Official: NHL expanding to Vegas for '17-18

[PromoTheRobot]

Dilution is true. More AHL'ers II guess is a natural extension. But for how long? In the last ten years I'm willing to bet Vanek style that in the US ten times more kids have grown up as rink rats as opposed to the prior 100 years. I would expect an tremendous burst of US talent in the next five to ten years.

I was going to say the same. There are way more kids playing hockey these days. Plus improvements in training and conditioning. I bet the talent level between today's NHL and the Original 6 isn't as wide as you'd think.

[LTS]

This concept of talent dilution got me thinking. What is talent dilution and how would you measure it?

 

Let's set a few basic assumptions.

 

1. Perfect decision making on who makes a team.

2. There are tiers of player talent. Where those tiers break is not up for discussion, just that there are tiers.

 

So, let's say at any given time there are 20 tiers of talent in hockey players. It is not evenly distributed as the lower tiers will absolutely be larger than the upper tiers.

 

Let's say with 30 teams in the league, the teams are comprised of the top 10 tiers of hockey players.

 

Let's say you contract the league such that you remove the bottom 3 tiers of hockey players. Naturally the on-ice skill level improves as the lesser skilled players are removed. However, the difference level between the top and bottom tier is also reduced. Therefore, the top tier talent should, in theory, have their overall effectiveness reduced because they won't succeed as often against higher skilled players. Overall, the teams skill level improves but so does the skill level of their competition.

 

So, you have skilled offense, but is it negated by skilled defense and skilled goaltending? Is there an increase in scoring? Why?

 

The same holds true for expansion. The overall skill level goes down as more players are needed. Overall each team declines in ability as does their competition. The difference between top tier and bottom tier grows and therefore there should be an increase in scoring as the top tier players should have MORE success against the lower tier players.

 

Even if the tiers themselves grow it would take the growth of a Tier out of line with the tier below it to dramatically impact the game. For example, if the top 10 tiers are in and the skill level of the Tier 5 players improves and grows such that it is closer to 4 and further from 6 it would stand to reason that the overall trend of talent as taken an uptick. However, if this is perfectly distributed across the league, would it make a difference?

 

In the end, no matter the number of teams you have, imperfect decision making and the randomness of humanity will still cause disparity between teams. I'm not sure how we judge talent level as completing an amazing pass should be more difficult if the player defending the pass is less likely to be out of position and more likely to intercept any given pass. If a goaltender is more likely to make a save than less likely then it would negate the effectiveness of top level shooters.

 

All in all, shouldn't it remain relatively the same?

[shrader]

I don't put much stock into the talent dilution idea. While there may be a lack of superstars, there isn't a lack of overall talent. There is essentially no difference between many of the guys in the league today and the marginal ones who just missed out. That and we have a long list of players who have been forced out simply due to money reasons. There will be no trouble assembling two more hockey teams, minus the typical growing pains.

 

My only concern about expansion is what we eventually lose to an expansion draft.

[Samson's Flow]

This concept of talent dilution got me thinking. What is talent dilution and how would you measure it?

 

Let's set a few basic assumptions.

 

1. Perfect decision making on who makes a team.

2. There are tiers of player talent. Where those tiers break is not up for discussion, just that there are tiers.

 

So, let's say at any given time there are 20 tiers of talent in hockey players. It is not evenly distributed as the lower tiers will absolutely be larger than the upper tiers.

 

Let's say with 30 teams in the league, the teams are comprised of the top 10 tiers of hockey players.

 

-snip-

 

All in all, shouldn't it remain relatively the same?

LTS, I appreciate your arguement and understand what you are getting at.

 

What I think most posters around here are talking about with respect to talent dilution is getting the Matt Ellis type of players out of the league. There comes a point where if there are too many teams in a league, guys with no descernable positive trait are forced onto the NHL roster. Adding two more teams create 60 or so more jobs for players to fill in the NHL.

 

Even if your team has a Crosby or some other star, the fans are going to become frustrated and not entertained watching a line of Matt Ellis, Cody Mac and Brain Flynn types out there bumbling around. They would still play 20-30% of the game. There's no speed, no skill and not much physicality there. Including these player levels as "NHL Talent" reduces the quality of the NHL product as a whole.

 

The NHL product is great IMO when there is a non-stop pace of entertaining hockey. Having a higher cutoff threshold for NHL talent allows for a more continuous entertaining product, instead of heading for the bathroom waiting for your star player's next shift.

 

I don't put much stock into the talent dilution idea. While there may be a lack of superstars, there isn't a lack of overall talent. There is essentially no difference between many of the guys in the league today and the marginal ones who just missed out. That and we have a long list of players who have been forced out simply due to money reasons. There will be no trouble assembling two more hockey teams, minus the typical growing pains.

 

My only concern about expansion is what we eventually lose to an expansion draft.

Maybe it's just because I watch the Sabres primarily, but I think there are plenty of unentertaining 'filler' players in the NHL now.

 

For another perspective, in youth sports, not many people want to watch the regular little league type games (unless your son or daughter is playing) because there are only 2-3 players who have any talent/competency. The rest are fillers and just taking up a position. Yet millions will tune in on ESPN for the LLWS because these same age kids are highly talented and skilled. There aren't many (if any) filler players at that level.

 

If we could take only the top 10% of hockey players worldwide, it would be much more entertaining on a nightly basis.

[Taro T]

I don't put much stock into the talent dilution idea. While there may be a lack of superstars, there isn't a lack of overall talent. There is essentially no difference between many of the guys in the league today and the marginal ones who just missed out. That and we have a long list of players who have been forced out simply due to money reasons. There will be no trouble assembling two more hockey teams, minus the typical growing pains.

 

My only concern about expansion is what we eventually lose to an expansion draft.

Pretty much where I'm at on this one.

[Kevbeau]

A glaring difference between the Southern U.S. markets: hockey hasn't done well in cities with NBA basketball teams due to direct competition for the sports entertainment dollar. The only one you could make a case for is Dallas, but they won a Cup shortly after moving to the city.

Late to the party (discussion) but until this season, the Hawks have been a train wreck in generating fan support.....The NBA has support issues....in Atlanta! While we focus on the possibilities of the expansion cities, I'm in the camp that the right (or wrong) ownership group is just as, if not more important. I'm not up to speed on the potential ownership groups flirting with the expansion teams, but I had a front row seat to the Atlanta Spirit debacle and there was no way the Thrashers ever had a chance with that clown show running things.

[Hoss]

I don't put much stock into the talent dilution idea. While there may be a lack of superstars, there isn't a lack of overall talent. There is essentially no difference between many of the guys in the league today and the marginal ones who just missed out. That and we have a long list of players who have been forced out simply due to money reasons. There will be no trouble assembling two more hockey teams, minus the typical growing pains.

 

My only concern about expansion is what we eventually lose to an expansion draft.

 

Exactly. I'm personally excited about the opportunities that two more teams will provide. So many more jobs and great chances for guys that may not have gotten it otherwise.

 

 

PS - The Mayor of Seattle said he met with Gary (and the NBA commish) on Monday. Said the discussion went well and the mayor, who has previously been skeptical, made it clear to them he's committed to the current stadium plan. When asked if they would support NHL-first he said he would need a financial plan laid out first, but that's the first big opening there has been.

[freester]

Late to the party (discussion) but until this season, the Hawks have been a train wreck in generating fan support.....The NBA has support issues....in Atlanta! While we focus on the possibilities of the expansion cities, I'm in the camp that the right (or wrong) ownership group is just as, if not more important. I'm not up to speed on the potential ownership groups flirting with the expansion teams, but I had a front row seat to the Atlanta Spirit debacle and there was no way the Thrashers ever had a chance with that clown show running things.

 

As a fellow Atlanta resident and Thrashers fan, I couldn't agree more. Good ownership is essential to success. Had Arthur Blank owned the thrashers, they would still be in atlanta.

[shrader]

Maybe it's just because I watch the Sabres primarily, but I think there are plenty of unentertaining 'filler' players in the NHL now.

 

And that is about 90% by design at this point.

[LTS]

As a fellow Atlanta resident and Thrashers fan, I couldn't agree more. Good ownership is essential to success. Had Arthur Blank owned the thrashers, they would still be in atlanta.

 

How many cities have managed to lose a team twice in their history? That's what I want to know.

[Eleven]

LTS, I appreciate your arguement and understand what you are getting at.

 

What I think most posters around here are talking about with respect to talent dilution is getting the Matt Ellis type of players out of the league. There comes a point where if there are too many teams in a league, guys with no descernable positive trait are forced onto the NHL roster. Adding two more teams create 60 or so more jobs for players to fill in the NHL.

 

Even if your team has a Crosby or some other star, the fans are going to become frustrated and not entertained watching a line of Matt Ellis, Cody Mac and Brain Flynn types out there bumbling around. They would still play 20-30% of the game. There's no speed, no skill and not much physicality there. Including these player levels as "NHL Talent" reduces the quality of the NHL product as a whole.

 

The NHL product is great IMO when there is a non-stop pace of entertaining hockey. Having a higher cutoff threshold for NHL talent allows for a more continuous entertaining product, instead of heading for the bathroom waiting for your star player's next shift.

 

 

Maybe it's just because I watch the Sabres primarily, but I think there are plenty of unentertaining 'filler' players in the NHL now.

 

For another perspective, in youth sports, not many people want to watch the regular little league type games (unless your son or daughter is playing) because there are only 2-3 players who have any talent/competency. The rest are fillers and just taking up a position. Yet millions will tune in on ESPN for the LLWS because these same age kids are highly talented and skilled. There aren't many (if any) filler players at that level.

 

If we could take only the top 10% of hockey players worldwide, it would be much more entertaining on a nightly basis.

 

Nailed it.

 

How many cities have managed to lose a team twice in their history? That's what I want to know.

 

There are more than you'd think. Off of the top of my head, Cleveland, St. Louis, LA, Seattle, DC, Minny/St. Paul, and that's just within one minute.

 

EDIT: If you mean teams in the same sport / league, that narrows it to Cleveland, St. Louis, DC, LA, I think.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Eleven

[French Collection]

32 teams makes a nice number to balance the conferences out and half of them make the playoffs.

I don't believe dilution will be huge because of the expansion of the game.

We are used to this caliber of hockey and two more teams won't affect it greatly.

 

Just think how good the game would be if we contracted the league to 16 teams. All things being equal, only the top 2 lines from every team would make it. That would be a high level of skill and great to watch. There's too much talent to go back to an Original Six but that would be like watching evenly matched top olympic teams every night.

 

Unfortunately, economics lead to 30+ teams at the top level instead of different tiers.

 

2 more teams will only dilute it by a small percentage.

[LGR4GM]

I would rather see the NHL contract to 28 teams but I know that will never happen.

[PromoTheRobot]

How many cities have managed to lose a team twice in their history? That's what I want to know.

Milwaukee, Seattle and Washington DC in baseball.

Edited January 24, 2015 by PromoTheRobot

[Eleven]

Nailed it.

 

 

 

There are more than you'd think. Off of the top of my head, Cleveland, St. Louis, LA, Seattle, DC, Minny/St. Paul, and that's just within one minute.

 

EDIT: If you mean teams in the same sport / league, that narrows it to Cleveland, St. Louis, DC, LA, I think.

 

Milwaukee, Seattle and Washington DC in baseball.

 

I think Milwaukee (Braves) and Seattle (Pilots) only lost one baseball team, unless we're considering teams from the 19th century.  I think the list of cities losing more than one team in the same sport is:

 

Washington (Nats, Senators)

 

Cleveland (Rams, Browns)

 

St. Louis (Bombers, Hawks AND about to be Cardinals, Rams)

 

LA (Rams, Raiders)

 

Atlanta (Flames, Thrashers).

 

EDIT:  I suppose NYC should be considered (Dodgers, Giants).

Edited January 24, 2015 by Eleven

[shrader]

Didn't LA lose the Raiders twice? I've lost track of that team's moves.

[Taro T]

Didn't LA lose the Raiders twice? I've lost track of that team's moves.

Nope. Just lost them the 1 time, for now.

[SwampD]

This concept of talent dilution got me thinking. What is talent dilution and how would you measure it?

 

Let's set a few basic assumptions.

 

1. Perfect decision making on who makes a team.

2. There are tiers of player talent. Where those tiers break is not up for discussion, just that there are tiers.

 

So, let's say at any given time there are 20 tiers of talent in hockey players. It is not evenly distributed as the lower tiers will absolutely be larger than the upper tiers.

 

Let's say with 30 teams in the league, the teams are comprised of the top 10 tiers of hockey players.

 

Let's say you contract the league such that you remove the bottom 3 tiers of hockey players. Naturally the on-ice skill level improves as the lesser skilled players are removed. However, the difference level between the top and bottom tier is also reduced. Therefore, the top tier talent should, in theory, have their overall effectiveness reduced because they won't succeed as often against higher skilled players. Overall, the teams skill level improves but so does the skill level of their competition.

 

So, you have skilled offense, but is it negated by skilled defense and skilled goaltending? Is there an increase in scoring? Why?

 

The same holds true for expansion. The overall skill level goes down as more players are needed. Overall each team declines in ability as does their competition. The difference between top tier and bottom tier grows and therefore there should be an increase in scoring as the top tier players should have MORE success against the lower tier players.

 

Even if the tiers themselves grow it would take the growth of a Tier out of line with the tier below it to dramatically impact the game. For example, if the top 10 tiers are in and the skill level of the Tier 5 players improves and grows such that it is closer to 4 and further from 6 it would stand to reason that the overall trend of talent as taken an uptick. However, if this is perfectly distributed across the league, would it make a difference?

 

In the end, no matter the number of teams you have, imperfect decision making and the randomness of humanity will still cause disparity between teams. I'm not sure how we judge talent level as completing an amazing pass should be more difficult if the player defending the pass is less likely to be out of position and more likely to intercept any given pass. If a goaltender is more likely to make a save than less likely then it would negate the effectiveness of top level shooters.

 

All in all, shouldn't it remain relatively the same?

Watching the All-star game has me thinking about this post.

 

While the level of competition may remain the same, the level of play or skill absolutely doesn't. I'm in favor of contraction.

[skaught]

Nope. Just lost them the 1 time, for now.

LA lost the Chargers, Raiders and Rams.

[Taro T]

LA lost the Chargers, Raiders and Rams.

True. But that wasn't the question. The Q was 'how many times did they lose the Raiders.' The A is still 'only once, so far.' They'll have to go back to LA before they can leave LA again.

[skaught]

True. But that wasn't the question. The Q was 'how many times did they lose the Raiders.' The A is still 'only once, so far.' They'll have to go back to LA before they can leave LA again.

I know, I was just quoting the last post on the topic of LA. I should've quoted the other guy.

Edited January 26, 2015 by skaught

[LTS]

Watching the All-star game has me thinking about this post.

 

While the level of competition may remain the same, the level of play or skill absolutely doesn't. I'm in favor of contraction.

I agree that lower skill level guys will no longer be on the ice.  However, that doesn't mean the level of play improves.  The All-Star game is probably not the best way of proving that however as no one really tries there.

 

However, your point did trigger a separate thought which is National competitions are a fairly good indication of what the kind of play we would see.  My only problem with using that is that we are talking about only 4-5 teams that are true powerhouses in the National arena.  The NHL would not be a 6 team league again.  I just think that contraction, unless massive would not improve the level of play significantly.  And any major contractions would kill the sport.

[PromoTheRobot]

I think Milwaukee (Braves) and Seattle (Pilots) only lost one baseball team, unless we're considering teams from the 19th century.  I think the list of cities losing more than one team in the same sport is:

 

Washington (Nats, Senators)

 

Cleveland (Rams, Browns)

 

St. Louis (Bombers, Hawks AND about to be Cardinals, Rams)

 

LA (Rams, Raiders)

 

Atlanta (Flames, Thrashers).

 

EDIT:  I suppose NYC should be considered (Dodgers, Giants).

Seattle also lost the Sonics to OKC. 

Edited January 27, 2015 by PromoTheRobot

[Eleven]

Seattle also lost the Sonics to OKC. 

Yes.  The list I compiled is teams in the same sport.

[MattPie]

Yes.  The list I compiled is teams in the same sport.

 

Haven't there been several baseball and football teams in NYC that have left? I suppose that's different as they always have another.