HOH Top Centers - Round 2 Voting Results

[Dennis Bonvie]

Am I the only one who doesn't think that Roenick/Lafontaine received enough support to be added?

I really thought doing a short Round 16 was the best solution, but seems nobody else agrees.

I agree.

Maybe neither of them will win. Limiting the candidates should change thinks significantly.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I agree.

Maybe neither of them will win. Limiting the candidates should change thinks significantly.

That's what I was thinking. We've seen swings of 15-20 or so points between rounds, when we are talking about guys who only got 50 or so points of support.

IMO, the fairest thing is to re-vote 1-6 on Lafontaine, Roenick, Foyston, Sedin, Colville, and Primeau with the winner taking 60th. Originally, i didn't have Primeau there because he was 8 points behind the rest (and because I felt he was talked about much more than the rest of them last round), but we do have something of a break after Primeau where everyone after him was left off the majority of the ballots.

Alternatively, we can end with a list with 59 (or 61) names on it.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Roenick is a second-rate center of his era, just like Nieuwendyk. He has no business being in the top-60.

lol? His "era" is the entire decade of the '90s (his first and last PPG+ seasons fit nicely into those constraints), and during that era he had more points than Gilmour, Messier, Fedorov, Lindros, Lemieux, etc; 12th overall in points during the entire decade of the '90s, and often outscoring his next highest scoring teammate by ~30 points. Not "second-rate" by any stretch, imo.

Nieuwendyk is "second-rate" for being a 1B even at the best of times over his career (during Gilmour's tenure as a Flame, followed by a young Reichel supplanting him as the #1 offensive threat following that, and finally playing behind Modano).

 

[MXD]

That's what I was thinking. We've seen swings of 15-20 or so points between rounds, when we are talking about guys who only got 50 or so points of support.

IMO, the fairest thing is to re-vote 1-6 on Lafontaine, Roenick, Foyston, Sedin, Colville, and Primeau with the winner taking 60th. Originally, i didn't have Primeau there because he was 8 points behind the rest (and because I felt he was talked about much more than the rest of them last round), but we do have something of a break after Primeau where everyone after him was left off the majority of the ballots.

Alternatively, we can end with a list with 59 (or 61) names on it.

TBH, I don't have any problem with any solutioon TBH. I'll suggest a fast track -- no time allowed to debating.

 

[MadArcand]

lol? His "era" is the entire decade of the '90s (his first and last PPG+ seasons fit nicely into those constraints), and during that era he had more points than Gilmour, Messier, Fedorov, Lindros, Lemieux, etc; 12th overall in points during the entire decade of the '90s, and often outscoring his next highest scoring teammate by ~30 points. Not "second-rate" by any stretch, imo.

Absurd selective argument is absurd.

 

[ted2019]

Glad to see Jacques make the top 3. Also, maybe just add up the amount of votes from 1-5 for the tiebreaker. If players are still tied, then narrow it down to the top 4, etc...

 

[Kyle McMahon]

At least the guy having Stamkos 1st (and it wasn't me) has an argument of tougher competition (not that you would agree on that it seems) and Stamkos has the same streak of being the top goal scorer by a very large amount over Canadian competition, McGee was a distant 2nd.

I'll ask later, hopefully that person has his reasons and will share them with us.

So it's a one-way street it would seem. According to you, Stamkos must not lag far behind McGee if voting was applied consistently. Yet the opposite, McGee lagging behind Stamkos, is apparently justifiable using the same criteria. Not surprisingly, it is the modern era player that gets the benefit of the fuzzy logic. You plan to question the person who had McGee far ahead of Stamkos on grounds on consistency, but whoever had Stamkos far ahead of McGee will not be subject to your criticism, correct?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

TBH, I don't have any problem with any solutioon TBH. I'll suggest a fast track -- no time allowed to debating.

I don't see why we wouldn't allow time to debate. Maybe a week.

Perhaps we could allow voters to vote any time during that week (even at the beginning), rather than forcing everyone to wait until the end.

 

[MadArcand]

No, please no more weeks of debate because of the insignificant 60th place.

 

[sr edler]

Agreed, set up a quick vote. I'll vote for LaFontaine, he was better than Roenick.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Agreed, set up a quick vote. I'll vote for LaFontaine, he was better than Roenick.

Even a quick vote should be an ordered ranking of 1-6 IMO. As is, only 5 of 17 had Lafontaine in their top 3 and 6 of 17 had Roenick, so I don't think we should assume that one of those two would have to make the list.

And I say this as someone who had Roenick in his top 3.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No, please no more weeks of debate because of the insignificant 60th place.

As someone who drafted Harvey Pulford in last year's ATD because he finished #60 on HOH's Top 60 defensemen list, I'm surprised to see you find it to be so insignificant

 

[bigbuffalo313]

I think a quick vote starting either today or tomorrow with 5-6 players in it and no discussion is probably the best way to go

 

[MadArcand]

As someone who drafted Harvey Pulford in last year's ATD because he finished #60 on HOH's Top 60 defensemen list, I'm surprised to see you find it to be so insignificant

Because he finished 60th?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Because he finished 60th?

Maybe it wasn't you, but someone definitely used his spot in the top 60 as an argument for him.

 

[ted2019]

Glad to see Jacques make the top 3. Also, maybe just add up the amount of votes from 1-5 for the tiebreaker. If players are still tied, then narrow it down to the top 4, etc...

How about this solution? It's the easiest and fastest.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

How about this solution? It's the easiest and fastest.

I don't understand, where does 5 come from? Why not 6 or 7 or 4?

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Absurd selective argument is absurd.

Ignorant argument is also ignorant. Thanks in no small way to those point totals, he was voted as having had a top 5 season at his position 3 or 4 times during said decade (depending on how you count '89/90 vs '99/00), on top of figuring into the Hart voting twice and the Selke voting twice as well. "Second-rate" centre my ass.

 

[MXD]

Absurd selective argument is absurd.

Kindof a crude way to put it. But a selective argument is a selective argument, which is a selective argument. And that one was a selective argument.

Now, Roenick, in that group and at that point, was a perfectly defensible choice for Top-8.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Why are you mixing apples, oranges and potatoes all together? Maybe you should look at who Sundin or Malkin were compared with?

As for Stamkos vs. McGee, being considered the best player in the world >>> not coming even close in not exactly top-heavy era. Being a well-rounded player >>> being a total one-trick pony.


Roenick is a second-rate center of his era, just like Nieuwendyk. He has no business being in the top-60.

there was and is a very simple and easy way to compare Frank and Steve, how did they score compared to their Canadian counterparts.

Steve in his 4 year peak demolished his counterparts, Frank was at least a distant 2nd to Bowie.

If you want to compare Stamkos to the larger world, ie Russins ect then you have to acknowledge the greater difficulty that Stamkos faced in his competition but somehow you are holding onto some other hidden notion here.

even against the world Stamkos just destroys all others in goal scoring in his 4 year peak

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

Both guys were basically goal scorers, we have a few quotes about Frank being this and that but we can't really put it into any type of context compared to Stamkos either who plays in a much more developed league where the game is coached beyond belief.

Frank played in a pretty carefree and vastly changing era which was highly unstructured and were the Rover who set up the plays was usually considered the best or most important player on the teams and goal scoring wasn't considered as important as it would later become.

 

[MadArcand]

Ignorant argument is also ignorant. Thanks in no small way to those point totals, he was voted as having had a top 5 season at his position 3 or 4 times during said decade (depending on how you count '89/90 vs '99/00), on top of figuring into the Hart voting twice and the Selke voting twice as well. "Second-rate" centre my ass.

There were more than 10 centers who were better in the 90s than Roenick - in no particular order - Lemieux, Messier, Gretzky, Lindros, Gilmour, Francis, Oates, Modano, Sakic, Forsberg, Yzerman, Fedorov + a bunch of others who are at least arguable like Lafontaine or Sundin. That's obviously second-rate.

 

[MadArcand]

there was and is a very simple and easy way to compare Frank and Steve, how did they score compared to their Canadian counterparts.

Steve in his 4 year peak demolished his counterparts, Frank was at least a distant 2nd to Bowie.

If you want to compare Stamkos to the larger world, ie Russins ect then you have to acknowledge the greater difficulty that Stamkos faced in his competition but somehow you are holding onto some other hidden notion here.

even against the world Stamkos just destroys all others in goal scoring in his 4 year peak

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

Both guys were basically goal scorers, we have a few quotes about Frank being this and that but we can't really put it into any type of context compared to Stamkos either who plays in a much more developed league where the game is coached beyond belief.

Frank played in a pretty carefree and vastly changing era which was highly unstructured and were the Rover who set up the plays was usually considered the best or most important player on the teams and goal scoring wasn't considered as important as it would later become.

So now we're suddenly not comparing the players as whole but just goalscoring, which just happens to be the only thing Steven 'Brett Hull' Stamkos can actually do?

 

[Hardyvan123]

So it's a one-way street it would seem. According to you, Stamkos must not lag far behind McGee if voting was applied consistently. Yet the opposite, McGee lagging behind Stamkos, is apparently justifiable using the same criteria. Not surprisingly, it is the modern era player that gets the benefit of the fuzzy logic. You plan to question the person who had McGee far ahead of Stamkos on grounds on consistency, but whoever had Stamkos far ahead of McGee will not be subject to your criticism, correct?

I will ask Denis who had them 1,3 but he will probably answer that he is a pure peak guy, looking at his vote this round and others will help.

that being said he has stated that he is almost a pure peak guy, my biggest problem is a guy complaining about the shortness of a guys career (Malkin) and then also downplaying the extreme high consistency and lack of a really high peak for Sundin.

I don't agree with his 1 and 3 placing this round but at least he seems to be consistent in his thinking, not so for the other view which seems random at best, but then again it's a guess on comments here let's see the voting alter on.

 

[Hardyvan123]

So now we're suddenly not comparing the players as whole but just goalscoring, which just happens to be the only thing Steven 'Brett Hull' Stamkos can actually do?

That is the strength of the argument for both players right?

or is some quote about Frank from over 100 years ago and no way to compare how true it is from actual game play going to be considered more important of a factor now?

Something must make them not close (in your words) right?

What players from the same denominator world, ie parts of Ontario and Quebec are better players than Stamkos in that 4 year period?

You won't find any is my bet.

But the hockey world is pretty equal for both guys in your opinion perhaps?

Pretty hard argument to back up even in 1914 never mind 2014.

 

[Hardyvan123]

There were more than 10 centers who were better in the 90s than Roenick - in no particular order - Lemieux, Messier, Gretzky, Lindros, Gilmour, Francis, Oates, Modano, Sakic, Forsberg, Yzerman, Fedorov + a bunch of others who are at least arguable like Lafontaine or Sundin. That's obviously second-rate.

are you using 90-99 or 91-2000?

for reference points (or as a starting point)

90-99

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

91-00

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Wayne does very well on points but voters didn't think very highly of him in Hart voting for that decade.