Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread (Revenge of Michael Myers)

[sr edler]

Lalonde would smash her face within the shift and she'll be out of action.

But would he hit a woman? (Sprague Cleghorn probably would have)

 

[MXD]

Lalonde would smash her face within the shift and she'll be out of action.

That's more Sprague Cleghorn actually, and the result is that he's suspended, while Hayley played with a full shield, so that's a very, very useless move.

Oh, and she's also bigger than him, too! (Newsy, not Sprague)

 

[Canadiens1958]

Time for Round 2.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Exactly. If we're going to hold Wickeneiser to the standard of how she'd look compared to the top male hockey players of today, maybe we should do the same with players for 100+ years ago? How would they look on the same ice as Ryan Getzlaf? How would Haley look on the same ice as Russell Bowie?

Playing devil's advocate here, because we got another week to kill.

 

[Iceman]

I'm genuinely curious, what is your definition that you've drawn up that makes Crosby the better player right now, but inevitably not the better player by the time their careers are over? Do you have some sort of numerical formula that has some criteria that Ovechkin is likely to hit that Crosby is not?

Gut feeling?

 

[seventieslord]

Exactly. If we're going to hold Wickeneiser to the standard of how she'd look compared to the top male hockey players of today, maybe we should do the same with players for 100+ years ago? How would they look on the same ice as Ryan Getzlaf? How would Haley look on the same ice as Russell Bowie?

Playing devil's advocate here, because we got another week to kill.

because all players should be judged against the standard that represented the best in their time

 

[MXD]

because all players should be judged against the standard that represented the best in their time

... Here, it's a pioneer/trail-blazer judged against a pioneer/trail blazer.

 

[seventieslord]

Gut feeling?

what gives you that gut feeling? I wouldn't think twice if you said that somebody like McDavid or maybe even somebody like Tavares would one day be better than Crosby, but Ovechkin is two full years older than him. Crosby's the one who's got more time to rack up accomplishments, so I'm genuinely curious what gave you that gut feeling.

 

[Iceman]

what gives you that gut feeling? I wouldn't think twice if you said that somebody like McDavid or maybe even somebody like Tavares would one day be better than Crosby, but Ovechkin is two full years older than him. Crosby's the one who's got more time to rack up accomplishments, so I'm genuinely curious what gave you that gut feeling.

His endurance suggests that he could have better longevity than Crosby. On the other hand Crosby doesn't miss many games anymore so I'm not sure why he should have a steeper decline than any other star player.

 

[seventieslord]

... Here, it's a pioneer/trail-blazer judged against a pioneer/trail blazer.

we really shouldn't even be talking about her because she shouldn't have been named on any list. It's a completely different sports, it's obviously not as bad as naming Deion Sanders on your list, the women's hockey is a completely different sport from men's hockey. She's the best of all time in her sport, but that's a different sport. The answer to whether she could compete with the best players of her time is twofold. First, no, she absolutely couldn't. Second, it doesn't matter because that's a different sport and she's the best at hers.

 

[seventieslord]

His endurance suggests that he could have better longevity than Crosby. On the other hand Crosby doesn't miss many games anymore so I'm not sure why he should have a steeper decline than any other star player.

All that Ovechkin and Crosby are adding to their resumes at this point is side dishes at best, maybe even just seasoning. Their main courses are already cooked and consumed, and they're not going to change anything about their main courses. If one player has a consensus better main course, I don't think it matters what the side dishes are or how you season it. I mean, I don't watch chopped, but I overhear it often and i think it works something like that anyway haha

 

[Captain Bowie]

we really shouldn't even be talking about her because she shouldn't have been named on any list. It's a completely different sports, it's obviously not as bad as naming Deion Sanders on your list, the women's hockey is a completely different sport from men's hockey. She's the best of all time in her sport, but that's a different sport. The answer to whether she could compete with the best players of her time is twofold. First, no, she absolutely couldn't. Second, it doesn't matter because that's a different sport and she's the best at hers.

The OP didn't specify which sport of hockey we'd be ranking, so it stands to reason that all sports of hockey would be eligible. Haley stands up as the best when compared to the standard that represented the best in her time.

Eligibility

• Players will be judged only on their performance as hockey players

Case closed.

 

[Iceman]

All that Ovechkin and Crosby are adding to their resumes at this point is side dishes at best, maybe even just seasoning. Their main courses are already cooked and consumed, and they're not going to change anything about their main courses. If one player has a consensus better main course, I don't think it matters what the side dishes are or how you season it. I mean, I don't watch chopped, but I overhear it often and i think it works something like that anyway haha

...but is there a consensus? I'm not sure to be honest.

Oh well, we'll see once the lists are made public.

 

[seventieslord]

The OP didn't specify which sport of hockey we'd be ranking, so it stands to reason that all sports of hockey would be eligible. Haley stands up as the best when compared to the standard that represented the best in her time.

Eligibility

• Players will be judged only on their performance as hockey players

Case closed.

no she doesn't. The standard that was the best in her time was players like Jaromir Jagr and Sidney Crosby.

 

[Thenameless]

Someone who likes trail blazers for the sake of trail blazering would probably really love the idea of ranking Wickenheiser. I mean, she might even be a strictly better player than a few (mostly old-timers) that got on the list if you take what she has and is now, compared to what they were then.

On a tennis message board people were discussing Serena Williams playing with her modern equipment (better shoes, outfit, and a graphite/basalt racquet) versus Bjorn Borg with his late 70's equipment (particularly the smaller head, wooden racket). Most people said Borg would slaughter her, but some did argue for Serena. Then one guy pointed out that Borg was able to beat Lendl with Lendl using graphite (no way Serena is beating mid 80's Lendl using a graphite racquet), and that basically ended the discussion.

Guys will naturally take it easy on female athletes, but if you told Lalonde that he was playing for a million bucks (or for his life), my money's still on him even with hundred year old equipment.

All that said, Hayley Wickenheiser is still awesome no matter how you slice it.

 

[seventieslord]

...but is there a consensus? I'm not sure to be honest.

Oh well, we'll see once the lists are made public.

consensus? 100% agreement? No. Enough that I can tell you with 100% certainty who will end up at least three spots higher than the other? Yes. Absolutely.

 

[Iceman]

consensus? 100% agreement? No. Enough that I can tell you with 100% certainty who will end up at least three spots higher than the other? Yes. Absolutely.

I think the lists are in Crosby's favour, but I think Ovi will be getting his fair share of nods over Crosby.

That's why we have more rounds, not just a tally of the lists. People have a chance to convince others about the unappreciated brilliance of certain players.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Open mind, yes. Preconceived notions - no. I'm not coming into this thing a baby devoid of all knowledge of hockey history. The top 4 are the top 4 because they're the top 4, not because I don't have an open mind. People are free to hold a different opinion, and if there is actually anyone remotely close I look forward to the debate, but...

I mean...

...

There isn't. The top 4 is the top 4 because they are the top 4.

Well that's just it. If debate led to unexpected voting results that did not have 4 players separate themselves as leaps-and-bounds better than all other candidates, why commit to a unique scenario of adding only 4 players for once specific vote? I think the door should be left open to alternate scenarios, even if they're unlikely to arise.

Philosophically, I couldn't agree more. Realistically... well, we would have to be introduced to a brand-new paradym of excellence for me to exclude any of the top four from that grouping.

Foreshadow alert: I do expect a massive debate for my number six player, but as I take a look at his accomplishments this may be a debate I actually win.

Fair enough, but the standard may not be so lofty for others to re-consider their position.

10 candidates, 4 will be named to the list. I’m doing this because most of the attention will be on the four obvious players and it doesn’t make sense that we’d add a 5th when most of the discussion involving the other six candidates in the first voting block would be limited at best compared to what we’ll do in a #5-9 voting block. But if Patrick Roy or Jean Beliveau unexpectedly knock off Lemieux, that’s fine too.

