HOH Top 60 Centers List & Voting Record - Dennis Bonvie

TheDevilMadeMe · Apr 1, 2014

Round 1 List

Players from our final top 60 not ranked in this top 60
Henrik Zetterberg at 62
Darryl Sittler at 63
Mike Modano at 64
Neil Colville at 66
Marty Barry at 68
Mickey MacKay at 69
Frank Fredrickson (not ranked)
Duke Keats (not ranked)
Vaclav Nedomasky (not ranked)

Players unique to this list
NONE

Players ranked highest overall on this list
Mario Lemieux at 1
Phil Esposito at 5 (tied with 1 other)
Sidney Crosby at 8 - next highest at 17
Evgeni Malkin at 11 - next highest at 27
Eric Lindros at 19 - next highest at 28
Peter Stastny at 21 (tied with 1 other)
Sven Tumba at 30 - next highest at 53
Steven Stamkos at 40 - next highest at 46
Henrik Sedin at 53 (tied with 2 others)
Dan Bain at 55 - next highest at 63
Jonathan Toews at 58 - next highest at 62

Players ranked 2nd highest on this list
Peter Forsberg at 17
Alexander Maltsev at 24
Vladimir Petrov at 33

Players ranked lowest overall on this list
Wayne Gretzky at 2
Syl Apps at 31 - next lowest at 30
Sergei Fedorov at 44 (tied with 1 other)
Joe Primeau at 79 - next lowest at 74
Frank Fredrickson NR - next lowest at 68
Duke Keats NR - next lowest at 73

Players ranked 2nd lowest on this list
Cyclone Taylor at 18
Henri Richard at 26
Joe Thornton at 50
Darryl Sittler at 63
Marty Barry at 68 (tied with 2 others)

Round 2 voting

Highest vote

Round 1: Lemieux 1st, Esposito 5th
Round 2: Esposito 1st, Lalonde 5th
Round 3: Lalonde 2nd
Round 5: Crosby 1st
Round 14: Lafontaine 1st
Round 15: Stamkos 1st

Lowest vote

Round 1: Gretzky 2nd
Round 3: Sakic 7th
Round 4: Apps 8th
Round 7: Lach NR
Round 12: Modano 8th

Killion · Apr 1, 2014

Another interesting list, particularly the #1&#2 selections, Crosby's fairly high altitude, high values placed on some serious oldtimers from the early game. Good job. And again, reflective on how & what the participant gauges and ranks Centers. Fun stuff.

unknown33 · Apr 1, 2014

I really like your list a lot.
Would you still vote Tumba that high or has your opinion changed a bit? (well he wasn't discussed afterall so I guess no)

MadArcand · Apr 1, 2014

Obviously not a fan of Crosby's placement, but I can at least comprehend the rationale for it. But Malkin?

TheDevilMadeMe · Apr 1, 2014

Since I've been on the history board, Dennis Bonvie has rated players based on the eye test (when applicable) and peak performance. With a little bit of a preference for goal scorers. So the high rankings for guys like Crosby, Malkin, Lindros, Forsberg, Lafontaine, and Stamkos make complete sense to me.

In another way however, I have to say that this was the most surprising list that we received, knowing who it came from. I thought that Dennis had some of the least friendly lists towards modern players in the goalies and defensemen projects, and this list here is clearly one of the 2 most friendly lists to modern players that we received (the other being Hardyvan of course). I don't know - if you heavily use the eye test - maybe forwards you have seen seem better than ones you haven't because their job is to create things, while defensemen and goalies you see look worse, because their job is to stop things? Or maybe I'm looking way too much into it.

Another thing that surprised me? That this was the only list with Mario in 1st. In the Top 100 projects, quite a few voters had Mario over Gretzky.

Putting aside Dennis' past lists, this is a very internally consistent list and Round 2 rankings. With the possible exception of Ron Francis - the ranking of Francis is not strange compared to the rest of the voters, but seems strange compared to the peak-based criteria Dennis seems to be using for everyone else.

I guess I would have liked to see more respect for the PCHA/WCHL players.

seventieslord · Apr 1, 2014

Why is Lafontaine around 60th frequently a travesty or conspiracy when you only had him 53rd yourself?

Beau Knows · Apr 1, 2014

This list is interesting, very heavily judged towards peak clearly. Even as a Pens fan though I think putting Lemieux above Gretzky is hard to do, even just (or mainly) taking peak into account. If I made a list it would also be more biased towards peak/prime, but not anywhere near much as this.

Ohashi_Jouzu* · Apr 1, 2014

TheDevilMadeMe said:
Since I've been on the history board, Dennis Bonvie has rated players based on the eye test (when applicable) and peak performance.

I think this list does that quite well. I'm a Gretzky over Lemieux guy myself, so there's one opinion-based (more so than procedure-based) nitpick. If I had to find another, it's that, though I love my local boy Crosby, something doesn't smell quite right about him (and Malkin) being quite so high in a "greatest of all-time list" already. I personally think there needs to be a fairly significant counter-balance of contribution/performance/production to go with calibre/excellence/recognition at the "overall" level (not saying this list fails to capture any of that), so it's kinda weird to see Crosby/Malkin straddling Messier/Trottier in particular (though the rationale/basis is understood and "consistent").

Lauro · Apr 1, 2014

Expected Lafontaine at 30.

Dennis Bonvie · Apr 1, 2014

unknown33 said:
I really like your list a lot.
Would you still vote Tumba that high or has your opinion changed a bit? (well he wasn't discussed afterall so I guess no)

Thanks. I really, really appreciate that.

Wait a minute, are you being sarcastic?

Anyway, I almost had Tumba higher. Seems he was really considered a legendary player at the time he played.

Also he had a great line about golf that I can't remember now.

Dennis Bonvie · Apr 1, 2014

Killion said:
Another interesting list, particularly the #1 selections, Crosby's fairly high altitude, high values placed on some serious oldtimers from the early game. Good job. And again, reflective on how & what the participant gauges and ranks Centers. Fun stuff.

Like the baseball writers that will not allow a player to be a unanimous first ballot HOFer, thought I'd be the dick to make sure #1 wasn't unanimous.

Gretzky was always Bill Russell to Lemieux's Wilt Chamberlin, in terms of media coverage. I probably didn't like that, because I was a big Wilt fan.

I'm well aware I really don't have much of a case numbers-wise, but I really thought Lemieux at his best was at least Gretzky's equal.

Dennis Bonvie · Apr 1, 2014

TheDevilMadeMe said:
Since I've been on the history board, Dennis Bonvie has rated players based on the eye test (when applicable) and peak performance. With a little bit of a preference for goal scorers. So the high rankings for guys like Crosby, Malkin, Lindros, Forsberg, Lafontaine, and Stamkos make complete sense to me.

In another way however, I have to say that this was the most surprising list that we received, knowing who it came from. I thought that Dennis had some of the least friendly lists towards modern players in the goalies and defensemen projects, and this list here is clearly one of the 2 most friendly lists to modern players that we received (the other being Hardyvan of course). I don't know - if you heavily use the eye test - maybe forwards you have seen seem better than ones you haven't because their job is to create things, while defensemen and goalies you see look worse, because their job is to stop things? Or maybe I'm looking way too much into it.

Another thing that surprised me? That this was the only list with Mario in 1st. In the Top 100 projects, quite a few voters had Mario over Gretzky.

Putting aside Dennis' past lists, this is a very internally consistent list and Round 2 rankings. With the possible exception of Ron Francis - the ranking of Francis is not strange compared to the rest of the voters, but seems strange compared to the peak-based criteria Dennis seems to be using for everyone else.

I guess I would have liked to see more respect for the PCHA/WCHL players.

To tell the truth, I don't think there are that many great (as in all-time) defensemen playing today. With the team defense that is so prevalent today, its really easier to tell the great offensive players but its tricky with goalies & dmen, as you alluded to.

Ron Francis is, as you point out, a special case. Though I don't value longevity as much as everyone else, Francis has remarkable consistence for over 20 years. Even Gordie Howe took a couple seasons to become a star. Only Bourque came in at that high a level and maintained it for so long.

And of course, I still think Francis was a better player at his best than most of the other voters here.

Dennis Bonvie · Apr 1, 2014

seventieslord said:
Why is Lafontaine around 60th frequently a travesty or conspiracy when you only had him 53rd yourself?

Actually, I had him at 52nd. Not really that close to 60. (though I notice I had Roenick at 61, which is close.)

If we got 20 baseball historians together to make a list of the best 80 pitchers, would it not be odd if almost half had the same player 60th?

Dennis Bonvie · Apr 1, 2014

Ohashi_Jouzu said:
I think this list does that quite well. I'm a Gretzky over Lemieux guy myself, so there's one opinion-based (more so than procedure-based) nitpick. If I had to find another, it's that, though I love my local boy Crosby, something doesn't smell quite right about him (and Malkin) being quite so high in a "greatest of all-time list" already. I personally think there needs to be a fairly significant counter-balance of contribution/performance/production to go with calibre/excellence/recognition at the "overall" level (not saying this list fails to capture any of that), so it's kinda weird to see Crosby/Malkin straddling Messier/Trottier in particular (though the rationale/basis is understood and "consistent").

I just think Crosby and Malkin are that good.

Perhaps they are a little too close to top. Probably rating accomplishments a little too high.

Dennis Bonvie · Apr 1, 2014

Lauro said:
Expected Lafontaine at 30.

No way, that's Tumba's spot.

unknown33 · Apr 1, 2014

Dennis Bonvie said:
Thanks. I really, really appreciate that.

Wait a minute, are you being sarcastic?

No, I would similarly value peak, try to rank based on how good a player was based on eye-test and it looks internally consistent to me.
You also seem honest instead of making stuff up to justify some ranking.

Killion · Apr 1, 2014

Dennis Bonvie said:
Like the baseball writers that will not allow a player to be a unanimous first ballot HOFer, thought I'd be the dick to make sure #1 wasn't unanimous.

Gretzky was always Bill Russell to Lemieux's Wilt Chamberlin, in terms of media coverage. I probably didn't like that, because I was a big Wilt fan.

I'm well aware I really don't have much of a case numbers-wise, but I really thought Lemieux at his best was at least Gretzky's equal.

Yeah, theres a case to be made for Lemieux in the #1 spot, no question about it. Bobby Orr called him the smartest hockey player he'd ever seen. Much more proto-typical than Gretzky, a great many advantages over #99 if the supporting cast isnt quite so well rounded.... You along with others have included active players which to my way of thinking on a project like this shouldnt be in there at all but if through consensus decided they should be then fine I guess. Im also surprised to see Ted Kennedy, Henri Richard & Dave Keon so far down a number of the list's, Derek Sanderson MIA apparently. Didnt even make the cut. Again, not criticism, just a bit surprising to me as I do feel all 4 are superior to a number of higher picks. Then again I generally favor Defensive type forwards with a scoring edge to them, in Kennedys case, just his sheer force of will & focus which was almost Richardian' in magnitude on some levels.

pappyline · Apr 1, 2014

Killion said:
You along with others have included active players which to my way of thinking on a project like this shouldnt be in there at all

I have always said this. I really think that active players should be left out of these projects. Should be only for players that have been retired for at least 5 years. You need a little time to view their legacy objectively.

Hardyvan123 · Apr 1, 2014

pappyline said:
I have always said this. I really think that active players should be left out of these projects. Should be only for players that have been retired for at least 5 years. You need a little time to view their legacy objectively.

I happen to agree with this as well, it's sometimes hard to get a real perspective on any player until some time has passed.

Although truth be told including players from the turn of both centuries does make the project more "exciting" in a way.

As for the list here, even I find Sid and Malkin too high and like Mad said, at least Sid has a more compelling case for being so, Malkin not quite as much.

SidGenoMario · Apr 1, 2014

I agree with your list, even though most people wouldn't. You just can't tell me what Sakic or Yzerman are better at playing hockey than Crosby and Malkin.

seventieslord · Apr 2, 2014

Dennis Bonvie said:
Actually, I had him at 52nd. Not really that close to 60. (though I notice I had Roenick at 61, which is close.)

If we got 20 baseball historians together to make a list of the best 80 pitchers, would it not be odd if almost half had the same player 60th?

Is that even close to what actually happened?

Fred Taylor · Apr 2, 2014

Decent list, just wondering how you have Stamkos already ahead of Datsyuk and Fedorov? He will eventually be ranked ahead of them IMO, but I don't think he should quite yet.

TheDevilMadeMe · Apr 2, 2014

pappyline said:
I have always said this. I really think that active players should be left out of these projects. Should be only for players that have been retired for at least 5 years. You need a little time to view their legacy objectively.

I agree with you that it's really hard to rank active or recently retired players, and that 5 years out, it is much easier to look back at their legacy objectively.

I still think the benefits of including them outweighs the drawbacks.

TheDevilMadeMe · Apr 2, 2014

seventieslord said:
Is that even close to what actually happened?

Here is every ranking for Lafontaine from our spreadsheet, not sorted in order.

65 61 80 79 52 60 50 51 72 58 65 54 61 53 43 57 60 60 60 46 58 69 58

It's a somewhat narrow spread, but a lot of players had narrow spreads.

Dennis Bonvie · Apr 2, 2014

TheDevilMadeMe said:
Here is every ranking for Lafontaine from our spreadsheet, not sorted in order.

65 61 80 79 52 60 50 51 72 58 65 54 61 53 43 57 60 60 60 46 58 69 58

It's a somewhat narrow spread, but a lot of players had narrow spreads.

OK, four 60s, three 58s, two 61s.

That's 9 out of 23. That doesn't seem odd to anyone?

HOH Top 60 Centers List & Voting Record - Dennis Bonvie

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Whaletarded

Registered User

Student Of The Game

Registered User

Registered User

Charlie Conacher

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

tweet@HardyintheWack

Registered User

Student Of The Game

The Cyclone

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Ad

Ad

Ad