Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread (With a Vengeance)

Status
Not open for further replies.

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
  • 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
 

GlitchMarner

Typical malevolent, devious & vile Maple Leafs fan
Jul 21, 2017
9,899
6,607
Brampton, ON
Interested in seeing where various participants have Scott Niedermayer and Keith ranked. How many are including any Karlsson? Chara? Doughty?
 

Captain Bowie

Registered User
Jan 18, 2012
27,139
4,414
Interested in seeing where various participants have Scott Niedermayer and Keith ranked. How many are including any Karlsson? Chara? Doughty?
Chara leads that pack. Only Karlsson makes it from the rest, and currently occupies #120.

Chara I have up around Mark Howe/Borje Salming.

Karlsson vs. the rest of the names has a better Norris, Hart and AS record, despite 100+ games less than all of them and none come close offensively.
 

steve141

Registered User
Aug 13, 2009
1,144
240
Somehow I was not able to find a spot on my list for Roy McGiffin. I could be convinced though.

I liked this summary by Erik Zweig:

"Whereas many of the tough guys of his time were also talented players, McGiffin seemed only to have a knack for piling up penalty minutes"

- Erik Zweig, Art Ross: The Hockey Legend Who Built the Bruins
 
  • Like
Reactions: quoipourquoi

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,144
14,445
Interested in seeing where various participants have Scott Niedermayer and Keith ranked. How many are including any Karlsson? Chara? Doughty?

I have Keith and Niedermayer both hovering around 100. Karlsson is near the bottom of my list, and Doughty doesn’t make it.

I have Chara ranked much higher than these four. He’s not as good as his Norris trophy record suggests (which is top ten all-time) but I have him closer to Pronger than Keith/Niedermayer.
 

Captain Bowie

Registered User
Jan 18, 2012
27,139
4,414
I love the varity of opinions on modern era defenceman. I would love to hear the rationales from guys who have them different than me, such as Doughty/Karlsson top 90 and no Chara. I have a hard time seeing what Doughty has that Chara doesn't, besides multiple cups. I hope that's not the only thing used to separate them.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,795
16,535
Niedermayer = Probably won't make it
Doughty = Possibly
Karlsson = Likely at the tail end of my list
Chara = Higher
Keith = Even higher
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,379
17,808
Connecticut
I love the varity of opinions on modern era defenceman. I would love to hear the rationales from guys who have them different than me, such as Doughty/Karlsson top 90 and no Chara. I have a hard time seeing what Doughty has that Chara doesn't, besides multiple cups. I hope that's not the only thing used to separate them.

Regarding Chara:

When you see a player a lot because he played a long time for your team, you get a really different view from everyone else not in that situation. Watching great players usually means you see them as being even better than others do. Chara is an exception for me. He's a turnover machine, even in his best years. In key spots he's been known to stumble. He plays his best when an opponent lights a fire under him. That seems to indicate that he probably isn't completely confident in himself most of the time. He could be better.

Doughty seems to be the best current defenseman in the game (with Hedman coming on). He's a rock, not having missed a game in the last 4 seasons. Offensively and defensively excellent.

Karlsson is simply a great offensive defenseman. His bad seasons all seem to be when Ottawa sucks and is out of the picture early. Hard to argue with multiple Norris trophies. Then again, maybe I should have Keith higher, eh?
 

Captain Bowie

Registered User
Jan 18, 2012
27,139
4,414
Regarding Chara:

When you see a player a lot because he played a long time for your team, you get a really different view from everyone else not in that situation. Watching great players usually means you see them as being even better than others do. Chara is an exception for me. He's a turnover machine, even in his best years. In key spots he's been known to stumble. He plays his best when an opponent lights a fire under him. That seems to indicate that he probably isn't completely confident in himself most of the time. He could be better.
Your other points are hard to argue since they are hard to quantify, but he being a turnover machine is one I can attempt.

From 2000-2018, active defencemen:

PlayerGiveawaysGamesGiveaways per game
Burns9129610.95
Chara87012740.68
Doughty7507700.97
Karlsson7306271.16
Keith7289950.73
Subban6455821.11
Carlson6056081.00
Letang5646820.83
Weber5388670.62
Hedman4996260.80
Vlasic4968930.56
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

He actually has one of the lowest giveaways per game compared to other top defencemen of this era.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,379
17,808
Connecticut
Your other points are hard to argue since they are hard to quantify, but he being a turnover machine is one I can attempt.

From 2000-2018, active defencemen:

PlayerGiveawaysGamesGiveaways per game
Burns9129610.95
Chara87012740.68
Doughty7507700.97
Karlsson7306271.16
Keith7289950.73
Subban6455821.11
Carlson6056081.00
Letang5646820.83
Weber5388670.62
Hedman4996260.80
Vlasic4968930.56
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
He actually has one of the lowest giveaways per game compared to other top defencemen of this era.

I don't think giveaways and turnovers are the same. If they are, someone's cookin' the (stats) books for Chara.
 

Captain Bowie

Registered User
Jan 18, 2012
27,139
4,414
I don't think giveaways and turnovers are the same. If they are, someone's cookin' the (stats) books for Chara.
What else would turnovers be?

I have no problem keeping an open mind to new information, I hope you are too. Simply dismissing the numbers because they don't jive with your preconceived idea is not exactly what this project should be about.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,379
17,808
Connecticut
What else would turnovers be?

I have no problem keeping an open mind to new information, I hope you are too. Simply dismissing the numbers because they don't jive with your preconceived idea is not exactly what this project should be about.

Its not a preconceived idea, its an observation. Perhaps other top dmen give the puck away more than I thought.

I'm struggling here. My usual response to something like this is "I stand corrected". Maybe I've been confusing Chara with some other 6'9" defenseman on the Bruins.
 

Michael Farkas

Celebrate 68
Jun 28, 2006
13,450
7,989
NYC
www.hockeyprospect.com
Worth exploring if Boston defensemen are not "credited" with giveaways...Boston, in the post-lockout era, has been notable for not having very skilled defensemen vs. the field and vs. their own success. So one would expect higher turnover rates than most teams.

From 2005 to just before the start of 08-09, Chara leads the way among all league d-men...possibly a product of many things, including a collapsing system where the top priority is moving unpredictable rebounds to safety and Chara not having the skating or puck skills to hold the puck around his own net...

Here are the road takeaway and road giveaway leaders since the lockout.
Take Give
Pavel Datsyuk182 Jaromir Jagr165
Martin St. Louis127 Zdeno Chara155
Evgeni Malkin117 Alexander Ovechkin144
John Madden114 Joe Thornton138
Marian Hossa112 Marc Savard135
Sidney Crosby110 Hal Gill130
Scott Gomez109 Sidney Crosby126
Derek Roy106 Jason Spezza125
Duncan Keith106 Jay Bouwmeester125
Mikko Koivu105 Alex Kovalev124
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
 

Michael Farkas

Celebrate 68
Jun 28, 2006
13,450
7,989
NYC
www.hockeyprospect.com
More examples of counting bias/non-standard definition...

Giveaways by team defensemen in 2009 (division winners):
Boston 202 (Chara, Wideman, Ference, Ward)
New Jersey 203 (Martin, Oduya, Havelid, Salvador)
Detroit 237 (Lidstrom, Rafalski, Kronwall, Stuart)
San Jose 283 (Boyle, Vlasic, Blake, Ehrhoff)
Vancouver 307 (Bieksa, Mitchell, Ohlund, Edler)
Washington 360 (Green, Poti, Schultz, Alzner/Morrisonn)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hockey Outsider

Johnny Engine

Moderator
Jul 29, 2009
4,979
2,361
...Boston, in the post-lockout era, has been notable for not having very skilled defensemen vs. the field and vs. their own success. So one would expect higher turnover rates than most teams.
The overall point about the lack of standardization of the NHL's RTS numbers is correct, but "unskilled defensemen give the puck away" is never what those numbers end up showing. The leaders in giveaways every single year are guys like Burns, Karlsson, Subban, and often centres like Tavares and Thornton. It's a strike against the utility of that particular statistic, yes, but the low numbers in Boston are as much a function of the teams' conservatism as the arena bias.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad