Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread

[ted2019]

In the circumstances in which it occurred, yes.If he was an actual top player in the league, then it wouldn't be.

Those seasons are so far below his highest level and the highest level of his direct competitors that it's like a drop in the ocean.It's meaningless.

It depends on if people are just looking at his peak years or the entire spectrum of his career.

 

[bobholly39]

I could be wrong - but I seem to remember reading some discussions in some of the past projects where some voters flat out refused to consider still active players. This shouldn't happen here so as not to skew the results. Argue about the rules of eligibility all you want in this thread - but if there's no minimum eligibility required guys like Ovechkin and Crosby should make every list. It's fine if some are really high on longevity and rank them lower - just don't leave them off altogether because you refuse to judge active players.

Pretty sure i read this happened at some point.

 

[ted2019]

Eligibility of active players should come with an age requirement -30 years old, so only mature careers are considered.

Including younger players, like McDavid makes projections part of the discussion. Even Lidstrom at/before 30 would have been a reach.

Pre 120 list submissions discussions should take place to better understand the deployment issue. Examples Red Kelly and Dit Clapper.

"Research Pause" should be foreseen in the event that more NHL archival data is released during the project. This is a matter of fairness to the players considered and the integrity of the process.

Curious on why you picked out Kelly & Clapper?

 

[ted2019]

What about a player like Ron Francis? Finished 35th in the center vote, but he finished 94th in the all time vote. That seems to be a big difference considering Sid Abel finished 30th in the center vote, but finished one spot ahead at 93rd on the all time vote. Gilbert Perreault finished 85th and 41st in the center vote. What changed in those 5 years? What new information came out, if any.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Curious on why you picked out Kelly & Clapper?

Players that completely changed positions/roles in the middle of their careers but maintained a high level of play on both sides of the switch...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Curious on why you picked out Kelly & Clapper?

MF provided part of the answer. Kelly was often deployed as a forward for short term strategic reasons. Contrasts with some of the Maroon forwards playing defence to rest in the small roster era.

 

[ImporterExporter]

McDavid. No. Please God. No. His time will come. Far to early to put him up on a prestigious list like this.

Kane should absolutely be included in this discussion. Over 800 career games played. 3 Time postseason AS. Hart, Pearson, 3 time Cup winner, Smythe (and generally speaking a postseason standout). Doesn't guarantee him top 100 right off the bat but he should be eligble IMO.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I'll admit I'm ignorant about one player who will likely be in the top 30 or 40 - Frank Nighbor. When we did the first version of this project a decade ago, he was ranked 95th all-time. In the top centres project from 2013-14, he was ranked 8th, just behind Messier Clarke, but ahead of Esposito and Sakic.

I can go digging if need be, but does anyone happen to have a good summary of Nighbor (perhaps highlighting what new information was uncovered about him between 2008 and 2014 that caused his ranking to skyrocket)?

 

[Michael Farkas]

The Nighbor bio is a good start: https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/atd-2010-bios.737224/#post-23959895

 

[The Macho King]

I'm kind of curious to see what type of movement happens between lists. Ovi and Crosby will likely be ranked much higher (if they were ranked at all), but are there likely to be any significant fallers? Are there players who - in the past 6 years or so - have been re-evaluated downward?

Just from my personal recollection, I used to be *much* higher on Pronger than I am now, and on the otherside I used to be much lower on Chelios.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'm kind of curious to see what type of movement happens between lists. Ovi and Crosby will likely be ranked much higher (if they were ranked at all), but are there likely to be any significant fallers? Are there players who - in the past 6 years or so - have been re-evaluated downward?

Just from my personal recollection, I used to be *much* higher on Pronger than I am now, and on the otherside I used to be much lower on Chelios.

Not to stir things up, but I would imagine that with hindsight, we now can better appreciate that being among the best offensive-defensemen in the gap between Coffey and Karlsson holds less weight than it did when it was theorized that a defenseman could no longer do the things we’re seeing several do since 2012. Same thing with the exposure of more official goaltending data: the post-1984 goaltenders are no longer on an island, free from statistical comparison to their predecessors.

Having said that, I do expect Jacques Plante to drop depending on the balance between HOH regulars and the number of posters we draw in from the main boards. He’s already behind the 8-ball in that he has several teammates that are also among the very best players of all-time, and for large chunks of history, he was less appreciated than concurrent players at all three positions, so contemporary sources may not go as strongly in his favor as they do for other players in his range. But he did very well in the playoff project, so maybe I’m misreading the temperature on him.

Other names towards the top: Eddie Shore and Mike Bossy. There was a definite shift away from Shore and towards Morenz - and even though there’s plenty of room for both, it all depends on if voters feel they’ve met a quota in having one pre-O6 player per X number of players rather than truly taking in what was a fantastic career. Bossy just doesn’t feel as unique anymore and has a huge strike against him on top of it. Did well in the playoff project though.

 

[The Macho King]

Not to stir things up, but I would imagine that with hindsight, we now can better appreciate that being among the best offensive-defensemen in the gap between Coffey and Karlsson holds less weight than it did when it was theorized that a defenseman could no longer do the things we’re seeing several do since 2012. Same thing with the exposure of more official goaltending data: the post-1984 goaltenders are no longer on an island, free from statistical comparison to their predecessors.

