The Issues
- why is it so hard to accept that many players who are not yet retired have already proven themselves better than many players who have retired?
- We could separate by era first and then combine into a master list, but what makes you think the end result would be largely different?
Retired/not retired players. You completely miss the point. Take non-retired players and ask the following questions.
1.) Do you wish to constantly be facing Eric Lindros type scenarios where at his peak there were people rating him as easily top 10 / 50 / 100 and today this is far from the case? Obviously a significantly premature conclusion where something that you allege as proven has been disproven. Hardly a sign of credibility.
2.) A Top 100 list of active players would see Brodeur, Crosby, Lidstrom, Ovechkin, closely grouped perhaps Top 5. Furthermore such a list would be at the whim of each shutout, hat trick or hilite reel goal? Would the ordering and proximity be reflected in an HOH 100 list. Extremely doubtful. The placement of active players would eventually vary especially if an aging Lidstrom or Brodeur win individual or team awards. This opens the age argument for retired players. If Lidstrom jumped x places because he did this at age 4y+ then so and so's(retired player) contributions at age 4y+ get magnified where previously they were not.
3.) With a retired / non- retired distinction based on when a player is HHOF eligible you would have a smooth transition without any of the doubt potential that exists presently.
Separating by era. That the list would be largely the same or significantly different is totally irrelevant. What matters is that the resulting master list would be much easier to justify since it would reflect the evolution of hockey from the start as opposed to the perception that it was imposed working backwards from the present.
Different or the same is not the issue. The issue is greater credibility which comes with greater justifiability.
Recently the Dan Bain issue was raised and you brushed it off as if the issue had been settled. Not so fast. A discussion and the resulting list of 1893- 1910 players, give or take, would provide very clear and precise answers with a resulting appreciation.
The PCHA and its players would be looked at and a greater understanding would emerge. Perhaps then posters would not be so dismissive of a Jack Walker.
The NHL era would also benefit. A breakdown into sub eras would better show how certain players performed during distinct eras that featured different rule, styles, conditions, etc.Crossing eras would show which players sustained performance and adapted.
An international list would provide greater understanding of the relative skills of international players in games between nations as opposed vs the NHL only approach presently in place.
The choice in both instances comes down to greater credibility with justifiability.
