Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Aggregate List

[MXD]

Is there a particular reason most of the 30's era seems to get low recognition? (L. Conacher, B. Siebert, E. Goodfellow for instance)

To be honest, saying these guys ended up with low recognition is akin to say that Henrik Zetterberg ended up with low recognition.

That is, it's wrong. They pretty much ended up with the totally appropriate recognition.

(Now, I'll never understand the gap between Siebert and Clapper, but that's a story for another time)

 

[Nick Hansen]

To be honest, saying these guys ended up with low recognition is akin to say that Henrik Zetterberg ended up with low recognition.

That is, it's wrong. They pretty much ended up with the totally appropriate recognition.

(Now, I'll never understand the gap between Siebert and Clapper, but that's a story for another time)

Looking at it numerically in terms of Hart-placements and so on they seem somewhat similar to say Milt Schmidt or Ted Kennedy but the 50's was a glorious era, perhaps the greatest era ever, and the 30's was so and so in many ways from what I read it like.

I might be completely off-base, though.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I take it you don't care for someone stating the obvious.

One poster votes for 10 Russians and 4 more Europeans higher than anyone else (32 voters is a lot). Speaks for itself.

Another poster votes 9 Montreal Canadiens higher than anyone else. A voter with great experience and insight into the game. To me, that's even more alarming than the straight fanboy.

Farkas (yes, I said his name) just seems to be seeing things through a more sophisticated lens than the rest of us.

The General just seems to be less well-informed. Then again, so did Scotty Bowman.

Which team has:

1.) Won the most SCs?
2.)Most members in the HHOF?
3.)Most players listed in the 2008 Top 100, an effort that I did not participate in?

 

[MXD]

Looking at it numerically in terms of Hart-placements and so on they seem somewhat similar to say Milt Schmidt or Ted Kennedy but the 50's was a glorious era, perhaps the greatest era ever, and the 30's was so and so in many ways from what I read it like.

I might be completely off-base, though.

Le numéro 60, Number 60...

 

[TheEye]

Which team has:

1.) Won the most SCs?
2.)Most members in the HHOF?
3.)Most players listed in the 2008 Top 100, an effort that I did not participate in?

What's more likely?

1.) Everyone else has underrated all the Montreal players, except for you.

2.) Your inherent bias leads you to overrate those players and the multitudes of others here have ranked them more appropriately.

I'll let you decide.

 

[Canadiens1958]

To be honest, saying these guys ended up with low recognition is akin to say that Henrik Zetterberg ended up with low recognition.

That is, it's wrong. They pretty much ended up with the totally appropriate recognition.

(Now, I'll never understand the gap between Siebert and Clapper, but that's a story for another time)

1930s NHL saw rule changes from the forward pass to icing introduced, a salary cap and most of all the popularity of multi-position players similar to Red Kelly.

Such players - see Dit Clapper are harder to evaluate. Similar to Brent Burns today who wasn't listed either.

 

[Canadiens1958]

What's more likely?

1.) Everyone else has underrated all the Montreal players, except for you.

2.) Your inherent bias leads you to overrate those players and the multitudes of others here have ranked them more appropriately.

I'll let you decide.

Really. Your point just fell apart given that 24 Canadiens were rated higher by other participants than me.

How can it be that you failed to notice this? Perhaps a form of bias?

 

[TheEye]

Really. Your point just fell apart given that 24 Canadiens were rated higher by other participants than me.

How can it be that you failed to notice this? Perhaps a form of bias?

I meant to state all nine of the Montreal players. Thanks for highlighting the error. The point still stands, obviously.

 

[MXD]

I meant to state all nine of the Montreal players. Thanks for highlighting the error. The point still stands, obviously.

You know, maybe if you'd highlight other biases, some of which are statistically more glaring, YOUR own bias wouldn't show up so much.

 

[kruezer]

People are biased (I am apparently very biased toward the amateur era) but that’s the reason we made an aggregate list. Complaining about bias in a 32 person aggregate list seems to be missing the point of why we aggregate these things.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Subjectivity, coming from the right people, is a positive.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I'm biased, but in saying this I'm biased, and in saying this I'm...

 

[bobholly39]

I'm biased, but in saying this I'm biased, and in saying this I'm...

You should learn to be more objective like me instead

 

[Canadiens1958]

People are biased (I am apparently very biased toward the amateur era) but that’s the reason we made an aggregate list. Complaining about bias in a 32 person aggregate list seems to be missing the point of why we aggregate these things.

Looking at pre 1967 expansion Senior Amateur hockey in Canada would be a worthwhile study.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

Because I assume I'm one of the youngest participants in this project, I can really only use 'eye test' judgement on players over the past 15 years or so. Due to that, I based my list heavily on what was written in previous projects, and as a result my list conforms to other HOH lists a bit more than others. 31 other participants who did the same thing would result in some very boring discussion.

Different perspectives makes for a more complete list, provided those perspectives have honest arguments behind them and aren't being different for different's sake. I found Canadiens1958's opinions a whole lot easier to swallow than somebody like Sentinel's, who frequently made drive-by posts advocating for some Soviet or some Red Wing. As such, I ranked players with the former's point of view in mind more often than the latter's. It's way too easy to look at the aggregate list and just cherrypick people who stood out, that's a really basic way of analyzing things.... you need to read the discussions to see if any unfair biases lie...

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Ooh, I was pretty close to "winning" I think...my name is up there ~20ish times...

My thumbnail tally shows you ran neck-and-neck with @Canadiens1958 & @TheGeneral

Which was still decisively blown out by @Sentinel

I was only the highest on two goaltenders. That’s surprising.

@steve141 submitted an approved list, which pretty much explains that whole circumstance.

The "highest rank" player list features 31 one of us. I can't figure out who yet, but only one of us apparently didn't have an overly optimistic reflection on any player, relative to the group.

Drumroll, please...

Iiiiiit's @Batis!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

By the way, @quoipourquoi, I love the amount of info you packed into the OP. Looking forward to the release of the individual voting records. Hope the new software makes putting together all those tables less tedious for you than it was for us under the old format.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

They Moved Us- Movers of five or more spots, Aggregate List to Final List

[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD]Name[/TD][TD]Gain[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Kane[/TD][TD] +16[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Firsov[/TD][TD]+9[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Belfour[/TD][TD]+8[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Cowley[/TD][TD]+8[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Thornton[/TD][TD]+8[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Kennedy[/TD][TD]+7[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Gardiner[/TD][TD]+7[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Kelly[/TD][TD]+6[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Bi. Cook[/TD][TD]+6[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]M. Howe[/TD][TD]+6[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Makarov[/TD][TD]+5[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Boucher[/TD][TD]+5[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Clancy[/TD][TD]+5[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Lach[/TD][TD]+5[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Abel[/TD][TD]+5 [/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]
Of these, I was on-board with six of them, Kane (though 16 spots was a little much), Gardiner, Firsov, Makarov, Bill Cook, and Abel... and not at all on-board with the other nine. So, from this perspective, it might seem that the conversation resulted in a list less congenial to me than the aggregate list(!) But really, that's only half the story. There is...
[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD]Name[/TD][TD]Loss[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Durnan[/TD][TD]-11[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Leetch[/TD][TD]-10[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Mahovlich[/TD][TD]-9[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Pilote[/TD][TD]-8[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Mikita[/TD][TD]-7[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Geoffrion[/TD][TD]-7[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]St Louis[/TD][TD]-7[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Dionne[/TD][TD]-6[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Broda[/TD][TD]-6[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Sawchuk[/TD][TD]-5[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Coffey[/TD][TD]-5[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Denneny[/TD][TD]-5[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]
And here's the funny thing- I was on-board for ALL of these dips, with the lonely exception of Brian Leetch. In some cases, they didn't fall far enough for my taste. So, from the truly limited perspective of the movers of five or more spots, I'd say, in my very subjective way, that the list-quality benefitted from the discussion.

What this means for me personally, I don't know. That I'm more effective as a critic than an advocate? That I'm more receptive to deconstructive arguments than the converse?!

 

[ted2019]

You kinda reminded me of the ref who is assigned a game in his home town, only to be extra tough on the home team so he can keep any hidden biases at bay.

No, I was fair the whole time. I championed Mark Howe from the beginning, but if I thought someone else was better, then I voted that way.

 

[ted2019]

I have never been more proud of you.

Did you have Rod Langway?

 

[ted2019]

I take it you don't care for someone stating the obvious.

One poster votes for 10 Russians and 4 more Europeans higher than anyone else (32 voters is a lot). Speaks for itself.

Another poster votes 9 Montreal Canadiens higher than anyone else. A voter with great experience and insight into the game. To me, that's even more alarming than the straight fanboy.

Farkas (yes, I said his name) just seems to be seeing things through a more sophisticated lens than the rest of us.

The General just seems to be less well-informed. Then again, so did Scotty Bowman.

I think Mr. Farkas sees things as an Asst. Coach and a scout for a scouting firm. I think he has a bit more insight on how certain thing are compared to the rest of us.

 

[ted2019]

Counterpoint: Couldn't continue to provide the offense that he did while playing defense. Other (for these purposes) better defensemen, maybe Serge Savard for instance, could provide stellar defense and contribute offensively, or at least to the transition to offense.

Stevens "changed" his game...sacrificed something to do something else. Think of the sliders in the NHL video games when creating a player back in the day. Only so many "points" to work with...can't be a 99 speed with 99 stickhandling. Had to ration.

Unlike Stevens, Chris Pronger was still getting around .59 to .89 PPG during his age 32 years to his untimely retirement. The season he got injured, Pronger had 12 PTS. in 13 games. Man, I miss Chris Pronger.

 

[ted2019]

Well put on all four.
Farkas likes dmen is the only thing I noticed as well as what you wrote.

I think it's pretty obvious on who the other 2 posters are.

 

[ted2019]

To be honest, saying these guys ended up with low recognition is akin to say that Henrik Zetterberg ended up with low recognition.

That is, it's wrong. They pretty much ended up with the totally appropriate recognition.

(Now, I'll never understand the gap between Siebert and Clapper, but that's a story for another time)

I think that there should be a definite gap between Clapper & Seibert, but not as much as it was during the voting. I had Clapper at #99 and Seibert #107 in my original list. I underrated both players, but I do think that Clapper had the better career.