Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: Introduction, and more - Lorne Chabot

Expand Messages
  • William Underwood
    Nobody is saying the 70 s were a good era for level of play. Remember, with the WHA factored in back then there were 30 plus pro teams and less Europeans and
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 20, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Nobody is saying the 70's were a good era for level of play. Remember, with
      the WHA factored in back then there were 30 plus pro teams and less
      Europeans and Americans. They were hockey's dark ages! I remember the Caps
      and Seals well! I was referring more to the 1960's.

      You are right in everything that you say about wider recruitment areas
      bringing in more talent. What I am saying is that the increased talent base
      hasn't kept pace with the increase in teams! IF only we still had a NHL with
      under 20 teams! Then the compensation would be significant!

      As far as European demographics go, remember the populations of Europe's key
      hockey nations. Before you even say it, much of the ex Soviet Union doesn't
      really factor in. Estonia, the Ukraine, and Central Asia count soccer as the
      big sport. It is a minor miracle that we see the number of Ukrainians that
      we do! There was only one big club in the Ukraine (Sokol Kiev) and a weak
      youth system. I was talking to some of their coaches a few years back and it
      was amazing to hear how little that there is there!

      Remember, when you add Sweden, Finland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia
      together, you get about 29 million or about Canada's current projected
      population. But there is a hitch here, only in Finland
      Do all of the top athletes opt for hockey ala Canada. Soccer is king
      elsewhere! Even in the Russian Republic, soccer is every bit as popular as
      hockey. Plus not every European player comes over here that could. NHL clubs
      don't chase role players much nor do all players over there want to play in
      the NHL. They make some serious money, have no desire to do time in the
      minors (listening Mr. Patera ex of Dallas) , like to raise their kids back
      home, and some plain old dislike our style of play or the travel!

      You are fundamentally right but the numbers just don't work well enough!
      Simple math, no Europeans and one American in 1966
      to 44% today. 44% of the NHL allows for about 13 teams. IF, that is, one
      assumes that none of them are lesser filler type players which is crap,
      especially where the US kids are concerned. BUT the NHL is growing from 6 to
      30 teams, a net growth of 24 teams! Even if you factor in Canadian
      population growth, we STILL only get a possible net growth of 16 teams for
      that period. But being that demographics don't mean squat, efficient player
      production does and that a lot of these phantom athletes are lousy hockey
      players by six team standards, it's safe to slice that by at least 25 %.

      Look nobody is saying today's players are bad at all! Just not to belittle
      the old players and not to be taken in that the hockey that you see today
      comes close to where it should be! I've scouted players for over 15 years
      and can safely say that when I watch the NHL today, I see some line ups that
      would be mostly in the AHL in the 80's! There are too darn many teams!

      -t----Original Message-----
      From: James Karkoski [mailto:austin@...]
      Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 4:45 AM
      To: hockhist@onelist.com
      Subject: RE: [hockhist] Introduction, and more - Lorne Chabot

      From: James Karkoski <austin@...>

      >From: "William Underwood" <wausport@...>

      >1-The Euro-invasion PARTIALLY offset expansion. But unfortunately not
      >enough. Look at it this way, today's NHL is about 28 % European. But the
      >game has expanded 5 fold from 1967. Meanwhile, the Canadian population has
      >went from 19 million to 29 million, not even a two fold increase. As for US
      >players... they are only 16 % of the league, a figure that has stayed
      static
      >for about a decade.


      Getting players from a wider area than just one country means that you
      are getting better athletes because you have a wider pool of talent to
      choose from. When the NHL had only players from Canada, then that meant
      that the league had only one small area to choose athletes from. Now that
      the rest of the world is involved in the sport, the league has access to
      more players with a higher athletic ability than it ever has. 44% change
      over from the past.


      That is unless you want to argue that Canada for some reason has a higher
      ratio of people with athletic ability per capita than any other place in
      the world.


      As for the talent level of what it was than and what it is now, it's be
      interesting to hear the opinion of someone who suffered through watching
      a Caps-Seals in 1975 who also watched a Lightening-Canucks game last year.


      "Old players" always say that "the game was better when they played."


      James

      This has been a Hockey History List mailing
      <A HREF=http://www.enol.com/~liebmann/hockey/hockhist.htm>Our Homepage</A>
      The Hockey History List is the official mailing list of the Hockey Research
      Association (HRA)
    • benjamin@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
      ... I agree. We get a lowest common denominator argument. If Bob Pulford is in the HOF, then everyone as goods as Pulford should be there. The result is that
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 20, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Jeff Cos wrote:

        >The issue of Chabot in or out of the Hall belies the true problem with
        >the HHOF.

        I agree. We get a lowest common denominator argument. If Bob Pulford is in
        the HOF, then everyone as goods as Pulford should be there. The result is
        that standards drop over time. I don't think Chabot should be in the Hall of
        Fame even though I can't say how good he was. He had his chance and people
        who did see him play decided he wasn't good enough. How can we decide now
        that he was good enough?

        The vast majority of baseball HOF errors were made by veteran's committees,
        guys going back and retroactively deciding players were overlooked.

        Tom
      • MoreyH@xxx.xxx
        How s this for a first? Bill, I agree with you 100%. Jeff, keep writing that book. It s a great idea. Re: the list of Chabot s contemporaries: Vezina s era
        Message 3 of 10 , Nov 20, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          How's this for a first?

          Bill, I agree with you 100%.

          Jeff, keep writing that book. It's a great idea.

          Re: the list of Chabot's contemporaries:

          Vezina's era was different than Chabot's. If you aplit Vezina's stats into
          pre 1922 and post 1922, you'll see different numbers. Also, I question
          whether Vezina belongs in the Hall. Compare his stats to Benedict's year
          after year from 1912 to 1925, and you'll understand.

          I'm not sure Worters belongs in there or not. Also, note that Chabot played
          for 5 teams in 5 years - not a typical HOF career.

          Morey

          Morey
        • James Karkoski
          ... Getting players from a wider area than just one country means that you are getting better athletes because you have a wider pool of talent to choose from.
          Message 4 of 10 , Nov 21, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            >From: "William Underwood" <wausport@...>

            >1-The Euro-invasion PARTIALLY offset expansion. But unfortunately not
            >enough. Look at it this way, today's NHL is about 28 % European. But the
            >game has expanded 5 fold from 1967. Meanwhile, the Canadian population has
            >went from 19 million to 29 million, not even a two fold increase. As for US
            >players... they are only 16 % of the league, a figure that has stayed static
            >for about a decade.


            Getting players from a wider area than just one country means that you
            are getting better athletes because you have a wider pool of talent to
            choose from. When the NHL had only players from Canada, then that meant
            that the league had only one small area to choose athletes from. Now that
            the rest of the world is involved in the sport, the league has access to
            more players with a higher athletic ability than it ever has. 44% change
            over from the past.


            That is unless you want to argue that Canada for some reason has a higher
            ratio of people with athletic ability per capita than any other place in
            the world.


            As for the talent level of what it was than and what it is now, it's be
            interesting to hear the opinion of someone who suffered through watching
            a Caps-Seals in 1975 who also watched a Lightening-Canucks game last year.


            "Old players" always say that "the game was better when they played."


            James
          • FYFFE IAIN ROBERT
            Stating that a goaltender is clearly worse than Clint Benedict doesn t really mean much, the goaltender could still be the 2nd best goalie of all time.
            Message 5 of 10 , Nov 21, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Stating that a goaltender is clearly worse than Clint Benedict
              doesn't really mean much, the goaltender could still be the 2nd
              best goalie of all time.


              > From: MoreyH@...
              >
              > How's this for a first?
              >
              > Bill, I agree with you 100%.
              >
              > Jeff, keep writing that book. It's a great idea.
              >
              > Re: the list of Chabot's contemporaries:
              >
              > Vezina's era was different than Chabot's. If you aplit Vezina's stats into
              > pre 1922 and post 1922, you'll see different numbers. Also, I question
              > whether Vezina belongs in the Hall. Compare his stats to Benedict's year
              > after year from 1912 to 1925, and you'll understand.
              >
              > I'm not sure Worters belongs in there or not. Also, note that Chabot played
              > for 5 teams in 5 years - not a typical HOF career.
              >
              > Morey
              >
              > Morey
              >
              > > This has been a Hockey History List mailing
              > <A HREF=http://www.enol.com/~liebmann/hockey/hockhist.htm>Our Homepage</A>
              > The Hockey History List is the official mailing list of the Hockey Research Association (HRA)
              >
              >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.