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

[K Fleur]

From the same draft, Ovechkin was described by Pierre McGuire and Brian Burke as being a 200 foot player and having a complete game.

Bad takes all around that night.

 

[The Macho King]

Kane has his warts but he's been consistently money when it's time to score the big goals or make the big plays.I don't think any player of his era was as clutch as him.

We can compare his playoff productivity with his peers, but the clutchness factor is hard to quantify.

I want to maintain I'm not saying that his inclusion is indefensible (74 is though). He doesn't make it for me but he's probably between 120-150 for me.

I think on the standard metrics, he doesn't make it. One Ross, one Hart - those don't do it for me. Don't think it's enough. His playoff performances? Those get him close, and depending on where you put him is going to depend on those harder to quantify metrics.

I guess why I discount the playoffs *a bit* (except in the most egregious cases), is especially in the post-cap world, the playoffs feel pretty damn random. The Hawks winning three is definitely impressive - especially in this environment - but I just don't get the same feeling watching the playoffs now as say watching the 01 Avs make their run. I know that's a nebulous statement, but it comes down to - I think it's harder to win the Cup now than it's ever been, but it's easier to win as a (relatively) mediocre team, if that makes sense.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I want to maintain I'm not saying that his inclusion is indefensible (74 is though). He doesn't make it for me but he's probably between 120-150 for me.

I think on the standard metrics, he doesn't make it. One Ross, one Hart - those don't do it for me. Don't think it's enough. His playoff performances? Those get him close, and depending on where you put him is going to depend on those harder to quantify metrics.

I guess why I discount the playoffs *a bit* (except in the most egregious cases), is especially in the post-cap world, the playoffs feel pretty damn random. The Hawks winning three is definitely impressive - especially in this environment - but I just don't get the same feeling watching the playoffs now as say watching the 01 Avs make their run. I know that's a nebulous statement, but it comes down to - I think it's harder to win the Cup now than it's ever been, but it's easier to win as a (relatively) mediocre team, if that makes sense.

The playoffs might be more random but Kane was consistently clutch.That was a constant with him.

 

[quoipourquoi]

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?

I’m almost definitely doing minimum 10 candidates per round + anyone with 99% of the 10th candidate.

 

[pappyline]

I’m almost definitely doing minimum 10 candidates per round + anyone with 99% of the 10th candidate.

Except for the first round right? That will be 4? Anything more would skew the results toward non-tradition players that are ranked in the top 4 and we know that at least a couple of voters are doing that.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I’m almost definitely doing minimum 10 candidates per round + anyone with 99% of the 10th candidate.

All right- that's clear enough. I WAS a little worried about the "95%" solution suggested elsewhere. If that had been adopted, I envisioned discussing groups of '16-or-more' a few times. The 99% threshold, I guess, is kinda like using the "margin-release" on an old-fashioned typewriter. [Geez, I'm showing my age, what?!] All right for occasional use- but not good to make a habit of it.

Okay, the "close nominations" issue is settled. What about close votes?!

[P.S.: @ 'pappy' --- I think the process goes like this (assuming no use of the "margin-release") Round 2, Vote 1: 10 are nominated, four are chosen. Round 2, Vote 2: four are added to the six unselected from the previous round- then we pick five more, then for Round 2 Vote 3: five more added, five more advanced... all the way up to 99, where we have our "Grand Finale" for the 100th & final spot.]

 

[Michael Farkas]

Coin flip. Coin don't lie.

 

[Canadiens1958]

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

Match-ups, responsibilities and workload distribution- bottom and top half of the Morenz line shift.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Except for the first round right? That will be 4? Anything more would skew the results toward non-tradition players that are ranked in the top 4 and we know that at least a couple of voters are doing that.

Oh, in terms of players named to the final list? That’s 4 (#1-4) in the first voting block of 10 candidates, then 5 (starting with #5-9) in the subsequent voting blocks of 10-12ish candidates, then finally #100 in a block that we might open up even bigger depending on how everyone feels.

I’ll give the breakdown-by-number after screening, but Hockey Outsider’s proposal should solve the issue of not expanding too large or contracting too small.

I definitely don’t want to restrict the availability to select someone other than the big-four in the first four spots in the first voting period if someone chooses to do so (because that could be unfair to a Beliveau or a Hull if someone takes them over an Orr or a Lemieux), but I do think the focus of conversation in the first week will largely be about the same four players we all expect to go #1-4.

I just really hated how in the 2008 and 2009 lists how the focus was all #1-4 and someone slid into #5 with less attention than it deserves.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Okay, the "close nominations" issue is settled. What about close votes?!

My proposed tie-breakers for being added to the final list would be:

1. Number of ballots
2. Number of 1st-place votes
3. Number of 2nd-place votes
4. Number of 3rd-place votes
...
The coin

I don’t usually mind ties, but this list probably shouldn’t have them.

 

[The Macho King]

Oh, in terms of players named to the final list? That’s 4 (#1-4) in the first voting block of 10 candidates, then 5 (starting with #5-9) in the subsequent voting blocks of 10-12ish candidates, then finally #100 in a block that we might open up even bigger depending on how everyone feels.

I’ll give the breakdown-by-number after screening, but Hockey Outsider’s proposal should solve the issue of not expanding too large or contracting too small.