Kind of wonder what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that "we never thought a Dman could score x points regularly" after Coffey is now kind of debunked because of EK, Burns, and to a lesser extent guys like Letang and Hedman being very productive point producers? I imagine this would be to the detriment of guys like Leetch and MacInnis.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Kind of wonder what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that "we never thought a Dman could score x points regularly" after Coffey is now kind of debunked because of EK, Burns, and to a lesser extent guys like Letang and Hedman being very productive point producers? I imagine this would be to the detriment of guys like Leetch and MacInnis.

In the defenseman project (which took place immediately before Karlsson’s breakout), it was argued that with us not seeing defensemen score as much relative to forwards, it was because systems did not allow for them to take as much of a role in offense as they did before the late-1990s, and therefore their offensive value across eras should be measured strictly by their strength against their positional contemporaries.

I would suggest that this same seemingly reasonable argument in 2011 would, in the light of Karlsson and Burns, be untenable today.

 

[The Macho King]

In the defenseman project (which took place immediately before Karlsson’s breakout), it was argued that with us not seeing defensemen score as much relative to forwards, it was because systems did not allow for them to take as much of a role in offense as they did before the late-1990s, and therefore their offensive value across eras should be measured strictly by their strength against their positional contemporaries.

I would suggest that this same seemingly reasonable argument in 2011 would, in the light of Karlsson and Burns, be untenable today.

I think the majority of arguments that center on "systems wouldn't let a player do X anymore" are untenable as a general rule. You're just waiting for a player special enough or a coach brave enough to break your rule.

 

[MXD]

In the defenseman project (which took place immediately before Karlsson’s breakout), it was argued that with us not seeing defensemen score as much relative to forwards, it was because systems did not allow for them to take as much of a role in offense as they did before the late-1990s, and therefore their offensive value across eras should be measured strictly by their strength against their positional contemporaries.
(...)

...I'd actually say the argument IS still reasonable, but that there's been a serious change (evolution is probably a more appropriate word) in what's being asked of a D-Men since then.

 

[MXD]

I think the majority of arguments that center on "systems wouldn't let a player do X anymore" are untenable as a general rule. You're just waiting for a player special enough or a coach brave enough to break your rule.

...And that's the thing.
We aren't rating coaches.
And we know that the lesser importance given to physicality had all sorts of effects.

 

[Canadiens1958]

...I'd actually say the argument IS still reasonable, but that there's been a serious change (evolution is probably a more appropriate word) in what's being asked of a D-Men since then.

Handedness grew in importance, especially RHS,for d-men, putting them in a better situation to succeed.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not to stir things up, but I would imagine that with hindsight, we now can better appreciate that being among the best offensive-defensemen in the gap between Coffey and Karlsson holds less weight than it did when it was theorized that a defenseman could no longer do the things we’re seeing several do since 2012. Same thing with the exposure of more official goaltending data: the post-1984 goaltenders are no longer on an island, free from statistical comparison to their predecessors.

Having said that, I do expect Jacques Plante to drop depending on the balance between HOH regulars and the number of posters we draw in from the main boards. He’s already behind the 8-ball in that he has several teammates that are also among the very best players of all-time, and for large chunks of history, he was less appreciated than concurrent players at all three positions, so contemporary sources may not go as strongly in his favor as they do for other players in his range. But he did very well in the playoff project, so maybe I’m misreading the temperature on him.

Other names towards the top: Eddie Shore and Mike Bossy. There was a definite shift away from Shore and towards Morenz - and even though there’s plenty of room for both, it all depends on if voters feel they’ve met a quota in having one pre-O6 player per X number of players rather than truly taking in what was a fantastic career. Bossy just doesn’t feel as unique anymore and has a huge strike against him on top of it. Did well in the playoff project though.

Far from, new archival data really demands revisiting the one-goalie era. Days of rest, first goal, home and away splits are now available in varying degrees.

We are also getting new perspectives via plus / minus data, home and away splits for forwards and d-men.

 

[ImporterExporter]

One reason why Glen Hall's consecutive starts record is so incredible, yet underrated.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Not playing moderator, I'm just gonna move this over here if that's ok...(if not, that's fine too)

THN (1998)
12. Messier
14. Bourque

ESPN (2004)
11. Messier
12. Bourque

THN-60 Since 67 (2007)
4. Messier
8. Bourque

The Score (2017)
5. Messier
17. Bourque

USA Today (2017)
8. Messier
16. Bourque


Don’t get me wrong; all of these lists since their careers are, as a whole, pretty awful and inconsistent. But there’s not going to be anyone who has seen Mark Messier and not Ray Bourque or vice-versa because it’s the same career overlap. And yet, there may be a complete absence of a media list with the reverse order - that is to say, HFBoards’ ~10th-ranked Bourque over HFBoards’ ~30th-ranked Messier.

