HoH Project: Pre-Consolidation

[bobholly39]

I like the "best peak" idea as well, but the challenge is, how do we define it?

Best single season is probably the cleanest, easiest way. But then we'd probably have to limit it to one season per player, otherwise the top 20 is going to be nothing but Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux and probably Howe. But limiting it to one season per player would underrate just how great those four were. Plus, part of the challenge would be figuring out which season is chosen for each (maybe there's some value in debating which Gretzky season from 1982 to 1987 was the best, but a lot of this would be rehashing what's been discussed many times before).

If we stick to the best season idea, how do we deal with playoffs? Sometimes a player has a really strong playoff run during their best regular season (Malkin in 2009 and Sakic in 2001 are semi-recent examples). But sometimes a player is completely underwhelming in the playoffs in their best year (Dionne in 1980, Mikita in 1967, Kucherov in 2019, etc). Maybe it doesn't matter much for Dionne, but Kucherov had some very strong playoff performances - would we ignore those just because they didn't happen during his Hart-winning season?

What do we do with players who never had a "signature" season where they put it all together? Forsberg had a year where he won the Hart and Art Ross, but he wasn't at his best by that point (it was a great season of course, but he won those trophies because of weak competition and that was one of only a few years where he was reasonably healthy). Many other "versions" of Forsberg were better (1997 regular season, 1999 RS & PO, 2002 playoffs, 2004 regular season, 2006 before getting injured, etc). So there's a disconnect between how good Forsberg was at his peak, versus how good his peak season was. He'd get underrated if we're only looking at a single season.

If we look at a longer period of time - how long do we look? This would have a big impact on the results. For example, if we define it as "best six consecutive seasons including playoffs", Guy LaFleur would almost certainly be #5 (and, truthfully, maybe even higher). If it's "best three non-consecutive seasons, pick and choose whichever playoff runs", he'd still rank highly, but not nearly as much as before.

Or we let everyone decide their own definition. But then we're comparing apples to oranges, and I don't think the end result would be a coherent list.

None of these would prevent us from doing this project. Just that these are things we'd have to sort out in advance.

I think before undertaking a best "peak" project - there would absolutely have to be a discussion in how we define it until a consensus was reached. Letting everyone decide their own definition of "peak" would make the project absolutely useless, because we'd all be comparing and ranking different things. So I think step one in such a project would be discussing how best to define a peak.

Here are my suggestions:

- Minimum of 2 regular seasons. Guys with one-off perfect storm seasons don't qualify (ie Nichols with 150 points, Cheechoo with 56 goals - and yes, probably Fedorov in 1994 too).

- Maximum of 5 total "events". An "event" can be a regular season, a playoff run, or an international tournament. If for one player it makes them look best by doing 2 seasons/3 playoffs, or 5 seasons/0playoffs - you pick whatever is best for each individual player. Minimum of 2 regular seasons - and if that's all a player has, well no need to look for 5 total

- Full regular seasons/long playoff runs matter, more than "level of play". You mention Forsberg - he was fantastic, but you're right he probably never had that "perfect storm peak season", and so his ranking might suffer. Crosby was great in 2010-2011 - but partial season so it doesn't count as much, so his ranking suffers too.

- More is better. Sticking to Crosby - he has a ton of elite seasons. If you compare him to....Fedorov - one could argue Fedorov's 1994 regular season is better than any individual season by Crosby. But Crosby has easily 3-5 seasons that are better than Fedorov's 2nd best, so likely overtakes him that way.

- Consecutiveness shouldn't matter. If player A has 3 peak seasons in a row, vs player B 3 season in a 5 year span, I don't think it makes a difference. Same for a playoff run and season happening in the same year or not.

I also think it's not important to define each player's peak in the final list, just list the player himself, since it'll be impossible to reach a consensus on identifying each player's peak. You might feel Gretzky's 85 season makes his "top 5" instead of 84, and I might say the opposite - in the end what matters is we each pick what we feel is Gretzky's best, and compare that best to other player's best.

So that's probably how I would like to see it defined.

