# Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time



## quoipourquoi

Here it is:

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time
Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time (Part 2)
Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time (The Third)

The following is the final list of the top #101-200 hockey players of all-time as determined by 17 voting members of the History of Hockey community.

Report any errors to @seventieslord





All that needs updating this time is the list:


101Norm UllmanC1935CanadaProvost, Alberta102Alexander MaltsevC / RW1949RussiaKirovo-Chepetsk, Soviet Union103Jarome IginlaRW1977CanadaEdmonton, Alberta104Vladimir MartinecRW1949Czech RepublicLomnice nad Popelkou, Czechoslovakia105Eddie GerardD / LW1890CanadaOttawa, Ontario106Henrik LundqvistG1982SwedenAre, Sweden107Russell BowieR / C1880CanadaMontreal, Quebec108Tony EspositoG1943CanadaSault Ste Marie, Ontario109Erik KarlssonD1990SwedenLandsbro, Sweden110Drew DoughtyD1989CanadaLondon, Ontario111Roy WortersG1900CanadaToronto, Ontario112Doug GilmourC1963CanadaKingston, Ontario113Johnny BowerG1924CanadaPrince Albert, Saskatchewan114Jiri HolecekG1944Czech RepublicPrague, Czechoslovakia115Toe BlakeLW1912CanadaConiston, Ontario116Valeri VasilievD1949RussiaGorky, Soviet Union117Bill QuackenbushD1922CanadaToronto, Ontario118Peter StastnyC1956SlovakiaBratislava, Czechoslovakia119Serge SavardD1946CanadaLandrienne, Quebec120Ron FrancisC1963CanadaSault Ste Marie, Ontario121Ivan JohnsonD1898CanadaWinnipeg, Manitoba122Roberto LuongoG1979CanadaMontreal, Quebec123Busher JacksonLW / D1911CanadaToronto, Ontario124Bernie ParentG1945CanadaMontreal, Quebec125Jack StewartD1917CanadaPilot Mound, Manitoba126Alex DelvecchioC / LW1931CanadaFort William, Ontario127Vladimir KrutovLW1960RussiaMoscow, Soviet Union128Pavel DatsyukC1978RussiaSverdlovsk, Soviet Union129Pavel BureRW1971RussiaMoscow, Soviet Union130Connor McDavidC1997CanadaRichmond Hill, Ontario131Hugh LehmanG1885CanadaPembroke, Ontario132Gilbert PerreaultC1950CanadaVictoriaville, Quebec133Scott NiedermayerD1973CanadaEdmonton, Alberta134Adam OatesC1962CanadaWeston, Ontario135Guy LapointeD1948CanadaMontreal, Quebec136Doug BentleyLW/C1916CanadaDelisle, Saskatchewan137Rod LangwayD1957United StatesFormosa, Taiwan138Tommy PhillipsLW1883CanadaRat Portage, Ontario139Marcel PronovostD1930CanadaLac-a-la-Tortue, Quebec140George HainsworthG1893CanadaToronto, Ontario141Mike ModanoC1970United StatesLivonia, Michigan142Patrice BergeronC1985CanadaAncienne-Lorette, Quebec143Syd HoweLW/C1911CanadaOttawa, Ontario144Sweeney SchrinerLW1911RussiaSaratov, Soviet Union145Cecil ThompsonG1903CanadaSandon, British Columbia146Victor HedmanD1990SwedenOrnskoldsvik, Sweden147Paul KariyaLW1974CanadaVancouver, British Columbia148Marty BarryC1905CanadaQuebec City, Quebec149Vladimir PetrovC1949RussiaKrasnogorsk, Soviet Union150Hod StuartD1879CanadaOttawa, Ontario151Ebbie GoodfellowD/C1907CanadaOttawa, Ontario152Hooley SmithC/RW1903CanadaToronto, Ontario153Jacques LaperriereD1941CanadaRouyn, Quebec154Dale HawerchukC1963CanadaToronto, Ontario155Jan SuchyD1944Czech RepublicHavlíčkův Brod, Czechoslovakia156Shea WeberD1985CanadaSicamous, British Columbia157Marian HossaRW1979SlovakiaStara Lubovna, Czechoslovakia158Jonathan ToewsC1988CanadaWinnipeg, Manitoba159Mickey MacKayC/W1894CanadaChelsey, Ontario160Johnny BucykLW1935CanadaEdmonton, Alberta161Anze KopitarC1987SloveniaJesenice, Slovenia162Georges BoucherD/W1896CanadaOttawa, Ontario163Bryan HextallRW1913CanadaGrenfell, Saskatchewan164Henrik ZetterbergC/LW1980SwedenNjurunda, Sweden 165Ernie JohnsonD/LW1886CanadaMontreal, Quebec166Mats SundinC1971SwedenBromma, Sweden167Frank FredricksonC1895CanadaWinnipeg, Manitoba168Alexei KasatonovD1959RussiaLeningrad, Soviet Union169Vaclav NedomanskyC1944Czech RepublicHodonin, Czechoslovakia170Steven StamkosC1990CanadaMarkham, Ontario171Lionel ConacherD1901CanadaToronto, Ontario172Mark RecchiRW1968CanadaKamloops, British Columbia173J.C. TremblayD1939CanadaBagotville, Quebec174Jean RatelleC1940CanadaLac St-Jean, Quebec175Luc RobitailleLW1966CanadaMontreal, Quebec176Denis SavardC1961CanadaPointe Gatineau, Quebec177Babe SiebertD/LW1904CanadaPlattsville, Ontario178Babe DyeRW1898CanadaHamilton, Ontario179Grant FuhrG1962CanadaSpruce Grove, Alberta180Igor LarionovC1960RussiaVoskresensk, Soviet Union181Rob BlakeD1969CanadaSimcoe, Ontario182Duke KeatsC1895CanadaMontreal, Quebec183Michel GouletLW1960CanadaPeribonka, Quebec184Carl BrewerD1938CanadaToronto, Ontario185Carey PriceG1987CanadaAnahim Lake, British Columbia186Billy SmithG1950CanadaPerth, Ontario187Nikita KucherovRW1993RussiaMaykop, Russian Federation188Frantisek PospisilD1944Czech RepublicUnhošť, Bohemia and Moravia189Emile "Butch" BouchardD1919CanadaMontreal, Quebec190Jacques LemaireC1945CanadaLaSalle, Quebec191Curtis JosephG1967CanadaKeswick, Ontario192Daniel AlfredssonRW1972SwedenGothenburg, Sweden193Alexander YakushevLW1947RussiaBalashikha, Soviet Union194Patrik EliasLW1976Czech RepublicTrebic, Czechoslovakia195Brendan ShanahanLW1969CanadaMimico, Ontario196Gump WorsleyG1929CanadaMontreal, Quebec197Lester PatrickD/R1883CanadaDrummondville, Quebec198Vyacheslav StarshinovC1940RussiaMoscow, Soviet Union199Ryan GetzlafC1985CanadaRegina, Saskatchewan200John LeClairLW1969United StatesSt. Albans, Vermont
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]*Discussion Threads*
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 1
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 2
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 4
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 5
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 6
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 7
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 8
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 9
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 10
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 11
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 12
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 13
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 14
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 15
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 16
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 17
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 18
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 19
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 20


*Preliminary Discussion Threads*
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread (A Game of Shadows)

*Round 1 Process*

*Voting Records*
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Voting Results


----------



## buffalowing88

We certainly sold high on Iginla. Not a fan of that at all, but I'm also not the consensus. 

I'm fine with the rest of the picks, though. Really came around on Ullman the more he was discussed.


----------



## quoipourquoi

Can I selfishly ask that you all stop voting for players in red and white jerseys? You’re making the collage boring. Give me a Whaler or a Rockie.


----------



## Dennis Bonvie

quoipourquoi said:


> Can I selfishly ask that you all stop voting for players in red and white jerseys? You’re making the collage boring. Give me a Whaler or a Rockie.




I'll try my best.

But I don't seem to carry much weight here.


----------



## MXD

quoipourquoi said:


> Can I selfishly ask that you all stop voting for players in red and white jerseys? You’re making the collage boring. Give me a Whaler or a Rockie.




I'll certainly support Mike Liut when he comes around. 
(Which is probably unlikely).


----------



## bobholly39

quoipourquoi said:


> Can I selfishly ask that you all stop voting for players in red and white jerseys? You’re making the collage boring. Give me a Whaler or a Rockie.




Sure - but as the admin, you gotta work with me. Make Ron Francis available next round and I promise to vote him in.


----------



## Dennis Bonvie

bobholly39 said:


> Sure - but as the admin, you gotta work with me. Make Ron Francis available next round and I promise to vote him in.




I'll go along with that.


----------



## Yozhik v tumane

quoipourquoi said:


> Can I selfishly ask that you all stop voting for players in red and white jerseys? You’re making the collage boring. Give me a Whaler or a Rockie.






bobholly39 said:


> Sure - but as the admin, you gotta work with me. Make Ron Francis available next round and I promise to vote him in.




Found a picture you can use!!


----------



## Yozhik v tumane

And I’ll help you with a few upcoming players as well:

Peter Stastny





Mats Sundin





Patrice Bergeron





Anze Kopitar





Mike Modano


----------



## Professor What

Yozhik v tumane said:


> And I’ll help you with a few upcoming players as well:
> 
> Anze Kopitar




Hey, this one's no good. I can see green.


----------



## Yozhik v tumane

Professor What said:


> Hey, this one's no good. I can see green.




Terribly sorry:


----------



## Nick Hansen

With the season Patrick Kane is having, and nothing particular seems to be slowing him down at the moment, I'm inclined to believe he would be ahead of Thornton and Fedorov the next time we do this list. He's having a very remarkable career at this point. Maybe Selanne would have to be pushed back as well?


----------



## ImporterExporter

Nick Hansen said:


> With the season Patrick Kane is having, and nothing particular seems to be slowing him down at the moment, I'm inclined to believe he would be ahead of Thornton and Fedorov the next time we do this list. He's having a very remarkable career at this point. Maybe Selanne would have to be pushed back as well?




Kane is already inside the top 100:

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time


----------



## TheDevilMadeMe

Nick Hansen said:


> With the season Patrick Kane is having, and nothing particular seems to be slowing him down at the moment, I'm inclined to believe he would be ahead of Thornton and Fedorov the next time we do this list. He's having a very remarkable career at this point. Maybe Selanne would have to be pushed back as well?




There's a halfway decent chance he would have finished ahead of Selanne had this list been completed even a few months later.


----------



## Nick Hansen

ImporterExporter said:


> Kane is already inside the top 100:
> 
> Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time




Yes, I know, maybe I wasn't clear enough. I meant he would make a jump on the top 100-list.


----------



## quoipourquoi

Not to spoil the reveal of the aggregate list, but Kane moved up to #82 on this project’s aggregate from his spot at #93 on the previous list.

Selanne finished higher (#66) than he did in the previous project (#69) despite the three people who rated him highest in the previous project not participating in this one.

If you want, I can give you the full aggregate list for the top-100 players when we’re halfway through the current project.


----------



## Michigan

Thank you for all the previous projects.


----------



## Michigan

It will be interesting to see if any of these guys are Top 200 worthy: Brendan Shanahan, Sergei Zubov, Daniel Alfredsson, Nathan MacKinnon.


----------



## Dennis Bonvie

Hawkman said:


> It will be interesting to see if any of these guys are Top 200 worthy: Brendan Shanahan, Sergei Zubov, Daniel Alfredsson, Nathan MacKinnon.




My original list had two of those players in the top 200 and the other two in the top 220.


----------



## Pominville Knows

How about putting a * or something beside the names of still active players?
It might be obvious to some in a year's time or two, but maybe not to everyone watching the list at that time.


----------



## Michigan

Pls delete


----------



## Johnny Engine

Hawkman said:


> As players retire over the years, the asterisks* will become inaccurate.



No, the asterisks wouldn't become innaccurate, because they'd be used to denote "active at the time this list was made (in 2021)". There's no way to make a top-200 list that doesn't become outdated in some way, and I regard providing context on _how_ some of the information therein has become outdated is unamiguously positive.


----------



## Theokritos

Pominville Knows said:


> How about putting a * or something beside the names of still active players?
> It might be obvious to some in a year's time or two, but maybe not to everyone watching the list at that time.






Johnny Engine said:


> I regard providing context on _how_ some of the information therein has become outdated is unamiguously positive.




I like this idea.


----------



## Theokritos

Any objections by those who were voters if I edit the existing lists accordingly?

Like this:

RankPlayerPositionBornNationBirth City1Wayne GretzkyC1961CanadaBrantford, Ontario2Gordie HoweRW1928CanadaFloral, Saskatchewan3Bobby OrrD1948CanadaParry Sound, Ontario4Mario LemieuxC1965CanadaMontreal, Quebec5Bobby HullLW1939CanadaPoint Anne, Ontario6Jean BeliveauC1931CanadaTrois-Rivieres, Quebec7Patrick RoyG1965CanadaQuebec City, Quebec8Doug HarveyD1924CanadaMontreal, Quebec9Maurice RichardRW1921CanadaMontreal, Quebec10Ray BourqueD1960CanadaSaint-Laurent, Quebec11Howie MorenzC1902CanadaMitchell, Ontario12Sidney Crosby*C1987CanadaHalifax, Nova Scotia13Dominik HasekG1965Czech RepublicPardubice, Czechoslovakia14Eddie ShoreD1902CanadaFort Qu'Appelle, Northwest Territories15Nicklas LidstromD1970SwedenKrylbo, Sweden16Jaromir JagrRW1972Czech RepublicKladno, Czechoslovakia17Red KellyD / C1927CanadaSimcoe, Ontario18Denis PotvinD1953CanadaVanier, Ontario19Jacques PlanteG1929CanadaNotre-Dame-du-Mont-Carmel, Quebec20Frank NighborC1893CanadaPembroke, Ontario21Mark MessierLW / C1961CanadaEdmonton, Alberta22Alex Ovechkin*LW / RW1985RussiaMoscow, Soviet Union23Guy LafleurRW1951CanadaThurso, Quebec24Stan MikitaC1940CanadaSokolce, Slovak Republic25Viacheslav FetisovD1958RussiaMoscow, Soviet Union26Sergei MakarovRW1958RussiaChelyabinsk, Soviet Union27Phil EspositoC1942CanadaSault Ste Marie, Ontario28Glenn HallG1931CanadaHumboldt, Saskatchewan29Bobby ClarkeC1949CanadaFlin Flon, Manitoba30Martin BrodeurG1972CanadaMontreal, Quebec31Bryan TrottierC1956CanadaVal Marie, Saskatchewan32Joe SakicC1969CanadaBurnaby, British Columbia33Cyclone TaylorD / R1884CanadaTara, Ontario34Bill CookRW1895CanadaBrantford, Ontario35Terry SawchukG1929CanadaWinnipeg, Manitoba36Mike BossyRW1957CanadaMontreal, Quebec37Larry RobinsonD1951CanadaWinchester, Ontario38Ted LindsayLW1925CanadaRenfrew, Ontario39Newsy LalondeC1887CanadaCornwall, Ontario40Steve YzermanC1965CanadaCranbrook, British Columbia41Chris CheliosD1962United StatesChicago, Illinois42Frank BoucherC1901CanadaOttawa, Ontario43Valeri KharlamovLW1948RussiaMoscow, Soviet Union44King ClancyD1902CanadaOttawa, Ontario45Syl AppsC1915CanadaParis, Ontario46Ken DrydenG1947CanadaHamilton, Ontario47Brad ParkD1948CanadaToronto, Ontario48Paul CoffeyD1961CanadaWeston, Ontario49Henri RichardC1936CanadaMontreal, Quebec50Vladislav TretiakG1952RussiaOrudyevo, Soviet Union51Peter ForsbergC1973SwedenOrnskoldsvik, Sweden52Evgeni Malkin*C1986RussiaMagnitogorsk, Soviet Union53Milt SchmidtC1918CanadaKitchener, Ontario54Pierre PiloteD1931CanadaKenogami, Quebec55Charlie ConacherRW1909CanadaToronto, Ontario56Frank BrimsekG1915United StatesEveleth, Minnesota57Sprague CleghornD1890CanadaMontreal, Quebec58Ted KennedyC1925CanadaPort Colborne, Ontario59Chris ProngerD1974CanadaDryden, Ontario60Bernie GeoffrionRW1931CanadaMontreal, Quebec61Earl SeibertD1911CanadaBerlin, Ontario62Andy BathgateRW1932CanadaWinnipeg, Manitoba63Marcel DionneC1951CanadaDrummondville, Quebec64Scott StevensD1964CanadaKitchener, Ontario65Tim HortonD1930CanadaCochrane, Ontario66Georges VezinaG1887CanadaChicoutimi, Quebec67Al MacInnisD1963CanadaInverness, Nova Scotia68Dickie MooreLW1931CanadaMontreal, Quebec69Teemu SelanneRW1970FinlandHelsinki, Finland70Anatoli FirsovLW1941RussiaMoscow, Soviet Union71Frank MahovlichLW1938CanadaTimmins, Ontario72Joe MaloneC1890CanadaQuebec City, Quebec73Dit ClapperRW / D1907CanadaNewmarket, Ontario74Clint BenedictG1892CanadaOttawa, Ontario75Charlie GardinerG1904CanadaEdinburgh, Scotland76Jari KurriRW1960FinlandHelsinki, Finland77Max BentleyC1920CanadaDelisle, Saskatchewan78Aurele JoliatLW1901CanadaOttawa, Ontario79Cy DennenyLW1891CanadaFarran's Point, Ontario80Brett HullRW1964United StatesBelleville, Ontario81Elmer LachC1918CanadaNokomis, Saskatchewan82Bill DurnanG1916CanadaToronto, Ontario83Turk BrodaG1914CanadaBrandon, Manitoba84Borje SalmingD1951SwedenKiruna, Sweden85Ed BelfourG1965CanadaCarman, Manitoba86Boris MikhailovRW1944RussiaMoscow, Soviet Union87Bill CowleyC1912CanadaBristol, Quebec88Sergei FedorovC / D1969RussiaPskov, Soviet Union89Zdeno Chara*D1977SlovakiaTrencin, Czechoslovakia90Bill GadsbyD1927CanadaCalgary, Alberta91Joe Thornton*C1979CanadaSt. Thomas, Ontario92Nels StewartC1902CanadaMontreal, Quebec93Patrick Kane*RW1988United StatesBuffalo, New York94Duncan Keith*D1983CanadaWinnipeg, Manitoba95Mark HoweLW / D1955United StatesDetroit, Michigan96Eric LindrosC1973CanadaLondon, Ontario97Brian LeetchD1968United StatesCorpus Christi, Texas98Martin St. LouisRW1975CanadaLaval, Quebec99Dave KeonC1940CanadaNoranda, Quebec100Sid AbelC1918CanadaMelville, Saskatchewan
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]*Player was active in the NHL at the time of the voting


----------



## vadim sharifijanov

Nick Hansen said:


> With the season Patrick Kane is having, and nothing particular seems to be slowing him down at the moment, I'm inclined to believe he would be ahead of Thornton and Fedorov the next time we do this list. He's having a very remarkable career at this point. Maybe Selanne would have to be pushed back as well?




there’s no doubt in my mind he’s been ahead of thornton for at least a couple years now


----------



## Dingo

good work, guys


----------



## ted2019

Wondering if someone can update the first graph, adding the final few players.


----------



## Theokritos

ted2019 said:


> Wondering if someone can update the first graph, adding the final few players.



I was waiting to see if the runoff idea gets support, but it didn't amount to anything. The list is updated now.


----------



## DN28

A minor thing but just noticed Yakushev's birth year is 1974 - it should be 1947. Can a mod change it?


----------



## Theokritos

DN28 said:


> A minor thing but just noticed Yakushev's birth year is 1974 - it should be 1947. Can a mod change it?



Thanks for the hint. It's fixed now.


----------



## Melrose Munch

nice to see

wow denis savard has fallen out of favour.


----------



## TheDevilMadeMe

Melrose Munch said:


> nice to see
> 
> wow denis savard has fallen out of favour.



He definitely did. 

At some point, I'm going to compare where guys finished on the Top Players by Position projects VS this project. I suspect Savard and Sittler will be among the biggest fallers


----------



## tarheelhockey

TheDevilMadeMe said:


> He definitely did.
> 
> At some point, I'm going to compare where guys finished on the Top Players by Position projects VS this project. I suspect Savard and Sittler will be among the biggest fallers




It’s funny, I actually thought Savard had a pretty smooth ride during the discussion round. Maybe I’m misremembering, but I don’t remember any harsh negatives that would have caused a tumble.

Perhaps he slipped on the preliminary lists? If that’s the case, it might say something about how we’ve generally come to view the 80s NHL outside of a few top talents. And if _that’s_ the case I’d point to a possible root cause being an increased respect for the Soviet players of that era.

edit: lots of “ifs” in this post. Just a theory that might or might not bear out when we see the preliminary list.


----------



## Melrose Munch

tarheelhockey said:


> It’s funny, I actually thought Savard had a pretty smooth ride during the discussion round. Maybe I’m misremembering, but I don’t remember any harsh negatives that would have caused a tumble.
> 
> Perhaps he slipped on the preliminary lists? If that’s the case, it might say something about how we’ve generally come to view the 80s NHL outside of a few top talents. And if _that’s_ the case I’d point to a possible root cause being an increased respect for the Soviet players of that era.
> 
> edit: lots of “ifs” in this post. Just a theory that might or might not bear out when we see the preliminary list.





TheDevilMadeMe said:


> He definitely did.
> 
> At some point, I'm going to compare where guys finished on the Top Players by Position projects VS this project. I suspect Savard and Sittler will be among the biggest fallers




Definitely interested to see how Savard fell. I personally think the injuries later on he had hurt him imo.


----------



## wetcoast

Melrose Munch said:


> Definitely interested to see how Savard fell. I personally think the injuries later on he had hurt him imo.




Right or wrong I think the fact that he was a complete non factor in his only SC at age 31 probably has something to do with it albeit at an unconscious level.

That and the already high number of excellent centres post expansion.


----------



## jigglysquishy

Has it been decided what the next list will be? I'd be interested to take part if the topic is right.


----------



## ted2019

jigglysquishy said:


> Has it been decided what the next list will be? I'd be interested to take part if the topic is right.




I would say it would be at least another year or so.


----------



## tarheelhockey

jigglysquishy said:


> Has it been decided what the next list will be? I'd be interested to take part if the topic is right.






ted2019 said:


> I would say it would be at least another year or so.




Yeah, the pace has usually been to take at least a few months off and then very gradually start up with the "hey, what should the next project be?" conversation. Then another month or two of deciding what to do, and then arranging the logistics. My guess is we see that conversation start up again sometime early next hockey season, say December. 

The good news is that the next project is more likely to be a top-30 of some niche subject, rather than another 100 names added to the Big List. A smaller project should run a little more briskly. Top-100s are a big, big lift.


----------



## TheDevilMadeMe

jigglysquishy said:


> Has it been decided what the next list will be? I'd be interested to take part if the topic is right.




Probably top pre-NHL players of all-time. That one got the most votes of the remaining projects, by a wide margin.


----------



## TheDevilMadeMe

tarheelhockey said:


> Yeah, the pace has usually been to take at least a few months off and then very gradually start up with the "hey, what should the next project be?" conversation. Then another month or two of deciding what to do, and then arranging the logistics. My guess is we see that conversation start up again sometime early next hockey season, say December.
> 
> The good news is that the next project is more likely to be a top-30 of some niche subject, rather than another 100 names added to the Big List. A smaller project should run a little more briskly. Top-100s are a big, big lift.




In the past, we generally liked to start these things around the start of the new NHL season.

That feels a little too soon to me this year, just because this massive project just ended. But maybe it won't feel that way in a few months.


----------



## Professor What

I can already tell that my preferred option would be the pre-consolidation project discussed.


----------



## Yozhik v tumane

TOP 300 LET’S GO


----------



## tarheelhockey

Yozhik v tumane said:


> TOP 300 LET’S GO




Can't wait for the big Ogrodnick/Hejduk showdown!


----------



## seventieslord

tarheelhockey said:


> Can't wait for the big Ogrodnick/Hejduk showdown!



I think you're joking, but.... I think it would take a top-600 before we had that showdown.


----------



## TheDevilMadeMe

tarheelhockey said:


> Can't wait for the big Ogrodnick/Hejduk showdown!






seventieslord said:


> I think you're joking, but.... I think it would take a top-600 before we had that showdown.




FWIW, in the 40 team ATD 2020, Hejduk was drafted 494th. Ogrodnick 953rd.


----------



## Johnny Engine

TheDevilMadeMe said:


> FWIW, in the 40 team ATD 2020, Hejduk was drafted 494th. Ogrodnick 953rd.



This offers some support for the first two gut reactions I had to Tarheel's joke, which were:
- Wouldn't Hejduk's career be miles and miles better than Ogrodnick's? (without double checking on any of their bullet points)
- Hejduk seems like he'd be reasonably close to in the conversation for #300 once you correct for all the team-building aspects of the ATD (the desire for checking forwards, positional needs, blah blah)


----------



## tarheelhockey

Johnny Engine said:


> This offers some support for the first two gut reactions I had to Tarheel's joke, which were:
> - Wouldn't Hejduk's career be miles and miles better than Ogrodnick's? (without double checking on any of their bullet points)
> - Hejduk seems like he'd be reasonably close to in the conversation for #300 once you correct for all the team-building aspects of the ATD (the desire for checking forwards, positional needs, blah blah)




I just picked two random players, guys


----------



## Kranix

Shanny at 195. I was looking over the NHL 100 greatest on NHL.com again today, and had forgotten Shanny is in there, which seems like maybe the most glaring mistake in the list.


----------



## ted2019

Kranix said:


> Shanny at 195. I was looking over the NHL 100 greatest on NHL.com again today, and had forgotten Shanny is in there, which seems like maybe the most glaring mistake in the list.




This was not just a most popular player type of list, nor just an NHL only list. He was listed where we thought he should be as there are a lot of things that are looked into besides goals, assists and points. If so, Mike Gartner would've been in the top 50.


----------



## Kranix

ted2019 said:


> This was not just a most popular player type of list, nor just an NHL only list. He was listed where we thought he should be as there are a lot of things that are looked into besides goals, assists and points. If so, Mike Gartner would've been in the top 50.



I understand the differences between the list. I meant him being in the top 100 NHL.com list was a mistake by them, not a mistake in the list here.


----------



## ted2019

Kranix said:


> I understand the differences between the list. I meant him being in the top 100 NHL.com list was a mistake by them, not a mistake in the list here.




Understood.


----------



## Yozhik v tumane

I really enjoyed following the discussions throughout this project, you all did a great job.

I’m curious, will you at some point be posting an aggregate list and the individual voting records as was done after the 2019 top 100 project? I’d guess the debates won’t be as heated as the ones concerning C1958’s Gretzky at 6th or Crosby being lowballed, but I bet it could still make for interesting discussion.


----------



## seventieslord

Yozhik v tumane said:


> I really enjoyed following the discussions throughout this project, you all did a great job.
> 
> I’m curious, will you at some point be posting an aggregate list and the individual voting records as was done after the 2019 top 100 project? I’d guess the debates won’t be as heated as the ones concerning C1958’s Gretzky at 6th or Crosby being lowballed, but I bet it could still make for interesting discussion.




Yes, I'll be doing it. Should have done it already. Sorry, I'm a procrastinator...


----------



## Yozhik v tumane

seventieslord said:


> Yes, I'll be doing it. Should have done it already. Sorry, I'm a procrastinator...




Don’t beat yourself up over it, I was simply wondering if there were concrete plans. Truly appreciate the time and effort you put into this!


----------



## TheDevilMadeMe

seventieslord said:


> Yes, I'll be doing it. Should have done it already. Sorry, I'm a procrastinator...




Thanks. I'd be willing to help, though I'm aware that sending me the info to "help" might be as much or more work for you than just posting it. 

Thanks again for picking things up and finishing this project.


----------



## NigerianNightmare

I just had a quick look at the rankings and was shocked.

*Vladimir Krutov *should be above Gilmour, Iginla and many others on this list. The man was a legend of the 80's, he was better than Jarri Kurri. Krutov was the best LW in the world in his prime. He deserves to be in top 40 - at least.


----------



## Yozhik v tumane

NigerianNightmare said:


> I just had a quick look at the rankings and was shocked.
> 
> *Vladimir Krutov *should be above Gilmour, Iginla and many others on this list. The man was a legend of the 80's, he was better than Jarri Kurri. Krutov was the best LW in the world in his prime. He deserves to be in top 40 - at least.




Krutov first appeared in the 6th round of voting for the top 200 project and was immediately voted in at that point. There was a lot of “what to do with five seasons of McDavid”-talk in that thread but eventually Krutov entered the conversation. Based on his offensive numbers relative to the Soviet League, it was hard to spot consistent dominance by Krutov over an extended span, and @seventieslord deduced that Krutov didn’t look out of place appearing at that point in voting (as opposed to much earlier). @TheDevilMadeMe added that in addition to scoring, Krutov brought physicality and responsible defense to his game, while also being a notable big game player whose Canada Cup record is arguably at Makarov’s level, only trumped by Gretzky, then considerably above the rest of the field. @Batis contributed with some quotes and video examples to highlight Krutov’s game.

I think it’s fair to say that some would penalize Krutov for his expedite downturn following the Soviet era and disappointing NHL venture, I think many might second guess common views of people who saw him dominate on the KLM line in the 80s as more of a product of Makarov than perhaps thought at the time. I’ve also had the sense that some will place more weight on the ability to transition to the North American game than I would personally like to do, I think it’s a pretty steep hurdle to move from the communist bloc to the West and transition to the NHL in your late 20s/early 30s if you’ve never played that kind of hockey and schedule, and it shouldn’t unduly be weighing someone down.

With that being said, I think the top 40 sounds crazy high for Krutov. If you mean top 40 among all players ever, then a hard no, I can’t see it. For left wingers? Definitely. For all wingers? He probably has a case. Comparing Kurri to Krutov I think would be an interesting case study. With “the best left winger in the game” arguments, we often have this problem with what this means. Sometimes it referred to Bobby Hull, sometimes to Ovechkin, but sometimes it might have referred to Clark Gillies or Markus Näslund.

We haven’t had the chance to see the aggregate lists and individual voting records for the top 200 project, but for the top 100 we can see that 6 out of 32 lists featured Krutov, with the highest placement being 65th by @Dennis Bonvie. I noted that not even @Sentinel, who tends to pump Russians’ tiers, placed Krutov in his top 100.


----------



## NigerianNightmare

Krutov wasn't a product of Makarov. He was a product of the Soviet hockey school and Tikhonov's coaching. 

His post-Soviet league decline started to his personal inability to adjust to the North American lifestyle and drinking habits.

Krutov was absolutely better than most wingers of the 80's - better than Kurri, Goulet and thousands of others. Only two wingers, Bossy and Makarov could be considered above Krutov in that era.


----------



## ResilientBeast

NigerianNightmare said:


> Krutov wasn't a product of Makarov. He was a product of the Soviet hockey school and Tikhonov's coaching.
> 
> His post-Soviet league decline started to his personal inability to adjust to the North American lifestyle and drinking habits.
> 
> Krutov was absolutely better than most wingers of the 80's - better than Kurri, Goulet and *thousands of others*. Only two wingers, Bossy and Makarov could be considered above Krutov in that era.




There weren't that many wingers in the 80s lol 

Ok rather than just stating platitudes please make your case?


----------



## NigerianNightmare

ResilientBeast said:


> There weren't that many wingers in the 80s lol
> 
> Ok rather than just stating platitudes please make your case?






Watch the Superseries and Canada Cups from the 80s and you'll see the case


----------



## ResilientBeast

NigerianNightmare said:


> Watch the Superseries and Canada Cups from the 80s and you'll see the case




Yeah, so your case hinges on 3 best on best tournaments where he played with Makarov and Larionov as with of his entire career. 

In soviet league scoring, he was routinely second to his own linemate....in a league that wasn't exactly "balanced" 

Top 40 all time is ridiculous


----------



## NigerianNightmare

ResilientBeast said:


> Yeah, so your case hinges on 3 best on best tournaments where he played with Makarov and Larionov as with of his entire career.
> 
> In soviet league scoring, he was routinely second to his own linemate....in a league that wasn't exactly "balanced"
> 
> Top 40 all time is ridiculous





Obviously, you omitted the multiple Soviets vs NHL Superseries on purpose. Plus, tons of other international tournaments. 

I agree that Makarov was better than him, in spite of Krutov having outscored Makarov in several seasons. You just confirmed my opinion. Thanks and best regards.


----------



## ResilientBeast

NigerianNightmare said:


> Obviously, you omitted the multiple Soviets vs NHL Superseries on purpose. Plus, tons of other international tournaments.
> 
> I agree that Makarov was better than him, in spite of Krutov having *outscored Makarov in several seasons*. You just confirmed my opinion. Thanks and best regards.




I did miss that part of your comment and focused in on the Canada Cup comments

I'd like you to show your work on the bolded, because I'm not sure he did in "several" seasons. Makarov led the Soviet league 9 times in points, Krutov never did. Unless you're explicitly referring to goal scoring, then they both led the USSR 3x a piece


----------



## NigerianNightmare

ResilientBeast said:


> I did miss that part of your comment and focused in on the Canada Cup comments
> 
> I'd like you to show your work on the bolded, because I'm not sure he did in "several" seasons. Makarov led the Soviet league 9 times in points, Krutov never did. Unless you're explicitly referring to goal scoring, then they both led the USSR 3x a piece




Yes, I referred to goal scoring.


----------



## ResilientBeast

NigerianNightmare said:


> Yes, I referred to goal scoring.




Goal scoring is such a distorted lense to make a comparison to Makarov a notably very good playmaker. The one season Krutov had more points (82-83) Makarov missed 14 games 

Below are their point totals from 77/78-88/89 


 Makarov PtsKrutov Pts% Makarov1978-793911355%1979-806842162%1980-817940198%1981-827566114%1982-83425379%1983-847357128%1984-856553123%1985-866248129%1986-875350106%1987-886842162%1988-895441132%
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
Makarov destroys Krutov pretty much every season. If you think being the second best scorer in the second best league in the world on a stacked team is worthy of being top 40 all time I don't know what to say to you anymore.


----------



## NigerianNightmare

ResilientBeast said:


> Goal scoring is such a distorted lense to make a comparison to Makarov a notably very good playmaker. The one season Krutov had more points (82-83) Makarov missed 14 games
> 
> Below are their point totals from 77/78-88/89
> 
> 
> Makarov PtsKrutov Pts% Makarov1978-793911355%1979-806842162%1980-817940198%1981-827566114%1982-83425379%1983-847357128%1984-856553123%1985-866248129%1986-875350106%1987-886842162%1988-895441132%
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]Makarov destroys Krutov pretty much every season. If you think being the second best scorer in the second best league in the world on a stacked team is worthy of being top 40 all time I don't know what to say to you anymore.




You keep confirming my opinion that Makarov was better than Krutov.

I can see how conveniently you disregard Krutov's other achievements.

*How about a different angle: *Krutov was the second best scorer on the most-winning (most successful) team in the history of modern hockey.


----------



## ResilientBeast

NigerianNightmare said:


> *How about a different angle: *Krutov was the second best scorer on the most-winning (most successful) team in the history of modern hockey.




In an unbalanced league on a team with 4 of the other best soviets in the world at the time in Fetisov, Kasatonov, Makarov, and Larionov. The system was built to help CSKA Moskva dominate lol

The amount of effort their coach Viktor Tikhonov spent poaching other players was truly impressive

He was probably the 3rd most valuable player on that team as well....


----------



## NigerianNightmare

ResilientBeast said:


> In an unbalanced league on a team with 4 of the other best soviets in the world at the time in Fetisov, Kasatonov, Makarov, and Larionov. The system was built to help CSKA Moskva dominate lol
> 
> The amount of effort their coach Viktor Tikhonov spent poaching other players was truly impressive
> 
> He was probably the 3rd most valuable player on that team as well....





Exactly, it was one of the greatest dream teams ever assembled (just like Gretzky's Oilers). Hence, an enormous winning track-record of the Army club.

Krutov made this team and remained one of its key players for almost a decade. It is an amazing achievement.


----------



## ResilientBeast

NigerianNightmare said:


> *Exactly, it was one of the greatest dream teams ever assembled (just like Gretzky's Oilers). Hence, an enormous winning track-record of the Army club.*
> 
> Krutov made this team and remained one of its key players for almost a decade. It is an amazing achievement.




I feel like if you think this is a remotely fair comparison you might be lacking in understanding regarding the soviet league.


----------



## NigerianNightmare

ResilientBeast said:


> I feel like if you think this is a remotely fair comparison you might be lacking in understanding regarding the soviet league.




I watched tons of hockey in the 80's including the Soviet league that was almost as good as the NHL in those days. That's why CSKA, Dynamo, Khimik and others were very successful playing against the NHL teams.


----------



## jigglysquishy

If the argument is he's the 3rd best winger of the 1980s, then isn't a top 40 placement a little generous? There's 120 years of pro hockey and top 40 is, by definition, exclusive. This same forum only had 10 wingers in the top 40 all-time players. So the 3rd best of the 80s is a top 10 all-time? A top 40 winger seems a bit more appropriate.

I have Krutov higher than 127 on my list, but top 40 is a stretch. Would anyone argue he's any better than 3rd best Soviet of the 1980s behind Makarov or Fetisov?


----------



## NigerianNightmare

jigglysquishy said:


> If the argument is he's the 3rd best winger of the 1980s, then isn't a top 40 placement a little generous? There's 120 years of pro hockey and top 40 is, by definition, exclusive. This same forum only had 10 wingers in the top 40 all-time players. So the 3rd best of the 80s is a top 10 all-time? A top 40 winger seems a bit more appropriate.
> 
> I have Krutov higher than 127 on my list, but top 40 is a stretch. Would anyone argue he's any better than 3rd best Soviet of the 1980s behind Makarov or Fetisov?




Good point! Well, maybe top 40 of all time was a bit of a stretch (depends how many wingers one would include in top 40). 

I'd rank Krutov as the 4th best Soviet of the 80s behind Fetisov, Tretiak and Makarov.

Thanks for bringing Fetisov into the discussion. I'm sure that Fetisov ranks above Makarov all-time. 

Fetisov is arguably the greatest European-born player in history, taking his exceptional leadership, winning mindset and longevity into consideration (_sorry, Jagr, Tretiak and Ovechkin_). He was a true winner on all levels (on ice vs other world's best players, fighting the Soviet bureaucrats, mentoring guys like Nik Lidstrom). Fetisov deserves a separate thread on here.


----------



## Dennis Bonvie

ResilientBeast said:


> In an unbalanced league on a team with 4 of the other best soviets in the world at the time in Fetisov, Kasatonov, Makarov, and Larionov. The system was built to help CSKA Moskva dominate lol
> 
> The amount of effort their coach Viktor Tikhonov spent poaching other players was truly impressive
> 
> He was probably the 3rd most valuable player on that team as well....




So Krutov was the third most valuable player behind two players that were ranked 25th and 26th on the top 100 list.

Don't think that's much of an argument.

Personally, I had Krutov ranked ahead of Kurri also.


----------



## ResilientBeast

Dennis Bonvie said:


> So Krutov was the third most valuable player behind two players that were ranked 25th and 26th on the top 100 list.
> 
> Don't think that's much of an argument.
> 
> Personally, I had Krutov ranked ahead of Kurri also.




That's a good point, but the margins at which he was being beaten by Makarov are staggering (as I posted in that table last page) and they were clearly the most talented team in a weak league. 

Internationally in best on bests it was shown that definitely the top soviets could matchup with the best of Canada


----------



## wetcoast

Dennis Bonvie said:


> So Krutov was the third most valuable player behind two players that were ranked 25th and 26th on the top 100 list.
> 
> Don't think that's much of an argument.
> 
> Personally, I had Krutov ranked ahead of Kurri also.




The thing is that if Krutov had stopped playing and retired after 88/89 then his case would be alot better.

His play in the NHL and Swiss league after that despite being not super old just really hurts him and he looks more a product of the system than great individual player in his own right.

Blame hot dogs if you want.

As a side note is this an awesome SC contender with players at their peak (not possible as some were in their late teens to be sure during the season). 88-89 CSKA Moscow

CSKA Moscow 1988-89 roster and scoring statistics at hockeydb.com


----------



## blueandgoldguy

Some ideas for next list...

Top-300 (201-300)
Top 10 players from each original 6 team (plus maybe add in Montreal Wanderers and original Ottawa Senators)...probably mostly redundant but might see some interesting twists with some players splitting their careers with 2 different teams.
Top - 50 players from 2000 season - present


----------



## ResilientBeast

blueandgoldguy said:


> Top-300 (201-300)





blueandgoldguy said:


> Top - 50 players from 2000 season - present



Please no

The next project really needs to be the best before consolidation (1926)


----------



## rmartin65

ResilientBeast said:


> Please no
> 
> The next project really needs to be the best before consolidation (1926)




I regret that I have but one like to give for this post.


----------



## jigglysquishy

ResilientBeast said:


> Please no
> 
> The next project really needs to be the best before consolidation (1926)




I like this idea. I also would love if we could put out a 3-10 book reading list for prep beforehand.


----------



## Professor What

I felt like we were really splitting hairs by the end of 200; top 300 would be rather chaotic. Connected to that, the work that would go into putting together a list of 300+ players to start with would be crazy. It would be so easy to overlook players.


----------



## TheDevilMadeMe

For top 50 players from 2000-present, you could make a series of polls in the polls section. Get more voters. I feel 2000-present is about what the "main board" can handle


----------



## TheDevilMadeMe

ResilientBeast said:


> Please no
> 
> The next project really needs to be the best before consolidation (1926)




Yes, best before consolidation - preliminary research over the summer; first rounds of the weekly threads timed to coincide with the start of the 2022-23 hockey season.


----------



## ChiTownPhilly

blueandgoldguy said:


> Some ideas for next list...
> 
> Top-300 (201-300)
> Top 10 players from each original 6 team (plus maybe add in Montreal Wanderers and original Ottawa Senators)...probably mostly redundant but might see some interesting twists with some players splitting their careers with 2 different teams.
> Top - 50 players from 2000 season - present



The Project I'd like to see would be "Top 2-dozen Hall-of-Fame-Worthy Players Eligible for the H-o-F, But Not Yet Inducted."

It can wait until after @ResilientBeast 's pre-Consolidation Players initiative, however. 

Who knows, maybe by the time RB wraps one up, I could even administer one of these things(?) [Can't do it just now, though...]


----------



## Yozhik v tumane

ChiTownPhilly said:


> The Project I'd like to see would be "Top 2-dozen Hall-of-Fame-Worthy Players Eligible for the H-o-F, But Not Yet Inducted."
> 
> It can wait until after @ResilientBeast 's pre-Consolidation Players initiative, however.
> 
> Who knows, maybe by the time RB wraps one up, I could even administer one of these things(?) [Can't do it just now, though...]




If we go by the top 200 project, there aren’t many guys left to finish the second dozen!

Not sure I didn’t miss someone but:

Firsov
Mikhailov
Maltsev
Martinec
Holecek
Vasiliev
Krutov
Petrov
Suchy
Kasatonov
Tremblay
Brewer
Pospisil
Joseph
Alfredsson
Yakushev
Elias
Starshinov
Leclair


----------



## ChiTownPhilly

Yozhik v tumane said:


> If we go by the top 200 project, there aren’t many guys left to finish the second dozen!
> 
> Not sure I didn’t miss someone but:
> 
> Firsov
> Mikhailov
> Maltsev
> Martinec
> Holecek
> Vasiliev
> Krutov
> Petrov
> Suchy
> Kasatonov
> Tremblay
> Brewer
> Pospisil
> Joseph
> Alfredsson
> Yakushev
> Elias
> Starshinov
> Leclair



Rendition of this list is a helpful starting point... but there's a distinction, more than just semantical, between the two questions "Next Top Players" and "Hall-of-Fame worthy players." Example- Willie O'Ree. Not a "top-player," but I don't think you'll find many who'd say "not Hall-of-Fame worthy." What about Bob(rov)? A case can be made that he's Hall-of-Fame worthy, even if not a 'top-(x) player.'

Conversation worth having, I think.


----------



## Yozhik v tumane

ChiTownPhilly said:


> Rendition of this list is a helpful starting point... but there's a distinction, more than just semantical, between the two questions "Next Top Players" and "Hall-of-Fame worthy players." Example- Willie O'Ree. Not a "top-player," but I don't think you'll find many who'd say "not Hall-of-Fame worthy." What about Bob(rov)? A case can be made that he's Hall-of-Fame worthy, even if not a 'top-(x) player.'
> 
> Conversation worth having, I think.




Agreed actually. I’ve thought that what we’ve missed out on in terms of sharing the knowledge of the HoH in the top 100/200 projects has been conveying some kind of consensus on the relative importance of a player’s contributions to the history of the game, which goes beyond how they compared head-to-head against top peers in their primes and the rarity of their NHL achievements.

Everyone has to learn it’s not specifically the NHL Hall of Fame at some point.

