Round 2, Vote 14 (HOH Top Centers)

[MadArcand]

Sundin is, by FAR, the highest scoring Swede in NHL history (and may never be touched - not even by Alfredsson).

Completely irrelevant.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Completely irrelevant.

Why? You think that says nothing about his calibre, consistency, or career value, especially in light of the support scoring that (rarely) surrounded him over the years?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

My "issue" with Zetterberg (if you can call it that) is that he'll be the first short career active player we'll add who was never seriously considered among the best players in the world like Crosby, Malkin, and apparently Datsyuk were.

Why?

I mean, Sundin scored more points in the NHL than Forsberg because he played for longer.

 

[MadArcand]

Why?

Why should leading an artificially limited subset be relevant? He didn't compete with Swedes only. Should we vote for Kopitar next?

 

[MXD]

I thought I had seen everything with the Larionov > Nedomansky in playoffs argument, and then, somebody came up with Sundin-as-the-leading-NHL-scorer-amongst Swedes.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

That's why Zetterberg has a cup. If your best forward is Sundin/Zetterberg, you're probably not winning the cup. If your second best forward is that caliber, you're a contender. If shouldn't devalue Zetterberg.

The point is about overvaluing Zetterberg (or NOT overvaluing him, rather), not devaluing him.

In fact, none of the case for Zetterberg (that I made, at least) rests on the cup, it rests on his actual playoff performance and all around game coupled with the fact that he was every bit as good offensively in his best 700 (or 400) games.

Playoff games and points eventually tilt the balance in favour of players on teams who presented the opportunity to rack up more of them. The VAST majority of Zetts' playoff stats come in the post-'05/06 environment, as well. And yet, there they are, side-by-side, in playoff PPG. Almost amazing that Sundin managed to see over 90 games in the playoffs, really.

Zetterberg compared to Sundin right now seems like if we were comparing Gilmour to savard/perreault/Stastny/Hawerchuk circa 1994.

Sundin will be my #2 for sure though.

I see what you're saying about that comparison thing, except it almost implies that Sundin didn't do anywhere near the "yeoman's work" on the defensive side of the puck compared to Zetterberg because Selke consideration never went from "smattering" to "serious".

 

[MXD]

Why should leading an artificially limited subset be relevant? He didn't compete with Swedes only. Should we vote for Kopitar next?

I don't know, but that certainly makes Sundin a better player than Niklas Lidstrom.

 

[MXD]

My "issue" with Zetterberg (if you can call it that) is that he'll be the first short career active player we'll add who was never seriously considered among the best players in the world like Crosby, Malkin, and apparently Datsyuk were.

.

I don't think Zetterberg should be held to a different standard than Lafontaine just because he's still active.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

My "issue" with Zetterberg (if you can call it that) is that he'll be the first short career active player we'll add who was never seriously considered among the best players in the world like Crosby, Malkin, and apparently Datsyuk were.

I mean, Sundin scored more points in the NHL than Forsberg because he played for longer.

Why should leading an artificially limited subset be relevant? He didn't compete with Swedes only. Should we vote for Kopitar next?

I thought I had seen everything with the Larionov > Nedomansky in playoffs argument, and then, somebody came up with Sundin-as-the-leading-NHL-scorer-amongst Swedes.

I think you guys are mistaking simple statements for simple reckoning. There are some things that are clearly demonstrative of value in a "top X ever" list, even if they can't stand on their own. Does this project include any notion of career value or not? Don't answer, I know it clearly does. I will repeat: it clearly does.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't think Zetterberg should be held to a different standard than Lafontaine just because he's still active.

I agree with this, but "better career than Lafontaine" isn't saying he'll make my top 4.

 

[Sturminator]

Frank Foyston and Bernie Morris

I'll handle these two together here, and then devote another post to Foyston, alone. Foyston and Morris were teammates and were born only a single year apart; their peaks almost perfectly overlap, so at least in terms of scoring, they can be easily compared to one another. First, general credentials:

Foyston:
- PCHA First All-Star Team (1917, 1918, 1920, 1921, 1923, 1924)
- PCHA MVP (1917)

Morris:
- PCHA First All-Star Team (1916, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1922)

Their respective statistics over the years:

Name|GP|G|A|Pts|PIMs
1916|||||
Morris, Bernie| 18 |23 |9 |32 |27
Foyston, Frank |18 |9| 4 |13 |6
1917|||||
Morris, Bernie |24 |37 |17 |54 |17
Foyston, Frank |24 |36 |12 |48 |51
1918|||||
Morris, Bernie | 18| 20 |12 |32 |14
Foyston, Frank |13 |9 |5 |14 |9
1919|||||
Morris, Bernie |20 |22 |8 |30 |15
Foyston, Frank |18 |15 |4 |19 |0
1920|||||
Foyston, Frank|22|26|3|29|3
Morris, Bernie|DNP|DNP|DNP|DNP|DNP
1921|||||
Foyston, Frank |23 |26 |4 |30 |10
Morris, Bernie |22 |11 |12 |23 |3
1922|||||
Morris, Bernie |24 |14 |10 |24 |9
Foyston, Frank |24 |16 |7 |23 |25
1923|||||
Foyston, Frank |30 |20 |8 |28 |21
Morris, Bernie |29 |21 |5 |26 |30
Totals|||||
Morris, Bernie |155 |148 |73 |221 |115
Foyston, Frank |172 |157 |47 |204 |125

As you can see from the above, Morris was the better scorer of the two, overall. He was generally a strong scorer, finishing 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th in PCHA points over his 7-season peak. Morris was not Frank Fredrickson good from an offensive standpoint, but he was probably the third best offensive player in PCHA history, behind Taylor and Fredrickson.

Foyston wasn't as strong, or at least as consistent, offensively, but he also had a lot more defensive responsibilities than Morris, and played at least some rover (and was a 1st team all-star at that position once). Of the two, Foyston's reputation is easily greater. We have already seen him described in glowing terms as an all-around player in the "Perfect Player" article I posted in Mickey MacKay's bio, and there is plenty more good press on Foyston from this era.

Morris seems to have had little star power, in spite of his scoring exploits. The most common descriptions of him are that he was small, and a goal-scoring whiz. As far as I know, he is never mentioned in contemporary accounts of legitimate candidates for best player in the PCHA, or western hockey, in general. Morris was a strong playoff performer and stood out, along with Foyston, in both of Seattle's appearances in the Cup finals, 1917 and 1919, though his stats are somewhat skewed by a Game 5 in 1917 in which the Mets just ran up the score (Morris scored six goals just in this game).

At any rate, Morris was an excellent scorer, but not too much else. We'll get to the rest of Foyston's career in a minute.

 

[Sturminator]

Frank Foyston

So we can see from the above that Frank Foyston was a lesser scorer than Morris, but more decorated in terms of all-star nods, and the 1917 MVP award. Foyston was also the captain of the Mets when they won their only Cup in 1917, and there is at least a plausible argument that he was a candidate for best player in the world in that season. This is partly because Cyclone Taylor was out recovering from appendicitis, but Foyston really was excellent that year, and capped it by leading the first ever American team to win the Stanley Cup. Here's what was said about him during those Cup Finals:

Regina Morning Leader - March 19, 1917:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=d8VSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hzcNAAAAIBAJ&pg=2240,2779072&hl=en

The Canadiens registered the first victory in the world's hockey championship when they defeated the Seattle club here last night by a score of 8 to 4.

...

Frank Foyston, captain of the Mets, although he scored but one goal, was the individual star of the Seattle team. Foyston's work on offense and defense, his checking, skating and shooting were of a class that fully justified his selection as the most valuable player in Pacific coast hockey. From a scoring standpoint, Bernie Morris, with three goals to his credit, was the shining light of the Mets. In purely defensive play, Jack Walker, with his clever hook check, was the Seattle star. Walker took the puck away from the best stickhandlers the Flying Frenchmen could produce as easily as taking off his hat and it was his work that spilled most of the offensive rushes of the Canadiens.

