HOH 2022-23 Project: Top-60 Pre-Merger Players of All-Time Pre-Discussion thread

[Professor What]

Best armies of all-time:

1. Modern USA
2. Modern China
3. Modern Russia
4. Some other present day country
5-100: 96 other present day countries
...
~1000-2000: the armies led by Alexander the great, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, and Julius Ceasar

You see, those old armies just didn't have the manpower. There's no way they could compete with the modern day talent pool.

 

[seventieslord]

Best 100m sprinters of all-time:

1. Usain Bolt (born 1986)
2. Tyson Gay (1982)
3. Yohan Blake (1989)
4. Asafa Powell (1982)
5. Justin Gatlin (1982)
6. Trayvon Bromel (1985)
7. Fred Kerley (1995)

17. Donovan Bailey (1967) (1996 OG)

24. Carl Lewis (1961) (1988 OG)

2053. Armin Hary (1937) (1960 OG)

There you have it. Armin Hary ain't shit. There have been over 2000 faster sprinters since then. He was the fastest in the world in 1960 but that was just because the world sucked.

 

[VanIslander]

The Spartan Army was greater than all the aforemtioned.

As Athenians admitted: "one Spartan was worth several men of any other state".

Ten year olds were trained to kill lions with a knife. Girls were put in a box and told to break out or die. The Spartans were ruthless. The 300 Spartans stopping millions of Persians was 70%-ish true. Certainly, they killed thousands and delayed the enemy through disciplined and strategic means.

 

[Professor What]

The Spartan Army was greater than all the aforemtioned.

As Athenians admitted: "one Spartan was worth several men of any other state".

Ten year olds were trained to kill lions with a knife. Girls were put in a box and told to break out or die. The Spartans were ruthless. The 300 Spartans stopping millions of Persians was 70%-ish true. Certainly, they killed thousands and delayed the enemy through disciplined and strategic means.

I somehow don't think you got it.

 

[seventieslord]

The Spartan Army was greater than all the aforemtioned.

As Athenians admitted: "one Spartan was worth several men of any other state".

Ten year olds were trained to kill lions with a knife. Girls were put in a box and told to break out or die. The Spartans were ruthless. The 300 Spartans stopping millions of Persians was 70%-ish true. Certainly, they killed thousands and delayed the enemy through disciplined and strategic means.

Any modern army with their guns and grenades would decimate them in minutes. Therefore they don't belong anywhere near the top of the list.

 

[Professor What]

Any modern army with their guns and grenades would decimate them in minutes. Therefore they don't belong anywhere near the top of the list.

Even Canada, despite the fact that they apologize before shooting.

(Sorry couldn't resist. No offense meant. I think Canada is awesome. I just love making Canada jokes.)

 

[JackSlater]

Maybe one day you'll contribute to this forum instead of exclusively criticizing everyone.

Show some respect, that poster once claimed with full seriousness that he could have been a powerplay weapon in the original six NHL due to the vision he shows in beer league play. If he had his skates and stick form today of course. That one statement alone amused me more than pretty much anything I've ever read here.

 

[rmartin65]

I've long wanted to do this and been scared off by the price tag. This is a great opportunity to splurge. Are we allowed to post screenshots of news articles here, even if they're from behind a paywall?

I transcribe everything, but other people have posted screenshots in ATD bios in the past.

Unaware if it's allowed or not.

I haven't done a bunch of searching into newspapers.com's policies concerning sharing content, but, at the very least, I imagine doing what BB has done is fine- their website even states:

At Newspapers.com it's easy and convenient to search or browse the collection to find news, notices of births, marriages and deaths, sports, comics and much more. Our high quality digital images and powerful viewer provide the best look at these historical papers and make it easy to print, save and share what you find.

Actually, looking into it a little more, I think even sharing clippings is allowed (even encouraged)

You can easily share clippings by email or on Facebook, Twitter or other social sites. When you share a clipping, your friends can see the image even if they don't subscribe to Newspapers.com.

Thinking back to the Europeans project, I think it may be a good idea to get onto the same page as far as how we handle rapidly developing competition in a relatively short time.

I think that if we are doing a "global, all-time" list of players then there is good reason to not even consider the likes of Malecek, Bobrov, Sologubov and Zabrodsky. They weren't anywhere near the best players on earth in their time.

But I recognize that there is a case to be made for evaluating them differently when doing a list of the greatest non-NHL europeans of all-time. From a strictly European standpoint, it matters not whether Zabrodsky would have been out of his league against NHL professionals, it matters that he was absolutely the best player in Europe.

I remember seeing individual lists in that project that ranked them very highly, by voters who clearly took the latter approach to ranking. I myself took the former approach, and had them 31st, 45th, 64th and 65th. Ultimately, these players ranked 21st, 22nd, 26th and 34th, which I don't think makes any sense by either method. Based on their domestic and international tournament dominance, these are probably 4 of the top-8 of all-time. Based on their relative greatness compared to the best in the world in their era, they may not be top-50.

So that brings us back to the top pre-merger players. Let's look at a player like Harry Hyland, a HHOFer and perfectly fine player who deserves consideration here. But in his generation (1910s priming players), he may not even be among the 12 best forwards (he's in fact 17th in the decade according to Ian Fyffe's Hockey Historysis blog post, the meritorious men of the 1910s). Go back 10 years to the 1900s, and sure, I guess we'll be ranking Russell Bowie, Frank McGee, Tommy Phillips and probably Jack Marshall ahead of Hyland, but what about the next class of forwards? Harry Smith? Marty Walsh? Ernie Russell? Herb Jordan? Rat Westwick?

By the time we get to Westwick, we're talking about maybe the ~9th best forward of the decade, with Hyland around ~19th of his own. Yet, Hyland seems to carry more clout when it comes to drafting him in projects like the ATD. The closer to merger it gets, the more we respect the era and the players in it. Are we aiming to have a list that ends up with considerably more players from each newer generation of players? Or are we trying to have the same number from each generation? Or split the difference somehow? And if we do, will it make sense in the end or will it look like those four players in the Europeans project?

I'd like to get some more discussion on this topic, if people don't mind, as I think that this has the potential to cause some really funky voting results.

Personally, I fall into the "split the difference somehow" category- I don't like the idea of having an imposed quota for each generation, whether that is geared towards ensuring a relatively equal amount of players from each generation or if it is to make the list be weighed more towards 1910-20's players. I think we can compare players against their peers while still recognizing that there was somewhat of a talent jump that occurred in the early 20th century.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I'd like to get some more discussion on this topic, if people don't mind, as I think that this has the potential to cause some really funky voting results.

Personally, I fall into the "split the difference somehow" category- I don't like the idea of having an imposed quota for each generation, whether that is geared towards ensuring a relatively equal amount of players from each generation or if it is to make the list be weighed more towards 1910-20's players. I think we can compare players against their peers while still recognizing that there was somewhat of a talent jump that occurred in the early 20th century.

Especially for a pre consolidation project, I don't want us to fall into mostly having players who had primes from 1910-1926.

You can reasonably say Russell Bowie was known as the best hockey player ever before being supplanted by Cyclone Taylor. And then we are mostly in agreement Frank Nighbor overtook him.

Ranking Nighbor>Taylor>Bowie should be easy. But we should still feature Bowie highly on our lists for being arguably the best pre-professional player.

 

[VanIslander]

@seventieslord

Do you judge hockey history as you do history?

Cyclone Taylor & Newsy Lalonde were 5'8 tall. And that is tiny by today's standards. Are you discounting a 145 lbs guy based on today's competition?

I think not. You have a history of not doing so either.

The Spartans would rival the Israeli's and any American core. I expect they'd prevail.

 

[jigglysquishy]

@seventieslord

Do you judge hockey history as you do history?

Cyclone Taylor & Newsy Lalonde were 5'8 tall. And that is tiny by today's standards. Are you discounting a 145 lbs guy based on today's competition?

I think not. You have a history of not doing so either.

The Spartans would rival the Israeli's and any American core. I expect they'd prevail.

He's clearly joking and you're missing the point.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, I mean, clearly poking fun at the people that come in here and say that Nic Dowd would be a 20 goal per game guy in 1954...

 

[Sanf]

Cook: 4 seasons before 1926, 11 after (2 of his best 3 seasons were before merger, but 9 of his best 12 were post). We could say he had 6 seasons before 1926, if we even know what NOHA and NMHL stood for. And what the heck was he doing from the age of 18 to 24???

Hay: 5 before (7 if you count SSHL - we probably should), 6 after. His WCHL/WHL seasons are his 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th best.

Just few I want to mention quickly. Bill Cook was WW1 veteran so several years out of hockey. My recollection is that whole Kingston Frontenacs was out of hockey for few years? Cook was fairly well known player already at the time. I think Kingston played in Intermediates level though.

NOHA was Norhtern Ontario Hockey Association and NMHL most likely stands for Northern Michigan Hockey Leagues. NMHL was part of USAHA were Canadian Soo played without the eligibility to win USAHA championship. Again at the time that he was signed to Saskatoon he was regarded as one of the best amateur players in hockey. So tough case but making things bit more simple... out?

George Hay had his clear breathrough to Senior hockey and competing from Allan Cup even before his war efforts. Monarchs lost the Allan Cup in 1916 but Hay was regarded young sensation of the team. On the top of that ofcourse that he played in SSHL two season before joining WCHL in 1921. Which I have mentioned is in the shadows of BIG-4 league without a great reason. In my opinion clearly IN.

 

[seventieslord]

@seventieslord

Do you judge hockey history as you do history?

Cyclone Taylor & Newsy Lalonde were 5'8 tall. And that is tiny by today's standards. Are you discounting a 145 lbs guy based on today's competition?

I think not. You have a history of not doing so either.

The Spartans would rival the Israeli's and any American core. I expect they'd prevail.

Jesus Christ man, how long have you known me?

 

[bobholly39]

Not going to participate but will be an interested reader.

One question out of curiosity:

If a player is eligible - that means you judge his full career right? Or will it be a case of "player A is better, but player B has more of his career pre-consolidation so ill rank him higher in this project"

 

[Professor What]

Not going to participate but will be an interested reader.

One question out of curiosity:

If a player is eligible - that means you judge his full career right? Or will it be a case of "player A is better, but player B has more of his career pre-consolidation so ill rank him higher in this project"

That's the assumption I've been under. I mean, if we really want the full feel for how impactful somebody was, it ought to be full career.

 

[seventieslord]

Not going to participate but will be an interested reader.

One question out of curiosity:

If a player is eligible - that means you judge his full career right? Or will it be a case of "player A is better, but player B has more of his career pre-consolidation so ill rank him higher in this project"

Yep, absolutely full career.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Reg Noble is definitely IN, and I agree with all your IN and OUT.

The rest of the "Discuss" I'm still undecided about.

What do we think of the OHA Sr? An overview of all the leagues with a visual timeline of their existence and strength would be extremely helpful, I hope someone more versed than me can do it in this thread.

Agree with this, one of the hardest parts of evaluating players from this era is the scattered nature of most players' careers. Looking at a guy's stats, while only a starting point, is still immensely useful versus not having that exist at all in an appreciable manner. Assigning the various pre-NHA leagues especially some sort of score or value is something that I've always been interested in. A project like this would be good cause to scratch the surface on that at least, although I'm sure some of the folks in here have perhaps done so at some point.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Agree with this, one of the hardest parts of evaluating players from this era is the scattered nature of most players' careers. Looking at a guy's stats, while only a starting point, is still immensely useful versus not having that exist at all in an appreciable manner. Assigning the various pre-NHA leagues especially some sort of score or value is something that I've always been interested in. A project like this would be good cause to scratch the surface on that at least, although I'm sure some of the folks in here have perhaps done so at some point.

Some things I hope to see posted in this thread, if someone is up for it:

―A visual timeline of the relevant leagues
―All the players' statistics, and the source from which we got them
―An overview and timeline of how the Stanley Cup challenge worked
―Major rules of different leagues, a timeline of the major rule changes, etc

 

[seventieslord]

―A visual timeline of the relevant leagues

I might be able to do something.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Some things I hope to see posted in this thread, if someone is up for it:

―A visual timeline of the relevant leagues
―All the players' statistics, and the source from which we got them
―An overview and timeline of how the Stanley Cup challenge worked
―Major rules of different leagues, a timeline of the major rule changes, etc

This is my wishlist, and I think it would be very useful pedagogically, not only for people like me with spotty and imbalanced knowledge but also for people who know next to nothing about that era. Just to clarify the landscape and make it less opaque. Nothing too detailed, just enough to give a big picture.

The reason I don't do it is because there are other posters in a better position to do so, since they have a better overview of the era than me, whereas I tended to take deep dives into specific teams and players.

Im just waiting on a new laptop and then I'll be blasting this thread.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

While purely optional, I recommend buying a subscription to newspapers.com, once the project starts.

I can vouch that if you intend to dive into old newspapers for articles, it is very much worth it. The search engine works great.

It cost 19.90$ USD a month.

I reached out to newspapers.com to see if there's any group subscription plan available. It's a shot in the dark, but I'll let everyone know if they offer this.

 

[Neutrinos]

This just in... Different people have different interests. More at 11.

Yeah, so why not try to include some of those varying interests by making a "best players" list?

 

[BenchBrawl]

Yeah, so why not try to include some of those varying interests by making a "best players" list?

Read the room. People are excited about this project within parameters that are far from your philosophy. Find a tribe that shares your views and want to engage in your hobby, or adjust to what people are doing here. When in Rome, do as the Romans do, or get lost.

 

[jigglysquishy]

The closest we're going to get is a top peaks list, which might actually be our next project. But a history forum is always going to do history lists.

The pre-consolidation list is a great idea and the first full list of this era that's ever been produced. We're going to get months of great discussion out of this project and some very worthwhile historical research.

The top women is our next logical list, but runs into the same problem pre WW I men's hockey does. No top flight leagues, rapidly evolving talent pool, and the existing talent were spread across multiple leagues. But men's hockey still had elite level amateur leagues that lasted more than a couple seasons.

After that we're left with lots of bad options. We don't see enough behind closed doors to make a coaches list worthwhile. Top 200 to 300 list is getting into tedious territory. We don't need to redo the top 100 in the next five years.

But a strict, best players/ time machines exist list? No, I don't think a history forum has any interest in that.