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

[MXD]

Can we at least wait until Round 2, when the discussions actually matter, before getting mad at each other?

Yeah, that MXD guy is a moron, he forgot to rank my avatar.

*looks at user name*

Oooooops.

 

[seventieslord]

I think you are being too much of a curmudgeon if that's how you took the post, unless there is a long history of disrespect from Danny that I'm not privy to, but that doesn't appear to be the case from what I've seen.

....maybe I'm too sensitive to it after listening to a couple too many episodes of that podcast, but joking about how much hockey sucked back in the old days just doesn't sit well with me

 

[Captain Bowie]

....maybe I'm too sensitive to it after listening to a couple too many episodes of that podcast, but joking about how much hockey sucked back in the old days just doesn't sit well with me

What podcast was that?

 

[Michael Farkas]

The one that thinks Frank Foyston doesn't exist...

 

[DannyGallivan]

Just got back from lunch, and loved reading the latest comments. I'm used to 20-somethings who can't name three players from 50 years ago saying Orr would be a second pairing defenseman on a contending team today, so I can relate. I just like having a little fun now and then. I really don't want things to look like "Star Wars vs Star Trek" ComicCon flame wars (for the record, I've never seen one... I've only heard of such things).

And yes, things will get more "direct" (and hopefully respectful) during the debates, especially when two people who favour two different eras debate Bill Cook vs Peter Forsberg or something like that.

And my view on the eras... it's not that one is necessarily so much better, it's that one is so much different than another.

...and I like old-timey youtube clips.

 

[DannyGallivan]

....maybe I'm too sensitive to it after listening to a couple too many episodes of that podcast, but joking about how much hockey sucked back in the old days just doesn't sit well with me

no hard feelings!

 

[quoipourquoi]

Just got back from lunch, and loved reading the latest comments. I'm used to 20-somethings who can't name three players from 50 years ago saying Orr would be a second pairing defenseman on a contending team today, so I can relate. I just like having a little fun now and then. I really don't want things to look like "Star Wars vs Star Trek" ComicCon flame wars (for the record, I've never seen one... I've only heard of such things).

And yes, things will get more "direct" (and hopefully respectful) during the debates, especially when two people who favour two different eras debate Bill Cook vs Peter Forsberg or something like that.

And my view on the eras... it's not that one is necessarily so much better, it's that one is so much different than another.

...and I like old-timey youtube clips.

The best thing about HOH projects is that the most contentious debates often lead to the most positive interactions going forward after the project concludes.

With that in mind, I think I’ll be making a lot of new friends when you all see what I did to Viacheslav Fetisov.

 

[bobholly39]

Two other potential controversial placements.

Does anyone have either player higher than me?

Brett Hull - 44
Ron Francis - 66

 

[DannyGallivan]

Two other potential controversial placements.

Does anyone have either player higher than me?

Brett Hull - 44
Ron Francis - 66

I have Hull at 46 (so virtually the same, and yes I think there will be much debate). Ron Francis did not make my final list (although he was there in a previous draft).

 

[Captain Bowie]

Similar to Danny G, I have Hull further down and Ron Francis missed all together, but not by a ton. He was ever officially on my list but was the next highest rank forward of that era to be considered, just ahead of Gilmour.

 

[The Macho King]

I have Brett in the 70s and Ron came in right at 100.

I have stated in the past that I may underrate Brett.

 

[quoipourquoi]

As much as people’s rankings, I am curious about people’s methods.

Did anyone else isolate the players from the 120 whose full careers you have witnessed first-hand to ensure that the order of that particular set matches up with your eyes?

 

[Canadiens1958]

As much as people’s rankings, I am curious about people’s methods.

Did anyone else isolate the players from the 120 whose full careers you have witnessed first-hand to ensure that the order of that particular set matches up with your eyes?

Somewhat augmented by research plus research of seen partial careers and not seen careers

 

[Captain Bowie]

As much as people’s rankings, I am curious about people’s methods.

Did anyone else isolate the players from the 120 whose full careers you have witnessed first-hand to ensure that the order of that particular set matches up with your eyes?

Broke them into position and era, then ranked each group individually. Then populated the final list from those collective lists.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Two other potential controversial placements.

Does anyone have either player higher than me?

Brett Hull - 44
Ron Francis - 66

Where do you have Joe Thornton, if at all?

Francis at 66 seems rather high, yes.

 

[The Macho King]

As much as people’s rankings, I am curious about people’s methods.

Did anyone else isolate the players from the 120 whose full careers you have witnessed first-hand to ensure that the order of that particular set matches up with your eyes?

I looked at how I felt about players who covered multiple generations against my read on players of the generations I was ranking. It was to a degree easier for the DPE - modern since I had a lot of experience watching in those eras.

So when I'm ranking a guy like Jagr, I look at how he performed post-lockout and realized "this dude is pretty damn good". I don't really remember his first few seasons (I followed hockey but not closely at the time) and formed relative rankings from that. Then I kind of trace it back.

One of the conclusions I came to is that most generational arguments (unless they feature a real ground-shift in league rules) don't really lead me to different results in the quality of players IMO. Being great in the 70s is worth as much as being great in the 00s.