I definitely don’t want to restrict the availability to select someone other than the big-four in the first four spots in the first voting period if someone chooses to do so (because that could be unfair to a Beliveau or a Hull if someone takes them over an Orr or a Lemieux), but I do think the focus of conversation in the first week will largely be about the same four players we all expect to go #1-4.

I just really hated how in the 2008 and 2009 lists how the focus was all #1-4 and someone slid into #5 with less attention than it deserves.

I think this is right, mainly because I think the #5 discussion is the most interesting on the entire list, and having it pay a backseat to "Yeah well if Lemieux was healthy he would have scored a bajillion!" doesn't seem right.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

My proposed tie-breakers for being added to the final list would be:

1. Number of ballots
2. Number of 1st-place votes
3. Number of 2nd-place votes
4. Number of 3rd-place votes
...
The coin

I don’t usually mind ties, but this list probably shouldn’t have them.

If you have to get as far as "the coin," just leave them tied

 

[Michael Farkas]

*loud ahem* respect the coin, jerk...

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

The immediate concern with the "close vote" scenario is this- say we're discussing a group of ten, then we conduct our vote, and find that there are seven (to cite a previously-used example) that establish separation from the other three, but players 6 & 7 are an ant's eyelash away from 5. {And there's a palpable gap between 7 & 8.} Now do we pass 6 & 7 on to the list, and proceed to the next cluster- or do we throw 6 & 7 back in the pool and have them argue it out with the next group, as if they were any other failed nominee that round?

Calling it now- I think (some variation of) this issue will come up in Round 2, Vote 3.

 

[steve141]

Oh, in terms of players named to the final list? That’s 4 (#1-4) in the first voting block of 10 candidates, then 5 (starting with #5-9) in the subsequent voting blocks of 10-12ish candidates, then finally #100 in a block that we might open up even bigger depending on how everyone feels.

I would recommend that for the two last rounds we include all players that are on any lists. The reason is that some of the more obscure but well deserving players might only be on some of the original lists but would fair well when there is a chance to discuss them openly.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I would recommend that for the two last rounds we include all players that are on any lists. The reason is that some of the more obscure but well deserving players might only be on some of the original lists but would fair well when there is a chance to discuss them openly.

Strongly disagree.

The time for making the case for obscure players was this thread before people finished their lists.

If Round 2 isn't more focused, then what's the point of doing 2 rounds?

That said, I have always advocated slowly expanding the number of available players from 10 as we move along

 

[K Fleur]

I’m most interested in seeing where Brodeur ends up/reading the discussion surrounding him.

In my eyes he’s the last truly great goaltender the NHL has seen.

 

[The Macho King]

The immediate concern with the "close vote" scenario is this- say we're discussing a group of ten, then we conduct our vote, and find that there are seven (to cite a previously-used example) that establish separation from the other three, but players 6 & 7 are an ant's eyelash away from 5. {And there's a palpable gap between 7 & 8.} Now do we pass 6 & 7 on to the list, and proceed to the next cluster- or do we throw 6 & 7 back in the pool and have them argue it out with the next group, as if they were any other failed nominee that round?

Calling it now- I think (some variation of) this issue will come up in Round 2, Vote 3.

This isn't a hard question to me - pass them on to the next round. Discussions need to be fresh. If they're clearly above, they'll be 1 and 2 in the next vote.

 

[MXD]

... I don't think we're quite getting in the territory of "obscure players" here though. It's the Top-120 players of all time, and you're looking at players like, I don't know... Erik Karlsson?

 

[The Macho King]

... I don't think we're quite getting in the territory of "obscure players" here though. It's the Top-120 players of all time, and you're looking at players like, I don't know... Erik Karlsson?

(I have EK pretty high)

 

[Sentinel]

Isn't "sheltering" another way of saying a player was deployed to maximize their offensive impact?

And isn't "sheltering" is how you routinely denigrate Malkin when comparing him to Crosby?

 

[Captain Bowie]

Since we all listed 120 names, there should probably be at least 20 names in contention for #100. Getting much more than that might be a little much though.

 

[MXD]

Since we all listed 120 names, there should probably be at least 20 names in contention for #100. Getting much more than that might be a little much though.

I can get behind this idea.

Listing all players could bring us to... I don't know, something like 120 names? That won't even be fun.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I’m most interested in seeing where Brodeur ends up/reading the discussion surrounding him.

In my eyes he’s the last truly great goaltender the NHL has seen.

If people give credence to goal tending studies done here (by HO and others which show his numbers to be underrated) and the fact that Brodeur is almost surely the greatest puck moving goalie ever and thus brought about rules changes to hinder his abilities, you'd probably have him as high as I do. Or at least higher than most generally put him.

Then you just have the sheer volume he possess. Very underrated Hart record. Mostly money goalie in the postseason with elite all time runs.

I have 4th behind Roy, Hasek, and Plante.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Since we all listed 120 names, there should probably be at least 20 names in contention for #100. Getting much more than that might be a little much though.

When the aggregate is finalized, I’ll see if there’s a natural break somewhere after whoever would be the 10th eligible player (#109). I just wouldn’t want us getting distracted by too much choice in terms of players who didn’t even make half the lists when there are going to be players who made 27-28 out of 32 and might not be ranked top-100.

It does appear that we had 208 unique names and 66 players who made all 32 ballots - pending further alterations prompted during screening.