Hull or Richard

ClassicHockey

Registered User
May 22, 2005
595
6
Not sure about that. Do you have anything to back this up? I've seen the list of hockey people who were on the committee - 50 people who were all qualified to judge. I've seen the paperwork too.

There might have been some bias but you will always find that.

It certainly wasn't a 50 cents a message to Sportsnet by fans who never saw the older players play.

The Hockey News list was based on personal feelings and not necessarily facts. I don't put much credibilty in it.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Not sure about that. Do you have anything to back this up? I've seen the list of hockey people who were on the committee - 50 people who were all qualified to judge. I've seen the paperwork too.

There might have been some bias but you will always find that.

It certainly wasn't a 50 cents a message to Sportsnet by fans who never saw the older players play.

That is what I mean, when it is a poll of that sort, there is always some bias.

To be honest, it is very close. I have Hull ahead by the narrowest of margins.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
The Hockey News list was based on personal feelings and not necessarily facts. I don't put much credibilty in it.
???????? Obviously you have never actually read the book.
http://www.amazon.com/Top-100-NHL-Players-All-Time/dp/0771041756

The Hockey News asked 50 voters representing all facets of NHL history to rank the best players ever. They included Dick Irvin, Bob McKenzie, Harry Neale, Jim Matheson, Scotty Bowman, Al Arbour, Glen Sather, Roger Nielson, Don Cherry, Red Fisher, Milt Dunnell, Brian McFarlane, Frank Orr, Howie Meeker, Sam Pollock, Frank Selke, Emile Francis, Billy Reay, Al Arbour, Bud Poile, Marcel Pronovost. Scotty Morrison, etc.

The methodology is covered in detail in the book.

ESPN did a similar poll in 2004 but used only their own Hockey2Night people. They ranked Hull #5 and Richard #6.
http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/mailbagESPN?event_id=5290

Now that would be closer to personal opinion.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
???????? Obviously you have never actually read the book.
http://www.amazon.com/Top-100-NHL-Players-All-Time/dp/0771041756

The Hockey News asked 50 voters representing all facets of NHL history to rank the best players ever. They included Dick Irvin, Bob McKenzie, Harry Neale, Jim Matheson, Scotty Bowman, Al Arbour, Glen Sather, Roger Nielson, Don Cherry, Red Fisher, Milt Dunnell, Brian McFarlane, Frank Orr, Howie Meeker, Sam Pollock, Frank Selke, Emile Francis, Billy Reay, Al Arbour, Bud Poile, Marcel Pronovost. Scotty Morrison, etc.

The methodology is covered in detail in the book.

ESPN did a similar poll in 2004 but used only their own Hockey2Night people. They ranked Hull #5 and Richard #6.
http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/mailbagESPN?event_id=5290

Now that would be closer to personal opinion.
Of course the hockey news top 100 is all personal opinion what else can it be. Now that I see the selection committee it makes sense that Richard, harvey, beliveau are ranked 5, 6,7.Ther are several names on that selection committee that would have a strong Habs bias & several others that have a strong Canadian teams bias, I know it is only a list but this one has somehow become gospel to a lot of people. I certainly disagree with some of the rankings. I am sure the book justifies the rankings in some logical way but it still comes down to opinion and bias is a part of most opinions.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
???????? Obviously you have never actually read the book.
http://www.amazon.com/Top-100-NHL-Players-All-Time/dp/0771041756

The Hockey News asked 50 voters representing all facets of NHL history to rank the best players ever. They included Dick Irvin, Bob McKenzie, Harry Neale, Jim Matheson, Scotty Bowman, Al Arbour, Glen Sather, Roger Nielson, Don Cherry, Red Fisher, Milt Dunnell, Brian McFarlane, Frank Orr, Howie Meeker, Sam Pollock, Frank Selke, Emile Francis, Billy Reay, Al Arbour, Bud Poile, Marcel Pronovost. Scotty Morrison, etc.

The methodology is covered in detail in the book.

ESPN did a similar poll in 2004 but used only their own Hockey2Night people. They ranked Hull #5 and Richard #6.
http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/mailbagESPN?event_id=5290

Now that would be closer to personal opinion.

Feel free to post the methodology of the Hockey News list.

I don't see why you would need the input of 50 people if you were filtering out personal bias. I have my methodology using only factual, documented data, where I have eliminated personal bias from the equation. You don't think Al Arbour and Sam Pollock would have differing, biased views? What about Cherry? He is the most biased of all. I suspect all of these panelists would tend to vote for "their" players.

It is a nice exercise but, I believe it to be far from exact. I would like to see the methodology; maybe I will order a copy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BM67

Registered User
Mar 5, 2002
4,775
279
In "The System"
Visit site
A little more detail on their careers.