I suppose we could also make it easier and just do "single peak season" - regular season only, no playoffs. But I think there's more worth in players who were able to sustain a level of play more than just one season. If we did do "single peak season" - we should absolutely do only one season per player - the goal should be to rank players, not to have the top 20 filled with nothing but Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr seasons multiple times.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Have zero interest in doing a Top peak project for the moment. If this is what people want to do, I'd read the threads with interest though.

 

[Professor What]

I wouldn't be interested in trying a best peaks project personally. I know that anything we do is subjective. I just feel like that's too subjective. I really want to go all in on the pre-consolidation idea.

 

[seventieslord]

I have zero interest in top peaks either. Sorry. I just don't see the point at all. I rank Milt Schmidt ahead of Sergei Fedorov and don't need to do a project to acknowledge that the latter nonetheless peaked higher than the former. I just don't know why I'd do that.

Where's the thread where we voted on this?

 

[rmartin65]

Count me in the group that has no interest in doing a best peaks.

Here are the voting threads from 2020- poll and runoff

It's pretty clear that pre-consolidation was far ahead of any remaining project, and should thus be worked on this time around.

EDIT- I've edited the OP to list the people who have confirmed interest in participation. Please let me know if I missed someone (or added someone incorrectly). @Bear of Bad News - you "liked" the OP, but I didn't know whether to take that as you signing up or not.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Alright, here it is. Again, I don't guarantee that I didn't miss anyone. The number to the left of each name is the pick they were taken at in the 2020 draft.

22​	Frank Nighbor
36​	Cyclone Taylor
53​	Sprague Cleghorn
63​	Newsy Lalonde
71​	Eddie Gerard
79​	Cy Denneny
81​	Joe Malone
87​	Georges Vezina
114​	Clint Benedict
125​	Hod Stuart
135​	Nels Stewart
141​	Tommy Phillips
144​	Moose Johnson
155​	Frank Foyston
159​	Harry Cameron
168​	Lester Patrick
199​	Babe Dye
203​	Hugh Lehman
208​	Reg Noble
215​	Mick MacKay
219​	Didier Pitre
221​	Herb Gardiner
223​	Harvey Pulford
242​	Hap Homes
260​	Art Ross
267​	Mike Grant
268​	Punch Broadbent
271​	Frank Fredrickson
278​	Duke Keats
290​	Jack Walker
295​	Art Duncan
297​	Joe Hall
307​	George Hay
309​	Alf Smith
314​	Russell Bowie
320​	Joe Simpson
326​	Percy Lesueur
327​	Blair Russell
363​	Frank Patrick
374​	Odie Cleghorn
375​	Tommy Smith
379​	Bobby Rowe
387​	Red Dutton
414​	Marty Walsh
416​	Eddie Oatman
439​	Tommy Dunderdale
463​	Si Griffis
464​	Jack Adams
474​	Smokey Harris
492​	Jack Darragh
523​	Harry Hyland
554​	Hamby Shore
558​	Jack Marshall
561​	Dan Bain
573​	Alf Skinner
695​	Bouse Hutton
742​	Ernie Russell
745​	Scotty Davidson
756​	Albert Kerr
784​	Howard McNamara
787​	Riley Hern
808​	Barney Stanley
817​	George McNamara
843​	Graham Drinkwater
849​	Paddy Moran
850​	Corb Denneny
863​	Gord Fraser
874​	Harry Westwick
900​	Dick Irvin
915​	Bill Coutu
922​	Leo Reise, Sr.
941​	Harry Mummery

Going through this again looking for names that aren't on the this list but would be in contention for at least my bigger list

Skene Ronan
Herb Jordan
Haviland Routh
Harry Trihey
Frank McGee

We're also maybe a little light on goalies, but that is an area I'm not super well versed in

 

[rmartin65]

Alright, here it is. Again, I don't guarantee that I didn't miss anyone. The number to the left of each name is the pick they were taken at in the 2020 draft.