It wasn't just this game: Foyston played an excellent series, on the whole. More details about that series can be found in this post:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=32931008&postcount=199

He was also great in 1914, as a quite young player, for the Toronto Blueshirts.

Toronto Sunday Mail - March 16, 1914:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=M3cDAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6ygDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2015,5975525&hl=en

Foyston was probably the best man on the ice, and his aggressive playing did more to stop the visitors than anything else. He was always in the fray, and kept his opponents watching him all the time. Walker was not in form in the first period, but he came round in the last two and starred, as usual. He had Dunderdale and Poulin under his wing once he got going. George McNamara played a whale of a game, and, in the absence of Cameron, he more than made good. Even the speedy midget whose place he took could hardly have played better than he did, and the big fellow slowed up Genge and Patrick nicely.

As with 1917, it was not just that one game, and in fact, a young Foyston is almost certainly the player of the series for that Toronto Cup winner. More can be read on the topic here:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=32930048&postcount=198

Foyston was also outstanding in the undecided 1919 Cup finals against Montreal. At the time the series was cancelled due to an outbreak of the Spanish Flu, Foyston was easily leading all scorers with 9-1-10 in 5 games.

Foyston also put up a very impressive showing in a losing effort in 1920 against the Ottawa Senators, going 6-1-7 in 5 games, mostly against the great Frank Nighbor. And finally, Foyston was a role player off the bench for Lester Patrick's 1925 Victoria team that won the final Stanley Cup that would go out west.

Overall, there is a strong argument that Foyston was the greatest money player of the era. The only other candidates that I really see for this title would be Nighbor and Denneny (leaving goalies out of the discussion). He has a sort of Fedorov aura about his career: great two-way player who always seemed to turn it up in the playoffs.

Foyston had a lot of star power, and though on the surface Morris might seem to have been his equal, the people who saw them play did not seem to think so. One last little tidbit about his all-around game to wrap up the profile:

Regina Morning Leader - December 1, 1915:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=oPlSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hjcNAAAAIBAJ&pg=2179,3225217&hl=en

Foyston to Captain Seattle Hockey Team

Frank Foyston, of Toronto, considered one of the brainiest hockey players in the business, was chosen captain of the Seattle Metropolitans yesterday afternoon. Foyston took charge of the team at yesterday's practice. The easterner was entirely unsuspecting of the honor and was surprised when told of his selection.

Foyston plays forward and is a splendid skater, an aggressive player and can hold his own in a close fight with the rest of them.

I've got Foyston a step down from Fredrickson and MacKay, but a step up from Morris. I don't think he's a viable candidate this round, but he should get a good look before the top-60 project is over. Foyston's sheer star power and "greatest of his generation" playoff credentials are pretty compelling. I am more skeptical of Morris' chances to be inducted in this project.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No use quoting your whole post.

Keats lost a lot. Not only renounced to a spot in the NHA (and damn, look at that scorerboard), where he was doing quite well, only to lose years and to end up in a league where we cannot really give him full credit for his achievements (Big-4), then in the other league (WCHL) which got gradually stronger as he got gradually older.

So we're looking at a career that is, basically...

- 1.5 year in the NHA (where he wasn't a good as Lalonde and Malone; something that shouldn't be held against him at this point : he did outscore Neighbor though, if anything).
- 2.5 years in Europe (war)
- 2 years in what was the 3rd best league in the world (at the very best) -- that he flat out dominated
- 2 years in what was the 3rd best league in the world (but much closer to the Top-2) -- in which he was the best forward.
- 3 years in what was probably the 2nd best league in the world, and where he was a good enough player to be the best of his team (as a whole), but just not anymore the best forward of the league. Amongst players that were better than him : Bill Cook. That shouldn't be held against Keats at this point.

