Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time
- Thread starter quoipourquoi
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
"Best goalie in the world" title for a few years is the main one.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,593
- 16,253
Ted Kennedy's seven-year VsX intangibles of 113.7 > Mark Messier's 112.8
Johnny Engine
Moderator
- Jul 29, 2009
- 5,082
- 2,534
Our quantum intangibles list can’t possibly work, we’d just end up changing the outcome by tanging it.
As an outsider, I’d be really interested in seeing a top 100 NHLers of all-time list, but that would probably just be more or less a copy of the top 100 players of all-time list, minus the Soviets and Czechoslovakians. And I’m not sure how much not including international play would affect the rankings.
How about a HHOF re-do, starting with 1945, and inducting 3-4 new players/builders each year until present?
Professor What
Registered User
@Strong Hearts I'd be against the top 100 NHLers project. I think North American hockey culture is already far too centered on itself. It seems that most lists that are produced (such as in the Hockey News) are only based on NHL play, and that leads to ignoring huge swaths of the sport's history, and as a result, those are the swaths that we (hockey fans as a collective) know the least about. I joined this place about a year and a half ago, and while I'm still not where I'd like to be on those areas, before that, a lot of the greatest players in the sport's history were mere names to me, if even that, and I chalk that up to a bias toward NHL history, both because of the fact that its close to home, and because it wields so much power. I don't really see how the NHLers project would be particularly educational, and I personally feel that these projects should be educational. I hope that didn't come across as dismissive. I simply don't see what we as a community of history lovers would gain from it.
The HHOF idea, on the other hand, while I'd prefer a different format, is one that I'd personally favor. The primary reason for that is strongly tied to my reasoning for opposing the NHLers project: the real life HOF has generally been too NHL centered. There are quite a few players that should be in without question who aren't. We've seen some movement to fix that, but it's been way too late, and it's way too slow. Also, I feel that there have been several questionable inductions, and sometimes, it seems that it spurs from the committee feeling like they have to fill all available slots (while ignoring many of the players I've just alluded to in favor of NHLers). If the NHL class only has 1 or 2 truly worthy inductees, that's all that should be inducted, and some of the previously ignored players can be inducted. Or, if it got to a point where you didn't have the full four worthy inductees at all, don't induct that many.
One big problem that some have pointed out with the idea is its feasibility. It would be a longer term potential commitment if we wanted it to stay relevant. You can do it once and leave it there, but then it becomes nothing more than a relic. To have it remain relevant means you'd have to keep a decent number of participants who were willing to stick with it and keep it up to date. Obviously, there would be some turnover, but for a project of that sort, some measure of continuity would be nice. People would come and go, regardless, but what happens if there's a drop off in interest? That said, I'd still like to see a way to handle that hashed out, as it's one of the projects I do feel should be taken on.
The HHOF idea, on the other hand, while I'd prefer a different format, is one that I'd personally favor. The primary reason for that is strongly tied to my reasoning for opposing the NHLers project: the real life HOF has generally been too NHL centered. There are quite a few players that should be in without question who aren't. We've seen some movement to fix that, but it's been way too late, and it's way too slow. Also, I feel that there have been several questionable inductions, and sometimes, it seems that it spurs from the committee feeling like they have to fill all available slots (while ignoring many of the players I've just alluded to in favor of NHLers). If the NHL class only has 1 or 2 truly worthy inductees, that's all that should be inducted, and some of the previously ignored players can be inducted. Or, if it got to a point where you didn't have the full four worthy inductees at all, don't induct that many.
One big problem that some have pointed out with the idea is its feasibility. It would be a longer term potential commitment if we wanted it to stay relevant. You can do it once and leave it there, but then it becomes nothing more than a relic. To have it remain relevant means you'd have to keep a decent number of participants who were willing to stick with it and keep it up to date. Obviously, there would be some turnover, but for a project of that sort, some measure of continuity would be nice. People would come and go, regardless, but what happens if there's a drop off in interest? That said, I'd still like to see a way to handle that hashed out, as it's one of the projects I do feel should be taken on.
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
Just remove all the players that didn't play in the NHL from top 100 list tada
That's been suggested before, but would make for a ludicrously long project as the normal cycle is a week for each round
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 49,179
- 30,185
Also we should do baseball rules. Have a list each year and you need to meet a threshhold (75%?) to make it, and if you don't, you're not in.
I 100% think that the next project should be pre-consolidation players. However, if we decide to go with the Hall-of-Fame redo, this is the way to do it.
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 49,179
- 30,185
I think I prefer women's players to pre-consolidation (because I think the knowledge gap is bigger), but those are my top two.
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
Professor What
Registered User
Batis
Registered User
Agreed. While I personally feel like I can contribute more to the Woman's hockey project I think that it is time for the pre-consolidation project.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
Overrated has some pretty strong opinions that everything pre 1970 is glorified beer league and that everything pre 1990 is weak hockey.
Professor What
Registered User
True, but it still felt randomly vague. I for one wasn't sure if it referred to the pre-consolidation project, the women's project, or both. Or something completely different, given the lack of context.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Sign me up for the pre consolidation project as well.
The women deserve one without a doubt but the pool of legit voters would be extremely small. I wouldn't feel comfortable commenting on them outside of casual observations from the past decade of US hockey.
The women deserve one without a doubt but the pool of legit voters would be extremely small. I wouldn't feel comfortable commenting on them outside of casual observations from the past decade of US hockey.
Professor What
Registered User
I feel the same way about the women's project. I'd like to throw out an idea. While I think a project should be delayed for now, why don't we have some sort of "official" discussion to A) gauge potential future interest and B) allow those who would be interested but don't feel prepared to improve their preparation level?
The issue with doing a women's hockey top 50 is the same issue people would run into doing a men's hockey top 50 in 1922. I'm aware of some of the women's game, but if someone submitted a list that was simply the 23 players on the USA and Canada national teams this past Olympics that were 27 and older, plus the two starting goalies - knowing nothing else and not even filling out another 25 names, I'd bet that they'd still be correct on 20% of the list, if not more. There's just not enough depth and meaningful games to begin to create separation. Marie-Philip Poulin has 285 games played between College, Pro and National Team appearances over 13-14 years. That's certainly a large enough sample to know how good she is, but both Cale Makar and Elias Pettersson have played more games (in absolute numbers) than she has.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
