonder he wasn't considered a top 100 of all time...
this isn't a good point to me. if you watch a highlight video from the 80's, like 10% of the goals go in today. it's not just cherry picking a few iconic moments. it was an institutional de facto thing. the goals being scored were shitty at a massive scale before modern goaltending.

the highlight videos are there to *highlight* the best goals. the best goals were garbage. i mean the lead ups were good. they still hold true. seeing gretzky do his thing, you get that he's a portable player across eras...except for the goal itself. which was often dogshit.

so if the best examples of impressive goals include a critical mass of sub-shooter tudor acumen, why weren't games 15-10? i don't think it's because i'm wrong and goalies were actually good. was it hard to get into scoring position?

mikey
Posts: 42242
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:58 pm
Location: More of a before-rehab friend...
Contact:

Hockey Randomness

Postby mikey » Mon May 10, 2021 3:45 pm

The immaturity of the system has to be rated appropriately. You declaring that 1981 is in the same category as 2021 shows that you're not actually taking in data that can't be found on a Garfield calendar...

The NHL is bad in 1981. Older players careers were extended by this era because of how poor the league became. Despite medical and equipment advances, players careers were surprisingly cut short in the next mini-generation because they couldn't keep up when things really got back on the rails around 1986 and 1987.

There are other mini dips, like the few years before the lockout, though, it's reasonable to say the league wasn't generally good from around 2002 to 2011 or so, but for different reasons...on the contrary, you could argue we've been watching the best the league has had to offer for the last decade and I wouldn't put up a fight...

But the idea that 1981 NHL is better than 1966 NHL is a disservice to the topic you're commenting on...

Beveridge
Posts: 5355
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:17 pm
Location: 8-8-1

Hockey Randomness

Postby Beveridge » Mon May 10, 2021 3:47 pm

The training and programs and technology that exist today didn't in the 80s. Are we sure Connor would be what he is in the 80s? If we took him as he is now, sure. The reverse holds true.

It's easy to take something now and say they would dominate then. But if we remove the layers that make them dominant now that weren't around then, I don't know if the conclusion is as easy as we sometimes make it to be.

I'll add I don't have a dog in the fight, but I thought the premise of teleporting back was a cool subject outside of the macro discussion.

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Hockey Randomness

Postby shmenguin » Mon May 10, 2021 4:02 pm

You declaring that 1981 is in the same category as 2021
i...didn't do that. i'm actually not sure what this is about now. but i still need to know why 50 goals wasn't the standard for 3rd liners in 1981.

mikey
Posts: 42242
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:58 pm
Location: More of a before-rehab friend...
Contact:

Hockey Randomness

Postby mikey » Mon May 10, 2021 4:05 pm

That's the old thing...folks watch highlights of nothing but goals and then comment on the goalies. Well, there's no saves in those videos, so, of course they look bad. If I made a highlight tape of Evgeni Malkin falling down and casually giving up shorthanded breakaways, we'd think, "no wonder he wasn't considered a top 100 of all time...
this isn't a good point to me. if you watch a highlight video from the 80's, like 10% of the goals go in today. it's not just cherry picking a few iconic moments. it was an institutional de facto thing. the goals being scored were shitty at a massive scale before modern goaltending.

the highlight videos are there to *highlight* the best goals. the best goals were garbage. i mean the lead ups were good. they still hold true. seeing gretzky do his thing, you get that he's a portable player across eras...except for the goal itself. which was often dogshit.

so if the best examples of impressive goals include a critical mass of sub-shooter tudor acumen, why weren't games 15-10? i don't think it's because i'm wrong and goalies were actually good. was it hard to get into scoring position?
Games weren't 15-10 because goalies were better than you think. That's obvious. And whether you mean 15-10 or whether you mean 8-7, the point remains. And it fails to acknowledge the goals saved back then that would be goals today...goaltenders that used their sticks better back then, for instance...or the athleticism and wherewithal to catch and play pucks to avoid unnecessary in-zone faceoffs and even start odd-man rushes, things that we don't see today that have been lost...

Not a goal, but an example here, of a trait lost in today's goaltending...



Many of today's goaltenders don't have the hockey sense, skating, and skill necessary to move pucks like this...now, of course, there are advantages that today's goalies have that Smith and Fuhr and the like don't have and didn't implement...but again, this idea of linear improvement is non-existent.

We're only talking about a goal or two difference in the early 80's to now for a number of reasons...again, goalies were better then than you think, goalies are a little worse now than you think probably too...the proliferation of puck moving defensemen that join rushes didn't really take hold quite yet, not all teams had guys that could do that...so you ended up attacking with three more often than not...most teams didn't hold pucks as long in the offensive zone, so I think average shot distance by forwards is longer in the 50's through the 80's than it is in later times...especially as equipment improvements were made (skates and sticks, namely). Lane hockey or positional hockey dulled some creativity...the Oilers bucked this trend at a point, Quebec did too...and as more and more competent Europeans entered the league in the mid to late 1980's, there were more interesting methods of attack to pursue...

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Hockey Randomness

Postby shmenguin » Mon May 10, 2021 4:09 pm

The training and programs and technology that exist today didn't in the 80s. Are we sure Connor would be what he is in the 80s? If we took him as he is now, sure. The reverse holds true.

It's easy to take something now and say they would dominate then. But if we remove the layers that make them dominant now that weren't around then, I don't know if the conclusion is as easy as we sometimes make it to be.