So hypothetically, Howe, Lemieux, and Rocket Richard finish in a virtual tie for 3rd place...6th place Doug Harvey is way behind with insignificant number of voting points. Under these condidtions, would it really make sense to exclude the 5th place guy this one and only time? I'm well aware that I've brought forth an unlikely scenario, but I think the idea of adding only 4 players from vote 1 should be an expectation that will probably be re-affirmed by the vote, rather than an iron-clad rule.

 

[Captain Bowie]

no she doesn't. The standard that was the best in her time was players like Jaromir Jagr and Sidney Crosby.

But they played a different sport!

 

[seventieslord]

But they played a different sport!

So is this a multi-sport list or not?

 

[MXD]

On a tennis message board people were discussing Serena Williams playing with her modern equipment (better shoes, outfit, and a graphite/basalt racquet) versus Bjorn Borg with his late 70's equipment (particularly the smaller head, wooden racket). Most people said Borg would slaughter her, but some did argue for Serena. Then one guy pointed out that Borg was able to beat Lendl with Lendl using graphite (no way Serena is beating mid 80's Lendl using a graphite racquet), and that basically ended the discussion.

Guys will naturally take it easy on female athletes, but if you told Lalonde that he was playing for a million bucks (or for his life), my money's still on him even with hundred year old equipment.

All that said, Hayley Wickenheiser is still awesome no matter how you slice it.

TBH, Serena would probably stand a shot on hard. Like, 1 or 2 out of 100. She'd be lucky to be anything else than multiple donuted on Grass and Clay, due to lack of speed.

(And I'm closing this chapter, hahah!)

 

[seventieslord]

I think the lists are in Crosby's favour, but I think Ovi will be getting his fair share of nods over Crosby.

That's why we have more rounds, not just a tally of the lists. People have a chance to convince others about the unappreciated brilliance of certain players.

yes of course, but that said, I don't think round 2 is going to do Ovechkin many favors. his brilliance is already very well appreciated. I think with more time to discuss him, it's going to be more about flaws, warts, and shortcomings.

 

[Captain Bowie]

So is this a multi-sport list or not?

Touché.

 

[pappyline]

So hypothetically, Howe, Lemieux, and Rocket Richard finish in a virtual tie for 3rd place...6th place Doug Harvey is way behind with insignificant number of voting points. Under these condidtions, would it really make sense to exclude the 5th place guy this one and only time? I'm well aware that I've brought forth an unlikely scenario, but I think the idea of adding only 4 players from vote 1 should be an expectation that will probably be re-affirmed by the vote, rather than an iron-clad rule.

That is very unlikely.

What is more likely is something like this. 32 of the voters have Gretxky, Orr, Howe, lemieux in the top 4 in some order with Hull & Richard tied for #5. Voter number 33 votes Gretzky, Orr, Howe. Lemieux, Hull, Richard. Voter #34 votes Gretzky, Orr, Howe, Richard, Lemieux, Hull. By being the only voter to insert an non-traditional player into the top 4, voter#34 has decided who the #5 player will be.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

That is very unlikely.

What is more likely is something like this. 32 of the voters have Gretxky, Orr, Howe, lemieux in the top 4 in some order with Hull & Richard tied for #5. Voter number 33 votes Gretzky, Orr, Howe. Lemieux, Hull, Richard. Voter #34 votes Gretzky, Orr, Howe, Richard, Lemieux, Hull. By being the only voter to insert an non-traditional player into the top 4, voter#34 has decided who the #5 player will be.

And if that's the case, of course only four names would be added. I'm talking about a scenario where there aren't four players way ahead of everyone else. If 15 people list Richard 4th and Orr 5th, and 15 others list Orr 4th and Richard 5th, and basically no other candidate gets any support for 5th, it makes sense to me that both Richard and Orr would get added to the list.