Mogilny isn’t in the Hall of Fame, and he’s not on the top 200, but I’d argue he’s infinitely more “HoF worthy” than Alfredsson or LeClair. Partly because he was such a thrill to behold, but certainly because of his story. And I still don’t think he tops the list of notable snubs.

In Sweden, whenever someone makes a top 10 of the greatest Swedish players of all time, Sven Tumba must feature lest one would look ignorant to forget perhaps not the best, but arguably the most important player in the history of Swedish hockey.

I’ve seen the idea of an all-Swede/all Hank and Dan Hall of Fame class mentioned around the boards, but I’d much prefer the message of a completely non-NHL class of deserving players to celebrate the history of the game rather than celebrating the back-to-back Art Ross twin curiosity/Conn Smythe/Conn Smythy runs of Swedes at this point. Unless I’m forgetting something obvious, don’t think there’s any decisive “first ballot” guy whose just become eligible in the last few years at any rate, so now would be a great time to strike.


----------



## tarheelhockey

Yozhik v tumane said:


> If we go by the top 200 project, there aren’t many guys left to finish the second dozen!
> 
> Not sure I didn’t miss someone but:
> 
> *Firsov*
> *Mikhailov*
> *Maltsev*
> *Martinec*
> *Holecek*
> *Vasiliev*
> *Krutov*
> *Petrov*
> *Suchy*
> *Kasatonov*
> Tremblay
> Brewer
> Pospisil
> Joseph
> Alfredsson
> Yakushev
> Elias
> Starshinov
> Leclair




Hopefully someone at the HHOF sees this thread, notices the bolded, and understands that it really needs to be addressed.


----------



## Professor What

Yozhik v tumane said:


> Everyone has to learn it’s not specifically the NHL Hall of Fame at some point.




Yeah, it's a rather annoying assumption that many make, even if they don't vocalize it. For example, I don't know if Tumba should go in just as a player, but he should be in without a doubt as a builder. I believe we'd be missing some names we know how if not for his contributions to growing the sport in Sweden. That's the kind of resume that's more deserving than some that get in.

Edit: Actually, I should say you don't even have to leave North America to find that. Isn't there some guy named Creighton?


----------



## Michael Farkas

tarheelhockey said:


> Hopefully someone at the HHOF sees this thread, notices the bolded, and understands that it really needs to be addressed.




If the HHOF is so establishment that WHA guys and union men have to pay a price...what are you expecting to happen with a bunch of evil commie pinkos...?

Obviously a facetious remark, but the avenue in for these guys is appreciably uphill and coated with salted butter...


----------



## tarheelhockey

Mike Farkas said:


> If the HHOF is so establishment that WHA guys and union men have to pay a price...




Notably, the next two guys are Tremblay and Brewer. Then Pospisil.


----------



## Theokritos

Mike Farkas said:


> Obviously a facetious remark, but the avenue in for these guys is appreciably uphill and coated with salted butter...




It could be worse.


----------



## ImporterExporter

Just noticed a few "errors" in the rankings at the top of page 1. 

Hod Stuart is listed as a C but should be listed as D

Nikita Kucherov is listed as a LW but should be RW.


----------



## seventieslord

ImporterExporter said:


> Just noticed a few "errors" in the rankings at the top of page 1.
> 
> Hod Stuart is listed as a C but should be listed as D
> 
> Nikita Kucherov is listed as a LW but should be RW.




Thanks, I can't update this but @Theokritos can.


----------



## Johnny Engine

Got it.


----------



## TheDevilMadeMe

If we're changing positional stuff 

Doug Bentley should be LW/C
Vaclav Nedomansky probably should be C/RW
Patrik Elias probably should be LW/C 

Bentley was an all star at both positions. Nedomansky/Elias's secondary position is definitely secondary, but when Sergei Fedorov is listed as C/D...


----------



## bobholly39

blueandgoldguy said:


> Some ideas for next list...
> 
> Top-300 (201-300)
> Top 10 players from each original 6 team (plus maybe add in Montreal Wanderers and original Ottawa Senators)...probably mostly redundant but might see some interesting twists with some players splitting their careers with 2 different teams.
> Top - 50 players from 2000 season - present




I know others already commented but...

Top 300 - absolutely not. Top 200 was a great endeavor and I'm glad we did it, but I feel as though beyond 150 it became really hard. So little to differentiate. Going 200 to 300 would be just about impossible. 

We've had discussions of top 10 (or mount rushmore top 4-5) from different teams often...don't think a full and involved project is really necessary for that.

Top 50 players from 2000 season to present - In our current top 200 list we must have at least ~30+ players from years 2000+ already no? Maybe a little's changed in past 2 years, but for most part just take the top players listed, and come up with the final ~10-15 missing and you're done. Not much of a project. And as others said - polls and main board will probably bring a larger audience, and pretty qualified audience for that period.

I know a few here want to do a pre-consolidation ranking next. Personally - I'd love for us to try something different, such as:

- Top 50 peaks (would have to define "peak", something around ~2-3 years or such)
- Top 50 seasons (individual seasons, only 1 per player, so we don't have Gretzky/Orr/Lemieux present ~25 times)

Every list we've ever done is about whose the "greatest". To me - 'greatest' implies in large part greater career. Doing top 50 peak/seasons would be all about who was "best". Big difference. Would be very interesting to do


----------



## ResilientBeast

bobholly39 said:


> - Top 50 peaks (would have to define "peak", something around ~2-3 years or such)
> - Top 50 seasons (individual seasons, only 1 per player, so we don't have Gretzky/Orr/Lemieux present ~25 times)




But why? 

Why are these preferable to an in-depth project exploring a rich area (pre-consolidation) of hockey history in a robust way?


----------



## The Macho King

ResilientBeast said:


> But why?
> 
> Why are these preferable to an in-depth project exploring a rich area (pre-consolidation) of hockey history in a robust way?



If I'm being a devil's advocate - the water being carried on pre-consolidation player research is going to be like... five people at most, while anyone can go to HR and pull information on how good Orr's '72 season was.

As an ATDer, there's no contest. I want a pre-consolidation project. Hell, as a history buff I want a pre-consolidation project over a bunch of debating over stuff that's been talked about 500 times on these prestigious fora. But I'm just guessing at the motivation.


----------



## ResilientBeast

The Macho King said:


> If I'm being a devil's advocate - the water being carried on pre-consolidation player research is going to be like... five people at most, while anyone can go to HR and pull information on how good Orr's '72 season was.
> 
> As an ATDer, there's no contest. I want a pre-consolidation project. Hell, as a history buff I want a pre-consolidation project over a bunch of debating over stuff that's been talked about 500 times on these prestigious fora. But I'm just guessing at the motivation.




This is definitely a good point, and we'll have to figure out a good way to get as much information as possible available to all the participants because the further we go back the bigger mess it's going to be. If we dip our toes into the 19th century that will be a huge pain.

Haviland Routh anyone? lol

There are some good free newspaper archives I've mined before for western papers and local libraries at least up here in Alberta actually give some good resources so hopefully others have some level of access


----------



## bobholly39

ResilientBeast said:


> But why?
> 
> Why are these preferable to an in-depth project exploring a rich area (pre-consolidation) of hockey history in a robust way?




Personal preference? Lots of people were excited at the prospect of ranking top peaks last time we brought it up. I don't really understand the question - seems pretty self explanatory. 

Also - it's a lot easier to do.


----------



## ResilientBeast

bobholly39 said:


> Personal preference? Lots of people were excited at the prospect of ranking top peaks last time we brought it up. I don't really understand the question - seems pretty self explanatory.
> 
> Also - it's a lot easier to do.




Sure it's easier but all it is recycling some of the same arguments we've had just through a somewhat different lense. 

There is little opportunity for new and interesting research and conclusions, something I think these projects can be good for. A prime example being the non-NHL Euros which gave me a venue to learn so much more about those players than I would've otherwise.


----------



## TheDevilMadeMe

Heck, I'll even pay for a newspapers.com subscription for a month or two if we do the pre-consolidation project (not that I expect everyone to)


----------



## blueandgoldguy

Top 50 women hockey players all-time?


----------



## Yozhik v tumane

blueandgoldguy said:


> Top 50 women hockey players all-time?




When we’re on the subject of knowledge gaps amongst the HoH… Considering that the lid flew off a few good folks over the fact one voter had thrown Hailey Wickenheiser an admittedly token 120th place vote in the top 100 project, perhaps this would be quite worthwhile.


----------



## seventieslord

blueandgoldguy said:


> Top 50 women hockey players all-time?



I would put my whole heart into this.


----------



## bobholly39

ResilientBeast said:


> Sure it's easier but all it is recycling some of the same arguments we've had just through a somewhat different lense.
> 
> There is little opportunity for new and interesting research and conclusions, something I think these projects can be good for. A prime example being the non-NHL Euros which gave me a venue to learn so much more about those players than I would've otherwise.




I dunno. I know some of the regulars here seem to have very high interest for pre-consolidation and that's cool - but how many people would actually participate actively? 5? 10? Is that enough? You guys figure it out. If you decide to go for it - cool, I'll certainly follow very actively.

If that doesn't happen - I still think best peaks/single seasons is the way to go. Broader participation - and we've never ranked by peak before so it would be very interesting to do.

You say it's "the recycling of the same arguments" - sure, but that's true of any comparison we ever do. Difference here is that it would be a lot more specific and precise what we're ranking.

My biggest issue with all of our projects is that people value different things differently. So it's cool to list the top 100 players and have 20 people voting - but if 5 of them value peak more, 5 value prime more, 5 value playoffs more, 5 value longevity move - and all 20 do so to varying degrees - no one is really comparing/ranking the same thing. If we rank single peak season, or peak - I think it's a lot more specific, and we're all ranking the same thing more closely. Would give for interesting results.

Also - this board has never done a peak ranking, and personally I'm most fascinated by peak level of play. I'd love to have a list to show who are the best of the best players ever - looking at their absolute peak.


----------



## Johnny Engine

seventieslord said:


> I would put my whole heart into this.



While I can't exactly say the same thing (because I know what it looks like when you put your whole heart into a HOH ranking project and that's a high bar to clear), but this is perhaps the single most worthwhile thing we could be doing, and it's nearly entirely untrodded ground around here. I would participate for sure.
The only drawback is the lack of expertise we have on the subject in this forum (as far as I know), and while I would personally find a best-we-can-do attempt a valuable thing, I know that the Non-NHL Europeans project left a lot of people who were closer to the subject bitter about how it turned out. I don't know who around here is closest to the subject and how they feel about it, one way or another.


----------



## jigglysquishy

I think a top women's hockey project would be fun.

A big issue we will run into is comparing leagues. Even in the Euro project, it was primarily Czechoslovakian and Soviet domestic leagues with emphasis on international play.

How do you compare Swedish div 3 to NCAA? Women's hockey is just consolidating now.

Wickenheiser is going to be the favourite top answer (maybe further research will dispute that). How do we weigh her play against men vs other women playing against women?

Very interesting project, but definitely a challenge bigger than pre consolidation or pre NHL Euros.

There's no "easy debates" left to have. Gretzky vs Lemieux. Bourque vs Lidstrom. Hasek vs Roy. Those are fun, but I am eager to sink my teeth into something different, whether that's who is the second best defenseman of 1910s hockey or who is the 13th best female hockey player.


----------



## TheDevilMadeMe

Top women's hockey would be great... assuming we could actually get people who know anything about women's hockey. But could we? 

For the HOH Top non-NHL Euros project, we tried to bring in posters from the international and European leagues forums. Didn't get as many as we wanted, but I believe we got a few. Is there even a woman's hockey forum on hfboards? How active is it? 

Also for HOH Top non-NHL Euros, some of us HOH regulars did start with SOME knowledge, something that I at least don't have for the woman's project. 

Basically, I would love for something like this to happen, but I don't know if we have the user base.


----------



## The Macho King

TheDevilMadeMe said:


> Top women's hockey would be great... assuming we could actually get people who know anything about women's hockey. But could we?
> 
> For the HOH Top non-NHL Euros project, we tried to bring in posters from the international and European leagues forums. Didn't get as many as we wanted, but I believe we got a few. Is there even a woman's hockey forum on hfboards? How active is it?
> 
> Also for HOH Top non-NHL Euros, some of us HOH regulars did start with SOME knowledge, something that I at least don't have for the woman's project.
> 
> Basically, I would love for something like this to happen, but I don't know if we have the user base.



Conversely - the way to get the knowledge base may be to just start doing it. Our first project may be shit but the 2029 project will have a much better foundation.


----------



## Michael Farkas

It's an interesting idea...but, I'll be the first to confess...if we all took little slips of paper and wrote down a number on it - that number is how many women's hockey games you have watched. Fold the piece of paper and hand it to, say, seventieslord...what's the average number? I'll tell ya, there's no shot I'm even close to triple digits. For that reason alone, I'm not qualified to participate.


----------



## jigglysquishy

Mike Farkas said:


> It's an interesting idea...but, I'll be the first to confess...if we all took little slips of paper and wrote down a number on it - that number is how many women's hockey games you have watched. Fold the piece of paper and hand it to, say, seventieslord...what's the average number? I'll tell ya, there's no shot I'm even close to triple digits. For that reason alone, I'm not qualified to participate.




I'll confess, outside of international hockey, I've watched a grand total of zero women's games. I've watched more women vs boys games than I have watched women vs women club games.


----------



## ResilientBeast

VanIslander said:


> *The Inaugural HOH Intangibles Project*.
> Are you in?




No. 

This is a project that is not well served by the structure of HOH projects


----------



## ImporterExporter

Coaches. It's the one major piece of the hockey equation we've not yet delved into.


----------



## ResilientBeast

ImporterExporter said:


> Coaches. It's the one major piece of the hockey equation we've not yet delved into.




Don't disagree, personally not really interested


----------



## Michael Farkas

Mike Farkas said:


> Team results depend on team composition too. If you're not a part of the practices, understanding the tactics that were attempted, understanding and considering the skill development, etc. you (royal you) won't have any idea of how it went down. Results are the tip of the iceberg. You can win in spite of a coach, you can win because of a coach...the best coaching job this year might not end up in the playoffs, for instance...or it could win the Cup...either way, it's immeasurable to us in my opinion...
> 
> It would require a ton of video work to find innovation (Soviet weave, left wing lock, 1-3-1 power play, etc.) and who did it first...and frankly, we don't do enough video work for the player things (which are infinitely easier to spot), so I can't imagine us pursuing it for a coaching thing...it's too abstract for those that didn't do it or at least played at a high level, in my opinion...


----------



## seventieslord

I'm sure the number of women's games I've watched is in the very low double digits. Pretty much every big Canada-usa game of the last 24 years, and that's about it.

Am I a women's hockey expert? Nope. Is anyone else on the HOH board? Don't think so. That all being said, however, we've all done some pretty good ranking and sorting of dozens of pre-merger players, none of whom a second of footage existed for.

How were we able to do that? For starters, our aptitude isn't just for hockey, but for historical ranking itself. For example, I only have a passing interest in baseball, but give me a day and a history of league leaders, award voting records, etc, and I could use methods and principles that I've developed over the last 15 years and come up with a top 100 for baseball that would be pretty damn good. As good as someone who has my skillset, plus knows baseball intimately? Surely not, but reasonable nonetheless. And I can do a better job on women's hockey than I could on baseball.

How do we rank those older players from the formative years of hockey whom we can never see play? Well, to start with, we get a good sense for who the greatest were based on who made it into the HHOF. We can look at their stats. We can use reference points to infer the strength of competition that existed in their various leagues. We can look at who won awards and made all-star teams. We can read about who observers thought was the best.

All of these things, we can also do for women's hockey, except we can see them play, too.

I do agree that it would be a good idea to have multiple people involved who know more about women's hockey than anyone here currently does. I believe I know who I can ask about that.

We are all here to learn, and I can't speak for everyone of course, but I think that this would bring out the best in me as a researcher and as a student of the game. It's a very worthwhile topic.

As for who would ultimately make the list, I imagine it would be a few dozen who played in multiple Canada/USA clashes since 1998, and maybe the odd great from another country here and there (those exist, right?)

But of course, just like men's hockey didn't start in 1967 and it didn't start in 1926 and it didn't start in 1918 and it didn't even really start in 1893, I'm definitely open to being taught about some Elite women's players that came before 1998. I would need to be more convinced of their greatness and how much they stood above other women's players of their day, but I'm not opposed to ranking them in earnest with the modern greats, just like we should be open to ranking players like Russell Bowie and Mike Grant.


----------



## Batis

seventieslord said:


> As for who would ultimately make the list, I imagine it would be a few dozen who played in multiple Canada/USA clashes since 1998, *and maybe the odd great from another country here and there (those exist, right?)*




Riikka Sallinen is one that comes to mind as a strong candidate. She was one of the best players in the world during the 90s as she made the All-Star team at three World Championships (92, 94 and 97) and led the 1998 Olympics in scoring when Finland finished in third place. Sallinen decided to retire after the 02/03 season at age 29/30 but then ten years later at the age of 40 she made a comeback during the 13/14 season and played in two more Olympics. When Finland finished in third place at the 2018 Olympics she managed to finish in the top 10 in scoring an incredible twenty years after she had been the leading scorer at the 1998 Olympics.


----------



## Professor What

seventieslord said:


> I'm sure the number of women's games I've watched is in the very low double digits. Pretty much every big Canada-usa game of the last 24 years, and that's about it.
> 
> Am I a women's hockey expert? Nope. Is anyone else on the HOH board? Don't think so. That all being said, however, we've all done some pretty good ranking and sorting of dozens of pre-merger players, none of whom a second of footage existed for.
> 
> How were we able to do that? For starters, our aptitude isn't just for hockey, but for historical ranking itself. For example, I only have a passing interest in baseball, but give me a day and a history of league leaders, award voting records, etc, and I could use methods and principles that I've developed over the last 15 years and come up with a top 100 for baseball that would be pretty damn good. As good as someone who has my skillset, plus knows baseball intimately? Surely not, but reasonable nonetheless. And I can do a better job on women's hockey than I could on baseball.
> 
> How do we rank those older players from the formative years of hockey whom we can never see play? Well, to start with, we get a good sense for who the greatest were based on who made it into the HHOF. We can look at their stats. We can use reference points to infer the strength of competition that existed in their various leagues. We can look at who won awards and made all-star teams. We can read about who observers thought was the best.
> 
> All of these things, we can also do for women's hockey, except we can see them play, too.
> 
> I do agree that it would be a good idea to have multiple people involved who know more about women's hockey than anyone here currently does. I believe I know who I can ask about that.
> 
> We are all here to learn, and I can't speak for everyone of course, but I think that this would bring out the best in me as a researcher and as a student of the game. It's a very worthwhile topic.
> 
> As for who would ultimately make the list, I imagine it would be a few dozen who played in multiple Canada/USA clashes since 1998, and maybe the odd great from another country here and there (those exist, right?)
> 
> But of course, just like men's hockey didn't start in 1967 and it didn't start in 1926 and it didn't start in 1918 and it didn't even really start in 1893, I'm definitely open to being taught about some Elite women's players that came before 1998. I would need to be more convinced of their greatness and how much they stood above other women's players of their day, but I'm not opposed to ranking them in earnest with the modern greats, just like we should be open to ranking players like Russell Bowie and Mike Grant.




I feel like I would be totally unqualified to participate in a project to rank the top women's players right now. As such, if that were to be launched, I'd have to sit out for the time being. However, there's no reason that can't change. Even where conversation is concerned, I feel I'd have little to offer right now, but if the group here decided to have that conversation, I'd at the very least follow it. I've learned a lot here in the last year+ that I've been here, and that could no doubt be extended to women's hockey. If we were to put it down as a future project, I'd be interested. I'd like to see where we can get in our collective knowledge and try to make it feasible.


----------



## Yozhik v tumane

I’ve probably seen something like 20 games of women’s hockey, and mostly my hometown team Luleå/MSSK in the SDHL. I can tell you a few names of top SDHL players of the last half decade, a few of whom I think perhaps could be considered for the final list (Jenni Hiirikoski for example have had the “best defenseman in the world” epithet applied to her from time to time, and she’s a huge favorite of mine). I think comparing achievements between women’s leagues will provide a considerable challenge though, I think there’s a lot making this project a much more difficult challenge than the top men.

It would of course be awesome if we could get ahold of someone with more knowledge and experience of the women’s game, but I think that just trying to do this would be a great learning experience for everyone, even without much expertise. We might render a pretty bad list in the end, but we’ll have learned things and might become more appreciative of the women in the game.


----------



## ImporterExporter

I really think a top 20-25 coaches of all time would be a neat undertaking.

One, it's an area of hockey that flat out hasn't been discussed in this arena. Coaches are such a vital aspect to a hockey team winning a Stanley Cup and there are numerous all time greats who could honestly use use some discussion and debate on. This is as good a place as you'll find to have that dialogue.

Two, instead of trying to rank 100 players, which always loses steam the further you go along, keeping the number of entries lower here would likely buoy participation through the end and lessen the fatigue on participants and also shorten the entire length of the project itself, which in turn, could then be used as a springboard to another project, more quickly.


----------



## ResilientBeast

ImporterExporter said:


> I really think a top 20-25 coaches of all time would be a neat undertaking.
> 
> One, it's an area of hockey that flat out hasn't been discussed in this arena. Coaches are such a vital aspect to a hockey team winning a Stanley Cup and there are numerous all time greats who could honestly use use some discussion and debate on. This is as good a place as you'll find to have that dialogue.
> 
> Two, instead of trying to rank 100 players, which always loses steam the further you go along, keeping the number of entries lower here would likely buoy participation through the end and lessen the fatigue on participants and also shorten the entire length of the project itself, which in turn, could then be used as a springboard to another project, more quickly.




I think @Mike Farkas reply to you kinda explains why we aren't well equipped to do this.


----------



## wetcoast

ResilientBeast said:


> I think @Mike Farkas reply to you kinda explains why we aren't well equipped to do this.




Ranking coaches is really difficult as it will become a team list more than anything else really.

I mean Roger Nielson was a great coach but didn't have much to work with, we might as well call it the most successful coaches ever project with small caveats.

Although it would be better than any intangibles or best captain list type of project to be sure.


----------



## Yozhik v tumane

Haha, I’d love the intangibles project. Imagine the debates…

NO! Ryan Smyth did NOT have that certain je ne sais quoi, however Toews had _in spades_.
I’m not questioning the notion that Armstrong was a red blooded, lionhearted, natural winner with moxy and as many stomachs as a cow: I’m just not convinced he’s top 10 all time in that department.
Gretzky needs to be #1. I checked the tape: I don’t know what he did, but it worked.
He _guaranteed_ it.


----------



## Michael Farkas

It's such an unbelievably bad idea haha


----------



## Michigan

Why was Price chosen over all the goalies that didn't make the Top 200?


----------



## TheDevilMadeMe

Bogart said:


> Why was Price chosen over all the goalies that didn't make the Top 200?




"Best goalie in the world" title for a few years is the main one.


----------



## Hockey Outsider

Yozhik v tumane said:


> Haha, I’d love the intangibles project. Imagine the debates…
> 
> NO! Ryan Smyth did NOT have that certain je ne sais quoi, however Toews had _in spades_.
> I’m not questioning the notion that Armstrong was a red blooded, lionhearted, natural winner with moxy and as many stomachs as a cow: I’m just not convinced he’s top 10 all time in that department.
> Gretzky needs to be #1. I checked the tape: I don’t know what he did, but it worked.
> He _guaranteed_ it.




Ted Kennedy's seven-year VsX intangibles of 113.7 > Mark Messier's 112.8


----------



## Johnny Engine

Our quantum intangibles list can’t possibly work, we’d just end up changing the outcome by tanging it.


----------



## Strong Hearts

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.


----------



## Strong Hearts

How about a HHOF re-do, starting with 1945, and inducting 3-4 new players/builders each year until present?


----------



## Professor What

@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.


----------



## Michigan

Among actives after 93. Kane, I rank them Keith, Doughty, Bergeron, Hedman, and Kucherov.


----------



## ResilientBeast

Strong Hearts said:


> 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.




Just remove all the players that didn't play in the NHL from top 100 list tada 



Strong Hearts said:


> How about a HHOF re-do, starting with 1945, and inducting 3-4 new players/builders each year until present?




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

ResilientBeast said:


> 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



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.


----------



## rmartin65

The Macho King said:


> 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

rmartin65 said:


> 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.



I think I prefer women's players to pre-consolidation (because I think the knowledge gap is bigger), but those are my top two.


----------



## Overrated

Take into consideration the depth of the player pool duh.


----------



## ResilientBeast

Overrated said:


> Take into consideration the depth of the player pool duh.




Huh?


----------



## ResilientBeast

The Macho King said:


> I think I prefer women's players to pre-consolidation (because I think the knowledge gap is bigger), but those are my top two.




1) Pre-consolidation 




2) Woman's hockey 













3) Everything else


----------



## Professor What

ResilientBeast said:


> Huh?




Good question. Matches my thoughts.


----------



## Batis

ResilientBeast said:


> 1) Pre-consolidation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Woman's hockey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Everything else




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

ResilientBeast said:


> Huh?




Overrated has some pretty strong opinions that everything pre 1970 is glorified beer league and that everything pre 1990 is weak hockey.


----------



## Professor What

jigglysquishy said:


> Overrated has some pretty strong opinions that everything pre 1970 is glorified beer league and that everything pre 1990 is weak hockey.




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

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.


----------



## Professor What

ImporterExporter said:


> 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.




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?


----------



## Vilica

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

2022: Pre Consolidation 
2023: Women
2024: Best mustaches


----------



## ResilientBeast

jigglysquishy said:


> 2022: Pre Consolidation
> 2023: Women
> 2024: Best mustaches









Mike Grant easily 1st


----------



## seventieslord

ResilientBeast said:


> Mike Grant easily 1st




Yeah, but relative to his era?


----------



## The Macho King

ResilientBeast said:


> Mike Grant easily 1st



I'm going to say something we all know here.

We can't have a "best mustaches" list because we're going to get inundated by Leafs fans putting over Wendel Clark. The project is doomed to fail.


----------



## seventieslord

The Macho King said:


> I'm going to say something we all know here.
> 
> We can't have a "best mustaches" list because we're going to get inundated by Leafs fans putting over Wendel Clark. The project is doomed to fail.



Don't forget Macoun. Relative to his era he was hugely dominant.


----------



## ResilientBeast

seventieslord said:


> Yeah, but relative to his era?




I guess his VStashX isn't that great you're right


----------



## Yozhik v tumane

ResilientBeast said:


> I guess his VStashX isn't that great you're right




The VStashX is a terrible metric which overrates modern players.

There, I said it. I mean, his 7-year VStashX puts Cal Clutterbuck through the roof, but if we had a time machine and made him compete against 70s mustaches, his numbers would look way more pedestrian.


----------



## jigglysquishy

Players in the late 90s tended to be clean shaven so era comparisons have to take that into account.

The 70s was a high scoring era for mustaches. How do we evaluate the impact of disco on facial hair evolution?


----------



## Professor What

My question is how you would evaluate someone like Joe Thornton. I mean, there's an impressive mustache in there, but where does it end and beard begin? It's important not to conflate things and give too much or too little credit as a result.


----------



## The Macho King

Professor What said:


> My question is how you would evaluate someone like Joe Thornton. I mean, there's an impressive mustache in there, but where does it end and beard begin? It's important not to conflate things and give too much or too little credit as a result.



A mustache is an independent item. Mustaches as part of a beard are beards, not mustaches.

Exception - if you rock a mustache at all times but have a beard due to playoff bearding, it still counts as a mustache.


----------



## Professor What

The Macho King said:


> A mustache is an independent item. Mustaches as part of a beard are beards, not mustaches.
> 
> Exception - if you rock a mustache at all times but have a beard due to playoff bearding, it still counts as a mustache.




I'm offended. I find that highly discriminatory. I'm gonna go figure out how to launch some sort of protest now. FREE THE STACHE!


----------



## seventieslord

Professor What said:


> My question is how you would evaluate someone like Joe Thornton. I mean, there's an impressive mustache in there, but where does it end and beard begin? It's important not to conflate things and give too much or too little credit as a result.




Absolutely this. Giving too much credit to Joe Thornton's mustache would be ignoring the influence of its linemate, the beard.

This brings up another really important point for consideration. The fu Manchu. It takes up facial space typically reserved for beards, but in this case it's clearly a part of the mustache. Where do we draw the line?

And if you draw that line at the bottom of the chin, well then you've pretty much made a goatee. Where do they fit in? They're surely closer to a mustache than a beard. I know interpositional comparisons are encouraged. But how do you evaluate a good beard relative to a good goatee?

Part of me thinks that if we are the history of hockey board, then this thing shouldn't be so restrictive. All mustaches should be eligible, but so should beards, goatees, handlebars, soul patches, neckbeards, sideburns, and even good stubble. And what do you make of whatever it is that Crosby grows? It's none of the above but no one would deny it is significant and memorable.


----------



## Professor What

seventieslord said:


> Absolutely this. Giving too much credit to Joe Thornton's mustache would be ignoring the influence of its linemate, the beard.




I still feel like this is only half of the point. Yes, the beard contributes to the mustache, but without the mustache, we all know the beard wouldn't be the same. I'm only interested in truth and fairness here.


----------



## Michael Farkas

Once again, this board is going to be anti-Brodeur I see...he played on a team that forbade facial hair...once again, he's more negatively affected by "the system" than anything...


----------



## Professor What

Mike Farkas said:


> Once again, this board is going to be anti-Brodeur I see...he played on a team that forbade facial hair...once again, he's more negatively affected by "the system" than anything...




Wanna join my protest?


----------



## wetcoast

seventieslord said:


> Don't forget Macoun. Relative to his era he was hugely dominant.









End of discussion eh?


----------



## wetcoast

Professor What said:


> My question is how you would evaluate someone like Joe Thornton. I mean, there's an impressive mustache in there, but where does it end and beard begin? It's important not to conflate things and give too much or too little credit as a result.




Obviously this is a case of a "secondary" mustache right?


----------



## seventieslord

wetcoast said:


> End of discussion eh?




It was a pretty high-mustache era, so I wouldn't be confident saying he's definitely the GOAT.


----------



## wetcoast

seventieslord said:


> It was a pretty high-mustache era, so I wouldn't be confident saying he's definitely the GOAT.




We obviously need more research into this project but also need to investigate substances used in promoting mustache growth and grooming techniques.

As a non mustache (and avid anti facial hair advocate for myself) I feel unqualified in doing this project without more research.


----------



## Professor What

wetcoast said:


> Obviously this is a case of a "secondary" mustache right?




This is absolutely brutal. I'm starting a list of names for my protest.

Of course, I've got to find a place worthy of the stache to hold said protest first.


----------



## SillyRabbit

Just FYI, there’s a poster named psycat who is running around the main board criticizing this list wherever he can. 

Not that his personal opinion matters at all (since his criticisms are to simply call it a “shitpile”) but since I’m not sure if many of you venture out there, I thought I’d let you know.

I’m trying to defend the list as I know how much work went into it but clearly people only care about hearing what they want to hear.

The biggest iconic superstar for their country?


----------



## Hockey Outsider

SillyRabbit said:


> Just FYI, there’s a poster named psycat who is running around the main board criticizing this list wherever he can.
> 
> Not that his personal opinion matters at all (since his criticisms are to simply call it a “shitpile”) but since I’m not sure if many of you venture out there, I thought I’d let you know.
> 
> I’m trying to defend the list as I know how much work went into it but clearly people only care about hearing what they want to hear.
> 
> The biggest iconic superstar for their country?




I can't speak for everyone, but I think the majority of the people who contributed to the HOH "Top X" projects appreciate thoughtful, constructive criticism. Nobody wants HOH to turn into an echo chamber, so outside voices are encouraged. Everyone here started as an outside voice, at some point.

There are a few people who repeatedly criticize the Top 100 project on the main board. Usually, the motivation is obvious - they're trying to discredit a list that they think underrated their favourite player. (As if 30+ adults had nothing better to do over the span of three months than write a few hundred thousands words, in order to screw over someone's favourite player). It's usually clear who's trying to have a good faith dialogue, and who's trying to repeat the same talking points over and over.

I don't think any of us are losing sleep over the ramblings from someone who 1) doesn't have the courage to post their criticisms here where the authors of the list can see them and address them; and 2) whose arguments consist of calling the list a "shitpile" written by a bunch of "geezers" and "habophiles". The ad hominems don't offend me, but the lack of substance does.

(To be clear - I don't want the last paragraph to deter anyone from making good faith criticisms of the list).


----------



## jigglysquishy

Almost all main board criticisms fall into three categories

1) Everyone before 2005/1991/1979/1967/1945/1928/1917 sucked. Usually coincides with when they started watching hockey or their favourite player started playing.
2) My favourite player is underrated and their rival is overrated (see, Roy and Hasek, Yzerman and Sakic, Gretzky and Lemieux, Lidstrom and Bourque, Crosby and Ovechkin)
3) Canadians or Canadiens are overrepresented.

I think everyone appreciates constructive criticism. And with how much my list has changed in the last decade I think we're more flexible than we are given credit for.

If anything, the lists have gotten more representative of all time periods and non NHL play.


----------



## psycat

Thing is you are the one using the list as some form of "evidence" to randomly attack players in irrelevant polls. There simply is no way to logically rank Harvey above Lidström and at the same time have Bourque above either, then it's all about moving goalposts and obvious bias. 

Also the list is objectively questionable in that it have no less than 4 overrated Habs players in the top 10. Call it whatever you wan't and might be I should have used different words to describe it but when there are discussions that can go either way(or in some cases is blatantly in favor of the non Hab player) and they all end up in favor of the Habs players there is reason to suspect the list is indeed, if not flat out a pile of shit, at the very least very, very biased.


----------



## jigglysquishy

psycat said:


> Thing is you are the one using the list as some form of "evidence" to randomly attack players in irrelevant polls. There simply is no way to logically rank Harvey above Lidström and at the same time have Bourque above either, then it's all about moving goalposts and obvious bias.
> 
> Also the list is objectively questionable in that it have no less than 4 overrated Habs players in the top 10. Call it whatever you wan't and might be I should have used different words to describe it but when there are discussions that can go either way(or in some cases is blatantly in favor of the non Hab player) and they all end up in favor of the Habs players there is reason to suspect the list is indeed, if not flat out a pile of shit, at the very least very, very biased.




Post your list.


----------



## The Macho King

I don't really like using this list as some sort of "see? X player is better than Y player" point of argument. I don't think that list represents *the* list of any single individual - it's the product of a consensus which means everyone hates it at least a little bit. Richard and Jagr are way too high for my liking. I'd have Bourque over Harvey. Don't even get me started on Paul Coffey.

I especially don't like it when the margins being discussed are razor thin. As a practical matter, there isn't a whole lot separating 10 from 15, or 30 from 40, or 60 from 80 in a project like this.

That being said - I still think it's a good project and I think it a) adds value (especially in relation to certain lists which selectively and incompletely pick from certain eras/regions in a way that is somehow worse than leaving those eras/regions out entirely), and b) is a fun way to spend some time.

To expand: I think a lot of this springs from @psycat thinking Lidstrom should be higher. Guess what? That's not an absurd position to take. I think he ended up about where he should have personally - weak era for Dmen and his main competition generally took a good chunk of games off every season for suspensions/injuries - but I also don't think it's wrong to think he should be higher. And if you want to knock Harvey for being a product of a stacked team in a weak era? Damn good point. Bourque for not winning a Cup until he was on a superteam? Yeah that's an issue. Richard for racking up his most notable achievements in a war-depleted league? Excellent point and worthy of discussion!

These issues were all discussed while making the list for the record, but people ended up being convinced by those arguments to varying degrees. And that's where the collective ended as to the strength of those arguments. Doesn't mean your critiques are without merit, but to the extent it adds some weight to the projects methodology (if not results) - those issues were not glossed over.


----------



## ResilientBeast

psycat said:


> objectively questionable in that it have no less than 4 overrated Habs players in the top 10.




the irony of this sentence lol


----------



## tarheelhockey

psycat said:


> Thing is you are the one using the list as some form of "evidence" to randomly attack players in irrelevant polls. There simply is no way to logically rank Harvey above Lidström and at the same time have Bourque above either, then it's all about moving goalposts and obvious bias.




Here's a 40 page thread on that exact topic.

Lidstrom vs. Harvey for #2 Dman of all time?

Here's a 27 page thread.

Nicklas Lidstrom vs Doug Harvey

Here's a 20 page thread.

Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Defensemen)

Here's a mere 3 page thread.

Harvey Versus Lidstrom


By the time you've read all that, you've read the equivalent of a technical manual on this specific subject.

The thing is, it's _completely legitimate_ to object to the ordering of the Harvey-Bourque-Lidstrom trio. I see what you're seeing there. But there are also extremely extensive arguments and counter-arguments underlying that order, and you're not doing anything at all to address them. It's like wandering onto another team's board and trying to argue with them about lineup decisions. You better be prepared to get into the weeds, fast, with outstanding points. Skimming along the surface isn't gonna cut it with a crowd that has already spent weeks exploring the depths.


----------



## jigglysquishy

tarheelhockey said:


> Here's a 40 page thread on that exact topic.
> 
> Lidstrom vs. Harvey for #2 Dman of all time?
> 
> Here's a 27 page thread.



Opened the thread and @TheDevilMadeMe sums up my thoughts on the 2 spot debate.

"Ray Bourque and Eddie Shore also need to be included in any serious discussion about the #2 defenseman of all time"


----------



## Weztex

psycat said:


> Thing is you are the one using the list as some form of "evidence" to randomly attack players in irrelevant polls. There simply is no way to logically rank Harvey above Lidström and at the same time have Bourque above either, then it's all about moving goalposts and obvious bias.
> 
> Also the list is objectively questionable in that it have no less than 4 overrated Habs players in the top 10. Call it whatever you wan't and might be I should have used different words to describe it but when there are discussions that can go either way(or in some cases is blatantly in favor of the non Hab player) and they all end up in favor of the Habs players there is reason to suspect the list is indeed, if not flat out a pile of shit, at the very least very, very biased.




If you feel that this list is presented to you as an empirical study, then the problem may lie in the way you receive it. Any list of this kind is objectively questionable since it is built on the opinions of people who value different things in different ways. To call it very biased is implying that the entire community that put effort into it is somehow subject to collective preconceived ideas. However the months/years of discussions leading to this list were filled with debates, opposing views, differences in perspectives and contrasts in evaluations. The final result in an aggregation of rational and thoughtful discussions between hockey history buffs, including some of the most knowledgable people on hockey history. 

If you feel that the ranking of a player you love on an aggregated list built by tens of well informed people is a pile of shit, maybe - 1) you need to ask yourself if you have all the information you need to make a sound opinion about said player -2) go and try to put up a list you consider better so we collectively educate ourselves with one man's opinion. -3) maybe take a breath and don't take those ranking like they will change anything in anyone's life.


----------



## psycat

Think people here misunderstand what I don't like about the list. I don't think Lidström deserves to be ranked higher than 3rd amongst defencemen and I could see a case for him being ranked as low as 6th but I see zero case for ranking Harvey above him, it just doesn't make any sense and especially not if one can't acknowledge there is a case, however weak, for Lidström above Bourque.

My "problem" with the list(I am fully aware I can just ignore it's excistence) is that Habs players are ranked way to high. To me having so many habs players in the top 10 is similiar to claiming all players of yesterday were inferior to the ones playing now.

Someone asked me to post a list? Let's say my top 10 is something like the obvious 4(Gretzky first, Howe second), then Jagr, Hasek, Beliveau, Hull, Bourque in some order. Don't really see how that's relevant to be fair but I do enjoy making lists and think I have put quite a bit of thought into mine over the years.

I will read the stuff that was posted(Might be I have already read it since I have lurked around here for a good 10 years by now). I will also try to tone my language down and I fully realize that some people here are very knowledgeable but people with knowledge are prone to bias all the same. Keep in mind I didn't seek this list out to criticize if for the very reason that people have the rights to their opinions but when I keep getting it shoved down my throat it was hard to not get annoyed especially since I very much disagree.

Lastly the fact that I don't like this particular ranking doesn't mean I don't like the forum because I do(else I wouldn't spend time here) and I realize alot of effort goes into it, so keep up the good work.


----------



## The Macho King

Saying "Habs players are overrated" doesn't really add anything to the discussion, especially when one of them is on the list in no small part for stuff he did for another team. Also it's a team with three separate dynasties (and numerous other eras where they were strong) - they're going to be very well represented for any voter who strongly values playoff performance based on that fact alone.

Compare - they have three readily identifiable dynasties. The Leafs have a total of two both in the O6 era, the Red Wings have one, the Oilers one, the Islanders one, and the Senators one - their three dynasties and numerous other strong teams is going to - by necessity - have them high on the list, especially when dynasties tend to share at least some players between them.

You say you see "zero case" - we have spilled enough digital ink on that discussion for that contention to be because you simply haven't looked for said case, not for said case not existing.


----------



## Professor What

You guys do realize you're wasting your time, right?


----------



## The Macho King

Professor What said:


> You guys do realize you're wasting your time, right?



Got nothing else to do with it - might as well waste it.


----------



## ResilientBeast

Professor What said:


> You guys do realize you're wasting your time, right?




That's what my girlfriend says when I've been reading newspapers for 1918 Seattle Mets game summaries

I'm used to it


----------



## Professor What

ResilientBeast said:


> That's what my girlfriend says when I've been reading newspapers for 1918 Seattle Mets game summaries
> 
> I'm used to it




Well, I'll back you up on the newspaper part. Something can come from that.


----------



## tarheelhockey

Professor What said:


> You guys do realize you're wasting your time, right?




I dunno, I thought his last response was reasonable. 

The issue with having Harvey over both of Bourque and Lidstrom has been identified here before (quite possibly by psycat... I don't remember) and it's a legitimate question. 

The argument for Harvey > Bourque is that he had a pioneering role in a very successful team environment, and has a higher trophy count. 
The argument for Bourque > Lidstrom is that he was the better hockey player for a longer period of time, regardless of trophy counting. 
But then you get to Harvey > Lidstrom and the snake seems to eat its tail. Their arguments are damn near identical, so it would seem you either have to put Harvey lower or Lidstrom higher. 
The question of Bourque >/< Lidstrom has been resolved, _very _narrowly but also decisively, in Bourque's favor. 
So the logical next step would be to put Harvey and Lidstrom at 3/4 depending on preference.
I don't recall how the arguments progressed from there when it was brought up before. IIRC, the heart of it was that a lot of Lidstrom's on-paper accolades came in part from a lack of historically-relevant competition, and that his influence was less significant than Harvey's. But there may have been more to it than that. Frankly I don't entirely know where I stand on this issue... it's an interesting paper/rock/scissors type of issue between these three players and _then _you have to throw Shore in there somewhere.


The thing about the Habs is, I think, not worth talking about. For a long time they were a dominant franchise with a bunch of generational players. Not a big deal or indicative of voter bias.


----------



## TheDevilMadeMe

The argument for Harvey #2 among defensemen is that his peak/prime was simply higher than anyone other than Orr. All this talk about trophies makes it seem like every Norris win (other than Orr) was the same. It wasn't. When he was at his best, Harvey dominated the voting in a way that nobody but Orr could come close to.


----------



## Professor What

tarheelhockey said:


> I dunno, I thought his last response was reasonable.
> 
> The issue with having Harvey over both of Bourque and Lidstrom has been identified here before (quite possibly by psycat... I don't remember) and it's a legitimate question.
> 
> The argument for Harvey > Bourque is that he had a pioneering role in a very successful team environment, and has a higher trophy count.
> The argument for Bourque > Lidstrom is that he was the better hockey player for a longer period of time, regardless of trophy counting.
> But then you get to Harvey > Lidstrom and the snake seems to eat its tail. Their arguments are damn near identical, so it would seem you either have to put Harvey lower or Lidstrom higher.
> The question of Bourque >/< Lidstrom has been resolved, _very _narrowly but also decisively, in Bourque's favor.
> So the logical next step would be to put Harvey and Lidstrom at 3/4 depending on preference.
> I don't recall how the arguments progressed from there when it was brought up before. IIRC, the heart of it was that a lot of Lidstrom's on-paper accolades came in part from a lack of historically-relevant competition, and that his influence was less significant than Harvey's. But there may have been more to it than that. Frankly I don't entirely know where I stand on this issue... it's an interesting paper/rock/scissors type of issue between these three players and _then _you have to throw Shore in there somewhere.
> 
> 
> The thing about the Habs is, I think, not worth talking about. For a long time they were a dominant franchise with a bunch of generational players. Not a big deal or indicative of voter bias.




Well, I could have missed something since I caught up on it all at once and there had been plenty of bile spewed before the last post which definitely could have influenced my impression of that post.

But as for determining the question of who ranks where with Bourque/Harvey/Lidstrom/Shore, I'm not going to fuss with anyone that makes a thoughtful argument for those four in any order. Of course, intense previous comments about that probably did a lot to put me off too.


----------



## jigglysquishy

Eddie Shore finished first in defenseman all-star voting 8 times, likely resulting in 8 Norris Trophies if it existed.

In terms of best 8 season stretch, he is arguably second only to Orr.


----------



## Hockey Outsider

*Top five players on my list who didn't make the top 200*

145. Hap Holmes
164. Frank McGee
176. Bob Gainey
188. Claude Provost
190. Guy Carbonneau
Two old-timers and three defensive forwards (Provost maybe more of a two-way forward).

*Top five player on the top 200 not on my list*

163. Bryan Hextall
177. Babe Siebert
182. Duke Keats
185. Carey Price
187. Nikita Kucherov
Three players who peaked before WWII and two active players (it's easy to rationalize this with hindsight but I think I simply forgot about Kucherov).

*Among players on both lists, five players I've overrated vs HOH*

Steven Stamkos (122 vs 170 = +48)
Jacques Lemaire (144 vs 190 = +46)
Lionel Conacher (136 vs 171 = +35)
Vaclav Nedomansky (169 vs 139 = +31)
Patrick Kane (67 vs 93 = +26)
Four forwards and a defenseman. Two active offense-only forwards, a two-way centre from the 1970's, a Czechloslavkian winger from the 1970's, and a defensive defenseman from the Great Depression era.

*Among players on both lists, five players I've underrated vs HOH*

Jack Stewart (195 vs 125 = -70)
Roy Worters (166 vs 111 = -55)
Marian Hossa (206 vs 157 = -49)
Vladimir Krutov (171 vs 127 = -44)
Elmer Lach (113 vs 81 = -32)
Victor Hedman (178 vs 146 = -32)
Two defensemen (playing seventy years apart), a recent two-way winger, a Great Depression goalie, an Original Six playmaking centre, and Krutov, who's one of the most polarizing players to rank.

What's good is I don't see any systematic bias in who I've overrated or underrated (ie I'm not consistently too harsh or too lenient on players from a specific position, era, team, or country).

The only exception might be valuing defensive/two-way forwards too much (see: Gainey, Provost, Carbonneau and Lemaire). But looking at other top two-way forwards, my ranking is usually within 10 spots either direction of the HOH consensus (true for Modano, Toews, Francis, Bergeron, Gilmour, Clarke, Datsyuk, Trottier, H. Richard, Forsberg, Fedorov, Nighbor, among others).


----------



## Hockey Outsider

Part of the case for Harvey over Bourque is the "eye test". There's very much a sense of him being a man playing against boys (or, maybe more accurately, an aging father playing against his teenage children). What I mean is he's not necessarily any bigger or faster than his competitors, but he didn't need to be. He knew where to position himself, and what moves to anticipate, so that he was more effective than anyone else in a dispassionate, almost mechanical way.

As great as Bourque was, I never got that sense about him (ie a man playing against boys). Nor with Lidstrom, or Potvin - who, at least to me, peaked higher than either of them. The only other defenseman who looked so advanced versus his peers, and I don't make this comparison lightly, is Bobby Orr.

One of Harvey's greatest strengths was his ability to speed up or slow down the game based on what his team needed. That's why I've always considered him the most consistent and most valuable member of the Habs dynasty of the late 1950's. He was the engine of that team. (Admittedly, he wouldn't have been able to use this strength nearly as much if he were playing now, since coaches now make many of the strategic decisions that players once controlled).

I've said previously that Gretzky is the only player in history who I'd say clearly had a higher hockey IQ than Harvey. The sad irony is Harvey, an alcoholic, had his personal life spiral out of control. It was a stark contrast with the quiet mastery he displayed on the ice.

I realize this is a very subjective post (coming from someone who usually tries to post facts and numbers). But there's some (limited) statistical support for these observations. He led the 1960 Habs in plus/minus in both the regular season and playoffs (tied). The Rangers, in 1962, saw their goals against drop by 42 when Harvey joined (they had the same goalie both years, and not much else changed with the roster - Harvey finished a career-high 2nd in Hart voting immediately after leaving Montreal).

During Harvey's peak in Montreal (1955 to 1961), the Habs won five straight Stanley Cups (and also lost in game 7 against Howe's Red Wings). They won just six playoff games in the first three years after he went to New York (the team still had Plante in net, another Norris winner in Johnson on the blueline, plus Beliveau, Geffrion and H. Richard). When they won a Cup again four years later, there was massive turnover on the roster. It's not right to attribute all of the changes in the Habs' fortunes to Harvey, of course, but it does provide some anecdotal evidence about his value.

If someone's goal is to dismiss hockey before 2006 (or 1980, or 1968), then none of this matters. But there's real value in trying to watch Harvey play because, I think, his ranking over Bourque or Lidstrom becomes easier to understand (regardless how you rate the Bruins vs the Red Wing).


----------



## wetcoast

Professor What said:


> You guys do realize you're wasting your time, right?




Isn't that the entire existence of time....to waste it?


----------



## bobholly39

psycat said:


> Think people here misunderstand what I don't like about the list. I don't think Lidström deserves to be ranked higher than 3rd amongst defencemen and I could see a case for him being ranked as low as 6th but I see zero case for ranking Harvey above him, it just doesn't make any sense and especially not if one can't acknowledge there is a case, however weak, for Lidström above Bourque.
> 
> My "problem" with the list(I am fully aware I can just ignore it's excistence) is that Habs players are ranked way to high. To me having so many habs players in the top 10 is similiar to claiming all players of yesterday were inferior to the ones playing now.
> 
> Someone asked me to post a list? Let's say my top 10 is something like the obvious 4(Gretzky first, Howe second), then Jagr, Hasek, Beliveau, Hull, Bourque in some order. Don't really see how that's relevant to be fair but I do enjoy making lists and think I have put quite a bit of thought into mine over the years.
> 
> I will read the stuff that was posted(Might be I have already read it since I have lurked around here for a good 10 years by now). I will also try to tone my language down and I fully realize that some people here are very knowledgeable but people with knowledge are prone to bias all the same. Keep in mind I didn't seek this list out to criticize if for the very reason that people have the rights to their opinions but when I keep getting it shoved down my throat it was hard to not get annoyed especially since I very much disagree.
> 
> Lastly the fact that I don't like this particular ranking doesn't mean I don't like the forum because I do(else I wouldn't spend time here) and I realize alot of effort goes into it, so keep up the good work.




I don't think anyone at any point was biased towards Habs because they're Hab fans. I've been a Habs fan my whole life - but I didn't live through the 50s and felt no bias whatsoever towards players. 

I think what a lot of voters valued highly is playoff success though. That's why you see a lot of players from dynasties (not just Habs) rank highly.

Tampa just won 2 cups. They're good enough to win the next 2. And who knows - maybe they lose for 2 years afterwards, and then win 2 more. 6 in 8 years for that core, dynasty, and a big one. When ranking players 20 years from now - wouldn't guys like Point/Stamkos/Kucherov/Hedman/Vasi factor in very, very highly in rankings vs peers/all-time thanks to that success? Example I think Auston Matthews > Brayden Point pretty easily. Give Point a very critical role in 4 more cup wins - good chance it'll be Point > Matthews. Playoff success simply counts?

Now if you want to argue playoffs are valued too highly and regular season is more important (and considering you place Jagr/Hasek that high, I suspect you do) - that's fine. Others have argued the same too - but it does seem people around here usually value playoffs a lot.


----------



## Michael Farkas

Yeah, I didn't want to go there...but the Habs won like 17 Cups in a 38 year span...yeah, they probably had a lot of the best players, eh? I don't know how else they could have done this...

Conversely, I actually think the 60's Leafs are underrated (unlike the 2010's Leafs on the main borad, wacka wacka!) because they played defense so much that their talent couldn't put up the numbers. There are some really talented players on those teams, and we don't represent them highly enough sometimes...

I also believe that the playoffs have a varying value as well. Not all playoffs are created equally...so to say "I value playoffs more than regular season" or whatever as a blanket statement isn't for me either. The playoffs in 2022 aren't the same as the two-game total goals series in 1927 or whenever...unfortunately, everything requires a lot of context even though blanket statements (there's too many Habs!) are so much easier...


----------



## Professor What

Mike Farkas said:


> Yeah, I didn't want to go there...but the Habs won like 17 Cups in a 38 year span...yeah, they probably had a lot of the best players, eh? I don't know how else they could have done this...
> 
> Conversely, I actually think the 60's Leafs are underrated (unlike the 2010's Leafs on the main borad, wacka wacka!) because they played defense so much that their talent couldn't put up the numbers. There are some really talented players on those teams, and we don't represent them highly enough sometimes...
> 
> I also believe that the playoffs have a varying value as well. Not all playoffs are created equally...so to say "I value playoffs more than regular season" or whatever as a blanket statement isn't for me either. The playoffs in 2022 aren't the same as the two-game total goals series in 1927 or whenever...unfortunately, everything requires a lot of context even though blanket statements (there's too many Habs!) are so much easier...




The Habs won with star power, while the Leafs won more with a team concept. Obviously, a guy who thrived in the former will have a better looking individual career.

Then again, to your point, the fact that those players with the Leafs all fit so selflessly into that concept says a lot. It's impossible to really quantify that, but I agree that some of them almost certainly get the shaft as a result.


----------



## Michigan

Pls delete


----------



## wetcoast

Michael Farkas said:


> Yeah, I didn't want to go there...but the Habs won like 17 Cups in a 38 year span...yeah, they probably had a lot of the best players, eh? I don't know how else they could have done this...
> 
> Conversely, I actually think the 60's Leafs are underrated (unlike the 2010's Leafs on the main borad, wacka wacka!) because they played defense so much that their talent couldn't put up the numbers. There are some really talented players on those teams, and we don't represent them highly enough sometimes...
> 
> I also believe that the playoffs have a varying value as well. Not all playoffs are created equally...so to say "I value playoffs more than regular season" or whatever as a blanket statement isn't for me either. The playoffs in 2022 aren't the same as the two-game total goals series in 1927 or whenever...unfortunately, everything requires a lot of context even though blanket statements (there's too many Habs!) are so much easier...



Yes the Habs did win 17 Cups in 38 years but while it might tell us how "great" the team was it might also tell us that the NHL at that time period was "easier" to construct a team to do so as well.

One of the things that I notice on this list, and quite a few of the "greatest" lists is that the list makers like winners and they might have a tendency to overate individual players sometimes because of their team accomplishments and then ever so slightly downplay others because they didn't win as much or as often and simply don't really look at why that player didn't win as often.

Prime examples of this are Jagr and obviously Marcel Dionne.

Sure it's entirely feasible that 3 of the top 10 players of all time played on the same team in basically the same era Harvey, Maurice and Beliveau but it's also a real argument that maybe they get placed too high because of the perfect conditions for them winning so many SCs as well.


----------



## Nick Hansen

Just struck me that if not for the pandemic (obviously paced for it, though), McDavid would most likely be looking at his 7th straight season of +100 points. Straight! The only other ones who have scored +100 pts in a season atleast seven times over their career are Gretzky, Lemieux, Dionne, Stastny, Bossy. Probably all see what connects them there...









Connor McDavid Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Salary, Title | Hockey-Reference.com


Checkout the latest stats of Connor McDavid. Get info about his position, age, height, weight, trade, draft, salary and more on Hockey-Reference.com




www.hockey-reference.com





When it is all said and done, I wonder if McDavid could make it a Big 5 as opposed to the Big 4 it is today.


----------



## Strong Hearts

Just out of curiosity, if this was a list of the top 200 *NHL* players, how many players would come off? Aside from the Soviet/Czech players who played in Europe, how many of the really old players wouldn't be on a top 200 NHL players list?

Babe Dye
Charlie Gardiner
Clint Benedict
Cy Denneny
Duke Keats
Eddie Gerard
Frank Foyston
Frank Frederickson
Frank Nighbor
Georges Boucher
Georges Vezina
Hap Holmes
Harry Cameron
Hugh Lehman
Ivan Johnson
Joe Malone
Mickey MacKay
Newsy Lalonde
Sprague Cleghorn


----------



## tarheelhockey

Strong Hearts said:


> Just out of curiosity, if this was a list of the top 200 *NHL* players, how many players would come off? Aside from the Soviet/Czech players who played in Europe, how many of the really old players wouldn't be on a top 200 NHL players list?
> 
> Babe Dye
> Charlie Gardiner
> Clint Benedict
> Cy Denneny
> Duke Keats
> Eddie Gerard
> Frank Foyston
> Frank Frederickson
> Frank Nighbor
> Georges Boucher
> Georges Vezina
> Hap Holmes
> Harry Cameron
> Hugh Lehman
> Ivan Johnson
> Joe Malone
> Mickey MacKay
> Newsy Lalonde
> Sprague Cleghorn




Dye is probably the easiest call. He played his whole pro career in the NHL, so he’s easily in. 

Some are easy to scratch off because they played an irrelevant phase of their career in the NHL. Keats, Foyston, Fredrickson, Lehman, MacKay didn’t do anything meaningful enough to even be considered for an NHL-only list. 

On the other end of the spectrum, some of these guys played the great majority of their career in the NHL. Gardiner, Denneny, Gerard, Nighbor, Vezina, Johnson, Benedict, Boucher. 

The big question is whether we are going to be “NHL purists” and not count the NHA. That decision has a lot of weight on Lalonde, Malone, and Cleghorn. They might still make the cut, but it would be at a much lower ranking. 

That leaves Holmes and Cameron, who both had messy career arcs through the NHL and other leagues. I don’t think either of them makes it based on his NHL argument alone. So that’s 12 in, 7 out.


----------



## Strong Hearts

tarheelhockey said:


> Dye is probably the easiest call. He played his whole pro career in the NHL, so he’s easily in.
> 
> Some are easy to scratch off because they played an irrelevant phase of their career in the NHL. Keats, Foyston, Fredrickson, Lehman, MacKay didn’t do anything meaningful enough to even be considered for an NHL-only list.
> 
> On the other end of the spectrum, some of these guys played the great majority of their career in the NHL. Gardiner, Denneny, Gerard, Nighbor, Vezina, Johnson, Benedict, Boucher.
> 
> The big question is whether we are going to be “NHL purists” and not count the NHA. That decision has a lot of weight on Lalonde, Malone, and Cleghorn. They might still make the cut, but it would be at a much lower ranking.
> 
> That leaves Holmes and Cameron, who both had messy career arcs through the NHL and other leagues. I don’t think either of them makes it based on his NHL argument alone. So that’s 12 in, 7 out.



Could you explain why Gerard would be considered safe for an NHL-only list, whereas Cameron would most likely not? Just looking at their stats (NHL-exclusive), the both of them played at the exact same time (1917-1923) and played almost the exact same number of games (129 for Cameron vs. 128 for Gerard). If anything, Cameron comes out looking better than Gerard here, as he had 142 points, compared to Gerard's 101.


----------



## seventieslord

Strong Hearts said:


> Could you explain why Gerard would be considered safe for an NHL-only list, whereas Cameron would most likely not? Just looking at their stats (NHL-exclusive), the both of them played at the exact same time (1917-1923) and played almost the exact same number of games (129 for Cameron vs. 128 for Gerard). If anything, Cameron comes out looking better than Gerard here, as he had 142 points, compared to Gerard's 101.




It really just comes down to Gerard being a much better player. Take his two NHA seasons off his career (25%) and he's still a safe bet to be top-200, since he's ~85th as it is. Cameron's probably a near-miss on the existing top-200, needing the ~30 non-NHL players to come off to make room for him. But, lop off four of his ten high-level seasons.... and he's probably no better off than he is now.

Career point totals are probably the best possible way to ensure that you overrate Cameron and underrate Gerard, by the way. I can see how superficially they look like equals using simple stats but a deeper look at the era would show you who was significantly better defensively, more respected as a player and person, contributed to winning more, and was unanimously seen as the superior player by all observers.


----------



## Strong Hearts

Appreciate the above replies, guys.

One more question regarding an NHL-only list... how would players who spent a significant portion of their careers in the WHA be affected in a ranking like this? There are two players who come to mind: Mark Howe and J. C. Tremblay.

Howe obviously had a very prolific 16-year career in the NHL, including three first-team all-star honours, though he played the first six seasons of his pro career in the WHA. He's ranked #95 on the list, so obviously he's not going anywhere even if you subtract his WHA resume... the question is how much does his career value change?

With Tremblay, he's the opposite of Howe, in that he spent the latter half of his career in the WHA. Just looking at his numbers, his offensive output increased substantially toward the end of his tenure with the Habs, followed by high-scoring seasons with the WHA Nordiques. Tremblay is ranked #173 on the list— how much does his seven years in the WHA contribute to his placement in this project?


----------



## tarheelhockey

Strong Hearts said:


> Appreciate the above replies, guys.
> 
> One more question regarding an NHL-only list... how would players who spent a significant portion of their careers in the WHA be affected in a ranking like this? There are two players who come to mind: Mark Howe and J. C. Tremblay.
> 
> Howe obviously had a very prolific 16-year career in the NHL, including three first-team all-star honours, though he played the first six seasons of his pro career in the WHA. He's ranked #95 on the list, so obviously he's not going anywhere even if you subtract his WHA resume... the question is how much does his career value change?
> 
> With Tremblay, he's the opposite of Howe, in that he spent the latter half of his career in the WHA. Just looking at his numbers, his offensive output increased substantially toward the end of his tenure with the Habs, followed by high-scoring seasons with the WHA Nordiques. Tremblay is ranked #173 on the list— how much does his seven years in the WHA contribute to his placement in this project?




I think your instincts are right on Howe. His WHA seasons validated that he was very good as a young player, but they don't really add all that much to his case. The reason he's ranked #95 is his mid-1980s peak as one of the top D in the world, with an understanding that his peak likely looks even better if not for _that _injury. Without the WHA seasons he might slip out of the top-100, because he would lose the benefit of what he did as a winger in that league, but I don't think it would be much of a drop. Arbitrarily I'd say maybe 110? 

Tremblay's an interesting question. I feel like his reputation went through a bit of a boost over the past decade or so, largely in reaction to the perceived HHOF snub as certain other players were being inducted. A big part of his case for induction is that, politics aside, his WHA performance validated that he was a really high-end performer for several years beyond the end of his term in Montreal. If we assume that his WHA accolades translate at least modestly into the NHL, then he has a claim to very strong longevity... he could have been one of the great NHL greybeards of the late 70s, along with Bucyk and Ratelle and Mikita. Instead he's out of sight out of mind, and loses HHOF induction to boot. IMO those factors definitely did impact his ranking on this list. If that all gets thrown out, I think he probably slips back into the pack a bit more. 

Of course if we're striking a bunch of other non-NHL guys from the list, they both might actually have a net gain in ranking.


----------



## sr edler

seventieslord said:


> It really just comes down to Gerard being a much better player. Take his two NHA seasons off his career (25%) and he's still a safe bet to be top-200, since he's ~85th as it is. Cameron's probably a near-miss on the existing top-200, needing the ~30 non-NHL players to come off to make room for him. But, lop off four of his ten high-level seasons.... and he's probably no better off than he is now.
> 
> Career point totals are probably the best possible way to ensure that you overrate Cameron and underrate Gerard, by the way. I can see how superficially they look like equals using simple stats but a deeper look at the era would show you who was significantly better defensively, more respected as a player and person, contributed to winning more, and was unanimously seen as the superior player by all observers.




This seems like a bit of an exaggeration to me. While I agree it's obviously a very bad process to judge players simply based on offensive numbers, there's a whole lot of more nuance going into it here and in general should be a case to case exercise, and it's not even like Cameron had outlandish offensive numbers.

Like, what's the argument here? That Cameron was a defensive liability and cost his teams Cups because of it? I don't see it. I feel that's also a peculiar point in this comparison as Gerard in general played on way more stacked teams. Cameron won a Cup in 1918 with Harry Mummery (a non-HHOF player) as his D-partner, and then again in 1922 with Stackhouse and Stuart (two non-HHOF players) as D-partners. Gerard's teams on the other hand had Boucher and Cleghorn (two HHOF players) stapled on D, and arguably the best defensive forward in the game up to that point (Nighbor) stapled in front of them.

Lidström 4 Cups, Bourque 1 Cup. I guess Lidström just "contributed to winning more".

Also, I find the "more respected person" angle bit a bit odd too since off-ice character probably shouldn't bleed too much into on-ice player evaluation. Scott Niedermayer and Jonathan Toews were (or still are) also very beloved by the media, are they getting the same type of brownie points here as Gerard?

Was Hobey Baker a better player than Didier Pitre because he was inducted into the HHOF in 1945 and Pitre in 1963?

I have no problem if someone wants to rank Gerard over Cameron as a player, it's the whole "and it's not even close" thing I reacted to.


----------



## seventieslord

sr edler said:


> This seems like a bit of an exaggeration to me. While I agree it's obviously a very bad process to judge players simply based on offensive numbers, there's a whole lot of more nuance going into it here and in general should be a case to case exercise, and it's not even like Cameron had outlandish offensive numbers.
> 
> Like, what's the argument here? That Cameron was a defensive liability and cost his teams Cups because of it? I don't see it. I feel that's also a peculiar point in this comparison as Gerard in general played on way more stacked teams. Cameron won a Cup in 1918 with Harry Mummery (a non-HHOF player) as his D-partner, and then again in 1922 with Stackhouse and Stuart (two non-HHOF players) as D-partners. Gerard's teams on the other hand had Boucher and Cleghorn (two HHOF players) stapled on D, and arguably the best defensive forward in the game up to that point (Nighbor) stapled in front of them.
> 
> Lidström 4 Cups, Bourque 1 Cup. I guess Lidström just "contributed to winning more".
> 
> Also, I find the "more respected person" angle bit a bit odd too since off-ice character probably shouldn't bleed too much into on-ice player evaluation. Scott Niedermayer and Jonathan Toews were (or still are) also very beloved by the media, are they getting the same type of brownie points here as Gerard?
> 
> Was Hobey Baker a better player than Didier Pitre because he was inducted into the HHOF in 1945 and Pitre in 1963?
> 
> I have no problem if someone wants to rank Gerard over Cameron as a player, it's the whole "and it's not even close" thing I reacted to.




Well, I don't know if Cameron was necessarily a liability, but he played most of the game for most of his career, so in his era, team defensive results can be tied to a single player's performance more easily than usual, and overall, his teams were below average defensively with him being the skater most responsible for it. (I'm sorry that I don't have the exact numbers, this was something that came from a straight-up comparison with Joe Hall that I did five years ago). Gerard, on the other hand, I think we can both say that his defensive results would be exemplary by the same measure. Of course, we can't truly say how much of that was the result of his good work, versus Nighbor, Benedict, Cleghorn, etc, but he seemed to pass the eye test for observers. I don't think it's the least bit unfair to say that Cameron was both much better defensively based on observer accounts and based on what can be taken from statistical evidence.

Re: Lidstrom and Bourque, we have much more detailed statistics available so there is a lot standing in the way of us drawing conclusions such as "Lidstrom contributed to winning more". I know you know that, that's the point you were trying to make. But in the case of players from the 1910s and 20s, most starting lineup players had even more personal influence on team performance than even a superstar defenseman can have today. So it's not apples to apples - in the case of Gerard, you can say he contributed to winning more - that's not unfair. 

As far as being more respected as a person is concerned, I know it's sparse evidence overall, but what we have seems to indicate that Cameron was somewhat of a flake, while Gerard was the epitome of class. Unfortunately, observers of the day have written history for us, and it's all we have to go by. As far as Niedermayer and Toews are concerned, luckily we have the benefit of seeing their whole careers and are able to draw our own conclusions on them as players, factoring in their "gud canadian kid" reputation into it as we see fit. We don't have to accept the media narrative of these players nearly as credulously as we do for Cameron and Gerard.

I think we both know that the first few years of HHOF inductions focused less on "these are the all-time pillars of hockey greatness" and more on "these are some early greats who died too young". Of course Hobey Baker isn't better than Pitre on the basis of HHOF induction dates, and I wasn't making that claim about Gerard and Cameron, either.

And yeah, I mean it's not close, is it? It's like comparing Niedermayer to Zubov or something like that. Is there any contemporary ranking that puts Cameron on Gerard's level? And that's despite what appears to be a wide offensive edge.


----------



## sr edler

seventieslord said:


> Well, I don't know if Cameron was necessarily a liability, but he played most of the game for most of his career, so in his era, team defensive results can be tied to a single player's performance more easily than usual, and overall, his teams were below average defensively with him being the skater most responsible for it. (I'm sorry that I don't have the exact numbers, this was something that came from a straight-up comparison with Joe Hall that I did five years ago). Gerard, on the other hand, I think we can both say that his defensive results would be exemplary by the same measure. Of course, we can't truly say how much of that was the result of his good work, versus Nighbor, Benedict, Cleghorn, etc, but he seemed to pass the eye test for observers. I don't think it's the least bit unfair to say that Cameron was both much better defensively based on observer accounts and based on what can be taken from statistical evidence.
> 
> Re: Lidstrom and Bourque, we have much more detailed statistics available so there is a lot standing in the way of us drawing conclusions such as "Lidstrom contributed to winning more". I know you know that, that's the point you were trying to make. But in the case of players from the 1910s and 20s, most starting lineup players had even more personal influence on team performance than even a superstar defenseman can have today. So it's not apples to apples - in the case of Gerard, you can say he contributed to winning more - that's not unfair.
> 
> As far as being more respected as a person is concerned, I know it's sparse evidence overall, but what we have seems to indicate that Cameron was somewhat of a flake, while Gerard was the epitome of class. Unfortunately, observers of the day have written history for us, and it's all we have to go by. As far as Niedermayer and Toews are concerned, luckily we have the benefit of seeing their whole careers and are able to draw our own conclusions on them as players, factoring in their "gud canadian kid" reputation into it as we see fit. We don't have to accept the media narrative of these players nearly as credulously as we do for Cameron and Gerard.
> 
> I think we both know that the first few years of HHOF inductions focused less on "these are the all-time pillars of hockey greatness" and more on "these are some early greats who died too young". Of course Hobey Baker isn't better than Pitre on the basis of HHOF induction dates, and I wasn't making that claim about Gerard and Cameron, either.
> 
> And yeah, I mean it's not close, is it? It's like comparing Niedermayer to Zubov or something like that. Is there any contemporary ranking that puts Cameron on Gerard's level? And that's despite what appears to be a wide offensive edge.




My point is that off-ice character shouldn't matter much in evaluating on-ice results, unless say we know 100% for sure someone is such a distraction off-ice he makes himself and his teammates worse on the ice because of it. I'm sure Cameron was a giant sourpuss, he even looks like one in pretty much every photo I've ever seen of him (which is many), but my point is pretty clear: it really shouldn't matter much in evaluating how good a player is on the ice. Also "class" is often quite subjective depending on context. From what I understand Zdeno Chara is a highly respected person in today's game, but the guy just went on a podcast where he spread pretty vague (and most likely false) high-school rumors about something allegedly happening 11 years ago while giggling about it. People are people, and things are not always black and white.

With "flake", do you mean he quit on his teams? I'm not a native English speaker so I had to google that word and it says _"a person who does not seem to pay attention and is sometimes silly"_.

Niedermayer and Zubov are relatively close for me, by the way. I think Niedermayer probably peaked a bit higher though. Zubov probably shouldn't have chain-smoked so much (a character flaw, not everyone can be perfect).

I also still think Cameron just didn't play on very stacked teams. 1913–14 Toronto team was quite stacked, but that team split up when Walker, Foyston & Company left for Seattle, and Walker was excellent defensively.


----------



## sr edler

seventieslord said:


> Well, I don't know if Cameron was necessarily a liability, but he played most of the game for most of his career, so in his era, team defensive results can be tied to a single player's performance more easily than usual, and overall, his teams were below average defensively with him being the skater most responsible for it.




When Sprague Cleghorn played for Renfrew and the Wanderers between 1910–1917 (that's 7 seasons) those teams bled some absolute serious goals against, worse so than any teams featuring Cameron. Then when he (Cleghorn) joined better and more well-structured teams (Canadiens and Ottawa) those teams had way fewer GA. So was Cleghorn also a defensive flake? Or should we treat players differently because someone was grumpy off ice and someone wasn't?

Toronto beat Vancouver twice in the SCFs with Cameron as the main horse on D, I feel if Cameron was such a suspect flake on D that you're painting him out to be then Vancouver would have exposed him. I'm not claiming Cameron was some amazing shutdown stalwart, or that he was better defensively than Gerard, but I don't think he was as bad as you're painting him out to be either.


----------



## seventieslord

sr edler said:


> When Sprague Cleghorn played for Renfrew and the Wanderers between 1910–1917 (that's 7 seasons) those teams bled some absolute serious goals against, worse so than any teams featuring Cameron. Then when he (Cleghorn) joined better and more well-structured teams (Canadiens and Ottawa) those teams had way fewer GA. So was Cleghorn also a defensive flake? Or should we treat players differently because someone was grumpy off ice and someone wasn't?
> 
> Toronto beat Vancouver twice in the SCFs with Cameron as the main horse on D, I feel if Cameron was such a suspect flake on D that you're painting him out to be then Vancouver would have exposed him. I'm not claiming Cameron was some amazing shutdown stalwart, or that he was better defensively than Gerard, but I don't think he was as bad as you're painting him out to be either.



Three out of 7 seasons the Wanderers were bad, the other four they were more or less average. Yes, it matters as it applies to Cleghorn, why wouldn't it? . On the other hand, his team's defensive results were typically well above average in the NHL.

I don't think it's controversial to say Cameron was below average defensively among the group of HOF or longtime NHA/NHL defensemen from 1910-1925. Someone had to be. If not him, who was?

("flake" is more like the second definition you posted - someone who's aloof.)


----------



## sr edler

seventieslord said:


> I don't think it's controversial to say Cameron was below average defensively among the group of HOF or longtime NHA/NHL defensemen from 1910-1925. Someone had to be. If not him, who was?




Overall it's hard to tell, since we didn't see these guy play. Sometimes it's hard to tell even if you've seen guys play. I don't think Cameron was worse defensively than Joe Hall and probably not Cleghorn either, and if he was worse defensively than Cleghorn it wasn't by a particularly big margin, IMO. Was he worse defensively than Gerard, yes most likely. A lot of it is usage and systems too. I think old Joe Hall, they had him in a bit of a Derian Hatcher-esque role, whereas Cameron was used more as a Dahlin or something, due to team circumstances. I think when he had to be good defensively, he most often was good.


----------

