Voting Record - VanIslander, Mike Farkas, tony d

[Michael Farkas]

I'm exaggerating for illustration purposes. You're making my point though, Bergeron isn't Orr, I know...there's a line.

I was on record - I believe in this project - as saying 1970 Bobby Orr is the best player I've ever seen play hockey in my entire life. Even 10 years of that and he goes over Gretzky for me. Unfortunately, even by 1972 Orr wasn't the same player. You gotta play the games to be the best...

 

[Dr John Carlson]

In most cases, a deep familiarity with a single team enhances and intensifies memories good and bad.

For sure. I've seen enough Capitals/Penguins to rank Crosby higher than most, and ahead of Ovechkin... I've seen enough Capitals/Rangers to rank Lundqvist higher than most, guy did it all for that team... I hope Midnight Judges doesn't hate me because I ranked 87 higher than 8 despite Ovechkin being my favourite athlete of my life.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Aww, he does, Doc. But it's ok, you're in good company.

 

[Midnight Judges]

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.

Fair enough but the list is already done.

The toothepaste is out of the tube.

 

[bobholly39]

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















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.

It wont let me embed all those quotes in one post

BUT - this was a project that had 21 rounds and lasted 6 months or so. And you're isolating some of the utterly most ridiculous posts in the project. Thats hardly representative of anything. "They were being defended and liked by multiple posters". No they werent.

Also - from what i recall - most of those posts were made in the summary thread long after the vote for Ovechkin had happened.

Finally - thats why the 30 voter sample size was great. Even if 1 or 2 voters are ridiculously biased for or against a few players - 1/2 out of 30 has very little effect on the vote.

 

[seventieslord]

It's nice to see VanIslander (who has an often inexplicable skepticism toward Crosby and a strong, noticeable favoritism towards Ovechkin, to the point where you can see him literally adjusting his "values" in order to justify himself in his posts), vote with his head and not his heart, putting Crosby 10th and Ovechkin 20th.

He seemed pretty fair to Crosby in round 2, then in round 3 the gap between the two had suddenly shrunk to one spot, then in round 4 Ovechkin ranked lower than he even had the previous round, when five superior candidates were available! That has to be rare, no?

 

[DannyGallivan]

It's nice to see VanIslander (who has an often inexplicable skepticism toward Crosby and a strong, noticeable favoritism towards Ovechkin, to the point where you can see him literally adjusting his "values" in order to justify himself in his posts), vote with his head and not his heart, putting Crosby 10th and Ovechkin 20th.

He seemed pretty fair to Crosby in round 2, then in round 3 the gap between the two had suddenly shrunk to one spot, then in round 4 Ovechkin ranked lower than he even had the previous round, when five superior candidates were available! That has to be rare, no?

Well, I'll let him speak for himself but that's the power of all the compelling debates/arguments/points that came up in every round.

 

[seventieslord]

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.

Haha. Well-put. I get the same impression about him.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Haha. Well-put. I get the same impression about him.

Actually, Lindsay was the one doing the chasing. Good line, though.

 

[K Fleur]

“The only player I post about didn’t get ranked high enough so you must be out to get him!”

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I was accurately describing the discussions. I do not know how that could be possibly be regarded as flaming.

Ovechkin was being described as a "shoot-only" player by project participants. Multiple other participants were liking this description and defending it.

I just don't see how that descriptor could possibly fly if the group desired accuracy.

How about "shoot-first"? Is that better?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm exaggerating for illustration purposes. You're making my point though, Bergeron isn't Orr, I know...there's a line.

I was on record - I believe in this project - as saying 1970 Bobby Orr is the best player I've ever seen play hockey in my entire life. Even 10 years of that and he goes over Gretzky for me. Unfortunately, even by 1972 Orr wasn't the same player. You gotta play the games to be the best...

The beauty of the non-defined criteria.

This is exactly why Orr was number 1 for me. Best player I've ever seen.

Yet you don't rank him number 1 and have valid reasons (and supporters) to back it.

 

[bobholly39]

The beauty of the non-defined criteria.

This is exactly why Orr was number 1 for me. Best player I've ever seen.

Yet you don't rank him number 1 and have valid reasons (and supporters) to back it.

I know ive said this multiple times but i disagree.

To me i think somewhat clarifying/defining a bit better if we're doing "best" vs "greatest" would have been helpful. I think the fact that some posters (yourself being one i believe) going more for "best" than "greatest" whereas someone like me might do the opposite leaves me feeling were doing apples and oranges comparisons. I know id have voted very differently if this had been more defined.