22​	Frank Nighbor
36​	Cyclone Taylor
53​	Sprague Cleghorn
63​	Newsy Lalonde
71​	Eddie Gerard
79​	Cy Denneny
81​	Joe Malone
87​	Georges Vezina
114​	Clint Benedict
125​	Hod Stuart
135​	Nels Stewart
141​	Tommy Phillips
144​	Moose Johnson
155​	Frank Foyston
159​	Harry Cameron
168​	Lester Patrick
199​	Babe Dye
203​	Hugh Lehman
208​	Reg Noble
215​	Mick MacKay
219​	Didier Pitre
221​	Herb Gardiner
223​	Harvey Pulford
242​	Hap Homes
260​	Art Ross
267​	Mike Grant
268​	Punch Broadbent
271​	Frank Fredrickson
278​	Duke Keats
290​	Jack Walker
295​	Art Duncan
297​	Joe Hall
307​	George Hay
309​	Alf Smith
314​	Russell Bowie
320​	Joe Simpson
326​	Percy Lesueur
327​	Blair Russell
363​	Frank Patrick
374​	Odie Cleghorn
375​	Tommy Smith
379​	Bobby Rowe
387​	Red Dutton
414​	Marty Walsh
416​	Eddie Oatman
439​	Tommy Dunderdale
463​	Si Griffis
464​	Jack Adams
474​	Smokey Harris
492​	Jack Darragh
523​	Harry Hyland
554​	Hamby Shore
558​	Jack Marshall
561​	Dan Bain
573​	Alf Skinner
695​	Bouse Hutton
742​	Ernie Russell
745​	Scotty Davidson
756​	Albert Kerr
784​	Howard McNamara
787​	Riley Hern
808​	Barney Stanley
817​	George McNamara
843​	Graham Drinkwater
849​	Paddy Moran
850​	Corb Denneny
863​	Gord Fraser
874​	Harry Westwick
900​	Dick Irvin
915​	Bill Coutu
922​	Leo Reise, Sr.
941​	Harry Mummery

Going through this again looking for names that aren't on the this list but would be in contention for at least my bigger list

Skene Ronan
Herb Jordan
Haviland Routh
Harry Trihey
Frank McGee

We're also maybe a little light on goalies, but that is an area I'm not super well versed in

Adding Harry Smith, Bert Russell, Tom Paton, Billy Breen, James Stewart, Allan Cameron, Jack Campbell, Horace Gaul, Bob McDougall, Dolly Swift, Weldy Young, Clare McKerrow, Atty Howard, Jack Armytage, George & Howard McNamara, and probably a bunch more. There are plenty of names to discuss.

 

[Sanf]

Thanks for informing me about this. I wish I had more time, but lot has change in few years and I can´t really promise anything... but I can´t probably stay completely out of the discussions if this happens. Early hockey has been close to my heart for several years.

Maybe consider to reach out for some of the book presenters in here who have presented their research in here about the era? Few of them has shown interest of talking about the era even outside of their books... maybe they would not come as voters, but I would bet they have some insight.

About the peak project. I did not really follow the 101 to 200 project, but I would guess most of the guys if not all with best peaks are already discussed. And their peaks already considered and discussed. Some may have even heavily focused on their career peaks while voting. Personally I don´t see the historical value on that project after the top 200 project.

But like I said before the last project. It would be more mainstream project and can create lot of discussion outside of the participants. Pre-consolidation will depend highly on the activity of the group of participants.

 

[seventieslord]

Thanks for informing me about this. I wish I had more time, but lot has change in few years and I can´t really promise anything... but I can´t probably stay completely out of the discussions if this happens. Early hockey has been close to my heart for several years.

Maybe consider to reach out for some of the book presenters in here who have presented their research in here about the era? Few of them has shown interest of talking about the era even outside of their books... maybe they would not come as voters, but I would bet they have some insight.

About the peak project. I did not really follow the 101 to 200 project, but I would guess most of the guys if not all with best peaks are already discussed. And their peaks already considered and discussed. Some may have even heavily focused on their career peaks while voting. Personally I don´t see the historical value on that project after the top 200 project.

But like I said before the last project. It would be more mainstream project and can create lot of discussion outside of the participants. Pre-consolidation will depend highly on the activity of the group of participants.

Please consider sending a list in and voting at least occasionally in round 2. We can use all the help we can get.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Maybe consider to reach out for some of the book presenters in here who have presented their research in here about the era? Few of them has shown interest of talking about the era even outside of their books... maybe they would not come as voters, but I would bet they have some insight.

This is a really good idea.

 

[Batis]

Very excited to see that the pre-consolidation project soon will be up and running. While I do not feel like I have enough knowledge about that era to participate in the project I will definitely follow the discussions closely.

