Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread (Citizens on Patrol)

[Doctor No]

Goalies do dominate since proportionately to roster size a list would feature between 6 and 12 goalies.

Yet posters are listing over 20.

Proportional based upon *what*?

Back of the envelope, a team has 180 forward minutes per game, 120 defenseman minutes per game, and 60 goaltender minutes per game.

Splitting 100 players in those proportions gets 17 goaltenders on the list.

 

[Doctor No]

I suppose you could do proportional based upon a team's entire lineup, but that would be wrong.

"We need just as many fourth liners as goalies!"

 

[Nick Hansen]

The best players play defense on any team I've ever coached. Always build your teams defense heavy. Best skater, best visionary, smartest player, best passer - he plays defense.

I agree on this. I haven't played nearly as much hockey as I've played floorball but the dynamics are similar in some ways and...if your defensemen suck at moving the puck or have lousy vision it is absolutely horrible to play. Can't get anything done. Hemmed in to your own zone and only hoping to dig out some gold from the garbage corners.

I do maintain that creating offense is far harder than defending, though. So the defensemen on this list need to be proficient on the playmaking side of the game.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Proportional based upon *what*?

Back of the envelope, a team has 180 forward minutes per game, 120 defenseman minutes per game, and 60 goaltender minutes per game.

Splitting 100 players in those proportions gets 17 goaltenders on the list.

First sentence clearly stated roster size.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I’ve asked it before: if there were two goalies sharing a crease getting rotated out with four more goalies on the bench, would you all suddenly have the urge to have more on your lists?

For most teams, it comes down to one human (or Golden Retriever) in a seriously vital position who has the most direct relationship to the scoreboard. And rather than saying, “Hey, that’s a super important job to give to a single human being (or Golden Retriever)” we’re looking at the ratio of players on the ice at a given time and presuming the best ever must be worse relative to other positions because there’s less of them.

One pitcher, three outfielders.
One quarterback, five offensive linemen.
One queen, eight pawns.

Not every ratio is going to fully capture the power of a position.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I suppose you could do proportional based upon a team's entire lineup, but that would be wrong.

"We need just as many fourth liners as goalies!"

Only two 4th liners per team would improve the on ice product.

 

[VanIslander]

... And rather than saying, “Hey, that’s a super important job to give to a single human being (or Golden Retriever)” we’re looking at the ratio of players on the ice at a given time and presuming the best ever must be worse relative to other positions because there’s less of them.

One pitcher, three outfielders.
One quarterback, five offensive linemen.
One queen, eight pawns.

Not every ratio is going to fully capture the power of a position.

*Finishes a drink*

(as per the rules)

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I’ve asked it before: if there were two goalies sharing a crease getting rotated out with four more goalies on the bench, would you all suddenly have the urge to have more on your lists?

For most teams, it comes down to one human (or Golden Retriever) in a seriously vital position who has the most direct relationship to the scoreboard. And rather than saying, “Hey, that’s a super important job to give to a single human being (or Golden Retriever)” we’re looking at the ratio of players on the ice at a given time and presuming the best ever must be worse relative to other positions because there’s less of them.

One pitcher, three outfielders.
One quarterback, five offensive linemen.
One queen, eight pawns.

Not every ratio is going to fully capture the power of a position.

Flip side of the coin is that the gap between a great goaltender and an average one is very small compared to the other positions. So even though you're correct that a goaltender can have the single biggest impact on his team's fortune, he's also the most susceptible to being outplayed by a non-descript counterpart.

 

[Sadekuuro]

I'd really like to finally participate in one of these, but I'm a busy man these days. I'll try and find a few hours this weekend.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Flip side of the coin is that the gap between a great goaltender and an average one is very small compared to the other positions. So even though you're correct that a goaltender can have the single biggest impact on his team's fortune, he's also the most susceptible to being outplayed by a non-descript counterpart.

I would take umbrage with the classification of any NHL goaltender as nondescript. There’s almost a stigma around being an “average” starter, when really it means you’re the ~16th best goaltender in the world.

You know who wasn’t a top-16 scorer last year? Evgeny Kuznetsov. Still I’d say he closed the gap from his nondescript status as an average #1 scorer in a similar way that we often see nondescript average #1 goaltenders do so in the playoffs.

Using “average” against goaltenders derisively is to count the ratio against them twice. It’s marking them down because there are fewer on the ice (even though it means they have a greater consolidation of power as individuals over the outcome) and then it’s marking them down again because the exclusivity of the job makes “average” a super high threshold.

And that’s why Curtis Joseph, a 16-year starting goaltender who was often very good and usually at least average - and on a few occasions that nondescript goaltender who curbstomped Stanley Cup favorites like Dallas and Colorado and Chicago - might be worth a second-look.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I would take umbrage with the classification of any NHL goaltender as nondescript. There’s almost a stigma around being an “average” starter, when really it means you’re the ~16th best goaltender in the world.

You know who wasn’t a top-16 scorer last year? Evgeny Kuznetsov. Still I’d say he closed the gap from his nondescript status as an average #1 scorer in a similar way that we often see nondescript average #1 goaltenders do so in the playoffs.

Using “average” against goaltenders derisively is to count the ratio against them twice. It’s marking them down because there are fewer on the ice (even though it means they have a greater consolidation of power as individuals over the outcome) and then it’s marking them down again because the exclusivity of the job makes “average” a super high threshold.

And that’s why Curtis Joseph, a 16-year starting goaltender who was often very good and usually at least average - and on a few occasions that nondescript goaltender who curbstomped Stanley Cup favorites like Dallas and Colorado and Chicago - might be worth a second-look.

That's the rub though, isn't it? You can be as good as 16th best in the world without necessarily tilting the ice in your team's favour. There's a 50/50 chance the guy at the other end of the rink is better.

Anyone can put as much or as little value as they choose on any particular position though, I'm not going to criticize anybody's positional representation.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I bumped Adam Oates off my list for Duncan Keith.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Pre-1930s players on list, as currently constructed:
22. Frank Nighbor
26. Cyclone Taylor
32. Newsy Lalonde
39. Sprague Cleghorn
57. Clint Benedict
59. Georges Vezina
92. Cy Denneny
98. Eddie Gerard
105. Hugh Lehman
110. Nels Stewart
111. Russell Bowie
120. Hod Stuart

Am on v.2 of my list of 120. Might tweak some placements- should be done by Wednesday.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Pre-1930s players on list, as currently constructed:
22. Frank Nighbor
26. Cyclone Taylor
32. Newsy Lalonde
39. Sprague Cleghorn
57. Clint Benedict
59. Georges Vezina
92. Cy Denneny
98. Eddie Gerard
105. Hugh Lehman
110. Nels Stewart
111. Russell Bowie
120. Hod Stuart

Am on v.2 of my list of 120. Might tweak some placements- should be done by Wednesday.

Missing Morenz, Shore, Joliat King Clancy but including Nels Stewart.

 

[VanIslander]

Missing Morenz, Shore, Joliat King Clancy but including Nels Stewart.

Worters was a Hart trophy winner (and a runner-up another year) in the 1920's.

It depends how many goalies are on your list. Hainsworth and Lehman might be relevant.

(I wonder if Babe Dye or Lionel Conacher or Frank McGee were at least longlisted for consideration, given some names on your list.)

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Missing Morenz, Shore, Joliat King Clancy but including Nels Stewart.

You're right inasmuch as you're pointing out that those players were active in the '20s. However, for the purpose of assigning them to a decade, I classified them as '30s players.
10. Morenz
16. Shore
37. King Clancy
76. Joliat

I got eight more '30s players in addition to those. Toe Blake's in my top 100. Bill Cook's in my upper quarter (of 120). That leaves half-a-dozen more in various spots between those two.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Worters was a Hart trophy winner (and a runner-up another year) in the 1920's.

It depends how many goalies are on your list. Hainsworth and Lehman might be relevant.

(I wonder if Babe Dye or Lionel Conacher or Frank McGee were at least longlisted for consideration, given some names on your list.)

Just missed. Comfortably in the 120-150 range.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You're right inasmuch as you're pointing out that those players were active in the '20s. However, for the purpose of assigning them to a decade, I classified them as '30s players.
10. Morenz
16. Shore
37. King Clancy
76. Joliat

I got eight more '30s players in addition to those. Toe Blake's in my top 100. Bill Cook's in my upper quarter (of 120). That leaves half-a-dozen more in various spots between those two.

Quaint classification given that all four entered the NHL or western pro leagues before or at the same time as Nels Stewart.

 

[ted2019]

I bumped Adam Oates off my list for Duncan Keith.

Never had Oates on my list and Keith actually made mine.

 

[ImporterExporter]

@quoipourquoi

I will be turning in my final list this weekend.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Explain Jonathan Toews then, please.

Roared out of the gate last night. On pace for an 82 goal, 82 assist 164 point season.

 

[Michael Farkas]

"No projecting"

*takes a drink*

I don't care if it's not a rule...it's Friday somewhere...

 

[Sentinel]

Hopefully I will send it later today before I fly out to Utah for a mini tour.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I do maintain that creating offense is far harder than defending, though. So the defensemen on this list need to be proficient on the playmaking side of the game

I tend to agree. Sorry Langway.

 

[DannyGallivan]

You're right inasmuch as you're pointing out that those players were active in the '20s. However, for the purpose of assigning them to a decade, I classified them as '30s players.
10. Morenz
16. Shore
37. King Clancy
76. Joliat

I got eight more '30s players in addition to those. Toe Blake's in my top 100. Bill Cook's in my upper quarter (of 120). That leaves half-a-dozen more in various spots between those two.

I have Morenz at 10 as well, with Shore at 9. Clancy is 59 and Joliat is 87.