ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
I'm trying to locate the particulars now.
Even if it was Canadian based that doesn't remove players like Cyclone Taylor and Nighbor.
Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3
- Thread starter quoipourquoi
- Start date
- Status
I'm trying to locate the particulars now.
Even if it was Canadian based that doesn't remove players like Cyclone Taylor and Nighbor.
overpass
Registered User
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xidgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=924NAAAAIBAJ&pg=3523,2707374&hl=en
Most of the players and teams receiving votes were Canadian based.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Richard was the most technically skilled player seen up to that date. That probably factored in. So did the obscene 50 goal mark.
To answer the "if he was the best, shouldn't be on the list already?" No. Not necessarily. I also don't count every single era as equal...mostly because it's not.
To answer the "if he was the best, shouldn't be on the list already?" No. Not necessarily. I also don't count every single era as equal...mostly because it's not.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks overpass!
"Babe Ruth of hockey" is the kind of hyperbole I mentioned before. Morenz simply didn't dominate the sport to that kind of level. Certainly nowhere near as long.
I'd like to know who and how many people voted on the players. How many were old enough to have seen and been able to appreciate the Taylor's and others.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Also of interest is that the players in the vote had a link to the team voting. Cyclone Taylor viewed as a member of the Ottawa Silver Seven as opposed to the Vancouver Millionaires of the PCHA.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Which makes very little sense given the bulk of Taylor's career was in Vancouver.
Sentinel
Registered User
If there was no Gretzky, I can totally see a similar poll conducted in 1989 naming Lemieux "#1 Player of All Time."
Canadiens1958
Registered User
The Babe Ruth reference is not in the Saskatoon version but surfaces in the December 21,1950 Montreal Gazette version though it is not in any way integral to the story:
The Montreal Gazette - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités
Seems like a copy editor addition.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,650
- 5,048
Nowhere is it said that players had to be based in Canada. In fact, two US-based players (Shore, Schmidt) did receive votes and the Canadian Press (!) text doesn't object to this at all nor introduce any qualifier. Thus it's pretty safe to say that the poll was all-covering and not restricted to Canadian-based players.
But perhaps the majority of the voters were biased against US-based players? That could potentially explain why Morenz topped Shore 27-1, but it couldn't explain why Morenz also topped Taylor 27-3 and Nighbor 27-2.
As for Richard receiving more votes than Taylor, Nighbor and Shore: it really doesn't matter. Morenz got 27 out of 44 votes, what all the others got is fringe votes. 4 vs 3 or 4 vs 2 - out of 44? That's nothing. Recentcy bias can easily account for it in the case of Rocket Richard.
If player X gets 4 votes in Norris voting over the more deserving player Y, does that invalidate a landslide win for player Z with 44 votes? Obviously not.
I can still see no well-substantiated case to dismiss the 1950 poll. The vast majority of sportswriters who saw Morenz and his contemporaries on the ice voted him as the best. And here we are, almost 70 years later, looking at the scoring stats to dismiss their vote.
But perhaps the majority of the voters were biased against US-based players? That could potentially explain why Morenz topped Shore 27-1, but it couldn't explain why Morenz also topped Taylor 27-3 and Nighbor 27-2.
As for Richard receiving more votes than Taylor, Nighbor and Shore: it really doesn't matter. Morenz got 27 out of 44 votes, what all the others got is fringe votes. 4 vs 3 or 4 vs 2 - out of 44? That's nothing. Recentcy bias can easily account for it in the case of Rocket Richard.
If player X gets 4 votes in Norris voting over the more deserving player Y, does that invalidate a landslide win for player Z with 44 votes? Obviously not.
I can still see no well-substantiated case to dismiss the 1950 poll. The vast majority of sportswriters who saw Morenz and his contemporaries on the ice voted him as the best. And here we are, almost 70 years later, looking at the scoring stats to dismiss their vote.
Sentinel
Registered User
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Not voting yet. I don't feel accomplished in this round yet. And I have an open question out there that's still being hashed out that seems awfully critical to the vote...
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I think this has been mostly covered, but here's how this looks to me. I'm saying, "hey, let's really value what their contemporaries thought", and you guys are saying to me, "look, if you like award voting, then have I got a poll you should check out!"
But this poll is just "A" piece of evidence in the grand scheme of things. It's not "THE" piece of evidence, or even the single most important piece. I'm actually pretty surprised it's held in such high esteem considering:
- It was conducted by "sportscasters and sports editors" - who? - while annual award voting was conducted by people we know for sure watched and covered hockey (or the GMs in early years? someone remind me)
- Voters were only able to name one player, meaning the final results were just ranked by their number of first place votes. While it's clear a more detailed system wouldn't have changed the winner, it would have allowed a lot more depth to the results and very likely wouldn't have looked like such a slam dunk. We can only speculate on who would have taken the bulk of 2nd and 3rd place votes, had those been an option. Binary voting systems where one person gets all the points and everyone else can pound sand, suck. NHL award voting always allowed for multiple players to be named on the ballots, leading to the detailed results we now enjoy the use of.
