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

[BenchBrawl]

First : What are you gonna do about this?

Second : Believe me, I'd rather not do such a thing.

Why are you so confrontational?

Are you a lawyer by any chance?

 

[quoipourquoi]

We’re on target to start Monday, October 29th.

Also, everyone needs to be on their best behavior because I’m on two hours of sleep. As a reminder, all of you did a great job on your lists, but keep an open mind to some movement in Round 2 as we work on not only a final list but also increasing our shared knowledge. Because that’s what it’s really all about: broadening the minds of 31 historians and 1 sleepy goalie.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

We’re on target to start Monday, October 29th.

Also, everyone needs to be on their best behavior because I’m on two hours of sleep. As a reminder, all of you did a great job on your lists, but keep an open mind to some movement in Round 2 as we work on not only a final list but also increasing our shared knowledge. Because that’s what it’s really all about: broadening the minds of 31 historians and 1 sleepy goalie.

And spreading knowledge to all the non-participant readers, both present and future. Which is why discussing every player available in Round 2 is important - those are the discussions that future readers will read!

I first really became interested in the history of hockey by reading the HOH Top 100 discussions back in 2008 or so, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

[sr edler]

However, is the issue age or league necessity and quality?

At various times the NHL seems to have gone thru talent shortages.

So why didn't Foyston feast on this weak version of the Canadiens (who apparently weren't as weak the next year when they easily beat the Calgary Tigers)? He was two years younger than Walker. And Morenz produced well in the 25 series. They also had Vezina, both Cleghorns, Coutu and Joliat.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Who are the screeners?

 

[DannyGallivan]

This makes me wonder: How many Montreal Canadiens are on one's list?

I have 19.

(up to 23 if include guys who starred there but more elsewhere, eg., Siebert's Hart years as a Hab)

How can anybody not have a ton of Habs, even if they hate them.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Looks like I have 22 Montreal Canadiens at first glance

I have four in my top 10.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Did anyone have Mark Howe at # 80 or higher?

I had him at #70.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Who are the screeners?

Top. Men.


But seriously, we don’t disclose that until the end, just as they don’t know whose lists they’re reviewing until the end.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Can’t say I understand the Keith but not Kane crowd. Kane’s actually been elected the best player at his position more often - and probably would have added a 4th designation had he not gotten injured while leading the NHL in scoring in 2014-15. He even ascended to the heights of league MVP, taking it in a landslide. Conn Smythe was on the weaker side, but he was the leading playoff scorer in 2015 and had 28 points in 2010, so how much of a lead does Keith generate from the playoffs to off-set how much better Kane has been in the regular season since Keith’s last Norris in 2013-14?

I have Kane at 74. I really don't like him, but his talent and accomplishments can't be denied. On the precipice of the greatest American-born forward of all time.

 

[DannyGallivan]

And some of us are re-thinking that perspective. I have 34 Defensemen in my 120. You think that's inordinately high? Well, seventieslord has 37. How many multiple-Stanley-Cup winners have we seen where the most important skater for the winning team has been the Stud Defenseman? Chicago (Keith), Los Angeles (Doughty), Detroit (Lidström), New Jersey (Stevens). Hey, if you want to take it back far enough into our childhood we could even make a case for Denis Potvin for the Islanders, or Big Bird there in Montréal. Then there's that guy from Parry Sound.

No apologies needed for a robust number of Defensemen under consideration here.

[Oh- and sorry about the misstep for Sergei. I applied edits, with an eye towards not taking any chances.]

I have 30 (not counting Kelly or Clapper).

 

[ImporterExporter]

Top. Men.


But seriously, we don’t disclose that until the end, just as they don’t know whose lists they’re reviewing until the end.

Copy that. Figured as much.

How many are there traditionally?

 

[VanIslander]

On the precipice of the greatest American-born forward of all time.

That's a low bar. Modano? Brett Hull? Not exactly must-haves on a top-100 all-time list.

He might pass someday two of the three Americans in my top 70: Brimsek & Leetch. But he ain't at the precipice of it; surpassing Chelios is technically within the realm of possibility (given Kaner is still 29 and could achieve a lot over the next decade of his life).

 

[Canadiens1958]

So why didn't Foyston feast on this weak version of the Canadiens (who apparently weren't as weak the next year when they easily beat the Calgary Tigers)? He was two years younger than Walker. And Morenz produced well in the 25 series. They also had Vezina, both Cleghorns, Coutu and Joliat.

You have the sequence backwards.

1924, Canadiens beat Calgary in the east.

1925, Canadiens lost to Victoria in the west. Basically to counter the speed of Joliat and Morenz, Lester Patrick ran an early version of the short shift game. So ice time for individual Victoria players was reduced, impacting individual scoring.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Copy that. Figured as much.

How many are there traditionally?

I went with 3 this year. I’m basically serving as the go-between, so if something gets flagged, you will (or already have) heard from me.

 

[DannyGallivan]

That's a low bar. Modano? Brett Hull? Not exactly must-haves on a top-100 all-time list.

He might pass someday two of the three Americans in my top 70: Brimsek & Leetch. But he ain't at the precipice of it; surpassing Chelios is technically within the realm of possibility (given Kaner is still 29 and could achieve a lot over the next decade of his life).

True... although I still think that he's already distinguished himself. I have Chelios as the greatest-ever "American-born" (therefore, Brett Hull excluded) at 61.

 

[The Macho King]

I have Kane at 74. I really don't like him, but his talent and accomplishments can't be denied. On the precipice of the greatest American-born forward of all time.

Kane doesn't really do it for me. Maybe I'm underrating him, but I just don't have him top 100. One Art Ross and one Smythe - great. Three Cups? Meh - I discount team accomplishments but he was certainly a key piece to those Cups. 3 1st All-Stars (no second, and I'll maintain that his last 1st AS should have gone to Kucherov but Kane got the Chicago-bump), but at a pretty shallow position. Really a one-dimensional player - he's one of the worst pure defending players in the NHL and is a notorious cherry-picker.

I see it as one great season, some good playoff runs, but otherwise he just doesn't rise to the level to me. I guess I could have had him between 100-120 without stretching it too far, but I have a two-time Art Ross winner at 93 who was also good in the playoffs and better defensively. I think you have to give him a *ton* of credit for the playoff performances of those teams to justify putting him in the top 100.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I agree with TheDevilMadeMe that the heated arguments should be saved for Round 2, but OTOH what else is there to say in this thread right now?

Well, we can always argue, errr... I mean discuss about whether we should go with an "inflexible 10" per round, or adopt something more like the "natural breaks" method. It seems that ted, c1958, Dennis & Van like the inflexible 10, but me, TDMM, MXD, and The Art Currently Known as Sedinery favor the latter. I'm not THAT invested in either outcome... and I'm willing to listen to the other side. (That's why I asked those in the former group if they had any difficulties with flexibility as used in other HoH projects.)

 

[DannyGallivan]

Kane doesn't really do it for me. Maybe I'm underrating him, but I just don't have him top 100. One Art Ross and one Smythe - great. Three Cups? Meh - I discount team accomplishments but he was certainly a key piece to those Cups. 3 1st All-Stars (no second, and I'll maintain that his last 1st AS should have gone to Kucherov but Kane got the Chicago-bump), but at a pretty shallow position. Really a one-dimensional player - he's one of the worst pure defending players in the NHL and is a notorious cherry-picker.

I see it as one great season, some good playoff runs, but otherwise he just doesn't rise to the level to me. I guess I could have had him between 100-120 without stretching it too far, but I have a two-time Art Ross winner at 93 who was also good in the playoffs and better defensively. I think you have to give him a *ton* of credit for the playoff performances of those teams to justify putting him in the top 100.

Without going into too much detail, part of my personal criteria is the simple question... "is player A better than player B". Now, I do take into account all of the personal hardware, statistics and achievements, but I also add a healthy dose of the "eye test". Kane does well in that respect.

And anybody who is averaging more than a point a game in this era can be considered among the best forwards of this era.

Also, when it comes to being a scoring forward I don't necessarily put a lot of demand to their defensive game... as long as they aren't a huge liability. It's a team game, so a scorer can concentrate on scoring and a linemate can pick up the slack defensively. I had to cut Bob Gainey and Jonathon Toews from my list, but if it was all about the 200 foot game then they would be near the top.

 

[VanIslander]

I have Chelios as the greatest-ever "American-born"... at 61.

That just may be the lowest ranking he has been listed at.

I'm pretty tough on him and still have him 45th. Maybe I'm not so tough on him.

Anybody have Chelly lower than 61st?

 

[sr edler]

So ice time for individual Victoria players was reduced, impacting individual scoring.