And you're forgetting something important:

-2 years (at ages 31 and 32) in the consolidated NHL, finishing 9th and 10th in scoring.

To me, that's really important. We have frames of reference in the East that bookend Keats' time out West. Ages 21 and 22: Top 5 scorer in the NHA in the first season of his professional career, top 5 scorer in his second season at the time he left to fight the war (2/3 of the way through the season). Ages 31 and 32: 9th and 10th in scoring in the newly consolidated NHL. In between, he was consistently on top of his Western leagues, with his worst season probably being a 6th place finish in the WCHL in 1925-26 at the age of 30, but given that 6 of the top 10 NHL scorers in 1926-27 were ex-WCHLers, Keats very well could have been top 10 in the world then too.

Add in his two-way game and "star power," and I think Keats has to make our list, probably just a little bit below Fredrickson.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is where I stand now on the eve of voting:

1) Vaclav Nedomansky. The dominant goal scorer (both internationally and domestically) on a Czechoslovakian team that was beginning to beat the stacked Soviet team somewhat regularly. To me, that warrants ranking him over the Sundin/Sittler class of NHL players.

2) Frank Fredrickson. I've finally come around to ranking him over Keats. I think the PCHA he stomped in 1922-23 was stronger than the WCHL that Keats stomped in 1921-22, and overall, I think Fredrickson has a better case for consecutive years being talked about as one of the best players in the world. Fredrickson also had some fine playoffs, particularly 1925 when he went head to head with Morenz.

3) Daryl Sittler. His regular season offensive resume is closer to Hawerchuk and Savard than it is to any other NHL player yet to be added. Perhaps the only NHL-era player whose regular season offense alone is enough to make him a "must add" without anything else. An All-Star nod in the 1976 Canada Cup is a feather in his cap

4) Mats Sundin. Strictly based on his NHL career, he would be borderline top 60 IMO. I'm not impressed by his World Championships - maybe if he did more in the playoffs, he'd have less of an opportunity to play in them. But All-Star nods at 3 best-on-best tournaments combined with his NHL record are enough to get my vote this round.

5) Duke Keats. His longevity as a top 10 scorer is outstanding for a player of his era, especially for someone who played as rough as he did. Seems to have been a notable backchecker as early as his rookie season. Lots of "star power" in the press - seems to have been compared to the best players in the world quite a bit, though perhaps a little less so than Fredrickson.

Not entirely sure about 6-8, though I'll definitely have Zetterberg there somewhere, and probably Foyston.

__________________________________

"But TDMM, how can you be considering having 3 pre-1926 players in your top 8?" you might ask.

Here's why:

1) We have already specifically not been giving the secondary stars of the pre-consolidation era the benefit of the doubt. The secondary stars of the NHL era? Guys like Ron Francis, Alex Delvecchio, Dale Hawerchuk, Hooley Smith, Marty Barry, etc etc are long gone. I realize there is more "mystery" surrounding the pre-consolidation era, but at some point, we run out of NHLers to rank over them. And IMO, we have reached that point.

The 1910-1926 generation was not significantly weaker than the one that followed it (our rankings of the generation's primary stars - Nighbor, Taylor, Lalonde... I guess Malone) would indicate that the panel seems to agree with this, at least when talking about the primary stars of the generation. And I don't think Joe Malone was THAT far ahead of the guys we are talking about now.

2) We might be a little heavy on pre-1926 guys, but we have a decided lack of players from 1926-1967, with Joe Primeau the only candidate even available from that period this round and his very short prime being a potential issue towards him getting added at all. Probably because we already added the most noteworthy secondary stars from the pre-expansion NHL era.

 

[Hardyvan123]

For the sake of common sense, can we just call Nedomansky's (north american) playoff resume "incomplete" ?

How so? big Ned played 9 seasons in north america, 5 of them as a key part to his team and was in 2 playoffs, sure a lot of that was team driven but surely some of it is also the fact that Big Ned didn't have a complete game as well right?

If guys are getting extra credit for being great in the playoffs, Keon comes to mind here as one that was really overblown, then guys who weren't should carry some of that as well right?