- NHL award voting was conducted right after the season had ended, after the voters had watched multiple games featuring the players they were voting on. This poll was conducted 10 and 14 years after the careers of Shore and Morenz had ended
- At the time that the poll was conducted, most eligible players were alive, but one very prominent one was dead, and died under tragic, heart-wrenching circumstances. I think that we've seen enough cases where romanticism comes into play for the deceased (in more than just hockey), that we can't rule that out as being a major factor. NHL award voting, of course, was conducted when all players were alive.
"If you guys like polls where 44 sportscasters and sports editors who may - or may not - follow hockey closely, each named one player the best of all-time, 10+ years after their careers were over, with one prominent player deceased, then boy, have I got some great data for you to check out! It's these votes that were conducted every year, by hockey people, immediately following dozens of hockey games, with detailed, multiple-player ballots, and no romanticism at play."
What does the better, more detailed, more first hand data tell us? Well, it's inconclusive. It really doesn't prove Morenz or Shore was better, considering the oddity that one peaked in his 20s and the other in his 30s. But it is the better data. It would be reasonable to conclude they are pretty damn close. This is no slam dunk. Saying Morenz is a must for this round, and Shore has to wait another one (or two) flies in the face of what their actual contemporaries thought of them.
But this poll is just "A" piece of evidence in the grand scheme of things. It's not "THE" piece of evidence, or even the single most important piece. I'm actually pretty surprised it's held in such high esteem considering:
- It was conducted by "sportscasters and sports editors" - who? - while annual award voting was conducted by people we know for sure watched and covered hockey (or the GMs in early years? someone remind me)
- Voters were only able to name one player, meaning the final results were just ranked by their number of first place votes. While it's clear a more detailed system wouldn't have changed the winner, it would have allowed a lot more depth to the results and very likely wouldn't have looked like such a slam dunk. We can only speculate on who would have taken the bulk of 2nd and 3rd place votes, had those been an option. Binary voting systems where one person gets all the points and everyone else can pound sand, suck. NHL award voting always allowed for multiple players to be named on the ballots, leading to the detailed results we now enjoy the use of.
- NHL award voting was conducted right after the season had ended, after the voters had watched multiple games featuring the players they were voting on. This poll was conducted 10 and 14 years after the careers of Shore and Morenz had ended
- At the time that the poll was conducted, most eligible players were alive, but one very prominent one was dead, and died under tragic, heart-wrenching circumstances. I think that we've seen enough cases where romanticism comes into play for the deceased (in more than just hockey), that we can't rule that out as being a major factor. NHL award voting, of course, was conducted when all players were alive.
"If you guys like polls where 44 sportscasters and sports editors who may - or may not - follow hockey closely, each named one player the best of all-time, 10+ years after their careers were over, with one prominent player deceased, then boy, have I got some great data for you to check out! It's these votes that were conducted every year, by hockey people, immediately following dozens of hockey games, with detailed, multiple-player ballots, and no romanticism at play."
What does the better, more detailed, more first hand data tell us? Well, it's inconclusive. It really doesn't prove Morenz or Shore was better, considering the oddity that one peaked in his 20s and the other in his 30s. But it is the better data. It would be reasonable to conclude they are pretty damn close. This is no slam dunk. Saying Morenz is a must for this round, and Shore has to wait another one (or two) flies in the face of what their actual contemporaries thought of them.
VMBM
Hansel?!
I might be too optimistic but I hope that at least Holecek's and Martinec's names will pop up at some point (as candidates).
Basically, I don't disagree with any of that, but USSR did usually beat Czechoslovakia quite easily in 1986-90 at the World Championships. Not Hasek's fault at all, of course, since the Soviets were so much superior to the Czechs in the late 1980s; the glory years of 1970s were long gone (for CSSR).
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Have tracked down the "Babe Ruth" analogy. Goes back to at least March 14, 1937. Explained in Le Petit Journal, December 24, 1950:
Le Petit Journal - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités
Attributed to A.Jokisch who was trying to draw an analogy between Babe Ruth and the building of Yankee Stadium to Howie Morenz making the Montreal Forum financially viable.
Seems a few were running in the wrong direction with this.
Also find the perpetuation of bias by posters humourous.
CP awards were limited to Canadian based athletes - citizens playing in the national or International arena. NO ANTI AMERICAN bias at all.
Adding to seventieslord contribution. Seems the voting was limited to a select 44 in the CP reach. Quebec opinions seem to have been by-passed. Sparse press coverage in Québec, but a gem, above, was found.
Normal end of season hockey voting seems to have been ignored. Specifically the counting aspect which entered hockey well into the first half of the 20th century.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 15,331
- 4,584
I'm late to the party here but this is a ridiculous statement. Jagr = the Pens in the late 90s.
