2009 Top 100 Update Preliminary Discussion Thread

[FissionFire]

Save it for when their names come up for voting fellas
(Or create a thread)

Actually, this is the thread is where to do it. This is meant for people to post pre-list submission arguments as to why they feel players were overrated/underrated on the original list.

I do not plan on participating in the voting again for the same reasons as last time.

 

[tommygunn]

Something that's been on my mind for awhile now and I guess this is the ideal place to post it.

In checking out the current Top 100, one thing that's always puzzled me is Brett Hull 10 spots ahead of Sergei Makarov. If you all had a choice of only 1 of them for your team, would you actually choose Hull over Makarov? Myself, I'd take Makarov in a heartbeat! Before going into an explanation why, I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts on this. Is Hull overrated, Makarov underrated or do you feel the placing of Hull at # 67 and Makarov at # 77 is correct? Thanks.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Hull is so hard to place. At his peak he was simply one of the top 5 goal scorers ever. But, it was only 3 years.

 

[lextune]

Excellent.

I am greatly looking forward to participating this time, (I wasn't a member at the time of the last vote).

 

[DaveG]

Ill likely be addressing the gap between the Bentley Brothers. I have been talked into Max being ahead on my list after a long debate with Pappy, but they are side by side as far as I am concerned.

Same order I have them in as well, I just don't have them that close on my original list, although that's probably going to change this time around. The more I thought about it the more it didn't make sense to have them more then 5 or so slots apart.

 

[MXD]

FF, I don't know how much time you'll have to invest this time around, but I have two suggestions...

1 - Automatic proofread for the Top-50 guys from the last edition. If one of those guys isn't there, it's probably because of two things : oversight OR .... well, a problem. Questions should be asked to the panelist which made the move. 50 is an approximate number (I realize some people could have problems ranking Joe Malone...), that number can be lowered as you wish. Actually, 30 could be better than 50.

2 - Additionnal proofread. I mean, there are a few guys in that I would highly question their omission from a Top-120 list, even if they weren't in the Top-50 or 30 (I would really ask questions to a panelist that would not include Andy Bathgate in his list).

It obviously depends on how much time you have...

 

[MXD]

In my revised list, I have not ranked Max Bentley (yet) and Doug is my last entry. The thing is, I wonder how it's... wrong.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Something that's been on my mind for awhile now and I guess this is the ideal place to post it.

In checking out the current Top 100, one thing that's always puzzled me is Brett Hull 10 spots ahead of Sergei Makarov. If you all had a choice of only 1 of them for your team, would you actually choose Hull over Makarov? Myself, I'd take Makarov in a heartbeat! Before going into an explanation why, I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts on this. Is Hull overrated, Makarov underrated or do you feel the placing of Hull at # 67 and Makarov at # 77 is correct? Thanks.

I had Hull seven spots ahead of Makarov. Neither of them gave you much beyond their offensive contributions.

I did have Hull lower than a lot of people. He's just too one-dimensional for my liking. Tremendous goal scorer. There were the three 50-50 seasons. He also had a runner-up finish in 1993-94.

Part of the problem with Hull is he needed someone who could get him the puck. And after the Blues dealt Oates, Hull didn't have that guy who could dish him the puck. He never meshed with Janney. And that hurt his goal production. He wasn't an overwhelming skater or stick-handler. But he had that awesome shot (tremendous velocity, release and accuracy), excellent instincts and a sheer desire to score goals. If you could find the guy he could click with, he was incredible. But Oates was the only guy he ever really clicked with.

He also wasn't a strong playmaker. Never finished in the top 10 in assists. His career high for assists was 47. Of course, it's not an issue when you're that good of a goal-scorer.

His post-season record was pretty good. He scored at a 40-goal clip in the playoffs, and it was incredible at his peak. There were a few years, though, when he floundered when his team needed the big goal.

 

[FissionFire]

I think at the end of his career Hull and Datsyuk clicked rather well.

 

[raleh]

I'm in again. I'm really excited about making my preliminary list after reading the red machine. I feel like I know more about the Soviet players.

 

[pappyline]

In my revised list, I have not ranked Max Bentley (yet) and Doug is my last entry. The thing is, I wonder how it's... wrong.

Are you saying you have Doug at 120 & Max below that? If so, i suggest you revew some of the Bentley comments from the last draft bacause that is obviously wrong..

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I'm definitely in again.

 

[seventieslord]

- In the interests of greater accuracy, I think we should look at ranking more players on our initial submissions. 130 or 140, even, would make a big difference when using the points system we use.

- Regarding 3c, is there possibly a better way to break the tie? For example, which one was ranked higher than the other more? I'm having a hard time explaining exactly why, but I think that would be more appropriate.

- You didn't mention how many of the 15 names we will be including on our ballots during round 2. Personally, I'd like to do all 15. Then there is more differentiation and less chance of ever needing to break a tie. Then your list isn't saying "...8th, 9th, 10th, not top-10, not top-10, not top-10..." your opinion of two players you never ranked in the top-10 could ultimately the tiebreaker if ranking all 15, but if you're not ranking the whole list then you're essentially considering all the players you never ranked, to be equal.

My housecleaning list:

Gilmour, Syd Howe, Esposito, Quackenbush - IN
Hainsworth, Savard, Gardiner - OUT
Worters, Goodfellow, Iginla - TRY TO FIND ROOM
Perreault, Keon, Jackson - POSSIBLY OUT
Bentleys - BRING THEM CLOSER TOGETHER, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER
Messier - DOWN
Richard/Ullman - BRING THEM CLOSER TOGETHER, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER
M.Richard - DOWN TO 13TH
Lalonde/Taylor - BOTH UP TO TOP-20

I'm sure I'll think of more, though.

 

[FissionFire]

- In the interests of greater accuracy, I think we should look at ranking more players on our initial submissions. 130 or 140, even, would make a big difference when using the points system we use.

At some point you have to draw the line. We're already going 20 spots out past the final list for the ranking. 40-50 spots out seems like some overkill to me. Not to mention a god-awful ton of extra names for me to track in the aggregate. Just for kicks, look at the first aggregate thread and see how many names there were just for 120 places on 27 lists. Really not keen on taking a chance at 400+ names. That's a ton of time, especially if more people take part this time. I do have classes after all. Besides, how badly can the accuracy be affected in the top 100 when you are talking about players at 121-140/150? Not sure that would do anything but maybe affect the 99th and 100th spots on the list, and that's even a stretch.

- Regarding 3c, is there possibly a better way to break the tie? For example, which one was ranked higher than the other more? I'm having a hard time explaining exactly why, but I think that would be more appropriate.

That's what I'm doing. Player A and Player B tie. Player A has X 1sts, X 2nds, and X 3rds. Player B has X 1sts, X 2nds, and Y 3rds, where X > Y. Therefore Player B is ranked higher.

- You didn't mention how many of the 15 names we will be including on our ballots during round 2. Personally, I'd like to do all 15. Then there is more differentiation and less chance of ever needing to break a tie. Then your list isn't saying "...8th, 9th, 10th, not top-10, not top-10, not top-10..." your opinion of two players you never ranked in the top-10 could ultimately the tiebreaker if ranking all 15, but if you're not ranking the whole list then you're essentially considering all the players you never ranked, to be equal.

That's exactly what I intend. Everyone will rank all 15 players in order with the top 10 being added to the list and the other 5 moving on to the next vote.

 

[Know Your Enemy]

Quackenbush over Serge Savard eh 70's? interesting.

I'll be participating this time by the way, and I look forward to arguing for defensemen.

Hopefully we can get most of the Minor League draft done before this starts.

 

[MXD]

Are you saying you have Doug at 120 & Max below that? If so, i suggest you revew some of the Bentley comments from the last draft bacause that is obviously wrong..

A bit more than 50% of the list completed (I obviously restarted it from no.1), and I do remember Doug is the last guy I've written down.

 

[MXD]

I'd really have a hard time figuring out what makes Quackenbush a better player than Savard, oh well...

 

[pappyline]

A bit more than 50% of the list completed (I obviously restarted it from no.1), and I do remember Doug is the last guy I've written down.

I misunderstood. I personally would have Doug higher & I have Max higher than Doug.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Any list that doesn't include both Bentley's should be rejected out-of-hand...

I won't have many changes. A few of the goalies (Durnan, Benedict and Gardiner) will be higher than before. Henri Richard will be lower than before (Richard behind Apps? Yikes) but he's still definitely a top 50 player.

