you mention that the size of people today compared to 1920 is overall larger. that is not debatable. you also mention, as did I, that evolution would not play any part in such a short time period. The difference is nutrition, prenatal care, childhood nutrition, healthcare, modern training techniques.
of course, McDavid would be smaller, slower and weaker had he been born in 1920. so would you and so would I. it certainly was not Ethiopia back then, but it was far far from today.
I must have missed something. Why are we mentioning 1920?
Gretzky was born in 1961.
same would apply for 1961. 1948_swell_robinson brought up 1920
you mention that the size of people today compared to 1920 is overall larger. that is not debatable. you also mention, as did I, that evolution would not play any part in such a short time period. The difference is nutrition, prenatal care, childhood nutrition, healthcare, modern training techniques.
of course, McDavid would be smaller, slower and weaker had he been born in 1920. so would you and so would I. it certainly was not Ethiopia back then, but it was far far from today.
All depends. Some have more genetic potential than others.
Correct, and that genetic potential is met when modern nutrition and training methods are employed. that is why todays athletes are "bigger, faster, stronger"
That is one component and I don't disagree.
However, it isn't just that a guy from 1920 is getting the same benefit of traingin and nutrition, but now he is facing more people that would not have existed in his time because there are more of us around. More people and more athletic freaks closer to the best of the time make it harder.
you mention that the size of people today compared to 1920 is overall larger. that is not debatable. you also mention, as did I, that evolution would not play any part in such a short time period. The difference is nutrition, prenatal care, childhood nutrition, healthcare, modern training techniques.
of course, McDavid would be smaller, slower and weaker had he been born in 1920. so would you and so would I. it certainly was not Ethiopia back then, but it was far far from today.
All depends. Some have more genetic potential than others.
Correct, and that genetic potential is met when modern nutrition and training methods are employed. that is why todays athletes are "bigger, faster, stronger"
In regard to Gretzky, Canada was the primary source of players from when he started out. Now the world provides more elite players too in addition to Canada still providing their best. But Canada has also grown in size.
For example:
Canada had a population of 36 million in 2016
Canada had a population of 24 million in 1979
So right there McDavid is competing against more people.
Then when you add that the NHL draws more from the rest of the world now as compared to then as well, then right there McDavid is competing against a bigger pool of player talent.
So independent of the training and nutrition, McDavid has to compete against more elite athletes just by sheer numbers. The only thing that would negate that a little is if society had taken a downturn in athletic play thus rendering the population growth muted....but the opposite occurred in that the 'world' has become an athlete factory in the 2000's because everyone sees the dollar signs.
@craig44
In regard to Gretzky, Canada was the primary source of players from when he started out. Now the world provides more elite players too in addition to Canada still providing their best. But Canada has also grown in size.
For example:
Canada had a population of 36 million in 2016
Canada had a population of 24 million in 1979
In 1980 Canda provided 81.9% of the NHL Players.
In 2015 Canda provided 49% of the NHL Players.
So the bottom half of Canada's players have been replaced by the top half of the rest of the Hockey playing world's elite AND Canada itself has more people to choose from to add to their top half.
This itself lends to choose the biggest, fastest, and strongest players with skill. It eliminates the fringe players from then that were containing 20 less pounds of natural muscle mass from being in the league today.
it also increases the amount of people who have the innate ability to put a puck with a stick into a top corner of a net. Skill.
As a result the league as a whole is a little harder to compete with. A guy like Gretzky could still very well be the best, but it is also possible that someone else from his time with a slightly different skill set might even be better in this environment, and that we will never know and is fun speculation.
But the reality is that the players are indeed bigger, faster, stronger, and more skilled because there are more people around to provide those exotic combination and society is in a place where those skills are cultivated to the highest degree as well.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: @craig44
In regard to Gretzky, Canada was the primary source of players from when he started out. Now the world provides more elite players too in addition to Canada still providing their best. But Canada has also grown in size.
For example:
Canada had a population of 36 million in 2016
Canada had a population of 24 million in 1979
In 1980 Canda provided 81.9% of the NHL Players.
In 2015 Canda provided 49% of the NHL Players.
So the bottom half of Canada's players have been replaced by the top half of the rest of the Hockey playing world's elite AND Canada itself has more people to choose from to add to their top half.
This itself lends to choose the biggest, fastest, and strongest players with skill. It eliminates the fringe players from then that were containing 20 less pounds of natural muscle mass from being in the league today.
it also increases the amount of people who have the innate ability to put a puck with a stick into a top corner of a net. Skill.
As a result the league as a whole is a little harder to compete with. A guy like Gretzky could still very well be the best, but it is also possible that someone else from his time with a slightly different skill set might even be better in this environment, and that we will never know and is fun speculation.
But the reality is that the players are indeed bigger, faster, stronger, and more skilled because there are more people around to provide those exotic combination and society is in a place where those skills are cultivated to the highest degree as well.
I disagree with your hypothesis, so does science. The size. strength and speed of human beings is not increasing because of an increasing population. The competitive edge may increase, but I am not convinced of that either. size, strength and speed is increasing because of much better nutrition, health and training.
There are lots of articles out there to read on the subject.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: @craig44
In regard to Gretzky, Canada was the primary source of players from when he started out. Now the world provides more elite players too in addition to Canada still providing their best. But Canada has also grown in size.
For example:
Canada had a population of 36 million in 2016
Canada had a population of 24 million in 1979
In 1980 Canda provided 81.9% of the NHL Players.
In 2015 Canda provided 49% of the NHL Players.
So the bottom half of Canada's players have been replaced by the top half of the rest of the Hockey playing world's elite AND Canada itself has more people to choose from to add to their top half.
This itself lends to choose the biggest, fastest, and strongest players with skill. It eliminates the fringe players from then that were containing 20 less pounds of natural muscle mass from being in the league today.
it also increases the amount of people who have the innate ability to put a puck with a stick into a top corner of a net. Skill.
As a result the league as a whole is a little harder to compete with. A guy like Gretzky could still very well be the best, but it is also possible that someone else from his time with a slightly different skill set might even be better in this environment, and that we will never know and is fun speculation.
But the reality is that the players are indeed bigger, faster, stronger, and more skilled because there are more people around to provide those exotic combination and society is in a place where those skills are cultivated to the highest degree as well.
I disagree with your hypothesis, so does science. The size. strength and speed of human beings is not increasing because of an increasing population. The competitive edge may increase, but I am not convinced of that either. size, strength and speed is increasing because of much better nutrition, health and training.
There are lots of articles out there to read on the subject.
You are welcome to disagree....but when you have twice as many people you are going to have twice as many who are six foot four and twice as many who are six foot four with elite athletic attributes.
Twice as many who can run X speed, can throw X speed, etc...
Larger pool of humans to choose from.
You also select the biggest and best from populations that were not viable options before.
Nutrition has not changed for kids in the last 40 years in the United States or Canada. One could even make the case that it got worse, so that explanation does not support what you are saying.
It may have changed for the guys like Brady who are already at the top, but no during the formative years where height and muscle mass is determined(most determined by your genetics anyway.)
Unless you believe that the best ten athletes athletes on the Mayflower are as good as the best 10 now.
if you took the best 12 athletes from the 15,000 people in Boston in 1770 and had them be born in 1995(complete with modern nutrition including doughnuts, Twinkies, chips, and Cola), do you believe they would be as good as the best twelve athletes from Boston today?
Now stretch that number to the best 2,000 athletes from those 15,000 people in 1770 Boston compared to the best 2,000 in Boston today.
Nutrtioin is a factor(not so much the last 40 years in the western hemisphere), but is a factor.
That factor is dwarfed by the population uptick AND the fact that new populations are tapped into far more... and from that much larger pools of humans, it creates more bigger, faster, stronger athletes that arise from simple probability, of which are selected to be paid a lot of money.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: @craig44
In regard to Gretzky, Canada was the primary source of players from when he started out. Now the world provides more elite players too in addition to Canada still providing their best. But Canada has also grown in size.
For example:
Canada had a population of 36 million in 2016
Canada had a population of 24 million in 1979
In 1980 Canda provided 81.9% of the NHL Players.
In 2015 Canda provided 49% of the NHL Players.
So the bottom half of Canada's players have been replaced by the top half of the rest of the Hockey playing world's elite AND Canada itself has more people to choose from to add to their top half.
This itself lends to choose the biggest, fastest, and strongest players with skill. It eliminates the fringe players from then that were containing 20 less pounds of natural muscle mass from being in the league today.
it also increases the amount of people who have the innate ability to put a puck with a stick into a top corner of a net. Skill.
As a result the league as a whole is a little harder to compete with. A guy like Gretzky could still very well be the best, but it is also possible that someone else from his time with a slightly different skill set might even be better in this environment, and that we will never know and is fun speculation.
But the reality is that the players are indeed bigger, faster, stronger, and more skilled because there are more people around to provide those exotic combination and society is in a place where those skills are cultivated to the highest degree as well.
I disagree with your hypothesis, so does science. The size. strength and speed of human beings is not increasing because of an increasing population. The competitive edge may increase, but I am not convinced of that either. size, strength and speed is increasing because of much better nutrition, health and training.
There are lots of articles out there to read on the subject.
You are welcome to disagree....but when you have twice as many people you are going to have twice as many who are six foot four and twice as many who are six foot four with elite athletic attributes.
Twice as many who can run X speed, can throw X speed, etc...
Larger pool of humans to choose from.
You also select the biggest and best from populations that were not viable options before.
Nutrition has not changed for kids in the last 40 years in the United States or Canada. One could even make the case that it got worse, so that explanation does not support what you are saying.
It may have changed for the guys like Brady who are already at the top, but no during the formative years where height and muscle mass is determined(most determined by your genetics anyway.)
Unless you believe that the best ten athletes athletes on the Mayflower are as good as the best 10 now.
Yes, nutrition has gotten significantly better for kids in the last 40 years. So has prenatal health. So has pediatric healthcare and healthcare in general. That is why people are taller/bigger. there are tons of articles about it.
Yes, if you took 20 pregnant women off from the Mayflower, gave them all the modern conveniences/healthcare/nutrition etc. and then raised those babies today with all of the same considerations, they would be just as tall and large as any other modern person.
Now, if you start those same children in youth sports and give them the same specialized training that our teenagers and adult athletes get, they would be just as big/fast/strong as their peers.
you are confusing size/strength/speed with skill I think when you bring up the population increase. yes, there are more people to compete with, as there are more people on earth. thay MAY change the competitive balance, but it does not make people physically larger/stronger/faster.
I hate comparing this to the older players because I love those times, so lets use today's players as an example(since they are so hated by anyone over 40 because they all suck because they do it differently than when we were kids).
Imagine the NFL. What would happen if next year there was a population of 330 million people that mirrored the United States that was found? Maybe the Marvel Multi-verse was discovered and now you have a pool of 330 million football crazied society people that are options.
The population doubled and the player pool has now doubled too.
You are the Patriots. What happens to Mac Jones? He loses his job. He is no longer good enough to compete with an influx of players some of whom are as good as Burrow, Mahomes, etc...
But as a fan watching, it is hard to notice the difference because in the end, half of those teams will still lose every night. Thirty players will still be the worst 30 players in the league. So many of them will still be viewed as bad players even though they are actually better than the players they just replaced.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: @craig44
In regard to Gretzky, Canada was the primary source of players from when he started out. Now the world provides more elite players too in addition to Canada still providing their best. But Canada has also grown in size.
For example:
Canada had a population of 36 million in 2016
Canada had a population of 24 million in 1979
In 1980 Canda provided 81.9% of the NHL Players.
In 2015 Canda provided 49% of the NHL Players.
So the bottom half of Canada's players have been replaced by the top half of the rest of the Hockey playing world's elite AND Canada itself has more people to choose from to add to their top half.
This itself lends to choose the biggest, fastest, and strongest players with skill. It eliminates the fringe players from then that were containing 20 less pounds of natural muscle mass from being in the league today.
it also increases the amount of people who have the innate ability to put a puck with a stick into a top corner of a net. Skill.
As a result the league as a whole is a little harder to compete with. A guy like Gretzky could still very well be the best, but it is also possible that someone else from his time with a slightly different skill set might even be better in this environment, and that we will never know and is fun speculation.
But the reality is that the players are indeed bigger, faster, stronger, and more skilled because there are more people around to provide those exotic combination and society is in a place where those skills are cultivated to the highest degree as well.
I disagree with your hypothesis, so does science. The size. strength and speed of human beings is not increasing because of an increasing population. The competitive edge may increase, but I am not convinced of that either. size, strength and speed is increasing because of much better nutrition, health and training.
There are lots of articles out there to read on the subject.
You are welcome to disagree....but when you have twice as many people you are going to have twice as many who are six foot four and twice as many who are six foot four with elite athletic attributes.
Twice as many who can run X speed, can throw X speed, etc...
Larger pool of humans to choose from.
You also select the biggest and best from populations that were not viable options before.
Nutrition has not changed for kids in the last 40 years in the United States or Canada. One could even make the case that it got worse, so that explanation does not support what you are saying.
It may have changed for the guys like Brady who are already at the top, but no during the formative years where height and muscle mass is determined(most determined by your genetics anyway.)
Unless you believe that the best ten athletes athletes on the Mayflower are as good as the best 10 now.
Yes, nutrition has gotten significantly better for kids in the last 40 years. So has prenatal health. So has pediatric healthcare and healthcare in general. That is why people are taller/bigger. there are tons of articles about it.
Yes, if you took 20 pregnant women off from the Mayflower, gave them all the modern conveniences/healthcare/nutrition etc. and then raised those babies today with all of the same considerations, they would be just as tall and large as any other modern person.
Now, if you start those same children in youth sports and give them the same specialized training that our teenagers and adult athletes get, they would be just as big/fast/strong as their peers.
you are confusing size/strength/speed with skill I think when you bring up the population increase. yes, there are more people to compete with, as there are more people on earth. thay MAY change the competitive balance, but it does not make people physically larger/stronger/faster.
You are disregarding the natural innate abilities. I can give you 1,000 people and you can train and feed them until your knuckles bleeed and they still won't be good enough to be professionals. There is an extremely high element of natural ability that you are born with. Yes, size and muscle mass is one of them. You can feed some kids all you want and it isn't going to change their height, muscle mass, or strength.
The more people you have the more you will produce bigger, faster, stronger, athletic people. That is independent of nutrition. Nutrtion can help, but unless you already have the requisite natural attributes, it doesn't matter.
Those athletic freaks of nature are born, not made. They did exist before 'nutrtion' too. Now since there are more people and more society's to choose from, the leagues are all now stronger with better gifted athletes than at any other time.
So in pool A in 1950 you have 500 elites in the world.
So in pool A in 2020 you have 1,000 elites in the world.
Doesn't matter what you feed the rest of the population in 1950, you don't have enough people in the population to produce those athletic freaks to match the 2020 pool. You don't have enough people that are six foot four in their genetics. You can give Pointdexter all the prenatal care, nutrtion, etc...but in the end he is still Pointdexter.
There is going to be twice as much as everything 1950 has.
Yes, nutrition has gotten significantly better for kids in the last 40 years. So has prenatal health. So has pediatric healthcare and healthcare in general. That is why people are taller/bigger. there are tons of articles about it.
Yes, if you took 20 pregnant women off from the Mayflower, gave them all the modern conveniences/healthcare/nutrition etc. and then raised those babies today with all of the same considerations, they would be just as tall and large as any other modern person.
Now, if you start those same children in youth sports and give them the same specialized training that our teenagers and adult athletes get, they would be just as big/fast/strong as their peers.
you are confusing size/strength/speed with skill I think when you bring up the population increase. yes, there are more people to compete with, as there are more people on earth. thay MAY change the competitive balance, but it does not make people physically larger/stronger/faster.
So it doesn't matter at all what the genetics of those 20 women are? Not a chance. They would be as tall as "SOME" of the kids in today's society because society is filled with all shapes and sizes.
However, unless you believe that the low population of the Mayflower kids would produce a team that could compete with the ten best players in the world today, then you already agree with what I am saying.
Obviously the Mayflower is an extreme example....hence why I said it was subtle comparing the more modern times and population.
If you double any similar society you will get double of everything. Double stout people. Double tall people. Double world class sprinters. Double 100 MPH throwers. Double six foot for 280 pound guys that run like they are skinny people, etc...on and on.
You get two Big Klu's, except now you increase the chance that one of them runs as fast as Richie Ashburn....freak of nature.
Better nutrtion can take 'SOME' of the fringe guys to a little better level....but there will be double of those guys too in a society with twice as many similar people.
Players who dominate their sport are mental and physical "freaks of nature".
Whenever you start lumping them in with the average player (and the below average) to compare, you are getting less accurate data. Now we start bringing in entire populations of people on a global level?
As long as we're going there, let's look at Canada's (and only Canada's) infant mortality;
In 1900 it was 187 deaths per 1000.
Since 2000 it's been 5 per 1000.
From 19% down to .05%.
One would then conclude that many sickly babies didn't survive and the result was a stronger, healthier population.
Maybe that's why so many of the modern athletes are always injured.
If we look at the players who are considered by most to be GOATs, very few suffered a lot of injuries.
I keep hearing on how the athletes are bigger and faster and stronger now, but I don't see any actual proof the ones we talk about are.
Who cares if the guys that suck (or the general population) are bigger.
Weather it's stronger bodies or tougher minds, the modern athlete doesn't seem "better" than the guys from the 1960's.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
Players who dominate their sport are mental and physical "freaks of nature".
Whenever you start lumping them in with the average player (and the below average) to compare, you are getting less accurate data. Now we start bringing in entire populations of people on a global level?
As long as we're going there, let's look at Canada's (and only Canada's) infant mortality;
In 1900 it was 187 deaths per 1000.
Since 2000 it's been 5 per 1000.
From 19% down to .05%.
One would then conclude that many sickly babies didn't survive and the result was a stronger, healthier population.
Maybe that's why so many of the modern athletes are always injured.
If we look at the players who are considered by most to be GOATs, very few suffered a lot of injuries.
I keep hearing on how the athletes are bigger and faster and stronger now, but I don't see any actual proof the ones we talk about are.
Who cares if the guys that suck (or the general population) are bigger.
Weather it's stronger bodies or tougher minds, the modern athlete doesn't seem "better" than the guys from the 1960's.
They don't seem better because half lose every night and no matter how good the league is, there is always going to be a worst group of players in the league even if they are better than a previous group of players in the league.
Joe, what you are pointing out are one of the things that made it easier for the greats of past generations to achieve dominance impossible to replicate. They had less players similar to them to compete against. You are right, some were never born. Some were never allowed to play. Some came from societies that wasn't an option to play.
But whatever you had then you have double now. It is actually more than double now because when you add the other markets in the world that are now viable and weren't then it adds a whole new influx of options.
The total population of 1900 is an even lower level than 1979. 1900 is a whole new level of less talent. 1979 didn't have the infant mortality problem, yet still lacked in population by a ton compared to recent years.
1979 isn't that far off from now, but there is still a difference.
The question with Gretzky. Would he have even achieved the same dominance in the 1980's if he was on a crap team instead of the Oilers?
I suspect many would say no he wouldn't.
That is before even considering the overall ability of the league now where they are going to be more guys as fast, as skilled(or as close to as skilled), etc... where leading the league every year is going to be harder because other guys as skilled(or nearly as skilled) would pop up with their career years and beat him in a given year.
It is purely fact that he dominated his league.
It is not a given that he would have done the same on a bad team.
It is not nearly a given that he would have done the same in a more competitive league.
It is good to speculate though otherwise why have a discussion lol.
I would like to also see a mathematical comparison that takes into account that there were only 6 hockey teams to begin with (14 in 1970) and a much smaller (if any?) Minor league system.
There's now 32 teams (732 players), in 1970 here were between 280 and 322.
As the population has grown, so has the number of teams, so isn't that a "wash"?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
Players who dominate their sport are mental and physical "freaks of nature".
Whenever you start lumping them in with the average player (and the below average) to compare, you are getting less accurate data. Now we start bringing in entire populations of people on a global level?
As long as we're going there, let's look at Canada's (and only Canada's) infant mortality;
In 1900 it was 187 deaths per 1000.
Since 2000 it's been 5 per 1000.
From 19% down to .05%.
One would then conclude that many sickly babies didn't survive and the result was a stronger, healthier population.
Maybe that's why so many of the modern athletes are always injured.
If we look at the players who are considered by most to be GOATs, very few suffered a lot of injuries.
I keep hearing on how the athletes are bigger and faster and stronger now, but I don't see any actual proof the ones we talk about are.
Who cares if the guys that suck (or the general population) are bigger.
Weather it's stronger bodies or tougher minds, the modern athlete doesn't seem "better" than the guys from the 1960's.
They don't seem better because half lose every night and no matter how good the league is, there is always going to be a worst group of players in the league even if they are better than a previous group of players in the league.
Joe, what you are pointing out are one of the things that made it easier for the greats of past generations to achieve dominance impossible to replicate. They had less players similar to them to compete against. You are right, some were never born. Some were never allowed to play. Some came from societies that wasn't an option to play.
But whatever you had then you have double now. It is actually more than double now because when you add the other markets in the world that are now viable and weren't then it adds a whole new influx of options.
The total population of 1900 is an even lower level than 1979. 1900 is a whole new level of less talent. 1979 didn't have the infant mortality problem, yet still lacked in population by a ton compared to recent years.
1979 isn't that far off from now, but there is still a difference.
I have yet to see anyone actually present a good analysis. People generally present evidence that supports their opinion and ignore the rest.
More people now, more teams now.
Sticking with hockey, almost 90% of the players come from 4 countries, Canada, U.S., Sweden, Russia, over 70% from the U.S. or Canada. Let's forget about the rest of the world.
Twice the population, twice the players......kind of the same?
I also think that "half the players lose every game" hasn't changed either, unless I didn't understand your point.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
The question with Gretzky. Would he have even achieved the same dominance in the 1980's if he was on a crap team instead of the Oilers?
I suspect many would say no he wouldn't.
That is before even considering the overall ability of the league now where they are going to be more guys as fast, as skilled(or as close to as skilled), etc... where leading the league every year is going to be harder because other guys as skilled(or nearly as skilled) would pop up with their career years and beat him in a given year.
It is purely fact that he dominated his league.
It is not a given that he would have done the same on a bad team.
It is not nearly a given that he would have done the same in a more competitive league.
It is good to speculate though otherwise why have a discussion lol.
You are one of the few people I can have a debate with, I really enjoy the give and take.
Gretzky really got to play with a "perfect storm" in Edmonton. Great players at the same time scoring was up.
He still put up some amazing numbers when he played with the Kings, leading the league in points 3 out of 5 seasons (when he played full seasons).
The Kings were pretty good, but not nearly as good as the Oilers had been.
Wayne actually scored better in two of his first three years with the Kings than his last season with the Oilers. He did miss a few games that final year in Edmonton.
I looked at both players first 7 seasons and it's not even close.
By year 3 Wayne was between 30 to 70 points better than the next best player as well as leading the league in goals in years 3-6.
McDavid has led in points 5 of the 7 years, but it's been much closer. Once more than 11 points.
He's only been in the top 5 once before this year in goals scored with a 2nd place finish 2 years ago.
Connor has separated himself from the pack a bit this year, but he's no where near as dominant as Wayne was.
Edited to add; forgot to mention Gretzky was #1 in points scored every year in his first 7.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
I would like to also see a mathematical comparison that takes into account that there were only 6 hockey teams to begin with (14 in 1970) and a much smaller (if any?) Minor league system.
There's now 32 teams (732 players), in 1970 here were between 280 and 322.
As the population has grown, so has the number of teams, so isn't that a "wash"?
No. The number of teams hasn't grown at the same rate as the pool of players. In the late 60s, the NHL drew from a pool of roughly 25 million people. There were basically no Americans and no Europeans. The league has 5.33x as many teams now. They now draw from 36 million in Canada AND 350 million in the US AND 750 million in Europe - roughly 45x as many people.
I crunched a few numbers. I used 1980 as that was around when Gretzky started.
In 1980 there were 483 players. in 2022 there were 732 players. About 52% more players on active rosters today.
In 1980, 98% the NHL's player pool was drawn from 4 countries: Canada, US, Sweden and finland the total population pool from those countries in 1980 was 263MM
In 2022, 91% of the NHLs player pool was drawn from 5 countries: Canada, US, Sweden, Russia and Finland. The total population from those countries in 2022 was 527MM.
That means that the player pool increased 52% in 42 years. The population pool from where those players came from increased 50%.
It seems to me that the population pool where hockey players are actually from and the NHL player pool is growing at about the same rate give or take a few %. If it were not for Russia being added to the mix, the population would have greatly outgrown the increase in players. The number of players from Russia is statistically small. about 5%.
@craig44 said:
I crunched a few numbers. I used 1980 as that was around when Gretzky started.
In 1980 there were 483 players. in 2022 there were 732 players. About 52% more players on active rosters today.
In 1980, 98% the NHL's player pool was drawn from 4 countries: Canada, US, Sweden and finland the total population pool from those countries in 1980 was 263MM
In 2022, 91% of the NHLs player pool was drawn from 5 countries: Canada, US, Sweden, Russia and Finland. The total population from those countries in 2022 was 527MM.
That means that the player pool increased 52% in 42 years. The population pool from where those players came from increased 50%.
It seems to me that the population pool where hockey players are actually from and the NHL player pool is growing at about the same rate give or take a few %. If it were not for Russia being added to the mix, the population would have greatly outgrown the increase in players. The number of players from Russia is statistically small. about 5%.
Thank you. Very well done!
Similar to my guess.😁
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
It's a little more nuanced than that as in 1980, the concept of a European player's end goal being the NHL and the Stanley Cup was not the same as it is today.
Also, I wouldn't necessarily be excluding Czech, Slovak, Swiss and German players from today's evaluation as they all have competitive junior and professional leagues.
Comments
same would apply for 1961. 1948_swell_robinson brought up 1920
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
That is one component and I don't disagree.
However, it isn't just that a guy from 1920 is getting the same benefit of traingin and nutrition, but now he is facing more people that would not have existed in his time because there are more of us around. More people and more athletic freaks closer to the best of the time make it harder.
In regard to Gretzky, Canada was the primary source of players from when he started out. Now the world provides more elite players too in addition to Canada still providing their best. But Canada has also grown in size.
For example:
Canada had a population of 36 million in 2016
Canada had a population of 24 million in 1979
So right there McDavid is competing against more people.
Then when you add that the NHL draws more from the rest of the world now as compared to then as well, then right there McDavid is competing against a bigger pool of player talent.
So independent of the training and nutrition, McDavid has to compete against more elite athletes just by sheer numbers. The only thing that would negate that a little is if society had taken a downturn in athletic play thus rendering the population growth muted....but the opposite occurred in that the 'world' has become an athlete factory in the 2000's because everyone sees the dollar signs.
@craig44
In regard to Gretzky, Canada was the primary source of players from when he started out. Now the world provides more elite players too in addition to Canada still providing their best. But Canada has also grown in size.
For example:
Canada had a population of 36 million in 2016
Canada had a population of 24 million in 1979
In 1980 Canda provided 81.9% of the NHL Players.
In 2015 Canda provided 49% of the NHL Players.
So the bottom half of Canada's players have been replaced by the top half of the rest of the Hockey playing world's elite AND Canada itself has more people to choose from to add to their top half.
This itself lends to choose the biggest, fastest, and strongest players with skill. It eliminates the fringe players from then that were containing 20 less pounds of natural muscle mass from being in the league today.
it also increases the amount of people who have the innate ability to put a puck with a stick into a top corner of a net. Skill.
As a result the league as a whole is a little harder to compete with. A guy like Gretzky could still very well be the best, but it is also possible that someone else from his time with a slightly different skill set might even be better in this environment, and that we will never know and is fun speculation.
But the reality is that the players are indeed bigger, faster, stronger, and more skilled because there are more people around to provide those exotic combination and society is in a place where those skills are cultivated to the highest degree as well.
I disagree with your hypothesis, so does science. The size. strength and speed of human beings is not increasing because of an increasing population. The competitive edge may increase, but I am not convinced of that either. size, strength and speed is increasing because of much better nutrition, health and training.
There are lots of articles out there to read on the subject.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
You are welcome to disagree....but when you have twice as many people you are going to have twice as many who are six foot four and twice as many who are six foot four with elite athletic attributes.
Twice as many who can run X speed, can throw X speed, etc...
Larger pool of humans to choose from.
You also select the biggest and best from populations that were not viable options before.
Nutrition has not changed for kids in the last 40 years in the United States or Canada. One could even make the case that it got worse, so that explanation does not support what you are saying.
It may have changed for the guys like Brady who are already at the top, but no during the formative years where height and muscle mass is determined(most determined by your genetics anyway.)
Unless you believe that the best ten athletes athletes on the Mayflower are as good as the best 10 now.
@craig44
if you took the best 12 athletes from the 15,000 people in Boston in 1770 and had them be born in 1995(complete with modern nutrition including doughnuts, Twinkies, chips, and Cola), do you believe they would be as good as the best twelve athletes from Boston today?
Now stretch that number to the best 2,000 athletes from those 15,000 people in 1770 Boston compared to the best 2,000 in Boston today.
Nutrtioin is a factor(not so much the last 40 years in the western hemisphere), but is a factor.
That factor is dwarfed by the population uptick AND the fact that new populations are tapped into far more... and from that much larger pools of humans, it creates more bigger, faster, stronger athletes that arise from simple probability, of which are selected to be paid a lot of money.
Yes, nutrition has gotten significantly better for kids in the last 40 years. So has prenatal health. So has pediatric healthcare and healthcare in general. That is why people are taller/bigger. there are tons of articles about it.
Yes, if you took 20 pregnant women off from the Mayflower, gave them all the modern conveniences/healthcare/nutrition etc. and then raised those babies today with all of the same considerations, they would be just as tall and large as any other modern person.
Now, if you start those same children in youth sports and give them the same specialized training that our teenagers and adult athletes get, they would be just as big/fast/strong as their peers.
you are confusing size/strength/speed with skill I think when you bring up the population increase. yes, there are more people to compete with, as there are more people on earth. thay MAY change the competitive balance, but it does not make people physically larger/stronger/faster.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
@craig44
I hate comparing this to the older players because I love those times, so lets use today's players as an example(since they are so hated by anyone over 40 because they all suck because they do it differently than when we were kids).
Imagine the NFL. What would happen if next year there was a population of 330 million people that mirrored the United States that was found? Maybe the Marvel Multi-verse was discovered and now you have a pool of 330 million football crazied society people that are options.
The population doubled and the player pool has now doubled too.
You are the Patriots. What happens to Mac Jones? He loses his job. He is no longer good enough to compete with an influx of players some of whom are as good as Burrow, Mahomes, etc...
But as a fan watching, it is hard to notice the difference because in the end, half of those teams will still lose every night. Thirty players will still be the worst 30 players in the league. So many of them will still be viewed as bad players even though they are actually better than the players they just replaced.
You are disregarding the natural innate abilities. I can give you 1,000 people and you can train and feed them until your knuckles bleeed and they still won't be good enough to be professionals. There is an extremely high element of natural ability that you are born with. Yes, size and muscle mass is one of them. You can feed some kids all you want and it isn't going to change their height, muscle mass, or strength.
The more people you have the more you will produce bigger, faster, stronger, athletic people. That is independent of nutrition. Nutrtion can help, but unless you already have the requisite natural attributes, it doesn't matter.
Those athletic freaks of nature are born, not made. They did exist before 'nutrtion' too. Now since there are more people and more society's to choose from, the leagues are all now stronger with better gifted athletes than at any other time.
So in pool A in 1950 you have 500 elites in the world.
So in pool A in 2020 you have 1,000 elites in the world.
Doesn't matter what you feed the rest of the population in 1950, you don't have enough people in the population to produce those athletic freaks to match the 2020 pool. You don't have enough people that are six foot four in their genetics. You can give Pointdexter all the prenatal care, nutrtion, etc...but in the end he is still Pointdexter.
There is going to be twice as much as everything 1950 has.
>
So it doesn't matter at all what the genetics of those 20 women are? Not a chance. They would be as tall as "SOME" of the kids in today's society because society is filled with all shapes and sizes.
However, unless you believe that the low population of the Mayflower kids would produce a team that could compete with the ten best players in the world today, then you already agree with what I am saying.
Obviously the Mayflower is an extreme example....hence why I said it was subtle comparing the more modern times and population.
If you double any similar society you will get double of everything. Double stout people. Double tall people. Double world class sprinters. Double 100 MPH throwers. Double six foot for 280 pound guys that run like they are skinny people, etc...on and on.
You get two Big Klu's, except now you increase the chance that one of them runs as fast as Richie Ashburn....freak of nature.
Better nutrtion can take 'SOME' of the fringe guys to a little better level....but there will be double of those guys too in a society with twice as many similar people.
Players who dominate their sport are mental and physical "freaks of nature".
Whenever you start lumping them in with the average player (and the below average) to compare, you are getting less accurate data. Now we start bringing in entire populations of people on a global level?
As long as we're going there, let's look at Canada's (and only Canada's) infant mortality;
In 1900 it was 187 deaths per 1000.
Since 2000 it's been 5 per 1000.
From 19% down to .05%.
One would then conclude that many sickly babies didn't survive and the result was a stronger, healthier population.
Maybe that's why so many of the modern athletes are always injured.
If we look at the players who are considered by most to be GOATs, very few suffered a lot of injuries.
I keep hearing on how the athletes are bigger and faster and stronger now, but I don't see any actual proof the ones we talk about are.
Who cares if the guys that suck (or the general population) are bigger.
Weather it's stronger bodies or tougher minds, the modern athlete doesn't seem "better" than the guys from the 1960's.
They don't seem better because half lose every night and no matter how good the league is, there is always going to be a worst group of players in the league even if they are better than a previous group of players in the league.
Joe, what you are pointing out are one of the things that made it easier for the greats of past generations to achieve dominance impossible to replicate. They had less players similar to them to compete against. You are right, some were never born. Some were never allowed to play. Some came from societies that wasn't an option to play.
But whatever you had then you have double now. It is actually more than double now because when you add the other markets in the world that are now viable and weren't then it adds a whole new influx of options.
The total population of 1900 is an even lower level than 1979. 1900 is a whole new level of less talent. 1979 didn't have the infant mortality problem, yet still lacked in population by a ton compared to recent years.
1979 isn't that far off from now, but there is still a difference.
The question with Gretzky. Would he have even achieved the same dominance in the 1980's if he was on a crap team instead of the Oilers?
I suspect many would say no he wouldn't.
That is before even considering the overall ability of the league now where they are going to be more guys as fast, as skilled(or as close to as skilled), etc... where leading the league every year is going to be harder because other guys as skilled(or nearly as skilled) would pop up with their career years and beat him in a given year.
It is purely fact that he dominated his league.
It is not a given that he would have done the same on a bad team.
It is not nearly a given that he would have done the same in a more competitive league.
It is good to speculate though otherwise why have a discussion lol.
I would like to also see a mathematical comparison that takes into account that there were only 6 hockey teams to begin with (14 in 1970) and a much smaller (if any?) Minor league system.
There's now 32 teams (732 players), in 1970 here were between 280 and 322.
As the population has grown, so has the number of teams, so isn't that a "wash"?
I have yet to see anyone actually present a good analysis. People generally present evidence that supports their opinion and ignore the rest.
More people now, more teams now.
Sticking with hockey, almost 90% of the players come from 4 countries, Canada, U.S., Sweden, Russia, over 70% from the U.S. or Canada. Let's forget about the rest of the world.
Twice the population, twice the players......kind of the same?
I also think that "half the players lose every game" hasn't changed either, unless I didn't understand your point.
You are one of the few people I can have a debate with, I really enjoy the give and take.
Gretzky really got to play with a "perfect storm" in Edmonton. Great players at the same time scoring was up.
He still put up some amazing numbers when he played with the Kings, leading the league in points 3 out of 5 seasons (when he played full seasons).
The Kings were pretty good, but not nearly as good as the Oilers had been.
Wayne actually scored better in two of his first three years with the Kings than his last season with the Oilers. He did miss a few games that final year in Edmonton.
I looked at both players first 7 seasons and it's not even close.
By year 3 Wayne was between 30 to 70 points better than the next best player as well as leading the league in goals in years 3-6.
McDavid has led in points 5 of the 7 years, but it's been much closer. Once more than 11 points.
He's only been in the top 5 once before this year in goals scored with a 2nd place finish 2 years ago.
Connor has separated himself from the pack a bit this year, but he's no where near as dominant as Wayne was.
Edited to add; forgot to mention Gretzky was #1 in points scored every year in his first 7.
No. The number of teams hasn't grown at the same rate as the pool of players. In the late 60s, the NHL drew from a pool of roughly 25 million people. There were basically no Americans and no Europeans. The league has 5.33x as many teams now. They now draw from 36 million in Canada AND 350 million in the US AND 750 million in Europe - roughly 45x as many people.
I crunched a few numbers. I used 1980 as that was around when Gretzky started.
In 1980 there were 483 players. in 2022 there were 732 players. About 52% more players on active rosters today.
In 1980, 98% the NHL's player pool was drawn from 4 countries: Canada, US, Sweden and finland the total population pool from those countries in 1980 was 263MM
In 2022, 91% of the NHLs player pool was drawn from 5 countries: Canada, US, Sweden, Russia and Finland. The total population from those countries in 2022 was 527MM.
That means that the player pool increased 52% in 42 years. The population pool from where those players came from increased 50%.
It seems to me that the population pool where hockey players are actually from and the NHL player pool is growing at about the same rate give or take a few %. If it were not for Russia being added to the mix, the population would have greatly outgrown the increase in players. The number of players from Russia is statistically small. about 5%.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Thank you. Very well done!
Similar to my guess.😁
It's a little more nuanced than that as in 1980, the concept of a European player's end goal being the NHL and the Stanley Cup was not the same as it is today.
Also, I wouldn't necessarily be excluding Czech, Slovak, Swiss and German players from today's evaluation as they all have competitive junior and professional leagues.
Yeah, but would a team of Gretzky's beat a team of McDavid's more often if they played them 100 games in a row?
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.