ChiTownPhilly
Not Too Soft
This is sort of a "meta-point." It's really not apropos to any particular issue here in this vote... but I hope it will provide some context to what we're discussing when we talk about "tiers" and "gaps" and other references to strata.
"Top 100 Hockey Players." That's our project. From what size pool are we selecting this number? Oh, roughly 6000 (to use a 'quick-and-dirty' number) people who've played upper-division hockey in this sport's history. Now, let's introduce an artificial concept: Hockey Player 6001. The hypothetical player who's so 'Tops,' so "over," that everyone knows he's the best. 100.00% 'Tops.'
Now, we don't have that guy... but we have Gretzky- and he's not 100%, but he's the closest thing to it here on earth. Hockey player 6000. He ain't 100% 'Tops,' he's (6000/6001) 99.98% 'Tops.' Next is Howe. He's (5999/6001) "merely" 99.97% 'Tops.'
Now, what does this mean for Vote 2? Our next nominee will be (5991/6001) 99.83% 'Tops.' Our first person left off here (a.k.a.: Bubble Boy) will be (5986/6001) 99.75% 'Tops.' Not really so much space, when you look at it in a properly broad context.
So, if we're inclined to stamp our feet and pull our hair and rend our raiments over someone being left off this Vote rather than being first on this ballot, we're arguing over eight one-hundredths of one percent.
"Top 100 Hockey Players." That's our project. From what size pool are we selecting this number? Oh, roughly 6000 (to use a 'quick-and-dirty' number) people who've played upper-division hockey in this sport's history. Now, let's introduce an artificial concept: Hockey Player 6001. The hypothetical player who's so 'Tops,' so "over," that everyone knows he's the best. 100.00% 'Tops.'
Now, we don't have that guy... but we have Gretzky- and he's not 100%, but he's the closest thing to it here on earth. Hockey player 6000. He ain't 100% 'Tops,' he's (6000/6001) 99.98% 'Tops.' Next is Howe. He's (5999/6001) "merely" 99.97% 'Tops.'
Now, what does this mean for Vote 2? Our next nominee will be (5991/6001) 99.83% 'Tops.' Our first person left off here (a.k.a.: Bubble Boy) will be (5986/6001) 99.75% 'Tops.' Not really so much space, when you look at it in a properly broad context.
So, if we're inclined to stamp our feet and pull our hair and rend our raiments over someone being left off this Vote rather than being first on this ballot, we're arguing over eight one-hundredths of one percent.
Last edited:
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
So, does this render the whole "Eddie Shore wasn't really that good because of this 1950 poll" argument false?
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
I think he was referring to the playoffs. And while your statement is certainly true, they didn't have much playoff success in the late 90's, especially without Mario.
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
I know the question was asked, but not sure if answered.
Are we ranking all 12 names in order this vote, or just the top 10?
Are we ranking all 12 names in order this vote, or just the top 10?
ChiTownPhilly
Not Too Soft
Pick your top-10 from those available- that's the instruction we were given.
Edit: here it is, straight from The Chief!
Last edited:
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Looking at the 1937 Petit Journal cover creates an impression that the 1950 CP poll may have been a popularity poll.
Trust the reading audience to make the appropriate interpretation.
overpass
Registered User
I think it’s open to interpretation. As far as I know, the Canadian Press article about the poll does not indicate it was in any way limited to Canadian-based players or teams. In 1950, American-based teams had only been prominent for the last 25 years or so, so one would expect most of the players and teams named to be Canadian based. But only a handful of the players and teams receiving votes played in the United States — I think just 4 votes for the teams (2 for a Bruins team and 2 for a Ranger team) and 2 for players (Shore and Schmidt) out of over 40 ballots.
The Canadian Press also voted for the Canadian athlete of the year since 1932. The list of winners is here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Conacher_Awar
Several NHL players playing in Canada won before 1960 (Syl Apps, Buddy O’Connor, Maurice Richard 3 times, Jean Beliveau). It was not until 1963 that a Canadian playing for an American professional team won (Gordie Howe). Several others quickly followed later in the decade (Bobby Hull, Bobby Orr, Ferguson Jenkins). Maybe there was a stronger pro-Canadian slant in those earlier decades.
Edit to above: I just realized that Buddy O’Connor was a Ranger in 1948 when he won the award. My bad. Still, from 1933 to 1962, the Hart went to players on American teams 19 times, and only O’Connor won the CP athlete award. 11 Hart trophies and 5 CP athlete awards went to players on Canadian teams.
Also, the fact that Maurice Richard won the CP athlete of the year 3 times and only won the Hart trophy once points to different standards being used for these awards and by these groups of voters. Possibly similar factors were at play for Morenz.
Seriously, how was Gordie Howe never CP athlete of the year in the 1950s?
Last edited:
- Status
