Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Aggregate List

[Michael Farkas]

Wow...I'm actually speechless. Other than this statement disclosing my speechlessness.

 

[Canadiens1958]

My main takeaway from this is that biases are okay, except those in favor of French Canadians, who obviously threaten the integrity of the whole process.

You may want to reformulate though. Your choice.

Most amazing is the bias against winning given that winning is the most objective metric in any competition.

 

[sr edler]

Most amazing is the bias against winning given that winning is the most objective metric in any competition.

We're trying to rank players though not teams.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Will be fun to look at the individual Round 2 voting.

Round 1 is less interesting.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

A little surprised I was the only one with Marty Barry on my list, but it's not like he really had a shot of making the top 100 anyway.

I'm actually a little surprised by that as well. Barry was one of my last cuts. I could see him being one of those non-controversial players that basically nobody thinks is a top 100 guy, but everyone thinks is a top 150 guy type of thing.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Maybe not surprisingly, Gordie Howe was the least controversial player. Appeared 2nd, 3rd, or 4th on every single list.

Obviously more variance is going to be found the further down you go. It appears that Bryan Trottier might be the most agreed-upon player in the project, all things considered. No really high or low outlier votes. Every single person had him ranked between 24 and 47, and he finished pretty close to the middle of that range on the aggregate, rising slightly in the final project.

 

[TheEye]

My main takeaway from this is that biases are okay, except those in favor of French Canadians, who obviously threaten the integrity of the whole process.

Statements such as this serve to support my suggestion of confirmation bias. You are adopting one specific phrase and attempting to imply a conclusion which suggests that I am biased against Francophone players. To wit, you deliberately chose to reject the overarching message of my post.

Quoting myself:

It's not a Francophone thing, per se. It's a generational and team-focused bias, in combination with the fundamental misunderstanding that defensive responsibility can be coached and instilled in most players.

If you were to thoroughly read my posting instead of looking for a "gotcha" phrase you would understand I'm implying nothing about Francophones as individuals. What I am stating, however, is there's a certain mystique about producing an exceptionally talented homegrown player on your chosen team that you actively follow in your formative years. All these things in combination tend to cause individuals to elevate players beyond their proper status.

And, for the record, I hold absolutely no bias against Francophone players. If anything I believe I may be biased towards players from "La belle province", as they have repeatedly produced some of the most poetic talent the game has seen. I'll happily employ a Francophone core to lead my team any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Who is the poster with 21 messages coming in with his hot take on the bias of voters?

Why the need to hide your identity? Clearly, you're not a random new poster who just found out about this place.

I am a new poster, but I've been following this board for many, many years. That's the reason I recognize all the current characters in the forum. I can assure you I am not hiding anything. If you prefer to believe otherwise, that's absolutely your prerogative.

Most amazing is the bias against winning given that winning is the most objective metric in any competition.

We're trying to rank players though not teams.

Definitely, and this is an invaluable observation. Hockey is exceedingly a team game and individuals should not be ranked according to the strength (or lack thereof) of their respective teams.

 

[MXD]

Statements such as this serve to support my suggestion of confirmation bias. You are adopting one specific phrase and attempting to imply a conclusion which suggests that I am biased against Francophone players. To wit, you deliberately chose to reject the overarching message of my post.

Quoting myself:



If you were to thoroughly read my posting instead of looking for a "gotcha" phrase you would understand I'm implying nothing about Francophones as individuals. What I am stating, however, is there's a certain mystique about producing an exceptionally talented homegrown player on your chosen team that you actively follow in your formative years. All these things in combination tend to cause individuals to elevate players beyond their proper status.

And, for the record, I hold absolutely no bias against Francophone players. If anything I believe I may be biased towards players from "La belle province", as they have repeatedly produced some of the most poetic talent the game has seen. I'll happily employ a Francophone core to lead my team any day of the week and twice on Sunday.



I am a new poster, but I've been following this board for many, many years. That's the reason I recognize all the current characters in the forum. I can assure you I am not hiding anything. If you prefer to believe otherwise, that's absolutely your prerogative.





Definitely, and this is an invaluable observation. Hockey is exceedingly a team game and individuals should not be ranked according to the strength (or lack thereof) of their respective teams.

So many words....

 

[Canadiens1958]

Quaint ideas about winning. Teams win because individual players have the ability to integrate the team concept and play as a team. This ability to integrate is what gets measured.

Prime examples.

1974 and 1975 Flyers featured players who integrated the Shero concept of a team. Individually Bernie Parent accepted facing significantly more PP situations.

3-peat Hawks, the last decade, played thru middling goaltending instead of whinning.

Mid 1950s Rangers. Every player for himself. Coach Phil Watson regularly threw players under the bus. Gump Worsley complained about the skaters, Bathgate complained (famous article) about illegal tactics,overlooking some of his teammates' contribution. Never won a playoff series.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Oh, and I totally assume being the lowest on Dit Clapper as a badge-of-honor thing. There are things to be proud to disagree about, and this is one of them.

Oh, and I totally assume being the highest on Dit Clapper as a badge-of-honor thing. There are things to be proud to disagree about, and this is one of them.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

TheEye has been put on ignore by me.I lost all patience for these bull****ters.

I take it you don't care for someone stating the obvious.

One poster votes for 10 Russians and 4 more Europeans higher than anyone else (32 voters is a lot). Speaks for itself.

