Is it time for another top 100 or so project?

[quoipourquoi]

If we did 101-200 (requiring a 1-220 list for the aggregate list), what kind of time table would you all need to throw together your round 1 lists?

 

[Voight]

I like the idea of doing one for teams.

 

[plusandminus]

I still would like to see the birth year approach. Since it seems one year at the time would take too long, I would be interested in seeing you rank players born in the same half-decade, or even same decade.

Especially interesting to me are the European players that didn't get to play in the NHL, that played during the 1960s to 1980s. Doing rankings by half-decade or decade would bring new players to be ranked (if you rank say top-50 per decade), just like a 101-200 alltime ranking would do.

Today, we see a 1st All Star Team made up of no Canadian player, but one German, one guy from Switzerland, two Americans, one from Russia and one from Czech Republic. In 1972 we saw Soviet national team being equally good as Canada. (Some may disagree, claiming that Canada was out of shape, etc.) How good were those European players that played in the 1970s, or even 1960s, if looking a bit deeper down the rankings?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If we did 101-200 (requiring a 1-220 list for the aggregate list), what kind of time table would you all need to throw together your round 1 lists?

I don't think it would need to be a top 220 list. Just do a top 120 list of the best players NOT included in the previous top 100 list. Or to put it another way : Make it a 101-220 list with anyone previously added to the top 100 as ineligible.

 

[buffalowing88]

If we did 101-200 (requiring a 1-220 list for the aggregate list), what kind of time table would you all need to throw together your round 1 lists?

I could probably have one put together in a week. Idk if that's ambitious but I think I have a good idea of who I'll include, just nowhere near sure on the rankings.

 

[ted2019]

If we did 101-200 (requiring a 1-220 list for the aggregate list), what kind of time table would you all need to throw together your round 1 lists?

I would need about 3 weeks.

 

[VanIslander]

How about ranking the top-30 worthy HHOF candidates for future induction?

Pre-NHLers, early era NHLers, O6 era NHLers, Soviets, Czechoslovakians, other Europeans, modern NHLers and current players believed already eligible (judged by their career to date).

It would be a useful list for reference, discussion and debate when yearly inductions happen.

• Stage 1: opening arguments for candidates.
  
• Stage 2: submitted lists by project participants.
  
• Stage 3: Round by round discussion and voting.

(A related project: Ranking all the HHOFers! )

 

[seventieslord]

How about ranking the top-30 worthy HHOF candidates for future induction?

Pre-NHLers, early era NHLers, O6 era NHLers, Soviets, Czechoslovakians, other Europeans, modern NHLers and current players believed already eligible (judged by their career to date).

It would be a useful list for reference, discussion and debate when yearly inductions happen.

• Stage 1: opening arguments for candidates.
  
• Stage 2: submitted lists by project participants.
  
• Stage 3: Round by round discussion and voting.

(A related project: Ranking all the HHOFers! )

It's not my favourite idea at this moment, but this is a very worthy idea that I would like to put on the back burner and do next year or the year after.

I fully support.

 

[ted2019]

Top 101-200 would be perfect to do now, since we did the top 100 2 years ago.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

How about ranking the top-30 worthy HHOF candidates for future induction?

Pre-NHLers, early era NHLers, O6 era NHLers, Soviets, Czechoslovakians, other Europeans, modern NHLers and current players believed already eligible (judged by their career to date).

It would be a useful list for reference, discussion and debate when yearly inductions happen.

• Stage 1: opening arguments for candidates.
  
• Stage 2: submitted lists by project participants.
  
• Stage 3: Round by round discussion and voting.

(A related project: Ranking all the HHOFers! )

I like this idea, but one concern is how we'd deal with McDavid (and perhaps someone like Kane) - that is, players who have already accomplished a lot, but are still building their legacies.

The other issue - I think a lot of the discussion would end up as a repeat of the top 100 where we've already ranked Crosby, Jagr, Ovechkin, Malkin, Kane, Chara, etc. Obviously most of those players are still active, so I'm not saying their rankings should be set it stone, but a lot of it might be repetitious.

Maybe the ranking would be more interesting (ie covering more new ground) if we limit it to retired players only? (Or perhaps we include active players who are 40+, so we can include Chara and Thornton, without there needing to be any projections?)

 

[Hockey Outsider]

If we did 101-200 (requiring a 1-220 list for the aggregate list), what kind of time table would you all need to throw together your round 1 lists?

I could probably put together a list in 2-3 weeks (assuming the purpose is to put together a list where most players are generally in the right range, just to make sure they come up at roughly the right time - as opposed to thinking carefully about every single placement).

 

[ted2019]

I could probably put together a list in 2-3 weeks (assuming the purpose is to put together a list where most players are generally in the right range, just to make sure they come up at roughly the right time - as opposed to thinking carefully about every single placement).

I think that this should be the next project and then the pre-consolidation one after that.

 

[wetcoast]

Top-3 players of each decade would be interesting.

Refreshingly different.

That's a good idea but I would prefer the decade from mid decade to mid decade for 2 obvious reasons.

1) WWII ends mid decade

2) expansion happens in just past the halfway point in the 60s

 

[895]

I hate this because decades are so arbitrary. Let's say a player peaked from 77 to 83 - how do we rate that player?

Wouldn't it be birth year decades? Players born 70s 80s 90s etc

 

[wetcoast]

If we did 101-200 (requiring a 1-220 list for the aggregate list), what kind of time table would you all need to throw together your round 1 lists?

Well there is going to be a lull in NHL hockey in a couple of days so most people should be able to get some kind of list together in the next month or two.

Also a discussion thread like the one that took place before the top 100 project would help the process along as well.

 

[ted2019]

Any other opinions on what should be done?

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Top-40 WHA players all-time?

Rank all the dynasties in NHL/NHA history? First, determine a starting point - 1915 or 1927. Second, determine what comprises a dynasty (ie. would Detroit's 3 cups in 4 years (52-55) count as a dynasty or Chicago's 3 cups in 6 seasons in a 30 team league with a salary cap?)

Once the voters resolve this, rankings would be based on the team dynasty's records in regular season and playoffs, quality of competition.

Just throwing that out there....

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'd rather do more pre-consolidation or pre-1950 work than work on Quad-A league from the 70's personally...I think we have more to gain there...in fact, I'd rather do work on the 1950's and 1960's AHL than the WHA, I have sneaking suspicion the former was better...

 

[seventieslord]

I'd rather do more pre-consolidation or pre-1950 work than work on Quad-A league from the 70's personally...I think we have more to gain there...in fact, I'd rather do work on the 1950's and 1960's AHL than the WHA, I have sneaking suspicion the former was better...

Mathematically it is not hard at all to make that case. Let's look at the median skill level of a player in each league. In the AHL from the original 6 era, in theory you had the 121st through 260th best players in North America. (in reality, there were some players that were better than NHL players, and at the bottom end they were probably some players who weren't as good as the best from other levels such as the IHL or senior hockey, but those probably wash out for the most part). So the median AHL player in about 1960 was approximately the 190th best player in North America.

If we're looking at the 1975 wha, it's the same principle. In theory, they should have players number 321 through 600. In reality, many of the top 300 players were in The wha, but also, the bottom end of The League was littered with awful players who are no better than many AHL players. Both factors probably wash out again. Leaving us with the idea that the median wha player was about 480th best in north america.

If you told me that the pool of hockey players trying to make the highest levels of hockey was deeper in 1975 than in 1960, I think I would agree, but was it so much deeper that the 480th best player in 1975 would be better than the 190th in 1960? Or even close? No, not on your life.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

I like this idea, but one concern is how we'd deal with McDavid (and perhaps someone like Kane) - that is, players who have already accomplished a lot, but are still building their legacies.

The other issue - I think a lot of the discussion would end up as a repeat of the top 100 where we've already ranked Crosby, Jagr, Ovechkin, Malkin, Kane, Chara, etc. Obviously most of those players are still active, so I'm not saying their rankings should be set it stone, but a lot of it might be repetitious.

Maybe the ranking would be more interesting (ie covering more new ground) if we limit it to retired players only? (Or perhaps we include active players who are 40+, so we can include Chara and Thornton, without there needing to be any projections?)

I think that only including eligible players as a baseline should make it a more interesting project to follow. There are so many potential obstacles to traverse if ranking active players in a project like this. And put a big fat maybe next to the likes of Zetterberg and the Sedins (who will be up for contention next year), or even Roenick, Alfredsson, Turgeon, Mogilny, etc, as to being popular eligibles for debate. On the one hand I reckon that some of these players might suck too much air out of the project and obscure its purpose, but on the other hand they and their respective cases are so well known that where they end up or whether they miss out on making this list could serve as benchmarks for readers to help form a very basic understanding of the increasingly forgotten impacts of players like Maltsev, Dzurilla, etc.

But I realized that in my mind I just altered the proposed project to being a HoH 30 eligible players closest to the HHOF, and this would imply that there might not actually be that many eligibles deserving of induction... But that’s another idea I guess.

 

[decma]

Mathematically it is not hard at all to make that case. Let's look at the median skill level of a player in each league. In the AHL from the original 6 era, in theory you had the 121st through 260th best players in North America. (in reality, there were some players that were better than NHL players, and at the bottom end they were probably some players who weren't as good as the best from other levels such as the IHL or senior hockey, but those probably wash out for the most part). So the median AHL player in about 1960 was approximately the 190th best player in North America.

If we're looking at the 1975 wha, it's the same principle. In theory, they should have players number 321 through 600. In reality, many of the top 300 players were in The wha, but also, the bottom end of The League was littered with awful players who are no better than many AHL players. Both factors probably wash out again. Leaving us with the idea that the median wha player was about 480th best in north america.

If you told me that the pool of hockey players trying to make the highest levels of hockey was deeper in 1975 than in 1960, I think I would agree, but was it so much deeper that the 480th best player in 1975 would be better than the 190th in 1960? Or even close? No, not on your life.

In the mid 1930s the number of births in Canada per year was about 220,000.
In the 1950s it was about 400,000 to 500,000.
Further, infant mortality and childhood mortality decreased during this time.

So the number of Canadian born men aged 20-30 was probably at least twice as high in 1975 as it was in 1960.

The demographic factors were similar in the US.

Plus the number of Europeans coming over to play (in the WHA or NHL) was much higher in the mid 70s than it was in 1960.

So I think the available talent to draw from was at least as twice as high, and it is debatable whether the 190th best player in 1960 was better than the 460th best player in 1975.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So far, from skimming the thread, I see these as the ideas that have gotten anything more than the most passing of a mention:

• HOH Hall of Fame / HOH Hall of Excellence
• Best Teams of All-Time
• Best Players by Birth Year
• Best Single Seasons of All Time
• Next best 100 players of all time (#101-200)
• Best duos of All-Time
• Best pre-consolidation players of all time
• Most worthy future HHOF candidates
• Best WHA Players of All-time

Did I miss any?

 

[BenchBrawl]

So far, from skimming the thread, I see these as the ideas that have gotten anything more than the most passing of a mention:

• HOH Hall of Fame / HOH Hall of Excellence
• Best Teams of All-Time
• Best Players by Birth Year
• Best Single Seasons of All Time
• Next best 100 players of all time (#101-200)
• Best duos of All-Time
• Best pre-consolidation players of all time
• Most worthy future HHOF candidates
• Best WHA Players of All-time

Did I miss any?

I am against any such arbitrary cutoffs. Same for "Best Players by Decade" and the likes. It's trivia, it doesn't reveal anything.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I am against any such arbitrary cutoffs. Same for "Best Players by Decade" and the likes. It's trivia, it doesn't reveal anything.

I agree, but it was talked enough in this thread to be put in the (nonbinding) poll I'm going to put up tomorrow.

 

[BenchBrawl]

In order of preference, from best to worst:

1.Best duos of All-Time
2.Best Single Seasons of All Time (is it restricted to one season per player?)
3.Best Teams of All-Time (is it restricted to one season?)
4.Best pre-consolidation players of all time (while my favorite in a vacuum, the amount of work required is off-putting)
5.Next best 100 players of all time (#101-200)

Very little interest in the rest

Best Players by Birth Year
HOH Hall of Fame / HOH Hall of Excellence
Most worthy future HHOF candidates
Best WHA Players of All-time