Voting Record - VanIslander, Mike Farkas, tony d

[wetcoast]

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.

This view doesn't make any sense though, if it did I'd like to hear who the best player in the NHL was in 06 and 07 the years the Ducks and Canes won the Stanley Cup.

I think many here in this project would be hard pressed that either team had even a top 10 player in the NHL in either of those SC winning years.

 

[seventieslord]

This view doesn't make any sense though, if it did I'd like to hear who the best player in the NHL was in 06 and 07 the years the Ducks and Canes won the Stanley Cup.

I think many here in this project would be hard pressed that either team had even a top 10 player in the NHL in either of those SC winning years.

I get the point you're trying to make, but in 2007 Pronger and niedermeyer were two of the three best defenseman in the NHL, so it stands to reason they were arguably top 10 players doesn't it?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Winning has always been about mastering the circumstances of the day to come out ahead at the end. Opponents and situations cannot be chosen but have to be overcome.

Winners overcome obstacles like not having Top 10 players or artificial criteria.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

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.

For every single list to have Ovechkin ranked the same as me.

 

[BenchBrawl]

This view doesn't make any sense though, if it did I'd like to hear who the best player in the NHL was in 06 and 07 the years the Ducks and Canes won the Stanley Cup.

I think many here in this project would be hard pressed that either team had even a top 10 player in the NHL in either of those SC winning years.

Based on his playoffs numbers, I would rank Pronger #1 best player (most valuable to have on your lineup) in the world in the 3-5 years window after the lockout.

And Brind'Amour was build for the playoffs and was at the peak of his career.It's not clear he wasn't a Top 10 most valuable player to have in your lineup in that short window too.He did finish Top 10 in Hart the year they won after all, and you can give him a boost for being a prototypical playoff player at that point.

How many centers would you pick for a playoff run in 2006 over Brind'Amour? Forsberg? Not Joe Thornton.Brind'Amour is arguably the top center to pick.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

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.

I'd say it's not the most anomalous result in a skein that was characteristic of that Panelist's general run. The following are the top-10 of the players that he was highest on:

PLAYER	MF RANK	LIST #
Lidstrom	9	13
Kelly	10	23
Fetisov	12	25
Potvin	13	17
Chelios	23	41
B. Park	24	47
Pilote	32	54
MacInnis	40	67
Salming	64	84
M. Howe	69	95

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I'd have an easier time defending the proposition that Lidstrom is a top-10 player of all-time than the proposition that Park & Chelios are in the top 2-dozen. Credit for the courage to put Fetisov over Potvin, though...

 

[wetcoast]

I get the point you're trying to make, but in 2007 Pronger and niedermeyer were two of the three best defenseman in the NHL, so it stands to reason they were arguably top 10 players doesn't it?

Sure but a top line of a 36 year old PP extraordinaire Selanne, and 21 year old Getzlaf and Perry were hardly top forwards in the league that year.

My point is that teams win SC's not the best players.

Ovechkin has been by far the best goalscorer post lockout yet has only a single SC, Crosby the best all around player, with Malkin being the 3rd of 4th best player post lockout yet only 3 SC's.

That's he reality of a 30 team league.

Even in the 60's the Black Hawks had the best 2 forwards of the decade, a 3 time Norris winner (who also had finishes of 2,2,2,4,4) and Glenn Hall who was a 1st or 2nd team all star goalie in 7 of 8 seaons with the Hawks to start the 60's yet only a single SC.

Looking too much at winning SC (as opposed to winning the regular season) isn't really the best way to determine the best players in the league.

Sometimes the best players are on the SC champion but often it's not the case and this is even more likely in a larger league.

 

[wetcoast]

Based on his playoffs numbers, I would rank Pronger #1 best player (most valuable to have on your lineup) in the world in the 3-5 years window after the lockout.

Yet Pronger only had Norris finishes of 3,8 , NR but 17th in all star voting,5 and 10th in those 5 years. Clearly he was a force in the playoffs but in the regular season he wasn't the best Dman in the league, Lidstrom was.

Yet between the 2 of them there were only 2 SC wins in the 5 years post lockout and Lidstrom was still a force in the playoffs in most of those years.

And Brind'Amour was build for the playoffs and was at the peak of his career.It's not clear he wasn't a Top 10 most valuable player to have in your lineup in that short window too.He did finish Top 10 in Hart the year they won after all, and you can give him a boost for being a prototypical playoff player at that point.

Sure he had probably his best 2 year stretch in 05-06 and 06-07 nd they win a SC in 06 and fail to make the playoffs the following year.

I'm also pretty sure that if one went back to the 05-06 season that Rod would maybe make some top 10 forward lists around the 10th place but it's also most likely that he is left off most lists.

Don't forget 2 pretty good 2 way centers in Datsyuk and Bergeron outpointed him that year as well.

How many centers would you pick for a playoff run in 2006 over Brind'Amour? Forsberg? Not Joe Thornton.Brind'Amour is arguably the top center to pick.

Thorton won the Hart that year, sure some might want Rod in a playoff run as Jumbo Joe's injury performance in 04-05 was really overblown by the media.

To be fair Rod was 10th in Hart voting that year but the case can be made for centers who finished underneath him being as good overall including an 18 rookie Crosby.

To make my point are any of the Canes Dmen even top 20 or 25 that year in the NHL or even top 150 dman overall in NHL history?

Glen Welsley probably had the best career among the group.

The Canes had a really good top 9 forward group but the 37 year old Recchi (who was 6th in team playoff scoring that year) is most likely the only member of that team making the HHOF and he makes it without his single season with the Canes.

 

[Midnight Judges]

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

Shoot first is fine.

It's the blatant objective falsehoods I have a problem with, and I don't know why project participants were so resistant to saying true things where Ovechkin is concerned.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'd say it's not the most anomalous result in a skein that was characteristic of that Panelist's general run. The following are the top-10 of the players that he was highest on:

PLAYER	MF RANK	LIST #
Lidstrom	9	13
Kelly	10	23
Fetisov	12	25
Potvin	13	17
Chelios	23	41
B. Park	24	47
Pilote	32	54
MacInnis	40	67
Salming	64	84
M. Howe	69	95

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I'd have an easier time defending the proposition that Lidstrom is a top-10 player of all-time than the proposition that Park & Chelios are in the top 2-dozen. Credit for the courage to put Fetisov over Potvin, though...

And both ranked ahead of Eddie Shore.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Can somebody please post Espo's production with and without Bobby Orr? Career wise. Not just Boston when Orr was out injured.

And then, with a straight face claim that Espo didn't get a massive, massive bump from the greatest all around hockey player that ever laced up skates.

 

[VanIslander]

.... please post Espo's production with... just Boston when Orr was out injured.

That is the most relevant. Orr missed a lot of games injured. And Esposito was in his prime during his days in Boston.

How could showing Esposito from age 33 to 38 in New York shed any light?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Can somebody please post Espo's production with and without Bobby Orr? Career wise. Not just Boston when Orr was out injured.

And then, with a straight face claim that Espo didn't get a massive, massive bump from the greatest all around hockey player that ever laced up skates.

What's your point?

Didn't you have Espo ranked higher (24th) than he actually finished (27th)?

 

[ImporterExporter]

That is the most relevant. Orr missed a lot of games injured. And Esposito was in his prime during his days in Boston.

How could showing Esposito from age 33 to 38 in New York shed any light?

What did Espo do in Chicago again?

 

[ImporterExporter]

What's your point?

Didn't you have Espo ranked higher (24th) than he actually finished (27th)?

That Bobby Orr had a massive impact on everyone in Boston, including Espo.

Didn't think I made it that hard to figure out.

 

[Vilica]

Can somebody please post Espo's production with and without Bobby Orr? Career wise. Not just Boston when Orr was out injured.

And then, with a straight face claim that Espo didn't get a massive, massive bump from the greatest all around hockey player that ever laced up skates.

I'm almost ready to make a lot of these available for the top 100, but here's what I have for Phil Esposito in terms of team splits in Chicago, Boston and New York. Most of that should be self-explanatory, but there are summary tables at rows 434, 451, and 490, and also my separation of teams at row 532.



I've got some conclusions I'm still figuring out, but I'll just say Esposito's results are common in the O6 and expansion eras.

Edit: huh, I didn't realize that it would load the sheet like that.

 

[seventieslord]

Right here...

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 6

 

[ImporterExporter]

Right here...

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 6

So a near 30% reduction in production while at Boston when Orr wasn't on the ice with him.

One only has to see the massive decline in Chicago/NY.

Chicago is the time that I'm most concerned with. Espo was in his early to mid 20's, on good to great Hawks teams and wasn't even close to a PPG player. Some of that was style of play/tactical decisions IMO, but it certainly doesn't provide a big time excuse. Then he goes to Boston, joins Bobby Orr and magically becomes an all time great scorer.

It's like steroid users in baseball. Artificial inflation of offensive numbers.

Not much different than Ovechkin outshooting the league competition by a couple thousands of shots since 2005 and folks not wanting to apply context to goal scoring totals.

Artifical inflation.

 

[sr edler]

Not much different than Ovechkin outshooting the league competition by a couple thousands of shots since 2005 and folks not wanting to apply context to goal scoring totals.

You're saying it like anyone could have had Ovechkin's shot totals just if they wanted to.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, I don't equate Espo's lesser production without Orr with Ovechkin's ability to get shots away...

 

[ImporterExporter]

You're saying it like anyone could have had Ovechkin's shot totals just if they wanted to.

You and the other regulars who scoff at the notion that having a couple thousand shot advantage in a goal scoring race means you have a much greater chance of winning said goal scoring race are comical.

Nowhere have I ever seen such resistance to context when it comes to goal scoring relative to other team sports where shots or passes are absolutely taken into account when determining value, especially as it pertains to efficiency or impact on team performance.

But no, Ovechkin can just launch rubber at will and nobody examines the context as it pertains to efficiency or the factual statement that all shots are not created equal and having thousands of more shots inherently gives you a greater chance at scoring goals. Just like this past year it literally took Ovechkin more than a 100 shots on net and over 200 total shots (misses/blocks/etc) to score a whopping 1 more goal then the guy who finished in 2nd place and gleam about it being some massive achievement...

It's lunacy. But to be expected by the usual suspects.

One way wingers who have largely ignored a major part (defense) of playing professional hockey while hamstringing their team because they are forced the puck are the most overrated players in the history of this sport.

At least someone like Mike Bossy can say he scored 573 goals in just 752 games and never once led the league in shot totals.

 

[bobholly39]

In the thread where i defended the project against Penguins bias we have someone now arguing Ovechkin is one of the most overrated players of all time and arguing that shooting more and scoring more goals is a negative.

Ok then.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You and the other regulars who scoff at the notion that having a couple thousand shot advantage in a goal scoring race means you have a much greater chance of winning said goal scoring race are comical.

Nowhere have I ever seen such resistance to context when it comes to goal scoring relative to other team sports where shots or passes are absolutely taken into account when determining value, especially as it pertains to efficiency or impact on team performance.

But no, Ovechkin can just launch rubber at will and nobody examines the context as it pertains to efficiency or the factual statement that all shots are not created equal and having thousands of more shots inherently gives you a greater chance at scoring goals. Just like this past year it literally took Ovechkin more than a 100 shots on net and over 200 total shots (misses/blocks/etc) to score a whopping 1 more goal then the guy who finished in 2nd place and gleam about it being some massive achievement...

It's lunacy. But to be expected by the usual suspects.

One way wingers who have largely ignored a major part (defense) of playing professional hockey while hamstringing their team because they are forced the puck are the most overrated players in the history of this sport.

At least someone like Mike Bossy can say he scored 573 goals in just 752 games and never once led the league in shot totals.

Well, both Bossy and Ovechkin are presently tied with 553 career RS assists. Bossy in 752 games, Ovi in 1084 games.

Setting aside shot counting, this points to a significant difference in team puck distribution offensively.

More to the point. Washington is running two different offences. One with Ovi, another without.

 

[Canadiens1958]

In the thread where i defended the project against Penguins bias we have someone now arguing Ovechkin is one of the most overrated players of all time and arguing that shooting more and scoring more goals is a negative.

Ok then.

Missing the point completely.

Since 2005-06 Washington has lead the NHL in RS goal scoring only one time, while Ovi has lead the league in RS goal scoring eight times.

Given that the sport is a team game, Ovi's efforts including RS shot totals do not generate proportionate team success.

 

[bobholly39]

Missing the point completely.

Since 2005-06 Washington has lead the NHL in RS goal scoring only one time, while Ovi has lead the league in RS goal scoring eight times.

Given that the sport is a team game, Ovi's efforts including RS shot totals do not generate proportionate team success.

Missing the point completely.

Since 2005-2006, Washing had the 3rd most regular season points and 3rd more regular season wins out of all teams. Considering the point of this team game is to actually win games and not just have your team score a lot of goals - i'd say that Ovi's regular season goal totals have a direct correlation to team success.

Since 2007-2008 - you know, the year of Ovechkin's first goal-scoring titles - Washington has more regular season points than any other teams. Having the best goal scorer in the regular season = good regular season team success. The proportions seem just fine to me, thanks.

On another note - remind us why wayne Gretzky is only the 7th best player all time while his teams was 1st in points, goal-scoring, playoff to go along with his individual successes?