HOH Top-50 Non-NHL Europeans Project - Preliminary & General Discussion Thread

[Sanf]

I have Honken on my list, but frankly I didn't even think about Cechmanek and Crha.

I think I overrated Holmqvist a bit, though. He was a very popular player in his time and certainly has impressive domestic accolades, but his international career was surprisingly scrappy; he had basically two big tournaments (1969 & 1970 WHCs), and even then he wasn't the clear-cut choice for the best goalie or anything like that. He did have some legendary performances against both USSR and Czechoslovakia in the late '60s/early '70s, but it wasn't like he was the #1 goalie for Sweden (internationally) for 10 years, like I had sometimes imagined.
I placed him above e.g. Viktor Konovalenko and thinking now, that might have been 'wrong'. I still think that he should be above Cechmanek and Crha, though. I really don't see any case especially for Crha; good seasons in the domestic league in the 1970s (he always got at least some support in the GS voting) and a kind of pioneer in the NHL, but that's just not good enough for me. Because there was a certain Jiri Holecek, internationally Crha usually played only a couple of games per tournament in 1973-76 & 1978 - i.e. the 'easy games' - so we really don't know how good he would have been against e.g. USSR.

BTW, how many lists/participants are there now?

With goalies its always difficult. It´s not as easy to say that from this point to this point he was the best of his country.

I have preliminary list made months ago. I can squeeze that together in sunday. I think some people has done so much work with this that I can´t really afford to not sent a list. I have only few free days in month, but I hope that I can have some time to participate.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sending in a list isn't a commitment to participate every week, though we would encourage it obviously.

In fact, history says that we generally settle on about 2/3 of the participants voting in each subsequent round... which for 11 listmakers means we can expect the results many weeks to be determined by only 7 or 8 voters.

 

[Plural]

7 or 8 seems maybe too low. I'm starting to think more and more that maybe you guys push back the deadline on preliminary list bit and try to get few more participants in. I know it sucks for Theo and others who have put a lot of time in this already. But I see it as a better option than getting as low as 7 voters on some weeks.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

7 or 8 seems maybe too low. I'm starting to think more and more that maybe you guys push back the deadline on preliminary list bit and try to get few more participants in. I know it sucks for Theo and others who have put a lot of time in this already. But I see it as a better option than getting as low as 7 voters on some weeks.

Theo has put in the most work by far; I may or may not have put in the second most (from an administrative standpoint, a few others have been more active in this thread).

If Theo wants to follow all the procedures of previous projects on this board, including the info dump at the end (which IMO is necessary for the credibility of the project), I'd estimate that about 10% of the administrative work of the project has been completed. Definitely less than 20%. Now a lot of what's left (like tabulating the weekly votes) can be spread out among different people. But if there were a time to cut our losses, now would be that time. Hopefully, we get more good lists and it won't come to that.

 

[Plural]

Seems like the choice needs to be up to the guys pulling most of the work. What do you mean by "cut our losses"? As in going forward now or putting the whole project on ice?

 

[seventieslord]

Seems like the choice needs to be up to the guys pulling most of the work. What do you mean by "cut our losses"? As in going forward now or putting the whole project on ice?

No, cutting our losses would be shutting it down right now.

 

[Plural]

Ah. Well that would suck. Hope it doesn't come to that.

 

[VMBM]

I have preliminary list made months ago. I can squeeze that together in sunday. I think some people has done so much work with this that I can´t really afford to not sent a list. I have only few free days in month, but I hope that I can have some time to participate.

Your contribution would be very much appreciated; your knowledge on the pre-1960s hockey would be invaluable for the project. Of course, the 'real life' is much more important than a hockey project on a message board, heh. But if you can find a way to participate...

--

All in all, I wouldn't mind waiting for a while for the (possible) new participants. And in the meantime, hopefully we could hold on to our current participants and keep the "preliminary" discussion alive at least somewhat. But seemingly there has been quite a lot of work done already to recruit as many posters as possible. So I don't know how realistic this would be... but even 15 would obviously be better than 11.

Is it just that an all-time list without NHL-superstars is not that interesting for the most people? Or are many posters just feeling that they are too 'inadequate'? Or were many potential participants just so disappointed that the project became almost literally the "Top non-NHL Europeans of all-time" and thus excluded players like Peter Stastny?

 

[MadArcand]

I say go ahead. But definitely try to get people like Sprague involved if at all possible!

Also, We should think about finding a way to expand the final vote. The fewer lists we have the more random the aggregate list will be from around #60-#80. If we can find a way to pick up a gem that slipped down to #85, we should make the effort to do it.

This.

Go ahead, but extend the deadline a bit so that people who show interest can get their lists in and participate.

 

[Theokritos]

As far as I'm concerned moving back the deadline for the second time does not suck half as much as shutting the project down. My only concern was that it might not earn us too many additional ballots. While some of the earlier participants could start to lose patience and interest as the whole project keeps dragging on. But if there is a realistic chance we get to 15 ballots I'm in favour of a second prolongation. So far two people in this thread have indicated they would participate if we gave them the time. I'd say let's give it a try.

Is it just that an all-time list without NHL-superstars is not that interesting for the most people? Or are many posters just feeling that they are too 'inadequate'?

My impression is that it is the latter.

 

[Sturminator]

If we're worried that the task of ordering the top-70 non-NHL European players of all time is too intimidating, another option might be to shoot for a slightly lower goal. Maybe a top-40 list, with a 55-name round one standard? Cutting fifteen names doesn't seem like that much, but the last fifteen are the hardest, imo.

I dunno. I'd still like to go forward, and a little pause will just give me more time to research and further revise my list. A break in the process doesn't have to kill it if the will is still there.

 

[Plural]

If there is going to be a break, I'm definitely going to review my list. I had A LOT of players left out that I don't feel at all comfortable now. I just ran out of time since I was lazy and started too late.

But either way is OK for me. If I have time, I'll probably try to polish my list a bit.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Your contribution would be very much appreciated; your knowledge on the pre-1960s hockey would be invaluable for the project. Of course, the 'real life' is much more important than a hockey project on a message board, heh. But if you can find a way to participate...

--

All in all, I wouldn't mind waiting for a while for the (possible) new participants. And in the meantime, hopefully we could hold on to our current participants and keep the "preliminary" discussion alive at least somewhat. But seemingly there has been quite a lot of work done already to recruit as many posters as possible. So I don't know how realistic this would be... but even 15 would obviously be better than 11.

Is it just that an all-time list without NHL-superstars is not that interesting for the most people? Or are many posters just feeling that they are too 'inadequate'? Or were many potential participants just so disappointed that the project became almost literally the "Top non-NHL Europeans of all-time" and thus excluded players like Peter Stastny?

This is what did it for me, it's hard to get excited about doing a list when so many great players are excluded from the get go and then comparing guys after the top 20 or so gets really ambitious in the realm of apples and oranges.

 

[DN28]

It´s a pity but what can we do? If there are not much people interested it´s no shame to cancel it.

Option 2: We turn it into three smaller projects. Top Soviet players, top Czechoslovak players, top Swedish players. Voting is open to everyone which should increase the number of participants. But the preliminary rankings for the voting are determined by the 11 top 70 lists so that the effort put into them was not just a waste of time.

This doesn´t sound bad though. At least it will be easier to compare and bring more people to vote.

 

[seventieslord]

So far two people in this thread have indicated they would participate if we gave them the time. I'd say let's give it a try.

I've got a third who says they are sending a list within two days, and a fourth who seems interested.

If we're worried that the task of ordering the top-70 non-NHL European players of all time is too intimidating, another option might be to shoot for a slightly lower goal. Maybe a top-40 list, with a 55-name round one standard? Cutting fifteen names doesn't seem like that much, but the last fifteen are the hardest, imo.

I dunno. I'd still like to go forward, and a little pause will just give me more time to research and further revise my list. A break in the process doesn't have to kill it if the will is still there.

Haha, I'm honestly the exact opposite here. I feel like, if we're going to take the time to do this list, let's do more names. Look at it this way, 60 names would be 20% longer but is it really 20% more work? I don't think it's a directly proportional relationship; I think it gets more efficient the more we do at once.

 

[KriminellPipa]

This is what did it for me, it's hard to get excited about doing a list when so many great players are excluded from the get go and then comparing guys after the top 20 or so gets really ambitious in the realm of apples and oranges.

I can understand that from a canadian point of view. For me growing up with loads of these as heros it is almost hard to fit them all on a 70-list. I cried when Roland Stoltz past away, and I've never even seen him play. And reading all the russian and czech players gives me the goose bumps, but I guess that the majority of the players are nobodys for a canadian growing up with NHL, and maybe some Canada Cup once in a while.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

In this project, how do we deal with eligible Euros that spent a significant amount of time in the NHL? Am I supposed to act as if Larionov's career ended in 1988-89 or should his time in the NHL be weighted accordingly? Because if it's the former, Larionov is going to drop quite a few spots.

 

[Plural]

In this project, how do we deal with eligible Euros that spent a significant amount of time in the NHL? Am I supposed to act as if Larionov's career ended in 1988-89 or should his time in the NHL be weighted accordingly? Because if it's the former, Larionov is going to drop quite a few spots.

1. Eligibility and Ranking Criteria
   • Players should be ranked based on their overall accomplishments, including their time in the NHL (or WHA) if they played there. A "non-NHL player" is not to be understood as someone who didn't play in the NHL (or WHA) at all or whose resume there doesn't matter at all, but as a player who arguably spent the more significant part of his career outside of the NHL (or WHA).

1. • 
     
     It's right there on the first sentence.

 

[VMBM]

If it is allowed, I name some notable players who did not make my (initial) list:

Yevgeny Babich
Alexey Guryshev
Veli-Pekka Ketola
Oldrich Machac
Bert-Olov (-"Ola") Nordlander
Lasse Oksanen
Ronald Pettersson
Viktor Shuvalov
Jorma Valtonen
Urpo Ylönen

There are many others too, but these were the most 'bitter' omissions for me.

Namely, since I placed Bobrov pretty high on my list, it might be somewhat inconsistent to not have contemporaries like Babich, Guryshev and Shuvalov on the list. But heck, I figured that there must be a genuine reason why Bobrov is a much bigger legend than any of those players.
Also, I had Nisse Nilsson quite high, so in that regard, maybe e.g. Pettersson and Nordlander should have made it too.
Ylönen's and Valtonen's international careers don't look any worse than Leif Holmqvist's, and yet I had Honken around 50ish and no Ylönen nor Valtonen... but maybe it was more of a case of overrating Holmqvist than underrating the Finnish goalies... as for other Finns, I just had to have Matti Hagman on the list; I simply couldn't stand the idea that there would be two Germans (Kühnhackl & Jaenecke) on my list and no Finns! Seriously speaking, I do think that Hagman was that talented and so think many other Finns too - just ask Jari Kurri.
It would have been pretty hard to justify Ketola and Oksanen on a to 70 list, but it was still bitter to leave them off.
Machac was actually considered better than Frantisek Pospisil in some late 1960s/early 1970s World Championships, and I placed Pospisil VERY high on the list. Maybe I should have found room for Machac too.

 

[VMBM]

In this project, how do we deal with eligible Euros that spent a significant amount of time in the NHL? Am I supposed to act as if Larionov's career ended in 1988-89 or should his time in the NHL be weighted accordingly? Because if it's the former, Larionov is going to drop quite a few spots.

If I had totally ignored Larionov's North American career, I would have placed him probably at somewhere around 40. But I didn't ignore it, so he is clearly above that on my list. Larionov is one of the very few eligible players whose North American career truly adds something to his resume. Then there is e.g. HÃ¥kan Loob, whose pretty good NHL career might be the main reason/justification for his ranking for some people (his international career isn't anything special IMO). I didn't place him very high, though.

I did put a lot more emphasis on the players' domestic/international careers (and their actual primes), however, and thus Vladimir Krutov is well above Larionov on my list.

 

[KriminellPipa]

If it is allowed, I name some notable players who did not make my (initial) list:

Yevgeny Babich
Alexey Guryshev
Veli-Pekka Ketola
Oldrich Machac
Bert-Olov (-"Ola") Nordlander
Lasse Oksanen
Roland Pettersson
Viktor Shuvalov
Jorma Valtonen
Urpo Ylönen

There are many others too, but these were the most 'bitter' omissions for me.

Namely, since I placed Bobrov pretty high on my list, it might be somewhat inconsistent to not have contemporaries like Babich, Guryshev and Shuvalov on the list. But heck, I figured that there must be a genuine reason why Bobrov is a much bigger legend than any of those players.
Also, I had Nisse Nilsson quite high, so in that regard, maybe e.g. Pettersson and Nordlander should have made it too.
Ylönen's and Valtonen's international careers don't look any worse than Leif Holmqvist's, and yet I had Honken around 50ish and no Ylönen nor Valtonen... but maybe it was more of a case of overrating Holmqvist than underrating the Finnish goalies... as for other Finns, I just had to have Matti Hagman on the list; I simply couldn't stand the idea that there would be two Germans (Kühnhackl & Jaenecke) on my list and no Finns! Seriously speaking, I do think that Hagman was that talented and so think many other Finns too - just ask Jari Kurri.
It would have been pretty hard to justify Ketola's and Oksanen's placements on a to 70 list, but it was still bitter to leave them off.
Machac was actually considered better than Frantisek Pospisil in some late 1960s/early 1970s World Championships, and I placed Pospisil VERY high on the list. Maybe I should have found room for Machac too.

Seems to me that you and I had the same ponderings to some degree, even though Sura-Pelle Pettersson made my list, but I also had Pospisil and Bobrov up high but found no room for others who maybe should have been there. The two germans also made me put Hagman among the late picks, but he was not a lonely finn, since my man-crush on Helminen made me squeeze him in, probably a little bit too high.

 

[VMBM]

Seems to me that you and I had the same ponderings to some degree, even though Sura-Pelle Pettersson made my list, but I also had Pospisil and Bobrov up high but found no room for others who maybe should have been there. The two germans also made me put Hagman among the late picks, but he was not a lonely finn, since my man-crush on Helminen made me squeeze him in, probably a little bit too high.

He is probably the most well-liked player in Finland ever - or 2nd after a certain Teemu Selänne - but I didn't let that affect my cool and thoughtful decision-making . I'm still not so sure that he was a better player than Ketola or Oksanen.

He had a very good career in SEL and a long, long, long international career, so it's no wonder he gets some love from the Swedes too.

 

[VMBM]

Maurice Richard on Bobrov

Maurice Richard on Vsevolod Bobrov some time in the late 1950s:

Bobrov is an outstanding individual and a great player. I consider him being one of the ten best players in hockey history.

http://internationalhockeylegends.blogspot.fi/2006/09/vsevolod-bobrov.html

Does anyone know any more about this? I was trying to find some more information like where (& to whom) Richard made this comment and how much he actually saw Bobrov play. I wonder if Richard was just being overly diplomatic (in the presence of some Russians???), or did it actually come from the heart?

It didn't have any effect on my ranking of Bobrov, believe me, but it's indeed high praise, even if made in the 1950s.

 

[Theokritos]

Maurice Richard on Vsevolod Bobrov some time in the late 1950s:
http://internationalhockeylegends.blogspot.fi/2006/09/vsevolod-bobrov.html

Does anyone know any more about this? I was trying to find some more information like where (& to whom) Richard made this comment and how much he actually saw Bobrov play. I wonder if Richard was just being overly diplomatic (in the presence of some Russians???), or did it actually come from the heart?

I'm wondering the same thing. Bobrov retired after the 1957 World Championship, so he never played in North America (first Soviet tour of Canada was in November 1957). Neither can Richard have seen him in Prague when the "Rocket" attended the 1959 World Championship. When did Canadian TV start to broadcast the World Championship? Not earlier enough to cover the 1954 and 1955 Worlds, that's for sure: Foster Hewitt went to West Germany in '55 to provide radio coverage for the nation at home when the Penticton Vees restored Canadian honour. No TV broadcast yet.

 

[Theokritos]

So we're continuing Round 1 for the time being and I am still accepting lists until October 14th at least. Potential participants who need more time than that, please make yourself heard right here in this very thread.