 

[FissionFire]

I'm glad we're getting rid of ties. I also like the idea of doing 10 players at a time instead of 5. One suggestion I would make long-term is that after this, maybe we go for a different category next time (i.e. 100 greatest goalies, 100 greatest defencemen, 100 greatest coaches, etc.) so we're not having the same debates about the same players every year. But it's good we're doing the main list again this time as a lot of us (myself included) have likely decided on several changes from our initial list.

Also, let's hope that all the people who complained about the last list will submit lists this time around.

I'm hoping to put this on more of a cycle instead of an annual thing. Right now I'm thinking of creating a 5-year cycles where you start with the Top 100, then do a top list by position (G, D, C, W) which would make a 5 year spread meaning that the Top 100 would be revisited twice each decade. I've also been kicking about the idea of creating a HOH Hall of Fame but haven't really gotten serious about the planning just yet.

I will be involved again, although maybe not in the same capacity as last time.

And I hope that we will have the same "quality control" standards as last time.

I plan on instructing the screeners this time around exactly the same as I did last time. So pretty much unless you forget to include players from some decades or countries there is very little chance a list would get rejected.

 

[seventieslord]

I understand it will take some convincing for a few of you, but why would it be far-fetched? We're talking about a five-time all-star defenseman versus a one-time 2nd all-star.

Savard had some stiff competition for the Norris and ASTs, but he never really rose above them either - all these great defensemen always finished ahead of him.

Quackenbush may have had the worst name in the history of hockey, but managed 5 AST nominations, the first three among Black Jack Stewart, Butch Bouchard, and Ken Reardon, (no, this isn't Orr, Robinson, Park, and Salming, but Quackenbush finished ahead of all his competition, not behind, in 1948 and 1949) two of whom are borderline top-100 candidates, the fourth behind Red Kelly, and the fifth behind Harvey, Kelly, and Gadsby.

I'm three seasons into Vol. 3 of "The Trail", which much of his career left to come, and he's been described as "hard-hitting" and a "good checker" - this completely changes my perception of him - I always assumed he was just a gentlemanly offensive player but he managed to be effective defensively and physically while taking very, very few penalties - this is a valuable trait.

His offensive output was very solid. Just twice he was out of the top-10 in scoring by defensemen - and he was 12th both times. In total, it went 12, 7, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 7, 10, 12, 7, 3. Evil Speaker, I know you have easier access to these numbers than I do - how many defensemen have been top-2 five times or more? And while you're at it, how many have been top-3 seven times or more?

BM67 likes this metric a lot and I am starting to use it more too. During Quackenbush's career, he was 2nd in scoring by defensemen:

Kelly 367
Quackenbush 282
Harvey 270
Gadsby 252
Thomson 211
Egan 182
Bouchard 169
Mortson 161
Goldham 160
Harmon 132

He didn't win a cup, but he was still 4th in playoff points during that time as well:

Kelly 35
Harvey 33
Bouchard 29
Quackenbush 21
Thomson 15
Harmon 14
St. Laurent 14

I seem to recall a few others mentioning his name on more than a couple occasions during the top-100 process last time. He'll have one more in his corner this time around.

 

[seventieslord]

That's what I'm doing. Player A and Player B tie. Player A has X 1sts, X 2nds, and X 3rds. Player B has X 1sts, X 2nds, and Y 3rds, where X > Y. Therefore Player B is ranked higher.

I understand you, but I don't think you understand me. I'm saying to break a tie we should look at each individual ballot and say:

-Ballot A has Bentley ahead of Brimsek, one point for Bentley.
-Ballot B has Brimsek ahead of Bentley, one point for Brimsek.

And so on, until all ballots have been accounted for. This essentially means you're conducting a last-minute vote between all participants - who do you like better, Brimsek or Bentley? And they've answered before you had to ask.

In th end, both methods may yield the same results - sometimes they may not. I just like this better. What do you think?

 

[lextune]

Just thought I might point out the bolded part below about private messages. In your other thread you noted that list's should not be sent via PM. Which makes perfect sense since as you note, it would quickly fill your inbox.

• All participants submit a list of players ranked in order
• Lists will be submitted via email or private message
• Lists will consist of 120 players
• Players will be assigned a point value on the list based on ranking
• Points will be awarded 120 points for a 1st place vote down to 1 point for a 120th place vote
• An aggregate list of the top 120 players will be compiled ranking the players in order of the most total points
• Participants MUST submit a list in Round 1 to be eligible for Round 2

 

[FissionFire]

Ya, the OP here was a copy/paste job from the first time around last year. I get so many friggin PM's each day I guarantee I won't get some lists if people PM them to me.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I understand it will take some convincing for a few of you, but why would it be far-fetched? We're talking about a five-time all-star defenseman versus a one-time 2nd all-star.

Savard had some stiff competition for the Norris and ASTs, but he never really rose above them either - all these great defensemen always finished ahead of him.

Quackenbush may have had the worst name in the history of hockey, but managed 5 AST nominations, the first three among Black Jack Stewart, Butch Bouchard, and Ken Reardon, (no, this isn't Orr, Robinson, Park, and Salming, but Quackenbush finished ahead of all his competition, not behind, in 1948 and 1949) two of whom are borderline top-100 candidates, the fourth behind Red Kelly, and the fifth behind Harvey, Kelly, and Gadsby.

I'm three seasons into Vol. 3 of "The Trail", which much of his career left to come, and he's been described as "hard-hitting" and a "good checker" - this completely changes my perception of him - I always assumed he was just a gentlemanly offensive player but he managed to be effective defensively and physically while taking very, very few penalties - this is a valuable trait.

His offensive output was very solid. Just twice he was out of the top-10 in scoring by defensemen - and he was 12th both times. In total, it went 12, 7, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 7, 10, 12, 7, 3. Evil Speaker, I know you have easier access to these numbers than I do - how many defensemen have been top-2 five times or more? And while you're at it, how many have been top-3 seven times or more?

BM67 likes this metric a lot and I am starting to use it more too. During Quackenbush's career, he was 2nd in scoring by defensemen:

Kelly 367
Quackenbush 282
Harvey 270
Gadsby 252
Thomson 211
Egan 182
Bouchard 169
Mortson 161
Goldham 160
Harmon 132

He didn't win a cup, but he was still 4th in playoff points during that time as well:

Kelly 35
Harvey 33
Bouchard 29
Quackenbush 21
Thomson 15
Harmon 14
St. Laurent 14

I seem to recall a few others mentioning his name on more than a couple occasions during the top-100 process last time. He'll have one more in his corner this time around.

I had Quackenbush just outside of my top 100. Quackenbush and Jack Stewart were two of my toughest omissions. Big fan of both. Quackenbush is a sort of poor man's Lidstrom - a sublime two-way, clean defenceman. Stewart has a lot in common with Scotty Stevens - my all-time favourite defenceman.

On the all-star front. Do you think Quackenbush would have done any better than Savard if Quackenbush was playing in the 60s and 70s? I don't. Orr, Park, Potvin, Robinson and Salming are certain top 100 players. Lapointe is close.

Savard's lack of all-star nods could have something to do with reduced viewing opportunities caused by expansion. If he would have played in the Original 6, when voters saw each player 14 times per season, I think he would have had several all-star births, even if he played in the Kelly/Harvey/Gadsby days. There'd be more appreciation for a player like Savard. Playing post-expansion, voters didn't see Savard as much, and so there's a greater reliance on stats. Savard wasn't a stats guy. He's one of the best defensive defencemen of all-time, but there isn't a stat to truly measure how truly good a defensive defenceman is. It's easier to gauge how good Lapointe and Salming are, based on stats, than Savard.

And, one final thing to note about Savard: he was a tremendous playoff performer. That's why he should be a shoo-in for the top 100.

Formulas don't work in hockey. Adjusted for era stats are like chasing after the wind. They don't work. We saw that they are a truly abysmal failure with one of the lists that was submitted last time. (Note: If you think that Alexander Mogilny is a top 120 player ever, this project is NOT for you). And formulas especially don't work for defencemen. Unless you can devise a formula that demonstrates a defenceman's ability to thrive playing against an opponent's best player on a nightly basis (especially in best-of-seven series), his ability to win battles in the corners, his ability to block shots, his ability to make the right decisions on a split-second basis, and his ability to effectively move the puck and quarterback a power play, then you are concocting a hypothesis that doesn't work.