To me all "greatest" means - in an overly simplified sense - is that enough longevity can overtake a better player. Ie - you might believe Orr is the 'best' ever but decide Gretzky has so many more seasons at a high level that its enough to overtake him. Whereas if you really only go for 'best' you probably wont do so.

Now within that context - you can decide for yourself how much to value peak vs longevity of course. Whether Gretzky has enough to overtake Orr or not for example.

But i think not explicitly stating this measure of "greatness" instead of best was a mistake.

 

[Hobnobs]

Wheres Ville Peltonen?

 

[Canadiens1958]

I know ive said this multiple times but i disagree.

To me i think somewhat clarifying/defining a bit better if we're doing "best" vs "greatest" would have been helpful. I think the fact that some posters (yourself being one i believe) going more for "best" than "greatest" whereas someone like me might do the opposite leaves me feeling were doing apples and oranges comparisons. I know id have voted very differently if this had been more defined.

To me all "greatest" means - in an overly simplified sense - is that enough longevity can overtake a better player. Ie - you might believe Orr is the 'best' ever but decide Gretzky has so many more seasons at a high level that its enough to overtake him. Whereas if you really only go for 'best' you probably wont do so.

Now within that context - you can decide for yourself how much to value peak vs longevity of course. Whether Gretzky has enough to overtake Orr or not for example.

But i think not explicitly stating this measure of "greatness" instead of best was a mistake.

Brevity is best. Top - short three letter word, says it all. Best, greatest, longevity are meaningless without contribution to team success. Top players simply put their team(s) over the top.

 

[AmericanDream]

@Mike Farkas

if you answered this prior than please forgive - what do you look at/judge more on "peak performance" or "longevity at a high level of production"?? or do you combine them both?

 

[Michael Farkas]

What you do at your best is big for me, what you do against the best is big for me. One thing I probably value more than most (and a lot more than some, based on the discussions): adaptability. Players who could change their game without giving much up, players who could thrive in different situations, different eras, etc. Some call that longevity, and while they're cousins often, there's a noteworthy distinction that ought to be made.

 

[Canadiens1958]

What you do at your best is big for me, what you do against the best is big for me. One thing I probably value more than most (and a lot more than some, based on the discussions): adaptability. Players who could change their game without giving much up, players who could thrive in different situations, different eras, etc. Some call that longevity, and while they're cousins often, there's a noteworthy distinction that ought to be made.

Anyone can play under all circumstances, few can contribute under all circumstances.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I know ive said this multiple times but i disagree.

To me i think somewhat clarifying/defining a bit better if we're doing "best" vs "greatest" would have been helpful. I think the fact that some posters (yourself being one i believe) going more for "best" than "greatest" whereas someone like me might do the opposite leaves me feeling were doing apples and oranges comparisons. I know id have voted very differently if this had been more defined.

To me all "greatest" means - in an overly simplified sense - is that enough longevity can overtake a better player. Ie - you might believe Orr is the 'best' ever but decide Gretzky has so many more seasons at a high level that its enough to overtake him. Whereas if you really only go for 'best' you probably wont do so.

Now within that context - you can decide for yourself how much to value peak vs longevity of course. Whether Gretzky has enough to overtake Orr or not for example.

But i think not explicitly stating this measure of "greatness" instead of best was a mistake.

Sounds like you wanted the list to be determined your way.

 

[bobholly39]

Sounds like you wanted the list to be determined your way.

How? Either/or is fine. I dont have a "my way".

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

How? Either/or is fine. I dont have a "my way".

Everyone has a "my way".

 

[sr edler]

Best, greatest, longevity are meaningless without contribution to team success. Top players simply put their team(s) over the top.

Henri Richard on the Phoenix Coyotes = 11 Cups.

 

[Michael Farkas]

There's guys that can get you there. And then there's guys that can get you over the top. You get to decide which you prefer/is more valuable to you...

 

[sr edler]

That sounds nice and all Mike, but C58's speaking about winning as if he has realized something profound no one else here gets. We all get the point is winning, but we also realize it's a team game and 1 player can't do all the difference himself. Especially not in hockey where the skaters are off the ice for more than half of the game.

It's strange because I remember C58 pumping McDavid's tires like crazy in some thread here on this board (Bure figured in that thread too). Then I just wonder why hasn't McDavid "put his team over the top" the last two seasons? And with "over the top" I really mean just taken his team to the playoffs. Why hasn't it happened?

 

[wetcoast]

Fair enough but the list is already done.

The toothepaste is out of the tube.

Yet your list is nowhere to be found?

Then again by reading your posts it seems very little hockey exists in your world outside of pumping the tires of#8.