Sundin surely does as we have witnessed the last 2 rounds.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Why? You think that says nothing about his calibre, consistency, or career value, especially in light of the support scoring that (rarely) surrounded him over the years?

I agree it is irrelevant, there are many other ways to show Mats career value, consistency and lack of team support as well.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

This is where I stand now on the eve of voting:

1) Vaclav Nedomansky. The dominant goal scorer (both internationally and domestically) on a Czechoslovakian team that was beginning to beat the stacked Soviet team somewhat regularly. To me, that warrants ranking him over the Sundin/Sittler class of NHL players.

2) Frank Fredrickson. I've finally come around to ranking him over Keats. I think the PCHA he stomped in 1922-23 was stronger than the WCHL that Keats stomped in 1921-22, and overall, I think Fredrickson has a better case for consecutive years being talked about as one of the best players in the world. Fredrickson also had some fine playoffs, particularly 1925 when he went head to head with Morenz.

3) Daryl Sittler. His regular season offensive resume is closer to Hawerchuk and Savard than it is to any other NHL player yet to be added. Perhaps the only NHL-era player whose regular season offense alone is enough to make him a "must add" without anything else. An All-Star nod in the 1976 Canada Cup is a feather in his cap

4) Mats Sundin. Strictly based on his NHL career, he would be borderline top 60 IMO. I'm not impressed by his World Championships - maybe if he did more in the playoffs, he'd have less of an opportunity to play in them. But All-Star nods at 3 best-on-best tournaments combined with his NHL record are enough to get my vote this round.

5) Duke Keats. His longevity as a top 10 scorer is outstanding for a player of his era, especially for someone who played as rough as he did. Seems to have been a notable backchecker as early as his rookie season. Lots of "star power" in the press - seems to have been compared to the best players in the world quite a bit, though perhaps a little less so than Fredrickson.

Not entirely sure about 6-8, though I'll definitely have Zetterberg there somewhere, and probably Foyston.

__________________________________

"But TDMM, how can you be considering having 3 pre-1926 players in your top 8?" you might ask.

Here's why:

1) We have already specifically not been giving the secondary stars of the pre-consolidation era the benefit of the doubt. The secondary stars of the NHL era? Guys like Ron Francis, Alex Delvecchio, Dale Hawerchuk, Hooley Smith, Marty Barry, etc etc are long gone. I realize there is more "mystery" surrounding the pre-consolidation era, but at some point, we run out of NHLers to rank over them. And IMO, we have reached that point.

The 1910-1926 generation was not significantly weaker than the one that followed it (our rankings of the generation's primary stars - Nighbor, Taylor, Lalonde... I guess Malone) would indicate that the panel seems to agree with this, at least when talking about the primary stars of the generation. And I don't think Joe Malone was THAT far ahead of the guys we are talking about now.

2) We might be a little heavy on pre-1926 guys, but we have a decided lack of players from 1926-1967, with Joe Primeau the only candidate even available from that period this round and his very short prime being a potential issue towards him getting added at all. Probably because we already added the most noteworthy secondary stars from the pre-expansion NHL era.

Sundin will be the only one of your top 4 that I'll have in my top 4.

Pat Lafontaine was clearly a better talent than all these guys.

 

[MXD]

Consensus / Statements / Questions

Looking at the table, at the arguments made in the thread...

CONSENSUS :

- I'll play it very conservative, but Frank Frederikson is, at the very worst, a Top-6 player in this group. Top-4 slam dunks are rare at this stage.

- Amongst the lately-added players : Foyston has to be the best of the old-timers. Not sure if that makes him a Top-8 for this round, but I think the case that he's the best of that bunch has been met successfully.

STATEMENTS :

- I'd be very surprised to see Tommy Dunderdale and Bernie Morris getting a sizeable number of votes. Those two are, to me, not Top-60 players. I can see how Frank McGee COULD be considered a TOp-60 player, but I know I'm totally NOT going there.

- I realize they are very different players playing in a very different context, but there isn't that much separating Henrik Sedin and Joe Primeau. Hopefully it won't be a race between the two as to who is the best goalscorer for a spot at some point.

- I might need more education on the topic, but... I think Darryl Sittler is on his way in, and frankly, I'm not sure why. To me, he's behind Sundin.

- Duke Keats is getting in my Top-8 this round, probably in the 2nd half. Still, thanks for the education the Big-4. I have a hard time not considering him a Top-4 hopeful for last and final round. Still, a sizeable drop for him (comparing to my initial list).

QUESTIONS

- Any of you consider ranking, in their top-8 next round (ie, Top-64 of all time) a guy not in the current group?

(I know I do. Fringe controversial players who might come up, and who really should for the sake of completeness, as their case are... let's say, different than the usual prime vs. peak vs. playoffs vs. longevity vs. two-way play vs. league strength)

- Are Larionov and Lemaire so different that there's 10+ rank gap between them?

(In my eyes, absolutely not)

- Somewhat related to first question, and directly asked to project admins : Do you plan on working with an expanded pool for next round? Do you go with a fixed number (in other words, let's say, everyone up to 70th) or with natural breaks?

 

[MXD]

How so? big Ned played 9 seasons in north america, 5 of them as a key part to his team and was in 2 playoffs, sure a lot of that was team driven but surely some of it is also the fact that Big Ned didn't have a complete game as well right?

The guy played 14 playoffs games, and a very big reason for that is that he wasn't in NA for his prime.

I mean, bring the point if you want, but if one has to cling to playoffs to compare Sundin (I guess...) to Nedomansky, a guy who played a whopping 14 playoffs games, it's pretty much a point AGAINST Sundin. Kindof a Godwin point.

Hence my call : Why can't we just say that Nedomansky in playoffs (NA playoffs...) got too limited viewings to come up with anything conclusive?

 

[MXD]

Sundin will be the only one of your top 4 that I'll have in my top 4.

Pat Lafontaine was clearly a better talent than all these guys.

Dennis, what's your take on Sittler?

You clearly saw him more than I did, and we share the same conclusion with him vs. Sundin.

(On the other hand, I think it's pretty obvious that, on talent alone and amongst players I have seen enough (and old enough), Lafontaine is numero uno.)

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Dennis, what's your take on Sittler?

You clearly saw him more than I did, and we share the same conclusion with him vs. Sundin.

(On the other hand, I think it's pretty obvious that, on talent alone and amongst players I have seen enough (and old enough), Lafontaine is numero uno.)

I have him right behind Sedin this round.

He was looked at much more positively after the '76 Canada Cup.

Seemed to be viewed almost as a tandem, Sittler/MacDonald, in his prime.

Had one great season and quite a few very good one.

Had him 63 on my original list, perhaps he should have been in my top 60.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The guy played 14 playoffs games, and a very big reason for that is that he wasn't in NA for his prime.

I mean, bring the point if you want, but if one has to cling to playoffs to compare Sundin (I guess...) to Nedomansky, a guy who played a whopping 14 playoffs games, it's pretty much a point AGAINST Sundin. Kindof a Godwin point.

Hence my call : Why can't we just say that Nedomansky in playoffs (NA playoffs...) got too limited viewings to come up with anything conclusive?

That really does make some kind of sense on the surface but I can see guys stretching it and going "well it's neither a plus or a minus and say the same thing about Sundin", for example, but heck people really interpret players in weird ways sometimes here as well.

The case for Big Ned as #1 this round really hasn't been made and the example of Sundin WC competition not being that great can really be equally applied to Big Ned as well, no NHLers and besides Russia and the Czechs most other teams were really still climbing the international competition ladder in the late 60's and early 70's when Ned stared in the WC's/Olympics.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That really does make some kind of sense on the surface but I can see guys stretching it and going "well it's neither a plus or a minus and say the same thing about Sundin", for example, but heck people really interpret players in weird ways sometimes here as well.

The case for Big Ned as #1 this round really hasn't been made and the example of Sundin WC competition not being that great can really be equally applied to Big Ned as well, no NHLers and besides Russia and the Czechs most other teams were really still climbing the international competition ladder in the late 60's and early 70's when Ned stared in the WC's/Olympics.

1972 Summit Series

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I agree it is irrelevant, there are many other ways to show Mats career value, consistency and lack of team support as well.

I suppose I could have gone into how he's the 2nd highest scoring centre of the entire DPE (one of the hardest eras in which to score, which spanned the "regular" primes of both Modano and Sundin) behind Sakic, and has the 9th highest PPG over that time too (including Gretzky and Lemieux). He had 531 points between '97/98 and '03/04. Know the 2nd most points scored by a forward in a Leafs uniform over that period? 184 from Jonus Hoglund. Modano, for example, had 6 other forwards around him during the same period who put up (far) more points than that, and same thing in Detroit. Even Colorado had 4 others with more. Sundin was doing Yzerman and Sakic work the whole time without another guy like Forsberg or Fedorov for opponents to worry about, and that's why his teams made little noise in the playoffs despite his efforts.

I'm still wrapping my head around Modano getting voted in before Sundin, to be honest.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Looking at the table, at the arguments made in the thread...

CONSENSUS :

- I'll play it very conservative, but Frank Frederikson is, at the very worst, a Top-6 player in this group. Top-4 slam dunks are rare at this stage.

- Amongst the lately-added players : Foyston has to be the best of the old-timers. Not sure if that makes him a Top-8 for this round, but I think the case that he's the best of that bunch has been met successfully.

Agree

STATEMENTS :

- I'd be very surprised to see Tommy Dunderdale and Bernie Morris getting a sizeable number of votes. Those two are, to me, not Top-60 players. I can see how Frank McGee COULD be considered a TOp-60 player, but I know I'm totally NOT going there.

Agree about Morris and Dunderdale. I don't think they are much behind Keats/Foyston, but even being a little bit behind drops them out. McGee is a wild card - can see people voting him anywhere from first to last. Just as long as everyone realizes he's WAY behind Russell Bowie in terms of career value, and still behind even in peak.

- I realize they are very different players playing in a very different context, but there isn't that much separating Henrik Sedin and Joe Primeau. Hopefully it won't be a race between the two as to who is the best goalscorer for a spot at some point.

Would Sedin's Hart Trophy be a tie break? What about not being worse than linemates?

- I might need more education on the topic, but... I think Darryl Sittler is on his way in, and frankly, I'm not sure why. To me, he's behind Sundin.

Whether you look at VsX or top 10 finishes, his NHL regular season prime stands out compared to the guys who are left.

- Duke Keats is getting in my Top-8 this round, probably in the 2nd half. Still, thanks for the education the Big-4. I have a hard time not considering him a Top-4 hopeful for last and final round. Still, a sizeable drop for him (comparing to my initial list).

I think he should be a lock for top 8... But I said that already

QUESTIONS

- Any of you consider ranking, in their top-8 next round (ie, Top-64 of all time) a guy not in the current group?

I think Novy and Colville are worth at least discussing

(I know I do. Fringe controversial players who might come up, and who really should for the sake of completeness, as their case are... let's say, different than the usual prime vs. peak vs. playoffs vs. longevity vs. two-way play vs. league strength)

- Are Larionov and Lemaire so different that there's 10+ rank gap between them?

(In my eyes, absolutely not)

I don't know. On the other hand, Lemaire is pretty clearly the least decorated NHLer available this round, right?

I know, I know, playoffs and cups

Somewhat related to first question, and directly asked to project admins : Do you plan on working with an expanded pool for next round? Do you go with a fixed number (in other words, let's say, everyone up to 70th) or with natural breaks?

Admins are considering opening the floodgates and having 20 guys available next round (with 2 weeks to discuss). That would cover everyone who was on the majority of lists