Another poster votes 9 Montreal Canadiens higher than anyone else. A voter with great experience and insight into the game. To me, that's even more alarming than the straight fanboy.

Farkas (yes, I said his name) just seems to be seeing things through a more sophisticated lens than the rest of us.

The General just seems to be less well-informed. Then again, so did Scotty Bowman.

 

[Michael Farkas]

sophisticated

*googles word*

Ooh! That's good!



...right?

 

[sr edler]

Quaint ideas about winning. Teams win because individual players have the ability to integrate the team concept and play as a team. This ability to integrate is what gets measured.

Prime examples.

1974 and 1975 Flyers featured players who integrated the Shero concept of a team. Individually Bernie Parent accepted facing significantly more PP situations.

3-peat Hawks, the last decade, played thru middling goaltending instead of whinning.

Mid 1950s Rangers. Every player for himself. Coach Phil Watson regularly threw players under the bus. Gump Worsley complained about the skaters, Bathgate complained (famous article) about illegal tactics,overlooking some of his teammates' contribution. Never won a playoff series.

One player is still only one player. Hockey is not only a team sport but also a sport where your star players (unless it's the goalie) are not even on the ice for a majority of the game (except in some cases with #1 or #2 defensemen who play marginally more than half a game).

I don't get your last paragraph on coaching. Yes, coaching matters, I guess everyone here agrees on that. What does good or bad coaching have to do with the ability of single/particular players?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Will be fun to look at the individual Round 2 voting.

Round 1 is less interesting.

Really?

I think round one is fascinating.

 

[Nick Hansen]

I take it you don't care for someone stating the obvious.

One poster votes for 10 Russians and 4 more Europeans higher than anyone else (32 voters is a lot). Speaks for itself.

Another poster votes 9 Montreal Canadiens higher than anyone else. A voter with great experience and insight into the game. To me, that's even more alarming than the straight fanboy.

Farkas (yes, I said his name) just seems to be seeing things through a more sophisticated lens than the rest of us.

The General just seems to be less well-informed. Then again, so did Scotty Bowman.

Totally agree. Someone had to say the obvious. If winning and defense is important it is a little odd to be the lowest on Scott Stevens, though there might have been several voters in close vicinity, I guess.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

*googles word*

Ooh! That's good!



...right?

Of course!

 

[Michael Farkas]

Scott Stevens

Counterpoint: Couldn't continue to provide the offense that he did while playing defense. Other (for these purposes) better defensemen, maybe Serge Savard for instance, could provide stellar defense and contribute offensively, or at least to the transition to offense.

Stevens "changed" his game...sacrificed something to do something else. Think of the sliders in the NHL video games when creating a player back in the day. Only so many "points" to work with...can't be a 99 speed with 99 stickhandling. Had to ration.

 

[Nick Hansen]

If Stevens did that, we'd be talking about a top-30 player or something. In a way I find it even more impressive to change your game completely from an offensive force to a defensive force. That is a very rare quality to have, mostly you are what you are. Then there are players who transcend this like Orr, Robinson, Potvin, Harvey, Bourque and a couple of others.

(sidenote: didn't Pronger in a way transcend that? I don't know, his resume is just odd compared to how you experienced him on the ice, seems a little like the Forsberg/Lindros of the defensemen despite playing 1000 games he had quite a few seasons disrupted by missed games)

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Did steve141 vote for 120 goalies?

 

[MXD]

I take it you don't care for someone stating the obvious.

One poster votes for 10 Russians and 4 more Europeans higher than anyone else (32 voters is a lot). Speaks for itself.

Another poster votes 9 Montreal Canadiens higher than anyone else. A voter with great experience and insight into the game. To me, that's even more alarming than the straight fanboy.

Farkas (yes, I said his name) just seems to be seeing things through a more sophisticated lens than the rest of us.

The General just seems to be less well-informed. Then again, so did Scotty Bowman.

That's the thing : We all have some kind of biases.

It's just that, why was this very specific bias worth being singled out as a problem more than other biases?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

That's the thing : We all have some kind of biases.

It's just that, why was this very specific bias worth being singled out as a problem more than other biases?

I didn't single out one bias. I mentioned two. The two most obvious and egregious ones.

 

[Dingo]

Ooh, I was pretty close to "winning" I think...my name is up there ~20ish times...

I noticed that you really like dmen!
Not a bad trait.

 

[Dingo]

I take it you don't care for someone stating the obvious.

One poster votes for 10 Russians and 4 more Europeans higher than anyone else (32 voters is a lot). Speaks for itself.

Another poster votes 9 Montreal Canadiens higher than anyone else. A voter with great experience and insight into the game. To me, that's even more alarming than the straight fanboy.

Farkas (yes, I said his name) just seems to be seeing things through a more sophisticated lens than the rest of us.

The General just seems to be less well-informed. Then again, so did Scotty Bowman.

Well put on all four.
Farkas likes dmen is the only thing I noticed as well as what you wrote.

 

[MXD]

I didn't single out one bias. I mentioned two. The two most obvious and egregious ones.

I wasn't referring to your claim (just quoting you).

 

[Nick Hansen]

Is there a particular reason most of the 30's era seems to get low recognition? (L. Conacher, B. Siebert, E. Goodfellow for instance)