So you mean it impacted individual scoring, but differently for different players? Negatively for Foyston? Positively for Walker? Why is that?

 

[The Macho King]

Without going into too much detail, part of my personal criteria is the simple question... "is player A better than player B". Now, I do take into account all of the personal hardware, statistics and achievements, but I also add a healthy dose of the "eye test". Kane does well in that respect.

And anybody who is averaging more than a point a game in this era can be considered among the best forwards of this era.

Also, when it comes to being a scoring forward I don't necessarily put a lot of demand to their defensive game... as long as they aren't a huge liability. It's a team game, so a scorer can concentrate on scoring and a linemate can pick up the slack defensively. I had to cut Bob Gainey and Jonathon Toews from my list, but if it was all about the 200 foot game then they would be near the top.

I mean - he is.

Would you have Stamkos on your top 100? Almost identical PPG (although Stamkos the better goal scorer), and is a solid defender. Obviously playoffs goes to Kane by a mile (and I'd put Kane over Stamkos for that reason).

I don't really agree on the quality of Kane's dangles being something that puts him on the top 100. He just seems like a borderline add to me, and 74 strikes me as... really high.

I'll make my case in more detail if he comes up in the voting, but having Kane higher than say 90 just seems like either homerism or weighing too heavily for modern players.

 

[The Macho King]

That just may be the lowest ranking he has been listed at.

I'm pretty tough on him and still have him 45th. Maybe I'm not so tough on him.

Anybody have Chelly lower than 61st?

I have him at 45 too and I think I put him too low.

 

[MXD]

The "numerical" rule suggested by Hockey Outsider made lots of sense.

We shouldn't forget that the aim of limiting the amount of player per round is to focus discussions on players who are the most relevant candidates at this point. I mean, there could technically be a round with 30 candidates, it's just that the ensuing discussion would probably be completely chaotic and not really useful in coming up with an order. The 11th player who is three "aggregate" points away from the 10th player is as relevant as the 10th player.

One thing though : There should be an minimum numbers of players per round.... probably determined by the amount of points given per vote.
In other words, if 1st place on a "ballot" is awarded 10 pts, then 10th place is awarded 1 point.

In that case, the minimum amount of players per round is 10.

QPQ, would it be wiser to give less points to first place (say, 8), so as to accomodate potential smaller rounds?

 

[DannyGallivan]

I mean - he is.

Would you have Stamkos on your top 100? Almost identical PPG (although Stamkos the better goal scorer), and is a solid defender. Obviously playoffs goes to Kane by a mile (and I'd put Kane over Stamkos for that reason).

I don't really agree on the quality of Kane's dangles being something that puts him on the top 100. He just seems like a borderline add to me, and 74 strikes me as... really high.

I'll make my case in more detail if he comes up in the voting, but having Kane higher than say 90 just seems like either homerism or weighing too heavily for modern players.

If it was homerism Toews would be there. I like Toews, I don't like Kane. Chicago has done the extremely difficult and very rare by winning 3 Cups with the same core in this era. It can be argued that Kane is the most important cog in that machine. Sometimes, I think that players post 2000 don't get enough credit. He's won the Art Ross, Smythe and Hart, and is a consistent point producer. And yes, he's done wonderful things in the playoffs.

Perhaps I have him a little high, but not by much. And as I stated a few times in the past, the difference between a 70 and a 100 may only be decimal points, since we have such a huge pool of players.

 

[MXD]

I mean - he is.

Would you have Stamkos on your top 100? Almost identical PPG (although Stamkos the better goal scorer), and is a solid defender. Obviously playoffs goes to Kane by a mile (and I'd put Kane over Stamkos for that reason).

I don't really agree on the quality of Kane's dangles being something that puts him on the top 100. He just seems like a borderline add to me, and 74 strikes me as... really high.

I'll make my case in more detail if he comes up in the voting, but having Kane higher than say 90 just seems like either homerism or weighing too heavily for modern players.

My issue with Kane is that he's sheltered, and isn't asked to play any kind of defense whatsoever (...or was, things might I have changed, I don't know), and it's actually tough seeing him defend competently, which is a bit different than, say, Malkin (not saying Malkin would be great).

But it creates a problem : information on difficulty of deployment is somewhat recent. We can compare Kane to, say, Crosby or Malkin or Thornton.

I really don't know what I'm supposed to do when comparing Kane to, say... Andy Bathgate or, probably more relevant to this example, somone like Busher Jackson.