HOH Top 60 Defensemen List & Voting Record - MXD

overpass · Feb 23, 2012

MXD

Players from the Top 60 not to appear on this list
None

Players ranked highest overall on this list
Ken Reardon (28)
George Boucher (29)
Lester Patrick (31)
Herb Gardiner (50)
Cy Wentworth (56)
Frank Patrick (57)
Joe Simpson (65)

Players ranked lowest overall on this list
Borje Salming (42
Brian Leetch (43)
Jacques Laperriere (58)

Players unique to this list
None

seventieslord · Feb 23, 2012

makes no sense how he was so high on Reardon. I mean, if you have Reardon at 28, fine, but then you have to have Jack Steward around 24, and Quackenbush around 20.

overpass · Feb 23, 2012

seventieslord said:
makes no sense how he was so high on Reardon. I mean, if you have Reardon at 28, fine, but then you have to have Jack Steward around 24, and Quackenbush around 20.

MXD has always been a supporter of the Habs (Reardon and Bouchard) over the Wings (Quackenbush and Stewart) of the 1940s. Consensus in this project seemed to swing in favour of the Wings duo, but I don't think they're a slam dunk over Reardon and Bouchard.

Say Hey Kid · Feb 23, 2012

I don't have a problem with this, but what is the purpose of posting individual's voting records. How is this interesting or important in the big overall picture of the HOH Top 60 Defensemen List? :help:

Epsilon · Feb 23, 2012

God Made Me said:
I don't have a problem with this, but what is the purpose of posting individual's voting records. How is this interesting or important in the big overall picture of the HOH Top 60 Defensemen List?

I think it's nice to have the transparency and also to look at things such as players unique to so-and-so's list (I've actually been skipping over reading each list in detail and instead going down to that section, where extremes and uniques are listed). I'm not sure we really needed separate threads for every single one though given how little discussion there is for each of them; a single omnibus thread seems like it would have been better (plus then they are all in the same place and easy to find/reference).

overpass · Feb 23, 2012

God Made Me said:
I don't have a problem with this, but what is the purpose of posting individual's voting records. How is this interesting or important in the big overall picture of the HOH Top 60 Defensemen List?

Full disclosure. Everyone has a chance to see the inputs that went into the final list, and discuss them if they wish. These lists are being linked to the main thread as well.

It's not the most exciting part of the process. No need to read it if you aren't interested.

tarheelhockey · Feb 23, 2012

I think it's fantastic that we do this. In fact I'm pretty satisfied with the process overall. Someone could go back 50 years from now and have a completely accurate idea of how and why the final list was created.

dao256 · Feb 23, 2012

I to like reading the individual rankings. Helps those of us who are still learning about the history of hockey to learn more in depth as to why player X was better than player Y.

Oh, and we will get to find out who didnt rank Bobby #1

Say Hey Kid · Feb 23, 2012

tarheelhockey said:
I think it's fantastic that we do this. In fact I'm pretty satisfied with the process overall. Someone could go back 50 years from now and have a completely accurate idea of how and why the final list was created.

Why would someone 50 years from now care about this? I don't care who were considered the best hockey players in 1962 and I'm probably about your dad's age. What if the future players are considered better in some way and they don't care about the older players? How do you know this website will still be here? The internet could be structured completely differently. There may not even be traditional websites such as we have now.

tarheelhockey · Feb 23, 2012

God Made Me said:
Why would someone 50 years from now care about this? I don't care who were considered the best hockey players in 1962 and I'm probably about your dad's age. What if the future players are considered better in some way and they don't care about the older players? How do you know this website will still be here? The internet could be structured completely differently. There may not even be traditional websites such as we have now.

Maybe. The internet is archived in various ways, though, so I suspect it will still be accessible in perpetuity.

Anyway, I'd love to be able to go back to an archive from 1962 and find this kind of meticulous analysis written by people who actually saw those players in person. Imagine how different this kind of project would be if such a goldmine of information existed.

seventieslord · Feb 23, 2012

tarheelhockey said:
Maybe. The internet is archived in various ways, though, so I suspect it will still be accessible in perpetuity.

Anyway, I'd love to be able to go back to an archive from 1962 and find this kind of meticulous analysis written by people who actually saw those players in person. Imagine how different this kind of project would be if such a goldmine of information existed.

Fully agree.

kmad · Feb 23, 2012

God Made Me said:
Why would someone 50 years from now care about this? I don't care who were considered the best hockey players in 1962 and I'm probably about your dad's age. What if the future players are considered better in some way and they don't care about the older players? How do you know this website will still be here? The internet could be structured completely differently. There may not even be traditional websites such as we have now.

Why would someone 50 years from now care about anything? We're all going to be trans-dimensional cyber beings anyways.

TheDevilMadeMe · Feb 23, 2012

MXD had Salming and Leetch back to back just like I did. But he had them about 20 spots lower than I did.

He seems to have changed his mind on Salming in Round 2.

MXD · Feb 23, 2012

seventieslord said:
makes no sense how he was so high on Reardon. I mean, if you have Reardon at 28, fine, but then you have to have Jack Steward around 24, and Quackenbush around 20.

Gonna explain this later on -- my local pub just received the Beergeek Bacon and, well, I'm thirsty.

Obviously changed my mind, if you notice my Round 2 record : if anything, it's more

- Reardon
- Quackenbush
(gap)
- Bouchard
- Stewart

And all a bit lower as well... except for Stewart.

overpass said:
MXD has always been a supporter of the Habs (Reardon and Bouchard) over the Wings (Quackenbush and Stewart) of the 1940s. Consensus in this project seemed to swing in favour of the Wings duo, but I don't think they're a slam dunk over Reardon and Bouchard.

Agreed.

On the other hand, I'd like to point out that I had the lowest ranking for Jacques LaperriÃ¨re and I that I ranked Babe Siebert really low. Something was wrong with Siebert's ranking (considering my Goodfellow's ranking), but I still wouldn't have him that much higher (not Top-50)

TheDevilMadeMe said:
MXD had Salming and Leetch back to back just like I did. But he had them about 20 spots lower than I did.

He seems to have changed his mind on Salming in Round 2.

Effectively. In retrospective, the ranking I'm a bit pissed about is JC Tremblay at 25th.

Don't worry -- I take time to write a somewhat more detailed post explaining why Reardon ahead of Bouchard and Stewart...

Search

Search

HOH Top 60 Defensemen List & Voting Record - MXD

overpass

Registered User

seventieslord

Student Of The Game

overpass

Registered User

Say Hey Kid

MI retired Nick Saban

Epsilon

#basta

overpass

Registered User

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist

dao256

Registered User

Say Hey Kid

MI retired Nick Saban

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist

seventieslord

Student Of The Game

kmad

riot survivor

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User

MXD

Original #4

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad