Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread (Revenge of Michael Myers)

[quoipourquoi]

• Eligibility
  • Players will be judged only on their performance as hockey players
  • Currently active players are eligible, but will be judged only on what they have already accomplished
  • No, I don’t know what to do with Connor McDavid either

• Preliminary Discussion Thread
  • Anyone may participate in this thread, even if he or she does not intend to take part in the voting round
  • Posters are encouraged to share information about players in this thread and to take information shared into account when constructing their own lists
  • For instance, did you know Roy McGiffin was in the fruit business during the off-season? Not that I am implying that he should be ranked on the viability of his Californian fruit
  • Brief comparisons between players are permitted, but detailed cases and debates should be saved for the voting round
  • Please do not rank players outright in the preliminary thread

• Voting
  • Round 1
    • All participants submit a list of 120 players ranked in order, with all positions included
    • All eras are to be considered
    • To make it easier to aggregate the submitted lists, please list players using their most commonly used name; e.g. Tim Thomas, not Timothy Thomas Jr.; Justin Williams, not Justinus Septum Williams
    • Lists may be submitted via PM to quoipourquoi
    • Deadline for list submission is October 14th
    • Players will be assigned a point value on each list based on ranking. A 1st-place vote is equal to 120 points. A 2nd-place vote is equal to 119 points. A 120th-place vote is equal to 1 point.
    • An aggregate list will be compiled ranking them in order of the most total points
    • Participants must submit a list in Round 1 to be eligible to vote in Round 2
  • 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 five days. Administrators may extend the discussion period if it remains active
    • Final voting will occur for two days via PM. A 1st-Place vote is equal to 10 points. A 2nd-Place vote is equal to 9 points. A 10th-Place vote is equal to 1 point.
    • The top-5 players will be added to the final list, unless people start booing because of a clear break in voting after the top-4 players, at which point we might agree to hold someone back for the next round because I easily succumb to peer pressure and will go along with whatever you want
    • The exception is in Vote 1 in which only 4 players (#1-4) will be added and in Vote 21 in which only 1 player will be added (#100) because we like to do things arbitrarily for dramatic effect
    • The process repeats until we have a list of 100 players
    • Failure to retain an acceptable level of discussion may lead to an abbreviated list of no fewer than 25 players

• Quality Assurance
  • Lists will be subject to an evaluation process
  • This is not meant to deter participation; we merely want to ensure that voters are considering all eras of hockey's history
  • The complete voting record of every participant will be released at the end of the project
  • Any attempts to derail a discussion thread with disrespect to old-time hockey will be met with frontier justice
  • We encourage interpositional discussion (forward vs. defenseman vs. goaltender) as opposed to the safer and somewhat redundant intrapositional debates. Overemphasizing a tired single-position argument like, I don’t know, Harvey/Lidstrom, will only be briefly tolerated before one is asked to move on to a less tedious comparison.
  • Take a drink when someone mentions the number of hockey registrations in a given era
  • Finish your drink when someone mentions that goaltenders cannot be compared to skaters

Click to read more...

 

[quoipourquoi]

How do people want the voting blocks in Round 2? Strict list of 10 players, or should we allow for bigger blocks based on the gaps in the aggregate?

 

[The Macho King]

How do people want the voting blocks in Round 2? Strict list of 10 players, or should we allow for bigger blocks based on the gaps in the aggregate?

I'm wondering - are there any natural groupings of players that there is a general consensus on? Like - top 4 is set, do we have a similar almost-consensus for top 10/15/20?

My guess would be, to the extent there is natural groupings, default to those, and then do something more arbitrary for the ranges that don't have similar features.

 

[blogofmike]

Natural gaps seems the way to go. No need to boot #11 from a group if he's virtually tied with #10.

 

[quoipourquoi]

It will depend on how screening goes, but at 32 lists and 3,840 possible voting points, we could set a firm number at what is considered a large enough gap to extend a voting block from 10.

 

[seventieslord]

How do people want the voting blocks in Round 2? Strict list of 10 players, or should we allow for bigger blocks based on the gaps in the aggregate?

I think it has to be based on the gaps. the players that we add to the final list every round should be based on the gaps, as should the next batch of players we include in the discussion.

If the fifth and sixth and seventh highest players in the voting in one round are all separated by just a couple of points, I would be inclined to just include those 6th and 7th guys instead of discussing them all over again with the next batch of players.

 

[blogofmike]

It will depend on how screening goes, but at 32 lists and 3,840 possible voting points, we could set a firm number at what is considered a large enough gap to extend a voting block from 10.

Firm number? This is the HOH board. Call @Sturminator and ask him to run the VsX rules on each set.

 

[Captain Bowie]

@Mike Farkas Bergeron is an interesting name, not one I can say ever came up for me at all. He's a guy that we will probably need a full career, and a bit of breathing space, to fully appreciate. What he's done to date, in under 1000 games is not nearly enough for me to include. Offensively he's really only had 1 or 2 years worth noticing in terms of a project of this magnitude.

 

[Sentinel]

Well, I have Datsyuk in the Top 60, just to offset some of those who excluded him altogether.

 

[MXD]

As always -- go with break, while trying to keep some "stable" number (that is, don't add 2 new eligible players, then 8, then 4, then 1, then 7).

Related question : Is it worth it to have some provision enabling us to go back a vote, should a newly eligible player finishes 1st?

 

[Captain Bowie]

Well, I have Datsyuk in the Top 60, just to offset some of those who excluded him altogether.

Openly admitted favoritism??

 

[Michael Farkas]

@Mike Farkas Bergeron is an interesting name, not one I can say ever came up for me at all. He's a guy that we will probably need a full career, and a bit of breathing space, to fully appreciate. What he's done to date, in under 1000 games is not nearly enough for me to include. Offensively he's really only had 1 or 2 years worth noticing in terms of a project of this magnitude.

Focus was on more complete players and attempted to adjust for particularly outstanding defensive and/or transition abilities...also, major playoff events where a player compensated for particularly weak teammates in a given situation and excelling...

Bergeron helped compensate the Bruins lacked mobility and outlet ability from the back line on those good teams...also had to babysit a fringe NHL goaltender in 2011 win. Similarly points awarded for Pronger for insulating both a horrific defensive partner in Matt Carle and a minor league goalie in Michael Leighton...

Other examples abound...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

How do people want the voting blocks in Round 2? Strict list of 10 players, or should we allow for bigger blocks based on the gaps in the aggregate?

Natural breaks in the aggregate

 

[Canadiens1958]

Why the top 4 unless we are granting them top 4 status in perpetuity?

 

[VanIslander]

PLEASE guys consider going with a hard 10.

Natural gaps will bias our deliberations. This is not meant to be an exercise in affirming our initial list impressions!! There may be a socalled 'natural gap' that shouldnt be there once we compare specific players.

If we know of a gap then we're more likely to vote for a guy who was on an earlier set of 10 over a newer set, when the initial lists we sent in might be faulty.

A hard 10 and NO BACKWARD considerations. Forget our initial lists. They were simply a tool. Here are 10 guys. Who are the 5 that should be ranked next best?

Like this post.

 

[Captain Bowie]

also had to babysit a fringe NHL goaltender in 2011 win.

I must be reading this wrong...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Hard 10.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Why the top 4 unless we are granting them top 4 status in perpetuity?

Common sense would be my guess.

There are realistically a lot more players that have a claim for the #5 spot than for the top 4 spots combined. That is where the list gets interesting. We shouldn't limit ourselves to discussing only 6 of those candidates, because we know the other 4 are gonna finish in the top 4, in whatever order. Having a round dedicated to 10 names vying for the #5 spot (and the following 4 after it) makes the most sense.

 

[VanIslander]

Common nonsense.

10 go in, and see which 5 come out each round.

Maybe one of the big four will fall. There are some good reasons that reasonable people have argued for before.

Trust the process. Hard 10 every time. No backward list looking or projecting.

List 10.
Discuss and marshall evidence.
Vote.
Repeat.

 

[quoipourquoi]

PLEASE guys consider going with a hard 10.

Natural gaps will bias our deliberations. This is not meant to be an exercise in affirming our initial list impressions!! There may be a socalled 'natural gap' that shouldnt be there once we compare specific players.

If we know of a gap then we're more likely to vote for a guy who was on an earlier set of 10 over a newer set, when the initial lists we sent in might be faulty.

A hard 10 and NO BACKWARD considerations. Forget our initial lists. They were simply a tool. Here are 10 guys. Who are the 5 that should be ranked next best?

Like this post.

Flip side of the coin would be that people may be less inclined to vote for a new addition because we have been talking about a comparable player who finished just 0-31 points higher (<1 ranked position per list) for a week longer.

I can see both arguments though. Going by natural breaks may over-legitimize the Round 1 list, while ignoring them could lead to second-guessing the final list when a player comes up and several of the voters wanted him a week ago.

 

[VanIslander]

Look at the rule: Booing will hold back one of the 5?

That is ridiculous.

Voting should matter. And we shouldnt be encouraged to try to manipulate the results AFTER the voting has happened.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I'm for the natural gaps, makes the most sense to me.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

How do people want the voting blocks in Round 2? Strict list of 10 players, or should we allow for bigger blocks based on the gaps in the aggregate?

I'm back from Asia (and ready to start thinking about hockey again) - in case anybody is interested in my whereabouts.

I think it makes sense for us to have a rule in place that's 1) consistent, so there we avoid any allegations of bias and 2) simple - ideally short enough to be described in one sentence.

With that in mind, my proposal is - ten players will be available for nomination each round, PLUS any other players whose Round 1 voting score is within 95% of the 10th player up for voting.

In other words, if the #10 player had 500 voting points from the Round 1 aggregate list, any player(s) with at least 450 voting points would be up for nomination. That might be zero, it could conceivably be 15+. Obviously I don't have access to the Round 1 list, so hopefully QPQ can tell me if that sounds like a realistic threshold. (I'm thinking that, using this rule, we'd probably have around 11-12 names on average).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

• • • The top-5 players will be added to the final list, unless people start booing because of a clear break in voting after the top-4 players, at which point we might agree to hold someone back for the next round because I easily succumb to peer pressure and will go along with whatever you want
    • The exception is in Vote 1 in which only 4 players (#1-4) will be added and in Vote 21 in which only 1 player will be added (#100) because we like to do things arbitrarily for dramatic effect
    • The process repeats until we have a list of 100 players

I don't remember if I commented on this before, but I really like these rules. This way, our efforts during the first round are focused on ranking the "big four" (I'm not expecting unanimity, but I'm guessing 95% of voters will have the obvious four candidates ranked in some order). We shouldn't have the important/prestigious #5 spot determined by which players gets the most throwaway votes in round 1.

I also liked a final round for #100 - no complaints about extra dramatic effect.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Flip side of the coin would be that people may be less inclined to vote for a new addition because we have been talking about a comparable player who finished just 0-31 points higher (<1 ranked position per list) for a week longer.

I can see both arguments though. Going by natural breaks may over-legitimize the Round 1 list, while ignoring them could lead to second-guessing the final list when a player comes up and several of the voters wanted him a week ago.

I fail to see how using a cut off at a natural break overlegitimizes the round 1 aggregate list any more than arbitrarily making the break after 10.

Either way, the only thing the large majority of voters will know is the # of rounds a player has been available, regardless of how many other players there are.