My point was - if the Top 100 list was systematically underrating European players, relative to the hockey mainstream consensus
Despite I already answered to this point in the post you quoted, you keep repeating the same thing time after time.
There is no such thing as "mainstream consensus"
List of top-100 all-time players was created on HF only.
if the Top 100 list was systematically underrating European players, relative to the hockey mainstream consensus, that would be clear evidence of bias. That's how the argument should be made
No. Thats not the only way to make arguments.
In your example, it's hard to say if there's bias or not. The only conceivable way any defenseman could be ranked ahead of Orr is if a heavy value is placed on consistency and longevity. If Lidstrom was ranked higher, surely Bourque would be ahead as well. If someone ranked Lidstrom and Bourque ahead of Orr, I would disagree about how they're weighing things (they'd be over-valuing longevity and undervaluing peak - in my opinion), but I wouldn't necessarily say that they're biased. If someone ranked Lidstrom and Fetisov over Orr, but not Bourque - that could be indicative of bias (because Bourque, who had even more longevity than Lidstrom, wasn't there, and Fetisov, who fell off a cliff in his 30s, somehow ranked ahead of Orr).
So, you start with "hard to say if there is bias" and finished with "that could be indicative of bias".
See?
And yes, sure, this is biased list.
What I liked the most is that you started with "you need another list" as the only argument could be made, but finished with absolutely another argumentation (which I, actually, really like) - you tried to understand the logic, that can be used for making such a list and, using Bourque as a benchmark, showed, that there is no logical arguments, that could justify this list making. Very good, actually. Pretty good example, as anyone should use logic to estimate lists. You just need another step - if this list is not "peak over longevity" or "longevity over peak" or we cant see anything else, that can be used as criteria for making such a list, but we have 2 Europians over Canadian - there is only one logical explanation of this phenomenon - the list is biased against NA players.
Which is exaclty what I wrote and how I estimated things.
I'll repeat what a few other people have said. It's tough to build a Top X list. It's not limited to hockey. Try making a ranked list of your top 20 albums, or books, or movies. You might not even realize how tough it can be until you try it.
So, youre another one who doesnt even bother to read what I wrote, right?
I like making lists.
I wrote before your post, that I, actually, made four lists on this forum. Did you care?
On one of the previous HF I participated in literature discussion with my list of the best books of XX century. And, actually, I like to make my own "favorite top-x" lists of everything and participate in different discussion on that topic.
But you didnt even ask about it before you accused me in "not realizing", despite I, myself, in this thread wrote that this is very hard work (!). Which is typical, actually - why even bother to read that your opponent write?
Perfect example how people here "will to learn".
