Preliminary Top 100 Guidelines

[FissionFire]

Hockey Outside and I have settled on the tentative guidelines for the Top 100 project. Since he won't have internet access for a couple days, he asked me to post them up for review and discussion. Keep in mind this is essentially the "rough draft" and everything is subject to debate and change if the consensus feels it is warranted.

1. Eligibility
   • Players who have never played in the NHL will not be eligible
   • Players will be judged on NHL accomplishments only
   • Players currently active are eligible
2. Voting
   • Round 1
     • 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
   • Round 2
     • The top 10 ranked players from the aggregate list will be posted in a thread
     • Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
     • Player merits and rankings will be open for discussion and debate for a period of three (3) days
     • Final voting will occur for two (2) days, also by email or private message
     • Final results will be posted and the process repeated for the next 5 places with remaining players until a list of 100 players is obtained
   • In the event that two players are tied after Round 2, they will be listed as tied on the final list
3. Quality Assurance
   • Questionable lists will be subject to an evaluation process
   • The submitter will be given an opportunity to defend or justify any selection under question

120 player initial lists were chosen to account for fringe players on the list. With the lowest 20 players basically being dropped it provides a built-in buffer system and avoids the "appearance points". An alternative list of 110 players instead of 120 was considered. Also awarding the top 100 players points 100 through 1 and players ranked 101-120 being given a flat 0.5 point each, or half the value of a 100th place vote, was discussed. Making Round 2 ten (10) players at a time with a pool of 20 names was also considered, with the debate period being six (6) days instead of three.

The decision to use only NHL accomplishments was not easy. In the end we decided it was better to keep it open to the largest amount of people possible. Hockey Outsider put it best:

Agreed about restricting it to NHL players only for the sake of opening this up to a wide audience. The worst thing would be making an "all-time" list then having Cyclone Taylor and Slava Fetisov in the 60s or 70s because two-thirds of people don't really know about them.

This project will open the door to further efforts, and the first one planned will be compiling the Top 100 Hockey Players. That project, however, will be subject to more restrictive participation guidelines because of the difficult nature or evaluating players from different eras and leagues. As such, the first list will be titled Top 100 NHL Players.

Ok, with that we open it up to the forum for evaluation and feedback. If all goes well, the project will launch by the 1st of February.

Click to read more...

 

[ck26]

I was never quite satisfied with the answer in the last thread ... this is half-request for clarification from FF, half-request to all the voters.

Players who have never played in the NHL will not be eligible
Players will be judged on NHL accomplishments only

I know part of the beauty of this is seeing how different people evaluate different careers, but if we're voting six different ways, the list will suffer.

Do you mean "NHL accomplishments" (ie: point totals, trophies won, allstar games attended, individual awards) or "level of talent displayed during their NHL careers"? The NHL talent one results in a spectacular, injury-plagued player finishing higher than he maybe deserves ... the NHL accomplishments one results in a good player on some wonderful teams finishing higher than he maybe deserves. And where do intangible things (ie absurd longevity, iconic status in a particular city, being "the first" to do something, being "the best" of a particular sub-group, etc) factor in?

Do we ignore this, let everyone decide for themselves and hope it all averages out?

Or is there guidance / a group consensus about what list we're trying to build?

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I'll be honest, I'm really disappointed. This takes a way a lot of colour from the exercises. And while I get the reasoning, it makes the whole process seem like it's not the real thing, a preseason list...

 

[reckoning]

# Players who have never played in the NHL will not be eligible
# Players will be judged on NHL accomplishments only

Understand the thinking, but don't agree with it. First off, the voters are still going to let the accomplishments of some players outside the NHL influence their ranking. When you think about Phil Esposito, you think about his leadership at the Summit Series. When you think about Dominik Hasek, you think about the Nagano Olympics. Those events helped shape the legend of those players. It's difficult to say rate these players, but pretend such-and-such an event never happened.

Agreed about restricting it to NHL players only for the sake of opening this up to a wide audience. The worst thing would be making an "all-time" list then having Cyclone Taylor and Slava Fetisov in the 60s or 70s because two-thirds of people don't really know about them.

They probably will finish lower than they deserve. Then again, so will Lalonde, Morenz, Conacher, etc. and almost every player pre-1950. They're more likely to suffer from people not knowing much about them than Fetisov. Should they be ineligible too?

If we have threads discussing the candidates from each era and explaining why should be considered, it might help some people learn more about them. Not to mention that I think the board History board here is pretty smart.

Personally, I have Cyclone in my top 25. I'd rather see him in the 60s or 70s than not have him there at all. Just my two cents.

Maybe we can have a vote on if non-NHLers should be eligible?

 

[Pwnasaurus]

I'll be honest, I'm really disappointed. This takes a way a lot of colour from the exercises. And while I get the reasoning, it makes the whole process seem like it's not the real thing, a preseason list...

I agree with this. I understand the thinking but it's still disappointing. I'm still confused about some things. What about players who overlapped NHA/NHL? Am I just to place them based solely on what they accomplished in the NHL? They are still the same player talent-wise, etc.

 

[FissionFire]

It's really a Catch-22 situation that Hockey Outsider and myself have had a difficult time resolving. One one hand, restricting the list to only the NHL allows more input from a wider base of voters who simply don't have knowledge of the pre-NHL and non-NHL players. One the other hand the great hockey minds in this who don't have to worry about those issues will feel let down in much the same manner as not getting the one present for Christmas you really wanted. Another strong concern was the issue of quality assurance with all hockey players included. There's a real concern that process would be slowed down greatly because we anticipated a far larger number of questionable lists which would need to discussed and if even a half dozen such lists happened that could easily add a week to the process or more. What's the best answer? Honestly, the best is to create either a questionnaire/quiz to use as a type of "application" that anyone interested in participating would fill out and submit to use as a way ensure participants had sufficient knowledge of pre-NHL/non-NHL players to vote. While that would result in the best quality for a list, we felt something like that would disenfranchise many people who would otherwise have wanted to participate. How can you win?

I guess the big question really is the same as before then: Do we open this project to everyone who wants to participate or do we pre-screen applicants to determine the pool of voters?

 

[JaymzB]

I’ll chime in with my 2 cents as a somewhat outside observer.

If someone has the knowledge of pre WW2 NHL to be able to logically justify where they rank players like Morenz, Shore, Denneny, Joliat, Dye etc… among more modern NHL players, then I would wager that 90% of those people do at least some about International and pre-NHL players.

I think it is admirable that you would want to open it up to a lot of people to vote, but I think you’ll find a pretty large drop-off in the number of pre WW2 knowledgeable posters. I would include myself in that later group, and therefore I know I can’t participate in this (not fair to some of the great old timers).

I think if you wanted a more open to the world list, then it would have to be something along the lines of “Top 50 since WW2”. You could still have a good debate in that list, and eliminate the CROSBY #1!!!! type people pretty easily. But, if you want to have a top 100 of all time HOH list, then you have to include all players. If that means it is only a small group of posters can show they have enough knowledge to participate, then so be it. If your gonna make a list of the best, then have the best make the list, so to speak.

Whatever you all decide, I’m sure I’ll enjoy following it all.

 

[pitseleh]

I agree with this. I understand the thinking but it's still disappointing. I'm still confused about some things. What about players who overlapped NHA/NHL? Am I just to place them based solely on what they accomplished in the NHL? They are still the same player talent-wise, etc.

Yeah, that makes it tough. For example, Newsy Lalonde becomes a four season wonder instead of arguably the best player before Morenz. As reckoning mentioned, it's tough to separate accomplishments outside the NHL and within it.

Maybe this makes things more difficult logistically, but what-if we include all accomplishments with the caveat that the player played in the NHL? The idea is just off the top of my head, but as unfair as it is to keep Taylor and Kharlamov off the list, it at least gives Fetisov and Lalonde a chance to be on it, while still excluding the bulk of the players of which this rule was intended to screen out (such as Hod Stuart or Bobrov). It's sort of a compromise between the two.

Another question, is there some way we can send you guys the lists so that you aren't having to deal with tabulating the results manually? I can imagine how mind numbing that would be, especially if we get a couple dozen lists. It's definitely something I wouldn't want to be stuck doing.

 

[Pwnasaurus]

Maybe this makes things more difficult logistically, but what-if we include all accomplishments with the caveat that the player played in the NHL? The idea is just off the top of my head, but as unfair as it is to keep Taylor and Kharlamov off the list, it at least gives Fetisov and Lalonde a chance to be on it, while still excluding the bulk of the players of which this rule was intended to screen out (such as Hod Stuart or Bobrov). It's sort of a compromise between the two.

Yeah this was kinda where I was going, Pit. I agree and I think it also makes it easier to judge the career rather than a span of a few seasons if someone overlapped drastically.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I want to begin by thanking HO and FF for stepping up and doing this. I think this is something a lot of us have wanted to see for a while. Props to them for setting the parameters. It really is a thankless job, because you're not going to make everyone happy, and it's unlikely that anyone is going to agree with every decision that is made. A lot of us want to do this; it's impossible to do it without the guys to spearhead it.

I'm indifferent to including non-NHL players. I'd be part of the process regardless. It makes the job easier for us to exclude non-NHL players. It makes the process more interesting if we include non-NHL players. In a 120-player list, you're looking at 20-25 non-NHL players.

As others have stated, it is difficult to take non-NHL accomplishments out of the equation. How do we rate Espo without Summit? How do we rate Hasek without Nagano and his pre-NHL accomplishments? Both are top 25 players regardless, but it is worth asking. Do we include Newsy Lalonde's NHA accomplishments?

Obviously it eliminates guys like Fetisov, Larionov, Makarov and Nedomansky from the equation.

I've said before that this should be limited to HF's best and brightest. If we're going to preclude lists from HF's bonehead community, then I don't care if we limit it or not. I just don't want the bilroses and the rattrays of the HF world to be able to have any influence. I would suggest a larger panel (say, five respected posters) that would disqualify less-than suitable lists.

 

[MXD]

Just started to write down my official list... So I basically took my Demo list, bumped Lalonde down (I think he'll make it...), added a few other names...

Had problem with one guy so far. Red Kelly. No matter where I put him, I always have the feeling he's either too low or too high.

 

[raleh]

Just started to write down my official list... So I basically took my Demo list, bumped Lalonde down (I think he'll make it...), added a few other names...

Had problem with one guy so far. Red Kelly. No matter where I put him, I always have the feeling he's either too low or too high.

Nah, he's never too high!

 

[Pwnasaurus]

Obviously it eliminates guys like Fetisov, Larionov, Makarov and Nedomansky from the equation.

That was part of my question as well. Even though these players played in the NHL, do I only take into account their NHL lifespan? So I should do the same for the NHA/NHL as well?

 

[pappyline]

That was part of my question as well. Even though these players played in the NHL, do I only take into account their NHL lifespan? So I should do the same for the NHA/NHL as well?

What about the WHA? Do we ignore the WHA years of the Howes, Hull & JC Tremblay. To me, it has to be included or you have to reduce the weight given to NHL players of the 70's in the watered down NHL

 

[Pwnasaurus]

Good point. I think the best compromise is if they played in the NHL at all, then you take their entire body of work from all leagues into account. If they did not play any NHL games than they are not eligible. It's certainly not fair to the Cyclone Taylor's, Kharlamov's and Tretiak's...but I think it would produce a much better list than ignoring other leagues entirely.

 

[pappyline]

Good point. I think the best compromise is if they played in the NHL at all, then you take their entire body of work from all leagues into account. If they did not play any NHL games than they are not eligible. It's certainly not fair to the Cyclone Taylor's, Kharlamov's and Tretiak's...but I think it would produce a much better list than ignoring other leagues entirely.

That sounds like a reasonable compromise although I really hate leaving anyone out. I know my knowledge is weak on the European leagues & pre-1917 North American hockey. However, I had hoped to learn more about these areas during the debate phase. I have also ordered a copy of "Ultimate Hockey" to learn more about the early eras.

 

[MXD]

Nah, he's never too high!

Well... As a D-Men, he makes it on the bottom-half of the Top-100
And as a forward, he doesn't make the Top-100 (barely)

But as he played both positions... Right now, I have him barely in the Top-30, and I feel it both too high and too low. I'll add up names by ten, and considering who will go 30 to 40, I might readjust Kelly's ranking.... one way or another.

Should look a little more in depth, in regards to his nominations and Hart votes he received.

Only one notable out of my Top-30 that might spark some controversy : Mark Messier.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Well... As a D-Men, he makes it on the bottom-half of the Top-100
And as a forward, he doesn't make the Top-100 (barely)

But as he played both positions... Right now, I have him barely in the Top-30, and I feel it both too high and too low. I'll add up names by ten, and considering who will go 30 to 40, I might readjust Kelly's ranking.... one way or another.