All-star selections
Bobby Hull 12 (10 first team, 2 second team) (Two 1st & two 2nd in the WHA)
Maurice Richard 14 (8 first team, 6 second team)

Stanley Cups
Hull: 1 Finalists: 3 ( 2 Avco Cups and 2 Finals in the WHA)
Richard: 8 Finalist: 4

Art Ross Trophies
Hull: 3 Runner-up: 3 (Twice runner-up in the WHA)
Richard: 0 Runner-up: 5

Hart Trophies
Hull: 2 Runner-up: 2 (Twice WHA WVP)
Richard: 1 Runner-up: 2

Goal scoring leader
Hull: 7 (all-time record) Runner-up: 2 (1 title and 1 runner-up in the WHA)
Richard: 5 Runner-up: 3

Conn Smythe Trophies
Hull: 0
Richard: 2 (Retro vote )

Playoff goal scoring leader
Hull: 3 Runner-up: 1 (1 runner-up in the WHA)
Richard: 5 Runner-up: 4

Playoff scoring leader
Hull: 1 Runner-up: 1 (1 runner-up in the WHA)
Richard: 2 Runner-up: 1

Playoff assist leader
Hull: 0 Runner-up: 1
Richard: 0 Runner-up: 1
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Feel free to post the methodology of the Hockey News list.

I don't see why you would need the input of 50 people if you were filtering out personal bias. I have my methodology using only factual, documented data, where I have eliminated personal bias from the equation. You don't think Al Arbour and Sam Pollock would have differing, biased views? What about Cherry? He is the most biased of all. I suspect all of these panelists would tend to vote for "their" players.

It is a nice exercise but, I believe it to be far from exact. I would like to see the methodology; maybe I will order a copy.
It is quite detailed and to post it would be a violation of the forum rules against copyright infringement.

Your local library should have a copy.
 

ClassicHockey

Registered User
May 22, 2005
595
6
I hope this comes out the right way and I'm not trying to demean anyone.

There is no way that any of us here are as qualified to rank players as much as the people 'inside' the game.

Stats and awards mean a lot but there is so much we don't know about hockey.

Its mostly the intangibles that the coaches, scouts and others know that we don't.

They have the same stats and more to go on. But they have first-hand experience of how games are won and lost that we have no clue on.

I realize myself that what we don't know can be very enlightening. I really wouldn't say there is a lot of bias in the hockey people's rankings. That really isn't doing justice to the group. If there is any leaning, its because certain individuals may have seen more of some players than others. So, the trick is to have as much a balanced group as possible.

Its not perfect and having someone like Don Cherry on the committee is a joke. But how could we possibly know more than the scouts and GM's who need to be unbiased in their positions. And, none of us can possibly know more than people like Pollock and Arbour. We all, as fans use bias when discussing players we like or dislike too.

I think that if Ogopogo's list would have more merit (and I'm not really criticizing it because of the all the methodology), that list would add intangibles and make the rankings more accurate. From my experience from watching and studying hockey, I have to disagree with some of the rankings.

What we DON'T know about certain players and events is more than you think.

Feel free to post the methodology of the Hockey News list.

I don't see why you would need the input of 50 people if you were filtering out personal bias. I have my methodology using only factual, documented data, where I have eliminated personal bias from the equation. You don't think Al Arbour and Sam Pollock would have differing, biased views? What about Cherry? He is the most biased of all. I suspect all of these panelists would tend to vote for "their" players.

It is a nice exercise but, I believe it to be far from exact. I would like to see the methodology; maybe I will order a copy.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
I hope this comes out the right way and I'm not trying to demean anyone.

There is no way that any of us here are as qualified to rank players as much as the people 'inside' the game.

Stats and awards mean a lot but there is so much we don't know about hockey.

Its mostly the intangibles that the coaches, scouts and others know that we don't.

They have the same stats and more to go on. But they have first-hand experience of how games are won and lost that we have no clue on.

I realize myself that what we don't know can be very enlightening. I really wouldn't say there is a lot of bias in the hockey people's rankings. That really isn't doing justice to the group. If there is any leaning, its because certain individuals may have seen more of some players than others. So, the trick is to have as much a balanced group as possible.

Its not perfect and having someone like Don Cherry on the committee is a joke. But how could we possibly know more than the scouts and GM's who need to be unbiased in their positions. And, none of us can possibly know more than people like Pollock and Arbour. We all, as fans use bias when discussing players we like or dislike too.

I think that if Ogopogo's list would have more merit (and I'm not really criticizing it because of the all the methodology), that list would add intangibles and make the rankings more accurate. From my experience from watching and studying hockey, I have to disagree with some of the rankings.

What we DON'T know about certain players and events is more than you think.
Classic, I agree that these people are quite knowledgeable about hockey & certainly have a lot more inside info than a fan like me. However, it is definitely skewed toward certain teams like the Habs. Irvin, bowman, fisher, pollock, selke etc. certainly saw the Habs more than anybody else & are probably friends with many Habs players. I remember Selke & Irvin very well from HNIC & they were certainly big Habs fans. To have Richard, harvey, beliveau as 5, 6. 7 certainly shows a bias. I am not saying these guys are dishonest, I just believe that they gave an edge to their favorites. I kust don't see the same representation from observers who saw a lot of hawks or Ranger games.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->