Voting Record - VanIslander, Mike Farkas, tony d

[Nick Hansen]

Lidstrom at ninth seems heavily excessive. He was great at what he did and perhaps the most error-free player of all time but I'd rather gift a player of a more game-changing type myself.

 

[bobholly39]

This type of tactic wasn't part of his rationale for any other player, except Ovechkin. I think it's not coincidental.

I don't use the final as a baseline because the entire group is tainted by far too much Canadian bias, too much Penguins bias, far too much anti-recency bias. I just don't think it's a good starting point because I don't think the survey group is representative. That is nobody's fault BTW, because this was on a volunteer basis.

Ranking Ovechkin outside the top 20 is a disgrace frankly. If people saw this 10, 20, 30 years from now they would wonder what on Earth you guys were thinking.

Claiming a Penguin bias is ridiculous and shows your own bias.

Recency bias? Peak vs longevity? Offense vs defense, playoffs vs not? Maybe. Even canadian and canadiens bias is a possibility. But Penguins? Thats such a small part of overall history seems weird to imply it in this project

 

[Midnight Judges]

Claiming a Penguin bias is ridiculous and shows your own bias.

Pens fans were over-represented in the sample, but if you want to say Canada was even more over-represented or far more over-represented, I would concur.

 

[bobholly39]

Pens fans were over-represented in the sample, but if you want to say Canada was even more over-represented or far more over-represented, I would concur.

There were probably a 5 to 1 ratio of Habs fans to Pens fans at least. Pretty sure theres only 2 pens fans here

Again - just reaffirming your own bias.

 

[wetcoast]

This type of tactic wasn't part of his rationale for any other player, except Ovechkin. I think it's not coincidental.

I don't use the final as a baseline because the entire group is tainted by far too much Canadian bias, too much Penguins bias, far too much anti-recency bias. I just don't think it's a good starting point because I don't think the survey group is representative. That is nobody's fault BTW, because this was on a volunteer basis.

Ranking Ovechkin outside the top 20 is a disgrace frankly. If people saw this 10, 20, 30 years from now they would wonder what on Earth you guys were thinking.

Maybe I missed it but did you ever getting around to posting a rough top 100 list yourself?

Every list is going have several guys that everyone else thinks are out 10, 20 30 even more spots, that's the nature of a project like this.

 

[Johnny Engine]

I don’t think fandom has the effect on people’s votes that you’re suggesting.

In most cases, a deep familiarity with a single team enhances and intensifies memories good and bad. See TDDM’s appreciation for Messier as a rampaging beast and a constant threat to the Devils, or Vadim’s dim view of all things Markus Naslund. Both are informed by their perspective as fans, but neither are an unacceptable use of homer goggles.

A Penguins fan might be as likely to remember Hasek as a menace to their 90s snipers as they are to pump Mario’s tires, or to remember how difficult Lidstrom was to crack in back to back finals. You don’t know what they took away until you talk to them.

 

[sr edler]

A Penguins fan might be as likely to remember Hasek as a menace to their 90s snipers as they are to pump Mario’s tires, or to remember how difficult Lidstrom was to crack in back to back finals. You don’t know what they took away until you talk to them.

The most vocal Jagr basher we had during the project was/is a Pens fan.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Pens fans were over-represented in the sample, but if you want to say Canada was even more over-represented or far more over-represented, I would concur.

There was no direction to give token spots or to further some kind of "hockey diversity" cause. This project simply recognized the best players of all time. In that respect, Canada was correctly represented. Some voters "tastes" may have leaned towards one era or another, but those picks were usually more apparent around the mid point of voting.

 

[Midnight Judges]

There was no direction to give token spots or to further some kind of "hockey diversity" cause. This project simply recognized the best players of all time. In that respect, Canada was correctly represented. Some voters "tastes" may have leaned towards one era or another, but those picks were usually more apparent around the mid point of voting.

It is pretty obvious that I am not asking for any kind of token diversity or affirmative action.

I am saying that the collective biases -based on the opinions stated - were not sufficiently acknowledged or addressed and it directly lead the group to a poor outcome. It would be no different than a US Presidential poll conducted with a survey sample of 90% Democrats and 10% Republicans.

BTW you seem confused about what the project recognized. It wasn't a "best" list. Nor was it a "greatest" list. It was both, or neither, depending on who you ask. The guy who started it couldn't even answer the question.

 

[Michael Farkas]

When it stops being meandering squabbling about one or two players and/or trying to lawyer and play word games, we should re-engage then. When we get something useful and tangible instead of the current kvetching, that's when we can consider tuning in again...right now, it's idle, recycled nonsense...

 

[DannyGallivan]

BTW you seem confused about what the project recognized. It wasn't a "best" list. Nor was it a "greatest" list. It was both, or neither, depending on who you ask. The guy who started it couldn't even answer the question.

You actually make an intriguing point. In fact, it was a "best of/greatest" list (synonyms). Where the ambiguity arose was in the definition. Some weighed more on longevity. Some (like me) preferred to define greatness at ones peak and/or prime. Then there was the balancing act of comparing eras, and using conjecture to define those who never played in the NHL.

If it wasn't for all that ambiguity, you would have essentially 30 or so minor tweaks to one basic list (yawn..., although that would have been considered a "beauty contest" by MXD, lol). The ambiguity made it interesting.

Yes, even though everybody is entitled to their own opinions, there are some basic "wrong" answers... hence, we had a screening process. Still, there were many different takes to the challenge that were presented.

 

[Midnight Judges]

When it stops being meandering squabbling about one or two players and/or trying to lawyer and play word games, we should re-engage then. When we get something useful and tangible instead of the current kvetching, that's when we can consider tuning in again...right now, it's idle, recycled nonsense...

It makes your opinions/evaluations look bad and you'd like to sweep it under the rug.

 

[Midnight Judges]

You actually make an intriguing point. In fact, it was a "best of/greatest" list (synonyms). Where the ambiguity arose was in the definition. Some weighed more on longevity. Some (like me) preferred to define greatness at ones peak and/or prime. Then there was the balancing act of comparing eras, and using conjecture to define those who never played in the NHL.

If it wasn't for all that ambiguity, you would have essentially 30 or so minor tweaks to one basic list (yawn..., although that would have been considered a "beauty contest" by MXD, lol). The ambiguity made it interesting.

Yes, even though everybody is entitled to their own opinions, there are some basic "wrong" answers... hence, we had a screening process. Still, there were many different takes to the challenge that was presented.

For me personally, the distinction between best and greatest could possibly result in substantial changes. I am still trying to figure that out.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It makes your opinions/evaluations look bad and you'd like to sweep it under the rug.

Negative, captain. I'm on record as saying that my list isn't perfect and I rely on the discussion with the group to make it better. As someone who felt that he was a positive-impact participant (to whatever degree) in a project that has full transparency, it's odd that someone who does nothing (including providing a list or any relevant data points) but try to whiteknight (and lawyer for) a player or two is being charged with trying to obfuscate (or otherwise "sweep under the rug") his position...

In no uncertain terms, I don't value goal-scoring wingers nearly as much as I value more complete players - especially defensemen. Fortunately for me, that's a fairly consistent viewpoint. Unfortunately for you, that includes your client.

It's obvious how top-heavy my list is with defensemen, especially complete ones...Orr, Harvey, Lidstrom, Kelly, Fetisov, Potvin...all top 13...Bourque gets more well-rounded later in his career, though I did over shoot him. I tried to correct that with my ballots later.

Maurice Richard, similar to Ovechkin, incomplete player...historically good finisher. Conventionally, he's a sure bet to be higher than 20. I have him at 20, one of the lowest in the project. Maybe I have an anti-Canadien bias now? Notice how all the Canadians (we have too many, right?) and all the Canadiens fans (we have too many, right?) aren't chasing this cause around...? Yet, here you are. And any thread that mentions Ovechkin (and Crosby)...it's a bad look.

My wingers:
1. Howe (complete player) - #3
2. Hull (more well-rounded Ovechkin, best goal scorer in history among wingers, better puck carrier...career is over, able to be digested) - #6
3. Jaromir Jagr (offensively complete, had less help last half of his career) - #15 [came down slightly on my ballots later]
4. Maurice Richard (Similarly incomplete player as Ovechkin, historically good playoff player, career is over, able to be digested) - #20
5. Alexander Ovechkin (Similarly incomplete player as Richard, historically strong finisher...career not over) - #27

5 wingers in the top 30. 4 goalies in the top 30. 11 defensemen in the top 30 (top 25 in fact).

Ovechkin is not individually penalized. Very happy with the evaluation. Turn down the crazy.

 

[VanIslander]

In no uncertain terms, I don't value goal-scoring wingers nearly as much as I value more complete players ... Fortunately for me, that's a fairly consistent viewpoint.

Is it though?

You have Ted Lindsay 54th. We inducted him 38th.

You appear to have clearly undervalued that all-time great complete player.

Ted Kennedy you have 80th when we inducted him 58th.

And Doug Bentley was a great passer and renowned for his checking, hustle and speed, yet doesn't crack your top 120.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well, if I'm on the hook for perfection, this is gonna take an ugly turn I guess...

Luckily with these, no dent is made...

Ted Lindsay was not a complete player when you go back and watch the film. He was physical, but that's not an element of completeness unless used appropriately. Lindsay wasn't the smartest player I've seen, he played the game like he was being chased by bees...it wasn't overly appealing to me. Forced into the league as a teenager in the lowest time in NHL history, negative effect on development.

Ted Kennedy - two parts. Lacked some offense to his game, obviously...also, I don't have a lot of respect for the quality of game played from about 1942 to 1950...where the group ended up ranking him ultimately, has no real bearing on my list that was made months before. It's a weird set of dots to connect to try to prove my personal inconsistency.

Doug Bentley mopped up a lot of the war time...difficult to verify exactly what his game was all about and how much better he actually was than his peers, the safer play was to leave him off for a player I was more familiar with verifiable greatness...

 

[tony d]

This was such a fun thing to take part in. I'm looking forward to the next 1.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I don’t think fandom has the effect on people’s votes that you’re suggesting.

I think there is evidence that this is not the case:

...if Crosby was as shot crazed as 8 he'd be every bit the all time goal scorer 8 is. So once again, you are made to look like a fool...

I'm sure countless players could score at a similar rate [to Ovechkin] if they focused solely on goal scoring and shot the puck at such a high rate.

Players like Ovechkin, as the focal point of a team offensively, drag a team down more than elevate them

How many goals would a "only shoot" Gretzky or Lemieux have scored in a season?

But in reality, Ovechkin is definitely a shoot only player.

Hull averaged .57 GPG and .53 APG in the NHL
Hull averaged .74 GPG and .82 APG in the WHA
Ovechkin currently is averaging .61 GPG and .51 APG in his career.
To me, that is a nice sized difference between Ovechkin & Hull.

Ovechkin has an all-time shot and he hits d-men after they have already moved the puck...I don't want to downplay an all-time great, but let's get down to brass tacks - that's "all" he brings.

These quotes would be kind of odd for an individual to make as an outlier, but they were being defended and liked by multiple participants. I think the group could have done a better job of rejecting these kinds of inaccuracies.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Is it though?

You have Ted Lindsay 54th. We inducted him 38th.

You appear to have clearly undervalued that all-time great complete player.

Ted Kennedy you have 80th when we inducted him 58th.

And Doug Bentley was a great passer and renowned for his checking, hustle and speed, yet doesn't crack your top 120.

You ranked Ted Kennedy 79th though. You also ranked Henri Richard 107th while the group ranked him 49th.

Doug Bentley played on the worst defensive team in NHL history 1947-50 Hawks. Top 3 in team scoring including leading the NHL in 1947-48 but never made the playoffs.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Re best or greatest. Project title is Top 100 Hockey players. Open ended.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I am saying that the collective biases -based on the opinions stated - were not sufficiently acknowledged or addressed

The fact that the organizers bother to not only release these lists, but to do so in individual threads so they can be pored over and criticized as you are currently doing, is the mechanism for identifying bias.

People who come along 10 years from now will see your comments* here and have a fair opportunity to make mental adjustments to the list as they see fit. I don't know any other ranking project that goes to these kinds of lengths to analyze exactly where the final product came from. What more are you really asking from a volunteer project in which you didn't participate?

* provided HFBoards administration doesn't decide to wipe out huge chunks of the archive, obliterating this work forever for the sake of minor site efficiencies.

 

[DannyGallivan]

In no uncertain terms, I don't value goal-scoring wingers nearly as much as I value more complete players - especially defensemen. Fortunately for me, that's a fairly consistent viewpoint. Unfortunately for you, that includes your client.

The most complete player in history was Bobby Orr... and he was a defenseman. You had Gretzky, who cannot in any stretch of the imagination be called a "complete" player, ahead of him for top spot.

So, either you penalized Orr for a relatively short career, were overwhelmed by Gretzky's offensive numbers/records or both. But make no mistake, if complete is your number one criteria, AND you favour defensemen, it's a mystery how Orr wasn't your number 1.

 

[DannyGallivan]

The fact that the organizers bother to not only release these lists, but to do so in individual threads so they can be pored over and criticized as you are currently doing, is the mechanism for identifying bias.

People who come along 10 years from now will see your comments* here and have a fair opportunity to make mental adjustments to the list as they see fit. I don't know any other ranking project that goes to these kinds of lengths to analyze exactly where the final product came from. What more are you really asking from a volunteer project in which you didn't participate?

* provided HFBoards administration doesn't decide to wipe out huge chunks of the archive, obliterating this work forever for the sake of minor site efficiencies.

Best ranking mechanism I've ever come across. This includes all those cool THN specialty issues.

 

[Michael Farkas]

The most complete player in history was Bobby Orr... and he was a defenseman. You had Gretzky, who cannot in any stretch of the imagination be called a "complete" player, ahead of him for top spot.

So, either you penalized Orr for a relatively short career, were overwhelmed by Gretzky's offensive numbers/records or both. But make no mistake, if complete is your number one criteria, AND you favour defensemen, it's a mystery how Orr wasn't your number 1.

Both.

See, this is where talent evaluation comes into play. You have to have a line, right?

It's a very strange argument to hear actually...equivalent would be saying..."if you value completeness so much...how do you not have Patrice Bergeron over Wayne Gretzky?" It's like, bud, there's a line...

Same thing in scouting and coaching...you have to weigh the values out. Sometimes you have a player who is just too good to keep on the bench and you deal with the warts. It's a sliding scale.

Gretzky played a similar game to Mike Ribeiro for this illustration. Ribeiro wasn't so good that you couldn't keep on the bench in favor of, say, Jere Lehtinen...but in the same vein, Gretzky was great enough that he could play over Jere Lehtinen...

So when you're going through it, you have to be cognizant that my list isn't going to go: Beliveau, Howe, Lidstrom, whatever, etc. that doesn't make sense.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Both.

See, this is where talent evaluation comes into play. You have to have a line, right?

It's a very strange argument to hear actually...equivalent would be saying..."if you value completeness so much...how do you not have Patrice Bergeron over Wayne Gretzky?" It's like, bud, there's a line...

Same thing in scouting and coaching...you have to weigh the values out. Sometimes you have a player who is just too good to keep on the bench and you deal with the warts. It's a sliding scale.

Gretzky played a similar game to Mike Ribeiro for this illustration. Ribeiro wasn't so good that you couldn't keep on the bench in favor of, say, Jere Lehtinen...but in the same vein, Gretzky was great enough that he could play over Jere Lehtinen...

So when you're going through it, you have to be cognizant that my list isn't going to go: Beliveau, Howe, Lidstrom, whatever, etc. that doesn't make sense.

I know you're exaggerating to make a point, but come on. Bergeron isn't Bobby Orr. In fact, Gretzky wasn't Bobby Orr. Even some voters who don't necessarily put "completeness" ahead of absolutely everything else put Orr ahead of Gretzky (although nowhere near enough of them, imo). In other words, not an eyebrow would be raised by anybody putting Orr ahead of Gretzky. Many may disagree, but nobody would find it strange.

I just found it a little odd that someone who favours defensemen and completeness wouldn't take that opportunity to recognize Orr as the "Top" player of all time.