If the gap between the two is that big, how did it escape basically every collective assigned with the same task except this forum? Pretty similar Hart distribution. Probably no way to present a playoff argument for Bourque. The chief difference in Bourque’s favor seems to be that there are fewer Bourque-level defensemen historically than there are Messier-level forwards. Which probably would be huge had they not played at the exact same time over which Messier was received marginally better.

It’s just asking for a lot of people to have been completely wrong in their assessment in the moment, immediate aftermath, and the decades-after reflections. I’ve seen it characterized as 1997ish Messier-mania, but... it hasn’t ended in establishment circles. They gave him an award. Throughout NHL 100, they brought him alongside Gretzky, Orr, and Lemieux now that Howe has passed. How many times has he presented the Hart Trophy? He’s that guy.

If he was competing for awards against Bourque’s competition for accolades (1982 Doug Wilson, 1987 Mark Howe, 1988 Scott Stevens, 1990 Al MacInnis, 1992 Brian Leetch, 1996 Chris Chelios, and 1997 Brian Leetch) would he have any less than the equivalent to what amounts to five Norris Trophies?

I think this is interesting and I actually want to chew on it for a while before responding...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Keeping active players to over 30 is an unnecessary restriction that only serves to stifle debate on a few cases, and weakens the list's merit-based raison-d'etre.

McDavid should not make the list. Any debate where projection is duly called out and disregarded will see to that.

Kane, Karlsson and Doughty sort of seem like they could be in the top-100 in an abstract sense, but I would bet that once I get past #80, they'll be far back in the queue for players bidding for the last 20 spots. Or maybe they won't be. But any examination of Duncan Keith's case to be in that debate for the last few spots (and he will be in that debate), has to firmly establish his position against Karlsson and Doughty. And if they all end up in the 90s on merit, why in the world would we arbitrarily keep the 35 year old who's been in the Norris conversation since 2008 and toss the 28 year old who's been in it since 2010? Because Doughty's legacy might change after the list is done? Well, they're all going to change and we can't stop it...

If Duncan Keith's case can drop into the 90s without Doughty and Karlsson but relies on Doughty and Karlsson to stay in the 90s then his case is weak to start.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Not playing moderator, I'm just gonna move this over here if that's ok...(if not, that's fine too)



I think this is interesting and I actually want to chew on it for a while before responding...

I don’t know if we should go too deep into it until Vote 2 or 3 when they’ll presumably both be eligible, but it’s definitely something we should all think about when it comes to contemporaneous players at different positions: if one is held against the other’s All-Star competition, how would they fare relative to the other player? We could hold Bourque against the era’s Centers, and he might do the same or worse than Messier did considering Messier couldn’t even pick up a 2nd Team as a Hart nominee in 1996.

Ovechkin and Crosby will be another good example in 25 years when younger crowds are largely going off of awards instead of the consistent visual evidence in Crosby’s favor.

 

[Iceman]

I'm up for this.

 

[seventieslord]

Not playing moderator, I'm just gonna move this over here if that's ok...(if not, that's fine too)



I think this is interesting and I actually want to chew on it for a while before responding...

A few things:

1. It should be said again, those lists are typically bad.
2. Awards that are available to all positions (Calder, Hart, Smythe) typically under-represent defensemen, usually drastically. Any list that attempts to use results from the voting for these awards in their composition (and I'm sure most do) will inherently underrate defensemen.
3. Even if those awards did not have an anti-defenseman bias, there exists one in the general public. No one seems to acknowledge anymore that an elite defenseman can be as valuable as an elite forward. How many Hart votes went to a defenseman this year? An average list maker will place a forward ahead of a defender even if their Hart and Smythe records are the same.
4. Much of the superficial case for Messier over Bourque is based on his Hart trophies, which, (if we ignore positional bias in Hart voting), does tell us that he was better than him in their respective best three seasons, but that's only a small portion of their very long careers. An awards counting mindset will put Messier over Bourque, but in their respective fifth best seasons, one was the best at his position and one 3rd at his. In their respective tenth best seasons, one was a first team Allstar, the other was a run of the mill star player by comparison. In their respective fifteenth best seasons, one was a Norris finalist, one was a first line talent with intangibles. In their 20th best seasons, one nearly made yet another Allstar team, the other nearly scored 55 points.
5. Defensemen and centers, it seems, should show up on a list with approximately equal frequencies. If anything, there should be more defensemen than centers since a lineup has 50% more of them than it does centers (though I realize there are other ways to consider this). The 3rd-4th best defenseman of all-time should not be behind the 6th best center

 

[ImporterExporter]

What about a player like Ron Francis? Finished 35th in the center vote, but he finished 94th in the all time vote. That seems to be a big difference considering Sid Abel finished 30th in the center vote, but finished one spot ahead at 93rd on the all time vote. Gilbert Perreault finished 85th and 41st in the center vote. What changed in those 5 years? What new information came out, if any.

Considering many active players (Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Keith, Chara, Kane, Thornton, etc) that are likely to jump into the top 100 that weren't there 10 years ago. I'd say Francis falls out of the top 100.

Looks like Frank Nighbor will jump up a long way from the 2008 and 2009 lists as he should!