 

[Professor What]

Very excited to see that the pre-consolidation project soon will be up and running. While I do not feel like I have enough knowledge about that era to participate in the project I will definitely follow the discussions closely.

I have a feeling that a lot of us won't really know as much as we'd like to going in. Personally, I'm viewing my participation as a way/incentive to learn more. I still feel like you'd be able to contribute as well as learn.

 

[wetcoast]

I like the "best peak" idea as well, but the challenge is, how do we define it?

Best single season is probably the cleanest, easiest way. But then we'd probably have to limit it to one season per player, otherwise the top 20 is going to be nothing but Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux and probably Howe. But limiting it to one season per player would underrate just how great those four were. Plus, part of the challenge would be figuring out which season is chosen for each (maybe there's some value in debating which Gretzky season from 1982 to 1987 was the best, but a lot of this would be rehashing what's been discussed many times before).

If we stick to the best season idea, how do we deal with playoffs? Sometimes a player has a really strong playoff run during their best regular season (Malkin in 2009 and Sakic in 2001 are semi-recent examples). But sometimes a player is completely underwhelming in the playoffs in their best year (Dionne in 1980, Mikita in 1967, Kucherov in 2019, etc). Maybe it doesn't matter much for Dionne, but Kucherov had some very strong playoff performances - would we ignore those just because they didn't happen during his Hart-winning season?

What do we do with players who never had a "signature" season where they put it all together? Forsberg had a year where he won the Hart and Art Ross, but he wasn't at his best by that point (it was a great season of course, but he won those trophies because of weak competition and that was one of only a few years where he was reasonably healthy). Many other "versions" of Forsberg were better (1997 regular season, 1999 RS & PO, 2002 playoffs, 2004 regular season, 2006 before getting injured, etc). So there's a disconnect between how good Forsberg was at his peak, versus how good his peak season was. He'd get underrated if we're only looking at a single season.

If we look at a longer period of time - how long do we look? This would have a big impact on the results. For example, if we define it as "best six consecutive seasons including playoffs", Guy LaFleur would almost certainly be #5 (and, truthfully, maybe even higher). If it's "best three non-consecutive seasons, pick and choose whichever playoff runs", he'd still rank highly, but not nearly as much as before.

Or we let everyone decide their own definition. But then we're comparing apples to oranges, and I don't think the end result would be a coherent list.

None of these would prevent us from doing this project. Just that these are things we'd have to sort out in advance.

I use best consecutive 3 seasons for peak and 7 seasons for prime and regular seasons, playoffs are a different animal and somewhat team dependent and we already did the 40 best playoff performers of all time although that might be something to revisit in the future 5-10 years I guess.

My time is too hit and miss to commit to the pre consolidation project but I look forward to reading it.

 

[MXD]

I'm retired, but may send a R1 list if that could be considered generally useful.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm retired, but may send a R1 list if that could be considered generally useful.

I think we would much rather have people vote in round 2, but I guess we wouldn't outright reject someone who only wants to send in a R1 list.

 

[MXD]

Namedropping Pud Glass, Art Gagne and Louis Berlinguette. Not names for a Top-40, but if you're looking for 60...

EDIT : Mixed up Ty Arbour and Art Gagne. Stop it with the English First Name + French Last Name.

 

[seventieslord]

Namedropping Pud Glass, Ty Arbour and Louis Berlinguette. Not names for a Top-40, but if you're looking for 60...

Ty Arbour? How come? His name has never come up in the deepest of the deep AAA, AA and single A drafts. By that point I'm sure we're up to about 120 pre-merger players. What do you know about him that we don't?

 

[nabby12]

I've been asked by a few members recently to help out with this project, so I thought I'd just confirm in this thread that I'm happy to help in anyway that I can. And look forward to contributing to this project.

 

[rmartin65]

Very excited to see that the pre-consolidation project soon will be up and running. While I do not feel like I have enough knowledge about that era to participate in the project I will definitely follow the discussions closely.

I'd like to echo what @Professor What aid- I imagine we are all going to be learning quite a bit as this one goes on.

I'm retired, but may send a R1 list if that could be considered generally useful.

Please do! Any level of participation is greatly appreciated.

I've been asked by a few members recently to help out with this project, so I thought I'd just confirm in this thread that I'm happy to help in anyway that I can. And look forward to contributing to this project.

Nice!

 

[MXD]

Ty Arbour? How come? His name has never come up in the deepest of the deep AAA, AA and single A drafts. By that point I'm sure we're up to about 120 pre-merger players. What do you know about him that we don't?

- I didn't try to put up a 60 man list.
- I was probably thinking about somebody else, because after looking a bit into things, I'm not even sure he makes it with a 120 man list.

Oh, got it. Art Gagne. Did lead WCHL in scoring one year. English First Name + Last French Last Name

 

[ResilientBeast]

I don't think we've ever settled on a number have we?

I'd like the final list to be at least 50-60 to match the Euros project

 

[tarheelhockey]

Very excited to see that the pre-consolidation project soon will be up and running. While I do not feel like I have enough knowledge about that era to participate in the project I will definitely follow the discussions closely.

Just want to echo this response:

I have a feeling that a lot of us won't really know as much as we'd like to going in. Personally, I'm viewing my participation as a way/incentive to learn more. I still feel like you'd be able to contribute as well as learn.

If we are doing a good job of the arguments, the voters don't necessarily need to have that much expertise in the era to start the project. They need to know some really basic fundamentals* of the era, in order to have a framework for comparing players to each other. But they don't need to have any pre-conceived ideas of how the players stack up to each other... it's almost better if they don't, because we should be breaking new ground rather than reinforcing old assumptions.

I assume this is what @seventieslord means by Round 2 voters being a priority. We have enough Round 1 list-makers to get us started, but the real progress happens during the debates. As long as a voter has enough fundamental knowledge* to follow the debates, they're on solid ground.


* Thinking about what constitutes "basic knowledge" in this project:

• Understanding generally that the pre-consolidation era involved multiple top-tier leagues operating at the same time, so we can't take "3rd best scorer in the NHL" at face value to mean "3rd best scorer in the world". We have to compare across leagues.
• Understanding generally that in the early days, not all of the best players were professionals. So, some non-top-tier leagues are going to be relevant in this project, and not all players will have the amateur-to-pro career arc that we expect in the modern era.
• An understanding that the Stanley Cup was determined by challenges, not tournaments, so the relevance of repeatedly winning (or repeatedly losing, or never winning) a Stanley Cup was slightly different than it is today.
• A broad knowledge of how the rules changed from the 1880s to the 1920s: the use of the Rover position, evolving ideas of offside, evolving usage of forward passing, evolving rules for the goalies. Again, just a broad knowledge... specific details will be noted in the arguments, so no need to already have them in your head.
• A general understanding that because of all the above, stats can vary widely between players who performed at the same level.

If you have finished reading those bullet points, you now have the general understanding that you need in order to participate. No need to be an expert, just be prepared to hear these topics talked about and you're good to go.

It might not be a bad idea, perhaps in the discussion thread that starts the project, to develop some sort of "primer" for the participants who feel less prepared for a deep dive on this topic. Just a basic overview of which leagues are relevant, how the rules changed over time, etc.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

It might not be a bad idea, perhaps in the discussion thread that starts the project, to develop some sort of "primer" for the participants who feel less prepared for a deep dive on this topic. Just a basic overview of which leagues are relevant, how the rules changed over time, etc.

This is a great idea (but unfortunately I'm not going to have time to do this). It would not only be useful for the participants, but it would be helpful for any future readers of the project to get a better understanding of the context.

 

[seventieslord]

We should start with pre-discussion in which the participants discuss methods of evaluation, which players we believe are locks/maybes/no chance, who is and isn't eligible, positions of players who changed year to year (which will help put scoring statistics in better context).

Shall we use this thread for that, and shift the discussion into those areas, or should we start a new thread right now for that purpose?

 

[rmartin65]

We should start with pre-discussion in which the participants discuss methods of evaluation, which players we believe are locks/maybes/no chance, who is and isn't eligible, positions of players who changed year to year (which will help put scoring statistics in better context).

Shall we use this thread for that, and shift the discussion into those areas, or should we start a new thread right now for that purpose?

I think setting up a new thread would be best- it seems neater to have a new start for that type of thing.