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

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't remember if I commented on this before, but I really like these rules. This way, our efforts during the first round are focused on ranking the "big four" (I'm not expecting unanimity, but I'm guessing 95% of voters will have the obvious four candidates ranked in some order). We shouldn't have the important/prestigious #5 spot determined by which players gets the most throwaway votes in round 1.

I also liked a final round for #100 - no complaints about extra dramatic effect.

I agree. I love those rules too.

I suppose there is that small chance that we will either reach some early consensus on #5, or fail to reach a consensus on the top 4. In that case, maybe we do add 5 names after the first week.

But the posted rules are the appropriate procedure in the most likely scenario.

 

[VanIslander]

Well, I have Datsyuk in the Top 60, just to offset some of those who excluded him altogether.

This is wrong. Such behavior should be strongly discouraged.

An individual trying to manipulate the results and NEGATE other voters!

When we submit our 5 votes each round, they should represent the 5 we each sincerely think is the next best. No trying to negate votes for player x over y by putting y first, ignoring x altogether, when knows z is first and x belongs in the 5 by one's own judgement but one leaves him off for strategic reasons.

Such voters are thrown out or warned usually!

For example, Big Brother ranking on scale of 10 to 1 a houseguest's likelihood of winning. Results were tabulated and voters who went 10 for one player and 1's for every other player! Those voters were thrown out. Deservedly so.

Let's not make this a Mickey Mouse process.

 

[Iceman]

Did Lecavalier make yours?

Did Zadina make yours?

 

[Captain Bowie]

Damn, I knew I should have ranked Luongo #1 overall in order to make sure his name comes up. I'm sure the screeners would have let that slide.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Look at the rule: Booing will hold back one of the 5?

That is ridiculous.

Voting should matter. And we shouldnt be encouraged to try to manipulate the results AFTER the voting has happened.

I think we’ve only used that once before, (final vote of the Centers project?). Not something I plan on using unless a final addition in a set of 5 doesn’t separate himself from 6th-8th by more than a point or two.

 

[MXD]

I think we’ve only used that once before, (final vote of the Centers project?). Not something I plan on using unless a final addition in a set of 5 doesn’t separate himself from 6th-8th by more than a point or two.

To be fair, that mostly had to do with circumstances -- original 60th being much closer to 66th than to 59th, and a final round of something like 17 centers.

 

[MXD]

Damn, I knew I should have ranked Luongo #1 overall in order to make sure his name comes up. I'm sure the screeners would have let that slide.

Are you telling me I might have some issues with Gretzky at the very top?

 

[VanIslander]

I think we’ve only used that once before, (final vote of the Centers project?). Not something I plan on using unless a final addition in a set of 5 doesn’t separate himself from 6th-8th by more than a point or two.

*sigh* ... that's too bad. It would be nice to know one's vote could make a difference in a close race.

 

[quoipourquoi]

For the record, I’m not thrilled with the Datsyuk thing either.

As always, we ask that you vote what you believe and not what you feel will make things right.

Frankly, I shouldn’t have put Hayley Wickenheiser at #120 if I don’t believe she’s the 120nd best player of all-time. I went with my heart and not my brain, when Tim Thomas deserved that vote.

We’re all going to do better in Round 2.

 

[MXD]

For the record, I’m not thrilled with the Datsyuk thing either.

As always, we ask that you vote what you believe and not what you feel will make things right.

Frankly, I shouldn’t have put Hayley Wickenheiser at #120 if I don’t believe she’s the 120nd best player of all-time. I went with my heart and not my brain, when Tim Thomas deserved that vote.

We’re all going to do better in Round 2.

Reported for trolling.

 

[Sentinel]

This is wrong. Such behavior should be strongly discouraged.

An individual trying to manipulate the results and NEGATE other voters!

When we submit our 5 votes each round, they should represent the 5 we each sincerely think is the next best. No trying to negate votes for player x over y by putting y first, ignoring x altogether, when knows z is first and x belongs in the 5 by one's own judgement but one leaves him off for strategic reasons.

Such voters are thrown out or warned usually!

For example, Big Brother ranking on scale of 10 to 1 a houseguest's likelihood of winning. Results were tabulated and voters who went 10 for one player and 1's for every other player! Those voters were thrown out. Deservedly so.

Let's not make this a Mickey Mouse process.

My God, aren't we touchy? When another poster said his list was dictated to him by God, did you take him seriously too? Geez, what else offended you today?

I honestly, sincerely, without a shadow of a doubt, believe that Pavel Datsyuk is one of the Top 60 players that ever played the game.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I honestly, sincerely, without a shadow of a doubt, believe that Pavel Datsyuk is one of the Top 60 players that ever played the game.

Certainly wouldn’t be the most out-there selection. At any rate, I’m glad to hear it was a decision based on a belief that I look forward to hearing more about in Round 2.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If a poster's round 1 list shows a consistent pattern of extreme homerism, screeners should grow a pair and reject the list.

If the list is accepted, there is really no further censure I can think of to be made to a poster, unless the poster really goes nuts in round 2.

Note that I'm pretty sure that in past projects, we've never had a list that needed to be rejected for homerism, though we have had a handful that were biased based on era.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I don’t know that we’ve escalated to talks of anyone having a pattern attached to one team, although 31/32 of us probably could have added more goaltenders...


Also a spider fell on me while I was driving on the highway. I have not been able to recover the body. So in case he re-emerges and I die on this four-hour drive, Johnny Engine is in charge.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I had like 15 ending with maybe Bower and Worters or some such...the list was provided to me by Satan himself...

 

[seventieslord]

Like this post.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I had like 15 ending with maybe Bower and Worters or some such...the list was provided to me by Satan himself...

Surprisingly knowledgable chap. Favours defensive, aggressive hockey and players with a complete game.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I had like 15 ending with maybe Bower and Worters or some such...the list was provided to me by Satan himself...

That's quite the conflict of interest. Did Miroslav make room for himself on the list?

 

[Canadiens1958]

That's quite the conflict of interest. Did Miroslav make room for himself on the list?

Works in volume acquisitions.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Yeah, but he had a losing record for the Flames and Thrashers...kind of just fiddled there.

 

[RedWingzz]

Did Zadina make yours?

No, I had him at 121.

 

[Sentinel]

If a poster's round 1 list shows a consistent pattern of extreme homerism, screeners should grow a pair and reject the list.

If the list is accepted, there is really no further censure I can think of to be made to a poster, unless the poster really goes nuts in round 2.

Note that I'm pretty sure that in past projects, we've never had a list that needed to be rejected for homerism, though we have had a handful that were biased based on era.

Would Scotty Bowman's list be rejected for "extreme homerism"? Yes, I am aware that it's all Canadian.

 

[streitz]

Would Scotty Bowman's list be rejected for "extreme homerism"? Yes, I am aware that it's all Canadian.

Why would the best coach of all time be rejected for homerism?

 

[Sentinel]

Why would the best coach of all time be rejected for homerism?

Check out the thread on his list. He is being practically laughed out of the building. The list is puzzling, to say the list ("62. Trottier 63. Toews" is all you need to know) but nobody is prepared to take it at face value and concede that maybe the winningest coach in history knows something we don't.

For one, he is clearly not concerned with awards and achievements. He doesn't care who won what. Only how good the player was on ice.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Datsyuk's playoff resume is what kept him off my list. Too many series over the years where he wasn't a factor. Regular season career is nice, but not overwhelming.