 

[DannyGallivan]

As much as people’s rankings, I am curious about people’s methods.

Did anyone else isolate the players from the 120 whose full careers you have witnessed first-hand to ensure that the order of that particular set matches up with your eyes?

I've actually attempted similar projects on my own (although no where near this extent) in years past... plus years of reading TSN lists and even a couple of Stan Fischler's Top 100 books in the 1980's.

Armed with that, I just started typing names down as I thought of them. Eventually, I had to research the pre-06 era harder, which added several names. Then, I had to compare the European (specifically old Soviet players) to my list, which moved things around further.

The first 25 or so never changed that much (particularly the top 10), but eventually I just started comparing players to players ahead of them, seeing if they should move up. I did this through probably 20 drafts in total (maybe 30) until I was able to look at the list and not feel compelled to move anyone else around.

If we had another month, I may have gone through another several drafts, although the top 30 or so would likely be set.

 

[The Macho King]

I've actually attempted similar projects on my own (although no where near this extent) in years past... plus years of reading TSN lists and even a couple of Stan Fischler's Top 100 books in the 1980's.

Armed with that, I just started typing names down as I thought of them. Eventually, I had to research the pre-06 era harder, which added several names. Then, I had to compare the European (specifically old Soviet players) to my list, which moved things around further.

The first 25 or so never changed that much (particularly the top 10), but eventually I just started comparing players to players ahead of them, seeing if they should move up. I did this through probably 20 drafts in total (maybe 30) until I was able to look at the list and not feel compelled to move anyone else around.

If we had another month, I may have gone through another several drafts, although the top 30 or so would likely be set.

Yeah I got really busy at work (80+ hour weeks lately) so I had to shelve my list. I would have probably gone through 3-4 more iterations if I had my druthers. At the same time, this will allow me to be more pliable in the Round 2 discussions since there are a few rankings I know I would change in hindsight (Richard at #5 for instance).

 

[DannyGallivan]

Yeah I got really busy at work (80+ hour weeks lately) so I had to shelve my list. I would have probably gone through 3-4 more iterations if I had my druthers. At the same time, this will allow me to be more pliable in the Round 2 discussions since there are a few rankings I know I would change in hindsight (Richard at #5 for instance).

I probably had roughly 150 names in total through all my drafts. There were many who were eventually pushed past the 120 mark.

I have to admit that a lot of my initial placements were based more on "feel", then I did the research afterwards to see if their resumes matched my impression of where they should go.

 

[bobholly39]

Where do you have Joe Thornton, if at all?

Francis at 66 seems rather high, yes.

88

 

[MXD]

As much as people’s rankings, I am curious about people’s methods.

Did anyone else isolate the players from the 120 whose full careers you have witnessed first-hand to ensure that the order of that particular set matches up with your eyes?

It was by position. So I had something like

D : Orr, Harvey, Bourque, Lidstrom (...)
W : Howe, Hull, Richard, Jagr (...)
C : Gretzky, Lemieux, Beliveau, Crosby (...)
G : Roy, Hasek, Plante, Brodeur (...)

1 - Who is the best between Orr, Howe, Greztky and Roy? Greztky
2 - Who is the best between Orr, Howe, Lemieux and Roy? Orr
3 - Who is the best between Harvey, Howe, Lemieux and Roy? Howe
4 - Who is the best between Harvey, Hull, Lemieux and Roy? Lemieux

(up until 120).

Probably not the best way to do it, but possibly the best way to not get completely mad around mid-point, and should've been foolproof against omissions (Joliat missing was a C+P gone wrong)

That's for the process.

 

[seventieslord]

I started positionally as well.

 

[ted2019]

No. It was not very difficult for a couple of others to provide some rather elementary examples of why it was absolutely incorrect to just subtract one player's plus/minus from another.

You know, it's ok to admit you made a mistake. We can all see that you did. It looks worse when you just double down on it.

I don't usually agree with seventieslord on things [mod], but I have to agree with you on this. There is no way to know unless you had box scores from every game that season that Orr and Esposito were always on the ice at all times to know if those numbers are correct or not.

 

[ted2019]

....maybe I'm too sensitive to it after listening to a couple too many episodes of that podcast, but joking about how much hockey sucked back in the old days just doesn't sit well with me

Or you can just let it roll of your back and not make a big deal about it.

 

[The Macho King]

It was by position. So I had something like

D : Orr, Harvey, Bourque, Lidstrom (...)
W : Howe, Hull, Richard, Jagr (...)
C : Gretzky, Lemieux, Beliveau, Crosby (...)
G : Roy, Hasek, Plante, Brodeur (...)

1 - Who is the best between Orr, Howe, Greztky and Roy? Greztky
2 - Who is the best between Orr, Howe, Lemieux and Roy? Orr
3 - Who is the best between Harvey, Howe, Lemieux and Roy? Howe
4 - Who is the best between Harvey, Hull, Lemieux and Roy? Lemieux

(up until 120).

Probably not the best way to do it, but possibly the best way to not get completely mad around mid-point, and should've been foolproof against omissions (Joliat missing was a C+P gone wrong)

That's for the process.

This is better than my process was.