I'm sure this is accurate to a degree (especially in the first 10-12 names), but I think "ruthless" is a bit harsh. The 2025 list deviates quite a bit from the previous list (again, once we get past the first part), in my opinion. The last list had 40 names, right? So I'd propose that a change of 5 represents a significant change.
The list saw some significant movement. We have the guys who added to their legacy since the previous list:
We had this discussion in one of the rounds. I think it's just at where it's at. I see the process like this, you see the result like that and that's fair enough both ways.
I guess by "ruthless" I meant more in the process. There's a lot of talk about a guy "falling", there's talk in this thread about a list being "strange", etc. and all that can point to is a previous list, right? You can't fall from nothin' haha - it's like when you watch the draft or talk about it on here, "oh, he's a faller..." or "that pick was off the consensus" and all that gibberish...and that's really what it is, is gibberish. There is no consensus. There is no list to work off of. It's a media creation.
I was hoping (as unrealistic as it is) that the previous lists would be totally or largely ignored...but the research kept. Again, I know it's unrealistic. But again, it's all relative, it's anchoring bias, it's all kinds of things...and there's no real correct answer either. It's not like a draft where we're gonna play for 20 years and go, "ah, should have picked that guy at 2nd overall instead", ya know?
But someone looks at Esposito as "falling" perhaps...but I don't. He got placed where he got placed. Again, if I had been on these boards in 1998 and knew what I knew today about the game...maybe Esposito would have never made a list before and now he's "on the rise" haha
No one is saying to trust the quotes without question. No one actually believes that a goalie stopped 1000 shots in a game that he let in 10 goals (right?). But taking that clear hyperbole and saying "man, he was shelled, and so while the result looks bad, maybe that's not on the goalie" is exactly the kind of stuff we should be doing.
Saying that "man, the same X names keep getting praise game after game, year after year, and later great goalies are compared to them" and deducing that those guys were probably historically great seems like the right call to me.
Otherwise, what is the move? Just ignore the first 30 years of organized hockey because we don't have film? Then that's not really an all-time list, is it?
That last line keeps cropping up, but it's not based on real events. Not one person in this project or adjacent to it has ever suggested that, or anything categorically similar to that to my knowledge.
But to the meat of the point, I think we're directionally accurate with how we use quotes. I really do. I like quotes, I use quotes. I think we could read between the lines a little better. I think we could vet authors a tiny bit better. I think there's always an opportunity to improve. I don't think anything happening is untoward or disingenuous or anything, certainly.
But I think there's more to be said about connecting the game itself to the quote, so to speak. The point of the game reports IS in place of film, right? The game isn't on TV, so someone has to describe it. If we had the game, we would have just watched it...at least I would. It's hard to communicate it in this format, but I think we can connect more dots. We isolate quotes a lot - and I totally get it and I totally do it too - but we're trying to paint a picture of a player and his greatness (greatness, if applicable). Sometimes it feels a little bit like there's an undertone of a Quote Scoreboard. That perception of mine might not be reality. It might be slight or partial. It might not be true at all...it's just a sense that I have, faintly.
I like to think that we are doing the best we can with the information we have at the time. Maybe we are horrifically wrong... so what? Some guys from the past are going to come back and yell at us because we got the wrong guys on our list? No, we'll course-correct the next time around.
Yup, exactly. We should always be trying to improve. Improve our knowledge of the game, our knowledge base, our process, everything.
I don't have a problem with that. I think that should be looked at in the next project; that's a good thought.
And just to say the words, maybe someone really believes in their initial list. Great! That's the best possible outcome because that means players come up at the "right" time. But it needs to be discussed and evaluated in a public forum. Your initial list could be a dead ringer to your ballots and I'd support it if you (royal you) support it reasonably.
Or ignoring time periods (
@Johnny Engine's example of ignoring the 1946-1964 birth years, for instance).
E&O = errors and omissions. So, yes, ignoring a segment of BYs would certainly qualify. Everyone gets a shot at the list. Not everyone represents the same value in history, but everyone is a part of the history and should be part of the discussion.
This is really cool. I'd be interested in seeing my score as well, when you have time.
I'm glad you ran the Round 2 votes against the preliminary lists as well- that was going to be my next question.
Again, if you have time, I'd like to see my number for this as well.
EDIT: I removed some parts that were probably more argumentative than they needed to be.
No problem, comin' at you via DM right now.