Should look a little more in depth, in regards to his nominations and Hart votes he received.

Only one notable out of my Top-30 that might spark some controversy : Mark Messier.

As much as I despise Messier, I had to have him in the top 20. He was an offensive and a physical force. (Likely the best combination of goals and physical play in the last 30 years). He was dominant in the playoffs. And he was capable of carrying a team on his back for extended periods of time. I don't like the guy, but I'll give him respect where it is due. He was named the best player in the league twice in his career, and that was at a time when Mario, Gretzky and Bourque were at their peaks.

As a defenceman alone, Red Kelly belongs in the top 30. And I think it's without a second thought. I have him as the No. 7 defenceman of all-time. I think he's one of the top 25 players of all-time. He was an all-star eight straight years, a first-team all-star six times (including five straight years). He'd probably have four Norris Trophies if the award existed at the start of his career.

If I'm building a team, Kelly's in the top 20, because of his versatility, and all he brings to a team.

Kelly was scoring 50 points in a season at a time when no other defencemen were scoring 30.

 

[Pwnasaurus]

Well... As a D-Men, he makes it on the bottom-half of the Top-100
And as a forward, he doesn't make the Top-100 (barely)

But as he played both positions... Right now, I have him barely in the Top-30, and I feel it both too high and too low. I'll add up names by ten, and considering who will go 30 to 40, I might readjust Kelly's ranking.... one way or another.

Should look a little more in depth, in regards to his nominations and Hart votes he received.

Only one notable out of my Top-30 that might spark some controversy : Mark Messier.

I have them both in the top 25.

 

[pappyline]

Well... As a D-Men, he makes it on the bottom-half of the Top-100
And as a forward, he doesn't make the Top-100 (barely)

But as he played both positions... Right now, I have him barely in the Top-30, and I feel it both too high and too low. I'll add up names by ten, and considering who will go 30 to 40, I might readjust Kelly's ranking.... one way or another.

Should look a little more in depth, in regards to his nominations and Hart votes he received.

Only one notable out of my Top-30 that might spark some controversy : Mark Messier.

My ever changing list has Kelly in top 20 & Messier in top 30.

 

[MXD]

My ever changing list has Kelly in top 20 & Messier in top 30.

Actually Kelly is in my Top-25. Messier will probably make Top-40. I think if a guy can "lose" some points for a few flaws - Frank Mahovlich comes to mind - it should apply to a guy like Messier... And Messier's lows are lower than Mahovlich ones, IMO. Maho was just moody... but he never sent back a team, by his sole presence, at the bottom of the standings.

 

[VanIslander]

[*]Players who have never played in the NHL will not be eligible

[*]Players will be judged on NHL accomplishments only

This honours the non-NHLers actually, to limit it to the Top-100 NHL players of all-time.

I feared it'd be an NHL-bias attempt at representing the whole, like Leaf fans trying to justify nationwide HNIC coverage of their team on saturday nights.

 

[VanIslander]

Why don't we do a Top-50 non-NHLers list as well.

Gawd that would be cool!

We can do it afterwards, as a follow up.

 

[Transplanted Caper]

Why don't we do a Top-50 non-NHLers list as well.

Gawd that would be cool!

We can do it afterwards, as a follow up.

Great idea

 

[pappyline]

Why don't we do a Top-50 non-NHLers list as well.

Gawd that would be cool!

We can do it afterwards, as a follow up.

I think that just makes things more complicated. If everyone who played on an NHL team goes on the NHL list & we ignore their non NHL accomplishments we are being unfair to many players.

For example, Newsy Lalonde has 5 NHL seasons, 3 WCHL, 5 NHA,! PCHL so he is on the NHL list but is only rated for his 5 NHL seasons which cause him either to drop off the list or at best get poor ranking.

Another example is Ulf Nilsson with 3 NHL, 4 WHA,7 Swedish league. He would come under consideration for the NHL list with no chance of making it. He wouldn't be eligible for the Non-NHL list but if he was might make it, Nedamansky is in a similiar situation.

Lets go with one list with everyone eligible and work on coming up with a knowledgeable panel of voters.