I'll add I don't have a dog in the fight, but I thought the premise of teleporting back was a cool subject outside of the macro discussion.
i think it means that there's a bias against history, and that's not an unfair thing. if you want to explain to aliens who the best player ever is, you don't want to add 100 qualifiers about what a guy in the 80's did and why it's more impressive than your eyeballs tell you.

from a pure ability standpoint, mcdavid's better than everyone who's ever played except maybe lemieux. i think it's ok that whoever the best current guy is would often be considered the best player ever. that's typically how things evolve in general. i don't think hockey's different. but of course in 2004 when 80% of foresberg was considered the best player in the world by some, we know that dips occasionally happen, and i think they're easy to recognize.

history can be for historians. and smearing theoretical contemporary success on guys who played 100 years ago is the least scientific way to do this exercise.

mikey - this is more about the reddit people than you.
Last edited by shmenguin on Mon May 10, 2021 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mikey
Posts: 42242
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:58 pm
Location: More of a before-rehab friend...
Contact:

Hockey Randomness

Postby mikey » Mon May 10, 2021 4:09 pm

You declaring that 1981 is in the same category as 2021
i...didn't do that. i'm actually not sure what this is about now. but i still need to know why 50 goals wasn't the standard for 3rd liners in 1981.
"1980-2021 things are better", so either 1981 and 2021 are on a similar platform. Or 1981 is better than, say, 1966. Either way, the grouping is the poor form part of it. If you said 1987 to 2021, ok, sure, I'll buy...starting with the worst time in league history since World War II (the NHL just absorbed a minor league and then one of those minor league teams started destroying everyone else in like three years) is a tough look...

PFiDC
Posts: 9248
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:23 pm

Hockey Randomness

Postby PFiDC » Mon May 10, 2021 4:10 pm

There are like 5 today penalties in the first 60 seconds of that video lol

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Hockey Randomness

Postby shmenguin » Mon May 10, 2021 4:15 pm

You declaring that 1981 is in the same category as 2021
i...didn't do that. i'm actually not sure what this is about now. but i still need to know why 50 goals wasn't the standard for 3rd liners in 1981.
"1980-2021 things are better", so either 1981 and 2021 are on a similar platform. Or 1981 is better than, say, 1966. Either way, the grouping is the poor form part of it. If you said 1987 to 2021, ok, sure, I'll buy...starting with the worst time in league history since World War II (the NHL just absorbed a minor league and then one of those minor league teams started destroying everyone else in like three years) is a tough look...
i'm sort of drawing lines in the sand with crayon here, so these are kind of arbitrary uninformed demarcation points. but i never would intend to lump '80 thru '20 together as equivalents. it's mainly an illustration of linear progression, which exists in most sports. i assume hockey as well. but i could be wrong. and if so, i'll concede that the 1915 guy is at least the same level as the jobbers in the 80's. but anything pre-butterfly era is not in the discussion for me.

tifosi77
Posts: 51509
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Hockey Randomness

Postby tifosi77 » Mon May 10, 2021 4:21 pm

There were a dozen teams that scored 300+ goals a year in the 80s, and a few that topped 400 goals. League-wide, teams averaged close to 4 G/gm through the 80s, and today that's more like 2.5-2.7 G/gm. Pure talent was a greater separator 30 years ago than it is today. It's like in football, where QBs have like 15,000 reps under their belt by the time they sign their letter of commitment for college. Even in the 5 or so years I spent as a power skating coach and youth instructor I saw a change in the sort of baseline skill level the average 10-year old had when they started competitive play.

tl;dr -- Connor McDavid would slay in the 1980s NHL, but I'm not sure Steve Yzerman could still put up 150 points in today's NHL. Game's changed.

tifosi77
Posts: 51509
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Hockey Randomness

Postby tifosi77 » Mon May 10, 2021 4:21 pm

Also, I saw someone say the Rangers were fined $10,000 for the Flyers' hit on Tom Wilson. *chuckle*

mikey
Posts: 42242
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:58 pm
Location: More of a before-rehab friend...
Contact:

Hockey Randomness

Postby mikey » Mon May 10, 2021 5:14 pm

You declaring that 1981 is in the same category as 2021
i...didn't do that. i'm actually not sure what this is about now. but i still need to know why 50 goals wasn't the standard for 3rd liners in 1981.
"1980-2021 things are better", so either 1981 and 2021 are on a similar platform. Or 1981 is better than, say, 1966. Either way, the grouping is the poor form part of it. If you said 1987 to 2021, ok, sure, I'll buy...starting with the worst time in league history since World War II (the NHL just absorbed a minor league and then one of those minor league teams started destroying everyone else in like three years) is a tough look...
i'm sort of drawing lines in the sand with crayon here, so these are kind of arbitrary uninformed demarcation points. but i never would intend to lump '80 thru '20 together as equivalents. it's mainly an illustration of linear progression, which exists in most sports. i assume hockey as well. but i could be wrong. and if so, i'll concede that the 1915 guy is at least the same level as the jobbers in the 80's. but anything pre-butterfly era is not in the discussion for me.
That's fine. Glenn Hall was one of the earliest advents of the modern butterfly style, he started playing in 1952.

You're also accepting of, say, Mike Richter...decidedly a non-butterfly goaltender...but again, that's the crayon I guess...

There just isn't linear progression in terms of the quality of the game. There are ebbs and flows. Just like there are good draft years and bad.

Not everything new is better...NFL defensive players are generally not as good now, despite improved ability in training and nutrition, the failures to adapt to rule changes are evident, especially in the secondary...

Teams are now valuing (based on drafting) defensive backs less and taking them with higher picks less than they were in the late 80's through the 90's. So that just continues to be self-fulfilling until someone(s) breaks the trend...

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

Hockey Randomness

Postby shmenguin » Mon May 10, 2021 5:20 pm

"pre-butterfly era" was intentionally phrased. it's a good trail marker to show the incidental/coincidental shift in quality, not a description of every goalie's style.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests