Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cobra
For most of hockey's history, there were 2 points awarded for each game. There are now sometimes 3.
Teams average about an additional 10 points person due to the loser point. Or better yet, teams are now winning games they used to tie, and get an additional point. Ties are now becoming wins.
Before the 3 point game, teams were better because there was no salary cap. The best teams then were generally better than the best teams today.
|
Teams weren’t necessarily better, there was just a bigger disparity between the best and the worst which, if anything, lends more credence to teams like Boston in today’s NHL. The least talented players in today’s NHL are far, far better (more athletic, more talented, better training and conditioning, etc) than at almost any point in the history of the NHL. Hell, the NHL had a long history where there were multiple guys taking up spots that could barely skate and existed to punch a face. So, no, the best teams then weren’t better than the best teams today just because.
The fact is, the current system maintains as much similarity with any previous system as possible, while making the game more entertaining and ensuring teams don’t mail it in for the tie (which is why it was introduced). It’s fine to say that doesn’t matter, but arguing the sanctity of the previous point system matters while arguing for 3-2-1-0 doesn’t make any sense.